[Stubborn]

Well Joel Osteen hasn’t put on a white cassock yet so it remains to be seen if he would be recognized as the Roman Pontiff by the R&R.  According to Stubborn it is a heresy to say that anyone wearing a white cassock is not the pope.

The dogmatic sedes always resort to constant twisting of truths and facts. That's all they can do.

[Stubborn]

Exactly. It makes no sense. I find it funny that he mocks the conclavists but it seems by his logic, we cannot say they are not pope because it's condemned by his made-up doctrines and false interpretation of real Doctrines.

You have only the understanding of a dogmatic sede, it is for this reason that Catholic logic evades (avoids?) you.

[Ladislaus]

 There is no difference between being subject to Francis or Joel Osteen or a shaman etc... None of them have the Catholic Faith and none of them could be Pope.

Well, see, that's where you're wrong.  Francis PROFESSES the Catholic faith ... whereas Osteen and the shaman do not.  Profession of the Catholic faith is the hallmark of membership in the Church, and it's a huge difference.  Now, if some professed Catholic happened to embrace a particular heresy, and if it were pointed out to him that it was heretical and he recanted, then he would never have lost membership in the Church.  So there's a process involved in establishing heresy on the part of someone who otherwise professes the Catholic faith.

Now, if Francis were to say, "I'm leaving the Church and becoming a Buddhist". or "I know that [such-and-such] is heresy, but I believe it anyway." -- that's different.  But for someone who, such as Bergoglio's predecessors, claim that their beliefs are NOT heretical but, rather, compatible with Tradition when the proper hermeneutic is applied, the matter becomes much more complicated.

[Stubborn]

AES: Straight-up lie, for all to see. I never said the Dogma isn't relevant. In fact, I even stated my full fledged belief in it. What I call irrelevant is your false interpretation of it and your false application of your false interpretation. Your attempt at arguing this is sad. Think about what you are doing. Lying just so that you can appear to win an argument. This, of course, an alternative theory to you deliberately lying with full knowledge in order to deceive. Either way, it's a good thing your ridiculous comments are easy to see through so that anyone with any Catholic sense can instantly disregard them.

I am not the one [mis]interpreting anything, you are. I read it as it is written, you don't because you can't - if you did, you would have to admit that it entirely destroys sedeism - and as a dogmatic sede, that is something you will simply have no part of.

[TKGS]

Who gets to call someone else a heretic? I thought that the Church itself was the only competent authority for convicting someone of heresy.

Remember that the Church is composed of actual people.  There is a great difference between recognizing that a person is a heretic and being convicted of heresy.  Put it in secular terms.
Suppose you directly witness your boss at murder an employee.  The boss is tried in court but, due to a procedural error by the prosecutor the judge throws the case against the murderer out and he goes free.  Are you now morally obligated to continue working for this boss since the "only competent authority for convicting someone" for murder has not done so?  Are you morally obligated to refrain from warning anyone?  Should you just go through life pretending that your boss is as pure as the wind-driven snow?  
Of course, not everyone will necessarily believe you and they may just go to work for him thinking that you're a loon.  Many people say that you're absolutely wrong calling the boss a murderer since he's never been convicted.  In fact, many people may say that you are unjust in saying that the boss is a murderer since you think you know the law better than the lawyers.

[Stubborn]

No you don't, man...  It's obvious that you don't have the first clue as to what that particular passage from Vatican I means.  

Like I told Pax; you're in way over your head when it comes to this topic...stick to the Friday dinner thread with Poche, or give Graceseeker some attention and play along in his threads.  

Yes I do, man... It's obvious that you are the dogmatic sede, not me. I'm the Catholic, not you. I accept it as it is written, you don't... because you won't - but rather than admitting us much, you need to come up with the supremely ridiculous - because you have nothing else.

Try as in vain as hard as you want, you have no argument, that is, it says what it says. This defined dogma of the Catholic Church, literally and entirely - and simply, destroys all varieties of sedeism.

"Therefore, if anyone says...that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy, let him be anathema. - "True" Pope Pius IX at The First Vatican Council

Now, if you had an ounce of faith in the infallibility of the pope as decreed at the council V1, which you don't, but if you did, then you would accept this Catholic dogma of faith as it is written and not abandon it's meaning under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

[Ladislaus]

You obviously have no idea what the term profession means.  You have just disqualified yourself from having any credibility in discussing this issue.

[Ladislaus]

No you don't, man...  It's obvious that you don't have the first clue as to what that particular passage from Vatican I means.  

Like I told Pax; you're in way over your head when it comes to this topic...stick to the Friday dinner thread with Poche, or give Graceseeker some attention and play along in his threads.  

Stubborn does this all the time.  He misunderstands and misinterprets a dogmatic definition and then just uses his false reading of it as proof of his false reading of it ... continuing to claim that he just reads it as it's written.  He conflates his misinterpretation with the dogma itself.

[Clemens Maria]

Well, see, that's where you're wrong.  Francis PROFESSES the Catholic faith ... whereas Osteen and the shaman do not.  Profession of the Catholic faith is the hallmark of membership in the Church, and it's a huge difference.  Now, if some professed Catholic happened to embrace a particular heresy, and if it were pointed out to him that it was heretical and he recanted, then he would never have lost membership in the Church.  So there's a process involved in establishing heresy on the part of someone who otherwise professes the Catholic faith.

Now, if Francis were to say, "I'm leaving the Church and becoming a Buddhist". or "I know that [such-and-such] is heresy, but I believe it anyway." -- that's different.  But for someone who, such as Bergoglio's predecessors, claim that their beliefs are NOT heretical but, rather, compatible with Tradition when the proper hermeneutic is applied, the matter becomes much more complicated.

https://novusordowatch.org/2015/05/spanish-original-heresy/

“And it comes to my mind to say something that may be foolish or perhaps a heresy, I don’t know. .... He knows that Christians are disciples of Christ: that they are one, that they are brothers! He doesn’t care if they are Evangelicals, or Orthodox, Lutherans, Catholics or Apostolic…he doesn’t care! They are Christians. And that blood (of martyrdom) unites. Today, dear brothers and sisters, we are living an 'ecuмenism of blood'." -- Frank Vatican Radio, May 24, 2015

[Ladislaus]

“And it comes to my mind to say something that may be foolish or perhaps a heresy,"

It's likely that His Humbleness just thought he was being clever and said this tongue-in-cheek.  Nevertheless, that's why I spoke more of his predecessors than of him in this regard.  Bergoglio has some even in the Novus Ordo wondering if he's Catholic.

This quote is why I made the following comment:

But for someone who, such as Bergoglio's predecessors, claim that their beliefs are NOT heretical

[Stubborn]

Please refer to Reply 1170 right here for the proper understanding of the quote above.

And I most certainly believe that the Roman Pontiff IS the successor of Saint Peter and he IS the Supreme and Apostolic Leader of the ENTIRE Catholic Church.    

Only the sede needs a sede-interpretation of defined dogma, and then only to nullify it, but Catholics are bound to accept it as it is written. Per the dogma, Catholics are not permitted to say the pope is not the pope, but since by your own admission that doesn't mean you - carry on. 

[Stubborn]

Stubborn does this all the time.  He misunderstands and misinterprets a dogmatic definition and then just uses his false reading of it as proof of his false reading of it ... continuing to claim that he just reads it as it's written.  He conflates his misinterpretation with the dogma itself.

False reading LOL
It says what it says, man.

[2Vermont]

So, is the bolded above the same thing that Ladislaus has been saying....that they are true popes materially?

It seems to me that you don't consider them popes at all and would never call them "true" popes in any sense.

Reply #1147 addressed to Cantarella....
Cantarella?

[Clemens Maria]

It's likely that His Humbleness just thought he was being clever and said this tongue-in-cheek.  Nevertheless, that's why I spoke more of his predecessors than of him in this regard.  Bergoglio has some even in the Novus Ordo wondering if he's Catholic.

This quote is why I made the following comment:

If his statement was merely controversial, I would agree with your point.  But it wasn't merely controversial, it was in fact a heresy!  He obviously knew it was a heresy and...he doesn't care!  Ratzinger has made similar statements.  He publicly stated that V2 was the French Revolution in the Church!  He publicly agreed with von Balthazar about razing the bastions of the Church.  JP2 was a little more cagey in his speech but he kissed the Koran and he publicly worshipped with pagans.  P6 was proclaiming that the smoke of Satan had entered the Church.  Gee, how'd that happen, Johnny?  How does the "pope" lament the "silent apostasy" without lifting a finger to combat it?  These men have blood on their hands and we're going to entertain negative doubts about their guilt?  If I saw one man walk up to another and without saying a thing fire a bullet into the other man's head, I don't entertain negative doubts about the possibility that maybe the shooter was legally authorized to shoot the man.  And neither do the courts.  If we have eyewitness accounts and video evidence, the jury isn't going to give a not guilty verdict based on a negative doubt unsupported by any evidence.

[Ladislaus]

Profession of the Catholic Faith is actually professing what the Church Professes. It does not mean merely saying "I profess the Catholic Faith". It's like one cannot just yell "I declare Bankruptcy" and everything is taken care of.

If someone publically worships at the tomb of mohammed or in a temple of shiva or kisses the Koran while saying "I profess the Catholic Faith", it does not mean they are Catholic. Heresy and Apostasy can very well be manifested in deed in addition to their speech and writing.

Professing the Catholic faith is indeed not just SAYING it.  So, for instance, actions like false worship can render one suspect of not actually professing it.  Nevertheless, there's a big difference between an Osteen who publicly rejects it and a Francis who publicly states that he holds it.  Whether we believe him or not is a completely separate question.  

HUGE difference.  Someone like Osteen doesn't accept the very rule of faith, the Catholic Magisterium and cannot be said to have the formal motive of faith.  Yet someone else who has the correct rule of faith, Church teaching, is capable of material heresy.  [PS -- this dovetails with the Feeneyite position that non-Catholics are not capable of merely material heresy because they don't have the right formal rule of faith to begin with].  Those who do not profess the Church's Magisterium as the rule of faith cannot have a solely material heresy, whereas those who do profess this rule of faith CAN.

And, apart from that, yes, absolutely, a crucial part of being a Catholic is saying, "I am a Catholic."  That's how we publicly identify with the visible society known as the Church.