CathInfo.com

Uhm, that's not what the video said  Video said that Pope must be EXCOMMUNICATED.  That is not the same as rendering a judgment regading the fact of heresy.

You're so desperate to defend R&R at all costs that you'll even try to defend heresy that a Pope can be excommunicated.

Do you also agree with his absurd statement that "The Sacraments of the Resistance are the only Sacraments that a good Catholic can attend." ... given that many of you actually go to SSPX chapels?

Later he says that Our Lord promised that the Church would always have bishops and say that the Bishops "that are still around today" are the Bishops of The Resistance and says that they're the only "True Catholic Bishops".  Really?

He also defines the Resistance as the people who follow 4 bishops.  So you can't have a Resistance priest without following (whatever "following" means) these 4 Bishops.  I thought this was not really an organization so much as an orientation / position regardin the crisis.

This guy who made this video is a crackpot, and you should stop defending him before you discredit The Resistance as a whole.

Uhm, that's not what the video said  Video said that Pope must be EXCOMMUNICATED.  That is not the same as rendering a judgment regading the fact of heresy.

You're so desperate to defend R&R at all costs that you'll even try to defend heresy that a Pope can be excommunicated.

I know that's what the video said. I should have said that I don't know if excommunication is the answer. But at least it's some kind of judgment by the hierarchy. There is no official Church teaching on how to deal with a heretical pope. If someone thinks that excommunication is the answer - well - that's one of many opinions on the subject. Bottom line is that some sort of judgment needs to be made by the hierarchy regarding the problem of a heretical Pope. It's not the job of the laity to decide the matter. As the laity we don't follow heretics, but we also are not qualified to pass sentence on them.

Then you responded "Correct" to Meg's comment.  So in the line of context, her comment was NOT correct, even if you hold to the bogus Salza & Siscoe thesis.

If you scroll back up, you'll see the quote from Meg I responded to was:

"There must be some kind of judgment from the hierarchy in order to carry out a legitimate sentence on the charge of heresy of a Pope. That's just common sense."

It was to this that I responded:

"Correct:

By divine law, the pope is above and immune from coercive judgment, but not discretionary judgment.

For more on this distinction of St. Bellarmine, Bossuet, et al. on the two forms of judgment, see here (scroll halfway down to the section heading titled “The Key Distinction Sedevacantists Have Missed:
Two Forms of Judgment - Discretionary & Coercive”):

http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/the-true-meaning-of-bellarmines-ipso.html?m=1"

There is no mention of excommunicating a pope (which would be a coercive, not discretionary judgment).

PS: I never even watched the video.