I think that I am really to "jump."  Question is, "Where?"  Some points which I have learned:

1)  The Catholic faith is immutable.  The Catholic faith is simply the One and Triune God's revelation to His Creation, we descendants of Adam & Eve, through His One and Only Son Jesus Christ, which He confided to His Church, the Roman Catholic Church.  This revelation from the omnipotent God, a Perfect Being, is, like Him, absolutely perfect and immutable.  It is only our understanding of it which can deepen over time but only without contradiction.

2)  Truth cannot contradict Truth.  What the Catholic Church believes, professes, and teaches in one generation cannot contradict that which is taught in a later or earlier generation.  Only in the realm of theological opinion is there, perhaps, room for growth and understanding.  That which the Church has proclaimed as being infallible cannot, at later date, become "uninfallible".  That would be like saying that 2+2 can, at a later date, equal some value other than 4!

3) A Catholics severs himself from the Church through the sin of heresy.  It is absurd to say that a Pope could govern the Church from whom he has severed himself due to heresy.  If he can lose his soul to eternal Hell, it stands to reason that he could lose his office as well.

4)  Popes have fallen into heresy before.  We have the case of Pope Honorius I, who was posthumously declared to have been a heretic by the Third Council of Constantinople.  The neo-cons can't have their "Papal cake and eat it, too!"  Either Pope Honorius taught heresy or the Third Council of Constantinople embraced heresy in declaring him to be a heretic.

5)  Sedevacantism is not the same as conclavism.  That the Chair is vacant is the omnipotent Triune God's problem, not ours.  We need to save our own souls by continuing in the One True Faith.

6)  Heresy is like cancer.  It often starts out small and sometimes goes unrecognized, but gradually, it spreads before, ultimately, overtaking the entire individual.  "By their fruits you will know them."

Conclusion:  "Pope" Francis is a public heretic, therefore, he is no longer Catholic and is, therefore, no longer Pope of the Roman Catholic Church.  Therefore, the Chair is vacant:

But Bergoglio's thinking is not just unCatholic; it is anti-Catholic. In the same La Repubblica interview, he proclaims: "Proselytism is solemn nonsense; it makes no sense." "Proselytism" is the anti-Catholic's word for "conversion." Even Protestants understand that, to be a Christian, one has to accept Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior. But Bergoglio will have none of this. To him, converting people to Catholicism, let alone Christianity, is "nonsense" -- read that again: "nonsense." And this man purports to be a pope? That's getting harder and hard to believe, isn't it?!

http://traditio.com/comment/com1310.htm

"Yes."

Honestly, as a long time "sede" it doesn't change much. I think the most notable change is that the state of the Church makes sense. You no longer find yourself torn between trying to reconcile yourself with fidelity to a heretic, to obey him, to follow the rites he promogulates and say they are good. So many issues and reasons, but after I understood and took the sede position, I never found myself struggling to reconcile this stuff. Not much changed other than me finally having peace. It didn't change where I went to mass or anything else noticeable unless I was around Novusordoites.

A big issue for me would be the canonizations, if you hold they are infallible, as they are, especially with JP2 up to be "sainted" it just seems obvious. If Bergoglio is pope then Karol Wojtyla is in heaven.

So you are a sedevacantist now?  :geezer:

Yes.  I think that "Pope" Francis is a public heretic, and therefore, no longer a Catholic, and therefore, no longer Pope.  The Chair of Peter is, IMO, empty.  Given the sensus fidelium of the sede movement, it seems to me reasonable to conclude that Pope Pius XII was the last true Roman Pontiff.

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: Matto

So you are a sedevacantist now?  :geezer:

Yes.  I think that "Pope" Francis is a public heretic, and therefore, no longer a Catholic, and therefore, no longer Pope.  The Chair of Peter is, IMO, empty.  Given the sensus fidelium of the sede movement, it seems to me reasonable to conclude that Pope Pius XII was the last true Roman Pontiff.

What is it that makes you think that he is worse than Pope Paul VI and the rest of the conciliar popes?

BTW, Happy Birthday to you!

Because he called as "nonsense" the Great Commission, words which flowed from the lips of our Lord Himself to "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation.  He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:15-16)  The neo-cons can parse "proselytize" under they are "blue in the face".  But, yes, we are called to proselytize:

1
:  to induce someone to convert to one's faith
2
:  to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proselytize

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a manifest, public heretic who has severed himself from the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, which is the Holy Roman Catholic & Apostolic Church, outside of which no one at all will be saved.  This is the "fruits" of Vatican II, an apostate council (small 'c') not of the Catholic Church.

Because he called as "nonsense" the Great Commission, words which flowed from the lips of our Lord Himself to "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation.  He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:15-16)  The neo-cons can parse "proselytize" under they are "blue in the face".  But, yes, we are called to proselytize:

Quote

1
:  to induce someone to convert to one's faith
2
:  to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proselytize

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a manifest, public heretic who has severed himself from the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, which is the Holy Roman Catholic & Apostolic Church, outside of which no one at all will be saved.  This is the "fruits" of Vatican II, an apostate council (small 'c') not of the Catholic Church.

This is nothing different than what the rest of heretical conciliar popes have taught - their actions have all called the Great Commission, "nonsense".
Is it because now that this one actually spoke the words that infuriated you into your decision? -  and what will you be doing differently now?
 

This is nothing different than what the rest of heretical conciliar popes have taught - their actions have all called the Great Commission, "nonsense".
Is it because now that this one actually spoke the words that infuriated you into your decision? -  and what will you be doing differently now?

I admit that the neo-cons had me deceived for awhile, quite awhile in fact with their endless "spin control."  As I said, heresy is a cancer, which starts off small but then spreads.  Here's some more that we can expect from "Francis the Fake":

1)  The Assumption of Mary was allegorical.  It was not an historical event and Pope Pius XII never intended it as such, but Mary's ascent into Heaven was "in the minds" of those who knew and loved her.  Ditto for the Resurrection of our Lord.

2)  Jesus is my pastor and teacher.  He was just a man who was, perhaps, "close to God."  In this sense, he was God, but so are we.  The Incarnation is present in all of us.

3)  Hell does not exist.  It was just a literary figure used by the Church to teach us about evil but a God of infinite mercy would never send any creature to such a place.

4)  Moral truths develop just as scientific truths do.  There is no morality beyond the good of the human individual.  It is to the human individual alone who must decide what his/her own moral truths are, as long as that person does not trespass on the rights of others to do the same.

I could go on but I'll stop here.  As I said, heresy is like cancer; expect more from the mouth of this heretic.  Soon, the neo-cons will be like rats who are scurrying off a sinking ship.

This is an excerpt from Benedict XVI's  encyclical  "Caritas in Veritate" which will show that this idea of Francis I's is not new to him but is a reigning theme of the modernists.  There is wiggle room in Benedict XVI's wording as you will read. The problem with all modernists is that they have an evolutionary mindset and also mix error in with truth. 

"c) Charity, furthermore, cannot be used as a means of engaging in what is nowadays considered proselytism. Love is free; it is not practised as a way of achieving other ends.[30] But  this does not mean that charitable activity must somehow leave God and Christ aside. For it is always concerned with the whole man. Often the deepest cause of suffering is the very absence of God. Those who practise charity in the Church's name will never seek to impose the Church's faith upon others. They realize that a pure and generous love is the best witness to the God in whom we believe and by whom we are driven to love. A Christian knows when it is time to speak of God and when it is better to say nothing and to let love alone speak. He knows that God is love (cf. 1 Jn 4:8) and that God's presence is felt at the very time when the only thing we do is to love. He knows—to return to the questions raised earlier—that disdain for love is disdain for God and man alike; it is an attempt to do without God. Consequently, the best defence of God and man consists precisely in love. It is the responsibility of the Church's charitable organizations to reinforce this awareness in their members, so that by their activity—as well as their words, their silence, their example—they may be credible witnesses to Christ." 

This one "flew under the radar for me"; never heard of it.  The post-conciliar "Popes" write so much and yet say so little.  The above in red (as well as that in bold) is just heresy, plain and simple.  The Roman Catechism states the truth clearly:

But, as faith comes by hearing, it is clear how necessary at all times for the attainment of eternal salvation has been the labour and faithful ministry of an authorised teacher; for it is written, how shall they hear, without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they be sent?

Now the chief truths which Christians ought to hold are those which the holy Apostles, the leaders and teachers of the faith, inspired by the Holy Ghost' have divided into the twelve Articles of the Creed. For having received a command from the Lord to go forth into the whole world, as His ambassadors, and preach the Gospel to every creature, they thought it advisable to draw up a formula of Christian faith, that all might think and speak the same thing, and that among those whom they should have called to the unity of the faith no schisms would exist, but that they should be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment.

Most just is it also that He who was most iniquitously condemned by the judgment of men should Himself be afterwards seen by all men sitting in judgment on all. Hence when the Prince of the Apostles had expounded in the house of Cornelius the chief dogmas of Christianity, and had taught that Christ was suspended from a cross and put to death by the Jєωs and rose the third lay to life, he added: And he commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that this is he, who was appointed of God, to be the judge of the living and the dead.

The enumeration of this among the other Articles of the Creed is alone sufficient to satisfy us that it conveys a truth, which is not only in itself a divine mystery, but also a mystery very necessary to salvation. We have already said that, without a firm belief of all the Articles of the Creed, Christian piety is wholly unattainable.  However, should that which ought to be clear in itself seem to require the support of some authority, the declaration of our Lord will suffice. A short time previous to His Ascension into heaven, when opening the understanding of His disciples that they might understand the Scriptures, He bore testimony to this Article of the Creed, in these words: It behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead the third day, and that penance and remission of sins should be preached, in his name, unto all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

I could go on but I'll stop for the sake of space.  In conclusion, as the Tradition of the Catholic Church so clearly enunciates one cannot be a "credible witness" to Jesus Christ without preaching His Gospel.  Pope Benedict XVI, in spite of his "conservatism", was a heretic, too.  He, unlike Francis, just crouched his heresy in "church speak."

Well, sedevacantism is an error, but I suppose it is preferable to falling into indifferentism. Those two I think will be some effects of these unfortunate interviews the Pope never seems to tire of. Even the Conciliar catechism doesn't go so far as this new liberal orientation of the Roman authorities toward even outright godlessness, such as the interviewer was.

"848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338"

Anyway, I thought you were a self-acclaimed Feeneyite, Jehanne, who had said he would never become a sedevacantist?

I think the two articles of the SBC are surprisingly good, even though it did not raise what I would think is the principal challenge for the serious sedevacantist, the question of the perpetuation of the hierarchy without the person of the Pope, other than in passing.

http://catholicism.org/modern-popes.html
http://catholicism.org/sedevacantism-and-schism.html