Edit: on the novelty of sedevacantism from John Salza and Brother Andre at the SBC.
"Sedevacantists often fancy themselves as great canonists."
The topic is True or False Pope. My guest is Mr. John Salza, attorney and Catholic apologist, who co-authored, with Mr. Robert Siscoe, a new book on the subject, True or False Pope? For more please visit https://reconquest.net/
44 comments:
John Salza has still not acknowledged the issue or discussed it.
The basic error of the traditionalists and sedevacantists in the interpretation of Vatican Council II : the reason many have chosen sedevacantism is not being discussed
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/01/the-basic-error-of-traditionalists-and.html
There being exceptions is the irrational reasoning used to interpret Vatican Council II by John Vennari, Chris Ferrara, John Salza and Louie Verrecchio
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/there-being-exceptions-is-irrational.html
So if 'the Church' says that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma then where are these people who belong to the soul or body of the Church in 2014? Where are they? What are their names and surnames?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/so-if-church-says-that-baptism-of.html
_________________________
SSPX is wasting time
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/05/sspx-is-wasting-time.html
Baptism of desire is NOT an "exception". If a person makes an act of perfect contrition they are restored to the state of sanctifying grace before they go to Confession, which they must receive at the first opportunity.
In the same manner, Baptism of desire gives a person who has reached the age of reason the grace of justification before they receive Baptism (again, which must be received at the first opportunity).
Btw, have you actually READ True or False Pope by Salza and Siscoe? If not, then I strongly suggest that you do so before you criticize them.
(FYI: Yes, I have the book and am reading it.)
Margaret
With all due respect, since it is true that in order to remain in communion with The Body of Christ, a Faithful Catholic must believe that which every Catholic must believe with Divine and Catholic Faith, and it is true it is not possible for the Faithful to promote and condone same-sex sexual acts and remain in communion with The Body of Christ, why would you think it is not possible for a Faithful Catholic to discern that which a Catholic, which includes Faithful Popes, must believe with Divine and Catholic Faith? Are you suggesting it is possible to fool Faithful Catholics? How can a Catholic who is Faithful, and thus believes everything a Catholic must believe with Divine and Catholic Faith no longer believe that which a Catholic must believe with Divine and Catholic Faith, remain a Faithful Catholic.
Page 117, of the pope's book, On Heaven and Earth, in regards to same-sex unions
“If there is a union of a PRIVATE NATURE, THERE IS NEITHER A THIRD PARTY NOR IS SOCIETY AFFECTED. Now, if this union is given the category of marriage and they are given adoption rights, there could be children affected. Every person needs a male father and female mother that can help them shape their identity. - Jorge Mario Bergoglio
Approval of same-sex sexual unions is approval of same-sex sexual acts.
In other words how can anyone, including a Pope, be in communion with The Body of Christ if he/she promotes and condones same sex sexual relationships and same sex sexual acts? It is not possible.
Did you bother to listen?
I will listen, but no one, including a validly elected Pope, can change The Word of God, Who Was In The Beginning, Is Now, and Forever Will Be.
Sedevacantism is the work of individual pride, judgement and a lack of Faith. Vengeance is mine, says the Lord.
Trent on Justification
The Council of Trent, in dealing with the topic of the Causes of Justification, taught (Session VI, Chapter 7):
In What the Justification of the Sinner Consists, and What are its Causes:
“Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God Who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the Holy Ghost of promise, Who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, Who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith He loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified; lastly, the alone formal cause is the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby He maketh us just, that, to wit, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us, each one according to His own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one's proper disposition and co-operation. For, although no one can be just, but he to whom the merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet is this done in the said justification of the impious, when by the merit of that same most holy Passion, the charity of God is poured forth, by the Holy Ghost, in the hearts of those that are justified, and is inherent therein: whence, man, through Jesus Christ, in Whom he is engrafted, receives, in the said justification, together with the remission of sins, all these (gifts) infused at once, faith, hope, and charity. For faith, unless hope and charity be added thereto, neither unites man perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of His body.”
The text of Trent speaks, when teaching on Justification’s efficient cause, of “washing, signing, anointing”; all of which are found in the administration of the Sacrament of Baptism. These are external actions, carried out by the priest in the ceremonies of Baptism. There is no mention by Trent that one can “desire washing, signing, and anointing” and be justified.
This text also designates as THE instrumental cause of justification the Sacrament of Baptism - not a "desire" to receive it. Therefore, the reception of the Sacrament of Baptism, which is the “Sacrament of Faith”, is the ONLY instrumental means by which man was ever justified. Therefore, there is no justification without the reception of the Sacrament of Baptism, which is administered with water.
Diamond Brothers are hipocrits. They go to an Eastern rite Catholic church that is in communion with Pope Francis.
Also Baptism of Disire is de fide according to St. Alphonsus. It was taught in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, the Baltamore Catechism, St. Plus X's catechism, many many Fathers, saints and even Popes. Furthermore, I have never seen a saint EXPLICITLY and CLEARLY condemn Baptism of Desire. I have seen some quotes from saints which supposedly "contradicted" Baptism of Desire, but then I reserched and found in their other writings that they explicitly said Baptism of Desire was true.
http://www.dailycatholic.org/cumexapo.htm
I especially like the part about resisting a Pope when he errors on the faith......
There are many parts in the writings of the Doctors of the Church where they are not inline with the Dogmatic Teachings of the Church. Just consider, for one, St. Thomas Aquinas on the Immaculate Conception. That does not mean, however, that we disregard everything that St. Thomas wrote. We do, however, ignore his opinion on the Immaculate Conception because it WAS AN ERROR. And there are six other Doctors of the Church who also did not believe in the Immaculate Conception: St. Bernard of Clairvaux, St. Bonaventure, St. Peter Damian, St. Albert the Great, St. Anselm of Canterbury, and St. John Damascene.
The "Three Baptism" defenders’ canonization of everything that a Doctor of the Church has written is not what the Church teaches. Pius XII's address to the Gregorian University on 17 October 1953 states:
"The Church has never accepted even the most holy and most eminent Doctor, and does not now accept even a single one of them, as the principal source of truth. Certainly, the Church considers Thomas and Augustine great Doctors, and accords them the highest praise, but the Church recognizes infallibility only in the inspired authors of the Sacred Scriptures. By divine mandate the interpreter and guardian of the Scriptures, and the depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation: She alone, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Ghost, is the source of truth."
Sedevacantism is the only belief system that makes any sense to me. I have listened to the arguments both for and against.
What we are all united on is resisting the errors of Vatican 2 and the pope or pope imposter who promulgates its errors (or in the case of the current "papacy", adds to the errors of Vat 2).
Seattle kim
About the Dimon Bros attending an Eastern rite Catholic church:
A lot of sedevacantists attend Eastern rite Catholic Churches when there is no independent chapel is in their proximity. The Eastern rites of ordination, bishop consecration and Mass---were untouched by Vat 2 and are therefore considered to be most certainly valid. However this may change as Francis has ordered a progressive Novus Ordo bishop to overhaul their rites. The good thing is that Eastern rite clergy are very resistant to such changes.
I have also met sedevacantists who attend SSPX chapels and FSSP churches.
Those who attend FSSP Masses makes less sense to me as FSSP priests are ordained in the new dubious ordination rite by bishops consecrated in a new and dubious consecration rite.
As to the SSPX, they used to conditionally ordain Novus Ordo priests who came into their order, but they do not do this routinely anymore. Therefore most sedevacantists would want to inquire about the ordination background of an SSPX priest before receiving the sacraments from him.
Seattle Kim
Make it up as you go along. Playing church is fun.
If it were unprecedented, like Sedevacantism is, you might have a point about when the Pope "errors in faith." [sic]
It is absolutely possible to be a sedevacantist and remain Cathlolic.
I would question Salza and Siscoe's motivation for writing this book.
I wonder if Salza truly gave up his freeemasonic ties (he was a very high level mason). He says he did and I would like to believe that. But speaking out so vociferously against those of us who remain loyal to the Church and all of her teachings and popes before Vatican 2 makes me wonder sometimes if Salza isn't being used as a freemasonic puppet to keep us all bound to a freemasonic hierarchy and "pope." Could he be a tool by which Alta Vendita is achieved? This is a scary thought but one that should be considered.
Seattle Kim
I guess when you are assailed by logic and evidence, you can always resort to accusing someone of having unspecified, and probabaly nefarious, motivations.
It's so much easier to dredge up some dreck than to actually address the evidence, isn't it?
The "dreck" is fact. Salza was a 32nd degree mason. The question remains---did Salza convert or infiltrate? Only God knows for sure.
Seattle Kim
You probably know more about infiltration than he does.
Clearly a pope, who denies The Deposit of Faith, would expose himself to be anti Pope, and thus could not possibly be infallible in regards to Faith and morals.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm
34
* s "but one soldier thrust his lance into his side, and immediately blood and water flowed out."
Condoning and promoting same-sex sexual relationships, and thus same-sex sexual acts, as long as they do not include children and are not called marriage, is formal heresy. It is one thing to sin and desire to repent, serve our Penance, and be reconciled to God, it is another thing to deny that sin is sin.
Man is not an end in himself, nor is man a means to an end; man was created for communion with God, Who Willed us worthy of Salvation.
I was a convert from Protesrantism to the Novus Ordo in 2003. For several years after that I was a speaker for Project Rachel in many Novus Ordo churches and once on EWTN. I always quoted JP2's "A word to women who have had abortions."
All was fine for me until Bergoglio was elected. I kept hearing traditional Catholics say he was the logical result of Vat 2. I admit I was ignorant of Vat 2 or of the many documents that preceded and contradicted it. And so I began to read...... it was a frightening and eye opening adventure.
I sojourned through FSSP, then SSPX but in the end--only sedevacantism made any sense of the whole situation. So I now attend an independent chapel. I am fortunate to have one within an hour's drive.
An interesting side note---in Germany sedevacantist priests are jailed for 2-4 years.
Seattle Kim
I am wondering who is responsible for precluding the SSPX from being allowed to administer at various parishes as the FSSP have been permitted to do.
http://www.usccb.org/about/leadership/appointing-bishops.cfm
I support jailing sede priests.
"I support jailing sede priests."
Quelle surprise.
Seattle kim
Baptism of desire is NOT an "exception".
Lionel: The Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbshop of Boston(1949) considers it an exception. This is accepted by John Salza and the SSPX.
I reject the second part of the Letter(1949) since hypothetical cases could not be an exception to the traditional Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
__________________________
If a person makes an act of perfect contrition they are restored to the state of sanctifying grace before they go to Confession, which they must receive at the first opportunity.
Lionel: Yes.
However this has nothing to do with the dogma EENS unless you consider it an explicit case and an exception to EENS.
_____________________
In the same manner, Baptism of desire gives a person who has reached the age of reason the grace of justification before they receive Baptism (again, which must be received at the first opportunity).
Lionel: O.K but this is a hypothetical case. You personally do not know any one as such. So it is not relevant to EENS.
For John Salza the baptism of desire is relevant to EENs. This was the concept with which he wrote this book.
Even for the sedevantists the baptism of desire is relevant and an exception to EENS.So Vatican Council II emerges as a break with EENS and the rest of Tradition.
__________________________
Btw, have you actually READ True or False Pope by Salza and Siscoe? If not, then I strongly suggest that you do so before you criticize them.
Lionel: I strongly suggest Salza and Ciscoe clarify this issue even though it would put them at odds with the SSPX.
Even before John Salza wrote this book I was in communication with him via e-mails. He ignored it all.
I am not going to read this book even if I had it before me, it is based on a irrational premise and conclusion. Without this irrationality the sedevacantists have no reason to reject Vatican Council II and go into sedevacantism.
Who is going to tell them this? Not Salza and Ciscoe.
______________________
This text also designates as THE instrumental cause of justification the Sacrament of Baptism - not a "desire" to receive it. Therefore, the reception of the Sacrament of Baptism, which is the “Sacrament of Faith”, is the ONLY instrumental means by which man was ever justified. Therefore, there is no justification without the reception of the Sacrament of Baptism, which is administered with water.
Lionel:
Donnacha, I agree with you.
However would you also agree that there are NO objective cases of the baptism of desire in the present times or in the past?
So the baptism of desire is not relevant to EENS. The Letter of the Holy Office made an objective mistake and the same irrational conclusion was placed in Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) ?
Why does Vatican Council II have to mention being saved in invincible ignorance and implicit desire(AG 7, LG 14) with reference to all needing faith and baptism for salvation(AG 7, LG 14)? It was a mistake. The Council Fathers assumed these cases were relevant and exceptions to EENS, so they included this error in the text of Vatican Council II.-Lionel Andrades
"I support jailing sede priests."
Why would it not be Loving and Merciful to refute modern errors rather than supporting jailing sede priests?
Also Baptism of Disire is de fide according to St. Alphonsus.
Lionel: He did not say that it was explicit or relevant to EENS. The U.S liberal theologians made it relevant.Then it was accepted by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre So the traditionalists support the liberals on this issue.
________________________
It was taught in the Catechism of the Council of Trent,
Lionel:
The Catechism of Trent only mentions 'the desirethereof'.It does not state that it is objectively known, and so is an exception to EENs. This was the mistake made by Rome and Boston in 1949.
_____________________________
the Baltamore Catechism,
Lionel: The Baltimore Catechism made a mistake by calling 'the desirethereof' a baptism and then placing the new baptism in the Baptism Section of the Baltimore Catechism.There are no known cases of the baptism of desire.We cannot give someone this baptism or repeat the baptism of desire as we can with the baptism of water. We cannot see the baptism of desire as we can see the baptism of water being administered. So objectively we cannot compare the baptism of desire with the baptism of water and it should not have been placed in the section on Baptism.
_______________________
St. Plus X's catechism,
Lionel: The Baltimore Catechism error was repeated in the Catechism of St. Pius X.
It was used as a precedent in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case.It is now the official error of the magisterium.No one has corrected.
__________________
many many Fathers, saints and even Popes.
Lionel: St. Thomas Aquinas held the traditional interpretation of EENS and mentioned the man in the forest, in invincible ignorance, to whom God would send a preacher, since he was to be saved.
The liberal theologians project this man in the forest is an explicit case, personally known, and so it is an exception to EENS.So Aquinas would contradict himself. This was the reasoning of the Letter (1949).
_____________________
Furthermore, I have never seen a saint EXPLICITLY and CLEARLY condemn Baptism of Desire.
Lionel: None of them have said that the baptism of desire is explicit and not implicit, visible and not invisible.You assume they say the opposite ?
_______________________
I have seen some quotes from saints which supposedly "contradicted" Baptism of Desire, but then I reserched and found in their other writings that they explicitly said Baptism of Desire was true.
Lionel:
Implicit for us baptism of desire does not contradict the dogma EENS.
Explicit for us baptism of desire would contradicit EENS.
But how can there be an explicit for us baptism of desire ? If someone was saved with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water,he or she would be Heaven. So how could any one on earth know about this baptism ?.
Then who among us can say that a particular person can be saved with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water? No one.
_______________________
Clearly a pope, who denies The Deposit of Faith, would expose himself to be anti Pope, and thus could not possibly be infallible in regards to Faith and morals.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm
Lionel:
N.D,
Even traditionalists and sedevantists are denying the Deposit of Faith when they deny the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus by assuming there are known exceptions. This was the mistake of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
They are also changed the Nicene Creed by assuming there are three known baptisms instead of one.
They also wrongly interpret Vatican Council II with an irrational premise to reach a non traditional and heretical conclusion.
I do not interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the Feeneyite interpretation of EENs. So there is no change in the Deposit of the Faith as it is therefor the two popes and also the traditionalists and sedevantists.
Oh yeah, I'm a Yankee Doodle Dandy.
Hot tip for you tancred: Salza has declared that Fatima isn't a private revelation. Maybe SSPX and/or Gruner's Fatima Center (who inherited the millions there--SSPX?) will pay your way if you promise to push the book!
http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/34c75b313290d866ffe916221d375c13-593.html
When Salza speaks, Tancred listens!!!!!
Baptism of Desire is not an exception to EENS because the person comes into the Catholic Church in an extrodenary way.
No Saint or notable theologian has said that Baptism of Desire was a false doctrine.
The Tradition Fathers' response to Fatima being called a "public" revelation:
http://catholicendtimetruths.com/traditio-explains-fatimas-status/27/05/2016
Seattle Kim
Baptism of Desire is not an exception to EENS because the person comes into the Catholic Church in an extrodenary way.
Lionel:
For the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston (1949) relative to Fr.Leonard Feeney it was an exception to EENS. So Fr.Leonard Feeney was criticised, slandered and condemned.
For Fr.Karl Rahner the Letter was an exception to the traditional interpretation of EENS.
John Salza affirms the Letter of the Holy Office.
Church Militant TV's Christine Niles did a good Mic'd Up program on EENS but she affirmed the Letter of the Holy Office.
Cardinal Raztinger references the Letter of the Holy Office in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
The official website of the SSPX condemns Feeneyism and supports the Letter of the Holy Office.
Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston placed restrictions on Fr. Leonard Feneey and supported the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
The Letter says there are exceptions.So if there are exceptions, it is inferred, there are known cases, physically visible on earth, who are saved or will be saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.Otherwise how can there be exceptions ? If there are no known cases how can the baptism of desire be relevant to EEN?
______________________________
No Saint or notable theologian has said that Baptism of Desire was a false doctrine.
Lionel:
No Saint has said that the baptism of desire is explicit and so is an exception to EENS or even relevant to EENs.
Instead liberal theologians, like the Jesuit rector at Boston College at the time of Fr. Leonard Feeney, interpreted the baptism of desire ( of the Baltimore Catechism) as being an exception to EENS and so inferred it is explicit. The Jesuits priests then suggested that these cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, referred to visible and objectively known persons on earth.
It was with this false reasoning, bad philosophy that they created a new theology.
Salza and Ciscoe accept it.This is also accepted by John Vennari and Cornelia Ferrara, with whom John Salza gave an interview at a conference.SSPX bishops and priests use this irrational philosophy and teach it at their seminaries.
This is the reasoning of FSSP priests.
-Lionel Andrades
Tancred: Do you support jailing sodomite priests who use the priesthood to live lives of sin on 'the faithful's' dime? How about priests who preach error and shepherd souls to hell like those 'true popes' of yours? The papacy is not a secular institution. It is an institution of Jesus Christ (like marriage). Someone who is not a member of the Body of Christ cannot be the head of that body on earth. When you support jailing sede priests (aka John the Baptist) you've tripped over the line you probably didn't even know was there and started down the road to crucify Jesus Christ. Hope you wake up before you come to that.
Anonymous
Baptism of Desire is not an exception to EENS because the person comes into the Catholic Church in an extrodenary way.
Lionel:
If your are referring to a hypothetical case then it is not an exception to EENS.
If you are referring to an explicit case, saved without the baptism of water, then it is an exception to EENS.
For me there are no exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS. Also for you? Does Bishop Sanborn and Fr.Cekada accept EENS according to the 16th centuries missionaries? Or is the baptism of desire relevant to EENS for them? What about the SSPX and the FSSP? Do you think that they support EENS with no baptism of desire as an exception? What about John Salza?
________________________
No Saint or notable theologian has said that Baptism of Desire was a false doctrine.
Lionel:
No it was not a false doctrine since for them the baptism of desire was hypothetical. So it was not relevant or an exception to the traditional teaching on EENS.
____________________
Telling it like it is : what I believe
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/telling-it-like-it-is-what-i-believe.html
Baptism of Desire can either be explicit or an implicit disire. It is explicit in the case of a catechumin who dies before receiving the sacrament. St. Ambrose said that a catechumen he knew was martyred without water Baptism, yet he was saved by Baptism of Desire. I can give other examples. And modernists have a false understanding of this doctrine so don't compare them with the sspx. Again, I have never seen a quote from any Saint say that Baptism of Desire is a false doctrine.
Ps 1917 code of Canon law says unbaptized/martyred catechumens can get a Catholic berial.
Pure speculation, and Ambrose never says Valens wasn't baptized.
It's "catechumen".
Baptism of Desire can either be explicit or an implicit desire.
Lionel:
How can it be explicit for us ?
__________________
It is explicit in the case of a catechumin who dies before receiving the sacrament.
Lionel:
How could it be explicit? It can only be explicit for God.
______________________
St. Ambrose said that a catechumen he knew was martyred without water Baptism, yet he was saved by Baptism of Desire.
Lionel:
How could he know this? This could only be known to God.
He could speculate and hope with good will.
_____________________
I can give other examples. And modernists have a false understanding of this doctrine so don't compare them with the sspx. Again, I have never seen a quote from any Saint say that Baptism of Desire is a false doctrine.
Lionel:
It only becomes a false doctrine if it assumed that the baptism of desire is not hypothetical for us but is explicit.
If it confused as being objective, then it is false.
This is exactly what the liberal theologians did. They re intepreted the hypothetical case of the catechumen as being explicit for us human beings.Then they speculated that this case was an explicit exception to EENS.
This was the mistake made by the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and it was accepted by Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops. Even Bishop Sanborn, the sedevantist bishop has also accepted it.This error is being taught by Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Cekada at the sedevacantist Most Holy Family seminary in Florida, USA.
Ps 1917 code of Canon law says unbaptized/martyred catechumens can get a Catholic berial.
Lionel:
How would they know of a case of an unbaptised/martyred catechumen?
-Lionel Andrades
p.s I agree with Tancred.
The evidence is clear, the man who has been elected pope, who prior to his election, condoned certain same sex sexual unions, as long as they do not include children and are not called marriage is not in communion with Christ and His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. It is not possible to condone the engaging in or affirmation of same-sex sexual acts, which deny the Sanctity of the marital act, and remain in communion with Christ and His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. A Pope must be in communion with Christ and His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, in order for his election to be valid. Based upon this evidence alone, the election of Jorge Bergoglio cannot possibly be valid.
Post a Comment