John Salza & Robert Siscoe: QUACK THEOLOGIANS Part V & VI
Fr. Kramer refuting the "sideshow act" otherwise known as Salza & Siscoe
Salza & Siscoe lie when they state that the Bellarmine doctrine on a heretical pope's loss of office is the argument I use to justify rejecting the legitimacy of the papal claimant Jorge "Francis" Bergoglio.
I have demonstrated in other articles that it was the stated and formal intention of Benedict XVI in Feb. 2013 to renounce only the "active exercise of the petrine ministry"; while explicitly stating his intention to not fully relinquish the 'munus', i.e., the official service and duties of the supreme pontificate. By expressing his intention to not fully relinquish the papal office, Pope Benedict nullified his act of renunciation, due to defect of intention.
Pope Benedict pronounced his words of renunciation after having
given them precise qualification. Benedict stared that the munus of
office is not only the active ministry, but is also, and of no less
importance, a passive ministry: Bene conscius sum hoc munus secundum
suam essentiam spiritualem non solum agendo et loquendo exsequi debere,
sed non minus patiendo et orando. He stated explicitly his intention to
retain the passive exercise of the official petrine munus: "La mia
decisione di rinunciare all’esercizio attivo del ministero, non revoca
questo." (My decision to renounce the active ecercise of the ministry
does not revoke this.) By "this" he specified the passive exercise of
the papal munus: "Non porto più la potestà dell’officio per il governo
della Chiesa, ma nel servizio della preghiera resto, per così dire, nel
recinto di san Pietro." ("I no longer bear the power of office for the
governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to
speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter.") This "service of prayer"
which he expressly retains is stated (as I mentioned above) by Benedict
to pertain essentially to the petrine munus in his act of renunciation:
"Bene conscius sum hoc munus secundum suam essentiam spiritualem non
solum agendo et loquendo exsequi debere, sed non minus patiendo et
orando."
Thus, after stating precise qualifications, Benedict declares: declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 aprilis MMV commisso renuntiare ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae, sedes Sancti Petri vacet et Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse. Having specified the precise qualifications of these words, they must be strictly understood according to those qualifications secundum quid, and not simpliciter (as nearly everyone has uncritically and erroneously understood them in an unqualified sense).
Hence, the intention expressed by Pope Benedict is to remain in the Petrine office and retain the passive aspect of its official service (munus), i.e. "the service of prayer"; and to hand over the active aspect of the munus, i.e. exercise of governance, to a successor, who will effectively fulfill the function of a coadjutor with power of jurisdiction. Benedict's intention to remain in the passive aspect and exercise of the petrine office is manifested and underscored by his retaining his papal name and coat of arms; and his continuing to wear the papal attire, which is forbidden to anyone who does not occupy the petrine office.
This leaves us with two papal claimants: Benedict, who refuses to abdicate the office and totally relinquish his claim on the official munus; and Francis, who fills the partial vacuum left by Benedict's withdrawal from the exercise of papal jurisdiction.
Thus, after stating precise qualifications, Benedict declares: declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 aprilis MMV commisso renuntiare ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae, sedes Sancti Petri vacet et Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse. Having specified the precise qualifications of these words, they must be strictly understood according to those qualifications secundum quid, and not simpliciter (as nearly everyone has uncritically and erroneously understood them in an unqualified sense).
Hence, the intention expressed by Pope Benedict is to remain in the Petrine office and retain the passive aspect of its official service (munus), i.e. "the service of prayer"; and to hand over the active aspect of the munus, i.e. exercise of governance, to a successor, who will effectively fulfill the function of a coadjutor with power of jurisdiction. Benedict's intention to remain in the passive aspect and exercise of the petrine office is manifested and underscored by his retaining his papal name and coat of arms; and his continuing to wear the papal attire, which is forbidden to anyone who does not occupy the petrine office.
This leaves us with two papal claimants: Benedict, who refuses to abdicate the office and totally relinquish his claim on the official munus; and Francis, who fills the partial vacuum left by Benedict's withdrawal from the exercise of papal jurisdiction.
Since Benedict, before he withdrew into retirement, expressed his refusal to totally relinquish the petrine office, his renunciation is null & void due to defect of intention. This is the reason why I continue to acknowledge Benedict XVI as the only legitimate holder of the office of the Supreme Pontificate, and reject Bergoglio as a mere claimant and antipope.
Salza & Co. state a blatant falsehood when they attribute Bellarmine's opinion no. 5 to be the basis of my refusal to accept Bishop Bergoglio as the pope of the Catholic Church. That opinion expressly treats of a heretical pope's loss of office. Bergoglio has never held the petrine office, because it was never vacated by Benedict, so St. Robert Bellarmine's argument is clearly non applicable in the case of claimant Bergoglio, and is not my basis for rejecting Bergoglio's claim on the papacy.
So, with a truly Masonic mendacity, Salza & Co. argue in the manner of a crooked Masonic lawyer; who defames a priest in order to discredit him. That is what Masons are notorious for doing, vilifying priests; whereas Catholics refrain from such criminal behavior, knowing that it is s sacrilrge to vilify a priest.
Perhaps the most flagrant instance of this sort of criminally sacrilegious slander is their claim that: 《 FR. KRAMER ARGUESPRIVATE JUDGMENT PREVAILS
OVER THE PUBLIC JUDGMENT OF THE CHURCH
》By making this slanderous statement, Salza & Siscoe deliberately and maliciously accuse me of adhering and subscribing to the foundational principle of Protestantism. They have already falsely accused me of subscribing to a "Protestant definition of indefectibility", based on their own erroneous belief which I have shown, denies the temporary defeat (but not destruction or defection) of the Church which is foretold in scripture as interpreted by the Fathers and approved ecclesiastical writers down through the centuries.
During the course of the convolutions of their rambling rant, Salza & Co. finally state, with cunning mendacity, their errant point: 《Here is the post of Fr. Kramer in which he promotes the Sedevacantist error that an individual can personally judge whether the man elected Pope is a true or a false Pope, based on “natural law.”
“Fr. Kramer Response to 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.
 |
| Wolf in sheep's clothing |
》The fraud of Salza & Co. consists in the fact that I did not state this principle to justify the proposition that 《 an individual can personally judge whether the man elected Pope is a true or a false Pope, based on “natural law. 》What I did in fact state, is that if it is known with certitude that a person is a manifest heretic, then it pertains to natural law as a moral right for a person to assent to that truth, even if the heretic in question was elected pope.
The full context of my words can be seen in my reply to Robert Siscoe:
《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 manifest 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. [But in the case of manifest heresy, the heretic has already lost office ipso facto; and therefore cannot be deposed from the office he has already lost.]
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 what Robert John [Siscoe] states, namely, that the [erroneously supposed] common opinion holds that public heretic pope loses office only after the official judgment of the Church, is false.》
Based on their lie falsely claiming that I state the absurd proposition that "an individual can personally judge whether the man elected is a true or false pope based on natural law," Salza & Siscoe then proceed to rant on with their delusional hysteria for no less than seven paragraphs; excoriating me for "a ridiculous argument" (which in fact Salza/Siscoe manufactured); and that Martin Luther could not have stated it better." (!) And they claim that "Fr. Kramer" -- "in advancing his false principle," (THE FALSE PRINCIPLE THEY MANUFACTURED AND PUT INTO MY MOUTH!); attempts (according to them) to make a distinction between a natural right "to make judgments contrary to the Church, and the jurisdictional judgments that the Church herself makes." (!)
It is ironic that they, who with the most extreme and sacrilegious malice suggest that I have lost my mind, themselves resort to the hermeneutic of Fairyland to distort and interpolate my words according to the logic of the lunatic asylum. According to their hermeneutic of hysteria, they have manufactured a false principle, attributed it to me, and then refer to it as Fr. Kramer's "manufactured principle"; and they conclude with the sacrilegious audacity to say, 《We pray that Fr. Kramer returns to his right mind and abandons his “private judgment prevails over the Church’s public judgment” theology, which is not only insulting to the dignity of the Catholic priesthood, but also putting many souls in danger, especially his own.》
HOWEVER - THEIR MAIN ARGUMENT IS BASED ON A PATENT FALLACY. Salza & Siscoe argue: "When the Church presents a man to us as Pope, and when he is accepted as such by the Church, his legitimacy becomes a “dogmatic fact”." So far correct.
They argue further: 《When this occurs, Catholics are not permitted to publicly reject his legitimacy based on their private judgment. Rather, they have a moral obligation to assent to it with ecclesiastical faith, which is faith in the authority of the Church teaches. In his 1951 book On the Value of Theological Notes and the Criteria for Discerning Them, which was drafted for use by Roman congregations under Pius XII, Fr. Sixtus Cartechini, S.J., explains that the rejection of a dogmatic fact (and the example he uses is a Pope who has been accepted as such by the Church) constitutes a “mortal sin against faith.”[1] Cartechini also says that it is a “mortal sin of temerity” to deny opinions held in common by all theologians – and submitting to the judgment of the Church on who is Pope is certainly one of those opinions.》
The key phrase here is, "when the Church present a [i.e. ONE] man . . . his legitimacy becomes a dogmatic fact."
The glaring problematic aspect of this doctrine is its applicability to the present "two pope situation" in the Church which I have already explained briefly in this article, and at greater length elsewhere. Even Salza & Siscoe themselves admit in their book, there exists doubt in the Church concerning the legitimacy of Bergoglio, since there is "the controversial resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, which left many publicly questioning if he was forced out, and if he truly intended to renounce the munus petrinus (the papal office)." And further, "Some have come forward publicly and argued that Benedict is still the Pope, while many others secretly hold to this position. While some recognize this as a theoretical possibility, the thesis is problematic and ultimately would have to be decided by the Church." So while, as Salza & Co. say, "who is a true Pope is a matter of Church law according to the Church’s ecclesiastical process of election and acceptance . . . it follows that the same authority must interpret and make the definitive judgments about the law, which extend over all who are in communion with the Church"; they nevertheless admit that there is a problem with the 'two pope situation' in the Church at present -- a problem which they say, "ultimately would have to be decided by the Church" -- SO THE ADMIT THAT A DEFINITIVE JUDGMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN MADE!
The "dogmatic fact" of a pope duly elected and universally accepted does not exist in the Church of the Benedict-Bergoglio "diarchy". The Church has not judged, because the supreme judge in the Church is THE POPE, and at present there appear to be TWO POPES (i.e. two claimants). So there exists doubt in the mind of many as to which man is THE POPE, because Benedict's renunciation has left us with what his personal secretary and spokesman, Archbishop Georg Gänswein describes as "ein erweitertes Amt - mit einem aktiven und einem kontemplativen Teilhaber. Darum hat Benedikt XVI. weder den weißen Talar noch seinen Namen abgelegt ". (an expanded office - with an active and a contemplative member. Therefore Benedict XVI did away with neither the white cassock nor his name.)
The Church has not presented the Catholic faithful with a dogmatic fact of one individual who is certainly the Supreme Pontiff and Vicar of Christ on earth. Since it is difficult for many to discern, an erroneous private judgment does not constitute a sinful denial of a dogmatic fact, but all approved commentators on Canon Law teach in unanimous agreement with Wernz and Vidal: “Finally one can not consider as schismatics those who refuse to
obey the Roman Pontiff because they would hold his person suspect
or, because of widespread rumours, doubt fully elected (as happened
after the election of Ur ban VI) ...”
(Wernz-Vidal, Ius Canonicum, Rome, Gregorian Univ. 1937, Vol. II, p. 398.)
So much for the consummate hypocrisy of John Salza and Robert Siscoe, who have falsly and maliciously accused me of rejecting a dogmatic fact of the Church's definitive judgment on the person of the pope -- a judgment which these sacrilegious slanderers of priests admit has not yet been made, and which "ultimately would have to be decided by the Church".
In last quarters TCK Poll nearly 2/3 of those responding said Benedict XVI was Pope
