"Cautious" Voris' Opinion vs. Two Doctors of the Church & an Medieval French King

Church Militant Michael Voris' opinion is:

"No member of the laity can sit in judgment over a pope. Only God judges the pope. And then when the man who was pope dies and is no longer pope, a future pope can judge him and declare him an anti-pope. If others want to venture into those waters ahead of a future pope, you go right ahead, but I would greatly caution you spiritually." [https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/22704303/1342819239715385235]

Is Voris' opinion true?

Cardinal Raymond Burke showed in an 2016 interview with the Catholic World Report that he knew the teaching of Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales:

[T]he Pope... when he is explicitly a heretic... falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See."
(The Catholic Controversy by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)

Cardinal Raymond Burke in the interview responded to the Voris opinion.

In the interview, Burke said:

"CWR: Can the pope legitimately be declared in schism or heresy?"

"Cardinal Burke: 'If a Pope would formally profess heresy he would cease, by that act, to be the Pope. It's automatic. And so, that could happen... '"

"... CWR: Who is competent to declare him to be in heresy?"

"Cardinal Burke: 'It would have to be members of the College of Cardinals.'"
(Catholic World Report, "No, I am not saying that Pope Francis is in heresy," December 19, 2016)

Is Francis possibly in "explicit"  heresy?

It appears to me that Francis explicitly "contradict[ed] traditional Catholic teaching on divorce and remarriage" when he in a "official act as the pope" placed the Argentine letter in the the Acts of the Apostolic See (AAS)  in which he said of the Buenos Aires region episcopal guidelines:

"There is no other interpretations."

The guidelines explicitly allows according to LifeSiteNews "sexuality active adulterous couples facing 'complex circumstances' to 'access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'"

(LifeSiteNews, "Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers, December 4, 2017)

In a article on OnePeterFive, specialist in Magisterial authority Dr. John Joy said "It means that it is an official act of the pope." 

Moreover, the article said:

"Dr. Joy pointed out that adding the letter to the AAS could, in fact, damage the credibility of Amoris Laetitia by potentially removing the possibility that it could be intercepted in an orthodox way, via its publication in the official acts of the Apostolic See, that the unorthodox interpretation is the official one."

(OnePeterFive, "Pope's Letter on Argentinian Communion Guidelines for Remarriage Given Official Status," December 2, 2017)

The "official act of" Francis is a "unorthodox interpretation."

It doesn't just seem to contradict traditional Catholic teaching.

The "official act of the pope" is a "unorthodox interpretation" which means it contradicts traditional Catholic teaching which is just another way of saying by "official act the pope" is teaching heresy.

Now, let us quote, one of the intellectual giants in the Church in the United States, philosopher Edward Feser:

"(1) Adulterous sexual acts are in some special circumstances morally permissible... these propositions flatly contradict irreformable Catholic teaching. Proposition (1) contradicts not only the perennial moral teaching of the Church, but the teaching of scripture itself."

(Edwardfeser.blogspot, "Denial flows into the Tiber," December 18, 2016)

 

Moreover, the Medieval Pope John XXII when he taught heresy on a relatively minor point on when people received the beatific vision (unlike what appears to be quite a major sacrilegious heresy of Communion for adulterers) was issued a correction and warning by a lay French king.

The French King Philippe de Valois, a "member of the laity," not being cautious and timid like Voris wasn't afraid to issue a correction against heresy with a warning:

"Philippe de Valois... threatened  John XXII with burning at the stake, as a heretic."
(On History: Introduction to the History (1831),  By Jules Michelet, Page 126)

If King de Valois were alive today would he with a correction have "threatened" Francis for his Communion for adulterers heresy "with burning at the stake, as a heretic" unlike the cautious Voris?

 

Next, is Voris right that only a "future pope can judge... him [Francis] an anti-pope"?

Is it possible for someone to be an antipope even though the majority of cardinals claim he is pope according to Doctor of the Church St. Bernard?

The case of Antipope Anacletus II proves that it is possible for a majority of cardinals to claim a man is pope while he, in reality, is a antipope.

In 1130, a majority of cardinals voted for Cardinal Peter Pierleone to be pope. He called himself Anacletus II. He was proclaimed pope and ruled Rome for eight years by vote and consent of a absolute majority of the cardinals despite the fact he was a antipope.

In 1130, just prior to the election of antipope Anacletus, a small minority of cardinals elected the real pope: Pope Innocent II.

How is this possible?

Doctor of the Church St. Bernard of Clairvaux  said "the 'sanior pars' (the wiser portion)... declared in favor of Innocent II. By this he probably meant a majority of the cardinal-bishops."

(St. Bernard of Clairvaux by Leon Christiani, Page 72)

Again, how is this possible when the absolute majority of cardinals voted for Anacletus?

Catholic historian Warren Carroll explains:

"[C]anon law does not bind a Pope arranging for his successor... [Papal Chancellor] Haimeric proposed that... a commission of eight cardinals should be selected to choose the next Pope... strong evidence [shows] that the Pope [Honorius] endorsed what Haimeric was doing, including the establishment of the electoral commission [of eight cardinals]."

(The Glory of Christendom, Pages 36-37)

The majority or "sanior pars," five cardinals out of eight of "the electoral commission," elected Pope Innocent II as St. Bernard said and as evidence shows was the will of the previous pope in what we can call a constitution for the election of his successor.

In the same way, is it possible that Francis was not elected pope even though he received a absolute majority of cardinals votes and is now as in the case of Anacletus proclaimed pope by the same absolute majority?

As with the case of Anacletus, it is possible Francis is a antipope if his election contradicted or violated the constitution promulgated by Pope John Paul II for electing his successor.

 

Renown historian Carroll explicitly says that what matters in a valid papal election is not how many cardinals claim a person is the pope. What is essential for determining if someone is pope or antipope is the "election procedures... [as] governed by the prescription of the last Pope":

"Papal election procedures are governed by the prescription of the last Pope who provided for them (that is, any Pope can change them, but they remain in effect until they are changed by a duly elected Pope)." 

"During the first thousand years of the history of the Papacy the electors were the clergy of Rome (priests and deacons); during the second thousand years we have had the College of Cardinals."

"But each Pope, having unlimited sovereign power as head of the Church, can prescribe any method for the election of his successor(s) that he chooses. These methods must then be followed in the next election after the death of the Pope who prescribed it, and thereafter until they are changed. A Papal claimant not following these methods is also an Antipope."

"Since Antipopes by definition base their claims on defiance of proper Church authority, all have been harmful to the Church, though a few have later reformed after giving up their claims."
[http://www.ewtn.com/library/homelibr/antipope.txt]  

 

Finally, is there evidence that a "a campaign beforehand" might have invalidated the "[Francis] conclave"?

Patrick Coffin on his YouTube show asked Cardinal Raymond Burke is it possible that evidence might invalidate the "[Francis] conclave":

"I was wondering rather if those rules [of the 2013 conclave that elected Francis] were violated and rather or not the whole election of Francis may be invalid. Is there any foundation for that speculation?"

Cardinal Burke answered:

"The only grounds that could be used for calling into question the validity of the election would be were the election organized by a campaign beforehand which is strictly forbidden and that would be difficult to demonstrate..."

"... If these persons [the gay lobby St. Gallen Mafia cardinals] engaged in a active campaign first to undermined Pope Benedict XVI and at the same time to engineer the election of someone [Francis] then that could be a argument. I don't think I have the facts, and there have to be facts, to prove that. That's all I have to say about that."
(Patrick Coffin show, "141: Dubia Cardinal Goes on the Record - Raymond Cardinal Burke (Free Version)," Premiered 13 hours ago, 19:55 to 21:46)

Coffin about a minute later said "Bishop Henry Rene Gracida... has written a Open Letter to the cardinals saying only a imperfect synod could be called and resolve this."

My question to Cardinal Burke is:

Why would proving that the gay lobby St. Gallen Mafia "undermined Pope Benedict XVI and at the same time engineer[ed] the election of someone [Francis]" be "very difficult to demonstrate"?

The leftist Fittipaldi who considers Francis a man of "courage" says the Vatican gay lobby is "often composed" of "conservatives" who apparently “campaigned” to cause Pope Benedict XVI to resign with the "war of documents" that was Vatileaks:

"The story of the gay lobby has... importance in the Vatileaks and the dismissal of Pope Ratzinger... He destroyed the careers of those who were with them. To stop this group, a group of supporters of Ratzinger began to issue a series of documents, which was called Vatileaks. [Para travar este grupo, um grupo de apoiantes de Ratzinger começou a fazer sair uma série de documentos, a que se chamou Vatileaks 1.] I can say this shock, this war of [Vatileaks] documents led to the end of Ratzinger."

"... [T]hey [the gay lobby] are often composed of the most conservative men in the Church. It is a paradox, but it is so. Certainly the doctrine [against homosexuality] has not been changed because the conservative homosexual and heterosexual world is in the majority. Francis, from this point of view, is considered a heretic. In this I very much support the courage of Francis, a visionary courage, because if the Church does not change and does not open to the world, it risks entering into an irreversible crisis."

"... Ratzinger made... war against pedophilia... [h]e just started and resigned."
 (Comunidadeculturaearte.com, "Emiliano Fittipaldi: For Francis paedophilia is a secondary issue," October 20, 2017) [[https://www.comunidadeculturaearte.com/emiliano-fittipaldi-para-francisco-a-pedofilia-e-uma-questao-secundaria/]

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Mass and the Church as well as for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.