It is currently Wed Nov 21, 2018 2:00 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ] 
 Cum Ex Apostolatus 
Author Message

Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 11:13 am
Posts: 41
New post Cum Ex Apostolatus
Some traditionalists have stated that Pope Paul IV's constitution Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio is no longer in force.

Would anyone be able shed some light on the matter?


Mon May 22, 2006 11:46 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 11:04 pm
Posts: 57
New post 
John Lane wrote (as found under subject " Papal Elections In Extraordinary Circumstances"):

:arrow: Excerpt -
"A papal bull is a document by which a pope promulgates a law or some other weighty proclamation. Insofar as the contents are divine law, they are irreformable. However, insofar as they are merely ecclesiastical law, they are able to be altered by future popes if they see fit. Consequently it is quite reasonable to speak of a bull being "abrogated."

"In the case of Cum ex apostolatus we have penal provisions (excommunications etc.) which were globally abrogated by the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917. Thus, any penalty not included in the Code is no longer in force. However, some of what is in Cum ex apostolatus is divine law - including the key provision that a public heretic cannot hold an office in the Church. We know that this is divine law because St. Robert Bellarmine tells us that it is, and many other theologians and canonists teach the same thing. And, if that were not sufficient, the Code included this particular provision in canon 188,4, so that even if it were not divine law we can be confident that it is still part of ecclesiastical law."

_________________
Our Immaculate Queen give you every grace and blessing,
Ardith (Abba)


Mon May 22, 2006 12:42 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 2:17 pm
Posts: 13
New post Re: Cum Ex Apostolatus
Cam wrote:
Some traditionalists have stated that Pope Paul IV's constitution Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio is no longer in force.

Would anyone be able shed some light on the matter?


What parts, specifically? It is de fide that heretics are outside the Church, therefore heretics can not be elected to the papacy (or become cardinals, etc.).

I think if you mention this, instead of it being divine law, it may be easier for many to understand and realize that, even if Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio were abrogated, de fide teachings can not be abrogated, cancelled, nullified, etc.


Wed May 24, 2006 5:28 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Cum Ex Apostolatus
Hudson Jackson II wrote:
Cam wrote:
Some traditionalists have stated that Pope Paul IV's constitution Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio is no longer in force.

Would anyone be able shed some light on the matter?


What parts, specifically? It is de fide that heretics are outside the Church, therefore heretics can not be elected to the papacy (or become cardinals, etc.).

I think if you mention this, instead of it being divine law, it may be easier for many to understand and realize that, even if Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio were abrogated, de fide teachings can not be abrogated, cancelled, nullified, etc.


If it's de fide, you should easily be able to cite a source.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed May 24, 2006 7:22 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 2:17 pm
Posts: 13
New post Re: Cum Ex Apostolatus
John Lane wrote:

If it's de fide, you should easily be able to cite a source.




Quote:
The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.
(Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, paragraph 9)



Quote:
The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives. . .
(Council of Florence, "Cantata Domino")


There are a few others, but these are the ones that first came to my mind at the moment.


Wed May 24, 2006 7:42 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Cum Ex Apostolatus
Hudson Jackson II wrote:
... There are a few others, but these are the ones that first came to my mind at the moment.


The first quote is on topic - the second is not. But neither will suffice for your claims, as far as I can tell.

Let's just think about what is at issue here.

1. Heretics can be internal (or "occult") only, or they may externalise their heresy (external, or manifest, or public - various degrees of publicity). The theologians commonly say that only external heretics are outside the Church. This was your first point.

2. It seem to me to be certain that Holy Mother Church does not regard it as de fide that a heretic cannot hold an office, because the canonist Bouix, amongst others, held that a heretic could retain the papacy, and yet his work was never censured, which certainly would have happened if a dogma was impugned in it. This was your second point, I believe.

Bouix, besides being wrong about this question, was a most edifying individual, and a very learned canonist who did a great deal to defend the rights of the papacy. You can read about him here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02711e.htm

3. Anything which is de fide is known as de fide by the theologians. Can you cite one on either of these points? I'm not against you per se - I just can't see how your claims can be right.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat May 27, 2006 5:37 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post Cum Ex Apostotaltus
Pax Christi !! :idea:

One might also consider what the text books used to teach Canon Law provide us regarding the Principles used to interpret the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Here is a citation from Bouscaren & Ellis;

" Canon Law, A Text and Commentary" Bouscaren & Ellis 1946.

Principles of Interpretation;

1. Canons which re-anact the old law without change are in reality nothing
more than the old law; and hence are subject to the same interpretation

2. Canons which agree in part with the old law carry into the Code the
interpretations of the part of the old law which they re-enact.

3. In doubt whether the law has been changed or not, the presumption is
against the change; hence the old law iwth its interpretations may be


Note: Canon 188;sec 4 references in the footnotes, Cum Ex Apostotaltus. While footnotes are not the " code", they are placed in the text in order to understand the meaning and context of a given law. When the " Principles of Interpretation" are followed, one is aided in their understanding of the " mind" of the church regarding a given law.

In Christ our King,
Vincent


Sat May 27, 2006 5:39 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi,

I broke a cardinal rule of writing... I did not proof read my last post. ( Mea Culpa) I did not cut n paste the last Principle of interpretation completely. Here it is again with the whole text. Again, my apologies.

" Canon Law, A Text and Commentary"
Bouscaren & Ellis 1946.

Principles of Interpretation;
1. Canons which re-anact the old law without change are in reality nothing
more than the old law; and hence are subject to the same interpretation.

2. Canons which agree in part with the old law carry into the Code the
interpretations of the part of the old law which they re-enact.

3. In doubt whether the law has been changed or not, the presumption is
against the change; hence the old law with its interpretations may be
relied on.


Sun May 28, 2006 4:27 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 10:50 pm
Posts: 14
New post Cum ex apostolatus
Recently, a friend wrote the following to a well-known SSPX priest:
"In this bull [Cum ex apostolatus], he [Pope Paul IV] has laid down the criteria governing the eligibility of candidates for the Papacy...Pope Paul IV (not our personal opinion) tells us that Joseph Ratzinger was never an eligible candidate for the Papacy due to his being a heretic and therefore not a Catholic....St. Robert Bellarmine teaches that a heretic can never be the pope."

Fr. X replied:
"As for Pope Paul IV's bulla, setting the conditions for the election of the Pope, you should know that this matter has been completely revised by none other than St. Pius X (and other Popes after him) in his APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION OF 25TH DECEMBER 1904, on the vacancy of the apostolic see and the election of the sovereign pontiff. He explained how, through the ages, the rules established and promulgated for the election of the sovereign pontiff having grown in number and variety, some have become unused, etc. it became no longer clear which one ought to be kept and which one ought to be put aside. So HE EXPLICITLY "ABROGATED EVERY AND EACH OF THE DECREES AND CONSTITUTIONS which were enacted by all and each of the Roman Pontiffs, even if they had been promulgated by general councils and are part of the code of law." The title II treats of the election of the Roman Pontiff; the chapter I is "of the electors of the Roman Pontiff." The number 29 says: "NONE OF THE CARDINAL CAN IN ANY WAY BE DEPRIVED OF THIS ACTIVE AND PASSIVE VOICE IN THE ELECTION OF THE SOVEREIGN PONTIFF UNDER THE PRETEXT AND BECAUSE OF ANY EXCOMMUNICATION, interdict or impediment or other ecclesiastical cause."

The problem with laymen who know neither theology nor Canon Law is that, when they see one document, ignoring even the existence of other documents on the same matter, they jump to conclusions which are not properly supported.

The same thing applies to what you wrote on St. Robert Bellarmine: he presented the opinion of the Pope falling into heresy as only one possible opinion among others, not settling the controversy on the matter."

Thus Fr. X.

Your comments would be much appreciated.

_________________
+ JMJ +
Psalm 136:1


Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:35 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Cum ex apostolatus
Flevimus dum recordaremur wrote:
The problem with laymen who know neither theology nor Canon Law is that, when they see one document, ignoring even the existence of other documents on the same matter, they jump to conclusions which are not properly supported.


A public heretic is not a member of the Church. He is also ipso facto excommunicated. The first fact is a matter of divine law. The second fact is a matter of ecclesiastical law. St. Pius X (and afterwards Pius XII) altered only the ecclesiastical law. This is very simple and obvious, and it seems to me that the only way one could be confused about it is if one were familiar with only one or two documents, so that the import of them was not fully grasped, or if one were incapable of distinguishing between divine and ecclesiastical law.

St. Robert Bellarmine has already answered this objection, as follows: "There is no basis for that which some respond to this: that these Fathers based themselves on ancient law, while nowadays, by decree of the Council of Constance, they alone lose their jurisdiction who are excommunicated by name or who assault clerics. This argument, I say, has no value at all, for those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms."

I regard these comments as sufficient proof of our position. However, as an additional proof, one could try and find a manualist or canonist who teaches that it is not divine law that only a Catholic is valid matter for the papacy. It would be particularly interesting to find one who wrote after St. Pius X issued his legislation, with a view to noting any citation of that legislation. I'm willing to put a carton of Crown Lager on the proposition that no canonist or theologian thought that St. Pius X (or Pius XII) had made it possible for a public heretic or any other non-Catholic to be validly elected pope. Indeed, all of the ones I have seen state the exact opposite - viz., that it is a matter of divine law that only a Catholic is valid matter for the papacy.

Crown Lager is really excellent beer.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Oct 23, 2006 4:03 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 5:22 am
Posts: 161
New post 
I think part of the problem for many catholics is that some of us, laypeople, priests, bishops, cardinals and popes speak from both sides of the mouth. So at times we sound Catholic and at others not. When we make heretical statements we ipso facto 'excommunicate ourselves' even before any one excommunicates us. No more than a sinner is a sinner even before confessing his sins and seeking absolution. So those claiming that the pope cannot be adjudicated a heretic fail to see that the pope has already stepped out of the Church regardless of any one saying that he is out of the game.

Why is this not obvious? Because we tend to play word games and legal games and whatnot and try to bolster our side we fail to see the truth for what it is. A heretic does not need to be excommunicated by anyone anymore than a moslem or a hindu or buddhist. He is not Catholic anymore than a Catholic converting to Buddhism is. They have chosen to be outside the Church and there they remain until they abjure their heresy and confess the Faith of our Fathers. For one to elect a heretic a pope only says that the electors are 'lost' and don't know their faith. How can the thousands and millions not see this? Could it be fear, lack of thought? "They have eyes but see not". Could it be that the goal of ecumenism it for all religions to take turns running the church? Once, a Catholic then a heretic, then a muslim then a hindu until .... why not Judas as head of the Church and lastly Satan. I mean fair is fair.


Tue Oct 24, 2006 10:18 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 10:50 pm
Posts: 14
New post Cum ex apostolatus
Dear Mr. Lane and csibf,

Thank you for your comments. You'll be interested to know that in the letter to Fr. X, my friend also said: "Joseph Ratzinger...and his denying of Limbo." To which he responded: "It is not true to say that Pope Benedict XVI denies Limbo. This is a calumny. On the contrary, he rebuked the theologians of the ITC for their declarations to the press!"

It seems that the theologians took the rap for having let the cat out of the bag. Actually, has Joe Ratzi explicitly denied the existence of Limbo in the past? If so, he probably did it in a roundabout way, as befits a Modernist.

Poor Fr. X is obsessed about "sedevacantism"; I kid you not. I wrote a brief note to him on an unrelated topic and he replied: "Sedevacantism...this very grave error, or rather sin against the Church." No wonder this otherwise intelligent and learned man can't differentiate between divine law and ecclesiastical law. Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII would've been horrified if they were used as authorities to promote the nonsense that heretics were permitted to elect a Roman Pontiff, and that the electee could be a heretic as well.

Mr. Lane, Fr. X should be sent that carton of Crown Lager regardless. Armed with a bottle/can or two, he should sit down, calm his nerves and read John Daly's "Archbishop Lefebvre and Sedevacantism" ("The Four Marks", October 2006 issue).

BTW, could J. Ratzinger's non-papacy be regarded as a dogmatic fact?

_________________
+ JMJ +
Psalm 136:1


Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:03 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Cum ex apostolatus
Flevimus dum recordaremur wrote:
Mr. Lane, Fr. X should be sent that carton of Crown Lager regardless. Armed with a bottle/can or two, he should sit down, calm his nerves and read John Daly's "Archbishop Lefebvre and Sedevacantism" ("The Four Marks", October 2006 issue).

Yes, it was great, wasn't it?


Flevimus dum recordaremur wrote:
BTW, could J. Ratzinger's non-papacy be regarded as a dogmatic fact?

Not in my opinion. And it seems, not in the opinion of the sedevacantist clergy either.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Oct 26, 2006 11:25 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 10:50 pm
Posts: 14
New post Cum ex apostolatus
Dear Mr. Lane,

The late Lefebvro-sedevacantist (an oxymoron?) W.J. (Bill) Morgan certainly considered Karol Wojtyla's non-papacy to be a dogmatic fact. I'm relying on my memory for this one, but I could look up the appropriate reference, if you wish. I even seem to recall that John Daly said the same in "Michael Davies - An Evaluation", but I could be wrong here.

A request: fairly recently I read somewhere about Pope Pius VI's "Auctorem Fidei" and how it was confirmed by several 19th century Popes (eg Pope Gregory XVI in "Mirari Vos"). Did this appear in the Forum, and was the item contributed by Mr. Daly? Maybe I'm going gaga, I just can't seem to find it. Your assistance would be appreciated!

_________________
+ JMJ +
Psalm 136:1


Thu Oct 26, 2006 11:02 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Cum ex apostolatus
Flevimus dum recordaremur wrote:
The late Lefebvro-sedevacantist (an oxymoron?) W.J. (Bill) Morgan certainly considered Karol Wojtyla's non-papacy to be a dogmatic fact.

Well, he did say that, but he didn't mean it. :)

Seriously, he argued that it was a dogmatic fact, but he didn't treat it as one. For example, he remained, as you point out, on excellent terms with all those sedeplenists who denied his "dogmatic fact," and continued to receive the sacraments from them. Which is impossible to square with the view that the non-papacy of JP2 really was a dogmatic fact.

Flevimus dum recordaremur wrote:
I even seem to recall that John Daly said the same in "Michael Davies - An Evaluation", but I could be wrong here.

I think you might be right, but JS Daly was wrong if that is what he said.

Btw, even real hard-liners like Bishop Sanborn don't regard it as a dogmatic fact. If they did then they would convict the SSPX of denying it and voila! - they would have a good argument for avoiding the SSPX. Which they sorely need.

Flevimus dum recordaremur wrote:
A request: fairly recently I read somewhere about Pope Pius VI's "Auctorem Fidei" and how it was confirmed by several 19th century Popes (eg Pope Gregory XVI in "Mirari Vos"). Did this appear in the Forum, and was the item contributed by Mr. Daly? Maybe I'm going gaga, I just can't seem to find it. Your assistance would be appreciated!

I don't recall it.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:20 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 10:50 pm
Posts: 14
New post Cum ex apostolatus
Dear Mr. Lane,

Having read some of his newsletters, it appears to me that Bill Morgan did believe that Wojtyla's non-papacy was a dogmatic fact. I'll quote a few extracts under a new topic heading. So why did he resort to sedeplenists for the Sacraments? I asked him this a couple of times, but he didn't want to discuss the matter, even though he commented on all the other subjects I brought up. A mystery!

Bishop Sanborn opines the following concerning "Cum ex apostolatus":

"It [Cea] does not apply to the present case for two reasons. The first is that it is no longer the law. It was derogated (made obsolete) by the 1917 Code of Canon Law. The second reason, and the more important, is that even if it should for some cause still have force, it could only apply to Wojtyla if he were LEGALLY RECOGNIZED as a public heretic. But...there is no legal condemnation of Wojtyla. Before the law of the Church he does not have the status of heretic because (1) he himself does not hold himself guilty of heresy, and (2) no legitimate superior holds him guilty of heresy. CUM EX APOSTOLATUS certainly expresses the mind of the Church with regard to heretics holding office. It makes an excellent theological argument, but it does not make a legal argument. It argues very strongly that in the order of fact Wojtyla is no pope, but not in the order of legality." - Catholic Restoration, No. 6 September-October 2003, "Explanation of the Thesis of Bishop Guerard des Lauriers"

Why don't I find this convincing? Is it because Bp. Sanborn must hold on to the Thesis at all costs and he knows that the Bull shoots it down?

_________________
+ JMJ +
Psalm 136:1


Tue Oct 31, 2006 3:12 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Cum ex apostolatus
Flevimus dum recordaremur wrote:
Dear Mr. Lane,

Having read some of his newsletters, it appears to me that Bill Morgan did believe that Wojtyla's non-papacy was a dogmatic fact. I'll quote a few extracts under a new topic heading. So why did he resort to sedeplenists for the Sacraments? I asked him this a couple of times, but he didn't want to discuss the matter, even though he commented on all the other subjects I brought up. A mystery!

I've already explained this - Mr. Morgan did not appreciate the nature or the implications of his conclusion. In other words, he was wrong, and if he had been right, he would have had to avoid all sedeplenists as non-Catholics.


Flevimus dum recordaremur wrote:
Bishop Sanborn opines the following concerning "Cum ex apostolatus":

"It [Cea] does not apply to the present case for two reasons. The first is that it is no longer the law. It was derogated (made obsolete) by the 1917 Code of Canon Law. The second reason, and the more important, is that even if it should for some cause still have force, it could only apply to Wojtyla if he were LEGALLY RECOGNIZED as a public heretic. But...there is no legal condemnation of Wojtyla. Before the law of the Church he does not have the status of heretic because (1) he himself does not hold himself guilty of heresy, and (2) no legitimate superior holds him guilty of heresy. CUM EX APOSTOLATUS certainly expresses the mind of the Church with regard to heretics holding office. It makes an excellent theological argument, but it does not make a legal argument. It argues very strongly that in the order of fact Wojtyla is no pope, but not in the order of legality." - Catholic Restoration, No. 6 September-October 2003, "Explanation of the Thesis of Bishop Guerard des Lauriers"

Why don't I find this convincing? Is it because Bp. Sanborn must hold on to the Thesis at all costs and he knows that the Bull shoots it down?


No, Bishop Sanborn is right that CEA is no longer the law. It was abrogated by the Code. Except, that is, in those points in which it was incorporated in the Code - e.g. CIC 188,4.

But this notion that somebody is not a heretic "before the law" until after some kind of public judgement is rank nonsense which as far as I can tell was invented out of whole cloth by Guerard des Lauriers. Bishop Sanborn never cites an authority for it, of course, because there are none. Further, it is directly contradicted by Canon 2197, which provides for facts not only to be recognised by the law (and have legal effects) prior to and without any declaration or judgement, but even for them to become "notorious." Of course, this notion also directly contradicts Canon 188.

The irony is that Guerard des Laurier's error has produced a whole generation of priests who do not understand a most fundamental aspect of law, and this renders them incapable of seeing that Paul VI and JP2 were not popes, because men reared on this Guerardian error are waiting for a public judgement before they will admit that the law applies. I say irony, because Bishop Sanborn is one of the most scathing towards those who don't recognise the vacancy of the Holy See - and yet his own teacher is partly if not largely responsible for this state of affairs!

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Oct 31, 2006 3:31 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 6:46 am
Posts: 10
New post 
Mr. Lane, I thought I heard, on the forum with Mr. Sungenis, that you go the the SSPX. Did I mis-hear that? I'm of course suprised by the following that I quote from above.


"For example, he remained, as you point out, on excellent terms with all those sedeplenists who denied his "dogmatic fact," and continued to receive the sacraments from them. Which is impossible to square with the view that the non-papacy of JP2 really was a dogmatic fact"


Tue Oct 31, 2006 7:41 am
Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 3:57 pm
Posts: 31
New post 
Did not Bishop Pivarunas shed some light on CEA? If I remember correctly in his recent lectures didn't he say that the part concerning heretics was of Divine Law and so could not be abbrogated by the Code? I must go and re-listen to the tapes.

In JMJ

Luke


Tue Oct 31, 2006 9:11 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi !

Luke,
Perhaps this will assist regarding CEA and its relation to the 1917 code?


Canon Law, A Text and Commentary"
Bouscaren & Ellis 1946.

Principles of Interpretation;

1. Canons which re-anact the old law without change are in reality nothing
more than the old law; and hence are subject to the same interpretation.

2. Canons which agree in part with the old law carry into the Code the
interpretations of the part of the old law which they re-enact.

3. In doubt whether the law has been changed or not, the presumption is
against the change; hence the old law with its interpretations may be
relied on.


Tue Oct 31, 2006 4:53 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 3:57 pm
Posts: 31
New post 
Thanks Vince. Also listened to Bishop Pivarunas again. Makes a lot of sense.

In JMJ

Luke


Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:07 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Phineas wrote:
Mr. Lane, I thought I heard, on the forum with Mr. Sungenis, that you go the the SSPX. Did I mis-hear that? I'm of course suprised by the following that I quote from above.

"For example, he remained, as you point out, on excellent terms with all those sedeplenists who denied his "dogmatic fact," and continued to receive the sacraments from them. Which is impossible to square with the view that the non-papacy of JP2 really was a dogmatic fact"


Yes, since I was introduced to the traditional Mass in 1988, I have almost always assisted at Mass offered by a sedeplenist priest. The first was in New Zealand at an SSPX chapel. For many years afterwards I was a regular at the chapel operated by Fr. Augustine Cummins, CSSR (+ 2006, RIP), and for the past few years I have been a regular at an SSPX chapel.

Nor is any of this unusual. Despite the rhetorical excesses of some of our better-known sedevacantist clergy, the general policy of non-home-aloner sedevacantists has always been to remain in communion with sedeplenists and to assist at Holy Mass offered by them as necessity dictated. Bill Morgan was only one of many such men.

To me, the surprise is that the recent change in policy of some sedevacantist priests and laymen seems not to be regarded as the novelty that it is. Whether one agrees with it or not one cannot dispute that it is new.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Nov 01, 2006 11:48 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Cum ex apostolatus
John Lane wrote:
Flevimus dum recordaremur wrote:
Dear Mr. Lane,

Having read some of his newsletters, it appears to me that Bill Morgan did believe that Wojtyla's non-papacy was a dogmatic fact. I'll quote a few extracts under a new topic heading. So why did he resort to sedeplenists for the Sacraments? I asked him this a couple of times, but he didn't want to discuss the matter, even though he commented on all the other subjects I brought up. A mystery!

I've already explained this - Mr. Morgan did not appreciate the nature or the implications of his conclusion. In other words, he was wrong, and if he had been right, he would have had to avoid all sedeplenists as non-Catholics.


Flevimus dum recordaremur wrote:
Bishop Sanborn opines the following concerning "Cum ex apostolatus":

"It [Cea] does not apply to the present case for two reasons. The first is that it is no longer the law. It was derogated (made obsolete) by the 1917 Code of Canon Law. The second reason, and the more important, is that even if it should for some cause still have force, it could only apply to Wojtyla if he were LEGALLY RECOGNIZED as a public heretic. But...there is no legal condemnation of Wojtyla. Before the law of the Church he does not have the status of heretic because (1) he himself does not hold himself guilty of heresy, and (2) no legitimate superior holds him guilty of heresy. CUM EX APOSTOLATUS certainly expresses the mind of the Church with regard to heretics holding office. It makes an excellent theological argument, but it does not make a legal argument. It argues very strongly that in the order of fact Wojtyla is no pope, but not in the order of legality." - Catholic Restoration, No. 6 September-October 2003, "Explanation of the Thesis of Bishop Guerard des Lauriers"

Why don't I find this convincing? Is it because Bp. Sanborn must hold on to the Thesis at all costs and he knows that the Bull shoots it down?


No, Bishop Sanborn is right that CEA is no longer the law. It was abrogated by the Code. Except, that is, in those points in which it was incorporated in the Code - e.g. CIC 188,4.

But this notion that somebody is not a heretic "before the law" until after some kind of public judgement is rank nonsense which as far as I can tell was invented out of whole cloth by Guerard des Lauriers. Bishop Sanborn never cites an authority for it, of course, because there are none. Further, it is directly contradicted by Canon 2197, which provides for facts not only to be recognised by the law (and have legal effects) prior to and without any declaration or judgement, but even for them to become "notorious." Of course, this notion also directly contradicts Canon 188.

The irony is that Guerard des Laurier's error has produced a whole generation of priests who do not understand a most fundamental aspect of law, and this renders them incapable of seeing that Paul VI and JP2 were not popes, because men reared on this Guerardian error are waiting for a public judgement before they will admit that the law applies. I say irony, because Bishop Sanborn is one of the most scathing towards those who don't recognise the vacancy of the Holy See - and yet his own teacher is partly if not largely responsible for this state of affairs!


This is the first reference I've seen to what appears to be the idea that a judgment, a declaration of heresy, is required by the Church. Since a pope is required to call an ecumenical council, as I believe is the case, this method seems impossible.

Quote:
ELEMENTS OF ECCLESIASTICAL LAW, Rev. S. B. SMITH, D.D. 1887

466. Q. Is a Pope who falls into heresy deprived, ipso jure, of the Pontificate?
A.-I. There are two opinions: one holds that he is, by virtue of divine appointment, divested, ipso facto, of the Pontificate; the other, that he is, jure divino, only removable. Both opinions agree [1] that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church-i.e., by an ecumenical council or the College of Cardinals. 2. The question is hypothetical rather than practical. [2] For although according to the more probable opinion, the Pope may fall into heresy and err in matters of faith, as a private person, [3] yet it is also universally admitted that no Pope ever did fall into heresy, [4] even as a private doctor.

Footnotes are hard to read, but I see the following:

[1]Cfr., Craiss, n. 680.
[2]Phillips, Kirchenr., vol.i,pp. 277,274.
[3]Phillips, Kirchenr., vol.i,pp. 277.
[4]Ferraris, I. c., n.62-66, Genuae, 1768.


Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:43 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Cum ex apostolatus
Robert Bastaja wrote:
This is the first reference I've seen to what appears to be the idea that a judgment, a declaration of heresy, is required by the Church.


Robert, for my mind it is impossible to square this idea with the doctrine of St. Robert. There would have to be some kind of legal process terminating in a judgement. But that's judging the pope, surely! If it isn't, then that can only be because he isn't pope already, in which case the point is moot.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Aug 22, 2012 2:05 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Cum ex apostolatus
John Lane wrote:
Robert Bastaja wrote:
This is the first reference I've seen to what appears to be the idea that a judgment, a declaration of heresy, is required by the Church.


Robert, for my mind it is impossible to square this idea with the doctrine of St. Robert. There would have to be some kind of legal process terminating in a judgement. But that's judging the pope, surely! If it isn't, then that can only be because he isn't pope already, in which case the point is moot.


I agree, yet it explains why some have adopted this view.


Wed Aug 22, 2012 1:28 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Cum Ex Apostolatus
Somebody provided this source on another forum:

Quote:
A Compendium of Theology: Comprising of the Essential Doctrinal Points of both Dogmatic and Moral Theology, together with the more Important Notions of Canon Law, Liturgy, Pastoral and Mystical Theology, and Christian Philosophy by the Very Rev. Fr. J. Berthier (trans. Rev. Fr. Sidney A. Raemers; St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1931

1. That it be convoked by the pope, who alone has the right to convoke, administer, and adjourn it. According to St. Alphonsus de Ligouri, there are two cases in which the cardinals and the bishops may convoke a council. The first is when it is doubtful as to who is the rightful pope, as happened at the time of the Western Schism. The second is if the pope should persistently and notoriously lapse into heresy. In the first case, each one of the contesting popes is bound to submit to the decrees of the council, because the Roman See is considered vacant. The second hypothesis is, of course, purely chimerical, because in this case the pope would be ipso facto deprived of his office. He would be outside the Church, and consequently could not be its head, a declaration which the council would very quickly make. According to the general opinion of theologians no other crime on the part of the Sovereign Pontiff would incur suspension of office. (On simony, see no. 2314.)


Wed Aug 22, 2012 3:01 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Cum Ex Apostolatus
Somebody should post that on IA for the education of poor Mr. Larson.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Aug 22, 2012 3:08 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Cum Ex Apostolatus
John Lane wrote:
Somebody should post that on IA for the education of poor Mr. Larson.

I suspect that the main problem with Mr. Larson is his (apparent?) arrogance.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Wed Aug 22, 2012 3:33 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Cum Ex Apostolatus
I don't know about that, Ken, his real character is impossible to divine under all that righteous anger. As soon as he touches a theological question relating to the crisis, his reason disappears, like magic. It's wonderful to behold!

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Aug 23, 2012 1:09 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Cum Ex Apostolatus
John Lane wrote:
I don't know about that, Ken, his real character is impossible to divine under all that righteous anger. As soon as he touches a theological question relating to the crisis, his reason disappears, like magic. It's wonderful to behold!

Well, what neither my dear Wife nor I can understand is how he can continue to bring up and explain the heresies that the various members of the VCII "hierarchy" perpetrate, yet cannot arrive at the logical and obvious conclusion.

As I understand it, he IS a convert. Perhaps that has something to do with it. Perhaps he is terrified of reverting...

I don't know, but I find it passing strange...

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Thu Aug 23, 2012 5:20 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 5:55 pm
Posts: 59
Location: Florida
New post Re: Cum Ex Apostolatus
1. That a heretic loses his office is a fact, or principle, of divine law.

This statement is very true----but. How do you apply it?

People have spent years in prison while the claim of heresy was investigated by Canon lawyers and theologians later to be found innocentof the charge.

It cannot be as simple as "because I say so" or "it is obvious". There has to be some authority capable of making that decision. It is my understanding that only peers or a higher authority can judge someone.

For example I for one do not believe that any of the Popes are or have been Formal heretics.
My personal opinion carries no weight with the Church nor do the personal (be they theologians, canon lawyers, etc. ) opinions to the contrary.

While we should in fact follow our consciences we must ever be aware that our conscience can be erroneous.


Thu Aug 23, 2012 6:35 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Cum Ex Apostolatus
On Bellarmine's view, see this new text: viewtopic.php?p=13113#p13113

Quote:
But maybe somebody will ask: if the Pope has absolutely no superior on earth, by what right can he be deposed by a council or by the Church for heresy? The answer is ready: while men can be expelled by the Church through excommunication for other crimes, heretics exit and separate themselves, and, in a sense, they excommunicate themselves, as St. Jerome noted, explaining those words of the apostle in Titus 3: “A man that is an heretick … being condemned of himself.”[180] Therefore, if the Pontiff became a heretic or an infidel or an apostate – which I do not think can happen – he would be not so much deposed as declared deposed by the council.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:36 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Cum Ex Apostolatus
St.Justin wrote:
1. That a heretic loses his office is a fact, or principle, of divine law.

This statement is very true----but. How do you apply it?


There are at least two questions here. How is it meant to be applied by the Church, and how can an individual apply it?

1. Bellarmine points out that the Roman Clergy applied it to the case of Liberius, electing in his place St. Felix II. I have also pointed out several times the case of Pascal II, to whom several canonised saints threatened to apply this law. See: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1184

2. Any individual can, and if his spiritual interests require it, must, decide that another is actually a heretic and is to be avoided. This is divine law expressed in Titus 3, 10-11. It applies to clerics with whom one may have necessary relations, such as one's own pastor or bishop, and for the same reason applies a fortiori to the Roman Pontiff, to whom all must be subject under pain of eternal damnation. This is exactly the reverse of the view usually taken by traditional Catholics, of course, for whom the papacy represents a special case in which a vague kind of misplaced reverence indemnifies any claimant from the charge of heresy.

It is easy to see that unless a Conciliarist notion is adopted, such as that deployed by Cardinal Cajetan, placing the council above the pope, the only way in which a pope-heretic can even be charged with heresy is if the individuals who make the accusation are already convinced of his guilt, and therefore regard him as not pope. This is the approach that Bellarmine takes, and very emphatically, because he holds as of divine law that open heretics are not members of the Church; that heretics must be avoided; and that popes have no superior on earth and therefore cannot be judged and punished.

St.Justin wrote:
People have spent years in prison while the claim of heresy was investigated by Canon lawyers and theologians later to be found innocent of the charge.


Practical difficulties, or the danger of error, do not and cannot affect the truth of divine law. It's either divine law or it isn't.

St.Justin wrote:
It cannot be as simple as "because I say so" or "it is obvious". There has to be some authority capable of making that decision. It is my understanding that only peers or a higher authority can judge someone.


Peers cannot judge, because the principle is that only a superior can judge. Even a subsequent pope cannot judge a pope, for this reason.

St.Justin wrote:
For example I for one do not believe that any of the Popes are or have been Formal heretics.
My personal opinion carries no weight with the Church nor do the personal (be they theologians, canon lawyers, etc. ) opinions to the contrary.

While we should in fact follow our consciences we must ever be aware that our conscience can be erroneous.


Yes, of course. But the recognition of our own fallibility ought not to be a reason to cease making necessary judgements and decisions. We saw the terrible effect of this precise error in the religious who accepted the errors of Vatican II or the New Mass because of obedience and an improper diffidence. Fr. Hugh Thwaites was a victim of it. We could probably all name several others we knew personally, and we have all read of thousands of other similar examples. The whole revolution is testament to it. Without the apparent authority of Rome, the project would have failed from the beginning.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:54 am
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 27 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.