John Salza & Robert Siscoe: QUACK THEOLOGIANS Part VII
SALZA'S COLOSSAL BLUNDER
Fr. Kramer refutes pseudo traditionalist and "Narcissistic noob" Salza along with his sidekick Siscoe....yet again
《 Fr. Kramer is an amateur. He fails to read the Fifth Opinion in light of Bellarmine's rejection of the Second Opinion (in which Bellarmine states a manifestly heretical Pope "is not removed by God unless through men," 》- JOHN SALZA
Salza and Siscoe have never pondered over the fact that not one ecclesiastical writer in over four centuries has ever interpreted Bellarmine's opinion no. 5 as they understand it. That alone should have clued them in on the fact that something is very amiss with their pet theory about Bellarmine's no. 5 opinion; but no, they remain clueless, and recklessly accuse me of misinterpreting it, of never having read it, and to have diminished mental capacity for understanding it as I do. Nor have they ever pondered over the fact that the more common opinion (on the question of a heretic pope) in the 15th and 16th Centuries that they adhere to has been all but universally abandoned in more recent centuries in large part due to the overehelming force of argumentation in Bellarmines opinion no. 5! Yet with blind and manic fury, Salza remains impervious to correction in his insistence that only he and Siscoe understand Bellarmine (and Mystici Corporis) correctly, and that I, (along with Fr. Gruner and the rest of the theologically educated world) got it wrong.
One sees a total theological continuity between the ancient opinion (expressed by St. Jerome and quoted by Bellarmine) up until Pius XII's teaching on nature of the sin of heresy, in Mystici Corporis. It is precisely because as St. Jerome says, that heretics leave the Church by themselves, that the Fathers unanimously teach (as Bellarmine affirms) that heretics immediately lose office -- and therefore, Bellarmine applies that doctrine to a manifestly heretical pope in opinion no 5, saying that the manifestly heretical pope BY HIMSELF ceases to be pope, a member of the Church, and a Christian.
In opinion no. 4 Bellarmine refutes Cajetan's position that the public heretic pope loses office after judgment by the Church, and not ipso facto -- i.e. BY HIMSELF. The public heretic, says Bellarmine (on the authority of St. Jerome and the Fathers), leaves the Church BY HIMSELF and loses office straightaway thereafter. That the loss of office and jurisdiction is the direct and immediate result of the public sin of heresy is proven by Bellarmine's citing in opinion no. 5, Pope St. Celestine's ruling that the excommunications issued by the heretic Nestorius were null & void from the day Nestorius and his minions began preaching heresy, and not from the day of the solemn condemnation of Nestorius.
Finally, in accordance with the unanimous consent of the Fathers and exactly as St Jerome taught, Pius XII teaches in a dogmatic encyclical (Mystici Corporis) that unlike those who are deprived of communion by an act of authority; the heretics, schismatics and apostates, by the very nature of the sin, sever themselves from communion with the Church.
Salza thinks he is another St. Thomas Aquinas in the making this poor little man is starving for attention
Since it is thus taught with the unanimous consent of the Fathers, and by the authority of Pius XII in a dogmatic encyclical, that the heretic leaves the Church by himself, and does not remain in the Church until judged by ecclesiastical authority, Salza's doctrine that heretics remain in the Church until they are judged by the Church is patently contrary to the doctrine of the Catholic faith.
Salza, in order to justify his plainly errant interpretation of Bellarmine's opinion that a public heretic pope loses office only after judgment by the Church, insanely and desperately applies to opinion no. 5, on a pubic heretic pope, the principle invoked by Bellarmine to refute opinion no. 2 on a pope who is a secret heretic: "Jurisdiction is certainly given to the Pontiff by God, but with the agreement of men, as is obvious; because this man, who beforehand was not Pope, has from men that he would begin to be Pope, therefore, he is not removed by God unless it is through men."
The colossal blunder of Salza & Siscoe consists in the fact that they fail to understand the glaringly obvious reason why Bellarmine applies this principle to the case of a secret heretic pope, but not to a manifest heretic pope. The reason is this: Bellarmine explains that a secret heretic pope is still a member of the Church, and thus remains in office; and therefore is not deposed secretly by Christ, because, "Jurisdiction is certainly given to the Pontiff by God, but with the agreement of men, . . . [and] therefore, he is not removed by God unless it is through men." However, in the case of a manifest heretic, such a one, says Bellarmine, ceases BY HIMSELF to be pope, a Christian, and a member of the Church. A public heretic who has already left the Church by himself, ceased to be pope by himself, and lost all jurisdiction by himself has already deposed himself; and therefore cannot be "removed by men", because he has already removed himself. Thus it is plainly obvious why Bellarmine invokes the principle of removal by men in the case of the secret heretic in opinion no. 2, but not in the case of a manifest heretic in opinion no. 5.
My understanding of Bellarmine's doctrine set forth in opinion no. 5 is identical to that of Fr. Gruner, and all the recognized ecclesiastical writers who have ever written on the topic.
I have quoted such eminent canonists as Wernz & Vidal: “Finally, there is the fifth opinion – that of Bellarmine himself – which was expressed initially and is rightly defended by Tanner and others as the best proven and the most common. For he who is no longer a member of the body of the Church, i.e. the Church as a visible society, cannot be the head of the Universal Church. But a Pope who fell into public heresy would cease by that very fact to be a member of the Church. Therefore he would also cease by that very fact to be the head of the Church.” (Ius Canonicum. Rome: Gregorian 1943. 2:453)
These two eminent authorities of the Pontifical Gregorian University state as the best proven and the most common opinion, and that of Bellarmine himself, that a pope who would fall into public heresy would "cease by that very fact" (ipso facto), "to be a member of the Church. Therefore he would also cease by that very fact to be the head of the Church."
It is not easy taking theological spankings on a regular from a formal theologian such as Fr. Kramer. People wonder why the NeoSSPX has been sinking...well take a look at who Fellay surrounds himself with
I have quoted the great Italian Cappucian canonist, Matteo Conte da Coronata (1889 - 1962), who explains precisely according to Belarmine's opinion no. 5 that a pope who would contumaciously deny any defined dogma, "would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one. He who openly professes heresy places himself outside the Church, and it is not likely that Christ would preserve the Primacy of His Church in one so unworthy. Wherefore, if the Roman Pontiff were to profess heresy, before any condemnatory sentence (which would be impossible anyway) he would lose his authority.” (Institutiones Iuris Canonici. Rome: Marietti 1950. I:3I2, p. 3I6)
In desperation, Salza & Siscoe cross the threshhold of lunacy, appealing to Fr. Pietro Ballerini, whom they themselves describe as "the eminent eighteenth century theologian who was an adherent of Bellarmine and subscribed to his 'Fifth Opinion'," claiming that, " [T]he fact that the Pope (again, not a former Pope) is actually judged by his inferiors in the case of heresy was confirmed by Fr. Pietro Ballerini".
However, Ballerini explains the opinion exactly as I do, as Fr. Gruner did, and as Wernz & Vidal did, as Conte da Coronata did, and as did S. Sipos, in his Enchiridion Iuris Canonici, 7th ed. (Rome: Herder, 1960), which “cites Bellarmine and Wernz in support of this position" (The Code of Canon Law and Commentary; James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green, Donald E. Heintschel; p. 272)
Ballerini's doctrine is that a pope who is a public heretic, "not being able, on account of this public pertinacity to be excused, by any means, of heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity - this person declares himself openly a heretic. He reveals that by his own will he has turned away from the Catholic Faith and the Church, in such a way that now no declaration or sentence of anyone whatsoever is necessary to cut him from the body of the Church." Hence, he concludes, "Thus, the sentence which he had pronounced against himself would be made known to all the Church, making clear that by his own will he had turned away and separated himself from the body of the Church, and that in a certain way he had abdicated the Pontificate…”
I have said the same as Ballerini and Bellarmine, namely that the obstinately heretical pope loses office ipso facto by the manifest sin of heresy, as Ballerini says, "no declaration or sentence of anyone whosoever is necessary"; but while appealing to their authority in support of their argument, Salza & Siscoe brazenly state the opposite: 《Bellarmine refuted this opinion that a heretical Pope will not be removed from office by God until he is “judged by men,” that is, by the proper authorities (i.e., the bishops or Cardinals).》In fact, Bellarmine, in refuting Cajetan's opinion no.4, "that a manifestly heretical pope is not ipso facto deposed; but can and ought to be deposed by the Church"; also refutes Salza's error "that a heretical Pope will not be removed from office by God until he is 'judged by men,' that is, by the proper authorities (i.e., the bishops or Cardinals)."
Pin the Tail on the Salza:
Money seeking sell out and Spin Doctor Extraordinaire
'You know any modernists who would endorse my book?'