Sedevacantist Watch

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). In addition to defending the book, this section will also include articles exposing the errors of Sedevacantism as well as other material related to Sedevacantism in general.

  Mario Derksen,  Source 
Fr. Anthony Cekada
                                     
                                                                                  
FEATURE ARTICLES




Popular blogger Ann Barnhardt made some waves last summer when she declared to the world that the man elected to the papacy by the Catholic Church, whom the entire Church and the world at large recognizes as the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church, is, in fact, an antipope.  “It is now clear to me,” she begins, “and I feel it morally incumbent upon me given my position to publicly state that I believe Jorge Bergoglio, ‘Francis’ to be an Antipope, never having been canonically elected, and that Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI is still the Roman Pontiff.”  Continue reading...






The Sedevacantist apologist, Steve Speray, recently posted an article on his website in which he argues that John of St. Thomas (JST) criticized St. Bellarmine for allegedly rejecting the need for warnings in the case of papal heresy.  For years, Mr. Speray has been employing any and every tactic to avoid the fact that Bellarmine clearly teaches that a heretical Pope must be avoided “after two corrections” as St. Paul teaches concerning heretics.  Mr. Speray located a snippet of John of St. Thomas’ writings on the internet, which he thought supported his erroneous interpretation of Bellarmine, and then used it in an attempt to defend his position.  What he didn’t realize is that he not only took JST completely out of context, but ended by interpreting him as meaning the exact opposite of what he actually says. Continue reading...





(…) The principal question is whether [the Pope] could be deprived of the papacy against his own will, for it is not evident who would deprive him of it; for no one is immediately deposed by God—for there is nothing in the ordinary Divine Law on this matter; nor should we expect God to do it in an extraordinary way.  Then again, there is no man who can depose the Pope from the papacy, since the Pope has no superior on earth, according to the twelfth Distinction [of the Decree of Gratian], chapter Nunc autem.  Continue reading.





The following is taken from email correspondence that Sedevacantist apologist John Lane initiated with John Salza, which was part of a greater email campaign against Salza and Siscoe, in which Lane also chose to copy a number of SSPX priests and make his attacks upon us semi-public. Note also that Lane is now publicly advancing these same lies and arguments on internet forums, using a pseudonym.  Thus, Lane deserves to be publicly denounced, once again. Continue reading…






The Remnant - Two-Part Feature
John F. Salza, Esq.

(January-February 2017)

       Now that it has been published (on November 14, 2016) that Pope Francis has refused to answer the dubia of the four Cardinals (Brandmüller, Burke, Caffarra and Meisner) issued to him on September 16, 2016 concerning his erroneous and even heretical teachings in Amoris Latitiae, many Catholics are wondering what happens next. Some may be tempted to jump the gun and declare, on their own authority, that Francis’ refusal to answer proves he is a formal heretic and thus has lost his office. Is that true? Continue...





The following began as a private e-mail correspondence between the authors of True or False Pope? and John Lane.  Since Mr. Lane decided to add a number of SSPX priests to the exchange (thereby making is semi-public), and because the exchange addresses some of the false accusations that are being spread about the book, we have chosen to publish it here.  There is more to this exchange, but we are limiting ourselves to publishing the following for now.    As the reader will see, at the end two of the priests on the e-mail exchange weighed in and took Mr. Lane to task for his false accusations. Continue reading...






"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…” 


The following excerpt from Charles Rene Billuart’s celebrated book, Summa St. Thomae, explains that heretical prelates retain their jurisdiction until a declaratory sentence is issued by the proper authorities.  He makes an exception, however, for a prelate who openly leaves the Church. He also refutes the common Sedevacantist error which maintains the Catholics are forbidden to receive the sacraments from undeclared heretics – that is, heretical clerics who are being tolerated by the Church.  Lastly, he explains that the common opinion is that a manifestly heretical pope retains his jurisdiction until he is declared a manifest heretic by the Church. Continue reading…



JOHN OF ST. THOMAS, O.P.: COMPLETE TREATISE ON THE LOSS OF OFFICE FOR A HERETICAL POPE

On the Authority of the Supreme Pontiff, Disp. 2, Art. 3

Whether a Pope can be Deposed by the Church, even as he is Elected by her; and in what Cases?

It cannot be held that the pope, by the very fact of being a heretic, would cease to be pope antecedently [prior] to a declaration of the Church.  It is true that some seem to hold this position; but we will discuss this in the next article.  What is truly a matter of debate, is whether the pope, after he is declared by the Church to be a heretic, is deposed ipso facto by Christ the Lord, or if the Church ought to depose him.  In any case, as long as the Church has not issued a juridical declaration, he must always be considered the pope, as we will make more clear in the next article. ... [1]  Continue...



Paul Kramer: A Father of Lies


He Breaches an Agreement to Stop this Ongoing Exchange
and Lies About Our Position on the Legal/Speculative Questions
Concerning the Loss of Office for a Heretical Pope

Paul Leonard Kramer
       Fr. Kramer continues to spread his lies, via the world wide web, in his insane attempt to discredit us and our book. And he has done so even after someone close to him privately asked us for a cease fire, assuring us that Kramer would no longer be posting his online rants (which reveal more about Kramer' mental state than anything else). Since this individual was trustworthy, we agreed to the cease fire and held up our end of the bargain. But guess what? The day after the agreement was reached, Fr. Kramer posted another insane rant against us on his Facebook page, sent an email to an extensive distribution list containing his slander, and even bombarded us with a half dozen emails, accusing us of crimes against him and the Church! All in a single day, following the supposed agreement for a cease fire! 
       Even after Kramer breached the agreement (now two weeks ago), we still maintained our end by not responding to his continuous stream of lies, misrepresentations, and accusations of “heresy” for allegedly holding positions that we explicitly refute in our book.  Since Kramer has, unfortunately, proven that he lacks the self-control necessary to stop spreading lies misinformation, we will respond to his false accusations for the sake of the truth. Continue...




(The following is an e-mail reply sent to Fr. Kramer's e-mail group)

       A kind individual forwarded to John Salza and me the e-mail that Fr. Kramer sent out several days ago, in which he accuses us of heresy. Since the e-mail included the addresses of those on Kramer’s list, I am including everyone on this reply.  Before directly commenting on his e-mail, I will preface it with the following remarks. Continue Reading




With an Explanation of the Jesuit and Dominican Opinions

Robert J. Siscoe
&
John Salza, Esq.


(The following was prepared for an important event that was recently attended by prominent theologians, philosophers and historians.  It was preceded by a verbal presentation of the information contained below, with the following being handed out for a more thorough discussion)

       The hypothesis of a heretical Pope and how the Church would remedy such situation has been the subject of debate amongst the Church’s canonists and theologians for centuries. We will consider the two main opinions concerning the deposition of a heretical Pope, their similarities and differences, and answer some of the principle questions that are raised.[1]  Continue Reading




FR. KRAMER CAUGHT IN YET ANOTHER LIE
Get This: He Says We Don’t Hold
the “Recognize and Resist” Position!

Paul Leonard Kramer
       It is sad to see what has become of Fr. Paul Leonard Kramer and the depths to which he has now sunk in his mad campaign to discredit us, and publicly promote the errors of Sedevacantism that he once himself rejected. In his latest screed, he again accuses us of defending a position that we not only reject, but which we explicitly refute in our book True or False Pope?. In order to both demonstrate and respond to Kramer’s latest lie, we will directly quote his accusations, as posted on his Facebook page, and then provide the reader with some brief excerpts (including the first 5 pages of Chapter 20 out of our book) that explicitly refute the very error that he claims we defend.  Continue reading...





Fr. Paul Kramer
       Fr. Paul Leonard Kramer continues to spread his Sedevacantist errors on his Facebook page, thereby causing confusion among certain Catholics who are already far too confused by the situation in the Church.  Kramer is now claiming that a Pope who commits the sin of heresy “excommunicates himself,” because he no longer has the faith.  Now, we realize that Kramer received his formation in a Novus Ordo seminary (which he now says is part of the “counterfeit, conciliar church”), but it is surprising that even a Novus Ordo trained priest would make such an absurd and theologically erroneous statement. Continue reading...





By Robert Siscoe and John Salza

       Let’s face it. Many Catholics – and not just the “rad trads,” – are questioning whether Francis is the true Pope. The issues which have given rise to this questioning are no secret, and have left many Catholics in a state of bewilderment. Putting aside those who have publicly denounced Francis as an antipope, many others simply don’t know what to believe, or even what principles should guide them in forming their judgment. Recently, one Catholic writer stated that “we don’t have the authority” to declare Francis an antipope, and “Francis is the pope until a future pope says he’s not.” Yet, the same writer, in the same article, said she didn’t have “any real objection to someone thinking that perhaps Bergoglio is an antipope” and even concluded that “You can believe it” [that Francis is an antipope].[1] Confusion and even contradictions seem commonplace, even among knowledgeable Catholics.
       In this article, we will take up the controversy surrounding the questionable resignation of Pope Benedict and whether Francis “the Bishop of Rome” is the legitimate Pope. Continue reading...




St. Robert Bellarmine, S.J.
       In True of False Pope?, we demonstrate that the Sedevacantists have entirely misinterpreted Bellarmine’s opinion concerning the loss of office for a heretical Pope. As we have noted in recent feature articles, their erroneous interpretation of the famous Fourth and Fifth Opinions is evident by reading what Bellarmine wrote just a few paragraphs earlier (in the Second and Third Opinions).  But they would not know this, because these additional paragraphs were never translated and posted online, which is where almost all the Sedevacantists get their information. Their handlers conveniently translated only those portions of Bellarmine which they were able to “interpret” to “support” their position. 
       The portion they have translated consists of Bellarmine’s attempted refutation of Cajetan’s opinion on how a Pope loses his office (Fourth Opinion), and Bellarmine’s own opinion (the Fifth Opinion). By providing these opinions alone, and by not explaining (or not knowing) what Cajetan’s position entailed (and hence what Bellarmine was objecting to), the priests and bishops of the Sedevacantist sect were able to convince unsuspecting souls that Bellarmine’s own opinion supported their Sedevacantist position, when, in reality, it does not. By this deceitful tactic, these Sedevacantist clergy were able to lead countless souls out of the Church and into their heretical sects.  
       The Novus Ordo trained priest, Fr, Paul Leonard Kramer, has embraced this erroneous interpretation of Bellarmine, hook, line and sinker...  Continue Reading




Part I
Exposing Kramer’s Error on the Church’s Visibility

       Over the last month, we have issued a series of refutations of the theology of the once-respected priest, Fr. Paul Kramer, who has sadly embraced the errors of Sedevacantism. His current obsession with his new position even drove him to publicly critique our book, True or False Pope?which he has not read. But rest assured, Fr. Kramer has quoted Steve Speray as one of his authorities, who actually did read the book (Speray is one of the most incompetent defenders of the Sedevcacantist sect out there). Since we understand that Fr. Kramer has lost a lot of credibility among his former admirers (even among his “Resistance” priests and colleagues) - having been “knocked off his high horse,” so to speak - he has now has really dug his heels in in order to save face.  Continue...





       As many of our readers know, Fr. Paul Leonard Kramer began an unsolicited, vicious and calumnious attack against us on his Facebook page (e.g., accusing John Salza of being a “secret” Freemason), and then blocked us when we began to correct his errors and defended ourselves.  He has now initiated an e-mail campaign against us, which he is sending to unknown priest(s).  Fortunately for us, Kramer made the mistake of copying us on one of the e-mails, which provides us an opportunity to publicly respond, which we will do now. Continue...





John Salza Backs Fr. Kramer into a Corner. His Response?He Calls Catholics Who Don’t Agree with Him
 “Ignorant,” “Blind” and “Catholics in Name Only”

Following is a recent email exchange between Fr. Kramer and John Salza. The exchange was initiated by Kramer, who has been flooding Salza’s email box with a flurry of unsolicited messages filled with name-calling, false accusations, and fallacious argumentation, not to mention bizarre and, no doubt, heretical theology. It is quite sad to see a priest so obsessed with his rejection of the Pope, and so angry at those who disagree with him. But these are the same bitter fruits we see among Sedevacantists, which we have documented extensively in our book. Because Fr. Kramer has embraced their errors, he is exhibiting their same fruits.  For example, you will see how Fr. Kramer continually degenerates into presuming ill-will and imputing evil motives to his opponents and using such inflammatory words as “slanderously,” “maliciously,” “perversely,” “intent to defame,” etc. You will also see how Kramer (a Novus Ordo trained priest of the “conciliar Church”) depreciates the competence of his opponents with disparaging invective (“utter ineptitude,” “totally incompetent,” “insolent pretense”), that is filled with anger and vitriol, so unbecoming for a priest of God.
       Fortunately, you will also see how Mr. Salza calmly questions Fr. Kramer, backing him into a corner by showing him that his arguments are identical to those of the Sedevacantists (which was the purpose of Salza’s line of questioning), after which Kramer could only respond by insulting every faithful Catholic in the world who accepts that Francis is Pope Continue Reading...



None of the Recent Popes were “Public Heretics” 
Before or After Their Election


       In this installment of our two-part feature, we will, again, address Fr. Cekada’s “new argument” head on, and prove, with infallible certitude, that the recent Popes were not public heretics prior to their election. We will prove this beyond any doubt by demonstrating that when a Pope is peacefully elected and presented as Pope by the Cardinal electors, and/or when he is recognized as Pope by the entire Church, his legitimacy is infallibly certain. And as a consequence of his legitimacy being infallible, we also have infallible certitude that all of the conditions (both positive and negative) required for him to become a legitimate Pope were met. For example, if a man is accepted as Pope by the entire Church, we have infallible certitude that he was 1) baptized, and 2) that he is a male (positive conditions); we also have infallible certitude that he was not 1) insane at the time, or 2) a public heretic (negative condition), since an insane man or a public heretic cannot be validly elected Pope. 

   In this installment, we will be presenting material from John of St. Thomas which, to our knowledge, has never been translated into English and published.  John of St. Thomas is rightly considered to be one of the greatest Thomists that the Church has ever produced. He is considered by many to be second only to the Angelic Doctor himself, and was known, even in his own day, as “the second Thomas.” And lest the Sedevacantists (and their new neophyte, Fr. Paul Leonard Kramer) object to this material based on the fact that it was written in the 17th century and hence is too old (yes, believe it or not, this is one of their new arguments!), we will also provide material from 20th century writers, including a lengthy citation from one of the greatest Thomists of the 20th century.  Continue reading...



IT’S ALL OVER FOR FR. ANTHONY CEKADA
See How Cardinal Billot Shows
His “Public Sin of Heresy” Theory is “Dead on Arrival”
(the title of his latest video)


Part I

       Note to the reader: We have already exposed Fr. Cekada’s many errors in prior features, and he has conspicuously refused to respond to any of them, even after we challenged him to do so (he has no response, other than to churn out more non-responsive videos as part of his smoke-and-mirrors campaign). But his latest video gives us a new opportunity to expose the heart of his errant thesis, and this time with (to our knowledge) never-before translated material from the renowned twentieth century theologian, Louis Cardinal Billot, who happens to be one of Cekada’s favorite theologians (but no longer, rest assured).
       This feature is lengthy, but the patient reader will be rewarded with much clarity regarding the key error of Fr. Cekada. Continue reading...





       It has become painfully evident that Fr. Paul Kramer is getting his theology on a heretical Pope (which he also uses to justify his rejection of Pope Francis) exclusively from Sedevacantist websites. He is surely not getting it from St. Robert Bellarmine, even though that is the impression he wants to give his flock. In his latest Facebook pontification, Fr. Kramer recycles the same old, worn-out Sedevacantist argument which they based on an erroneous interpretation of Bellarmine’s famous “Fifth Opinion” from De Romano Pontifice.  Kramer claims that Christ will secretly depose a heretical pope, without the Church being involved in the process or even knowing that it has occurred, provided he is judged to be a “manifest heretic” by private judgment. 
       Kramer then takes his “interpretation” one step further by claiming that vigilante priests and laymen must judge for themselves whether the Pope meets the definition of a “manifest heretic” (they also must define the term for themselves) If they do, Kramer claims that they must declare that he has lost his office and therefore is not the legitimate pope – even if the entire Church continues to recognize him as such. 
       In order to justify his “interpretation” of the Fifth Opinion, Fr. Kramer is then forced to interpret the Second and Third Opinions, taken from the same chapter of the same book, as meaning the exact opposite of what Bellarmine wrote. Continue reading



       If you have followed our debate with Fr. Kramer, and thought Kramer could not discredit himself any more than he already has, think again. What we initially described as a complete unraveling of this once-respected priest was, sadly, an understatement. By anyone’s reasonable estimation, it appears that Fr. Kramer has gone completely mad, and is not operating with his full mental faculties. This might explain why he would choose to publicly criticize a book he hasn’t read, call the authors of the book heretics and Freemasons, prevent the authors from directly responding to his arguments by blocking us from his Facebook page, and stubbornly persevere in embarrassing contradictions and arguments that have already been refuted for all the world to see. On the other hand, perhaps someone drunk with his own pride, who has full use of his mental faculties, could also engage in such demoralizing behavior.
       However, in our view, only someone who is mentally deranged or under demonic influences (or both) would publicly state that God struck Fr. Nicholas Gruner dead because he recognized Francis as Pope. And, yet, this is precisely what Fr. Paul Kramer has posted on his Facebook page. Continue reading





       In our ongoing refutation of his many theological errors, we have seen the unraveling of the once-respected priest, Fr. Paul Kramer. We have seen how Fr. Kramer appeals to fictitious quotations (e.g., St. Athanasius), how he quotes lay Sedevacantists with no theological training as his authority (e.g., Steve Speray), and how he refuses to engage us directly (by blocking us from responding on his Facebook page). Of course, the root error in all of this behavior is pride, which gets especially inflamed when one’s positions have been publicly refuted. 
        
       As applied here, and as we see with the Sedevacantists, the pride we are talking about begins by forming judgments that are contrary to the public judgments of the Church, then publicizing them, and finally condemning anyone who does not agree with them. This is what Fr. Kramer has effectively done in regard to his rejection of Pope Francis, and he now attempts to defend his position by claiming he has a “natural law” right to do so! Sounds like a Vatican II Modernist, doesn’t he? Perhaps Fr. Kramer now embraces Dignitatis Humanae’s erroneous teaching that man has a “natural right” to form his judgments, irrespective of the teachings of the Church. John Courtney Murray would be most pleased with Fr. Kramer’s theology. Continue reading...




Fr. Paul Kramer: “Eminent authorities (whom I will quote in my next installment of my reply to Salza) also teach that if a pope is professing heresy, he is not to be obeyed. … The result of the errors of Salza & Siscoe is something far worse than the damage that the Sedevacantists have done to the Church; since their error attempts to deprive the Catholic of the only defense of the faith against the abomination of desolation… Salza/Siscoe and their ilk say Catholics must bow down in submissive obedience to the apocalyptic abomination where the Chair of Peter was established…” (Fr. Paul Kramer, on Facebook page).

Our Reply: It is truly unfortunate, and even sad, when a Catholic priest resorts to publicly bearing false witness – and especially about a matter that can so easily be proven to be a lie – as is the case with Fr. Paul Kramer’s statement above. Fr. Kramer is proving himself to be one of the biggest priestly casualties of the current crisis in the Church. Everything Fr. Kramer wrote above about our position is complete and utterly false. It is not merely a straw man argument. It is the exact contrary to what we explicitly argue in the book. 
      In True or False Pope?, we have an entire chapter dedicated to explaining why wayward prelates should not be followed, and must not be given blind “submissive obedience” (in Kramer’s words). And we provide the theology as well as quotation after quotation from the Fathers and Doctors of the Church supporting this position. Of course, Fr. Kramer would know this if he took the time to read our book. But Fr. Kramer has decided to skip that part, and take his chances by recklessly posting criticisms of it anyway ... Continue reading






Fr. Kramer Rejects the Common Theological Opinion on the Loss of Office for a Heretical Pope. He Claims that a Pope Loses His Office Due to the Sin of Heresy, Without the Judgment of the Church. 


Fr. Kramer: “Any Catholic, be he pope or pauper, excommunicates himself by the sin of heresy, because such a one no longer has the Catholic Faith. With or vwithout (sic) the law, the heretic by the very nature of the sin of heresy ceases to be a Catholic and is incapable of holding office. Bellarmine explains this in De Romano Pontifice.”

Salza/Siscoe: Fr. Kramer has not only not read our book, but with this utterly erroneous assertion it does not seem possible that he has even read Bellarmine’s De Romano Pontifice. Bellarmine says the exact opposite! Perhaps Fr. Kramer is getting his information from Sedevacantist websites, which not only misinterpret Bellarmine, but invariably omit his comments on the Second (and Third) Opinion, in which the Doctor of the Church explicitly rejects the opinion that a Pope “loses his office due to the sin of heresy” without first “being judged.”  You would never know that by reading Fr. Kramer’s posts. As we will show, Fr. Kramer teaches the exact opposite of the sainted Doctor. Continue...






Fr. Paul Kramer
       Recently, a patron sent us an email alerting us to a slew of criticisms that Fr. Paul Kramer posted on his Facebook account regarding our book True or False Pope?, and a number of theological positions that it sets forth. The patron emailed us screen shots of Fr. Kramer’s statements against the book. As many know, Fr. Kramer is a priest who publicly declares, on his own authority, that Pope Francis is an antipope, which is contrary to the current public judgment of the Church.
       Mr. Salza was particularly disappointed in learning of these somewhat clandestine criticisms, since he has enjoyed an amicable relationship with Fr. Kramer over the years and has also endorsed some of his work. What was most disappointing was that Fr. Kramer, quite falsely, criticized a point of Salza’s scholarship when, as you will see, it is actually Fr. Kramer’s scholarship that is lacking, especially in regard to the theology concerning a heretical Pope. Indeed, it appears that Fr. Kramer has somewhat of a cult following on is Facebook page, and he seems to be quite anxious to provide his fans with the sensationalism and controversy they are itching for. Unfortunately, in this case, the replies that Fr. Kramer posted are riddled with some very fundamental errors. In fact, based on how bad Kramer’s errors are, it is clear that he did not actually read the book he has chosen to publicly criticize (nor does he claim to have read it).   Continue reading






In mid-June, 2016, Sedevacantist apologist John Lane engaged in a clandestine e-mail campaign, behind our backs, in an effort to damage our reputations amongst the SSPX clergy and discourage anyone from reading our book True or False Pope? His scheme was brought to light when a wise SSPX priest included us on his reply to Lane. This resulted in semi-public e-mail exchange that included priests and several well-known Catholic writers.  It ended in John Lane’s complete humiliation as his true colors were exposed for all to see.  There is much more we could reveal about the extent of damage Lane did to himself by this clandestine campaign, but have chosen not to.  This article includes a number of e-mail replies between us and John Lane, followed by just one of the comment we received when it ended.  Continue reading... 




PETER AND MICHAEL DIMOND'S DIABOLICAL DELUSIONS

Former Members of the “Vatican II Sect” Now Claim to be God’s “Chosen Benedictines”

Our Response to Their Latest Video:
“On ‘Fr.’ Gruner, the Last Days, & Lies in SSPX Book ‘True or False Pope’”

Read our refutation of their recent video, and watch the video they don't want you to see: Michael Dimond refuting Sedevacantism!  Continue...


PETER DIMOND REFUTED ONCE AGAIN ON THE NEW RITE OF ORDINATION
Five Simple Refutations of the Layman from New York


       About a month ago, lay Sedevacantist apologist Peter Dimond put out a video declaring that we made an “epic blunder” in our book True or False Pope? when we stated that Pope Paul VI’s new ordination rite retained language referring to a sacrificing priesthood. Dimond, who has assumed for himself the authority to decide which rites that have been approved by the Catholic Church are actually valid, argued that the new rite of ordination removed “every reference” to the sacrificial priesthood, and thus, is invalid. Continue...



Derksen and Cekada’s Avoidance of
the Second and Third Opinions
(in Bellarmine’s De Romano Pontifice)


       For years, apologists of the Sedevacantist sect have been quoting ad nauseam the Fourth and Fifth Opinions of St. Bellarmine’s De Romano Pontifice to support their position that the Papal See is vacant. They claim that because Bellarmine said, in response to the Fourth Opinion, that “a manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed,” it must mean that if individual Catholics personally “discern” that a Pope is a heretic, it must also mean he is not a true Pope. We have tried in vain to explain to them that the ipso facto loss of office (which itself is only an opinion) would only follow the Church’s judgment of manifest heresy, and would certainly not happen while the Church continues to recognize him as Pope.  Continue... 


Part I

       After months of avoiding our many theological arguments that refute Sedevacantism, Mario Derksen of NovusOrdoWatch.com finally attempted to post a theological response to our book (although the book is only referred to, not quoted). In his article, which he titled, “The Impossibility of Judging a Pope,” Derksen tries to cajole his followers into believing that, because Vatican I taught that “the First See is judged by no one,” it means a Pope “cannot be deposed.” Continue...


“PROFESSION OF THE TRUE FAITH”
Catholic Definition vs. Sedevacantist Definition
     
St. Robert Bellarmine
       In this important article, we will consider, in particular, the external bond of unity consisting of the “profession of the true faith.” We will consider the formal and material aspects of this bond, and see how the bond is severed and how it is not. In doing so, we will demonstrate that the Sedevacantist thesis is based upon an erroneous understanding of “the profession of faith,” since this external bond of unity is not broken when a Catholic makes a materially heretical statement, as Sedevacantists contend, but only when a Catholic renounces the Church as the infallible rule of faith. The Sedevacantists’ error also leads them to a further error, by believing that whether a cleric professes the true faith is a matter of personal “discernment” of any Catholic in the street. Continue...


MARIO DERKSEN STILL HAS NO ANSWER:
His Latest Webcast is More “Smoke and Mirrors” 


Mario Derksen
       For over a decade, Mario Derksen of NovusOrdoWatch.com has been the big bully on the Sedevacantist playground. For years, Derksen has issued inflammatory and demagogic articles and webcasts that denigrate true Catholics who refuse to subscribe to the ludicrous theory of Sedevacantism, which maintains that a Catholic can personally judge who is a true Pope and who is not (an error condemned by the Church, no less). Derksen has also made us the chief targets of his internet campaign, for publishing articles against Sedevacantism, even though we had not personally attacked or even mentioned him in any of our articles. Engaging in unsolicited attacks on others is evidently behavior that Derksen learned from the bad example of his mentor, the flamboyant Fr. Anthony Cekada, who has been mocking and ridiculing non-Sedevacantists on his own website for years. Continue... 


FR. CEKADA’S DESPERATION REACHES NEW LOWS:
HE BLAMES ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE
FOR HIS SEDEVACANTISM!

       Fr. Cekada released yet another video which he pretends to be a response to our book, “True or False Pope?” But like every one of his prior videos, Cekada makes no attempt to address any of our theological arguments that refute his position. This is quite revealing, given that we have provided him nearly 700 pages of theological arguments to critique, and many of those pages are devoted to exposing, in particular detail and attention, his own erroneous positions. By failing to respond to our arguments or even engage the theology of our book, Fr. Cekada has effectively conceded that he is unable to respond. He has no answer. 
       So what was the point of Fr. Cekada’s latest video? Believe it or not, Cekada attempts to defend himself and the Sedevacantist position by accusing Archbishop Lefebvre of being a Sedevacantist, and then further blames the Archbishop for leading him and some of his colleagues into Sedevacantism when they were seminarians!  Continue reading...



MARIO DERKSEN’S ELEMENTARY ERROR ON “FACT VERSUS LAW”


Mario Derksen
  Mario Derksen, a disciple of Fr. Cekada, runs the Sedevacantist website “NovusOrdoWatch” which he uses as his platform to attack and belittle Catholics who oppose the Sedevacantist sect (even those who are very critical of the conciliar Popes and think Pope Francis is a menace to the Church). Evidently, Derksen has an insecurity problem, since he conceals his identity by hiding behind the pen-name “Gregorius.” And his efforts to respond to critiques of Sedevacantism are just as juvenile as his masquerading behind a Latinized pseudo-name, all the while he calls out Catholics (by their real names) and disparages them. Like the approach of Fr. Cekada, Derksen’s website is filled with humorous caricatures and
Fr. Cekada, Derksen's mentor
comical satire aimed at discrediting his opponents and maligning their character, which is the customary effeminate response of those who cannot engage their opponents at an intellectual level. As you will see, Derksen has hit a new moral low in his most recent effort to discredit one of the authors of "True or False Pope?" This present article provides us yet another opportunity to reveal just why Derksen continually engages in such ad hominem tactics.  He does so because he cannot defend Sedevacantism on its own merits, and his attempts to do so are riddled with the most elementary errors of theology and logic that one could commit.  Continue reading…



THE NEW RITE OF ORDINATION 
Our Reply to Dimond’s Video titled “Epic Blunder in the New SSPX Book, True or False Pope?”


Peter and Michael Dimond
       The lay Sedevacantist apologist Peter Dimond put out a video disagreeing with a point we made in our chapter on the new rite of ordination for priests. He referred to it as a “colossal error,” an “epic blunder,” and even “one of the… most significant blunders we’ve seen in a polemical work of this nature.” In this article, we will show that it is not us, but Peter Dimond who is guilty of the “colossal error” and “epic blunder.” We will show that the self-proclaimed “monk” from the so-called “Holy Family Monastery” has precious little competence in the area of sacramental theology, and makes up the rules as he goes. Continue...


(Revised 2/25/16, with more details from the seminarian)

Sedevacantist Bishop, Donald Sanborn
       A few weeks ago, Mario Derksen of NovusOrdoWatch.com posted a most-telling reply to our feature article on the case of Nestorius. In our article, we demonstrated that Nestorius was deposed at the council of Ephesus in 431 A.D., and did not lose his office under “Divine law” the moment he preached heresy in 428 A.D. as the Sedevacantists falsely claim (and have been claiming for years). We demonstrated this historical fact from the declaration of the council of Ephesus itself, as well as two separate quotations from St. Bellarmine stating that Nestorius was deposed by the council. Derksen completely ignored the quotations we provided, and instead appealed to a quote he recently discovered from Cardinal Billot, which says that a bishop loses his jurisdiction after he “preaches heresy openly.”  Continue...



Donald Sanborn
       In a 2009 interview, Sedevacantist Bishop Donald Sanborn explained why he rejects the papacy of John XXIII. Was it because he believes Cardinal Angelo Roncalli (John XXIII) was a secret Freemason? Nope. Was it because he believes Roncalli was a Judaizer or a sympathizer with Communists? Nope. Was it because he believes Roncalli was a heretic prior to his election? Nope. Was it because he believes John XXIII fell into manifest heresy after being elected and thus ceased to be the Pope? Nope. Why, then, does Bishop Sanborn claim John XXIII was not a true Pope? Believe it or not, Sanborn teaches publicly that John XXIII was not a true Pope because he personally believes, based on “hindsight,” that John XXIII had the “intention” to call a council for the purpose of undermining the Faith.
       You read that correctly. No pre-election heresy. No post-election heresy. No secret societies. No public defection. Rather, Sanborn claims that John XXIII’s alleged mere intention alone – and judged, of course, by Bishop Sanborn - prevented him from being a true Pope. Now, we have spotlighted some bad Sedevacantist arguments over the past month, but this argument must rank at the top of the list. And it comes from a Sedevacantist bishop who runs a Sedevacantist seminary! We can only imagine (actually, we probably can’t) what kind of theological training those unfortunate seminarians are receiving.
       In this article, we are going to quote Sanborn directly and then analyze his position based on what we have previously discussed, concerning Fact and Law. Continue...

SEDEVACANTISM KILL CHAIN

Guest post by Tradical
       
A kill chain lists the critical links of an attack; if any 'link' in the chain is broken, the attack fails. The kill chain for 'sedevacantism' is no different as it describes a chain of events (causes) that must have occurred in order to rationally and objectively conclude that a specific Pope was either invalidly elected or has been deprived of the office of the Vicar of Christ (effect).  Without an unbroken chain of causes, the conclusion of Sede Vacante is rendered false. Continue...


His Desperate Arguments are Getting More Desperate…

       In his latest screed, Mario Derksen of NovusOrdoWatch.com claims that we have erred, and even accuses us of the grave sin of blasphemy, for comparing the sufferings of the post-Vatican II Church (that is, the Catholic Church from which Derksen has publicly defected) with the Passion of Our Lord. Evidently, because the analogy can be found in many prophecies concerning our times, and is a fitting explanation for why the Church is suffering at the hands of her very leaders (which we explain in our book True or False Pope?), Derksen figured he better address it.

       Now, since the Jewish leaders who disfigured Christ’s physical Body during the Passion were the lawful leaders of the Old Covenant, that doesn’t help Derksen’s claim that the Catholic leaders who are disfiguring the Mystical Body today are unlawful and illegitimate leaders of the New Covenant (a claim that even the Sedevacantist Bishop, Donald Sanborn, disagrees with). So what does Derksen do? He perverts the analogy by creating the most ridiculous straw man argument, namely, that since Christ was completely pure on the inside, the Church must also be completely pure on the inside, and could never be disfigured by her own human members. Continue reading...


Our Response to His Latest Video on Nestorius

Fr. Cekada
       Fr. Cekada strikes again, or rather, strikes out again, with another failed video. What is clear is that Fr. Cekada is in major damage control mode, as his errors and contradictions are being repeatedly exposed for all to see. His only response is to put out, now on a weekly basis, shorter and lamer videos that, as the reader will see in this reply, are only getting him into more trouble by revealing his dishonest tactics and total desperation.

       In his latest video, he attempts to defend the Sedevacantist position using the recently discovered “proof text” from Cardinal Billot, which he mistakenly thinks supports his position. Unfortunately for Fr. Cekada, we rained on his parade by posting an article the day before his video was released (called “A Point-by-Point Refutation of Mario Derksen on Nestorius”), which not only addressed the quotation in question, but refuted the exact arguments he made in the new video, regarding the quote. Apparently, the priest with the “director’s chair” and “sunglasses” had already spent so much time producing the video that he decided to go with it anyway ... Continue reading

APOINT-BY-POINT REFUTATION OF MARIO DERKSEN ON NESTORIUS
A Case of “Cherry-Picking” Theology
and “Butchering” Canon Law

Mario Derksen
       In our recent article titled “SEDEVACANTISM PROVEN FALSE BY THE CASE OF NESTORIUS (2/2/16),” we proved that, contrary to the claims of Sedevacantists, Nestorius was not deposed, ipso facto, the moment he professed his heresy in the year 428, as Sedevacantists have claimed for years to justify their position. We proved this by showing that the Council of Ephesus deposed Nestorius, and “stripped him of his episcopal dignity,” three years later. We even quoted the Sedevacantists’ favorite theologian, St. Robert Bellarmine, who explicitly stated that it was “certain” that Nestorius was deposed by the Council of Ephesus. We also quoted the Fourth Council of Constantinople, which declared, in no uncertain terms, that any layman who severs communion with his Patriarch, before the Church has rendered a judgment, is excommunicated.

       In spite of this, Mario Derksen of NovusOrdoWatch.com is still defending the actions of those who do precisely what the Catholic Church has condemn, and is still trying to use the case of Nestorius to justify it.  Click here to read our point-by-point response to Derksen’s failed attempt to rebut our article.


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...



Our Response to Cekada’s latest video:
“SSPX and Bitter Fruit: Look Whose Talking”

        Fr. Cekada released yet another juvenile video (this one is called “SSPX and Bitter Fruit: Look Whose Talking”), which is supposed to be a critique of our 700 page book True or False Pope? Guess what Cekada did for his book review? He skipped over the first 650 pages (the first 20 chapters) of our book which contain all the theology that refutes the errors of Sedevacantism! That’s right.
       Instead, Fr. Cekada played leapfrog with the book by jumping to the very last chapter (Chapter 21, called “The Bitter Fruits of Sedevacantism”), which is the only non-theologically focused chapter in the book. This chapter is simply intended to show the unusually bitter fruits within the Sedevacantist sect (admitted to by its own adherents), and was in no way necessary to prove the already-proven theological arguments contained in the previous chapters, as any honest reader could ascertain. That’s why we made it the last chapter. Continue...


SPERAY’S CATHOLICISM IN A NUT HOUSE:
Cracking His Nutty Arguments about 
St. Robert Bellarmine One at a Time


       A Sedevacantist internet blogger named Steve Speray has a website which he calls “Speray’s Catholicism in a Nutshell.” Speray uses his website to ridicule and condemn true Catholics who reject the error of Sedevacantism, as they recognize and resist the errors of the conciliar Popes. Mr. Speray even has separate tabs on his homepage identifying the Catholic writers he targets (e.g., “Against John Salza”; Against Christopher Ferrara”; etc.) which link to his internet writings. Mr. Speray should consider renaming his website “Speray’s Catholicism in a Nut House” because one has to be looney tunes to advance the types of arguments that he does, which he claims are an “Apologia for Sedevacantism and Catholic Doctrine.” Continue...



Mario Derksen of NovusOrdoWatch
       After years of getting away with attacking us and attempting to malign our character through
 his website NovusOrdoWatch.com, Mario Derksen is finally being called out on the carpet for the sophist that he is. We recently released a short, seven-page feature article called “Mario Derksen’s Elementary Error on Fact vs. Law.” As the title reveals, the article explains how Derksen has committed the most basic errors on the questions of fact and law that apply to the question of a heretical Pope. Specifically, Derksen gravely errs by claiming that Sedevacantism is “solely a question of fact” (it is not), and also by assuming that he - and not the Church – establishes those facts in the external, ecclesiastical forum by his own private judgment (and even though his private judgment is contrary to the public judgment of the Church).
       Needless to say, only someone with a warped view of reality would assume for himself the authority that only the Catholic Church possesses. Even Derksen’s Sedevacantist colleagues have been forced to admit that the Church alone has the authority to establish facts in the external forum (Bp. Dolan) and resolve speculative questions of theology and law (Bp. Sanborn; Fr. Cekada). Nevertheless, these men, too, persist in their Sedevacantist errors. Continue...



       Sedevacantist apologists will often cite the case of Nestorius as “proof” for their position that a
Sedevacantist Bishop, Donald Sanborn
 prelate who publicly teaches heresy is deposed, ipso facto, without the Church having to establish the fact of the crime. They base their argument on two points.  First, they note that certain individuals (priests and laity), who lived during the time of Nestorius, cut off communion with him when he began preaching heresy, and before the Church rendered a judgment. Second, they point out that Bellarmine quotes Pope St. Celestine who taught that the excommunications inflicted by Nestorius, after he began preaching heresy, were null and void, since, as Celestine wrote, “he who had already shown himself as deserving to be excommunicated [i.e., Nestorius], could not excommunicate anyone by his sentence.”
       The Sedevacantists believe that these two points prove that Nestorius was deposed ipso facto, by “Divine law,” the moment he began preaching heresy. We will address both of these points, and in so doing, prove that Nestorius was not deposed by “Divine law” the moment he began preaching heresy, but was instead deposed after the Church itself rendered a judgment. We will also show that although some people did formally separate from Nestorius before the Church rendered a judgment of his crime, their example cannot be followed by faithful Catholics today. Rather, the example that must be followed is no less than that of a saint and Doctor of the Universal Church, who also lived through the events, and refused to sever communion with Nestorius before the Church rendered a judgment. Continue...




             Sedevacantists believe that the legitimacy of a determined Pope - that is, one who has been elected by the Cardinals in accord with the laws of the Church, and accepted as Pope by the Church - is simply a matter of private opinion.  For Sedevacantists, the election of a Pope, and the acceptance of the man as Pope by the Church, means very little if they personally think he was not a valid candidate for the office, since, for them, everything is based on their own private judgment rather than the public judgment of the Church.  
       Because of this non-Catholic mentality, Sedevacantists have absolutely no scruple in publicly rejecting the post-Vatican II Popes and declaring them antipopes. But what many people may not know is that this same mentality has led many Sedevacantist to also reject the legitimacy of Popes who reigned before Vatican II. Because the exact same rule is used to reject both pre and post-Vatican II Popes (private judgments of “fact” and “law”) proves, by itself, that the rule is not only false but extremely dangerous.  And, as we will see later, refusing to “hear the Church” (Mt. 18:17) regarding the legitimacy of a pope is a mortal sin against the Faith. Continue reading...



A response to Fr. Cekada’s latest damage control video
“The Pope Speaks. You Decide!”

       Fr. Cekada has produced yet another video in response to our book True or False Pope? He calls his latest video “The Pope Speaks. You Decide!,” which is supposed to be a critique of the “Recognize and Resist” (R&R) position. This latest video gives us yet another opportunity to expose his errors and put the Sedevacantist coffin into the grave.
       Obviously, Fr. Cekada was unable to produce the video “The Pope is Elected: You Decide!,” because he cannot deny the doctrine that the man who is elected Pope and peacefully and universally accepted by the Church as such is, in fact, a true Pope (a theological certainty that we address in Chapter 12 of our book). In fact, Fr. Cekada gets himself in trouble in the video when he says: “We hold that Catholics are now in the same situation that existed between the death of one Pope, and the election of another.” Unfortunately for Fr. Cekada, his argument works against him, since we have had “the election of another,” namely, the seven successors of Pius XII who have all been elected according to the laws of the Church and accepted by a moral unanimity Catholics, yet who Cekada rejects by his own private judgment, contrary to the public judgment of the Church.  And Fr. Cekada thinks that his statement “clarifies” the Sedevacantist position?! Continue...



Sedevacantist Errors On Fact And Law: Tying It All Together

    In our last two articles (here and here), we have discussed the critical distinction between questions of fact and law regarding the loss of office for a heretical Pope. We’ve also shown that Sedevacantists have consistently overlooked this distinction as they attempt to defend their position (you will not find this
distinction mentioned in any of their articles, and it’s no wonder why). Having exposed these fatal errors in our book and recent articles, and with the latest Sedevacantist “rebuttals” growing weaker and more desperate (descending almost completely into ad hominem attacks and accusations of “fear”), it is now safe to say: We hear the death knell for Sedevacantism.
       This article summarizes what we have presented in prior articles and ties the relevant concepts (of fact and law) together, which will help the reader close the coffin on the Sedevacantist corpse.  ... Continue reading



       A number of years ago a group of priests, which included Fr. Clarence Kelly (who is now a Sedevacantist bishop), accused Fr. Dan Dolan (now also a Sedevacantist bishop) of being invalidly ordained, alleging that his consecrating bishop used only one hand. The accusing priests wrote Dolan a letter demanding that he immediately cease his priestly functions until the issue of his doubtful ordination was cleared up. The letter reads, in part: “Since your ordination was done with one hand, we must hold your ordination to be dubious, unless evidence can be brought forth that the one-handed ordination is certainly valid. We therefore urge you ad cautelam to stop saying Mass, hearing confessions and administering the sacrament of Extreme Unction until this problem is resolved.”
       How did Fr. Dolan respond to these accusations? He replied with his own letter rightly declaring that Fr. Kelly had no authority to determine whether his priestly ordination was valid, since such a private judgment usurps the Church’s judgment, which alone is competent to decide such matters. You read that correctly.  The Sedevacantist clergyman Dan Dolan (right) admits that the Church alone is the competent judge concerning the validity of his ordination, yet, at the same time, Dolan believes he possesses the authority to decide (by private judgment) whether the man, who was elected Pope according to the laws of the Church and who is recognized as Pope by the Church, is, in fact, a true Pope. This is yet another example of the astounding hypocrisy and double standards we find in the Sedevacantist movement. Continue...

For decades, Fr. Anthony Cekada has been publicly promoting the position that the man elected to the papal office by the Church, and accepted as Pope by the Church, is not, in fact, a true Pope. In other words, for decades Fr. Cekada has been publicly promoting his own personal opinion, even though it is in direct opposition to the public judgment of the Church. Added to this, and demonstrating a profound lack of humility, he has publicly mocked, ridiculed and engaged in childishness name-calling against those Catholics who refuse to accept his personal opinion regarding this matter.
Fr. Anthony Cekada
Because Fr. Cekada has chosen to reject the judgment of the Church, and instead present his personal opinion as a fact which other Catholics must accept, we believe it is entirely appropriate for us to consider whether Fr. Cekada has the ability to form correct and sound judgments on moral and doctrinal issues. For our example, we will consider Fr. Cekada’s personal judgment regarding the Terri Schiavo case. We will also look at Fr. Cekada’s latest post (in response to our interview with Louie Verrecchio) and show that his arguments have hit a new intellectual low.  Continue reading...



HYPOCRISY ALERT: FR. CEKADA RECOGNIZES AND RESISTS POPE PIUS XII

In our book “True or False Pope?, we devote an entire chapter to explaining the Church’s theology behind the “Recognize and Resist” position, that is, the necessity to recognize a Pope or bishop’s authority to rule while, at the same time,
resisting any erroneous teachings or evil commands. In the chapter, we provide many quotations from saints, Popes and Doctors of the Church who explicitly advocated the position as part of Catholic teaching, and provide real life, historical examples of saints putting this teaching into practice. These teachings and practical examples of the saints will help to guide confused Catholics through today’s crisis.

Because Fr. Cekada has an erroneous understanding of papal infallibility (which we also expose in great detail in our book), he believes the teachings and disciplines of a true Pope can never be “resisted” because a true Pope, according to Cekada, “cannot give error or evil.” In fact, Fr. Cekada actually calls those who resist the novelties of the conciliar Popes (that is, Traditional Catholics) heretics. But, in labeling heretics those who acknowledge that Paul VI was a true Pope, while resisting the non-binding liturgical reforms issued during his pontificate, Fr. Cekada indicts himself of the crime by his own standards, since he rejects the liturgical reforms of Pope Pius XII, whom he recognizes as a true Pope! That’s right, Cekada does exactly what he ridicules others for doing – namely, “recognizing” Pius XII as a valid Pope, while he “sifts” and even rejects his liturgical legislation. [1]

Fr. Cekada thereby condemns himself by his own judgment, as Scripture says: “Wherefore thou art inexcusable, O man, ... For wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself. For thou dost the same things which thou judgest.” (Rom. 2:1).

[1] See Fr. Cekada’s articles: “Is Rejecting the Pius XII Liturgical Reforms ‘Illegal’?” (April 27, 2006); and “The Pius XII Reforms: More on the ‘Legal Issue,’”(July 11, 2006).

READ MORE (PDF)


FR. CEKADA'S NOVELTHEORY: THE SIN OF HERESY CAUSES THE LOSS OF OFFICE


Because Sedevacantists know they have no authority to judge a Pope for the crime of heresy under
canon law, they have come up with a complete novelty to get around the problem: They argue that the Pope loses his office and jurisdiction for committing the sin of heresy, and then appoint themselves as the judge and jury of the sin by a nebulous appeal to “Divine law.” Pretty convenient, huh? And it is fair to say that this error is one of the major blocks in the false foundation upon which the Sedevacantist thesis has been erected. As we demonstrate in great detail in True or False Pope?, the “sin of heresy” error is two-fold: First, the sin of heresy is a matter of the internal forum of which God alone is the judge. Second, the sin of heresy alone does not cause the loss of office.



While many quotations from leading Sedevacantists could be provided, the Sedevacantist priest, Fr. Anthony Cekada, is one of leading promoters of this error, having peddled it for many years in his articles and videos. In fact, this is Fr. Cekada’s favorite defense of Sedevacantism, which he uses in almost every one of his attempted “rebuttals” of his opponents’ arguments.
       
Unfortunately for Fr. Cekada, we have taken the time to look up the theologians he claims supports his novel theory. What did we find? In every single case, these theologians are referring not to the sin of heresy, but rather to the canonical crime of heresy, which causes the loss of office. This must be why Fr. Cekada has been forced to creatively edit the quotations he claims supports his position, an editorial tactic he consistently uses, as we expose in our book. And this strikes yet another blow to Cekada’s already tarnished credibility.



  1. CARDINAL BILLOT DECLARES FR. KRAMER’S USE OF THE TERM MATERIAL HERETIC TO BE “PERVERTED”. (9-22-16)  
  2. E-MAIL EXCHANGE BETWEEN JOHN SALZA AND FR. KRAMER (9-15-16)
  3. IT’S ALL OVER FOR FR. ANTHONY CEKADA –PART II (9-12-16)  
  4. IT’S ALL OVER FOR FR. ANTHONY CEKADA: OUR RESPONSETO HIS LATEST VIDEO (9-5-16)  
  5. RESPONDING TO FR. KRAMER'S  ERONEOUS INTERPRETATION OF BELLARMINE (8-15-16
  6. FR. KRAMER’S GONE MAD: HE CLAIMS GOD KILLED FR.GRUNER FOR RECOGNIZING FRANCIS AS POPE (8-19-16) 
  7. PAUL KRAMER ARGUES PRIVATE JUDGMENT PREVAILS OVER THE PUBLIC JUDGMENT OF THE CHURCH (8-11-16)    
  8. FR. PAUL KRAMER SPREADS MORE LIES ON HIS FACEBOOK PAGE ABOUT A BOOK HE HAS NOT READ!(8-10-16) 
  9. FR. PAUL KRAMER REJECTS THE COMMON THEOLOGICAL OPINION ON THE LOSS OF OFFICE FOR AHERETICAL POPE. (8-2-16)
  10. FR. KRAMER CITES A FRAUDULENT "QUOTE" TO JUSTIFY HIS REJECTION OF TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC THEOLOGY (7/28/16)  
  11. JOHN LANE’S MALICIOUS E-MAIL CAMPAIGN TO DISCREDIT “TRUE OR FALSE POPE?” EXPOSED
  12. PETER DIMOND REFUTED ONCE AGAIN ON THE NEW RITE OF ORDINATION (4/1/16)   
  13. PART II: CAN THE CHURCH JUDGE A HERETICAL POPE? DERKSEN AND CEKADA’S AVOIDANCE OF BELLARMINE'S SECOND AND THIRD OPINIONS   
  14. PART I: CAN THE CHURCH JUDGE A HERETICAL POPE?ST. BELLARMINE SAY YES; MARIO DERKSEN SAYS NO. (3/23/16)
  15. “PROFESSION OF THE TRUE FAITH”: CATHOLIC DEFINITION VS. SEDEVACANTIST DEFINITION (3/19/16)   
  16. MARIO DERKSEN STILL HAS NO ANSWER:HIS LATEST WEBCAST IS MORE “SMOKE AND MIRRORS" (3/15/16)       
  17. FR.CEKADA ACCUSES ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE OF BEING A SEDEVACANTIST! (3/5/16)  
  18. PETER DIMOND’S EPIC BLUNDER ON THE NEW RITE OF ORDINATION (2/24/16)  
  19. BISHOP DONALD SANBORN EXPELLED A SEMINARIAN FOR ADHERING TO A TEACHING OF BILLOT! (2/20/16)
  20. WHY BISHOP SANBORN REJECTS THE PAPACY OF JOHN XXIII – YOU WON’T BELIEVE THIS! (2/18/16)
  21. SEDEVACANTISM KILL CHAIN (2/16/16)    
  22. MARIO DERSKEN’S PERVERTED ANALOGY ON THE PASSION OF THE CHURCH (2/15/16)  
  23. FR. CEKADA’S ERRORS AND DISHONESTY EXPOSED…AGAIN (2/13/16) OUR REPLY TO HIS THIRD VIDEO  
  24. A POINT-BY-POINT REFUTATION OF MARIO DERKSEN ON NESTORIUS  (2/7/16) 
  25.  A RENOWNED 17TH CENTURY CANONIST REFUTES SEDEVACANTISM
  26. FR.CEKADA PLAYS LEAPFROG WITH ‘TRUE OR FALSE POPE?’ (2/3/16) OUR REPLY TO HIS SECOND VIDEO
  27.  STEVE SPERAY’S CATHOLICISM IN A NUT HOUSE  (2/3/16)    
  28. HYPOCRISY ALERT:MARIO DERKSEN HAS NO ANSWER 
  29. SEDEVACANTISM PROVEN FALSE BY THE CASE OF NESTORIUS  
  30. SEDEVACANTISTS REJECT PRE-VATICAN II POPES
  31. MEET THE SEDEVACANTIST ANTI-POPES
  32. HERESY: THE HEART OF SEDEVACANTISM
  33. PART I: MARIO DERKSEN'S ELEMENTARY ERROR ON FACT VS. LAW
  34. FR. CEKADA'S NOVELTHEORY: THE SIN OF HERESY CAUSES THE LOSS OF OFFICE
  35. QUESTIONING FR. CEKADA’S JUDGMENT
  36. HYPOCRISY ALERT: FR. CEKADA RECOGNIZES AND RESISTS POPE PIUS XII
  37. FATHER CEKADA'S GLARING ERROR ON CANON 151
  38. THE SEDEVACANTIST’S IRRATIONAL RESPONSE TO THE BOOK, TRUE OR FALSE POPE?

2 comments:

ILLYRICUM SACRUM - ZEF TRABOINI said...

Good day gentlemen!

I would have a little question regarding your book "The True or False Pope"; it is actually a very important argument which I didn't find developed in your study; the question is this:

On 20 October 1870, due to grave circumstances, Pope Pius IX suspended the Vatican Council with his Bull "Postquam Dei Munere" and ordered, under the curse of God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, to resume and end the Council, which had to be done by another Pope, at a proper time in the future.

On October 11th, 1962, John XXIII publically announced the opening of the Second Vatican Council, without ever mentioning the First Vatican Council.

Is it possible for the Holy See to call a Second Vatican Council without ending the First Vatican Council, as Pope Pius IX ordered under pain of double malediction?

Thank for your attention,

Joseph

TrueorFalsePope said...

Pope John XXIII formally closed the First Vatican Council in 1960, during preparations for Vatican II.