CathInfo.com

There's no probably about it.  Someone who didn't believe in the Immaculate Conception before its definition would most certainly not on that account have been a formal heretic.

So the question is WHY?

You guys keep evading the question of what exactly the role of the Magisterium is if it's not the Proximate Rule of Faith.  You reduce the non-infallible Magisterium to nothing more than a man or a group of men opining about various doctrinal matters.  Stubborn here said that he would give "submission" to some anonymous poster here on CI as much as he would to the Magisterium ... because what he was submitting to was the truth and not to the teaching authority.  How absurd!  Some of you guys have completely lost any concept of what Catholic Magisterium actually is.

I can't help but laugh at this one ^^^

Sean Johnson and Samuel have proven that they can't handle any type of discourse - so instead, like little children they pick up their toys and leave. 

What a bunch of babies... 

I have not read his article, but if a man is a valid pope, it is impossible for him not to have jurisdiction. In virtue of his holding the office, the pope possesses the "fullness of power" (plenitudo potestatis). If it is doubtful whether a man is pope or not, he would morally not be able to demand obedience to his laws or precepts. A true and valid pope who manifests material heresy would by that fact be suspect of formal heresy, and therefore would become a doubtful pope (papa dubius). Since his jurisdiction would be doubtful, no one could be morally obligated to obey his laws or precepts; but if he were in fact only materially in heresy, he would still objectively possess papal jurisdiction; but no one would be morally obligated to obey him. Francis is certainly not a valid pope: First, because Benedict XVI did not unequivocally renounce the papal munus as is required as a condition for a valid renunciation of office (can. 332). Benedict has maintained his claim on the munus in the manner he stated he would in Feb. 2013. Secondly, if Francis had ever validly held office, he would have already lost office for having publicly lapsed into manifest formal heresy. No other papal claimant in history has ever manifested such inexcusable pertinacity in explicit heresy as Jorge "Francis" Bergoglio; who not only professes heretical doctrines like the conciliar popes have done, but explicitly, unequivocally, and adamantly, not merely contradicts, but outright rejects dogma. This point will be explained at length in vol. 2 of my book. As Bellarmine, Ballerini, and Cappellari (Gregory XVI), explain, such a one would fall from office, and manifest by his obstinate heresy, that he had (in Ballerini's words) "in some manner abdicated" the supreme pontificate. This doctrine of tacit abdication was incorporated into the 1917 Code of Canon Law, and remains essentially unchanged in the 1983 Code. Such loss of office takes place ipso facto, i.e. automatically; ipso jure, i.e. by operation of the law itself; and therefore, sine ulla declaratione, without any judgment pronounced by competent authority -- as set forth in canon 188 n. 4 (and explained by the Pontifical Faculty of Canon Law of the University of Salamanca in their 1952 commentary); and similarly explained in the 2005 commentary of Canon Law of the Ecclesiastical Faculty of Canon Law of the University of Navarra.