© Copyright 2015, T. Stanfill Benns ( All emphasis within quotes is the author’s unless indicated otherwise.)
- Isn’t it strange that Paul VI’s numeric title is the reverse of Paul IV’s? Just as John XXIII’s was originally the designation of an (heretical) antipope who reigned during the Western Schism?
- It would only be learned much later, after Ratzinger’s election as an antipope, that, like Roncalli, the Vatican had listed him as a suspected modernist while he was yet a priest. Nor would anyone realize till then Ratzinger was one of the first proponents of the “new theology” condemned in Pope Pius XII’s Humani Generis. For many years he was promoted as someone sympathetic to Traditionalists.
- How little Traditionalists have changed over the years. When I first became aware of Cum ex Apostolatus Officio (Cum ex…) in 1982, I found only the pertinent excerpts wrested from para. 6. There were eventually three translations of the bull, and none of these were accompanied by the actual Latin as was Disandro’s. Disandro’s name was never mentioned by any of these stalwart Traditional defenders of the faith, although I am sure they used his translation to supplement their own and based their (shortsighted) observations in some part on his. This is why I am so glad to finally be able to publish this translation, presented to me as a gift by a friend, to help publicize Disandro’s part in making this bull known and appreciated.
- (Second para, before # 2): Disandro points out here that this is NOT the (condemned) evolution of dogma employed by Montini et al, but the carefully controlled development and expansion of the principles inherent in the Church’s teachings over time.
- #2: What is said in this paragraph is all too true. Yet it does not and cannot relieve the faithful of obedience to papal decrees. Nicholas I and the Roman Council taught in 860 A. D.: “If anyone condemns dogmas, interdicts, sanctions or decrees, promulgated by the one presiding in the Apostolic See, for the Catholic faith, for ecclesiastical discipline, for the correction of the faithful, for the emendation of criminals, either by an interdict of threatening or future ills, let him be anathema,” (DZ 326). A papal decree can be binding on the faithful whether infallible or not. No one has the right to call these decrees into question, least of all Traditionalists. Disandro knew so well what had happened as these last few pages demonstrate. This eminent professor, schooled in pre-Vatican 2 theology, announced the triumph of Antichrist as predicted in Cum ex… Not an uneducated layman, or a professor educated in liberal American Catholic schools, or a Novus Ordo student of Christ’s College, or a Sedevacantist priest or brother, but a real and true Catholic professor tells us that Antichrist has arrived in the garb of Paul 6. Yet his observation was never mentioned but hidden all these years, proving that those directing the operation of error wished to suppress this truth at all costs.
- # 3: Bravo, for even without this translation that concealment has been noted and condemned by at least this author. The reason the Progressives suppressed it is obvious. The reason for its suppression by Traditionalists is stated in the comment above: they do not want anyone understanding Paul 6 was Antichrist, or that the system of the V2 popes is Antichrist’s own system. They wish to lull their followers into a false sense of security concerning the times, that the money might keep rolling in. It was Hugo Maria Kellner who first noted this phenomena within the SSPX in the 1970s.
- # 4, para.1: It is precisely this corruption of Holy Scripture that brought Msgr. J. C. Fenton into conflict with his superiors and contributed to his eventual resignation from the Catholic University of America. This Fenton reveals in his diaries. It is also this very corruption that allowed the replacement of “for many” with “for all” in the Eucharistic consecration, the inviolate Canon of the Holy Sacrifice.
- # 5, para. 1: It has been the constant contention of the opponents of Cum ex… that this Bull CANNOT be and IS not, by credible authorities, interpreted in this manner. And yet Disandro observes this is precisely what the Bull says. Anyone who reads it carefully and examines it objectively cannot help but come to this same conclusion. Later in this document the case of how a pope validly elected might possibly fall into heresy will be addressed.
- # 5, para. 2: And here we must understand that any time there is a question of whether such persons could be rehabilitated, and those asking the question doubt whether or not this is possible, Canon Law orders them to return to the old law, (Can. 6 no. 4). In the footnotes to Canon Law, we find the papal documents (old law) on which the canons are based. It is no coincidence that Cum ex… is listed as the basis for nearly every canon in the Code regarding penalties for heresy. So for those spouting off about the possibility of rehabilitating a Francis, as the papa materialiter/formaliter fantasy goes, you are contradicting an infallible decree! Please see the English translation of Pope St. Pius V’s motto proprio under Papal documents on this site.
- # 5, para. 3: So already in 1987, Disandro is on the same page with those who see the total destruction of the Church before them today exactly as he describes. And that destruction is not limited to the defection of the men accepted as popes from the faith, but extends as well to the Cardinals and bishops who elected them, (Roncalli and Montini). For is not Antichrist preceded by the false prophet, (Apoc., Ch. 13)? And did not Roncalli fulfill this role to the letter by convening the false V2 council? Moreover, Cum ex… is sanctioned by no less than Pope St. Pius V. But somehow, those believing in these documents are wrong?
- # 5, para. 5: So Disandro is saying that the only case that Pope Paul IV really envisions, in propagating his Bull, is the case as he clearly describes it: a man who, either with the knowledge of the electors or without it is a heretic prior to his election. When this heresy becomes manifest during his usurpation of the papacy, (since heresy, known or unknown, invalidates a papal election), then and only then does it become undeniably clear or manifest that such a man was never truly pope.
- # 5, para. 9: Two things are not properly considered here: 1) Since the Vatican Council, the Church has always conceded that the pope could become a heretic as a private person, and in this manner ipso facto excommunicate himself. All the cardinals would do in such a case is announce this FACT as true and order his removal; the fact itself would execute the sentence or judgment, not the cardinals, as Canon Law itself explains. Cum ex… does not require a declaratory sentence for the effects of the excommunication to take place and neither does the 1917 Code, following Cum ex. 2) The case of the occult or secret heretic who remains a member of the Church, as St. Robert Bellarmine teaches, because his heresy is known only to himself and his confessor and perhaps one other person. He could be validly elected, but the minute his heresy becomes public, he is ipso facto excommunicated. Still, he was a heretic prior to election. These two cases would preserve inviolate the teaching of the Vatican Council: that the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, per Christ’s promise, guarantees he will never err publicly in matters of faith or morals.
- In conclusion, Disandro rightly points out that Pope St. Pius V’s motu propio confirmation of Cum ex… signifies his intent to continually guard against the possibility of all heretical perversion, even in the future, and even above and beyond the decrees of the Council of Trent. It even allows for those previously considered innocent to be retried should there arise any doubt they are recidivists or occult heretics. It therefore calls before the ecclesiastical court (or a reconvened Inquisition!) all those who even appear to be outside the Church, precisely as Can. 2200 demands. This is the very essence of the import of these two documents; no precautions are considered too rigid where heresy is concerned, despite the noisy clamor of Traditionalists. Heresy is spiritual death, and as such must be considered the most dreaded of all maladies. If Cum ex… conveys nothing else to the reader, it should at least impart quite forcefully this salient fact.)