No, I stated that a formal heretic loses his Papacy. He disagreed and said that a Pope could be a heretic. Stop making strawmen and try sticking to the actual argument. If you actually read it at all, you'd see the argument started when he said it doesn't matter if a Pope becomes a heretic, and I responded saying it does because he'd lose his Papacy. We were never arguing about whether or not Francis is a heretic. That would be, as I have already said, a pointless argument until this one was settled first.

Now, do YOU believe a Pope can become a formal heretic at some point after election? And if so, does he retain the Papacy or does he not?

Certainly he can become a formal heretic after election - just look at the conciliar popes, they're all heretics far as I'm concerned. And of course he retains his office of the papacy, the simple reason is that because until the Church declares he lost his office, we are bound to the Church's declaration that he's the pope. That's the way that works - thankfully.

Call me confused. Francis has been smashing the rocks of the shoreline something seriously. He is like a 1000 foot high tsunami wave.
.
So, please bear with me and help my thinking process.
.
1. If Judas who was one of the 12 Apostles could apostatize and betray Christ, is not it reasonable to believe that any sitting pope could fall from the Holy Faith?
.
2. Couldn't popes fall from the Holy Faith if they were to become indifferent and inattentive in their prayer life, publicly preach heresies, fall into serious habitual sins, accept atheism or Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, and/or worse, commit the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit whereby Christ is called the devil or the son of a devil or worked miracles through the devil (a sorcerer)?
.
3. Must Catholics believe that each and every pope of the Roman Catholic Church has been free from heresy?
.
4. Must Catholics believe that the office of the papacy can never err?
.
5. Didn't Vatican I define that the Pope cannot err only when declaring a statement of faith or morals to be infallible?
.
6. Since Francis has not made any "infallible" statements yet, this has yet to be tested. However, if Francis were to canonize a public heretic like Teilhard de Chardin or Martin Luther, then would not this be an "infallible" yet heretical act?
.
7. Certainly not every sitting pope has been canonized a saint, except the modernistic Vatican II popes like JP II and others, but those could be questioned as the fox has been guarding the hen house.

Of course not.

I see. So then the heretical Pope would be without some of the ordinary authority afforded to a Pope. How much of his authority does he lose on account of his apostasy, and how much does he retain?

Pax Said:Forlorn said:The debate is unsettle-able (only God and/or His Church can settle it) and, aside from the interesting debates, is irrelevant to salvation.  None of us (outside of Rome) is responsible for the pope's soul, or his heresy, or the direction of new-rome.  It's our job to love God and do His will.  All else is non-essential.

The Pope in Rome affects the salvation of millions. A heretic on the Throne of St. Peter could lead millions, over a billion even, to damnation. 

And yet God has allowed it.

Do you believe the Francis is a heretic?

I see. So then the heretical Pope would be without some of the ordinary authority afforded to a Pope. How much of his authority does he lose on account of his apostasy, and how much does he retain?

It has nothing to do with the faith of the pope. It has everything to do with the fact that he can't rightly be excommunicated for a crime he didn't commit.

You said God allowed a heretic Pope, implying you believe Francis is a heretic. Why is it so hard for you to clarify your beliefs? It's a very dishonest tactic to be obscurantist in such a way that you can avoid every having to defend your positions.

God has allowed for Pope Francis. What position exactly am I trying to defend? All I know is that the Pope is the pope, despite his errors, which may indeed be heretical. That's not for me to judge. 

It's not all black-and-white. You want us to act as though it's all black-and-white, but it isn't. That's why your questions are not relevant. There have been many Crises in the Church. Often a Crisis is confusing for the laity, and hierarchy too. 

You implied he was a heretic when you said God allowed a heretical Pope to happen. That's why I asked. I'm not being black-and-white about anything. You're just throwing out weasel words, generalisations and ad hominems to attack me for daring to ask you to clarify your cryptic posts. If you want to have a discussion you have to be honest about what you believe. If you don't then you can stop responding to all my posts with cryptobabble so you can predictably attack me again when I ask you to state your position.  

No, I didn't imply that the Pope is a heretic. You said that. Not me. 

I'm still going to respond to your posts. You can put me on "ignore" if you are so bothered by my responses.