I object in the strongest terms to imply that the Pope might be a heretic, publicly or privately.
First of all, you should not spread scandal about the Holy Father. It weakens the Faith of Catholics who are only lukewarm when they read posts like yours. If you think that the Pope is a heretic (and I should say that you are endangering your own soul if you associate with sedevacanists or even the SSPX), you should pray for him, instead of spreading scandal.
Now I know what you will say about the Pope (but I will not repeat it here and you needn't either). In response I will say: yes, he has loosened some rules but he has also done many good things like grant the 1984 indult. Acknowledging that other religions share part of God's truth is not heresy. The Holy Father may have made a mistake with his diplomacy, but he has never even implied that all religions are equal or any other part of the modernist heresy.
You may be aware that Pope Liberius declined to attack the Arians when they were a grave threat to the Church. Was he wrong? Yes. Was he a heretic? Definitely not a public heretic and very doubtful that he was a private one. Some theologians think that it is impossible for the Pope to be even a private heretic.
I am fully aware that the Church is in full retreat in America and in Europe. But sometimes (and definitely not always) diplomacy and moderation is the best solution.
If you were to meet your average Catholic, would you tell them right away to start going to daily Mass in Latin, pray the Rosary everyday, start severe fasting and corporal mortifications, and other very pious practices right away? Of course not, you would help them to grow in holiness one step at a time. The current Pope is very conservative on the whole (people forget his hard-line stances on abortion, birth control, euthanasia, etc.). Just because he may not be as great in your eyes as St. Pius X or St. Gregory the Great does not mean he is a heretic in any way.
Which popes did not have such hard-line stances?
Which other popes have allowed altar girls, given Holy Communion in the hand and kissed a Koran?
All right. It's refreshing to hear from a cogent critic, instead of the garden variety belly acher. I can see your point, and I think I understand where you're coming from. That one I almost sent private msg but now I'm glad to have this chance to answer your disputation. I agree, that in general it is best to not criticize the Pope in public, especially if he has done nothing worth criticizing. But even if he does something worth criticizing, we should be circumspect in our comments. Normally that's the best approach. Are these normal conditions?
Maybe I missed out on something, but tell me which pope in the history of the Church has done ANY ONE of the things I have mentioned, that appear to be completely contrary to the faith that so many of his predecessors (Pope ___, martyr -- fill in the blank) have shed their blood rather than to do, or to even give their APPEARANCE of accord. I'm trying to be tactful here. I could use much stronger language.
It is rather a fact of Catholic tradition to "admonish the sinner," a spiritual work of mercy. If people who are as upset as I am about these things, and there are many, were to act on their feelings instead of being precise in their linguistic expression of their angst in a productive way, there would not be a safe place for this pontiff to travel in the world. But by exercising our Catholic charity to admonish him for his public offense of the Faith of Catholics, we turn our misery into a spiritual good. Would you prefer our bishops and priests (on a more local level) to be able to go about doing anything they want without any fear of public outcry? Do you know that Bishop Fulton J. Sheen once tried to close a church, but when he showed up in his limo, a crowd of angry parishoners stormed the car, pounding on it and yelling to him, "Give us back our church, you son of a bitch!" Was that a crime? I'll tell you this much. They got their church back.
The Faith is under attack. You may not think so. But I do, and if you want, I can prove it to you. Therefore, I am not going to meekly hide in the corner and suck my thumb. I am not going to just offer it up (which I do) and remain silent. I'm going to offer it up and keep the discussion going. Now don't get me wrong. I'm not going to boast about my penances. But I am certainly not going to pretend that this is not something worth fighting for, or something Catholics can ignore without grave danger to their eternal salvation. Keeping the Faith pure is a duty we all share, but it is a duty the ordained are especially called for; and it is a duty to which the ordained of the highest degreee are called to the highest degree!
Why do you think Cardinals wear red? It's to show that they promise to defend the Faith of Catholics with their own blood, if necessary. Can you think offhand of a single Cardinal today that would shed his blood for the Faith? Actually I think there is one in China who is doing so as we speak, but regarding those who frequent the halls of the Vatican, I would like to know your opinion.
This Pope has already done so, when he was shot. He put the bullet the doctors retrieved into the crown worn by Our Lady of Fatima's statue. Hey these are not simple times. I could go off for pages addressing each good thing he's done and line up questions on like topics. The bottom line is, why does he not only tolerate abuses but he actively promotes new corruption, which the modernist bishops like to point at and say there is a Papal precedent to show where they get the idea for their latest scourge to Holy Mother Church?