Ok, Challenge accepted Stevus
DIMOND FAILS TO UNDERSTAND CUM EX APOSTOLATUS
Next, and not surprisingly, Dimond turns to Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, which I also addressed at length in my article. As my article pointed out, Pope Paul IV in Cum Ex declared that a heretic loses his office without the need for ecclesiastical censure. I granted this principle up front, and even argued that the principle is part of the divine law (although this principle has never been dogmatized by the Church).
That is amazing. We are off to a good start.
As I have repeatedly stated, the formal heresy causes the self-expulsion (affirmed by Cum Ex, Dimond and Salza), and thus a declaration of the self-expulsion is not required (affirmed by Cum Ex, Dimond and Salza),Agreed.
unless notoriety/pertinacity is not definitively proven (affirmed by canons 2197.3 and 1325.2; Salza; harmonized with Cum Ex; denied by Dimond); in which case a declaratory sentence is required if the “common good requires it so” (affirmed by canon 2223.4, Salza, Cajetan, Suarez; harmonized with Cum Ex; denied by Dimond). Okay, here is the problem; while it may be to the Church's greater BENEFIT that such a declaration is made (It would be nice to See SSPX,SSPV CMRI and Independent Bishops Make a joint statement on this), it is by no means necessary.
As has been stated before, canon 2200 states clearly that whenever a positive violation of the Law has been established, Malice is PRESUMED.
Now, it has previously been admitted that formal heresy results in self-expulsion, so in what sense is a common declaration of the Church's hierarchs of necessity?
Canon 2197.3 simply states what an offense IS, and section 3 renders it as an offense that is notorious and widespread and of such a nature that there is no possible excuse for it having been commited.
The post VCII Popes reveal this about themselves by giving the traditional definition to the doctrines they later seek to redefine. in regards to canon 1325.2 they exhibit the fact that they have knowledge of the true teaching and then deny it and replace it with their own. This is indicative of obstinancy, and they have no excuse.
As an aside, note that Dimond assumes the loss of office would automatically prevent the heretical pope from governing the Church. While many theologians have held that position (I believe it is the more probable position based, in part, on Pope Leo XIII’s Satis Cognitum), the position is far from dogmatic as other theologians have held different opinions on the matter. So in essence, it is a contest between who has the most votes for each theologian. You believe what you want and selectively choose your theologians, and criticize the sedevacantist for believeing the more common opinon from the MAJORITY of theologians? That sounds hypocritical.
In fact, as we will see, canon law allows heretics to perform acts of jurisdiction, which may even admit of certain acts of governance. This is another example of Dimond making assumptions to support his thesis without acknowledging that other opinions exist. Well, what are they, canon law or opinons? Make up your mind. One is binding, the other is not.
We should admit that it could be possible for Christ to maintain the jurisdiction of a heretical pope until the issue of his heresy formally resolved.Why? The majority of theologians do not hold to this. Here is ONE Theologian from 1950:
Coronata — Institutions Juris Canonici, 1950
“Appointment to the Office of the Primacy.
1. What is required by divine law for this appointment . . . Also required for validity is that the one elected be a member of the Church; hence, heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are excluded. . . ”
“It cannot be proven however that the Roman Pontiff, as a private teacher, cannot become a heretic — if, for example, he would contumaciously deny a previously defined dogma. Such impeccability was never promised by God. Indeed, Pope Innocent III expressly admits such a case is possible.
“If indeed such a situation would happen, he [the Roman Pontiff] would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one. He who openly professes heresy places himself outside the Church, and it is not likely that Christ would preserve the Primacy of His Church in one so unworthy. Wherefore, if the Roman Pontiff were to profess heresy, before any condemnatory sentence (which would be impossible anyway) he would lose his authority.”
In this way, God could still speak through the pope like He spoke through the mouth of Balaam’s ass (Num 22:28-30). This is why theologians call the incompatibility between heresy and jurisdiction in radice (in the root), for an uprooted plant can still stay green for a while.Yes, but this is the case in immoral Popes, not heretical ones that have contradicted the faith in their magisterial teaching.
But in those who are heretical and doctrinally compromised it is an illusion, a farce; From the moment that plant was uprooted it CEASED to be a part of the ground to derive or contribute anything to it. The appearance of green is NOT proof of life. The APPEARANCE of a "Pope", especially ones that contradict the very definition of the nature and being of the church, is not proof of a valid papacy.
Father Billuart further affirms that “According to the more common opinion, Christ by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he should be declared a manifest heretic by the Church” (De Fide, Diss. V, A. III No. 3, Obj. 2). WOW. So because Jesus doesn't want to inconvenience us with a trial by fire...he won't?
Let's see how common this opinon is...
A. Bull: Cum Ex Apostolatus [16 Feb. 1559], Pope Paul IV
— “Further, if ever it should appear that any bishop (even one acting as an archbishop, patriarch or primate), or a cardinal of the Roman Church, or a legate (as mentioned above), or even the Roman Pontiff (whether prior to his promotion to cardinal, or prior to his election as Roman Pontiff), has beforehand deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into any heresy, We enact, decree, determine and define:
— “Such promotion or election in and of itself, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, shall be null, legally invalid and void... Those so promoted or elected, by that very fact and without the need to make any further declaration, shall be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power.”
B. Si Papa , Pope Innocent III
— “The Pope should not flatter himself about his power nor should he rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged. In such a case it should be said of him: 'If salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.’”
C. Institutiones Juris Canonici  - Coronata
— “If indeed such a situation would happen, he [the Roman Pontiff] would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one. He who openly professes heresy places himself outside the Church, and it is not likely that Christ would preserve the Primacy of His Church in one so unworthy. Wherefore, if the Roman Pontiff were to profess heresy, before any condemnatory sentence (which would be impossible anyway) he would lose his authority.”
D. St. Robert Bellarmine 
— “A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church.”
E. St. Antoninus 
— “In the case in which the Pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that very fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.”
F. St. Francis de Sales 
— “Now when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church ...”
G. Canon Law -  - Wernz-Vidal
— “Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact (ipso facto) is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgment by the Church ... A Pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church.
H. Introductio in Codicem  - Udalricus Beste
— “Not a few canonists teach that, outside of death and abdication, the pontifical dignity can also be lost by falling into certain insanity, which is legally equivalent to death, as well as through manifest and notorious heresy. In the latter case, a pope would automatically fall from his power, and this indeed without the issuance of any sentence, for the first See (i.e., the See of Peter) is judged by no one ... The reason is that, by falling into heresy, the pope ceases to be a member of the Church. He who is not a member of a society, obviously, cannot be its head.”
I. Epitome Juris Canonici  - A. Vermeersch
— “At least according to the more common teaching the Roman Pontiff as a private teacher can fall into manifest heresy. Then, without any declaratory sentence (for the supreme See is judged by no one), he would automatically (ipso facto) fall from power which he who is no longer a member of the Church is unable to possess.”
The great theologian Garrigou-LaGrange holds a similar opinion, by making a distinction between the “physical” head of a heretical pope (who may no longer be able to exercise jurisdiction by commanding the Church) and the “moral” head of a heretical pope (who can exercise jurisdiction through preaching and confecting the sacraments, even if he is no longer a member of the Church; as St. Thomas teaches, heretics can still confect the sacraments) (De Verbo Incarnato, p. 232). An excommunicate Bishop who has no official office in the church can confect valid sacraments? Of course. But that is not the issue. Bringing it up clouds it, the POINT is does a self-excommunicate former "Pope" have the right to rule the church of God? Plainly, No.
Why pass over Garrigou? Because he represents a minority opinion that is not fully supported by the dogmatic fact: A heretic is not a part of the church.
Peter Dimond completely ignores these and other important authorities and distinctions; he simply concludes that the conciliar popes lost their jurisdiction and hence Catholics are heretics for being in communion with them, even though he holds a different standard for himself when it comes to his regular attendance at a non-sedevacantist parish.I agree with that. We cannot label each other as heretics so easily, especially over non-dogmatic issues such as these. Still, it is worth holding the true opinion and supporting the truth. St. Hypathisu and Eulalius.
It is quite the double standard.
Let me once again re-emphasize Peter Dimond’s mischaracterization of my position. I am not saying Catholics can never know if someone is a heretic without a declaration from the Church.Good, that would be a direct contradiciotn of St. Robert Bellarmine, and about 20 other theologians.
Dimond is incorrectly accusing me of that position. If someone says, “I was baptized, and I deny the Immaculate Conception,” and such person obstinately perseveres in that error after being rebuked and corrected or shown evidence of his error, Catholics should rightfully conclude that such a person is a heretic (pertinacity would be proven) without an accompanying ecclesiastical censure. I agree so far.
But if pertinacity or notoriety is not proven, then canon 2223.4 requires a declaration of heresy if it is for the “common good” of the Church. If it is for the good of the Church to know if we have a pope (it most certainly is, for nothing more important for the Church could be imagined), a declaration is required, unless the pope’s heresy is morally imputable, which sedevacantists cannot prove. Uh, canons 2220-2225 fall under the heading: "The Coercive Power of Having a Superior." TITULUS V: De Superiore potestatem coactivam habente.
According to the Church's teaching, a Pope has no superior. Now, if you wish to say that a heretical Pope remains Pope and is capable of maintainig jurisdiction, then you have to show that he, as Pope, which you maintain HE IS, can have a Superior. This is non-sensical. How then can you consistently apply THIS canon to the need to show that he is a heretic for the good of the Church? These canons are about people who are UNDER THE AUTHORITY of a SUPERIOR. They don't apply, by your very logic to the situation at all.
The Dimond brothers can compile all the heterodox quotes of the conciliar popes that they wish and “adjudicate” them on their website as if they are the Magisterium. No, they can show how they are "already judged" for good and logical reasons. Although I do think they throw around the word heretic a bit much, especially at the laity who are simply ignorant.
But non-sedevacantists can do the same thing. We can compile thousands upon thousands of orthodox statements from these popes which would far surpass the volume of their quasi-heretical statements. What is quasi-heretical about saying heretics and schismatics make up the Church of Christ? That is grave and formal heresy given by those whose job it is to know better. Wait, I take that back, it is NOT their job, because they are not even a part of the same institution...
I don’t say this to downplay the gravity of the unorthodox papal statements or say that proof of heresy is a mathematical formula or balancing act. No, I make this point to highlight that the sedevacantism debate comes down to a factual question of proof. It depends on which tack you take: The Holy See can be proven vacant in two different ways: Demonstrate the heresy of those involved, OR demonstrate that the institution in question is NO LONGER the Catholic Church based on the documentation at Vatican II and its re-definition of the nature of the Church and, ergo, the papacy.
Because it comes down to a question of proof between two opposing sides demonstrates that a higher authority (the Church) must resolve the issue. When it is a question of evidence which can deprive one of an ecclesiastical office, an ecclesiastical authority must resolve the question. When it is a question of to different theological schools, I agree that the Church needs to declare definitively what is true. HOWEVER, there is an OBJECTIVELY TRUER side already, and it can be known. The truth is that the church has already ruled on issues that establish the same pprinciple, namely the case of Hypathius, Eulalius and Nestorius. As told by St. Alphonsus Ligouri:
St Hypathius and Nestorius
"Another historical example has been invoked in favour of the position of those who condemn all misguided traditionalists as heretics or schismatics: the case of St Hypathius. This Bythinian monk insisted on omitting the name of the heretic Nestorius from the diptychs from the moment when he began to preach his heresy, denying the unity of person in Our Divine Lord. His ordinary, Eulalius, while refusing the heresy of Nestorius, rebuked the holy monk Hypathius for withdrawing from communion with their Nestorius, who was their patriarch, before the judgment of a council. Hypathius replied: "...I cannot insert his name in the Canon of the Mass because a heresiarch is not worthy of the title of pastor in the Church; do what you will with me, I am ready to suffer anything, and nothing will make me change my behaviour." (Petits Bollandistes, 17th June)
But in fact this case merely illustrates what all sedevacantists are agreed upon: given a case in which one clearly sees, in all prudence, that one is dealing with a heretic, one must at once withdraw from communion with him. That is of course the correct position to hold with regard to Karol Wojtyla and many others in our days.
But when some sedevacantists withdraw from communion with other sedevacantists on the grounds that the latter remain in communion not with Karol Wojtyla but with certain traditional clergy or laity that the first group consider heretics...they are quite mistaken to quote the case of St Hypathius in their favour. For Hypathius, though he withdrew from communion with Nestorius, clearly did not withdraw from communion with Eulalius, who, though orthodox, mistakenly thought it right to remain provisionally in communion with Nestorius until the Church should have formally pronounced him a heretic.
Hence those who today condemn those of us who reject John-Paul II without rejecting misguided traditionalists ought by the same token to condemn St Hypathius whose example we follow. They ought to hold that he should never have been considered a saint after such a disgraceful example of liberalism and of schismatic dispositions!
And curiously enough, one sedevacantist of those who feel that they are more faithful to the Church the more people they consider excommunicated in our days, has even reached that extreme, for when the example of St Hypathius was quoted to him he replied that Hypathius must have repented of the incident to have been considered a saint by the Church. In other words he made the saint's chief glory into an act of shame which he spontaneously compared with the youthful indiscretions committed by St Augustine before his conversion!
Taken From http://www.sedevacantist.org
While a Catholic may claim that some of the conduct of the conciliar popes raises questions about their fidelity to Church dogmas (e.g., “No Salvation Outside the Church”), these Popes have never declared that they deny the dogmas in question. If, for example, Pope John Paul II made known to the Church that he kissed the Koran because he denies the divinity of Christ,
and he persisted in his error after being rebuked, the Church would know at that point that he is a formal heretic. A declaration of heresy for “the common good” of the Church in such case would be unnecessary (although it would most likely still be given), and canon 188.4 and Cum Ex would apply. Wow, ok, there is such a thing as tacit heresy and doing actions that signify adherence to heresy. Read the magisterial teaching of Pius X, Mortalium Animos:
2. "A similar object is aimed at by some, in those matters which concern the New Law promulgated by Christ our Lord. For since they hold it for certain that men destitute of all religious sense are very rarely to be found, they seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life. For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little. turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion."Assisi 1 and 2 and now 3. These are ALL Actions which constitute a tacit apostasy and explicit communication with heretics.
But because John Paul II has also publicly declared Christ’s divinity (and much more than he can be accused of denying it), we cannot conclude he is a formal heretic for denying Christ’s divinity on the grounds that he kissed the Koran.No, but the theologians have said that one who would pray at the tomb of mohamed would be an apostate. Much less kissing the Koran...
In other words, we cannot say John Paul II acted with malice when he kissed the Koran, even though it was an incredibly scandalous act to do. Wouldn’t Dimond use the same argument to defend his parish worship with “heretics” and “apostates?” The same can be said for the rest of the “heresies” of the conciliar Popes – they will affirm a dogma one day, and then raise doubts about their affirmations another day (yes, I am aware of Pope Pius VI’s Auctorem fidei concerning the errors of using ambiguous language, but that decree does not say that the one communicating the ambiguity is automatically a formal heretic; it says only that we must expose and condemn the error that the ambiguity can give rise to). Okay, granted.
Here is where canon 2223.4 – which Dimond never even addresses – comes into play. A declaration of heresy would be necessary in such a case to prove formal heresy exists. And this would follow only after the Pope were warned (under canon 2314.2) of his putative heresy and disregarded those warnings. We simply don’t know whether John Paul’s kissing of the Koran was an act of apostasy, a desire to gain the praise of men, or a manifestation of his worsening dementia and senility, much less whether he was given any warning for his behavior. Once again, these canons don't apply because they apply to those who are under the authority of superiors. According to you, a heretical Pope is still Pope, so these canons don't apply.
Of course, the conciliar popes have never said they know they are departing from Catholic teaching.Uh, yes they have:
"...there is no appropriate category in Catholic thought for the phenomenon of Protestantism today (one could say the same of the relationship to the separated churches of the East). It is obvious that the old category of ‘heresy’ is no longer of any value. Heresy, for Scripture and the early Church, includes the idea of a personal decision against the unity of the Church, and heresy’s characteristic is pertinacia, the obstinacy of him who persists in his own private way. This, however, cannot be regarded as an appropriate description of the spiritual situation of the Protestant Christian."
AND...Cardinal Ratzinger's remarks made in an interview he gave in 2000 to the German newspaper, Frankfurter Allgemeine:
"Vatican II did not use Pius XII's expression according to which 'the Roman Catholic Church is the only Church of Christ.' Instead it preferred the expression 'The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church…' because, he said, 'it wished to affirm the being of the Church as such is a larger identity than the Roman Catholic Church.'"
Expulsion from the Church must be based on malice, not speculation. THANK YOU! And in the External forum, whenever a law is broken The Church Presumes the malice involved.