40 Anti Popes In Church History....




St Robert Bellermine
'A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.'
(De Romano Pontifice. II.30. My emphasis)






THE RIGHT TO JUDGE HERESY

CAN PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS RECOGNISE SOMEONE AS A HERETIC BEFORE THE DIRECT JUDGMENT OF THE CHURCH?

"What would be the point of the rule of faith and morals if in every particular case the simple layman could not himself apply them directly?" (Don Felix de Sarda y Salvany: Liberalism is a Sin, Chap. xxxviii, p. 203)


Thesis: Yes, private individuals can recognise someone as a heretic before the direct judgment of the church, on certain conditions, namely:

The false doctrine must be in manifest and direct opposition to a truth that must certainly be believed with divine and Catholic faith.

It must be morally certain that the culprit is aware of the conflict between his opinion and the teaching of the Catholic Church.


The private individual may "judge" that someone is a heretic in the sense of recognising a fact - the epistemological meaning of the word "judge" - and not in the juridical sense of pronouncing a definitive sentence. Hence such judgments can oblige only the conscience of the person forming them, in full awareness of the facts, and no one else.

It is obligatory to incline, out of charity, as far as is reasonably possible, in favour of a suspect, and to reach the conclusion that anyone is a heretic only as a last resort.





Pitfalls to be avoided:


Giving the name "heresy" to an error which is opposed to a doctrine taught by the Church, but not as having to be believed with divine and Catholic faith, or which does not certainly belong in this category;

Giving the name "heresy" to an error which is opposed to a doctrine to be believed with divine and Catholic faith, where the opposition is not direct and manifest but depends on several steps of reasoning: in such cases the qualification "heresy" is not applicable before a definitive judgment on the part of the Church;


Accusing of schism or heresy those who, while not embracing the heresy in question, refuse to accept that it is in fact heretical or to count its devotees as heretics pending the Church's formal judgment;


Affirming that pertinacity is present when other explanations could reasonably be supposed.




Objections:

"A heretical proposition is one which is directly and clearly opposed to a doctrine which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith - the private individual can judge whether or not that is so in a particular case. But the act of heresy, which makes its perpetrator a heretic, requires not only assent to an objectively heretical proposition, but also moral culpability - the conscious rejection of Catholic doctrine on the part of one is not unaware of the duty to accept it. This element is called pertinacity. It exists invisibly in the soul and cannot therefore be the object of the judgment of a private individual who sees only externals."

Answer: As with every other sin, Christians must strive not to attribute the sin of heresy to their neighbour as long as another explanation remains possible. But charity does not require mental gymnastics in order to excuse what is manifest. However, the thesis here defended does not depend on identifying pertinacity as defined by the moralists, but as defined by canonists: conscious rejection of dogma on the part of a baptised person.
This prescinds from the moral order, forming a judgment which need concern only the external forum, yet which has no connection with the error of those who "presume" pertinacity where some other reasonable explanation of the external data remains available, such as simple ignorance or inadvertence. "Obstinacy may be assumed when a revealed truth has been proposed with sufficient clearness and force to convince a reasonable man." (Dom Charles Augustine: A Commentary on Canon Law, Vol. 8, p. 335. See too the present writer's study of the distinction between canonical and theological pertinacity in Heresy, Schism and their Effects (revised).)


"Such a judgment inevitably constitutes a usurpation of the rights of ecclesiastical authority."

Answer: The sentence of ecclesiastical authority resolves doubtful cases and obliges every Catholic to adhere to it. Where the facts admit no doubt, the individual who anticipates the judgment of authority by realising that a given individual is clearly a heretic does no injury to that authority. But he must, of course, distinguish between his private conviction and the official judgment, of which the former is of force only in his own conscience.




Proofs of the Thesis



Denzinger 1105: Pope Alexander VII condemned the statement that one is not obliged to denounce to the authorities someone whom one knows to be certainly a heretic if one does not have strict proof that he is a heretic. This condemnation directly implies that private individuals can sometimes know that someone is a heretic before the authorities of the Church realise this, and even without having strict proof.

St Alphonsus Liguori treats the duty of denouncing heretics even among the members of one's own family. He declares that this duty obliges without exception, but only when the miscreant is truly and formally a heretic and not only suspected or erring in good faith.
This distinction, presented in a clear and detailed manner, would be perfectly otiose if individuals were unable to recognise heretics before the authorities had intervened. So St Alphonsus clearly presumes that individuals can at times distinguish suspicion of heresy from certainty and can recognise the presence or absence of pertinacity. (Theologia Moralis, lib. 5, n. 250)

Canon 1325 gives the classic definition of the word "heretic", taken from St Thomas: "a baptised person who, while continuing to call himself a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts a truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith." Canonists are agreed that the pertinacity in question consists in knowing that the doctrine one denies (or doubts) is taught by the Church as revealed. No other condition, such as authoritative judgment is required to make someone a heretic.

Canon 2314 declares that all heretics incur latae sententiae excommunication. Some other penalties incurred by heretics must be specifically inflicted by the authorities, and only after a warning has proved fruitless, but the excommunication itself is automatically incurred from the very instant that the heresy is externally expressed.

Canon 188/4 declares that if a cleric should publicly fall away from the Catholic faith, all his offices would become vacant ipso facto and without need of official declaration. Canonists agree that this falling away is verified by public heresy as defined in Canon 1325: there is no need to join any particular sect, but only to reject what one knows the Church teaches. Now this canon would be deprived of any meaning or value if no one could recognise the presence of heresy before an official judgment. How could an office become automatically vacant by the very fact of heresy, and without any declaration, if in fact a formal trial and a declaration were necessary to know that anyone was a heretic? What would be the point of advising us of this effect of heresy if no one could ever take account of it in any concrete case?

The meaning of Canon 188/4 is quite clear in itself and requires no commentary to understand it, in accordance with the canonists' axiom: "clara verba non indigent interpretatione sed executione."
Indeed all canonists are unanimous that it means exactly what it says: public heretics forfeit all offices ipso facto and without any need for trial or declaration by anyone. However, Canon 188/4 has never been to object of official interpretation emanating from the Holy See. By contrast, it has a sister-canon - Canon 646/1 n.2, concerning religious life - which has been officially explained and which sheds much light on Canon 188/4 too and on the whole principle according to which private individuals can recognise manifest heretics irrespective of authoritative condemnation. This is because Canon 646/1 n.2 declares that any religious who publicly abandons the Catholic Faith must by that very fact be considered legitimately dismissed.
The second paragraph of the same canon requires that the fact in question (public heresy and consequent automatic dismissal) be declared by the superior. The canonists agree that public abandonment of the Catholic Faith would be fulfilled by any case of public heresy. In view of the second paragraph, the Holy See was consulted as to whether the dismissal was conditional upon the superior's declaration. The Commission for the Interpretation of the Code replied, 30th July 1934, in the negative. The canonist Jone explains that the superior's declaration does not involve any trial and serves simply to make known facts that have already taken effect: the heresy and the dismissal which it produces.

Manifestly, therefore, the superior and the other religious must be able to recognise the fact of heresy in order to draw the practical conclusions that flow from it.


A very large number of theologians have discussed whether a pope could fall into heresy subsequent to his election, and if so what consequences would follow. Their discussion of this hypothesis also sheds light on the effect of public heresy, pending the Church's judgment, when perpetrated by someone of lower rank. A few authors considered that a heretical pope would still have to be recognised as pope by the Church - Cajetan, Suarez, John of St Thomas, Journet and Bouix. But the weight of authority is massively in favour of the opposing view - namely that the miscreant pope would automatically forfeit his office by virtue of the very fact of public heresy and that the faithful would thereby be absolved of all duty of obedience towards him because he would no longer be pope at all.
The principle advanced is that one who is not in the Church, cannot possibly hold office in her, and particularly not be her head. (St Robert Bellarmine, St Alphonsus Liguori, Ballerini, Naz, Billot, Sylvius, Melchior Cano, Wernz-Vidal, et al.)
Now this theological teaching would be worthless and indeed absurd if the faithful were unable, at least sometimes, to recognise heretics and to draw practical consequences from their recognition. St Robert Bellarmine's treatment of this topic in his De Romano Pontifice is of exceptional value and weight. He considers as utterly without theological probability the opposing opinion (i.e. that a manifestly heretical pope - if God permitted such to exist - would not be automatically deprived of all offices, in common with all other manifest heretics). And among the five recognised theological opinions which he lists concerning the case of a heretical pope, the idea that it would be impossible to recognise such a case because pertinacity cannot be known with sufficient certainty does not even figure at all.


St Hypathius, a Bithynian monk of the fifth century, insisted on suppressing the name of Nestorius, the patriarch of Constantinople, from the sacred diptychs from the moment when Nestorius began to preach his heresy, which denied the unity of person in Our Lord.
Hypathius's ordinary, the bishop Eulalius (who was a suffragan of Nestorius), refused Nestorius's heresy, but rebuked the monk for having withdrawn from communion with their patriarch before he had been condemned by a council. Hypathius replied: "I cannot insert his name in the Canon of the Mass, because a heresiarch is not worthy of the title of pastor in the Church; do what you like with me; I am ready to suffer all, and nothing will induce me to change my behaviour." (Petits Bollandistes, 17th June)

St Hypathius's judgment relative to Eulalius seems to be confirmed not only by the approval of the hagiographers, but also by the decree of Pope St Celestine deciding that all of Nestorius's acts were to be considered null from the moment when he began to preach heresy..." for he who had abandoned the Faith by such preaching can neither deprive nor depose anyone." (St Robert Bellarmin: De Romano Pontifice, Cap. XXX) The excesses of one school of traditional Catholics call for a reminder, however, that St Hypathius withdrew from communion only with Nestorius, not with Eulalius also!

It has occurred several times that a saint has suspected a reigning pope of heresy, even to the extent of threatening to withdraw from obedience to him if the pope failed to manifest his orthodoxy by withdrawing the grounds for suspicion. St Bruno, St Hugh of Grenoble and St Godfrey of Amiens all took this attitude towards Pope Pascal II.
Moreover, though St Yvo of Chartres disagreed with his three fellow-saints, the disagreement did not concern the principle of how to react if "the person placed in the chair of Peter...should manifestly depart from the truth of the Gospel" (Patrologia Latina, tom. 162, col. 240), but only the practical question of whether this had in fact happened in Pascal's case.

Holy Scripture often warns us to beware of heretics. It does not seem possible to understand all these texts as referring exclusively to those who have been condemned as such in person by the Church or who belong to sects which are notoriously outside her communion.
(a) The most striking is the passage in St Paul's Epistle to the Galatians: "But though we or an angel from heaven preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.





Pope Paul IV's bull cuм Ex Apostolatus (15th February 1559, Bullarium Romanum vol. iv. sect. i, pp. 354-357) provides that if ever the cardinals should elect as pope someone who was guilty of prior heresy, the election would be simply null and the faithful would have the entire right to withdraw from obedience to the person elected, as he would not be their head.
 Historians inform us that this bull, in the mind of Pope Paul IV, aimed particularly at excluding the possibility that after his death the conclave might elect Cardinal Morone, widely believed to be a heretic, but never condemned by the Church. Hence the bull clearly admits that the faithful in such a case (of any rank) could recognise the presence of heresy and withdraw from obedience to the "pope" infected thereby, without waiting for an official judgment.

You present us with undeniable facts - yet people continue to deny them.  Even people that appear to be of good will.  My question is WHY do these people deny these facts?  Can anyone help me out?  Is it as simple as they cannot accept (for whatever reason) that we have been without a Pope for so long?

“Prima Sedes a nemo judicatur” or “The First See is judged by no one" sums it up imo.

Personally, I think it a colossal waste of time and energy to bash the pope, or non-pope if you will.

Because 1) popolaters(?) will pay no heed whatsoever, 2) sede's or those "on the fence" will (presumably) live the faith according to tradition as best as they can regardless if the seat is vacant or not so who cares if the seat is vacant or not in that regard, 3) trads who believe the pope is the pope albeit a bad pope also will live their lives according to the true faith regardless - and 4) NOers, for the most part I think fall into the whole popolatry category any way - so I don't think the vast majority of them will ever be convinced either.

Since there really is no way to be sure one way or the other, IMO it's better to err on the side of caution by not bashing what may well be Christ's Vicar............which is not to say his anti-Catholic actions should not be broadcast for the benefit of souls, but for anyone to proclaim that the seat is vacant is not allowed for the simple fact that if it were allowed, there would be nothing to stop people from declaring the seat is vacant when there is a good pope in it!

Quote from: Lover of Truth

You present us with undeniable facts - yet people continue to deny them.  Even people that appear to be of good will.  My question is WHY do these people deny these facts?  Can anyone help me out?  Is it as simple as they cannot accept (for whatever reason) that we have been without a Pope for so long?

“Prima Sedes a nemo judicatur” or “The First See is judged by no one" sums it up imo.

Personally, I think it a colossal waste of time and energy to bash the pope, or non-pope if you will.

Because 1) popolaters(?) will pay no heed whatsoever, 2) sede's or those "on the fence" will (presumably) live the faith according to tradition as best as they can regardless if the seat is vacant or not so who cares if the seat is vacant or not in that regard, 3) trads who believe the pope is the pope albeit a bad pope also will live their lives according to the true faith regardless - and 4) NOers, for the most part I think fall into the whole popolatry category any way - so I don't think the vast majority of them will ever be convinced either.

Since there really is no way to be sure one way or the other, IMO it's better to err on the side of caution by not bashing what may well be Christ's Vicar............which is not to say his anti-Catholic actions should not be broadcast for the benefit of souls, but for anyone to proclaim that the seat is vacant is not allowed for the simple fact that if it were allowed, there would be nothing to stop people from declaring the seat is vacant when there is a good pope in it!

If Tradition is our guide and teacher, then its very clear.
Its not a case of 'bad Pope' its a case of Manifest Heretic Pope. JP2 the Khazar and ѕуηαgσgυє visiting Pope and Paul V1 allowing Jєωs at Vatican 2 speak to the obvious.


Canon LXV of the Holy Apostles:
"If any clergymen, or laymen, enter a ѕуηαgσgυє of Jєωs, or of heretics, to pray, let him be both deposed and excommunicated."



Canon XLV of the Holy Apostles
"Let any Bishop, or Presbyter, or deacon that merely joins in prayer with heretics be suspended, but if he had permitted them to perform any service as Clergymen, let him be deposed."






How dare Christians have the slightest intercourse with Jєωs, those most miserable of all men. They are lustful, rapacious, greedy, perfidious bandits -- pests of the universe! Indeed, an entire day would not suffice to tell of all their rapine, their avarice, their deception of the poor, their thievery, and their huckstering.
Are they not inveterate murderers, destroyers, men possessed by the devil? Jєωs are impure and impious, and their ѕуηαgσgυє is a house of prostitution, a lair of beasts, a place of shame and ridicule, the domicile of the devil, as is also the soul of the Jєω. As a matter of fact, Jєωs worship the devil: their rites are criminal and unchaste; their religion a disease; their ѕуηαgσgυє an assembly of crooks, a den of thieves, a cavern of devils, an abyss of perdition! Why are Jєωs degenerate? Because of their hateful assassination of Christ. This supreme crime lies at the root of their degradation and woes.
The rejection and dispersion of the Jєωs was the work of God, not of emperors. It was done by the wrath of God and because of His absolute abandonment of the Jєωs. Thus, the Jєω will live under the yoke of slavery without end.

God Hates the Jєωs, and on Judgment Day He will say to those who sympathize with them., "Depart from Me, for you have had intercourse with My murderers!" Flee, then, from their assemblies, fly from their houses, and, far from venerating the ѕуηαgσgυє, hold it in hatred and aversion.
~ St. John Chrysostom

If Tradition is our guide and teacher, then its very clear.
Its not a case of 'bad Pope' its a case of Manifest Heretic Pope. JP2 the Khazar and ѕуηαgσgυє visiting Pope and Paul V1 allowing Jєωs at Vatican 2 speak to the obvious.

There is absolutely no doubt about it - tradition certainly is our guide, as such, traditionally, laymen or clergy regardless of rank - alone or all together -  have never had the authority to declare the seat empty for either a good pope or a heretical pope.  

So what gives with today's lay folk's attempt at making any such nontraditional declaration while saying that they are "using tradition as their guide"?

If you truly use tradition as your guide, you certainly will never be guided into sedevacantism because it is not found anywhere in tradition.

Again, I am not sticking up for the heretical things done by the pope or non-pope if you please - I simply understand that other than praying for his conversion, we - as in "all" of us - are powerless to do anything about it. That is how it works with  monarchies.

What needs to be clarified for some, I believe, is that a public heresy (which can be judged in the objective realm by any who know the Catholic faith) automatically prevents one from obtaining, or makes one who up until that time occupied an ecclesiastical office, automatically lose it.

Here's the thing, I'm not a sede, yet I don't disagree with what you've posted. The point is, is that there are many people who can, and have on this very forum, refute your conclusion on many levels. I will not try to refute your opinion on the papacy, as I am completely unstudied enough to even try, but I am intelligent enough to have read arguments and know that your opinion remains an opinion, and is not as conclusive or clear as some might make it seem. Please read carefully,  I do not say I cannot see what the pope does or doesn't or that his actions aren't heretical, but I speak to te conclusion one comes to regarding his office. And lets not forget, no one is bound to form such an opinion; it is not important  in the sense that it has no bearing on ones salvation,  per se. It also has nothing  to do wit wanting to know or not; as if holding the sedevecantist is somehow haran living a fully Catholic live without holding sedevecantist that opinion.

Quote from: Lover of Truth

What needs to be clarified for some, I believe, is that a public heresy (which can be judged in the objective realm by any who know the Catholic faith) automatically prevents one from obtaining, or makes one who up until that time occupied an ecclesiastical office, automatically lose it.

Here's the thing, I'm not a sede, yet I don't disagree with what you've posted. The point is, is that there are many people who can, and have on this very forum, refute your conclusion on many levels. I will not try to refute your opinion on the papacy, as I am completely unstudied enough to even try, but I am intelligent enough to have read arguments and know that your opinion remains an opinion, and is not as conclusive or clear as some might make it seem. Please read carefully,  I do not say I cannot see what the pope does or doesn't or that his actions aren't heretical, but I speak to te conclusion one comes to regarding his office. And lets not forget, no one is bound to form such an opinion; it is not important  in the sense that it has no bearing on ones salvation,  per se. It also has nothing  to do wit wanting to know or not; as if holding the sedevecantist is somehow haran living a fully Catholic live without holding sedevecantist that opinion.

Hello s2srea,

I like your posts and know you to be of good will.  I did not like how everyone was giving you a thumbs down and thought you handled that in a very Christian way.  I have very much respect for you and I wish all were as intellectually as honest as you.  I get the feeling if SV could be proven (in your mind) beyond a reasonable doubt that you would accept it.  I get the feeling others would not because they believe what they want to believe.

I did not want to be an SV.  I did not want to think that "the Pope is not the Pope".  It was the last thing I even considered as I was trying to figure out whether an officially approved council could teach error or heresy, whether the Catholic Church could officially approve "incentives to impiety" such as the new mass, or approve "doubtful and invalid sacrament" or "heretical law".  Remember at first I was just blaming the council without considering who approved it.  It was blaming the bishops for not enforcing proper liturgy, when the liturgy itself, approved by the "Pope" was defective.  I thought JP2 received cow dung on his head from a witch and kissed the koran because he was nice and didn't want to offend anyone and did not realize that the Catholic faith forbids doing such things.  I did not blame the Pope for approving canon law that allows non-Catholics to receive the Eucharist though that is what he did.  I did not blame the Pope for allowing the exorcism rite to be watered down or for allowing the Church to approve a valid consecration without any consecration formula in a schismatic liturgy.  

It is only when I looked to the very top, where the buck stops, that I started to wonder about the Pope himself.  Did I mention the pedophilia thing and how even the Pope protected Cardinal Law and others and minimalized it, how he allowed altar girls and so on.  If valid Popes can do all this and maintain all this my question is:

WHY HAVE A POPE IN THE FIRST PLACE?

That is not to yell but to direct people's attention to a very valid point.  Yet all this is secondary to the fact that Divine Law teaches that a public heretic cannot be Pope.

You mention this is refuted but do not show me where.  And though I do not doubt that you mean what you say, just saying it without providing the proof is not really constructive to a fruitful conclusion.  

So really your objections begs the question as you say I (actually Saint Robert Bellarmine, Pope Paul IV, and all the qualified theologians who spoke to the issue) am refuted on many levels but do not even summarize how or why.  

Please correct me if I am wrong s2srea but it seems a summary of your response would be "you could be wrong, though I am not sure why, and besides it does not really matter who is wrong on the issue as we can all be good Catholics regardless of what we think about the issue".

I'm not sure how to respond because you have not given me a refutation to respond to.

That being said accepting a non-Catholic as Pope has eternal consequences for souls.  Obeying and accepting what a true Pope binds on the Church, (Mass, sacraments, canon law, a council) is mandatory for salvation.  That means most of us on this site are going to Hell, at least if we were to take subjective culpability out of the equation.  That is not a risk we should be willing to take.  “Oh, I could be wrong, but if I am I am not culpable.”  Are you sure?  You had better be.  If you think you could be wrong it is incuмbent on you to try your best, as your state in life allows, to get it right.  What I mean is that since our eternal salvation depends on submission to valid Popes, and we do not submit, then we are going to Hell, so long as we are aware of this fact and do so knowingly.  

It is a most important topic.  The recognize and resisters teach a schismatic attitude, and have done so for over 40 years now, that we all can and should disobey and ignore the Pope.  He says this mass is good.  Who cares?  He says that mass is not authorized because it is not under a diocesan bishop.  Who cares?  He says the invalid sacraments are valid.  Who cares, it is only our salvation right?  He says intrinsic truths can be changed due to circuмstances?  Who cares?  He kisses the Koran and worships with heretics?  Who cares? He's still the Pope right?  He lets the Devil off the hook by watering down the exorcism rite.  Who cares?  It does not matter if he is Pope or not right?  Sure the conciliar imposters have led billions to Hell but who cares?  It does not matter what we think on the topic.

He has us pray to "canonized" saints in Hell because after all, they are canonized right?  Who cares?  He is still the Pope right?  And even if he isn't it doesn't matter.  Tell that to the droves of religious and laity who had enough sensus catholicus to leave the Church in droves in the 60's and 70's; but with the result being that they lost the faith entirely, yet it doesn't matter if we realize the imposter is Pope or not?  Think of all those who do not have the ordinary means of sanctifying grace through the valid sacraments because of the heretical “popes”.  But that does not matter?

Can you see the Devil's hand in all this s2srea?

I say all this with all due respect to a man of good will whom I admire.  I have always believed that the sincere and the humble will be led to truth so long as they seek it and you are sincere in humble in my estimation.  

Perhaps people like me with my bluntness turn people off, because they feel I have slighted them, which is not what intended to do at all.  Perhaps I have the opposite effect of what I wish to have.  

But don't take it from me.  Take it from Saint Robert Bellarmine.  There are sites with a plethora of teachings from the ordinary magisterium on the topic.  It truly is undeniable.  

We are only obliged to believe and to submit to what has been bound on the Church up until 1958.  And no one bound us to believe the future "Popes" would not be Popes.  That is granted.  My concern is for the willfully blind which I do not think you are.  Many people believe what they want to believe.  Culpable ignorance can lead to damnation as it can lead to disobeying he who one believes (albeit falsely) to be a legitimate authority.  This is a damnable offense, and if one could have known better but refused to accept the fact that a public heretic cannot be Pope merely because it took him out of his comfort zone (I'll have to go to another Church, I'll have to stay at home, I'll have to take my children out of R&R school, what will others think of me) much as some do not accept the teaching against conception prevention because it goes against their lifestyle and takes them way out of their lifestyle.

So you see why I would like to see an actual refutation rather than so okay it doesn't matter whether people believe a non-Catholic can be the head of the Catholic Church or not.  It does matter.  It matters very much.  Our faith was built on the rock of Peter.  Not on the shifting sands of heresy.  

God bless you s2srea.

If you are doing what you believe is correct and are doing your best to have an informed conscience you should be in good shape.  Others would not have responded or given an uncharitable response.  This is what seperates you from others I have encountered.

It is interesting that our beliefs are conditioned by whatever Priest happens to be near where we live.  I know of a couple that was SV in the SSPV but changed their opinion when they moved to our parish because of that Priest's opinion.  

How I wish we lived in times when all good Priests agreed!

One of the biggest problems in the traditional movement is lack of charity.  I can safely say that you are not part of that problem.  I have been more of a problem in that realm than others.  I can look up to you in this aspect.  

Thank you for not taking my comments personally or being offended.

May God bless you and Mary keep you,
LoT

I agree, on the facts that there is no pope at this time.  Call it what it is.  One more fact to add is the definition of infallibility.  I think that we need to read that well.  When infallibility's definition was agreed upon at Vatican 1  it showed that a Pope, if elected (not in heresy) was not in heresy speaking against the doctrines and dogmas of the church.  BUT is was proven that one could be a heretic and invalidly elected Pope.  That is what we have.  Popes do sin, any sin.  Some people may think this is one sin they can not do, heresy.  Of course they can. If a cardinal is a manifest heretic, he is not eligible to be elected for Pope.  A pope must be catholic.  I do think that some people may think that this pope is not manifest.  He is.  We can judge, for Our Lord said, "You will know them by their fruits."

Well said. I completely agree with everything you say. One of the better posts I have read in awhile.

pax