Salza and Siscoe’s Errors on Canon 188
In a new post on his blog Speray’s Catholicism in a Nutshell, sedevacantist blogger and author Steven Speray has posted a rebuttal to John Salza and Robert Siscoe’s arguments about Canon 188 n.4, the part in the Code of Canon Law that says that any cleric automatically loses his office by the very fact of publicly defecting from the Faith, without the need for a declaration.
Speray, who is one of the named direct targets of True or False Pope?, identifies four main errors made by the authors, Salza and Siscoe, which he then proceeds to refute, based on expert commentaries on the matter. They are:
- Error 1: Loss of office as mentioned in Canon 188 n.4 is a severe vindictive penalty
- Error 2: “Public defection” means formally joining another religion, public heresy alone doesn’t qualify
- Error 3: Canonical warnings are necessary before the loss of office of Canon 188 n.4 takes effect
- Error 4: Professing public heresy is not openly and publicly leaving the Church
Speray’s refutation of these errors is not too long and well worth a read. You can access it here:
Canon 188.4 and Defection of Faith
– Why John Salza and Robert Siscoe Get It Wrong (Part III)
by Steve Speray
In conjunction with Speray’s rebuttal, we also wish to draw your attention to a recent Novus Ordo Watch post which refutes Salza and Sicoe on the idea of judging and/or deposing a Pope:
Further related links and recommended posts can be found just below. While the authors of True or False Pope? have been foaming at the mouth because they are not being given as much attention by us as they would like, and have been perpetrating an insanely ridiculous and unworthy ad hominem spectacle on their web site in the meantime, we will continue to focus on the issues instead and offer well-researched, well-argued rebuttals in due time so that you, the reader, can form a correct judgment about which side is right and which side is wrong. It seems pretty clear which of the two sides has a lawyer arguing for it.
So… lots more to come — stay tuned!
What perplexes me is that a significant number of the SSPX faithful are Sedevacantist; some are even publically Sedevacantist, like John Lane. It seems odd to me that the organization would attack a signifigant number of their flock and possibly drive them, and their fleeces ($), to other shepherds. It leads me to believe it is a deception. SSPX leadership wants to say they recognize the pope for Rome negotiation purposes, but don’t want to do it too officially and drive off the sede faithful. This is why the have S&S do it instead of Bp. Fellay or some other leader.