I understand the difference, thank you. I also understand the difference between a pontiff and his appointees.

"The popes since Pius xii were and are all valid and licit up to the current pontiff Benedict xvi."

Others argue very persuasively to the contrary. By their reasoning...

> Saint John XXIII was supposedly an anti-pope, apostate and heretic.

introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/…/the-case-agains…
stevensperay.wordpress.com/…/pope-st-john-xx…
www.amazon.com/…/B0007F89MO
romancatholicfaith.weebly.com/…/the_scandals_an…

> Paul VI was supposedly an anti-pope, apostate and heretic.

novusordowatch.org/paul-vi/
crc-internet.org/…/6-book-against-…
pontifexverus.wordpress.com/…/answering-a-fre…
romancatholicfaith.weebly.com/…/the_scandals_an…

> John Paul I was supposedly an anti-pope, apostate and heretic.

novusordowatch.org/john-paul-i/
www.ncronline.org/…/shortest-pontif…
www.scribd.com/…/The-Scandals-an…

> Saint John Paul II was supposedly an anti-pope, apostate and heretic.

www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php
www.calefactory.org/misc-v2-heresiesofjp2.htm

> Benedict XVI was supposedly an anti-pope, apostate and heretic.

www.calefactory.org/misc-v2-heresiesofb16.htm
www.opusdeialert.com/footnotes.htm
www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/…/anti-pope-bened…
holywar.org/Ratzinger.htm

If (as you claim) all appointments made by an anti-pope are illicit, then Benedict XVI and JPII were illictly appointed even as cardinals (much less as popes) since their previous THREE predecessors were (according to their critics) anti-popes, apostates and heretics. There probably isn't a cardinal alive today who wasn't in fact appointed by a supposed anti-pope, apostate and heretic.

Your criticism (and theirs) is essentially baseless. Given enough time and a close enough reading of every single thing each Pope ever said and did, every Pope since Pius xii fails somebody's criteria somehow....including Benedict XVI.

What you're doing is deciding you like Benedict XVI and then ignoring the extensive criticisms against his papacy. You're not alone in doing so, but it's hardly fair to his successor.

Hm.Roncallli suspected of heresy? If so ,then unlike Bergoglio he was not a formal but a material heretic. Some popes committed material heresy and were subsequently corrected. Unlike formal, material heresy does not sever a man from the church.
No alleged pope in the entire history of the church has behaved and directly contradicted Christ’s specific commandments as has Jorge Bergoglio SJ.

In Amoris Laetitia for the first time in church history an alleged “pope” promotes formal heresy. It is formal because the alleged pope knows for a fact that the teaching in AL contradicts fundamental catholic teaching on sacramental marriage.
He has been told this, would have been taught it, yet persists in promoting sacrilegious communion an activity which also incurs the penalty of excommunication.
.

It would be nice if you stopped making these preposterous wildly unsupported claims. The list I supplied covers quite a few more popes than Angelo Roncalli. In fact, it indicts -every- pope since Pius XII, including Benedict XVI.

All you're doing is picking which "offenses" you choose to recognize against one Pope whilst ignoring the rest against the others.

It would be nice if you studied the distinction between formal and material heresy.
Roncalli and all popes after him were not formal heretics.
Pope Benedict is not a formal heretic.
Antipope Bergoglio definitely is a formal heretic.
The liturgy of the mass is largely a man made affair.
It can and has been changed over the centuries and to assert that it is set in stone by PiusV is absurd and factually incorrect.

The only substantiative difference between the two forms is the heretic's subjective belief about his opinion. Your claims of which popes are or are not formal vs. material heretics are like all your claims...

Emphatically stated but absent any factual support. beyond your increasingly vocal say-so.

Meanwhile Benedict's nay-sayers have their own take on him being a "formal" heretic, anti-pope, and so on..

www.opusdeialert.com/footnotes.htm
novusordowatch.org/benedict-xvi/

If one starts rigorously applying every teaching of The Church to Benedict XVI and even Saint JPII's papacies, there are just as many grounds for automatic excommunication, etc.

Since you are neither willing nor able to refute all the charges made against these Popes, if you were being fair, you should concede your basic criterion for heresy and anti-papacy against Francis is personal bias.

Hey, I don't like Francis, either. But if you choose to argue he isn't the Pope based on a close reading of Church law and teachings, then you should do the same for his predecessors who have just as many if less flagrant offenses.

...and you're not doing that.

These are unprecedented times for every catholic.All that concerns me is the present where you have two men officially wielding the title of “pope” in the Roman Catholic Church
All the other popes you refer to are dead.
Canon law is the sole protection for Catholics in this calamitous situation.
Pope Benedict has not complied fully with it in relation to his resignation.
Antipope Bergoglio daily spits on faithful Catholics and openly rejects catholic doctrine.
The safe prudent course all Catholics are obliged to follow is to deem Benedict’s resignation faulty or to view the See of Peter as vacant.
I chose the former.

"All that concerns me is the present where you have two men officially wielding the title of "pope" in the Roman Catholic Church"

Well! Then this is a joyous moment for us both and I'm delighted to be the bringer of good news! That isn't the current situation at all. We have Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI and Pope Francis.

An "emeritus" is someone who once held an office and doesn't anymore. So we don't have two men officially wielding the title of pope at all!

Emeritus is no different than (Ret.) after a military rank. It's a mark of respect, an acknowledgement of former service but it also means that individual no longer has an active command.

The lowliest active-duty Corporal has more command authority than General So and So (Ret.) The same is true here.

"All the other popes you refer to are dead."

Your original claim was, and I quote, "The appointments of an antipope may be valid but they are never licit." Whether or not an antipope is still alive or dead is irrelevant.

...and I have supplied numerous sites extensively documenting why every Pope since Piux XII is, according to a careful reading of various Church law and teachings supposedly an anti-pope and heretic, including Benedict XVI

If the appointments made by antipopes are not licit (your assertion), then Benedict has more more claim to the title of Pope than Francis.

You need to either abide by the standard you adopted as the basis for denouncing Pope Francis and also apply it to his predecessors or acknowledge Francis as the valid Pope, regardless of his numerous and obvious faults..

You can't have it both ways and, so sorry, I'm not going to allow you to do so.

My position is a much simpler one and shares none of the weaknesses of yours. Namely, Benedict was Pope. He resigned. This is nothing new and while uncommon it has happened before.

The Curia elected Francis as Pope. Unfortunately for the Church, Pope Francis is a godless worldly man. This is nothing new either and while also uncommon The Church has seen godless worldly Popes before.

The Church has survived them and the Church shall survive Francis without pretending he isn't "really" Pope.

"Canon law is the sole protection for Catholics in this calamitous situation."

Canon law is like any other species of law. It is subject to interpretation. Meaning, your reading of "canon law" isn't an absolute. Many have looked at Canon law and found reason to argue Benedict XVI was an anti-Pope and heretic.

You, on the other hand, well... you're not even bothering to refute their arguments and seem to think rhetoric and hyperbole are adequate substitutes for doing so.

They aren't.

If you want to follow what you describe as a godless pope ( bergoglio) that,s your free and reckless .choice.

A godless pope is a contradiction in terms.
Bergoglio is indeed godless and therefore not a pope.
I have never heard historically of a godless pope so refute your assertion in that regard.
I’m not going to argue the apostolic succession as you seem to believe it ended with Pius xii.
I believe it continues today in Benedict xvi.

There have been any number of godles Popes before Francis, men history now calls "The Bad Popes".

"I have never heard historically of a godless pope so refute your assertion in that regard."

Oh? Now you demand refutation? How nice. I've been asking for as much regarding my laundry list of sources indicting Francis' predecessrors including Benedict XVI.

Strangely, you aren't quick to provide any such refutation. Funny thing about that, eh?

Since I'm not you and stand on solid factual ground this is an easy thing to do.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bad_Popes

www.patheos.com/…/bad-popes-how-m…

The Medici and Borgia Popes were notorious for their impiety and worldliness.

"I’m not going to argue the apostolic succession as you seem to believe it ended with Pius xii."

We both know better than that.

You're not going to argue the apostolic succession for a far more cynical reason....

Your choice for the "real" Pope is just as guilty of heresy and apostasy and worthy of "automatic exommunication" as Francis. And so was his predecessor and the two before that pope as well.

I -don't- believe the apostolic succession ended with Piux XII, nor do I believe it ended with Benedict XVI.

What I believe is your standards for condemning Pope Francis are hypocritical in the extreme.

If you want to play at being an amateur canon lawyer and comb through everything Pope Francis says and does looking for any reason, any excuse to scream about heresy and apostasy and how he's automatically excommunicated himself... fine.

If that's your standard for a legitimate Papacy, great!

Then by all rights, you need to do the same with Benedict XVI and JP 1, and JP 2, and John XXIII. You should go picking through every single thing those Popes ever said or wrote with the same uncompromising standard.

Better still, others have done all that hard work for you. They've found numerous reasons to claim each of the Popes I mentioned was every bit as unworthy to be Pope as Francis is today.

They apply your standards, your keen examination of Canon Law and Church Teachings, to Popes you'd rather ignore and one you, in fact, champion.

Since those Popes weren't as visible or as vocal in their heresies, you're perfectly willing to ignore them, to make excuses for them, to pretend these issues simply don't exist.

If you truly believed in these standards you love endlessly prattling about all over GTV, you'd be just as eager to judge every Pope against them.

The problem is you don't. You don't truly believe in them which is why you don't apply them uniformly They're just a propaganda tool for you to make "Canonical-Sounding Criticisms" against Francis' papacy and nothing more.

..and that is one very shameful double-standard.

To Ultraviolet:You continue to ignore the unique situation that has arisen in the church since 2013 with a superficial acceptance of the utter novelty of a so called “Pope Emeritus “
There can be no such thing as some cardinals have stated.
You also ignore Pope Benedict’s failures to comply with canon law strictures with regard to resignation requirements.

You then seek to argue that because I do not excoriate previous popes or Benedict that my condemnation of Bergoglio is somehow hypocritical.
In the light of a unique and unprecedented situation in the Catholic Church I can only and will only concentrate on the problems surrounding the contemporary papacy.

In addition I do not champion Pope Benedict who is the architect of this utterly confusing and damaging situation.

The so called bad popes you mention never altered church doctrinal teaching.

For the first time in church history an alleged pope (Bergoglio )is teaching that it’s ok to commit adultery and then receive Holy Communion without purpose of amendment.

Such teaching is formally heretical

Such teaching directly contravenes the 6th commandment and Christ’s specific words.

And yet you insist that francis is a valid pope?

That is simply not possible.

Whatever the argument about Benedict, a formal heretic like francis can not be an authentic Vicar of Christ.

That is the nub of the argument.

Catholic marriage is indissoluble.
Jorge Bergoglios writings and teaching seek to destroy that charism and promote sacrilegious Holy Communion.

Such teaching as that has no precedent and can only come from a man who is not a member of the Mystical Body of Christ.

No catholic “pope “in history has ever sought to so radically up end and over turn Christ’s very own words on adultery.

I reject your false accusation of hypocrisy.

The real hypocrites are those who follow a pope who panders to the lusts of man by telling them their evil conduct is acceptable to God.

But follow wolf in sheep’s clothing Jorge Bergoglio if that is your choice.

My choice is to reject a false teacher like Bergoglio and look elsewhere.
Benedict is very far from perfect but at least he still lives and is also a Roman Catholic.

Are you a Roman Catholic?
If you are a sincere one then you can not follow Bergoglio as he is most definitely not a catholic .

Any way I appreciate your responses and thank you for taking the time.

There isn't anything "unique" about Catholic Popes resigning.

"There can be no such thing as some cardinals have stated."

A cardinal's opinion is not irrefutable. Cardinal Marx has many opinions, surely you wouldn't agree with them simply because he's a cardinal, no? This is faulty reasoning, picking and choosing which "authorities" to acknowledge and only when they agree with you.

"You also ignore Pope Benedict’s failures to comply with canon law strictures with regard to resignation requirements."

We've discussed this previously and you're simply repeating your earlier claim absent any new supporting evidence. The last time you brought this up, you even embroidered canon law with claim that literally isn't present in the law you cited.

"In the light of a unique and unprecedented situation in the Catholic Church I can only and will only concentrate on the problems surrounding the contemporary papacy."

There is nothing "uniuque and unprecedented" about an (arguably) heretical apostate anti-pope. The only thing "unique and unprecedented" here is one (arguably) heretical apostate anti-pope resigned and another (arguably) heretical apostate anti-pope assumed office while his predecessor is still alive.

But that has nothing to do with either man or their own predecessors being supposedly heretical apostate anti-popes. You choose to argue the current pope is not valid because he's a heretic and an apostate and anti-pope.

Fine.

If you wish to apply those standards to Pope Francis, then you should apply those same standards universally to Benedict XVI (and his predecssors) as well. It's monstrously hypocritical to pretend that Benedict XVI is "the real Pope" when he's just as "guilty" of heresy and apostasy and being anti-pope.

"In addition I do not champion Pope Benedict who is the architect of this utterly confusing and damaging situation."

You just did. Again. Look at your title... he isn't "Pope Benedict". He's Pope Emeritus Benedict and that's by his own decision while he was in fact still Pope and head of the Church. Pope Benedict resigned. You keep insisting he's Pope because you find him more palatable than Francis.

Well, I agree with you! He is more palatable. But your "indictments" against Francis also apply to Benedict XVI.

If you truly believe that we should weigh every single thing Pope Francis says and does against the entirety of Canon Law and Church teachings, fine. Then you should do the same for Benedict and his predecessors.

If you truly believe that one divergence, one contradiction of Canon Law and Church teachings automatically excommunicates Francis, fine. Then you should do the same for Benedict and his predecessors.

...and you don't. There's the hypocrisy.

"The so called bad popes you mention never altered church doctrinal teaching."

Irrelevant to your original claim:

"I have never heard historically of a godless pope so refute your assertion in that regard."

The actions of the "bad popes" clearly show they had no regard for The Church or for God, which proves my original point. There have been numerous godless Popes before Francis. We just have the profound misfortune to be living during the reign of another one.

"And yet you insist that francis is a valid pope? That is simply not possible."

I've repeatedly posted the "laundry list" of websites detailing all the many things Benedict (and his predecessors) have done and said that contradicts Chruch teachings. Others have argued extensively how such claims indict those popes as formal heretics as well.

...which brings us, again, back to your selectively narrow focus.

"Whatever the argument about Benedict, a formal heretic like francis can not be an authentic Vicar of Christ."

No. "Whatever the argument about Benedict" as you dismissively call it, is that he is equally guilty of heresy and apostasy and being an anti-pope. If contradicting Church teachings invalidates Francis, then the same applies to Benedict XVI.

Francis might be a worse heretic, but that doesn't exonerate Benedict. A man who steals a billion dollars is a thief and he might well be the worst thief in history. The man who steals ten dollars is also a thief.

If being a thief disqualifies a man from office, then the standard applies to both men regardless of the amount they stole.

This is what you insist on not doing. A double-standard is the basis of all hypocrisy.

"My choice is to reject a false teacher like Bergoglio and look elsewhere."

..and by "elsewhere" you mean a man who is just as guilty of being a "false teacher". Perhaps not as flagrantly, but certainly and irrefutably false just the same.

"Benedict is very far from perfect but at least he still lives and is also a Roman Catholic."

According to your standards, because of his numerous and repeated contradictions of the Church's laws and teachings, he's exommunicated himself. So he isn't a Roman Catholic any more than Francis is. Or, they both are.

"Are you a Roman Catholic? If you are a sincere one then you can not follow Bergoglio as he is most definitely not a catholic."

I can ask the same of you and argue the same about Benedict XVI. Applying Church law selectively is hardly sincere, either.

Yes, I am a Catholic and a sincere one. My reasoning is as follows: Benedict was Pope. He resigned and now Francis is Pope. I derive this accordingly: All things happen because God either approves of the action or because God disapproves of the action and yet allows it as a consequence of giving humanity free will.

Scripture shows that God can, does, and will intervene when humanity misuses their free-will beyond the limits of God's patience. It can be as simple as God sending a storm to "redirect" Jonah's course of travel or as dramatic as flooding the plaent.

According to the various Marian apparitions, the next time humanity exceeds God's patience, "it will be a punishment greater than the deluge, such as one will never seen before. Fire will fall from the sky and will wipe out a great part of humanity, the good as well as the bad, sparing neither priests nor faithful. The survivors will find themselves so desolate that they will envy the dead."

So obviously God has not taken an entirely laissez-faire policy towards His creations.

History shows that God has allowed on numerous occasions, absolutely horrible, worldly, entirely impious, men to reign as Pope. Men who were, by any standard, "godless". That is a basic fact. Thus we can conclude God allowed those men to be Pope, regardless of their beliefs or their actions.

God almost certainly did not approve of them, but He allowed them to be Pope and so is Francis now.

Claiming Francis is not Pope contradicts God's will because He allows this (admittedly awful) situation to continue. If God grows tired of Francis and his excesses, I can say with absolute certainty He'll make sure we know it.

Little point in continuing this argument where you falsely and wrongly impute doctrinal heresy whilst in office to Pope Benedict and his predecessors since Pius xii.
In addition you falsely impute doctrinal heresy to popes like the Borgia etc.
There has been no doctrinal heresy imparted by any pope ever .
That is until Bergoglio published Amoris Laetitia which is replete with doctrinal errors and heresies concerning the sacrament of marriage.
This another reason Bergoglio can not be a valid pope.
You have failed to address fully or properly any of the multiple arguments I have presented concerning the contemporary catholic Petrine office.
You claim to be a catholic yet think that God permits his divine church to be polluted with false teaching.
That is not and never has been an acceptable catholic position.