My Honest Attempt to Attain Clear Answers from John Salza on the Questions of Whether a Public Heretic is still a Member of the Church and Whether someone who has defected from the Church through Public Heresy can still be Head of the Church?

Update: Sorry dear readers I have been absolutely unable to get Salza and Siscoe to clarify their position and indicate how it is exactly applicable to the current situation in the Church. When I asked Atty. Salza to answer a few basic questions with a simple yes or no answer --- using their own terminology --- all that I received back were further questions DIRECTED TOWARDS ME! I could not get any where when attempting to clarify the situation. I have therefore decided to stop all personal communication with Siscoe and Salza. It is simply fruitless and just causes more adjectives to be added to the word "heretic" (e.g., notorious, public, private, according to private judgment, according to the Church's judgment, that which separates from the Body of the Church, that which separates from the Soul of the Church, by law, by fact.............). I am still very much interested in this question and will publish the interesting doctrinal articles that come my way. 

Below was may last email attempt at clarification. No answers. Just questions to me......

Dear Mr. Salza,
Just two more follow-up questions:

Are the following men, according to our knowledge of them over the past decades, “public and notorious by fact or law HERETICS? Only YES or NO answers would be helpful here.

A) Hans Kung:

B) Scott Hahn:

C) Francis I: 

Next question. Is a sede vacante situation, other than in the usual interregnum or a situation in which the “universally acclaimed” man is not the actual true pope but someone else is:   POSSIBLE OR IMPOSSIBLE (Please, only a one word response here to help clarify my understanding of your own views.) 

Thank you. 

Yours, Peter

Dear Mr. Salza,
First question: Do you or do you not hold that public heresy of its very nature separates one from the Catholic Church without any declaration by Church authority? 

Second question: Do you hold that a public heretic can retain office in the Church even though, through public heresy, he is no longer a member of the Church?

Please answer these simple and basic questions. Realize of course that I will publicize your answers. This will end whatever confusion you say exists and avoid any needless “hair-splitting.” 

Yours, Peter Chojnowski

Well, as expected, here comes the hair-splitting:

Dear Peter:

Your questions require essential distinctions. 

First question: Do you mean from the Soul of the Church or the Body of the Church?

Second question: Do you mean a public heretic according to private judgment or the Church's judgment? 

John Salza

Okay, I will take the bait, even though I wanted SISI or NONO.

Question #1: Is it the case that Public Heresy separates you from membership in the body of the Catholic Church? 

Question #2: Can you objectively hold public office in the Catholic Church if you are guilty of the sin of Public Heresy and hence are no longer a member of the body of the Catholic Church?

Answer Coming.......


  1. The Remnant Online has pickup this story. I tried to make a comment that Fr. Kramer is not a sedevacantist, as Father believes Pope Benedict is still Pope. My post was allowed by removed shortly afterwards. I also tried to link tot he video of Fr. Gruner talking about Pope Benedict still being Pope and that post was never allowed.

  2. It is the position of Salza that a person WHO CLAIMS TO BE CATHOLIC cannot be considered a heretic until that person has been declared guilty of heresy by a lawful authority. According to him, if you claim to be Catholic, you can publicly adopt literally any position, no matter how heretical, and you are not to be considered a heretic until you are formally declared to be one. His position means that one could give speeches denying the deity of Christ and Papal Infallibility (or teach the heresy that there are non-Catholic martyrs repeatedly, as Francis does), and that person is not to be considered a heretic but a member of the Catholic faithful. His position is indeed heretical. These videos effectively refute and expose it as heretical:

    When you ask Salza questions, you should get him to answer whether he considers pro-abortion and pro-'gay marriage' heretics such as Tim Kaine, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden (etc.), who all say they are Catholic and have not been declared heretics, to be heretics or members of the faithful. This cuts straight to his error. When he starts to answer direct questions on this matter, his heresy and inconsistency will become even more obvious. His published position requires him to say the aforementioned heretics (such as Tim Kaine and Nancy Pelosi) are members of the faithful, since they claim to be Catholic and have not been declared guilty of heresy. But that is obviously absurd and contrary to Catholic teaching. It would mean that one can publicly and obstinately support gay 'marriage' and be considered a Catholic who professes the true faith, since only those who profess the true faith can be considered in the Church, and he holds that one must be considered in the Church if one claims to be Catholic and hasn't been declared a heretic. The heterodoxy and inconsistency of his position will become even more apparent if you ask him about this matter.

  3. And just who is John Salza? By what or whose authority does he speak? Where are his credentials in Catholic theology? It is interesting that the SSPX has selected John Salza and Robert Siscoe as its lay "theologians" on this important matter concerning the papacy. Why are they granted more credibility than Fr. Cekada, Fr. Kramer, Bishop Sanborn, or Novus Ordo Watch (whose thorough research and citations of Church teaching is exemplary)? We do know that John Salza was (is?) a freemason. I wonder, given his expose of freemasonry, how is it that Mr. Salza is still living? Also, just who is the freemason who has infiltrated the Fatima Center, according to Fr. Gruner? Just wondering ... Perhaps, you could pose that question to him ... SiSi, NoNo ...

  4. Please secure your website. A 33rd degree Mason is now THE expert on the papacy?

  5. The good Professor's attempt to discover the real Lucia as opposed to the fake Novus Ordo cult Lucia will be the "earthquake" that buries the scandalous, diabolical deceptions of the past 60 years. Pray for Dr. Peter, they have much to fear from him, may our Holy Mother protect him.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"US-Friendly" Contact Within the Vatican Indicated Right After the Death of Pope Pius XII that US Governmental Authorities Must Use the American Cardinals to Prevent the Election of Cardinals Siri, Ottaviani, or Ruffini. The US Government Clearly Saw the Election of a Real Catholic to the Papal Throne in 1958 to be a Threat. Is there No Logical Connection between THIS Telegram and the Strange events of October 26,27, and 28th 1958 within the Sistine Chapel?

Tragic Disappearance of the Real Sister Lucy dos Santos Foretold to Jacinta, Right Before She Died, by the Blessed Virgin Mary. Contrary to being Safely Stowed in a Convent, Sister Lucy's Life was Always Under Threat.

Sister Lucia assassinated? Hidden? Replaced? Fatima Center Acknowledges the Existence of a Imposter Sister Lucy. Huge Breakthrough for Sister Lucy Truth.