Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Cato on September 08, 2021, 01:27:21 AM
-
I’m curious what the counter arguments are regarding this decree. Is this decree considered to be just a personal statement and not binding to Catholics?
I don’t mean to get folks fired up; I’m just curious how those who believe that that heretics can retain their office deal with Pope Paul IV’s decree.
-
I’m curious what the counter arguments are regarding this decree. Is this decree considered to be just a personal statement and not binding to Catholics?
I don’t mean to get folks fired up; I’m just curious how those who believe that that heretics can retain their office deal with Pope Paul IV’s decree.
Link a source please.
-
Thanks for bringing up this long dormant topic-- despite your misconception of it. The whole point of cuм Apostolic Ex is that if a legally elected Pope(unlike the simoniacal Boniface ) were to express a Public heresy he would immediatly be Deposed by Acclimation.
And BTW-- the docuмent is an Infallible Bull -- I am not sure what you mean by decree. There is NO SUCH THING as an Heretical Il Papa :sleep:
-
Pope St. Pius X's Vacante Sede Apostolica abrogated cuм ex = it's not infallible.
-
Not so fast. There are doctrinal aspects to cuм ex ... namely that it undercuts the argument from "Universal Acceptance" ... clearly indicating that a heretical pope is not a pope DESPITE the fact that he's accepted by all.
And the argument regarding heretical popes is from divine law. These papal decrees can have the effect of lifting ecclesiastical penalties for the crime of heresy, but they cannot make someone who's outside the Church on account of heresy be inside the Church.
-
And the argument regarding heretical popes is from divine law.
Which Divine Law?
-
Which Divine Law?
If the opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine is correct, the divine law that someone who is not a member of the Church cannot be its head. If that's the case, no papal decree can make someone in the Church. No pope could decree, for instance, that some Buddhist is inside the Church. In any case, I grant that there are alternative opinions out there, but the point is that there are two aspects to cuм ex, one the legal aspect and then some at-least-implied doctrinal aspects. This is the strongest argument against the "Universal Acceptance" hypothesis, since "Universal Acceptance" would have rendered cuм ex entirely moot, but Pope Paul IV states that universal acceptance doesn't convalidate an illegitimate election.
-
If the opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine is correct, the divine law that someone who is not a member of the Church cannot be its head.
But what is the actual Divine Law? Divine Law is a Law decreed directly from God, like the Ten Commandments. I presume the divine law of St. Robert was revealed in the New Testament but I don't know.
Fr. Cekada was always big on this but far as I could find, he never stated which Divine Law either.
-
But what is the actual Divine Law? Divine Law is a Law decreed directly from God, like the Ten Commandments. I presume the divine law of St. Robert was revealed in the New Testament but I don't know.
Fr. Cekada was always big on this but far as I could find, he never stated which Divine Law either.
Again, the divine law that you can't be the head of the Church if you are not a member ... which St. Robert Bellarmine concluded from the unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers. As I said, there are some who disagree, but it's very clear that you at least need to be baptized to be a member of the Church. Everyone agrees that it's divine law, for instance, that a non-baptized infidel cannot legitimately be elected pope. Some claim (as you do) that heretics can be members of the Church by virtue of their Baptism, but that was an opinion found to be held by only one theologian ... and has been discarded by all theologians and never gained acceptance. Msgr. Fenton wrote a long article explaining the history of this. I used to reject your opinion (also that of Father Wathen) that the only requirement is Baptism in stating that this was not any opinion held by any theologians ever. But on reading the article from Msgr. Fenton, I found that there was one theologian who held that.
Really the issue is when does someone become a heretic. But there's near universal consensus that once someone is a heretic (depending on which criteria you accept), then a heretic is not a member of the Church and therefore cannot be its head.
-
Which Divine Law?
Here a recent answer to your question:
So which divine law prevents a heretic from becoming pope?
Divine law is either ius divinum positivum or ius divinum naturale, depending on whether it is revealed or known by reason itself based on the nature of things.
I mean *which* divine law? What is needed is, say for example, against the 1st or 2nd or ? commandment, or reference the pertinent divine revelation from Scripture, this is what is necessary. To say anything is against Divine Law necessarily must at least be able to reference the specific Divine Law itself.
As I explained above: The divine law, which prevents a heretic from becoming pope, is not ius divinum positivum, so it is not revealed. Rather, it is ius divinum naturale, which means that it is known by reason itself based on the nature of things.
To reference the specific divine law itself, I have quoted and commented on Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius XII, and St. Robert Bellarmine. Here again the specific divine law (known by reason itself):
By their nature, heresy, schism, and apostasy sever a man from the body of the Church.
A man severed from the body of the Church is outside.
It is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.
The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, because he cannot be head of what he is not a member.
St. Robert furthermore refers to St. Cyprian, St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and others, who explain why a manifest heretic is not a Christian, not a member of the body of Church.
The specific divine law, preventing a heretic from becoming or from remaining Pope, is given by reason itself based on the nature of things as detailed by Popes, Fathers, and summarized by St. Robert Bellarmine.
-
Here a recent answer to your question:
Divine law is either ius divinum positivum or ius divinum naturale, depending on whether it is revealed or known by reason itself based on the nature of things.
I mean *which* divine law? What is needed is, say for example, against the 1st or 2nd or ? commandment, or reference the pertinent divine revelation from Scripture, this is what is necessary. To say anything is against Divine Law necessarily must at least be able to reference the specific Divine Law itself.
As I explained above: The divine law, which prevents a heretic from becoming pope, is not ius divinum positivum, so it is not revealed. 1) Rather, it is ius divinum naturale, which means that it is known by reason itself based on the nature of things.
To reference the specific divine law itself, I have quoted and commented on Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius XII, and St. Robert Bellarmine. Here again the specific divine law (known by reason itself):
2) By their nature, heresy, schism, and apostasy sever a man from the body of the Church.
A man severed from the body of the Church is outside.
It is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.
The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, because he cannot be head of what he is not a member.
St. Robert furthermore refers to St. Cyprian, St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and others, who explain why a manifest heretic is not a Christian, not a member of the body of Church.
The specific divine law, preventing a heretic from becoming or from remaining Pope, is given by reason itself based on the nature of things as 3) detailed by Popes, Fathers, and summarized by St. Robert Bellarmine.
1) If anything is known by reason itself based on the nature of things, then it is open to interpretation, Divine Law is not open to interpretation.
2) All mortal sin, by their nature (although in varying degrees) server a man from the body of the Church. In order to repair or erase the sever, all that is needed is for sinners, including apostates, heretics and schismatics, is to make a good confession - this privilege is enjoyed only by those already members of the Church.
3) This is what I am asking. If it is a divine law, then please quote popes, or a pope saying it is a divine law. Even cuм Ex does not make that claim.
-
Again, the divine law that you can't be the head of the Church if you are not a member ... which St. Robert Bellarmine concluded from the unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers. As I said, there are some who disagree, but it's very clear that you at least need to be baptized to be a member of the Church. Everyone agrees that it's divine law, for instance, that a non-baptized infidel cannot legitimately be elected pope. Some claim (as you do) that heretics can be members of the Church by virtue of their Baptism, but that was an opinion found to be held by only one theologian ... and has been discarded by all theologians and never gained acceptance. Msgr. Fenton wrote a long article explaining the history of this. I used to reject your opinion (also that of Father Wathen) that the only requirement is Baptism in stating that this was not any opinion held by any theologians ever. But on reading the article from Msgr. Fenton, I found that there was one theologian who held that.
Really the issue is when does someone become a heretic. But there's near universal consensus that once someone is a heretic (depending on which criteria you accept), then a heretic is not a member of the Church and therefore cannot be its head.
Heresy is a sin, a mortal sin, which is forgiven if the heretic decides to amend his life, make a good confession, etc., this privilege is enjoyed only by those already members of the Church, so I would like a snip if possible of whatever Fr. Fenton said in his long article about how a heretic, as one who is supposedly not even a member of the Church, can be absolved in confession.
-
1) If anything is known by reason itself based on the nature of things, then it is open to interpretation, Divine Law is not open to interpretation.
2) All mortal sin, by their nature (although in varying degrees) server a man from the body of the Church. In order to repair or erase the sever, all that is needed is for sinners, including apostates, heretics and schismatics, is to make a good confession - this privilege is enjoyed only by those already members of the Church.
3) This is what I am asking. If it is a divine law, then please quote popes, or a pope saying it is a divine law. Even cuм Ex does not make that claim.
I quoted two Popes and a Doctor of the Church. It's east to find. I won't quote them again.
You ask your questions again and again, and don't even bother to take note of what people answer. Rather you start all over with your questions. You're not worth of any more answer.
-
I’m curious what the counter arguments are regarding this decree. Is this decree considered to be just a personal statement and not binding to Catholics?
I don’t mean to get folks fired up; I’m just curious how those who believe that that heretics can retain their office deal with Pope Paul IV’s decree.
In Chapter CII of Book II of the Summa, Juan de Torquemada, then a cardinal, detailed "How through heresy publicly preached and contumaciously defended, the pope falls from the papacy."
Juan immediately showed the uniqueness of heresy by citing the key Scriptural texts. He then argued that a heretical pope falls because
1) he cannot be the head, since he is cut off from the body of Christ ;
2) the Church is built upon Peter's faith in Christ, and anyone who falls from the faith falls from the Church;
3) a schismatic loses jurisdictional power (from St. Thomas); 4) according to St. Thomas, a pope in heresy is less (minor) than all other Christians ; and,
5) a heretic loses all authority. Prierias used proposition number four, and both he and Benetus used number one with the argument of Antoninus to reach the conclusion of the Summa.
Juan de Torquemada, Summa de Ecclesia, II
You cannot in any way reconcile a heretic being the pope in any way, even if you were to try and say "modern developments show heretics are treated differently" we have Popes like Leo XIII teaching that heresy of course means you're outside the Church and therefore not Christian.
-
But what is the actual Divine Law? Divine Law is a Law decreed directly from God, like the Ten Commandments. I presume the divine law of St. Robert was revealed in the New Testament but I don't know.
Fr. Cekada was always big on this but far as I could find, he never stated which Divine Law either.
(Matt. 12,30; cf. Luke 11,23). Moreover, Peter's commission was to feed (John 21,15-17), not to kill. These are some of the many key scriptures many Medieval Hierarchists/anti conciliarists cited. This would be the divine law.
-
Heresy is a sin, a mortal sin, which is forgiven if the heretic decides to amend his life, make a good confession, etc., this privilege is enjoyed only by those already members of the Church, so I would like a snip if possible of whatever Fr. Fenton said in his long article about how a heretic, as one who is supposedly not even a member of the Church, can be absolved in confession.
Canon 23141 § 1. All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic:
1.° Incur by that fact excommunication;
§ 2. Absolution from the excommunication mentioned in § 1, sought in the forum of conscience, is specially reserved to the Apostolic See. But if, however, the delict of apostasy, heresy, or schism has been brought in any manner to the external forum of the local Ordinary, even by voluntary confession, that same Ordinary, but not the Vicar General without a special mandate, can by his own ordinary power absolve one duly recovered in the external forum, the prior abjuration being conducted juridically and observing those other things that in law ought to be observed; and one thus absolved can thereupon be absolved from sin by any confessor in the forum of conscience. Abjuration is considered juridically done if it happens in the presence of the same local Ordinary or his delegate and at least two witnesses.
An ordinary can absolve one who in the external forum wishes to abjure from his heresy if you hold the 1917 Code as valid. But as you see, there are conditions for abjurations.
-
Yeah, if you hold that all the baptized are members of the Church, then you adhere to the Vatican II ecclesiology, that Prot heretics are in fact part of the Church of Christ and are separated brethren.
-
Yeah, if you hold that all the baptized are members of the Church, then you adhere to the Vatican II ecclesiology, that Prot heretics are in fact part of the Church of Christ and are separated brethren.
I hold that all baptized CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF REASON are members of the Catholic Church, until they are separated by heresy or schism.
That’s why Prot heretics/schismatics are NOT part of the Church (allowing for invincible ignorance as a mitigating circuмstance, which only God can adduce).
Here’s the proof:
An infant validly baptized in an heretical or schismatic sect would be in the state of grace. But if he immediately died, in the state of justification, his salvation is certain (lest one imply there are justified souls forever punished in hellfire, even while simultaneously participating in the economy and divine life of grace).
For those who gratuitously advance the notion that those who died justified, but not as members of the VISIBLE Church, are sent to Limbo, you have overlooked one major, but fatal, detail:
There is no basis in Church history for the existence of a “third Limbo:”
The Limbus patrum passed out of existence, and the Limbus puerorum is for children who died in the STATE OF SIN.
We’re speaking here of the opposite (infants who died in the state of grace; a state radically incompatible with the destination of those who died in sin).
There is absolutely no basis for suggesting either a new third Limbo, or that those in the state of grace are in hell (which is where the Limbus puerorum is, along the border regions). In fact, the suggestion of such a possibility is proximate to blasphemy, when one considers grace is a participation in the divine life of God...who would by this theory now be existing, in a certain way, in hell.
-
I quoted two Popes and a Doctor of the Church. It's east to find. I won't quote them again.
You ask your questions again and again, and don't even bother to take note of what people answer. Rather you start all over with your questions. You're not worth of any more answer.
If it is a divine law, then please quote popes, or a pope saying it is a divine law. Even cuм Ex does not make that claim.
You make no reply whatsoever to any of my 3 objections, do you realize that? All you do is keep quoting the same non-answers that do not answer my objections. Your needle is stuck on sede.
FYI - your quotes are not quotes from popes saying saying it is a divine law.
-
If anything is known by reason itself based on the nature of things, then it is open to interpretation, Divine Law is not open to interpretation.
You talk like a modernist, denying that the existence of God can be known with certainty by reason based on the nature of things.
You even deny the existence of ius divinum naturale. It's known by reason itself based on the nature of things.
You better study the basics before denying Church teaching.
-
(Matt. 12,30; cf. Luke 11,23). Moreover, Peter's commission was to feed (John 21,15-17), not to kill. These are some of the many key scriptures many Medieval Hierarchists/anti conciliarists cited. This would be the divine law.
Mat. 12:30 Haydock Commentary, applies also to Luke 11:23:
"He that is not with me. This sentence is not to be understood as directly spoken of heretics and schismatics, although at first sight it may appear so, but of the devil, who wishes to lead the souls of men captive..."
John 21:15-17 does not apply because we all agree the pope's duty is to feed and not kill. If Our Lord were to have said if he kills that he is no longer Peter, *that* would be Divine Law.
I don't know where you guys come up with your idea of Divine Law, but Divine Law is a Law established and revealed by God Himself.
-
I hold that all baptized CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF REASON are members of the Catholic Church, until they are separated by heresy or schism.
That’s why Prot heretics/schismatics are NOT part of the Church (allowing for invincible ignorance as a mitigating circuмstance, which only God can adduce).
No one is talking about prot heretics, well, Lad is, but that's because I asked him to quote Fr. Fenton's answer as regards heretics receiving absolution in confession, so he ignores that by bringing up baptized prots.
-
You talk like a modernist, denying that the existence of God can be known with certainty by reason based on the nature of things.
You even deny the existence of ius divinum naturale. It's known by reason itself based on the nature of things.
You better study the basics before denying Church teaching.
You talk in riddles - - -why not simply post what I asked? If it is a divine law that a heretic pope is no longer a member of the Church, then please quote popes, or a pope, saying it is a divine law. Again, even cuм Ex does not make that claim.
And here's two more points for you to ingore - If ius divinum naturale is Divine Law, then Divine Law is ius divinum naturale no? What need is there for Divine Law to be revealed by God Himself if we can rely on our own "reason, based on the nature of things" to determine Divine Law?
-
Canon 23141 § 1. All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic:
1.° Incur by that fact excommunication;
§ 2. Absolution from the excommunication mentioned in § 1, sought in the forum of conscience, is specially reserved to the Apostolic See. But if, however, the delict of apostasy, heresy, or schism has been brought in any manner to the external forum of the local Ordinary, even by voluntary confession, that same Ordinary, but not the Vicar General without a special mandate, can by his own ordinary power absolve one duly recovered in the external forum, the prior abjuration being conducted juridically and observing those other things that in law ought to be observed; and one thus absolved can thereupon be absolved from sin by any confessor in the forum of conscience. Abjuration is considered juridically done if it happens in the presence of the same local Ordinary or his delegate and at least two witnesses.
An ordinary can absolve one who in the external forum wishes to abjure from his heresy if you hold the 1917 Code as valid. But as you see, there are conditions for abjurations.
What this is telling you, is that a heretic, like the pope, can use the sacrament of confession to be forgiven from his sin of heresy. He can walk into the confessional just the same as you and I and come out absolved, just the same as you and I can.
This is something only members of the Church are able to do, which means all those excommunicated, all those in the sins of heresy, schism and Apostasy remain members of the Church.
-
You talk in riddles - - -why not simply post what I asked? If it is a divine law that a heretic pope is no longer a member of the Church, then please quote popes, or a pope, saying it is a divine law. Again, even cuм Ex does not make that claim.
And here's two more points for you to ingore - If ius divinum naturale is Divine Law, then Divine Law is ius divinum naturale no? What need is there for Divine Law to be revealed by God Himself if we can rely on our own "reason, based on the nature of things" to determine Divine Law?
Beside your modernist heresies, one more error: Divine Law can be ius divinum naturale or can be ius divinum positivum. If you had the necessary basic knowledge, or had read my answers to your questions, you knew that.
-
Beside your modernist heresies, one more error: Divine Law can be ius divinum naturale or can be ius divinum positivum. If you had the necessary basic knowledge, or had read my answers to your questions, you knew that.
No heresies, just basic Catholic truths you should have been taught as a child. The fact you are unable produce what is needed proves this.
The whole idea that the pope, heretic that he is, remains a member of the Church puts a stick right in the spokes for you doesn't it?
Rather than give clear answers to clear questions, or admit that per the Church you are wrong, you employ diversionary tactics against my person. Gee, that's original.
-
No heresies, just basic Catholic truths you should have been taught as a child.
As I explained above, you make a joke of Church teaching:
I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world.
If anything is known by reason itself based on the nature of things, then it is open to interpretation
-
No one is talking about prot heretics, well, Lad is, but that's because I asked him to quote Fr. Fenton's answer as regards heretics receiving absolution in confession, so he ignores that by bringing up baptized prots.
Manifest heretics can't simply be absolved in Confession. That's only for occult heresy, say you consented to a heretical proposition in your mind. Once you become a manifest heretic, you have to be received back into the Church, make an abjuration of error and profession of faith.
You're confusing the sin of heresy with the public/manifest heresy, which excludes from membership in the Church, according to St. Robert Bellarmine and every theologian in history bar one.
-
What this is telling you, is that a heretic, like the pope, can use the sacrament of confession to be forgiven from his sin of heresy. He can walk into the confessional just the same as you and I and come out absolved, just the same as you and I can.
This is something only members of the Church are able to do, which means all those excommunicated, all those in the sins of heresy, schism and Apostasy remain members of the Church.
Did you miss (or simply ignore) this part of the quote?
the prior abjuration being conducted juridically and observing those other things that in law ought to be observed; and one thus absolved can thereupon be absolved from sin by any confessor in the forum of conscience.
Once the person has been received back into the Church in the EXTERNAL forum, then he can be absolved "in the forum of conscience".
-
The apostles were commanded to "feed my sheep". That is sacraments, for the main part. Now, if those sacraments are destroyed, like we have no valid priests, for WHO? changed that? since 1968 and Eucharist, the Mass, WHO? changed that?
Is this not an outward sign, sacraments? Is this not an outward sign, manifest, public, heresy. Of Course! Cardinal Manning and Pope Leo XIII discussed this, if a pope could go heretical in his pontificate? Sure. Thank God for Vatican I.
So, this is simple, for the simple man to see the fruits are no good.
-
As I explained above, you make a joke of Church teaching:
You have not explained or addressed anything I asked, you only ignore my points and questions as you just did with this ^^ post.
I have asked which of the Divine Laws applies to the pope problem, Lad says Fr. Fenton has a long article about it - well, at least he acknowledged the question, whereas you say the divine law that applies is ius divinum naturale which means the Divine Law that applies is "known by reason itself based on the nature of things," which is not a Divine Law at all. Everything and anything can be construed to be Divine Law with that explanation - including what I've been posting.
Now you quote from Oath against modernism saying how we can know God, which once again, has nothing whatsoever to do with Divine Law at all, let alone the Divine Law that applies to the pope problem - and you call *this* your explanation?
Do you even realize any of this at all?
-
Manifest heretics can't simply be absolved in Confession. That's only for occult heresy, say you consented to a heretical proposition in your mind. Once you become a manifest heretic, you have to be received back into the Church, make an abjuration of error and profession of faith.
You're confusing the sin of heresy with the public/manifest heresy, which excludes from membership in the Church, according to St. Robert Bellarmine and every theologian in history bar one.
No, manifest heresy is a sin and like all sins can be absolved in confession. Where did you come up with "that's only for occult heresy?"
Did you miss (or simply ignore) this part of the quote?
Quote
the prior abjuration being conducted juridically and observing those other things that in law ought to be observed; and one thus absolved can thereupon be absolved from sin by any confessor in the forum of conscience.
Once the person has been received back into the Church in the EXTERNAL forum, then he can be absolved "in the forum of conscience".
No, I did not miss that part, but you must have missed this part:
But if, however, the delict of apostasy, heresy, or schism has been brought in any manner to the external forum of the local Ordinary, even by voluntary confession, that same Ordinary, but not the Vicar General without a special mandate, can by his own ordinary power absolve one duly recovered in the external forum
Which means that as long as the penitent walks into the confessional and confesses his sins of apostasy, heresy or schism, the priest can absolve him from his sins just the same as every other member of the Church.
-
No, manifest heresy is a sin and like all sins can be absolved in confession. Where did you come up with "that's only for occult heresy?"
Once the person has been received back into the Church in the EXTERNAL forum, then he can be absolved "in the forum of conscience".
No, I did not miss that part, but you must have missed this part:
Which means that as long as the penitent walks into the confessional and confesses his sins of apostasy, heresy or schism, the priest can absolve him from his sins just the same as every other member of the Church.
Isn't the bishop the ordinary not the priest?
-
Isn't the bishop the ordinary not the priest?
Not these days. Besides, him going to a NO bishop would pretty much defeat the whole purpose - no?
-
Not these days. Besides, him going to a NO bishop would pretty much defeat the whole purpose - no?
I don't follow you. If the ordinary is the bishop how does going to a priest absolve from heresy? You are saying since there are maybe a few ordinaries left and most places don't have one the rule is null and the priest can do it?
-
I don't follow you. If the ordinary is the bishop how does going to a priest absolve from heresy? You are saying since there are maybe a few ordinaries left and most places don't have one the rule is null and the priest can do it?
I'm saying these days, the Prior of a trad chapel *is* the Ordinary. If that is unacceptable or wrong, then like any other member of the Church, a heretic could also simply go to a NO Bishop for confession....which still and again, is a something only those inside of the Church can do - which is precisely the point.
If those who've lost the faith and became heretics, Apostates and schismatics are outside of the Church and no longer members, then the sacrament of confession (and all the other sacraments) are as completely closed to heretics as they are to everyone else who is outside of the Church. But that's not the case with fallen away Catholics who've become repentant heretics, they still have the same privilege of being absolved in confession as all the other members- because even as a heretic, they are still a member.
Trent even teaches that in danger of death, it does not matter what your sin or censure is, even heretics wanting to repent can receive the last sacraments or must get to confession - even if that means receiving these sacraments from a heretic priest.
This is a major sticking point for sedes who, based on some theologians' speculations, insist heretics are not members, as such the pope cannot be pope because being a heretic he is not a member, and if he's not a member he is not pope. Next they claim these speculations are Divine Law, but have yet to say which Divine Law it is, also when or where this law has been revealed - and why a non-member can receive sacraments that only members are allowed to receive.
-
Father Hesse:
"... They will quote Pope Paul IV... The docuмent is called cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio. That's the title of the docuмent. It's a docuмent which enjoys all the infallibility it could have. It's a docuмent that uses all the legal formulas for an infallible docuмent. That means the pope says, "I, in virtue of my apostolic authority herewith declare, define and statute that and that and that and that and that and that, and that has to be held and believed by all people forever." And in that docuмent, which also rules on the election of a future pope--on the conclave, it says that no cardinal, if he is a heretic or was a heretic can be validly elected to the papacy. Many sedevacantists use this docuмent as the definite proof that John XXIII, who in their eyes was a heretic before his election, they use this as the proof that John XXIII, having been a heretic before his election, could not be validly elected. They are quite wrong on that because, again, and this is why I said you have to be careful about the distinction between matters of discipline, matters of Faith. Pope Paul [IV], with his cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio, was able to bind all of his successors forever in everything that concerns moral or dogmatic teaching in this docuмent. To rule on the election of a future pope is not a moral decision. It is not a decision on moral theology. It is not a decision of Faith. It's not a matter of morals or Faith. It is the ruling of a canonical election. That means you talk about an act of administration. You talk about an administrative ruling. And that cannot, because it's mere disciplinary, cannot bind his successors, and indeed, the many successors of Paul [IV] who came up with new regulations on the conclave, including Pius X, never mentioned that paragraph again. So it's not taken up anymore. And I think if the question of a former heretic or a material heretic not being able to become pope was something that the popes cannot change, then we're probably in sedesvacancy for several centuries already. See, the present pope is not the first heretic in Church history."
-
Father Hesse:
"... One of the reasons why we cannot positively state that this pope is not pope is because first of all we need proof. We do not have this proof. Some people quote the apostolic bull of Paul IV, cuм Ex Apostolatus against the present pope, saying that Paul IV decreed that a heretic cannot become pope. Yes, but the papal election is an act of administration, not a sacrament. It is not a theological procedure, therefore there cannot be an infallible pronouncement on it. It is an act of administration just like all elections. When in a monastery an abbot is elected, this is a canonical election. The election of the supreme pontiff among the cardinals is a canonical election. And those rules can not only be changed, but were changed a couple of dozen times over in Church history. Leo XIII changed the rules, Pius X changed the rules, Pius XI changed the rules again, Pius XII changed the rules again, Paul VI changed it, and the present pope changed it again. And none of them has ever quoted Paul IV again on this. Now the bull cuм Ex Apostolatus is an infallible bull as far as the doctrinal statements are concerned. It cannot be infallible as far as an administrative rule is concerned, saying that if a cardinal was a heretic, even if he was a heretic and converted, he cannot be validly elected pope. To be validly elected pope you need positive human law and law of administration, and that every single pope can change, much unlike the doctrinal laws, which no pope can change ever. If a pope decides on a moral issue, his successor cannot change it. Impossible. He would put himself in schism with the Church. But a rule of administration, and how it can be changed! And how! In the beginning the people of Rome elected the pope. Later on, it was the clergy of Rome, and very much later on, only 1300 years after Christ died and ressurected and founded His Church at Pentecost, cardinals were the only ones to elect the pope. So if a future pope says, "I don't want cardinals to elect the pope, but all of the bishops in the world," he's gonna make a mess but that doesn't make the election invalid. It would be horrible. I don't want to think of it. But it doesn't make the election, duly procedures required and provided, it doesn't make it invalid because it's an act of administration. And that's why I recommend the sedevacantists to be a little more careful with their judgements. The Society of Saint Pius X is not exactly composed of all idiots, and none of them nowadays consider the Apostolic See vacant. And the three priests, Fathers Sanborn, Kelly and Cekada unfortunately, because they are otherwise very good theologians, unfortunately had to be kicked out of the Society of Saint Pius X for insisting on the "fact" that we do not have a pope. To me this is a neurotic statement, too, because you put yourself in a dead end. Who's gonna elect the next pope? I leave the question to you."
-
Father Hesse:
"... Paul IV was also the one who issued the papal bull cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio that determined that a former heretic could not become pope. What I really should, for practical reasons, not passing any judgement on anyone here, but for practical purposes, I should say the '1958 sedevacantists'--those who believe that John XXIII was not pope because before he was elected he was a heretic. ... The next pope who wrote about the laws of how to elect a pope didn't even mention cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio. And the papal practice was even worse. While Paul IV in cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio says a former heretic cannot become pope, privately he made sure that every cardinal understood that one who was formally suspect of heresy could not become pope. Now Leo XIII beautifully contradicted that when he made the former heretic, John Henry Newman, Cardinal John Henry Newman. So Leo XIII theoretically made a former heretic, John Henry Newman, Anglican minister who converted Catholic, became a Catholic priest, John Henry Cardinal Newman, therefore he was eligible to the papacy. Out goes cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio, written by a paranoid pope anyway."
-
Thank you NIFH for Fr. Hesse’s explanation. I found it most helpful.
-
You spent 1000 words to try to convince me of a very simple yet absurd idea. That a Non Catholic can be the leader of all the Catholics on earth. It makes no sense, the mental gymnastics required to get your conclusions are ridiculous, and the conclusions your position lead to are what we have now. A "pope" worshipping idols on top of St Peters tomb.
-
Father Hesse:
"... Paul IV was also the one who issued the papal bull cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio that determined that a former heretic could not become pope. What I really should, for practical reasons, not passing any judgement on anyone here, but for practical purposes, I should say the '1958 sedevacantists'--those who believe that John XXIII was not pope because before he was elected he was a heretic. ... The next pope who wrote about the laws of how to elect a pope didn't even mention cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio. And the papal practice was even worse. While Paul IV in cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio says a former heretic cannot become pope, privately he made sure that every cardinal understood that one who was formally suspect of heresy could not become pope. Now Leo XIII beautifully contradicted that when he made the former heretic, John Henry Newman, Cardinal John Henry Newman. So Leo XIII theoretically made a former heretic, John Henry Newman, Anglican minister who converted Catholic, became a Catholic priest, John Henry Cardinal Newman, therefore he was eligible to the papacy. Out goes cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio, written by a paranoid pope anyway."
Well, that's one way of reading "former" or "prior."
Another valid way is at the moment before election. That is, not at some remote time in the past, but at the very moment preceding elevation - thus, the elevation would be of a non-Catholic at the moment of selection.
After all, one can convert from or renounce a former heresy and become fully Catholic. I don't think even the "paranoid" Paul VI would call that into question.
-
Father Hesse:
"... One of the reasons why we cannot positively state that this pope is not pope is because first of all we need proof. We do not have this proof.
Sure we do. We know that the Church and the Papacy are guided by the Holy Spirit and cannot produce this degree of error and harm upon the faithful (e.g. Vatican II and the New Mass).
We don't have proof regarding the particulars, whether their elections were rigged or they're infiltrators ... but we can know that they are not popes, or, rather, not acting as popes ... since there is the possibility (albeit unlikely) that they are being blackmailed and their acts are null due to the duress.