CathInfo.com

.
This makes literally no sense at all.
.
cuм Ex is simply codifying into the Church's positive law what all the Fathers and Doctors taught: if you're a heretic, you can't hold office in the Church, full stop.  It doesn't matter if you're validly consecrated, it doesn't matter if your appointment is accepted, it doesn't matter even if you're elected pope and all the cardinals think you are pope.  If you're a heretic you can't have an office, full stop.

Talk about making no sense at all. "...it doesn't matter even if you're elected pope and all the cardinals think you *are* pope." Then what, you're really not the pope? This is supposed to make sense?

Since +Thuc lost his office due to his heresy, and certainly we all agree that by virtue of his participation in the Novus Ordo heresy, per cuм ex he indeed deviated from the faith hence lost his office, how does a bishop who loses "all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power" due to heresy get any jurisdiction at all, or even having lost the power to consecrate, where does the bishop who is no longer bishop who lost "all power", get the power to consecrate?

Further, what is to be said of all those that +Thuc  consecrated as bishops who are also guilty of heresy due to their participation in the NO prior to their consecrations? And then also, those +Thuc line bishops who in turn consecrated still more bishops? What about the priests they've ordained? By your reasoning, are none of them bishops or priests but only think they *are*? cuм ex does not restore any offices or rescind any of it's censures, rather, it permits the pope to sentence the repenters "to sequestration in any Monastery or other religious house in order to perform perpetual penance upon the bread of sorrow and the water of affliction."

I know sedes don't answer questions and this reply has a few, so this is just food for your thought.

As per always, you post from a place of ignorance and bad will.  You have never been interested in sincerely looking for the truth but are always grinding your childish little anti-sede ax.  Unfortunately for you, this ax has an incredibly dull blade.

You've never been one to understand the concept of a distinction.  You repeatedly fail to distinguish between the power of orders and the power of jurisdiction.  Even if you could be certain that Thuc lost office due to heresy (and this is by no means certain ... I don't think he did), it is heresy condemned by the Church to say that they cannot VALIDLY consecrate bishops.  He retrains the power of orders.  Even IF he had been a heretic at the time, the consecrations would still have been valid.  If he did not have the proper authority to perform the consecrations, then they would be illicit.  In that sense, no Traditional Catholic bishop has ever had the "power to consecrate" (to use your crudely generalized expression).

As per always, you post from the mindset of no reading comprehension. Try actually reading cuм ex some time, then argue that Pope Paul IV is of ignorance and bad will.

cuм ex specifically states, as I quoted, those who were ever detected of deviating from the faith lose all power. Not all power except for consecrations, not all power except for ordinations, he does not say they lose "all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power - but they keep their power of consecrating in order to consecrate more heretics."

Read what it says without adding your own exceptions for a change.