You are professing the condemned heresy of Conciliarism (Gallicanism). Nobody can judge a pope. The quote by St. Francis de Sales was approved by the Church after Vatican I, and all the approved Catholic sources since then concur with this. You are opposing it and promoting the judging of a pope. This is heresy. It also simply trashes the concept of "ipso facto".

Ipso facto means by the very fact. The Church must establish the fact. Ipso facto loss of office occurs after the Church has established the fact. Some theologians have even said the Church must declare the fact. In either case the fact is established by Church authority. Only a judgement of the Church can determine the facts.

Show me where Vatican I adopted quote by St. Francis de Sales.

136 Church theologians have stated that a Pope can loose his office through heresy. Theologians, saints and doctors of the Church have looked at how the Church judges a Pope for heresy. St. Robert Bellarmine had this to say in De Romano Pontifice book 2 ch. 30 when responding to the third opinion:


"...Firstly, because that a heretical Pope can be judged is expressly held in the Canon, Si Papa, dist. 40, and with Innocent [321]. And what is more, in the Fourth Council of Constantinople, Act 7, the acts of the Roman Council under Hadrian are recited, and in those it was contained that Pope Honorius appeared to be legally anathematized, because he had been convicted of heresy, the only reason where it is lawful for inferiors to judge superiors..."

The famous canon Si Papa of Pope St. Boniface:

"On earth, no mortal should presume to reproach any faults to the Pontiff, because he who has to judge others, should not be judged by anyone, unless he is found deviating from the Faith.”

Question for Asbury Fox:

Are Padre Pio, Josemaría Escrivá, John XXIII and John Paul II all saints?

Actually, Michael Davies explicitly says that he does not understand why, if the new rite of Orders is valid, the Anglican rites of orders is invalid.  But he accepts that, although they are very similar, that one is valid and the other is not.  He provides no concrete reason for this belief other than "faith alone" that it must be so.
I've noticed that the faith of a great number of people attached to the Conciliar sect base their beliefs on "faith alone" for they can provide no rational explanation of many of their beliefs.

On Faith that:
"The new forms, liturgically impoverished though they are, are nevertheless still vested with the sacred significance which the supreme authority of the Catholic Church attaches to its sacraments, ministry, and rites. The docuмents of the Second Vatican Council and the teaching of Pope Paul VI are the contemporary overall context which objectively supplies the due meaning which is no longer explicit in the ritual forms. This is the overriding determinatio ex adiunctis which safeguards the sacramental significance and validity of the new rites".

On faith that the Church and pope are indefectible. If you exclude the possibility of an anti-pope, as Davies does, you are left with the foundation of the "conservative" Novus Ordo church apologists, like the Remnant types (Siscoe, the new SSPX, Ecclesia Dei groups.... ). Basically the pope can do anything.

Ipso facto means by the very fact. The Church must establish the fact. Ipso facto loss of office occurs after the Church has established the fact. Some theologians have even said the Church must declare the fact. In either case the fact is established by Church authority. Only a judgement of the Church can determine the facts.

Show me where Vatican I adopted quote by St. Francis de Sales.

136 Church theologians have stated that a Pope can loose his office through heresy. Theologians, saints and doctors of the Church have looked at how the Church judges a Pope for heresy. St. Robert Bellarmine had this to say in De Romano Pontifice book 2 ch. 30 when responding to the third opinion:


"...Firstly, because that a heretical Pope can be judged is expressly held in the Canon, Si Papa, dist. 40, and with Innocent [321]. And what is more, in the Fourth Council of Constantinople, Act 7, the acts of the Roman Council under Hadrian are recited, and in those it was contained that Pope Honorius appeared to be legally anathematized, because he had been convicted of heresy, the only reason where it is lawful for inferiors to judge superiors..."

The famous canon Si Papa of Pope St. Boniface:

"On earth, no mortal should presume to reproach any faults to the Pontiff, because he who has to judge others, should not be judged by anyone, unless he is found deviating from the Faith.”

Ah, so you get your thinking from the novelties published by Siscoe & Salza!

Two prime errors they have which trashes their own thesis:

1. They attempt to reconcile all theologians just because in their time they were allowed to write what they did. Reconciling is NOT supposed to be done, because theologians help the Church and many of them contained errors. All of which helped the Church come to a conclusion. S&S attempt to revisit and rethink all of them and come to their own reconciled conclusion. This is a false way of treating with theological works. The result will be insane modernist double-talk to try to reconcile truth and error. Opposites cannot be reconciled.

2. S&S have redefined "ipso facto" which is the result of trying to reconcile opposites. That term has always been used to describe the immediate result of the violation of a law. It was never used for the result of a canonical judgment.

1. They attempt to reconcile all theologians just because in their time they were allowed to write what they did. Reconciling is NOT supposed to be done, because theologians help the Church and many of them contained errors. All of which helped the Church come to a conclusion. S&S attempt to revisit and rethink all of them and come to their own reconciled conclusion. This is a false way of treating with theological works. The result will be insane modernist double-talk to try to reconcile truth and error. Opposites cannot be reconciled.

 
The Church has never officially defined the process of how a Pope is deposed. There is no official Church teaching. The common opinion of the theologians has been that the Popes can loose their office through heresy. 136 Church theologians are in agreement. Only Bouix disagreed. The greatest saints and doctors of the Church have commented. Four of the greatest theologians are in agreement. That would be Bellarmine, Suarez, Cajetan, and John of St. Thomas. Before and after Vatican I, their teachings on the deposition of a Pope continue to be taught by the theologians of the Church.

"All of which helped the Church come to a conclusion."

There has been no conclusion. The Church has never defined any teaching on the deposition of a Pope.

The Church has declared them saints. I don't think they should have been saints.  It was a mistake. This is possible because canonizations are not infallible. With the changes Pope John Paul II made to the canonization process, the common opinion of theologians today is that canonizations are not infallible.

Padre Pio is a true saint. Worthy of being a saint. Not the other three.

Interesting development here. You say nothing about the meaning of "ipso facto". Does this mean that you see the error?


As well, if St. Francis de Sales is opposite to another historical theological opinion, as I said before, opposites cannot be reconciled.

No. I still hold to my position. A Pope is judged a heretic by the Church through an ecuмenical council and he falls from his office ipso fact from that point in time. The ipso facto occurs once the Church has found him to be a heretic. That is what St. Francis de Sales meant. It is not ipso facto at the moment of the sin, but at the moment of conviction of the crime. St. Francis de Sales holds to the positions of Bellarmine and Suarez. Francis de Sales, Bellarmine, Cajetan, John of St. Thomas are all in agreement on the necessity of the Church to judge the crime, but the disagreement is at what point in time a Pope looses his office after Church judgement.  

Also, if you claim it has never been defined by the Church, then what gives you the right to insist that the truth is the reconciliation of all the historical opinions and not let everyone choose their preference?

I have no problem with everyone choosing their theological opinions regarding the deposing of a Pope, but I am going  to insist that the Cajetan/John of St. Thomas version to be the correct one. Just because Pope Pius XII defined the dogma of the Assumption of Mary de fide in 1950, doesn't mean it wasn't true before 1950 in the preceding 19 centuries.

While deposing a Pope is open to debate, what is not, is heretical position of the Sedevacantist sect's position on the Pope and the Church. That there has been no Pope since 1958 is heretical denying of Vatican I's teaching on perpetual Popes. Because Popes fall into heresy and go crazy, does not give Catholics the right to go crazy and fall into heresy themselves. That there has been no Pope since 1958, when six conclaves have occurred, and have elected six men to the papacy, is heretical insanity.