I asked: Was pope Paul VI a true pope? Scroll down a bit for the answer

That’s a very sensitive and important question. Let me frame it carefully in line with Catholic teaching and pre‑Vatican II theological categories.

📜 Historical Fact

• Giovanni Battista Montini was elected pope on June 21, 1963, taking the name Paul VI.
• He reigned until August 6, 1978.
• The Catholic Church universally recognizes him as the legitimate successor of St. Peter in that period.
• He was later canonized as a saint by Pope Francis in 2018.

✝️ Pre‑Vatican II Theological Categories
Before Vatican II, theologians like St. Robert Bellarmine and Suarez discussed hypotheticals about a “heretical pope.” Their principles were:

• Valid election + acceptance → makes a man pope.
• Manifest heresy → would cause him to lose office ipso facto, but only if it were public, undeniable, and contrary to the faith.
• Suspicion or private conviction → not sufficient; the Church must judge.

Thus, in pre‑Vatican II theology, the question of whether someone is “truly pope” depends not on private opinion but on the public judgment of the Church.

✅ Answer
Yes — Paul VI was a true pope.

• He was validly elected, universally recognized, and exercised papal authority.
• Even if some Catholics struggled with aspects of his pontificate (especially liturgical reforms after Vatican II), the Church never judged him a heretic or declared him deposed.
• According to pre‑Vatican II theology, private conviction cannot overturn the Church’s public recognition.

So while theologians allowed for the possibility of a heretical pope in theory, in practice Paul VI was accepted as pope by the whole Church, and therefore he must be regarded as a true pope.
Would you like me to walk you through Bellarmine’s five opinions on a heretical pope so you can see how pre‑Vatican II theologians distinguished between suspicion, secret heresy, and manifest heresy?

LOL



I asked:
Are sedevacantists members of the Catholic Church?

I'm saying you're shooting yourself in the foot with that AI. That thing is as useless as sedeism.

Ok so back to the OP - finally.

It is your position that the AI is "buggy" and "useless".

But Matthew's AI that you are onboard to help with will be a beacon of orthodoxy right?

So, what will you do if Matthew makes his "Traditional Catholic AI" and it gives all the same answers I posted in the OP?

Will that be "useless" and "buggy" too?

I predict it will give the same answers.

I predict the only way to get a different answer is to manipulate what data you feed into the AI.

I don't know enough about it, but I know the AI link in the OP is full of crap and most certainly should not be used by those new to tradition. 

The OP is way TLDR. 

Snip: "This famous Una cuм of the sedevacantists...ridiculous! ridiculous .... it’s ridiculous, it's ridiculous. In fact it is not at all the meaning of the prayer"- Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, retreat at St-Michel en Brenne, April 1st, 1989

… And then, he (Dom Guillou) goes through all the prayers of the Canon, all the prayers of the Roman
Canon. He goes through them one after the other and then he shows the difference, he gives
translations, very good ones. He gives, for example, precisely this famous.. you know, this famous una
cuм.., una cuм of the sedevacantists. And you, do you say una cuм? (laughter of the nuns of St-Michel
en Brenne). You say una cuм in the Canon of the Mass! Then we cannot pray with you; then you're not
Catholic; you're not this; you're not that; you're not.. Ridiculous! ridiculous! because they claim
that when we say una cuм summo Pontifice, the Pope, isn’t it, with the Pope, so therefore you embrace
everything the Pope says. It’s ridiculous! It’s ridiculous! In fact, this is not the meaning of the
prayer. Te igitur clementissime Pater. 

This is the first prayer of the Canon. So here is how Dom
Guillou translates it, a very accurate translation, indeed: "We therefore pray Thee with profound
humility, most merciful Father, and we beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Our Lord, to
accept and to bless these gifts, these presents, these sacrifices, pure and without blemish, which we
offer Thee firstly for Thy Holy Catholic Church. May it please Thee to give Her peace, to keep Her, to
maintain Her in unity, and to govern Her throughout the earth, and with Her, Thy servant our Holy
Father the Pope." It is not said in this prayer that we embrace all ideas that the Pope may have or
all the things he may do. With Her, your servant our Holy Father the Pope, our Bishop and all those
who practice the Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox faith! So to the extent where, perhaps,
unfortunately, the Popes would no longer have ..., nor the bishops…, would be deficient in the
Orthodox, Catholic and Apostolic Faith, well, we are not in union with them, we are not with them, of
course. We pray for the Pope and all those who practice the Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox faith! - Archbishop Lefebvre

But if +Lefebrve believed that John Paul II was a manifest, public, heretic why did he insist on keeping his name in the Canon? Is this a contradiction in his theology?

No, it's not a contradiction because he knew that he can believe and opine whatever he wants, but he also knew that he could not omit the name of the pope from the canon of the Mass, and as I quoted him above, there is every reason to keep his name in. He knew that there are some things according to the law that even priests and bishops cannot do, that's one of them. 

 

Ergo, either +Lefebrve did not have moral certainty of manifest, public heresy in the sense fully expressed in the Law,

+ABL dealt face to face with the pope on many occasions numerous times, he knew the man, he knew the man was a heretic, the law of Quo Primum says you cannot omit anything from the Mass. He knew he could not omit the name of the pope, heretic or not, he did not have that authority, nor did he have any reason to omit his name - again, see his quote above. Quit relying on that AI - which already said the conciliar popes are true popes.