I’m curious what the counter arguments are regarding this decree. Is this decree considered to be just a personal statement and not binding to Catholics?
I don’t mean to get folks fired up; I’m just curious how those who believe that that heretics can retain their office deal with Pope Paul IV’s decree.
In Chapter CII of Book II of the Summa, Juan de Torquemada, then a cardinal, detailed "How through heresy publicly preached and contumaciously defended, the pope falls from the papacy."
Juan immediately showed the uniqueness of heresy by citing the key Scriptural texts. He then argued that a heretical pope falls because
1) he cannot be the head, since he is cut off from the body of Christ ;
2) the Church is built upon Peter's faith in Christ, and anyone who falls from the faith falls from the Church;
3) a schismatic loses jurisdictional power (from St. Thomas); 4) according to St. Thomas, a pope in heresy is less (minor) than all other Christians ; and,
5) a heretic loses all authority. Prierias used proposition number four, and both he and Benetus used number one with the argument of Antoninus to reach the conclusion of the Summa.
Juan de Torquemada,
Summa de Ecclesia, II
You cannot in any way reconcile a heretic being the pope in any way, even if you were to try and say "modern developments show heretics are treated differently" we have Popes like Leo XIII teaching that heresy of course means you're outside the Church and therefore not Christian.