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]

Wednesday, February 8, 2017


Fr. Kramer

The magnum opus of Salza & Siscoe is the product of diabolical genius. They artfully interpret questions of doctrine to make them appear to be questions of law; and they twist questions of law like pretzels until they look like questions of penal law. Then they insist that all of the procedures of penal law must first be followed before one is permitted to express an opinion on a matter such as loss of office for tacit resignation, which does not pertain to penal law.

This deceptive artifice is employed systematically throughout the entire book, in such a manner that leaves no doubt, but that it is the authors' intention to deceive, and present truth as error and error as truth.
I already have fairly extensive notes, commenting on their book. They interpret magisterial texts with a subtle cunning that boggles the mind. One example:
Mystici Corporis: "In Ecclesiae autem membris reapse ii soli annumerandi sunt, qui regenerationis lavacrum receperunt veramque fidem profitentur, neque a Corporis compage semet ipsos misere separarunt, vel ob gravissima admissa a legitima auctoritate seiuncti sunt." and, "Siquidem non omne admissum, etsi grave scelus, eiusmodi est ut — sicut schisma, vel haeresis, vel apostasia faciunt — suapte natura hominem ab Ecclesiae Corpore separet."
Salza & Siscoe go to great lengths to insist that the words "admissa" and "admissum" mean, "crime(s)", and not "sin(s)"; but when you examine the grammar of text very carefully, IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE HOW YOU TRANSLATE THE TERMS.
Read the Latin text very carefully -- it says: "And thus not every offense, even a grave crime, does such -- as schism, heresy, and apostasy do -- by their very nature separate a man from the Church."
There it is: Others are separated from the Church "by the legitimate authority of the Church"; as opposed to those who "miserably separate themselves from union with the Church". SALZA & SISCOE CITE THIS TEXT TO SUPPORT THEIR HERETICAL BELIEF THAT HERESY DOES NOT BY ITSELF SEPARATE A MAN FROM THE CHURCH, "without an ADDITIONAL sanction." (!) But if there is ANY SANCTION AT ALL, then the offender is separated by the "legitimate authority of the Church", and therefore not because they "miserably separate themselves from the Church".
The entire book employs this technique of twisting the meaning of the words of a passage like a pretzel to make them fit into their own legalistic-fundamentalistic frame. They stupidly declared that I "criticized their book without reading it" -- what bold faced liars! Now I have read their oversized screed -- and their worst nightmare is about to begin.