Ok so I am unsure where I stand on this. Unlike Francis who was very blatant in public heresy I have yet to see any heresies espoused by Leo XIV.

If I say the election is invalid what reasons would be genuine? If the cardinals have no authority to elect someone then how can we get a 'real' Pope without say all of them dying suddenly?

What is everyone's take on this? Should I wait and see if the Dimonds find some heresy he has professed and consider him to be Pope in the meantime?

There's sufficient reason to doubt his catholicity, and therefore his claim. For instance, his professed allegiance to the ideas and programs of Francis. If a man said he planned to follow in the footsteps of Luther and continue the work of the reformation, do we need to wait for him to explicitly profess belief in faith alone or sola scriptura to call him a Lutheran?

Likewise, whether one believes that the Pope canonically elected, whoever he may be at the time, with his proper name expressed, is the successor of Blessed Peter having supreme authority in the Church of God.

Martin V, Inter Cunctas (#24) 

It is of no consequence that in past centuries some Pontiff may have been illegitimately elected, or fraudulently intruded into the Pontificate; it suffices that he was afterward accepted by the whole Church as Pope, since by such acceptance he has already been rendered a legitimate and true Pontiff. But if for some time he was not truly and universally accepted by the Church, in such a case for that period the Pontifical See would have been vacant, as it is vacant upon the death of Pontiffs. Similarly, it is of no consequence that in cases of Schism there has been doubt for a considerable time as to who was the true Pontiff; because then one would have been the true one, although not sufficiently recognized; and if none of the Antipopes were true, then the Pontificate would have likewise been vacant.

St. Alphonsus, Verità della Fede (Vol. II, Part II, Ch. VIII)

The First Kind of Catholic Truths.
HAVING provided a definition of Catholic truth, since it is known that among Catholic truths there are many truths to which one must adhere with firm belief, we have deemed it opportune to distinguish their degrees or kinds, and it seems to us that seven kinds of Catholic truths can be distinguished. The first consists of those that are contained in the canon of Sacred Scripture of the Old or New Testament, and in the proper form of words. And this kind of Catholic truths can also be distinguished according to the three kinds of credible things set forth above, among which, as we have previously stated, the more principal kind to be enumerated is that of credible things which are believed before they are understood, of which kind are those pertaining to the articles of faith, upon which our salvation principally depends. That truths of this kind, formally contained in Sacred Scripture, are to be considered Catholic is manifest, since the truth of Sacred Scripture is in no way to be doubted. Hence blessed Augustine in his book "On the One Baptism," as recited in chapter "Who does not know," distinction 9, says: "Who does not know that the Holy Canonical Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, is contained within certain limits, and that it is so set above all subsequent letters of bishops that one cannot at all doubt or dispute whether what is written in it is true or whether what it has established is right, etc."
[...]
An eighth category can be distinguished of those truths which, although not absolutely Catholic, nevertheless savor of Catholic truth, for they are closely related to Catholic truths. Hence, a truth savoring of Catholic truth can be defined thus: A truth savoring of Catholic truth or faith by consequence is that which, when joined with some other truth not pertaining to faith, but which nevertheless cannot reasonably be denied, becomes a Catholic truth. For example, because Master Thomas of Sarzana now sits in apostolic dignity, the proposition "Thomas of Sarzana is pope" is a proposition savoring of Catholic truth. This is evident because when joined with that truth which cannot be denied, namely that he was duly and canonically elected, as for instance by the entire college of cardinal lords or by two-thirds of them, it becomes a truth to be called Catholic. "Master Thomas of Sarzana, duly and canonically elected, and received as pope by the universal Church, is the true pope" - this proposition is Catholic by determination of the universal Church, as in the chapter "In nomine Domini." Likewise in the decretal epistle of Martin from the Council of Constance, it is placed among the things to be believed by every faithful person that the canonically elected pope who holds office at any given time, his proper name being expressed, is the successor of blessed Peter having supreme authority in the Church of God. From the foregoing it is easy to understand that not all truths are of the same nature, but of different kinds or grades. For some, as has been seen, are Catholic, some savoring of Catholic truth, some merely probable, some piously credible, and some impertinent.

Card. Juan de Torquemada, Summa de Ecclesia (Lib. Quartus, Pars II, Cap. IX. On the Multiple Kinds or Degrees of Catholic Truths)

It came to pass shortly thereafter that Sylverius died, and Vigilius, who until then had sat in schism, began now to be the sole and legitimate pontiff, indeed, with the Roman clergy and people confirming and accepting him. From this time forward, however, neither error nor semblance of error was found in Vigilius, but rather the utmost constancy in faith until death, so that it appears that with the pontificate itself he received firmness of faith, and was transformed from light chaff into most solid rock. For when the heretical Empress Theodora, relying on secret letters and Vigilius's promise, asked him to restore the aforementioned Patriarch Anthemius, as he had promised, he wrote back that he had rashly promised and had gravely sinned by that promise, and therefore could not and would not fulfill what he had promised, lest he should add sins to sins. For this reason, he was sent into exile by the enraged empress and miserably persecuted until death. This is recorded not only in the Pontifical, but also noted by Paul the Deacon in his Life of Justinian, and by Aimonius in book 5, chapter 32, of Deeds of the Franks, and even by the Magdeburg Centuriators themselves in Century 6, chapter 10, in the Life of Vigilius, and the same is also very briefly indicated by Liberatus at the end of chapter 22, where he says that Vigilius was later miserably afflicted by that very heresy which he had secretly fostered in the beginning.

Card. Robert Bellarmine, Disputations on the Controversies of the Christian Faith (De Romano Pontifice, Liber IV, Capitulum X)

33. It must be stated that this proposition, Innocent XI is the Supreme Pontiff of the Church, pertains immediately to faith, such that the assent owed to it is directly drawn from faith. This conclusion is not found expressly in the Scholastics and more ancient Theologians, because they did not treat this difficulty in these specific terms; nevertheless, it is deduced from what they openly taught. Among the Moderns, however, it is very common; for besides Suárez, John of St. Thomas, and Gonet in the places cited above, it is defended by Labat disp. 1, dub. 3, § 4, Ferre quaest. 11, § 6, Our Father Dominic of the Most Holy Trinity tom. 3, Bibliot. Theol. lib. 2, sect. 4, cap. 10, Valencia disp. 1, quaest. 1, punct. 7, § 38, Lugo disp. 1, sect. 13, § 5, Pedro Hurtado disp. 37, Ripalda disp. 8, sect. 5, num. 79, and others.
[...]
37. Finally, you will respond that this doctrine is indeed true when the natural proposition being applied is evident and entirely certain; for then it infallibly places the subject of the conclusion under the subject of the universal proposition, which is immediately of faith; and this occurs in the examples just adduced. However, when the minor premise being applied is not certain, it cannot infallibly place the subject of the conclusion under the subject of the universal proposition of faith in order to participate in the same predicate, and consequently the conclusion cannot be entirely certain, nor of faith. This is illustrated in this reasoning: Every host properly consecrated contains the body of Christ; but this host, which I see being adored, is properly consecrated; therefore, this host contains the body of Christ. The conclusion, indeed, is not of faith, because although that universal proposition is immediately of faith, the minor premise is nevertheless not entirely certain. And the same occurs in our case, because even though the universal proposition: Every man properly elected by the Church as successor of Peter is the Supreme Pontiff of the Church; is immediately of faith; nevertheless, the minor premise that is subsumed, namely: but this man, Innocent XI, has been properly elected by the Church as successor of Peter, is not entirely certain, since it is not evident that the Church has properly elected him. Therefore, the conclusion: Therefore, Innocent XI is the Supreme Pontiff of the Church, will not be of faith, but will be deficient in its certainty because of the minor premise, which cannot infallibly place the subject of the conclusion under the subject of the major premise.
But this response can in no way be sustained, and is effectively overturned. First, because it clearly follows from it that not only is it not immediately of faith that Innocent XI is the Supreme Pontiff of the Church; but indeed that this is not in any way a matter of faith, nor even certain, and consequently, that one who would deny this proposition would neither be a heretic, nor temerarious, nor scandalous, nor worthy of any censure. This is contrary to the common understanding of the Church, and is not admitted by our Adversaries; since although they deny that the aforementioned proposition is immediately of faith, they nevertheless concede that it is at least mediately of faith, and so certain that to deny it would be erroneous, temerarious, and scandalous: therefore the aforementioned response is false, and cannot be sustained among Catholics. The consequence is manifest; because the aforementioned response on one hand affirms that the consequent is not certain unless the minor premise is certain; and on the other hand denies the certainty of the minor premise: therefore it holds that the consequent is not only not immediately of faith, but not even certain. And since denying that which lacks certainty merits no censure, it follows from such doctrine that to deny that Innocent XI is the Supreme Pontiff of the Church would not only not be heretical, but neither temerarious nor worthy of any other censure. And this is further pressed against the person by turning back the example adduced in this response; for because it is not certain that this particular host has been rightly consecrated, it is not certain that this particular host contains the body of Christ. Therefore, if it is not certain that Innocent XI was rightly elected by the Church as the successor of Peter, it will not be certain that Innocent XI is the Supreme Pontiff of the Church, and thus one who doubts this, or denies this, would merit no censure. Which, as we have said, is unheard of among Catholics.
38. It is challenged secondly, because the aforementioned response destroys the status of the present controversy; for it proceeds on the supposition of the legitimate election of Innocent XI as successor of Peter, and that he is in peaceful possession, and that the Church does not contradict him; if indeed his election had been null, or were doubtful, the controversy as to whether it is a matter of faith that Innocent XI is the Supreme Pontiff would not even be subject to debate. But the negative position concerning the controversy must be held, as we established above in number 24. With this hypothesis of our discussion, it is not at all coherent to deny the certainty of the minor premise in the argument set forth above, and thereby cause uncertainty of the conclusion. For if that minor premise is uncertain, then the election is not presumed to be determinately legitimate, nor is there an absence of doubt regarding its validity in the Church; or conversely, if there is no doubt in the Church concerning the aforementioned election, then it is certain that Innocent XI was rightly elected by the Church; it indeed stands as certain that which is not subject to doubt.
It is refuted, thirdly; for that election is certainly established to have been properly, or canonically, performed by the Church, which is certainly established to have been conducted, approved, and received by the whole Church: but this latter point is certainly established; therefore the former is as well. The major premise seems self-evident, because since the power of electing the Supreme Pontiff resides with the Church, that election is done properly and canonically which is conducted and approved by the whole Church; for no other laws are required for this purpose except those which the Church herself has established, which therefore in electing and approving fulfills all that is required for the true and canonical election of a Pontiff. The minor premise is also certain, because the Church has given to the Cardinals the power of electing the Supreme Pontiff, who therefore with respect to this office represent the whole Church. They themselves elected Innocent XI, and after the election was completed (although this is not even necessary for the proof of the minor premise which we intend), no doubt concerning its validity arose; otherwise, some of them would have protested. Furthermore, the elected person himself, having been presented by the Cardinals to the whole Church, was accepted and approved by the universal Church as if considered in its own person: and this universal approval would supply for defects, if any existed, in the election as conducted by the Cardinals. All these things are almost experimentally evident, and no one except a madman could deny them. Therefore, it is absolutely certain that the election of Innocent XI was conducted, received, and approved by the whole Church; and consequently the argument made above is not weakened on this account, but perseveres in its strength.
39. Nor does it matter if you still say that these arguments indeed prove that we are entirely certain about the election of Innocent XI as properly conducted from the active perspective and on the part of the Church, but not regarding his election taken passively and on the part of the elected. For although the whole Church elected him and confirmed the election by common approval, nevertheless it could have elected someone incapable; for who knows, says Cajetan, cited in number 28, if this man was baptized? and if the one who baptized him had the intention of conferring the Sacrament of Baptism? This defect the Church cannot supply. Yet certainty about this latter point would be necessary for the minor premise of the above argument, namely, This man Innocent XI is properly elected by the Church as successor of Peter, to be simply certain, and for the conclusion depending on it, at least as on an application, to be immediately of faith.
This, I say, does not matter: since by the very fact that complete certainty is given concerning the election actively considered, and properly carried out by the Church, certainty is also given concerning the passive election, and therefore concerning the election adequately accepted. But in our case, that first certainty is given, as is evident from what was just said, and without evasion; therefore the latter certainty is also given, and consequently nothing is lacking for the conclusion of the preceding discourse to be immediately of faith. The minor premise and both consequences are evident. The major premise, however, is demonstrated: for the whole Church cannot err in matters pertaining to faith and morals, as is sufficiently clear from what was said in the previous doubt, § 1, number 6. But the whole Church elected and approved Innocent XI as the successor of Peter, and this kind of election and approval pertains to faith and morals, since through it is committed the authority to define controversies of faith and to rightly govern the faithful. Therefore, the Church did not err in this; therefore it elected a subject capable of such dignity. This reasoning is so effective that it renders both consequent propositions either immediately certain by faith (concerning which below in the response to the 2nd objection), as John of St. Thomas and Ferre maintain in the passages cited above (whom the Reader may consult if he seeks such certainty), or at least certain with the certainty of a theological conclusion, which cannot be subject to falsehood, as Arauxo concedes from among our opponents. And this latter suffices for the strength of the discourse made above; for from this universal proposition, Every man properly elected by the Church as successor of Peter is the Supreme Pontiff of the Church, which is immediately of faith; and from this particular proposition, But Innocent XI is properly elected by the Church as successor of Peter, which serves as an application and is certain at least with the certainty of a theological conclusion, it is inferred that Innocent XI is the Supreme Pontiff of the Church, which is immediately of faith, being included in that universal proposition as an actual part in the whole. Hence, to one asking, Who knows whether he is baptized, etc., it must be responded that this condition, and others which are required for passive election, or for the capacity of the one elected, are established with complete certainty from the active election itself and the approval of the universal Church.
[...]
43. But you will object (and this forms the second argument), because for this proposition, Innocent XI is the Supreme Pontiff of the Church, to be immediately of faith, it should be certainly established that Innocent XI was duly elected as successor to Peter, otherwise Innocent XI cannot be included in the subject, nor participate in the predicate of this universal proposition, Every man duly elected etc. However, it is not certainly established for us that Innocent was duly elected. Therefore, it is not immediately of faith that he is the Supreme Pontiff of the Church. The minor premise is proven, because for him to have been duly elected, it is required that he was and is a man, and baptized: but these facts are not known to us, neither by the light of faith, nor by evident natural light, as is clear in itself: therefore, etc.
This is confirmed because, granting that we have some certainty or evidence of this legitimate election; nevertheless, this kind of certainty and evidence is purely natural: but natural certainty and evidence are insufficient to draw the conclusion that it is immediately of faith; therefore, it is not immediately of faith that Innocent the Supreme Pontiff is the legitimate Pope. The minor premise is proven, because in this reasoning, Every man is capable of laughter: but Christ is a man: therefore Christ is capable of laughter, the conclusion is not immediately of faith, for no other reason than that it is deduced from one natural premise, albeit certain and evident: therefore natural certainty and evidence are insufficient to draw a conclusion that is immediately of faith.
The response to the objection is to deny the minor premise, because as we said in n. 38, the active election, which comes from the Church, is known to us with certainty through evidence that is almost sensible and experiential; and to this corresponds infallibly the passive election, or the capacity on the part of the elected, as we explained in number 39. Hence, concerning the proof of the minor premise, it must be said that the aforementioned conditions are certainly established from the active election of the Church itself. For although these conditions are contingent in themselves, they are rendered infallible through their relation to the universal judgment of the whole Church, and to the promise of Christ. They are known through this reasoning: "The Church does not err in matters pertaining to faith and morals; but the universal Church has elected Innocent XI as Pontiff, for which it is required that he be a man and baptized; therefore Innocent possesses these conditions." Whether this conclusion pertains immediately to faith or to theology matters little, so long as it is entirely certain and excludes doubt concerning the aforementioned conditions. It seems more probable to us, however, and more consistent with what has been said thus far, that the essential and quasi-intrinsic conditions of the Pontiff, such as being a man and baptized, are grasped immediately through the very act of faith by which we believe Innocent XI to be Pontiff—not precisely apart from the dignity and prior to the active election, but presupposing this election and concretely in relation to the dignity itself. Just as because it is of the nature of man to consist of body and soul, and we believe Christ to be man, by the same act we believe that Christ consists of body and soul. And in this way, just as from these premises, Everyone duly elected by the Church as successor of Peter is the Supreme Pontiff of the Church; but Innocent has been duly elected by the Church as successor of Peter, it is concluded that Innocent XI is the supreme Pontiff of the Church: so it is also concluded that he is a man, and baptized, and has other essential conditions for being Pontiff; and all of this taken comprehensively is immediately of faith, and is contained implicitly in that universal proposition, Everyone duly elected by the Church, etc.

Salmanticenses, Cursus Theologicus, Tomus XI, Tract. XVII, De Fide




Many more quotes omitted... True Pope? YOU DECIDE

Ok so I am unsure where I stand on this. Unlike Francis who was very blatant in public heresy I have yet to see any heresies espoused by Leo XIV.

If I say the election is invalid what reasons would be genuine? If the cardinals have no authority to elect someone then how can we get a 'real' Pope without say all of them dying suddenly?

What is everyone's take on this? Should I wait and see if the Dimonds find some heresy he has professed and consider him to be Pope in the meantime?

Ummmmm. He accepts Vatican 2. That is too many heresies espoused to even count the number.

• Angelo Roncalli was a suspected heretic pre-election and a confirmed heretic post-election; he never became pope. None of his acts were valid or could ever become valid.
• The 1958 college of cardinals was disqualified from ever electing another pope (Can. 2391§1).

Also. Roncalli was declared suspect of heresy twice. And did not defend himself within six months making him a legally sentenced heretic.

Why not go back before John XXIII? Pius XII did much more damage to the Church than John XXIII ever did:

He wrote the first modernist encyclical in 1943: "Divino Afflante Spiritu" (which is referenced in the beginning of most Novus Ordo bibles --they love it so much).

He allowed the Pian psalter to be put into the Bible in 1945.

He made Opus Dei a part of the Church in 1950.

He allowed Bugnini to butcher the Easter Vigil in 1950 and then allowed Bugnini to butcher the Holy Week masses in 1955... while it was John XXIII who wisely removed Bugnini from his position but Paul VI later brought Bugnini back to continue his destructive activities.

He also was the one who first "officially" permitted the Dialogue Mass in 1958.

These are just "some" of Pius XII's major screw-ups. We can even go back further than that to Pius XI betraying The Cristeros, Pius X butchering the Divine Office and Leo XIII allowing Cardinal Rampolla to do his destructive activities. Where do we stop?

Ibranyi, when it comes to papal criticisms, goes all the way back to 1140 (he should just become Eastern Orthodox at this point) and Matatics, with his papal criticisms, is just a home-aloner with no where to go (despite the fact that he agrees with most Sedes that Pius XII was the last pope) because he claims all clergy, Sede clergy included, are illicit clergy and thus all masses are illicit. If we keep criticizing, we will end up being "trapped  in a dead-end!" I doubt anyone wants to be like either one of those two guys.

My point is that we should either STOP criticizing altogether or, if we do criticize, apply the same standards to ALL...true or false popes. Thus we can't criticize John XXIII without applying the same standards to Pius XII (regardless of the fact that Pius XII was a real pope and John XXIII a false pope).

Do you mean "The Pope In Red Theory?"...Oh boy

No, I mean the Siri Theory.

Nice refutation.

I'm still waiting for a sedevacantist to provide evidence that Montini was a manifest heretic before he started teaching purportedly as Pope.

Until then you can idiotically facepalm all you want, but it's clear you have no clue what's even involved.

I think we're getting lost in the argument of "personal heresy".  

I think we're getting lost in the argument of "personal heresy". 

No, he's right to bring it up ... since the SV position has always been from the angle of manifest heresy, always.

You cannot pope-sift backwards from perceived erroneous teaching.  At that point, whenever a pope teaches, if you decide that he's taught error, then you just declare him a non-pope, in the modo tollentis logical form of argument.  That's untenable.  Otherwise, the Old Catholics who felt that papal infallibility was grave error or heresy could just as easily have done the same, declared Pius IX a manifest heretic ... and there would be nothing in straight sedevacantist principles to have stopped them.

You have to do better than this.