Viva Christo Rey has claimed here before that the last four Popes were formal heretics - but this is shown to be false.
Take a look at this, will you? I'd appreciate a response that isn't just pictures of the Pope.
On "papa haereticus non est depositus, sed deponendus", Suarez also takes this position, calling it "common". Billuart calls it the "more common" opinion:
According to the more common opinion, the Christ, by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquillity of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he should be declared a manifest heretic by the Church. (De Fide, Diss. V, A. III, No. 3, obj. 2.)
You cite Innocent III, but the quote I've found from him is: "The faith is necessary for me to such an extent that, having God as my only judge in other sins, I could however be judged by the Church for sins I might commit in matters of faith."
St. Francis de Sales says:
Now when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, as some say, or declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as St. Peter did: Let another take his bishopric (Acts I). When he errs in his private opinion he must be instructed, advised, convinced;
As for St. Liguori, he also said that we should believe the Pope couldn't become a heretic. I've seen Hermann post the cite before - you can ask him for it. St. Robert said the same, although he didn't consider it certain. It isn't just a "hope", but a theological opinion founded on Christ's promises.
As for Felix II, the Catholic Encyclopedia classes him as an Antipope and says he was given the status of a Saint because of confusion with the martyr Felix. St. Liberius never fell from the Pontificate.
As for the "material" "formal" distinction, as far as I am aware this was an innovation of des Lauriers. Furthermore, it contradicts Journet in what he says in (5) of the OP, and what the Catholic Encyclopedia says: "it is a dogma of faith that every pontiff duly elected and recognized by the universal Church is a successor of Peter".
If you could, I'd appreciate if you'd respond to the first section I posted, which says that the acceptance of a Pope by the Church is infallible and demonstrates all conditions for validity. You've claimed in the past that Bl. John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II were all formal heretics before being raised to the pontificate. This disproves that, as far as I can see. The Catholic Encyclopedia and other theologians say the same thing:
Is Pius X, for instance, really and truly Roman Pontiff [1909], duly elected and recognized by the Universal Church? This is connected with dogma, for it is a dogma of faith that every pontiff duly elected and recognized by the universal Church is a successor of Peter. ("Dogmatic Facts").
I'm not kidding either. There are a certain few in here (at least you're not alone) whose focus is incessantly directed at traditionalist posters, worshipers and sympathizers. I've come to believe that they either have mental problems or are just trouble making trolls, or maybe both.
Post something that isn't geared toward your anti-trad jihad, just so I know you have a life and can talk about something else. Humor me.
Muchas gracias, amigo.
Once again, documentation demonstrates that the Church is EMINENTLY the Church of Common Sense.
Unfortunately, you will not persuade Viva (among others) of the liceity of JPII's reign and decisions. It matters not if you bring all of the Fathers and all of the Canon Law to bear.
"It has always been maintained by Catholic theologians that for heresy the Church may judge the Pope, because, as most maintain, by heresy he ceases to be Pope. There is no variance on this head amongst theologians that I know of, except that some, with Turrecremata and Bellarmine, hold that by heresy he ipso facto ceases to be Pope: whilst others, with Cajetan and John of St. Thomas, maintain that he would not formally [as opposed to materially] cease to be Pope until he was formally deposed.
"The privilege of infallible teaching belongs only to an undoubted Pope; and on the claims of a doubtful, disputed Pope the Church has the right of judging. No single example can be produced of a Pope whose orthodoxy and succession was undoubted upon whom the Church pretended to sit in judgment.... During a contested Papacy the state of things approximates to that of an interregnum. The exercise of active infallability is suspended."
(Catholic Controversy, 6th ed., Burns & Oates, pp. 30-31)
THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA (1907), Vol. VII, p. 261
"It has been a common teaching of theologians that a validly elected pope can fall into heresy and so vacate the See of Peter by automatic tacit resignation."
"Not a few canonists teach that, outside of death and abdication, the pontifical dignity can also be lost by falling into certain insanity, which is legally equivalent to death, as well as through manifest and notorious heresy. In the latter case, a pope would automatically fall from his power, and this indeed without the issuance of any sentence, for the first See [the Apostolic See] is judged by no one.... The reason is that, by falling into heresy, the pope ceases to be a member of the church. He who is not a member of a society, obviously, cannot be its head.
(Introductio in Codicem, 1946, Canon 221)
"Those therefore who after the manner of wicked heretics dare to set aside ecclesiastical traditions, and to invent any kind of novelty, or to reject any of those things entrusted to the Church, or who wrongfully and outrageously devise the destruction of any of those traditions enshrined in the Catholic Church, are to be punished thus: if they are bishops, we order them to be deposed...."
"Hold firmly that you faith is identical with that of the ancients. Deny this, and you dissolve the unity of the Church."
"There being an imminent danger for the Faith, prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects. Thus, St. Paul, who was a subject of St. Peter, questioned him publicly on account of an imminent danger of scandal in a matter of Faith. And, as the Glossa of St. Augustine puts it (Ad Galatas 2.14), 'St. Peter himself gave the example to those who govern so that if sometime they stray from the right way, they will not reject a correction as unworthy even if it comes from their subjects....'
"The reprehension was just and useful, and the reason for it was not light: there was a danger for the preservation of Gospel truth.... The way it took place was appropriate, since it was public and manifest. For this reason, St. Paul writes: 'I spoke to Cephas,' that is, Peter, 'before everyone,' since the simulation practiced by St. Peter was fraught with danger to everyone.
(Summa Theologiae, IIa IIae, Q. 33, A. 4)
"Some say that fraternal corrrection does not extend to the prelates either because man should not raise his voice against heaven, or because the prelates are easily scandalized if corrected by their subjects. However, this does not happen, since when they sin, the prelates do not represent heaven, and, therefore, must be corrected. And those who correct them charitably do not raise their voices against them, but in their favor, since the admonishment is for their own sake.... For this reason, according to other [authors], the precept of fraternal correction extends also to the prelates, so that they may be corrected by their subjects."
(IV Sententiarum, D. 19, Q. 2, A. 2)
"Most Holy Father,... because He [Christ] has given you authority and because you have accepted it, you ought to use your virtue and power. If you do not wish to use it, it might be better for you to resign what you have accepted; it would give more honor to God and health to your soul.... If you do not do this, you will be censured by God. If I were you, I would fear that Divine Judgment might descend on me.
(Letter to Pope Gregory XI)
"Alas, Most Holy Father! At times obedience to you leads to eternal damnation.
(Letter to Pope Gregory XI, 1376.)
"In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.
"A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church."
(Summa Theologica)
GIROLAMO SAVONAROLA, O.P. (1452-1498)
The Lord, moved to anger by this intolerable corruption, has, for some time past, allowed the Church to be without a pastor. For I bear witness in the name of God that this Alexander VI is in no way Pope and cannot be.... This I declare in the first place and affirm it with all certitutde, that the man is not a Christian; he does not even believe any longer that there is a God; he goes beyond the final limits of infidelity and impiety."
(Letter to the Emperor)
FRANCISCO DE VICTORIA, O.P. (1480?-1546), THEOLOGIAN
"Consequently, if he [the pope] wished to give away the whole treasure of the Church or the Patrimony of St. Peter to his relatives, if he wanted to destroy the Church or the like, he should not be permitted to act in that fashion, but one would be obliged to resist him. The reason for this is that he does not possess power in order to destroy; therefore, if there is evidence that he is doing it, it is lawful to resist him. The result of all this is that if the pope destroys the Church by his orders and acts, he can be resisted and the execution of his mandates prevented.
"Second proof of the thesis. By Natural Law it is lawful to repel violence with violence. Now then, with such orders and dispensations the pope exerts violence, since he acts against the Law, as we have proven. Therefore, it is lawful to resist him."
(Dialogus de Potestate Papae [1517], para. 4)
Rev. Edmund James O'Reilly S.J., The Relations of the Church to Society - Theological Essays, 1882
page 33:
"If we inquire how ecclesiastical jurisdiction...has been continued, the answer is that...it in part came and comes immediately from God on the fulfilment of certain conditions regarding the persons. Priests having jurisdiction derive it from bishops or the pope. The pope has it immediately from God, on his legitimate election. The legitimacy of his election depends on the observance of the rules established by previous popes regarding such election."
Thus, if papal jurisdiction depends on a person's legitimate election, which certainly is not verified in the case of the purported election of a formal heretic to the Chair of Peter, it follows that, in the absence of legitimate election, no jurisdiction whatever is granted, neither "de jure" nor, despite what some have tried to maintain, "de facto".
p. 287
"The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be.Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfil His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one's service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning. We may also trust He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His promises. We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree."
Serapius Iragui (1959)
Theologians respond the same way. We cannot prove the absolute impossibility of such an event [absolutam repugnatiam facti]. For this reason, theologians commonly concede that the Roman Pontiff, if he should fall into manifest heresy, would no longer be a member of the Church, and therefore could neither be called its visible head."
Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae. Madrid: Ediciones Studium 1959. 371.
"c) The law now in force for the election of the Roman Pontiff is reduced to these points:.... Barred as incapable of being validly elected are the following: women, children who have not reached the age of reason, those suffering from habitual insanity, the unbaptised, heretics and schismatics....,
Cessation of pontifical power. This power ceases:.... (d) Through notorious and openly divulged heresy. A publicly heretical pope would no longer be a member of the Church; for this reason, he could no longer be its head."
Institutiones Iuris Canonici. Florence: Fiorentina 1921. 160, 165. His emphasis.
"The power of the Roman Pontiff is lost:....(c) By his perpetual insanity or by formal heresy.
And this at least probably....
The authors indeed commonly teach that a pope loses his power through certain and notorious heresy, but whether this case is really possible is rightly doubted. Based on the supposition, however, that a pope could fall into heresy, as a private person (for as pope he could not err in faith, because he would be infallible), various authors have worked out different answers as to how he could then be deprived of his power. None of the answers, nevertheless, exceed the limits of probability."
Manuale Iuris Canonici. Freiburg im Briesgau: Herder 1927. 95.
His emphasis.
"The Roman Pontiff ceases in office:....(4) Through notorious public heresy? Five answers have been given:
1. 'The pope cannot be a heretic even as a private teacher.' A pious thought, but essentially unfounded. 2. 'The pope loses office even through secret heresy.' False, because a secret heretic can be a member of the Church. 3. 'The pope does not lose office because of public heresy.' Objectionable. 4. 'The pope loses office by a judicial sentence because of public heresy.' But who would issue the sentence? The See of Peter is judged by no one (Canon 1556). 5. 'The pope loses office ipso facto because of public heresy.' This is the more common teaching, because a pope would not be a member of the Church, and hence far less could be its head."
Institutiones Iuris Canonici. 5th ed. Santander: Sal Terrae, 1956. 1:396.