CathInfo.com

From the article (which I have been trying to explain to Mr. LaRosa since p.2 of this thread):

"If a Catholic were convinced that John Paul II (or another Pope after Vatican II) is a formal, manifest heretic, should he then conclude that he is no longer pope?

No, he should not, because according to the “common” opinion (Suarez), or even the “more common” opinion (Billuart), theologians think that even a heretical pope can continue to exercise the papacy. For him to lose his jurisdiction, the Catholic bishops (the only judges in matters of faith besides the pope, by Divine will) would have to make a declaration denouncing the pope’s heresy.

Now, in so serious a matter, it is not prudent to go against the common opinion.

But how can a heretic, who is no longer a member of the Church, be its leader or head?

Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, basing his reasoning on Billuart, explains in his treatise De Verbo Incarnato (p. 232) that a heretical pope, while no longer a member of the Church, can still be her head. Indeed, what is impossible in the case of a physical head is possible (albeit abnormal) for a secondary moral head. “The reason is that – whereas a physical head cannot influence the members without receiving the vital influx of the soul – a moral head, as is the [Roman] Pontiff, can exercise jurisdiction over the Church even if he does not receive from the soul of the Church any influx of interior faith or charity.”

In short, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, but he is head of the visible Church by jurisdiction and authority that can co-exist with heresy.

Sean, I need to point out two important facts: It is certainly NOT the common opinion and never ever was. To say that the bishops can judge the pope, if he is in fact the pope, is heretical.

To say that the bishops can judge the pope, if he is in fact the pope, is heretical.

Incorrect: As has been discussed in this thread, the pope can be the subject of a discretionary judgment, but not a coercive judgment.

Incorrect: As has been discussed in this thread, the pope can be the subject of a discretionary judgment, but not a coercive judgment.

What's incorrect is your improper application of the distinction.  If one is merely assessing the fact that the Pope has left the Church and lost authority, that means he's already ceased to be pope a priori to the judgment (Bellarmine), but if your judgment comes a priori to the loss of office, you're effectively deposing a Pope.  Your position and that of S&S entails precisely such a coercive judgment, which is why St. Robert Bellarmine rejects it.  You can argue Bellarmine vs. Cajetan all you want ... and it's a distraction from the real issue at hand and the one that confronts the consciences of Catholics ... it doesn't change the fact that a legitimate Pope freely exercising the Papal Magisterium cannot effect the corruption of the Magisterium, doctrinal or moral teaching, the Church's public worship, the cultus of the saints, etc.  And this is precisely why, IMO, the infiltrators allowed Siri to accept the papal election and then forced him out.  Had they simply gotten their guy Roncalli elected without this prior impediment to legitimate election, the Holy Spirit would have prevented Roncalli, Montini, and Wojtyla from perpetrating their destruction, even if it meant causing them to drop dead before they could do so.