Queen Elizabeth II dies on the Feast of the Nativity of the BVM

[Julio]

Did the act of St. Pope John Paul and other Popes in receiving her washed her of the sin of being the head of the schismatic Church of England that denies the authority of the successors of St. Peter?

Does it mean that Regnans in Excelsis has been invalidated? Sans the expressed invalidation thereof, any overt act of civility does not erase its validity.

[awkward customer]

If Queen Elizabeth were not legitimate as some people rashly -- I would add stupidly -- say, how do you explain that she was received as a legitimate head of state by the last 7 Popes?

As princess, she was received by Pius XII, as Queen she was received by all the succeeding Popes, including Francis.

Here she is with Pope Wojtyla. To deny she was a legitimate queen is to lose contact with reality.

Politics.

[Julio]

Assuming that it is not about politics for the benefit of St. Pope John Paul's sainthood, the act of receiving her did not change the fact that she was the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. The act of receiving her did not amend or change Regnans in Excelsis. The Papal Bull is still not repealed until today.

[Markus]

Did the act of St. Pope John Paul and other Popes in receiving her washed her of the sin of being the head of the schismatic Church of England that denies the authority of the successors of St. Peter?

Does it mean that Regnans in Excelsis has been invalidated? Sans the expressed invalidation thereof, any overt act of civility does not erase its validity.

Don't misunderstand me; I don't think Wojtyla is a saint. I posted the picture just to give an example.

You say Regnans in Excelsis was never invalidated, but neither was Cum ex Apostolatus officio, which is a kind of counterpart to Regnans in the spiritual domain.

As Guimarães writes:

The complicated case of the Bull Cum ex apostolatus officio of Pope Paul IV can more easily be understood. In it, we should distinguish the teachings and norms issued when the Pope legislates over those who are inferior to him from the norms issued when he intends to legislate over future Popes.

In the first case, he establishes norms for religious and civil authorities. When he legislates over Catholic civil authorities ? Emperors, Kings, Dukes, Marquis, etc. ? he automatically excommunicates and deprives of their civil functions, without the need of any further measure, those who have had any adhesion to heresy. Certainly these determinations show that a laudable zeal inspired the Pontiff. But he seems to ignore the reality when he imagines that the simple words of his Bull will have the effect that he desires. Who could objectively prove that such persons have favored heresy unless they have gone through a judicial process? Is it possible for an excommunication latae sententiae ? normally reserved in the Church for secret actions ? to have a public effect and deprive an authority of its civil functions without any concurrence of the State? No, it is not possible. Thus, at least insofar as he legislates over Catholic civil authorities in so generic a manner, ignoring all indispensable procedures to make his norms effective, Pope Paul IV destines his Bull to remain a dead law, a blank bullet. I leave aside here the application of the Bull for ecclesiastical authorities.

In the second case, another distinction is necessary: When Paul IV declares that no candidate to the Papacy or an elected Pope can be a heretic, he is doctrinally sound. But when he intends to depose a validly elected Pope should he become a heretic, and annul his juridical and sacramental actions, Paul IV is legislating over future Popes. This leads us to draw from the second conclusion above a consequence: Paul IV in Cum ex seems to step outside the ambit of papal authority and set himself up as a super-pope.

The same reasoning applies to Pius V's Regnans in Excelsis: it was well-meaning, and probably it had a good effect at the time of its being issued, but it has been unenforceable for several hundred years. The legal principle of desuetude also applies here, whereby a law unenforced for a long time ceases to be valid.

Since Pius V's successors have not attempted to enforce his bull for at least 300 years, and since in the realm of facts, the monarchs of England have been received as legitimate rulers by the Popes, we can say Regnans in Excelsis is no longer in force, without need for a formal abrogation.

[Julio]

The Papal Bull that you citied has nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of Regnans in Excelcis. An interpretation over one Papal Bull does not bind the rest. You have to understand that each Papal Bull applies to a particular case. Unless you show me an evidence that it was invalidated, it remains valid.

Your cannot assume that just because the Papal Bull is old it has lost its applicability. It may not be enforced but it does not mean it is not valid. Remember that enforceability does not mean invalidity. They are very different.

One thing is for sure, the heretic act of assuming a position of being the Supreme Governor of the Church of England cannot be erased by expressions of civility by the Pope towards any English monarch that assumed the same. It need not even be expressed through any Papal Bull that those monarchs are public heretics because by assuming that position being an organization that do not recognize the truth there is only One Catholic and Apostolic Church, it is ipso facto act of displaying heresy publicly. 

As to what you think about St. Pope John Paul, I leave that to God. On my end, I respect and recognize the canonization as Catholic.

[Julio]

Markus, on the issue of disuse, I maintain my position that non-usage of such does not translate invalidity. The fact remains that the Church of England is among the fountains of heresy.

[Goldfinch]

Markus, on the issue of disuse, I maintain my position that non-usage of such does not translate invalidity. The fact remains that the Church of England is among the fountains of heresy.

Yes but that's irrelevant to his point.

[Julio]

Yes but that's irrelevant to his point.

My position is that the act of civility of accepting the English monarchs by the those popes in recent history and the non-enforcement of the Papal Bull does not mean invalidity of it.  Regnans in Excelcis, was issued with this proviso:

"This very woman, having seized the crown and monstrously usurped the place of supreme head of the Church in all England to gather with the chief authority and jurisdiction belonging to it, has once again reduced this same kingdom- which had already been restored to the Catholic faith and to good fruits- to a miserable ruin."

It is the usurpation of the place of supreme head of the Church of all England among others which is the subject thereof. Until today, the English successor monarch remains as the supreme head of that Church, that is malum in se. It cannot be cured by any act of civility such as invitation by the present Pope to any of and from among the schismatic monarchs of England.

I submit its relevance, for the act being, "malum in se."