CathInfo.com

Okay, Sean!  It's hard for me to read this stuff and cutting and pasting and formatting is difficult too so I'm sorry if it's hard to read. :P

Here is the first quote:



Bull of Pope Paul IV — cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio, 1559
Quote
Okay, so first of all, we cannot judge Papal Bulls because that would qualify as "judging a pope" right?  So we can't dismiss this as "irrelevant" can we?


From the quote above:
"Should appear"  What does that mean?

If they were a known heretic before election it sounds like the election was void since a non-Catholic can't become pope.  Is that true?


"even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, shall be null, legally invalid and void."


Plus because Vatican II states that we worship the same god as Muslims, it is a false religion.  Any person intending to implement VII would not be Catholic since they are intending to implement a false religion. 

Therefore they would be equivalent to using a potato chip at the consecration at Mass instead of unleavened bread - it’s invalid matter and no consecration takes place. A public heretic or apostate is not “valid matter”for any office in the Church as such a one is barred by divine law from the papacy.  Wouldn't that be true?

Because according to the statement they:

"beforehand deviated from the Catholic faith"


Also, what do you make of the last part of the quote above that is highlighted?

You stated:  (ie., an heretical pope is not removed without the Church declaring the fact of his heresy, and a second declaration that God has deposed him).

But is a declaration really necessary?

The quote reads:

by that very fact and without the need to make any further declaration, shall be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power.”

From the quote it sounds like no declaration is necessary.  Am I missing something?

Finally, you stated that the "ipso facto" position was never endorsed by the Church.
 
Does a Papal Bull qualify as "endorsed by the Church"?

Thank you, Sean!

In the eyes of a modernist, it is not a total rejection of the Catholic faith. They actually believe that they are doing the right thing for the Church and for humanity. It sounds crazy, and it is, but that's how they think. They can mix truth with error, and they do not admit of any contradiction. Archbishop Lefebvre said that modernism is a disease of the mind. If you don't agree, that's fine, but I will continue to take the stance of Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Williamson, because it makes sense to me.