I've been reading about sedevacantism lately, and have heard many opposing opinions from both sides of the debate concerning its truthfulness. The latest article I have read is The Errors of Sedevacantism and Ecclesiastical Law, by John Salza, J.D.. A link to this article can be found here:

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/feature-articles/Feature_-_The_Errors_of_Sedevacantism.pdf

In this article, the author states that, in accordance with Canon Law, no one may judge a Cardinal of heresy except for the Pope. Even though the author backs this up by quoting Canon Law, that sounds like a bunch of baloney to me. When a Cardinal publicly expounds modernism, the fruits of Protestantism, the need for ecuмensism, etc., how can it be right that only the Pope may say, "That Cardinal is a heretic,"? Additionally, how can it be right to allow the Cardinal to expound his heresy, to corrupt his subordinates, and to demand obedience to him and his heretical thinking until the Pope deems him a heretic? What if the Pope is a heretic? Who can judge him of heresy?

Can anybody refute this article with sound arguments? With my scant knowledge of Church history, doctrines, and Canon Law, I am in no position to do so myself. The best that I can do is say, "His articles sound like baloney to me," but that "argument" doesn't put my mind at ease.

Your question highlights a serious misunderstanding of what sedevacantism teaches.  Sedevacantism is not a public binding judgment, it is a private judgment of the evidence.

Can we deny what we plainly see?  If a man is not a Catholic, he has no claim to the papacy.  That is common sense, and is taught by the theologians and canonists.  

Because sedevacantism is not a public judgment, it does not bind Catholics en masse to agree with this.  Each Catholic must individually examine the evidence, and allow his own conscience to bind him to what he knows is the truth.  

Also, another point to ponder is that most sedevacantists believe that Paul VI and his successors were heretics from the start and were never popes, so we are not judging the pope, since they never became pope to begin with.  They are merely false claimants to the office, therefore there is no debate over judging the pope.

I actually do understand all of this, and did before reading the article. However, your question of

"Can we deny what we plainly see?"

is exactly what I'm asking here. Is Canon Law telling me to deny that a Cardinal that does heretical things is not a heretic because the Pope hasn't judged as such? My common sense is saying, "No, that's stupid," but then again, as the author shows, it says it right there in Canon Law.

That is why I created this thread asking someone to rebuke the author, as I can't see any way to.

The latest article I have read is The Errors of Sedevacantism and Ecclesiastical Law, by John Salza

Can anybody refute this article with sound arguments?

Yes, here is a link to Sedevacantists who make a very good case refuting John Salza's argument against sedevacantism,,,

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Articles/john_salza.php

Yes, here is a link to Sedevacantists who make a very good case refuting John Salza's argument against sedevacantism,,,

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Articles/john_salza.php

The following is the most complete and accurate response to John Salza out there:

http://www.novusordowatch.org/the_chair_is_still_empty.htm

These articles are exactly what I was looking for. Thank you for the links, gentleman.

Quote from: Deliveringit

Yes, here is a link to Sedevacantists who make a very good case refuting John Salza's argument against sedevacantism,,,

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Articles/john_salza.php

Quote from: Lover of Truth

The following is the most complete and accurate response to John Salza out there:

http://www.novusordowatch.org/the_chair_is_still_empty.htm

These articles are exactly what I was looking for. Thank you for the links, gentleman.

BTW - Can you let me know what you think of the second article when you get a chance?

Alex,

I would suggest that you give some consideration to the Bull Unam Sanctam, promulgated by Pope Boniface VIII on 18th November 1302, especially these closing lines:

Original:

Est autem haec auctoritas, etsi data sit homini, et exerceatur per hominem, non humana, sed potius divina potestas, ore divino Petro data, sibique suisque successoribus in ipso Christo, quem confessus fuit, petra firmata, dicente Domino ipsi Petro: Quodcunque ligaveris, etc. [Matt. 16:19.] Quicunque igitur huic potestati a Deo sic ordinatae resistit, Dei ordinationi resistit, nisi duo, sicut Manichaeus, fingat esse principia, quod falsum et haereticuм judicamus, quia, testante Moyse, non in principiis, sed in principio coelum Deus creavit et terram. [Gen. 1:1.]

Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus dicimus, definimus et pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis.

Ref: http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/6_ch01.htm

----------------

Translation:

This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, 'Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven' etc., [Matt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1].

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Ref: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Bon08/B8unam.htm

----------------

Accordingly, if Benedict XVI is the true current Roman Pontiff, then to resist his official commands is tantamount to resisting Almighty God, thus putting your salvation in grave peril.

On the other hand, if Benedict XVI is NOT the true current Roman Pontiff, then you are free to resist his official commands without thereby endangering your salvation.

Quote from: Lover of Truth

BTW - Can you let me know what you think of the second article when you get a chance?

I have only read Part 1 of the article, but I must say that the author's reasoning seems quite good so far. I knew something was fishy about Mr. Salza's reasoning from the beginning, but Gregorius's and Br. Dimond's refutation completely smashed whatever persuasive hold that Mr. Salza's reasoning had over me.

Gregorious's article also spoke of the Catholics who resist the Pope being in the wrong, and while it has not completely convinced me of becoming a sedevacantist, it has seriously put my stance of resistance into question. I'm going to have to study more before I will commit to anything other than resistance at the moment, however. Perhaps you have some articles, websites, or books you can recommend me?

The sad thing about anti-SVs is that they should know better and I sometimes suspect they do.  The are left with ad hominem attacks and spouting errors.  They seem to think (rightly or wrongly) that the average Joe will take them at their word without checking their ipsi dixits (asserting a statement is true merely because they asserted it).

Here is one article:

http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/11Jul/jul11ftt.htm

Here is a dogma of the Church that should send the Recognizers and Resisters scampering but it doesn't:


Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (UNAM SANCTAM, Pope Boniface VIII)

They rightly know that the could resist a sinful command to INDIVIDUALS such as "Stomp on the cross" or "bring me a hooker".  

But we cannot resist what VALID POPES bind on the Church such as:

1. Ecuмenical Councils

2.  New Sacraments

3.  New Mass

4.  New Code of Canon Law.

5.  Encyclicals

6.  New Catechisms

But it was not valid Popes that have "bound" the strangeness above upon us these past 50 years.  I didn't mention the new rosary or stations of the cross or new exorcism rite or the approval of a consecration of the Eucharist where there is no consecration formula or that they could receive objects of false religions with esteem or worship at false Church's and approve of their existence and works since any of the above 6 official acts of the Church is enough to show that they cannot be Popes unless the Catholic Church is reletivistic and can contradict herself.  

P.S.
Alex, unless you already know of it, I would add that the following website is also worthy of your consideration:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/