Cum ex Apostolatus Officio History and Status
The following is a slightly revised version of the treatment of the Papal Bull, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, taken from the soon-to-be-released 2nd edition of True or False Pope?
One of the favorite documents used by
Sedevacantists to defend their position is the papal Bull of Pope Paul IV, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, which was issued
February 15, 1559. It is generally agreed that the purpose of the Bull was to
prevent Cardinal Morone, whom Paul IV suspected of heresy, from being elected
to the papacy.[1] To that end, amongst other things, the bull
taught that the election of a pope, who is found to have deviated from the faith
prior to his election, is null and
void – even if he was elected by the unanimous consent of all the Cardinals.
In this article, we will show the
following:
1
The bull does not concern the loss
of office due to post election heresy
(which is how many Sedevacantists have sought to interpret it), but rather to the
invalidity of an election due to pre-election
heresy.
2
For the bull to have any legal or
practical effect, the office holder would have to admit to pre-election heresy,
or the pre-election heresy would have to be legally established by the Church, as
the more informed Sedevacantists admit.
3
The bull itself was disciplinary; its
teachings were never enforced; and it was derogated
(rendered obsolete) by the 1917 Code (this too is admitted by the more informed
Sedevacantists, as we will show).
4
The penal sanctions contained in the
bull were considered so unjust and problematic, that those who rejected papal
infallibility at the time of the First Vatican Council brought the bull out
from obscurity, and used to “prove” that the pope is not infallible, and that the
Church erred in defining it as a dogma
5
In response to the above objection, the
Catholic theologians did not attempt to defend the bull itself, but instead proved
that the bull was not infallible.
Consequently, the problematic aspects do not touch on the question of
papal infallibility.
Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio
After a brief opening paragraph, the
Bull teaches that if a Roman Pontiff is found to have deviated from the Faith,
he who is “judged by no one” can nevertheless be contradicted:
In assessing Our duty and the situation
now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this
kind is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff, who is the
representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds
the fullness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be
judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found
to have deviated from the Faith (possit,
si deprehendatur a fide devius, redargui). Remembering also that, where
danger is greater, it must be more fully and more diligently counteracted.[2]
After teaching that it is licit to contradict a Roman Pontiff who has
deviated from the faith after being
elected, the Bull goes on to say that if a Bishop, Archbishop, Cardinal or even
the Roman Pontiff himself, is found to have deviated from the faith prior to be being elected to office, his
election is null and void:
If ever at any time it shall appear that
any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any
Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any
legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to
his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from
the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
(i) the promotion or elevation, even
if it shall have been uncontested and [accepted] by the unanimous assent of all
the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless.[3]
In light of this teaching, because the
Sedevacantists personally believe the
last six Popes deviated from the faith prior to their elections, they believe
they are entirely justified in considering their elections null, and then
publicly declaring them to be antipopes. Our old friend Richard Ibranyi (who
believes the past 102 Popes – including
Paul IV who issued Cum Ex Apostolatus – have been false Popes), provides us
with the Sedevacantist interpretation
and application of the document in
question. In the following quotation, the reader will notice that Ibranyi’s personal interpretation and application
of this document is founded on Fr. Cekada’s “sin of heresy against Divine Law”
theory. He writes:
“Even though Paul IV’s Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio of 1559 is
invalid and fallible because he was an apostate antipope, it nevertheless
teaches the ordinary Magisterium dogma that all formal heretics, and hence even
secret ones, cannot hold offices.”
Then, after quoting the pertinent
section of the Cum Ex Apostolatus, he
writes:
Therefore, even the secret sin of formal heresy bans one from holding offices in the
Catholic Church.
Hence even if the so-called pope is unanimously elected, enthroned, and given
‘universal obedience’ and thus believed to be the pope by every Catholic in the
world, he is not the pope if he has fallen into formal heresy.[4]
First, as we have amply demonstrated, the
internal sin of heresy alone does not
cause a prelate to lose his office,
nor does it prevent one from licitly acquiring
office. If it did, Catholics would have absolutely no way of knowing which
Popes or bishops (past or present), validly held office and which did not. Hence, they would have no way of knowing for sure which councils were ratified by
true Popes, and which were ratified by false “Popes,” who lost the faith before
or after their election.
Second, the judgment and determination
that the one elected to the papacy fell into heresy, prior to his election, is not based upon the private judgment of individual Catholics, who personally believe a sin of heresy was committed before the
election. The judgment would have to be rendered by the proper authorities
before the election would be rendered null. As St. Thomas teaches, a public judgment must come from the public authority. Cum Ex Apostolatus was a disciplinary decree that attached a
retroactive penalty to one who was authoritatively
judged by the Church (not by private individuals) to have deviated from the
faith prior to their promotion or election.
This was confirmed by two canonists who
lived at the time the Bull was issued. The canonist, Maurcus Antobius
Borghesius, said “the Bull [Cum Ex
Apostolatus] includes only those who were caught, convicted or confessed
to have fallen into heresy.”[5]
The canonist, Antonio Massa, teaches the same: “The
Bull of Pope Paul does not prescribe it in the manner of one having been
discharged, unless he being taken up in a crime either confessed of his own
will or was convicted by others” (nec
bulla Pauli pontificis modo defuncti id disponit, nisi ille in crimine
deprehensus vel sponte confessus vel ab aliis convictus.)[6]
For the bull to have any legal or
practical effect, the pope would have to admit to being guilty of pre-election
heresy, or he would have to be found guilty by the Church. Even the Sedevacantist
bishop, Donald Sanborn, acknowledges this point. Writing at the time Benedict XVI (Joseph
Ratzinger) was pope, he explains:
Cum ex apostolatus is an apostolic
constitution, a law, made by Pope Paul IV, which says that if a pope should be
a heretic, his elevation to this dignity would be null. It was made in order to
ensure that no Protestant could ever become the Pope. It does not apply to the
present case for two reasons. (…) The second reason, and the more important, is
that even if it should for some cause still have force, it could only apply
to Ratzinger if he were legally recognized as a public heretic. But, as we
have seen, there is no legal condemnation of Ratzinger. Before the law of
the Church he does not have the status of heretic because (1) he himself
does not hold himself guilty of heresy, and (2) no legitimate superior holds
him guilty of heresy.[7]
An admission of
guilt, or an authoritative judgment, is a condition
required for the election to be rendered null.
Without it, the man is and remains the true pope quoad nos, and all his acts of jurisdiction remain valid.
Titulus Coloratus
Both secular and ecclesiastical law recognize
that titulus coloratus (the color of title), combined with common
error, suffices for a man to retain the authority of the office that he is believed to legitimately hold. If there were an impediment that legally prevented him from acquiring the
office, or one that legally resulted in the loss of office, the impediment
would have to be legally established before it would have any juridical effect,
and before the acts of the office holder would lack authority. As the 17th century Franciscan theologian,
John Vincent Canes, observes: “If titulus
coloratus and moral evidence do not suffice [for] us, we can be sure of no
authority, either spiritual or civil in this world.”[8]
A secular example to illustrate this
point is the controversy surrounding President Obama’s place of birth. Many were convinced that he was born in
Kenya, and therefore did not meet the “natural born citizen” requirement to be
elected to the presidency. Nevertheless,
since the accusation was never legally proven, he remained president and laws
he promulgated remain in force.
Cum Ex
Apostolatus:
Neither Ex-Cathedra Nor Irrevocable
Not only have Sedevacantists failed to
understand that the retroactive penalties listed in the Bull would only take effect
upon a judgment by the proper authorities, but they’ve also failed to properly
understand the nature of the document, imagining it to be an infallible ex cathedra decree, rather than merely a
disciplinary document containing penal legislation. For example, a popular
Sedevacantist website presented the following in their introduction to the
papal Bull:
During the time of the Council of Trent
Pope Paul IV issued his Apostolic Constitution Cum Ex Apostolic (sic) Officio of February 15, 1559. (…) Because
it deals with faith and morals and was issued ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter) [it is] therefore considered
not only infallible, but to be held in perpetuity.[9]
The Sedevacantist, “Pope Michael” (elected
“Pope” by six lay people, including himself and his parents), also claims that Cum Ex Apostolatus is infallible. In his
book, 54 Years that Changed the World,
he wrote:
This Bull of Pope Paul IV deserves
special consideration, especially in light of the fact that it has been ignored
by many. … this Bull appears in the Fontes of the Code of Canon Law in several
places. It is considered infallible because it teaches on a matter of Faith.[10]
Mr. Ibranyi also attributed an
infallible character to the document. The following was written before he
discovered “conclusive evidence” that Pope Paul IV was
an antipope:
In 1559 Paul IV in his Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio infallibly
teaches that a so-called officeholder who is a formal heretic does not
actually hold the office and thus all his acts are null and void even if
everyone thinks he is an officeholder.[11]
The Sedevacantist website, Today’s
Catholic World, also declares Cum Ex
Apostolatus to be an infallible ex
cathedra document. In the unfortunate but common Sedevacantist tone, under
the heading, “Very Useful Idiots,”
the author writes:
The absolutely intellectually dishonest
Phony Opposition false traditionalist groups, such as: the priestless SSPX, Una
Voce, John Vennari’s “Catholic” Family News, Michael Matt’s (truly lost) Remnant
etc., by willfully refusing to accept the Church’s Ex Cathedra (Infallible)
teaching of Cum ex Apostolatus Officio which unmistakenly [sic] condemns
imposters like Ratzinger a.k.a Anti-Pope Benedict XVI …[12]
As with all sophists, once one gets past
their demagoguery, here riddled with inflammatory invective (“idiots,”
“dishonest,” “false,” “priestless,” “lost,” “imposters” – and all in one
sentence!), one generally discovers the sheer barrenness of their
argumentation, which seeks to appeal to the will, rather than the intellect.
Not only does the author entirely mischaracterize the nature of the document
(which was never intended to be an infallible decree), but reveals much about
himself by cloaking his error in such demagoguery and insulting rhetoric.
During the debates surrounding the
definition of papal infallibility, Cum Ex
Apostolatus Officio was brought to light by the dissenters in an attempt to
prevent the Church from defining the doctrine. Their mode of operation was thus:
First, they attempted to attribute an infallible dogmatic character to the
Bull. Next, they pointed to the various penal sanctions as being utterly
tyrannical and contrary to Catholic principles. Finally, they argued that such
tyrannical and unjust sanctions prove the Pope is not infallible.
One of the main voices opposing the
doctrine was that of Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger, a fierce opponent of
papal infallibility. In his famous book, The
Pope and the Council, written under the pen-name Janus, Döllinger attempted
to demonstrate the tyrannical and unjust character of Cum Ex Apostolatus. After listing a number of penal sanctions in
the document, he wrote:
Such, then, is this most solemn
declaration, issued as late as 1558, subscribed by the cardinals, and
afterwards expressly confirmed and renewed by Pius V, that the Pope, by virtue
of his absolute authority, can depose every monarch, hand over every country to
foreign invasion, deprive every one of his property, and that without any legal
formality, and not only on account of dissent from the doctrines approved at
Rome, or separation from the Church, but for merely offering an asylum to such
dissidents, so that no rights of dynasty or nation are respected, but nations
are to be given up to all the horrors of a war of conquest. And to all this is
finally subjoined the doctrine, that all official and sacramental acts of a
Pope or Bishop, who has ever — say twenty or thirty years before — been heretically minded on any single point of
doctrine, are null and void! This last definition contains so emphatic and flat
a contradiction of the principles on the validity of sacraments universally
received in the Church, although mistakes have sometimes been made about it at
Rome, that they must have seemed to theologians utterly incomprehensible. The
serious inconveniences which at former periods such doctrines had led to in the
Church would have been reproduced now, had not even the most decided adherents
of the infallibility theory, the Jesuit divines, shrunk from adopting the
principle laid down by this Pope and his cardinals, though Paul IV threatened
all who resisted his decrees with the wrath of God. Bellarmine himself, forty
years later, said in Rome itself that a bishop or Pope did not lose his power
by becoming or by having been a concealed (occult) heretic, or [else]
everything would be reduced to uncertainty, and the whole Church thrown into
confusion.[13]
Döllinger never accepted the dogma of papal
infallibility and on April 18, 1871, one year after the close of the First
Vatican Council, he was excommunicated by name for heresy; and although he
never officially joined the schismatic Old
Catholic Church, Döllinger’s writings contributed greatly to its
establishment.
In response to the arguments of Döllinger
and company, the proponents of the dogma did not attempt to defend the Bull of
Paul IV against accusations that the penalties were extreme, unjust, or harmful
to the common good. Rather, they defended papal infallibility by noting that
the Bull was not a dogmatic decree
and, therefore, any problems with the document in no way undermined the
infallibility of the Pope.
In an 1870 article that was published in The Dublin Review, the author confirmed
that Cum Ex Apostolatus does indeed
require careful consideration, due to the issues raised by Döllinger and
company, but not because of any violation of infallibility, since, as he said:
“there is literally no pretext for thinking that this Bull was dogmatic in any
sense.” He wrote:
The most formidable-looking of all
Janus’s citations [against papal infallibility] is Paul IV’s Bull ‘Cum 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 (…) 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.[14]
Another authority confirming that Cum Ex Apostolatus is not an infallible ex cathedra decree is the Church
historian, canonist, and first Cardinal-Prefect of the Vatican Archives, Dr.
Joseph Hergenrother. In his 1876 book, Catholic
Church and Christian State, he responds to the accusation of “Janus.” In so doing, he readily
concedes that the Bull “may be perhaps considered too severe,
injudicious, and immoderate in its punishments,” but he defends papal
infallibility by explaining,
in no uncertain terms, that the document is not an infallible decree, but only
concerns penal sanctions. We cite the Cardinal at length:
Appeal
is also made to the Bull of Paul IV., ‘Cum ex apostolatus officio,’ of 15th
Feb. 1559,[15]
to which our opponents are most eager to attach the character of a dogmatic
ex-cathedra decision,[16]
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.[17]
But none of the exponents of dogmatic theology have as yet discovered this
character in the Bull,[18]
which has been universally regarded as an emanation of the spiritual penal
authority, not a decision of the doctrinal authority.[19]
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 [i.e., Döllinger] 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 [particular] 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.[20]
As to the enjoining portion of the Bull in question, it only contains penal
sanctions against heresy, which unquestionably belong to disciplinary laws
alone.”[21]
Cardinal Hergenrother goes on to explain that Cum Ex Apostolatus
was simply renewing earlier penal sanctions against heresy and adding new
penalties which, by their very nature, are disciplinary:
(…)
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.[22]
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,[23]
which equally belongs to the sphere of discipline. (…)
The Pope does not here speak as teacher
(ex cathedra), but as the watchful
shepherd eager to keep the wolves from the sheep, [24]and
in a time when the actual or imminent falling away even of bishops and
cardinals[25]
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 [definitively] 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,[26] and
thus by no means excludes the possibility of the Pope making mistakes in his
government by too great severity or otherwise. (…)[27]
One of the potential problems with the
penal sanctions enunciated in the Bull (which Cardinal Hergenrother said could
be considered “severe,” “injudicious” and immoderate”) is that it could be
interpreted by some to imply that a Pope could be peacefully and universally
accepted by the entire Church, and
then later declared to have never been validly elected, which is not possible.[28]
Although the document does not explicitly teach this,[29]
some Sedevacantists have interpreted it in this fashion and ended by denying
the teaching regarding the peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope. The
problematic wording (which has led these Sedevacantists into error) is another
clue as to the fallible, disciplinary nature of the now-defunct document.
Continuing
with his commentary on Cum Ex Apostolatus, Cardinal Hergenrother responded
to those who opposed papal infallibility by asserting that, if the Pope was
really infallible, the document should have been covered by infallibility since
it was directed to the entire Church (ex
cathedra), and was published in solemn form. The Cardinal responded as
follows:
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.’[30] These
characteristics, however, do not suffice for a dogmatic doctrinal decision.
… The sort of proofs our opponents bring forward in this matter show an entire
ignorance of Papal Bulls.[31]
Compare, for example, another Bull of the same Pope directed against the
ambitious endeavours of those who coveted the Papal dignity;[32]
this Bull has equally the agreement of the Cardinals, is published out of the
plenitude of the Papal power, is declared to be forever in force, threatens
equally all spiritual and temporal dignitaries without exception, etc. And yet
it is undoubtedly not in the least a dogmatic Bull.[33]
As the Cardinal explained above, just
because a Magisterial document issued by a Pope teaches that it is to remain in
force in perpetuity (constitutio in
perpetuum valitura) does not necessarily mean it cannot be abrogated by a
future Pope. It depends upon the nature
of the decree (doctrinal versus disciplinary). According to the ancient
principle “equals do not have power over equals” (par in parem potestatem non habet), a Pope cannot bind a future
Pope to merely disciplinary matters and ecclesiastical governance. A Pope
cannot change Catholic doctrine, or abrogate a defined dogma, but he can alter
disciplines, such as the punishment for certain crimes.
We provide one final reference to
confirm that Cum Ex Apostolatus is
not an ex cathedra, irreformable
decree, but only punitive legislation. In his book True and False Infallibility of the Pope, Bishop Joseph Fessler,
the secretary of the First Vatican Council, responded to the argument of
Professor von Schulte, another opponent of papal infallibility who used Cum Ex Apostolatus as his weapon of
choice. Bishop Fessler wrote:
Dr. Schulte proceeds with another Bull
of Pope Paul IV [Cum ex Apostolatus],
issued in the year 1559,[34]
which 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 everyone who
reads it, that this Papal delivery is not a definition de fide, and cannot, therefore, be an utterance ex cathedra. (…) 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.[35]
In light of what we have seen, it is
“beyond all question” that Cum Ex
Apostolatus is not an ex cathedra
and therefore irreformable decree, as some Sedevacantists have claimed, but is
instead a document of penal legislation which, by its very nature, is only
disciplinary. In fact, after a thorough study of Cum Ex Apostolatus, which included some of the above-cited
quotations, one Sedevacantist was forced to concede this point. He wrote:
Pope Paul IV’s 1559 Bull, Cum 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
document, and have used that point to add force to our [Sedevacantist]
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. Cum ex Apostolatus Officio is not infallible, nor dogmatic, but
merely a disciplinary statute.[36]
After citing a number of reputable
authorities confirming that the Bull was not infallible, the Sedevacantist
author concluded:
Some of the greatest Catholic experts on
the subject have made it clear that Cum
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 [Sedevacantists] are obliged to discontinue
referring to Cum ex Apostolatus officio
as infallible. Not only would it be very 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.[37]
Now, since Cum Ex Apostolatus was only concerned with “the practical execution of previous
penal laws, which by their nature are disciplinary,” as Cardinal Hergenrother
explained, its penalties could be, and indeed were, abrogated when the 1917
Code of Canon law came into force. Canon 5.2 explains:
That which pertains to penalties, of
which there is no mention made in this Code, be they spiritual or temporal,
remedial or, as they call it, punitive, automatic or declared through a
judgment, they are to be held as abrogated.
None of the prescriptions contained in Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio were included
in the 1917 Code, and consequently they were all officially and authoritatively
abrogated.
The Sedevacantist bishop, Donald
Sanborn, also acknowledges the papal Bull is no longer in force. Wrote Sanborn:
Cum ex apostolatus is an apostolic
constitution, a law, made by Pope Paul IV, which says that if a pope should be
a heretic, his elevation to this dignity would be null. It was made in order to
ensure that no Protestant could ever become the Pope. It does not apply to the
present case for two reasons. The first is that it is no longer the law.
It was derogated (made obsolete) by the 1917 Code of Canon Law.”[38]
Cum Ex
Apostolatus and Canon 188,
§4
Faced with the proof that Cum Ex Apostolatus was abrogated when
the 1917 Code came into force, some Sedevacantists will argue that its penal
legislation was based, not merely on Church law, but on Divine law, and therefore remains in force. They will then point to
the fact that Cum Ex Apostolatus is
referenced as a footnote to canon 188, §4 (1917 Code), and claim that this
proves its automatic penalties are still in effect. This argument is erroneous
for the following reasons.
First, there is no Divine Law (nor has
there even been an ecclesiastical law) teaching that a prelate who is judged,
by private judgment, to be a heretic automatically loses his office. As we saw above, the impediment would have to
be legally proven, before it had any juridical effect. Without it, the titulus coloratus would suffice for the acts of the office holder
to remain valid.
Second, as we saw in Chapter Eight, canon
188, §4 applies to clerics validly elected to office, who publicly defect from
the Faith by joining a non-Catholic sect (or publicly apostatizing) after being elected, whereas the
penalties contained in Cum Ex Apostolatus
pertain to pre-election heresy. Cum Ex did not teach that a validly
elected cleric who later “deviates from the faith” automatically loses office.
So the penalties contained in Cum Ex Apostolatus and canon 188, §4 are
clearly not the same.
Third, footnotes are not part of the
Church’s law (they have no authority in themselves), and are often cited (by
editors) to show legislative history related to certain canons. As applied
here, the footnote to Cum Ex Apostolatus is
nothing more than a reference to prior legislation
which prevented certain clerics from holding office in the Church. The purpose
is to simply provide some legislative precedent for the current legislation,
not to affirm a mythical “Divine law” that prevents heretics from holding
office based upon individual private judgment.[39]
Fourth, it is certainly not a matter of Divine law that the
election of a person who had previously deviated from the faith is null and
void. The great Cardinal Manning, for
example, not only deviated from the faith he received at baptism, but he went
so far as to become a pseudo-bishop of the Anglican sect. Yet, in spite of this
public defection, he was later received into the Catholic Church and raised to the office of bishop and then
Cardinal. This elevation to one of the highest offices in the Church
occurred in spite of irrefutable proof
that he had deviated from the faith prior
to his elevation. If one claims that Cum ex Apostolatus teaching concerning
pre-election heresy rendering the election of a bishop or Cardinal null, does
not apply to one who later renounces his errors, he will have to point to the
section of the bull that refers to this exception. Yet this section will not be
found, because it does not exist. In fact, this was one of the objections Döllinger
raised against the bull. He wrote:
And to all this is finally subjoined the
doctrine, that all official and sacramental acts of a Pope or Bishop, who has
ever - say twenty or thirty years before - been heretically minded on any single point of
doctrine, are null and void![40]
The penal sanctions of Cum Ex make no exception for a person
who deviated from the faith and then later renounced his error. The Bull simply
stated that the election of one who had previously deviated from the faith, or
previously embraced a heresy, is null and void.
If Sedevacantists are going to argue
that the penal sanctions in this Bull are still
in force today, and that they take effect without an authoritative judgment by
the proper authorities, they will have to explain how Cardinal Manning was
elevated to bishop and then Cardinal during the reign of Pius IX, in the face
of irrefutable proof that he had
“deviated from the faith” prior to his election. The reality is that the penal
sanctions in Cum Ex Apostolatus were
never enforced, and consequently the legislation had slipped into obsolescence,
even before it was derogated when the 1917 Code of Canon law was enacted. The case of Cardinal Manning (and Cardinal
Newman) proves that someone who publicly defects from the Faith is not barred
by “Divine law” from being elevated to the episcopacy (or the papacy) at a
later date.
We conclude by noting that, at the time of the First Vatican council, the
opponents of papal infallibility unearthed the Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus (which had all but disappeared from the mind of
the Church), and used its problematic penal sanctions to defend their heresy
(denial of Papal Infallibility), and justify their separation from the Church.
In our day, the exact same document – now legally defunct and thus void of any
authority - has again resurfaced. This time the bull serve as the weapon of
choice for the Sedevacantists, who use the penal sanctions, not to justify their
denial of a particular charism of the
Pope, but to reject the Pope himself, and to justify their refusal of subjection
to him – a subjection that is “absolutely necessary for salvation.”[41]
[1] On the day
the Bulls was issued, Cardinal Pacheco wrote to King Phillip II and notified
him that it was aimed at Cardinal Morone.
[2] Pope Paul IV, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, February 15, 1559.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibranyi, “Banned from Office for
Simony or Secret Formal Heresy,” (February, 2013), at http://www.johnthebaptist.us/jbw_english/documents/articles/rjmi/tr31_banned_from_office_for_simony_heresy.pdf
(emphasis added).
[5] Firpo, 1:235.
[6] Firpo, 3.333.
[7] Sanborn, “Explanation Of The
Thesis Of Bishop Guérard Des Lauriers,” June 29, 2002.
[8] Vincent, J. C., Diaphanta, or,
Three Letters Declaring, 1672.
[9] DailyCatholic.com at http://www.dailycatholic.org/cumexapo.htm
(emphasis added).
[10] “Pope” Michael, 54 Years That Changed the Catholic Church:
1958-2012, (CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2011), p. 33.
[11] Ibranyi, “Putative Officeholders
and Laws,” December 2012, http://www.john
thebaptist.us/jbw_english/documents/articles/rjmi/tr29_putative_officeholder_and_laws.pdf.
[12] http://www.todayscatholicworld.com/jan09tcw.htm
(emphasis added).
[13] Janus, The Pope and the Council, (London, Oxford, Cambridge: Rivingtons,
1869), pp. 383-384.
[14] Dublin Review, vol. XIV, New
Series (London, Burns and Oats, January - April 1870), p. 204 (emphasis added).
[15] 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 (citation in original).
[16] Janus, p. 405 seq. Schulte, ii.
12 (citation in original).
[17] Huber, p. 47 (citation in
original).
[18] Professor Denzinger has
collected all dogmatic decisions in his Enchiridion
Definitionum, which since 1853 has gone through four editions, been recommended
by many bishops, and much praised by the Holy Father. No theological reviewer
in all of Christendom has complained of the omission of the Bull in question;
all would much rather have considered a demand for its insertion ridiculous
(citation in original).
[19] Dr. Fessler, p. 44. Cf. Anti-Janus, p. 168 seq. Votum on the
Vatican Council, Mainz, 1871, p. 45 seq. (citation in original).
[20] E.g., Urban VIII. Const. 12, d.
7, Mart. 1624 (Bull. ed. Lux. t. v. p. 40):
“Romanus pontifex, in quo
dispositione incommutabili divina providentia universalis Ecclesiae constituit
principatum, auctoritatem a 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) (citation in original).
[21] Cardinal Hergenrother, Catholic Church and the Christian State,
vol. I (London: Burns and Oats, 1876), p. 42 (emphasis added).
[22] “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” (citation in original).
[23] E.g., loss ipso facto of all
offices and dignities, incapacity to hold others, confiscation of goods, etc
(citation in original).
[24] 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) (citation in original).
[25] 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: “Cum sicut nuper” (citation in original).
[26] 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. (Citation in
original).
[27] Hergenrother, Catholic Church and the Christian State,
pp. 42-43 (emphasis added).
[28] In light of the earlier teaching
about the “peaceful and universal acceptance” of a Pope, it could never happen
that the election of a Pope, who was accepted peacefully and universally by the
entire Church (not simply elected by the unanimous consent of the Cardinals),
would later be rendered null, since, as we saw, the peaceful and universal
acceptance of a Pope provides infallible
certitude of his legitimacy, as well as all of the conditions required for legitimacy. The election or promotion of a
bishop or Cardinal would not have the same guarantee, but such a guarantee does
exist with a Pope. This means that if a papal election were ever rendered null
after the fact (which some claim happened at the 1903 Conclave, when the Bishop
of Kraków allegedly vetoed the election of Cardinal Mariano Rampolla, paving
the way for the election of St. Pius X), during the time intervening between
the election and the declaration rendering the election null, the Pope would
not have been accepted peacefully and universally by the Church. Either his
election (following a questionable resignation of a former Pope, for example)
would be doubted by the faithful, or he would be doubtful for other reasons.
Once thing is certain: it has never occurred, and will never occur, that a Pope
who was peacefully and universally accepted by the entire Church, was later
declared to have never been Pope due to a defect in the election.
[29] The document speaks of the Pope
being elected by a “unanimous assent of all the
Cardinals,” and then to “the obedience accorded to such [the elect] by
all.” Neither of these fallible statements directly contradicts the teaching
that a Pope who is peacefully and universally accepted by the Church is, in
fact, a legitimate Pope.
[30] Schulte, i. p. 34, n. 1
(citation in original).
[31] See my review of Schulte in the
Archiv fur Kirchenrecht, 1871. vol. xxv. p. cxxix. § 17; also Fessler, I.e. p.
82 seq. (citation in original).
[32]
Cap. i. Cum secundum Apostolum. 1. v.
10, de Ambitu in lib. vii. Decret (citation in original).
[33] Hergenrother, Catholic Church and the Christian State,
Vol I (London: Burns and Oats, 1876), pp. 44-45 (emphasis added).
[34] Vide the Bull Cum Ex Aposlolalus, in the Bullar. Rom.,
ed. cit. t. iv. p i. p. 354. “Innovatio
quarumcumque censurarum et poenarum contra haereticos et schismaticos,”
etc. (citation in
original).
[35] Fessler, The True and False Infallibility of the
Popes (New York: The Catholic Publication Society, No. 9, Warren Street,
1875), pp. 88-89 (emphasis added).
[36] Christopher
Conlon, “The Non-Infallibility of Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio,” (2013). https://www.archive.org/details/TheNon-InfallibilityOfCumExApos
latusOfficio.
[37] Ibid (emphasis added).
[38] Sanborn, “Explanation Of The
Thesis Of Bishop Guérard Des Lauriers,” June 29, 2002.
[39] See, for example, Fr. Albert,
O.P., “La Constitution Apostolique Cum ex Apostolatus de Paul IV,” Le Sel de la
Terre, No. 33.
[40] Janus, The Pope and the Council, pp. 383-384.
[41] In the Bull of Pope Boniface
VIII, Unam Sanctam, promulgated
November 18, 1302, the following was defined as a dogma of faith: “We declare,
we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every
human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
No comments:
Post a Comment