Mr Salza,
With all due respect to your legal practice, your attempt, and such a lengthy attempt, at refuting Sedevacantism is
really more telling of what the Society is concerned about than you personally. It is a fact that the Society has had a steady trickle of priests
which have been leaving her and embracing the Sedevacantist position over the years.
Now, if you want to be real, let's please be real, gentleman to gentleman:
1. Sedevacantism when it is properly defended is a theological position, necessarily held, the attempted refutation of which can only lead to personal heresy.
2. There are many who call themselves sedevacantists who attempt to argue from the particulars of historical circuмstances surrounding each pope.
I.E. on this date he said this in an encyclical, etc. This is completely unnecessary to maintain the Sedevacantist position.
The Sedevacantist position, properly explained, is based on Dogmatic Fact and tight logic:
Sequence 1-
Syllogism 1:
1. The Church is indefectible. (Dogma)
2. But Vatican II has defected through proclaiming heresy. (Fact)
3. Therefore the Authority proclaiming it is illegitimate. (Necessary Conclusion)
Syllogism 2:
1. The Authority Promulgating Vatican II is Not Catholic
2. But Paul VI promulgated Vatican II.
3. Therefore Paul VI is not Catholic.
Syllogism 3:
1. Paul Vi is not Catholic.
2. Only a Catholic can be Pope
3. Therefore Paul VI is not Pope.
ERGO:
1. Therefore, Since Vatican II is Not Catholic,
2. and the Church is indefectible,
3. Paul Vi cannot be Pope.
Sequence 2, examining the Syllogisms of Sequence 1
Syllogism 1:
1. That the Church is indefectible means that she will always retain her outward Visible structure, even if offices
fall vacant for some time. In addition, she will always be able to at least passively exercise the Universal
Ordinary Magisterium in the preservation of that Truth (See Tanquerey's Dogmatic Theology on the Ordinary Universal Magisterium).
The theologians readily admit the Church can exist without her head for in fact many years. She retains her monarchical
structure, and, although widowed and Acephalous, the pulse of life lasts within her and Christ guides her from Heaven.
This is how she at least passively retains her Ordinary Universal Magisterium.
2. The Fact of Vatican II having defected from the faith is something I don't believe you will have any trouble admitting
Mr. Salza. We all know that Vatican II clearly proclaimed heresies and embraced that which was previously condemned.
But because Vatican II was Ostensibly an act of at LEAST the Universal Ordinary Magisterium, which Paul VI called the
Supreme Ordinary Magisterium, and which he at others times called "Extraordinary," if you accept that he was a legitimate Pope, COMPELS your assent of Divine Faith.
You Must admit that the CONTENT of Vatican II is infallible. For it has been Promulgated by a Pope,
Accepted by all the Bishops, preached and acted upon, has been placed in Catechisms and has been made the Ordinary Universal teaching of all the Church.
As Tanquerey ("Dogmatic Theology" 1894) says:
"The ordinary and universal magisterium is that which is carried on daily through the continuous preaching of the Church among all peoples. It includes:
1. The preaching and proclamations of the Corporate Body of Bishops,
2. universal custom or practice associated with dogma,
3. the consensus or agreement of the Fathers and of the Theologians,
4. the common or general understanding of the faithful. 2
1. The Morally Unanimous Preaching (Teaching) of the Bishops
290 Bishops teach the flock entrusted and subject to them by means of catechisms, by synodal directives, mandates,
and in public sermons. If it is evident from these docuмents that some doctrine is being set forth universally as an object of faith,
then nothing else is required for this doctrine to be accepted de fide. Bishops spread throughout the world, but with the Roman
Pontiff forming one Corporate Body, are infallible when declaring a teaching on faith or morals.
2. Practice of the Church Associated with Dogma
291 Among the customs and practices which have been closely joined to dogma we mention especially
the public rites used in the solemn celebration of the sacrifice, or in the administration of the sacraments;
also the formulas of prayers and various feasts or offices instituted by the Church; or sacred practices which have been associated with doctrine.
For a practice of the Church to become a criterion of faith there are two requirements:
a. that the practice be necessarily connected with the dogmatic truth; for in imposing a practice or custom,
the Church by that very fact orders that dogmas connected with this practice must be adhered to;
b. that a custom of this kind be universal or approved at least tacitly by infallible authority; for
only the universal Church enjoys infallibility. Therefore, a custom or practice of one particular
Church produces only a probable argument for revealed truth. The Roman Liturgy, approved in a special
manner by the Supreme Pontiffs, cannot contain errors in dogma. Historical mistakes can creep in, and, as a
matter of fact, they have slipped into the legends in the Breviary, as the best critics admit. But this fact is
easily understood because the special lessons of the Second Nocturns were written at a time when apocryphal works
were being spread abroad. Nevertheless, these lessons should not be despised because many points contained in them
are true and are suitable for fostering piety and goodness.
Now, Mr. Salza it is manifest that in order for you to be consistent with your position of
accepting these men as Popes, you must accept their authority. More specifically, you must accept their
encyclicals, their public preaching, and their acts of promulgation. You must accept their catechisms,
their liturgical rites, and their observances, for Christ cannot lie when he said,
"He who hears you hears me."
You are therefore compelled to accept them on pain of heresy, for if you, admitting them to be Popes,
fail to accept their promulgated teachings, you admit that the Papal Office and the Ordinary Universal
Magisterium can be in error, and therefore promote that which is harmful to the faithful.
But this is blasphemous. For that would be to attribute error and heresy and sacrilege to authority of Christ himself.
As Pope Pius XII says in Humani Generis:
"Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand
consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority.
For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say:
"He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters
already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official docuмents
purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the
mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians."
The Ordinary and Non-Infallible Papal magisterium is itself an act of the authority of Christ.
Therefore Mr. Salza, you must embrace the Novus Ordo. You have no choice, because it is wrought by Christ.
It is a doing of the Church and you are presumably a loyal son of the Church and cannot reject that which is
ordinarily and universally proclaimed, the content of which is contained in her Catechism, and proclaimed at her Council, Vatican II.
3. But we know the above CANNOT be true Mr. Salza, don't we? We KNOW that Christ cannot contradict himself.
We KNOW that His Church cannot defect by teaching falsehood.
It is therefore NECESSARY and of FAITH to admit that this apparent teaching of Vatican II is simply inauthentic.
It does not proceed from the Church, it does not have Christ for its author, and it is demonstrably false, erroneous, heretical.
It is for this reason that whatever Authority promulgated Vatican II cannot have been legitimate Catholic Authority,
because Legitimate Catholic Authority CANNOT promulgate error.
Therefore, Paul VI and his successors, insofar as they imitate him and promulgate the same, cannot be Popes.
The alternative is to attribute heresy and error to Christ which is blasphemy.
Now, to examine the remainder:
1. Paul VI was not Catholic. This is a necessary conclusion arrived at from Syllogism 1, that the
Legitimate authority in the Church cannot promulgate error. But Paul VI promulgated error and advocated heresy, therefore he was not Catholic and Publically heretical.
2. The theologians clearly teach Public Heretics cannot be head of the Church:
Marato — Institutions Juris Canonici, 1921 “Heretics and schismatics are barred from the
Supreme Pontificate by the Divine Law itself, because, although by divine law they are not considered
incapable of participating in a certain type of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, nevertheless, they must certainly
be regarded as excluded from occupying the throne of the Apostolic See, which is the infallible teacher of the
truth of the faith and the center of ecclesiastical unity.”
St. Robert Bellarmine said: “A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be Pope and head, just as
he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church.
This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.”
St. Alphonsus, Bishop and Doctor of the Church, said: “If ever a Pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy,
he should at once fall from the Pontificate. If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and contumacious heretic,
he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant.”
St. Antoninus said: “In the case in which the Pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that very fact
alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.”
Now, I can feel you telling yourself "FORMAL HERETICS! ONLY FORMAL HERETICS CAN FALL FROM THE PAPACY!"
Not so Joe:
Van Noort, taking his cue from Pope Pius XII explicitly teaches to the contrary:
"Dogmatic Theology Volume II: Christ's Church, Van Noort, p. 241-242
b. Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from
the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of three factors—baptism,
profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy—pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church. The same
pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church.
"For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does
schism or heresy or apostasy" (MCC 30; italics ours).
By the term public heretics at this point we mean all who externally deny a truth (for example Mary's Divine Maternity), or
several truths of divine and Catholic faith, regardless of whether the one denying does so ignorantly and innocently (a merely material heretic), or willfully and guiltily (a formal heretic). It is certain that public, formal heretics are severed from the Church membership. It is the more common opinion that public, material heretics are likewise excluded from membership. Theological reasoning for this opinion is quite strong: if public material heretics remained members of the Church, the visibility and unity of Christ's Church would perish. If these purely material heretics were considered members of the Catholic Church in the strict sense of the term, how would one ever locate the "Catholic Church"? How would the Church be one body? How would it profess one faith? Where would be its visibility? Where its unity? For these and other reasons we find it difficult to see any intrinsic probability to the opinion which would allow for public heretics, in good faith, remaining members of the Church.
3. Conclusion:
The indefectibility of the Church demands that Paul VI not be Catholic. Therefore he cannot be Pope, as Public Heretics,
whether material or formal, cannot be members of the Church, or the visibility of the Church is destroyed.
If you claim otherwise, you must admit, by virtue of the PLAINLY EXERCISED Universal and Ordinary Magisterium, that
CHRIST is the Author of our Chaos. That he has actively willed this for His Church and providentially provided for it
through the magisterial offices he has established.
This is
BLASPHEMY.It is therefore a NECESSARY THEOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
Sede Vacante.
Unless you have discovered a severability clause between Magisterial Teaching and Magisterial Office...
Topic: New book arguing against Sedevacantism (Read 73345 times)