Thank you for your reply.
I'm sorry for not making it very clear to you in my last email to you on a certain point. I did not intend to say that when a Pope falls into heresy, that this would cause him to lose his office. I had intended to say that when a papal claimant had previously fallen into heresy as a Cardinal,ect., that this is when CEA applies. So, I got your original point, I had just worded it badly.
You said in your last email that in order to show in his pre-pope life that he was a heretic that a canonical court of law would be needed to prove his heresy, otherwise CEA would not take effect. I think the Dimond brothers objection to this would be to quote this from Pope Pius VI:
Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, August 28,1794
"Likewise, the propostion which teaches that it is necessary according to the natural and divine laws for either excommunictaion or for suspension, that a personal examination should precede, and that therefore, sentences called 'ipso facto' have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect"- false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the Church, erroneous.
So, they would say that there is no need to prove that a man in his pre-pope life was a heretic by a canonical court of law ("personal examination should precede") because he automatically is excommunicated from the Church, ipso fact, from the Church and is no longer a Catholic. They reason that a non-Catholic cannnot command in the Church any more than a Moslem or Protestant because it is necessary to be a member of the Church.
R. Sungenis: Michael, if that is the case, then I hereby declare the Dimond brothers (both of them) heretics and automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church. No trial, no proof, no overwhelming evidence is needed. I see it and I declare it. And since they are excommunicated, then they have no authority to judge the pre-pope or a reigning pope. There. I fixed that problem. No more Dimond brothers dethroning the pope!
Obviously, you see how ridiculous the whole thing will become. The Dimond brothers, trapped as they are in being their own authorities, are easy to turn the tables against.
The stipulation that you are citing in Auctorem fidei (Denz. 1547) concerns those in authority who have the rite to make "ipso facto" judgements on penitents; not laypeople against popes. We see this authority in the following stipulation (Denz 1550) which says that "the bishop alone has power which Trent conferred on him."
Suffice it to say, neither the Dimond brothers nor any other layperson has the authority of a bishop, much less the authority to depose a pope "ipso facto." The whole idea is ridiculous.