While the footnoting is cryptic, it's obvious that cuм ex nowhere deals with 188.8, tacit resignation due to abandonment, but rather to 4, defection from the faith.  (2) appears at the end of 8 only because 8 is the last part of 188 and not because it refers to 8.  Use some common sense, would you?

Canon 188.4 is explained here.

Negative, that's not the way foot notes work. There are like 20 references in that footnote, take for instance that taking two random references from that footnote translates (via google translate):
"from the clergy not to be resident in the church or to be preached"
and another saying:
"concerning the grant of a gift and a church not vacant"

The point is, those footnotes have to do with Canon 188.8 where the cleric physically deserts his post (his office).

Here is the English and as you can see cuм Ex applies to 188.4:

So proof was produced that cuм Ex Apostolatus is referenced by the 1917 Code of Canon Law.

None of that will matter to those who desire to have Francis as their pope. They will look for any out. It’s grasping for straws to say it applies to one part of canon 188 put not the part that is actually pertinent to the relevancy of the docuмent. Not even worth discussing anymore. And still accusing people including a bishop of telling lies. Really pathetic actually.

It's been a long time since I've posted this but:

"Anything but Sedevacantism!"

It's been a long time since I've posted this but:

"Anything but Sedevacantism!"

Well, you've got that only partially right. It's not "anything but sedeism." Try "Catholicism, not sedeism."

So proof was produced that cuм Ex Apostolatus is referenced by the 1917 Code of Canon Law.

None of that will matter to those who desire to have Francis as their pope. They will look for any out. It’s grasping for straws to say it applies to one part of canon 188 put not the part that is actually pertinent to the relevancy of the docuмent. Not even worth discussing anymore. And still accusing people including a bishop of telling lies. Really pathetic actually.

This is the most pathetic of it all. Absolutely no excuse for it.  And still no retraction.  I guess it's open season on sedevacantist bishops. 

Canon 188.4 is explained here.

Stubborn, in that link above, you are referencing your earlier post that includes the following quote from 1917 Canon Law:

On delicts against the faith and unity of the Church
Canon 2314

§ 1. All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic:
1.° Incur by that fact excommunication;
2.° Unless they respect warnings, they are deprived of benefice, dignity, pension, office, or other duty that they have in the Church, they are declared infamous, and [if] clerics, with the warning being repeated, [they are] are deposed;
3.° If they give their names to non-Catholic sects or publicly adhere [to them], they are by that fact infamous, and with due regard for the prescription of Canon 188, n. 4, clerics, the previous warnings having been useless, are degraded.

In 1917 Canon Law there are 3 levels of excommunication:

1. automatic, ipso facto, excommunication.
2. declared excommunication.
3. banned excommunication.
 
Each of these levels has its own penalties that are increased at each level. At the first level, the automatic [ipso facto] level, the excommunicate is "removed from legitimate ecclesiastical acts" and "prohibited from conducting ecclesiastical offices or responsibilities" (Canon 2263). At the next level, the "declared" level, the excommunicate is further deprived of "the fruits" of his office, such as a salary or pension (Canon 2266). And at the "banned" level, the excommunicate is finally deposed from the office itself (Canon 2266).

Now let's move to our current situation and apply Canon 2314 and Canon 2263 to Jorge Bergoglio. Following Canon 2314, Bergoglio, is an ipso facto excommunicate on account of manifest heresy. Therefore, he is automatically "removed from legitimate ecclesiastical acts" and "prohibited from conducting ecclesiastical offices and responsibilities" according to Canon 2263.

This means Bergoglio is in a state of being "deprived" of his legal ability to act as a governor of the Church. In other words, he is "impounded" until the next step is taken to "declare" him as "infamous."

However, for all practical purposes, even as a simple ipso facto excommunicate, Bergoglio cannot be viewed legally as an "acting Pope." At best, he is in a state of legal suspension awaiting a juridical declaration. Therefore, by the above logic of 1917 Canon Law, one who believes that Bergoglio is a manifest heretic must be at least a Sede-privationist or Sede-impoundist.


P.S. All of the above assumes that Bergoglio was lawfully-elected (which he wasn't). And since Bergoglio never was lawfully-elected Pope, the See is, in fact, completely vacant, practically and ontologically.

I consider this thread a stain on the reputation of Stubborn. It is very real proof that his position is based on a fundamental pride of being right. I was willing to state publicly that I was misled into believing that cuм Ex Apostolatus was in the Code of Canon Law and that I was wrong. I would have gladly conceded to Stubborn and Plenus that they were right and that I was wrong. Yet, after being accused of being a liar and aggressively demanding proof or else I am a liar. Then not giving proof quick enough and being given the reason that I am lying, proof is presented. When proof is presented I am told to STHU as Stubborn squirms like a little worm to try to find a way to still seem like he is right and even continue to accuse one of lying. 

Honestly, this thread demonstrates the character of man he is, which is unbecoming of a Traditional Catholic. I suspect there are many in his camp just like him and this is a base level reason why the Crisis in the Church is prolonged. 

I consider this thread a stain on the reputation of Stubborn. It is very real proof that his position is based on a fundamental pride of being right. I was willing to state publicly that I was misled into believing that cuм Ex Apostolatus was in the Code of Canon Law and that I was wrong. I would have gladly conceded to Stubborn and Plenus that they were right and that I was wrong. Yet, after being accused of being a liar and aggressively demanding proof or else I am a liar. Then not giving proof quick enough and being given the reason that I am lying, proof is presented. When proof is presented I am told to STHU as Stubborn squirms like a little worm to try to find a way to still seem like he is right and even continue to accuse one of lying.

Honestly, this thread demonstrates the character of man he is, which is unbecoming of a Traditional Catholic. I suspect there are many in his camp just like him and this is a base level reason why the Crisis in the Church is prolonged.

Well of course you think that. As long as you ignore everything that squashes your opinion, why would you think any different?

The reality is, I am not going to simply relinquish what to me are pearls, but to him and you is heresy.