Please slow down Meg. We are talking about your position on a "heretical" Pope losing his office. The evidence you provided (Assisi) is not evidence of JPII committing "heresy, apostasy or schism." Lefebvre/Mayer called Assisi a sin of scandal. Committing a sin of that nature does not cause a Pope to lose his office. And you, Meg, cannot "judge" the Pope. So, why do you concern yourself with something that happened almost 40 years ago.

You seem to not understand the canonical meaning of some of the words that you use.

When I say that Bergoglio is a public and obstinate heretic, I mean that in a canonical way. His public words directly contradict settled Catholic teaching, and when asked to clarify those words, he refuses to comment. The Dubia situation of 2016 is objective proof of his obstinacy in manifest heresy.

Meg, I don't think Assisi was a great thing. But it was not an act of "defection from the Church." Many Popes have done things that were sinful, imprudent, and not traditional. That didn't make them not Popes. Most Popes were not canonized Saints. Ever wondered why?

Bergoglio is not and never was a canonically-elected Pope. His election was unlawful and, therefore, null and void.

But, even if you incorrectly think he was lawfully elected, he would have lost the papal office for public, obstinate heresy, of which he is objectively guilty.

Why do you spend so much time defending Bergoglio? Are you not concerned that you have a duty to defend Jesus and his Church against his enemies, the living ones, I mean?

Why did Cardinal Siri, if he was pope, go along with the Conciliar Church?

I don't disagree that Francis is a heretic. And yes, that Dubia of 2016 does outline heresy in regards to marriage and family. Francis did go farther than JP2 did, in that sense. So, yes, Francis' heresies are a bit different, so I was wrong.

JP2's heresies were more in line with religious liberty and ecuмenism, but his views did contradict previous popes, before Vll. You may disagree.

Perhaps you have the idea that a true pope cannot EVER be guilty of any kind of heresy, and therefore JP2 and B16 cannot be guilty of heresy. A lot of sedevacantists here would agree that a true pope cannot be guilty of any heresy, but a few of us would not. We are just a small minority here.

And regarding that Dubia, did you notice that the four Cardinals who wrote it (+Brandmuller, +Caffarra, +Burke, +Meisner) did not condemn Francis as an Antichrist because he did not respond to the questions? I would like to see a Council called in order to address Francis heresies, and all of the heresies of all of the conciliar popes. But if he's not a Pope, he doesn't really have to answer for anything. He's just a guy in Rome who wears a white outfit, and he gets away with his heresy. He doesn't have to be held responsible.

Thank you for your honesty, Meg. So we both agree that Francis, as of 2016, was already recognized as different by certain "authorities" in the Church. Francis has officially promulgated a heretical teaching. He was asked to clarify. He has refused to do so.

JPII is a topic for historians. He is not leading the Church right now. He is the 5th King of Apocalypse 17:9-11. Bergoglio is "the eighth who is "of the seven and goeth into destruction."

The Dubia Cardinals have been very quiet (two of them are dead). But what they did stands as an objective witness to the truth.

Stay tuned on "a Council called in order to address Francis heresies." It will not be a human-institutional thing. Jesus will take care of it in his own way.

Finally, again, please don't underestimate Bergoglio. He is the "Man of Sin." The world and the majority of "Catholics" will treat him as their savior. He will not force them to follow him. They will beg him to lead them astray. This will play out very soon.

Hold on.  Your pope publicly adopted a false religion and yet he remained pope.  How do you justify this position?

Talk about revisionist history.  Were you even alive in 1986?