Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo  (Read 20602 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline 2Vermont

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11527
  • Reputation: +6477/-1195
  • Gender: Female
Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
« Reply #135 on: October 20, 2020, 03:45:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • What are the other "right and proper positions," Poche?
    Mark, Meg has been asked this question already a couple of times now....and appears to be ignoring it.  I think we all know why that is.

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1951
    • Reputation: +518/-147
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #136 on: October 20, 2020, 03:52:15 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 1. Yes, you are correct. The SSPX now accepts all N.O without conditional consecrations or ordinations, even if the priests asked to be conditionally ordained.

    2. I noticed that too.

    3. No they have not, as an organization, the policy is not to condemn or criticize Bergoglio or any of his heretical and communist actions.  (At most, they might allow a public statement expressing their disappointment).
    Do you have a source for #1?  When I asked about this I was told they investigate them to make sure they were valid (this just last year).  That said I realize Sedes think the New Rite is *inherently* invalid so of course that would be a whole nother deal.  Which I know Lefebvre didn't always do conditional ordinations either.


    Offline Mark 79

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13054
    • Reputation: +8578/-1612
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #137 on: October 20, 2020, 04:00:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • …the law states that: "the man elected is instantly the true Pope, and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world".

    Nothing in that language precludes the heretic being elected and "automatically" and "immediatley" falling "without need for any further action" because the heretic deposes himself.

    Think long and hard about Jorge having "absolute jurisdiction over the whole world."

    Can you live with that?

    Before I was banned, QVD (if I remember correctly) showed that Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis §34 abrogated cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio but only for an "election." So again, the instant after election, the heretic falls "automatically" and "immediately" "without further action."

    Besides, who thinks that Canon Law can legitimately trump Divine Law? Only Pharisees and neo-Pharisees.

    It is so complicated that only one with competence and jurisdiction can have a dispositive opinion.

    Sean's hysterical straw men and Meg's evidence-free Poche-style drive-bys do not suffice.

    What are the other "right and proper positions," Meg/Poche?

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #138 on: October 20, 2020, 04:40:56 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2
  • Mark, Meg has been asked this question already a couple of times now....and appears to be ignoring it.  I think we all know why that is.

    Probably for the same reason sedes wet their pants every time I post the article they continuously ignore:

    They have no response.
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline VeritatisSplendor

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 12
    • Reputation: +3/-36
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #139 on: October 20, 2020, 05:27:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I bet Salza's not only a crypto Mason but part of the the baby eating cult also


    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11527
    • Reputation: +6477/-1195
    • Gender: Female
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #140 on: October 20, 2020, 05:29:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Probably for the same reason sedes wet their pants every time I post the article they continuously ignore:

    They have no response.
    You may have noticed Sean that I'm not interested in interacting with you and the other rabid anti-sedes here these days.  But nice try.  :fryingpan:

    Offline Yeti

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4147
    • Reputation: +2434/-528
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #141 on: October 20, 2020, 06:16:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Probably for the same reason sedes wet their pants every time I post the article they continuously ignore:

    They have no response.
    I did respond. I asked if you had any specific questions about that article that you wanted answered? Also, I wrote a long response to your claim about St. Robert Bellarmine's position several pages back that I didn't see any answer to.

    Offline Mark 79

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13054
    • Reputation: +8578/-1612
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #142 on: October 21, 2020, 02:44:41 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I bet Salza's not only a crypto Mason but part of the the baby eating cult also


    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14864
    • Reputation: +6154/-916
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #143 on: October 21, 2020, 05:12:59 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Nothing in that language precludes the heretic being elected and "automatically" and "immediatley" falling "without need for any further action" because the heretic deposes himself.

    Think long and hard about Jorge having "absolute jurisdiction over the whole world."

    Can you live with that?

    Before I was banned, QVD (if I remember correctly) showed that Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis §34 abrogated cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio but only for an "election." So again, the instant after election, the heretic falls "automatically" and "immediately" "without further action."

    Besides, who thinks that Canon Law can legitimately trump Divine Law? Only Pharisees and neo-Pharisees.

    It is so complicated that only one with competence and jurisdiction can have a dispositive opinion.
    You said; "The pope's status" is derivative of his manifest actions and statements—"automatically," "immediately," "without need for any further declaration, etc." which simply cannot be true once he accepts his election because that is an idea which contradicts the law that popes themselves have made. 

    The truth of the matter is that according the law, once declared that he accepts his election, he "automatically, immediately, without need for any further declaration"  is instantly the true pope. In all of Church history and tradition, the only way for a pope to be dethroned, *is* indeed to self dethrone - by either dying or retiring.

    Should the pope be an apostate heretic like the conciliar popes have been, then per cuм Ex, we are not to listen to him - "he may nonetheless be contradicted" is what cuм Ex says - which, even if cuм Ex never would have said this, doing this agrees with Scripture, tradition and what the Church has taught always and everywhere as regards how to deal with heretics of whatever stripe. IOW, because that is what the Church has always taught, that is what we Catholics are expected to actually do about heretic popes.

    Deciding his status is a new idea and as such, per the Canon of St. Vincent of Lerins, being an idea that has *not* been held as a part of Catholic doctrine through all the generations of the Church by the vast majority of the people, is not Catholic.   

    Because this law is the tradition of the Church, neither can we say this law contradicts Divine Law. The popes made the law specifically so that the whole world knows with absolute certainty, exactly who the pope is and at the precise moment in time he came to be pope.    
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Tradman

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1355
    • Reputation: +863/-287
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #144 on: October 21, 2020, 07:48:21 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You said; "The pope's status" is derivative of his manifest actions and statements—"automatically," "immediately," "without need for any further declaration, etc." which simply cannot be true once he accepts his election because that is an idea which contradicts the law that popes themselves have made.  

    The truth of the matter is that according the law, once declared that he accepts his election, he "automatically, immediately, without need for any further declaration"  is instantly the true pope. In all of Church history and tradition, the only way for a pope to be dethroned, *is* indeed to self dethrone - by either dying or retiring.

    Should the pope be an apostate heretic like the conciliar popes have been, then per cuм Ex, we are not to listen to him - "he may nonetheless be contradicted" is what cuм Ex says - which, even if cuм Ex never would have said this, doing this agrees with Scripture, tradition and what the Church has taught always and everywhere as regards how to deal with heretics of whatever stripe. IOW, because that is what the Church has always taught, that is what we Catholics are expected to actually do about heretic popes.

    Deciding his status is a new idea and as such, per the Canon of St. Vincent of Lerins, being an idea that has *not* been held as a part of Catholic doctrine through all the generations of the Church by the vast majority of the people, is not Catholic.    

    Because this law is the tradition of the Church, neither can we say this law contradicts Divine Law. The popes made the law specifically so that the whole world knows with absolute certainty, exactly who the pope is and at the precise moment in time he came to be pope.    
    cuм Ex...

    "(vii) if perchance they shall have been Judges, their judgments shall have no force, nor shall any cases be brought to their hearing.;"

    cuм Ex presumes a hearing of the one accused of heresy.  Can a pope even be brought to a hearing?  

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47134
    • Reputation: +27934/-5206
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #145 on: October 21, 2020, 07:51:58 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You may have noticed Sean that I'm not interested in interacting with you and the other rabid anti-sedes here these days.  But nice try.  :fryingpan:

    I've already pointed out to Sean that nobody's going to read (much less respond to) a 25-page article spammed into a forum thread.  If someone wanted to refute it, point by point, this would not be the venue for it.  But Sean tries to pretend that it's some kind of fear that prevents us from responding.  I have better use for my time than to spent 5 hours refuting something when I know that the rabid dogmatic R&R will just ignore everything anyway.


    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2246
    • Reputation: +1485/-605
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #146 on: October 21, 2020, 10:59:54 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • cuм Ex...

    "(vii) if perchance they shall have been Judges, their judgments shall have no force, nor shall any cases be brought to their hearing.;"

    cuм Ex presumes a hearing of the one accused of heresy.  Can a pope even be brought to a hearing?  

    The part you quoted does say the accused shall have a hearing.  It says that if the accused was a judge, all their official acts shall be null and void.

    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2246
    • Reputation: +1485/-605
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #147 on: October 21, 2020, 11:02:29 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • And to answer your question.  No, a pope cannot be judged under any circuмstances.  But if he is a manifest heretic, then he is not the pope and therefore he may be judged, the traditional penalty for heresy being death.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47134
    • Reputation: +27934/-5206
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #148 on: October 21, 2020, 11:17:56 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • And to answer your question.  No, a pope cannot be judged under any circuмstances.  But if he is a manifest heretic, then he is not the pope and therefore he may be judged, the traditional penalty for heresy being death.

    Right, a Pope (can't remember who) famously said that in the case of heresy, the Pope is judged, or rather shown to have already been judged, i.e. judged by man to have been judged by God (with "judged" being used in two different senses, as actually explained by S&S).

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1951
    • Reputation: +518/-147
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #149 on: October 21, 2020, 11:20:56 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Right, a Pope (can't remember who) famously said that in the case of heresy, the Pope is judged, or rather shown to have already been judged, i.e. judged by man to have been judged by God (with "judged" being used in two different senses, as actually explained by S&S).
    my main issue here is still that until the Church in some way *tells us* that Francis is a manifest and formal heretic and thus has fallen from the pontificate, its just a theory, at best.

    I can look at the things he says and conclude that many of them fall out of accord with what the Church has taught in the past.  But I have no idea how I could know whether the heresy is formal or just material.  And a "come on it seems obvious its formal" isn't theologically airtight