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The Sedevacantist bishop, Donald Sanborn, also acknowledges the papal Bull is no longer in force.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.”
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.St Pius X11 might have changed the ecclesiastic laws but they can't change divine laws...no?
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).
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.Actually, both Pius X and XII did not override it, rather, they took the clear path by explicitly abrogating cuм ex:
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)
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.
It’a a dogma that 1) heretics are not members of the Church;A pope can only be declared a heretic by the Cardinals at a Church council, per St Bellarmine. Such has not yet happened. Therefore, his material/govt office is still occupied.
A pope can only be declared a heretic by the Cardinals at a Church council, per St Bellarmine. Such has not yet happened. Therefore, his material/govt office is still occupied.But the original Bull makes no mention of a church council needed. So if you say the 1917 code overides the Bull, show me where it contradicts the Bull, i don’t see it. And you can’t prove Pope Pius xII goes against the Bull. The Bull clearly supports the sede position but you are grasping at straws to diwnplay it in my humble opinion
A pope can only be declared a heretic by the Cardinals at a Church council, per St Bellarmine.
Fr Cekada clearly says, and the law (Pope St Puis X’s law) clearly states, that cuм Ex is null. This is not opinion, but fact. I’m not going to prove the obvious. Add to this, that Pope Pius XII re-declared the same law as St Pius X.I will wait for your citation of Bellarmine stating a council is needed ...
Prove to all of us your case. Church law is clearly against you.
Fr Cekada clearly says, and the law (Pope St Puis X’s law) clearly states, that cuм Ex is null. This is not opinion, but fact. (. . .)
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)
IV. SUMMARY: APPLES AND ORANGES
————————————————————————
Paragraph 34 of Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis suspends the effects of censures (excommunication, suspension, interdict) and other ecclesiastical impediments (e.g., infamy of law) for cardinals who are electing a pope and for the cardinal they finally elect. Thus, a cardinal who had incurred an excommunication prior to his election as pope would nevertheless be validly elected.
This law concerns only impediments of ecclesiastical law, however. As such, it cannot be invoked as an argument against sedevacantism, which is based on the teaching of pre-Vatican II canonists that heresy is an impediment of divine law to receiving the papacy.
Potatoe, potato. It depends how you define 'catholic'. If we're talking about excommunication and heresy from a CANON LAW perspective, then such people are still catholics, legally speaking. They are still baptized and still have the capability to repent, confess and save their souls.
If we're talking about MORALS, then yes, it is correct to say that a heretic is no longer catholic, in the sense that they have rejected part of the faith. So, we do not call them catholic, who do not believe the full faith.
I'm talking about the CANON LAW, legal definition because this is the topic at hand - the legal status of the pope/bishops who incur 'ipso facto' excommunication (which is a canon law punishment). Legally speaking, these people are still catholic, even though morally they are not. The point is that, an excommunicated person is not 'outside of the church' legally speaking. They can still hold govt offices, though have no spiritual authority. This is why Fr Chazal's argument is valid, in my opinion.
23.
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.
15.
. . . it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.
Heresy is both a crime (delictum) against canon law and a sin (peccatum) against divine law. The material Mr. Sparks quotes deals with heresy as a delictum and with the ecclesiastical censure (excommunication) that the heretic incurs.
This is mostly irrelevant to the case of a heretical pope. Because he is the supreme legislator and therefore not subject to canon law, a pope cannot commit a true delictum of heresy or incur an excommunication. He is subject only to the divine law.
It is by violating the divine law through the sin (peccatum) of heresy that a heretical pope loses his authority — “having become an unbeliever [factus infidelis],” as Cardinal Billot
says, “he would by his own will be cast outside the body of the Church.” (De Ecclesia, 5th ed. [1927] 632.)
The canonist Coronata explains:
“If indeed such a situation would happen, he [the Roman Pontiff] would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one.” (Institutiones Iuris Canonici [1950] 1:316. My emphasis.)
So, all the canonical requirements governing the delictum of heresy need not be fulfilled for a heretical pope to lose his authority — his public sin against divine law (infidelity) suffices.
I will wait for your citation of Bellarmine stating a council is needed.+Bellarmine mentioned a council or a group of Cardinals, acting in an official capacity of the Church. The "dubia letter" would be an example. ...I'm not going to go dig up the quote; don't have time. Even if I did, it's not like +Bellarmine's opinion is dogma and has to be followed, so it's irrelevant, really. The over-arching point is that "the pope is judged by no one" so who could declare a pope a FORMAL heretic? Only the Church. Not you, or me or anyone else.
“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.”You are falsely interpreting "forsaken" to mean someone who is infected with error. Forsaken means to abandon the Faith or to renounce it. Someone can be a heretic and not be a FORMAL heretic (pernicious) and also think that they are orthodox, which means they have not renounced the Faith.
When most of the theologians discuss a heretic pope, they view the process of removing him in 2 steps. 1) church officials give him official notice of his errors (2 rebukes) and then declare him a heretic, if he remains obstinate.whose way does the bull of 1559 agree with? your interpretation or the sede's,... be honest
2) After declaring him a heretic, he is removed from office.
I’d say that the vast majority of Theologians agree that Step 1 has to happen. What they debate is Step 2. Some say that A) after the pope is declared a heretic, he loses office immediately (ipso facto). Others argue that B) Church officials need to take another official step to remove him.
+Bellarmine is saying that Cajetan is wrong for believing in Step 2B, and +Bellarmine says the heretic pope need not be deposed for it happens automatically (Step 2A).
The problem with sedevacantists is that they totally skip Step 1 and proceed to Step 2A. Almost all major theologians would consider this a big error, which is why the Cardinals gave +Francis the “Dubia letter”, in order to start the process of rebuke. Anyone who reads +Bellarmine and others objectively would come to the same conclusion. A person is not (arguably) ipso facto removed until they are rebuked publically and then declared a heretic. Without this process, there would be chaos which is what modern sedevacantism is. ..
Implicit in cuм Ex is the assumption that a heretic has been declared as such by Church officials, or the heretic has been declared in schism or has admitted to some error. NO ONE, ESPECIALLY THE POPE, CAN BE JUDGED A HERETIC (or guilty of error) EXCEPT BY THE CHURCH. cuм Ex is saying that if someone has been deemed in error then they can’t be elected.from Fr Cekada
But FIRST, the Church has to make a decision. Step 1 can’t be skipped. Sedes make themselves judge of orthodoxy which they have no authority to do, legally. Any Catholic can judge actions as heretical and avoid the error; but only the Church can determine pernicity/obstinacy which happens through a process.
Who decides if a pope is obstinate/pernicious in holding his errors? Without proving obstinacy there is no manifest heresy. Without manifest heresy, there’s no ecclesiastical penalties.you believe in this:
All major theologians say that the Church must investigate/decide manifest heresy. This is also scriptural as St Paul teaches.
Sedes determine, of their own private reason, without investigation, without process, that person x is obstinate. This is chaos and there’s no basis for it anywhere in Church history.
And even if we look at the current ecclesiastical law, we find canon 188 §4, which teaches that any many who defects from the Church resigns his office.Sedevacantists falsely believe that any catholic can judge the private intentions of another, determine perniciousness/obstinacy in error, determine defection from the Church, determine the falling away from the Faith. There is NO law in Church history which supports this mindset. As I quoted earlier, even +Bellarmine says that the Church must decide the heretical status of the pope first, then (for example), Divine Law and/or cuм Ex or any other number of laws would kick-in and the pope's office would be declared void.
Sedevacantists falsely believe that any catholic can judge the private intentions of another, determine perniciousness/obstinacy in error, determine defection from the Church, determine the falling away from the Faith. There is NO law in Church history which supports this mindset. As I quoted earlier, even +Bellarmine says that the Church must decide the heretical status of the pope first, then (for example), Divine Law and/or cuм Ex or any other number of laws would kick-in and the pope's office would be declared void..
All sedes skip Step 1 - determination of heresy. They assume anyone can judge another of heresy. This is their main flaw.
Of course they can’t. The question is, as many many theologians have debated - who judges that the pope is a heretic? The Church alone has this power, not anyone else. Until the Church declares the pope a manifest heretic, after publically rebuking him twice (per Scrupture), he holds his office..
Your problem is you don't distinguish between a heretical statement, belief, or idea vs obstinate, manifest heresy. As I quoted earlier, canon law defines heresy (based on St Thomas' definition) as a PERNICIOUS/OBSTINATE holding to error..
.The why not let God depose heretic popes?
As Pope Innocent III said, heretic popes are already judged by God.
I'm perfectly capable of doing this and you have no evidence that I fail to so distinguish.I'm sorry if I offended you. Not my intention.
You say on the one hand "of course heretics can't hold office" but then on the other hand they can and do hold office until the Church declares them heretical. These are mutually exclusive, unless you meant something other than what you said.They are not mutually exclusive ideas. The Church moves slowly on many matters, including disciplinary ones. For example, Martin Luther nailed his 99 Thesis docuмent on Oct 31, 1517. He wasn't excommunicated until January 1521...3 years later. The current sede mindset would be to say that Martin Luther was excommunicated the instant he wrote/nailed his Thesis to the door, but this is not how things work. He was not proven obstinante, he was not labeled a heretic until 3 YEARS LATER, AFTER the Church process, where he was questioned and rebuked.
Implicit in cuм Ex is the assumption that a heretic has been declared as such by Church officials, or the heretic has been declared in schism or has admitted to some error. NO ONE, ESPECIALLY THE POPE, CAN BE JUDGED A HERETIC (or guilty of error) EXCEPT BY THE CHURCH. cuм Ex is saying that if someone has been deemed in error then they can’t be elected.you haven't proven without a doubt this point
But FIRST, the Church has to make a decision. Step 1 can’t be skipped. Sedes make themselves judge of orthodoxy which they have no authority to do, legally. Any Catholic can judge actions as heretical and avoid the error; but only the Church can determine pernicity/obstinacy which happens through a process.
cuм Ex was in 1559. St Robert Bellarmine died in 1621 so all his writings on a theoretical heretic pope would’ve been based partially on cuм Ex. St Robert says the Church would have to declare a pope a heretic before he would lose his office. Case closed.obviously your case closed statement is worthless, can we agree on the following...
What’s the alternative? Please provide a source that says a layman or a priest can label a pope as a heretic based on their private judgement.
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.
can we agree on the following?1. +Francis doesn’t profess lots of the Faith. I can’t say all.
1.'pope " francis" doesn't profess the catholic faith
2. he is not a catholic
3. we know he's an heretic but because we are just layman we have no authority to label him as such.
Sounds like sedeprivationism.Agree.
The Election of Pope Gregory XVII in 1958 makes this discussion irrelevant.I agree it’s probable but it’s very unprovable and we must make decisions of Faith based on facts. Even if it were true, Siri died before +Benedict was elected so that means +Benedict was a valid pope? Obviously, I say yes, based on Pius XIIs Law, though I qualify and say that he’s a pope in material respects only. His spiritual office is, arguably, under ecclesiastical penalty.
1. +Francis doesn’t profess lots of the Faith. I can’t say all.1.If he rejects any part of the catholic faith he rejects all, isn't this the teaching of the church?
2. I can’t say he’s not Catholic because that is a judgment of his interior disposition. I can say he does not act like a catholic many times.
3. Probable that he’s obstinate (which would make him a heretic) but, agree, not for me to say because I don’t have the authority or tools to find out for sure.
The why not let God depose heretic popes?OK, I'm not a Sedevacantist (I'm also, to be clear, new to the faith, and not presuming to teach anyone, nor do I have a definitive position beyond "I definitely have concerns about Vatican II").
Aside from that, Pope Innocent III and all the popes and cardinals since Pope Innocent II have all lost their offices (https://www.johnthebaptist.us/jbw_english/docuмents/articles/rjmi/tr37_no_popes_cardinals_since_1130.pdf)due to heresy per Richard Ibranyi - who is himself a screaming example of the reason why the status of popes are not and must never be our concern in the slightest.
Admittedly, I have this same beef with Sedevacantists that accuse R + R types of "sifting the magisterium of the guys they consider to be the true popes and only accepting what they think is in conformity to Tradition." I mean, the Sedes do that too, they sift their magisterium, decide they don't think it lines up, and thus they decide they don't think those guys are popes at all. What's the difference?Agree, both sides are not foolproof in their logic.
Honestly, the more pertinent thing to me with guys like RI is, while its somewhere on the outer skirts of my plausibility structure that the Church might be left with no *Pope* for a really long time, I can't see any way how you can have no faithful bishops without the gates of Hell prevailing. I mean at that point you're at Protestant level "well, there are some people, somewhere, keeping the true faith" level territory, at which point a visible ecclesiology becomes kinda meaningless.During the Arian heresy (300s-400s) Catholic historians say most Catholics were infected with error to some degree (just like now), save St Athanasius (1 bishop) and a few laity, so it's happened before in Church history.
1. Define “reject”. Again, this requires probable obstinacy. One man’s rejection is another man’s momentary weakness.when you say this
2. Ok, I would say that publically, he doesn’t act like a catholic. But what does my (or anyone else’s) opinion matter? Judging the Catholicity and membership in the Church is done BY THE CHURCH. It's not put up for a vote. It’s why jurisdiction exists because the Church is a monarchy.
3. The Church hierarchy alone could, in theory, remove a bad pope. No other credible theologian has suggested any other alternative. God put us in this mess and He’ll sort it out.
I agree with most sede arguments I just disagree with the conclusion of many sede priests, who say the seat is vacant, because the pope is a heretic, no ifs ands or buts. This is what I call dogmatic sedevacantism and I reject it wholeheartedly. There’s no basis for it anywhere in Church history. The Church isn’t a democracy and we aren’t Protestants who can “protest” or reject a bad pope without the Church giving us the ok first.
I agree it’s probable but it’s very unprovable and we must make decisions of Faith based on facts. Even if it were true, Siri died before +Benedict was elected so that means +Benedict was a valid pope? Obviously, I say yes, based on Pius XIIs Law, though I qualify and say that he’s a pope in material respects only. His spiritual office is, arguably, under ecclesiastical penalty.I don't agree that it is 'very unprovable'. 5 mins of white smoke, the Vatican Radio & choosing the name of Pope Gregory add up pretty well to moi. Then we have the known endorsement of Pius XII even though that is not actual evidence of election. :cheers:
OK, I'm not a Sedevacantist (I'm also, to be clear, new to the faith, and not presuming to teach anyone, nor do I have a definitive position beyond "I definitely have concerns about Vatican II").The point is, as Catholics, deciding the status of the pope is not our business, yet some sedes wrongfully believe we are bound in conscience to make that decision.
I don't agree that it is 'very unprovable'. 5 mins of white smoke, the Vatican Radio & choosing the name of Pope Gregory add up pretty well to moi. Then we have the known endorsement of Pius XII even though that is not actual evidence of election.That's all circuмstantial evidence which does not prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. And I'd argue that to say that "pope x is not pope" would require more than reasonable doubt, it would require CERTAINTY, which can only be provided by an authority, such as the Church hierarchy. You believe the Siri thesis because you want to, not because the facts are overwhelming.
you are in fact stating that if jew mason Christ hating Borgolio were to pronounce hail satan you would keep with your opinion that he is still a true popeThere are 2 parts to the papacy - the material/govt office and the spiritual office. Even if a pope were to lose his spiritual office due to heresy, he would still hold the material office until removed by the Church (assuming that's possible, because it's never happened before). Based on the changes that Pope St Pius X and Pius XII made to the conclave rules, they envisioned a situation where a heretic/excommunicated pope could hold the material/govt office while being under spiritual penalty or privately excommunicated. So, in a sense, yes, a heretic could still hold the office of the pope, even though they would not be a "true" spiritual pope becauase they are not orthodox.
There are 2 parts to the papacy - the material/govt office and the spiritual office. Even if a pope were to lose his spiritual office due to heresy, he would still hold the material office until removed by the Church (assuming that's possible, because it's never happened before). Based on the changes that Pope St Pius X and Pius XII made to the conclave rules, they envisioned a situation where a heretic/excommunicated pope could hold the material/govt office while being under spiritual penalty or privately excommunicated. So, in a sense, yes, a heretic could still hold the office of the pope, even though they would not be a "true" spiritual pope becauase they are not orthodox.So you are saying spiritually the see is vacant?
It's a complex question with many different layers.
So you are saying spiritually the see is vacant?No, it's not vacant, it's just impaired. The papacy is both material and spiritual, just like a person is both body and soul. Just as a person in mortal sin is spiritually dead, even though their body still lives, so a bad pope's spiritual office is impaired and ecclesiastically penalized, even though their material/govt office remains in effect.
Sedevacantists falsely believe that any catholic can judge the private intentions of another, determine perniciousness/obstinacy in error, determine defection from the Church, determine the falling away from the Faith. There is NO law in Church history which supports this mindset. As I quoted earlier, even +Bellarmine says that the Church must decide the heretical status of the pope first, then (for example), Divine Law and/or cuм Ex or any other number of laws would kick-in and the pope's office would be declared void.Pax,
All sedes skip Step 1 - determination of heresy. They assume anyone can judge another of heresy. This is their main flaw.
Galatians 1:9
[9] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=55&ch=1&l=9-#x) As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.
Sicut praediximus, et nunc iterum dico : si quis vobis evangelizaverit praeter id quod accepistis, anathema sit.
"Under a subtitle “Judgements of the simple human reason, duly enlightened”, Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany, on p. 201 of the French edition of his Le Libéralisme est un Péché, a work approved by the Holy See, remarks:
'Yes, reader, reason is itself, as the theologians would say, a theological source (‘locus theologicus’) ... Reason must be subordinate to ... faith in all respects, but it is false to allege that reason is impotent on its own. It is therefore permitted, and even obligatory, for the layman to rationalize his faith, to infer its consequences, to apply it and to deduce parallels and analogies from it. The simple layman can distrust, at first sight, a novel doctrine presented to him insofar as he sees it to be in conflict with another, defined doctrine. If this conflict is clear, he can fight it as evil, and denounce as evil any book which supports it ... The faithful layman can do all that and has always done so, to the Church’s applause. This is not making himself the shepherd of the flock, nor even its humble servant ... What would be the use of the rule of faith and morals if the simple layman were unable to make immediate application of it himself in any particular case? ... The general rule of faith, which is the infallible authority of the Church, agrees – and must agree – that everyone apply it in the concrete by his particular judgment.' "
(Footnote 20, Pages 85-86)
You need to substitute "the pope" for "another" where indicated above. Even then, your position is subject to dispute, a rather open question, as to which your brother Sedevacantists are entitled to their very Catholic opinion.Absolutely disagree with your interpretation and so would St Robert and many other theologians. The pope is not just "another" man - he is head of the Church. Canon Law says no one judges the Holy See, so you can't lump him in with any normal catholic. Secondly, St Paul says that the one who preaches heresy is to be judged anathema. Of course, he is correct, but you must understand this judgement on 2 levels.
As it stands, the breadth of your claim - i.e., in essence one cannot judge another of heresy - exceeds the bounds. We must judge, as indicated in a verse where "any one" is appropriately used:
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.You're contradicting yourself. In this post and others you give a Sedeprivationist view, saying that the heretic Pope is implicitly impaired. But then later on you said that the Popes abrogated cuм Ex SO THAT a heretic could be validly elected Pope, to make sure the Papal See remained occupied. Why would they arrange it so that the Papal See would be occupied by someone who would then by spiritually impaired from their papal duties?
I mean, assuming the world *isn't* about to end, that would make sense on the simple ground of "how else would you ever get a Pope?" The only answer that I've seen that actually makes sense aside from "The world's gonna end so we don't need to" would be Sedeprivationism in that case.I think anyone who recognises the Crisis in the Church believes the world's about to end. Even Novus Ordites should, because even they can Great Apostasy in how millions of people are abandoning the New Church too.
You're contradicting yourself. In this post and others you give a Sedeprivationist view, saying that the heretic Pope is implicitly impaired. But then later on you said that the Popes abrogated cuм Ex SO THAT a heretic could be validly elected Pope, to make sure the Papal See remained occupied.It's not a contradiction, if you distinguish between the material/govt and spiritual office.
Why would they arrange it so that the Papal See would be occupied by someone who would then by spiritually impaired from their papal duties?I can't answer for them, but I have some guesses:
Also, the jurisdiction of the Church continues, in a temporal sense.Does this mean that disciplinary laws are valid and legitimate from a Pontiff who materially holds the office? (JPII, Francis, etc.)