I really hate to step in to this kind of argument, but I *have* to interject --

Um.... that's not what "formal heresy" means. Your explanation SOUNDS good all right, I'll give you that. But with all due respect, it is the classic kind of error an "armchair theologian" makes.

What you describe is an "obstinate or incorrigible material heretic". Not a formal heretic.

A formal heretic is one who has been FORMALLY condemned for heresy. And part of that condemnation is an excommunication from the Church. That also normally takes place after some kind of canonical trial -- every condemned/excommunicated FORMAL heretic gets his day in court first. The Church is fair.

The Church also makes it clear -- it doesn't leave laymen to decide if this or that person is a formal heretic or not. Otherwise people could argue all the time about this-or-that person being a heretic. In the olden days, that would involve matters of secular authority as well, when all of Europe was Catholic.

See, if we talked about excommunicating someone, we'd instinctively agree that laymen can't do that. But we can say "he's a formal heretic if he's corrected and doesn't acknowledge his error" -- that sounds somewhat believable.

Part of the Crisis in the Church is the fact that "The first chair is judged by no one" or however that expression goes. There is no one above the Pope to keep him in check -- or excommunicate him.

You are using "formal" as a synonym for what the Church calls a "declared" heretic.

I am using the term "formal" as "intention" which Aquinas explains in the following passage:

https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.II-II.Q10.A5.Rep1

Reply Obj. 1: The formal aspect of a sin can be considered in two ways. First, according to the intention of the sinner, in which case the thing to which the sinner turns is the formal object of his sin, and determines the various species of that sin. Second, it may be considered as an evil, and in this case the good which is forsaken is the formal object of the sin; which however does not derive its species from this point of view, in fact it is a privation. We must therefore reply that the object of unbelief is the First Truth considered as that which unbelief forsakes, but its formal aspect, considered as that to which unbelief turns, is the false opinion that it follows: and it is from this point of view that unbelief derives its various species. Hence, even as charity is one, because it adheres to the Sovereign Good, while there are various species of vice opposed to charity, which turn away from the Sovereign Good by turning to various temporal goods, and also in respect of various inordinate relations to God, so too, faith is one virtue through adhering to the one First Truth, yet there are many species of unbelief, because unbelievers follow many false opinions.

You are using "formal" as a synonym for what the Church calls a "declared" heretic.

I am using the term "formal" as "intention" which Aquinas explains in the following passage:

We cannot judge the intention, Angelus, that is the issue. It requires admonitions from the authority to demonstrate pertinacity to make that formal intention manifest. St Robert Bellarmine holds that authority to be a Council. But here again, the issue is not settled and so it is not for us to create a new dogma obliging Catholics. Let us adhere to what is certain.

"One cannot tolerate that a personal thesis be presented as confirmed and Church-defined dogmas in books, nor that the opposite thesis be accused of heresy. Thus the people of God is troubled, dissentions among theologians are created or augmented, and the bond of charity is broken." - Pope Benedict XIV, Sollicita n25

As Fr Chazal says in Contra Cekadam: "The practical behaviour of Catholics does not depend in any way on an opinion. What you say as a private person is not a dogma... and before Vatican II no dogma on this intricate, controversial and until then academic question had ever been formulated. On the contrary, with the exception of the time of Gratian, the constant unanimity was that there is no unanimity on this question."

The real problem is that -- regardless of who is or is not the legitimate head of the society that purports to be the Catholic Church --  a society that is supposed to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, the spotless Bride of Christ, without blemish and the single, solitary means of sanctification and salvation is, and has been for several decades, naught but a source of confusion, spiritual destruction, endless scandal, etc.  Whether he is or is not legitimate, solving that issue doesn't alter the cold, hard, unspeakably-sad fact that what used to be Holy Mother Church has, to all appearances, become an absolutely shameless harlot leading millions to eternal misery.

Address that.


Today's epistle addresses it in a different way:

2 Thessalonian 2:3-8: Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, [4] Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God. [5] Remember you not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

[6] And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. [7] For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. [8] And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of His mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming.

Well, the pope is not our rule of faith, dogma is. Dogma is divinely revealed truth, it is the truth that is constant, that never changes, truth is what binds us all, even popes. 

One of the things I don't understand is how sedes insist that the pope is their rule of faith, at the same time insist there is no pope. What happened to their rule? What happened to their faith? What happened to truth and dogma?

Outside of the fact that what you stated here is proximate to heresy, if not outright heretical, you asked “what happened to their rule?” It is the same thing that happens to our “rule” when a pope dies and we are in a state of interregnum.

You embrace error just so you can say that the swine in white is the reigning pope. You have nothing to do with him and you ignore everything he teaches you, but as long as he wears white and 99.9% of nonbelievers call him “the pope”, you believe it and you feel safe.

Incidentally, is it one of your dogmas that he is a real pope or is it doubtful he is the pope?

Fr Hesse, who has read a great many of ABL's sermons and such, concluded it safest to name the pope in the Canon, considering the judgment of God on his soul to be more severe if the pope (JPII at the time) really was pope and he didn't name him, vs the other way around.

He also taught that formal heresy of the pope would be known by the pope saying what the church has taught, but saying that he teaches differently.

If someone can converse with Pope Francis and get him to admit his belief that the church taught one thing, and admit his teaching or belief in something contrary, then you've got him in formal heresy, as best as I understand it. The the question is, who's going to do anything worth while about that formal heresy? Who's going to elect a non heretic pope to replace him? At least clear formal heresy would make it a lot easier for many to become sedevacantists.

Fr Hesse, who has read a great many of ABL's sermons and such, concluded it safest to name the pope in the Canon, considering the judgment of God on his soul to be more severe if the pope (JPII at the time) really was pope and he didn't name him, vs the other way around.

He also taught that formal heresy of the pope would be known by the pope saying what the church has taught, but saying that he teaches differently.

If someone can converse with Pope Francis and get him to admit his belief that the church taught one thing, and admit his teaching or belief in something contrary, then you've got him in formal heresy, as best as I understand it. The the question is, who's going to do anything worth while about that formal heresy? Who's going to elect a non heretic pope to replace him? At least clear formal heresy would make it a lot easier for many to become sedevacantists.

But that did happen, many times, Ratzinger stated it cannot be expected of the Eastern Schismatics to accept Vatican I and both him and Wojtyla promomted the Vatican-Lutheran agreement which states the canons of Trent no longer apply. That's blatant heresy and directly acknowledging that what was dogmatically taught before need not be accepted now.

If someone can converse with Pope Francis and get him to admit his belief that the church taught one thing, and admit his teaching or belief in something contrary, then you've got him in formal heresy, as best as I understand it. The the question is, who's going to do anything worth while about that formal heresy? Who's going to elect a non heretic pope to replace him? At least clear formal heresy would make it a lot easier for many to become sedevacantists.

I don't see any reason to "become sedevacantist." I mean, aside from separating myself from non-sedevacantists and maybe joining the others who've done the same, declare "I'm a sedevacantist" and stop praying for the man, what would be the point?

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but....
Fr. Hesse first admits that someone of higher authority needs to officially declare the pope lost his office.
He then said that there is no authority on earth able to officially declare that the pope lost his office.
Then he said that before he could go sede that he would need scientific, indisputable and absolute proof he is no longer pope, and that if he had that proof he would then join the sedevacantists.
It sounds to me that he really does not need that authority that he said was needed, which is to say because there is no authority, all he needs is proof meeting his criteria, then he becomes that authority he said was needed - which is already the exact same path taken by the sedes.   

I dunno, to me and many other trads, dealing with this issue is nothing more than the most basic, fundamental Catholic theology: The pope / man called pope is a heretic, as such we cannot obey or follow him in his heresies regardless of whether or not he is the pope, or whether he lost his office. So what's the point, what is the advantage of becoming sedevacantist?