Formal Reply to Fr. Kramer's Defection from the Faith & the Church, and Attempted refutation of "True or False Pope?"
Part I
Part I
Introduction
After the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI and the election of Pope
Francis in 2013, Fr. Kramer publicly adopted the position that a Catholic
could, by his own private judgment, and contrary to the public judgment of the
Church, decide for himself if the man elected and accepted as Pope by the
Church is a legitimate Pope. Kramer initially declared that Francis lost his
office due to heresy, declaring on his Facebook
page – “the conclusion is inescapable Sede Vacante.” He then abandoned the Sede
Vacante position, but continued to reject Francis, by arguing that a
grammatical error in the original Latin version of Benedict’s renunciation
rendered it null, and hence that Benedict remained Pope. After a canonist
pointed out the flaws in this argument, Fr. Kramer changed his position once
again, this time arguing that Benedict was still Pope because he did not intend
to renounce the papal office itself (the munus
Petrinum), but only the active exercise thereof.[1]
Fr. Kramer then embarked on a mission to “prove” Francis is not the Pope
by adopting Sedevacantist theology and parroting their flawed arguments (often
verbatim), even sharing Sedevacantist articles on his Facebook page. It was then that he became obsessed with
discrediting us and our book, True of
False Pope?, which he knew was a major obstacle to his new-found position,
not only because it exposes the errors of Sedevacantist theology which Kramer
has now adopted, but also because the book was published by the SSPX and
endorsed by a wide range of Catholic scholars. To that end, Fr. Kramer has
spent the past year and a half attempting to refute our work via social media,
radio interviews, and through e-mails sent to a large group of recipients.
We will first expose Fr. Kramer’s dishonest methodology. We will then
explain his mischaracterization of our position and address his theological
errors.
Fr. Kramer’s Method of Attack
Fr. Kramer began his campaign against us with countless untruths and false allegations of error or heresy,
followed by the refutation of the straw men he erected. The following is just one example, which not only demonstrates how he employs the tactic,
but shows how easily his Facebook
followers are deceived by it. In a Facebook
post from early August of 2016, he wrote: “What Salza & Siscoe have done is
to falsify and totally invert Catholic moral doctrine in order to refute error
with error – exactly as Martin Luther, who combated the abuse of selling
indulgences by heretically denying both indulgences and purgatory.”
How, you may be wondering, do we supposedly falsify and invert Catholic
moral doctrine? He accuses us of doing so by rejecting the Recognize & Resist
(R&R) position and promoting the sin of indiscreet obedience! Here is the
accusation in Fr. Kramer’s own words:
“Salza and Siscoe
have erred gravely against
Catholic teaching; inverting moral and canonical doctrine in order to bind
the Catholic conscience to falsehood. This is the work of devilish iniquity:
Numquid adhaeret tibi sedes iniquitatis: qui finghis laborem in praecepto? (Ps.
93) …
Eminent
authorities (whom I will quote in my next installment of my reply to Salza)
teach that if a pope is professing heresy, he is not [to] be obeyed. … St. Robert Bellarmine says in De Romano
Pontifice that if the pope were to attack the faith, he must be resisted, and
his will must be thwarted. … Under such
circumstances, the virtue of obedience requires resistance; and to obey popes who attack the faith, liturgy, and
disciplines of the Church is a sin against the virtue of obedience – it is the
sin of ‘servile or indiscrete obedience”, as Prümmer explains. It is
precisely this sin which Salza & Siscoe promote in their misguided attempt
to combat Sedevacantism. The result
of the errors of Salza & Siscoe is something far worse than the damage that
the Sedevacantists have done to the Church; since their error attempts to
deprive the Catholic of the only defense of the faith against the abomination
of desolation, which St. Jerome explains is ‘perverse doctrine in the Holy
Place’.”
Before showing that the accusation is entirely false, we should point out
that, in the same Facebook post, he went
out of his way to defend himself against the accusation that his public attacks,
name-calling and inflammatory invective are contrary to charity by saying:
“There is a saying in Catholic theology: Ubi
non est veritas no est caritas. Where there is not truth, there is not
charity. It is not I but those who oppose Catholic truth who are lacking in
charity.”
We couldn’t agree more with the axiom that where truth is lacking, so
too is charity. Now, to demonstrate
how easily Fr. Kramer’s Facebook
“friends” believed the accusation (that he didn’t even attempt to prove), and
to show how impressed they were with his refutation of the straw man, here are
are a few comments they left in support:
Karen Karwowski: “Father Kramer, thank
you so much for this concise and clear explanation. May God Bless and protect
you always.”
Helen Westover: “Well stated! You
clear up so much, and I THANK you, Father.”
Joe Mudblock: “Father, thank you
for the wonderful writings; I’ll throw the book away, what a waste of money;
to find out these men have evil intentions and not the truth. Thank you
for being frank and honest.”
What’s more, to further demonstrate their support for Fr. Kramer’s
“frank and honest” refutation of our supposed errors, some of his fans began
posting pictures of True or False Pope?
in their trash cans. Clearly, his Facebook
campaign was off to a great start and his method was working brilliantly!
The problem, as anyone who read the book would know, is that the accusation is entirely false
(containing a two-fold lie), and his refutation is of a straw man (Ubi non est veritas no est caritas). So,
whoever it was that accused him of offending against charity was entirely
correct to do so. Nowhere in our entire book, or anywhere else, do we ever
argue that Catholics must blindly follow an erring Pope, nor do we promote the sin of “servile or
indiscrete obedience.”
On the contrary, we
devote an entire chapter to defending
the doctrine that Fr. Kramer accuses us of rejecting
(the right of Catholics to resist
erring prelates) and refuting the sin
of “servile or indiscrete obedience” that he accuses us of promoting – and it is one
of the most detailed and thorough treatments of the subject you will find
anywhere! (see Chapter 20, page 621). Incredibly,
Fr. Kramer publicly accuses us – in
writing - of rejecting precisely what we defend, and defending precisely
what we reject, and then proceeds to refute the error and sin he falsely
accuses of defending and promoting! This is just one example of the dishonest tactic he has been using constantly
for the past year and a half – evidently, with some success!
What’s almost as shocking as Fr. Kramer’s blatantly false accusations is
that people so easily believed him. Any Catholic who is even remotely familiar
with our work, from the many articles we have published over the years, should
have known that we have always
advocated for the R&R position. And Fr. Kramer himself has personally
attended Fatima conferences where Salza defended the R&R position from the pulpit
(as his many conference videos prove).
Yet Fr. Kramer lies (there’s no other word for it) to his unsuspecting
followers by claiming we “falsify and totally invert Catholic moral doctrine”
by promoting “the sin of servile or indiscrete obedience,” and then proceeds
to triumphantly refute the straw man that he erected, to the cheers of his
unsuspecting Facebook followers. And, again, we cannot emphasize this
enough: He does the same thing repeatedly in his never-ending campaign
to discredit the authors of True of False
Pope?
Kramer Defends His Decision
to Criticize a Book He Hasn’t Read
to Criticize a Book He Hasn’t Read
Now, while it is difficult to believe Fr. Kramer would so brashly accuse
us – in writing - of rejecting positions we have defended publicly for years, it
is even more difficult to believe he would attempt to refute our book without first reading it! But that is
exactly what he did. Rather than reading the very detailed and scholarly book
(published by one of the most respected seminaries in the English-speaking
world, and endorsed by numerous seminary professors), in order to determine
what our position is, Fr. Kramer instead relied on articles written by
notorious Sedevacantists (which are full of errors), and short excerpts from
the book that they quote (usually out of context), which he no doubt cobbled together
from their websites.
That, in and of itself, speaks volumes about the scholarship and
integrity of our critic. His approach is equivalent to consulting a Protestant
website dedicated to exposing the “false doctrines” and evils of the Catholic
Church in order to gain a proper understanding of what the Catholic Church
teaches, which is one of the most
effective ways to not gain a proper
understanding of what the She teaches. Yet this is essentially what Fr. Kramer
did before launching his public attack on our supposed errors and heresies.
Here is how he defended doing so to his Facebook
fans:
Fr. Kramer: “Now
let’s consider the Salza/Siscoe doctrine, which has already been adequately
refuted by another author [a Sedevacantist layman with no theological
training], who, (unlike myself), has endured the somewhat penitential
work of reading through the entire 700 page book. I have read enough excerpts to gain an adequate understanding of
the errant Salza/Siscoe arguments [remember this statement]. One
does not need to jump into a refuse bin and asphyxiate on the putrid fumes to
recognize its contents – a couple of sniffs suffice for the olfactory apparatus
to make its determination. Likewise, it is not necessary for one to read through
an entire work to recognize by the stink of their errors...” (Facebook, August 5th).
As we will see in the material that follows, Fr. Kramer was quite
mistaken to believe he could rely on “excerpts” of the book (and articles from
Sedevacantist websites) to “gain an adequate understanding” of our supposed
errors. Not only did his imprudence result in countless false accusations of
heresy (which is a serious sin against charity and justice), but it also
resulted in him wasting a year and a half of his life refuting straw men he
erected as a result of his
misunderstanding of our position.
Now, we originally intended to ignore Fr. Kramer’s attacks, but when we
recently learned that he intends to publish his lies and errors as a book,
which could bring even more damage to souls, we felt an obligation to respond
publicly, which is what we will do in this series of articles.
In Part I below, we will address three
key “heresies” Fr. Kramer accuses us of holding concerning the specific issue of how heresy severs a person from the
Church, from which are borne the two main straw man arguments he attacks
throughout his book. We will demonstrate that all three accusations are
entirely false by quoting directly from our book. Once these accusations of heresy are shown to
be false, the two main straw man arguments – which together constitute the foundation he spends most of his time
attacking - will be destroyed; and when the foundation is taken away, all the
arguments and false accusations of heresy erected upon it will crumble (which
will then require that Fr. Kramer re-write his entire “refutation”).
Later on, we will discuss the question
of how a heretical prelate loses his jurisdiction/office, which is not the
same question as how heresy severs a person from the Church (these are two
distinct issues). This will include important material that we have never
published before, as well as recently translated material from St. Bellarmine
that refutes Fr. Kramer’s and the Sedevacantists’ interpretation and application of his opinion concerning a
heretical Pope, and confirms precisely what we have been arguing for
years.
Part I
How does Heresy Sever
a Person from the Church?
“Rarely affirm, seldom
deny, always distinguish.” ~ St. Thomas Aquinas
Fr. Kramer: “This
article drives the stake through the heart of Salza's and Siscoe's heresies.
… Their doctrines are contrary to the Catholic faith, as is proven in the
article and demonstrated beyond all legitimate dispute. (…) The sin of Heresy per se,
like apostasy and schism, has the intrinsic effect of separating the heretic
from the Church by itself without any ecclesiastical censure or judgment. … the sin of heresy suapte natura (of its nature) severs the heretic from the body
of the Church…”
At the outset, we should note that Fr. Kramer’s superficial “sin of heresy” argument is precisely the same argument the Sedevacantists have used for the past 40 years to justify their rejection of all the conciliar Popes. The argument (“the sin of heresy causes a Pope to lose his office”) is identical; only the conclusion (which of the recent Popes have been guilty of the sin and thereby lost their office?) is different. The reason for the difference in the conclusion is because Fr. Kramer and his new Sedevacantist friends disagree with each other concerning which of the recent Popes have been guilty of the sin, and which have not. Fr. Kramer has no answer for the inconsistency between his private judgment and their private judgment, except to say: “I am right and they are wrong.” The truth of the matter is that they are both wrong. And their error is not only in the conclusion, but in the argument itself, due to a failure to make critical distinctions.
Now, because Fr. Kramer has spent the
last year and a half misrepresenting our position, we will begin by summarizing
what we discuss at length in True or
False Pope? concerning how heresy severs a person from the Church. We will
also explain why it is imprecise and technically false to say, as Fr. Kramer does,
that “the sin of heresy, of its nature, severs a person from the Body
of the Church” - if by “Body of the Church” one means external union with the Catholic Church
(which is what Fr. Kramer means). This
problem with Fr. Kramer’s terminology will be addressed in more detail in Part
II, in our discussion of a quotation from Mystici
Corporis Christi.
We
will begin with an explanation of the bonds that unite a man to the Church, and
then show how these bonds are severed by heresy.
Internal and External
Bonds of Union: There exist internal and external bonds of
union with the Church. The external juridical
bonds are profession of the faith, communion in the same sacraments, and
submission to the hierarchy and especially the Pope. These juridical bonds
join a man to the visible society of the Church and make him a legal
member of the Body of the Church. In addition to these external bonds,
there are the internal spiritual bonds of faith, hope and charity, which
unite man to the Soul of the Church and join him spiritually to
the other faithful.
The Sin of Heresy: The sin of
heresy is a moral offense against divine law which, “of its nature, is destructive of the Christian virtue
of faith.”[2]
Now, because the virtue of faith is the foundation of the supernatural life
(without which the bonds of hope and charity cannot remain), if a Catholic
commits the sin of heresy (and loses the faith), he is entirely severed
from the Soul of the Church. However, the
sin of heresy, per se, and the loss
of faith resulting from it, does not
formally sever one from the Body of the Church – that is, from visible
communion with the Catholic Church.
It is
important to note that the nature of the sin of heresy is the
same, regardless of whether the culprit has concealed it in his heart (internal
act alone), or professes it publicly (external act). The difference is the extent to which the heresy has been divulged; there is no difference in the nature of the sin itself.[3]
With this in
mind, if the sin of heresy, of its nature (suapte natura), severed a
person from the “Body of the Church,” as Fr. Kramer expressly states
above, it would follow that even occult (secret) heretics would be cut off from
external union with the Church, since they too are guilty of the sin of heresy
(the nature of which is the same, regardless of the degree to which the
heresy has been divulged). Yet Fr. Kramer himself does not believe occult
heretics are severed from external union with the Church, but instead
maintains, along with Bellarmine, that they remain members of the Body of the Church
in spite of their sin of heresy. Hence, Fr.
Kramer’s own position proves that it is not the nature of the sin of heresy that severs a person from the Body of the
Church.
The Crime of Notorious
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. This is
confirmed by Cardinal Billot, who said “only notorious heretics are
excluded from the body of the Church.” (De Ecclesia, Thesis II). The reason notorious heresy, of its nature, separates a Catholic from
the Body of the Church is because it severs the juridical bond[5]
of “profession of the faith.” The legal separation from the Church has
nothing to do with the nature of the sin of heresy, and everything to do
with the nature of the public act (crime) of notorious heresy. This is
confirmed from the fact that Bellarmine, Cajetan and John of St. Thomas unanimously
teach that a notoriously heretical Pope can be deposed, or declared deposed, even
if, per accidens, he is not
subjectively guilty of the sin.
Furthermore, if the legal separation from external union with the Body
of the Church were due to the nature of the sin, it would follow that
1) a Catholic who publicly left the Church and joined a non-Catholic sect, or 2)
who was judged and declared a heretic by the Church, would nevertheless remain
a legal member of the Church,
provided he was not subjectively guilty of the sin of heresy (an
hypothesis Garrigou-Lagrange says it possible), which is certainly false. What these examples further prove is that being
severed from external union with the Body of the Church is not due to the
nature of the sin (moral offense) of heresy, but to the nature
of the public act of notorious heresy – and a public act is a crime, by its nature. This further shows that Fr. Kramer’s repeated claim that it is the
nature of the sin of heresy that severs a person from the Body of
the Church is false.[6]
In other places he says “manifest and formal heresy” severs a person from the Body
of the Church of its nature. This we
agree with, since the public act (crime) of “manifest and formal heresy” is
essentially the same as notorious
heresy by fact, which we will discuss
now.
What is Notorious
Heresy? The
Catholic Encyclopedia defines notorious
as that which has been “so fully or officially proved, that it may and
ought to be held as certain without
further investigation.”[7] It also explains that
“notorious” is “more or less synonymous with ‘official’,”[8] as in officially
recognized by the proper authorities, whether secular or ecclesiastical.
Now, heresy can be notorious either by
law or by fact. It is notorious by law, “after a sentence by a competent
judge that renders the matter an adjudicated thing, or after a confession by
the offender made in court in accord
with Canon 1750.”[9] In this case, the certitude is due to the
Church’s authoritative judgment or the admission of the suspect in a court of
law.
A notorious fact is a fact that is so certain “it may no longer be called in question.” Heresy is deemed to be notorious with a
notoriety of fact, if it is “public and committed under such
circumstances that no clever evasion is
possible and no legal excuse could excuse.”[10]
It is also important to note that for a person to be deemed a notorious heretic
by fact, it doesn’t suffice that the material aspect of his heresy be public
(i.e., that he adheres to a heretical doctrine); the formal aspect (pertinacity) and imputability must be public as
well.[11] If a Catholic were to openly leave the Church and oppose it (not just drift away from
regular attendance), or publicly admit that he rejects a defined dogma, while
publicly admitting that he knows the doctrine he rejects has been defined, he would
likely be deemed a notorious heretic by
fact, by the Church, since, in both cases, no clever evasion would be
possible and no legal excuse would excuse.
It should be further noted – and this is also a critical point - that
notorious heresy does not sever a person from the Church because it is listed as a crime (delict) in
canon law, or because of the censure of excommunication that the Church
attaches to the crime (another position that Fr. Kramer falsely accuses us of
holding, as we will show later). Rather, notorious heresy separates a person
from the Church due to the nature of
the public act itself, which severs a
juridical bond (i.e., “profession of the faith”). Notorious heresy would sever
a person from the Church even if it were
not listed as a crime in canon law.
In light of the
foregoing summary of our actual position
(which is explained more thoroughly
in our book), we will now address Fr. Kramer’s “refutation” of our supposed
heresies.
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.
The purpose of Chapter Five is to demonstrate that the internal sin
of heresy alone does not sever
a person from visible communion with the Body of the Church, or cause a prelate
to lose his office. This is one of the errors explicitly held by some
Sedevacantists, and which has caused them to reject the legitimate reign of
multiple Popes (one person we discuss rejects every Pope since the twelfth century
based on this error). The chapter refutes this error by showing that the internal
sin of heresy alone only severs the person from the Soul of the
Church (by severing all the internal
bonds); it does not formally sever one from the Body of the Church –
that is, from visible communion with the Catholic Church.
Now, what we discuss in our Chapter Five is exactly what Fr. Kramer
himself believes, as can be seen by his following statements: “the sin of internal
heresy does not separate one visibly from communion with the Catholic
Church (…) The internal sin severs one from the soul of the Church …
[not] from the body of the Church” (Fr. Kramer’s Facebook page). That is precisely what we explain in the chapter, and
for which Fr. Kramer declares us to be heretics!
The Key to
Understanding
Fr. Kramer’s Mischaracterization of Our Position
Fr. Kramer’s Mischaracterization of Our Position
Why did Fr. Kramer accuse us of heresy for holding a position that he himself holds? The reason is that by failing to read our book, and instead imprudently relying on isolated “excerpts” he found online, he imagined that the word alone (i.e., “the sin of heresy alone…”) meant “without an ecclesiastical censure,” or “without a pronounced judgment.” He then rashly concluded that we believe heresy does not sever a person from the Church, of its nature (“alone”), but rather due to the censure of excommunication that is attached to the crime. He then cites authoritative quotations saying that heresy, of its nature, DOES sever a person from the Church, and concludes by publicly declaring us heretics for allegedly denying it.
Fr. Kramer could have saved himself a lot of embarrassment, if he had simply read the book, since the context would
have made it perfectly clear to him that the word alone was referring to an internal
sin alone (i.e., “the internal sin alone does not formally sever
a person from the Body of the Church, but only from the Soul of the Church”). The
word “alone” had absolutely nothing to do with an ecclesiastical censure or a judgment
from the Church that might follow! The following quotations from Chapter Five clearly
show this:
True or False Pope?: “The
internal sin of heresy alone does not cause a prelate to lose his
office (…) The sin of heresy alone does not separate one from the Body
of the Church. (…) If an internal sin of heresy alone severed a
person from the Body of the Church, the Church would no longer be a visible
society, but an ‘invisible Church of true believers known to God alone,’ which
is a heresy of Protestantism.” (…) “Consistent with the distinction between the
Body and Soul of the Church, formal heresy can remain hidden in the internal
forum (the internal sin of heresy), or it can be manifested in the
external forum … Formal heresy in the internal forum alone (secret or
“occult” heresy), only severs a man from the Soul of the Church. It requires formal heresy in the external
forum (i.e., notorious heresy) to sever him from the Body of the Church.”
What Fr. Kramer refers to as our “heretical proposition” and claims our
“entire doctrine on heresy and loss of office is based on,” is a
figment of his own imagination. It is also one of the straw man
arguments he has spent the last year and a half feverishly refuting, as well as
the foundational error (in his own mind) that has resulted in at least two more
straw man arguments, and countless falsely accusations of heresy that he has
been spreading throughout the world via the internet.
Fr. Kramer’s False
Accusation/Straw Man Argument
Concerning the Censure of Excommunication
Concerning the Censure of Excommunication
Fr. Kramer: “Salza
and Siscoe base their opinion on loss of office on their heretical belief
that heresy by itself [i.e., “alone”] does not separate the heretic from
the Church, but only by means of an ecclesiastical censure. ... John Salza and Robert Siscoe are in heresy.
Since Fr. Kramer
thought the word alone meant “without
a censure,” he accuses us of being heretics for supposedly maintaining that
heresy, of its nature, DOES NOT sever a person from the Church, but that it
only does so due to the “ecclesiastical censure” that is attached to the crime.
Here are a few quotations from the book that prove we do not hold that position which, again, could have prevented Fr. Kramer
from committing such grievous sins against charity, had he read it rather than
relying on “excerpts” from the internet to gain his “understanding” of our
position:
True or False Pope?: “the
public offense (the crime) of heresy, which, of its nature, severs a
person from the Body of the Church with no further censure attached to the
offense. (…) Jerome is referring to the nature of the crime [of heresy],
which severs one from the body of the Church with no additional censure
attached to it. In this sense, the
crime of heresy differs in its nature from other crimes, such as physically
striking the Pope or procuring an abortion, which are crimes that only sever a
person from the Church by virtue of the additional censure attached to the
act. (…) As mentioned above, the nature of these particular crimes
(heresy, schism and apostasy) differs from that of other offenses which only
severs one from the Church due to an additional censure attached to them .”
As you can see, we explicitly and repeatedly state that heresy, schism
and apostasy separate a person from the Church due to the nature of the offense, and not
due to a censure that the Church attaches to it! Yet Fr. Kramer publicly accuses
us of being heretics for supposedly denying what we expressly affirm!
Now, in light of the fact that Fr. Kramer has publicly accused us of
being heretics for holding a position that
we explicitly reject in our book, will he have the humility to do what the
divine and moral law requires and publicly recant these false accusations he’s
been spreading around the world via the internet for the past year and a half?
Or will he simply ignore this and persist in his slanderous campaign? We shall
see. He would do well to consider the scandal he is causing to souls who are witnessing
a priest acting in such an irresponsible manner, as well as the account he will
have to render to God for his imprudent and reckless behavior.
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. Yet this absurdity is one of the straw men Fr. Kramer triumphantly
refutes throughout his manuscript, and, once again, publicly declares us to be
heretics for allegedly holding. For
example, he writes:
Salza & Siscoe in their reply to my irrefutable proofs,
have manifested again their blind adherence to heresy -- an adherence
which is impervious to all correction; by stubbornly persisting in their
heretical belief, even after multiple corrections, that manifest formal
heresy, which is the obstinate denial or doubt of an article of faith, of its
own nature does not separate one from the body of the Church by the very act
itself; but only the canonical crime of heresy, of its own nature, severs one
from the body of the Church, without any
additional censure, but, nevertheless, by some means of juridical
censure: by the authority of the Church.
Not only does Fr.
Kramer fail to prove his absurd accusations of heresy (and instead leaves it to
us to disprove them, which we have),
he also accuses us of “stubbornly persisting” in the heresy, even though we have
repeatedly demonstrated to him that he has completely misrepresented our
position. Thus, it is Fr. Kramer who has proven to be “impervious to all
correction” and has “stubbornly persisted” in his false accusations of heresy,
and that is because where there is no truth, there is no charity. If Fr. Kramer
were wise, he would be more careful before rashly accusing people of heresy,
since, as Pope Hadrian teaches, if a person makes an accusation he fails to
prove (which will necessarily be the case when the accusation is false), he
“must himself suffer the punishment which his accusation inferred” (S.T. II-II,
q. 68, a. 4).
In our latest effort to inform Fr. Kramer that he is falsely accusing us
of positions we do not hold, and advise him that we would be forced to respond
for the sake of the truth, this was his reply:
Fr. Kramer: “If
you really think I accuse you of professing heresies you have never professed, then
you are delusional. No amount of verbal trickery or subterfuge will ever be
able to conceal the fact that you do indeed profess those heresies. You
have professed them explicitly. Your stated intention to publish an attempt at
refuting my arguments proves only that you are incorrigible, and that
you are a glutton for punishment.”
So, Fr. Kramer publicly accuses us of heresy for allegedly holding
positions that anyone who has read our book would know we do not hold, and then declares us to be
“delusional” for denying the false accusation, and “incorrigible” and “a
glutton for punishment” for daring to issue a response to his false accusations.
This shows what we have been dealing with for the past year and a half. No matter
how many times we warn him that he’s accusing us of heresy for positions we do
not hold, he simply ignores us and continues to spread the same false
accusations. In his mind, he has read enough “excerpts” on the internet “to
gain an adequate understanding of the errant Salza/Siscoe arguments,” and if
Salza/Siscoe themselves disagree with his
understanding of their own position,
it must be because they are “delusional.”
This brings to mind an e-mail we received last year from a reader, who
said “I have debated on and off with Fr. Kramer and the sedevacantists many
times and have yet to find one who is
prepared to entertain even the slightest possibility that he may be in error
… the devil sure knows how to make use of pride to blind and embitter those who
consider themselves blessed above their fellows!” Indeed he does!
Now, returning to the issue of the censure, as should be obvious to
anyone of sound mind, when we use
the phrase “additional censure” or “further censure,” what we mean is any
censure that would be added by the
Church as a punishment for the crime. And this terminology is not something
that we came up with. Rather, it’s the same terminology employed by John of St.
Thomas – one of “the most learned men of his time,” who “was placed
successively (1630 and 1640) in charge of the two principal chairs of theology
in the university.” Here is how he phrased the same teaching:
“When St. Jerome says that a heretic separates himself from the body of Christ … He refers instead to the nature of the crime, which is such per se to cut someone off from the Church, without any further censure attached to it.”
Will Fr. Kramer accuse John
of St. Thomas of meaning a second
censure in addition to some prior
censure? And will Fr. Kramer still accuse us of “verbal trickery” and
“subterfuge” by using John of St. Thomas’ terminology, and also by quoting
directly from our book to refute his false accusations? He would only further discredit himself by doing so.
We now turn to another one
of Fr. Kramer’s straw man arguments, this one dealing with whether the Church
must render a formal judgment before heresy severs a person from the Church.
Fr. Kramer’s False Accusation/Straw Man Argument
Concerning a “Pronounced Judgment of the Church”
Fr. Kramer: “Salza
& Siscoe interpret this papal magisterial text [i.e., Mystici Corporis
Christi] by conflating it with the private opinion of John of St. Thomas,
in order to support their heretical
belief that the sinful act of
manifest formal heresy by itself does not suapte natura separate
a man from the Church unless there is pronounced a judgment of the Church
for the “crime” of heresy. (…) They both heretically profess, contrary to the doctrine of Pius
XII, St. Pius X, St. Pius V, and the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, that
manifest heretics [i.e., notorious heretics] do not cease to be members of the
Church entirely by means of their own external act of defection from the faith,
but by the authority of the Church.”
Fr. Kramer’s false accusations of heresy never end. As should be clear
by now, we do not and never have denied
that “manifest formal heresy” (notorious by
fact) severs a person from the Church of
itself, “without a pronounced judgment of the Church.” We have an
entire section of this material in our book. The same holds true for notorious
schism and apostasy, and we have never denied it. We readily admit, for
example, that Fr. Cekada (whose Sedevacantist theology concerning the loss of
office for heresy Fr. Kramer now promotes) is outside of the Church; as is the
Sedevacantist layman (mentioned in the Introduction) who now posts Fr. Kramer’s
writings on his website, and whose articles Fr. Kramer shares on his Facebook page. They both publicly left
the Church of their own will, due to the Sedevacantist errors they embraced,
and therefore no “pronounced judgment” is necessary to legally separate them
from the Church.
And if anyone doubts that they left the Church, all he must do is ask
them if they are members of the Church over which Francis is the head - and
Benedict XVI, John Paul II, John Paul I, and Paul VI were before him - and they
will be the first to say “no.” Because of the Sedevacantist errors they
embraced, they were led to believe that the true Church is a false Church and, like
those who were led into the same heresy by the errors of Luther, they “separate
themselves from the unity of the Body,” and hence it was not necessary for them
to be “excluded by legitimate authority” (Mystici
Corporis Christi, No. 22).
If Fr. Kramer falls into the same error as his Sedevacantist friends
(assuming he hasn’t already), and publicly declares that he is not a member of the Church headed by Pope Francis and the bishops
in union with him, no “pronounced judgment of the Church” will be required in
his case either. This proves that Fr. Kramer was clearly wrong to accuse us of
rejecting “the doctrine of Pius XII,
St. Pius X, St. Pius V, and the unanimous teaching of the Fathers.”
When a Judgment by the Church is Necessary
As we just proved, we agree that notorious heresy severs a person from
the Church without a pronounced judgment, but what if the culprit’s heresy is
not notorious by fact? What if he is
truly guilty of the sin of heresy, but is only suspected of heresy in the external forum? In such a case, has his heresy
formally severed him from the Body of the Church due to the nature of
the sin, even if his external actions only rendered him suspect of
heresy? Of course not, as even Fr. Kramer would be forced to admit. Catholics who
lose the faith by committing the sin of heresy, yet who are only suspected of
heresy in the external forum, remain legal members of the Church (as canon law
confirms).
Now, in the case of a Catholic who is guilty of the sin of heresy
and has even externalized his heresy, yet who is not deemed to be a notorious heretic by fact, he would still
incur the censure of excommunication ipso
facto (since the censure is even incurred by external occult heretics) but,
in such a case, it would require a “pronounced judgment of the Church”
(rendering him notorious by law), before
he would be legally severed from the Body of the Church. The ipso facto excommunication he incurred (in
the internal forum) would not, per se,
have the juridical effect (in the external forum) of legally separating him from the visible society of the Church
since, as Pope Benedict IV said, “a sentence declaratory of the offence is
always necessary in the external forum, since in this tribunal no one is
presumed to be excommunicated unless convicted of a crime that entails such a
penalty.”[12]
Now, the fact that heresy, which is not notorious by fact, requires “a pronounced judgment by the Church,” before
it has the juridical effect of legally severing a person from the Church, is
something that is almost never (if ever) mentioned by Fr. Kramer and his Sedevacantist
friends. Due to this omission, the impression is given that heresy never
requires a declaration to sever the culprit from external union with the
Church. Worse still, when Fr. Kramer makes imprecise and misleading statements,
such as “Heresy suapte natura (of its
nature) severs one from the Church when the
sin is committed, not when it is judged post factum by the Church,” his sloppy and misleading terminology adds
to the confusion by implying that “the sin” of heresy, per se, automatically severs a person from the visible Church, and hence
that a judgment and declaration is never required before the legal
separation occurs. This is the same misleading terminology that Fr. Kramer’s
Sedevacantist friends have been using for years to lead Catholics out of the
Church. Perhaps that explains why they now post Fr. Kramer’s writings on their
websites.
And it appears that Fr. Kramer’s misleading terminology may
have resulted in the confusion of one Peter Chojnowski. When Mr. Chojnowski
posted a portion of Fr. Kramer’s disastrous “refutation” of our supposed
heresies on his own website, this is what he titled it: “John Salza, Call Your
Office: Fr. Kramer Releases His Text Showing that Heresy Automatically Separates
one from the Catholic Church WITHOUT declaration.” 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.” And unless the culprit openly
leaves the Church, it requires much more
than what the Kramerians and their like-minded sectarians realize, in order for
a person to be deemed a notorious heretic by
fact.
We will demonstrate
this with an historical case that shows just how much a Catholic can “get away
with” while remaining a legal member of the Church. The facts of this case are
taken from an article written by the Sedevacantist apologist, John Daly.
Notorious by Fact?
Not So Fast!
An Historical Example
During the glorious pontificate of Pope St. Pius X (whom, believe it or
not, some Sedevacantists now declare to be a heretical antipope!), a parish priest
was faced with a difficult case concerning a family who desired to have their
children baptized in the Church. The family had stopped attending Mass, had
their children enrolled in a Protestant school, and even attended the
Protestant church that the school was associated with from time to time. Worse
still, as Mr. Daly recounts, the parents “blasphemed the Blessed Eucharist to
the parish priest, relying on typically Protestant arguments,” which they no
doubt learned from those at the Protestant church they attended. In spite of
this, however, the family professed that they were Catholics, not Protestants,
and wanted to have their newborn children baptized by the parish priest.
The priest reached out to a moral theologian on the staff at L'Ami Du Clergé (The Friend of the
Clergy) for expert guidance. He wanted to know “whether the parents had
incurred [public] excommunication, whether they could be buried as Catholics,
and whether, if he should manage to convert any of them, they would have
to make a formal abjuration.” The staff of the highly respected publication,
which was approved and even encouraged by Pope St. Pius X at the time, considered
the facts of the case and concluded that the family’s attendance at Protestant
services was not sufficient proof that they intended to leave the Church, which
was further confirmed by the fact that they publicly declared themselves to be
Catholics, and not Protestants. And even though they had blasphemed the
Eucharist in the presence of the priest, the judgment of the competent
authorities on the staff was that “their
stated wish to be Catholics gave to understand that these poor misguided
souls had no wish to knowingly and willingly reject the dogma of the Church concerning
the Holy Eucharist.” Mr. Daly then gives the staff’s expert reply to the
specific questions that had been posed by the priest:
“The Ami du Clergé replied that the culprits
were still members of the Catholic Church, were not excommunicated, had
no need to make formal abjuration of their errors, but only to repair the
scandal given, and that if, dying with no sign of repentance, they were
ineligible for Catholic burial.”
So even though this family had stopped attending Mass, had become loosely
affiliated with a heretical sect, and blasphemed the Blessed Eucharist to the
parish priest, they were nevertheless judged to be members of the Church, due
to “their stated wish to be Catholics.” This
historical case is one of many we could cite that illustrates how heretical a
Catholic (who does not leave the Church of his own will) can appear to be without
him being deemed a notorious heretic by
fact.
As we saw earlier, for heresy to be deemed notorious by fact, it must be so “certain” that it
“may no longer be called in question” (Catholic Encyclopedia).
And if the culprit’s
heresy it does not possess the degree
of certitude necessary for it to be deemed notorious by fact, it does require
a “pronounced a judgment of the Church” before the heretic is legally severed from the Church.
In light of this, we can understand why implying that heresy never requires a judgment to sever a
person from external membership in the Church is quite misleading. For this
reason, we would suggest that Mr. Chojnowski change the title of his post. On
second thought, it would be better for him to remove Fr. Kramer’s disastrous article
from his website entirely, since it includes multiple false accusations of
heresy (an objective mortal sin of calumny), which Mr. Chojnowski himself is now
responsible for spreading.
In Part II, we will comment a quotation from the encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi (a favorite
proof-text of Fr. Kramer and his Sedevacantist friends), that our critic mistakenly
believes contradicts our position, and as well as a quotation from Msgr. Van
Noort that he cited in an attempt to prove his rash assertion that “the
Salza/Siscoe interpretation of Mystici Corporis is not shared by any
academically qualified theologian in the world.” The truth, as we will see, is
that the quotation from Van Noort reflects our position perfectly!
In Part III, we will begin our discussion on the loss of jurisdiction
for a heretical Pope, which will include recently translated material from St. Bellarmine
that most people have never seen. We will also point out an important
distinction of “the jurists,” explained by a very prominent Cardinal, which will
no doubt be a real shocker to Fr. Kramer. Stay tuned! We’re just getting
started…
[1] We examined this theory
ourselves. After studying the subject in depth, along with the related
doctrinal teachings of the Church, we concluded, along with Benedict himself,
that “there isn’t the slightest doubt about the validity” of his resignation,
and “speculation about its invalidity is simply absurd.”
[2]
Catholic Encyclopedia.
[3] The only distinction that
can be made when considering the nature of heresy is between: (1) the sin
of heresy that is completely concealed in the heart and has never been
externalized at all, and (2) the crime
of heresy that has been externalized,
even if no one was around to hear it (i.e.,
external, occult heresy). Cajetan explains that the reason the two are
distinct, according to their nature,
is because the sin of heresy that remains entirely hidden in the heart can only be judged by God, according
to 1 Kings 16:7 - “man seeth the things that appear, but God beholdeth the
heart,” whereas the crime of heresy that has been externalized (the external
act renders it a crime by its nature)
is subject to the judgment of men - even if, due to the circumstances (e.g., no
one around to hear it) it cannot be judged. In other words, the former is not
divulged at all (hidden by its nature); the latter is divulged (external by its
nature), even if no one heard it. The former is judgeable only by God; the
latter can be judged by men. Heresy that has not been externalized at all is a
sin, but not a crime; heresy that has been externalized (even if no one was
around to hear it), is both a sin and a crime. Hence, the crime of heresy is
more restrictive in its meaning than is the sin of heresy; and the external act
is what makes it a crime, by its nature.
[4] The external act of heresy is, by its nature, a crime.
[5] See Mystici Corporis
Christi, No. 70.
[6] We should again clarify that the
statement is false if, by “body of the Church,” one means external union with
the Church, which is what Fr. Kramer means.
There is another way to interpret the statement that is theologically
correct. This point will be addressed in more detail in Part II, during our
commentary on a quotation from Mystici Corporis Christi.
[7] Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)
article on Notoriety.
[8] Ibid.
[9]
1917 Code of Canon Law, canon 2197, º2.
[10]
1917 Code of Canon Law, canon 2197, º3 (emphasis added).
[11]
Woywod, Stanislaus, A Practical
Commentary on the Code of Canon Law (New York: Joseph F. Wagner, 1943),
emphasis added.
[12]
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), vol. V, p. 680
