A Brief Response to Thomas S.’s Attack on Sedevacantism

By Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.

Updated: Feb. 12, 2007 Thomas S. now sends out e-mails under the name “John Browne.”  This is the person who had promoted homosexuality, universal salvation and Protestant sects.  John Browne/Thomas S. has now seemingly adopted the sedevacantist position, which is a positive development and a step in the right direction.  However, he is still heretical and a danger to the Faith because he rejects the canonizations of the Catholic Church, holds that many pre-Vatican II popes were heretics, links to and promotes the writings of schismatics, favors Jansenism, promotes the false idea of baptism of desire, among other things.  In charity we tried to warn him not to promote the writings of heretics, but it was to no avail.  It’s obvious that this is a very spiritually disturbed individual who, having embraced a promotion of homosexuality and universal salvation not very long ago, is not a good guide to what constitutes Catholic teaching (to put it mildly), but is someone whose e-mail list should be totally avoided. Updated: Feb. 11, 2005 Those who are familiar with Thomas S.’s website can see that he has now abandoned his opposition to John Paul II’s heresies and totally repudiated the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.  He now literally promotes universal salvation and universal brotherhood without the true religion.  He had defended at much length that only those who die as Catholics can be saved, but now he promotes that all men are saved.  The point is that Thomas S. has fallen under the Romans 1 Curse.  He has been handed over to Satan because he obstinately defended that the heretic John Paul II is the Pope after he knew that it is indefensible.  He also promotes homosexuality on his website by promoting “Dignity,” and he had promoted homosexuality in e-mails he sent out to his list.  He has a link to the sect of the “Quakers.”  He also promotes the legalization of Marijuana.  But, most of all, he promotes the Antichrist John Paul II and his repeated teaching of universal salvation. In this Article: -          A refutation of Thomas S.’s thesis that the heretic John Paul II is Pope -          A discussion of Thomas S.’s claims regarding the requirements for public heresy -          A discussion of Thomas S.’s principal heresy (also held by many others) that a non-Catholic heretic such as John Paul II can retain the jurisdiction of the Papacy Introduction Recently, Thomas S. posted an article on his website attempting to refute the fact that Antipope John Paul II is not the true Pope of the Catholic Church.

Thomas S.: “In this article we shall refute the sedevacantist claim that Pope John Paul II is not pope because of publicly committed heresy.  We shall do so with reference to the canon law of the Church on this matter, particularly as interpreted by the approved canonists of the last century.”

      While the arguments that he brings forward in defense of Antipope John Paul II are refuted by the facts contained in our videos, magazines and newsletters, we felt that a brief refutation of his article was in order since a few people had asked us for our thoughts on it. In this refutation we will not spend pages refuting the illogical and inaccurate diatribe that Thomas S. makes about canon law (which we could); but rather we will cut right to the heart of the matter by very briefly summing up where Thomas S.’s article contradicts defined Catholic dogma.  Thomas S.’s arguments can be dealt with quite briefly.  Thomas S.’s entire article is a tendentious attempt to make the issue of whether John Paul II is the Pope seem like a complicated debate about canon law, when it is really a very simple issue concerning defined Catholic dogma. Thomas S.’s Thesis

Thomas S.: “So we see that according to canon law and its authorised commentators, a pope would lose his office through heresy only if his heresy were "public", and that for it to be public, it would have to be notorious in fact…However, it is quite clear that none of this has occurred today.  The heresy of Pope John Paul II is both materially and formally secret as neither the fact of his heresy nor any pertinacity has become known to the Church.  Only a tiny, tiny minority of people even claim that he has heretically diverged from the Faith and most of those do not conclude that he is certainly pertinacious.  Therefore he has not lost the papacy through heresy.”

The thesis of Thomas S’s article can be summarized as follows: Sedevacantists (i.e., those who hold that John Paul II is not Pope) base their entire argument on a misapplication of canon 188.4, which states that a cleric who publicly rejects the faith loses his office.  John Paul II’s heresy is not “public,” according to Thomas S., and therefore it is laughable and ridiculous to apply canon 188.4 to him. Refuting Thomas S.’s Thesis      In response to this we will point out, first of all, that one does not need to quote a line of canon law to prove that Antipope John Paul II is not the Pope.  This simple fact refutes the entire thesis of Thomas S’s article.  The issue of whether or not John Paul II is the Pope is not an issue rooted in canon law, but in defined Church dogma. (This is a point that Thomas S. wants to avoid at all costs, for reasons that will be clear below).  This issue has to do with the very nature of the Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ.  It has to do with who are the members of the true Church and who are not.  It has to do with the unity of the Church, that there is only one faith in the Church of Christ (Eph. 4:5), and that heretics don’t reside in the Body.  Thus, for Thomas S. to write a detailed article supposedly “refuting” sedevacantism, and to not even address the arguments from Church dogma that sedevacantists like ourselves make, is very dishonest, especially because I have personally pointed out to him via e-mail (well before he posted this article) that this issue surrounds the defined Catholic dogma that heretics are not members of the Body of Christ (and therefore the heretic John Paul II cannot be the head of the Body of Christ).  The bottom-line is that Antipope John Paul II is a heretic and Thomas S. admits this!

Thomas S.: “Now, all of this applies to John Paul II.  He is an open heretic against the Catholic Faith and we are not to follow him.”

     With this admission, Thomas S.’s entire article is refuted, because it is a solemnly defined dogma that heretics are not inside the Body of Christ.  One who obstinately denies this dogma commits a mortal sin and ceases to be Catholic.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or hereticsand schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives…”(1) Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”(2) Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”(3) Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9): “No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one.  For there may be or arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to a single one of these he is not a Catholic.”(4)

Therefore, by Thomas S.’s own admission that John Paul II is a heretic, the debate is over; for he must confess that John Paul II is outside the Body of Christ.  And once one admits that Antipope John Paul II is outside the Catholic Church, it is absurd and heretical to say that he can be the head of the Catholic Church.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896: “No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since IT IS ABSURD TO IMAGINE THAT HE WHO IS OUTSIDE CAN COMMAND IN THE CHURCH.”(5) Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, profession of faith, Dec. 18, 1208: “By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess THE ONE CHURCH, NOT OF HERETICS, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”(6)

By obstinately asserting that Antipope John Paul II is the Pope (i.e., the head of the Church of Christ), Thomas S. denies the dogma that heretics are outside the Body of Christ and further he professes union with a Church of heretics.  And ironically, at the end of his article, Thomas S. even criticizes others for teaching the heresy that heretics and schismatics are inside the Church!

Thomas S.: “All of the approved theologians of the Church today hold to untold errors such as: religious liberty; false ecumenism; a false ecclesiology which would include heretics and schismatics in the Church; the heresy of salvation for those who die as non-Catholics, and so on.” 

Here, Thomas S. very hypocritically condemns the heresy of “a false ecclesiology which would include heretics and schismatics in the Church” when his entire article is about how the heretic Antipope John Paul II is in the Church!  Thus, he is condemned out of his own mouth. Thomas S. on the Requirements for Public Heresy Before we address Thomas S.’s statements on the requirements for public heresy, we must point out that none of this discussion is necessary to refute Thomas S.’s argument that Antipope John Paul II is the Pope.  We have already refuted this above from Church dogma and Thomas S.’s own admission that John Paul II is a heretic.  With that being reiterated, we will refute Thomas S.’s false claims regarding public heresy and canon law.  Much of Thomas S.’s article is a perversion of the teaching of canon law on the requirements for public heresy.

Canon 2197.1, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “A Crime is public: (1) if it is already commonly known or the circumstances are such as to lead to the conclusion that it can and will easily become so…”

This definition of “public” is very clear.  For heresy to be “public” it must be commonly known or committed in circumstances that can and will easily become so.  Would any honest person – who is aware of the relevant facts, as is Thomas S.  – actually argue that Antipope John Paul II’s multitudinous crimes of heresy don’t fit this definition for “public”?  Antipope John Paul II has committed crimes of heresy and apostasy on television in front of millions of people; in speeches to thousands of people (for the last 25 years and running); in his encyclicals addressed to all the members of his Church (i.e., about 1 billion); in his official Vatican newspaper (which is printed weekly and is available in the vernacular for much of the world’s population); in his internationally best-selling Catechism available to hundreds of millions; in his books and interviews; in his internationally covered trips to meet and pray with non-Catholic religious leaders; in his Church’s official and public agreements with non-Catholic churches (such as the Vatican/Lutheran Agreement on Justification and his many common professions of faith with the Eastern Schismatic bishops of all kinds) etc., etc., etc.  Anyone who would comprehend these facts and obstinately argue that Antipope John Paul II crimes do not fit the above definition for public is simply not being honest. So how does Thomas S. attempt to justify his ridiculous assertion that Antipope John Paul II’s crimes of heresy don’t fit the above definition for public?  He does so by perverting the fallible commentaries written by priests and canonists.  In other words, in trying to prove his point that Antipope John Paul II’s heresy is not “public,” Thomas S. employs as his main argument the fallible commentaries on the Code, not even anything written in the Code itself.  So even if Thomas S. were applying the canonists’ commentary on the Code 100% correctly – which he isn’t – it still wouldn’t prove his point, because canonists’ commentaries on the Code of Canon Law bear no infallibility.

Thomas S.: "Classification as to Publicity. A crime is: 1. Public, if it is already commonly known or the circumstances are such as to lead to the conclusion that it can and will easily become so; [...] "Commonly known" (divulgatum) means known to the greater part of the inhabitants of a place or the members of a community; but this is not to be taken mathematically, but in prudent moral estimation. A crime may remain occult though known to a number of persons who are likely to keep it quiet, whereas it may be public though known to only a few who are sure to divulge it. (Bouscaren and Ellis, Canon Law: A Text and Commentary (1951)) “So, a crime is “public” in canonical terms if it is “commonly known”, that is, “known to the greater part of the inhabitants of the place”, or is committed in circumstances in which “it will easily become so”, such as if a few witnesses would easily “divulge it” which we are told means that they would easily make it "commonly known (divulgatum)”.

First of all, notice how Thomas S. presents the fallible commentary of Bouscaren and Ellis on this canon as if it ended all debate on the matter – as if it carried the weight of an infallible pronouncement.  This is not honest.  Secondly, notice how his conclusion even misrepresents the actual teaching of the quotation that he uses.  In his comment on this quotation, Thomas S. focused only on the underlined portion of the quotation from Bouscaren and Ellis, that commonly known crimes are known to the greater part of the inhabitants of a community.  He takes this phrase and runs with it, emphasizing it again and again throughout his article, as if to “prove” his point that Antipope John Paul II’s crimes are not public.  But this phrase that Thomas S. uses again and again was taken out of its context, for Bouscaren and Ellis go on to clearly say that “this is not to be taken mathematically, but in prudent moral estimation,” thus immediately qualifying their statement that public crimes are “known to the greater part of the inhabitants of a place.”  And then, near the end of the quotation, Bouscaren and Ellis refute Thomas S.’s entire conclusion by admitting that “[a crime] may be public though known to only a few who are sure to divulge it.” Thomas S. completely ignores these statements, and most importantly the final phrase – that “[a crime] may be public though known to only a few who are sure to divulge it” – which serves to refute his own words.  Antipope John Paul II’s crimes are certainly known by more than “a few” who have divulged it!  Therefore, even the fallible commentaries on the Code of Canon Law – which are the only arrows in Thomas S.’s quiver – are used against him. The rest of Thomas S.’s article is filled with similar misrepresentations of the fallible Canon Law commentaries by priests and canonists.  It is sufficient to note in conclusion that Antipope John Paul II is a notorious and public heretic; and that this is an undeniable fact.  If Thomas S. wants to assert that Antipope John Paul II is not a public heretic then he must admit that Billy Graham is not a public heretic, nor Jack Van Impe, nor Pat Robertson, nor any schismatic Bishop of the “Orthodox” Church, nor anyone in the world. Thomas S.’s Principal Heresy Thomas S.’s principal heresy is expressed in the following paragraph of his article:

Thomas. S: “Faith is not absolutely necessary for the exercise of jurisdiction.  Just as an (sic) heretical minister can be used as a minister of absolution by the Church, which requires jurisdiction on the part of the minister, such as at the point of death, even so an (sic) heretical pope can be used as a minister of papal jurisdiction.  A pope is the head of the Church only vicariously and exercises his office as an instrument of Christ: Our Lord can continue to use him even if he should excommunicate himself through heresy.” (My emphasis)

Thomas S. here expresses the principal heresy of many non-sedevacantists: that a Pope can be a heretic (and thus a non-Catholic who is outside the Church) but can still possess the jurisdiction of the Papacy.  He argues that just like a non-Catholic schismatic priest who is outside the Church has jurisdiction in danger of death to hear confessions, so too can a heretic have the jurisdiction of the Papacy.  Fr. Gavin Bitzer expressed the same heresy to me over the telephone, and many others hold it as well.  The problem with this heresy is that a Pope is not merely someone who possesses jurisdiction in the Catholic Church, but the Pope is by divine law also the head of the Catholic Church.  I repeat: the Pope is not merely someone who possesses jurisdiction within the Church, but is by divine law the head of the Body.  This fact refutes the above argument.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, On the Church of Christ, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: “… the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold the primacy over the whole world, and that the Pontiff of Rome himself is the successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles, and is the true vicar of Christ and HEAD OF THE WHOLE CHURCH and faith, and teacher of all Christians…”(7)

Thus, Thomas S.’s (and many others) attempted analogy between a heretical priest having jurisdiction and a heretical Pope having jurisdiction fails miserably, because the Pope not only holds the primacy of jurisdiction, but is head of the Church by divine law.  And in order to be the head he must be a member.  Thus, by asserting that Antipope John Paul II is the Pope, Thomas S. is forced to admit that either 1) the heretic Antipope John Paul II is a member of the Church because he is the head (thereby denying dogma that heretics aren’t members); or 2) John Paul II is a Pope but is not the head of the Church, thereby denying the above dogma that a Pope is the head. Another perhaps less significant but interesting point is that we can also see in Vatican I (above) that the Pope is also the head of the “faith,” in addition to being “the teacher of all Christians.”  How can a non-Christian such as Antipope John Paul II be the head of the “faith”?  How can he – a non-Christian – be “the teacher of all Christians”?  The answer is self-evident: it is impossible.  It denies the dogma that the Church is one in faith.

St. Francis De Sales, Doctor of the Church: “The Church is a holy university or general company of men united and collected together in the profession of one same Christian faith…”(8)

To say that one who does not have the faith (such as Antipope John Paul II) can be in the Church, as does Thomas S., is simply to deny the very definition of what the Church is: one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic.  And what is ironic is that Thomas S.’s website contains many quotations from Saints and Doctors proving that the all those in the Catholic Church must have the same faith, a position which his article is written to deny.

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 22): “As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.  And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican.  It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.”(9) Pope Gregory XVI, on the Church and Papacy, May 17, 1835: “… Christ established this ecclesiastical power for the benefit of unity.  And what is this unity unless one person is placed in charge of the whole Church who protects it and joins all its members in the one profession of faith…”(10)

Some other Errors and Omissions Curiously, while Thomas S. does cite a number of the quotations from canonists on the loss of Papal Office through heresy, he doesn’t quote St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Antoninus or St. Francis De Sales on this point.

St. Antoninus: “In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church.  A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.  A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church.  He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church.”(11) St. Francis De Sales, Bishop and Doctor of the Church: “Now when he (the Pope) is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church…”(12)

Why didn’t Thomas S. address any of these quotations in his article?  I believe that the answer is clear: he didn’t address them because none of the above quotations say that a Pope must be a “public” heretic to lose his office.  Thus, Thomas S. couldn’t use his diversionary tactic of a long (and quite inaccurate) discussion on public heresy to confuse his readers, because the above quotes do not use the term “public.”  So he conveniently decided to ignore these quotes. Thomas S. spreads the error that Antipope Paul VI never bound anyone to Vatican II, a falsehood that is promoted again and again by various writers in an effort to “save” the Vatican II Antipopes.

Thomas S.: “Moreover it should be noted that “Vatican II” (1964) was not an infallible dogmatic council.  Both Pope John XXIII at its beginning, and Pope Paul VI at its end, stated that the council was not dogmatic but pastoral and that it defined nothing infallibly.  The council was given only the authority of the non-infallible authentic magisterium.  Hence that the council contained heresy is no argument against that there were popes during the period who promulgated it as a pastoral council.”

The above statement is completely false.  Our newsletter “Was Vatican II Infallible” soundly refutes this myth and shows that if Antipope Paul VI was a true Pope then Vatican II was infallible.  But since it is impossible that Vatican II was infallible (since it is filled with heresy), Antipope Paul VI could not have been a true Pope.  For the reader’s sake, we will quote again the manner in which Antipope Paul VI closed every Vatican II document, but for a full discussion on this matter we refer the reader to the aforementioned newsletter.

Paul VI at the end of every Vatican II Document: “EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE THINGS SET FORTH IN THIS DECREE HAS WON THE CONSENT OF THE FATHERS.  WE, TOO, BY THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON US BY CHRIST, JOIN WITH THE VENERABLE FATHERS IN APPROVING, DECREEING, AND ESTABLISHING THESE THINGS IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND WE DIRECT THAT WHAT HAS THUS BEEN ENACTED IN SYNOD BE PUBLISHED TO GOD’S GLORY... I, PAUL, BISHOP OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.”(13)

At the end of his article, Thomas S. criticizes various errors and heresies of the Vatican II Church.

Thomas S.: “All of the approved theologians of the Church today hold to untold errors such as: religious liberty; false ecumenism; a false ecclesiology which would include heretics and schismatics in the Church; the heresy of salvation for those who die as non-Catholics, and so on.”

But all of these heresies have been officially taught by the “apostolic authority” of Antipope Paul VI and Antipope John Paul II.  Antipope John Paul II’s teaches all of the above heresies in his new catechism which was solemnly promulgated by his “apostolic authority.”

Antipope John Paul II, Fidei Depositum: “The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved June 25th last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion.”(14)

The decree Dominus Iesus promulgated in 2000 teaches three out of the four aforementioned heresies, and that decree was also promulgated by the “apostolic authority” of Antipope John Paul II.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dominus Iesus, Aug. 6, 2000: “The sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the audience of 16 June 2000, granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with sure knowledge and by his apostolic authority, ratified and confirmed this Declaration adopted in plenary session, and ordered its publication.”(15)

And, as we have already shown, Vatican II was also solemnly promulgated by the “apostolic authority” of Antipope Paul VI, in which all four of the heresies that Thomas S. condemns are officially taught.  Thus, Thomas S. condemns the authoritative and solemn teaching of the men he holds to be valid Popes, which is schismatical and heretical; and by doing so Thomas S. is forced to admit that the Chair of Peter has officially erred, which is impossible.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 4, Chap. 4, ex cathedra: “So, this gift of truth and a never failing faith was divinely conferred upon Peter and his successors in this chair, that they might administer their high duty for the salvation of all; that the entire flock of Christ, turned away by them from the poisonous food of error, might be nourished on the sustenance of heavenly doctrine, that with the occasion of schism removed the whole Church might be saved as one, and relying on her foundation might stay firm against the gates of Hell.”(16) Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 4, Chap. 4, ex cathedra: “Therefore, the bishops of the whole world, now individually, now gathered in Synods, following a long custom of the churches and the formula of the ancient rule, referred to this Holy See those dangers particularly which emerged in the affairs of faith, that there especially the damages to faith might be repaired where faith cannot experience a failure.”(17) Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 4, Chap. 4, ex cathedra: “For, the Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth.  Indeed, all the venerable fathers have embraced their apostolic doctrine, and the holy orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed it, knowing full well that the See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord the Savior made to the chief of His disciples: ‘I have prayed for thee [Peter], that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren (Lk. 22:32).’”(18)

And even if these heresies that Thomas S. condemns had not been solemnly taught by the “apostolic authority” of the Vatican II Antipopes, it is a fact that 99% of Antipope John Paul II’s Church fully embraces these heresies.  Can 99% of the Catholic Church deny the Catholic faith?  The answer is self-evident.  If Thomas S. belongs to a church in which 99% of the members deny the faith, then he is certainly not inside the Catholic Church; but rather, by his own profession, he belongs to a non-Catholic church of heretics, which teaches religious liberty; false ecumenism; a false ecclesiology which includes heretics and schismatics in the Church; and salvation outside the Church. Conclusion There are other points that could be brought forward in analysis of Thomas S.’s heretical attack on the fact that Antipope John Paul II is not the Pope, but we find it sufficient to recall the teaching of the great doctor the Church, St. Francis De Sales.

St. Francis De Sales, Doctor of the Church: “It would indeed be one of the strangest monsters that could be seen – if the head of the Church were not of the Church.”(19)

Endnotes The first time any source is cited in these endnotes, its complete information is given, including publisher, year, etc.  The second and following times a given source is cited only the title and page number are given. 1) Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Sheed & Ward and Georgetown Univ. Press, 1990, Vol. 1, p. 578. 2) The Papal Encyclicals, by Claudia Carlen, Raleigh: The Pierian Press, 1990, Vol. 4 (1939-1958), p. 41. 3) The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 393. 4) The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 393. 5) The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 401. 6) Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, B. Herder Book Co., Thirtieth Edition, 1957, no. 423. 7) Denzinger 1826. 8) St. Francis De Sales, The Catholic Controversy, Rockford, IL: TAN Books, p. 161. 9) The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 4 (1939-1958), p. 41. 10) The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 255. 11) Summa Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V.  Frond pub. 12) St. Francis De Sales, The Catholic Controversy, p. 306. 13) Walter M. Abbott, The Documents of Vatican II, New York: The America Press, 1966, p. 366, etc. 14) The Catechism of the Catholic Church, by John Paul II, St. Paul Books & Media, 1994, p. 5. 15) L’Osservatore Romano, Baltimore, MD (PO Box 777), Special Insert, Dominus Iesus, September 6, 2000, p. VI. 16) Denzinger 1837. 17) Denzinger 1836. 18) Denzinger 1836. 19) St. Francis De Sales, The Catholic Controversy, p. 45