LEST MY SILENCE BE CONSTRUED AS AN ADMISSION, I REPLY TO
THE MORE OUTRAGEOUS OF THE LIES THAT SALZA & SISCOE SACRILEGIOUSLY SPEW
AGAINST ME IN THEIR LATEST HIT PIECE
Video included...
The deceitful lying little boy holding to heresy is back at it and ready to take his buffoonery to new heights...
(The statements of Salza & Siscoe are in quotation
marks. My comments follow.)
«Fr. Kramer began mouthing off about our book (which he has
not read) on his Facebook page five months ago. No doubt he targeted our book
because it is the definitive refutation of Sedevacantist theology, which he has
adopted wholesale. »
In reality, I expressed disagreement with two erroneous
propositions, 1) That the Church can judge a pope; and, 2) That the Church
will not be greatly reduced in numbers during the apocalyptic time of severe
persecution, tribulation, and apostasy. I have never made any criticism of
their book, since I have not read it, and I do not intend to spend good money
on a book authored by men who, in their articles, interviews and posts,
manifest themselves to be theologically incompetent and legalistic
fundamentalists.
« When we began to respond to his posts, Kramer immediately
revealed he wasn’t interested in a fair debate or the truth. How so? He blocked
us from his Facebook page, and even began to send out emails about us behind
our backs, and which contain nothing but blatant lies about us and theological
positions we don’t hold. »
I blocked Robert Siscoe because he immediately challenged
my statement on
the doctrine of St. Robert Bellarmine by stating the
falsehood that I oppose the common opinion of theologians. His comments were
aggressively and arrogantly assertive; manifesting the mindset of one who is
not interested in discussing the matter, but only in insisting that he is
right, and attacking anyone who disagrees with him.
Siscoe and Salza are notorious for denigrating and mocking
people who disagree with their opinions. I do not tolerate such rude and
arrogant behavior on my FB page.
The positions they hold, which I have been refuting in my
articles are, 1) That heretics are not cut off from the body of the Church
until they have been judged by ecclesiastical authority —sententia hæretica,
and 2) That a pope, while in office, can be judged under any circumstance for
heresy by “Church authority”—sententia hæretica. I quote them here in their
own words: 1)« the sin of heresy disposes a person to be separated from
the visible Church, but the actual separation does not take place until the
Church itself renders a judgment » ; and, 2) « a heretical Pope is still the
Pope, until the Church’s authorities judge him to be a formal heretic.»
Out of their own mouths they are condemned. How can they
possibly claim that these theological positions expressed in their own words
are «theological
positions» that they «don't hold».
« Ever since these unsolicited attacks, we have been in
defensive mode, issuing articles to publicize the positions we actually hold,
while refuting his errors, and to defend our good names against his calumny and
slander. »
My replies to their four highly defamatory hit pieces they posted on their
My replies to their four highly defamatory hit pieces they posted on their
Website in response to my very brief expressions of
disagreement, are now being characterized as «unsolicited attacks»(!), and my
critique of their Defamatory remarks and theological quackery is referred to as
«calumny and slander».
What they refer to as my «errors», which they claim to be
«refuting» are in fact, distorted caricatures of my positions which they have
fabricated and attributed to me, in order to make it appear that I, and not
they, am the theologically incompetent heretic. Thus, Salza and Siscoe have
gratuitously accused me of adhering to the Protestant doctrines of Private
Judgement and an “invisible Church”.
I have already debunked these malicious and baseless
accusations in my earlier replies to Salza & Siscoe.
Their modus operandi is quite patently one of “tit for
tat”: I expose their heresy, so they accuse me of heresy.
I point out the plainly evident malice of their slanderous
attributions, so they respond by accusing me of calumny and slander.
«It has been truly sad to see this once- respected priest
fall so far from grace and become so hardened in his errors. But this is the
fruit of those who sin against the Faith, as Kramer has done. »
I have simply demonstrated that they do profess heresy, and
they remain hardened in their heresy.
The «sin against faith» they allege against me has already
been exposed in my previous replies to be nothing but a figment of their
criminal imaginations.
«To resolve this debate in good faith, we were approached
by a friend and confidant of Fr. Kramer to see if we could reach a resolution
that would put an end to this public exchange (an exchange which Kramer’s
friend no doubt knew the priest was losing, and quite disgracefully). Because
one of us personally knows and respects this gentleman, and because we believed
that our respective positions were already adequately presented, we agreed to
the proposed “cease fire.” To that end, we agreed to refrain from posting any
additional material on our website, and were informed by the confidant thatKramer had also agreed to the same.»
This is an outright falsehood —a blatant lie. I (and some
others at the Fatima Center) have carefully preserved all of the relevant email
exchanges on the proposed agreement. Our side proposed that both sides remove
all offending posts, and refrain from posting any additional material that
could be deemed
derogatory.
Salza balked at the proposal, demanding that it be more
“specific”. The reply given to him was that the proposal is already quite clear
and needs no further specification.
I removed all of my posts and tweets against Salza &
Co. Salza & Siscoe removed none.
Also, Salza’s claim that «Kramer’s friend no doubt knew the
priest was losing, and quite disgracefully», proves only that John Salza has no
talent for mind reading.
« Nevertheless, the very next day following the
“agreement,” Fr. Kramer, revealing that he has absolutely no integrity
whatsoever, did the following: He (1) posted an extensive communique’ on his
Facebook page attacking us and our work »
After the deadline had passed, and all of Salza's offensive
posts remained on his website long after I had removed all of my posts, it was
manifestly evident that Salza had no intention to abide by the terms of the
proposed agreement. On the following day, since he refused to abide by the
proposed terms of agreement, I re-posted all of the posts and tweets I had
removed the previous day.
« Kramer refuses to have the “theological” articles he has
written against us reviewed by a neutral panel of traditional Catholic
theologians!»
«Why would Fr. Kramer refuse to subject his work to
independent analysis by qualified priests and seminary professors? You know
why. Because he doesn’t want to be publicly refuted by his peers. »
This is a load of codswallop. If I didn't want my writings
reviewed by theologians, I would not be making them available for the whole
world to read.
Salza & Siscoe are lying again.
What I refused to do was to submit to the judgment of a
panel of theologians and abide by their private judgment. Salza
& Siscoe have vilified me in their posts,
distorting everything I say in order to make me appear to be a an insane heretic.
I am replying and will not agree to
remain silent until I have finished with my theological explication of the
disputed points.
Some of the “theologians” Salza &
Co. proposed to examine and judge my writings have less formal
education in theology than I have.
I am a holder of three
ecclesiastical degrees, and am a candidate for a fourth.
I earned two pontifical degrees at
the Angelicum in Rome.
I have studied under three
pontifical faculties, —in Rome, in Manila, and in Lima.
I cannot simply submit to and abide
by the theological judgment of a panel ofpriests, some of whom have less
formal university training in philosophy and
theology than I.
They are welcome to examine and
discuss my writings, but I will not allow them to be judges over me.
I will submit only to the judgment
of those who have the legitimate
authority to judge.
«Robert Siscoe six (yes, six!)
unsolicited emails containing further false accusations and outright calumny (and
then publicly complained that Robert Siscoe was harassing him by responding to
his e-mails).
We immediately pointed this out to
the confidant, and even gave Fr. Kramer three weeks to retract his material and
rectify the breach of our agreement before we issued a response. Fr. Paul
Kramer refused»
More empty verbiage —a heap of lies.
I never agreed to the terms proposed
by Salza & Siscoe.
Regarding the email exchange: Since
Salza and Siscoe had absurdly accused me of attacking them behind their backs when
I posted my critical comments
very publicly on Facebook, I decided
to send them a copy of my reply.
Nothing more.
Siscoe immediately replied by
bombarding me with his characteristically aggressive messages.
I did not wish to continue the
conversation, so I asked him to not send me any more messages.
He kept replying even after my
repeated requests for him to cease and desist.
My repeated requests for him to stop
pestering me with his insolent messages are what he calls
«six (yes, six!) unsolicited emails
containing further false accusations and outright calumny (and then publicly
complained that Robert Siscoe was harassing him by responding to his e-mails)»
What comedians!
(Yet Salza took great offense when a
radio show host referred to him and Siscoe as “clowns”!)
«And his cowardly refusal also
indicates that he [...]
has truly rejected the visible
Church, since he believes that all the traditional priests and theologians of
the world who recognize Francis is Pope are
not really Catholics, but members of
the mystical body of the antichrist»
In this passage, Salza & Siscoe
manifest plainly that their fanaticism has driven them mentally out of the
normal range and into the fairyland of delirium.
I have simply never made such a
statement, or one that even remotely suggests such a
thing—yet they keep on trying to convince their readers that it is not they who
have become delusional, but they say, «Fr. Kramer has gone mad.»
«We have nothing more to say to or
about Fr. Kramer»
If you can believe that , you will
believe anything!
TCK: John Salza has been implying Fr. Kramer and I are not credible...does this buffoon realize that not one of his websites have broken the 1 million ranking mark yet on Alexa. Trueorfalsepope has a ranking of 4million!!! That is not even in the stratosphere of being identified as"credibile". What this means in laymen's terms is that no one is listening to him. John Salza is all about the money these types need to be avoided outside of the already aforementioned heresy he clings to. He loves modernist approval. He is a spineless little boy trapped inside an even littler boys body. Clearly, he had too many of his peanut and butter jelly sandwiches stolen from him as a kid in the lunchroom.
He is a liar and has deceitfully misrepresented what I said to him via the phone then implied I was a protestant. He is narcissistic. It is no wonder that the late great Fr. Hesse wasnt buying the Salza show at all. The pseudo trad sites like the Remnant are free falling as many now see their compromise. The Remnant is one of the worst false traditionalist sites.
Salza & Siscoe Sideshow Reaches New Level of Buffoonery
