Author Topic: Does 1917 canon law abolish Papal Bull Pope Paul 4 (Read 4451 times)

sedevacantist3 · « **on:** February 26, 2019, 08:33:52 AM »

Would like your opinions on the following

Now, since cuм Ex Apostolatus was only concerned with “the practical execution of previous penal laws, which by their nature are disciplinary,” as Cardinal Hergenrother explained, its penalties could be, and indeed were, abrogated when the 1917 Code of Canon law came into force. Canon 5.2 explains:

That which pertains to penalties, of which there is no mention made in this Code, be they spiritual or temporal, remedial or, as they call it, punitive, automatic or declared through a judgment, they are to be held as abrogated.

None of the prescriptions contained incuм Ex Apostolatus Officio were included in the 1917 Code, and consequently they were all officially and authoritatively abrogated.

The Sedevacantist bishop, Donald Sanborn, also acknowledges the papal Bull is no longer in force. Wrote Sanborn:

cuм ex apostolatus is an apostolic constitution, a law, made by Pope Paul IV, which says that if a pope should be a heretic, his elevation to this dignity would be null. It was made in order to ensure that no Protestant could ever become the Pope. It 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.”

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #1 on:** February 26, 2019, 08:43:49 AM »

Yes, both St Pius X and Pius XII made exceptions for the ecclesiastical penalties (any and all penalties, including excommunication for heresy) whereby, the penalties are not in force ONLY for the conclave. Once a pope is elected and the conclave is finished, all penalities go back in force. Meaning, that a heretic could elect AND be elected as pope, but once the election is over, that pope is SPIRITUALLY impaired because of the SPIRITUAL penalities in force, even if they still hold the GOVT/material office. This is what I believe we are living through.

sedevacantist3 · « **Reply #2 on:** February 26, 2019, 11:40:14 AM »

Will look into that, what would you reply to the following

In its provision on loss of ecclesiastical office without declaration (canon 188.4), the 1917 Code of Canon Law quotes this bull for its teaching on loss of office through heresy. This demonstrates that the Code’s teaching on loss of office without a declaration through heresy (and a Catholic’s ability to recognize it) is in accord with this bull

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #3 on:** February 26, 2019, 12:13:22 PM »

A papal bull overrides canon law. St Pius X and Pius XII's changes to Church penalties are part of the "binding and loosing" power of the papacy. They would be in addition to canon law, but of a higher authority, so would overrule it.

sedevacantist3 · « **Reply #4 on:** February 26, 2019, 12:20:11 PM »

I’m a little confused , i thought you agreed that the canin law abolished the papal bull but now you are stating no?

Markus · « **Reply #5 on:** February 26, 2019, 02:11:39 PM »

Could you change that yellow text to something else? :)

sedevacantist3 · « **Reply #6 on:** February 26, 2019, 02:38:14 PM »

Ya sorry,I’m not tech savy, here’s the link

http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/blog-page_19.html

ihsv · « **Reply #7 on:** February 26, 2019, 02:39:37 PM »

Quote

Would like your opinions on the following

Now, since cuм Ex Apostolatus was only concerned with “the practical execution of previous penal laws, which by their nature are disciplinary,” as Cardinal Hergenrother explained, its penalties could be, and indeed were, abrogated when the 1917 Code of Canon law came into force. Canon 5.2 explains:

That which pertains to penalties, of which there is no mention made in this Code, be they spiritual or temporal, remedial or, as they call it, punitive, automatic or declared through a judgment, they are to be held as abrogated.

None of the prescriptions contained incuм Ex Apostolatus Officio were included in the 1917 Code, and consequently they were all officially and authoritatively abrogated.

The Sedevacantist bishop, Donald Sanborn, also acknowledges the papal Bull is no longer in force. Wrote Sanborn:

cuм ex apostolatus is an apostolic constitution, a law, made by Pope Paul IV, which says that if a pope should be a heretic, his elevation to this dignity would be null. It was made in order to ensure that no Protestant could ever become the Pope. It 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.”

Does this help?

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #8 on:** February 26, 2019, 03:18:03 PM »

There are 3 papal laws in question. The first was the "cuм Ex" bull, then the 2 laws by St Pius X and Pius XII (his was not a bull but an apostolic constitution). The canon law of 1917 overrides "cuм Ex" because it's a newer law. Pius XII's law would overrule the 1917 code, if there was a disagreement. Pius XII's law was almost the same law as St Pius X's law, so i'm guessing that he made this reiteration in case there was confusion on St Pius X's intention (i.e. if there was a question if the 1917 canon law was supposed to overrule his previous law). In any case, "cuм Ex" is null and the most recent law on the books is Pius XII's.

34. No Cardinal, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, in-terdict or other ecclesiastical impediment whatsoever can be excluded in any way from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff. Moreover, we suspend such censures for the effect only of this election, even though they shall remain otherwise in force.” (Cons. “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis,” 8 December 1945)

sedevacantist3 · « **Reply #9 on:** February 26, 2019, 08:09:30 PM »

Finally, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, how csnthe canon of 1917 override this?

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #10 on:** February 26, 2019, 09:34:12 PM »

It doesn't override it. Therefore, we can have a heretic pope. Most sedes just ignore this fact. If anything, we're in a sedeprivationist situation (where the pope still holds the material office but not the spiritual because as soon as he was elected, his excommunication kicked back in), but it still means there's a pope...who could gain back his spiritual office were he to convert.

My opinion is that St Pius X and Pius XII saw the writing on the wall; they saw the growing #s of heretic bishops/cardinals; the growing # of closet heretics/freemasons/communists and they knew they had to protect the papacy by keeping it occupied by any means, for the "normal" rules would mean that there would be almost no orthodox cardinals to elect. So they changed the rules to allow a heretic or heretic-leaning Cardinal to be elected (and elect others) so that at least the papacy wouldn't end. For as much as the Church needs a temporal AND spiritual ruler, if She at least has a temporal ruler, a temporal symbol of unity, this would at least keep the faithful united and calm amidst the storms of modernism that were brewing at the time (and that now we see the full effects of).

Conspiracy_Factist · « **Reply #11 on:** February 26, 2019, 11:27:41 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 26, 2019, 09:34:12 PM

It doesn't override it. Therefore, we can have a heretic pope. Most sedes just ignore this fact. If anything, we're in a sedeprivationist situation (where the pope still holds the material office but not the spiritual because as soon as he was elected, his excommunication kicked back in), but it still means there's a pope...who could gain back his spiritual office were he to convert.

My opinion is that St Pius X and Pius XII saw the writing on the wall; they saw the growing #s of heretic bishops/cardinals; the growing # of closet heretics/freemasons/communists and they knew they had to protect the papacy by keeping it occupied by any means, for the "normal" rules would mean that there would be almost no orthodox cardinals to elect. So they changed the rules to allow a heretic or heretic-leaning Cardinal to be elected (and elect others) so that at least the papacy wouldn't end. For as much as the Church needs a temporal AND spiritual ruler, if She at least has a temporal ruler, a temporal symbol of unity, this would at least keep the faithful united and calm amidst the storms of modernism that were brewing at the time (and that now we see the full effects of).

St Pius X11 might have changed the ecclesiastic laws but they can't change divine laws...no?
also
you wrote "The canon law of 1917 overrides "cuм Ex" because it's a newer law." but now say it doesn't over ride..I'm just a little confused

how can we possibly have a heretic pope? what fact if the following is not overridden?
Pope Paul IV, Bull cuм ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559: “6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We enact, determine, decree and define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless; (ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation; (iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way... (vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power... 7. Finally, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We] also [enact, determine, define and decree]: that any and all persons who would have been subject to those thus promoted or elevated if they had not previously deviated from the Faith, become heretics, incurred schism or provoked or committed any or all of these, be they members of anysoever of the following categories: (i) the clergy, secular and religious; (ii) the laity; (iii) the Cardinals [etc.]... shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs (the same subject persons, nevertheless, remaining bound by the duty of fidelity and obedience to any future Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals and Roman Pontiff canonically entering). 10. No one at all, therefore, may infringe this docuмent of our approbation, re-introduction, sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash presumption contradict it. If anyone, however, should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul. Given in Rome at Saint Peter's in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1559, 15th February, in the fourth year of our Pontificate. + I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church...”

Stubborn · « **Reply #12 on:** February 27, 2019, 06:24:00 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 26, 2019, 03:18:03 PM

There are 3 papal laws in question. The first was the "cuм Ex" bull, then the 2 laws by St Pius X and Pius XII (his was not a bull but an apostolic constitution). The canon law of 1917 overrides "cuм Ex" because it's a newer law. Pius XII's law would overrule the 1917 code, if there was a disagreement. Pius XII's law was almost the same law as St Pius X's law, so i'm guessing that he made this reiteration in case there was confusion on St Pius X's intention (i.e. if there was a question if the 1917 canon law was supposed to overrule his previous law). In any case, "cuм Ex" is null and the most recent law on the books is Pius XII's.

34. No Cardinal, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, in-terdict or other ecclesiastical impediment whatsoever can be excluded in any way from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff. Moreover, we suspend such censures for the effect only of this election, even though they shall remain otherwise in force.” (Cons. “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis,” 8 December 1945)

Actually, both Pius X and XII did not override it, rather, they took the clear path by explicitly abrogating cuм ex:

Notwithstanding any whatsoever Apostolic Constitutions and Orders to the contrary issued by
Our Predecessor Roman Pontiffs, which, to the extent it is necessary, We declare each and every
one to be abrogated, as above, and even other matters worthy of individual and special mention
and derogation.

The next paragraph condemns the resurrection of all previous laws:

Therefore, let it be permitted to no man to weaken this page of Our constitution, ordinance,
abrogation, commandment, binding order, warning, prohibition, precept, and will, or to go
against it by a rash undertaking. Moreover, if any one presumes to attempt this, let him know that
he will incur for it the anger of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

I used to have a link to Pope St. Pius X's law, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, wherein, if I remember correctly, it explicitly mentioned the abrogation of Pope Paul IV's cuм Ex by name. The above quotes are from Pope Pius XII's Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #13 on:** February 27, 2019, 07:09:17 AM »

Quote

St Pius X11 might have changed the ecclesiastic laws but they can't change divine laws...no?

What divine Law are you referring to? If Fr Cekada, the biggest sede out there, says that cuм Ex is null, then that’s a big admission on his part.

sedevacantist3 · « **Reply #14 on:** February 27, 2019, 08:01:03 PM »

So if the Bull was replaced by the 1917 canon law where exactly is it stated that now there’s a contrary law as if a heretic can be pope.

I. The Text of Canon 188.4
A. Translation and Latin Text:
“Through tacit resignation, accepted by the law itself, all offices become vacant ipso facto and without any declaration if a cleric: ...n.4. Has publicly forsaken the Catholic Faith.”
(Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clericus: ...4 A fide catholica publice defecerit.)
B. Paraphrase:
No one, unless he profess the Catholic Faith, can hold any office — that is, lay valid claim to authority in the Catholic Church. For the faithful to know this fact and refuse obedience, no formality is required: neither sentence passed by a court nor any other official pronouncement, nor a formally expressed resignation accepted by some official. Defection itself from the Catholic Faith constitutes resignation.

I. The Text of Canon 188.4
A. Translation and Latin Text:
“Through tacit resignation, accepted by the law itself, all offices become vacant ipso facto and without any declaration if a cleric: ...n.4. Has publicly forsaken the Catholic Faith.”
(Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clericus: ...4 A fide catholica publice defecerit.)
B. Paraphrase:
No one, unless he profess the Catholic Faith, can hold any office — that is, lay valid claim to authority in the Catholic Church. For the faithful to know this fact and refuse obedience, no formality is required: neither sentence passed by a court nor any other official pronouncement, nor a formally expressed resignation accepted by some official. Defection itself from the Catholic Faith constitutes resignation.

Author Topic: Does 1917 canon law abolish Papal Bull Pope Paul 4 (Read 4451 times)

sedevacantist3

Does 1917 canon law abolish Papal Bull Pope Paul 4

Pax Vobis

Re: Does 1917 canon law abolish Papal Bull Pope Paul 4

sedevacantist3

Re: Does 1917 canon law abolish Papal Bull Pope Paul 4

Pax Vobis

Re: Does 1917 canon law abolish Papal Bull Pope Paul 4

sedevacantist3

Re: Does 1917 canon law abolish Papal Bull Pope Paul 4

Markus

Re: Does 1917 canon law abolish Papal Bull Pope Paul 4

sedevacantist3

Re: Does 1917 canon law abolish Papal Bull Pope Paul 4

ihsv

Re: Does 1917 canon law abolish Papal Bull Pope Paul 4

Pax Vobis

Re: Does 1917 canon law abolish Papal Bull Pope Paul 4

sedevacantist3

Re: Does 1917 canon law abolish Papal Bull Pope Paul 4

Pax Vobis

Re: Does 1917 canon law abolish Papal Bull Pope Paul 4

Conspiracy_Factist

Re: Does 1917 canon law abolish Papal Bull Pope Paul 4

Stubborn

Re: Does 1917 canon law abolish Papal Bull Pope Paul 4

Pax Vobis

Re: Does 1917 canon law abolish Papal Bull Pope Paul 4

sedevacantist3

Re: Does 1917 canon law abolish Papal Bull Pope Paul 4