When is Cum ex Apostolatus applicable? Part 3

Dear Mr. Sungenis,

Thank you for your reply.

I'm sorry for not making it very clear to you in my last email to you on a certain point. I did not intend to say that when a Pope falls into heresy, that this would cause him to lose his office. I had intended to say that when a papal claimant had previously fallen into heresy as a Cardinal,ect., that this is when CEA applies. So, I got your original point, I had just worded it badly.

You said in your last email that in order to show in his pre-pope life that he was a heretic that a canonical court of law would be needed to prove his heresy, otherwise CEA would not take effect. I think the Dimond brothers objection to this would be to quote this from Pope Pius VI:

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, August 28,1794

"Likewise, the propostion which teaches that it is necessary according to the natural and divine laws for either excommunictaion or for suspension, that a personal examination should precede, and that therefore, sentences called 'ipso facto' have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect"- false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the Church, erroneous.

So, they would say that there is no need to prove that a man in his pre-pope life was a heretic by a canonical court of law ("personal examination should precede") because he automatically is excommunicated from the Church, ipso fact, from the Church and is no longer a Catholic. They reason that a non-Catholic cannnot command in the Church any more than a Moslem or Protestant because it is necessary to be a member of the Church.

Sincerely,
Michael

R. Sungenis: Michael, if that is the case, then I hereby declare the Dimond brothers (both of them) heretics and automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church. No trial, no proof, no overwhelming evidence is needed. I see it and I declare it. And since they are excommunicated, then they have no authority to judge the pre-pope or a reigning pope. There. I fixed that problem. No more Dimond brothers dethroning the pope!

Obviously, you see how ridiculous the whole thing will become. The Dimond brothers, trapped as they are in being their own authorities, are easy to turn the tables against.

The stipulation that you are citing in Auctorem fidei (Denz. 1547) concerns those in authority who have the rite to make "ipso facto" judgements on penitents; not laypeople against popes. We see this authority in the following stipulation (Denz 1550) which says that "the bishop alone has power which Trent conferred on him."

Suffice it to say, neither the Dimond brothers nor any other layperson has the authority of a bishop, much less the authority to depose a pope "ipso facto." The whole idea is ridiculous.

When is Cum ex Apostolatus applicable? Part 2

Dear Mr.Sungenis,

Thank you for being so kind in giving your response to my query. You pointed out that when CEA is applied (in the case of a reigning Pope) who had fallen into heresy and that this was proven to be the case by a competent Church authority, that this does not mean that the Pope can be deposed from his office. Instead, a Catholic is only permitted to “withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs.” I think the Dimond brothers objection to this would be that this isn't so, that the Pope does indeed lose his office and is thus no longer the Pope. They quote this section to support their case:

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.

The Dimond brothers would point to the phrase, " it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity....through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through the possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff..." and say that the heretical Cardinal who was promoted to the Papal seat would not have any office because the consecration would be invalid from the start. The promotion in itself would not have "acquired validity" , thus the Pope would not have had any authority or office to begin with. The enthronement to the Papal seat would not have even be "held as partially legitimate", thus the Pope would have no authority to command, and no jurisdiction ("nor through the possession of administration"). It also says in (vi) that the heretical Cardinal promoted to the Papal seat would be divested of "all dignity,position,title,authority,office and power". They take this to mean therefore that he never had the office of the Pope to begin with.

They would also point out to the phrase in the above quote " or obedience accorded to such by all " to mean that there would be no need of a Church authority to make a declaration of the nullity of the said promotion because Pius IV gave permission to anyone to not give obedience to the heretical Cardinal promoted to the papacy. In another words, according to them, Pius IV said that even if all of the Cardinals,Bishops,priests,ect were to give their assent to the legitimacy of the election, that it would still be null and void and that therefore any Catholic would have permission to withdraw immediatley any fealty and obedience to the putative Pope. They draw the conclusion that if this event actually occurred (that is, when all of the Church clergy support the heretical Pope), that this would preclude any Church authority from making any formal judgement (on account of the fact that they all hold the election to be uncontested and valid) through a council that the Pope is not to be obeyed on account of public heresy. They would thus draw the conclusion, " Why would Pius IV give permission to everyone 'at any time' ( meaning, even a time before a Church council convenes to adjudicate the matter) to withdraw obedience to the putative Pope, if there has to be a Church council to decide whether or not obedience is to be accorded to him seeing that all of the clergy are in obedience to the imposter?"

They would also quote "(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"

to further buttress their point in saying that there is no need of a competent Church authority to declare the putative Pope to be divested of all authority because the deposition is automatic, ipso facto, "without need for any further declaration".

Again, Mr.Sungenis, thank you for your response.
Michael

R. Sungenis: Michael, you are missing the original point I made concerning the application of CEA. CEA can only be applied if it has been shown that the reigning pope was a heretic BEFORE he ascended to the papal chair, not AFTER. Moreover, in order to show in his pre-pope life he was a heretic, there must be proof for the charge of heresy. That proof can only come from a canonical court of law. So unless the Dimond brothers can show us that any of the popes of the 20th century were certified as heretics by a canonical court when they were priests, bishops or cardinals, then the simply have no basis for their argument.

When is Cum ex Apostolatus applicable? Part 1

Dear Mr.Sungenis,

My name is Michael Dillon. I was the one who sent you a couple of emails a little while back in which I gave a few Bible verses that you could use in your debate with Matt Slick. I had also encouraged you to debate the Dimond brothers(don't worry, I won't bug you anymore about that!).

The reason why I am emailing you is so I could ask you some questions about sedevacantism. I have read the Dimond brothers article in defense of sedevacantism and wanted to know what your answers would be to some of the objections that they raise against what they call the "Vatican II sect". Would you be so kind in engaging in a little converstion with me on this issue? I would like to play "Devils' Advocate" here if you don't mind and ask you a few questions as if I were one coming from the Dimond brothers camp.

Let me start by asking this: A non-sedevacantist would say that there is no way that a Catholic laymen has the right to judge a Pope if he falls into heresy by saying that the seat is vacant. He would also say that it is left to the Church to decide if a Pope has really fallen into heresy and that it is only for the Church to judge whether the Pope has lost his office or not. A sedevacantist on the other hand would object by saying that there is no need for a Church council to declare whether a Pope has lost his office or not because it says in Pope Pius' IV bull "Cum ex apostolatus" that a Pope would lose his office automatically "without any declaration of law or application of fact". In another words, a Pope would be deposed automatically by Divine law because a Pope cannot teach public heresy being that he is no longer a member of the Catholic Church. Mr. Sungenis, could you please show me how you would answer this objection?

Thanks,
Michael

R. Sungenis: Michael, I dealt with the matter of Cum ex apostolatus (CEA) in my debate with John Lane. If I remember correctly, my argument was simply that the application of CEA only applies to a man PRIOR to his election to the papal chair, not afterward. Allow me to quote from a sedevacantist website that cites CEA. I will underline the specific statement I have in view:

“If ever at any time it shall appear that ... 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 ... 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; it shall not be possible for it to acquire 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 ... [Everyone] 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.”

I think it is rather clear that, if it can be shown that, for example, Karol Wojtyla, was a heretic prior to his ascension to the papal chair, then it would be proper to “withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs.”

But that also means that anyone who attempts to apply CEA to a reigning pope, that is, because he believes that the reigning pope has fallen into heresy and yet it was never proven that he was in heresy prior to his election as pope, is misapplying CEA.

That’s not all. Proving that Karol Wojtyla was a heretic prior to his election is going to require the same kind of ecclesiastical rigor of any such motion against a standing member of the hierarchy, that is, merely claiming that he was a heretic based on some subjective judgment from the laity will certainly not suffice. It must be shown, in a canonical court of law, that Karol Wojtyla was a heretic prior to his election, and only then could CEA be applied.

Even when CEA is applied, CEA does not say that the pope can be deposed, but only that we are permitted to “withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs.” There is nothing in CEA about dethroning the reigning pope, much less a dethroning that comes from self-styled “monasteries” located in New York.