I thought it is interesting that what appears to be the Novus Ordo Catholics are seeking to depose Francis.  They even cite cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio.  If anyone has more info about this or even the page please share.-Michael    

http://fromrome.wordpress.com/2014/11/16/catholics-petition-the-college-of-cardinals-to-judge-validity-of-pope-francis/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Catholics petition the College of Cardinals to judge validity of Pope Francis Nov
16
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
imagesEditor’s note:  Here at the From Rome Blog, I have stated that it is not my interest to cover news articles.  Yet, being born and raised in the United States, I have a great appreciation for the right of citizens, subjects and the faithful, to make known to their superiors what they believe is for the common good of the society they belong to.  This is a natural right in every human society, from the family to the State, and even in the Church.  For that reason, I consider it a duty, as the editor of the From Rome Blog, and as a member of the Diocese of Rome, to make known to my fellow Catholics the existence of this petition, the text of which follows.  At the bottom, there is a link to the actual petition, if you believe in good conscience you should sign it.  I aslo believe, that I have a grave duty to make known to the princes of the Church of Rome, our Cardinals, who are the chief members of the clergy of my Diocese, the existence of this petition.

Here is the text of the petition:

 

Petition to the Cardinals of the Roman Church regarding the grave improprieties of Pope Francis

 

As a Baptized member of the Catholic Church, in accord with my divine right to make known to my sacred pastors, the things which I see as necessary to the unity of the Church, the preservation of the Faith and the salvation of souls, I herewith submit this petition to the College of the Cardinals, as princes of the Roman Church, to whom it belongs both in law to elect the Roman Pontiff, and by immemorial right, to judge the man who holds the Pontificate if he err from the faith, and depose him, as Michael a Corona taught in his Tractatus Postumus (Liege, 1677), Tract I, Chapter XXI, n. II, “Whether the Cardinals have any power about the Pope?”:

“A Pontiff, lapsed into heresy, can be most justly deposed. Thus Duvallius, above in q. 10. The reason is, that it is not credible that Christ wants to retain him as Vicar of His Church, who pertinaciously segregates himself whole from Her, since Christ has especially commanded Her, to hear His Voice as a faithful people, and to comply with Him, just as sheep hear the voice of their shepherd. John 10: 3: The sheep hear His Voice and they follow Him. Verse 4: The sheep follow Him. But far be it, only, that the Church should hear a Pontiff lapsed into heresy, She who rather is bound to stop up Her own ears against his violent speech, lest She be infected by the venom of his doctrine, and his casting-out and new election ought to be urged by the assembly of the Sacred Cardinals. The reason is, for, since the Pontiff is the fundament of the Church, the Rock, the Cornerstone, the Base, the Teacher, and the general Shepherd, his heresy abolishes all his privileges, and cancels (them), because he is a destroyer and scatterer of the Church, and consequently is no longer the Pontiff. And/or if he remains there, after he will have been judicially denounced as a heretic, he is to be immediately dispossessed of the Pontificate, if his heresy is external and manifest through the evidence of fact, and/or the declaration of a Council. But not if it be internal and only mental. The reason is, because he is no longer a member of the Church, nor Her head, nor does he cleave to Her by the internal union, which is through faith, nor by the external, which is through the confession of the Faith, and has been cut off from Her in each manner. A schismatic Pontiff incurs the same punishment, as Turrecremata, bk. 4, of Summa Ecclesia, part 1, ch. R1, says; Cajetan, II, II, q. 37, a. 1. Duvallius teaches above in q. 9, that he can enter into schism. First, if he no longer fulfills the office of the Pontiff, or does not wish to be subject to him, who would be elected in his place, but would join himself to the Conciliabula of the Schismatics. Second, if he should wish to change the ancient rites and customs of the Church, remaining from Apostolic tradition, or, rather, if he would pluck away and separate from the unity of the Church those wanting to retain these ceremonies. Third, if he would separate himself on account of an unjust cause from the communion of the whole Church and of all the Bishops, and at the same time will to communicate with certain adherents of his, as is shown in the divine Cyprian, bk. 4, epistle 2, Novatian did, who was pointed out by Cyprian a little after as a Schismatic, and outside the bosom of the Church. And though (this is to be deplored), he had patiently tolerated tyrants for Christ’s sake, Saint Cyprian wrote back that thereafter there was inflicted upon him a death outside the unity of the Church, not the crown of a Martyr, but the punishment of perfidy.”

Mindful, that by the decree of Pope Paul IV, cuм ex apostolatus officio (Dec. 21, 1566), the College and indeed the entire Church is gravely bound to only choose and recognize as validly chosen a man of the Catholic Faith; and mindful that Jorge Bergoglio has both before and after his election on March 13, 2013, expressed himself and acted in ways long condemned by the Apostolic See, as one of many faithful, I humbly ask you to fulfill your duty to protect the Church and the Apostolic see from corruption, by convening at a place chosen among yourself, to judge the questions:

1) Whether Jorge Maria Bergoglio was validly elected, in fulfillment of the decreed of Paul IV, just mentioned, inasmuch as prior to his election he promoted for years in Argentina the concession of communion to those in irregular marriages during the Curas Villeros, which directly contradicts the teaching of the Council of Trent, Session 13, canon XI:

CANON XI.-lf any one saith, that faith alone is a sufficient preparation for receiving the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist; let him be anathema. And for fear lest so great a sacrament may be received unworthily, and so unto death and condemnation, this holy Synod ordains and declares, that sacramental confession, when a confessor may be had, is of necessity to be made beforehand, by those whose conscience is burdened with mortal sin, howsoever contrite they may think themselves. But if any one shall presume to teach, preach, or obstinately to assert, or even in public disputation to defend the contrary, he shall be thereupon excommunicated.

Since, if he was subject to this censure, then in accord with the decree of Pope Paul IV, above mentioned, he was invalidly raised to the dignity of the Cardinalate, and also invalidly elected Roman Pontiff.

2) If, however, you should judge that he was validly elected, I then ask you to judge whether he has lost the office of Roman Pontiff on account of his pertinacious denial of the Faith and/or his malicious manifest intent to persecute the faithful attached to the ancient ecclesiastical traditions, each of which is in violation of the anathema of the Second Council of Nicea, held in 787 A.D., (4th anathema), “If anyone whomsoever should despise any ecclesiastical tradition, anathema sit“, among which traditions are the celebration of the Ancient Roman Rite and the perennial practice of the Catholic Church, from Apostolic times, of refusing communion to adulterers and public sinners.

For, if he falls under this censure of Nicea, then likewise would his election be invalidated by the decree of Pope Paul IV.

3) Finally, even if the anathemas and canons which Pope Paul IV declares valid in perpetuity, would not be enough reason for any member of the Sacred College to convict the man of heresy or perfidious malice to overthrow ecclesiastical tradition, it remains a theological truth of the divine law and ecclesiology, that no one who seeks to harm the Church in anything essential, such as Her fidelity to Christ’s Magisterium, can be in communion with Her; and as such, even a schismatic, morally speaking, cannot be considered in communion with the Church, and thus should and must be removed from office. Wherefore, I ask you to judge whether he is morally in schism from the Church, regarding Her immemorial faith and practice which can never be changed.

Considering the gravity of what is petitioned, I the undersigned request a diligent and thorough investigation, and ask that you princes of the Sacred College gather to hear the evidence submitted to you from the faithful throughout the world, and if you choose, do so in a special meeting, chosen by yourselves, before the feast of Easter, 2015 A.D..

———————-

Here is the link to the petition, where you can see how many have signed it, as of the present, and read something more about the motives and purpose of the petition.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/petition2CardinalsReFrancis

The man is getting closer, but "cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio" has, in part, been abrogated before Vatican II. It formerly made it so that evidence of heresy before election nullifies the election. Now, however, the only way to determine a man is not a pope because of heresy is to have evidence of manifest heresy AFTER his election.

Do we know why this was abrogated?  I would expect that after Vatican II, but before?

These are good news. The Novus Ordo Catholics are becoming more aware of the heresy of Modernism that has afflicted the Church for so long and perhaps in a distant future, there will be unanimity in the fight against Liberalism / Progressivism and those in actual position of power to change things: namely the Catholic bishops (particularly cardinals and archbishops) could call for a Ecuмenical Council, declare the current occupant of the Chair of Peter an antipope, and elect a new pope. It has happened before (ex: Council of Constance, XIII century).

I just think that there are good men trapped in the New Church and refer to them all as Novus Ordos for the sake of simplicity and because I have heard my grandmother complaining about them since I was too young to read.  I have never heard the term Traditional Novus Ordo Catholic, however.  That's a new one for me.