“The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.” 

The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261

A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church." Summa cited in VI

"Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory 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 ..." Pope Innocent III, 12th century

[T]he Roman Pontiff, prior to his ... elevation as ... Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy: (i) the ... elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless..."

"If God permitted a pope to be notoriously heretical and contumacious, he would then cease to be pope, and the Apostolic Chair would be vacant." St. Alphonsus de Liguori, "The Truths of the Faith" (18th century)

"A pope can only be deposed for heresy, expressed or implied, and then only by a general council. It is not strictly deposition, but a declaration of fact, since by his heresy he has already ceased to be head of the Church..." A Catholic Dictionary, 1951. Pope, Deposition of a

"An heretical pope necessarily ceases to be head of the Church, for by his heresy he is no longer a member thereof: ... a general council ... could remove him. But this is not deposition, since by his own act he is no longer pope." A Catholic Dictionary, 1951. Deposition

"Nor is there any schism if......one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state." Szal, Rev Ignatius: Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, CUA, 1948, p.2

"Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded ['probabiliter'] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power." de Lugo: Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8

Baltimore Catechism:

"Q. 554. Could a person who denies only one article of our faith be a Catholic?

A. A person who denies EVEN ONE article of our faith could not be a Catholic; for truth is one and we must accept it whole and entire or not at all."

“Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation.” (F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal; Ius Canonicum, 7:398, 1943).

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema." Galatians 1:8.

Jorge Bergoglio is anathema.

This took me a very short time to gather.  Consider this the next time you read something by somebody who says that the Church requires you to shut up and accept Jorge Bergoglio as Pope, and (maybe) resist, or calls you a "protestant" for recognizing the nose on your face.

We’ve had 42 antipopes folks. Leo V & John IV are examples of 2 valid Popes who were imprisoned by antipopes. It’s happened before. Don’t listen to pompous fools trying to convince you it’s impossible or that you’re schismatic for using the brain God gave you. 

So many examples

Argument made: You don’t have that authority to do that. No laymen does. This is simple church teaching. He’s bad but we as laity cannot proclaim what you said.

Response: It's the stupid nonsense of applying a canonical legal term to the laity. Folks don't get it. I can witness a murder, and call the man who did it a murderer, but I can't "declare" him guilty of the crime, that takes a judge. The comment is made in ignorance.

Threads by @JonahofNinevah