Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 5.djvu/755

 EXCARDINATION

677

EXCLUSION

porary governing commission. Since Russia de- stroyed the old independent Georgian (Church (1802) the Primate of Georgia (always a Russian) sits in the Holy Synod at St. Petersburg with the title of Exarch of Georgia (Fortescue, Orth. Eastern Church, 304-305). Lastly, the third officer of the court of the Patriarch of Constantinople, who examines marriage cases (our defensor matrimonii), is called the exarch (ibid., 349). LuBECK, Rcichseinteilung und kirchliche Hierarchie des Orients bis zum Ausgange des U. Jahrhunderts (Miinster, 1901); SlLBERNAGL-ScHNiTZER, VerfossuTio uud gegcnwartiger Bestand sdmlhchfr Kirchen des Orients (2na ed., Munich, 1904); Kat- TENBUscH, Vt rghichende Konfessianskundein Die orlhodoxe ana- lolische Kirche (Freiburg im Br.. 1892), I, 81-89; HlN'sCHins, System des hitholischen Kirchenrechles (Freiburg im Br., 1869), I, 538 sq.; Milasch, Das Kirchenrecht der morgenldndischen Kirche (2nd ed., Mostar. 1905); FoHTEScnE, The Orthodox Eastern Church (London, 1907), S, 21-26, 319, 349.

Adrian Fortescue.

Excardination. See Incardination.

Ex Cathedra, literally "from the chair", a theo- logical term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the definitions given by the Roman pontiff. Originally the name of the seat occupied by a professor or a bishop, cathedra was u.sed later on to denote the magisterium, or teaching author- ity. The phrase ex cathedra occurs in the writings of the medieval theologians, and more frequently in the discussions which arose after the Reformation in regard to the papal prerogatives. But its present meaning was formally determined by the Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. deEcclesiaChristi, c. iv: "We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is w'hen in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibiliiy with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable." (See Infallibility; Pope.)

E. A. Pace.

Exclusion, Right of (Lat. Jus Exclusive), the al- leged competence of the more important Catholic countries, Austria, France, and Spain, to indicate to their respective cardinal protector, or cardinal pro- curator, those members of the Sacred College who were personw minus gratce, so that, if there was a possibility of one of these becoming pope, the authorized cardinal might, before the decisive ballot, give his veto, in the name of his government, against such election. Atone time this veto was given orally; later it was given in writing. The cardinal protector, or cardinal procura- tor, who cast the veto, was, as a rule, that member of the Sacred College who had been created a cardinal at the desire of his government. This declaration could only be made at the last moment, for the reason that, by traditional usage, a government might invoke this alleged right only once at the same conclave, and con- sequently would not wish to employ it unnecessarily. A veto made after the election was not recognized. Opinions differ widely as to the antiquity of this right. It cannot be proved that it is in any way related to the rights in the papal election, exerci-sed by German kings and emperors in the early Middle Ages. Indeed, it was not until the sixteenth century, that the more important European countries obtained larger influ- ence over papal elections, owing to the contentions of France, Spain, and the Gorman emperor, for the con- trol of Italy. These governments were originally sa(- i.sfied with the so-called "ballot of exclusion", i. e., they .sought to iniite more than one-thinl of the voters against an undcsiraljle candidate and thus make hLs election impossible, through lack of the necessary two-

thirds majority. About the beginning of the seven- teenth century, however, in the conclaves that elected Leo XI and Paul V (1605), Spain raised the claim, that it could exclude a candidate by a general declaration addressed to the College of Cardinals. Soon after, in the conclaves of 1644 and 1655, which elected, respec- tively. Innocent X and Alexander Vll, and in both of which Cardinal Sacchetti was excluded as a can- didate, the term used for this action was Jus Exclu- sivw (right of exclusion). This right was, therefore, claimed about the middle of the seventeenth century; later dates suggested, e. g., 1691, or 1721, must be abandoned. It was also about the middle of the seventeenth century that treatises and polemic wri- tings began to appear, in which the alleged right of exclusion was discussed; among such controversial- ists were the Cardinals Albizzi and Lugo.

In the following period repeated use was made of this so-called right. In 1721 the German emperor for- mally excluded Cardinal Paolucci; in 1730 the King of Spain excluded Cardinal Imperiali; in 175S France exercised this right to exclude (."ardinal ( 'avalchini. In the nineteenth century Austria maintainetl the right of exclusion, in 1830, against Cardinal Severoli, and Spain, in 1830, against Cardinal Giustiniani; in 1903 Austria again exercised this right, this time against Cardinal Ranipolla. As a matter of fact, no govern- ment has a right to exercise any veto in a papal election. On the contrary the popes have expressly repudiated the exercise of such right. Pius IV in the Bull " In eli- gendis", of 9 October, 1562 (Magnum BuUarium, II, 97 sqq.), ordered the cardinals to elect a pope "Prin- ciptun ssecularium intercessionibus, cieterisque mun- danis respectibus, minime attentis" (without any re- gard to the interference of secular rulers, or to other human considerations) . That he meant thereby what is now known as the right of exclusion cannot, indeed, be proved ; according to the foregoing account of its origin such claim did not then exist. . Gregory XV, in the Bull "jEterni Patris Filius" (15 November, 1621, in "Magnum BuUariiun", III, 444 sqq.) de- clared authoritatively : " Cardinales omnino abstineant ab omnibus pactionibus, conventionibus, promissioni- bus, intendimentis, condictis, foederibus, aliis quibus- cunque obligationibus, minis, signis, contrasignis suf- fragiorum sen schedularum, aut aliis tam verbo quam scripto aut quomodocunque dandis aut petendis, tam respectu inclusionis quam exclusionis, tam unius per- sons? quam plurium aut certi generis, etc.", the sense of which is, that the cardinals must abstain from all agreements, and from acts of any kind, which might be construed as binding them to niclude or exclude any one candidate, or several, or candidates of a cer- tain class. It may be that the pope does not even here refer to exclusion by a state, but only to the so-called "ballot of exclusion"; it has already been stated, however, that the governments at this time laid claim to a formal right of exclusion. In the Bull " Apo.stolatus officium" (11 October, 1732, in "Magnum BuUarium", XIV, 248 sqq.) Clement XII ordered the cardinals in the words of Pius IV, already quoted, to elect, " principum ssecularium intercessioni- bus cicterisque mundanis respectibus ... minime attentis et postpositis" (i. e. without regard to the interference of secular rulers or to other human considerations).

By this time, however, goverinnental exclusion had long been the accepted form of the interference of sec- ular rulers (intercessio principuni) in papal elections. It is, therefore, precisely this exclusion which the pope forbids. This command lias all tlu' nicirc weight since we know that this pope was urgcil to recognize, vithin certain limits, the right of exclusion put forth by the Catholic states; in tlic ininutes of the deliberations of the ciimrnission of cardinals appointed to draw up this Bull the right of exclusion is explicitly chanictcrizcd as an abuse. By the Constitution " In hac sulilimi", of 23 August, 1871 (Archiv fur kath. Kirchenrecht,