pius, you still seem to be laboring under the conception that we can decide if a Pope is heretical or not. Saint Bellermine by no means teaches that you can privately decide that the Pope is heretic---as I've said, we are given the right resist a Pope who is manifestly erring. We cannot deem him a heretic and invalidate his Papacy. I would suspect that Saint Bellermine probably drew this teaching from Galatians 2:11. As I believe Blather may have said already, resistance is the extent of our Scripturally-sanctioned response to a legitimately elected Pope we may privately regard as loathsome or even heretical, if he has not been formally defined as such by Mother Church. We have a Scriptural verse telling us explicitly that Saint Paul resisted Cephas himself. And despite SGNA's proposal of Galations 1:6-10 to fill the role, we still don't have an Scriptural verse supporting the invalidation of a Pontiff based on one's private Judgment---it is not for you or me to declare that the Pope isn't preaching the Gospel. That was part of the error that Luther inflicted upon Christendom.
"The Roman Pontiff has no superior but God. Who, therefore, could cast him out or trample him under foot – since of the pope it is said ‘gather thy flock into thy fold’? Truly, he should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God.
"Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory [Minus dico] because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged.
"In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men'."
Canon 188: "Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clerus ... (4) a fide catholica publice defecerit."
Canon 188: "There are certain causes which effect the tacit resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of law, and hence is effective without any declaration. These causes are: (4) if he has publicly fallen away from the Catholic faith."
If you do want to play that game, however, as some are doing with Bergoglio's conclave and electioneering, massive electioneering and full scale plotting was documented in 1958 before the conclave results, and the winner Roncalli was predicted in advance and published in the German press, by the late Dr. Elizabeth Gerstner. The scheming took place in the chambers of the newly formed (1953) Council of the Laity. Gerstner worked in that office and was witness to the plotting. Under the Rules of conclave of Pope Pius X and by the relevant rules of Pope Pius XII, that alone would invalidate the results. (Forget any Siri fables as they are meaningless and without any merit.)
You cannot be of good will to make up your own heretical praxis in dealing with this situation. The Church clearly states what must be done in the event of heresy which the Church denotes as the Gates of Hell:
Pope Paul IV, CUM EX APOSTOLATUS OFFICIO":
3. (iii) , and as such must be avoided and must be deprived of the sympathy of all natural kindness.
6...."or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;"
7.(ii) the laity;
shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs
To the greater confusion, moreover, of those thus promoted or elevated, if these shall have wished to prolong their government and authority, they shall be permitted to request the assistance of the secular arm against these same individuals thus promoted or elevated; nor shall those who withdraw on this account, in the aforementioned circumstances, from fidelity and obedience to those thus promoted and elevated, be subject, as are those who tear the tunic of the Lord, to the retribution of any censures or penalties."
Somehow I don't think Zero would be of much help in this matter.
And this practice would apply to one who was not a heretic before being elected but became one afterwards.
St Robert Bellarmine, "De Romano Pontifice", ("On the Roman Pontiff"), liber II, caput 30:
"For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is "ipso facto" deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus, c. 3), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate - which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence."
He is a Saint and even more so one of the 30 (genuine) declared Doctors of the Church and you have the unmitigated temerity to belittle him and call him a hypocrite!?
There are dozens more, from after the time the theological issue was settled, that I can cite that state the same.
Game, set, match.
Either that or go full apostate and start cheerleading with the rest about how wonderful Bergoglio is.
While you're at it, go vote for Hillary as well.
But don't parrot ridiculous tripe from the sellout cults or from the likes of pseudo-trad talking heads such as John Vennari who insist Bergoglio is the pope but would forbid him teaching the catechism to his children.
He is either the pope and you must obey him in all matters pertaining to the Faith (except direct orders against the Natural law such as theft, murder, etc.) or he is a heretic and not a Catholic nor a pope in the least.
You can't have it any other way.
You and Blather (and the rest of the Recognize and Resist crowd) have co-opted this Scripture to support the novelty that Catholics can disobey a true pope based on their *private judgment* of where they believe their true pope is in error.
I just wish for once when someone points fingers at sedevacantists for using their *private judgment* they would at least admit that they do it as well (hence the hypocrisy). Of course I happen to think the R&R position is worse in that these Catholics think they can disobey their pope.
Sedevacantists make the logical conclusion that a true pope can not give the Church evil laws, liturgy and teachings in faith and morals and recognize that one who does do this can not possibly be a true pope of the Holy Catholic Church...all based on the teachings of a DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH. Sedevacantists would never disobey a true pope. Sedevacantists strongly respect the office of the papacy and merely recognize that a heretical pope can be no pope and, as such, that he has already lost his office. They await the Church's final official declaration and God's restoration. In the mean time, they live their lives to the best of their ability in accordance with the Catholic Faith as it was always taught but they will not pay lip service to a false pope.
I'm tired of the anti-sede sentiment out there as if sedes were some form of Catholic leprosy. Like when people say "Francis has driven my mother to sedevacantism" which is what really got me going in this thread.