However, the one making the judgement simply refuses to recognize the heretic as still retaining office.

Nope.  Only the Church can interpret, inquire and decide canon law.  


You can privately “judge” all you want, but the moment you apply your judgment to a person, or circuмstances, you’ve overstepped your bounds.  Then you’re acting like a Protestant, creating your own interpretation of law, sin, etc.  And that’s the definition of chaos.  

Nope.  Only the Church can interpret, inquire and decide canon law. 


You can privately “judge” all you want, but the moment you apply your judgment to a person, or circuмstances, you’ve overstepped your bounds.  Then you’re acting like a Protestant, creating your own interpretation of law, sin, etc.  And that’s the definition of chaos. 

You're also "judging." (If we're calling apprehendimg reality judgment.) You judge that Bergoglio is the Pope and that Michael isn't and that Gregory XVII isn't.

The funny thing is, those two guys actually had a better chance at being Pope than Bergoglio.

You're judging the Pope as much as we are, you just have a different conclusion.

I’m not judging anything.  Church officials have said that pope x is pope.  As a catholic, I either obey that judgment or act schismatically.  End of story. 

But why don't you obey the "judgment" of "the Church" that the NOM is good and that Vatican II is good?  This doesn't make sense.

In fact, you've got this completely backwards.  Vatican I stated that the one place private judgment plays a role is in determining the credibility of the authority.  We use human reason to evaluate the claims of the Catholic Church to be the One True Church founded by Christ.  We Traditional Catholics have come to the conclusion that the Conciliar Church is not that Church and we do not recognize in Jorge the "Voice of the Shepherd."  Once one has come to this conclusion and submitted to the authority, while not all things that it teaches are infallible and irreformable, we are still required to give an internal religious assent or submission.  This does not mean we accept it as infallibly/philosophically true, but that we give it every benefit of the doubt and disagree with all due respect when necessary.  But no Church Father, Pope, Doctor, or pre-V2 theologian has ever countenanced the notion that either the Mass or the Magisterium can become so corrupt that we would be required in conscience to refuse submission to and communion with the hierarchy as a result, as that would be contrary to the indefectibility of the Church.

In any case, however, you're begging the question by calling them "Church officials".  And, if they are in fact Church officials, and Jorge is the Pope, you're ALREADY acting schismatically by holding that it's OK for Catholics to operate outside of communion with them.

What public sin of manifest formal heresy did he commit and when did he commit it?

I'd like to see Catholic Knight address this question.

Which day of the week is it?

John Salza, that you?

Well, I'm not John Salza, but I still would like Catholic Knight to address the question. Who cares who asks it? It's still relevant.

This is already the "4th Edition"  ... and I'm sure they haven't been keeping up.  They'd have to release a new one every week.

Getting back to Fr. Chazal's sede-impoundism for a moment. Of Course I don't agree with the impoundism, but I agree with Fr. Chazal when he said in his book, Contra Cekadam, that the sedevacantists let Francis get away. Why do they let him get away? Because, if Francis is not the Pope, and the conciliar church is not the church at all, then Francis gets away with his modernist heresy. It's only those who believe that he's still Pope, and that the conciliar church still has a semblance of Catholicism left that have hope and still try to work to change things. Sedevacantists have given up on Francis and the conciliar church. I won't do that. And I think a few other non-sedevacantists on this forum may agree with me.

We can determine that V2 popes are heretics.  Everyone in Tradition agrees with this, as V1 points out.  Where we must draw the line, is in making legal judgments and “throwing people out of office”.  As Fr Chazal points out, it’s sufficient to recognize the V2 popes as moral heretics.  Sedeprivationism says the same - their spiritual authority is gone. 

This is 90% of what’s important anyhow - the lack of spiritual authority.  Which all Trads agree on. 

Going further, and trying to unravel the temporal/govt aspects is nearly impossible.  I’ve never found out how it worked during Arianism and I’m not sure how it works now.  Only the future orthodox pope can fix this aspect. 

Throwing people out of office and making the temporal aspect of the office some “litmus test” of Traditionalism is a pointless waste of time, causes untold division, and solves nothing. 

It is good that you contrast the two elements that we need to consider:

Formal Pope = teaching/governing authority
Material Pope = physically holding onto the office

1983 Canon Law (1917 makes the same distinction using slightly different language):

------------
Can. 194

§1. The following are removed from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself [automatically]:
1/ a person who has lost the clerical state;
2/ a person who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church;
3/ a cleric who has attempted marriage even if only civilly.

§2. The removal mentioned in nn. 2 and 3 can be enforced only if it is established by the declaration of a competent authority.

----------

So, the canon is clearly distinguishing between a de jure (formal) and a de facto (material) loss of office. The automatic/de jure/by-the-law-itself removal is what is referred to as the "formal Papacy." The declared/de facto/must-be-enforced-with-police removal is referred to as the "material Papacy."

A canonically-elected Pope loses his office (formally/de jure/by-the-law-itself) the moment he publicly defects from the Catholic Faith. No "declaration by a competent authority" is needed for anyone to recognize that fact and adjust their life accordingly. In that case, this canonically-elected Pope simply loses all of his authority and his dictates are binding on no one.

If that same canonically-elected Pope refuses to voluntarily vacate the physical office that he sits in, then his removal is only "enforced" by "the declaration of a competent authority." So a group of Cardinals would need to first recognize that 1) the former canonically-elected Pope has lost his office "formally." Then after that "formal loss" is acknowledged, those Cardinals can enforce the removal by calling in the Swiss Guard to physically kick the usurper to the curb.

P.S. Bergoglio is different from the papal claimants preceding him. He was not even canonically-elected, as you can read about at www.antipope.com. He was prophesied by St. Francis of Assisi: https://novusordowatch.org/saint-francis-assisi-prophecy-destroyer/. So none of the material/formal stuff is relevant to Bergoglio. He is simply a usurper and the Antichrist.