John Salza withdraws support for SSPX and returns to full communion with Rome

[Prayerful]

If we look at where the church is currently headed, they will not stop until they have elected a lesbian Popess to the throne of Peter.

Although your argument might be intended as a reductio ad absurdum, it's actually not absurd at all. Look at the city of Chicago. They currently have a black lesbian mayor.

Just a few decades ago, the people of Chicago could no more imagine a black lesbian taking the place of a man like Mayor Richard Daly, than they could imagine a lesbian as pope. And yet it has already happened. As it happened in the secular world, it will follow in the religious world.

We can already observe it in Anglican and Lutheran "churches". Take a look at this character:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_Brunne
The first openly lesbian bishop of a major Lutheran church. At some point in the future, that's what we will also see when "pope" Francis or one of his successors decide to ordain woman priests.

The notable thing was that the 'Church of Sweden' was the closest among the Lutheran sectaries to validity, at least with their orders, and a retention of vestments, crucifixes and Saint's days, with only the Anglicans doing something similar. Perhaps it was conservatism and caution and a degree of laziness. Gustav I Vasa wanted the monastic lands, but wanted none of the social turmoil seen in the German or Bohemian parts of the Holy Roman Empire where Luther and earlier Hus had provoked social chaos. However, that semi decent via media ended in the 1960s when the government forced its state 'Church' to ordain women. The 'Church of Sweden' still retains much of the aesthetic that only lives in traditional Catholicism or maybe Anglo-Catholicism (at best it's schism, but at worst it's a big number of gay men who like dress up, which totally doesn't resemble the FrancisChurch, which itself falls very short aesthetically.

Is this the future for Conciliarism, without the good vestments and decoration? I suppose those ladies might say that since Francis has a crew of old gay men, why not old lesbians, as above (to some extent)?

[King Wenceslas]

Full communion to what? The true Rome? He is not going to find it in Rome. The buildings that were built by the true Church over the last 2000 years are there. But the true church in Rome? Not going to find it.

We are seeing the formation of a false church and a false christ.

All who join this false church will be condemned.

All of us will be driven into the underground Church shortly.

[Greg]

If you believe that don't waste your time on here.

Start working and buying up missals, Rosaries, prayer books, catechisms because they are going to be impossible to buy

[paul14]

All of us will be driven into the underground Church shortly.

"Sire, the night is darker now
And the wind blows stronger
Fails my heart, I know not how
I can go no longer"

"Mark my footsteps, goodly page
Tread thou in them boldly
Thou shalt find the winter's rage
Freeze thy blood less coldly"

Hope dies last.

[trentcath]

John Salza, a now former leading SSPX apologist and author of True or False Pope?, has withdrawn support for the SSPX and has decided to be in full communion with Rome after studying sedevacantism.

Link: https://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2020/10/breaking-news-john-salza-leaves-sspx.html?m=1

Won't be the first or the last, this also happened to the successor of Bishop castro de Meyer in Brazil who now apparently claims that if you don't celebrate the NO chrism mass you are a schismatic  Sad, but it happens.

[King Wenceslas]

All of us will be driven into the underground Church shortly.

"Sire, the night is darker now
And the wind blows stronger
Fails my heart, I know not how
I can go no longer"

"Mark my footsteps, goodly page
Tread thou in them boldly
Thou shalt find the winter's rage
Freeze thy blood less coldly"

Hope dies last.

Mock now.

If you are not ready when it hits you will wish you are dead.

O by the way I have been ready for decades. Physically and religious wise.

I don't need to run around like a chicken with its head cut off.

[Prayerful]

John Salza, a now former leading SSPX apologist and author of True or False Pope?, has withdrawn support for the SSPX and has decided to be in full communion with Rome after studying sedevacantism.

Link: https://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2020/10/breaking-news-john-salza-leaves-sspx.html?m=1

Won't be the first or the last, this also happened to the successor of Bishop castro de Meyer in Brazil who now apparently claims that if you don't celebrate the NO chrism mass you are a schismatic  Sad, but it happens.

This head of the Personal Apostolate of St John Vianney Society concelebrated a Novus Ordo with Francis, the sort of trad good boy that Francis must like. If not that, then someone who'll fight with their tail, which is as useful for Francis. Bp Castro de Meyer was definitely somehow with a far more perceptive idea of the Crisis, who took some risks.

[paul14]

All of us will be driven into the underground Church shortly.

"Sire, the night is darker now
And the wind blows stronger
Fails my heart, I know not how
I can go no longer"

"Mark my footsteps, goodly page
Tread thou in them boldly
Thou shalt find the winter's rage
Freeze thy blood less coldly"

Hope dies last.

Mock now.

If you are not ready when it hits you will wish you are dead.

O by the way I have been ready for decades. Physically and religious wise.

I don't need to run around like a chicken with its head cut off.

I am not mocking ... and besides, I have belonged to that underground Church for the last 40 years.

Do you have any kids?  How are they doing?  How are they going to react when you are constantly preaching doom and gloom.

[trentcath]

John Salza, a now former leading SSPX apologist and author of True or False Pope?, has withdrawn support for the SSPX and has decided to be in full communion with Rome after studying sedevacantism.

Link: https://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2020/10/breaking-news-john-salza-leaves-sspx.html?m=1

Won't be the first or the last, this also happened to the successor of Bishop castro de Meyer in Brazil who now apparently claims that if you don't celebrate the NO chrism mass you are a schismatic  Sad, but it happens.

This head of the Personal Apostolate of St John Vianney Society concelebrated a Novus Ordo with Francis, the sort of trad good boy that Francis must like. If not that, then someone who'll fight with their tail, which is as useful for Francis. Bp Castro de Meyer was definitely somehow with a far more perceptive idea of the Crisis, who took some risks.

As I said, can happen to anyone. The good thing about the Bp Castro de Meyer situation is it shows the risks for the SSPX if it gains some sort of recognition from Rome, even if someone receives a precious heritage from a good bishop (as Bp Catro de Meyer's successor did) they can easily throw it away for the sake of "recognition" or, more likely, pride.

[Prayerful]

John Salza, a now former leading SSPX apologist and author of True or False Pope?, has withdrawn support for the SSPX and has decided to be in full communion with Rome after studying sedevacantism.

Link: https://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2020/10/breaking-news-john-salza-leaves-sspx.html?m=1

Won't be the first or the last, this also happened to the successor of Bishop castro de Meyer in Brazil who now apparently claims that if you don't celebrate the NO chrism mass you are a schismatic  Sad, but it happens.

This head of the Personal Apostolate of St John Vianney Society concelebrated a Novus Ordo with Francis, the sort of trad good boy that Francis must like. If not that, then someone who'll fight with their tail, which is as useful for Francis. Bp Castro de Meyer was definitely somehow with a far more perceptive idea of the Crisis, who took some risks.

As I said, can happen to anyone. The good thing about the Bp Castro de Meyer situation is it shows the risks for the SSPX if it gains some sort of recognition from Rome, even if someone receives a precious heritage from a good bishop (as Bp Catro de Meyer's successor did) they can easily throw it away for the sake of "recognition" or, more likely, pride.

The SSPX is big as traditional apostates go, but within the Conciliar behemoth, Novus Ordo money and cultural attitudes talk, as happened there.

[Arvinger]

Because it is not infallible means it is possible that an authentic teaching or policy of someone who can invoke magisterial authority can be wrong or heretical. 

No, it can't because it would mean defection of the Church. The Magisterium cannot teach heresy even in fallible capacity.

What makes you think that resistance is merely a "waiving away" and not a thoughtful and deliberative process?

Because by the very same principles they use (Magisterium can teach grave error in its fallible capacity) one can reject St. Pius X's Pascendi, Pius IX's Quanta Cura and other documents which they themselves quote against Vatican II. If Vatican II taught error, St. Pius X could have taught error in Pascendi and unjustly condemned modernism - encyclical is a document of lower Magisterial level than constitutions of an Ecumenical Council.

Sedevacantists simply "waive away" the validity of a Pope depending on what they perceive nuanced or not.

The differece is that it is possible for a Pope to lose his office through heresy, while it is impossible for the Magisterium to teach heresy. Sedevacantism is possible, Ecumenical Council teaching error is not.

Novus Ordo adherents simply "waive away" contradictions in doctrine thinking they are all dogmatic and infallible.

Pretty much. Although in their defence, those of them who are Novus Ordo out of principles simply recognize authority of Rome and conclude that the errors in Vatican II must be only apparent and not actual errors and some explanation that reconciles Mirari Vos with Dignitatis Humanae must exist. Much like we do with Sacred Scripture - if we find two apparently contradictory verses, we assume a priori that an explanation must exist, because Scripture is inerrant.   

John 22nd clearly was teaching heresy and plenty of people noticed it.  It wasn't "waived away" either, it was addressed and debated and solved.  Pre-Vatican II encyclicals are depending on the context and the statements of the Popes of different weight.  Pius XII in Mediator Dei stated that anything pertaining to the liturgy was under the authority of the Pope.  He didn't make exceptions.  He included the introduction of new rites.  Pius XII stated it, Paul VI did it and people don't want to see that that is consistent.  The wisdom of it is another matter. 

That is not answer to my question though. Let me ask again: if a Pope can teach error in his fallible capacity, including signing documents of an Ecumenical Council, what epistemological principles guarantee that St. Pius X, Leo XIII or Bl. Pius IX did not teach  error in their encyclicals? After all, according to the principles you defend, it is possible that their simply taught error in their encyclicals and Vatican II corrected them.

I'm not interested in your private judgment on whether what they taught was right, I'm interested in how can you know it given your position on the possibility of heresy being taught as part of the Magisterium.

These are ruminations even before the Council was closed.  The Council ultimately made no explicit definitions. 

No dogmas were defined, granted, but doctrine was most certainly taught. For example, Dignitatis Humanae teaches that religious liberty has its source in Divine Revelation.

Okay....there are no explicit doctrinal definitions in it.  It's an opinion piece promulgated by the authority of the Pope.  I accept that.  I also accept that it's a flawed document cobbled together by people with diverse agendas. 

A Novus Ordo modernist can say the same thing about Syllabus of Errors - "it is a flawed document cobbled together by a Pope who wanted to preserve earthly power of the Church on a political level". Following your own principles to their logical conclusion, it is entirely possible that Pius IX taught error in Syllabus of Errors. If an Ecumenical Council signed by the Pope can teach heresy, so can a Pope in encyclical. You have no leg to stand on in opposing Vatican II by quoting pre-Vatican II documents.

Well....we would have to go through each one.  Many sede positions are sede due to reasonable argument but not all.  Same with R&R.  I've heard some great explanations and explications from R&R people and some goofy and idiotic ones.  One SSPX priest was selling the idea that wearing the baretta at an SSPX chapel is a sign of capitulating to the Novus Ordo.

The official position of the SSPX, reiterated under Fr Pagliarani, is that they cannot accept teaching of the Council and that it contains errors. Epistemologically, it is an indefensible position if one accepts John XXIII, Paul VI et al. as Popes. 

Bishop Williamson used to argue that the documents are deliberately ambiguous and you can drag them back onto solid ground if you read them with the background knowledge of what the Church has always taught and not looking at the historical teaching of the Church through the lens of Vatican II and reinterpreting the tradtional doctrine to fit. 

If that is the case, there is no excuse for rejecting Vatican II, which the Pope demanded obediance to, and creating parallel ecclesiastical structures (as Bishop Williamson does). One has to employ "hermeneutics of continuity" and return to full communion with Rome.

Nonsense.  First this is Trent dealing with a particular issue dealing with attacks on the Church's rituals during the Prot Revolution. 

It still guarantees that Church liturgy cannot be impious. Dogmatic teaching of the Church is not limited by historical circumstances. It is the same way of thinking that modernists use to get around EENS ("Boniface VIII taught what he taught in Unam Sanctam only in response to specific historical circumstances" yadda, yadda).

Second, the Council cannot guarantee that every liturgy will have celebrants who will use the vestments, ceremonies, outward signs in a pious fashion.  Nor does it guarantee that the Church will always have the same level of effectiveness with the same ceremonies nor does it guarantee that the Church will never promulgate an impoverished liturgy after a rich one.

Liturgies are not universal in the Church. The Novus Ordo in its "cleanest" form as related in the Ottaviani Intervention doesn't have anything intrinsically harmful or impious.  That has nothing to do with bad translations or the fact that it was not a bullwark against this or that particular error or heresy.  (eg. bidding prayers have come and gone and came back again with the Novus Ordo...Are bidding prayers intrinsically impious? No.  But can particular bidding prayers be impious? Yes.)

Again, that is not the claim of the SSPX/Resistance. They do not say that Novus Ordo is not as good and poorer than the Latin Mass - they claim that Novus Ordo cannot be attended (some SSPX priests even say that if you know about problems with the Novus Ordo and attend it you commit a sin) and that it destroys the faith. If the Church promulgated liturgy which is inherently wrong and destroys faith, that would mean complete failure of Church discipline and defection of the Church.

What was promoted as SSPX policy was never really what was occurring on the ground.  I spent 7 years attending an SSPX chapel and Novus Ordo priests came in, attended mass and used the library, learned the mass from the priests, heard confessions, etc. When Summorum Pontificum was promulgated they were fully prepared to implement it.   I heard SSPX priests preach with quotes from Paul VI and John XXIII.  I've heard SSPX priests say it is all right to attend the Novus Ordo, if you feel you must to fulfill your Sunday obligation but be careful.

On the other hand, I heard the SSPX priests who explicitly said in sermons that Vatican II taught heresy and that the Novus Ordo Mass cannot be attended at all, and that if you know about problems with the Novus Ordo Mass and attend it you might be commiting a mortal sin. Thus, we can exchange such anecdotal evidence both ways.

As I said, the SSPX official position is different than yours - if you claim that Novus Ordo Mass is more or less okay to attend if celebrated correctly and that Vatican II teaches no substantial error, I disagree with that, but have no problem with it from epistemological viewpoint, since it is a coherent viewpoint, even if wrong. That is not what the SSPX maintains as official position, though.   

From my personal experience, when I first attended the TLM almost 20 years ago, I immediately recognized numerous elements from the Novus Ordo as it was offered when I was a kid in the early 70s.  A Novus Ordo from 1973 in a conservative diocese, looks more like the TLM than a contemporary Novus Ordo almost 50 years later in the same diocese.   And I would say,many of the TLMs today are sloppier than some of the earliest Novus Ordo masses I attended in terms of the congregation universally knowing what to do, thanks to the nuns.  Nowadays, you have sloppy clothing here and there, confusion going to Communion, some women covering their heads, others not knowing. TLMs are more culturally variegated now.  You used to have Italian parishes, and Polish parishes and Irish and German etc. and each group did things a certain way. 

Now, you have the Novus Ordo which has mutated beyond recognition from what it started as and you have TLMs that are kind of cobbled together a la Frankenstein from the wreckage of the Church. Neither is what they were designed to be on paper.  But I'll take a less than perfect TLM over the contemporary Novus Ordo nonsense,  but you are in for a competition when it's a conservative 1973 Novus Ordo vs a sloppy contemporary TLM.

I more or less agree with that, that is now what I argue against.

[Gerard]

Just saw this late at night.  I'm making a quick comment and will answer more thoroughly later. 

Because it is not infallible means it is possible that an authentic teaching or policy of someone who can invoke magisterial authority can be wrong or heretical. 

No, it can't because it would mean defection of the Church. The Magisterium cannot teach heresy even in fallible capacity.

First point, It would not mean defection of the Church because the Pope isn't the Church when speaking or teaching in a fallible capacity.  It's called error.  And errors are heretical as opposed to heresy which is "obstinate" denial or embrace of an error.  Defection of the Church due to something like that would be a formal declaration by the Pope binding the Universal Church (East and West) to hold an error as true. 

Second point, you contradict yourself when you say the "Magisterium" cannot teach heresy even in a fallible capacity.  Well...a fallible capacity means a possibility to teach error.  So your claim contradicts itself.   A Pope could teach a defined heresy accidentally or he can teach an error that is heretical but not formally condemned.  Nothing new is under the sun. 


Third point, Again, the Magisterium is a power of the office not a person, it has differing levels.  A Pope by his very holding of the office has the right to teach as he sees fit.  This is the "authentic" Magisterium level of teaching.  He relies on his own mind and capacity, it's purely human.  Pope Benedict XVI's "Jesus of Nazareth" series is on this level.  It's not Josef Ratzinger who wrote the books, it's Pope Benedict XVI, but there are no more protections from error than Josef Ratzinger has. 

What makes you think that resistance is merely a "waiving away" and not a thoughtful and deliberative process?

Because by the very same principles they use (Magisterium can teach grave error in its fallible capacity) one can reject St. Pius X's Pascendi, Pius IX's Quanta Cura and other documents which they themselves quote against Vatican II. If Vatican II taught error, St. Pius X could have taught error in Pascendi and unjustly condemned modernism - encyclical is a document of lower Magisterial level than constitutions of an Ecumenical Council.

You are getting out in front of your skis on a few of these claims.  These encyclicals don't, for obvious reasons mention Vatican II.  They don't quote against Vatican, they are quoted by others against Vatican II. 

Second, just because something is fallible does not mean you can waive it away.  This is the "I only believe things that are infallibly defined."  So you are left with very little to believe or you extend infallibility to places the Church has not claimed as infallible. 

Pascendi isn't valuable as a document because of the level of authoritative teaching in it.  It doesn't bind the universal Church to anything.  It doesn't even condemn Modernism as a specific heresy.  it's a "synthesis of heresies."  It constantly changes, it thrives on indefinition.  Pascendi is valuable because it provides an outline and deconstruction of elements of Modernism.  As it stands, it was not sufficient to end Modernism, it only drove it underground. 

Quo Primum is often cited incorrectly as "infallible" or "binding in perpetuity" as if one Pope can bind another on a matter of Liturgy.  That's false.  History shows it.  Pius XII states in Mediator Dei that anything and everything concerning the Liturgy is under the authority of the Pope.  He states the Pope can introduce new rites, suppress things, bring things back as he sees fit.  Pius XII may state wisely that things that were adopted in the Novus Ordo are a mistake, but that didn't bind Paul VI from doing those same things. 

[trentcath]

John Salza, a now former leading SSPX apologist and author of True or False Pope?, has withdrawn support for the SSPX and has decided to be in full communion with Rome after studying sedevacantism.

Link: https://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2020/10/breaking-news-john-salza-leaves-sspx.html?m=1

Won't be the first or the last, this also happened to the successor of Bishop castro de Meyer in Brazil who now apparently claims that if you don't celebrate the NO chrism mass you are a schismatic  Sad, but it happens.

This head of the Personal Apostolate of St John Vianney Society concelebrated a Novus Ordo with Francis, the sort of trad good boy that Francis must like. If not that, then someone who'll fight with their tail, which is as useful for Francis. Bp Castro de Meyer was definitely somehow with a far more perceptive idea of the Crisis, who took some risks.

As I said, can happen to anyone. The good thing about the Bp Castro de Meyer situation is it shows the risks for the SSPX if it gains some sort of recognition from Rome, even if someone receives a precious heritage from a good bishop (as Bp Catro de Meyer's successor did) they can easily throw it away for the sake of "recognition" or, more likely, pride.

The SSPX is big as traditional apostates go, but within the Conciliar behemoth, Novus Ordo money and cultural attitudes talk, as happened there.

?

[Prayerful]

John Salza, a now former leading SSPX apologist and author of True or False Pope?, has withdrawn support for the SSPX and has decided to be in full communion with Rome after studying sedevacantism.

Link: https://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2020/10/breaking-news-john-salza-leaves-sspx.html?m=1

Won't be the first or the last, this also happened to the successor of Bishop castro de Meyer in Brazil who now apparently claims that if you don't celebrate the NO chrism mass you are a schismatic  Sad, but it happens.

This head of the Personal Apostolate of St John Vianney Society concelebrated a Novus Ordo with Francis, the sort of trad good boy that Francis must like. If not that, then someone who'll fight with their tail, which is as useful for Francis. Bp Castro de Meyer was definitely somehow with a far more perceptive idea of the Crisis, who took some risks.

As I said, can happen to anyone. The good thing about the Bp Castro de Meyer situation is it shows the risks for the SSPX if it gains some sort of recognition from Rome, even if someone receives a precious heritage from a good bishop (as Bp Catro de Meyer's successor did) they can easily throw it away for the sake of "recognition" or, more likely, pride.

The SSPX is big as traditional apostates go, but within the Conciliar behemoth, Novus Ordo money and cultural attitudes talk, as happened there.

?

Phones autocorrect. The SSPX are big, but if they opt for the Peronal Prelature they might end up like the 'The Personal Apostolate of St John Vianney' whose head con-celebrated a Novus Ordo with Pope Francis.