Canon 188 (1983 CIC 194) Cross-Refs.: 1917 CIC 156, 1444,2168, 2314, 2379, 2388

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;

Your popes

It simply acknowledges what we're witnessing.  Badly trained men pushing out bad doctrine, bad mass, bad blessings, etc.

We agree that no formal, official determination of "pertinacity" is necessary for automatic excommunication for ipso facto heresy, right? That is the type of "pertinacity" I was referring to.

In Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae (1897), Tanquerey explains that in the extraordinary case of a heretical Pope or multiple doubtful Popes, begins by noting that during the First Vatican Council, Bishop Gasser took the occasion to discussed the hypothesis of a Pope falling into heresy, which was considered unlikely, but not impossible. He then explains that if such were to happen, “he would either be ipso facto deprived of the Pontificate, or the body of bishops could (indirectly) depose him, as in the case of doubtful pope: for in these extraordinary cases, the authority devolves to the episcopal body.”[42]
 

In Tractatus De Romano Pontifice (1891), Palmieri explains that it is God, not man, who deprives a heretical Pope of his jurisdiction, but says it doesn’t happen until the Church declares him a heretic. He then references Suarez as the authority for his position:

"If a Pope is obstinate in his heresy—obstinate, I say: for, if he heeds the Church’s admonitions, nothing further is necessary—such a Pope is deposed, not by man, but by God himself, who takes away the jurisdiction that He had given him; the Church, for her part, only declares the man to be a heretic, and then (ideoque) God deprives him of his jurisdiction." (cf. Suarez, Defensio Fidei Catholicae, lib. iv c. 7 n. 5).

In the quotation Palmieri referenced, Suarez says, “although in the case of heresy [the Pope] could be deposed, he is in truth not deposed by man but by God himself, after the declaration of a legitimate Council has preceded.” (Defensio Fidei Catholicae, lib. v c 7 n. 5).

 

In Sacrae Theologiae Summa (1955), Joachim Salaverri teaches the same as Palamerri, and he too references Suarez:

"Theologians concede that a general Council can licitly declare a Pope heretical, if this case [of a Pope falling into heresy] is possible, but it cannot depose him authoritatively since he is superior to the Council … see Suarez, De fide d.10 s.6."[43]

The fact that Salaverri means a sitting Pope can be licitly declared a heretic, is evident from the following quotation from Suarez that he referenced to support his position:

I say thirdly, if a Pope were a heretic and incorrigible, when first, through the legitimate jurisdiction of the Church, a declaratory sentence of the crime is pronounced against him, he ceases to be Pope. This is the common opinion among the doctors. (Suarez, De Fide, disp x, sect. 6.)

In Elements of Ecclesiastical Law (1887), Fr. Smith observes that there are two main opinions concerning how a heretical Pope is deprived of his jurisdiction, and then explains that, “Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the church, i.e., by an ecuмenical council or the College of Cardinals.”[44]

In Summa Apologetica de Ecclesia Catholica (1890), Vincent Groot also teaches that a Pope who falls into heresy is not deprived of his jurisdiction until his heresy is juridically established and declared:

"In the case of a Pope who is a public, legal, notorious, and contumacious heretic… he would have to be deposed by a council of bishops.  But the deposition would not be an act of jurisdiction, since there is no power greater than the Pope, but a declaratory sentence, by which the fact of heresy is juridically established; and once established, the Pope is believed to be deprived of his dignity by divine law."[45]

http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/the-true-meaning-of-bellarmines-ipso.html

Do we agree that "separation from the Church" for a pope (if it were hypothetically possible for a pope to become a heretic) means that he becomes ontologically a non-pope?

Note:  By "ontological pope", I mean a man upon whom Jesus Christ has conferred the papal munus.