Is he right?

No.

    The character of a moral act which makes it attributable to a certain person is called imputability. The imputability of a crime depends on the malice (dolus) of the culprit or on his culpability (culpa) in being ignorant of the law or in failing to use due diligence; hence all causes which increase, diminish, or excuse from malice or culpability, automatically increase, diminish, or excuse from the imputability of a crime (c. 2199).
    Malice here means the deliberate will to violate the law; opposed to it on the part of the mind is want of knowledge, on the part of the will, want of freedom (c. 2200, §1). When an external violation of the law has been committed, malice is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proved (c. 2200, §2).

    Persons who conspire to commit a crime and physically concur in it are all held equally guilty, unless circuмstances increase or diminish the guilt of some or one of them (c. 2209, §1). In a crime which by its nature requires an accomplice, each party has the same guilt unless the contrary is clear from the circuмstances (c. 2209, §2). Not only the one who commands a crime and who is thus the principal culprit, but also those who induce the commission of the crime or concur in it in any way, incur no less guilt, other things being equal, than the one who perpetrated it, if without their help the crime would not have been committed (c. 2209, §3). But if their co-operation only made easier a crime which would have been committed even without their concurrence, it is less guilty (c. 2209, §4). One who by timely retraction completely withdrew his influence toward the commission of the crime is freed from all imputability, even though the perpetrator neverless completed the crime for reasons of his own; if he did not completely withdraw his influence, the retraction diminishes but does not entirely remove culpability (c. 2209, §5). One who concurs in a crime only by neglecting his duty incurs imputability proportionate to the obligation which he had to prevent the crime by doing his duty (c. 2209, §6). Praise of the crime after its commission, sharing in its fruits, concealing and harboring the culprit, or other acts subsequent to the completion of the crime, may constitute new crimes, namely, if they are punished by a penalty in the law; but, unless before the crime there was an agreement with the criminal to perform those acts, they do not entail imputability for the crime (c. 2209, §7).

    Excommunication is a censure by which one is excluded from the communion of the faithful, with the consequences which are enumerated in the following canons, and which cannot be separated (c. 2257, §1). It is also called anathema, especially if it is inflicted with the solemnities described in the Roman Pontifical (c. 2257, §2).
    Some excommunicated persons are vitandi, others tolerati (c. 2258, §1). No one is vitandus unless he has been excommunicated by name by the Holy See, and the excommunication has been publicly announced, and it is expressly stated in the decree or sentence that he is to be avoided, without prejudice to canon 2343, §1, 1° (c. 2258, §2). The canon cited declares anyone who lays violent hands on the Supreme Pontiff ipso facto vitandus.

    An excommunicated person is forbidden licitly to consecrate or administer sacraments and sacramentals, except as follows (c. 2261, §1). Except as provided in §3, the faithful can for any just cause ask for sacraments or sacramentals of one who is excommunicated, especially if there is no one else to give them; and in such cases the excommunicated person so asked may administer them, and is not obliged to ask the reason for the request (c. 2261, §2). But from an excommunicated vitandus or one against whom there is a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, the faithful may only in danger of death ask for sacramental absolution according to canons 882, 2252, and also for other sacraments and sacramentals in case there is no one else to administer them (c. 2261, §3).

    An excommunicated person who still holds an office to which ordinary jurisdiction is attached, acts illicitly but validly until a condemnatory or declaratory judgment has been passed upon him; thereafter he acts invalidly (c. 2264).
    A person who is suspended from jurisdiction similarly, acts illicitly but validly before, and invalidly after a condemnatory or declaratory judgment. (c. 2284).

    All apostates from the Christian faith, and all heretics and schismatics: (1) are ipso facto excommunicated; (2) if after due warning they fail to amend, they are to be deprived of any benefice, dignity, pension, office, or other position which they may have in the Church, they are to be declared infamous, and clerics after a reception of the warning are to be deposed; (3) if they have joined a non-Catholic sect or publicly adhered to it, they are ipso facto infamous, and clerics, in addition to being considered to have tacitly renounced any office they may hold, according to canon 188, 4°, are, if previous warning proves fruitless, to be degraded (c. 2314, §1). The abjuration [from crimes] is regarded as legally made when it is made before the Ordinary of the place or his delegate and at least two witnesses (c. 2314, §2).
    One who is suspected of heresy, and who after warning fails to remove the cause of suspicion, shall be barred from legitimate acts, and if he is a cleric he shall moreover, after a repetition of the warning has proved fruitless, be suspended a divinis; if one who is suspected of heresy does not amend his life within six full months from the time when the penalty was incurred, he shall be considered a heretic and be subject to the penalties for heresy (c. 2315).
    One who spontaneously and with full knowledge helps in any way in the propagation of heresy, or who co-operates in divinis with heretics contrary to the provision of canon 1258, is suspected of heresy (c. 2316).
    Those who obstinately teach or defend, either publicly or privately, a doctrine which has been condemned, though not as formally heretical, by the Holy See or by a General Council, are to be excluded from the ministry of preaching the word of God or of hearing sacramental confessions, and from teaching in any capacity, in addition to any other penalties which the condemnatory sentence may inflict or which the Ordinary, after due warning, may deem necessary to repair the scandal (c. 2317).

    Those who join a Masonic sect or other societies of the same sort, which plot against the Church or legitimate civil authority, incur ipso facto an excommunication simply reserved to the Holy See (c. 2335).

- From Canon Law, A Text and Commentary

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: soulguard

Is he right?

No.

Why isint he right?

The pope is supreme authority of the Church on earth, as such, no one, including the all the Bishops together cannot remove him from his office.

Popes do not receive the indelible mark when they are elected pope - they have that mark when they are ordained to the priesthood.

Now he reminded me that a priest who is outside the church, or in mortal sin, can still give the sacraments, and they will be valid. He said that even if the pope is a manifest heretic and outside the church, that he still retains "jurisdiction" because of the indelible mark on his soul. Hence he is still the pope.

He is still a priest due the mark on his soul, he is still pope because according to the law, there is no authority on earth capable of deposing him.



 

SG, what is your friend's source for the papacy imprinting an indelible mark on the soul?

I guarantee you, he has none.  He made it up.  The papacy is not a sacrament, and the soul does not receive an indelible mark from being raised to it.  Even if it did, it does not therefore follow that Francis must be pope.

In fact, all the baptized receive an indelible mark on their soul.  Yet, through heresy, apostasy or schism they are removed from the Church.

Soulguard,

As Mithrandylan said, your friend first came to a conclusion then made up his theogolical "facts" to fit the conclusion.

What you wrote that he said here is preposterous.

This person is expressing (although in deficient terms) one school of thought regarding the heretical pope question:

It's the Papa Haereticus ab Ecclesia deponendus school (a heretical Pope must be deposed by the Church).

And a different twist on the same question was put out there by Bishop Guerard des Lauriers in his sedeprivationist theology.

With both the deponendus school and the sedeprivationists, there IS in fact this notion of there being a material / juridical component to the papacy that needs to be addressed even in a heretical pope scenario.  I wouldn't call it an "indelible mark" as if it were some kind of Sacramental character.

With the deponendus school, the papacy continues formally but in some kind of crippled state that needs to be addressed by the Church, whereas with the sedeprivationists, the papacy continues only materially, with the one consequence being that if, say, Jorge Bergoglio would convert back to Catholicism, he would formally take up the exercise of the papacy without any further action by the Church, since he retains the material designation.

Both these avoid the problem of "conclavism".

In short, the question is NOT as simple as what most SVs would have you believe.  It's complicated by a question of needing AUTHORITY to make the determination of heresy and to establish the dogmatic fact of legitimacy.

St. Robert Bellarmine's position is way too simplistic.

St. Robert Bellarmine's position is way too simplistic.

You mean, Doctor of the Church, Saint Robert Bellarmine's position is way too simplistic while all the complex, nuanced positions of other, lesser, theologians is right on the money?

All I can say is, wow!