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.pdfIn 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.