What we know for certain is that Archbishop Vigano rejects Jorge Bergoglio as a true pope.  In regards to the conciliar popes, I think he is suspending judgment.  In the same interview, Archbishop Vigano wrote "Pope" Benedict XVI a couple of times.

Agreed.  But that doesn't make him "sede".

I am the one who downvoted you twice, because I find it ridiculous how quickly trads and armchair theologians dismiss everything Bp. Guerard des Lauriers (look up his CV) wrote ...

Anyway, I attached the Cahiers de Cassiciacuм volume 1 where you might find the definition of "papal communication exercised by Christ". IIRC, it is defined in terms of what Bp. GdL likes to call "être avec" ("to be with [Jesus Christ]"), which is derived by symmetry from that which Our Lord said: "I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (St. Matthew XXVIII, 20).

Honestly, I'm not interested in this discussion. You either take or leave what Bp. GdL says in the interview posted above and in the material that I attached. I just had to stick my head out after downvoting you, lest you thought that it was Incredulous.

Ave María Purísima

You downvoted me for asking my interlocutor to show where the Church has ever taught that a pope must have "the intention to receive the papal Communication eersed by Christ" to become Pope," and to provide a definition of a phrase in question, so we will know exactly what we are talking about?

How can we know what is being discussed if we don't know what that phrase means?  And why would we even discuss the opinion if the opinion, since novelty is "the sure sign of heresy"? 

If you are a Traditional Catholic you should hold to tradition, and you should be extremely leary of any 
"novel term," which is one of the tatics Modernists use to deceive (see Pascendi, Pius X).

How can we know what is being discussed if we don't know what that phrase means?  And why would we even discuss the opinion if the opinion, since novelty is "the sure sign of heresy"? 

Correction: How can we know what is being discussed if we don't know what that phrase means?  And why would we even discuss the opinion if the opinion is a novelty, since novelty is "the sure sign of heresy"? 

It is clear that Gerard des Lauriers founded a New Church that teaches a New Religion.  The Catholic Church has never taught that a man legally elected pope by a conclave must have the intention to receive the papal communication exerised by Christ," nor has it taught that this alleged intention must be manifested by habitually conforming to it.

I am curious why anyone would accept this novel doctrine of the new religion established by Gerard des Lauriers?

“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”

(Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis

I am entirely familiar with that quote. But what I asked for is the quote that defines, as a dogma (which requires the assent of divine and Catholic Faith, per Catholic Knight) that "the sin of manifest formal heresy" by its nature severs a person from the Church.  No where does that quote mention the words formal, manifest or even sin (in the Latin); nor is the quote a dogmatic definition that requires the assent of divine and Catholic faith.

Can you walk me through the steps you used to arrive at this moral certitude, or at least provide the syllogism?

Can 188.4: Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric publicly defects from the Catholic Faith.
The Spanish edition says "publicly apostatizes" instead of "publicly defects"
Cabreros comments the following: The action for which the resignation occurs must be done voluntarily, following the conditions of canon 185, but with this condition meet, the office loss is necessarily produced.

Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, q. 12, art. 1, obj. 2 [···] if anyone were to have himself circuмcised, or to worship at the tomb of Mahomet, he would be deemed an apostate.




Also, if the new rites of consecration are invalid, Francis and Benedict where never Bishops. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome, therefore &c.

4) Lastly, since many theologians (e.g. Garrigou-Lagrange) maintain that if a pope fell into heresy, and ceased to be a member of the Church, he could nevertheless remain a true Pope, can you show where the Church has ever taught the contrary? 

Did Lagrange really mantain that, with that words? It is illogical. The Pope is the head of the church, thus is inside the church. The heretical Pope ceases to be a member of the church, thus is outside the church. The principle of no contradiction is violated.

Will one of those who downvoted me explain why they accept the new religion of Gerard des Lauriers, which teaches the two novel doctrines discussed above.  For the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone would accept his New Religion or the two novel doctrines he invented as the basis or it.

A new Religion just because, arguendo, he taught a new ecclesiology?????? That's really rash.

Thank you for replying Catholic Knight.  Since those are the facts you used to arrive at moral certitude, you provide the following"

1) Show where the Church defined that "the sin of manifest formal heresy by its nature separates the heretic from the Church?"

2) Can you provide an authoritative definition of "the sin of manifest formal heresy," since I cannot recal ever reading that phrase in any magisterial docuмent or theology manual.

3) After defining the phrase, can you provide the evidence that Francis met the Church's definition of one who has committed the sin of manifest formal heresy."

4) Lastly, since many theologians (e.g. Garrigou-Lagrange) maintain that if a pope fell into heresy, and ceased to be a member of the Church, he could nevertheless remain a true Pope, can you show where the Church has ever taught the contrary? 

1) It is the teaching of the Church through her Universal and Ordinary Magisterium, the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, and the unanimous teaching of the theologians that the public sin of manifest formal heresy by its very nature separates the heretic from the Church.  The example provided by Mr. G is a good one.

2) The public sin of manifest formal heresy occurs when one advertently and willingly denies or doubts a teaching of the Church that must be believed with Divine and Catholic Faith.

3) It should be obvious that Jorge Bergoglio doesn't have a Catholic bone in his body.  Even semi-trads and those of the Novus Ordo acknowledge such.  Anyways, see here, for example. 

4) Garrigou-Lagrange was speaking about occult heresy.  Yes.  He did admit that occult heresy causes one to separate from the Church, but the more common opinion is that occult heresy does not cause one to separate from the Church.  Even so, we do not know his view of public heresy.  It could be that in regards to public heresy, because the separation would be visible, then the putative pope would fall from office.  Think about it this way:  since no one (or a few) would know that a occult heretic pope ceased to be a member, Our Lord would retain him as pope until his heresy became public.  I am not saying that this is true.  I am just giving a potential explanation assuming that Garrigou-Lagrange was correct.  Nevertheless, the matter at hand is about public heresy and not occult heresy.