Pope Francis is a heretic and not a true Pope

My opponent concedes that my argument is both valid and sound, and attempts to escape its inevitable conclusion by a series of arguments that are little more than red herrings. The issue is whether or not Francis is a heretic and not a true pope as Catholics have always understood the Papacy. The First Vatican Council gave formal definition to what the office of the papacy, in the dogmatic Constitution on the Church. To his credit Francis never refers to himself as "pope" but as "bishop of Rome" so as to exclude the powers and privileges all recognize as inherent by the term "pope." Furthermore, even if what my opponent is trying to say were true, the end result would be the same---Francis cannot be pope. I will first respond to each assertion of my opponent: Con: "I argue that the dogma and definition off which you base your very argument is corrupt, however, and that it is a contradiction to the message of Jesus Christ, and by extension, the Word of God." My response: Here he makes an assertion with nothing to back it up other than his own private interpretation of what HE thinks the message of Jesus Christ and the Bible is supposed to be according to him. He offers no citation to any authority outside himself. Con:"In John 14:26, Jesus tells us that He will reveal further Truth in the future through the Holy Spirit. What this means is that at the point of the Ascension, the Church was only just born, and would grow and develop over its lifetime." My response: Is the Bible the "pillar of truth" in the Christian religion? No. According to the Bible Itself, the Church is the "pillar of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15), not the Bible. Some "Bible" Christians insist that a "pillar" (the Church) was created to "hold up" another structure (the Bible). They claim the Bible is the structure being held up according to this passage. Well, if that is the case, how did the early Church "hold up" the Bible for the first three to four hundred years when the Bible Itself didn't even exist? Also, even if the Church is only a "pillar" holding up the Bible, doesn't that mean that the Church is the interpreter of Scripture rather than the individual? Is private interpretation of the Bible condoned in the Bible Itself? No, it is not (2 Peter 1:20). Was individual interpretation of Scripture practiced by the early Christians or the Jews? Again, "NO" (Acts 8:29-35). The assertion that individuals can correctly interpret Scripture is false. Even the "founder" of Sola Scriptura (Martin Luther), near the end of his life, was afraid that "any milkmaid who could read" would found a new Christian denomination based on his or her "interpretation" of the Bible. Luther opened a "Pandora's Box" when he insisted that the Bible could be interpreted by individuals and that It is the sole authority of Christianity. Why do we have over 20,000 different non-Catholic Christian denominations? The reason is individuals' "different" interpretations of the Bible. Furthermore, my opponent is in line with the Modernist heretics. Pope St. Pius X in Lamentabili Sane CONDEMNED proposition # 4 states " Even by dogmatic definitions the Church's Magisterium cannot determine the genuine sense of the Sacred Scriptures." Con: "I argue that the early Church leaders who made it a rule that the Church cannot evolve or be changed are the true heretics; the ones who tried to kill the living, growing Church in its infancy. None of the doctrines you've talked about are the direct words of Christ, nor are they in the Bible, so even to a Christian they are not definitely true." My response: If the early Church Fathers were heretics (his word), then they taught error. God permitted His Church to teach lies. It therefore ceases to be a "magisterium" or "teaching authority" because you can't know or trust as true anything She decrees. Today's "truth" could be tomorrow's heresy. The Catholic Church becomes, de facto, another Protestant sect. As far as the direct words of Christ are concerned, my opponent will search his Bible in vain for the Word "Trinity." Christ never uses it, nor is it in the Bible, yet that does not mean it's not an implicit teaching accepted by most Christian denominations. For the Catholic, we know what to believe because we have an infallible Magisterium that interprets the TWO sources of Divine revelation--the Bible and Sacred Tradition. Con: "All of the Vatican II statements and the statements of Pope Francis that you have attacked have to do with accepting people outside of the Catholic Church, and I would say that this is part of the evolution of the Church, part of God's project of Universal Acceptance and Love." My response: We accept people with love, and true love is telling people the Truth, even when they may not like what they hear. If it is true that "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus Est" ("Outside the Church there is no Salvation"), then the ultimate act of Charity, love and acceptance is to try to convert the world to the Catholic Church, the only Ark of Salvation. Con:" In the Bible, Jesus Christ confirms that the Will of the Lord is to cultivate Universal Love and Acceptance between all members of humanity. In Matthew 7:12, Jesus sums up the Law of God quite succinctly: "In all things, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." In Mark 12:31, Jesus confirms that one of the two greatest commandments of the Lord is to love thy neighbor as thyself. This is a message of Universal Acceptance and Love incompatible with earlier Catholic doctrine that condemns anyone outside of the Church." My response: Universal acceptance of people as persons, does not entail accepting their errors. If my neighbor tells me 2+2=5, I show my love and acceptance by pointing out that 2+2=4, not 5. Love the sinner, hate the sin. Love the heretic, hate the heresy. Did not Our Lord, love and accept the adulteress, and protect her from being stoned to death? Yet His response to her was "GO AND SIN NO MORE." Con: "God and all of his Laws transcend time, and the only way for an eternal law to be expressed within the framework of time is through evolution over time from the most abject ignorance of the Law to the ultimate confirmation of the Law. I have argued that the only Law of God, other than personal love for Him, is Universal Acceptance and Love for Others. Therefore, the true heretics are the ones who stop the evolution of the Church and the ones who reject the fact that the Lord's ultimate goal is that all can become conscious of His glory and take part in it through love for Him and Universal Love and Acceptance for everyone else. Vatican II and the words of Pope Francis come closer to Universal Love and Acceptance than any Pre-Vatican II doctrine, therefore, Vatican II is not a defection or a corruption and Pope Francis is a true Pope that leads the Church further towards its ultimate goal." My response: Who says the only way to express an eternal law is through evolution over time? Cannot the Almighty give us absolute Truth and certainty from the start? I assert that you will find no one (including my opponent) who will deny that to kidnap and slowly torture a baby to death for fun is evil. This is an eternal truth expressed through the natural law from the beginning of time--it wasn't something we needed to "develop." God can (and does) reveal Truth without evolution. Further if Vatican II is NOT a defection, then there is continuity between pre- and post-Vatican II teaching. Yet, I have proven that the eccesiology of the two are mutually exclusive, and my opponent called the Church Fathers "heretics" for teaching no salvation outside the Church! He implicitly admits that there is a rupture and no continuity between pre- and post- Vatican II teaching. So there WAS a defection! Even by my opponent's definition, the Church could not have a pope that is infallible and authoritative, so Francis cannot be pope as always understood.