Question on Pope Paul IV Bull

[TS Aquinas]

I know Bishop Joseph Fessler (the secretary at the First Vatican Council) and other defenders of papal infallibility after the First Vatican Council argued vigorously that it was not.  It was one of two go-to documents (the other being In Coena Domini) of those who rejected Vatican I's definition (especially Dollinger)  because, if taken as a timeless truth, it would contradict on certain points both history and certain contemporary (ie around 1870) ecclesiastical laws.  This is why Fessler and other defenders of the Vatican I defintion argued it to be merely a penal Bull, and not an irreformable one meant to define any timeless dogma.

Do you have any sources or links for this? I'd be most interested in reading the arguments. Thanks!

Here's Dollinger's book (written under the pseudonym Janus). There's a chapter on each Bull I mentioned above outlining the problems he sees in them as disproving papal infallibility:
http://archive.org/stream/popeandcouncil...g_djvu.txt

I can't seem to find von Schulte's pamphlet online (the one Fessler references below).

Fessler wrote about it a few times. He does so briefly here (scroll down to 17. ( 8 ) :
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/mode...ssler7.htm

And again briefly in the preface to the second edition of the above book:
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/mode...ssler4.htm

Unfortunately, that's all I can find online.

Just as by way of example though, if we apply the very broad penalties in the Bull as a dogma for all time, then at the very least the following papacies (off the top of my head) would be invalid in total or in part: St. Zephyrinius, St. Callistus, Liberius, St. Zosimus, Vigilius, Honorious, St. Celestine V, John XXII, and Pius II--but the Church has never considered them invalid at all.  However, if we only apply the penalty in the 1917 Code, they are all valid.

Were they aware that the heresies they held were in fact heresies? Condition of ignorance applies. An example would be that John XXII was not pertinacious of his stance on the beatific vision.

[SaintSebastian]

Were they aware that the heresies they held were in fact heresies? Condition of ignorance applies. An example would be that John XXII was not pertinacious of his stance on the beatific vision.

Right, but Cum ex apostolatus officio does not limit itself to this like the 1917 Code or similar canons in the medieval period.

I realized I did not limit myself to what you quoted from the Bull in the OP, but other parts of it have the same penalties for those who harbor, defend, or support those who teach heresy or who simply teach heresies themselves.  Those I listed did one or more of those things.  For example, St. Celestine V protected the Spirituals (which is why when Boniface VIII was elected and renewed the Church's "persecution" of them, they declared him an antipope).  Sts. Zephyrinius and Callistus did the same with Sabellians (which is why Hippolyus ended up making himself an antipope). Pius II became a prominent concilliarist before returning to orthodoxy (he didn't even formally abjure his errors until after becoming Pope), but if Paul IV's Bull was a timeless dogma, he would be disqualified for having ever deviated from the faith at any time.  John XXII simply taught heresies, but didn't show obstinance (but merely teaching heresies would be enough under the Bull in question if it applied for all time).