Author Topic: Does 1917 canon law abolish Papal Bull Pope Paul 4 (Read 10269 times)

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #15 on:** February 27, 2019, 08:26:50 PM »

Don’t make it more complicated than it is- 1945 Law supersedes 1917 Canon Law.

sedevacantist3 · « **Reply #16 on:** February 27, 2019, 09:14:54 PM »

Pope Pius XII, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, Dec. 8, 1945: "34. None of the cardinals may in any way, or by pretext of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded in 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 vigor (AAS 38 [1946], p. 76)."

It’s a dogma that 1) heretics are not members of the Church; and 2) that a pope is the head of the Church. It is a dogmatic fact, therefore, that a heretic cannot be the head of the Church, since he is not a member of it.
What, then, does Pope Pius XII mean in Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis? First off, one needs to understand that excommunication can be incurred for many things. Historically, excommunications were distinguished by the terms major and minor. Major excommunications were incurred for heresy and schism (sins against the faith) and certain other major sins. Those who received major excommunication for heresy were not members of the Church (as we have just proven at length). Minor excommunication, however, did not remove one from the Church, but forbade one to participate in the Church's sacramental life. Pope Benedict XIV made note of the distinction.
Pope Benedict XIV, Ex Quo Primum (# 23), March 1, 1756:
"Moreover heretics and schismatics are subject to the censure of major excommunication by the law of Can. de Ligu. 23, quest. 5, and Can. Nulli, 5, dist. 19."57

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #17 on:** February 27, 2019, 09:47:27 PM »

Quote

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.

sedevacantist3 · « **Reply #18 on:** February 27, 2019, 10:17:37 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 27, 2019, 09:47:27 PM

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

trad123 · « **Reply #19 on:** February 27, 2019, 10:32:12 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 27, 2019, 09:47:27 PM

A pope can only be declared a heretic by the Cardinals at a Church council, per St Bellarmine.

Cite this, please.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #20 on:** February 27, 2019, 11:21:45 PM »

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.

Prove to all of us your case. Church law is clearly against you.

Conspiracy_Factist · « **Reply #21 on:** February 27, 2019, 11:51:17 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 27, 2019, 11:21:45 PM

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.

Prove to all of us your case. Church law is clearly against you.

I will wait for your citation of Bellarmine stating a council is needed ...
I am granting that cuм Ex (which clearly supports the sedevacantist position) is null (debatable) by the 1917 code which states...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.)

Notice that the 1917 Code doesn’t say anything about a declaration being necessary; it says just the opposite – “without any declaration”

Then with St Pius XII the Dimonds give a nice explanation

First off, one needs to understand that excommunication can be incurred for many things. Historically, excommunications were distinguished by the terms major and minor. Major excommunications were incurred for heresy and schism (sins against the faith) and certain other major sins. Those who received major excommunication for heresy were not members of the Church (as we have just proven at length). Minor excommunication, however, did not remove one from the Church, but forbade one to participate in the Church's sacramental life. Pope Benedict XIV made note of the distinction. Pope Benedict XIV, Ex Quo Primum (# 23), March 1, 1756: "Moreover heretics and schismatics are subject to the censure of major excommunication by the law of Can. de Ligu. 23, quest. 5, and Can. Nulli, 5, dist. 19."57Minor excommunication, on the other hand, was incurred for things such as violating a secret of the Holy Office, falsifying relics (c. 2326), violating a cloister (c. 2342), etc. These are all ecclesiastical or Church penalties. Such actions, though gravely sinful, did not separate a person from the Church. And though the terms major and minor excommunication are no longer used, it remains a fact that a person could incur an excommunication (for something other than heresy) which would not separate him from the Church, and he could incur an excommunication for heresy which would separate him from the Church. Therefore, a cardinal who receives an excommunication for heresy is no longer a cardinalbecause heretics are outside the Catholic Church (de fide, Pope Eugene IV). But a cardinal who receives an excommunication for something else is still a cardinal, though in a state of grave sin.
So when Pope Pius XII says that all cardinals, whatever ecclesiastical impediment they are under, can vote and be elected in a Papal conclave, this presupposes cardinals who have received an excommunication for something other than heresy, since a cardinal who has received an excommunication for heresy is not a cardinal at all. The key point to understand is that heresy is not merely an ecclesiastical impediment – thus it is not what Pius XII is talking about – but an impediment by divine law. The canonist Maroto explains: “Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate by the divine law itself, because, although by divine law they are not considered incapable of participating in certain types of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, nevertheless, they must certainly be regarded as excluded from occupying the throne of the Apostolic See...”58Notice, heretics are not excluded from the Papacy by merely ecclesiastical impediments, but impediments flowing from the divine law. Pius XII’s legislation doesn’t apply to heresy because he was speaking about ecclesiastical impediments: “...or any other ecclesiastical impediment...”. Thus, his legislation does not show that heretics can be elected and remain popes, which is why he didn’t mention heretics. Pope Pius XII was referring to Catholic cardinals who may have been under excommunication. To further prove the point, let’s assume for the sake of argument that Pope Pius XII’s legislation did mean that a heretical cardinal could be elected pope. Notice what Pius XII says: “We hereby suspend such censures solely for the purposes of the said election; at other times they are to remain in vigor.”Pius XII says that the excommunication is suspended only for the time of the election; at other times it remains in vigor. This would mean that the excommunication for heresy would fall back into force immediately after the election and then the heretic who had been elected pope would lose his office! Thus, no matter what way you look at it, a heretic could not be validly elected and remain pope. St. Antoninus (1459): "In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church." (Summa Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub.) If a heretic (one who denies the faith) could be the head inside the Church, then the dogma that the Church is one in faith (as in one, holy, Catholic and apostolic) would be false.

trad123 · « **Reply #22 on:** February 28, 2019, 12:21:01 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 27, 2019, 11:21:45 PM

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. (. . .)

When did he state that?

https://youtu.be/1c_JL8_Wa-k?t=687

Starting at 11:27 the papal bull is mentioned. This was back in 2015.

trad123 · « **Reply #23 on:** February 28, 2019, 12:42:07 AM »

Thread: cuм Ex Apostolatus

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:wUVC6FOv_1MJ:strobertbellarmine.net/viewtopic.php%3Ff%3D2%26t%3D17+&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-b-1-d

2006

trad123 · « **Reply #24 on:** February 28, 2019, 12:52:29 AM »

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

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)

http://www.fathercekada.com/2007/06/25/can-an-excommunicated-cardinal-be-elected-pope/

Quote

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.

trad123 · « **Reply #25 on:** February 28, 2019, 01:47:44 AM »

https://www.cathinfo.com/men-only/fr-chazal-and-sedeprivationism-andor-the-pope-still-holds-his-material-office/msg584093/#msg584093

Quote

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.

DIVINE LAW

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12mysti.htm

Quote

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.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13satis.htm

Quote

15.

. . . it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=15&catname=10

Quote

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.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #26 on:** February 28, 2019, 06:39:23 AM »

Quote

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.

Quote

“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.
It is not for the laity or a non-rome official to interpret/apply canon law. Canon law applies to "canons", i.e. church officials, who are the only ones able to enforce the law.

The Diamonds are assuming that the heresy in question is pernicious. Pernicious heresy can only be determined if the accused is corrected and given the opportunity to recant (see Bellarmine and also St Pauls' rebuke of St Peter.). The "dubia letter" is an attempt to do so. In the case of a heretic pope, if a public accusal of his errors is not required, then St Peter lost his office automatically and the papacy failed before 100AD. Since no one can judge the pope, and since you're arguing that the pope loses his office "ipso facto" for a private heresy, then the papacy could fail and be vacant without anyone knowing it. This makes no sense.

All of your quotes about heresy are talking about pernicious/formal heresy, which requires a process to determine the accused's stubborness in error. No one loses their office for private heresy.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #27 on:** February 28, 2019, 07:59:29 AM »

Canon 1325 (1917 CIC) gives the classic definition of the word “heretic”, taken from St Thomas. ...Perniciousness/obstinacy is required...
“a baptised person who, while continuing to call himself a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts a truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith.”

John of St. Thomas: “It cannot be held that the pope, by the very fact of being a heretic, would cease to be pope antecedently [prior] to a declaration of the Church. It is true that some seem to hold this position [I’ll comment on this below]; but we will discuss this in the next article. What is truly a matter of debate, is whether the pope, after he is declared by the Church to be a heretic, is deposed ipso facto by Christ the Lord, or if the Church ought to depose him. In any case, as long as the Church has not issued a juridical declaration, he must always be considered the pope, as we will make more clear in the next article.”

Francisco Suarez: “Therefore, others [e.g., Azorius] affirm the Church is superior to the Pope in the case of heresy, but this is difficult to say. For Christ the Lord constituted the Pope as supreme judge absolutely; even the canons indifferently and generally affirm this; and at length the Church does not validly exercise any act of jurisdiction against the Pope; nor is the power conferred to him by election, rather [the Church] merely designates a person upon whom Christ confers the power by himself. Therefore on deposing a heretical Pope, the Church would not act as superior to him, but juridically and by the consent of Christ she would declare him a heretic and therefore unworthy of Pontifical honors; he would then ipso facto and immediately be deposed by Christ…”

Suarez: “f the external but occult heretic can still remain the true Pope, with equal right he can continue to be so in the event that the offense became known, as long as sentence were not passed on him. (…) because in this way would arise even greater evils. In effect, there would arise doubt about the degree of infamy necessary for him to lose his charge; there would rise schisms because of this, and everything would become uncertain…”.

http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/the-following-is-taken-from-recente.html

Here is what I was referring to about +Bellarmine's view of a Church declaration/process/rebuke.
Bellarmine: “The fourth opinion is that of Cajetan, for whom the manifestly heretical Pope is not “ipso facto” deposed, but can and must be deposed by the Church. To my judgment, this opinion cannot be defended. For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority, and from reason, that the manifest heretic is “ipso facto” deposed. The argument from authority is based on Saint Paul, who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate – which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence”. (14)

(14) - De Romano Pontifice, Bk. 2

---

Look, Sedevacantists make a lot of good points and have good research. I just think they take all these principles of excommunication/canon law and take it one step too far. Everyone agrees that a heretic pope (even if private/occult or a non-manifest, as-yet-unwarned-by-the-Church, pope) is in spiritual jeopardy and in grave mortal sin (among other spiritual penalties). So, his spiritual office is impaired in the sense that he does not have the state of grace and the Holy Ghost to guide him. But we can't take the next step and say that the seat is vacant, if only for practical purposes. As Suarez states, without a Church process of some kind, a bad pope would raise doubts, cause schism and the unity of the Church would be in jeopardy because of uncertainty. This would be MORE devastating to the Church than the error(s) that the pope believes. The Church is a government and there must be a process to remove a bad pope, else chaos would reign.

Conspiracy_Factist · « **Reply #28 on:** February 28, 2019, 05:43:15 PM »

I'm confused
how exactly does this support your position

Bellarmine: “The fourth opinion is that of Cajetan, for whom the manifestly heretical Pope is not “ipso facto” deposed, but can and must be deposed by the Church. To my judgment, this opinion cannot be defended. For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority, and from reason, that the manifest heretic is “ipso facto” deposed. The argument from authority is based on Saint Paul, who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate – which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence”.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #29 on:** February 28, 2019, 07:38:52 PM »

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.

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.

Author Topic: Does 1917 canon law abolish Papal Bull Pope Paul 4 (Read 10269 times)

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

trad123

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

trad123

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

trad123

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

trad123

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

trad123

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

Pax Vobis

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

Pax Vobis

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