With regards to matters of law, when someone wants to make a claim or file a lawsuit, they need to have "standing." Doing a quick search, I have found the following introduction to this topic on Wikipedia:
In law, standing or locus standi is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. Standing exists from one of three causes:
- The party is directly subject to an adverse effect by the statute or action in question, and the harm suffered will continue unless the court grants relief in the form of damages or a finding that the law either does not apply to the party or that the law is void or can be nullified. This is called the "something to lose" doctrine, in which the party has standing because they directly will be harmed by the conditions for which they are asking the court for relief.
- The party is not directly harmed by the conditions by which they are petitioning the court for relief but asks for it because the harm involved has some reasonable relation to their situation, and the continued existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief. In the United States, this is the grounds for asking for a law to be struck down as violating the First Amendment, because while the plaintiff might not be directly affected, the law might so adversely affect others that one might never know what was not done or created by those who fear they would become subject to the law – the so-called "chilling effects" doctrine.
- The party is granted automatic standing by act of law. Under some environmental laws in the United States, a party may sue someone causing pollution to certain waterways without a federal permit, even if the party suing is not harmed by the pollution being generated. The law allows them to receive attorney's fees if they substantially prevail in the action. In some U.S. states, a person who believes a book, film or other work of art is obscene may sue in their own name to have the work banned directly without having to ask a District Attorney to do so.
I have decided to present this background on standing within the law so that I may make the following statement:
I am claiming, as a member in good standing, of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Body of Christ, that Pope Francis I, also known as Jorge Bergoglio, is no longer the Vicar of Christ, the Bishop of Rome, the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church.
I am claiming standing within the Roman Catholic Church because of my membership, through the sacraments of baptism, confirmation and holy matrimony, and because his continued presence as the Vicar of Christ and Pope of the Roman Catholic Church presents imminent danger to my immortal Soul as created by God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
My proof lies in the hundreds of statements from Jorge Bergoglio since he was elected by the College of Cardinals in 2013 of sacrilegious and heretical nature to suggest that he has divorced himself from his elected position. In essence, he has resigned himself from the throne of St. Peter due to his heretical statements.
The video above, with the direct words of Jorge Bergoglio and the images therein, visually and verbally approve of the heresy of Arianism, Modernism, and Pelagianism. This video claims equivalency between Catholicism and Islam, Buddhism and other faiths. Bergoglio claims that anybody who believes in any deity is a "child of god", directly contradicting the Gospels and the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.
He has directly contradicted the words of Christ in the Gospels to go and evangelize the world, saying that is not the purpose of the Church.
He allows the desecration of the Eucharist at every Papal Mass, captured, for example, on video both in the Phillippines and in Washington, D.C.
And on 12/10/15, his Vatican promulgated this new document regarding the relationship between the Church and the Jews, essentially stating that the Church doesn't support the explicit conversion of the Jews because of their special relationship with the Father. Unfortunately, that obviously disregards the saving nature of the 2nd person of the Trinity (as well as the 3rd, which Jews never recognize either). When will the next step, under Nostra Aetate, when the Muslims won't need to convert either because of some mistaken understanding that Allah is the Father of the Trinity (which he obviously isn't.)
Bergoglio, as well as many other clerics of the Roman Catholic Church, are claiming equivalency between the Catholic Church, the church created by Our Lord himself, with all other faiths, necessarily created merely by man, in an attempt to consolidate the Catholic Faith into one "Global faith". Bergoglio has directly refuted the claim of Christ himself that one cannot know the Father except through the Son by refuting that necessary saving nature of believing that Our Lord, Jesus Christ, is the Son of God, both fully God and fully man.
Since the Holy Spirit is the guide of the Church on Earth, and since Bergoglio has publicly taught and allowed other clerics to publicly teach heresy, I am claiming that he has divorced himself both from the position of Pope of the Roman Catholic Church and from the Faith.
The Papacy is vacant. The Church is without its primary earthly leader.
Only by turning to the trinity - Father, Son and Holy Ghost - asking for mercy and guidance from Him, will the Church be able to recover and return to its mission and purpose.
Will ANY cleric have any courage to make the same statement? How many other Catholics will make the same claim?