la verded prevalce: Please, stop with the theatrics. We all know Pope Francis is a bad Pope. We all know he gives scandal and seems to be working hand-in-hand with Freemasons. Moreover most of us here are traditionalists who have made a lot of personal sacrifices to hold onto the faith and attend the Latin Mass. So that's not the issue and you are dishonest to make it so. The fundamental difference is that I refuse to usurp the authority of the Magisterium of the Church; I refuse to join your private - and very bitter - revolution. Archbishop Lefebvre showed us how we can lawfully maneuver through this chaotic mess without openly attacking the visible Church of Rome like the Freemasons - and without compromising our own faith and our children's faith. It's Christ's Church. It's our Church. Our Lord won't allow this to go on for much longer.

la verdad prevalece: Have a tizzy fit if you must but the reality remains that an equal authority must judge and depose the Pope. As you do not have that equal authority, you would be more profitable channeling that single-minded passion into prayer and sacrifice for the Holy Father. As so many saints have studied the ins and outs of the issue and come down on the side of prudence and unity - in that he remains the Pope until lawfully judged by a council or a subsequent Pope - then that is the path we Catholics should follow. Naturally this does not mean blind obedience for we are allowed to respectfully resist the Holy Father when his directives fly in the face of Canon Law/tradition. It's a horrible situation to be in but God gave us this lawful "loop hole" in light of the Vatican II confusion. We owe Archbishop Lefebvre so much.

la verdad prevalece: No, you are quite wrong my friend. Have a look:

Galatians 2:11-14

Douay-Rheims Edition

11 But when Cephas (Peter) was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

12 For before that some came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision.

13 And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented, so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation.

14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

ST. Paul is reprimanding Pope Peter for his bad example; for giving scandal. Sound familiar?

As for the teachings of St. Bellarmine - they were a critique of five leading opinions; none of which have been defined definitively. Either way it up to Church to decide, not every Tom, Dick and Luther. Your socialist declarations of 'Power to the people - we will be judge and jury" have no place in a hierarchical kingdom. God will sort it out in his own good time. We must trust - the gates of hell will not prevail. "And my Immaculate Heart will triumph".

"You cannot resist a True Pope". You can if he speaks or commands an error. St. Paul did. St. Athanasius did. Archbishop Lefebvre did. Clear-cut historical examples so I'm in good company. As for your accusation about the Pope personally - I do not know if the Pope is intentionally defying God, sending souls to hell and working for the devil. It's not for me to declare upon. It's not my station. It's not yours either. I see though you are very black and white and find it difficult to make distinctions. A schism is a formal breach of union; a formal break/separation. Respectfully resisting the Pope when he acts against Church Law does not qualify for any sort of schism. Neither it is setting up an authority over the Pope like sede-vacantists do. It therefore doesn't help the discussion by dramatically throwing words about for mere shock value. As for "The Magisterium of the Church has decreed in perpetuity invalid and null the elevation of a heretic, a woman or a child as pope", this same Magisterium elected and recognises this Pope. And as it is the only authority who can rule whether the Pope is/was a manifest heretic or not, your argument carries no relevance. You should read over every line you have written - out loud. Listen to yourself. For all I can hear is la verdad prevalece loudly pontificating that "Pope Francis is an anti-Christ and all who don't agree or reserve judgment are all servants of satan." Have a read of Martin Luther. You have similar styles.

la verdad prevalece: (1) The anti-pope of St. Catherine of Siena's time was indeed an anti-Pope as there was already a true Pope on the throne. (2) You fail to make the distinction between the man and his Divine Office and you invert your position to ours: A pseudo religion where the visible Church, dogmas, and the authority of the hierarchy are considered dispensable is your position, not mine (3) You have no right in either scripture, tradition, or Church Law to declare the Pope is not the Pope. (4) Rejecting the Papacy is a devil's tool. So who is the servant? (5, 6,7) In acknowledging the Papacy, while resisting the abuses, I am living my faith as set down by the Church Fathers and their example. Question: Why is it that those who want to have an emotional rant block everyone else from speaking?

Don't twist my words. It's not necessarily blasphemy just because you say so. Keep it in context to what you wrote. You said it was a blasphemous notion that Our Lord could allow His Vicar to be an instrument of perdition (rather strong words but I understood where you were coming from). Yet for eleven years Our Lord has allowed this Pope to reign. St. Alphonsus states that regardless if a Pope was invalidly elected, if he is accepted by the universal Church as Pope and has reigned a significant time as Pope, he is Pope. This brings us back to the starting point: how is it a blasphemous notion that this bad Pope is still Pope if our Lord has allowed it?

It cannot be a blasphemous notion if it has not been definitely defined. Also God HAS allowed Pope Francis to be in Office for more than eleven years. And whether you believe he was validly elected or not, he has been ruling as Pope and recognised by the Universal Church as Pope for all that time (which, according to St. Alphonsus and others, makes him the Pope regardless). Again, you can privately suspect the Holy Father of formal heresy - and I use the word suspect for you have no authority or competence to confirm - however to spout off as if it were true and condemn and insult all those that do not hold with your private opinion, is schismatic behavior. I also would like to clarify my opening statement: even if down the track, the Pope was formally declared a manifest heretic by the Church, this does not excuse Archbishop Vigano for jumping the gun. I simply meant, speaking figuratively, that IF his position was correct, why worry, God would sort it out.

IF Archbishop Vigano's positon is correct, then God will have him re-instated or formally validated. Meanwhile, Eric Sammons is correct; we the people cannot judge the head of the Church. We can privately suspect it, but we cannot make it a dogma. That is to put ourselves into a schismatic mind-frame, if not into actual schism. Listen carefully to the core point of this gentleman - Catholoic Esquire -speaking. He emphasizes "we have a conscience" - "we must do the work...reach our own conclusions" and the Pope "is obviously a heretic" and "it's annoying" when "we are compared to Martin Luther" who claimed the same. Tradition and the Father's of the Church dictate that in the name of prudence and unity, only an authority who has the authority to replace one Pope for another - can declare on the head of the Church. The Church is not an American democracy and emotionalism is not an argument.

St. Robert Bellarmine presented five opinions on the question of whether a Pope can be a heretic. The Fathers in this 'show trial' presentation focus on the fifth opinion which hypothesizes that should a Pope becomes a manifest heretic he ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church. Now St. Bellimine labels this the fifth true opinion - not because a he believes a Pope can be a manifest heretic - but because it IS true that a manifest heretic ceases to be a Christian (and therefore as a consequence Pope IF the manifest heretic is a Pope). This is the emphasis on this opinion. In fact, the first opinion presented by St. Bellarmine contends that a Pope cannot be a heretic and that such an opinion is probable if somewhat uncertain.

So, given these two seemingly opposing opinions, what are we to conclude? Well firstly, we must keep in mind that they are merely opinions (speculative scenarios); not dogmas; the question remains open. Secondly, in order for the fifth opinion to be adopted, the Pope must actually hold to a formal and public heresy and understand clearly that he is holding a contrary view to the deposit of faith. This brings us back to Canon Law in terms of logical practicality. There has to be an equal authority who can determine these factors especially given the confusion Vatican II has caused. Lowly subjects do not - and can not - have the authority or competence to declare on the head of the Catholic Church.