In my example, I didn't say the pope was a heretic, but his actions DEAL with heresy.  There's a difference.  I'm not talking about a manifest heretic, but a formal one.  Secondly, a destroyer pope, by definition, HAS INTENT TO DESTROY.  I think you're trying to minimize the intent here, by saying that it only means that the pope was telling kids it's ok to eat candy, even if their parents said no, or some other lesser offense.  Notice Bellarmine didn't say "destroy morals", which would deal with sin and not heresy.  He said 'destroy the church' which implies the pope is trying to destroy the liturgy, doctrine or other teachings.

I say we must interpret Bellarmine as the word 'destroy' is properly understood - 'to put an end to something by damaging or attacking it.  To ruin it.  To defeat it.'

Notice that the definition does not mean 'change' or 'alter'.  I interpret DESTROYER to mean a pope who is out to ATTACK church doctrine, or at least cause confusion.  

We know that freemasons have infiltrated the church and they started waaaay back in the mid 1800s.  We know that it is rumored that certain V2 popes were masons, but not all of them were.  We also know that satan and the masons know their limits and God will not allow them to destroy the church.  But, they can inflict damage.  So, can we not imagine the scenario where a pope tries to destroy the church by ambiguities, confusion, etc without changing doctrine, but simply by minimizing truth, promoting lukewarmness and APPEARING to promote evil, all the while, TECHNICALLY they didn't change church teaching?  The devil is a master of technicalities, of confusion and of 'toeing the line'.  My opinion is that this exactly describes the situation we are living in today.

A destroyer pope could intend, more than anyone has ever intended in the history of the world, to completely humiliate and obliterate God's Church.  So long as his intention to do so and his methods do not sever him from the Church through heresy, schism, or apostasy, he's still pope.  And we know that whatever Bellarmine thinks makes a pope a "destroyer" does not include him being a manifest heretic.  
.
We don't care about formal heretics, we care about manifest (public) ones.  That's the distinction that matters for whether or not someone belongs to the Church, as manifest heretics-- whether formal or material-- do not belong to her.  There's a reason that Avinger hasn't replied to me, because he's not going to find any teachers who say that manifest heretics belong to the Church under any condition. 
.
I think that you are trying to answer the question of whether or not Francis has committed a sin.  That really doesn't matter, although it sure seems that he has no defense of ignorance since his training and exposure to the Catholic faith far surpasses anything that any of us have experienced.  Clerics don't get a pass for ignorance.  But it doesn't matter at the end of the day, because the distinction between whether he's a formal or a material heretic isn't a distinction that will tell us whether or not he is a Catholic, it's one that will tell us whether or not he's guilty before God, and that isn't really any of our concern.  Catholics are those who belong to the Catholic Church, incorporated at baptism and maintained by the profession of faith (and the absence of severance through heresy, apostasy, schism, or excommunication).  They can do a lot of really, really, really evil things and still be Catholic.  A pope can sacrifice infants to a goat's skull and participate in Satanic orgies in private and remain pope so long as he professes the faith outwardly.  He can be the most rotten person to ever have lived. We don't judge whether or not someone is a Catholic based on some gradation of good or evil committed.
.
You see, this is all true because of the nature of the Church.  She is a visible unity of faith.  That being the case, it is impossible for someone who publicly professes something alien to belong to her.  That is why the material/formal distinction is not used in this case.  The material/formal distinction tells us whether or not someone is guilty of some thing or another before God.  We don't care about that.  We want to know if they belong to the Church.

Stubborn, would you agree that there are prerequisites for a man to be elected pope?

The man elected by the college of cardinals obviously met the prerequisites. So says Popes Pius X and XII.
Absolutely nothing complicated here at all.

In my example, I didn't say the pope was a heretic, but his actions DEAL with heresy.  There's a difference.  I'm not talking about a manifest heretic, but a formal one.  Secondly, a destroyer pope, by definition, HAS INTENT TO DESTROY.  I think you're trying to minimize the intent here, by saying that it only means that the pope was telling kids it's ok to eat candy, even if their parents said no, or some other lesser offense.  Notice Bellarmine didn't say "destroy morals", which would deal with sin and not heresy.  He said 'destroy the church' which implies the pope is trying to destroy the liturgy, doctrine or other teachings.

I say we must interpret Bellarmine as the word 'destroy' is properly understood - 'to put an end to something by damaging or attacking it.  To ruin it.  To defeat it.'

Notice that the definition does not mean 'change' or 'alter'.  I interpret DESTROYER to mean a pope who is out to ATTACK church doctrine, or at least cause confusion.  

We know that freemasons have infiltrated the church and they started waaaay back in the mid 1800s.  We know that it is rumored that certain V2 popes were masons, but not all of them were.  We also know that satan and the masons know their limits and God will not allow them to destroy the church.  But, they can inflict damage.  So, can we not imagine the scenario where a pope tries to destroy the church by ambiguities, confusion, etc without changing doctrine, but simply by minimizing truth, promoting lukewarmness and APPEARING to promote evil, all the while, TECHNICALLY they didn't change church teaching?  The devil is a master of technicalities, of confusion and of 'toeing the line'.  My opinion is that this exactly describes the situation we are living in today.

 
Pax,
 
I have to say that Mithrandylan is spot on with his replies here. What you are desperately trying to do is make the quotes you posted earlier on resisting a sinful Pope also apply to a heretical Pope, and your argument is falling flat. Why are you ignoring the quotes from the Church on heretical Popes here as if they don't exist? These quotes say something entirely different than the quotes you presented. I think it's obvious why you are ignoring those quotes; because acknowledging them will make you a sedevacantist.
 

Do the popes decree the man elected is instantly the pope or does it not? Do the popes decree at that instant he has the full authority of the pope or not?

Sedevacantists were not consulted to pre-approve any candidates or any part of the electoral process, or to scrutinize prerequisites - and neither are non-sedevacantists consulted, neither are bishops, neither are heads of state consulted nor theologians nor seminary professors, it is entirely up to the cardinals. The cardinals, who btw have all been personally appointed by previous popes mainly for the very purpose of electing the next pope, it is their business not ours, to actually make any and all - or none if they so choose -  determinations and scrutinzations while they elect the next pope.

Again, there is absolutely nothing complicated here at all.  

.
Oh Stubborn get real.  Does a man have to be a Catholic or not to be pope?  You're the one trying to muddy the waters with evasive answers and second grade copy-pastes from texts that were provided by people you abhor. 

You just flagrantly ignore what true popes (Pius X and XII in this case) decreed as you twist teachings into oblivion as a matter of habit.

Never mind other subjects you think I am wrong on. We are talking THIS subject, and you flagrantly contradict just what I said you do. Turning and pointing your finger at me is not a defense to what I said your problem is here.

There is nothing complicated about a pope becoming a manifest heretic and automatically ceasing to be pope and Catholic. These are the fully approved Catholic quotes you trash, and you don't seem to care a bit. The idea that you are smarter than St. Francis de Sales and papally approved quotes, is definitively arrogance and stubborn-ness.

Always remember that there are no Church teachings which in any way vindicate sedevacantism. Also, if you think there are Church teachings which you think actually do vindicate sedevacantism, then always remember that in order for you to think that way, you are twisting the meaning of a teaching of the Church into something it does not teach. 

Any so-called clergy by they New Order that say the adulterated mass, are publicly heretics!  No Precious Blood, heretics.  No valid orders, heretics and this pope is in this category.  Who votes for the pope?  Masons? and so we get a mason for pope. You will know them by their fruits, "Christ"

Bergoglio is mason 32°. In Argentina We know it !!!