If you read again what I wrote, I never stated that you are a heretic. I suggested that what you promote is proximate to heresy or is heretical. Also, I never even alluded to the notion that if you believe that Bergoglio is a true pope that that makes you a heretic.

This is why I’m convinced that you really don’t understand or don’t want to understand the principles that are at stake here. You seem to have your mind made up, that Bergoglio is the pope, and you are willing to sacrifice any doctrine to make yourself right.

Before we go further, I want you to realize, understand, and acknowledge that there is a distinction of what I wrote in the first paragraph. Will you admit to that?

Of course I understand that, by you saying "what you stated here is proximate to heresy, if not outright heretical" *to me* means that I believe / am preaching heresy = I am guilty of the sin of heresy = I am a heretic - whether you say it plain or not.

Most of my replies to you, far as I remember, are quoted or paraphrased from memory from papal teachings, Fr. Wathen, Fr. Hesse and a few other priests/bishops etc.

The principle I live by and have always lived by is the highest in the Church and is in my sig, every other idea, thought, mention and principle must not put a hole in that principle. The principles you are trying to demonstrate by your questions are a distant second to that principle.

For me, I reduce the issue to the most basic, simplest, and highest principle of the Church, I will always return to that principle as needed to check other principles, meanwhile you're questions completely ignore, or pay zero attention to this principle, as if it's either wrong or does not apply here as you needlessly complicate the whole issue. 

Will you admit to that?

I'm afraid that there's long been confusion about the term "formal heresy".  No, it isn't the equivalent of formal / official condemnation by the Church.  Nor is it an internal forum consideration that's tantamount to being "insincere".  It's often said that those who are "sincere" are not formal heretics ... as a part of the over-200-year-old campaign to gut EENS dogma.

Where it comes to supernatural faith, there are two aspects, the material and the formal.  Material refers to WHAT is believed, and the formal to WHY it's believed.  So the various defined dogmas of the faith are the matter or the material faith.  But these beliefs must be held by a supernatural motive, namely, that of submission in intellect and will to the authority of God revealing through the authority of the Catholic Church.  It is theoretically possible that someone might believe every single teaching of the Church but if they developed these beliefs by their own personal interpretation of the Bible rather than on the authority of the Church's teaching, then they are still formal heretics.  This is also why it's said that if you deny one dogma, you deny them all.  Why?, because you're implicitly rejecting the authority behind that one dogma, which is the same authority behind all dogmas, so you FORMALLY reject all dogma because you reject that which provides the formal motive of faith, the Church's teaching authority.  Formal heresy has nothing to do with sincerity (or, rather, the lack thereof).  So, for instance, you could have someone who is raised Protestant and is perfectly sincere in accepting the Protestant beliefs, but because he doesn't believe what he believes based on the authority of the Church, he's a formal heretic.  Material heretics are those who are only mistaken about some details regarding WHAT the Church teaches, and, as St. Augustine indicates, the litmus test for a material heretics is that, as soon as you explain to them, "No, that's not what the Church teaches, but it's this." the individual immediately retracts it and then accepts the correct teaching.

When individuals attempt to twist the notion of "formal" heresy into "sincerity," they also make it something that's therefore a matter of the internal forum, which can be discerned only by God, and not even by the Church.  Those who demand proof of formal heresy for the V2 Anti-popes deliberately set up a criterion that can never be met, since according to their understanding and definition of formal heresy, it can never be known in the external forum.  This is a ruse used by R&R.

But St. Robert Bellarmine teaches about MANIFEST (pertinacious public) heresy and not FORMAL.  This criterion of "formal" heresy, as falsely re-defined into "sincerity" is nothing but a ruse.  St. Robert Bellarmine explicitly rejects the idea that we are required to or can read hearts in order to ascertain public heresy, but states that we just them heretics according to their works, i.e. their outward actions.

At the end of the day, though, this doesn't matter.  We know that the V2 Papal claimants do not (at least not freely) exercise legitimate papal authority, because the legitimate exercise of papal authority is protected by the Holy Ghost from destroying the Church as badly as has been seen done by the V2 Antipopes.  Perhaps the only possible out from sedevacantism would be to posit that the V2 papal claimants have been blackmailed or otherwise coerced so that their authoritative decisions were not free.  Certainly it's not impossible in the case of a Montini, who very likely was a practicing sodomite and had fallen into the Communist honey trap.  Those who insist that legitimate papal authority can corrupt the Magisterium and the Public Worship of the Church (the Mass), they're in grave danger of losing the Catholic faith and are flirting with Old Catholicism, and in some cases can barely be distinguished therefrom.

I'm afraid that there's long been confusion about the term "formal heresy".  No, it isn't the equivalent of formal / official condemnation by the Church.  Nor is it an internal forum consideration that's tantamount to being "insincere".  It's often said that those who are "sincere" are not formal heretics ... as a part of the over-200-year-old campaign to gut EENS dogma.

Formal or material or just plain stupid - the pope is a heretic. He is guilty of the sin of heresy. He/they made it public so the whole world knows, the problem for some is that there is nothing anyone can do about it..

You are blind. Your understanding of the nature of the Church’s teaching authority is so deficient and grossly warped, one could not without great difficulty say you actually profess the Catholic Faith.
So there you have it. The rule of faith for Catholics is the Magisterium of the Vicar of Christ.

Please change your screen name to: "Your Enemy Colin."

Formal or material or just plain stupid - the pope is a heretic. He is guilty of the sin of heresy. He/they made it public so the whole world knows, the problem for some is that there is nothing anyone can do about it..

I think that almost everyone, on any side of the issue, recognizes that there's nothing any of us can do about it.  Sedeprivationists and R&R would hold that if, out of some miracle, the next guy elected was a Catholic (let's say they miraculously elected +Vigano), then he would be pope.  Some groups of SVs would reject that because, well, none of the current Cardinals are legitimate.  But ultimately God will have to solve this problem.

Of course I understand that, by you saying "what you stated here is proximate to heresy, if not outright heretical" *to me* means that I believe / am preaching heresy = I am guilty of the sin of heresy = I am a heretic - whether you say it plain or not.

Most of my replies to you, far as I remember, are quoted or paraphrased from memory from papal teachings, Fr. Wathen, Fr. Hesse and a few other priests/bishops etc.

The principle I live by and have always lived by is the highest in the Church and is in my sig, every other idea, thought, mention and principle must not put a hole in that principle. The principles you are trying to demonstrate by your questions are a distant second to that principle.

For me, I reduce the issue to the most basic, simplest, and highest principle of the Church, I will always return to that principle as needed to check other principles, meanwhile you're questions completely ignore, or pay zero attention to this principle, as if it's either wrong or does not apply here as you needlessly complicate the whole issue. 

Will you admit to that?

You have deliberately chosen to only cite Fr. Hesse or Fr. Wathen as your sources because you agree with their conclusions. The false teachings of those two priests have absolutely no weight. 

The entire history of the Church, the Popes, the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Theologians, indeed, the entire Catholic Magisterium stands in contradiction to your erroneous beliefs. If you actually had a desire for the truth, and put in a modest degree of effort in research, you would readily see this. 

You have deliberately chosen to only cite Fr. Hesse or Fr. Wathen as your sources because you agree with their conclusions. The false teachings of those two priests have absolutely no weight.

The entire history of the Church, the Popes, the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Theologians, indeed, the entire Catholic Magisterium stands in contradiction to your erroneous beliefs. If you actually had a desire for the truth, and put in a modest degree of effort in research, you would readily see this.

My Enemy Colin, sad to say but you have zero clue. In your quote below of HG, I have been the one in this thread defending this teaching - I have repeated many times: "the pope is infallible when he defines a doctrine concerning faith and morals to be held by the whole Church." Apparently you do not understand what it is you're reading.

"...Criterion of truth for all" = dogma is the rule of faith.

…[T]his sacred Office of Teacher in matters of faith and morals must be the proximate and universal criterion of truth for all theologians, since to it has been entrusted by Christ Our Lord the whole deposit of faith — Sacred Scripture and divine Tradition — to be preserved, guarded and interpreted….

Have a pleasant evening.

Please change your screen name to: "Your Enemy Colin."

Everything I stated is true and I defended the divinely revealed truth concerning the authority of the Church’s Magisterium with her own teachings. 

I provided you with clear cut evidence in an attempt to remove you from the darkness of your errors and to embrace the truth revealed by God and you call me your enemy. 

At this point, as you are obstinate in your errors, YOU, are the enemy of the truth.