Paul IV's 'Cum ex Apostolatus' on a heretic pope: Text and commentaries
While everyone has an opinion on Paul IV's Apostolic Constitution 'Cum ex Apostolatus' and the heretic pope question, not everyone has read his text, or understood its status today.
While everyone has an opinion on Paul IV's Apostolic Constitution 'Cum ex Apostolatus' and the heretic pope question, not everyone has read his text, or understood its status today.
Editors’ Notes
Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul IV, is a document whose status and import is highly controversial today. What follows is John S. Daly’s translation, published with his permission, to ensure that the full text is easily accessible for all.
The text of Cum ex Apostolatus follows this introduction.
There are many important questions about this Bull.
For example, it contained provisions of penal law, which stated (among other things) that a heretic could not be elected pope. But the 1917 Code of Canon Law makes clear that penal laws which are not expressly incorporated into the code are abrogated. So what does this mean for the eligibility of a heretic to the papacy?
Disciplinary in nature
In the nineteenth century, Cardinal Hergenröther discussed the nature of the document, seemingly stating that it was wholly disciplinary and penal in nature.
“[I]t only contains penal sanctions against heresy, which unquestionably belong to disciplinary laws alone […]
“The point, then, is about the practical execution of previous penal laws, which by their nature are disciplinary, and proceed not from divine revelation, but from the ecclesiastical and civil penal authority.”1
However, we must be clear about the context. Abbé Damien Dutertre writes:
"In the 19th century, anti-infallibilists and liberals were seeking an argument in an attempt to disprove papal infallibility. One of the many false arguments used by the opponents of papal infallibility was to present the doctrine of infallibility as if this doctrine meant the pope was infallible in such matters as “telling the time” among other absurd claims.
Liberals strove to demonstrate that certain documents, which had always been considered merely disciplinary, were classified as infallible statements, and yet have changed, or have been abandoned. More specifically the liberals tried to portray the famous bull of Paul IV as being an infallible dogmatic statement, thinking they would thus show papal infallibility to be ridiculous.
Against this claim, cardinal Joseph Hergenröther, in one of his works, explains that the bull of Paul IV is not a dogmatic definition, but rather a penal law.2
Hergenröther was arguing against an absurd interpretation of the Bull:
Which held that penal and disciplinary laws were infallible in the same sense as dogmatic definitions3
Which was proposed by enemies of the Church and opponents of Vatican I’s definition of papal infallibility
Which was was already a very severe document (with extensive punishments beyond simple loss of office).
However, the question today is this: are we to assume from Cum ex Apostolatus’ nature as penal law, that there are no principles of natural or divine law upon which it was based, and which would remain in its absence?
As an example, fasting and sacrifice are of the natural law: without positive directions from the Church about when and how to fast or sacrifice, the obligation would remain.
Even if Hergenröther says that the decree “may be perhaps considered too severe, injudicious, and immoderate in its punishments,” it does not seem reasonable to conclude that, just because he stated that the document “only contains penal sanctions,” that he therefore thought that Cum ex Apostolatus was based solely on Paul IV’s whims, without reference to more fundamental principles.
How does this apply in this case, relating to the constitution of the Church, her members, her hierarchy, and heresy?
Public Divine Law
Cardinal Ottaviani explained in his Institutiones Iuris Publici Ecclesiastici that
“[P]ublic law precedes private law in order and in excellence; the more so, that the former is for the most part divine, while the latter was, in greater part, established by human authority. Consequently, public law is, in its chief part, immutable, constant, lasting to the end of the world, because the Church will stand until that time, in the form in which she was founded by Christ…”4
He continues:
“… the principal part of the public law is divine, containing the immutable and permanent laws concerning the nature of the church, her authority and teaching office […]
“Examples of divine public law are: […] the constitution of the sacred hierarchy.”5
Whilst agreeing that Cum Ex Apostolatus is a penal document and therefore abrogated as a whole by the 1917 Code of Canon Law, it seems hard to conclude that every matter the document touches, implies or presumes is penal in nature.
On the contrary, any such decree entails provisions or principles, which will remain of lasting value insofar as they are either:
Incorporated into the 1917 Code
How far were its provisions or principles of natural or divine law, and/or “incorporated in the Code” – if at all?
The Bull was included in the Fontes (sources) of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, as a footnote for Can. 188.4. However, Fontes is a private work of Cardinal Gasparri, and not an authoritative indication that Paul IV’s Constitution remains in force, in whole or in part (still less, in which parts).
Our own view is that expressed by John Daly (the translator of the text) himself, expressed as follows:
Considered in the abstract and without reference to present circumstances the thesis that a manifest heretic cannot be pope and that no legal process or declaration is needed to deprive him of what he does not possess in the first place is certainly Roman. Though not a dogma, and contested by some few theologians, it is the teaching of the theologians most approved by Rome and underpins the ruling of Pope Paul IV’s Cum Ex Apostolatus and of Pope Saint Pius V’s Inter multiplices.
It is an application of the principle that the heretic, being outside the Church through the fact of not professing her faith, cannot hold office within her: a principle enshrined in Canon 188, 4° of the 1917 Code of Canon Law. It is taught by several Doctors of the Church, most explicitly by Saint Robert Bellarmine, whose doctrine concerning the papacy the Church praises and commends to her children.
In short, it seems that some of the principles undergirding Cum ex Apostolatus similarly undergird and are included in Can. 188.4, without incorporating the decree itself.
We also share the views expressed by John Lane at the end of this article, following the Bull itself.
The nature of heresy
The principles at stake include the radical incompatibility between open heresy on the one hand, and membership and the holding of ecclesiastical office on the other.
Pius XII taught that heresy (at least, open heresy) of its own nature separates a man from the Church, which is to say, apart from the provisions of positive law.
Similarly, in arguing for the so-called fifth opinion, St Robert Bellarmine writes:
“Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are "ipso facto" deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity […]
“St. Thomas also teaches (S. Theol., II-II, q. 39, a. 3) that schismatics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and that anything they try to do on the basis of any jurisdiction will be null.6
“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. […]
“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. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.”7 (Emphasis added)
This is the basis for some of the provisions of Cum Ex Apostolatus. The Bull went well beyond this principle, possibly appearing to state that one who had been even an occult heretic was also barred from office, and to suspend effects of the Church’s peaceful and universal adherence to a man as pope. We have nothing to say of such ideas here (as there are other interpretations), but both these two ideas appear to be provisions of positive law and thus no longer in force.
But the idea that the abrogation of the Bull means that an open heretic may now retain membership and ecclesiastical office appears to be a denial that this radical incompatibility is based on divine law and the nature of things, and based on assumptions of a legal positivist nature. It is surely not what Cardinal Hergenröther meant.
Some commentaries on the text
We have already seen that Cardinal Hergenröther addressed this issue. Bishop Josef Fessler also addressed the non-infallibility and disciplinary nature of the decree. However, as suggested above for the Cardinal, both churchmen were considering the decree in a very particular nineteenth century context, and their comments should not be understood as undermining the theological reality of heresy and the constitution of the Church.
During the twentieth century, Bishop Gerald McDevitt treated the canonical concept of ‘tacit resignation of office,’ and explained how principles, expressed in Paul IV’s bull, continue to be in force today.
However, following the onset of the crisis in the Church:
Abbé Henri Mouraux, longtime collaborator of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, argued that the Bull itself (and not just certain principles) will remain in force in perpetuity—and that, as a result, the post-conciliar claimants to the papacy have not been true popes
The late James Larson treated the decree and Pope Paul IV very dismissively, but unfortunately provided little evidence to justify his analysis.
Christopher Conlon has presented several texts explaining why it should not be understood as a dogmatic definition.
Abbé Damien Dutertre has presented his analysis of the decree and related matters (such as whether “obedience accorded to such by all” pertains to the UPA doctrine or something else) in Chapter XIII of TheThesis.Us.
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has also cited the Bull, in a somewhat different way, in his Statement of 28 June 2024, accusing Francis of heresy and schism.
John Lane has provided some background in his extended response to Fr Boulet in 2013. The relevant sections follow Pope Paul IV's text below.
Some further background to the history of this Apostolic Constitution, including the historical threats which led to Pope Paul IV’s promulgation of it, can also be found here:
Whatever the status and import of the Bull, it is important that it be available.
Cum ex Apostolatus Officio
Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul IV
15th February 1559
(Roman Bullarium Vol. IV. Sec. I, pp. 354-357)
Text translated by Mr John S. Daly and published with his permission. Sub-headings added and some formatting changed by The WM Review for ease of reading online.
The Duty of the Roman Pontiff
By virtue of the Apostolic office which, despite our unworthiness, has been entrusted to Us by God, We are responsible for the general care of the flock of the Lord. Because of this, in order that the flock may be faithfully guarded and beneficially directed, We are bound to be diligently watchful after the manner of a vigilant Shepherd and to ensure most carefully that certain people who consider the study of the truth beneath them should be driven out of the sheepfold of Christ and no longer continue to disseminate error from positions of authority.
We refer in particular to those who in this age, impelled by their sinfulness and supported by their cunning, are attacking with unusual learning and malice the discipline of the orthodox Faith, and who, moreover, by perverting the import of Holy Scripture, are striving to rend the unity of the Catholic Church and the seamless tunic of the Lord.
The Danger of Heresy and the Necessity of Vigilance
1. In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff, who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith.
Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted, We have been concerned lest false prophets or others, even if they have only secular jurisdiction, should wretchedly ensnare the souls of the simple, and drag with them into perdition, destruction and damnation countless peoples committed to their care and rule, either in spiritual or in temporal matters; and We have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place.
In view of this, Our desire has been to fulfil our Pastoral duty, insofar as, with the help of God, We are able, so as to arrest the foxes who are occupying themselves in the destruction of the vineyard of the Lord and to keep the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be dumb watchdogs that cannot bark and lest We perish with the wicked husbandman and be compared with the hireling.
Renewal of Existing Sanctions Against Heretics and Schismatics
2. Hence, concerning these matters, We have held mature deliberation with our venerable brothers the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church; and, upon their advice and with their unanimous agreement, we now enact as follows:
In respect of each and every sentence of excommunication, suspension, interdict and privation and any other sentences, censures and penalties against heretics or schismatics, enforced and promulgated in any way whatsoever by any of Our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs, or by any who were held to be such (even by their "litterae extravagantes" i.e. private letters), or by the sacred Councils received by the Church of God, or by decrees of the Holy Fathers and the statutes, or by the sacred Canons and the Constitutions and Apostolic Ordinations - all these measures, by Apostolic authority, We approve and renew, that they may and must be observed in perpetuity and, if perchance they be no longer in lively observance, that they be restored to it.
Thus We will and decree that the aforementioned sentences, censures and penalties be incurred without exception by all members of the following categories:
(i) Anysoever who, before this date, shall have been detected to have deviated from the Catholic Faith, or fallen into any heresy, or incurred schism, or provoked or committed either or both of these, or who have confessed to have done any of these things, or who have been convicted of having done any of these things.
(ii) Anysoever who (which may God, in His clemency and goodness to all, deign to avert) shall in the future so deviate or fall into heresy, or incur schism, or shall provoke or commit either or both of these.
(iii) Anysoever who shall be detected to have so deviated, fallen, incurred, provoked or committed, or who shall confess to have done any of these things, or who shall be convicted of having done any of these things.
These sanctions, moreover, shall be incurred by all members of these categories, of whatever status, grace, order, condition and pre-eminence they may be, even if they be endowed with the Episcopal, Archiepiscopal, Patriarchal, Primatial or some other greater Ecclesiastical dignity, or with the honour of the Cardinalate and of the Universal Apostolic See by the office of Legate, whether temporary or permanent, or if they be endowed with even worldly authority or excellence, as Count, Baron, Marquis, Duke, King or Emperor.
All this We will and decree.
Additional Punishments for Ecclesiastical and Secular Authorities
3. Nonetheless, We also consider it proper that those who do not abandon evil deeds through love of virtue should be deterred therefrom by fear of punishment; and We are aware that Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals and Legates, Counts, Barons, Marquises, Dukes, Kings and Emperors (who ought to teach others and offer them a good example in order to preserve them in the Catholic Faith), by failing in their duty sin more gravely than others; since they not only damn themselves, but also drag with them into perdition and into the pit of death countless other people entrusted to their care or rule, or otherwise subject to them, by their like counsel and agreement.
Hence, by this Our Constitution which is to remain valid in perpetuity, in abomination of so great a crime (than which none in the Church of God can be greater or more pernicious) by the fulness of our Apostolic Power, We enact, determine, decree and define (since the aforesaid sentences, censures and penalties are to remain in efficacious force and strike all those whom they are intended to strike) that:
(i) each and every member of the following categories - Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals, Legates, Counts, Barons, Marquises, Dukes, Kings and Emperors - who:
(a)hitherto (as We have already said) have been detected, or have confessed to have, or have been convicted of having, deviated [i.e. from the Catholic Faith], or fallen into heresy or incurred schism or provoked or committed either or both of these;
(b) in the future also shall [so] deviate, or fall into heresy, or incur schism, or provoke or commit either or both of these, or shall be detected or shall confess to have, or shall be convicted of having [so] deviated, or fallen into heresy, or incurred schism, or provoked or committed either or both of these;
(since in this they are rendered more inexcusable than the rest) in addition to the aforementioned sentences, censures and penalties, shall also automatically, without any exercise of law or application of fact, be thoroughly, entirely and perpetually deprived of:- their Orders and Cathedrals, even Metropolitan, Patriarchal and Primatial Churches, the honour of the Cardinalate and the office of any embassy whatsoever, not to mention both active and passive voting rights, all authority, Monasteries, benefices and Ecclesiastical offices, be they functional or sinecures, secular or religious of whatsoever Order, which they may have obtained by any concessions whatsoever, or by Apostolic Dispensations to title, charge and administration or otherwise howsoever, and in which or to which they may have any right whatsoever, likewise any whatsoever fruits, returns or annual revenues from like fruits, returns and revenues reserved for and assigned to them, as well as Countships, Baronies, Marquisates, Dukedoms, Kingships and Imperial Power;
(ii) that, moreover, they shall be unfit and incapable in respect of these things and that they shall be held to be backsliders and subverted in every way, just as if they had previously abjured heresy of this kind in public trial; that they shall never at any time be able to be restored, returned, reinstated or rehabilitated to their former status or Cathedral, Metropolitan, Patriarchal and Primatial Churches, or the Cardinalate, or other honour, any other dignity, greater or lesser, any right to vote, active or passive, or authority, or Monasteries and benefices, or Countships, Baronies, Marquisates, Dukedoms, Kingships and positions of Imperial power; but rather that they shall be abandoned to the judgement of the secular power to be punished after due consideration, unless there should appear in them signs of true penitence and the fruits of worthy repentance, and, by the kindness and clemency of the See itself, they shall have been sentenced to sequestration in any Monastery or other religious house in order to perform perpetual penance upon the bread of sorrow and the water of affliction;
(iii) that all such individuals also shall be held, treated and reputed as such by everyone, of whatsoever status, grade, order, condition or pre-eminence he may be and whatsoever excellence may be his, even Episcopal, Archiepiscopal, Patriarchal and Primatial or other greater Ecclesiastical dignity and even the honour of the Cardinalate, or secular, even the authority of Count, Baron, Marquis, Duke, King or Emperor, and as such must be avoided and must be deprived of the sympathy of all natural kindess.
Incapacity and Exclusion of Those Supporting Heretics
4. [By this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We] further enact, determine, decree and define:]
That those who shall have claimed to have the right of patronage or of nominating suitable persons to Cathedral, Metropolitan, Patriarchal and Primatial Churches, or to Monasteries or other Ecclesiastical benefices which may be vacant by privation of this kind (in order that those which shall have been vacant for a long time may not be exposed to the unfit, but, having been rescued from enslavement to heretics, may be granted to suitable persons who would faithfully direct their people in the paths of justice), shall be bound to present other persons suitable to Churches, Monasteries and benefices of this kind, to Us, or to the Roman Pontiff at that time existing, within the time determined by law, or by their concordats, or by compacts entered into with the said See; and that, if they shall not have done so when the said period shall have elapsed, the full and free disposition of the aforesaid Churches, Monasteries and benefices shall by the fulness of the law itself devolve upon Us or upon the aforesaid Roman Pontiff.
5. [By this Our Constitution,] moreover, [which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We] also [enact, determine, decree and define:-]
as follows concerning those who shall have presumed in any way knowingly to receive, defend, favour, believe or teach the teaching of those so apprehended, confessed or convicted:
(i) they shall automatically incur sentence of excommunication;
(ii) they shall be rendered infamous;
(iii) they shall be excluded on pain of invalidity from any public or private office, deliberation, Synod, general or provincial Council and any conclave of Cardinals or other congregation of the faithful, and from any election or function of witness, so that they cannot take part in any of these by vote, in person, by writings, representative or by any agent;
(iv) they shall be incapable of making a will;
(v) they shall not accede to the succession of heredity;
(vi) no one shall be forced to respond to them concerning any business;
(vii) if perchance they shall have been Judges, their judgements shall have no force, nor shall any cases be brought to their hearing.;
(viii) if they shall have been Advocates, their pleading shall nowise be received;
(ix) if they shall have been Notaries, documents drafted by them shall be entirely without strength or weight;
(x) clerics shall be automatically deprived of each and every Church, even Cathedral, Metropolitan, Patriarchal, Primatial, and likewise of dignities, Monasteries, benefices and Ecclesiastical offices, and even, as has been already mentioned, of qualifications, howsoever obtained by them;
(xi) laymen, moreover, in the same way - even if they be qualified, as already described, or endowed with the aforesaid dignities or anysoever Kingdoms, Duchies, Dominions, Fiefs and temporal goods possessed by them;
(xii) finally, all Kingdoms, Duchies, Dominions, Fiefs and goods of this kind shall be confiscated, made public and shall remain so, and shall be made the rightful property of those who shall first occupy them if these shall be sincere in faith, in the unity of the Holy Roman Church and under obedience to Us and to Our successors the Roman Pontiffs canonically entering office.
The Nullity of Election for Heretical Clerics, Including a Pope
6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:]
That if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;
(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;
(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.
The Right and Duty to Withdraw Obedience from Heretics
7. Finally, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We] also [enact, determine, define and decree]:-
that any and all persons who would have been subject to those thus promoted or elevated if they had not previously deviated from the Faith, become heretics, incurred schism or provoked or committed any or all of these, be they members of anysoever of the following categories:
(i) the clergy, secular and religious;
(ii) the laity;
(iii) the Cardinals, even those who shall have taken part in the election of this very Pontiff previously deviating from the Faith or heretical or schismatical, or shall otherwise have consented and vouchsafed obedience to him and shall have venerated him;
(iv) Castellans, Prefects, Captains and Officials, even of Our Beloved City and of the entire Ecclesiastical State, even if they shall be obliged and beholden to those thus promoted or elevated by homage, oath or security;
… shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs (the same subject persons, nevertheless, remaining bound by the duty of fidelity and obedience to any future Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals and Roman Pontiff canonically entering).
To the greater confusion, moreover, of those thus promoted or elevated, if these shall have wished to prolong their government and authority, they shall be permitted to request the assistance of the secular arm against these same individuals thus promoted or elevated; nor shall those who withdraw on this account, in the aforementioned circumstances, from fidelity and obedience to those thus promoted and elevated, be subject, as are those who tear the tunic of the Lord, to the retribution of any censures or penalties.
Derogation of Any Contrary Privileges or Provisions
8. [The provisions of this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity are to take effect] notwithstanding any Constitutions, Apostolic Ordinations, privileges, indults or Apostolic Letters, whether they be to these same Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates and Cardinals or to any others, and whatsoever may be their import and form, and with whatsoever sub-clauses or decrees they may have been granted, even "motu proprio" and by certain knowledge, from the fulness of the Apostolic power or even consistorially or otherwise howsoever; and even if they have been repeatedly approved and renewed,have been included in the corpus of the Law or strengthened by any capital conclaves whatsoever (even by oath) or by Apostolic confirmation or by anysoever other endorsements or if they were legislated by ourself. By this present document instead of by express mention, We specially and expressly derogate the provisions of all these by appropriate deletion and word-for-word substitution, so that these may otherwise remain in force.
Publication and Enforcement of the Constitution
9. In order, however, that this document may be brought to the notice of all whom it concerns, We wish it or a transcription of it (to which, when made by the hand of the undersigned Public Notary and fortified by the seal of any person established in ecclesiastical dignity, We decree that complete trust must be accorded) to be published and affixed in the Basilica of the Prince of the Apostles in this City and on the doors of the Apostolic Chancery and in the pavilion of the Campus Florae by some of our couriers; [we] will [further] that a quantity of copies affixed in this place should be distributed, and that publication and affixing of this kind should suffice and be held as right, solemn and legitimate, and that no other publication should be required or awaited.
The Divine Wrath Against Those Who Oppose This Constitution
10. No one at all, therefore, may infringe this document of our approbation, re-introduction, sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash presumption contradict it. If anyone, however, should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul.
Given in Rome at Saint Peter's in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1559, 15th February, in the fourth year of our Pontificate.
+ I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church…
With thanks to John S. Daly for permission to publish his translation.
John Lane’s comments on the status of Cum Ex Apostolatus today
In his extended 2013 reply to Fr Dominique Boulet on the question of the post-conciliar claimants to the papacy, John Lane explained his understanding of the Bull’s status today:
Cum ex apostolatus is a papal bull issued in the circumstance that it appeared that Cardinal Morone, who was suspected of Protestantism, might be elected to the papacy after the death of Paul IV.
It was abrogated by the Code of 1917. Sedevacantists do not generally think that Popes are subject to the Canons, insofar as these are purely ecclesiastical law, or that the penal provisions of Cum ex apostolatus survived the promulgation of the Code in 1917, except insofar as they were contained in the Code.
The argument, then, is not that [Francis,] Benedict XVI, John Paul II or Paul VI were disqualified by canon law as expressed in Cum ex apostolatus or that they lost their offices by virtue of Canon 188,4, but merely that only a Catholic is valid matter for the papacy (or any ecclesiastical office) and therefore a non-Catholic cannot under any circumstances hold an office.
The mind of the Church on this point is shown both by Cum ex apostolatus and by Canon 188,4, which illustrate the radical incompatibility of the status of non-Catholic and possession of habitual jurisdiction.
Other sources for the same doctrine are St. Robert Bellarmine, who goes so far as to assert that this is the constant tradition of Holy Church, and cites several Popes for his position, and St. Thomas Aquinas, who says that schismatics immediately lose all jurisdiction.
Likewise pretty much every theologian and canonist appears to agree that only a Catholic is valid matter for the papacy, thus confirming that it is divine law that only Catholics may possess ecclesiastical offices.
Elsewhere in the same work, Lane discusses the implications behind this Bull being a merely disciplinary decree:
But in fact all discipline is doctrinal, insofar as it must be (at least) consistent with true doctrine. In this case we have a papal document of very great weight (a bull) which expresses the doctrine of St. Robert Bellarmine on the question of heretics claiming offices in the Church. It expresses in the strongest possible language the mind of the Church on this subject.
If we accept the assertions of St. Robert to the effect that his doctrine is the constant tradition of Holy Church (and why would anybody not accept those assertions of a Doctor of the Church, and supported as they are by a forest of quotes from the Fathers and Popes?), then this papal bull is merely another piece of evidence of the mind of the Church on this point, entirely consistent with all that has preceded and succeeded it.
And of course, if we look at the footnotes in the Code we find that the essential theme of this bull was incorporated in the Code, in canon 188,4.
Elsewhere again, he discusses what is meant by the phrase “with all of his acts void and giving no power”:
This is an entirely understandable clause to add to any discussion of Cum ex apostolatus, which of course states, that “each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone,” thus rendering null all of the acts of such public heretics who might perchance claim an office in the Church.
But as already stated, Cum ex apostolatus was abrogated by the Code (of 1917), except insofar as its provisions were included in the text of the Code, so that this global invalidation of the acts of false claimants is no longer in force, except insofar as it is divine law.
And, the supply of jurisdiction by Holy Mother Church, in cases of common error and in positive and probable doubt of fact or law is certainly a part of the 1917 Code, and therefore even if this provision of Cum ex apostolatus were considered to have survived the Code, or to be divine law (which in fact I believe it is), the Church would still supply jurisdiction in the circumstances mentioned.
Habitual jurisdiction is lacking to them, but supplied jurisdiction is an entirely different question. Of course there can be no doubt that there has been at least common error in relation to the Vatican II “Popes.” The principle that the Church supplies jurisdiction in common error and in positive and probable doubt of fact or law will obviously have had far-reaching effects in this crisis.
Determining the exact extent of these effects would require some study of both law and fact. It should suffice in this place to mention it in order to dismiss the objection that a vacant See implies universal nullity of official acts.
HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE!
As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription from you helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all. Plus, you will get access to our exclusive members-only material.
(We make our members-only material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!
Further Reading
,_ca._1560.jpg){kind=link}
Cf. n. 32, Chapter XIII, TheThesis.US
Ibid.
There is a sense in which such laws, when universal, are properly understood as being infallible, but in a difference sense to dogmatic decrees. See here for more:
Is the Church infallible in her discipline and rites? Abbé Hervé Belmont
Ottaviani, Institutiones Iuris Publici Ecclesiastici, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, Rome, 1958, p. 9-11. Translated by Mr. James Larrabee, taken from John Lane’s essay here:
Ibid.
When making the point himself, Cardinal Billot adds in a footnote:
“Note how I said deliberately, ‘all ordinary jurisdiction’; for the same does not apply to extraordinary jurisdiction or that which is merely delegated in a case of necessity, as is obvious to anyone who thinks about it.”
Louis Cardinal Billot, de Ecclesia Christi, Rome, 1927. This section is taken from a translation made by Fr Julian Larrabee and is found in the section Thesis XI §2
Don't know if you're aware of it but a certain brother Alexis Bugnolo has written a critique of this post of yours. I have already challenged his critique but I think you' would do a much better job than me. I've provided the link below to the article in question.
https://www.fromrome.info/2025/08/03/wm-reviews-anonymous-illiterate-comments-on-paul-ivs-bull/