|Recent Featured Videos and Articles||Eastern “Orthodoxy” Refuted||How To Avoid Sin||The Antichrist Identified!||What Fake Christians Get Wrong About Ephesians||Why So Many Can't Believe||“Magicians” Prove A Spiritual World Exists||Amazing Evidence For God||News Links|
|Vatican II “Catholic” Church Exposed||Steps To Convert||Outside The Church There Is No Salvation||E-Exchanges||The Holy Rosary||Padre Pio||Traditional Catholic Issues And Groups||Help Save Souls: Donate|
John Salza’s Lies, Errors and Dishonesty
FOR A QUICK SUMMARY OF JOHN SALZA'S MAJOR PROBLEMS, AND OUR PRIMARY SECTION ON HIM, CLICK HERE
Bro. Peter Dimond
-Recent e-mail exchanges about a possible debate with John Salza reveal the dark character and dishonest tactics of defenders of Antipope Benedict XVI –
*NOTE: This is only Part 1. More of Salza’s falsehoods will be addressed in Part 2. IN THIS ARTICLE:
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AND E-MAIL EXCHANGES WITH SALZA
REALITY CHECK ON JOHN SALZA’S “CREDIBILITY”
SALZA’S BOMBSHELL HERESY: HE TEACHES THAT EASTERN “ORTHODOXY” IS PART OF THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH OF CHRIST
We wanted to share (with those interested) some of the recent developments about a proposed debate with John Salza. In this article, you will find some recent e-mail exchanges I had with Salza about a debate on whether Benedict XVI is a valid pope. What transpired was extremely revealing. Before telling you the story of how Salza, in an elaborate attempt to “save-face” and act like he wanted to have a live debate, wound up proposing a live debate only then to back down, I must first give a very brief recap of the events that led up to this point. The quick recap is in red, followed up by an update on recent developments.
Readers of our website will recall that about five months ago (September, 2010) I posted a long article carefully refuting the arguments against sedevacantism made by one John Salza. It’s an important article and anyone who wants to see which position is true simply needs to read it: John Salza's Arguments Against Sedevacantism Crushed Salza is a lawyer and former high-ranking Freemason, as well as an apologist for the Vatican II Church. My article was written in response to an article Salza published in a false traditionalist publication. Salza’s article attempted to refute the sedevacantist position. It also proclaimed that sedevacantists are “ignorant” and “schismatics.” Salza has also said that sedevacantists should be called “empty heads.” Since Salza’s article had persuaded some people, a careful refutation of it was necessary. Any fair-minded reader who read my article will see that Salza’s arguments were dismantled. The article is significant because it illustrates that the defenders of the Counter Church circulate fair-seeming but deceptive arguments – i.e., arguments that are superficially impressive but crumble when rigorously analyzed. In my rebuttal of his arguments, I proved that Salza (probably without realizing it) directly contradicts himself more than once on core issues. For example, I show that, at the beginning of the article, Salza concedes that heretics lose their offices without any declaration. However, by the end of his article he is arguing just the opposite: that a “self-excommunicated heretic” would retain jurisdiction over the universal Church as pope (i.e., his office). That serves to prove that Salza’s arguments are false and that he lacks a proper understanding of the issue. In fact, he was just throwing things out there.
In my article I also mentioned that in August, before publishing my response to his article, I had challenged John Salza to a debate. Here is exactly what I wrote:
SALZA AVOIDS OUR DEBATE CHALLENGE-INVITATION
Before analyzing those distortions and refuting Salza’s corruption of Catholic teaching, it should be noted that on August 23, 2010, I challenged John Salza to a telephone debate-conversation on the topic of sedevacantism. Here’s the e-mail I sent.
This e-mail was followed up a few days later with a certified letter sent to his address. The certified letter was received and signed for at his address. Even though he definitely got our letter, as of this writing we have not received any response to the debate challenge. We believe Salza is avoiding us because he realizes that such an encounter would not go well for him. Perhaps he recognizes that he has no response for the numerous manifest heresies of Benedict XVI. Sure, he can conveniently ignore them in articles that focus on perverting Catholic principles and aspects of canon law. The false traditionalist audience reading his article will not notice or care that the real issues haven’t been addressed. However, in a debate with us, he would have to address the real issues front and center with nowhere to run. Moreover, considering that his attack on sedevacantism comprises a system of involved distortions that is superficially impressive but in reality specious (as I will show), Salza might not even believe in what he has written. When we consider that he has the audacity to assert that sedevacantists should be called “empty heads,” his evasion of a debate with us speaks to his insecurity, his cowardice, and his inability to defend his position.
As it is explained in my previous article, “John Salza’s Arguments Against Sedevacantism Crushed,” after I sent the e-mail and the certified letter to Salza in August 2010, we received no response. Following the publication of our article in September 2010, a reader of our website also e-mailed Salza about our refutation of Salza’s arguments. We don’t know if Salza responded to that person’s e-mail. Nevertheless, for months we heard nothing at all from Salza: we received no response to our e-mail, letter or article. Salza’s arguments had been addressed and refuted, and we had moved on with our lives. However, in late December 2010, we suddenly received a surprising e-mail from John Salza. In the e-mail, he acted as if he had just learned of our article. What we will see in the e-mail exchanges which followed is, we believe, Salza’s elaborate attempt to “save-face,” in addition to his striking dishonesty.
On the same day that Salza’s surprise e-mail arrived, we received an e-mail from William Albrecht (a person I’ve debated twice). It stated:
First, it’s bizarre that Salza e-mailed us and didn’t mention anything about Albrecht’s involvement in a proposed debate. As we proceed, we will see why. In my responses, I only respond to Salza. That’s because I’ve already debated Albrecht twice and the one I want to debate is Salza.
Salza responded on Dec. 28, 2010. He indicates that he will not engage me in a telephone debate (just as we said in our article), and proposes a live debate instead. However, the live debate he proposes will not just concern the issue of whether Benedict XVI is the pope; it will also concern a lawsuit we are currently engaged in, our monastery, and our opinions about the end times. He also confirms that the e-mail I sent in August was sent to his e-mail address, and that the letter was received at his physical address.
I responded to John Salza on Jan. 6, 2011. Notice that I’ve been quite reasonable. I proposed an equal time telephone debate, and he refused. Now I begin to expose his dishonest tactics and his false accusations. I also accept his proposal of a live debate, including one in which he can ask me all kinds of irrelevant questions.
After accepting his proposal for a live debate, including one in which he can ask me all kinds of off-topic questions and those which concern a (baseless) lawsuit (!), one would, of course, expect that Salza would work with me to arrange the live debate, right? But no. As you will see, he puts up another roadblock because he had no intention to debate me at all, just as I said in my original article. His goal was simply an attempt to save-face: he wanted to propose something that he thought I would have to reject (since it would be about our current litigation, etc.), and then he could tell everyone that I said “no.” It’s truly pathetic, despicable and cowardly. Here’s his response:
I responded on Jan. 21. I also point out how, after he made numerous false accusations in his last e-mail (e.g., his false statements about a judge’s ruling and his false statement about our debates) he quietly moved away from them.
Salza wrote back again on Jan. 27, 2011, with more of the same. He doesn’t accept the proposal for a live debate, but instead demands proof that we are Benedictine. In fact, he even says that the Vatican II “Order of St. Benedict” will determine if the proof is sufficient! Does one need to say more about this guy?
SALZA’S ACTIONS AND WORDS (COVERED ABOVE) DEMONSTRATE HIS DISHONESTY
The above facts demonstrate the dishonesty of John Salza’s tactics and the unreliability of his word. He writes to us and acts as if he was unaware of an e-mail sent to his address, a certified letter signed for at his address, and a prominent article we posted about him on our website. He lies and says we said he signed for the certified letter, when he knows we didn’t make that claim. He makes numerous other false statements about us, which constitute defamation and mortal sin. He refuses our telephone debate, just as we said in our article, and he challenges us to a live debate; but he declares that the live debate must include questions about our lawsuit, our monastery, and other irrelevant issues. He even dares us to “settle our differences” in such a live debate. After I accept his proposal for the live debate, as well as the extravagant demands included in it (e.g., that it would include questions about our lawsuit), he completely changes his tune. His “settle our differences” confidence suddenly vanishes. He now refuses to engage me in a live debate, and instead demands proof that I am a Benedictine monk. But he or the apostate Vatican II “Benedictines” (whom we don’t deem legitimate) will be the ones evaluating the evidence. All of this demonstrates that Salza is exactly what I described him as in my article: a heretic, a man of bad will, and more.
REALITY CHECK ON JOHN SALZA’S “CREDIBILITY”
While claiming to have been raised a “Catholic,” John Salza chose to join the Masonic Lodge. He did so for social and worldly gain. As a young lawyer, he became interested in joining Freemasonry when he heard stories of how Freemasonic judges would favor the clients of Freemasonic lawyers. Of course an honest person, who values truth, facts and evidence, is not inclined to agreements which favor one party over another regardless of the truth, facts or evidence. Salza became a member of two different Masonic lodges, and he rose as high as the 32nd degree. He was almost elected “Worshipful Master” of one Masonic Lodge. Remember, during this period, John Salza claimed to be a Catholic. While claiming to be Catholic, Salza actually swore an oath to Allah on the Koran. It was part of his initiation into the Shrine Degree. He also admits that he engaged in demonic “self-curses,” rites of “apostasy,” “idolatry,” “blasphemy,” and “hypocrisy.” He says that he was part of the “synagogue of Satan,” and a sect which is “opposed to reason” and “insane.” He also acknowledges that Freemasonry teaches people how to lie, and that in leading others on its path he was teaching people how to lie. Not only did Salza partake of this “monstrous syncretism,” but he instructed others in it. He was an officer of a Masonic lodge. That means he was involved in conferring Freemasonry’s diabolical oaths on others, not simply taking them himself. Salza acknowledges that people who did this sometimes became demonically possessed. He says that their facial appearances might change. He admits that he became demonically possessed. He says: “I felt a very evil presence when I was conferring those oaths…” Needless to say, Salza was not an unwilling or reluctant member of the Freemasonic lodge, who only showed a passive interest. No, he was extremely interested, deeply involved and aggressive about his pursuit of, and experience in, the demonic art of Freemasonry. This says quite a bit about the character, credibility and integrity of John Salza during that period. (Facts about Salza’s membership in Freemasonry come from his talk, “Why Can’t Catholics Be Masons,” at St. Catherine of Siena, Oct. 3, 2010) Salza claims to have left the Masonic Lodge, and he has spoken against Freemasonry. However, when you see the slimy and dishonest tactics that are displayed in his e-mails (above), it becomes apparent that Salza is still bound by dark spiritual forces. People who were bound by such evil can only rid themselves of demonic influence by a sincere and thorough conversion. Since Satan cannot cast out Satan (Mt. 12:26), only those who completely embrace Christ and His honest ways are candidates to be freed from such demonic bondage. Such a conversion is rare (see Mt. 7:13). Thus, it’s not a surprise to see that Salza is so dishonest in his argumentation, in his articles, and in his e-mails. While he no longer instructs others how to lie and blaspheme God in the Masonic Lodge, he now teaches people how to deny the truth in other ways: by defending as “Catholic” people and councils which reject the Papacy, Jesus Christ and the Catholic faith; by distorting canon law; and by misrepresenting Catholic teaching. Salza’s theological errors are thoroughly refuted in my original article. However, even more have cropped up. Refuting these errors will further demonstrate that Benedict XVI is not the pope, and that those who defend Benedict XVI distort the truth. Therefore, I will be writing another article to expose and carefully refute Salza’s most recent errors, and there are many.
SALZA’S BOMBSHELL HERESY: HE TEACHES THAT EASTERN “ORTHODOXY” IS PART OF THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH OF CHRIST
In assessing Salza’s tactics and theological errors, I came across this bombshell example of heresy. His own website teaches that the schismatic “Orthodox,” who reject the Papacy, Papal Infallibility and Vatican I, are part of the universal Church of Christ! This is outrageous heresy, and a complete denial of Catholic dogma.
This heresy promoted by Salza is so embarrassing and revealing that we wouldn’t be surprised if he removed it as soon as he reads this article. His own website not only teaches the heresy, but it admits that this outrageous heresy on schismatic “Orthodoxy” – which, if it were true, would overthrow the very foundation of the Church upon Peter and the unity of communion that flows from it – is taught by Benedict XVI and Vatican II! That of course constitutes all the proof one needs that Benedict XVI and his “predecessors” are not true popes; for the post-Vatican II antipopes approved Vatican II as a true ecumenical council. It’s impossible that a true ecumenical council (and Vatican II is one if Benedict XVI is a pope) could teach the opposite of another true ecumenical council (Vatican I) on whether people who reject the Papacy are inside the universal Church. Here are just a few of the magisterial pronouncements which directly contradict and condemn the Papacy-rejecting heresy promoted by John Salza, Vatican II and Benedict XVI.
(Note: the bolding and emphasis in this article, such as italics and underlining, were my own and not necessarily that of the source quoted).
Sign up for our free e-mail list to see future vaticancatholic.com videos and articles.