Quote from: Ecclesia Militans

Quote from: KofCTrad

And cuм ex Apostolatus Officio certainly is still valid. It is cited in the 1917 code of canon law dealing with the issue of heretics holding office and is based in divine law not ecclesial law and therefore is true in perpetuity.

Pope St. Pius X: “None of the Cardinals may be in any way excluded from the active or passive election of the Sovereign Pontiff under pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment” (Vacante Sede Apostolica, 1904).

Pope Pius XII: “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” (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945).

The problem with this seems to be "ecclesiastical impediment" as opposed to divine impediment.

From Nuvos Ordo Watch
http://www.novusordowatch.org/the_chair_is_still_empty.htm

Salza Error #4: The Claim that Sedevacantism ignores the fact that the law of the Church allows even excommunicated cardinals to be elected Pope validly

 Surprisingly enough, John Salza saw fit to repeat an old long-refuted argument against sedevacantism from Pope Pius XII’s constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, promulgated in 1945, regarding the election of a Pope. Salza quotes the Pope 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.

 (Pope Pius XII, Apostolic Constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945; qtd. in Salza, “Errors,” p. 3)

 What may seem at first like a powerful strike against sedevacantism is easily refuted simply by drawing the proper distinctions, which Mr. Salza fails to do. What the Pope is doing here is lifting all ecclesiastical censures, including that of excommunication, which any cardinal may be laboring under at the time of the conclave, for the purposes of allowing him to licitly elect the Pope – and licitly be elected himself. In other words, the Pope is saying that no one may bar from the conclave a cardinal who has any ecclesiastical penalty against him. Note that the emphasis is on the word “ecclesiastical.” The Pope, obviously, can only dispense from ecclesiastical penalties, not from divine ones, for he has no power to reinstate into the Mystical Body of Christ those who have been cut off from it by the divine law. (The same Pius XII alludes to this in his 1951 address to midwives, where he refers to the “natural law, from which . . . not even the Church has the power to dispense” [Pope Pius XII, “Address to Midwives on the Nature of their Profession,” Oct. 29, 1951; http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12midwives.htm)]. Of course, if the Church has no power to dispense from the natural law, then, all the more so, she does not have the power to dispense from the divine law, either.)

 

What this means, quite simply, is that heretics, schismatics, and apostates are, of course, banned from a conclave, but not because they are excommunicated by the Church, but because they are not members of the Church to begin with, because of their heresy, schism, or apostasy. Put differently: The heretic is excluded from the valid election of the Pope not under the aspect of being ecclesiastically excommunicated, but under the aspect of being a heretic, i.e., a non-Catholic. Note that Pius XII’s legislation merely speaks of “any . . . ecclesiastical impediment.” However, being a non-Catholic is not per se an ecclesiastical impediment, it is, first and foremost, a divine impediment, and, naturally, not one the Pope has any power to dispense from. If the Pope, hypothetically, had wished to do the impossible and include even heretics as “licit” electors or recipients of an election, he would have said so – he would have written, “None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any apostasy, heresy, schism, excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical or divine impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff.” But of course, such a statement would have been absurd on the face of it, especially considering that, just as a “heretical Pope” is no Pope at all, neither is a “heretical cardinal” even a cardinal.

 

We recall here, as seen earlier, what Pius XII explicitly taught regarding apostasy, heresy, and schism in Mystici Corporis: “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.” These three sins are such as to expel a man from membership in the Church by their very nature (meaning that they are in and of themselves incompatible with being a Roman Catholic) – not because of some ecclesiastical punishment, such as an excommunication. The reason why an apostate, then, is not a Catholic, is not because a bishop or a Pope has excommunicated him, but because the sin of apostasy is in and of itself incompatible with being a Roman Catholic, just as it is in and of itself incompatible for a triangle to have no angles.

 

Therefore, the fact that Pius XII lifted all excommunications from cardinals for the purposes of holding a licit conclave is irrelevant to the question of sedevacantism. Salza is merely demonstrating his ignorance on this point, failing to realize that Pius XII is speaking of Catholics who are excommunicated, not of non-Catholics. As this may be somewhat confusing for some, let me try to give an example of where this papal legislation would apply. Imagine a wayward cardinal who directly violates the seal of confession. By doing so, he incurs an automatic excommunication from which only the Pope can absolve him (see Canon 2369 §1). Let’s say that before the cardinal can reconcile with the Holy See and have his excommunication lifted, the Pope dies. Now what? Is the cardinal allowed to participate in the conclave, and could he even validly and licitly be elected Pope himself, even though he is under excommunication? Pius XII’s legislation says “yes.” That’s all we’re talking about. It has nothing to do with the ridiculous notion that someone can become Pope who denies the Catholic religion again and again in his words and actions.

 

For more on the argument from Pope Pius XII’s Apostolic Constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, please see this article:

http://www.traditionalmass.org/blog/2007/06/25/can-an-excommunicated-cardinal-be-elected-pope

You believe what this article states because you want to believe it. The Divine Law is what you will be judged on by God. The Church and Church Laws and institutions do not judge based on this. Heresy and Apostosy are covered in the Code of Canon Law. They state quite clearly that there is a difference between being excommunicated for being a heretic or apostate in the internal forum and being excommunicated in the external forum. The Sedevacantists have lots of arguments that they believe to be true but very little understanding of the basic rules that govern the church. If you commit the crime of Murder you have broken a Divine Law. You are internally excommunicated, that is until you repent and are absolved. If you now state that a Pope is not a Pope because he once commited Murder or Theft or Adultery etc. You are a Donatist Heretic.

So too, you cannot say that since one person has commited an act of Heresy that he is not the Pope, 1: To be a formal Heretic and thusly excommunicated in even the internal forum you must be obstinate in that error, how the church has always judged this was when the individual did not correct themselves after being admonished by a Superior. 2: You cannot judge his internal forum, Cardinals do not incur Ipso Facto Excommunication in the External Forum except in one case in the 1917 Code of Canon Law(Yes they are exempt from most penalties in Canon Law) that being Putting themselves as the Pope's Judge. Which of course is what you are doing, judging whether someone is or is not the Pope based on his internal disposition because there has been no external decree in the external forum.

So you're 100% sure Roncalli was pope?

I am morally certain that Roncalli was a true pope.

Watch your tongue boy.

This is an arrogant comment.

His comment was true, he is aguing with Sirinites and you are changing the subject

He brought up cuм refering to heretics, I responded to it. That isn't changing the subject. I agree with him on the Siri thesis, I never claimed I didn't.

As for the past four Popes being Heretics, Materially they are, we agree on that. There has never been a pronouncement or a declaration that they incured the Ipso Facto excommunications, and thus they are not canonically excommunicated even if they are excommunicated in the internal forum.

Benedict knows what the Church teaches, have you read some quotes of his criticizing past dogmas and actions of the Church? You can't hold anything against me for having issues with Benedict. Bishop Tissier, though he is not a sede, said a book Ratzinger wrote in the 1960s contained many heresies and blasphemies.

Anyway, I'm not here to discuss sedevacantism.

He brought up cuм refering to heretics, I responded to it. That isn't changing the subject. I agree with him on the Siri thesis, I never claimed I didn't.

We (not you and I) were discussing the Siri thesis and you brought cuм in response to my posting of an extract regarding canonical elections.  My post was meant to reference the subject matter of the Siri thesis.  cuм did not relate to my posting, so it was you who changed the subject matter.  

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans

Quote from: KofCTrad

And cuм ex Apostolatus Officio certainly is still valid. It is cited in the 1917 code of canon law dealing with the issue of heretics holding office and is based in divine law not ecclesial law and therefore is true in perpetuity.

Pope St. Pius X: “None of the Cardinals may be in any way excluded from the active or passive election of the Sovereign Pontiff under pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment” (Vacante Sede Apostolica, 1904).

Pope Pius XII: “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” (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945).

The problem with this seems to be "ecclesiastical impediment" as opposed to divine impediment.

From Nuvos Ordo Watch
http://www.novusordowatch.org/the_chair_is_still_empty.htm

Salza Error #4: The Claim that Sedevacantism ignores the fact that the law of the Church allows even excommunicated cardinals to be elected Pope validly

 Surprisingly enough, John Salza saw fit to repeat an old long-refuted argument against sedevacantism from Pope Pius XII’s constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, promulgated in 1945, regarding the election of a Pope. Salza quotes the Pope 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.

 (Pope Pius XII, Apostolic Constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945; qtd. in Salza, “Errors,” p. 3)

 What may seem at first like a powerful strike against sedevacantism is easily refuted simply by drawing the proper distinctions, which Mr. Salza fails to do. What the Pope is doing here is lifting all ecclesiastical censures, including that of excommunication, which any cardinal may be laboring under at the time of the conclave, for the purposes of allowing him to licitly elect the Pope – and licitly be elected himself. In other words, the Pope is saying that no one may bar from the conclave a cardinal who has any ecclesiastical penalty against him. Note that the emphasis is on the word “ecclesiastical.” The Pope, obviously, can only dispense from ecclesiastical penalties, not from divine ones, for he has no power to reinstate into the Mystical Body of Christ those who have been cut off from it by the divine law. (The same Pius XII alludes to this in his 1951 address to midwives, where he refers to the “natural law, from which . . . not even the Church has the power to dispense” [Pope Pius XII, “Address to Midwives on the Nature of their Profession,” Oct. 29, 1951; http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12midwives.htm)]. Of course, if the Church has no power to dispense from the natural law, then, all the more so, she does not have the power to dispense from the divine law, either.)

 

What this means, quite simply, is that heretics, schismatics, and apostates are, of course, banned from a conclave, but not because they are excommunicated by the Church, but because they are not members of the Church to begin with, because of their heresy, schism, or apostasy. Put differently: The heretic is excluded from the valid election of the Pope not under the aspect of being ecclesiastically excommunicated, but under the aspect of being a heretic, i.e., a non-Catholic. Note that Pius XII’s legislation merely speaks of “any . . . ecclesiastical impediment.” However, being a non-Catholic is not per se an ecclesiastical impediment, it is, first and foremost, a divine impediment, and, naturally, not one the Pope has any power to dispense from. If the Pope, hypothetically, had wished to do the impossible and include even heretics as “licit” electors or recipients of an election, he would have said so – he would have written, “None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any apostasy, heresy, schism, excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical or divine impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff.” But of course, such a statement would have been absurd on the face of it, especially considering that, just as a “heretical Pope” is no Pope at all, neither is a “heretical cardinal” even a cardinal.

 

We recall here, as seen earlier, what Pius XII explicitly taught regarding apostasy, heresy, and schism in Mystici Corporis: “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.” These three sins are such as to expel a man from membership in the Church by their very nature (meaning that they are in and of themselves incompatible with being a Roman Catholic) – not because of some ecclesiastical punishment, such as an excommunication. The reason why an apostate, then, is not a Catholic, is not because a bishop or a Pope has excommunicated him, but because the sin of apostasy is in and of itself incompatible with being a Roman Catholic, just as it is in and of itself incompatible for a triangle to have no angles.

 

Therefore, the fact that Pius XII lifted all excommunications from cardinals for the purposes of holding a licit conclave is irrelevant to the question of sedevacantism. Salza is merely demonstrating his ignorance on this point, failing to realize that Pius XII is speaking of Catholics who are excommunicated, not of non-Catholics. As this may be somewhat confusing for some, let me try to give an example of where this papal legislation would apply. Imagine a wayward cardinal who directly violates the seal of confession. By doing so, he incurs an automatic excommunication from which only the Pope can absolve him (see Canon 2369 §1). Let’s say that before the cardinal can reconcile with the Holy See and have his excommunication lifted, the Pope dies. Now what? Is the cardinal allowed to participate in the conclave, and could he even validly and licitly be elected Pope himself, even though he is under excommunication? Pius XII’s legislation says “yes.” That’s all we’re talking about. It has nothing to do with the ridiculous notion that someone can become Pope who denies the Catholic religion again and again in his words and actions.

 

For more on the argument from Pope Pius XII’s Apostolic Constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, please see this article:

http://www.traditionalmass.org/blog/2007/06/25/can-an-excommunicated-cardinal-be-elected-pope

Pius XII was not the first Pope to allow an ex-communicated Cardinal into a conclave.

I don't really see how there could be something called a 'heretical pope'. Such an oxymoron would immediately render himself an anti-pope.

There has never been a pronouncement or a declaration that they incured the Ipso Facto excommunications, and thus they are not canonically excommunicated even if they are excommunicated in the internal forum.

ip·so fac·to
noun
by the fact itself; by the very nature of the deed: to be condemned ipso facto.

One is not "declared" ipso facto excommunicated, one simply is so.

I suggest you read the commentary I posted on the Code of Canon Law, read the part about Simony, if someone were to bribe their way into the Papacy it may be valid even though they and whomever they bribed would be ipso facto excommunicated. The excommunication would be internally since he would not declare himself to have incurred it.

Someone who is ipso facto excommunicated, even for private sin, is still excommunicated.

That is, however, not relevant to this case. We are discussing here the manifest heresy and apostasy of the recent "popes". Manifest, as in public.

Secondly if the Law cuм ex was cited in the 1917 Code, then cite it. I have the 1917 Code of Canon Law in 2 different commentaries and it does not mention cuм Ex at all. Furthermore it states the same decree that Pope St. Pius X made and was cited by Ecclesia Militans.

I believe you have recieved faulty information.

I just wanted to post here that "cuм Ex" is cited in the footnotes referring to Canon 188.4 which, I think, deals with the loss of office due to the defection from the faith.

The copy I am referring to was published by PJ Kennedy and Sons, in 1918 and the text in reference is located on p. 47.  If a scan is requested, I can probably come up with that.  Either way, I am doing this to support Thursday and KofCTrad.

Also, St. Thomas refers to an act of worship that is directed to an end that is not God is an act of apostasy (worshiping at the tomb of Mahomet is the example).  

These men (Paul VI, JPII, B16) have done far worse - not only engaging in false worship, they have promoted it among their hierarchy and forced it on the faithful and encouraged members of false religions to continue and promote their false religions.  They have taken part in pagan, muslim and judaic worship.

It really is not complex - they are not Catholics.  

I just wanted to post here that "cuм Ex" is cited in the footnotes referring to Canon 188.4 which, I think, deals with the loss of office due to the defection from the faith.

As a footnote??? Doesn't sound too convincing to me.  Anyhow, Pope Pius XII took care of that.