Welcome Eagles to the New Crusade!
Will thou help defend the Fortress of Faith?

BOOKMARK us & check in DAILY for the latest Endtimes News!

"And I beheld, and heard the voice of one eagle flying through the midst of heaven,
saying with a loud voice: Woe, woe, woe to the inhabitants of the earth....
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 8:13]

Sunday, September 25, 2016

Fr. Kramer: Salza/Siscoe Continue To Ignore The Words Of BXVI

 Fr. Kramer: Salza/Siscoe Continue To Ignore The Words Of BXVI
Salza & Siscoe really need to go back to flipping burgers.  They have been making themselves look inept just like Fellay these days
From Salza & Siscoe's latest post is on the "resignation" of Pope Benedict, and my preliminary observation:
"[I]f Benedict publicly stated that his intention was to resign the papacy, and if the entire Church understood him to mean that he was completely renouncing the papal office, would a defective intention, resulting from a doctrinal error (i.e., the belief that it is possible to change the nature of the papacy by splitting it in two) prevent God from severing the bond joining his person to the papacy? Or would God sever the bond uniting his person to the papal office in spite of the defective intention that is rooted in a doctrinal error?

I ANSWER SAYING Benedict did not state an intention to resign the papacy, but explicitly expressed his intention to renounce part of the papal office.
My already posted argument on defect of intention completely refutes their argument. Salza/Siscoe start from the false premise that Benedict expressed the intention to "resign the papacy", or to simply "resign". Thus they carefully avoid the point I explained on the moral object of the act which specifies the essence of a human action; and in this case specifies exactly what is the thing -- the object of the act of renunciation, not resignation. This is exactly what Violi determined in his critical analysis of the act of renunciation. Benedict XVI did not express an intention to renounce the papacy, but to renounce a part of the munus. The analogy with Baptism is fallacious, because in that case there is the intention to baptise combined with a doctrinal error, resulting in an intention not to produce any effect on the soul. The baptism is still valid, and so would Benedict's resignation have been valid if it had in fact been his intention to resign the papacy, to totally relinquish the munus, and vacate the office. Salza & Siscoe assume that that was Benedict's intention, but Violi (and I also) have demonstrated by critically analyzing Benedict's words, that he expressly intended to only relinquish the active exercise of the munus, and not relinquish it entirely. That stated intention to not give up the papal munus constitutes a defect of intention, because it clearly expressed his intention to not resign the papacy, but in a limited capacity to remain in office; like a diocesan bishop who remains in office while his coadjutor with power of governance exercises the active exercise of jurisdiction in the diocese.
I have argued this point, but Salza & Siscoe have ignored it like the elephant in their living room.

Fr. Kramer "Apostate Antipope Francis & One World Religion"