Within the last 24 hours I have found a couple articles considering a sede vacante or at least discussing the licit deposition of a pope.  These are from groups that have been very vocal against sede vacantists!  What is going on!  

essential points made by the remnant:

+ Can an Heretical Pope Be Deposed?

The common opinion of theologians and canonists is that an heretical Pope can be deposed for the crime of heresy.



+John of St. Thomas, Suarez, Cajetan, and others all teach that a general council alone would be the competent authority to oversee the matter of an heretical Pope.  

+Deposing a Heretical Pope
This opinion avoids the error of Conciliarism by affirming that the Church has no authority over a Pope, nor does the Church herself depose the pope, but only performs the ministerial function required for the deposition. The ministerial function consists of those acts which are necessary to establish that the Pope is indeed a heretic, which is then followed by a public declaratory sentence of the crime. It is God himself, however, who causes the man to fall from the Pontificate, but not without the Church herself performing the ministerial functions necessary to establish the crime.


+The Church is able to declare the crime of a Pontiff and, according to divine law, propose him to the faithful as a heretic that must be avoided. The Pontiff, however, by the fact of having to be avoided, is necessarily rendered impotent by the force of such a declaration, since a Pope who is to be avoided is unable to influence the Church as its head. (61)


+“So long as it has not been declared to us juridically that he is an infidel or heretic, be he ever so manifestly heretical according to private judgment, he remains, as far as we are concerned, a member of the Church and consequently its head. Judgment is required by the Church. It is only then that he ceases to be Pope as far as we are concerned" (John of St. Thomas). (74)





http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/1284-can-the-church-depose-an-heretical-pope

Just semantics, Nado; John of St. Thomas referred to deposing "ministerially" but still uses the word "deposition"; Church doesn't ontologically effect the deposition, which happens ipso facto as a result of heresy, but it effects the deposition criteriologically or "minsterially".

There you go elevating John of St. Thomas above anyone else.

Why do you do this? Why do you elevate his opinion over that of Doctors of the Church and Saints? Why?

If anything this article is very much OPPOSED to Sedevacantism.

OP posted only first section.

From the article:

Sedevacantist Errors

In trying to make sense of the current crisis in the Church, some have read the writings of theologians who teach that a manifestly heretical Pope is ipso facto deposed, and have then drawn the false conclusion that if they themselves personally judge the pope to be a heretic, it must mean he is not the pope. They then write articles instructing other member of the laity how they, too, can judge that the Pope is a heretic, in the hope that they will also conclude that the he is not a true pope. What such people have failed to realize is that the theologians who discuss the ipso facto deposition of a pope for heresy, are only referring to the speculative opinion of how the Pope loses his office (one of the “two opinions” mentioned above), which does not eliminate the necessity of the Church performing the ministerial functions necessary to establish the crime. In other words, the Church must render a judgment before the pope loses his office. Private judgment of the laity in this matter does not suffice. John of St. Thomas addressed this point directly. He explained that a pope who is a manifest heretic according to private judgment remains pope. He wrote:

“So long as it has not been declared to us juridically that he is an infidel or heretic, be he ever so manifestly heretical according to private judgment, he remains, as far as we are concerned, a member of the Church and consequently its head. Judgment is required by the Church. It is only then that he ceases to be Pope as far as we are concerned" (John of St. Thomas). (74)

Prior to the necessary judgment and declaration(s) by the Church, a heretical Pope remains a valid pope. The visibility of the Church (both formally and materially) is too necessary for the contrary to be the case.

Fr. Paul Layman S.J. (d.1635), who is considered one of the greatest canonists of the Counter-Reformation era, as it is sometimes called, explained that even in the case of a pope who was a notorious heretic, as long as he was being tolerated by the Church, would remain a true and valid pope. Writes Fr. Laymann:

“It is more probable that the Supreme Pontiff, as a person, might be able to fall into heresy, and even notorious heresy, by reason of which he would merit to be deposed by the Church, or rather to be declared as separated from her. (…) Observe, however, that, though we affirm that the Supreme Pontiff, as a private person, might be able to become a heretic and therefore cease to be a true member of the Church, (…) still, while he was tolerated by the Church, and publicly recognized as the universal pastor, he would really enjoy the pontifical power, in such a way that all of his decrees would have no less force and authority than they would if he were truly faithful.” (75)

Popes Alexander VI, John XXII, and Honorius I, were all accused of heresy by their contemporaries, yet none was declared deprived of the Pontificate while still living. Consequently, they have always been considered true Popes by the Church, even though Pope Honorius, after his death, was “expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized” (76) for heresy, by the Third Council of Constantinople. For this reason, the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia said: “It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic…” (77) Yet not even Pope Honorius is considered by the Church to have lost the Pontificate while living.

St. Bellarmine himself explained that a heretical bishop must be deposed by the proper authorities. After explaining how a false prophet (meaning heretical pastor) can be spotted, he wrote:

“…if the pastor is a bishop, they [the faithful] cannot depose him and put another in his place. For Our Lord and the Apostles only lay down that false prophets are not to be listened to by the people, and not that they depose them. And it is certain that the practice of the Church has always been that heretical bishops be deposed by bishop’s councils, or by the Sovereign Pontiff.” (78)

Here we see the true thinking of Bellarmine on this point. He explains that a heretical bishop can be spotted by the faithful (who should not listen to him), but he can only be deposed by the proper authorities. If this is true for ordinary bishops, how much more necessary is it when the bishop is the Supreme Pontiff?

Sedevacantists will likely object by saying, since a pope cannot be judged by a council, Bellarmine could not have meant that a council would depose a heretical Pope. They will then insist that this is why Bellarmine taught that a heretical pope loses his office automatically. But this is clearly not the case, since Bellarmine himself defended the opinion that a heretical Pope can be judged by a council. He wrote:

“Firstly, that a heretical Pope can be judged is expressly held in Can. Si Papa dist. 40, and by Innocent III (Serm. II de Consec. Pontif.)  Furthermore, in the 8th Council, (act. 7) the acts of the Roman Council under Pope Hadrian are recited, in which one finds that Pope Honorius appears to be justly anathematized, because he had been convicted of heresy, which is the only case in which inferiors are permitted to judge superiors.” (79)

He goes on to explain that even if Pope Hadrian mistakenly condemned Honorius (which is what Bellarmine personally thought), “nevertheless” wrote Bellarmine, “we cannot deny, in fact, that Hadrian, and with him the Roman Council, nay more the whole 8th General council judged that, in the case of heresy a Roman Pontiff can be judged.” (80)

Without examining the cases mention by Bellarmine, it is quite clear that he held to the opinion that a heretical Pope can be judged by a council. Now, since he explicitly stated that “heretical bishops” must be deposed by a council, the same would obviously apply to a heretical bishop of Rome. Hence, his statement that a manifestly heretical pope loses his office ipso facto does not preclude the Church performing the ministerial functions necessary to establish the crime.

Bellarmine’s thinking regarding this matter is perfectly consistent with the mind of the Church, as we see expressed in Canon 10 of the Fourth Council of Constantinople. In response to the schism of Photius, the Council attached the grave penalty of excommunication to any layman or monk who, in the future, separated himself from his patriarch (the Pope is Patriarch of the West) before a careful inquiry and judgment by a synod.

“As divine scripture clearly proclaims, ‘Do not find fault before you investigate, and understand first and then find fault’. And does our law judge a person without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does? Consequently this holy and universal synod justly and fittingly declares and lays down that no lay person or monk or cleric should separate himself from communion with his own patriarch before a careful inquiry and judgment in synod, even if he alleges that he knows of some crime perpetrated by his patriarch, and he must not refuse to include his patriarch's name during the divine mysteries or offices. (…) If anyone shall be found defying this holy synod, he is to be debarred from all priestly functions and status if he is a bishop or cleric; if a monk or lay person, he must be excluded from all communion and meetings of the church [i.e. excommunicated] until he is converted by repentance and reconciled”.

The errors of Sedevacantism will be thoroughly addressed in an upcoming book, which should be out in the Spring of 2015.

Quote from: Ladislaus

Just semantics, Nado; John of St. Thomas referred to deposing "ministerially" but still uses the word "deposition"; Church doesn't ontologically effect the deposition, which happens ipso facto as a result of heresy, but it effects the deposition criteriologically or "minsterially".

There you go elevating John of St. Thomas above anyone else.

Ah, yes, I forgot that your theological credentials far exceed his and that I must take your opinion over that held by John of St. Thomas.

This is a very similar argument to the one I made back in 1996 when I first came to the sede-doubtist position.

I don't agree that a pope cannot formally lose office until he's materially "deposed" by the Church.  That does in effect lead to what amounts to a formal deposition, and that is in fact heretical.

Ah, yes, I forgot that your theological credentials far exceed his and that I must take your opinion over that held by John of St. Thomas.

Speak for yourself, you are the one who rejects theological principles and the one who rejects what theologians teach, and not only that but you even presume to know more than theologians and rashly think you can correct them.

Anyways, John of St. Thomas was from the 17th century. His opinion was at best a minority one and it contradicts cuм Ex.

The more common opinion is that of ipso facto excommunication without the need to make any further declaration.

This is what all the Doctors and Saints who treated the matter taught, but you for some unexplained reason, reject them and cling to John of St. Thomas.

As per usual you refuse to explain why you do this.

Not only that but you pretend that his minority, abandoned opinion is actually the final word on the matter.

How deluded are you?

cuм ex apostolatus excludes heretics and schismatics from obtaining office under the laws of the Church BUT this bull is dealing with administrative and canonical rules as to who can participate or be elected in that process.

Wrong. Public Heretics are barred from obtaining the Papal office by Divine Law.

This excludes at least the Ratman and Bergoglio from ever being "elected", as they were both public heretics before their "elections".

Heresy and schism are public acts against the Church's authority and teachings and must be officially condemned by the CHURCH. They must be publically known before a cleric can lose his standing. Angelo Roncalli, Giovanni Battista Montini, Albino Luciani, and the rest did not incur the public judgment of the Church prior to their elevations. (Notice public judgment of the Church, as opposed as private judgment of the layman). Fact.

Wrong again. You are confusing the requirements for the canonical crime of heresy vs the sin of heresy, which doesn't need any declarations or warnings whatsoever.

Also, the cuм Ex bull lost its legal force when the 1917 Code of Canon Law was promulgated because of Pius XII's alterations.

Canon 188.4 of the 1917 CIC QUOTES cuм Ex in the footnotes.

What next lay woman theologian?

"Wrong again. You are confusing the requirements for the canonical crime of heresy vs the sin of heresy, which doesn't need any declarations or warnings whatsoever. "

According to who?

According to theologians. Ever heard of them?

“Pertinacity does not of necessity include long obstinacy by the heretic and warnings from the Church. A condition for the sin of heresy is one thing; a condition for the canonical crime of heresy, punishable by canon laws, is another.” (Michel, “Héresie,” in DTC 6:2222)

Sin and crime are different.

I can commit the mortal sin of murder and never be convicted for it.

Same for abortion. You can commit the mortal sin of abortion without being convicted of the canonical crime of abortion, which requires certain conditions to be fulfilled.