And of course, "Pax Vobis" , you deliberately lie by referring to me as a "sede". Until Benedict XVI unequivocally renounces his munus or dies, he remains in office as pope.

Paul Kramer
April 30 at 5:12 AM ·
On the Likelihood of a Vacancy of the Apostolic See
Francesco Bordoni, a qualificator of the Holy Inquisition, explains in his work on prosecuting heretics (which I have cited in To Deceive the Elect), that two indicia of vehement suspicion equal one indicium of violent suspucion of heresy, so even if we were to presume a possible benign interpretation to Ratzinger's words on the Jєωιѕн Question, that would be at minimum an indicium of vehement suspicion; but combined with his heretical propositions on 1) the resurrection of the body, 2) on the judgment of the living and the dead, 3) on transubstantiation, and 4) on the Incarnation of Christ, Ratzinger is manifestly to be considered at minimum to be violenter suspectus hæresis -- which denotes moral certitude of formal heresy, which means his formal heresy is not to be reasonably doubted, and if he were to remain obstinate after being presented with evidence that would convince a reasonable man that his opinions are heretical, then he would have to be judged as not merely violently suspect of heresy, but would be a formal heretic manifestly guilty of the crime of heresy. Gregory XVI explains in the passsge cited below that such a judgment would not violate the rights of the Primacy, but would be pronounced against the one who was the pope before falling from office.

What this all proves is that the See of Peter is at best, probably and presumably vacant; which means that the governance of the Church devolves temporarily from a monarchical form of government to an aristocratic form of government, as Gregory XVI explains in a passage I quote in my first volume of To Deceive the Elect.* It is explained by Gregory XVI, Ballerini, Bordoni, and St. Alphonsus de Liguori (in passages I quote in my book) that the see is to be presumed vacant if it is impossible to determine with certitude that a claimant is a valid pope. That leaves the Church in essentially the same situation that existed at the time of the Council of Constance, when it could not be determibed with any degree of certitude which, if any of the three claimants, was the legitimate occupant of the papal throne.
Today, of the two claimants, Bergoglio is manifestly a formal heretic, as I have briefly proven in the Introduction in Volume One; and Ratzinger can now be seen to be violenter suspectus of formal heresy. That means that it cannot be reasonably concluded that the See of Peter is occupied by a valid pope; and therefore a probable vacancy is to be presumed. It remains within the jurisdiction of the Catholic hierarchy, as the above mentioned authors explain, to resolve the uncertainty regarding the occupancy of the papal chair, and to restore it to the state of moral certitude of valid occupancy such as existed before the Second Vatican Council. Such an intervention and deposition would not infringe on the rights of the papacy, because, as Gregory XVI explains, "In fact, by ceasing in this hypothesis the deposed Pope to be a true Pope, the deposition is not a prescription against the rights of the Primacy, and therefore 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 ." **
Pertinacity can sometimes be as apparent as the heretical assertion, but not always. The criteria must be strictly applied according to the canonical indicia of heresy in order to judge with certitude, rather that to form a merely well founded opinion. In my opinion, there is well founded positive doubt that Benedict XVI is capable of holding ecclesiastical office. It can only be certain that the see is vacant if the fact of defection is verified by proof of pertinacity. However, since the indicia against Ratzinger are strong, he can no longer enjoy a reasonable presumption of regularity: Papa dubius papa nullus. The presumption, although not conclusive, is against him being a valid pope. There exists a well founded probability of a vacancy.
Thus, it is not to be considered a heretical or schismatical judgment to consider the see vacant under the present circuмstances of positive and probable doubt, but it is a presumption that is amply justified according to the eminent authorities I have cited. Indeed, in a similar situation of doubt at the time of the Council of Constance, the Catholic hierarchy presumed the See of Rome to be vacant and acted accordingly, by electing Pope Martin V. I can now only exhort the few remaining Catholic prelates and clergy to "Go and do likewise." (Luke 10:37)
* "Pope Gregory XVI explains why this is so: «In the times of the antipopes, as well as of the dead Pope, the form of the government ordained by Christ does not remain obscure, even in a case where there is founded doubt, so that it is not clear who should be venerated for Pope, yes in the case of sede vacante it happens in the Church what happens in different monarchies, in which in time of interregnum the government resides in some senate; as practiced also in the ancient Roman empire, in which the Roman senate commanded in time of interregnum; so in the mean while in those cases the government of the Church is aristocratic. But who does not know that this cannot be its natural state? Who can recognize him from the same dilligence that the Church gave to elect her head, suffering ill from remaining headless for a long time?»" («Nei tempi degli antipapi, come anche di Papa morto, non resta oscurata la forma del governo ordinato da Cristo, imperciocché sì nel caso in cui siavi dubbio fondato, per cui non si sappia bene chi debbasi venerare per Papa, sì nel caso di sede vacante succede nella Chiesa ciò che succede in diverse monarchie, nelle quali in tempo di interregno il governo risiede in qualche senato; come praticavasi pure nell’antico impero romano, nel quale il senato romano comandava in tempo d’interregno; quindi in quei casi il governo della Chiesa è intrattanto aristocratico. Ma chi non sa, che questo non può essere lo suo stato naturale? Chi può riconoscerlo dalle stesse premure che dessi la Chiesa per eleggersi il suo capo, mal soffrendo di starsene acefala per lungo tempo? » [D. Mauro Cappellari ora Gregorio XVI, Il trionfo della santa sede e della chiesa contro gli assatti dei novatori, Venezia, 1832, p. 29] )

“I respond that the people indeed ought to discern a true from a false prophet, but not by any other rule than by diligently attending to whether he that is preaching says things contrary to those which were said by his predecessors, or else contrary to those things which are preached by the other legitimate pastors, and especially the Apostolic See, which is the principal Church; …

Moreover, it should be observed that, on the one hand, the people, by the rule which we have laid down, can indeed discern a true prophet from a false one; but, on the other hand, they cannot, for all that, depose the false prophet, if he be a bishop, and substitute another in his place.  For the Lord and the Apostle command only that the people not hear false prophets, and not that they depose them.  And certainly the practice of the Church has always been thus, that heretical bishops be deposed by bishops’ councils or by the supreme pontiffs.”

Cardinal Tommaso de Vio wrote: “the ipso facto loss of honor and power of jurisdiction is understood to the extent that they are heretics on their part … and are heretics according to the Church’s judgment. This is how we should interpret St. Thomas and others who speak of this.”

“[T]he power of jurisdiction is by man’s appointment: both giving it and taking it away belong to human judgment. … more is required to incur deprivation ipso facto, than to incur excommunication, since incurring the censure does not require a declaration, whereas incurring deprivation does, according to the canonists.”

Bellarmine: “For Jurisdiction is certainly given to the Pontiff by God, but with the agreement of men [electors] as is obvious; because this man, who beforehand was not Pope, has from men that he would begin to be Pope.  Therefore, he is not removed by God unless it is through men. But a secret heretic cannot be judged by men…”

Bellarmine: “The Third opinion is on another extreme, that the Pope is not and cannot be deposed either by secret or manifest heresy. Turrecremata in the aforementioned citation relates and refutes this opinion, and rightly so, for it is exceedingly improbable. Firstly, because that a heretical Pope can be judged is expressly held in the Canon, Si Papa, dist. 40, and with Innocent. And what is more, in the Fourth Council of Constantinople, Act 7, the acts of the Roman Council under Hadrian are recited, and in those it was contained that Pope Honorius appeared to be legally anathematized, because he had been convicted of heresy, the only reason where it is lawful for inferiors to judge superiors. … in the case of heresy, a Roman Pontiff can be judged.”

Of course the material office must be officially stripped.  This does not mean that the office is still formally held.

If the General Council were divided, this would effectively lead to yet another version of the so-called Western schism.  And that schism was not ended until the Church convened and a universal consensus was reached.

I believe that the only purpose of a General Council is for deliberation, for the Church to make up her mind regarding the status of a pope.  I believe that a declaration is nothing more then a statement.  It has no actual effect.

Again, apostasy is the most clear-cut case.  I don't think anyone is arguing that apostasy needs a declaration.  ...However, to be a devil's advocate, as a lay catholic, I wouldn't be obliged to believe that +Francis became a Buddhist (I could, in theory, explain it away in a poche-like fashion).  And I could still believe he was the pope, until the Church forced me to believe otherwise.  This is the effect of the declaration - 1) Church unity and 2) Force of Law.

Pope Celestine I, in an epistle to John of Antioch, which is contained in Volume One of the Council of Ephesus, ch. 19, says: “If anyone who was either excommunicated or exiled by Bishop Nestorius, or any that followed him, from such a time as he began to preach such things, whether they be from the dignity of a bishop or clergy, it is manifest that he has endured and endures in our communion, nor do we judge him outside, because he could not remove anyone by a sentence, who himself had already shown that he must be removed.” And in a letter to the clergy of Constantinople: “The Authority of our See has sanctioned, that the bishop, cleric or Christian by simple profession 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 preaching, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever.”

[Pope St. Celestine:]“Nevertheless, lest the opinion of one who had already called down upon himself a divine judicial sentence seem valid even at the time, the authority of our See has decreed that, from the moment that Nestorius and those like him begin to proclaim such [heresy], We do not regard as exiled or excommunicated any of the bishops or clerics or Christians by any profession who were dispossessed of office or cast out of communion by him and his followers. Rather all were and still remain in communion with Us, because a person who erroneously preached such [heresy] could not eject or remove anyone”. [Cardinal Billot]:  Therefore you see that a bishop who is a heretic in secret is still vested with the power of binding and loosing, since he loses episcopal jurisdiction and the power of excommunication only from the time at which he begins to preach heresy openly.