http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/10Jul/jul19ftt.htm

 

Do Trees Exist?
  Why I'm a (Sedevacantist) Wide Awake Catholic



The title of this article would seem to be a no-brainer. Of course trees exist you say. But if that is so obvious, then why is it not as obvious as to whom, over the last five decades, have been the ones responsible for preaching error, for allowing the foxes and wolves in sheeps' clothing to "wretchedly ensnare the souls of the simple, and drag with them into perdition, destruction and damnation countless peoples committed to their care and rule, either in spiritual or in temporal matters"? Those words are from a previous reliable true Pope who foresaw the dangers we face today and sought to do all he could so that when these antipopes would surface we would recognize them. Sadly, too many are like the sleeping dog today. They say let sleeping dogs lay, don't disturb them. That has to come from satan himself because Pope Paul IV warned all "so as to arrest the foxes who are occupying themselves in the destruction of the vineyard of the Lord and to keep the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be dumb watchdogs that cannot bark and lest We perish with the wicked husbandman and be compared with the hireling." What good is a mute watchdog? What's needed is an axe to fell the bad trees.  

 
 

"Additionally, we have the bull from Paul IV, the holy Cardinal Saint Bellarmine response, Canon Law and countless other teachings on how a public heretic cannot hold ecclesiastical office. According to their teachings it does not matter whether they are formal or material heretics, it just matters whether they are public or occult (secret). A heretic, whether formal or material, who keeps his heresies to himself (occult or secret), does not damage the Church. A heretic, whether formal or material, who teaches and maintains heresy from the Chair and publically, over and over again, engages in heretical acts and writes and speaks heresy publically, and ignores all the protests, DOES damage the Church and is not fit to be the infallible guide, nor would God allow it."


    Many people concerned about the Church, sedevacantist and not, have often asked me, "What was the final straw that led to your becoming sedevacantist?" I think the final straw (when I could no longer, in good conscience, defend the binding and loosing by purported Popes of on earth what surely could not be bound and loosed in Heaven) for me regarding sedevacantism was when I found out from a "Brothers" Dimond video (credit where it is due) about how Giovanni Montini/Paul6 changed and invalidated the Ordination and Consecration rites which ultimately would leave the world without the ordinary means of maintaining and obtaining the sanctifying grace necessary for salvation. Here rather than merely being opened to the possibility of SV I was fully convinced as you do not need to be a theological scholar to know the head of the Catholic Church cannot be the same one who destroys it with his "official" actions as Pope. I became convinced that Montini was not only a misinformed modernist but actually following a (masonic/demonic?) plan to destroy the Church.

    I fully believe that forcing Siri/Gregory XVII to abdicate the chair through a dose of "brutal intimidation" (thus rendering the "election" of the next "Pope" invalid as the conclave had been compromised and the validly elected Pope was forced or intimidated into saying "if you don't want me, give it to someone else" after having first accepted the honor and picking his name. Though he never actually resigned (though I am sure that he did not believe himself to be Pope, and therefore was not Pope, after he got "fired" and another was "elected"). The valid election of Siri/Gregory XVII followed by the invalid election of the free-mason Angelo Roncalli/John23 opened the door for the heretics to take over as the masons had been planning to do all along.

    Our Lord prevents the Pope from erring but does not prevent the Church from being infiltrated from top to bottom. We must remember that the masons and modernists who embrace modernism, which according to Pope St. Pius X, is the "synthesis of all heresies" almost had their man as early as 1903 but the choice of Mariano Rampolla, a cardinal who supported the French Third Republic, was legally vetoed in the name of Franz Joseph, Emperor of Austria. So as early as 1903 the Church was infiltrated all they way to the top with heretics. It is these same heretics that the anti-sedevacantists (SV's) say must officially declare the "Pope" to be a heretic. But this is how the anti-SV's operate; they ask the impossible and smugly sit back with their arms folded waiting for what they know can't happen.

    When I speak of the anti-SV's I am only speaking of the intellectually dishonest and willfully blind; those who choose to speak out as so-called experts, trying their darndest to explain away the "recognize and resist" inconsistencies with the wiles of a magician who seemingly can create a rabbit out of nothing when he pulls it out of a hat. I speak of those who will read the following and, rather than granting the points as honest intellectuals would, remain silent or switch to a different objection. I provide what His Excellency Bishop Mark Pivarunas, CMRI expertly answered at Answering the Objections to the Sedevacantist Position:


Objection I: Pope Pius XII lifted all ecclesiastical penalties during the conclave to elect the pope. So even if the Vatican II popes were heretics before their elections, they would still be validly elected.
Answer: Heretics and schismatics are barred by DIVINE LAW from the election to the Papal Office. Pope Pius XII lifted ecclesiastical penalties; he did not, would not, could not dispense from Divine Law.

Proof:
A. Institutiones Iuris Canonici [1950], Coronata ◾ "Appointment to the Office of the Primacy - What is required by DIVINE LAW for this appointment... Also required for validity is that the one elected be a member of the Church; hence, heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are excluded..."

B. Institutiones luris Canonici [1921], Marato
◾"Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate by the Divine Law itself, because, although by divine law they are not considered incapable of participating in a certain type of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, nevertheless, they must certainly be regarded as excluded from occupying the throne of the Apostolic See, which is the infallible teacher of the truth of the faith and the center of ecclesiastical unity.

C. Bull cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio [16 Feb. 1559], Pope Paul IV



◾"Further, if ever it should appear [writers note: worshiping with false religions and receiving items from false religions with esteem would certainly make one appear to be a heretic] that any bishop (even one acting as an archbishop, patriarch or primate), or a cardinal of the Roman Church, or a legate (as mentioned above), or even the Roman Pontiff (whether prior to his promotion to cardinal, or prior to his election as Roman Pontiff), has beforehand deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into any heresy, We enact, decree, determine and define:


◾"Such promotion or election in and of itself, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, shall be null, legally invalid and void.

◾ "It shall not be possible for such a promotion or election to be deemed valid or to be valid, neither through reception of office, consecration, subsequent administration, or possession, nor even through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff himself, together with the veneration and obedience accorded him by all.


◾"Such promotion or election, shall not through any lapse of time in the foregoing situation, be considered even partially legitimate in any way....

◾ "Each and all of their words, acts, laws, appointments of those so promoted or elected - and indeed, whatsoever flows therefrom - shall be lacking in force, and shall grant no stability and legal power to anyone whatsoever.


◾ "Those so promoted or elected, by that very fact and without the need to make any further declaration, shall be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power."


D. Institutiones luris Canonici [1921], C. Baldii
◾ "The law now in force for the election of the Roman Pontiff is reduced to these points:...

◾ "Barred as incapable of being validly elected are the following: women, children who have not reached the age of reason, those suffering from habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics and schismatics...."






    Since finding out about the invalidation of the Ordination and Consecration rites I kept being reaffirmed in my conclusion about sedevacantism as I later found out that the rite of exorcism was watered down (as an ecuмenical olive branch to the devil?) to the point of ineffectiveness. Here I went from being 100% convinced that these imposters were not Pope to being 110% sure! The abolishing of the Oath against Modernism, the changing of the other Sacraments, not to mention the Novus Orodo Missae itself are more formal examples of what happens when a heretic i.e. non-pope leads from the Chair of Saint Peter. Additionally we have the Vatican II heresies officially approved and maintained by the anti-popes, the canon law which allows heretics/non-Catholics to receive the Sacrament of unity, the constant heretical acts and worshipping with heretics and non-Christians by the anti-popes. What else do we need?

    I found out in 2000 or 2001 how the Anaphora of Theodore of Mopsuestia, a rite without a consecration formula at all in it, was "approved" by the "Pope". I asked my expert friends about this and they denied that it could be true much as they denied Father Ratzinger lied about the 3rd Secret of Fatima until they saw for themselves. The reason why my expert friends did not believe this is because they knew that a valid Pope could do no such thing.

    This is one of those things that confused me at the time but is not the least bit confusing when you realize that there was no Pope in existence to approve such a rite. The "authorities" themselves explained themselves away on this by claiming that the prayer clearly intends to confect the Eucharist, despite the lack of the Latin formula. I challenge anyone to check this and see if it conforms to what the Church has always taught on what constitutes the valid consecration of the Eucharist.

    This example brings me to another point which is the response to the following objection: "the Church has to condemn the heretic before we can admit that he is not a Pope". The response to this objection is at the end of this article. But for now let me share the following verse which shows a heretic is shown to be already judged of their own accord and no official declaration is necessary, at least according to the real experts.
Titus 3:10-11 (From Haydock):
10 "A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid:"
 Ver. 10. A man that is, &c. Many ancient copies have this passage thus, Avoid a heretic after one reprehension. St. Irenæus, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, &c. and many ancient Greek copies, omit a second reprehension. They thought once warning a heretic sufficient; a second correction only served to render him more insolent, and more obstinate in his false opinions. Certainly the faith of Christ has been so firmly established, that a man instructed in Scripture and tradition cannot conscientiously remain a heretic; he must be well aware of the crime of disunion; his own judgment, as St. Paul says, must condemn him.

11 "Knowing that he that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment."

Ver. 11. Knowing that he that is such a one is subverted: a metaphor, from a house that is thrown down, even to the foundation, by the Greek. He speaks of heretics whose obstinacy seems evident, for no one is properly a heretic but who is obstinate in his errors. --- And sinneth, being condemned; or, condemned by his own judgment, when his ignorance cannot be a sufficient plea for him. (Witham) --- Other offenders are judged and cast out of the Church by the sentence of the pastors of the same Church. Heretics, more unhappy, run out of the Church of their own accord; and by so doing, give judgment and sentence against their own souls. (Challoner)




    Would anyone dare suggest that the conciliar "Popes" have not been made aware of their errors? The SSPX has repeatedly made them aware throughout most of their existence. The conciliar popes know the objections inside and out. The excuse that they use to "get out of it", in contradistinction to what the legitimate Popes have always taught is that our interpretation of doctrine changes according to the circuмstances of the times we are in.
 "The text [of the Second Vatican Council] also presents the various forms of bonds that rise from the different degrees of magisterial teaching. It affirms -- perhaps for the first time with this clarity -- that there are decisions of the Magisterium that cannot be a last word on the matter as such, but are, in a substantial fixation of the problem, above all an expression of pastoral prudence, a kind of provisional disposition. Its nucleus remains valid, but the particulars, which the circuмstances of the times have influenced, may need further ramifications.
  "In this regard, one may think of the declarations of Popes in the last century about religious liberty, as well as the anti-Modernist decisions at the beginning of this century, above all, the decisions of the Biblical Commission of the time. As a cry of alarm in the face of hasty and superficial adaptations, they will remain fully justified. A personage such as Johann Baptist Metz said, for example, that the Church's anti-Modernist decisions render the great service of preserving her from immersion in the liberal-bourgeois world. But in the details of the determinations they contain, they become obsolete after having fulfilled their pastoral mission at the proper moment." (Cardinal Ratzinger in a June 27 1990 interview in L'Osservatore Romano)
 Now read the following that Ratzinger himself vowed before God when receiving Orders of the Sub-Deaconate, Deaconate and Priesthood, not to mention the mandatory annual pronouncement as required for academic professors, which he was as a member of the theological faculty of Tubingen University:

Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. (THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM Given by His Holiness St. Pius X September 1, 1910)
    Additionally, we have the bull from Paul IV, the holy Cardinal Saint Bellarmine response, Canon Law and countless other teachings on how a public heretic cannot hold ecclesiastical office. According to their teachings it does not matter whether they are formal or material heretics, it just matters whether they are public or occult (secret). A heretic, whether formal or material, who keeps his heresies to himself (occult or secret), does not damage the Church. A heretic, whether formal or material, who teaches and maintains heresy from the Chair and publically, over and over again, engages in heretical acts and writes and speaks heresy publically, and ignores all the protests, DOES damage the Church and is not fit to be the infallible guide, nor would God allow it.

    Added to this is the fact that Divine Law trumps ecclesiastical law (if ecclesiastical law were to contradict it) and we know that Divine Law does not allow heretics, schismatics, apostates or those below the age of reason to be Pope and that Ecclesiastical law (and possibly Divine law) does not allow women to be Popes. Those who claim that Ecclesiastical law would allow what Divine Law forbids, including a heretic, to be elected are confused as to what would override what if one was to contradict the other. I believe the simplest of laymen to the most profound theologian, if given a moment to think about it, would get the answer right to that one. Further, if according to Ecclesiastical law anyone elected would be valid, then a woman, if validly elected, could also be Pope. Personally I would prefer a Catholic female Pope over a heretical male Pope. Wouldn't you? BTW - I'm here to tell you what would be obvious in better days, Pius X and Pius XII did not intend to allow heretics (which we should avoid as they are a peril to souls) to be the head of the Church or to contradict the Divine Law in any way shape or form any more than we would deny the resurrection of bodies or deny the Real Presence of the Eucharist.

    That all the Popes from Saint Peter on would not have us acknowledge a heretic to be Pope or as being valid matter for election, apart from common sense, is shown by looking at the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. If you don't have valid matter for the Eucharist you can use all the right words in the most solemn of ceremonies to consecrate it and it just won't happen. The potato chip, pretzel or french-fry stays a potato chip, pretzel or french-fry. If you try to elect a heretic, schismatic, apostate (all the v2 antipopes, at least since Montini alias Paul 6, are all of the above), woman, child below the age of reason or a madman to the Chair you are still left with a heretic, schismatic, apostate, woman, child below the age of reason or a madman. Have you heard the saying, "You can put make-up and lipstick on a pig and call it Betsy-Sue but at the end of the day it is still a pig"? Or better yet, "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves" St. Matthew 7:15.

    And this idea that so long as you are not a formal heretic you can still be a Pope sounds like the reasoning of a madman as then you could just play dumb ("I not a formal heretic, I have no idea at all what the Catholic Church teaches") and so we have an ignoramus as the unifying head of the Church that leads countless souls to Hell rather than one who knows what the Church has always taught and rejects those teachings as being valid Popes and approved by God and protected from erring by the Holy Ghost. The bottom line is that all the V2 antipopes are formal heretics because they all had traditional theological training and consciously rejected that which they knew the Church had always taught.

    Consider the following admission from the man the "resist and recognize" camp consider a pope today:
 If one is looking for a global diagnosis of the text [of Gaudium et spes], one could say that it (along with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) is a revision of the Syllabus of Errors by Pope Pius IX, a kind of counter-Syllabus...
  Let us content ourselves here with stating that the text [of Gaudium et spes] plays the role of a counter-Syllabus to the measure that it represents an attempt to officially reconcile the Church with the world as it had become after 1789. On one hand, this visualization alone clarifies the ghetto complex that we mentioned before. On the other hand, it permits us to understand the meaning of this new relationship between the Church and the Modern World. "World" is understood here, at depth, as the spirit of modern times. The consciousness of being a detached group that existed in the Church viewed this spirit as something separate from herself and, after the hot as well as cold wars were over, she sought dialogue and cooperation with it. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982)  

    But worse than these types of "Popes" would be "Popes" that had no ("traditional") authentic Catholic training whatsoever which may be the case in the near future. By the reasoning of those who pretend a heretic must know he is a heretic before we can reject him as Pope (I suppose much like we cannot know that a man killed by a drunk is dead unless we know the drunk knows he killed the man) we are to accept those who have no idea what Catholicism is over those who know and reject it! Madness in the highest degree!!!

    We know from their actions that they did encroach upon, altered and permitted innovations. We know that they did dare to undertake new things in contradiciton to the constituted evangelic Tradition and the purity of the orthodox Faith and the Christian religion which is the Catholic Faith. We can only hope they repented at the last minute privately because they never did publically and therefore, we know by the very way they acted continually and in what they said and wrote that it was in contradiction to what their predecessors had decreed. Because of this they were, according to St. Paul in Galatians 1: 8-10, "anathema sit". Therefore they automatically put themselves outside the Church and did excommunicate themselves under the severest measures. Knowing all this how can anyone have a shred of doubt? They could not possibly be true Popes just as a true Pope decreed in cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio, Article 6:
(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.

    That is undeniable proof that anything and all that was spoken, enacted such as Vatican II, and all those elevated have NO POWER, NO AUTHORITY whatsoever in any way, shape or means, proving that the only ones with that are true priests not ordained in the new rite and true bishops who did not sell out to the Newchurch. [Editor's note: Please see Griff Ruby's accompanying feature on this, entitled Authority by Default?]

    As for the idea that we just have to sit back and allow ("not judge") a heretic on the Chair of Peter to led countless souls into Hell until "the Church declares him to be a heretic" I will let Bishop Pivuranus share the Church's response (emphasize mine) from the same CMRI page cited above :


Objection IV: Even if a pope fell into heresy, he would remain pope until the Church declared him a heretic and no longer pope.
Answer: Pope Paul IV, in cuм Ex Apostolatus, Pope Innocent III in Si Papa, and theologians teach that a heretical pope is deposed by God [writers note: not the Church].

Proof:

 A. Bull: cuм Ex Apostolatus [16 Feb. 1559], Pope Paul IV



◾ "Further, if ever it should appear [writers note: through words or actions] that any bishop (even one acting as an archbishop, patriarch or primate), or a cardinal of the Roman Church, or a legate (as mentioned above), or even the Roman Pontiff (whether prior to his promotion to cardinal, or prior to his election as Roman Pontiff), has beforehand deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into any heresy,[writer's note: does anyone see here where Pope Paul IV says the purported Pope must be a formal heretic for his elevation to the Chair to be "null and void, worthless"? If I missed this I would like to know.] We enact, decree, determine and define:


◾ "Such promotion or election in and of itself, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, shall be null, legally invalid and void... Those so promoted or elected, by that very fact [writers note: which fact? The fact that they appeared to have beforehand (the heresies he professes after "election" merely prove he was never validly elected in the first place) deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into any heresy] and without the need to make any further declaration, shall be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power."

B. Si Papa [1198], Pope Innocent III
◾ "The Pope should not flatter himself about his power nor should he rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged. In such a case it should be said of him: 'If salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.'"

C. Institutiones Juris Canonici [1950] - Coronata
◾ "If indeed such a situation would happen, he [the Roman Pontiff] would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one. He who openly professes heresy places himself outside the Church, and it is not likely that Christ would preserve the Primacy of His Church in one so unworthy. Wherefore, if the Roman Pontiff were to profess heresy, before any condemnatory sentence (which would be impossible anyway) he would lose his authority."

D. St. Robert Bellarmine [1610]
◾ "A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church."

E. St. Antoninus [1459]
◾ "In the case in which the Pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that very fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off."

F. St. Francis de Sales [1622]
◾ "Now when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church ..."

G. Canon Law - [1943] - Wernz-Vidal
◾ "Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy,  by that very fact (ipso facto) is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgment by the Church ... A Pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church.

H. Introductio in Codicem [1946] - Udalricus Beste
◾ "Not a few canonists teach that, outside of death and abdication, the pontifical dignity can also be lost by falling into certain insanity, which is legally equivalent to death, as well as through manifest and notorious heresy. In the latter case, a pope would automatically fall from his power, and this indeed without the issuance of any sentence, for the first See (i.e., the See of Peter) is judged by no one ... The reason is that, by falling into heresy, the pope ceases to be a member of the Church. He who is not a member of a society, obviously, cannot be its head."

I. Epitome Juris Canonici [1949] - A. Vermeersch
◾ "At least according to the more common teaching the Roman Pontiff as a private teacher can fall into manifest heresy. Then, without any declaratory sentence (for the supreme See is judged by no one), he would automatically (ipso facto) fall from power which he who is no longer a member of the Church is unable to possess.













    Let us recall the words of the Apostle St. Paul as recorded by St. Luke in Acts 20: 29: "I know that after my departure ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock."

    What would our anti-SV friends have us put as the next verse?
But if a ravening wolf (formal or material heretic) who does not know he is a ravening wolf (material heretic) is elected the head of your Church, accept him as such and hold fast to his doctrine. (?!?)
    Now let us look at what Scripture says and see if there is any difference between the conclusion the anti-SV would have us come to in regards to a heretic being the head of the Church.
"And of your own selves will arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, keeping in memory, that for three years I ceased not night and day, with tears admonishing every one of you" (Acts 20:30-31).
    How do we know that Father Ratzinger is and has always been a heretic since the beginning of his ecclesiastical career? We know by his actions, such as when he worships in false religions and receives symbols of false religions with esteem, and by his words, spoken and written:
 "Eucharistic devotion such as is noted in the silent visit by the devout in church must not be thought of as a conversation with God. This would assume that God was present there locally and in a confined way. To justify such an assertion shows a lack of understanding of the Christological mysteries of the very concept of God. This is repugnant to the serious thinking of the man who knows about the omnipresence of God. To go to church on the ground that one can visit God who is present there is a senseless act which modern man rightfully rejects." (Die Sacramentale Begrundung Christliche Existenz by Father Joseph Ratzinger)
    All we need to say about the above has been said so well in Divine Revelation when St. Paul identifies in Galatians 1: 9, "As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema." But the life-long Hegelian still isn't done with his heresy:


 "It now becomes clear that the real heart of faith in the resurrection does not consist at all in the idea of the restoration of bodies, to which we have reduced it in our thinking; such is the case even though this is the pictorial image used throughout the Bible." "Introduction to Christianity" by "Cardinal" Ratzinger
    For that I would again offer divine evidence in St. Paul's words from 1 Corinthians 15: verses 11 through 58. Those who deny Ratzinger's public and manifest heresies or try to rationalize that he can't be judged, are being dishonest and they know in their hearts that they are. Enough said.

    I was once asked "What proof do you have that SV is the right conclusion, John?" I responded by saying "That is like walking through a forest with me and asking 'What proof do you have that trees exist, John?' I'm like - take a look around, what more proof do you need?

    I urge you to read  cuм Ex Apostolatus Offico in its entirety and realize that what is written is to be observed and remains valid in PERPETUITY as in forever! Please notice how His Holiness does not say that any purported Pope must be a formal heretic before he loses his office or shown never to have obtained it.

    Note how many times the word "perpetuity" is used. Also note how may times Paul IV says "automatically excommunicated" and uses the full force of the Primacy of Peter in proclaiming "We enact, determine,decree and define." What more could that indicate than having the infallible pronouncement since it truly effects faith and morals and was issued for the universal Church from the Seat of Peter. And why did he issue this landmark mandate? Glad you asked.

    He explained in the first two paragraphs:
We are bound to be diligently watched 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. Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted, We have been concerned lest false prophets or others, even if they have only secular jurisdiction, should wretchedly ensnare the souls of the simple, and drag with them into perdition, destruction and damnation countless peoples committed to their care and rule, either in spiritual or in temporal matters; 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. In view of this, Our desire has been to fulfil our Pastoral duty, insofar as, with the help of God, We are able, so as to arrest the foxes who are occupying themselves in the destruction of the vineyard of the Lord and to keep the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be dumb watchdogs that cannot bark and lest We perish with the wicked husbandman and be compared with the hireling.

    We can clearly see his precautions and foresight were well founded, for in the 16th Century some in the clergy of all ranks including Cardinals were beginning to have Protestant leanings and he saw the very real possibility of a heretic being "validly" elected "Pope" in his own time. What would he think about our own time? The Holy Ghost saw our time and He quite possibly inspired Pope Paul IV to write the docuмent so that those who still cared during our times would be able to utilize this infallible docuмent "valid in perpetuity" and its perennial proclamations to sort through the confusion of our day and come to the one correct conclusion when confronted with a public heretic on the throne of Saint Peter.

    We know indeed the "abomination of desolation" has occurred with the sacrilegious Novus Ordo 'Missae' and souls are ensnared by the foxes and wolves who have led and are leading souls to perdition. I ask: Is it not time for the anti-SV's to stop the stampede by waking up and get their necks out of the sands of denial. I ask them to join the ranks of those who can truly see that those very wolves and foxes, those emperors of both the spiritual and temporal reigns, are not wearing any clothes? What is most disturbing, yes, tragic, is that these very leaders have stripped themselves and those they lead of the necessary garments of grace. Lest we think there will be no repercussions, God has already manifested that there are consequences to one's actions, especially when they diametrically oppose God's holy Will, just as Paul IV predicted at the end of his Papal Bull:
"No one at all, therefore, may infringe this docuмent of our approbation, re-introduction, sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash presumption contradict it. If anyone, however, should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul."
    In reading cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio you will note that, despite the perpetuity of this constitution, many of these are no longer enforced by civil powers. Why is that? Because the State has abandoned God and His Church. For those who say these ecclesiastical constitutions no longer bind on Catholics today, I would ask: Have you, too, abandoned God and His Church? As to the trees existing. We know they do. However, more sobering is the fact that Hell exists as well. We just celebrated the 93rd anniversary of Our Lady's appearance to the three children at Fatima when she allowed them to see a vision of Hell. Do we really want to go there? We could if we do not heed the words of His Holiness Pope Paul IV, the Saints and Doctors of the Church, not to mention Christ Himself and His holy Apostles Peter and Paul. Yes, wrath indeed. Don't say you weren't warned. Timberrrrrrr.



John Gregory





 "Catholics who remain faithful to Tradition, even if they are reduced to but a handful, they are THE TRUE CHURCH"
 Saint Athanasius, "Apostle of Tradition" AD 373

Excellent post, Lover of Truth!