And this post is exactly why I won't bother.

I think your position is that a divine "law" is a commandment to do or not do something, ...

Stubborn,

Sorry that it seems that no one wants to engage you on your position, but I don't think you have directly addressed theirs either.

My purposes entering into this wasn't to engage on the issue, so I simply asked Quo for his assertion of the divine law basis for the opinion that a pope couldn't be a heretic. I for one responded to you earlier by quoting John Daly, who referred to Galatians 1:8-9 and 2 John 9-10. Quo cited Luke 22:32.

Their position is that necessary inferences from those verses are divine law supporting the position a pope can't be a heretic. To be fair, you haven't addressed directly their position, either.

I think I can gather your position, but you haven't directly clarified it. I think your position is that a divine "law" is a commandment to do or not do something, or an indication that something is or is not, or can be or can't be - some type of prescription. I would imagine you would argue that the verses Daly and Quo cite do not necessitate their conclusions, although their inferences are allowable - but merely that.

Eh, I guess I never really expected anyone to answer anyway, but still wanted to try.

Gal 1:8-9
Says to "let him be anathema", are you saying that the sedes read it as Divine Law that "he's not an angel?"
2 John 9-10
Is saying to ignore him, have nothing to do with him, per the Haydock it does not mean we cannot pray for him. Are you saying the sedes read that as Divine Law that the man is not a man i.e. the pope is not a pope aka the seat is vacant?
Luke 22:32
Yes, the faith of Peter, the Apostles and their successors is explained in the Haydock for that Scripture, and we see their successors' faith has indeed failed these last 6 decades, but that of St. Peter's successors can never fail when they speak ex cathedra. This Scripture is referenced and is explained in V1 and in that sense only, I can agree it is Divine Law, but not outside of ex cathedra declarations. Which is why it makes no sense to me how they take this Divine Revelation of Our Lord and insist it is Divine Law.

I understand why they need a Divine Law that in any possible light might be interpreted in such a way as to say that a heretic cannot be pope, that I understand. But for me, I still do not see a Divine Law anywhere stating “Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate."

And I am not by any means alone here - there are many reputable trads who agree with me, Fr. Hesse for one. Listen to his talk on youtube "3500 bishops are wrong..." He spends almost 2 hours explaining.

The whole "heretic cannot be pope because it is against Divine Law" error is necessary to maintain a modicuм of validity to the sede doctrine. That's the only reason for it. Maintaining a vacant chair is of paramount importance, we can even say that nothing else really matters. IMO it is only if you can (safely) view this discussion this way will what the sedes say make some type of sense, but still only on the surface.

All sin, every single solitary sin ever committed no matter how small or how terribly bad, is against Divine Law. The sin of heresy is against Divine Law, so is the making of a law against divine law, the sin of stealing is against divine law, the sin of lying is against divine law, etc,.

It is for a very, very good reason that the popes made it a law that the one elected, even if a heretic, is instantly pope upon his acceptance of the election. But the sedes absolutely and positively must reject this law - which, according to their own thinking, is a sin - against Divine Law.

Add to that, the popes who made the law, are ipso facto guilty of sinning against Divine Law. Which of course leads to a conclusion they completely ignore, i.e. those popes lost their office by making a law against Divine Law.

2 John says the same as Galatians, he says to not listen to "an angel from heaven" and to "let him be anathema." Why didn't St. Paul say "do not listen to him because he's not an angel from heaven?" Or "it will not be a false Gospel if he really is an angel from heaven?"

Because the only thing that matters is to not listen to false Gospels, to not listen to lies wherever they come from, we are to flee the danger, not try to decide if he's really an angel - because whether he is or is not an angel from heaven does not matter one iota, it most certainly did not matter to St. Paul and it most certainly does not matter to anyone else. The only thing that matters is to not listen. That is what that Scripture is teaching. That's why St. Paul said what he said and did not elaborate on the [im]possibility of it all, or the [il]legitimacy  of the "angel from heaven".

Consider that instead of fleeing, we go contrary to that Scripture and hang around and decide he really is an angel, the danger in that is that we will listen and believe a false Gospel - because we did not flee and did not "let him be anathema." Now for the heck of it, let's say that the angel is the pope - what matters is that we do not listen - without any consideration whatsoever to his [il]legitimacy. This is what St. Paul taught us to do - and as always, for very good reason.

Do you realize that your argument, based on scripture, against ordaining women, can be dismissed in the same way as you have just done? Do you see the fallacy in your line of reasoning? Do you see how illogical it is? Spend some time and think about it.

I don't think so, Quo. Stubborn wouldn't occupy himself with the question whether it was a "woman" talking in Church. It would suffice that it appears to be a woman, and Stubborn would insist on silence. I think he's making a valid distinction about the essence of the prohibition in a way.

What I think he's missing is the "anathema" part of Galatians, or the "receive him not into the house" part of 2 John. That suggests more than just don't listen, but rather consider the source outside the Church. It's the "anathema" part I struggle with, not the "not listen to."

[8] But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.

Sed licet nos aut angelus de caelo evangelizet vobis praeterquam quod evangelizavimus vobis, anathema sit.

[9] As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.

Sicut praediximus, et nunc iterum dico : si quis vobis evangelizaverit praeter id quod accepistis, anathema sit.

Douay-Rheims Bible, Galatians Chapter 1 (drbo.org)