http://strobertbellarmine.net/books/Concerning_A_SSPX_Dossier_on_Sedevacantism.pdf

17. The next section of this booklet consists of two parts – viz. the erroneous doctrine of Fr. Brian hαɾɾιson, who evidently knows almost nothing at all about the question he addresses, and a brief comment of Archbishop Lefebvre which demonstrates that he did know the subject, as one would expect.

4.2. Election of the recent Popes: John XXIII, Paul VI, John-Paul I & II: The Apostolic Constitution cuм ex Apostolatus of Pope Paul IV (1555-1559) declares invalid the election of a heretic to any ecclesiastical office, including the supreme pontificate. However, it cannot be used to prove the invalidity of the election of Paul VI and John-Paul II. First, it should be reminded that such bull was merely disciplinary, and not doctrinal. Since that time, the Church has judged that it would be better for her to be validly governed by a heretic than to be invalidly governed by the same, with all of his acts void and giving no power. The law governing papal elections which was in force for the elections of Popes John XXIII and Paul VI was that of Pope Pius XII († 1958) who legislated, on 8 December 1945, as follows: “None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff. We hereby suspend such censures solely for the purposes of the said election; at other times they are to remain in vigour.” Now, to participate in an election ‘actively’ means to vote in the election and to participate ‘passively’ means to be elected to the office, to be the ‘passive’ (acted upon) object of the election. Thus, no cardinal subjected to “any excommunication” was “excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff” and any of them could have become Pope. Hence, even if John XXIII and Paul VI had been subject to excommunications for any reasons whatsoever, due to heresy or Masonic membership or whatever, they would still have been validly elected to the papacy. The same conclusion would apply to John Paul I and John Paul II, who were elected to the papacy under the substantially identical legislation which Pope Paul VI issued on October 1, 1975. They too were validly elected Popes. Fr. Brian W. hαɾɾιson comments: “Thus, if the Church's law required that a Cardinal be free from all ecclesiastical censure in order to be eligible for the papacy, the voters in general would have no guarantee that any given candidate was not in fact ineligible because of some secret crime by which he had incurred excommunication. They might unwittingly carry out an invalid election, in which case the "Pope" they elected would not be true Pope. The invalidity of his acts would then be a kind of spiritual cancer, quietly destroying the Church's vital structures from within: the Bishops appointed by him would have no true right to govern their respective dioceses; no laws he passed would be binding on the Church; and in particular, the Cardinals named by him would not be valid electors of a future Pope. How, then, could a true Pope be restored, if at all? Who would be competent to decide? When the fact of this hidden excommunication finally came to light, the resulting chaos would be unimaginable. Nobody would know with certainty who, if anyone, still had any real authority in the Church, and schism - perhaps a series of schisms - would seem almost inevitable. The Church's law therefore foresees and avoids the possibility of this catastrophic situation by allowing that even a secret heretic or apostate, if elected as Pope, would ascend the Chair of Peter with full juridical rights over the universal Church on earth“ Archbishop Lefebvre spoke also about another problem that may affect the value of the election of the recent Popes: “Does not the exclusion of the cardinals of over eighty years of age, and the secret meetings which preceded and prepared the last two Conclaves render them invalid? Invalid: no, that is saying too much. Doubtful at the time: perhaps. But in any case the subsequent unanimous acceptance of the election by the Cardinals and the Roman clergy suffices to validate it. That is the teaching of the theologians.”

a) Note that Archbishop Lefebvre’s comment illustrates the proper Catholic attitude to the doctrine of the theologians. We accept it. It is not optional; it is not to be quibbled about; we sit at their feet.

b) Fr. Boulet comments that cuм ex apostolatus “was merely disciplinary, and not doctrinal.” But in fact all discipline is doctrinal, insofar as it must be (at least) consistent with true doctrine. In this case we have a papal docuмent of very great weight (a bull) which expresses the doctrine of St. Robert Bellarmine on the question of heretics claiming offices in the Church. It expresses in the strongest possible language the mind of the Church on this subject. If we accept the assertions of St. Robert to the effect that his doctrine is the constant tradition of Holy Church (and why would anybody not accept those assertions of a Doctor of the Church, and supported as they are by a forest of quotes from the Fathers and Popes?), then this papal bull is merely another piece of evidence of the mind of the Church on this point, entirely consistent with all that has preceded and succeeded it. And of course, if we look at the footnotes in the Code we find that the essential theme of this bull was incorporated in the Code, in canon 188,4.

c) There is no foundation whatsoever for the extraordinary comment that “the Church has judged that it would be better for her to be validly governed by a heretic than to be invalidly governed by the same, with all of his acts void and giving no power.” None at all. This notion is founded upon Fr. Brian hαɾɾιson’s complete ignorance of the doctrine of Bellarmine, which is the common doctrine of the theologians.

It will be useful at this point to recall St. Robert Bellarmine’s explanation of the tradition of the Church. He states,

“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.” [St Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30.]

d) Fr. Boulet adds, “with all of his acts void and giving no power.” This is an entirely understandable clause to add to any discussion of cuм ex apostolatus, which of course states, that “each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone,” thus rendering null all of the acts of such public heretics who might perchance claim an office in the Church.

But as already stated, cuм ex apostolatus was abrogated by the Code (of 1917), except insofar as its provisions were included in the text of the Code, so that this global invalidation of the acts of false claimants is no longer in force, except insofar as it is divine law. And, the supply of jurisdiction by Holy Mother Church, in cases of common error and in positive and probable doubt of fact or law is certainly a part of the 1917 Code, and therefore even if this provision of cuм ex apostolatus were considered to have survived the Code, or to be divine law (which in fact I believe it is), the Church would still supply jurisdiction in the circuмstances mentioned. Habitual jurisdiction is lacking to them, but supplied jurisdiction is an entirely different question. Of course there can be no doubt that there has been at least common error in relation to the Vatican II “Popes.”

The principle that the Church supplies jurisdiction in common error and in positive and probable doubt of fact or law will obviously have had far-reaching effects in this crisis. Determining the exact extent of these effects would require some study of both law and fact. It should suffice in this place to mention it in order to dismiss the objection that a vacant See implies universal nullity of official acts.

e) Fr. hαɾɾιson’s reasoning is really quite alarming. He argues in favour of his thesis as follows. “The invalidity of his acts would then be a kind of spiritual cancer, quietly destroying the Church's vital structures from within: the Bishops appointed by him would have no true right to govern their respective dioceses; no laws he passed would be binding on the Church; and in particular, the Cardinals named by him would not be valid electors of a future Pope.” Surely this alarmist rhetoric is nothing more than a way of condemning Pope Paul IV, whose bull is under consideration in this place. What Fr. hαɾɾιson is actually saying is that Pope Pius XII acted just in the nick of time to prevent the immoderate and irresponsible bull, cuм ex apostolatus, from unleashing all manner of confusion and distress upon the Church, 300 years after it was issued. Now apart from the obvious question of whether there might be a less obnoxious interpretation of the various papal legislation under consideration, there is a sense of unreality engendered by this kind of argument. For it seems as though Fr. hαɾɾιson is expressing his gladness that in 1945 Pope Pius XII by his legislation wonderfully prevented confusion about the papacy and distress amongst Catholics, by ensuring that public heretics could be elected Popes without anyone challenging their validity. The events of the past forty years hardly support his idea that the admission of heretics into positions of authority in the Church could produce or preserve a wonderful peace and security in the Church. Surely the almost universal doubt and confusion amongst Catholics today is a sufficient reductio ad absurdum of such an interpretation.

I also have to express my complete disagreement with Fr. hαɾɾιson about the nature of the papal legislation of 1945, which did not touch on the question of public heretics at all.

Really, if this example illustrates anything at all, it is that traditional Catholics ought not to rely upon Conciliar ministers for explanations of anything.