"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]

Friday, February 9, 2018




John F. Salza, falsely state: "you continue to accuse us of holding that only the crime of heresy severs one from the Body" -- No, Salza, you are lying again: we all agree that one who explicitly defects from the Church, even if the act is not morally imputable, ceases to be a member of the Church; and if the act is morally imputable, the effect of being severed from the body of the Church takes place as a natural consequence of the act itself. Such an act is of the specific nature not of mere heresy, but of formal rejection of the Church, and is distinguished essentially from simple heresy, which is of the nature of an obstinate denial or doubt of one or more articles of faith. The fact that you resort to such crude obfuscation manifests just how desperate you are to create the appearance of being misrepresented.

YOU say: 《And, even more so, we will show how Kramer is a diabolical liar for accusing us of claiming that admissum in Mystici Corporis "STRICTLY means crime and not sin"》
However, this is what YOU wrote, Salza: “Pope Pius XII is referring to the ’offense’ or CRIME (not SIN) of heresy, which severs one from the Body of the Church, after the formal and material elements have been proven by the Church.” Thus you perversely twist a clear papal moral teaching on the natural consequence of the sin of heresy into a nonsensical hair-splitting legal commentary on the canonical crime of heresy.
It is your explicitly stated position, (based on your errant legalism which you employ to heretically interpret Mystici Corporis), which holds 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).” Again, Pius XII explicitly teaches that it is heresy itself, the sin, by its own nature (and not the crime by the authority of the Church) which separates the heretic from the body of the Church, as I pointed out in my manuscript, Salza, and therefore there can be no necessity for the Church to judge in order that one be separated from the body of the Cburch by heresy; because, (Pius XII eplains) that the separation is effected by the heresy itself, suapte natura, and not "by legitimate authority" -- thus, no judgment of the Church is involved in the separation of the heretic from the body of the Church. You remain obstinate in your heresy on this point.
And let's not forget Siscoe: 《Siscoe likewise remains entrenched in heresy, "I applied the Thomistic distinction of quoad se/quoad nos to show that, just because heresy of its nature severs a person from the Church (spiritually), does not mean heresy, of its nature, causes a person to cease being a member of the Church (legally). And I quoted the great John of St. Thomas who explained it exactly the way I did." Siscoe elaborates: “Did you even read John Salza’s recent article that prompted this e-mail exchange? John and I both contributed to that article so it represents both of our opinions. We both affirm that the sin of heresy, of its nature, separates a person from the Church quoad se (of itself), but 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. […] As long as a person remains a member of the Church quoad nos – even if he has committed the sin of heresy and has lost the faith - he remains a legal member of the Church; and if the person in question is a bishop or Pope, he retains his office until the crime has been legally established by the proper authorities.” Then he quotes John of St. Thomas:
“[J]ust as the Church, by designating the man, proposed him juridically to all as the elected Pope, so too, it is necessary that she depose him by declaring him a heretic and proposing him as vitandus (one to be avoided). Hence, we see from the practice of the Church that this is how it has been done; for, in the case of the deposition of a Pope, his cause was handled in a general Council before he was considered not to be Pope, as we have related above. It is not true, then, that the Pope ceases to be Pope by the very fact [ipso facto] that he is a heretic, even a public one, before any sentence of the Church and before she proposes him to the faithful as one who is to be avoided. Nor does Jerome exclude the judgment of the Church (especially in so grave a matter as the deposition of a Pope) when he says that a heretic departs from the body of Christ of his own accord; rather, he is judging the quality of the crime, which of its very nature excludes one from the Church—provided that the crime is declared by the Church—without the need for any superadded censure; for, although heresy separates one from the Church by its very nature, nevertheless, this separation is not thought to have been made, as far as we are concerned [quoad nos], without that declaration.”
Siscoe then comments, “Before continuing, notice the point he makes about heresy, of its nature, severing a person from the Church without the need for any additional censure. This is how heresy, schism and apostasy differ from other mortal sins, which, of their nature, deprive a person from sanctifying grace, but do not separate them from the Church. It requires an additional censure for other sins to sever a person from the Church. For example, abortion severs a person from the Church, not by the nature of the sin, but due to the censure of excommunication that has been attached to it by the Church.” Siscoe is simply saying that other sins require the additional censure of excommunication for one to be cut off from membership in the Church, but for heresy, schism and apostasy, excommunication is not necessary, but only the judgment of the Church by which one is declared a heretic. He again quotes John of St. Thomas:
“Likewise, we respond to his reasoning in this way: one who is not a Christian, both in himself (quoad se) and in relation to us (quoad nos), cannot be Pope; however, if in himself he is not a Christian (because he has lost the faith) but in relation to us has not yet been juridically declared as an infidel or heretic (no matter how manifestly heretical he is according to private judgment), he is still a member of the Church as far as we are concerned (quoad nos); and consequently he is its head. It is necessary, therefore, to have the judgment of the Church, by which he is proposed to us as someone who is not a Christian, and who is to be avoided; and at that point he ceases to be Pope in relation to us (quoad nos); and we further conclude that he had not ceased to be Pope before [the declaration], even in himself, since all of his acts were valid in themselves.”》
It is very clear from these and other texts of yours, what you and Siscoe mean by the words, "no additional censure"; namely, that there is no need in addition to the judgment of heresy, the "additional censure of a vitandus declaration" or of the "additional censure of excommunication". Nevertheless, you engage in deliberate deception when you say, "And to respond to yet another of Fr. Kramer’s straw man arguments, when we use the phrase 'additional censure' or 'further censure,' we do not mean a second censure in addition to some prior censure. As should be obvious to anyone of sound mind, when we say heresy, OF ITS NATURE, severs a person from the Church without an additional censure, we do not mean heresy DOES NOT sever a person from the Church, of its nature, but instead does so due to a preceding censure! How Kramer could have possibly thought that is what we meant is anyone’s guess, but it is certainly not correct." How Kramer could have possibly thought that "additional censure" means an excommunication in addition a judgment of heresy by the Church is obvious from your own words, Salza; and therefore, what is obvious to anyone of sound mind is that you are lying.
You have gone to great length to obscure, obfuscate, and create a fog of confusion on this point, but your heretical doctrine is plainly expressed, and can easily grasped for what it is, once the fog of obfuscation you deliberately created has been cleared away from the explicit essential content of your words.
However, it doesn't stop there, Salza, but it becomes pathetically comical, when you & Siscoe insist on the one hand that heresy publicly manifested does not sever one from the body of the Church without the judgment of the Church; and then you go on to state the absurdity that not even a declaratory sentence is required for such a "public judgment of the Church" to be made! Your doctrine is a self-negating web of contradictions, Salza!
Salza, you wrote: "Only public and notorious heresy separates one from the Body of the Church." But what YOU erroneously explained to be "public and notorious heresy" is what you explicitly and wrongly equated with publicly renouncing the Church as the rule of faith: "Publicly renouncing the Church as the rule of Faith (abandoning the profession of the faith) - by its nature - severs the juridical bonds. It is the nature of the act itself that does so without any extrinsic authority. And this can be the case even if the person is still united to the Soul of the Church, which proves that the nature of the sin of heresy does not sever the juridical, external bonds, like Fr. Kramer argues. It is rather the nature of notorious heresy that does so." Thus, you, Salza, confuses formal defection from the Church with formal heresy properly understood as the pertinacious denial or doubt of a revealed truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith. Whether public, notorious, occult, or merely internal, the act of heresy, is defined as the obstinate denial or doubt of an article of faith, and NOT the public renunciation of the Church, as you, Salza, erroneously characterize notorious heresy.
It has been amply demonstrated in my manuscript, quoting the most authoritative documents, and the relevant canons and the most authoritative commentaries on Canon Law, that the public SIN of heresy constitutes an ipso facto defection from the faith and the Church, and effects an ipso jure loss of office, which take place before any declaratory sentence is pronounced. A formal act of explicit defection is not required for one to automatically cease to be a member of the Church and fall from office. I have already amply refuted this and related errors; but YOU, Salza simply ignore that fact and repeat your errors anew.
You remain entrenched in the crude error that "sin is internal", and is a matter of the internal forum. You have been repeatedly corrected on this point, Salza, but in your blind fundamentalism, you remain adamant in your fanatical adherence to this error that is contrary to what is explained in all works of Fundamental Moral Theology, which teach that a sin committed with an internal act is internal; and a sin committed with an external act, is an external sin. In Canon Law, public external sin pertains to the external forum, Salza: " 915 Ad sacram communionem ne admitantur excommunicati et interdicti post irrogationem vel declarationem poenae aliique in manifesto gravi peccato obstinate perseverantes." I already quoted the canons which declare the moral imputability of such sins to be presumed in law unless there is evidence to the contrary. It is so clownish of you to adamantly persist in professing a false doctrine even after it has been proven to you to be false.
Only a bold-faced liar like you, Salza, could say it is "Fr. Kramer's position, that the Pope is not the Pope." -- as if there were not two claimants to the Petrine munus -- yet YOU, Salza, have the sacrilegious audacity to publicly accuse me of being dishonest. (!) YOU guilefully say to Dr. Chnojnowski, "We know it troubles you greatly that the SSPX seminary published and endorsed our book" -- but in reality, that is no big deal for anyone who understands what has happened to the SSPX. If it really troubles anyone greatly, the fact that the SSPX published it would certainly trouble the SSPX greatly, and would be a great embarrassment to them, since your book is manifestly based on the home-spun, half-baked "theology" of amateur "armchair theologians" who are woefully lacking formal education in theology.
You manifest that you have become plainly delusional when, even after I wrote a lengthy and critical examination of Bellarmine's original Latin texts, and exposed the crude and patently fallacious premises on which you base your ignorant exposition on Bellarmine's teaching, you still expect people to believe your words: "We wrote a book proving that Fr. Kramer's position is erroneous, that he does not understand Bellarmine's position".
You are insane, Salza -- according to you, by implication, all the Catholic ecclesiastical authors are wrong for unanimously explaining Bellarmine's teaching to mean that a manifestly heretical pope would automatically cease to be a member of the Church and lose office straightaway by the very act of manifest formal heresy. I even quoted the eminent 19th Century jurist, Paul Hinschius, who explained that a whole series of Catholic writers have followed Bellarmine in this interpretation of the Fifth Opinion; yet you, in your manic state of mind, continue to obstinately claim that my interpretation of Bellarmine, which is identical with the unanimous interpretation of scholars, is rooted in an incomplete understanding of Bellarmine, and is based only on snippets of text read on the internet! Of course, you are deliberately lying, Salza, because I already pointed out to you well over a year ago that I first examined Bellarmine's Latin text of De Romano Pontifice, Chapter 29 - 30 more than 25 years ago, at the express request of Fr. Gruner (who understood the text exactly as I do). But that isn't all . . .

Here's the clincher, Salza: You have professed quite explicitly the error that the geocentric doctrine is a matter of divine and Catholic faith which pertains to the universal and ordinary magisterium of the Church. On the basis of your own Private Judgment, you arrogate yourself to a position higher in authority than the popes who have exercised their apostolic authority to permit the teaching of heliocentrism. On 16 April 1757, Pope Benedict XIV suspended the decrees of the Congregation of the Index against heliocentric works. On 25 September 1822, Pope Pius VII approved the decree of The Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition deciding that the printing of books teaching the movement of the earth would thenceforth be permitted. The public judgment of the supreme magisterium of the Church does not rule as you do, Salza: it does not teach that geocentrism is a matter of faith, but for nearly THREE CENTURIES, the Church permits the teaching of heliocentrism as a doctrine not contrary to faith.
Your many errors in doctrine and theology plainly demonstrate that you are not competent to judge questions of theology and doctrine. By accusing me of doctrinal errors and heresy, Salza, the only thing you prove is that your words are the words of a clown.

Salza's "final" reply is off-point (as expected). Unlike Robert Siscoe, who rudely demanded repeatedly that I reply to a question I already answered, I will not boorishly insist that Salza give a more explicit answer to the key questions which, he has, in fact, already answered in sufficient manner to firmly establish the fact of his formal heresy.
Off Point: 《We have always maintained in our book and articles that one is severed from the Body of the Church for public and notorious heresy, either in fact (where the culprit publicly renounces the Church as the rule of faith) or in law (where the Church renders the judgment).》
That is not the disputed point. As I explained before, we are all in agreement on this point; (except that one can also be guilty of public and notorious heresy merely by fulfilling the conditions set forth in Canon Law for a crime notorious by fact, without the further qualification of publicly renouncing the Church as the rule of faith). There is no need to repeat it -- except to obfuscate. The burning question is whether or not the sin of manifest formal heresy by its very nature separates one from the body of the Church, without any judgment by Church authority. Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, and the universal magisterium of the Church says, "Yes". Salza says, "No". Earlier in this correspondence, Salza wrote, "Only public and notorious heresy separates one from the Body of the Church." By qualifying his statement with the word, "only", Salza strictly excludes, and thereby explicitly and heretically denies that a "merely" public act of manifest formal heresy separates one from the body of the Church, without any judgment by Church authority.
Now, the act of formal heresy is a mortal sin ex toto genere suo; and therefore, heresy, properly considered in its nature, is the SIN of heresy; so when Pius XII wrote saying that heresy suapte natura separates one from the body of the Church, he wrote specifically of the sin of heresy, and not heresy considered formally as a crime, whether public or notorious, for which one would be excluded from Church membership "by legitimate authority", as Pius XII explained.
Furthermore, one does not become a member of the Church by means of a legal or juridical bond. The sacrament of faith (baptism) and the external profession of faith makes one a member of the Church. The Church merely recognizes that fact juridically. The Church teaches that when one defects from the faith by the public sin of heresy, both the internal and external union, by which the bond of faith was created, is destroyed; and one thereby ceases to be a member of the Church. Membership creates the juridical bond; but the juridical bond continues even after one ceases to be an actual, visible member. Thus, although already outside of the Church, the defector may still be punished, and be subject to further penalties, etc. So, Salza's claim that one does not cease to be a member of the Church until the "legal bond" is ended, is patently false. As I have already demonstrated, the doctrine and law of the Church have always recognized that the public profession of manifestly formal heresy terminates one's membership in the Church.
If Salza wants his words to be taken seriously ("I do not maintain that geocentrism must be believed with divine and Catholic faith"), then he needs to retract his statements to the contrary, posted on YouTube. The link can be easily found on Peter Chojnowski's website (RadTradThomist)
I have already sufficiently replied on the point of which man the Church recognizes as pope. The Church has not made any judgment between the actually conflicting claims of Benedict XVI and Jorge Bergoglio on the munus Petrinum, as it did in the case of Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII"). Hence, it is absurd for Salza to say I "reject the man that the Catholic Church recognizes as Pope."
Finally, Salza's protestation ("And your calumnious implications on Catholic blogs that I am a Freemason constitute mortal sin"), rings very hollow, since he refuses to explicitly state that he has abjured Freemasonry, nor does he explicitly deny that he is in any manner still connected with the Sect; but he only answers with counter-accusations; while his words and actions remain conspicuously consistent with those of an active Freemason.
If Salza wants to be considered a Catholic, he must 1) renounce his heresy, 2) clearly and totally abjure Freemasonry (and not vaguely intimate that he "left", or is no longer a Mason), and most importantly, 3) behave like a real Catholic, and stop acting like a Masonic infiltrator, which he does by attacking Catholic clergy and defending the heretical "Conciliar Church".
Fr. Paul Kramer