Anti-sedevacantists get caught up on the issue of judging heretical popes and miss the fact that their popes have already done what’s impossible for true popes to do, such as legitimizing altar girls by law.
Two years ago, I published Altar Girls are Impossible for the True Catholic Church. In it, I answered the objections thereof.
In their heretical book, True or False Pope, John Salza and Robert Siscoe argued against my statement about what altar boys represent (where they conveniently left out my reasoning), but didn’t address my two main objections against altar girls, which are:
1. The Church’s repeated condemnations of altar girls when liturgical laws are not supposed to be harmful and evil.
2. Trent’s anathema to anyone who “says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety.”
Salza and Siscoe changed the argument by claiming that altar girls are not a universally binding law. In other words, because bishops don’t have to use girls, it’s not forced upon them. However, what they missed was that it’s a universal binding law that permits an evil practice. If the bishop permits it and the priest of the diocese practices it, it becomes binding on the laymen to accept the scandalous act as permissible by law. THAT’S THE POINT!
In their rebuttal to my argument, they actually proved my point when they stated, “we are not defending the practice of female altar servers. It is a scandalous practice and was rightly banned by the Church in the fourth century.”
By stating that altar girls are scandalous, Salza and Siscoe just admitted that altar girls are incentives to impiety rather than services of piety. It also means they reject the repeated papal teaching that laws can’t be harmful or evil!
Therefore, my argument still stands. Altar girls are impossible for the true Catholic Church. It is “one solid argument (perhaps the simplest) to prove sedevacantism.”
Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell 
Salza and Siscoe, two business men for the Harlot of Babylon.
The fact that they had their book ‘approved’ by the schismatic and heretical SSPX throws their book into the trash as it would never have been approved by the Harlot, the structure they claim to recognize.
They also cherry pick from their own religion. They reject the heresies and novelties of the Masonic council VII such as religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality,Muslims worship the Catholic God etc…
Demonic hypocrites, they also mastered the diabolical technique of sophism.
I spoke to Salza via e-mail around 2011 and asked him his thoughts on La Salette and Rome losing the Faith. Salza said that ‘this is going to happen soon’
SMH!
Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208: “By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”
For the past several years we have seen the NO church become something similar to Jonestown founded by Rev. Jim Jones. Remember, they killed themselves drinking poison? The VATII sect, headed up by cult leader Jorge B are drinking down their own poison laced punch of false Catholicism.
Those at Jonestown who wanted to leave were shot but today, the NO bunch
are content in their comfort zone and don’t have to worry about being shot. They are totally involved in spiritual suicide and continue to imbibe on their own concoction of poison punch. Altar girls, a crazed leader, immoral hierarchy, nutty self ordained theologians/authors, worldliness, no real Hell, and an oh so fun- loving community of believers are some of the tasty ingredients for the ever evolving Novus Ordo on ice with an occasional spritz to enhance flavor!
Pagan rituals almost always used females as part of the ceremony sometimes as the sacrifice. Just like the parents of these children who are sacrificing their children’s hope for the truth of Christ for social compatibility they to are lost. They should be thinking about getting a fitting for that millstone.
First Altar Girls are not against divine law. There is no evidence that this was ever part of divine law. One will search in vain in any dogmatic manual for such a teaching.
SPERAY REPLIES: YES THEY ARE AGAINST DIVINE LAW. They are intrinsically evil as popes have taught.
Second, there are almost no liturgical laws that are either infallible or part of divine law.
SPERAY REPLIES: All liturgical laws are infallible.
Most liturgical law is mutable.
SPERAY REPLIES: Mutability and infallibility are two different issues. Laws can be infallible and mutable.
It may be imprudent to change it, but it can be changed.
SPERAY REPLIES: Has nothing to do with infallibility. For a thousand years in the whole Church including the Latin Rite, Baptism, Communion, and Confirmation were done/given to infants. THAT WAS AN INFALLIBLE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH and it changed in the Latin Rite. Now Communion and Confirmation are given at later and the change is also infallible.
Having married clergy or non-married clergy are both infallible practices of the Church and yet they can and have changed.
Third, the prohibition of altar girls is not part of positive divine law and therefore mutable.
SPERAY REPLIES: WRONG! It’s intrinsically evil which is why it can never be allowed.
The underlying reason for Pope’s objection is that he did not want females serving at the altar since this implied that they were in orders. Once it became customary to no longer have men in orders serving mass and the minor orders were suppressed, this was no longer a danger. A modern altar girl is not a woman serving at the altar.
SPERAY REPLIES: TOTAL BS!
In the early Church they had women that assisted the Bishop in solemn liturgical rites involving women, who were called deaconesses (not actual deacons as feminists like to imagine). How could they be in the solemn liturgy of the Easter vigil if it was against divine law for women to assist in any way?
SPERAY REPLIES: Deaconesses never served the sanctuary.
Even if it were against divine law, Canon law may sometimes permit an evil in order to avert greater evils.
Pope Gregory the Great learned that some people had a custom of feasting greedily the day before Lent, but he allowed it to continue out of mercy (venia), lest something worse should take its place. In the Middle Ages, Church law not only permitted the Jews to celebrate their rites in Christian lands, but forbade Christians to interfere with them. This did not deny the belief that Jewish rites were evil and contrary to the law of Christ, but considered that attempts at interference would lead to greater evils.
SPERAY REPLIES: Toleration for a greater good is not the same as having evil liturgical laws.
“All liturgical laws are infallible.”
Said no one ever. This is what happens when amateurs read ecclesial texts.
SPERAY REPLIES: P. Hermann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae (4th ed., Rome: Della Pace, 1908), vol. 1, p. 258: “The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments. . . .
I can also cite several others, too.
“YES THEY ARE AGAINST DIVINE LAW. They are intrinsically evil as popes have taught.”
No pope ever said such a thing.
SPERAY REPLIES: Pope Gelasius 494 AD: We have heard with sorrow of the great contempt with which the sacred mysteries have been treated. It has reached the point where women have been encouraged to serve at the altar, and to carry out roles that are not suited to their sex, having been assigned exclusively to those of masculine gender.
Pope Benedict XIV declared: Pope Gelasius in his ninth letter (chap. 26) to the bishops of Lucania condemned the evil practice which had been introduced of women serving the priest at the celebration of Mass.
Why are they evil? Because it’s not suited to their sex, which necessarily means they are against the Divine law.
“Toleration for a greater good is not the same as having evil liturgical laws.”
This is under supposition that all liturgical laws are infallible.
Even if it were true that universal laws are indirectly infallible (which I do not concede) this would be irrelevant as the canon in question is putatively particular liturgical law of the Roman Patriarchate (which you apparently confuse with the universal church).
You are your own pope who thinks he knows better than all canonists and theologians, even the true popes themselves. That necessarily makes you an antichrist.
“You are you’re own pope who thinks he knows better than all canonists and theologians, even the true popes themselves. That necessarily makes you an antichrist.”
Please do cite them. I dare you.
“I can also cite several others, too. ”
Yes… please do
Before I do, will you concede that you are wrong, again? To let you know, I can cite 5 more right off the top of my head.
I can see that sedevacantism has really gotten under your skin and you obviously hate the position. How is it you don’t have such a hatred for a religion that promulgates heresy with a total apostate as it’s pope? You’re defending the completely heretical religion of Francis. You’re actually arguing how your religion has evil laws and how the end can justify the means. I wrote an article about people like you called “The Anti-Sedevacantist Syndrome”, which you can read here: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2014/06/12/the-anti-sedevacantist-syndrome/
Sedevacantism is heretical nonsense. The numbers amongst your ranks will decrease with time.
Yet, you can’t show one heresy of sedevacantism. You do avoid the questions and never concede a single point even after shown the facts. You have the nerve to say sedevacantism is heretical nonsense when your religion is heretical and has a total apostate as its pope. You’re a joke!
Since you can’t acknowledge facts and don’t answer questions, you will no longer be permitted to have a say on my site. Good riddance.