If a materially heretical pope is violently suspect of heresy, the cardinals/college of bishops can gather to determine whether he is pope by first determining whether he is a public formal heretic.  If they prove that is a public formal heretic, then that would be the evidence that he is not pope.  In the case of Jorge Bergoglio there are two things against him: first, he was not validly elected; second, he is a public formal heretic as demonstrated by his words and actions over the last 10 years.  Therefore, the only thing the cardinals/college of bishops have to do is declare it for the sake of those who are still in the dark.

When a pope is a suspect of heresy, the bishops can convene, not to determine if he is pope, nor to determine if he is a formal heretic.  If he has admitted heresy himself, he loses office automatically without any need for the bishops to meet.  The bishops gather to confront the pope with his heresy.  If after the confrontation he does not renounce his heresy, at that moment he becomes a formal heretic and loses his office.  The bishops don't remove him, it is beyond their authority.  Our Lord removes him, and only after he remains obstinate after the confrontation of the bishops.

Regarding public "defection," I quote the immortal words of Inigo Montoya:

Meg, you continue to confuse two different things:

1. defection from the Catholic faith
2. defection from the Catholic Church

Those bolded words are important. Number 1 is a catch-all phrase referring to "apostasy, heresy, or schism." Number 2 is when a person makes a formal decision to renounce his membership in the Catholic Church.

You might think those two things mean exactly the same thing. They don't. Read this docuмent to understand the canonical difference:

3.  The juridical-administrative act of abandoning the Church does not per se constitute a formal act of defection as understood in the Code, given that there could still be the will to remain in the communion of the faith.

On the other hand, heresy (whether formal or material), schism and apostasy do not in themselves constitute a formal act of defection if they are not externally concretized and manifested to the ecclesiastical authority in the required manner.

If you read carefully, you will understand that while it is possible that a person who "defects from the Church" might also "defect from the faith," it is not necessary that these two things go together.

But a person who "defects from the faith" (through apostasy, heresy or schism), not a person who "defects from the Church," is the person discussed in Canon 184.

The public defection must be formal.

Imagine the young parish priest, who misunderstands a point of doctrine and publicly pronounces heresy in his sermon.  By your interpretation, he ceases at that moment to be the parish priest.  That is not how it works.

A "formal heretic" is a person who is aware of the teaching of the Church but holds something contrary to that Church teaching. 

We are not discussing a "young parish priest." We are talking about Bergoglio. You are trying to make people think that Bergoglio is ignorant of the Church teaching that divorce and remarriage is a mortal sin. Or that Bergoglio is ignorant of the Church teaching that a person in a state of mortal sin cannot worthily receive Holy Communion. Or that Bergoglio is ignorant of the Church teaching that Catholic dogma in those matters cannot evolve in a Modernistic way.

Why do you keep posting this? Bergoglio is not an ignorant "material heretic." He is an extremely knowledgable deceiver. You seem think that he is the Pope, but that he fails to understand the most elementary Catholic teachings on divorce and remarriage and the Eucharist.

Bergoglio's heresy in Amoris Laetitia was formal, public, and obstinate. There is no doubt about that.

  For the 53rd time....WHO decides that the officeholder "defected from the Faith"?  You?  Me?


I say that Benedict defected from the Faith.  Catholic Knight disagrees.
Catholic Knight says that Francis defected.  But Meg disagrees.

So who's right?  Answer:  Nobody is.  Until the Church Authorities say so, then the question is left as debatable.  That's how the church hierarchy works.

If you disagree, then you're preaching a private-interpretation of canon law, which is basically legal-protestantism.

It's not like I don't think that Francis is a heretic. He is. But has he ever said that he is leaving the Catholic Faith for another faith? No, he hasn't. That's what public defection means in the context of the canon law that they keep citing.

The Benevacantists, like some regular sedevacantists, believe that they have it all figured out, and that we are all required to go along with them. Which is nonsense. 

It's not like I don't think that Francis is a heretic. He is. But has he ever said that he is leaving the Catholic Faith for another faith? No, he hasn't. That's what public defection means in the context of the canon law that they keep citing.

As I explained in this post, you are confused about the definition of the phrase "defection from the Catholic faith." You think it means "defection from the Catholic Church." The two things are not necessarily the same, as is pointed out in this docuмent.

Canon 194 says nothing about heresy. Where is the word "heresy" used?

Meg, if you will read this docuмent, you should be able to understand that the entire discussion is clarifying the distinction between the two concepts:

1. Defection from the Catholic Church
2. Defection from the Catholic Faith

...this Pontifical Council questions and requests for clarification concerning the so-called actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica mentioned in canons 1086, § 1, 1117 and 1124 of the Code of Canon Law.  The concept therein presented is new to canonical legislation and is distinct from the other – rather “virtual” (that is, deduced from behaviors) – forms  of “notoriously” or “publicly” abandoning the faith (cfr. can. 171, § 1, 4°; 194, § 1, 2°; 316, § 1; 694, § 1, 1°; 1071, § 1, 4° and § 2).  In the latter circuмstances, those who have been baptized or received into the Catholic Church continue to be bound by merely ecclesiastical laws (cfr. can. 11).

Note the bolded part referencing Canon 194 §1.2. The writer is distinguishing between the concept called "actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica [defection from the Catholic Church] from the other concept that they call "abandoning the faith" which it says is found in Canon 194.

Do you see that? It is the core distinction being made in that docuмent.

A "formal heretic" is a person who is aware of the teaching of the Church but holds something contrary to that Church teaching.

We are not discussing a "young parish priest." We are talking about Bergoglio. You are trying to make people think that Bergoglio is ignorant of the Church teaching that divorce and remarriage is a mortal sin. Or that Bergoglio is ignorant of the Church teaching that a person in a state of mortal sin cannot worthily receive Holy Communion. Or that Bergoglio is ignorant of the Church teaching that Catholic dogma in those matters cannot evolve in a Modernistic way.

Why do you keep posting this? Bergoglio is not an ignorant "material heretic." He is an extremely knowledgable deceiver. You seem think that he is the Pope, but that he fails to understand the most elementary Catholic teachings on divorce and remarriage and the Eucharist.

Bergoglio's heresy in Amoris Laetitia was formal, public, and obstinate. There is no doubt about that.

The example of the young parish priest illustrates the absurdity of your unique attempt at understanding the law.

I cannot forcibly prevent you from passing subjective judgement on the soul of Pope Francis--namely, that he is an "extremely knowledgeable deceiver".  But you are incapable of such judgement (like the rest of us).

The example of the young parish priest illustrates the absurdity of your unique attempt at understanding the law.

I cannot forcibly prevent you from passing subjective judgement on the soul of Pope Francis--namely, that he is an "extremely knowledgeable deceiver".  But you are incapable of such judgement (like the rest of us).

It is objectively obvious that Jorge Bergoglio, the antipope, is familiar with the true Catholic dogma on the matters discussed in Amoris Laetitia. And it is objectively obvious that, in Amoris Laetitia, he is trying to convince Catholics that Catholic dogma can be changed. Since we know that dogma cannot be changed, he attempting to deceive people by suggesting otherwise.

I am capable of judging objectively-verifiable words in an Apostolic Exhortation. No need to get into someone's head, as you seem to think.