Daily News
SSPX’s Bishop Fellay: Little By Little Rome Is Giving Us All We Need for Reconciliation (521)
In a wide-ranging interview with the Register, the leader of the traditionalist priestly society details how Pope Francis has opened the door to the SSPX’s full integration with the Church.
BY EDWARD PENTIN 05/18/2016 Comment
Bishop Bernard Fellay
– Edward Pentin
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/sspxs-bishop-fellay-little-by-little-rome-is-giving-us-all-we-need-for-reco/#ixzz490PdxdB2
21 comments:
Thanks be to God & Our Blessed Lady for listening to our earnest prayers for this reconciliation to happen in order that Tradition can be brought back into the CC. If the SSPX can maintain their present stance and still speak out against heresies as they see them it will be nothing less than a miracle. I hope & pray that Bishop Fellay will point out to PF the necessity of consecrating Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary before they accept full regularisation.
"But some associated with the SSPX ... believe Bishop Fellay is seeking reconciliation at any cost, and that the Society risks coming under the influence of ...”modernist cuckoos” occupying the Vatican.
Bishop Fellay rejects such a position as “totally wrong,” insisting “we’re not going to compromise, to hurt the faith, the discipline of the Church.”
BUT:
" A Vatican source said the Society has already “toned down some of their literature, interviews and publications.” ?
Bishop Fellay has publicly stated that Jorge is a Modernist(Heretic.)
BUT:
"Fellay believes Francis is someone who wants to see everyone saved ... and “that is probably what he’s doing with us.”
SO: A heretic will save the SSPX. Wow!
"Still, the SSPX is seeking to insert safeguards of its identity into any agreement with Rome."
SO: The Church is no longer ONE? It now has factions?
"And they feel confident they can continue criticizing the post-conciliar Church and the Council IF NECESSARY..."
SO: The clergy and laity will now only submit PARTIALLY to the
(heretical) Vicar of Christ? Final authority now resides in Bishop Fellay?
"But given the concerns expressed about aspects of today’s post-conciliar Church, highlighted by the recent controversy over the apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, can the SSPX be confident of the support of SSPX church-goers for reconciliation?"
SO: Now the Church is a democracy?
“It will be quite a work and it will take time to be able to bring the faithful to realize this new face in the history of the Church, this new reality,” Bishop Fellay conceded."
SO: Now the Church has a new face and a new reality.? It's no longer indefectible? Bishop Fellay is not controlled opposition - is he?
"But, he added, not moving ahead “because things are bad is by no way what God, Our Lord, is requesting from his apostles.”
SO: Our Lord requests us to join heretics on the path to salvation?
“The situation of the Church ... will grow into a really messy situation,” he said ... because the problem “is in the Church” and what is happening now, “which is confusion at all levels, moral and doctrinal.”
SO: the Immaculate Bride of Christ is confusion at all levels? Is that possible?
Saint Paul got it wrong? Christ has something with belial?
Funny! I thought St. Paul said that even if an angel taught a gospel which deviated but one iota from what he, St. Paul, had taught we were to let them be anathema - not join them, but I'm sure Bishop Fellay knows best?
"Little by Little" Rome is being dragged kicking and screaming to accept the Society of St. Pius X!"
Vox, I noted the other day on your blog that we've reached the point at which Pope Francis declared that the Society of Saint Pius X is "Catholic," while Super Trads, those folks who believe that they alone are the only true Catholics on earth, have labeled the SSPX "heretical".
That observation also applies to the idea that little by little, Rome is being dragged kicking and screaming to accept the Society of St. Pius X. How amazing it is that while Rome has moved closer to accepting the SSPX as they (SSPX) are, the SSPX Resistance and "Super Trads" have distanced themselves from the Society.
The idea that Rome is the problem when it comes to attacking and opposing the SSPX is ancient history. His Holiness Pope Francis has consigned that notion to the trash can.
The SSPX's most vicious enemies are found among Traditionalists. Rome does not foment hatred against the SSPX. Rome hasn't labeled the SSPX "heretical". Rome does not exhort Catholics to shun the SSPX.
Rather, it is various Traditional Catholics who foment hatred against the SSPX, labeled the SSPX "heretical," and exhort Catholics to shun the SSPX.
Therefore, it is various Traditionalists who must be persuaded little by little, dragged kicking and screaming, to accept the SSPX.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark, it may not be Rome itself (the Vatican) that exhorts Catholics to shun the SSPX any longer, but almost all the hierarchy and clergy do. The vast majority of priests and bishops hate the SSPX and oppose it at least as much as the trad Resistance do. So your comment is a little disingenuous.
I didn't think it was the SuperTrads having a problem with the SSPX. The SuperTrads are the SSPX, FSSP, and ICK. I thought the conservative Catholics (Shea, Weigel, Kresta, Akin, etc...) were the ones with the problem. And Michael Voris, of course. But he seems to have come under financial sway of an anti-SSPX donor.
I've only been to an SSPX chapel once, while traveling. (I normally attend an FSSP parish.) The only person who had a problem with my doing so was definitely in the conservative camp.
Anonymous at 1:26 p.m....
I agree that the majority of Latin Church bishops and priests despise or have little interest in the TLM and Holy Tradition...let alone have any interest in promoting the SSPX. However, I disagree that they possess the degree of hatred for the SSPX that the "trad Resistance" and "Super Trads harbor toward the SSPX.
Super Trads and the SSPX Resistance possess across-the-board hatred for the "heretical" SSPX. They don't possess even lukewarm feelings for the SSPX. However, at least there are Latin Church bishops who support the TLM outwardly. There also are bishops who at least tolerate the TLM. Said bishops are not the SSPX's enemies...or at least won't be upon the SSPX's regularization.
Conversely, Super Trads are unwavering in their claim that Bishop Fellay and the SSPX are heretics. Super Trads are unwavering in their stance that Catholics are called to shun the "heretical" SSPX.
At the very least, tolerance for the SSPX is building throughout the Church. However, that is not the case remotely in regard to Super Trads and their attitude toward the SSPX. The Super Trads' hatred for the SSPX is powerful and will grow more vicious, if that's even possible, upon the SSPX's regularization.
The SSPX's most vocal and bitter enemies are now numbered clearly among certain Traditionalists. The Super Trads are determined to drive as many Catholics as possible from the SSPX.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Anonymous at 1:50 p.m said..."I didn't think it was the SuperTrads having a problem with the SSPX. The SuperTrads are the SSPX, FSSP, and ICK. I thought the conservative Catholics (Shea, Weigel, Kresta, Akin, etc...) were the ones with the problem. And Michael Voris, of course. But he seems to have come under financial sway of an anti-SSPX donor."
The Super Trads, at least as I understand and employ that term, are not SSPX, FSSP, and ICK. The SSPX, FSSP, and ICK are in communion with Pope Francis and the True Faith.
Super Trads, as I understand them, are not in communion with Pope Francis and the True Faith. Super Trads, in their world, are the only "true" Catholics on earth. They view each Pope from Saint John XXIII to Francis as "heretical" as well as each "Catholic" who is in communion with Pope Francis.
Yes, many conservative Catholics held (or hold) anti-TLM/SSPX views.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Anonymous at 1:50 p.m. said..."I've only been to an SSPX chapel once, while traveling. (I normally attend an FSSP parish.) The only person who had a problem with my doing so was definitely in the conservative camp."
I am surprised that you are not familiar with the SSPX's long-held animosity toward the FSSP. Perhaps you are new relatively to the FSSP. There is also the reality that despite their claims otherwise, the SSPX has been at least a bit more toned-down of late.
Anyway, here is a link to the SSPX's FAQs...and their nasty attitude toward the FSSP, which I hope that they have (or will) repudiate:
http://archives.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q13_fraternity_of_st_peter.htm
One could argue definitely that the SSPX was very much "Super Trad" in their condemnation of the FSSP and so-called "indult" Catholics.
Question 13: What are we to think of the Fraternity of St. Peter?
"...Pope John Paul II recognized (Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, July 2, 1988) the “rightful aspirations” (for these things) of those who wouldn’t support Archbishop Lefebvre’s stance, and offered to give to them what he had always refused the Archbishop. A dozen or so priests of the SSPX accepted this “good will” and broke away to found the Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP)."
"The Fraternity of St. Peter is founded upon more than questionable principles, for the following reasons:" (The SSPX then lists reasons why the FSSP is "questionable", which you can read by going to the above link.)
"They are therefore Conciliar Catholics and not traditional Catholics. This being so, attending their Mass is:
• accepting the compromise on which they are based,
• accepting the direction taken by the Conciliar Church and the consequent destruction of the Catholic Faith and practices, and
• accepting, in particular, the lawfulness and doctrinal soundness of the Novus Ordo Missae and Vatican II.
"That is why a Catholic ought not to attend their Masses."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
If the Liturgy, any Liturgy, is a cause of separating people from obeying God's Commandments, then to hell with it, whether it's an old or new liturgy, a roman or byzantine. It's interesting to watch how stupid the human being has become. Jesus accused his followers, his disciples and his listeners of being stupid, and that didn't change after 2016 years.
Even right after His resurrection, his apostles continued with their stupidity and internal fights. Read the Bible, the Gospels and the Acts. Stupid humans, can't you see? Don't you realize that anything that causes disunity among Christians is from Satan? Yes, even the Liturgy can be the cause of your fall.
Remember, the purpose of following Christ is to Obey Him, to Love Him, to Do Everything For Him, and to Hope for Eternal Life while awaiting His Second Coming.
Nothing else matters.
I will repeat. Read the Bible.
SSPX ; Bishop Fellay:
"... And they [SSPX] feel confident they can continue criticizing the post-conciliar Church and the Council if necessary, largely because many other voices are now doing the same. “We will maintain the urgency to make corrections ... [Bishop Fellay]".
Pope Pius IX:
"Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, NOT ENDURING SOUND DOCTRINE, contend that “without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See ... But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church."
(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Quanta Cura, n. 5.)
Vatican I :
"And since the Roman Pontiff is at the head of the universal Church by the divine right of apostolic primacy, We teach and declare also that he is the supreme judge of the faithful ... moreover, that the judgment of the Apostolic See, whose authority is not surpassed, is to be disclaimed by no one,
NOR IS ANYONE PERMITTED TO PASS JUDGEMENT ON ITS JUDGEMENT."
(First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, Ch. 3; Denz. 1830.)
Pope Pius XII:
"Let no one take from you the glory of that rectitude in doctrine and fidelity in obedience due to the Vicar of Christ; among your ranks let there be no room for that “free examination” more fitting to the heterodox mentality than to the pride of the Christian, and according to which no one hesitates to summon before the tribunal of his OWN JUDGEMENT even those things which have their origin in the Apostolic See."
(Allocution to the General Congregation of the Society of Jesus, Sept. 10, 1957; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, n. 1483, p. 760.)
Pope Pius XII:
"... public heresy alone — together with schism and apostasy — is a sin that of its very nature can make a true Pope cease being Pope: “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”
(Encyclical Mystici Corporis, n. 23).
So well put Peter Lamb! Thank you! I wish I had written that! Real clarity and not an ENDLESS comment, swiftly followed by three other endless comments by the same poster, as one has too often experienced on this excellent blog! Thanks again@
Peter Lamb said...Vatican I :
"And since the Roman Pontiff is at the head of the universal Church by the divine right of apostolic primacy, We teach and declare also that he is the supreme judge of the faithful ... moreover, that the judgment of the Apostolic See, whose authority is not surpassed, is to be disclaimed by no one, NOR IS ANYONE PERMITTED TO PASS JUDGEMENT ON ITS JUDGEMENT." (First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, Ch. 3; Denz. 1830.)
The history of the papacy is replete with legitimate popes contradicting the judgment of previous legitimate popes.
Nowhere is that more apparent than with the trial of Pope Formosus, whose successor Pope Stephen VI declared to be an antipope.
Stephen declared Formosus' ordinations and episcopal consecrations invalid. Sergius III upheld the decision of Stephen VI.
Both Theodore II and John IX, valid popes, contradicted Sergius and Stephen, who were also valid popes, and declared Formosus a true pope and his ordinations and episcopal consecrations valid.
The sedevacantist understanding of the papacy is simplistic and flawed.
DJR
Dear Anonymous (DJR), Please note that the quote you are disputing is from a Dogmatic Constitution of Vatican I - it is NOT a sedevacantist quote, or concoction.
I am not familiar with the case of Pope Formosus which you quote in opposition to Vatican I.
Please will you provide citations (reference sources) to substantiate your statements and I will try to provide a Catholic (not sedevacantist) answer to your assertions.
Thank you Eirene. :)
DJR said..."The sedevacantist understanding of the papacy is simplistic and flawed."
There was an article that I read about sedevacantists. The article noted the following:
"There are generally three proposed time periods with respect to sedevacantism:"
1. Last pope was in 1100s
2. Last pope was Pius X
3. Last pope was Pius XII
How do sedevacantists determine which Pope is the "last true Pope"? I have never understood how or why each faction in question centers upon a certain Pope to suit their (the sedevacantists) agenda.
I am very surprised that so many sedevacantists settled upon Pope Venerable Pius XII as their fantasy "last true Pope" as he was very liberal in many ways. He seems to be the most popular choice among sedevacantists.
If anything, the fact that Pope Venerable Pius XII launched the Church into the Ecumenical Movement would disqualify him as a "true Pope". He declared that the Holy Ghost inspired the Ecumenical Movement. Conversely, sedevacantists insist that the Ecumenical Movement is heretical.
Why on earth would sedevacantists settle upon Pope Venerable Pius XII as their "last true Pope" when he launched the Church into supposed heresy via the Ecumenical Movement?
Again, is there any rhyme or reason as to how each sedevacantist faction elects its very own "last true Pope"? Does a sedevacantist faction hold something akin to a Conclave?
Pax
Mark Thomas
Blogger Peter Lamb said... Dear Anonymous (DJR), Please note that the quote you are disputing is from a Dogmatic Constitution of Vatican I - it is NOT a sedevacantist quote, or concoction.
No one is disputing anything from Vatican I, nor have I quoted anything in opposition to that council; what is being disputed is your understanding of the teaching expounded there.
True popes have contradicted one another in their judgments in the past; it's an historical fact.
The Pope Formosus episode is a fact of history.
It is also a fact that one of his successors, Stephen VI, had Pope Formosus' body dug up, put on trial, and thrown in the river after cutting off some of the fingers, after which Stephen annulled all the acts of Pope Formosus and declared him to be an antipope, which was ridiculous because he himself had been consecrated by Formosus.
Stephen was later murdered.
Just google it, and you will find the information in numerous places.
Subsequently, two popes reversed Pope Stephen's rulings and reinstated Pope Formosus, burned the acts that Stephen passed in that regard, and declared Formosus' consecrations valid.
Then subsequent to those two (Theodore II and John IX), Sergius III reinstated Stephen's ruling and again declared Pope Formosus to be an antipope and his ordinations and consecrations invalid.
All the men involved are considered true popes by the Catholic Church.
According to your view, Catholics at the time, both clergy and laity, were REQUIRED to accept Pope Stephen VI's rulings regarding Pope Formosus and hold that Pope Formosus' ordinations and consecrations were invalid (which would throw the whole sacramental system into chaos), then they were required to follow Theodore's and John's rulings reversing Stephen and believing the opposite, then they were required to follow Sergius III's ruling reversing Theodore and John and reinstating Stephen's view, and subsequently were required to reject both Stephen's and Sergius' views on the matter.
Nothing could be more absurd.
Sedevacantist understanding of papal power and authority is the same understanding as the Protestants have; i.e., if a true pope makes a declaration on a matter, Catholics are bound to follow it, regardless of whether it is correct to do so.
That is not the teaching of the Catholic Church, nor is it a correct understanding of Vatican I.
The above information can be found in The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, the Catholic Encyclopedia, and "The Popes, a Concise Biographical History," and numerous other places.
DJR
Dear DJR, Ive been reading up on Pope Formosus. Talk about mayhem, murder and medieval madness! It was a time of political chaos in Italy and a matter of politics rather than religion.
An important difference lies in that Vatican I refers to the relationship between the Pope and the faithful - "We teach and declare also that he is the supreme judge of the faithful ...", whereas the Formosus affair was between Popes. Vatican I - Faithful is not the same as Pope - Pope. You disputed my Vatican I quote on the basis of the Cadaver Synod and your argument therefore doesn't really apply. Apples and oranges.
Each Pope is sovereign and supreme Head of the temporal Church and none has power greater than his predecessor, or his successor.
No Pope has power to change a ruling concerning Faith, or Morals made by his predecessors. His job is to preserve and pass on the Faith intact.
However, regarding discipline is another matter. Each Pope is equally the Supreme Legislator and has the same authority as any other Pope. The reigning Pope can amend, rescind, or re-instate any legal decision by a prior Pope. For example when Pope Pius XII rescinded the suppression of the Jesuits which Pope Clement XIV had ordered. The same authority that can give, can also take away. We are talking about canon law - not Faith and Morals.
The Church is infallible in her *universal* disciplinary laws, although universal disciplinary laws can be changed - from one good law to a different good law. For example, Holy Communion given under one, or under both species.
It would take a canon lawyer to try to sort out which individual steps in the Formosus affair were valid and which weren't. There is an opinion that Pope Steven was mad. If that was true, he was not eligible for election in the first place. That this affair did cause chaos I have no doubt, but whatever was valid remained valid and none of it affected the doctrine of the Church - it was legal mayhem.
The sedevacantist understanding of the papacy is exactly what it has been by the Church always, from the time of Christ until 1958. Sede changes NOTHING of the Catholic Faith as it has been always and every where. NO CHANGES! All that sede has done is to cling faithfully to the Catholic doctrines:
1. The Catholic Church is INDEFECTIBLE..
2. A heretic CANNOT be Pope.
3. The Catholic Church CANNOT TEACH ERROR.
For these reasons sedes reject utterly Vatican II and the conciliar popes as being invalid and heretical. Sedes are nothing more, or less than TRADITIONAL CATHOLICS. Anybody who says otherwise is a liar!
To say "The sedevacantist understanding of the papacy is simplistic and flawed" is easy. Can you back that statement up? Can you be specific?
It's Vatican II, the conciliar popes and conciliar Catholics who embrace change, novelty and error as Catholicism and cafeteria Catholics who pick and choose their Catholicism. It's the sedes who stand firm on the Rock of Peter. So help me God.
Dear DJR, Ive been reading up on Pope Formosus. Talk about mayhem, murder and medieval madness! It was a time of political chaos in Italy and a matter of politics rather than religion.
An important difference lies in that Vatican I refers to the relationship between the Pope and the faithful - "We teach and declare also that he is the supreme judge of the faithful ...", whereas the Formosus affair was between Popes. Vatican I - Faithful is not the same as Pope - Pope. You disputed my Vatican I quote on the basis of the Cadaver Synod and your argument therefore doesn't really apply. Apples and oranges.
The Pope Formosus episode was not just between popes; it affected the clergy, in other words, his successors, who could not have been popes if Pope Stephen VI and Sergius III were correct.
Be that as it may, you did not address the issue of whether the laity were REQUIRED to obey the decrees of Stephen VI and Sergius III regarding Pope Formosus.
Did they have to do that?
What's your answer?
If so, were they then required to obey the decrees of the popes who contradicted them in that matter?
It's not apples and oranges at all. The issue is whether Catholics are required to obey every single judgment/decision that a true pope makes, which is exactly your position.
Please explain how that is possible with regard to the pontificates of Pope Formosus and the next 10 that followed.
DJR
Dear DJR, Why I said apples and Oranges:
The purpose of Pastor Aeternus was:
"We, for the preservation, safe-keeping, and increase of the Catholic flock, with the approval of the Sacred Council, judge it to be necessary to propose, for the belief and acceptance of all the faithful, in accordance with the ancient and constant faith of the universal Church, the doctrine of the institution, perpetuity, and nature of the sacred Apostolic Primacy, by which the strength and solidity of the entire Church is established, and at the same time to proscribe and condemn the contrary errors, which are so harmful to the flock of Christ."
CHAPTER I. ON THE INSTITUTION OF THE APOSTOLIC PRIMACY IN BLESSED PETER.
CHAPTER II. ON THE PERPETUITY OF THE PRIMACY OF BLESSED PETER
IN THE ROMAN PONTIFFS.
CHAPTER III. ON THE POWER AND NATURE OF THE PRIMACY OF THE ROMAN PONTIFF.
CHAPTER IV. ON THE INFALLIBLE TEACHING OF THE ROMAN PONTIFF
This Constitution is declared infallibly to the Universal Church and is not open for discussion. A catholic will accept and submit to it. The subject of this Constitution, clearly stated, was "the doctrine of the institution, perpetuity, and nature of the sacred Apostolic Primacy."
I quoted P.A. to demonstrate the heresy of the SSPX, Bishop Fellay and "many others" who would dare to oppose the teaching of P.A. by the SSPX feeling confident that "... they can continue criticizing the post-conciliar Church and the Council if necessary, largely because many other voices are now doing the same" and Bishop Fellay pompously stating that “We will maintain the urgency to make corrections..." Who does Bishop Fellay think he is to presume to correct the Pope? He recognises Bergoglio as a true Pope - despite declaring him to be a modernist heretic.
Now you tell me, do the SSPX, Bp. Fellay and the "many others" directly contradict P.A.? Yes, or no? If you answer in the affirmative, then they are heretics and have excommunicated themselves from the Catholic Church. Yes, or no? If not, please explain to me why not.
"Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: “This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved"
(Pope Benedict XV, Encyclical Ad Beatissimi, n. 24)
So much for my quote and the context in which it was made - perfectly applicable to the subject under discussion at the time.
You responded by introducing red herrings.
Firstly, you state:
"The history of the papacy is replete with legitimate popes contradicting the judgment of previous legitimate popes."
This is a wild and inaccurate statement. Vatican I has declared that there has never been an heretical Pope in the history of the Church. So, no Pope has ever contradicted another Pope on matters of Faith, or Morals - your statement is already flat on its face. To deny that is to oppose Vatican I.
Secondly, you introduce an intricate case of canon law, which has nothing to do with the topic then under discussion and where it is perfectly ordinary for Supreme Legislators to amend church law as they see fit. (Oranges.) We have already discussed this point.
You have so far failed to back up your equally wild statement that:
"The sedevacantist understanding of the papacy is simplistic and flawed."
As to your question to me: "... you did not address the issue of whether the laity were REQUIRED to obey the decrees of Stephen VI and Sergius III regarding Pope Formosus... What's your answer?"
My answer is that in the specific I cannot answer:
1. I am not a canon lawyer and am not competent to pass judgement.
2. I have no detailed knowledge of this very bizarre and complicated case and have no intention of trying to acquire such - if fine details are in fact available.
However, as a layman I can answer in principle:
The laity are most certainly required to obey the decrees of a valid Pope made to the Universal Church through his infallible ordinary magisterium regarding Church discipline, or governance.
The Catholic Church is one in faith and mind and that is exactly how things were in my youth. The mere fact that we now have all these factions of Catholics fighting - sometimes viciously - should tell us something. The Unity of the Church resides in the Pope and when there is no Pope, there is no Unity; when there is no shepherd, the flock scatters. God bless. :)
Dear DJR, I've been thinking about your point and I think better understanding it. The following came to mind, which might apply to the Cadaver Synod. There is a difference between a pope materialiter and a pope formaliter.
Pope Steven sounds mad to me - for argument's sake, let's say he was. Insanity is an impediment to being pope, but if he was elected properly by the proper electors then he would be a legally elected and designated pope, i.e. he would be a pope materialiter. Designation i.e. election comes from men - the College of Cardinals. However the pope's authority and power, i.e. his "form", comes from God. So pope Steven would now be a legally designated and elected pope, but a pope without authority - he would not be pope formaliter and nobody would be bound to obey him. He would however be historically listed as a valid pope. The same would apply to heretics elected pope in our time. Who knows what the canon law said at the time of Steven's election except an expert canon lawyer?
During the time of the Council of Trent Pope Paul IV issued his Apostolic Constitution Cum Ex Apostolic Officio of February 15, 1559. Please read 6,vi which applied at that time.
In our own time canon 188,4 of the 1917 canon law applies. Here is a short article which explains it clearly:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=12&catname=10
When you brought up the Cadaver Synod, you opened up a can of worms neither of us are competent to handle. :)
Post a Comment