No, I directly answered dozens of his questions already, he did not answer dozens of my questions, and I won't answer this question until he answers.

But I already admitted I was wrong on one point, that cuм ex is indeed foot noted in the 1917 CL, which is all I will offer until he answers.....which almost certainly means I will never answer. Especially since he will have to go back and look for the questions as I won't do that for him.

What questions. Make a very simple list instead of hiding vague questions in thousand words which have nothing to with whether or not Jorge Maria Bergoglio is:
 who professes the integrity of the Catholic Faith.

You’re just squirming because you called the cuм Ex Apostolatus citation BS and accused faithful Catholics of lying.

When this was wrong you tried to misapply the citation to an irrelevant code (188.8).

When this was proved wrong you told me to STHU and refused to answer questions until I comb through your every post and answer irrelevant, vague questions. Basically, force me to waste a bunch of time so you can only get aggressive, disrespectful and accusatory instead of humbling yourself.

It’s appalling to imagine how many people would approach the sacraments after behavior like this as if there were nothing wrong with it.

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


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.

No, I directly answered dozens of his questions already, he did not answer dozens of my questions, and I won't answer this question until he answers.

But I already admitted I was wrong on one point, that cuм ex is indeed foot noted in the 1917 CL, which is all I will offer until he answers.....which almost certainly means I will never answer. Especially since he will have to go back and look for the questions as I won't do that for him.

I will say that I don't dislike Stubborn.  We have had decent interactions privately as well as publicly (although obviously this particular topic is one that is quite challenging for us...it is why both of us had stopped getting into the sede vs non-sede arguments for quite some time).  He is typically charitable with me unlike some other posters I have had issues with here on CI.

I don't recall ever seeing him use "BS" nor "STHU" nor accusing others of lying (especially a bishop!) the way he has used them today, and I suspect this behavior is not just about what's going on in the threads. 

Perhaps I'm a sucker (and maybe I'm wrong), but I feel badly that I've gotten on his case today. I think he needs our prayers right now.  Really. Sorry Stubborn.

No, no, that doesn't sound like ANYONE on this forum!!!

The logical consequences when there is no real pope for decades.

I'm more of a lurker, and may be late to the party, but for the record, cuм Ex Apostolatus is referenced 14-15 times in the 1917 code of canon law (i.e. not just 188.4).