Author Topic: John Salza on Sedevacantism  (Read 6655 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline stevusmagnus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3728
  • Reputation: +824/-0
  • Gender: Male
    • h
John Salza on Sedevacantism
« on: April 05, 2011, 02:46:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • http://scripturecatholic.xanga.com/703978904/7-what-are-we-to-think-of-the-“sedevacantists”/

    Rich: John, what is your position on sedevacantism. I have heard sedevacantists speak and have read a lot of their material. They are very intelligent people and are quite convincing. How are we to respond to their position?

    J. Salza:Rich, “sedevacantists” should change their name to “capitavacantists” (empty heads) because their heads must be empty to argue that we have no pope. I don’t mean to denigrate these people, and I acknowledge that many of them are very intelligent. But I completely reject their position. They have overreacted to the crisis in the Church in a way that is Protestant, not Catholic. This is how I approach the subject.

    First, it was in connection with the appointment of Peter over the Church that Christ promised the gates of hell would not prevail against her (Mt 16:18). Thus, if there is no Peter, there is no Church, and the gates of hell have prevailed. If the sedevacantists are right (that we have no pope and we don’t know where the next pope will come from), then this makes the Savior’s promise a lie and Christianity a false religion.

    Second, the First Vatican Council infallibly teaches that the Church endures always because Peter has “perpetual successors.” The Council makes it clear that the Church’s perpetuity exists, not because of the office of Peter, but because of the person of Peter, for the office would mean little without the person. Anyone who denies this teaching is anathema. Again, if the Sedevacantists argue that there is no person in Peter’s office, then the Church no longer exists because her perpetuity depends upon Peter’s successors. Such a position is anathema.

    Sedevacantists rebut by saying we can have a gap in papal successors because we have gaps (interregnums) in papal successors after a pope dies. But don’t you think Vatican I took this into account when it taught that there must be perpetual successors to Peter’s chair? Don’t you think the council knew about interregnums? Of course it did. The First Vatican Council has already dealt with the issue of Sedevacantism by infallibly declaring that Peter would always have perpetual successors, notwithstanding required interregnums after the death of a pope. Sedevacantists deny that the Church has perpetual successors because they claim we haven’t had a pope in 48 years and don’t know where the next pope is coming from.

    No one is denying that a pope can lose his office if he becomes a formal heretic. Robert Bellarmine, a doctor of the Church, taught that a pope would lose his seat if he were to deny or doubt an article of divine and Catholic faith and obstinately persist in his belief. I am not aware of any reputable theologian who denies Bellarmine’s teaching. Note that the pope must not only deny Catholic truth, but he must also do it knowingly and pertinaciously. In other words, he must be confronted about his heretical beliefs still persist in his error. This means that the pope must be a formal (not just a material) heretic.

    The issue is not whether a pope can lose his office for formal heresy; he can. The issue is how do we determine when the pope loses his office for formal heresy. How do we determine when this happens? This is the sole issue on the question of Sedevacantism.

    The Sedevacantists would have us believe that this determination can be made in an unofficial, informal capacity by a .00001 percent of the Catholic population in factious, grass roots efforts made up primarily of lay people. Not only is this illogical, but no where in the Church’s 2,000 year history is there any precedent for such a position.

    Instead, the Church has indicated that such a determination would have to be made in a formal, official capacity such as the invocation of an ecumenical council. This is the teaching of Sts. Anthony of Florence and Alphonsus Liguori, the latter being a doctor of the Church. In fact, this has been the practice of the Church when investigating the heresy of a pope.

    For example, when Pope John XXII in 1331 taught in a series of sermons that the holy souls do not see God until the Last Judgment, Cardinal Orsini called for a general council to declare the pope a heretic. As a result, the pope stated that he had not intended to bind the Church to his teaching and retracted his error the day before he died.

    Similarly, when Pope Honorius (625-638) in an informal letter approved Sergius’ formula that Christ had one will, the Third Council of Constantinople (680-681) posthumously condemned Honorius and Sergius for heresy. Pope Leo II affirmed the council’s condemnation (Honorius’ teaching was unofficial and thus did not invoke the Church’s charism of infallibility).

    These two examples demonstrate that when a pope is suspected of heresy (which could cause him to lose his office), the determination of whether the pope is in fact a heretic must be done in a formal and official capacity, presumably through a general council. Moreover, even though Honorius was condemned by a pope and an ecumenical council, he was never declared to be an anti-pope! Honorious was still considered the pope!

    There is nothing in the Church’s tradition that says the determination of whether a pope is in heresy can be made by the public opinion of .00001 percent of the Catholic population, made up mostly of lay people who have no formal role within the Church’s official, ecclesiastical structure. Further, even where a pope is condemned for heresy (like Honorius) by a general council, the heresy must be formal (i.e., knowingly denying an article of Catholic faith) for the pope to lose his office. Such a situation, while possible, is quite unimaginable. Even Martin Luther, the psychotic alcoholic who called the Vicar of Christ an “ass-head,” was given a chance to explain himself before the Church condemned him. Shouldn’t the Holy Father get the same due process?

    Sedevacantists rebut by saying that an official determination cannot be made since all (or most of) the Cardinals and bishops are imposters. This, of course, begs the question. Who made that determination? And if that were really true, then they dig themselves an even deeper hole. Not only are there no perpetual successors to the chair of Peter, there are no cardinals available to elect a new successor! This means that there is no more Catholic Church and the gates of hell have prevailed.

    We should also point out the difference between judging the pope and resisting him. In the Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus (1559), Pope Paul IV declared that the pope is “judged by none in this world,” but “may nonetheless be contradicted (resisted) if he be found to have deviated from the faith.” Thus, there is a distinction between judging or deposing a pope, and resisting a pope. The esteemed 16th century theologian Francisco Suarez even taught that a pope could be a schismatic and hence resisted, but would still retain his office as successor to Peter. Indeed, there must be an official determination of formal heresy by the Church hierarchy before a pope can be deposed and lose his office.

    In short, the Sedevacantist thesis rests entirely upon the private judgment of its own adherents. Sedevacantism is, in fact, nothing more that Protestantism by professing Catholics – a hodge-podge of private opinions by splintering factions without any internal controls. This is why various branches of sedevacantism have already elected about 20 different popes throughout the world! They are sure that we don’t have a true pope, but they cannot even agree on who the real pope is!

    All this, of course, puts the cart before the horse. That is because the Sedevacantists have not proven that John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II or Benedict XVI have become formal heretics (nor do they have the authority to make such a determination). In fact, they have not even proven that these popes have taught formal heresy. I will admit that a few of Pope John Paul II’s words and actions have been ambiguous at times. The popes, just like the rest of us, succumb to weakness. But this does not prove heresy. And it certainly does not prove the personal sin of formal heresy for no individual is the pope’s judge.

    Moreover, none of the five popes mentioned above have bound Catholics to anything contrary to the faith. Although we are experiencing a liturgical and theological crisis in the Church, the fact is that Catholics are free to practice the faith as they always had before 1958. Sedevacantists argue that true popes would not have allowed such harm to come to the Church. Says who? God Himself warned us that the Church would house wolves in sheep’s clothing. The Church’s esteemed theologians teach that a pope can indeed cause harm to the Church, and when he does so he must be resisted. Sedevacantists should also look back to the Arian crisis when almost the entire Church – except for a handful of bishops – embraced the Arian heresy. Even the pope flirted with the heresy. But no one declared that the Church lacked a pope.

    While I sympathize with their concerns, Sedevacantism is an over-reaction to the theological, liturgical and disciplinary crisis in the Church (which I heartily acknowledge exists). Just as Protestants criticize every wayward utterance of the pope to prove that the Catholic Church is false, Sedevacantists do the same thing to prove that the Catholic Church has no pope. They are both in grave error.

    Offline MyrnaM

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6013
    • Reputation: +3480/-328
    • Gender: Female
      • Myforever.blog/blog
    John Salza on Sedevacantism
    « Reply #1 on: April 05, 2011, 08:37:54 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Well if you want to believe in a former 32 degree Mason?



    Offline stevusmagnus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3728
    • Reputation: +824/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    John Salza on Sedevacantism
    « Reply #2 on: April 05, 2011, 08:56:47 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Oh so Salza is STILL a secret Mason?  :facepalm:

    Evidence of the paranoia and distorted thinking Sede-ism leads to.

    Offline MyrnaM

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6013
    • Reputation: +3480/-328
    • Gender: Female
      • Myforever.blog/blog
    John Salza on Sedevacantism
    « Reply #3 on: April 05, 2011, 10:20:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Really, I had no idea that there are alive former Masons freely spilling  secrets of their organization.  Masons  at best, who still had their tongues.  

    It would benefit the Masons greatly to keep Catholics intwined within the Vatican.  

    Put your faith in a Freemason, I will trust God knowing that His Church will not be run by heretics.  


    Offline gladius_veritatis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6172
    • Reputation: +1234/-0
    • Gender: Male
    John Salza on Sedevacantism
    « Reply #4 on: April 05, 2011, 11:17:29 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I always did like chips and salza...
    + Vincit veritas +


    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4814
    • Reputation: +2007/-5
    • Gender: Male
    John Salza on Sedevacantism
    « Reply #5 on: April 05, 2011, 12:07:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • His points are easily refuted, as are yours.

    Quote
    "First, it was in connection with the appointment of Peter over the Church that Christ promised the gates of hell would not prevail against her (Mt 16:18). Thus, if there is no Peter, there is no Church, and the gates of hell have prevailed. If the sedevacantists are right (that we have no pope and we don’t know where the next pope will come from), then this makes the Savior’s promise a lie and Christianity a false religion."


    Why even read further?  There are about three logical fallacies here in rapid succession.  Right away, he has the gall to act as if Christ promised there would always be Popes as soon as he chose Peter to be the first Pope.  That doesn't follow.  Then he moves from there into saying that if there is no Pope, "Christianity is a false religion."  

    This is the usual childish non-reasoning from the theological void that sedes are used to hearing, which is we often get so frustrated with those in SSPX ( even though "We're all Catholics," as the mantra goes ).  The SSPX and those who defend these anti-Popes are not heretics, per se, but some of them have denied common sense to a point that not even the heretics of old would dare.  It is also highly noticeable that they use communistic tactics of evasion and sophistry and intimidation and belittlement to try to get their ideas across, which is because they can't prove them theologically.

    Salza's little speech is insulting to the intelligence, just like so much SSPX rhetoric, just like your posts, Stevus.  The paragraph I quoted shows he doesn't even know what he's talking about, he's winging it.  The Church has been without a Pope for three years, this is proven fact, so if what Salza is saying is true, Christ is already a liar and the gates of hell have prevailed... But actually what he's saying is nonsense that has been disproved a million times.  Sometimes it helps to be a bit of an armchair theologian, just enough to help you see through guys like this, guys who sound like authorities but are not.
    As I was a new convert when posting here, my posts are often full of error, even unwitting heresy and rash judgment, all of which I renounce, and all my writings are best avoided -- MDLS

    Offline ServusSpiritusSancti

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8213
    • Reputation: +7164/-1
    • Gender: Male
    John Salza on Sedevacantism
    « Reply #6 on: April 05, 2011, 02:18:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Raoul, Matthew and I have already shown you that it has NEVER been proven that we do not currently have a Pope. To belieive it is a fact is ridiculous. That doesn't mean it is wrong to be a sedevacantist, but it's a matter of opinion. As of right now, I think that if God really prefered people to take the sede stance He would reveal it in some way. In the mean time, as long as you are a Traditional Catholic whose number one goal in life is to obtain Heaven, it hardly makes a difference whether or not you think Benedict is Pope.

    As far as what Salza said, he's using sort of a worn-out technique. Lots of people these days say that if the sede stance is right, then Christ lied and the gates of hell have prevailed., etc. But the Church actually confirmed in the past that about 30 something "Popes" were anti-popes. So it is possible for the Church to not have a Pope (kind of like how there briefly is no Pope after the current one dies), it's all a matter of opinion. Some people believe that the time has already come to take the sede stance, while others believe that the time hasn't come just yet. In any case, I don't think it's a good idea to try and "prove" that sedevacantism is a fraud and start a big argument.

    Offline Hietanen

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 189
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    John Salza on Sedevacantism
    « Reply #7 on: April 05, 2011, 03:06:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Objection 1): The Gates of Hell cannot prevail against the Church, as Christ said (Matthew 16). He said He would be with His Church all days until the end of the world (Matthew 28). What you are saying is contrary to the promises of Christ.

    Answer: No, indefectibility (the promise of Christ to always be with His Church, and that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it) means that the Church will, until the end of time, remain essentially what she is. The indefectibility of the Church requires that at least a remnant of the Church will exist until the end of the world, and that a true pope will never authoritatively teach error to the entire Church. It does not exclude antipopes posing as popes (as we’ve had numerous times in the past, even in Rome) or a counterfeit sect that reduces the adherents of the true Catholic Church to a remnant in the last days. This is precisely what is predicted to occur in the last days and what happened during the Arian crisis.

    St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."

    Further, it should be noted that the Church has defined that heretics are the gates of Hell which Our Lord mentioned in Matthew 16!

    Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553: “… we bear in mind what was promised about the holy Church and Him who said the gates of Hell will not prevail against it (by these we understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics)[/u]…”

    Pope St. Leo IX, Sept. 2, 1053: “The holy Church built upon a rock, that is Christ, and upon Peter… because by the gates of Hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics which lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome.”

    St. Thomas Aquinas (+1262): “Wisdom may fill the hearts of the faithful, and put to silence the dread folly of heretics, fittingly referred to as the gates of Hell.” (Intro. To Catena Aurea.)

    Notice that heretics are the gates of Hell. Heretics are not members of the Church. That’s why a heretic could never be a pope. The gates of Hell (heretics) could never have authority over the Church of Christ. It’s not those who expose the heretical Vatican II antipopes who are asserting that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church; it’s those who obstinately defend them as popes, even though they can clearly be proven to be manifest heretics.

    Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, 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.”

    St. Francis De Sales (17th century), Doctor of the Church, The Catholic Controversy, pp. 305-306: "Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church..."

    There is not one teaching of the Catholic Church that can be quoted which is contrary to the fact that there is presently a counterfeit sect which has reduced the true Catholic Church to a remnant in the days of the Great Apostasy, which is presided over by antipopes who have falsely posed as popes. Those who assert that the Vatican II sect is the Catholic Church assert that the Catholic Church officially endorses false religions and false doctrines. This is impossible and would mean that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Catholic Church.

    http://www.prophecyfilm.com/sedevacantism/#Common-Objections-Against-Sedevacantism


    Offline Hietanen

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 189
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    John Salza on Sedevacantism
    « Reply #8 on: April 05, 2011, 03:12:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
    Raoul, Matthew and I have already shown you that it has NEVER been proven that we do not currently have a Pope. To belieive it is a fact is ridiculous. That doesn't mean it is wrong to be a sedevacantist, but it's a matter of opinion. As of right now, I think that if God really prefered people to take the sede stance He would reveal it in some way. In the mean time, as long as you are a Traditional Catholic whose number one goal in life is to obtain Heaven, it hardly makes a difference whether or not you think Benedict is Pope.


    No, what you just said is ridiculous. It' proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Benedict XVI is a heretic and an apostate who denies the entire Christian faith by granting salvation to people that does not even believe in Jesus Christ. How can you believe that a pope who is head of a antichristian sect which murder souls, is a true valid Catholic Pope? Please, wake up...

    God has already showed to you that sedevacantism is true, through all the manifest heresies that the vatican II popes have made them guilty off. But I guess Benedict XVI could go on with the pagan prayer meeting as well without ever being a heretical antipope according to you, just like the arch heretic John Paul II, who kissed the koran and made innumerable other heresies.

    http://www.catholic-saints.net/vatican-ii/

    Offline stevusmagnus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3728
    • Reputation: +824/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    John Salza on Sedevacantism
    « Reply #9 on: April 05, 2011, 04:00:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Raoul,

    Withering analysis of Salza's first point. Basically, "how dare he", a few ad hominems and then a curt dismissal of all points with no response.

    Salza 1 Raoul 0.

    He cited Vatican I for the infallible statement that Peter will have perpetual successors and VCI was well aware of interregnums. The longest interregnum you cite is 3 years. According to most Sedes Christ has left His Church without a head for half a century in defiance of His own promise and infallible teaching of VCI.

    You can't have perpetual successors with no Pope and no means to elect a new one. Sedevacantism denies indefectability. Sedes cite St. Athanasius. St. Athanasius never denied Liberius was Pope and that the Church still had Papal electors. Obviously he includes these in his faithful remnant. The absurd idea that the visible Church can exist indefectible without a Pope or Cardinals knows of no backing from any reputable Church Father, Pope, Council, or theologian. The best you can do are sheer speculative theories. Please list for me the flood of authorities who stood for the opinion that Peter could not have a successor for 50 years. No Catholic in their right mind ever proposed that state of affairs could exist as they all understood precisely the perpetual successors promised us till the end of time.

    Offline ServusSpiritusSancti

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8213
    • Reputation: +7164/-1
    • Gender: Male
    John Salza on Sedevacantism
    « Reply #10 on: April 05, 2011, 04:05:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Hietanen, mind your own buisiness. That post was directed at Raoul, not you. Let me have a serious discussion, I don't want you jumping in and cutting down every post I make.


    Offline stevusmagnus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3728
    • Reputation: +824/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    John Salza on Sedevacantism
    « Reply #11 on: April 05, 2011, 04:17:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Heit is the perfect example of the "principle of outrage" giving him the authority to depose popes at will. If the Pope does something that is shocking enough to Heit, it is enough to hurl BXVI from the See of Peter in his mind.

    Offline PartyIsOver221

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1238
    • Reputation: +640/-0
    • Gender: Male
    John Salza on Sedevacantism
    « Reply #12 on: April 05, 2011, 04:25:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: stevusmagnus
    Heit is the perfect example of the "principle of outrage" giving him the authority to depose popes at will. If the Pope does something that is shocking enough to Heit, it is enough to hurl BXVI from the See of Peter in his mind.


    Keep talking to yourself, stevus. No one is listening other than you, your biggest fan.


    WAKE UP AND SEE THE POPE ISNT THE POPE ALREADY!

    Offline ServusSpiritusSancti

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8213
    • Reputation: +7164/-1
    • Gender: Male
    John Salza on Sedevacantism
    « Reply #13 on: April 05, 2011, 09:39:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: stevusmagnus
    Heit is the perfect example of the "principle of outrage" giving him the authority to depose popes at will. If the Pope does something that is shocking enough to Heit, it is enough to hurl BXVI from the See of Peter in his mind.


    I finally put Hietanen on ignore, I couldn't handle his posts anymore. Anyone like him who acts as if nearly everything is a mortal sin has some serious problems. He is a heretic and needs our prayers.

    Offline gladius_veritatis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6172
    • Reputation: +1234/-0
    • Gender: Male
    John Salza on Sedevacantism
    « Reply #14 on: April 05, 2011, 10:29:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
    To belieive it is a fact is ridiculous. That doesn't mean it is wrong to be a sedevacantist, but it's a matter of opinion...


    If he did not believe it is a fact, why would he hold it at all?

    It is my opinion that Obama is not president (although he is obviously acting like he is), as he is not eligible to hold the office.  I believe this because I have seen evidence that makes me doubt/deny his eligibility.  Thus it is an opinion that I hold based upon various facts.  While it is true that the vast majority of men disagree with me, that alone does not make my thoughts on the matter ridiculous.  It just means many have not seen the evidence I have, or, if they have seen it, they have not drawn the same conclusion I have drawn.  
    + Vincit veritas +


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16