Catholic Knight read Vatican I.  Defines "might" a pope take on the gifts of his office. Graces. Might he. Might he not.  Can a pope lose authority, of course.

Sorry, this was a small error, I meant "in potency" (from potency / act), not "in principle". Yes, my position is that a materially heretical pope remains a true pope in potency, but his authority is not binding in act when he commands something contrary to the Faith. Holding that a heretical pope is still a true pope and has the potency to exercise ordinary jurisdiction is not a problem if you understand what "jurisdiction" and "authority" mean.

First - and I cannot stress this enough - "jurisdiction" is not an abstract, absolute power. It comes from the Latin juris dicere, which means "to speak the law" or more accurately, "to speak what is right". It is the authority to teach, govern, and sanctify in the name of the Church. Therefore, if a pope "speaks wrong" in a command that contradicts divine or traditional law, he is not "speaking right," and at that moment (in act), his juris dicere is null. The command is not binding.

Now "authority" (to t/g/s) is always connected to the purpose of said authority: To hand down and preserve the faith of the apostles. That is why the pope has authority in the first place. If you read St. Pius X. he acts like a father, not like a despot. He even collaborates with the bishops, asks them for input on what would be best and then says thing like "yeah the calender is a problem, with a lot of input from abc we've reformed the calendar because xyz reasons". So there's no reason not to obey: I can get the point, even if I personally think it's not great, the authority is clearly for the better promotion of the faith.

With Paul VI and onwards, the purpose is no longer the promotion of the Catholic faith, but the religion of man: Man as his own end-goal (Gaudium et Spes 12, literal blasphemy) and "self-fulfillment" at the top of the hierarchy of needs (Abraham Maslow was a Jew btw, no wonder his "hierarchy of needs" gets taught in every school). So, the pope at this point, following this new ideology, still is a true pope and has his powers (in potency), but because his commands no longer serve the purpose of the authority, I am very free to disobey in act, until he comes back.

So now, let's look at what this practically means. The vast majority of papal actions fall under ordinary jurisdiction, which is the day-to-day running of the Church. Obedience here should be the norm, but it is not absolute. It can be withheld without sin or schism if one judges in conscience that a command is harmful to the Faith. This was confirmed to ABL when he was told Vatican II was only "pastorally binding".


Only the Pope's extraordinary jurisdiction (solemn, ex cathedra definitions meeting the four Vatican I conditions) demands absolute, unconditional obedience. To reject this is heresy.

Now, let's look at the pope's three powers:

1.  Power to Teach: A heretical pope has the potency to teach. When he teaches something wrong in a non-infallible docuмent (e.g., an encyclical stating that all religions are paths to God), he is scandalous and wrong before God. But since the teaching is not binding under extraordinary jurisdiction, his error doesn't depose him. I can just reject it, condemn it, and still go to heaven. His problem, not mine.

2.  Power to Sanctify: A heretical pope has the potency to regulate the sacred liturgy and sacraments for the universal Church. This is a core part of his power to sanctify. However, when he uses this power (in act) to promulgate the NOM, a rite with the purpose to harm the Catholic Faith and promote the religion of man, then that act is not binding, because the purpose of his authority is being subverted. Without a Catholic purpose, no Catholic authority (in practice / act, not in principle). Therefore, you can licitly resist this act by adhering to the traditional rites which are a proven and safe expression of the Faith.

3.  Power to Govern: So, this is the trickiest. A heretical pope has the potency to make laws and issue punishments, including excommunication. However, if he uses this governing power in act to punish those who are upholding Tradition (e.g., excommunicating Archbishop Lefebvre), the act is an abuse of power. It is an act of injustice that lacks the backing authority because it is being used to destroy the Catholic Faith, not preserve it. A law or punishment that subverts the very purpose of the lawgiver (God, not the pope) is not a true law and is not binding.

So: where is the problem in saying a materially heretical pope still has "the power" (potency) to teach, govern, and sanctify? He holds the office, he is a true pope (in difference to de Lauriers Thesis, who has to invent some "the pope cannot accept his own election" nonsense). The fact that his acts are wrong does not negate the fact that he holds the office (at least until being disposed by a council of some sorts, because there would be utter chaos if everyone is allowed to dispose of the pope, etc. etc.).

I can go on about the "ipso facto loses the office" stuff (ipso facto quoad se vs. ipso facto quoad nos, see John of St. Thomas). But even if I consult no doctrinal manuals - it just makes sense that "until he's somehow visibly publicly disposed, I still regard him as the pope, at least sub conditione".

I understand if Sedes are scandalized and don't want to name him in the Mass. But Sedeprivationism has to invent some weird "the pope cannot accept his own election because we can read his mind pre-election" workaround to justify why they separate matter / form, in order justify why he's not a pope at all (or a half-pope, not a true pope but still appointing true cardinals for some reason, yada yada). It's metaphysical nonsense although de Lauriers was a bright person otherwise. There is no matter without form, there is no "papal" election if the end goal is blocked from the get-go, can. 219 CIC completely obliterates SedePriv, etc. etc. I say that it's "an error", but it's not schism or anything. It's just wrong in terms of an academic exercise.