[Pax Vobis]

Only a pope possesses ordinary and universal jurisdiction.  If the man is not the pope then he does not possess ordinary and universal jurisdiction and neither does he have any authority to designate unless he had previously received that power from the pope.

There is a spiritual/temporal aspect to jurisdiction.  A papal heretic would still possess the MATERIAL office, which would include MATERIAL jurisdiction.

[Pax Vobis]

This is why Pius X and XII made this change to the canon law penalties.  They saw the state of the church; they knew how the odds/numbers were in the modernists favor (or eventually would be, or could be).  Therefore they understood the disaster and confusion that would result if the college of cardinals were one day composed of 90% (or more) of modernist/communist/freemasonic cardinals or the modernist-leaning-quasi-heretics-who-may-have-good-will-but-who-do-not-realize-their-heresies-because-the-seminaries-were-being-corrupted-all-the-way-back-in-the-1920s-type of cardinals.  

So, they realized that if canon law would prohibit 90% of cardinals from being involved in an election (though the evil cardinals would ignore the penalties, and the quasi-heretics would not realize they were even penalized), yet those traditional catholics (i.e. the true church) would realize the situation, and realize that the hierarchy was corrupted, these popes saw in their wisdom a need to remove the doubt and confusion concerning the election of a pope.  1) to keep the visibility of the church intact, 2) to alleviate any confusion among true catholics, 3) to prove that Divine Providence is aware of the trials of the Church and that even though Christ seems to be "sleeping on the boat during the storm" that we must have Faith that He can (and will) calm the storm when He deems it to have fulfilled its purpose in His all-wise and inscrutable plan.

[Cantarella]

Could you provide concrete examples of what the Conciliar popes (and especially Bergoglio) has designated?  Perhaps, then, I would understand the distinction people keep saying I am unable to grasp.

They still designate electors for a future conclave and residential bishops who occupy worldwide sees of (potential) authority. If the false popes are not able to designate others (cardinals, bishops...), then I do not see any legitimate way to ever elect a new pontiff; and still preserve the monarchical, visible, apostolic, constitution of the Church, which we know it is promised to endure until the end.  

[2Vermont]

They still designate electors for a future conclave and residential bishops who occupy worldwide sees of (potential) authority. If the false popes are not able to designate others, then I do not see any legitimate way to elect a new pontiff; and still preserve the monarchical, visible, apostolic, constitution of the Church, which we know it is promised to endure until the end.  

What happens when the false popes designate heretics?

[Cantarella]

Only a pope possesses ordinary and universal jurisdiction.  If the man is not the pope then he does not possess ordinary and universal jurisdiction 

Agreed

and neither does he have any authority to designate unless he had previously received that power from the pope.  

They do no need authority to designate because designation per se is not jurisdiction (it does not involve the making of the law) but is merely the act of transferring a "right" or "title". Likewise, the right of electing (a new pope, for example) is not jurisdiction or authority. That is why, the Novus Ordo College of Cardinals could still elect a new pope. They do not lose the right of electing even though they have lost the authority (on account of their impediment of heresy).

[Cantarella]

What happens when the false popes designate heretics?

It is the same. They occupy their offices materially (without having any jurisdiction and faithful are not obliged to listen to them) until either the impediment is removed (they stop being heretics) or the competent authority removes them from office. The material occupancy endures until one of these happens:

1. Death
2. Voluntary resignation
3. Removal by proper authority

[Pax Vobis]

They occupy their offices materially (without having any jurisdiction) until either the impediment is removed (they stop being heretics) or the competent authority removes them from office. The material occupancy endures until one of these happens:

1. Death
2. Voluntary resignation
3. Removal by proper authority

I would agree with this except to say that a novus ordo bishop, cardinal, archbishop, or pope DOES have material/temporal jurisdiction.  If they were properly ordained, they would have the power to consecrate other bishops, ordain priests, and run the govt of the church (which includes promoting, demoting, or re-assigning clerics to new or different dioceses).  They could also revise canon law (which is focused on the govt and legal aspects of the church).  There's a lot that they can still do - but it's all of the MATERIAL nature (except for ordaining/consecrating - but if they were true priests/bishops they would still have that power and it would be valid, it would just be illicit since they are penalized by canon law for being heretics).

The most important SPIRITUAL jurisdictional powers have to do with TEACHING, PROTECTING and CLARIFYING doctrine.  They have no powers to do this, nor any authority in this area.

[Clemens Maria]

There is a spiritual/temporal aspect to jurisdiction.  A papal heretic would still possess the MATERIAL office, which would include MATERIAL jurisdiction.

There is no basis in Catholic theology for such a separation of the powers of the papacy.  The Church chooses the man but it is God who has bestowed the powers of the office on the man so designated. “And which of you, if he ask his father bread, will he give him a stone? Or a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?” (Luke 11:11). From Christ’s Church by Van Noort, p. 276-277: “The bestowal of power, however, is not made by the electors, nor in any way by the Church.  The bestowal of power is made by God alone. Earlier in this book we exposed and rejected the error of those who taught that the fullness of sacred power was originally and radically conferred on either the Church as a whole, or on the college of bishops (see no. 44); it was conferred on Peter alone. It follows then, that when any individual pope dies no one in the Church possesses that power of the primacy and, consequently, no one can bestow that power upon the person legitimately chosen to be the new pope.  Finally, it is quite connatural that the man who is constituted Christ’s vicar should receive his power directly from Christ Himself.  Do not, however, misconstrue the matter in such fashion as to imagine that in each individual election of a pope there must occur a new bestowal of power.  For that ancient bestowal of power by which Peter originally received the primacy that was destined to endure through the ages, always has its effect, always, as it were, comes to life again as soon as anyone is legitimately chosen to succeed Peter.  That is why the Vatican Council teaches that to the Roman pontiff: ‘in the person of St. Peter was given by Our Lord Jesus Christ the full power of feeding, ruling, and governing the whole Church’.”

[Clemens Maria]

John Lane would argue that the Conciliar clowns could conceivably exercise supplied jurisdiction due to common error concerning the legitimacy of the claim but actually possessing and exercising even a limited material jurisdiction would be absolutely unheard of for a non-member of the Church.  It is a novel idea that to my knowledge was never proposed by any Catholic theologian prior to the 1970s.

[Pax Vobis]

There is no basis in Catholic theology for such a separation of the powers of the papacy.

Yes there is a separation of papal powers.  The Material Office is the pope and the Church's powers to create/control the human aspect of the Church.  
"And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.  Whatever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loose in heaven." 
This is Christ telling us that the Church is both human and divine.  The powers of the pope to rule the earthly part of the church is his MATERIAL office.  


The Spiritual Office is that which is of Divine origin, which comes from Christ and which cannot be changed.  This is what Christ means when He says that 'flesh and blood' has not revealed this truth to Peter, but that Truth/Doctrine comes from the Father (i.e. it is of Divine origin).
But whom do you say that I am? 16Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. 17And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Part of this office is the Pope's power to teach and to infallibly instruct the faithful on doctrine and to lead the Church through storms.  This is the meaning above, when Peter is given knowledge of the Truth.  This shows the pope's infallibility is in scripture.  It also shows that Christ did NOT promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against the papacy but that hell would not prevail against the Church, meaning truth/doctrine. 

[Pax Vobis]

but actually possessing and exercising even a limited material jurisdiction would be absolutely unheard of for a non-member of the Church.

You are falsely, impatiently and incorrectly supposing that all of the quasi-heretics in the church hierarchy are formal heretics.  Many are not, or at least we cannot make that determination without due process and a church decision.  If we knew for certain that they were formal heretics, then yes, your argument would be valid, but yet again, a fallacy of the sede camp is to ASSUME a formal heresy status for 90% of the catholic world.  You are making yourself judge, jury and executioner - as a layman - which is preposterous.  THIS type of reaction is what's unheard of in the catholic history books.

[Pax Vobis]

I would also like to point out an often forgotten but basic principle:  Canon law is called so because it deals with CHURCH law.   It was written as a means for the Church to operate its government.  Laymen are not part of the church govt in any capacity, ergo canon law is not meant for laymen to interpret, study or execute, since laymen have absolutely NO church authority whatsoever.  So, even if a layman were to read the most simple of canon law excerpts, and even if the application of such a point seems like common sense, it still does not give him the authority to interpret and execute the law.  Therefore, even if canon law is clear that penalty x is supposed to be incurred by person y, any non-church official has NO AUTHORITY to say that the penalty is in force, or should be in force, or that it probably is.  Our opinion in the matter is meaningless.  Only the Church can interpret, rule and execute canon law.  This ESPECIALLY applies in the case of the pope, whom canon law says is "judged by no one" - and certainly he is not judged by a layman or a simple priest, or even by our trad bishops (who have no jurisdiction and no formal theological training).

[Clemens Maria]

Yes there is a separation of papal powers.  The Material Office is the pope and the Church's powers to create/control the human aspect of the Church.

What’s your source for this assertion?

[Clemens Maria]

I take it you believe that Amoris Laetitia may have been a mere imprecision, a slip up, a misunderstanding.  Frank didn’t really mean it.  The Argentinian clarification was likewise just another misunderstanding.  The NO liturgy was never meant to be such a striking departure from Catholic theology.  Communion for non-Catholics was inadvertent.  The persecution of traditional Catholics was accidental.  The loss of faith an unforeseen effect of good intentions.  The silent apostasy was an undesired result of necessary reforms.  In that case there is no reason to make a rash conclusion that these good popes were intentionally contradicting Catholic dogmas. But if they did intend to overturn Catholic dogmas, how are they not manifest heretics?  By definition a manifest heretic is a formal heretic.  There’s nothing to prove.  The facts are public and notorious.  They are essentially indefensible.

[Clemens Maria]

I would also like to point out an often forgotten but basic principle:  Canon law is called so because it deals with CHURCH law.   It was written as a means for the Church to operate its government.  Laymen are not part of the church govt in any capacity, ergo canon law is not meant for laymen to interpret, study or execute, since laymen have absolutely NO church authority whatsoever.  So, even if a layman were to read the most simple of canon law excerpts, and even if the application of such a point seems like common sense, it still does not give him the authority to interpret and execute the law.  Therefore, even if canon law is clear that penalty x is supposed to be incurred by person y, any non-church official has NO AUTHORITY to say that the penalty is in force, or should be in force, or that it probably is.  Our opinion in the matter is meaningless.  Only the Church can interpret, rule and execute canon law.  This ESPECIALLY applies in the case of the pope, whom canon law says is "judged by no one" - and certainly he is not judged by a layman or a simple priest, or even by our trad bishops (who have no jurisdiction and no formal theological training).

So you believe that the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church?