John Salza & Robert Siscoe: QUACK "THEOLOGIANS" AND PUBLIC ENEMIES OF THE CHURCH. PART II & III
Father Kramer
Fr. Paul Kramer is formally considered a "theologian" wilst Salza and Siscoe are only pretenders. What is scary is that these two are "Fellay's theologians!"
PART II
The deliberate intention to deceive is patent in the argument that Salza/Siscoe employ in their fraudulent attempt to make me appear mentally incapable of understanding the plain teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine on the loss of office of a heretical pope.
The deliberate intention to deceive is patent in the argument that Salza/Siscoe employ in their fraudulent attempt to make me appear mentally incapable of understanding the plain teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine on the loss of office of a heretical pope.
In my Reply, I demonstrated that Bellarmine's own opinion was expressed in opinion no. 5 of II Ch. XXX, De Romano Pontifice. That is what Bellarmine called the "true opinion". Before citing the verbatim text of Bellarmine, I riefly but accurately paraphrased his position, opinion no. 5, on the question; yet Salza and Siscoe say my understanding of Bellarmine on this point is "twisted" (!): 《Here’s Fr. Kramer’s twisted reading of Bellarmine:
“The main thrust of Bellarmine’s argument is that a pope who in FACT became a manifest heretic ceases to be a pope, a Christian and member of the Church. It is precisely due [sic] the FACT of loss of office [NB: by the private judgment of individual Catholics like Fr. Kramer] that he may be judged and punished by the Church. For so long as he holds office, a pope may not be judged by anyone” [except, evidently, by Fr. Kramer and his like-minded colleagues.]》
There are multiple deliberate lies in their fraudulent presentation on this point: 1) As I have already demonstrated in my Reply, what I expressed in my paraphrase of Bellarmine is essentially what St. Robert Bellarmine says in opinion no. 5. 2) Salza & Siscoe falsely state that according to me, a pope who is a manifest heretic loses office BY MEANS OF THE PRIVATE JUDGMENT OF INDIVIDUAL CATHOLICS(!!!) And 3) A pope who holds office may be judged by "Fr. Kramer and his like minded colleagues".
I stated unequivocally in the first segment of my Reply that according to Bellarmine, a pope who is in fact a manifest heretic CEASES to be a pope, a Christian and a member of the Church; and due to the FACT of manifest heresy, he CEASES to hold office. The loss of office takes place, as Bellarmine himself states, IPSO FACTO, and not by or after any judgment is made by private individuals or by Church officials. On this point Salza & Siscoe have deliberately falsified my explanation.
As I explained, according to Bellarmine, it is precisely because a manifestly heretical pope, by his heresy ipso facto loses office, may be judged and punished by the Church. While he holds office, the pope can be judged by no one; but after the loss of office which takes place ipso facto and without any judgment or declaration, then the heretical former pope may be judged and punished by the Church. This was my clearly expressed meaning, and it is the explicitly and unequivocally stated opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine in no. 5; yet with extreme malice, Salza & Siscoe state and falsely attribute to me the opinion that a pope still in office may be judged! What malicious and bold faced liars!
They also mendaciously and deliberately attributed to me the false opinion no. 2 which Bellarmine refutes; and they falsely attribute to Bellarmine a slightly modified version of opinion no. 4, which Bellarmine explicitly rejected and refuted -- while remaining totally silent about opinion no. 5, which Bellarmine says is "the true opinion".
Salza & Siscoe make a complete inversion of the teaching of Pope Pius XII, in order to justify their eccentric opinion on heresy which is totally opposed to the Church's understanding of the nature of the sin of heresy:
《 Perhaps Fr. Kramer got his erroneous opinion from a misreading/misapplication of Pope Pius XII’s Mystici Corporis Christi (so common on Sedevacantist websites), in which the Pope says “For not every offense (admissum), although it may be a grave evil, is such as by its very own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”[6] If Fr. Kramer would have read our book, he would have learned that the Pope was not teaching that the sin of heresy automatically causes the loss of ecclesiastical office, but rather that the nature of the crime of heresy requires no additional censure to sever one from the Body. But this does not nullify the necessity of the Church - who alone has the authority to judge whether a person is guilty of the crime of heresy - rendering a judgment, and most certainly in the case of a person who continues to present himself as a Catholic (as opposed to one who openly left the Church). This is precisely what John of St. Thomas explained when commenting on a similar teaching of St. Jerome, and he even applied the teaching to the case of a heretical Pope:》
《St Jerome (quoted by St. Robert Bellarmine): "Jerome comments . . . saying that other sinners, through a judgment of excommunication are excluded from the Church; heretics, however, leave by themselves and are cut from the body of Christ, "
The teaching of Bellarmine and St. Jerome on the nature of the sin of heresy by which one casts one's self out of the body of the Church is set forth by Pope Pius XII in his Encyclical, Mystici Corporis.
In no. 22 of Mystici Corporis, Pius XII teaches that those who "separate themselves from the unity of the body" are not members of the Church: "In Ecclesiae autem membris reapse ii soli annumerandi sunt, qui regenerationis lavacrum receperunt veramque fidem profitentur, neque a Corporis compage semetipsos misere separarunt, vel ob gravissima admissa a legitima auctoritate seiuncti sunt."
So, those who have been excluded by an act of authority, and those who "separate themselves from the unity of the Body", are not members of the Church. Those who "separate themselves from the unity of the body" are heretics, schismatics, and apoststes, because by the very nature of the sin of schism, heresy, or apostasy, one is severed from the body of the Church: "Siquidem non omne admissum, etsi grave scelus, eiusmodi est ut — sicut schisma, vel haeresis, vel apostasia faciunt — suapte natura hominem ab Ecclesiae Corpore separet." ("admissum" in this context means any voluntary fault, and is translated by the Vatican as "sin"; and does not strictly denote only a canonical offense or delict as Salza/Siscoe falsely claim.)
The magisterial doctrine must be understood according to the mind of the Church and the clear signification of the words in their text and context, which is best explained first and foremost by those officially recognized as Doctors of the Church, and by the Church's eminent theologians; such as one who would be recognized as a homo theologus -- one who is/was a professor of theology at a pontifical university, and has authored a major work in theology [AND NOT BY PSEUDO THEOLOGIANS WHO HAVE NO CREDENTIALS IN THEOLOGY].》
Salza/Siscoe are pseudo-theologian quacks who have no credentials that qualify them as theologians. They spout their own eccentric pseudo-theological speculations on the nature of heresy that have absolutely no basis in accepted Catholic theology or settled Catholic doctrine. Their bizarre theory that Pius XII refers to the canonical delict of heresy and its canonically imposed penalty of excommunication, but not to the public sin of heresy which by its very nature excommunicates the heretic is utterly without basis, and flies in the face of the generally accepted understanding of the doctrine. The Church understands and has understood that the public act of obstinate heresy by its very nature severs the heretic from external and internal union with the Church; and hence the excommunication for heresy it is not merely a latæ sentententiæ excommunication imposed a jure, but prior to that, in its very nature is a self executed act of self excommunication apart from the law and not depending on the law, but which the law merely recognizes canonically to have taken place.
Thus it is also patent that a pope who is an obstinate, public heretic, excommunucates himself by separating himself from the Church, and ceasing to be a member; and the excommunication is not a penalty imposed a jure; and is not a canonical penalty or censure at all, but is the direct effect of the public sin of obstinate heresy, by which ecclesiastical office is lost, and only then the canonical censures are incurred a jure, after the ipso facto loss of office.
From the above considerations, it is manifestly demonstrated that the Salza/Siscoe doctrine which views the excommunication for heresy as merely an ecclesiastical censure; and not principally as the consequence of self executed act of severing the bond of communion is false and contrary to the mind of the Church expressed in its magisterial teaching.
PART III
John Salza & Robert Siscoe lie when they state that "Fr. Kramer
has chosen to publicly criticize a book he has not read." In reality, I
have merely refuted their false doctrines expressed in the form of
propositions. It is their false doctrines and opinions, expressed mainly
on their website that I have chosen to debunk. The objection that I
have chosen to criticize their book is a red herring argument
maliciously intended to create the impression in the minds of their
unfortunate readers that I am just a mindless loose cannon that ought to
be dismissed out of hand. I have been concerned only with their
erroneous and heterodox propositions regardless of where they appeared.
The book as such has never been the subject of any criticism from me.
With a nearly inconceivable hypocrisy and sacrilegious audacity, Salza & Siscoe say, 《 It is truly unfortunate, and even sad, when a Catholic priest resorts to publicly bearing false witness – and especially about a matter that can so easily be proven to be a lie – as is the case with Fr. Paul Kramer’s statement above. 》The only thing is, the lie is theirs. What Salza & Siscoe have done is to remove my words from their proper context, and then they added another word in order to maliciously place them in a different context and attribute to them a different signification than that which I had intended.
Here are my words which they quote:
《The result of the errors of Salza & Siscoe is something far worse than the damage that the Sedevacantists have done to the Church; since their error attempts to deprive the Catholic of the only defense of the faith against the abomination of desolation… Salza/Siscoe and their ilk say Catholics must bow down in submissive obedience to the apocalyptic abomination where the Chair of Peter was established…”》
It is most patently obvious from my context that I refer by these words to the apocalyptic abomination foretold for the proximate future in the Church by Pope Leo XIII, "Behold the Church, the Spouse of the Immaculate Lamb, filled with bitterness and inebriated with gall by the most crafty enemies; who have laid impious hands on all that is most sacred. Where the See of the most blessed Peter and the Chair of the truth, was constituted as the light of the nations, there they have set up the throne of their abominable impiety, so that the shepherd being struck, the sheep may be dispersed."
From the context of my words it is manifestly evident that their proper meaning refers not merely materially heretical pope who must be resisted, as was John XXII, and as have been nearly all of the conciliar popes of the postconciliar Church; but to a public and formally heretical "pope" who must be categorically rejected -- one who consciously and manifestly seeks to destroy the Church and lead the great bulk of faithful into apostasy by means of FALSE DOCTRINE: “Abominatio desolationis intelligi potest et omne dogma perversum: quod cum viderimus stare in loco sancto, hoc est in Ecclesia.” (St. Jerome, Liber IV, Comment. in cap. XXIV Matthei.)
In such a scenario foretold by St. Jerome and many saints and theologians interpreting the scriptures one sees plainly the "operation of error" (2 Thess. 2:11) that will culminate in the "mystery of iniquity", in which the Roman Pontiff will be "taken out of the way" (2 Thess. 2:7); and an apostate entity, a counterfeit "church"under a false and heretical pope will take the place of the true Church.
It will be when the Church eventually finds itself in such a dire situation that the Catholic will not be able to wait for a judgment to be made by "the Church", since it will be precisely in those dire circumstances that a judgment from him who will have been "taken out of the way" (2Thess. 2:7) will be quite impossible.
What judgment can the faithful then expect when the Church finds
itself in a situation even worse than that in the time of the Aryan
crisis(?), described by St. Jerome in his Dialogue against the
Luciferians: "The whole world groaned and was astonished to find itself
Arian." St. Vincent of Lerins described it saying, "So also when the
Arian poison had infected not an insignificant portion of the Church but
almost the whole world, so that a sort of blindness had fallen upon
almost all the bishops of the Latin tongue, circumvented partly by force
partly by fraud, and was preventing them from seeing what was most
expedient to be done in the midst of so much confusion, then whoever was
a true lover and worshipper of Christ, preferring the ancient belief to
the novel misbelief, escaped the pestilent infection." (Commonitory Ch.
4)
It is plainly insane to hold the opinion that Catholics must acknowledge and recognize such a manifestly apostate "pope" to be the successor of St. Peter while waiting for a future judgment to be made by a future pope after the crisis will have been resolved; or by bishops afflicted with "a sort of blindness . . . preventing them from seeing what was most expedient to be done in the midst of so much confusion".
It is absolutely forbidden by divine law for Catholics to be in communion with heretics and apostates; and when they see what St. Vincent of Lerins describes, when some "novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole" (Commonitory Ch. 3), one cannot remain in communion with that apostate "whole": one may not be subject to such a false authority. This is the plainly evident sense of my words which Salza & Siscoe have maliciously taken out of their context:
"Salza/Siscoe and their ilk say that Catholics must bow down in submissive obedience to the apocalyptic abomination where the Chair of Peter was established -- that we must remain in communion with this "throne of abominable impiety". God commands the opposite: "And I heard another voice out of the heaven saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye have not fellowship in her sins" - Apoc. 18:4)"
So while it is plainly evident that by the words "bow down in submissive obedience", I clearly mean to "remain in communion with this 'throne of abominable impiety' ", i.e. to remain SUBJECT to it; Salza & Siscoe maliciously falsify the meaning of my words by adding the modifier "blind": 《blind “submissive obedience” (in Kramer’s words). 》 In this manner they falsely attribute to me a meaning for the words "submissive obedience" that is plainly different from the clearly evident meaning of my words in their proper context; altering their proper signification from the obedience of submission by which the jurisdiction of a superior is acknowledged, to a servile and indiscreet obedience, which was clearly not my meaning.
Thus it is that by falsifying my words, Salza and Siscoe have fabricated the lie and put the lying words in my mouth; and with an abominable and sacrilegious impiety, they then accuse the priest of lying!
With a nearly inconceivable hypocrisy and sacrilegious audacity, Salza & Siscoe say, 《 It is truly unfortunate, and even sad, when a Catholic priest resorts to publicly bearing false witness – and especially about a matter that can so easily be proven to be a lie – as is the case with Fr. Paul Kramer’s statement above. 》The only thing is, the lie is theirs. What Salza & Siscoe have done is to remove my words from their proper context, and then they added another word in order to maliciously place them in a different context and attribute to them a different signification than that which I had intended.
Here are my words which they quote:
《The result of the errors of Salza & Siscoe is something far worse than the damage that the Sedevacantists have done to the Church; since their error attempts to deprive the Catholic of the only defense of the faith against the abomination of desolation… Salza/Siscoe and their ilk say Catholics must bow down in submissive obedience to the apocalyptic abomination where the Chair of Peter was established…”》
It is most patently obvious from my context that I refer by these words to the apocalyptic abomination foretold for the proximate future in the Church by Pope Leo XIII, "Behold the Church, the Spouse of the Immaculate Lamb, filled with bitterness and inebriated with gall by the most crafty enemies; who have laid impious hands on all that is most sacred. Where the See of the most blessed Peter and the Chair of the truth, was constituted as the light of the nations, there they have set up the throne of their abominable impiety, so that the shepherd being struck, the sheep may be dispersed."
From the context of my words it is manifestly evident that their proper meaning refers not merely materially heretical pope who must be resisted, as was John XXII, and as have been nearly all of the conciliar popes of the postconciliar Church; but to a public and formally heretical "pope" who must be categorically rejected -- one who consciously and manifestly seeks to destroy the Church and lead the great bulk of faithful into apostasy by means of FALSE DOCTRINE: “Abominatio desolationis intelligi potest et omne dogma perversum: quod cum viderimus stare in loco sancto, hoc est in Ecclesia.” (St. Jerome, Liber IV, Comment. in cap. XXIV Matthei.)
In such a scenario foretold by St. Jerome and many saints and theologians interpreting the scriptures one sees plainly the "operation of error" (2 Thess. 2:11) that will culminate in the "mystery of iniquity", in which the Roman Pontiff will be "taken out of the way" (2 Thess. 2:7); and an apostate entity, a counterfeit "church"under a false and heretical pope will take the place of the true Church.
It will be when the Church eventually finds itself in such a dire situation that the Catholic will not be able to wait for a judgment to be made by "the Church", since it will be precisely in those dire circumstances that a judgment from him who will have been "taken out of the way" (2Thess. 2:7) will be quite impossible.
It is plainly insane to hold the opinion that Catholics must acknowledge and recognize such a manifestly apostate "pope" to be the successor of St. Peter while waiting for a future judgment to be made by a future pope after the crisis will have been resolved; or by bishops afflicted with "a sort of blindness . . . preventing them from seeing what was most expedient to be done in the midst of so much confusion".
It is absolutely forbidden by divine law for Catholics to be in communion with heretics and apostates; and when they see what St. Vincent of Lerins describes, when some "novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole" (Commonitory Ch. 3), one cannot remain in communion with that apostate "whole": one may not be subject to such a false authority. This is the plainly evident sense of my words which Salza & Siscoe have maliciously taken out of their context:
"Salza/Siscoe and their ilk say that Catholics must bow down in submissive obedience to the apocalyptic abomination where the Chair of Peter was established -- that we must remain in communion with this "throne of abominable impiety". God commands the opposite: "And I heard another voice out of the heaven saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye have not fellowship in her sins" - Apoc. 18:4)"
So while it is plainly evident that by the words "bow down in submissive obedience", I clearly mean to "remain in communion with this 'throne of abominable impiety' ", i.e. to remain SUBJECT to it; Salza & Siscoe maliciously falsify the meaning of my words by adding the modifier "blind": 《blind “submissive obedience” (in Kramer’s words). 》 In this manner they falsely attribute to me a meaning for the words "submissive obedience" that is plainly different from the clearly evident meaning of my words in their proper context; altering their proper signification from the obedience of submission by which the jurisdiction of a superior is acknowledged, to a servile and indiscreet obedience, which was clearly not my meaning.
Thus it is that by falsifying my words, Salza and Siscoe have fabricated the lie and put the lying words in my mouth; and with an abominable and sacrilegious impiety, they then accuse the priest of lying!
Look for a TradCatKnight Radio Show over the next week featuring Fr. Kramer on the matter...
