CathInfo.com

However, the one making the judgement simply refuses to recognize the heretic as still retaining office.

Nope.  Only the Church can interpret, inquire and decide canon law.  


You can privately “judge” all you want, but the moment you apply your judgment to a person, or circuмstances, you’ve overstepped your bounds.  Then you’re acting like a Protestant, creating your own interpretation of law, sin, etc.  And that’s the definition of chaos.  

Nope.  Only the Church can interpret, inquire and decide canon law. 


You can privately “judge” all you want, but the moment you apply your judgment to a person, or circuмstances, you’ve overstepped your bounds.  Then you’re acting like a Protestant, creating your own interpretation of law, sin, etc.  And that’s the definition of chaos. 

You're also "judging." (If we're calling apprehendimg reality judgment.) You judge that Bergoglio is the Pope and that Michael isn't and that Gregory XVII isn't.

The funny thing is, those two guys actually had a better chance at being Pope than Bergoglio.

You're judging the Pope as much as we are, you just have a different conclusion.

I’m not judging anything.  Church officials have said that pope x is pope.  As a catholic, I either obey that judgment or act schismatically.  End of story. 

But why don't you obey the "judgment" of "the Church" that the NOM is good and that Vatican II is good?  This doesn't make sense.

In fact, you've got this completely backwards.  Vatican I stated that the one place private judgment plays a role is in determining the credibility of the authority.  We use human reason to evaluate the claims of the Catholic Church to be the One True Church founded by Christ.  We Traditional Catholics have come to the conclusion that the Conciliar Church is not that Church and we do not recognize in Jorge the "Voice of the Shepherd."  Once one has come to this conclusion and submitted to the authority, while not all things that it teaches are infallible and irreformable, we are still required to give an internal religious assent or submission.  This does not mean we accept it as infallibly/philosophically true, but that we give it every benefit of the doubt and disagree with all due respect when necessary.  But no Church Father, Pope, Doctor, or pre-V2 theologian has ever countenanced the notion that either the Mass or the Magisterium can become so corrupt that we would be required in conscience to refuse submission to and communion with the hierarchy as a result, as that would be contrary to the indefectibility of the Church.

In any case, however, you're begging the question by calling them "Church officials".  And, if they are in fact Church officials, and Jorge is the Pope, you're ALREADY acting schismatically by holding that it's OK for Catholics to operate outside of communion with them.