Below is something I stumbled across awhile ago. It's not that I think anyone here has claimed CEAO to be infallible, but this might still contain some relevant information to the current topic.
------------------------------------------------------
The Non-Infallibility of cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio
Pope Paul IV’s 1559 Bull, cuм ex Apostolatus officio, is often cited by many Catholics today for its significance in regard to the current crisis of the Church. Some of us have believed this to be an infallible docuмent, and have used that point to add force to our arguments. At other times we have, in thinking the Bull was infallible, declared as heretics those who seem to contradict the Bull. Although this papal bull is certainly significant for our times, we would be entirely mistaken and in error to refer to the Bull as infallible or dogmatic. cuм ex Apostolatus officio is not infallible, nor dogmatic, but merely a disciplinary statute. This is attested by the three Catholic sources below.
The first source presented here is that of the Dublin Review and it's 1870, Volume XIV, article “Infallibility and the Council”. In this article, the Dublin Review defends the First Vatican Council and the doctrine of papal infallibility against the writings of Janus, the pseudonym of Ignaz von Dollinger. Dollinger was considered the leading opponent to the dogma of papal infallibility, his continual rejection of which resulted in him being publicly declared excommunicated by the Church. His writings also spawned the heretical Old Catholic Church. On page 204 of this volume, the Dublin Review opposes Janus’s claim that cuм ex Apostolatus officio was dogmatic, stating that “there is literally no pretext for thinking that this Bull was dogmatic in any sense.”
“The most formidable-looking of all Janus's citations is Paul IV.'s Bull "cuм ex Apostolatus officio," (p. 382): nor, indeed, do we at all deny that that Bull requires very careful consideration, though on totally different grounds from those alleged by Janus. But as far as he is concerned, never was there a simpler case. There is literally no pretext for thinking that this Bull was dogmatic in any sense whatever: the only dogmatic statement which Janus quotes—that which he numbers " (1) "—so far from being defined in the Bull, comes in quite accidentally and parenthetically. The same thing may be said even more strongly of the well-known "In Coena- Domini": concerning which Janus has the effrontery to say (p. 385), that "if ever any docuмent bore the stamp of an ex cathedra decision, it is this."
The next source given here is that of the canonist, Church historian, and first Cardinal-prefect of the Vatican Archives, Dr. Joseph Hergenrother. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia,“Hergenrother was the foremost defender of the council [Vatican I] and its decrees; as early as 1868 he had been appointed, with Hettinger, consultor for the preparation of the council's work and had taken up his residence at Rome. His inexhaustible knowledge of ecclesiastical history, canon law, and Catholic dogma made him a valuable co-labourer in the many careful and detailed preliminary meetings of the council commission.” On pages 41-45 of the 1876 book, Catholic Church and Christian State, Bishop Hergenrother makes it clear that cuм ex Apostolatus officio is not an infallible decree, but concerns only penal sanctions:
§6.
Appeal is also made to the Bull of Paul IV., 'cuм ex apostolatus officio,' of 15th Feb. 1559,1 to which our opponents are most eager to attach the character of a dogmatic ex-cathedra decision,2 saying that if this Bull is not an universally binding doctrinal decree (on the point of the Papal authority), no single Papal decree can claim to be such.3 But none of the exponents of dogmatic theology have as yet discovered this character in the Bull,4 which has been universally regarded as an emanation of the spiritual penal authority, not a decision of the doctrinal authority.5 We see the tactics of the Church's opponents have been reversed: formerly the Jansenists and lawyers of the French parliament denied that the Bull 'Unigenitus' was dogmatic, though all Catholic theologians regarded it as such; now the Janus party and jurists who protest against the Vatican Council assert that the Bull of Paul IV. is dogmatic, though all Catholic theologians deny it to be such. In truth neither the wording of this last-named Bull, nor its contents as a whole, nor the rules universally received among theologians, allow it to be regarded as a dogmatic decision. If there is to be a doctrinal decree binding on all, it is requisite that a doctrine to be held or proposition to be rejected be placed before the faithful in terms implying obligation, and be prescribed by the full authority of the Church's teaching office. This is not the case with this Bull. True enough in the introduction the Papal power is spoken of, and in accordance with the view of it held universally in the Middle Ages. But here, as in every other Bull, the rule already spoken of holds good, that not the introduction and the reasons alleged, but simply and only the enjoining (dispositive) portion, the decision itself, has binding force. Introductions quite similar are to be found in laws relating purely to matters of discipline, as any one may see who consults the Bullarium.6 As to the enjoining portion of the Bull in question,it only contains penal sanctions against heresy, which unquestionably belong to disciplinary laws alone. To deduce from the introduction a doctrinal decision on the Papal authority is simply ridiculous. This has been seen by other opponents, who have not therefore, like Janus and Huber, deduced a dogmatic definition from the Pope's introductory words, but have deduced from the enjoining portion a definition as to morals. 'For how a Catholic should behave towards heretics and heretical rulers, whether an action be theft or lawful occupation, whether one is bound in conscience to recognise a claim for succession or other legal claims,—these and similar questions must be reckoned as belonging to Christian morality even by the most milk-and-water infallibilist.'7 Such a statement in any one who has really read the Bull leaves us little hope that he understands at all what he is speaking about. Paul IV. renews the earlier censures and penal laws, which his predecessors, acting in concert with the emperors, had issued against various heresies; he desires that they be observed everywhere, and put in force where they have been unenforced.8 The point, then, is about the practical execution of previous penal laws, which by their nature are disciplinary, and proceed not from divine revelation, but from the ecclesiastical and civil penal authority. Besides the renewal of old there is an addition of new punishments,9which equally belongs to the sphere of discipline. Many sentences are entirely modelled on civil laws, e.g. those of Frederick II. (1220).10 The Pope does not here speak as teacher (ex cathedra), but as the watchful shepherd eager to keep the wolves from the sheep,11and in a time when the actual or imminent falling away even of bishops and cardinals12 demanded the greatest watchfulness and the strongest measures. The Bull of Paul IV. may be perhaps considered too severe, injudicious, and immoderate in its punishments, but it certainly cannot be considered an ex-cathedra doctrinal decision. No Catholic theologian has considered it as such, or placed it in a collection of dogmatic decisions; and to have done so would have only deserved ridicule; for if this Bull is to be considered as a doctrinal decision, so must every ecclesiastical penal law. Papal Infallibility, it is most true, excludes any error as to moral teaching, so that the Pope can never declare anything morally bad to be good, and vice versa; but infallibility only relates to moral precepts, to the general principles which the Pope prescribes to all Christians as a rule of conduct, not to the application of these principles to individual cases,13 and thus by no means excludes the possibility of the Pope making mistakes in his government by too great severity or otherwise. His infallibility, which is his only as teacher, preserves him indeed from falsifying the doctrines of the Church as to faith and morals, but is no security that he will always rightly apply these doctrines, and never personally commit any offence against them.'
1 Lib. Sept. c. ix. de Haeret. v. 3. Raynald. a. 1559, n. 14, M. Bull. i. 840. Sentis, Lib. Septimus, v. 5, 23, p. 164.
2 Janus, p. 405 seq. Schulte, ii. 12. The Bull was adduced in the Sorbonne, 1627-1629, as decisive for those who, like the Dominican Testefort, would reckon Papal Decretals as Holy Scripture (Du Plessis, t. ii. p. ii. pp. 248, 289).
3 Huber, p. 47.
4Professor Denzinger has collected all dogmatic decisions in his Enchiridion Definitionum, which has gone since 1853 through four editions, been recommended by many bishops, and been much praised by the Holy Father. No theological reviewer in all Christendom has complained of the omission of the Bull in question; all would much rather have considered a demand for its insertion ridiculous.
5 Dr. Fessler, p. 44. Cf. Anti-Janus, p. 168 seq. Votum on the Vatican Council, Mainz, 1871, p. 45 seq.
6 E.g. Urban VIII. Const. 12, d. 7, Mart. 1624 (Bull. ed. Lux. t. v. p. 40): ' Bomanus pontifex, in quo dispositione incommutabili divina providentia universalis Ecclesiaeconstituitprincipatum, auctoritatema Christo per B. Petrum Apostolorum culmen sibi traditam intelligens, ut noxia evellat, et destruat, utiliaque plantet et aedificet,' &c. The entire Bull relates to the Constitutions of the Fratres Reformati strictioris observantiae Ordinis S. Francisci. Similarly, Const. 64 d. 6 Feb. 1626, relating to the abolition of a congregation of Franciscans (ib. p. 119, § 1).
7 AUgemeine Zeitung, 12 April 1871, Supplement.
8 Omnes et singulas excommunicationis, suspensionis, et interdicti ac privationis et quasvis alias sententias, censuras, et poenas .... contra haereticos aut schismaticos quomodolibet latas et promulgatas apostolica auctoritate approbamus et innovamus ac perpetuo observari et in viridi observantia, si forsan in ea non sint, reponi et esse debere, nec non quoscunque .... (haereticos cujuscunque status) censuras et poenas praedictas incurrere volumus atque decernimus.
9 E.g. loss ipso facto of all offices and dignities, incapacity to hold others, confiscation of goods,& e.
10 Frider. II. Const. a. 1220 (Walter, Fontes, pp. 84, 85, § 6):
Sit enim intestabilis,ut nec testamenti liberam habeat factionem, nec ad haereditatis successionem accedat. Nullus praeterea ei super quoeuinque negotio. sed ipsi alii respondere cogatur. Quod si forte judex extiterit, ejus sententia nullam obtineat firmitatem, nec causae aliquae ad ejus audientiam perferantur. Si fuerit advocatus, ejus patrocinium nullatenus admittatur. Si tabellio, instrumenta confecta per ipsum nullius penitus sint moinenti.
Pauli IV. Constit. cuм ex Apostolatus officio:
Sint etiam intestabiles nec ad haereditatis successionem aecedant; nullus praeterea cogatur eis super aliquo negotio respondere. Quodsi forsan judices exstiterint, eorum sententiae nullam obtineant firmitatem nec aliquae causae ad eorum audientiam deducantur; et si fuerint advocati, eorum patrocinium nullatenus recipiatur; si vero tabelliones exstiterint, instrumenta confecta per eos nullius sint penitus roboris vel momenti.
Let any one show even a single instance of a similar conformity to civil laws in a really dogmatic Bull.
11 Paul IV. nowhere in the Bull calls himself 'doctor ;' he acts ' more vigilis pastoris,' ' pro munere pastorali vulpes vineam Domini demoliri satagentes capere et lupos ab ovibus arcere' (§ 1).
12 As Bishop Victor of Bergamo (Raynald. a. 1558, n. 20), Bishop Jacob of Nevers (ib. a. 1559, n. 13), Archbishop Bartholomew (ib. a. 1560, n. 22), the Bishop of Nantes (ib. n. 35), Cardinal Chatillon Bishop of Beauvais (ib. a. 1561, n. 86), &c. Cf. the Brief of Paul IV. against the bishops suspected of heresy, ib. a. 1559, n. 19: ' cuм sicut nuper.'
13 Cf. Suarez, de Fide, disp. 5, § 8, n. 7. Also Schaetzler, Die Papstliche Unfehlbarkeit, Freiburg, 1870, p. 197 ; and Merkle in the Augsburg Pastoralblatt, 11 Feb. 1871, pp. 47-50.
§7
But it is said: 'This Bull is directed to the whole Church, is subscribed by the Cardinals, and thus has been published in the most solemn form, and is certainly ex cathedra.'1 These characteristics, however, do not suffice for a dogmatic doctrinal decision. Universally binding laws as to discipline have also been subscribed by the Cardinals, and solemnly proclaimed. Even the Bull 'cuм divina' of Alexander VII. (26th March 1661), which imposed on all ecclesiastical property in Italy certain tithes to help the Venetians in their struggle against the Turks, was subscribed by the Cardinals.2 And other Papal disciplinary laws have been issued 'out of the fulness of power' (de plenitudine potestatis);3 the word 'define' is used in other places also of judicial judgments;4 and laws designated as to be in force for ever (constitutio in perpetuum valitura) have been soon afterwards repealed, because they were found to be of no service to the Church.5 The sort of proofs our opponents bring forward in this matter show an entire ignorance of Papal Bulls.6 Compare, for example, another Bull of the same Pope directed against the ambitious endeavours of those who coveted the Papal dignity;7 this Bull has equally the agreement of the Cardinals, is published out of the plenitude of the Papal power, is declared to be for ever in force, threatens equally all spiritual and temporal dignitaries without exception, &c. And yet it is undoubtedly not in the least a dogmatic Bull. If it were, there would be scarcely any recent ecclesiastical laws (as opposed to dogmas) for canonists to discuss; while dogmatic theologians would have been all in strange ignorance of their province.
1 Schulte, i. p. 34, n. 1.
2 Bull. ed. Lux. t. vi. p. 142 seq.
3 Cf. Bened. XI. 1304, c. iii. de Elect. i. 3. Joh. XXII. a. 1319, c. xi. de Praebend. iii. 2, in Xvagg. com. Clem. X. 1671, Const. 52. Romanus Pontifex, Bullar. ed. Lux. vi. 376 seq. Const. Creditae Nobis, 1670, ib. p. 321 (Indult for the residence of the Papal Court). Innocent XII. Const. Speculatores, 1694, § 3 (Cone. Trid. ed. Richter, p. 531). Pius IX. 26 Aug. 1852 (Acta Pii IX. vol. i. p. 376, Indult for the Congr. Lauretana), &c.
4 Innoc. III. 1. vi. ep. 90, 104, 109,189, 202, 203, pp. 96, 111, 114, 208, 227 seq.; 1. viii. ep. 60, 61, 106, 155, p. 626 seq. 675, 734, and elsewhere. Thus 1. ix. ep. 88, p. 905: ' Quod est a nobis sententialiter definitum;' 1. vii. ep. 29, i). 311: 'Lis ante judicem debet contestari et causa per judicem definiri.'
5 So also the Emperor Frederic II. say s of his law against the heretics (1220): 'Hoc edicto in perpetuum valituro' (Walter, Fontes, p. 84, § 6). Cf. Pius V. Const. Cnm nil magis, c. un v. 14, de Monet. Tonsor. Const. 2, 3, de Ambitu, v. 10, in libro sept. Const. Romanus Pontifex, 1568 (Cone. Trid. ed. Richter, p. 502): 'De apostolieae potestatis plenitudine hac perpetua valitura constitutione.' In like manner, Alex. VII. Const. 25, In sublimi; Clem. X. Const. 21, In gravissimis (Bull. vi. 42 seq. 328 seq. ed. Luxemb.), in which for the States of the Church the revocation of exemptions from certain taxes is declared, and in numberless other Bulls.
6 See my review of Schulte in the Archiv fur Kirchenrecht, 1871. vol. xxv. p. exxix. § 17; also Fessler, I.e. p. 82 seq.
7 Cap. i. cuм secundum Apostolum. 1. v. 10, de Ambitu in lib. vii. Decret.
Bishop Hergenrother also mentions cuм ex Apostolatus officio once more on p.252 of The Catholic Church and Christian State:
§22.
The following is an example of the false suppositions under which this discussion is carried on: Berchtold says: 'We are certainly completely justified in basing our argument concerning the irreconcilable contradiction between the new Papal dogmas and the Bavarian State laws on the supposition that the Bulls 'Unam sanctam,' 'cuм ex Apostolatus,' &c., and in particular the propositions of the Syllabus are matters of faith in the new Catholic Church.' But the Bull 'cuм ex Apostolatus,' as well as many others, contains no matter of faith. The Bull 'Unam sanctam' has only defined one proposition to be an article of faith. The Syllabus is only a dogmatic judgment in a wide sense; moreover most of its propositions are misinterpreted, distorted, and never understood in their proper connection. Hence further arguments based on this supposition rest on a false foundation; they do not rise above the level of empty declamation, which repeats and repeats, but never proves. The Syllabus rightly understood is only a serious warning against the advancing decay and ruin of religious life and thought; also against the utter misconception of the object, signification, and nature of the Catholic Church, regarded nowadays as the ignorant regard without comprehending her old cathedrals and painted windows…
The last source presented here is that of the Austrian Bishop and Secretary General of the First Vatican Council, Dr. Josef Fessler. In his work, The True and False Infallibility of the Popes, Bishop Fessler firmly states that it is certain that cuм ex Apostolatus officio is not a doctrinal definition, but merely a disciplinary statute. The Catholic Encyclopedia has called this work an “exceedingly valuable explanation of the true doctrine of Infallibility as taught by the great Italian‘Ultramontane’ theologians, such as Bellarmine in the sixteenth century, P. Ballerini in the eighteenth, and Perrone in the nineteenth.” Indeed, Bishop Fessler and this work were even honored by a Brief of Approbation from Pope Pius IX. The following is taken from pages 88-91 of Ambrose St. John’s 1875 English translation of Bishop Fessler’s The True and False Infallibility of the Popes:
(8.) Dr. Schulte proceeds with another Bull of Pope Paul IV., issued in the year 1559,1which is rightly described in the collection of Papal Bulls under the title of 'Renewal of previous censures and punishments against heretics and schismatics, with the addition of further penalties.' Why, the very title, which gives a true account of its contents, is of itself alone enough to show every one who reads it, that this Papal delivery is not a definition de fide, and cannot, therefore, be an utterance ex cathedra. And yet Dr. Schulte, in the most decided way, asserts that it is, saying that 'it is directed to the whole Church, signed by the Cardinals in the most solemn form, so that it is certainly delivered ex cathedra, (Dr. Schulte's Pamphlet, p. 34).2 One can hardly believe one's eyes when one sees such manifestly erroneous assertions set forth with such an affectation of demonstrated certainty. One really feels sorry for Dr. Schulte that he should have made such an enormous blunder in the sight of every one who knows anything at all about such matters. To us it is beyond all question certain, that this Bull is not a definition of faith or morals, not an utterance ex cathedra. It is simply an outcome of the supreme Papal authority as legislator, and an instance of his exercising his power of punishing; it is not done in the exercise of his power as supreme teacher. I should abuse the patience of my readers if I were to attempt to prove in detail what is manifest to all mankind in every line of the Bull. Who ever imagined before Dr. Schulte that the Pope was infallible in the province of declaring legal pains and penalties?
Dr. Schulte finds in this Bull various things which he designates by the terms 'remarkable!' 'still more remarkable!' ' most remarkable!' until he comes to the epithet 'inconceivable!' pp. 34, 35. And indeed it is 'very remarkable,' nay quite 'inconceivable,' that Dr. Schulte, who is a canonist, should have so utterly misunderstood the introduction to this Bull, and the sense of a passage further on in it, § 6. I am conscious I am giving utterance to a grave reproof, and I must entreat my reader's patience while I prove it. Dr. Schulte finds it ' very remarkable;' he says that 'the election of a heretic as Pope is valueless from the first, and is here declared to be null and void.' That is, he says, 'The Pope and Cardinals assume the possibility of an infallible Pope being found deviating from the faith!'
To set this supposed case in its proper light the following remarks may be useful. Pope Paul IV., no doubt, supposes the case possible (however improbable it might be) that a man who clings to an heretical doctrine might be chosen Pope, and also that after he has mounted the Papal throne, he might still hold heretical doctrine, or, even it may be, express it in his intercourse with others; not, however, that he would teach the whole Church this heretical doctrine in an utterance of his supreme teaching office (ex cathedrd). From making such an utterance God Himself, through His special assistance, preserves the Pope and the Church. If, then, as has been suggested, a man were elected Pope who might uphold heretical doctrine (not supposing that he could declare such a doctrine to the whole Church formally as Catholic doctrinede fide, or prescribe it to be held as such), then we should have the case before us for which Pope Paul IV., in the above named Bull, § 6, provides, by quashing the election of such a man to the Papacy, and declaring it 'null and void.' This is one of the cases which theologians mean when they say the Pope (homo privatus), as a private individual, may err in a matter of faith; that is, when he is considered simply as a man, with merely his own human conception of a doctrine of the faith. As Pope, as supreme teacher of the Catholic Church, he cannot err, when, by virtue of the assistance of God, promised and vouchsafed to him, he solemnly defines a truth revealed by God, and prescribes it to be held by the Universal Church. It is clear that there are in the one person of the Pope two different active powers (e'vepyeiou); first, the ordinary power of thinking and viewing things;3and, secondly, the solemn defining power for the whole Church. I might illustrate this point by the parallel case of a judge who has to decide upon a suit. In his own private life he may, perhaps, hold and express his opinion, and that on very various occasions, but in the suit nothing passes for law but his solemn judicial utterance, which, however, is by no means infallible. The example, however, will suffice to show that a man who is invested with an official position can be readily conceived as thinking and speaking as a man, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, as an official personage in his forensic utterances and acts.
After making this distinction, plain enough as I conceive it to be, the introductory words of this Bull will be quite 'intelligible; why, that is, the Pope expresses his conviction how perilous it would be if, even in his private life, a Pope were to admit an error in doctrine, and what sad confusion would arise if the said Pope, as a private individual, were to be guilty of heresy, and yet had to put into force penalties against heretics, he as Pope, having no judge higher than himself.4
1 Vide the Bull cuм ex Aposlolalus, in the Bullar. Rom., ed. cit. t. iv. p i. p. 354. 'Innovatio quarumcuмque censurarum et poenarum contra haereticos et schismaticos,' &c.
2 It must seem quite ridiculous to any one who has any sort of knowledge of the subject to hear a person boldly assert that such and such a Papal Bull must be infallible, because it is directed to the whole Church and signed by all the Cardinals.
3 Of this ordinary faculty, Ballerini, in the passage we have already referred to, says very appropriately: 'Ex quo summi Pontifices ad Fetri sedem promoti sunt, sicut non idcirco exuerunt humanam naturam, ita neque humanam agendi et opinandi rationem deposuerunt.'
4 The question, 'an Papa, si in haeresim incidit (is. as homo privates) deponi possit?' has been investigated and answered in different ways in former times. The introductory words of the Bull point to a solution of the difficulty in the sense of Pope Paul IV.; the real meaning of the words, however, depends on the right understanding of the word redargui.
In the preface of the third edition of The True and False Infallibility of PopesBishop Fessler reasserts that cuм ex Apostolatus officio is only a penal enactment, and not infallible. The following is taken from pages 20-23 of Ambrose St. John’s 1875 English translation of Bishop Fessler’s work:
Another reviewer objects to my statement, that the Bull of Paul IV., cuм ex Apostolatus officio, of Feb. 15, 1559, is not a doctrinal definition, not an utterance of the Pope ex cathedra,but merely a disciplinary statute, and he adds that my proof of this is nothing but the title of the Bull; so he concludes: 'According to this theory it is not the contents of a Rescript, but ,the whim of the rubrical commentator upon it, that has to decide upon the right of a Papal Bull to be considered as an ex cathedra utterance, and thus to determine the gravest questions of conscience! Miserable subterfuge!'
Here I must be allowed, in a few words, to throw some light upon this passage of my critic, in order to show up his dishonest way of conducting a controversy. He says that I bring forward nothing but the title of the Bull in the Bullarium, 'so that it is not the contents of the Bull but the whim of the rubrical commentator which has to decide upon the properties of a Papal Bull;' and he permits himself to bewail my 'miserable subterfuge.' What I really said was, p. 88, 'This title, which gives a true account of its contents, is of itself enough,' &c. No one surely could direct attention to the contents of the Bull in question more plainly and definitely than I did in these words; but at the same time, to make it quite clear to my readers that the Bull really is a penal enactment, the following words out of the contents of the Bull itself will not be out of place here. Sec. 2 of the Bull says: 'Habita cuм S.R.E. Cardinalibus deliberatione matura, de eorum consilio et unanimi assensu omnes et singulas excommunicationis, suspensionis, et interdicti, ac privationis, et quasvis alias sententias, censuras et pcenas a quibusvis Romanis Pontificibus praedecessoribus nostris, aut pro talibus habitis, etiam per eorum literas extravagantes, seu sacris Conciliis ab Ecclesia Dei receptis, vel Sanctorum Patrum decretis et statutis, aut sacris Canonibus ac Constitutionibus et Ordinationibus Apostolicis contra haereticos aut schismaticos quo modolibet latas, et promulgatas Apostolica. auctoritate approbamus et innovamus,' &c.*
The words of the contents of the Bull in question which I have here printed form also the title of this Bull, as I quoted in p. 88 of my pamphlet; this any one may easily convince himself of by comparing the words in both places. And yet it is in this very case that my opponent ventures openly to assert that I have made use of a 'miserable subterfuge' in drawing my proofs not from the contents of the bull, but from the title alone; the fact being that I did expressly refer to the contents, and only for the sake of brevity quoted the words of the title, which were identical with the contents, instead of the contents of the Bull, which I have just given to my readers. These are the sort of opponents with whom one has to deal. When this same opponent of the Vatican definition further says, 'Bishop Fessler himself does not venture to deny that the Bull concerns doctrine de moribtts,' I answer, 'The contents of this Bull concern morals certainly, if you reckon all penal enactments as doctrine de moribus.' Whether my opponent does so or not, I do not know. But this I do know, that mere penal enactments do not belong to the infallible doctrinal definitions de fide et moribus, of which the definition of the Vatican Council on the Infallible office of the Pope treats, and that this Bull of Paul IV. is a penal enactment and not a doctrinal definition. If he will take the trouble to read through the old Roman and later imperial penal enactments against heretics, he will find whence the specially designated penalties are derived to which he takes objection in this Bull of Paul IV.
* Bullar. Rom. edit. Coquelines, Romae, apud Mainardi, 1745, t. iv. p. i. p. 355
On the first page of his translation of Bishop Fessler’s work, Ambrose St. John includes an extract of Pope Pius IX’s brief of Approbation honoring Bishop Fessler and The True and False Infallibility of the Popes:
Extract from a Brief addressed to Bishop Fessler by his Holiness Pope Pius IX.
April 27, 1871.
‘. . . We esteem it a very opportune and useful thing to have beaten back the audacity of Professor Schulte, inciting as he does the secular powers against the dogma of Papal Infallibility, as denned by the Ecuмenical Council of the Vatican. For it is a matter the true meaning of which, not all men, and especially not all laymen, have a thoroughly clear understanding of, and the truth, when lucidly set forth, is wont to expel from properly constituted minds opinions which men perhaps have drunk in with their mother's milk, to confirm others in a right mind, and fortify them against insidious attacks. Wherefore, if you continue to refute figments of this kind, you will deserve well of our most holy religion, and of all Christian people, in that, like a good pastor, you withdraw them from poisoned pastures We make known to you, then, the great pleasure you have given Us, both by reason of the book which you have presented to Us, as well as by reason of your most affectionate letters; and We pray that you may receive a rich reward for your deference to Our authority and devotion towards Ourselves'
(Signed by the Pope's own hand)
Some of the greatest Catholic experts on the subject have made it clear that cuм ex Apostolatus officio is not infallible, while the only persons of any standing who have considered it to be infallible have been excommunicated and opposed by the Church. The Catholic experts state that it is beyond certain that the Bull is not infallible, and that it is a ridiculous and enormous blunder to consider it to be such. In light of this information, we are obliged to discontinue referring to cuм ex Apostolatus officio as infallible. Not only would it be greatly deceptive and dishonest to erroneously refer to the Bull as infallible, but such an erroneous statement greatly damages the argument we are trying to make, along with our overall credibility on religious matters. A false argument for a true position does more damage than most arguments against it.
Topic: Trouble with cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio? (Read 3692 times)