+St. Edward the Confessor+
ATTENTION READERS: Please pray for the repose of the soul of Irene Keast, who passed away Oct. 9 following a long battle with cancer. Eternal rest grant unto her O Lord and let perpetual light shine upon her. May she rest in peace. Amen. Without Irene’s help, The Phantom Church in Rome could not have become a book, and the translation of Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis could not have been made. She was a spiritual treasure, a dear and faithful friend who will be greatly missed.
Introduction
A reader recently inquired about Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio — when did Hutton Gibson first publish his translation of Cum Ex… online, what year did I publish my breakdown of Cum Ex…, and whether the sedevacantist position stands without Cum Ex…? While there are several articles on Cum ex… published to this site, many of which have been there for nearly 20 years, I will summarize below.
— Argentinian Professor Dr. Carlos Disandro translated both editions of the Bull (1977,1987) into Spanish, from the Latin text of the Magnum Bullarium Romanum, pages 829-831. The 1987 edition contained a detailed commentary on the bull.
— Publications such as Veritas and Hutton Gibson’s The War Is Now printed parts of the Bull in 1982, 1983 without offering commentary, although Hutton Gibson did remark that under Can 6 § 6, the Bull was still in effect. Veritas claims to have obtained their copy of the bull in 1975 from Hugh McGovern, publisher of The Voice. If Gibson ever published a copy of Cum ex…, I have no knowledge of that. I first published my copy of the bull online in 2006.
— In 1984, Briton’s Catholic Library (BCL), cited the Bull in their Under the Laws of the Catholic Church the Papal See is Vacant and later, in one of their “Library Letters,” John S. Daly translated the entire bull (most likely from Disandro’s Latin edition). N. M. Gwynne and Daly also wrote what seems to be the only other commentary extant on it.
— Prof. Benjamin Dryden translated the Bull in 1984-85, with the cooperation of Daniel Dolan, but Dryden initially followed the SSPX in declaring it had been abrogated. Later he advocated for a papal election, based on the Bull. Dryden’s translation can be viewed HERE.
— I addressed Cum ex… in my 1990 book Will the Catholic Church Survive…?, and I do believe there was enough said in that book that people could easily come to the conclusion that the hierarchy was basically defunct. In the book, I gave a history of the Bull and referred to the BCL commentary, because at the time I did not have Carlos Disandro’s commentary on Cum ex… in English translation. That was later posted HERE. My observations on Disandro’s commentary are posted HERE.
So Cum ex… was well known and debated in LibTrad circles in the 1980s. The allegations the bull has been abrogated, first raised by the SSPX against Disandro in 1977, were refuted in my 1990 book. Later, further evidence of the infallible nature of Cum ex… and its retention in the 1917 Code of Canon Law was published to this site in 2006. The abrogation allegations are still insisted upon by various LibTrad sects and even Sedevacantists cannot agree on what constitutes an heretical act, although this is not hard to determine. Canon 2200 tells us that: “Given the external violation of the law, the evil will is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proved.”
Roncalli clearly proved that the suspected modernist label first pinned to him by Pope Pius XI and never removed by Pius XII was more than justified, given his later promotion of ecumenism and other heresies. He was a Communist sympathizer, an ecumenist, hence a heretic at the time of his “election,” so could never have been validly (canonically) elected. This was proven from his own public statements in my 1990 book. Those who argue that he “became” a heretic as “pope” embrace heresy, for they deny Christ’s promise to Peter that his faith and the faith of his successors could never fail.
Denying the necessity of canonical elections is heretical
Those who refuse to believe that Roncalli was invalidly elected and likewise refuse to consider evidence to prove this fact also deny a truth of faith necessary for salvation. Only canonical elections are valid, as the Church teaches. To be canonical they must be in accord with the rules existing and applicable at the time under canon law, as will be explained below. According to the work Dr. Littledale’s Theory of the Disappearance of the Papacy by Sydney F. Smith, S. J., (Farm Street, Berkeley Square, W. London 1896): “Of the vast majority of individual Popes, and still more of the line of Popes, reaching not merely up to the sixteenth century, but to our own days, it is absolutely clear that they received that loyal adherence and obedience from the Universal Church which Leo XIII receives now, and which of itself is so sure a sign of the legitimacy of his title that we can even make it the matter of an act of faith that he is the true Vicar of Jesus Christ. This is no mere theory, but the common doctrine of Catholic theologians, as will appear sufficiently from the following passage in Ferraris Bibliotheca, a work of the highest authority.
“In his article on the Pope, (S.v. Papa, p. 949) Ferraris says: ‘It is of faith that Benedict XIV, for instance, legitimately elected and accepted as such by the Church, is the true Pope (common doctrine among Catholics). This is proved from the Council of Constance, where Martin V’s Const. Inter Cunctus decrees that those who return from heresy to the faith shall be asked, among other points, ‘Whether they believe that the Pope canonically elected, for the time being, his name being expressly mentioned, is the successor of St. Peter, having supreme authority in the Church of God.’ For thereby he supposes it to be an article of faith, since those who abjure heresy are ‘interrogated only as to truths of faith.’” And indeed it is enshrined as an article of faith in DZ 650 and 674 under the condemnations of Wycliffe and Huss. So what possible excuse can LibTrads offer to explain their absolute dereliction of duty in formally declaring that election null and void on numerous counts? They commit heresy by pretending a canonical election is irrelevant, which is no surprise since they since they routinely discount and violate canon law.
Those believing John 23rd’s election was valid point to his “acceptance by the universal Church.” Of course this would be the cardinals, bishops and clergy, then the faithful. Well we know where they all wound up — wholeheartedly approving of and voting for Vatican 2! They definitely were NOT members of the universal Church once they elected and accepted Roncalli as “pope,” nor were many of the cardinals voting in Roncalli’s “election” members of Christ’s Mystical Body. With no legitimate, canonical election, and acceptance by a universal Church no longer truly Catholic, there can be no true pope. Canonical election depends on faithfully following all the rules laid down in the prevailing election law, in this case Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS). In The Phantom Church in Rome and in articles on this site, I have carefully detailed the many violations of VAS, documented in biographies of Roncalli, the histories of his election and the history of Vatican 2. And the evidence shows that there were clear violations of Pius XII’s election law that invalidated Roncalli’s election from the start, making him ineligible as a candidate, even aside from the fact that he was a heretic.
One of the very few articles in English (other than those on betrayedcatholics) that treat of Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis at all is one written by Anthony Cekada. Cekada sets out to answer the question of whether para. 34 of VAS negates the sedevacantist premise. “If so, the passage means an excommunicated cardinal can be validly elected pope. Doesn’t this shoot down the fundamental principle behind the entire sedevacantist case?” In the process of answering this question, Cekada makes points that should lead everyone to the infallibility of Cum ex… but fails to mention the connection. And the connection is right there in VAS itself, para. 36: “Canonically deposed Cardinals, or those who have renounced the cardinalitial dignity with the Roman Pontiff’s consent, have no legal right at an election. On the contrary, during the vacancy of the See, the Sacred College cannot restore or bring back to their former state Cardinals stripped of this right or deposed by the Pope.”
Disandro on tacit resignation
Cardinals can resign officially or tacitly, according to Can. 188 §4. And what constitutes tacit resignation? Apostasy, heresy or schism. Can. 188 §4, as pointed out by Prof. Disandro in his Doctrinal Precisions, is directly related to Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex… :
“Pius XII’s article 36 [in his election law] is talking about those “deposed canonically.” The debate is thus opened, since 1945, on the meaning of this expression. Are they the canonically deposed cardinals which the text of Pope Paul IV considers? Is there a coincidence between 1559 and 1945? Yes, naturally, and with a greater foundation [for such a “coincidence”] if we consider the “larva stage” of Modernism. Deposed cardinals cannot function now, nor are they subject to excommunication or interdict. Excommunication could refer to other details, while [these cardinals] remain faithful to the Church. The deposition, in effect, is RADICAL, that is, it affects not only the privileges or canonical singularities of the subject, BUT ALSO ANNULS THE DIGNITY ITSELF, (in an irreversible manner), and of course the position in the hierarchy or office, assumed or conceived in any manner. How then would an election rule be able to determine the resumption of the state of the cardinalate if the Bull itself takes care to emphasize that it is absolutely impossible?
“4. We affirm in a bold manner:
- a) cardinals deposed, by the force of the Bull are canonically deposed, and they are not able to function either as electors or eligibles;
- b) the reasons defined by the Bull, by referring to the bond between the Faith and the Hierarchy, are imprescribable, and they act ipso facto (by the very fact), such as the text itself of the 16th century intended;
- c) cardinals excommunicated for other disciplinary reasons enjoy the exception granted in the document of Pius XII [para. 34], BUT THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO MONTINIAN AND POST-MONTINIAN CIRCUMSTANCES;
- d) never have we spoken of excommunications or suspensions of cardinals for reasons other than doctrinal. And speaking of the primacy of DOCTRINE over DISCIPLINE, the question which we have pointed out against the heretics who lead the Conciliar church, against the Montinian heresy, has always been and will always be simply referred to the order of being (what actually is): EITHER THERE ARE OR THERE ARE NOT CARDINALS, THERE ARE OR THERE ARE NOT POPES, THEY FUNCTION OR THEY DO NOT FUNCTION IN SUCH OFFICES AND DIGNITIES.”(End of Disandro quote)
As a public heretic, a man declared suspect of such even by two popes, Roncalli was deposed prior to his election. He could not vote or be considered a candidate. Some contest the “public” nature of his heresy, but they should not. The definition is clear under Can. 1325. “Whenever by silence, subterfuge or manner of acting,” one even implicitly denies the faith. Subterfuge and manner of acting are definitely in play here, both in the case of Roncalli and the cardinals who “elected” him. It was a public act, the attempt to promote an unworthy man to the papacy.
A certain number of these cardinals went into the conclave as occult heretics. Their heresy became manifest on accepting Roncalli as papabile (capable of election), because he had violated VAS and they knew this, having participated in the violations. This itself is heresy, a denial of the necessity of canonical election, which resulted in their tacit resignation; they could not cast valid votes. Roncalli was suspected of heresy by two popes and in violation of several VAS provisions, and only a future pope could lift the excommunication attached to such violations. He was therefore not eligible for election. Moreover, Pope Pius XII states infallibly in VAS that all the acts of anyone violating papal or canon law are null, void and invalid. The attempt to elect a man who was guilty of such violations and hence incapable of being elected until absolved by a future pope was automatically invalidated. As for his suspected heresy, that matter was presumed under Can. 2200 to exist until proven otherwise, and only a future pope could determine this. For as VAS clearly states, NONE of the canons can be changed or dispensed from during an interregnum.
Cekada quotes from the theologians
“’Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate BY THE DIVINE LAW ITSELF… [T]hey must certainly be regarded as excluded from occupying the throne of the Apostolic See, which is the infallible teacher of the truth of the faith and the center of ecclesiastical unity.” (Maroto, Institutiones I.C. 2:784)
“Appointment to the Office of the Primacy. 1. What is required by divine law for this appointment… Also required for validity is that the one elected be a member of the Church; hence, heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are excluded.’” (Coronata, Institutiones I.C. 1:312)
“’All those who are not impeded by divine law OR BY AN INVALIDATING ECCLESIASTICAL LAW are validly eligible [to be elected pope]. Wherefore, a male who enjoys use of reason sufficient to accept election and exercise jurisdiction, and who is a true member of the Church can be validly elected, even though he be only a layman. Excluded as incapable of valid election, however, are all women, children who have not yet arrived at the age of discretion, those afflicted with habitual insanity, heretics and schismatics.’” (Wernz-Vidal, Jus Can. 2:415)
“Thus heresy is not a mere “ecclesiastical impediment” or censure of the type that Pius XII enumerated and suspended in paragraph 34 of Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis. It is instead an impediment of divine law which Pius XII did not suspend — and indeed could not have suspended, precisely because it is one of divine law.
“Paragraph 34 of Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis suspends the effects of censures (excommunication, suspension, interdict) and other ecclesiastical impediments… for cardinals who are electing a pope and for the cardinal they finally elect. Thus, a cardinal who had incurred an excommunication prior to his election as pope would nevertheless be validly elected. This law concerns only impediments of ecclesiastical law, however. As such, it cannot be invoked as an argument against sedevacantism, which is based on the teaching of pre-Vatican II canonists that heresy is an impediment of divine law to receiving the papacy.”
What Cekada could have mentioned here but did not mention is the fact that one suspected of heresy, when that suspicion still exists, automatically incurs the censure for heresy if the suspicion is not removed within six months’ time (Can. 2316). Obviously, Popes Pius XI and Pius XII did not see fit to remove this suspicion of heresy notice from Roncalli’s file, placed there in the 1920s, meaning that this suspicion still existed. Meaning also that on Roncalli’s part, the six months had long expired. He had been advised officially by Pope Pius XI of his delict and had recanted, and by Pope Pius XII regarding the worker priest affair and Roncalli’s naming of a known Freemason, his friend Yves Marsaudon, as the head of the French branch of the Knights of Malta. He may have appeared to repent, but his usurpation clearly showed that he was never sincere and continued in his heresy, just as the embracing of the false Vatican 2 council proved that the cardinals and bishops had all lost the faith. The popes’ failure to remove the suspicion of heresy letter posted to his official file is proof they believed he could not be trusted.
Papal candidates and invalidating ecclesiastical law
Above Cekada says, quoting Wernz-Vidal: “’All those who are not impeded by divine law or by an invalidating ecclesiastical law are validly eligible [to be elected pope].” Let me ask you, who is the sole interpreter of what constitutes divine law? Definitely not Wernz-Vidal or any other theologian. Pope Paul IV was the one who made this divine law clear to all in his bull, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. And he wrote regarding a man, one Cardinal Morone, who was aspiring to the papacy and was on trial for, but not yet convicted, of heresy! Morone was later excluded from being made a candidate by the future Pope St. Pius V, who as pope confirmed Cum ex… in his Intermultiplices.
In his bull, Paul IV also made clear that all the acts of apostates, heretics and schismatics who tacitly resigned from their ecclesiastical offices were invalid, null and void because they had lost their offices and had no power whatsoever. This he extended to cardinals and bishops. Therefore, Cum ex… was also an invalidating law. Pope Pius XII also invalidated any acts performed during an interregnum that violated any of the provisions of Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis regarding papal elections, usurped the papal power or violated papal or canon law in any way. The cardinals violated divine law by electing a man suspected of heresy. They, including Roncalli, violated several election protocols, among them one allowing the interference of secular authorities in the election. Pope Pius XII clearly declares all these acts null and void, and any acts issuing from them null, void and invalid. This is “invalidating ecclesiastical law.”
Pius XII concludes his Constitution with the words: “This present document and whatever is contained in it can by no means be challenged… [It] will be always and perpetually true, valid, and effective, and acquire and obtain their own full and undiminished results… We command those individuals to whom it pertains and will pertain for the time being to vote, that the ordinances must be respectively and inviolably observed by them, and if anyone should happen to try otherwise relative to these things, by whatever authority, knowingly or unknowingly, the attempt is null and void.” Sedevacantists could not afford to wholeheartedly endorse Cum ex… because it deprived those who had “ordained” and “consecrated” them of any power to perform these acts validly, and this based on the divine law they pretend to champion. They did not dare mention Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis because that law invalidates everything done during an interregnum that is not in conformity with papal and canon law. VAS likewise invalidates all usurpations of papal authority, including the approval process necessary prior to episcopal consecration. This also nullifies any priestly ordinations emanating from men falsely claiming to have become bishops during such an interregnum.
Conclusion
The answer to the reader’s question is that the sedevacantist position is verified both by Cum ex Apostolatus Officio AND Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis; they are both documents issuing from the infallible magisterium and both work in tandem. It is impossible to discount Cum ex…as abrogated or dismiss it as a non-infallible document, since it treats of the manner of determining what is a violation of Divine law. Cekada even backhandedly admits this. Cum ex… treats of the Divine law; VAS of invalidating ecclesiastical law applicable during an interregnum. VAS prohibits, however, all LibTrad and Novus Ordo operations and nullifies all attempts at the usurpation of papal jurisdiction and violation of Canon Law. All this has been covered here before, but refresher courses are necessary when some seem to be unclear regarding the actual course of events. The one thing that should be more firmly emphasized here is that denying the necessity of confirming that an election is unquestionably canonical is to deny an article of faith — that canonical election is essential to Apostolic Succession.
This is the predominating heresy embraced by LibTrads and the Novus Ordo sect that should have been addressed from the beginning. We know that God willed otherwise, that His ages-old plan for the Church be fulfilled. And so we accept His will, pray and watch, and lift up our heads, ever hopeful that our redemption is at hand.
