Concerning an SSPX Dossier on Sedevacantism - Novus Ordo Watch

The remainder of this brief section is devoted to highlighting the arrog<strong>an</strong>ce of the notorious
dogmatic sedevac<strong>an</strong>tist, Michael Dimond, the relev<strong>an</strong>ce of which escapes me. It would appear to be
<strong>an</strong> attempt to smear all sedevac<strong>an</strong>tists by employing guilt by association, but I am reluct<strong>an</strong>t to
accuse Fr. Boulet of something as crass as that. Perhaps he genuinely believes that Dimond is
representative, in which case he is simply misinformed. Dimond is no more representative of
sedevac<strong>an</strong>tists th<strong>an</strong> Fr. Matthew Fox is representative of sedeplenists.
In <strong>an</strong>y case, the “theological argument[s] of sedevac<strong>an</strong>tists” are extensive <strong>an</strong>d thoroughly
documented, <strong>an</strong>d Fr. Boulet has not only failed to address them, he has not even noticed that they
exist!
4. Immediately following this “theological argument” we are presented with the following:
“C<strong>an</strong>onical argument of sedevac<strong>an</strong>tists: It is to consider that the laws of the Church
invalidate the election of a heretic; but Cardinal Wojtyla was a heretic at the time of his
election, therefore he c<strong>an</strong>not be a Pope. The Sedevac<strong>an</strong>tists quote the Papal Bull Cum ex
Apostolatus Officio of Pope Paul IV, which says that if <strong>an</strong>yone was heretic before the Papal
election, he could not be a valid Pope, even if he is elected un<strong>an</strong>imously by the cardinals.
They also base their argumentation on the Code of C<strong>an</strong>on Law, C<strong>an</strong>. 188, #4: “Any office
becomes vac<strong>an</strong>t ipso facto <strong>an</strong>d without <strong>an</strong>y declaration by tacit resignation recognized by
the law itself if a cleric… #4 publicly defects from the Catholic faith.” (Emphasis in the
original.)
Fr. Boulet, later in his booklet <strong>an</strong>swers this argument, but suffice to say that it is a straw m<strong>an</strong>. Cum
ex apostolatus is a papal bull issued in the circumst<strong>an</strong>ce that it appeared that Cardinal Morone, who
was suspected of Protest<strong>an</strong>tism, might be elected to the papacy after the death of Paul IV. It was
abrogated by the Code of 1917.
Sedevac<strong>an</strong>tists do not generally think that Popes are subject to the C<strong>an</strong>ons, insofar as these are
purely ecclesiastical law, or that the penal provisions of Cum ex apostolatus survived the
promulgation of the Code in 1917, except insofar as they were contained in the Code. The
argument, then, is not that Benedict XVI, John Paul II or Paul VI were disqualified by c<strong>an</strong>on law as
expressed in Cum ex apostolatus or that they lost their offices by virtue of C<strong>an</strong>on 188,4, but merely
that only a Catholic is valid matter for the papacy (or <strong>an</strong>y ecclesiastical office) <strong>an</strong>d therefore a non-
Catholic c<strong>an</strong>not under <strong>an</strong>y circumst<strong>an</strong>ces hold <strong>an</strong> office. The mind of the Church on this point is
shown both by Cum ex apostolatus <strong>an</strong>d by C<strong>an</strong>on 188,4, which illustrate the radical incompatibility
of the status of non-Catholic <strong>an</strong>d possession of habitual jurisdiction. Other sources for the same
doctrine are St. Robert Bellarmine, who goes so far as to assert that this is the const<strong>an</strong>t tradition of
10