“The word ‘manifest’ means, ‘clear or obvious to the eye or mind’. If not only the matter of heresy is clearly manifest, but the conscious and wilful profession of ‘a doctrine that immediately, directly, and contradictorily opposes the truths revealed by God and authentically set forth as such by the Church,’ is patently obvious to the mind, then the person who professes it may be judged by others to be a heretic, even without a juridical pronouncement of the Church, since no one needs any official declaration to be made in order to form a judgment of opinion on a matter that by its very nature is already ‘clear or obvious to the eye or mind’. The proposition that one is not a manifest heretic until an ecclesiastical judge pronounces that one is a manifest heretic is absurd on its face, since by the very fact that the heresy is manifest, it is already ‘clear or obvious to the eye or mind’ before any judgment is pronounced; yet this is precisely the silliness that John Salza and Robert Siscoe maintain in their rabid legalism. However, it is clearly the doctrine of the Catholic faith that if a person is a manifest heretic, then it is manifest that heresy has suapte natura severed that one from the body of the Church, and if he is a holder of ecclesiastical office, he has ipso jure automatically lost office and all habitual or ordinary jurisdiction ex natura hæresis, before any sentence is pronounced by the Church. Since the loss of office for public defection from the faith was prescribed in the 1917 Code to take place ipso facto and ‘without any declaration’, and it remains that way in the 1983 Code; it is absurd for anyone to claim that the faithful must wait for a declaration from Church authorities before judging in conscience on an ipso jure loss of office that takes place ‘without any declaration’; and that until a judgment be pronounced by competent authority, they need to and must remain subject to a heretic pope and to a vast portion of the hierarchy who have visibly expelled themselves from the body of the Church; while those pastors who remain faithful, and who are competent to judge, are either too blind or too frightened to speak.”
Kramer, Paul. To Deceive the Elect: The Catholic Doctrine on the Question of a Heretical Pope (Kindle Locations 11174-11182). Kindle Edition.
“Although the Counter-Reformation canonists were understandably phobic about the impetus such a doctrine as that of automatic loss of the papal office for heresy without the judgment of the Church might give occasion to the abusive application of the Protestant principle of Private Judgment against the Papacy, the ancient age-old principle of law (Ab abusu ad usum non valet consequentia) remains ever valid, that an abuse is no argument against legitimate use; and therefore, Abusus non tollit usum: the abuse of a right does not nullify the right to its legitimate exercise. Their understandable concern for the possibility and even the likelihood that private individuals could seize upon the right to judge privately as a matter of conscience, and abuse it in the manner that it was abused by Luther to pronounce the pope a heretic, led them to adopt the opposite extreme, equally harmful and heterodox, according to which even a manifestly heretical pope remains in office and retains jurisdiction until the Church, by a juridical act pronounces judgment on him; and that private individuals may not avail themselves of their God-given right and last means of defense against the ravenous wolf, to form an opinion to acknowledge the defection and loss of office resulting from even the most manifest and patent public rejection of the Catholic faith by a heretic pope; and as a consequence to be compelled to remain subject to him, and be in communion with the public enemy of the Church for months, years or even decades, until the Church, by some miracle of providence, can finally be able to pronounce a judgment which effectively results in the heretic’s removal.”
Kramer, Paul. To Deceive the Elect: The Catholic Doctrine on the Question of a Heretical Pope (Kindle Locations 11153-11165). Kindle Edition.
Note: Fr. Paul Kramer holds that a true pope cannot be a formal heretic. In his estimation, this is proximate to Faith. The point of the quote above is to emphasize that one can privately legitimately judge a cleric as a formal heretic upon the fact of public manifest formal heresy.
My friends, this is a must listen to interview in which Fr. Paul Kramer explains that heresies are being taught and accepted in Traditionalist circles these days in regards to the judgment of a true pope for heresy and in regards to the loss of office of a public manifest formal heretic:
A council cannot judge a true pope for heresy.
A public manifest formal heretic automatically loses office.
The contradictory teachings to these are heresies! Yet, what do we hear throughout Traditionalist circles these days? Many are calling for an imperfect council to judge Jorge Bergoglio, who they accept as a true pope, for heresy. They also claim that a public manifest formal heretic does not lose office automatically, but must first be judged as a heretic by the competent Church authority before the loss of office takes place.
Woe to you Traditionalists who teach and/or accept these heresies!
“The opinion that only the Church authorities are able to judge in matters of heresy, and that we cannot know if someone is a heretic by the application of human reason without a pronouncement of Church authority, is patently absurd, since it is by the application of human reason to the matters of faith that ecclesiastical judges reach their conclusions in heresy cases and pronounce judgment.”
Kramer, Paul. To Deceive the Elect: The Catholic Doctrine on the Question of a Heretical Pope (Kindle Locations 760-762). Kindle Edition.