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 |
Fr. Kramer Now Holds the Discredited "Second Opinion," which Bellarmine explicitly Refutes (E-mail exchange)
The following is part of a lengthy group e-mail exchange that took place between the authors of True or False Pope and Fr. Kramer. We are posting it here in order to expose, not only Fr. Kramer’s contradictory position, but also the falsehood he is now spreading by claiming we have misrepresented his position.
Fr. Kramer denies that he adheres to the “Second Opinion” listed by St. Bellarmine in De Romano Pontifice. The Second Opinion (which Bellarmine refutes, and which has been completely abandoned) is that a Pope who falls into secret heresy (i.e., loses the virtue of faith) automatically ceases to be Pope. This is what Fr. Kramer holds due to his erroneous belief that the virtue of faith is required for a Pope to “exercise infallibility” (a doctrinal novelty that Fr. Kramer invented). During the e-mail exchange, Fr. Kramer first denied holding this position, before later admitting (as we will see below). Before admitting that he holds the Second Opinion, he provided another citation from something he wrote previously which indicates that he does not hold the Second Opinion, but this citation only shows that Fr. Kramer holds two contradictory positions at the same time.
Because Fr. Kramer has accused Robert Siscoe of being “a bold faced liar” for stating that he holds the Second Opinion, we are posting the following from a lengthy group e-mail exchange that took place several months ago. Once again, I remind the reader that the Second Opinion, which Fr. Kramer denies holding, is that, in the hypothetical case of a Pope losing the virtue of Faith, he would lose his office. Here is the e-mail that proves this is what Fr. Kramer holds. Continue reading
_______________________________
Recent E-Mail Exchanges with Fr. Kramer
The following are excerpts from recent semi-public e-mail exchanges with Fr. Kramer. Continue reading...
________________________________
THE MEANING OF "IPSO FACTO": A Response to Fr. Kramer.
Kramer, to John Salza: “How many times must I explain, "ipso facto", "ipso jure",
 |
| Fr. Paul Kramer |
Robert Siscoe replies: Before commenting, let me rephrase your position. According to you, when theologians teach that an heretical pope is ipso facto and immediately/automatically deposed by Christ, they mean before the “fact” of his heresy has been legally established by the Church’s judgment; and anyone who holds that an antecedent judgment of the Church is necessary before the ipso facto loss of office takes place, is “too stupid to grasp this simple point”.
In response, I will cite two renowned theologians who explicitly teach that the ipso facto deposition by Christ takes place AFTER the Church establishes the “fact” of papal heresy – not before. Continue reading...
______________________________________________________________________
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 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...
"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?
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
and Lies About Our Position on the Legal/Speculative Questions
Concerning the Loss of Office for a Heretical Pope
 |
| Paul Leonard Kramer |
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)
FR. KRAMER CAUGHT IN YET ANOTHER LIE
Get This: He Says We Don’t Hold
the “Recognize and Resist” Position!
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 |
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. |
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”
“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...
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...
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
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.
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 |
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...
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
Five Simple Refutations of the Layman from New York
Derksen and Cekada’s Avoidance of
the Second and Third Opinions
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
“PROFESSION OF THE TRUE FAITH”
Catholic Definition vs. Sedevacantist Definition
Catholic Definition vs. Sedevacantist Definition
 |
| St. Robert Bellarmine |
 |
| Mario Derksen |
FR. CEKADA’S DESPERATION REACHES NEW LOWS:
HE BLAMES ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE
FOR HIS SEDEVACANTISM!
HE BLAMES ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE
FOR HIS SEDEVACANTISM!
MARIO DERKSEN’S ELEMENTARY ERROR ON “FACT VERSUS LAW”
 |
| Mario Derksen |
 |
| Fr. Cekada, Derksen's mentor |
THE NEW RITE OF ORDINATION
Our Reply to Dimond’s Video titled “Epic Blunder in the New SSPX Book, True or False Pope?”
Our Reply to Dimond’s Video titled “Epic Blunder in the New SSPX Book, True or False Pope?”
 |
| Peter and Michael Dimond |
(Revised 2/25/16, with more details from the seminarian)
 |
| Sedevacantist Bishop, Donald Sanborn |
 |
| 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 |
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
A Case of “Cherry-Picking” Theology
and “Butchering” Canon Law
 |
| Mario Derksen |
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”
“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
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 |
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
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...
 |
| Sedevacantist Bishop, Donald Sanborn |
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!”
“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
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...
 |
| Fr. Anthony Cekada |
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)
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.
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 undercanon 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.
- CARDINAL BILLOT DECLARES FR. KRAMER’S USE OF THE TERM MATERIAL HERETIC TO BE “PERVERTED”. (9-22-16)
- E-MAIL EXCHANGE BETWEEN JOHN SALZA AND FR. KRAMER (9-15-16)
- IT’S ALL OVER FOR FR. ANTHONY CEKADA –PART II (9-12-16)
- IT’S ALL OVER FOR FR. ANTHONY CEKADA: OUR RESPONSETO HIS LATEST VIDEO (9-5-16)
- RESPONDING TO FR. KRAMER'S ERONEOUS INTERPRETATION OF BELLARMINE (8-15-16)
- FR. KRAMER’S GONE MAD: HE CLAIMS GOD KILLED FR.GRUNER FOR RECOGNIZING FRANCIS AS POPE (8-19-16)
- PAUL KRAMER ARGUES PRIVATE JUDGMENT PREVAILS OVER THE PUBLIC JUDGMENT OF THE CHURCH (8-11-16)
- FR. PAUL KRAMER SPREADS MORE LIES ON HIS FACEBOOK PAGE ABOUT A BOOK HE HAS NOT READ!(8-10-16)
- 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 MALICIOUS E-MAIL CAMPAIGN TO DISCREDIT “TRUE OR FALSE POPE?” EXPOSED
- PETER DIMOND REFUTED ONCE AGAIN ON THE NEW RITE OF ORDINATION (4/1/16)
- PART II: CAN THE CHURCH JUDGE A HERETICAL POPE? DERKSEN AND CEKADA’S AVOIDANCE OF BELLARMINE'S SECOND AND THIRD OPINIONS
- PART I: CAN THE CHURCH JUDGE A HERETICAL POPE?ST. BELLARMINE SAY YES; MARIO DERKSEN SAYS NO. (3/23/16)
- “PROFESSION OF THE TRUE FAITH”: CATHOLIC DEFINITION VS. SEDEVACANTIST DEFINITION (3/19/16)
- MARIO DERKSEN STILL HAS NO ANSWER:HIS LATEST WEBCAST IS MORE “SMOKE AND MIRRORS" (3/15/16)
- FR.CEKADA ACCUSES ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE OF BEING A SEDEVACANTIST! (3/5/16)
- PETER DIMOND’S EPIC BLUNDER 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 PERVERTED ANALOGY ON THE PASSION OF THE CHURCH (2/15/16)
- FR. CEKADA’S ERRORS AND DISHONESTY EXPOSED…AGAIN (2/13/16) OUR REPLY TO HIS THIRD VIDEO
- A POINT-BY-POINT REFUTATION OF MARIO DERKSEN ON NESTORIUS (2/7/16)
- A RENOWNED 17TH CENTURY CANONIST REFUTES SEDEVACANTISM
- FR.CEKADA PLAYS LEAPFROG WITH ‘TRUE OR FALSE POPE?’ (2/3/16) OUR REPLY TO HIS SECOND VIDEO
- STEVE SPERAY’S CATHOLICISM IN A NUT HOUSE (2/3/16)
- HYPOCRISY ALERT: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 ELEMENTARY ERROR ON FACT VS. LAW
- FR. CEKADA'S NOVELTHEORY: THE SIN OF HERESY CAUSES THE LOSS OF OFFICE
- QUESTIONING FR. CEKADA’S JUDGMENT
- HYPOCRISY ALERT: 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?
2 comments:
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
Pope John XXIII formally closed the First Vatican Council in 1960, during preparations for Vatican II.
Post a Comment