Still waiting for Mr. Drew to answer how is it that manifest heresy does not destroy the Papal Office.

The belief that a Pope cannot be a heretic is rooted in the dogma that manifest heretics are outside the Church. They are not members.

Cantarella,
 
I  know that Pope Francis is a heretic because I keep Dogma as my proximate rule of faith.  The definition of a heretic is a baptized Catholic who does not keep Dogma as their rule of faith.  I do not know by what criteria you are judging that the conciliar popes are heretics if it is not by Dogma.
 
It is a dogma that manifest (formal) heretics are formally outside the Church but so are occult formal heretics (as are all who are in a state of mortal sin) because every mortal sin ends the life of grace in the soul.  It is not a dogma that manifest heretics are materially outside the Church, and it will never be because the removal of a manifest heretic materially from the Church is a question of law and not one of doctrine. 
 
We have already covered the parable of the cockle and wheat.  The Church Fathers commenting on this passage say that the cockle refers to heretics.  The Lord of the Harvest admonishes that the cockle remain until the harvest.  The Church may in her wisdom remove any manifest heretic from the Church if in her judgment they are more harmful to the wheat by their continued presence.  Again as has already been said, Caiaphas was a manifest heretic and his heresy was not an impediment to sitting on the Chair of Moses thereby legitimately exercising authority under the Old Law.  There is in Christ's admonition to 'do as they say but not as they do,' a distinction between the person and the office.
 
Which leads to your other question, the answer requires a proper distinction between the person and the office, and a recognition that both are substances with their independent beings that through the grace of God are accidentally united.  The Pope is accidentally united to the office and the office is accidentally united to the Pope.  Contrary to this is the opinion that the office is just the form which is united to the person making the pope and the office one thing without distinction.
 
Some proof has to be offered either way. For the former, I argue that the dogma on papal infallibility clearly distinguishes between the pope and the office.  If the pope and the office were one substantial being, then every act of the pope without exception would be a formal act of the office and this is clearly not so. 
 
But without the dogma, there is other evidence. The Church is a society and a society is philosophically defined as a group of persons working toward a common end under a directing authority.  The reason a mob working for a particular end is not a society is because it has no directing authority.  It is in the nature of every society to possess a directing authority as a necessary attribute without which it cannot be a society.  St. Pius X said in Pascendi, that “The nature of this authority (of a society) is to be gathered from its origin, and its rights and duties from its nature.” A “nature” can only be possessed by something having a substantial existence and it is from understanding the nature that we know the "rights and duties" of the authority exercised.  The "origin" of this divine Authority we know as well as its "rights" and "duties" which are the visible signs of the office.  We know that the papacy has a substantial existence because it is the material expression of the Attribute of Authority which God has endowed His Church.  This Authority is present in the Church even after a pope dies, and when the new pope assumes the papacy, he will then exercise the exact same Authority as his predecessor.  This is also true for the Magisterium, the teaching authority, is the exact same Magisterium for every pope.
 
When a pope is elected and accepts the office, God units the substantial form of the papacy accidentally to the subject of the pope, and the substantial form of the pope accidentally to the subject of the papacy.  The union is analogous to the sacrament of marriage where both parties are united accidentally but maintain their own substantial existences.  When the pope dies, we know the soul has departed because the body corrupts.  When the body corrupts there can be no accidental forms subsisting in the subject as well. The papacy continues to exist in the Church as the necessary structure of authority without a pope while awaiting its next designated occupant.  In this "marriage," it is God who unites the substantial form of the papacy as an accident of the designated pope.
 
What happens with manifest heresy?  Without the corruption of the body, there is no evidence that the substantial form or any accidental forms have been removed.  The pope cannot be judged by anyone excepting in the possibility of heresy, (which is open to theological speculation as to when and how), and as the supreme legislator, he is not liable for any canonical penalty being subject only to the moral consequences of violating the law.  Since God has bestowed the form of the papacy on the person of the Pope, only God can remove it. 
 
What is the evidence that God has done so?  There is no physical evidence outside of death or personal abdication that the pope is removed from the office. There is plenty of speculation as to if, when, and how this might happen and you are free to join in the speculation provided you keep dogma as your rule of faith and never arrive at doctrinal positions that are incompatible with revealed truth. S&Sers do not do this.
 
But there is evidence that God has not dissolved the union between the manifest heretical conciliar popes and the papal office.  That is this: not once have these popes, in spite of having complete control of the Vatican, ever engaged the Magisterium, that is, the teaching authority of the Church grounded upon its Attributes of Authority and Infallibility, to bind the Catholic conscience to doctrinal or moral error.  Until this happens, and the S&Sers get their own pope, they have no argument.
 
A manifest heretic cannot damage the papacy in its substance but he can do great moral harm to the office just as he can do great moral harm to the Church as a whole with the associated loss of many souls.  Without divine intervention there is little hope.  John of St. Thomas offers a very good argument that the pope can be judged for the crime of heresy by the bishops in council, and as the Church designated the pope-elect before God joined him to the office, so the Church must designate him a heretic before God will remove him.  The problem is that long before Vatican II Dogma was overthrown as the rule of faith primarily by the 1949 Holy Office Letter. Since that time nearly every bishop has reduced Dogma to theological maxims rather than formal objects of divine and Catholic faith.  Since the bishops do not hold Dogma as the rule of faith, there can be no council to charge the pope as a heretic for not keeping Dogma as his rule of faith.
 
Drew

Vatican II and the New Mass.  Not possible if the Pope who promulgated them was legitimate and acted freely in promulgating them.

Ladislaus,

The Novus Ordo is not a "received and approved" rite.  Those that follow Dogma as their proximate rule of faith recognizing this fact.

Drew

Ladislaus,
 
I am familiar with the encyclical but there  are certain facts that cannot be ignored. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ and the Holy Ghost is the soul of the Church. A person in mortal sin no longer has the Holy Ghost dwelling in his soul by grace. He is therefore cut off from the "soul of the Church."  If he dies in that state he is lost for forever.  He is still a material member of the Church but he has no life of sanctifying grace.  That is the hard fact of the matter and cannot be personally identified with the Mystical Body of Christ in any other sense than a dead material member.
 
Drew

Under discussion is not mortal sin considered generally, but specific sins: schism, heresy, apostasy



Satis Cognitum, On the Unity of the Church, Pope Leo XIII - 1896
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13satis.htm

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. “No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic” (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88 )

Epistles of St. Gregory the Great, Book VI, Letter 14

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360206014.htm

Your Charity, being anxious to learn our opinion, has been at the pains of writing to us to ask what we think of the book against the presbyter Athanasius which was sent to us. Having thoroughly perused some parts of it, we find that he has fallen into the dogma of Manichæus. But he who has noted some places as heretical by a mark set against them slips also himself into Pelagian heresy; for he has marked certain places as heretical which are Catholicly expressed and entirely orthodox. For when this is written; that when Adam sinned his soul died, the writer shows afterwards how it is said to have died, namely that it lost the blessedness of its condition. Whosoever denies this is not a Catholic.

Under discussion is not mortal sin considered generally, but specific sins: schism, heresy, apostasy



Satis Cognitum, On the Unity of the Church, Pope Leo XIII - 1896
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13satis.htm

Epistles of St. Gregory the Great, Book VI, Letter 14

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360206014.htm

Trad 123,

All I am saying is that heretics, like all guilty of mortal sin, are formally not members of the Church in that they are cut off from the life of grace. The Holy Ghost, Who is the "Soul of the Church," does not dwell in them by grace.  The question of being materially removed from the Church is not done by the sin of heresy per se as it is acknowledged by all that an occult heretic would still be a material member of the Church holding any office validly.  The heretic is removed materially from the Church not because of his heresy, but because he is harmful for the faithful. This material removal of the heretic does not necessarily happen.  When the heretic is materially removed it is a question of law and not doctrine.  Even the laws that remove a heretic ipso facto, if the heretic denies guilt, still require a canonical determination of guilt.

Modernists in the Church have been numerous and yet relatively few were ever excommunicated.  The great problem with Modernism and Neo-modernism is that the heretics admit no guilt and have not left the Church but remain and corrupted her dogmas and worship.

Drew

All I am saying is that heretics, like all guilty of mortal sin, are formally not members of the Church in that they are cut off from the life of grace.

I didn't see that the first time I read it.

Surely, a Catholic who commits murder is still a member of the Church? Dead in sin, yes, but he still professes the faith.

https://books.google.com/books?id=x4YNBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT14&lpg=PT14&dq=%22material+and+formal%22+%22body+and+soul%22&source=bl&ots=Vx0__CyWoe&sig=he6DaeS__gox6UpbcEieX9AJD-s&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwitm4zVt__aAhXHzlkKHTNcDRAQ6AEIPjAC#v=onepage&q=%22material%20and%20formal%22%20%22body%20and%20soul%22&f=false


Chapter 1, page 3


Attaching excerpt.

I've tried to limit the amount of time I waste responding to the complete incoherence of Stubborn's thinking.  There's no way to engage in a rational discussion with him.

Unless you gain at least an elementary understanding of the most basic, most fundamental of Catholic truths and make them your own foundation, it is apparent that engaging with me is going to remain completely incoherent for you.

As it is, you sedes don't simply ignore those foundational truths, oh no, simply ignoring them will never work, the sedes must first claim them to be either inapplicable to this crisis or altogether heretical ideas - and those who hold to them to be heretics. After that, the sedes proceed to claim all sorts of their own truths - right down to concluding it a teaching of the Church that  popes are not popes, which is their foundation.

There may be a quicker cure, but in my opinion, the quickest cure for sedewhateverism is to cease attempting to use any sources associated with the Catholic Church's teachings, opinions, speculations or ideas in attempts to vindicate sedeism. The prots used their knowledge of Scripture to lose the faith, the sedes use whatever of the Catholic Church's teachings, opinions, speculations or ideas to lose the faith. No matter the method, the end result is the same.