Critique by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Readers of FromRome.Info know that I have often contested the assertions of John Salza and Robert Sisco, two laymen who claim to be Roman Catholics, from the United States (See my past articles on Robert HERE and on John HERE), though I have had occasion to agree with Siscoe. — John F. Salza is a civil attorney-at-law and claims to be a convert from Freemasonry, where he held a high rank, though in at least one debate, I have shown that he still thinks like a Freemason. Robert Siscoe also claims to be a convert to the Catholic Faith, and has worked in corporate management and finance. Neither claim to have studied theology, philosophy, Canon Law, or Latin, as far as I can tell.

On the Question of whether Pope Benedict XVI’s Declaratio was an abdication or not, both authors sustained the legitimacy of the conclave of 2013 an repeated with great fervor the talking points of the Cardinals in their attempt to justify their horrible crime against the Church.

But in the above video, which is from May 14, 2025, and has less than 600 views, Salza and Siscoe discuss the Bull of Pope Paul IV, and since Salza mentions me by name, I will present here my critique of their video.

Force of Law

The video opens with a discussion of “universal and peaceful acceptance”, which is a notion coined by John of Saint Thomas, in regard to valid and legitimate elections of the Roman Pontiff, in regard to how the Church by Her habitual grace accepts such elections.  Salza and Siscoe, however, cite the term but run the argument backwards, since they claim if the entire Church accepts X as the Pope, then his election must be legitimate.

I really think that both men must have never studied logic at College, because everyone knows of the classical error, which says, that if all swans are white, then if it is a swan its white. Which was discovered to be a false illation after the discovery of black swans in Oceania.

But what I want to point out about the video, is that from its very start both authors make statements which they do not demonstrate, and which are also totally false. For they assert that the Bull of Paul IV has been abrogated. — In their video they cite a commentary on Canon Law, which is illegible, and then they cite Bishop Sanborn, the sedevacantist, whom they hold is a heretic. — But they do not cite the Code of Canon Law of 1917, where they claim it says what they say. They cite verbally, “Coronado’s Commentary”.

I can read Latin and have actually conferred with both the Code of 1917 and that of 1983 and demonstrated in my two Part article, that neither code touches  the Bull of Paul IV per se (Updated), and thus only in those matters in which its penalties and sanctions are integrated or addressed by either codes, are its prescriptions and provisions obrogated, subrogated or abrogated as the case may be. But because the Bull by name has never been abolished, all its other prescriptions and provisions remain in force.

So in regard to n. 6, of the said Bull, where it declares the juridical value of the election of a man as Roman Pontiff in a Conclave, if the man elected is found to have been a heretic or have contradicted the Catholic Faith before he was elected, no Canon in either Code treats with such a thing, nor does any Papal Law on Conclaves, since no where has any Roman Pontiff ever by law declared the election of a Roman Pontiff valid and legitimate solely by reason of the observance of some other law while prescribing all other previous laws whatsoever to be held to be “not withstanding” (non obstantibus) or abrogated or derogated.

In fact, the source cited by Salza in Latin, as much as I can make out with a magnifying glass, refers to some specific censure, which is contained in the Bull of Paul IV, which is no longer in force for the above stated reasons, and not the entire Bull. —  Mind you, if Salza has to find a footnote to support his claim that the Bull is in ALL its prescriptions and provisions no longer in force, it can be safely assumed, since he does not cite his source or show the entire page, that he is not confident the text supports his position. And, indeed, not even a commentary by a Cardinal can do away with a Papal Bull, only an act by the Roman Pontiff can do that.

Found to be  heretic

Then Siscoe quotes an 18th century commentary which speaks whether the Bull applies to a Pope who is later found to have been a heretic, the author of which commentary simply disagrees with Paul IV’s law, and holds as a doctrine of the Faith that the Church is infallible in discerning who is the true Pope. But no such doctrine has ever been taught by the Magisterium! Later on the video, Salza claims this opinion is “de fide”, though his own book makes no such claim, as can be see here.

Such a commentary is interesting to read, but it has no force of law, cannot alter the plain meaning of Paul IV’s Bull. Indeed, if you want to understand a Papal Law, find a commentary which accepts the law, and then comments upon it, not one which does not. Have there been theologians who privately hold that the Church is infallible in discerning who is a true pope and who is not? Yes. But the history of the Church shows that their opinion is not even probable, because there are times when the entire Church never accepted the true Pope as the True Pope, and when large sections of the Church accepted as true Pope a man who was not validly elected. Some antipopes were recognized by the Liber Pontificalis as true popes for more than a century afterwards!

Indeed, the commentary cited claims “by all” in the text means only the Cardinals, which is simply a gratuitous assertion which is not supported by anything positive in the text.

And thus, regardless of opinions, you cannot advance a theological opinion against a Papal Bull which expressly reproves it, as Paul IV’s Bull does when it says, that the election of a man who is afterwards found to be a heretic, is null, void, and irritus, no matter how many accept his election as valid.

Conclusion

Salza and Siscoe continue to think and argue like Freemasons, since they think that popular opinion is what makes an election of a pope valid or not. What can we say about that? other than that converts to the Catholic Church should not tell Catholics what to believe.

Siscoe makes other absurd statements namely that the College of Cardinals are infallible along with all the Bishops. But no where has the Church taught that infallibility in matters of fact or events!

And Salza claims that when Prevost came out on the Loggia all Catholics accepted him. But that is simply not true, Numerous Catholics at Rome did not accept him. Nor has Archbishop Lenga, as much as I can discern, since has never called him Leo XIV. — Indeed, I have written 4000+ Letters to the Clergy at Rome and in the Suburbican Dioceses contesting the election as invalid, without being reproved by any cleric or bishop. Such behavior is difficult to reconcile with a universal peaceful acceptance.

Salza also misrepresents the Bull of Paul IV by claiming it refers to legally recognized heresy of the man, before his election, which the text in no what speaks of. Salza is merely making this up out of thin air, as an ignoramous. Indeed, he goes on to speak of n. 6 of the Bull in regard to a Roman Pontiff elected, as if the censure imposed by the Bull regarded the man, which it does not: it regards the juridical value of the election. However, Siscoe then guts Salza’s entire argument by citing Saint Pius V, in Inter Multiplices Curas, referring to pre-election heresy, un repented of and NOT convicted as such in a tribunal.

However, the final cherry on top is at minute 29, where both Salza and Siscoe admit that a commentary on canon law is NOT a legally binding text and cannot be used to say a Papal Law is in force or not in force, refuting their entire argument in the video!

In this video, nothing is said of the Bull’s provisions which free Catholics from obligation of obedience to such a man claiming to be Roman Pontiff, which is even another level of legal fact which guts their entire argument, since this provision also has never been abolished, being a right from the divine law itself.

In the above video, these “converts” define that anyone who disagrees with them as not part of the Church and therefore claim that there is universal acceptance. This is Salza’s old dishonest shell game, which has been totally refuted years ago. The theological opinion of “universal peaceful acceptance” regards only valid legitimate elections, in which no one objects to their validity or legitimacy, which is a case which does not apply to the Conclaves of 2013 or 2025.

As a final note, I point out, that it is patently psychotic to assert that the Church would or should abolish this prescript of Paul IV against a man elected as pope, since there is no rational basis to put the entire Church at such a risk. But Masons would certainly want us to think that the Church’s laws are masonic and therefore allow such a thing.

Unfortunately, however, the internet is full of presumptuous, incompetent and totally dishonest laymen who go around telling Catholics what to believe, without any moral concern for the truth and any capacity for self-correction.

In Italiano

Per quelli che vogliano maggiori informazioni storiche sulla Bolla di Paolo IV, in Italiano, ecco questo video, che bene presenta un sommario di essa, che spiega correttamente la censura che riguarda l’elezione non l’eletto.

+ + +

The Book on the Trinity, every faithful Catholic priest would love as his next present

This is Br. Bugnolo's English Translation, of Saint Bonaventure's encylopedic book of theology on the Trinity: With this book, your priest will always have something intelligent and awesomely inspiring to preach to you about God the Father, God the Son & God the Holy Spirit!

+ + +