Dear friends, who can translate these?

Nos igitur, hoc incommodum praevertere volentes, quae de Romano Pontifice eligendo a Decessoribus Nostris decreta sunt, omnia in unam Constitutionem digerere opportunum duximus, integris, quantum fieri potuit, servatis ipsis priorum Constitutionum praescriptis, quin etiam verbis (licet haud semper uniformi stilo respondentibus), quae veneranda vetustas sancivit, nonnullis tamen mutatis, prouti opportunius Nobis visum est.
Itaque, re din ac mature perpensa, certa scientia et proprio motu, de Apostolicae Nostrae potestatis plenitudine, hanc Constitutionem, quae perpetuo in futurum vigeat, edere statuimus, qua Sacrum Cardinalium Collegium, Romana Petri Sede vacante, atque in Romano Pontifice eligendo unite utatur, eamque vim legis habere solam decerniimus, abrogatis Constitutionibus ac Decretis omnibus et singulis a Romanis Pontificibus hac de re editis, etiam in Conciliis generalibus promulgatis et in corpore iuris conclusis: excepta tamen Nostra Consitutione Commissum Nobis, diei xx mensis Ianuarii labentis anni, de civili Veto seu Exclusiva, uti vocant, in electione Summi Pontiticis, et Constitutione Praedecessores Nostri cum Instructione (vulgo Regolamento) adiecti, a fel. rec. Leone XIII die xxv mensis Maii DCCCLXXXII data pro extraordinariis perturbatisque temporum adiunctis, quam in futurum quoque, ubi in iisdem Sedes Apostolica conditionibus versetur, praeter ea quibus hac Constitutione derogatum est, vigere integram volumus. VACANTE APOSTOLICA SEDE, PIUS X, 1904


Nullus Cardinalium, cuiuslibet excommunicationis, suspensionis, interdicti aut alius ecclesiastici impedimenti praetextu vel causa a Summi Pontificis electione activa et passiva excludi ullo modo potest; quas quidem censuras ad effectum huiusmodi electionis tantum, illis alias in suo robore permansuris, suspendimus. VACANTIS APOSTOLICAE SEDIS, PIUS XII, 1945

I'm sure somebody can, and it looks fascinating! Some kind of general authorisation for extraordinary actions during a future vacancy should the new Constitution governing the matter be found inadequate in some particular? I've never seen anything like it, if that's what it is.

"None of the Cardinals, by pretext or reason of any excommunication you wish, suspension, interdict, or other ecclesiastical impediment, is able to be excluded from active and passive election of [Pope] in any way; which censures indeed we have suspended to the effect of this manner of election only, otherwise in force for those [times] about to endure."



Honestly, I couldn't figure out what to do with the future active participle at the end - there may be a 'formulaic' use for it in ecclesiastical Latin. If I figure out a better way for it to fit, I will post it.

It seems that this part of the Apostolic Constitution from Pope Pius XII says that even Cardinals who are excommunicated can be called to the Papal Election. 'Seems' is the operative word since I don't know what the rest of the AC says.

I will work on the other translation later. This was all I could fit in for now!

I have, so far, arrived at a very rough translation of the larger passage. It will require considerable work to get it in decent shape. Perhaps John Daly, if he is so inclined, could toss it off in about 10 minutes.

The last part, that of Pope Pius XII, is quite common knowledge. I had read an excellent translation of that several years ago. I'll try to dig that out and post it here.

I have forgotten the exact reason why PPXII did this, but as I remember it, it has something to do with not using the fact of an excommunicated cardinal-elector as a reason to void an election.

I'll dig those reasons out and post them here too asap.

This site:

http://www2.fiu.edu/~mirandas/guide-xx.htm

has a fairly comprehensive explanation of both of the above constitutions, although it has no direct translation.

The quotation from Pius XII's constitution is, apparently, a restatement of that of Pius X, who said, essentially, the same thing concerning cardinal-electors and censures.

Indeed. Actually this provision comes as early as middle age as Wernz-Vidal say:



Wernz-Vidal, Ius Canonicum, T. II, num. 411.

I don´t see any problem with this part of the document. Regarding the other text of St. Pius X, I don`t know what it means but I suspects it deals about the necessary measures the cardinals may take in order to govern the Roman diocese if the election delays? I don´t know just guessing

I think these acts of the Apostolic See they make no more applicables the canonic dispositions of the Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus of Pope Paul IV. It seems that the Constitution Vacante Sede Apostolica of 1904 intends to repeal all previous provisions concerning the canonical election of Pope. On the other hand, the Code of Canon Law says that: "Romani Pontificis electio unice regitur const. Pii X Vacante Sede Apostolica, 25 Dec. 1904..." (Can. 160).

Of course. See Constitution Vacante Sede Apostolica (1904) n. 29.

Although I have no proper claim to be a Latin scholar, I would suggest the following improvement to Larie's translation:

"None of the Cardinals can be excluded in any way from active or passive election of the Supreme Pontiff by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical censure; which censures we have indeed suspended only according to [their] effect on this kind of election, with other well-known [effects] remaining in force."

I think the participle permansuris is in the future active because of its reference to effects that continue into the future.

I must correct my earlier and hasty post, because I have just realised that, as an adjective, alias (acc.) doesn’t agree with illis (dat./abl.). Therefore, it seems that alias should be read (as Larie had it in the first place) as an adverb, with the following result:

"None of the Cardinals can be excluded in any way from active or passive election of the Supreme Pontiff by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical censure; which censures we have indeed suspended only according to [their] effect on this kind of election, otherwise with the former [effects] remaining in force."

Thus, I understand the quoted passage to limit the effect of lifting of any applicable ecclesiastical censures to a Cardinal’s ability to participate in a papal election.

Yes. However, the passage by Pius XII is well known and I have seen it, in English translation, before.

However, we are much more concerned with the earlier document by Pius X.

If this is a valid translation, then, according to rules of grammar, the "or other" would make the "excommunication" preceding it also an "ecclesiastical censure". In canon law, there does seem to be an ecclesiastical censure of excommunication that can be a punishment for a crime against the Church which can be lifted when the guilty party repents and does appropriate penance and repairs the harm his crime caused. This is clearly not the same kind of excommunication that occurs as a result of a public and pertinacious heresy which is a loss of status as a member of the Church; thus a cardinal who publicly renounced Christ and converted to Buddhism (to use an extreme and obvious example) would not, by reason of this law, be required to be included in the "active or passive election" of the pope.

I only point this out here because, so often, I have been told by Conciliarists that this law even requires we submit to even an obvious public heretic when elected pope because he must be allowed to participate in a conclave (passive participation) according to Pope St. Pius X and can elected pope validly (active participation). I'm not sure how these definitions of passive and active participation came into being, but this is what the Modernists tell me.

Although it may not be as exact as one I have seen done some time ago, it is very close.


Yes. There are something like 120 different "kinds" of "excommunications", each with its own penalty and effect.


Yes.


Again, yes. You are correct.


Well, they are wrong. What they suggest is patently impossible.

You, and anyone else who cares about this matter, may wish to visit this site:

http://www.spiritrestoration.org/Church ... ON-LAW.htm

Although this site does not appear (to me) to be particularly "Traditional" or even "Catholic" it DOES (surprisingly) have a very clear and concise exposition of the canons surrounding the election of the Roman Pontiff.

Canon 167 answers most of your questions. That states flatly that the following (at least and among others) MAY NOT cast a vote: "4. Persons who have joined an heretical or schismatical sect, or publicly adhered to such."

I can review my copy of "The 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law" for more exact details and post any of those that may appear here if that is deemed necessary.

The thing here is that there are two kind of excommunication: toleratus and vitandus. The former is the one that the document refers to, while the last one has as its main effect the lose of membership.
Regarding the bold part I have a question, according to your view, which causes the lose of membership the public heresy or the excommunication attached to it?



The document talks about (toleratus) excommunicated and not about public heresy. They are, in my opinion, confusing these two things. What is rather surprised is that this same argument is used by those supporting G. des Lauriers` theory.

I notice that uncertified copies of the Latin text of both documents can be found here:
http://www2.fiu.edu/~mirandas/guide-xx.htm
together with brief commentaries upon the contents.

The texts should be read with due caution on account of character-recognition errors that are apparent in them. These copies show that the extract from the 1945 document is identical to paragraph 29 in the 1904 document, except that the earlier one reads: “…; quas quidem censuras et excommunicationes ad effectum huiusmodi electionis tantum, …” (…; which censures and excommunications we have indeed suspended only according to [their] effect on this kind of election,…)

TKGS wrote:

Yes, this seems to correspond with my understanding, based upon the fact that these texts are applicable to ecclesiastical law, and not to divine law. Knowingly falling into heresy is an infringement of divine law, and Pius XII could not, and did not, change divine law or the consequences of infringing it. Therefore, it remains true that a pertinacious heretic cannot legitimately hold office in the Church.

TKGS wrote:

I think that the two terms are put the wrong way round. As I understand it, active participation in an election refers to being an elector (ie: casting a vote), whereas passive participation refers to being a candidate for election (ie: receiving a vote).

In my view, the public and pertinacious heresy itself excommunicates the person in question: the subject excommunicates himself by that very act. The legal, public act of excommunication is simply, to my way of thinking, the way the Church makes it clear to Her members that the person in question is no longer a member of the Church, and must be avoided.

Yes. You are correct.

I see these things a little bit different Ken. Let`s see.

1) You can receive the censure of excommunication by an occult, that is, exterior but not public, heresy and yet you will remain member of the Church don´t you?
If you say the person retains membership then the censure of excommunication does not take away, by itself, membership, whereas if you say that that person is not longer member then I think you´ll have some difficulties with the visibility of the Church.

2) I guess the sentence "the subject excommunicates himself by that very act" means he is authomatically excommunicated by the Church without any admonition, right?

3) Excommunication may be:
A) Vitandus (canon 2258.2)

B) Toleratus (canon 2258.2 contrario sensu)

Now, you cease to be member only if you are vitandus and never if you are toleratus. Yet both may be inflicted as latae sententiae (ipso facto) or ferendae sententiae (a judicial sentence). But again, you don´t lose membership by the judicial sentence if you are merely toleratus. This is proven by canon 2266 which says that toleratus after the sentence lose the fruits of their dignities, offices, etc. whereas the vitandus lose the dignitiy, office, etc. itself. In one word: toleratus may retain ordinary jurisdiction, whereas vitandus cannot.

Having said this I think you are saying, maybe I misunderstood you, that after a condemnatory or even declaratory sentence the person loses membership, but I think the question is here if the person is vitandus or not, and not if it exisits a judicial sentence or not.

What do you think?

From: http://strobertbellarmine.net/offices.html

9. Note that St. Thomas teaches that jurisdiction "does not remain" in heretics and schismatics. Likewise, as pointed out by the Angelic Doctor, St. Cyprian teaches that these non-Catholics "cannot have episcopal power." Pope Leo XIII (Satis Cognitum) teaches that "…it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church." St. Robert Bellarmine teaches the same thing: "it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus, c. 3), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate - which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ."12.

10. Pope Pius XII confirms this doctrine as follows: "For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy."13 He further illustrates the distinction between excommunication as a penalty, and automatic exclusion from the Church by crimes against faith and charity, when he teaches, "Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptised and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."14.

11. The foundation of this teaching lies is the very nature of Holy Church herself, as a perfect and visible society composed of those who have been baptised, profess the true faith outwardly, and are subject to the Roman Pontiff. Pope Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum, which is chiefly about the unity of Holy Church, explains: "Agreement and union of minds is the necessary foundation of this perfect concord amongst men, from which concurrence of wills and similarity of action are the natural results. Wherefore, in His divine wisdom, He ordained in His Church Unity of Faith; a virtue which is the first of those bonds which unite man to God, and whence we receive the name of the faithful - 'one Lord, one faith, one baptism' (Eph. iv., 5). That is, as there is one Lord and one baptism, so should all Christians, without exception, have but one faith."15

Earlier in the same encyclical the Holy Father has laid down: "If we consider the chief end of His Church and the proximate efficient causes of salvation, it is undoubtedly spiritual; but in regard to those who constitute it, and to the things which lead to these spiritual gifts, it is external and necessarily visible. The Apostles received a mission to teach by visible and audible signs, and they discharged their mission only by words and acts which certainly appealed to the senses. So that their voices falling upon the ears of those who heard them begot faith in souls - 'Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the words of Christ' (Rom. x., 17). And faith itself - that is assent given to the first and supreme truth - though residing essentially in the intellect, must be manifested by outward profession - 'For with the heart we believe unto justice, but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation' (Rom. x., 10)."16.

...

Objection 6.

By his apostolic constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, of December 8, 1945, Pope Pius XII legislated that when the cardinals enter a conclave to elect a pope all censures that might apply to them are automatically suspended.

Answer to Objection 6.

Censures are penalties. Suspending a censure which applies to a non-Catholic does not make that person Catholic. Only sane Catholic men are valid matter for the papacy, as Coronata explains: "III. Appointment to the office of the Primacy. 1o What is required by divine law for this appointment: (a) The person appointed must be a man who possesses the use of reason, due to the ordination the Primate must receive to possess the power of Holy Orders. This is required for the validity of the appointment. Also required for validity is that the man appointed be a member of the Church. Heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are therefore excluded."32.

From another perspective we note that a censure is a penalty imposed by Holy Church, and can be removed or suspended by that same authority. But the effects of divine law are ordained by God, and only God can mitigate or cancel them. Therefore Pope Pius XII did not have the authority to alter the divine law in this regard, since he was Christ's Vicar, not Christ Himself. Not that Pius XII did attempt to alter divine law - Canon 188 is a provision of the Code in the section dealing with ecclesiastical offices - it is not penal, and applies no censures. Where no censure is applied, none can be "suspended."

Cristian: I was talking specifically and only about vitandi, not tolerati. I was confused after reading your most recent post, as I am not sure what you are asking. Right now, I am too sick and too tired to delve sufficiently into it, but will attempt to do so later, when I am better.

Perhaps what John covered will explain it better than I could. What he has written there, I, of course, agree completely with it.

My point was that you are not ipso facto vitandus (except in one case, that of canon 2343.1) and therefore you don´t cease to be member of the Church if you comit the crime of heresy.
Besides I was trying to distinguish the judicial sentence of excommunication from an excommunication vitandus. They are not necessarily the same.



I hope you get better soon!

Cristian

Are you sure he is talking there about the crime of heresy?
I beleive he is not and for two reasons: you can commit the crime of heresy and still be member of the Church as it is the case with the occult heresy, and also you may not commit the crime of heresy and cease to be member as it is explained by Benedict XIV (Singulari nobis DS 2567)






I have a problem to understand the bold sentence.

The way I see all this is as follows: by any censure (excommunication, interdict, suspension) you don´t cease to be member but you are not allowed to vote or be elected (canon 2265, 2275.3 and 2283), but this is an ecclesiastical law and therefore it may be removed, and in fact this is the case for the Cardinals where all censures they may have are suspended so they can elect or be elected.




I agree!

It would seem to me that it is the public heresy that causes the visible loss of membership in the Church. Since occult heretics do not lose membership in the visible unity of the Church, it cannot simply be the belief in a heresy. Since Nestorius was declared to have lost his office upon his public declaration of heresy even though it took time for the excommunication to be declared, it cannot be a future declaration of the Church which causes loss of visible membership in the Church.

Further, it would seem that the excommunication is simply the word which describes the state of being, i.e., loss of membership in the Church, rather than the loss of membership being the result of excommunication.

One who does not hold the Catholic faith simply cannot be considered a Catholic.

Yes. Exactly. This is the way I have always understood it.

It's an interesting question. You can certainly commit the sin of heresy without losing membership in the Church, so that appears to be a distinction without a difference. It is only when that sin is public that it has the effect of stripping one of membership, because of the fact that the Church is a visible unity of those who profess the faith outwardly.

The reason I emphasise the concept of "crime" is that this concept incorporates "publicity" as an essential element, whereas "sin" does not. Even a heretic has not committed a crime if his sin is not externalised somehow. The punishment of excommunication is only for crimes, not sins. A crime is a sin which attacks the social good, the social order.

Crimes are already dealt with by the law of the Church in a framework of "publicity" so that we have various insights into that concept, a language which applies, and commentary by theologians and canonists.

There are certainly multiple categories of acts in view here. One could argue that there are three categories: secret sins, externalised sins considered only as sins (and further qualified as sins against faith and charity), and crimes. Or one could categorise them as sins, and crimes - with the various degree of publicity of crimes. This first alternative isn't in the literature, as far as I can see, whereas the latter alternative is.

Also, if it is the sin of heresy which has the effect of loss of membership (when public) then it is difficult to square that with the practice and doctrine of the Church, which treats material heretics (i.e. by definition, those who have not sinned) as non-members.

My central point, of course, is that ecommunication is a penalty, and as such is irrelevant to the loss of ecclesiastical membership and offices. The public heretic loses his office(s) because he is no longer a member of the Church; he is no longer a member of the Church because he no longer meets the definition of "member"; he no longer professes the faith outwardly, which is part of the definition of membership; the Church is her members, organised hierarchically, under Christ our Head.

Canon 188 is not in the section of the Code which deals with penalties. It is not penal.




I agree with what you write, but it's not relevant to the point, which is about membership.

The sentence you bolded is not a very good sentence, but it's accurate, I believe.

I could re-write it as follows. A non-Catholic who is under a censure has two disabilities, his non-membership in the Church and the censure, the first of which is divine law and the second ecclesiastical law. Suspending the censure only removes the disability of ecclesiastical law, and cannot affect the question of divine law. For this reason such a person, a non-Catholic, remains incapable of election to the papacy.

All correct, I believe.



One who does not profess the Catholic faith is not a Catholic. A man may lose the faith, but if he never tells anybody he remains a Catholic, and even if he tells some close friends who keep his sin a secret he remains a member of the Church.

Excommunication is sometimes used loosely as shorthand for the loss of membership, but not by the better writers, and certainly not by St. Thomas. Excommunication is an ecclesiastical penalty, a removal of certain of the rights of the baptised person. It has various degrees, and in its most severe form it removes all of the person's rights to the goods of the Church so that they are no longer a member. But the loss of membership may occur because of other reasons also, besides excommunication, and the profession of public heresy is one such cause. The Church inflicts automatic excommunication on all external heretics, even occult ones, but this is in addition to and quite distinct from the loss of membership for public heresy.

The principle for which a (public) heretic can not be Pope it is of divine law, but the disposition by which the election of a (public) heretic is invalid it is of ecclesiastical law. The papal Authority does not derive from the election, but from the acceptance of the person validly elected.
Actually, the Code of Canon Law does not provide that the election of a (public) heretic is invalid.

Dear Gabriele,

It isn't clear what you are saying, or what sources you rely upon.

The divine law is that only a Catholic is valid matter for the papacy (or any ecclesiastical office). This is what Coronata and others say. Therefore a non-Catholic (such as a public heretic) is not papabile, he is not able to be considered for election, and if he is, then it is null. He is not capable of being designated papal electee.

A comparison of other similar cases will help to make this clear. A woman is not valid matter for the papacy. If a woman were "elected" by the cardinals, her acceptance would make no difference, because she would not truly be the electee. Likewise a dog or a butterfly.

The purported election of a person who is not valid matter is simply null. It is a fiction, whether the person is a woman, a kangaroo, or a public heretic. All three cases are the same. After the "election" the "electee" is exactly the same as before - invalid matter for the papacy. The status has not changed, no true election has occurred, nothing real has happened.

It is true that the authority of the papacy is granted by God directly upon the acceptance of the election by the electee. But the electee must be chosen by the electors or he is not a person who can accept, obviously.

Dear John,
this is just what I wanted to understand with this topic. Is not the heretic valid matter for the papacy? An excommunicated man is out of the Church, but Pius XII says:

“Nullus Cardinalium, cuiuslibet excommunicationis, suspensionis, interdicti aut alius ecclesiastici impedimenti praetextu vel causa a Summi Pontificis electione active et passiva excludi ullo modo potest; quas quidem censuras ad effectum huiusmodi electionis tantum, illis alias in suo robore permansuris, suspendimus”. VACANTIS APOSTOLICAE SEDIS, PIUS XII, 1945

It seems to me that the Pope takes off the “ecclesiastical impediments” (ecclesiastici impedimenti), among which the excommunication, as causes that prevent a valid election.

Does this canonical disposition of Pius XII go against divine law about you?

No, most excommunicated men are not outside the Church. Only those who have the status vitandi (i.e. to be shunned) are outside the Church. The rest remain members of the Church. And if a man is not a member because he is vitandus then if his excommunication is lifted (even automatically by his entry into a conclave) then surely he would become a member of the Church again. The impediment - excommunication - to the operation of Baptism would be removed, and therefore the baptismal character would have its proper effect once more, which is incorporation in the Church.

If Pius X or Pius XII wished to address the question of attempting to elect a heretic to the papacy, they would have mentioned heretics or stated that even a non-member can be elected. But they didn't. The only matter they addressed was ecclesiastical impediments, not divine ones. The same applies to others who cannot be elected, such as women and permanently mad men. The impediment in both cases is not ecclesiastical, it is divine.

Agreed, but my question subsists: does that person lose membership because of the sin of because the act is public?



Not necessarily John. There are occult crimes which although they have automatic penalties attached to it yet the loss of membership is not one of them.



Agreed.



As I said above I think you are missing the occult crimes.



I agree, that´s why, following Billot I believe the formal element (sin, crime) is irrelevant to the question, and the important thing is whether it is public or not.



Agreed and crystal clear! In your first sentence, though, it is clear you are not talking about vitandus but toleratus, right?




Agreed.




I agree, I just wrote that to explain the meaning of the sentence of Pius XII. To me the suspension of the censure has nothing to do with membership, but it is rather an ecclesiastical law, as we agree.



Ahh now I understand... and agree with

Well, Gabriele´s explanation is of the essence of G. des Lauriers theory





I agree

Hi Cristian. In reality, I don't know if it is so, 'cause I know very little about Fr. Guérard's Thesis, even if it is the position that I found more convincing than others.

I do not understand very well. Can you clarify to me your thought on three points?

1. Where do you see in the canon law now in force that an excommunicated vitandus or toleratus loses his excommunication automatically with his entry into a conclave?

2. Where do you see in the canon law now in force that an excommunicated vitandus or toleratus can not be validly elected to the papacy (that does not mean it is automatically Pope) remaining an excommunicated until the eventual acceptance of the papacy?

3. What is the actual discipline in the case of election to the papacy of a cardinal who is a excommunicated (vitandus or toleratus)?

If you must appeal to the divine law, please indicate the source. Thank you very much, John.
Cordially

Hi Gabriele!

It was not a criticism, I just noticed a fact. I hope you didn´t take it bad

I know you asked John, so waiting for his reply I just want to point out one thing if you don´t mind. I believe there is a confusion in the terminology you are using. The term "heretic vitandus or toleratus" doesn´t exist, what it exists is the term "excommunicated toleratus or vitandus".
Pius XII spoke about excommunicated persons, not about public heretics.

Of course, Cristian. Obviously, I wanted to say 'excommunicated' and not 'heretic'. I have edited my precedent post. I am sorry.

No problem, Cristian.
I am here to learn.

Ahh great! Now let`s wait and see what does John have to say about your questions

We are all here to learn

Both.

What is a member of the Church? A component part of it. The Church is made up of her members (+ her divine Head).

The loss of membership occurs because the person no longer meets the definition of "member." They no longer outwardly profess the faith. Now the change of status (from member to non-member) occurs when some act is posited, an act which signifies the loss of faith, and that act is sufficiently visible. Whether we consider the act as sin or crime, is not essential I think. But it is a specific act. It is an act which means that the faith is no longer held. So I don't think we can say that the loss of membership depends only on the act being visible. It does depend on that factor, but it also depends on the specification of the act. Both are essential.

In trying to discuss this matter I find that the concept "crime" has more usefulness than "sin" precisely because crimes are intrinsically divided according to their "visibility". The literature is thorough and applies well. This is not true of the literature on sin, and that concept has the disability of including many considerations which only serve to confuse the matter, especially those relating to imputability. The literature on sin, moral theology, is concerned with the tribunal of penance. The literature on crime, canon law, is concerned with the social effects of acts. Obviously membership in the Church is best treated in canonical terms, and in fact membership is specifically dealt with in the Code (under the term "person").



An occult crime is still an external act, which is knowable. There is no such thing as a thought-crime, but there is a great deal of sin which is purely mental, not externalised at all.



Billot can't say that. The whole point about the status of material heretics is that they are presumed to be pertinacious, because the Gospel has been preached publicly, they have been baptised and therefore made promises, and they have the use of reason. The Church presumes that they know what is necessary to know to make their choice a real choice. It is not therefore true to say that the formal element is irrelevant. It is relevant, and presumed.



Yes! See how hard it is to write about these things clearly?

I haven't checked the Code, but the Constitution of Pius XII is part of the law of the Church, and it suspends all ecclesiastical impediments, including censures, for both active and passive voice (i.e. enabling the person to vote and be voted for). Technically, I am not sure if suspending a censure has exactly the same effects as lifting it, nullifying it, but it would seem so. The difference would only be that suspension is temporary, whereas removing a censure is permanent.



I hope the answer above covers these questions.

I agree. I made a confusion between "excommunicated" and "heretic". By consequence, I meant the provisions of Pius XII in a wrong way.
So I think is correct (that there is not contradiction either with divine law nor ecclesiastical law) to say that for the election to the papacy it is not relevant the fact of being excommunicated, because ecclesiastical impediments are suspended. On the contrary, it is relevant the fact of being or not valid matter for the papacy. Here perhaps there is disagreement between 'sedevacantists' and 'thesists'. For the first ones, a heretic material or formal (occult or public) is not matter for the papacy, while for the second ones yes. In fact, the 'thesists' distinguish between the election to the papacy and the achievement of papal authority, because this one (the achievement of papal authority) does not happen with the election, but with the acceptance of the electee who has removed all obstacles to receiving it (the excommunication is already removed by ecclesiastical law now in force).

Are you agree, John?
And if yes what is your source of divine law that excludes a heretic from the election to the papacy?

Yes, I agree Gabriele.

My main source for the divine law is Bellarmine. http://strobertbellarmine.net/bellarm.htm

"There is no basis for that which some respond to this: that these Fathers based themselves on ancient law, while nowadays, by decree of the Council of Constance, they alone lose their jurisdiction who are excommunicated by name or who assault clerics. This argument, I say, has no value at all, for those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms."

But read the whole thing through carefully.

This question does not make any sense to me. While this issue has been discussed through history, as Mr. Lane pointed out, the answer would seem to be self-evident. That a heretic cannot be elected pope is simply a fact with which one cannot argue. It is simply what is in the same way that it would make no sense to ask whether the sun is warm, or asking the source that blue and yellow make green. One cannot be both a Catholic and a heretic at the same time.

In this current crisis in the Church, the question is not whether certain men have been elected, but whether or not they are heretics. This is why the SSPX position makes no sense: They will readily agree that Benedict 16 is a heretic, but they immediately stop and refuse to draw the only logical conclusion and the vociferously condemn anyone who does.

I agree completely: Gabriele's question makes absolutely no sense whatever to me, either. A manifest heretic is not a member of the Church: therefore he is not fit "material" to be a papabile. To say that an heretic can be Pope is exactly the same as saying anyone can be the leader of any organization without being a member of that organization. Or that a person can be a man and still be a woman, or a grownup and still be a child, or be a dog and still be a human being. It is complete contradiction and therefore impossible.

I would go one step further: in my reading of some of St. Robert Bellarmine's writings, specifically, De Summo Pontifice, I firmly believe that if the holder of the Holy See can be shown to be a manifest heretic, then he was never a pope to begin with...ever...not even after his so-callled "election", which must have been defective in some way.



Yes. This is also a complete mystery to me.

Thank you very much, John. I will read the whole thing. I want to understand if the doctrine for which a heretic is excluded from the election to the papacy is of divine law according to the opinion of Bellarmine and other theologians or according to the teaching of the Church. In the first case anything prevent to think in a different way.

It is not so simple, TKGS. A heretic occult is a heretic and he can be elected to the papacy. What is evident, eventually, for me, is that a heretic cannot be Pope, and not that he cannot be elected to the papacy.



The question, for me, is whether these men have or not papal authority.

Although I am not denying the possible validity of this statement, please provide some proof. I suspect you are working from the principles that 1) an occult heretic is still a member of the Church, and 2) any male, sane, member of the Church is proper material for the Papacy. I suspect these two are NOT as compatible as you understand them to be.


So, if I have this correct, according to your thinking, 1) an heretic cannot BE Pope, but 2) an heretic can be ELECTED Pope. This seems to me to be a contradiction. If a man can be "elected" Pope, but cannot BE Pope, how can you reconcile these contradictory facts?


If such an one cannot BE the Pope, that means he cannot act as one in any way. Therefore, the answer to your question is simply, "No. They would NOT have papal authority."

I say that a heretic can be elected to the papacy and not that he can be Pope. It is different, it seems to me.
But, dear Ken, please, answer this question: Tom and Carol are married in a Catholic ceremony, but their marriage is vitiated by a cause of invalidity. Well, their matrimony is null, it is never existed, but in front of the Church they are married until the judgment of the ecclesiastical court. In this period, are they married or not? No and yes, in some way... Not in front of Lord and in reality, but yes in front of the Church until the judgment. And if, after the judgment, we are in front of a marriage which is never existed, again we can not say that there was nothing because for the law of the Church the children born in that marriage are considered 'legitimate' and not, instead, 'naturals'.
So sometimes things are more complex than we think.



Strange. I am very ignorant of Bellarmine, but I knew that Bellarmine said that a Pope who became a public heretic ceases to be Pope, he loses the papacy. Well, how is it possible that he has ceased to be Pope if this he was never been or that a person loses a thing that she has never got before?
So it is interesting what you say, Ken. Can you quote the words of Bellarmine?

Of course, Ken.
"Et il enseigne [Melchior Cano] en premier lieu, avec des mots simples, que les hérétiques occultes sont toujours de l'Eglise, qu'ils en sont membres et qu'ils en font partie, et que conséquemment le Pape qui est occultement hérétique demeure toujours Pape. Cela est également l'opinion des autres auteurs que nous avons cité dans l'ouvrage De Ecclesia" (Saint Robert Bellarmin, De Romano Pontifice, livre II, chap. 30).



I only know that a Pope can never teach any heresy or any error in His Magisterium addressed to the universal Church. The rest I'm trying to understand.
Above I spoke superficially also to make faster in a language they do not know well. It would be necessary to consider also the distinction between heretic formal and heretic material. Example, if I deny a truth of faith proposed by the Church but I do not know that this truth is proposed by the Church I am a heretic material and not a heretic formal.



They have not papal authority because in their 'magisterium' there are errors. This is the proof that, objectively, they do not done the good of the Church when they act as 'popes'. But such a thing is incompatible with papal authority (we are sure for example that who has papal authority can not teach errors in His Magisterium addressed to the universal Church). Therefore, they have not papal authority. There are many other things to say.

Translation: "And he teaches [Melchior Cano] in the first place, with simple words, that occult heretics are always within the church, that they are members of it and that they take part in it, and that consequently the Pope who is always occultly heretical remains Pope. This is also the opinion of the other authors whom we mentioned in the work De Romano Pontifice, Liber II Caput 30"

OK. However, does St. Robert, although he quotes these authors, agree with them? From my reading of St. Robert, he will often quote authors, such as Melchior Cano, and yet he does not, in many cases, and many times most emphatically, agree with their conclusions.

As I have said before, St. Robert states flatly that no True Pope was ever an heretic, not even occultly, and "...this is a sign from Heaven that this cannot occur..."



It is St. Robert's opinion that no True Pope could even pertinaciously hold any opinion contrary to Church Doctrine, even privately.


Yes, thank you Gabriel. I believe, however, that most of us here do know the difference between the two.



I disagree, as what you propose does not make logical sense to me. Perhaps I am just too old and thick-headed, or stubborn, but, I repeat, that does not sound logical nor reasonable to me. If there are "...errors in their magisterium...", to me this proves, quite simply, that they never had papal authority to begin with, that they were never True Popes to begin with.



And, your conclusion, although somewhat difficult to understand for me, simply proves my contention, and St. Robert's, that no True Pope could ever be an heretic.

Dear Ken, as you know, in writing the tone of voice etc. is absent, and therefore we need to take especial care that the spirit of our writings is communicated by the text. In blunt terms, you come across as intolerant and cranky!



Here's Wernz-Vidal on the question, Gabriele. Ken, note the first paragraph particularly. It is not Christian doctrine that a pope cannot fall into heresy, even privately. It is an opinion, a pious and meritorious one, but nothing more:

[The power of the Roman Pontiff ceases...]

453. By heresy which is notorious and openly made known. The Roman Pontiff should he fall into it is by that very fact even before any declaratory sentence of the Church deprived of his power of jurisdiction. Concerning this matter there are five Opinions of which the first denies the hypothesis upon which the entire question is based, namely that a Pope even as a private doctor can fall into heresy. This opinion although pious and probable cannot be said to be certain and common. For this reason the hypothesis is to be accepted and the question resolved.

A second opinion holds that the Roman Pontiff forfeits his power automatically even on account of occult heresy. This opinion is rightly said by Bellarmine to be based upon a false supposition, namely that even occult heretics are completely separated from the body of the Church... The third opinion thinks that the Roman Pontiff does not automatically forfeit his power and cannot be deprived of it by deposition even for manifest heresy. This assertion is very rightly said by Bellarmine to be "extremely improbable".

The fourth opinion, with Suarez, Cajetan and others, contends that a Pope is not automatically deposed even for manifest heresy, but that he can and must be deposed by at least a declaratory sentence of the crime. "Which opinion in my judgment is indefensible" as Bellarmine teaches.

Finally, there is the fifth opinion – that of Bellarmine himself – which was expressed initially and is rightly defended by Tanner and others as the best proven and the most common. For he who is no longer a member of the body of the Church, i.e. the Church as a visible society, cannot be the head of the Universal Church. But a Pope who fell into public heresy would cease by that very fact to be a member of the Church. Therefore he would also cease by that very fact to be the head of the Church.

Indeed, a publicly heretical Pope, who, by the commandment of Christ and the Apostle must even be avoided because of the danger to the Church, must be deprived of his power as almost all admit. But he cannot be deprived by a merely declaratory sentence...

Wherefore, it must be firmly stated that a heretical Roman Pontiff would by that very fact forfeit his power. Although a declaratory sentence of the crime which is not to be rejected in so far as it is merely declaratory would be such that the heretical Pope would not be judged, but would rather be shown to have been judged.

Jus Canonicum by the Rev F X Wernz S.J. and the Rev P Vidal S.J. (1938) Chapter VII De Summo Pontifice, translated by J.S. Daly.

Yes, you are quite right, the matter is not completely simple, and much of it is lawfully disputed by the approved theologians.

In brief, the marriage you refer to is no marriage, it is a fiction, a fiction which enjoys the protection of the law for reasons of good public order, and which awaits clarification so that it can be placed into its correct category.

The analogy with the papacy is fine, but I'm not sure it applies to the case we are considering, because the fault in the putative marriage is occult, whereas the fault we speak about in the false papacy is by definition a public one. We're not discussing a pope who is an occult heretic, for such a man is still a Catholic and therefore there is no obstacle to his claim to the papacy, none whatsoever.

Oh, dear! Well, I went back and re-read what I wrote and I do not interpret it that way. As far as I can see, I am simply being forthright and direct. What am I doing that makes you think I am intolerant and cranky? I'm sorry, but I don't see that, and I most certainly never meant to do that. Perhaps it is because I am quite ill at the moment, and that effects my writing. I apologize..

I believe I have stated that last, or something very close to that, more than once. Nevertheless, the opinion comes directly from St. Robert Bellarmine, as you know, since I have posted one (at least) entire quotation from his books on this subject, but I also agree that (at least as far as **I** know) he may be the only respected theologian who holds that opinion. But, since HE holds it, and since this IS The Bellarmine Forum (!), **I** hold it to be true. Does that make good sense? It does to me.



This is all very good and to the point. However, I must ask: is the opinion of Wernz and Vidal considered to be of the same weight as that of St. Robert Bellarmine, since he is a canonized Doctor of the Church and they are not (yet)?

Dear Ken,

It's all in the way that we write our opinions. If we are simply stating known facts, or Catholic doctrine, we can assert without qualification. For example, "Benedict does not profess the Catholic faith." Or "A public heretic is not a member of the Church." But when we are giving our own opinion, or even that of a Doctor of the Church (i.e. when he himself states that it's his opinion, not Catholic doctrine), we ought to make the status of that truth clear. For example, "St. Robert gives as his opinion that no true pope could ever become a heretic, even an occult one."

Also, when replying to somebody else's opinion, even if it's completely daft (in our own humble opinion) we can reply politely by hiding our exasperation.

I felt a bit sorry for Gabriele, because he is giving his views, diffidently, and the replies are sometimes pretty blunt.

Wernz and Vidal are giving the exact doctrine of Bellarmine. There's no daylight between them and Bellarmine. The point made in the first paragraph is important, because if Bellarmine had believed that it was Catholic teaching that no pope could ever become a heretic, he would not have discussed what would occur should a pope become a heretic. He'd have simply said that it is impossible and moved on to the next question. But he explicitly states that himself.

And for the record, it is also my opinion that no true pope can lose the faith, for the reasons given by St. Robert Bellarmine.

And a previous thread on this point: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=947

Yes, Bellarmine is agree with them. If you read the whole thing you can understand. For example, when he approves the fifth opinion he specifies that a heretic manifest ceases to be Pope: "Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church".



Yes, of course, this was his firm convinction (his theological opinion).



No, it is not the same thing. To say that a Pope cannot teach any opinion contrary to Church doctrine it is not the same to say that a Pope believes in these opinions.



Very good. I imagined it. Perhaps, we apply this distinction in a different way to the current situation of the Church.



I think that the difficulty lies in this: being able to recognize that it is not true that the election to the papacy (of a man who then does not receive the papal authority) it does not mean anything. In fact, the election makes this man, somehow, different from all others in order to the acquisition of the papal authority.

Thanks, John. Very fine!

Exactly. I completely agree. That marriage, never existed, it has however produced some legal effects in the legal order of the Church. This by a fictio iuris.



I did not want to make an analogy with the papacy, but I only wanted to explain to Ken that sometimes things must be considered in many respects and that often, therefore, it is necessary to distinguish.



In my opinion, concerning the actual situation of the papacy, the problem lies not much on the distinction between occult heretic/public heretic (the heresies professed by the elected to the papacy they are publics), but more on the distinction between material heretic/formal heretic (a material heretic is not properly a heretic, he is a man who professes heresies, because to commit the sin of heresy it is necessary the awareness to reject the divine faith as proposed by the Church, that is, to reject the Magisterium of the Church).
Now, if (and I stress "if") the elected to the papacy believes to be really the Pope and he believes to exercise he the same the supreme Magisterium, well, then I wonder: how is it possible that such a man is conscious to go against the Magisterium? And, above all, how is it possible for us to have now (and not when the Church will decide) this certitude?

I thank you for your sensibility, John. It is really appreciable. I did not feel offended by Ken who must not apologize to me.
I hope that these discussions are useful to everyone, in some way. And that there are not any kind of animosity or grudge between us.