“…..the Church bases its law on loss of office for public defection from the faith into heresy on the fact of the defection alone; and not on whether or not a crime, i.e. a penal delict, has been committed in the act of defection; and juridically declared.”

Kramer, Paul. To Deceive the Elect: The Catholic Doctrine on the Question of a Heretical Pope (Kindle Locations 694-696). Kindle Edition.

“…..the idea that any manifest heretic could validly hold office is, as I prove in Volume One of this work, contrary to the doctrine of the universal magisterium of the Church, and also rests on the heretical premise that a manifest heretic (i.e. one who is manifestly a formal heretic) would still be a member of the Church until he is judged a heretic by juridically competent ecclesiastical authority.”

Kramer, Paul. To Deceive the Elect: The CatholicDdoctrine on the Question of a Heretical Pope (Kindle Locations 56-58). Kindle Edition.

“I have demonstrated (in Volume One) that the Church teaches de fide, that the manifest sin of public formal heresy constitutes a defection from the Catholic faith, which by its very nature separates the heretic from the body of the Church; and as a consequence, any officeholder in the Church (including the pope if that were possible), who would publicly defect from the faith into heresy, would automatically lose office ipso jure, as is set forth in Canon 194 §1. 2° (of the 1983 Code of Canon Law).”

Ibid. (Kindle Locations 59-63). Kindle Edition.

“According to can. 188.4° of the 1917 Code, any holder of whatsoever office who publicly defects from the Catholic faith into heresy loses office automatically, even before any judgment is pronounced by the competent authority. The opinion that an obstinate public heretic retains office, or remains a member of the Church until he is judged, is contrary to the Catholic faith.”

Ibid. (Kindle Locations 84-87). Kindle Edition.

“In conscience one has the right to make such a judgment (of manifest formal heresy) because it is a legitimate matter of conscience, and can be known with certitude. All the canons, and teachings against privately judging superiors and prelates do not refer to judgments of conscience, such as the judgment concerning the manifest heresy of one’s superior, when it can be known with certitude; but rather, they prohibit judgments that require jurisdiction; and explain that private individuals do not possess the requisite jurisdiction for rendering an official judgment, and therefore they may not presume to judge their superiors juridically, and depose them with force of law. However, the right of conscience to judge privately as a matter of conscience in such cases as that of manifest heresy pertains to divine law, since such judgments of conscience are sometimes necessary for salvation; and such a right is acknowledged in Canon Law: ‘Can. 748 § 1. All persons are bound to seek the truth in those things which regard God and his Church and by virtue of divine law are bound by the obligation and possess the right of embracing and observing the truth which they have come to know.’ Indeed, the Salza/ Siscoe objection that the making such a judgment is forbidded to the private individual who must wait for the public judgment of the Church, and that asserting this right it is an exercise of the Protestant principle of Private Judgment, is not only false, but it effectively nullifies the Rule of Faith which safeguards the conscience of the individual.”

Kramer, Paul. To Deceive the Elect: The Catholic Doctrine on the Question of a Heretical Pope (Kindle Locations 736-747). Kindle Edition.

“The very act of submission to the pretended authority of an openly heretical enemy of the Catholic faith constitutes per se an objectively grave act not only of indiscreet obedience; but done in ignorance, constitutes an act of material schism as well. Thus, while the Recognize and Resist policy of Catholics towards the errant conciliar popes was morally justified from the time of the post-council up to the end of February 2013, when Pope Benedict went into what is increasingly seen to be a coerced retirement; it is no longer morally licit to adhere to it for so long as the heretical intruder (or another like him) remains in power, because it is morally wrong and schismatic to recognize and be subject to a manifestly formal heretic.”

Kramer, Paul. To Deceive the Elect: The Catholic Doctrine on the Question of a Heretical Pope (Kindle Locations 706-711). Kindle Edition.