According to the canonical doctrine and universal practice of the Roman Church, heresy is established by the indicia of heresy, which are the words and deeds that constitute the evidence of heresy. * Fr. Francesco Bordoni explains in the tenth chapter of his work on prosecuting heretics, that according to the indicia of heresy, one is either a formal heretic, or a suspected heretic.** A formal heretic, Fr. Bordoni explains, is one who firmly asserts his disbelief in a certain and defined article of faith, which has been proposed to be believed by all, and which he knows to be such.*** Thus, what a formal heretic is, is unanimously defined by all without exception: “Formalis Hæreticus est ille, qui discredit aliquid, quod expresse, & explicite scit esse contra Fidem ab Ecclesia declaratum. In hac enim Scientia consistit Pertinacia constituens Hæreticuм formalem. Et in hoc omnes convenient nullo contradicente.” **** Such a one is manifestly a formal heretic, and no previous warnings or admonitions are necessary to judge such a one to be guilty of formal heresy.***** They simply fall under the penalty: Can. 2314. §1 — “Omnes a christiana fide apostatæ et omnes et singuli hæretici aut schismatici: 1° Incurrunt ipso facto excommunicationem”. Any office they may have held are lost ipso jure. * «Indicium est signum probativum inducens iudicem in cognitionem delicti … [idest] ex verbis, vel factis» [Padre Francesco Bordoni, SACRUM TRIBUNAL IUDIcuм IN CAUSIS SANCTÆ FIDEI CONTRA HÆRETICOS ET HÆRESI SUSPECTOS, p. 223] ** «Hæretici quatum facit ad explicationen huius capitis, sunt in duplici differentia, alii vocantur Formales, alii tantum Suspecti. » [Ibid. p. 221] *** «Formalis autem hæreticus dicitur ille, qui negavit firmiter, & ex corde aliquem articulum de fide certum, & expresse definitum, quem scit esse talem, ab ecclesia propositum ab omnibus credendum, exprimendum se illum non credere» [Ibid. p. 221] **** Bordoni, MANUALE CONSULTORUM In Causis S. Officii contra Hæreticuм pravitatem, pp. 34 – 35. ***** «Quaeritur 6. An ad Pertinaciam requiratur praevia monitio … & nihilominus in sua Opinione persistens incipiat tunc esse pertinax, & formalis Haereticus? R. Nullam require monitionem, sed esse Haereticuм formaliter hoc ipso, quod aserit aliquo pro vero, quod scit esse contra Fidem, in hoc enim formaliter consistit Pertinacia, quae non datur sine Scientia illius obiecti, contra quod est ipsa Pertinacia, quae includit Scientiam, ergo frustra praemonetur, qui scit se scire illud, cui adversatur; monitio enim fit ignorantibus, non scientibus. » [MANUALE CONSULTORUM, p. 35] 

Thus it is proven that according to Catholic Doctrine, for one to be considered a formal heretic, it is not necessary that he, “renounce the Church as the RULE of faith by PUBLIC PROFESSION”, or explicitly admit that one is knowingly in heresy; but it suffices that one either 1) assertively state his disbelief in one single article of faith, because, one who offends against even one article is guilty of all, because disbelieving in one destroys the formal cause of faith from which that article depends*; or, that the nature or circuмstances of ones words or deeds constitute moral certitude of formal heresy. Hence, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, who was a high official of the Roman Inquisition, and is a Doctor of the Church, teaches that, “men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.” ** * « Sufficit autem unicuм negare articulum, ut quis dicatur formaliter hæreticus, quia in uno offendens factus est omnium reus, in quantum destruit rationem formalem fidei, a qua dependet articulus negatus. » [Ibid. p. 222] ** « Non enim homines tenentur, aut corda possunt scrutari; sed quem externis operibus hæreticuм esse vident, simpliciter hæreticuм iudicant, ac ut hæreticuм damnant. » (De Romano Pontifice, lib. iv, cap. ix) Salza continues his errant rant: «Again, he [Billot] also requires a renunciation of the Magisterium as the RULE of faith by PUBLIC PROFESSION. You stand alone (sic) in disagreeing with Billot. You reject Billot’s teaching by saying “it is not necessary that such a one explicitly reject the Church as the rule of faith,” even though Cardinal Billot says “heresy by its nature REQUIRES departure from the RULE of the ecclesiastical magisterium.” » As mentioned above, heresy is in its nature a partial departure that is contrary ex parte but not in totum against the rule of faith, as the above cited passage of Bordoni explains: «hæresis ex parte, & non in totum est contraria fidei». Salza does not understand what is meant by the words, “departure from the rule of the ecclesiastical magisterium”. Salza fundamentalistically construes Billot’s words to mean that separation from the body of the Church requires a total departure from the rule of faith, i.e., a renunciation of the magisterium as the rule of faith; whereas Billot, in unanimous agreement with all theologians, speaks of heresy in the passage cited by Salza only as a departure from the rule of faith. Tanquerey explains, “All theologians teach that publicly known heretics, that is, those who belong to a heterodox sect through public profession, or those who refuse the infallible teaching authority of the Church, are excluded from the body of the Church, even if their heresy is only material heresy.”* However, anyone who knowingly rejects even a single article of faith is included among those who refuse the infallible teaching authority of the Church. St. Thomas Aquinas explains in II – II, Q. 5, a. 3: “Neither living nor lifeless faith remains in a heretic who disbelieves one article of faith. The reason of this is that the species of every habit depends on the formal aspect of the object, without which the species of the habit cannot remain. Now the formal object of faith is the First Truth, as manifested in Holy Writ and the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth. Consequently whoever does not adhere, as to an infallible and Divine rule, to the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth manifested in Holy Writ, has not the habit of faith, but holds that which is of faith otherwise than by faith.” Elaborating on this teaching of St. Thomas, Msgr. Paul Glenn wrote: «To reject any article of the faith is to reject the faith itself. This is like pulling one stone out of an arch; it is like putting one hole in the hull of a ship. The whole arch tumbles down; the whole ship sinks. A man who has the faith, accepts God’s word. Now, God’s word has set up the Church as man’s infallible teacher and guide. If a man, therefore, rejects one article of the faith, and says that he believes in all the other articles, he believes these by his own choice and opinion, not by faith. Rejecting one article of the faith, he rejects the whole authority of the Church, and he rejects the authority of God which has set up and authorized the Church to teach truth. Hence, it is entirely incorrect to say that a man may have lifeless or formless faith in some articles of the Creed while he rejects others; such a man has not the faith at all, living or lifeless. » ** On page 281 and 282 of their screed, Salza & Siscoe declare: «By referring to heretics as those who “separate themselves from the Church,” who “turn away from the Church,” and who “depart by themselves from her,” Bellarmine is referring not to those who merely profess a heretical proposition, but to those who openly leave the Church (no longer accepting the Church as the rule of faith). » This proposition is manifestly a fallacious artifice of sophistry. As I mentioned earlier, St. Robert Bellarmine was a high official of the Inquisition. He knew perfectly well that one who professes a heretical proposition without pertinacity is not guilty of formal heresy; but if there are present the indicia of formal heresy then formal heresy is certain; or if the indicia are of violent suspicion, then the one who asserts the heretical proposition is judged with moral certitude to be a formal heretic, and thereby to have severed himself from the body of the Church. In reading the works of St. Robert Bellarmine, one is particularly impressed by his adherence to the doctrine of St. Thomas, which constitutes the foundation of his own theology on this point. It is patent from the teaching of St. Thomas that heretics are not merely those who openly declare themselves to leave the Church as manifest schismatics; but St. Thomas explains in II-II 11.1, “heresy is a species of unbelief, belonging to those who profess the Christian faith, but corrupt its dogmas.” Thus, it pertains properly to heretics that they profess to be Catholic and maintain the pretense of remaining within the Church, but they corrupt its dogmas by their unbelief in one or more articles of faith. As has been shown above, it pertains to the very nature of formal heresy as a conscious denial of even a single article of faith, that it is a rejection of the ecclesiastical magisterium as the rule of faith, and hence, heresy, suapte natura, visibly separates all public heretics from the body of the Church, and not just those who expressly reject the Church or her magisterial authority. Bellarmine, as quoted above, states categorically on the authority of St. Augustine, that all heretics have departed from the Church. (“s. Augustinus … Omnes hæretici … ex nobis exierunt idest, ex Ecclesia exierunt”) Thus it is explicitly clear in the teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine based on the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, that not only those heretics who expressly renounce the Church or explicitly reject the authority of the ecclesiastical magisterium, separate themselves from the Church and automatically lose all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity, but all manifest heretics, by the public act of formal heresy, depart from the Church and automatically forfeit any ecclesiastical office and jurisdiction they may have held. *Adolphe D. Tanquerey, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, (Desclée: 1959), vol. 1 n. 271 p. 160 N.B. – It is to be borne in mind that Tanquerey uses here the term ‘material heresy’ according to the improper novel sense of the term as it was commonly used by early twentieth-century theologians to denote only the heresy of non-Catholics visibly outside the Church. He does not refer to what are properly material heretics; i.e., those who ignorantly profess heretical opinions, but have not left the Church, and remain in the Church subject to the magisterial authority of the Church. Material heresy, if not qualified by schism which places one outside the Church, does not separate one from the Church, nor does it effect the loss of office ex natura haeresis, because it does not formally oppose the faith of the Church. ** Paul J. Glenn, COLLECTION, Aeterna Press. 

Bellarmine is unequivocal and explicit in affirming that the pertinacity of the heretic alone expels him from the body of the Church: «Præterea ad Tit. 3. Hæreticuм hominem post unam et alteram correptionem devita, sciens, quia subversus est qui ejusmodi est, et delinquit cuм sit proprio judicio condemnatus. Ubi apostolus episcopi præcipit, ut hæreticuм vitet, quod certe non juberet, si esset intra Ecclesiam. Debet enim pastor non vitare, sed curare eos, qui ad suum gregem pertinent. Et addit rationem, quia talis pertinax hæreticus est, proprio judicio condemnatus, idest (ut Hieronymus exponit) non est ejectus ab Ecclesia per excommunicationem, ut multi alii peccatores, sed ipse seipsum ab Ecclesia ejecit. »* Now pertinacity is simply this, as St. Alphonsus explains: for one to consciously remain in an error against the faith after it has been sufficiently explained to him that it is contrary to the faith of the universal Church: «pertinaciter errare … est eum [errorem] retinere, postquam contrarium est sufficienter propositum: sive quando scit contrarium teneri a reliqua universali Christi in terris Ecclesia, cui suum iudicium præferat»** Thus it is demonstrated to be a revealed truth of divine and Catholic faith, that the manifestly pertinacious denial of a single article of faith by itself separates one from the body of the Church, visibly severs the heretic from membership in the Catholic Church, and by itself brings about the loss of ecclesiastical office. Salza also strays from the teaching of the universal magisterium on the nature of the pertinacity of heresy: Salza wrote to me, saying, « “Public formal heresy” requires “public pertinacity.” This is your key error, because pertinacity will be considered public only if the person publicly renounced the Church as the infallible RULE of faith – either by publicly defecting from the Catholic religion, or publicly admitting that he knowingly and willfully rejects a dogma of Faith. » In their book and in their articles, Salza & Siscoe state quite plainly that for them, “publicly defecting from the Catholic religion” means that one “publicly defects from the Faith by joining a non-Catholic sect”, or by expressly renouncing the Church as the rule of faith, or by explicitly admitting that one’s belief is heretical. I have just quoted St. Alphonsus, the greatest single authority in Moral Theology who explained that pertinacity is established when it can be seen that one consciously remains in an error against the faith after having been sufficiently explained to the heretic that his belief is contrary to the faith of the Church. De Lugo, who St. Alphonsus considered to be the of the highest authority after St. Thomas, in disp. XX, sect. IV, n. l57-158, elaborates similarly: “For if it could be established, […] given that the doctrine is well known, given the kind of person involved and given the other circuмstances, that the accused could not have been unaware that his thesis was opposed to the Church, he would be considered as a heretic from this fact”. * De Ecclesia Militante, Cap. IV. p. 76. ** St. Alphonsus M. De Liguori, Lib. II. Tract. I. De præcepto Fidei. Dubium III. 

Fr. Gerald McDevitt elaborates on defection from the faith faith in canon 188. 4° on pp. 136-140 of The Renunciation of an Ecclesiastical Office: "Since it is not only incongruous that one who has publicly defected from the faith should remain in an ecclesiastical office, but since such a condition might also be the source of serious spiritual harm when the care of souls is concerned, the Code prescribes that a cleric tacitly renounces his office by public defection from the faith. Prior to the Code the law imposed a privation of office and benefice on a cleric for such a crime. This penalty was certainly imposed upon those clerics who were publicly guilty of heresy and of apostasy, but because of two apparently contradictory laws it was disputed whether the penalty applied also to those who were publicly guilty of schism. The present law attaches a tacit renunciation instead of a privation of office to a public defection from the faith. Since canon 188, n. 4, uses a general terminology, it necessary to determine the meaning of defection of faith and also to determine the extent of publicity that is required if the act of defection is to become the basis for a tacit renunciation of office. Since three specific crimes, namely, heresy, apostasy and schism, will enter this discussion, it is necessary to give the definitions of them as found in the Code. These definitions are contained in canon 1325, §2, which reads as follows: Post receptum baptismum si quis, nomen retinens christianum, pertinaciter aliquam ex veritatibus fide divina et catholica credendis denegat aut de ea dubitat, haereticus; si a fide Christiana totaliter recedit, apostata; si denique subess renuit Summo Pontifici aut cuм membris Ecclesiae ei subiectis communicare recusat, schismaticus est. These definitions are quite clear. Apostasy is a total defection from the faith, while heresy is only a partial defection, but as MacKenzie remarks (The Delict of Heresy in Its Commission, Penalization, Absolution, The Catholic University of America Canon Law Studies, n. 77 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America, 1932), p. 19), they are essentially the same, since the rejection of any one truth involves the same blasphemous attitude towards God that is involved in a denial of all the truths. The authors are not in agreement as to whether schism is to be included in the meaning of the term “defection of faith,” as used in canon 188, n. 4. Augustine, Blat, Toso and Coronata do not regard schism as constituting a defection from the faith as understood in canon 188, n. 4. since schism as such does not essentially militate against the possible retention of the faith even in its entirety. Maroto, Vermeersch-Creusen, Cocchi and Sipos, on the other hand, consider schism pure and simple as sufficient to constitute a defection from the faith and hence to call for the application of the sanction enacted in canon 188, n. 4. Heneghan includes those who are guilty purely of schism in his interpretation of the clause, “qui notorie aut catholicam fidem abjecerunt,” in canon 1065, § 1. The expression which Heneghan interprets in this manner is substantially the same as the expression employed in canon 188, n. 4, which reads as follows: “A fide catholica publice defecerit.” According to the strict interpretation of the words contained in canon 188, n. 4, and of the definition of schism, it must be admitted that the canon does not indisputably comprehend the condition of pure schism, since in its essence schism does not denote defection from the faith, but rather connotes a violation of obedience and charity. However, one could doubt that the law intends to exclude the consideration of schism from this canon, for in canon 2314, §1, n. 3, which provides penalties for the public adherence to a non-catholic sect, cognizance is taken of canon 188, n. 4, with the words“firmo praescripto can. 188, n. 4.” Since the wording of canon 2314, § 1, n. 3, applies to a schismatical sect as well as to a heretical one, and since the application of canon 188, n. 4, is confirmed in this canon, on could reasonably be led to conclude that the wording of canon 188, n. 4, means to comprise also the condition of pure schism. In practice it will be extremely rare that a case of pure schism will arise, for almost invariably and all but inevitably some heresy will be joined to it. This is especially true since the time of the solemn definition of the primacy and the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. If, however, there should arise a case of pure schism on the part of a cleric, the writer believes that the cleric would not lose his office by a tacit renunciation since the sanction of canon 188, n. 4, is of but doubtful efficacy in view of its questionable comprehension of the condition of pure schism, and especially since the effective application of that sanction involves the forfeiture of a vested right. The defection of faith must be public. It is to be noted immediately that adherence to or inscription in a non-catholic sect is not required to constitute the publicity that the canon demands. The defection must be public according to the definition of publicity which is found in canon 2197, n. 1: Delictum est publicuм, si iam divulgatum est aut talibus contigit aut versatur in adiunctis ut prudenter iudicari possit et debeat facile divulgatum iri. The authors are in agreement that this is the type of publicity postulated for making the defection a public one. Thus the defection from the faith may be public by reason of the fact that it is already known to a notable part of the community. The law does not prescribe any special number as being necessary to constitute a notable part of the community. Determination of this point is left to man’s prudent judgment. Besides being public by reason of actual divulgation, the defection from the faith may be public also because of the fact that the circuмstances force one to conclude that it will be easily divulged in the future. Thus if even only a few loquacious persons witnessed the defection from the faith, or if the sole and only witness was a taciturn person who later threatened to divulge the crime because of an enmity that has arisen between him and the delinquent, the delict would be public in the sense of canon 2197, n. 1. A cleric, then, if he is to occasion the tacit renunciation of his office, must have defected from the faith by apostasy or heresy in a public manner according to the explanation just given. Since the writer holds the opinion that tacit renunciation is not of the nature of a penalty, he holds also that the prescriptions of canon 2229 concerning excusing causes with reference to latae sententiae penalties do not apply to the case of a tacit renunciation of office on the part of a cleric who has perpetrated the act which is mentioned in canon 188, n. 4. Thus the writer believes that even if it were thinkable that a cleric was excused from incurring excommunication involved in a defection from the faith in view of the prescriptions of canon 2229, § 3, n. 1, he still would lose his office by a tacit renunciation. In this regard a tacit renunciation is like an irregularity, which, while in many respects it looks like a penalty, is nevertheless not a penalty in a truly canonical sense." 

Salza & Siscoe write on page 286, «A simple review of the explanation of this canon, as found in the canonical manuals, explains precisely what the Church means by “public defection from the faith.” » However, instead of providing such a “simple review of the explanation of this canon” (i.e. 188. 4°), Salza & Siscoe deceptively engage in verbal sleight of hand by quoting a lengthy comment of Fr. Charles Augustine on the vindictive penalties prescribed in Canon 2314 for crimes against the faith and the unity of the Church, while claiming that they are discussing Canon 188. 4°. Thus, it is precisely such a ‘simple review’ of the expert commentaries on Canon 188. 4° that they have studiously omitted, in order to propagate the lie that ‘defection from the Catholic faith’ means joining some other religion or sect, or expressly rejecting the Church. They also engage in the fraudulent trickery of interpreting the non-penal Can 188. 4° on tacit resignation of office (which presupposes only a fact but not the commission of a crime), according to the commentaries on Can. 2314 in the penal section of the Code, in which are enumerated the canons which prescribe various medicinal and vindictive penalties for crimes against the faith and unity of the Church. * * «Tacit resignation for public defection from the faith occurs when a prelate joins a non-Cathlic sect, not when he simply makes a heretical statement (judged so by private judgment). Canon 2314, §3 confirms this when it provides: “Canon 2314: (3) if they have joined a non-Catholic sect (Si sectae acatholicae nomen dederint) or publicly adhered to it (vel publice adhaeserint), they are ipso facto infamous, and clerics, in addition to being considered to have tacitly renounced any office they may hold, according to canon 188.4, are, if previous warning proves fruitless, to be degraded” (emphasis added). Furthermore, as noted above in Canon 2314 and in the quotation from Fr. Augustine, even in this extreme case in which a cleric publicly defects from the faith by joining a non-Catholic sect, the prelate must be duly warned before being degraded or “deposed.” Thus, even when a cleric openly leaves the Church (by joining another religion), thereby abandoning his office (which is de facto vacant due to his “tacit resignation”), he must first be warned by ecclesiastical authority before he is formally deposed (or degraded) by the Church. This is also confirmed by Fr. Ayrinhac’s commentary on the 1917 Code, wherein he notes that a cleric who “formally affiliates with a non-Catholic sect, or publicly adheres to it” is only deposed after being warned. Wrote Fr. Ayrinhac: “If they have been formally affiliated with a non-Catholic sect, or publicly adhere to it, they incur ipso facto the note of infamy; clerics lose all ecclesiastical offices they might hold (Canon 188.4), and after a fruitless warning they should be deposed.”139 [Footnote139] Ayrinhac, Penal Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law, p. 193. Note: “A deposition is an ecclesiastical vindictive penalty by which a cleric is forever deprived of his office or benefice and of the right of exercising the functions of his orders.” Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), vol. IV, p. 737. » (True or False Pope? pp. 284-286) It is the constant teaching of the Church going back to the explicit formulations of Pope St. Gelasius, that for so long as the pope is still the validly reigning pope, he is the supreme judge in all cases – including his own, as Pope Innocent III teaches (see Part II); and cannot be judged by anyone. He can only be judged by his inferiors if he were to consent to being judged; or if a future occupant of the Apostolic See were to consent to the judgment of his predecessor, as Pope Hadrian II taught in his Allocutio tertia, ad Concilium Romanum. Fr. Salvatore Vacca elaborates: "The Roman council condemned that one of Constantinople of 867, including Photius and the Greek Fathers who had participated in it, because it had launched a condemnation against Pope Nicholas I. Unfortunately, the acts of the Constantinople of 867 were destroyed. During the Roman Council, Pope Adrian II defined the decision of the Council of Constantinople as arrogant and intolerable, since he could not condemn the bishop of Rome. Nobody, in fact, had ever dared to do it and never had heard of such a thing. The pontiff states: We read that only the Roman Pontiff judged the bishops of all the Churches; but we do not read that he was judged by someone: even if Pope Honorius, after his death, was condemned by the Easterners, this was due to the fact that he had been accused of heresy, the only reason that allows the subjects to oppose their superiors and to reject their perverse sentiments: but even in this case no patriarch or any bishop is allowed to utter a sentence against the pontiff of the first see, if first he does not have the prior consent and authority. According to Hadrian II, the papal legates, when they left in 680 for the sixth ecuмenical council, had instructions from Pope Agatho (678 - 681) on the various conciliar decisions. This means that there was something fundamental that needed to be clarified and pointed out. Hadrian II, more for a technical-juridical than an ecclesiological concern, maintains that the pope can be condemned only for heresy, and with the prior authorization of the pontiff of the same First See: hence the priority of the condemnation of Honorius by Agatho on that pronounced by the Orientals. Ultimately, it is always the pope who determines what to do with his person or the bishop of Rome. Hadrian II glimpses that Pope Honorius, now dead, was condemned only because of the unofficial consent of his successor, Agatho. And on this juridical disposition the papal legates would have been prepared before and during the VI Ecuмenical Council. Therefore, only in case of heresy can the Pope be judged. But it is always himself that establishes and fixes the possibility of being judged. He could always remain the bishop of Rome, if he were not to admit himself to be judged by a council of bishops." * * Salvatore Vacca, O.F.M. Cap., PRIMA SEDES A NEMINE IUDICATUR Genesi e sviluppo storico dell’assioma fino al Decreto di Graziano, Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana, Roma, 1993, pp. 122 – 123: «Il concilio romano condannò quello costantinopolitano del’867, compreso Fozio e I Padri greci che vi avevano partecipato, perché aveva lanciato una condanna contra papa Niccolò I. Purtroppo, gli atti del costantinopolitano del’867 sono stati distrutti. Durante il concilio romano, papa Adriano II definisce arrogante ed intollerabile la decisione del concilio do Costantinopoli, poiché non poteva condannare il vescovo di Roma. Nessuno, infatti, aveva mai osato farlo e mai si era udita una cosa simile. Il pontifice afferma: Leggiamo che solo il Romano Pontefice ha giudicato I presuli di tutte le Chiese; ma non leggiamo che questi sia stato giudicato da qualcuno: anche se papa Onorio, dopo la sua morte, è stato condannato dagli orientali, ciò fu dovuto al fatto che questi era stato accusato di eresia, unica motivazione che permetta ai sudditi di opporsi ai loro superiori e di respingere I loro sentimenti perversi: ma anche in questo caso a nessun patriarcha né a nessun vescovo è permesso di proferire una sentenza contro il pontefice della prima sede, se prima questi non ne abbia il preliminare consenso e l’autorità. Adriano II fa intendere, circa la condanna di papa Onorio, che I legati papali, quando sono partiti nel 680 per il VI concilio ecuмenico, avevano istruzioni da parte del papa Agatone (678 – 681) sulle diverse deliberazioni conciliari. Ciò significa che c’era qualcosa di fondamentale che bisognava chiarire e puntualizzare. Adriano II, più per una preoccupazione technico-giuridica che ecclesiologica, sostiene che il papa può essere condannato solo per eresia, e con la previa autorizzazione del pontefice della stessa Prima Sede: da qui la priorità della condanna di Onorio da parte di Agatone su quella pronunciata dagli orientali. In definitive, è sempre il papa a stabilire il da farsi in ordine alla sua persona o al vescovo di Roma. Adriano II fa intravedere che papa Onorio, ormai morto, è stato condannato solo perché c’è stat oil consenso ufficioso del suo successore, Agatone. E su questa disposizione giuridica I legati papali sarebbero stati preparati prima e durante il VI Concilio ecuмenico. Pertanto, solo in caso di eresia il papa può essere giudicato. Ma è sempre lui stesso a stabilire e a fissare la possibilità d’essere giudicato. Potrebbe rimanere sempre il vescovo di Roma, se non fosse lui ad ammetere di farsi giudicare da un concilio di vescovi. » 

The only opinion allowing for the deposition of a heretic pope which does not involve itself in heresy, is the one which holds that in the event that a pope’s formal heresy would become manifest with certitude, the heretic pope would cease by himself to be pope, a Christian, and a member of the Church; and to already have fallen from office by himself and to have become minor quolibet catholico. Thus, the only “exception” is not an exception at all, but only if a pope were to cease entirely by himself to be a member of the Church because of manifest heresy, Schism or apostasy, he would by that very act, publicly defect from communion with the Church, cease to be a member of the Church; and therefore, according to the prescription of Canon 194 §1. 2° * (Canon 188. 4° in the 1917 Code )**; he would lose office automatically (ipso jure); and the loss of office would then be enforced juridically by a merely declaratory sentence (Canon 194 §2). On this point, the canon is absolutely clear and unequivocal: “Can. 194 §1. The following are removed from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself: […] 2° a person who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church; […]§2. The removal mentioned in nn. 2 and 3 can be enforced only if it is established by the declaration of a competent authority.” In the commentary on the Code of Canon Law composed by the Canon Law faculty of the University of Navarre, it is explained: “In the 2nd and 3rd cases, the act of the ecclesiastical authority is declarative, and it is necessary, not to provoke the vacating of the right of the office, but so that the removal can legally be demanded (also for the purposes of 1381 § 2), and consequently the conferral of the office to a new officeholder can be carried out (cfr. C. 154).”*** Since the loss of office takes place ipso jure, it does not depend in any way on the subsequent declaration which merely enforces it; and for this reason, as the quoted canon of the 1917 Code explains, the actual loss of whatsoever office by tacit renunciation takes place ipso facto without any declaration (“Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quælibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione”). The Canon Law commentary of the Pontifical Faculty of Canon Law of the University of Salamanca explains that the sole necessary condition for such a loss of office to take place, is that the act be freely committed, and then the loss of office follows necessarily: “El hecho por el que se presupone la renuncia debe ser puesto voluntariamente, a tenor del canon 185; pero, cuмplida esta condición, la perdida del oficio se produce necesariamente.”**** That the canon is applicable to all ecclesiastical offices is stated explicitly with the words, “quælibet officia vacant ipso facto” – and therefore necessarily includes the office of the Supeme Pontiff. The Very Rev. H. A. Ayrinhac explained, in his General Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law, on Loss of Ecclesiastical Offices, that such loss of office (Canons 185-191) “applies to all offices, the lowest and the highest, not excepting the Supreme Pontificate.” (p. 346) * Can. 194 — § 1. Ipso iure ab ecclesiastico officio amovetur: […]2° qui a fide catholica aut a communione Ecclesiae publice defecerit ; […] § 2. Amotio, de qua in nn. 2 et 3, urgeri tantum potest, si de eadem auctoritatis competentis declaratione constet. ** Can. 188. “Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clericus: […] 4° A fide catholica publice defecerit”. *** “Remoción ipso iure es la decretada por el propio derecho en los casos taxativamente determinados en el § 1. Todos ellos requieren, sin embargo, algún grado de intervención de la autoridad eclesiástica para que la remoción tenga plena eficacia jurídica. En el supuesto 1.º es preciso que se decrete la pérdida del estado clerical (cfr. cc. 290, 1336 § 1, 5.º) para que, como efecto reflejo, se produzca ipso iure la remoción del oficio. En los casos 2.º y 3.º, el acto de la autoridad eclesiástica es declarativo, y se hace necesario, no para provocar la vacación de derecho del oficio, sino para que pueda exigirse jurídicamente la remoción (también a los efectos del c. 1381 § 2), y consiguientemente pueda llevarse a cabo la colación del oficio a un nuevo titular (cfr. c. 154).” - CÓDIGO DE DERECHO CANÓNICO EDICIÓN BILINGÜE Y ANOTADA UNIVERSIDAD DE NAVARRA, FACULTAD DE DERECHO CANÓNICO, Sexta edición revisada y actualizada, p. 176. **** Miguelez – Alonso – Cabreros, Op. cit. p. 78. 

A pope who becomes a manifest heretic, 1) “ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church” [Bellarmine]* , 2) that “by his public pertinacity … he declares himself to be a heretic, i.e. to have withdrawn from the Catholic faith and the Church by his own will, so that no declaration or sentence from anyone would be necessary,”** “that he by his own will departed”, and is “severed from the body of the Church, and has in some manner abdicated the Pontificate” – i.e. that he “ipso facto by his own will abdicated the primacy and the pontificate”,*** [Ballerini]; 3) “For the rest, if God should permit that a Pope should become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would cease to be Pope, and the pontificate would be vacant” [St. Alphonsus de Liguori]**** ; 4) that he “would be considered as a public schismatic and heretic, and in consequence, and to have fallen by himself from the pontificate, if he had been validly elevated to it”***** , and therefore, “the deposition is not a prescription against … the current representation of the Church in the Pope recognized as such, but only against the person, who was before adorned with papal dignity.”****** [Gregory XVI] ). * «papam haereticuм manifestum per se desinere esse papam et caput, sicut per se desinit esse christianus et membrum corporis Ecclesiae; quare ab, Ecclesia posse eum judicari et puniri » ** «hac sua publica pertinacia … semetipsum palam declarat haereticuм, hoc est a fide catholica, & ab Ecclesia voluntate propria recessisse, ita ut ad eum praecidendum a corpore Eccleaiae nulla cujusquam declaratio aut sententia necessaria sit» *** «ne aliis perniciem afferret, in publicuм proferenda esset ejus hæresis, & contumacia, ut omnes similiter ab eo caverent, sicque sententia, quam in se ipsum tulit, toti Ecclesiæ proposita, eum sua voluntate recessisse, & ab Ecclesiæ corpore declararet avulsum, atque abdicasse quodammodo Pontificatum» **** “Del resto, si Dio permettesse che un papa fosse notoriamente eretico e contumace, egli cesserebbe d'essere papa, e vacherebbe il pontificato.” (Verità della Fede, part 3, ch. 8, no. 10. In: Opere dommatiche di S. Alfonso de Liguori, Torino, G. Marietti, 1848, p. 720; Opere di S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori, v. 8) ***** «considerarlo quale pubblico scismatico e eretico, ed in conseguenza per se decaduto dal pontificato, se anche ad esso fosse stato validamente inalzato. » ****** «non è la deposizione una prescrizione … contro l’attuale rappresentanza della Chiesa nel Papa per tale riconosciuto, ma soltanto contro la persona, che era prima ornata di papal dignità» Ibid. p. 270 

In this article, St. Thomas explains that the spiritual power is twofold (duplex est spiritualis potestas): sacramental and jurisdictional (una quidem sacramentalis; alia iurisdictionalis). The sacramental power remains even in those who fall into schism or heresy; and he explains why this is so; * but he also explains why schismatics and heretics lose the right to exercise the sacramental power.** Then, in the above cited passage, the Angelic Doctor explains why one who falls into schism or heresy (in schisma sive in haeresim labatur) simply loses the power of jurisdiction. In this teching, St. Thomas provides the theological foundation for the teaching of Pope St. Celestine on a heretic’s loss of jurisdiction: “For he who had defected from the faith with such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever.” *** The foundation of this doctrine of automatic loss of all jurisdiction by heretics and schismatics is that it pertains to the very nature of the sins of heresy and schism that they per se separate one from the unity of the Church. Schism is opposed to unity, whence it is said that the sin of schism is directly and per se opposed to unity. Now that which is intended per se constitutes the species of the act; and thus schism is properly a special sin in that it intends directly to separate one from the unity of the Church.**** Both sins, schism and heresy, are per se opposed to the unity of the Church, since heresy is per se opposed to the unity of the one faith; and schism is per se opposed to the unity of ecclesiastical charity; and for which reason, every heretic is a schismatic, but not vice versa.***** Thus, a schismatic act, whether it be an act of pure schism, or schism connected with heresy, in its very nature separates the schismatic from the body of the Church because it separates one per se from the unity of the Church. The Church is One in virtue of her unity: 1) unity of faith, 2) unity of cult, 3) unity under one visible head. Thus Canon Law states that “Those baptised are fully in communion with the Catholic Church on this earth who are joined with Christ in its visible structure by the bonds of profession of faith, of the sacraments and of ecclessiastical governance.” (can. 205). When one commits an act that per se visibly severs any one of those bonds of communion, one is separated by that act from the unity of the body of the Church. Thus, schismatics, heretics and apostates miserably separate themselves from the unity of the Church; whereas those who are separated for other crimes, are expelled by legitimate authority, as Mystici Corporis teaches. Referring specifically to the expulsion from the Church of heretics, schismatics, and apostates, the Canon Law Society Commentary explains, “The Church, does not expel persons from its midst. Essentially the apostate, heretic, or schismatic withdraws those bonds (of full communion) by a personal act. The Church recognises this in declaring the bonds severed ...” ****** * «Sacramentalis quidem potestas est quæ per aliquam consecrationem confertur. Omnes autem consecrationes Ecclesiæ sunt immobiles, manente re quæ consecratur, sicut patet etiam in rebus inanimatis, nam altare semel consecratum non consecratur iterum nisi fuerit dissipatum. Et ideo talis potestas secundum suam essentiam remanet in homine qui per consecrationem eam est adeptus quandiu vivit, sive in schisma sive in hæresim labatur, quod patet ex hoc quod rediens ad Ecclesiam non iterum consecratur. » ** «Sed quia potestas inferior non debet exire in actum nisi secundum quod movetur a potestate superiori, ut etiam in rebus naturalibus patet; inde est quod tales usum potestatis amittunt, ita scilicet quod non liceat eis sua potestate uti. Si tamen usi fuerint, eorum potestas effectum habet in sacramentalibus, quia in his homo non operatur nisi sicut instrumentum Dei; unde effectus sacramentales non excluduntur propter culpam quamcuмque conferentis sacramentum.» *** Fr. Gerald McDevitt, in The Renunciation of an Ecclesiastical Office: "And in a letter to the clergy of Constantinople, Pope St. Celestine I says: The authority of Our Apostolic See has determined that the bishop, cleric, or simple Christian who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after the latter began to preach heresy shall not be considered deposed or excommunicated. For he who had defected from the faith with such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever." Fr. McDevitt’s exposition on this point is provided later in this work. **** «Scissio autem unitati opponitur. Unde peccatum schismatis dicitur quod directe et per se opponitur unitati, sicut enim in rebus naturalibus id quod est per accidens non constituit speciem, ita etiam nec in rebus moralibus. In quibus id quod est intentum est per se, quod autem sequitur præter intentionem est quasi per accidens. Et ideo peccatum schismatis proprie est speciale peccatum ex eo quod intendit se ab unitate separare quam caritas facit. » [IIª-IIæ q. 39 a. 1 co.] ***** «hæresis et schisma distinguuntur secundum ea quibus utrumque per se et directe opponitur. Nam hæresis per se opponitur fidei, schisma autem per se opponitur unitati ecclesiasticæ caritatis. Et ideo sicut fides et caritas sunt diversæ virtutes, quamvis quicuмque careat fide careat caritate; ita etiam schisma et hæresis sunt diversa vitia, quamvis quicuмque est hæreticus sit etiam schismaticus, sed non convertitur. » [IIª-IIæ q. 39 a. 1 ad 3] ****** James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green, Donald E. Heintschel; THE CODE OF CANON LAW, A Text and Commentary, Commissioned by THE CANON LAW SOCIETY OF AMERICA, et al., p. 128.