10. Returning to Fr. Boulet, we see that next he addresses the question of papal jurisdiction and heresy.

3.3. Jurisdiction of the heretic: Being cut off at the root, the jurisdiction of the heretic does not disappear automatically, but it will remains [sic] as much and as long as it is maintained by a superior authority. This will happen if the Pope maintains the jurisdiction of a heretical bishop who has not yet been punished according to Canons 2264 and 2314. But, what happens if the Pope himself falls into heresy? Who has the power to maintain him in his jurisdiction? It is not the Church, or even a group of bishops, for the Pope is always superior to the Church, and he is not bound by ecclesiastical law. According to LNM7 [7 S. Th. II-II, Q. 39, Art 3. Emphasis added.], Christ Himself could maintain, at least for a while, the jurisdiction of a heretical Pope. What would be the reason that would justify maintaining the jurisdiction of a heretical Pope? Theologians have considered different answers to that question. The most serious answer to that key question is to say that Christ would maintain the jurisdiction of a heretical Pope as long as his heresy is not notorious enough and widely publicised. Meanwhile, all the acts of jurisdiction of such a heretical Pope would be valid and, if he was to proclaim a dogmatic definition, such definition would likewise be valid. In such case, the Holy Ghost would speak through the mouth of that Pope, like He spoke through the mouth of Balaam’s ass (Numbers XXII, 28-30). Such conclusion of Xavier de Silveira is perfectly consistent with the thought of St. Robert Bellarmine. The famous Dominican Father Garrigou-Lagrange [8 Arnaldo Xavier da Silveira, op.cit.] reaches the same conclusion. Basing his reasoning on Billuart, he explains in his treatise De Verbo Incarnato (p. 232) that a heretical Pope, while no longer a member of the Church, can still be her head. For, what is impossible in the case of a physical head is possible (albeit abnormal) for a secondary moral head. The reason is that, whereas a physical head cannot influence the members without receiving the vital influx of the soul, a moral head, as is the Roman Pontiff, can exercise jurisdiction over the Church even if he does not receive from the soul of the Church any influx of interior faith or charity. In short, the Pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, but he is head of the visible Church by the jurisdiction and authority which he received, and these can coexist with his own heresy.

Against this, we note the following.

a) Fr. Boulet suggests, with no apparent basis, that jurisdiction is maintained in a heretical bishop by the Pope, in the case that the heretic “has not yet been punished according to Canons 2264 and 2314.” Frankly, this is a startling notion and I cannot see whence it arises, unless Fr. Boulet has also adopted the strange idea that an occult heretic loses membership in the Church, and therefore his jurisdiction with it (unless it is sustained by another power). Da Silveira does not provide any proof of this thesis, and as we have seen already, it seems to conflict with divine law as explained by St. Robert and other authorities, and with canon law (CIC 188,4). In any case, what is asserted without proof falls with a simple denial.

But there is a further point to make in relation to this claim, which is that it omits to mention the other half of the Bellarmine position, viz. that not only would a Pope who became a heretic lose his office ipso facto, but also that if a heretic claimed the papacy his claim would be null from the beginning. Would Fr. Boulet (or da Silveira) argue that Our Lord would not only sustain jurisdiction in a bishop who disappeared into heresy, but also that He would provide ordinary jurisdiction to a heretic who was somehow appointed to an episcopal office?

b) In relation to the papacy, it is alleged by Fr. Boulet that Our Lord Jesus Christ would maintain the jurisdiction of a heretic “Pope” for some period after his disappearance into heresy. He writes, “According to LNM [i.e. da Silveira], Christ Himself could maintain, at least for a while, the jurisdiction of a heretical Pope.” Once again, this is contrary to Bellarmine, and omits mention of the question of a heretic who is elected Pope. But da Silveira offers an interesting proof for it. Let’s read the entire proof and consider its validity.

We judge that the revealed major premise from which we must start is the dogma that the church is a visible and perfect society. As a minor premise, we must put the principle, drawn from nature itself, according to which the events of the public and official life of a visible and perfect society ought to be notorious and publicly divulged. Thence one would conclude that the eventual destitution of the chief of the Church would not be a juridically consummated fact as long as it did not become notorious and publicly divulged.

In scholastic form, we would be able to draw up the following sorites:

• The Church is a visible and perfect society.

• Now, the facts of the official and public life of a visible and perfect society, only become juridically consummated when they are notorious and publicly divulged.

• Now, the loss of the Papacy is a fact of the public and official life of the Church.

• Consequently, the loss of the Papacy only becomes juridically consummated when it is notorious and publicly divulged.

Such a conclusion, flowing from a revealed truth and a premise evident to the natural reason, expresses the sure will of Our Lord. It would not be a formally revealed truth, but a virtually revealed truth, a theological conclusion.

Jesus Christ Himself, therefore, would sustain the jurisdiction of a heretical Pope up to the moment in which his defection in the faith became “notorious and publicly divulged”.11 [11 Da Silveira, op. cit.]

Da Silveira’s major is accepted as is. But his minor is at best ambiguous, simply false in one sense, and of no use in his syllogism in its other possible sense, and unfounded on any authority anyway.

Let’s examine this in detail. I say that his minor is ambiguous, because, at least as it is given to us in English, it only states what ought to happen, not what must of necessity happen. If it was meant in this relative sense, and not as an expression of a metaphysical necessity, then it is of no assistance to the syllogism. If, on the other hand, it was meant in the absolute sense, that only those events and facts which are notorious and publicly divulged have effects in “the public and official life” of the Church, then it is plainly false.

• The Code, for example, says that all offices are lost if a delinquent is guilty of merely “public” heresy. “Public” and “notorious” are distinct and mutually opposed categories in the Code – cf. CIC 2197.

• Bellarmine says that a “manifest” heretic could not become or remain Pope (or indeed hold any office). The technical term “notorious” as a degree of publicity was in common use in his time and he chose not to use it in this place.

• A Pope who dies leaves the Holy See vacant the moment he passes from this world, even if nobody is present.

• A cardinal who accepts election to the papacy is Pope from the moment he accepts, before anybody outside the conclave is informed.
Numerous other proofs could be given, for this “principle” laid down by da Silveira conflicts with reality.

Da Silveira makes his point even more clearly when he presents it in formal terms, viz. “Now, the facts of the official and public life of a visible and perfect society, only become juridically consummated when they are notorious and publicly divulged.” Which is, as we have already seen, a complete invention for which no authority is cited and for which none could be cited.

And as if this weren’t sufficiently clear, da Silveira provides his own final nail, so to speak, by admitting that he differs with the only authorities he has referred to in the course of his tortuous and unsuccessful argument that Our Lord Jesus Christ would sustain the jurisdiction of a Pope who disappeared into heresy. He writes, “Note that the argumentation of which we avail ourselves is not the same as that of Saint Robert Bellarmine, taken up again by Wernz-Vidal. They start from the principle that he who is not, in any way, a member of the Church, cannot be its head. Such argument appears true to us, provided that one adds a clause to it according to which Our Lord would sustain the jurisdiction of a Pope heretic as long as his heresy had not become notorious and publicly divulged. However even formulated thus, this argument raises another question, very much disputed: that of the exact moment when a heretic ceases to be a member of the Church. According to what we think, whatever be that moment, the Pope eventually heretic would only effectively fall from the Pontificate when his defection in the faith turned notorious and publicly divulged.” (Some emphasis added.)

Here we have a complete admission that da Silveira is not presenting and defending the position of Bellarmine (or Wernz-Vidal), and further, that he has developed his own position – if you like, a “sixth opinion” in this long-standing discussion. He even goes so far as to contrast his own argument with the Bellarmine and Wernz-Vidal approach, which rests solidly on the cause and effect stated above – that is, that a non-member of the Church cannot possess habitual jurisdiction. Da Silveira is so far from basing his own argument on that same truth, that he brings in the irrelevant discussion about the exact degree of publicity which suffices to strip a man of membership in the Church. It is certain that a public (or “manifest”) heretic is not a member. That is all that this particular discussion needs, which is why Bellarmine, who was certainly familiar with the degrees of publicity of crimes, did not bring it in. The same observation can be made concerning the greatest of modern canonists Wernz and Vidal, so that one could not argue that since Bellarmine’s time this particular question developed any differently.

Interestingly, Fr. Boulet states that da Silveira’s theory is “perfectly consistent with the thought of St. Robert Bellarmine.” I don’t see how he could have concluded such a thing. When Fr. Boulet adds that “Father Garrigou-Lagrange reaches the same conclusion,” and proceeds to outline briefly the theory of the saintly Dominican, which is entirely contrary to Bellarmine’s, we must part company completely. Garrigou-Lagrange teaches that a heretic Pope would remain Pope; Bellarmine teaches that he would lose the papacy ipso facto by operation of divine law. The two theories are diametrically opposed.

Vatican I, under Infallibility proved that before a Pope is elected Pope, (heretic) Proof is they were a heretic before becoming Pope. This had to be proven to define infallibility. So, again, define "Pope".  If you are trying to show a cardinal, elected and voted Pope, he would be Catholic.  But Vat.I shows, election invalid, if cardinal is a heretic, before elected Pope.  

How so, pray tell?  You provide nothing by way of reference or attribution.  

Vatican I, under Infallibility proved that before a Pope is elected Pope, (heretic) Proof is they were a heretic before becoming Pope. This had to be proven to define infallibility. So, again, define "Pope".  If you are trying to show a cardinal, elected and voted Pope, he would be Catholic.  But Vat.I shows, election invalid, if cardinal is a heretic, before elected Pope.  

This is a novel idea and nothing more - it is found no where in tradition, certainly nowhere in Vatican 1.
You may be confusing this with some other council - please quote your source.

Vatican I.  The question of a heretical pope if he becomes a heretic?  It was answered that "there has never been such a case; the council of bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be pope, being deposed by God Himself.
Source: Fr. James McGovern, The Life and Work of Pope Leo XIII. pg 241

So according to Fr. James McGovern, theoretically, (not theologically) a pope could lose and regain his crown as often as he was judged to be heretical and then later retracted his heresy. Who the heck is Fr. McGovern to make such a silly claim? You really should read Vatican 1 and you will see this Fr. McGovern is an obvious fraud. If you did read Vatican 1, you would see that it is a novel idea of Fr. McGovern to teach that a council of bishops could depose the pope for heresy.............Decrees of the First Vatican Council they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecuмenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff

This teaching of Vatican 1 agrees with cuм ex Apostolatus Officio This Constitution teaches: the Roman Pontiff,who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith.

Some theologians reasonably maintain, that a true pope, one validly elected, cannot become a heretic, , because of special divine protection, and cannot for that reason fall from the papacy, then the only logical conclusion to draw is that a heretic occupying the Chair of Peter was a heretic already before being elected, and could therefore not have been a legitimate valid candidate for election to the papacy to begin with. source: Is Papal Infallibility reasonable pg. 10 and John Abbo and Jerome Hannan, the Sacred Canons, p. 562 Canon 1325

The pope is not Divine, he is a human and will be judged before God same as the rest of us - alone, naked and accused. He can and does sin like the rest of us - *that* is why it is our duty as faithful Catholics to pray for the pope every day - that is our duty. It is not your duty, or mine, or the Magisterium's, or even the whole Church all together to judge him as being a non-pope because he is a heretic. The only one who can do that is God or some future pope....in the mean time, if you accept what is certain because it is infallibly taught, you will not make yourself judge over the pope.

These "theologians" you are relying upon are obvious liars in light of infallible teachings which contradict the false teaching of a pope losing his office because he is a heretic. As you see from the above certainly true Church teachings, none in this world are capable of passing judgement upon the pope for anything whatsoever - if you do not see this truth, then you must need to  keep reading and praying till it finally sinks in.
 

Stubborn: Who says we can not judge? Christ said to us, "You will know them by their fruits."  You must judge many things and person every day and you will know them by their fruits.  You choose cars, homes, person to take on jobs, a spouse and so on.  Holy Mother Church has always operated on Reason as well.  Choosing and electing a Pope is obvious.  God is our Head of the Mystical Body of Christ.  Pope defines laws,, dogmas and such.  You will know them by their fruits! Christ words.  They will be in sheeps clothing, Christ words, to us!  

I'm sorry no one is helping you out songbird.  It gets tiring responding to the same objections that have been responded to, and that cannot be refuted, over and over again.  

The latest is not even an objection but a series of non-sensible and contradictory satatements where even the point he is trying to make is not clear.  

The axiom towards faith itself can be applied to accepting facts:

For those with faith no [further] proof is necessary.

For those without faith no proof is sufficient.

You would replace the word " with faith" with "who are properly  instructed" "who are reasoned" "who are logical" "who aresincere" or "who are intellectually honest".  

Better yet:

"People believe what they want to believe."

Define Pope!  He was  not validly bishop and he certainly is not pope.  Chapter 12 of Daniel will come to be.  No continual sacrifice will take place thanks to those who play the scheme that the pope is pope and keep following the "nothing".

Quote from: songbird

Define Pope!  He was  not validly bishop and he certainly is not pope.  Chapter 12 of Daniel will come to be.  No continual sacrifice will take place thanks to those who play the scheme that the pope is pope and keep following the "nothing".

He is pope who has been legally elected by the College of Cardinals, and is thought to be and accepted as the pope by the universal Church.  He remains the pope until either he resigns his office, or almighty God removes him in death.  

Fr. Wathen explains it like this, which agrees with cuм ex Apostolatus Officio ................

........Contrary to such reasoning, it is within the Conciliar Establishment that one finds the historical and structural continuity of the True Church; even though they are servicing Satan, those who hold ecclesiastical offices hold them legitimately.  Those who say otherwise have not proved that because these men are apostates from the Faith, they cannot be considered to hold any offices.  "One who is no longer a Catholic," they say, "cannot possibly hold an office within the Church, nor exercise legitimate authority."  No, even though these individuals have incurred the censures of the Church's law for heresy, apostasy, the desecration of the churches, the violation of the Sacraments, for these and similar crimes, they continue to be the legitimate authorities of the Church.  And since they do hold these offices, others who seek to interpose themselves into authority over the Catholic faithful, commit schismatical acts in doing so, and themselves incur the penalties of the Code.

If the person who incurs the censure be the pope himself, since there is no tribunal within the Church with the right to pass judgment against him, he cannot be removed from his office, even though he be under censure, and, according to the law, have no right to function as the head of the Church.  We, his subjects, are not permitted to do anything about this.  It is not within our right to declare his acts devoid of validity, due to his having been expelled from his office. Yes, the faithful may know well that he has committed a sin to which a censure is affixed by the Church, but this knowledge in no way qualifies them to declare him deprived of his office, or never to have been elected.  We should have to continue to obey him as the pope in all those religious matters which fall within the ambit of his authority, UNLESS he should command something which is sinful.  

However, even though the hierarchy cannot take legal action against an heretical pope, all of them together, or any one of them in particular, can condemn his teaching; they can accuse him before God's tribunal, warn him of his sins, and remind him of the divine wrath.  Should this measure fail to produce any correction, they can denounce him before his subjects, the Catholic faithful, and warn them that they are not to listen to his teaching.  Indeed, not only may the prelates of the Church do this, they have a most serious obligation to do it, an obligation which is as grave as the heresies are pernicious and scandalous.  And if they fail to do this, they become a party to the pope's crimes, and will most certainly share in his punishment.  

Moreover, where the bishops default in their solemn duty to protect the Church and God's Little Sheep, the priests and the laypeople have not the right, but the duty, to raise their voices against an heretical pontiff.  They not only raise their voices to God in prayer for the misguided man, but they also speak out to the bishops and the priests, and among themselves so as to warn their brothers and sisters in Christ that the plague of heresy has infected even their Holy Father, and has rendered him dangerous and unclean.  

Where your argument fails is in the application of the office in question.  It is relatively easy to say that the Universal Church has accepted the last 5 claimants - but has it? The Novus Ordo is by no means Unified.  Bishops oppose Bishops - Bishops oppose Rome and do pretty much as they please in many parts of the World - the Nuns in America Recently have OPENLY Defied ROME and continue to and are seeking in the court of Public Opinion - a certain legitimacy in their position.   So to say the Universal Church has accepted these last 5 Prelates is a stretch.  The Traditional Catholic is not alone in Defying these so called POPE's Authority.