Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation

Sorry, you don't get to make this call.  You don't get to privately interpret canon law.  You are not the Church.


Secondly, the most important part of your sentence is "by tacit resignation", which again (for the 500th time) can only be decided by Church authorities....especially in the case where the V2 officials have. not. resigned.  They are still in office, they want to be in office and they are working in their offices.

Do you know what "resign" means?  It means when someone declares they are "stepping down" (explicit) or they just leave and disappear (implicit).

None of this applies to V2 officials and only your wild imagination/private interpretation thinks canon law applies here.

Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation

But sedes declare it all the time.

I agree ^^

  Church authorities are the only ones who can decide 'public defection'.

Unless you're a canon lawyer, your opinion means nothing.

Sure, but your "judgment" is meaningless and is protestant-thinking.

Until the Magisterium/church officials decide on the matter, and apply canon 188.4 to a particular case/person, then i'm not opposing anything.  I can't oppose a judgement which hasn't taken place.  ??

You are "privately interpreting" canon law just like protestants "privately interpret" Scripture.  The Church decides and teaches, in both cases.

If Jorge Bergoglio publicly admitted that he is a heretic and none of the cardinals or bishops did anything about it, would you still consider him to be pope?

You're ridiculous. You are arguing a declaration is needed when it explicitly says it's not. And the canon teaches a public defection from the faith automatically removes one from office tacitly (silently).

Oops.  It looks like Pax Vobis missed it again.

Do you believe that we are all obligated to acknowledge the loss of office, and if we don't acknowledge this, do you consider us heretics?

Because the current situation regarding Jorge Bergoglio is such a serious matter (i.e., a matter of potential schism), you are morally obligated to investigate.  If the evidence of public defection is sufficient, then you are morally obligated to acknowledge the loss of office.

Heresy, at least material, comes into play if you deny that the public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church.   

If the evidence of public defection is sufficient

  Only the church has the authority to investigate and decide if the evidence is sufficient.  


The church is a monarchy with a hierarchical authority.  It is not a democracy nor does it allow (nor has it ever allowed) the kind of Protestant-grassroots-individualistic-decision-making which you describe.  

Nobody cares what you investigate, how you interpret canon law, what your conclusions are, nor any opinion you have on ANYTHING related to Catholicism.  Your opinion matters 0%.  If you think it does, you’re well on your way to following Martin Luther. 

What we do know is that the Holy Spirit protects the papacy from doing this kind of serious damage to the Church.  Bottom line, however, is that they cannot be legitimate Popes acting freely.  That's contrary to the indefectibility of the Church.

What is the nature of the Holy Ghost's guidance of the Papacy?  There are distinctions.

The pope is infallibly prevented from making an error when pronouncing a dogma 'ex cathedra'.  In no other circuмstance is the pope infallible.  Neither in personal morals, nor in sermons, speeches and letters.

Surely the Holy Ghost offers graces of state to the pope, but where is the doctrine that the pope cannot refuse these graces?

If these recent popes were pronouncing their errors as dogma, then we would have our proof.  Note that they consistently refrain from doing this.  Only John Paul II spoke 'ex cathedra', once (and even that can be argued!), to pronounce that no woman could ever be a priest.

We have no proof.  We must behave according to the presumption that they are valid popes.  Presumption!--not certainty.