THE HERESY OF JOHN SALZA AND ROBERT SISCOE (REVISED)
Fr. Paul Kramer (Facebook 8-13-16)
If someone believes the opinion of Salza and Siscoe, that a public heretic (including the pope) does not cease to be a member of the Church by himself at the time of the commission of the crime of public heresy; but only does so after a judgment pronounced by the Church, then that one is in heresy.
The proposition that the subordinates of the pope can pronounce judgment on the pope is heretical, since it directly opposes the dogma of the primacy. John Salza and Robert Siscoe are in heresy on this point. Ever since the solemn definition of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff at Vaticsn I, it is heretical to profess opinions made before that council which are in any way contrary or at variance to that definition of the universal primacy of the Roman Pontiff in Pastor Æternus.
Salza & Siscoe justify their error by quoting Suarez who wrote, "when the Church would depose a heretical Pope, it does not act superior to him, but from the consensus of Christ the Lord it juridically declares him to be a heretic, and even altogether unworthy of the dignity of Pope; he would then ipso facto and immediately be deposed by Christ.”
The key word is "juridically" -- Suarez admits that the Church would not act as the pope's superior, but would "juridically judge him to be a heretic"; which is to judge by an act of jurisdiction. However, only a superior with jurisdiction over a subject can juridically judge a subject. That proposition that the pope's subjects can ever juridically judge the Roman Pontiff, who possesses jurisdiction over them is heresy.
It is only after the pope by his public obstinacy has lost office as a result of separating himself from the body of the Church, that he can be declared to have lost office. If his crime of heresy is public, he can be recognized by all who possess sufficient knowledge to discern the matter, that the pope, being a manifest heretic, has ipso facto lost office; and then the Church can declare that the loss of office has taken place, and then the vacancy can be filled.
That a heretic by the very criminal act of heresy severs himself from communion with the Church is explicitly taught by Pius XII in Mystici Corporis; and therefore a pope who is a manifest heretic loses the office and its jurisdiction ipso facto. Whoever would say that a pope who becomes a manifest heretic retains office as visible head of the Church, by strict logical implication denies the Catholic doctrine that a manifest heretic severs himself from the body of the Church by the public act of obstinate heresy. The opinion strictly presupposes the absurd and heretical premise that the public heretic remains in communion with the Church until he is judged by the Church.
One who is a manifest formal heretic is notoriously guilty by the commission of the crime itself, and excommunicates himself from the Church. No warnings are required when the crime is public and its malice is certain beyond all possibility of doubt. If the heretic is a pope, a declaration of loss of office by the Church merely confirms the loss of office post factum, and clears the way for a new pope to be elected. One who is a material heretic, on the other hand, and after warnings manifests his obstinacy; excommunicates himself from the Church. In either case, when the crime becomes notorious, either by the notoriety of the fact alone, or by a sentence of a judge (or a public declaration of the fact in the case of a pope), the heretic visibly ceases to be a member of the Church.
No one may judge and pass sentence on a pope. If a pope is manifestly a material heretic, but becomes obstinate after his conscience has been informed by warnings, a declaration by the Church makes the fact of the crime notorious, and the loss of office results by the fact of the notoriety of the crime. It is only then that he may be juridically judged and punished. The notoriety of the crime of heresy alone causes the loss of papal office, and not any force of law of the declaration. Such a declaration does not depose the heretic pope, but declares and makes public the fact of his crime (if it is not already notorious) and the fact of his loss of office.
Whether or not a pope as a private person can defect into heresy remains an open question. However, that any baptized person, even a pope, who lapses into manifest heresy departs from the body of the Church is not an open question. Salza and Siscoe directly deny the constant teaching of the Church explicitly set forth by Pius XII in Mystici Corporis by saying that it is not the crime by itself, but only after the crime has been determined and judged by the Church that the heretic severs himself from the body of the Church.
Addendum (TCK): Siscoe has refused to answer my questions on facebook concerning being labeled "Catholic' by Universalist Francis and also on Zionist Krah funding NeoSSPX chapels in Europe.