Category Archives: Papal Documents

Canon Law, Debates, Papal Documents

Ryan Grant usurps Papal Authority in an attempt to refute Br. Bugnolo

6 Comments

+ + +

Commentary and Refutation of Ryan Grant’s Position by Br. Alexis bugnolo

In the above article, published on October 27, 2025, Mr. Ryan Grant, attempts to show that this Bull no longer has any force of law, even in the particular of its censure of the election of a heretic as pope.

Before I comment on his treatise, I will cite my previous writings on this matter, which he does not so clearly present.

Back in May of this year of Our Lord, 2025, the first argument I moved against the validity of the election of Cardinal Prevost, was that the election of a man who is found to have deviated from the Catholic Faith before his election by the Cardinals was declared ipso facto invalid by the Bull of Pope Paul IV, Cum ex apostolatus officio.

In this, I cited my former argument on the matter, from 2015, and with the passing of some days, I returned to that argument and refined it, here — note that the edition of 2015 is revised, though the date still reflects the original publication:

This article discussed the effect of the promulgation of the Code of Canon Law of 1917, on the perpetual validity of the precepts contained in the Bull. And I concluded, that in regard to the declaration of the invalidity of an election of a Cardinal in a Conclave, who had previously deviated from the Catholic Faith, fell into heresy or adhered to a schism, that Papal censure on the validity remained valid.

Subsequently on August 19, I revisited the argument regarding, as I just mentioned, and published the revision separately here.

And on August, 2, of this year, I published the second English Translation of this Bull, publicly available, on the Internet — there may be others in books or manuals — Here:

+ + +

So far, for what I previously have written.

Ryan Grant’s Treatise — A Historic Publication

I think this particular tract by Ryan Grant is the most thorough and complete treatment I have ever seen him muster on any topic, and shows that he has come of age in the matter of public disputation.

As a dinosaur who has been doing such things since my first Refutation of Father Wathen, back in 1996 — if I remember correctly, I welcome the graduation of the newest tract-writer on the block.

Second, Ryan Grant’s essay is the first to cite me by name in any Catholic publication, since the L’Avvenire in the summer of 2021, so it is indeed quite extraordinary. OnePeterFive, where Ryan Grant’s essay is published, even extended to me the unheard of decency, of a hyperlink to my August article, cited above. That has not happened since the Team Bergoglio Scandal in December of 2014.

So for both reasons, I sense that someone has “broken reality itself” in the Trad inc. camp, where the absolute censorship of everything said or done by Br. Alexis Bugnolo has been the unbroken rule since Michael Matt’s last publication of a letter to the Editor of The Remnant back in like 2004 or something like that — my grey hairs being unable to recall that misty past, it being so long ago.

For each of these reasons, Ryan Grant’s article is historic and I recommend my readers, here at FromRome, to read it, if they have the time.

The Complete Refutation of Ryan Grant

Ryan Grant’s article is entitled, “The Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio — Void and of No Authority.” — Leaders in publication are usually placed by the Editor, not the author, so I can scarcely fault Grant for this erroneous and scandalous title. But it needs to be said, that “of No Authority” is theologically and canonically erroneous and false, because, theologically speaking, it remains a monument of the authentic Papal magisterium, and canonically speaking, it remains a source for ecclesiastical jurisprudence. As such, these words are scandalous and ignorant, and should be removed or replaced.

Now, Grant’s article is lengthy, and would take several hours perhaps for the layman to read, if he was able and familiar enough with the terms, for when printed out, my browser produces a PDF file which is 27 pages long!!!!

So for Catholics who have not that time, I will cut to the meat of the problem with it: Ryan Grant has founded his argument on private interpretation.

You see, a Papal Law or Papal Bull can only be interpreted by the Roman Pontiff. There is no authentic interpretation, in the canonical sense, from any other source. Nor is there an honest interpretation of the same, in a juridical sense, if you interpolate words, and make the law say something it does not say.

Thus does Grant attempt to refute two of my positions.

My Refutation of Grant’s First Argument

In the First Position, Grant recites thus:

To summarize Bugnolo’s argument, while it is true that all penal sanctions of Cum ex are abrogated in paragraph 5 of Canon 6, the section of the Bull (n. 6) which deals with the election of the Roman Pontiff is not penal by nature, because it imposes no penalty, but only a discipline, per the language of the code, and thus under paragraph 6 of the same canon, it would have to be explicitly abrogated, otherwise it is still in force. This is easily refuted. St. Pius X had already abrogated this clause of Cum ex by his own constitution Vacante sede apostolica of December 25, 1904 (§29), where he abrogated all previous laws considering the voting in papal elections.

Unfortunately, since Grant has not ennumerated his paragraphs, I cannot give an exact location in his work for this quote, but it appears to be half-way through, according to the measure of the scroll bar in a browser.

Grant’s claim of the abrogation, does not cite the words of the Constitution of Saint Pius X. And as any good debater knows, that, when you cite a law in Latin but give not the citation in words, then your citation probably does not prove what you are claiming. This concern is deepened when the passage you cite, here §29 regards the burial of popes, not the election of heretics.

And that is the case, here, since, as you can see, here at the very words of Saint Pius X in the passage which Grant should have cited, n. 34, since as a Latinist he claims to be able to read Latin: I quote from the Latin edition at the Vatican Website, found here.

34. Nullus Cardinalium, cuiuslibet excommunicationis, suspensionis, interdicti aut alius ecclesiastici impedimenti praetextu vel causa a Summi Pontificis electione activa et passiva excludi ullo modo potest; quas quidem censuras ad effectum huiusmodi electionis tantum, illis alias in suo robore permansuris, suspendimus [27].

Where the footnote 27 reads:

[27] Clem. V, cap. 2, Ne Romani, § 4, de elect., I, 3 in Clem.; Pii IV Const. In eligendis, § 29; Greg. XV Const. Aeterni Patris, § 22.

Even if you cannot read Latin, you can see immediately that Grant has dishonestly referred to Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis of Saint Pius X, because in this passage, when it speaks of the suspension of previous laws (suspendimus), it cites the laws of Pope Clement V, Ne Romani, and Pius IV ‘s Constitution, In eligendis, and Pope Gregory XVI’s Constitution, Aeterni Patris. There is no mention of Cum ex apostolatus officio.

Here is my translation of n. 34, and its footnote:

34. None of the Cardinals, by pretext and/or cause of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or any ecclesiastical impediment you like, can in any manner be excluded from active and passive election as Supreme Pontiff: which censures indeed, only as regards the effect of this manner of election, We suspend, with the former (illis) otherwise remaining in their force. [27]

Here, the Latin “illis”, which according to the rules of Latin grammer are to be translated contextually as referring to the aforementioned matter, rather than they are normally rendered (“those”, “they”), and refers here to “excommunciation, suspension, interdict or any ecclesiastical impediment”.

Where the footnote 27 reads:

[27] Pope Clement V, in chapter of, Ne Romani, section § 4, de elect., I, 3 in Clem.; Pops Pius IV, in his Constitution, In eligendis, § 29; and Pope Gregory XV in his Constitution, Aeterni Patris, § 22.

Thus, since Saint Pius X explicitly restricts his suspension to these three Papal Laws, he obviously does NOT intend to suspend the effect of Pius IV’s, Cum ex apostolatus oficio.

This is also confirmed by a comparison of the text of n. 34 of Pope Saint Pius X’s Constitution, with n. 6 of Pope Paul IV’s constitution, because the latter speaks both of the right to vote and be voted for (electio activa et passiva), and of his censure when an election is to be or not to be considered valid; but the former speaks only of electio activa et passiva. These are two different things, as is obvious, since the latter, as I have said in my article in August, regards the right of the faithful to regard or not regard an election valid or not, whereas the former regards the right of a Cardinal to vote and be voted for. Those ignorant of Latin think that the right to be voted for, means the right to be elected, since they confound “being voted for” with “being elected”. The modern concept of “being elected” refers technically to “being voted for by the needed majority AND accepting the election”, but the Latin concepts of  electio activa et passiva, only refer to casting votes and receiving votes in one’s favor during the procedure of the Conclave.

However, Grant quotes for his position, Fr. Wernz-Vidal’s general statement, found in Wernz-Vidal, Jus Canonicum, t. 2, Rome, 1928. Tit. VIII, n. 413, p. 403. You can see Grant’s Footnote 21 for the Latin and his English translation of it. — This noted author, however, as has been seen from what I just said, obviously never read the footnotes which the Saintly Pope used in his Apostolic Constitution, since by placing footnotes to cite the previous laws which in regard to Papal Elections, which are to be suspended during elections of this kind, he has expressly restricted the limit of his own suspension. — Also, to say, “suspend” is not to say “abrogate”, since to suspend merely stays the application for a limited time. And since the determination of the validity of an election obviously takes place after the election, even this passage would not suspend anything at such a time, even if it referred to Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio.

Thus, I believe, Grant’s first argument against my position is entirely destroyed.

My Refutation of Grant’s Second Position

Grant’s second salvo against my argument follows immediately after his first. For he holds that my citation of Canon 2265 of the 1917 Code is inappropriate. And in this he advances his principal error, as he says:

… the 1917 code has a different scope. Moreover, it does not specifically address the situation with the Roman Pontiff, and the code is silent about how to proceed in that case, leaving us to turn to the dogmatic theologians …

For here he appeals to private authors to interpret papal law, which, as I said above, is a grave error and violates the very principal of ecclesiastical jurisprudence that only the authority issuing a law can interpret it.

Thus it is that he has usurped Papal Authority, perhaps without realizing it, since in a clear matter of omission, one cannot appeal to dogmatic theologians for anything.

And I cannot shout this out louder, since I have been shouting it since 2018:

THE CESSATION OF RIGHT IS NEVER PRESUMED.

Thus if the code of 1917 or 1983 clearly and explicitly does not alter the standing of a papal precept, we can never lawfully or morally presume that papal precept is no longer in force.

However, he makes his assertion of an erroneous principal of interpretation while conceding to me that the Code have not spoken of this matter, and thus concedes my argument, since, if the 1917 Code has not expressly established any other discipline, then, my argument, which holds that because it does not, the former remains in force, is completely validated, since as Christ declares, “Whatsoever you bind upon Earth shall be bound in Heaven …”, in Whose Royal Decree we find no clause such as, “and it shall not remain in force in the future, if some dogmatic theologian opines that it does not”.

Finally, I will omit a refutation of Grant’s false allegation, made in passing, later in his tract, that I hold that there is a footnote in canon 188, as I never made such a claim. I spoke of a footnote in a commentary on Canon Law.

Conclusion

Grant’s article was heavily criticized by “Chris Jackson” here, though ineptly since he does not know the first thing about jurisprudence or theological distinctions, not to mention following the erroneous approach of many sedevacantists, who falling into the same error as Grant, have recourse to erroneous arguments that the Bull remains valid because it contains infallible teaching, not distinguishing properly between a disciplinary and a dogmatic decree.**

I welcome Grant’s attempt to rebut this my present refutation. But I will not demand a response, since I do not want my brother in Christ to publicly shame himself by advancing any more unfounded arguments to make his point.

Thus, that the Bull of Pope Paul IV, Cum ex apostolatus offcio, in n. 6, in regard to the right of Catholics to hold the election of a Cardinal in a Conclave as invalid if he has previously (1) fallen into heresy, or (2) joined a Schism, or (3) deviated from the Catholic Faith, without repenting prior to his acceptance of his election, remains IN FORCE AND IN FULL EFFECT AND OF DIVINE AND PAPAL AUTHORITY, until a future pope, if he will or dare, explicitly refutes it, or in some other way effectively abolishes it.

FOOT NOTES

** Jackson publishes his critique of Grant on the Chinese based Substack platform, without mentioning my name of course, since Jackson’s handlers forbid him to do that, since all hell would break lose in his pysop if his readers came to know of my writings on the Conclave of 2025 or the Conclave of 2013. ( In the comments there, it appears there is a number of Zionist bots who claim that I am paid to say what I say, have never called for the abolition of Vatican II, and unfairly criticize “the annointed of Jakob”. But worse of all, I raise money to help the poor, suffering and canonically abused. That is unforgivable. — The only substantial criticism seems to confirm what AJ and I have said, that the C. J. operation is a MI6 operation, since they are incensed in that com thread that we together outted Lefebrve’s father as a MI6 agent, HERE) Jackson for his or her or its part lauds the Archbishop and finds nothing wrong with his father being an intel agent working for the United Kingdom. — As for “the annointed of Jakob”, he is living up to all the sterotypes by accusing Grant of “distracting Catholics”, when AOJ has hidden the invalidity of the conclave and the work of Catholics at Rome to have a Catholic pope, just the like of the other USAID narrative supporting “Catholic” mainstream and “independent” media. This is astronomical hypocrisy.

Canon Law, Papal Documents

Why Paul IV’s Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio was not abolished by 1917 Code

4 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

This is part of the previous article, which I have updated as of today, August 19, 2025
You can read my new translation of Paul IV’s Constitution, here.

What the Code of Canon Law of 1917 abrogated by Canon 6

The argument which arises as to the perpetually validity of the Papal Constitution, « Cum ex apostolatus officio » arose principally upon the occasion of the promulgation of the Code of Canon Law of 1917 (which we cite it from jgray.org), and that due to canon 6 of that code, which reads in Latin:

Can 6. Codex vigentem huc usque disciplinam plerumque retinet, licet opportunas immutationes afferat. Itaque:

1º Leges quaelibet, sive universales sive particulares, praescriptis huius Codicis oppositae, abrogantur nisi de particularibus legibus aliud expresse caveatur;

2º Canones qui ius vetus ex integro referunt, ex veteris iuris auctoritate, atque ideo ex receptis apud probatos auctores interpretationibus, sunt aestimandi;

3º Canones qui ex parte tantum cum veteri iure congruunt, qua congruunt, ex iure antiquo aestimandi sunt; qua discrepant, sunt ex sua ipsorum sententia diiudicandi;

4º In dubio num aliquod canonum praescriptum cum veteri iure discrepet, a veteri iure non est recedendum;

5º Quod ad poenas attinet, quarum in Codice nulla fit mentio, spirituales sint vel temporales, medicinales vel, ut vocant, vindicativae, latae vel ferendae sententiae, eae tanquam abrogatae habeantur;

6º Si qua ex ceteris disciplinaribus legibus, quae usque adhuc viguerunt, nec explicite nec implicite in Codice contineatur, ea vim omnem amisisse dicenda est, nisi in probatis liturgicis libris reperiatur, aut lex sit iuris divini sive positivi sive naturalis.

And which, in English, according to my own unofficial translation reads:

Canon 6. The Code for the most part retains the discipline here-to-fore enforce, though it introduces opportune changes.  And thus:

1°  Any laws you like, whether universal or particular, opposed to the prescriptions of this Code, are abrogated unless concerning particular laws something else is expressly exempted;

2° The canons which cite an old law in its entirety, by the authority of the old law, are, for that reason, also to be judged out of the interpretations received among approved authors.

3° The canons which are congruent with the old law only in part, are to be judged according to the ancient law; when they are discrepant, they are to be dijudicated according to their own sense.

4° In doubt whether any prescribed canon is discrepant with the old law, one is not to recede from the old law;

5° What pertains to the punishments, of which no mention is made in the Code, whether they be spiritual or temporal, medicinal and/or, as they say, vindictive, latae or ferendae sententiae, they are to be held as abrogated;

6° If any of all the other disciplinary laws, which were in force up to now, be not contained either explicitly or implicitly in the Code, it is to be said to have lost all force, unless it be found in approved liturgical books, or a law be of divine, positive or natural right.

RULE OF INTERPRETATION

First, it must be noted that the very introduction to Canon 6, of the 1917 Code as well as section 4° incline that the entire canon be read and interpreted as maintaining in force the parts of all laws which are not contrary to the Code of 1917.

NON APPLICABLE PARTS

Next, sections 2°, 3°, and 4°, do not pertain to the present argument, since they regard canons and not Papal Constitutions.

HOW THE LATIN ‘LEX’ IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD

Next, regarding those parts of Canon 6 which abolish previous laws, we must read the term “law” (lex, leges, legibus) in a strict sense, as “any individual prescription, precept or provision”, and not in the broad sense of any particular document containing such. This is not only juridically sound, but theologically sound, because, when in regard to Papal Decrees of any kind, when there is a clear intention to promulgate an individual prescription which will have perpetual force — as are all the prescriptions in Paul IV’s Constitution — this intention passes into the intention of Christ the King, the High Priest, Who confirms, “Whatsoever you bind upon earth, shall be bound also in Heaven” (Matthew 18:18) — and thus we cannot presume that a subsequent pope who speaks vaguely, not specifying whether he speaks of provisions or entire documents, intends to specifically abolish what he does not specifically name, especially when he already has declared his intention that all previous disciplines are to be maintained in force. — This reading of “law” (lex) is also confirmed in 6° of Canon 6, where it speaks of the divine, positive and natural “law”, all of which can be an individual particular provision, but only one of which, positive law, could refer to a document. The same is implied by the use of the word, “law”, in 2°, 3°, and 4° of the same Canon 6, cited above.

WHAT IS A CONSTITUTION?

Thus, here, it will be helpful to note, that a constitution differs from an individual law, because a law, which Saint Thomas Aquinas defines as “an ordinance of right reason for the common good, promulgated by one who has authority over the community” (Summa Theologica, I-II, Q. 90, a. 4), regards something individual and specific, whether prohibiting or enabling. But a constitution is an assembly of laws of different kinds (e.g. ordinances, prescriptions, commands, sanctions, decrees, institutions, wills etc..) in a single document with a common theme or purpose. — “As to subject-matter, the term “constitution”, if used in a restricted sense, denotes some statute which the Vicar of Christ issues in solemn form either to the whole Christian world or to part of it, with the intention of permanently binding those to whom it is addressed.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, here).  For this reason, “laws” (leges) in the 1917 Code, Canon 6, must be understood as referring to parts of the Papal Constitution, and not the whole document.

PAUL IV’S CONSTITUTION, IN N. 6 REMAIN IN FORCE?

With this clarified, let us proceed to consider the rest of Canon 6, as it specifically regards the censure of Paul IV, in n. 6 of his Constitution, regarding the election of a man who after his election is found to have deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into heresy or schism:

As regards section 1°, it is clear that since n. 6 of the Constitution of Paul IV is not opposed to any Canon the Code of 1917, because this Code says nothing about how such an election of such a man is to be regarded, it does not fall under this provision, for to say “opposed” is to signify that it withstands, or is in disagreement; viz. to say one thing, when the other says something else. Juridical opposition occurs when the precept of one directs that a thing to be done while the precept of the other directs that another thing be done. But since in the Code of 1917, there is nothing said about whether the election of a man as Roman Pontiff is to be held to be juridically valid in the case spoken of in n. 6 of Paul IV’s Constitution, there is no “opposition”. In general, the Code of 1917 says nothing about Papal Elections since the law on papal elections was a special particular law published by Saint Pius X.

Also, it is clear that 5° does not apply  to n. 6 of this Constitution, because an election in conformity with a papal law for the election of the Roman Pontiff, cannot be punished, since an election which is according to the laws in force is not a criminal act.  Again, “punishments” (poenae) must be read in a restricted sense, regarding persons not things. Therefore, the censure contained in n. 6 of Paul IV’s Apostolic Constitution, since it does not regard, in the strict sense, a punishment or penal precept against a person, is thus not abolished by this section of canon 6.

Finally, section 6°, does not abrogate this provision of Paul IV. First, because the exclusion of a heretic from being elected is contained in canon 2265 of the 1917 code, and thus to this extent, n. 6 of Paul IV’s Bull is implicitly contained in the code, even if the Code forbids the person from being elected, whereas the Constitution of Paul IV sanctions his election as invalid. — Second because, Paul IV’s, n. 6 requires by the Roman Pontiff, the Supreme Legislator, that things be done by others, to protect the Church, and thus clearly fulfills all the conditions for a law of positive right in the sanction it levels in n. 6 against such an election. — Positive laws are those promulgated by the competent authority, which in the Catholic Church is the pope, and which grant rights which must be protected by others. — But clearly, since the Faithful are obliged by divine law to obey a Roman Pontiff, it certainly pertains to their rights that the Cardinals NOT elect someone who has deviated from the Catholic Faith, fallen into heresy or who partook of some schism. Thus, inasmuch as n. 6 of the Bull Paul IV raises an unassailable bulwark defending this right of the Faithful, its abolition would result in a grave attack against the rights of everyone in the Church. Indeed, the entire Bull of Paul IV is expressly intended and promulgated to protect the whole Church, and thus most certainly is a law of positive right of the highest order.

That the papal Constitution of Pope Paul IV, in regard at least to its sanction of against a papal election of a heretic or schismatic in. n. 6, remained in force after the promulgation of the Code of Canon Law of 1917, is thus morally certain, since the Code of 1917 expressly, thus, excludes laws of this kind in these particulars, from abrogation, when they are not contrary to nor re-integrated in the Code of 1917. However, as regards all other parts of the Constitution, when they were integrated fully or said contrary things than the 1917 code, they were obrogated or abrogated.

REPLY TO ALL CONTRARY OPINIONS OF CANONISTS

Thus, if there be found any commentary on Canon Law which holds that the Constitution of Paul IV was abrogated or obrogated by the promulgation of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, I would expect that it is speaking of all those parts which do not concord with Canon 6, and that its author or authors have considered the meaning of Canon 6, imprecisely, in regard to specific provisions of Paul IV’s Constitution. And if they have done either, then their opinion “that the Constitution of Paul IV has been abrogated” is simply an over generalized, hasty and erroneous formed opinion. — Moreover, once the Code of 1917 is promulgated, the law means what it says, and it no longer means what the canonists who wrote it may have intended, if they did not write that into the text. — This is because this Code was not legislated by an assembly, but promulgated by a Monarch. And thus subsequently its interpretation belongs alone to the Roman Pontiffs, when there arises a question the answer to which someone, whomsoever they be, would have be contrary to the plain meaning of the text. This is the teaching of Saint Alphonsus dei Liguori in his tract on The Interpretation of Laws. — That is why, in reading the law, I always stick to the plain meaning of the text, and do not insert any interpretation which does not arise from the text itself.

But whether this papal constitution in n. 6, was abrogated or obrogated by subsequent legislation is another question.

___________________________________

* After the publication of this article, it was brought to my attention, that the Code of Canon Law of 1917, in canon 188, p.47 of the Kennedy & Sons annotated edition of 1918, explicitly cites Cum ex apostolatus officio in footnote 2: which signifies that the author of that footnote, the eminent canonist Cardinal Gasparri, who supervised the revision of the Code, was of the opinion that the code of 1917 was in harmony with — and did not intend to obrogate or abolish  — the terms of that Papal law in all of its particulars. — Canon 188, 4°, (source) in fact reads, “On account of tacit renunciation (of office) admitted by the law it self, let whatever offices you like be vacant, ipso facto and without any declaration, if the cleric … publicly fails from the Catholic Faith.” — And since obviously Paul IV’s n. 6 is to be read in the context of a man who after his election is discovered to have deviated from the Catholic Faith before his election and remained deviated, the condition is the same as a man who has publicly failed from the Catholic Faith. Here “deficere” signifies both heresy and apostasy, because of its generic sense of “failing” or “being deficient”. In the English language, some authors translate “deficere” as “defect”, and thus might read “a fide catholica defecerit” as “defects from the Catholic Faith”, but since Canon 188, 4°, is the only part of that canon which refers to Paul IV’s Constitution’s prescriptions — where apostasy is not mentioned — it is clear that in the mind of Cardinal Gasparri, the Latin term, “deficere” has the broad sense which includes “heresy”, “schism” or some other “deviation”, and not necessarily a public renunciation of the Faith.

Papal Documents

Paul IV’s “Cum ex apostolatus officio” — New English translation

5 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Since there are a plethora of bad translations of this Bull and because of its importance to not only the history of ecclesiastical jurisprudence but to the fact that it has never been abrogated by name — many of which provisions remain in force even unto today, according to what Pope John Paul II declares in his Constitution for the Election of the Roman Pontiff, Universi Dominici Gregis, n. 4 — I have chosen to make an entirely new translation.

This translation I have made directly from one of the most authoritative collections of Papal Bulls, since there are so many errors in the best English translation heretofore published, which attempts to make the text sound eloquent in English and thus obscures many juridical expressions which are customarily used in papal documents.

In addition to the English translation, I have researched the identity of each of the ones signing the Constitution, by using the information at Catholic-Hierarchy.org.  Thus, this edition of the Constitution now has more complete historical information about these holy men of God than any translation heretofore published.

The Latin Text of this Constitution is published below the English translation in PDF format (55 MB).

The three most important juridical principles, which I would draw the reader’s attention to, is that (1) in accord with this bull anyone who is a heretic is to be immediately deposed from office, and the first Catholic who is eligible can take possession of it. Also, that (2) the election of a Cardinal as Pope who beforehand had deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into heresy is declared null, irritus and void. Also, that (3) in heresy or a deviation from the Catholic Faith, that even a Roman Pontiff can be refuted and contradicted. —  This Constitution represents the high point in the Counter-Reformation, and if it had been continuously put into effect, the Church would be suffering nearly none Her present woes and maladies. — May a future Pope republish and renew this heavenly decree.

The Constitution, “Cum ex apostolatus”

Paul IV, Bishop
Servant of the Servants of God

February 15, 1559 A. D.

[Translated from the Latin text of the bull found in  Francesco Gaude’s,
Bullarum Diplomatum et Privilelgio, Turin, 1860, Tome VI, pp. 551-556.]

SINCE FROM THE OFFICE OF THE APOSTOLATE, divinely entrusted to Us, beyond the measure of Our merits, the general care of the Lord’s flock looms over Us, and hence from this We are bound for the sake of their faithful custody and salubrious direction, according to the custom of a Shepherd’s watches-at-night, to assiduously keep vigil, and to more attentively look ahead, so that those, who in this Age, with sins forcing them, as ones striving according to their own prudence, rise up more knowingly and more perniciously than usual against the discipline of the orthodox faith, and, who perverting the understanding of the sacred Scriptures with superstitious and fictive inventions, contrive to rend the unity of the Catholic Church and the seamless tunic of the Lord, may be repelled from Christ’s sheep-pen, lest they continue their magisterium of error, who contemn to be disciples of the truth.

§ 1. We, considering this kind of affair to be so grave and dangerous, that (even) the Roman Pontiff, who on earth acts in the place of our God and Lord, Jesus Christ, and who obtains the plenitude of power over nations and kingdoms, and judges all, as one to be judged by no one in this age, may, if he be found to be deviant from the Faith, be refuted; and that, where there is intended greater danger, one is to take counsel more fully and more diligently lest the pseudo-prophets or others having even secular jurisdiction miserably entrap the souls of the simple, and draw the innumerable people, committed to (their) care and government, in things spiritual and temporal, with them into the perdition and ruin of damnation, and lest it happen at some time that We see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, in the Holy Place;  desiring as much as We are able with God, for the sake of our pastoral charge [munus], to capture the foxes, striving to demolish the vineyard of the Lord, and keep wolves at a distance from the sheep-pens, lest We be seen to be dumb dogs, not wanting to bark, and be lost with the evil field-workers, and be compared to a mercenary.

§ 2. After having held a mature deliberation over these things with Our venerable brothers, the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, with their counsel and unanimous assent, We approve and renew with (Our) Apostolic Authority each and all of the sentences, censures and punishments of excommunication, suspension and interdict and privation and whatever others, had for such (cases) by whatever Roman Pontiffs, Our predecessors, even through their letters extravagantes, or received by the Church of God in sacred councils, and/or published and promulgated  in whatever manner in the decrees and statutes of the holy Fathers, or by sacred canons and constitutions and apostolic ordinances, against heretics and schismatics, and We renew, that they are to be perpetually observed and are to be returned to and ought to be in a flourishing observance, if perhaps they not be in it; and that also whomsoever, who be found or confessed and/or convicted, to have heretofore deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into any heresy or to have joined in or excited or committed schisms, or — which God deign to avert by His Clemency and Goodness to all — who will deviate in the hereafter, or fall into heresy, or join in and/or excite or commit schisms, and be found to have deviated or fallen into, or joined and/or excited or committed or will confess or be convicted (of the same), of whatsoever state, grade, order, condition and preeminence they be, even episcopal, archepiscopal, patriarchal, primatial or in any greater ecclesiastical dignity or honor of the Cardinalate, and of whatever land of the Apostolic See they shine forth, as much perpetual as temporal, by the munus of a legation, and/or even with the authority or excellence of a Count, Baron, Marquis, Duke, King and Emperor, and We will and decree, that these incur whatever of the aforesaid sentences, censures and punishments.

§ 3. And nevertheless, considering it to be worthy that those who do not abstain from evils by the love of virtue, be deterred from the same by the fear of punishments; and that Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals, legates, Counts, Barons, Marquises, Dukes, Kings and Emperors, ought to be those who ought to teach others also by their own good example, so that they may continue in the Catholic Faith: in prevaricating they sin more gravely than all others, since they not only destroy their very selves, but also draw into the perdition and pit of destruction the innumerable other peoples, entrusted to their care and government or otherwise subject to them, We, from the counsel and assent of the same, by this Our Constitution to be valid in perpetuity, in hatred of such crimes, than which nothing can be greater or more pernicious in the Church of God, do, from the fullness of (Our) Apostolic Authority, sanction, establish, decree and define that, with the sentences, censures, aforesaid punishments remaining in their strength and efficacy, having their effect, each and all Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals, Legates, Counts, Barons, Marquises, Kings and Emperors, who heretofore, as is aforesaid, have been detected or confessed and/or convicted, to have deviated or fallen into heresy, or joined in, excited and/or committed schisms, or (who) in the hereafter will deviate or fall into heresy or join and/or excite or commit schisms, and be detected to have deviated or fallen into heresy or to have joined in, excited or committed schisms, since in this they are rendered more inexcusable than all others, that beyond the sentences, censures and aforesaid punishments, they be by this very thing, without any service of right or fact, entirely and wholly in perpetuity deprived of their orders and cathedrals, even metropolitan, patriarchal and primatial churches and of the honor of the Cardinalate and munus of any legation whatsoever, and even of active and passive voice, of all authority, and monasteries, benefices and ecclesiastical offices, cum cura or sine cura, (pertaining) to secular or regular Orders of any kind, which, they had obtained by whatever concessions and apostolic dispensations, in title, in comendam and administration or in whatsoever manner you like, in which and/or for which they had any right, and even of whatever fruits, returns and annual proceeds over the similar fruits, returns and proceeds reserved or assigned to them, even by Counts, Barons, Marquises, Dukes, Kings and Emperors, and regarding that, concerning all other things, let them be unable and incapable, and let them be held as relapsed and subverted, in all (places) and for all (times), from this very thing, even if they will have abjured heresy of this kind publicly in judgement; nor let them at any time ever be restored, returned, reintegrated or rehabilitated to their pristine state or cathedrals, metropolitian, patriarchal and primatial churches, or Cardinalates and/or other honor or whatever other greater or lesser dignity, or active and/or passive voice, or authority, or monasteries and benefices, and/or counties, baronies, marquisates, duchies, kingdoms and empire, who indeed have not been relinquished to the judgement of secular authority as ones to be punished with due consideration, unless they are to be brought back to the apparent indications of true penitence and the fruits of condign penitence, from the goodness and clemency of this See, in any monastery or other place of regulars, for doing perpetual penitence on the bread of grieving (doloris) and water of mourning (maestitiae). And that for such ones existing by all (titles), of whatever state, grade, order, condition and preeminence, or enjoying whatever dignity, even episcopal, archiepiscopal, patriarchal and primatial or other greater ecclesiastical, and even the honor of the Cardinalate, or by the mundane authority of a Count, Baron, Marquis, Duke, King or Emperor, let them be obliged to be held, treated and avoided as such and destitute of all human solace.

§ 4. And let those who pretend to hold the right of patronage or of naming the persons suitable to cathedrals, even the ones metropolitan, and patriarchal or primatial churches or monasteries and/or other ecclesiastic benefices, vacated through a privation of this kind, lest these be exposed to inconveniences of a too long vacancy, but be, rather, snatched from the service to heretics, let the same be conceded to suitable persons, who may faithfully direct their peoples in the paths of justice; (and) let them be bound to present other suitable persons to Us or the Roman Pontiff existing at that time, regarding churches, monasteries and benefices of this kind, within the time prescribed by right and/or under the statute of theirs according to the concordats or compacts begun with the said See; otherwise, with the time of this kind elapsed, let the full and free disposition of churches, monasteries and aforesaid benefices devolve in full right to Us and the aforesaid Roman Pontiff, by this very (fact).

§ 5. And, moreover, let those who will have presumed knowingly in any manner whatsoever to receive and/or defend the same thus found or confessed and/or convicted, or favor them and/or believe or teach their dogmas, incur by this very (fact) the sentence of excommunication, and let them be made infamous, nor let them be admitted by voice, person, writings and/or messenger or any procurator to public or private offices or councils or a Synod and/or Council, general and/or provincial, nor to a Conclave of the Cardinals or to any congregation of the Faithful or to the election of anyone, or to give witness, nor let them be able to be admitted; let them also be unable to write wills and to accede to a succession of an inheritance;  in addition, let no one respond to them upon any business.  Wherefore if they perhaps be judges, let their sentences obtain no firmness, nor let any cases be brought to their hearing; and, if they be lawyers, let their patronage be in no manner received; but if if they be messengers, let the credentials made for them be entirely of no strength and/or moment. And moreover let clerics for each and all churches, even cathedrals, metropolitans, patriarchals and primatials, or dignities, monasteries, benefices and ecclesiastical offices, even, as is preferred, those qualified, obtained for them in any manner you will, and both they and laymen, even, as is promoted, qualified and endowed with the aforesaid dignities, in whatsoever kingdoms, duchies, lordships, fiefs and temporal goods possessed by them, stand forth deprived by this very (fact); and let the kingdoms, duchies, lordships, fiefs and goods of this kind be confiscated and let them be as confiscated, and let them become of the right and property of those, who occupy them first, if they have been obedient in the sincerity of the Faith and in unity of the Holy Roman Church, and under Ours and that of Our successors, the Roman Pontiffs, canonically elected.

§ 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, 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, and let neither through his undertaking of the munus, consecration, or subsequent government and administration, possession, or as if, and/or enthronement or adoration of him as Roman Pontiff, or obedience proffered to him by all, and whatever course of time in the aforesaid, be able to be said to be convalidated or be convalidated, nor let it be had as legitimate in any of its parts, and let it be judged to have granted or to grant no faculty for such things to those promoted as Bishops or Archbishops and/or Patriarchs, or assumed as Cardinals and/or Roman Pontiff, in things spiritual and/or temporal, but let each and every thing said, done, accomplished and administered in any manner you will by them, and whatever things follow from these, lack force, and let them grant entirely no firmness nor right to anyone; and let these same thus promoted and assumed by this very (fact), without any declaration needed to be made over them, be deprived of all dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power; and Let it be licit, for each and all thus promoted and assumed, if they had not before deviated from the Faith nor were heretics, nor joined in or excited and/or committed schisms:

§ 7. for persons subject, both clerics and seculars, and regulars as even lay, and also Cardinals, even those who were present at the election of the Pontiff (who) deviated beforehand from the Faith or (was) a schismatic, or (who) otherwise consented, and proffered obedience to him, and (who) adored him, even castellans, prefects, captains and officials, even of Our beloved City and while Ecclesiastical Estate, even to the same thus promoted and/or assumed by homage or oath and/or obliged or constrained by caution, by obedience and devotion of the same thus promoted and/or assumed immune, (let it be licit) at any time to withdraw, and to avoid them as warlocks, foreigners, publicans  and hesiarchs; and for the same subject persons by fidelity and obedience of future Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals and Roman Pontiffs canonically elected nevertheless, remaining bound, and, (who) regarding the greater of these, thus promoted and assumed, if they wish to continue their government and administration, (let it be licit) to request the assistance of the secular arm to harass [confusionem] the same thus promoted and assumed; nor let those withdrawing from fidelity and obedience to the same thus promoted and assumed, on the occasion of the aforesaid, be, as tearers of the tunic of the Lord, subject to the vengeance of any censures or punishments.

§ 8.  Not withstanding the Apostolic Constitutions and ordinances, and even the privileges, indults and Apostolic Letters to the same Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates and Cardinals and whatever others, under whatsoever tenor and form, and together with whatever clauses and decrees, even (those) Motu Proprio and ex certa scientia, and from the fullness of Apostolic Authority, or even (those) conceded in Consistory or otherwise in any manner and even (those) approved and renewed over and over, and even contained in the Corpus Iuris, and even those by whatsoever capitular conclaves, even (those) strengthened by an oath or Apostolic confirmation and/or by any other firmness, even sworn by Us ourselves.  All of which, presenting their tenor as had in place of express (mentions) even (those) having been inserted word for word, with these otherwise remaining in their force, We especially and expressly derogate at least this time, with all others whatsoever (remaining) contrary.

§ 9. Moreover, so that the present letters might be brought to the knowledge of all, whom it interests, We will that they or their transcriptions — which We decree should be shown full faith after having been subscribed by the hand of a public notary and furnished with the seal of any person constituted in ecclesiastical dignity — be published and affixed upon the doors of the Basilica of the Prince of the Apostles in the City and of the Apostolic Chancery and in the perimeter of the Campo dei Fiori through any of our couriers, and that a copy of the same be placed therein affixed, and that the publication, posting and placing of an affixed copy of this kind suffice and be had as a solemn and legitimate (announcement), and that no other publication ought to be required or expected.

§ 10. Therefore, let it be licit to entirely no one of men to infringe upon this page of Our approbation, renewal, sanction, statute, wills to derogate, decrees and/or with temerarius daring to contradict (it). If, however, any one presume to attempt this, let him know that he will incur the indignation of the Omnipotent God and His Blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul.

Given at Rome, at Saint Peter’s, in the year of the Lord’s Incarnation, One Thousand, Five Hundred, Fifty-Nine, the fourth year of Our Pontificate.

+ I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church
+ I, John du Bellay, Cardinal Bishop of Ostia
+ I, Rodolfo Pio de Carpo, Cardinal Bishop of Porto e Santa Rufina
+ I, Francesco Pisani, Cardinal Bishop of Frascati
+ I, Federico Cesi, Cardinal Bishop of Palestrina
+ I, Pedro Pacheco de Villena, Cardinal Bishop of Albano
+
+ I, Ranuccio Farnese, Cardinal Deacon of Santa Angelo in Pescheria, the Penitentiary Major, Latin Patriarch of Constantinople
+ I, Tiberio Crispi, Cardinal Priest of Sant’Agata dei Goti, Bishop of Sessa Arunca
+ I, Fluvio Giulio della Corgna, Cardinal Priest of Santo Stefano al Monte Celio, Bishop of Perugia
+ I, Giovanni Michele Saraceni, Cardinal Priest of Sant’Anastasia
+ I, Giovanni Ricci, Cardinal Priest of San Vitale, Bishop of Chiusi, Italy
+ I, Giacomo Puteo, Cardinal Priest of Santa Maria in Via
+ I, Girolomo Dandini, Cardinal Priest of San Marcello, Bishop of Imola
+ I, Bernardino Scotti. Cardinal Priest of San Matteo in Merulana, Archbishop of Piacenza
+ I, Diomede Carafa, Cardinal Priest of San Pier Damniani ai Monti di San Paolo, Bishop of Ariano
+ I, Scipio Rebiba, Cardinal Priest of Santa Pudenziana, Archbishop of Pisa
+ Jean Suau, Cardinal Priest of San Giovanni a Porta Latina, Bishop of Mirepoix, France
+ Giannantonio Capizucchi, Cardinal of San Pancrazio, Bishop of Lodi
+ I Taddeo Gaddi, Cardinal Priest of San Silvestro in Capite
+ I Virgilio Rosario, Cardinal Priest of San Simeone Profeta, Bishop of Spoleto
+ I, Francisco Mendoza Bobadilla, Cardinal Priest of Sant’Eusebio, Bishop of Alexandria
+ I, Clemented’Olera, Cardinal Priest of Santa Maria in Ara Caeli
+ I Guido Ascanio Sforza di Santa Fiora, Cardinal Deacon of Santa Maria in Via Lata
+ I, Niccolò Caetani di Sermoneta, Cardinal Deacon of Sant’Eustachio
+ I, Giacomo Savelli, Cardinal Deacon of Santa Maria in Cosmedin
+ I, Girolamo Recanati Capodiferro, Cardinal Deacon of San Giorgio in Velabro, Bishop of Saint Jean du Maurienne, France
+ I, Innocenzo Ciocchi del Monte, Cardinal Deacon of Sant’Onofrio
+ I, Luigi Cornaro, Cardinal Deacon of San Teodoro
+I, Carlo Carafa, Cardinal Deacon of Sainti Vito, Modesto and Crescenzia
+ I, Alfonso Carafa, Cardinal Deacon of Santa Maria in Domnica, Archbishop of Naples
+ I, Vitellozzo Vitelli, Cardinal Deacon of Santa Maria in Portico, Bishop of Citta di Castello
+ I, Giovanni Battista Consigliere, Cardinal Deacon of Santa Lucia in Septisolio

As God is My Help

Given on the 15th of February, 1559, in the 4th of (our) Pontificate

Church History, Papal Documents

Pope Nicholas II’s Bull, “In Nomine Domini” (Papal Version)

17 Comments

Latin Original,
with an English Translation by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

More than 5 years ago I published an English translation of Pope Nicholas II’s bull, In nomine Domini, which he wrote with the counsel of Saints Hildebrand, the future Pope Gregory VII, and Peter Damnian, the future Doctor of the Church against the homo-heresy. — Indeed, in the final paragraph which contains the censures against those who would dare violate this papal law, we can see the influence of the fiery zeal of Saint Hildebrand, where it combines a variety of curses found in the Psalms, against both clerics and laymen.

Recently with the help of a medieval scholar who has spent his life studying this Bull, I have come in the possession of a copy of this bull in its original version (see below). My previous translation was based on a copy of the Bull, in Latin, from a version which had been interpolated — that is, compiled by several existing versions, by a Scholar who attempted to interpret which precise wording was the original. While such a practice is widely accepted in the world of academics, it is always a very good thing to go back to the actual existing manuscripts and read them. The Latin text from the version published by the Church at Rome is that which I now publish, here below. — This papal version differs in nearly nothing from the interpolated version which I previously published and translated, but in the choice of words in a few passages, and in a few extra sentences at the end. — However, the paragraphs in the papal version are not numbered, so I have inserted numbers and joined some paragraphs together so that paragraph n. 3 in both versions regards what is to be done if a legitimate, honest and upright election cannot be held in the City of Rome.

This Bull of Pope Nicholas II is no obscure document, since it is the first Papal Bull which restricted the election of the Roman Pontiff to the Cardinals, two centuries before the first Conclave was ever held. It is even mentioned by name in the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul VI, Romano Pontifici eligendo, promulgated October 1, 1975, in its third paragraph, where it is called a “celebrated” constitution, that is, frequently used. It’s importance for today is that it explains, what other Papal Laws currently in force today do not, namely, “What is to be done if all the Cardinals forfeit their right and competence to elect the Roman Pontiff by reason of grave malfeasance, in conducting an illegal election or one which is declared invalid by papal prescriptions?”  It is implicitly referred to also in the current Papal Law of Pope John Paul II, Universi Dominici Gregis, promulgated Feb. 22, 1996, where it says in its preface, that “the institution of the Conclave is not necessary for the valid election of the Roman Pontiff”, and again, wherein in n. 76 it declares any election violating its norms null and void, without however expressing what is to be done if the Cardinals fail to return into conclave because they maliciously will to hold as pope a man who is illegally elected.

Now follows my English translation of that.

Pope Nicholas II’s Bull “In nomine Domini”

April 13, 1059 A. D. — In the Constantinian Patriarchal Basilica of the Lateran, at Rome

Translated from the Papal Version of the text, published by Das Papstwahldekret von 1059. Echte Fassung, in: Jasper, Detlef. Das Pastwahldekret von 1059: Überlieferung unf Textgestalt. Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1986, pp. 98-109.

IN THE NAME OF THE LORD God, our Savior Jesus Christ.  From the year of His Incarnation, 1058, in the month of April, in the Twelfth Indiction, with the Sacrosanct Gospels laid open, also with the Most Reverend and Blessed Nicholas, presiding as the Apostolic Pope, in the Lateran Basilica of the Patriarch, which is named the Constantinian, also with the most reverend Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots or venerable Priests and Deacons accompanying, seated, the Same venerable Pontiff, decreeing with Apostolic Authority, concerning the Election of the Highest Pontiff, said:

Most beloved Brothers and co-Bishops, and also inferior members (of the clergy), your Beatitude knows and it does not lie hidden, that with the passing of Our predecessor, the lord Stephen, of pious memory, how many adverse (troubles) this Apostolic See, which I zealously serve with God’s urging, has suffered through, and then how many repeated hammers and frequent blows She has been subjected to through the brokers of simonaical heresy, so much that the Column of the Living God almost seemed to totter and the net of the Highest Fisherman, with the storms swelling, would be driven into the depths of shipwreck to be submerged.

§ 1. Wherefore, if it please thy Brotherhood, We ought, with God assisting, take care prudently for future cases and this by Ecclesiastical statute, provide in the hereafter that (these) evils, revived, not prevail.  On which account, having been instructed by Our predecessor and by the authority of the other Holy Fathers, We decree, and establish, that with the passing of the Pontiff of this universal Roman Church, first of all, the Cardinal Bishops, treating (the election) together with the most diligent consideration, summon immediately the Cardinal Clerics to themselves; and in this manner let the rest of the Clergy, and the People, approach to consent to the new election, so that, lest the deadly disease of venality insinuate itself by occasion, the most religious men be the chief leaders in the election of the Pontiff to be promoted, but the rest be their followers.

§ 2. And certainly the right and legitimate order of the election is here considered carefully, if it be gathered from having examined the diverse rules of the Fathers or their deeds, (and) even that sentence of Blessed Leo, (Our) predecessor, (who) said: “No reason permits, that there be had among Bishops, those who have neither been elected from the Clerics, nor requested by the common people, nor consecrated by the co-provincial Bishops with the judgement of the Metropolitans” (Pope Leo I, Letter to Rusticus of Narbonne, Migne PL 54, p. 1203 A/B). But because the Apostolic See takes precedence to all other Churches throughout the earth, and for that reason, too, She can have over Her no Metropolitan, the Cardinal Bishops with out doubt serve instead as Metropolitans, who namely promote the one elected as High Priest (antistitem) to the apex of the Apostolic Summit.  Moreover, let them elect (him) from the very womb of the Church, if one is found suitable, and/or if he not be found in Her, let him be taken from another; with due honor being served, and reverence for Our beloved son, Henry, who is held as King at the present and with God conceding hoped (to be) the future Emperor, as We have already conceded to him and to his successors, who personally begged this right from this Apostolic See.

§ 3. Wherefore, if the perversity of depraved and iniquitous men, so prevail, that a pure, sincere and free election cannot be held in the City, let the Cardinal Bishops with the religious Clerics, and the Catholic laity, though few, obtain the right of power (ius potestatis) to elect the Pontiff of the Apostolic See, where they might judge it to be more fitting. Plainly, after the election has been completed, if there be a bellicose conflict, and/or if the struggle of any kind of men resists by the earnestness of wickedness, such that he, who has been elected, cannot prevail to be enthroned in the Apostolic See according to the custom, nevertheless, let the elect obtain as Pope the authority to rule the Roman Church and to dispose of all Her faculties, which Blessed Gregory, We know, did, before his own consecration.

§4. On which account, if anyone has been elected, or even ordained, or enthroned, against this Decree of Ours promulgated by Synodal sentence, whether through sedition, and/or presumption, or any guile, let him be cast down by the Divine Authority and that of the Holy Apostles, Peter and Paul, by a perpetual anathema with his promoters and supporters and followers as one separated from the thresholds of the Holy Church, just as the Anti-Christ, both invader and destroyer of the whole of Christendom, and let no audience be given him over this, but let him be deposed from every ecclesiastical grade unto whatever was before his, without any objection made, to whom if anyone whatsoever adheres, and/or exhibits any kind of reverence as to the Pontiff, or presumes to defend him in anything, let him be abandoned by equal sentence, which if anyone shows himself to be a violator of this sentence of Our Holy Decree, and has tried to confound the Roman Church by his presumption, and to raise disturbance against this Statute, let him be damned by perpetual anathema and excommunication, and let him be reputed among “the impious“, who “shall not rise again in judgement” (Psalm 1:5), let him know the wrath of the Omnipotent One against him, and that of the Holy Apostles, Peter and Paul, whose Church he has presumed to fool, let him know a ravaging madness in this life and in the future; “Let his dwelling become deserted, and let there be no one who dwells in his tents” (cf. Psalm 69:26): “Let his sons be orphans, and his wife a widow” (Psalm 108:9), “Let him be shaken completely” (cf. Psalm 108:10) to madness, and “may his sons go about begging, and be cast out of their dwellings” (Psalm 108:10). “May the money-lender ravage all his substance, and may the foreigner lay waste all his labors” (Psalm 108:11); “Let the whole world fight against” (cf. Wisdom 5:21) him, and let all the other elements be against him, and may the merits of all the Saints, at rest, confound him and in this life may they show open vengeance upon him.

§5. Moreover, may the grace of the Omnipotent God protect the observers of this Our decree, and by the authority of the Blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul may it absolve them from all bonds of sins.

I, Nicholas, Bishop of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church,
have signed this Decree promulgated by Us, here above, as it reads.

Transcription

Source