Author Topic: John Salza (Read 12002 times)

Viva Cristo Rey · « **Reply #90 on:** February 20, 2016, 02:34:07 PM »

Cantarella is right:

There is no principle in Catholicism which would permit a layperson to simply separate from the hierarchy which still recognizes the Pontiff as such.

In the meantime, we still have this day:

1. To serve God by keeping His commandments.

2. To imitate Jesus Christ by practicing the Christian virtues.

3. To honor and invoke the angels and saints.

4. To save a soul.

5. To avoid Hell.

6. To gain Heaven.

7. To slight transitory things.

8. To expiate sins.

9. To subdue evil inclinations.

10. To perform good works.

11. To edify your neighbor.

12. Perhaps, to die and to stand before the judgment - seat of Jesus Christ.

Viva Cristo Rey · « **Reply #91 on:** February 20, 2016, 02:41:24 PM »

It is out of mercy that we correct the Pope if he is preaching error.
St Thomas Aquinas says we are to publicly correct our Superiors if they are preaching error and false teachings.

McCork · « **Reply #92 on:** February 20, 2016, 04:19:19 PM »

Quote from: Viva Cristo Rey

It is out of mercy that we correct the Pope if he is preaching error.
St Thomas Aquinas says we are to publicly correct our Superiors if they are preaching error and false teachings.

Apparently, you didn't read my posting of a few messages back with what St. Francis de Sales wrote, and what all the Catholic books have repeated particularly since Vatican I. St. Thomas was not speaking of a pope who becomes a manifest heretic. He wasn't addressing losing the faith.

Stubborn · « **Reply #93 on:** February 21, 2016, 10:42:50 AM »

Quote from: Arvinger

Quote from: Stubborn

Well, I'm still waiting for you to provide the Church's established procedure of papal dethronement to substantiate your wrongful claim that the Church teaches the pope can be deposed.

I already explained, there is no such thing as papal dethronement, this is complete straw-man. There is only recognition of the fact that Pope separated himself from the Church through heresy (formal heretic is outside of the Church, that includes the Pope) and has already lost his office. You assert that someone who is outside the Church can be its head, which is absurd.

I tell you what, since you believe that our knowledge of the popes' sins qualifies us to declare him deprived of his office, or never to have been elected, YOU be the first one to get the whole papal deposition thing rolling.

Obviously you strongly believe that when Our Lord established His Church, He never foresaw any situation like this coming, which is the only possible explanation as to why His Church never established any procedure for declaring the pope a heretic, and on that account he is no longer pope and since he is no longer pope MUST be deposed!

Just do it, go ahead. It has never been done before so please, you blaze the trail! Think of it as just another innovation, only instead of saying it's a NO innovation, this one can be an innovation inspired from Cajetan and 135 other theologians - call in the "The Theologian's Law of Papal Deposition".

See all the help I am offering? - the rest is up to you.

Quote from: Arvinger

"A non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan affirms in the same book, and the reason is because he cannot be the head of that which he is not a member, and he is not a member of the Church who is not a Christian. But a manifest heretic is not a Christian" (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice)

The Council of Constance CONDEMNED AS ERROR: "If the pope is wicked, and especially if he is foreknown to damnation, then he is a devil like Judas the apostle, a thief and a son of perdition and is not the head of the holy church militant since he is not even a member of it."

Why, tell me, why do you listen to Cajetan when 25 years AFTER he already died, the Council of Constance infallibly corrected him? The council infallibly condemns as error the exact thing you claim is a teaching of the Church.

Why do you pit a theologian's teaching against the infallible teaching of a Council? This is exactly what McTheology does.

Now you have a mission - be the first to get the procedures established for "The Theologian's Law of Papal Deposition" and follow through on it. This should keep you busy for less than an hour. Once you figure it out, you will drop the whole thing as error - otherwise, you will have proved yet again that you wholly reject what the Church teaches as regards what our responsibility is in regards to a heretical pope.

Stubborn · « **Reply #94 on:** February 21, 2016, 02:29:55 PM »

Quote from: Arvinger

The irony is that cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio which Stubborn quotes also teaches that election of a heretic to the Papacy is invalid (I know, there are discussions whether is was abrogated by decisions of Pius XI and Pius XII or not). So when Paul IV teaches that no one can judge a Pope, at the same time he would not consider a manifest heretic to be a valid Pope at all. Again Stubborn take a Magisterial quote out of its context.

No, you are reading what is not there in order to suit your opinion.

So, using your own words and using your own logic against you - - who cares that in cuм ex, "pope Paul IV teaches that no one can judge a Pope, at the same time he would not consider a manifest heretic to be a valid Pope at all." when theologians Cardinal Billot, great Doctor of the Church St. Alphonsus De Liguori, and the great Benedictine Abbot, Prosper Guéranger give the following rule: “The peaceful and universal acceptance of a pope by the whole Church is a sign and effect of a valid election".

First off, it is the sedevacantists themselves who (wrongfully) give cuм ex the status of infallibility. But let's say for the sake of argument that they are correct - well, instead of saying what he did, pope Paul IV would necessarily have said;

Quote

the heretic Roman Pontiff, or the heretic anti-Roman Pontiff or the heretic non-Roman Pontiff........who on account of his heresy is no longer the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who no longer holds the fullness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may no longer judge all and be judged by ~~none~~ everyone or anyone or only Catholics or Cardinals or Bishops or ? or ? in this world, may nonetheless be ~~contradicted~~ deposed if he be found to have deviated from the Faith. Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be ~~counteracted~~ deposed.

By the time our exchange is over if you keep this up, you will admit to being a full fledged sedevacantist having used McTheology to accomplish it.

If you ever can shake the McTheology and adhere to the teaching of the Catholic Church, you will understand that even if the pope lost his office via his heresies, that there is not one single solitary thing anyone, I mean anyone in this world ("none in this world") can do about it BECAUSE Our Lord did not make, establish, offer or incorporate that as an option in His Church when He founded it, no matter what the modernists enemies or the sedevacantists think, teach, promulgate or promote.

Arvinger · « **Reply #95 on:** February 21, 2016, 04:42:31 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

I tell you what, since you believe that our knowledge of the popes' sins qualifies us to declare him deprived of his office, or never to have been elected, YOU be the first one to get the whole papal deposition thing rolling.

Obviously you strongly believe that when Our Lord established His Church, He never foresaw any situation like this coming, which is the only possible explanation as to why His Church never established any procedure for declaring the pope a heretic, and on that account he is no longer pope and since he is no longer pope MUST be deposed!

Just do it, go ahead. It has never been done before so please, you blaze the trail! Think of it as just another innovation, only instead of saying it's a NO innovation, this one can be an innovation inspired from Cajetan and 135 other theologians - call in the "The Theologian's Law of Papal Deposition".

See all the help I am offering? - the rest is up to you.

This topic has been discussed before by many theologians and has foundations in the Canon Law, your claim that "it has never been done before" is unfounded. An imperfect council can certainly depose a heretic who already lost his papacy - it is not up to me to judge about the details, I'm not arguing about it. I argue about general rule that the heretical Pope can be deposed, which has overwhelming evidence, and against which you have your private misinterpretation of several Magisteral teachings taken out of context.

A while ago Remnant provided a very good survey of teachings on this subject
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/1284-can-the-church-depose-an-heretical-pope

As you see, even in R&R camp nobody supports your position, because nobody privately misinterprets Magisterial teachings than you do.

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Arvinger

"A non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan affirms in the same book, and the reason is because he cannot be the head of that which he is not a member, and he is not a member of the Church who is not a Christian. But a manifest heretic is not a Christian" (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice)

The Council of Constance CONDEMNED AS ERROR: "If the pope is wicked, and especially if he is foreknown to damnation, then he is a devil like Judas the apostle, a thief and a son of perdition and is not the head of the holy church militant since he is not even a member of it."

Why, tell me, why do you listen to Cajetan when 25 years AFTER he already died, the Council of Constance infallibly corrected him? The council infallibly condemns as error the exact thing you claim is a teaching of the Church.

Why do you pit a theologian's teaching against the infallible teaching of a Council? This is exactly what McTheology does.

Now you have a mission - be the first to get the procedures established for "The Theologian's Law of Papal Deposition" and follow through on it. This should keep you busy for less than an hour. Once you figure it out, you will drop the whole thing as error - otherwise, you will have proved yet again that you wholly reject what the Church teaches as regards what our responsibility is in regards to a heretical pope.

Looks like you don't even read what I wrote - the quote I gave you was from St. Robert Bellarmine who wrote over 100 years after Constance, not from Cajetan. You really think he was unaware of this teaching?

Tha truth is that Constance did not correct the teaching that heretical Pope can be deposed, because it did not even address this subject. It says about sinful, wicked not heretical Pope - you completely misinterpret and misapply Constance, it does not deal with the question of heretical Pope. Constance condemns those who would ay that the Pope lost his office due to sins such as wickedness, theft etc. This is different than sin of heresy, which separates from the Church.

You gave no answer to Pope Leo XIII teaching:
"In this wise, all cause for doubting being removed, can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the very fact falling into heresy?-without separating himself from the Church?-without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others."

Formal heretic separates himself from the Church, whether he is the Pope or not - thus he can be deposed, as St. Robert Bellarmine teaches 100 years after Constance which you keep misinterpreting.

So, I'm certainly going with Bellarmine and Magisterium over your private misinterpretation of Constance.

Arvinger · « **Reply #96 on:** February 21, 2016, 04:55:11 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

the heretic Roman Pontiff, or the heretic anti-Roman Pontiff or the heretic non-Roman Pontiff........who on account of his heresy is no longer the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who no longer holds the fullness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may no longer judge all and be judged by ~~none~~ everyone or anyone or only Catholics or Cardinals or Bishops or ? or ? in this world, may nonetheless be ~~contradicted~~ deposed if he be found to have deviated from the Faith. Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be ~~counteracted~~ deposed.

Sorry, this is nonsense - the whole point is that this quote is about the Roman Pontiff, while a formal heretic is not the Roman Pontiff, therefore this teaching of cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio does not apply to him. Nobody judges the Pontiff while deposing a heretical Pope, because he already ceased to be Pope - a formal heretic is outside of the Church.

Quote from: Stubborn

By the time our exchange is over if you keep this up, you will admit to being a full fledged sedevacantist having used McTheology to accomplish it.

Then I guess +Lefebvre, Salza, Siscoe etc. are also "full-blown sedevacantists using McTheology" for they all held that heretical Pope can be deposed. They understood Vatican I, cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio, you privately misinterpret it and arrive to conclusion to which no one has arrived before even in Traditionalist movement. I laid out why sedevacantism is wrong and why R&R is wrong, yet you accuse me of sedevacantism.

Looks like Ladislaus was correct when he responded to you a while ago:

Quote from: Ladislaus

R&R has polluted your minds to the point that I can hardly recognize you as Catholics anymore.

Quote from: Stubborn

If you ever can shake the McTheology and adhere to the teaching of the Catholic Church, you will understand that even if the pope lost his office via his heresies, that there is not one single solitary thing anyone, I mean anyone in this world ("none in this world") can do about it BECAUSE Our Lord did not make, establish, offer or incorporate that as an option in His Church when He founded it, no matter what the modernists enemies or the sedevacantists think, teach, promulgate or promote.

You are yet to produce a single quote from the Magisterium teaching that heretical Pope can't be deposed, you are just misinterpreting Vatican I and Constance to fit them into your R&R position (or particular brand of it). You say "even if the Pope lost his office due to heresy" - bingo! In that case he is not a Pope and deposing him does not constitute judging the Roman Pontiff. A formal heretic who is outside the Church has no more formal authority than you and me, and thus can be punished and deposed by the Church as St. Robert Bellarmine teaches.

Gag Hogan Ilium · « **Reply #97 on:** June 10, 2016, 04:03:56 AM »

Quote from: Viva Cristo Rey

I met Mr Salza. He is a traditional Catholic warning Catholics against the dangers of joining Masonic lodges. Most of local Masonic lodges are made up of Catholics.

These masons and Shriners lure people into thinking that they are joining a charity.

He's speaking out against Masons. By bad mouthing him, you are
Suuporting the evils of masons.

Have you changed your mind now, now that Church Militant has been exposed as a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ masonic operation (thanks to Croixalist) which worked with Salza for their "anti-" Mason special? A bit strange that a former 32nd degree Mason would not be able to see through the charade, right?

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #98 on:** June 10, 2016, 01:19:48 PM »

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

a 32nd degree mason representing himself as an authority on Catholicism?
seriously? call me a skeptic, but I'm not buying it.

To get to be a 32nd degree mason, you have to swallow a lot of poison! There are very few 32nd degree masons, specially nobodies like Salza. If indeed he has converted, he should just take care of his own life and family and not go about preaching (and making a living off of the embarrassingly blind, or demonic man that he was) Catholicism to others.

I do not need his advice, I have no interest in becoming a mason, and as far as Catholicism, obviously he has nothing to offer me. What kind of an idiot of a Catholic becomes a mason, and a 32nd degree mason at that?

songbird · « **Reply #99 on:** June 11, 2016, 05:06:45 PM »

Vatican I, "Infallibility" defines Pope. That is right, it defines Pope. And thank God Cardinal Manning and other clergy saw to this and proved it.

To have a pope, nominated, he must be Catholic. If they say the adulterated mass, they are heretic! Nothing can be worse, than to remove the Precious Blood of Christ and this Blood is in All the sacraments. New Order has nothing!

Chapter 12 of Daniel is understood well, that the Sacrifice will come to an end.

The Church that will survive, is the definition of Church, the one that Christ instituted with His Precious Blood. Now, one is continual and the other is eternal sacrifice.

Thank God again for Cardinal Manning and all those who defined Pope. They did it just in the nic - of - time! Before war.

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #100 on:** June 15, 2016, 11:40:58 PM »

Quote from: JoeZ

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie
The points made in Mr. Salza's publication against sede vacante have been thoroughly refuted.

http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=13371.0

http://www.fathercekada.com/2011/04/11/salza-on-sedevacantism-same-old-fare/

That may well be, but has no bearing on the topic.

Quote

God alone knows the internal motivation of Mr. Salza. The audacity of a "past" occultist expounding on Catholic matters is absolutely unimaginable.

The speaker's person does not change the truth of what is spoken. Impressive credentials, reprehensible behavior, or whatever cannot affect an objective statement's conformity to reality.

I undertand how you feel. I really do. Cradle Catholics being preached to by recent converts bothers me. The post abortive woman who gives a talk on the evils of abortion at a prolife fundraiser bothers me. The ex-Planned parenthood worker who now runs a prolife group bothers me. The reformed alcoholic telling me the evils of demon liquor really bothers me. Around my area there is a joke about this effect, "no one is more chaste than the reformed whore".

These are natural feelings, but they are feelings. These are emotional responses which are to be regulated/used by our reason. John assures us he is reformed, and reason tells us to be charitable and take John at his word because we have no evidence to contradict. Reason tells me to offer up the discomfort out of charity.

St. Paul was a convert who before that persecuted the Church, some of which ended in murder, yet I owe him big time.

Fr Alphonsus Marie, who just gave us a parish mission, was a convert from Anglicanism and I believe I've received some significant indulgences because of him.

Let us all please be sure to use good reason when we feel we should darken someone's reputation. Thank you and God bless,
JoeZ

JoeZ, I do appreciate your point of view, and I am grateful that you would allow me to reconsider my posture. I have significant difficulty lowering my defenses. I want to accept this as a fault, but it just seems all the more dangerous with speeches and writings (especially from non-authoritative sources on Catholic topics).