Yes, what he is or isn't does matter.....for if you believe a pope can be a manifest heretic, blasphemer & idol worshipper, your understanding of what a pope is becomes totally destroyed. Whereas for those who see that it is impossible for a heretic to be a valid Pope....their understanding of what a True and authentic Pope is, remains intact. A false understanding of what a valid Pope is.....is very likely.....of itself.....to be a heresy.

What is your understanding of what a pope is?

@123jussi 'The Rock' on which Jesus' Church is built.
The Rock defending and teaching Catholic Truth!!!!!

The Church is quite clear on what the pope is: 1) the Vicar of Christ on Earth, 2) the visible head of the Church Militant, 3) visible source of unity for the Church Militant, and 4) proximate rule of faith.
From those, it necessarily follows that a true pope cannot, as pope, bind the faithful with a law that would damage souls, teach anything contrary to the ordinary Magisterium, teach anything harmful to faith and/or morals. If you have to question if what the "pope" is saying, if it is consistent with Catholic doctrine, then you have just admitted to yourself he's probably not a pope.

Did any catholic who believe all 31 antipopes of the past were actually antipopes and resisted, did they embraced sedevacantism? No, It is easy... we MUST remain faithful while resisting this destroyer of the faith, he will destroy but not our faith.

@yuca2111 First, when you understand the theology behind the sedevacantist position, you realize that it is entirely consistent with Catholic theology and Dogma. Sedevacantism is not a heresy (but tell that to those who insist a manifest, pertinatious heretic is a Catholic, let alone pope).
Second, if one rejects Bergoglio in 2024, they are necessarily sedevacantist, as if Jorge isn't pope (he's not), then the "sede" is "vacante". Now, when Anacletus II claimed the throne, and you rejected his claim, then you supported Innocent II, and thus could not be sedevacantist. This also doesn't explain St. Vincent Ferrer, who argued, at the end of the Western Schism, that the See was vacant because the claimants became schismatics by refusing to heal the split by resigning for the good of the Church.
Seeing as the Church has declared St. Vincent Ferrer a saint and doctor, I don't really think you can argue that "sedevacantism" is an impossibility.

There is no sedevacantism, Petrus Romanus (St. Peter the first pope), IS the one carrying the Church in the Holy Name of Christ right now.

My impression is there is a lot of murkiness of thought surrounding this question of whether Bergoglio is the Pope or no, and the people who have looked into it seem to have the clarity of thought these ones seem to lack.

Well said @Maria delos Angeles. When any perceived orthodox Catholic clergyman or layperson tries to explain that a serial, manifest, pertinaceous heretic....is validly a Catholic & also the Pope.....no clear thinking in relation to that position is possible.....so, yes, the reasoning gets quite murky, fuzzy, cloudy and outright spurious.....and ultimately makes no logical sense.

And that is without going anywhere near the topic of all the Canon Laws & Apostolic Constitution laws broken in the process of Jorge usurping the Chair of Peter. There have been books written on that. See: Benedict XVI: Pope "Emeritus"? : Acosta, Estefanía, Laverde, Clara Eugenia, Acosta, Estefanía: Amazon.com.au: Books

I disagree with the notion that we, as faithful Catholics, are free to decide “if the pope is really the pope.” Nevertheless. I have read, like everyone else, of the outrageous and anti-Catholic statements and behavior reported about Pope Francis.
But if I understand the reasoning being advanced by some commenters on this site, as a Catholic I am obliged to accept a duly elected pope as the spiritual leader of the Church…… unless I have read about reports of either papal behavior or the papal electoral process that I accept as being true and which give me concern. If then, after carefully study I believe the process for electing him pope was flawed in some way, or that he has said or engaged in acts that I have concluded are manifestly heretical, I am free to conclude that the current pope is a false pope. In either of those cases I can remain a faithful, Catholic even though I would be professing sedevacantism.
If those who reject Pope Francis as the Vicar of Christ believe that statement is not sound, I would appreciate it if they would kindly advise me as to where it is in error.

His heresies are manifest for all Catholics to see.
@Irishpol do your homework.

@Irishpol Apart from the natural and divine Law, the sensus fidei gives you to be able to work it out, spiritual sensitivity etc, I would recommend the oeuvre of Ann Barnhardt. She has 200 + podcasts and hundreds of hours discussing this very topic. Dr Ed Mazza and Fr Paul Kramer in particular also I recommend for English language. The hierarchy has been infiltrated by bad people and bishops who you even think are more orthodox, even they are Modernists. Confusion abounds, but there are oases of clarity if you know where to look.. , just they are few and far between and you need to really be looking. It is not sedevacanist. It is an interregnum. It has been 563 days now since the Petrine See is vacant. Barnhardt | Judica me, Deus, et discerne causam meam de gente non sancta.

Irishpol very simple , card. JM Bergoglio was elected when pope Benedict XVI claimed (munus) Petrine Office untill 31.12.2022. Therefore whether the election was corrupt or he is heretic is irrelevant to the fact that more than one pope claiming Petrine Office is forbidden in Catholic Church and any following pope is material usurper as such pending to be formally declared by Church. Unfortunately, majority don't accept this fact for being confused and continuously rejecting the true pope Benedict XVI....

@Irishpol 1) It is a matter of Divine and Catholic Faith that the pope must be a member of the Catholic Church.
2) It is a matter of Divine and Catholic Faith that a manifest and pertinatious heretic is not a member of the Catholic Church, as their heresy is a tacit resignation of their membership. A heretic, whether formally declared as such or not, has absolutely no position or authority in the Church.
3) The pope is the proximate rule of Faith, and all the faithful are guaranteed to be safe from error and damnation in following the teachings of a valid pope.
4) It is a matter of Divine and Catholic Faith that the Church is infallible in Her teachings on Faith and Morals. That infallibility does NOT extend to papal elections: there have been invalid popes (antipopes) elected in the past.
Conclusion: A valid election does not guarantee a valid pope. A man who is a heretic at the time of his election CANNOT be pope because he is not Catholic. There is no evidence that Bergoglio was ever pope, because he was a heretic in Buenos Aires. And one seriously has to question Benedict XVI, because he legitimately thought he could bifurcate the papacy, which seems to me to be heretical.
[For those that argue his heresy wasn't declared, that is irrelevant: the consistent teaching of the Theologians and doctors is the heretics have no position, with or without a declaration.]

In Argentina, Bergoglio had been denounced as a heretic on several Argentine Catholic blogs and even in a book by Argentine professor Antonio Caponnetto in 2010 called The Betrayed Church (La Iglesia Traicionada). Let us not forget that the Jesuit order to which Bergoglio belongs was reprimanded by Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI for their heretical positions. In 2008, following the election of the Spanish progressive Adolfo Nicolás, Pope Benedict issued a strong warning to the Jesuits and asked them to strictly obey the teachings of the Church regarding "the relationship between Christ and religions, some aspects of liberation theology and various points of sexual morality, especially with regard to the indissolubility of marriage and the pastoral care of homosexual persons." This demonstrates not only the persistent heresy of the apostate Bergoglio but also his schism.
Los jesuitas eligieron a un "Papa Negro" progresista (clarin.com)
Bergoglio's Homosexual Subversion Already Began in Buenos Aires

True , this traitor is protecting himself.
22 Feb 2014
66.1
Appointed
Cardinal-Deacon of Sant’Agnese in Agone.

A question hangs over all of the conciliar popes, my friend.

Sean Johnson Absolutely none... Why ?

Because of public heresy for all of them.

Sean Johnson really ? there is material and formal heresy... What do you mean by public heresy ?

Manifest

Sean Johnson you know the errors and heresies practiced by post conciliar legitimate popes were implemented in VII documents accepted by majority of "Conciliar Fathers". I.e. Lumen Gentium 16 etc.

Correct.

Sean Johnson therefore the popes' errors derive from other source than obvious usurpacy of Petrine Office by card Bergogliio,..

It matters less from whence the heresy came, than the fact that embracing such heresy, one becomes a heretic.

Sean Johnson you fail to make distinctbetween material and formal heresy. Nevertheless in accordance with Church Constitution no one is allowed to usurp Petrine Office whether being heterodox or orthodox.

Formal/material has nothing to do with my argument, but rather public/covert.

If I could explain it briefly, I would say that the problem is that several documents of Vatican II contain heresies maliciously introduced by internal heretics and external enemies of the Church who influenced Vatican II. The general darkening of the Church was caused by homosexuals, masons, communists who infiltrated the Seminary and Bergoglio is one of them. With and after Vatican II, two currents emerged: one ultra-progressive and another more conservative (John Paul II and Benedict XVI). That is why Pope Benedict XVI began to speak of the “hermeneutics of continuity” because they wanted to interpret Vatican II in accordance with the Tradition of the Church, but the problem is that the ecumenical movement is incompatible with Catholic doctrine. This conservative approach provoked confrontation and hatred from the ultra-progressive current that saw in Benedict an approach to tradition and an obstacle due to his positions against homosexuality and his defense of the Family and the sacraments. But now we see no continuity but a total rupture. In fact, the gay mafia got rid of Benedict because he was no longer useful for their evil purposes. There is no hermeneutics of continuity. Bergoglio broke the thread that remained. Bergoglio has caused a “SCHISM” between the Catholic Church of all times and the Novus Ordo.

I believe that many Catholics have not learned to distinguish between what is an “urgency” and what is an emergency. Because if we see that a man wants to kill a group of people, the first thing we must try to do is disarm him. At that moment, it is of no use getting lost in discussions about who opened the door for the man to “kidnap” those people, etc., but we must resolve the immediate problem. AND THE SERIAL KILLER THAT WE MUST DISARM is called Jorge Mario Bergoglio Sívori.

@la verdad prevalece The need to 'disarm' that you mention can only relate to Divine Intervention which is worse than anything man can bring upon himself. It also means that time is about to run out and of the absolute necessity for sacramental confession by Catholics and the leading of good lives by all others.
Prepare for the worst.

We certainly need Divine intervention. Regarding the murderer of souls Jorge Mario Bergoglio, we must unmask him so that his rebellion against God and the Church is exposed to all. Following the advice of Pope Leo XIII who recommended us, our duty is to remove the mask from Masons like Bergoglio. Or the recommendation of St. Francis de Sales to shout out to warn others that Bergoglio is a wolf who is preying on souls.

@la verdad prevalece Indeed - even more so, given that since Vatican II evangelisation has virtually disappeared; contrary to Our Blessed Lords instruction to His Apostles and their successors.

@Sean Johnson I dont recognise the spirit entirely of where you are coming from. Call it a woman's intuition.. I dont know how I know, but I think you need to be healed in your understanding about something.

Sean Johnson the fact you ignore is card. Bergoglio being elected when pope Benedict XVI (not declared formally by Church nor heretic and/or antipope) claimed Petrine Office which is contrary to Church Constitution. Thereby it is irrelevant whether following claimant is also heretic or not. Finally your private opinion, which is false, or anyone else does not change the fact of card Bergoglio's usurpacy pending formal declaration in accordance with Church canonic history and practice.

la verdad prevalece popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI had the progressive enemies in the coexisting antichurch identified by the latter as the supporters of Cologne declaration 1989. Pope John Paul II was pressured to resign and pope Benedict XVI was forced. Many "trads" have replaced philosophy with ideology and don't know and not use metaphysical distinctions, i.e. fr Hesse has many times spoken about. Very helpful cognitive tools which facilitate to conform thoughts to reality.

The question of whether or not he is the pope is as settled as the question on whether evolution is true or not. I've never seen so much division in Catholics ever. I wish the cardinals will not continue to be afraid to debate and look at the evidence piling up, which the lay people have been pondering for 11 years.

jobina the fact card. Bergoglio in accordance with Church Constitution is not the pope is more obvious than evolution not being true...

Yep, I'll go with Leo XIII and Pius X. At my judgement, I won't be afraid to admit I followed what they had to say.

Let us remember that the anti-Catholic apostate Jorge Bergoglio, who promotes false gods and believes that neither Christ nor the Church is necessary for salvation, eliminated the title of Vicar of Christ.

What need have we of Rome, or the cardinals, or the Church for that matter? The commenters here on Gloria.TV.com have settled it for us. Now we can rest comfortably tonight.

Mary,
Pre-Vatican II theologians are weighty authorities and cannot be dismissed. They represent the official interpretation of matters in the mind of the Church. No, they are not infallible, but because they carry the weight of (Pre-Vatican II) papal approval, they cannot be ignored as mere "opinion".
Prior to the creation of the Conciliar anti-church, the idea that a man like Jorge Bergoglio would be considered Catholic, let alone pope would have been laughed at. At least Rahner and Kung had the piece of mind to hide their heresy until a Modernist like Paul VI or John XXIII assumed the Chair. Jorge has been a manifest, pertinatious heretic for years. He was so bad that the Jesuit superior argued against JPII making him a Conciliar bishop.
The ordinary Magisterium of the Church is quite clear: heresy, not a declaration, separates oneself from the Church. To say a declaration is needed is to say the Church, Her saints, and Her doctors don't know what they are saying...

@Mary K Jones What Rome? The one that is immersed in paganism and immorality. That apostate Rome that violated the First Commandment with the Pachamama, that defies the Divine Natural Law to promote sodomy with the Fiducia Supplican? The Rome that denies that Christ and the Church are necessary for salvation. Which cardinals? Those who have joined Bergoglio in his rebellion against God?