As a Baptized member of the Catholic Church, in accord with my divine right to make known to my sacred pastors, the things which I see as necessary to the unity of the Church, the preservation of the Faith and the salvation of souls, I herewith submit this petition to the College of the Cardinals, as princes of the Roman Church, to whom it belongs both in law to elect the Roman Pontiff, and by immemorial right, to judge the man who holds the Pontificate if he err from the faith, and depose him, as Fr. Matthias a Corona taught in his, Tractatus Postumus (Liege, 1677), Tract I, Chapter XXI, n. II, “Whether the Cardinals have any power about the Pope?”:
A Pontiff, lapsed into heresy, can be most justly deposed. Thus Duvallius, above in q. 10. The reason is, that it is not credible that Christ wants to retain him as Vicar of His Church, who pertinaciously segregates himself whole from Her, since Christ has especially commanded Her, to hear His Voice as a faithful people, and to comply with Him, just as sheep hear the voice of their shepherd. John 10: 3: The sheep hear His Voice and they follow Him. Verse 4: The sheep follow Him. But far be it, only, that the Church should hear a Pontiff lapsed into heresy, She who rather is bound to stop up Her own ears against his violent speech, lest She be infected by the venom of his doctrine, and his casting-out and new election ought to be urged by the assembly of the Sacred Cardinals. The reason is, for, since the Pontiff is the fundament of the Church, the Rock, the Cornerstone, the Base, the Teacher, and the general Shepherd, his heresy abolishes all his privileges, and cancels (them), because he is a destroyer and scatterer of the Church, and consequently is no longer the Pontiff. And/or if he remains there, after he will have been judicially denounced as a heretic, he is to be immediately dispossessed of the Pontificate, if his heresy is external and manifest through the evidence of fact, and/or the declaration of a Council. But not if it be internal and only mental. The reason is, because he is no longer a member of the Church, nor Her head, nor does he cleave to Her by the internal union, which is through faith, nor by the external, which is through the confession of the Faith, and has been cut off from Her in each manner. A schismatic Pontiff incurs the same punishment, as Turrecremata, bk. 4, of Summa Ecclesia, part 1, ch. R1, says; Cajetan, II, II, q. 37, a. 1. Duvallius teaches above in q. 9, that he can enter into schism. First, if he no longer fulfills the office of the Pontiff, or does not wish to be subject to him, who would be elected in his place, but would join himself to the Conciliabula of the Schismatics. Second, if he should wish to change the ancient rites and customs of the Church, remaining from Apostolic tradition, or, rather, if he would pluck away and separate from the unity of the Church those wanting to retain these ceremonies. Third, if he would separate himself on account of an unjust cause from the communion of the whole Church and of all the Bishops, and at the same time will to communicate with certain adherents of his, as is shown in the divine Cyprian, bk. 4, epistle 2, Novatian did, who was pointed out by Cyprian a little after as a Schismatic, and outside the bosom of the Church. And though (this is to be deplored), he had patiently tolerated tyrants for Christ’s sake, Saint Cyprian wrote back that thereafter there was inflicted upon him a death outside the unity of the Church, not the crown of a Martyr, but the punishment of perfidy.
Mindful, that by the decree of Pope Paul IV, Cum ex apostolatus officio (Dec. 21, 1566), the College and indeed the entire Church is gravely bound to only choose and recognize as validly chosen a man of the Catholic Faith; and mindful that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has both before and after his election on March 13, 2013, expressed himself and acted in ways long condemned by the Apostolic See, as one of many faithful, I humbly ask you to fulfill your duty to protect the Church and the Apostolic see from corruption, by convening at a place chosen among yourself, to judge the questions:
1) Whether Jorge Mario Bergoglio was validly elected, in fulfillment of the decree of Paul IV, just mentioned,* inasmuch as prior to his election he promoted for years in Argentina the concession of communion to those in irregular marriages during the Curas Villeros (cf. Sandro Magister, “Francis’ Patient Revolution”, Expresso Online Oct. 24, 2014), which directly contradicts the teaching of the Council of Trent, Session 13, canon XI:
CANON XI.: If any one saith, that faith alone is a sufficient preparation for receiving the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist; let him be anathema. And for fear lest so great a sacrament may be received unworthily, and so unto death and condemnation, this holy Synod ordains and declares, that sacramental confession, when a confessor may be had, is of necessity to be made beforehand, by those whose conscience is burdened with mortal sin, howsoever contrite they may think themselves. But if any one shall presume to teach, preach, or obstinately to assert, or even in public disputation to defend the contrary, he shall be thereupon excommunicated.
Since, if he was subject to this censure, then in accord with the decree of Pope Paul IV, above mentioned (n. 6), he was invalidly raised to the dignity of the Cardinalate, and also invalidly elected Roman Pontiff.
2) If, however, you should judge that he was validly elected, I then ask you to judge whether he has lost the office of Roman Pontiff on account of his pertinacious denial of the Faith and/or his malicious manifest intent to persecute the faithful attached to the ancient ecclesiastical traditions, each of which is in violation of the anathema of the Second Council of Nicea, held in 787 A.D.: “If anyone rejects any written or unwritten tradition of the church, let him be anathema.” (4th Anathema on Holy Images), among which traditions are the celebration of the Ancient Roman Rite and the perennial practice of the Catholic Church, from Apostolic times, of refusing communion to adulterers and public sinners.
For, if he falls under this censure of Nicea, then likewise would his election be invalidated by the decree of Pope Paul IV.
3) Finally, even if the anathemas and canons, which Pope Paul IV declares valid in perpetuity (ibid. n. 2), would not be enough reason for any member of the Sacred College to convict the man of heresy or perfidious malice to overthrow ecclesiastical tradition, it remains a theological truth of the divine law and ecclesiology, that no one who seeks to harm the Church in anything essential, such as Her fidelity to Christ’s Magisterium, can be in communion with Her; and as such, even a schismatic, morally speaking, cannot be considered in communion with the Church, and thus should and must be removed from office. Wherefore, I ask you to judge whether he is morally in schism from the Church, regarding Her immemorial faith and practice which can never be changed.
Considering the gravity of what is petitioned, I the undersigned, for the love of Christ Jesus, request a diligent and thorough investigation and ask that you princes of the Sacred College gather to judge these matters in special meeting at a place chosen by yourselves.
(To sign this petition go to the link above)
Cum ex apostolatus officio (English & Latin)
Second Council of Nicea
Council of Trent (English):
Matthias a Corona, Tractatus Postumus (PDF Latin)
Sandro Magister, “Francis’ Patient Revolution”, Expresso Online Oct. 24, 2014
Robert J. Siscoe, “Can the Church Depose an Heretical Pope?” (Remnant Newspaper, online edition of Nov. 18, 2014)
_________, “True or False Pope?”, A treatise on what Catholics do with Heretical Popes, http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/
Pius XII, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (See Highlights for discussion of n. 34 of this decree)