CathInfo.com

Quote from: Neil Obstat

No, it IS correct. Pope Paul VI did not sign a single docuмent that ordered
the NO to be promulgated. He performed a cute magic trick to make it
SEEM that it was an order from the highest authority, when it in fact was not.

If Paul VI had offered the NO as a mere alternative to the Traditional Latin Mass, he wouldn't have made it mandatory that everyone celebrate it.

Quote

The Novus Ordo innovation was not binding. He did not invoke the charism
of infallibility, and his actions were not protected by the Holy Ghost. This in fact,
could well have been what he was talking about when he said that the smoke of
satan had entered the Church through some crack.

Read what I said above.

Quote

If your version were correct, Trent wasted everyone's time by making such a
decree, because it would have denounced a scenario that was impossible in
the first place, if your version were correct.

When did I say it was impossible? I am arguing that a Pope does not have the authority to promulgate a new liturgy.

Quote

The Pope can be a heretic when elected according to Pope Pius XII, in
Vaticanis apostolicae sedes

Read what Pope Paul IV said:

Quote

Adding [By this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We] further enact, determine, decree and define:-] that if at any time it will be found that some bishop, even conducting himself as an archbishop or patriarch or already mentioned cardinal of the Roman Church, even, as shown, a legate, or even a Roman Pontiff had deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen away into some heresy, before his promotion or assumption as Cardinal or as Roman Pontiff, that promotion or assumption concerning him, even if made in concord and from the unanimous assent of all the cardinals, is null and void and worthless; not by the reception of consecration, not by the ensuing possession of the office and administration, or as if, either the enthronement or homage of the Roman Pontiff, or the obedience given to him by all, and the length of whatever time in the future, can be said to have recovered power or to be able to recover power, nor can (the assumption or promotion) be considered as legitimate in any part of it, and for those who are promoted as bishops or archbishops or patriarchs or assumed as primates, or as cardinals or even the Roman Pontiff, no faculty of administration in spiritual or temporal matters may be thought to have been attributed to or to be attribute, but may all things and each thing in any way said, done, effected and administrated and then followed up in any way through them lack power and they are not able to attribute any further power or right to anyone; and they themselves who are thus promoted and assumed by that very fact, without any further declaration to be made, are deprived of every dignity, place, honor, title, authority, function and power; and yet it is permitted to all and each so promoted and assumed, if they have not deviated from the Faith before nor have been heretics nor have incurred or excited or committed schism.

Here's an article by WJ Morgan which perhaps has some bearing on the topic. He was a sedevacantist, but this does not mean that his son, Fr Paul Morgan, British District Superior is also one!!!


                        Counter-Reformation Association

                                                    NEWS AND VIEWS

                             La Guerche, Monks Kirby, Warwickshire CV23 OQZ

Candlemas                                                                                                          AD2001

                                   Dignare me laudare te, Virgo sacrata.
                                    Da mihi virtutem contra hostes tuos.

                                           NO PRUDENT DOUBT

THERE is no prudent doubt as to the fact that Karol Wojtyla is not a valid Pope- not, at least, if it is believed either (a) that John Paul II has endorsed a rite of Mass lacking doctrinal rectitude, or (b) that he has taught heresy to the Universal Church. And that is irrespective of whether or not it is already known that he is a manifest heretic or schismatic.

  To say that a valid Pope has endorsed a rite of Mass lacking doctrinal rectitude, or that he has taught heresy to the Universal Church, is implicitly to agree with the Anglicans that “ the Church of Rome hath erred … in matters of Faith” – “erravit Ecclesia Romana … in iis etiam quae credenda sunt” (cf Article 19 of the 39 Articles).

  It is also to contradict the Catholic teaching of  “all, everywhere and always” that the Church of Rome, through the acts of its Pontiffs, is indefectible in the faith. In particular, it contradicts the teaching of the dogmatic Vatican Council (1870).  “This gift, then, of truth and never-failing faith was conferred by Heaven upon Peter and his successors in this Chair that they might perform their high office unto the salvation of all; that the whole flock of Christ, kept by them away from the poisonous fruit of error, might be nourished with the pasture of heavenly doctrine; that the occasion of schism being removed the whole Church might be kept one, and, resting on its foundation, might stand firm against the gates of Hell” (cf “Pastor Aeternus”, Chapter IV).

  The habemuspapamist position – “We have a Pope, but one who cannot be believed because he teaches heresy and whose own rite of Mass cannot be used because it lacks doctrinal rectitude” – is heretical. The current vacancy of the See of Peter (for those who accept the relevant contingent premises) is a demonstrated dogmatic fact.

  In practice, those who adopt the anti-Papal habemuspapamist heresy are also subjectively schismatic. The clergy who do so, pick and choose amongst the laws and commands of the one they recognize as a valid Roman Pontiff, and decide for themselves, or have their superiors decide for them, which (if any) they will observe and which they will ignore. Their autocephalous stance is illustrated by the detail of the Second Confiteor. This they all use in their Masses, while professing to use the John XXIII (1962) rite, which expressly disallows it. A more intrinsically serious illustration is the fact that, in 1972, Paul VI expressly and indubitably abolished the subdiaconate and all minor orders in the Latin rite; but the habemuspapamist bishops continue to ordain their clergy to those orders.

  The habemuspapamists rarely offer theological arguments for their manifestly erroneous positions and inconsistent practices. They invariably fall back on the alleged charism of discernment of Mgr Marcel Lefebvre. That charism, in practice, replaces the authority of allegedly valid Roman Pontiffs, let alone the teachings of the most authoritative theologians. Sadly, when they do attempt to reason, they involve themselves in sophistries, in desperate attempts to vindicate the inconsistencies of the Archbishop.

  It cannot be too strongly emphasized that we can know that John Paul II is not a valid Pope prior to (and independently of) knowing that he is a manifest heretic or schismatic. Concluding, however, that Karol Wojtyla is a manifest heretic or schismatic provides us with the explanation for the independently known fact that he is not a valid Pope. This is because there is no doubt that a manifest heretic or schismatic cannot be a valid Pope.

  There are two cases to be distinguished. The first concerns a manifest heretic or schismatic who is putatively elected Roman Pontiff. It is the absolutely certain teaching that such a putative Pope – by the Divine Law – is not a legitimate Successor of St Peter. (Incidentally, it is true that an excommunicated Cardinal is to be admitted to a conclave. But there is – obviously – no canon authorizing the admission, let alone election, of a manifest heretic!)

  The second is the hypothetical case of someone who (as a Catholic) is validly elected, but later becomes a heretic. Some distinguished  theologians, such as St Robert Bellarmine, would piously preferred to believe that Divine Providence would prevent the latter occurrence. However, recognizing that such is only an opinion, they analyse  the hypothesis. Their unanimous teaching is that heresy is incompatible with the Petrine office. Accordingly, the only question in dispute is as to precisely when a Pope who became a heretic would forfeit his Papacy.

  The most rigorous theory is that a Pope would cease to be such the moment he personally became a heretic, even though his heresy was in no way manifested. The standard position – that of St Robert Bellarmine – is that a Pope would automatically cease to be such the moment his heresy became manifest. A milder, minority position (associated especially with the name of Cajetan) is that the heretic Pope would cease to be such the moment an emergency Council  declared the fact of his heresy.

  The irony of our present situation – which is reality and not merely a hypothetical case – is that those who seek to cast doubt on the standard teaching (that of St Robert Bellarmine), precisely do not attempt to do what their authorities require: that is, gather an emergency Council to declare John Paul II’s heresy! Rather do they preach the impotence of the Church to free itself from an indefinite succession of “heretic Popes”, who meanwhile in practice are treated as antipopes. In other words, they chose to reduce the Church to a state of impotent anarchy.

  However – to make the crucial point yet again – we do not have to wait (in accordance with the third minority view) for an emergency Council to declare that John Paul II is a heretic, before we know that he is not a valid Pope. We know that he is not a valid Pope because of his putatively Papal acts – acts which, if those of a valid Pope, would demonstrate the falsity of the Catholic faith.

  The most important (partial) precedent for our present situation is that afforded by the Great Schism of the West (1378-1417). That apocalyptic period of thirty nine years, when it was, and remains, uncertain as to which, if any, of a number of rival Papal claimants were the true Popes, was resolved by the actions of bishops and theologians – not by a Quietest resignation to a scandalous situation (cf my booklet “The Great Schism of the West and the Catholic Church Today”).

  An additional scandal today is that most of the anti-Conciliarist clergy – when they say anything on the subject – seek to frighten people away from the Catholic position, in favour of the Looking Glass Land of incoherent “Lefebvrism”. Providentially, the Bull “cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio” expressly protects sedevacantists from any ecclesiastical penalties. Obviously, an enormously important step towards the resolution of the current apocalyptic crisis would occur if one of the FSPX bishops was publicly to declare himself a sedevacantist.

  8-I-2001                                                                                            William Morgan