True Or False Pope?

Refuting Sedevacantism And Other Modern Errors.

In mid May I was drug into a debate with Siscoe and Salza indirectly.  I have no intention of debating two people, who have no concept of the clear meaning of words in Canon Law.  In reply to an honest question from the third party they used to attempt to drag me into a debate, I realized all of us have already judged Montini to be a heretic and not Pope Paul VI by our action of leaving the Conciliar Church.

Recently Siscoe and Salza report that the position that the Popes of the Conciliar Church were heretics prior to their apparent election is a new proposition.  Actually it was first proposed in 1982.

First of all, they have done a lot of research, even quoting from my own book, 54 Years that Changed the Catholic Church, although I did not make their selected bibliography.

They are apparently a part of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), although they cannot see the errors of their own sect.  On some subjects, they need to study what their own sect has published, for instance on the matter of Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio.

One point destroys their whole argument, because it is infallible.  Saint Robert Bellarmine says: “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.” (de Romano Pontifice, book 2, Chapter 40) This is significant, because the Fathers of the Church, when they are in unanimous agreement are considered to be infallibly true in their teaching.And Pope Leo XIII teaches in Satis Cognitum: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.” How can one hold an office in an organization he disagrees with?  Since this is a matter of the Divine and Catholic Faith, it is heretical to teach against it.  And so, the Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio must be interpreted in light of this proposition.

This is a detailed book.

“Note Due to the length of the book and the amount of material presented, the Index includes entries only on major topics / persons / canon laws / Church documents that are relevant to the refutation of Sedevacantism and other modern errors”  A work of this size should have a detailed Index to aid in research.  Also their bibliography is selected, which is also dishonest in my opinion.  They should note everyone they referred to.  Finally they did not leave enough pages in back for notes.

First of all, this work refers to the Passion of the Mystical Body of Christ.

It also refers three times to Pope Michael and Conclavists.

It is also self contradictory.

Some of the refutation will be on sub pages, while the balance will be here.

In general this work is selective in which quotes it uses to support its thesis, ignoring other theologians and even saints.  Also some major things are omitted, as will be noted in the proper place.

They use spurious sources, such as, The Secret of La Salette, which has been placed on the Index, The 1983 Code of Canon Law and The Catechism of the Catholic Church, promulgated by John Paul II, the Great Deceiver. In refuting Sedevacantism, one should not refer to sources that Sedevacantists consider spurious.  Also the 1983 Code of Canon Law is out of place, because the incidents in question occurred prior to 1983, which is why it was ignored in Will the Catholic Church Survive the Twentieth Century?

Also they are even using Sedevacantists as their sources to prove their point.  Of course, some Sedevacantists are self-contradictory.

Long Vacancies of the Papacy

Argument of Numbers

Canonical Errors

 

Is Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio Infallible?

 

Recognize and Resist

Many of the arguments rest on a very few theologians and thus are not complete enough to reach certitude.

Also they waste time on side issues, such as:

Suspicion of heresy, which is unimportant,because only heresy removes one from the Catholic Church.

Theological labels, which is also unimportant to this case. We need to limit ourselves to the matter of heresy.

And there are other points to consider:
The Letter of Saint Athanasius: “Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the Church of Jesus Christ.”

Fourth Council of Constantinople

 

This has led to a circus between the Sedevacantists and the authors of this book, which tends to confuse the issue.

 

And more coming soon.