Saturday, April 2, 2016

Who is a True or False Pope?


True or False Pope? Refuting Sedevacantism and other Modern Errors, by John Salza and Robert Siscoe, is a book regarded by many as the Summa and final word against Sedevacantism.

I have heard a lot about this book and here is why I am not going to read it.

Although I still have not definitively crossed that Rubicon, I maintain that there is a strong incentive to believe that Francis may have lost the Faith, and if so he would not be a pope.

How can the authors claim to refute the possibility of Sedevacantism when it is clear to me that I can make a personal decision that I no longer believe that someone professes the Catholic Faith? Why should I read 700 page book designed to show that there is no point in using my own mind to come to such a conclusion, or that my personal beliefs don't matter.

   
 
God has endowed us with memory, intellect and will.  Don't I have a right to form my own personal beliefs using these means, otherwise why has He endowed us with these faculties?

I can make use of our God-given faculties of thought, reason and logic. [Intellect.]

I can make use of a study of what constitutes the Catholic Faith. [Memory.]

I can make use of my free will, in union with the Will of God. [Will.]

I can make us of prayer, especially Mary's Rosary.

I can make use of a properly formed Catholic conscience.

I can make use of my Sensus Catholicus.

I can make use of basic common sense: if it walks like a duck....

If the use of the above means causes me to no longer believe that Francis professes the Roman Catholic Faith, then I must conclude that he cannot be a true pope, since Our Lord promised Peter that his Faith would not fail him.  It's really that simple.

But no -  some will say that we must have a visible Church with jurisdiction.  But I ask, is the Church since the Vatican II Council undergoing the Passion of Christ as many are now saying?  Is not Holy Saturday a part of that event?  On that day, there was no longer a visible Christ, there was no jurisdiction, all we had for certain was the perfect Faith of His Mother, Mary.  

Is it not possible that the election of Pope John XXIII was invalid (theories abound), thus leading to a line of false popes?  Is it not possible that Modernists hijacked the Council documents such that a counterfeit Church was created?   The true Church was designed and created by Jesus Christ, and the nature of the Church is to "Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature" (Mk. 16:15).  But Karol Wojtyla admitted in Sign of Contradiction, "... the Church succeeded, during the Second Vatican Council, in re-defining her own nature."  What a telling confession! Vatican II redefined what Christ established, creating a Church which replaces proselytism with dialog, conversion with shared prayer, and exempts today's Jews from having to except Jesus as savior.

Ironically the book True or False Pope? which is designed to refute Sedevacantism, might end up convincing Catholics to remain loyal to a false Sedevacantist Church and pope.

(In addition to what is mentioned in the above post, on their website for the book the authors resort to ad hominem personal attacks and mockery towards those who disagree with them, which indicates that the authors are not completely objective scholars.)


Frank Rega

www.frankrega.com


--

15 comments:

  1. I agree with almost everything you stated in this entry.
    It all started going downhill fast with 1951 destruction of the centuries old Holy Saturday.
    Council of Trent
    Session 7 Canon 13 - anathemtizes ANYONE who dares touches or changes Liturgy.
    (Pius XII from 1951-1958 was a radical progressive human wrecking ball.
    Destroying the after midnight Holy Communion fast is heartbreaking looking back some 65 or so years later) He encouraged catholics to fast after midnight some will say.
    However,he changed the law to 3 hours and from that point on,catholics took the easy way out.So much so,I have only found ONE Catholic Chapel (the one I attend) that actively encourages and esteems the after midnight fast.
    Secondly,Pius XII destruction of the oldest traditions in the Roman Rite (pre-1951 Holy Week) was nothing but a prelude to V2 1962-1965.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Frank,
    This is a well-reasoned post. Thank you for writing it, and letting people know that sedevacantism is indeed the logical conclusion for many of us.
    God bless,

    ---Introibo

    ReplyDelete
  3. God Bless, et al. Having read the book, I've concluded that Our Church is undergoing another 'passion'. For the past 40 years, I've resisted the 'altar girls', communion in the hand, etc, etc, etc to the point that it appeared to me that Vatican II - and - ALL the 'trappings' should be burnt, eradicated, erased and burnt and buried.
    It now appears to me that Our Church is again undergoing a 'passion' much like Arianism, the Great Schism and the Protestant reformation.
    After Our Lord instituted His Blessed Sacrament, 'many followers' left him because it was a 'hard teaching'. Just as Peter and the rest ran
    and hid (except John) many, many so-called catholics have 'run and hid' in the 'feel good' because it's easier 'church'. 'Private judgment' hasn't worked for 500+ years - isn't that what Vat II & the sedevacantists are doing?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for this post. I am coming around to this position myself. Truly the emperor has no clothes.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Always intriguing...I remember and deeply wish for the pre-Vatican 2 days...but what about Matthew 28:20 "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."? Douay-Rheims.

    ReplyDelete
  6. God Bless, et al. "all things whatsoever I have commanded you: --".
    Vat II did not 'command' anything, least of all the 'spirit of Vat II'.
    His Church is still with us - it requires our 'seek and you shall find'.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dear Frank,

    If you have the courage and sense to use your God given talents to judge the man who is pope, then certainly there is nothing to fear from reading a book about how Catholics for 2000 years have approached that problem and thought about it.

    As for your objections, when you read the book you will see that they were founded upon false sentiments, and that you had nothing to fear by such a book. The authors of the book themselves say it is perfectly acceptable to conclude that a Pope is not a catholic, only there is a catholic way to go about it to insure that it is the pope and not the one judging the matter who is not catholic.

    Sedevacantism is a post-protestant error of taking private judgement into one's own hands and considering the Church as a merely spiritual entity without any necessary physical manifestation. Never was a catholic position, never will be.

    Br. Alexis Bugnolo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Recognize & Resist is not Catholic nor is it consistent!!

      Delete
  8. Dear Frank,

    Here are a few reasons you should read the book.

    1). You said: “I maintain that there is a strong incentive to believe that Francis may have lost the Faith, and if so he would not be a pope.” The virtue of faith is not necessary for a person to be Pope. This is the unanimous teaching of all the theologians, including Bellarmine. If the virtue of Faith were necessary for a man to be Pope, you would have no way of knowing which Popes of the past were true Popes and which had lost their faith and only pretended to believe. This is addressed at length in the book.

    2) You wrote: “If the use of the above means causes me to no longer believe that Francis professes the Roman Catholic Faith, then I must conclude that he cannot be a true pope, since Our Lord promised Peter that his Faith would not fail him. It's really that simple.” No, it is not that simple. First, we cite many examples of prelates who publicly professed heresies, yet were considered members of the Church in good standing by their contemporaries. One of these individuals was an associate of Bellarmine. The individual’s heresies were condemned by the Church at the time, yet he continued to profess them. In spite of this, Bellarmine held him to be a member of the Church in good standing. This shows that the profession of erroneous, or even heretical doctrine, does not sever person from the Church. We provide numerous example to prove this.

    Second, regarding the promise that Peter’s Faith would not fail, this applies to a successor of Peter when he is defining doctrines only (when he is exercising the office of Peter with his full authority). This explains why the Promise that Peter’s Faith would not fail remaining true even when Pope Honorius was erring in the Faith by affirming the Monothelite heresy. Honorius was declared a heretic by the Church and condemned as a heretic by three ecumenical councils. The reason the Promise of Christ was not violated is because Honorius did not attempt to define this heresy, just as none of the recent Popes have attempted to define any of their errors are matters of faith (as we also prove in the book).

    3) You asked: “Is it not possible that the election of Pope John XXIII was invalid (theories abound), thus leading to a line of false popes?” Answer: No, it is not possible. We know this because if a Pope is accepted by the entire Church (as John XXIII was) it provides infallible certitude of his legitimacy, even if there was a problem with the election (which could be the case with John XXIII’s election). The legitimacy of a determined Pope who has been accepted by at least a moral unanimity of the Church (hierarchy and laity) becomes a dogmatic fact, and to deny a dogmatic fact is a mortal sin against the faith. So rejecting the Papacy of John XXIII is not simply a mistake but a very serious error.

    4) You wrote: “Ironically the book True or False Pope? which is designed to refute Sedevacantism, might end up convincing Catholics to remain loyal to a false Sedevacantist Church and pope.” The book is very critical of the modern errors. If anything, it will open the eyes of the Conservatives. This point has been made by many who have read it. You can see this, for example, in a few of the book reviews found on our website. http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/book-reviews.html

    In light of what you wrote in this post, I can guarantee that if you read the book you will spot many errors in the reasoning that has led you to your conclusion. That doesn’t necessarily mean you will cease being a Sedevacantist, but if you remain one, you won’t hold the position for the reasons you do now.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dear TrueorFalsePope, thank you for responding to my post in a most gracious way, considering that I have said that I do not wish to read your book. You do present some cogent arguments in your rebuttal. Although I am not a sedevacantist, I still remain open to that possibility. However, if I do eventually read your book, I will of course update this blog to that effect.

    ReplyDelete
  10. There is another alternative which you have not mentioned Frank. The One the Benedict XVI is still Pope as there is substantial evidence that he may have been coerced into resigning and secondly there is also evidence presented by qualified latin scholars and cannon lawyers that Benedict's resignation was faulty in that he resigned only the Administration of the Church but retained the Spiritual Minion which by cannon law and tradition cannot be done. Thus if either or both of these situations are true, Benedict XVI remains Pope even if he claims otherwise. Therefore, the Holy See is not vacant and we have a false pope, elected illegally. I have read where more and more theologians and cannon lawyers are coming to this conclusion and are supporting it. Indeed there have been times in Church History where the Seat of Peter was vacant and for a substantial time. I agree with you Frank your opinions are based on solid critical thinking. Keep the Faith my Brother.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thanks for pointing out this other dimension of the whole situation we face. It could very well be possible, and could explain why Francis is so "different" than others who have been popes.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Responding to the possibility of Benedict XVI being Pope.
    Can anyone recall Assisi 3 where pagans,muslims,and an agnostic feminist spoke at the so called "Ecumenical prayer gathering."
    This event,aka Assisi 3,was hosted by Benedict XVI.
    Just this one act alone broke multiple commandments and deadly sins.How can a man who places pagan 'Gods' and agnostic feminism as equals or 'one among many' alongside Jesus Christ,our blessed Lord and Saivor?He also prayed in mosques & Jewish Temple's.
    St.Paul says 'the God's of the Gentiles are Devils'
    So Benedict XVI openly worships Satan (according to the standards of the Holy Bible) repeatedly yet he is the Vicar of Jesus Christ on Earth?
    These are just a few moments of his blasphemous heretical sacreligious 'reign'.
    Lastly,a doubtful Sacrament is to be treated invalidly.(basic Roman Catholic law) The new rites of 'holy orders' circa June 1968 are extremely doubtful.
    Benedict XVI was 'consecrated' in the highly doubtful new rite of consecration.
    According to basic fundamental Catholic law,the doubtful new rite of consecration is to be avoided.Thus,
    Benedict XVI isn't a Valid Roman Catholic Bishop.
    Laus Tibi Christie
    St.Isadore the Farmer...Pray for us!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Brother Alexis can't you see the contradiction in what you just said, " the authors of the book themselves say it is perfectly acceptable to conclude that a Pope is not a Catholic”? So NON Catholics can be a pope? Now that is ecumenical of Salza! And yet somehow according to Salza it is NOT acceptable as St. Francis de Sales said that it would be one of the strangest monsters that could be if the head of the Church were not a member and he also said that if a pope ever were an explicit heretic he would falls ipso facto fall from his dignity and out of the Church! Bellarmine said the same thing only he said it probably would not happen. Salza equivocates over the word “notorious”. I think the past 50 years pass for notorious heresy! Well a person can fall from a pontificate ipso facto due to heresy either before because he was a heretic or during a pontificate according to divine law and you saying it is not a Catholic position, flies in the face of St. Bellarmine and St. Francis de Sales and even St. Alphonsus and the modern Canon Law Society. So I guess with what you believe NO ONE can ever fall ipso facto from the Catholic faith because that is a “protestant concept”? What if Bergoglio said he was God and let us worship Man? Well that is how he is acting. Is the pope above Divine Law? You know he is not. A false pope is not either.

      Delete
    2. Dear Brother Alexis,
      Do you think a man accepted by most people as a pope could possess free will and go insane or senile and pronounce himself God- like say he had Alzheimer’s disease or worse was demonically possessed and he said it live on network TV? We have had anti-popes. Then would you say he was an antipope? What kind of possessed pope would say that the U.N. was the last best hope for mankind and not Jesus Christ? Don’t you think it is a crass form of hubris bordering on absurdity if not heresy for Gaudium et spes section 24 to say that the first commandment is to love God AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF? MAN = GOD because they are both number one in that equation and that is how these clowns have been running the institutional Church. In fact the whole great apostasy that the Conciliar popes of the Vatican II Church have done is to put MAN ON THE SAME LEVEL AS GOD JUST AS GUADIUM ET SPES TELLS THEM TO DO! In a nutshell that is what is wrong with the Conciliar false popes and the Vatican II ecumenical Church of darkness. Most sedevacantists anyway say these conciliar false popes were heretics even before they were elected and they apply what Pope Paul IV said that even if the whole college of cardinals elected a heretic he would NOT be a pope. I would rather apply that discipline right now than have no discipline and bad universal discipline which is impossible for the Catholic Church. Was Pope Paul IV a protestant in your opinion? Maybe that is just your private judgement to call sedevacantist Catholics protestant and if you have to condemn sedevacantists you can chew on the following facts; your conciliar false pope Benedict XVI –Ratzinger “emeritus” “contemplative first pope to Bergoglio’s second “active” second pope said protestants could not be called heretics any more(See The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood, pp. 87-88), they both divide the Church and the papacy, and Benedict “Emeritus” gave Communion to Bro. Roger, the Protestant founder of the false Taize community, on April 8, 2005, while Bergoglio says that Luther was right on Justification! Will the truthful pope please stand up! Not if we don’t have one! They are too busy stumbling over one another with similar humanitarian Judeo-Masonic philosophies ! Salza is not really defending the perennial Catholic faith which knows of NO NOVELTIES, but rather the Novus Ordo Seclorum, ordo ab chao Conciliar Church and its false popes which Salza defends is the one world ecumenical, everything goes church of darkness, and NOT the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic One which has never contradicted Trent, made New Rites, New Sacraments a New priesthood nor has it ever had inter-communion with Protestant heretics. Whoever divides Christ and his Church is anti-christ.

      Delete