Cum ex Apostolatus Officio

It is the belief of most Sedevacantists that the Chair of Peter has been empty since the ascension of Pope John XXIII to the Papacy in 1958. This, of course, is an absurd position, profoundly destructive to the Catholic doctrine regarding Christ's promise that He would be with the Church until the end of time. It will be beneficial here to quote again the teaching of Vatican Council I:

“That which the Prince of Shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, Jesus Christ our Lord, established in the person of the Blessed Apostle Peter to secure the perpetual welfare and lasting good of the Church, must, by the same institution, necessarily remain unceasingly in the Church, which, being founded upon the Rock, will stand firm to the end of the world. For none can doubt, and it is known to all ages, that the holy and Blessed Peter, the Prince and chief of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind, and lives, presides and judges to this day, always in his successors the Bishops of the Holy See of Rome, which was founded by Him and consecrated by His Blood. Whence, whosoever succeeds to Peter in this See does by the institution of Christ Himself obtain the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. The disposition made by Incarnate Truth (dispositio veritatis) therefore remains, and Blessed Peter, abiding in the rock's strength which he received (in accepta fortitudine petrae perseverans), has not abandoned the direction oldie Church.”

If the See of Peter has been empty for the past 48 [53] years, then it is certainly evident to most persons of good sense that the Papacy is at an end. This is a necessary conclusion from the fact that since all the acts of John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI would have to be considered invalid, there would now exist no valid Cardinals needed to elect a new Pope. The Church, in other words, would have failed, despite the promises of Our Lord, and despite the teaching of Vatican I as quoted above.

The fact that such an absurdity is now being given renewed and increased attention is due largely to two factors: l) recent explorations into the very serious errors or objective heresies to be found in the writings of Joseph Ratzinger before his ascension to the Papacy and 2) the widespread "rediscovery" of an Apostolic Constitution written by Pope Paul IV in 1559, titled Cum ex Apostolatus Officio.

Concerning the first of these factors:

I have previously dealt with the very necessary distinction which must always be kept in mind between believing, teaching, and writing heresy on the one hand, and being considered a true heretic on the other. In order to be considered a formal heretic a person must persevere in his errors despite correction. His "heresy”, in other words, must be pertinacious or obstinate.

In addition, I believe this question has become profoundly complicated due to the current, widespread rejection of Thomistic cosmology and metaphysics – this denigration of Thomism engulfing even the Papacy. This denial of scholastic cosmology and metaphysics is due almost entirely to the effect of reductive analytical physical science upon Catholic thinking. And because of the almost universal ambience of this reductive materialism, there are all sorts of people of good will out there – persons who truly wish to follow Christ and his Church – who are desperately and foolishly trying to understand such concepts as Transubstantiation and Original Sin in a manner which will accord with what they believe is the irrefutable worldview of modern science. It is this scientific world-view which has supposedly necessitated doing an end-run around the Thomistic view of being and substance. And it is this loss of the understanding of being and substance which erodes the foundations of virtually all the articles of our Catholic Faith.

I have explored this problem in depth in my book The War Against Being and the Return to God. Suffice to say here that these people are certainly immersed in very serious philosophical error, and that these errors severely affect their proper understanding of defined doctrine. What is hard to determine is whether they can truly be considered as individuals who have "lost the faith." It is certainly my contention that recent Popes have fallen into these errors. However (and this is a huge "however") it is even more my certain belief that, in keeping with the doctrine laid down by Vatican I concerning the never-failing faith of Peter and all his successors, none of them can be considered to have "lost the faith."

Having said this, we shall now consider the second reason for this renewed interest in Sedevacantism: the Apostolic Constitution of Paul IV.

The teaching contained in Cum ex Apostolatus Officio is astonishingly direct. The most pertinent section reads as follows:

"6. In addition {by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We enact, determine, decree and define} : that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;

(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;

(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;
(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;

(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force, and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;

(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power." (all emphasis mine).

We will begin with the notion proposed by some traditionalists that this is a document whose teaching is infallible. The reader hopefully noticed the word "define" in the first sentence above. The object of infallible teaching is, of course, faith and morals – either those truths directly revealed by God, or truths connected to, or implicit in, revelation. We need to begin, therefore, by asking exactly what truth of faith or morals is being defined here. Unquestionably, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio "defines" in regard to any Bishop (including the Pope) who "prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy", that such a person's promotion to said office is declared "null, void and worthless", that he is deprived of "all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power-, and that "all their words, deeds, actions and enactments ... shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone."

Definitive truth does not change from century to century. If all this is definitive truth, then it would have had to be true at any time in the history of the Church. This would mean that any bishops who were guilty of Arianism or semi-Arianism would have been deprived of their office, and all their acts, including consecrations of other bishops and ordinations of priest would have been invalid.

The same automatic deprivation of office and invalidation of all consecrations of bishops and ordination of priests would have applied to any bishop tainted with Donatism, Monophysitism, Nestorianism, Monothelitism, Pelagianism, the Iconoclastic heresy, Jansenism, or hundreds of other heresies or variations of heresies. There would be absolutely no validity of orders in the Eastern Orthodox Churches since they were rooted from the beginning in the rejection of the Roman Primacy.

In fact, considering St. Jerome's statement that the whole world woke up to find itself Arian, and also considering the practical impossibility of finding a priest or bishop being able to trace his own ordination or consecration back to the likes of St. Athanasius (and, in addition, without subsequent "contamination" by some more recent heresy), it would seem very reasonable to postulate that there may not be a single priest or bishop in the world who has valid Orders. And if there were any, it would be impossible to tell who they were. We would certainly never be able to conclude that any Papal election was valid, since we would never be able to decide which, if any, of the Cardinal electors was not deprived of his office and power.

As far as the daily life of any of the faithful is concerned, we have only touched the surface. No Catholic, for instance, could be sure he had ever assisted at a valid Mass, or had ever received Jesus Christ in Holy Communion. He could never be sure that he had been absolved of his sins in Confession. He or she would never be able to know if their marriage was blessed by the Church. There would be no Magisterium, since there would be no certainty in regards to those who had promulgated its teachings. There would, in other words, be no security in anything Catholic.

The fact is that there is no valid precedent for such a teaching in the whole history of the Church. It did not exist before Paul IV, and it was largely ignored after his death, except by those who wished to use it as a means to undermine the truth concerning Papal Infallibility as defined by Vatican Council I. In other words, this document was so universally recognized as a "bad case", that if it could be proved that Pope Paul's use of the word "definimus" really involved the charism of infallibility, then it would have been clear to all the bishops at Vatican I that Papal Infallibility had been compromised in the past, and therefore could not be defined as a doctrine. Needless to say, the Fathers at Vatican I rejected this argument on the basis that Cum ex Apostolatus Officio was not a document that involved any infallible definitions whatsoever.

The foolishness involved in any attempt to make this document infallible does not end here.. Cum ex Apostolatus Officio actually uses the word "define" four times (at least that is my personal count). It "defines", for instance, that anyone "who shall have presumed in any way knowingly to receive, defend, favour, believe or teach the teaching" of such deprived bishops, Popes, etc. "shall be incapable of making a will", "shall not accede to the succession of heredity", and "if they shall have been Notaries, documents drafted by them shall be entirely without strength or weight." Can anyone seriously believe that such things are proper matter for infallible definition?

Dr. Ludvig Von Pastor in his classic work History of the Popes makes it clear that Cum ex Apostolatus Officio has always been considered a disciplinary document, that the word definimus ("defined") occurs in other non-dogmatic documents, and that "there is no question here of a dogmatic pronouncement, but only of a disciplinary act." (Vol XIV, p.303-303 n.2).

The fact is, however, that we are faced with a situation of almost total insecurity even if we take Cum ex Apostolatus Officio seriously as only a disciplinary document. Pope Paul IV states that his Apostolic Constitution "is to remain valid in perpetuity." Even if such disciplinary prescriptions are to be considered binding only since the year 1559, we are in much the same trouble, especially when trying to trace the progress of Modernist heresies through the Epicopate. Nor is the problem just Modernism. Among other relatively recent heresies, we also have Baiansim, Jansenism, and Conciliarism. And again, we would have to conclude the Eastern Orthodox to be entirely without valid Orders. Further, we could also consider such people as Cardinal Gibbons and much of the American hierarchy as being infected from its inception with what has come to be called the Americanist Heresy. Does that mean that the validity of virtually the entire American Episcopacy and preisthood is under question just because of this one heresy?

All this is simply more foolishness. Cum ex Apostolatus Officio is, in fact, a matter of acute embarrassment in the history of the Church. This must be said, despite Pope Paul IV's calling down the wrath of God upon anyone who should presume to contradict its teaching.

It is the accurate judgment of history that Cum ex Apostolatus Officio is the distempered work of a Pope whose zeal for reform of the Church carried him to excesses which were profound violations of justice and truth. This is not to say that he did not accomplish good things in the cause of this reform. But his naturally harsh temperament and zeal led him into many excesses. Fortunately, Pope Paul IV's "in perpetuity definitions" could not legally bind his successors, and it would devolve upon them to correct his excesses. The following is a short explanation of the personal tragedy which is at the heart of this sad incident in Catholic history.

Towards the end of his life, Pope Paul became obsessed with the idea of preventing certain persons, mainly Cardinal Pole and Cardinal Morone, from ascending to the Papacy after his death. Cardinal Pole was out of reach in England, but on May 31, 1557, the Pope had Cardinal Morone arrested and taken to the Castle of St. Angelo. The next day the Pope informed the Cardinals in a General Congregation that he had ordered Cardinal Morone's arrest on suspicion of heresy. "To tell the truth, he said, "we wish to meet the dangers which threatened in the last conclave, and to take steps during our lifetime, so that the devil may not succeed in days to come in placing one of his own on the throne of St. Peter."

Cardinal Marone spent the next 26 months in prison, until the death of Paul IV. Deprived of being able to offer, or even hear, Mass, he was subjected to full and continuing examination by the Inquisition. All his books, papers, and letters were confiscated, and all means exhausted in order to unearth sufficient material for a judgment of heresy.

Cardinal Marone was able to refute all charges against him. Because of mounting evidence of his innocence, he was at least twice offered his freedom if he would ask mercy of the Pope. He replied that since he was not guilty of anything, he sought not mercy but only justice. It should be noted that Cardinal Morone was not the only one to suffer such injustice at the hand of Paul IV, but only the most famous, most revered, and in the case of Paul IV, most detested and feared (we remember that this is the Pope who brought about war and the sack of Rome because of his personal animosity towards the Hapsburgs and Phillip II).

Upon the death of Pope Paul IV, Cardinal Morone was immediately released. The new Pope, Pius IV, immediately ordered a revision of the case against Cardinal Morone. In the words of Dr. Von Pastor:

"After strict investigation by Cardinals Puteo and Ghislieri, of whom one was celebrated as a legal authority, and the other as a theologian, Pius IV pronounced the final sentence on March 13th, 1560. This [sentence] blames the proceedings of the Inquisition under Paul IV, on a number of points, both with regard to the actual facts and to the procedure. The imprisonment of Morone had been effected without the slightest legitimate grounds for suspicion. The investigation itself, as well as the whole conduct of the process, in which the prescribed and necessary forms had not been observed, was stigmatized as invalid, indiscreet and unjust. It was further established that there neither existed any reason for the condemnation of the Cardinal, nor any suspicion, however slight, as to his orthodoxy, and indeed that the very opposite of the accusation against him had come to light, and that the Cardinal must therefore be declared absolutely innocent." (Vol. XIV, p. 307).

We must add the very significant fact that Cardinal Ghislieri, one of the two Cardinals appointed by Pius IV to thoroughly investigate this case, would, in less than 6 years, ascend to the throne of the Papacy as Pope St. Pius V. We thus have the witness of two Popes (Pius IV and St. Pius V) as to the profound injustices involved in this case, which was instigated and unremittingly pursued by Paul IV.

It should also be added that the injustices perpetrated by Paul IV went far beyond Cardinals Morone and Cardinal Pole. Working constantly with the Inquisition, he instituted a virtual Reign of Terror in Rome. After his death a mob stormed the Capitol, mutilated a statue of the Pope which had been erected there, decapitated the statue and left the head to be mocked at, and finally dragged it through the city and sank it in the Tiber. According to Von Pastor, -A decree of the Roman people on August 20 ordered the removal of all the coats-of-arms and inscriptions of 'the tyrannical house of Carafa.'"

In conclusion, there is no doubt that the Apostolic Constitution Cum ex Apostolatus Officio is a non-infallible document issued by a Pope carried to excess by intemperate zeal and paranoia for the Church. At the end of his life, Paul IV himself realized, at least partially, the extent of the tragedy unleashed upon the Church by his own harsh temperament. Again, from Dr. Von Pastor:

"Three days before his death he summoned the General of the Jesuits, Lainez, to his side and said to him: "How bitterly flesh and blood have deceived me! My relatives [speaking of the Carafa family and their hatred of the Hapsburgs, which led to war with Phillip II) have plunged me into an unhappy war, from which many sins in the Church of God have arisen. Since the time of St. Peter there has been no such unhappy pontificate in the Church! I repent bitterly of what has happened; pray for me."

Cum ex Apostolatus Officio should be considered not as a justification for considering the Chair of Peter to be empty, but rather as an object-lesson to traditionalists who, like Paul IV, are tempted to intemperate harshness and zeal in the face of crisis in the Church. When anger, bitterness and despair become the soul's invited guest, then charity and intelligence flee. What is most astonishing in all this is that normally intelligent, and even learned, Catholics are entertaining or embracing such foolishness – a foolishness which, if taken seriously, would simply mean the end of the Catholic Church.

MRyan,

Now you're talking!! This is very good. Some of the nuggets here:

In addition, I believe this question has become profoundly complicated due to the current, widespread rejection of Thomistic cosmology and metaphysics – this denigration of Thomism engulfing even the Papacy. This denial of scholastic cosmology and metaphysics is due almost entirely to the effect of reductive analytical physical science upon Catholic thinking. And because of the almost universal ambience of this reductive materialism, there are all sorts of people of good will out there – persons who truly wish to follow Christ and his Church – who are desperately and foolishly trying to understand such concepts as Transubstantiation and Original Sin in a manner which will accord with what they believe is the irrefutable worldview of modern science. It is this scientific world-view which has supposedly necessitated doing an end-run around the Thomistic view of being and substance. And it is this loss of the understanding of being and substance which erodes the foundations of virtually all the articles of our Catholic Faith.

I have explored this problem in depth in my book The War Against Being and the Return to God. Suffice to say here that these people are certainly immersed in very serious philosophical error, and that these errors severely affect their proper understanding of defined doctrine. What is hard to determine is whether they can truly be considered as individuals who have "lost the faith." It is certainly my contention that recent Popes have fallen into these errors. However (and this is a huge "however") it is even more my certain belief that, in keeping with the doctrine laid down by Vatican I concerning the never-failing faith of Peter and all his successors, none of them can be considered to have "lost the faith."

I think Larson has really put his finger on the problem here. Suffice to say, I think I'm going to get his book, The War Against Being and the Return to God.

This part is deep and staggering also in its implications:

Definitive truth does not change from century to century. If all this is definitive truth, then it would have had to be true at any time in the history of the Church. This would mean that any bishops who were guilty of Arianism or semi-Arianism would have been deprived of their office, and all their acts, including consecrations of other bishops and ordinations of priest would have been invalid.

The same automatic deprivation of office and invalidation of all consecrations of bishops and ordination of priests would have applied to any bishop tainted with Donatism, Monophysitism, Nestorianism, Monothelitism, Pelagianism, the Iconoclastic heresy, Jansenism, or hundreds of other heresies or variations of heresies. There would be absolutely no validity of orders in the Eastern Orthodox Churches since they were rooted from the beginning in the rejection of the Roman Primacy.

In fact, considering St. Jerome's statement that the whole world woke up to find itself Arian, and also considering the practical impossibility of finding a priest or bishop being able to trace his own ordination or consecration back to the likes of St. Athanasius (and, in addition, without subsequent "contamination" by some more recent heresy), it would seem very reasonable to postulate that there may not be a single priest or bishop in the world who has valid Orders. And if there were any, it would be impossible to tell who they were. We would certainly never be able to conclude that any Papal election was valid, since we would never be able to decide which, if any, of the Cardinal electors was not deprived of his office and power.

As far as the daily life of any of the faithful is concerned, we have only touched the surface. No Catholic, for instance, could be sure he had ever assisted at a valid Mass, or had ever received Jesus Christ in Holy Communion. He could never be sure that he had been absolved of his sins in Confession. He or she would never be able to know if their marriage was blessed by the Church. There would be no Magisterium, since there would be no certainty in regards to those who had promulgated its teachings. There would, in other words, be no security in anything Catholic.

The concept of a pope being a heretic does however exist and has not been rejected as impossible or ridiculous. After reading Larson's view, I am seeing more the wisdom of Father Garrigou-Lagrange's speculation in this area (coming second hand through the medium of an article posted here: http://www.sspx.org/misce...ism_on_sedevacantism.htm):

But how can a heretic, who is no longer a member of the Church, be its leader or head?

The Dominican Father Garrigou-Lagrange, basing his reasoning on Billuart, explains in his treatise De Verbo Incarnato (p. 232) that an heretical pope, while no longer a member of the Church, can still be her head. For, what is impossible in the case of a physical head is possible (albeit abnormal) for a secondary moral head.

The reason is that, whereas a physical head cannot influence the members without receiving the vital influx of the soul, a moral head, as is the Roman Pontiff, can exercise jurisdiction over the Church even if he does not receive from the soul of the Church any influx of interior faith or charity.

In short, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, but he is head of the visible Church by the jurisdiction and authority which he received, and these can co-exist with his own heresy.

I think one must come to one of two possible conclusions: a) the pope's faith could never fail, and he couldn't be a heretic; or, b) even if that were to be the case, his actions would still retain their validity since he would retain his authority and jurisdiction - after all, the actions of priests and bishops who have "lost the faith" and left the Church prior to a Church declaration still possess their force and legal effect, i.e. their actions were valid. Which accords with what Salza was saying (which, for the reasons I discussed in a prior post, do not meet the sede objection), and also accords with Larson as to the Athanasian bishops, etc. - even if they might disagree on the possibility of a heretical pope.

I favor option a), however (like Salza and Larson).

Very Interesting MRyan and an excellent critique of "Cum ex Apostolatus Officio."
I's a rare occassion when I find myself in agreement with you but this is one such instance where I am.

I have had vague reservations as to the infabillity of Cum ex Apostolatus Officio and as you correctly pointed out that this is purely a disciplinary matter (not faith and morals) then its infallible nature is very questionable.

My reservation on the "pro side" is that even though it be disciplinary, the fact that it was declared valid in perpetuity brings into question the wisdom of nullifying it just because of it's apparent excessiveness. Over zealousness is a better fault than total indifference and somewhere in the middle an application could be found whereby those who are not (within reason) suitable candidates can be excluded and those who are suitable can be included.
For example, concerning Pope John XXIII and his close ties with certain figures who could be descibed as "enemies of the Church," these claims could have been investigated before his being considered as a possible candidate for the Papacy and he himself could have explained his reasons for such unusual associations (which may -for all we know- have been for the good of the Church).
Concerning Cardinal Ratzingers (pre- pontifical) writings which in part had taints of unorthodoxy. these too could have been scrutinized under the criteria presented in "Cum ex Apostolatus Officio" before his being considered to be of sound Papal stock.

In light of the present crisis in the Church, Pope Paul IV recommendations don't seem so extreme after all and if Pope Pius V Bull on the Mass had been taken seriously we may not have the situation today where a consderable part of the Church are questioning the validity of the Mass they are attending.
Although Quo Primum, again, pertains to disciplinary matters within a Sacrament and not directly dealing with faith and morals (though because of the sacrament it refers to, many would argue that Faith and Morals do apply in this case) it would certainly appear that Pius V had good reason to make this the norm for all time.

IMHO. When he dust settles on Vatican II we may well revert back to reapplying the wisdom and principles contained in those disiplines of Paul IV and Pius V.
The sooner the better I say.

MRyan I mistakenly attributed those writing to you. Nevertheless as you posted this I take it your in agreemant with it. So am I.

Tornpage wrote:
I think one must come to one of two possible conclusions: a) the pope's faith could never fail, and he couldn't be a heretic; or, b) even if that were to be the case, his actions would still retain their validity since he would retain his authority and jurisdiction - after all, the actions of priests and bishops who have "lost the faith" and left the Church prior to a Church declaration still possess their force and legal effect, i.e. their actions were valid. Which accords with what Salza was saying (which, for the reasons I discussed in a prior post, do not meet the sede objection), and also accords with Larson as to the Athanasian bishops, etc. - even if they might disagree on the possibility of a heretical pope.

I favor option a), however (like Salza and Larson). .

I also favor option a) but I believe option b)

Columba wrote:

My reservation on the "pro side" is that even though it be disciplinary, the fact that it was declared valid in perpetuity brings into question the wisdom of nullifying it just because of it's apparent excessiveness.

I don't think it is a question of “nullifying” it per se, for there is no official magisterial act that did this; though I would agree that some of its harsher aspects are nullified in practice, if not in legislation. In fact, as I pointed out in another post, the 1917 code of canon law makes specific reference to sections 3 and 6 of Cum ex (canon 188/4).

I think it would be more accurate to say that Cum ex is interpreted or modified in light of subsequent papal legislation which removes as much as possible the subjective and fallible elements involved in rendering a moral judgment of certainty “where the facts admit no doubt” (of defection from the faith), by legislating that such automatic penalties cannot become effective until a competent authority renders a judgment by way of an official declaration.

History also attests to the “nullification” in practice of the harsher aspects of Cum ex; otherwise, as Larson points out, all of the acts of the heretical Arian Bishops would have been rendered null and void, to include all of their ordinations and Episcopal consecrations – leaving the Church in such as state of turmoil and “doubt” that the Church as a divine institution would have failed.

Additionally, Cum ex must be read in light of canon 2264 from the same 1917 Code, which causes more problems for the sedevacantist in that it makes the jurisdiction of an excommunicated person illicit, but not necessarily invalid.

Columba wrote: IMHO. When he dust settles on Vatican II we may well revert back to reapplying the wisdom and principles contained in those disciplines of Paul IV and Pius V.

I can understand the sentiment with respect to the liturgical discipline of Pope Pius V, but I cannot for the life of me understand how you could endorse the disciplinary chaos of Pope Paul IV when you cannot find a single Pope who ever took his Bull as a binding, or even as a “wise” piece of legislation. In the hands of laymen and clerics bent on removing the pope, you can see the results of the Bull when it is removed from the competency of the living Magisterium.

columba wrote:MRyan I mistakenly attributed those writing to you. Nevertheless as you posted this I take it your in agreemant with it. So am I.

If only I could write like that! And of course, I am in agreement with the author.

Sorry for the confusion - my fault for not making it absolutely clear.

So no one else is mislead, perhaps Rasha or MarianLibrarian can edit the initial post of this thread by adding at the beginning (just prior to the first paragraph) "(Pages 105-113:)", and the end "[End of Chapter 4]]"

tornpage wrote:
I think Larson has really put his finger on the problem here. Suffice to say, I think I'm going to get his book, The War Against Being and the Return to God.

Good! Now I don't feel so guilty for posting an entire chapter from his The War Against The Papacy.

I'm glad you appreciated his insight.

Since I took such liberty, allow me to say on his behalf that he has seven articles on "The War Against Being" at http://www.waragainstbeing.com/.

James Larson wrote: "That work [The War Against the Papacy], along with my book The War Against Being and The Return to God are both available from Joe Bourbeau Press at www.joebourbeaupress.com. Many of my articles have also appeared in Christian Order Magazine, the website of which is www.christianorder.com."

You may also remember that I have corresponded with Larson and that he forwarded the unpublished second part of his debate with R. Sungenis on the never-failing faith of Peter that included an extensive give and take on the case of Pope Honorius I. He also gave me permission to cite from the debate, provided none of it would be used as a polemic against Sungenis (which I would never engage in).

End of plug.