Our Lady of Victory R. C. Chapel
2566 Sable Boulevard
Aurora, Colorado 80011
A.M.D.G.
August 8, 2016

Bp. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, SSPX 410 Washington Blvd. Oak Park, IL 60302
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais,

I hope that this letter finds you well. It is hard to believe that nearly forty years have passed since our days at Ecône which I remember well as I am sure you do also.
I am sure that you are familiar with one of the most fundamental principles of Thomistic philosophy which is the simple yet profound ‘Principle of Non-Contradiction’ (‘One cannot affirm and deny the same thing about the same person/object at the same time’). So you cannot affirm and deny that Francis is pope. Either he is the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church or he is not. Either the ‘Conciliar Church’ (as the late Archbishop Lefebvre called it) is the same as the Catholic Church or it is not.

St. Thomas Aquinas says: "Veritas logica est adaequatio intellectus et rei" (Ia 21q art. 2) "logical truth consists in the equation of mind and thing" Truth is then the conformity of the intellect with reality. Truth must then be objective for reality is objective. It is not then a subjective interpretation but rather "…to judge that things are what they are …" The positions of the SSPX and thus those which you embrace are simply not in conformity with reality and thus are not truthful.

I am sure that you remember well as do I the words of the late Archbishop Lefebvre:
On June 29, 1976 the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre said:

—"We are suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church and for the Conciliar Church, to which we have no wish to belong. That Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a docuмent, official and definitive..."

—"The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church." (Reflections on Suspension ‘A Divinis’ by Msgr. Marcel Lefebvre) I wholeheartedly agree with these words of the late Archbishop Lefebvre; do you?
 
Ask yourself Bp. Tissier, was Archbishop Lefebvre mistaken? Was he wrong? Is not the “Conciliar Church” of which Archbishop Lefebvre spoke in 1976 one and the same with the Church now headed by Benedict XVI / Francis? If so, then clearly, in the very words of the late Archbishop, it is “…not Catholic.” If you believe that the late Archbishop Lefebvre was mistaken, you have the duty to state clearly that you believe that he was wrong.
Letter to Bp. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais dated August 8, 2016 2
In 1987 the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre said:

"I have summed it up to Cardinal Ratzinger in certain words, of course, because it is difficult to sum up this whole situation; but I said to him: 'Eminence, see, even if you grant us a bishop, even if you grant us a certain self-government in relationship to the bishops, even if you grant us all the liturgy of 1962, if you grant us to continue the seminaries and Society, as we do it now, we cannot collaborate; it is impossible, impossible, because we work in two diametrically opposed directions: you, you work for the de-Christianization of society, of the human person, and of the Church, and we, we work for its Christianization. They cannot be in agreement.' Rome has lost the Faith, my dear friends. Rome is in apostasy. It is not just words, it is not just words in the air that I say to you. It is the truth. Rome is in apostasy. One cannot have confidence any more in this world. He has left the Church, they have left the Church, they are leaving the Church. It is sure, sure, sure."

Tell me Bp. Tissier, was Archbishop Lefebvre mistaken? Was he wrong?
Let us remember what Archbishop Lefebvre said in 1988:

"Where is the visible church? The visible church will be recognized by the signs that she has always been given for her visibility: it is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. I ask you: Where are the marks of the true Church? Are they more in the official Church (this is not the visible church; it is the official Church) or with us, in what we represent, in what we are? It is clear that it is with us who keep the unity of faith, which has disappeared from the official Church.”

Clearly, by the phrase: “…the official Church…” the late Archbishop refers to the ‘Conciliar Church’ headed now by Benedict XVI / Francis.

In 1979, you and I were both at Ecône when the late Archbishop Lefebvre stated emphatically that “The New Mass is intrinsically evil.” The late Archbishop went so far as to call the New Mass ‘The Mass of Luther’! Bp. Tissier, surely you remember these famous words! I certainly agree that the New Mass is intrinsically evil; do you? Or, do you believe that the late Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong? If so, you have the grave obligation to tell the world that you believe that he was mistaken.

In the Athanasian Creed (which is De Fide), we read: “Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone doth keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.” St. Athanasius concludes: “This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved. Amen”

Do you believe that Francis holds the Catholic ‘whole and undefiled’? If he does not, then how can he be the pope?
You and the SSPX claim to follow the 1962 rubrics of John XXII. As you know, the rubrics of 1962 require that one delete/omit/suppress the ‘Confiteor’ before Holy Communion is distributed to the laity. Why then do you and the SSPX, insert the ‘Confiteor’ before Holy Communion is distributed to the laity? Is this not a deliberate attempt on your part to obfuscate the Modernist changes of the 1962 rubrics and thus to deceive the laity?

You claim to acknowledge Francis – a.k.a Jorge Bergoglio as your pope. On April 27, 2014, ‘Pope’ Francis ‘canonized’ John XXIII and John Paul II as ‘saints’. He used these very solemn words: "We declare and define Blessed John XXIII and John Paul II to be saints and we enroll them among the saints, decreeing that they are to be venerated as such by the whole Church." Do you accept John XXIII and John Paul II as saints?

Certainly you will acknowledge that to declare saints in heaven is part of the Faith and cannot be considered ‘merely his personal opinion’. If you accept Francis as your pope, you must then accept as ‘saints’ John XXII and the arch-heretic, John Paul II.

Letter to Bp. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais dated August 8, 2016 3

Pope Pius IX, in 1868 wrote on the Church’s teaching concerning the “duty of hierarchical subordination and of true obedience, to submit, not only in things concerning faith and morals, but also in those things pertaining to the Church’s discipline and government.” (Pope Pius IX, Pastor Aeternus, D694).

So if you claim that you and the SSPX are in communion with “Pope” Francis, then you have the bounden duty to submit with true obedience in ALL things – not only things pertaining to Faith and Morals but, as well, to things pertaining to the Church’s discipline and government as writes Pope Pius IX. If you and the SSPX are in communion with “Pope” Francis, then you have no justification to refuse to obey the man you claim to recognize as pope.

Pope Leo XIII wrote in the Encyclical of 'Satis Cognitum' 29th June 1896:

"Hence as the Apostles and Disciples were bound to obey Christ, so also those whom the Apostles taught were, by God's command, bound to obey them. And, therefore, it was no more allowable to repudiate one iota of the Apostles' teaching than it was to reject any point of the doctrine of Christ Himself. It was consequently provided by God that the Magisterium instituted by Jesus Christ should not end with the life of the Apostles, but that it should be perpetuated. We see it in truth propagated, and, 'as it were, delivered from hand to hand. For the Apostles consecrated bishops, and each one appointed those who were to succeed them immediately "in the ministry of the word." Wherefore, as appears from what has been said, Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium, which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by miracles confirmed. …. If it could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error in man. For this reason the Fathers of the Vatican Council laid down nothing new, but followed divine revelation and the acknowledged and invariable teaching of the Church as to the very nature of faith, when they decreed as follows: "All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written or unwritten word of God, and which are proposed by the Church as divinely revealed, either by a solemn definition or in the exercise of its ordinary and universal Magisterium" (Sess. iii., cap. 3)"

Do you believe that the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church is infallible? Bishop Fellay wrote in October 2008:

”… on the one hand, we recognize both the Roman authorities and the local bishops as legitimate. But on the other hand, we contest some of their decisions, because, in various degrees, they are opposed to what the Magisterium always taught and ordered.”(Bp. Fellay – October 2008)

How can the legitimate Roman Catholic authority be “…opposed to what the Magisterium always taught…”? How can one assert that a Roman Catholic can “…recognize both the Roman authorities and the local bishops as legitimate…” and all the while live in defiance of the very authorities which they claim to recognize as legitimate? One cannot argue that those in Rome are only material heretics for clearly Canon Law presumes that they are pertinacious. “When an external violation of the law occurs, in the external forum the existence of malice (dolus) is presumed until the contrary is proved.” (Canon 2200.1)

Do you agree with Pope Leo XIII or do you agree with Bp. Fellay? Clearly, Bp. Felllay’s position and that of the SSPX is not in accord with the teaching of Pope Leo XIII. Is Bp. Fellay wrong? Then you have the duty in charity to correct him.

You claim to be in communion with “Pope” Francis. Would you then assist at a New Mass celebrated by him and receive communion from him? Would you celebrate the New Mass? Or would you concelebrate a New Mass with “Pope” Francis? If you would not then why do you lie and assert that you are in communion with him?

Letter to Bp. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais dated August 8, 2016 4

All Catholics must live in conformity with the principles, the teachings and the doctrines of the Church which Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ founded. One must know these principles, the teachings and the doctrines and predicate every decision upon them. In other words, one must act in accord with principles and not be directed by one’s emotions (“gut feelings”).

One must therefore be able to justify one’s acts according to the principles and teachings of Christ.
Sadly, those who assist at the services of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) and the ‘Williamson Group’ live in contradiction for the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) and the ‘Williamson Group’ and others claim to recognize Francis as Pope.

Those Who Claim That Francis Is The Pope:

Amongst those who assist at the services of the (SSPX), there are those who absolutely and definitely assert that Francis is the Pope. Yet, they openly defy Francis and are quick to assert that they would not assist at the New Mass — even if Francis were the celebrant.

Now this position goes contrary to the principles and teachings of the Church and is
irreconcilable with these principles.
 
In 1868, Pope Pius IX wrote: "…the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals but also in those things which pertain to the discipline and the government of the Church spread over the whole world, so that the Church of Christ, protected not only by the Roman Pontiff, but by the unity of communion as well as the profession of the same faith is one flock under the one highest shepherd. This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his salvation." ‘Pastor Aeternus’

So if one asserts that Francis is pope and that one is in communion with him, then one must necessarily submit to his authority and worship with him.
The unity of the Church is threefold:

Unity of Doctrine = all Catholics everywhere of all times of all nationalities believe and hold the same doctrines. Do you profess to believe the same doctrines as the Francis and his cohort of Modernists?

Unity of Worship = all Catholics everywhere of all times of all nationalities believe and pray in the very same manner precisely because 'Lex orandi = Lex credendi' (the law of praying is the law of believing). The Tridentine Latin Mass is the unbloody renewal of Our Lord's sacrifice on the wood of the cross at Calvary. The Holy Mass is the heart and centre of the Catholic Faith. Cardinal John Henry Newman of England in the XIXth century once wrote:

 'Tolle Missam = Tolle Ecclesiam' (Take away the Mass is to take away the Church).

Do you worship as do Francis and his cohort of Modernists — with the ‘New Mass’?
Unity of Authority = as Pope Pius IX wrote: "…the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals but also in those things which pertain to the discipline and the government of the Church spread over the whole world, so that the Church of Christ, protected not only by the Roman Pontiff, but by the unity of communion as well as the profession of the same faith is one flock under the one highest shepherd. This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his salvation." ‘Pastor Aeternus’

So if one claims that Francis is pope, then one must cease assisting at the services of the clergy of the SSPX for they do not have his permission to function at the various chapels of the SSPX — indeed these chapels do not have his permission to exist!
 
In addition, if one claims that Francis is pope, then one must necessarily worship in the same manner that he worships, i.e., one must assist at the New Mass.

Letter to Bp. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais dated August 8, 2016 5
Hence, objectively speaking, those who profess to be in union with “Pope” Francis and assist at the services of the SSPX are committing serious sin for they defy the very authority which they claim to recognize.
 
Those Who Claim That They ‘Cannot Be Sure Whether Or Not He Is Pope’

Those who claim that they ‘cannot be sure that he is not pope’ also are objectively speaking committing serious sin for they act in doubt.
One simply cannot act in doubt.

The simple principle is that one cannot act in doubt. For example, I am sure that you will agree to transplant a human heart is intrinsically evil; it is nothing less than willful murder and must be condemned as such. Yet, there is no Church decree that states that one cannot participate in the transplanting of the human heart (as donors or recipients or the doctors). Would you therefore argue that since there no Church pronouncement on this subject, that Catholics would be free to give or receive this vital organ? Would you assert that it is acceptable for a Catholic (absent a Church decree) to act in doubt — even though you know that such an act in intrinsically evil? I should hope not.

The famous Dom Prümmer writes that:
“Doubt is said to be speculative or practical. The first turns on the objective morality of a human act irrespective of its present performance or omission. Such speculative doubt exists in controversial questions when moralists argue on either side, v.g. whether an irregular will binds in conscience or not. Practical doubt is concerned with the morality of an act about to be performed here and now — for example, whether it is lawful to read this dangerous book. No one is allowed to perform an act while in the state of positive practical doubt. The reason should be evident from what has been said already. For if certainty is required on the wide sense of the word is required for a lawful action, it is not lawful to act in the state of positive practical doubt, since by so doing, one exposes oneself to the immediate danger of committing a formal sin. If therefore a man doubts the lawfulness of some action, he must either refrain from acting or remove the practical doubt.”

The classic example given is that of the two hunters. Two men go hunting and become separated in pursuit of the deer. One sees some rustling in the bushes but cannot be certain that it is the deer or his hunting partner. He cannot act in doubt. If he were to shoot (even if it proves to be the deer and not his fellow hunter), he would be guilty of a grave sin for he acted in the state of a practical doubt.
 
This same principle must be applied to the question of the pope. One cannot act in the state of practical doubt. If one argues that he/she holds that Francis might be pope, then it would be entirely wrong and sinful to refuse to obey him for as Pope Pius IX clearly states every Catholic has the duty to submit to the authority of the Roman Pontiff “…not only in things which pertain to faith and morals but also in those things which pertain to the discipline and the government of the Church…”

How then can you pretend that it is acceptable to defy the authority of Francis and yet all the while hold that he may be pope?

When St. Robert Bellarmine wrote of the possibility that a pope would cease to be pope if he became a heretic, he was dealing with a speculative doubt. Now, in our present situation, the question of whether or whether not Francis is pope is not a matter of a speculative doubt but rather a practical doubt. One must then resolve the practical doubt before one can act for it is sinful to act while in the state of a practical doubt.

You assert that you are in communion with a man who professes heresies; you insert his name in the Canon of the Mass (‘Una cuм…”). You cannot possible argue that by so doing you are formally in communion with a heretic (please see the enclosed photocopies concerning ‘The Teaching Of The Roman Catholic Church Concerning Ecclesial Communion’).

Letter to Bp. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais dated August 8, 2016 6
If Francis, were pope, then:

o The Church of which he is the head is the Roman Catholic Church. o The dogmatic and moral teachings of Vatican II, termed Ordinary Magisterium by Paul VI, deserve the assent of faith (cf. Vatican I), and the reforms of Vatican II, while perhaps not ideal, are Catholic and non-sinful.

o Only those priests who are authorized by Francis (and the local bishop in communion with him) can be deemed to be saying Catholic Masses.
 
o Masses offered by priests unauthorized by him and the local bishop are not Catholic Masses, since they are not offered in the person of the Church. Rather they are schismatic Masses, and fall under the severe condemnations of the Popes and Fathers of the Church.
If Francis, is not-pope, then:

o The church of which he is the head is not the Roman Catholic Church

o Neither Vatican II nor its reforms deserve the assent of faith or obedience, but rather should be rejected and ignored by Catholics.

o Masses offered in union with Francis are non-Catholic Masses, since they are offered in the person of a heretical church.
 
o Catholic priests may rightfully invoke the principles of Ecclesia supplet and epikeia as reasonable authorization of their apostolates, due to the absence of authority, and thus rightfully claim that their Masses and sacraments are authorized by the Catholic Church and are in the person of the Church.

This means that all Catholics MUST submit to the authority of the legitimate Vicar of Christ. Now the SSPX refuses to submit to the ‘authority’ of Francis (e.g., the SSPX consecrated bishops contrary to the authority of his predecessor, sets up chapels without authorization, etc.)

The objective truth is quite simply that the positions of the SSPX are inconsistent, illogical, intellectually dishonest, deceptive and duplicitous. It seems very clear to me that the positions of the SSPX are in contradiction to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.

How then can you continue to teach and profess errors that you know with certitude are not in conformity with the teaching of the Church? How can you continue to deceive and mislead souls?

You are leading souls astray.

Did not Archbishop Lefebvre write in his ‘Spiritual Journey’: "It is the strict duty of every priest and layman wishing to remain Catholic to separate himself clearly from the Conciliar Church, for so long as she does not profess the tradition of the Church's Magisterium and of the Catholic Faith."
 
Should you not heed this admonition of the late Archbishop??

In Christo Rege Domino Nostro,
The Reverend Father Eugene R. Berry

Father Berry has been had problem with  Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX ever since he took off with Fr. Collins and the rest of that sad group "The Nine" in 1983. He is a sede, of course, and not just a "Pope Francis can't really be pope" sede. But he is one who believes that for many, many years now there has been no pope. That is a situation which cannot exist in the Church, and that is De Fide. The Dogma of Catholicicity requires marks of the Church must be visible.

http://strobertbellarmine.net/van_noort_catholicity.html

The Society for years, successfully evaded the errors of sedevacantism and compromise with Rome and lost priests who fell to those errors all along the way. I would not listen to any one of those men who could not even follow Archbishop Lefebvre while he was alive. How does he dare to quote him to Bishop Tissier who has been always with Archbishop Lefebvre, as a reproach.

Please learn Catholicism before commenting upon it.  You are ignorant of doctrine.

Even non-sedevacantists agree that there was a three year interregnum in history.  Please identify this supposed source that a five year interregnum is not possible...or is it seven years?  Ten?  Fifteen?  What is the limit and what is the source for your upper limit?  Specifics please, not your blather.

I understand someone not being a sedevacantist, but don't make up "de fide" doctrines to justify your belief.

Quote from: Pilar

Father Berry has been had problem with  Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX ever since he took off with Fr. Collins and the rest of that sad group "The Nine" in 1983. He is a sede, of course, and not just a "Pope Francis can't really be pope" sede. But he is one who believes that for many, many years now there has beenno pope. That is a situation which cannot exist in the Church, and that is De Fide. The Dogma of Catholicicity requiresmarks of the Churchmust be visible.

http://strobertbellarmine.net/van_noort_catholicity.html

The Society for years, successfully evaded the errors of sedevacantism andcompromise with Rome and lost priests who fell to those errors all along the way. I would not listen to any one of those men who could not even follow Archbishop Lefebvre while he was alive. How does he dare to quote him to Bishop Tissier who has been always with Archbishop Lefebvre, as a reproach.

Please learn Catholicism before commenting upon it.  You are ignorant of doctrine.

Even non-sedevacantists agree that there was a three year interregnum in history.  Please identify this supposed source that a five year interregnum is not possible...or is it seven years?  Ten?  Fifteen?  What is the limit and what is the source for your upper limit?  Specifics please, not your blather.

I understand someone not being a sedevacantist, but don't make up "de fide" doctrines to justify your belief.

Thanks for the information TKGS, I didn't know that, it is all true, and it's happened 4 times, I looked it up:

The following is a table of sede vacante periods in excess of a year from Wikipedia:


Clement IV    to Gregory X    29 November 1268   1 September 1271   2 years 10 months

Nicholas IV to Celestine V   4 April 1292   5 July 1294   2 years 3 months

Clement V   to John XXII   20 April 1314   2 August 1316   2 years 3 months

Gregory XII to   Martin V   4 July 1415   11 November 1417   2 years 5 months

if one claims that Francis is pope, then one must necessarily worship in the same manner that he worships, i.e., one must assist at the New Mass.
...Those who claim that they ‘cannot be sure that he is not pope’ also are objectively speaking committing serious sin

A classic "damned if you don't, damned if you do" argument.

One of the biggest turn offs of sedevacantism is when it turns into the same papolotry as the Liberals. The most valid argument against many sedevacantists is that they actually agree with the Modernists that one must accept and do everything the Pope does. If the pope is left-handed, you just better say you are also left-handed, mister. Totally impractical.

This priest obliges every Catholic of the age of reason to judge the validity of a papacy that we have only been presented or known through venues such as the mainstream media or Youtube...and if not be condemned to hellfire for not reaching a conclusion. A very dangerous notion to be forced onto any Catholic.

Quote from: Father Eugene R. Berry

if one claims that Francis is pope, then one must necessarily worship in the same manner that he worships, i.e., one must assist at the New Mass.
...Those who claim that they ‘cannot be sure that he is not pope’ also are objectively speaking committing serious sin

A classic "damned if you don't, damned if you do" argument.

One of the biggest turn offs of sedevacantism is when it turns into the same papolotry as the Liberals. The most valid argument against many sedevacantists is that they actually agree with the Modernists that one must accept and do everything the Pope does. If the pope is left-handed, you just better say you are also left-handed, mister. Totally impractical.

This priest obliges every Catholic of the age of reason to judge the validity of a papacy that we have only been presented or known through venues such as the mainstream media or Youtube...and if not be condemned to hellfire for not reaching a conclusion. A very dangerous notion to be forced onto any Catholic.

It's a rhetorical argument that drives at the heart of the Church's unity.  The argument is not a literal argument, but serves to illustrate a host of contradictions present in the simultaneous "recognition" of a pope to whom one is not united in so basic a tenet of religion as worship.

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.  

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 Jєωs 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.