RECENT UPDATES

*** 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 

________________________







_______________________


By 
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?

 By
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


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)