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, Reddit, 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!

Saturday, September 24, 2016

Fr. Kramer: Open Letter to John Salza

Fr. Kramer: Open Letter to John Salza
Open Letter to John Salza

John Salza:

1) Your behavior is criminally sacrilegious as I have previously explained. You responded to my doctrinal correction of your errors with sacrilegious personal vilification.

2) If you are not still a Freemason, then you are putting on quite a good show of making yourself appear to be one, by acting like a Mason; i.e., by vilifying a priest in a crassly disrespectful, and therefore sacrilegious manner. That is the hallmark of the Mason, vilifying priests.

     By propagating your fundamentalistic error on the visibility of the Church, which denies that the Church will undergo a temporary defeat, in which it will appear to have been "swept off the face of the earth" (Cardinal Manning), you aid and abet the Masonic agenda which aims to replace the Catholic Church with an ecumenical, dogma free "church", against which St. Pius X warned, and Pope Leo XIII foresaw in his vision and foretold in his prayer. The Conciliar Church is going into schism and apostasy, but due to its "visibility", your fundamentalistic notion of the visibility of the Church does not allow for the eclipse of the true Church and consummation of the apostasy, foretold in scripture, to ever take place or be acknowledged.

     There are also some who have copious knowledge about your former Sect, who have also made some disquieting observations about you which constitute grounds for reasonable suspicion of a covert and continuing Masonic affiliation.

3) You state a falsehood when you say I, "didn't make the proper distinction because ... [ I ] claim that a 'material heretic" is a "son of the Church'."

  Here are your own words: 《More contradictions and false accusations from Fr Kramer, who just said a heretic can also be an infidel. We make all the proper distinctions in our book, approved by scholars who forgot more theology than Fr Kramer ever knew.》Since you clearly indicated that (according to you) I did not make a proper distinction between heretics and infidels, I pointed out that heresy is a species of infidelity, and that the term is used in this generic sense, even by St. Paul (ινα ρυσθω απο των απειθουντων εν τη ιουδαια).

     With a patently deceitful trickery, you say that it is merely I who say material heretics are sons of the Church; but you omit mentioning that I was quoting a distinguished ecclesiastical scholar, F.X. De Feller, who wrote, "Gli eretici materiali sono figliuoli della chiesa."(Catechismo filosofico, o raccolta d'osservazioni atte a difendere la religione cristiana contro de' suoi nemici. Opera del sig. abate F. X. De Feller tradotta dal francese secondo la terza edizione di Liegi corretta, e notabilmente accresciuta; Tomo III, Milano, 1828,  p. 203)

4) You have desperately and sacrilegiously attempted to make me appear to be in heresy on various points, by means of misrepresentation, and deceptively fallacious arguments -- but it is you and Siscoe who have fallen into heresy, misinterpreting the doctrine of Mystici Corporis in a manner that denies the perpetual teaching of the universal magisterium on the nature of heresy, as I have clearly demonstrated. Instead of accepting correction of your error, you respond by deceitfully attempting to make me appear to be the heretic, while you remain obstinate in heresy.

     You are not competent to judge in matters of doctrine and theology. You are neither a cleric, nor do you have any formal academic training in Sacred Theology; yet you insolently presume to pass judgment on an academically qualified priest and former seminary lecturer in a matter that properly pertains to ecclesiastical jurisdiction; and not to theologically unschooled laymen. You have crudely erred by stating that material heretics do not have divine faith. You have called the classical, traditional, and commonly accepted definition of 'material heretic', "perverted", a term which you attribute to the definition that I adhere to; while you conveniently omit my citation of approved ecclesiastical scholars who define the term in the same manner as I understand it:

《Qui sine sua culpa veritatem de fide negant, materiales haeretici dicuntur.》(THEOLOGIAE FUNDAMENTALIS TRACTATUS DUO. SCRIPSIT SAC. F. H. REINERDING, H. ET. PH. DR. ET TH. PROF. IN SEMINARIO FULDENSI); and,

Hæretici materiales (qui autem iuxta S. Augustinum . . . nequaquam sunt inter hæreticos deputandi) dicuntur illi, qui non ex malo animo aut pertinacia, sed ex simplicitate, aut defectu debitæ informationis, errant circa Fidem." (Theologia Moralis, P. F. Anaclet Reiffenstuel, Munich, 1715, p. 202) 》Were Frs. Reinerding and Reiffenstuel "perverted" as well? Or is it just I who am perverted for adhering to the Moral Theology of St. Alphonsus on this point?

      Material heresy is properly an inculpable sin. The term, "material sin" is defined by St. Alphonsus de Liguori: "il peccato materiale non è altro, che un'azione che sarebbe materia di peccato, se vi fosse la cognizione della legge, ma essendo la legge invincibilmente ignota . . . la trasgressione non è colpevole." (Alfonso Maria de Liguori; Opere Morali, volume decimosesto, Torino 1829, pp. 66-7). Hence, "material heresy" is the inculpable act of heresy: Hæresis est error intellectus, .... contra Fidem, in eo qui Fidem sucepit. ... Judicium erroneum, quod est ejus quasi materiale." Or, in a clearer arrangement of the holy Doctor's words: "Hæresis [materia] - Judicium erroneum, [vel] error intellectus .... contra Fidem, quod est ejus quasi materiale:  in eo qui Fidem sucepit."
Thus, according to St. Alphonsus, the inculpable material sin of heresy is the invincibly ignorant error or judgment against the faith

     Hence the definition of "material heretics" given by Reinerding (and similarly Reiffenstuel) follows strictly as a direct logical corollary of the doctrine of St. Alphonsus: Qui sine sua culpa veritatem de fide negant materiales haeretici dicuntur.[1] So, John Salza and Robert Siscoe, you are calling the theology of St. Alphonsus de Liguori, one of the greatest Doctors of the Church "perverted".

     The opinion that there can be adult "material heretics" with faith and justifying grace in invincible ignorance, as members of non-Catholic sects or otherwise outside the Church, seems scarcely believable, smacks of heresy; and is refuted by St. Alphonsus de Liguori, who explains that, "unbelievers who arrive at the use of reason, and are not converted to the Faith, cannot be excused, because though they do not receive sufficient proximate grace, still they are not deprived of remote grace, as a means of becoming converted."[2] Thus, Bishop George Hay expounds on those who say invincible ignorance will save a man, 《will bring him to salvation;" saying, "[T]hey suppose that a man may be a member of the true Church in the sight of God, though not born with her in communion, as all baptised children are, though born in heresy, at least till they come to the age of judging for themselves. Their mistake here lies in not reflecting that all adults who are in a false religion, can be members of the Church in the sight of God, in no other sense than those were of whom our Saviour says, "Other sheep I have who are not of this fold." But as he expressly declares, that it was necessary to bring even those to the communion of the Church; this evidently shows that they and all such are not members of the Church in such a way as that they can be saved in their present state without being joined in her communion.》[3]

     Thus, adults living outside the Church cannot be called "material heretics", since, as St. Alphonsus says, "unbelievers who arrive at the use of reason, and are not converted to the Faith, cannot be excused", -- they are not sine culpa, as are material heretics, who are visible members of the Church; and who err in some matters of faith sine culpa.

     From what is stated above, it is not the traditional definition that is "perverted", but the novel definition (which you subscribe to) that says, "material heretics are those who, being in invincible ignorance of the Church herself, in good faith choose some other guiding rule", is the definition which perverts Catholic doctrine.

     John Salza, how can you expect to refute errors, when it is your legalistic fundamentalism that blinds you from the truth and plunges you into the depths of false doctrine and heresy. You need to recant your heresy and return to the faith into which you were baptised.

Fr. Paul Kramer

[1] "Qui cum sua culpa veritatem de fide negant, formales haeretici vocantur, qui id sine sua culpa faciunt, materiales haeretici dicuntur." (THEOLOGIAE FUNDAMENTALIS TRACTATUS DUO. SCRIPSIT SAC. F. H. REINERDING, H. ET. PH. DR. ET TH. PROF. IN SEMINARIO FULDENSI,     Tractatus prior. Demonstratio christiano-catholica contra adversarios generatim omnes. Monasterii Guestphalorum. SUMPTIBUS LIBRARIAE ASCHENDORFFIANAE.

[2] "11. Si risponde pertanto ai Semipelagiani che gl'infedeli i quali giunti all'uso di ragione non si convertono alla fede non sono degni di scusa; perché, quantunque non ricevano la grazia sufficiente prossima, almeno non sono destituiti della grazia rimota e mediata per convertirsi alla fede. E qual è questa grazia rimota? È quella che insegna il dottore Angelico1, il quale scrive: Si quis nutritus in silvis, vel inter bruta animalia ductum rationis naturalis sequeretur in appetitu boni et fuga mali, certissime est credendum quod ei Deus vel per internam inspirationem revelaret ea, quae sunt ad credendum necessaria; vel aliquem fidei praedicatorem ad eum dirigeret, sicut misit Petrum ad Cornelium. Sicché secondo s. Tommaso agl'infedeli che son giunti all'uso di ragione almeno vien data da Dio la grazia rimotamente sufficiente per salvarsi; la quale grazia consiste in una certa istruzione della mente ed in una mozion della volontà ad osservar la legge naturale; alla quale mozione se coopera l'infedele, osservando i precetti della natura, con astenersi dai peccati gravi, riceverà appresso certamente per i meriti di Gesù Cristo la grazia prossimamente sufficiente ad abbracciar la fede ed a salvarsi."

(Sant'Alfonso Maria de Liguori
Storia delle Eresie; I edizione - Maggio 2003, p. 313)

[3] Bishop George Hay; The Sincere Christian Instructed in the Faith of Christ; Dublin, 1822, p. 341-2.

John Salza ignorantly says, "Fr Kramer . . . just said a heretic can also be an infidel. We make all the proper distinctions in our book, approved by scholars who forgot more theology than Fr Kramer ever knew."

Salza forgets that heresy is a species of infidelity:

Romans 15:31 - St. Paul speaks of Jews as being "infidels"; and asks for prayers to be freed "from the infidels in Judea" 《απο των απειθουντων εν τη ιουδαια 》

St. Thomas explains that heresy is a species of infidelity:

Sed contra est quod falsitas veritati opponitur. Sed haereticus est qui falsas vel novas opiniones vel gignit vel sequitur. Ergo opponitur veritati, cui fides innititur. Ergo sub infidelitate continetur.

[39280] IIª-IIae q. 11 a. 1 co.Respondeo dicendum quod nomen haeresis, sicut dictum est, electionem importat. Electio autem, ut supra dictum est, est eorum quae sunt ad finem, praesupposito fine. In credendis autem voluntas assentit alicui vero tanquam proprio bono, ut ex supradictis patet. Unde quod est principale verum habet rationem finis ultimi, quae autem secundaria sunt habent rationem eorum quae sunt ad finem. Quia vero quicumque credit alicuius dicto assentit, principale videtur esse, et quasi finis, in unaquaque credulitate ille cuius dicto assentitur, quasi autem secundaria sunt ea quae quis tenendo vult alicui assentire. Sic igitur qui recte fidem Christianam habet sua voluntate assentit Christo in his quae vere ad eius doctrinam pertinent. A rectitudine igitur fidei Christianae dupliciter aliquis potest deviare. Uno modo, quia ipsi Christo non vult assentire, et hic habet quasi malam voluntatem circa ipsum finem. Et hoc pertinet ad speciem infidelitatis Paganorum et Iudaeorum. Alio modo, per hoc quod intendit quidem Christo assentire, sed deficit in eligendo ea quibus Christo assentiat, quia non eligit ea quae sunt vere a Christo tradita, sed ea quae sibi propria mens suggerit. Et ideo haeresis est infidelitatis species pertinens ad eos qui fidem Christi profitentur, sed eius dogmata corrumpunt. (Summa Theol. II - II . 11 . 1)