Author Topic: New book arguing against Sedevacantism (Read 78662 times)

Gregory I · « **Reply #135 on:** November 27, 2015, 12:16:40 AM »

You gotta love Fr. Cekada's wit, if not his personality...

Mr. Ferrara and Mr. Salza have the same opinion-

Quote

"Mr. Ferrara advocates essentially the same position as the Society of St. Pius X, Fr. Nicholas Gruner, and countless others: You claim to "recognize" Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI as true popes. At the same time YOU decide which papal teachings, laws, sacramental rites, or commands are good, and which you'll reject, resist or publicly denounce.

Under this system, a pope no longer possesses the supreme authority to "bind and loose" on earth. A New Jersey lawyer, the Superior General of SSPX, the CEO of the Fatima Industry, the editor of Catholic Family News, or, generally, any traditional Catholic whatsoever, does the final review for him.

The New Mass? A sacrilege, intrinsically evil, or the pope didn't promulgate it correctly anyway. Ecuмenism? No thanks, the pope's wrong. Consecration of Russia to Immaculate Heart? The pope didn't do it right. Excommunicated or suspended? Invalid, no matter what the pope and his curia say. Consecrate bishops against the popes explicit will? Necessity lets me do it. And so on.

Who needs to visit the Throne of Peter? You give the final thumbs-up or -down from your easy chair.

The pope speaks. You decide!

This system makes a mockery of the Catholic teaching that the pope possesses not only a "Primacy of honor" (framed photos in the vestibules of wildcat traditionalist chapels, say) but also "supreme and full power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, both in matters of faith and morals, as well as in those things that pertain to the discipline and rule of the Church spread throughout the world," a power that is "ordinary and immediate over each and every church, as well as over each and every pastor and member of the faithful, independent of any human authority." (Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution De Ecclesia Christi, DZ 1827; Canon 218.)"

Does your book have the Nihil Obstat of your local bishop Mr. Salza? Mr. Siscoe? An imprimatur?

Catholictrue · « **Reply #136 on:** November 27, 2015, 12:36:29 AM »

Paul,

What you need to understand is that, in response to most of those quotes on how heretics are expelled 'by that very fact' or 'without a declaration,' etc., Salza and Siscoe would respond by arguing this: none of those people are even heretics until the Church declares them to be, and that AFTER the Church declares/determines them to be heretics, THEN they lose their membership in the Church and their offices ipso facto. In other words, according to Salza and Siscoe, people have to be declared heretics to lose their offices and Church membership ipso facto and 'without a declaration'! Sounds stupid and contradictory, doesn't it? Yes, that's because it is. In essence, every time you read the words 'without a declaration' or 'by that very fact' or 'ipso facto' in a quote, Salza and Siscoe re-interpret and change the meaning to be the following: 'without a declaration' only applies after a declaration. That is truly, really, actually what they are arguing. It's absurd. They've literally made up a totally new teaching on heresy, according to which 'ipso facto,' 'without a declaration,' 'by that very fact', etc. only take effect after a declaration. They are teaching heresy and lies - period. The quotes from Bellarmine, Antoninus, etc. speak for themselves. People can understand their obvious meaning without any commentary, but Salza and Siscoe have to write pages and pages about those quotes to re-interpret and change their clear meaning to 'only after a declaration has happened' (which is precisely the opposite of what the quotes actually teach).

When you reduce their novelties to their absurd conclusions, such as the fact that they regard notorious proponents of women 'priests,' etc. to be Catholic based on their false principles, you really see the heresy behind what they are saying. They are blind men leading the blind. The fact that SSPX priests endorse such nonsense and lies shows that they are simply interested in giving support to basically any work that attacks the sedevacantist position, and that their theological standards are nil.

Gregory I · « **Reply #137 on:** November 27, 2015, 01:15:29 AM »

St Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. IV, c. 9, no. 15:

Quote

“Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.”

PaulFC · « **Reply #138 on:** November 27, 2015, 01:34:21 AM »

Quote from: Catholictrue

Paul,

What you need to understand is that, in response to most of those quotes on how heretics are expelled 'by that very fact' or 'without a declaration,' etc., Salza and Siscoe would respond by arguing this: none of those people are even heretics until the Church declares them to be, and that AFTER the Church declares/determines them to be heretics, THEN they lose their membership in the Church and their offices ipso facto. In other words, according to Salza and Siscoe, people have to be declared heretics to lose their offices and Church membership ipso facto and 'without a declaration'! Sounds stupid and contradictory, doesn't it? Yes, that's because it is. In essence, every time you read the words 'without a declaration' or 'by that very fact' or 'ipso facto' in a quote, Salza and Siscoe re-interpret and change the meaning to be the following: 'without a declaration' only applies after a declaration. That is truly, really, actually what they are arguing. It's absurd. They've literally made up a totally new teaching on heresy, according to which 'ipso facto,' 'without a declaration,' 'by that very fact', etc. only take effect after a declaration. They are teaching heresy and lies - period. The quotes from Bellarmine, Antoninus, etc. speak for themselves. People can understand their obvious meaning without any commentary, but Salza and Siscoe have to write pages and pages about those quotes to re-interpret and change their clear meaning to 'only after a declaration has happened' (which is precisely the opposite of what the quotes actually teach).

When you reduce their novelties to their absurd conclusions, such as the fact that they regard notorious proponents of women 'priests,' etc. to be Catholic based on their false principles, you really see the heresy behind what they are saying. They are blind men leading the blind. The fact that SSPX priests endorse such nonsense and lies shows that they are simply interested in giving support to basically any work that attacks the sedevacantist position, and that their theological standards are nil.

The quotes I just posted are very clearly written. What you are saying they would argue makes no sense to me. Let's hear from John Salza himself.

Catholictrue · « **Reply #139 on:** November 27, 2015, 02:45:54 AM »

Paul, what I have written is correct. I agree that the quotes on ipso facto loss of membership and office for heresy are clear, and that Salza and Siscoe's assertions are false and absurd. But you don't understand their argument. You don't realize that Salza and Siscoe don't believe that anyone can be considered 'a heretic' until he is declared to be one. Permit me to illustrate the difference with the following quotes, for instance:

"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." Summa Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub. St. Antoninus (†1459)

"...a pope who is a manifest heretic by that fact ceases to be pope and head, just as he by that fact ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; wherefore he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the judgement of all the early fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction." St. Robert Bellarmine, "On the Roman Pontiff".

A Catholic recognizes that these quotes teach that people who manifestly deny the faith are AUTOMATICALLY expelled from the Church WITHOUT the need for a declaration by a Church authority. But Salza and Siscoe don't believe that anyone is an actual 'heretic' or a 'manifest heretic' UNTIL HE IS DECLARED TO BE A HERETIC by a Church authority. So, for them: every reference to 'HERETIC' OR 'MANIFEST HERETIC' = A PERSON DECLARED TO BE SUCH.

Therefore, the reference to 'a heretic' (in the quote from Antoninus) and the reference to ('a manifest heretic') in the quote from Bellarmine, to Salza and Siscoe actually means 'a person declared to be a heretic’ (i.e. officially warned, etc.) So, their position is that one must be declared a heretic to lose his office ipso facto or without any declaration. That is their position, and that's what they claim Bellarmine, etc. are teaching. Yes, it’s false. Yes, it’s stupid. Yes, it's absurd. Yes, it makes no sense. Yes, it's a contradiction. But that is their position: that one must be declared a heretic to lose his office ipso facto. What I wrote before is correct. I will re-quote what I wrote:

---

Paul,

What you need to realize is that, in response to most of those quotes on how heretics are expelled by that very fact or "without a declaration," etc., Salza and Siscoe would respond by arguing this: none of those people are even heretics until the Church declares them to be, and that AFTER the Church declares them to be heretics, then they lose their membership in the Church and their offices ipso facto. In other words, according to Salza and Siscoe, people have to be declared heretics to lose their offices and Church membership ipso facto and "without a declaration"! Sounds stupid and contradictory, doesn't it? Yes, that's because it is. In essence, every time you read 'without a declaration' or 'by that very fact' or 'ipso facto' in a quote, Salza and Siscoe re-interpret and change the meaning to be the following: "without a declaration" applies only after a declaration. That is really, truly, actually what they are saying. It's absurd. They've literally made up a totally new teaching on heresy, according to which "ipso facto," "without a declaration," "by that very fact", etc. only take effect only after a declaration. They are teaching heresy and lies - period. The quotes from Bellarmine, Antoninus, etc. speak for themselves. People can understand their meaning without any commentary, but Salza and Siscoe have to write pages and pages about those quotes to re-interpret and change their clear meaning to "after a declaration".

When you reduce their novelties to their absurd conclusions, such as the fact that they regard notorious proponents of women 'priests,' etc. to be Catholic based on their false principles, you really see the heresy behind what they are saying. They are blind men leading the blind. The fact that SSPX priests endorse such nonsense shows that they are simply interested in giving support to basically any work that attacks the sedevacantist position, and that their theological standards are nil.

Gregory I · « **Reply #140 on:** November 27, 2015, 02:52:26 AM »

Quote

If a Pope who has become a heretic mends his ways before the declaratory sentence, he recovers ipso facto his pontifical authority without any new election of the Cardinals or other legal formality.

— Objection: «If, as we have said, the Pope by the very fact that he has become a heretic loses his pontifical dignity and remains outside the Church, then it is not possible for him to go back into office, at least not in the sense of becoming Pope again, because such a return would have the force of a new election, in which case a council would be attributing to itself a right that belongs to the Cardinals, namely the right of electing, and this —according to Rosellus— is not something that can be done legitimately.

Answer: In the present case, according to the interpretation of ecclesiastical law, the right of election returns to the Cardinals only after a declaratory sentence of the crime, because the penalties imposed by the law itself cannot be executed without such a sentence… And it has not been shown that such a declaration should be pronounced in virtue of any existing law. But rather the opposite is true when the Pope mends his ways, as we demonstrated before. Thus, no harm is done to the Cardinals, since they receive back in a revocable manner the right of choosing another Pontiff, on condition that the heretical Pope be unrepentant and unwilling to mends his ways. It should be of no wonder if a reintegration of this type takes place without any legal solemnity, because, if a person loses ecclesiastical dignity by committing a crime—and this happens by a simple internal effect of the law (nudo juris mysterio fit)— by the same token, once the crime goes away by reason of the amendment, the thing goes back to its original state— also by a simple internal effect of the law.

Cardinal John Jerome of Albano, Tractatus de Potestate Papae, 1543.

Note, a Pope who is a heretic, BEFORE any declaratory sentence, and therefore before any trial against him, were to REPENT of his heresy, RECOVERS his Pontifical authority! Which means he can formally lose it before a trial.

This is possible because this entire scenario here is making the distinction between divine law and canon law. According to Divine Law, the heretical Pope has lost his office, it is taken away by Christ. And in terms of canon law this takes place by a "simple internal effect of the law". This means that there is no declaration necessary for him to have truly, in the eyes of God, ceased to have Papal jurisdiction.

Nevertheless, there OUGHT to be, for the good of the Church, a canonical declaration AGAINST him, to legally and canonically sever him from the Material Office he holds.

BUT if he REPENTS BEFORE that declaration, then the Cardinals would not have to hold a second election.

This is the proper understanding of that which takes place according to divine law, and that which takes place according to canon law. They are different from one another.

Stubborn · « **Reply #141 on:** November 27, 2015, 04:23:51 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Again, where is the Church teaching that the Ordinary Universal Magisterium is ever fallible..under any circuмstances?

I tell you what 2V, since you are so sure of your Cekadian inspired belief, why don't you just show your knowledge on this subject and actually contribute something useful, like produce a teaching or lesson from the Church - either papal, solemn or magisterial - which accurately reflects your belief as regards the infallibility of the UOM.

After producing either papal, solemn or magisterial teachings, then feel free to post theological explanations of those teachings if you need to.

2Vermont · « **Reply #142 on:** November 27, 2015, 08:15:55 AM »

Quote from: Catholictrue

TO ROB. SISCOE:

You replied by confirming that you believe all of those people who notoriously promote heresies and deny Catholic teaching publicly (such as Kasper) to be members of the Church, since they have not been officially removed. According to the same principle, you consider all the people at Novus Ordo parishes who even favor women ‘priests’, gαy 'marriage', etc. to be members of the Church, since they have not been declared heretics or officially separated. Your position has been reduced to its absurdity.

You then erect a straw man, perhaps to shift the focus away from these considerations, by referencing Cekada. I did not reference him or base my comments on him. Rather, I pointed out that the procedures instituted in ecclesiastical law are not required by divine law to recognize heretics. That’s a fact. Your response indicates that you don’t agree and that you don’t understand. That means that you actually think that one must always be declared a heretic by a Church authority and in ecclesiastical law to be considered a heretic. That is utter nonsense (as the examples listed above about women 'priests', etc. illustrate). It shows how flawed and warped your understanding of these matters are.

You also, at least so far, did not respond to whether your book is approved by your ‘ordinary’ and, if not, why not? Also, why do you feature endorsements from independent priests and from an independent bishop, as if that means something, when your book’s thesis is that it’s forbidden under pain of condemnation to separate from the the visible social unit without a declaration.

This appears to be the anti-sedevacantist go-to when they can't answer a question.

TKGS · « **Reply #143 on:** November 27, 2015, 08:18:28 AM »

Quote from: Bellator Dei

My, my.... We have Siscoe and Salza on the forum?

I sure hope you guys stick around instead of just peddling around and trying to sell your ridiculously long book of already refuted arguments.

As of now, 100% of their posts have been on this one topic as they tag-team to defend and promote their book. I guess Siscoe had to join because Salza couldn't figure out the quote feature. In any event, when this topic dies down, I doubt we'll ever hear of them again...until the next book comes out.

2Vermont · « **Reply #144 on:** November 27, 2015, 08:24:18 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: Bellator Dei
My, my.... We have Siscoe and Salza on the forum?

I sure hope you guys stick around instead of just peddling around and trying to sell your ridiculously long book of already refuted arguments.

As of now, 100% of their posts have been on this one topic as they tag-team to defend and promote their book. I guess Siscoe had to join because Salza couldn't figure out the quote feature. In any event, when this topic dies down, I doubt we'll ever hear of them again...until the next book comes out.

:roll-laugh1: Literally LOL'ed on that one.

2Vermont · « **Reply #145 on:** November 27, 2015, 08:40:05 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: 2Vermont

Again, where is the Church teaching that the Ordinary Universal Magisterium is ever fallible..under any circuмstances?

I tell you what 2V, since you are so sure of your Cekadian inspired belief, why don't you just show your knowledge on this subject and actually contribute something useful, like produce a teaching or lesson from the Church - either papal, solemn or magisterial - which accurately reflects your belief as regards the infallibility of the UOM.

After producing either papal, solemn or magisterial teachings, then feel free to post theological explanations of those teachings if you need to.

Pope Pius XII refers to the OUM here as part of his declaration on the Assumption of Mary. The infallible teaching of the Assumption was always taught and believed as part of the infallible OUM:

But those whom "the Holy Spirit has placed as bishops to rule the Church of God"[4] gave an almost unanimous affirmative response to both these questions. This "outstanding agreement of the Catholic prelates and the faithful,"[5] affirming that the bodily Assumption of God's Mother into heaven can be defined as a dogma of faith, since it shows us the concordant teaching of the Church's ordinary doctrinal authority and the concordant faith of the Christian people which the same doctrinal authority sustains and directs, thus by itself and in an entirely certain and infallible way, manifests this privilege as a truth revealed by God and contained in that divine deposit which Christ has delivered to his Spouse to be guarded faithfully and to be taught infallibly.[6] Certainly this teaching authority of the Church, not by any merely human effort but under the protection of the Spirit of Truth,[7] and therefore absolutely without error, carries out the commission entrusted to it, that of preserving the revealed truths pure and entire throughout every age, in such a way that it presents them undefiled, adding nothing to them and taking nothing away from them. For, as the Vatican Council teaches, "the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter in such a way that, by his revelation, they might manifest new doctrine, but so that, by his assistance, they might guard as sacred and might faithfully propose the revelation delivered through the apostles, or the deposit of faith."[8] Thus, from the universal agreement of the Church's ordinary teaching authority we have a certain and firm proof, demonstrating that the Blessed Virgin Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven- which surely no faculty of the human mind could know by its own natural powers, as far as the heavenly glorification of the virginal body of the loving Mother of God is concerned-is a truth that has been revealed by God and consequently something that must be firmly and faithfully believed by all children of the Church. For, as the Vatican Council asserts, "all those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."[9]

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #146 on:** November 27, 2015, 08:46:02 AM »

Quote from: Catholictrue

Paul,

What you need to understand is that, in response to most of those quotes on how heretics are expelled 'by that very fact' or 'without a declaration,' etc., Salza and Siscoe would respond by arguing this: none of those people are even heretics until the Church declares them to be, and that AFTER the Church declares/determines them to be heretics, THEN they lose their membership in the Church and their offices ipso facto. In other words, according to Salza and Siscoe, people have to be declared heretics to lose their offices and Church membership ipso facto and 'without a declaration'! Sounds stupid and contradictory, doesn't it? Yes, that's because it is. In essence, every time you read the words 'without a declaration' or 'by that very fact' or 'ipso facto' in a quote, Salza and Siscoe re-interpret and change the meaning to be the following: 'without a declaration' only applies after a declaration. That is truly, really, actually what they are arguing. It's absurd. They've literally made up a totally new teaching on heresy, according to which 'ipso facto,' 'without a declaration,' 'by that very fact', etc. only take effect after a declaration. They are teaching heresy and lies - period. The quotes from Bellarmine, Antoninus, etc. speak for themselves. People can understand their obvious meaning without any commentary, but Salza and Siscoe have to write pages and pages about those quotes to re-interpret and change their clear meaning to 'only after a declaration has happened' (which is precisely the opposite of what the quotes actually teach).

When you reduce their novelties to their absurd conclusions, such as the fact that they regard notorious proponents of women 'priests,' etc. to be Catholic based on their false principles, you really see the heresy behind what they are saying. They are blind men leading the blind. The fact that SSPX priests endorse such nonsense and lies shows that they are simply interested in giving support to basically any work that attacks the sedevacantist position, and that their theological standards are nil.

This is to be expected from lawyers. They typically first determine what outcome they want to achieve and then they leave no stone unturned in their efforts to bend the interpretation of every statement and law and even reality (if possible) to achieve that result. It works well in an adversarial system but in theology it stinks. It is no way to arrive at the truth.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #147 on:** November 27, 2015, 10:08:37 AM »

Excerpt from the book True or False Pope?:

Quote

Sedevacantists Admit of Their Own Evil Fruits

Right off the bat, what is most telling, is that Sedevacantists themselves admit that their movement is plagued by evil and bitter fruits. This fact is so pervasive that it is conceded and complained
about even by the most public defenders of the sect. For example, a recent article appeared in the Sedevacantist publication Reign of Mary in which the author, Sedevacantist Mario Derksen, explained that the reason some do not embrace the Sedevacantist position is due to the rotten fruits found among its members. He wrote:
Quote
“All too often we hear from people seeking to be traditional Catholics that what keeps them from becoming Sedevacantists is the problem of ‘disunity’ among them. From disputes about which Holy Week rites to follow, to contemporary bioethical problems, to the question of whether one may ever assist at non-Sedevacantist Masses, the disagreements among those who do not recognize the papal claimants after Pope Pius XII as legitimate seem too numerous or too daunting for many people’s comfort.”

Mr. Derksen’s explanation is that these divisions are due to the fact that there is not a Pope. He said, “the absence of a Pope means that the principle of unity is temporarily prevented from bringing about the unity of the flock on those matters about which we currently legitimately dispute and disagree.” Derksen’s explanation, however, does not correspond to reality.

First, as this book has demonstrated, it’s not that we don’t have a Pope, but rather that the Sedevacantists refuse to recognize that there is a Pope. Second, the presence or absence of a Pope does not eliminate “those matters about which [they] currently legitimately dispute and disagree,” because “those matters” include precisely how and when a Pope loses his office for heresy. As we saw in this book, the Sedevacantists have very divisive opinions on these matters, and those disagreements would exist irrespective of whether we have a Pope or not.

But as the Sedevacantist, John Lane, noted in his response to Mr. Derksen’s article, the problem is not only one of disunity and infighting amongst various Sedevacantist factions, but true spiritual disorder in the lives of those who embrace the position. Mr. Lane wrote:
Quote
“...people who get interested in Sedevacantism become unstable in their spiritual lives, confused about what matters and what doesn’t , forget their own incompetence in what are often very technically challenging areas of law and doctrine, often destabilize others in their parish, and very often more broadly disturb the peace of the parish. I’ve observed all of this myself, and so often that I can’t answer it. It’s true.”

John Lane admits he has no answer for the spiritual disorders he finds in those who embrace Sedevacantism. He went on to say one might be able to blame the divisions on their being no Pope (since the Pope is the principle of unity), but he then noted that...

But here is what John Lane actually wrote:

Quote

The sedeplenist Joe Bloggs, and more importantly, the sedeplenist Fr. Bloggs, won't find the apology regarding sedevacantist disunity compelling. The reason is that the logic doesn't work. I think that Mario doesn't understand the objection to which he is meant to be replying.

The sedeplenist observation over decades is that people who get interested in sedevacantism become unstable in their spiritual lives, confused about what matters and what doesn't, forget their own incompetence in what are often very technically challenging areas of law and doctrine, often destablise others in their parish, and very often more broadly disturb the peace of the parish. I've observed all of this myself, and so often that I can't answer it. It's true. It isn't an observation that touches upon whether Francis is pope, obviously, but one can certainly understand that to somebody with the other conviction, it's a mighty motivation not to look at our view.

One cannot answer this by arguing as follows:

1. The pope is the principle of unity in the Church
2. But there's no pope at present
Ergo, disunity is expected and not at all surprising.

This argument, which is sound and true, only explains the disunity on all fronts, amongst all Catholics, whatever their convictions. It says nothing whatsoever about why sedevacantism is so often concommitant with spiritual maladies.

cf. http://www.sedevacantist.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1771

So John Lane is not admitting the disunity of sedevacantists alone, he is saying that all traditionalists suffer from the same thing. INCLUDING SALZA AND SISCOE'S R&R POSITION.

This is the kind of intellectual dishonesty which lawyers are notorious for.

Later in the same thread, John Lane wrote this:

Quote

Nice reply, James.

I'm of the view, and have been for years, that the crisis presents a mystery, and that the only valid and useful approach is to address the mystery as a whole. The sedeplenists don't do this, and neither has any sedevacantist writer. Instead, the sedevacantists "prove" their position, whilst failing to address the real elements of mystery which remain, and then turn and rend the sedeplenists for not accepting their opinion. The sedeplenists, on the other hand, restrict themselves to refuting sedevacantism, without addressing the very real problems it is meant to (partially) answer. The problem with this approach is compounded by the use of bad arguments, erroneous theology, and absolutely garbage "scholarship" (e.g. invented quotes from Pope Adrian VI, taken from a book which St. Pius X put on the Index). For these reasons, once one is a sedevacantist, one is constantly and severely tempted to believe that the other side are actually just complete charlatans without the slightest affection for the moral law or truth itself.

It's a great dynamic! :)

Which pretty much sums up everything that Salza and Siscoe have ever written about the SV position.

PaulFC · « **Reply #148 on:** November 27, 2015, 10:19:30 AM »

Quote from: Catholictrue

Paul, what I have written is correct. I agree that the quotes on ipso facto loss of membership and office for heresy are clear, and that Salza and Siscoe's assertions are false and absurd. But you don't understand their argument. You don't realize that Salza and Siscoe don't believe that anyone can be considered 'a heretic' until he is declared to be one.

A Catholic recognizes that these quotes teach that people who manifestly deny the faith are AUTOMATICALLY expelled from the Church WITHOUT the need for a declaration by a Church authority. But Salza and Siscoe don't believe that anyone is an actual 'heretic' or a 'manifest heretic' UNTIL HE IS DECLARED TO BE A HERETIC by a Church authority. So, for them: every reference to 'HERETIC' OR 'MANIFEST HERETIC' = A PERSON DECLARED TO BE SUCH.

Hi Catholictrue,

I appreciate your input and I understand the argument. What I am saying is, the quotes from the Church on the subject clearly refer to a person that has not yet been officially declared a heretic, so Salza cannot possibly use the argument you are saying. For instance, the following quotes are extremely clear in stating the loss of position has already occurred before a declaration has taken place:

"A heretical pope necessarily ceases to be head of the Church, for by his heresy he is no longer a member thereof; in the event of his still claiming the Roman see, a General Council, improperly so called because without the pope, could remove him. But this is not deposition, since by his own act is no longer pope." A Catholic Dictionary, Deposition

"The question was also raised by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself." (Abp. John B. Purcell, quoted in Rev. James J. McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII [Chicago, IL: Allied Printing, 1903], p. 241; imprimatur by Abp. James Quigley of Chicago.)

The other quotes I presented clearly state the same, but the above 2 are more explicit about it. I'm not looking for anyone to help Salza here; I'm asking him to explain the discrepancy for all of us. Thanks

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #149 on:** November 27, 2015, 10:24:56 AM »

By the way, John Salza has made appearances on Eric Gajewski's podcast several times. Eric Gajewski is claiming that he is the Great Monarch and he has been caught buying fake social media activity to create the illusion of popularity for his website. So people living in glass houses should not be throwing stones. Spiritual maladies are everywhere. There is no magic Catholic theological/ecclesiological position which will make them go away. So Chapter 21 of True or False Pope? appears to me to be nothing more than a thin veneer of scholarship draped over detraction and calumny with at least one misleading quote thrown in for good measure.