The Invalid New Rite of Ordination in Action (The Optional Homily) (Video- This further exposes their huge errors and contradictions on the New Rite of Ordination)
Did they run this book by their “ordinary”? Seeing as how they’re all about “the law”, it would be a pretty telling omission.
MHFM: No, they ran away from their apostate ‘bishop’ and the diocesan structure they claim to recognize. Instead, they had their work ‘approved’ and published by what was (at least at the time) the completely independent and schismatic SSPX. In addition to everything else, that fact of course completely exposes them; for their entire book argues that the diocesan structure under the apostate Antipope Francis is the ‘visible social unit’ which bears all the marks of the true Church – a ridiculous claim, as shown here: Beware of Francis’ Divided “Church” (video).
So, in one breath they say that it’s absolutely forbidden to separate from one’s ‘bishop’ without a judgment, and then in the next breath they say: read about this principle in a book endorsed by the head of a group (Bernard Fellay) who has been separated from his ‘bishops’ for decades, and by priests who have been totally independent from their ‘bishops’! The inconsistency is beyond words. Indeed, the SSPX’s separation from the diocesan structure has been such that they have proclaimed for decades that one must not attend even Indult ‘Masses’ under the ‘diocese’. Salza and Siscoe, however, hold that one must be united with the diocesan structure (which they wrongly identify as the visible social unit of the true Church) in order to be Catholic. So, they argue that to separate from the diocese is to separate oneself from the true Church, while they simultaneously defend a group that has been completely independent of the diocesan structure for decades (the SSPX). Hence, they are schismatic and separated from the Church by their own measure. The independent group they defend has also, for decades, even condemned the diocesan structure under the antipopes as a “false Church” and a “new Church”. Yet, Salza and Siscoe sprint to that independent group in order to have their book ‘reviewed’, ‘approved’ and published! In addition to being total liars, Salza and Siscoe are hypocrites of the highest order – some of the most deluded and blind hypocrites we’ve ever come across. They are obviously totally self-condemned. They had their book published by an independent group because they know that the diocesan structure is not Catholic – a fact that refutes their entire book. They also probably would never have gotten the book approved by the ‘authorities’ in the diocese, since they reject the Counter Church’s ‘canonizations’, etc. (False traditionalists have no approval from the ‘authorities’ they recognize for many things they do, similar to Gruner).
With regard to ‘law’, they have no respect for the Catholic Church’s true teaching on law. They reject the Church’s divine law, the dogmatic teaching of the Church, and they pervert and misuse ecclesiastical laws. In fact, their book is one of the biggest exercises in hype we’ve ever seen. Besides all of the lies and errors, the book actually flat out IGNORES most of the main arguments that refute their position. Salza and Siscoe can’t refute anything, but they don’t even try to address many of the main arguments and quotes. As an example, they have hundreds of pages that deal with the topic of heresy (largely discussing irrelevant quotations), but guess what? They don’t even address (but rather ignore) the teaching of Pope Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum, among many other things. That’s astounding. Satis Cognitum is one of the most important and authoritative documents in all of Church history on these very matters, yet they ignore it on these matters because it refutes their position. It refutes their entire understanding of the offense of heresy, what constitutes becoming a heretic in the external forum, and what necessarily happens to a person when he becomes a heretic. In the following video we go through the original language of Satis Cognitum, and we prove that what they assert in their articles and in the book (both their articles and book advance the same false position) about the nature of heresy, the offense of heresy, etc. is actually a HERESY: The Remnant and Robert Siscoe Refuted on Sedevacantism (video and article).
Salza and Siscoe hold that one who claims to be Catholic cannot become or be considered a heretic in the external forum until he is declared to be such. That is heretical and diabolical nonsense. It means that they believe one can profess ANY POSITION WHATSOEVER (including publicly for decades), such as denying the deity of Christ or favoring gay ‘marriage’ or supporting women ‘priests’ or denying the Resurrection or teaching that there are non-Catholic martyrs (as Francis does) or declaring that there is no Hell, etc., and still be Catholic, as long as the person says he’s Catholic and hasn’t been declared a heretic. But that is not what the Church teaches, of course. The Church teaches that one must profess the Church’s position in terms of specific dogmatic content to be considered a true Catholic, not simply by saying one is a Catholic. (Some Eastern schismatics even say they are ‘Catholic’). In other words, if the Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that there is no salvation outside the Church and that there aren’t non-Catholic martyrs, you can’t profess the opposite position publicly for decades and be considered part of the true Church. That would make a total mockery of the Church’s unity in the profession of the true faith. They, however, say you can. Their position is heresy. They don’t even ATTEMPT to interact with any of the quotes from Satis Cognitum and our points about them in their book. That’s because they can’t. They simply ignore all of it. Their stuff is weak. In fact, they don’t even try to address almost any of the other quotes and points covered in that video and article on The Remnant and Robert Siscoe Refuted. Their HERETICAL position that one cannot become a heretic, or be recognized as such, until he is judged to be a heretic is DISPROVEN BY NUMEROUS PAPAL AND CONCILIAR QUOTES. We provide numerous quotes from councils, for example, which prove that people can both become heretics and be recognized as such without or before a declaration from a Church authority. Their book ignores those quotes because there’s nothing cogent they can say about them. So, besides all of the lies and errors, astounding omissions characterize the work. It’s a lot of hype and lies.
A further example of their astounding omissions would be their chapter attempting to address the arguments that Vatican II would have been infallible if Antipope Paul VI was a true pope. They have an entire chapter on that issue, and incredibly they don’t even address the solemn language of Antipope Paul VI at the end of every document of Vatican II! Their position is obliterated in this video: Was Vatican II Infallible?. As we said, their book is a big exercise in hype, in which they’ve mainly republished already-obliterated positions and arguments with some new lies. An example of how they re-hash already-obliterated arguments is their regurgitation of the ‘suspect of heresy’ argument. It’s carefully addressed and totally refuted in the aforementioned video: The Remnant and Robert Siscoe Refuted on Sedevacantism.
What’s pathetic is that most of the people who’ve been hoodwinked by their work of heresy and lies probably don’t even understand the nonsense they are agreeing with: that is, Salza’s and Siscoe’s demonic position that all the people at Novus Ordo parishes who deny Scripture or support abortion or favor gay ‘marriage’, etc. you name it, are Catholic, not heretics, and such people ‘profess the true faith’. It’s diabolical nonsense and flat out HERESY, condemned by the Church in Satis Cognitum and other documents, produced by diabolical liars and heretics. Again, this video refutes their entire position on heresy and heretics, which is a large portion of their book. They don’t even try to address almost any of these points or quotes because they can’t: The Remnant and Robert Siscoe Refuted on Sedevacantism.
One thing their book does have correct is that the difference between the two positions largely comes down to a difference in ecclesiology (that is, one’s view or theology of the Church). We definitely have two very different views of what constitutes the Catholic Church and its members. They believe the ‘Catholic Church’ is simply a collection of buildings which they consider to be ‘Catholic buildings’, no matter what the current occupants believe. It’s a completely natural organization, like a club. To them, whoever occupies the cathedral in Baltimore or Denver or any other city is part of the ‘Catholic Church’, even if they favor divorce and ‘remarriage’ (as Francis’ sect now does), openly deny Catholic teaching, reject papal infallibility, profess that one religion is as good as another, profess that all Protestants are in the Church, endorse abortion and gay ‘marriage’, deny the Resurrection, etc. That is the ‘Catholic Church’ and its members, according to them – a collection of unbelievers who take public positions that contradict the Church’s dogmatic teaching but do it in buildings that they consider to have been established as Catholic. Truly, Salza and Siscoe hold that a person can publicly preach the opposite of the Catholic Church on basic dogmatic matters for decades and he still is to be considered part of the Catholic Church, as long as he says he’s Catholic and has some connection to one of those buildings. Such a view of what ‘the Church’ is, of course, is not what the Church teaches and it’s not our position. Our position (which is based on the Church’s teaching) is totally different. We believe, as the Catholic Church teaches, that only those who actually believe and profess the true faith are considered to be part of the Catholic Church, and that those who dissent in even the least degree from the Church’s authoritative teaching are considered alien to the Church (Pope Leo XIII).
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, and that with the consenting judgment [i.e. consensus] of the holy fathers who certainly were accustomed to hold as having no part of Catholic communion and as banished from the Church whoever had departed in even the least way from the doctrine proposed by the authentic Magisterium.”
One cannot profess a position that’s the opposite of the Catholic Church on clear and basic dogmatic matters and be considered Catholic. The notion that one can is heresy.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “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.”
Their position is a mockery of the Catholic faith and the Catholic Church. It is definitely a heresy, which literally denies the necessity to adhere to Catholic teaching in order to be considered Catholic. Their heresy equates the profession of ‘the Catholic faith’ with the profession of notoriously heretical positions, including abortion, gay ‘marriage’ and women ‘priests’. People should not follow such false teachers of Satan, who corrupt and deny Catholic teaching with their specious argumentation and lies, into their horrible heresies against the Church.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “… can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without thereby sending himself headlong into open heresy? without thereby separating himself from the Church and in one sweeping act repudiating the entirety of Christian doctrine?… he who dissents in even one point from divinely received truths has most truly cast off the faith completely, since he refuses to revere God as the supreme truth and proper motive of faith.”
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 13), June 29, 1896: “You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held.”
Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208: “By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”