John Salza Has No Idea What He’s Talking About

Bro. Peter Dimond

-Exposing his errors, heresies, lies, distortions and shocking contradictions on literally every single page-

The individual who is addressed in this article is not overwhelmingly significant.  However, this article is important because in refuting and exposing the false arguments he puts forward, the true position on the Church in these days is illuminated, and the frightening darkness that envelops those who resist it is identified.

My previous article (John Salza's Arguments Against Sedevacantism Crushed) refuted, in careful detail, John Salza’s arguments.  My video and the accompanying article on John Salza's Lies, Errors and Dishonesty prove that Salza backed out of a live debate with me after pretending like he wanted to engage in one.  I expose how the coward concocted an elaborate plan to propose an unreasonable live debate, in the hope that I would refuse it, only to back out after I accepted.  This disgraceful and dishonest activity reveals the dark character of Mr. Salza.  Of course, he reneged on his acceptance of a live debate because he knows he cannot defend his positions in such a debate.  My video and article on Salza’s dishonesty also make public our recent e-mail exchanges.  These e-mails reveal his appalling lack of integrity, as well as his outrageous and defamatory lies on numerous matters.

In a desperate attempt to put his pulverized arguments back to pieces, John Salza has come up with a staggering new assortment of errors, contradictions, half-truths and (as usual) lies.  I will go through his recent article, page by page, and I will expose them.  What we will see is both shocking and appalling.  I will show that John Salza – a man who currently teaches that Eastern “Orthodoxy” is part of the universal Church, even though it rejects the Papacy, papal infallibility and Vatican I – is as diabolical now as he was when he functioned as a 32nd degree Freemason and swore an oath to Allah on the Koran.

In the article which you are now reading, I painstakingly examine an article that Salza recently authored in response to my refutation of him.  I expose the errors, heresies, lies and contradictions that can be found on literally every single page of Salza’s response.  Beginning on page 1 and going all the way to page 31 (the end of his article), I examine the gory details in a hopefully not-too-uninteresting fashion.  Before we begin, however, let’s jump to page 5 of his article.  It contains one of the most important points.

P. 5- SALZA’S MONUMENTAL CHANGE OF POSITION IN HIS NEW ARTICLE

Salza not only contradicts himself on core issues in his first article (“The Errors of Sedevacantism and Ecclesiastical Law”), but he also contradicts himself on many things in his second article (his response to me).  In fact, as I will now show, he also contradicts what he said in his first article with what he said in his second article.

That means we have three layers of contradictions laid by Salza’s erroneous writing on the sedevacantist issue: 1) contradictions within the first article; 2) contradictions within the second article; and 3) contradictions between what he said in the first article and what he said in the second article.   Let’s consider #3 right now: contradictions between his first article and his second article.

SALZA’S FIRST ARTICLE DECLARED THAT CATHOLICS NEED A DECLARATION TO CONSIDER ANY PROFESSING “CATHOLIC” OR CLERIC A HERETIC

HIS SECOND ARTICLE REJECTS THAT POSITION (AFTER I REFUTED IT), AND NOW HE APPLIES HIS FALSE PRINCIPLE ONLY TO A “POPE”!

In Salza’s first article, he argued that the key error of the sedevacantists is failing to recognize a distinction.  He distinguished between 1) the fact that a heretic ceases to be a member of the Church and vacates his office without declaration; and 2) the fact that Catholics supposedly cannot know who is a heretic “until the Church tells us.”  The left column reflects his first article, and the right column his second.  Notice (in the left column) that he applied his false argument, that we need the Church’s judgment to consider someone a heretic, to all professing Catholics and to clerics in general, not only to a pope.

Then notice (in the right column) how he changes his position and even lies about having ever taught it.

In his first article (left column), he clearly teaches that a declaration from the Church is necessary to consider someone a heretic; and he argues that this principle applies to “a cleric” (not just a pope) and even to “another Catholic’s orthodoxy.”  That means that he was applying his false principle to all who professed to be Catholics.  He was arguing that you cannot consider any “Catholic” a heretic until “the Church tells us.”  In my article (John Salza’s Arguments Against Sedevacantism Crushed) I completely refuted his false argument, and that’s why Salza abandoned it in his second.  He now argues (right column) that you can recognize a professing “Catholic” as a heretic without a declaration from the Church, and he even dishonestly says he never taught otherwise.

Anyone can see that Salza’s statement is false and dishonest.  He clearly taught that Catholics cannot recognize another “Catholic” as a heretic “until the Church tells us.”  The fact that Salza is changing his position (again) and lying about it should make it clear to anyone that his position is false and indefensible.

PP. 5-6- SALZA’S NEW POSITION CAUSES HIM EVEN MORE HERETICAL PROBLEMS

Salza’s new position is that while Catholics can recognize some people as formal heretics without the Church’s declaration, in the case of a pope a declaration is always required.  This opens up a whole new can of worms for his position because the canons he consistently cites and misuses don’t specify that they apply exclusively to a pope.  Even more importantly, in making his false argument that a claimant to the papal office must be declared a heretic before anyone could consider him one, Salza violates the dogmatic principle that a pope and the First See cannot be judged.  As I will show, there are literally dozens of errors, lies and contradictions in Salza’s second article, but this error might be the most important.

THE PRINCIPLE THAT A POPE AND THE FIRST SEE CANNOT BE JUDGED BURIES SALZA’S NEW ARTICLE AND HIS WHOLE NEW LINE OF ARGUMENTATION

The principle that a pope and the First See cannot be judged is bound up with Catholic teaching on the primacy.  It was articulated from the earliest days of the Church.  Essentially, it means that since the pope is the leader of the Church with universal primacy and jurisdiction, no cleric, bishop or Catholic can depose the pope or SUBJECT THE POPE TO A CANONICAL TRIAL.  While a pope can summon a lower cleric (such as a bishop, cardinal or priest) to a trial for heresy, no one can do the same to a pope; for there is no authority on Earth higher than a reigning pope.

Pope St. Nicholas, epistle (8), Proposueramus quidem, 865: “… Neither by Augustus, nor by all the clergy, nor by religious, not by the people will the judge be judged… ‘The first seat will not be judged by anyone.’” (Denz. 330)

Pope St. Leo IX, In terra pax hominibus, Sept. 2, 1053, Chap. 11: “By passing judgment on the great See, concerning which it is not permitted any man to pass judgment, you have received anathema from all the Fathers of the venerable Councils…” (Denz. 352)

Pope St. Leo IX, In terra pax hominibus, Sept. 2, 1053, Chap. 32: “… As the hinge while remaining immoveable opens and closes the door, so Peter and his successors have free judgment over all the Church, since no one should remove their status because ‘the highest See is judged by no one.’” (Denz. 353)

Canon 1556, 1917 Code of Canon Law, On trials in general: “The First See is judged by no one.”

Nevertheless, throughout his second article, John Salza argues that the pope not only can be judged to be a heretic by an official declaration, but that such a declaration (and a preceding trial) are necessary for a Catholic to consider the pope a heretic!

John Salza, Second Article, p. 7: “Second, even if the pope were subject to canon 2200 and thus his formal heresy were presumed (which is not true), the pope would still be entitled to rebut the presumption in a canonical trial…”

John Salza, Second Article, p. 6: “Even if there were evidence of malice or disregarded warnings, the pope would be entitled to rebut such evidence as a matter of due process. That is why Dimond fixates on a Catholic’s ability to recognize heresy without the intervention of the Church (because he wants to personally judge the heresy) and also why he ignores or dismisses the canon law that requires declaratory sentences for heresy (again, because he wants to personally judge the heresy).”

He teaches that there must be a process and examination of the pope.  He even says that the pope would be entitled to rebut such evidence in a trial.  All of this reveals his flawed theology, and his heretical understanding of the issue.  The pope cannot be subjected to a trial or examination, nor can he be deposed by a declaration from any cleric, bishop, body of bishops or even a council.  In fact, the notion that a council could judge or depose a pope is the heresy of Conciliarism; yet many non-sedevacantists argue that a council must handle the matter.  (A non-sedevacantist on YouTube, whose user name begins with “September,” made a similar false argument.  Like Salza, he also refused our debate challenge.)  That’s why the loss of papal office, and the ability of Catholics to recognize it, must happen WITHOUT ANY DECLARATION; for no one can judge the pope.  Any Catholic, on the other hand, can recognize that a manifest heretic is not a pope.

Here are some more quotes in which Salza promotes his primary heresy on this matter: that a pope can be judged, subjected to a trial, and deposed.

SALZA’S FUNDAMENTAL HERESY EXPOSED – JUDGING AND DEPOSING A POPE

The sheer number of times that Salza promotes his fundamental heresy is alarming.  His entire argument revolves around this heretical position, which he vomits forth page after page.  When reading his repeated utterances of heresy on this matter, which serve to demonstrate that his position is false and his understanding of canon law fatally flawed, keep the pure Catholic truth on this matter firmly in mind: since no authority on Earth or in the Church could officially judge a reigning pope or subject him to a canonical trial or depose him, a claimant to the Papacy who demonstrates manifest heresy must be considered to have lost the office WITHOUT ANY DECLARATION, JUDGMENT OR TRIAL (BY VIRTUE OF THE DIVINE SENTENCE OF HERESY).  For that reason, one is not judging a pope when one recognizes that Benedict XVI (an obvious heretic) isn’t a Catholic.  Rather, one is simply acknowledging that a manifest heretic, who has publicly defected from the faith, is outside the Church and, as a result, devoid of any Catholic authority.

We’ve uncovered the fatal flaw of Salza’s second article.  His false theology leads him to the dead end that a declaration, preceded by a canonical trial, would have to be rendered against the pope.  He argues that only after such a trial and declaration can Catholics remove their submission to him.

SALZA’S HERETICAL WORLD, IN WHICH A POPE COULD BE SUBJECTED TO A TRIAL

In Salza’s heretical world, we could have the following ridiculous scenario.  Evidence of heresy is produced against a claimant to the papal office in Rome.  The cardinals, some of the bishops or a council call for a trial against the pope.  In response, the pope (to use Salza’s words) tries “to rebut the presumption in a canonical trial.”

John Salza, Second Article, p. 7: “Second, even if the pope were subject to canon 2200 and thus his formal heresy were presumed (which is not true), the pope would still be entitled to rebut the presumption in a canonical trial…”

During the trial, the pope vigorously maintains his innocence, and he even issues a decree on the matter.  Nevertheless, the finding of the trial is that the pope is guilty.  Catholics are therefore forced to remove their obedience from the pope, as a result of this declaration against him.  Hence, the declaration serves as a deposition.  Moreover, they are forced to reject the pope’s own authoritative decree which proclaimed his innocence.  Hence, they pass judgment on the judgment of the Apostolic See!  Of course, all of this is heretical and clearly contradicts Vatican I.

Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, Sess. 4, Chap. 3: “And since the Roman Pontiff is at the head of the universal Church by the divine right of apostolic primacy, We teach and declare also that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [cf. n.1500 ], and that in all cases pertaining to ecclesiastical examination recourse can be had to his judgment [cf. n. 466 ]; moreover, that the judgment of the Apostolic See, whose authority is not surpassed, is to be disclaimed by no one, nor is anyone permitted to pass judgment on its judgment [cf. n.330 ff.]. Therefore, they stray from the straight path of truth who affirm that it is permitted to appeal from the judgments of the Roman Pontiffs to an ecumenical Council, as to an authority higher than the Roman Pontiff.”

Since he’s a proven liar, Salza will probably either change his position on this matter (now that we’ve refuted it) or flat out deny that he taught the heresy that a pope can be subjected to canonical trial (despite the proof above).  Denying that he taught it won’t get him anywhere, however, for his heretical position (that a pope can and must be judged, subjected to a trial and even de facto deposed by a declaration) is the core of his argument.  It’s mentioned throughout his heretical article.  That having been established, let’s return to the beginning of his article and consider more of his errors, lies, and contradictions.

PAGE 1- HIS FALSE ARGUMENT REQUIRING A DECLARATION AGAINST A POPE

John Salza, Second Article, p. 1: “… I demonstrate that canon law requires a declaration of formal heresy against a pope because it is for the common good of the Church (unless it was definitively proven that the pope’s heresy was morally imputable).”

Salza claims he has demonstrated that canon law requires a declaration of heresy against a pope for a Catholic to be able to reject him as a non-pope.  As we just saw, Salza’s position is not only wrong, but it’s schismatic.  No one can issue a formal declaration of heresy against a reigning pope.  In my previous article, I also refuted Salza’s position by showing that Pope Paul IV teaches the opposite.  Paul IV declares that a claimant to the papal office, who demonstrated heresy before his election, can be recognized and rejected as a heretic without any declaration.

Pope Paul IV, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559: “… (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.

7. Finally, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We] also [enact, determine, define and decree]:- that any and all persons who would have been subject to those thus promoted or elevated if they had not previously deviated from the Faith, become heretics, incurred schism or provoked or committed any or all of these, be they members of anysoever of the following categories: (i) the clergy, secular and religious; (ii) the laity;…  shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs...”

This fact alone is sufficient to refute Salza’s entire position.  In its provision on loss of ecclesiastical office without declaration (canon 188.4), the 1917 Code of Canon Law quotes this bull for its teaching on loss of office through heresy.  This demonstrates that the Code’s teaching on loss of office without a declaration through heresy (and a Catholic’s ability to recognize it) is in accord with this bull.

P. 1 - SALZA’S ERROR AND MORTALLY SINFUL LIE CONCERNING OUR VIEW OF THE ANTICHRIST

On page 1 of his new article, Salza makes a major blunder and he tells an outrageous lie concerning our view of the Antichrist.  For the refutation of that, see the end of this article.

P. 1 – SALZA MISREPRESENTS AND LIES ABOUT OUR POSITION ON RECEIVING SACRAMENTS

John Salza, Second Article, p. 1: “… Peter and Michael do not actually practice sedevacantism in their spiritual lives (true sedevacantists would never attend a Mass with a priest who prays for and is in communion with Pope Benedict XVI), and yet they condemn non-sedevacantists for precisely what they do: worship in communion with the current pope.”

Salza spends quite a bit of time talking about our position on receiving sacraments.  He lies about our position in various ways, he misrepresents canon law (as usual), and he falsely frames the issue.  Our position on where one may receive traditional sacraments (in this unique crisis and apostasy) is explained and defended in much detail on our website, in our “Where to go to Mass” section.  I also engaged in a debate on this issue recently:  "Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics" - Debate.  Any fair-minded person who listens to it will see that our position was not only vindicated in the debate, but the position of those who oppose us on that matter was soundly refuted.

The question is, why does Salza fixate on the separate matter of where one may receive sacraments?  He does so not because he’s concerned that our position is inconsistent with Catholic teaching.  Rather, he does so because he thinks that in misrepresenting our position on that separate matter, he can win impression points.  Since his arguments were refuted in my article, he must engage in such a tactic: i.e., he must shift the focus from whether Benedict XVI is the pope to the separate issue of whether it’s permissible to receive sacraments from certain undeclared heretics who accept Benedict XVI (these two issues involve different principles).

Now, it’s simply an outrageous lie for Salza to say that we condemn non-sedevacantists for doing what we do and teach.  We most certainly do not.  We clearly teach, in accordance with Catholic teaching, that a Catholic may receive sacraments from certain undeclared heretics who are not so notorious that their heresies cannot be concealed or excused in law.  We do not condemn people for operating under such a principle in order to take advantage of sacraments from certain undeclared heretics.  We do, however, condemn people like Salza who obstinately accept as Catholic manifest heretics such as Benedict XVI.   Obviously these are two different matters.  For Salza to equate the two demonstrates the poor quality of his arguments and the dishonesty of his presentation.   I will return to this point, but let’s proceed.

P. 2 – SALZA’S OUTRAGEOUS LIE ON OUR PROPOSED DEBATE

As my article and video on his lies prove, Salza refused my challenge to do a telephone debate.  He also backed out of a face-to-face debate after saying “yes” to one.  Nevertheless, the liar published this completely false statement.

John Salza, Second Article, p. 2: “PETER DIMOND AVOIDS MY DEBATE CHALLENGE AND PROVES HE IS DISHONEST.”

His dishonesty is staggering.  What’s so interesting about this is that he published his false statement approximately one day before we posted our video and article which contained the actual e-mail exchanges and thus exposed his lies.  In other words, when Salza published this lie, he didn’t know that we were going to blow the cover off his false story.  He probably hoped we would ignore the issue because the e-mail exchanges discussed our lawsuit.  He figured that we didn’t want to talk about the lawsuit publicly, and therefore he could get away with telling his false version of events.

However, once we published the actual e-mail exchanges, and exposed what really happened, his story fell to pieces.  Anyone who reads our actual e-mail exchanges can see that he backed out after having agreed to a face-to-face debate.  The e-mails prove that our insight about his intention was correct: he concocted a plan to save-face, according to which he would propose a face-to-face debate with unreasonable conditions, in the hope that I would refuse it, so that he could publish that I said “no.”  His plan failed because I said “yes” to his proposal, and that forced him to back out because he knew he’d be embarrassed in a debate.  Read our article on his lies to see the full extent of his shocking dishonesty.

P. 3 – SALZA’S DEFAMATION AND OUTRAGEOUS LIE CONCERNING OUR DEBATES

John Salza, Second Article, p. 3: “Dimond would rather hide behind his telephone, use his scatter-gun approach, narrow the scope of questioning, limit his opponents’ presentation to two minutes at a time, avoid extensive cross-examination about his extreme positions, and even edit out the content of his opponents’ arguments that he personally records before he boldly posts them on his website and claims victory (just ask William Albrecht who can show that Dimond removed almost 35 minutes of William’s argumentation against sedevacantism before posting the debate on his site). This is outrageous, and why the more experienced Catholic apologists no longer bother with the Dimond brothers. They have proven to be men of bad will.”

This is an abominable lie, as I informed Salza before he published this defamatory statement.  He has no proof for it, as it is 100% false (like many other things he says), as I exposed in my video and article about his lies.  In fact, William Albrecht (who is also a total liar) never once even complained to us about our debates having been edited, for they were not.  Yet, Salza published this lie anyway because he’s not concerned about the truth.  He’s only concerned with attempting to blacken our reputations.  He figures that since he’s a lawyer, and we publicly humiliated him by refuting his arguments, he’s just going to circulate lie after lie about us and not worry about the consequences.  He’s truly a disgraceful man.   No wonder he rose through the ranks of Freemasonry with all of its dirty oaths.  We have noticed a similar pattern with others who don’t like us.  They feel it’s justified to simply make things up about us because, in their false view, we are not doing the work of God.   Truth, or basic Catholic teaching against bearing false witness, does not matter to them.

Also notice that Salza says, “They [the Dimonds] have proven to be men of bad will.”  This is interesting in so far as it contradicts his position that Catholics cannot condemn as malicious the intentions of people based on their actions.  He advances that idea later in the article, but he contradicts it here.  In fact, he contradicts himself on this point on the very next page.

P. 4 – SALZA CONTRADICTS HIMSELF ON JUDGING THE INTENTIONS OF OTHERS

On page 3, Salza declared: “… the Dimond brothers. They have proven to be men of bad will.”  He incorrectly judges, but judges nonetheless, our internal motivations.  Yet, here’s what he says on the very next page – the very next paragraph, in fact!!!

John Salza, Second Article, p. 4: “In his rebuttal, Dimond also accuses my apologetics work as being motivated by the “human respect” I gain from the “false, traditionalist circles” in which I run, even though Dimond knows nothing about me… Note also how Peter Dimond is able to judge the internal motivations and dispositions of his opponents with whom he has no personal relationships whatsoever. That should be no surprise, however. If the Dimond brothers can judge the internal dispositions of the conciliar popes and declare them formal heretics, then surely they can judge my motivations as well (and be just as wrong in their conclusions).”

SALZA CONTRADICTING HIMSELF, WITHIN TWO PARAGRAPHS, ON JUDGING

He condemns us, on page 4, for judging his internal motivations based on his actions; yet on page 3 he did that very thing when he (wrongly) judged our wills and motives as “bad.”  Suffice it to say, he contradicts himself; but again, that’s standard in the confused and erroneous writings of Mr. Salza on these issues.  That’s because his position is false and his arguments are wrong.  It’s also more substantial evidence that he is under the control of the Devil.  Only a diabolical spirit could spin such a web of contradictions, as we will continue to see.

P. 4- SALZA’S MISLEADING STATEMENT ON THE QUESTION OF PAPAL HERESY

John Salza, Second Article, p. 4: “Because the crisis in the Church is so grave and the words and actions of the conciliar popes have been so scandalous, sedevacantists obsess with finding a clear answer to the dilemma of whether these popes are formal heretics.  But there isn’t a dogmatic answer to the question (which is why the question is hotly debated). This is obvious to anyone who has studied the theological opinions of whether a pope can fall into heresy and how that heresy is determined. There are five major opinions on the question of a pope’s heresy that have been debated for centuries among the Church’s most revered theologians (Bellarmine, Suarez, Cajetan, Billot, Buoix, Torqemada, Cano, Pighi, etc.) They all had different opinions; there is no true consensus among them.  The Dimond brothers are surely aware of these varied theological opinions.”

This statement is misleading.  That’s because while there have been various opinions about whether God would allow the Church to be confronted with a heretical pope, there is no disagreement among sainted theologians and doctors of the Church that a manifest heretic would automatically cease to be the pope.  This matter came up in a telephone conversation/debate I had with an independent non-sedevacantist priest (who is also strangely married) named Fr. Ronald Brown.  I asked Brown if I could record the call, but he refused.  It’s a shame because the conversation again highlighted the utter falsity of non-sedevacantists’ arguments.

In the conversation, Brown made the same argument that Salza puts forward in this paragraph.  He stated that St. Robert Bellarmine gave five different opinions on the question of a heretical pope.  Non-sedevacantists often attempt to obscure the issue in this way.  In response, I pointed out that while Bellarmine discussed opinions about whether God would allow a pope to become a heretic, that’s beside the point because he had no doubt that if you were confronted with a man who is a manifest heretic, that man could not be considered a pope.  We are not aware of any sainted theologian who contradicted the position that a manifest heretic would automatically cease to be pope.  Even if one did, the position would still be dogmatic and certain.  That’s because, contrary to what Salza says, it is a settled question.

The Council of Florence defined dogmatically that heretics are not members of the Church (1441, “Cantate Domino,” Denz. 714), and Vatican I defined dogmatically that a pope is the “head” of the Catholic Church.  It is therefore a dogmatic fact that a heretic cannot be pope, since one cannot be the head of what he is not a member.  This position is also taught magisterially by Pope Leo XIII.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896: “No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.”

As we see, it’s “absurd” to believe that a heretic (i.e., one who is outside) can command as pope.  In my previous article, I cited Leo XIII on this point, when I refuted Salza’s false statement that: “even if Sedevacantists argue, for example, that Cardinal Ratzinger was self-expelled before his papal election for heresy (often pointing to some of his controversial writings as a private theologian), the Sedevacantists are still subject to his jurisdiction as Pope, which is both valid and licit under the Church’s ecclesiastical law.”  I refuted Salza not only by quoting Leo, but also by proving that Salza refutes himself in the first part of his first article, when he admits that heretical clerics would vacate their offices without declaration.

P. 6 – SALZA’S REVEALING ERROR ON CANON 2223.4

John Salza, Second Article, p. 6: “If there is no proof of formal heresy (because widely-known malice or pertinacity has not been proven), then a declaratory sentence of heresy is required if it is for the “common good” of the Church (canon 2223.4). If a claimant to the papal throne is suspected of heresy, the common good of the Church would alwaysrequire a declaration of said heresy.  While this canon is one of the most critical elements of my position, Peter Dimond (as you will see) never even mentions the canon in his rebuttal of my article!”

Salza complains that in my refutation of his arguments, I didn’t spend time on canon 2223.4.  He thinks this fact adds something to his position.  Even though I refuted Salza’s arguments, disproved his core distinction, demonstrated that he contradicted himself on that core distinction, and specifically exposed how he misapplied canons 1557-1558, canon 1939, canon 2264, and more, Salza is upset that I didn’t spend time talking about another completely irrelevant canon: 2223.4.  As we will see, I didn’t spend time on this canon because it’s irrelevant.  Here’s the canon:

Canon 2223.4, 1917 Code of Canon Law:  “Generally the declaring of an automatic penalty is committed to the prudence of the Superior; but a declaratory sentence must be given either at the request of an interested party or when so required by the common good.”

Salza’s argument on this canon is totally wrong.  First, the canon comes in the sub-section “On the Superior having coercive power” (De Superiore potestatem coactivam habente).  Therefore, it deals with superiors issuing declaratory sentences against inferiors, if a party requests it or the common good requires it.  Who is the superior of the pope?  He doesn’t have one.

Pope St. Nicholas, epistle (8), Proposueramus quidem, 865: “… Neither by Augustus, nor by all the clergy, nor by religious, not by the people will the judge be judged… ‘The first seat will not be judged by anyone.’”

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302: “Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle: "The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man" [1 Cor 2:15].”

Could any superior issue a declaratory sentence against a pope?  No, as we covered earlier when examining Catholic teaching against judging the First See or subjecting the pope to a trial.  Fact: this canon has nothing do to with a declaratory sentence against a pope.  It cannot apply to a pope.  Nevertheless, Salza erroneously applies this canon to a pope on no fewer than ten different pages of his article!  That by itself should tell everyone how fallacious and deceptive his arguments are.   His method is similar to a Protestant, who misunderstands a passage such as Ephesians 2:8-9, and then applies the misunderstanding of that verse to every single text of Scripture that contradicts his view of justification.

But Salza’s argument on canon 2223.4 is wrong for two additional reasons.  The first is that the canon only says that a declaratory sentence is required 1) if a party requests it or 2) if the common good requires it.  Salza arbitrarily declares that since the papacy is such an important office in the Church, a declaration would always be required in the case of a pope, even though that is not stated in the canon!  He arbitrarily applies “common good” to a declaration against a pope.  What is asserted without proof falls without the need to refute it.  In fact, the truth about the “common good” is the opposite of what Salza claims.

In a time of apostasy, the “common good” would not require a declaratory sentence against a pope or any other cleric.  That’s because during an apostasy those responsible for making declaratory sentences of heresy are themselves the heretics.  As a result, the “common good” would require that Catholics have the ability to recognize defection from the faith without a declaration.  If not, the faithful would be defenseless against evil and at the mercy of heretical wolves posing as their shepherds.  So, even if the canon did apply to a pope (which it doesn’t – since no one can officially judge a pope), Salza would still be wrong.  The “common good” would not require such a declaratory sentence.

Finally, as I pointed out in my previous article: “Certainly the Code will lay down procedures for how trials are to be conducted, and how an investigation should occur in normal circumstances; but these procedures do not invalidate the principle (already taught in canon 188.4, by Paul IV and by Bellarmine) that a clearly publicly heretical cleric loses his office (and can be recognized) without any trial.  This is especially true when we consider situations in which those who would be held responsible for investigating ecclesiastical crimes are themselves the ones who have publicly defected from the faith, rendering a normal investigation procedure impracticable.  That’s precisely why the principle on loss of office without declaration has been explicated so clearly by the Church; it frees Catholics from the bondage of deceptive heretics like Salza and his fellow members of the Vatican II sect, who would have Catholics submit to, and profess a communion of faith with, a pack of non-Catholic apostates who embrace everything from pro-abortion politicians to African Animists.”

In short, the Code will obviously lay down procedures for when declaratory sentences can be given or should be given; but that does not mean that those sentences are always necessary to conclude someone has incurred an automatic excommunication for heresy.  Not only does canon 2223.4 not make such a statement, but it most certainly doesn’t apply to a pope.

P. 7 – SALZA’S SIGNIFICANT ERRORS ON PRESUMING HERESY

Salza argues, “Given the severity of the crime of heresy and its consequent punishments, the Church does not presume that an alleged heresy is “notorious” or “pertinacious.”  In accordance with the principles of justice and due process, the heresy must be proven beyond any reasonable doubt.”

Considering that we are discussing cases in which there is clear evidence of heresy, this statement is false.  It constitutes another fundamental flaw in his position.

First, his claim that the Church doesn’t presume that someone is guilty of heresy (when there is evidence of it in the external forum) is refuted by the Code of Canon law itself.

Canon 2200.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “Positing an external violation of the law, malice (dolus) is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proven.”

This canon by itself refutes Salza’s claims on this point.  Salza responds to this canon with two false assertions and one outrageous statement.

John Salza, Second Article, p. 7: “First, the pope is above positive law. The Pope legislated canon 2200.1 [sic – he means canon 2200.2] and is above it and the rest of canon law, particularly when it works against him. This is another principle that Dimond and his sedevacantist colleagues simply ignore. Second, even if the pope were subject to canon 2200 and thus his formal heresy were presumed (which is not true), the pope would still be entitled to rebut the presumption in a canonical trial…”

Let’s examine his claims in this regard.  First, he says that the pope is above canon law.  On this basis, he concludes that the principle in 2200.2 (i.e., malice is presumed) wouldn’t apply to him.  This is false.  For while it’s true that the pope is above canon law, that simply means that the pope has the power to change canon law.

Pope Benedict XIV, Magnae Nobis (#9), June 29, 1748: “The Roman Pontiff is above canon law, but any bishop is inferior to that law and consequently cannot modify it.”

Notice that the pope is above canon law in the sense that he can change it.  However, the pope is still bound to follow those laws that he approves if they contain principles that apply to all the members of the Church.  Thus, Salza’s argument is wrong.

Furthermore, when we consider the question of heresy, the principle in canon 2200.2 – i.e., that a person who violates the rule of Catholic faith in the external forum must be presumed to have rejected Church teaching – is part of the divine law.  This further refutes Salza.  Presuming that those who contradict Catholic teaching are outside the Church is a principle of Catholic Tradition.  It’s intimately connected with maintaining the unity of the Church in the external forum.  As Pope Leo XIII explains:

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, AND ALIEN TO THE CHURCH, WHOEVER WOULD RECEDE IN THE LEAST DEGREE FROM ANY POINT OF DOCTRINE PROPOSED BY HER AUTHORITATIVE MAGISTERIUM.”

As we see, the Church presumes that those who contradict the rule of Catholic faith in the external forum are guilty and outside the Church.  Contrary to the claims of Salza, the Church does not teach that we cannot consider as outside (and thus guilty) those who depart from the faith until this is certified in a trial or by an admission.

If Salza were correct (he is not), then the unity of the faith would be a fiction: Catholics would be professing a unity of faith with people who openly deny Catholic teaching.  Such a mockery of one of the Church’s marks (unity) is excluded by Catholic principles.  However, that mockery is exemplified by Salza and his Vatican II sect.  In the Vatican II sect of Salza, people maintain a “unity of faith” with pro-abortion politicians, as well as those who reject the inerrancy of Scripture (e.g., Benedict XVI).  As we can see, Salza’s feeble misapplications of canon law crumble when they encounter the unchangeable principles of the divine law.

P. 8 - SALZA ON THE VARIOUS DEFENSES TO CULPABILITY – THE LAPSI CONTROVERY IS AN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE TO REFUTE SALZA’S CLAIM

On the matter of the Church presuming malice, Salza thinks he has a great argument from canons 2199 and following.

John Salza, Second Article, p. 8: “Thus, for “notorious” heresy to exist, there can be absolutely no defense to the pope’s criminal liability. To that end, canon law (2199ff) provides seven defenses to culpability, which includes “habitual inculpable ignorance” and “actual inculpable inadvertence or error.” Given their apparent desire to please the world, it is possible that the conciliar popes have an habitual inculpable ignorance or actual inadvertence or error concerning the harm they have caused the Church by actions they thought would benefit the Church. It is certainly possible if not probable. Such defenses to moral imputability are matters of justice.”

First, the Code does not literally make reference to “habitual inculpable ignorance” or “actual inculpable inadvertence or error.”  This is a misleading combination of the Code’s statements by Salza – or rather by someone else who originally used this description.  Nevertheless, Salza is referring to a part of the Code which lists certain causes that can diminish or, in some cases, remove the imputability of a delict (a crime).

On this basis, Salza actually argues that the antipopes can be justified for their undeniable heresy and apostasy because they “desire to please the world.”  Any person with a Catholic bone in his body should be repulsed by such an argument.  Catholic sense dictates that worldly ambitions do not justify denying the faith.  Nevertheless, this claim of Salza is typical of his false arguments: it sounds good because it makes reference to canons that most people aren’t familiar with.  However, it’s pathetically weak and proven completely wrong when it is carefully analyzed.

Before I demonstrate why these excuses wouldn’t apply, let’s consider how weak they are.  In doing so, I will assume, for the sake of argument, that these excuses could be considered in reference to Benedict XVI’s apostasy.

According to canon 2199 ff., the only causes that can remove the imputability of a delict are: 1) ignorance or mistake, 2) lack of reason or insanity, 3) involuntary drunkenness, or 4) being forced into an action by the physical force of another.

So, even if we accept that these canons apply to the apostasy of Benedict XVI (which, as I will show, they do not), Salza’s argument (which sounds superficially persuasive to those who don’t love truth or don’t understand the issue) is reduced to the following:

HIS ARGUMENT SUMMARIZED: While committing literally hundreds of acts of heresy and apostasy in writing, speech and action over a period of decades, touching upon all matters of Catholic faith, Benedict XVI is, in every case: 1) unaware of the Church’s teaching or 2) without the use of reason or 3) involuntarily and completely drunk or 4) physically compelled into his statements, writings and actions by another.

Is this plausible?  No, it’s absurd and ridiculous, as any Catholic should recognize.

Let’s consider each excuse.   First, is there any evidence or proof that Benedict XVI is 1) ignorant or unaware of Church teaching when he propounds his heresies?  No.  In fact, he is one of the most learned individuals in the world.  He is thoroughly familiar with all aspects of Catholic teaching and the very papal documents he denies and contradicts.  His writings demonstrate this in abundant detail.  He frequently refers to councils, papal documents, the intricacies of theological debate, Catholic history, etc.  The claim that Ratzinger is ignorant of the matters he denies is not only false, it is outrageous.  And these points in refutation of the ignorance excuse apply equally to the related excuses of “inadvertence” or “mistake.”  Moreover, if one is a cleric, a plea for mitigation based on ignorance is dismissed.

“If the delinquent making this claim be a cleric, his plea for mitigation must be dismissed, either as untrue, or else as indicating ignorance which is affected, or at least crass and supine… His ecclesiastical training in the seminary, with its moral and dogmatic theology, its ecclesiastical history, not to mention its canon law, all insure that the Church’s attitude towards heresy was imparted to him.” (McDevitt, The Delict of Heresy, CU Canon Law Studies 77, Washington, 1932, 48.)

Thus, Salza’s first excuse gets him nowhere.

Let’s consider #2: Benedict XVI is habitually without the use of reason.  Is there any evidence that Benedict XVI habitually lacks the use of reason?  No, his writings, speeches and activity demonstrate a consistently high level of comprehension, sophistication and reason.  While he does frequently say things that are categorized as “insane” in terms of how clearly they oppose Catholic teaching, there is no evidence that he is literally insane in the clinical sense of being deprived of reason.  There is plenty of evidence, however, that he’s a heretic and evil.   This again points us back to why the Code includes that canon on presuming malice until the contrary is proven.

Canon 2200.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “Positing an external violation of the law, malice (dolus) is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proven.”

We doubt Salza would even declare that Benedict XVI is habitually insane.  That wouldn’t go over very well with the Novus Ordo groups with whom he works.  Moreover, if Salza were to make the outrageous argument that Benedict XVI has been habitually insane for decades, and suffered from his insanity in every instance of his apostasy (is not such a notion “insane”?), Salza would only further contradict his false position.  That’s because canonists teach that people who are without reason or habitually insane cannot be pope.

Caesar Badii, 1921: "c) The law now in force for the election of the Roman Pontiff is reduced to these points:.. "Barred as incapable of being validly elected are the following: women, children who have not reached the age of reason, those suffering from habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics and schismatics…”  Institutiones Iuris Canonici. Florence: Fiorentina 1921. 160, 165. His emphasis.

Vermeersch, I. Creusen, 1949: "The power of the Roman Pontiff ceases by death, free resignation (which is valid without need for any acceptance, c. 221), certain and unquestionably perpetual insanity, and notorious heresy. “ Epitome Iuris Canonici. Rome: Dessain 1949. 340.

Let’s consider #3: Benedict XVI is drunk.  This is equally false.  Not only is there no evidence for it, but one would have to argue that Benedict XVI was drunk for all of his hundreds of utterances of heresy, in both speech and writing.  Again, we don’t think Salza would even have the courage to make such an assertion.  But here’s the key point: even if one could prove such an assertion, it wouldn’t support the idea that Benedict XVI is the pope.  It would contradict it.  That’s because canon 2201.3 explains:

Canon 2201.3: “A delict committed in voluntary drunkenness does not remove imputability, but it is less than the same delict committed with the full use of the mind, unless, however, the drunkenness was sought to commit or excuse the delict…”

As we see, a delict committed in voluntary drunkenness does not remove imputability.  Since there are so many instances of heresy from Benedict XVI (at least hundreds), even if he were drunk for all of them (a truly ridiculous notion) it would not remove imputability.  That’s because Benedict XVI would necessarily have, in many of those cases, entered into the state of drunkenness deliberately before committing the heresy.  Therefore, the imputability would not be removed (canon 2201.3).  Those “excuses” Salza referred to in canon 2199 ff. aren’t sounding so good anymore, are they?

Let’s consider #4: Benedict XVI is physically coerced into his heretical speeches, writings and actions.  There is no evidence of this.  On the contrary, Benedict XVI has been captured in public cheerfully engaging in his apostate actions (e.g., his false ecumenical events, trips to the Synagogue, etc.)  His public speeches demonstrate that he commits the heresy without any force being applied, and even with great joy.  Consider how he smiled as he took active part in Jewish worship at the German Synagogue.

In addition, the claim that Benedict XVI commits his heresies out of grave fear wouldn’t even be an excuse.  That’s because the Code specifically says that in the case of an intrinsically evil act, or one that involves a contempt of faith, such fear does not remove imputability.

Canon 2205.1-3, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “Physical force that prevents all faculty of action entirely excludes a delict.  Additionally, grave fear, even if it is only relative, necessity, and even grave inconvenience for the most part thoroughly toll a delict, if it concerned a merely ecclesiastical law.  But if the act was intrinsically evil or verged on contempt for the faith or ecclesiastical authority or harm to souls, the causes that [were outlined] in #2 indeed diminish imputability, but do not eliminate it.”

That means that even if Benedict XVI were physically threatened to give heretical and apostate speeches, he would still be guilty for doing it.  Choosing to deliver such speeches (even out of fear) would entail actions that are intrinsically evil and a denial of the faith.

On this point, the early Church’s prescriptions regarding the lapsi are very interesting to consider.  In the early Church, the lapsi (the lapsed) were those who apostatized during times of persecution.  They feared death or extreme physical torture.  For that reason, they gave up the faith.  They sacrificed to false gods or had a document produced attesting that they had done so.  Since they had a legitimate fear of death and torture, were the lapsi excused from the sin and crime of apostasy?  No.

In fact, their crime was considered so heinous that many in the ancient Church didn’t even believe the lapsi should be reconciled to the Church after the persecution ended and they had repented!  Despite this fact of Catholic history, the apostate John Salza (a true corrupter of Catholic teaching) says that Antipope John Paul II and Benedict XVI could be excused from their apostasy and heresy (in times of peace) because they “desire to please the world”!

JOHN SALZA VS. CATHOLIC TRADITION

As we can see, John Salza’s argument is false, contrary to Catholic Tradition, and evil.  It attempts to justify the denial of Jesus Christ and His truth.  Benedict XVI, John Paul II, etc. are heretics and apostates and must be considered such based on their many of acts of heresy and apostasy.

ONE LAST POINT IN REFUTATION OF THE “IGNORANCE” EXCUSE

Ultimately, if someone were to make the case that Benedict XVI is to be excused of his manifold heresies, one would be forced to argue that Benedict XVI is ignorant of the teachings he denies or unaware of what he is doing.  Certainly that is absurd and has been refuted above.  However, EVEN IF BENEDICT XVI WERE COMPLETELY IGNORANT OF EVERY SINGLE DOGMA HE DENIES, it wouldn’t matter.  That’s because in order to be a Catholic, you must believe in and profess certain essential mysteries of the faith.  If you believe contrary to those mysteries, even if you’ve never heard of them, you are not part of the Church.

Every adult Catholic must believe in the Trinity, the Incarnation, that Jesus Christ and His Church are true, and that other religions outside of Jesus Christ are false.  These essential mysteries must be known by a necessity of means.  It doesn’t matter if you’ve never been taught these mysteries.

Pope Benedict XIV, Cum Religiosi (# 1), June 26, 1754: “We could not rejoice, however, when it was subsequently reported to Us that in the course of religious instruction preparatory to Confession and Holy Communion, it was very often found that these people were ignorant of the mysteries of the faith, even those matters which must be known by necessity of means; consequently they were ineligible to partake of the Sacraments.”

As we see, every Catholic above the age of reason must have a positive knowledge of certain mysteries of faith to be saved.  There are no excuses, even for ignorance.  Thus, if one holds a belief which destroys faith in those mysteries, even if he has been taught incorrectly, he is not a Catholic.

Pope Benedict XIV, Cum Religiosi (# 4): “… confessors should perform this part of their duty whenever anyone stands at their tribunal who does not know what he must by necessity of means know to be saved…”

Pope St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis (# 2), April 15, 1905: “And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: ‘We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.’”

For example, if one really believes in three different gods and not one God in three divine persons, then he is not a Catholic – period.  This is true even if he was never taught the true doctrine on the Trinity.  He cannot be a Catholic because his belief contradicts an essential mystery he must believe in to possess the true faith.

Likewise, if one believes that other religions, such as Islam, Judaism, etc. are also good, as Benedict XVI does, then one doesn’t believe that Christ (and, by extension, His Church) is the only truth.  If one doesn’t believe that Christ (and, by extension, His Church) is the only truth, then one doesn’t have the Catholic Faith – period.  This is true even if one was never taught the true doctrine on this matter, which is why Pope Pius XI says that all who hold the opinion that all religions “are more or less good and praiseworthy” have abandoned the true religion – period.

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 2): “…  Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule.  Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little, turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.”

We have shown that Benedict XVI and his “predecessors” believe that Judaism, Islam, etc. are good.  Benedict XVI was even initiated into Islam in a mosque on Nov. 30, 2006.  He and his “predecessors” praise these religions.  They have said that they esteem false religions.  Benedict XVI specifically called Islam “noble” and said that it represents “greatness.”  It’s not possible for him to believe this and be a Catholic “material heretic,” since he doesn’t believe in an essential mystery he must accept to hold the true faith: that Christ and His Church are the only truth.  Therefore, Benedict XVI is not a Catholic – period.  It wouldn’t make a difference if he had never heard of a Catholic teaching in his whole life. 

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 13), June 29, 1896: “You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held.”

With that we come to the end of the section on Salza’s attempted excuses.  They don’t sound so good anymore, do they?  No, they don’t.  While I have carefully refuted each one, they are all knocked out by the canon we mentioned at the beginning of this section.

Canon 2200.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “Positing an external violation of the law, malice (dolus) is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proven.”

PP. 8-9 – SALZA’S INCOMPETENT ATTEMPT TO FIND A CONTRADICTION BETWEEN OUR POSITION ON “MATERIAL HERETICS” AND “INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE”

On page 8 of his second article, Salza attempts to find a contradiction between 1) our acknowledgment that people may in some cases be “material heretics” (i.e., not really heretics) if they are ignorant of a Catholic teaching they contradict and 2) our position of rejecting invincible ignorance in the context of salvation.

John Salza, Second Article, pp. 8-9: “Note well that Peter Dimond admits of the theological concept of a “material heretic,” that is, one who holds a heretical position but is not culpable for it due to his ignorance of the Church’s true teaching. He will admit that one can be a “material heretic” and still be in the Church because a “material heretic” is not really a heretic at all (not a culpable one). By doing so, he admits that invincible ignorance is an exception to being in formal heresy (even though, as we will see, he rejects invincible ignorance in the context of salvation – another one of his many double standards). But if ignorance can be an exception to formal heresy, then why can’t peer pressure, a weak will, a desire for human respect, confusion, a mental reservation, or other factors of “inculpable inadvertence or error” be an exception, especially when we are talking about elected Vicars of Christ?”

Salza’s egregious mistake should be easily identified.  There is no contradiction in our position, as a person who is well versed in these matters knows.  The Church does teach 1) that it’s possible to be ignorant in good faith of a deeper dogma – for example, the dogma that baptism, confirmation and Holy Orders leave an indelible mark on the soul.  If you reject that dogma once you know about it, you become a heretic; but you are not necessarily a heretic if you contradict it in ignorance.

However, the Church also teaches 2) with the essential mysteries of the Catholic faith (the Trinity, the Incarnation, that Christ is the only truth, etc.) it’s not possible to be ignorant of them and be in good faith or saved.   The quotes we covered in the last section amply demonstrate this.

Pope Benedict XIV, Cum Religiosi (# 1), June 26, 1754: “We could not rejoice, however, when it was subsequently reported to Us that in the course of religious instruction preparatory to Confession and Holy Communion, it was very often found that these people were ignorant of the mysteries of the faith, even those matters which must be known by necessity of means; consequently they were ineligible to partake of the Sacraments.”

In short, Salza doesn’t understand (or pretends not to understand) the distinction between 1) the deeper dogmas and 2) the essential mysteries of the faith.  An individual doesn’t need positive knowledge of every Catholic teaching to be saved, but he can’t reject any teaching once he becomes aware of it.  With certain truths, however, it’s necessary to have a positive knowledge of them to be saved.  It’s difficult to believe that Salza is unfamiliar with this simple distinction.  This position is not only perfectly consistent, it’s the authoritative teaching of the Church.  Since this point is so simple and so obvious, I’m inclined to believe that Salza knows that our position is not contradictory, but decided to lie anyway and claim that it’s a double standard for purposes of rhetorical effect.

Salza ends his paragraph on this matter by advancing the same excuses for Benedict XVI that I refuted in the last section.  Notice that he’s once again peddling the heretical idea that Benedict XVI’s apostasy can be justified on the basis that he “desires to please the world.”  What would the Catholics have done to John Salza if he had lived during the lapsi controversy?  Well, let’s consider it.

IF SALZA HAD LIVED DURING THE LAPSI CONTROVERSY

Just imagine if John Salza had been present when the Catholics disputed with the rigorous party about the lapsi.  It would have gone something like this:

The Catholics declare that lapsed apostates, who denied Christianity out of fear of death or torture, should be given the opportunity to repent, even though they are horrible apostates.  The rigorists respond by emphasizing that apostasy is such a crime that the cowardly lapsi, who forsook Christ for the easy way, should never be re-admitted to communion.  Salza comes along and argues that the sacrifices the lapsi made to false gods should not be considered apostasy at all, for they “desired to please” the Roman authorities who were upset by the practice of Christianity.  The Catholics and the rigorists simultaneously turn to Salza in horror and ask why a pagan like him, who attempts to conflate apostasy with the possession of the true faith, is falsely posing as a Christian.

Salza is truly an antichrist purveyor of apostasy.  He is Satan’s minion who attempts to justify the denial of Jesus Christ, the rejection of Catholic dogmas, and the endorsement of false religions all on the basis of worldly motives and a fictitious claim to ignorance or mistake that is inadmissible and contradicted by all the facts.

P. 9- SALZA’S ERROR ON THE SIN OF HERESY AND ITS CONNECTION TO IGNORANCE

John Salza, Second Article, p. 9: “Note that Dimond often accuses his opponents of being “ignorant of Church teaching” which then leads him to accuse them of heresy, even though inculpable ignorance is a defense to heresy (which shows how Dimond does not understand canon law).”

Salza thinks it’s inaccurate to accuse heretics of being ignorant; for, if they are ignorant, they are not heretics.  With this assertion Salza again demonstrates that he does not understand Catholic teaching.  The heretic Salza is obviously ignorant (pun intended) of Catholic teaching on ignorance’s connection to all errors.

Pope Benedict XV, Humani Generis Redemptionem (#14), June 15, 1917: “Learning, as We have said, is absolutely necessary for the preacher, for if he is without the light of learning he easily falls into error, since "Ignorance is the mother of all errors," as the Fourth Lateran Council so truthfully observes.”

Ignorance is the mother of ALL errors, and that includes errors (such as the rejection of the Trinity) that are necessarily mortally sinful heresies.

What Salza doesn’t understand is that while a heretic is generally not ignorant of the dogma he denies, the heretic is ignorant of overall fidelity to God’s faith, in addition to what the dogma means in the context of the unity of God’s truth.  A heretic is also ignorant of other relevant facts that contradict the false position he adopts.  As St. Thomas explains, “it is in this way that ignorance can be the cause of a sinful act; because it is a privation of knowledge perfecting the reason that forbids the act of sin, in so far as it directs human acts.” (Summa Theologica, Pt. II-I, Q. 76, A. 1)

Hence, it is not a misunderstanding to label a heretic ignorant, for all heretics are ignorant in crucial ways, even if they are familiar with the teaching they reject.  As St. Thomas also says, “Hence it is clear that not every kind of ignorance is the cause of a sin, but that alone which removes the knowledge which would prevent the sinful act.” (Summa Theologica, Pt. II-I, Q. 76, A. 1)  As we see, Salza’s petty accusation fails when scrutinized.

P. 10 – SALZA ARGUES THAT BENEDICT XVI DOESN’T BELIEVE IN WHAT HE SAYS

John Salza, Second Article, p. 10: “A person can also make heretical statements while maintaining orthodox internal dispositions, that is, he may not necessarily believe what he says, based on many factors (peer pressure, misplaced zeal, emotional imbalance, etc.). In fact, after retracting a statement he made about Islam, Pope Benedict XVI admitted that his speeches (which form an indispensable foundation for the Dimond brothers’ sedevacantist position) don’t necessarily reflect his personal beliefs. In other words, Pope Benedict confessed that what he says and what he believes may be two different things (evidence that he may be laboring under an inculpable inadvertence or error of mental reservations). Further, the pope, above all men, would have the right to rebut any evidence that he is intentionally departing from the Catholic Faith as a matter of justice and due process. Again, that goes without saying.”

You can know that Salza has lost the debate when he is forced to argue that Benedict XVI doesn’t even believe in what he says.  That’s not exactly a strong argument.  It still hasn’t dawned on Salza that even if Benedict XVI didn’t believe in what he says, it wouldn’t matter.  Many of the lapsi didn’t believe in the false gods to whom they sacrificed.  They sacrificed out of fear; yet, they were still apostates.  Benedict XVI would still be an apostate for giving heretical speeches and publicly endorsing false religions, even if he didn’t believe in anything he says or does.  Furthermore, besides a single statement (out of thousands) that Benedict XVI regretted making about Islam, there is no evidence that Benedict XVI doesn’t believe in what he says.  Salza’s claim is absurd.

Moreover, on this one page alone, Salza argues three different times that a pope must be subjected to a canonical trial.  This demonstrates that Salza has no idea what he is talking about, as we covered earlier in discussing how a pope cannot be subjected to a trial.  Here are the three instances on this one page:

John Salza, Second Article, p. 10: “Even if the popes were not ignorant of Church teaching (a fact that would have to be established in a canonical trial)…”

John Salza, Second Article, p. 10: “Further, the pope, above all men, would have the right to rebut any evidence that he is intentionally departing from the Catholic Faith as a matter of justice and due process [i.e., a trial]. Again, that goes without saying.”

John Salza, Second Article, p. 10: “However, in Peter Dimond’s world, the pope is presumed guilty until proven innocent (actually, Dimond would not even give the pope a chance to prove himself innocent in a canonical trial!”

Actually, the Church doesn’t give anyone the right to subject the pope to a canonical trial.  That’s why the recognition that a claimant to the Papacy has lost his office must (and does) occur without any declaration.

Pope St. Nicholas, epistle (8), Proposueramus quidem, 865: “… Neither by Augustus, nor by all the clergy, nor by religious, not by the people will the judge be judged… ‘The first seat will not be judged by anyone.’”

P. 11 - SALZA BUILDING ON HIS CORRUPT FOUNDATION

Earlier in this article, I carefully refuted Salza’s error on canon 2223.4.  Notice that Salza, being the spiritual deceiver that he is, continues to wrongly apply this canon.  It’s like a Protestant who poisons his interpretation of every book of the Bible with his insistence on his false understanding of a single passage.

John Salza, Second Article, p. 11: “Dimond simply assumes that the conciliar popes have “publicly defected” from the Faith without proving the requisite malice, which he thinks then gives him an excuse to ignore the declaratory sentence requirement of canon 2223.4. However, if malice has not been proven, then neither has the application of canon 188.4 been proven. In such case, canon 2223.4 requires a declaratory sentence of the heresy because it is for the common good of the Church…. In the case of the putative heresy of a pope, only evidence of widely-known malice or a declaratory/condemnatory sentence would provide the required certainty of a “tacit resignation.”

First, he says that we simply “assume” the conciliar antipopes have defected from the faith.  Excuse me, but we have documented hundreds of heresies that prove the defection to any honest person.  In his most recent book alone, Benedict XVI denies the historical accuracy of St. Matthew’s Gospel, teaches that the Jews shouldn’t be converted, and questions Acts 2, just to name a few (see our article on The Massive Heresies in Benedict XVI’s book, Jesus of Nazareth – Holy Week).  Those heresies mean nothing to demonic apostates like John Salza, but to a Catholic they constitute overwhelming proof of defection from the faith.

Second, Salza attempts to link canon 2223.4 with canon 188.4, which teaches loss of ecclesiastical office without a declaration for those who defect from the faith.  I already demonstrated that canon 2223.4 has nothing to do with canon 188.4 or this issue.  Canon 2223.4 says that a superior should issue a declaration of an automatic penalty if someone requests it or if it’s for the common good.

The canon has no relevance to this issue or to canon 188.4 for four reasons:

1) It doesn’t say that the declaration is required before someone can recognize a defection.  It simply says that it should be given if someone requests it or the common good requires it.  2) The canon concerns a superior having coercive power, and there is no superior to the pope.  It therefore CANNOT apply to this matter.  3) The common good would not require a declaratory sentence against a cleric who has defected from the faith when the one who would issue that declaration has defected from the faith.  The common good would require the opposite: that Catholics are able to recognize the defection without the declaration since the declaration couldn’t be given.  It is thus completely arbitrary, and supported by nothing, for Salza to declare canon 2223.4 is inextricably bound up with canon 188.4 or the principle on loss of office without declaration.  4) The canon doesn’t specify that it’s talking about a pope (indeed, it cannot apply to a pope) – yet Salza applies it exclusively to a pope!

P. 12 - SALZA CONTRADICTS HIMSELF AGAIN ON WHETHER A DECLARATION IS REQUIRED AGAINST A HERETICAL “POPE”

Throughout his article, Salza argues that in the case of a pope, the Church must issue a declaration before one could consider him a heretic.  The “common good” would require it, he says.  However, on page 12, he says that the declaration is required only if it’s not notorious.

MORE CONTRADICTIONS

In fact, he frequently contradicts himself within the same paragraph or one page after another.  Here’s another contradiction on the same point.

P. 12 – SALZA AGAIN CALLS FOR SCHISMATIC DECLARATIONS AGAINST THE HOLY SEE

John Salza, Second Article, p. 12: “These decrees of excommunication are necessary to make the Church aware of the offense and the vacated office as well as drive the sinner to repentance. This ecclesiastical protocol happens for the good of the Church, and one cannot imagine a more necessary protocol when talking about the occupant of the papal throne.”

He not only (again) calls for schismatic declarations against a pope, but he says that these declarations (which of course would be issued by a pope’s inferiors after a trial of the pope) would force the pope to repentance.  Salza closes by saying that he cannot imagine a more necessary protocol when talking about a pope (trial, judgment, etc.).  One cannot imagine a heretic who more frequently contradicts Catholic teaching against judging the Holy See than John Salza.

1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1556, On trials in general: “The First See is judged by no one.”

Pope St. Nicholas, epistle (8), Proposueramus quidem, 865: “… Neither by Augustus, nor by all the clergy, nor by religious, not by the people will the judge be judged… ‘The first seat will not be judged by anyone.’”

Pope St. Leo IX, In terra pax hominibus, Sept. 2, 1053, Chap. 11: “By passing judgment on the great See, concerning which it is not permitted any man to pass judgment, you have received anathema from all the Fathers of the venerable Councils…”

Pope St. Leo IX, In terra pax hominibus, Sept. 2, 1053, Chap. 32: “… As the hinge while remaining immoveable opens and closes the door, so Peter and his successors have free judgment over all the Church, since no one should remove their status because ‘the highest See is judged by no one.’”

P. 13 – MORE MASSIVE CONTRADICTIONS FROM SALZA AS HE DISCUSSES CANON 2314.1-2

In accordance with his typical distortions, Salza misuses canon 2314.1-2.   In making his argument based on it, he also contradicts himself again.  The canon says:

Canon 2314.1-2, 1917 Code: “All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic: Unless they respect warnings, they are deprived of benefice, dignity, pension, office, or other duty that they have in the Church, they are declared infamous, and [if] clerics, with the warning being repeated, [they are] deposed.”

Salza comments on this canon.

John Salza, Second Article, p. 13: “While canon 188.4 says the office becomes vacant when one publicly defects from the Faith, canon 2314.2 requires formal warnings followed by the obstinate refusal to heed the warnings before the public defection can be established.”

First, notice that he admits canon 188.4 teaches that the office becomes vacant without a declaration.  In quoting and commenting on canon 2314, however, he implies that the office is not lost until there are formal warnings followed by a declaration.  Which one is it, John?  Notice the contradiction on the very same page.

SALZA REFUTING SALZA ------ AGAIN

Salza’s statements here also contradict many other statements he has made, in both his first and his second article.  Now, in addition to the fact that Salza contradicts himself, what’s the answer to canon 2314.1-2?  There are two points to consider.

First, the answer is that canon 2314.2 is not addressing the spiritual possession of the office, which is lost without declaration (canon 188.4); but rather it’s addressing the physical possession of the office.  That’s proven by the fact that the canon mentions pension and benefice in the same context.

Canon 2314.1-2, 1917 Code: “All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic: Unless they respect warnings, they are deprived of benefice, dignity, pension, office, or other duty that they have in the Church, they are declared infamous, and [if] clerics, with the warning being repeated, [they are] deposed.”

The canon is setting down the procedure by which people who are found to be heretics will be removed from everything pertaining to Church functions.  That includes any pension, benefice, land, etc. which they might have.  If they respect warnings and amend, then their removal can be reconsidered, with all that comes with it.  The canon is not addressing whether a heretic retains true spiritual possession of the office – he does not.  The fact that a heretic loses the office without declaration is a truth of the divine law as well as canon law (canon 188.4).

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896: “No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.”

Second, Salza’s point is crushed because we know that the canon is not talking about a pope!  As we’ve shown, NO ONE can officially warn a pope or deprive him of office.  Since Salza applies this canon to the issue of Benedict XVI’s legitimacy, he is once again teaching the heretical error that a pope can be deposed and deprived of his office!  Salza’s argument on canon 2314.1-2 is not only proven wrong, it is schismatic.

Pope St. Nicholas, epistle (8), Proposueramus quidem, 865: “… Neither by Augustus, nor by all the clergy, nor by religious, not by the people will the judge be judged… ‘The first seat will not be judged by anyone.’”

Finally, Salza’s argument on canon 2314 is refuted by quoting his own words, as shown above.

We can see why Salza spends all of his time talking about canon law.  He hates dogma.  Dogma cuts through his lies in simple terms.  He finds canon law to be a tool with which he can confuse most people.  Most people are not able to identify his gross perversion of these canons and principles.  However, as I’ve demonstrated by this analysis in both of my articles concerning his errors, he doesn’t understand canon law at all.

P. 14- SALZA’S FALSE ARGUMENT ON THE HERESIES OF THE ANTIPOPES

John Salza, Second Article, p. 14: “That is because for every “heretical” statement one may pluck from a papal speech or sermon, one can find many more orthodox statements from the same popes on the same subject matter.”

Salza attempts to justify the many heresies of his antipopes by pointing out that they sometimes repeat Catholic truth.  That’s irrelevant, of course.  In Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI pointed out that heretics always make true or contradictory statements and frequently they do so within the very context of promoting their heresies.  Such true or contradictory statements do not alter a heretic’s status from non-Catholic to Catholic.  To consult Pope Pius VI’s teaching on this matter, which completely refutes Salza’s impious assertion, see our website.

Salza also falsely claims that one can find many more orthodox statements from the antipopes than heretical ones on each subject.  That is not true.  For example, consider the antipopes’ many heresies with regard to the schismatic “Orthodox.”  The antipopes have consistently taught that the schismatics don’t need to be converted, that their ministry is worthy of praise, that they don’t need to accept Vatican I, and that they are inside the Church.  We have compiled over one hundred heretical statements in this regard.  It’s probably closer to a thousand.  Could Salza or anyone else cite more than one hundred statements from the Vatican II antipopes in which they specifically declare the opposite of the aforementioned heresies: namely, that the “Orthodox” are in fact schismatics, or that the “Orthodox” are outside the Church, or that the “Orthodox” need to be converted for salvation?  No.

Could Salza cite even a single statement in which Benedict XVI specifically addresses the “Orthodox” and declares that they are outside the Church and need to be converted for salvation?  I don’t think so.  Even if he could find one, it wouldn’t matter.  One Catholic statement does not justify dozens of heresies; and there are certainly many more heresies on that topic than true statements.  The Vatican II sect is actually consistent in its position that the “Orthodox” are part of the universal Church.  Indeed, in stunning confirmation of my point, the heretic John Salza (falsely posing as a believer in the Papacy) teaches that very heresy on his website.

John Salza’s Website, “Catholicism & Orthodoxy: A Comparison,” by Dave Armstrong: “Catholics must believe that Orthodoxy is a part of the universal Church (commensurate with the Second Vatican Council and many recent papal encyclicals on ecumenism in general or Orthodoxy in particular). That fact alone precludes the justification of any condescension, animosity, or hostility, which is especially sinful amongst Christians (Galatians 6:10).”

This paragraph by itself refutes Salza’s entire position.  A “Church” which teaches that non-Catholics who reject the Papacy are inside the Church is neither Catholic nor papal.

PP. 14-15 - IN HIS SECOND ARTICLE, SALZA CHANGES HIS POSITION ON WHETHER A HERETIC CAN GOVERN THE CHURCH

In his first article, Salza contradicted himself on whether a heretic could hold the office of pope and govern.  At the beginning, he admitted that a heretic would lose the office (and hence could not govern).  However, at the end of his first article, he declared the opposite.  He said that a heretic’s jurisdiction as pope (by which he governs) is valid.  This table captures the contradiction within his first article.

CONTRADICTIONS WITHIN HIS FIRST ARTICLE ON WHETHER A HERETIC COULD HAVE THE OFFICE/GOVERN

All of that was in his FIRST article.  In his second article, Salza also changes his position and contradicts himself again.  In the process, he also subtly acknowledges that I refuted him:

John Salza, Second Article, p. 14: “As an aside, note that Dimond assumes the loss of office would automatically prevent the heretical pope from governing the Church. While many theologians have held that position (I believe it is the more probable position based, in part, on Pope Leo XIII’s Satis Cognitum), the position is far from dogmatic as other theologians have held different opinions on the matter… We should admit that it could be possible for Christ to maintain the jurisdiction of a heretical pope until the issue of his heresy [sic] formally resolved.”

He acknowledges that our position, that a heretic cannot rule in the Church, is the “probable position based, in part, on Pope Leo XIII’s Satis Cognitum…”  It’s significant that he refers to Leo XIII on this point; for that was the passage I specifically cited to refute the heretical statement in his first article: that a heretic’s jurisdiction as pope could be valid.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896: “No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.”

In short, Salza is now admitting that this teaching of Pope Leo XIII (that one who is outside cannot rule in the Church) contradicts the assertion he made in his first article: that a heretic’s jurisdiction as pope would be valid, giving the heretic the ability to govern.  By acknowledging that a heretic “probably” cannot govern – based specifically on the quote from Leo XIII that I cited – he is quietly acknowledging that I refuted him.  Consider this to be Salza’s subtle and temporary admission of defeat on this point.

Despite his subtle acknowledgment of defeat, Salza still errs on this matter.  He declares that the position, according to which a heretic cannot govern, is far from dogmatic.  That’s wrong.  Pope Leo XIII declares the contrary position to be “absurd.”  Therefore, it’s certain a heretic cannot govern in the Church.

Moreover, the position that a heretic cannot govern in the Church is proven by the councils.  Vatican I dogmatically defined that a pope is the “head” of the Church.  It’s a dogmatic fact that a “head” must be a “member.”  The Council of Florence dogmatically defined that a heretic is not a member.  It’s therefore a dogmatic truth that a heretic, since he’s not even a member of the Church, cannot govern as head of the Church.  Salza is wrong again.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Sess. 4, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: "… all the faithful of Christ must believe that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold primacy over the whole world, and the Pontiff of Rome himself is the successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles, and is the true vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church... This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation." (Denz. 1826-1827)

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or hereticsand schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives…”

P. 15- SALZA REPEATS HIS MASSIVE CHANGE OF POSITION ON WHETHER A HERETIC CAN BE RECOGNIZED AS SUCH WITHOUT A DECLARATION

John Salza, Second Article, p. 15: “Let me once again re-emphasize Peter Dimond’s mischaracterization of my position. I am not saying Catholics can never know if someone is a heretic without a declaration from the Church. Dimond is incorrectly accusing me of that position. If someone says, “I was baptized, and I deny the Immaculate Conception,” and such person obstinately perseveres in that error after being rebuked and corrected or shown evidence of his error, Catholics should rightfully conclude that such a person is a heretic (pertinacity would be proven) without an accompanying ecclesiastical censure.”

As I showed earlier, his first article clearly asserted that a Catholic cannot consider another professing Catholic a heretic “until the Church tells us.”  Once I refuted his position, he changed it for this article.  He now argues that one can recognize another as a heretic without a declaration.  By doing so, Salza 1) contradicts his first article; 2) undercuts most of his arguments in the second article; and 3) lies because he claims that he never asserted the opposite when he did.   Here’s the proof:

Salza, First Article - “The Errors of Sedevacantism and Ecclesiastical Law”: “Sedevacantists correctly maintain that Divine Law expels a formal heretic from the Church without further declaration…. However, the same Code of Canon Law also determines how we know a cleric has publicly defected from the Faith and lost his office as a result of the defection: The Church tells us. Thus, ecclesiastical law follows Our Lord’s directive: “tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” (Mt 18:17). While the person in Matthew 18 was publicly suspected of a transgression, Jesus tells us to treat him as excommunicated only after the Church judges the matter.

“Attempting to ignore Jesus’ words and take matters into their own hands, Sedevacantists also refer to Titus 3:10-11 where St. Paul tells Titus to avoid a heretic after two admonitions because he is self-condemned. However, Titus 3 is consistent with Matthew 18. Titus has the authority to determine who is a heretic in his diocese because he is their bishop. He has God-given authority over his subjects. St. Paul is not giving every Catholic the authority to make a formal and binding determination of another Catholic’s orthodoxy.”

PP. 15-16- ANOTHER MASSIVE CONTRADICTION FROM SALZA – HE ADMITS THAT IF JOHN PAUL II DID CERTAIN THINGS, JOHN PAUL II COULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED A HERETIC WITHOUT ANY DECLARATION

John Salza, Second Article, pp. 15-16: “While a Catholic may claim that some of the conduct of the conciliar popes raises questions about their fidelity to Church dogmas (e.g., “No Salvation Outside the Church”), these Popes have never declared that they deny the dogmas in question. If, for example, Pope John Paul II made known to the Church that he kissed the Koran because he denies the divinity of Christ, and he persisted in his error after being rebuked, the Church would know at that point that he is a formal heretic. A declaration of heresy for “the common good” of the Church in such case would be unnecessary (although it would most likely still be given), and canon 188.4 and Cum Ex would apply.”

Major contradictions flow freely in Salza’s writing.  Throughout this (his second) article, he declared that in the case of a pope, there must be a declaration to consider him a heretic.  We also showed that despite his insistence on that point in many places, he contradicted it numerous times.  Now he’s contradicting it again by admitting that if John Paul II did heretical things which Salza deems to be outrageous, then no declaration is necessary to consider him an antipope!   That undercuts his entire position again.  This table captures the most recent contradiction.

As we can see, I’m not merely refuting Salza’s arguments.  No, what I’m showing is much more powerful.  I’m refuting his own arguments with his own words by demonstrating that he articulates one stunning contradiction after another.  His latest admission (right side) proves that all of his pontifications about how the “common good” would require a declaration against a heretical papal claimant in order to provide the “certainty” the Church needs, should be tossed into the trash can.  It’s clear that the article I’m exposing, which features the by-line of John Salza, was actually written by the Devil.

Since Salza admits here that certain heretical actions on John Paul II’s part would enable a Catholic to reject him as a heretic without a declaration, he proves our point.  For it has been well established, to any honest person, that John Paul II was a public, manifest and notorious heretic.  Among other things, he taught universal salvation; that Protestants and schismatics shouldn’t be converted; that false religions are worthy of esteem; that Judaism is a valid religion; that non-Catholics may lawfully receive Communion; that saints come from heretical churches; that the Church is not truly universal; that every man is the Son of God; etc. – ad nauseam.

P. 16 – SALZA’S ERROR ON PADRE PIO SAYING THAT JOHN PAUL II WOULD BE “POPE”

John Salza, Second Article, p. 16: “Note also that Padre Pio, the great mystic who communicated with God throughout his life (and whom the Dimond brothers greatly admire), revealed to Karol Wojtyla when he met him: “some day you will be pope.” Obviously, Padre Pio’s prophecy came true.”

While this rumor has been widely circulated and passed along as fact in many circles, it is not correct.  As we’ve pointed out before, the person who was supposedly told this by Padre Pio later publicly admitted in a prominent magazine that Padre Pio never said this to him.

P. 16 – SALZA CONTRADICTS HIMSELF AGAIN ON WHAT HERESY MUST BE

On page 16, Salza contradicts himself on what heresy must be.  At first he declares that to be a formal heretic, the heresy must be “public and notorious.”  He then contradicts that, on the very same page, when he declares that it must only be “notorious or pertinacious.”

P. 16- SALZA WRONGLY SAYS THE CONCILIAR ANTIPOPES HAVE NEVER SAID THEY KNOW THEY ARE DEPARTING FROM CATHOLIC TEACHING

John Salza, Second Article, p. 16: “Of course, the conciliar popes have never said they know they are departing from Catholic teaching.  Expulsion from the Church must be based on malice, not speculation.”

Salza is wrong again.  To give just one example that refutes Salza’s claim, in his book Principles of Catholic Theology, Antipope Benedict XVI admits that Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty (to which Benedict XVI adheres) contradicts the magisterial teaching of Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors (1864).  That the two contradict each other is obvious to any honest person who studies the issue.

Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 381: "If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text [of the Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes] as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter syllabus… As a result, the one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church under Pius IX and Pius X in response to the situation created by the new phase of history inaugurated by the French Revolution, was, to a large extent, corrected..."

Benedict XVI admits here that Vatican II’s teaching (to which he adheres) is directly contrary to the teaching of the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.  In other words, he admits that Vatican II’s teaching is contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Magisterium.  One could hardly ask for more of a confirmation that the teaching of Vatican II is heretical.  In his book, Benedict XVI repeats this again and again, calling the teaching of Vatican II “the countersyllabus,” and saying that there can be no return to the Syllabus of Errors!

Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 385: "By a kind of inner necessity, therefore, the optimism of the countersyllabus gave way to a new cry that was far more intense and more dramatic than the former one."

Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 391: " The task is not, therefore, to suppress the Council but to discover the real Council and to deepen its true intention in the light of present experience.  That means that there can be no return to the Syllabus, which may have marked the first stage in the confrontation with liberalism and a newly conceived Marxism but cannot be the last stage."

P. 17- SALZA CONTRADICTS HIMSELF AGAIN ON WHETHER A CARDINAL OR PAPAL CLAIMANT CAN BE CONSIDERED A HERETIC WITHOUT A DECLARATION

The contradiction above being noted, I should add that Salza’s assertion concerning canons 1557-1558 is false.  His assertion on this point was soundly refuted in my first article.  He claims that these canons support his false idea that only a pope could determine if a cardinal is a heretic.  I showed that these canons have no relevance to the issue because they pertain to trials.  The principle that a heretic loses his office without declaration takes effect without a trial.  Likewise, the principle that a cardinal can be recognized as a heretic without declaration means without a trial.  “Without declaration” means without a trial.  If you consult the subject heading above canon 1556, you will discover that these canons all refer to “On Trials in General” (De Iudiciis in genere).  Hence, they all pertain to how trials are conducted.  Canons 1557-1558, which are cited by Salza, simply legislate that only a Roman Pontiff could preside over a trial of a cardinal or designate the judge at a trial.  That has nothing to do with the principle that a publicly heretical cleric loses his office without declaration or trial (canon 188.4), or that a heretic can be recognized as such without a trial.  Even though I refuted Salza’s claim about these canons, he repeats it in his second article.  In the process, he contradicts himself again, as we just saw.

P. 18- SALZA AGAIN CALLS FOR SCHISMATIC JUDGMENTS AGAINST THE HOLY SEE

John Salza, Second Article, p. 18: “A condemnatory sentence for heresy is declared only after a canonical trial, and canon 2223.4 requires a condemnatory sentence to be declared if it is for the common good of the Church (in the case of a claimant to the papacy whose heresy has not yet been proven to be morally imputable).”

He again clearly teaches that there could be a canonical trial of a pope, as well as a declaratory sentence against him.  This is false, schismatic, contrary to Catholic teaching and contrary to canon law.  Even though he pretends like he understands the issue, Salza actually doesn’t have any idea what he is talking about.  We already refuted what he has to say about canon 2223.4.

Pope St. Nicholas, epistle (8), Proposueramus quidem, 865: “… Neither by Augustus, nor by all the clergy, nor by religious, not by the people will the judge be judged… ‘The first seat will not be judged by anyone.’”

Pope St. Leo IX, In terra pax hominibus, Sept. 2, 1053, Chap. 11: “By passing judgment on the great See, concerning which it is not permitted any man to pass judgment, you have received anathema from all the Fathers of the venerable Councils…”

Canon 1556, 1917 Code of Canon Law, On trials in general: “The First See is judged by no one.”

P. 19- SALZA CHANGES HIS POSITION ON CANON 2264 AFTER I REFUTED IT

In his first article, John Salza made the false argument that canon 2264 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law teaches that a heretic could retain his jurisdiction as pope.  On the basis of this canon, he declared:

Salza, “The Errors of Sedevacantism and Ecclesiastical Law,” The Remnant: “Therefore, Canon 2264 says they had (and Pope Benedict XVI continues to have) valid jurisdiction over the universal Church…. Thus, even if Sedevacantists argue, for example, that Cardinal Ratzinger was self-expelled before his papal election for heresy (often pointing to some of his controversial writings as a private theologian), the Sedevacantists are still subject to his jurisdiction as Pope, which is both valid and licit under the Church’s ecclesiastical law.”

I refuted his argument by pointing out that the canon doesn’t legislate any such thing.  Rather, it deals with how excommunicated persons can perform specific acts of jurisdiction validly, such as administering confession.  However, heretics do not retain the jurisdiction proper to Church offices.

Salza revealed that he has no understanding of the subject matter when he asserted that, based on canon 2264, even if he were a heretic, Benedict XVI’s jurisdiction “as pope” could become valid if people asked him for the sacraments!  That’s absurd, of course.  I also showed how his assertion about canon 2264 directly contradicted what he said in the first part of his article about canon 188.4, that heretics lose the jurisdiction connected with Church offices.  His massive contradiction was captured by this table.

After I refuted him on canon 2264 and exposed his massive contradiction, Salza decided to completely change his position on canon 2264 for his second article!  Now he only says that canon 2264 gives a heretic power to perform certain acts of jurisdiction, but not ordinary jurisdiction.  That is exactly what I asserted in refuting his first article.  Consider this another subtle admission of defeat on Salza’s part.

John Salza, Second Article, p. 19: “ Canon 2264 says “An act of jurisdiction carried out by an excommunicated person…is valid and also licit, if it was requested by the faithful in accordance with the norm of can. 2261, par. 2 (sacraments/sacramentals),” so long as no declaratory sentence was pronounced. To summarize, then, canon 188.4 deals with a public heretic’s loss of office (ordinary jurisdiction) and canon 2264 deals with a heretic’s specific acts of jurisdiction such as administering the sacraments and sacramentals (supplied jurisdiction).”

This table captures his change of position on Canon 2264.

P. 20- SALZA REPEATS THE ALREADY COMPLETELY REFUTED AND DEMOLISHED ARGUMENT ABOUT THE PIUS XII CONCLAVE LEGISLATION

John Salza, Second Article, p. 20: “As we can see, Popes Pius X and XII expressly legislated that no Cardinal may be excluded in any way from the active or passive election of the Roman Pontiff by reason of any excommunication.”

This argument has been repeatedly refuted.  See my previous article, our website, our book, etc.

PP. 20-21 – SALZA’S TRULY AMAZING LIE IN HIS PATHETIC ATTEMPT TO FIND A CONTRADICTION WHERE ONE DOESN’T EXIST

My exposé of Salza’s writing proves that he contradicts himself repeatedly.  I didn’t need to contrive contradictions, nor would I do so.  Rather, I demonstrated that contradictions are present in his articles.  He was so upset by my refutation that, in his second article, he gave a strenuous (but nevertheless futile) attempt to find in my writing an example of what I exposed in his.  However, he was unable to do so.  That he was unable to find even one contradiction in my argumentation is proven by the fact that the only thing he could do is blatantly lie about what I wrote and then falsely call it a contradiction.  I will now expose what he did.  I will show that Salza’s act in this regard further proves that his position and person are corrupt to the core.

On the matter of the Pius XII legislation, which is mentioned above, here’s Salza’s pathetic attempt to find a contradiction:

John Salza, Second Article, pp. 20-21: “DIMOND’S CONTRADICTION REGARDING THE POPE PIUS X/XII LEGISLATION… Acknowledging that his argument may actually be wrong, Dimond says, “It still wouldn’t make a difference. Notice what Pius XII says: ‘We hereby suspend such censures solely for the purposes of the said election; at other times they are to remain in vigor.’ This is an extremely important point. Pius XII says that the excommunication is suspended only for the time of the election; at other times it remains in vigor. This would mean that the excommunication for heresy would fall back into force immediately after the election and then the heretic who had been elected pope would lose his office! Thus, no matter what way you look at it, a heretic could not be validly elected and remain pope.”

Notice that Dimond acknowledges that the election of a heretic would be valid under this legislation, but then says “a heretic could not be validly elected.” Which one is it, Peter? Is the heretic validly elected (because the censure of excommunication is suspended), or not validly elected (because he was subject to a “major” excommunication, not a “minor” one, prior to the election)? Dimond also contradicts himself on this issue.”

This is astounding dishonesty.  I did not say that a heretic would not be validly elected, and then say that a heretic could be validly elected.  First, in my full statement (which is not quoted above) I said that the legislation does not allow for a heretic to be validly elected.  It doesn’t apply to heretics, for the reasons we have explained many times.  I then said:

To further prove the point in a different way, let’s assume for the sake of argumentthat Pope Pius XII’s legislation did mean that a heretical cardinal could be elected pope.  It still wouldn’t make a difference.  Notice what Pius XII says:

“We hereby suspend such censures solely for the purposes of the said election; at other times they are to remain in vigor.”

This is an extremely important point.  Pius XII says that the excommunication is suspended only for the time of the election; at other times it remains in vigor.  This would mean that the excommunication for heresy would fall back into force immediately after the election and then the heretic who had been elected pope would lose his office!  Thus, no matter what way you look at it, a heretic could not be validly elected and remain pope.

As anyone can see, I did not say that a heretic couldn’t be validly elected, and then say that a heretic could be validly elected.  I said that, even one were to assume FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT that a heretic could be validly elected (which is not true), it still wouldn’t help their position!  That’s because the legislation says that the effect would return immediately after the election, and thus, even if one accepted their argument about the election itself, a heretic couldn’t be validly elected and remain pope.

There was no contradiction whatsoever.   It’s called assuming something to be true for the sake of argument.  In legal terms, it’s called arguendo.  In fact, Salza engages in arguendo in his article, as I show below.  The liar would have us believe that he contradicted himself every time he did so.

Salza’s identification of my perfectly consistent and valid argument as a contradiction is ridiculous.  It reveals that his dishonesty is beyond comprehension.  It also shows that my argumentation is air tight; for the “very best” he could do in an attempt to prove it inconsistent is to lie about it.  In fact, like a devil, when he quotes me, he deliberately omits that I said “for the sake of argument”!

How Salza quoted me: “Acknowledging that his argument may actually be wrong, Dimond says, “It still wouldn’t make a difference. Notice what Pius XII says: ‘We hereby suspend such censures solely for the purposes of the said election; at other times they are to remain in vigor.’

HE CUT OUT THE BOLDED AND UNDERLINED PORTION

What I said: “To further prove the point in a different way, let’s assume for the sake of argument that Pope Pius XII’s legislation did mean that a heretical cardinal could be elected pope.  It still wouldn’t make a difference.  Notice what Pius XII says: “We hereby suspend such censures solely for the purposes of the said election; at other times they are to remain in vigor.”

Finally, to end the refutation of Salza on this point, I will quote what he says on page 7 of his article.  He engages in arguendo, “for the sake of argument.”  He had just stated that he doesn’t believe the principle in canon 2200.2 applies to a pope, but now he assumes, for the sake of argument, that it does.

Salza, p. 7: “Second, even if the pope were subject to canon 2200 and thus his formal heresy were presumed (which is not true), the pope would still be entitled to rebut the presumption in a canonical trial…”

Did Salza contradict himself here?  Not here (though he does on many other points, as I’ve shown).  He’s assuming something to be true for the sake of argument.  I did not refute Salza on this matter by lying about his position.  I did not say that he contradicted himself on this matter because he didn’t.  Rather, I addressed head up his assertions and I showed that his claim about the principle in canon 2200.2 (that it doesn’t apply to a papal claimant) is wrong.  I then refuted the assertions he made about the canon when he assumed, for the sake of argument, that it does apply to a pope.  I refuted him on all counts, not by misrepresenting his position, but by carefully analyzing what he says.

In all the cases that I prove he has contradicted himself, there’s no doubt about it.  I don’t need to misrepresent or lie about his position.  That’s the difference between a true Catholic and John Salza.

In fact, in the quote we just examined, notice once again that he teaches the schismatic idea that a pope could be subjected to a canonical trial.  This shows again that Salza has no idea what he is talking about.  His position is condemned directly in divine and canon law.

Pope St. Nicholas, epistle (8), Proposueramus quidem, 865: “… Neither by Augustus, nor by all the clergy, nor by religious, not by the people will the judge be judged… ‘The first seat will not be judged by anyone.’”

Canon 1556, 1917 Code of Canon Law, On trials in general: “The First See is judged by no one.”

P. 21- SALZA AGAIN CALLS FOR SCHISMATIC PROCEDURES, INCLUDING TRIALS AND DECLARATORY SENTENCES, AGAINST A REIGNING POPE

John Salza, Second Article, p. 21: “If the pre-election excommunication was for something other than “public and notorious” heresy, then the elected pope would be subject to the ecclesiastical procedures that Dimond says don’t apply (investigations, trials, declaratory sentences). Once again, Dimond’s false premise that the conciliar popes are “notorious” heretics poisons his entire analysis of ecclesiastical law, which he either dismisses as not relevant or manipulates in an effort to support his thesis.”

Salza simply has no idea what he’s talking about, as we’ve shown throughout this article.  In fact, in this particular paragraph, notice the precision with which he contradicts Catholic teaching.  He explicitly states that a pope would be subject to trials, investigations, declaratory sentences, etc.  Catholic teaching is exactly the opposite.

Canon 1556, 1917 Code of Canon Law, On trials in general: “The First See is judged by no one.”

Pope St. Nicholas, epistle (8), Proposueramus quidem, 865: “… Neither by Augustus, nor by all the clergy, nor by religious, not by the people will the judge be judged… ‘The first seat will not be judged by anyone.’”

P. 21- SALZA CONTRADICTS HIMSELF AGAIN ON WHETHER ONE CAN CONSIDER A POPE A HERETIC WITHOUT A DECLARATION

John Salza, Second Article, p. 21: “Dimond continues in his rebuttal to mischaracterize my position by falsely claiming that I and other non-sedevacantists believe Catholics don’t have the ability to recognize heresy (simply a “straw-man” argument).  Again, he says, “As we’ve shown, the idea that Catholics do not have the ability or the authority to recognize that a cleric has publicly defected from the faith (and thus lost his office) is the key argument upon which anti-sedevacantists such as Salza state their case.” No, Peter, it is not. The “key argument” is the sedevacantist’s inability to judge a pope’s heart and conclude he is acting with malice. I have always maintained that Catholics do have this ability to recognize heresy, but (especially in the case of a claimant to the papal throne!) the heresy must either be “notorious” or else declared by a “condemnatory sentence” for the “common good” of the Church (requirements of canon law that Dimond simply ignores or says don’t apply).”

In this paragraph, Salza contradicts himself.  But what’s new about that, right?  He first says that his “key argument” is that Catholics 1) don’t have the ability to conclude that a papal claimant is acting with malice.  Never mind the fact that canon law presumes malice in the external forum (canon 2200.2).  If one accepts what Salza says here, then one cannot conclude that a heretical individual is malicious until there is a declaration.  Catholics simply don’t have any such ability, according to Salza.

But no, Salza proceeds to contradict that “key argument” in the very next sentence.  He declares that 2) “Catholics do have the ability to recognize this heresy” – and therefore conclude the perpetrator is malicious without a declaration – “if the heresy is notorious.”  That means that, according to Salza, Catholics do have the ability to conclude the claimant is a heretic without a declaration, and that his bold assertion about his “key argument” is false.  Therefore his statement, in the previous sentence, that Catholics don’t have any such ability is proven to be meaningless and false.

Salza also contradicts his “key argument” on pages 15-16, by declaring that if John Paul II did certain things Salza deems to be outrageous, Catholics could consider him to be a true heretic (i.e., malicious).  The same principle would of course apply to Benedict XVI.

John Salza, Second Article, p. 15-16: “If, for example, Pope John Paul II made known to the Church that he kissed the Koran because he denies the divinity of Christ, and he persisted in his error after being rebuked, the Church would know at that point that he is a formal heretic. A declaration of heresy for “the common good” of the Church in such case would be unnecessary.”

Needless to say, Benedict XVI is proven to be notorious.  Benedict XVI denies the historical accuracy of the Bible, teaches that Jews shouldn’t be evangelized, teaches justification by faith alone, teaches that the “Orthodox” are inside the Church, and much more.  All of this refutes Salza.

P. 22- SALZA FALLS INTO A MAJOR PIT IN RESPONDING TO THE POPE LIBERIUS ARGUMENT

In my first article refuting Salza, I discussed a fact about the Pope Liberius case and St. Robert Bellarmine’s comments on the matter.  I explained why this fact refutes the position promoted by Salza and other defenders of Antipope Benedict XVI.  Salza attempts to address the matter in his second article.  He thinks he has a great response to the argument.  As I will show, his response only points us back to his fundamentally schismatic error.  I will now quote his entire summary of, and response to, my argument on the Pope Liberius-Bellarmine point.

John Salza, Second Article, p. 22: “Dimond also refers to the case of Pope Liberius, who was falsely accused of falling into the Arian heresy in the fourth century. Then Dimond gloms on to what he calls a “little known” quote from St. Bellarmine which he thinks justifies his refusal to submit to the conciliar popes. Bellarmine says:

"Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple and condemn him as a heretic” De Romano Pontifice, lib. IV, c. 9, no. 15.

Based on the foregoing, Dimond concludes: “if St. Robert’s words show that Catholics were justified in presuming Pope Liberius a heretic and outside the Church, who only appeared to be a heretic (but actually wasn’t), how much more in the case of Antipope Benedict XVI, who is without any doubt a heretic and an apostate.” Actually, this argument only reveals the gross errors of sedevacantism and Peter Dimond’s position. Bellarmine does not say that “Catholics were justified in presuming Pope Liberius a heretic” based on their own private judgment. Quite the contrary, Bellarmine says “the Roman clergy..stripp[ed] Liberius of his pontifical dignity,” and “from that time, men could “judge him to be a heretic pure and simple.”

If Dimond would have read Bellarmine’s quote carefully, he would have known that Liberius’ Catholic hierarchy (“the Roman clergy”) investigated the claim of heresy and then determined the loss of office. It was only after this ecclesiastical determination that the faithful could hold Liberius a public heretic. It was precisely because Liberius’ putative heresy was not “notorious” that the Catholic hierarchy had to make the determination (which is precisely my position, not to mention that of canon law). This is proven by the fact that Liberius was later exonerated (see Blessed Pius IX’s Quartus Supra, No. 16, 1873), meaning his heresy was never “notorious.” Bellarmine’s quote is further evidence that an ecclesiastical investigation and censure is required if a pope is accused of heresy that has not been prove [sic] to be notorious and morally imputable. Thank you, Mr. Dimond, for providing us your “little known” quote from Bellarmine, as it only proves my position (and expressly refutes yours).”

Salza thinks he has a great response to my point, but he’s actually quite wrong.  In his blindness, he cannot perceive his mistake.  Before I expose it, allow me to restate the main consideration on this point.  The main consideration is that St. Robert Bellarmine teaches that the Catholics were justified in rejecting Liberius as a non-pope because they considered him to have become a heretic, even though it turned out that Liberius only appeared to be a heretic but in reality was not.  If, according to Bellarmine, that was the proper course of action with Pope Liberius, who only appeared to be a heretic but turned out to be falsely accused, what would St. Robert Bellarmine have said about rejecting an undeniable heretic such as Antipope Benedict XVI?  It’s quite obvious.

Salza responds by saying that, according to Bellarmine, “the Roman clergy stripped Liberius of his dignity.”  Salza even says: “It was only afterthis ecclesiastical determination that the faithful could hold Liberius a public heretic.”

According to Salza – and we must focus on this point – it was the “determination” or “declaration” of the Roman clergy that transferred the obedience Catholics had for the pope (Liberius) away from the pope.  Do you see the problem with his argument?  It should be clear by now.  Remember what we covered about Catholic teaching against judging the First See and deposing a pope.

The problem for Salza is that his argument is schismatic.  Neither the Roman clergy nor anyone else can issue a declaration or determination that transfers the obedience Catholics have to a reigning pope away from the reigning pope!  The Roman clergy have no authority to do so.  If the Roman clergy did issue such a “determination,” as Salza argues, then that determination would serve as the de facto deposition of the Roman Pontiff.  And that of course is impossible, schismatic and condemned.

Canon 1556, 1917 Code of Canon Law, On trials in general: “The First See is judged by no one.”

Pope St. Nicholas, epistle (8), Proposueramus quidem, 865: “… Neither by Augustus, nor by all the clergy, nor by religious, not by the people will the judge be judged… ‘The first seat will not be judged by anyone.’”

Pope St. Leo IX, In terra pax hominibus, Sept. 2, 1053, Chap. 11: “By passing judgment on the great See, concerning which it is not permitted any man to pass judgment, you have received anathema from all the Fathers of the venerable Councils…”

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chap. 29: “Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church.  I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will.  It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him.”

The First See is judged by no one, and that includes the Roman clergy.  The pope is deposed by no one, and that includes the Roman clergy.  Salza’s position is wrong, condemned and schismatic.

Moreover, in commenting on the issue, notice Salza’s outrageous dishonesty in twisting Bellarmine’s words.  Salza summarizes a passage thus:

“Bellarmine says “the Roman clergy..stripp[ed] Liberius of his pontifical dignity,” and “from that time, men could “judge him to be a heretic pure and simple.”

Demonstrating his trademark dishonesty, Salza makes it seem like Bellarmine says they could “judge him to be a heretic pure and simple” only after “the Roman clergy” intervened.  That’s not what Bellarmine says.  He says that they could judge him to be a heretic pure and simple based on his actions.  Here’s the passage:

“For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple and condemn him as a heretic.”

St. Robert is clearly saying that he was considered a heretic and a non-pope based on his actions.  When St. Robert Bellarmine refers to the Roman clergy “stripping Liberius of his dignity” and going over to Felix, he refers to the fact that the Roman clergy did have the power to elect a new pope.  They also had the ability to PHYSICALLY remove Liberius from the possession of Catholic buildings in Rome, after it was recognized WITHOUT A DECLARATION that he was a non-pope.

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30, speaking of a claimant to the Papal Office:  "For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is 'ipso facto' deposed… 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."

The Roman clergy could not strip a pope of possession of the spiritual office of the Papacy; nor could their declaration have authority in the Church to swing Catholics away from obedience to the man who is considered the pope, as Salza schismatically promotes.  The Roman clergy cannot issue any declaration against a pope.

As a dishonest heretic, who has been refuted again, Salza will of course argue that the Roman clergy were not deposing the pope but only authoritatively recognizing that the deposition occurred automatically for heresy.  That doesn’t work because his position is that the Catholics should have accepted Liberius untilthe declaration of the Roman clergy, making the declaration of an inferior body the de facto authoritative decree that transfers obedience away from the pope, thus serving de facto as the cause of his deposition in the external forum.  Salza’s position is condemned.

The truth is that the Roman clergy can only act against one who has already been determined by Catholics, without any declaration, to be a non-pope.  That proves that the recognition that the claimant is a heretic and has lost his office occurs WITHOUT ANY DECLARATION, since no one could issue an authoritative declaration against a pope.  The ability to recognize the loss of office without any declaration is not limited to the Roman clergy, but is common to all Catholics.  It’s based on the divine law that heretics are automatically expelled from the Church, and that Catholics must not profess communion with those who adhere to heresy in the external forum.

So, the loss of office is recognized without a declaration, and then the Roman clergy or anyone else who has the means can proceed with removing the non-pope heretic (who has been recognized as such without a declaration) from physical possession of Catholic buildings.  Since the Roman clergy were responsible for electing popes in the first millennium, they could justifiably proceed with the election of a new pope, since the office was recognized to have been vacated without declaration as a result of the claimant’s heresies.

As we can see, Salza’s response, which in his blindness he deemed clever, couldn’t have been more wrong.  It highlights, once again, his schismatic position that popes can be judged, subjected to trials, and declared against by lower clergy.  Moreover, he added a new twist to his schismatic position: according to him, in the Catholic Church the Roman clergy have the authority to remove Catholics from obedience to the reigning pope.

SALZA’S POSITION ON THE ROMAN CLERGY REVEALED

Let’s reduce Salza’s schismatic position on this point to its absurd conclusion.  This will help to further illustrate his error.  In Salza’s scenario, the Roman clergy could issue a “determination” that a reigning pope is a heretic.  According to him, that would cause Catholics to shift their obedience away from the reigning pope.  But what if the reigning pope responded by issuing an authoritative declaration that the Roman clergy’s judgment is wrong?

What would Catholics follow, the “determination” of the Roman clergy (that the pope is a heretic) or the decree of the pope (that the Roman clergy are wrong)?  It’s an insoluble dilemma for Salza.  If he says that Catholics should follow the decree of the pope, that contradicts everything he says about Catholics rejecting the claimant based on the authoritative “determination” of the Roman clergy.  If he says they should follow the “determination” of the Roman clergy, he has elevated the Roman clergy to an equal status with the pope (which is heretical), and he has concluded that a body can depose the pope (which is also heretical).  His position cannot be salvaged because it’s false.

The truth is that the determination that the pope has lost his office is not based on the authoritative determination of any clergyman or any group of clergymen.  It is based upon the clear evidence of public heresy in the external forum and the divine law that requires Catholics to reject those who depart from the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium.   Since no one could issue a declaration against a pope, the loss of office, as well as Catholics’ recognition of it, occurs without any declaration.  

P. 23 – SALZA AGAIN CALLS FOR A SCHISMATIC TRIAL OF A REIGNING POPE

John Salza, Second Article, p. 23: “But when it comes to the claimant of the papal throne, if there is no definitive proof of moral imputability (which the pope would nevertheless be allowed to rebut in a canonical trial), canon law requires a declaratory sentence to be issued when it is for the “common good” of the Church.”

He has no idea what he’s talking about.  As we’ve covered in tedious detail, a pope cannot be deposed from office.  A pope cannot be subjected to a trial.

Canon 1556, 1917 Code of Canon Law, On trials in general: “The First See is judged by no one.”

Pope St. Nicholas, epistle (8), Proposueramus quidem, 865: “… Neither by Augustus, nor by all the clergy, nor by religious, not by the people will the judge be judged… ‘The first seat will not be judged by anyone.’”

PP. 24-25 – SALZA LIES AGAIN

John Salza, Second Article, p. 24: “Hence, the Dimond brothers condemn the conciliar popes for the very same actions in which they themselves engage, which is hypocrisy of the first order (and, in moral theology, they would be guilty of objective mortal sin against the Faith).”

This is a lie.  We do not condemn anyone, let alone the Vatican II antipopes, for things we believe or do ourselves.  He’s attempting to refer to our position that Catholics may receive sacraments from some undeclared heretical priests who profess to be Catholic.

Since Salza has no understanding of Catholic teaching on the issues we’ve been examining, it’s not a surprise that he also has no understanding of this matter.  He makes many errors on this point, and it’s not worth the time to refute them all, except for this one.

The Church’s condemnations against partaking in non-Catholic worship do condemn the false ecumenism and interreligious prayer meetings of the Vatican II antipopes.  The antipopes enter openly non-Catholic churches and non-Catholic houses of worship and they engage in religious activity.  Their heretical actions in that regard would be sufficient in themselves to prove they are not popes.

However, their participation in condemned non-Catholic worship, as well as their false ecumenism and joint prayer with pagans and heretics, is not comparable in the slightest way to the Catholic teaching on receiving sacraments in a necessity from certain undeclared heretics who profess to be Roman Catholics, offer a Catholic liturgy, and officiate at what professes to be a Roman Catholic (not a non-Catholic) church.  Our position in that regard is proven by canon law and Church Tradition.  Attempts to refute it were demolished in a recent debate we had, just like Salza would have been demolished if he had accepted our debate challenge.  Since Salza has nothing else, he must shift the issue away from whether Benedict XVI is the pope to other matters.  In the process, he only displays how desperate and bankrupt his arguments are.

P. 26- SALZA SAYS THAT NONE OF THE HERETICAL STATEMENTS OF THE CONCILIAR “POPES” COME FROM MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENTS

John Salza, Second Article, p. 26: “Well, then, the same logic can and does apply to the post-conciliar teachings that Dimond believes are heresies, since they too are not from the Extraordinary or Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. None of the heterodox statements or novel practices of Popes John Paul II or Benedict XVI, for example, have come from the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.”

Salza is so wrong.  I could spend quite a bit of time discussing numerous examples that refute Salza’s contention, but I will only focus on one.  Consider the heresy that the schismatic “Orthodox,” who reject the Papacy, Papal Infallibility, and Vatican I, are part of the universal Church.  That horrible heresy rejects dozens of magisterial pronouncements which declare that those who reject the Papacy are outside the Church.  Benedict XVI teaches this heresy and he admits that it’s the binding and magisterial teaching of Vatican II.

Benedict XVI, Light of the World, 2010, p. 89: “… what I defended was the heritage of the Second Vatican Counciland of the entire history of the Church.  The passage [from Dominus Iesus] means that the Eastern Churches [i.e., the “Orthodox”] are genuine particular churches, although they are not in communion with the Pope.  In this sense, unity with the Pope is not constitutive for the particular church.”

This is an extremely significant heresy.  It overthrows Catholic teaching on the Papacy.  On pages 94-96  of Light of the World, Benedict XVI expands on this point.  He explains that the teaching of Vatican II, according to which the “Orthodox” are part of the Church – and the Protestant sects are “ecclesiastical communities” within the Body – is magisterial and binding.  See my article on this book for the full quote.

Benedict XVI, Light of the World, 2010, pp. 94-96: “And not even a Pope can offer an alternative definition of a Church?  A.  No.  He has no authority over that.  The Second Vatican Council is binding on him.”

Benedict XVI clearly teaches that Vatican II’s teaching on “the Church” (which includes the massive heresy on the “Orthodox”) is magisterially binding.  Even if Benedict XVI never bound anyone to this outrageous heresy, his adherence to it would still prove that he is not the pope.  But as we can see, he does bind people to it.  It’s the official teaching of Salza’s sect.  In fact, Salza’s own website teaches this heresy and confirms that it is the binding teaching of his “Church”!

John Salza’s Website, “Catholicism & Orthodoxy: A Comparison,” by Dave Armstrong: “Catholics must believe that Orthodoxy is a part of the universal Church (commensurate with the Second Vatican Council and many recent papal encyclicals on ecumenism in general or Orthodoxy in particular). That fact alone precludes the justification of any condescension, animosity, or hostility, which is especially sinful amongst Christians (Galatians 6:10).”

Salza himself teaches that Catholics “must” believe in this horrible heresy.  So while Salza is saying that he’s not bound to any of the false doctrines, his own material proves him wrong.

P. 26 – SALZA TEACHES THAT THERE IS SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH

John Salza, Second Article, p. 26: “Obviously, given these criteria, most people outside of the Church would not qualify for “invincible ignorance” (how many people violate the natural law with contraception, or don’t commit even deliberate venial sins?).”

Salza promotes the idea that some people “outside of the Church” would qualify for “invincible ignorance” and thus could be saved “outside of the Church.”  This is blatantly heretical.  There is no salvation outside the Church.  There are no exceptions, as numerous ex cathedra pronouncements make clear.

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”

Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra: “For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.”

Salza is a believer in the heresy of salvation for members of any religion through “baptism of desire” and “invincible ignorance.”  All of the objections he brings up on this matter are refuted in our book and materials.  Since Salza believes in the possibility of “invincible ignorance” for people outside the Church, he believes a Jew who rejects Christ or a Muslim in Pakistan or a Buddhist in the Far East could be saved.  That is heretical; it’s incompatible with true faith in Christ, and it leads to apostasy.

It’s interesting to consider that Salza believes that non-Catholics can be saved, yet he simultaneously believes in unconditional election.  He has publicly written on Predestination and expressed the view that God elects certain people for salvation, not based on foreseen merits, but simply because God loves those people more from all eternity.  When we consider Salza’s belief that God elects and predestines some people for salvation solely because He loves them more, we would think that Salza would also hold that God would bring those unconditionally elected and predestined souls into the one true Church and to a saving knowledge of Christ, the true God.

After all, if God elects them unconditionally from all eternity on the basis of His love for them, God would arrange it so that those special souls He loves so much have a place in the one Church which is necessary for salvation.  But no, paradoxically, the diabolical unbeliever John Salza holds 1) that God unconditionally elects these special people from all eternity, solely because He loves them more; yet 2) God will leave some of those same people in ignorance of the true God and outside the one true saving faith!  Only a demonic unbeliever such as Salza would be trapped in such a web of faithless contradictions.  And anyone who would promote John Paul II and Benedict XVI after seeing what they’ve done, as Salza has, is a demonic unbeliever.

P. 27 – SALZA CONTRADICTS HIMSELF ON PIUS IX AND “INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE”

On page 27, Salza admits that our position on Pius IX’s teaching in Quanto Conficiamur moerore, that those who are in “invincible ignorance,” if they are of good will, will be brought to baptism and the true faith, is “plausible.”  Salza is therefore admitting that our understanding of Pius IX’s (fallible) document, according to which Pius IX was not teaching that souls who are left in “invincible ignorance” can be saved, might be correct.

John Salza, Second Article, p. 27: “Nevertheless, Pope Pius IX teaches that those who meet these narrow criteria “can attain eternal life” by the “operating power of divine light and grace.” Dimond concludes that this must mean the invincibly ignorant person is infallibly led to formal membership in the Catholic Church. While this is a plausible conclusion, nothing in Pius IX’s teaching precludes one from concluding that God could infuse sanctifying grace into the soul of such person outside of the normative means of water baptism, since it is God who is making the person “keep the natural law” and “live an upright life” in the first place (although such an infusion of sanctifying grace would indeed make the person a formal member of the Church at that moment).”

He admits that our position on Pius IX’s document might be correct.  Yet, on the previous page, Salza referred to the same document of Pius IX in an attempt to prove that some souls outside the Church could be saved if they are in “invincible ignorance.”

John Salza, Second Article, p. 26: “Also, in Quanto Conficiamur moerore, Blessed Pius IX teaches that “invincible ignorance” exists only in those who keep the natural law, are ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, and do not commit deliberate sin.  Obviously, given these criteria, most people outside of the Church would not qualify for “invincible ignorance” (how many people violate the natural law with contraception, or don’t commit even deliberate venial sins?).”

Here he draws the conclusion that, based on the teaching of Pius IX, some people outside the Church can be in “invincible ignorance” and thus be saved.  Yet, on the next page (quoted already) he admits that Pius IX might not have taught any such thing.  It makes no sense for him to draw the conclusion that they can be saved if he’s not even sure Pius IX taught any such thing.  The truth is that Pius IX did not teach that heresy in Quanto Conficiamur moerore.  He was declaring that people of good will shall be brought to the “divine light” of the Gospel and baptism.

Salza also claims that nothing in Pius IX’s teaching precludes one from believing that God could infuse sanctifying grace into the soul of a person outside the Church.  He is wrong.  The dogma itself precludes that heretical conclusion.  It has been defined that Baptism and faith in Jesus Christ are indispensable for salvation and the state of grace.  If Pius IX or anyone else ever were to contradict that dogmatic rule, he would be wrong.

In fact, Pope Pius IX declares that a Catholic must hold one Lord, one Faith and one Baptism, and that it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.

Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadam: “For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains, ‘we shall see God as He is’ (1 John 3:2), we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is ‘one God, one faith, one baptism’ [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.”

It’s obvious that, in this passage, Pius IX is denouncing the speculative heresies of those who believe that multiple forms of “baptism” (e.g., “baptism of desire”) can save people who are not Catholic.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity….Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity. “But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man... This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

P. 28 – SALZA’S FALSE ARGUMENT ABOUT SESS. 6, CHAP. 4 OF TRENT

As you can see, Salza diverts from Benedict XVI’s legitimacy to the topic of “baptism of desire” and salvation outside the Church.  On page 28, he attempts to prove that the Council of Trent taught that justification can happen by water or by desire.  We have refuted this false idea in our book, and I don’t want to delve into another in-depth discussion of a separate issue.  Salza doesn’t even believe one has to desire baptism for salvation, since he believes souls can be saved in false religions.  However, I will quickly refute his false argument.

John Salza, Second Article, p. 27: “For example, I might tell my child, “You cannot play outside unless you sweep the floor or take out the garbage.” That means the child gets to go outside if she either sweeps the floor or takes out the garbage. She does not have to do both. That is the way Trent was using “or” in its clause on baptism of desire.”

Salza’s argument is specious because his example doesn’t remain faithful to the sentence structure of the passage from Trent.  The passage in Trent says:

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: “In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, AS IT IS WRITTEN: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).”

Trent declares that justification CANNOT TAKE PLACE without this or that.  Salza’s false example subtly turns the sentence into a positive either-or statement by adding the verb “sweep” and significantly altering the structure of the sentence.  His example:

You cannot play outside unless you sweep the floor or take out the garbage

Notice the extra verb.  By adding the verb “sweep” (not to mention “take”), he alters the meaning of the passage and turns it into a positive statement that something happens if you do this (“sweep”) or that (“take out the garbage”).  If he had remained faithful to the structure of the passage in Trent with his attempted analogy, he would have given an example that says exactly what Trent says, namely: Something cannot take place without x or x.  One cannot add new verbs after “cannot take place.”  By doing so, one changes the meaning of the passage.  However, if you give an example that remains faithful to the sentence structure of Trent’s passage, it becomes clear that the passage is not declaring that justification happens with x or x.

For example:

A wedding cannot take place without a bride or a groom (x or x)

This example is faithful to Trent’s sentence structure.  It means you need both.  It doesn’t mean the wedding happens with one or the other.

Moreover, the fact that our understanding of this passage (i.e., that it does not teach “baptism of desire”) is correct is confirmed by the passage’s use of “as it is written” IN THE VERY SAME SENTENCE.  It declares that John 3:5 – unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God – is to be understood “as it is written.”  That is directly contrary to the idea of “baptism of desire.”  “Baptism of desire” means that people can be saved without water and the Holy Ghost.  Thus, John 3:5 would not be true “as it is written” if “baptism of desire” were true.  Further, our point is proven by all of the other passages in Trent on the absolute necessity of water baptism.

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, canon 5, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, ex cathedra:  “By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death... so that in them there may be washed away by regeneration, what they have contracted by generation, ‘For unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God [John 3:5].”

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, Session 7, canon 2, ex cathedra:  “If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”

Trent consistently understands John 3:5 literally with no exceptions.  The Sacrament (i.e., water baptism) is necessary for salvation.  Moreover, as I showed in my book, I also wrote to a non-Catholic Latin scholar to get an independent opinion on the issue.  What she said was interesting.

“This is not easy! It is possible to make sense of it in both ways, with aut as 'or' and as 'and'.

“Aut as 'or' is more common, but here the interpretation depends on whether you think that the desire for baptism is enough on its own or whether the phrase signifies that you need the desire as well as the sacrament itself.

I'll leave it to you to decide!

Best wishes,

Carolinne White

OXFORD LATIN”

Ms. White’s statement is very important and very interesting in that it shows that in her professional opinion as a Latin scholar, the passage using “or” (aut) can definitely be read as “and,” something many baptism of desire advocates absolutely reject as impossible.  She further admits that the interpretation depends upon whether one believes that the desire for baptism is enough – I believe a very honest statement on her part.  And she said this without my giving her the rest of the context; namely, where the Council of Trent declares, immediately after using the words “or the desire for it,” that John 3:5 is to be understood as it is written.

Therefore, even if one takes the position that there is some ambiguity in the passage, “baptism of desire” advocates must admit that our understanding of the passage could be correct (and it is).  Once they admit that our understanding is possible, as they must, then the true understanding should be garnered from the complete context (e.g., the words “as it is written”), as well as what Trent says in all of its other statements on water baptism and John 3:5.

Do those other statements in Trent on water baptism and John 3:5 leave any room for “baptism of desire”?  No.  Do they conform to a literal understanding of John 3:5, which excludes “baptism of desire”?  Yes.  Does all of the other dogmatic evidence from other councils and decrees leave room for “baptism of desire”?  No.  “Baptism of desire” advocates are wrong about their understanding of the passage.  There are many other dogmatic arguments we could get into which also prove without a doubt that “baptism of desire” is irreconcilable with Catholic teaching.  The truth is, as it is written (Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4), unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

P. 28 – SALZA LIES AND SAYS WE ARE GUILTY OF CRIMES

John Salza, Second Article, p. 28: -“DOUBLE STANDARD IV: THE POPES’ CRIMES V. THE DIMOND BROTHERS’ CRIMES.”

This is defamation per se, a mortal sin, slander, etc.  We aren’t guilty of any crimes.  Nevertheless, Salza chooses this language because he desires to destroy our reputations by any means.  He’s referring to a civil lawsuit we are engaged in with a man who willingly donated money to us and now, since he has different religious views, is trying to get it back.  We refuted Salza’s lies in detail in our video: John Salza's lies, errors and dishonesty.  We have also discussed this case on our website.  The claims against us in this civil (not criminal) case are totally false, and we are also suing the other party.

Since our article humiliated John Salza by completely exposing his errors, his heresies and his embarrassing contradictions, he is desperate to blacken our reputations.  He doesn’t want anyone to see that he was refuted.  The coward also knows he’s afraid to debate us because he’d be demolished, so the best he can do is lie about us.

P. 29 – SALZA’S OUTRAGEOUSLY FALSE AND ILLOGICAL COMPARISON BETWEEN OUR LAWSUIT AND BENEDICT XVI’S HERESIES

John Salza, Second Article, p. 28: “Even though malice seems much more obvious in the Dimond brothers’ case than in the case of the conciliar popes (because the Dimond brothers financially profited from their alleged crimes), they still have a right to confront their accuser, rebut his evidence, and provide exculpatory evidence to defend and exonerate themselves.”

Should a man who makes such ridiculous statements be considered honest or reputable?  Of course not.  We have piles of documentation on the matter of Benedict XVI’s heresies.  We can prove that he’s a heretic in a hundred different ways.  There’s hardly a teaching of the Catholic Church he is not on record as having denied.  His last book alone (Jesus of Nazareth – Holy Week) denies the historical accuracy of Matthew’s Gospel and rejects converting the Jews.  Yet, Salza says it’s more obvious that we are guilty than Benedict XVI!  Salza is a man with no integrity and no sincerity.  He’s not interested in the truth at all.

His analogy is false because 1) the rules by which Catholics evaluate proof of heresy are not 2) the rules by which people are found guilty in a civil lawsuit.  In a civil lawsuit, people are not found guilty until an independent judge examines evidence or a trial is conducted.  That’s not the case in Catholic teaching, however.  In Catholic teaching, people can be considered guilty of heresy based on evidence in the external forum from their own words and deeds, even if a judge hasn’t examined the evidence and no trial has been conducted.  In fact, in another stunning contradiction of his point, Salza admits this fact.

John Salza, Second Article, p. 15-16: “If, for example, Pope John Paul II made known to the Church that he kissed the Koran because he denies the divinity of Christ, and he persisted in his error after being rebuked, the Church would know at that point that he is a formal heretic. A declaration of heresy for “the common good” of the Church in such case would be unnecessary.”

He admits here that if one does certain things, according to the laws of the Catholic Church he can be considered guilty without a judge having evaluated evidence or a trial of the same.  This destroys his entire point.

The laws of the U.S. (which require a judge or trial for someone to be found guilty) are not comparable to the laws of Catholic Church (in which a judge or trial is not necessary for someone to be considered guilty).  Salza’s attempted analogy is poorly conceived and utterly false.  It’s also absolutely outrageous that he would declare the proof against Benedict XVI to be comparable to (and in fact greater than) a baseless civil claim, countless examples of which are filed in this country every week.

P. 29 – SALZA CHANGES HIS POSITION ON WHETHER SEDEVACANTISTS ARE SCHISMATICS AFTER I REFUTED AND EXPOSED IT

In my first article, I exposed how Salza, in his first article, declared that sedevacantists are schismatics and automatically excommunicated.  I explained how that contradicted his central argument.  I wrote:

“Salza falls into another embarrassing contradiction – one that rips the heart out of his thesis –when he declares:

Salza, “The Errors of Sedevacantism and Ecclesiastical Law,” The Remnant: “By withdrawing submission from the Holy Father and the faithful in communion with him, Sedevacantists are schismatic and hence automatically excommunicated from the Church under both Divine and ecclesiastical law (canon 1325, par. 2).”

By what authority does Salza declare that sedevacantists have been “automatically excommunicated”?  Didn’t his article argue that “the Church must tell us” if someone has fallen under automatic excommunication for sins that involve a defection from the faith?  Yes it did.

Salza, “The Errors of Sedevacantism and Ecclesiastical Law,” The Remnant: “However, the same Code of Canon Law also determines how we know a cleric has publicly defected from the Faith and lost his office as a result of the defection: The Church tells us. Thus, ecclesiastical law follows Our Lord’s directive: “tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” (Mt 18:17).”

As we see, Salza destroys his entire argument and proves that he’s a corrupter of Catholic truth and an astounding hypocrite.  By declaring (quite wrongly) that sedevacantists are schismatics and automatically excommunicated from the Church, he is doing what he elsewhere claims can’t be done.  Sedevacantists have not been declared excommunicated by authorities of the Vatican II sect.”

In his second article, Salza retracts his position on this matter.

John Salza, Second Article, p. 29: “In closing, I want to make a few more important points. First, the sedevacantists’ concern about casting blanket condemnations over them is well taken. In charity, we should admit that, after studying the issue of sedevacantism in depth, we cannot say that all sedevacantists are formally schismatic.”

Consider this to be an acknowledgment that I refuted his previous assertion and exposed its contradictory implications.

P. 29 – SALZA’S ERROR ON READING MINDS AND HEARTS

John Salza, Second Article, p. 29: “At the same time, the sedevacantist should admit that it is possible that the conciliar popes, while perhaps gravely ignorant or even negligent, are not acting with malice. It is possible. By admitting this possibility, though, means that sedevacantists cannot definitively conclude the conciliar popes are not true popes. Even if the sedevacantist won’t admit this possibility (and honesty requires the admission because we can’t read the popes’ minds and hearts), they must admit that their conclusion – and, ultimately, their salvation or damnation – rests on their own private judgment.”

There are a number of errors in this paragraph.  First, he says it’s possible that the conciliar antipopes are not acting with malice.  It is not possible, as I have shown.  It’s not possible because the things they believe (endorsement of false religions) are directly incompatible with the possession of faith.  With such matters, it wouldn’t make a difference if they were completely ignorant of the issue (and they are not).  They are simply not Catholic.

Second, he says the sedevacantists are wrong because we can’t read minds and hearts.  Notice how clearly he contradicts the teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine on this point.

St Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. IV, c. 9, no. 15: "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.”

Further, we refuted Salza’s point by considering the lapsi controversy: how those who sacrificed to false gods only out of fear were still considered apostates.

P. 1 - JOHN SALZA’S OUTRAGEOUS LIES AND ERRORS CONCERNING OUR VIEW OF THE ANTICHRIST

Near the end of this article, I’m shifting back to an outrageous lie he uttered on page one.  As our other material shows, John Salza is proven to be a mortally sinful liar.  Among his lies, we find the following false statements:

John Salza, Second Article, p. 1: “After all, how much attention should we give to men [the Dimonds] who publicly declared that Pope John Paul II was the anti-Christ and the world was going to end during his reign? (This means the Dimond brothers are also false prophets.)”

“… his [Peter Dimond’s] false prophecies that Pope John Paul II was the Anti-Christ and the world was going to end during his reign.”

Salza declares that we claimed the world was going to end during John Paul II’s reign.  This is false.  It’s true that we did believe (and we still believe, as anyone who follows our material knows) that John Paul II was the Final Antichrist.  However, we did not say that the world was going to end during his reign.  Salza’s proclamation is a fabrication, a mortally sinful one.

Not only do we still believe that John Paul II was the Antichrist, but with the “election” of Benedict XVI, and his move to cause people to “worship” John Paul II via “beatification” and “canonization,” the evidence is mounting that we were (and are) correct.  That John Paul II was the Antichrist is our opinion and others can disagree.  We did not say it was infallible.  The point, however, is that not only has it not been proven wrong; but in fact the evidence is considerable that we were and are correct.  We also expressed our opinion in this regard before Benedict XVI was ever “elected,” which means before all of the events that are now occurring, which so closely align to the text of Apocalypse 13, could have been considered.

John Paul II preached that every man (including himself) is Jesus Christ, and he did so in the Temple of God.  The Apocalypse (chapter 13) describes two beasts.  Most commentators believe the first beast, who is wounded unto death, but his death wound is healed, is the Antichrist (consider John Paul II’s shooting, May 13, 1981, and his stunning recovery).

Most consider the second beast of Apocalypse 13 to be the false prophet.  This second beast, the Apocalypse declares, exercised all the power of the former beast (i.e., the first beast) in the presence of the first beast (consider Joseph Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI, when head of the CDF, exercising all the power under John Paul II in the sight of John Paul II).  Apocalypse 13 also says that the second beast will cause people to worship (in the sense of veneration of saints) the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed (consider Benedict XVI’s move to “beatify” and “canonize” John Paul II).

Apocalypse 13 describes a miracle with “fire coming down from Heaven in the sight of men” in this context, and how it and similar signs are instrumental in getting the worship of the first beast (who was wounded) going (see our video for the “miracle” of John Paul II, in Poland, appearing as fire from Heaven).  Apocalypse 13 also identifies one of these beasts as having a name which equals 666 (consider that Benedict XVI’s name in Greek “Benediktos” equals 666).  And there are many other interesting facts to consider.  You can listen to our presentation about how Benedict XVI and John Paul II fit with the two beasts of Apocalypse 13 (the false prophet and the Antichrist respectively) in our widely-viewed video, Is the World about to End?  Parts 5 to 9 are the most relevant; however, the entire video is necessary for a full understanding.

Is the World about to End? - Part 5

Is the World about to End? - Part 6

Is the World about to End? - Part 7

People can disagree with our opinions about the Antichrist.  We never said they were teachings of the Catholic Church.  Moreover, they are not central to the issue of whether Benedict XVI is the pope.  However, Salza errs when he implies that our position that John Paul II was the Antichrist has been disproven.  It has not.  He also lies when he falsely claims that we said the world would end during the reign of John Paul II.  We did not.

Furthermore, Salza reveals his ignorance of this topic when he falsely concludes that, if we wrongly identified the Antichrist, we must be false prophets.

This is one of those irrelevant side-issues he would attempt to bring forward if he ever debated us.  In a debate, not only would he be thoroughly refuted on the topic of whether Benedict XVI is the pope, but he would also be refuted on all of these side-issues.  Even if, for the sake of argument, we were wrong about who is the Antichrist (something we do not grant and has not been proven), it would not demonstrate that we are false prophets.

Allow me to inform John Salza of a few facts in this regard.  The great St. Athanasius stated that the Emperor Constantius (who has now been dead for over 1600 years) was the “abomination of desolation.”  The abomination of desolation is one of the primary signs of the end times.  The “abomination of desolation” is mentioned both by the prophet Daniel and by the Lord Jesus Christ (Matthew 24:15).  According to commentators, it will appear on Earth around the time of the Antichrist.

St. Athanasius said Emperor Constantius was the abomination of desolation: “From the security of his desert he [St. Athanasius] wrote about [Emperor] Constantius: ‘who that beheld him as chorus leader of his pretended bishops, and presiding in ecclesiastical causes, would not justly exclaim that this was the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel?’” (Leo Donald Davis, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils, p. 94.)

Since St. Athanasius made this proclamation in the early Church, almost 2000 years ago, most would agree that St. Athanasius was wrong.  According to Salza’s argument, St. Athanasius was a false prophet.

ST. BERNARD (MIRACLE-WORKER, SAINT AND DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH) PROCLAIMED ANTIPOPE ANACLETUS II “THE ANTICHRIST” AND THE “BEAST” OF THE APOCALYPSE

As the Catholic Encyclopedia article on “Antichrist” points out, St. Bernard (who died in 1153) believed that the Antichrist would be an antipope.  During St. Bernard’s time an antipope named Anacletus II managed to displace the true pope, Innocent II.  Anacletus reigned in Rome from 1130 to 1138.  St. Bernard thought that Antipope Anacletus II, the man he was opposing at the time, was in fact the Antichrist and the Beast of the Apocalypse.

“His [St. Bernard’s] language was vehement, not to say violent: Anacletus is Antichrist; he is the Beast of prophecy…” (James Cotter Morison, The Life and Times of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, pp. 164-165)

“… a passage from St. Bernard, as if in reprobation of the Papacy, to the effect that ‘that beast of the Apocalypse, to whom is given a mouth speaking blasphemies, occupies the Chair of Peter, as a lion ready for the prey?’ whereas it turns out that St. Bernard is not speaking of the Pope, but of the Antipope…” (The British Critic and Quarterly Theological Review, by James Shergold Boone & John Henry Newman, London, 1840, p. 400).

I think most would agree that St. Bernard was wrong.  Antipope Anacletus was not the Antichrist.  Therefore, according to Salza, St. Bernard was a false prophet.  What does that tell us about Salza’s argument?  Obviously, Salza’s conclusion that if we were wrong about who the Antichrist is – something he simply assumes – we must be “false prophets” is as sound as his theological arguments.  That is to say, it’s not sound at all.

If he had possessed the courage to debate us (which he did not), this irrelevant “side-issue” would have come up, and this is how he would have been thoroughly refuted.

P. 30 – WHILE I HAVE CAREFULLY EXPOSED AND REFUTED ALL OF HIS ARGUMENTS, SALZA HAS NO ANSWER WHATSOEVER FOR BENEDICT XVI’S MASSIVE HERESIES

Frankly, I’ve gone above and beyond the call of duty in this article.  I’ve gone through every single page of Salza’s outrageous article and proven, in meticulous detail, that Salza teaches errors, heresies and displays massive contradictions.  In other words, I address and refute all of his objections; but he and other non-sedevacantists cannot even begin to cogently address our points: i.e., the heresies of Antipope Benedict XVI, the false “Magisterium” of the Vatican II Church, etc.  They rarely even mention such matters with specificity.  Instead, they prefer to remain on the offensive by repeating their misapplications of canon law, etc.

On the rare occasion when they do discuss specific examples of Benedict XVI’s heresies, the inadequacy of their response is obvious to any fair-minded person.  For example, after 29 pages of nonsense, Salza finally gets around to addressing Benedict XVI’s heresy that Eastern schismatic leaders are “pastors in the Church of Christ.”  This heresy by itself ends the debate about Benedict XVI.

John Salza, Second Article, p. 30: “While some of the words and actions of the concililar popes seem indefensible on their face, we cannot prove that they were acting with malice. Even if the sedevacantist wrongly presumes malice, ecclesiastical offices are not lost on presumptions, and due process allows any accused to defend himself. For example, did Pope Benedict XVI call Eastern schismatics “pastors in the Church” because he maliciously denies the dogmas of the First Vatican Council, or because he caved in to the peer pressure of the Modernist ecumaniacs that surround him? (Does Pope Benedict even write his own speeches and addresses? Remember, the pope has admitted he doesn’t believe everything he says.) Is caving in to peer pressure enough to lose the office of the papacy?”

This response is truly pathetic.  He admits that many of their statements seem indefensible.  Yes, they are indefensible, John.  You should wake up and convert from your diabolical stupor.  He then attempts to make it seem like Benedict XVI’s statement was an isolated incident!  He implies that it was an act that doesn’t reflect Benedict XVI’s true beliefs.  How does that hold up?  It has already been totally refuted.

I’ve proven that Benedict XVI’s outrageous statement is the consistent teaching of the Vatican II sect.  It’s in Vatican II, Dominus Iesus and even on Salza’s own website, as I’ve shown!

John Salza’s Website, “Catholicism & Orthodoxy: A Comparison,” by Dave Armstrong: “Catholics must believe that Orthodoxy is a part of the universal Church (commensurate with the Second Vatican Council and many recent papal encyclicals on ecumenism in general or Orthodoxy in particular). That fact alone precludes the justification of any condescension, animosity, or hostility, which is especially sinful amongst Christians (Galatians 6:10).”

Need one say more?  Salza then argues that Benedict XVI doesn’t believe in what he says, or that he might have said it for reasons of “peer pressure.”  That is ridiculous on its face; and, as I’ve shown, it makes no difference.  The lapsi didn’t believe in the false gods to whom they sacrificed out of fear, but they were still apostates.

As we can see, Salza and those of his camp have no response to the heresies of Benedict XVI.  His heresies are indefensible, as all of our debates prove.  That’s why they almost never even attempt to address them.  In a debate, Salza would not only be exposed on the point of Benedict XVI’s heresies; but his false position that Vatican II’s doctrinal errors don’t compromise the “magisterium” of his “pope” would also be refuted.

P. 30 – SALZA’S MASSIVE BLUNDER ON ST. PETER’S PAPACY

John Salza, Second Article, p. 30: “God did not promise that He would prevent the pope from using his authority in confusing or even destructive ways. That a pope harms the Church by engaging in false ecumenism or common worship does not mean he is no longer the pope. The example of St. Peter is clear: he denied our Lord by swearing an oath and cursing and yet he did not lose his privileged office.”

Salza is quite wrong.  When St. Peter denied our Lord, he wasn’t the pope.  St. Peter was not given the office of the Papacy until after the Resurrection.  That is defined Catholic dogma.  Considering that we’ve refuted this objection numerous times, I’m surprised Salza hasn’t figured this out yet.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 4, Chap. 1: “And upon Simon Peter alone Jesus after His resurrection conferred the jurisdiction of the highest pastor and rector over his entire fold, saying: "Feed my lambs," "Feed my sheep" [John 21:15 ff.].” (Denz. 1822)

The words that Our Lord spoke to St. Peter in Matthew 16:18-19 were a promise that He would build the Church upon Peter, and that He would give him the keys to the kingdom, but these words did not give Peter the keys.  When St. Peter finally became the pope, he was a Catholic who denied nothing.  If he had been the pope and denied Christ, he would have lost his office.

P. 30 – SALZA’S ERROR ON THE IMPOSTOR SR. LUCIA

John Salza, Second Article, p. 30: “Sister Lucia also recognized the conciliar popes as valid popes, as we see in her correspondence in 1969-1971 to her nephew priests, which correspondence was authenticated with an Imprimatur by her bishop (this is the case whether or not an “imposter” Sister Lucia existed).

Our video, The Third Secret of Fatima, the Impostor Sr. Lucia, and the End of the World (which can be viewed online) marshals overwhelming evidence that the post-Vatican II “Sr. Lucia” was an impostor.  After all, she questioned whether anyone was in Hell.  Salza says that even if there was an impostor, the correspondence from 1969-1971 definitely came from the true Lucia.  That’s wrong.  It’s quite an oversight by Salza; for the evidence is that the impostor was implanted before 1960 (shortly after the Fr. Fuentes interview), and thus the correspondence to which he refers would not have emanated from the true Sr. Lucia.

Furthermore, Salza’s position on Sr. Lucia, like many other false “traditionalists,” is hopelessly inconsistent and illogical.  We know from sources which Salza accepts that the true Third Secret of Fatima is a single sheet of paper, about 20 to 25 lines.  But in 2000 the Vatican released a four-page text which it falsely calls the Third Secret.  Since the Third Secret cannot be both one page and four pages, logically one cannot accept the Vatican’s 2000 document as the true text or even as any part of the true text.  A consistent traditionalist therefore completely rejects the Vatican’s four-page text as not part of the Third Secret.  However, the post-Vatican II “Sr. Lucia” publicly confirmed the Vatican’s 2000 document as the authentic text of the “Third Secret,” despite the aforementioned proof against it.  Her confirmation of that text is beyond dispute and was captured on video.

Therefore, the post-Vatican II “Sr. Lucia” is inextricably bound up with the “Third Secret” released by the Vatican in 2000.  If you accept one as legitimate, you must accept the other.  Since Salza accepts the post-Vatican II “Sr. Lucia” as the true one, he would logically have to accept the Vatican’s document (released in 2000) as the true Third Secret.  It is my understanding, however, that he does not believe that text constitutes the full Third Secret, despite the confirmation given by his “Sr. Lucia.”  His position is inconsistent, and it reflects his compromised and inconsistent position on the Vatican II Counter Church as a whole.  He cannot consistently accept 1) the Vatican’s “Sr. Lucia” without accepting 2) the Vatican’s Third Secret as the complete and authentic document.

I personally believe that Salza, Gruner, and other false traditionalists privately believe that the post-Vatican II “Sr. Lucia” was an impostor.  I also think they privately believe that the four-page text released in 2000 is not any part of the real Third Secret of Fatima.  In my view, they dishonestly claim to accept both (at least on some level) simply out of human respect; and they have concocted theories to conform to their compromised position.  Hence, they accept both the impostor “Sr. Lucia” and the Vatican II’s phony Third Secret (at least in part) because they fear accusing the Vatican or the antipopes of perpetrating a direct fraud concerning “Sr. Lucia” and/or the Third Secret.  Since they serve man, and not God, they are unable to stand for the full truth on these matters.

P. 31 – SALZA COMPARES THE MASSIVE HERESIES OF BENEDICT XVI TO THE PRE-VATICAN II POPES’ FAILURE TO CONSECRATE RUSSIA

John Salza, Second Article, p. 31: “And with regard to Fatima, we might also ask: Did Popes Pius XI and XII lose the papal office because they did not consecrate Russia to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart as God commanded? Wasn’t their failure to consecrate Russia evidence that they “despised prophecy” (1Thess 5:20) which is a denial of revealed truth, rendering them public heretics? One can see how private judgment – and not the judgment of the Church – could lead to such an erroneous conclusion.”

The invalidity of this argument should be apparent to everyone.  As important as it is, the request to consecrate Russia is not a defined dogma of the faith.   However, the teachings Benedict XVI denies are defined dogmas of the faith.

Moreover, Heaven itself addressed the consequences of the failure to consecrate Russia.  Those consequences were the spread of the errors of Russia, increased persecutions of hunger, of the Church, etc.  Heaven did not say that the consequence of failing to consecrate Russia would be heresy for the one who thus failed.  But Heaven did say that the consequence of rejecting a dogma is heresy.  Therefore, Heaven does not equate the failure to consecrate Russia with the denial of a dogma.  This directly refutes Salza’s ridiculous argument.   The fact that Salza is making such arguments is further proof that he has nothing convincing to say in defense of his apostate antipope.

WHAT I’VE PROVEN: A LIE, AN ERROR, A HERESY OR A STAGGERING CONTRADICTION CAN BE FOUND ON EVERY SINGLE PAGE OF SALZA’S ARTICLE

You’ve just read a detailed, page-by-page exposé of John Salza’s response to my first article about him.  I refuted every single page of his article and proved that there are lies, errors, heresies and staggering contradictions.  Not only were his statements proven wrong, but they were proven wrong with his own words.  It should be clear by now that the former 32nd degree Freemason and proven liar John Salza is a dark heretic and a spiritual deceiver.  He refused to debate me because he knows he’d lose, and he lies about it.  Here’s a rapid-fire summary of what we’ve seen, and a few concluding words.

RAPID-FIRE SUMMARY

-He fundamentally changes his position on recognizing someone as a heretic without a declaration, and lies about his old position.

-He now says that you can recognize a heretic without a declaration, unless it’s a pope.  But this leads him into the condemned heresy that popes can be declared against or subjected to trials.

-He teaches the condemned heresy that popes are subject to trials more than ten different times in his article, thus demonstrating that he has no understanding of the issue he presumes to discuss at length.

-He blatantly lies and says that I avoided a debate with him!  The truth is just the opposite, of course.  He thought he might get away with his lie because he didn’t know I would publish our actual e-mail exchanges which expose it and reveal his dishonesty.

-He blatantly lies about my debate with another person.  His outrageous lie is reckless and defamatory, and he makes it because he was enraged by my refutation of him.

-He directly contradicts himself on one’s ability to judge the intentions of others.  He judges our intentions as bad-willed, and then on the very next page says we cannot judge his motives.

-He misleads people by saying that there have been five opinions on a heretical pope, when there has only been one opinion of saints and doctors on whether a heretic would remain pope (he would not); and this position is dogmatically certain.

-He quotes canon 2223.4 on no fewer than ten pages of his article, in an attempt to prove that a declaratory sentence is required in the case of a pope’s heresy; when the fact is that the canon has nothing to do with the issue (for the various reasons I discussed) and it cannot apply to a pope because no one can issue a declaration against a reigning pope.  His stunning misapplication of this canon poisons his article from start to finish.

-He makes significant errors on presuming heresy.

-In a desperate attempt to argue that Benedict XVI is not guilty of heresy, Salza argues that Benedict XVI is either ignorant or insane or drunk or under physical threats when he commits his countless heresies.  Salza advances these as possible excuses despite the fact that there is no evidence that Benedict XVI is any of the above.  Moreover, canon law presumes malice anyway, and none of those excuses would save Benedict XVI’s “papacy” even if they applied.

-He argues that Benedict XVI could be saved from heresy because he “desires” to please the world.  He is refuted by the lapsi controversy.  It proved that those who commit apostasy even out of fear for their lives are still considered apostates.  By justifying apostasy on the basis of a desire to please the world, Salza mocks the saints and martyrs.  He proves himself to be a demonic defender and justifier of Christ-denial.

-He incompetently calls our position, that there are certain mysteries of faith which everyone must know to be saved, and the fact that one can be ignorant in good faith of other deeper dogmas, a “double standard,” when it is not only perfectly consistent but in fact the teaching of the Church.

-The anti-Catholic nature of his position is perhaps best shown by the section, “If Salza Had Lived During the Lapsi Controversy.”

-He makes the pathetic argument that Benedict XVI doesn’t believe in what he says.  That’s because he has no response to the many heresies Benedict XVI teaches.

-He directly contradicts himself on whether a declaration is required against a heretical “pope.”  These are fresh contradictions, new and independent from the many in his previous article.  He says that a declaration is “always” required in the case of a papal claimant, but then says that if the heresy is notorious, no declaration is required.

-He again contradicts himself on whether a declaration is required against a heretical “pope.”  He says a declaration is “always” required, and especially to ensure the certainty of papal governance.  He then says that it’s required only if the heresy “has not been proven to be morally imputable,” which means that it’s not always required.

-He again calls for schismatic decrees against the occupant of the papal throne, thus trashing Catholic teaching against judging the First See.

-He directly contradicts himself on whether a heretic vacates his office before a warning.  He says yes and no.  Note: this is in addition to his contradictions on that point in the last article.

-He falsely claims that on every heretical topic, there are more true statements from the conciliar “popes” than heretical ones.  This is false and irrelevant.  The example we examined (the heresy on the “Orthodox”) pounds Salza’s claim into the ground.

-He contradicts his first article on whether a heretic could govern.  He also subtly admits I refuted him.

-He again repeats his massive change of position on whether a Catholic can recognize a heretic without a declaration (thus contradicting his first article again).  He also lies again about having ever taken a different position on this point.

-He admits that if John Paul II did certain things, he could have been considered a heretic and non-pope without a declaration.  This undercuts basically every argument he makes in his article, and directly contradicts his numerous assertions that a declaration would “always” be required for the “certainty” of papal governance and “the common good.”

-He utters a fresh contradiction on what heresy must be.  He says it must be “public and notorious” and then says it must be “notorious or pertinacious.”

-He declares that the conciliar “popes” have never said they know they are departing from Catholic teaching.  He is refuted by the example I give from Benedict XVI, among others that could be discussed.

-He contradicts himself on whether a cardinal or papal claimant can be considered a heretic without a declaration.  He wrongly cites canons 1557-1558 to argue that a pope must declare a cardinal a heretic.  He then contradicts that by declaring that “Cardinal” Wojtyla (John Paul II) could have been a heretic without a declaration if he did certain things.

-He again calls for schismatic judgments against a papal claimant.  He even says that canon law requires such judgments, when canon and divine law condemn trials or judgments of the First See.

-He changes his position on canon 2264 after I refuted him.

-He repeats the already completely refuted and demolished argument on the Pius XII conclave legislation.

-He outrageously calls an argument I made “for the sake of argument” a contradiction and reveals his dishonesty in the process.

-He again calls for condemned trials and declaratory sentences against a pope.  He even says that a pope “would be subject” to such trials and declarations, directly contradicting Catholic teaching.

-He contradicts himself again on whether a pope can be considered a heretic without a declaration.

-He falls into a major pit on the Pope Liberius argument.  He actually argues that the declaration of the Roman clergy would remove Catholics’ obedience from a reigning pope.  He thus teaches the heretical position that lower clergy can judge and de facto depose a pope.

-He again calls for a schismatic (and condemned) trial of a pope, wrongly declaring that the pope could “rebut” the evidence “in a canonical trial.”

-He actually argues that none of the heretical statements of the antipopes come from what would be considered “magisterial” teachings.  He is refuted by his very own website, and numerous facts I adduce!

-He teaches the heresy that there is salvation outside the Church, and that God leaves some of the elect in ignorance of His faith, even though he incongruously believes that God unconditionally elects and predestines His chosen few.

-He contradicts himself on Pius IX and “invincible ignorance.”  He cites Pius IX to wrongly teach that there can be salvation “outside of the Church,” and then he says that our position on Pius IX is plausible – according to which Pius IX taught that all good-willed souls in ignorance will be led to the divine light of Christ.

-He makes a completely specious argument in an attempt to prove “baptism of desire” from the Council of Trent.

-He lies and says we are guilty of crimes.  He is desperate to defame us because we refuted and humiliated him.

-He makes an illogical comparison between our lawsuit and Benedict XVI’s heresies, when the laws and principles governing a determination of guilt in the former case are quite different from the latter.

-He completely changes his position on whether sedevacantists are schismatics after I refuted and exposed it.

-He directly contradicts Catholic teaching and St. Robert Bellarmine on reading minds and hearts and its application to judging heresy.

-He outrageously lies about our view on the end of the world.

-He displays his ignorance of Catholic history and facts on the Antichrist.

-After 29 pages, he finally attempts to address one heresy of Benedict XVI on “the Orthodox” and he is refuted by his own material.  He cannot convincingly address any of our arguments, while we can refute all of his in excruciating and nauseating detail.

-He makes a massive blunder on St. Peter’s denial of Christ as it relates to the Papacy.

-He errs and misrepresents the facts on the impostor “Sr. Lucia” and displays illogic and inconsistency on Fatima.

-He compares Benedict XVI’s massive heresies to the pre-Vatican II popes’ failure to consecrate Russia, even though Heaven treats the two differently.

IN CLOSING

Even though my previous articles refuted and exposed Salza, I felt it was important to spend some time on this article and expose all of his errors, lies, contradictions, etc.  It helps to illustrate the full scope of the evil and deception present in those who, despite posing as “traditionalists,” obstinately defend the antipope.  As the reader of this piece hopefully noticed, I went through his article in what might be called excruciating detail.  I must say that I was amazed by the level of deception it contained.  It was like trying to clean up the most filthy sink imaginable: with dirt, grime, guck, pieces of glass, sticky residue, paper, nails, and other objects all making the cleaning job extraordinarily unpleasant.  There were even more contradictions and errors I could have exposed, but 50-plus pages should be sufficient.

Salza has said that when he was a Freemason, he began to study papal documents against Freemasonry in order to reconcile his membership in the Lodge with the Catholic faith.  I submit that he’s still doing the same thing, in a different way, with his membership in Benedict XVI’s sect.  He’s attempting to reconcile the position that Benedict XVI is a pope with Catholic teaching, and he is unable to do so.  That’s why he falls into truly staggering and massive contradictions, including declaring on his own website that the Eastern “Orthodox” are part of the Church.  This alone proves that Salza is a completely refuted and heretical spiritual fraud.

John Salza’s Website, “Catholicism & Orthodoxy: A Comparison,” by Dave Armstrong: “Catholics must believe that Orthodoxy is a part of the universal Church (commensurate with the Second Vatican Council and many recent papal encyclicals on ecumenism in general or Orthodoxy in particular). That fact alone precludes the justification of any condescension, animosity, or hostility, which is especially sinful amongst Christians (Galatians 6:10).”

Salza admits that he was demonically possessed when he was a Freemason.  The truth is that he’s still in the Devil’s dominion.  His writing, which I’ve taken the time to expose, supplies sufficient evidence in that regard.  I’ve said all that one needs to say in refutation of John Salza.  Any fair-minded person can see that he’s a liar, a deceiver, and a heretic who contradicts himself repeatedly.  He refused my debate challenge for obvious reasons.  Those who cannot perceive whose position is true after reading this and my previous articles on the matter are swine not worthy of further consideration.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 13), June 29, 1896: “You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held.”

(Note:the boldingand emphasis in this article, such as italics and underlining, were my own and not necessarily that of the source quoted).