TRADITIONALIST DOCTRINE ON THE PAPACY
Whether they are sede vacantists or believe that Joseph Ratzinger is Pope Benedict XVI, Traditionalists hold substantially the same doctrine in regard to the Papacy. Infallibility Is Rare
According to Traditionalists, the Pope rarely invokes infallibility. . In fact in the last two centuries, this has happened three times:December 8, 1854, the definition of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception1869-1870, the First Vatican CouncilNovember 1, 1950, definition of the doctrine of the AssumptionThere is no mention of when the previous invocation of inability was. If infallibility is rare, one would think that a complete collection of infallible statements would have been compiled. It is possible that Traditionalists consider Quo Primum to have been infallible in 1570, canonizing the Tridentine Mass and forbidding it to change. Prior to that all accept the canons of the Council of Trent as infallible, while some reject parts of the explanations preceding the canons. This may also be why no Traditionalist mentions Vatican II as infallible. Since this doctrine has some difficulties, infallibility has been expanded in an article Clear Ideas on the Popes Infallible Magisterium, published by the SSPX. This articles purports that other Papal pronouncements are infallible, not because the Pope pronounces them, but because they are the constant teaching of the Church. This article can be summarized as Rome has spoken the debate is on. This contradicts the Tradition of the Church: Rome has spoken the case is closed. Pope Pius XII is stating, that when the Pope settles an open question, he is infallibly closing the question and defining the Catholic teaching on the subject. Since Joseph Ratzinger has declared Vatican II as a counter syllabus, reversing the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, one must ask which is the truth. Was Pope Pius IX correct in condemning these errors, or was he incorrect and had to be corrected by Vatican II? Also such great Encyclicals as Pacendi, Satis Cognitum and Castii Conubii are considered merely the teachings of the Popes and not truly in fallible. This limitation of infallibility can truly be dangerous and is only indulged in in order to explain the actions of Montini and Wojtyla. .
Popes Have Become Heretics
Traditionalists allege that several Popes in history have become heretics. Some were corrected and reversed their position, while others were condemned posthumously. Some Traditionalists wait for a conversion of Ratzinger and the posthumous condemnation of Wojtyla and Montini. Others have concluded that by heresy Montini resigned as Pope, when he promulgated the heretical Novus Ordo Missae. As a consequence, under Canon 188, paragraph 4 he tendered his resignation from the Papacy, which was accepted by the Church by Law. Therefore his subsequent acts were not the actions of a Pope, which invalidated the 1978 elections of Luciani and Wojtyla. Some allege that Saint Robert Bellarmine was of the opinion that a Pope could become a heretic. However, Andre Perlant read Bellarmine and reached the conclusion that this was not Bellarmine's opinion at all. Perlant states that it was Bellarmine's opinion that no Pope has ever become a heretic. Abbo and Hannan in The Sacred Canons (1921) state: Moreover, the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff would cease if he should become insane, though only if this were established by incontrovertible proof, for insanity is juridically equivalent to death. According to the opinion of some canonists, it would cease also upon his notorious lapse into heresy. Neither of these two eventualities has occurred in the long history of the papacy. S. B. Smith in his Elements of Ecclesiastical Law, written prior to the promulgation of the Code of Canon Law states: Q. Is a Pope who falls into heresy deprived, ipso jure, of the Pontificate? A. There are two opinions: one holds that he is by virtue of divine appointment, divested ipso facto, of the Pontificate; the other, that he is, jure divino, only removable. Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the church-i.e., by an ecumenical council or the College of Cardinals. The question is hypothetical rather than practical. For although, according to the more probable opinion, the Pope may fall into heresy and err in matters of faith, as a private person, yet it is also universally admitted that no Pope ever did fall into heresy, even as a private doctor. Perlant states that Bellarmine considered every allegation of Papal heresy and proved that such was not the actual case. In other words, Bellarmine proved that no Pope had ever become a heretic. Since the last alleged case of Papal heresy was Pope John XXII, and John XXII was prior to Bellarmine's time we can conclude that until 1958 no Pope ever fell into heresy. Fr. Le Floch, superior of the French Seminary in Rome, announced in 1926:
"The heresy which is now being born will become the most dangerous of all; the exaggeration of the respect due to the Pope and the illegitimate extension of his infallibility."
One of his students was none other than the future, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
Note, several articles linked from here are from Tradtitionalist sites and contain heresy.
It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: “He who heareth you, heareth Me.” (Luke 10:16); and usually what is set forth and inculcated in Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among theologians. Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII. (DZ 2313)
Michael Fighting
The Traditionalist Article Clear Ideas on the Popes Infallible Magisterium is interesting in one regard.
The very particular nature of the pope’s Ordinary Infallible Magisterium was quite clear until Vatican I. While this Council was in session, La Civiltà Cattolica, which published (and still publishes) under the direct control of the Holy See, replied in these words to Fr. Gratry, who had criticized Pope Paul IV’s Bull Cum ex Apostolus:
"We ask Fr. Gratry, in all serenity, whether he believes that the Bull of Paul IV is an isolated act, so to speak, or an act that is comparable to others of the same kind in the series of Roman popes. If he replies that it is an isolated act, his argument proves nothing, for he himself affirms that the Bull of Paul IV contains no dogmatic definition. If he replies, as he must, that this Bull is, in substance, conformable to countless other similar acts of the Holy See, his argument says far more than he would wish. In other words, he is saying that a long succession of Roman popes have made public and solemn acts of immorality and injustice against the principles of human reason, of impiety towards God, and of apostasy against the Gospel." (vol. X, series VII, 1870, p.54)
Basically what this is saying is that Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio is infallible. This Bull infallibly declares that heretics cannot be promoted to a higher office in the Catholic Church including the papacy.
