The appeal to the explanation of Beal is futile; since all arguments which say that the defector who has lost office ipso jure remains in office until the declaration is issued is against reason. It involves a fatal contradiction. How can one who has actually lost office ipso jure still remain in office until the declaration is issued? It is an absolute impossibility.
     Pax Vobis resorts to mendacious sophistry: 《Just like a judge’s recognition of a jury’s guilty verdict is the recognition of a crime.  There is no crime (in temporal terms) until the Church rules.》In penal law, one is not presumed to have incurred a penalty unless the competent authotity has declared it. Canon 194 is an administrative canon. The loss of office prescribed in this canon is not a penalty. Penal deprivation of office is dealt with separately in the penal section of the Code. Loss of office in this case does not depend on the commission of a crime or its juridical recognition; but the statute decrees the loss of office ipso jure on the sole basis of the public fact of defection. The proposition therefore, is manifestly false that: 《The point is, without the declaration, there is no loss of office.  The declaration is the enforcement; without enforcement, there is no punishment for the crime.  》The loss of office is not a punishment for a crime; but is the natural effect of defection from the faith, which is why St. Robert Bellarmine explains that it is unanimously taught by the Fathers that heretics lose office entirely by themselves, ipso facto, and not by the force of any human law, but ex natura hæresis. Thus, the fall from office takes place independently of the jurisdiction of the Church; and, as Suárez proves, papal loss of office cannot take place by the force of any human law.*  Therefore, the administrative laws of the Church merely recognize the nature of the ipso facto loss of office as being ex natura hæresis, and accordingly statutes that such a loss of office takes place ipso jure. Refuting all of those who held that loss of office takes place as a penalty for having violated ecclesiastical laws, St. Robert Bellarmine in Book II Chapter XXX of De Romano Pontifice cites Aquinas, saying, “St. Thomas teaches that schismatics straightaway loose all jurisdiction”; and cites the unanimous teaching of the Fathers: “Nor does the response which some make avail, that these Fathers speak according to ancient laws, but now since the decree of the Council of Constance they do not lose jurisdiction, unless excommunicated by name, or if they strike clerics. I say this avails to nothing. For those Fathers, when they say that heretics lose jurisdiction, do not allege any human laws which maybe did not exist then on this matter; rather, they argued from the nature of heresy … Yet heretics are outside the Church, even before excommunication, and deprived of all jurisdiction, for they are condemned by their own judgment, as the Apostle teaches to Titus; that is, they are cut from the body of the Church without excommunication, as Jerome expresses it.”  In the previous sentence, Bellarmine established the unanimity of the Fathers, quoting an impressive array of Fathers, saying, “the Holy Fathers teach in unison, that not only are heretics outside the Church, but they even lack all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity ipso facto.” 

* R. P. Francisci Suarez, Opera Omnia, Paris 1863 (Vivés), Tomus Doudecimus, Tractatus Primus, De Fide Theologica. Disputatio X. De Summo Pontifice, Sect. VI. p. 316: «…nec vere cadere potest Pontifex ipso facto a sua dignitate propter jus humanum, tum quia illud esset latum vel ab inferiori, scilicet concilio, vel ab æquali, nempe preedecessore Papa; at neuter horum habet vim coactivam, ut punire valeat Pontificem æqualem, vel superiorem»

The pope is not bound by those precepts he imposes on his subjects. He is bound by all laws founded on divine or natural law; and he is bound by procedural law; since the validity of juridical acts hinges on the following the procedural requirements which establush their validity.

Don P,
You, like most other sedes, ignore the heretical aspect of obstinacy, when applying canon law to manifest heresy.  Yes, all catholics can recognize heresy/error spoken in public.  Yes, all catholics have a duty to challenge such heretical acts or words.  Yes, all catholics have a duty to separate themselves from such individuals.
.
But...when we're talking about loss of office and the determination of obstinacy, and the charge of formal heresy, these are all parts of canon law.  Only Church officials can interpret, judge and execute canon law.  Only Church officials can determine (using St Paul's scriptural 2-rebuke process) obstinacy.  If there is no obstinacy, there is no "ipso facto" loss of office.
.
I'll say it a 1,000 times.  "Manifest" does not mean what dictionary.com says it means.  It does not mean "obvious" or "public".  It has a specific canon law meaning, which implies obstinacy.  And when the Church DETERMINES/DECLARES that the person is an obstinate/manifest heretic, THEN all of the canon law "ipso facto" penalties automatically kick-in.  But not before. 
.
We are not protestants.  Private interpretation, public opinion, autonomous application of canon law does not work in our religion.  The Church is a monarchy.  Canon Law is only used by canon lawyers.  There is a legal process.  There are rules to follow.  Holy Mother Church tells us what is and what is not; determining manifest heresy is not by popular vote.

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.

Let's ask an easier question:  Is +Francis a manifest heretic?
.
Answer:  No, because the Church has not told us he is.  The Church has not determined his obstinacy (though a few Cardinals have started the rebuke process with the "dubia" letter).  No catholic is authorized to judge obstinacy except those authorized by the Church to apply canon law.
.
Is +Francis a heretic, generally speaking? 
.
Answer:  Obviously, yes.  But he is presumed a material heretic only, under the law, until the Church tells us otherwise. 
.
If +Francis is a material heretic and not (yet) a manifest one, does this change the nature of his errors?
.
Answer:  No.  Error is error.  The difference between being a material and a manifest/formal heretic is in the will.  A material heretic is one who is in error, but because of poor understanding of doctrine or confusion.  A manifest/formal heretic is one who clings to his error, even when shown that he is contrary to doctrine. 
.
If +Francis' errors are wrong in both cases, why does canon law make a distinction between material and manifest/formal heresy?
.
Answer:  Because, as St Thomas teaches, that sin is in the will.  A material heretic, while objectively wrong, may not be subjectively guilty for his crime.  While a manifest/formal heretic is proven to be wrong, and obstinately attached to his error.  The Church's job is to determine this difference, through St Paul's 2-rebuke process.  Once this is determined, then the appropriate canon law penalties are applied.

No, you liar, you didn't say I argue like a sede; but you said like "other sedes"; which literally means that according to your statement, I am also a sede. While it's true you personally don't give a rat's posterior as to whether I am a sede or not; you do very much strive to defame me by tarring me with the sede brush. 
     You silly fool, you don't seem to grasp that if something is manifest, it is obvious on its face by itself beyond reasonable doubt, without the need for anyone in authority to declare to us that what we already plainly know to be certain is indeed really certain. If pertinacity is manifestly obvious beyond all reasonable doubt, it is CERTAIN, and is known to be certain. You are saying that no one has the right to assert what is already manifestly certain unless the Church tells us it is certain. This is pure idiocy, and it is not Church teaching. Your proposition,  "No catholic is authorized to judge obstinacy except those authorized by the Church to apply canon law"; is a gratuitous absurdity, as I have already demonstrated earlier. If the obstinacy is manifestly obvious, we have the right to assert that it is so. Your proposition, "But he is presumed a material heretic only, under the law, until the Church tells us otherwise," is applicable only in penal law. If the heresy is asserted in such a flagrant manner that the dolus of formal heresy cannot be hidden by any subterfuge, nor can it be excused by any recourse to law, then the form of heresy is manifest to us by itself, without the Church having to declare it to us before we are permitted to affirm the obvious fact. Next proposition, "St Thomas teaches, that sin is in the will. " Liar! St. Thomas does not say that. St. Thomas says the FORM of the sin is in the will. Sin is a composite of FORM and MATTER. The form is internal, but the sin is internal if the ACT is internal, and the sin is EXTERNAL if the act is perceptible to the senses. If not only the matter, but the FORM is plainly manifested as I described above, then anyone who has the mental capacity to judge may assert that the FACT of formal heresy is plainly obvious.
No private individual may presume to usurp the judicial function of the Church by attempting to pronounce a penal sentence on a manifest heretic; or by presuming some juriducal effect to one's private judgment; but one is permitted to judge and assert that which is plainly manifest and certain beyond any reasonable doubt; provided that one does not presume any juridical force in one's private judgment.