TRUE or False Pope: Refuting Sedevacantism and other Modern Errors is a recently released 700-page book published by Angelus Press and written by John Salza and Robert Siscoe.

Very few people are likely to read this anti-sedevacantist polemic because of its length and dullness.

But it is sure to have great symbolic value.

As the Rev. Anthony Cekada, one of the foremost apologists of sedevacantism, says in this videotaped review of the book, people who don’t want to think about sedevacantism will find affirmation in the very existence of the book and its impressive length.

Sedevacantists hold that the Vatican II claimants to the papal see, including Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and the mega-celebrity “Pope” Francis, are not true popes. This position does not entail the belief that these men were, or are, thoroughly evil or that they did not uphold some important Catholic truths. Let me repeat that point because it is so misunderstood and demonized: This position does not entail the belief that these men, and certainly not those who have faithfully followed them, are monsters. It contends that these men were, or are, not valid popes because they rejected key dogmas of the Catholic Faith. They didn’t — and don’t — have true authority.

In contrast, Catholic traditionalists such as Salza and Siscoe believe the Vatican II popes should be recognized as valid popes — and resisted. They adamantly reject the sedevacantist position.

This is an extremely important issue, not some marginal intellectual dispute.

Without settled dogma and a divinely-guaranteed authority to preserve it, Christianity is a fluctuating and unstable religion of man. Vatican II revolutionized Catholic worship and dogma. It was, and continues to be, comparable to the French Revolution in its wider cultural influence. A word to my Protestant friends, many of whom are so admirably devout and sincere in their beliefs: Your Bible wouldn’t exit without papal authority.

Here is the sedevacantist argument in brief by Fr. Cekada:

1. Officially-sanctioned Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws embody errors and/or promote evil.

2. Because the Church is indefectible, her teaching cannot change, and because she is infallible, her laws cannot give evil.

3. It is therefore impossible that the errors and evils officially sanctioned in Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws could have proceeded from the authority of the Church.

4. Those who promulgate such errors and evils must somehow lack real authority in the Church.

5. Canonists and theologians teach that defection from the faith, once it becomes manifest, brings with it automatic loss of ecclesiastical office (authority). They apply this principle even to a pope who, in his personal capacity, somehow becomes a heretic.

6. Canonists and theologians also teach that a public heretic, by divine law, is incapable of being validly elected pope or obtaining papal authority.

7. Even popes have acknowledged the possibility that a heretic could one day end up on the throne of Peter. In 1559 Pope Paul IV decreed that the election of a heretic to the papacy would be invalid, and that the man elected would lack all authority.

8. Since the Church cannot defect, the best explanation for the post-Vatican II errors and evils we repeatedly encounter is that they proceed from individuals who, despite their occupation of the Vatican and of various diocesan cathedrals, publicly defected from the faith, and therefore do not objectively possess canonical authority.

As I said, “Recognize and Resist” Catholics such as Salza and Siscoe reject sedevacantism. They believe a public heretic can be pope and that lay Catholics are obligated to resist the heretical popes of Vatican II, a position which on the face of it is so contrary to the obedience and submission Catholics have always believed, and non-heretical popes have always taught, are due the supreme head of the Church.

Fr. Cekada, with his characteristic wit, erudition and to-the-point clarity, looks at the main arguments of True or False Popes?. For instance, Salza and Siscoe  criticize sedevacantists again and again for linking loss of papal office to the internal sin of heresy. This is a misrepresentation of the sedevacantist position, which maintains that the public sin of heresy is the real concern. The Vatican II “popes” have publicly denied settled dogma.

Furthermore, Fr. Cekada points out, it is not necessary to worry about whether the Vatican II popes lost their claims to the papal office. They were public heretics before they were elected to the papacy and canonists have taught that, as a matter divine law, a public heretic cannot be elected pope. Jorge Bergoglio never was a true pope. He had no authority to lose. There is no need for any kind of formal proceeding or formal judgment against him, even if canon law and Catholic theology allowed for such a thing, which they do not. Catholics should simply refuse him the authority he claims because he was not a Catholic before he was elected.

The “Recognize and Resist” position of traditionalists such as Salza and Siscoe makes the pope not the supreme head of the Catholic Church, but a cardboard figure with little power because much of what he does can be resisted or rejected by lay Catholics. He does not wield supreme authority. And that’s a true pope?

I recommend Fr. Cekada’s 30-minute review in its entirety.

Please pray for Fr. Cekada, who is undergoing chemotherapy for cancer. I embrace his arguments in favor of sedevacantism and am deeply grateful for his work, including his book, Work of Human Hands: A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI — a treasure of brilliant analysis.

Here is a “quick primer” on sedevacantism by Fr. Cekada.

As I see it, in my own simplistic, almost child-like way, the confusion surrounding papal authority at this time, is God’s way of saying, as he periodically does, that we cannot love him with our hearts alone. We must love him with our minds too. And when we turn to him with our minds, in trust that his promises of the indefectibility of the Church are utterly true, we cannot help but side with common sense, as well as 2,000 years of doctrine, and conclude that these men are imposters.

Please follow and like us: