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 Cum 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?