A heretic isn't proper matter for the papacy or any other office in the Church. This is a matter of Divine Law.

Nobody from another forum asked this interesting question:

"
Pope St. Pius X: “None of the Cardinals may be in any way excluded from the active or passive election of the Sovereign Pontiff under pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment” (Vacante Sede Apostolica, 1904).

Pope Pius XII: “None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff” (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945).
There are two possible conclusions to be drawn from this :

1. A freemason/heretic/.. can be elected a Pope, and the election will be valid and the seat of Peter occupied. Hence, all the Conciliar Popes were valid Popes.

Or

2. St Pius X (and Pius XII) was not a valid Pope, since he enacted a 'bad' law.

How do sedevacantists get around this one ? Do they consider Pius X a false or invalid Pope ?

"

So what do the CI sedevacantists think on this? (all are welcome to reply, not only the same 1 or 2. Let's give others a turn!)

Do you accept that according to these two Popes, it is possible and valid for someone who is excommunicated to become a Pope?

People need to distinguish between ecclesiastical law (which can be changed) and Divine Law (which cannot be changed).  I would encourage reading up on the issue from a reliable source.

This does have an interesting implication, however; Roncalli would not have been rendered ineligible simply for having joined the Freemasons and having been excommunicated on those grounds.

Ecclesiastical sanctions can be lifted by a Pope at any time and for any reason.  Divine Law requirements cannot.  So, for instance, St. Pius X could not have declared women or non-Catholics eligible for papal election.

This does have an interesting implication, however; Roncalli would not have been rendered ineligible simply for having joined the Freemasons and having been excommunicated on those grounds.

Ecclesiastical sanctions can be lifted by a Pope at any time and for any reason.  Divine Law requirements cannot.  So, for instance, St. Pius X could not have declared women or non-Catholics eligible for papal election.

That is correct.  Unless freemasonary can inherently be linked with heresy or a "false religion".  Which I do not believe it can. Though in a sense I do believe it is built upon a system of false beliefs and is a "religion" in that sense.  

People need to distinguish between ecclesiastical law (which can be changed) and Divine Law (which cannot be changed).  I would encourage reading up on the issue from a reliable source.

Where have these ecclesiastical laws changed (in regards to an excomunicated person NOT being able to be elected as a Pope)?

Please provide the reliable source.

Why elect a freemason as Pope. Look what harm they already done to the
Church.

A Masonic Pope causes grave scandals, that causes millions of faithful
to lose their souls. Souls that did not need to be lost.

I agree that there was error in allowing excommunicated Cardinals
to participate in the Conclave. We got one in 1958 with Roncalli,
PJXXIII, a name of an previous anti-pope. And, it has been
downhill every since.

Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII not valid Popes. I say NUTS.

Quote from: SJB

A heretic isn't proper matter for the papacy or any other office in the Church. This is a matter of Divine Law.

Is an excommunicated a heretic?

Pope Pius X and Pius XII are saying that even those with these ecclesiastical impedements (as excomunication) may not be excluded from the election of Pope.

No, they're saying that they cannot be excluded from the election for THAT reason.  Other reasons may still exclude them (as the docuмent you are quoting later goes into).

Either they were in error (which contradicts the sedevacantist position that no true Pope can ever taught error, automatically making them anti-popes); or to this day even an excommunicated freemason could still be elected Pope.

In the first place, since you don't have a problem with a non-Catholic pope I don't see how you could possibly have a problem with a freemasonic pope, so I don't really understand where you're going with the second of the two alternatives you've given.  Yes, in theory, a freemason could be elected pope-- though you'd never know it since membership is typically secret.  And, just as popes in the past have had moral problems, the hypothetical freemason pope would as well.  Doesn't mean he wouldn't be pope.  There has never been a law against bad men being elected popes, and there never will be.  This does not mean that Pius X or XII were in error.  It is the prerogative of the pope to bind and loose-- in fact, if you had bothered to read the docuмent you were quoting, you would see that the lifting of such censures was to last only for the duration of the conclave.  It literally says that the sentence after the one you quoted, by the way.  Just so you know.

Sedevacantism does not depend on excommunication.  With respect to arguing  that a given claimant of the post-conciliar revolution is a non-pope, the argument is that since he is a heretic (a non-Catholic) he is not even a member of the Church, and cannot therefore possibly be head of it.  The excommunicated are still members of the Church (at least the toleratus variety).  The argument is not, as you say over and over and over again after being corrected each time that bad men can't be popes.