Sedevacantist
Watch…
MARIO DERKSEN’S ELEMENTARY ERROR ON “FACT VERSUS
LAW”
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, as we do). 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 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.
 |
| Mario Derksen |
 |
| Fr. Cekada |
For example, after John Salza gave an interview on papal infallibility
for the Voice of Catholic Radio on March 30, 2014, Derksen revealed his
juvenility by publishing a supposed “rebuttal” of Salza’s presentation which he
called “Comedy Hour with John Salza,” and posted a graphic of Salza’s face with
a clown’s nose on the webpage. Catholic writer Paul F. offended by such
childish assaults on a fellow Catholic (not to mention Derksen’s amateurish
scholarship), wrote an extensive rebuttal to the NovusOrdoWatch piece,
revealing the many errors, omissions and misrepresentations it contains (which,
like Salza’s extensive critique of Derksen’s arguments, currently remains
unanswered).[1]
We have become accustomed to Derksen’s immature behavior and use of
abrasive invective against Catholics. These are merely smokescreens to
camouflage his insecurities and the weakness of his case. What else can you say
about a person who has no shame in calling his opponent “moron,” “idiotic,”
“hilarious,” “ludicrous,” “dumber,” “asinine” (words that Derksen used in a
single piece that he wrote in response to John Salza’s articles refuting
Sedevacantism)?[2]
However, Derksen recently hit a new moral low when he released a podcast
in response to John Salza’s interview about Sedevacantism on TradCatKnight
radio.[3]
In the
podcast, Derksen, who offers no substantive rebuttals to any of Salza’s
arguments, actually tells his audience that John Salza, a cradle Catholic,
cannot be trusted on the question of Sedevacantism because Salza joined a
Masonic lodge in ignorance, 20 years ago,
and only after getting permission from his parish priest (before he came to
Tradition)! Is Derksen serious? Is this how Mario wants to fight his battles? If
so, we can turn the argument around on him, by pointing out that Derksen not only
fell into heresy, but openly left the Catholic
Church, going so far as to become an anti-Catholic Protestant Fundamentalists.
He admits that he spread his anti-Catholics
heresies publicly on the internet. God alone knows how many confused Catholics Derksen
led out of the Church during this time. If anyone can be accused of failing to
abandon the errors of their past, it is Mario Derksen, who continues to hold
his private judgment above the public judgment of the Catholic Church, and continues
to attack the Church on the world wide web, just as he did when he was a
Fundamentalist Protestant and self-described “early pioneer of the internet
(1996).”[4]
Is Derksen really not aware that as soon as Salza (who, unlike Derksen,
never left the Church or publicly defended his errors) discovered his mistake
(again, nearly 20 years ago!), he has not ceased to publicly speak out against
the errors of Freemasonry, traveling the globe to give talks and writing books
and articles to that end (which has helped lead many men out of Masonry)? To
bring this up shows just how desperate Derksen is to tarnish the credibility of
his opponents. To top it off, Derksen linked to a blog comment by an anonymous
blogger (another “courageous” Sedevacantist) from another website in which the
blogger actually questions whether Salza is still a Freemason who is really out
to defend Pope Francis![5]
Such desperate smear tactics only confirm everything we put forth in our last
chapter of True or False Pope?, called “The Bitter Fruits of Sedevacantism.”
This present article provides us with yet another opportunity to reveal just
why Derksen continually engages in such ad hominem tactics. The reason he does so is celar: Because he
cannot defend Sedevacantism on its own merits, and his attempted defenses are
riddled with the most elementary errors of theology and logic that one could
commit.
Then, based upon his erroneous premise, Derksen imagines that if he
personally “discerns” that the Pope has committed the “sin of heresy,” his
private judgment constitutes a “fact,” which then gives him the right to
publicly declare the man recognized as Pope by the Church, is not, in fact, a
true Pope. Based upon this erroneous reasoning, and proving St. Thomas’
teaching that an error in principle (beginning) results in an error in
conclusion (the end), Derksen concludes that the case for Sedevacantism is
solely a “question of fact” (discerned by the private judgment of individuals),
and not a question of Church law (as judged by the proper authorities). For
example, Mr. Derksen writes:
“The reason why Salza believes
sedevacantists are ‘taking matters into their own hands,’ allegedly ‘usurping’
rightful ecclesiastical authority, is that he fails to distinguish the order
of law from the order of fact. This is a crucial mistake.”[7]
Then, a few paragraphs later, he adds:
“Salza’s failure to properly
distinguish law from fact is the most fundamental error of his entire piece. He
makes everything into a matter of Church law, when the Sedevacantist position
is based on the order of fact, not the order of law.”[8]
(emphases added)
Obviously, Mr. Derksen wants to play ball by running to second base without
passing first base. It’s a classic case of petitio principii (“begging the
question”). Whether the Pope is a heretic is indeed a “question of fact,” but
who is authorized to judge the facts is a “question of law” that must first be
resolved, as any high school student taking an introductory course in logic
would realize. Individual members of a society (the Church is a visible, hierarchical
society) can have a personal opinion,
but a public judgment must come from the public authority, as St. Thomas explains
in the Summa:
“Since judgment should be pronounced according
to the written law, as stated above, he that pronounces judgment, interprets,
in a way, the letter of the law, by applying it to some particular case. Now
since it belongs to the same authority to interpret and to make a law, just as a law cannot be made except by
public authority, so neither can a judgment be pronounced except by public
authority, which extends over those who are subject to the community”[9]
Furthermore,
precisely how and when a heretical Pope loses his office
is an additional question of law – and this is a question that the Church
herself has never settled.
In light of this, we can see that the complex question concerning how a
heretical Pope loses his office is not based “solely on the order of fact” as
Derksen imagines, or even solely on the applicable questions of law. Rather, it
is what legal scholars classify as a “mixed question of fact and law” (de facto
et iure). The reason it is a mixed question of fact and law is because the
Church cannot look solely to the law, or solely to the facts, to resolve the
question of whether the Pope has lost his office for heresy (or should be deposed
for heresy), as we explain in great detail in our book True or False Pope?[10]
The following illustrates the critical distinction between the question
of law versus fact, which Derksen (and Cekada et. al.) have conveniently
overlooked:
First Base: Question of Law – Does a Pope
lose his office for heresy? (If so, when, how and who judges?)
Second Base: Question of Fact – Is the Pope a
manifest heretic who has lost his office, or should be deposed (in accord with the
previously established law)?
Not only does Derksen skip over first base (questions of law), but in so
doing, he fails to realize that he has no authority to render a judgment when
he gets to second base (question of “fact”). As we demonstrate in our book, St.
Robert Bellarmine said there were five different opinions concerning the
question of law,[11]
none of which have been definitively adopted by the Magisterium. This point
alone proves that whether a Pope has lost his office (or should be deposed) for
heresy is not “solely a question of fact” (second base) but involves more
fundamental questions of law (first base) that must be resolved first. Even if
one agrees with Bellarmine’s opinion on the question of law - that is, that a
manifestly heretical Pope loses his office ipso
facto (which the theologians unanimously hold would only happen after the Church establishes the crime of heresy) - the
opinion has not been adopted by the Church, and there are reputable theologians
who disagree with, and have indeed refuted, Bellarmine’s opinion, such as John
of St. Thomas.[12]
(The opinion of John of St. Thomas, and others, is that a heretical pope does not lose his office ipso facto, but must be deposed by the Church.)
And it should be pointed out that Bellarmine did not present his opinion
concerning this question as if it were a dogma. He defended his personal
opinion, but never declared that those with whom he disagreed were certainly
wrong. This is evident when one considers how he responds to the opinions of
the others.
For example, in responding to the “Third opinion” (which maintains that
a heretical Pope cannot be deposed or
lose his office), Bellarmine only says the opinion is “exceedingly improbable,”
not certainly false. Likewise, in responding to the “Fourth opinion” of
Cajetan, Bellarmine does not say, as Sedevacantists do, “Cajetan is wrong!” but
only says “in my judgment, this opinion cannot be defended.” Bellarmine knows only
the Church has the authority to decide which of the theological opinions
concerning questions of law (first base) is correct.
What this shows is that Sedevacantists cannot get to second base with
their “question of fact” approach until they get past first base by resolving
these “questions of law”. But resolving
these complex questions is not within their power. For this reason alone, no
Sedevacantist can publicly hold his opinion as a fact. Doing so is usurping an authority
that does not belong to them, since only the Church has the authority to decide
questions of fact and law; and only the Church has the authority to apply the applicable
facts to the law.
Of course, with his facile “question of fact” approach, Derksen doesn’t
explain what happens when individual Catholics in the pew disagree about the
“facts.” When this happens, who decides who is correct? For example,
Sedevacantist John Lane judges the “facts” and concludes that Pope Honorius remained
a true Pope, even though he was condemned as a heretic by the Church.
Sedevacantist Steve Speray, on the other hand, reaches a completely different
conclusion when judging the “facts,” by concluding that Pope Honorious lost his
office and became an antipope. Who decides who is right? To what higher
authority can the Sedevacantists appeal? And what about the Sedevacantist
author, Richard Ibranyi, who considers it to be a “fact” that all of the Popes
since Innocent II (1130-1143) - 102 in all! - have been antipopes?[13]
This dilemma underscores the Protestant nature of Sedevacantism, where private
judgment, and not the Church’s judgment, serves as the final court of appeals.
And what has been the result? Sectarian division and infighting within the
movement, resulting in dozens of individual Sedevacantist sects - and dozens of
antipopes being elected (the number of antipopes produced by the Sedevacantist
sects during the past 40 years is completely without precedent in Church
history). For those with eyes to see, this alone proves that Sedevacantism is a
false and, indeed, a dangerous movement.
Now, because Mr. Derksen and his colleagues do not have the authority to
resolve the threshold questions of law concerning whether and how a Pope loses
his office for heresy, it follows that they have no authority to judge that the
Pope has, in fact, lost his office for heresy. Legal standards must first be
established before they are applied to the facts of a case, whether in secular
or ecclesiastical jurisprudence. And the anticipated and convenient appeal to
“Divine law” won’t help the Sedevacantist either, since the Church is the final
judge on matters of ecclesiastical law precisely because she is the final judge
on matters of the Divine law (canon law being a specification of the principles
of Divine law). In short, if individual Catholics don’t have the authority to
settle such speculative questions of law and theology - much less bind
themselves and others to their opinions - then Sedevacantism necessarily proves
itself to be a self-defeating, erroneous and nonsensical theory.
Mr. Derksen might be surprised to learn that his mentor, Fr. Cekada,
along with Bishop Sanborn and seven of their colleagues, indirectly conceded
this very point (before they became public Sedevacantists). These prelates have
admitted that individual Catholics have no authority to settle speculative
questions of theology and law that have not been resolved by the Church. You
read that correctly.
In 1983, these nine priests (former members of the Society of St. Pius
X) wrote a letter to Archbishop Lefebvre complaining that they were not
permitted to question the validity of the New Mass and the new rite of
ordination. They complained that forbidding them to do so was infringing on
their liberty since, as they said, these speculative questions of law had not
been resolved by the Church.
Here is what these nine priests wrote in their 1983 letter:
“The Society must not presume to settle
such speculative questions [validity of the New Mass] in an authoritative and
definitive fashion, since it has absolutely no authority to do so. Any attempt by the Society to teach and
impose its conclusions on matters of speculative theology as the only positions
suitable for a Catholic to embrace is dangerous and opens the door to great
evils, for it assumes a magisterial
authority which belongs not to it but to the Church alone. Now, while in
theory the Society may deny any claim to such teaching authority, in practice it has acted as though it did
have such an authority.”[14]
At the end of the letter, these nine priests (who were soon to be
expelled from the Society), added the following “resolution”:
“Respect for the magisterial authority
of the Church as the sole arbiter of theological questions shall be enforced.
Therefore, the Society shall faithfully adhere to the teachings of the Church, but shall never usurp that teaching
authority by attempting to settle definitively questions of speculative
theology.”[15]
So, according to the reasoning of the priests who signed this letter
(most or all of whom are now Sedevacantists), the Society of St. Pius X is not
permitted to insist on the validity of a Mass that was approved by the Catholic
Church, yet Sedevacantists themselves (including Fr. Cekada who signed the
letter) are permitted to settle very complicated speculative questions of
theology and law concerning when and how a Pope loses his office for heresy!
And they do so dogmatically by
condemning those who are “in union” with the conciliar Popes, even claiming
they are forbidden from attending a Mass in which the Pope’s name is mentioned
in the canon!
Needless to say, these priests are guilty of doing precisely what they
complained about in 1983 – namely, usurping Magisterial authority “by
attempting to settle definitively questions of speculative theology,” which
have not been resolved by the Church. Indeed, in the Sedevacantists’ own words,
their entire thesis “is dangerous and opens the door to great evils, for it
assumes a magisterial authority which belongs not to it but to the Church
alone.”
Thus, “we are bound to inform Mr. Derksen” and the rest of his
Sedevacantist colleagues that they have erred by “usurping that teaching
authority” which does not belong to them, and “acting as though they did have
such authority,” even as they make the most elementary errors on the
distinction between questions of fact and law when presenting their case.
Perhaps Mr. Derksen will want to write his next piece under another phony name,
since the pieces written by “Gregorius” have proven to be complete disasters.
See the following two related articles:
Read as PDF
[2] Derksen’s piece is called “The Chair is Still Empty” at
www.novusordowatch.com. John Salza has written a detailed refutation of
Derksen’s arguments called “The Chair is Still Empty? Says Who?” at
www.johnsalza.com.
[3]“Response to John
Salza’s Interview about Sedevacantism on TradCatKnight Radio at www.novusordowatch.com.
[5] “John Salza: Double Agent?”at
http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2016/01/ double-agent.html.
[6] “The Chair is Still
Empty,” found at http://www.novusordowatch.org/the_chair _is_still_empty.htm.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] ST, II-II, q. 60,
a. 6 (emphasis added).
[10] For example, in our
book we provide Fr. Augustine’s commentary on canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code of
Canon Law, in which he explains that “public defection” under this canon is a
question “de facto et iure” (from fact and law), since whether a cleric has
joined a non-Catholic sect is a question of fact, while the requirement for a
canonical warning in such case, followed by the process of his loss of office
(tacit resignation), are questions of law – both of which must be judged by the
Church.
[11] Four opinions
pertain to how a heretical Pope would lose his office, or if a Pope can lose
his office for heresy. The other opinion addresses whether a Pope can fall into
heresy in the first place.
[12] In True or False
Pope? we provide John of St. Thomas’ refutations of each and every objection
that Bellarmine raised against Cajetan’s opinion.
[13] Ibranyi, Richard,
“No Popes since 1130” (January 2014).
[14] “Letter of ‘the
Nine’ to Abp. Marcel Lefebvre,” (March 25, 1983; emphasis added), http://
www.traditional mass.org/articles/article.php?id=48&catname=12.
[15] Ibid.
