Initial Reaction to an Article on One Peter Five by Eric Sammons

His article:

Is Francis the Pope?
Eric Sammons | October 29, 2019
https://onepeterfive.com/is-francis-the-pope/

I start where he is discussing the positions of St. Robert Bellarmine on a heretical pope. Here is the enumeration of them:

• 1. The pope cannot be a heretic.
• 2. The pope who falls into heresy, even secret heresy, is ipso facto no longer the pope, which gives the Church authority over him to declare his deposition official since he’s no longer pope.
• 3. Even if a pope were a heretic, he cannot be deposed of his papacy by any means.
• 4. If a pope becomes a formal heretic, he is not automatically deposed, but the Church can indirectly depose him. This is done by legally separating the faithful from the pope, which makes him no longer the valid pope.
• 5. If the pope becomes a formal heretic, the Church can recognize that fact and declare him separated from his office.

Cited from De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chapter 30.

Before he (see my discussion later down) accepts position 3, while admitting it is most miserable and finding comfort in that since Catholicism is supposedly built on suffering, any and all of it ... he considers 2, 4 and 5 as essentially the same thing:

"But they all are struggling with a crucial issue: according to canon law and the perennial teaching of the Church, the “first see is judged by no one.” In other words, there is no court above the pope to judge him."

When Innocent III pronounced "prima sedes a nemine juidcatur" he added "nisi a fide deprehenditur devia".

The issue at hand was not if clearly heretical people could be judged as non-popes, the issue at hand was if Emperors could assemble synods to depose the Popes for things like treason or political schism with the empire.

"While these options are in the realm of theological opinion, it’s the infallible teaching of the Church that the pope has universal jurisdiction, which means no one has jurisdiction over him."

While a clear heretic has no jurisdiction.

Here he goes on to excuse position 3:

"The entire Catholic faith is founded upon suffering."

Not to the point : I have refused the most miserable position and avoided suffering of conscience, which is not the suffering Catholicism has at its heart, but I have suffered exclusion and censorship for doing so, meaning, his point is nil.

He's sitting in a comfy armchair and bragging of the suffering of a theologically most miserable position.

"We say we want suffering, but whenever suffering comes that isn’t exactly the type we desire, we flee from it."

Since when exactly should Catholics say they positively want suffering?

We should want to do our penances (prescribed for all like fasting in Lent or prescribed for self in confessional), this does not mean we should want our penances to be sufferings, and if they aren't does not mean we should go searching for more suffering.

Accepting a heretic as your spiritual guide has never been a recommended penance.

"While it might be comforting to assume that Francis is not really the pope and move along, that’s exactly what the Enemy wants."

I am not assuming JP-II, B-XVI and PF aren't popes and moving along, I am assuming they aren't popes, proving it and accepting as solution the emergency conclave held 4 years after Assisi 86.

Vivat Pope Michael.

Above (except bald) is my initial answer, since it is on the wall of a FB group, there will be replies which will give rise to separate posts on that debate./HGL