Is this true about Pax?

Robert Siscoe is not CI’s Pax Christi.
Whether the Pax Christi on Fr. Kramer’s threads was either our own Pax Christi, or Robert Siscoe using that pseudonym, I cannot day.

Well, for one thing, Father Kramer's adversary was Pax Christi, while on CI the poster is known as Pax Vobis.  In my exchanges with Pax Vobis, I seriously doubt that he could be Siscoe.  For one thing, Pax Vobis is very strong on the EENS issue.  And he's shown himself more open to a form of sedeprivationism than Siscoe ever would be.

Thanks everyone for the clarification.

Although Canon 188.4° is no longer in force, its identical provision is found in Canon 194 of the 1983 Code. What you mendaciously claim is a "sedevacantist error" on loss of office for defection from the faith is precisely what is explained in the Salamanca and Navarra commentaries on Canon Law. YOU ARE A CHARLATAN! You, Pax Christi, are obviously none other than the heretical verbal con-artist, Robert Siscoe -- your arguments are identical to the sophistry of that heretical writer. In your book, True or False Pope?, you perpetrate multiple frauds on your readers -- like the one you have done right here on this thread. In your book you and your partner in iniquity, Salza, claim to present Fr. Charles Augustine's commentary on Canon 188.4°, an ADMINISTRATIVE CANON -- but you did no such thing, but rather, you quoted Fr. Augustine's comments on Canon 2314 in the PENAL SECTION OF THE CODE. Canon 2314 prescribes penalties to be meted out according to the penal process it sets forth. It has absolutely nothing to do with Tacit Loss of Office. That the penal process prrescribed in Canon 2314 takes place without any suspensive effect on the administrative prescription for loss of office in Canon 188.4° is explicitly set forth in the canon with the words, "firmo præscripto can. 188, n. 4". Canon 188.4° statutes an ipso jure loss of office "without any declaration" (sine ulla declaratione) on the sole basis of the FACT of PUBLIC defection from the Catholic faith, as Fr. Augustine explains. PUBLIC DEFECTION FROM THE CATHOLIC FAITH takes place by means of FORMAL HERESY EVEN WITHOUT RENOUNCING THE CHURCH OR JOINING A NON-CATHOLIC SECT, as Fr. Arinhac explains in his commentary. That public FORMAL HERESY simpliciter provokes an ipso jure loss of office is also set forth in the approved commentaries I quote in my book, which explain that public FORMAL HERESY suffices for one to tacitly renounce office. Among those I quote is the Commentary of the Pontifical Canon Law Faculty of the University of Salamanca, as well as the commentary of the Ecclesiastical Faculty of Canon Law of the University of Navarra. The theological reason why FORMAL HERESY without a formal act of schism or apostaay suffices for tacit loss of office to take place is that heresy is in its nature only a PARTIAL defection from the MATERIAL OBJECT OF FAITH, but is as such in its essence a defection from the FORMAL OBJECT OF FAITH -- for which reason formal heresy suffices for the ipso jure loss of office to occur. 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 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 Church’s definition of heresy is set forth in the Code of Canon Law: “Can. 751 — Dicitur hæresis, pertinax, post receptum baptismum, alicuius veritatis divina et catholica credendæ denegatio, aut de eadem pertinax dubitatio; apostasia, fidei christianæ ex toto repudiatio”. The 1917 code of Canon Law defines what a heretic is in precisely the same terms: Can. 1325 §2 — “Post receptum baptismum si quis, nomen retinens christianum, pertinaciter aliquam ex veritatibus fide divina et catholica credendis denegat aut de ea dubitat, hæreticus . . . est.” The canon makes it clear that even those who still claim to be Catholic, but who pertinaciously deny or doubt any truth which must be believed with divine and Caholic faith are heretics. When the Church declares that heretics are outside the Church, she understands the term ‘heretics’ according to this definition as it has traditionally been understood, and which remains applicable even under the 1983 Code: Canon 6 § 2 — “Canones huius Codicis, quatenus ius vetus referunt, æstimandi sunt ratione etiam canonicæ traditionis habita.” All who are guilty of this offense are heretics, and are therefore, if the sin is public, they are all severed from the body of the Church and cease to be members according to the very natue of heresy; and for this reason, in addition to the ipso jure loss of office and severance from the body of the Church for public heresy, all, and every single heretic, (as well as apostates and schismatics) incur the penalty of excommunication: Can. 2314. §1 — “Omnes a christiana fide apostatæ et omnes et singuli hæretici aut schismatici: 1° Incurrunt ipso facto excommunicationem”. John Salza manifests his abysmal ignorance in his failure to understand what it means to reject the magisterium as the rule of faith. Salza, in his delusional mendacity states, «Cardinal Billot and the rest of the Church’s real theologians teach exactly the opposite of you – that pertinacity is established only if the Pope were to renounce the Church as the RULE of faith by PUBLIC PROFESSION (sic). You explicitly reject this unanimous opinion of the theologians (sic). You say heresy is established “by a public external act,” but Cardinal Billot says heresy is NOT established “by those who indeed manifest their heresy by external signs. » Here one may reasonably ask if heresy is not established by the heretic’s public words and actions, then how is it established – by mental telepathy? Of far greater authority than the personal opinion of Cardinal Billot, a dogmatic theologian, on such a question of law as the severing of the juridical bond of membership in the Church, is the consensus of the catedráticos of the Faculty of Canon Law of the Pontifical and Ecclesiastical University of Salamanca. Since this matter is a question of law, the canonical doctrine of the expert canonists* – i.e. the communi constantique doctorum sententia** must be followed, and not the private opinions of theologians. The doctores de derecho of Salamanca explain that what the Church understands by the word ‘heretics’ is defined in canon 1325; and that the crime of heresy is determined through its external manifestation by actions or words: «2314 Figuras del delito: 1) La apostasía; 2) la herejía, y 3) el cisma, cuyas definiciones se hallan contenidas en el canon 1325, § 1; mas para que haya delito es preciso que la apostasía, la herejía, o el cisma se manifesten exteriormente por medio de hechos o de palabras. » *** * Miguelez – Alonso – Cabreros; ,CÓDIGO DE DERECHO CAONICO Y LEGISLACIÓN COMPLEMENTARIA, TEXTO LATINO Y VERSION CASTELLANA CON JURISPRUDENCIA Y COMENTARIOS POR LOS CATEDRÁTICOS DE TEXTO DEL CÓDIGO EN LA PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD ECLESIÁSTICA DE SALAMANCA, Madrid, 1952, p. 11 – «El parecer común y costante de los doctores o verdaderamente peritos en la ciencia del derecho. » ** 1983 Code: Can. 19 – Si certa de re desit expressum legis sive universalis sive particularis praescriptum aut consuetudo, causa, nisi sit poenalis, dirimenda est attentis legibus latis in similibus, generalibus iuris principiis cuм aequitate canonica servatis, iurisprudentia et praxi Curiae Romanae, communi constantique doctorum sententia. 1917 Code: Can. 20 – Si certa de re desit expressum praescriptum legis sive generalis sive particularis, norma sumenda est, nisi agatur de poenis applicandis, a legibus latis in similibus; a generalibus iuris principiis cuм aequitate canonica servatis; a stylo et praxi Curiae Romanae; a communi constantique sententia doctorum. *** Miguelez – Alonso – Cabreros, Op. cit., Madrid, 1952, p. 836. 

189] One who is a public heretic, i.e. one who obstinately denies or doubts a revealed truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith in such a manner that is publicly known or will soon be publicly known, is ipso facto separated from the body of the Church, and loses office ipso jure. According to Canon 188. 4°, one who publicly defects from the faith automatically falls from whatsoever office ipso jure. Regarding the interpretation of Canon 188. 4° on Tacit Resignation of Office due to public defection from the Catholic faith, Fr. Chazal cites the opinion of Vermeersch as his authority for adding restrictive qualifications to what is stated in an unqualified manner in the text of the canon. The cited passage reads, «One defects from the faith who denies its foundation pertinaciously, or who by some precise fact (facto factove) destroys all bond with the Catholic religion, for instance, by adhering to a heretical or a schismatic sect. » (Epitome Iuris Canonici, I, p. 190) Vermeersch wrongly defined defection from the faith as a pertinacious denial of the foundation of the faith, or the destruction of all bond with the Catholic religion. Now, as I fully explained if the first part of volume one of my work, the formal cause of the virtue of faith is the authority of the revealing God ( Pius XI, Mortalium Animos); and therefore, St. Thomas teaches that “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.” (II – II, Q. 5, a. 3) For this reason he says in the same article, “Neither living nor lifeless faith remains in a heretic who disbelieves one article of faith.” Thus, defection from the Catholic faith already takes place in a simple act of formal heresy by obstinately denying even one article of faith, because heresy directly and per se opposes faith (IIª-IIae q. 39 a. 1); and for this reason, Pius XII teaches in Mystici Corporis that heresy by its very nature separates one from the body of the Church; and thus, heretics “have miserably separated themselves” from membership in the Church. Since public heretics place themselves outside the Church entirely by their own actions, they necessarily forfeit any office they held inside the Church by their own actions. Bellarmine proves that such a forfeiture for heresy is taught unanimously by the Fathers. Accordingly, therefore, Canon 188. 4° statutes an automatic loss of office without any declaration. In the continuation of the passage, Vermeersch says, “The delict is public, when it is notorious to the greater part of the community or can soon be known”. From this it seems likely that Vermeersch, who explicitly refers to the act of defection as a delict, made the mistake of interpreting a canon in the administrative section of the Code according to the prescriptions of canons in the penal section, i.e. Canon 2314. It is easy enough to understand why Vermeersch would fall into this error in his day, so soon after the promulgation of the 1917 Code; since in the pre-1917 legislation, a form of penal deprivation of office had been prescribed for such a defection. The canonical innovation of Canon 188. 4° was to bring the law of the Church in line with the Patristic doctrine on automatic loss of office for defection from the faith into heresy or schism, which Bellarmine explained takes place not by any human law, but ex natura haeresis. The penal process prescribed in Canon 2314 begins by decreeing the latæ sententiæ excommunication for apostates, heretics, and schismatics. The first clause of the canon (2314. §1) properly refers to formal heretics, who are distinguished from suspected heretics (canon 2315); but the fact that some of the sections of the canon prescribe warnings is due to the fact that vindictive penalties require prior warnings; and also proves that the heretics dealt with in this canon would not only be manifestly formal heretics as such, but would also include those who having not heeded the warnings would therefore be considered violenter or vehementissime suspected of heresy; since, “Violent suspicion amounts to morally certain proof.”* The penal process ends with vindictive penalties for the crimes if the warnings go pertinaciously unheeded, such as the added censure of infamy and deposition; and for joining other sects, ipso facto infamy, and finally degradation if the warnings go unheeded. If they heed the warnings and repent, the clerics can be allowed to retain the offices which they would otherwise have lost by undeclared tacit resignation; but if they do not repent, then they must be deposed according to the penal prescription. Thus, the penal process begins by prescribing warnings for suspected heretics, and inflicts the latæ sententiæ excommunication on those who are actually guilty of the offense (Canon 2314); and ends by punishing the defector with the infliction of vindictive penalties if warnings go unheeded. The administrative measures of Canon 188. 4° begin with an already public and completed defection; and for this reason, there are no prescribed warnings, but the canon simply statutes an ipso facto loss of office on the basis of the already accomplished fact of the public defection. * The Rev. P, Chas. Augustine, O.S.B., D.D.; A COMMENTAY ON THE NEW CODE OF CANON LAW, Volume VIII, St. Louis and London, 1922, p. 284.