Can the heretic sit on the throne of Peter? Paul IV and “Cum ex apostolicus”

Professor Marek Kornat and Tomasz D. Kolanek invitation to the ninth episode of the PCh24.pl papal cycle.

Click HERE and see all published in this chat series

Dear Professor, the subject of our discussion present will be announced in 1559 by Paul IV of the Apostolic Constitution "Cum ex apostolates". This paper was announced during the Council of Trent...

Let me begin by recalling the opinion of a large group of historians according to which Paul IV (Caraff) treated the Council of Trent in a way, speaking most delicately, cautiously. The Pope has frequently expressed the belief that this Council is not a essential undertaking for the welfare of the Church. He was incorrect about that. I'll give you that.

Why is Paul IV convinced? After all, past has clearly shown that not only was the Council of Trent needed, but even necessary, to successfully face heresy or heresy of Protestantism.

In fact, past has shown that Paul IV was incorrect about this, as I have already stressed. The Council of Trent was absolutely necessary. Paul IV was celebrated for his outstandingly authoritarian personality, and in my opinion the pope assumed that the council could resume the concept of limiting papal power. That was why he had a reserve for this assembly of bishops. After his death, after only 4 years of pontificate, which began at the age of 79, Pius IV sat on the throne of Peter – the Pope doing everything in his power to bring the Council of Trent to the final. Pius IV, with his very skillful diplomacy, has contributed to the large prosperity of this convention. And it is crucial to note that the interests of the then powers were not the same (as always) and that the boycott of the gathering by any states carried the threat of rejecting the resolutions of the council later.

You said that Paul IV feared that the council could resume the concept of limiting papal power. Were these concerns justified? Have specified trials been made in the past?

It is about a fresh memory of the reciliarism which as a movement within the Church of political coloration sought to do so. Its main nonsubjective was a far-reaching revolutionary improvement of the strategy The Church is to make it clear and compose that the Council stands above the Pope. This took place, among another things, due to the fact that in Constance there was a large precedent, which was deposing 3 popes: the real pope, Gregory XII, and claiming to be popes of 2 usurpers, or anti-Pope. In addition, the Council of Trent continued for a very long time. It is the longest council in the past of the Church. It was called in 1545 and lasted until 1563, or 18 years. The sense of danger associated with the papal power was so much greater in the Roman Curia than in the case of the Council sitting under the penal hand of the papal briefly – a week, a month, or six months.

W The church is under the Council, and in the planet the Protestant revolution, or fresh large heresy. Paul IV's predecessors, including Leon X, effort to fight her by imposing excommunication on Luther and his followers, and inform the laymen and clergy what to do to preserve faith. Therefore, was Paul IV's bull ex apostolate needed?

The case is highly complex. The Apostolic Constitution must first be described as a circumstantial message of the Church's leader in defence of its durability and in defence of its self-preservation. In the case of pontifical papers of the highest rank we are dealing with purely teaching papers specified as papal encyclicals. There is besides a second kind of disciplinary paper and these can be divided into at least 2 types. The first set certain standards for the full Church. This was the anti-modern oath introduced by Saint Pius X by decree Lamentabil sane exitu (1910). The second concerns e.g. the establishment of fresh offices, specified as the Congregation for the Propaganda of religion established in 1622 (by Gregory XV) or the improvement of the Roman Curia by St. Pius X under the Apostolic Constitution Sapienti consilio. These are examples of not teachers' orders, but disciplinary ones. The disciplinary papers besides include Paul IV's statement, or the Apostolic Constitution "Cum ex apostolatus" to defend the Church from the thought of interior enemies, which was a key matter, but not the only one. Namely: until the Reformation in the Catholic Church was called, there was no awareness that there might be specified a improvement of heresy within it, that it would origin the heretic to be elevated to the ultimate throne – the Peter's Throne and rule.

To be exact: the Church has overcome all the large difficulties associated with the heresies of the early centuries of Christianity, which resulted in an iconoclastic crisis in the 8th century – the last large heresy – a dispute about worshiping images. erstwhile in the 8th century this crisis was overcome, it was fundamentally not for years in the Church of large heresies. If it appeared somewhere on the outskirts, surely with the exception of the movement of colds proclaiming circumstantial neo-manicheism, but it is simply a separate matter. It can be said that no 1 imagined that specified a situation would occur, that heretics could appear as presbyters, bishops, cardinals, and even an effort could be made to establish a pope heretic through purely legal canonical conduct, that is, by the conclave.

Paul IV what I emphasize again, an highly authoritarian and strict hierarch. Unfortunately, he was not free from the tendency to nepotism, which he willingly and frequently used, which caused the discontent of many believers, and yet the violent reaction of his successor, Pius IV, who brought these nepots to criminal responsibility. However, this Paul IV attempted to safe the Church and Papacy. The Pope concluded that there is simply a real threat of the heretic entering the highest office in the Church and that this must be prevented. Of course, it must be assumed that Paul IV was a heretic who would hide, i.e. he would not be a declared and exposed heretic. It is, to be honest, unimaginable that the cardinals, formally excommunicated by the decree of the Holy See, will lift to the throne of Peter. In my opinion, this is impossible so far and even present it is something unthinkable, even though the modern Church is in a state of catastrophic shocks caused by the revolution that is happening in front of our eyes. Of course, however, we do not know what the future will bring, and how far the revolution will go, and so we cannot regulation out that something like this will happen someday.

As in the almost apocalyptic imagination of the future of Paul Lisicki presented in the book The Antichrist Age, in which the non-believer became Pope – later Pope Judas...

Let us hope that this will not happen, but as I said, the revolution is moving forward and nothing can be excluded. Paul IV surely meant a heretic who hides and does not betray his actual goals, but pretends to be a Catholic to get to the highest position and thus take over the administration of the Church. 1 more item can be added here, which is by no means a historical fairy tale, namely: in the last phase of the Council of Trent, or immediately after the death of Paul IV, his successor Pius IV established respective alleged moderators of the council. 1 of them was a card. Giovanni Girolamo Morone. Pius IV began to fishy at any point that he might be a man who would undergo heresy and, in any case, thought he was exhibiting excessive ailment towards heretics. He only suspected this on the basis that Morone was adamant of another views. In the end, it turned out that he is not a heretic, but this case shows what situation and atmosphere we were dealing with at the time. The Protestants wanted to take over the Church and adequate suspicions stemming from unresponsible behaviour to bring charges of heresy. specified were the realities that show that there was a real anticipation of the Church's transition to a state of disaster, which would have been the taking over of the Papal Throne by the heretic. Hence Paul IV's bull “Cum ex apostolates officio”.

As for the popes of heretics, I must ask here about Honorius I, who for respective 100 years has been cursed as a heretic. Is that right?

Two popes suspected of heresy were on the Papal Throne – hailed by Mr Honorius in the 7th century and Liberius in the 4th century. Historians are not clear in assessing the state of affairs active with these popes. Honorius and Liberius are cases from the early centuries of the Catholic Church that have provided charges of heresy. The origin of all our claims is slim. It can't be otherwise. However, erstwhile it comes to explaining this phenomenon, it becomes complicated due to the fact that it is not unambiguous. In my opinion, calling Honorius and Liberius heretics is besides far-reaching a statement. So what was that all about?

I'll start with Liberius, due to the fact that his case is easier to explain. It is the pope who was forced by the emperor to accept exile. Liberius is exiled from the Holy See and his place is replaced by the Anti-Pope Felix. He then signs compromise papers to reconcile the Church with heretics negating orthodoxy as regards Christ's Deity. However, this was what I stress erstwhile again, a forced situation – first of all. Secondly, historians present argue whether the provisions of this agreement broke the findings of the Council of good of 325. any say that Liberius left these arrangements, others that this agreement did not break anything. Honorius, in turn, is simply a pope who, without knowing it, succumbed – without theological discernment – to monophysitism. The Pope interfered between the patriarch of Constantinople Sergius I and the patriarch of Jerusalem Sophronius I. Horonius spoke, which is interpreted as the support of the heretic view by which he was branded for centuries. Honorius' attitude was invoked during the First Vatican Council by a tiny group of bishops as the main and strongest argument against the dogma of papal infallibility.

These are indeed 2 cases of popes accused of heresy in a serious way. In my opinion, Liberius acted in a situation of higher necessity, and Honorius was simply confused, and more as a private individual than the Pope, due to the fact that the letter to the patriarchs, with the message to make peace, is simply a individual letter. It is not a bull, it is not a decree, nor is it a circular apostolic letter. Of course, there is simply a explanation that whatever the pope's office man says must be studied in terms of orthodoxy. You gotta respect that. But of course we know that the infallibility of the Pope under the First Vatican Council is reserved only for papal speeches ex cathedraWhat you gotta leave as a case for a separate conversation. It is besides worth noting that both popes of the first millennium of Christianity were not heretics in the sense that they had grown up in a heretic environment and as heretics entered the Church by advancing in it to origin devastating shock. In their cases, we are dealing with faults both, although they were very serious faults due to the fact that they caused confusion. surely there cannot be a thoughtful, planned heretical teaching to bring the faithful to disaster.

Let's stay with Honorius for a while. In preparation for our conversation today, I ate prof. Kazimierz's book Dopórze "The Book of Popes". Reading about Honorius and his heresy, I felt that he was drawn into a game he did not realize very much, first. And secondly: his case shows that our speech must be “YES, NO – NO”. Prof. Dosier recalls the positions of historians who say directly: Honorius did not commit heresy, he did not fall into heresy, but he spoke imprecisely, and on the ground of theology or dogmatics all that was written by him in the letter we are now talking about is to defend...

So do I. In addition, Honorius is faced with a one-time speech. We are not dealing with systematic, planned repetition and teaching heretical views. Here there is simply a completely unambiguous phenomenon of stumbling, not a programic appearance against the Church. I'm certain it wasn't the mark or Honorius' job.

Let me just add that at the beginning of this full dispute between the patriarch of Constantinople and the patriarch of Jerusalem, as prof. Kazimierz Dosier pointed out, it was a message that Jesus had 1 energy – thus trying to circumvent the dogma about the nature of Jesus. Honorius clearly condemned this. So what was done in the east? They began to talk of 1 will of the Lord Jesus, thus drawing Honorius into a cleverly set trap upon him. It is besides worth to add that, before all this, Constantinople sent his people to Rome, who had been instructed by the Pope to preach heresy and to end it. They finished with a heresy of 1 energy of the Lord Jesus, but changed energy to will and utilized the Pope for their dirty games and dirty politics.

What more can I say? I agree with what you said. If we go back to Paul IV's pontificate now, we will realize that the Pope was motivated by a imagination that could be fulfilled in specified a way that, for example, we would have the chance to enter the throne of Peter heretics, who would take certain actions. This would not necessarily mean heretical teaching, specified as negation of the transsubstantiation dogma. It is possible to imagine harmful behavior, for example, in not enforcing papal authority in a way worthy of its responsibilities towards heretics. Paul IV meant to safe it.

The Constitution of “Cum ex apostolicus” was not the only paper published by Paul IV. Earlier, due to the fact that on August 7, 1555, the pope published a bull... in which he reprimanded those who preached false teachings and though he did not name any theologian, it was known that it was mentioned against the socinians. Who were they?

They were antitrinitars, or heretics, negating as a extremist sect of Protestantism the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Their attitude, what they preached, was close to Arianism, or the first heresy that shook the Church immediately after the Milan Edict. Antitrinitarian views have been found to be 1 of the most extremist parts of the Reformation. All the edicts of tolerance in Europe, specified as the Nantejski Edict announced in France, or the resolutions of the Warsaw Confederation announced in Poland guaranteeing tolerance – tolerance, not acceptance, due to the fact that these are 2 different matters – for Protestants there were no heretics denying the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. These were treated as pagans.

So can it be said that we had no fresh heresy, just an old heresy in fresh robes?

Kind of. It should be added that the Socinians combined the criticism of Catholic dogma with a extremist social program, which further placed them as enemies of the social order and encouraged their repression. In Poland, erstwhile our native arians, who called themselves arians, unequivocally supported Sweden at the time of the flood, the Sejm passed their exile from the Republic, which present is an asumpt for criticism of our Fatherland through tendentical liberal historiography, that Poles trample on the ideals of spiritual tolerance. It's a disgusting lie. The decision of the Sejm did not affect spiritual persecution, but was a retaliation for betraying the Polish state. Tolerance in the Republic was maintained at a advanced level.

Another Paul IV bull of 1558 is entitled “Cum secundum apostolum”. Paul IV forbids negotiations about the future conclave in the pope's life and without his knowledge, and forbids, under the threat of the most severe church punishments, the disputing of the life of the pope holding the pontificate. I would like to ask you to comment on this second case, which is “a ban on discussing the life of the Pope.” Did Paul IV introduce censorship, and if so, why?

Yes! The Pope introduced censorship with a view to securing the Church and Papacy. Paul IV, of course, could not have an offensive anti-ecclesiastical polemic of Protestants in his memory. At the center of their negative discourse was the Holy See. It was about destroying the authority of the Head of the Church. But that doesn't seem like the most crucial thing. The worst are publications staged as orthodox, but in fact containing heretical content. That's how they do the worst damage. This was the reason for the papal intervention in the form of the censorship of books. The Pope had a right to do so. He was given the power of the keys as his successor. Catholics must obey him under the rigor of losing the chance of salvation, as he declared in the bull “Unam sanctam” was ruled by Bonifacy VIII, as we have already discussed. So it was to defend the Church from action that would lead to a breakdown of the authority of the advanced Priest.

How would you comment on the prohibition of negotiations on the future conclave? Are we going back to what Pope Symmach announced, which we have besides discussed?

Pope Symmach tried to carry out a concept to effort to figure out the identity of his successor in the cognition of the surviving pope. In turn here it was primarily about condemning attempts by cardinals to negociate freely before the death of the pope, the consequence of which would be the actual election of the future pope before the death of the incumbent Viceroy of Christ. Moving this to modern times: Paul IV wanted to defend the Church from creations specified as the Saint Galen mafia, an informal group that conducted confidential deliberations while inactive in the life of John Paul II and attempted to appoint its own candidate for pope in order to accelerate and complete the revolution after his death. Paul IV managed to halt specified harmful practices. Unfortunately, more than 400 years later, neither John Paul II nor Benedict XVI succeeded.

Let us now go to the bulls "Cum ex apostolatus". First, Paul IV repeats respective times and stresses that all penalties, all excommunications, all another restrictions imposed by his predecessors on Protestant heretics are inactive maintained and in force. If the Pope had not reminded us of this, could individual have felt that excommunication was being removed from it?

There's nothing fresh about it. Reconfirming criminal ordinances was a common practice in the Church. In the Apostolic Constitution “Cum ex apostolicus officio”, Pope Paul IV undoubtedly wanted to strengthen discipline in the Church, rightly reasoning that in times of large confusion and confusion, due to the fact that that was the 16th century – let us remember that the Council of Trent was inactive holding, which is yet to bring large fruit. Let us remember that there are constant fighting for religion and regulation in Europe, etc. – we must confirm the disciplinary arrangements of our predecessors. In this way, the Pope wanted to remind us that they never expired and inactive apply. This is what I think should be understood, but I stress again: it was nothing fresh and unique. specified arrangements in the Church were issued many times.

By the way, it may be worth mentioning that the correct consequence to the crisis is efforts to strengthen power in the Church. Only naive people can promise in good religion that the crisis will be overcome erstwhile we weaken or undermine power at all. I mean, of course, papal power. Discrimination of evil inactive requires effective countermeasures and only strong power can supply them. There's no another way. It's not adequate to know what's wrong. It'll be fruitless.

Is it peculiar to remind all those who fall into heresy in the future?

This arrangement, even if it is something new, is logically due to what I said above. Since circumstantial disciplinary provisions have been introduced for those who have committed heresy and heresy is then treated as a serious crime, it is logical that this should apply to the future as well.

It should be added that the bull we are talking about operates on 2 types of crime. The first is to fall distant from religion, and the second is to fall into heresy. Falling distant from religion is treated equally with heresy. Those who do not adhere to novel, heretical views are subject to this category, but who simply, for example, cease any duties arising from the Gospel, the Decalogue, the teachings of the Church, or from the ordination of the Presbyterate or Episcopate. A good example is the primacy of Poland from the times of Enlightenment, or Gabriel Podoski. King Stanislaus Augustus elected him as a primate. He did so at the explicit command of Empress Catherine II, who provided him with the throne, but besides desperately wanted to harm Poland and the Church, or alternatively undermine and destruct it. This is the only way to weaken and finish Poland. Not only did this man lead a life of scandalous and unworthy spiritual condition (in any position he would not be), he did not feel even the work to execute Mass. Even the procession in God's Body – as Fr Jędrzej Kitowicz states – he did not conduct, though he was the head of the Polish Church. They said he had 1 Mass in his life. It was a mass. Then he didn't do it anymore. He didn't even effort to pretend to be godly... So we are dealing with a man who surely did not stand out for any heresies, any arguments with the Holy See or Papacy, due to the fact that he was not curious in all that is the object of our faith. He was a man who fell silently from religion, plunged into moral decline. Of course, Podoski is an utmost example, but a very well illustrated example of what the fallout from the religion Paul IV wrote about.

Paul IV calls turning distant from faith, falling into heresy, schism, leading to heresy, leading to schism, etc. "the top abomination in the world." And here we should mention to the present. In my opinion, the words of Paul IV would not pass through the throat of most hierarchs, or even most Catholics, due to the fact that we have alleged spiritual freedom, freedom of religion, etc., right?

What can I say? The post-sobor church clearly cut off from its past. I would so be amazed if the Pope was quoting the paper of the 16th century Pope today.

I can only say 1 thing. If Catholic discipline has been replaced by 2 slogans saying that God loves and forgives everything due to the fact that he is merciful and that all people should love each other, support and aid each other, then in specified realities, if this is the essence of our faith, it doesn't substance what you do, what you believe. Whatever, due to the fact that we'll be saved anyway. In general, it'll be fine...

Only that specified an approach leads to the complete collapse of our religion, first. Second: this kind of attitude was completely foreign, disgusting and disgusting to the popes of the past. I do not mean only popes, most delicately speaking, rather controversial as Paul IV, but many, many another Roman Bishops, who with large determination, dedication and religion defended Christ's teachings and did not treat it as simplistic, primitive and false as they do today. For God is not only merciful, but besides just, as Catechism teaches us, "The Lord God is simply a just justice who rewards for good and punishes for evil." Mercy simply completes God's righteousness, but does not surpass it. It is not as the modernists say – 1 excludes the other. So the Church never understood it. Throughout his history, until the time of the revolution he is undergoing today.

What threatened clergymen—both average priests and hierarchs for heresy, schism, and disbelief?

The most crucial message, or the most crucial substance of the bull "Cum ex apostolatus" is the call not to recognise the leadership of heretics in any form. The Pope announces that the faithful of the Catholic Church have the right to defy and argue false leaders imposed by the passage of heretics into the offices of the Church. This is Paul IV's main message to people. A call for them to disobey in this case.

Does the pope presume that being a bishop can become a heretic?

Absolutely. Unfortunately, specified cases have been and are rather numerous.

So not only can the enemies of the Church penetrate the Church, but besides the poison of heresy can master the minds and hearts of non-heretics bishops?

Yeah. The Pope points out that even an orthodox individual can become a heretic for various reasons. any will do it for individual ambition, others for material purposes. The best example here is not the clergy, but the prominent English King Henry VIII, who perfectly defended the Catholic religion in the beginnings of the Reformation, to then usage this Reformation to destruct the Church and carry out Protestantization of his country against the Church. And all of this came as we know from the dynastic crisis, which for Henry VIII was more crucial than religion and salvation. The preservation of the dynasty was more crucial to him than the conviction of eternal damnation in hellfire. This man did not back down from the heaviest crimes like murdering his wives to accomplish the goal of extending the dynasty (because he had no male descendant).

No 1 even considered Henry VIII to do what he did. After all, this man defended the doctrines of Transfiguration at Holy Bread and Wine in the Body and Blood of Christ the Lord for which he received the title “Fidei Defensor” from the Pope, which his successors inactive claim. The current King Charles III besides has the title “Fidei Defensor” in his title, although it means nothing.

What threatened worldly rulers for falling into heresy?

In the case of the ruling of heresy, the Church always treated it unequivocally, proclaiming that then the obedience of this ruler ceases if he received excommunication. But it was different. For the rulers were able to force obedience by force and thus not lose the throne. After all, Emperor Henry IV suppressed the rebellion of the subjects and on Pope Gregory VII took revenge. However, there were cases erstwhile excommunication struck the rulers and the king, the prince, or any another lay ruler, became dispossessed. The Church has never revoked its rule of calling on the faithful to defy and to disobey heretics on princely or royal thrones.

Paul IV besides points to what should be done erstwhile the heretic converts to the sacred Catholic faith. The “Cum ex apostolatus” reads:

"They will never be restored to their erstwhile condition, and thus will not be restored, given again, recalled and renewed in the possession of the cathedral, metropolitan, patriarchal or Primate Church, nor to cardinal dignity, nor to any another dignity, whether little or greater, nor will they be given the right to speak, whether active or passive, nor will they be given power, or monasteries and benefices, as well as counties, barony, Marchia, principalities, kingdoms and imperial powers. But due to the kindness and kindness of the Holy See, they will be placed in a monastery or another spiritual place, for the everlasting repentance of the bread of sorrow and water of grief, unless they show signs of actual repentance and do not make appropriate penance, for then they should alternatively be subjected to judgement of secular authority in order to impose appropriate punishment, after due consideration of the matter."

The Pope recommends penance in the monastery and this is his concept to solve problems when, for example, the bishop is suspected of heresy, or the bishop does not give guarantees of rejection of heresy. This is the classical phenomenon of the procedure of the Holy See in an emergency.

And how was it in those days that they said who was and who wasn't a heretic?

It happened in specified a way that the Holy See was informed at any point if it was a hierarch or influential priest. Besides, everything here depended on the vigilance of the nuncio. The Pope then exercised his right of excommunication against the accused for heresy, or subversive actions, of man. However, excommunication has not always been announced. Sometimes the Church followed the rule of higher necessity and unfortunately tolerated evil in individual cases. I will give an example: in 16th century Poland a well-known political author and prominent man of the Polish Renaissance, Stanislaw Orzechowski, resigned from celibacy and married his concubine. There should be excommunication here, I have no uncertainty about that. However, in fear of agitation in the Polish clergy, excommunication was not ruled despite clear grounds for this. It was feared that in the footsteps of Orzechowski others would follow – if the substance became public. Another example: erstwhile Sigismund August sent Pope Paul IV a message to ask him to accept the creation of the Polish "national" Church, including, among another things, the abolition of celibacy and another heretical concepts, the Pope should excommunicate our king. Paul IV, however, did not do so due to the fact that he feared that the Republic of Poland would fall from the Church, which would be a terrible tragedy. Paul IV did not declare excommunication. Another example: Primate Jakub Uchanski – a man very dubious about faith. He was not as disgusting as Podoski 200 years later, but he was a man of very weak religion (of course we can say this on the basis of preserved sources). Uchanski may have been held liable for supporting Sigismund Augustus in his mission to Rome, but he did not. Thus, the Holy See was motivated by various motives. The pope did not always do the same. However, we must remember that in addition to excommunication of the accused, we inactive have excommunication from the power of the law itself drawn by a man committing heresy (late sentimentaliae). It doesn't should be ruled, but it does. specified a punishment can come upon anyone who stands against the dogmas of religion by being warned about his actions. This is besides a very crucial phenomenon.

Are you saying that, for example, individual like U.S. president Joe Biden, who emphasizes that he is Catholic, is excommunicated for what he preaches and does about killing children in the wombs? If this man is excommunicated, which no hierarch dared to tell him, why can he attend the Holy Mass and join the sacraments?

There were specified calls, but on the part of fewer faithful believers to the Church and its legitimate teaching of American bishops. Unfortunately, there is no mention of a uniform episcopal position. It should be remembered that the Holy See, under the current direction, strives to carry out appointments for the posts of the average in accordance with the criterion of "progress" of the candidate. This is strictly enforced and results.

Let's go back to "Cum ex apostolatus"...

Finally, I would like to add that Bull of Pope Paul IV has a protective character – and performs his function as a model. It protects the Church from Pope heretic, whose choice is by definition invalid. The Pope decides that the election of Pope heretic is invalid. That's the problem. Paul IV maintains with all his strength that no 1 can justice the Pope, which is due to Boniface VIII's bull "Unam Sanctam", which we talked about. Furthermore, Paul IV upholds the teaching of Innocent III that the pope who would fall into heresy is legally losing his power of power.

When we talk about this, we are inactive dealing with a situation that is very hard to explain. I'm not a theologian or a canonist lawyer, so I'd just like to present my proposal as a historian here. After many years, i.e. in 1945 Pius XII, or the centuries of the Pope, whose evil intentions towards the Church we cannot suspect, issued the Apostolic Constitution on the election of the Roman Bishop. This is the most detailed paper that has been released on this subject. Today, unfortunately, it is no longer in force due to the fact that it was replaced by the bull of John Paul II. However, the bull Pius XII points out that if cardinals chose even an excommunicated cardinal as pope, this choice is crucial and it does not lose its power of power. And here is the question: how do we reconcile this with Paul IV's bull? In my opinion, we are dealing with a situation which should be understood as follows: Pius XII is not an excommunicated decree. It is hard to imagine that cardinals choose excommunicated man as pope. Unless they are acting in a conspiracy against the Church, but it is inactive hard to imagine. Pius XII wanted to consider a situation that could poison the Church. Imagine this example: say we have clerics in a seminary. These clerics are educated to 1 day join the Presbyterate ordination and then proceed to service the Church in the clergy. say 1 of these clerics said privately, due to the fact that a public message would be punished for not recognizing any dogmas. In specified a situation, he falls under heresy and involves excommunication. This excommunication is undeclared by the Vatican, and this man as a cleric is no longer stigmatized publicly. Let us assume, however, that specified a individual will scope the dignity of the Presbyterian, then the Bishop or Cardinal. Let us yet presume that he would be elected Pope. By being him, he could face accusations of rejection of dogmas. individual could tell the world. Then there would be a ferment of questioning the ability of this man to lead the Church (and regulation it). Pius XII so explains that even if specified a individual were excommunicated late sentimentaliae, this may be a valid election to the ultimate Office and this cannot be questioned by anyone. Pius XII's speech so secures the Church, even though it seems to be contrary to what we have said so far.

I understand, but you will let me to refer, for example, to Celestine II – an anti-Pope chosen for the Throne of Peter in 1124. This man was legally elected, but there was no consecration. According to the book “The Book of Popes”, prof. Kazimierz Dopórze:

"The coronation charm on December 16, 1124 was interrupted erstwhile Te Deum was already singing. The Pope-elect did not receive the support of the Frangipanich household and her typical stepped in with the army and announced Cardinal Lambert. There were violent clashes in which Celestin was injured. He was explained, among another things, by utilizing physical force that further insistence on his rights does not make any sense due to the fact that Lambert was declared pope by most voters as Honorius II. Celestin II resigned from office. He most likely died soon, possibly as a consequence of the wounds. Since Celestyn II was not consecrated or introduced to the throne he is considered anti-Pope despite being elected canonically".

I understand, but what do you think this example would prove?

In my opinion, the question arises as to whether the election as Pope is sufficient? I realize that this may have changed since 1124, but in my opinion the example of Celestine II shows that the choice is not enough, due to the fact that there must be inactive a consecration and the business of the Papal Throne, and it is only then that Pope-elect is Pope.

That's for the canonist lawyers. I can only add that we have 3 doors. The first is to announce the election by the Cardinal-Dean of the Holy College, and this can only happen if the elect obtains 2 thirds of the vote and agrees to accept the election. If a man is elected to the Pope, who at the time of his election has no ordination, then he is incapable to take power at that moment, that is, to go out and issue regulations e.g. an hr after the conclave. It is then essential to wait until his bishop's consecration, due to the fact that the warrant of Papacy is the work to accept the bishop's sac. The Pope cannot be a non-bishop. The Świeckie cannot declare himself pope even if behind him were superpowers with atomic bombs. It's obvious. That is why the office of the dean of the Holy College and the Vice-Dean should always be filled, so that there is no uncertainty who will give the bishop's sacra in specified a case. This is the second threshold, and from this threshold begins the papacy of this man. Before that, it's just an elect. The 3rd threshold is coronation, but it is known to have been abolished. Paul VI and the 3rd threshold are no longer there. Therefore, surely it cannot be that the papal coronation is the first day of the pope's reign. If a bishop is elected, he shall be empowered to regulation immediately after the election has been announced. But if it is simply a non-bishop, it waits until the minute of its consecration, and this is celebrated not immediately, but on the nearest vacation (at least the second class).

You pointed out that you request to ask the canonist lawyers...

Today's canonists – at least in the West – are in the vast majority of liberals, so fear to think what they would say. After all, they are pushing all the innovations that neglect on a large scale, under any pretext, to nullify marriage. But that's another thing...

One is that they are liberals and 2 is that in these days we are moving in fumes of falsely understood canonic legalism. At 1 time, Paweł Lisicki told me about his gathering with a theologian considered to be a conservative, who explained to him, citing 2 containers of documents, that 1 of Francis' subsequent controversial decisions is in full consistent with the teachings of the Church. It does not substance that many Catholics perceived this as something contrary to the Gospel and the teachings of the Church. 2 containers of papers and a mention to the 267 footnote of 1 of them was to close the discussion and admit the pope's right... In specified a church, in the Church of false legalism, do we want to function?

This is simply a immense problem of our time, which is hard to comment on another than with a sense of omnipotent pessimism...

But the popes and the papers they announced were different. no of them, colloquially speaking, "dust did not invent," but either preached, what has been preached for centuries, developed doctrine according to tradition, codified uncodified matters, etc. present 1 can get the impression that doctrine, moral norms, etc., are reinvented without looking at tradition and what the erstwhile popes preached.

I absolutely agree with you. The bull we are talking about present in 1559 is the best example confirming that in the past the popes referred to their predecessors and thus confirmed the eternal teaching of the Church. "Cum ex apostolatus" is simply a clear mention to Boniface VIII, Innocent III and another prominent medieval popes.

Key question: can the Pope be a heretic?

It seems to me that there is no another answer to this question than the message that a man who is heretic can enter the Papal Throne and lead the Church to destruction. The opposition against him should be exposed to all available means, but since we are not Protestants or concillarians, that is, supporters of the explanation of the superiority of the council over the Pope, and due to the fact that the council cannot be convened another than by the legitimate pope, in my opinion, the only institution which can be the pope whose actions and behaviours indicate the anticipation of falling into heresy is the Cardinal's College. However, the substance is highly hard due to the fact that the pope appoints cardinals. And if it applies a strict criterion of faithfulness to a peculiar political line, it is to purple only as reasoning as it is. So we have a vicious circle. However, no institution in the Church can be prepared in advance, which would act on the principles of a secular court for power, or the Court of State, which could justice and remove the pope from office. If specified an institution were to arise – we would gotta challenge the primacy of the Roman bishop, and this is simply a blow to 1 of the most crucial constitutional principles of the Church. So I think that's impossible. But all Catholic is an intelligent being. erstwhile a Catholic sees that the Pope exceeds certain limits and does what is unacceptable, it is my opinion that specified arrangements are not binding on us.

We must absolutely stick to what St. Robert Bellarmin says, and he wrote that "the pope of heretic must be made up of office." I besides think that it is surely appropriate to mention to what is written in Acts, where the Apostle Paul, who was not the head of the Church, powerfully admonished the first pope, or Apostle Peter. We are so faced with a strong argument for the thesis that the College of Cardinals, acting not even in plenitudo, could at a critical minute pass the Pope's call to abandon the acts that lead to the fall of the Church. What would the Pope do then? – I do not know that. Would this signal a fight to the death and life for power in the Church? Would the Pope begin to remove the cardinals who called him to his senses? Or would the Pope convert and begin a retreat from the way he entered? I don't know that, of course, due to the fact that I can't know. Anything is possible. All I know is that there have been cases like this in the Church. This was the case for Urban VI's pontificate, which brought a powerful division. The Pope was not a heretic, but at 1 point he began to regulation with specified a hard hand and equally hard enforce power and favour the Italian Cardinals against the French in the late 14th century, that consequently the College of Cardinals gathered, which first reprimanded him. However, Urban VI disobeyed the call and excommunicated the cardinals. This is how the large Western Schism has come to be, which past belongs not only to the past of the Church, but besides to universal history. So the substance is highly delicate, and I think there is nothing fresh about it, and it is impossible to come up with a wise one. At least to the historian.

Why, therefore, did neither Paul IV nor any another pope defend the Church from this? Instead, we had the constant strengthening of the pope's office, culminating in the dogma of the Pope's infallibility.

Paul IV could not defend the Church from the anticipation of specified difficulties in governing what we are talking about, due to the fact that it is simply impossible. A revolutionary step would should be taken to establish in the Church any control office placed above the ultimate authority, and that is impossible. In an emergency situation, and this is the case erstwhile the Pope makes it clear that he does not feel connected with the standards of orthodoxy, however, there is no another option – 1 must act ad hoc. Not secular, but the highest hierarchs, or cardinals. The Pope will never agree to convening a council to remove him from office. In turn, the convocation of the council without the pope, as I said, is out of the question due to the fact that it is illegal. It would be the council of robbers, even if he did the right thing. So this is simply a immense problem and I do not see any sensible solution here.

I realize all that, but I think you'll agree with me that quite a few believers are demanding action...

There's no question about that.

What, therefore, if, as Bonifacy VIII declared, “without faithfulness to the Pope, there is no salvation”?

If the Pope teaches evil, then we must admit that Boniface VIII's call does not apply. Here we come to a problem that we have based on the moral teaching of the Church clearly discerned, namely: should we worship the father and should we obey the father as a child? Of course I do. But erstwhile a father is simply a drunk, a bum, like hitting his wife and kids, what then? Then we have a situation of higher necessity, and this moral law (from the 4th commandment) which I mentioned does not apply. Each 1 must discern this on his own, following the sound teaching of the Church. The Catholic cannot come up with ideas on his own, due to the fact that it will mean walking the way of Protestants, which we have seen in history. We request to justice what is happening present on the basis of the healthy teaching of erstwhile popes.

I would like to ask about the dogma of the Pope's infallibility. It concerns only the statements of Pope ex cathedra. Pope Francis is accused of heresy erstwhile it comes to Holy Communion for divorcees, blessing alleged LGBT couples and another issues. Francis' defenders say this is not an ex-cathedra teaching. Are we dealing with heresy or not?

Pope ex cathedra he teaches solemnly, or extraordinaryly, but most of all he teaches simply through regular office. average teaching is besides assessed in the light of the criterion of faithfulness to Tradition. Therefore, the claim that since the Pope did not make any peculiar provision, it surely remains faithful to Catholic orthodoxy – is simply a large abuse.

Finally, I would like to callback a fragment of prof. Joerg Baberowski's book entitled "Stalin. Absolute Terror": “When the revolution, fighting tradition and religion as a manifestation of ignorance, contributed to the demolition of the Orthodox Church, the peasants themselves began to choose their clergy. Bolshevik propaganda in the form of travelling cinemas, moving cinemas, and posting anti-religious posters in villages did not aid due to the fact that the peasants did not search in religion content that could change their lives, but wisdom that confirmed the meaning of their existence."

Maybe that's a solution.

Yeah. Candles can do a lot on their own. Of course, you request faith. It besides takes determination. It does not take anyone's approval to do so to defend themselves, but only the reasonable and healthy attitude of devotion to the Church. The laymen may, for example, search a average Mass (i.e. specified as was in the Church until the liturgical revolution conducted by Paul VI). They can avoid post-conservation services, including excesses (dances, dialogues, women's giving of Communion, or inexpensive music). It's slow and that's something. No 1 can do anything to us. And that doesn't take besides much effort, but a sense of what's called sensusEcclesiae, or the consciousness of the Church expressed in discernment of his actual discipline and worship.

God bless the conversation.

Tomasz D. Kolanek