http://www.fathercekada.com/2014/05/07/bergoglio-hes-got-nothing-to-lose/New ParadigmIV. How the Principle Changes the Discussion.
A. Clearing the Clutter. Appealing to the foregoing principle clears the clutter of irrelevant objections that the R&R camp raises against the loss of office principle. (For an idea of how many there are, see my article Sedevacantism and Mr. Ferrara’s Cardboard Pope — and yes, Mr. Ferrara is another lawyer…) No longer will one have to answer for the nth time R&R arguments like:
The First See is judged by no one. (Response: “As a heretic, Bergoglio never truly obtained ‘the First See,’ so no one is ‘judging’ it.”)
You need a Council to judge that a pope has fallen into heresy. (“As a heretic, Bergoglio was never pope in the first place.”)
Due process rules dictate that a pope be given an opportunity to retract. (“As a heretic, Bergoglio was never pope in the first place.”)
Cardinals must give a pope two canonical warnings before he can lose office. (“As a heretic, Bergoglio was never pope in the first place.”)
Suarez and Cajetan support the idea that a pope does not lose his office until the Church somehow issues a judgement that he has. (“As a heretic, he never truly obtained the office in the first place.”)
Honorius, John XXII and other popes “fell into heresy,” but were not considered to have lost their office. (“Even assuming they ‘fell into heresy,’ unlike Bergoglio, they were not heretics when elected.”)
Pius XII’s conclave legislation allows a person to be validly elected pope even if he incurred excommunication or another impediment “of ecclesiastical law.” (“Heresy is not an impediment of ecclesiastical law but of divine law.”)
Poof! In the face of the principle laid down in the foregoing section, all these spurious objections disappear.