Pope Innocent III teaches on the question of a heretic pope.

Who can "cast him out" "or trample him under foot"? Pope Innocent explains the pope has no superior but God, so no person or tribunal on earth possesses jurisdiction over the pope to pronounce a judicial verdict or sentence on the pope. However, the matter does not end there, "because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged" ("if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged.") In such a case, Pope Innocent teaches that such a "pope" is to be rejected by all Catholics because he is an infidel, i.e., "one who does not believe"; and hence: "In such a case it should be said of him: 'If salt should lose its savour, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled underfoot by men'." (Sermo 4) Thus the papal magisterium on the question of a pope who falls into heresy pronounces that such a one is to be rejected outright as a heretic. St. Robert Bellarmine likewise teaches, "A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be pope and head, just as he automatically ceases to be a Christian and a member of the Church." (De Romano Pontifice II.30) Likewise, St. Alphonsus, "If ever a pope," the holy Doctor explains, "should fall into heresy he would at once fall from the pontificate." (Opera 9: 232) It is a moral imperative that such an infidel "pope" be rejected at once, and that the hierarchy and faithful not wait for a future tribulal or a future pope to pronounce a judicial sentence or confirmation, 1) because one who is indeed an infidel must not be professed to be the Vicar of Christ since to so profess is to profess a lie, 2) one who is in fact an infidel must not be given the assent of the intellect to his false doctrines, and, 3) the perverse laws and precepts the infidel enacts must not be obeyed as if they were coming from one who possessed authority. Hence, those who say we must wait for the official judgment of a future pope teach perversely. The fact that Bellarmine is of the opinion that a true pope would not actually be able to fall into heresy is of no practical consequence, since it is possible for a man to appear to be a legitimate pope even when in fact he is not, since it may be argued that a true pope cannot become a heretic, but a manifest heretic is clearly not a pope even if there is some question whether he was ever validly pope or not, since there is no doubt about a manifest heresy of the heretic.

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: 2Vermont

Isn't this basically the same thing that the other thread posted?  Or am I missing something?

I'm really not sure.  I know something was posting something regarding this topic and the Dimond brothers but I do not know who posted first regarding Novus Ordo Watch which I believe has to be one of the better sites out there.  What I particularly like about that site is that the writers are thorough and present undeniable facts while backing it up with authoritative and infallible docuмents that back up their claims.  They have an amazing gift of pointing out the inconsistency and ironies of the "R & R" position and the direct contradiction with doctrine by the false V2 "Popes".

What a bunch of hooplah and confusion. People really take the Dimond brothers seriously here. Really!!! And no one seems to know the actual position taken by Fr. Kramer. Just a bunch of people stating things without even caring to see what Fr. Kramer himself says.  :smash-pc:

Beegoglio = Heretic

"Francis" did in fact make an explicit, direct and univocal denial of solemnly defined dogma in no. 247 of Evangelii Gaudium; when he declared that the Jєωιѕн Covenant, which is exclusively the Mosaic Covenant, has never been revoked. Wojtyla & Ratzinger only referred to the "Old Covenant" which they confusedly and erroneously understood to be comprised of several OT covenants. They never denied, as does Bergoglio, the revocation of specifically the Mosaic Covenant and supercession of it by the New Covenant of Jesus Christ.