In the Catholic Family News [December 2015, one of several media owned by followers of the Levfebrists (CFN is the publication of the late John Vennari)], was published a recent article titled: Major New Work on Sedevacantism. Promoting the book, True or False Pope? Refuting Sedevacantism and other Modern Errors, by John Salza and Robert Siscoe with a forward by Bernard Fellay, this article is in the form of an interview of the authors where they expose their intention to defend Jorge Bergoglio as their "Pope" when so many of the followers of the Levfebrists begin to question the continuous insistence that a man who is not Catholic is head of their Church.

In other words, the conservatives were concerned almost exclusively with the last seven Commandments. Well, now that Pope Francis is undermining not only the faith, but also morality (the last seven Commandments), the conservatives are searching for answers. One "answer" they are no doubt considering is whether Francis is a true Pope. And because most of the conservative types have a false understanding of Papal Infallibility (as do their sedevacantist counterparts), it is expected that many of them will be tempted to embrace the Sedevacantist thesis (although they will likely do so in secret rather than in public). How should the faithful react if they are tempted to Sedevacantism? They should react by reading our book, which will provide the answer to every question they are wondering about, and many others that they have not yet considered... (p. 3)

    This is the first fallacy of members of the Conciliar Church and the Levfebrists: they don't judge the situation as a matter between acceptance or rejection of faith and morals, but between Conservatives and Liberals, as though the Church is a political entity and it doesn't matter what the person believes, it is just an election that can put into office a liberal candidate just as it could have put into office a conservative candidate—not a Catholic given the charism to "confirm the brethren" in the faith (cf. Luke 22:32). This can be seen in the recent communique of Bernard Fellay:

I think we do not have to wait for everything to be resolved in the [Conciliar] Church, for all the problems to be solved. But a certain number of conditions are necessary, and for us the essential condition is our survival. So I have told Rome, very clearly, that, just as Archbishop [Marcel] Lefebvre used to say in his day, we have a sine qua non condition: if this condition is not met, then we will not move. And this condition is for us to be able to remain as we are, to keep all the principles that have kept us alive, that have kept us Catholic." [Retrieved January 30, 2017: Bishop Fellay Gives Rome Clear Condition]

    The second fallacy is that they wait and see if they approve of the leadership of the man elected, just like any political candidate, and if they like what he does he is a "good" pope and if they don't, then he is a "bad" Pope that one does not have to listen to. Because they make this judgment, they assume everyone else is making the same judgment like the Kennedys, Bidens and Pelosis. Therefore, they conclude also that because Jorge Bergoglio doesn't meet the approval of the Sedevacantists, that is the only reason the only why the Sedevacantists claim Jorge Bergoglio isn't the Pope - but, if Jorge Bergoglio would have met the expectations of the Sedevacantists, they, the Sedevacantists would have acknowledged him as pope.

    They next decide that by calling something erroneous it must be erroneous, that is, why not simply state that Sedevacantists claim the "popes" after Pius XII have not been true Popes?

There are actually two related errors: the first is the simple error that the Popes after Pius XII (died 1958) have not been true Popes. The second error, which quickly follows from the first (and sometimes precedes it), is that the entire Church over which the recent Popes have reigned is a false Church – a "New Church." (p. 26)

    The authors then introduce a term, "realm of being" that in context can only infer that of the candidates "being" heretics before they were elected in conjunction with the next term "realm of action" referring to their "teaching" heresy once elected. The third fallacy of the authors is that they revert back to pre-Vatican II ecclesiology because:

Thanks in large part to the false ecumenism that has spread throughout the Church during the post-Vatican II era, there is today much confusion over ecclesiology. We treat this subject thoroughly, relying on the Popes, Doctors, saints and some of the most respected pre-Vatican II theologians. (ibid.)

    Yet, this is what exactly distinguishes the Catholic Church from the Vatican II Conciliar Church: that the teachings are clear in the Roman Catholic Faith but not clear nor the same in the Vatican II Conciliar Church. One who is truly Catholic today cannot say: I believe everything Jorge Bergoglio believes about the Catholic Church; but one could say in 1958: I believe everything that Pope Pius XII believes about the Catholic Church, just as I believed Pius XI and Pius X and Pius IX, etc., to Peter and what they taught about the Catholic Faith.

    A fourth fallacy is the insistence that there must be a pope—yet, sede vacante is not a term made up by Catholics rejecting the Conciliar popes, it is a fact that happens at the death of each and every pope and until another papabile is elected and enthroned as Pope.

    Finally, the fallacy that to accept sedevacantism, that is, that there is no pope presently, is to say the Church ceased to exist or to say the Church is invisible. But this also does not follow - just a false dilemma or ignorance of what is meant by a visible Church.

    These fallacies will be addressed in the present exposition, but it should be clear that even though these authors publish a book with the support of the Levfebrists and Conciliarists, and even though they may regard numbers as proof, and even though they may consider themselves academics and may point to Sedevacantists [I prefer Roman Catholics, but am using the term to distinguish those who stand fast and hold to tradition (cf. Thessalonians 2:14) from those who believe the Church evolves with the ages] as a minority, as not receiving the applause of the world, and as non-academics (which is not true - though doctorates are withheld from us as they hold the once Catholic universities - which really even now shouldn't have the appellation "Catholic" since they have become the nurseries of infidelity and immorality), the reminder is that Christ chose non-academics to be His Apostles (the only one possible academic, Judas Iscariot, betrayed the Christ) and is therefore a non sequitur. Yet, the resistance to the changes of Vatican II was led by Cardinals, archbishops, bishops, clergy and laity within academic circles. Fifty years later the same resistance continues among bishops, clergy and laity. Cardinals and archbishops are positions bestowed only by a pope - and which anyone claiming such a title today while claiming to be a clergyman within the traditional Roman Catholic Church would be a fraud. The vast amount of writings in the 1960's and 70's that came from the well-trained clergy and academics within the Universities and Seminaries of the Catholic Church prior to Vatican II attest that it wasn't ignorant housewives who rejected the changes, nor was it amateur lay theologians. That because a so-called serious Conciliar apologist engages a housewife to prove his intellectual prowess is only because he perhaps does not dare not meet an Edmund Campion. Nor may anyone take those who are on the fringes and feeding off the spoils (such as the Dimond Brothers, the Old Catholics and other un-Orthodox sects) as representative of the Roman Catholic Faith. To classify these with Sedevacantists is simply mudslinging, not debating the crisis within the Church.

    Please keep in mind that in researching theological topics, whatever source is used, Pohle, Ott, Van Noort, Bartman, Tanqueray, Hunter, etc., each draws from the same sources. To repetitiously provide each presentation they provide will only make this work voluminous and even more unreadable when the task is to present the Catholic faith on those points where it forces one to the conclusion that the Conciliar hierarchy is not the Roman Catholic hierarchy.

    The following will be a step by step look into the constitution of the Church and why Roman Catholics - not Gallicanists, Modernists, or Conciliarists - conclude that there is no Pope sitting on the Chair of Peter in Rome at the present time.