Please refute Pope Paul IV first.

What is there to refute?  He is stating something in a papal bull.

Let's take it a little further.  Let us accept what he says fully and apply it directly to the current pontiff.  

I will bold applicable sentences.  

Bull cuм Ex Apostolatus [16 Feb. 1559], Pope Paul IV — “Further, if ever it should appear that any bishop (even one acting as an archbishop, patriarch or primate), or a cardinal of the Roman Church, or a legate (as mentioned above), or even the Roman Pontiff (whether prior to his promotion to cardinal, or prior to his election as Roman Pontiff), has beforehand deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into any heresy, We enact, decree, determine and define: — “Such promotion or election in and of itself, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, shall be null, legally invalid and void. — “It shall not be possible for such a promotion or election to be deemed valid or to be valid, neither through reception of office, consecration, subsequent administration, or possession, nor even through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff himself, together with the veneration and obedience accorded him by all. — “Such promotion or election, shall not through any lapse of time in the foregoing situation, be considered even partially legitimate in any way.... — “Each and all of their words, acts, laws, appointments of those so promoted or elected — and indeed, whatsoever flows therefrom — shall be lacking in force, and shall grant no stability and legal power to anyone whatsoever. — “Those so promoted or elected, 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.”

Actually, all of should be bolded.  But the idea of Pope Francis not being pope--according to Bull cuм Ex Apostolatus--hinges on the idea that he did one of two things, that he "deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into any heresy."

Let's start with the latter, since it's a word everyone loves tossing around.

1. What is heresy?
2.  When, in his pre-pope days, has Bergoglio committed heresy?  Names some specific examples.

Let's cut to it.

-LH

Quote from: LaramieHirsch

1. What is heresy?
2.  When, in his pre-pope days, has Bergoglio committed heresy?  Names some specific examples.

Let's cut to it.

-LH

Keep it simple -

1. What is heresy? - Modernism ("the synthesis of all heresies"- Pope St. Pius X)
2. Examples? - participation in all things Novus Ordo.

Note that what cuм ex says of the [non] pope is said of Bishops and Cardinals first.

 
 

Okay, so the bishops and cardinals are heretics, too?  Then no pope in the future.  The Church is over.  Christianity is a lie.  And a waste of our time.

Posting here might be an amusement for you Laramiehirsch, but do you ever stop to think about the people who come here looking for answers that you lead astray?

You will be held accountable for every word!

Well, I will have a go at this question.

Here is a link to the original article (in spanish) by Bergoglio's biographer how he supported same sex civil unions while Archbishop of Buenos Aries.  This is certainly against even the Conciliar Churches teaching on marriage*

http://romancatholicworld.wordpress.com/2013/03/19/francis-first-pope-to-have-favored-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ-civil-unions/

I think these two fall more into the apostasy rather than heresy category but here is Bergoglio kneeling for a 'blessing' from some protestant televangelists:

http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A306rcBergoglioBless.html

Here he is joining in a little fun with his Jєωιѕн pals:

http://cathcon.blogspot.ca/2013/03/rabbi-bergoglio.html

I am sure more than 10 minutes of research could turn up even more gems from his past.

Luke
*Dogmas, doctrine and discipline subject to change at any time.

Perfect.  Thank you for the contribution.  Yet, it's just a tad difficult to continue when I read joyous encouragements like this:

I hope you have nothing to do with teaching youth!!

John, you're an ass.   :smile:

Why continue?  You typify all sedevacantists I've been speaking with in the last month.  Bitter, nasty, ankle-biting, and petty.  If you have the truth for salvation, you sure do like to keep it to yourself.  At best, you have a crummy way of evangelizing.  I mean, here I am, a guy exploring the thought process of a person who is supposedly holy because they've ceased recognizing Church authority--one would think this is a great opportunity for you to explain where you're coming from.  Instead, you're come off like a nasty booger.  

You will be held accountable for every word!

I guess you won't, then?

Posting here might be an amusement for you Laramiehirsch, but do you ever stop to think about the people who come here looking for answers that you lead astray?

But I'm trying to...walk..through this...oh nevermind.

we'll see you in a few days after you've read the material.

That is the reason for this thread, isn't it? To refute this ex cathedra statement by a pope?

PS NO ONE takes you seriously and I can see why.
You are an EVADER.

Ah!  No time for reflection or study on what you've given me, eh?  

Very well, let's just come to a conclusion right here and now and follow your sedevacantist thought to its end:

Pope Paul IV is right.  

There's just too much heresy since the sixties.  There is no pope.  Therefore, there are no valid bishops, and certainly no cardinals.  And of course, there may be priests, but they are old now and should be dying off pretty soon.  

The Holy Presence is dying away.

Of course, this is contrary to the promises of Christ.  But then again...if this is happening, and there is no pope...then Christ must have lied!

There is no Holy Presence.  There is nothing to see at Adoration.  You are alone.  Forget it.  This is all a lie and a novelty.  Catholics are the only ones who think they are important, but in the end, they are irrelevant.

Because Christianity is a lie.  If it ever wasn't, people would not be getting saved because there's no valid clergy for them.  God is allowing everyone to go to Hell because they cannot find the invisible Church.

But then again, would there be a God who would allow this?  There're probably isn't.  The Catholic Church is a lie.

Sleep well.  You won't go to Hell, Sedevacantists.  You will merely tumble into oblivion.

You're still an ass, John.  But it doesn't matter.  Nothing matters.

Is that what you get from Pope Paul IV?

With my "new sedevacantist mindset," if I deduce that there's been no popes since the sixties, I'd say we've been about a generation without a visible Church.  

Time to wrap it up and stop wasting time.  ggreg was justified to give up.  This is all a joke.

Quote from: LaramieHirsch

Quote from: John

Is that what you get from Pope Paul IV?

With my "new sedevacantist mindset," if I deduce that there's been no popes since the sixties, I'd say we've been about a generation without a visible Church.  

Time to wrap it up and stop wasting time.  ggreg was justified to give up.  This is all a joke.

You are assuming that the Church is not visible if there is no pope.  

Ah yes!  How could I forget!  People in Africa can SEE the Church by merely logging on to Cathinfo.com.  Then they can see where all the REAL Catholics are!   :dancing-banana:


Honestly, what the hell is there to convert people to?  Nothing.  

"Hey!  Join my church!  There is no structure because it collapsed fifty years ago!  Also, there is no sign that there will ever be any church leadership again. Ever!"

The only people sedevacantists seem to convert is Catholics.  What is there for a godless infidel to look forward to?  This broken structure?

Nah.  The so-called Holy Presence is withering away in this world.  Only little pockets of the sedevacantist "resistance" have valid priests left alive.  But soon they'll be dead.

The so-called Church shall end soon.  Then the rest of the world can get on with itself.  Without you.  

Just waitin' for all the "relevant" sedevacantsts to die off.  Then, once your sacraments are gone, you'll have nothing to stand on.  

Pope Francis can go on and on all he wants that the right-wing religious Catholics are a problem.  In the end, he's splitting hairs in an irrelevant structure that should be deconstructed and turned into an amusement park.  

He doesn't matter.  Just as you don't.  It's over.  Christ was wrong--His church is dead.

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: LaramieHirsch

Quote from: John

Is that what you get from Pope Paul IV?

With my "new sedevacantist mindset," if I deduce that there's been no popes since the sixties, I'd say we've been about a generation without a visible Church.  

Time to wrap it up and stop wasting time.  ggreg was justified to give up.  This is all a joke.

You are assuming that the Church is not visible if there is no pope.  

Ah yes!  How could I forget!  People in Africa can SEE the Church by merely logging on to Cathinfo.com.  Then they can see where all the REAL Catholics are!   :dancing-banana:


Honestly, what the hell is there to convert people to?  Nothing.  

"Hey!  Join my church!  There is no structure because it collapsed fifty years ago!  Also, there is no sign that there will ever be any church leadership again. Ever!"

The only people sedevacantists seem to convert is Catholics.  What is there for a godless infidel to look forward to?  This broken structure?

Nah.  The so-called Holy Presence is withering away in this world.  Only little pockets of the sedevacantist "resistance" have valid priests left alive.  But soon they'll be dead.

The so-called Church shall end soon.  Then the rest of the world can get on with itself.  Without you.  

Just waitin' for all the "relevant" sedevacantsts to die off.  Then, once your sacraments are gone, you'll have nothing to stand on.  

Pope Francis can go on and on all he wants that the right-wing religious Catholics are a problem.  In the end, he's splitting hairs in an irrelevant structure that should be deconstructed and turned into an amusement park.  

He doesn't matter.  Just as you don't.  It's over.  Christ was wrong--His church is dead.

You are very sarcastic and aggressive.  Do you concede that the visibility of the Church continues in the absence of the pope during an interregnum?