This is a very well written, highly captivating and incredibly informative article.  A must read for all who care about truth.  Good post!  :applause:

Quote from: katholikos

John Salza's attacks on sedevacantism, "The Errors of Sedevacantism and Ecclesiastical Law" and "Sedevacantism and the Sin of Presumption," have been substantially refuted:

The Chair Is Still Empty - Response to John Salza

I wonder if Salza will/can respond to this.

The NovusOrdoWatch article certainly is successful in showing the errors of Salza, with much information provided! Nevertheless, it could have been more perfect if it didn't spend so much time with the more personal comments against Salza, as well as spending all that time talking about canon law.

All that needs to be said about canon law to Salza is:

"The Roman Pontiff is above canon law" (Magnae Nobis, 1748).

That is why the familiar quotes (by Saints and Doctors) on a pope becoming a heretic, don't cite Church law. It is purely a matter of divine law. The quotes are relatively short and simple, expecting the reader to understand easily what it means to become a manifest heretic.

Today, trads on the way-side treat the concept of "manifest" heretics as if it were some difficult and esoteric concept not even in the grasp of St. Robert Bellarmine or St. Francis de Sales who used the terms! Now it is in the realm of a rocket science, and the vacillation and indecision results in the contradictory and schismatic actions of recognizing & resisting.

Well put Cupertino.  I believe the reason why people chose to make the simple complex, in this instance, is because they do not want to deal with the result:

"If we don't have a Pope the Church has failed and the gate of Hell have prevailed"

When in reality were it possible to have valid Popes that did and do what the conciliar popes did and do then there wouldn't be a true Church that could fail to begin with.

In other words if valid Popes could authoritatively do what the false Popes have done these past several decades then:

Christ did not build his Church on the Rock of Peter because it would be no rock at all.

The Holy Ghost would not protect the Church.

We would not be able to go to a visible unifying head that infallible Popes are in order to clarify controversies and therefore not be able to distinguish ourselves from the Protestants.

We would have splinter groups claiming to be the true authority such as the SSPX and the SSPV.

Others would say we have to trust our own interpretations and just go with what we think the pre-vatican 2 authorities taught and we would have a subjective religion based upon our personal interpretations of what we believe they meant.

Everything would be up for grabs.  Are the Sacraments valid, do we have to go to Mass on Sunday if the only one available, that we think is valid and offered by valid clergy is said una cuм heretic, is not said una cuм heretic.

It would be total chaos.

But this would only happen if public heretics/false popes were to be acknowledged as being the true successors of Saint Peter for decades.

Shew!  I'm sure glad that didn't happen!  

Assuming, though, that the chair is vacant, how does it get filled again?  A council?   Acclamation of the Catholics in good standing at Rome?  

I am not aware of a certain and clear answer to this, and I think no theologian ever entertained today's situation as a serious possibility, and hence no one tried to solve such a query in detail. However, the fact that we have no clear answer to this question is no argument against the fact that Benedict XVI is not the Pope. They're different issues.

I am not aware of a certain and clear answer to this, and I think no theologian ever entertained today's situation as a serious possibility, and hence no one tried to solve such a query in detail. However, the fact that we have no clear answer to this question is no argument against the fact that Benedict XVI is not the Pope. They're different issues.

I agree completely.  Sometimes, though, I try to tackle a problem from a solution backward.  The method does not always work, of course.  :reporter:

Here is what Salza thinks of the article:

I just checked the 60 page "refutation" and am not impressed. I already address most of their arguments in my own articles, especially my extensive critique of the Dimond brothers. I wish I had time to dissect this because it would be fun to do, and hopefully after i am done with my speaking engagements over the next 6 months I can do so.

As all sedevacantists, this article does not recognize that these conclusions are debatable, that many theologians held that a heretic can still be Pope, and the article does not understand the distinction between the soul and the body of the Church. The author does not understand what formal heresy is, and does not acknowledge that many theologians have held that formal heretics could still be pope where there heresy is occult. He also fails to address the requirement for divine warnings which we see in Scripture and in canon law. He makes the same errors about cuм Ex and canon 188 and the necessity for warnings and other eccleasiastical procedures as required by canon law. It is the same old same old.This is not a "systematical" refutation of my work; it is a joke really, because the author takes bits and pieces of quotes and wrenches them out of context. Ultimatley sedevacantism is of the devil and leads one only to despair. There is no way out once you go down that satanic road. Lucifer was more brilliant than all the angels and he fell from pride, just like the sedevacantists. Are you also aware that Padre Pio recognized Paul VI as a valid Pope? His 1968 letter doing so is public record. Don't be fooled by these buffoons.

Pray for me that i will find the time to address this. But I can tell you that sedes are some of the most hardened people i have ever met. Arguments won't ultimately refute them, only a miracle of grace will.

You could put a picture of Ratzinger next to the term "Public Heretic" why would occult even enter into the equation?  When he starts talking about the devil and what someone supposedly thought in 1968 he has shown, in my opinion, that he has hit desperation mode.  But if he wants to call us brilliant I guess I'll allow it.  Perhaps he suggests we are brilliant because he can't refute us, and knows it, and thinks he is kind of brilliant himself.  He must think if he can't refute it, that instead of needing to look at the objections and reassess his thoughts that it must be of the devil.  Which goes back to how I felt initially when I asked "recognize and resisters" their thoughts.  These guys don't want the truth if it is something "that leads them to despair".  I have found honest recognize and resisters since but this is the type of "argumentation" I have encountered these past eight years.  Very sad.  We must pray that all true Catholics obtain the grace of good will and intellectual honesty which will allow them to come to truth and then when they get that truth we must pray that they act, write and think accordingly.

You will also notice that he argues that "many theologians argue that heretics can be pope" which is false when it comes to public heretics.  But at least now, the recognize and resisters admit he is a heretic.  The argumentation used to go as follows:

SV:  A public heretic cannot be Pope

R & R:  Prove he is a public heretic

SV:  Okay, this, this and this, ad infinitum

Now the argumentation goes like this.

SV:  A public heretic cannot be Pope

R & R:  How do we know what "public" means or "heretic" means?  Maybe he is not culpable of the sin of heresy (which is besides the point) and besides approving V2 and the Sacraments and encyclicals don't fall into official acts of the Pope or if they do they don't really count as such anyway.  Besides worshiping publicly with heretics over and over and over again just can't be a public act of heresy and if it is it does not prove anything.  And if it does prove something it can't prove what you say it proves because that would be from the devil, or Lucifer or Satan it would all be so depressing so you can't be right, because you just can't be.  Wow what nuts you are.

SV:  Oh boy.   :facepalm:Is there an intellectually honest debater out there?

Here is what Salza thinks of the article:

Quote

I just checked the 60 page "refutation" and am not impressed. I already address most of their arguments in my own articles, especially my extensive critique of the Dimond brothers. I wish I had time to dissect this because it would be fun to do, and hopefully after i am done with my speaking engagements over the next 6 months I can do so.

As all sedevacantists, this article does not recognize that these conclusions are debatable, that many theologians held that a heretic can still be Pope, and the article does not understand the distinction between the soul and the body of the Church. The author does not understand what formal heresy is, and does not acknowledge that many theologians have held that formal heretics could still be pope where there heresy is occult. He also fails to address the requirement for divine warnings which we see in Scripture and in canon law. He makes the same errors about cuм Ex and canon 188 and the necessity for warnings and other eccleasiastical procedures as required by canon law. It is the same old same old.This is not a "systematical" refutation of my work; it is a joke really, because the author takes bits and pieces of quotes and wrenches them out of context. Ultimatley sedevacantism is of the devil and leads one only to despair. There is no way out once you go down that satanic road. Lucifer was more brilliant than all the angels and he fell from pride, just like the sedevacantists. Are you also aware that Padre Pio recognized Paul VI as a valid Pope? His 1968 letter doing so is public record. Don't be fooled by these buffoons.

Pray for me that i will find the time to address this. But I can tell you that sedes are some of the most hardened people i have ever met. Arguments won't ultimately refute them, only a miracle of grace will.

You could put a picture of Ratzinger next to the term "Public Heretic" why would occult even enter into the equation?  When he starts talking about the devil and what someone supposedly thought in 1968 he has shown, in my opinion, that he has hit desperation mode.  But if he wants to call us brilliant I guess I'll allow it.  Perhaps he suggests we are brilliant because he can't refute us, and knows it, and thinks he is kind of brilliant himself.  He must think if he can't refute it, that instead of needing to look at the objections and reassess his thoughts that it must be of the devil.  Which goes back to how I felt initially when I asked "recognize and resisters" their thoughts.  These guys don't want the truth if it is something "that leads them to despair".  I have found honest recognize and resisters since but this is the type of "argumentation" I have encountered these past eight years.  Very sad.  We must pray that all true Catholics obtain the grace of good will and intellectual honesty which will allow them to come to truth and then when they get that truth we must pray that they act, write and think accordingly.

You will also notice that he argues that "many theologians argue that heretics can be pope" which is false when it comes to public heretics.  But at least now, the recognize and resisters admit he is a heretic.  The argumentation used to go as follows:

SV:  A public heretic cannot be Pope

R & R:  Prove he is a public heretic

SV:  Okay, this, this and this, ad infinitum

Now the argumentation goes like this.

SV:  A public heretic cannot be Pope

R & R:  How do we know what "public" means or "heretic" means?  Maybe he is not culpable of the sin of heresy (which is besides the point) and besides approving V2 and the Sacraments and encyclicals don't fall into official acts of the Pope or if they do they don't really count as such anyway.  Besides worshiping publicly with heretics over and over and over again just can't be a public act of heresy and if it is it does not prove anything.  And if it does prove something it can't prove what you say it proves because that would be from the devil, or Lucifer or Satan it would all be so depressing so you can't be right, because you just can't be.  Wow what nuts you are.

SV:  Oh boy.   :facepalm:Is there an intellectually honest debater out there?

Well IMHO - who decided to take to the demonization tactic in the debate?  
Salza writes :
"Ultimatley sedevacantism is of the devil and leads one only to despair" and "Don't be fooled by these buffoons."

I find those comments almost comical. I have been attending CMRI Masses for 30 years , Despair is the last term I would use to describe the content of the Sermons preached there.  If Salza wants to engage - here is the Challenge - go to the CMRI Website - Bishop Pivarunas has authored several Articles over the years - and if Salza cares to point out the ones that deal with "doom and gloom" - "all is lost" - " etc etc etc - I'll be happy to listen. The fact is - the content is Catholic content.  Living ones life in humility - obeying the commandments - working out ones salvation in fear and trembling - practising charity - conforming ones will to the will of GOD - frequenting the sacraments - offering each day to GOD through prayer and the mass - examining ones conscience frequently - in short - being Catholic - if that is what Salza considers serving the Devil and being in Despair - then I am glad to be one such buffoon.

pax