The truth is the bedrock of sanity. To be very exact, the Truth is a Person, Jesus Christ. If we wish to be His, we must love the truth.
In that light, though I have nothing but respect for Michael Matt, a man who has done more for tradition than I could ever hope to do, I can’t get excited for stories like this one. In it, it is revealed that—shocker— Bergoglio lied that he issued his “motu proprio” in part because the world’s bishops were clamoring for the real Mass to be shut down. They weren’t.
The thing is, any believing Catholic who hasn’t been lobotomized knew it without being told. We knew it from the beginning. One of the best clues that it wasn’t true was that Bergoglio said it was true.
Many efforts to try to “prove” that Bergoglio is incorrect, or heretical, or misinformed, or tyrannical—when they start with the premise that it is worthwhile to try to change his mind and get him to be a good pope— come off as weak, controlled opposition. These efforts fail for at least one of two reasons: 1) he isn’t actually the pope, and therefore must be defied; or, 2) he is a supporter of heresy and schism, and must be resisted every time he exceeds his authority or seeks to harm the Church. Trying to curry favor from him, or hide from him, or beg him to be good, are useless and dispiriting efforts. Let me explain.
I and others before me have tried to explain why the putative abdication of Pope Benedict looks invalid. If it was invalid, Benedict is still pope. It goes without saying that trying to get an antipope to be a more Catholic antipope is pathetic.
But even if the abdication were valid, and the election were valid, and the Pope is not a manifest heretic, it is still OBVIOUS he is an enemy of the Catholic faith as handed down by our fathers. Take the example of the great Mundabor. He is firm in the belief that Bergoglio is pope. But he has no illusions of trying to reform him. Read any four posts on his blog and you’ll see what I mean.
We must submit to the Roman Pontiff, says the bull Unam Sanctam. I believe it, and willingly submit to the true Roman Pontiff, whichever one it is. I am not here saying I know for sure. Consider it, pray about it, and form your own opinion. I just can’t square the actions of Bergoglio, the wording of the putative abdication, the actions of Benedict thereafter, and see how a Bergoglian papacy exists in light of Pastor Aeternus and Christ’s promise to Peter. Even if he is pope and I use all my lawyer tools to parse and explain away the MANY problematic things he has said and done, Unam Sanctam does not stand for the proposition that we must obey the pope when he commands sin or heresy.
Anyway, however you slice it, toadying up to—at best—the worst pope ever, whose actions undermine the Church daily, Has. To. Stop.
Saint Louis Catholic 
“face facts”… Canon 332.2 *is* a fact in terms of what constitutes a valid renunciation, and it was not fulfilled in Pope Benedict XVI’s February 11, 2013 Declaratio; so I guess I’m not clear as to why you can’t say you know “for sure”, or that it can come down to a mere “opinion” as to who is the true Pope.
One can have a moral certainty, or not. And thus “know”. But the use of “munus” and “ministerium” in the putative abdication is capable of a different take. NOT MY TAKE. In canon law, ministerium is sometimes used for munus, though I think Acosta demonstrates well that it would never be used in the particular context of resigning an office of the church. You can read it in her book which I highly recommend. Like I said I know my own position, which I would not make public without having moral certainty. However the subject of submission to the Roman pontiff is so tied up with the salvation of souls that I tremble to try to force someone else’s hand at making their own conclusions. Saint Vincent Ferrer was made a saint even though he mistakenly backed an antipope. However I am not a saint and I want to make sure that my motives are pure and that I don’t shake anyone’s faith. Please pray for me and the church.