These questions are phrased so well, I will just redirect them back at you.

"Admire"... No, I wish I could say that it was that simple and I did just simply "admire" him, and this was all just a secret, deeply, repressed fetish of mine.


But simply "admire" will not do.



Now, when it comes to Jorge Bergoglio and people like you, the correct term is Wonderment.

won·der·ment
noun

• a state of awed admiration or respect:

Wonderment... that someone so obviously a "beast of the Apocalypse" (St. Bernard) you say is the Vicar of Jesus Christ of Roman Catholic Church and your Holy Father.



Wonderment... at your obstinacy, blindness, and sheer stupidity to think that such a man could be the Head of the Catholic Church when he is clearly not even a member of it.



Wonderment... that you remain attached to a Head that is "severed from the Body" (Pius XII) and still think you can simultaneously remain attached to the Body.


Yes, Wonderment... that it is actually you who "admire" him.

"And all the earth was in admiration after the beast." Apocalypse 13:3

"That beast of the Apocalypse is sitting on the Throne of Peter waiting like a lion ready to consume his prey."  - St. Bernard

The solemn language in the decrees of V2 by Paul VI is similar to other binding councils

Well... you think you do.

If Jorge is your "Holy Father" then you must embrace the religion, he teaches, professes, and represents.

Otherwise, you are bound to denounce him as a non-Catholic and his religion (the N.O. church) as a false religion and have nothing to do with them.

"If anyone does not with mind and lips reject and anathematize all abominable heretics together with their impious writings, even to the single least portion, let such a person be condemned." (Pope St. Martin I, d. 655)

Now, where the "anti-Catholic" thinking/action really comes into play is to imagine that one can do as Pope St. Martin, I said above, while maintaining that the one they are "anathematizing" can still be their Holy Father, the Vicar of Jesus Christ, who is both a member and Head of the Catholic Church, to whom they owe submission and obedience and is the "Rock upon which Christ built His Church", who has the "Unfailing faith of Peter".

But if Francis is pope,

Then Pope Saint Felix I, Martyr, (r. 269-274) was wrong when, speaking of the Roman Church, he said: “As it took up in the beginning the norm of the Christian Faith from its authors, the Princes of the Apostles of Christ, She remains unsullied according to what the Lord

said: ‘I have prayed for thee, etc.’ ”

Then Pope Damasus I (r. 366-382) was wrong when he said: “The First See, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish…”

Then Pope Saint Innocent I (r. 401-417) was wrong when, speaking of the Roman Church, he said: “that…all other churches might derive what they should order, whom they should absolve, whom, as being dirtied with ineffaceable pollution, the stream that is worthy only of pure bodies should avoid; so that from their parent source all waters should flow, and through the different regions of the whole world the pure streams of the fountain well forth uncorrupted.”

Then Pope Saint Gelasius I (r. 492-496) was wrong when he said: “This is what the Apostolic See guards against with all her strength because the glorious confession of the Apostle [Peter] is the root of the world, so that she is polluted by no crack of depravity and altogether no contagion. For if such a thing would ever occur (which may God forbid and we trust cannot be), why would we make bold to resist any error?”

Then Pope Pelagius II (r. 579-590) was wrong when he said: “For you know how the Lord in the Gospel declares: ‘Simon, Simon, behold Satan has desired you that he might sift you as wheat, but I have prayed the Father for thee, that thy faith fail not, and thou being converted, confirm thy brethren.’ See, beloved, the truth cannot be falsified, nor can the faith of Peter ever be shaken or changed.”
“Consider, most dear ones, that the Truth could not have lied, nor will the faith of PETER be able to be shaken or changed forever. For although the devil desired to sift all the disciples, the Lord testifies that He Himself asked for PETER alone and wished the others to be confirmed by him; and to him also, in consideration of a greater love which he showed the Lord before the rest, was committed the care of feeding the sheep [cf. Jn 21:15ff.]; and to him also He handed over the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and upon him He promised to build his Church, and He testified that the gates of hell would not prevail against it [cf. Mt 16:16ff.]…”

Then the Sixth Ecuмenical Council (680-681) was wrong when it repeated the words of Pope Agatho (r. 678-681): “For this is the rule of the true faith, which this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ [See of Rome], has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy; which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself, which he uttered in the holy Gospels to the prince of his disciples: saying, ‘Peter, Peter, behold, Satan has desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for you, that (your) faith fail not. And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren.’ Let your tranquil Clemency therefore consider, since it is the Lord and Saviour of all, whose faith it is, that promised that Peter’s faith should not fail and exhorted him to strengthen his brethren, how it is known to all that the Apostolic pontiffs, the predecessors of my littleness, have always confidently done this very thing: of whom also our littleness, since I have received this ministry by divine designation, wishes to be the follower, although unequal to them and the least of all.”
“…because the true confession thereof for which Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord of all things, was revealed by the Father of heaven, for he received from the Redeemer of all himself, by three commendations, the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church; under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error (hec apostolica ejus ecclesia nunquam a via Veritatis in qualibet erroris parte deslexa est), whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church (omnis catholica … ecclesia), and the Ecuмenical Synods have faithfully embraced, and followed in all things; and all the venerable Fathers have embraced its Apostolic doctrine, through which they as the most approved luminaries of the Church of Christ have shone; and the holy orthodox doctors have venerated and followed it, while the heretics have pursued it with false criminations and with derogatory hatred.”

Then the Ecuмenical Council of Constantinople (869) was wrong when it repeated the words of Pope Hormisdas (r. 514-523): “The first condition of salvation is to keep the rule of the true faith. And because the sentence of our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be passed by, who said, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church,’ these things which have been said are proved by events, because in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept undefiled, and her well-known doctrine has been kept holy. Desiring, therefore, not to be in the least degree separated from the faith and doctrine of this See, we hope that we may deserve to be in the one communion, which the Apostolic See preaches, in which is the entire and true solidity of the Christian religion.”

Then Pope Saint Leo IX (r. 1049-1054) was wrong when he said, “By the See of the Chief of the Apostles, namely by the Roman Church, through the same Peter, as well as through his successors, have not the comments of all the heretics been disapproved, rejected, and overcome, and the hearts of the brethren in the faith of Peter — which so far neither has failed, nor up to the end will fail — been strengthened.”

Then Pope Saint Leo IX was wrong again when he also said, “Without a doubt, it was for him alone, whom the Lord and Savior asserted that he prayed that his faith would not fail, saying, ‘I have prayed for thee, etc.’ [Lk 22:32]. Such a venerable and efficacious prayer has obtained that to this point the faith of Peter has not failed, nor can it be believed that it is ever going to fail in his throne.”

Then Pope Saint Gregory VII (r. 1073-1085) was wrong when in his Dictatus Papae, he said: “…the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness.”


Then Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, (1090-1153) was wrong when he said: ““all the dangers and scandals that occur in the kingdom of God must be referred to the Holy See, but none more urgently than those which concern the faith. It is indeed just that any menace to the faith should be dealt with by the one whose faith cannot falter. To whom else has it been said: I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not? The words that follow must apply to Peter’s successor…and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren’?”



Then Pope Innocent III (r. 1198-1216) was wrong when he said: “The Lord confesses at the time of the Passion that he prayed for him: ‘I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith may not fail: and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren’ [Lk 22:32], by this manifestly indicating that his successors would never at any time deviate from the Catholic faith, but rather they would recall others and also strengthen others in such a way as to impose on others the necessity of obeying….”



“Without faith, it is impossible to please God, for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. If I myself have no faith, how can I strengthen others in faith? And that is one of the chief points of my function [officium meum]: for did not The Lord say to Saint Peter, “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not”, and “when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren”. He prayed, and was hearkened to,— hearkened to in all points, owing to His obedience. The faith of the Holy See has never failed in trouble: but it remains firm and invincible, so that the privilege of Saint Peter remains inviolable.”



Then Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) was wrong when he wrote in his Lectura on the Gospel of St. Matthew: “However, the Roman Church was not corrupted by heretics because it was founded on a rock.Hence there were heretics in Constantinople, and the work of the apostles was lost; only Peter’s church remained intact (Luke 23:32). And this refers not only to the Church of Peter, but to the faith of Peter, and to the whole Western Church. Hence, I believe that the Westerners owe greater reverence to Peter than to the other apostles.”

Then the Ecuмenical Council of Florence (1438-1444) was wrong when it said: “For with the Lord’s approval the most illustrious profession of the Roman church about the truth of the faith, which has always been pure from all stain of error shines.”



Then Saint Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church (1542-1621) was wrong when he said : “For the Pope not only should not, but cannot preach heresy, but rather should always preach the truth. He will certainly do that, since the Lord commanded him to confirm his brethren, and for that reason added: ‘I have prayed for thee, that thy faith shall not fail,’ [Lk 22:32] that is, that at least the preaching of the true faith shall not fail in thy throne.”

Then Saint Robert Bellarmine was wrong when he also said: “There [Pope Saint] Gregory clearly teaches the strength of the Church depends upon the strength of Peter, and hence Peter is less able to err than the Church herself.”



Then Saint Robert Bellarmine was again wrong when he also said: “The power of Peter’s keys does not extend to the point that the Supreme Pontiff can declare ‘not sin’ what is sin, or ‘sin’ that which is not sin. In fact, this would be to call evil good, and good evil, something that always has been and will be very far from the one who is the Head of the Church, the pillar and foundation of truth.”



Then Francisco Suarez (1548-1617) was wrong when he said: “in accord with His divine providence…[God] preserve the pope from heresy in consequence of the promise that he shall never err in defining faith. Furthermore, as such a thing has never happened in the Church, we may conclude that, in the providence of God, it cannot happen.’ ”

Then the Ecuмenical Council Vatican I (1870) was wrong when it said: “For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor…And indeed all the venerable Fathers have embraced, and the holy orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed their [Popes] apostolic doctrine; knowing most fully that this See of Saint Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error, according to the divine promise of the Lord our Saviour made to the Prince of His disciples: ‘I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not; and when thou art converted, confirm thy brethren.’”

Then the Ecuмenical Council Vatican I (1870) was wrong again when it also said: “This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.



Then Bishop Vincent Gasser (1809-1879), the principal relator at Vatican I, was wrong when he said: “This prerogative granted to St. Peter by the Lord Jesus Christ was supposed to pass to all Peter’s successors because the chair of Peter is the center of unity in the Church. But if the Pontiff should fall into an error of faith, the Church would dissolve, deprived of the bond of unity.”



Then Blessed Pope Pius IX (r. 1846-1878) was wrong when he said: “This authority judges infallibly all disputes which concern matters of faith and morals, lest the faithful be swirled around by every wind of doctrine which springs from the evilness of men in encompassing error. And this living infallible authority is active only in that Church which was built by Christ the Lord upon Peter, the head of the entire Church, leader and shepherd, whose faith He promised would never fail. This Church has had an unbroken line of succession from Peter himself; these legitimate pontiffs are the heirs and defenders of the same teaching, rank, office and power. And the Church is where Peter is, and Peter speaks in the Roman Pontiff, living at all times in his successors and making judgment, providing the truth of the faith to those who seek it. The divine words therefore mean what this Roman See of the most blessed Peter holds and has held.”

“For this mother and teacher of all the churches has always preserved entire and unharmed the faith entrusted to it by Christ the Lord.”



Then Pope Leo XIII (r. 1878-1903) was wrong when he said: “And since all Christians must be closely united in the communion of one immutable faith, Christ the Lord, in virtue of His prayers, obtained for Peter that in the fulfilment of his office he should never fall away from the faith. ‘But I have asked for thee that thy faith fail not’ [Luke 22:32], and He furthermore commanded him to impart light and strength to his brethren as often as the need should arise: ‘Confirm thy brethren’ [ibid.]. He willed then that he whom He had designated as the foundation of the Church should be the defense of its faith. [As Saint Ambrose said.]”



Then Pope Benedict XV (r. 1914-1922) was wrong when he said: “The ancient Fathers, especially those who held the more illustrious chairs of the East, since they accepted these privileges as proper to the pontifical authority, took refuge in the Apostolic See whenever heresy or internal strife troubled them. For it alone promised safety in extreme crises. Basil the Great did so, as did the renowned defender of the Nicene Creed, Athanasius, as well as John Chrysostom.”


Then Pope Pius XII (r. 1939-1958) was wrong when he said: “The Pope has the divine promises; even in his human weaknesses, he is invincible and unshakable; he is the messenger of truth and justice, the principle of the unity of the Church; his voice denounces errors, idolatries, superstitions; he condemns iniquities; he makes charity and virtue loved.”

But you would like to have your cake and eat it too, you cannot have it both ways - though I realize you tell yourself that you can. To be fair you may even honestly believe what you tell yourself.


"One of the things that has impressed me most about the young people here is your capacity for interfaith dialogue. This is very important because if you start arguing, "My religion is more important than yours...," or "Mine is the true one, yours is not true....," where does this lead? Somebody answer. [A young person answers, "Destruction".] That is correct. All religions are paths to God. I will use an analogy, they are like different languages that express the divine. But God is for everyone, and therefore, we are all God's children. "But my God is more important than yours!". Is this true? There is only one God, and religions are like languages, paths to reach God. Some Sikh, some Muslim, some Hindu, some Christian. Understood?"

- Your "Holy Father" "Pope" Francis - Head of the "Catholic Church".

From what I can tell, by the grace of God, I meet the minimum criteria listed above for membership in the only true religion - which is the Catholic Faith. You on the other hand do not meet the 2nd condition because of your heresies. Heresies that you could repudiate in an instant but obstinately refuse to do.

Though, as I stated above, the only thing that eternally matters is if you and I actually die being both;
 
1) A member of the Catholic Church (baptized validly and professing the true faith with no heresy)

AND

2) A living member (in a state of grace).

If either those are lacking, then it is hell forever. Hell is overflowing with people who technically were members - but were dead members. It is also bursting at the seams with heretics (non-members - people who were convinced they were in the Church but actually weren't).

So, I simply say I "want" to belong to the Catholic Church, and I hope that I do and will remain so, and I hope you will too. Which is what St. Thomas Aquinas prayed as well:

"[...] Kind God, may I receive the body of your only begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, born from the womb of the Virgin Mary, and so be received into his mystical body and numbered among his members.[...]"