I'm not going to waste my time on this garbage (and it's pure pseudo-theological trash).  When he was on with Dr. Sungenis, he had the temerity to claim that he wasn't in schism when he adhered to SSPX because he did not EXCLUSIVELY go to SSPX Masses.  That takes a lot of arrogance there to excuse yourself after the fact by coming up with your own adhoc defintions.

Not only does he defend Jorge, but he's had to say that Joe Biden and Nancy Peℓσѕι are Catholics in good standing, while Traditional Catholics are not Catholics.  Talk about a diabolical inversion / perversion.  That takes a lot of wickedness and ego.  You see, most people (who are intellectually honest) when they reach such an absurdity by taking their principles to their logical conclusions will backtrack and re-examine the principles, realizing the argumentum ad absurdum.  It's what caused me to backtrack from my radically-dogmatic SVism years ago.  At one point, my principles led me to conclude that I was the only Catholic left in the world, or, in fact, even I wasn't Catholic.  So I realized how absurd that was and had to backtrack to figure out where I went wrong.  If I am trying to drive from Cleveland to Chicago but somehow end up in Houston, at some point I realize that I need to backtrack because I took a wrong turn.  NOT SALZA.  He shows up in Houston and claims that it's Chicago.

In any case, his legalistic view of the Church is insanely ridiculous.  He has to reject the teaching of Pope St. Celestine that those who had been excommunicated by Nestorius from the moment he began to PREACH heresy (not years later when he was juridically declared deposed by the Holy See) were in no way excommunicated and excluded from the Church.  During the Arian crisis, 97-99% (depending on the estimates) of episcopal sees were taken over by Arian heretics.  Meanwhile, the orthodox Catholic bishops were going around consecrating (without any mandate from Rome) and setting up as parallel bishops in the Arian-occupied districts orthodox Catholic priests.  Acccording to Salza, the Arians were the Catholics and these anti-Arians were non-Catholics.  In fact, according to Salza, had these 97%+ of Arian bishops succeeded in getting their man on the See of Peter, then the entire Church would be Arian and all the anti-Arians would have been outside the Church and non-Catholics.  It's frothing-at-the-mouth insane, Salza.

That's his entire argument. You should hear the pretzel twisting as he tries to defend Assisi.

So now his principles are leading him to defend religious indifferentism, idolatry, and apostasy.