And the real issue isn't even whether some pope has spouted some heresy on some occasion.  The issue is, is Vatican II the Catholic religion or is it the Great Apostasy we've all been warned about?

Agreed. I said this somewhere else too (maybe even in this thread).  Bennyvacantists take us off course with focusing solely on the heresy or the "lack of consent" of Bergoglio.  Makes one wonder.

Agreed.  That's my major objection to Bennyvacantism.  As +Vigano rightly stated, Bergoglio is merely the inevitable metastasis of the Conciliar Revolution, i.e. and effect of it rather than the cause.  There's this undercurrent in that movement where if only we had Ratzinger back all our problems would be solved.  No, Roncalli, Montini, Wojtyla, and Ratzinger were all part of the problem, not part of the solution.

‘Satan uniquely entered the Catholic Church at some point over the last century, or even before. For over a century, the organizers of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, Liberalism, and Modernism infiltrated the Catholic Church in order to change her doctrine, her liturgy and her mission from something supernatural to something secular.’

(Taylor Marshall, LifeSiteNews, October 4, 2019.)

Modernism began when from 1741 to 1835 Pope Benedict XIV, Pope Pius V and Pope Gregory XVI all agreed that the long condemned fixed-sun interpretation of Scripture was proven true by science so could no longer be forbidden in the Church. In other words, thereafter, every pope went along with their predecessors' contradiction of Holy Scripture entered into heresy. Pius X included, as he allowed his Pontifical Academy to promote the long held heresy condemned by all the Fathers. Once the supernatural creation was abandoned for a natural one, another long condemned heresy, the Nebular theory was never condemned, not even by Pius X, nothing could stop Modernism that caused millions of souls to be lost and the Church ending up as it is today, almost gone on Earth. Christianity is a supernatural religion and once it was dragged down to one based on the same theories of origins held by atheists, Catholic faith diminished slowly thereafter. the amount of Catholic doctrine that was changed by popes to accord with secular theories has to be seen to be believed.

However, the Catholic Church makes a distinction between material and formal heresy. Material heresy means in effect ‘holding erroneous doctrines through no fault of their own’ due to inculpable ignorance, in this case they believed that the subject matter of Scripture had been resolved by science, so ‘is neither a crime nor a sin’ since the individual made the error in good faith.

Now we know the Bible tells us that Satan is the 'Father of Lies.' Proof of that is how he fooled popes into allowing a heresy loose within the womb of the Church on the basis of an illusion, one that they would never admit to not even after Einstein in 1905 told the world the moving-sun of the Bible was never proven wrong. Pope Francis is just another 'material heretic' who told us God is not a magician, he cannot just wave a wand and make a finished universe appear. Francis is merely a result of the Modernism, a preference for a natural creation instead of a Supernatural Creation introduced into the Church since 1820, one every pope since has gone along with.

Both E & S are in 2 types of motion-- rotational & lateral. Both Helio & Geo-Centrism are false scientifically. E is the center of the Universe in a spiritual sense because of the presence of Jesus regardless of it's physical location.

I am surprised that no one has mentioned The Bull of Pope Paul IV-- Cuм Apostolic Ex, which is the strongest docuмent expelling a Pope( even if he be legally elected) from the Church for committing manifest heresy.

It should also be noted that there are some in the Forum who do not recognise any of the v2 anti-popes.

Agreed.  That's my major objection to Bennyvacantism.  As +Vigano rightly stated, Bergoglio is merely the inevitable metastasis of the Conciliar Revolution, i.e. and effect of it rather than the cause.  There's this undercurrent in that movement where if only we had Ratzinger back all our problems would be solved.  No, Roncalli, Montini, Wojtyla, and Ratzinger were all part of the problem, not part of the solution.

I agree that Bergoglio is merely the inevitable metastasis of the conciliar revolution... but it still does not change the facts. If we had Pope Benedict XVI back all would not be well, I have never thought that... but it'd be a start.

You say they were part of the problem... irrelevant, the only question is whether they were validly elected, I could work with and pray for a legitimate successor to St Peter, not with a usurper. That is the keynote difference.

God Bless

::dips toe into water::

I think it's because the Church did not believe that it was even possible for a Pope to be/to become a heretic.  This was actually Bellarmine's position before taking up the question of what if it did happen.

::dives in head first::

I agree lol

God Bless

But of course, it is believed (though not completely proven) that Pope Liberius was under duress when signing the exile order for St. Athanasius, since he had been kidnaped by the Arians and held in exile himself. Basically, he was kidnapped, and forced to sign the docuмent against St. Atanasius. It was a moment of weakness, but that might be forgivable. The Arians of old were very crafty and at times violent. It wasn't an easier time back then. There's just a lot of time between now and then, and who really studies the situation of the Arian heretics anymore? Hardly anyone. It seems like a boring subject to many.

Not boring at all... It's interesting but there is no way to know for sure IMO. I personally am thoroughly convinced that St Pope Celestine V was usurped by Boniface VIII... nothing says fair and square quite like your usurper preventing you from returning to a quiet monastic life and instead imprisoning you out of fear and then dying shortly after.

It's something I think about with a lot of figures, especially those like Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI... we can never really know the whole story of what was going on behind the scenes and the pressures they were under which is why I do not judge them as harshly as others do for their errors, I also believe they were valid successors to St Peter as there are no grounds to deny that IMO.

I suspect Pope John Paul I was αssαssιnαtҽd and Pope Benedict XVI once remarked that his authority ended at the door, e.g. none, surrounded on all sides both within and without and Catholicism is incredibly divided which would have made Pope Benedict XVI very easy prey (A Cardinal got caught discussing his assassinating in Beijing - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/10/plot-kill-pope-italian-media )... same with other figures even around Vatican II but those were before my time.

"Our Lady of Victory, Ark of the New Covenant, Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate, Pray for us."

God Bless

Not boring at all... It's interesting but there is no way to know for sure IMO. I personally am thoroughly convinced that St Pope Celestine V was usurped by Boniface VIII... nothing says fair and square quite like your usurper preventing you from returning to a quiet monastic life and instead imprisoning you out of fear and then dying shortly after.

It's something I think about with a lot of figures, especially those like Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI... we can never really know the whole story of what was going on behind the scenes and the pressures they were under which is why I do not judge them as harshly as others do for their errors, I also believe they were valid successors to St Peter as there are no grounds to deny that IMO.

I suspect Pope John Paul I was αssαssιnαtҽd and Pope Benedict XVI once remarked that his authority ended at the door, e.g. none, surrounded on all sides both within and without and Catholicism is incredibly divided which would have made Pope Benedict XVI very easy prey (A Cardinal got caught discussing his assassinating in Beijing - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/10/plot-kill-pope-italian-media )... same with other figures even around Vatican II but those were before my time.

"Our Lady of Victory, Ark of the New Covenant, Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate, Pray for us."

God Bless

I don't think it's boring either. The Arian crisis has so many parallels for today's Church crisis. The late Michael Davies did a lot of research into the subject.

I never knew the whole story of Celestine V and Boniface VIII. Sculduggery was of course going on back then too. I too try to not judge the VII popes too harshly, though of course they have all been Modernists, to one degree or another. Bp. Williamson has said that there was something decent about B16, which I agree with.