@SBpfu - Absolutely! I still cannot find any official Ecclesial document which denounces any of the Pontiffs cited by Numbdacatholic as heretic. Therefore, he may ramble on and on and on about what the Church teaches about Popes who fall into heresy, but if there are none who have in recent years, his claim is all "hot air and the stench of Satan".

Interesting how the Roman Catholic Church attracks the mentally ill in ALL forms and ALL fashoins! Not to worry chaps, one just has to pray for them. Remember the user called "Trady"? CRICKEY!! Now he was barking mad..... numbdacatholic is nothing different.

All we can do, and NEED do, is repeat the prayer quoted by Gregory:
"O God, Father Almighty, deliver our Holy Father Benedict XVI from the will of his enemies; O Lord, Son of the Father, look mercifully upon Your servant Benedict XVI, whom You have chosen to shepherd Your Holy Church; and Holy Spirit be his guide, helper and protector. Amen"
BTW, "NumbdaCatholic" ... Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ went to Synagogues, He prayed with JEWS ... in fact, in His human nature, He WAS a JEW [so were His Mother, Mary Most Holy, the first Pope and St Paul, the great apostle to the Gentiles], and He also went to the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem. Please free yourself from anti-semitism. Catholicism stands on the shoulders of Judaism
Christus vincit Christus regnat Christus imperat
Viva il Papa!

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30: "A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."

St. Antoninus (1459): "In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church.
He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church." (Summa Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub.)

@ qdacumos
Don't base your faith on dreams. Base it on the Holy Bible. See Matthew 16.18: "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." There is only One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church and it is that founded by Our Lord and God, Jesus Christ. It is the same Church that was built on Peter's Profession of Faith. And that Peter today is Pope Benedict XVI. Ubi Petrus ibi Ecclesia ... Where Peter is ... there, and there alone, is the Church. That Church is the same now in 2011, during Vatican II, before Vatican I and Trent, all the way back to the Council of Nicaea in 325AD and to its istitution by Christ Himself way back at the dawn of the modern era. Notice, Qdacumos, that the Lord says, as quoted in St Matthew's Gospel, that even the "gates of hell shall not prevail against" the Church built on Peter. And "sedevacantists" are a far, far less powerful and a far, far less serious threat than hell itself!
Christus vincit Christus regnat Christus imperat
Viva il Papa!

...Just wanna share my dream around in July 2011. I was reading the Sedevacantist website about the heresies of Vatican 2. Pope JP 2 was beatified. Sedevacantist proclaims that Blessed JP 2 was a heretic and that heretics go to hell. I was so confused because my journey to Catholic faith was just starting. I prayed to the Blessed Virgin Mother for help, and also to Blessed JP 2 – that if he was truly a pope and in heaven, may I be illuminated. Then that night when I was asleep, I dreamt about Blessed JP 2. [I was in a room with my devout Catholic friends (from V2), I was persecuting JP 2, that he was unbelievable and that he lead many astray (according to Sedevacantists). Then my friends were enraged how I treated him. Then they said, "where is your sense of reverense?" Then Blessed JP 2 appeared in the room. He was wearing white, he looked younger, and there was nothing on his head. He was so tamed and he looked at me and asked humbly, "what did you say"? Then I told him, "you're unbelievable". But I had doubt and felt sorry for what I said. As I repeated myself, the meaning of "unbelievable" turned to be a meaning pertaining to a great pope. Then Blessed PJ 2, in humility, nugged his head, closed his eyes - as an expression of justification, he turned around.] Then I woke up.

St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, c. 185: “And the heretics, indeed, who bring strange fire to the altar of God – namely, strange doctrines – shall be burned up by the fire from heaven, as were Nadab and Abiud. But such as rise in opposition to the truth, and exhort others against the Church of God, [shall] remain among those in hell, being swallowed up by an earthquake, even as those who were with Core, Dathan, and Abiron.”

Großinquisitor stated:
[---
You are no in way different from the Feeneyites especially the Demon brothers.
---]

I dont know who the Demon Brothers are but I assume they are not in communion with Peter. The Feenyites were excommunicated, so they certainly are not in communion with Peter.

I am in communion with Peter, yet you Großinquisitor are not. Ergo, once again, you condemn yourself with your own words.

@"Irenaeus"

You are no in way different from the Feeneyites especially the Demon brothers.

Grossinquisitor,

You stated:

[---

So let's take the argument seriously that Cum ex is "only" disciplinary and even if it was not part of Canon Law: Can we just ignore it?

---]

If it has been clarified or abrogated by an equal or higher authority... yes. If not, than no. There have been many canons instituted years ago that are no longer in affect. Or do you think they all hold perpetually? No need to answer.

You stated:

[---
You address an argument I have never made. And I am not responsible for these websites in any sense.

---]

I don’t blame you for this popular sedevacantist site spreading counter-knowledge. I just thought you might be suffering from it.

You stated:

[---

The answer is no in the most affirmative. Well it is true that large parts of Canon Law are of Divine right while others are "only" of positive right that means that they can be changed by the pope. However even those parts that are "only" of positive Law cannot contain anything evil and nothing that is contrary to the Divinley revealed faith (see §78 of Auctorem fidei).

---]

You betray an ignorance with this explanation. This is because your words condemn your own position… and yet you don’t see it. Do you somehow think ecclesiastical contingency planning is part of the Deposit or a divinely revealed Truth? That is an absurdity. If the bull were to have a paragraph on what to do in case of an earthquake, would you say this directive was immutable as well? I would also add that this debate has nothing to do with a pope making a change. Perhaps you should stick to the argument actually at play. This is about a dogmatic decree of an ecumenical council whos speech is more authoritative than an older papal bull. Also, there is nothing evil or contrary to the faith in Vatican I, so stating that a positive law cannot contain such was a meaningless non-sequitur. Lastly, we are not dealing with positive law in Vatican I. We are dealing with a dogmatic decree to be held by all the faithful.

Only a pompous egotist would take offense to the misspelling of a pen name, when at the same time, choosing one that does not map to the standard keyboard. So sorry I did not use cut and paste. The sedevacantists are real experts in that arena I am told.

Großinquisitor - Hi . We can also use the English "ss" since is it the closest to the "ß" German character.

Thus "Grossinquisitor".

@irenaeus:

Your argument is that it is de fide that petrine supremacy is according to Divine Law a permanent institution that is supposed to last to Final Judgement therefore there are no long vacancies. It should be obvious that this is a complete non sequitur.
This "argument" is so swallow that even NO apologist Jimmy Akin does not buy it:
www.jimmyakin.org/…/how-useful-is-t…

@irenaeus:

In fact, I found the translations from the latin not matching what was on the translations available at sedevacantist sites as well. They added [By this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We…]

Is it maybe possible that you suffer from any frustration?
You address an argument I have never made. And I am not responsible for these websites in any sense.

So let's take the argument seriously that Cum ex is "only" disciplinary and even if it was not part of Canon Law:
Can we just ignore it?

The answer is no in the most affirmative.
Well it is true that large parts of Canon Law are of Divine right while others are "only" of positive right that means that they can be changed by the pope. However even those parts that are "only" of positive Law cannot contain anything evil and nothing that is contrary to the Divinley
revealed faith (see §78 of Auctorem fidei).

Oh dear..... When one has to resort to peasant language (not spelt correctly anyway), it is worrying that chaps really do not understand what they are speaking about and therefore are quite ill-prepared to debate upon the issues at had, e.g. numbdacatholic. One is rather at a loss with his down-at-heel logic and unsensible affect. Let us pray for him that he sees the light.

GroBInquisitor said:

[---

On the contrary Pope Paul IV declared in his bull that a long vancancy is possible. And this bull (especially §3,§6 and §7) is part of CIC 1917.

---]

You gave an insufficient argument for a number of reasons...

1) Pope Paul IV like any other Pontiff does not have greater authority than an ecumenical Council. In fact, I found the translations from the latin not matching what was on the translations available at sedevacantist sites as well. They added [By this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We…] to every paragraph even though it is not in the latin. It is actually only found in §2 and §3. And they limited it to these paragraphs for good reason. One cannot create guidelines for contingent ecclesiastical structures (most of it is not faith and morals ergo, not infallible) and say that it holds in perpetuity when one is not the highest authoritative speech on the subject. Obama tried that one with a clause in health care:)It is an absurdity to claim such an interpretation. They are in perpetuity for as long as a competent authority chooses not to amend it (unless it is infallible). Nobody has the competence to change the Truth. But this was not Truth. This was ecclesiastical contingency planning and minutia.

2) Pope Paul IV was from the 16th century, Vatican I was the 19th. If Pope Paul IV's less authoritative words had any weight on long vacancies, they did not carry past the dogmatic decree on perpetual successors of pontiffs by the ecumenical First Vatican Council.

3) Concerning the paragraphs cited for Pope Paul IV's Bull–

§3 was for “Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals and Legates, Counts, Barons, Marquises, Dukes, Kings and Emperors” not Supreme Pontiffs!

§6 “or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff,”again, not sitting Pontiffs.

§7 “even those who shall have taken part in the election of this very Pontiff previously deviating from the Faith or heretical or schismatical,” again, not sitting Pontiffs.

Where is the stuff about long vacancies? Not that it matters, as this was not as authoritative as a dogmatic decree from an ecumenical council which if anything, clarified your misinterpretations.