Where?

"It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in."
[Isaias (Isaiah) 40:22]

I wonder what +Fellay and SSPX think now of having endorsed and promoted Salza's book (practically sponsored it).  Didn't +Fellay write the forward to the book?

.
Since it's publication, and I think perhaps even prior to its publication, John Lane regularly insisted that the SSPX clerics (including and especially Bishop Fellay) who gave various accolades to the book didn't read it. The impression I got from John's claims was that he had actually confirmed this with them (i.e., he wasn't just making a throwaway comment implicating the stupidity of the accolades).
.
The more and more time goes on, the more and more it seems apparent that both the authors and the SSPX basically leaned into each other for marketing clout. The book itself doesn't represent the SSPX's view (even though many erroneously assume it does--they too haven't read it!) and Salza/Siscoe have explicitly claimed allegiance with an indult (non-sspx) approach to and explanation of the crisis. They and their book are an embarrassment to the SSPX.

What's the old saying? If you lie with dogs you'll get fleas.

https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/isaias-4022/

Indeed, the DR translation of "globe" is not particularly accurate.  As even Sungenis admits, the original Hebrew did not have a word for "sphere" (although there is a word "ball" ... which is not used here).  But the Hebrew and the Greek simply mean round, or rounded ... and could be applied to a circle or could be applied to a sphere, or anything else that is rounded.  In fact, the FEs often argue the other way, that this passage, meaning more "circle" of the earth, is proof for FE.  I think it could be understood either way.  FEs argue that the world "circle" here actually excludes a globe, where if a globe were mean, the word for "ball" would have been used.  I'm not convinced either way.  Also, the Hebrew word here is actually often used to describe the vault of the heavens, i.e. the firmament.  So this could be a reference to God looking down upon the rounded dome of the firmament, as it was universally believed that God's throne was above the firmament.

So let's get back on topic please.  This is not an FE thread, but about Salza's claims regarding the errors (and he also says "heresies") of Archbishop Lefebvre.

I listened to about the first 30 minutes.  It opens with Salza insisting that he's a Traditional Catholic because he "exclusively attends the Traditional Mass".  We've repeatedly discussed that simply going to the Traditional Mass does not make someone a Traditional Catholic.  If the bishop of whatever diocese he's in suppresses the Tridentine Mass, as some have started to do, Salza will have to cease attending the Traditional Mass, and so then would his "Traditionalism" cease.

But toward the end of the first 30, he says that he was conditioned into believing that Archbishop Lefebvre was a champion orthodoxy, but [he came to realize] "he was not".  Archbishop Lefebvre held to "many errors" and even "heresies".

So then Sungenis rightly calls him out to tell everyone what some of these are.

So Salza cites some letter by Archbishop Lefebvre where he wrote that the SSPX bishops receive their jurisdiction from the people, that this is heresy.  I'd like to see the letter, first of all, but secondly, he's OBVIOUSLY speaking not about ordinary jurisdiction (that would in fact be heretical to claim) but about the extraordinary jurisdiction vis-a-vis the Sacraments, nor does he mean that the people FORMALLY bestow the jurisdiction but that they materially cause the Church to supply it.  So, an example of this is that the Church commands even suspended or excommunicated priests to come to the assistance of a dying Catholic with the Sacraments if necessary.  Even if the priest lacks the faculties (ordinary jurisdiction) to hear the dying Catholic's confession, he is supplied the jurisdiction due to the needs of the faithful, base on the principle salus animorum suprema lex (the salvation of souls is the highest law).

NO TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC has ever claimed that jurisdiction (whether ordinary or extraordinary) comes FORMALLY from the people, but only materially in the sense that the needs of the faithful are what prompt God and the Church to supply the jurisdiction to their priests.

Total butchery on the part of Salza.

This again puts his incompetence (due to lack of training) in Catholic theology on display.  He does not even understand one of the MOST BASIC of the scholastic / Aristotelian distinctions, formal vs. material.  And yet the SSPX used to promote this guy as if he were some theologian ... when it served their purposes as he was attacking the sedevacantists.

So, ironically, some of his criticism of SSPX are now starting to dovetail with the same criticisms that SVs make regarding R&R.  Problem of course is that he's begging the question that the V2 papal claimants are in fact legitimate popes.

This again puts his incompetence (due to lack of training) in Catholic theology on display.  He does not even understand one of the MOST BASIC of the scholastic / Aristotelian distinctions, formal vs. material.  And yet the SSPX used to promote this guy as if he were some theologian ... when it served their purposes as he was attacking the sedevacantists.

Incompetence... hopefully it's incompetence. Out of all the "trads" Salza comes off to me as the most disingenuous, not in the least because of his Masonic lawyer background.

I've read multiple articles where Salza is just flat-out lying and attributing falsehoods to his opponents. It doesn't get much worse than Salza.

At one point, Salza mentioned in passing that he had recently been studying the Nestorius situation.  One would have thought that he would already be an expert on it, so why study it again (as he's treated of it in depth before)?  It's because the Nestorius situation (cited by St. Robert Bellarmine), based on the principles and teaching of Pope St. Celestine, is absolutely FATAL to his case both against the SSPX AND the sedevacantists.  Also, St. Robert Bellarmine's citation about Pope St. Celestine and Nestorius to illustrate his principles completely destroy their entire True/False pope book and their attempt to twist St. Robert into holding the same opinion at Cajetan (even while explicitly rejecting Cajetan).  I would be open to someone arguing that St. Robert was mistaken and Cajetan right, as Father Chazal does, for instance ... except that we have Pope St. Celestine clear in St. Robert's corner on this one.

Honestly, he most likely hasn't considered sedevacantism for one milisecond. He just spins and spins and spins, I have one of his articles on Bellarmine at home, the article tries to prove that BELLARMINE was for RESISTANCE.

Anyway, he proceeds to attempt to prove this by citing Bellarmine himself about 5 times in 20 pages and never in full but only snippets. Right... Unfortunately some people I know are convinced by his blatant misrepresentation and disregarding occult vs. notorious and material vs. formal distinctions.

What's worse the guy even contradicts himself NON-STOP, I started making responses outlining his lies and I realized if I take some quotes from him I could make an article proving Salza is a sedevacantist and even better than he could ever do to Bellarmine.

Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic. Salza is a joke and I hate to see Sungenis with him.

The Hebrew is inherently unreliable due to the Masorete source. Same for the derivative KJV. http://judaism.is/hebrew-bible.html

Both the Sanhedrin and the Church vet the Septuagint, so It makes sense to start analysis with that and to eschew the Masorete "Hebrew Bible" and its derivatives.

I do not have or have access to Dead Sea or Peshitta interlinears. Maybe someone with access to those or fluency in the original languages could weigh in about Isaias 40:22 in those sources.

Yes, that's often the case, but in this passage the Septuagint does seem to match the Hebrew.  Sungenis seems to agree that it's legitimate.  As for the meaning of the term, it's generally conceded that it means "round" and if often used in connection with the "vault" or firmament, and that it does not necessarily mean a sphere.  I don't agree that it proves flatness (as some FEs perhaps argue), but it also doesn't prove globe.

Generally where the Masoretes messed with the text was in passages that prophesied Our Lord as the Messiah.

Way off topic here, but wanted to interject a thought on Siscoe, Salza, Charles Coulombe, Fr. Paul Robinson, Fr. Cekada et al.

It is the classic SSPX MO to hire or assign 3rd party, questionable scholars to write, histories, white papers and fake science to achieve a political goal or make them more acceptable to the world.

1. Siscoe & Salza anti-sede-vacantist writings: Purpose to justify their relations with newChurch.

2. Charles Coulumbe's histories:  To improve the Society's image for Catholic scholarship... which they lack.

3. Fr. Robinson's modern science: To jettison the stereotypical image of the "conspiratorial trad Catholic".

4. Fr. Cekada's writings on the "Validity of the American Order of St. John":  To discredit Father James Wathen, a potential, early competitor to the SSPX.