FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Cum ex Apostolatus Officio
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
I forget, but someone I think said something about Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio not being in force really but its principle cannot be ignored. Was it Paul? Vincentius? HMiS? Someone else?
Kephapaulos Wrote:I forget, but someone I think said something about Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio not being in force really but its principle cannot be ignored. Was it Paul? Vincentius? HMiS? Someone else?

It could have been some others but I did make a comment on it. This papal bull or apostolic constitution is not above all a dogma of faith and morals; it is a church law that a lawgiver (the pope who declared it or his successor) can change or modify. Divine law supersedes ecclesiatical law.

Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio is one of three principles (the other two are Canon 188 #4 and the opinions of St. Robert Bellarmine, who by the way also posited that God will never allow a heretic to be pope) that sedes employ to fortify their theory that there is no present occupant in the Petrine Chair, nor has there been any since the pontificate of Pope Pius XII. Sedes say the person claiming to be pope needs no formal deposition because he automatically (latae sententiae) invalidated himself by the fact itself (ipso facto). Therefore, according to the sedevacante theory/opinion, by these facts, none of the five claimants were truly popes.

Canon law, papal bulls and opinions of theologians are effective depending on many circumstances surrounding the question on hand and these must be examined carefully before coming to the concrete conclusion at which these are arrived.

Can. 1556. Prim Sedes a nemine iudicatur. (The first See is judged by no one)

Adjudicating the papal office to be vacant is passing judgment. Could there be another manner to interpret Canon 1556?

I won't try to belabor the obvious. I still have to see clear reasons and solid evidence of obstinate, pertinatious, malicious, and public crimes ansd acts of formal heresies supposedly committed by the last five popes. These are what will convict and depose a pope. And even then, the adjudication by the sedes is based even on internal acts of heresy (that is, not overt nor public) is a defective theory or opinion -- because of the fact that the Church is visible, heretical acts cannot be internal but must and should be in the external forum. To wit:

Canon 188: Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clericus: 4.o A fide catholica publice defecerit...
Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric: 4. publicly defects from the Catholic faith.

Then there is the question also opined and theorized that the loss of jurisdiction follows upon the deposition of the pope via heresy. Not so! But then the sedes do not go and explain but imply it as fact. That's not what the theologians or Canon law (2264 and 2314)has indicated. Because of the emphasis on the visibility of the Church, a heretical pope who has lost office still maintains the jurisdiction and governace of the Church. Father Garrigou-Lagrange explains in De Verbo Incarnato (p. 232) that "a heretical pope, [though] no longer a member of the Church, can still be her head."  There are several other citations.

Lastly, it was declared that it is impious to state that there are many versions of the sedevacantist and that it is either one is a sede or he is not. If I were a sede, I would not want to be associated with the likes of a Bro. Dimond, O.S.B. (who is also a feeneyite), a pope in his own right when he makes quasi-magisterial pronouncements, such as if one doesn't follow his brand of EENS, one is a heretic, etc. Nor the sede variety of those who have proclaimed themselves pope (14 and counting). If they are not sedes, what are they?




Vincentius Wrote:Canon 188: Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clericus: 4.o A fide catholica publice defecerit...
Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric: 4. publicly defects from the Catholic faith.
 
Is it not public enough when a man (JP2) goes to an heretical church (Lutheran), on the 500th anniversary of the birth of the heretical sect's founder (Luther, December 11; 1483-1983), and praises him openly, in a 'sermon' preached to the obstinate heretics during their own abominable service, calling him a "profoundly religious man"?  For such a thing did happen.  It was published for the "edification" of the world, even by official Vatican media organs.  There are numerous other examples of such activity, not to mention the universalism (all men are saved) which is plain as the nose on my face in Redemptor Hominis, JP2's first 'encyclical'.
 
Vincentius Wrote:... Nor the sede variety of those who have proclaimed themselves pope (14 and counting). If they are not sedes, what are they?

 
Clearly, if a man has come to believe that he himself is pope, he and whoever follows him are no longer sede-vacantists, but sede-plenists (for they believe that they occupy the See).  I grant that they were sede-vacantists, but they are no longer so.
 
When JP2 died, for a short time the whole NO world was sede-vacantist, too.  Were they somehow "besmirched" by the association with the more unbalanced people of the same position?  No.
username Wrote:Clearly, if a man has come to believe that he himself is pope, he and whoever follows him are no longer sede-vacantists, but sede-plenists (for they believe that they occupy the See).  I grant that they were sede-vacantists, but they are no longer so.  
When JP2 died, for a short time the whole NO world was sede-vacantist, too.  Were they somehow "besmirched" by the association with the more unbalanced people of the same position?  No.
 
Yet, would sedeplenists then say that when JPII died sedevacantists would have been considered to be in the Church since sedeplenists were sedevacantists too for a short time?
username Wrote:

[quote='Vincentius']Canon 188: Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clericus: 4.o A fide catholica publice defecerit...
Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric: 4. publicly defects from the Catholic faith.

username Wrote:Is it not public enough when a man (JP2) goes to an heretical church (Lutheran), on the 500th anniversary of the birth of the heretical sect's founder (Luther, December 11; 1483-1983), and praises him openly, in a 'sermon' preached to the obstinate heretics during their own abominable service, calling him a "profoundly religious man"? For such a thing did happen. It was published for the "edification" of the world, even by official Vatican media organs. There are numerous other examples of such activity, not to mention the universalism (all men are saved) which is plain as the nose on my face in Redemptor Hominis, JP2's first 'encyclical'.

I see what you are saying and I agree but not to the point that JP II committed the crime of formal heresy -- perhaps materially, which is a far cry from what could have been a personal mortal sin, even a blasphemy, yet a matter which we are not allowed to judge. As for universalism, I haven't actually read his comment on that and whether it is a belief he pushed for obstinately and made it a "dogma" to be held by all Catholics. Mind you I'm playing "defender of the bond" (diavolos advocatus) and I'm not siding with the man. If we are to convict him, we must present all the necessary evidence, which by the way, the Abbé de Nantes did, and got him nowhere. There's more meat in the Abbé's Accusations than I have seen anywhere, even from Frs. Cedaka or Villiancourt.



Vincentius Wrote:... Nor the sede variety of those who have proclaimed themselves pope (14 and counting). If they are not sedes, what are they?


username Wrote:Clearly, if a man has come to believe that he himself is pope, he and whoever follows him are no longer sede-vacantists, but sede-plenists (for they believe that they occupy the See). I grant that they were sede-vacantists, but they are no longer so.

Perhaps what can be said of these loonies is that they are in a world of their own. I haven't seen any hurling of anathemas or name-calling such as ypu so-and-so "anti-pope." But their very stance puts them squarely on the vacant chair theory, that is, until they actually usurped it.


username Wrote:When JP2 died, for a short time the whole NO world was sede-vacantist, too. Were they somehow "besmirched" by the association with the more unbalanced people of the same position? No.

Of course not. Sede Vacante was a phrase used only during an interregnum and in other times, applied to bishops who have been deposed, or who have abdicated, or died. Looking back in history, I know most of us have never come across a situation such as this where a segment of the Catholic City would consider an event in the church as a body without a head. The fact also comes to mind during the Great Schism when there were three claimants to the throne and a great saint, St. Vincent Ferrer, sided with an anti-pope. How much harm was done? I could have been a sede and actually at one time I went quietly in the closet, closed the door, but a while later when I emerged I had to forsake those thoughts because I couldn't convince and reconcile myself with the little evidence at hand. I don't think such thoughts would have entertained St. Vincent Ferrer -- he just accepted his pope to be the true pope, although later on it happened not to be so. If you have any thoughts you can share that I'm not aware of, I'd like to hear them.
Would sedeplenists though consider sedevacantists to always be outside the Church, even at times of interregnum?
Kephapaulos Wrote:Would sedeplenists though consider sedevacantists to always be outside the Church, even at times of interregnum?

Modern sedeplenists?  Yes, most of them do.  However, they do so inconsistently, as even if sedevacantists are wrong, it is an error of fact, and not schism properly so-called (for they do not refuse obedience to the Roman Pontiff, they simply say that the men who claim to be Roman Pontiff are false claimants).  I believe canon law even mentions the fact that people in such a situation ought not be considered, nor called, schismatics (for it is not a question of obedience, but of the identification of the one to whom we owe obedience).  It is my bedtime.  Good night. [Image: sleep.gif]
gladius_veritatis Wrote:
Kephapaulos Wrote:Would sedeplenists though consider sedevacantists to always be outside the Church, even at times of interregnum?

Modern sedeplenists? Yes, most of them do. However, they do so inconsistently, as even if sedevacantists are wrong, it is an error of fact, and not schism properly so-called (for they do not refuse obedience to the Roman Pontiff, they simply say that the men who claim to be Roman Pontiff are false claimants). I believe canon law even mentions the fact that people in such a situation ought not be considered, nor called, schismatics (for it is not a question of obedience, but of the identification of the one to whom we owe obedience). It is my bedtime. Good night. [Image: sleep.gif]


Error in fact: I agree, this is the proper way to designate most sedevacantists who are sincere -- the way things are with Rome and with the last several pontiffs, who, in their right mind, would not say these men could not be true popes? -- so then we would all be sedevacantists and if it turned out it weren't so and that these men WERE true popes, then we can claim we erred in fact.

However, many sedes are, ironically, obstinate in their claim that there's no way these men can say they are the rightful claimants to the Chair of Peter. They are right and everybody else is wrong. In this case, I believe it is possible that act of schism could have and can be committed. Pope or no pope, the Chuch is always visible.  Schism is the refusal to be in communion with the Church.  There's a difference in saying, "couldn't be popes" and "cannot be popes"; the former is at least charitable; the latter is judgmental. What can be said is that only God knows, as He allowed or didn't allow these men to be popes, and if so, then these men are there for our chastisement, true popes or not, they have deviated from Tradition.
I believe that it is a maintainable proposition that sedevacantists of your "obstinate" sort are, in fact, in schism. According to this pattern of thought, they have placed themselves in schism by their presumption (and the underlying pride which motivates it, pride being the first, greatest, and most common sin) to conclude that the individual who publicly appears to be the Pope, and whom an uneducated man would KNOW to be the Pope (the Church's visibility comes into play here) is not the pope, and is, in fact, a heresiarch. If they themselves conclude this, and are not merely repeating somebody else's views without question, have done the research, et cetera, then I fear there is a very real possibility that they may be in schism.
 
 
 
 
Vincentius Wrote: If you have any thoughts you can share that I'm not aware of, I'd like to hear them.

Vincentius,
 
Although I have adopted a new username, I am still aware of your obviously sincere desire to hear anything further that is of some possible substance.  I have got it in mind, but cannot devote the time it deserves at present.  I will get back to you soon, though.  God speed.
 
gladius_veritatis
Pages: 1 2 3