On Papal Heresy and Deposition (Sedevacantism) w/ John Salza
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 03. 2024
- In this interview, I will be asking John Sala about the history of reflection on the issue of Papal Heresy, especially as it relates to Sedevacantism.
John Salza's book: amzn.to/3IlETUu - Zábava
This former sedeavacantist is great full for the work John has done . Great discussion guys!
John Salza is awesome!
@@JackDeAngelis-kh7nmstay mad lil bro 😎
I think he is misinformed about the SSPX but leaving that aside I think Dr.Salza is a good guy...
Amazing video, thanks for all the work you put into your content. It is always top tier
“No one who merely disbelieves in all these (heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and if anyone holds to a single one of these *he is not a Catholic.”*
-Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#9),
Jun. 29, 1896.
Great information. Thank you.
This was brilliant.
Based
Banger intro
So good
what is your intro song?
Song of kings
Dimond brothers coming out with a response video to this in 3….2….1….
because basically nobody wants to debate them 🤷🏻♂️
1:01:00 note
I love Pope Francis!
Me too brother
Me too, he is the head of The One True Church The Catholic Church, I love all our Holy Fathers the Successors of Saint Peter
Same Here and His 265 Predecessors!
he's awesome
@@K37GK3
Amen!
Nothing in Canon Law is a "definition" according to Church teaching. The canonical definition regards the juridical order, as an ordinance, that is, inasmuch as it is considered in juridical affairs. So when Salza says that since Vatican I the Church has defined "heresy" more precisely, is incorrect and mistaken. Indeed, inasmuch as he implies that heresy now regards only a denial of those teachings of the Church of the highest character, is simply false, theologically incorrect. Heresy has always been defined as a denial of a truth revealed by God. See Saint Alphonsus on Faith in his Theologia Moralis.
Your comment claims error when there is no error. Canon 751 provides the legal definition. Whether a crime of heresy was committed would be legally adjudicated according to this legal defintion. I agree and said precisely that heresy is a denial of a revealed truth which the Church teaches as revealed. But these are category 1 teachings according to the 1989 Profession, not category 2 teachings. This distinction did not exist in the early Church. In fact, the traditional school of Dominican theology rejects the concept of ecclesiastical faith.
@@johnf.salzaesq.8955The word "error" is not in our comment. You then propose that you agreed with our comment but you add terms to the definition of heresy. You are confused.
@@FROMROMEINFO So your use of "incorrect" and "mistaken" in your original post is not claiming error? You are the one who is highly confused, and by your own terminology. You have yet to show anything I have said is incorrect or mistaken. You are the one who actually agrees with me, that heresy is the denial or doubt of a revealed truth the Church teaches as revealed. But you evidently don't understand ecclesiastical faith as distinguished from divine and catholic faith. Again, you are the confused one.
@@johnf.salzaesq.8955 False, regarding your second claim of agreement regarding this statement: heresy is the denial or doubt of a revealed truth the Church teaches as revealed. False regarding your claim of not understanding the distinction of ecclesiastical faith from divine faith.
@@FROMROMEINFOBugnolo demonstrates his incompetence, once again, here in rejecting the Church's definition of heresy. But that is presumably because Bugnolo rejects the Roman Catholic Church as the infallible rule of faith in her infallible pronouncements. He, instead, adheres to the false, counterfeit church of "tradition" which, like the Protestants, holds that the True Church is those who profess the true faith, even though they are separated from the divine government of the Church established by Christ. Bugnolo is just another victim of the false traditionalist revolt.
John Salza's work is amazing
The world champions in quoting out of context are the sspx & sedes@@user-Adsum
@user-Adsum
Do you have any of your schismatic sspx friends/idols/""knowledgeable"" that are willing to debate Mr John Salza in a formal debate on these issues (the illegitimatacy of the schimatic sspx pack), he has on multiple occasions put out the offer,.why no takers? And if he really is "" the most intellectually dishonest"" dude as you claim, then it should be really easy to refute him in a formal debate.
@user-Adsum I only found 1 erroneous interpretation of the acceptance and reception of Bellarmin's 1st position by The Church, which led to some other errors. Salza holds a much more similar position to the Estern Orthodox/Anglican position than Catholic. Aside from that, all else is solid.
@@eabm1984What? What do you mean he’s more close to EO/Anglicans?
@Linkgt nobody shakes from your manchild idol dyer, nobody takes that fool serious includong bishops in your schimatic eo sewage churches clergy and Bishops have warned people to stay away from the manchild dyer a.d that he dosnt represent the eo churches. So in your schimatic churches worldview is dyer the authority or the bishops? What if bishops warn against him, do you still take what he says over the bishops? I expect you would say yes since your a schimatic eo protestant.
You want grown ups to waste time with a fool that heirachy from his church have said he dosnt represent us , he is literally the fill In side kick for alex jones info wars.
Where as John salza isn't a child , he is a mature man willing to have a mature conversation with dissenters.
Saul remained King of Israel, despite losing the blessing. This is the type for a heretical pope. Idk why nobody talks about this. Or do they? I've not read all the books on this topic.
Gratian had no problem saying Pope St. Gregory II was a heretic... or at least taught heresy. St. Alphonsus addresses the Gregory letter at issue but doesn't address Gratian's treatment. It's a bit of handwaving, seems to me...
Because Kings did not have the Charism of infallibility in teaching like Popes. So the idea that a Pope can teach error or heresy, is incorrect, as is Salza's undersanding on this point.
@@eabm1984 Popes also aren't King of Israel. It's a typological assessment, not a strict analogy.
@@eamonnclark7360yeah, but the type still means _something_
If Saul truly is a type of an unfaithful Pope, than something about Saul really does correspond to such a Pope.
This really triggers me actually. When someone tries to dismiss an argument completely by appealing to allegory.
_allegory means something! Saying it's allegory doesn't mean it loses it's meaning!_
@marvalice3455 You are not able to see the correlation??? The Church is the New Israel. God is its true King, as with Israel. The temporal ruler receives special grace to rule in his office but can lose that grace yet while remaining in office. Don't touch Saul.
@@eamonnclark7360 that's exactly what I'm saying
😇😇
SSPX bros representing
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was an exercise of papal infallibility - no matter what JP2 thought he was doing. Change my mind.
Yes agree, it is infallible. That is what I said in the interview. Both category 1 and 2 truths are infallible and must be assented to with divine faith.
@johnf.salzaesq.8955 No... I don't mean it that way. I mean it was akin to the proclamation of the Assumption. Ed Peters is of the same opinion.
Unless I misunderstood you... I think JP2 (and Ratzinger) misunderstood the character of the document by undervaluing it. Do you agree?
No I disagree. It is an infallible ex cathedra pronouncement but it does not propose the teaching as divinely revealed.
@@johnf.salzaesq.8955 We're in agreement then. Most people, including the one who made it, only think it's a fallible reiteration of infallible doctrine.
This book was refuted by Rev. Fr. Anthony Cekada over ten years ago.
No it wasn’t, I was a sede for 40 years and studied Fr C ‘s refutation of the book , he didn’t address any of the arguments. , other then agreeing with John’s refutation of the sede talking point on loss of office by heresy , Fr C dismissed this point by asserting sede’s have long abondoned that argument. (I never got the memo). lol. Btw I read the book and it stands unaddressed by sede’s. , just ignored and dismissed. Read the book and see for yourself
Universal Recognition Convalidation CAN ONLY radically sanate an imperfectly conferred office - NOT one never conferred. Church jurisprudence since Bellarmine. Universi Dominici Gregis 76 on Conclave due process failure makes it clear: No Office is conferred.
Salza forgot how in the 7th ecumenical council, Pope Honorios was reinvindicated, and in the end, was found that no Pope has or can teach heresy in matters of faith and morals in his teaching office (ex-cathedra).
when its not ex cathedra in his magisterium he cant teach heresy either he can teach error though
Where did Honorius become vindicated in the 7th general council?? It seems you mean vindicated in the sense of non-contradiction in Catholicism?? Sure. But I dont think they said he was never even a private heretic?
@berryjones1327 i never said the church taught that
even if a pope has taught heresy in his magisterium non-definitively and non infallibly it wouldn't be a habitual thing and would probably be in the single digits times that has happened and the church would know about it
@@Mach15-20 I always thought that Honorius was not condemned as a Monothelite, he was never one, never taught it or embraced it. What he was condemned for was for failing to extinguish the Monothelite teachings. In other words, ne never taught it but he did not squash the Monothelite crisis with the force expected from the Pope of Rome, which in a round about way suggest at least some in the Eastern Church who are now Orthodox wanted him to exercise is authority as the successor of Saint Peter.
@@palermotrapani9067 He did believe it, not just fail to extinguish it, which is true aswell. I remember when I first read the letter where he said one will I was immidiately taken a back. So prima facie he did believe heresy and one heretical statement is enough to condemn him.
What people do to try to defend him is to bring up opinions of a Pope and St Maximus as defenders, but that was BEFORE the council. After the council it is simply contradictory to hold that he wasn’t a heretic since the infallability of the Church was exercised and that includes proper interpretations. An Ecumenical Council or a Pope in his supreme authority can never interpret writings wrongly on faith and morals. The only way a council or a Pope could condemn someone wrongly is through false attribution since the Church’s infallability is not inspiration of direct knowledge [although I dont know if even this might be protected by the holy Ghost] but the contents will always be infallibly condemned.
Why I believe many erred on this point historically is that they didnt have our luxury of the V1 definition of papal infallability. They believed in papal Infallability but didnt have our clarifying definition.
Salza is wrong. Fr Paul Kramer has already refuted him.
Him? Lame.
@johnf.salzaesq.8955 I can't reply below for some reason. Look at Ratzinger's 1995 letter, and you can also find Ed Peters writing about this topic on his blog... I don't think it's a "grave accusation" at all... It's a very controverted and complex topic. There is a real possibility of a connection here with the sacramental intentionality debate.