Fr. Kramer vs. "Fish Eaters" (Pseudo Trad Site)
1) 《The deceitful sophistry is pretending one of the most dangerous councils in the history of the Church which is known as the "Concilliarists" council in which the attempt to hobble the papacy was manifested actually does bind the papacy.》
The deceitful sophistry consists in Gerard's private judgment which, in a desperate attempt to undermine its authority, rails against a duly papally ratified ecumenical council of the Catholic Church that has been generally accepted by the Church throughout the Catholic world.
2) 《The cute trick is misleading people into thinking that Martin V ratified the heresy of Conciliarism which put Councils above Popes. 》
Gerard, in the manner of heretics, gives more weight to his own private judgments against the Council of Constance than the universal acceptance by the Church of those acts of that Council which were duly ratified. Gerard, who like Luther pronouncing the Epistle of St. James to be an "epistle of straw", rails against the judgment of the Church which accepts the authority of that Council's ratified decrees, privately judging its doctrines to be dubious (!): he speaks of "Council of Constance and it's dubious assertions."
However, his assertion that I engage in "misleading people into thinking that Martin V ratified the heresy of Conciliarism which put Councils above Popes[,]" is an outright, gratuitous falsehood which reveals him to be a malicious and sacrilegious bold faced liar.
NEITHER MARTIN V NOR EUGENE IV RATIFIED ANYTHING THAT PUTS COUNCILS ABOVE POPES, AND I HAVE SAID NOTHING THAT EVEN REMOTELY SUGGESTS SUCH A THING. GERARD IS A SACRILEGIOUS SLANDERER OF PRIESTS.
Fish Eaters is a Pseudo Traditionalist site to be avoided...
3) 《 And the convenience by which all of that conciliar intrigue is glossed over . . .》
Scurrilous off point objection: Conciliar intrigue has no bearing whatsoever on the doctrinal authority of the ratified acts of a council.
This, as we shall see, is the fatal logical defect of nearly all of Gerard's arguments: "scurrilitas quae ad rem non pertinent" (Eph. 5:4).
4) 《Actually Gregory XII was accepted as the legitimate Pope. The Council was reconvened under his authority as condition of his resignation. It's the authority of Gregory XII that allows for the legitimate election of Martin V.》
OFF POINT! What has this to do with the authority of the papal approbation of the ratified decrees of the Council? NOTHING! A Florentine's reply to such stupidity would be: "Cosa c'entra il culo colle quarant'ore?" (Literally translated, "What has my arse to do with the Forty Hours Devotion?")
5) 《Ecumenical Councils require papal authority for convocation, direction and confirmation. The authority to elect Pope Martin didn't come retroactively from Pope Martin. It was given by Pope Gregory and affirmed by Martin.》
OFF POINT. The authority to elect Martin V, or how, or by whom the Council was convoked, are utterly irrelevant to the matter under discussion. What matters only is that Martin V and Eugene IV were legitimate popes who ratified most of the acts of the Council, and that those acts have been generally accepted throughout the Church ever since.
6) 《Anti-Pope John XXIII who originally called the council had fled and was deposed and Benedict XII never submitted to being deposed.》
Again, Sig. Gerardo -- "Cosa c'entra il culo colle quarant'ore?"
7) 《[N]either Martin nor Eugene ever intended to acknowledge the superiority of a council over the pope. (See Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, I, 50-54)" 》
There is no end to this dolt's scurrilous outbursts. Gerard doltishly confuses authority which a council can never exercise over a reigning pontiff, with the doctrinal authority which a duly ratified council can bind popes and the whole Church in perpetuity. The DOCTRINE that the traditional rites are binding on all popes has been repeatedly taught throughout Church history, as I have amply demonstrated in my book, The Suicide of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy.
After all the scurrilous sophistry and stupidity Gerard has presented in his off point rants, he then has the sacrilegious effrontery to call a Roman educated priest with multiple ecclesiastical degrees "an intellectual slob", "who makes up history, and spreads heresy to support his political agenda".
Gerard is guilty of public sacrilege for gratuitously vilifying a priest and falsely accusing him of heresy. What heretical proposition have I professed? He doesn't say. (Let him produce a direct verbatim quotation of my heresy!) It does not exist. He is therefore to be considered a public sinner to be deprived of receiving Holy Communion, as is set forth in can. 915 of the Code of Canon Law.
9) The lenghty quotation of Mediator Dei is totally off point. No Catholic denies the pope's authority to regulate the liturgy, but no Catholic may deny the dogma founded on scripture * which teaches that the Catholic conscience is bound, and the pope in particular is BOUND to the traditional rites; and it is HERESY to say that any pope may abolish the traditional rites, and change them into new rites.
10) The remainder of Gerard's observations consist of nothing but off point comments, and abusive personal insults which reveal his state of mind as that of a Narcissistic megalomaniac wretch who is possessed of the pathological obsession to win an argument -- even to the point of heretically denying a dogma of faith in pursuit of his ignoble purpose -- so that "Fr. Kramer, will have his argument destroyed".
* 1 Cor. 11:23 - 24, ff. - 《 ego enim accepi a Domino quod et tradidi vobis quoniam Dominus Iesus in qua nocte tradebatur accepit panem
et gratias agens fregit et dixit hoc est corpus meum pro vobis hoc facite in meam commemorationem " . . .》