CK, your earlier definition of the phrase "ontological Pope" was as follows:

So, to answer your question, I would say that I agree:

IF the Pope's intention was really to deny a Church dogma, then he would lose the papal munus because he would be the enemy of Christ.

BUT IF, INSTEAD, the Pope's intention was not to deny a Church dogma (e.g., an oversight or mistake), then he would not lose the papal munus because it was only an apparent heresy.

If the former, the Pope would ignore warnings and fail to clarify his statements, like Bergoglio has done. If the latter, he would immediately try to set things right, like John XXII did.

But, Canon Law says that in either case, upon his public profession of apparent heresy, he legally loses all authority to govern the Church until he recants, clarifies, etc.

Ok. Then please explain the process, as you see it, for establishing what you are calling "pertinacious" heresy. How does your conception of that process align with an ipso facto and ipso jure "loss of office" described in Canon 188.

And please try to use the terminology used in Canon Law itself. You are using the word "formal." But in Canon 2217, the word "formal" [ferendae sententiae] is technically defined in opposition to "automatic" [latae sententiae]. We must use precise language so we are not talking past one another.


Can 2217

§1. Poena dicitur:

1º Determinata, si in ipsa lege vel praecepto taxative statuta sit; indeterminata, si prudenti arbitrio iudicis vel Superioris relicta sit sive praeceptivis sive facultativis verbis;
 2º Latae sententiae, si poena determinata ita sit addita legi vel praecepto ut incurratur ipso facto commissi delicti; ferendae sententiae, si a iudice vel Superiore infligi debeat;
 3º A iure, si poena determinata in ipsa lege statuatur, sive latae sententiae sit sive ferendae; ab homine, si feratur per modum praecepti peculiaris vel per sententiam iudicialem condemnatoriam, etsi in iure statuta; quare poena ferendae sententiae, legi addita, ante sententiam condemnatoriam est a iure tantum, postea a iure simul et ab homine, sed consideratur tanquam ab homine.

 §2. Poena intelligitur semper ferendae sententiae, nisi expresse dicatur eam esse latae sententiae vel ipso facto seu ipso iure contrahi, vel nisi alia similia verba adhibeantur.


Canon 2217 (1983 CIC 1314–15)

§ 1. A penalty is called:

1.° Determinate if it is taxatively established in the law itself or a precept; indeterminate
if it is left to the prudent judgment of the judge or of the Superior, whether [it is
expressed in] preceptive or facultative words;
2.° Automatic if a determinate penalty is added to the law or precept such that it is
incurred upon the fact of the delict being committed; formal if it must be inflicted by
a judge or Superior;
3.° Of law if a determinate penalty is established in the law itself, whether automatic or
formal; of man if it is imposed by means of a special precept or by condemnatory
judicial sentence, even though it is established in the law; wherefore a formal
penalty added to the law before a condemnatory sentence is only of law, afterward
[it is] both of law and of man, but it is considered only of man.

§ 2. A penalty is always considered formal, unless it is expressly said to be automatically
contracted or upon the fact or by the law, or unless other similar words are used.

Let's look at the actual words as they exist in Canon Law:

"Public" : This word is definitely included in Canon 188.4 when it says the cleric "Publicly defects...." Canon 2197 provides the canonical definition of the phrase: "A delict is Public, if it is already known or is in such circuмstances that it can be and must be prudently judged that it will easily become known;"

"Manifest" : The expression "ipso facto" is just another way of saying "manifest". That is definitely required by Canon 188. As you say, "manifest" means "evident." More importantly, as I mentioned, it means "apparent" to one perceiving it. In Moral Theology, a merely "material heresy" meets this standard.

"Formal" : This word (or any equivalent) is not found in Canon 188. More importantly, the canonical definition of "formal" (referred to as ferendae sententiae in Canon 2217) is contrary to the sense of the phrase "ipso facto without any declaration" that we find in Canon 188 itself. The censure found in Canon 188 is of the type ipso facto and ipso jure, which is also referred to as latae sententiae, i.e., automatic.

Canon 2242 §2 states that "...in order to incur an automatic [latae sententiae] censure, it suffices that there be a transgression of the law or precept to which is attached an automatic penalty, unless a legitimate cause excused the accused from this.

So, if and only if there is factual evidence of a "legitimate cause" for the Pope's apparent heresy could he avoid the automatic "loss of office." A "legitimate cause" might be, for example, that he had a gun held to his head or that he was under the influence of mind-altering drugs at the time. The facts can speak for themselves. If there are no such facts, there would be no reason to assign a "legitimate cause" for his actions.

Therefore, it should be clear that determining some kind of "formal pertinacity" is not required by Canon 188. All that is required is the expression of "material heresy" in a way that is "public" and, further, that there are no obvious reason to suspect that he did it innocently. He does not need to be interviewed or brought to trial to make such a determination.

CK, please explain the process, as you see it, for sufficiently determining "pertinacity" to satisfy Canon 1325.2. But remember, the process that you come up with cannot be anything other than an ipso facto determination. In other words, the determination of "pertinacity," to be consistent with the sense of Canon 188, must be evident or manifest by the facts surrounding the heretical expression itself. No recourse to interviews or admonitions of the heretic are required. Are we agreed on that much?

Pertinacity is not necessarily manifest in the first instance of the public utterance of a heresy.

In Fr. Paul Kramer’s quote below, he references the work of Fr. Francesco Bordoni titled “SACRUM TRIBUNAL IUDUcuм IN CAUSIS SANCTÆ FIDEI CONTRA HÆRETICOS ET HÆRESI SUSPECTOS“.

“Pertinacity consists in this, that one firmly consents in something or doubts, what he knows to be against faith, and determined by the Church. Thus, pertinacity is the voluntary consent of something, consciously or dubitatively against what one actually knows to be against faith. Thus it is deduced that heresy does not involve perseverance and permanence in the false assertion, since with the error being known the judgment can be made in an instant, such as one who knowingly wills something without a duration of time, therefore the will and the intellect can produce their acts in an instant, be they true and good, or false and evil – therefore also heresy.”
(Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition.)

If a priest, for example, were to give a sermon in which he for the first time publicly asserted that there are four persons of the Blessed Trinity, and that one of them was the Blessed Virgin Mary, his pertinacity would immediately be manifest.  However, in most cases pertinacity is manifest over more than one instance.  It all depends on the indicia (signs, evidence) of heresy as Fr. Paul Kramer teaches.  It should be evident, however, to any Catholic with eyes to see and ears to hear that Jorge Bergoglio is a public manifest formal heretic, and is therefore cut off from membership of the Church.