John
Salza Backs Fr. Kramer into a Corner. His Response?
He Calls Catholics Who Don’t Agree with Him
“Ignorant,” “Blind” and “Catholics in Name Only”
He Calls Catholics Who Don’t Agree with Him
“Ignorant,” “Blind” and “Catholics in Name Only”
Following is a recent email exchange
between Fr. Kramer and John Salza. The exchange was initiated by Kramer, who
has been flooding Salza’s email box with a flurry of unsolicited messages
filled with name-calling, false accusations, and fallacious argumentation, not
to mention bizarre and, no doubt, heretical theology. It is quite sad to see a
priest so obsessed with his rejection of the Pope, and so angry at those who
disagree with him. But these are the same bitter fruits we see among
Sedevacantists, which we have documented extensively in our book. Because Fr.
Kramer has embraced their errors, he is exhibiting their same fruits.
For example, you will see how Fr. Kramer continually degenerates into
presuming ill-will and imputing evil motives to his opponents and using such
inflammatory words as “slanderously,” “maliciously,” “perversely,” “intent to
defame,” etc. You will also see how Kramer (a Novus Ordo trained priest of the “conciliar Church”) depreciates
the competence of his opponents with disparaging invective (“utter ineptitude,”
“totally incompetent,” “insolent pretense”), that is filled with anger and
vitriol, so unbecoming for a priest of God.
What this exchange shows is that Fr. Paul Kramer, like the Sedevacantists, has lost faith in the Catholic Church, which he repeatedly calls the “counterfeit Conciliar Church,” while he and the other Francis-rejecters are part of the “small remnant Church” (see our article on Kramer’s heretical rejection of the Church’s mark of catholicity). Having rejected the visible social unit founded by Christ, it’s no wonder, then, why Fr. Kramer has fallen from grace. Let the honest reader be the judge of who is teaching the truth and who is not.
Kramer: Let the reader make note of the fact that I
quoted Bellarmines opinion no. 5 as the one I subscribe to, but Salza &
Siscoe deliberately, maliciously and falsely claimed that I
"apparently" hold to opinion no. 2 which Bellarmine refutes. What
ruthless and bold faced liars!
Salza: If Fr. Kramer's position is correct
(that a manifest heretic automatically loses his office without any judgment
from the Church), then why are the Sedevacantists wrong in declaring Paul VI
and John Paul II antipopes?
Or does Fr. Kramer now hold that position
as well? Let's find out.
Kramer: "Fr. Kramer's position" is the
generally held opinion in recent times, and is the opinion of St. Robert
Bellarmine himself, as Wernz & Vidal state. The question seems to imply
that if my opinion (and Bellarmine's and the others I cited) is correct, then
that would imply that the sedevacantist position regarding the conciliar popes
is correct -- NON SEQUITUR.
Salza: Father, you didn't answer the question.
Rather, you ran away from it (and we can guess why). So let's try again. If
your interpretation of Bellarmine is correct (which is the same as that of the
Sedevacantists), then why are the Sedevacantists wrong to reject the conciliar
Popes?
Kramer: Your question
assumes the false premise that if my "interpretation" of Bellarmine's
no. 5 (and that of every theologian and canonist who has ever commented on it)
is correct; then that would support the Sedevacantists' rejection of the
conciliar popes.
Q. So, if my understanding of Bellarmine is
correct, how would that make the Sedevacantists correct? A. It wouldn't. Your
question is unintelligible because it is based on a logically incoherent
supposition. Regardless of whose interpretation is correct, the Sedevacantists
are wrong either way.
Salza: I will rephrase the question: Why are the Sedevacantists
wrong for using Bellarmine to reject the conciliar Popes?
Kramer: I have no idea why they would use Bellarmine
to reject the conciliar popes. They claim that there has been no pope since
Pius XII. Bellarmines doctrine on loss of office can have no applicability
whatsoever on popes who supposedly never held office in the first place.
Salza: They reject the conciliar Popes because they say they were
"manifest heretics," and, according to Bellarmine, a manifest heretic
cannot be Pope because he is not a member of the Church (whether before or
after their election).
So why are the Sedevacantists wrong to conclude that Paul VI fell from
office due to manifest heresy, when, according to Bellarmine, a manifest
heretic automatically falls from office?
Kramer: They say the conciliar popes were "manifest heretics";
and according to Catholic doctrine manifest heretics are not members of the
Church, and one who is not a member cannot be the head.
While it is true that a
manifest heretic cannot be pope, the onus of proof is on the accuser, who must
prove that the conciliar popes were manifest heretics. I have been waiting for
something like 40 years for the proof, which the Sedes have yet to produce.
Salza: But the Sedevacantists say they
have the proof, just like you say you have the proof on Francis. They have
discerned manifest heresy from the conciliar Popes' words and actions, just
like you have done with Francis. So on what basis can you say that they are
wrong and you are right?
Kramer: I have explained that numerous times, and I
will explain it again. It isn't rocket science. I have explained precisely why
it is that the form of heresy is manifest in Bergoglio, and is undeniable.
Bergoglio openly DENIES the most basic truths of religion, and thus manifests himself
to be a public heretic. Roncalli, Montini, Wojtyła & Ratzinger professed
all of the principal dogmas set forth in the credal formulæ of the Church --
but they explain some of them erroneously, in a manner that manifests the
MATTER of heresy; but the pertinacity of rejection of dogma and the malice of
unbelief is not manifest in them. I will explain all of this in a more complete
and systematic manner.
What I say is not based on the
heresy of Private Judgment, and does not oppose the authority of the Church, as
you have so slanderously and maliciously alleged. Your arguments on that point
have been demonstrated to be fallacious, and were perversely stated for the
malicious purpose to defame.
Salza: But the Sedevacantists say exactly the same
thing about the conciliar Popes as you say about Bergoglio, and their judgment
is no less fallible than yours. Moreover, no doubt all or a majority of the
Cardinals and Bishops, who have actual authority in the Church, disagree
with you about Bergoglio,. Do you see your problem yet?
Kramer: They do not say exactly the same thing about the conciliar popes
as I say and prove about Bergoglio. They assert that the conciliar popes are
heretics on the sole basis of the patent matter of heresy. I have demonstrated
that the patent form of heresy is manifest with Bergoglio; so when you say that
the Sedes say "exactly the same thing" as I say, you, you state a
falsehood.
Salza: Not so Father. They also claim that the
conciliar Popes' pertinacity was public (they too know the distinction between
the matter and the form). Therefore, you have no basis to claim the
Sedevacantists are in error because your claim is the same as theirs: You both
claim to have discerned, from the words and actions of these Popes, that their
pertinacity was public and thus they are manifest heretics. Your judgment
was reached the same way as theirs - through your individual intellects and
wills, and not the judgment of the Church. You think you are right and they are
wrong. They think you are wrong and they are right. Who resolves this
disagreement?
Kramer: They claim, they claim, they claim -- they merely
claim, but the theological basis of their claim is faulty, and it is different
from theological basis of my demonstration of the formal heresy of
Bergoglio. You state a falsehood.
Salza: No, I don't. The Sedes say the conciliar
Popes' pertinacity was public, just as you say Bergoglio's pertinacity is
public. They also say the theological basis of your claim is faulty, just like
you say theirs is faulty. So how do we resolve this disagreement?
Kramer: We resolve it by means of competent
theological reasoning -- which requires theological competency, a thing that
you and the Sedes lack (as I will soon demonstrate).
Salza: The Sedes also claim to have
resolved it by their "competent theological reasoning," so you have
not answered the question. Actually, you have. Your answer is "I am right
and they are wrong." So it is your personal judgment over the judgment of
the Sedes, and even over the judgment of the College of Cardinals and bishops.
But that is the only answer you could
possibly have, since you have departed from the public judgment of the Church
concerning Bergoglio, as will be demonstrated in the next feature of Catholic
Family News as well in as our series of upcoming articles.
Kramer: You have most graphically
demonstrated your own theological incompetence by interpreting St. Robert Bellarmine's
De Romano Pontifice 2,30 in a manner that is contrary to the universally
understood meaning of its text as it has been commented on and explained by
theologians and canonists for four centuries. Your bizarre interpolation of
Bellatmine's text that inverts its plainly evident meaning as it is universally
understood, alone suffices to demonstrates your utter ineptitude in Catholic
theology.
Worse still is your interpretation of the Church's doctrine on heresy,
according to your legalistic fundamentalism, which directly opposes the
teaching of Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, and is contrary to the perpetual
teaching of the Church on the nature of heresy (and is therefore heretical).
It's high time that you repent of your insolent pretense to teach
doctrine; when in reality you are totally incompetent to do so.
Salza: Father, if you would have actually
read our book, you perhaps would see the fool that you are making of yourself.
Our interpretation of Bellarmine is exactly how all the classical theologians
have interpreted him, namely, that the "fact" of public pertinacity
must be established by the Church, not individual Catholics (and our
interpretation was confirmed by some of the top theologians of the SSPX. Was
yours?). Same with Mystici Corporis on the nature of heresy, which severs one
from the Church without an additional ecclesiastical censure. We cover all of
this, but you wouldn't know it, since you have the ability to critique books
you haven't read.
Your error is one of petitio principii, or
begging the question. You state your proposition that a manifest heretic is not
a member of the Church (which is a question of law/speculative theology), but
you beg the question as to HOW the FACT of manifest heresy is established. Is
the "fact" (ipso facto = by the fact) established by people like you,
with no authority, or by the authorities of the Church? Bellarmine, Suarez,
Cajetan, John of St. Thomas, Ballerini, Laymann, Billot, Journet, etc. etc. are
ALL in agreement on this question. The ONLY debate among them (which is between
the Jesuits and the Dominicans) is whether, after the CHURCH (not you)
determines there is public pertinacity, the Church would also participate
ministerially in the deposition of the Pope (Dominicans) or not (Jesuits).
Journet found the Dominican opinion more compelling.
Siscoe and I can assure you, you don't know
this material like you think you do, and the burden is on you to prove
otherwise. Show us where the CHURCH teaches that individual Catholics can judge
that public pertinacity has been established in the external forum, WHEN THAT
JUDGMENT IS CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC JUDGMENT OF THE CHURCH. Please cite chapter and verse. Your burden is
crystal clear. Can you meet it? The Sedevacantists couldn't.
And don't come back by simply repeating
your proposition on the question of law/theology (that a manifest heretic is
not a member of the Church). And your anticipated response that Bergoglio has publicly departed
(with pertinacity) from the Magisterium as the rule of faith is, AGAIN,
contrary to the judgment of the Cardinals and bishops, and also contrary to
Bergoglio's own public statements, which are only materially heretical (he in
fact has publicly stated that he is not departing, and does not intend to
depart, from the Church as the rule of faith, just like the other Modernist
Vatican II Popes). You are desperate to make Bergoglio worse than his predecessors,
but just read Ratzinger's books. Ratzinger proves that he KNOWS what the Church
teaches, and yet departs from it in his writings, unlike Bergoglio.
As I said at the very beginning of this
exchange, your position is no different than the Sedevacantists. Personal
discernment, private judgment, presumed theological competence, etc. etc.,
without a care in the world that it is contrary to the public judgment of the
Church.
Kramer: I have not critiqued your bloody
book. I have refuted your erroneous propositions wherever I find them.
If your book argues that your interpretation "is exactly how all
the classical theologians have interpreted him", then it's not worth the
paper it's written on. Bellarmine's teaching is explicit, and universally understood
to mean that a manifest heretic pope ceases BY HIMSELF to be pope, a Christian,
and a member of the Church; and he supports this opinion on the unanimous
teaching of the Fathers, according to which heretics "lose office
straightaway" (mox). Bellarmine explains, "a manifest heretic would
be ipso facto deposed" -- that is, ipso facto by the very fact of manifest
heresy itself (and not after a judgment), because a "non-Christian cannot
in any way be Pope, as Cajetan affirms in the same book [324], and the reason
is because he cannot be the head of that which he is not a member, and he is
not a member of the Church who is not a Christian. But a manifest heretic is
not a Christian, as St. Cyprian and many other Fathers clearly teach [325].
Therefore, a manifest heretic cannot be Pope.
No official judgment or any private judgment is involved in thr loss of
office, which takes place ipso facto by the FACT of public heresy. Ballerini
explains that most clearly -- the loss of office takes place without any
"declaration or sentence by anyone whatsoever".
The public pertinacity must indeed be estsblished by the Church only so
that the vacancy can be officially declared and then filled. The judgment of
the Church plays no role in the loss of office, as Ballerini explains; but as I
said, the judgment is only necessary in order to officially declare that
the vacancy has taken place, so that a new pope can be elected. How this is to
be done is debated, as Coriden et al. explain.
Salza: Your statement "the Church
plays no role in the loss of office" truly shows how unread you are on
these issues. John of St. Thomas and others teach that the Church is the
dispositive cause of the loss of office for a reigning Pope (when she makes a
judgment of public pertinacity), after which Christ severs the bond between the
heretic (matter) and papacy (form), as efficient cause. But you wouldn't know
this because you evidently haven't studied these issues in depth.
In your world, Christ severs the bond and
the heretic Pope loses his office (because of the "nature" of the
"sin of heresy," in your words), even without the Church knowing
about it or publicly acknowledging it!! And if the Cardinals never acknowledge
it, and thus don't remove the heretic Pope, Christ allows the whole Church to
simply follow a false Pope!
If you have done any real study of these
issues, you would know that such a scenario is impossible! But you haven't.
And you, quite predictably, avoided our
challenge: Show us where the Church teaches that a judgment of public
pertinacity can be made by individuals, who can then act on their judgment (and
declare the reigning Pope is a false Pope), which is contrary to the judgment
of the Church (since all of the Cardinals and bishops publicly recognize Bergoglio
as the true Pope).
Kramer: 1) The election of the "active
member" of the petrine office, while the pope who refused to fully
relinquish the petrine munus renains visibly fulfilling the passive aspect of
the petrine munus, is hardly a judgment of the Church or a "dogmatic
fact". You are peddling snake oil.
2) No authority is required for an
individual to affirm the patent and undeniable defection from the faith
committed before the eyes of the whole world; and one need not wait for a
judgment to be made by the the heretical and blind hierarchs of the counterfeit
"conciliar church".
3) A counterfeit "pope" who never
validly assumed office cannot be perceived to have fallen from office or
rather, to never to have held office by the vast multitude of faithless
adherents of the counterfeit "Conciliar Church".
Salza: 1. Wrong. John of St. Thomas, Billot
and others say that the Cardinals' election and presentation of the Pope
constitutes the "public judgment" that he is a true Pope (John of St.
Thomas even says the judgment is similar to a definition given by the bishops
in an ecumenical council). See our upcoming article which presents this
material.
2. Wrong, because the Church has not made a
judgment of public pertinacity, and you have no authority to make such a
judgment. This is more question-begging from you.
3. Wrong since a reigning Pope will not
fall from office without the Church knowing about it; otherwise Christ would be
allowing the entire Church to follow a false Pope, which is impossible.
Kramer: The opinion of John of St. Thomas
binds no one. You yourself quoted Pietro Ballerini:
"He reveals that by his own will he
has turned away from the Catholic Faith and the Church, in such a way that now
no declaration or sentence of anyone whatsoever is necessary to cut him from
the body of the Church." And,
"Thus, the sentence which he had pronounced against himself would
be made known to all the Church, making clear that by his own will he had
turned away and separated himself from the body of the Church, and that in a
certain way he had abdicated the Pontificate…” Hence, in this manner the
manifestly heretical pope cuts himself off and loses office by himself without
any judgment of the Church. This is the the common opinion in the 20th Century
according to Prummer, and the more common opinion according to other authors.
《Christ severs the
bond and the heretic Pope loses his office (because of the "nature"
of the "sin of heresy," in your words), even without the Church
knowing about it 》When a heretic pope loses office for the public sin of manifest
heresy, how can the Church not know about it? Only the blind "Catholics In
Name Only", and the timid and fearful will keep their eyes wide shut to
the elephant in the Church. They will follow their leader into apostasy,
leaving only a small remnant Church that will have to start over again as in
the apostolic time. Those who remain faithful to tradition will not be deceived
by the heretic "pope" who leads the multitudes of conciliar
"Catholics" into heresy and apostasy, and it is those faithful ones
who recognize him to be a wolf, and refuse to submit to his pretense.
《Show us where the
Church teaches that a judgment of public pertinacity can be made by individuals》
As I quoted earlier, a crime "is
public through notoriety of fact when the offence that has incurred it is known
to the majority in the locality". When the heresy and its pertinacity is
public, manifest and undeniable it is known to those who have not closed their
eyes to the truth. The witnesses of the public crime of heresy and the public
who have certain knowledge of it are no more bound by any law to refrain from
affirming what they have witnessed than would the witnesses of a murder or a
robbery
Salza: The opinion of "the second
Thomas" binds no one? The same can be said for any theologian you choose
to erroneously interpret. None of them are "binding." Does your
dismissal of JST mean you haven't read him and his treatment of dispositive vs.
efficient cause, or that you reject his teaching? Have you even heard of it
before I explained it to you? I doubt it.
You want to rely on Ballerini? Excellent.
So do we, since his position is our position and refutes yours. Ballerini (who
was an adherent of Bellarmine, unlike yourself) says that pertinacity is
established publicly by the Church through ecclesiastical warnings. You
conveniently omitted the entire teaching from Ballerini, and that is because
Ballerini expressly REFUTES your position that, in the case of the
"Pontiff," public pertinacity is not established by the Church (this
is false). You operate just like a Sedevacantist. This is nothing but deception
on your part. Here is the full quotation from Ballerini, as if you didn't know:
“Is it not true that, confronted with such
a danger to the faith [a Pope teaching heresy], any subject can, by fraternal
correction, warn their superior, resist him to his face, refute him and, if
necessary, summon him and press him to repent? The Cardinals, who are his
counselors, can do this; or the Roman Clergy, or the Roman Synod, if, being
met, they judge this opportune. For any person, even a private person, the
words of Saint Paul to Titus hold: ‘Avoid the heretic, after a first and second
correction, knowing that such a man is perverted and sins, since he is
condemned by his own judgment’ (Tit. 3, 10-11). For the person, who, admonished
once or twice, does not repent, but continues pertinacious in an opinion
contrary to a manifest or defined dogma - not being able, on account of this
public pertinacity to be excused, by any means, of heresy properly so called,
which requires pertinacity - this person declares himself openly a heretic. He
reveals that by his own will he has turned away from the Catholic Faith and the
Church, in such a way that now no declaration or sentence of anyone whatsoever
is necessary to cut him from the body of the Church. Therefore the Pontiff who
after such a solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or
even by the Synod, would remain himself hardened in heresy and openly turn
himself away from the Church, would have to be avoided, according to the
precept of Saint Paul. So that he might not cause damage to the rest, he would
have to have his heresy and contumacy publicly proclaimed, so that all might be
able to be equally on guard in relation to him. Thus, the sentence which he had
pronounced against himself would be made known to all the Church, making clear
that by his own will he had turned away and separated himself from the body of
the Church, and that in a certain way he had abdicated the Pontificate…”[1]
________________________________________
[1] De Potestate Ecclesiastica, (Monasterii
Westphalorum, Deiters, 1847) ch. 6, sec. 2, pp. 124-125 (emphasis added).
Now that we have the FULL quotation from
Ballerini, tell us, Fr. Kramer, where were the "solemn and public
warnings" by the Cardinals or bishops in the case of Pope Francis? And
what was Francis' response to these public warnings? As we have said all along,
the "fact" of public pertinacity is established BY THE CHURCH, the
legitimate trier of fact, and not by you and your fellow comrades in the
Resistance. It is only "by the fact" (ipso facto) of public
pertinacity - as judged by the Church - that the Pope would fall from office,
not by the judgment of any individual with no authority in the Church. Again,
the ecclesiastical warnings, issued by the authorities in the Church, establish
public pertinacity if the Pope remains hardened in heresy after those warnings.
It is only then that he would be considered a "manifest heretic," and
fall from office (and whether there is the need of a declaratory sentence is
irrelevant to that point).
And I also note that in your prior email,
you say the "SIN of public heresy" causes the loss of office,"
but now in this email switch arguments by referring to the "CRIME" of
heresy which is "notorious in fact" that causes the loss of office.
Again, you argue just like a Sedevacantist, omitting parts of quotations that
refute your position, and mixing up canon law and divine law as if you knew
what you were talking about. You don't. Was this supposed to be a response to
our challenge to prove where the Church says individuals can establish the fact
of public pertinacity? Really? Because "notoriety" is a canonical
element of the crime of heresy, the Church alone is the judge of whether
notorious heresy exists under her canon laws, just like she is the judge of
whether public pertinacity exists, after the issuance of "solemn and public
warnings."
Finally, in total desperation, and
completely unable to answer the charge that, in your theory, CHRIST allows the
entire Church to follow a FALSE POPE, you can only respond by saying: "How
can Catholics not know the Pope is a heretic"? Only the blind Catholics in
name only don't know about it?" Are you serious, Fr. Kramer? Is this your
rebuttal? So all the Cardinals and bishops of the world are following a false
Pope? You know better than they? The Church has been reduced to only those handful
of "Catholics" who reject Pope Francis? This is EXACTLY what the
Sedevacantists have said about you regarding the previous five pontificates!!!
The more you write, the more your errors are exposed, and the more in line with
Sedevacantist theology you are.
Kramer: Red Herring Argument: The point at
issue is not about warnings, but about the loss of office without any
declaration or sentence by the Church -- the public heretic ceases to be pope
and member of the Church BY HIMSELF (as Bellarmine says), "without any
"declaration or sentence" (as Ballerini says). When the pope falls
into manifest heresy, he leaves the Church by himself and leaves the office he
occupied in the Church and goes out. Warnings only verify the defection from
the Church and loss of office that has already taken place.
If there is any doubt about pertinacity, then the warnings are
necessary. The heretic does not lose office because he has been warned and
judged to be pertinacious, but the act of pertinacious public heresy effects
the loss of office before any judgment is made.
If a pope defects from the faith in such a blatantly adamant manner that
not only the matter but the pertinacity is manifest beyond all shadow of doubt,
then it is plainly evident to all who are not afflicted with supine ignorance
or spiritual blindness that the "pope" is an infidel; and neither a
member of the Church nor its head; even if all the cardinals are heretics too,
and are unwilling (sic) to administer warnings to their fellow heretic [emphasis
added]
Salza: Let me get this
straight. You intentionally omit Ballerini’s teaching on the necessity of
warnings, and then after we catch you in your deceit, you simply say the
warnings don’t apply?! Who are you kidding?
You say: Red Herring Argument: The point at issue is
not about warnings, but about the loss of office without any declaration or
sentence by the Church -- the public heretic ceases to be pope and member of
the Church BY HIMSELF (as Bellarmine says), "without any "declaration
or sentence" (as Ballerini says).
JS: Your
response proves that you don’t even understand our position. WE DO NOT HOLD THAT A DECLARATORY SENTENCE
IS REQUIRED FOR LOSS OF OFFICE! And
yet you continually accuse us of this
falsehood! Thus, it is you who uses straw men arguments and red-herrings, and
you do so either out of profound ignorance or malice, God knows. You confuse
the public judgment of pertinacity with a declaratory sentence of the crime,
which shows you don’t know the material. As I said in the last email, whether a
declaratory sentence is required after the Church establishes the fact of
public pertinacity is irrelevant. You are not making even the most basic,
elementary distinctions. You are not capable of discussing the finer points of
this theology because you don’t even know the basics.
You
say:
When the pope falls into
manifest heresy, he leaves the Church by himself and leaves the office he
occupied in the Church and goes out.
JS: This is more petitio principii.
Who establishes the FACT that “the Pope fell into manifest heresy” in the first
place? People like you with no authority, who simply presumes it based on
external words and actions (and whose judgment is contrary to what the Cardinals
and bishops believe)? Your argument is the same as the Sedevacantists. You want
to run to second base before you get to first base. Your argument regarding
Francis is NO DIFFERENT than theirs regarding the other Popes.
You say: Warnings only verify the defection from the
Church and loss of office that has already taken place.
JS: You can’t be serious. “Warnings only verify the defection from the
Church and loss of office”? Again, Fr. Kramer, are you serious? With all due
respect, you cannot be this ignorant. Ballerini clearly says that the warnings
PRECEDE the loss of office, since it’s by VIRTUE of the warnings that
pertinacity is ESTABLISHED (not before), by which the Pope THEN loses the
office, the FACT (existence) of the heresy having been established by the
Church. Ballerini says:
‘Avoid the heretic, AFTER
a first and second correction, knowing that such a man is perverted and
sins, since he is condemned by his own judgment’ (Tit. 3, 10-11). For the
person, who, admonished once or twice [PAST TENSE], does not repent,
but continues pertinacious in an opinion contrary to a manifest or defined
dogma - not being able, on account of this public pertinacity to be excused, by any means, of heresy
properly so called, which requires pertinacity - this person declares himself openly a
heretic.
It’s clear that the chronological sequence is as follows: The Pope is (1)
“admonished once or twice” by Church authorities (2) he does not repent (3) his
public pertinacity is then established (4) he loses his office by declaring
himself openly a heretic AND, AS WE HAVE ALWAYS SAID (READ OUR BOOK), NO
DECLARATORY SENTENCE FOR THIS PROCESS IS REQUIRED.
Fr. Kramer, where does Ballerini say “the warnings verify the defection
that has already taken place”? Please show us.
Ballerini repeats the same chronological sequence leading to the loss of
office a couple sentences later:
Therefore the Pontiff
who AFTER such a solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman
Clergy or even by the Synod, would REMAIN himself hardened in heresy
and openly turn himself away from the Church, would have to be avoided,
according to the precept of Saint Paul.
Again, the Pontiff (1) is given a solemn and public warning (2) remains
hardened in heresy (he does not repent and thus establishes his pertinacity);
(3) and then, “AFTER” this sequence occurs, he “would have to be
avoided.”
Again, where does Ballerini say that the “warnings only verify the
defection has already taken place”? He doesn’t, and you know it. You are dishonest.
What purpose would a warning serve for one who has already left the Church?!
Warnings establish that fact, they don’t confirm it. Rather, a declaratory
sentence confirms it, if one is required (and Suarez said the common
opinion is that one is required). But that is not relevant to the necessity of
the Church determining that the pertinacity is public, as Ballerini clearly
teaches.
You say: If there is any doubt about pertinacity,
then the warnings are necessary. The heretic does not lose office because he
has been warned and judged to be pertinacious, but the act of pertinacious
public heresy effects the loss of office before any judgment is made.
JS: More question begging. Who decides “if there is any doubt about
pertinacity”? Ballerini doesn’t say anything about individuals with no
authority making that decision, does he? The Sedevacantists have no “doubt”
that the other conciliar Popes were pertinacious, but you do. And the College
of Cardinals certainly have doubt that Francis is pertinacious, if they even
think he has taught heresy, but you don’t. So who decides? What this shows is
that your arguments are the same as the Sedevacantists, and we have refuted
them all.
Whether the “act of pertinacious public heresy effects the loss of office”
is NOT THE ISSUE. The issue is how does the Church KNOW the Pope is a public
pertinacious heretic? Will the Church only know after you, Fr. Kramer, submit
your paperwork to the Apostolic Signatura? Oh, that’s right. All of us are
“blind Catholics in name only” because we don’t reject who the Church has
elected, presented and accepted as the true Pope, as you have. As John of St.
Thomas teaches, anyone who rejects who the Church elects, presents and receives
as Pope not only commits a mortal sin against the Faith, but is a heretic.
You have let your anger get the best of you. You are being led by your
will and passions, not your intellect. Christ will not allow the entire Church
to follow a false Pope (this is de fide,
and we will provide you quotations from the theologians if you need them). You
had NO RESPONSE to this de fide
teaching, other than to say that the entire Church is wrong and you are right.
That means you have no argument. But since you have publicly rejected the
visible Church, you rationalize that Christ is really not allowing it; that’s
because it is just a remnant of you guys (Fr. Kramer, Eric the “Great Monarch”
Gajweski, your authority Steve Speray and the rest Sedevacantists) who is the
real Church, who is following the real Pope.
Fr. Kramer no longer responded.
