"PaxChristi2" professes false doctrine in his comment on Fr. Ghirlanda's exposition: 《The entire quotation in context confirms exactly what I wrote on November 13:  "The Church judges and declares the fact, and at that "moment" the See becomes vacant."》

What I have gone to great length to explain is that according to canonical doctrine as well as the canonical provisions currently in force, all ecclesiastical offices are lost ipso jure by public defection from the Catholic faith. Public defection need not be "notorious by fact"; but it suffices, according to the letter of the law, that the defection be PUBLIC, accordingly as PUBLIC is defined in canon law. The sin of heresy constitutes a defection from the faith in its very nature which, if public, severs one from the body of the Church and causes an automatic loss of jurisdiction (as St. Thomas  whom I quoted verbatim, explains). Bellarmine follows St. Thomas (citing the same article that I quoted), and concludes that all jurisdiction and ecclesiastical jurisdiction are lost "ex natura hæresis". The magisterial teaching of Pius XII in Mystici Corporis follows this doctrinal tradition exactly, explaining that schism, heresy, and apostasy separate one from the body of the Church "suapte natura" (by their very nature); and accordingly heretics, schismatics, and apostates "miserably separate themselves" from membership in the Church, while all others guilty of grave transgressions are expelled from the Church "by legitimate authority". 
     Thus, Bellarmine explains that it is "by the nature of heresy" which is defined as an obstinate disbelief (denial or doubt) of an article of divine and Catholic faith, that all offices are lost "ipso facto", "per se", and "without any external agency" (sine alia vi externa" by the very act of "manifest heresy", which he says (in his refutation of opinion no. 4) consists in formal heresy in which pertinacity is manifest.
     Fr. Ghirlanda's teaching in no way contradicts this doctrine: He says the loss of office takes place "ipso jure", which by definition means "by operation of the law itself", and not by declaration of authority. What he explains is the de jure establishment of the vacancy takes place at the moment of the promulgation of the declaration, (but not the actual fact of the vacancy which he explained to have already occurred ipso jure. "PaxChristi2" (a.k.a. John Salza) ignorantly interprets Fr. Ghirlanda in such a manner that would involve the eminent canonist in a crude contradiction. What Fr. Ghirlanda explained is that the FACT of the vacancy happens automatically (ipso jure), but the juridical recognition of it takes place when the declaration is issued.
     I have quoted verbatim the texts of Msgrs. Fenton and Van Noort, as well as Canon George Smith in The Teaching of the Catholic Church, who all explain the doctrine of Mystici Corporis; explicitly stating that the SIN of heresy cuts one off from membership in the Church. Incredibly and absurdly, Salza & Siscoe continue to obstinately and blindly reject that teaching of the supreme magisterium by interpreting it according to their bizarre heretical opinion which holds that only the CRIME and not the SIN of heresy severs one suapte natura from membership in the Church. The opinion is absurd on its face, because no crime as such severs one from the Church by its own nature but by the penalty of excommunication attached to it by law. Hence, for a crime one is severed "by legitimate authority" (i.e. excommunication). Crimes, according to the nature of "crime", bring about the separation from the body of the Church by means of the PENALTY. But schism, heresy, and apostasy separate one by the very nature of the SIN, because each of these sins in their very nature are an act that severs from the body of the Church. Salza & Siscoe reject with blind obstinacy this manifest dogma definitively taught by the universal and ordinary magisterium. Therefore, Salza and Siscoe are manifest heretics.

Moral Catholicity de facto "as the Church teaches is" means the Church will always possess a large number of people from many different nation.
 
Van Noort: "To satisfy the requirements of moral catholicity in fact – a quality belonging to Christ’s Church perpetually and necessarily – we stated there was required: 'a great number of men from many different nations.' … Such diffusion, obviously, cannot be had without a really large number of adherents." (Van Noort, Christ's Church, pp. 146-146"

Salaverri: "Catholicity in the strict sense is the vast extension of one Church throughout the world, with a conspicuous multitude of members.  (…) Catholicity of right is the power, or right and duty, divinely given to the Church of gathering to herself all men from all parts of the world.  Catholicity of fact is an actual great number of Church members to be found in every part of the world. With the Church, we hold as a matter of Catholic faith (de fide catholica) that the Church has a full and perfect catholicity of right and a true moral catholicity of fact (...)  Proof of Catholicity of Fact: — Catholicity of fact is an actual great number of Church members, morally ubiquitous, simultaneous, and perpetual.  But God has attested that such a great number of members belongs to the Church.  Therefore the Church must be catholic with a catholicity of fact." (Salaverri, S. J., On the Church of Christ, 3^rd ed., 1955, bk 3, ch 3, art 2.)
 
Cardinal Billot: The Church of Christ is essentially catholic with a catholicity of right (juris), that is, by the universality of her destination and the mission that she has received from her Founder.  Catholicity of fact, which follows from this as a necessary property, consists in two things: first, in a permanent and simultaneous diffusion throughout the world, by which it comes to pass that the true Church always retains in her bosom an enormous (ingentem) number of faithful from a plurality of nations; secondly, in the successive growth by which she must propagate herself more and more until the end of the world, so that she extends throughout all places of the earth without exception and encompasses all nationalities of men. (…) once that short space of time had elapsed during which it was necessary, by the command of Christ himself, that the dissemination of the Word be confined to Judea and Samaria, catholicity of fact, consisting in the simultaneous and constant extension of the Church throughout the entire known world, and among the inhabitants thereof, became an inseparable character of the true Church of Christ." (De Ecclesia Christi, book. 1, part 1, Thesis VI).
 
Below is the errant ecclesiology of Fr. Kramer that he cited the fake "quote" from St. Athanasius to defend:
 
Fr. Kramer: "Salza & Siscoe take issue with my entirely orthodox comment that, 'The visible entity will be APOSTATE. The true Church will be a remnant in hiding. The Church will be briefly INVISIBLE, as the Fathers teach.' According to their grotesquely distorted and fundamentalistic notion of the Church, that which has been clearly foretold in scripture and expounded by the Fathers and by ecclesiastical writers through the ages of Catholicism, constitutes a denial of the indefectibility visibility of the Church. However… it is Salza & Siscoe who deny Catholic doctrine by maintaining that the Church will not be reduced to a small number...”

 

Pax Christi, you have done a superb job of defending the true Catholic doctrine in this post. The Church, as St. Augustine and St. Optatus so convincingly argued against the Donatist schismatics, is Universal while schisms are local, and cannot be reduced to a few vagrant clerics here and there who don't even work together (like the SSPV and the CMRI) but cast aspersions on the validity of each other's orders.

Pope Bl. Pius IX's teaching, indeed Our Lord's, which you perhaps already know of, but which is useful in further underlining the point, confirms it, "What did He announce? ‘Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world.’ Moved by your voices and your false opinions, She asked of God that He announce to Her the length of Her days and She found that God said ‘Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world.’ Here you will say: He spoke about us; we are as we will be until the end of the world. Christ Himself is asked; He says ‘and this gospel will be preached in the whole world, in testimony to all nations, and then will come the end.’ Therefore the Church will be among all nations until the end of the world. Let heretics perish as they are, and let them find that they become what they are not.”[8] https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9etsimu.htm (against Old Catholics)

Those who claim the "Church of Christ has apostatized from the world" and is found only in local sects but not in all nations as was explained by the Theologians deny what Our Lord said, what the Pope has said, and what the Catholic Church teaches, about the mark of Her Universality.

Ok, yes, I agree the missing word does change the meaning, but it's not a huge change.  The re-introduction of the word "possibly" simply means that it's +Bellarmine's OPINION than a "non-failing faith" would remain in St Peter's successors.  All this goes back to the age-old debate on if a pope can become a heretic.  +Bellarmine argued both sides but did admit it was possible for a pope to become a heretic, so his use of "possibly" just confirms his view.  This is not groundbreaking.

But it does change the meaning.  One is a positive statement that this did NOT transmit to the successors of Peter, the other the implication that it likely did, but it's possible that it did not.  Those are entirely different.  St. Robert Bellarmine holds the position that it DID transmit, but he does not consider that position to be completely certain.

Van Noort in his ecclesiology manual also speculates about the possibility in a nuclear age that the Church could be reduced to a small remnant gathered around the pope.  Msgr Fenton also talks about the indefectibility of the local church of Rome with the implication that all the other sees could defect.  Fr. Berry and Fr Edmund O'Reilly also imply that the Church could be reduced to a small remnant.  I don't hear anyone accusing these men of heresy.  Hypocrits.

You, Fr. Kramer, are a mentally deranged con man and a habitual liar.  All you do is repeat that same lies and idiotic errors over and over again.

Hello PaxChristi2, if you are indeed Mr. Salza or Siscoe, then if you do not mind, please answer these questions:

1. Given that Fr. Gruner also believed that Pope Francis was not the Pope ,and that Benedict was still Pope, (and that Fr. Gruner was the one that encourage Fr. Kramer to write his book on this debate) would you have publicly debated and even verbally attacked him as well? (Assuming Fr. Gruner had been more public with his beliefs on Pope Francis).

2. Do you believe that there is a Conciliar Church, an if so, what is your definition of it?

3. Although you and Dr. Chojnowski had a falling out, do you believe that the evidence of the various experts provide a plausible case for an imposter Sister Lucy?

4. Do you believe that the evidence provided here https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/collection-of-sspx-resistance-writings/ proves there has been a change in the SSPX and do you approve of these changes?
 
Thank you!

Well then, Pax Vobis, if one considers the problematic consequences of there being a heretic pope, the irresolvable situation it would create suffices to prove that such a thing as a heretic pope is impossible. 1) If a pope is a heretic, he cannot be judged by the Church, because as pope, he is defined (de fide) to be the supreme judge of all disputes in matters of faith; and to his exclusive jurisdiction belongs the authority to determine with finality all judgments of the Church in matters of faith. 2) It is de fide that to the full power of his universal primacy of jurisdiction pertains the authority to bind the whole Church. For so long as he is pope; it is his exclusive right to bind the whole Church. Hence, it is HERESY to say that a council can issue a vitandus order against the pope binding the whole Church.
     If anyone is a manifest heretic (i.e. one who is manifestly obstinate in his public disbelief of even one article of faith): that person is severed from the body of the Church suapte natura by his heresy (Mystici Corporis), and loses ipso jure whatsoever office he held, according to the unanimous consensus of the Fathers (as Bellarmine explains in De. Rom. Pont. lib. ii cap. xxx), and according to the universal statutory law of the Roman Church. Hence, 3) A manifest heretic is an incapable subject of any ecclesiastical office; but if he were to remain in office as pope, even as a manifest heretic who is visibly outside until he is judged by the Church; he could never be removed because he is the supreme and final judge of all cases (de fide); but then as a publicly contumacious heretic he would be visibly severed from the body of the Church but would still retain his office, jurisdiction, and papal dignity. But this is also impossible, because as a public heretic he is ipso jure deprived of office. Thus, the mass of multiple irresolvable contradictions that would result from a pope being a pertinacious heretic proves that such a thing as a heretic pope is impossible. Therefore, the greatest theologians, (some of whose names I enumerated in an earlier comment) were correct in saying that such a thing as a heretic pope is impossible; and that divine providence will never permit such a thing.

 Fr. Gleize also comes up with a similar conclusion that a true Pope cannot fall into formal heresy:

https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/question-papal-heresy-part-4-20547


Infallibility and Heresy


Having made these distinctions and clarifications, let us try to frame the problem before us: can the Pope fall into heresy? The Pope is a man called by God to exercise the supreme and universal power of jurisdiction (and therefore of the Magisterium or teaching office) over the whole Church. As a man, he remains, like all his fellow human beings, subject to error. In order for him not to be subject to error, it is necessary for God to have given him an explicit assurance, while specifying the limits within which he will enjoy this infallibility; and this assurance was given by God in restricted circuмstances, outside of which there is no reason to say that the Pope is infallible. More precisely, any and all exercise of his function does not fall within these limits, but only one type of particular actions, the performance of which may appear clearly by means of the criteria of locutio ex cathedra (speaking from the teacher’s seat, authoritatively).

All theologians acknowledge that outside these limits the Pope is not infallible even though some of them have gone so far as to maintain that he would ordinarily be inerrant. (For further reading, see Jean-Baptiste Franzelin, De divina traditione (4th ed. 1896), thesis 12, appendix 1, principle 7 and its corollaries, pp. 118-141; Dublanchy, “Infaillibilité du pape, ”Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, col. 1711-1712; Straub, De Ecclesia, nos. 968 ff.; and Lucien Choupin, S.J., Valeur des décisions doctrinales et disciplinaires du Saint-Siège (Paris: Beauchesne, 1913), pp. 87-92). Consider also the words of the Dominican theologian Fr. Thomas Pègues, cited by Choupin, op. cit., p. 55.
  

It could be, strictly speaking, that this teaching would be subject to error. We have a thousand reasons to believe that it is not. It probably never has been and it is morally certain that it never will be. But absolutely it could be, in the sense that God does not guarantee it as He guarantees teaching that is formulated by way of definition.”

To What Point a Pope Can Err?
  
It is therefore not a contradiction that the man who is Pope should be mistaken, even in the exercise of his office, and even to the point of heresy. But this conclusion is drawn on the universal level, which is the level of mere possibility, that is, the compatibility of abstract notions; it does not apply to a real risk in matters of fact, or to a greater or lesser probability, much less to a frequency. Consequently, even though it may be indubitable, this conclusion would not be tantamount (at least not yet) to the statement that Pope Francis is heretical.
The Pope can err to the point of at least material heresy: no theologian disputes that. The question being debated is not whether he could fall as far as formal heresy, with pertinacity. In fact, the passage from material heresy to formal heresy depends as such on the internal forum and remains unverifiable. The only question that matters is what may happen in the external forum. From this perspective, it is plain that the Pope can fall into occult heresy: not only private heresy but even public heresy.

Can a Pope Fall in Notorious Heresy?
  
On the other hand, if we are talking about notorious heresy, it is obvious that he cannot during his lifetime: notorious heresy is in fact heresy that is declared by the competent superior, and since the Pope has no superior here on earth, no one is competent to declare his heresy canonically. From a strictly canonical perspective, the Pope therefore during his lifetime could fall only into occult heresy. Once he has died, his heresy can obviously be declared by his successor and become notorious. But that does not authorize us to say that the Pope could fall into notorious heresy, since by definition this fall could take place only during his lifetime.
This authorizes us only to say that a Pope could be anathematized posthumously, provided that we are not misled by the expression, since a deceased pope is no longer Pope. In reality, this anathema pertains strictly speaking not to his person but to his statements: the heresy is notorious, but it is so if it is understood not in the first sense, as a person’s moral act, but in the second sense, as the doctrinal description of a proposition. 

Cases Before and After Vatican II


 As for what has happened in fact, the response is twofold, depending on whether it concerns past facts from the period before Vatican II or present facts, from the period inaugurated by Vatican II. In the case of the former, only Pope Honorius was anathematized posthumously, strictly speaking not as heretical but as having favored heresy; on the other hand, his successors, St. Agatho and St. Leo II, never proclaimed the posthumous dethronement of Honorius, who never ceased to be recognized thereafter as a legitimate pope. (For a more detailed discussion, consult the article “Une crise sans précédents” that appeared in the journal of the Institut Universitaire saint Pie X, Vu de haut 14 (automne 2008), pp. 78-95).

In the case of the present period, no canonical declaration has yet occurred to declare juridically the notoriety of what might be the heresy of the conciliar popes. Can we speak nonetheless about an occult heresy? It is at least beyond doubt that the attitude of these popes complies with the presuppositions of liberalism and modernism, which have been condemned by the Magisterium, and that these popes therefore favor heresy, inasmuch as they preach and put into practice the teachings of Vatican Council II and carry out all the reforms that result from it.

Modern Theologians Say Papal Heresy is Impossible
  

This is why, considering the apparently unanimous statements by theologians of the modern era (who consider the heresy of a pope as improbable), we respond first that their opinion does not deny that the Pope could fall into heresy; it denies that he could fall into formal and public heresy, even if it were not notorious. We respond secondly that the theological tradition is fallible and capable of reform, even if it is temporarily unanimous, since it is not constant. For example, in considering the matter concerning the Scholastic theologians who all thought unanimously that the matter of the sacrament of Holy Orders was the conferral of the instruments, Franzelin comments, op. cit., thesis 17, nos. 360-362:
  

"Even if one could demonstrate that the consensus existed temporarily, it was not constant and, as we said, it is an argument thanks to which we prove that such a consensus, if there was one, pertained not to a firm and certain way of thinking (avis) but to an opinion.”

The episode that we have been going through for fifty years could therefore lead theologians to revise and refine the position that had been followed since the sixteenth century. All the more since one among them, Fr. Dublanchy, op. cit., concluded in very measured terms: “This opinion is worth as much as the reasons that support it; but it is by no means guaranteed by the Church nor adopted by theologians as a whole.” We see clearly also that at the time of Vatican Council I, Msgr. Zinelli, likewise cited by the one raising the objection, affirms nothing categorical. Deeming it at most probable that the Pope will never fall into heresy, he immediately adds that, even if God were to permit it, He would not leave His Church defenseless and at the mercy of that tyranny.

As for the argument from reason which is thought to support this opinion, we respond that even if absolute personal infallibility was advisable for the exercise of the office, this would only be a matter of suitability [convenance]. Such a privilege is not included in the promise of papal infallibility, which concerns the office only; besides, revelation says nothing about it. Sound reason even leads us to think that this infallibility is not strictly necessary: someone who tries to prove too much proves nothing, and one would run the risk of devaluating infallibility while trying to extend it beyond its limits. Therefore it remains possible that the Pope might err personally in the faith, although his office would never be engaged solemnly in the service of heresy.

Recent Popes and Heresies
  

The events that followed Vatican Council II, incidentally, sufficiently show this. Here is the analysis of Fr. Roger-Thomas Calmel, taken from his unpublished 1973 manuscript L’Église plus grande que le pape, which is preserved in the personal archives of Archbishop Lefebvre at the Saint Pius X Seminary in Ecône.
  

"The privilege of infallibility will always preserve the Pope from changing the religion formally. But, even without formal changes, attempts [to make them] or acts of complicity or cowardice can go very far and become a very cruel trial for Holy Church. The modernist system, more precisely the modernist apparatus and procedures, offer the Pope a brand new occasion of sin, a possibility of evading his mission that had never before been proposed to him. Once the twofold modernist principle was admitted: first, universal reform, especially in the case of the liturgy, in the name of a certain pastoral openness to the modern world; secondly the abdication of regular, defined authority in favor of feigned, fleeting, anonymous sorts of authority that are typical of various forms of collegiality—in short, once the twofold principle of modernism penetrated into the Church, this destructive consequence followed: the apostolic tradition in matters of doctrine, morals and worship was neutralized, although it was not killed—without any need for the Pope officially and openly to deny the whole tradition and therefore to proclaim the apostasy.”

As for the argument that would cite history as its authority, we respond that, certainly, no pope has ever fallen into notorious heresy, but nonetheless some popes favored heresy and some still do. And that one of them was anathematized as “favens haeresim” posthumously.

Considering the statements by theologians from the medieval period, who consider papal heresy probable, even though these theologians think that the Pope can fall into not only material heresy but even formal and public heresy, it must be noted that they nevertheless do not maintain that the Pope’s heresy would be notorious.

As for the facts of history cited by these theologians, they prove at most that the Pope can be materially heretical and favor heresy publicly, but not that he should be formally heretical in a notorious manner.

Mr. G, I don't think you would find much opposition on that point from sedes.  All the popes since the death of Pope Pius XII have been shown to be heretics long before they made any claim on the papacy.  In which case, they never obtained the Holy See to begin with.  That they continued to be heretics after their supposed election is also quite manifest.  It could certainly be used as evidence that the election was illegitimate.  If it can be proved definitively that popes cannot ever fall into heresy, then a manifestly heretical pope proves that the election was defective.  In which case, there is no need to depose the pope at all.  The Siscoe and Salza argument becomes a moot point.

Fr. Gleize also comes up with a similar conclusion that a true Pope cannot fall into formal heresy:

I actually believe this as well; I just don't think these men were true popes in the first place, but plants and infiltrators.