On Oct. 17, 2018, The Remnant Newspaper Blog posted John Salza’s, “Has Pope Francis Lost His Office for Heresy?” [1] If it looked familiar, it’s because it’s a rehash of Salza’s June 9, 2017 article, “Note to Sedevacantists: Heresy Does Not Automatically Sever One from the Church,” which I thoroughly refuted here.
Michael Matt asks in the comment section why sedevacantists attack John Salza if we all agree that Francis is the enemy. To answer Mr. Matt, a reply must be posted elsewhere, since the Remnant Newspaper will censor any sound argument against Salza.
There are two points concerning Matt’s question and Salza’s article, which is a consistent theme in their material concerning papal heresy/loss of office.
The first is how Salza blasphemes Christ and the Catholic Church.
He writes that a Catholic pope, “departs from his predecessors by attacking basic Catholic moral teaching (e.g., indissolubility of marriage; exclusion of adulterers from Holy Communion, etc.).” and “In light of Francis’ unprecedented attacks on Church doctrine and practice, some traditional Catholics, in seeking a solution to this papal crisis, are unfortunately being tempted to embrace the theology of the Sedevacantists.”
He concludes, “Indeed, how a true Pope could promote these evils.” Salza qualified those evils to be “clerical heresy and sodomy disfiguring the Church in an unthinkable way.”
This is total heresy and blasphemy. True popes don’t attack Church doctrine and practices and promote clerical heresy and sodomy. A true pope is the rock of truth as Christ and Vatican I declared. It’s upon this truth that sedevacantism (Catholicism) rests. The Gates of hell are not the popes as Salza most emphatically implies they are. See here and here.
The second point is how Salza picks and chooses which popes of whose authority he will and won’t accept. He tells us how to interpret and accept Pope Pius XII’s Encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi. However, Salza doesn’t think the Vatican 2 papal teachings at Vatican 2 or their encyclicals, apostolic exhortations, canonizations, or general laws are to be accepted, at least, not all of them.
Salza quotes St. Robert Bellarmine, Revs. Laymann, Billuart, and Sylvester Berry as trusted authorities but utterly rejects as authoritative the teachings of his popes “St.” John XXIII, “St.” Paul VI, and “St.” John Paul II.
Salza and the Remnant crew have no foundation of authority.
Lastly, Salza does get something right for a change. He writes that popes who openly leave the church would cease to be popes. What Salza gets wrong is what “openly leaves the church” means. He quotes St. Bellarmine on how Novation openly left the Church, but omits Bellarmine’s teaching on Nestorius openly leaving the Church. As I’ve repeated in past articles, St. Bellarmine writes in De Romano Pontifice:
And in a letter to the clergy of Constantinople, Pope St. Celestine I says: The authority of Our Apostolic See has determined that the bishop, cleric, or simple Christian who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after the latter began to preach heresy shall not be considered deposed or excommunicated. For he who had defected from the faith with such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever.
Defecting from the faith is openly leaving the Church. It happens by preaching heresy! The canonists all say this specifically!
Salza quotes Rev. Sylvester Berry on how innocently professing heresy, while wanting to be united to the Catholic Church doesn’t make one a heretic. Salza then applies Berry’s teaching to Francis as if Francis really wants to be Catholic and united to the Catholic Church, therefore, he’s not truly a heretic. The problem is that Salza has already admitted several times that Francis is attacking the Catholic Faith. There’s no reason to believe that Francis wants to be united to the real Catholic Church. He wants his false heretical religion to be called the Catholic Church. The conciliar popes are heretics because they KNOW they are going against the Catholic Faith.
Salza’s argument runs contrary to St. Bellarmine and Pope St. Celestine I’s explanation of Nestorius, who they said “defected from the faith with such preachings [heresy].”
“Defection of Faith” is how anyone including the pope tacitly resigns his office which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of the law, and hence is effective without any declaration. Can. 188.4
The canonists of the 1917 code have explicitly refuted Salza’s position with canon 188.4 which utterly demolishes his entire argument. That’s why the Remnant completely ignores Can. 188.4 in a serious discussion on the issue. See here for more on Can. 188.4
Footnote:
Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell 
I don’t understand why Salza and the Remnant think they can get away with quoting many sources of Catholic authority such as Pope Pius XII, St. Robert Bellarmine, Revs. Laymann, Billuart, and Sylvester Berry and ignore the supposed “catholic” authority of “popes” “St.” John XXIII, “St.” Paul VI, “St.” John Paul II, and Francis.
Unfortunately, many of their die hard followers have programmed themselves this way and not just with sedevacantism but in other ways too. What is it with these people?
Yea, I second that on censorship of credible sedevacantist arguments on that post, all 3 of my attempted theological critiques were censored as spam. So much for his appeal “May God help us all to consider the facts carefully, and then to hold fast to the truth regardless of how difficult to accept that truth may be.”
I tried to respond to Mr Matt and my comment never saw the light of day. Here is what I posted:
Mr Matt, the reasons some sedes make a big deal out of precision is exactly due to the Remnant’s current stance on Abp Vigano as you mention. Trads of all stripes are together 100% in our opposition to Francis. But to enlist a Novus Ordo Abp like Vigano as an ally is too much of a compromise. There is another distinction to be made here. That is between conservative and progressive Novus Ordites. Just because many conservative Novus Ordites oppose Francis doesn’t mean they support Tradition. I have had many comment here suppressed because I spoke out in this combox against enlisting the likes of Vigano or Burke or Schneider as allies in this fight against modernism. If we Trads could all agree on the common problem (V2, NO, and modernism) and stop seeking alliances and recognition with modernists of any stripe, the Trad community could resist more effectively regardless of the recognize issue. The technical issues of papal heresy will have to wait till there is a true Catholic Pope again. Meanwhile we must resist all the modernists, not just the obvious progressive ones. The Remnant once resisted the conservative modernists like JP2 and B16. Why now the adulations of clerics like Vigano and Burke? They are not Traditional Catholics.
I got censored on the remnant’s website as well. Here is what I posted which they removed:
Me: (Removed detected as spam)
Interesting article .https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2018/10/22/answering-michael-matt-over-john-salzas-latest-article/#comments Here is another interesting article that seems to be keeping up with this site.
Remnant 1967 responded: (This was of course posted)
I would post this as written but the guy’s website says we censor anything that doesn’t agree with Salza. Since that’s clearly a lie, I’ve removed the link to his fake news site. Thanks.
My next response: (Removed)
I went back to re-read the article. Speray doesn’t say that you all censor anything that is against Salza, but that you all censor any sound argument against Salza. In Speray’s comment section a person named Tom A. said that you all censored him and he posted his original comment to Mr. Matt on Speray’s website. Speray has made his point which has been confirmed by another commenter from your site. You cannot accuse him of lying. It is you all that appears to be dishonest. Let me guess, this comment will be censored after you review it.
They call my site “fake news” just like the left call http://www.infowars.com fake news.
Just to register my viewpoint on these topics again, with respect to the first issue, quoting: “He concludes, “Indeed, how a true Pope could promote these evils.” Salza qualified those evils to be “clerical heresy and sodomy disfiguring the Church in an unthinkable way.” This is total heresy and blasphemy.”
I agree with neither side here. The question of what to do with a heretical pope is an open one that is not decided in Catholic history or by the theologians (Bellarmine offered 5 opinions, right?). Therefore, we would not expect God to allow us to have a heretical pope, but rather would give us a manageable issue, which we do have today: of papal candidates allegedly being heretics before being elected, and therefore being unable to become popes. So the whole discussion with sedeplenists and the SSPX here I believe is fundamentally unresolveable and a distraction.
The big problem is actually proving any heresy, rather than ambiguity, actually exists. If you were to talk to a Vatican 2 church person, try a conservative, and to try to convince them of some thing being heretical, actually try to prove it to them – when I have done this, they responded back with, correctly I believe, that the given piece I presented actually wasn’t heretical. I still think the sede side is correct but the sedevacantist argumental foundations are not solidly established.
Bellarmine said the 5th is the true opinion, but that’s beside the point. Can. 188.4 ends the debate.
There is no problem with establishing heresy. It’s all over the place. And even if there weren’t a single heresy, you still have altar girls which is impossible. You have several things in the novus ordo religion that are impossible for the true Catholic Church.
John Salza is an ex Freemason he should not even be considered conversing with. Today in this Great Apostasy not many can be trusted especially an EX Freemason, John Salza! Cannon 188.4 is just an explanation of Galations 1:8 (But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.)