In canon law, "manifested" means something that is widespread public knowledge not requiring significant effort to discern, something that is known or could be easily known by the majority of people.
I.e. a Pope who would leave the Catholic Church to accept nomination as the next Presiding Bishop of the ECUSA would be a manifest heretic and schismatic. John Kerry openly living with another woman not his wife without benefit of annulment of Church marriage is manifestly living in grave sin. Archbishop Lefebvre taking to the public airwaves to denounce the New Mass and Vatican II as abominations and publicly ordaining Bishops and Priests without jurisdiction is manifestly placing himself in a schismatic position vis-a-vis the Pope and heirarchy.
OTOH, Archbishop Ngo-Dinh Thuc secretly consecrating men to the Episcopate and ordaining Priests without publicity, witnesses, or formal records is engaging in acts that are not manifest but are rather secretive.
Do you always answer for gbcdoj?
I apologize Hermann, my last reply to you was unduly harsh. I was simply reacting to gbcdoj's sudden lack of enthusiasm for the dialogue with his history of knowing some of the most obscure references imaginable and usually of dubious relation to the subject matter.
But maybe I can ask you and get an answer. Is there any legitimate reason for resisting a Pontiff in the history of the Church that you'd be willing to cite?
Hi Hermann - I agree with this explanation of "manifested", although why the term would need an explanation is a little beyond me.