“If the heresy and its pertinacity are manifest or at least apparent without evidence to the contrary, then private individuals have the right to prudently judge privately and state their private opinions in a prudent manner even in public; but as private individuals they may not presume to judge in any official capacity. It is because the loss of office takes place ex natura hæresis, according to divine law, and therefore takes place independently of any ecclesiastical law or act of jurisdiction, that the individual has the right in conscience to form an opinion even before a judgment is pronounced by Church authority. As Christopher Ferrara explains in Fatima Perspectives, ‘It is an axiom of our religion that no person on earth can judge the Pope in the sense of a penal sentence with juridical effect.’ Since ecclesiastical law recognizes the ipso facto loss of office to take place ipso jure, it pertains strictly to ecclesiastical jurisdiction for a judgment to be pronounced with juridical effect.”
Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope. Kindle Edition.
Many in the Catholic Resistance have no problem judging that the Novus Ordo Rite of Mass and Vatican II are not Catholic ahead of a definitive judgment of the Church. Yet, when it comes to judging that a man is a public manifest formal heretic or that a man seemingly occupying the See of Peter is an antipope, they immediately scream out, “You have no right to judge! You have to wait for the Church to make a judgement!” What nonsense. Read the wise words above of Fr. Paul Kramer. One has a right to form a private judgment on whether a man is a heretic based on the evidence. However, one’s private judgment does not have a juridical effect as this pertains properly to the ecclesiastical authority.
Question: What is rash judgement?
Answer: Rash judgment is believing a person guilty of sin without a sufficient cause.
But what if there is a sufficient cause? You do the math.