Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cum ex Apostolatus Officio - Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul IV
Roman Bullarium Vol. IV. Sec. I, pp. 354-357 ^ | 15th February 1559 | Pope Paul IV

Posted on 04/01/2004 2:44:25 PM PST by Viva Christo Rey

"We are bound to be diligently watchful after the manner of a vigilant Shepherd and to ensure most carefully that certain people who consider the study of the truth beneath them should be driven out of the sheepfold of Christ and no longer continue to disseminate error from positions of authority."

"6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-] that 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 by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;"

"Cum ex Apostolatus Officio"

Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul IV, 15th February 1559
(Roman Bullarium Vol. IV. Sec. I, pp. 354-357)

Text translated by Mr John S. Daly

By virtue of the Apostolic office which, despite our unworthiness, has been entrusted to Us by God, We are responsible for the general care of the flock of the Lord. Because of this, in order that the flock may be faithfully guarded and beneficially directed, We are bound to be diligently watchful after the manner of a vigilant Shepherd and to ensure most carefully that certain people who consider the study of the truth beneath them should be driven out of the sheepfold of Christ and no longer continue to disseminate error from positions of authority. We refer in particular to those who in this age, impelled by their sinfulness and supported by their cunning, are attacking with unusual learning and malice the discipline of the orthodox Faith, and who, moreover, by perverting the import of Holy Scripture, are striving to rend the unity of the Catholic Church and the seamless tunic of the Lord.

1.In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] 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 fulness 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. Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted, We have been concerned lest false prophets or others, even if they have only secular jurisdiction, should wretchedly ensnare the souls of the simple, and drag with them into perdition, destruction and damnation countless peoples committed to their care and rule, either in spiritual or in temporal matters; and We have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place. In view of this, Our desire has been to fulfil our Pastoral duty, insofar as, with the help of God, We are able, so as to arrest the foxes who are occupying themselves in the destruction of the vineyard of the Lord and to keep the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be dumb watchdogs that cannot bark and lest We perish with the wicked husbandman and be compared with the hireling.

2 Hence, concerning these matters, We have held mature deliberation with our venerable brothers the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church; and, upon their advice and with their unanimous agreement, we now enact as follows:-

In respect of each and every sentence of excommunication, suspension, interdict and privation and any other sentences, censures and penalties against heretics or schismatics, enforced and promulgated in any way whatsoever by any of Our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs, or by any who were held to be such (even by their "litterae extravagantes" i.e. private letters), or by the sacred Councils received by the Church of God, or by decrees of the Holy Fathers and the statutes, or by the sacred Canons and the Constitutions and Apostolic Ordinations - all these measures, by Apostolic authority, We approve and renew, that they may and must be observed in perpetuity and, if perchance they be no longer in lively observance, that they be restored to it.

Thus We will and decree that the aforementioned sentences, censures and penalties be incurred without exception by all members of the following categories:

(i) Anysoever who, before this date, shall have been detected to have deviated from the Catholic Faith, or fallen into any heresy, or incurred schism, or provoked or committed either or both of these, or who have confessed to have done any of these things, or who have been convicted of having done any of these things.

(ii) Anysoever who (which may God, in His clemency and goodness to all, deign to avert) shall in the future so deviate or fall into heresy, or incur schism, or shall provoke or commit either or both of these.

(iii) Anysoever who shall be detected to have so deviated, fallen, incurred, provoked or committed, or who shall confess to have done any of these things, or who shall be convicted of having done any of these things.

These sanctions, moreover, shall be incurred by all members of these categories, of whatever status, grace, order, condition and pre-eminence they may be, even if they be endowed with the Episcopal, Archiepiscopal, Patriarchal, Primatial or some other greater Ecclesiastical dignity, or with the honour of the Cardinalate and of the Universal Apostolic See by the office of Legate, whether temporary or permanent, or if they be endowed with even worldly authority or excellence, as Count, Baron, Marquis, Duke, King or Emperor.

All this We will and decree.

3. Nonetheless, We also consider it proper that those who do not abandon evil deeds through love of virtue should be deterred therefrom by fear of punishment; and We are aware that Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals and Legates, Counts, Barons, Marquises, Dukes, Kings and Emperors (who ought to teach others and offer them a good example in order to preserve them in the Catholic Faith), by failing in their duty sin more gravely than others; since they not only damn themselves, but also drag with them into perdition and into the pit of death countless other people entrusted to their care or rule, or otherwise subject to them, by their like counsel and agreement.

Hence, by this Our Constitution which is to remain valid in perpetuity, in abomination of so great a crime (than which none in the Church of God can be greater or more pernicious) by the fulness of our Apostolic Power, We enact, determine, decree and define (since the aforesaid sentences, censures and penalties are to remain in efficacious force and strike all those whom they are intended to strike) that:-

(i) each and every member of the following categories - Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals, Legates, Counts, Barons, Marquises, Dukes, Kings and Emperors - who:

(a)hitherto (as We have already said) have been detected, or have confessed to have, or have been convicted of having, deviated [i.e. from the Catholic Faith], or fallen into heresy or incurred schism or provoked or committed either or both of these;

(b) in the future also shall [so] deviate, or fall into heresy, or incur schism, or provoke or commit either or both of these, or shall be detected or shall confess to have, or shall be convicted of having [so] deviated, or fallen into heresy, or incurred schism, or provoked or committed either or both of these;

(since in this they are rendered more inexcusable than the rest) in addition to the aforementioned sentences, censures and penalties, shall also automatically, without any exercise of law or application of fact, be thoroughly, entirely and perpetually deprived of:- their Orders and Cathedrals, even Metropolitan, Patriarchal and Primatial Churches, the honour of the Cardinalate and the office of any embassy whatsoever, not to mention both active and passive voting rights, all authority, Monasteries, benefices and Ecclesiastical offices, be they functional or sinecures, secular or religious of whatsoever Order, which they may have obtained by any concessions whatsoever, or by Apostolic Dispensations to title, charge and administration or otherwise howsoever, and in which or to which they may have any right whatsoever, likewise any whatsoever fruits, returns or annual revenues from like fruits, returns and revenues reserved for and assigned to them, as well as Countships, Baronies, Marquisates, Dukedoms, Kingships and Imperial Power;

(ii) that, moreover, they shall be unfit and incapable in respect of these things and that they shall be held to be backsliders and subverted in every way, just as if they had previously abjured heresy of this kind in public trial; that they shall never at any time be able to be restored, returned, reinstated or rehabilitated to their former status or Cathedral, Metropolitan, Patriarchal and Primatial Churches, or the Cardinalate, or other honour, any other dignity, greater or lesser, any right to vote, active or passive, or authority, or Monasteries and benefices, or Countships, Baronies, Marquisates, Dukedoms, Kingships and positions of Imperial power; but rather that they shall be abandoned to the judgement of the secular power to be punished after due consideration, unless there should appear in them signs of true penitence and the fruits of worthy repentance, and, by the kindness and clemency of the See itself, they shall have been sentenced to sequestration in any Monastery or other religious house in order to perform perpetual penance upon the bread of sorrow and the water of affliction;

(iii) that all such individuals also shall be held, treated and reputed as such by everyone, of whatsoever status, grade, order, condition or pre-eminence he may be and whatsoever excellence may be his, even Episcopal, Archiepiscopal, Patriarchal and Primatial or other greater Ecclesiastical dignity and even the honour of the Cardinalate, or secular, even the authority of Count, Baron, Marquis, Duke, King or Emperor, and as such must be avoided and must be deprived of the sympathy of all natural kindess.

4. [By this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We] further enact, determine, decree and define:-]

that those who shall have claimed to have the right of patronage or of nominating suitable persons to Cathedral, Metropolitan, Patriarchal and Primatial Churches, or to Monasteries or other Ecclesiastical benefices which may be vacant by privation of this kind (in order that those which shall have been vacant for a long time may not be exposed to the unfit, but, having been rescued from enslavement to heretics, may be granted to suitable persons who would faithfully direct their people in the paths of justice), shall be bound to present other persons suitable to Churches, Monasteries and benefices of this kind, to Us, or to the Roman Pontiff at that time existing, within the time determined by law, or by their concordats, or by compacts entered into with the said See; and that, if they shall not have done so when the said period shall have elapsed, the full and free disposition of the aforesaid Churches, Monasteries and benefices shall by the fulness of the law itself devolve upon Us or upon the aforesaid Roman Pontiff.

5. [By this Our Constitution,] moreover, [which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We] also [enact, determine, decree and define:-]

as follows concerning those who shall have presumed in any way knowingly to receive, defend, favour, believe or teach the teaching of those so apprehended, confessed or convicted:
(i) they shall automatically incur sentence of excommunication;
(ii) they shall be rendered infamous;
(iii) they shall be excluded on pain of invalidity from any public or private office, deliberation, Synod, general or provincial Council and any conclave of Cardinals or other congregation of the faithful, and from any election or function of witness, so that they cannot take part in any of these by vote, in person, by writings, representative or by any agent;
(iv) they shall be incapable of making a will;
(v) they shall not accede to the succession of heredity;
(vi) no one shall be forced to respond to them concerning any business;
(vii) if perchance they shall have been Judges, their judgements shall have no force, nor shall any cases be brought to their hearing.;
(viii) if they shall have been Advocates, their pleading shall nowise be received;
(ix) if they shall have been Notaries, documents drafted by them shall be entirely without strength or weight;
(x) clerics shall be automatically deprived of each and every Church, even Cathedral, Metropolitan, Patriarchal, Primatial, and likewise of dignities, Monasteries, benefices and Ecclesiastical offices, and even, as has been already mentioned, of qualifications, howsoever obtained by them;
(xi) laymen, moreover, in the same way - even if they be qualified, as already described, or endowed with the aforesaid dignities or anysoever Kingdoms, Duchies, Dominions, Fiefs and temporal goods possessed by them;
(xii) finally, all Kingdoms, Duchies, Dominions, Fiefs and goods of this kind shall be confiscated, made public and shall remain so, and shall be made the rightful property of those who shall first occupy them if these shall be sincere in faith, in the unity of the Holy Roman Church and under obedience to Us and to Our successors the Roman Pontiffs canonically entering office.

6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-]

that 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 by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;
(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;
(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.

7. Finally, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We] also [enact, determine, define and decree]:-
that any and all persons who would have been subject to those thus promoted or elevated if they had not previously deviated from the Faith, become heretics, incurred schism or provoked or committed any or all of these, be they members of anysoever of the following categories:
(i) the clergy, secular and religious;
(ii) the laity;
(iii) the Cardinals, even those who shall have taken part in the election of this very Pontiff previously deviating from the Faith or heretical or schismatical, or shall otherwise have consented and vouchsafed obedience to him and shall have venerated him;
(iv) Castellans, Prefects, Captains and Officials, even of Our Beloved City and of the entire Ecclesiastical State, even if they shall be obliged and beholden to those thus promoted or elevated by homage, oath or security;
shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs (the same subject persons, nevertheless, remaining bound by the duty of fidelity and obedience to any future Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals and Roman Pontiff canonically entering).

To the greater confusion, moreover, of those thus promoted or elevated, if these shall have wished to prolong their government and authority, they shall be permitted to request the assistance of the secular arm against these same individuals thus promoted or elevated; nor shall those who withdraw on this account, in the aforementioned circumstances, from fidelity and obedience to those thus promoted and elevated, be subject, as are those who tear the tunic of the Lord, to the retribution of any censures or penalties.

8. [The provisions of this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity are to take effect] notwithstanding any Constitutions, Apostolic Ordinations, privileges, indults or Apostolic Letters, whether they be to these same Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates and Cardinals or to any others, and whatsoever may be their import and form, and with whatsoever sub-clauses or decrees they may have been granted, even "motu proprio" and by certain knowledge, from the fulness of the Apostolic power or even consistorially or otherwise howsoever; and even if they have been repeatedly approved and renewed,have been included in the corpus of the Law or strengthened by any capital conclaves whatsoever (even by oath) or by Apostolic confirmation or by anysoever other endorsements or if they were legislated by ourself. By this present document instead of by express mention, We specially and expressly derogate the provisions of all these by appropriate deletion and word-for-word substitution, so that these may otherwise remain in force.

9. In order, however, that this document may be brought to the notice of all whom it concerns, We wish it or a transcription of it (to which, when made by the hand of the undersigned Public Notary and fortified by the seal of any person established in ecclesiastical dignity, We decree that complete trust must be accorded) to be published and affixed in the Basilica of the Prince of the Apostles in this City and on the doors of the Apostolic Chancery and in the pavilion of the Campus Florae by some of our couriers; [we] will [further] that a quantity of copies affixed in this place should be distributed, and that publication and affixing of this kind should suffice and be held as right, solemn and legitimate, and that no other publication should be required or awaited.

10. No one at all, therefore, may infringe this document of our approbation, re-introduction, sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash presumption contradict it. If anyone, however, should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul.

Given in Rome at Saint Peter's in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1559, 15th February, in the fourth year of our Pontificate.

+ I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church…

Papal Encyclicals Index


TOPICS: Activism; Apologetics; Catholic; Current Events; General Discusssion; History; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: antichrist; apostasy; catholic; catholiclist; church; doctrine; faith; heresy; infallibility; papacy; popepauliv; roman; schism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-188 next last
"We are bound to be diligently watchful after the manner of a vigilant Shepherd and to ensure most carefully that certain people who consider the study of the truth beneath them should be driven out of the sheepfold of Christ and no longer continue to disseminate error from positions of authority."

6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-]

that 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 by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;
(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;
(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.

1 posted on 04/01/2004 2:44:27 PM PST by Viva Christo Rey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All

Donate Here By Secure Server
2 posted on 04/01/2004 2:48:56 PM PST by Support Free Republic (I'd rather be sleeping. Let's get this over with so I can go back to sleep!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Viva Christo Rey; BlackElk; GirlShortstop; Canticle_of_Deborah; Land of the Irish; ultima ratio; ...
In response to an ongoing discussion a few days back, I posted quotations from this binding document of the Roman Catholic Church, as well as a good number of others, which were all dutifully ignored by the usual suspects, but because this entire overly long document was not thrust willy-nilly into the midst of another thread, I was accused of hiding or manipulating something - in other words the usual ad hominem of the desperate.

Above is the entire document, (of which I also have the Latin original on floppy disk, "somewhere"), which was crafted by Pope Paul IV during the protestant revolt, to specifically spell out that a pre-existing formal apostate, heretic, or schismatic, even if elected unanimously and later accepted by all, COULD NEVER IN ANY WAY BE A VALID POPE. This document is also cited in the notes of the Code of Canon Law (1917) as one basis for the provision of tacit and automatic resignation due to heresy, apostasy and schism in section 188.4.

Please note that Pope Paul IV calls such a future heretical INVALID pope, the antichrist: "the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place."

Section 6 deals with the meat of the matter:

"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 by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;

Section 7 puts to rest all the phony claims of "schismatic" hurled at traditional, i.e. TRUE Catholics:

"that any and all persons who would have been subject to those thus promoted or elevated if they had not previously deviated from the Faith, become heretics, incurred schism or provoked or committed any or all of these...shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs"

And if the heretic would refuse to leave the Chair unjustly occupied:

"they shall be permitted to request the assistance of the secular arm against these same individuals thus promoted or elevated;"

If the usual attackers of the True Faith and True Church still refuse to accept this and continue to hurl accusations of "disobedience" and "schism" then THEY ARE THE REAL SCHISMATICS.

In a subsequent post I will yet again document the infallible teaching of the Roman Catholic Church that an up to then valid pope, who would tragically later deviate from the Faith, would fall from the papacy by his own act without any further judgement.

The current crop of blighters were all formal heretics before being putatively elected and hence never did, or could ever, occupy the papal throne or possess the Keys of Peter.

Below are the pertinent excerpts form "Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio", which one may compare for faithfulness to the entire text in the post above.

Preface: "We are bound to be diligently watchful after the manner of a vigilant Shepherd and to ensure most carefully that certain people who consider the study of the truth beneath them should be driven out of the sheepfold of Christ and no longer continue to disseminate error from positions of authority."

1.In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] 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 fulness 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. Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted, We have been concerned lest false prophets or others, even if they have only secular jurisdiction, should wretchedly ensnare the souls of the simple, and drag with them into perdition, destruction and damnation countless peoples committed to their care and rule, either in spiritual or in temporal matters; and We have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place.

6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-]

that 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 by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;
(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;
(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.

7. Finally, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We] also [enact, determine, define and decree]:-
that any and all persons who would have been subject to those thus promoted or elevated if they had not previously deviated from the Faith, become heretics, incurred schism or provoked or committed any or all of these, be they members of anysoever of the following categories:
(i) the clergy, secular and religious;
(ii) the laity;
(iii) the Cardinals, even those who shall have taken part in the election of this very Pontiff previously deviating from the Faith or heretical or schismatical, or shall otherwise have consented and vouchsafed obedience to him and shall have venerated him;
(iv) Castellans, Prefects, Captains and Officials, even of Our Beloved City and of the entire Ecclesiastical State, even if they shall be obliged and beholden to those thus promoted or elevated by homage, oath or security;
shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs (the same subject persons, nevertheless, remaining bound by the duty of fidelity and obedience to any future Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals and Roman Pontiff canonically entering).

To the greater confusion, moreover, of those thus promoted or elevated, if these shall have wished to prolong their government and authority, they shall be permitted to request the assistance of the secular arm against these same individuals thus promoted or elevated; nor shall those who withdraw on this account, in the aforementioned circumstances, from fidelity and obedience to those thus promoted and elevated, be subject, as are those who tear the tunic of the Lord, to the retribution of any censures or penalties.

3 posted on 04/01/2004 3:45:38 PM PST by Viva Christo Rey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk; GirlShortstop; Viva Christo Rey; Canticle_of_Deborah; Land of the Irish; Maximilian; ...
Black Elk, you never addressed these other citations of the Church's teaching in the least:

The above posts dealt with the invalidity of a pre-existing formal apostate, heretic or schismatic who would be elected as a putative pope - which is tragically relevant in our time. The following deals with the also tragic scenario of a valid and true pope who would later become a formal apostate, heretic or schismatic, and thus by his own act and own hand, fall from the papacy.

Just as a Pope can sin in other ways, he may also sin personally by becoming a formal heretic, apostate or a schismatic. As such he would NOT be protected from error, please note the strict limits of protection by the Holy Ghost:

TWENTIETH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, THE VATICAN COUNCIL (1869-1870)

"Neque enim Petri successoribus Spiritus sanctus promissus est, ut eo revelante novam doctrinam patefacerent, sed ut eo assistente traditam per apostolos revelationem seu fidei depositum sancte custodirent et fideliter exponerent. (Constitutio Dogmatica Prima de Ecclesia Christi [Pastor Aeternus], cap. 4, "De Romani Pontificis Infallibili Magisterio")

"For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or Deposit of Faith transmitted by the Apostles."

It is of Divine Law that a heretic could never be TRULY Pope and thus head of the Church, Christ's Body, of which he is not a member. The 1917 Code of Canon Law cites "Cum Ex Apostlatus Officio" of Pope Paul IV as one basis for the tacit and automatic resignation of an office. Please note that this section of the code deals with the nature of the office, the divine aspects, and is separate from the latter section of the code which deals with penalties.

Code of Canon Law (1917), Canon 188.4:

Canon 188: "Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clerus ... (4) a fide catholica publice defecerit."

Canon 188: "There are certain causes which effect the tacit resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of law, and hence is effective without any declaration. These causes are: (4) if he has publicly fallen away from the Catholic faith."

For further examples:

Pope Innocent III (1198), Sermo 4:

"The Roman Pontiff has no superior but God. Who, therefore, could cast him out or trample him under foot – since of the pope it is said ‘gather thy flock into thy fold’? Truly, he should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God.

"Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory [Minus dico] because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged.

"In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men'."

St Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, "De Romano Pontifice", ("On the Roman Pontiff"), liber II, caput 30:

Est ergo quinta opinio vera, papam haereticum manifestum per se desinere esse papam et caput, sicut per se desinit esse christianus et membrum corporis Ecclesiae; quare ab, Ecclesia posse eum judicari et puniri. Haec est sententia omnium veterum Patrum, qui docent, haereticos manifestos mox amittere omnem jurisdictionem.

"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.

St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Doctor of the Church, on the fate of a heretical pope:

"Del resto, si Dio permettesse che un papa fosse notoriamente eretico e contumace, egli cesserebbe d'essere papa, e vacherebbe il pontificato."

--"Verita della Fede", part 3, ch. 8, no. 10. In: Opere dommatiche di S. Alfonso de Liguori (Torino, G. Marietti, 1848), p. 720. (Opere di S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori, v. 8)

"For the rest, if God should permit that a Pope should become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would cease to be Pope, and the pontificate would be vacant."

St. Francis de Sales, Doctor of the Church, on papal infallibility and heresy:

"En l'ancienne loy le grand pretre ne portait pas le rational si non quand il estoit revestu des habits pontificaux et qu'il entroit devant le Seigneur. Ainsi ne disons nous pas que le pape en ses opinions particulieres ne puisse errer comme fit Jean XXII, ou etre du tout heretique comme peut etre fut Honorius. Or quand il est heretique expres *ipso facto* il tombe de son grade hors de l'Eglise et l'Eglise le doit ou priver comme disent quelques uns, ou le declarer prive de son siege apostolique et dire comme fit St. Pierre: Episcopatum eius accipiat alter. Quand il erre en sa particuliere opinion il le faut enseigner, adviser, convaincre comme on fit a Jean XXII le quel tant s'en faut qu'il mourut opiniatre ou que pendant sa vie il determina aucune chose touchant son opinion, que pendant qu'il faysoit l'inquisition requise pour determiner en matiere de foy, il mourut, au recit de son successeur en l'Extravagante qui se commence *Benedictus Deus.*"

St. Francis de Sales, The Catholic Controversy (Tan Books), p. 388 (part II, art. VI, ch. 14)

"Under the ancient law the High Priest did not wear the Rational except when he was vested in the pontifical robes and was entering before the Lord. Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinions, as did John XXII; or be altogether a heretic, as perhaps Honorius was. Now when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, as some say, or declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as St. Peter did: Let another take his bishopric (Acts I). When he errs in his private opinion he must be instructed, advised, convinced; as happened with John XXII, who was so far from dying obstinate or from determining anything during his life concerning his opinion, that he died whilest he was making the examination which is necessary for determining in a matter of faith, as his successor declared in the *Extravagantes* which begins Benedictus Deus." (Ib. p. 305-306)

St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church, on loss of jurisdiction by heretics and schismatics:

Summa, 2a 2ae, q. 39, art. 3. (Utrum schismatici habeant aliquam potestatem)

"...Potestas autem iurisdictionis est quae ex simplici iniunctione hominis confertur; et talis potestas non immobiliter adhaeret; unde in schismaticis et haereticis non manet; unde non possunt nec absolvere, nec excommunicare, nec indulgentias facere, aut aliquid huiusmodi; quod si fecerint, nihil est actum."

(Whether schismatics have any power.)

"...The power of jurisdiction, however [as opposed to the power of Orders, which he has just discussed], is that [power] which is conferred simply by the injunction of man; and this power does not adhere immovably; therefore it does not remain in schismatics and heretics. Hence they can neither absolve, nor excommunicate, nor grant indulgences, or anything of this sort. If they do this, the act is null."

JUAN CARDINAL DE TORQUEMADA [IOANNES DE TURRECREMATA], O.P. (1388-1468)

"By disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ despite the fact that he is head of the Church, for above all, the unity of the Church is dependent upon its relationship with Christ. The Pope can separate himself from Christ either by disobeying the law of Christ, or by commanding something that is against the divine or natural law. by doing so, the Pope separates himself from the body of the Church because this body is itself linked to Christ by obedience. In this way, the Pope would, without doubt, fall into schism....

ST. ANTONINUS, O.P. (1389-1459), BISHOP AND THEOLOGIAN

"In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.

"A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church.", (Summa Theologica)<BR

4 posted on 04/01/2004 4:14:18 PM PST by Viva Christo Rey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Viva Christo Rey
The current crop of blighters were all formal heretics before being putatively elected and hence never did, or could ever, occupy the papal throne or possess the Keys of Peter

You are a sede vacantist.

You have no credibility on this forum, or anywhere else in the Catholic Church.

5 posted on 04/01/2004 4:23:54 PM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a dog or a cat from an animal shelter! It will save one life, and may save two.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Karol Wojtyla kisses the Koran


Karol Wojtyla kisses the Koran, demonstrating his love for blasphemy, his hatred of God, and his apostasy from the true faith, if he ever held it to begin with. Those who maintain that Wojtyla is pope argue that he does things like this in ignorance. A seven-year-old Catholic knows better. But Wojtyla is not a Catholic.




According to this blasphemous book, Our Lord did not die on the Cross, He did not will to die on the Cross, and was not born to die on the Cross. This book of lies asserts that the death of Our Lord Jesus Christ on the Cross was a lie made popular by deception, and that on Judgement Day Our Lord Himself will be a witness against Christians.

Koran, 4:156-159 "That they rejected Faith; That they uttered against Mary a grave false charge; That they said (in boast): We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, The Messenger of Allah. But they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjunction to follow, for of a surety they killed him not. ... And on the Day of Judgment He (Jesus) will be a witness against them (Christians)."

St. Paul, 1 Corinthians, Chapter 1, Verses 23, 24: "But we preach Christ crucified: unto the Jews indeed a stumblingblock, and unto the Gentiles foolishness. But unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God."

St. Paul, 1 Corinthians, Chapter 2, Verse 2: "For I judged not myself to know anything among you, but Jesus Christ: and Him crucified."

Home

6 posted on 04/01/2004 4:54:44 PM PST by Viva Christo Rey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Viva Christo Rey
Where is the evidence that Bl. John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I or John Paul II were/are notorious heretics? What truth that must be held with divine and Catholic faith have any of them denied publicly and then refused to retract?
7 posted on 04/01/2004 4:57:41 PM PST by gbcdoj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Viva Christo Rey
The Quran verse you quote is clearly talking about Jews, not Christians.
Kissing a Quran is not heresy, in any case.
8 posted on 04/01/2004 5:12:06 PM PST by gbcdoj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj
Where is the evidence that Bl. John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I or John Paul II were/are notorious heretics? What truth that must be held with divine and Catholic faith have any of them denied publicly and then refused to retract?

I realize that this is very difficult to accept, and shall endeavor to gradually list them, but in the meantime please consider the devastation casued by their teaching and their actions.

As for heresies, just look at the documents of Vatican II.

Here is an article dealing with the main Heresies of Karol Wojtyla.

9 posted on 04/01/2004 5:16:08 PM PST by Viva Christo Rey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
You have no credibility on this forum,

Whoa. Are there unwritten posting rules we need to know about? Only certain people with specific beliefs are allowed here? Is this YOUR forum?

Maybe someone could debate with facts rather than threats.

10 posted on 04/01/2004 5:16:51 PM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj
Kissing a Quran is not heresy,

If it's not it comes darn close. No one wants to talk about that, we're just supposed to pretend it didn't happen.

11 posted on 04/01/2004 5:19:11 PM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah
Do you believe that the Chair of Peter is vacant?

Christo Rey is saying that.

Tell me what credibility he has.

12 posted on 04/01/2004 5:29:00 PM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a dog or a cat from an animal shelter! It will save one life, and may save two.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
It's his opinion. It's a public forum. If he is wrong, debate him. Otherwise, you don't have the right to determine who gets to post here and who doesn't.

If no one can prove him wrong his credibility is far from damaged.

13 posted on 04/01/2004 5:34:56 PM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah
Otherwise, you don't have the right to determine who gets to post here and who doesn't.

He is not entitled to post a thread on FR that is needlessly inflammatory.

His other thread just got pulled.

This one should too, but I think I'll post some sedevacantist stuff on here just to let people see how wacky these people are.

14 posted on 04/01/2004 5:47:49 PM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a dog or a cat from an animal shelter! It will save one life, and may save two.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Viva Christo Rey
Go here to see a picture and a write-up on your "pope," Pius XIII, Lucian Pulvermacher.
15 posted on 04/01/2004 5:49:36 PM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a dog or a cat from an animal shelter! It will save one life, and may save two.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah
Kissing a Koran is no more of a heresy(none) than this was:
But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that some came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision. And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented: so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? (Galatians 2.11-4)

Perhaps St. Peter was deposed at that point and there has not been a true pope since?

Here are the comments of Fr. Brian Harrison O.S. concerning actions and heresy:

A. Fr. Cekada begins by correcting my statement that wordless actions cannot be indications of heresy. This indeed was an error on my part (although only a minor point in my argument). It is true that certain completely unambiguousactions or omissions could be taken as expressions of heresy: for instance, a Catholic submitting to a new baptism in a non-Catholic sect, or a theologian refusing to sign an unambiguous statement of faith required by the Vatican, as evidence of his orthodoxy. But I know of nothing done or omitted by a post-conciliar Pontiff that has carried such unambiguity. I must admit that I too have felt deeply troubled by such actions of the present Pontiff as his 1986 Assisi gathering and his kissing a copy of the Koran. But such unheard-of novelties in no way signify unambiguously any heresy: the Holy Father would no doubt argue that they were merely expressions of respect for those “rays of truth” (as Vatican II calls them) which Catholics have always recognized to exist in pagan religions, mixed in with their errors.

16 posted on 04/01/2004 5:54:29 PM PST by gbcdoj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Viva Christo Rey
Do-It-Yourself Popes: The Wacky World of Sedevacantists

By Michael Petek

One Sunday in 1997 I went up to London to join a television audience at a general election special. As my train rolled into Victoria Station I knew I had some time to kill, so I didn't go into the Underground station straight away. Instead, I set off down Victoria Street in the direction of Westminster Cathedral, the center of Catholic life in England.

As I was passing the last block before the Cathedral piazza, I came upon two rather lonely-looking characters manning a wooden stall, strategically placed so as to be able to waylay any Catholics who might be on their way to Mass—or even Catholics like me, who weren't. I immediately recognized them as devotees of one of those radical traditionalist sects that try to appear Catholic but aren't. (It may be unfair to besmirch Catholics who consider themselves "traditionalists"—those with an attachment to the Tridentine liturgy licitly celebrated under the 1988 papal indult Ecclesia Dei—by using the same word to describe these wacky groups, but let the word "radical" suffice to make clear the distinction.)

Search the Internet and you will find most of these radical groups—which are invariably tiny—listed. Some are "sedevacantist," recognizing the See of Peter on the understanding that it is technically vacant. Others, including some whose priestly orders are disputed, are not in obedience to Pope John Paul II, whether or not they pay him lip service. The following list is not exhaustive, and there are certainly several more of these groups.

At least four have popes of their own. Two of them claim to be inspired by the approved apparitions of Our Lady at La Salette: the Order of the Magnificat of the Mother of God, led by Brother John (a.k.a. Pope Gregory XVII); and the Catholic Church under the French-based Msgr. Maurice Archieri, (whose infallibility evidently doesn't cover Latin grammar, judging by his title of "Vicarius Christus [should be "Christi"] Pierre II").

Then there are the ones I met that Sunday in London. In fact, I had met them many years before as a lapsed Catholic undergraduate student, when one of them collared me on almost the same spot and gave the mainstream Catholic Church a serious shellacking. This time, feigning ignorance in order to break the ice a little, I asked them what their denomination was about. They said in no uncertain terms that the current order of the Mass is invalid and a Satanic abomination and that both popes since Paul VI have been impostors.

Their main man, "Pope" Gregory XVII of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Palmarian Church, is Clemente Dominguez y Gomez, who resides at Palmar de Troya in Spain. He owes his glittering career to a set of alleged apparitions of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, which began on March 30, 1968, amid a host of alleged healings, stigmata, and other signs, wonders, and prophecies. Several different seers were involved, including Clemente himself, from September 30, 1969.

The local hierarchy soon condemned the apparitions and all their works. The supernatural message from Palmar was that Pope Paul VI was being kept a drugged prisoner in the Vatican. The real rulers of the Church were a clique of Freemasons and Communists who were playing havoc with the doctrine and worship of the Church. (Amid all this mayhem, it is truly a wonder that Humanae Vitae, dated July 25, 1968, ever escaped into the light of day)

The maverick Vietnamese archbishop Ngo-Dinh Thuc ordained Clemente to the priesthood and consecrated him a bishop in January 1976. Four months later the unfortunate Clemente lost his sight in a car accident. But this did not prevent him seeing Jesus come to him with news of his promotion to the novel post of Sub-Vicar of Christ, a kind of coadjutor to the non compos mentis Paul VI. Sure enough, after Paul's death, Jesus came with Peter and Paul to give Clemente the biggest goody bag in history: They crowned him Pope Gregory XVII and promised that he would one day become a great sword-swinging, world-conquering emperor as well.

The Palmarian deception is easy for any well-instructed Catholic to spot. Its top error is that God has taken the office of Peter from the Bishop of Rome and given it to the "Bishop" of Palmar de Troya. If Clemente was more on the ball he would have known that the office of Peter cannot be taken from the Bishop of Rome, and the smart move for him would have been to claim to be the titular Bishop of Rome.

What is uniquely amiss with the Palmarian sect is that they break rule number one of private revelations. Authentic or bogus, private revelations are of no value for making judgments about the validity of laws of the Church or the state. No private revelation can establish that this or that pope is legitimate.

A fourth do-it-yourself pope is a former Capuchin priest, Lucian Pulvermacher, now gloriously reigning from a post office box in Kalispell, Montana. He claims that the Church has been without a true pope from the death of Pius XII until October 24, 1998, when, to a resounding "Habemus Papam," Pulvermacher was "elected" as Pius XIII. His Urbi et Orbi address the following week contained accusations that made the Nuremberg indictments look like a list of traffic violations: John XXIII was secretly a Rosicrucian Freemason. His election was invalid and so were the Second Vatican Council and all its works. Pope Paul VI was a "minion of Satan" and "the Antichrist." The order of the Mass and ordination according to the current rite are, of course, invalid.

Rejection of the current order of the Mass and of Vatican II is common to all these radical traditionalist sects. It is based on faulty sacramental theology and an erroneous understanding of the powers of the supreme authority of the Church.

First, the sacramental theology: In order to be valid, a sacramental sign must have the essentials needed to signify what the Church does. The first of these is the correct matter, which is something with which or to which the form is applied to effect a sacrament: water for baptism, bread and wine for the Eucharist, oil for confirmation. The second essential is the form, namely the words and gestures that specify the sacrament. The third essential is the intention on the part of the minister at least of doing what the Church does when it confers the sacrament.

A final requirement for the validity of a sacrament is that it must be free from any invalidating impediment established by Church law. If it is, and if the requisite matter, form and intention are present, then it is valid even if it is otherwise administered in violation of Church law. The Church is perfectly competent to make laws on the non-essential (ceremonial) parts of the liturgy and to determine the requirements of validity in cases of doubtful form.

Remember that the Church, once established by Christ in the Holy Spirit, is his mystical Body where man is brought and kept in union with God as was the physical body in which Christ walked this earth. This union was beyond even sinless human nature. Christ's divine power kept his human body and soul in union with his divinity. In the same way, no one can ever enter the visible company of the Church or remain within it without the assistance of the power of the Holy Spirit. It should be noted that the Holy Spirit never withdraws this assistance unless a party chooses to leave the Church by performing a deliberate, formal act of defection.

Church membership is a supernatural gift of God, given at baptism together with the sanctifying grace that makes us pleasing to God and fit for heaven. The two are not the same, and either grace can often exist without the other in the same person. The grace necessary to remain in the fullness of baptismal and Eucharistic communion in the Church, and in submission to the successor of Peter, comes only from participation in the sacraments and above all in the Eucharistic Body and Blood of Christ. Lex orandi, lex credendi. as you pray, so you believe. Catholic worship generates Catholic faith.

The radical traditionalists cannot be right about the current rite of Mass because, if they were, it would mean that many millions of Catholics receive ordinary bread and wine that they are fooled into thinking is the Body and Blood of Christ. In that case their worship would no longer be authentically Catholic. In very short order, they would have defected from the Church just as the first Protestants did.

If a community calls itself Catholic but has an invalid Eucharist, it is only a matter of time before it breaks visible communion with the universal Church, since it has ceased to draw on the life which flows from the Eucharist itself. This important insight tells us that the sacraments of the current rite are indeed valid, since they are celebrated in unbroken communion with Churches that celebrate the Eastern liturgies. Only the Latin liturgy was affected by the changes decreed by the Second Vatican Council. The Eastern Catholic Churches worship in the same way after the council as they did before, and as they have done for ages. When I ran this point past the Palmarians I met near Victoria Station, they closed the conversation down so hard you would think they had lost the argument and knew it.

The sedevacantists—and the elect-your-own-pope brigade in particular—commonly claim that every pope after Pius XII (or at least the most recent ones) was not validly in office. Paul VI and his successors, they say, excommunicated themselves by heresy or apostasy and could not therefore hold any office in the Church. Pulvermacher additionally claims that John XXIII excommunicated himself the day he allegedly joined the Freemasons. These allegations prove nothing except that the sedevacantists do not know their canon law. They ignore the fact that, under canon 1331 section 1 of the current Code of Canon Law (and canon 2264 of the 1917 code), excommunication only prevents a person from lawfully exercising an ecclesiastical office. Only if a superior has imposed or declared the excommunication can he, under section 2, not validly assume a new office or exercise powers of Church governance. In any case, it is a matter of historical record that no pope has ever obstinately professed heresy or apostasy.

The radical traditionalists' rule bending also extends to twisting the truth concerning the powers of the pope and the College of Bishops. Specifically, they ascribe infallibility to legislative documents such as the decree Quo Primum of Pius V on the Tridentine liturgy, and to papal encyclicals from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The truth is that they are not infallible at all and can therefore be reformed. Nothing a pope or a council does is irreformable except for infallible definitions.

The pope is the only earthly ruler who rules specifically by divine right. His office has been expressly established by Christ, who has given him full powers to command whatever is necessary or useful for the good of the Church, subject to no limits except the rule of faith and the moral order. In the ecclesiastical sphere, only those commands of his that are contrary to faith or to morals are void. Otherwise, he exercises powers that are attached to the office by divine mandate, and which not even the pope can sever from it.

A pope cannot bind his own future actions, or those of a future council, or any of his successors by anything other than an infallible and definitive teaching on faith or morals. This is why it was perfectly lawful to revise the Tridentine liturgy.

The number of Catholics who have been deceived into following radical traditionalist sects is mercifully small. The fact that these groups exist at all is perhaps a signal to us who follow the true successor of Peter to ensure that we are as well instructed in the theology of the sacraments and of Church authority as we are on more familiar Catholic topics. Link.

17 posted on 04/01/2004 5:58:44 PM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a dog or a cat from an animal shelter! It will save one life, and may save two.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur; Canticle_of_Deborah
sinkspur wrote:

You are a sede vacantist.You have no credibility on this forum, or anywhere else in the Catholic Church.

Do you believe that the Chair of Peter is vacant?

Neither she nor I had anything to do with the Chair, sede, of Peter being vacant, vacante. The Church teaches infallibly and emphatically that the See is vacant if the purported occupant is a formal heretic, apostate, or schismatic.

It is not my teaching, it is the teaching of Popes, Councils, Doctors and Fathers that the See is vacant under those conditions and you are the one who is attacking the infallible Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.

The separate question is whether the last four claimants to the papal throne have been formal heretics. If they were befoe elected, the never were. If they became so after they were elected, they ceased to be so.

In this instance they were formal heretics before being elected.

A very simple proposition. Yes or no, and if yes they are completely invalid, null and void - not my language, the Church's words.

The Church, despite schisms, false claimants, heresies and other persecutions was blessed in never having formal heretics invalidly elected to the papacy - before 1958.

By their teaching, actions and fruit shall you know them - in fact the actions of heretics, even though not every action may be heretical in itself, are deemed to be indicative of their guilt and intransigence in their teaching.

"Papal" Clown "Mass", St. Peter's Square, November 17, 2002

18 posted on 04/01/2004 6:04:34 PM PST by Viva Christo Rey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Viva Christo Rey
The Wacky World of the Sedevacantists.
19 posted on 04/01/2004 6:06:34 PM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a dog or a cat from an animal shelter! It will save one life, and may save two.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Viva Christo Rey
A Refutation of the Heresy of Sedevacantism

Written by I. Shawn McElhinney

The Visibility of the Church is directly linked to the Roman Pontiff. And while during an interregnum the church is "Popeless," for a short period of time, this is not a part of the ordinary constitution of the Church and must necessarily be of short duration. The longest interregnum in the Church to date is less than three years. If the sedevacantists are right, then the present interregnum is ten times greater than that one. Thus the visibility of the Church, embodied in the person of the Roman Pontiff is non-extant. In this awful scenario, the only true Church is constituted of individual priests and bishops in their respective chapels, none of whom have valid jurisdiction, and none of whom report to anyone higher than themselves as authorities. This is not a visible Church; it is a Protestant Church. [Brother Andre Marie M.I.C.M] While this author has more than a few problems with the flawed theology of Saint Benedict's Center, the above statement by the SBC's Brother Andre Marie is on the money. The necessity of the Roman pontiff was noted by Vatican II in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium which declared that:

The Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter, is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.(30) [1]

Footnote 30 of the Dogmatic Constitution notes that this teaching was a reaffirmation of an earlier teaching from Vatican I: 30. Cfr. Conc. Vat. I, Const. Dogm. Pastor aeternus: Denz. 1821 (3050 s.) [2]

Therefore, both Vatican Councils taught the perminence and the source of unity of the Church and its visible foundation depended on the perpetual existence of the Roman Pontiff. Now it is true that the majority of self-styled 'traditionalists' take the position that there is a valid pope today in Karol Wojtyla (Pope John Paul II) regardless of what they personally think about him. However, not all 'traditionalists' take this stance. A more consistent strand of 'traditionalists' styling themselves as "sedevacantists" hold a minority position in the movement but one that is nonetheless necessary to address since this is the logical outgrowth of 'traditionalist' philosophy. (Much as agnosticism is the natural outgrowth of religious skepticism in general.) Therefore, this essay will be devoted to refuting the heresy of sedevacantism. To address the sedevacantists claim (that the See of Peter is vacant), we will start by reflecting upon what Our Lord did in his time when amongst the wicked leaders of Israel. This is not a claim that the popes since John XXIII have been wicked of course. But let us grant the sedevacantist their premise briefly to therefore refute their foolishness. Let us look at how Our Lord handled Himself in the days of the Pharisees. Now Our Lord theologically was of the Pharisaic movement himself - being of the more conservative school of Hillel. (As was the Apostle Paul.) When speaking of the authority of the Scribes and the Pharisees shortly before issuing scathing rebukes against them, consider how He approach the authority that they claimed to wield. According to the Douay-Rheims Bible, He commanded obedience to the Scribes and Pharisees when they are seated on Moses' Seat (Matt. 23:1-3). Since he castigated them for personal failing and for following their own traditions in numerous places of the New Testament (see Matt. 15:1-9; Mark 7:1-13), it is strange that He did not claim that through their errors that they had "forfeited" their positions of authority to teach. But maybe the sedevacantists do not use a translation mirroring the Douay-Rheims Bible. Perhaps in the "Holy Bible: Revised Sedevacantist Version" Jesus addressed the problem in the following manner:

Matthew 23
1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; unless you think they are teaching erroneously upon which ye may depose them for their seat is thus vacanted.
4 (Upon such a vacancy you must adhere to the teachings of the Pharisees of "the Eternal Sanhedren" which you should have no problem determining for yourselves even if your level of theological knowledge be no more than that of a small child's.) [3]

Yes the actions of Our Lord at the time must have been endorsing a deposing of the High Priest and declaring the Seat of Moses vacant. There is a lesson here that needs to be taken into account and it is this: if Jesus did not usurp the lawful authority of the very high priest who had Him put to death (Matt. 26:57-64), if He counselled the Jews to obey the teaching of the Scribes and the Pharisees, then the reader needs to ask how these sedevacantists get off thinking that they can disobey Church authority and be in like with the teachings of Christ. How can they "hear the Church" or "if they refuse to heed the Church be treated as the heathen and the publican" if the individual can decide when and under what conditions they will be faithful??? The answer is they cannot but instead the same error of private judgment that so ensnared the Jansenists and the Protestants - and even the majority of self-styled 'traditionalists' - is magnified in the case of the sedevacantist. And it is magnified to the point that what is a defacto heresy for others constitutes actual heresy objectively speaking for the sedevacantist. Let us start from Chapter I in the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus which to the knowledge of this author is from a Council that even the sedevacantists recognize as a valid Ecumenical synod.

In Pastor Aeternus, the First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ promulgated at Vatican I, we are taught about the indefectibility and perpetual visibility of the Catholic Church. These two principles are intertwined in a Dogmatic Constitution of a General Council for a reason. Note carefully the context please:

Session 4: 18 July 1870 First dogmatic constitution on the church of Christ Pius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the sacred council, for an everlasting record. The Eternal Shepherd and Guardian of our souls {I Pet. 2:25}, in order to render the saving work of redemption lasting, decided to establish His holy Church that in it, as in the house of the living God, all the faithful might be held together by the bond of one faith and one love. For this reason, before He was glorified, He prayed to the Father not for the Apostles only, but for those also who would believe in him on their testimony, that all might be one as the Son and the Father are one {John 17:20}. Therefore, just as He sent the Apostles, whom He had chosen for Himself out of the world, as He Himself was sent by the Father {John 20:21}, so also He wished shepherds and teachers to be in His Church until the consummation of the world {Matt. 28:20}. Indeed, He placed St. Peter at the head of the other apostles that the episcopate might be one and undivided, and that the whole multitude of believers might be preserved in unity of faith and communion by means of a well-organized priesthood. He made Peter a perpetual principle of this two-fold unity and a visible foundation, that on his strength an everlasting temple might be erected and on the firmness of his faith a Church might arise whose pinnacle was to reach into heaven. But the gates of hell, with a hatred that grows greater each day, are rising up everywhere against its divinely established foundation with the intention of overthrowing the Church, if this were possible. We, therefore, judge it necessary for the protection, the safety, and the increase of the Catholic flock to pronounce with the approval of the sacred council the true doctrine concerning the establishment, the perpetuity, and the nature of the apostolic primacy. In this primacy, all the efficacy and all the strength of the Church are placed. [4]

The perpetual principle of the Roman Pontiff is tied into the visible foundation of the Church. Likewise the canon following the first chapter which solemnly reaffirms the following:

Therefore, if anyone says that the blessed Apostle Peter was not constituted by Christ the Lord as the Prince of all the Apostles and the visible head of the whole Church militant, or that he received immediately and directly from Jesus Christ our Lord only a primacy of honor and not a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction: let him be anathema. [5]

Chapter I and its accompanying canon declare that the Pope is the visible head of a visible Church, and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against Her. This last phrase forms the basis of the attribute of indefectibility that the Church possesses - an indefectibility that sedevacantism denies by logical extension. This means that the Church as a visible organization will stay a visible organization to the end of time. Consequently, she will have a visible head of the Church leading her to the end of time. This is a defined doctrine of the faith which is denied by sedevacantist theology. Therefore, they are by this reason heretics unless they cease being contumacious in their denial of the above doctrine both de facto as well as de jure. But that would mean ceasing to be a sedevacantist of course.

Chapter II of Pastor Aeternus is about the perpetual primacy and succession of the See of Peter. Here is the text of additional points fatal to the sedevacantist position:

That which our Lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the Blessed Apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time {See Mt 7, 25; Lk 6, 48}. For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood {From the speech of Philip, the Roman legate, at the 3rd session of the council of Ephesus (D no. 112)}.

Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received {Leo 1, Serm. (Sermons), 3 (elsewhere 2), ch. 3 (PL 54, 146)}.

For this reason it has always been necessary for every church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body {Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. (Against Heresies) 1113 (PG 7, 849), Council of Aquilea (381), to be found among: Ambrose, Epistolae (Letters), 11 (PL 16, 946)}.

Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that Blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema. [6]

To culpably deny this solemn recapitulation of Chapter II of the Dogmatic Constitution is to espouse formal heresy. Vatican I said so; ergo, the sedevacantist must either repudiate Vatican I or selectively choose which parts they will accept. Either choice sets them outside the Catholic Church since the visibility of the Catholic Church is tied to the visible foundation of the Roman Pontiff. Sedevacantists deny this explicitly in claiming that the Papacy has, de facto disappeared for 25 years, 45 years, or whatever arbitrary period they choose. Therefore, to be a sedevacantist is to renounce the Catholic faith. Quid pro quo.

There have been four elections to the Chair of Peter since 1958 which have been accepted both by the Catholic Church as well as the world at large. Sedevacantists declare them to be invalid elections. This author asks them then to point out who has held the papal chair since 1958 if not for Roncalli, Montini, Luciano, and Wojtyla. To be a Catholic one must affirm the permanence of the primacy of the Roman pontiff: a prerogative impossible to do under the sedevacantist theology. Since the sedevacantist seems to consider themselves and their allies as competent judges of what is and is not orthodox we must ask them this question: who has the responsibility of saying that the pope's election was doubtful??? As there has been no answer definitively set forth by the Church, no one is obligated to believe that an election is invalid simply because a little sliver of theologically inept dissidents feel as if somehow they have been vested with supreme theological acuity to see what the Magisterium of the Church supposedly does not see. The reality is, the only way that Vatican II or the post Pius XII popes can be shown to have "erred" is a process that Protestant apologists use consistently with popes and Councils of the pre-Pius XII period.

It is just as easy to prove that Constance "contradicted" Vatican I or that Trent "contradicted Florence" as it is to prove that Vatican II contradicted any doctrine of previous popes. Anyone can prooftext. Yet proof-texting without taking into account the sitz im leben of a document is to play the role of a self-anointed Protestant pope. And self-styled 'traditionalists' practice the very private judgment that Fr. Luther used at the Diet of Worms and that the Jansenists used in opposing themselves to the "Humanist influenced" Council of Trent. Yes, just as Vatican II has been labeled by so-called 'traditionalists' as "Modernist-influenced", so too was Trent labeled as "Humanist-influenced" by the Jansenists. They were the originators of the idea that they could determine when the Pope was infallible and (if they declared he was not), they sought to justify ignoring his authority and decrees. A sedevacantist is no less a heretic than Calvin and company if they stubbornly persist in promulgating the sedevacantist lie in the face of at least 2 solemn de fide declarations of the Church.

The sedevacantist may claim that the four popes elected since Pius XII were (and are) invalid because the person elected was not a legitimate candidate for the office. (The lie about Pope John XXIII being a freemason comes to mind.) But for argument's sake, let us concede the argument that Papa John was a freemason. First of all, by the very Apostolic Constitition Vacante Sede Apostolis issued by Pope Pius XII in 1945 it was made quite clear that even freemasons would be eligible for election not only to the College of Cardinals but also in the conclave they could be validly elected as pope:

None of the Cardinals may in any way, or by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff. We hereby suspend such censures solely for the purposes of the said election; at other times they are to remain in vigor. [7]

"Active" in this context would seem to mean that such a Cardinal can vote in the election, while "passive" would seem to mean that he himself can be elected. This type of provision has been substantially the same in all papal conclave legislation for the past few centuries. And by all accounts it would be unavoidable that the governing Constitution of the 1958 Conclave - even if Papa John was a freemason - would have allowed him to be a validly elected pope. And in such a circumstance, he would have full authority and jurisdiction as any other pope. He would not govern licitly of course; however he would govern validly. And as a validly elected pope, he would have the authority not only in disciplinary and governmental faculties (such as the appointing of Cardinals such as Archbishop Giovanni Battista Montini of Milan) but ratifying as binding magisterial teaching on the Church. With regards to Pope John XXIII it is not as much him that the sedevacantists seek to deny but the binding authority of the constitutions, declarations, and decrees of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council. (Solemnly promulgated by John XXIII's successor Pope Paul VI.) This is what sedevacantists seek to deny with their claims of a "vacant seat" in Rome. If they spent more time taking a fully orbed understanding of the Catholic faith (and not limiting themselves to the overly-juridical Western Aristotelian tradition common to the second millennium) they might see the Eastern mysticism that permeated many parts of Vatican II. (This is most notably in the Dogmatic Constitutions Lumen Gentium/Dei Verbum, and the Constitutions Sacrosanctum Concilium/Gaudium et Spes.) This writer has covered elsewhere the amateur manner in which self-styled 'traditionalists' read and properly comprehend magisterial documents. The logical extension of the dogmas on perpetual primacy of the Apostolic See were outlined in the following manner by Dr. Ludwig Ott in his theology manual Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:

That the Primacy is to be perpetuated in the successors of Peter is, indeed, not expressly stated in the words of the promise and conferring of the Primacy by Our Lord, but if flows as an inference from the nature and purpose of the primacy itself. As the function of the Primacy is to preserve the unity and solidarity of the Church; and as the Church, according to the will of her Divine Founder, is to continue substantially unchanged until the end of time for the perpetuation of the work of salvation, the Primacy also must be perpetuated. But Peter, like every other human being, was subject to death (John 21, 19), consequently his office must be transmitted to others. The structure of the Church cannot continue without the foundation which supports it (Mt. 16, 18): Christ's flock cannot exist without shepherds (John 21, 15-17). [8]

It is impossible to embrace sedevacantism and not to be a heretic. Peter has perpetual successors in his primacy for all time according to Vatican I. Where are they??? If Roncalli, Montini, Luciano, and Wojtyla are not the valid successors than the sedevacantist has just conceded that Christ Jesus was a liar and that Vatican I erred. The Fathers and Scholastics and post-Scholastics would have condemned as heretical or at least savouring of heresy someone who dared to controvert the decrees of a General Council as self-styled 'traditionalists' so often do.

Even the earliest of Fathers in the era of the General Councils declared that controverting a General Council was a crime (the very word used by St. Athanasius the Great). Thus, though Vatican II stands controverted by the self-styled 'traditionalist' who rejects its teachings, due to the lack of promulgated dogmas of faith, a charge of heresy cannot be levied for this except indirectly. (Since denying the authority of the Second Vatican Council is to reject the indefectibility of the universal church.) Thus while rejecting Vatican II can be at most schismatic and proximate to heresy, denying the dogmas outlined above which were taught by the First Vatican Council is perfect grounds for a censure of heresy. That is really all that is needed to refute sedevacantism as a viable alternative. For as (i) Vatican I defined as divinely revealed not only the universal jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff (ii) his perpetual necessity by Divine design, there is no ground left that is solid for the sedevacantist to stand on. So (iii) there is no need to entertain this sedevacantist heretical foolishness any longer.

The inevitable play of human passions, interfering in the election of the Vicar of Christ, may perchance for a while render uncertain the transmission of spiritual power. But when it is proved that the Church, still holding, or once more put in possession of, her liberty, acknowledges in the person of a certain Pope, until then doubtful, the true Sovereign Pontiff, this her very recognition is a proof that, from that moment at least, the occupant of the Apostolic See is as such invested by God himself. (Abbot Guéranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Vol XII, pg. 188

Go here if you're interested in the footnote annotations.

20 posted on 04/01/2004 6:16:36 PM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a dog or a cat from an animal shelter! It will save one life, and may save two.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-188 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson