Is Francis’ heresy not public, obstinate, and pertinacious? 

Has he not clearly gotten his heretical messages across, as well as his understanding that his teachings are heretical, and that whenever they are ambiguous in meaning, that he means for them to be understood in an heretical sense?

Can a pope teach heresy?

Under canon law, can a pope be coerced into validly resigning?

Can a pope validly resign part of his ministry, but not the other, effectively expanding the office of the papacy to include two individuals?

Has Francis made any indications that he sees himself as holding part of the office of the papacy, but not the other?

When the truth is obvious, are we to not believe our lying eyes out of some sense of charity or obedience?

But that's just one position, the Bellarmine position (unless you're Salza or Siscoe).  Other theories hold that a non-Catholic (aka heretic) must be removed from office by the Church, and the sedeprivationist thesis that he formally ceases to be pope but then must be removed materially.  This is an oversimplification.

sedevacantists  say non catholic ceases to be  pope, even if he's physically there.....your position is non catholic , ceases to be pope and must be removed materially. at the end of the day you are saying he's not the pope ...the way he has to  be removed is another discussion is it not? Can't I hold the sedevacant  position and claim he must be removed materially for argument's sake.  Can you explain to me how sedevacantists differ exactly on the to be removed materially part?

From the Code of Canon Law;
Can.  1404 The First See is judged by no one.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P5A.HTM

"But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." Galatians 2:11

In saying Peter was blameworthy, did St. Paul judge the First See?

If Songbird understood the teaching of Pope Leo XIII and the history of the ordination rite, he/she/it would know that the the new rite of ordination is valid.

Michael Davies’ book “The Order of Melchizedek” was always a bit of a mystery to me in this regard:

He repeatedly affirms the validity of the new rite, even as he draws, throughout the book, the analogy to the invalidating changes to the Anglican rite.

It always left me asking myself, “OK, so why bother to write the book?”

And if the answer were, “To put traditionalists at ease regarding the new rite,” then why trouble them by drawing the Anglican analogy (which is the general disturbance of soul produced by the book, despite Davies’ affirmation of validity)?

Again, why, then, bother to write the book?

Was he being coy, fearing to declare the rite invalid, but imparting to the reader the reasons it might be (despite his affirmation to the contrary)?  

Not sure.

Michael Davies’ book “The Order of Melchizedek” was always a bit of a mystery to me in this regard:

He repeatedly affirms the validity of the new rite, even as he draws, throughout the book, the analogy to the invalidating changes to the Anglican rite.

It always left me asking myself, “OK, so why bother to write the book?”

And if the answer were, “To put traditionalists at ease regarding the new rite,” then why trouble them by drawing the Anglican analogy (which is the general disturbance of soul produced by the book, despite Davies’ affirmation of validity)?

Again, why, then, bother to write the book?

Was he being coy, fearing to declare the rite invalid, but imparting to the reader the reasons it might be (despite his affirmation to the contrary)?  

Not sure.

DID YOU READ THE FIRST OR SECOND EDITION?
It is reported that he drew different conclusions in the editions. I have tried to buy a FIRST edition, but, even when advertised as a FIRST edition, I received the second edition.

DID YOU READ THE FIRST OR SECOND EDITION?
It is reported that he drew different conclusions in the editions. I have tried to buy a FIRST edition, but, even when advertised as a FIRST edition, I received the second edition.

Now that’s interesting.

Not sure which edition I have (not home right now), but it is 20 years-old, at least.

When was the 2nd edition published?

In any case, I would not be surprised if Michael Davies later edited this book in a new edition to bring it around to conciliarism.

He did this very thing in the new edition of Pope John’s Council (published by Angelus Press), which contains many conciliar adaptations (eg., defense of Dominus Iesus, declaring they Orthodox possess apostolicity, etc.).

The SSPX wanted to make it seem as though Davies had left the indult and returned to tradition toward the end of his life, but the reality was that the SSPX was moving in his direction, and therefore proliferating his conciliarized books.

Then of course the SSPX has sneakily been modifying other books toward the same end (eg., no longer including active participation in the NOM in the examination of conscience of Christian Warfare, while injecting the conciliar Divine Mercy devotion into the same revision.  Meanwhile, it’s German bookstores sell materials by Ratzinger, Schneider, and even von Balthasar (while other volumes omit the “St.” title from the books by saints, etc).

Davies’ general thoughts:

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/ordinal.htm

Note, however, that in this article Davies is merely championing the conciliar 1968 rite of priestly ordination vs the later revised 1989 rite of priestly ordination (which is even worse).