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.”

Funny how your thread became recycled.

It can't be refuted.  It can be ignored and wished away and misinterpreted but it can't be refuted.  

A more pertinent question would be what prevents a traditional Catholic from being SV.

1.  Because Peter has perpetual successors?

2.  Because God would not allow the chair to be vacant so long?

3.  Because the SVs are a bunch of jerks so they can't be right.

4.  Because despite not having a Catholic bone in his body Bergi is not a heretic, he only teaches it, writes, it and and engages is heretical acts.  

5.  Because SSPX tells me so and they can't be wrong.

6.  Because Grunner, Vennari and Ferrara tell me so and they can't be wrong?

See, there is tons of reasons not to be SV.

You forgot:  Because I'm a dogmatic sedeplenist.

Stubborn, just keep repeating the same thing despite the fact that others have explained that that quote does not pertain to heretical popes, just bad popes.  At the very least, your repeating it doesn't convince me personally that you are right and the others are wrong.  By you continuing to push the issue, makes you sound like a dogmatic sedeplenist.

Quote from: 2Vermont

Stubborn, just keep repeating the same thing despite the fact that others have explained that that quote does not pertain to heretical popes, just bad popes.  At the very least, your repeating it doesn't convince me personally that you are right and the others are wrong.  By you continuing to push the issue, makes you sound like a dogmatic sedeplenist.

But St. Robert explains that the quote does pertain to heretical popes - you know, popes who seek to destroy the Church.

At the very least, people who keep repeating the same Bull without reading what it actually says deserve to read the same reply.

Here is another which agrees with St. Robert - - - this one is from cuм ex - which is probably where St. Robert's teaching originated from: ".........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."

As far as I'm concerned "destroying the Church" can be done many ways without heresy.  If he was referring to heretical popes in that chapter he would have said it PLAINLY (as he does numerous times in the previous chapter where he states that a heretical pope loses his office ipso facto IRC).

We've been here before, so I'm not going to go on and on with you.

As for others constantly repeating their side, from what I can see as a relatively newbie here is that the sedes have been put on defense....OVER and OVER again.  They have every right to respond with their defense over and over as long as that happens.  Personally, I'd rather ignore the obvious dogmatic sedeplenist trolls who really just love to be fed.  Just watch how they react to those who ignore them.....they go overboard trying to get their attention.  If you just wait it out, it stops. It reminds me of some of my previous students who have behavior issues.  

Quote from: 2Vermont

As far as I'm concerned "destroying the Church" can be done many ways without heresy.  If he was referring to heretical popes in that chapter he would have said it PLAINLY (as he does numerous times in the previous chapter where he states that a heretical pope loses his office ipso facto IRC).

We've been here before, so I'm not going to go on and on with you.

As for others constantly repeating their side, from what I can see as a relatively newbie here is that the sedes have been put on defense....OVER and OVER again.  They have every right to respond with their defense over and over as long as that happens.  Personally, I'd rather ignore the obvious dogmatic sedeplenist trolls who really just love to be fed.  Just watch how they react to those who ignore them.....they go overboard trying to get their attention.  If you just wait it out, it stops. It reminds me of some of my previous students who have behavior issues.  

No one is going to change your mind, you came here SV and will remain so by your own free will - so be it.

But that does not change the fact that we are told by cuм ex and St. Robert that we are permitted to resist a pope who tries to teach error. It also does not change the fact that there is no where in Church teaching that permits us to do anything beyond resisting a pope who tries to teach us error - if you know of a church teaching which permits us to go around declaring there is no pope while one sits in the chair then go ahead and post it already.

Now if you choose to think that a pope can spend his time trying to destroy the Church is in some way not a heretic or apostate - so be it as well.

As for SVs being put on the defense - who started this thread? - a sedevacantist. If they do not want to defend their opinion then why are they bothering to post about it at all?


 

Presumptions. Presumptions.  I did not come here SV, but the SV posters make a better case than the non-SVer's.  That's for sure.  I am hesitant to actually call myself SV, but it's looking more and more like I need to make a choice.

Yes, the OP is a SV.  One thread like this does not even come close to the NUMEROUS threads started against SV.

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: 2Vermont

As far as I'm concerned "destroying the Church" can be done many ways without heresy.  If he was referring to heretical popes in that chapter he would have said it PLAINLY (as he does numerous times in the previous chapter where he states that a heretical pope loses his office ipso facto IRC).

We've been here before, so I'm not going to go on and on with you.

As for others constantly repeating their side, from what I can see as a relatively newbie here is that the sedes have been put on defense....OVER and OVER again.  They have every right to respond with their defense over and over as long as that happens.  Personally, I'd rather ignore the obvious dogmatic sedeplenist trolls who really just love to be fed.  Just watch how they react to those who ignore them.....they go overboard trying to get their attention.  If you just wait it out, it stops. It reminds me of some of my previous students who have behavior issues.  

No one is going to change your mind, you came here SV and will remain so by your own free will - so be it.

But that does not change the fact that we are told by cuм ex and St. Robert that we are permitted to resist a pope who tries to teach error. It also does not change the fact that there is no where in Church teaching that permits us to do anything beyond resisting a pope who tries to teach us error - if you know of a church teaching which permits us to go around declaring there is no pope while one sits in the chair then go ahead and post it already.

Now if you choose to think that a pope can spend his time trying to destroy the Church is in some way not a heretic or apostate - so be it as well.

As for SVs being put on the defense - who started this thread? - a sedevacantist. If they do not want to defend their opinion then why are they bothering to post about it at all?


 

Presumptions. Presumptions.  I did not come here SV, but the SV posters make a better case than the non-SVer's.  That's for sure.  I am hesitant to actually call myself SV, but it's looking more and more like I need to make a choice.

Yes, the OP is a SV.  One thread like this does not even come close to the NUMEROUS threads started against SV.

I've read where you've posted in a round about way that you were SV - if it mattered enough to me, I'd go back and look for your few posts that alluded to you being SV.

Either way, everyone by now has read what was written by St. Robert and cuм ex regarding what our rights are in regards to popes who attempt to detroy the Church - so as I stated above,  if you know of a church teaching which permits us to go around declaring there is no pope while one sits in the chair then go ahead and post it already.

if you know of a church teaching which permits us to go around declaring there is no pope while one sits in the chair then go ahead and post it already.

This post is not for Stubborn because he will say it does not mean what it says or some strange thing instead of doing the intellectually honest thing and granting the point:

cuм ex apostolatus:

 6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

    (i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;

    (ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;

    (iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;

    (iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;

    (v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;

And what follows I guess is something that ahem, Stubborn "overlooked" ahem

    (vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.



Hello?