Where did you come up with this nonsense? It does not mean that at all, never has.

Sede Vacante = The Latin term that is used for when the Pope dies or resigns and a successor hasn't yet been elected, the phrase means "the seat is vacant."

It does not mean because the pope is a heretic we have no pope, it does not mean that everyone should slander the man who is actually occupies the seat, nor does it encourage anyone to condemn as heretics all those who disagree.... it's a phrase that has been maliciously usurped by sedes to mean all of this, but only to some sedes.

In our times of the Crisis, the Latin term "Sede Vacante" is used by the Sedevacantists to refer to the situation that I described. They believe there is a heretical usurper in the See of Peter. So, according to Catholic teaching, the See is Vacant because a heretic automatically loses his office/jurisdiction ipso facto (assuming that he was ever legitimately elected to begin with). 

It doesn't surprise me that this seems like nonsense to you, Stubborn. You don't care what the actual Catholic teaching on these matters is. You prefer to use Old Catholic heresy as your guide. Just admit that fact and stop pretending. 

It is not Catholic to believe that a papal claimant can be both a legitimate Pope and a heretic at the same time.

In our times of the Crisis, the Latin term "Sede Vacante" is used by the Sedevacantists to refer to the situation that I described. They believe there is a heretical usurper in the See of Peter. So, according to Catholic teaching, the See is Vacant because a heretic automatically loses his office/jurisdiction ipso facto (assuming that he was ever legitimately elected to begin with).

It doesn't surprise me that this seems like nonsense to you, Stubborn. You don't care what the actual Catholic teaching on these matters is. You prefer to use Old Catholic heresy as your guide. Just admit that fact and stop pretending.

It is not Catholic to believe that a papal claimant can be both a legitimate Pope and a heretic at the same time.

In our times, Sede Vacante has a universal meaning, iow, it means the same as it has always meant, except to sedes. To say it means something else IS nonsense. To say it means what you said, is to change it's meaning to suit your purpose. It's not rocket science.

You are the one who does not care what the Church teaches in this matter. There is no good reason, in fact, there is absolutely ZERO reason to go contrary to what St. Francis said in the OP - far as you're concerned, to leave it up to the Church is heresy. 

It is not Catholic to decide the status of popes, never has been, never will.

Besides avoiding giving me a yes answer, you go against what St. Francis said in the OP.  The Church makes the legal status of vacancy for "the see" not the pope. Those who do so already morally and positively determine the man is not a pope. Perfectly Catholic to do, and in fact a duty. Read the OP again.

Point out where it is our duty to "positively determine the man is not a pope."

From the OP:
"when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as St. Peter did: let another take his bishopric"

Point out where it is our duty to "positively determine the man is not a pope."

From the OP:
"when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as St. Peter did: let another take his bishopric"

Look at the clause just before the one you highlighted. He falls ipso facto from his dignity AND “out of the Church.” That is said first. That automatic “fall” is primary. Canon Law says exactly the same thing. 

Then, secondarily, the Church must either throw the bum out by force “deprive him” or, if he voluntarily vacated the premises, the Church “declares him deprived.”

Why is the second step mentioned? Because the Church must elect a new Pope. So before the election, the Church legally declares that the See vacant. The See did not become vacant because they declared it. It was vacant ipso facto. The Church simply formally expressed its agreement with the reality of automatic vacancy. 

The Church must declare the man deprived of his Apostolic See, because he is no longer pope. As in, the Church is compelled to do so. The Church cannot allow a man to pretend to hold the Apostolic See.

This isn't saying he is still pope until declared otherwise, it is saying that the false pope cannot be allowed to illegitimately hold the See. If he was still pope until declared otherwise, then he could never be declared otherwise..because the First See is judged by no one

This is saying the Church must declare the man deprived of his Apostolic See because no one else can do it.

You missed the word "and" ...."out of the Church, "and the Church must either..."

You have to keep reading, don't stop after "out of the Church."

And you missed the definition of the Latin phrase "ipso facto."


"Ipso facto" is a Latin legal and theological term meaning "by the very fact" or "by that very act itself," indicating that a consequence follows automatically and directly from an action or condition, without the need for further declaration or intervention.^1 2

Meaning and Usage in Catholic Teaching

In everyday English, "ipso facto" describes something that is inherently or immediately true based on a given fact, such as "committing a felony ipso facto disqualifies one from certain rights." Within Catholic doctrine and canon law, it carries precise significance, particularly in matters of ecclesiastical penalties, jurisdiction, and sacramental validity.

• In Canon Law: It denotes automatic effects from certain acts. For example, under the 1917 Code of Canon Law (now revised in the 1983 Code), certain grave offenses, like apostasy, heresy, or schism, result in excommunication or loss of office ipso facto—that is, by the fact of the offense itself—without requiring a formal sentence from a bishop or the Holy See (cf. 1917 CIC, canons 2314, 2332).¹ This ensures swift protection of the Church's unity and purity, though the 1983 Code emphasizes declaratory processes for transparency (1983 CIC, canon 1331). Similarly, a bishop's resignation takes effect ipso facto upon acceptance by the Pope (1983 CIC, canon 401).
• Theological Implications: The term underscores the objective nature of divine and ecclesiastical law. For instance, in the context of schism, as seen in historical condemnations like those against the Old Catholics, separation from the Pope's communion occurs ipso facto by the act of rejecting papal authority, rendering one outside the visible Church. It reflects the principle that some realities are self-evident and binding by their intrinsic force, aligning with the Church's understanding of law as rooted in God's eternal wisdom (cf. CCC 1950-1953).

This usage avoids arbitrariness, emphasizing that penalties or effects arise from the gravity of the act itself, guided by the Holy Spirit through the Magisterium. For deeper study, the Catholic Encyclopedia entries on related topics like schism and error provide historical context.¹

[1] Catholic Encyclopedia Presumption
[2] Catholic Encyclopedia Notoriety, Notorious

And you missed the definition of the Latin phrase "ipso facto."


"Ipso facto" is a Latin legal and theological term meaning "by the very fact" or "by that very act itself," indicating that a consequence follows automatically and directly from an action or condition, without the need for further declaration or intervention.^{1 2}

NO, I did not miss anything, I know what ipso facto means.

I also know that I do not have the right, responsibility, authority, or any reason whatsoever to decide, insist or declare that the pope is not the pope, no reason whatsoever. I am content to wait for after the heretical pope is dead that the Church, Who alone has the right, responsibility and authority, to officially decide the matter and to make the declaration if She so chooses to do so.

What should be.......

"...However, even though the hierarchy cannot take legal action against an heretical pope, all of them together, or any one of them in particular, can condemn his teaching; they can accuse him before God's tribunal, warn him of his sins, and remind him of the divine wrath. Should this measure fail to produce any correction, they can denounce him before his subjects, the Catholic faithful, and warn them that they are not to listen to his teaching. Indeed, not only may the prelates of the Church do this, they have a most serious obligation to do it, an obligation which is as grave as the heresies are pernicious and scandalous. And if they fail to do this, they become a party to the pope's crimes, and will most certainly share in his punishment.      

Moreover, where the bishops default in their solemn duty to protect the Church and God's Little Sheep, the priests and the laypeople have not the right, but the duty, to raise their voices against an heretical pontiff. They not only raise their voices to God in prayer for the misguided man, but they also speak out to the bishops and the priests, and among themselves so as to warn their brothers and sisters in Christ that the plague of heresy has infected even their Holy Father, and has rendered him dangerous and unclean."  - Fr. Wathen, Who Shall Ascend?