Fr. Kramer Sets the Record Straight Against Salza & Siscoe
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT ON OUR E-MAIL EXCHANGE OF 9 – 11 JAN 2018
“The number of unproven (and false) accusations you’ve leveled against us over the past year and a half is legion (e.g., your false accusations that we are heretics for holding positions we have never held; that we reject the R&R position and promote the sin of “servile or indiscreet obedience,” when we have an entire chapter that argues the contrary; that John Salza is a Freemason … you have publicly accused us of heresy for holding positions that we explicitly reject in the book, and to prove that the foundation of your argument is a complete straw man.”
Fr. Paul Kramer: No amount of verbal trickery or subterfuge will ever be able to conceal the fact that you do indeed profess those heresies. […] You explicitly profess in you book the proposition that a pope can fall into formal heresy. I have quoted the verbatim text. You then explicitly profess [the heresy] that for a heretic pope to lose office, the Church must first render a judgment. You wrote in the Remnant: "The Church must render a judgment before the pope loses his office." It is de fide that the pope cannot be judged by anyone. You are in heresy. You explicitly profess [the heresy] that «the sin of heresy alone doesnot sever one from the Church. » and «In other words, 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 (unless, of course, the person himself rendered the judgment by openly leaving the Church [15]). Because the Church, itself, does not judge internals [sic] (de internis ecclesia non judica [sic]), for the sin to be judged, it must be public; and needless to say the judgment of the public sin must proceed from the proper authorities (sic)». This proposition is heretical, as I have amply demonstrated.
You have explicitly professed these heresies in your writings, so there is no way you can deny that you professed them, or that I accuse you & Salza of heresy, "for supposedly holding positions we have never held, and which we explicitly reject in our book." You are lying.
You & Salza have been excoriating my opinions as erroneous "sedevacantist theology", and denigrating me personally for more than a year and a half as one who "has completely lost his mind", for holding positions that you now claim are "essentially the same" as yours and Salza's? That's hysterical!
Your objection that you, didn't say all your positions are the same as mine; but “only the ones (or most of the ones) you accuse us of being heretics for supposedly holding”, is an utterly futile exercise in sophistry: It is precisely on those main points of doctrine in which I have demonstrated you and Salza to be in heresy, that your positions are radically opposed to mine, and by no means are essentially the same as mine. Any attempt you might make to make them appear to be essentially the same as mine will be nothing but a futile exercise in deceptive mendacity. As I have already said before, fraud is what you are best at; but it will be to no avail: your sophistry has already been amply exposed, and will be exposed again.
You also lie Siscoe, when you say I make the false accusation that you & Salza “reject the R&R position and promote the sin of ‘servile or indiscreet obedience’,”: You are certainly aware of the fact that I wrote more than a year ago:
《It is absolutely forbidden by divine law for Catholics to be in communion with heretics and apostates; and when they see what St. Vincent of Lèrins describes, when some "novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole" (Commonitory Ch. 3), one cannot remain in communion with that apostate "whole": one may not be subject to such a false authority. This is the plainly evident sense of my words which Salza & Siscoe have intentionally taken out of their context:
«Salza/Siscoe and their ilk say that Catholics must bow down in submissive obedience to the apocalyptic abomination where the Chair of Peter was established -- that we must remain in communion with this "throne of abominable impiety". God commands the opposite: "And I heard another voice out of the heaven saying, Come outof her, my people, that ye have not fellowship in her sins" - Apoc. 18:4) »
So while it is plainly evident that by the words "bow down in submissive obedience", I clearly mean to "remain in communion with this 'throne of abominable impiety' ", i.e. to remain subject to it; Salza & Siscoe maliciously falsify the meaning of my words by adding the modifier "blind": «blind “submissive obedience” (in Kramer’s words)» In this manner they falsely attribute to me a meaning for the words "submissive obedience" that is plainly different from the clearly evident meaning of my words in their proper context; altering their proper signification from the obedience of submission by which the jurisdiction of a superior is acknowledged, to a servile and indiscreet obedience to the res ipsa præcepta of wrongful legislation, i.e., to unlawful and immoral precepts and statutes -- which was clearly not my meaning.
Thus it is that by falsifying my words, Salza and Siscoe have fabricated the lie and put the lying words in my mouth; and with an abominable and sacrilegious impiety, they then [hypocritically] accuse the priest of lying!》Thus it is proven again that it is you, and not I, who are lying.
Salza is also lying yet again, when he says I critiqued your book before reading it: I never critiqued your book before reading it. That lie is your & Salza’s malicious invention. I expressed disagreement with some of your errant propositions only. I did not critique your bloody book before reading it. Salza was initiated into the 32nd degree of Scottish Rite Freemasonry. While he claims to have walked away from Masonry, he now, as a “Catholic” has become a strident apologist for the heretically Masonic “Conciliar Church”, (which grows like a cancer in the body of the Church), claiming that it is the Catholic Church; and for the legitimacy of its manifestly heretical “pope”, whose rebellion against Christ is even more radical than the revolt of Luther and Calvin. Where is Salza’s formal abjuration of Freemasonry? Without ever presenting, or even claiming to have signed a formal written abjuration of Masonry, his claim to have left the sect lacks all credibility, since he travels far and wide to preach the necessity for Catholics to remain in communion with the heretical hierarchy of the Masonic “Conciliar Church” and its “pope” who ceaselessly preaches not the Gospel of Christ, but the Anti-gospel of Freemasonry; and in this manner John Salza adamantly promotes the agenda of Ecclesiastical Masonry. By their fruits you will know them, and no amount of your idle and empty verbiage will ever conceal the fact that you and Salza are false prophets of heresy:
15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them. (Matthew 7: 15 - 20)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete