Quote from: Stubborn

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.

It does change the meaning of the sentence from the meaning you gave it. Your claim that because it did not mention the word "heresy" explicitly, that heresy is not included in the decree - it's either that or you don't believe that heresy is an excommunicable offense - which I highly doubt you believe.

When you add the word "any" to  "excommunication", that word makes the decree all inclusive, inclusive of all excommunicable offenses without distinction, which therefore necessarily includes heresy whether you believe heresy excommunicates one or not.

So here we have popes who make it a law that no cardinal can be excluded from the conclave that elects the next pope, that IF any Cardinals are under any censure, whatever the censure might be, the censure is suspended only for the election.  "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...."

So presume that no one knows that there are 10 heretic cardinals in the conclave because they are secret heretics who have vowed within themselves that if elected, they will misuse and rob the Church of her riches, appoint heretic cardinals and bishops, in short, he vows to use his authority to destroy the Church.

The question remains - what is there to stop the conclave from electing one of these heretics as pope?

Now, you can answer a million times that if the one who gets elected is a heretic, that he is not the pope, but that does not answer the question.

I am not disagreeing with you on the heretic part, certainly we are not permitted to be mindless - quite the opposite. I am disagreeing with you on the part that we have any authorization to do anything about it.

Now this is mindless.  The problem with anti-sedevacantism is that it is born of mindlessness.

Quote from: Stubborn

We can yell at him that he's a heretic, we can and should warn each other that he's a heretic, but knowing he is a heretic does not change our obligation to be subject to him unless he should command something which is sinful

(I removed all but this quote because what you say here is the heart of the issue. The bold is from me.)
From this statement it is clear that you believe that a heretic can be pope. You say that we must be subject to a heretic. Please explain.

I absolutely believe without hesitation that the conciliar popes have all been heretics, whoever doesn't fools only themselves, but simply, we do not have the authority to do anything about it - that is as simple an explanation as I can offer. Fr. Wathen puts it this way:

If the person who incurs the censure be the pope himself, since there is no tribunal within the Church with the right to pass judgment against him, he cannot be removed from his office, even though he be under censure, and, according to the law, have no right to function as the head of the Church. We, his subjects, are not permitted to do anything about this. It is not within our right to declare his acts devoid of validity, due to his having been expelled from his office. Yes, the
faithful may know well that he has committed a sin to which a censure is affixed by the Church, but this knowledge in no way qualifies them to declare him deprived of his office, or never to have been elected. We should have to continue 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.

Quote from: Stubborn

But whatever you do, please do not answer the question I asked - heaven forbid you actually reply with some plausible answer to my question:

Quote

The question remains - what is there to stop the conclave from electing one of these heretics as pope?  

Clearly there is nothing that would stop a conclave from electing a heretic as pope.  It is an absolute fact that we've seen this happen several times since the Council.

But it is also an absolute fact that Catholic doctrine rejects the election of any manifest heretic to the papacy.  The Code of Canon Law specifically re-iterates the Divine Law that a manifest heretic loses any office in the Church ipso facto without a declaration (here's that pesky word, "any", again!).   This is the codification of Pope Paul IV's cuм Ex Apostolatus.  

If there was still a Holy Roman Emperor, we could apply to him to forcibly remove him from the Vatican.  Unfortunately, that option is not available to us so we are left to simply recognize the fact that the man elected is a heretic and reject him as our head.  We listen to him as we listen to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Dalai Lama, or the Grand Master of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.

Frankly I have a hard time understanding Stubborn's logic, he is loyal to a heretical pope just because Fr. Wathen says so;  yet, he ignores a true pope and Divine Law.  

A Roman Catholic accepting the position of Sedevacantism follows God's Divine Law, before man.  

 
If there was still a Holy Roman Emperor, we could apply to him to forcibly remove him from the Vatican.

He never had such power.  He was only allowed to veto a candidate at the time of an election.

Quote from: St Ignatius

Quote from: MyrnaM

 A Roman Catholic accepting the position of Sedevacantism follows God's Divine Law, before man.

I'll take that just as your personal opinion....

 1. Is it my personal opinion that Jesus and His Church are One?

 2. Is it my personal opinion that God can not deceive nor be deceived?

 3. Is it my personal opinion that a Pope is the Vicar of Christ, His representative?

 4. Can the Vicar of Christ be both pope of Truth and error?

Those points, if I remember correctly are Divine Law, not an opinion.
Those points are also what brings a Catholic searching to the Sedevacantist conclusion.  

Most who post here no matter their viewpoint sede, RR, Indult, FSSP, SSPX, SSPV, independent,  believe Vatican II is not Catholic. Which is why they do not consider themselves novus ordo.   I say most because we have a few conciliarists NO types.

Vatican II is a Church of many not one. (ecuмenical, embracing all)  Yes, Francis is the leader of this false church, but he is not a pope of the True Church for reasons above. It is my understanding he doesn't even care to be called.    

5. Is it my personal opinion that the first Pope denied Christ three times?

That was before he was a pope!   Study up!

The birth of the Church was Pentecost.  

"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]

Ok, I will attempt to spell this out for you as clearly as I can. You will have to trust me when I say that however it comes across, I mean no disrespect. I mean no disrespect when I say - you are interpreting the whole thing with the severely tilted bias of sedevacantists, as I will attempt to demonstrate. You might need to read it through a few times..........

Clearly there is nothing that would stop a conclave from electing a heretic as pope.  It is an absolute fact that we've seen this happen several times since the Council.

You are correct and I agree it has in fact happened. There is nothing to stop the cardinals from electing a heretic pope or only a terrible pope - or a saintly pope for that matter. The decision rests entirely upon the cardinals - albeit presumably with the hope that with the help of divine intervention, a saintly pope gets elected.  


Now for the conundrum......

But it is also an absolute fact that Catholic doctrine rejects the election of any manifest heretic to the papacy.

Now you just said above that there's nothing to stop a conclave from electing a heretic as pope and you also correctly said that it is an absolute fact that it's happened many times since the Council.

If what you are saying now is true, namely, that doctrine rejects a heretic to the papacy, then Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII are either 1) guilty of a colossal blunder, 2) or they blatantly reject Catholic doctrine, or 3) they are aiming to destroy it by mandating the suppression of any censure specifically for the election - are they not?

Worse yet for SVs, after the election, 4) the law mandates that the censure goes back into force - this is the law that the popes made.

Which means when a heretic cardinal is elected pope, per papal law, he is back to being a heretic instantly once elected. Should such a thing happen - and as you have correctly said, it *has* happened, then this result can actually be attributed directly to the papal law of PPX and PPXII.  

Yet you also seem to say that canon law overrides the direct papal laws of PPX and PPXII? - But isn't it true that the laws decreed directly from popes supersede, override, cancel out and are above any canon law?

I am quite sure you have zero doubts that PPX and PPXII were true popes, as such, the law they mandated for papal elections is infallible, if not infallible, it is nearly infallible.  

So now your conundrum  is - how could true popes ever risk electing a heretic to the Chair by making it a law to invite heretical cardinals to participate in the papal election, and also mandate that after the election their censure goes back into force? Which is to say the papal law guarantees that if a heretical cardinal gets elected, after the election, ipso facto, the heretical cardinal-now-pope is now a heretical pope, and is so via papal mandate.    

I believe this an accurate conundrum, a conundrum created by sedevacantist thinking. Before continuing, please let me know if this conundrum is accurate.