In this section, we will respond to Sedevacantists' attempted refutations of our book and articles, including those published by Fr. Anthony Cekada and his disciple Mario Derksen (who runs the Sedevacantist website NovusOrdoWatch).
 |
| Little Mario Derksen of Novus Ordo Watch |
 |
| Fr. Anthony Cekada |
Francis Schuckardt (aka AntiPope Hadrian VII) is the founder of the CMRI, which is sect that Mario Derksen of Novus Ordo Watch joined after he publicly defecting from the Catholic Church in 2005. Fr. Cekada's longtime partner, Bishop Dolan, received his episcopal consecration from Schuckardt's successor, Mark Pivaurunas.
____________________________________________________________________________
Mario Derksen of Novus Ordo Watch Denies the Dogma of Indefectibility
(and ALL Sedevacantists do the same)
John Salza, J.D.
October A.D. 2024
When we recently challenged Sedevacantist Mario Derksen of Novus Ordo Watch to tell us which bishops in the world today have jurisdiction, he first expressed his ignorance about this dogmatic necessity as it pertains to the Church’s attribute of indefectibility (that Christ’s Church will always have a College of Bishops with mission and jurisdiction from the Pope until the end of time). He then ended by effectively denying the dogma. Continue reading...
_____________________________________________________________________
Why Sedevacantism and IndependentTraditional Catholicism is Wrong
By 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
_________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
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...
_____________________________
Documentary on the CMRI sect
___________________________
Answering
the Objection to "The True Meaning of Bellarmine's Ipso Facto Loss of
Office Theory"
2) ...
________________________________________
New Bombshell Article!
True Meaning of Bellarmine’s Ipso Facto Loss Of OfficeTheory For A Heretical Pope
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."
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."
__________________________________________
This is brief article, taken from the 2nd edition of True or False Pope?, is an easy to understand refutation of the Sedevacantist heresy. It covers one of the many traditional doctrines that Sedevacantist apologists carefully avoid, and we provide quotations from two of the Sedevacantists favorite pre-Vatican II theologians (Msgr. Van Noort and Cardinal Billot) to explain it. (here)
___________________________________________________
Two Contrasting Modern-Errors: Sedevacantism and Excessive-Papalism
______________________________________________________
This article
is a reply to a recent blog post by Ron Conte.
It explains what Bellarmine and others mean when they refer to a Pope teaching
“as Pope,” and delves deep into the doctrine of Papal Infallibility and Vatican
I’s teaching on the charism of truth and unfailing faith.
________________________________________
Br. Bugnolo’s Attempt to Redefine Dogmatic Facts Backfires:He Ends by Proving Francis is the Pope
This is Part II of our ongoing debate with Br. Alexis Bugnolo. Part I here
___________________________________________________________
Fr. Kramer's Canonical Confusion (Siscoe vs. Kramer debate)
This recent debate with Fr. Kramer reveals how he misrepresents history and distorts canon law. It also answers the common objection that a Pope cannot be judged or warned.
___________________________________________
Bonds of Unity with the Church (Reply to John Lane)
This a slightly revised section of the 2nd edition of True or False Pope?, which answers an objection John Lane has been spreading online and via e-mail, concerning the bonds of unity with the Church.
The Five Opinions of Bellarmine
In this multi-part article, we will examine
the Five Opinions discussed by Bellarmine in De Romano Pontifice
concerning an heretical Pope and if or how he can be deposed This series will examine each of the opinions
in depth, and including recently translated material from Bellarmine –
some of which has been published and some that has not – which clarifies his
own position on both the speculative level (i.e., what is required for an
heretical Pope to be ipso facto deposed), and the practical level, as
far as the laity are concerned, and proves how how egregiously the Sedevacantist heretics have misrepresented his position. This will be by far the most extensive treatment of the five opinions that has ever been published. Continue to Part I.
________________________________________________________________
Sadevacantist Bishop, Donald Sanborn: Cum ex Apostolatus Officio is null and void
_________________________________________________
Dogmatic Facts: The Legitimacy of Francis Election
1) The Peaceful and Universal Acceptance of a Pope
2) Dogmatic Fact: The One Doctrine that Proves Francis is the Pope (Part I)
2) Dogmatic Fact: The One Doctrine that Proves Francis is the Pope (Part I)
3) For Each Objection, an Answer: Why Francis is Pope (Part II)
4) Reply to "A Friendly Challenge to Robert Siscoe" Concerning the Legitimacy of Francis' Election
5) Is the doctrine of the Peaceful and Universal Acceptance Heresy?
6) Peaceful and Universal Acceptance - Quotes
5) Is the doctrine of the Peaceful and Universal Acceptance Heresy?
6) Peaceful and Universal Acceptance - Quotes
_______________________________________________
Dominique Bouix on the Heretical Pope
19th Century Treatise on the question of an heretical Pope
Translated by by Gerardus Maiella
Dominique Bouix, Tractatus de papa, ubi et de concilio oecumenico, vol. II , pars IIIa, cap. iii
______________________________________________________
Pope Celestine's III's Error on the indissolubility of Marriage
This article demonstrates the limitations of Papal Infallibility by discussing the little-known error of Pope Celestine III, who, in response to a dubia, stated that a women should remain in a second adulterous "marriage" rather than returning to her first (true) husband. We provide Bellarmine and Cajetan's commentary on this case, which shows that many centuries before the First Vatican Council defined Papal Infallibility, those who defended the infallibility of the Pope knew it only applied to definitive teachings, and not to every teaching of the Pope's authentic Magisterium. We should also note that Fr. Cekada produced a deceptive video about a previous article that addressed the case of Celestine, in which he entirely misrepresented what the author wrote about Bellarmine's commentary on the case. This article includes Bellarmine's entire commentary, which speaks for itself.
______________________________________
Was St. Vincent Ferrer Really a Sedevacantist?
Was St. Vincent Ferrer Really a Sedevacantist?
This article explains the true history of St. Vincent Ferrer and Benedict XIII, and proves that the Sedevacantist's claim that St. Vincent was "a practical and theoretical Sedevacantist" (John Lane) is pure fiction.
_____________________________________________________
Chapters 1 & 2 of "True or False Pope?"
The Marks and Attributes of the Church
_________________________________
Robert Siscoe and John of St. Thomas Respond to Fr. Cekada
(Published in Catholic Family News)
_______________________________________
Why Cum ex Apostolatus Officio Does Not Support Sedevacantism
One of the favorite documents used by Sedevacantists to defend their position is the papal Bull of Pope Paul IV, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio. Does the bull support the Sedevacantist position? Was it infallible, and is it still legally in force? Why was the bull used by the opponents of Papal Infallibility, at the time of the First Vatican Council, to argue that the Pope is not infallible? click here to find out.
__________________________________________
The Infallibility of the Ordinary and Extraordinary Magisterium
When does the Church teach
infallibly? What is required for an
infallible teaching of the Extraordinary Magisterium, and how does the positive infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium
differ from the negative infallibility
of the Extraordinary Magisterium? Click
here to find out.
_________________________________________________________
FORMAL REPLY TO FR. KRAMER, PART II
Exposing
the Errors of Fr. Paul Kramer
on Mystici Corporis Christi
on Mystici Corporis Christi
One
of the common errors among Sedevacantists is the belief that the sin of heresy causes the loss of papal
office/jurisdiction. The error is based, in part, on a misunderstanding of a
quotation from Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Mystici
Corporis Christi, which will be addressed at length in this installment. Those
who embrace this error quickly take it upon themselves to judge whether or not
the Pope has committed the sin of heresy (while at the same time declaring “no
one can judge the Pope”), and if they personally judge that he has, they
immediately conclude that he is no longer Pope. The really “courageous” ones
will then publicly declare him to be an antipope, formally separate from him,
and accuse those who see through their errors of being too cowardly to call a
spade a spade.
And to be clear, for those who embrace “the
sin of heresy causes the loss of office” theory, it isn’t necessary for the
Pope to publicly admit that he denies a dogma. All that is required is that he seems to be a heretic to them. They take the Douglas Adams
approach to reach their verdict – namely, if he walks like a heretic and quacks
like a heretic, he must be a heretic; and if he’s a heretic, he’s not the Pope. Continue reading.
_________________________________
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”). Click here for Part I
_____________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
"I say that manifest
heretics, unless they are denounced by name, or themselves depart from the
Church, retain their jurisdiction and validly absolve. This is proved by the Bull of
Martin V…”
JOHN OF ST. THOMAS, O.P.: COMPLETE TREATISE ON THE LOSS OF OFFICE FOR A HERETICAL POPE
Whether a Pope can be Deposed by the Church, even as he is Elected by her; and in what Cases?
“PROFESSION OF THE TRUE FAITH”
How is the juridical bond severed?
How is the juridical bond severed?
 |
| St. Robert Bellarmine |
_________________________________________
A RENOWNED 17TH CENTURY CANONIST
_________________________________________________________________
A RENOWNED 17TH CENTURY CANONIST
Those who have carefully read the writings of Sedevacantists over the years are no doubt familiar with their tactics. If they happen upon a quotation that they think supports their position, the author in question will be praised to the skies and the quotation presented as absolute and irrefutable “proof” for their position. This is the case with any quotation that can be spun to support their position. On the other hand, when the quotation from an authority of equal or even greater weight is presented that explicitly and directly refutes their position, they simply ignore it. Or, if pressed to comment, they will simply declare that he is wrong, and move on without a second thought. They will even do this when they are presented with quotations of their own favorite theologians, when the particular quotation directly refutes their position. When they believe the theologian agrees with them, he is treated as an infallible oracle whose teaching cannot be doubted; when the same theologian disagrees with them, they will respond by saying “Theologians are not infallible!”
For those Sedevacantists who are of good will (and based on some recent e-mails we’ve received, there are many of you out there), we are going to provide a quotation from one of the greatest canonists of the early seventeenth century, which directly and explicitly refutes the Sedevacantist position. Continue...
_________________________________________________________________
- E-MAIL EXCHANGE BETWEEN JOHN SALZA AND FR. KRAMER (9-15-16)
- FR. ANTHONY CEKADA CAUGHT IN ANOTHER LIE –PART II (9-12-16)
- FR. ANTHONY CEKADA CAUGHT IN ANOTHER LIE IN HIS LATEST VIDEO (9-5-16)
- RESPONDING TO FR. KRAMER'S INTERPRETATION OF BELLARMINE (8-15-16)
- DID GOD KILL FR. GRUNER FOR RECOGNIZING FRANCIS AS POPE? FR KRAMER SAYS YES (8-19-16)
- PAUL KRAMER ARGUES PRIVATE JUDGMENT PREVAILS OVER THE PUBLIC JUDGMENT OF THE CHURCH (8-11-16)
- FR. PAUL KRAMER REJECTS THE COMMON THEOLOGICAL OPINION ON THE LOSS OF OFFICE FOR AHERETICAL POPE. (8-2-16)
- FR. KRAMER CITES A FRAUDULENT "QUOTE" TO JUSTIFY HIS REJECTION OF TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC THEOLOGY (7/28/16)
- JOHN LANE’S E-MAIL CAMPAIGN TO DISCREDIT “TRUE OR FALSE POPE?” EXPOSED
- PETER DIMOND REFUTED ONCE AGAIN ON THE NEW RITE OF ORDINATION (4/1/16)
- “PROFESSION OF THE TRUE FAITH”: CATHOLIC DEFINITION VS. SEDEVACANTIST DEFINITION (3/19/16)
- RESPONSE TO MARIO DERKSEN'S LATEST WEBCAST (3/15/16)
- FR.CEKADA ACCUSES ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE OF BEING A SEDEVACANTIST! (3/5/16)
- PETER DIMOND’S ERROR ON THE NEW RITE OF ORDINATION (2/24/16)
- BISHOP DONALD SANBORN EXPELLED A SEMINARIAN FOR ADHERING TO A TEACHING OF BILLOT! (2/20/16)
- WHY BISHOP SANBORN REJECTS THE PAPACY OF JOHN XXIII – YOU WON’T BELIEVE THIS! (2/18/16)
- SEDEVACANTISM KILL CHAIN (2/16/16)
- MARIO DERSKEN’S ERRONEOUS ANALOGY ON THE PASSION OF THE CHURCH (2/15/16)
- OUR REPLY TO CEKADA’S LATEST VIDEO (2/13/16) OUR
- A POINT-BY-POINT REFUTATION OF MARIO DERKSEN ON NESTORIUS (2/7/16)
- A RENOWNED 17TH CENTURY CANONIST REFUTES SEDEVACANTISM
- OUR REPLY TO FR. CEKADA'S SECOND VIDEO AGAINST TOFP (2/3/16)
- MARIO DERKSEN HAS NO ANSWER
- SEDEVACANTISM PROVEN FALSE BY THE CASE OF NESTORIUS
- SEDEVACANTISTS REJECT PRE-VATICAN II POPES
- MEET THE SEDEVACANTIST ANTI-POPES
- HERESY: THE HEART OF SEDEVACANTISM
- PART I: MARIO DERKSEN'S ERROR ON FACT VS. LAW
- FR. CEKADA'S NOVEL THEORY: THE SIN OF HERESY CAUSES THE LOSS OF OFFICE
- QUESTIONING FR. CEKADA’S JUDGMENT
- FR. CEKADA RECOGNIZES AND RESISTS POPE PIUS XII
- FATHER CEKADA'S GLARING ERROR ON CANON 151
- THE SEDEVACANTIST’S IRRATIONAL RESPONSE TO THE BOOK, TRUE OR FALSE POPE?
