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).
|Mario Derksen, Source|
|Fr. Anthony Cekada|
Sadevacantist Bishop, Donald Sanborn: Cum ex Apostolatus Officio is null and void
Dogmatic Facts: The Legitimacy of Francis Election
2) For Each Objection, an Answer: Why Francis is Pope (Part II)
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
on Mystici Corporis Christi
One of the common errors among Sedevacantists is the belief that the sin of heresy causes the loss of papal office/jurisdiction. The error is based, in part, on a misunderstanding of a quotation from Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi, which will be addressed at length in this installment. Those who embrace this error quickly take it upon themselves to judge whether or not the Pope has committed the sin of heresy (while at the same time declaring “no one can judge the Pope”), and if they personally judge that he has, they immediately conclude that he is no longer Pope. The really “courageous” ones will then publicly declare him to be an antipope, formally separate from him, and accuse those who see through their errors of being too cowardly to call a spade a spade.
And to be clear, for those who embrace “the sin of heresy causes the loss of office” theory, it isn’t necessary for the Pope to publicly admit that he denies a dogma. All that is required is that he seems to be a heretic to them. They take the Douglas Adams approach to reach their verdict – namely, if he walks like a heretic and quacks like a heretic, he must be a heretic; and if he’s a heretic, he’s not the Pope. Continue reading.
In this four part series, we will reply to Fr. Kramer’s 250 page attack on True or False Pope? In Part I, we will address three key “heresies” Fr. Kramer accuses us of holding concerning the specific issue of how heresy severs a person from the Church, from which are borne the two main straw man arguments he attacks throughout his book. We will demonstrate that all three accusations are entirely false by quoting directly from our book. Once these accusations of heresy are shown to be false, the two main straw man arguments – which together constitute the foundation he spends most of his time attacking - will be removed; and when the foundation is taken away, all the arguments and false accusations of heresy erected upon it will crumble (which will then require that Fr. Kramer re-write his entire “refutation”). Click here for Part I
"(…) 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.
"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
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?
How is the juridical bond severed?
|St. Robert Bellarmine|
A RENOWNED 17TH CENTURY CANONIST
Those who have carefully read the writings of Sedevacantists over the years are no doubt familiar with their tactics. If they happen upon a quotation that they think supports their position, the author in question will be praised to the skies and the quotation presented as absolute and irrefutable “proof” for their position. This is the case with any quotation that can be spun to support their position. On the other hand, when the quotation from an authority of equal or even greater weight is presented that explicitly and directly refutes their position, they simply ignore it. Or, if pressed to comment, they will simply declare that he is wrong, and move on without a second thought. They will even do this when they are presented with quotations of their own favorite theologians, when the particular quotation directly refutes their position. When they believe the theologian agrees with them, he is treated as an infallible oracle whose teaching cannot be doubted; when the same theologian disagrees with them, they will respond by saying “Theologians are not infallible!”
For those Sedevacantists who are of good will (and based on some recent e-mails we’ve received, there are many of you out there), we are going to provide a quotation from one of the greatest canonists of the early seventeenth century, which directly and explicitly refutes the Sedevacantist position. Continue...
- E-MAIL EXCHANGE BETWEEN JOHN SALZA AND FR. KRAMER (9-15-16)
- FR. ANTHONY CEKADA CAUGHT IN ANOTHER LIE –PART II (9-12-16)
- FR. ANTHONY CEKADA CAUGHT IN ANOTHER LIE IN HIS LATEST VIDEO (9-5-16)
- RESPONDING TO FR. KRAMER'S INTERPRETATION OF BELLARMINE (8-15-16)
- DID GOD KILL FR. GRUNER FOR RECOGNIZING FRANCIS AS POPE? FR KRAMER SAYS YES (8-19-16)
- PAUL KRAMER ARGUES PRIVATE JUDGMENT PREVAILS OVER THE PUBLIC JUDGMENT OF THE CHURCH (8-11-16)
- FR. PAUL KRAMER REJECTS THE COMMON THEOLOGICAL OPINION ON THE LOSS OF OFFICE FOR AHERETICAL POPE. (8-2-16)
- FR. KRAMER CITES A FRAUDULENT "QUOTE" TO JUSTIFY HIS REJECTION OF TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC THEOLOGY (7/28/16)
- JOHN LANE’S E-MAIL CAMPAIGN TO DISCREDIT “TRUE OR FALSE POPE?” EXPOSED
- PETER DIMOND REFUTED ONCE AGAIN ON THE NEW RITE OF ORDINATION (4/1/16)
- “PROFESSION OF THE TRUE FAITH”: CATHOLIC DEFINITION VS. SEDEVACANTIST DEFINITION (3/19/16)
- RESPONSE TO MARIO DERKSEN'S LATEST WEBCAST (3/15/16)
- FR.CEKADA ACCUSES ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE OF BEING A SEDEVACANTIST! (3/5/16)
- PETER DIMOND’S ERROR ON THE NEW RITE OF ORDINATION (2/24/16)
- BISHOP DONALD SANBORN EXPELLED A SEMINARIAN FOR ADHERING TO A TEACHING OF BILLOT! (2/20/16)
- WHY BISHOP SANBORN REJECTS THE PAPACY OF JOHN XXIII – YOU WON’T BELIEVE THIS! (2/18/16)
- SEDEVACANTISM KILL CHAIN (2/16/16)
- MARIO DERSKEN’S ERRONEOUS ANALOGY ON THE PASSION OF THE CHURCH (2/15/16)
- OUR REPLY TO CEKADA’S LATEST VIDEO (2/13/16) OUR
- A POINT-BY-POINT REFUTATION OF MARIO DERKSEN ON NESTORIUS (2/7/16)
- A RENOWNED 17TH CENTURY CANONIST REFUTES SEDEVACANTISM
- OUR REPLY TO FR. CEKADA'S SECOND VIDEO AGAINST TOFP (2/3/16)
- MARIO DERKSEN HAS NO ANSWER
- SEDEVACANTISM PROVEN FALSE BY THE CASE OF NESTORIUS
- SEDEVACANTISTS REJECT PRE-VATICAN II POPES
- MEET THE SEDEVACANTIST ANTI-POPES
- HERESY: THE HEART OF SEDEVACANTISM
- PART I: MARIO DERKSEN'S ERROR ON FACT VS. LAW
- FR. CEKADA'S NOVEL THEORY: THE SIN OF HERESY CAUSES THE LOSS OF OFFICE
- QUESTIONING FR. CEKADA’S JUDGMENT
- FR. CEKADA RECOGNIZES AND RESISTS POPE PIUS XII
- FATHER CEKADA'S GLARING ERROR ON CANON 151
- THE SEDEVACANTIST’S IRRATIONAL RESPONSE TO THE BOOK, TRUE OR FALSE POPE?