Fr. Kramer Still Educating Suspected Mason and Pseudo Trad John Salza

 Fr. Kramer Still Educating Suspected Mason and Pseudo Trad John Salza

My name was thrown around by this heretic via some recent emails as "clueless" and another false prophet of WW3?  Salza remains a heretical money driven, tap-dancing, lying enemy of the Church 

Mr. Salza, 

     The pathology of your Narcissistic delusional state is manifesting itself quite plainly in your words: "Keep the comedy hour going, Kramer, please. Any reasonable person would question if there is truly an incapacity [on your part, Salza] to comprehend the material ... " You, Salza, as I have demonstrated and explained at length, have crudely misinterpreted St. Robert Bellarmine's exposition of the Fifth Opinion on the deposition of a heretic pope as it has been explained by the most eminent theologians and canonists (several of whom I have quoted); stupidly equating it with the opinion of Suarez. 

In your delusional state you imagine that Wernz, Vidal, Moynihan, Hinschius, Coronata, and the other eminent authorities who explain Bellarmine's doctrine are mistaken in their interpretation of Bellarmine on the Fifth Opinion; and in your megalomania, you attempt to make it appear that I stand alone in my interpreting Bellarmine exactly according to the same sense and meaning of those eminent scholars. You even deliberately twist and absurdly falsify the explanation given by Fr. Sebastian Smith on this point in order to create the false impression in the minds of your unfortunate readers, that the "unanimous opinion" of theologians holds (contrary to the law and teaching of the Church), that the loss of office for manifest heresy does not take place ipso facto without the public judgment of the Church. You and Siscoe have inverted the truth in this matter, hysterically claiming in your book that those who follow what is now the unanimous Opinion among those theologians and canonists who admit at least as a hypothesis, that a pope can become a heretic, (No. 5), (in the manner that it is explained by all of the eminent scholars who have examined each of the five opinions), "nonsensically reject the unanimous opinion, one cannot hold the Jesuit opinion (the Pope loses his office ipso facto), without also holding the unanimous opinion (the Pope must at least be declared guilty of the crime of heresy by the Church).”  You then conclude against what has been established and is held with a unanimous consensus of scholars that the “rejection of [what is according to you and Siscoe] the unanimous opinion is clearly not the fruit of sound, scholarly research of the question, but rather a rash and superficial judgment based, in many cases, on snippets read on the internet”. (!) 

     Although my commentary on the Five Opinions, and my analysis of Bellarmine's exposition  of the Fifth Opinion is, as I have demonstrated, in total agreement with the unanimous consensus of the expert ecclesiastical writers, you, John Salza, on 8 Sept 2016, wrote: "There are so many errors, omissions and question-begging in this analysis [...] it is difficult to believe that Fr. Kramer has done any real study of St. Bellarmine  [...] Fr. Kramer's analysis is one of the more shallow and superficial interpretations of Bellarmine that we have seen". In spite of the fact that Fr. Gruner and I together carefully examined the text of Bellarmine on the Five Opinions (in Fr. Gruner's 19th Century Latin edition of De Romano Pontifice) more than 25 years ago, and fully agreed on its interpretation, you, Salza, with an almost unfathomable stupidity, ignorantly replied to my comment of Bellarmine's doctrine: “with this utterly erroneous assertion it does not seem possible that he has even read Bellarmine’s De Romano Pontifice.” (!)

     I have actually made an in depth and lengthy analysis of Bellarmine's original Latin texts on this topic, and I presented the verbatim opinions of the most eminent scholars on the same; but all you can say in reply is: "It has become painfully evident that Fr. Paul Kramer is getting his theology on a heretical Pope [...] exclusively from Sedevacantist websites. He is surely not getting it from St. Robert Bellarmine, even though that is the impression he wants to give his flock." I have also exposed the false premises that your errant interpretation is based on. Hence, it is manifestly patent that you, Salza, (as they say in the vernacular), are not playing with a full deck.

     You, Salza, have gone so far as to superimpose a Suarezian meaning on the clearly elaborated teaching of Ballerini on that same point of ipso facto loss of office due to manifest heresy. You have confused the loss of office which Ballerini explicitly  says would take place by an act of "abdication" resulting in a loss of office, with what you misconstrue to be a judgment of the Church which results in a loss of office -- as if such an act of papal abdication would not be valid ipso facto unless the Church would first judge the pontiff guilty of the crime of heresy!

     You, Salza, ignorantly state the absurdity (which I have demonstrated, basing my proof on the expert commentaries of the Canon Law faculty of the University of Seville -    VOCABULARIO DE SIGNIFICACIONES DE DERECHO CANÓNICO, p. 5  [Universidad de Sevilla] ), that a declaratory sentence is not a juridical act; and that not even a declaratory sentence would be necessary for the Church to render a public judgment! This is pure silliness -- clownery: The very idea that there could be a juridically valid public judgment of the Church without at least a declaratory sentence is absurd on its face. Yet it is your plainly stated doctrine, so then you mendaciously reply with idle and empty verbiage, saying, " you repeatedly falsify our position in the face of countless corrections". . . No, Salza, you don't correct me nor do you properly qualify your own statements, but you contradict yourself and thereby end in a logically incoherent position. No! I do not falsify your position in the face of countless corrections; rather, I expose your position in the face of countless contradictions -- your positions that are logically incoherent because thay are premised on contradictory notions.

     Your heretical doctrine which denies that the public sin of heresy, in its nature as a pertinacious denial or doubt of a revealed truth that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, separates one from the body of the Church, is a prime example of the logical incoherence of your positions:

《In our book and articles, we also explicitly say that public (notorious) heresy severs one from the Body WITHOUT regard to "law or precept."》

     I have read your heretical book and articles, Salza. First off: It is patently logically incoherent and intrinsically contradictory for you to say, "public (notorious) heresy severs one from the Body WITHOUT regard to 'law or precept' " -- and then to say that "the sin of heresy, of its nature, does not result in a separation from the Church quoad nos (according to us), nor does it result in the loss of office” ; since, if the matter and form of the SIN is notorious, then, even if there existed no law or precept, the sin of heresy would, suapte natura, visibly sever the heretic from the body of the Church, per se, as well as quo ad nos, without any of the additional qualifications you require, which alter the specific nature of the act from simple formal heresy, to heresy qualified by formal defection. Formal denial of an article of faith suffices suapte natura to separate one from the body of the Church, without the additional qualification of explicit formal defection, or explicit admission of heresy (which is tantamount to an act of formal defection).

     You have falsely declared, "For example, you continue to accuse us of holding that only the crime of heresy severs one from the Body, but in our book we QUALIFY that statement over and over again - but you, Kramer, are such a dishonest person, you don't bring qualifications or distinctions into your argumentation, even though your emails are ridiculously long-winded and rambling." Salza, I have dealt with your bogus requirement of "qualifications"; such as a formal act of defection, or an explicit admission of denying an article of faith, etc. You have heretically denied that the manifest sin of heresy alone severs one from the Body of the Church suapte natura; in such a manner that it would result that even the patently inexcusable public denial of an article of faith would not by itself, without a public judgment of the Church, suapte natura, separate one visibly from the body of the Church, without any of the additional qualifications you require for the act to be considered  notorious. You heretically deny that the SIN of manifest heresy, i.e. the public pertinacious denial or doubt of a revealed truth that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, by its very nature, separates one from the body of the Church. You and Siscoe heretically profess the opposing belief, namely that not the sin of public, manifest heresy suapte natura; but the crime of heresy, or at least the external act of heresy, notorious by fact (according to the qualifications that you erroneously ascribe to the term which alter the specific nature of the act), separates one from the body of the Church suapte natura. You also falsely profess explicitly that, "The external act of heresy is, by its nature, a crime", and that this crime must at least be notorious by fact in order to sever one from the body of the Church. 

     On the question of loss of office due to manifest heresy, St. Robert Bellarmine teaches, “Thenceforth, the Holy Fathers teach in unison, that not only are heretics outside the Church, but they even lack all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity ipso facto.” That he treats of the SIN of manifest heresy, and not the canonical CRIME of notorious heresy (i.e. the canonical delict of heresy notorious by fact or law) is demonstrated with the words: "For those Fathers, when they say that heretics lose jurisdiction, do not allege any human laws which maybe did not exist then on this matter; rather, they argued from the nature of heresy." Thus clearly, he does not speak of the CRIME of "notorious heresy", but says the act of manifest heresy, ex natura hæresis: i.e. the SIN of manifest heresy, namely, "the public pertinacious denial or doubt of a revealed truth that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith", separates one from the body of the Church and effects the loss of whatever ecclesiastical office the heretic may have held.

     Thus, it can be plainly seen that the canons on loss of office due to public defection from the faith are strictly premised theologically on the heretic's separation from the body of the Church by the act of manifest formal heresy; for which a public act suffices -- it need not be public and notorious as you claim. If the latter were the case, then "mere" public heresy would not suffice to effect an ipso facto loss of office, but public heresy, according to the doctrine and canons of the Church, is all that is required for the loss of office to take place. I explained in my manuscript:

《For the pertinacity of formal heresy to be manifest, it would be [theologically but not canonically] necessary that the conditions set forth in Canon 2197 of the 1917 code for notoriety of fact be present: “3° Notorium notorietate facti, si publice notum sit et in talibus adiunctis commissum, ut nulla tergiversatione celari nulloque iuris suffragio excusari possit”. Thus, as the above quoted commentary of the Pontifical Canon Law Faculty of Salamanca explains, for there to be notoriety of fact, two conditions are required; 1) the act and its imputability must be publicly known, and 2) it must have been committed under such circumstances that by no subterfuge can it be concealed, nor by any understanding of the law can it be excused.  The same commentary, in its fairly lengthy comment on the canon under consideration [Canon 188 §4], explains the sense in which the act of formal heresy must be publicly known [not for a crime to be notorious by fact, but for the automatic loss of office to take place ipso facto], in essentially the same, but in a more detailed manner than Ayrinhac and Beal explain it; namely, that it must be “generally known or liable to become so before long” (Ayrinhac); or “known or likely to become known” (Beal).》

      Thus it is clearly the teaching and law of the Catholic Church that the public act of manifest formal heresy, i.e. the public SIN OF HERESY, separates one from the body of the Church, and effects the ipso facto loss of office by the operation of the law itself (ipso jure); which need not be public in the manner and degree that would be required for a crime to be considered notorious by fact*. For the loss of office due to public defection from the faith to take place, public heresy suffices. In order that notoriety of fact be required for the loss of office to take place, it would have been necessary for that condition to be clearly stated in the canons. One may not interpret canons by adding qualifications and conditions that are not expressly specified in the canons; because the law must be understood according to the proper signification of its terms: "Can. 17 — Leges ecclesiasticae intellegendae sunt secundum propriam verborum significationem in textu et contextu consideratam".

Hence, there is a glaring defect im your logic, Salza:

《It is correct to say the “sin of heresy, by its nature, severs one from the Church” IF (listen carefully, Kramer):

(1)    you mean from the Soul of the Church, since such a sin destroys supernatural faith; or,

(2)    you mean from the Body of the Church dispositively, but not formally, since formal separation occurs only by public and notorious heresy; or,

(3)    you mean the culprit ceases to be a Catholic quoad se (of himself) or in God’s eyes, but not quoad nos (in relation to us), since the juridical bond remains.》

     NO, Salza, I do not mean,  1) "[only] from the Soul of the Church, since such a sin destroys supernatural faith"; nor do I mean, 2) "from the Body of the Church dispositively, but not formally, since [according to you, Salza] formal separation occurs only by public and notorious heresy"; nor do I mean, "the culprit ceases to be a Catholic [only] quoad se (of himself) or in God’s eyes, but not quoad nos (in relation to us), since the juridical bond [according to you] remains".

     From what I have explained, it is plainly evident that according to the faith of the Catholic Church:  The public sin of manifest formal heresy visibly separates one suapte natura from the body of the Church; and since that visible separation is caused by the sin of heresy suapte natura, it does not mean one is separated "from the Body of the Church dispositively"; but one is visibly and actually separated from the Body of the Church "ex natura hæresis", as St. Robert Bellarmine explains. For this reason, therefore, by means of the public sin of manifest formal heresy, the public heretic is no longer united to the Church -- neither by internal nor external union (as Bellarmine explains), and thus ceases visibly "by himself" (per se) to be a member of the Church. This is the de fide doctrine of the Catholic Church, which you and Siscoe obstinately deny.

     You, Salza, falsely claim that "the culprit ceases to be a Catholic [only] quoad se (of himself) or in God’s eyes, but not quoad nos (in relation to us), since the juridical bond remains"; but you err by failing to take into account that one ceases altogether to be a  member of the Church by the nature of the act of visibly severing the bonds of internal and external union; apart from any human laws: Hence, one does not need to be juridically guilty according to law of the crime of heresy at least notorious by fact in order to visibly cease being a member of the Church. By visibly ceasing to be a member of the Church, one ceases to be a member both per se and quo ad nos. One ceases to be an actual member of the Church simpliciter by visibly ceasing to be united to the Church by external union, which is accomplished by the public SIN of manifest formal heresy suapte natura -- apart from any merely perceived  juridical bonds based on an incomplete, contradictory, and essentially defective understanding of merely ecclesiastical penal law. Therefore, as I explain in my manuscript: 《It must be borne in mind that what is set forth in Canon Law on the nature of defection from the faith or from communion with the Church, and on the consequent loss of office resulting from such a defection, is not a matter of “merely ecclesiastical law” (as mere provisions of purely human positive law in the Code are referred to in Canon 11), but pertains to divine law revealed by God, and that these precepts of divine law are merely enshrined in the provisions of Canon Law that treat of loss of ecclesiastical office due to defection from the faith."》No human law can change this, because no human legislator possesses the power to change the law of God; and the fact that one might not be notoriously guilty of heresy does not negate the fact that the heretic's juridical bond with the Church is already severed  by the mere fact that one who publicly defects from the faith or communion with the Church (by a manifest act of formal heresy, schism, or apostasy)        is recognized by law to have ipso jure to have lost office (Can. 194), and separated himself from the body of the Church. (cf. Council of Constance, Sess. 37).

     The remainder of your gratuitously denigrating and delusional ad hominem rant does not merit to be dignified with a reply; except that I point out the deliberate nature of the ludicrously absurd mendacity you express in the delusional howlers you have stated: 1) "It would be great if you would finish the comedy hour by actually submitting your ever fluid and changing internet 'paper' to the SSPX theologians you ran away from last year, when we challenged you to do the same." This is a comically pathetic and deliberate lie: I did not "run away" from any debate with the SSPX theologians. I posted on Twitter and Facebook, and sent to a list of recipients, including SSPX priests, a total of more than 300 pages. What I refused to do was to agree to submit myself to accept their judgment as a binding ruling. Your malice, Salza, is patent in your lie. 2) You most ignorantly assert that I am "clueless about Catholic ecclesiology and the classical treatises on heresy and the papacy" -- this patently moronic and megalomanic assertion is manifestly as false as it is gratuitous and malicious.  My Ecclesiology is identical to that of Mgr. Tissier, Fr. Gregor Hesse S.T.D., and Archbishop Lefebvre (as I have plainly demonstrated). 3) You say, "Let us continue the education for you"; and, you would teach me to make "the critical theological distinctions that you [i.e. I] never learned [!] in your liberal, Novus Ordo seminary training, but that Robert Siscoe and I will teach you." [LOL!] You, did not study Philosophy and Theology in Rome in a pontifical university as I did, under the last generation of Angelicum Thomists, who were the luminaries of the Dominican order before Vatican II -- yet you and Siscoe, would presume to teach Theology to me! You think Fr. Laisney, an SSPX graduate of the Ecône seminary is more competent than the renowned Dominican scholars, all with doctorates and some with multiple doctorates, who were my mentors at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas! You manifest yourself to be an arrogant and clownish buffoon in these hysterical comments you scribble; so if you really would like to "finish the comedy hour" then all you need to do is to leave off with the buffoonery, and make an end of your patently pathetic clownery.

Fr. Paul Kramer  B.Ph., S.T.B., M.Div., S.T.L. (cand.)

* Notorious - 《Ordinarily it is equivalent to public, manifest, evident, known; all these terms have something in common, they signify that a thing, far from being secret, may be easily known by many. Notoriety, in addition to this common idea, involves the idea of indisputable proof, so that what is notorious is held as proved and serves as a basis for the conclusions and acts of those in authority, especially judges. To be as precise as is possible, "public" means what any one may easily prove or ascertain, what is done openly; what many persons know and hold as certain, is "manifest"; what a greater or less number of persons have learnt, no matter how, is "known"; what is to be held as certain and may no longer be called in question is "notorious"... Whatever is easily shown and is known by a sufficient number of persons to be free from reasonable doubt is notorious in fact. This kind of notoriety may refer either to a transitory fact, e.g., Caius was assassinated; or permanent facts, e.g., Titius is parish priest of this parish; or recurring facts, e.g. Sempronius engages in usurioustransactions. Whatever has been judicially ascertained, viz., judicial admissions, an affair fully proved, and the judgment rendered in a lawsuit, is notorious in law; the judge accepts the fact as certain without investigation; nor will he allow, except in certain well-specified cases, the matter to be called in question. "Notorious" is then used as more or less synonymous with "official". Such also are facts recorded in official documents, as civil or ecclesiastical registries of births, deaths, or marriages, notarial records. Lastly, whatever arises from a rule of law based on a "violent" presumption, for instance, paternity and filiation in case of a legitimate marriage, is presumptively notorious.》(Catholic Encyclopedia)

Salza & Siscoe Sideshow Reaches New Level of Buffoonery