Author Topic: Cum ex apostolatus officio  (Read 2700 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Your Friend Colin

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 285
  • Reputation: +134/-45
  • Gender: Male
Cum ex apostolatus officio
« on: April 23, 2019, 07:25:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    POPE PAUL IV (1559-1566)
             
            "If ever it should appear that any bishop, even one acting as an
    Archbishop, Patriarch, or Primate, or a Cardinal of the Roman Church,
    or a legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, whether prior to his promotion to
    cardinal, or prior to his election as Roman Pontiff, has beforehand deviated
    from the Catholic faith or fallen into any heresy, We enact, we decree, we
    determine, we define:  Such promotion or election in and of itself, even
    with
    the agreement and unanimous consent of all the Cardinals, shall be null,
    legally invalid, and void.

            "It shall not be possible for such a promotion or election to be
    deemed valid or to be valid, neither through reception of office,
    consecration, subsequent administration, or possession, not even through the
    putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff himself, together with the
    veneration and obedience accorded him by all.  Such promotion or election
    shall not through any lapse of time in the foregoing situation be considered
    even partially legitimate in any way....  Each and all of the words, as
    acts,
    laws, appointments of those so promoted or elected -- and indeed, whatsoever
    flows therefrom -- shall be lacking in force, and shall grant no stability
    and legal power to anyone whatsoever.

            "Those so promoted or elected, by that very fact and without the
    need
    to make any further declaration, shall be deprived of any dignity, position,
    honor, title, authority, office, and power....  Therefore, it is permitted
    to
    no one to impair this page of Our approval, renewal, sanction, statute,
    wills
    of repeal, of degrees, or to go contrary to it by a rash daring deed.  If
    anyone, moreover, will have presumed to attempt this, he will incur the
    wrath
    of Almighty God an of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."  (Cum ex
    apostolatus officio, February 16, 1559, sec. 9, apud "Fontes Iuris
    Canonici,"
    1971)
       
          Two popes, Innocent III and Paul IV, both vigorous defenders of
    papal authority, together with many theologians, admitted the principle
    that a pope, in his personal capacity, can defect from the Faith or
    become a heretic; that when the fact of defection becomes manifest, such
    a pope automatically (ipso facto) loses his office and authority; and
    that such a pope should be resisted.

            What is even more significant is that in his Cum ex apostolatus
    officio, Paul IV even perceives the possibility of a Protestant being
    elected to the throne of Peter.  He says that in such a case, the pope's
    acts would be automatically void, and he would not be the pope, even if
    he had been accepted and obeyed as true Pope by the whole Church.  This
    papal document shows the mind of the Church on this matter.  In such a
    case, Paul IV is calling upon Catholics to resist such a "pope" with all
    their might.

    [/pre]
    I am sure this has been on CathInfo many times before but I wanted to get peoples' take who are active on the forum, sedevacantists and sedeplenists.
    Taken from: http://www.traditio.com/tradlib/popelim.txt
    Humble thy spirit very much: for the vengeance on the flesh of the ungodly is fire and worms. - Ecclesiasticus 7:18

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 457
    • Reputation: +94/-30
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cum ex apostolatus officio
    « Reply #1 on: April 23, 2019, 07:42:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I don't have sources for any of the above, so take with a grain of salt.

    But I'm pretty sure Pius X and Pius XII changed the conclave rules.  I've also heard that this was brought up as a challenge to Vatican I on papal infallibility. 

    TBH I don't see how a bull like this is practically enforceable.  Like even if a heretic actually does (like in the eyes of God) automatically lose office, who gets to decide that he's lost his office? 


    Offline Your Friend Colin

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 285
    • Reputation: +134/-45
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cum ex apostolatus officio
    « Reply #2 on: April 23, 2019, 07:44:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Whoops, sorry! Scrolling through the threads now (it was in a post on February 26). Should have done that before posting a thread that would most likely just result in an unsettled debate. 
    Humble thy spirit very much: for the vengeance on the flesh of the ungodly is fire and worms. - Ecclesiasticus 7:18

    Offline forlorn

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1485
    • Reputation: +592/-891
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cum ex apostolatus officio
    « Reply #3 on: April 23, 2019, 07:45:46 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • I don't have sources for any of the above, so take with a grain of salt.

    But I'm pretty sure Pius X and Pius XII changed the conclave rules.  I've also heard that this was brought up as a challenge to Vatican I on papal infallibility.

    TBH I don't see how a bull like this is practically enforceable.  Like even if a heretic actually does (like in the eyes of God) automatically lose office, who gets to decide that he's lost his office?
    I think the purpose of the Bull was to make sure, just in case a heretic was elected and later deposed, that there wouldn't be an issue over whether or not the heretic's Bulls, etc. were valid. 

    Offline Your Friend Colin

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 285
    • Reputation: +134/-45
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cum ex apostolatus officio
    « Reply #4 on: April 23, 2019, 07:46:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I don't have sources for any of the above, so take with a grain of salt.

    But I'm pretty sure Pius X and Pius XII changed the conclave rules.  I've also heard that this was brought up as a challenge to Vatican I on papal infallibility.

    TBH I don't see how a bull like this is practically enforceable.  Like even if a heretic actually does (like in the eyes of God) automatically lose office, who gets to decide that he's lost his office?
    Here's the thread: https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/does-1917-canon-law-abolish-papal-bull-pope-paul-4/msg645044/#msg645044
    I should have realized these profound theological questions are not going to be answered by lay men on an internet forum  :jester:
    Humble thy spirit very much: for the vengeance on the flesh of the ungodly is fire and worms. - Ecclesiasticus 7:18


    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 457
    • Reputation: +94/-30
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cum ex apostolatus officio
    « Reply #5 on: April 23, 2019, 07:57:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I think the purpose of the Bull was to make sure, just in case a heretic was elected and later deposed, that there wouldn't be an issue over whether or not the heretic's Bulls, etc. were valid.
    Yeah, I think for that to be practically applicable, I think some future pope would have to declare that that pope had in fact been an antipope and that that bull had applied to him.  That would still be questionable, but I could see a case where, say, if some future Pius X type pope made such a declaration about Francis, we could be more sure about said future Pius X's pontificate than that of Francis.

    But I don't see how the way that sedes practically use this isn't quasi Protestant.  "Well I think he's a heretic so I won't obey him."  If that was the correct conclusion under the Roman paradigm, wouldn't it be more reasonable to just conclude that Rome was wrong about what the Church is and go EO?
    I mean my problem here is this is basically unfalsifiable.  The Church's claims can't ever be tested if, in any event where they would be falsified, you can just be like "nah, antipope" 

    Offline forlorn

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1485
    • Reputation: +592/-891
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cum ex apostolatus officio
    « Reply #6 on: April 23, 2019, 08:05:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yeah, I think for that to be practically applicable, I think some future pope would have to declare that that pope had in fact been an antipope and that that bull had applied to him.  That would still be questionable, but I could see a case where, say, if some future Pius X type pope made such a declaration about Francis, we could be more sure about said future Pius X's pontificate than that of Francis.

    But I don't see how the way that sedes practically use this isn't quasi Protestant.  "Well I think he's a heretic so I won't obey him."  If that was the correct conclusion under the Roman paradigm, wouldn't it be more reasonable to just conclude that Rome was wrong about what the Church is and go EO?
    I mean my problem here is this is basically unfalsifiable.  The Church's claims can't ever be tested if, in any event where they would be falsified, you can just be like "nah, antipope"
    I don't understand what you mean. Heresy would be determined by adherance(well, lack thereof) to the Church's teachings. How does that affect the falsifiability of the Church's teachings?

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4529
    • Reputation: +2762/-1254
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cum ex apostolatus officio
    « Reply #7 on: April 23, 2019, 11:00:11 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    But I'm pretty sure Pius X and Pius XII changed the conclave rules.  I've also heard that this was brought up as a challenge to Vatican I on papal infallibility.

    TBH I don't see how a bull like this is practically enforceable.  Like even if a heretic actually does (like in the eyes of God) automatically lose office, who gets to decide that he's lost his office?
    Fantastic points!

    Also, those who love to quote Cum Ex fail to take into account that the use of the term “heretic” is canon law’s definition, which means pernicious heresy, which can only be decided by Church officials, after a rebuke/trial process.  In other words, once the Church determines that person A is a heretic, then Cum Ex could possibly apply.  But too many people erroneously think that THEY can determine who is or isn’t a heretic!  Ridiculous!

    Any catholic can judge what another says or believes as heretical statements or heretical ideals, but we don’t have the authority to label them a heretic formally.  

    The necessity of an ecclesiastical process and 2 public rebukes (per St Paul’s instructions), is shown by the current “Dubia” letter sent to +Francis.  This is also how St Bellarmine outlined his theories on if a pope could be deposed.  Noting could happen without first being a declaration of heresy.  This declaration cannot be determined privately, or personally.  That’s Protestantism.  


    Online DecemRationis

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 225
    • Reputation: +62/-5
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cum ex apostolatus officio
    « Reply #8 on: April 23, 2019, 11:20:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Another extremely important facet to Cum Ex is the light it sheds on the meaning of the phrase "abomination of desolation" mentioned in Daniel and the Gospel of Matthew: it is a papal application of that text to what prompted the bull, namely the fear of a heretic pope - 


    Quote
    "We have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place."

    https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/cum-ex-apostolatus-officio-pope-paul-iv/#.XL_gK5NKi1Y

    So now we have pretty good warrant to interpret, say, the "abomination of desolation" as referring to a heretic sitting in the seat of Peter, such as Francis. A key piece to the "puzzle." 

    It has "befallen us." We are near the End. 
    I believe in the Apostolic Catholic Church. I reject and denounce the malfeasant or “dysfunctional papal or episcopal Newchurch.” - Father Paul Trinchard

    Offline Conspiracy_Factist

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 590
    • Reputation: +155/-16
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cum ex apostolatus officio
    « Reply #9 on: April 23, 2019, 11:22:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Fantastic points!

    Also, those who love to quote Cum Ex fail to take into account that the use of the term “heretic” is canon law’s definition, which means pernicious heresy, which can only be decided by Church officials, after a rebuke/trial process.  In other words, once the Church determines that person A is a heretic, then Cum Ex could possibly apply.  But too many people erroneously think that THEY can determine who is or isn’t a heretic!  Ridiculous!

    Any catholic can judge what another says or believes as heretical statements or heretical ideals, but we don’t have the authority to label them a heretic formally.  

    The necessity of an ecclesiastical process and 2 public rebukes (per St Paul’s instructions), is shown by the current “Dubia” letter sent to +Francis.  This is also how St Bellarmine outlined his theories on if a pope could be deposed.  Noting could happen without first being a declaration of heresy.  This declaration cannot be determined privately, or personally.  That’s Protestantism.  
    I agree with you here: "Any catholic can judge what another says or believes as heretical statements".....so any catholic of good will who knows the faith should judge Borgolio the jew as a heretic, no need for a declaration of heresy , we as catholics can judge him a heretic.....obviously we don't have the authority to give any formal declaration...nevertheless Jewgorlio is  a heretic..and not a Catholic...and not a true pope

    Offline Your Friend Colin

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 285
    • Reputation: +134/-45
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cum ex apostolatus officio
    « Reply #10 on: April 23, 2019, 11:45:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • obviously we don't have the authority to give any formal declaration...nevertheless Jewgorlio is  a heretic..and not a Catholic...and not a true pope
    We need a formal declaration from the Church to judge a pope as an anit-pope. We don't have that, but you just did that.
    Humble thy spirit very much: for the vengeance on the flesh of the ungodly is fire and worms. - Ecclesiasticus 7:18


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4529
    • Reputation: +2762/-1254
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cum ex apostolatus officio
    « Reply #11 on: April 24, 2019, 12:08:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Conspiracy_Factist, your logic is wrong.  You can judge him as a material heretic only.  Cum Ex is speaking of formal/pernicious heresy, which can only be judged by Church authorities. 

    Offline XavierSem

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1309
    • Reputation: +93/-148
    • Gender: Male
    • Immaculate Heart of Mary, May Your Triumph Come!
    Re: Cum ex apostolatus officio
    « Reply #12 on: April 24, 2019, 12:24:03 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Salza and Siscoe have a decent article on Cum Ex here: http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/blog-page_19.html

    Quote from: Conspiracy Factist
    we as catholics can judge him a heretic

    Incorrect. Please see John of St. Thomas. “The answer here is similar to the preceding. Prior to the election, there is a moral certainty that all these conditions required in the person are actually met. After the fact of the election and its acceptance, the fulfillment of these conditions is known with the certainty of a theological conclusion, since they have, per se, a logical implication with a truth that is certain, and certified by faith. (…) the truth that is defined and accepted by the Church is not that this man is baptized or ordained, etc., but that this man is truly pope. (…) That he is baptized and meets the other requirements [i.e., that he is not a public heretic] … is inferred as a consequence; (…) the truth that this man has been ordained, and has the power of order (that is, of the priesthood or episcopate), is certain in the same way as the truth that he is baptized is certain; namely, not as a truth immediately de fide, but as a theological conclusion necessarily connected with the truth that he is the Pope and the rule of faith in the Church ...

    "It is not merely a pious belief, but a theological conclusion (as we have stated), that God will not permit one to be elected and peacefully accepted by the Church who in fact does not meet the conditions required; this would be contrary to the special providence that God exercises over the Church and the assistance that she receives from the Holy Ghost." https://gloria.tv/article/PydgSw3mJAWF2w9rLGgxGBa4h

    Quote from: Pax Vobis
    which can only be judged by Church authorities.
    If there had been no Papal Authority for 61 years, there are now no Church Authorities either, for Episcopal Authority comes from Papal Authority. If Pope Pius XII was the last "formal" Pope, there would be no "formal" episcopal authority in the Church today, and consequently the Catholic Church has died, disappeared and defected, which is false and heretical to maintain. Consequently, not only sedevacantism but also the thesis called sedeprivationism is now known to be false. 
    Do make Acts of Consecration to the Twin Hearts, Spiritual Offerings of the Precious Blood of Jesus in Union with the Holy Mass, like in St. Gertrude's Chaplet, along with Spiritual Communions at least every hour. The Saints say Spiritual Communions are a way to quickly advance to Union with God.

    Offline forlorn

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1485
    • Reputation: +592/-891
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cum ex apostolatus officio
    « Reply #13 on: April 24, 2019, 10:18:18 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Salza and Siscoe have a decent article on Cum Ex here: http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/blog-page_19.html

    Incorrect. Please see John of St. Thomas. “The answer here is similar to the preceding. Prior to the election, there is a moral certainty that all these conditions required in the person are actually met. After the fact of the election and its acceptance, the fulfillment of these conditions is known with the certainty of a theological conclusion, since they have, per se, a logical implication with a truth that is certain, and certified by faith. (…) the truth that is defined and accepted by the Church is not that this man is baptized or ordained, etc., but that this man is truly pope. (…) That he is baptized and meets the other requirements [i.e., that he is not a public heretic] … is inferred as a consequence; (…) the truth that this man has been ordained, and has the power of order (that is, of the priesthood or episcopate), is certain in the same way as the truth that he is baptized is certain; namely, not as a truth immediately de fide, but as a theological conclusion necessarily connected with the truth that he is the Pope and the rule of faith in the Church ...

    "It is not merely a pious belief, but a theological conclusion (as we have stated), that God will not permit one to be elected and peacefully accepted by the Church who in fact does not meet the conditions required; this would be contrary to the special providence that God exercises over the Church and the assistance that she receives from the Holy Ghost." https://gloria.tv/article/PydgSw3mJAWF2w9rLGgxGBa4h
    If there had been no Papal Authority for 61 years, there are now no Church Authorities either, for Episcopal Authority comes from Papal Authority. If Pope Pius XII was the last "formal" Pope, there would be no "formal" episcopal authority in the Church today, and consequently the Catholic Church has died, disappeared and defected, which is false and heretical to maintain. Consequently, not only sedevacantism but also the thesis called sedeprivationism is now known to be false.
    Then oughtn't you obey the Pope, instead of attending Masses said by Priests with no ministry in the Church?

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4529
    • Reputation: +2762/-1254
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cum ex apostolatus officio
    « Reply #14 on: April 24, 2019, 01:36:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    If there had been no Papal Authority for 61 years, there are now no Church Authorities either, for Episcopal Authority comes from Papal Authority. If Pope Pius XII was the last "formal" Pope, there would be no "formal" episcopal authority in the Church today, and consequently the Catholic Church has died, disappeared and defected, which is false and heretical to maintain. Consequently, not only sedevacantism but also the thesis called sedeprivationism is now known to be false. 

    This has nothing to do with the current discussion.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16