Author Topic: John Salza withdraws support for SSPX and returns to full communion with Rome  (Read 548 times)

Offline Sin of Adam

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 31
  • Thanked: 18 times
  • in hoc signo vinces
  • Religion: Traditional Roman Catholic
John Salza, a now former leading SSPX apologist and author of True or False Pope?, has withdrawn support for the SSPX and has decided to be in full communion with Rome after studying sedevacantism.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
« Last Edit: October 17, 2020, 09:38:49 AM by Sin of Adam »
Lumen ad revelationem gentium: et gloriam plebes tuae Israel.
 

Offline Michael Wilson

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 8009
  • Thanked: 6299 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Makes total sense given his theological position.
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers
 
The following users thanked this post: Vetus Ordo, Maximilian, aquinas138, Arvinger

Offline St.Justin

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2677
  • Thanked: 1158 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
John Salza, a now former leading SSPX apologist and author of True or False Pope?, has withdrawn support for the SSPX and has decided to be in full communion with Rome after studying sedevacantism.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

Weird man and site!
 
The following users thanked this post: Lynne

Offline Heinrich

  • Steig mal auf den Berg hinauf
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 8374
  • Thanked: 3383 times
  • Gott, wende Dich zu uns und gib uns neues Leben
  • Religion: römisch-katholisch
What a ridiculous thread.
Schaff Recht mir Gott und führe meine Sache gegen ein unheiliges Volk . . .   .                          
Lex Orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi.
"Die Welt sucht nach Ehre, Ansehen, Reichtum, Vergnügen; die Heiligen aber suchen Demütigung, Verachtung, Armut, Abtötung und Buße." --Ausschnitt von der Geschichte des Lebens St. Bennos.
 
The following users thanked this post: Greg, Lynne, St.Justin

Offline Arvinger

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 342
  • Thanked: 403 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Makes total sense given his theological position.

Indeed. While each position (sedevacantism, R&R, Novus Ordo) has its own theological problems, R&R is the most inconsistent one. It makes more sense to be either a sedevacantist or Novus Ordo. Since Salza rejected sedevacantism, his return to indult traditionalism or Novus Ordo is understandable. 
 
The following users thanked this post: Vetus Ordo, Pon de Replay, Jayne, Michael Wilson, awkwardcustomer, aquinas138

Offline Gerard

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3978
  • Thanked: 1664 times
  • .. and his raiment became white and glittering
R&R is the most inconsistent one. It makes more sense to be either a sedevacantist or Novus Ordo. Since Salza rejected sedevacantism, his return to indult traditionalism or Novus Ordo is understandable.

That only makes sense if one has a tendency toward Neo-Ultramontanism.   As I wrote on another thread the other day, It's my personal opinion that Vatican II is God's punishment for the almost wholesale distortions and rejection of Vatican I's limiting definitions on infallibility in favor of turning the Papacy into an office for making the Pope an idol. 

Sedevacantism and Novus Ordoism attribute irresistibility to the Pope.  They also conflate as a result of this disobedience as being the equivalent of schismatic.  Both of these attributes are not charisms of the papacy and relatively new problems in the Church. 

Vatican I makes a very clear qualification in obedience owed to the Pope as being "true hierarchical obedience" it doesn't say "absolute hierarchical obedience." 
 
The following users thanked this post: Lynne, Philip G.

Offline Greg

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Major
  • ****
  • Posts: 13673
  • Thanked: 8108 times
Dunning-Kruger effect.

Salza also believes in geocentrism.

Stupid people who think they are clever constantly make these flip flops.  It keeps them stimulated.
 
The following users thanked this post: Kent

Offline dellery

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2828
  • Thanked: 1032 times
Makes total sense given his theological position.

Indeed. While each position (sedevacantism, R&R, Novus Ordo) has its own theological problems, R&R is the most inconsistent one. It makes more sense to be either a sedevacantist or Novus Ordo. Since Salza rejected sedevacantism, his return to indult traditionalism or Novus Ordo is understandable.

Sedevacantism has refuted itself, and it is complete lunacy to posit that the NO has less theological problems than R&R.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2020, 07:31:37 AM by dellery »
Bean-Curd Tiger
 

Offline Daniel

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3011
  • Thanked: 771 times
Makes total sense given his theological position.

Indeed. While each position (sedevacantism, R&R, Novus Ordo) has its own theological problems, R&R is the most inconsistent one. It makes more sense to be either a sedevacantist or Novus Ordo. Since Salza rejected sedevacantism, his return to indult traditionalism or Novus Ordo is understandable.

Sedevacantism has refuted itself, and it is complete lunacy to posit that the NO has less theological problems than R&R.

How has sedevacantism refuted itself? A SSPX priest recommended I check out Salza's book and website, so I guess I'll do that. But as of now, I'm just not seeing it.

In my current opinion, it appears that the R&R position (that's the SSPX position, right?) implicitly denies the Church's "oneness". Because the NO church and the SSPX appear to have separate hierarchies and separate teachings. This "twoness" entails that they can't both be "Church". Either the SSPX is "Church" and the NO is schismatic, or the NO church is "Church" and the SSPX is schismatic, or neither of them are "Church". The only other possibility is that they are both "Church" and are, in fact, "one", in full agreement with one another with regard to hierarchy and doctrine (but it really doesn't look that way).

Maybe the NO theological problems are only apparent rather than real, and the NO church really is the way to go? (obviously without accepting any of the apparent errors though)  :shrug:
« Last Edit: October 18, 2020, 07:54:36 AM by Daniel »
 

Offline dellery

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2828
  • Thanked: 1032 times

How has sedevacantism refuted itself? A SSPX priest recommended I check out Salza's book and website, so I guess I'll do that. But as of now, I'm just not seeing it.

In my current opinion, it appears that the R&R position (that's the SSPX position, right?) implicitly denies the Church's oneness. Because the NO church and the SSPX have separate hierarchies and separate teachings. They can't both be "Church". Either the SSPX is "Church" and the NO is schismatic, or the NO church is "Church" and the SSPX is schismatic, or neither of them are "Church".

Maybe the NO theological problems are only apparent rather than real, and the NO church really is the way to go?  :shrug:

They are running out of "true" bishops since there hasn't been a Pope in decades.

The R&R position is not even a position and only exists as a "position" contra Sedevacantism, for starters. Secondly, it does no such thing about denying "oneness". There are no separate hierarchies. The SSPX Bishops are part of the greater Catholic hierarchy and are not only Bishops in the SSPX. This should be blatantly obvious to you. Furthermore, while one should avoid the New Mass you don't necessarily have to avoid your Diocese and those in it. I take part in my Diocese and sometimes do favors and run errands for it, there's no need to hide my registered chapel and who runs it (SSPX). This isn't all that unique either for people that live near me. Many Trads started out as regular old Conservative Cradle Catholics and have strong ties to their dioceses and they don't disappear when somebody makes the decision to assist at an SSPX chapel.

The fact you think there is anywhere to go shows your confusion. There is no difference, hierarchically speaking, between the SSPX and "NO", it's a false-dichotomy. They are the same. The SSPX's purpose is to preserve Tradition within the Church. You are looking at it from the perspective of them preserving Tradition outside of the Church and thus feel you have to choose between the SSPX and the Catholic Church. Go to the SSPX, ICKSP, or FSSP, who cares? As long as the SSPX exists none of the other groups are going away. When one understands +Lefebvre they see that the aforementioned groups are part of the fulfillment of his mission in restoring Tradition to the Church, not starting a new church with new hierarchy and supplanting the "NO" with it.
Bean-Curd Tiger
 
The following users thanked this post: Elizabeth.2

Offline Daniel

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3011
  • Thanked: 771 times
They are running out of "true" bishops since there hasn't been a Pope in decades.

But this could just indicate that the world is going to end soon.

Or who knows... maybe God is going to step in and choose a new Pope, and this new Pope is going to sort out the mess. (You only need a single bishop.)


The R&R position is not even a position and only exists as a "position" contra Sedevacantism, for starters. Secondly, it does no such thing about denying "oneness". There are no separate hierarchies. The SSPX Bishops are part of the greater Catholic hierarchy and are not only Bishops in the SSPX. This should be blatantly obvious to you.

The hierarchies are separate though, at least in practice. The NO hierarchy has no say in the way the SSPX operates. Not even Francis has any say in the way the SSPX operates. The SSPX claims to be submissive to the putative Pope, but this seems mostly to be lip service.

On top of that, it's not clear (from the SSPX's founding documents) that the Church even gave the SSPX permission to have its own hierarchy and its own chapels.

Quote
Furthermore, while one should avoid the New Mass you don't necessarily have to avoid your Diocese and those in it. I take part in my Diocese and sometimes do favors and run errands for it, there's no need to hide my registered chapel and who runs it (SSPX). This isn't all that unique either for people that live near me. Many Trads started out as regular old Conservative Cradle Catholics and have strong ties to their dioceses and they don't disappear when somebody makes the decision to assist at an SSPX chapel.

The fact you think there is anywhere to go shows your confusion. There is no difference, hierarchically speaking, between the SSPX and "NO", it's a false-dichotomy. They are the same. The SSPX's purpose is to preserve Tradition within the Church. You are looking at it from the perspective of them preserving Tradition outside of the Church and thus feel you have to choose between the SSPX and the Catholic Church. Go to the SSPX, ICKSP, or FSSP, who cares? As long as the SSPX exists none of the other groups are going away. When one understands +Lefebvre they see that the aforementioned groups are part of the fulfillment of his mission in restoring Tradition to the Church, not starting a new church with new hierarchy and supplanting the "NO" with it.

That's interesting, and I don't deny it. My personal experiences have been less consistent though: some SSPX priests say that it's ok to go to the FSSP/indult Masses, while other SSPX priests say that FSSP priests are not "traditionalists" and that we shouldn't be attending their Masses and that we especially shouldn't be listening to the their sermons. Still, all SSPX priests (as far as I know) say that it's a sin to attend the NO Mass (even a reverent NOM celebrated by a conservative NO priest), because the NO liturgy itself is heretical, evil, and a proximate danger to the faith (I believe they mean each Catholic's subjective faith). This position is not in line with the NO church's public position.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2020, 09:19:27 AM by Daniel »
 

Offline Sin of Adam

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 31
  • Thanked: 18 times
  • in hoc signo vinces
  • Religion: Traditional Roman Catholic
What a ridiculous thread.

I love you too
Lumen ad revelationem gentium: et gloriam plebes tuae Israel.
 
The following users thanked this post: Heinrich

Offline Prayerful

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 6946
  • Thanked: 3132 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Not exactly sourced, but I suppose it follows from TOFP defending Conciliarism in a belt and braces way. Where some might see the episcopal ordinal as an ineffectual fragment of an Oriental Rite with unclear language (governing spirit is probably Holy Spirit but why the foggy words?), the bould Salza says not the slightest doubt.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2020, 01:32:30 PM by Prayerful »
Padre Pio: Pray, hope, and don't worry. Worry is useless. God is merciful and will hear your prayer.
 
The following users thanked this post: Michael Wilson

Offline Arvinger

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 342
  • Thanked: 403 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Makes total sense given his theological position.

Indeed. While each position (sedevacantism, R&R, Novus Ordo) has its own theological problems, R&R is the most inconsistent one. It makes more sense to be either a sedevacantist or Novus Ordo. Since Salza rejected sedevacantism, his return to indult traditionalism or Novus Ordo is understandable.

Sedevacantism has refuted itself, and it is complete lunacy to posit that the NO has less theological problems than R&R.

From epistemological point of view Novus Ordo is much more consistent and logical than R&R. Novus Ordo consitently accepts as authoritative the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, including an Ecumenical Council signed by a person whom R&R claim to have been a Pope. That is what a Catholic should do, since a layman is in no position to judge teaching of the Magisterium. If Vatican II teaches grave error, it cannot have come from the Catholic Church. Therefore, Novus Ordo and sedevacantism are more logical and consistent than R&R.
 

Offline Arvinger

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 342
  • Thanked: 403 times
  • Religion: Catholic
R&R is the most inconsistent one. It makes more sense to be either a sedevacantist or Novus Ordo. Since Salza rejected sedevacantism, his return to indult traditionalism or Novus Ordo is understandable.

That only makes sense if one has a tendency toward Neo-Ultramontanism.   As I wrote on another thread the other day, It's my personal opinion that Vatican II is God's punishment for the almost wholesale distortions and rejection of Vatican I's limiting definitions on infallibility in favor of turning the Papacy into an office for making the Pope an idol. 

Sedevacantism and Novus Ordoism attribute irresistibility to the Pope.  They also conflate as a result of this disobedience as being the equivalent of schismatic.  Both of these attributes are not charisms of the papacy and relatively new problems in the Church. 

Vatican I makes a very clear qualification in obedience owed to the Pope as being "true hierarchical obedience" it doesn't say "absolute hierarchical obedience."

No, it has nothing to do with neo-Ultramontanism. It has to do with two simple truths about the Catholic Church:

1) the Magisterium of the Catholic Church cannot teach grave error. R&R asserts that an Ecumenical Council ratified by the Pope taught grave error, which is impossible.
2) the Catholic Church cannot promulgate impious or harmful liturgy. The R&R asserts exactly that, which is impossible.

Given these two truths, one can conclude either:
1) that Vatican II did not teach error and its documents have to be accepted as authoritative, and the Novus Ordo Mass is a legitimate Catholic Mass which can be safely attended (Novus Ordo position).
2) that Vatican II did not come from the Catholic Church (sedevacantism).

Granted, sedevacantism and Novus Ordo have other serious theological problems, but they are more consistent and logical than R&R.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2020, 11:14:27 AM by Arvinger »