A) Who has the authority to proclaim that the Pope is no longer pope, because of this heresy that we perceive?
B) If the Pope really believes that he is not a heretic, who then has the authority to pass judgment on him and tell him and the whole world that he is wrong?
The Decree of Gratian (ca. 1150), reads as follows: “Whose sins [the pope’s] no mortal man presumes to rebuke, for he shall judge all and is to be judged by no one,
unless he is suddenly caught deviating from the faith [nisi deprehendatur a fide devius].” (Decree, I, dist. 60, ch. 6.)
Pope Innocent III:
"Without faith it is impossible to please God.’… And so the faith of the Apostolic See never failed, even in the most trying circuмstances [turbatione], but always continued intact and undiminished, so that the privilege of Peter remained constant and unshaken."
“To this end faith is so necessary for me that, though I have for other sins God alone as my judge, it is alone for a sin committed against faith that I may be judged by the Church. [propter solum peccatum quod in fide commititur possem ab Ecclesia judicari.] For ‘he who does not believe is already judged’.”(Sermo 2: In Consecratione, PL 218:656)
“You are the salt of the earth… Still less can the Roman Pontiff boast, for he can be judged by men — or rather he can be shown to be judged, if he manifestly ‘loses his savor’ in heresy. [quia potest ab hominibus judicari, vel potius judicatus ostendi, si videlicet evanescit in haeresim.] For he who does not believe is already judged.” (Sermo 4: In Consecratione, PL 218:670)
A heresy becomes manifest (or notorious), when its existence is “established in a public way” (constat modo publico). When John Paul II denied the existence of hell the mainstream newspapers all asked whether or not it was a heresy. When John Paul II died the general media recognized him as changing Catholic doctrine on inter-religious relations. The media and the general public, whether Catholic or secular, recognize Francis as changing doctrine (e.g. Time) and being revolutionary.
And unless you've been living under a rock, it's common knowledge by even regular non-Catholic heathens that John Paul II preached that everyone can get to heaven regardless of religions:
On the day of Pope John Paul II’s death, I received a phone call from a young lady in New Zealand, a friend of the family. She presently works in a situation where she interacts with Muslims and Hindus. When she tells these non-Catholics, with gentleness and charity, they must convert to the one true Catholic Church to save their souls, the Muslims and Hindus laugh at her. “Your Pope doesn’t believe that”, they cackle, referring to John Paul II, “Your Pope doesn’t teach that. Your Pope’s interfaith actions don’t convey that. Your Pope prays with the Dalai Lama and with Hindus. Your Pope visits mosques and kisses the Koran. You are out-of-step with your own Pope. Why should we listen to you?”
Two Catholic young men of my acquaintance, debating with a Protestant Minister, were likewise laughed to scorn when they in-formed the Protestant he must become Catholic to be saved. “What?”, said the Protestant, “You obviously don’t read the writings of your own Pope. He prays with Protestants. He praises Martin Luther as a man of ‘deep religiousness’. He calls Protestants ‘disciples of Christ’. He never says it is necessary to become Catholic for salvation.”
Brother Roger of the ecuмenical Taize Community, a place that was dear to Pope John Paul’s heart, said that during the Papal visit to Taize on October 5, 1986, John Paul II suggested a path of “communion” to the community. The Pope said, “By desiring to be yourselves a ‘parable of community,’ you will help all whom you meet to be faithful to their denominational ties, the fruit of their education and their choice in conscience ...”[1] Pope John Paul II thus encouraged Protestants to be faithful to false creeds solemnly anathematized by the Council of Trent. There is no mention of the need to convert to Christ’s one true Church for salvation.
The day after Pope John Paul II’s death, Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League issued a press release praising the departed Pontiff for his relations with the Jєωιѕн people. Foxman wrote of John Paul, “Most importantly, the Pope rejected the destructive concept of supersessionism and has recognized the special relationship between Christianity and the Jєωιѕн people, while sharing his understanding of Judaism as a living heritage, of the permanent validity of God’s covenant with the Jєωιѕн people.”[2]
Foxman thus applauded John Paul II for rejecting the truth found in Scripture and in the defined dogmas of the Catholic Church, that the New Covenant superseded and made obsolete the old Judaic Covenant. Foxman rejoices in the error that members of today’s Jєωιѕн religion have their own covenant with God, and need not accept Jesus Christ nor convert to the Catholic Church for salvation. And Foxman praises John Paul II for championing this falsehood.
Here, then, is the secret of Pope John Paul II’s success with the world and with false religions — one of the main reasons he is loved by the multitudes, why almost all doors were open to him. Pope John Paul II was the man who, in effect, told the inhabitants of the world that everything is suddenly changed, that the “triumphalism” of the Church is passed, that they need not convert to the Catholic Church to save their souls. The eclipse of the infallible dogma, “Out-side the Church there is no salvation” is the defining mark of his Pontificate.
Taken from:
http://www.cfnews.org/JP2-Success.htmWhen Hindus, Jєωs, Muzzies, and Prots can recognize a manifest heresy that breaks from the past, so should a Traditional Catholic. To say the heresies of Vatican II aren't manifest is either insanity or cowardice. I went to Novus Ordo schools and the nuns/teachers would constantly talk about how bad the "old church" was and how great Vatican II was for changing doctrine and worship. Whenever I witness that Faith I'm constantly bombarded with "Catholic don't believe X anymore Pope Z said Y"! And Pope Francis? Oh my, he makes JPII look like Torquemada. On a personally note, Francis made me reject the "Refuse and Resist" position. I'm now deciding between sedeprivationism or sedevacantism. This is the same person who said he'd rather defecate on a crucifix than become a sedevacantist in the anonymous forum.
“Because the act of heresy is an erroneous judgment of intelligence to commit the sin of heresy it suffices to knowingly and willingly express this erroneous judgment in opposition to the Church’s magisterium. From the moment that one sufficiently knows the existence of the rule of the faith in the Church and that, on any point whatsoever, for whatever motive and in whatever form, one refuses to submit to it, formal heresy is complete.” (Ibid. 6:2222)
The very commission of any act which signifies heresy, e.g., the statement of some doctrine contrary or contradictory to a revealed and defined dogma, gives sufficient ground for juridical presumption of heretical depravity… [E]xcusing circuмstances have to be proved in the external forum, and the burden of proof is on the person whose action has given rise to the imputation of heresy. In the absence of such proof, all such excuses are presumed not to exist.” (McDevitt, The Delict of Heresy, CU Canon Law Studies 77. [Washington: 1932] 35.)
Most of that was copy and pasted from Fr. Cekada.
C) In Pascendi, the encyclical that defines what Modernism is, nowhere do you see in there any word of this, that any cleric whatsoever automatically loses his office because of him being a Modernist. If it would be true of a Pope, then it must certainly be true of other offices too, such as archbishop, bishop, rector, prior, pastor, confessor, prelate, or even priest. But there are no such words to be found in Pascendi.
By that logic you're gonna have to reject the Trinity, you won't find that word in the Bible :reading: :smoke-pot: