This topic has a twofold purpose: to serve to enlighten myself through discussion with people more learned than myself, and, the purpose that every topic has, to serve to enlighten the participants of the discussion generally. I mention the first purpose because this really is a topic I expect almost everybody here to have greater knowledge than myself of.

Here's the question that I pose for discussion: the Pope Issue, - whether or not Pope Francis and his most recent predecessors can truly be called Popes and not apostates outside of the Catholic Church - why does it matter so much? Why is there so much division between traditionalists on this point? If all traditionalists are in agreement that the recent Popes have effectively been doing the work of Satan by spreading heresies, impieties, and abominable counterfeit sacraments, then why does it matter so much whether the Pope is a formal heretic or merely one of the most wicked material heretics to ever have befallen mankind? Surely that is a finicky question for a master theologian to trouble himself with after the Church has been restored to its full glory. It's an academic question whether or not the Pope is a formal heretic or just a material heretic so harmful as to offend the piety of an Arius or a Martin Luther. Either way, the responsibilities of Catholics, the ones that have the Faith and rightfully can be called Catholics, are the same: they are to provide (if priest) or seek (if layman) the true Blessed Sacraments that the heretical Popes and their Bishops do not provide, and to provide (if priest) or seek (if layman) sermons on the Catholic Faith, which the heretic Popes and their Bishops do not provide, and, especially, sermons on how a Catholic is to equip him or herself with the armour of Faith in these most perilous of times when it is most sorely needed.

Why do some traditionalist, i.e. catholic, priests bind the laity by saying that they MUST believe that Francis is Pope, while other priests bind the laity by saying that they MUST NOT believe that Francis is Pope? Why do some insist on saying "una cuм Francis" (or however it is rendered in Latin), while some insist on omitting the "una cuм" altogether? Why can't we have the best of both worlds? Why can't we say that it does not matter what your personal opinion is on the validity of Francis's claim to the papacy because it is not your prerogative to discern the answer to such a complicated matter of theology, it is is only your duty to refuse to obey and follow the example of Francis and his predecessors when they display manifest heresy; and why can't we say in Holy Mass "una cuм Papa" (however it would be rendered in Latin), i.e. in communion with the Pope (whomever that may be, whether it is Francis or not)?

If we are all agreed that Rome has become the habitation of devils, then we should not be squabbling over a legal matter like whether or not the archdemon over there retains his office. Faith is more important than Law, and Rome has lost the Faith, so who cares if they are still following all of the proper legal procedures? Either way, there should be no discord between us as we all should be in chorus singing, "Rome the great has fallen, has fallen." Our resources are so few and so precious, it's downright sinful for us to be squandering them on petty disputes with each other. How rare are traditionalist Catholics of any kind? How infinitely precious is each one of those people that seeks the true, catholic Faith? And yet brother will go to war against brother with more tenacity and spite than against their joint enemy that is equally the ruin of each.

Baffled as to why the OP drew a down-thumb.    :confused1:

McFiggly asks:

Why can't we have the best of both worlds?

Basically, because "recognize and resist" (which might be more aptly characterized as "deplore and ignore") is not a Catholic position. It's not as if Catholics can consider that they have done there full filial duty to the Roman Pontiff by paying him begrudging (and largely phony and obsequious) acknowledgment while at the same time quietly assuring one another that true Catholics should never think, speak, or behave as he does. This is not what is meant by "submitting ourselves in all things to the Roman Pontiff." This is loyalty in appearance only and not in substance. Such lukewarmness, even in earthly matters, is hardly considered a great sign of fidelity.

It's not as if one can demand obedience to any putative papal claimant in the name of the faith while at the same time that very papal claimant is busy denying the faith and preaching heresy. How can the faith demand obedience to a heretic? It's illogical; it's absurd.

And to reduce the whole epistemological question to its Platonic essence, it's not as if individual Catholic laymen can (as recognize-and-resisters do) decide for themselves when and in what matters the Pope is entitled to obedience and when he isn't, as it were setting up for themselves a sort of suprapontifical papacy composed of their own Catholic conscience. Now the only possible referent of such a conscience would be the universal ordinary magisterium; and if they sift the matter and discover that the Pope has gone against that, against previously defined doctrines and long established disciplines, then the Pope is ipso facto a heretic, outside the body of Christ, and has lost his office, power, and authority.

Furthermore, there is simple fact that souls are at stake. Christ set up His Church to be governed by a pastor who would make souls to lay down in green pastures and lead them beside still waters, not stampede them over a cliff. It is exceedingly difficult to make converts in this day and age when the so-called Pope is actively undermining the very work you're trying to do in someone's soul. If we cannot advert to the Pope to supply the authority in matters in which we know we are right, then such a Pope is useless and the See is vacant.

"I think the important thing to know is that the Vatican II popes are lieutenants in Satan's army and that we should treat them as such."

playing devil's advocate, what makes you think, or rather believe in your own statement?

the answer to your own question is within you if you dig deeper and ask yourself why?  That is, what makes you truly believe in what you are stating to be fact.

I guess it is new information to me that traditionalist priest are saying that you are bound to believe Francis is pope. Can you provide examples were traditionalists say this? I haven't seen this.

Well put, McFiggly.
You've answered your own question well.

Here's the question that I pose for discussion: the Pope Issue, - whether or not Pope Francis and his most recent predecessors can truly be called Popes and not apostates outside of the Catholic Church - why does it matter so much? Why is there so much division between traditionalists on this point?

This is indeed a great mystery. I can only speculate it is the result of diabolical disorientation combined with fear of success.

The intractable division among trads provides a convenient excuse to evade the duty of Catholic evangelism. Trads are solidly unified in regards to upholding pre-Vatican II Catholic teaching. There is very likely a huge pent-up demand for such teaching if it could be confidently and positively presented by a restoration-oriented coalition of non-infighting traditionalist organizations. Many of NO's would likely join if their scrupulous concerns were confidently addressed.

Such an outcome appears unwanted by most trads in my experience, so it was necessary to conjure up phony post-Vatican II pseudo-doctrinal disputes. The playtime trad circular firing squad uses rubber bullets. That apparently feels safer than challenging the modernists who might shoot back with lead.

Columba asks:

Everybody already knows the arguments on both sides so why the tedious repetition without acknowledging the stalemate?

I don't acknowledge the stalemate because there isn't a stalemate. These are not academic arguments we're having here, as if at the end of the day it didn't really matter. This involves the fate of souls and the entire structure of the Church. At least one of these positions has to be wrong, so it is not a matter to be taken lightly. You cannot simply file the debate away as a dreary matter which needlessly divides good Traddies, without in the process losing the very motivation for being a Trad. And your calumny about Traditional Catholics preferring the debate to the Great Commission is extremely inapposite and distasteful.

Besides, I seriously doubt that "everybody" knows all sides of this argument. McFiggly stated in his opening sentence that he wanted to get more informed about this himself. Since this is an issue on which ultimately no compromise is possible, I tried to state succinctly what I believed. In doing so I also stated the reasons why the debate is intractable, because such reasons are one and the same.