CathInfo.com

Angelus, you really have to drop the Canon Law stuff.  You persist in claiming that Jorge's election was illegitimate because Ratzinger did not receive funeral rites (despite being alive), so your grasp of Church law seems suspect at best.

Lad, please just read the laws I have referenced. Make sure you understand how the words are being used in them. I am confident if you do that, you will be able to understand why I say what I have said.

I don't want to argue with you. If think I'm wrong, you are welcome to ignore me. But I actually think we agree on most of the essentials.

But a lie is withholding a truth by word or some other human action (winking, nodding, etc), which one "knows" to be true.  My question is, How does Lad or any other sedevacantist "know" this to be true?  I grant that, were a priest to offer Mass it might trouble his conscience if he highly suspected that Francis is not pope, but included him in the Canon anyway. I do not know that I agree with the "lie" part of your point.  The same argument applies in the other direction for those who suspect that Francis might be pope. Here are a couple of syllogisms as they present themselves to my mind:

M: If Fr A thinks that Francis is pope and he does not include Francis in the Canon, then he betrays his conscience.
m: Fr. A thinks Francis is pope  and includes Francis in the Canon
Ergo: Fr A may or may not betray his conscience (We have denied the conditional antecedent, and therefore we deny the consequent.)  But because one betrays his conscience does not mean that he lies necessarily.  See my example at the bottom.

The rule is, *to affirm the antecedent is to affirm the consequent, but to affirm the consequent is not necessarily to affirm the antecedent. In the first syllogism we are operating contrary to the consequent. I could see where a priest thinks Francis is pope, but decides to not include him in the Canon.  Conditional antecedents get a little tricky.  It is like saying:  If Fr A believes X,Y, and Z, then he is a heretic.  But Fr A only believes X and Y, and not Z.  But Catholics are unanimous that Z is heresy, and they are not sure about X and Y, so now we go back to logic class and rethink our syllogisms. 

M: If Fr B thinks that Francis is not pope and he includes Francis in the Canon, then he betrays his conscience.
m: Fr. B thinks Francis is not pope and includes Francis in the Canon
Ergo: Fr. B betrays his conscience (here we affirm the conditional antecedent, and therefore affirm the consequent) 

But I could see a priest doing this, saying to himself, "Well I do not really think Francis is pope, but will include him in the Canon because it just feels odd not to mention him in the Canon given the fact that the majority of baptized Catholics believe him the pope."  This priest would act contrary to his conscience, but I do not consider it a sin.   

The point is, there are four possibilities:

1. Fr A believes that Francis is pope and includes him in the Canon
2. Fr A believes that Francis is pope and does not include him in the Canon
3. Fr A believes that Francis is not pope and includes him in the Canon
4. Fr A believes that Francis is not pope and does not include him in the Canon

* I can see a priest saying to himself, "Well, I believe Francis is pope and will pray for him privately, when I say my rosary, but since my Mass is a public Mass, I will not include his name in the Canon, because he is a heretic."  I could see a priest also saying, "Well, I believe that Francis is pope, but realize that my congregation does not, so I will not include his name, that way when people ask me, I will tell them 'no, I do not say his name' and not be lying."  I have insisted from the beginning that sedevacantism is not always a simple either/or proposition.  I can also see a priest being prideful, saying to himself, "Well, I don't believe that Francis is pope, and if a person does not agree with me, then he can hit the high road."  I can also see a priest saying, "Look, whether I say the name of Francis in the Canon is strictly between me and God, it is none of your business, go fly a kite."  Most priests announce the Mass intention, but not even this is a moral imperative. Sometimes prudence is in high order.  Just imagine a priest saying, "This Mass intention is for the return to the Faith of Bryan's wife because she is sleeping with the next door neighbor."  It might be true, and the whole parish might know it, but the priest also uses discretion.  I look at this Sede issue the same way.  These people who sit at home and say to themselves, "Well Fr A down the street is validly ordained and says the Latin Mass, but he says the name of Francis in the Canon, so I am just going to sit home on Sunday and pull up YouTube videos of Pius XII saying Mass."  Will this person save his soul should he die on Sunday watching his YouTube video of Pius XII? God will be the judge.     

Francis tomorrow could jump up and say, "Hey, all you Catholics out there, I do not believe in the Immaculate Conception."  For that matter, the antichrist could, together with his ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ boyfriend, come up into the church and get a blessing from "Pope Francis." But not even this would make a pope a non-pope, and it is ridiculous to think otherwise.  All the Catholic world could denounce him as a public, manifest, blatant heretic; but still the point remains, no one can depose him, because deposition is a juridical act.  Hopefully my rambling has made some sense.  At the end of the day I just cannot fathom how any Catholic or collection of Catholics can declare a pope excommunicatus whether he be a true pope or not.