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
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
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.
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)»
(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