John Salza and Robert Siscoe wrote their book True or False Pope based on Cushingite theology.This was also Salza's theology when he wrote his other books.Their doctrines and theology are irrational and non traditional. It is part of the common confusion in the Church which promotes heresy which is considered 'magisterial'.

John Salza and Robert Siscoe wrote their book True or False Pope ?  based on Cushingite theology.This was also Salza's theology when he wrote his other books.Their doctrines and theology are irrational and non traditional. It is part of the common confusion in the Church which promotes heresy, which is considered 'magisterial'.

John Salza interpreted Vatican Council II as a rupture with Tradition ( EENS ( Feeneyite), Syllabus of Errors, Athanasius Creed etc).So what he writes on sedevacantism and Vatican Council II, in general, is based upon the Cushingite error.

He begins with a false premise.For him, 1.invisible people   are visible.This irrationality is the basis of the New Theology supported by Rahner and Ratzinger and the other liberal theologians.Only since invisible non Catholics saved outside the Church are visible can there be exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

2. Unknown non Catholics are known and so the Athansius Creed is made obsolete. 

3.Seen in the flesh non Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church are visible and so a new ecclesiology emerges which is a break with Tradition.

4.There are literal and known non Catholics saved outside the Church for them. So their conclusions have to be non traditional .The Syllabus of Errors is also made obsolete.

 So in this way Salza and Siscoe avoid affirming Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). They remain in good standing with the SSPX , the Vatican and the Left.

I hope Siscoe and Salza will not write any more books on this subject until they have resolved this issue.

I am not a sedevacantist and neither do I reject the Traditional Latin Mass. I affirm Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) and all the Catechisms interpreted with Feeneyism. I affirm the Athanasius Creed and interpret the other Creeds too with Feenyism.This is all unlike Salza and Siscoe who interpret these magisterial documents with Cushingism.

They reject Feeneyite EENS, which says there are no literal cases of the baptism of desire(BOD),baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I).For them there are literal cases of BOD, BOB and I.I otherwise they would be called Feeneyite traditionalists.

-Lionel Andrades