Fr. Kramer Refutes Pseudo Traditionalists Salza & Siscoe Pt. 3
Robert John Siscoe has obscured the distinction between submission (i.e. being under obedience), and simple disobedience to individual precepts; in order to falsely accuse me of misrepresenting the perverse doctrine of John Salza and Robert Siscoe.
I have not denied or even suggested that S & S have advocated a position of slavish obedience and non resistance to Bishop Bergoglio's perverse precepts and directives (as RJ mendaciously suggests) ; but rather they insist that Catholics remain in communion with Bergoglio & Co., bowing down in obedient submission to the pagan, inpostor "pope" by recognizing in them an authority they do not possess. No obedience at all is owed to the Bergoglio crowd, who are nothing but a gang of infidel impostors.
It does not suffice morally to resist only those individual
precepts which are against the law of God or the rights of the faithful.
Bergoglio has established the "throne of their abominable impiety"
where "the See of the most blessed Peter and the Chair of the truth, was
constituted as the light of the nations" (Pope Leo XIII)
Bergoglio is an ANTICHRIST who must be categorically, totally rejected as counterfeit pope and impostor. For those who are too obtuse to grasp this reality, and too blind to see the patent fact of Bergoglio's blasphemous infidelity; they must at least refuse ALL obedience to the pagan "pontiff"; even if they in ignorance and mental weakness still believe he occupies the Chair of Peter.
Jorge Bergoglio FORMAL HERETIC
1) his denial of the need to believe in God and love God, and obey the objective moral law -- both which pertain to natural law; perversely saying that the infidel or any person without faith commits no sin provided that such a one follows his conscience and can thereby gain the grace of redemption; 2) denying the Christian notion of a transcendent infinitely perfect God distinct from the created universe, by referring to that Christian notion of God as a "God spray", and "a vague idea in the clouds" -- which for Bergoglio is a "Catholic God" who "does not exist"; and professing divine attributes to nature, saying to the pagan Jains, "It is good that you like Mother Earth", "she gave us life and protects us"; 3) directly denying the solemnly defined dogma of the cessation of the Jewish covenant; 4) denying the supernatural sacramental order of grace declaring the unions of cohabiting couples to be valid marriages, denying the supernatural power of God (denying the multiplication of the loaves) -- indeed, the denial of the supernatural perfection of God as such, by attributing divine principles to nature; which effectively resolves into the philosophic atheim of Spinoza's "deus sive natura" -- making God equivalent to nature, according to the pagan Ancient Mysteries of Freemasonry.
This failure to distinguish the two kinds of judgment in theological and canonical works is also the error of Salza and Siscoe.
Fr Kramer responds to sedevacantist fundamentalist and known agitator Robert Sullivan:
I have consistently maintained over the decades that the conciliar popes are/were patent material heretics, but it is very difficult in most cases to estsblish the malice of formal heresy (as approved works on Canon Law affirm). My judgment has remained CONSTANT. I have never judged any pope from Roncalli to Ratzinger to be a formal heretic, because the patent malice of unbelief of Catholic dogma is (in my humble opinion) not indisputably patent.
BERGOGLIO IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT KETTLE OF FISH. His not merely heretical opinions, but his patent rejection of dogma is manifest; even on points that pertain to natural law.
Some of the responses to Pseudo Trad Bishop Fellay Cheerleader Siscoe on facebook:Fr. Kramer: Salza is up to his same old tricks: While Bellarmine does not refute the argument that a pope who is a manifest heretic loses office -- he is speaking specifically of removal of the pope when he says the judgment of men is required to remove him. The fact of loss of office occurs ipso facto, but the heretic "pope" must be REMOVED by the judgment of the Church.
Here is what Bellarmine says:
Now the fifth true opinion, is that a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: whereby, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics soon [mox] lose all jurisdiction, and namely St. Cyprian who speaks on Novation, who was a Pope in schism with Cornelius: “He cannot hold the Episcopacy, although he was a bishop first, he fell from the body of his fellow bishops and from the unity of the Church” [332]. There he means that Novation, even if he was a true and legitimate Pope; still would have fallen from the pontificate by himself, if he separated himself from the Church. The same is the opinion of the learned men of our age, as John Driedo teaches [333], those who are cast out as excommunicates, or leave on their own and oppose the Church are separated from it, namely heretics and schismatics. He adds in the same work [334], that no spiritual power remains in them, who have departed from the Church, over those who are in the Church. Melchior Cano teaches the same thing, when he says that heretics are not part of the Church, nor members [335], and he adds in the last Chapter, 12th argument, that someone cannot even be informed in thought, that he should be head and Pope, who is not a member nor a part, and he teaches the same thing in eloquent words, that secret heretics are still in the Church and are parts and members, and that a secretly heretical Pope is still Pope. Others teach the same, whom we cite in Book 1 of de Ecclesia. The foundation of this opinion is that a manifest heretic, is in no way a member of the Church; that is, neither in spirit nor in body, or by internal union nor external. For even wicked Catholics are united and are members, in spirit through faith and in body through the confession of faith, and the participation of the visible Sacraments. Secret heretics are united and are members, but only by an external union: just as on the other hand, good Catechumens are in the Church only by an internal union but not an external one. Manifest heretics by no union, as has been proved.
You are a charlatan and a fraud, Robert John Siscoe: I have explained multiple times why it is against natural law -- and it is immediately evident also that one cannot be bound to profess something that is false. It is a natural right to assent to the known truth. Only an imbecile could possibly think such a patent truth would need to be "backed up".
Addendum: Siscoe has been trying to promote his website and his points on Fr. Kramers page and the crickets are chirping to say the least...
My comments:
Folks we do not even have to take it to this argument (manifest heretic) whatsoever. It is matter of fact (was public knowledge) that the St. Gallen Mafia sought to remove Pope Benedict from office and this makes Benedict's resignation invalid (per canon law). The actual "resignation" was invalid as well as others besides Fr. Kramer have noted (even some pseudo traditionalists.).
Furthermore, (side story) I remember posting some Fr. Hesses videos on the remnant facebook page about a year ago and these knuckleheads (pseudo trads behind the remnant site not salza and siscoe directly) went behind me deleting it. Any wonder why Father Hesse had issues with these pseudo trads like Salza? Fr. Hesse knows more in his pinky than these two pseudo intellectuals put together...one of salzas first questions to me in me getting to know him was..."you must make good money"...given our extensive viewership...this puts things into context...$$$$$$ Unfortunately in defending Christ and the Faith it is not at all about that. I could care less about money. This is all apart of the pseudo trad camp though as I have had priests close to some of these individuals reiterate my speculations were indeed correct.
Sidenote: I wonder is Siscoe still defends the zionist funding the neo sspx is europe...these guys are cluleless...they have their heads up bishop fellays rear end and cant see straight...
Bergoglio is an ANTICHRIST who must be categorically, totally rejected as counterfeit pope and impostor. For those who are too obtuse to grasp this reality, and too blind to see the patent fact of Bergoglio's blasphemous infidelity; they must at least refuse ALL obedience to the pagan "pontiff"; even if they in ignorance and mental weakness still believe he occupies the Chair of Peter.
1) his denial of the need to believe in God and love God, and obey the objective moral law -- both which pertain to natural law; perversely saying that the infidel or any person without faith commits no sin provided that such a one follows his conscience and can thereby gain the grace of redemption; 2) denying the Christian notion of a transcendent infinitely perfect God distinct from the created universe, by referring to that Christian notion of God as a "God spray", and "a vague idea in the clouds" -- which for Bergoglio is a "Catholic God" who "does not exist"; and professing divine attributes to nature, saying to the pagan Jains, "It is good that you like Mother Earth", "she gave us life and protects us"; 3) directly denying the solemnly defined dogma of the cessation of the Jewish covenant; 4) denying the supernatural sacramental order of grace declaring the unions of cohabiting couples to be valid marriages, denying the supernatural power of God (denying the multiplication of the loaves) -- indeed, the denial of the supernatural perfection of God as such, by attributing divine principles to nature; which effectively resolves into the philosophic atheim of Spinoza's "deus sive natura" -- making God equivalent to nature, according to the pagan Ancient Mysteries of Freemasonry.
"Freemasonry is implacably opposed to the transcendent God." - REV. DENIS FAHEY, C.S.Sp., D.D., D.Ph .
Continuing:
St. Robert Bellarmine:
De Romano Pontifice II xxx -
Now the fifth true opinion, is that a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: whereby, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately [mox] lose all jurisdiction, and namely St. Cyprian who speaks on Novation, who was a Pope in schism with Cornelius: “He cannot hold the Episcopacy, although he was a bishop first, he fell from the body of his fellow bishops and from the unity of the Church” [332]. There he means that Novation, even if he was a true and legitimate Pope; still would have fallen from the pontificate by himself, if he separated himself from the Church. The same is the opinion of the learned men of our age, as John Driedo teaches [333], those who are cast out as excommunicates, or leave on their own and oppose the Church are separated from it, namely heretics and schismatics. He adds in the same work [334], that no spiritual power remains in them, who have departed from the Church, over those who are in the Church. Melchior Cano teaches the same thing, when he says that heretics are not part of the Church, nor members [335], and he adds in the last Chapter, 12th argument, that someone cannot even be informed in thought, that he should be head and Pope, who is not a member nor a part, and he teaches the same thing in eloquent words, that secret heretics are still in the Church and are parts and members, and that a secretly heretical Pope is still Pope. Others teach the same, whom we cite in Book 1 of de Ecclesia. The foundation of this opinion is that a manifest heretic, is in no way a member of the Church; that is, neither in spirit nor in body, or by internal union nor external. For even wicked Catholics are united and are members, in spirit through faith and in body through the confession of faith, and the participation of the visible Sacraments. Secret heretics are united and are members, but only by an external union: just as on the other hand, good Catechumens are in the Church only by an internal union but not an external one. Manifest heretics by no union, as has been proved.
Fr. Kramer Response to Modernist Andy
Sloan: You are confusing the distinction between the judgment of the
INTELLECT, and official judgment made with the power of jurisdiction.
The former is a RIGHT according to NATURAL LAW, and Canon Law (can.
748); the latter requires authority to be
lawful. You quote St. Thomas out of context -- a passage that refers to
a judgment that requires the proper jurisdiction to be lawful. It does
not refer in any manner to the private judgment of the intellect, which
is the individual"s right in natural law and Canon Law, as I have
already explained above, and multiple times in the past.
Continuing:
St. Robert Bellarmine:
De Romano Pontifice II xxx -
Now the fifth true opinion, is that a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: whereby, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately [mox] lose all jurisdiction, and namely St. Cyprian who speaks on Novation, who was a Pope in schism with Cornelius: “He cannot hold the Episcopacy, although he was a bishop first, he fell from the body of his fellow bishops and from the unity of the Church” [332]. There he means that Novation, even if he was a true and legitimate Pope; still would have fallen from the pontificate by himself, if he separated himself from the Church. The same is the opinion of the learned men of our age, as John Driedo teaches [333], those who are cast out as excommunicates, or leave on their own and oppose the Church are separated from it, namely heretics and schismatics. He adds in the same work [334], that no spiritual power remains in them, who have departed from the Church, over those who are in the Church. Melchior Cano teaches the same thing, when he says that heretics are not part of the Church, nor members [335], and he adds in the last Chapter, 12th argument, that someone cannot even be informed in thought, that he should be head and Pope, who is not a member nor a part, and he teaches the same thing in eloquent words, that secret heretics are still in the Church and are parts and members, and that a secretly heretical Pope is still Pope. Others teach the same, whom we cite in Book 1 of de Ecclesia. The foundation of this opinion is that a manifest heretic, is in no way a member of the Church; that is, neither in spirit nor in body, or by internal union nor external. For even wicked Catholics are united and are members, in spirit through faith and in body through the confession of faith, and the participation of the visible Sacraments. Secret heretics are united and are members, but only by an external union: just as on the other hand, good Catechumens are in the Church only by an internal union but not an external one. Manifest heretics by no union, as has been proved.
[N.B. - I have corrected Ryan Grant's translation of the word "mox",
which can have several meanings; and in the context of this passage,
cannot be intelligibly understood as "soon". I have read this text of
Bellarmine many times during the past three decades, and the proper
sense of "mox" in this context as "immediate", was always immediately
evident to me and Fr. Gruner.
This failure to distinguish the two kinds of judgment in theological and canonical works is also the error of Salza and Siscoe.
Fr Kramer responds to sedevacantist fundamentalist and known agitator Robert Sullivan:
I have consistently maintained over the decades that the conciliar popes are/were patent material heretics, but it is very difficult in most cases to estsblish the malice of formal heresy (as approved works on Canon Law affirm). My judgment has remained CONSTANT. I have never judged any pope from Roncalli to Ratzinger to be a formal heretic, because the patent malice of unbelief of Catholic dogma is (in my humble opinion) not indisputably patent.
BERGOGLIO IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT KETTLE OF FISH. His not merely heretical opinions, but his patent rejection of dogma is manifest; even on points that pertain to natural law.
Some of the responses to Pseudo Trad Bishop Fellay Cheerleader Siscoe on facebook:Fr. Kramer: Salza is up to his same old tricks: While Bellarmine does not refute the argument that a pope who is a manifest heretic loses office -- he is speaking specifically of removal of the pope when he says the judgment of men is required to remove him. The fact of loss of office occurs ipso facto, but the heretic "pope" must be REMOVED by the judgment of the Church.
Here is what Bellarmine says:
Now the fifth true opinion, is that a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: whereby, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics soon [mox] lose all jurisdiction, and namely St. Cyprian who speaks on Novation, who was a Pope in schism with Cornelius: “He cannot hold the Episcopacy, although he was a bishop first, he fell from the body of his fellow bishops and from the unity of the Church” [332]. There he means that Novation, even if he was a true and legitimate Pope; still would have fallen from the pontificate by himself, if he separated himself from the Church. The same is the opinion of the learned men of our age, as John Driedo teaches [333], those who are cast out as excommunicates, or leave on their own and oppose the Church are separated from it, namely heretics and schismatics. He adds in the same work [334], that no spiritual power remains in them, who have departed from the Church, over those who are in the Church. Melchior Cano teaches the same thing, when he says that heretics are not part of the Church, nor members [335], and he adds in the last Chapter, 12th argument, that someone cannot even be informed in thought, that he should be head and Pope, who is not a member nor a part, and he teaches the same thing in eloquent words, that secret heretics are still in the Church and are parts and members, and that a secretly heretical Pope is still Pope. Others teach the same, whom we cite in Book 1 of de Ecclesia. The foundation of this opinion is that a manifest heretic, is in no way a member of the Church; that is, neither in spirit nor in body, or by internal union nor external. For even wicked Catholics are united and are members, in spirit through faith and in body through the confession of faith, and the participation of the visible Sacraments. Secret heretics are united and are members, but only by an external union: just as on the other hand, good Catechumens are in the Church only by an internal union but not an external one. Manifest heretics by no union, as has been proved.
You are a charlatan and a fraud, Robert John Siscoe: I have explained multiple times why it is against natural law -- and it is immediately evident also that one cannot be bound to profess something that is false. It is a natural right to assent to the known truth. Only an imbecile could possibly think such a patent truth would need to be "backed up".
Addendum: Siscoe has been trying to promote his website and his points on Fr. Kramers page and the crickets are chirping to say the least...
My comments:
Folks we do not even have to take it to this argument (manifest heretic) whatsoever. It is matter of fact (was public knowledge) that the St. Gallen Mafia sought to remove Pope Benedict from office and this makes Benedict's resignation invalid (per canon law). The actual "resignation" was invalid as well as others besides Fr. Kramer have noted (even some pseudo traditionalists.).
Furthermore, (side story) I remember posting some Fr. Hesses videos on the remnant facebook page about a year ago and these knuckleheads (pseudo trads behind the remnant site not salza and siscoe directly) went behind me deleting it. Any wonder why Father Hesse had issues with these pseudo trads like Salza? Fr. Hesse knows more in his pinky than these two pseudo intellectuals put together...one of salzas first questions to me in me getting to know him was..."you must make good money"...given our extensive viewership...this puts things into context...$$$$$$ Unfortunately in defending Christ and the Faith it is not at all about that. I could care less about money. This is all apart of the pseudo trad camp though as I have had priests close to some of these individuals reiterate my speculations were indeed correct.
Sidenote: I wonder is Siscoe still defends the zionist funding the neo sspx is europe...these guys are cluleless...they have their heads up bishop fellays rear end and cant see straight...
