Replies

"Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the AntiChrist." --Our Lady of LaSalette

CUM EX APOSTOLATUS OFFICIO, APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION OF HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL IV, 15TH FEBUARY 1559, (ROMAN BULLARIUM VOL. IV. SEC. I, PP. 354-357)

...We are bound to be diligently watchful after the manner of a vigilant Shepherd and to ensure most carefully that certain people who consider the study of the truth beneath them should be driven out of the sheepfold of Christ and no longer continue to disseminate error from positions of authority...

1.In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff,who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith.

...and We have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place...

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, without any exception in respect of those to which they may have been promoted or elevated before they deviated from the Faith, became heretics, incurred schism, or provoked or committed any or all of these.

I missed the part where Paul IV was soliciting the opinions of excommunicates (Marcel Lefebvre and the Econe Four) and schismatics (the adherents of SSPX) as to the orthodoxy of popes and the part where an alleged deviation from the alleged terms of private revelation might be relevant. If you too are an adherent of SSPX, so long, see ya later, bye. If you are a sedevacantist, likewise.

Are you arguing that the See of Peter is vacant pursuant to 6 (vi) or otherwise)? If so, say so and specify your reasons for being a sedevacantist. Also, since the Counterreformation document cited refers only to matters arising PRIOR to one's elevation to the papacy, the date when you are alleging that JP II fell into heresy. Otherwise, please state your obedience to the pontiff because disobedience is not justified otherwise by the document cited.

The words alleged to have been communicated by Mary at LaSalette are nonetheless PRIVATE REVELATION and do not require belief. Do you claim otherwise? If you do, please specify what authoritative Church document commands doctrinal assent to private revelation.

In any event, who decides? Who executes the decision? Will there be a schismatic sort of Swiss guard charging the papal palace with halberds to remove the allegedly offending pontiff? Will bishop Fellay issue an SSPX fatwa and the pope scurry from the Vatican upon his command? Will it be a committee of SSPX's excommunicated bishops and schismatic priests theoretically under their non-existent authority? Perhaps a committee of Chris Ferraro, Tom Woods and Tom Drolesky and similarly sober scholars in love with their own opinions? The Remnant editorial board? The Angelus editorial board? Fr. Gruner?

Items 2 through 5 of Paul IV's document seem absent but he referenced "certain people who consider the study of the truth beneath them (and) should be driven out of the sheepfold of Christ and no longer continue to disseminate error from positions of authority..." Did he identify the "certain people?" What else has been edited out lest we consider the content?

Why is the language in the introductory paragraph of 6 bracketed which talks of the document remaining valid in perpetuity? Did Paul IV say so or not?

It sometimes seems like some of you guys would like to turn the papacy into a sort of ongoing Young Republican credentials fight of some sort wherein every schismatic or excommunicated Tom , Dock or Harriet can weigh in at any time with bloviation questioning the Catholicism of the pope based upon Tom or Dick or Harriet's OPIOS, OPIOT or OPIOF. This is a prescription for Heinz's 5700 varieties of Protestantism (each and every sect claiming to have the "right" understanding of Scripture or whatever as opposed to all the others), for religious anarchy posing as Roman Catholicism without warrant, or the same old same old of those thrown out of the game questioning the credentials of the umpire. In any event, there is no reason Catholics who are in communion with the Holy See to give such a satanic stew of arguments and prescriptions the time of day.

With the dissenters or without, the Roman Catholic Church will prevail to the end as promised by Jesus Christ.