FEAR or FAITH? FRIGHT or FLIGHT?
Welcome Eagles to the New Crusade!
Will thou help defend the Fortress of Faith?

TradCatKnight- MOST VIEWED & FOLLOWED Traditional Catholic APOSTOLATE Worldwide!
As Seen on: Gloria.tv, SpiritDaily, Shoebat, Canon212, VeteransToday, Beforeitsnews & many other notable websites
BOOKMARK us & check in DAILY for the latest Endtimes News!
Welcome to my Nest. #EagleoftheFortress
WEBSITE OWNERS: Don't Forget To Add Us On Your Page!
ALEXA- TOP 30K WEBSITE WORLDWIDE

Tuesday, August 9, 2016

Fr. Kramer Refutes Pseudo Traditionalists Salza & Sisco Part IV

 Fr. Kramer Refutes Pseudo Traditionalists Salza & Sisco Part IV
Courtesy of Joe M.
'True or False Pope signed off on by Bishop Fellay (who cant even get basic doctrine on the Jews right and who thinks it is good to be labeled "Catholic" by Universalist Francis.  Should be good then, LOL

Robert Siscoe and John Salza) employ verbal sleight of hand to deny one of the most basic truths of natural law and moral theology:  (Salza/Siscoe responses in parenthesis)
《The common opinion is that the pope must be a "manifest heretic" according to the Church's judgement (not private judgment) before lose his office. As long as a heretical pope is tolerated by the Church, he remains pope. If you disagree, please explains whey the following citation, from one of the greatest canonists of his day, is wrong: 

“It is more probable that the Supreme Pontiff, as concerns his own person, could fall into heresy, even a notorious one, by reason of which he would deserve to be deposed by the Church, or rather declared to be separated from her. … The proof of this assertion is that neither Sacred Scripture nor the tradition of the Fathers indicates that such a privilege [i.e., being preserved from heresy when not defining a doctrine] was granted by Christ to the Supreme Pontiff: therefore the privilege is not to be asserted.
"The first part of the proof is shown from the fact that the promises made by Christ to St. Peter cannot be transferred to the other Supreme Pontiffs insofar as they are private persons, but only as the successor of Peter in the pastoral power of teaching, etc. The latter part is proven from the fact that it is rather the contrary that one finds in the writings of the Fathers and in decrees: not indeed as if the Roman Pontiffs were at any time heretics de facto (for one could hardly show that); but it was the persuasion that it could happen that they fall into heresy and that, therefore, IF SUCH A THING SHOULD SEEM TO HAVE HAPPENED, IT WOULD PERTAIN TO THE OTHER BISHOPS TO EXAMINE AND GIVE A JUDGMENT ON THE MATTER; as one can see in the Sixth Synod, Act 13; the Seventh Synod, last Act; the eight Synod, Act 7 in the epistle of [Pope] Hadrian; and in the fifth Roman Council under Pope Symmachus: ‘By many of those who came before us it was declared and ratified in Synod, that the sheep should not reprehend their Pastor, unless they presume that he has departed from the Faith’. And in Si Papa d. 40, it is reported from Archbishop Boniface: ‘He who is to judge all men is to be judged by none, unless he be found by chance to be deviating from the Faith’. And Bellarmine himself, book 2, ch. 30, writes: ‘We cannot deny that [Pope] Hadrian with the Roman Council, and the entire 8th General Synod was of the belief that, in the case of heresy, the Roman Pontiff could be judged,’ as one can see in Melchior Cano, bk. 6, De Locis Theologicis, last chapter.
"BUT NOTE THAT, ALTHOUGH WE AFFIRM THAT THE SUPREME PONTIFF, AS A PRIVATE PERSON, MIGHT BECOME A HERETIC … NEVERTHELESS, FOR AS LONG AS HE IS TOLERATED BY THE CHURCH, AND IS PUBLICLY RECOGNIZED AS THE UNIVERSAL PASTOR, HE IS STILL ENDOWED, IN FACT, WITH THE PONTIFICAL POWER, in such a way that all his decrees have no less force and authority than they would if he were a truly faithful, as Dominic Barnes notes well (q.1, a. 10, doubt 2, ad. 3) Suarez bk 4, on laws, ch. 7.
"The reason is: because it is conducive to the governing of the Church, even as, in any other well-constituted commonwealth, that the acts of a public magistrate are in force as long as he remains in office and is publicly tolerated” (Fr. Paul Laymann, S. J, Laymann, Theol. Mor., bk. 2, tract 1, ch. 7, p. 153).

If you disagree with this, please cite an authority that teaches the contrary.》

Fr. Kramer:
First, he interprets Bellarmine's teaching on DEPOSITION, which involves judgment as an act of jurisdiction with force of law; to be applicable to the private judgment of the intellect which does not require jurisdiction, and does not have the force of law. No person in a private capacity may presume to depose any Church official from office -- that judgment is reserved for ecclesiastical authority.
No jurisdiction is required to make the private judgment of the mind, by which the assent of the intellect is given to a truth known with certitude. The judgment made by the intellect assenting to a known truth is an act proper to the rational nature of man; and therefore it pertains to natural law as a God given right of the human person to assent to the truth. This right is expressly recognized in Canon Law (can. 748)
Any truth that can be properly known with certitude falls within the range of this natural right. Now a patent act of malicious and maifest rejection of dogma can be recognized by the intellect; and hence, that judgment falls within the moral right of the individual to make. However, no matter how manifest the heresy and its malice, no private individual may presume to depose the heretic from office with force of law; because that act requires the authority of jurisdiction.
Furthermore, in opinion no. 5 of De Romano Pontifice II xxx, St. Robert Bellarmine theologically demonstrates and explicitly affirms as the true position that all heretics, including a pope, immediately lose office upon becoming a manifest formal heretic. The proposition that a holder of ecclesiastical office retains jurisdiction even after committing the public crime of heresy until judged by the Church is absurd on its face, and directly opposes the teaching of Pope St. Celestine I, and (as Bellarmine affirms) the unanimous teaching of the Fathers.
In Mystici Corporis Pius XII explicitly upholds the perpetual doctrine that the heretic expels himself from the Church; and therefore, it follows necessarily as a strict corollary that as a non Christian the public heretic is incapable of holding office or exercising jurisdiction, and that the contrary proposition is absurd on its face.
Here is the verbatim text of Bellarmine which states explicitly that a pope who is a manifest heretic loses office ipso facto:
"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 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."

It is patent therefore that what Robert John states, namely, that the common opinion holds that a public heretic pope loses office only after the official judgment of the Church, is false.
(As mentioned in a previous post, I have made only one minor correction of Ryan Grant's translation of the word "mox" which in the present context can only be rendered as "immediately".)

Exchange between Fr. Kramer and I on facebook:
Fr. Kramer: They are already exposed as incompetent frauds.
TCK: Fr Hesse ought have taken these two out behind the shed...
Fr. Kramer: Money is all that matters for blind bigots. O tempora, O Mores! 

 Salza/Siscoe= Deer in headlights...

Additional comments:  Salza/Siscoe have not yet answered me (on facebook yet) as to whether or not they are as exuberant as Bishop Fellay is to have received the title of "Catholic" from Universalist/Modernist Francis...