So Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio appears to have no authority today.
On: "considered only to apply to those who had actually been formally
judged to be heretics," please notice that Paul IV not only teaches that the heretical cleric loses his office without declaration; but he also teaches that Catholics “
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.”
You also mentioned the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which for canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law on loss of office without declaration, it
gives a footnote (in the original Latin version) to Pope Paul IV’s bull, it was thus not derogated at all:
Canon 188.4, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “There are certain causes which effect the tacit (silent) resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of the law, and hence is effective without any declaration. These causes are… (4) if he has publicly fallen away from the faith.”
The important matter here is "
without any declaration." All of this applies to the time period
before any declaration. Moreover, St. Robert Bellarmine,
De Romano Pontifice, II, 30, speaking of a claimant to the Papal Office: "For, in the first place,
it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is 'ipso facto' deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus 3:10), who
orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate -
which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ."
I again note
BEFORE ANY DECLARATORY SENTENCE, which seems to be contra "had actually been formally
judged to be heretics." Morevoer while yes it "was rarely if ever enforced," its use was not given for a long while, because most Papal controversies prior to this period in time, as most issues came down to cases of simony or cases lifted by
ecclesia supplet, which supplies the necessary grace and authority to recognize the papacy as valid once someone has been elected and accepted as pope, ensuring continuity in the office despite the irregularities surrounding their election or personal actions that have no basis on the matter of the Pontifical Office.
Moreover, if a Pontiff (such as Benedict IX) commits an act unrelated to his official duties and pertaining solely to his personal life, he [because these acts fall outside the moral and lawful boundaries of the faith] operates outside the bounds of
religio licita, and thus, his office cannot be implicated in actions of immorality or other sins, as his personal sins do not implicate or compromise the divine authority or integrity of the Office. I see it in the same regard as that of the Thesis of Cassiciacum, that being that a Pontiff who is elected with the use of simony is ‘
materialiter sed non formaliter,’ that is, "materially but not formally," the reigning Pontiff, who is not in possession of the power to rule, teach, or sanctify but is nonetheless the valid claimant of the Papacy.
Contrarily, as stated above,
ecclesia supplet does not operate in matters of a public abrogation of dogma, and thus his
ipso facto declaration is is absolute (
est absoluta), as his dilect is public, according to Canon 2197.1 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law
: “A Crime is
public: (1) if it is
already commonly known or the circumstances are such as to
lead to the conclusion that it
can and will easily become so…” If it were the case that an erroneous Pontiff [that being contra Magisterium] was to be declared first, it would allow the true Church to designate a false pope [and on the other hand, if it is not the true Church, then a false Church could designate a true Pope, so it isn't black or white], and this would be against all matters of form and canon, plus abrogating Our Lord's Matthew 16:18 declaration.
Furthermore I look to 2 Thessalonians 2:3 on the matter of ἀποστασία (apostasia, meaning apostasy or deviation from faith) equaling declaration: "No one should deceive you in
any way, because
it is not until the ἀποστασία (apostasia) shall
have come first, and the man of lawlessness
shall have been revealed--the son of destruction..." St. Paul equates the ἀποστασία (apostasia) to the reveal of the man of lawlessness, but he notes that no one should deceive you in
any way [though he is announcing in this case, I use it to mean what is written], meaning that a Pontiff should not deceive you in any way, and thus an erroneous Pontiff could not teach and sanctify while in error, waiting to be declared.
Moreover, Pope Leo XIII, in
Satis Cognitum #9, says: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever
would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.” He later states [
Satis Cognitum #15], in relation to his previous statement “No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since
it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.” If anyone was to recede
in the least degree from any point of doctrine, he would be outside the Church; and as such it is
absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church. To end this point, I note St. Antoninus: "
In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church.
He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church." (
Summa Theologica, cited in
Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub.)
On "John Henry Newman and Henry Manning," renunciation of previous extra-magisterial beliefs is a valid penance, outlined in Canon 2248:
Canon 2248 §§1-3, 1917 Code of Canon Law:
§1. Any censure, once contracted, is lifted only by legitimate absolution.
§2. Absolution cannot be denied once a delinquent withdraws from contumacy according to the norm of Canon 2242, §3; one absolving from a censure can, if the matter requires it, impose an appropriate vindicative penalty or penance for the committed delict.
§3. A censure, removed by a delivered absolution, does not revive, except in the case where a burden imposed under pain of reincidence has not been fulfilled.
Newman renounced his Anglican faith multiple times, and spoke on It directly in
Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1864) and Edmund Purcell's
Life of Cardinal Manning, Archbishop of Westminster (1896). In saying "one cannot argue that they are off the hook due to rejecting their former errors," you are equating the College of Cardinals to the Pontifical Office, which is not the case. For example,
Liber Gomorrhianus states that Pope Benedict IX, repented later in life, seeking forgiveness and re-entry into communion with the Church, but was not returned to his office. St. Bartholomew of Grottaferrata seconded this, saying he was penitent and turned away from the sins he committed as Pontiff. Thus, though a Pontiff may lose his office due to a dilect of heresy, a Cardinal is not given the same treatment. In fact, the Latin for c
um ex apostolatus officio is 'by virtue of the
Apostolic Office,' and thus was speaking on the Papal Office specifically.
cruxnow.com
