RECENT UPDATES


Having recently learned of the passing of the great Brazilian scholar, Arnaldo Xavier da Silveira, we are publishing a portion of his endorsement of True or False Pope?, which will appear in the upcoming second edition. (here)



Does Assisting at an SSPX Mass
Fulfill One’s Sunday Obligation?

John F. Salza, Esq.
November 2021

  

    There has been much confusion concerning the question of whether assisting at Masses offered by the Society of St. Pius X on Sundays and Holy Days satisfies the obligation as defined in canon 1248 of the Code of Canon Law. Many efforts to answer this question have fallen short of a proper and thorough interpretation of the law. For example, in a recent podcast entitled “Am I Allowed to Attend an SSPX Mass?” (Episode 47, Crisis series[1]), Fr. Michael Goldade provided no analysis of canon 1248 (other than displaying the canon’s language on screen), which is the only canon directly relevant to the question. Notwithstanding the purpose of the podcast, Father Goldade explained neither the canonical requirements of canon 1248, nor how SSPX Masses satisfy the requirements. Instead, his primary argument was that Catholics can attend an SSPX Mass, and presumably fulfill the obligation, because Catholics have a right to do so (which is a logical fallacy).  Continue reading...



The SSPX Rejects All
Church-Approved Traditional Groups
November 2021


          In Episode 46 of the Society’s Crisis in the Church series, called “What About the Other Traditional Mass Communities?,” SSPX priest Fr. John McFarland put the SSPX’s schismatic mentality on full display by stating that the Society, in principle, rejects all traditional groups in communion with the Church...  Continue reading here 


Does the Society of St. Pius X Have an Extraordinary Mission?
John Salza Responds to Fr. Jonathan Loop, SSPX

October 2021

In Episode 44 of the Society of St. Pius X’s Crisis in the Church series, Fr. Jonathan Loop, SSPX, gave a podcast entitled “How Can the SSPX Justify its Ministry in the Church?” The purpose of Fr. Loop’s video was to explain how the SSPX clergy can justify the exercise of their priestly ministry when they have no permission from the Church to do so.[1] After all, while the bishops of the SSPX have valid episcopal ordinations (giving them an ontological share in the sacred functions of Christ), they do not have a canonical mission given by hierarchical authority, which is required for such functions to become active and lawful.[2] Further, the priests of the SSPX are not incardinated (attached or “hinged” to a particular Church or religious institute in communion with Rome), which is contrary to canon law (“Every cleric must be incardinated…unattached or transient clerics are not allowed at all”).[3] (Continue reading)


The SSPX Says Sedevacantist Masses are Less Dangerous than Resistance Masses

October 2021

        A few months ago, the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) published a video (Episode 28 of the Society’s Crisis in the Church series) in which Fr. Robinson, as a spokesman for the SSPX, addressed whether Catholics could attend non-SSPX traditional Masses (I just discovered the video this week). While we don’t wish to downplay the crisis in the Church, particularly in light of Pope Francis’ latest assault on tradition (Traditionis Custodes), the notion that a priest with no canonical permission to say Mass could sit in judgment on whether Catholics could attend traditional Masses offered by priests with canonical mission seems odd enough. Indeed, this is evidence of...  Continue here


DO SEDEVACANTIST CLERGY RECEIVE SUPPLIED JURISDICTION FOR CONFESSIONS? 
Part I
 September 2021

        A few weeks ago, in Episode 34 of the Society of St. Pius X’s Crisis in the Church series, Fr. Mauro Tranquillo of the SSPX was interviewed on the subject of Sedevacantism. In the interview, Fr. Tranquillo attempted to highlight a contradiction in the Sedevacantist position. After correctly explaining that all ordinary jurisdiction (i.e., power of governance) in the Church comes through the Pope, Fr. Tranquillo made some troubling statements. Continue here


DO SEDEVACANTIST CLERGY RECEIVE SUPPLIED JURISDICTION FOR CONFESSIONS? 

Part II
September 2021

In the first installment, we examined recent statements made by Fr. Mauro Tranquillo, SSPX in an interview given for the Society of St. Pius X’s Crisis in the Church series (Episode 34), in which Fr. Tranquillo claimed that Sedevacantist priests receive supplied jurisdiction for confessions even for those not in danger of death, on the ground that we are in a “state of necessity.” We demonstrated that Fr. Tranquillo makes an erroneous extrapolation of the suppletory principle by extending its application from extreme cases of danger of death to cases where there is no danger of death, which has no basis in canon law or the canonical tradition of the Church.

       We further showed that common error, which is another condition that triggers supplied jurisdiction, also does not apply to Sedevacantist and other independent clergy, because... Continue here



Answering the Objection to "The True Meaning of Bellarmine's Ipso Facto Loss of Office Theory"

                                                 

___________________


This lengthy article includes recently translated material from Bellarmine that clarifies his true position concerning how an heretical Pope falls from the Pontificate.  This new material proves that every Sedevacantist apologist for the past 40 year has misunderstood and misrepresented Bellarmine's 5th opinion, and that the way in which we interpreted Bellarmine in True or False Pope? is exactly correct.  
     The article shows how Bellarmine refuted the Sedevacantists of his day (the early Protestants), with an argument that applies equally to their Sedevacantist counterparts of our day, and in fact is the same argument we have used against them.   We also quote the counter argument that a 16th century Lutheran scholar used against Bellarmine in an attempt to defend his Sedevacantist position - which just so happens to be the exact same argument that Fr. Cekada, Fr. Kramer, Mario Derksen of Novus Ordo Watch, and the other Sedevacantist apologists of our day have used to defend the same error against us!
       We also address the key issue of how the Church can judge that a Pope is a heretic, while he remains Pope, without violating the Pope's personal immunity from judgment ("the first see is judged by no one").
       Lastly, we end by refuting Fr. Kramer's embarrassing new error concerning the charism of infallibility, which he mistakenly believes a Pope can only enjoy if he possesses the virtue of faith "as its dispositive habit."  Full article here.




John Salza on Freemasonry's Infiltration of the Church (October 2020)


Two Contrasting Errors: Sedevacantism and Excessive-Papalism (False Obedience).


Why Cum ex Apostolatus Officio does not support Sedevacantism (10-13-2018)
* Formal Reply to the Never-ending Lies of Fr. Paul Leonard Kramer: Part I  Part II  (Jan./Feb. 2018)


TRUE OR FALSE POPE?
Refuting Sedevacantism and Other Modern Errors
By John Salza and Robert Siscoe (700 pages)

"A comprehensive and definitive refutation, firmly grounded in ecclesiology, has been sorely needed. We thus pray that "True or False Pope?" finds its way to many Catholics of good will. Mr. Salza and Mr. Siscoe’s book will surely afford much clarity to the reader." ~ His Excellency, Bishop Bernard Fellay

True or False Pope? is simply luminous. Covering a vast territory with unique clarity, it surpasses every work of its kind and is arguably one of the most important books written on the post-conciliar crisis.” ~ Fr. Steven Reuter, Professor, Natural Law Ethics, St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary



       In this four part series, we will reply to Fr. Kramer’s 250 page attack on True or False Pope?  In Part I, we will address three key “heresies” Fr. Kramer accuses us of holding concerning the specific issue of how heresy severs a person from the Church, from which are borne the two main straw man arguments he attacks throughout his book. We will demonstrate that all three accusations are entirely false by quoting directly from our book.  Once these accusations of heresy are shown to be false, the two main straw man arguments – which together constitute the foundation he spends most of his time attacking - will be removed; and when the foundation is taken away, all the arguments and false accusations of heresy erected upon it will crumble (which will then require that Fr. Kramer re-write his entire “refutation”). 


In Part II will clarify some important distinctions, and address a quotation from Mystici Corporis Christi, of Pius XII, as well as a quotation from Van Noort, that Fr. Kramer mistakenly believes refutes our position (quite the contrary, as we will see!).  In Parts III and IV, we will discuss the question of how a heretical prelate loses his jurisdiction/office, which is not the same question as how heresy severs a person from the Church (these are two distinct issues). This will include important material that we have never published before, as well as recently translated material from St. Bellarmine that refutes Fr. Kramer’s and the Sedevacantists’ interpretation and application of his opinion concerning a heretical Pope, and confirms precisely what we have been arguing for years.  Click here for Part I 

TRUE OR FALSE POPE?
Refuting Sedevacantism and Other Modern Errors
By John Salza and Robert Siscoe (700 pages)
Foreword by
His Excellency, Bishop Bernard Fellay
True or False Pope? is the most thoroughly researched, detailed and systematic refutation of Sedevacantism that exists. In this 700 page tome, John Salza and Robert Siscoe present material from Popes, ecumenical councils and Doctors of the Church that you will never find on a Sedevacantist website. Quoting directly from today’s leading Sedevacantist apologists, Salza and Siscoe reveal how Sedevacantists have distorted the teachings of their favorite Popes and theologians, especially St. Robert Bellarmine, and how they even contradict each other. The book also reveals the many unfortunate tactics used by Sedevacantists in an effort to “prove” their case.

The authors begin by demonstrating that Sedevacantism logically results in a denial of the attributes (visibility, indefectibility, infallibility) and marks (especially apostolicity) of the Catholic Church. After explaining the bonds that unite man to the Church, the authors explain the distinction between heresy and lesser errors, and how the sin of heresy alone does not sever one from external union with the Church. The authors then go on to provide the most detailed analysis in print of what the Church does in the case of a heretical Pope, based upon the teachings of all the classical theologians who addressed the topic. After a very important explanation of the scope of infallibility (papal, conciliar, disciplinary, New Mass, canonizations), the authors address Sedevacantist arguments against the new rites of episcopal consecration and ordination. The authors conclude by affirming the Recognize & Resist position of Traditional Catholics, and expose in great detail the bitter fruits of Sedevacantism.

This groundbreaking work proves the Sedevacantist thesis is an overreaction to the crisis in the Church, akin to the reflexive “faith” of Protestantism. This explains why Sedevacantists are divided into many competing factions and sects (some of which have elected their own "Popes) that contradict and condemn each other. The book also underscores that the Church is currently suffering a mystical Passion similar to that of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Like those who lost faith in Christ during His Passion, Sedevacantists have lost faith in the Church, His Mystical Body, as it passes through a similar Passion of its own. Having lost their faith in the Church, they have become among her most bitter persecutors. No matter what one’s perspective is on the crisis of the Church, anyone who reads this book will conclude in no uncertain terms that Sedevacantism – one of the great modern errors of our times – far from being a “solution” to the crisis, cannot be held or defended in good faith by any true Catholic.


  1. “PROFESSION OF THE TRUE FAITH”: CATHOLIC DEFINITION VS. SEDEVACANTIST DEFINITION (3/19/16)   
  2.  A RENOWNED 17TH CENTURY CANONIST REFUTES SEDEVACANTISM
  3. SEDEVACANTISTS REJECT PRE-VATICAN II POPE
  4. MEET THE SEDEVACANTIST ANTI-POPES
  5. SALZA AND SISCOE INTERVIEW WITH LOUIE VERRECCHIO TRANSLATED INTO SPANISH (2/10/16)  
  6. A RENOWNED 17TH CENTURY CANONIST REFUTES SEDEVACANTISM   
  7. THE WEBSITE FROM ROME REVIEWS “TRUE OR FALSE POPE?”(2/1/16)  
  8. MEET THE SEDEVACANTIST ANTI-POPES (1/18/16)
  9. Part II: Gloria.TV Interviews Robert Siscoe and John Salza about the book (1/18/16)
  10. BRIAN MCCALL ON FR. CEKADA: HE FEARS CRITIQUES OF SEDEVACANTISM   
  11. Gloria.TV Interviews Robert Siscoe and John Salza about their New Book, "True or False Pope?" (1/6/16)
  12. THE SEDEVACANTIST’S IRRATIONAL RESPONSE TO THE BOOK, TRUE OR FALSE POPE? (1/5/16)
  13. LOUIE VERRECCHIO INTERVIEWS JOHN SALZA AND ROBERT SISCOE ABOUT THEIR NEW BOOK (12/18/15)   
  14. CFN INTERVIEWS SALZA & SISCOE ON THE BOOK (12/15)    

QUESTIONING FR. CEKADA’S JUDGMENT

For decades, Fr. Anthony Cekada has been publicly promoting the position that the man elected to the papal office by the Church, and accepted as Pope by the Church, is not, in fact, a true Pope. In other words, for decades Fr. Cekada has been publicly promoting his own personal opinion, even though it is in direct opposition to the public judgment of the Church. Added to this, and demonstrating a profound lack of humility, he has publicly mocked, ridiculed and engaged in childishness name-calling against those Catholics who refuse to accept his personal opinion regarding this matter.

Because Fr. Cekada has chosen to reject the
judgment of the Church, and instead present his personal opinion as a fact which other Catholics must accept, we believe it is entirely appropriate for us to consider whether Fr. Cekada has the ability to form correct and sound judgments on moral and doctrinal issues. For our example, we will consider Fr. Cekada’s personal judgment regarding the Terri Schiavo case. We will also look at Fr. Cekada’s latest post (in response to our interview with Louie Verrecchio) and show that his arguments have hit a new intellectual low.

Read More (PDF)