Angelus, please read this theological opinion of a modern day highly respected theologian.

I'm not arguing in favour of his opinion. I'm simply making the point that he is speculating with the 1917 Code of Canon Law in force. You must ask yourself how he could possibly do such a thing, if your interpretation of Canon Law is so certain. Whatever we think, it should at least make us admit to ourselves "well this is how I see it, but maybe I am wrong".

Cardinal Journet (1891-1975):

"Many and good theologians of the XVIth and XVIIth Century have admitted that it was possible that a Pope could fall, as a private person, into the sin of heresy, not only occult, but also manifest. The ones like Bellarmine and Suarez, have then thought that the Pope, by cutting himself off from the Church, was ipso facto deposed; Papa haereticus est depositus. It appears that heresy is seen by these theologians as a sort of moral 'ѕυιcιdє' suppressing the subject of the papacy. We return thus easily to the first way we said the Pontificate is lost.

"The others, as Cajetan and John of St Thomas, whose analysis seems to me more penetrating, have considered that even after a manifest sin of heresy, the Pope is not yet deposed, but should be deposed by the Church; Papa haereticus non est depositus sed deponendus. Nevertheless they added the Church is not on that account above the Pope. They had recourse to the same explanation we used in the excursus IV1. They remarked that on the one hand, by divine right, the Church must be united to the Pope as a body to its head; and on the other hand, that, by divine right, he who is a manifest heretic must be avoided after one or two monitions (Tit III,10). There is thus an absolute antimony between the fact of being a Pope and persevering into heresy after one or two warnings. The action of the Church is simply declarative; it manifests that there is an incorrigible sin of heresy; then the Power of Authority of God exercises itself to disjoin the papacy from a subject who, persisting into heresy after admonition, becomes, by divine right, incapable to hold it any longer. In virtue of Scripture, the Church designates and God deposes. God works with the Church, says John of St Thomas, a little like a Pope would decide to attach indugences to certain pilgrimage places, but would leave to a minister the care to specify the places, II-II, Q1, disp2, a3, n29, tVII, p264. The explanation of Cajetan and John of St Thomas... leads us, in its turn, to the case of a subject who, from a certain moment, begins to become, by Divine Right, incapable to hold the privilege of the Papacy. It is reductible to the loss of pontificate by loss of subject. It is indeed the fundamental case, of which others will only be variants" - L'Eglise du Verbe Incarne, vol I, p 625

PV, Journet is explaining the same process described in Canon Law that I explained. He is doing it in a very roundabout way.

But a single Latin phrase used by Journet, expresses exactly what I was telling you:

Papa haereticus non est depositus sed deponendus.

That is, he is not immediately "deposed," but he will be "deposed" after the second and third steps are taken (See Titus 3:10-11 and Canon 2314).

But this is what you are missing, even though the "Papa hereticus" is not immediately "deposed," according to 2314.1, he still "incurs by the fact [ipso facto] excommunication." Immediately upon his public manifestation of heresy, he is automatically excommunicated. No declaration by any authority is necessary to establish ipso facto excommunication.

Now, what penalties are associated with "automatic [ipso facto or latae sententiae] excommunication?" These penalties are described in the section on Excommunication, specifically 2257-2267. Do you have a copy of 1917 Canon Law. Here is a copy for your convenience.

Look specifically at Canons 2263 and 2264 and 2265. Notice the language uses the phrase "One excommunicated" and "Anyone excommunicated." Those Canons apply even to those who have been "automatically excommunicated" (Level 1). Then look at Canon 2266. That Canon explains the consequences of a "declared excommunicate" (Level 2) and a "banned excommunicate" (Level 3). You will see in Canon 2266 that "a banned [excommunicate is deprived] of the dignity, office, benefice, pension, and duty itself."

In other words, until the excommunicate is "banned," he retains the hope of resurrecting the fullness of his position. But from a practical standpoint, according to Canons 2263 and 2264, the automatic [ipso facto] excommunicate loses his power and jurisdiction even before he gets to Level 2 or Level 3.

That is what is meant by Sedeprivationism. He, as an automatic excommunicate, has been deprived of his power and jurisdiction until he revives himself by responding properly to the warnings. But if he ignores the warnings (or there are no warnings given), that doesn't mean that he continues to exercise his full powers and jurisdiction. No! He lost his powers and jurisdiction the moment he manifests his heresy. This means that no faithful Catholic is subject to him while he is in that state of privation (Level 1).

Do you understand this? The Canons, Journet and Cajetan all agree on when a Pope is "deposed." It is after the third warning. But a heretical Pope is "deprived" or "loses his power and jurisdiction" automatically at the moment he manifests heresy.

Thank you, Angelus, for your explanations. I think we will never agree until we hear it from the Pope. We could go over the teachings of Cajetan and John of St Thomas again, but I think you will agree there is little point.

And you still haven't solved the problem as to who gives the two canonical warnings, which even St Robert requires. Evidently you hold that this has already happened?

What I'm saying is not difficult to confirm using only the Canons that I cited. There is no need to refer to the theological opinions of Cajetan or JST or St. Robert. The Church is governed by Canon Law.

The "problem" of the "two canonical warnings" is easily solved. Those warnings are only necessary if one is concerned with completely "deposing" the Pope. But we are more concerned with a different question: does an automatically excommunicated, heretical Pope have any authority or jurisdiction over the faithful in the Church? The answer is no.

So from a practical standpoint, we are to ignore any "official" acts of an automatically excommunicated, heretical Pope. He is a practical non-entity until he revives his Papacy by repenting of his errors. He is impounded and is in no way the leader of the Church in any meaningful way, if and until he "respects warnings."

Who has warned Bergoglio of his errors? The 4 Dubia Cardinals and many theologians have done so publicly, and Bergoglio has ignored them. Any and all Catholics must recognize him as a manifest heretic and refuse submission to him. We cannot act as if all is normal and he's "the Holy Father." That is blasphemy.

PV, Journet is explaining the same process described in Canon Law that I explained. He is doing it in a very roundabout way.

But a single Latin phrase used by Journet, expresses exactly what I was telling you:

Papa haereticus non est depositus sed deponendus.

That is, he is not immediately "deposed," but he will be "deposed" after the second and third steps are taken (See Titus 3:10-11 and Canon 2314).

But this is what you are missing, even though the "Papa hereticus" is not immediately "deposed," according to 2314.1, he still "incurs by the fact [ipso facto] excommunication." Immediately upon his public manifestation of heresy, he is automatically excommunicated. No declaration by any authority is necessary to establish ipso facto excommunication.

Here is an excerpt from John of St Thomas which will help you understand what Cardinal Journet is defending:

Answer:  
I answer [to Bellarmine] that the heretic should be avoided after two admonitions legally made and with the Church’s authority, and not according to private judgment; indeed, a great confusion in the Church would follow , if it was allowed that the admonition is made by a private man, and that the manifestation of this heresy having been made without being declared by the Church and proclaimed to all, in order that they avoid the Pontiff, that all should be required to avoid; for a heresy of the Pope cannot be public for all the faithful on the report of a few, and this report, not being legal, does not require that all believe it and avoid the Pontiff; and therefore as the Church proclaims him legally elected by legally designating him for all, it is necessary that she deposes him by declaring and proclaiming him as a heretic to be avoided.
Therefore, we see that this has been practiced by the Church, when in the case of the deposition of the Pope, the cause itself was first addressed by the General Council before the Pope was declared “No Pope”, as we said above.  Therefore it is not because the Pope is a heretic, even publicly, that he will ipso facto cease to be Pope, before the declaration of the Church, and before she proclaims him as “to be avoided” by the faithful.
And when St. Jerome says that a heretic separates itself from the body of Christ, he does not exclude a judgment of the Church, especially in such a serious matter as the deposition of the Pope, but it indicates only the quality of the crime, which excludes per se from the Church, without any further sentence, at least from the moment he is declared [heretic] by the Church;  indeed, even if the crime of heresy separates itself (ex se) of the Church, however, in relation to us that separation is not understood as have been made (not intelligitur facto) without this statement.
It is the same thing from the reason added by Bellarmine.  A non-Christian who is such in itself AND in relation to us (quoad se et quoad nos) cannot be Pope;  however, if he is not in itself a Christian, because he has lost the faith, but if in relation to us he is not legally declared being infidel or heretic, as obvious as it may appear in a private judgment, he is still in relation to us (quoad nos) a member of the Church and therefore the head.   Accordingly, a judgment of the Church is required through which he is declared (proponatur) as being a non-Christian and to be avoided, and then he ceases in relation to us to be the Pope, consequently, previously he did not cease to be himself (etiam in se) [Pope], because all what he did was valid in itself.¹

https://dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-2-of-2/

(emphasis belongs to the post on the Dominican website)

"I guess that's why we need a Pope"

Perhaps said sarcastically, but nevertheless the truth.

When it boils down to it we shouldn't have to argue over what Cards Journet and Franzelin, Cajetan, John of St Thomas, St Robert Bellarmine, Dom Paul Nau, SiSiNoNo, Fr Le Floch, even (gasp!) Archbishop Lefebvre said. We need a pope, and it's very obvious that we don't have one.

Yes indeed, libro, no sarcasm intended. We certainly don't have a Pope who is doing his job, I'll grant you that much!

Here is an excerpt from John of St Thomas which will help you understand what Cardinal Journet is defending:

Answer: 
I answer [to Bellarmine] that the heretic should be avoided after two admonitions legally made and with the Church’s authority, and not according to private judgment; indeed, a great confusion in the Church would follow , if it was allowed that the admonition is made by a private man, and that the manifestation of this heresy having been made without being declared by the Church and proclaimed to all, in order that they avoid the Pontiff, that all should be required to avoid; for a heresy of the Pope cannot be public for all the faithful on the report of a few, and this report, not being legal, does not require that all believe it and avoid the Pontiff; and therefore as the Church proclaims him legally elected by legally designating him for all, it is necessary that she deposes him by declaring and proclaiming him as a heretic to be avoided.
Therefore, we see that this has been practiced by the Church, when in the case of the deposition of the Pope, the cause itself was first addressed by the General Council before the Pope was declared “No Pope”, as we said above.  Therefore it is not because the Pope is a heretic, even publicly, that he will ipso facto cease to be Pope, before the declaration of the Church, and before she proclaims him as “to be avoided” by the faithful.
And when St. Jerome says that a heretic separates itself from the body of Christ, he does not exclude a judgment of the Church, especially in such a serious matter as the deposition of the Pope, but it indicates only the quality of the crime, which excludes per se from the Church, without any further sentence, at least from the moment he is declared [heretic] by the Church;  indeed, even if the crime of heresy separates itself (ex se) of the Church, however, in relation to us that separation is not understood as have been made (not intelligitur facto) without this statement.
It is the same thing from the reason added by Bellarmine.  A non-Christian who is such in itself AND in relation to us (quoad se et quoad nos) cannot be Pope;  however, if he is not in itself a Christian, because he has lost the faith, but if in relation to us he is not legally declared being infidel or heretic, as obvious as it may appear in a private judgment, he is still in relation to us (quoad nos) a member of the Church and therefore the head.  Accordingly, a judgment of the Church is required through which he is declared (proponatur) as being a non-Christian and to be avoided, and then he ceases in relation to us to be the Pope, consequently, previously he did not cease to be himself (etiam in se) [Pope], because all what he did was valid in itself.¹

https://dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-2-of-2/

(emphasis belongs to the post on the Dominican website)

You still fail to understand the distinctions that are being made in Canon Law.

When JST says, "I answer [to Bellarmine] that the heretic should be avoided after two admonitions legally made and with the Church’s authority, and not according to private judgment," JST is saying the same thing that Canon 2314.3 says. The Church, through its Canon Law, has already agreed with JST on that point. You are arguing against a phantom argument that I am not making.

But the key is to understand what the word "avoided" and "deposed" means. Canon Law distinguishes between the three different levels of excommunication. The final level is the "avoided" and "deposed" level. But the earlier two levels of excommunication have their own consequences that occur regardless of whether we ever get to the final level of "avoid" and "depose."

Did you read the Canons that I cited? Or are you just scanning the Avrille website to try to counter what you think I'm saying? Here are the most important Canons for our discussion:

Canon 2264
One excommunicated is removed from legitimate ecclesiastical acts within his limits and in the places defined by law; nor can he act in ecclesiastical cases, except according to the norm of Canon 1654; he is prohibited from conducting ecclesiastical offices or responsibilities, and from enjoying earlier concessions and privileges from the Church.

Canon 2265
Acts of jurisdiction, whether for the external forum or the internal forum, placed by one excommunicated are illicit; and if a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has been laid down, they are also invalid with due regard for the prescriptions of Canon 2261...

Canon 2266
§1. Anyone excommunicated:
      1. Is prohibited from the right of electing, presenting, or appointing;
      2. Cannot obtain dignities, offices, benefices, ecclesiastical pensions, or other duties in the Church;
      3. Cannot be promoted to orders.

§ 2. An act posited contrary to the prescription of § 1, nn. 1 and 2, however, is not null, unless it was posited by a banned excommunicate or by another excommunicate after a condemnatory or declaratory sentence; but if this sentence has been given, the one excommunicated cannot validly pursue any pontifical favor, unless in the pontifical rescript mention is made of the excommunication.

If you will read those Canons carefully, you will notice the distinctions being made between the different levels of excommunication and the consequences of each level.

In the case of a mere ipso facto excommunicated Pope, he is

1. "removed from legitimate ecclesiastical acts,"
2. "prohibited from conducting ecclesiastical offices,"
3. "prohibited from the right of electing, presenting, and appointing."

In other words, the acts of such a Pope become "illegitimate/illicit/unlawful." This means the Catholic faithful must not follow the illegitimate acts as long as that Pope is in a state of ipso facto excommunication. If the Pope, later repents, then and ONLY then do his earlier acts become legitimate and only at that time can a faithful Catholic follow those prescriptions.

So, as I have been saying, Canon law says that a Pope who is "ipso facto excommunicated" for heresy is in a state of suspension or privation until he repents or the Church bans him. And, for all practical purposes, that illegitimate Pope is a Pope who cannot legally bind the faithful.

The question of final "deposition" of the Pope is not important from the perspective of what the faithful are to do. The question is am I required to obey a Pope who is in a state of ipso facto excommunication. Canon Law clearly says "NO," we must not obey the orders of an illegitimate Pope.

You still fail to understand the distinctions that are being made in Canon Law.

When JST says, "I answer [to Bellarmine] that the heretic should be avoided after two admonitions legally made and with the Church’s authority, and not according to private judgment," JST is saying the same thing that Canon 2314.3 says. The Church, through its Canon Law, has already agreed with JST on that point. You are arguing against a phantom argument that I am not making.

But the key is to understand what the word "avoided" and "deposed" means. Canon Law distinguishes between the three different levels of excommunication. The final level is the "avoided" and "deposed" level. But the earlier two levels of excommunication have their own consequences that occur regardless of whether we ever get to the final level of "avoid" and "depose."

Did you read the Canons that I cited? Or are you just scanning the Avrille website to try to counter what you think I'm saying? Here are the most important Canons for our discussion:


If you will read those Canons carefully, you will notice the distinctions being made between the different levels of excommunication and the consequences of each level.

In the case of a mere ipso facto excommunicated Pope, he is

1. "removed from legitimate ecclesiastical acts,"
2. "prohibited from conducting ecclesiastical offices,"
3. "prohibited from the right of electing, presenting, and appointing."

In other words, the acts of such a Pope become "illegitimate/illicit/unlawful." This means the Catholic faithful must not follow the illegitimate acts as long as that Pope is in a state of ipso facto excommunication. If the Pope, later repents, then and ONLY then do his earlier acts become legitimate and only at that time can a faithful Catholic follow those prescriptions.

So, as I have been saying, Canon law says that a Pope who is "ipso facto excommunicated" for heresy is in a state of suspension or privation until he repents or the Church bans him. And, for all practical purposes, that illegitimate Pope is a Pope who cannot legally bind the faithful.

The question of final "deposition" of the Pope is not important from the perspective of what the faithful are to do. The question is am I required to obey a Pope who is in a state of ipso facto excommunication. Canon Law clearly says "NO," we must not obey the orders of an illegitimate Pope.

Thanks Angelus, yes I have read the Canons and your argumentation, thank you for all the effort you have put into that. Your posts require a bit more time than I have at the moment, sorry, will try to get back with a response.

Angelus, do you hold to Opinion No. 4 of the Five Opinions expounded upon by St. Robert Bellarmine?

The requirements of those 1917 Canons that I cited seem to contain a hybrid of the 4th and 5th Opinions.

For example, this statement from Opinion 5 seems to be represented in the Canons:

"a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: whereby, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics soon [mox — better translation: immediately] lose all jurisdiction."

Canons 188 and 2314, together, provide exactly HOW the process will work for a "public defection from the Catholic faith." The mechanism of "ipso facto excommunication" is immediate and automatic, with no need for any declaration or condemnation by any authority.

Canons 2257-2267, in various parts, provide exactly WHAT occurs at each of the 3 "levels" of excommunication. Canons 2264 and 2261, for instance, deal specifically with the privation of "jurisdiction" for a person burdened with the different levels of excommunication. Canon 2263 explains that any excommunicate (ipso facto included) is "removed from legitimate ecclesiastical acts," i.e., his legislative acts become illegal. And the faithful must never follow an illegitimate dictator. 

But, under Opinion 4, Bellarmine says something that is definitely incompatible with 1917 Canon Law:

"...a manifest heretic would be ipso facto deposed..."

The Church apparently did not agree with Bellarmine on that point. Instead, the Church is careful to distinguish between the removal of certain powers or benefits (at excommunication levels 1 and 2) and the final "deposition" from the office that occurs only at excommunication level 3.

In the case of the Pope, who "is judged by no one [in a trial]" (Canon 1556), it would seem to be impossible for a Pope to ever get to the Level 2 or Level 3 of excommunication. A heretic Pope would be "ipso facto excommunicated" (Level 1) but could never be officially "declared excommunicated" (Level 2) or "condemned/banned/deposed excommunicated" (Level 3).

So, this heretic Pope for all practical purposes is to be treated as having zero legitimacy and limited jurisdiction unless and until he revives his papal authority with a complete abjuration of his errors, at which point, his legitimacy would come back to him.


To be clear, however, Jorge Bergoglio, was never lawfully-elected Pope because a conclave cannot be called before the Apostolic See is vacant. And the Apostolic See only becomes vacant upon "death of the Pope." So none of the limitations concerning "judging a Pope" apply to him. 

The confusion of BXVI's "resignation" boils down to the distinctions, in 1983 Canon Law, between the "Roman See" and the "Apostolic See." The "Roman See" is held by the "Roman Pontiff" alone. The "Apostolic See" includes the Roman Pontiff plus all of the Roman Curial officials (1983 Canon 361). And those curial offices are not vacated until after "the death of the Pope" (Universi Dominici gregis, 14 and Pastor Bonus Article 6. Since a new papal election is only triggered by "the vacancy of the Apostolic See," and BXVI was not dead in March 2013, the March 2013 election was unlawful and UDG, 76 requires the following:

76. Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.

Game. Set. Match.


..