You apparently just want to start a fight. I bolded the key words in my question. Here are my words again:

"If you believe that the person claiming to be the Pope is a heretic..."

Some Trads are not sure what to believe. They are confused and misled. I'm not talking about those people. I'm referring specifically to those Trads who are morally-convinced that Bergoglio is a heretic.

Are you saying that Benedict XIV thought that if a future papal claimant was a heretic, then a Catholic priest should name him in the Canon? When Benedict XIV says "the Apostolic one" could he have possibly meant a manifest heretic posing as the Pope? Of course not.

So do you believe Bergoglio is a heretic or not, Stubborn? Let's start with that.

I say if you do believe he's a heretic, then I say that it would "be a bad thing," outside of some necessity, to attend a Mass in which a heretic is commemorated. And it could be a near occasion of sin because it promotes indifferentism to the teaching that a heretic is not a member of the Catholic Church.

And it could be scandalous to some who believe that true teaching and see a Trad who seems to be indifferent to it. By your example, you teach those around you that heresy is no biggie, even in the case of the Pope. Is that not scandalous?

Of course the pope is a heretic, and unless I was told by the priest celebrating the Mass, I would not know whether he is praying for the pope in the Canon of the Mass or not - and neither would you, or anyone other than the priest for that matter, but the pope (BXIV) clearly says what he clearly says - that much is absolute whether you and I agree with him or not.     

I will quote some John Lane's interesting findings: 


According to Theologian DeLugo:
“The second chief doubt is whether we may communicate with an undeclared heretic only in civil and human affairs or even in sacred and spiritual things. It is certain that we cannot communicate with heretics in the rites proper to a heretical sect, because this would be contrary to the precept of confessing the faith and would contain an implicit profession of error. But the question relates to sacred matters containing no error, e.g. whether it is lawful to hear Mass with a heretic, or to celebrate in his presence, or to be present while he celebrates in the Catholic rite, etc.

“But the opposite view [i.e. that such communication is permitted] is general [communis] and true, unless it should be illicit for some other reason on account of scandal or implicit denial of the faith, or because charity obliges one to impede the sin of the heretical minister administering unworthily where necessity does not urge. This is the teaching of Navarro and Sanchez, Suarez, Hurtado and is what I have said in speaking of the sacrament of penance and of matrimony and the other sacraments. It is also certain by virtue of the said litterae extravagantes [i.e. Ad evitanda scandala] in which communication with excommunicati tolerati is conceded to the faithful in the reception and administration of the sacraments.

“So as these heretics are not declared excommunicates or notoriously guilty of striking a cleric, there is no reason why we should be prevented from receiving the sacraments from them because of their excommunication, although on other grounds this may often be illicit unless necessity excuse as I have explained in the said places.” (See Tractatus de Virtute Fidei Divinae: Disputatio XXII, Sectio 1).


John Lane continues...


“But even granting, for the sake of the argument, that such priests were all non-Catholics by virtue of remaining in communion with John Paul II (NB: John Lane writes at the time of him being the "pope at the time") it remains for our opponents to demonstrate that the Masses of such priests would always be forbidden to the faithful. For, surprising as it may seem, in cases of necessity Holy Church does in fact permit her children to assist at Mass with, and receive sacraments from, undeclared heretics and schismatics. The origin of this indulgence was in the aftermath of the Great Western Schism, during which numerous problems arose for the simple faithful, who could not be sure who were their true pastors, and who were those that were in rebellion against the authentic Roman Pontiff. Pope Martin V settled such difficulties for the future with his ground-breaking law, Ad evitanda scandala.


Ad evitanda scandala reads as follows, “To avoid scandals and many dangers and relieve timorous consciences by the tenor of these presents we mercifully grant to all Christ's faithful that henceforth no one shall be bound to abstain from communion with anyone in the administration or reception of the sacraments or in any other religious or non-religious acts whatsoever, nor to avoid anyone nor to observe any ecclesiastical interdict, on pretext of any ecclesiastical sentence or censure globally promulgated whether by the law or by an individual; unless the sentence or censure in question has been specifically and expressly published or denounced by the judge on or against a definite person, college, university, church, community or place. Notwithstanding any apostolic or other constitutions to the contrary, save the case of someone of whom it shall be known so notoriously that he has incurred the sentence passed by the canon for laying sacrilegious hands upon a cleric that the fact cannot be concealed by any tergiversation nor excused by any legal defence. For we will abstinence from communion with such a one, in accordance with the canonical sanctions, even though he be not denounced.”

P.S. Does anyone know how Mr Lane can be reached? 

No
It is important

So, as you say, it is important to ask your priest if he believes Bergoglio is a heretic and he says his name in the Mass. Why is this "important?"

That phrase "passive assistance" is open to modernism and lax behavior in so many cases.  If I attend the Novus Ordo Mass, for whatever reason, I am there by an act of will, and I am actively assisting, call it whatever you will.  If a man's daughter decides to get an abortion he cannot say to himself, "Well, I will just come along and passively assist and say my rosary while you get an abortion." 

No, the principle is, if the action is an ipso facto mortal sin, my mere presence is an endorsement.  That is the way I see it.

That is an interesting Fr. Wathen quote on the issue of interjecting "private judgment" by omitting the name of the bishop or pope in the canon.

Well, I don't have to ask, but it's important because “the omission of this commemoration signifies the intention of steadfastly espousing schism."

"...For Augustine, mindful that the Lord established the foundation of the Church on the Apostolic sees, says that whosoever removes himself from the authority and communion of the prelates of those sees is in schism."

 He states plainly that there is no church apart from one which is firmly established on the pontifical bases of the Apostolic sees. Thus how can you believe that you are not separated from the communion of the whole world if you do not commemorate my name during the sacred mysteries, according to custom? For you see that the strength of the Apostolic See resides in me, despite my unworthiness, through episcopal succession at the present time”- Ex Quo


Priests and laypeople forget that it is only their opinion that the Chair is vacant. Fr. Wathen states it as the Church has always taught it.... "We say that that their private judgement in the matter must not be introduced into the Liturgy which is an official act of the Church. Their private judgement has no place in the sacred liturgy."

If a faithful Catholic is personally convinced that the man claiming to be the Pope is actually a heretic, then that faithful Catholic must follow his conscience and Catholic teaching where it leads him. He must separate himself from that false papal claimant.

Since the Church teaches that a manifest heretic loses his office [his authority and his membership in the Church] ipso facto, the Catholic who remains in communion with such a perceived heretic would be revealing his indifferentism to heresy.

The faithful Catholic would not be in "schism" from a real Pope. Even if he is mistaken about the fact of heresy in his personal judgment, he would be correctly separating himself from a person whom he believes to be a heretic, which he is required to do by perennial Church teaching. Can you not admit at least this?

On the other hand, the Catholic who is convinced that the papal claimant is a heretic but continues to claim to be in communion with him is, at best, a very confused person, a person who is unaware or ignores the plain Apostolic teaching of the Church to avoid heretics.

On the other hand, the Catholic who is convinced that the papal claimant is a heretic but continues to claim to be in communion with him is, at best, a very confused person, a person who is unaware or ignores the plain Apostolic teaching of the Church to avoid heretics.

We are in a severe Crisis. You seem to think that everything is easily explainable in black-and-white terms, and that anyone who doesn't go along with your terms is confused. Well, Archbishop Lefebvre himself said that he didn't have all the answers, and that the Crisis was a mystery. But you do have the answers to the Crisis, is that right? 

No.

The abortion argument you used is very compelling and it’s a good argument.

It raised an honest question in my mind: pre Vatican 2 my understanding is the Church permitted passive attendance at non Catholic weddings and funerals for family reasons, for example those of Protestants and “Orthodox”, yet these are also sacrilegious apes of true worship. Why is the New Mass in a different category than these? I’m not disputing active attendance btw, but only passive attendance for weddings and funerals.

Unlike the prot services, the new "mass" was perpetrated for one reason mainly, to replace and obliterate the True Mass and destroy the faith. That is the reason why it is here. That is the reason we stay away from it.

The way I see it, passive attendance at a prot funeral or wedding is likened to going to a meeting at work, except the formalities and subject matter concern the deceased / couple.
 Passive attendance at a wedding or funeral "mass" I liken to passive attendance at a queer parade. Two completely different things, but we have no business being at either.

The rainbow is a sign from God that He would never again punish the earth (by flooding it), the queers took God's holy rainbow, and perversely and blasphemously flaunt it against all that is holy, tempting God saying "see what we can do now and don't forget, You can't punish us!"

Similarly the new "mass" took that which is all holy and made it into something evil for the destruction of souls and the Church. Would you want to be caught dead there?