Have you, pius? Have you read the passages of Saint Bellarmine that you bandy about? He was certainly what you would deride as an "R & R" Catholic. It is licit to resist; it is not licit to depose. You can be a martyr in spirit for the Church, suffering the unique dismay of a faithful Catholic under the rule of an unworthy Pontiff; you are not at liberty to be a theological Bolshevik and deny the Papacy's functional existence, whether you choose to prop up a Pope Michael or venerate an empty chair.
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.
Pius, I do hope you realize that you are calling a Doctor of the Church a hypocrite. Bottom line: "R & R" Catholics respect the extent of the liberty Mother Church has granted us to oppose an errant Pontiff; Sedevacantists assume unauthorized and novel liberties to which they have no true right. If that makes us hypocrites in your estimation, then I can only conclude that to be called a hypocrite by a Sedevacantist is likely a mark of virtue.
Sedevacantists would never disobey a true pope...They await the Church's final official declaration and God's restoration.
To which they will grant recognition in their own arbitrary good time.
Dhouay Rheims (Challoner):
The fault that is here noted in the conduct of St. Peter, was only a certain imprudence, in withdrawing himself from the table of the Gentiles, for fear of giving offence to the Jewish converts; but this, in such circumstances, when his so doing might be of ill consequence to the Gentiles, who might be induced thereby to think themselves obliged to conform to the Jewish way of living, to the prejudice of their Christian liberty. Neither was St. Paul's reprehending him any argument against his supremacy; for in such cases an inferior may, and sometimes ought, with respect, to admonish his superior.
and Catholic Encyclopedia:
Here St. Peter was found fault with probably by the Greek converts. He did not withdraw on account of bodily fear, says St. John Chrystostom; but as his special mission was at this time to the Jews, he was afraid of shocking them who were still weak in the Faith. His usual manner of acting, to which he was led by his vision many years previously, shows that his exceptional withdrawal was not due to any error of doctrine.
And Haydock:
Now as to authors that make Cephas the same with St. Peter, the prince of the apostles, we have what may be called the unexceptionable and unanimous consent of the ancient fathers and doctors of the Catholic Church, as of Tertullian, who calls this management of St. Peter, a fault of conversation, not of preaching or doctrine....After a long dispute betwixt these two doctors, St. Jerome seems to have retracted his opinion, and the opinion of St. Augustine is commonly followed, that St. Peter was guilty of a venial fault of imprudence. In the mean time, no Catholic denies but that the head of the Church may be guilty even of great sins.
Imprudence and venial sin at best, not heresy. Francis' documents don't just contain errors of "imprudence". Francis has not merely "sinned" (as all popes and Catholics do).
I would appreciate it if you would stop saying that I call St Bellarmine a hypocrite. You keep using his "licit to resist" quote in the same way you use Galatians 2:11 to support your position: in error. If you'd like, I can prove that too.