Author Topic: New anti-sedevacantism book, recalled? (Read 849 times)

BumphreyHogart · « **on:** April 01, 2017, 06:18:19 PM »

Around December 2015, a little over a year ago, a new book came out published by Robert Siscoe and John Salza. It was entitled:

"True or False Pope? Refuting Sedevacantism and Other Modern Errors"

The book was endorsed and prefaced by Bp. Bernard Fellay, and published by their St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary!

Since then, I read from someone named nαzιanzen on www.suscipedomine.com that the SSPX regretted endorsing the book.

As well, when this man claimed this a few months ago, I was myself arguing with Siscoe on www.suscipedomine.com about his major failure in the book about the meaning of "ipso facto", that it was a travesty of error. From that point, he abruptly stopped discussing.

Pretty much since, their website trueorfalsepope.com has had no updates.

Particularly since they saw their error about "ipso facto", I noticed that their book on Amazon was being sold for about $179. This told me that they no longer wanted to sell their book (probably because they had a contract with amazon and then upped the price so that nobody would reasonably pay that price.)

I just looked today and I see on amazon that it has progressed so that the book is now no longer available, saying:

"Currently unavailable. We don't know when or if this item will be back in stock."

It appears to me that Siscoe and Salza realized they failed in their opposition to the sedevacantist position.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #1 on:** April 01, 2017, 08:17:15 PM »

I didn't read the book either but I did notice several hard-hitting criticisms of it.

If the SSPX wants to do battle with the sedes, they had best pay attention to crossing the "t"s and dotting the "i"s. And with the antics of Pope Francis, being convincing in his defense is not an easy task. The book might not have been selling well anyway and that would be a good reason to back off, rather than dig a hole that's hard to get out of.

tdrev123 · « **Reply #2 on:** April 01, 2017, 08:48:10 PM »

On their website you can see an email exchange with sspx priests and they have no qualms with it. You are spreading rumor and gossip.

The book is not on amazon because it is sold out, they are going to issue a second edition in the coming months, so again more gossip.

cathman7 · « **Reply #3 on:** April 01, 2017, 08:49:49 PM »

I thought they were working on a second edition. From the very website you mentioned:

$34.99 plus s&h

Order now, books shipped the next day.

NOTE: We are out of stock and are currently working on an expanded second edition. The first edition can be purchased directly from the publisher, St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary (here).

cathman7 · « **Reply #4 on:** April 01, 2017, 08:56:08 PM »

Let's use criticism when it is truly justified and not on some trumped up charges. One loses all credibility if phantoms are criticized.

BumphreyHogart · « **Reply #5 on:** April 02, 2017, 08:27:19 AM »

Quote from: tdrev123 on April 01, 2017, 08:48:10 PM

On their website you can see an email exchange with sspx priests and they have no qualms with it. You are spreading rumor and gossip.

The book is not on amazon because it is sold out, they are going to issue a second edition in the coming months, so again more gossip.

The SSPX can change their minds about it. It wouldn't be smart if they didn't. They show that they don't even know what "ipso facto" means, and it shoots down their whole thesis.

Prayerful · « **Reply #6 on:** April 02, 2017, 02:53:52 PM »

Quote from: BumphreyHogart on April 01, 2017, 06:18:19 PM

Around December 2015, a little over a year ago, a new book came out published by Robert Siscoe and John Salza. It was entitled:

"True or False Pope? Refuting Sedevacantism and Other Modern Errors"

The book was endorsed and prefaced by Bp. Bernard Fellay, and published by their St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary!

Since then, I read from someone named nαzιanzen on www.suscipedomine.com that the SSPX regretted endorsing the book.

As well, when this man claimed this a few months ago, I was myself arguing with Siscoe on www.suscipedomine.com about his major failure in the book about the meaning of "ipso facto", that it was a travesty of error. From that point, he abruptly stopped discussing.

Pretty much since, their website trueorfalsepope.com has had no updates.

Particularly since they saw their error about "ipso facto", I noticed that their book on Amazon was being sold for about $179. This told me that they no longer wanted to sell their book (probably because they had a contract with amazon and then upped the price so that nobody would reasonably pay that price.)

I just looked today and I see on amazon that it has progressed so that the book is now no longer available, saying:

"Currently unavailable. We don't know when or if this item will be back in stock."

It appears to me that Siscoe and Salza realized they failed in their opposition to the sedevacantist position.

nαzιanzen is John Lane. Everything he posts about the SSPX regretting it is false, and he was told by SSPX priests to halt his manic detraction campaign. John was enraged by some slighting references in the book, and you he decided to go on a manic posting campaign filling Trad Catholic forums with a series of distorted claims. A reference to Ignaz von Döllinger is claimed as an endorsement of Transalpine, Old Catholic inclined historian, whereas the authors specifically state his claims need to be treated with caution as he was excommunicated. A typical one is to claim some extract is falsified, yet the differences generally involve starting the extract at a slightly different point, and no actual difference in meaning is involved. This John Lane campaign is just annoying. I wonder if his five accounts will attack me now. They haven't failed. Their site is regularly updated, and what more can be said about John Lane? This anti-sede book is a return to the SSPX of old where a good deal of polemical booklets and articles were produced on the topic. Resistance blogs seem to give this particular error more attention, while Menzingen SSPX largely turned from the topic.

BumphreyHogart · « **Reply #7 on:** April 02, 2017, 04:06:30 PM »

Quote from: Prayerful on April 02, 2017, 02:53:52 PM

nαzιanzen is John Lane. Everything he posts about the SSPX regretting it is false, and he was told by SSPX priests to halt his manic detraction campaign. John was enraged by some slighting references in the book, and you he decided to go on a manic posting campaign filling Trad Catholic forums with a series of distorted claims. A reference to Ignaz von Döllinger is claimed as an endorsement of Transalpine, Old Catholic inclined historian, whereas the authors specifically state his claims need to be treated with caution as he was excommunicated. A typical one is to claim some extract is falsified, yet the differences generally involve starting the extract at a slightly different point, and no actual difference in meaning is involved. This John Lane campaign is just annoying. I wonder if his five accounts will attack me now. They haven't failed. Their site is regularly updated, and what more can be said about John Lane? This anti-sede book is a return to the SSPX of old where a good deal of polemical booklets and articles were produced on the topic. Resistance blogs seem to give this particular error more attention, while Menzingen SSPX largely turned from the topic.

How do you know nαzιanzen is he?

In any case, this thread was posted here because I was optimistic about the indications of Siscoe and Salza giving up on their book after their prime error was exposed on SD concerning how they don't know the meaning of "ipso facto". Bad news if they dig their heels in on that one. It would look bad for the SSPX, too, if they don't reverse their approval of the book, because it would show that their clergy don't even know what "ipso facto" means. (And, by the way, it wasn't nαzιanzen who exposed that error.)

Prayerful · « **Reply #8 on:** April 02, 2017, 06:34:09 PM »

Quote from: BumphreyHogart on April 02, 2017, 04:06:30 PM

How do you know nαzιanzen is he?

In any case, this thread was posted here because I was optimistic about the indications of Siscoe and Salza giving up on their book after their prime error was exposed on SD concerning how they don't know the meaning of "ipso facto". Bad news if they dig their heels in on that one. It would look bad for the SSPX, too, if they don't reverse their approval of the book, because it would show that their clergy don't even know what "ipso facto" means. (And, by the way, it wasn't nαzιanzen who exposed that error.)

I just do. It is him. A mod on SD got very annoyed when a TOFP supporting poster kept reminding people of who N is.
You err with your Cushingite, Universal Salvation understanding of BoD (rather than a very, very limited Thomist sense, go to catholicism.org to be set right), and you again err with your reading of John's SD campaign. John declared they don't know this or that, on the basis of exactly nothing. Like some of the Internet he decides he has won a debate, on the basis of some personal notion.
An SSPX priest with any post of responsibility is a skilled Latinist. One of John's forum supporters made baseless the ipso facto call first, supported by no evidence, like the Antipodean Pope of Sede-ism.
Please don't be another Universal Salvation Sede.

BumphreyHogart · « **Reply #9 on:** April 02, 2017, 07:10:12 PM »

Quote from: Prayerful on April 02, 2017, 06:34:09 PM

I just do. It is him. A mod on SD got very annoyed when a TOFP supporting poster kept reminding people of who N is.
You err with your Cushingite, Universal Salvation understanding of BoD (rather than a very, very limited Thomist sense, go to catholicism.org to be set right), and you again err with your reading of John's SD campaign. John declared they don't know this or that, on the basis of exactly nothing. Like some of the Internet he decides he has won a debate, on the basis of some personal notion.
An SSPX priest with any post of responsibility is a skilled Latinist. One of John's forum supporters made baseless the ipso facto call first, supported by no evidence, like the Antipodean Pope of Sede-ism.
Please don't be another Universal Salvation Sede.

You suppose; you don't know. But, as for whether he is or not, I don't really care.

The SSPX priests have shown by support of the S&S book that they don't even know what "ipso facto" means. That shows them to be quite incompetent in more than just Latin.

Author Topic: New anti-sedevacantism book, recalled? (Read 849 times)

BumphreyHogart

New anti-sedevacantism book, recalled?

Neil Obstat

Re: New anti-sedevacantism book, recalled?

tdrev123

Re: New anti-sedevacantism book, recalled?

cathman7

Re: New anti-sedevacantism book, recalled?

cathman7

Re: New anti-sedevacantism book, recalled?

BumphreyHogart

Re: New anti-sedevacantism book, recalled?

Prayerful

Re: New anti-sedevacantism book, recalled?

BumphreyHogart

Re: New anti-sedevacantism book, recalled?

Prayerful

Re: New anti-sedevacantism book, recalled?

BumphreyHogart

Re: New anti-sedevacantism book, recalled?