If the same allegedly happened to the Hierarchy of the Catholic Church, how is it not the implication of that wrong opinion that the Catholic Church defected? A wrong premise leads to that wrong conclusion. Thoughts?

It does seem like a defection, but we know that is impossible. Even from the stones of the earth . . . is that relevant here? Peter was The Rock (Is a rock a stone?).

I am not a sedevacantist of any kind, nor a sedeprivationist. At times I have considered it. I think some of them are sheep and others are wolves. It seems like there are so many wolves among us.

I am glad you are posting here, XavierSem, as you seem very pious. I thought you had the faith of a child when I read your posts on Suscipe Domnine and when you would post on the Orthodox forum trying to convert them to the Church. I hope you had great success in your attempts at conversion. But I am glad you are here in our enchanted garden. For some reason that is the nickname I came up with for Cathinfo. "The Enchanted Garden".

It strikes me as insipid for you to spiritually bully others the way you have in this little "demonstration" of yours.  Argue against it by all means, but the whole "let everyone who wishes to make progress in their spiritual lives flee from these errors" is just uncalled for, not to mention especially rich given that the whole ethos of the "Teaching Church" you've identified is one which encourages infidels and heretics to cling to the spiritual value found in their religions so that they can become good nonCatholics.  All of a sudden playing hardball with sedes while everyone else gets to sentimentally grow in spiritual error is just special pleading.  If you reject this notion of growing commensurately with one's non-Catholic religion (which you should), then you're just inadvertently adding fuel to the wrong fire since it casts doubt on the legitimacy of the body you've identified as the inclusive Catholic hierarchy.  And therefore gives us good reasons to ask the questions sedevacantism asks, rendering (at the very least) your notion that your rebuttal is "clear and certain" wholly dubious.
.
With regard to the necessity of a pope for appointments, this claim does not take into account what many sedevacantists have argued for years, which is that common error would suffice to validate the episcopal appointment of a man (supposing of course that the man were eligible for appointment).  

 

Enchanted Garden...beautiful. 

Some days I think there are much more important things than these controversies. 

XavierSem says the above, yet repeatedly starts posts on such controversies.  

Am I the only one who thinks cuм Ex was unenforceable wishful thinking at best?

cuм Ex was made law in 1559.  Sure it was enforceable.  You either follow it or you don't.  If you don't, then you're schismatic (just like you would be if you disobeyed any other papal law).
.
What is at debate is how often it was revised or had parts changed.  (I don't think it's ever been overturned totally).  I don't know if it was revised between 1559 and the early 1900s, but we know for a fact that Pope St Pius X made changes to the papal election laws and so did Pius XII (who basically reiterated St Pius X's changes).  cuм Ex would still be in force, just not fully.  Those who deny that St Pius X and Pius XII made changes to this law are dishonest and have an agenda.

Problem with a law like cuм Ex is that what happens if 10 Cardinals think a papal claimant is a heretic and 10 do not?  What determines the objective existence of this condition?  In that sense, it would indeed have been difficult to enforce.  Or, rather, enforce may not be the right word; it would have been very difficult to apply in practice in most scenarios.

Some even generally call excommunications latae sententiae (sentence already passed) problematic. On the other hand: such is divine law. The fifth opinion, which St. Robert Bellarmine calls the true opinion is:

Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are ipso facto deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity.

[... the] Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy.

https://www.fisheaters.com/bellarmine.html


cuм Ex is divine law, which cannot be abrogated.