Bro. Peter Dimond
-Recent e-mail exchanges about a possible debate with John Salza reveal the dark character and dishonest tactics of defenders of Antipope Benedict XVI –
*NOTE: This is only Part 1. More of Salza’s falsehoods will be addressed in Part 2.
IN THIS ARTICLE:
We wanted to share (with those interested) some of the recent developments about a proposed debate with John Salza. In this article, you will find some recent e-mail exchanges I had with Salza about a debate on whether Benedict XVI is a valid pope. What transpired was extremely revealing. Before telling you the story of how Salza, in an elaborate attempt to “save-face” and act like he wanted to have a live debate, wound up proposing a live debate only then to back down, I must first give a very brief recap of the events that led up to this point. The quick recap is in red, followed up by an update on recent developments.
Readers of our website will recall that about five months ago (September, 2010) I posted a long article carefully refuting the arguments against sedevacantism made by one John Salza. It’s an important article and anyone who wants to see which position is true simply needs to read it: John Salza’s Arguments Against Sedevacantism Crushed Salza is a lawyer and former high-ranking Freemason, as well as an apologist for the Vatican II Church. My article was written in response to an article Salza published in a false traditionalist publication. Salza’s article attempted to refute the sedevacantist position. It also proclaimed that sedevacantists are “ignorant” and “schismatics.” Salza has also said that sedevacantists should be called “empty heads.”
Since Salza’s article had persuaded some people, a careful refutation of it was necessary. Any fair-minded reader who read my article will see that Salza’s arguments were dismantled. The article is significant because it illustrates that the defenders of the Counter Church circulate fair-seeming but deceptive arguments – i.e., arguments that are superficially impressive but crumble when rigorously analyzed.
In my rebuttal of his arguments, I proved that Salza (probably without realizing it) directly contradicts himself more than once on core issues. For example, I show that, at the beginning of the article, Salza concedes that heretics lose their offices without any declaration. However, by the end of his article he is arguing just the opposite: that a “self-excommunicated heretic” would retain jurisdiction over the universal Church as pope (i.e., his office). That serves to prove that Salza’s arguments are false and that he lacks a proper understanding of the issue. In fact, he was just throwing things out there.
|Salza, “The Errors of Sedevacantism and Ecclesiastical Law,” The Remnant: “Sedevacantists correctly maintain that Divine Law expels a formal heretic from the Church without further declaration. They point to canon 188, par. 4 of the 1917 Code which says that “all offices whatsoever fall vacant and without any declaration if the cleric…publicly defects from the Catholic Faith.”||Salza, “The Errors of Sedevacantism and Ecclesiastical Law,” The Remnant: “Thus, even if Sedevacantists argue, for example, that Cardinal Ratzinger was self-expelled before his papal election for heresy (often pointing to some of his controversial writings as a private theologian), the Sedevacantists are still subject to his jurisdiction as Pope, which is both valid and licit under the Church’s ecclesiastical law.”|
In my article I also mentioned that in August, before publishing my response to his article, I had challenged John Salza to a debate. Here is exactly what I wrote:
SALZA AVOIDS OUR DEBATE CHALLENGE-INVITATION
Before analyzing those distortions and refuting Salza’s corruption of Catholic teaching, it should be noted that on August 23, 2010, I challenged John Salza to a telephone debate-conversation on the topic of sedevacantism. Here’s the e-mail I sent.
My name is Brother Peter Dimond. I’m a member of Most Holy Family Monastery. You’re probably familiar with us or with some of our material.
I was wondering if you would be interested in a recorded telephone conversation/debate on the issue of sedevacantism, i.e., whether Benedict XVI is the pope? I realize that you consider Benedict XVI to be a valid pope, and that you believe the sedevacantists are quite wrong. I think a conversation on this matter would be very valuable and interesting for people. Please let me know if you are interested.
Bro. Peter Dimond
This e-mail was followed up a few days later with a certified letter sent to his address. The certified letter was received and signed for at his address. Even though he definitely got our letter, as of this writing we have not received any response to the debate challenge. We believe Salza is avoiding us because he realizes that such an encounter would not go well for him. Perhaps he recognizes that he has no response for the numerous manifest heresies of Benedict XVI. Sure, he can conveniently ignore them in articles that focus on perverting Catholic principles and aspects of canon law. The false traditionalist audience reading his article will not notice or care that the real issues haven’t been addressed.
However, in a debate with us, he would have to address the real issues front and center with nowhere to run. Moreover, considering that his attack on sedevacantism comprises a system of involved distortions that is superficially impressive but in reality specious (as I will show), Salza might not even believe in what he has written. When we consider that he has the audacity to assert that sedevacantists should be called “empty heads,” his evasion of a debate with us speaks to his insecurity, his cowardice, and his inability to defend his position.
As it is explained in my previous article, “John Salza’s Arguments Against Sedevacantism Crushed,” after I sent the e-mail and the certified letter to Salza in August 2010, we received no response. Following the publication of our article in September 2010, a reader of our website also e-mailed Salza about our refutation of Salza’s arguments. We don’t know if Salza responded to that person’s e-mail. Nevertheless, for months we heard nothing at all from Salza: we received no response to our e-mail, letter or article. Salza’s arguments had been addressed and refuted, and we had moved on with our lives. However, in late December 2010, we suddenly received a surprising e-mail from John Salza. In the e-mail, he acted as if he had just learned of our article.
What we will see in the e-mail exchanges which followed is, we believe, Salza’s elaborate attempt to “save-face,” in addition to his striking dishonesty.
[John Salza to Bro. Peter Dimond, Dec. 23, 2010]
I just found out that you wrote a rebuttal to my article against sedevacantism that was published in The Remnant over the summer. I was disappointed not only that you didn’t send your rebuttal to me, but also because you claimed that I signed for a certified letter about a “telephone discussion/debate” that I thereafter avoided. This is not true. But rather than verify your facts, you went on to call me a coward.
Let’s settle our differences by having a live, public, face-to-face debate with a moderator at a neutral location. Let me know if you our interested. If so, let me know when and how I can contact you to discuss the terms and conditions of the debate.
On the same day that Salza’s surprise e-mail arrived, we received an e-mail from William Albrecht (a person I’ve debated twice). It stated:
[William Albrecht to MHFM, night of Dec. 23, 2010]
Greetings Peter and Michael Dimond
This email is short and to the point. Mr. John Salza and myself are interested in debating you two in a LIVE moderated debate in a public location. If you are interested in such a debate, dealing with Sedevacantism, then do let us know.
First, it’s bizarre that Salza e-mailed us and didn’t mention anything about Albrecht’s involvement in a proposed debate. As we proceed, we will see why. In my responses, I only respond to Salza. That’s because I’ve already debated Albrecht twice and the one I want to debate is Salza.
[Bro. Peter Dimond to John Salza, Dec. 24, 2010]
There are a few points that need to be made.
First, on August 23, 2010, I sent you an e-mail about a debate on the sedevacantist issue. The e-mail was sent to firstname.lastname@example.org. Since you claim that I misrepresented the facts about this matter, please confirm: is that your e-mail address? Did you receive the e-mail I sent to that e-mail address?
Second, I did send a certified letter that was received and signed for at your address. You say that I claimed you signed for a certified letter from us. In making that statement, you actually clearly misrepresent me. I said very clearly that the letter wassigned for and received at your address. I did not say that you personally signed for it. Surely you can understand the difference.
I wrote: “This e-mail was followed up a few days later with a certified letter sent to his address. The certified letter was received and signed for at his address.”
Since you claim that I misrepresented the facts, please confirm: was the aforementioned letter received and signed for by someone at your address, even though you personally didn’t sign for it?
Third, I do find it extremely difficult to believe that you “just” found out about the article I wrote. Perhaps by the word “just” you mean a few months ago. Nevertheless, since this is the first I’ve heard from you since my original e-mail and letter, both of which were sent months ago, please respond to my original debate invitation/offer/challenge. Would you engage in a recorded telephone debate-conversation between the two of us on the topic of sedevacantism, yes or no?
Please answer my original query – an answer I’ve been waiting months for – before we proceed to anything else.
I’ve done many such recorded telephone debates. They work well; they are easy to set up; they are flexible, open, and interesting. They facilitate exploration of the core issues, in a back-and-forth format. If someone is concerned about equal time in such a debate, I’ve done many with a more regimented format (2 minutes, back and forth, etc.). Do you accept or not?
You can contact me here. Also, in your future correspondence, please do not include the legal notice at the bottom of your e-mail.
Bro. Peter Dimond
Salza responded on Dec. 28, 2010. He indicates that he will not engage me in a telephone debate (just as we said in our article), and proposes a live debate instead. However, the live debate he proposes will not just concern the issue of whether Benedict XVI is the pope; it will also concern a lawsuit we are currently engaged in, our monastery, and our opinions about the end times. He also confirms that the e-mail I sent in August was sent to his e-mail address, and that the letter was received at his physical address.
[John Salza’s response, Dec. 28, 2010]
First, although the email address is correct, because of the volume of emails I receive, I don’t open up most of them (which was the case with your email) unless the subject line warrants it (I may even shut down the website email in the future).
Second, I have no record of receiving your letter. Because it was sent to my business address and was unrelated to my business, it must have been disposed of. Nevertheless, you assumed I received it without verifying the facts and then went on to publicly slander my name because you concluded I was avoiding you.
Third, I did not find out about your article until recently when a patron sent it to me. But the foregoing facts are irrelevant to this correspondence. If we are going to have a debate, then I want it to be a live, face-to-face debate in a neutral setting with a moderator. There will be an independent videographer and the recording of the debate will be unedited. You and I will not have control over the video or audio of the debate. We will have substantial time to present our positions (25-30 minutes at a time) and the same amount of time for cross-examination sessions. You will also not be able to limit the scope of questions in cross-examination as you do in your telephone debates.
Because you have unjustly maligned my character in your public audio and written materials, surely you can understand how I desire to defend my character. By taking the approach you did, you have also made your own credibility an issue, These facts, coupled with the information I have about you and Most Holy Family Monastery, make inquiry into your credibility a relevant area for cross-examination (e.g, your claims concerning your religious order, your end-times prophecies, etc.).
These cross-examination sessions will be similar to what you will experience in the current fraud and racketeering case pending against you in the Western District of New York. Given Judge Curtin’s ruling that there is sufficient evidence against you to merit a trial, you ought to be prepared for this kind of scrutiny (although I can understand why you wouldn’t want to expose yourself in such a way).
The scattergun approach you take in your telephone debates does not allow for a thorough examination of your positions. Moreover, I have investigated the tactics you use in your telephone debates and have documentation that you have edited out content from your opponents’ debate material when it hurts your position. As you will soon learn, you will not be able to edit the federal court’s transcripts in your current fraud litigation.
So, my answer is yes to the face-to-face debate, and no to the telephone debate. Let me know if you wish to proceed. If so, I will propose further terms and conditions in my next correspondence.
P.S. Regarding your strange request to remove the legal disclaimers from future emails, I have no control over the text as it is automatically generated (but if you would read the disclaimers, you would recognize that they are not relevant to this correspondence).
P.S.S. Regarding your slander of my name (both in your public writing and audio presentations), note that I, like Mr. Hoyle, am able to pursue remedies through the federal court system (here, in the Eastern District Court of Wisconsin).
I responded to John Salza on Jan. 6, 2011. Notice that I’ve been quite reasonable. I proposed an equal time telephone debate, and he refused. Now I begin to expose his dishonest tactics and his false accusations. I also accept his proposal of a live debate, including one in which he can ask me all kinds of irrelevant questions.
[Bro. Peter Dimond to John Salza, Jan. 6, 2011]
If you re-read my original communications, you will notice that I tried to approach the debate with you in a cordial way. You ignored my letter for months, and now you have responded with e-mails that contain numerous false accusations and misrepresentations. For that reason, in this communication I will be blunt. At the end of this communication, I explain how I would be willing to engage in a live debate.
As your e-mail confirms, my original letter was sent to your e-mail address. You also confirm that the certified letter was received at your business address. You also confirm that you desire to avoid a recorded telephone debate. Those are the claims I made about you in my article, and they are all proven true by what you have said. I did not misrepresent you. Hence, for you to continue to claim that I did is quite dishonest and strikes at the heart of your credibility. It’s similar to the dishonesty entailed in your position that Benedict XVI holds the Catholic faith. You thus slander me, not the other way around.
I also contacted your law office in Milwaukee. The person I spoke with confirmed that mail addressed to John Salza is, as one would expect, delivered to you. It is not discarded. Someone else we know called your law office and was told the same thing by Tammy (who said she works for you). She made it clear that mail is given to you, whether it’s certified mail or not. Moreover, Barb Corriveau, the person who signed for the letter at your office, confirmed to Sr. Anne (a sister at our convent) that the letter was delivered to you. Your story is not credible, and we have proof that the letter was received at your address and at your e-mail address.
You also don’t mention exactly (or even the month) when you first learned about my letter or my e-mail. You speak in deliberately vague terms about the issue (e.g., you have “no record” of the letter) obviously because you desire to give the impression that you were unaware for longer than you were. You dance around the issue because you want to obfuscate the matter. Given the way you handle these small things, I can see why you fail in the big things (Mt. 25:23). For example, you write:
“Third, I did not find out about your article until recently when a patron sent it to me…”
Instead of telling us when and how you first learned of my e-mail or letter – or even if you saw the letter after it was signed for – you say that you didn’t find out about my “article” (something different) until “recently.” You purposely speak of the article and you don’t even specify what you mean by “recently” for the reasons described above. If you think you can get away with this activity before the Judgment Seat of Christ, that is, obfuscating the truth in order to perpetuate the false impression that you were unaware of something you knew, you are deceiving yourself. It’s not only the sin of dishonesty, but it’s also a sin against your fellow man because you are falsely accusing me of stating something untrue.
Note that we, too, can take legal remedy for your slander and misrepresentation should you choose to publish it to others. Your legal threat, on the other hand, is empty and we are not cowed by it; for all of the facts on this point are against you. Moreover, if you did make any claim, we would make our own counterclaim against you. You further misrepresent the truth when you say:
“… I have investigated the tactics you use in your telephone debates and have documentation that you have edited out content from your opponents’ debate material when it hurts your position.”
This is false. Since you made this false claim, please cite your “documentation.” As an example, I engaged in two formal debates with someone I think you know, William Albrecht. Not one second of the debate content on either side was removed, as he knows. I would also of course guarantee that, if we debated, none of the actual content would be removed (excluding dead time for rest breaks.) You could record it yourself – and I would encourage you to do so – if we engaged in a telephone debate; but you are obviously afraid to have a mature discussion about the issue over the phone.
Moreover, don’t confuse your false claim about my debates with a proposal I made to William Albrecht concerning a possible third debate with him. To separate facts from your fiction: I engaged in two formal debates with Albrecht, and not one second of the debate was removed. After the debate, Albrecht wanted a third debate (for the first two did not go well for him). He also angrily threatened to use that debate as a means to engage in a slander-fest against us. He uttered many outrageous lies about us, and he said that he would use the debate format to declare them. In light of that, I proposed that if I were to debate him again, I would have the right to remove such irrelevant lies. It was a proposal in the unique case of a third debate with Albrecht, not what I have done in my previous debates. I actually relented on that proposal, and never followed up on it; and if I debated him again it would be agreed on both sides that no one would remove any of the content, as was the case with our previous debates. So, if that’s what you are relying on for your false statement about my debates, it shows how seriously you distort facts.
It’s also inconsistent that you claim, on the one hand, to be so unfamiliar with our website that you had no idea we posted an article or audios about you; but, on the other hand, you claim to be so familiar with our website that you’ve already listened to our debates and investigated our “debate tactics.”
Furthermore, you shouldn’t rely on the words of William Albrecht. It could get you into trouble. He consistently lies and distorts the truth. There’s no other way to put it. Many of the things he says about us and other matters are false. He’s the same person who claimed that he had a quote in which St. Jerome approved as valid a form of consecration containing the word “all.” As expected, it was a total fabrication, like many other things he says: e.g., his statement that many Lutherans accept the Council of Trent; his statement that many of the fathers taught sola fide; his statement that the Council of Trent declared This is My Body, This is My Blood is all that’s necessary for a consecration; etc.
It’s also clear that you are unwilling to debate me on the topic of whether Benedict XVI is the pope. You say that you will only engage in a live debate in which you will ask us all kinds of irrelevant questions about our current litigation and our monastery. According to you, the debate will be about our monastery, our lawsuit, and our opinions about the end times, rather than the subject matter of your article and my rebuttal: namely, the validity of Benedict XVI. It serves to demonstrate that you cannot engage me in a debate on that issue, for your position would be soundly refuted, but rather you must attempt to distract people from the facts with distortions, gossip, and unjustified personal attacks. You’ve probably been pumped with quite a bit of misinformation and distortion about our monastery. In line with your consistent misrepresentation of the facts, you state:
“Given Judge Curtin’s ruling that there is sufficient evidence against you to merit a trial, you ought to be prepared for this kind of scrutiny (although I can understand why you wouldn’t want to expose yourself in such a way).”
Once again, you are wrong. The Judge has not ruled that there is sufficient evidence to merit a trial. We haven’t even reached the end of discovery or made a summary judgment motion yet. You don’t know what you are talking about, and you have misrepresented us as a result. How many times have you misrepresented the facts in just these few e-mails? That’s all you have: distortions, misrepresentations and unjustified argumenta ad hominem. I can see why you lack the grace to identify your doctrinal errors. You are a dishonest person in the smallest dealings. You first lied and said that I wrote that you signed for the letter, when you knew I did not.
As you will soon realize, you will not be able to avoid your lies, your distortions of the truth, your denials of Catholic teaching, and your defenses of some of the worst apostates of all time (e.g., John Paul II, Benedict XVI) before the Judgment Seat of Christ. Any debate encounter we would have would amount to your position being theologically exposed, not the other way around. That would include one in which you would try to muddy the waters by irrelevant and unjustified personal attacks. I would refute your misconceptions, turn away your false claims and, in the process, demonstrate that your tactic only reveals the bankruptcy of your position. Perhaps in such an encounter your apostasy from the Catholic faith, and self-admitted decision to make an “oath to the Devil” in the higher echelons of Freemasonry, and how you reconciled that with your “Catholic” conscience, might be a relevant area for cross-examination. We could explore why we should have any confidence in the “integrity” of a supposed “cradle Catholic” like you, who chose to completely give up Jesus Christ and ally himself with Lucifer, for social and worldly gain, and how your “integrity” compares to mine: someone who was raised without a religion, chose to enter the traditional Catholic faith and religious life, and alienated a wealthy father in the process.
Moreover, it was also bizarre that on the same day you first e-mailed us, we received an e-mail from William Albrecht, in which he stated that you and he together want to debate us. Unless he’s lying again (which is not unusual for him), the fact that you didn’t mention this is quite strange. If you reply, please tell me if William is misrepresenting the truth; and, if not, why you didn’t mention your desire to have him involved when you wrote to us.
All of this being said, since you refuse to do a telephone debate, I will debate you in a one-on-one live debate on the specific topic of whether Benedict XVI is the pope. I have already debated Albrecht twice, and he’s been thoroughly refuted. He will not be part of any debate that I have with you, nor is there any need for him to be. I will do a live debate with you, provided we can agree on the precise terms and format, as long as the debate takes place in Buffalo, NY or Rochester, NY. Whether you believe it or not, we do live in a religious community and rarely leave the monastery. Since you refuse to do it over the telephone, you should be willing to come to New York. There are many neutral locations in those two cities.
In the debate, I of course can’t stop you from saying what you will or asking what you will, no matter how irrelevant or inappropriate it might be. I will respond, in an appropriate manner, to any irrelevant questions or false accusations you might bring forward. I will demonstrate that your need to venture into unrelated areas speaks to the falsity of your position and your desire to distract from the issue. You can, in turn, attempt to demonstrate why you think my answers or lack thereof bolster your position.
While we can discuss the precise format, it will have to be something that’s very interactive and which features a good deal of cross-examination (probably multiple sessions). It should not be a format in which one side gives a long speech, another gives a long speech, and so on. People have heard both sides make arguments. What they need to see is how the two positions stack up when scrutinized under direct questioning. That does not necessarily preclude having an opening statement, a closing, etc.
Finally, I must add that if your goal with these communications is simply to accomplish some sort of face-saving measure, we will not let that go unexposed. That is to say, if your intention is to propose something with terms you think will be so unreasonable to me that I can’t possibly accept, so that you can receive a “no” and then attempt to explain away your refusal to engage me in a debate, we can and perhaps will expose that tactic, as well as what you have falsely asserted about my article and audio presentation.
Brother Peter Dimond
After accepting his proposal for a live debate, including one in which he can ask me all kinds of off-topic questions and those which concern a (baseless) lawsuit (!), one would, of course, expect that Salza would work with me to arrange the live debate, right? But no. As you will see, he puts up another roadblock because he had no intention to debate me at all, just as I said in my original article. His goal was simply an attempt to save-face: he wanted to propose something that he thought I would have to reject (since it would be about our current litigation, etc.), and then he could tell everyone that I said “no.” It’s truly pathetic, despicable and cowardly. Here’s his response:
[John Salza to Bro. Peter Dimond, Jan. 14, 2011]
Why are you wasting so much time on the August letter? My administrative staff (whom you harassed with repeated phone calls on January 5-6, 2011) told you that, as an international firm, sometimes our mail gets lost or is inadvertently discarded. This was the fate of your letter as I have no record of it. But if you want to resend me the letter, please do. I will make sure I sign for it this time. This letter has no relevance because I told you I am willing to debate you. Why would I want to debate you now but not a few months ago?
Your only possible motivation in focusing on the letter is to malign my character by wanting to claim that I am avoiding you. That is not true. But since you have called me dishonest and publicly defamed my character and good name, your credibility is now at issue. Further, since you have accused me of fraudulently misrepresenting canon law in your response to my article in The Remnant, your standing to interpret canon law is also at issue.
Therefore, as a condition to moving forward, please provide me proof that you are a recognized Benedictine monk under the laws of the Church. Clearly your alleged status under canon law is relevant to your standing to interpret canon law and declare the pope a heretic. For example, if I went to court and had reason to believe the opposing counsel was not a licensed attorney, I would immediately challenge his credentials and standing before the bar. Wouldn’t you do the same?
This is not a tactic to avoid a debate. It is a condition to having the debate. In fact, it is the simplest question I could possibly ask you: prove who you claim to be. Moreover, I am sparing you the public scrutiny of a cross-examination by asking you to prove your canonical status before the debate. If honesty is so important to you and you have nothing to hide, then surely you will view my request as reasonable.
It seems to me that you would avoid providing me the proof that you are a recognized Benedictine monk either because you really do not want to debate, or because you are not a recognized Benedictine, or both. I understand that this inquiry is at the heart of your lawsuit and therefore, you may want to decline. But if you are going to depose the pope, then you must have “clean hands.” If you believe canon law (the subject of my article and our debate) supports your view, then your standing under canon law is relevant.
The information I have about you and Most Holy Family Monastery demonstrates that you are not a recognized Benedictine and hence cannot meet the burden of proof. Obviously, if you yourself are a fraud, then you have no standing to declare Pope Benedict XVI a fraud.
I responded on Jan. 21. I also point out how, after he made numerous false accusations in his last e-mail (e.g., his false statements about a judge’s ruling and his false statement about our debates) he quietly moved away from them.
[Bro. Peter Dimond to John Salza, Jan. 21, 2011]
The people at your law office confirmed that your mail is delivered to you. They did not, as you falsely claim, tell us that it is discarded. They contradicted your story and what you have said in your latest e-mail. We did not harass people at your law office, but simply posed questions and received answers which furtherconfirmed that your story is untrue. You are the one who made false accusations concerning the August letter, so it was necessary to refute them in full. If we deem it necessary to respond publicly, your latest false claims will be publicly exposed.
It’s interesting that you ignored my refutation of the numerous false accusations you made in your e-mail. For example, you ignored (and did not apologize for) your false statement that I edit out content from my opponents’ debate material in my formal debates. You made that charge. You even claimed you had proof for it, and it was false.
You also ignored my refutation of your false statement that Judge Curtin has ruled that there is sufficient evidence against us to merit a trial. You made that charge, and it was false.
You also ignored my question about whether you intended to have William Albrecht involved in a debate, or whether he lied about that matter. It seems that you ignored addressing that matter because it was not your intention to even propose a one-on-one live debate.
As I said in my last e-mail, I am willing to engage you in a live debate. Either you are willing to debate me or you are not. Based on your last e-mail, it’s obvious that you are not. For, after I agreed to a live debate, you are putting up another roadblock. You now say that I must prove, to your satisfaction, that I am a Benedictine monk. And of course you will be the arbiter of whether the proof is sufficient. Whatever facts or arguments I provide, you can reject. That is an obvious attempt to avoid a debate. In fact, it’s interesting to consider that you didn’t demand any “proof” from me in your initial e-mail, but only after I agreed to a live debate.
In response, I say that I don’t need to prove anything to you. In the debate itself, you can attempt to disprove my position and attack my person and status, since that seems to be your main tactic. We can see how well that will work for you. Moreover, whether you think I’m a Benedictine monk has no relevance to whether Benedict XVI is the pope. Indeed, you don’t even call me “Brother” anyway, and thus you already act as if I’m not a religious. You further err when you write that the entire issue concerns canon law. Canon law is one aspect involved, but a proper understanding of the issue also involves Catholic dogma, the divine law, papal infallibility, the limits of canon law, etc. Further, one doesn’t have to be a Benedictine monk, a religious, or a priest to prove that Benedict XVI is not the pope.
[You wrote]:>>>I told you I am willing to debate you. Why would I want to debate you now but not a few months ago?>>>
You are not willing. You rejected the telephone debate, just as I said months ago; and now you are finding a way out of a live debate. If you refuse to debate me until I provide you with some kind of proof, concerning which you will be the judge if it’s sufficient, then that is of course equivalent to backing out of a debate.
Unless you indicate otherwise, one can only take your latest e-mail as a confirmation that 1) you not only have refused the offer to do a telephone debate; but also 2) you have backed out of a live debate. If we deem it necessary to address this matter further, we will expose this publicly.
Bro. Peter Dimond
Salza wrote back again on Jan. 27, 2011, with more of the same. He doesn’t accept the proposal for a live debate, but instead demands proof that we are Benedictine. In fact, he even says that the Vatican II “Order of St. Benedict” will determine if the proof is sufficient! Does one need to say more about this guy?
SALZA’S ACTIONS AND WORDS (COVERED ABOVE) DEMONSTRATE HIS DISHONESTY
The above facts demonstrate the dishonesty of John Salza’s tactics and the unreliability of his word. He writes to us and acts as if he was unaware of an e-mail sent to his address, a certified letter signed for at his address, and a prominent article we posted about him on our website. He lies and says we said he signed for the certified letter, when he knows we didn’t make that claim. He makes numerous other false statements about us, which constitute defamation and mortal sin. He refuses our telephone debate, just as we said in our article, and he challenges us to a live debate; but he declares that the live debate must include questions about our lawsuit, our monastery, and other irrelevant issues. He even dares us to “settle our differences” in such a live debate. After I accept his proposal for the live debate, as well as the extravagant demands included in it (e.g., that it would include questions about our lawsuit), he completely changes his tune. His “settle our differences” confidence suddenly vanishes. He now refuses to engage me in a live debate, and instead demands proof that I am a Benedictine monk. But he or the apostate Vatican II “Benedictines” (whom we don’t deem legitimate) will be the ones evaluating the evidence. All of this demonstrates that Salza is exactly what I described him as in my article: a heretic, a man of bad will, and more.
While claiming to have been raised a “Catholic,” John Salza chose to join the Masonic Lodge. He did so for social and worldly gain. As a young lawyer, he became interested in joining Freemasonry when he heard stories of how Freemasonic judges would favor the clients of Freemasonic lawyers. Of course an honest person, who values truth, facts and evidence, is not inclined to agreements which favor one party over another regardless of the truth, facts or evidence.
Salza became a member of two different Masonic lodges, and he rose as high as the 32nd degree. He was almost elected “Worshipful Master” of one Masonic Lodge. Remember, during this period, John Salza claimed to be a Catholic. While claiming to be Catholic, Salza actually swore an oath to Allah on the Koran. It was part of his initiation into the Shrine Degree. He also admits that he engaged in demonic “self-curses,” rites of “apostasy,” “idolatry,” “blasphemy,” and “hypocrisy.” He says that he was part of the “synagogue of Satan,” and a sect which is “opposed to reason” and “insane.” He also acknowledges that Freemasonry teaches people how to lie, and that in leading others on its path he was teaching people how to lie.
Not only did Salza partake of this “monstrous syncretism,” but he instructed others in it. He was an officer of a Masonic lodge. That means he was involved in conferring Freemasonry’s diabolical oaths on others, not simply taking them himself. Salza acknowledges that people who did this sometimes became demonically possessed. He says that their facial appearances might change. He admits that he became demonically possessed. He says: “I felt a very evil presence when I was conferring those oaths…” Needless to say, Salza was not an unwilling or reluctant member of the Freemasonic lodge, who only showed a passive interest. No, he was extremely interested, deeply involved and aggressive about his pursuit of, and experience in, the demonic art of Freemasonry. This says quite a bit about the character, credibility and integrity of John Salza during that period. (Facts about Salza’s membership in Freemasonry come from his talk, “Why Can’t Catholics Be Masons,” at St. Catherine of Siena, Oct. 3, 2010)
Salza claims to have left the Masonic Lodge, and he has spoken against Freemasonry. However, when you see the slimy and dishonest tactics that are displayed in his e-mails (above), it becomes apparent that Salza is still bound by dark spiritual forces. People who were bound by such evil can only rid themselves of demonic influence by a sincere and thorough conversion. Since Satan cannot cast out Satan (Mt. 12:26), only those who completely embrace Christ and His honest ways are candidates to be freed from such demonic bondage. Such a conversion is rare (see Mt. 7:13). Thus, it’s not a surprise to see that Salza is so dishonest in his argumentation, in his articles, and in his e-mails. While he no longer instructs others how to lie and blaspheme God in the Masonic Lodge, he now teaches people how to deny the truth in other ways: by defending as “Catholic” people and councils which reject the Papacy, Jesus Christ and the Catholic faith; by distorting canon law; and by misrepresenting Catholic teaching.
Salza’s theological errors are thoroughly refuted in my original article. However, even more have cropped up. Refuting these errors will further demonstrate that Benedict XVI is not the pope, and that those who defend Benedict XVI distort the truth. Therefore, I will be writing another article to expose and carefully refute Salza’s most recent errors, and there are many.
In assessing Salza’s tactics and theological errors, I came across this bombshell example of heresy. His own website teaches that the schismatic “Orthodox,” who reject the Papacy, Papal Infallibility and Vatican I, are part of the universal Church of Christ! This is outrageous heresy, and a complete denial of Catholic dogma.
John Salza’s Website, “Catholicism & Orthodoxy: A Comparison,” by Dave Armstrong: “Catholics must believe that Orthodoxy is a part of the universal Church (commensurate with the Second Vatican Council and many recent papal encyclicals on ecumenism in general or Orthodoxy in particular). That fact alone precludes the justification of any condescension, animosity, or hostility, which is especially sinful amongst Christians (Galatians 6:10).”
This heresy promoted by Salza is so embarrassing and revealing that we wouldn’t be surprised if he removed it as soon as he reads this article. His own website not only teaches the heresy, but it admits that this outrageous heresy on schismatic “Orthodoxy” – which, if it were true, would overthrow the very foundation of the Church upon Peter and the unity of communion that flows from it – is taught by Benedict XVI and Vatican II! That of course constitutes all the proof one needs that Benedict XVI and his “predecessors” are not true popes; for the post-Vatican II antipopes approved Vatican II as a true ecumenical council. It’s impossible that a true ecumenical council (and Vatican II is one if Benedict XVI is a pope) could teach the opposite of another true ecumenical council (Vatican I) on whether people who reject the Papacy are inside the universal Church. Here are just a few of the magisterial pronouncements which directly contradict and condemn the Papacy-rejecting heresy promoted by John Salza, Vatican II and Benedict XVI.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 15), June 29, 1896: “From this it must be clearly understood that Bishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling, if they deliberately secede from Peter and his successors; because, by this secession, they are separated from the foundation on which the whole edifice must rest. They are therefore outside the edifice itself…”
Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus (# 3), April 8, 1862: “There are other, almost countless, proofs drawn from the most trustworthy witnesses which clearly and openly testify with great faith, exactitude, respect and obedience that all who want to belong to the true and only Church of Christ must honor and obey this Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff.”
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Sess. 4, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: “… all the faithful of Christ must believe that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold primacy over the whole world, and the Pontiff of Rome himself is the successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles, and is the true vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church… Furthermore We teach and declare that the Roman Church, by the disposition of the Lord, holds the sovereignty of ordinary power over all others… This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation.” (Denz. 1826-1827)
Pope Pelagius II, epistle (2) Dilectionis vestrae, 585: “Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church believe that he has the faith? Does he who deserts and resists the chair of Peter, on which the Church was founded, have confidence that he is in the Church?”
Pope Pius VI, Charitas (# 32), April 13, 1791: “Finally, in one word, stay close to Us. For no one can be in the Church of Christ without being in unity with its visible head and founded on the See of Peter.”
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 13), June 29, 1896: “Therefore if a man does not want to be, or to be called, a heretic, let him not strive to please this or that man… but let him hasten before all things to be in communion with the Roman See.”
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 11), Jan. 6, 1928: “Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.”
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 22), June 29, 1943: “As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can only be one faith. And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.”
Pope Pius VII, Diu Satis (# 15), May 15, 1800: “So the sheep of Christ should consider safe and eat cheerfully the food to which Peter’s voice and authority directs them; but despite any beauty and charm, they should shun as harmful and plague-ridden, what this voice forbids them. Those who do not comply are certainly not to be counted among the sheep of Christ.”
Pope St. Leo the Great: “It is necessary that the Church throughout the whole world be united and cleave to the center of ecclesiastical communion, so that whoever dares to depart from the unity of Peter might understand that he no longer shares in the divine mystery.”
Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum divinitus (# 11), May 17, 1835: “Just as he who does not gather with Christ, so he who does not gather with Christ’s vicar on earth, clearly scatters. How can someone who destroys the holy authority of the Vicar of Christ and who infringes on his rights gather with him?”
(Note: the bolding and emphasis in this article, such as italics and underlining, were my own and not necessarily that of the source quoted).comments powered by Disqus