|Mario Derksen, Source|
|Fr. Anthony Cekada|
Answering the Objection to "The True Meaning of Bellarmine's Ipso Facto Loss of Office Theory"
New Bombshell Article!
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.
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!
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").
end by refuting Fr. Kramer's embarrassing new error concerning the charism of
infallibility, which he mistakenly believes a Pope can only enjoy if he
possesses the virtue of faith "as its dispositive habit."
The article shows how Bellarmine refuted the Sedevacantists of his day (the early Protestants), with an argument that applies equally to their Sedevacantist counterparts of our day, and in fact is the same argument we have used against them. We also quote the counter argument that a 16th century Lutheran scholar used against Bellarmine in an attempt to defend his Sedevacantist position - which just so happens to be the exact same argument that Fr. Cekada, Fr. Kramer, Mario Derksen of Novus Ordo Watch, and the other Sedevacantist apologists of our day have used to defend the same error against us!
We also address the key issue of how the Church can judge that a Pope is a heretic, while he remains Pope, without violating the Pope's personal immunity from judgment ("the first see is judged by no one").
Lastly, we end by refuting Fr. Kramer's embarrassing new error concerning the charism of infallibility, which he mistakenly believes a Pope can only enjoy if he possesses the virtue of faith "as its dispositive habit."
This 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
Sadevacantist Bishop, Donald Sanborn: Cum ex Apostolatus Officio is null and void
Dogmatic Facts: The Legitimacy of Francis Election
2) Dogmatic Fact: The One Doctrine that Proves Francis is the Pope (Part I)
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
FORMAL REPLY TO FR. KRAMER, PART II
on Mystici Corporis Christi
JOHN OF ST. THOMAS, O.P.: COMPLETE TREATISE ON THE LOSS OF OFFICE FOR A HERETICAL POPE
How is the juridical bond severed?
|St. Robert Bellarmine|
A RENOWNED 17TH CENTURY CANONIST
- E-MAIL EXCHANGE BETWEEN JOHN SALZA AND FR. KRAMER (9-15-16)
- FR. ANTHONY CEKADA CAUGHT IN ANOTHER LIE –PART II (9-12-16)
- FR. ANTHONY CEKADA CAUGHT IN ANOTHER LIE IN HIS LATEST VIDEO (9-5-16)
- RESPONDING TO FR. KRAMER'S INTERPRETATION OF BELLARMINE (8-15-16)
- DID GOD KILL FR. GRUNER FOR RECOGNIZING FRANCIS AS POPE? FR KRAMER SAYS YES (8-19-16)
- PAUL KRAMER ARGUES PRIVATE JUDGMENT PREVAILS OVER THE PUBLIC JUDGMENT OF THE CHURCH (8-11-16)
- FR. PAUL KRAMER REJECTS THE COMMON THEOLOGICAL OPINION ON THE LOSS OF OFFICE FOR AHERETICAL POPE. (8-2-16)
- FR. KRAMER CITES A FRAUDULENT "QUOTE" TO JUSTIFY HIS REJECTION OF TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC THEOLOGY (7/28/16)
- JOHN LANE’S E-MAIL CAMPAIGN TO DISCREDIT “TRUE OR FALSE POPE?” EXPOSED
- PETER DIMOND REFUTED ONCE AGAIN ON THE NEW RITE OF ORDINATION (4/1/16)
- “PROFESSION OF THE TRUE FAITH”: CATHOLIC DEFINITION VS. SEDEVACANTIST DEFINITION (3/19/16)
- RESPONSE TO MARIO DERKSEN'S LATEST WEBCAST (3/15/16)
- FR.CEKADA ACCUSES ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE OF BEING A SEDEVACANTIST! (3/5/16)
- PETER DIMOND’S ERROR ON THE NEW RITE OF ORDINATION (2/24/16)
- BISHOP DONALD SANBORN EXPELLED A SEMINARIAN FOR ADHERING TO A TEACHING OF BILLOT! (2/20/16)
- WHY BISHOP SANBORN REJECTS THE PAPACY OF JOHN XXIII – YOU WON’T BELIEVE THIS! (2/18/16)
- SEDEVACANTISM KILL CHAIN (2/16/16)
- MARIO DERSKEN’S ERRONEOUS ANALOGY ON THE PASSION OF THE CHURCH (2/15/16)
- OUR REPLY TO CEKADA’S LATEST VIDEO (2/13/16) OUR
- A POINT-BY-POINT REFUTATION OF MARIO DERKSEN ON NESTORIUS (2/7/16)
- A RENOWNED 17TH CENTURY CANONIST REFUTES SEDEVACANTISM
- OUR REPLY TO FR. CEKADA'S SECOND VIDEO AGAINST TOFP (2/3/16)
- MARIO DERKSEN HAS NO ANSWER
- SEDEVACANTISM PROVEN FALSE BY THE CASE OF NESTORIUS
- SEDEVACANTISTS REJECT PRE-VATICAN II POPES
- MEET THE SEDEVACANTIST ANTI-POPES
- HERESY: THE HEART OF SEDEVACANTISM
- PART I: MARIO DERKSEN'S ERROR ON FACT VS. LAW
- FR. CEKADA'S NOVEL THEORY: THE SIN OF HERESY CAUSES THE LOSS OF OFFICE
- QUESTIONING FR. CEKADA’S JUDGMENT
- FR. CEKADA RECOGNIZES AND RESISTS POPE PIUS XII
- FATHER CEKADA'S GLARING ERROR ON CANON 151
- THE SEDEVACANTIST’S IRRATIONAL RESPONSE TO THE BOOK, TRUE OR FALSE POPE?