But that is not what the pope is saying. What the pope is saying is, IMO confusing and illogical.

No.  It is only "confusing and illogical" because you're Stubborn and don't wish to understand what it means and desire to have it mean what you want it to mean.

Quote from: Stubborn

But that is not what the pope is saying. What the pope is saying is, IMO confusing and illogical.

No.  It is only "confusing and illogical" because you're Stubborn and don't wish to understand what it means and desire to have it mean what you want it to mean.

That's right, I am being stubborn because it in no way shape or form says we can employ secular authorities to physically remove the pope as YOU said it does.

You need to re-read it and read what is written. If you do, then you would be forced to agree with every one of the 6 items I posted rather than say the ridiculous thing you said about us being given permission to employ secular authorites to remove the pope - THAT is utterly ludicrous since the Constitution says  no  such  thing.

You need to re-read it and read what is written. If you do, then you would be forced to agree with every one of the 6 items I posted rather than say the ridiculous thing you said about us being given permission to employ secular authorites to remove the pope - THAT is utterly ludicrous since the Constitution says  no  such  thing.

Of course, it doesn't say we can use the secular authorities to "remove the pope".  It says that we can use the secular authorities to remove "these same individuals thus promoted or elevated", i.e., those men invalidly promoted or elevated to the position because they are heretics.

But it does, indeed, clearly say that the faithful can employ secular authorities to remove a heretic from office.  I do not agree with your six items posted--especially your claim that Pope Paul IV is "confusing and illogical".  Just because you are confused and ignorant of the facts surrounding this bull does not mean that the pope is confused and illogical.

The meaning all of legislation, and cuм ex Apostolatus Officio is indeed legislation, must be interpreted according to the mind of the law-giver.  Your re-interpretation of the legislation is akin to the way modern courts rule laws unconstitutional based on completely changing the clear understanding of the minds of those who originally wrote the founding docuмent.

To summarize the reason this Apostolic Constitution was enacted, I quote Mr. John Lane's excellent history of the case:

The background of cuм ex Apostolatus sheds abundant light on the principles it embodies. Ghisleri, as Roman Inquisitor, held Cardinal Morone suspect of heresy. And yet Morone was one of the leading candidates to succeed Paul IV. The situation was extremely worrying for both Ghisleri and for Pope Paul IV himself. What if the cardinals, after Paul's death, should choose an heretic as the next pope! cuм ex Apostolatus was the answer. It codified the constant tradition of Holy Church, which was that no heretic can validly exercise authority in Holy Church. This codification of the tradition of the Church had two effects. Firstly, it put on notice the cardinals who might think that Morone could be safely elected to the papacy. If they tried it, they could not be sure he would be universally accepted, and the bull made it clear that even if he was accepted by all initially, at any point in the future men could simply change their minds and refuse to adhere to him. Thus Michele Ghisleri and Pope Paul IV wrecked the hopes of certain cardinals of imposing an heretic upon the faithful. (To further ensure that Morone was not elected, Ghisleri took the dossier on Morone into the subsequent conclave, ready to reveal its contents if Morone's name should figure prominently in the first rounds of voting.)

Mr. Lane does not discuss the issue of deposing the putative pope, but he does give a background as to why the legislation was enacted and continues to be in force to this day.  It is divine law that a heretic cannot be the pope, or indeed, hold any office of the Church.  

Obviously, it does no good for you or I, today, to petition any secular government to physically remove Bergoglio from the Vatican since there are no truly Catholic secualar governments left on the earth.  But the legislation still exists so that, should, in the unforeseen future, the Holy Roman Empire be re-constituted, the secular arm could, in principle, take action to restore order in the Church.  

I understand the Realpolitic involved here.  I understand that we do not have the political or military means to depose Bergoglio.  But the original claim made was that the bull gave no authority, in principle, "to depose [one who is not Pope]".  This is in error.  But the second claim that the bull, "gives those with ears to hear the ability to acknowledge the fact," is indeed correct even if we cannot resort to the secular authorities.

Like it or not Paul IV clearly affirms what Divine Law teaches - that a public heretic cannot legitimately claim ecclesiastical office.  He knew of the possibility, after the Protestant Revolt, of a heretic claiming the papacy and he knew how incredibly devastating to the faith this would be for the entire world, despite the Church not being as filled with modernist bishops as they were when the V"2" "popes" took over.  He did everything to prevent what happened since the election of John 23.  

Like it or not Paul IV clearly affirms what Divine Law teaches - that a public heretic cannot legitimately claim ecclesiastical office.  He knew of the possibility, after the Protestant Revolt, of a heretic claiming the papacy and he knew how incredibly devastating to the faith this would be for the entire world, despite the Church not being as filled with modernist bishops as they were when the V"2" "popes" took over.  He did everything to prevent what happened since the election of John 23.  

Like it or not, Pope Paul IV instructed us all that we are permitted to do about it - namely,  popes may be contradicted. He explains and instructs us that we "shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs."

He never at any time instructs "us" to call out the feds to have the scoundrels  arrested or removed. Nor does he never instruct anyone that we are permitted to go around preaching in any way shape or form that the Chair is vacant via Divine Law or in anyway authorize anyone to go around promoting sedevacantism.