Concerning an SSPX Dossier on Sedevacantism - Novus Ordo Watch

14. Fr. Boulet then raises <strong>an</strong>d refutes the possibility of a presumption of guilt.
3.7. Could the pertinacity of John-Paul II be presumed? Could we make such a statement looking
at the insistence of the Pope on the new ways, <strong>an</strong>d this in the face of all tradition <strong>an</strong>d its
present-day witnesses? Perhaps; but not socially, which me<strong>an</strong>s, as regards loss of office, etc.,
which must not be presumed but proven, otherwise societies would collapse. One c<strong>an</strong>
underst<strong>an</strong>d that a quick <strong>an</strong>d imprudent <strong>an</strong>swer to such difficult question could easily lead
someone to sink in the quicks<strong>an</strong>d of Sedevac<strong>an</strong>tism. If John Paul II often enough makes heretical
affirmations or statements that lead to heresy, it c<strong>an</strong>not easily be shown that he is aware of
rejecting <strong>an</strong>y dogma of the Church. It appears that, in his conduct, John-Paul II is deeply
convinced that he is doing his best for the service of the Church. How is it possible for subjects
to prove with moral certainty that the Pope, in his heart of hearts (i.e., within himself), actually
hopes <strong>an</strong>d wishes to cause <strong>an</strong>d bring evil upon his subjects <strong>an</strong>d that it is on account of this evil
will that he promulgates evil laws? It is not possible. As a typical liberal, John-Paul II is
multiplying the ambiguous statements, <strong>an</strong>d concessions, in order to please the world. It may
happen that he is making heretical statements without even realizing it: thus he c<strong>an</strong>not be found
as a formal heretic. Therefore, as long as there is no sure proof, it is more prudent to refrain
from judging. This was Archbishop Lefebvre's prudent line of conduct.
a) I am sure most traditional Catholics will agree that we may not presume pertinacity, but when
something is m<strong>an</strong>ifest it does not need to be presumed. Did John Paul II know that the Church
teaches that we are forbidden to do the m<strong>an</strong>y, m<strong>an</strong>y, things he did, <strong>an</strong>d that we are forbidden to
believe in the heretical notions that he was plainly in love with, such as universal salvation? Well, he
was gr<strong>an</strong>ted a Doctorate in Sacred Theology by the Angelicum, <strong>an</strong>d the sponsor of his thesis was the
famous <strong>an</strong>ti-Modernist Fr. Garrigou-Lagr<strong>an</strong>ge. It is ridiculous to suppose that such a student did not
know the basics of the Catholic Faith. To review the facts is to behold the <strong>an</strong>swer.
b) As for quicks<strong>an</strong>d, that is <strong>an</strong> apt term to describe the <strong>an</strong>ti-sedevac<strong>an</strong>tist arguments presented in
this booklet of Fr. Boulet’s. If it were not apparent that he had been deceived by a badly-tr<strong>an</strong>slated
version of a work which already suffered a few defects, one would be tempted to think that the
arguments had been constructed from scratch for a pre-determined end, so bad do they appear.
For example, what are we to make of this? “How is it possible for subjects to prove with moral
certainty that the Pope, in his heart of hearts (i.e., within himself), actually hopes <strong>an</strong>d wishes to
cause <strong>an</strong>d bring evil upon his subjects <strong>an</strong>d that it is on account of this evil will that he promulgates
evil laws? It is not possible.”
36