But didn't you imply that the "recognition" has to be explicitly expressed by the heretic, that is, that he explicitly admit that he knows he is teaching heresy?

Without an explicit recognition, we cannot say that he knows he is teaching heresy.  We, and the Church herself, cannot see into the conscience of anyone.  De internis Ecclesia non judicat.  Prummer presumes the reader will already be aware of this.

Without an explicit recognition, we cannot say that he knows he is teaching heresy.  We, and the Church herself, cannot see into the conscience of anyone.  De internis Ecclesia non judicat.  Prummer presumes the reader will already be aware of this.

Therefore, you are in effect admitting that a judge in a canonical trial cannot render a guilty verdict for heresy against the one on trial unless the one on trial explicitly admits that he is a heretic.  We both know that that is ridiculous.  Please stop with this nonsense.

As proven at www.antipope.com, Bergoglio was never lawfully-elected Pope to begin with. But as of 2016, he was not even capable of holding any office in the Church.

.

I'm curious, Angelus, is there anyone else in the world who agrees with your "obvious" interpretation of Universi Domini Gregis and the conclusions you draw from it? Anyone at all?

Therefore, you are in effect admitting that a judge in a canonical trial cannot render a guilty verdict for heresy against the one on trial unless the one on trial explicitly admits that he is a heretic.  We both know that that is ridiculous.  Please stop with this nonsense.

No.  A competent authority can bring a suspect to trial and say, "With my authority, I am telling you that when you say the Church teaches 'X', you are dead wrong and in fact teaching heresy.  Recant or become a formal heretic".  Even if the suspect continues to say he is teaching in accordance with the Faith, he nevertheless becomes a formal heretic.

The problem with a materially heretical pope is that no one on Earth has the authority to bring him to trial.  St. Robert Bellarmine says the entire college of bishops together does have that authority.  Let them use it, and if Francis doesn't recant, sedevacantism will become the truth, according to St. Robert.

No.  A competent authority can bring a suspect to trial and say, "With my authority, I am telling you that when you say the Church teaches 'X', you are dead wrong and in fact teaching heresy.  Recant or become a formal heretic".  Even if the suspect continues to say he is teaching in accordance with the Faith, he nevertheless becomes a formal heretic.

The problem with a materially heretical pope is that no one on Earth has the authority to bring him to trial.  St. Robert Bellarmine says the entire college of bishops together does have that authority.  Let them use it, and if Francis doesn't recant, sedevacantism will become the truth, according to St. Robert.

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.

Again, let's look closely at what Canon 194 says:

Can. 194 §1. The following are removed from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself:

1/ a person who has lost the clerical state;

2/ a person who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church;

3/ a cleric who has attempted marriage even if only civilly.

§2. The removal mentioned in nn. 2 and 3 can be enforced only if it is established by the declaration of a competent authority.

The "removal" from office happens automatically from a legal perspective. This means that the person who "defects from the Catholic faith" no longer has any authority that his office would have given him. This "removal" of his legitimacy happens without any action of any other human being.

The "enforcement" of the "removal" requires that a competent authority make a declaration. So, before sending in the police to force Bergoglio to physically leave the Vatican, the competent authority would have to "declare" his removal. But from the perspective of Canon Law, his "removal" from office already took place before the physical "enforcement" of it.

What this means practically is that the moment a papal claimant "defects from the Catholic faith" all Catholics must cease to recognize that he has any right to be called "the Pope" and ceases to have any legitimate authority over the true Church and its members. The fact that he has "captured" the Vatican (and the minds of all the blind "Catholics") does not relieve us from our duty to recognize that he is no longer Pope and act accordingly.

Good post, Angelus.

Uhhhh, no.


This is the whole point of the debate between +Bellarmine and Cajetan (and others).  The "practical" aspects of the law can only happen AFTER the authorities take action (i.e. declare and remove).  Before the authorities take action, then we can only "theoretically" stop listening/resist such a heretic.

The debate still rages on 500 years later.  It's not a settled question, so quit acting like it is.

Pax, this is not a debate between Bellarmine and Cajetan. We are discussing Canon Law. We were referencing 1983 Canon Law. But essentially the same concepts/processes are present in 1917 Canon Law. So this isn't simply a theological debate. It is the current law of the Church.

And when you say "AFTER the authorities take action (i.e., declare and remove)" you seem to be conflating those two terms. But they are different. The "removal" or "vacancy" happens automatically (ipso jure) without any "authorities" taking any kind of action. It is a legal "removal/vacancy." The "enforcement" of the "removal/vacancy" is the thing that requires the "authorities to take action." If those terms meant the same thing, why would Canon law use two different words with different trigger mechanisms?

Here is the Canon 194 (1983) again. Read carefully:

Can. 194 §1. The following are removed from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself:

1/ a person who has lost the clerical state;

2/ a person who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church;

3/ a cleric who has attempted marriage even if only civilly.

§2. The removal mentioned in nn. 2 and 3 can be enforced only if it is established by the declaration of a competent authority.

Here is the same concept expressed in 1917 Canon law in Canon 188:

Can. 188 Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric:
...
4. Publicly defects from the Catholic Faith.

Canon 2314 §1. All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic:

  1. They automatically incur excommunication;
  2. Unless they respect warnings, they shall be deprived of a benefice, dignity, pension, office, or other office, if they have any in the Church, they shall be declared infamous, and the clerics, with repeated warning, shall be deposed;
  3. If they have given their name to a non-Catholic sect or publicly adhered to it, they are automatically infamous and, according to the firm provision of can. 188, no. 4, the clerics, having been warned unsuccessfully, are degraded [laicized].

So, the ecclesiastical office becomes legally "vacant" at the moment that the officeholder "defects from the Catholic faith." Again, meaning he has no legitimate authority in the Church or over the members of the Church. Any laws or decrees he makes are null and void. He has no legitimate power. And he is automatically excommunicated.

The officeholder's actual physical expulsion from the office (changing the locks) happens only after two warnings.

2/ a person who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church;

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