CathInfo.com

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Sedevacantists don't say that one must accept and do everything the pope does, either.  It's just that in this case, it isn't a matter of simply not accepting everything... traditional Catholics don't accept anything(!) from the conciliar claimants.  In fact, they positively reject everything they do.  

You've lost my point.

There are very specific conditions for speaking ex cathedra. The Liberals absolutely ignore this. For example, in an off the cuff remark Bergoglio says that religious liberty is true Christian teaching. He is spouting personal erroneous opinions and material heresies, but he is not speaking in an infallibly and binding way. Fr. Hesse explains it best. It is pure papolotry to hold Catholics as bound to every opinion of someone one believes to be (maybe) the pope.

If that is your point, I fail to see its relevance: sedevacantists don't think that the post-conciliar popes aren't popes because they taught heresy ex cathedra.  After all, the very notion of such an instance is absurd, and no theologian admits the possibility.

Sedevacantists think as they do because the post-conciliar claimaints are manifest heretics.

The significance of Bergoglio "spouting" "personal heresy" is greater than you think.  He needn't "teach" it "as pope".  He can't, that's an impossibility.  Him manifesting his heresy (which is what he does when he "spouts", as you say) is sufficient enough to show that he is not a Catholic, and cannot be pope.

This is beyond what Fr. Berry is saying in the quote of his, but this is the fundamental principle of the sedevacantist position.  The post-conciliar claimants are manifest heretics, and therefore, not members of the Church, and certainly not its head.

I would also like to know where in Catholic teaching does it state that it is a mortal sin for anyone to doubt the legitimacy of a papal claimant. There are saints that held to rival claimants during the Western Schism. This is another novelty.

It doesn't.  His claim that there is some "objective grave sin" in the matter is spurious.  The entire concept of "objective sin" as commonly applied by traditionalists today (e.g., "objectively sinful to attend the new mass") is somewhat smoke and mirrors.  Sin requires an act of the will.  One cannot inadvertently offend God.  

And then you state that your reject anything and everything of the papal claimants. This, of course, is more exaggeration. Everything? What if he says that Islam is not a religion of peace? Do you reject this? What do you mean that you reject anything and everything the papal claimant says? Even if it is obviously correct?

Centroamerica, if you happen to "accept" when Francis says the sun is shining, that's not evidence of a relationship between a Catholic and the pope.  Or when he states some obvious tenet of the Christian tradition, like Jesus having had a mother named Mary.  

The relationship between a Catholic and the pope is one of obedience and one of learning.  Most of us haven't lived with an actual pope so it's difficult to understand without praxis, but if you look at Church history and look at how Catholics treated the pope, it becomes easier.

Name one thing that Francis has taught that you accept on his authority as pope.  While you go off searching for whatever that is, ask yourself why you have to Google something the pope has said that you agree with, and why you can't simply tell me what you've learned from him.  This very behavior is evidence that the relationship you have with him is one of suspicion and scrutiny, not deference, obedience, and learning.

Don't confuse what I just said as an argument for him not being pope.  It's simply an exercise to show that you certainly don't treat him as pope in any meaningful way.  And you should ask yourself why.  If the answer is "because he's a heretic" or "because he doesn't teach anything anyways" then the dilemma just becomes deeper, not solved.  It raises more questions than it answers.

Quote from: Mithrandylan

The relationship between a Catholic and the pope is one of obedience and one of learning. Most of us haven't lived with an actual pope so it's difficult to understand without praxis, but if you look at Church history and look at how Catholics treated the pope, it becomes easier.
...
 It raises more questions than it answers.

"When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong."

Quote from: Haydock notes

But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was blameable.

St. Jerome, and also St. Chrysostom,[2] give another exposition of this passage. They looked upon all this to have been done by a contrivance and a collusion betwixt these two apostles, who had agreed beforehand that St. Peter should let himself be reprehended by St. Paul, (for this they take to be signified by the Greek text) and not that St. Peter was reprehensible;[3] so that the Jews seeing St. Peter publicly blamed, and not justifying himself, might for the future eat with the Gentiles. But St. Augustine vigorously opposed this exposition of St. Jerome, as less consistent with a Christian and apostolical sincerity, and with the text in this chapter, where it is called a dissimulation, and that Cephas or Peter walked not uprightly to the truth of the gospel. After a long dispute betwixt these two doctors, St. Jerome seems to have retracted his opinion, and the opinion of St. Augustine is commonly followed, that St. Peter was guilty of a venial fault of imprudence. In the mean time, no Catholic denies but that the head of the Church may be guilty even of great sins.

I adjusted the formatting to draw your attention to a different part of the quote you provided.  Worth keeping in mind.

I'm not sure how seriously it can be contended that traditionalists treat Francis the way Paul rebuked Peter.

First of all, where is your rebuke?  I see no rebukes from traditional Catholics to Francis.  Bishop Fellay, at least, talks to him.  The rest of us flee.

Paul didn't run away from Peter and tell the Churches of Ephesus, Corinth, etc. to ignore and vet everything Peter did or said.  He didn't tell them to be wary of the laws that Peter promulgated, or to be suspicious of his form of worship.

Nor is Peter's sin in regards to the faith, but to discipline.  

Nor was Paul's relationship with Peter one of distrust.  You mentioned liberals earlier?  What liberals do is prove rules with exceptions.  "Evolution is true because of some certain animal with some certain trait that none of its ancestors had" or "gender isn't a thing because there was this one person this one time who didn't feel that way", etc.

"The relationship between a Catholic and the pope is one where the Catholic views the pope with habitual suspicion and as a general rule doesn't follow what he does or says, because St. Paul once rebuked St. Peter on a matter of discipline."

C'mon.

ETA: I am genuinely curious why you removed the Haydock commentary from your reply, where in you bolded, italicized, used a different color font, and increased the font size of the following: "Cephas or Peter walked not uprightly to the truth of the gospel."

Perhaps it is because you read the entire passage of what you quoted, and realized that it didn't mean quite what you thought it meant, so you removed it.  That is to your credit.  But I'll keep it up there as a reminder of the nature of Peter's fault, as now "commonly" agreed.  By the way, are you quoting St. Paul's rebuke of Peter to make a point about a Catholic's relationship with the pope, or to make a more profound point regarding whether or not a pope can be a heretic?  I initially took you to be quoting this passage by way of making a point regarding the relationship between a pope and a Catholic, but now that you've removed the commentary, I'm a little unsure.

There are very specific conditions for speaking ex cathedra. The Liberals absolutely ignore this. For example, in an off the cuff remark Bergoglio says that religious liberty is true Christian teaching. He is spouting personal erroneous opinions and material heresies,

It is not a material heresy to acknowledge facts, as Christians did
in history, Catholics did, and Popes did... because "religious liberty"
only means that others (non-Catholics, non-Christians) have the
right to believe as their consciences direct. The early Christians
did not persuade new converts from paganism or judaism by
the threat of force, not until centuries later did that start to happen.