Concerning an SSPX Dossier on Sedevacantism - Novus Ordo Watch

13. Next Fr. Boulet sums up the m<strong>an</strong>y reasons why, in his opinion, John Paul II’s heresies were not
sufficiently public to disqualify him as a true Pope.
3.6. C<strong>an</strong> John-Paul II be declared Notorious <strong>an</strong>d Pertinacious heretic? As much as the
concepts of Notorious <strong>an</strong>d Pertinacious are clear in theory, nevertheless, their concrete
application is extremely difficult, especially in the case of the Pope. The main reason is that
such pertinacity is finally determined by the public acknowledgement of the heresy coming
from the legitimate authority. It would have to be necessary not only that a knowledge that
John Paul II had committed heresy had spread through the universal Church– which
obviously is not so, as only a tiny, tiny minority, far less th<strong>an</strong> 0.1% of the Church, even claim
that he has – but it would also be necessary that a knowledge of a guilt on his part of formal,
pertinacious heresy, had likewise spread through the Church. It would be necessary that no
resort could conceal the act or the guilt: no appeal to dodgy tr<strong>an</strong>slations of the original text
or to camera tricks; no appeal to faulty speech writers; no appeal to old age; no appeal to
ignor<strong>an</strong>ce of, or confusion as to, the doctrine in question; no appeal to <strong>an</strong> accident of writing
or speech; no appeal that his saying was “in some way compatible with the doctrine of the
Faith if we understood his modern ‘philosophical’ speech”; no appeal to some kind of
ecclesial self-defence in the present hostile liberal social or ecclesial climate. Even if the
crime could not be covered up <strong>an</strong>d there were no legally admissible defence or excuse for
the act, nevertheless the greater part of the Church would still have to know of his moral
guilt <strong>an</strong>d that the act was legally inexcusable. It would be necessary that the priests <strong>an</strong>d the
Catholic press could not cover up the crime to the people in <strong>an</strong>y way, by <strong>an</strong>y device. The
fact is that the Church is most resourceful <strong>an</strong>d the Faithful are most docile <strong>an</strong>d deferential
<strong>an</strong>d next to no one has recognised the heresy of the Pope, let alone <strong>an</strong>y moral culpability
<strong>an</strong>d legal inexcusability. And <strong>an</strong>yway, the priests <strong>an</strong>d the people themselves have embraced
the very same heresies as John Paul II <strong>an</strong>d think that he is just fine, or even “the greatest
Pope ever”, as m<strong>an</strong>y have been heard to say. Even the vast majority of the comparatively
very few who have not embraced all the same heresies as he do not see or accept that the
Pope is in heresy – <strong>an</strong>d the tiny, tiny number who c<strong>an</strong> see it tend to excuse it as not
pertinacious but rather due to the overall situation in the Church, especially since “Vatic<strong>an</strong>
II”, which has blinded almost everyone to m<strong>an</strong>y of the true doctrines of the Faith. The
heresy of John Paul II obviously is formally secret in c<strong>an</strong>onical terms, regardless of how clear
it might seem to the occasional “traditionalist”: his acts have been recognised neither as
heretical nor as morally imputable <strong>an</strong>d legally inexcusable. Hence, his heresy is not legally
recognised as notorious in fact; accordingly it is not notorious; <strong>an</strong>d the legal conditions have
not been fulfilled which c<strong>an</strong>onists have specified for a Pope to lose his office by heresy.
34