Has either John Paul II or Bendict XVI spoke of, taught, or written heresy?

 :roll-laugh1:  LOL  So much for simple yes or no.

Has either John Paul II or Bendict XVI spoke of, taught, or written heresy?

Yup, and so have some of the previous pontiffs in the Church. One, Pope St. Marcellinus, burned incense to pagan idols which is a sin of apostasy. He was never re-elected to the throne.

Those that are ignorant of history can become sedevacantists. Those who know it realize that heresy is not formal unless the Church declares it.

Perhaps, but then the damage was limited as the heresy was not broadcasted endlessly on all the major 24 hour news channels, over radio and "Catholic Networks." So, it was handled before the majority in the Church had been scandalized as we were when Benedict XVI "offered incense" when he appeared with the infidels to bow towards Mecca.

Benedict never offered incense so the comparison doesn't hold. You are wrong and are trying every angle to prove something which doesn't exist.

John XXII denied Franciscan poverty as heretical:
"These troubles among the Franciscans were increased by the quarrel about evangelical poverty which broke out among the Conventuals themselves. The general chapter of Perugia, through their general, Michael of Cesena, and other learned men of the order (including William Occam), defended the opinion of Bérenger Talon, that Christ and His Apostles had no possessions either individually or in common. In 1322 Pope John declared this statement null and void, and in 1323 denounced as heretical the assertion that Christ and the Apostles had no possessions either individually or in common, and could not even legitimately dispose of what they had for personal use. Not only theSpirituals, but also the adherents of Michael of Cesena and William Occam, protested against this decree, whereupon in 1324 the pope issued a new Bull, confirming his former decision, setting aside all objections to it, and declaring those who opposed this decision heretics and enemies of the Church. Summoned to appear at Avignon, Michael of Cesena obeyed the summons, but refused to yield and, when threatened with imprisonment, sought safety in flight. Leaving Avignon on 25 May, 1328, and accompanied by William Occam and Bonagratia di Bergamo, he betook himself to Louis of Bavaria for protection."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08431a.htm

Did this invalidate John XXII? Nope. Strangely, if you read that link you will find an interesting trend. Those that rebelled against John XXII as a heretic named their own pope because they didn't consider him the pope. Now tell me, isn't that awfully familiar? I mean sedes don't name their own pope (although some do) and what has history proven time and time again.

That no member of the clergy or the state has the authority.

Here's more "heresy" by John XXII:

"In the last years of John's pontificate there arose a dogmatic conflict about the Beatific Vision, which was brought on by himself, and which his enemies made use of to discredit him. Before his elevation to the Holy See, he had written a work on this question, in which he stated that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgment. After becoming pope, he advanced the same teaching in his sermons. In this he met with strong opposition, many theologians, who adhered to the usual opinion that the blessed departed did see God before the Resurrection of the Body and the Last Judgment, even calling his view heretical." (Hmm... but the Dominicans who helped the Pope stop his heresy and his heretical teachings still held he was the pope... interesting)

I can find a few other popes if you want me to. Each time there is the same story: Pope commits heresy or apostasy, people fight against him, those that adhere to his authority in office are shown to be loyal sons and daughters of the Church, those that deny his office are found to be heretics by decree of the Church.

I prefer my history over the opinions of people who make good arguments, but not facts, and have found traditionally and historically to be outside the faith.

Interesting choice St.Pope Marcellinus. As they seem to have been rumors at best according to the reading I have done. See here http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09637d.htm. And then there are reports that he repented. So, that would not be as good an example as say, the world seeing John Paul II kiss the Quaran or Benedict XVI bow to Mecca.

It is a fact that he repented and is now a saint praise be to God. Read the description of him in your Missal on his feast day. It's short but good.

The point was he never had to be re-elected to the papacy. We aren't talking about the sins of heresy or apostasy, but whether one loses office from heresy while not having a formal declaration as such. Saints and theologians differ on the issue, but the bottom line is there is no history to suggest your conclusion. None, not a ounce.

My point was that such popes never lost their office and subsequent people who agreed with their loss of office were considered heretics, while those who opposed them were considered friends of the Church.

Take a step back and realize we are not merely dealing with a man whose claims to the office are spurious, but with an entire organization that is a counterfeit.  Why do you think trads of all stripes are where they are?

Quote from: gilbertgea

The answer is not a simple yes or no, because you do not distinguish between the Pope acting in his private capacity, or when speaking infallibly.

Yes, and when acting in a private capacity, he can become a public heretic.  When he does so, he loses his office.

When he uses the public office to spread evil, then we know the entire church he represents is a counterfeit.

It is a simple yes or no.

And some canonists and other theologians disagree with your approach, not to mention history which shows popes teaching heresy and never lost their office while elected.

Gladius Veritatis seems bent upon convincing us that the pope's heresies have automatically deposed him and that the present day church is a counterfeit.  If so, how does that alleged fact affect my Catholic life and commitment?  I try to live the Faith day by day.  I pray.  I say the Rosary.  I hear Mass daily(TLM of course).  I confess my sins regularly and try to do pennance for them.  I give to the parish and help out with its needs as best I can, (never enough of course).  So, I buy into Veritatis' message- What changes?  Assuming he is a sedevacantist, do I drop the SSPX chapel, which I presently attend, and seek out a sede chapel?   What would you advise traditional Catholics to do, Veritatis?