The thing is that these "popes" didn't fall into heresy.

They were blatant, persistent, public heretics and therefore

out of the Church before they were even elected.

Can a non-Catholic become pope?

It's the equivalent to using a potato chip at the consecration at Mass instead of unleavened bread - it’s invalid matter and no consecration takes place.

A public heretic or apostate is not “valid matter”for any office in the Church as such a one is barred by divine law from the papacy.

So no consecration could take place.

There is no pope to judge.

These theological arguments that go round and round are about judging and deposing a pope.  That's above our paygrade. 

I can't depose them.  That's not my jurisdiction.  That's not for me to worry about.

I just can't worship with them.


The bottom line for me, and I don't try to bind other people's consciences or say they are going to hell if they don't agree

but for me anyway

it's just a matter of basic Catechism.

It's against the First Commandment to pray in union with non-Catholics.

I don't need a Church council to come to my town and declare the Imam down the street or the Protestant preacher a heretic even if they called themselves Catholic.  I have the ability to determine that much on my own.

God gave me eyes and ears.

If somebody dresses up as a priest or even as a pope and tells me that we worship the same god as Muslims (which VII states) then I know they aren't Catholic.  Catholics don't worship Allah.  I don't worship Allah.

Even little ol' me knows that much. 

If even an angel dresses up as pope and preaches a false gospel, I'm commanded to treat them as an anathema.

But these guys aren't even disguised as angels.

They have made it very, very, clear they deny Christ, deny the need for His Sacrifice to go to Heaven, deny His bodily resurrection, they worship in mosques and ѕуηαgσgυєs and with pagans and write books saying that all religions lead to Heaven etc. etc. etc. 

I posted photos earlier in this thread where they walk around blatantly showing themselves to not be Catholics.  Benedict wearing the Star of Remphan on his mitre, Paul VI wearing the Ephod, Benedict getting a witchdoctor blessing, Francis worshipping pajamamama.

They have left the Barque.

They are the leaders of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr One World Religion.

It's blatant and in your face.

God allowed that so even the common man can see it with their own eyes.

I can't pray with non-Catholics.

That would be a sin against the First Commandment.


How can I worship una cuм (in union with) these guys?

How can I join my prayers to theirs?

I don't share the same religion.

I don't share the same gods.

In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circuмstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807).


The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/letter-to-the-archbishop-of-boston-2076

Romans 11

[[1] I say then: Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. [2] God hath not cast away his people, which he foreknew. Know you not what the scripture saith of Elias; how he calleth on God against Israel? [3] Lord, they have slain thy prophets, they have dug down thy altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. [4] But what saith the divine answer to him? I have left me seven thousand men, that have not bowed their knees to Baal. [5] Even so then at this present time also, there is a remnant saved according to the election of grace.

2 Corinthians 5:21

Him, who knew no sin, he hath made sin for us, that we might be made the justice of God in him.

Ezekiel 22

[26] Her priests have despised my law, and have defiled my sanctuaries: they have put no difference between holy and profane: nor have distinguished between the polluted and the clean: and they have turned away their eyes from my sabbaths, and I was profaned in the midst of them . . .  [28] And her prophets have daubed them without tempering the mortar, seeing vain things, and divining lies unto them, saying: Thus saith the Lord God: when the Lord hath not spoken.

So cried Moses and Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Let us see then if they acted thus, if they left the people of God, and betook themselves to other nations. How many and vehement rebukes did Jeremiah utter against the sinners, and wicked ones of his people. Yet he lived amongst them, he entered into the same temple with them, celebrated the same mysteries;[ 1107 ] he lived in that congregation of wicked men, but by his crying out “he went out from them.” This is “to go out from them;” this is not “to touch the unclean thing,” the not consenting to them in will, and the not sparing them in word. What shall I say of Jeremiah, of Isaiah, of Daniel, and Ezekiel, and the rest of the prophets, who did not retire from the wicked people, lest they should desert the good who were mingled with that people, among whom themselves were able to be such as they were? 



Augustine, Saint. The Complete Works of St. Augustine: Cross-linked to the Bible and with in-line footnotes (pp. 11645-11646). Kindle Edition.

I say, thirdly, that the authority of the extraordinary mission never destroys the ordinary, and is never given to overthrow it. Witness all the Prophets, who never set up altar against altar, never overthrew the priesthood of Aaron, never abolished the constitutions of the ѕуηαgσgυє. Witness Our Lord, who declares that every kingdom divided against itself shall be brought to desolation, and a house upon a house shall fall (Luke xi. 17). Witness the respect which he paid to the chair of Moses, the doctrine of which he would have to be observed. And indeed if the extraordinary ought to abolish the ordinary, how should we know when, and how, and to whom, to give our obedience. No, no; the ordinary is immortal for such time as the Church is here below in the world. The pastors and teachers whom he has once given to the Church are to have a perpetual succession for the perfection of the saints . . . till we all meet in the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ. That we may not now be children, tossed to and fro, an d carried about with every wind -i doctrine, in the wickedness of men and in their craftiness (Eph. iv. 1) Such is the strong argument which S. Paul uses to prove that if the ordinary pastors and doctors had not perpetual succession, and were liable to have their authority abrogated by the extraordinary, we should also have but an irregular faith and discipline, interrupted at every step; we should be liable to be seduced by men, who on every occasion would boast of having an extraordinary vocation. Thus like the Gentiles we should walk (as he infers afterwards) in the vanity of our mind (ibid. 17), each one persuading himself that he felt the movement of the Holy Ghost; of which our age furnishes so many examples that this is one of the strongest proofs that can be brought forward in this connection. For if the extraordinary may talge away the ordinary ministration, to which shall we give the guardianship of it - to Calvin or to Luther, to Luther or to Paciomontanus, to Paciomontanus or to Brandratus, to Brandratus or to Brentius, to Brentius or to the Queen of England? - for each will draw to his or her side this pretext of extraordinary mission.


But the word of Our Lord frees us from all these difficulties, who has built his Church an so good a foundation and in such wise proportions that the Bates of hell shall never prevail against it. And if they have never prevailed not shall prevail, then the extraordinary vocation is not necessary to abolish it, for God hateth nothing of those things which he has made (Wis. xi. 25). How then did they abolish the ordinary Church, to make an extraordinary one, since it is he, who has built the ordinary one, and cemented it with his own blood?

https://www.goodcatholicbooks.org/francis/catholic-controversy/church-mission.html#CHAPTER_III

There have been sedevacantist groups that have gone into schism. Fr. Chazal lists them, but I can't recall their names just now. And it's not the majority of sedevacantists, but rather a minority that have gone into schism. That's the danger associated with sedevacantism. DR is not saying that all sedevacantists are schismatic. Of course they aren't.

And you tend to go on and on about R&R and a certain belief about the magisterium, but you are the one who quibbles about this. We don't. Archbishop Lefebvre did not address the "corrupt magisterium" problem that you bring up a lot, because it wasn't and isn't necessary. It's only necessary for a sedevacantist to push that view, in order to promote sedevacantism.

Correction: It wasn't DR who brought up the issue of schism and sedevacantism; it was PV who brought it up. My mistake.

Meg,

Yeah, thanks for pointing that out. Lad and I get into enough tussles on our own without the need to have someone create one. 

And thanks for the compliment. 

God bless,

DR

The Church binds us to believe with Divine and Catholic Faith that the public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church.  Some arguments I have seen in this thread try to place qualifiers such as "the Church has to make that judgment".  These qualifiers add conditions that are not in the Church's teaching on this matter.  I think a key cause in adding these conditions is because the distinction is not made between the "sin" of heresy and the "crime" of heresy.  The Church teaching is that the "sin" of heresy separates the heretic from the Church.  This would be the case regardless of whether heresy is classified as a crime by the Church.  "Sin' is a concept regarding Divine Law and Natural Law whereas "crime" is a concept of human positive law.  That the Church and only the Church can judge one to be a heretic makes the Church teaching regarding the "sin" of heresy dependent upon the "crime" of heresy.  This is false because human positive law is based on Divine and Natural Law and not the other way around and more fundamentally, human positive law doesn't need to exist at all. 

Everyone is bound in conscience to hold that the public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church, and this without qualifications.

All the quotes in that post are the words of Fr. Paul Kramer except the quote in quote surrounded by ' marks, which are Fr. Paul Kramer quoting someone else.

Well, if the pope is the pope, then those who reject his legitimacy are per se schismatics.

Well, if the pope is the pope, then those who reject his legitimacy are per se schismatics.