Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘John Salza and Robert Siscoe’ Category

Can the Faithful recognize and resist the pope? I dealt with this question in a 2015 article. However, I recently stumbled upon some teachings from Pope Pius XI that castigates the recognize and resist theology. I highlighted the relevant parts within the context that’s contra R&R-ism.

In Mortalium animos Jan. 6, 1928, Pope Pius XI declared, “#5 Admonished, therefore, by the consciousness of Our Apostolic office that We should not permit the flock of the Lord to be cheated by dangerous fallacies, We invoke, Venerable Brethren, your zeal in avoiding this evil; for We are confident that by the writings and words of each one of you the people will more easily get to know and understand those principles and arguments which We are about to set forth, and from which Catholics will learn how they are to think and act when there is question of those undertakings which have for their end the union in one body, whatsoever be the manner, of all who call themselves Christians…

#7…There are some, indeed, who recognize and affirm that Protestantism, as they call it, has rejected, with a great lack of consideration, certain articles of faith and some external ceremonies, which are, in fact, pleasing and useful, and which the Roman Church still retains. They soon, however, go on to say that that Church also has erred, and corrupted the original religion by adding and proposing for belief certain doctrines which are not only alien to the Gospel, but even repugnant to it.”

#11…Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls?

The words “recognize and obey” are exactly opposite to “recognize and resist.”  The R&R crowd doesn’t obey those they call the legitimate successors of Peter. They ignore him, resist him, and reject his teachings. They are most certainly trying to stand in the way of the Vatican 2 popes and implementing Vatican 2 and the novus ordo. Of course, the R&R crowd is correct in rejecting the modernism of the Vatican 2 popes, but their reasoning for doing so is heretical, blasphemous, and just plain stupid.

The underlying principle of Mortalium animos is rejected by the R&R crowd. But then again, every papal document is the Roman Pontiff putting forth his papal authority for the faithful to obey, not to resist.

On Dec. 31, 1929, Pope Pius XI declared in Divini Illius Magistri – On Christian Education: “18. Hence it is that in this proper object of her mission, that is, “in faith and morals, God Himself has made the Church sharer in the divine magisterium and, by a special privilege, granted her immunity from error; hence she is the mistress of men, supreme and absolutely sure, and she has inherent in herself an inviolable right to freedom in teaching.'[10] …20.The Church does not say that morality belongs purely, in the sense of exclusively, to her; but that it belongs wholly to her. …25. The extent of the Church’s mission in the field of education is such as to embrace every nation, without exception, according to the command of Christ: “Teach ye all nations;”[17] and there is no power on earth that may lawfully oppose her or stand in her way. In the first place, it extends over all the Faithful, of whom she has anxious care as a tender mother.”

The whole document is about the importance of getting a good, holy, and true Christian education, which can only come about by following and obeying the teachings of the Roman Pontiff and following his rules for this education. What’s the point if the Catholic Church is propagating error like every other religion as the R&R claim?

The proposition of the R&R crowd makes the Catholic Church out to be the biggest hypocritical organization in the world. It would mean that only the Catholic Church can lead people astray with error while all other religions are condemned by the Catholic Church for doing so. It would mean only the Catholic Church can be heretical while Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy are condemned by the Catholic Church as false religions when they do so.

That’s why the R&R position is blasphemous.

On Dec. 31, 1930, Pope Pius XI promulgated Casti Connubii – On Christian Marriage.

Once again, the pope is implementing his supreme authority over the faithful. He declares in #104:

Wherefore, let the faithful also be on their guard against the overrated independence of private judgment and that false autonomy of human reason. For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord.

The approach of the R&R crowd is to be able to resist, dismiss, and disdain every papal teaching that they think comes short of proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas affected by the mark of infallibility. In principle, the R&R crowd is really no different than the liberals who also reject the teaching of Casti Connubii against contraception. [1]

The pick and choose mentality of the R&R crowd is what makes them the worst of hypocrites. They profess to be obedient and faithful Catholics but are neither.

Jesus told us where the hypocrites go in Matt. 24:51 and it’s not paradise.

 

Footnote:

[1] 54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious. (Casti Connubii)

 

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

John Salza and Robert Siscoe have recently attempted to refute my article on the Sedevacantist Saint Vincent Ferrer [1] in their Feb. 2019 piece, claiming St. Vincent Ferrer was never a sedevacantist. [2]

They published the quotes that demonstrate that St. Vincent and others became sedevacantists, such as “withdrew their allegiance” and “It was not until 1416, when pressed by Ferdinand, King of Aragon, that he (St. Vincent) abandoned him.” Fr. Stanislaus M. Hogan O.P. implied that it was St. Vincent Ferrer that convinced King Ferdinand when the Saint told the king, “they were justified in withdrawing their obedience to Benedict.” [3] (The facts about the case are obviously disputed.)

I originally got the idea of posting an article about the great Dominican St. Vincent Ferrer from reading Henry Gheon’s book on the saint. [4] On page 143, Gheon uses the words, “withdrawal of obedience.” The Catholic Encyclopedia also uses the word, “obedience.” [5]

When good Catholics say they withdraw allegiance and obedience and abandoned a papal claimant, it logically means that they no longer recognize the claimant as pope. It is clear from the record that St. Vincent and the Spanish sovereigns no longer recognized Benedict XIII as pope. They were in effect declaring the Chair of Peter to be vacant because they did not recognize the other papal claimants at that time.

When Salza and Siscoe read “withdraw their allegiance,” “withdraw of obedience,” and “abandoned him,” it means that Catholics can withdraw allegiance, obedience, and abandon a pope even though he’s still recognized as such. That’s because that’s what they do with their pope Francis. They apparently advocate formal schism as a legitimate act against a pope.

They should read their own Catechism by their pope John Paul II about schism. It states,schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” [6] These men don’t submit to their pope or hold communion with the members of the Church under Francis. They reject Vatican 2, the new mass, and the novus ordo establishment but they want us to recognize their pope they don’t submit to.

Salza and Siscoe stretch the opinion of John of St. Thomas, Fr. Laymann, Cajetan, and Suarez to justify their 60 plus year church with heretical popes. All of these men would have long abandoned their opinions if they lived today. Besides, the great canonists Wernz/Vidal taught:

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. [7]

Bellarmine was clear that a Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided.” [8]

Salza and Siscoe quoted Fr. Wernz about the legality of doubtful popes in their article but they readily admit that he’s wrong about the legality of heretical popes because he and canonist Fr. Vidal agree with St. Robert Bellarmine over John of St. Thomas. Salza and Siscoe quote from many sources but only agree with them when it suits them. They cite theologians and canonists as if they carry more authoritative weight than their own popes whom they avoid and withdraw obedience.

It gets better. Salza and Siscoe argue that St. Vincent Ferrer didn’t declare the Chair of Peter vacant because on the same day he withdrew obedience he also “declared anew” that Benedict was the true pope.

The edict is proclaiming that Benedict was (not is) the true pope. It’s implying that he, apart from the other claimants, held the legitimate claim to the Pontificate. The very next line reads, “but that, since he would not resign to bring peace to the Church, Ferdinand had withdrawn his states from the obedience of Avignon.” Benedict no longer will be recognized for what he claims to hold.  He can claim the papacy all he wants but he won’t be recognized as pope. Salza and Siscoe want to read the passage that Benedict is still the pope but St. Vincent and Ferdinand won’t obey him as pope, as they do with their pope Francis. That’s called schism.

Did St. Vincent Ferrer use private judgment [own authority not against the Church’s]? You bet he did and so did the Spanish sovereigns. However, Salza and Siscoe argue that it was legally done as if there were Church laws on how to depose a pope. They point to article III of the Treaty of Narbonne where it was agreed in Dec. 1415 that “Benedict’s said Obedience cannot legally recognize any Pope, unless the See becomes vacant, either by the Death, or by the voluntary Abdication, or by the deposing of Benedict; the Council, before they elect another Pope, shall proceed to such Deposition in due Course of Law…” [9]

Salza and Siscoe write that, “This entirely refutes the claim that those at the time, such as St. Vincent, who believe obedience could be withdrawn from Benedict did so because they thought he had already lost his office, and that the See had become vacant. According to the Article, which was agreed to by both sides and confirmed by the Council itself, the only way they could consider the Papal See vacant, is if he died, abdicated or was legally deposed by the Church (or legally declared not to be Pope, if your prefer).”

First, the treaty has no authority to lay down a law for the Church and it was not a legal or binding law of the Church whatsoever. The Council of Constance was partly condemned for the idea that the Church had power over the pope and to depose him. Whatever the kings thought best at the time was fixed by St. Vincent, who told them they were justified in withdrawing obedience.

Salza and Siscoe will have you believe that the great theologians and saint held to the later condemned proposition of Constance. Their story is the real fable. Benedict was deposed by the Council July 26, 1417 but St. Vincent and the Spanish sovereigns withdrew their obedience Jan. 6, 1416. They didn’t wait until Benedict was deposed. They already didn’t recognize him as pope and were making that clear to him and the world on Jan. 6, 1416.

Dominican Bishop Ranzano writes, “After having long endeavoured to move Peter de Luna to resign his pretensions to the papacy, but finding him obstinate, he advised King Ferdinand to renounce his obedience in case he refused to acknowledge the council of Constance; which that prince did by a solemn edict, dated the 6th of January, in 1416, by the advice of the saint, as Oderic Raynold, Mariana, and Spondanus most accurately relate, The saint laboured zealously to bring all Spain to this union, and we sent by King Ferdinand to assist at the council of Constance.” [10]

Salza and Siscoe make much of the “doubtful pope” argument for the reason why St. Vincent and others could legitimately withdraw obedience. Yet, St. Vincent Ferrer didn’t think Benedict XIII was a doubtful pope. In fact, he wrote treatises explaining why Benedict was the true pope without a doubt.

Salza and Siscoe’s arguments don’t make sense. They argue, St. Vincent withdrew obedience because Benedict was always a doubtful pope which is no pope at all. St. Vincent didn’t use private judgment even though he convinced Spanish sovereigns that Benedict should not be submitted to.

If the great theologian St. Vincent thought Benedict was a doubtful pope, why would he think it necessary for legal action to rid Benedict from a pontificate he didn’t hold? If he didn’t use private judgment, what Church authority gave him the authority to convince Ferdinand and others to withdraw obedience?

Every time I read an article by Salza and Siscoe, I think of the Bible passage by St. Paul: “And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.” (Thess. 2:10-11)

In case you missed it from my previous articles, the topic of a pope becoming a heretic was addressed at the First Vatican Council by Archbishop Purcell, of Cincinnati, Ohio:

“The question was also raised by a Cardinal, ‘What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?’ It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself.

“If the Pope, for instance, were to say that the belief in God is false, you would not be obliged to believe him, or if he were to deny the rest of the creed, ‘I believe in Christ,’ etc. The supposition is injurious to the Holy Father in the very idea, but serves to show you the fullness with which the subject has been considered and the ample thought given to every possibility. If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you or I; and so in this respect the dogma of infallibility amounts to nothing as an article of temporal government or cover for heresy.” (The New Princeton Review, Volume 42 p. 648, also The Life and Life-work of Pope Leo XIII. By James Joseph McGovern p. 241)

Notice that he states that the Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him. Why, because, he is no more Pope than either you or I. That’s not what Salza and Siscoe believe or practice.

The same Vatican council quotes another great Dominican who lived in the day of St. Vincent Ferrer on the issue of a pope who becomes a heretic. St. Antoninus, O.P. (1389-1459) declared, “In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. ‘A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church.  He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church.’”  (Summa Theologica cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub.)

 

 

Footnotes:

[1] https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2014/11/27/the-sedevacantist-saint-vincent-ferrer/

[2] http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/st-vincent-ferrer-sedevacantist.html

[3] https://books.google.com/books?id=jWBF8sNnuosC&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74&dq=St.+Vincent+replied+that+since+Benedict+XIII+had+resisted+all+attempts+to+procure+the+union+that+was+so+necessary,+and+since+his+conduct+gave+scandal+to+all+the+faithful,+they+were+justified+in+withdrawing+their+obedience+to+Benedict.+This+decision+was+confirmed+by+the+assembly+of+Bishops+convened+by+Ferdinand+and+representing+the+obedience+of+Avignon.%E2%80%9D+%5B&source=bl&ots=Ql0j-f7xnZ&sig=ACfU3U3mexUVUpJaZYOc_sV-7zluyg3ZcA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiYs9OS5t_gAhUEb60KHZ5DBLEQ6AEwAHoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q=St.%20Vincent%20replied%20that%20since%20Benedict%20XIII%20had%20resisted%20all%20attempts%20to%20procure%20the%20union%20that%20was%20so%20necessary%2C%20and%20since%20his%20conduct%20gave%20scandal%20to%20all%20the%20faithful%2C%20they%20were%20justified%20in%20withdrawing%20their%20obedience%20to%20Benedict.%20This%20decision%20was%20confirmed%20by%20the%20assembly%20of%20Bishops%20convened%20by%20Ferdinand%20and%20representing%20the%20obedience%20of%20Avignon.%E2%80%9D%20%5B&f=false

[4] St. Vincent Ferrer, Gheon, Sheed & Ward, 1954.

[5] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15437a.htm

[6] http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a1.htm

[7] Jus Canonicum by the Rev F X Wernz S.J. and the Rev P Vidal S.J. (1938) Chapter VII. Translated by John Daly.

[8] St. Robert Bellarmine in De Romano Pontifice, 30

[9] https://books.google.com/books?id=B0WPqThQowMC&pg=PA549&lpg=PA549&dq=Article+IIII+But+as+Benedicts+said+Obedience+cannot+legally+recognize+any+Pope,+unless+the+See+becomes+vacant,+either+by+the+Death,+or+by+the+voluntary+Abdication,+or+by+the+deposition+of+Benedict;+the+Council,+before+they+elect+another+Pope,+shall+proceed+to+such+Deposition+in+due+course+of+law%E2%80%A6+%5B&source=bl&ots=HuFtMVfrYy&sig=ACfU3U1rb85fqEAc18TFpNzwqlmlXFnG9A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiu5YbC2t_gAhVGX60KHcJLDP4Q6AEwAHoECAsQAQ#v=onepage&q=Article%20IIII%20But%20as%20Benedicts%20said%20Obedience%20cannot%20legally%20recognize%20any%20Pope%2C%20unless%20the%20See%20becomes%20vacant%2C%20either%20by%20the%20Death%2C%20or%20by%20the%20voluntary%20Abdication%2C%20or%20by%20the%20deposition%20of%20Benedict%3B%20the%20Council%2C%20before%20they%20elect%20another%20Pope%2C%20shall%20proceed%20to%20such%20Deposition%20in%20due%20course%20of%20law%E2%80%A6%20%5B&f=false

[10] From his life, written by Ranzano, Bishop of Lucera, in order to his canonization, in Henschenius with the notes of Papebroke. See Touron, Hommes Illustres de l’Ordre de St. Dominique t. iii.; Fleury, b. cx.  http://www.ewtn.com/library/mary/ferrer.htm

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

 

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:

[1] https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/4145-has-pope-francis-lost-his-office-for-heresy

 

Read Full Post »

Anti-sedevacantists get caught up on the issue of judging heretical popes and miss the fact that their popes have already done what’s impossible for true popes to do, such as legitimizing altar girls by law.

Two years ago, I published Altar Girls are Impossible for the True Catholic Church. In it, I answered the objections thereof.

In their heretical book, True or False Pope, John Salza and Robert Siscoe argued against my statement about what altar boys represent (where they conveniently left out my reasoning), but didn’t address my two main objections against altar girls, which are:

1. The Church’s repeated condemnations of altar girls when liturgical laws are not supposed to be harmful and evil.

2. Trent’s anathema to anyone who “says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety.”

Salza and Siscoe changed the argument by claiming that altar girls are not a universally binding law. In other words, because bishops don’t have to use girls, it’s not forced upon them. However, what they missed was that it’s a universal binding law that permits an evil practice. If the bishop permits it and the priest of the diocese practices it, it becomes binding on the laymen to accept the scandalous act as permissible by law. THAT’S THE POINT!

In their rebuttal to my argument, they actually proved my point when they stated, “we are not defending the practice of female altar servers. It is a scandalous practice and was rightly banned by the Church in the fourth century.”

By stating that altar girls are scandalous, Salza and Siscoe just admitted that altar girls are incentives to impiety rather than services of piety. It also means they reject the repeated papal teaching that laws can’t be harmful or evil!

Therefore, my argument still stands. Altar girls are impossible for the true Catholic Church. It is “one solid argument (perhaps the simplest) to prove sedevacantism.”

Read Full Post »

One of my biggest gripes attending daily novus ordo mass years ago, was the blatant rejection of canon law and the rubrics of the mass. I would meet with priests and hear their phony explanations and was told twice that the novelties came from Rome.

Once I investigated why inclusive language was being used at mass and found the non-inclusive words in the liturgical books penciled out and replaced, which is condemned by Canon 846 of the 1983 Code of Law. [1] The priests knew, the bishop knew, and the people didn’t care and it didn’t stop there.

It was commonplace to hear lay folk rejecting Catholic teachings on the Real Presence, papal infallibility and the condemnation of artificial contraception. I remember once when liberals were invited to speak against the all-male priesthood at the University of Kentucky campus church while supporting diocesan priests attended in civilian clothes. I had a heated public conversation with one of the priests over artificial contraception which he openly supported.

The disgusting pick-and-choose mentality was everywhere and it was facilitated by the very leaders of the diocese. Then I discovered that my diocese was just a microcosm of the entire novus ordo religion. The Tradition in Action website does a good job showing this fact here. As seen from the “Revolution Photos” Rome actively participates and encourages the widespread abuses.

We also see the nonsense with “Catholic” celebrities and politicians. “Catholic” politicians like Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden openly promote abortion and homosexuality and are given communion each week in their “Catholic” churches.

Celebrities, such as Mark Wahlberg (who attends daily mass) makes movies so immoral he jokes about it at a family festival attended by “Pope” Francis as seen here.

Wahlberg is not alone. Look up other practicing “Catholic” celebrities and see how immoral their music, movies, and lifestyles are. Christina Aguilera, for instance, would pray and do the sign of the cross immediately before doing her immoral song and dance bit titled, Dirty.

If you say we’re all sinners and I’m being judgmental, you’d be missing the point. It’s one thing to sin, it’s quite another to think your sin is not sinful. It’s a pick-and-choose what is and isn’t sinful! “Pope” Francis is no exception. Where’s his condemnation on the immorality of his subject’s music, movies, or lifestyles? It appears he’s more concerned about those living in sin having the entitlement of receiving Communion. According to “Pope” Francis and his followers, it’s the sin of judgmentalism to openly condemn immorality.

On the other side of the spectrum, you have your conservative and traditional “Catholics” who know very well of the abuses and immoralities. Again, Tradition in Action is on the front-line rightly exposing the evils on their website.

However, they are not that far removed from their counterparts because they also pick and choose from their religion.

EWTN and Catholic Answers make excuses for their pope’s blasphemies and heresies and by doing so are just picking and choosing not to follow Christ and the Church while claiming to defend them.

The “traditionalists” such as the Remnant Newspaper, SSPX, and Tradition in Action pick and choose from their religion by ignoring and rejecting Vatican 2, the novus ordo mass, canonizations, apostolic exhortations, canon law, etc.

Their one common denominator is not that Francis is pope because some think Benedict XVI is still pope. Nope, the one common denominator is that sedevacantism is false.

What’s really comical is when you see people like John Salza and Robert Siscoe call their pope’s Amoris Laetitia heretical but then apply a 17th century theologian’s opinion as a dogmatic certainty that can’t be rejected even though many saints and canonists have done just that. You’ll never find them quoting as authoritative anything that came from the Vatican 2 popes, but sure enough, erroneous 17th century opinions are treated as infallible doctrines that must be professed to be Catholic. They expect to be heard and obeyed over their pope as the final interpreter of everything. Oh, and the Remnant Newspaper publishes and defends these two untrained knuckleheads as authorities over their pope.

What’s the point in believing only in the dogmas but rejecting encyclicals, apostolic constitutions, canon laws, etc.? It’s a pick-and-choose mentality, and it’s precisely this pick-and-choose mentality that makes the novel religion of “Pope” Francis divided in faith.

The first mark and Article of the Catholic Faith is ONENESS, which is a rejection of the pick-and-choose mentality. It’s all or nothing. Catholics are free to disagree on doctrines of opinions where the Church hasn’t settled the matter and therefore are not part of the Faith.

However, if you’re a subject to “Pope” Francis and you don’t hold all the doctrines on faith and morals he professes, you’re really professing your denial of the first Article of the Faith in practice. You’re as guilty of rejecting a dogma of the Faith as everyone else.

There’s no escaping it. The religion of “Pope” Francis is a cafeteria-styled religion in belief and practice. It fosters it in every way. You can even call an apostolic exhortation heretical and sign a public document saying so and the “pope” will do nothing, which apparently means you can even pick and choose what the “pope” teaches according to the “pope”. He obviously rejects the Article of Faith, but what difference does it make when you’re in a religion where you get to decide what is true?

 

 

Footnote

[1] Can. 846 §1. In celebrating the sacraments the liturgical books approved by competent authority are to be observed faithfully; accordingly, no one is to add, omit, or alter anything in them on one’s own authority.

Read Full Post »

 

The Remnant Newspaper has once again managed to give us an excellent example of pseudo-traditionalist foolishness. In their latest anti-sede article, Michael Matt writes a blasphemous introduction for a John Salza piece titled “Raymond Cardinal Burke: New Apologist for the Sedevacantists?”

His blasphemy consists in asserting that the “New Mass is a disastrous novelty”, a “devastating sacrilege”, and “Satan’s masterstroke!”

The Council of Trent anathematizes anyone who says the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety (Can. 7, sess. XXII).

Since Matt believes the Catholic Church gave us the New Mass [if it wasn’t the Catholic Church, what church was it?], he must also conclude that the Catholic Church is led by Satan in giving us a sacrilegious liturgy.

Matt argues that another one of Satan’s masterstrokes is the fact that Francis is the true pope and the root cause for the crisis in the Church. Matt’s blasphemies are as bad as anything his pope has ever said.

Matt even suggests that his pope Francis hasn’t “officially and unequivocally” denied any dogma in Amoris Laetitia. Yet, his comrade Christopher Ferrara signed the “Filial Correction concerning the propagation of heresies.”

In the same article, Salza writes about the “Correction” as perhaps not being heretical but of “lessor (sic) errors on the scale of theological censures.” I’d be surprised if the signers of the document agree, especially the co-author of his book True or False Pope, Robert Siscoe, who also signed the Correction.

Salza’s main focus in the article is on how a pope loses office. Once again, he brings up the old argument about the formal and material elements of heresy, which as been refuted over and over again. Examples: A Note to John Salza: Heresy ‘Does’ Automatically Sever One from the Church

The Sin of Heresy –  Why John Salza and Robert Siscoe Get It Wrong (Part II)

Salza writes: As we explain in detail in True or False Pope?, if a Pope has not openly left the Church, or publicly admitted that he knowingly rejects what the Church definitively teaches on faith or morals (which none of the conciliar Popes have done), pertinacity would need to be established another way.  The other way, according to Divine law and canon law, is by issuing an ecclesiastical warning to the suspect.

But this is just poppycock. Let’s review:

1. Francis has openly left the Church by heresy. That’s how it works.

2. There is no divine or canon law that says the pope must be issued an ecclesiastical warning to establish pertinacity. Ecclesiastical warnings concern the penal code. [1] Popes and cardinals don’t fall under the penal code and canon law is clear that it is the superior who issues warnings [as seen in the footnote]. Popes don’t fall under the penal code because…

3. The first or primatial see is subject to no ones judgment, canon 1556. The Pope has God alone as his superior.

Salza is full of nonsense.

The experts have told us specifically how a pope relinquishes his office. See Canon 188.4 and Defection of Faith – Why John Salza and Robert Siscoe Get It Wrong (Part III)

Salza concludes: We also affirm with them that a Pope would lose his office for ‘formally professing heresy,’ only if it is according to the judgment of the Church, and certainly not according to the judgment of private individuals. This is not only the teaching of the Church and all her theologians, but common sense – a natural virtue that is often missing among those who have been so scandalized by the crisis.”

Salza still doesn’t understand what formally professing heresy means even when the Church authorities tell him. The Vatican 2 popes have consistently and repeatedly taught heresy after heresy but according to Salza, they aren’t really heretics until they are warned by cardinals who agree with those very heresies, and who have no authority to warn a Pope anyway.

In fact, Salza, Matt, etc., believe the pope can believe, teach, and promote any and every heresy under the sun and he will continue to be pope until “the church” says, “hey, we’re warning you, you’re teaching heresy” and then declares he’s not the Pope. As though the Pope were obliged to listen to what the cardinals tell him!

Sedevacantists simply understand that Francis isn’t Pope because he doesn’t have a Catholic bone in his body. I submit that the real masterstroke of Satan is the counterfeit Catholic Church and how the likes of Michael Matt and John Salza keep defending it with utter foolishness.

 

Footnote:

[1] “When does contumacy exist? The Code, can. 2242, §2, distinguishes between a censure ferendae and a censure latae sententia. The former requires a canonical admonition. Hence the ecclesiastical superior must, according to can. 2143, issue a formal warning…” (Rev. Augustine, A Commentary on the New Code of Law, The Penal Code, book V, p. 117)

Read Full Post »

On Friday, June 9, 2017, The Remnant Newspaper Blog posted John Salza’s, “Note to Sedevacantists: Heresy Does Not Automatically Sever One from the Church.” [1] In his 5,404 word article, Salza makes the biggest goofball argument against sedevacantism I’ve seen to date.

I would have made a comment on the Remnant blog, but they have a long history of not posting my comments. Therefore, I’m posting my own counterpoint article.

Salza begins his article by quoting the relevant teaching from Pope Pius XII:

For not every offense, although it may be a grave evil, is such as by its very own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.

In the past, Salza argued that the “offense,” which Pope Pius XII was referring should be translated “crime.” And that crime has to be established by the Church and only then is the person who committed the crime of heresy understood to be severed from the Body of the Church by its nature. Salza writes:

Pope Pius XII is referring to the “offense” or CRIME (not SIN) of heresy, which severs one from the Body of the Church, after the formal and material elements have been proven by the Church. After the crime has been established, the heretic is automatically severed from the BODY (not SOUL) of the Church without further declaration (although most theologians maintain that the Church must also issue a declaration of deprivation). [2]

I responded to that argument Feb. 19, 2016 in an article titled The Sin of Heresy – Why John Salza and Robert Siscoe Get It Wrong (Part II) .

Now Salza introduces a new argument that differs from his old argument:

We affirm that heresy, by its nature, severs one from the Church spiritually (quoad se), and also disposes one to be severed legally (quoad nos, by Church authorities). Said differently, heresy, by its nature, severs the spiritual bond formally, and the legal bond dispositively. As Van Noort said, “internal heresy, since it destroys that interior unity of faith from which unity of profession is born, separates one from the body of the Church dispositively, but not yet formally.” [3]

Salza quotes Van Noort and completely misrepresents him. Van Noort is not saying that external heresy separates one from the body of the Church dispositively. It’s the internal sin that does so. External heresy separates one from the Body of the Church formally and that’s the issue at hand. Pope Pius XII is not referring to the internal sin of heresy. Van Noort explains:

Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of three factors—baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy—pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church. The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church. “For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy” (MCC 30; italics ours).

By the term public heretics at this point we mean all who externally deny a truth (for example Mary’s Divine Maternity), or several truths of divine and Catholic faith, regardless of whether the one denying does so ignorantly and innocently (a merely material heretic), or willfully and guiltily (a formal heretic). It is certain that public, formal heretics are severed from the Church membership. It is the more common opinion that public, material heretics are likewise excluded from membership. Theological reasoning for this opinion is quite strong: if public material heretics remained members of the Church, the visibility and unity of Christ’s Church would perish. If these purely material heretics were considered members of the Catholic Church in the strict sense of the term, how would one ever locate the “Catholic Church”? How would the Church be one body? How would it profess one faith? Where would be its visibility? Where its unity? For these and other reasons we find it difficult to see any intrinsic probability to the opinion which would allow for public heretics, in good faith, remaining members of the Church. [4]

Where does Salza find words like spiritual and legal bond? It appears that he creates words to fit his understanding of the canonists and theologians. At least, you don’t see him quoting any of them using the phrase “legal bond.”

However, he lets us in on what he means by “legal bond.” Salza writes:

The Pope heretic is not a member of the Church as far as the substance and form [the spiritual bond] which constitute the members of the Church; but he is the head as far as the charge and action [the legal bond]

[O]ccult heretics are still of the Church, they are parts and members [the legal bond]… therefore the Pope who is an occult heretic is still Pope.

…but would still retain his jurisdiction by which he would influence the Church [the legal bond] in ruling it. Thus he would still be nominally the head of the Church, which he would still rule as head, [Then why does John Salza refuse to let Francis rule him?]though he would no longer be a member of Christ, because he would not receive that vital influx of faith from Christ [the spiritual bond], the invisible and primary head. Thus in quite an abnormal manner he would be in point of jurisdiction the head of the Church [the legal bond], though he would not be a member of it.

The quoad se/quoad nos distinction used by John of St. Thomas harmonizes perfectly with the spiritual/legal bond distinction we have discussed in this article (as well as the Body/Soul distinction used by Bellarmine and others that we did not address here). Those who are united to the Church quoad nos (according to us) remain legal members of the Church (and if they are clerics, they retain their jurisdiction), even if they are spiritually severed from the Church; whereas those who cease to be united to the Church quoad nos (i.e., those who have openly left the Church or who have been declared heretics), do not. Because God alone knows who truly possesses interior faith and are thereby united to the Church quoad se,[19] if only these individuals (i.e., those who possess interior faith) were members of the Church, the Church would not be a visible society (whose members could be known), but rather “an invisible Church of true believers, known to God alone” which is a Protestant heresy that the Sedevacantists have embraced. [This accusation will be answered at the end.]

I think we can safely say that Salza’s meaning behind “spiritual bond” is Soul of the Church and his meaning behind “legal bond” is Body of the Church where persons can operate with authority.

As I also demonstrated in my 2016 article, The Ecclesiastical Review and Msgr. Van Noort explain that Pope Pius XII was speaking about the public external sin of heresy and how this external sin of heresy severs one from the Body of the Church by its nature. The internal forum, the internal sin of heresy and and even the external sin of heresy if occult have never been the issue. The reason Salza keeps bringing it into the equation is to confuse and misrepresent our position while hiding his error on the subject.

Salza then misrepresents and misapplies the plain meaning behind Rev. Sylvester Berry’s teaching below…

A heretic is usually defined as a Christian, i.e., a baptized person, who holds a doctrine contrary to a revealed truth; but this definition is inaccurate, since it would make heretics of a large portion of the faithful. A doctrine contrary to a revealed truth is usually stigmatized as heretical, but a person who professes an heretical doctrine is not necessarily a heretic. Heresy, from the Greek hairesis, signifies a choosing; therefore a heretic is one who chooses for himself in matters of faith, thereby rejecting the authority of the Church established by Christ to teach all men the truths of revelation. (…) A person who submits to the authority of the Church and wishes to accept all her teachings, is not a heretic, even though he profess heretical doctrines through ignorance of what the Church really teaches; he implicitly accepts the true doctrine in his general intention to accept all that the Church teaches.”

After quoting Berry, Salza writes:

As even the Sedevacantists would be forced to concede, all the conciliar Popes acknowledged the Church as the infallible rule of Faith. This means that even if Modernism has so confused their minds that they professed errors or even heresies, this material profession itself would not have formally severed their external and legal bond to the Church (and which, of course, means they retained their office and jurisdiction).

A note to Salza: The church the conciliar popes acknowledge is not the Catholic Church. In fact, modernism is more than merely professing errors and even heresies. Modernism is the “Synthesis of all Heresies” so said Pope St. Pius X. The conciliar popes are practical atheists and don’t acknowledge an infallible rule of faith at all. To call the conciliar pope’s false profession of Faith “material” means they are ignorantly and innocently professing Modernists.

Because the hearts of man can’t be read by mortals, we can’t say that any pope has professed a heresy materially. We can only say he has professed heresy!

Unfortunately, Salza leaves out the rest of Fr. Berry’s teaching (just like he didn’t provide his readers the full scope of Msgr. Van Noort’s teaching). Berry and Van Noort completely undercut Salza’s entire article. Fr. Berry continued:

“A heretic is one who chooses for himself in matters of faith, thereby, rejecting the authority of the Church established by Christ to teach all men the truths of revelation. [Notice here that Berry is talking about rejecting the teaching authority of the Church, not simply the profession of a heretical doctrine.] He rejects the authority of the Church by following his own judgment or by submitting to an authority other than that established by Christ. A person who submits to the authority of the Church and wishes to accept all her teachings, is not a heretic, even though he profess heretical doctrines through IGNORANCE of what the Church really teaches.” [5]

The SIN of heresy that severs one from the Church by its nature as Pope Pius XII taught in MCC is absent when the heresy professed is done through ignorance when that person wishes to accept all the Church’s teachings. However, that sin can be either occult or public which leads to different conclusions with his membership either in the Body or Soul of the Church.

Berry went on to say:

“A person may reject the teaching authority of the Church knowingly and willingly, or he may do it through ignorance. In the first case he is a formal heretic, guilty of grievous sin; in the second case, he is a material heretic, free from guilty. Both formal and material heresy may be manifest or occult. Heresy is manifest when publicly known to such an extent that its existence could be proved in a court of law; it is occult if not externally manifested by word or act, or if not sufficiently public to allow proof of its existence in court.

EXCLUDED FROM MEMBERSHIP. Manifest heretics and schismatics are excluded from membership in the Church. Heretics separated themselves from the unity of faith and worship; schismatics from the unity of government, and both reject the authority of the Church.  So far as exclusion from the Church is concerned, it matters not whether the heresy or schism be formal or material. Those born and reared in heresy or schism may be sincere in their belief and practice, yet they publicly and willingly reject the Church and attach to sects opposed to her; they are not guilty of sin in the matter, but they are not members of the Church. For this reason, the Church makes no distinction between formal and material heresy when receiving converts into her fold.

There is no need to adduce arguments from Scripture or tradition for a truth that is practically self-evident. St. Jerome says:  “An adulterer, a homicide, and other sinners are driven from the Church by the priests (I.e., by excommunication); but heretics pass sentence upon themselves, leaving the Church by their own free-will.” [Notice that heretics have left the Church which is the definition of defection of faith. Joining another sect is not necessary as Very Rev. H. A. Ayrinhac taught in his “General Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law” on Can. 188.4.] 19 St. Augustine gives expression to the same doctrine: “If you do not wish to belong to the Church,…separate yourself from her members, put yourselves off from her body. But why should I now urge them to leave the Church, since they have already done this? They are heretics, and therefore already out.”

Rev. Berry’s teaching says it all. The heretics Fr. Berry is talking about as being excluded from membership in the Church, regardless of whether they’re innocent or guilty of the sin of heresy, are those who “reject the teaching authority of the Church”, which would mean Protestants, etc., not simply Catholics who happen to say something heretical without meaning to go against the teaching authority of the Church.

Now getting back to Salza’s statement below…

The quoad se/quoad nos distinction used by John of St. Thomas harmonizes perfectly with the spiritual/legal bond distinction we have discussed in this article (as well as the Body/Soul distinction used by Bellarmine and others that we did not address here). Those who are united to the Church quoad nos (according to us) remain legal members of the Church (and if they are clerics, they retain their jurisdiction), even if they are spiritually severed from the Church; whereas those who cease to be united to the Church quoad nos (i.e., those who have openly left the Church or who have been declared heretics), do not. Because God alone knows who truly possesses interior faith and are thereby united to the Church quoad se,[19] if only these individuals (i.e., those who possess interior faith) were members of the Church, the Church would not be a visible society (whose members could be known), but rather “an invisible Church of true believers, known to God alone” which is a Protestant heresy that the Sedevacantists have embraced.

We sedevacantists don’t recognize that the Visible Church is made up of members with the interior faith only. Where did he come up with that nonsense? It’s as if Salza has never read or tried to understand our position. In fact, it’s Salza’s position that is reminiscent of the Protestant heresy because his position is that you can profess any and every heresy under the sun and still be considered a member of the Church unless declared a heretic by authorities. Salza’s visible church is made up of individuals that are divided in faith.

So, if Salza is looking for a Protestant church, he needs to look no further than the institution headed by Jorge Bergoglio, where anything goes, as long as it’s not Catholic.

 

Footnotes:

[1] http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/3232-note-to-sedevacantists-heresy-does-not-automatically-sever-one-from-the-church

[2] John Salza Responds to Another Sedevacantist

[3]http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/3232-note-to-sedevacantists-heresy-does-not-automatically-sever-one-from-the-church

[4] Dogmatic Theology Volume II: Christ’s Church, Van Noort, p. 241-242

[5] Rev. Sylvester Berry’s Church of Christ, p 128:

 

 

Read Full Post »

Robert Siscoe posted an article recently about how I’ve interpreted John of St. Thomas exactly backwards. [1] Now when Siscoe says I’ve gotten something backwards, it means I’ve gotten it exactly right and it’s he that got it backwards as I’ll demonstrate in two parts. First the article and second an email exchange from last year.

Siscoe begins:

“Steve Speray, recently posted an article on his website in which he argues that John of St. Thomas (JST) criticized St. Bellarmine…”

I posted this article over a year ago on Jan. 23, 2016 which Salza/Siscoe responded to. I even posted a rebuttal to their response on Feb. 7, 2016. Siscoe can’t get basic facts straight, even ones he’s dealt with before. His mind is simply twisted! This will become more apparent as I go through all of his twisted thinking.

It’s Siscoe’s misinterpretation of Bellarmine that causes him to also misinterpret John of St. Thomas. Siscoe insists that Bellarmine taught that two warnings for a pope gone heretical are absolutely necessary before the pope loses his office.

Read Bellarmine closely…

“The fourth opinion is that of Cajetan, for whom the manifestly heretical Pope is not ipso facto deposed, but can and must be deposed by the Church. To my judgment, this opinion [of Cajetan] cannot be defended. For, in the first place [here comes Bellarmine’s argument against Cajetan’s position], it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed.  The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus, c. 3), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate — which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ. Now, a Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided, for how could we be required to avoid our own head? How can we separate ourselves from a member united to us?

This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope.

Bellarmine is answering Cajetan who taught that a manifestly heretical Pope is not ipso facto deposed, but can and must be deposed by the Church. So Bellarmine goes to Scripture (Titus, c. 3) not to tell us that warnings are required to show us what we already know, namely, one who’s manifestly heretical, but what happens to one who is manifestly heretical. And Bellarmine shows Cajetan that heretics exile themselves which means they are ipso facto deposed.

Bellarmine even follows up that a “manifest heretic cannot be Pope.”

Yet, Siscoe wants to say the manifest heretical pope has to be warned first, which makes total nonsense out of Bellarmine’s teaching.

St. Paul speaks of warnings to insure that someone who has erred understands the opposition which exists between his error and the teaching of the Church. Popes already know the teaching of the Church and what makes opposition to it. After all, he’s the pope and that’s his job.  Therefore, warnings aren’t necessary for popes and St. Paul clearly didn’t intend to apply his teaching to popes.

Bellarmine even proves that he doesn’t believe warnings are necessary for popes because he also wrote elsewhere about the case of Pope Liberius:

“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]

Again, warnings serve to show whether one is aware of his heresy, but Liberius wasn’t  heretical at all. Liberius wasn’t warned but only appeared to be heretical. Bellarmine didn’t believe warnings are necessary for popes.

Now keep this in mind as you read the full context of John of St. Thomas criticizing Bellarmine’s position below…

Objection 1. “A heretic is not a member, so cannot be head of the Church”

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; indeed, a great confusion in the Church would follow , if it was allowed that the admonition is made by a private man, and that the manifestation of this heresy having been made without being declared by the Church and proclaimed to all, in order that they avoid the Pontiff, that all should be required to avoid; for a heresy of the Pope cannot be public for all the faithful on the report of a few, and this report, not being legal, does not require that all believe it and avoid the Pontiff; and therefore as the Church proclaims him legally elected by legally designating him for all, it is necessary that she deposes him by declaring and proclaiming him as a heretic to be avoided.

Therefore, we see that this has been practiced by the Church, when in the case of the deposition of the Pope, the cause itself was first addressed by the General Council before the Pope was declared “No Pope”, as we said above.  Therefore it is not because the Pope is a heretic, even publicly, that he will ipso facto cease to be Pope, before the declaration of the Church, and before she proclaims him as “to be avoided” by the faithful.

And when St. Jerome says that a heretic separates itself from the body of Christ, he does not exclude a judgment of the Church, especially in such a serious matter as the deposition of the Pope, but it indicates only the quality of the crime, which excludes per se from the Church, without any further sentence, at least from the moment he is declared [heretic] by the Church;  indeed, even if the crime of heresy separates itself (ex se) of the Church, however, in relation to us that separation is not understood as have been made (not intelligitur facto) without this statement.

It is the same thing from the reason added by Bellarmine.  A non-Christian who is such in itself AND in relation to us (quoad se et quoad nos) cannot be Pope;  however, if he is not in itself a Christian, because he has lost the faith, but if in relation to us he is not legally declared being infidel or heretic, as obvious as it may appear in a private judgment, he is still in relation to us (quoad nos) a member of the Church and therefore the head.   Accordingly, a judgment of the Church is required through which he is declared (proponatur) as being a non-Christian and to be avoided, and then he ceases in relation to us to be the Pope, consequently, previously he did not cease to be himself (etiam in se) [Pope], because all what he did was valid in itself.

Siscoe clearly doesn’t understand John of St. Thomas because he doesn’t want to understand John of St. Thomas. Siscoe doesn’t understand anyone or anything that’s opposed to his way of thinking.

Siscoe also claimed that Bellarmine taught that a true pope can be judged even though Bellarmine writes:

Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself [NOT BY JUDGMENT OF MEN] 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.

When Bellarmine says, for this reason he can be judged, he obviously doesn’t mean while pope, but because he ceased to be pope because he ceased to be a Christian and member of the Church.

In Bellarmine’s rebuttal to the third opinion, he states that a heretical pope can be judged, but we know that a heretical pope according to Bellarmine is not a Christian and not actually the pope. He’s simply using conventional language.

But Siscoe can’t see the obvious because his thinking is twisted as if possessed. I’ve never seen anyone get so many things completely backwards.

 

In another instance involving an open email exchange with Siscoe back in Sept. 2016, Siscoe replied to my brother and a friend with the following…

Matt: Not only do Siscoe and Scott reject Pius XII on the sin of heresy by it’s nature cutting one off from the Church, but they reject Leo XIII also.

Dear Ignoramus,  if you read our book rather that just repeating Steve’s errors, you would know that we do not reject these teaching.  I have two questions for you.  If you don’t answer these, I will conclude that you are nothing but a complete and utter moron who lacks any ability to think and simply parrot Steve’s errors.

Here’s my question:

1)       Is an occult heretic (who is guilty of the sin of heresy) cut off from the Church?  If not, why?  If you say yes, explain why Bellarmine was wrong to say occult heretics remain members of the Church.

2)      Where does Pius XII say a Pope who commits the sin of heresy automatically loses his office?

 

I replied back to Siscoe using his favorite theologian, Van Noort, because I knew that he would even twist Van Noort and he did. I wrote:

Mortal sin, as such, does not break the tie which binds a man as a constituent member to the visible Body which is Christ’s. Only such a sin as public heresy, schism, or apostasy does that, and then only because such a sin breaks the tie of visible unity with the Body. Pope Pius XII has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church. ”For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.” By the term public heretics at this point we mean all who externally deny a truth (for example Mary’s Divine Maternity), or several truths of divine and Catholic faith, regardless of whether the one denying does so ignorantly and innocently (a merely material heretic), or willfully and guiltily (a formal heretic).

YOU GOT A PROBLEM WITH THIS, ROBERT?

Since Pope Pius said this sin of heresy severs one from the Body of the Church by its nature, are you suggesting that you keep your office even though you’re severed?

 

Robert Siscoe responded an hour later after I answered both questions:

Can the ignoramus not answer for himself?  Pius XII taught that the sin of heresy, by its very nature, severs one from the body of the Church, yet you are claiming someone can commit the sin of heresy and not be severed from the Church.  Why are you denying the teaching of Pius XII?

 

I immediately replied to Siscoe’s nasty reply:

You’re the ignoramus. I was quoting Van Noort and The Ecclesiastical Review.

Where do you see NOT be severed by the Church? They clearly say it does.

YOU’RE A COMPLETE AND UTTER IDIOT!

 

Again, Siscoe replied using my own argument that he’s condemned by Quanta Cura:

You are all heretics.  You deny the clear teaching of Pius XII about the sin of heresy severing a person from the Body of the Church. You pick and chose what papal teachings you will accept.  You are condemned by Quanta Cura.

 

Again, I replied to Siscoe not believing that he’s really this nuts:

ARE YOU SICK?

WE TOLD YOU THAT THE SIN OF HERESY SEVERS ONE FROM THE CHURCH BY IT’S VERY NATURE.

I QUOTED VAN NOORT THAT SAYS SO.

YOU AND SALZA SAID IT’S NOT SIN BUT A CRIME THAT DOES SO.

 

Siscoe replied:

We make the proper distinctions and therefore accept the teaching of Pius XII. YOU REJECT IT.  You claim that a person can commit the sin of heresy (an occult heretic) but not be severed from the Church. You are a heretic for rejecting the teaching of Pius XII and you are condemned by Quanta Cura. Admit it.

 

At this point, I figured that my other brother Scott, who worships Siscoe, sees that his hero is a lunatic and I write:

LOL. YOU HAVE SURPASSED YOUR OWN STUPIDITY! EVEN SCOTT KNOWS BETTER.

YOU HAVE TOTALLY MADE A FOOL OF YOURSELF. THIS IS THE FUNNIEST THING I’VE EVER SEEN. PERIOD!

 

Siscoe again replies:

Pius XII said the sin of heresy, by its very nature, severs a person from the body of the Church.  You say a person can commit the sin of heresy and not be severed from the body of the Church.  That is a direct contradiction.  According to your own reasoning, you are condemned by Quanta Cura and so are Matt and Lee if they agree with you.  You are finished.

 

I replied:

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?

I DON’T SAY THAT. YES, THE SIN OF HERESY SEVERS A PERSON FROM THE BODY OF THE CHURCH BY ITS VERY NATURE.

YOU REALLY ARE SICK! YOU BETTER GO SEE A DOCTOR AND GET YOUR HEAD CHECKED OUT.

 

I sent an email to my brother:

Well Scott, what do you think of Siscoe now?

I quoted Van Noort and The The Ecclesiastical Review who confirm my position that the sin of heresy severs a person from the body of the Church by it very nature and Siscoe reads it as saying it does NOT sever a person.

NOW YOU CAN FINALLY SEE THAT SISCOE IS TOTALLY MESSED UP.

 

It finally dawned on Siscoe what’s being said, and he writes:

Steve:  “I quoted Van Noort and The The Ecclesiastical Review who confirm my position that the sin of heresy severs a person from the body of the Church by it very nature and Siscoe reads it as saying it does NOT sever a person.”

Siscoe: What?  I am saying the exact opposite. I am saying the sin of heresy does sever a person from the body of the Church.  It is you who are denying it by claiming that an occult heretic is not severed from the Church, even though an occult heretic has committed the sin of heresy.

 

I called him out and wrote: You simply can’t get anything right. You completely misrepresent everything.

I quoted those two and you read it as saying the opposite. You’re just a liar.

There’s no point in continuing with you. I say one thing and you accuse me of saying exactly opposite.

Btw, your partner in crime said it’s not the sin of heresy but the crime of heresy that Pope Pius XII taught. You are in union with Salza which makes your position a contradiction

 

Siscoe still doesn’t admit that he’s wrong and writes:

I didn’t misread anything.  You are clearly trying to find a way to get out of this since you CANNOT answer the questions.  I will ask again.

Do you believe that an occult heretic – who is guilty of the sin of heresy – is cut off from the body of the Church?  Yes or no?

If you say YES, please explain why Bellarmine was wrong in teaching that an occult heretic remains a member of the Church.

AND STOP TRYING TO AVOID ANSWERING BY CLAIMING I MISUNDERSTOOD SOMETHING.  I am asking you two simple questions – the same two question I asked Matt, which he couldn’t answer.

 

This time I wrote to my brother, Scott, and summed up what’s just happened…

See Scott how messed up Siscoe is. He accused me of heresy for something Van Noort says, AND then says he never said it. Lol. He still doesn’t answer my questions. Again…Siscoe wrote:

  • 2) Where does Pius XII say a Pope who commits the sin of heresy automatically loses his office?

I replied: Since Pope Pius said this sin of heresy severs one from the Body of the Church by its nature, are you suggesting that you keep your office even though you’re severed?

Then Siscoe replied: Pius XII taught that the sin of heresy, by its very nature, severs one from the body of the Church, yet you are claiming someone can commit the sin of heresy and not be severed from the Church.  Why are you denying the teaching of Pius XII?

Right after I said the opposite.

But Siscoe didn’t stop. I replied again… WE TOLD YOU THAT THE SIN OF HERESY SEVERS ONE FROM THE CHURCH BY IT’S VERY NATURE.  I QUOTED VAN NOORT THAT SAYS SO.

And Siscoe replies: We make the proper distinctions and therefore accept the teaching of Pius XII. YOU REJECT IT.  You claim that a person can commit the sin of heresy (an occult heretic) but not be severed from the Church. You are a heretic for rejecting the teaching of Pius XII and you are condemned by Quanta Cura. Admit it.

After explaining again, Siscoe still accuses me of denying that sin severs from the Body of the church by its very nature.

AND NOW SISCOE SAYS HE DIDN’T MISREAD ANYTHING. LOL.

He still didn’t answer my question, but he wants me to answer his questions. Matt doesn’t have a computer. He has to go to library each day but Siscoe, like Dimond, falsely accuses Matt of not being able to answer the question. I can assure you he can.

He would answer that occult heresy alone severs one from the soul of the Church but not the Body. But Pope Pius was referring to public sin as Van Noort explained. The public sin of heresy severs one from the Body of the Church.

Salza denies it. He says it’s not sin but the crime that does so.

But my question still stands: Since Pope Pius said this [public] sin of heresy severs one from the Body of the Church by its nature, are you suggesting that you keep your office even though you’re severed?

 

After answering all of Siscoe’s questions explicitly, Siscoe writes me yet again about the same questions I just answered…

Steve,

Why won’t you answer the questions?  If you do, all the questions you’ve raised will quickly be sorted out and answered.  If you are throwing in the towel, I will again ask Matt to answer the questions.  Here they are again:

Question 1:  Do you believe that an occult heretic – one who is guilty of the sin of heresy – is severed from the body of the Church?  If not, how to you reconcile it with the teaching of Pius XII who said the sin of heresy, by its nature, severs a person from the body of the Church?

Question 2: If you do believe an occult heretic remains united to the body of the Church, explain why Bellarmine was wrong when he taught the EXACT OPPOSITE.

These are simple questions, Matt. Steve REFUSES to answer them, so I am give you the chance.  In fact, Lee can also answer since he accused me of rejecting the teaching of Pius XII.

 

My brother Scott writes everyone on the email list with:

Robert is right.  If someone would answer the questions, you will see what you haven’t up to this point.

 

I finally ended it with:

This is why you’re a waste of time. I answered the question explicitly in the third paragraph from the end of my last email and you say I didn’t answer it. Stop saying I refuse to answer the question when I answer your questions explicitly. AND you haven’t answered any of my questions. We all know why, Robert. You can’t answer my questions without subverting you’re own argument.

Yet, both of you have already debunked yourselves. You claim I’m a heretic for going against Pope Pius’ encyclical (which I never did), yet your popes are not heretics for going against the same encyclical. AND you claim I’m condemned by quanta cura for rejecting a papal encyclical (which I don’t), yet you reject your own pope’s encyclicals. Ha.

I’m a heretic for going against the faith, but your popes are not heretics for going against the faith. The Dimonds argue exactly the same way. They say you are a heretic for BOD, but the popes are not heretics for BOD.

 

I have many other instances of Robert Siscoe getting things exactly backwards, but these suffice for the moment.

Siscoe’s mind is totally twisted. His website and book is filled with misrepresentations and lies of Fr. Cekada, Mario Derksen, Fr. Paul Kramer, etc., not to mention every pope, saint, canonist, and theologian. It’s mind boggling how anyone can take him seriously.

 

 

 

 

[1] http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/steven-sperays-erroneous-interpretation.html

[2] Book IX, Ch IX, n. 15)

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

Robert Siscoe’s latest article “Pope Celestine III’s Error on the Indissolubility of Marriage” published by the Remnant Newspaper is historically and theologically flawed throughout.

I recently posted a comment after the article from Cardinal Manning who taught precisely the opposite to Siscoe’s conclusion. The Remnant Newspaper removed my comment. In fact, the Remnant Newspaper has removed dozens of my comments over the years that expose their lies and misrepresentations. The Catholic World Report, Crisis Magazine, and others have removed my comments as well. I’m not the only one who gets censored in order that these pseudo-catholic publishers can save face.

Fr. Paul Kramer was also censored by the Remnant after sending a comment correcting all the errors of Siscoe’s article.

Fr. Kramer’s excellent reply proves that CNN, NBC, CBS, and ABC are not the only fake news outlets. The outrageous lies published by the Remnant Newspaper are inexcusable.  After being corrected, they remain obstinate in their sin against Christ and the Catholic Faith.

Below is Fr. Kramer’s rebuttal.

I have read the relevant Latin texts of Celestine III, and of Innocent III. They were ruling on two different cases. Gregory (incorporating Celestine’s ruling into Canon Law) ruled that the husband who defected from the faith out of hatred for his wife, thereby forfeited his matrimonial rights, so that the wife was not bound to return to her first husband, but was free to enter the monastic life, even with the husband opposed; and that the husband could marry the former infidel wife, converted to the Catholic faith, only after the death of the first wife.

Innocent ruled on a case referred to him by Bishop Hugo of Ferrara, that the wife of a man who defected into heresy could not remarry. Two entirely different cases. Celestine & Gregory did not rule that the woman could divorce and remarry, but only that she was not bound to return to the first husband, and was free to enter religious life, even against the opposition of her husband, who had forfeited his matrimonial rights. Celestine did make the error of basing his correct ruling on an erroneous interpretation of the Pauline Privilege, and thus condoned the woman’s second marriage — however, his error was not expressed in a magisterial teaching, but was only an erroneous opinion expressed in a legal case, upon which he correctly ruled that the woman was no longer bound to return to the first husband. He expressed an erroneous opinion that the woman’s second marriage was legitimate, but that was not his RULING, but only an erroneous basis for a CORRECT RULING that the woman was free to enter religion against the will of her first husband.

Siscoe’s claim that, “The case eventually reached Pope Celestine III (d. 1198), who considered the matter and judged that the woman should remain in her second adulterous union, rather than returning to her true husband”, is utterly false. Likewise, Siscoe’s claim that Celestine TAUGHT the error in his magisterium [1] is false, and likewise, his claim that Gregory IX incorporated into Canon Law [2] a ruling allowing divorce and remarriage is absurdly nonsensical, and only demonstrates how utterly incompetent he is in Canon Law and Theology.

[1] “The erroneous judgment of Pope Celestine highlights the limitations of papal infallibility by showing that a true Pope can, as part of his teaching office (Magisterium), render a judgment that contradicts divine revelation and confirms a person in objective mortal sin.”

[2]  “Celestine’s Error Incorporated into Canon Law” : “The limitations of Papal Infallibility is further highlighted by the fact that the error of Pope Celestine was later included in the Decretals of Pope Gregory IX (known as Quinque Libri Decretalium), which was the first collection of Canon Law promulgated by a Pope for the universal Church.” And, “this non-infallible papal judgment confirmed a woman in the objective state of adultery.”

Fr. Paul Kramer B.Ph., S.T.B., M.Div., S.T.L. (cand.)

 

Siscoe’s article:

 

http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/3047-pope-celestine-iii- s-error-on-the-indissolubility-of-marriage

 

The page of Gregory IX’s Decretals, quoting Celestine III’s ruling:

 

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/digital/collections/cul/texts/ldpd_6029936_002/pages/ldpd_ 6029936_002_00000336.html?toggle=image&menu=maximize&top=199px&left=70px

 

Innocent III’s ruling:

 

Quanto te magis novimus in canonico iure peritum, tanto fraternitatem tuam amplius in Domino commendamus, quod in dubiis quaestionum articulis ad sedem apostolicam recurris, quae disponente Domino cunctorum fidelium mater est et magistra, ut opinio, quam in eis quondam habueras, dum alios canonici iuris peritiam edoceres, vel corrigatur per sedem apostolicam vel probetur. Sane tua nobis fraternitas suis literis intimavit, quod, altero coniugum ad haeresim transeunte, qui relinquitur ad secunda vota desiderat convolare et filios procreare, quod, utrum possit fieri de iure, per tuas nos duxisti literas consulendos. Nos igitur consultationi tuae de communi fratrum nostrorum consilio respondentes, distinguimus, licet quidam praedecessor noster sensisse aliter videatur, an ex duobus infidelibus alter ad fidem catholicam convertatur, vel ex duobus fidelibus alter labatur in haeresim, vel decidat in gentilitatis errorem. Si enim alter infidelium coniugum ad fidem catholicam convertatur, altero vel nullo modo, vel saltem non sine blasphemia divini nominis, vel ut eum pertrahat ad mortale peccatum, ei cohabitare volente: qui relinquitur, ad secunda, si voluerit, vota transibit. Et in hoc casu intelligimus quod ait Apostolus: “Si infidelis discedit, discedat. Frater enim vel soror non est servituti subiectus in huiusmodi,” et canonem etiam, in quo dicitur, quod “contumelia creatoris solvit ius matrimonii circa eum, qui relinquitur.” Si vero alter fidelium coniugum vel labatur in haeresim, vel transeat ad gentilitatis errorem, non credimus, quod in hoc casu is, qui relinquitur, vivente altero possit ad secundas nuptias convolare, licet in hoc casu maior appareat contumelia creatoris. Nam etsi matrimonium verum quidem inter infideles exsistat, non tamen est ratum. Inter fideles autem verum quidem et ratum exsistit, quia sacramentum fidei, quod semel est admissum, nunquam amittitur; sed ratum efficit coniugii sacramentum, ut ipsum in coniungibus illo durante perduret. Nec obstat, quod a quibusdam forsan obiicitur, quod fidelis relictus non debeat iure suo sine culpa privari, quum in multis casibus hoc contingat, ut si alter coniugum incidatur. Per hanc autem responsionem quorundam malitiae obviatur, qui in odium coniugum, vel quando sibi invicem displicerent, si eas possent in tali casu dimittere, simularent haeresim, ut ab ipsa nubentibus coniugibus resilirent. Per hanc ipsam responsionem illa solvitur quaestio, qua quaeritur, utrum ad eum, qui [vel] ab haeresi vel infidelitate revertitur, is, qui permansit in fide, redire cogatur. [Dat. Lat. Kal. Maii 1199.]

 

http://www.kingscollege.net/gbrodie/Timeline%201199%20Quanto%20te.html

 

Pope Innocent III: On the Bond of Marriage and the Pauline Privilege [From the letter “Quanto te magis” to Hugo, Bishop of Ferrara, May 1, 1199]

405 Your brotherhood has announced that with one of the spouses passing over to heresy the one who is left desires to rush into second vows and to procreate children, and you have thought that we ought to be consulted through your letter as to whether this can be done under the law. We, therefore, responding to your inquiry regarding the common advice of our brothers make a distinction, although indeed our predecessor seems to have thought otherwise, whether of two unbelievers one is converted to the Catholic Faith, or of two believers one lapses into heresy or falls into the error of paganism. For if one of the unbelieving spouses is converted to the Catholic faith, while the other either is by no means willing to live with him or at least not without blaspheming the divine name or so as to drag him into mortal sin, the one who is left, if he wishes, will pass over to second vows. And in this case we understand what the Apostle says: “If the unbeliever depart, let him depart: for the brother or sister is not subject to servitude in (cases) of this kind” [1 Cor. 7:15]. And likewise (we understand) the canon in which it is said that “insult to the Creator dissolves the law of marriage for him who is left.” [from Isaac406 But if one of the believing spouses either slip into heresy or lapse into the error of paganism, we do not believe that in this case he who is left, as long as the other is living, can enter into a second marriage; although in this case a greater insult to the Creator is evident. Although indeed true matrimony exists between unbelievers, yet it is not ratified; between believers, however, a true and ratified marriage exists, because the sacrament of faith, which once was admitted, is never lost, but makes the sacrament of marriage ratified so that it itself lasts between married persons as long as the sacrament of faith endures.

Summary: 1) Quanto te affirms that true marriage does exist among unbelievers, (notwithstanding the fact that they do not regard marriage as indissoluble.)

2) Quanto te affirms that a marriage between believers is “ratified” because of the”sacrament of faith.” A ratified marriage remains even if one of the partners should renounce their faith.

3) The Pauline Priviledge is affirmed and the groundspermitting the convert to remarry are expanded to include not only

a) convert who have been deserted by the unbelieving spouse, (as per Paul) but also, b) a convert who would be subjected to blasphemy by an unbelieving spouse who remains, or, c) a convert who would be led into mortal sin by a spouse who remains.

How the unbeliever’s blasphemy or drawing to mortal sinamounted to the forteiture of the unbelievers marriage and how these acts were to be proved were not determined by these decretals.

The implication of course was significant: a valid, consummated marriage between Christian and unbeliever was dissoluble.

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »