Petition to the Cardinals of the Roman Church regarding the grave improprieties of Pope Francis
English Text (Spanish Text follows at bottom)
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 Fr. Matthias 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, Cum 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 Mario 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 Mario Bergoglio was validly elected, in fulfillment of the decree 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 (cf. Sandro Magister, "Francis' Patient Revolution", Expresso Online Oct. 24, 2014), which directly contradicts the teaching of the Council of Trent, Session 13, canon XI:
CANON XI.: If 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 (n. 6), 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.: "If anyone rejects any written or unwritten tradition of the church, let him be anathema." (4th Anathema on Holy Images), 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 (ibid. n. 2), 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, for the love of Christ Jesus, request a diligent and thorough investigation and ask that you princes of the Sacred College gather to judge these matters in special meeting at a place chosen by yourselves.
Cum ex apostolatus officio (English & Latin)
Second Council of Nicea
Council of Trent (English):
Matthias a Corona, Tractatus Postumus (PDF Latin)
Sandro Magister, "Francis' Patient Revolution", Expresso Online Oct. 24, 2014
Robert J. Siscoe, "Can the Church Depose an Heretical Pope?" (Remnant Newspaper, online edition of Nov. 18, 2014)
Pius XII, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (See Highlights for discussion of n. 34 of this decree)
Consciente de que por el decreto del papa Paulo IV, Cum ex Apostolatus officio (de
21 de diciembre de 1566), el Colegio - y, de hecho, toda la Iglesia -
está gravemente obligado a elegir solamente y a reconocer como
válidamente electo a un hombre de la Fe Católica; y consciente de que
Jorge Mario Bergoglio, tanto antes como después de su elección el 13 de
marzo de 2013, se ha expresado y actuado de maneras largamente
condenadas por la Sede Apostólica, les solicito humildemente -siendo yo
uno entre muchos fieles- que cumplan con su deber de proteger a la
Iglesia y la Sede Apostólica de la corrupción, mediante la convocatoria
-en lugar que se repute conveniente- a juzgar a las preguntas acerca de:
1) si Jorge Mario Bergoglio fue
elegido válidamente, en cumplimiento del decreto de Paulo IV que
acabamos de mencionar, por cuanto antes de su elección promovió durante
años en la Argentina la concesión de la comunión a aquellos sujetos
incursos en matrimonios irregulares junto a los «curas villeros» (cf .
Sandro Magister, "La revolución paciente de Francisco", Espresso on-line, 24 de octubre 2014), lo que contradice directamente la enseñanza del Concilio de Trento, Sesión 13, canon XI:
alguno dijere, que sola la fe es preparación suficiente para recibir el
sacramento de la santísima Eucaristía; sea excomulgado. Y para que no
se reciba indignamente tan grande Sacramento, y por consecuencia cause
muerte y condenación; establece y declara el mismo santo Concilio, que
los que se sienten gravados con conciencia de pecado mortal, por
contritos que se crean, deben para recibirlo, anticipar necesariamente
la confesión sacramental, habiendo confesor. Y si alguno presumiere
enseñar, predicar o afirmar con pertinacia lo contrario, o también
defenderlo en disputas públicas, quede por el mismo caso excomulgado.
Si él estaba sujeto a esta censura, se
sigue entonces que -de acuerdo con el decreto del Papa Paulo IV
mencionado anteriormente (nº 6)- fue inválidamente elevado a la dignidad
del cardenalato, y también inválidamente elegido Romano Pontífice.
2) Si pese a esto ustedes juzgaran
que fue válidamente elegido, entonces les pido que diriman si acaso no
haya perdido el cargo de Romano Pontífice a causa de su negación
pertinaz de la Fe y/o de su propósito manifiestamente malicioso de
perseguir a los fieles apegados a las antiguas tradiciones
eclesiásticas, cada una de cuyas causas viola el anatema del Concilio de
Nicea, celebrado en 787: si alguno rechazare cualquier tradición escrita o no escrita de la Iglesia, sea anatema (cuarto
anatema sobre las Imágenes Sagradas), entre cuyas tradiciones se
cuentan la celebración del Antiguo Rito Romano y la práctica perenne de
la Iglesia Católica, desde los tiempos apostólicos, de negar la comunión
a los adúlteros y los pecadores públicos.
Si cae, pues, bajo esta censura de Nicea,
se sigue del mismo modo que su elección resultaría invalidada por el
decreto del Papa Paulo IV.
3) Por último, aunque los anatemas y
cánones que el Papa Paulo IV declara válidos a perpetuidad (ibid. nº
2), no ofreciesen razón suficiente a ningún miembro del Sacro Colegio
para hacer al hombre convicto de herejía o de pérfida malicia en orden a
derrocar la tradición eclesiástica, persiste una verdad teológica
que versa sobre la ley divina y la eclesiología, a saber: que nadie que
busque dañar a la Iglesia en cosas esenciales, como Su fidelidad a la
Enseñanza de Cristo, puede estar en comunión con Ella; y como por
esto mismo un cismático, moralmente hablando, no puede considerarse en
comunión con la Iglesia, por ello debe y tiene que ser removido de su
2 days agoTommasone France2 days ago
3 days agoJessie Martinez United States3 days ago
3 days agoRon Criss United States3 days ago
3 days agoDavid Heath United Kingdom3 days ago
3 days agoThomas Lasher United States3 days ago
4 days agoGinou saliba Canada4 days ago
5 days agoAstrid Rammo Canada5 days ago
5 days agoDavid O Connor United Kingdom5 days ago
3 weeks agoSheila Chapman France3 weeks ago
3 weeks agoAndreas Canada3 weeks ago
3 weeks agoJohn Mc Girr United Kingdom3 weeks ago
3 weeks agoJohn Brindise United States3 weeks ago
3 weeks agoDearson David Chara India3 weeks ago
3 weeks agoJames Butler United States3 weeks ago
3 weeks agoJoAnne Meyers United States3 weeks ago