"I do not ignore anything, I merely accept the fact that it is not our place nor within our right to declare with any authority whatsoever that one is excommunicated from the Church, even though the censure is ipso facto."

Not true.

Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul IV, “cuм ex Apostolatus Officio” 15th February 1559

1.  In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] is so grave and so dangerous that 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. ...

2.  Hence, concerning these matters, We have held mature deliberation with our venerable brothers the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church; and, upon their advice and with their unanimous agreement, we now enact as follows:-

In respect of each and every sentence of excommunication, …   [including ipso facto]

7. Finally, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We] also [enact, determine, define and decree]:- that any and all persons who would have been subject to those thus promoted or elevated if they had not previously deviated from the Faith, become heretics, incurred schism or provoked or committed any or all of these, be they members of anysoever of the following categories:

(i) the clergy, secular and religious;

(ii) the laity;

(iii) the Cardinals, even those who shall have taken part in the election of this very Pontiff previously deviating from the Faith or heretical or schismatical, or shall otherwise have consented and vouchsafed obedience to him and shall have venerated him;

(iv) … shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs (the same subject persons, nevertheless, remaining bound by the duty of fidelity and obedience to any future Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals and Roman Pontiff canonically entering).

10. No one at all, therefore, may infringe this docuмent of our approbation, re-introduction, sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash presumption contradict it. If anyone, however, should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul.

Given in Rome at Saint Peter’s in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1559, 15th February, in the fourth year of our Pontificate.

+ I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church…

Yes, I am familiar with that Bull from Pope Paul IV. His explicit instruction to us as to what we may do about heretic popes (which only serves as proof that he believed such a thing is possible) is that such a pope may be contradicted, that is the whole of his explicit instruction to us just as you posted.

Not all heretics are bound to make the profession of faith, further, that is certainly not a requirement lay people can bind anyone to no matter what the situation happens to be.  

In fact, at every confession we are absolved from our sins by these words from the priest: "May our Lord Jesus Christ absolve you, and I, by His authority, absolve you from every bond of excommunication, and interdict, in so far as I am able and you are needful. Next, I absolve you from your sins, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen."

So, explain how is it that the priest absolves "from every bond of excommunication and interdict", yet those fallen away Catholics who are excommunicated heretics are not permitted to be absolved since they cannot go to confession because they are not Catholic? Kind of makes the formula used by the priest entirely meaningless and a waste of his time - no?

One is inside the other is outside.  The one outside has no access to the sacraments.  I would rather not go around and around anymore.  

Discuss sedevacantism after this issue.  YOU are the one whose blurring these two issues together.  FACT:  Herestics and schismatics lose membership in the Church, whereas those who commit other types of sins do not. 

I am not blurring anything, I agree completely with the explanation given in Trent's catechism under the heading:
"Those Who Are Not Members Of The Church". Under that heading the catechism teaches: "Heretics and schismatics are excluded from the Church, because they have separated from her and belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted. It is not, however, to be denied that they are still subject to the jurisdiction of the Church, inasmuch as they may be called before her tribunals, punished and anathematised."


Trent's explanation does not blur the issue for me, perhaps you are confused because per the catechism, heretics and schismatics are indeed excluded from the Church yet at the same time they belong to Her, but only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted. Though excluded from the Church, they are still under Her jurisdiction and remain subject to Her. I find this to be a very clear and Catholic explanation.
 

You can argue for your R&R later, but this principle is not disputable.  Argue, if you will, that the Baptismal character alone suffices for someone to hold office and jurisdiction in the Church.  But stop promoting this OCAC nonsense.

Speaking of the pope, I would never agree that the baptismal character alone is sufficient for him to hold office, simply because it is his election which both suffices and is necessary for him to hold office and have universal jurisdiction in the Church. The Church has seen fit to leave it up to all the cardinals to scrutinize and elect him, not us. Personally, I do not think it possible because I do not trust the heretic cardinals to properly scrutinize any candidate, but until some future pope corrects the process, that is all we have.

Heretics, schismatics (sedes) and apostates are by their own choice, not Catholic and are not members of the Church. OTOH, Trent's catechism teaches that they still belong to her and are still subject to her - but as deserters, not members.

I am not blurring anything, I agree completely with the explanation given in Trent's catechism under the heading:
"Those Who Are Not Members Of The Church". Under that heading the catechism teaches: "Heretics and schismatics are excluded from the Church, because they have separated from her and belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted. It is not, however, to be denied that they are still subject to the jurisdiction of the Church, inasmuch as they may be called before her tribunals, punished and anathematised."
...

You're blurring the membership issue with your disdain for sedevacantism.  You have such a deep emotional contempt for sedevacantism that you'll promote a thesis that's never been taught by any Catholic authority ... and in the process undermine Tridentine ecclesiology.

Yes, what part of when I said this earlier didn't you understand ... that FORMER members remain under the jurisdiction of the Church.  As I said, if you wanted to argue that these former members, by virtue of their Baptismal character, are not only still subject to her jurisdiction but can even EXERCISE jurisdiction, then go ahead.

BUT STOP PROMOTING THIS RIDICULOUS OCAC CRAP.  It has never been taught by the Church; in fact quite the opposite has always been taught by the Church.

You're blurring the membership issue with your disdain for sedevacantism.  You have such a deep emotional contempt for sedevacantism that you'll promote a thesis that's never been taught by any Catholic authority ... and in the process undermine Tridentine ecclesiology.

Except stop lumping sedes in with schismatics.  Again, you have this mental problem where it comes to sedevacantism.

Aside from it serving no other purpose except for being wholly iniquitous, my contempt toward sedeism is based on it being schismatic.

No approved authoritative Catholic source has EVER TAUGHT that Sedevacantism wasn't schism.  Period.  End of discussion.

No approved authoritative Catholic source has EVER TAUGHT that Sedevacantism wasn't schism.  Period.  End of discussion.

Nonsense.  Not a few theologians have discussed the prospect of sedevacantism as a possibility ... and the conclusion was that the Church could separate from and refuse submission to such as these.  And then there is of course the famous cuм ex Apostolatus Officio.  Does that come from an "approved authoritative Catholic source"?  It specifically discusses the right and duty to separate from a heretical papal claimant.

Nonsense.  Not a few theologians have discussed the prospect of sedevacantism as a possibility ... and the conclusion was that the Church could separate from and refuse submission to such as these.  And then there is of course the famous cuм ex Apostolatus Officio.  Does that come from an "approved authoritative Catholic source"?  It specifically discusses the right and duty to separate from a heretical papal claimant.

Those theologians who have discussed it, speculated, but all authoritative teachings of the Church teach that to reject the pope as pope for any reason, is schism. Like heretics, schismatics are not members of the Church, this has been quoted repeatedly in this thread.

cuм ex tells us what to do about a heretic pope - we may contradict him, we may withdraw with impunity from obeying him, we may avoid him like he's a warlock and a heathen. There is no authoritative teaching that grants anyone or any group the right say he is not the pope - that would be the Church teaching schism, it can't happen.

bzzzt.  You're begging the question again.  You're assuming that the V2 papal claimants are in fact popes to argue that they must be regarded as popes.

You do this all the time.

Maybe I should type this slowly for you ... so it's easier for you to follow.  If Francis is not a legitimate pope, then it's not SCHISM to reject him.

Your problem is that you keep rejecting reality. Francis is the pope, he was elected and accepted the office which means he is the pope. It's not at all complicated. You keep assuming his legitimacy is a matter of opinion when it isn't.
 
You do this all the time.

If the Church ever taught that it is permitted to reject the pope as pope for any reason whatsoever, then the Church would be teaching schism. Again, this is not the least bit complicated.