Ok, FWIW, I will post a few Papal quotes quotes from Pope Paul IV, in 1559.

Most sedevacantists that I know are very familiar with cuм ex Apostolatus Officio. The ones I've debated with in the past seem to use it as bible, it seems to be their main constitution to justify their belief that the Chair is vacant due to the pope's heresies.

I tried to point out to a similar poster, Cathedra, before he got banned, that cuм ex Apostolatus Officio instructs us what we are to do, what our course of action is to be when we have a pope(s) who is a heretic and / or presumably excommunicated.


cuм ex Apostolatus Officio:
In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff,who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith.[/b]

The above quote demonstrates:
1) That popes can indeed deviate from (lose) the faith.
2) When popes lose the faith, we are instructed to contradict (resist) them in their errors.


We see that Pope Paul IV told us we are to contradict heretical popes, then in #7, he teaches us that we are also permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and to avoid them -  nevertheless, remaining bound by the duty of fidelity and obedience to any future Roman Pontiff.

".....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 (the same subject persons, nevertheless, remaining bound by the duty of fidelity and obedience to any future Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals and Roman Pontiff canonically entering).

In the two snips above, the pope instructs us to:

1) Contradict heretical popes
2) Withdraw our obedience (to heresies) from heretical popes
3) Avoid heretical popes
4) Remain faithful and obedient any future [valid] popes

Regardless of the fact that in #6, cuм Ex explicitly teaches that heretical popes automatically lose their office, in #7 we are still explicitly instructed that we are to withdraw obedience to the heresies, avoid yet remain faithful and obedient to any future valid popes.

Pope Paul IV in no way gives anyone, let alone priests or lay people, the right, let alone the duty or  responsibility, to declare or believe that the Chair is vacant even after explicitly stating that heretical popes lose their office. It is not within our rights to do such a thing, and per the Bull, those who do such a thing not only err, they are being disobedient to what the Church, through this Bull, teaches. If such a thing were within our rights or if it was our duty or responsibility, the pope certainly would have explicitly said so.

Additionally, what Pope Paul IV states in regards to the pope losing his office, he explicitly says also applies to Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates and Cardinals.

The issue gains fuel because whenever people read these types of Magisterial docuмents, it appears that they zoom right into #6 without reading or comprehending anything else it says. They do not read what is written - which is why I constantly am telling Vini to read what is written and not to read into it something it does not say.

You see, this is what im talking about.

This guy is now trying to use cuм Ex against sedevacantism! Absurd!

But people like OHCA, prefer to excuse this man.

Where is the sense of justice and honesty here? All i see here is a false mercy, excusing sin and lies, and no zeal for the truth.

cuм ex Apostolatus Officio instructs us what we are to do, what our course of action is to be when we have a pope(s) who is a heretic and / or presumably excommunicated.

cuм ex Apostolatus Officio:
In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff,who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith.[/b]

The above quote demonstrates:
1) That popes can indeed deviate from (lose) the faith.
2) When popes lose the faith, we are instructed to contradict (resist) them in their errors.

We see that Pope Paul IV told us we are to contradict heretical popes,

What happens to those who "deviate from the faith"? Why don't you be HONEST, and actually QUOTE the Bull to show what it says about those who "deviate from the Faith"?

No, you instead LIE and say it all means we are to "resist" him while recognizing him pope which, when you get down to it, MAKES NO SENSE.

What good is it to say that the pope is a heretic, apostate, blasphemer, non-Catholic, and yet still say he's the pope, if you don't even obey him and treat him like a non-Catholic anyways?

What if you were a cleric in the Vatican? Can you tell us how r&r would work there, if some cleric still held on to the faith? What if you were the secretary of state? Are you going to be arguing 24/7 with the "pope" and telling him day and night "I must resist you!"?

What if the ENTIRE Vatican held on to the Faith, except the "pope"? Would all the clerics run around "resisting" the pope, ignoring him, calling him a heretic, apostate, blasphemer?

The ridiculousness of r&r is just overtly hilarious and would make for a great comedy!

But let's look at the Bull.

#2 says:

Hence, concerning these matters, We have held mature deliberation with our venerable brothers the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church; and, upon their advice and with their unanimous agreement, we now enact as follows:-

In respect of each and every sentence of excommunication, suspension, interdict and privation and any other sentences, censures and penalties against heretics or schismatics, enforced and promulgated in any way whatsoever by any of Our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs, or by any who were held to be such (even by their "litterae extravagantes" i.e. private letters), or by the sacred Councils received by the Church of God, or by decrees of the Holy Fathers and the statutes, or by the sacred Canons and the Constitutions and Apostolic Ordinations - all these measures, by Apostolic authority, We approve and renew, that they may and must be observed in perpetuity and, if perchance they be no longer in lively observance, that they be restored to it.

Thus We will and decree that the aforementioned sentences, censures and penalties be incurred without exception by all members of the following categories:

(i) Anysoever who, before this date, shall have been detected to have deviated from the Catholic Faith, or fallen into any heresy, or incurred schism, or provoked or committed either or both of these, or who have confessed to have done any of these things, or who have been convicted of having done any of these things.

(ii) Anysoever who (which may God, in His clemency and goodness to all, deign to avert) shall in the future so deviate or fall into heresy, or incur schism, or shall provoke or commit either or both of these.

(iii) Anysoever who shall be detected to have so deviated, fallen, incurred, provoked or committed, or who shall confess to have done any of these things, or who shall be convicted of having done any of these things.


So, this is what happens to those who "deviate from the Faith", NOT your concocted "resistance".

Regardless of the fact that in #6, cuм Ex explicitly teaches that heretical popes automatically lose their office, in #7 we are still explicitly instructed that we are to withdraw obedience to the heresies, avoid yet remain faithful and obedient to any future valid popes.

Pope Paul IV in no way gives anyone, let alone priests or lay people, the right, let alone the duty or  responsibility, to declare or believe that the Chair is vacant even after explicitly stating that heretical popes lose their office. It is not within our rights to do such a thing, and per the Bull, those who do such a thing not only err, they are being disobedient to what the Church, through this Bull, teaches. If such a thing were within our rights or if it was our duty or responsibility, the pope certainly would have explicitly said so.

You contradicted yourself, you speak out of both sides of your mouth, and you condemned yourself.

Quote from: Vinikias

The ridiculousness of r&r is just overtly hilarious and would make for a great comedy!

But let's look at the Bull.

#2 says:

Hence, concerning these matters, We have held mature deliberation with our venerable brothers the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church; and, upon their advice and with their unanimous agreement, we now enact as follows:................

When they say "we", they do not mean "we" as in you and them.

OTOH, they say that "we" as in you and the rest of us, are only permitted to:
1) Contradict heretical popes
2) Withdraw our obedience (to heresies) from heretical popes
3) Avoid heretical popes

As I already said - If you can show any other Magisterial docuмentation permitting us to do anything else, please feel free to post it.

If you want to ever understand what was written, you will need to read what is written. I feel confident that if you try really hard, try with all your might to just read what is written that you'll be able to do it!
Best of luck to you!

Keep telling that to yourself, you are nothing but a L-I-A-R, and you have been amply refuted already, and you have no other option but to repeat the same things over and over again.

I have no interest in wasting my time with your ilk.

Goodbye Stanley.

I guess I don't see resistance and sedevacantism as necessarily being opposed when reading that.  To "contradict" a heretical pope doesn't necessarily mean that that pope doesn't lose his office ipso facto too.

Quote from: 2Vermont

I guess I don't see resistance and sedevacantism as necessarily being opposed when reading that.  To "contradict" a heretical pope doesn't necessarily mean that that pope doesn't lose his office ipso facto too.

He said a pope caught deviating from the faith is to be contradicted.

What was it that the Bull says happens to those who deviate from the Faith?

I already showed it: they incur all the sentences heretics and schismatics incur which are, among other things, excommunication.

To imagine that the "contradiction" Pope Paul IV meant for a pope who deviates from the Faith is to "resist" him and the entire Hierarchy that deviates from the Faith along with him, for 40+ years, to "resist" a Council, all the laws, doctrines, liturgy and teaching etc., is nothing short of ludicrous and absurd and un-supported by Catholic teaching and theology.

You can show no teaching which says that the faithful at large can "resist" a Pope's teachings, discipline, laws and liturgy and decide what they will accept and reject from a Pope for decades on end, NONE.

I guess what I was trying to say is that one can resist the pope by not recognizing him as the pope.

Actually i didn't; i guessed you were a r&rer and i was right.

Though I believe the sede position is most likely correct, you have me as an r&rer?

I would like you to explain how exactly was i such an a-hole, really.

Relentlessly badgering Stubborn and calling him a liar.  Don't you understand that most who practice as traditionalists have bucked the system and put themselves in something of a position of outcast with society?  Why would one do that and not go to the camp that he honestly believed was correct.  Stubborn may be in error--I don't know and your random appearance here and your posts aren't likely to convince me.  But I am very certain that he is not knowingly lying.  I think you know better and are being uncharitable and violating the 8th Commandment by accusing him of such and are being an asshole in the process.  Not quite as concerned about how you treat prots, by I think you were assholish in that thread too.

The fact that he believes his lies are true is utterly irrelevant and you are completely wrong, one's beliefs can CERTAINLY make you a liar.

Are you going to excuse all non-Catholics now then, since they certainly believe their beliefs and convictions are correct and true?

If he isn't knowingly telling untruths, then he is not a liar--wrong--but not a liar.

As to non-Catholics, I wouldn't say they're all liars.  But they are heretics as they aren't practicing to the best of their ability and understanding, but have rather rejected Catholicism.  I have little patience for heretics and do not excuse them.

Quote from: OHCA

I, too, happen to be a fan of Fr. Wathen.  Comparing him to the Dimonds is utterly ridiculous.

I did not compare him to the Dimonds.

Where did i do that?

HERE:

Better to learn the Catholic faith without the influence of the Dimond fools Fr. Wathen then it is to waste your time with things you continually demonstrate that you know absolutely nothing about.

Quote from: OHCA

If I were to guess a thing or two about you, I would guess that you're either a home-aloner or attend with the only (or perhaps 1 of 3) valid priest remaining in the world.

Where i am there are zero traditional Priests, not one.

So, you guessed wrong.

So what priests are alive who you would be comfortable attending Mass with?  SSPX, SSPV, CMRI--who out there are the valid traditional priests?

Quote from: OHCA

I believe the sede position is more than likely correct.  But I don't believe one has to accept the sede position to get to Heaven.  Do you think they do have to accept the sede position to get to Heaven?  Do you think I'm going to hell because of my position that others don't have to accept the sede position?  Because I'm not 100% certain that the sede position is correct?

"More than likely"? It is a certainty.

Sounds a lot like dogmatic sedevacantism to me.  Also, seems like you're of a mind to badger those who aren't sedevacantists.

As is typical of dogmatic sedevacantism, you imagine the Church teaches something it does not, you imagine "contradict" means something it does not mean.  You blind your own self  because I have shown you over and over - and again above -  that the Church, through cuм ex teaches we are permitted to resist him.  What YOU will never be able to do is show a Church teaching permitting you to do anything else above #s 1, 2 and 3 above and you will certainly never be able to find any magisterial teaching permitting you to declare that there is no pope while the entire world sees that there is one sitting in the Chair. Again, that is not within your rights no matter how hard you pound your fist or stomp your feet while demanding it is within your rights.

To be fair Stubborn, you have interpreted "contradict" to mean "resist" in the manner that you resist.  Who is to say that "contradict" can not also mean not recognizing the Pope as the pope?  What "contradict" means is not as clearly spelled out as you would like to believe (at least as far as I can see).  I do think interpretation is up for discussion and just as no SV can tell you to interpret it his way you can not turn around and tell a SV that he must interpret it your way.

To be fair Stubborn, you have interpreted "contradict" to mean "resist" in the manner that you resist.  Who is to say that "contradict" can not also mean not recognizing the Pope as the pope?  What "contradict" means is not as clearly spelled out as you would like to believe (at least as far as I can see).  I do think interpretation is up for discussion and just as no SV can tell you to interpret it his way you can not turn around and tell a SV that he must interpret it your way.

Based on the rest of the Bull, it's obvious that the pope said exactly, and explicitly repeated what he meant to say. He minced no words anywhere else in the Bull so why not read it as it is written?

Additionally, if he meant to teach that *we were permitted to proclaim* that the Pope is not the pope, a) that is exactly what he would have said and b) he would never had said that we were permitted to "Withdraw our obedience *with impunity* and Avoid" the excommunicated popes.

Again, among the reasons we will never find any papal teaching that allows or permits us to dethrone the pope is because:
a) if such a thing were permitted, there would be nothing at all to stop us from dethroning a good pope and
b) that teaching would reduce the supreme authority of the pope to no authority at all.


Make sense?