Cum ex Apostolatus Officio

[philipmarie]

.
The document cited in the OP is actually quite the novelty in how strict it is–barring even those who have repented of their heresy. If this were some dogmatic teaching, Pope Pius II could never have been Pope–he was a concilliarist heretic who participated in a schismatical and heretical council and was the Master of Ceremonies in a schismatical and heretical conclave that elected an anti-pope. And he became Pope.

In Mary,

No, there is a small mistake. True, Pope Pius II was a Conciliarist when he got elected. But it happens that at the same time, or a little after He became Pope, we see that He removed His Conciliarist views. This can be seen in His Bull Excerabilis which says that a COuncil cannot be held without the permission of the Pope and that it cannot revoke the Decrees of a Pontiff.

I mean God and Mary would not abandon the Church like that! I think that it is similiar to the case of Baptizing an unbeliever:if one were to Baptize a grown person who has does not believe in Christ and does not have the least spark of faith, then the Baptism is still done but it won’t confer any sanctifying grace on the person. However, if the person later starts believing, then the graces of Baptism will come on him the moment he starts believing. And I think that if a heretic were to accept the office as Pope, then the graces which make him Pope will not come on him, until he removes his heretical ideas. THEN they will come upon him and he will become Pope! So yes, since Pope Pius II removed His Conciliarist ideas,

 

[Genesis315]

In Mary,

No, there is a small mistake. True, Pope Pius II was a Conciliarist when he got elected. But it happens that at the same time, or a little after He became Pope, we see that He removed His Conciliarist views. This can be seen in His Bull Excerabilis which says that a COuncil cannot be held without the permission of the Pope and that it cannot revoke the Decrees of a Pontiff.

I mean God and Mary would not abandon the Church like that! I think that it is similiar to the case of Baptizing an unbeliever:if one were to Baptize a grown person who has does not believe in Christ and does not have the least spark of faith, then the Baptism is still done but it won’t confer any sanctifying grace on the person. However, if the person later starts believing, then the graces of Baptism will come on him the moment he starts believing. And I think that if a heretic were to accept the office as Pope, then the graces which make him Pope will not come on him, until he removes his heretical ideas. THEN they will come upon him and he will become Pope! So yes, since Pope Pius II removed His Conciliarist ideas,

I know, but the Bull in question disqualifies any person who ever was a heretic and makes their election void–even if it was confessed. From my knowledge of the historical circumstances that led to the Bull in the OP, the intent was to prevent one well-known Cardinal who favored Protestantism from being elected.

 

[Don_Paolo]

Deacon Ed has got it completely wrong. I will here clarify what iss the correct doctrine on thisvpoint. The pope can be judged by no one. True, but that means no person or tribunal possessed jurisdictiin over the pope. However, Pope Innocent III goes on to clarify that the Roman Pontiff can be judged by men, or more precisrly, “can be shown to have been already judged” if he “withers away into heresy”; and this is so because “he who does not believe is already judged”. Hence, if a pope is guilty of the crime of manifest heresy, he is an infidel, and as Bellarmine explains, he is neither pope nor a member of the Church. Once the fact of public heresy is verified, Bellarmine explains (De Romano Pontifice 2:30) “he may be judged and punished by the Churche – or, as Innocent III puts it (Sermo 4) he is to be cast out and trampled underfoot by men”.

Erratum: possesses; jurisdiction

If indeed a pope were to be a manifest heretic, it would be perverse to profess the lie that he is the successor of Peter, or that he possesses authority, or that he must be obeyed, or that his teachings require the assent of the faithful; since, these things can only be truly predicated of a true pope who is a member of the Church; and not of a heretic, who by his crime of public heresy has manifested himself to be expelled from the body of the Church as an infidel.