You have accused Pope Francis of propagating heresy, of teaching material heresy, and some of you have accused him of the canonical delict of formal heresy. You have also accused Pope Francis of idolatry and of syncretism. The meaning of these accusations is that Pope Francis is accused of leading the faithful away from the path of salvation, and is accused of causing grave harm to the Church. And some of you have accused the body of Bishops, who support Pope Francis, of sinning by the very fact of their support of the Roman Pontiff.
If you understand the Catholic Faith better than Pope Francis and most Bishops, why are you unwilling to answer questions of grave importance to the Church on this same subject?
Is Pope Francis guilty of formal heresy?
Is Pope Francis guilty of idolatry?
Can a valid Pope be also a heretic and idolater?
How can the Church retain Her indefectibility if Her head on earth is an heretical idolatrous Pope and if the body of Bishops also follow him?
Is Pope Francis the valid Roman Pontiff and successor of Peter?
Or has he lost his validity by means of heresy and idolatry?
Or was he never a valid Pope in the first place?
Was Vatican II a valid Ecumenical Council?
Did Vatican II teach heresy?
How can the Church retain Her indefectibility if Her Ecumenical Councils can be heretical?
How can the faithful be led by the teachings of the Church, if Her valid Popes and valid Councils can teach heresy?
But if Popes and Councils can err gravely, how will the faithful know what to believe? They will become like the Protestants, each believing whatever he thinks is true in his own judgment.
If Vatican II taught heresy, then the subsequent Popes also taught heresy, for all the Popes from John 23 and Paul 6 to Pope Francis have approved of and taught from the teachings of the Second Vatican Council. And if a Pope cannot teach heresy and also be a valid Pope, then all those Popes would also be invalid.
By accusing Pope Francis and Vatican II of heresy, you have implied that all the recent Popes were heretics. And this leaves you with no tenable position but that of sedevacantism. Of if this is not your position, then how can you explain these accusations of heresy, and whether or not each Pope or Council, having taught heresy, is valid?
The essential question which the accusers of Pope Francis refuse to answer is this:
Is Pope Francis the valid Roman Pontiff or not?
The “recognize and resist” position is not tenable, as it claims to hold that Pope Francis is the valid Roman Pontiff, and yet accuses him of heresy and idolatry. Such an accusation is contrary to the indefectibility of the Church. It also contradicts all the fathers, Saints, and Doctors who opines on this question, for they say that no Pope can teach or commit heresy, or else he would cease to be a member of the Church and cease to be the valid Roman Pontiff.
You cannot hold that Pope Francis is valid and that he is guilty of heresy and idolatry. Either he is guilty and invalid, or he is innocent and valid. Choose. Get off the fence.
My belief is that every Pope accepted by the body of Bishops as Pope is the valid Roman Pontiff, and by the prevenient grace of God every valid Pope is preserved from every grave error and from failing in faith. So Pope Francis is the valid Pope, having been accepted by the body of Bishops, and therefore he is unable to teach heresy, commit heresy, or commit idolatry. For he has the gift of truth and a never failing faith, as taught by the First Vatican Council (Pastor Aeternus 4:7).
What is your belief?
Why won’t you admit that you do not believe Pope Francis is the valid Pope?
Is Pope Francis the valid Roman Pontiff or not? Is he guilty of heresy and idolatry or not? No valid Pope can be guilty of heresy or idolatry, so it is one or the other. Valid and innocent, or invalid and guilty.
Ronald L. Conte Jr.