PAUL KRAMER, A
FATHER OF LIES
His Demonic Attempt to Divide Traditionalists
His Demonic Attempt to Divide Traditionalists
Unfortunately for Fr. Kramer, his shot
completely misfired again, for he fails to make the most basic theological
distinctions, and that is presumably because he is blinded by his rage against
us, and every other Catholic who refuses to declare, on their own authority,
that Francis is an antipope. Kramer
calls these Catholics “blind,” “ignorant fools,” and “Catholics in name only.”
Kramer is like the playground bully who cries to the teacher after he himself
picked the fight but got a surprising beat-down; and now that he realizes he
has lost the fight (just like the devil lost his), he is committed to causing
the most damage possible to his adversaries as he goes down in fire, by the most
blatant lies and misrepresentations, even attempting to stir up conflicts among
them (again, just like the devil). It is the strategy of Satan himself. Following
is Kramer’s latest rant and our reply:
Kramer: IS
CHRISTOPHER FERRARA ALSO A HERETIC (ACCORDING TO JOHN SALZA)?
According
to John Salza and Robert Siscoe, Fr. Paul Kramer is a heretic for saying this:
“Salza thinks it is a heresy to hold that the Church will be reduced to a small
number, and revert to the catacombs, and for a short time become invisible.” Salza
& Siscoe reply: "Fr. Kramer errs by denying an essential mark of the
Church."
Our Reply: In our feature addressing Fr. Kramer’s erroneous belief
that the Church will be “reduced to a small number,” (the feature is called “Fr.
Kramer Relies on a Fraudulent Quote to Justify His Rejection of Catholic
Theology,” ) we do not accuse Fr. Kramer of being a heretic. Just read our
feature here and see. So
Kramer lies right out of the gate, and it is one of many, many examples of how
Fr. Kramer falsifies our words. Kramer is not a public heretic because he holds
a false view on the Church’s perpetual mark of catholicity. Rather, Kramer is a
public heretic because he has publicly left the Church (declaring it to be a
false Church), and rejects the legitimacy of Pope Francis and all of the
bishops in union with the Pope. Rejecting the legitimacy of a Pope who has been
accepted as such by the Church is heresy,
according to John of St. Thomas and many other theologians; and all of them say
that rejecting a Pope who has been accepted by the entire Church is at least a
mortal sin against the Faith. So this shoots down the premise of Fr. Kramer’s
latest rant, and his attempt to pit us against Chris Ferrara who, unlike
Kramer, accepts the legitimacy of Pope Francis until the Church says otherwise.
Kramer: Salza
& Siscoe then falsify my position by saying: "Again, the problem with
Fr. Kramer’s position is that he conflates an underground Church (which the
Fathers predicted during the end times) with a Church consisting of only few
members (which is incompatible with the mark of catholicity)." Of course,
Salza & Co. are lying: I never said the Church would be reduced to
"only a few members" -- that is a slanderous Salza invention. What I
said was, "the Church will be reduced to a small number, and revert to the
catacombs". Salza has falsified my words in order to make me appear to be
a heretic.
Our Reply: The problem with Fr. Kramer’s attempted defense of his
position is two-fold. First, when Kramer says the Church will be reduced “to a
small number,” he defends his position by advancing a quotation fraudulently
attributed to St. Athanasius which says the Church will be “reduced to a
handful.” Now, if Fr. Kramer does not want his position to be interpreted as
“only a few members,” then why does he set forth the “Athanasius quote” as a
proper interpretation of his position? Clearly, if Fr. Kramer does not think
the Church will be “reduced to a few members” or a “handful,” then he should
have not have advanced the fraudulent “quote” to defend his position. For
Kramer to accuse us of a “slanderous invention” for interpreting his position
according to the very quotation he provided shows just how confused Kramer and
desperate he has become. And it also shows that Fr. Kramer is no “patristic
scholar,” since he did not know the quotation he wrongly attributed to St.
Athanasius was spurious until we pointed it out to him by providing him the
original Latin (which he was finally forced to admit).
Second, as anyone who carefully read our two articles on this issue can see, we took Kramer to task
for saying that “the visible entity will be apostate.” After we
pointed out that Kramer’s statement was materially heretical, because it denies
the indefectibility of the Church (the “visible entity” or visible social unit
will never become apostate), the prideful Fr. Kramer dug in his heels even more
and repeated his statement verbatim: “The visible entity will become apostate.”
As we have demonstrated, such a position is heretical, because it is precisely
to this “visible entity” to which the promises of Christ apply - namey, that
the gates of hell will not prevail. This is affirmed by all the classical
theologians, which Fr. Kramer evidently has not read since his Novus Ordo training many years ago. The
visible social unit may be forced underground during the end times, but it will
never “become apostate,” since if it did the gates of hell would have prevailed
against the Church. As we have said before, Kramer fails to see the perpetual
marks and attributes in the suffering Church of our time, and in the Church in
hiding in the end times. And this is why he publicly rejects the Catholic
Church of our day, that is, the visible social unit consisting of the Pope and
bishops at the top, which he maintains is the false church of the antichrist.
Kramer: Nevertheless,
Salza & Siscoe have solemnly declared me a heretic: "we recognize you
as being outside of the Church due to your public sin of heresy, even though
the Church has not yet declared you to be a heretic. I hope that helps to
clarify our position." Let us not
forget that it was Robert J. Siscoe who said: 《the
"fact" of public pertinacity must be established by the Church, not
individual Catholics》. And it was Salza
himself who said, 《In order for a person to be
considered guilty of the crime of heresy, both the matter and form must be
proved (not presumed) to be public (not occult). This is because the crime of
heresy requires not only an external commission of the act (matter), but also
internal guilt (the form), since internal guilt (pertinacity) is an essential
part of the corpus delicti (the body of the crime). While the external presence
of the material aspect alone (a heretical statement) may provide sufficient
grounds for the suspicion of heresy, it does not permit even a juridical
presumption of guilt, much less prove guilt, for the crime of heresy.》
SALZA
& SISCOE PROFESS THAT ONLY THE CHURCH MAY JUDGE SOMEONE A HERETIC, BUT FR.
PAUL KRAMER IS THE EXCEPTION TO THAT RULE!
Our Reply: Once again, the Novus
Ordo-trained priest fails to make the most basic theological distinctions. First,
the quotation “we recognize you as being outside of the Church,” was a private
e-mail to Kramer in response to an e-mail from him in which he accused us of
holding a position we do not hold (which he does constantly). Second, as we
explain in our book (which Kramer condemns without having read it) and in our
many articles, there is an exception
to the requirement for the Church to prove pertinacity in the external forum
(i.e., the crime of heresy) to deem a person a heretic. And that exception is
when one openly leaves the Church, as Fr. Kramer has done, by openly
rejecting the Pope and bishops, declaring the suffering Church to be a “false
Church” and thus departing from the Church as the rule of faith. We have always
maintained that public pertinacity is sufficiently demonstrated in such a case,
without the need for the Church to formally adjudicate a crime for heresy
(although in the case of a Pope, it would still be necessary for the Church to
issue an ecclesiastical warning and, under the new code, a declaratory sentence
would also be required). Thus, we have always maintained a distinction between an adjudication of the crime of heresy (public
heresy) and public defection, a distinction that Fr. Kramer evidently does not
understand.
Public Crime of Heresy vs.
Public Defection
Here are some quotations from
our book which set forth this distinction:
·
A person who leaves the Church of his
own free will (either by the crime of heresy and/or public defection, discussed
later), thereby, without additional censure, severs the external bonds of unity, by rejecting the Church as the rule of faith, and separating
from the Church’s governing authority. (p. 157)
·
However, we
do concede that if a Pope were to openly and publicly leave the Church of his own will, as opposed to simply professing
heresy,[1]
a case could be made that God would sever the bond that united the man to the
pontificate at the moment his public defection was acknowledged by the Church,
even without a declaratory sentence of the crime. (pp. 280-281)
·
Note that “public heresy” and “public
defection from the faith” are two different things. Sedevacantists have failed
to grasp this point when they attempt to apply canon 188, §4, to the conciliar
Popes. (p. 281).
·
But the Sedevacantists have their own
interpretation of this canon, quite different from that of the Church and her
theologians. According to the Dimond brothers, for example, “public defection
from the faith” [erroneously] is the same as a public crime.” (p. 286)
·
Notice, they [erroneously] answer by
providing the canonical definition of a public crime, as if “public defection
of the faith” and “public crime” are one and the same thing. (p. 287)
So Fr. Kramer has once again made a very
embarrassing error, by failing to distinguish between the crime of heresy and
public defection from the Church. But this is one of many examples of how Fr.
Kramer accuses us of a position we do not actually hold, all the while he fails
to grasp basic principles of theology. We are able to say that Fr. Paul Kramer
is a public heretic because he has openly left the Church by rejecting Pope
Francis and the Church over which he rules as the rule of faith, and not
because he has been convicted of the canonical crime of heresy (and neither of
which have occurred in the case of the conciliar Popes).
Kramer: In
Part III of my Reply to John Salza & Robert Siscoe, I explained:
《The manner in which it will be reduced to in visibility and in numbers is described by Cardinal Manning:
“The apostasy of the city of Rome from the vicar of Christ and its destruction by Antichrist may be thoughts very new to many Catholics, that I think it well to recite the text of theologians of greatest repute. First Malvenda, who writes expressly on the subject, states as the opinion of Ribera, Gaspar Melus, Biegas, Suarrez, Bellarmine and Bosius that Rome shall apostatize from the Faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ and return to its ancient Paganism. ...Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible; hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were from the face of the earth. Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church.”- Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, The Present Crisis of the Holy See, 1861, London: Burns and Lambert, pp. 88-90)》
Salza's & Siscoe's response was to declare me a heretic!
Our Reply: Again, Fr. Paul Kramer is not a heretic for holding a false
view of the Church’s perpetual mark of moral catholicity, which we have
explained in previous features. He is a public heretic for leaving the Church (and
declaring it a false Church), and for rejecting the legitimacy of the man the
Church has universally accepted as Pope, and declaring that all those in union
with him are not real Catholics (which is also the crime of schism). And we
have already addressed Kramer’s fallacious appeal to Cardinal Manning’s
quotation to justify his materially heretical statement that “the visible
entity will become apostate.” As we said in our first article: “When
Manning said the Church would be “invisible” for a time, he was explaining that
the Church – the visible social unit with all four marks in tact – would
not be visible to the secular world for a time while she went “underground”;
not that the Church would lose her attribute of visibility…In other
words, the Cardinal was most certainly not arguing that the Church would lose
her mark of catholicity, nor any of her other perpetual qualities that
render her formally visible, even if forced underground.”
Kramer: In
his article,《Opposing the Sedevacantist Enterprise》, Christopher A. Ferrara states, "it may well be that the Church is
ultimately reduced to a very tiny remnant by the time Antichrist appears and
asserts himself."
If, as Salza & Siscoe claim, that I am a heretic for saying that the Church will be greatly reduced in numbers, then so also is Christopher A. Ferrara a heretic according to their same solemn judgment for saying that the Church may very well be reduced to a small remnant. Yet, Salza has no complaint against Mr. Ferrara for saying almost exactly the same thing I said, for which Salza furiously denounces me to be in heresy.
WHY THE DOUBLE STANDARD? Why does John Salza hypocritically apply two weights and two measures -- ONE FOR FR. KRAMER AND ANOTHER FOR CHRISTOPHER FERRARA?
If, as Salza & Siscoe claim, that I am a heretic for saying that the Church will be greatly reduced in numbers, then so also is Christopher A. Ferrara a heretic according to their same solemn judgment for saying that the Church may very well be reduced to a small remnant. Yet, Salza has no complaint against Mr. Ferrara for saying almost exactly the same thing I said, for which Salza furiously denounces me to be in heresy.
WHY THE DOUBLE STANDARD? Why does John Salza hypocritically apply two weights and two measures -- ONE FOR FR. KRAMER AND ANOTHER FOR CHRISTOPHER FERRARA?
Our Reply: Unfortunately for Fr. Kramer, there is no double
standard, because Chris Ferrara did not say that “the visible entity
will become apostate.” As we have expressly stated in two previous
features, it is Kramer’s heretical view that the visible Church (the
visible social unit founded by Christ) will apostatize that is
materially heretical and what we “furiously denounce.” Mr. Ferrara, who rejects
Fr. Kramer’s claim that Pope Francis is an antipope, also rejects Kramer’s
claim that the Church will become “apostate” and “invisible” in the end times.
And note also that Ferrara does not say what his personal opinion is on the
possible reduction of Church membership during the end times, notwithstanding
Kramer’s assertion to the contrary. For Fr. Kramer to allege that his position
(on the “apostate counterfeit conciliar church of antipope Francis”) is the
same as that held by Chris Ferrara is pure lunacy. It is a mere demonic attempt
to create division among real Catholics. This is precisely what the devil
attempts to do; to “go down swinging” by causing as much damage and confusion
as possible, knowing that his battle is already lost.
Kramer: The answer is no mystery: Ferrara did not publicly challenge Salza on his fundamentalist opinion -- Fr. Kramer did.
Our Reply: So according to Fr. Kramer, accepting the man the Church
elects and receives as Pope is a “fundamentalist position”? Actually, it is the
Catholic position, but Fr. Kramer would not know that because he is no longer a
Catholic. He has openly left the Catholic Church, which he calls the
“counterfeit conciliar church.” And why would Mr. Ferrara “publicly challenge”
our position on a heretical Pope when he “publicly” agrees with it? More futile
attempts at creating division among Catholics from this Father of lies.
Kramer: John
Salza has been described by someone who knows him well as "ego driven and
ruthless".
Our Reply: It is quite sad to see a priest so desperate that he has
to actually bear false witness against a person by demonizing him with a lie,
just because he cannot refute his arguments. Thankfully, in our courts, such a
statement would be inadmissible hearsay under the rules of evidence. But Fr.
Kramer has no sense of justice or shame in fabricating such a statement. So we
challenge Fr. Kramer to identify the person “who knows [Salza] well” who allegedly
made the statement. Anyone who really knows Mr. Salza well would never describe
him as such. Come forth, Fr. Kramer, with your alleged source who made the
alleged statement so that Mr. Salza can cross examine him as a matter of
justice. Otherwise, you will be guilty of yet another public lie.
Kramer: That
fact is obvious, and is clearly an understatement in view of Salza's highly
defamatory reply to my original comment which merely expressed disagrerment [sic]
with his theological opinion. Salza's four part reply to my mere expression of
disagreement on a theological point falsely accused me of denying a dogma of
faith, and alleging me to have lost my mind, to be in "free fall", to
be "unravelling". That was Salza's manic response.
Our Reply: This is a great example of precisely how a “cry bully”
operates after he is defeated in the fight that he himself picked. Fr. Kramer
is the one who started this fight, on July 20, 2016 when, unprovoked by us,
he unilaterally attacked on his Facebook
page (describing Salza as “no scholar” with an “errant belief” that is contrary
“to the unanimous consent of the Fathers,” etc.). Note well that Kramer never
corresponded with Salza about any of these matters, nor has Kramer even read
our book.
When we began refuting his theological objections to our work on his Facebook page, Kramer desperately blocked
us from his Facebook page, and yet
continued to post disparaging remarks about us. We were then forced to write a
series of articles for our website refuting his erroneous theology and lies
about us. Kramer then sent out a clandestine email, behind our backs, to a
multitude of priests and prominent Catholic laymen, full of lies and misrepresentations, in a further effort to
undermine our credibility (and some of the people who share with us this
information may soon be coming forward against Kramer). Fortunately,
recognizing the injustice that Kramer was engaged in, people within Kramer’s
own circles forwarded his emails and posts to us, so that we could publicly
defend ourselves. Some also forwarded to us the e-mails they sent to Kramer in
which they defended against his lies misrepresentations, and criticized him for
his scandalous behavior. And when our
theological refutations became too much for Kramer, he descending into even
more sinful calumny (accusing Salza of being a Freemason) and quite crazily
attempted to ban Salza from giving a talk (about his errors) at a Catholic conference!
No doubt Fr. Kramer didn’t want Salza speaking to the public about why
Catholics cannot hold his position without falling into heresy. He, like the
devil himself, wants to keep his chosen flock in ignorance (that’s why he
blocks us from his Facebook page,
sends out secret emails, works behind the scenes to stop his opponents from
speaking about his errors, among other such desperate behavior).
Finally, when one of Fr.
Kramer’s confidants approached us for a cease fire and assured us that Kramer
had agreed to same, we likewise agreed. Unfortunately, Fr. Kramer not only lies
about us, but he also lied to his friend and confidant, since the very next day, Fr. Kramer breached the agreement by
issuing his most venomous attack against us to date, and sending it out via
email on a massive distribution list. And, for over two weeks, we have given
Fr. Kramer the opportunity to get back into compliance with the original
agreement and retract his latest attack, but he has refused to do so.
As you can see, we have been in
DEFENSIVE MODE against Fr. Kramer ever since he unilaterally attacked us in July, and has not ceased in his rage
against us (because our work against Sedevacantism is the main obstacle to his antipope Francis position), and yet Kramer
wants his readers to believe that our responses were to his “mere expression of
a disagreement on a theological point”! A mere disagreement on a single,
theological point? It is astonishing to believe that Fr. Kramer actually
believes what he writes. But when a person openly leaves the Church by
rejecting the Pope and practically the entire hierarchy in union with him, he
sins mortally against the Faith, and God blinds him to the truth.
All this shows is that Fr. Paul Leonard Kramer is a public liar, and among
the worst people we have ever encountered in a debate of this kind. He is a
poster child for the bitter and demonic fruits of the evil tree of
Sedevacantism, as he persecutes the Church of Jesus Christ like a rabid
Protestant. And the horns from this Father of Lies really come out at the end
of his screed. Take a read (and keep in mind this comes from a priest):
Kramer: John
Salza is out of control. His behaviour, patently that of one given over to
Narcissistic abuse, is outside the normal range. Salza, who with the most
incredible stupidly says Fr. Kramer is "in a diabolical rage over a book
he has not read" (!) (I have never made a peep about his book), has put
his psychiatric condition (Narcissistic Personality Disorder) on display for
the whole world to see, by sacrilegiously denigrating, demonizing, and
vilifying a priest for three months, merely for expressing disagreement with
his opinion! And the opinion which Salza excoriates, and characterizes as
heretical when pronounced by Fr. Kramer, goes unnoticed by Salza when professed
by Salza's friend and colleague, Christopher Ferrara.
Our Reply: Fr. Paul Kramer publicly rejects the man the entire
Catholic Church (including all of the Cardinals and bishops) recognizes as
Pope, spends his days on Facebook where he condemns the Pope and those in
communion with him, publicly prophesies (falsely) about world affairs (e.g.,
World War III), has declared that God killed the dear Fr. Nicholas Gruner for
the public sin of dissimulation, is the spiritual director for a man (Eric
Gajewski) who thinks he is “the Great Monarch,” among other such bizarre and
self-destructive behavior, and yet he has the temerity to accuse John Salza of
a personality disorder (does Kramer have a degree in Psychology, like Salza
does?), just because Salza has exposed his heretical theology (and, with Mr.
Siscoe, has refuted every one of Kramer’s crazy theological opinions)! Who did
Kramer say was narcissistic? This Father of Lies need look no further than his
own mirror.
Fr. Kramer is a classic example of the new phenomenon called the “cry-bully”,
which is defined as “a person who engages in intimidation, harassment, or other
abusive behaviour while claiming to be a victim.”[2] The
following excerpts from an article published in The Spectator, perfectly describes
the “crybaby” disorder for which Fr. Kramer is the poster boy:
“In the 1970s, there was a
big difference between bullies and cry-babies. … Fast forward some four
decades and things are not so simple. This is the age of the Cry-Bully, a
hideous hybrid of victim and victor, weeper and walloper. They are everywhere,
these duplicit Pushmi-Pullyus of the personal and the political … Even social media – the source of so much fun and
friendship for most of us – becomes a double-edged sword in the hands of the
Cry-Bully. ... It’ s a sort of Munchausen’s syndrome … Cry-Bullies do end up
isolated, as their determination to be victim and victor eventually wears out
the patience of the most forebearing friend. … The
Cry-Bully always explains to the point of demanding that one agrees with them
and always complains to the point of insisting that one is persecuting them.
They really are the very worst sort of modern moaner.[3]
Let us prayer that Fr. Kramer’s public “cry-bullying” antics, which only
further disgrace the priesthood which has suffered enough in recent decades,
will not turn even more souls away from the Church.
[1] A formal act of
defection from the Catholic Church (actus
formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica) is an externally provable
juridical act of departure from the Catholic Church, recognized in the 1983
Code of Canon Law as having certain juridical effects enumerated in canons
1086, 1117 and 1124. In 2006, the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts specified
in what a formal act of defection from the Catholic Church consisted. – see
Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Vatican City, March 13, 2006, Prot.
N. 10279/2006.
[2] Wikipedia, “Crybully”
[3] http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/04/meet-the-cry-bully-a-hideous-hybrid-of-victim-and-victor/
