Plenus Vehemeter,

This is where things get dicey and I am inclined to side with the dogmatic sedevacantist to some extent. Allow me to explain.

You begin by stating that no Catholic should cause division by elevating their opinion that the See of Peter is vacant. To support this you cite the opinion of two priests without ordinary jurisdiction.

However, when one looks closely at the matter, there is plenty of pre-Vatican 2 material written very clearly in black and white. For example, the Catholic Encyclopedia which states that about the election of the pope that a heretic, woman or insane person could not legitimately be elected pope. If you choose to follow your own OPINION and decide that a heretic can be legitimately elected pope then why not a woman or even the Dalai Lama? See where your opinion despite the Catholic encyclopedia statement leads you.

Then you have Canon 188 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law (which I doubt you have read but include here as a snapshot). Notice rightly that the original cites Ex cuм Apostolatus as support for what it emshrines in law. No simple matter. Canon 188 clearly states: one will lose office without the need of any declarations whatsoever if one publicly defects from the Catholic Faith.

At this point, your opinion that me believing Francis is no true pope is to be elevating my own opinion is now proven to be based on the opinion of two priests without ordinary jurisdiction and weighted with the opinion of a heroic deceased Archbishop who has not been alive for the the last 30 years of this Crisis and very well may have sided with my “opinion” (neither you nor I know).

The problem here as analyzed objectively is that we both posit two opinions. My opinion is that Francis is not pope and it is absurd to fight in honor of defending his papacy. Your opinion is that it is absurd to negate the papacy of Francis and elevate one’s own opinion. The difference is that my opinion is based on what the pre-Vatican 2 Church taught regarding heretics and defected Catholics and the papacy in black and white. Your opinion is supported by, well, other people’s opinions. So I choose to take the safer course, ignore the opinions you have quoted and side with the Catholic Encyclopedia and 1917 Code of Canon Law. (188)

The only out you have as I can see it is if you reject openly the claims of both the sources I cited and maintain the very novel opinion that a pope can be a Non-Catholic and a heretic. Or you could choose the second option of claiming that Francis has not publicly defected but does indeed hold the integral Catholic Faith. Of course, your third option is to murder your ego and investigate for yourself without the pride of being right.

3 options for you. I wonder which you will choose.

Okay CA, let's have a look at the three options you have benevolently granted me.

Let's work backwards.

Option 3. Murder my ego and investigate without pride of being right.
It immediately sounds to me like you are of the opinion that only those who hold the sedevacantist position are possessed of the requisite learning and humility. I readily grant that I am lacking in both, defects which I labour to overcome, but this is not about me. It is precisely because of my lack of competence that I look to the good shepherds, like Archbishop Lefebvre, that God has given us to guide us in this crisis. No, I am not a theologian, I am not my own guide. One would have to be wilfully blind to deny the role ABL has played in this crisis since before the Council. One would have to be ignorant to deny his learning and competence. And one would have to be malicious to deny that he was a good shepherd. So I listen to him most attentively, and when I hear something to the contrary, I weigh it against his words and position, in view of Catholic teaching, and follow my Catholic sense. That is all we can do while the supreme authority is struck by modernism. We can only judge by the infallible magisterium and Tradition, taking into account opinions of theologians without dogmatising them, instructed by the shepherds that God has given us who have remained faithful.

Option 2. Claim that Francis has not publicly defected from the Faith, according to Canon 188.
Have you read the serious arguments against such an opinion?
Can you apprise me of the opinions of Canon Lawyers as to what this Canon means by defection from the Faith?
Can you cite examples of how the Church has applied this law in practice?
When I consider all these matters, I conclude that it is, at the very least, not certain that Pope Francis has defected from the Faith in such a way as to incur the censure foreseen by this law. Therefore, I do not feel empowered to declare that he is not Pope. I see no reason to depart from the wisdom and prudence of Archbishop Lefebvre who had seen Popes protestantise the liturgy, preach against the Catholic Church as the unique Ark of Salvation, kiss the Koran, be marked with the sign of the adorers of a pagan God, bring leaders of demonic religions into the house of God to pray together with Catholics... On what grounds do you maintain that this 'heroic deceased Archbishop' (your words) would now judge differently?

Option 3. Reject openly the claims of both of the sources you have cited and adopt the very novel opinion that a pope can be a heretic.
A novel opinion to imagine that a pope can be a heretic? You surely cannot be unaware that St Robert Bellarmine, who piously believed the opinion of Albert Pighius that the Pope could never become a heretic, because it seemed to him to be in accord with the 'sweet disposition of Divine Providence', nevertheless acknowledged that the common opinion of theologians was to the contrary, that is, that the Pope could become a heretic. Hence the famous 'five opinions' which give us St Robert Bellarmine's theological opinion as to how a heretic Pope should be dealt with. Other theologians held different opinions, including among them the possibility of a heretic Pope maintaining his jurisdiction. The Church has never censured any of these renowned theologians, and has never settled this matter, as explained in the quotes I provided which you apparently deem unworthy of consideration because they come from priests without ordinary jurisdiction.
Regarding the Catholic Encyclopaedia article that tells you a heretic cannot legitimately be elected Pope, can you tell me what it means by a heretic in this article? Is it referring to material heresy, or formal heresy, or one who belongs to an heretical sect? When you say 'legitimately', does you also mean 'validly'? Does it apply to one in good standing in the Church who has not been censured? Does it take into account the legislation of Pope Pius X/XII for the election of a Pope? Was Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio with absolute certainty barred from election according to infallible Church teaching? When I consider all these questions I conclude that, at the very least, it is not certain that this Pope Francis was precluded from being elected Pope. Therefore, I do not feel empowered to declare that he is not Pope. I again see no reason to depart from the wisdom and prudence of him whom I recognise as a good shepherd, Archbishop Lefebvre. To the contrary.

I can only suggest to you that you are not following the safer course, you are not following the Catholic Encyclopaedia, and you are not following Canon Law. At best, a doubtful interpretation of both which does not give you the right to depose a Pope. Have a little regard and respect for the 'heroic deceased Archbishop' I beg of you.

Catholics of old would have had his remains thrown into the Tiber with Pachamama by now. The majority of Tradition consoles itself with the words of an Archbishop that passed more than thirty years ago and did not think the time was right to say the pope is invalid because he is a non-Catholic.

But we do not live in the Catholic society of bygone days, we live in a Church and world infested with modernism, even more so than when the Archbishop was alive, and things must be judged in their context. 

Where does all your protestation get you? How does it change what you do? Maybe it will only alienate and threaten the salvation of those good Catholics (the vast majority of Catholics) who are trapped in the Conciliar Church. Be careful.

You do not have your head screwed on, my friend, you run on emotion.

Apologies, CA, I should not have said that, I understand where you are coming from. It is indeed a great mystery, what is happening in the Church, and we are all doing our best to make sense of it. I do not follow Archbishop Lefebvre for any other reason than I recognise in him an heroic and faithful defender of the Faith, the highest authority that we had, but a real authority, a successor of the Apostles, and nothing anyone has ever said gives me reason to believe that we should depart from the sure way that he set us on.

What evidence?
No Cardinal-elector was heard to voice a concern.
No rival claim to the papacy has been heard.
Francis was universally accepted by the Church from day one as the Pope.
There has been no imperfect Council called to convict him and declare him a heretic, as St Robert Bellarmine requires (a theological opinion at that).
But certain people have come up with theories, all based on uncertainties, that give us the right to take down the head of the Church?
Absolute nonsense Catholic Knight.

Are you actually asking me what evidence there exists to establish a well-founded positive and probable doubt about the "pontificate" of Jorge Bergoglio?