*** True or False Pope - Now available on Kindle ***

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)

True or False Pope - Now available on Kindle 


Addressing Jimmy Akin’s Statements
on Catholic Anathemas

John Salza
April A.D. 2024


            On April 25, 2024, Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers debated Protestant apologist James White at the First Baptist Church in Livingston, Louisiana on the topic of justification (Akin also debated White on sola Scriptura the previous evening). Before addressing the topic at hand, I wish to say that I respect a good share of Mr. Akin’s work as a Catholic apologist and thought he exposed White’s deficiencies during cross-examination. Indeed, it is my regard for Akin’s abilities that actually led me to write this critique, because in his efforts to find common ground with his opponent and the Protestant audience (which he admitted was his objective), I’m afraid he went too far, in my opinion, in conciliating them about Catholic anathemas, among other things.

            In regard to anathemas, I believe Akin made some misleading and even erroneous statements that I wish to address in this article. To set the stage for our analysis, after quoting St. Paul’s teaching in Galatians 1:8-9, where St. Paul uses the term “anathema” (v.9),[1] Akin claimed that James White has misrepresented the Church’s use of the term, by twisting it to mean that anyone who rejects the Church’s dogmatic canons (i.e., Trent’s canons on the Mass) “is under the anathema of God.” Continue reading...


Is the Pope the Head of the Church?
Don’t Ask Father

John Salza Replies to The Remnant’s Fr. Joseph Wilson 

Mr. John Salza, J.D., O.P.

March A.D. 2024 

       In The Remnant newspaper’s February 29, 2024 edition of its “Ask Father” column, Fr. Joseph Wilson (the “Father” who is “asked” the questions) replied to a letter from a prisoner named “N” which expressed concern over the veracity of the so-called “blessings” of sodomite unions recently permitted by Pope Francis. The prisoner mentioned that he shares the newspaper with fellow Christian prisoners and was asked by them to give a defense of same-sex “blessings” in light of Scripture and Tradition (this author, too, would like the Pope to offer such a defense to this latest “discipline”).

Needless to say, this prisoner, like anyone else with the sensus catholicus, has been scandalized by what Fiducia Supplicans appears to sanction, even if it also expresses a correct doctrinal judgment concerning the nature of marriage. The very fact that there has been a negative, universal reaction to the document – from Cardinals to laity – in spite of its affirmation of the doctrine of Holy Matrimony, is evidence of a prima facie incoherence with Catholic moral teaching and discipline.

Unfortunately, Fr. Wilson’s efforts to alleviate the prisoner’s concern – which I no doubt believe were well-intentioned – actually promote a heresy (one that is becoming surprisingly common today), and thus serve as an example of how an overreaction to the errors of the Left can actually result in an even worse error on the Right. To reiterate, it is not Fr. Wilson’s sincerity that is being questioned; rather, it is Catholic dogma that must be defended, even when it is being denied with the best of intentions, as I’m sure Fr. Wilson would agree. That is the purpose of this article.

Note that I have also sent this article to Michael Matt (a long-time colleague of mine) requesting that he publish the article, but have not heard back from him. It would be most appropriate if Mr. Matt publish this fraternal correction, since he published Fr. Wilson’s heretical material in the first place. Continue reading... 

John Salza Interview with Scholastic Answers

In this interview, John Salza discusses papal heresy, "deposing" a Pope and the errors and heresies of Sedevacantism
John Salza vs. SSPX: Who is right?

In this unscripted mock debate, John Salza answers the common arguments of the SSPX and their apologists.


 Ed Mazza Accuses John Salza of Error but Refuses to Debate Him on the Issue

January A.D. 2024 

                On December 9, 2023, Dr. Ed Mazza held a video conference called “Is the Pope Catholic?” The conference, which also included speakers Archbishop Vigano, Fr. Paul Kramer, Ann Barnhardt, and Elizabeth Yore, was devoted to enlightening all of us as to why Pope Francis is really an antipope. Like all Sedevacantists, one of the reasons advanced by Mazza & Company in support of their theory is that Francis is a heretic, and heretics cannot hold jurisdiction in the Church. Quite amusingly, during his talk, Mazza put up a slide which quoted from Karl Rahner (the liberal Vatican II peritus) who says “But possession of ordinary ecclesiastical authority and non-membership in the Church [for public material heresy] are mutually exclusive notions…”  Continue reading...


SSPX: Indefensible
A Concise Treatment of the Canonical Status of the Society of St. Pius X

Noah Weidig and Wesley Weidig

Introductory Note: The authors wish to express their deepest gratitude to John Salza Esq. and Robert Siscoe for their incredible writing on this subject. They have brought extreme clarity to the issues surrounding the SSPX, and their work can be found at True or False Pope. The authors also wish to thank Dom Dalmasso and Andrew Bartel at The Logos Project as well as Michael Lofton at Reason and Theology for their tireless work on this topic. For further reading on these subjects, please refer to the SSPX Page on, which has served as an invaluable resource in this project. The authors claim no originality in these arguments since this is a summary or compilation of the work of the individuals mentioned herein. 


The canonical status of the Priestly Fraternity or Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) is among the most highly debated subjects within the traditional Catholic movement. Is the SSPX a part of the Catholic Church? Is it schismatic or excommunicated? Do its priests and bishops have jurisdiction? Does the Society have a canonical mission? While these questions may appear to be a wholesale dismissal of the organization, they are of serious concern since roughly 600,000 Catholic faithful regularly attend SSPX Masses and receive their sacraments.[1] To avoid these questions would be gravely negligent, as the salvation of souls is at stake. Fr. Ramon Angl├ęs, SSPX, ironically admits that,

If… [the priests of the SSPX] have no faculties, all the priestly work they perform every day is illegitimate and therefore evil. If this is so, it would be a sin to receive their services, maybe even to ask for them. If such is the case, the Society is deceiving the good traditional Catholic faithful![2] (emphasis added)  Continue reading...


The 1989 Profession of Faith:
More Errors and Dishonesty from the SSPX

John F. Salza, Esq.
April A.D. 2023


            For the average Catholic who reads the material of the Society of St. Pius X, it is often very difficult to discern the Society’s many theological errors. This is because one error is generally based upon another error, or multiple errors, resulting in a tangled web of interdependent errors that can only be untangled by systematically addressing each error, one at a time (not to mention having the theological knowledge to do so). We see how complex this web of errors can be, by just looking at the Society’s treatment of the Church’s Profession of Faith, promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1989. Continue reading...


“Who Sent You?” Keeping All Complicit Clergy Accountable


Andrew Bartel

(This article was first published by Catholic World Report on March 14, 2023. After twenty-four hours of blowback from critics on social media, the editorial team at CWR removed some of the offensive expressions in the concluding paragraphs. We believe that these sentences should not have been censored, since they convey important grave realities about the situation of the Society of St. Pius X. The imagery of marriage and human sexuality as a way of understanding the drama between God and his people is of ancient usage in the Judeo-Christian tradition, from the Old Testament prophets to the Gospels, and from the Epistles of St. Paul to the Fathers, Doctors, and Saints of the Church. Considering Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre himself made use of the same kind of imagery in his (in)famous sermon at Lille on August 29, 1976, the hypocrisy of the outraged pro-SSPX critics is strikingly evident. The original article is therefore reproduced here in its entirety.)  Continue Reading


Why Sedevacantism and IndependentTraditional Catholicism is Wrong

Eric Hoyle

We would like to share a research paper newly published by Eric Hoyle, a former Sedevacantist with whom we have corresponded about the pope heretic issue.  Thanks in part to our work, he has come to believe that both Sedevacantism and independent traditionalism are untenable.   He makes some of the same points that are in chapters 1 and 2 of True or False Pope.

The best part of this paper is the large collection of quotations, especially those translated from Cardinal Mazzella's treatise De Ecclesia.  They demonstrate that the Church must always have bishops who are successors of the Apostles, and that all legitimate ministry requires a mission – two key points that many independent traditionalists deny. Continue Reading


Did Abp. Lefebvre Say the New Mass?

Kennedy Hall Only Makes Things Worse
for Lefebvre and the SSPX

John F. Salza, Esq.
February A.D. 2023 

            Kennedy Hall, the self-proclaimed lay apologist for the SSPX, recently released a video accusing Michael Lofton and me of calumny for claiming Archbishop Lefebvre celebrated the New Mass. Yes, this accusation comes from a man who falsely accused me of backing out of a debate, even though his own emails admit that he was the one to back out. (here) This also comes from a man who almost exclusively uses ad hominem arguments against his opponents, whom he labels “enemies of the Church.” Even though I have over 20 hours of podcasts and as many articles defending the Church by explaining the errors of the SSPX, Hall conspicuously avoids engaging my theological and canonical arguments on any meaningful level; he would rather attack my character with lies and misrepresentations, and claim that Marcel Lefebvre, who died under a declared excommunication for schism, is the victim. That is his approach.

Mr. Hall certainly has a distorted understanding of what calumny is. The Catholic Encyclopedia defines calumny as “the unjust damaging of the good name of another by imputing to him a crime or fault of which he is not guilty.” So, according to Hall, a priest who celebrates the Novus Ordo Mass – a rite promulgated by the Roman Pontiff for the entire Latin Church – is actually guilty of committing a crime or grave faultContinue reading...


 John Salza Responds to Peter Kwasniewski on the SSPX

January A.D. 2023 

Following is my response to Peter Kwasniewski’s hit-and-run post about my January 9, 2023 interview with Matt Fradd on the SSPX. 

Before addressing his points, notice that Peter admits he only “listened to about an hour” of my three hour and fifteen-minute interview, but then provides a laundry list of points he claims I did not cover or failed to distinguish, again, even though he did not listen to over 2/3rds of the interview, and which actually did include discussion on many of the points he claims I missed (i.e, the Magisterium’s levels of authority, obedience, the problems with Pope Francis, etc). Evidently Peter thinks so highly of himself that he believes he can publicly refute his opponents’ arguments without listening to their entire arguments. Continue reading...

Sedevacantists, or those who believe the position is tenable, start here: 


 Kennedy Hall Backed Out of Debating Salza, then Lied about it

              The purpose of this piece is to protect the reputations of Matt Fradd and John Salza against the defamatory statements that Kennedy Hall has spread about them on social media. We hope that Mr. Hall will remove his libelous statements, as Mr. Fradd has asked him to do, in Catholic charity, for the sake of all parties involved.  Continue reading


Robert J Siscoe

In a recent podcast, the Sedevacantist apologist, John Lane, argued that the case of Marcellinus offering incense to idols was only included in the Liber Pontificalis to serve as a moral lesson for what Catholics should never do, and not because it was believe to be historically true. Is Mr. Lane right? Continue reading.


Robert Siscoe
January 5, 2023

Dear FMP 

Thank you for the email and question.  I am going to begin by summarizing your position.

You agree that Benedict validly resigned the active exercise of His ministry (ministerium) as the bishop of Rome, but you nevertheless believe he remained the one and only Pope until the day of his death (which happened after you send the email). 

I assume that the reason you believe he remained Pope is because you believe the valid resignation only applied to the active exercise of the ministry (ministerium), but not the munus (office) itself. 

The first problem is... Continue reading

John F. Salza, Esq.


A person named Joe Bocca wrote a reply (“Operation Survival: A Case for the SSPX”) to my article “Does the SSPX Have an Extraordinary Mission?” In my article, I demonstrate that the ministry of the Society of St. Pius X is illegitimate due to its lack of a juridical (or extraordinary) mission, according to divine law and the teaching of the Church. In short, the SSPX is not part of, nor has been sent by, the Roman Catholic Church, and the SSPX also rejects the Catholic Church’s universal Profession of Faith (among other doctrines). Moreover, the bishops of the SSPX were selected and consecrated contrary to the will of the Holy Father, and thus are schismatics. Therefore, the clergy of the SSPX are not considered legitimate Catholic ministers.

Mr. Bocca’s “case for the SSPX” is entirely flawed ab initio, because he thinks the SSPX can operate due to a suspension of the Church’s legislative laws, based on the ever nebulous and subjective “state of necessity,” and the higher law “the salvation of souls” (the predictable and perfunctory appeals of the false traditionalists). The obvious problem with Mr. Bocca’s argument is that ... Continue here.


SSPX vs. The Saints

SSPX: The Founders Distorted Theology on Tradition and the Church

What Does the Church Say About Attending an SSPX Mass?


SSPX Priest Proves the Society is in Schism

Fr. Gleize Makes a Devastating Admission
and a Fatal Theological Error

Mr. John F. Salza, O.P.
November A.D. 2022


In this article, issued shortly after many podcasts on the Society’s schism were aired, Fr. Gleize attempts to refine the Society’s position on schism and the 1988 consecrations. In fact, Fr. Gleize tries to use the teachings of Pope Pius XII – who condemned illicitly consecrated bishops as “thieves and robbers” - to show that the “episcopate in the Society is not schismatic.”Clearly, Fr. Gleize believed it was necessary to confront the very teachings from Pius XII we have used this past year to demonstrate the SSPX’s schism, by trying to make distinctions that spare the Society from the Pope’s condemnations.  Unfortunately, Fr. Gleize’s efforts have backfired on him.

As we will see, Fr. Gleize makes a devastating admission and a fatal theological error which proves, without a doubt, that the 1988 consecrations of the SSPX were schismatic, just as Pope John Paul II declared. Continue...


Robert J. Siscoe
          November 2022 

The following email exchange between Robert Siscoe and an SSPX priest (former seminary professor), which took place in 2021, explains the reason the authors of True or False Pope? no longer support the SSPX.  Continue…



Robert J. Siscoe

For years, Sedevacantists have been spreading the myth that St. Vincent Ferrer was a “theoretical and practical Sedevacantist” - that is, that he used his private judgment to determine that Peter de Luna (Benedict XIII) had lost his office, ipso facto, and then declared on his own authority that the Papal See was vacant.   There was no need for canonical warnings or a declaration from the Church, they assure us, for the Saint to reach his verdict.  He simply applied the proper theological principles and arrived at the obvious conclusion that any Catholic who knew his faith would have reached.

Furthermore, as the story goes, St. Vincent had the “courage” to take matters into his own hands by making the fact known.  Therefore, on the Feast of the Epiphany, in the year of our Lord, 1416, in the presence of nobleman, prelates, and even Benedict XIII himself, the great St. Vincent Ferrer heroically declared before a crowd of 10,000 that the Chair of Peter was vacant! – all based on nothing but his own private judgment.  

This is the fable that the Sedevacantist have been spreading for years to support their position.  In this article, we will see what actually happened in the case of St. Vincent and Benedict XIII, which is far different than what the Sedevacantist heretics would have us believe.  Continue...


Email Exchange with a Sedevacantist Apologist

A Sedevacatist apologist forwarded us a paper he wrote that attempted to refute our position and asked us for our thoughts.  We are posting the cordial but lengthy email exchange that ensued, which contains some information that we have not published.  Continue reading... 

Dear Traditional Catholics: Don’t Trust the Writings of the SSPX Like I Did

John Salza Responds to One Peter Five
and also Exposes its Error on the Sunday Obligation 

John F. Salza
31 July A.D. 2022


Yesterday, One Peter Five released an article called “John Salza Replies to John Salza.” The article pits my former positions on the SSPX (dating back to over ten years ago) with my current position, which I reached after digging much more deeply into the issues over the past few years. In fact, one could substitute “SSPX” for “Salza 2013” etc., because all my former positions that the One Peter Five piece presents, were simply SSPX talking points, which I gleaned from Society writings during the time I was attending the SSPX chapel and adopted as my own. The One Peter Five “article,” if you want to call it that, is really a presentation of the Society’s arguments vs. the position I currently hold (it is really a “SSPX vs. Salza 2022” comparison).

Hence, I titled this present article Don’t Trust the Writings of the SSPX Like I Did, because I want those who are currently investigating or supportive of the Society’s position to not just take their word for it like I originally did, but actually go beyond the SSPX’s mere talking points (e.g., necessity justifies everything they do), and dig more deeply into the theological and canonical arguments which they claim justifies their operating without being part of, or sent by, the Roman Catholic Church. Continue reading...


Part I

John F. Salza, Esq.
July A.D. 2022


          Recently (April – June, 2022), the Society of St. Pius X issued yet another study addressing the historical and canonical details surrounding its establishment in 1970 up to its canonical status today (the authors of the various sections of the study chose to remain anonymous). The title of the study is “The Virtue of Epikeia in the History of the Society of St. Pius X,” and the SSPX goes on to explain, among other things, why it believes the virtue of epikeia justifies its ability to licitly exercise the priestly ministry throughout the world, without being part of, or canonically sent by, the Roman Catholic Church.

Unfortunately, the study is replete with unsubstantiated claims, canonical errors and even outright misrepresentations. Continue reading.

Is this Mass Intrinsically Evil?


John F. Salza, Esq.
   June A.D. 2022


     Recall what we learned in Part I of this article, that Fr. Reuter’s (and the SSPX’s) position is that it is impossible to interpret the documents of Vatican II in confirming with traditional doctrine (a hermeneutic of continuity, proposed by Pope Benedict XVI, is not possible, they say). Fr. Reuter articulated this position in Episode 30 of the Society’s Crisis in the Church series, called “Hermeneutic of Continuity: Big Word, Big Logical Leap.” However, as we have consistently seen in other podcasts of this series, when SSPX priests attempt to prove their thesis, they immediately contradict themselves, by referring to examples of someone’s faulty interpretation of the council, and not their analysis of the actual text. We saw this repeatedly in Fr. Wiseman’s podcast (Episode 48, “The 4 Questions You Should Ask Yourself about the Crisis”), which I exposed in my article “A Refutation of the SSPX’s Four Answers on the Crisis.” Continue reading...

Exposing the SSPX’s Rejection of the Hermeneutic of Continuity
 John Salza Responds to Fr. Reuter, SSPX – Part I

John F. Salza, Esq.
June A.D. 2022

   In Episode 30 of the Society’s Crisis in the Church series, called “Hermeneutic of Continuity: Big Word, Big Logical Leap,” Fr. Steven Reuter attempts to explain why the Society of St. Pius X rejects the approach of interpreting the documents of Vatican II in light of Tradition, or what Pope Benedict XVI called “the hermeneutic of continuity,” and instead believes the conciliar documents must be thrown out altogether. The SSPX’s position is based on the view that the documents don’t merely contain ambiguous statements that allow for an interpretation that is contrary to Tradition, but instead are full of teachings that positively teach error, and or even heresy, and therefore cannot be reconciled with Tradition, no matter how hard we might try. Consequently, the SSPX advocates that the documents of Vatican II should be rejected in toto (as a whole), rather than understood using a hermeneutic (or method of interpretation) in light of the Church’s prior teaching.  Continue...

A Refutation of the SSPX’s Appeal to Canonical Equity 
John Salza Replies to Fr. Peter Scott


          To justify their ability to operate without a canonical mission, and also to allegedly receive supplied jurisdiction, the clergy of the SSPX appeal to a principle called “canonical equity,” which is addressed in canon 19 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law. In the SSPX article “Supplied Jurisdiction and Traditional Priests,” Fr. Peter Scott states the question as follows: Continue reading...


For decades, the Society has fallaciously appealed to the historical case of St. Eusebius of the fourth century, to justify the illicit episcopal consecrations of Marcel Lefebvre in 1988. In this article, we will see misrepresented the sources it references for the case of Eusebius and inserts fake quotes to further mislead their readers. Continue... 

What if Traditional Priests are Suspended?
John Salza Replies to Chris Jackson

John F. Salza, Esq.
February A.D. 2022

 In light of the indefensible abuse of authority that is called Traditionis Custodes and the potential suppression of the Immemorial Mass, Mr. Chris Jackson recently authored a two-part feature called “What if All Traditional Priests are Suspended?” In Part II of the series, Mr. Jackson concludes that, if traditional priests are banned from saying the Old Mass, Catholics would still be able to fulfill their Sunday obligation under canon 1248 by assisting at their traditional Masses. As we will see, Mr. Jackson's principle error is that he does not understand that the “Catholic rite” of canon 1248 must be a liturgical rite that is celebrated in a Catholic church sui iuris (that is, a church lawfully erected by the supreme authority) and in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church, and not just an approved Missal. Therefore, Mr. Jackson’s conclusion that traditional Masses offered by “all traditional priests under suspension,” no matter what the context, fulfill the Sunday obligation, so long as a Catholic liturgical rite is used, is erroneous.  Continue reading

Exposing the SSPX’s Errors on Collegiality

John F. Salza, Esq.
February A.D. 2022

       In Episode 48 of the Society of St. Pius X’s Crisis in the Church series, Fr. Alexander Wiseman gave a podcast entitled “The 4 Questions to Ask Yourself about the Crisis.” The purpose of the podcast was to explain to Catholics what is the “right position to adopt in the face of this crisis” and, naturally, why the SSPX has adopted the correction position. The four questions Fr. Wiseman asks are: (1) Is there a crisis in the Church?; (2) Is the root of the crisis found in Vatican II and the New Mass?; (3) Should we publicly reject Vatican II and the New Mass?; and, (4) Should we recognize as Catholic the Roman authorities responsible for the crisis? Continue reading...

Collegiality in Light of Tradition
Is Collegiality a Novelty of Vatican II or the Traditional Doctrine on the Episcopate?

Robert J. Siscoe 

Part I

After years of hearing about the heresy of collegiality, but admittedly never quite understanding it, I finally decided to delve into the controversial topic to find out exactly what Vatican II taught and why it is wrong. To my surprise, what I discovered is that collegiality, as taught in Lumen Gentium, chapter III, and in the new Code of Canon law, is entirely traditional from start to finish. There is absolutely nothing novel about it, and nothing that conflicts in the least with Pastor Aeternus, or anything else taught in Vatican I.  Quite the contrary, as we will see.  Continue reading...


John F. Salza, Esq.
19 January A.D. 2022

       A couple days ago, January 17, 2022, Brian McCall’s article “The Ordinary Mission of the SSPX – Reply to Salza” was released. At the beginning of the article, Mr. McCall notes our long-standing relationship and his prior support of my work for Tradition, and wonders why, at this moment in history, I have changed my mind about the SSPX. It is a legitimate question...  Continue reading here 

Our Statement on the Society of St. Pius X


Many have asked why we have changed our position on the SSPX, since we frequented their chapels for many years, and particularly since the Society publicly endorsed our book True or False Pope?.  To be clear, we have no personal hostility toward the SSPX and the many good men in their ranks. We also continue to attend the Traditional Mass exclusively and hold the Recognize & Resist position, properly understood.

However, our extensive study of ecclesiology and Sedevacantism led us to the inescapable conclusion that the SSPX is in the same canonical and ecclesiastical position as the Sedevacantist and other independent clergy (outside of its delegated faculties), who are not part of the Roman Catholic Church, have no juridical mission from the Church, and hence cannot lawfully exercise their priestly powers.  In fact, we were forced to recognize that the Society advances the same erroneous arguments as the Sedevacantists do, to justify their operation without mission, which is contrary to the divine law.

In the course of our study, we also realized that the SSPX embraces other critical theological errors (on the Profession of Faith, juridical mission, supplied jurisdiction, Collegiality, sacramental intention, the nature of the Church, etc.) which we are addressing in our series of articles. Because many of these errors are rooted in an erroneous understanding of the Church itself (errors in ecclesiology), they are actually graver than the Liberal errors on the Left, and that is because they lead Catholics out of the Church, outside of which there is no salvation.

It is our firm hope and prayer that the Society renounce its doctrinal errors and accepts the Church’s Profession of Faith, so that it can be reconciled with the Roman Catholic Church, and given a canonical mission to carry out its ministry lawfully. It is for this purpose that we make our position public, so that the Society’s leadership (and those who support the SSPX) will see the truth, and take the necessary steps toward achieving the long-awaited reconciliation.


                   John Salza & Robert Siscoe

The SSPX Debate: Calling Out Kennedy’s Colossal Confusion on Canonical Mission

The SSPX Debate -
Calling Out Kennedy’s Colossal Confusion
on Canonical Mission

John F. Salza, Esq.
January A.D. 2022


Recently, a person named Kenney Hall wrote a reply to my article “The SSPX is Transgressing Divine Law.” In my article, I demonstrated that the ministry of the Society of St. Pius X is illegitimate due to lack of a canonical mission, according to divine law and the teaching of the Church. As with my first opponent (Nishant Xavier), Mr. Hall’s approach was to give a general apologia for the SSPX and the “salvation of souls,” without directly addressing any of my arguments (which are actually the de fide teachings of the Catholic Church). Continue reading here.

John Salza Responds to Fr. Zuhlsdorf
on SSPX Masses


January A.D. 2022

       On December 23, 2021, Fr. Zuhlsdorf posted the following question, which he received concerning John Salza’s article on whether Masses offered by the SSPX fulfill the Sunday and holy days obligation under canon 1248 (Salza’s article demonstrates that SSPX Masses do not fulfill the obligation):

"Does attending an SSPX Mass fulfill one’s Sunday obligation? I’m asking because I ran across the linked article below written by John Salza in November of this year arguing that attending an SSPX Mass does NOT fulfill the Sunday obligation to assist at Mass. The article threw me for a loop, as I’ve heard about the 9/27/2002 letter from Msgr. Perl, but not his 4/15/2002 letter; nor had I heard about the 2012 and 2015 letters from Ecclesia Dei, which seem to cast doubt on such attendance fulfilling the Sunday obligation."  

John Salza replied to Fr. Z privately via email, but as of yet has not received a reply.  We are therefore publishing Mr. Salza's email, which can be read 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

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


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)

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 

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.

  9. Part II: Gloria.TV Interviews Robert Siscoe and John Salza about the book (1/18/16)
  11. Gloria.TV Interviews Robert Siscoe and John Salza about their New Book, "True or False Pope?" (1/6/16)