[Mrs. Don-o]

I don't know whether you mean to distinguish between the pope being "valid" and the pope being "licit." There's controversy right now --- outside of the sedevacantist circles--- about the lawfulnes of his munus and his ministry.

I am not a sedevacantist. However, I hold that there is reasonable argument on both sides. You can read about one strand of the controversy at a current Free Republic post here, Is there a Suspense of... [Pope Francis's] Petrine Magisterium?

If you have any questions about that, though I'm no canonist, be specific and I'll explain as well as I can.

[Elsie]

However, I hold that there is reasonable argument on both sides.

I would suggest you DUMP your 'reasoning' and side with the pope.

It may not be 'right' but it's a safe money bet!!

---

 Catechism of the Catholic Church

883 “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has “supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.”

[Elsie]

I don't know whether you mean to distinguish between the pope being "valid" and the pope being "licit."

Since I only used ONE of your quoted words; it seems as though a simple yes or no should be easy for you.

You only confuse yourself when you go all 'EVE' on me and state "and not touch it".

(I mean licit, of course.)

---

Once more:

Is he VALID or not?