John Salza On Sedevacantism – Part 1

 

Salza’s recent interview demonstrates how far from Catholicism he is. NovusOrdoWatch did an outstanding piece on Salza’s answer to a question they asked during the interview. I planned on posting a response to each lie, half-truth, contradiction, and absurdity, but it came out to be 4 pages long of Salza’s 60 plus errors alone. My rebuttals would have tripled the length of the article, which is too much for anyone to read, much less write. Therefore, I’m only going to highlight four main errors and continue with a part 2.

Salza’s First Error – A heretical notion of the Church’s holiness.

At 6:25, Salza implied that Vatican 2 and the new mass are contrary to the faith. He would reiterate this point several times throughout the interview. At 50:15, Salza said falsely that sedes have declared the Church to be defected all the while explaining how his church has defected into error and heresy and how we have a duty to resist it.

At 50:29, Salza said, “If you ask a sedevacantist where the Catholic Church is, they can’t tell you.” But Salza will tell you that his religion with heretical popes, cardinals, bishops and teachings from an ecumenical council and liturgy that’s contrary to the Faith is the Catholic Church. When asked at 1:13:36, which cardinals and bishops that are not professing heresy since they believe in Vatican 2, he couldn’t tell us a single cardinal or bishop that absolutely doesn’t profess heresy. He mentioned that he never heard a heresy from Burke and Schneider, but the problem is that they do hold to Vatican 2, which Salza says is contrary to the Faith.

All this concerns the second mark of the Church. The Church is holy but Salza’s understanding of holiness of the Church is the same as the Protestant understanding, not the Catholic understanding. See The Catholic Bottom Line – Part II

We’ve heard him preach it before, but at 50:50, he said, “The Church is going through her bitter passion just as Our Lord.” He’s actually right except he’s got the wrong church. His church is suffering because of his Vatican 2 popes, the so-called Vicars of Christ. For Salza’s religion to be that church would mean Christ was the cause of His own passion. Did Our Lord beat, scourge, and crucify Himself?

Salza makes clear that his church lacks the four marks that identify the true church. See Missing the Marks – The Church of Vatican 2

Salza’s Second Error – Heresy and heretics are occult until declared notorious by the Church.

At 8:55, Salza says Francis is not a manifest heretic according to the judgment of the Church. From 44:00 to 45:15, Salza claims that if the Church hasn’t judged heresy as notorious, it remains occult and that according to Cardinal Billot (at 44:47). At 1:07:35, Salza stated, “If the pope commits the sin of heresy, not the public and notorious act of heresy whereby he would lose his office, for example, if he privately denied the divinity of Christ, he would be a formal heretic and would severe his spiritual bond with the Church, but he would not be a heretic in the external forum unless he adheres to another religion or the church judges his sin as notorious.” At 1:01:21 – 1:01:59, In answering the question: Does Francis Profess Heresy? Salza answered yes, but continued to say that until the Church deems the heresy notorious, then it’s occult. Francis would only be considered an occult heretic.

Nothing could be farther from the truth or sillier. First of all, how could the Church judge a private sin notorious if no one knows it? A private or secret sin is the definition of occult.

Most, if not all, of Salza’s claims are false in the interview. So I’m sure Cardinal Billot didn’t make such a claim since the distinctions are found in canon law 2197 under the penal code no less. Popes and cardinals don’t fall under the penal code.

Rev. Charles Augustine makes the distinctions in his commentary on canon law:

1. A crime is public if committed under, or accompanied by, circumstances which point to a possible and likely divulgation thereof. Canonists enumerate different degrees of publicity: almost occult (pene occultum), which is known to at least two witnesses; famosum or manifestum, which not only can be proved, but is known to many; and, finally, notorium. From this it will be seen that a real intrinsic distinction between a public crime and a crime notorious in fact can hardly be established. (We shall point out one distinctive trait below.) To fix the number of persons required for making a crime a public one is rather hazardous, though it may furnish a certain rule which will enable the judge to decide as to the secrecy or public character of a crime. Many canonists hold that at least six persons in a community, even the smallest (for in stance, a religious house of 10 or 12 inmates), must know of a crime, to render it public. Nor should there be any doubt about the character of the persons who are witnesses to the crime. Furthermore, the interest they may have in the crime should be weighed.
2. A crime is notorious by notoriety of law (notorietate iuris) if it has become an adjudged matter, according to can. 1902-1904, or judicially confessed, according to can. 1750. Extrajudicial confessions do not render a crime notorious by notoriety of law. Here we must take issue with the assertion that the Code acknowledges such confessions. Thus it has been stated 14 that it would be a notorium juris if the bishop or vicar-general would catch a clergyman in flagranti! The Code contains nothing to that effect, but requires (can. cit.) a confession before the judge sitting in court.                                                                                                                                               A crime is notorious notorietate facti when it is publicly known and has been committed under such circumstances that it cannot be concealed by any artifice or be excused by any legal assumption or circumstantial evidence. The term nulla tergiversatione celari is equivalent to the other used in the Decretals. The second clause refers to imputability, which may be lessened by extenuating circumstances, according to can. 2201-2206. Hence not only the fact itself must be notorious, but also its criminal character. Thus, for instance, the fact of alienation may easily be proved by a legal deed, but whether it was criminal must be ascertained by other means; because it may be that the administrator or procurator had due permission and therefore acted lawfully. It is this element of inexcusability or of knowledge of the criminal character of the deed that appears to distinguish a public from a notorious crime. For the text manifestly lays stress on divulgation with regard to public crimes and emphasizes the criminal character as known and in excusable.
3. Every crime which is not public, says our text, is occult or secret. The Code distinguishes a twofold secrecy, viz.: merely material (materialiter occultum), which exists when the fact is unknown, or known only to the perpetrator and a few reticent persons; and formal (formaliter occultum), when the moral and juridical guilt is unknown. An example may illustrate the distinction. If a percussor cleric orum beats a pastor at night, his identity may remain unknown, though the effects point to a crime; if the priest was beaten in a public row, there may be a reasonable doubt as to the real perpetrator. The authors, therefore, assumed that a crime committed at night could not be notorious or public. However, this theory cannot be accepted in this general sense. Take, for instance, a sacrilegious burglary. If a sufficient number of persons witnessed such a crime and recognized the perpetrator, the crime could not be styled occult. Neither does it seem true that a duel is always a secret crime, as some maintain. For although duels are generally held in a secret place, yet there are, as a rule, witnesses and signs which admit of a perfectly safe judgment that a duel has taken place. [1] 

It’s the public sin of heresy that causes a pope to lose office, which is that manifest and notorious act that needs no official judgment. How does Salza know that Francis professes heresy? Because it’s manifest! Duh. See The Sin of Heresy – Why John Salza and Robert Siscoe Get It Wrong (Part II) and A Note to John Salza: Heresy ‘Does’ Automatically Sever One from the Church

Salza’s Third Error – All theologians say that the pope has to be warned to establish that he is pertinacious.

At 9:08, Salza says sedevacantists have used and abused St. Robert Bellarmine.

No one is guiltier of using and abusing St. Robert Bellarmine than John Salza and Robert Siscoe. Salza misrepresents and maligns St. Bellarmine throughout his entire interview. We’ll see it highlighted again in his fourth error. At 13:30 to 13:44 Salza says that all the theologians say that the pope has to be warned to establish that he is pertinacious.

In fact, almost no theologian says warnings are necessary to establish pertinacity. They say the opposite. However, you will get a handful of theologians saying it such as John of St. Thomas, but no post 1917 code of law theologian and canonist says it.

St. Bellamine 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 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.” [2]

This teaching from St. Bellarmine completely demolishes Salza’s entire thesis.

Even John of St. Thomas criticized St. Bellarmine for objecting to warnings. He wrote:

Bellarmine objected that the Apostle [St Paul] says that we must avoid the heretic after two admonitions, that is to say, after he clearly appears pertinacious, before any excommunication and sentence of a judge, as St. Jerome says in his commentary, for heretics separate themselves by the heresy itself (per se) from the Body of Christ.

And here is his reasoning:

• A non-Christian cannot be Pope, for he who is not a member [of the Church] cannot be the head; now, a heretic is not a Christian, as commonly say the Fathers; thus, a manifest heretic cannot be Pope.
• One cannot object that a character remains in him, because if he remained Pope because of a character, since it is indelible, it could never be deposed.  This is why the Fathers commonly teach that a heretic, because of heresy and regardless of excommunication, is deprived of any jurisdiction and power, as say St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose and Jerome.

Answer:

“I answer [to Bellarmine] that the heretic should be avoided after two admonitions legally made and with the Church’s authority, and not according to private judgment…” [3]

Notice also that John of St. Thomas acknowledges that a manifest heretic is not necessarily one who has been judged by the Church. Salza doesn’t agree with the most important theologian on his side. John of St. Thomas believed a pope could be a heretic until judged by the Church as not the pope. Earlier in the same document he taught:

I answer that the pontiff cannot be deposed and lose the pontificate except if two conditions are fulfilled together:

1. That the heresy is not hidden, but public and legally notorious;
2. Then that he must be incorrigible and pertinacious in his heresy.

If both conditions are fulfilled the pontiff may be deposed, but not without them; and even if he is not unfaithful interiorly, however if he behaves externally as a heretic, he can be deposed and the sentence of deposition will be valid. [4]

Salza’s Fourth Error – A pope as pope can be convicted of heresy.

At 14:21, Salza claims to be quoting Bellarmine as saying the pope as pope can be convicted of heresy.

Here’s what Bellarmine states: Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. [5]

Notice that being judged and punished by the Church happens after the pope ceased to be pope by himself.

At 16:27, Salza claims that St. Robert Bellarmine calls the judgment “the antecedent judgment. It’s the judgment that must precede the ipso facto loss of office.”

St. Robert Bellarmine said no such thing. The good saint said the loss of office happens immediately. He gave the example of Nestorius.

“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.” [6]

Nestorius lost jurisdiction and could not depose or excommunicate anyone after he began to preach heresy. He was not warned. He was not judged by bishops or the pope to have lost jurisdiction until after the fact he already lost it, which is why Pope St. Celestine declared that his excommunications were null at the time. They recognized what had already taken place, viz., Nestorius was no longer a member of the Church by his own doing and he didn’t join another religion. He defected from the faith by preaching heresy alone. This teaching from Bellarmine, again, demolishes Salza’s entire argument.

See also Canon 188.4 and Defection of Faith – Why John Salza and Robert Siscoe Get It Wrong (Part III)

To be continued…John Salza on Sedevacantism – Part 2

 

 

Footnotes

[1] https://archive.org/details/1917CodeOfCanonLawCommentary/page/n3549

[2] (On the Roman Pontiff, 29).

[3] http://www.dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-2-of-2/

[4] http://www.dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-1-of-2/

[5] (On the Roman Pontiff, 30).

[6] ibid.