Yes, I wrote that there, but I also followed up on your response to me about your so-called "moral unanimity".  You failed to answer that question over there too...which was the point of my post here.  Would you like me to pull that over here too, Smartypants?

3.04 x 10 (-7) [pardon that I can't find exponents on my current keyboard] was something like the number of those who doubt the papacy of Francis. While I would argue that it is slightly more, it shouldn't matter. It has become universal in the Catholic Church. Mark my words, when Benedict passes from this earth you will see people in the diocese, Ecclesia Dei groups, the SSPX, the Resistance, CMRI and the SSPV that will claim sede vacante. Many do not believe that Bergoglio is pope. But here comes Mr. Sean Johnson who claims that the papacy of Francis is a dogmatic fact. Save me the trouble of commenting further and be honest. There is NO unanimity. Never was and is not. A blind man can see it.

That post was beneath you (I hope).

I have no interest in chatting with dogmatic sedeplenist, anti-sedevacantists like yourself.  All I'm interested in is revealing your hypocrisy when you whined about Ladislaus not returning to a thread.  And I have.

It is fixed now  :)

Childish.

Robert Bellarmine has clearly specified the two most important elements involved:

“The cardinals, when they create a Pontiff, exercise their authority, not on the pope as such, since he is not yet such, but on the matter, that is to say, on the person which they dispose in some way by the election in order that he might receive from God the form of the pontificate.”

These different statements allow us to precisely limit the elements which lead up to the “statement of a fact” provided by the Thesis of Cassiciacuм. The Thesis demonstrates that the occupant of the Apostolic Chair lacks that determination which is intrinsically linked to infallibility. This determination is of necessity “that which is communicated by God,” even though it is only by divine “assistance” that the Pope is infallible.

In other words, what the proof demonstrates is the absence of the function and the power of (infallibly) teaching, and along with this the absence of the supreme power of jurisdiction which is directly linked to the former. This is what Pontifical Authority, or the “Primacy of Peter,” considered formally, consists of. According to the phrase of St. Robert Bellarmine, it is the “form of the pontificate,” which is immediately communicated by God Himself. Finally, since what the occupant of the Apostolic Chair lacks is the “form” of the Pontificate, the determining and formal element which makes the Pope to be such, we say: “He is not formally the Pope.” This, then, is what directly and with certitude establishes the basis for the first part of the Thesis.

But the argument says nothing about the other determinants (such as the duration, such as would be logical) which also pertain to the Roman Pontiff. These antecedent determinations (to the form) involve at least his legitimate election and his acceptance of same (insofar as they are publicly manifest). St. Robert Bellarmine says that the person of the elected can be likened to the “matter,” and the election is like a disposition to the form of the Pontificate. And as every disposition is attached to a material cause, we say at the end of our first section that the person who occupies the Apostolic See remains materially a Pope. At this point we should positively affirm this because, quite simply, we have provided no element which permits us to sustain the contrary.