Archive for the ‘Sedevacantism’ Category

Not all pseudo-traditionalists hold to all of the following propositions, but all pseudo-traditionalists hold some of them. You’ll even find they hold some of the same absurdities as Feeneyites.


1. The Catholic Church has been promulgating heresy since the Second Vatican Council and perhaps in much older councils, laws, and papal decrees.

2. The Catholic Church is one despite the fact that it’s divided in faith, such as the pope’s belief and their own.

3. The Catholic Church is holy despite its heretical teachings and practices.

4. The Catholic Church is no different from Protestantism as far as having heresy.

5. Protestant and Eastern Orthodox religions are false religions because they teach heresy, but the Catholic Church remains the true religion when it teaches heresy through an ecumenical council and other papal decrees.

6. The pope can be a public heretic. He doesn’t have to profess the Catholic faith but every other Catholic must profess it to be a member of the Church.

7. The pope can be judged as pope for heresy, but only a council of bishops can do so.

8. The pope can be resisted in doctrine. Withdrawing obedience to a true pope is not schism.

9. Heretical popes lose office only when the whole church realizes they are heretics.

10. The whole church can be heretical as long as they’re not aware they are professing heresy.

11. The pope has to be warned to establish that he is pertinacious.

12. Falling into heresy is not defection of faith.

13. Catholics can use personal judgment against papal teaching, but sedevacantists can’t use personal judgement whether the questionable pope is really the pope.

14. Heresy and heretics are occult until declared notorious by the Church.

15. The end justifies the means such as when popes break divine law to help convert non-Catholics.

16. Contend that “without sin and with no loss of Catholic profession, one can withhold assent and obedience to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to relate to the general good of the Church and its right and discipline, provided it does not touch dogmas of faith or morals.”

17. The Gates of Hell and the Gates of the Church are one and same thing.

18. The magisterium is authentic when it teaches the truth, but when the same magisterium teaches error, it’s fake.

19. The Catholic Church can’t exist without a pope despite the fact it exists when popes die.

20. Obscure theologians and canonists from hundreds of years ago are to be accepted over Doctors of the Church and post-Vatican I theologians and post-1917 code canonists.

21. Sedevacantists are spiritually blind for not seeing these absurdities as true.

Read Full Post »

In 2015, I posted The Gates of Hell and the Gates of the Church (The Best Defense for Sedevacantism)

I thought it necessarily to revisit my argument against the Recognize and Resist position. Below is a much shorter edited version.

In perhaps the greatest document ever written by a pope, Leo XIII declared in Satis Cognitum on June 29, 1896:

The words – and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it proclaim and establish the authority of which we speak. “What is the it?” (writes Origen). “Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the Church or the Church? The expression indeed is ambiguous, as if the rock and the Church were one and the same. I indeed think that this is so, and that neither against the rock upon which Christ builds His Church nor against the Church shall the gates of Hell prevail” (Origenes, Comment. in Matt., tom. xii., n. ii). The meaning of this divine utterance is, that, notwithstanding the wiles and intrigues which they bring to bear against the Church, it can never be that the church committed to the care of Peter shall succumb or in any wise fail. “For the Church, as the edifice of Christ who has wisely built ‘His house upon a rock,’ cannot be conquered by the gates of Hell, which may prevail over any man who shall be off the rock and outside the Church, but shall be powerless against it” (Ibid.). Therefore God confided His Church to Peter so that he might safely guard it with his unconquerable power.

Pope Vigilius at the Second Council of Constantinople, in 553 called “the tongues of heretics” the “gates of hell.” Pope St. Leo IX’s, In terra pax hominibus, Sept. 2, 1053, declared to Michael Cerularius that “the gates of Hell” are the “disputations of heretics.”

Pope Leo XIII called the Roman Pontiffs “the Gates of the Church” in his 1894 encyclical letter Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae.

Therefore, Roman Pontiffs can’t be heretics or else the gates of the Church and the gates of hell would be one and the same thing implying the Church and Hell are identical.

However, many R&Rer’s have admitted that they personally think John Paul II, Ratzinger and Bergoglio have all been heretics. This means they personally think the gates of hell and the Gates of the Church are one and the same thing.

The phrase “private judgment” can have four meanings with a possible combination of the following: A personal judgment… (a) opposing official Church law or teaching, (b) not made publicly, (c) in accepting Church law and teaching, (d) made without an official declaration.

R&Rer’s meaning is the fourth. They personally believe their popes have been heretics. Until a public judgment is made by their bishops, their popes must be considered popes and not heretics until an official judgment is made by the bishops. However, before their bishops can make that public judgment against the pope, they must first make a private one. In doing so, they would believe the gates of hell and the Gates of the Church are one and the same thing, which is impossible.

Therefore, the entire scenario of needing warnings, declarations, etc. to make an official determination that a true pope is not a true pope is impossible. No one can even suspect the pope of heresy without the consequence of suspecting that the Head of the Church forms the gates of hell. There can be no doubt about the pope for as Rev. Francis X Doyle, S.J. so elegantly explained in 1927, “The Church is a visible society with a visible Ruler. If there can be any doubt about who that visible Ruler is, he is not visible…Blessed Bellarmine, S.J., says: ‘A doubtful Pope must be considered as not Pope.’”

This fact refutes every argument or proposition ever put forth by any and all theologians, canonists, etc., that a pope can be heretical or else Peter and his successors who’ve been handed the Church by God for safekeeping from the gates of hell can themselves be the gates of hell.

Only a pope can cease to be pope by himself, and every individual Catholic must recognize that fact by his personal judgment in the third sense, which is to believe and accept the laws and teachings of the Church and the Divine laws of God. A heretic is not a member of the Church.

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.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441:

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics…”

St. Antoninus, O.P. (1389-1459):

“In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. ‘A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church.  He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church.’”  (Summa Theologica cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub.)



Read Full Post »

The Wise Men Guided by a Star by Gustave Doré, 1865

There are Catholic sedevacantists that have been so upset with the fact that there is no pope that they decided to join heretical sects and become their own pope. Their private interpretations, decisions, and explanations have become for them law, dogma, and the infallible truth.

Failure to make proper distinctions always appears to be the cause for people to misunderstand Catholicism. However, I find often that people are only looking for an excuse to reject the Catholic religion because of the difficulty of maintaining true Christianity.

Understanding the difference between the pope and papacy:

  1. The Roman Pontiff or pope is the person that holds the office of the papacy. The papacy concerns the system in which the pope governs the Church. Christ didn’t intend to create a papacy without ever having a pope. Indeed, there would be no papacy without ever having a pope. Christ established the papacy by making St. Peter the first pope and giving him the keys. Where Peter is, there is the Church. Therefore, he who separates from the pope separates from unity of the Church, Christianity, and from Christ Himself. When there’s no pope, he who separates from the papacy separates from the same unity of the Church and ultimately Christ.

  2. The papacy is essential. Without the papacy, there is no Catholic Church. However, the Church can exist without a pope as it does each time a pope dies. Sometimes, it has taken years for the Church to attain a pope. For example, the interregnum between St. Marcellinus and St. Marcellus I lasted from 304 to 308 AD. [1] The 13th and 14th centuries also saw long interregnums. During the time of the Great Schism of the West, the Church was unsure who the true pope was. Professor and Reverend Francis X Doyle, S.J. (1927) wrote that Suarez suggested that none of the popes during that time were true popes, which means it’s possible that the Church experienced an interregnum lasting around 50 years. [2] Opinions differ on the subject, but it proves that the opinion that the Church can exist and did exist without a pope during the Great Schism is permitted to be held by the Catholic Church. It also proves that the Church can exist without a pope with an unforeseen resolution for a very, very long time.

  3. If a pope defects, he ceases to be pope, but the papacy doesn’t defect. The papacy always remains intact. If it were possible, [but is not possible] there are only two ways for the papacy to defect: (a.) If a pope taught error from the Chair of Peter as part of the papacy. (b.) The ability to have a pope ceases, which means the Church defects. For instance, no more Catholics existed. Opinions differ on what’s the minimum requirement for the Church to exist, but even a layman can be pope since Pope Hadrian V was a layman. Another argument against the papacy is the extinction of the College of Cardinals, which elects the new pope. That argument is answered here The Catholic Bottom Line – Part IV. In scenario (a.), Christ protects the papacy by preventing the pope from teaching error for the world to adhere to. A pope can teach error outside of his office, but his error can’t be against the Catholic faith as defined by the Church. His error would have to be in the realm or doctrine of opinions where the Church or previous popes have not yet made a judgment on the issue. An example of doctrine of opinions would include things like whether the Blessed Virgin Mary died or not.  In the past, the Immaculate Conception and the validity of Holy Orders of simoniacs were in the realm or doctrine of opinions. Now they are dogmas because the Church defined them. In scenario (b.), Christ established a built-in protection for the papacy. When Christ said the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church, it was not so much a promise as an established fact. Whatever opinion that would contradict the papacy would be proven false by that fact alone. For instance, the opinion that there are no more Catholics left either in Rome, the Diocese of Rome, or in the World. Since the papacy demands that Catholics exist then Catholics exist somewhere. If they must exist in Rome or the Diocese of Rome, then they exist. We would presume that whatever is needed for the papacy or Church is present regardless of appearances because our faith in Christ’s Word demands it. Proof of its existence exists in Christ’s Declaration, the teaching of the Church, divine law, and logic. When Christ said that He is truly present in the Eucharist, we believe it, but we can’t prove it scientifically. The proof of His Real Presence exists in His Word and the teaching of the Church. We don’t have to prove that Catholics exist and it can’t be proven they don’t exist either in Rome or in the world. That being said, we can easily point to Catholics in Rome and the world. Other arguments against the papacy can be found by those who insist that Vatican 2 and our present day crisis prove the papacy defected. The problem with that argument is that it couldn’t be used prior to 1958. It only proves that those who make such an argument fail to understand either the papacy or the facts that surround Church teaching. Using a Church-permitted theological opinion against the papacy is also futile. The best that anyone could do is present how the theological opinion is false, not the papacy. If a theological opinion by a saint or theologian is found that denied the possibility of our present crisis, it would only mean that opinion by the saint or theologian is erroneous and would be scrapped. I’ve not yet seen such an opinion. All the so-called death knells to Catholicism/sedevacantism are actually proofs or evidence for the truth of Catholicism/sedevacantism. It’s just the failure to make proper distinctions on the part of the heretics.

  4. It’s dogma that Peter has perpetual successors in the papacy. [3] Perpetual succession is not lost unless the principle of perpetuity is lost (the ability to have another pope). We know that as long as there is a bishop and a few Catholics left, the principle of perpetuity remains. It may not even require that much. The Church can have a papacy vacant of a pope as long as the ability to have another pope is present. Since Christ guarantees that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church, the papacy will not defect. As seen from the Great Schism of the West, it’s possible for the Church to not know how it will resolve a papal crisis. In our current situation, there are several possibilities in resolving the crisis. One way is for Francis or his successor to renounce his errors, be universally accepted, and assume the papacy. Another way is for all Catholics to agree that a certain bishop will be pope. Perhaps, it will take a miracle for either case. I’m of the opinion that we’re not going to get another pope not because it’s impossible but rather it seems to best fit the scenario of the final battle with Antichrist as Scripture and the Fathers foretold.

  5. The pope is the center of visible unity. When the pope dies and the Church continues without a pope even during long interregnums, the visible unity of faith doesn’t cease. It remains unified in Catholic doctrine. When a Catholic rejects Catholic doctrine publicly, he ceases to be a Catholic and member of the Body of the Church. The oneness of faith is the first article of faith. When the Church is in an interregnum state, it is in an imperfect and provisional state. Keep in mind that the Church is always perfect in law, doctrine, etc. but it can be imperfect in the sense that Catholics sin or when it’s absent of a pope. The person that represents the visible center of unity is absent but the papacy remains as the foundation for that unity.

If anything I’ve written is used against the papacy, it would only prove that I’m mistaken or the interpreter has misrepresented me, the papacy, or the facts of the matter.




[1] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

[2] Rev. Francis X Doyle, S.J. explains: “The Church is a visible society with a visible Ruler. If there can be any doubt about who that visible Ruler is, he is not visible, and hence, where there is any doubt about whether a person has been legitimately elected Pope, that doubt must be removed before he can become the visible head of Christ’s Church. Blessed Bellarmine, S.J., says: ‘A doubtful Pope must be considered as not Pope’; and Suarez, S.J., says: ‘At the time of the Council of Constance there were three men claiming to be Pope…. Hence, it could have been that not one of them was the true Pope, and in that case, there was no Pope at all….” (The Defense of the Catholic Church, 1927, Fr. Francis X. Doyle, S.J.)

[3] https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2019/07/07/sedevacantism-contradicts-the-first-vatican-council/

Read Full Post »


In part 1, we analyzed statements made by John Salza in a youtube interview on sedevacantism. There were two things from the interview that stood out. First was how at 3:45, John Salza claimed that he and Robert Siscoe looked into sedevacantism with an open mind. Yet, they misrepresented every pope, saint, theologian, canonist, and sedevacantist on the topic. Second was how Salza pointed to his book “True or False Pope” which had big names endorsing it, such as Rev. Brian Harrison and the late Arnaldo Xavier de Salveira. Salza’s incompetence, which I’m pointing out, is also found in his book. Did Harrison or de Salveira not actually read the book or do they not know basic theology and law? One endorser told me that he didn’t agree on the specifics in the book but only the conclusion that sedevacantism is the improper way to deal with the crisis. Perhaps, this is also the case with Harrison and de Salveira. But if sedevacantism is the improper way to deal with the crisis, is it not also improper to deal with sedevacantism with straw-man arguments, bad theology, misrepresentations, and half-truths? The hypocrisy of anti-sedevacantists is astounding.


Salza’s Fifth Error – A pope denying the existence of hell would be material heresy.

At 1:13:35, Salza said, “If Francis indeed said that hell doesn’t exist, he made a materially heretical statement.”

Not only is Salza’s statement false, it’s ridiculous. It shows that Salza doesn’t know what material heresy is.

Formal and material heresy is terminology used to explain the individual advancing the heresy. When an individual inculpably advances a heretical proposition by inadvertence, it is said to be material heresy. The denial of hell is inexcusable. If Francis said hell doesn’t exist, he made a formally heretical statement.

Salza’s Sixth Error – Popes in the past have engaged in public acts of apostasy and heresy.

At 4:03, Salza said there were popes in the past that engaged in public acts of apostasy and heresy and “yet, they didn’t lose their office. In fact, we can’t think of one single Catholic bishop throughout the history of the Catholic Church who lost their office for heresy.”

As noted in part 1, St. Robert Bellarmine implied that Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, lost his office for heresy. He defected from the faith with his preachings. In today’s canon 188.4, Nestorius would be tacitly resigning from office without declaration. [1]

“And in a letter to the clergy of Constantinople, Pope St. Celestine I says: The authority of Our Apostolic See has determined that the bishop, cleric, or simple Christian who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after the latter began to preach heresy shall not be considered deposed or excommunicated. For he who had defected from the faith with such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever.” [2]

Salza wrote a critique of me in his book on my position of Nestorius. On page 252, he wrote that Nestorius was deposed by the Council of Ephesus 3 years later and I was wrong to say Nestorius lost his office ipso facto immediately for preaching heresy. What Salza seems not to understand is that before the declared deposition at Ephesus, Nestorius already lost jurisdiction, which is why his excommunications were null. He lost his office. If he still retained his office, his excommunications would have been valid.

St. Bellarmine was using Nestorius as an example, for he just finished saying, “the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are “ipso facto” deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity. St. Cyprian (lib. 2, epist. 6) says: ‘We affirm that absolutely no heretic or schismatic has any power or right’; and he also teaches (lib. 2, epist. 1) that the heretics who return to the Church must be received as laymen, even though they have been formerly priests or bishops in the Church. St. Optatus (lib. 1 cont. Parmen.) teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, nor bind nor loose. St. Ambrose (lib. 1 de poenit., ca. 2), St. Augustine (in Enchir., cap 65), St. Jerome (lib. cont. Lucifer.) teach the same.”

As for claiming that popes in the past have engaged in public acts of apostasy and heresy, this is misleading, because Salza’s trying to say there’s historic precedent for his Vatican 2 popes.

The only so-called pope in history that might (and that’s a big might) be said to have voluntarily engaged in public acts of apostasy was John XII and he was deposed by Emperor Otto for apostasy. No warnings were given to John XII and he was finally murdered. He definitely lost his office the hard way, if he actually had the office to lose. Obviously, popes lose office when they die. It appears to be the common opinion that he was a true pope. If he were a public apostate, he would have lost his office. It’s that simple. However, no pope in history voluntarily engaged in a public act of heresy. Perhaps Pope St. Marcellinus was a pope Salza had in mind because at 38:08, he said Pope Marcellinus offering incense to the god Jupiter. If true, it was under duress and the pope succumbed to human weakness, later recovering and dying heroically as a martyr. St. Augustine didn’t believe the pope ever caved to apostasy. It doesn’t matter, because Pope St. Marcellinus can’t be compared to the Vatican 2 popes who have freely chosen to engage in their acts of apostasy and heresy over and over again, which Salza admitted from 7:40 to 7:50. He also admitted the Vatican 2 popes have attacked the First Commandment and Francis participated in false worship [of his own free will].

Salza’s Seventh Error – Sedevacantism produces bitter fruit and loss of charity.

At 48:48, Salza attributes sedevacantism of having bitter fruits and loss of charity.

I suppose Salza is applying to sedevacantism the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 7: 16-20, by their fruits you shall know them. [3]

This is odd coming from a man who spent much time talking about the bad fruit found in his own church. Surely, he wouldn’t accuse the Catholic Church of producing bitter fruit and loss of charity. So what is the cause? Jesus told us that it’s not a what but who in verse 15:

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” (Matt. 7:15)

It’s not the Church or the position of sedevacantism. It’s people who choose not to follow the Catholic Faith. Haydock wrote in his bible commentary: “Beware of false prophets, or heretics. They are far more dangerous than the Jews, who being rejected by the apostles, are also avoided by Christians, but these having the appearance of Christianity, having churches, sacraments, &c. &c. deceive many. These are the rapacious wolves, of whom S. Paul speaks, Acts xx. Chry. hom. xix. Origen styles them, the gates of death, and the path to hell. Com. in Job. lib. i. Tom. 2.” [4]

Cornelius a Lapide wrote in his bible commentary that false prophets in Matt 7 refer to “false teachers, whether they be heretics, or Gentiles and Pagans.” He wrote about the bad fruit as 1. Of false doctrine; 2. Of bad morals and wickedness. Luther and Calvin have given examples in this age.” [5]

“Pope” Francis and the Vatican 2 popes have clearly produced bitter fruit and loss of charity. They are the wolves in sheep’s clothing because they are false teachers bringing in false doctrine and bad morals and wickedness. Salza tells us we are duty bound to resist his popes when they bring false doctrine and bad morals and wickedness. Salza is indirectly calling his Vatican 2 popes wolves in sheep’s clothing.

The pope is a shepherd, not a wolf. Therefore, the Vatican 2 popes are not popes because they are not shepherds. They are wolves!

Jesus is the Good Shepherd and He wouldn’t leave a wolf to be the head shepherd of His flock, but that’s exactly what Salza implies. It’s utter blasphemy!

Salza may have inadvertently directed us to the best argument for sedevacantism yet. I used this argument in 2010 [6] but have forgotten it. It’s time to start using it again.

Salza’s Eight Error – If it’s not infallible, it can be heretical.

At 1:06:30, Salza claims that sedevacantists believe that everything the pope teaches must be infallible.

No, sedevacantists understand that Non-infallible Church Teaching Can’t Be Heretical.

Salza’s Ninth Error – Sedevacantists use their own private rule of faith.

At 1:03:33, Salza said we sedes “are no longer Catholic because you choose to follow another rule, your own rule, or the rule of private judgment. You don’t follow the ecclesiastical magisterium.”

The very next question…

At 1:04:19, when Salza was asked, is it permissible to submit completely to the Magisterium of Francis? He answered, “No, we have a duty to recognize and resist him, to the extent he teaches what the church teaches, of course we follow it. But if he deviates from that, we have to resist it. I mean we have to know our faith. That’s different than what the sedevacantists do. The sedevacantists don’t recognize and resist. They simply don’t recognize. They don’t recognize that this is the Holy Father and that there is a magisterium…We submit to the magisterium unto the Holy Father and if he deviates, then we resist. It’s as simple as that. This is what’s been going on for 2000 years. This isn’t the first pope who’s deviated from the faith.”

The rule of faith for Salza is Salza’s private judgment. He submits or resists the magisterium when he determines the magisterium is teaching or deviating from the faith. However, when sedevacantists don’t recognize the magisterium that Salza resists (rejects), we use the rule of private judgment and aren’t Catholic. If Catholics are to judge the magisterium’s teaching on whether it’s faithful or deviating from the faith, what’s the point of the magisterium?

It’s true that we don’t follow the ecclesiastical magisterium of Salza’s church, but neither does Salza. He says he follows it, but he no more follows his magisterium than the liberals in the pews of his church.





[1] Canon 188.4, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “There are certain causes which effect the tacit (silent) resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of the law, and hence is effective without any declaration. These causes are… (4) publicly defects from the Catholic faith.”

[2] (On the Roman Pontiff, 30)

[3] By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them. (Matt. 7:16-20)

[4] The Haydock Bible. Matthew 7:15.


[6] https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2010/03/15/countering-the-anti-sedevacantist-position/





Read Full Post »


Salza’s recent interview demonstrates how far from Catholicism he is. NovusOrdoWatch did an outstanding piece on Salza’s answer to a question they asked during the interview. I planned on posting a response to each lie, half-truth, contradiction, and absurdity, but it came out to be 4 pages long of Salza’s 60 plus errors alone. My rebuttals would have tripled the length of the article, which is too much for anyone to read, much less write. Therefore, I’m only going to highlight four main errors and continue with a part 2.

Salza’s First Error – A heretical notion of the Church’s holiness.

At 6:25, Salza implied that Vatican 2 and the new mass are contrary to the faith. He would reiterate this point several times throughout the interview. At 50:15, Salza said falsely that sedes have declared the Church to be defected all the while explaining how his church has defected into error and heresy and how we have a duty to resist it.

At 50:29, Salza said, “If you ask a sedevacantist where the Catholic Church is, they can’t tell you.” But Salza will tell you that his religion with heretical popes, cardinals, bishops and teachings from an ecumenical council and liturgy that’s contrary to the Faith is the Catholic Church. When asked at 1:13:36, which cardinals and bishops that are not professing heresy since they believe in Vatican 2, he couldn’t tell us a single cardinal or bishop that absolutely doesn’t profess heresy. He mentioned that he never heard a heresy from Burke and Schneider, but the problem is that they do hold to Vatican 2, which Salza says is contrary to the Faith.

All this concerns the second mark of the Church. The Church is holy but Salza’s understanding of holiness of the Church is the same as the Protestant understanding, not the Catholic understanding. See The Catholic Bottom Line – Part II

We’ve heard him preach it before, but at 50:50, he said, “The Church is going through her bitter passion just as Our Lord.” He’s actually right except he’s got the wrong church. His church is suffering because of his Vatican 2 popes, the so-called Vicars of Christ. For Salza’s religion to be that church would mean Christ was the cause of His own passion. Did Our Lord beat, scourge, and crucify Himself?

Salza makes clear that his church lacks the four marks that identify the true church. See Missing the Marks – The Church of Vatican 2

Salza’s Second Error – Heresy and heretics are occult until declared notorious by the Church.

At 8:55, Salza says Francis is not a manifest heretic according to the judgment of the Church. From 44:00 to 45:15, Salza claims that if the Church hasn’t judged heresy as notorious, it remains occult and that according to Cardinal Billot (at 44:47). At 1:07:35, Salza stated, “If the pope commits the sin of heresy, not the public and notorious act of heresy whereby he would lose his office, for example, if he privately denied the divinity of Christ, he would be a formal heretic and would severe his spiritual bond with the Church, but he would not be a heretic in the external forum unless he adheres to another religion or the church judges his sin as notorious.” At 1:01:21 – 1:01:59, In answering the question: Does Francis Profess Heresy? Salza answered yes, but continued to say that until the Church deems the heresy notorious, then it’s occult. Francis would only be considered an occult heretic.

Nothing could be farther from the truth or sillier. First of all, how could the Church judge a private sin notorious if no one knows it? A private or secret sin is the definition of occult.

Most, if not all, of Salza’s claims are false in the interview. So I’m sure Cardinal Billot didn’t make such a claim since the distinctions are found in canon law 2197 under the penal code no less. Popes and cardinals don’t fall under the penal code.

Rev. Charles Augustine makes the distinctions in his commentary on canon law:

  1. A crime is public if committed under, or accompanied by, circumstances which point to a possible and likely divulgation thereof. Canonists enumerate different degrees of publicity: almost occult (pene occultum), which is known to at least two witnesses; famosum or manifestum, which not only can be proved, but is known to many; and, finally, notorium. From this it will be seen that a real intrinsic distinction between a public crime and a crime notorious in fact can hardly be established. (We shall point out one distinctive trait below.) To fix the number of persons required for making a crime a public one is rather hazardous, though it may furnish a certain rule which will enable the judge to decide as to the secrecy or public character of a crime. Many canonists hold that at least six persons in a community, even the smallest (for in stance, a religious house of 10 or 12 inmates), must know of a crime, to render it public. Nor should there be any doubt about the character of the persons who are witnesses to the crime. Furthermore, the interest they may have in the crime should be weighed.
  2. A crime is notorious by notoriety of law (notorietate iuris) if it has become an adjudged matter, according to can. 1902-1904, or judicially confessed, according to can. 1750. Extrajudicial confessions do not render a crime notorious by notoriety of law. Here we must take issue with the assertion that the Code acknowledges such confessions. Thus it has been stated 14 that it would be a notorium juris if the bishop or vicar-general would catch a clergyman in flagranti! The Code contains nothing to that effect, but requires (can. cit.) a confession before the judge sitting in court.                                                                                                                                               A crime is notorious notorietate facti when it is publicly known and has been committed under such circumstances that it cannot be concealed by any artifice or be excused by any legal assumption or circumstantial evidence. The term nulla tergiversatione celari is equivalent to the other used in the Decretals. The second clause refers to imputability, which may be lessened by extenuating circumstances, according to can. 2201-2206. Hence not only the fact itself must be notorious, but also its criminal character. Thus, for instance, the fact of alienation may easily be proved by a legal deed, but whether it was criminal must be ascertained by other means; because it may be that the administrator or procurator had due permission and therefore acted lawfully. It is this element of inexcusability or of knowledge of the criminal character of the deed that appears to distinguish a public from a notorious crime. For the text manifestly lays stress on divulgation with regard to public crimes and emphasizes the criminal character as known and in excusable.
  3. Every crime which is not public, says our text, is occult or secret. The Code distinguishes a twofold secrecy, viz.: merely material (materialiter occultum), which exists when the fact is unknown, or known only to the perpetrator and a few reticent persons; and formal (formaliter occultum), when the moral and juridical guilt is unknown. An example may illustrate the distinction. If a percussor cleric orum beats a pastor at night, his identity may remain unknown, though the effects point to a crime; if the priest was beaten in a public row, there may be a reasonable doubt as to the real perpetrator. The authors, therefore, assumed that a crime committed at night could not be notorious or public. However, this theory cannot be accepted in this general sense. Take, for instance, a sacrilegious burglary. If a sufficient number of persons witnessed such a crime and recognized the perpetrator, the crime could not be styled occult. Neither does it seem true that a duel is always a secret crime, as some maintain. For although duels are generally held in a secret place, yet there are, as a rule, witnesses and signs which admit of a perfectly safe judgment that a duel has taken place. [1] 

It’s the public sin of heresy that causes a pope to lose office, which is that manifest and notorious act that needs no official judgment. How does Salza know that Francis professes heresy? Because it’s manifest! Duh. See The Sin of Heresy – Why John Salza and Robert Siscoe Get It Wrong (Part II) and A Note to John Salza: Heresy ‘Does’ Automatically Sever One from the Church

Salza’s Third Error – All theologians say that the pope has to be warned to establish that he is pertinacious.

At 9:08, Salza says sedevacantists have used and abused St. Robert Bellarmine.

No one is guiltier of using and abusing St. Robert Bellarmine than John Salza and Robert Siscoe. Salza misrepresents and maligns St. Bellarmine throughout his entire interview. We’ll see it highlighted again in his fourth error. At 13:30 to 13:44 Salza says that all the theologians say that the pope has to be warned to establish that he is pertinacious.

In fact, almost no theologian says warnings are necessary to establish pertinacity. They say the opposite. However, you will get a handful of theologians saying it such as John of St. Thomas, but no post 1917 code of law theologian and canonist says it.

St. Bellamine taught: “For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly be taken from him: for men are not bound or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.” [2]

This teaching from St. Bellarmine completely demolishes Salza’s entire thesis.

Even John of St. Thomas criticized St. Bellarmine for objecting to warnings. He wrote:

Bellarmine objected that the Apostle [St Paul] says that we must avoid the heretic after two admonitions, that is to say, after he clearly appears pertinacious, before any excommunication and sentence of a judge, as St. Jerome says in his commentary, for heretics separate themselves by the heresy itself (per se) from the Body of Christ.

And here is his reasoning:

  • A non-Christian cannot be Pope, for he who is not a member [of the Church] cannot be the head; now, a heretic is not a Christian, as commonly say the Fathers; thus, a manifest heretic cannot be Pope.
  • One cannot object that a character remains in him, because if he remained Pope because of a character, since it is indelible, it could never be deposed.  This is why the Fathers commonly teach that a heretic, because of heresy and regardless of excommunication, is deprived of any jurisdiction and power, as say St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose and Jerome.


“I answer [to Bellarmine] that the heretic should be avoided after two admonitions legally made and with the Church’s authority, and not according to private judgment…” [3]

Notice also that John of St. Thomas acknowledges that a manifest heretic is not necessarily one who has been judged by the Church. Salza doesn’t agree with the most important theologian on his side. John of St. Thomas believed a pope could be a heretic until judged by the Church as not the pope. Earlier in the same document he taught:

I answer that the pontiff cannot be deposed and lose the pontificate except if two conditions are fulfilled together:

  1. That the heresy is not hidden, but public and legally notorious;
  2. Then that he must be incorrigible and pertinacious in his heresy.

If both conditions are fulfilled the pontiff may be deposed, but not without them; and even if he is not unfaithful interiorly, however if he behaves externally as a heretic, he can be deposed and the sentence of deposition will be valid. [4]

Salza’s Fourth Error – A pope as pope can be convicted of heresy.

At 14:21, Salza claims to be quoting Bellarmine as saying the pope as pope can be convicted of heresy.

Here’s what Bellarmine states: Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. [5]

Notice that being judged and punished by the Church happens after the pope ceased to be pope by himself.

At 16:27, Salza claims that St. Robert Bellarmine calls the judgment “the antecedent judgment. It’s the judgment that must precede the ipso facto loss of office.”

St. Robert Bellarmine said no such thing. The good saint said the loss of office happens immediately. He gave the example of Nestorius.

“And in a letter to the clergy of Constantinople, Pope St. Celestine I says: The authority of Our Apostolic See has determined that the bishop, cleric, or simple Christian who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after the latter began to preach heresy shall not be considered deposed or excommunicated. For he who had defected from the faith with such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever.” [6]

Nestorius lost jurisdiction and could not depose or excommunicate anyone after he began to preach heresy. He was not warned. He was not judged by bishops or the pope to have lost jurisdiction until after the fact he already lost it, which is why Pope St. Celestine declared that his excommunications were null at the time. They recognized what had already taken place, viz., Nestorius was no longer a member of the Church by his own doing and he didn’t join another religion. He defected from the faith by preaching heresy alone. This teaching from Bellarmine, again, demolishes Salza’s entire argument.

See also Canon 188.4 and Defection of Faith – Why John Salza and Robert Siscoe Get It Wrong (Part III)

To be continued…John Salza on Sedevacantism – Part 2




[1] https://archive.org/details/1917CodeOfCanonLawCommentary/page/n3549

[2] (On the Roman Pontiff, 29).

[3] http://www.dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-2-of-2/

[4] http://www.dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-1-of-2/

[5] (On the Roman Pontiff, 30).

[6] ibid.


Read Full Post »

Are you permitted to believe as “Pope” Francis that God positively wills the diversity of all religions? [1]

The Vatican 2 apologist says, “It is heresy and contrary to Catholicism that God positively wills the diversity of all religions. However, Pope Francis didn’t say ‘positively’. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn’t mean positively wills it.

The average Catholic responds, “You need to give him the benefit of the doubt because the text logically implies a positive will and you hope he doesn’t mean what he plainly says. How about all those ‘Catholics’ out there who read the document as it stands and understand Francis to mean ‘positively’ wills and agree with it? Are they not permitted to believe as the pope by the words he uses to make declarations? Can the pope be the source of error where the entire flock of Christ is poisoned with heresy because of his faulty words (but he didn’t mean what he says)? ”

Every Vatican 2 “Catholic” should be asked the following questions:

Are you permitted to believe as “Pope” Francis that the Blessed Virgin Mary wasn’t born a saint and that she has defects as the Church? [2]

Are you permitted to believe as “Pope” Francis that Jesus had to beg forgiveness from Joseph and Mary? [3]

Are you permitted to believe as “Pope” Francis that sins of the flesh are the least serious sins? [4]

Are you permitted to believe as “Pope” Francis that religious liberty to blaspheme Christ in public is a God-given civil right? [5]

Are you permitted to believe as “Pope” Francis that the visible Church is divided in faith and that Protestant religions are part of the one Church of Christ? [6]

Are you permitted to believe as “Pope” Francis that there’s no Catholic God? [7]

Or is the Pope the only one permitted to believe in these abominable heresies?



[1] https://novusordowatch.org/2019/02/apostasy-francis-diversity-of-religions/

[2] https://novusordowatch.org/2018/12/francis-denies-immaculate-conception/


[3] https://novusordowatch.org/2015/12/francis-says-jesus-sinned/

[4] https://novusordowatch.org/2019/02/francis-least-serious-sins-flesh/

[5] https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2014/11/09/rev-brian-harrison-responds-to-my-article-on-patrick-madrid-and-religious-liberty/

[6] https://novusordowatch.org/2015/11/francis-all-baptized-members-of-church/



[7] https://novusordowatch.org/2013/10/no-catholic-god-francis/

Read Full Post »

The following 12 arguments made against sedevacantism have a flip-side, which works against the one making the argument. The purpose of this work is not to refute or give credence to the argument. It merely shows that sedevacantism exists precisely because the flip-side of the argument actually came first.


1. Argument: The Church can’t go 60 plus years without a pope.

Flip-side: The Church can’t go 60 plus years with heretical popes.


2. Argument: The Gates of Hell have prevailed if the Vatican 2 popes aren’t true popes.

Flip-side: The Gates of Hell are running the Catholic Church if the Vatican 2 popes are true popes.


3. Argument: Theologians said universal acceptance makes for a true pope.

Flip-side: Theologians say heretics can’t be popes.


4. Argument: Sedevacantists are divided over which popes are true.

Flip-side: Novus Ordo Catholics are divided over dogmas of the Faith.


5. Argument: Apostolicity is only found in bishops with ordinary jurisdiction.

Flip-side: No one in the Novus Ordo religion has ordinary jurisdiction.


6. Argument: Sedevacantists haven’t elected a pope.

Flip-side: The Novus Ordo religion hasn’t elected a pope who’s Catholic.


7. Argument: Sedevacantists privately judge that there’s no pope.

Flip-side: Novus Ordo “Catholics” privately judge that their popes err in good faith.


8. Argument: Sedevacantists reject the teachings of theologians on universal acceptance.

Flip-side: Novus Ordo “Catholics” reject the teaching of theologians on what makes a person a formal heretic.


9. Argument: Sedevacanism is a form of Protestantism.

Flip-side: Protestantism is revered by the Vatican 2 popes who promote and uphold Protestant beliefs.


10. Argument: Sedevacantism didn’t exist until the 1960’s.

Flip-side: The Vatican 2 religion didn’t exist until the 1960’s.


11. Argument: Sedevacantists have left the Church.

Flip-side: The Vatican 2 religion left Catholicism.


12. Argument: Sedevacantists reject Vatican I’s teaching on perpetual succession after Peter until the end of time.

Flip-side: The Vatican 2 popes reject Vatican I’s teaching: a). to reject and condemn [all] the errors contrary to Catholicism. b.)  that the “meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding. May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding.”

Read Full Post »

One main argument in defense of the Vatican 2 popes is that they err in good faith. In other words, they aren’t pertinacious.

A recent commenter named “Xavier” on this site admitted that Benedict XVI’s belief, practice, and promotion of inter-religious worship was “mad.”

A few examples of Benedict’s inter-religious acts include:

          Benedict XVI prayed in a mosque with Muslims as Muslims (barefoot with arms  crossed) towards Mecca on Nov. 30, 2006.

          On March 14, 2010, in a Lutheran temple in Rome, Benedict XVI preaches on the anniversary of the joint declaration on justification which implied that the Lutheran religion is part of the one Church of Christ and the visible Church is divided. In 1983, John Paul II went to the same Protestant temple for the 500th anniversary of Luther’s birth.

          On September 23, 2011, Benedict XVI met with the Lutheran council in Erfurt, Germany and celebrated an ecumenical service in the chapel of the Lutheran monastery of St. Augustine. Benedict bowed towards their empty altar and prayed alongside a woman bishop.

            The 2011 Assisi Events witnessed Voodoo Warlock Wande Abimbola from the Nigerian Yoruba Voodoo sect singing a hymn to the goddess Olokun and calling her down to be possessed by her (which apparently happened) at the Assisi Basilica of Holy Mary of the Angels. Benedict XVI promoted this event giving demons a place of honor in a Catholic Church.

I challenged Xavier to tell me what this means concerning his pope. Is Benedict XVI a dummy, mad, pertinacious, or possessed? His reply was that he erred in good faith, “without pertinacity.”

In other words, Xavier is saying his pope is a big dummy. Poor Benedict the great theologian of Vatican 2 and pope of the same religion didn’t know that what he was doing was wrong. Of course, Xavier knows better, as does every Catholic from children to adults whether Novus Ordo, SSPX, or sedevacantist.

To say Benedict was erring in good faith is like saying a priest who celebrates sodomite “marriages” is erring in good faith. It’s absurd! There is no excuse for him.

Benedict is no dummy! He is a trained theologian and these acts are clearly and unambiguously contrary to the Faith. They are so clear that every Catholic knows better. Xavier’s reply shows that he doesn’t want to accept the reality that his now ex-pope is a radical heretic.

When it’s obvious that someone is knowingly going against the Catholic Faith, pertinacity is presumed. For the sake of the argument, if Benedict really was erring in good faith, it’s not to be presumed. 

St. Robert Bellarmine makes this point when he taught,

“For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.” (De Romano Pontifice, II, 29)

Since pictures speak louder than words, would it be right for Catholics to presume the clerics in the following links are erring in good faith? (WARNING: GET BARF BAG READY!)

A priest who advocates celebrating sodomite marriages: https://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A778-Ibero.htm

Six bishops concelebrating mass with two female Protestant ministers: >https://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A771-Romaria.htm

A priest promoting lesbian art in a Cathedral: https://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A808-Lesb.htm

“Cardinal” Schonborn inviting a transvestite to speak at the Vienna Cathedral (not to mention the dozens of other things he has done): https://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A759-Concha.htm

A priest inviting a drag queen to deliver the homily at mass and raise the Chalice after consecration: https://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A712-Drag_Br.htm

Why would we presume these “clerics” are innocently promoting these abominations? And if we don’t presume these clerics are erring in good faith, why would we grant that presumption to the Vatican 2 popes in their abominations? By the way, the Vatican 2 popes are doing absolutely nothing about the thousands upon thousands of abominations by their clerics. Instead, the Vatican 2 popes install sodomy friendly bishops all over the place and the homosexual problem is getting worse.

By saying they are erring, you’re admitting that you know better (as all Catholics know better). If you know better, how can trained theologians acting as popes not know better?

As always with these Vatican 2 pope defenders, everyone has to believe in the Catholic Faith except the pope.

Read Full Post »

The Catholic Church has never answered the question, but I think it’s safe to say that it can’t go on indefinitely. What we do know is that the Church can exist a very long time without a pope. I thought we should revisit the question since the old accusation against sedevacantism keeps coming up despite the fact it’s been dealt with many times.

One of the longest interregnums in church history was three and half years between the death of Marcellinus in 304 and the election of Marcellus I in 308. It appears that we may have had a much longer interregnum in church history. Case in point is the Great Western Schism. Which side had the true pope?  The Church has never answered the question. It’s generally held that the Roman line was the true line. However, it’s been argued that there were no true popes throughout that whole period.

Rev. Francis X Doyle, S.J. explains: “The Church is a visible society with a visible Ruler. If there can be any doubt about who that visible Ruler is, he is not visible, and hence, where there is any doubt about whether a person has been legitimately elected Pope, that doubt must be removed before he can become the visible head of Christ’s Church. Blessed Bellarmine, S.J., says: ‘A doubtful Pope must be considered as not Pope’; and Suarez, S.J., says: ‘At the time of the Council of Constance there were three men claiming to be Pope…. Hence, it could have been that not one of them was the true Pope, and in that case, there was no Pope at all….” [1]

Rev. M. P. Hill, S.J taught in his The Catholic’s Ready Answer [1915]:

“The Great Western Schism, as it is generally named by historians, furnishes an interesting illustration of succession established with absolute certainty after a period of what was considered in some quarters as doubtful succession. The schism lasted thirty-nine years. The first of the Popes whose title was questioned was Urban VI (1378)…There can be no doubt that a lawful successor to the See of Rome was appointed in the person of Martin V, by whose election the schism was healed. The point we insist on is that there has been a succession of legitimate pontiffs from St. Peter to Benedict XV. If during the entire schism there had been no Pope at all — that would not prove that the office and authority of Peter was not transmitted to the next Pope duly elected. [2]

Fr. Hill says the schism lasted 39 years because he was going by Pope Martin’s election date in 1417. However, there were other papal claimants during that year. Benedict XIII was the Avignon Pope and was deposed by the Council of Constance in 1415. Can popeless councils legitimately depose true popes? A doubtful deposition deposing a doubtful pope doesn’t remove all doubt. Doubt about the Benedict XIII papacy might still exist until his death in 1423. Clement VIII was elected June 10, 1423 to replace Benedict. He later abdicated on July 26, 1429 and recognized Martin V, thus ending the Great Schism without a doubt. Some believe the schism ended after Benedict XIII was deposed and Martin was elected as Fr. Hill believed. If you go by Clement’s abdication and recognizing Martin, that would put the schism at 51 years.

Regardless, 39 or 51 years, we have two reputed authorities teaching that the Church can go for a very, very long time without a pope.

We also have another eminent theologian and professor (chosen by several different bishops to be their theologian at different Synods) who wrote about the Great Western Schism. Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly taught that an “interregnum covering the whole period” was not “impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ.” [3] Perhaps, one should consider seriously what he says on page 287 of his book.

“The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical [unrealistic]. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfil His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one’s service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning. We may also trust He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His promises. We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree.



[1]The Defense of the Catholic Church, 1927, Fr. Francis X. Doyle, S.J.

[2] https://archive.org/details/catholicsreadyan00hill/page/n10

[3] (Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly, The Relations of the Church to Society – Theological Essays, 1882) http://www.cmri.org/02-long-term-vacancy.shtml

Read Full Post »

Both the pseudo-traditionalists “Catholics” and the Eastern “Orthodox” have attempted to argue against the position of sedevacantism using Pope Pius IX’s Etsi Multa document [1] .​ They claim Pope Pius IX condemned sedevacantism over a century ago. The relevant passage of the document reads:

Further Heresies

They obstinately reject and oppose the infallible magisterium both of the Roman Pontiff and of the whole Church in teaching matters.  Incredibly, they boldly affirm that the Roman Pontiff and all the bishops, the priests and the people conjoined with him in the unity of faith and communion fell into heresy when they approved and professed the definitions of the Ecumenical Vatican Council. Therefore they deny also the indefectibility of the Church and blasphemously declare that it has perished throughout the world and that its visible Head and the bishops have erred. They assert the necessity of restoring a legitimate episcopacy in the person of their pseudo-bishop, who has entered not by the gate but from elsewhere like a thief or robber and calls the damnation of Christ upon his head.

Yet they do not blush to call themselves Catholics and Old Catholics, while in their doctrine, novelty, and number they show themselves in no way to be either old or Catholic. Certainly the Church rises up with greater right against them than it once did through Augustine against the Donatists. Diffused among all people, the Church was built by Christ the Son of the living God upon the rock, against which the gates of Hell will not prevail, and with which He Himself, to Whom all power in heaven and on earth is given, said He would be with until the consummation of the world. “The Church cries to her Spouse: Why do certain men withdrawing from me murmur against me? Why do these lost men claim that I have perished? Announce to me the length of my days, how long I will be in this world? Tell me on account of those who say: it was and is no longer; on account of those who say: the scriptures have been fulfilled, all nations have believed, but the Church has apostatized and perished from all nations. And He announced and the voice was not vain. What did He announce? ‘Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world.’ Moved by your voices and your false opinions, it asked of God that He announce to it the length of its days and it found that God said ‘Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world.’ Here you will say: He spoke about us; we are as we will be until the end of the world. Christ Himself is asked; He says ‘and this gospel will be preached in the whole world, in testimony to all nations, and then will come the end.’ Therefore the Church will be among all nations until the end of the world. Let heretics perish as they are, and let them find that they become what they are not.”[8]

Pseudo-traditionalist “Catholics” and Eastern “Orthodox” claim that sedevacantists are just “Old Catholics” with a new name.

As usual, these anti-sedevacantists fail to make key distinctions, which prove they don’t know what they are talking about.

Contrary to the belief of “Old Catholics”, Catholic Sedevacantists do not hold that the Roman Pontiff can fall into heresy when teaching a doctrine for the whole Church. I personally don’t think the pope can fall into heresy at all.

Catholic Sedevacantists don’t believe there was a Roman Pontiff at Vatican 2, or that all the bishops necessarily fell into heresy at Vatican 2, or there’s no Church among all nations.

What’s most bizarre about this accusation is how both psuedo-traditionalist “Catholics” and Eastern “Orthodox” actually do believe Vatican 2 is heretical and was approved and promulgated by a Roman Pontiff. The pseudo-traditionalist “Catholics” are more like the “Old Catholics.”

As for Eastern “Orthodoxy,” they are just the precursors to Protestantism. You’ll find both using the same absurd and blasphemous arguments against the Catholic Church. In this case, it’s a straw-man argument against sedevacantism.



[1] Etsi Multa http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9etsimu.htm

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »