I think that's the point. There will never be a smoking gun to implicate Francis directly. It is advancement of the agenda in the most insidious and indirect way as possible. Quite evil and brilliant.

Exactly so. Precisely consistent with the modus operandi of the "spirit of Vatican 2."

No, S&S completely distorted the evidence.  They drew the line at Apostasy, whereas any obvious blatant heresy is in the same category.  They misconstrue the nature of the Church's declaration and keep referring to the Church convicting the Pope of heresy, but that cannot be done.  So they screw up a lot of basic concepts and muddy how this works.  What is required in addition to the heresy itself is for the Church to universally recognize it as such.  In some cases, it's so obvious that there's no dispute.  In other cases, the Church might be divided on the matter.  In yet other cases, it might be disputed whether a certain proposition is in fact heretical.  In those cases, the Church needs to make up her mind on the issue, and that's the only purpose that any declaration would or could ever serve.

In the case of a blatant heresy where it's clear that Bergoglio knows that he's in heresy but holds to it anyway, there's no need for any kind of action on the part of the Church.  They can simply procede to calling a new conclave.

Do you even have their book?  Have you read it?
I can go to the book’s website to refute you right now:
It is absolutely false to say they are teaching that the Church will convict (ie., Judge the pope guilty) of heresy.  The Church makes no judgment, but simply declares the fact.

http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/?m=1

Do you even have their book?  Have you read it?
I can go to the book’s website to refute you right now:
It is absolutely false to say they are teaching that the Church will convict (ie., Judge the pope guilty) of heresy.  The Church makes no judgment, but simply declares the fact.

http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/?m=1

I've read direct quotes from S&S saying exactly that.  I have not read their entire book, but have read enough to know their case.

Xavier, are you denying that +Francis has not openly stated heretical things (and multiple times) and condoned heretical activities? 

If Bergoglio came out and actually stated (smoking gun proof) that, "Jesus was not God."

It's over.  He's gone.  No longer Catholic.  Obvious to the Church.  Obvious to everyone.  No "declaration" required.

I disagree with John of St. Thomas.

This declaration is only needed if the Church is conflicted about whether a given man is pope, and is the end result of the Church making up her mind about it and arriving at a universal consensus.

And what does that mean anyway?  If a General Council would gather and vote by 51% to 49% that Bergoglio is a heretic, and issue a declaration, but 49% don't agree, what force does this declaration have?  Is it a Democratic process where the majority rules?  Can the 51% bind the consciences of the 49%?  Much of this discussion of Councils and voting and declaring and convicting is just so much nonsense.  What if those 51% have actually embraced the same heresy that Bergoglio is being evaluated for?  That could have been done during the Arian era, where the majority became Arians.

What if the Arians had managed to install one of their own as a Pope?  Since they held the majority, no General Council to depose said Pope could ever happen.  Would the orthodox minority then be able to hold their own General Council?

Only God can solve this.

They can in a papal election, why not in a vote on heresy?

Does that then constitute a Universal judgment by the Church?  How Universal then if nearly half the Church disagrees?

Now, if these 49% were agreeing with Bergoglio that "Jesus is not God", then they too are obviously already outside the Church and their opinion doesn't matter.  But if it's a disputed question about a proposition that's a couple of steps logically removed from dogma?  What then?  Does the 51% have the authority to oust them from the Church?  What if the 51% are the ones who are heretical?  Now, the Arians could easily have gathered a General Council in which they held majority and booted the non-Arians.  What force would that have had?

Much of this is just theory, to help lay out principles, but the reality is much more ugly.  Who has the authority to even convene a General Council if there's no universal consensus that one should even be held?

Ladislaus-

I don’t know how to say “bullshit” in Latin, but you should write a manual filled with your hallucinations, and send it to the Onion for review.

You could call it De Bullshiticus.

Heresy has rendered you mentally insane, Johnson.

If in actual fact a Pope can never become a heretic, and the prayer of Jesus that the Faith of St. Peter may not fail (it did not fail, even when he externally denied Christ), which Tradition and Vatican I says is also applicable to his Successors, then the question of deposition doesn't arise. A Pope can be rebuked for making a mistake, like Pope John XXII was. But he will correct himself, or a Successor will correct him. Popes can make pretty tragic mistakes, like St. Bridget says about a Pope being lax on Clerical Celibacy. But a Successor will have to correct that. Our Lord gave it as a prayer, that the faith of St. Peter would not fail, that we too may pray for it.

It's a difficult and complicated question, but it's more likely, everything considered, that the prayer of Jesus Christ can never fail. But however that may be, a Pope can be rebuked whenever he is found, even without pertinacity, to have deviated from the Faith.

So you disagree with bellarmine, he said that no pope has ever deviated from the faith.