The first edition of “True or False Pope?” exposed many of the errors and false accusations of the Sedevacantist apologist, John Lane, one of which was accusing Fr. Boulet (SSPX) of citing a fraudulent and “invented” quote. In "True or False Pope?", we proved that the quotation in question was entirely authentic, and requested that, in justice, Mr. Lane retract his false accusation and publicly apologize denigrating the good priest. Unfortunately, Mr. Lane adamantly refused and instead attempted to shift the blame to the authors of “True or False Pope?”.
Because Mr. Lane of this, and in order to clear up the good name of Fr. Boulet, we are citing the section of “True or False Pope?” (second edition) in which Mr. Lane’s false accusation is exposed.
Defending Fr. Boulet Fromt the False Accusation Of John Lane
Before proceeding, permit us a brief detour. We have already noted the deference that Sedevacantists give to the ecclesiology of St. Robert Bellarmine. As we will further demonstrate in the next chapter, their deference is based upon a misunderstanding of Bellarmine’s teaching that “a manifestly heretical Pope is ipso facto deposed,” which they interpret as meaning that a Pope whom they personally judge to be a heretic must have lost his office (more on this later). However, as we saw above, Bellarmine indicated that he also held to the opinion that a Pope could not fall into heresy, even as a private individual, even though Popes Innocent III and Adrian VI expressly taught against this view and Bellarmine himself admitted that the common opinion was the contrary. Nevertheless, the Sedevacantists generally side with Bellarmine, rather than the common opinion held by Popes Innocent and Adrian. Why?
Perhaps the Sedevacantists side with Bellarmine because this position (that a Pope cannot fall into heresy) makes their case much easier to “prove,” since a “hereticizing” Pope could certainly be considered by a reasonable person to have lost interior faith. And this is, in fact, a common opinion among many traditional Catholics, to whom it seems likely that the post-conciliar Popes lost the faith internally, due to their many words and actions which render them suspect of heresy. Therefore, since many traditional Catholics believe the recent Popes lacked the interior virtue of faith, if the Sedevacantist can convince these Catholics that a true Pope cannot lose the faith, it makes it that much easier to draw them into the Sedevacantist sect. And there is no question that many Catholics have been deceived by this line of argumentation.
Further, because Sedevacantists base their thesis primarily upon the teaching of Bellarmine (that a manifestly heretical Pope is ipso facto deposed), many of them exalt Bellarmine to a “super-Magisterial” status, and thus follow his position (that a Pope cannot be a heretic) over that of Popes Innocent and Adrian (who said a Pope can be a heretic). And they defend this opinion almost as if it were a dogma, even though, as we have seen, Bellarmine himself admitted that the common opinion was contrary to his own.
To show the extent to which Sedevacantists go in defending Bellarmine, we can look to the example of the lay Sedevacantist apologist John Lane, who went so far as to publicly declare that the quote from Pope Adrian VI, who taught that a Pope can “teach heresy,” is a fabrication. Lane even impugned the good name of Fr. Dominique Boulet who used this citation from Pope Adrian in his article “Is That Chair Vacant? A SSPX Dossier on Sedevacantism.” In response to the article, Lane rashly accused Fr. Boulet of being “deceived by fraudulent quotes which he has carelessly lifted from some place unknown.” On his website, Lane further denigrates the priest with his smug comment: “Poor Fr. Boulet - he literally grabbed quotes from the Net, it seems, and cobbled them together.”
When Lane himself later discovered that the “unknown” sixteenth century citation was not simply grabbed from the internet, but quoted in an early twentieth century book (published in 1904), Lane, with no evidence whatsoever, claimed that the quotation included in the book had been “invented” by the author (another rash and baseless accusation). And because the 1904 book had been placed on the Index, Mr. Lane used this fact to support his assertion that the quotation was “invented” by the author, as if the book being on the Index in any way implies that the quote was invented. When the same quotation was later cited by Robert Siscoe in an article published in The Remnant newspaper, Mr. Lane referred to it on his website as the “invented quote from Pope Adrian VI, taken from a book [the 1904 book] which St. Pius X put on the Index.” Then, based on his own groundless assertion that the quotation was “invented,” Lane went on to accuse the non-Sedevacantist authors who have cited the quotation of being “complete charlatans without the slightest affection for the moral law or truth itself.”
In order to recover the good name of Fr. Boulet, and any others tarnished by the false accusations of John Lane, we provide a longer version of the quotation, taken from the original Latin of Adrian VI’s work Quaestiones in Quartum Sententiarum Praesertim Circa Sacramenta, which was published in 1516 – five centuries before Mr. Lane claims the quote was “invented”.
“Ad secundum principale de facto Gregorii, dico primo quod si per Ecclesiam Romanam intelligatur caput ejus, puta Pontifex, Certum est quod possit errare, etiam in his, quae tangent fidem, haeresim per suam determinationem aut Decretalem asserendo; plures enim fuere Pontifices Romani haeretici. Item et novissime fertur de Joanne XXII, quod publice docuit, declaravit, et ab omnibus teneri mandavit, quod animas purgatae ante finale judicium non habent stolam, quae est clara et facialis visio Dei.”
The above citation was also quoted by Bishop Bossuet (1627-1704) in his Complete Works, edited and published in Paris in 1841,  and was even referenced by St. Robert Bellarmine himself in De Romano Pontifice.
Since Mr. Lane did not hesitate to accuse those who have cited the authentic quotation of being “complete charlatans” who lack “the slightest affection for the moral law or truth itself,” we hope he offers them a public apology - at least to Fr. Boulet, since denigrating the good name of a priest is no minor offense - now that he realizes the quotation is, in fact, genuine. If he fails to do so, one might be tempted to believe that it is public detractor himself (Mr. Lane) who lacks “the slightest affection for the moral law or truth itself.” Making false and baseless accusations, and then using them as a means to denigrate those who oppose their errors and heresy, is, unfortunately, a very common tactic employed by Sedevacantist apologists.
Having cleared up this point, we now return to our consideration of whether a Pope can, in fact, fall into heresy.
 The reasoning is as follows: A Pope cannot lose the faith interiorly (major); but the recent Popes “obviously” lacked interior faith (minor); therefore, they could not have been true Popes (conclusion).
 Lane, “Concerning a SSPX Dossier on Sedevacantism, By Rev. Dominique Boulet, SSPX” (emphasis added), which may be found at sspx_dossier_sede. pdf.
 See http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1387&view = previous.
 Book: L’Infaillibilité du pape et le Syllabus, (Besançon: Jacquin; Paris: P. Lethielleux, 1904).
 Hadrianus , Quaestiones in Quartum Sententiarum Praesertim Circa Sacramenta (Louvain, Belgium: 1516), Confirmationes, XXIII, p. 42. The underlined portion was cited earlier in English.
 “Dico primo quod si per Ecclesiam Romanam intelligatur caput ejus, puta Pontifex, Certum est quod possit errare, etiam in his, quae tangent fidem, haeresim per suam determinationem aut Decretalem asserendo; plures enim fuere Pontifices Romani haeretici. Item et novissime fertur de Joanne XXII, quod publice docuit, declaravit, et ab omnibus teneri mandavit, quod animas purgatae ante finale judicium non habent stolam, quae est clara et facialis visio Dei” (De Bossuet, ‘Oeuvres Complètes’, Tome XVI, Paris: Adrien Le Clère, imprimeur-libraire, rue; Lille: L. Lefort, imprimeur-libraire, 1841, p. 686.
 Calling Mr. Lane’s offense the sin of detraction is giving him the benefit of the doubt, since “the detractor narrates what he at least honestly thinks is true.” But even so, “detraction in a general sense is a mortal sin, as being a violation of the virtue not only of charity but also of justice.” Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), vol. IV, p. 757.