Fr. Kramer Refutes Pseudo-"Scholars" Siscoe and Salza

Fr. Kramer Refutes Pseudo-"Scholars" Siscoe and Salza

Some people just dont know when to quit...

Fr. Kramer

Fr. Kramer, "They are deliberately lying and falsifying Catholic DOGMA. That's why I suspect they are BOTH Masons: They have a total CONTEMPT for dogma"

Salza & Siscoe LIE again: "Proving Fr. Kramer’s False Accusations and Straw Man Arguments":
《Fr. Kramer: “John Salza and Robert Siscoe are in heresy. Their entire doctrine on heresy and loss of office is based on their heretical proposition: ‘the sin of heresy alone does not sever one from the Church’.”



To begin with, the “quotation” Fr. Kramer attributes to us, which he qualifies as heretical, is nowhere to be found in our book. But, in fairness, it does closely resemble what we explain at length in Chapter Five. Had Fr. Kramer taken the time to read the book for himself, rather than relying on “excerpts” in the internet, he would have realized that what he declares to be our “heresy” (i.e., “the sin of heresy alone does not sever one from the Church”) is, in reality, identical to what he himself believes.》

FOR THE RECORD: I do not merely "attribute" the quotation to John Salza: I copied/pasted it from his published article "John Salza Responds to Another Sedevacantist" -- Salza's errant pontification to a certain Anastasia. These are Salza's own words which he denies by saying I merely "attribute" them to him: "alienati sunt peccatores a vulva erraverunt ab utero locuti sunt falsa" (Ps. 57 v. 4)

REPLY TO THE LATEST SALZASISCOE PATHETIC REPLY

Their latest article is very easily refuted, and it makes explicit some errors that were previously expressed less clearly. Here are the two most glaring examples:

1) "The external act of heresy is, by its nature, a crime." On the basis of this error, they state the heresy: "What separates a Catholic from external union with the Body of the Church is not the nature of the sin of heresy (again, as Kramer argues above), but rather the nature of the external act (crime[4]) of notorious heresy."

I have already quoted in my manuscript the canons that defines the term "crime" as an external violation of a law which is gravely imputable; and therefore the proposition that, "The external act of heresy is, by its nature, a crime", is patently false. The external act of heresy in its nature is only a sin, since it is not in the nature of the external act that it violates ecclesiastical law, but it is the enactment of ecclesiastical law that makes heresy (or any other sin as well) a crime. Thus, the the error is patent: "Unfortunately, someone needs to call Peter Chojnowski’s office and inform him that his cute title is entirely misleading, at best, since heresy includes everything from the internal sin alone, to the public crime of notorious heresy - and only the latter automatically severs a person from external union with the Church 'without a declaration.' "

2) Salza & Siscoe resort to the false paradigm of "spiritual separation" vs. "legal separation"; leaving out all mention of the Church's doctrine which infallibly teaches (as I demonstrated) that one ceases to be a member of the Church by the visible external separation from the body of the Church which takes place by the act of defection into heresy, apart from any violation of ecclesiastical positive law (which alone constitutes the defection as a canonical crime). Apart from penal law which makes heresy a crime, the fact of the defection by itself ipso jure severs one from membership in the Church. Hence, one does not need to be convicted of the crime of heresy to be juridically severed from membership in the Church (as is clear from the canons I quoted in my manuscript). The public sin of heresy, as defined identically in Canon Law and Moral Theology, apart from any human law, suffices to sever one from membership in the Church. This is de fide. It also suffices, apart from any human law, to effect the loss of office ex natura hæresis, as St. Robert Bellarmine proves from the unanimous teaching of the ancient Fathers.

These are the most fundamental errors in their article. There are many more.

For the Record:
TCK:  For some reason I keep getting emails from Siscoe even after I told him initially to stop emailing me some months ago. They are truly getting desperate as Fr. Kramer and I have done talks exposing their heresy and pseudo-"scholarship".  Maybe know one wants to listen to them besides the false traditionalist site the Remnant?