by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Pope Saint Pius X once decreed that no one without a Doctorate in Theology should be allowed to obtain a Doctorate in Canon Law: a salutary provision, since the entire jurisprudence of the Church is based on revealed principles of theology.

But recent years have demonstrated that the next Catholic Pope should impose even stricter obligations: such as being able to read Latin, having studied Scholastic Philosophy and Logic.

Here, in the above article by The WM Review, there was published back on March 10, 2025, an unsigned article discussing Pope Paul IV’s Constitution “Cum ex apostolatus officio”, of Feb. 15, 1559 A. D. You can find the Latin text and my new translation, HERE. You can find other translations HERE.

A Total Misunderstanding right out of the gate

A holy and learned priest once told me, that after Vatican II always look at the beginning of any lecture or document, because the errors will be there.

And this rule is proven true in the above. For the Anonymous author opens the article by this outstanding blunder:

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.

I will pass over the glaring logical error of speaking of “Questions” and immediately responding with a “For example”, which is not a question, nor is the document a Bull, rather it is a Constitution.

But I will enumerate the errors…

1. “provisions”

The Constitution contains a lot more than provisions. “Provisions” refer to prescriptions which regard the future. But if you actually read the Constitution, it begins with a renewal of past prescriptions, than thus does not contain only provisions.

2. “of penal law”

Here the author is attempting to characterize the entire Constitution under the category of laws which regard punishment. However, if you read the entire Constitution, this first thing that appears is that it is not a law in the specific sense of the term, since it does not regard one single thing. Nor is does it define a crime and impose a punishment, which is what “penal law” means in its proper sense.

3. “that a heretic could not be elected pope”

But the chief error in the introduction to the above article by Anonymous is this: he asserts that the Constitution states “that a heretic could not be elected pope”!  If you just read the Constitution, in any translation, you can see that this statement is simply false, for the Constitution declares null, void and irritus the election of any Cardinal as Roman Pontiff, if, after his election, he be found to have deivated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into heresy.

No where in the Constitution does it say, that a heretic could not be elected pope.

Here is the exact passage, from my new English translation:

§ 6. Adding, that if at any time it will have appeared that any Bishop, even acting as an Archbishop or Patriarch and/or Primate, or a Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, even, as as promoted, Legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, before his promotion as a Cardinal or assumption as Roman Pontiff, that he has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into any heresy, let the promotion or assumption of him, even accomplished in agreement and unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, stand forth as null, irritus and void,…

What Anonymous is claiming is that the Bull forbade, for example, that the Cardinals elect a man known to be a heretic or deviant in matters of faith. But the text of the Constitution clearly does NOT forbid Cardinals from electing such a man, it merely declares the election of such a man null, irritus and void. — It thus allows the Cardinals full freedom in choosing (electing) any man: it just says that after the election, that the election was null, irritus and void.

The distinction here is a juridical one. And if you cannot think, read Latin, or if you do not know the rules of logic, I admit this distinction might not even appear visible, but it deals with rights: what the Anonymous says regards the rights of the Cardinal and the rights of the candidate. But the Bull does not speak of those rights, it only speaks of how the Church is to regard the juridical value of the election of such a man, after his election.

In other words, the rights of the Cardinals to vote and the rights of the candidate to receive votes and accept his election are in no way prohibited, constrained, prevented, denied, abrogated etc..  However, it does declare that after the election and acceptance of office, the man elected has no rights which the office would otherwise grant him and that the Church must regard his election as non-existent.

This is also easy to understand, this way: that the Anonymous speaks of rights which PRECEDE the acceptance of the office by the one elected, but the Constitution regards the duties of all in the Church about how to regard the election’s juridical value AFTER the election and acceptance of office.

Mistaken notion of heresy

The author of the article and apparently all the authors he quotes speak in a very imprecise manner, which is part of the reason why they do not understand what they are talking about. Because the word “heresy” can refer to many different things: written statements, verbal statements, either in pubic or private, acts of the mind, violations of written laws, by Catholics or non-Catholics etc.. But what Pope Paul IV speaks of is obviously not a post-baptismal pertinacious notorious public contradiction of the faith, judged in tribunal and punished regarding matters which are defined dogmas of the Church. Rather, he is speaking of the sin by which one formally and manifestly denies or deviates from a truth which is de fide Catholica. Indeed, he has to be understood to speak in this manner, because in n. 6, he is speaking, among other things, of a person who is elected Pope during a sedevacante, when no heretic at Rome can be denounced to a Roman tribunal. — Thus in the prescription in n. 6 of his Constitution, Pope Paul IV casts a much wider net than unlettered or ignorant readers might suspect, since he is speaking of any denial of or deviation from the Catholic Faith, in the external forum, which can be discerned by fact or the existence of which is documented or is testified to by witnesses.

Conclusion

The rest of the above article, being founded as it is upon these 3 errors, is simply worthless and praeter rem. The Constitution is clearly disciplinary, not merely penal, because it not only regards what is to be done to heretics, it also grants Catholics rights in regard to heretics (cf. § 7.).

The assertion made several times in the above article, that this Constitution was abolished by the promulgation of the Code of Canon Law of 1917, is also simply false, as I have shown in my previous articles about this Constitution. — A papal Constitution cannot go out of force unless it is named and declared in its entirety to be abolished or substituted. That has never happened with this Constitution of Pope Paul IV, and neither do the Code of Canon Law of 1917 or 1983 say such things.

Consequently, in all things which no other papal law includes or abolishes, this Constitution remains in force.

Thus, since no pope ever published a law which declares the juridical value of an election or promotion to be valid solely by means of the observance of this or that other law, the prescriptions of this Constitution regarding such a determination remain in force, since they were promulgated by the Vicar of the Living God, Who declares, Whatsoever you bind upon earth, shall be bound in Heaven.

To say otherwise is simply heretical. It is also contrary to Pope John Paul II’s law for Papal Elections, Universi Dominic Gregis, n. 4. It is also contradicted by Pope Pius X’s law for Papal Election, which declares that all prescriptions which are not contrary to his law, remain in force (Vacante Sede Apostolica, Title II, Chapter I, n. 29).

Finally, from all of the above it can be seen, that if an author won’t sign his article, then it’s probably not worth reading, and if the author has no ability to read Latin and has not studied jurisprudence, philosophy, or logic, then it’s probably a waste of time to read him on a question of ecclesiastical jurisprudence.

+ + +

The Book on the Trinity, every faithful Catholic priest would love as his next present

This is Br. Bugnolo's English Translation, of Saint Bonaventure's encylopedic book of theology on the Trinity: With this book, your priest will always have something intelligent and awesomely inspiring to preach to you about God the Father, God the Son & God the Holy Spirit!

+ + +