Question on Pope Paul IV Bull
#1
I'm sure this has been asked over and over, but please forgive me for I have no search function.

Is Pope Paul IV Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio an infallibly binding bull? Did he have the authority to issue this statement and declare, within it, that if a Pope commits heresy or was a heretic before election, he is basically not Pope? I understand the precision, weight, and harsh language of the Bull but the question remains, was this an infallible statement?


Found here http://www.fisheaters.com/cumexapostolatusofficio.html

Comments of concerns:

“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…
(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….

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.
Reply
#2
I know Bishop Joseph Fessler (the secretary at the First Vatican Council) and other defenders of papal infallibility after the First Vatican Council argued vigorously that it was not.  It was one of two go-to documents (the other being In Coena Domini) of those who rejected Vatican I's definition (especially Dollinger)  because, if taken as a timeless truth, it would contradict on certain points both history and certain contemporary (ie around 1870) ecclesiastical laws.  This is why Fessler and other defenders of the Vatican I defintion argued it to be merely a penal Bull, and not an irreformable one meant to define any timeless dogma.

Reply
#3
Cum ex Apostolatus Officio is footnoted in the 1917 Code of Canon law as part of the canon on tacit resignation of offices by a cleric when publicly defecting from the faith-see canon 188.4  It is the pope explaining that a man has to be Catholic to be pope(or any other office-holder) in the Church.
  Much can be said on this.  A couple of reading suggestions:  http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/offices.html Also http:/www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=15&catname=10
Also, "Satis Cognitum" of Pope Leo XIII teaches that a defection from the faith in one thing is sufficient to demonstrate that one does not have the Catholic faith.  Heretics do not usually not believe all truths of the faith, just some.  I hope this is helpful.

Joe
Reply
#4
That's a good point about the 1917 Code--just because it wasn't a dogmatic definition, doesn't mean it was worthless. The 1917 Code, however, as far as I understand, did not incorporate this Bull in total but much more narrowly. The 1917 Code limits tacit resignation to public defection (as the term "public" is defined elsewhere in the Code), which is much narrower than the Bull in question, which invalidated any election or appointment of any bishop, etc. who had deviated from the faith at any time or in any way, or who even favored or harbored those who had.  It was this broad penalty which, while Pope Paul IV was within his rights to enact at the time, was not always and everywhere in force.
Reply
#5
Nevermind
Reply
#6
(07-25-2012, 10:59 AM)SaintSebastian Wrote: I know Bishop Joseph Fessler (the secretary at the First Vatican Council) and other defenders of papal infallibility after the First Vatican Council argued vigorously that it was not.  It was one of two go-to documents (the other being In Coena Domini) of those who rejected Vatican I's definition (especially Dollinger)  because, if taken as a timeless truth, it would contradict on certain points both history and certain contemporary (ie around 1870) ecclesiastical laws.  This is why Fessler and other defenders of the Vatican I defintion argued it to be merely a penal Bull, and not an irreformable one meant to define any timeless dogma.

Do you have any sources or links for this? I'd be most interested in reading the arguments. Thanks!
Reply
#7
(07-26-2012, 04:02 AM)Scotus Wrote:
(07-25-2012, 10:59 AM)SaintSebastian Wrote: I know Bishop Joseph Fessler (the secretary at the First Vatican Council) and other defenders of papal infallibility after the First Vatican Council argued vigorously that it was not.  It was one of two go-to documents (the other being In Coena Domini) of those who rejected Vatican I's definition (especially Dollinger)  because, if taken as a timeless truth, it would contradict on certain points both history and certain contemporary (ie around 1870) ecclesiastical laws.  This is why Fessler and other defenders of the Vatican I defintion argued it to be merely a penal Bull, and not an irreformable one meant to define any timeless dogma.

Do you have any sources or links for this? I'd be most interested in reading the arguments. Thanks!

Here's Dollinger's book (written under the pseudonym Janus). There's a chapter on each Bull I mentioned above outlining the problems he sees in them as disproving papal infallibility:
http://archive.org/stream/popeandcouncil...g_djvu.txt

I can't seem to find von Schulte's pamphlet online (the one Fessler references below).

Fessler wrote about it a few times. He does so briefly here (scroll down to 17. ( 8 ) :
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/mode...ssler7.htm

And again briefly in the preface to the second edition of the above book:
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/mode...ssler4.htm

Unfortunately, that's all I can find online.

Just as by way of example though, if we apply the very broad penalties in the Bull as a dogma for all time, then at the very least the following papacies (off the top of my head) would be invalid in total or in part: St. Zephyrinius, St. Callistus, Liberius, St. Zosimus, Vigilius, Honorious, St. Celestine V, John XXII, and Pius II--but the Church has never considered them invalid at all.  However, if we only apply the penalty in the 1917 Code, they are all valid.
Reply
#8
I have actually come across a blog by someone who claims that we have had nothing but anti-Popes since Pope Pius IX since 'Leo XIII' [sic] was a liberal before his election. Based, of course, on Cum Apostolatus ex officio.
Reply
#9
(07-24-2012, 06:50 PM)TS Aquinas Wrote: I'm sure this has been asked over and over, but please forgive me for I have no search function.

Is Pope Paul IV Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio an infallibly binding bull? Did he have the authority to issue this statement and declare, within it, that if a Pope commits heresy or was a heretic before election, he is basically not Pope? I understand the precision, weight, and harsh language of the Bull but the question remains, was this an infallible statement?


Found here http://www.fisheaters.com/cumexapostolatusofficio.html

Comments of concerns:..............

Certainly it is infallible as noted from the numerous times it states: Hence, by this Our Constitution which is to remain valid in perpetuity,  however, this Constitution is not, imo, grounds for justifying sedevacantism. Note that toward the beginning, he says.........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. - This is infallible.

This exemplifies the situation since at least Pope Paul VI - some might say since Pope Pius XII -  and looks to be more in line with the position that trads who are true to the faith and the SSPX holds.

In short, it is our duty to do what we must do to keep the faith, even when that means contradicting the pope. As to whether or not the pope was Catholic prior to election, we leave that up to a future pope to judge, imo.
Reply
#10
Friends -- I've found the full version of  Fessler's "True and False Infallibility of the Pope" online. This work received approbation from Pius IX and was very well regarded as one of the best defenses of Vatican I's limited definition of papal infallibility, against those who would say history had already proved this definition false. I link directly below to his defense of the thesis that Cum ex Apostolatus is a penal bull, not an infallible teaching. Briefly quoting, in case anyone doesn't want to follow the link:

Quote:Dr Schulte proceeds with another Bull of Pope Paul IV, issued in the year 1559, which is rightly described in the collection of Papal Bulls under the title "Renewal of previous censures and punishments against heretics and schismatics, with the addition of further penalties." Why, the very title, which gives a true account of its contents, is of itself alone enough to show every one who reads it, that this Papal delivery is not a definition de fide, and cannot, therefore, be an utterance ex cathedra. And yet, Dr. Schulte, in the most decided way, asserts that it is, saying that "it is directed to the whole Church, signed by the Cardinals in the most solemn form, so that it is certainly delivered ex cathedra. One can hardly believe one's eyes when one sees such manifestly erroneous assertions set forth with such an affectation of demonstrated certainty. One really feels sorry for Dr. Schulte that he should have made such an enormous blunder in the sight of every one who knows anything at all about such matters. To us it is beyond all question certain, that this Bull is not a definition of faith or morals, not an utterance ex cathedra. It is simply an outcome of the supreme Papal authority as legislator, and an instance of his exercising his power of punishing; it is not done in the exercise of his power as supreme teacher.

You can read the subsequent pages there for some relevant information on the theoretical subject of a heretical Pope, wherein he describes the possibility that a Pope could be a heretic as a private individual, but never declare this personal belief as binding on the Church. Fessler then points out that the penal bull is then addressing Popes who might hold private heresies. However, the penalties of this bull have since been lifted.

Quote:[T]he Pope expresses his conviction how perilous it would be if, even in his private life, a Pope were to admit an error in doctrine, and what sad confusion would arise if the said Pope, as a private individual, were to be guilty of heresy, and yet had to put into force penalties against heretics, he as Pope having no judge higher than himself.

The footnote on this last comment points out that this issue has been addressed in different ways in the past, this bull simply being Pope Paul IV's penal answer to the problem.

Link (Note Content in Question Begins Bottom of Page 73-76): http://archive.org/stream/a628790300fess...2/mode/2up

This is a very important work that I myself only recently discovered, especially when it comes to answering frequently asked questions about the true definition of infallibility.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)