Execrabilis, Vatican I, & The Papal Bull of Paul IV

[Slayer]

I am wondering if the following makes the Vatican Council II null and void…

Does the Execrabilis forbid all appeals to a future Council? Here is what it says:

 "1.  An execrable, and in former ages unheard-of-abuse, has sprung up in our time, namely that some people, imbued with the spirit of rebellion, presume to appeal to a future Council, from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Jesus Christ, to whom it was said in the person of blessed Peter:  "Feed my sheep" and "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in Heaven"; they do not do so because they are anxious to obtain sounder judgment, but in order to escape the consequences of their sins, and anyone who is not ignorant of the laws can realize how contrary this is to the sacred canons and how detrimental to the Christian community.  Because - passing over other things which are most manifestly opposed to this corruption - who would not find it ridiculous when appeals are made to what does not exist and the time of whose future existence nobody knows?  The poor are oppressed in many ways by the stronger, crimes remain unpunished, freedom is  conceded to delinquents, and all the ecclesiastical discipline and hierarchal order is confounded.

 2.  Wishing therefore to thrust away from Christ's Church this pestilent venom, to take care of the salvation of all those who have been committed to us, and to hold off from the sheepfold of our Saviour all cause of scandal, we condemn appeals of this kind by the counsel of all prelates and juris-consults of Divine and human law adhering to the Curia and on the ground of our sure knowledge; we denounce them as erroneous and detestable, quash and entirely annul them in the event that any such appeals, extant at present, may be discovered, and we declare and determine that they are - like something void and pestilent - of no significance.  Consequently, we enjoin that nobody dares under whatever pretext to make such an appeal from any of our ordinances, sentences or commands and from those of our successors, or to adhere to such appeals, made by others, or to use them in any manner.

 3.  If any one, of whatever status, rank, order or condition he may be, even if adorned with imperial, royal or Papal dignity, shall contravene this after the space of two months from the day of the publication of this Bull by the Apostolic Chancery, he shall ipso facto incur sentence of anathema, from which he can not be absolved except by the Roman Pontiff and at the point of death.  A University or a corporation shall be subjected to an ecclesiastical interdict; nonetheless, corporations and Universities, like the aforesaid and any other persons, shall incur those penalties and censures which offenders who have committed the crimen laesae maiestatis and promoters of heretical depravity are known to incur.  Furthermore, scriveners and witnesses who shall witness acts of this kind and, in general, all those who shall knowingly furnish counsel, help or favour to such appealers, shall be punished with the same penalty.

 4.  Therefore, it is not allowed to any man to infringe or to oppose by audacious perversion this charter of our will, by which we have condemned, reproved, quashed, annulled, decreed, declared and ordered the aforesaid.  If any one, however, shall so attempt, let him know that he shall incur the indignation of Almighty God and of Saint Peter and Paul, His Apostles.

 Given at Mantua, in the year 1460 of the Lord's Incarnation, on the fifteenth day before the Kalends of February, in the second year of our Pontificate."

And for Vatican Council I…

Vatican Council I, in its First Dogmatic Constitution, issued on July 18, 1870, declares:

“And since, by the divine right of Apostolic primacy, one Roman pontiff is placed over the universal Church, We further teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all causes the decision of which belongs to the Church recourse may be had to his tribunal, but that none may reopen the judgments of the Apostolic See, than whose authority there is no greater, nor can any lawfully review its judgment. Wherefore they err from the path of truth who assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiff to an ecumenical council, as to an authority higher than that of the Roman pontiff” [Chap. III] (Dogmatic Canons and Decrees, pp. 249-250).

And the Papal Bull of Paul IV…

BULLA OF PAUL IV (from Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio):

“We declare that if ever a Bishop, Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate, a Cardinal or a Legatee, OR EVEN A SOVEREIGN POPE, had, before their elevation to the Cardinalcy or Pontificate, deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy, the promotion or elevation - even if it had taken place with the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals - is INVALID and NULL, without value and one cannot say that it is valid because the person concerned accepts the Office, receives the Consecration and then enters into possession of the government and administration [of the Office], or by the homage rendered to him by all; one cannot accept him as legitimate, and none of his acts of power or administration may be deemed valid whether Bishops, Cardinals OR SOVEREIGN POPES. All their words, deeds and actions, their administration and all that proceeds from them - all these are without value and have no authority or command over anyone. These men, so promoted and elevated, will be by the same fact deprived of all dignity, place, honor, title and power.” (February 15, 1559.)

What does everyone think about these in regards to the Vatican Council II?

 

[DL82]

“some people, imbued with the spirit of rebellion, presume to appeal to a future Council, from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Jesus Christ, to whom it was said in the person of blessed Peter: “Feed my sheep” and “Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in Heaven”; they do not do so because they are anxious to obtain sounder judgment, but in order to escape the consequences of their sins, and anyone who is not ignorant of the laws can realize how contrary this is to the sacred canons and how detrimental to the Christian community. Because - passing over other things which are most manifestly opposed to this corruption - who would not find it ridiculous when appeals are made to what does not exist and the time of whose future existence nobody knows?”

This seems to be arguing against people who presumed to know what the future would hold, it is a condemnation of the kinds of mechanistic futurism proclaimed by the 2nd Communist International and the Italian Futurists (the fore-runners of the Fascists), who presumed that human nature and reason would inevitably lead to certain conclusions about the future, and presumed that they could live by these future laws now, ignoring the laws actually in place in their own time.

It’s not an argument against Vatican II now that Vatican II has happened, though it would condemn anyone who had decided in 1949 to celebrate mass in the vernacular, even though 20 years later Vatican II would approve it. Likewise, it would condemn someone now for introducing some new doctrine on the grounds that Vatican III will approve it.

It would also condemn anyone who rejects the validity of the reforms of Vatican II on the grounds that a future Council will annul them!

 

[Slayer]

“some people, imbued with the spirit of rebellion, presume to appeal to a future Council, from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Jesus Christ, to whom it was said in the person of blessed Peter: “Feed my sheep” and “Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in Heaven”; they do not do so because they are anxious to obtain sounder judgment, but in order to escape the consequences of their sins, and anyone who is not ignorant of the laws can realize how contrary this is to the sacred canons and how detrimental to the Christian community. Because - passing over other things which are most manifestly opposed to this corruption - who would not find it ridiculous when appeals are made to what does not exist and the time of whose future existence nobody knows?”

This seems to be arguing against people who presumed to know what the future would hold, it is a condemnation of the kinds of mechanistic futurism proclaimed by the 2nd Communist International and the Italian Futurists (the fore-runners of the Fascists), who presumed that human nature and reason would inevitably lead to certain conclusions about the future, and presumed that they could live by these future laws now, ignoring the laws actually in place in their own time.

It’s not an argument against Vatican II now that Vatican II has happened, though it would condemn anyone who had decided in 1949 to celebrate mass in the vernacular, even though 20 years later Vatican II would approve it. Likewise, it would condemn someone now for introducing some new doctrine on the grounds that Vatican III will approve it.

It would also condemn anyone who rejects the validity of the reforms of Vatican II on the grounds that a future Council will annul them!

I’m interested in your critique of this interpretation: todayscatholicworld.com/death-blows-to-v2.htm

I’m not sure what to make of it.

 

[DL82]

I’m interested in your critique of this interpretation: todayscatholicworld.com/death-blows-to-v2.htm

I’m not sure what to make of it.

This looks like a pretty dangerous and deluded site, first of all, the quote (about a quarter way down the page):
" Here we see that the purpose of appealing to an illegal council is to escape the past judgment of the Holy See. But Execrabilis cuts the villains off at the pass, saying a council may not be used to reopen Judgments. Execrabilis tells us that once the Church has made a Judgment, it may not be questioned by councils or future popes."
Seems to imply that Vatican II is an ‘illegal Council’ - a council of bishops called by the Sovereign Pontiff can hardly be called illegal. I hardly think this is what the letter is saying. If it says that no future council can make valid decisions additional to past ones, then it also condemns Vatican I by implication. There’s also a misunderstanding as to whether Vatican II changed moral teachings, it didn’t, but updated explanations and revised Church disciplines, which are not condemned by this letter. This is made more explicit about 4/5 of the way to the end, where the author talks about:
“form of criticisms and sarcasms from Paul 6 and others, directed against those who oppose the illegal V-2 and the bogus popes”

The author’s key error, it seems, is mistaking the doctrines of the Church, which are infallible, for the doctrinal formulations through which these doctrines are expressed. Compare:
“Pius IX wanted a dogmatic Council to reaffirm Papal Infallibility for one very vital reason. He wanted to make clear that past Church judgments, being infallible as they are, are therefore permanent, binding for all ages and thus are never to be reopened or reformed so as to give them new expressions” (the whole of this section is accurate except the section in bold)
with:
CCC 42: “God transcends all creatures. We must therefore continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, image-bound or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God – “the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable” – with our human representations. Our human words always fall short of the mystery of God.”

Also, the writer appears to be deeply anti-Semitic:
" In 1869-70 the Jews wanted to be exonerated of deicide and wanted the lifting of the Curse of God which their wickedness brought upon their race. Once this door was open to them, there would be no bar to the Synagogue of Satan bringing into the Church all of its bags of false gnostic doctrines, as was later to happen at the V-2 Council (1962-65)."
" For America, the land ruled by the Jew and Freemason, the Bishop of Baltimore ran the show from the sidelines at V-I."
“a council favoring Jewry at the expense of the Church and Faith”
" In the course of centuries the Jews and their Fifth Column in the clergy have repeatedly made attempts to suppress the Church’s protective laws against Jewry"
etc.

Besides these, the article is full of basic errors, such as when the author refers (about 2/3 in) to Vatican II “reviving the lay diaconate that proved unnecessary and very dangerous to the celibate priesthood and therefore justly outlawed” - Deacons are not lay people, and so refering to a ‘lay diaconate’ is just nonsense, not to mention the lack of evidence that there was any danger to the priesthood from permanent deacons.

The author also seems to have something against the Theology of the Body, mocking Marriage Encounter “Matrimonial spirituality is described as the mates looking deep into each other’s eyes. They were told that “touching is crucial … do not hold hands sexlessly”! Eight bishops including V-2 Cardinal Wright came to the convention to urge them on in their public display of disrespect for chastity and dignity of person.” For someone so quick to accuse Vatican II of gnostic spirituality, this smacks of a body-hating dualism.

I really can’t be bothered to go on critiquing this article. St Ignatius Loyola suggests that Christians should always read work in the presumption that it is written in good faith unless they can find for sure that it isn’t, and then should offer gentle correction. It seems pretty clear the author of this article hasn’t followed that rule in his own criticism of Vatican II. All I can say by way of correction is that it might be better to steer clear of it.

 

[cam100]

I’m interested in your critique of this interpretation: todayscatholicworld.com/death-blows-to-v2.htm

I’m not sure what to make of it.

This website promotes sedevacantism - and the arguments are nothing new. It is full of errors. The arguments presented show a lack of understanding of the papal power and of both Vatican I and Vatican II. It takes some truth and twists it to try to support erroneous beliefs.

The authors of the site fail to recognize a basic fact with regard to papal authority - that all popes share equally in this authority. Popes do not and cannot bind future popes by forbidding them to make decisions.

The website is so full of errors that it would be difficult to address all of them here. If there are some particular points that bother you, I’d be happy to address them in more detail.

As DL82 said above, Execrabilis in no way prevented Vatican II from being a legitimate council, but it does forbid people from rejecting it by saying that a future council or papal judgment will support them.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

DL82 said it well.

"2. Wishing therefore to thrust away from Christ’s Church this pestilent venom, to take care of the salvation of all those who have been committed to us, and to hold off from the sheepfold of our Saviour all cause of scandal, we condemn appeals of this kind by the counsel of all prelates and juris-consults of Divine and human law adhering to the Curia and on the ground of our sure knowledge; we denounce them as erroneous and detestable, quash and entirely annul them in the event that any such appeals, extant at present, may be discovered, and we declare and determine that they are - like something void and pestilent - of no significance. Consequently, we enjoin that nobody dares under whatever pretext to make such an appeal from any of our ordinances, sentences or commands and from those of our successors, or to adhere to such appeals, made by others, or to use them in any manner."

Also, the pope is saying his successors’ ordinances, sentences, or commands should be as free from appeal as are his own. Those who go against recent popes are disobeying this command!

 

[Genesis315]

It bears pointing out that what the authors of the language about appealing to a future Council had in mind was what. for example, Martin Luther did–he didn’t like the Pope’s definitive judgment, so he wanted an ecumenical Council to rule instead as if it were a higher authority or as if the Pope himself did not have sufficient binding authority.

The point is, you have to respect the Pope’s judgment, you can’t ignore it and wait for an ecumenical Council instead. The Pope is the highest authority and court of appeal and he must be respected as such.