True or False Pope: 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).

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.

FEATURE ARTICLES

___________________________

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

_________________________________________

Sedevacantists, or those who believe Sedevacantism is tenable, start here:

Chapters 1 and 2 of True or False Pope?

_____________________________________________________

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"

1) Objections presented by Fr. Kramer

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."

__________________________________________

Apostolicity of Membership and Origin

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

______________________________________________________

Ron Conte's Errors On Vatican I and the Unfailing Faith of Peter

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)

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

_______________________________________________

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?

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

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.

_________________________________

FORMAL REPLY TO FR. KRAMER'S 250 PAGE ATTACK ON "TRUE OR FALSE POPE?"
Part I

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

_____________________________________________________

Francis Suarez, S.J.

Tenth Disputation on the Supreme Pontiff

"(…) 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.

___________________________________________________________

Summa S. Thomae of Charles Rene Billuart, O.P.

"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." Continue...

__________________________________________________________________

“PROFESSION OF THE TRUE FAITH”
How is the juridical bond severed?

St. Robert Bellarmine

In this important article, we will consider, in particular, the juridical 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 juridical bond is formally severed. Continue...

_________________________________________

A RENOWNED 17TH CENTURY CANONIST

REFUTES SEDEVACANTISM

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...

_________________________________________________________________