I just ran across a quote from Pope Paul IV (notPaul VI) on Novus Ordo Watch:
"If ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop . . . or any Cardinal of the . . . Roman Church, . . . or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy: (i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless..."
—Pope Paul IV, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, March 15, 1559
Now Novus Ordo Watch is a schismatic traditionalist site that criticizes everything modern in the church and is free with declaring heresy on all sorts of people who disagree with it. You can see where I'm going with this. While they did not say so explicitly, the context is clear that they think Pope Benedict is a heretic, and so his office is invalidated. I am left suspecting that Paul IV was not a lawyer, since he left a loophole on this decree wide enough that a convoy three lanes wide could drive through it. Who is it who judges that a Roman Pontiff was a heretic before his elevation? Whose standard is used? What keeps wackos like Novus Ordo Watch from arrogating to themselves the right to judge, and so justify disobedience of a objectively legitimate pope? The whole point of a pope is to prevent unresolvable differences like this over who's a heretic. What a powerful weapon Paul IV gave the present opponents of the church in this decree. How vaguely worded and poorly defined. I can only hope Benedict is more precise.
Of course, not that I'm lying asleep at night worrying about Novus Ordo Watch, and it's not an infallible decree, but it is just the principle of the thing that irks me.
Ok, life goes on ... that's what I get for reading Mark Shea's blog during work. (Though it is after 5 ...)
