Inquiries may be sent via email to: info@akacatholic.com
For those wishing to make a donation to aka Catholic via mail, you may send a check payable to:
Louie Verrecchio – 3210 Eves Way – Hampstead, MD 21074
Inquiries may be sent via email to: info@akacatholic.com
For those wishing to make a donation to aka Catholic via mail, you may send a check payable to:
Louie Verrecchio – 3210 Eves Way – Hampstead, MD 21074
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Remember, it was mostly Calvinist that came to the eastern shores of America to escape from England and the Anglican Church, they thought that the English didn’t go far enough in riding England of ‘papist’ in fluence and most especially of the liturgy, which Cranmore had so drastically changed., so when I read the 1st Ammendment I know exactly what it means. Mr Louie Verrecchio is very right.
Is this the’black Mass of pre Vatican II T.L.M. or the post Vatican II ”Black’ Novis Ordo? I am very curious.
I am asking for prayers for my husband who will be going through his 6th operation, for cancer He started with oral caner, which was removed, plastics surgeries to repair the hole in his face. Now he has probable cancer of the tongue and a definite cancer under his jaw. He willl be going in for cancer surgery and I don’t know how much cancer the doctor will be able to remove, as well as doing a tracheotomy. Please pray for his complete healing.
He will be in our family’s Mass intentions and Rosaries every day.
http://www.johnthebaptist.us/jbw_english/documents/articles/rjmi/tr37_no_popes_cardinals_since_1130.pdf
Well aside from all this play on words from Pope Benedict, I’m gonna stick to what Fr P Kramer said,and that is we have a situation where it appears we have two popes sharing the crown, a public side and private side of the apostolic see, an impossible position but one Pope Benedict implemented, this has to be resolved with these two popes sharing the throne of St Peter.
Both you and your dear husband have my prayers. May God hold you both in the palm of His hand and give you healing and peace. Amen.
After listening to a sermon on Regina Prophetarum regarding dialectics, and Satan who pulls those strings—this, your article today Louis, drives it full-circle and all the way home.
Because Siscoe and Ebert or rather Salza are embarrassed, they will not use reason and acknowledge the difference between the theology of Fr. Kramer and the Sedevacantists. So they then say that for a validly elected pope to become a formal public manifest heretic is “proximate to heresy,” is to be a Sedevacantist, which is not a Sedevacantist position and not logical at all. Because Fr. Kramer agrees with the Sedevacantists that a formal public manifest heretic cannot be validly elected to the papacy. He is called a Sedevacantist, despite his belief that for a validly elected pope to become a formal public manifest heretic is proximate to heresy. For whatever reason, neither Mr. Verrecchio or Dr. Chojnowski are willing to stand up to the Sedevacantists who prowl about their websites spewing out Sedevacantist doctrine, while poo pooing the theology of Fr. Kramer. So real theological distinctions remain blurred and not accessible to the inquiring minds of the sheep.
“Is this due to complacency?” You already know it’s do to the insults and contradictions of the arm chair Sedevacantists themselves who do not know how to present a theological position and then shut up, and are not willing to listen to or give honest consideration to any counter arguments.
Your conclusion is that the death of Pope Benedict XVI proves a validly elected pope can become a formal public manifest heretic and that such occurrence cannot possibly be “proximate to heresy.” Is it a sin against the virtue of faith to believe Pope Benedict XVI will die without being run out of Rome to Koln, then to Portugal so the “dogma of the faith,” that is, the dogma of the infallible pope, and the dogma of the infallible Church, will be preserved in Portugal? When Pope Benedict dies in Portugal, it will actually prove that for a validly elected pope to become a formal public manifest heretic, is proximate to heresy, and that despite the long period of vacancy as prophesied by Marie Julie Jahenny that will follow Pope Benedicts XVI’s death in Portugal. But you are correct, the Sedevacantists need to teach us dumb idiots how the dogma of the faith will be preserved in Portugal by the Sedevacantist theology, something you say we don’t understand only because we are scared the S word.
The Sedevacantists have substantial evidence to prove their theology, but they do not have conclusive evidence to prove their theology. If your going to study Catholic documents on Sedevacantis websites giving honest consideration to the Sedevacantist theological conclusions. Why not read Fr. Kramers book first, then you will at least know what the real theological arguments are about in the Church today!
Louie,
I have only just learned about you today and have spent a few hours reading your words and watching your videos, and have to say that I find you to be absolutely brilliant and insightful. Thank you for your bravery in sharing your message. You are doing a great service for so many of us looking for answers and encouragement during this difficult time. Much love.
Hello Louie,
I’ve been reading your articles and wanted to comment, however, there doesn’t appear to be a section at the bottom of each article where one can comment.
Other than the Contact section where one can login to the Forum, there doesn’t appear to be a way to comment.
Could this be a defect with your website?
Thank you
Opps, I posted this question in the e-mail section by mistake.
Accordingly again:
What is the theological explanation for why God has allowed His Church to be overtaken by a largely non-Catholic secular oligarchy?
Will you please open the comments? If you haven’t figured it out already, Salza the ex-mason is not who he holds himself out to be and was hired to use his legal training to obfuscate the issues as only a lawyer can. The last thing the hidden hand behind Salza wants IS A CATHOLIC POPE. Salza was hired to discredit any argument that might lead to the deposition of the fraud currently usurping the papacy.
–
As an example of how Salza uses his legal training to confuse the issues, he wrote thus:
–
“Bishop Schneider also pointed out several problems with two of the ipso facto loss of office theories (there are actually four different versions[4]), which purport to resolve the difficulty of “judging the Pope” by positing that a heretical Pope is secretly deposed by God first, and that the bishops or Cardinals simply declare that the former Pope has already lost his office. THE PROBLEM WITH THIS THEORY IS THAT THE CARDINAL OR BISHOPS COULD NOT DECLARE THAT THE POPE HAD LOST HIS OFFICE FOR HERESY, WITHOUT JUDGING THAT HE HAD, IN FACT, FALLEN INTO HERESY. Bishop Schneider realizes that if divine law explicitly prevents the Pope from being judged (“the First See is judged by no one”), the same divine law would prevent the Church from declaring that a Pope lost his office for heresy, since the latter could not happen without first rendering a judgment that divine law forbids. Hence, Bishop Schneider rightly rejects these ipso facto theories on the basis that they contain an inherent contradiction and imply a hint of ‘crypto conciliarism.'” [Emphasis added]
–
To the laymen not trained in the law, that emphasized sentence may seem logical and harmless. But to one with legal training it is problematic, and evidences an attempt to confuse the reader about the terms “judging” and “judgment”. Read that emphasized sentence again, can you see the problem with it? Think about it in terms of the division of labor between a jury and a judge before reading any further. Have you figured out how this sentence is misleading?
–
In simplified terms, John Salza is confusing FACTUAL ISSUES AND LEGAL ISSUES. In a US courtroom, issues of fact are typically left to a jury, although in a bench trial they may be decided by the judge. The judge decides issues of law, and also has the sole responsibility to issue the result of a trial AS A JUDGMENT. Such a rendered judgment often has coercive force.
–
John Salza is intentionally misusing “judging” and “judgment” here to refer to A CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS. Whether Bergoglio has fallen into heresy is A QUESTION OF FACT. Determining whether he has fallen into heresy can be called “judging” but the mere determination that he has fallen into heresy IS JUST THE BEGINNING.
–
In a courtroom, THE JURY HAS NO JURISDICTION TO RENDER ITS FINDINGS OF FACT AS A JUDGMENT OR VERDICT, OR TO PROVIDE THE MEANS TO ENFORCE IT. That is the province of the judge. In the present situation of an heretical Pope, NO ONE HAS JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE THE CONSEQUENCE OF ITS DETERMINATION THAT THE POPE HAS FALLEN INTO HERESY FOR AS LONG AS IT RECOGNIZES THE PAPAL CLAIMANT AS POPE. As an aside, John Salza finally admits that the Pope is not subject to judgment by inferiors. Note, though, THAT HE NEVER ADMITTED THAT HE HAS ERRED IN THE PAST WHEN HE CLAIMED A POPE COULD BE SUBJECT TO A TRIAL BY INFERIORS. At that time, he was literally advocating heresy! Yet you accord him a platform for his continuing deceit that he is to be relied upon as a serious commentator on the issues.
–
In any case, calling what the bishops or cardinals do when they determine that the Pope has fallen into heresy as “judging” SHOULD BE SEEN AS INTENTIONALLY MISLEADING. John Salza has a predetermined outcome that he desires, and it has always been that a mere layman cannot MAKE THE DETERMINATION WHETHER THE POPE HAS FALLEN INTO HERESY. Long ago on this very blog, I MADE THE POINT THAT SUCH A DETERMINATION IS A QUESTION OF FACT THAT IS DEPENDENT ON CHURCH TEACHING. As such, it is not a QUESTION OF JURISDICTION, IT IS A QUESTION OF COMPETENCE. Any Catholic who has been properly catechized and is thus competent can make the determination of whether Bergoglio has fallen into heresy. That determination IS NOT A JUDGMENT, THOUGH, BECAUSE ON ITS FACE IT HAS NO COERCIVE POWER. Neither are the bishops or cardinals mentioned by Salza rendering a coercive judgment when they make the same determination that the Pope has fallen into heresy. It would merely be a condition precedent – that a fact exists as demonstrated by the Pope having fallen into heresy – that would give rise to an exercise of jurisdiction over the Pope by the cardinals or bishops were they to have such jurisdiction. As they have no such jurisdiction, the mere fact that they have concluded that the Pope has fallen into heresy ON ITS FACE IS DETERMINATIVE OF THE ISSUE AND THEIR SILLY ATTACK ON IPSO FACTO LOSS OF OFFICE GOES POOF LIKE THE NONSENSE IT IS.
–
With the foregoing as background, you should see how silly Salza’s argument is here:
–
“What has apparently never occurred to Mr. Derksen and his colleagues is that the Cardinals or bishops cannot declare that a Pope has lost his office for heresy, without first judging that the Pope has fallen into heresy. THERE ARE TWO JUDGMENTS INVOLVED, AND THE SECOND DEPENDS UPON THE FIRST:
–
1) THE POPE HAS FALLEN INTO HERESY, (ANTECEDENT JUDGMENT).
–
2) As a result of falling into heresy, the Pope has lost his office (consequent judgment).
–
If the antecedent judgment is forbidden, the consequent judgment is impossible. In other words, if the Cardinals or bishops cannot legitimately judge that a Pope has fallen into heresy, they cannot legitimately declare that a Pope has lost his office for heresy. Hence, if a Pope fell into heresy and lost his office by divine law, and if papal immunity from judgment (which is also part of divine law) forbids the Cardinals or bishops from legitimately judging that a Pope has fallen into heresy, the Church would be forced to recognize the (former) false Pope as the true Pope, since divine law, which caused the loss of office, would prevent the Church from rendering the judgment that is necessary to know and declare that the loss of office had taken place. This disastrous predicament would be due to an inherent defect in divine law itself, but divine law contains no defects, for ‘the law of the Lord is unspotted’ (Psalms 18:8).”[Emphasis added]
–
Note that Salza has characterized the determination that the Pope has fallen into heresy AS A JUDGMENT. But I ask you, is it really a judgment? Does it bear any coercive force? Of course not. It is a FACTUAL DETERMINATION PAR EXCELLENCE. For example, say the Church teaches “A is heresy”. The Pope then publicly and pertinaciously professes A. Witnesses thus conclude that the Pope has fallen into heresy. Where is the coercive force necessary to a judgment in such a situation, if such coercion were possible? NOWHERE!
–
If you haven’t figured it out, Salza has been playing a cutesy game for years. He advocates for a position (often poorly indicating that he has not done his work before attempting to edify others), is schooled by opponents, and then later he uses the knowledge accorded by his opponents to him to bludgeon his opponents as if he came up with that erudition himself. It is all so tiresome. Ask him if he has erred in the past in his writing. If he admits that he has, ask him what he has erred about.
–
With that as prologue you can see that Salza has set up a straw man by misusing terminology and mischaracterizing a finding of fact as an ANTECEDENT JUDGMENT. It is ironic that after Salza has assigned very “novel” meanings to findings of fact which now become legally coercive “judgments” he begins one of his headings as “Clarifying terminology . . .” Ha Ha Ha. The beginning of his screed was obfuscating terminology, and now he claims to clarify terminology.
–
Finally, what are we to make of this paragraph:
–
“Notice carefully what he said. If a Roman Pontiff falls into heresy, but has not ‘publicly separated himself from the Church’ (which would suffice for a notoriety of fact) he will retain his jurisdiction, his dignity, and his title as head of the Church, until he is convicted of heresy. The conviction is a condition (but not a cause) for the loss of office. It is not a post factum declaration that a former ‘Pope’ has already fallen from the pontificate. It is a judgment that the currently reigning Pope – who still retains his jurisdiction, dignity and title – is a heretic. Only if the heretical Pope is convicted of heresy is his jurisdiction ‘removed by God. If not, he remains Pope. This is the teaching of Bellarmine and it is found all throughout his writings, as we shall see.”
–
Salza the tax lawyer must have forgotten his criminal law, because a conviction arises AFTER A CRIMINAL TRIAL WHERE THE CRIMINAL DEFENDANT IS COERCED TO SIT. Of course he doesn’t mean a criminal trial, because he has already admitted that papal inferiors have no jurisdiction over the Pope. So since it has been established that Salza plays fast and loose with terminology, what is the actual legal proceeding that can be likened to the proceeding that Salza is making reference to here, of course while removing his misleading references to “conviction”? He really is referring to an INQUEST. An inquest is a judicial inquiry to ascertain facts relating to an incident, such as a death. So Salza cannot escape that what he tries to dress up as a “judgment” or “conviction” is merely just a factual determination. Again, a factual determination is not dependent in this case on jurisdiction, as there is none to be had over a Pope, but merely competence – that one has been adequately catechized to apply the teachings of the Church to a particular factual situation.
–
One other question. Do you think that a lawyer like Salza does not understand the distinctions between questions of fact and questions of law; the differences between findings of fact and judgments; the division of labor between triers of fact and triers of law; the differences between a criminal trial and an inquest; and what the TERM OF LEGAL ART JUDGMENT means? Of course he does. Why is he then mischaracterizing the result of a factual determination (findings of fact) AS A (COERCIVE) JUDGMENT? It should be striking you now that John Salza is an advocate for a definite position, and not a truth seeker. If John Salza is arguing the case, his argument will always be that sedevacantism is wrong.