Thank you for being so kind in giving your response to my query. You pointed out that when CEA is applied (in the case of a reigning Pope) who had fallen into heresy and that this was proven to be the case by a competent Church authority, that this does not mean that the Pope can be deposed from his office. Instead, a Catholic is only permitted to “withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs.” I think the Dimond brothers objection to this would be that this isn't so, that the Pope does indeed lose his office and is thus no longer the Pope. They quote this section to support their case:
6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;.......
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.
The Dimond brothers would point to the phrase, " it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity....through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through the possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff..." and say that the heretical Cardinal who was promoted to the Papal seat would not have any office because the consecration would be invalid from the start. The promotion in itself would not have "acquired validity" , thus the Pope would not have had any authority or office to begin with. The enthronement to the Papal seat would not have even be "held as partially legitimate", thus the Pope would have no authority to command, and no jurisdiction ("nor through the possession of administration"). It also says in (vi) that the heretical Cardinal promoted to the Papal seat would be divested of "all dignity,position,title,authority,office and power". They take this to mean therefore that he never had the office of the Pope to begin with.
They would also point out to the phrase in the above quote " or obedience accorded to such by all " to mean that there would be no need of a Church authority to make a declaration of the nullity of the said promotion because Pius IV gave permission to anyone to not give obedience to the heretical Cardinal promoted to the papacy. In another words, according to them, Pius IV said that even if all of the Cardinals,Bishops,priests,ect were to give their assent to the legitimacy of the election, that it would still be null and void and that therefore any Catholic would have permission to withdraw immediatley any fealty and obedience to the putative Pope. They draw the conclusion that if this event actually occurred (that is, when all of the Church clergy support the heretical Pope), that this would preclude any Church authority from making any formal judgement (on account of the fact that they all hold the election to be uncontested and valid) through a council that the Pope is not to be obeyed on account of public heresy. They would thus draw the conclusion, " Why would Pius IV give permission to everyone 'at any time' ( meaning, even a time before a Church council convenes to adjudicate the matter) to withdraw obedience to the putative Pope, if there has to be a Church council to decide whether or not obedience is to be accorded to him seeing that all of the clergy are in obedience to the imposter?"
They would also quote "(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power"
to further buttress their point in saying that there is no need of a competent Church authority to declare the putative Pope to be divested of all authority because the deposition is automatic, ipso facto, "without need for any further declaration".
Again, Mr.Sungenis, thank you for your response.
R. Sungenis: Michael, you are missing the original point I made concerning the application of CEA. CEA can only be applied if it has been shown that the reigning pope was a heretic BEFORE he ascended to the papal chair, not AFTER. Moreover, in order to show in his pre-pope life he was a heretic, there must be proof for the charge of heresy. That proof can only come from a canonical court of law. So unless the Dimond brothers can show us that any of the popes of the 20th century were certified as heretics by a canonical court when they were priests, bishops or cardinals, then the simply have no basis for their argument.