Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

One of my pet peeves in the world today is feminism. I have a particular hatred for it as one can deduce from an article I posted as First Timothy 2:12: The Bible Verse that Nobody Believes In.

Feminism is defined as the advocacy of women’s rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes. But what is meant by the equality of the sexes and how is it defined?

The only true equality between the two sexes exists in the fact that when Baptized in Christ, we make up one Body (Gal. 3:26-29). We are equal in human dignity. Within the realm of human dignity, women should have a right to work and have a higher education. However, we are not equal in authority (II Tim. 2:12-14).

The “women’s rights” which are advocated in society by the feminist movement necessarily place women in an equal or higher authority. These so-called rights attack the dignity of the human person. The unborn are murdered, motherhood is downgraded, and masculinity is frowned upon and rejected. Feminism of the feminist movement is a rejection of truth. It is in this understanding of feminism which I’m referring to in this study.

My daughter recently asked, “When did feminism first begin?” I immediately thought of Eve. The story found in Genesis is one of the most fascinating and mysterious found in the Bible. I’ve thought about it intensely over the years. When I began to explain the account in Genesis in relation to feminism, I came up with an idea that seems to make sense to me. The following is only my opinion which I’ll gladly renounce if found to be at a variance with the decision of the Church.

Take another look at Genesis 3:

3 Now the serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree of the garden’?” 2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” 4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons.

Notice that Satan went to Eve first, why?

I suspect that it’s because Satan was inferior to God and he understood that his own fall could best be applied to one who like himself was an inferior. God through St. Paul made it clear that Adam was Eve’s superior by natural law in creation (I Tim. 2:12-14). Keep in mind that Adam and Eve were made perfect and enjoyed preternatural gifts and wisdom that surpasses our own today. Also, noteworthy is the fact that Satan (whose intelligence was given to him by God) knows that the best way to get to Adam is through Eve. Don’t we know that the best way to go to Jesus, the Second Adam, is through Mary, the New Eve?

The devil first attempted to make God out to be unreasonable when he asked Eve, “Did God say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree of the garden’?” because what else were Adam and Eve going to eat but fruit from the trees in the garden? However, Eve knew her faith well. She countered the devil with God’s reasonable command that it was only from one tree in the garden they couldn’t eat from. Eve added, “nor even touch it,” because she knows to stay away from it completely.

Now Satan presents the lie and deception that eating the fruit from that tree of knowledge would bring wisdom that would make one like God. It was Satan’s desire to be like God, too. Eve knows that if she eats of the tree before Adam believing the devil’s lie is true, she will possess wisdom and power over and above that of Adam. She will be like God, but Adam will not. She will no longer be his inferior but rather his superior. Hence, the fruit looked appealing.

Eve should have consulted Adam before making such a big decision but she didn’t. This was her big chance to get ahead and become like God and Adam’s boss.

Once she ate, she immediately knew it was a mistake. Whenever a soul loses sanctifying grace, he is aware of it and feels the pain of loss. In Eve’s case, it would be even greater because of the preternatural gifts and the state of grace she was conceived in. Her loss would have been devastating to her. Not only did she lose God and sanctifying grace, but she became even lesser to Adam than before. If Adam never sinned, I wonder what the relation between men and women would be like today.

Instead of preventing Adam from making the same mistake, she had to bring him down to her level. The profound humiliation for Eve was too much. She can’t be the only fool. Eve became like Satan and seduced Adam, who listened to a woman over God. It’s bad when a woman thinks she ought to be boss, but it is worse when a man lets her. Adam should have consulted God first but he didn’t. He let Eve make a decision for him as one who had authority over him and God. Perhaps, Adam was more concerned about what Eve thought of him rather than what God thought of him. He was a woman-pleasing coward at that moment and became less than what he was created for.

Feminism is a form of pride whereby man thinks he knows better than God. Feminism is an affront to God’s order of creation. Therefore, the First Sin is pride which is the root of feminism. Other vices stem from feminism, such as abortion, homosexuality, and so-called transgender-ism.

What I find most interesting about the story of Adam and Eve and feminism is that we don’t see feminism on a grand scale throughout history as we do in today’s world. It’s as if Satan was saving this one vice for the end of time, which first brought mankind down in the first-place. I firmly believe that the problem doesn’t lie in the woman as much as with the man. Feminism only reigns when men become feminists or compromisers.

The consequences of the fall are greater with the sin of Adam because Original Sin is contracted because Adam fell, not Eve. If men today give in to feminism the consequences are feminism reigns in the world. If men don’t give in, feminism exists only in the minds, hopes, and dreams of evil women. Alas, feminism reigns in our world because men are feminists and/or cowards. So while feminism concerns the First Sin, it is the compromise of Adam that sealed our fate. Today, men compromising with women either through acceptance of feminism or the fear of feminists, keep the abomination going.

Pope St. Pius X declared in E Supremi on the “the distinguishing mark of Antichrist” “man has with infinite temerity put himself in the place of God, raising himself above all that is called God; in such wise that although he cannot utterly extinguish in himself all knowledge of God, he has contemned God’s majesty and, as it were, made of the universe a temple wherein he himself is to be adored. ‘He sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God’ (II. Thess. Ii., 2).”

Pride is the key vice of Antichrist. Mankind rejects God’s order of creation in accepting feminism. In other words, mankind is telling God that His Way and Will is not how it shall be, and this is how mankind puts himself in the place of God. The distinguishing fruits of Antichrist are feminism along with the other vices that stem from pride. Thus, the first sin becomes the last.

Read Full Post »

“Hate Speech”: Facebook Deletes Post Quoting Peaceful Catholic Theologian

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

In 2014 and 2015, I replied to the argument against sedevacantism that it’s a dogmatic fact that a pope is a valid pope when he’s accepted by the practical universal acceptance of the Church. [1]

Many theologians have taught that God “cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately.” [2] Therefore, it’s argued that sedevacantism is impossible because the practical unanimous consent of the Church recognized as popes, John XXIII and Paul VI.

My rebuttals to the argument in 2014 and 2015 were that the practical unanimous consent of antipope Boniface VII and Pope Paul IV’s teaching that a heretic is not pope even if he’s recognized by the whole Church prove the argument wrong. [3]

Before saying the theologians are wrong, notice that they don’t all say the same thing. Card. Billot says, “whole Church” but doesn’t tell us what “whole Church” includes. If he means every single person, then the argument against sedevacantism doesn’t work. He doesn’t tell us if the acceptance must be absolute or moral.

Rev. Berry says, “practical unanimous consent” but doesn’t tell us if he means unquestionable, moral, implicit, explicit, or legal consent. He doesn’t tell us how the consent must be expressed. Is it by words or tacit? How could we know how it was fulfilled?

If we use the sacraments as an example, we have a moral certitude that they are valid, but not with an absolute certitude. We know that valid form, matter, intention, and minister are needed for valid sacraments. We don’t question the validity of the sacraments unless evidence to the contrary is presented. In other words, when something is found that would invalidate the sacrament. We see examples of this with marriage, which is presumed valid until impediments are presented and annulments granted. When I go to Confession, I presume the priest to be valid. However, if evidence came forward that the priest wasn’t a true priest, there would be a question as to whether my confession was valid. I would want to know all the facts and if the evidence is more than mere hearsay, then the Confession becomes doubtful. You can’t accept a doubtful sacrament as a valid sacrament. We can’t accept a doubtful pope, either, and for the same practical reasons. [4]

Therefore, if Billot and Berry meant an absolute acceptance or unquestionable consent presented in words, then it is possible to reconcile their statements with sedevacantism and the elections of John XXIII and Paul VI.

However one interprets the theologians, it’s only an opinion of theologians and not a Church teaching or law of the Church. The doctrine of opinions, which is not Church doctrine, is not infallible and it’s not binding. [5]

The argument using the opinion of these theologians that the Church can’t be wrong about its pope is further marred by the fact that the whole Church recognized one of the three doubtful popes during the Great Western Schism. Not only was the whole Church in error over the papacy, it was divided over the papacy, which in all practical purposes might be worse than having one false pope. We have another instance in history where the vast majority accepted antipope Anacletus II and the minority accepted Pope Innocent II until St. Bernard of Clairvaux convinced the majority to change positions. By the way, he did this on his own authority.

There’s also the teaching by some theologians that popes can’t be occult heretics. [6] The implication is that if one of the popes in history were an occult heretic, he wouldn’t have been a true pope even though the whole Church recognized him. Perhaps, it would be argued that we’ve never had an occult heretic pope, but how could anyone know? This minority opinion seems to fly in the face of the opinion that God cannot permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimate. Someone might argue that Billot also says “adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.” Therefore, the adhesion guarantees no occult heretic. However, Billot didn’t think an occult heretic can’t be a pope, so using his argument doesn’t work.

When I wrote my book, “Papal Anomalies and Their Implications” I noted that the greatest anomaly is the fact the Church has never defined what makes a pope a pope or defined all who have been popes. The Church has recognized popes who were never elected and who were invalidly, unlawfully, and unjustly elected. Since the conclave, the Church has recognized popes who are secretly elected and all we have is the testimony of the cardinals.

All we know for sure is that only a man can be elected. If he’s not baptized, he must get baptized. If he’s baptized, he can’t be a heretic/apostate. That’s about it. We have Pope Hadrian V who was never consecrated bishop, ordained priest, or crowned pope. The minimum age of a pope is not defined either. Pope John XII was elected at 15. Were these true popes? Again, the Church has never defined all who have been true popes.

My belief is that God protects the Church from doctrinal error regardless. Yet, we see so many Catholics accept the heresies of the Vatican 2 popes. How did God protect the Church with John XXIII and Paul VI?

I answer the question this way. There are two aspects to the Church, the faithful and her official teachings. When we say the Church teaches, we don’t mean everyone except the pope. The faithful who are not pertinacious in their errors are not heretics. They remain members of the Church, although, in an abnormal way, because they are worshipping in a non-Catholic new mass. It does seem strange that it’s possible that a vast majority of faithful could be so deceived, but God has allowed it.

I’m reminded of what Rev. M. P. Hill, S.J taught about the future Church after explaining the strangeness of the Great Western Schism: “But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree. [7]

Many of the faithful didn’t accept the heresies of Vatican 2 because they were unaware of them and those who knew better rejected them. This made the Vatican 2 popes suspect.

What I’m specifically referring to in my statement that God protects the Church is in her official capacity for teaching. Antipopes have no authority to make official teachings. Vatican 2, for example, was not ratified by a true pope. Its teachings are not the Church’s teachings. Division and scandal immediately arose during the council. Although a false pope was practically universally recognized at least morally with silent implicit consent, Vatican 2 was not.

Bishop Blaise Kurz was one bishop at Vatican 2 that rejected the heresies of the Council and ordained Gunther Storch who would later be made bishop by Bishop Guerard des Lauriers. Archbishop Lefebvre said in an interview that 250 bishops supported him in opposition to the council because it had erred. [8]

Going back further, John XXIII’s document Pacem in Terris was rejected by an expert in theology. Rev. Saenz Y Arriaga, Ph.d. (carried 3 doctorates in theology, philosophy, and canon law) questioned/rejected John XXIII as pope and his acts. [9] He was not alone. His friends Frs. Adolfo Zamoro and Moisés Carmona would later be made bishops by Archbishop Thuc. The three Mexican priests suspected Paul VI as an antipope from the beginning. There’s no reason to believe these are the only Catholics in the world who rejected Vatican 2 and the Vatican 2 popes especially since these men had Catholic followers.

The Catholic Church has survived both in doctrine and in the Faithful. The argument using the opinion of the universal acceptance of a pope is crushed by history, a papal bull, and the fact that the faithful, which includes bishops, priests, and theologians, have kept it going.

 

 

Footnotes:

[1] https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2014/10/26/robert-siscoe-caught-in-his-own-trap-against-sedevacantism/

https://stevensperay.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/steven-speray-responds-to-robert-siscoe-and-the-remnan1.pdf

[2] Cardinal Billot – Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi Vol I pp 612-613:

“Finally, whatever you still think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis [of a Pope falling into heresy], at least one point must be considered absolutely incontrovertible and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself. It is not necessary to look far for the proof of this, but we find it immediately in the promise and the infallible providence of Christ: ‘The gates of hell shall not prevail against it,’ and ‘Behold I shall be with you all days.’ For the adhesion of the Church to a false Pontiff would be the same as its adhesion to a false rule of faith, seeing that the Pope is the living rule of faith which the Church must follow and which in fact she always follows. As will become even more clear by what we shall say later, God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately. Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.

Rev. Sylvester Berry: “The practically unanimous consent of the Bishops and faithful in accepting a council as ecumenical, or a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected, gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact”. (The Church of Christ, p. 290)

[3] Pope Paul IV’s bull, Cum ex apostolatus  officio of 1559, declared: In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy: (i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless; (ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity)through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation; (iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way; (iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain; (v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone; (vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.

[4] Rev. Francis X Doyle, S.J. explains: “The Church is a visible society with a visible Ruler. If there can be any doubt about who that visible Ruler is, he is not visible, and hence, where there is any doubt about whether a person has been legitimately elected Pope, that doubt must be removed before he can become the visible head of Christ’s Church. Blessed Bellarmine, S.J., says: ‘A doubtful Pope must be considered as not Pope’; and Suarez, S.J., says: ‘At the time of the Council of Constance there were three men claiming to be Pope…. Hence, it could have been that not one of them was the true Pope, and in that case, there was no Pope at all….” (The Defense of the Catholic Church, 1927, Fr. Francis X. Doyle, S.J.)

[5] § 7. Theological opinions are free views on aspects of doctrines concerning Faith and morals, which are neither clearly attested in Revelation nor decided by the Teaching Authority of the Church. Their value depends upon the reasons adduced in their favour (association with the doctrine of Revelation, the attitude of the Church. etc.). A point of doctrine ceases to be an object of free judgment when the Teaching Authority of the Church takes an attitude which is clearly in favour of one opinion. Pope Pius XII explains in the Encyclical “Humani generis” (1950): “When the Popes in their Acts intentionally pronounce a judgment on a long disputed point then it is clear to all that this, according to the intention and will of these Popes, can no longer be open to the free discussion of theologians” (D 3013). (Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 9)

  1. Common Teaching (sententia communis) is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of the free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally”
  2. Theological opinions of lesser grades of certainty are called probable, more probable, well-founded (sententia probabilis, probabilior, bene fundata). Those which are regarded as being in agreement with the consciousness of Faith of the Church are called pious opinions (sententia pia). The least degree of certainty is possessed by the tolerated opinion (opinio tolerata). which is only weakly founded, but which is tolerated by the Church. (Ibid. p. 10)

[6] Ioannes de Turrecremata (Juan de Torquemada), Summa de Ecclesia, lib. 4, pars 2 c. 18, IIIa via;

Francisco Suárez, De fide disp. 9, sect. I, nn. 5, 13, 18 (Opera, vol. 12, pp. 246, 248-249, 250-251);

Luis Molina, Concordia (Ed. crit., Oniæ-Matriti, 1953), p. 3, q. 14, a. 13, disp. 46, n. 18, pp. 283-284;

Charles-René Billuart, Summa sancti Thomæ (ed. Palmé, nova editio), vol. III, diss. 3, a. 2, §IV, pp. 299-301;

Johann Baptist Franzelin, Theses de Ecclesia Christi, th. 23, pp. 402-423;

Michelitsch, §202;

Fraghi, De membris Ecclesiæ, 90;

Stolz, 32;

Journet, vol. II, 1064;

Zapalena, vol. II, 389.

[7] The Catholic’s Ready Answer [1915] p. 287.

[8]  http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/defense/inview.htm

[9] The New Montinian Church, ch xii and xxii. Also, on p. 329, Fr. Saenz Y Arriaga writes: About John XXIII we can say that he tolerated and fostered heresy, although, at least so it seems, he did not undersign and ratify it.

On p. 342, he writes: As time passes and events occur, ail forecasts agree as to the principal evil forces behind it, namely, the deviation and manifest turnabout of the hierarchy and the ambiguous Vatican Council II, which intended to create a new pastoralism without firmly resting it on the immutable dogmas of our Catholic Faith. Both of the last two Pontiffs have indisputably interrupted the harmonious unity of the Church’s Tradition and Magisterium. That is why I have always maintained that as long as we keep on trying to save John XXIII, Paul VI, and their pastoral council, we shall find ourselves in a blind alley.

 

Read Full Post »

Today is President’s Day for the United States and I thought a little fascinating video is in order. Abe Lincoln was born in my home state of Kentucky. The following video was originally from HighImpactFlix.

 

Read Full Post »

The following 12 arguments made against sedevacantism have a flip-side, which works against the one making the argument. The purpose of this work is not to refute or give credence to the argument. It merely shows that sedevacantism exists precisely because the flip-side of the argument actually came first.

 

1. Argument: The Church can’t go 60 plus years without a pope.

Flip-side: The Church can’t go 60 plus years with heretical popes.

 

2. Argument: The Gates of Hell have prevailed if the Vatican 2 popes aren’t true popes.

Flip-side: The Gates of Hell are running the Catholic Church if the Vatican 2 popes are true popes.

 

3. Argument: Theologians said universal acceptance makes for a true pope.

Flip-side: Theologians say heretics can’t be popes.

 

4. Argument: Sedevacantists are divided over which popes are true.

Flip-side: Novus Ordo Catholics are divided over dogmas of the Faith.

 

5. Argument: Apostolicity is only found in bishops with ordinary jurisdiction.

Flip-side: No one in the Novus Ordo religion has ordinary jurisdiction.

 

6. Argument: Sedevacantists haven’t elected a pope.

Flip-side: The Novus Ordo religion hasn’t elected a pope who’s Catholic.

 

7. Argument: Sedevacantists privately judge that there’s no pope.

Flip-side: Novus Ordo “Catholics” privately judge that their popes err in good faith.

 

8. Argument: Sedevacantists reject the teachings of theologians on universal acceptance.

Flip-side: Novus Ordo “Catholics” reject the teaching of theologians on what makes a person a formal heretic.

 

9. Argument: Sedevacanism is a form of Protestantism.

Flip-side: Protestantism is revered by the Vatican 2 popes who promote and uphold Protestant beliefs.

 

10. Argument: Sedevacantism didn’t exist until the 1960’s.

Flip-side: The Vatican 2 religion didn’t exist until the 1960’s.

 

11. Argument: Sedevacantists have left the Church.

Flip-side: The Vatican 2 religion left Catholicism.

 

12. Argument: Sedevacantists reject Vatican I’s teaching on perpetual succession after Peter until the end of time.

Flip-side: The Vatican 2 popes reject Vatican I’s teaching: a). to reject and condemn [all] the errors contrary to Catholicism. b.)  that the “meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding. May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding.”

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2019/01/vatican-fraud-exposed-sworn-declaration.html

 

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 »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »