That footnote in the 1917 Code of Canon Law that references cuм Ex Apostolatus is important because the SSPX and Resistance priests (who all picked the argument up from Fr. Hesse) make the claim that cuм Ex Apostolatus was only human (ecclesiastical) law and not Divine Law and was replaced with new provisions regarding the election of a pope. However, sedevacantists have always argued that it is Divine Law that a heretic is not a member of the Church and cannot be its head. The proof of this is that the same popes that they say replaced this law, actually included it in their Code of Canon Law. That means that anyone who repeats the argument of Fr. Hesse after having knowledge of this is a liar. Something that sedevacantists are accused of but the proof and dishonesty is there. Canon 188.4 and its footnote prove the sede vacante position as being the true position of the Catholic Church in the case of a manifest heretic pope. Any discussion referencing St. Robert Bellarmine is pointless. We have the Code of Canon Law of the Church in very clear language referencing also cuм Ex Apostolatus. This is what sold me entirely to the sede vacante position regarding Bergoglio Jorge.
See, this is the type of total BS I mentioned earlier. Ah, but say something and we're whining - BS. Have you ever even read cuм ex?
If you had and didn't understand that if it were still in force, having deviated from the faith before their conversion to the true faith, that all of "the Nine" could not have been ordained to the priesthood. The same for all sedes, the same for all other converts, including every single NO convert, then you did not understand what you read.
Certainly Pope Leo XIII would have broke Divine Law by elevating to Cardinal, John Henry Newman, who was an ex Anglican priest. This is an act cuм ex explicitly, repeatedly condemns. Does that make me a liar for pointing this out? Does that make Pope Leo XIII an anti-pope or just outside of the Church?
If you ever read cuм ex, you would have seen that no where in cuм ex is any abjuration accepted, not ever. Once they (any cleric or religious whatsoever) deviated from the faith, they're done. Their end is, per Pope Paul IV in cuм ex, is that they are to be abandoned, shunted away to some monastery or religious house "to perform perpetual penance upon the bread of water and the water of affliction" - per cuм ex:
(ii) that, moreover, they shall be unfit and incapable in respect of these things and that they shall be
held to be backsliders and subverted in every way, just as if they had previously abjured heresy of this
kind in public trial; that they shall never at any time be able to be restored, returned, reinstated or
rehabilitated to their former status or Cathedral, Metropolitan, Patriarchal and Primatial Churches, or
the Cardinalate, or other honour, any other dignity, greater or lesser, any right to vote, active or passive,
or authority, or Monasteries and benefices, or Countships, Baronies, Marquisates, Dukedoms, Kingships
and positions of Imperial power; but rather that they shall be abandoned to the judgement of the
secular power to be punished after due consideration, unless there should appear in them signs of true
penitence and the fruits of worthy repentance, and, by the kindness and clemency of the See itself, they shall have been sentenced to sequestration in any Monastery or other religious house in order to
perform perpetual penance upon the bread of sorrow and the water of affliction;
Topic: Sede - Zero upsides, nothing but downsides (Read 24156 times)