John Salza and Robert Siscoe have done it again. They have completely misrepresented me, got all the facts wrong, and have become the very definition of hypocrisy. The title of their latest childish article is:
SPERAY’S CATHOLICISM IN A NUT HOUSE:
Cracking His Nutty Arguments about
St. Robert Bellarmine One at a Time [1]
Salza/Siscoe have complained over and over again about sedevacantists using ad hominem attacks, but have no problem of doing the same to me. I personally have no problem with ad hominem, but to use it (and use it excessively) after deriding others for it is hypocritical.
They begin their nutty article with an utter lie. They write:
In fact, Speray ups the ante by even claiming that “Bellarmine’s position requires private judgment.” You read that correctly. Steve Speray claims that St. Robert Bellarmine requires (!) Catholics to individually judge (and decide for themselves) whether or not the Pope, who has been elected by the Church, is the true Vicar of Christ, even if their judgment is contrary to the public judgment of the Church.
What they don’t tell their readers is that I was referring to what John of St. Thomas says against St. Robert Bellarmine. The full quote reads, “John of St. Thomas is also saying that Bellamine’s position requires private judgment for which Salza/Siscoe condemn sedevacantists.”
Just as John of St. Thomas gets Bellarmine wrong about private judgment, Salza/Siscoe get sedevacantists wrong about private judgment. I’ve explicitly repeated in many articles that private judgment is not how popes get into office or how they lose their office. Salza/Siscoe argue throughout their entire article against a position I don’t hold.
I’ve also defined what private judgment means in my article, The Gates of Hell and the Gates of the Church (The Best Defense for Sedevacantism). However, you won’t find Salza/Siscoe defining what they mean by the phrase, because they know they’re actually guilty of doing so against their church. Again, they’re hypocrites.
Salza/Siscoe end their first nutty straw-man argument:
Thus, contrary to Steve Speray’s delusional assertions, Bellarmine, far from requiring Catholics to declare bishops depose by their by private judgment, actually condemns such a practice, and affirms that such a judgment must be made by the Church.
I’ve never said or implied that individuals depose bishops. I totally agree that only the Church deposes bishops. In fact, I’ve explicitly written to Siscoe several times that the Church can’t even depose a pope, much less by private judgment. But Salza/Siscoe have no problem bearing false witness against me in public.
Salza/Siscoe continue to malign me with the tired old argument that Bellarmine required two warnings by repeating his fourth opinion. They write:
Bellarmine explains that one who remains in heresy “after two warnings” thereby shows himself to be “manifestly obstinate,” and, consequently, can be considered a “manifest heretic.” It is clear that this proof of obstinacy (pertinacity) is established by virtue of the “two warnings” (refusing to “hear the Church”) which is the Scriptural authority upon which Bellarmine relies.
As I’ve explained a dozen times, Bellarmine was answering what happens to a manifest heretic. Cajetan is already speaking about a manifest heretic, so there’s no reason for Bellarmine to use St. Paul to demonstrate what is already presumed in Cajetan’s objection. Salza/Siscoe continue by trying to refute the rest of my argument by quoting Bellarmine, then me, and twisting it:
“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 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, and condemn him as a heretic.” (On the Roman Pontiff, 29).
Speray then concludes: “If two warnings are necessary to prove obstinacy and thus a manifest heretic is made, why would he say that a pope doesn’t even have to be a heretic at all, but only appear as one to lose his office? The reason is that St. Robert Bellarmine never said or implied that two warnings were necessary.” Yes, Speray actually argues that a Pope loses his office automatically if he simply appears to be a heretic. He argues that this takes place not upon the judgment of the Church, but according to the private judgment of individual Catholics, and he attributes such an absurdity to a saint and Doctor of the Church.
I didn’t say he lost it automatically. I was pointing to the fact that two warnings aren’t necessary; the point that proves Salza/Siscoe wrong about Bellarmine requiring two warnings.
Salza/Siscoe continue their nutty argument by claiming Liberius lost office by “sede impedita (the inability of the Pope to function as Pope). Liberius was not available to answer any charges of heresy.”
The problem is that’s not what Bellarmine taught. He taught,
“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.” [2]
Salza/Siscoe can’t admit they’re wrong, so they twist the facts and mock me in the process. They continue by saying that I “didn’t want you to see” that the authorities stripped Liberius. It didn’t happen by private judgment. But that wasn’t the issue in the article. The article was dealing specifically about two warnings. However, I wrote about the entire event in my book “Papal Anomalies and Their Implications” providing the full quote on page 37 that Salza/Siscoe claim I didn’t want you to see. They have the book and quoted from it in their article “Sedevacantists Reject Pre-Vatican 2 Popes” misrepresenting me in it as well.
Again, Salza/Siscoe seem to have no conscience lying about me in public. They continue to misrepresent me on Wernz/Vidal and Pope Innocent III. They also misrepresent Wernz/Vidal and Pope Innocent III, so I’m in good company. They don’t deal with the actual teaching of Wernz/Vidal at all, because W/V taught that Salza/Siscoe’s position is indefensible. Again, Wernz/Vidal:
The fourth opinion, with Suarez, Cajetan and others [John of St. Thomas, Fr. Laymann, etc.], contends that a Pope is not automatically deposed even for manifest heresy, but that he can and must be deposed by at least a declaratory sentence of the crime. “Which opinion in my judgment is indefensible” as Bellarmine teaches.
Salza/Siscoe don’t stop there. They play God by judging me guilty of mortal sin. They end their article with, “Steve Speray should either rename his apostolate ‘Speray’s Catholicism in a Nut House,’ or better yet, shut it down completely.”
This translates as I’ve proven them wrong on every point and they can’t stand it. They want me to shut down so that they’ll stop looking like the “gates of hell” that they are. The first thing that came to mind when I read this last sentence was the passage in Holy Scripture that reads, “And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads, and saying, “Aha! You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself, and come down from the cross!” [3]
Now, I better qualify it, because Salza/Siscoe will twist it to mean that I think I’m Christ now. What I mean is that the devil wants me to quit, like he wanted Our Lord to quit.
Footnotes:
[1]http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/sedevacantist-watch-sperayscatholicism.html
[2] (Book IX, Ch IX, n. 15)
[3] (Mark 15:29-30)
Dear Steven,
Siscoe/Salza
Are arguing what they don’t understand . They are not making you Steven silly, they are making themselves look bad.
Maybe if they studied the Mother Church more Siscoe/Sala
Would have the answer
Sisco Salza and company are in the dark about most everything in this whole discussion. I’d not worry about these two anymore for whoever desires to follow their spiritual expertise deserve what comes to them. S&S have their minds set. It appears they represent the church (novus ordo) Just look at those endorsements! They have presented the perfect thesis and answer for everything yet, their church is slowly going down the tubes in spite of their brilliant work. (Protestants even see the skew in Francis) Just seems to me like something ain’t quite right in Rome or with those who condone and defend it!!
Dear Mr. Speray:
–
Thank you for your blog and for defending the faith.
–
For anyone who has studied the issues in this matter, John Salza appears to be of bad will. He seems to be knowingly attacking the teachings of Popes by attributing them to sedevacantists as if the sedevacantists fabricated their positions out of whole cloth without relying directly on the magisterium.
–
For example, in the quote you reproduced form Salza above, he states:
–
“Yes, Speray actually argues that a Pope loses his office automatically if he simply appears to be a heretic. He argues that this takes place not upon the judgment of the Church, but according to the private judgment of individual Catholics, and he attributes such an absurdity to a saint and Doctor of the Church.”
–
John Salza attempts to give the impression that you Steven Speray came up with the teaching that “a Pope loses his office automatically if he simply appears to be a heretic.” If this is your position you cannot claim that you came up with it yourself – I’m sure you would readily admit that it has to find support in the magisterium of the Church.
–
The reason that you cannot claim that you came up with this position yourself is BECAUSE JOHN SALZA IS ALMOST VERBATIM QUOTING PARAGRAPH VI from the Papal Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio. Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio states that if ever it APPEARS that a prelate . . . or even the pope has deviated from the faith or fallen into heresy etc. HE LOSES HIS OFFICE AUTOMATICALLY. John Salza hates this law, hates this Bull and has taken it up himself to attack its teachings by falsely attributing them to you.
–
John Salza is also aware of the quote from Bellarmine that while the faithful cannot depose a prelate, they are certainly within their right to STOP LISTENING to the prelate as soon as he starts teaching heresy. St. Robert acknowledges in this quote that it is within the competence of the faithful to recognize heretics and apostates. Really, the traditional Catholic teaching is to withdraw from those who appear to be heretical so that one’s faith won’t be put at risk. But this traditional Catholic teaching does not comport with the R & R position that requires the faithful to remain in a partial communion with an apparent heretic.
–
Paragraph VII of the Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio also permits the faithful to withdraw their obedience from and avoid a prelate the faithful have concluded appears to be a heretic. John Salza in his arguments has effectively taken the position that withdrawal of obedience/ avoidance is equivalent to deposition so that those who withdraw/avoid like sedevacantists do are also constructively deposing the prelate. This is nonsensical. The very teaching that sedevacantists rely on is that the Almighty himself deposes the heretical prelate. How can John Salza accuse sedevacantists of deposing the pope or prelate when the sedevacantists believe that it is either the Almighty or Pope himself that is doing the deposing depending on which perspective you look at if from?
–
When arguing with Salza I suggest you get out from between Salza and the Popes and Doctors of the Church that Salza is really arguing with. For example, arrange the dispute in tabular format with Salza’s position in one column and the Pope or Doctor’s position in another. Once people are educated enough to understand you are not misrepresenting the Pope’s or Doctor’s positions, they will recognize that Salza isn’t really attacking you – but really the Popes and Doctors of the Church.
–
One other thing. John Salza apparently assumes that an act/speech/writing cannot be concluded to be heretical without the ecclesiastical equivalent of a forensic court proceeding with witnesses, expert testimony etc. This simply isn’t the case. St. Robert, Pope Paul IV, Archbishop Purcell all teach that it is within the competence of the faithful to conclude that an act/speech/writing is heretical. Further, I believe it is proposition 47 from Auctorem Fidei that condemns the notion that ipso facto excommunication requires a personal examination before it becomes effective. Isn’t Salza implicitly contradicting this by implicitly arguing an ecclesiastical hearing is necessary?
cypriandem makes an interesting point. The rhetorical confidence of the anti-sedevacantist surely derives from the fact that “the whole world” accepts the (worldly) election and/or acceptance of Jorge Bergoglio as “pope”. But this is a “whole world” that has not the slightest regard for the teaching of any pope who is not the “current one”. Catholics, on the other hand, are obliged to assent to the teaching of all true popes.
It seems the only folks who dont accept the Papacy of Jorge Bergoglio are true Roman Catholics.