Latest reply to the desperate and dishonest attacks of Salza, Siscoe and their dull-witted disciple, Folbrecht.

Latest reply to the desperate and dishonest attacks of Salza, Siscoe and their dull-witted disciple, Folbrecht.

The False Trad Websites Remnant, CFN, and Neo-SSPX espouses these pseudo theologians too.  It is quite sad.

Fr. Kramer

《Honestly, Father, can this be for real?  This is a muddle》

No Mr. Folbrecht, what I have written is definitely not a muddle; but as usual, it is your mind that is obviously muddled, and this is manifested in your bigoted outbursts which reveal a total incapacity to properly understand systematic theological arguments. You argue like a lunatic, studiously ignoring entirely my systematic theological argumentation, documentation, and critical refutation of the deeply flawed and errant fundamentalism of Salza & Siscoe. Thus, I will qualify my assertion that you are deliberately lying by saying that if you are not deliberately lying, then you might be excused somewhat for your lies to some degree by your delusional state of mind which has resulted in your diminished mental capacity which impairs your ability to grasp plainly stated arguments:

 

 

1) 《John & Robert have demonstrated, very thoroughly, using the teachings of the theologians and Church doctrine》

     Salza & Siscoe have very thoroughly demonstrated their utter incompetence to reason on a theological level, or understand the basics of Canon Law. In their book ( p. 275) they say that a declaratory sentence is not a juridical act. It is difficult to imagine a statement more ignorant than that. I quoted in my manuscript the Code of Canon Law and the VOCABULARIO DE SIGNIFICACIONES DE DERECHO CANÓNICO   (Universidad de Sevilla) p. 5, which explain the matter precisely.

     Salza & Siscoe also make the incredibly stupid assertion that, "The external act of heresy is, by its nature, a crime."   This statement is absurd on its face, because if that were true, then the external act of heresy would be a crime even if there were no law (!) -- but a crime is defined as an external violation of a LAW. Siscoe errantly explains further that, "there’s a difference between the definition of the sin of heresy, and the definition the crime of heresy: there is a difference between the nature of the respective acts". Now that's about as insanely ignorant as one can get, since both the sin (in Moral Theology) and the crime (in Canon Law) are identically defined as "the pertinacious denial or doubt of a revealed truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith". I have already explained this point fully and quoted the authoritative sources in my latest reply to Siscoe. Salza & Siscoe have manifested their utter incompetence in Theology and Canon Law by nonsensically asserting that the external act of heresy is in its nature a crime (!). Every theologian and canonist on earth knows that the act of heresy, both internal and external, in its nature is a sin; and that only the law, (which is extrinsic to the nature of the act whether internal or external, and does not enter into the definition of the external act) makes the external sin a crime. The circumstance of being an "external violation of a law" defines the nature of a crime; but it does not enter into the definition of  the act of heresy, which is the same definition, specifying the same nature for both the internal and external SIN of heresy. The circumstance of being an "external violation of a law" is merely an accidental circumstance that does not pertain to the nature of the external act of heresy. That is why it is the sin of heresy, committed as a public act, which separates one from the body Church suapte natura and not the crime, since a crime separstes one from the Church  not by its nature, but "by legitimate authority", as Pius XII explains in Mystici Corporis. Similarly, the sin of public defection from the faith by formal heresy effects the ipso jure (i.e. automatic loss of any office whatsoever, without any official judgment); as is plainly set forth in the relevant canons, and clearly explained in the commentaries on Canon Law written by the Faculties of Canon Law of the PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD ECLESIÁSTICA DE SALAMANCA and the UNIVERSIDAD DE NAVARRA , which I quoted in my manuscript.

      Siscoe deliberately ignores the law and teaching of the Church on these points which I have amply documented, and resorts to quoting Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century authors who penned their opinions long before these questions were authoritatively settled and closed in the Twentieth Century by acts of papal authority.

    Siscoe's latest reply desperately resorts to extremely dishonest verbal trickery, saying: 

《Fr. Kramer:  The intrinsic nature of the act, considered under both formal aspects remains the same. The thing that distinguishes the external sin of heresy from the crime of heresy is not the specific nature of the act (which is identical in both), but the circumstance extrinsic to its nature, namely, the fact that the legislator enacted a law that made that external sin a crime. Your incredibly ignorant statement that, "The sin of heresy can be distinguished from the crime solely according to the circumstances of whether or not the sin was committed internally" is patently and absurdly false.

Siscoe, But Father, I was quoting you verbatim.  The "ignorant statement" that you condemned as "patently and absurdly false," is your own. You'll see the entire quotation in part II.   Now, since you can't even get your own argument straight, condemning as "patently and absurdly false" today, what you yourself explicitly taught yesterday, it is clearly a waste of time to continue this discussion. 》

     This is the same kind of malicious sophistry Siscoe resorted to when he dishonestly attempted to make it appear that I had contradicted myself on the question of Opinion No. 2, regarding the deposition of an occult heretic pope. I exposed Siscoe's fraud on that point in my manuscript, and I will presently expose his latest fraud here:

 

The statement, "The sin of heresy can be distinguished from the crime solely according to the circumstances of whether or not the sin was committed internally" is indeed "patently and absurdly false", if it the statement formally refers to a distinction of nature between the sin and the crime. However, in the context that I made the statement, it did not refer to a distinction in nature, but to the distinction of circumstance which distinguishes the sin from the crime. Now it is manifestly evident that the external act of heresy, whether occult or public, is a criminal act; and the only thing that distinguishes the materially criminal act from the merely sinful act is the circumstance that the internal sin is not a crime. Hence, it is thus plainly evident that Robert Siscoe's statement, "Now, since you can't even get your own argument straight, condemning as 'patently and absurdly false' today, what you yourself explicitly taught yesterday, it is clearly a waste of time to continue this discussion", is a skilfully crafted, deliberate lie; written for the purpose of defending his heresy which asserts that only the delict of heresy, but not the sin, suapte natura separates one from the body of the Church; and similarly that only the notorious crime of heresy,  but not the mere sin of public defection into heresy ipso jure results necessarily in the automatic loss of office (as is clearly explained in the passages I quoted in the commentaries of the Canon Law faculties of Navarra and Salamanca). 

 

     So this is how Siscoe attempts to end the discussion, with malicious and defamatory lying sophistry expressed with the deliberate intention to deceive.

Fr. Paul Kramer