What does the papal oath have to do with whether or not the pope could be an enemy of the faith?

The papal oath won't stop him from using his authority to try to destroy (if that were possible) the Church, all it will do is add to his offenses against God when he breaks his oath - which they don't take any longer anyway.

 

Quote from: MyrnaM

Stubborn,  you seem to ignore the fact that the elected Pope, must be Catholic with a good willed intention to do as the past True popes have always done in order to be a valid election.  Divine Law

You need to read this: The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita

 The author quotes the actual Masonic docuмent, which both Pope Pius IX (1846-1878) and Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903) asked to be published. This docuмent describes the Masons' diabolical strategy to destroy the Church by infecting her leaders with Liberal ideas. Tells how they do not desire a masonic Pope, but rather a Pope infected with their ideas. Touches on Liberalism, the French Revolution, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, Ecuмenism, Modernism, the modernist conspiracy at Vatican II, and much more! An eye-opening book that every Catholic must read!

As I said, even if he is not pope, there is nothing anyone can do about it, if there was some thing someone could do about it, it would have been done 50 years ago. And because the dogma states we cannot get to heaven unless we are subject to him, I am not willing to risk my eternity on my opinion when everything we see with our own eyes testifies that he is pope - albeit a terribly rotten and heretical pope.

Fine!  Stubborn you can be subject to him all the way as he leads you and SSPX into the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr that the Illuminati Masons of which you are subject to are.  

Quote from: Stubborn

My view is that there is no way to prove the conciliar popes are not popes and proof is needed, that short of Divine Providence, there is nothing to stop a pope from doing what the conciliar popes have done. Nothing.  

Most sedevacantists proclaim that "the pope is not the pope", as though it were an indisputable fact rising from divine revelation - when the real fact is the pope was elected in the same manner as the previous +200 popes, so the presumption must side with the same validity as all the previous elections. Which means that the pope is the pope until another pope at some time in the future makes the declaration that the conciliar popes have not been popes. No one else has the authority to do anything about it - this is demonstrated by the last 58 years where not one single thing has been done about these heretical popes by anybody.

This teaching from Paul IV says that heresy automatically makes them not the pope.
cuм ex Apostolatus Officio...........

But Ibranyi decided that there have been no popes since 1130 due to their heresies - who are we to believe, him or popular opinion? Besides that, Pope Pius X and Pope Pius XII made different rules.

Pius XII's Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis of 1945 states:

No Cardinal can in any way be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff on the pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict, or other ecclesiastical impediment whatsoever; We, in fact, suspend these censures only for the effect of an election of this sort; they will remain in their own force in other circuмstances....

....After this agreement has been furnished within a time limit to be determined by the prudent judgment of the Cardinals by a majority of votes (to the extent it is necessary), the man elected is instantly the true Pope, and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world. Hence, if anyone dares to challenge the docuмents prepared in regard to any business whatsoever that comes from the Roman Pontiff before the coronation, We bind him with the censure of excommunication to be incurred ipso facto.

Which is to say that there is nothing to stop a heretical  cardinal from being elected a true pope.

Quote from: Stubborn

But Ibranyi decided that there have been no popes since 1130 due to their heresies - who are we to believe, him or popular opinion? Besides that, Pope Pius X and Pope Pius XII made different rules.

Pius XII's Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis of 1945 states:

Quote

No Cardinal can in any way be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff on the pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict, or other ecclesiastical impediment whatsoever; We, in fact, suspend these censures only for the effect of an election of this sort; they will remain in their own force in other circuмstances....

....After this agreement has been furnished within a time limit to be determined by the prudent judgment of the Cardinals by a majority of votes (to the extent it is necessary), the man elected is instantly the true Pope, and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world. Hence, if anyone dares to challenge the docuмents prepared in regard to any business whatsoever that comes from the Roman Pontiff before the coronation, We bind him with the censure of excommunication to be incurred ipso facto.

Which is to say that there is nothing to stop a heretical  cardinal from being elected a true pope.

I know very little about Ibranyi, but one needs only to Judge according to the Infallible Dogmas of the Church.

Ibranyi is a giant nutter whom I used as an example, a prime example of why it is not up to us to determine loss of office. Who is to say he is wrong and you are right? I assure you that for every teaching you have to support your opinion, he probably has 3 to support his.  

I am sure you know what the term heresy means. As per the definition, there could be no such thing as an heretical Cardinal because  “For not every offense, although it may be a grave evil, is such as by its very own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.” (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi)

With this in mind, this former Cardinal, having been severed from the Church, can not become Pope because “No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.” (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum)

But what about Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII saying: No Cardinal can in any way be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff on the pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict, or other ecclesiastical impediment whatsoever;

They did not say "unless the excommunication is for heresy".

Quote from: Stubborn

But what about Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII saying: No Cardinal can in any way be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff on the pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict, or other ecclesiastical impediment whatsoever;

They did not say "unless the excommunication is for heresy".

However, Stubborn in order for a man to be a Cardinal he must be Catholic in the first place, not some infiltrator.  BTW ... no wonder you defend Francis, you sound more like him when I read your replies.   "Who am I to judge"

I don't defend pope Francis - he will be judged by God for what he did. The rest of your post makes no sense in light of Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis.

The Second Lateran Council of 1139 stripped the approval of
the regular clergy and the laity from the papal approval process.
Perhaps it is time for another adjustment.
How can we stop the continuing modernity, under the current
system ? Electors retiring at 80 (Paul VI), assures those appointed
as Cardinals in the Vatican II system are capable of self-promotion.

Does anyone know exactly when the parishes of Rome were
sent in titular form to sees abroad, so that non-Roman bishops
first became electors for the Bishop of Rome ?

The Papal Election Decree (1059) of Pope Nicholas II
insists that the pastoral clergy of Rome is to be the well from which
the new Pontiff is drawn, and the approval of Rome's laity is
required. He decreed, that ONLY if no good candidate may be
found in Rome, should the electors seek elsewhere.

Quote from: Stubborn

Ibranyi is a giant nutter whom I used as an example, a prime example of why it is not up to us to determine loss of office. Who is to say he is wrong and you are right? I assure you that for every teaching you have to support your opinion, he probably has 3 to support his.

I understood your point. That's why I said you must judge everything according to Dogma.

Exactly which dogma qualifies the faithful to declare the pope is not the pope based on our knowledge of his sins? Which dogma or law decrees that our knowledge of his sins qualify us or otherwise make it our responsibility to do that?

Quote from: Stubborn

But what about Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII saying: No Cardinal can in any way be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff on the pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict, or other ecclesiastical impediment whatsoever;

They did not say "unless the excommunication is for heresy".

Let's assume that a heretic can somehow be elected as pope. As soon as the election is over the person elected ceases to be pope because he is a heretic. The Church is quite clear that a heretic can't be pope.

This idea makes the whole election process a colossal waste of time.
 
First, the cardinals, who can only become cardinals by papal appointment and specifically are appointed primarily for the election of popes, just elected a pope. The man is instantly pope upon accepting the election - period. This according to Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis. This is the official teaching of the Church. But as if you can, you contradict this with the idea that, "no he isn't", because far as you are concerned based on your scrupulous study in the matter, "he is a heretic", even though the cardinals just elected him. How is that not assuming to be an authority you are not?  

I say your claim that he is not the pope is false, that you're saying this is based on a presumed authority that neither you nor anyone in the world possess. That if in fact you are correct, and all indications as regards validity are against you here, but if you are correct, 1) there is no way to prove it and 2) there is nothing you can do about it and finally 3) we are not relieved of our obligation as faithful Catholics from being bound to obey him as the pope in all those religious matters which fall within the ambit of his authority, unless he should command something which is sinful - for the simple reason that he was elected according to the teaching and tradition of the Church.

You missed a word, it says:
any excommunication, suspension, interdict, or other ecclesiastical impediment".

No.  I didn't miss the word.  It would not change the meaning of the sentence.  If the cardinal had become a Lutheran and was thereby excommunicated, he would not be welcomed into the conclave.  If you believe he would, then you are willfully blind and all Christians are called upon to simply shake the dust from their feet.