There are two kinds of people who don't like "Pope Francis"

One of them is described here, by Mark Shea:

I do not understand people who struggle to understand this pope
JULY 15, 2019 BY MARK SHEA
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2019/07/i-do-not-understand-people-who-struggle-to-understand-this-pope.html

His rebuttal is given in this quote:

So it has, for instance, become de rigeur for the shriekers and hysterics (who seriously thought that “He used a ferula once! Eeeeeek!” was sufficient ground to nail him as a “heretic” to claim that saying some Catholic commonplace like “The poor save us” is somehow more firewood for the auto de fe in which he is to be burnt as a socialist. ... Meanwhile, people still interested in the Tradition recall that “the poor save us” is simply a restatement of St. John Chrysostom’s remark that the rich exist for the sake of the poor, while the poor exist for the salvation of the rich.

Fine, in this way (I did not quote for the sake of the ferula, but did not want to cut out more), this Jesuit (?) interested in St John Chrysostom joins the ranks of a very undoubtedly real Catholic Jesuit who also liked him, namely Father Ignaz Seipel and his Wirtschaftsethische Lehre der Kirchenväter which is basically the economically-ethic doctrine of St John Chrysostom (and perhaps one or two other Church Fathers thrown in for good measure ... I suppose half his patristic quotes are from St. John Chrysostom, first patron saint of Mozart and the other half from others.

This is the type of attack I actually defended "Pope Francis" against, even while not being convinced he was a Pope, back in 2013.

Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : A Sedisvacantist linked to Limbaugh to refute Bergoglio
http://triv7quadriv.blogspot.com/2013/12/a-sedisvacantist-linked-to-limbaugh-to.html

However, there is another type of "quibble" about "Pope Francis is such he be" as I expressed myself back then.

• He has said "Fundamentalists are sick people". In 2014 he clarified "God is not a magician with an omnipotent magic wand" - yes, we Young Earth Creationists are in fact targetted.
• He has said "God wants all religions" without clarifying that God wants the false religions in the same way as he wants any other disaster - He wills to allow them, uses the evil for good, saves some in paradoxical ways, but the disaster is not in and of itself salvific. Someone who might have apostasised later may have died a saint instead, through a train accident, air plane crash, murder etc, but train accidents, air plane crashes and murders are not sacraments, and neither are Coran, Talmud, Tripitaka, Upanishads, Voluspa, Theogony, Book of Mormon, Calvin's Institutes etc.
• He has "canonised" the so called "Pope Saint John Paul II" for approving air plane crashes as such in Assisi (at least Wojtyla is not known to have regretted the Assisi prayer meetings!) and for "John XXIII" he has accepted "Vatican II" as Roncalli's miracle number 2. And now lately also "Paul VI".

I have recommended Bergoglio step down, change name spelling to Borgoglio (Bergoglio meaning "from the town Bergoglio" and the town Bergoglio now being called Borgoglio, plus BORGOGLIO adding up to 676, which is a lot safer than the sum for BERGOGLIO). I have not recommended him to stop backing the poor.

St. John Chrysostom (first patron saint of Johannes Chrysostomus Wolfgang Gottlieb Mozart, better known as Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart) saying basically that rich and poor exist for each other is a very good reason to be corporativist. Christian Social as the term was for Fr. Ignaz Seipel, and Austrofascist as at least the nick-name was for his successor as party head and as statesman, Engelbert Dollfuss.

I also do not understand how one can consider "Pope Francis" unclear, unless one wants by unclarity to clear him of suspicions to be a Modernist accepting Evolutionism as the predecessor of his Wojtyla showed himself to be more than once 1992 to 1996, and as their intermediate Ratzinger also has showed himself to be. Unless one wants to clear him of suspicion of being grossly uncharitable (not just politely disagreeing, but mocking and pitying) to Young Earth Creationists. Unless one wants to clear him of suspicion of believing a false religion is not just occasionally occasion for someone's salvation (as is often the case for those who convert from it to Catholicism) but practically a regular means for salvation, and unless one wants to clear him of suspicion of having canonised uncanonisables, to whom the "unclarity" is then also extended.

Plus, some would consider it unclear whether he's favouring Socialism. In fact, the St. John Chrysostom quote says, poor have no right to damn rich for being slow in giving what is not clearly due, while Bergoglio only says, what St. John Chrysostom also says, rich have no right to damn the poor who are their means of salvation.

For my part, it matters less if he is only one sided in expression or has a one sided, Marxist, perversion of the corporativist doctrine of St. John Chrysostom. Since on other grounds, I find it unbelievable to see him as Pope, the ones just stated.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Alexius
17.VII.2019