You didn't answer my question, Meg.

If "the Pope" stated publicly, definitively, and obstinately that Jesus was not God, but merely a man, would he still be the Pope?

What Church teaching states that the laity are required to make such a determination? I'm asking for a SPECIFIC teaching, not a roundabout ambiguous teaching - something that sedevacantists have trouble producing.

Here's a few paragraphs from the study that's posted on the Dominicans of Avrille website, under the heading of: "The Theological Argument of the Heresy of the Pope:"

"If a Catholic were convinced that John Paul ll (or another Pope after Vatican ll) is a formal, manifest heretic, should he then conclude that he is no longer Pope?

"No, he should not, because according to the "common" opinion (Suarez), or even the "more common" opinion (Billuart) theologians think that even a heretical Pope can continue to exercise the papacy. For him to lose jurisdiction, the Catholic bishops (the only judges in matters of faith besides the Pope, by Divine will) would have to make a declaration denouncing the Pope's heresy:

"According to the more common opinion, Christ, by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction even to a manifestly heretical pontiff until such a time as he should be declared a manifest heretic by the Church (Billuart, De Fide, diss.V, a.lll &3, obj. 2)."

Little Catechism on Sedevacantism - PART I - Dominicans of Avrille, France (dominicansavrille.us)

What Church teaching states that the laity are required to make such a determination? I'm asking for a SPECIFIC teaching, not a roundabout ambiguous teaching - something that sedevacantists have trouble producing.

Can. 748 §1. All persons are bound to seek the truth in those things which regard God and his Church and by virtue of divine law are bound by the obligation and possess the right of embracing and observing the truth which they have come to know.

Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Can. 229 §1. Lay persons are bound by the obligation and possess the right to acquire knowledge of Christian doctrine appropriate to the capacity and condition of each in order for them to be able to live according to this doctrine, announce it themselves, defend it if necessary, and take their part in exercising the apostolate.


Read those Canons carefully, Meg. As a Catholic, you are "bound by the obligation...of embracing and observing the truth..."(Canon 748).

If you think it is "true" that Bergoglio is a heretic, then you are "bound by the obligation" to embrace and observe that "truth." You are further required by Canon 229 to "defend [Catholic doctrine] if necessary." A heretic "is opposed to the doctrine of the Church" (Canon 750 §2)

Therefore, as a Catholic, you are obligated to seek, embrace, observe and defend the truth against a heretic. If you are running around telling everyone that a heretic is "the Pope" are you defending the truth against that heretic? Of course you aren't. But you are obligated to do so. You are obligated to defend Holy Mother Church against her enemy, not call him your "Holy Father."

I knew you wouldn't be able to provide what I asked for. How could you, when such a teaching does not exist?

I already know what Truths are required to save my soul. I am not required to make a determination on the status of the Pope.

A heresy is untruth taught as if it is a doctrine of the Catholic faith. You are required to oppose teachers of heresy, of untruth. You are required to defend the truth against such false teachers, false prophets.

If the person who is teaching untruth is the guy that some people call "the Pope," then you must oppose that "Pope" as the enemy of the Church anyway. He cannot be both the enemy of the Church and, at the same time, the leader of the Church.

You are obligated to fight the enemy, and you are obligated to submit in obedience to the true leader. If you tell everyone that the enemy is the leader, then you are consenting to his deception. You are "consenting to iniquity," and you know what St. Paul said about that in 2 Thessalonians 2, right:

10 And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: 11 That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.

[10] "God shall send": That is God shall suffer them to be deceived by lying wonders, and false miracles, in punishment of their not entertaining the love of truth.

Are you willing to "consent to iniquity," Meg? Or are you going to stand up and defend the truth?

Etsi Multa, Pius IX:


[color=rgb(var(--color_25))]Further Heresies[/color]

[color=rgb(var(--color_25))]22. And surely what these sons of perdition intend is quite clear from their other writings, especially that impious and most imprudent one which has only recently been published by the person whom they recently constituted as a pseudo-bishop. For these writings attack and pervert the true power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff and the bishops, who are the successors of blessed Peter and the apostles; they transfer it instead to the people, or, as they say, to the community. They obstinately reject and oppose the infallible magisterium both of the Roman Pontiff and of the whole Church in teaching matters.  Incredibly, they boldly affirm that the Roman Pontiff and all the bishops, the priests and the people conjoined with him in the unity of faith and communion fell into heresy when they approved and professed the definitions of the Ecuмenical Vatican Council. Therefore they deny also the indefectibility of the Church and blasphemously declare that it has perished throughout the world and that its visible Head and the bishops have erred. They assert the necessity of restoring a legitimate episcopacy in the person of their pseudo-bishop, who has entered not by the gate but from elsewhere like a thief or robber and calls the damnation of Christ upon his head.[/color]





Hmmm....this sounds familiar.

Yes, it does sound familiar. Pius IX seems to be talking about the problems with schismatics setting up a counter church, and their rejection of the Roman Pontiff and all the bishops. 

It reminds me of another part of the article on sedevacantism, as published by the Dominicans of Avrille. The introduction to the article states thus:

"Introduction: between Scylla and Charybdis.

"In the strait of Messina, between Sicily and Italy, there are two formidable reefs: Scylla and Charybdis. It is important, when crossing, to avoid both reefs. Many imprudent and unskilled navigators, wanting to avoid one, were shipwrecked on the other: they fell from Scylla to Charybdis. 

"Currently, facing the Crisis in the Church, there are two errors to avoid: modernism (which, little by little, makes us lose the faith) and sedevacantism (which leads towards schism). If we want to remain Catholic, we must pass between heresy and schism, between Scylla and Charybdis. 

"In this short catechism, we study one of the two reefs. But the other must not be forgotten. Under the dangers of avoiding sedevacantism, the dangers of modernism disseminated by the conciliar Church must not be minimized."

Little Catechism on Sedevacantism - PART I - Dominicans of Avrille, France (dominicansavrille.us)

Yes, Meg, you are "consenting to iniquity" if you believe that Bergoglio is a heretic but you continue to acknowledge that he is the true leader of the Roman Catholic Church. You are confusing people with your contradictory, non-Catholic beliefs.

The guy you are calling "the Pope" said this recently:

Instead of arguing with me about theological intricacies (which you clearly know nothing about), why don't you start "resisting" Bergoglio? You defend him at every opportunity. How about defending Jesus and his Church?

I have no interest in becoming a schismatic like yourself. 

You do not have any real theological knowledge about the subject at hand. You seem to have only fear, and you want everyone else to fear as well. 

I put trust in my Lord and savior Jesus Christ. I do not put my trust in men who are afraid. 

This one's for you, Meg:

1 And after these things, I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power: and the earth was enlightened with his glory. 2 And he cried out with a strong voice, saying: Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen; and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every unclean spirit, and the hold of every unclean and hateful bird: 3 Because all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication; and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her; and the merchants of the earth have been made rich by the power of her delicacies. 4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying: Go out from her, my people; that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues. 5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and the Lord hath remembered her iniquities.

Can you guess which "schismatic" wrote that, Meg?

I'm well aware of your fears about the Antichrist, whom you believe is Pope Francis. You've broadcasted your fears often enough here.

Maybe you should just grow a couple, and stop being so fearful. It's a bit effeminate, you know? Trust in Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and his Blessed Mother. Whatever bad things that may await us, they will get us through it. Do you trust in them?

I'm well aware of your fears about the Antichrist, whom you believe is Pope Francis. You've broadcasted your fears often enough here.

Maybe you should just grow a couple, and stop being so fearful. It's a bit effeminate, you know? Trust in Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and his Blessed Mother. Whatever bad things that may await us, they will get us through it. Do you trust in them?

And he said to man: Behold the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom: and to depart from evil, is understanding.
[Job 28:28]

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Fools despise wisdom and instruction.
[Proverbs 1:7]

The fear of the Lord hateth evil: I hate arrogance, and pride, and every wicked way, and a mouth with a double tongue.
[Proverbs 8:13]

Fear of the lord is a good thing, Meg. Did you know that it is one of the 7 gifts of the Holy Ghost?

And you are incorrect. I don't fear the Antichrist. I fear for all of the people who are deceived by Bergoglio and will be judged for "consenting to iniquity" by calling him "the Pope." The only cure for it is to repent and pray for discernment of the truth.