So, Don Paolo (Fr. Kramer),

Based on your research, how would it play out if, say, 50% of the Church considered the papal claimant to be a heretic, while 50% considered him orthodox and the legitimate pope?

I understand that heresy deposes, as John of St. Thomas put it, quoad se ... but what about this quoad nos scenario where the Church is divided on the question, so that there's neither Universal Acceptance nor Universal Rejection?

     John of St. Thomas teaches that heresy separates one from the Church per se, or quoad nos. One cannot be deposed merely per se or quoad se, but one is only deposed if it is per se and quoad nos. For one to be deposed, he must be deposed quoad nos, or he is not deposed.
     Loss of office ipso jure, according to the letter of the law takes place by the fact alone of public defection from the faith, which takes place when the heresy is public, and cannot be hidden, nor excused by any subterfuge of law. It doesn't matter how many or what percentage of the hierarchy or laity believe he is or is not a heretic. What alone matters is the fact of the formal heresy, which must be public according to the canonical definition of "public". By the fact alone that the public defection from the faith, (according to doctrinal/canonical understaning of "defection", and the canonical definition of "public" as defined in can. 2197), has taken place, the loss of office occurs ipso jure, as the Code statutes. It matters not what the majority, most of whom may be clueless, might believe.

    John of St. Thomas teaches that heresy separates one from the Church per se, or quoad nos. One cannot be deposed merely per se or quoad se, but one is only deposed if it is per se and quoad nos. For one to be deposed, he must be deposed quoad nos, or he is not deposed.
     Loss of office ipso jure, according to the letter of the law takes place by the fact alone of public defection from the faith, which takes place when the heresy is public, and cannot be hidden, nor excused by any subterfuge of law. It doesn't matter how many or what percentage of the hierarchy or laity believe he is or is not a heretic. What alone matters is the fact of the formal heresy, which must be public according to the canonical definition of "public". By the fact alone that the public defection from the faith, (according to doctrinal/canonical understaning of "defection", and the canonical definition of "public" as defined in can. 2197), has taken place, the loss of office occurs ipso jure, as the Code statutes. It matters not what the majority, most of whom may be clueless, might believe.

Thank you.  Presumably, however, it could never happen that NO ONE recognizes the heresy, but that he's a heretic and deposed anyway.  Otherwise, the Church could theoretically end up believing false dogmas defined by a non-pope ... without even knowing it.  Don't worry.  I am not trying to "trap" you, just trying to think through this issue, and the way my mind works, I like to think through all sorts of possible scenarios in order to test the principles.

You are quite correct in saying that "it could never happen that NO ONE recognizes the heresy, but that he's a heretic and deposed anyway". It would also be inconceivable that no one would recognize the heresy; and it would be impossible that the whole Church would be subject to a heretic who has fallen from office ipso jure.

Thank you.  That's what I figured.

More verbal detritus from Pax Vobis: 《You did not properly define terms before you drew conclusions. It needs to be translated  what +Bellarmine meant vs canon law today.》

How would this idiot know whether I properly defined the terms before drawing conclusions when he hasn't yet read my book? I do explain what is "manifest heresy", how Bellarmine used the term, and how it is to be understood in canonical terms today. 

No, genius, it is NOT a canonical term. As I pointed out, it appears nowhere in canonical legislation. That is why I explained in my book how this non-canonical term translates into canonical terms. So, "Pax Vobis", why don't you stop wasting my time with your nonsensical comments? Do the decent thing and crawl back into your cave.

There is no book review for this book on Amazon.com. Why hasn't anybody here done a review?

Who here has read it?  Is it any good?  That's a lot of money to shell out for a book that is just going to repeat what I already know and read elsewhere.

I don't think it's meant actually be read, it has to be like the docuмents of V2 which are not really meant to be read, only generically referred to.