(The following is an e-mail reply sent to Fr. Kramer's e-mail group)
 |
| Fr. Paul Leonard Kramer |
1)
Fr.
Kramer is in a diabolical rage over a book that he has not read, and
adamantly refuses to read it. That is not rational.
2)
When
writing the book, we took great pains to word everything very carefully. We also provided footnotes throughout in
order to define our terms and clarifying what we meant by various phrases, and
what we did not mean. We did this so
that our position would not be misunderstood, and to prevent others from misrepresenting
it. But evidently these measures will not
help when a person rashly attacks the book without
even reading it, as Fr. Kramer has done and is doing.
3)
Fr. Kramer does
not know our position. He continuously misrepresents it, and accuses
us of holding positions that we not only do
not hold, but which we explicitly refute in the book.
4)
When
we address a point that is disputed by theologians, such as if, when, or how a pope loses his office for heresy, we purposefully avoid
taking a definitive position of our own, since 1) only the Church can settle
such “questions of law,” and 2) the Church has never done so. Therefore, when it comes to if, when, or how a heretical pope loses his office, we do not take present the
teaching of any theologian as being definitive and settling the matter. What we do show, however, is that none of the
theologians support the Sedevacantist position, which is one of private judgment determining who is and
who is not a true pope, without reference to the public judgment of the Church.
5)
The
question of the loss of office for a heretical pope contains a questions of fact and questions of law. The question of fact is whether the pope is,
in fact, a heretic; questions of law pertain to if, when, or how, a
heretical pope would cease to be pope. Both of these issues (questions of law
and fact) can only be determined by the Church.
Not even Bellarmine presented his opinion regarding the “question of
law” as being definitive. This is
evident since he referred to the opinions he disagrees with by using phrases
such as “not proven to me” (second opinion), “exceedingly improbable” (third
opinion) or “to my judgment, this opinion
cannot be defended” (fourth opinion). He
never declared that they were all certainly
wrong and that his opinion was certainly
correct, since he knew full well that only the Church could settle such
“questions of law” definitively, and until it does so, theologians are free to
disagree.
6)
Fr.
Kramer and the Sedes error twice with respect to Bellarmine’s opinion: 1) they
err by misunderstanding it; 2) they err by treating his opinion as if it were a
dogma of the faith to which all are bound to submit. In truth, anyone is free
to reject, even the correct
understanding of Bellarmine’s opinion.
They are even free to hold the position that a heretical Pope can never lose his office, since this
position has been defended by reputable theologians (with books containing an
imprimatur) and has never been condemned by the Church.
7)
Regarding
our book, which Fr. Kramer has attacked without reading, before it was
published it was reviewed by some of the top theologians in the SSPX, and it is
published by St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, which is one of the top traditional
Seminaries in the world. And after being
published, it has been highly praised by some very reputable priests and two
Cardinals that we know of. One of these
Cardinals, who himself is one of the most respected canonists in Rome, referred
to it as “a very important book for our time.”
We were also recently contact by a priest who teaches at the Pontifical University of Saint Thomas
Aquinas (The Angelicum) in Rome,
who not only highly praised the book, but asked if we would be willing to
provide him with six of the chapters so that he could share the material with
some very prominent Churchmen (to be used in an important project). I mention
all this not to boast, but to show that it is not simply Fr. Kramer’s opinion (a
priest) against that of Robert Siscoe and John Salza (two laymen), as he would
like everyone to think; rather it is Fr. Kramer’s opinion (about a book he has never read!) against two laymen and all those traditional
priests (and Cardinals) who have praised and endorsed it.
Now, let’s turn to Fr. Kramer’s
e-mail. I will intersperse my comments in red.
Fr. Kramer: Here is Chapter 30 of St. Robert
Bellarmine's De Romano Pontifice. By a careful reading of this chapter one
easily grasps that my understanding of it, (which is in unanimous agreement of
it with the interpretation of all modern scholars), is the only orthodox
solution to the question of a papal loss of office due to heresy. The opinion of Cajetan and Suarez both
offend against the principle, Prima sedes
a nemine iudicatur.
First, notice that Fr. Kramer appears
to present Suarez and Cajetan as holding the same opinion. This is a very
common error (even Wernz-Vidal made this mistaken), but it is certainly not correct. Suarez explicitly rejected Cajetan’s position
on the loss of office for a heretical pope, and even attempted to refute it.
Let me begin by providing
some background that will be helpful in understanding what follows. There was a lengthy debate between the two Jesuits
(Bellarmine and Suarez), and the two Dominicans (Cajetan and John of St. Thomas)
concerning the question of how a heretical pope would lose his office. It began with an extremely thorough, book
length treatise by Cajetan (De
Comparatione Auctoritatis Papae et Concilii). Later, Bellarmine (De Romano Pontifice, bk 2, ch 30) and Suarez (Tractatus De Fide, Disp. 10, Sect. 6) objected to Cajetan’s
position. Next came John of St. Thomas (Cursus Theologici, II-II, On the Authority
of the Supreme Pontiff, Disp. 2, Art. 3), who defended the position of
Cajetan (his fellow Dominican), and refuted each and every objection that Bellarmine
and Suarez had presented against it. These were the four main players in the debate
over what has come to be known as the “two opinions” (i.e., the two main
opinions concerning how a pope loses his office). It is also worth noting that, although the
Sedes continuously quote what Bellarmine had to say, his commentary was
actually very brief in comparison with the others. What Bellarmine wrote in De Romano Pontifice was in no way
intended to be a thorough treatise on the subject, but was only his comments on
five theologian opinions.
The reason for mentioning this is because
the position of Bellarmine and Suarez is
the same, and John of St. Thomas
confirmed that their position was the same. Bellarmine and Suarez held the
opinion that a heretical pope would lose his office, ipso facto, after being
judged a heretic by the Church (unless he openly left the Church of his own accord). That Bellarmine held that the Church would
have to judge the matter first is clear by reading not only what he wrote, but
also what Suarez wrote, since they use similar arguments to defend their
position. The only possible difference between the two
is that Bellarmine does not explicitly mention that the loss office follows a
declaratory sentence of the crime (even though John of St. Thomas said he did require one), whereas Suarez does. But Bellarmine does explicitly state that a
heretical pope will not be removed by God (that is deposed by God) unless it is
through men, who first judge him ("judging" with a discretionary judgment, not a coercive judgment).
Fr. Kramer: The canon, Si papa, has been
demonstrated to be spurious, and did not originate from St. Boniface; nor has
it ever received official recognition from the Church, and can only be applied
in a broad sense according to which a pope who
has already fallen from the papal office due to heresy can then be judged and punished by the Church.
The Canon Si Papa, which Fr. Kramer tries to
dismiss, is found in the Decretum
Gratiani (12th century), which is the first part of a collection
of six legal texts that together became known as the Corpus Juris Canonici. The canon was on the books for eight
centuries and is cited regularly by the theologians who discuss the loss of
office for a heretical pope. It is
treated as an authoritative canon by them all, including St. Robert Bellarmine.
The reason Fr. Kramer is attempting to dismiss this canon is because it
explicitly states that a pope (not a former
pope) can be indirectly judged in the case of heresy,
which is a teaching that Fr. Kramer declares to be heretical, since he mistakenly believes it is contrary to the
famous axiom “Prima sedes a nemine
iudicatur” (the First See is judged by no one). What he doesn’t realize is that heresy has always been consider an exception to the rule, which permits a limited form of judgment against a Pope. Si Papa
explicitly states that a pope can be judged in the case of heresy, and this is
how the canon has been interpreted by theologians for centuries. For example, John of St. Thomas wrote:
“A
specific text is found in the Decree of Gratian, Distinction 40, chapter ‘Si
Papa,’ where it is said: ‘On earth, no mortal should presume to reproach the
Pontiff for any fault, because he who has to judge others, should not be judged
by anyone, unless he is found deviating from the Faith’ (Pars I, D 40,
c. 6). This exception obviously means that in case of heresy, a judgment
could be made about the Pope.”
Here is the actual canon:
“If
the Pope, being neglectful of his own salvation and that of his brethren, be
found useless and remiss in his works, and, more than that, reluctant to do
good (which harms himself and others even more), and nonetheless brings down
with him innumerable throngs of people … Let no mortal man presumes to rebuke
him for his faults, for, it being incumbent upon him to judge all, he should be
judged by no one, unless he is suddenly
caught deviating from the faith (nisi deprehendatur a fide devius).[1]
The great 17th century canonist,
Fr Paul Laymann, S.J., (who is recognized as one of the greatest canonists of
his day), also acknowledges the authority of Si Papa. He wrote:
“It
is more probable that the Supreme Pontiff, as concerns his own person, could fall
into heresy, even a notorious one, by reason of which he would deserve to be
deposed by the Church [Dominican Opinion], or rather declared to be separated
from her [Jesuit Opinion] (…) not indeed as if the Roman Pontiffs were at any
time heretics de facto (for one could
hardly show that); but it was the persuasion [of the Fathers] that it could
happen that they fall into heresy and that, therefore if such a thing should
seem to have happened, it would pertain
to the other bishops to examine and give a judgment on the matter; as one
can see in the Sixth Synod, Act 13; the Seventh Synod, last Act; the eight
Synod, Act 7 in the epistle of [Pope] Hadrian… And in Si Papa d. 40, it is
reported from Archbishop Boniface: ‘He who is to judge all men is to be judged
by none, unless he be found by chance to be deviating from the Faith’. And Bellarmine himself, book 2, ch. 30,
writes: ‘We cannot deny that [Pope] Hadrian with the Roman Council, and the
entire 8th General Synod was of the belief that, in the case of heresy, the Roman Pontiff could be judged,’ as one
can see in Melchior Cano, bk. 6, De Locis Theologicis, last chapter. … nevertheless, for as long as he is tolerated
by the Church [not yet judged by the Church], and is publicly recognized as the
universal pastor, he is still endowed, in fact, with the pontifical power, in
such a way that all his decrees have no less force and authority than they
would if he were a truly faithful, as Dominic Barnes notes well (q.1, a. 10,
doubt 2, ad. 3) Suarez bk 4, on laws, ch. 7.”
The following is Cajetan’s
commentary on Si Papa:
“Next
that of Boniface, pope and martyr, as found in Si Papa [D. 40, c. 6], where he says, ‘Unless the pope is deviant from the faith, no mortal presumes to
convict him of his faults,’ where only
the crime of unbelief entails subjection to a judge by whom the pope can be
judged, which is recognized to be the universal Church or the general
council.[2]
They all interpret Si Papa is meaning that heresy is the exception to the rule, which
permits the Church to render a judgment concerning the pope in the case of
heresy.
Suarez also confirms that heresy is the
exception to the rule that “the pope is judged by no one”. He wrote:
“If
you ask what gives us certainty that, by Divine Law, a Pontiff is deposed as soon as a sentence is pronounced by the
Church [contrary to the teaching of Cajetan]: I respond, in the first
place, that I have already produced the testimony of [Pope] Clement, which is
from the mouth of Peter; in the second place … it is the common consensus of
the Church and the Pontiffs. (… )
“I
say fourthly: outside of the case of heresy, a true and undoubted
Pontiff, even if he be extremely wicked, cannot be deprived of his dignity. (…)
Therefore all the Pontiffs cited above,
while affirming that the Church can pass judgment on the Supreme Pontiff in the
case of heresy, deny absolutely that she can pass judgment on him outside
of that case; and it is in this sense that the often say that the Pope is
judged by no one.”
What these citations show is that heresy has always been
consider the exception to the rule that the first see is judged by no one. It is also worth noting that neither of the "two opinions" claim that the Church has authority over the Pope (even in the
case of heresy), or that the Church authoritatively deposes the Pope.
Another authority who is regularly cited
by the theologians in defense of the teaching that the Church can judge a Pope
in the case of heresy is Pope Innocent III, who said:
“For faith is so necessary
for me that, while for other sins I have only God as my judge, only for that sin which is committed against
faith could I be judged by the
Church” (Sermon II).
Is Fr. Kramer going to dismiss this
teaching of Pope Innocent III as being “spurious,” as he attempted to do with
Si Papa?
Furthermore, as already mentioned,
Bellarmine himself cited Si Papa as
an authority in affirming that a pope can be judged in the case of heresy. And to be clear, Bellarmine is not referring
to a former pope (who has already lost his office), which is how
Fr. Kramer is attempts to twist the clear words of the Doctor of the Church. No, Bellarmine is referring to a pope, which
is why he says that heresy is the one case in which “inferiors” (the Cardinals
and bishops) are permitted to judge superiors (the Pope). Here is Bellarmine’s teaching, taken from his
refutation of the Third Opinion:
“The
Third opinion is on another extreme, that the Pope is not and cannot be deposed
either by secret or manifest heresy. Turrecremata in the aforementioned
citation relates and refutes this opinion, and rightly so, for it is
exceedingly improbable. Firstly, because
that a heretical Pope can be judged is expressly held in the Canon, Si Papa,
dist. 40, and with Innocent. And what is more, in the Fourth Council of
Constantinople, Act 7, the acts of the Roman Council under Hadrian are recited,
and in those it was contained that Pope Honorius appeared to be legally
anathematized, because he had been convicted of heresy, the only reason where it is lawful for inferiors
[bishops] to judge superiors [Pope]. Here the fact must be remarked upon
that, although it is probable that Honorius was not a heretic …we still cannot
deny that Hadrian, with the Roman Council, and the whole Eighth Synod sensed
that in the case of heresy, a Roman
Pontiff can be judged.”
Notice that nothing in Bellarmine’s
teaching indicates that the pope had already
lost his office (being deposed secretly by God) and that the Church was judging
a former pope. This is further confirmed by what he wrote one
paragraph earlier when he refutes
the idea that a pope is deposed by God before he is judged by men (which is the
position that Fr. Kramer and his Sedevacantists comrades hold). In his refutation of this opinion, Bellarmine
draws a parallel between the election of a pope, and the deposition of a
Pope. He explains that just as God does
not make a man pope “without the agreement of men” (who elect him), neither
does God remove a pope “unless it is through men” (who judge him). Here is his refutation of the Second Opinion:
“The
second opinion is that the Pope, in the very instant in which he falls into
heresy, even if it is only interior, is outside the Church and deposed by God, for which reason he can be judged by the
Church. That is, he is declared
deposed by divine law, and deposed de facto, if he still refused to yield.
This is of John de Turrecremata, but it is not proven to me. For Jurisdiction
is certainly given to the Pontiff by God, but
with the agreement of men, as is obvious; because this man, who beforehand
was not Pope, has from men that he would begin to be Pope, therefore, he is not
removed by God unless it is through men. But an occult heretic cannot be judged by men…”
And as should be obvious, the judgment
would have to be rendered by the proper authorities in the Church – that is,
those who are competent to render such a judgment – and not Joe Catholic in the
street, who probably doesn’t know the difference between heresy and lesser
degrees of error.
As further evidence that the judgment
would have to be rendered by the proper authorities, we can cite St. Thomas who
explains that just as it pertains to the proper authorities to write the law,
so too does it pertain to them to interpret it and apply it to individual
cases. The following is from the
Summa:
“Since judgment should be pronounced according
to the written law, as stated above, he that pronounces judgment, interprets,
in a way, the letter of the law, by applying it to some particular case. Now
since it belongs to the same authority to interpret and to make a law, just as
a law cannot be made except by public authority, so neither can a judgment be pronounced except by public authority, which
extends over those who are subject to the community.”[3]
Furthermore, the Angelic Doctor goes on
to explain that it is unlawful for a
person to render a judgment he has no authority to make, noting that those who
do such a thin are guilty of the unjust act of “judgment by usurpation.”
“Judgment is lawful in so far as it is an
act of justice. Now it follows from what has been stated above (1, ad 1,3)
that three conditions are requisite for
a judgment to be an act of justice: first, that it proceed from the inclination
of justice; secondly, that it come from
one who is in authority; thirdly, that it be pronounced according to the
right ruling of prudence. If any one of these be lacking, the judgment will be
faulty and unlawful. First, when it is contrary to the rectitude of justice,
and then it is called ‘perverted’ or ‘unjust’: secondly, when a man judges about matters wherein he has no authority, and this
is called judgment ‘by usurpation’…”
In addition to this teaching of St.
Thomas, we have the decree of a general council of the Church that absolutely forbids
Catholics (even priests and bishops) to separate from their Patriarch (the Pope
is the Patriarch of the West) before the proper authorities render a judgment
of the crime. And the council Fathers considered
this to be such a grave offense that they attached an excommunication to any
layperson who dared to do such a thing. The following is from the Fourth
Council of Constantinople:
“As
divine scripture clearly proclaims, ‘Do not find fault before you investigate,
and understand first and then find fault.’ And
does our law judge a person without first giving him a hearing and learning
what he does? Consequently, this
holy and universal synod justly and fittingly declares and lays down that no
lay person or monk or cleric should separate himself from communion with his
own patriarch before a careful inquiry and judgment in synod, even if he
alleges that he knows of some crime perpetrated by his patriarch, and he
must not refuse to include his patriarch’s name during the divine mysteries or
offices. (…) If anyone shall be found defying this holy synod, he is to be
debarred from all priestly functions and status if he is a bishop or cleric; if a monk or lay person, he must be
excluded from all communion and meetings of the church [i.e. excommunicated]
until he is converted by repentance and reconciled.”
Fr. Kramer and the
Sedevacantist are not only guilty of the sin of “judgment by usurpation,” but
they (and the position they promote) is formally condemned by a general council
of the Church. Woe to those confused
Catholics who are led by Fr. Paul Leonard Kramer to do what this council
forbids.
Suarez used the same argument as
Bellarmine did above in explaining that a heretical pope will not be deposed by
Christ before being judged by men. He
explains that just as the Church only designates a man to be pope by the
election, after which Christ Himself confers the pontifical power upon him, so,
too, when it comes to deposing a heretical Pope, the Church merely judges and
declares him to be a heretic, after which Christ authoritatively deposes him.
In Suarez’ own words:
“For
Christ the Lord constituted the Pope as supreme judge absolutely; even the
canons indifferently and generally affirm this; and at length the Church does
not validly exercise any act of jurisdiction against the Pope; nor is the power conferred to him by
election, rather [the Church] merely designates a person upon whom Christ
confers the power by himself; therefore on deposing a heretical Pope, the Church would not act as superior to
him, but juridically and by the consent of Christ she would declare him a heretic and therefore
unworthy of Pontifical honors; he would then ipso facto and immediately be deposed by Christ…”
That is certainly not the opinion of Cajetan. But we see is that both Bellarmine and Suarez
defend their position by drawing a parallel between how a man becomes pope (God
joins the man to the office following the election) and how a heretical pope
loses his office (God disjoins the man from the office after he is “judged by
men”). The ipso facto loss of office, defended by Bellarmine and Suarez, follows the judgment of men; it does
not precede it as Fr. Kramer claims. In
fact, John of St. Thomas confirmed this very point in his refutation of Bellarmine
and Suarez’ position:
“It
cannot be held that the Pope, by the very fact of being a heretic, would cease
to be pope antecedently to [before] a declaration of the Church. (…) What is truly a matter of debate is whether
the Pope, after he is declared by the Church to be a heretic, is deposed
ipso facto by Christ the Lord [one opinion], or if the Church ought to depose
him [second opinion]. In any case, as long as the Church has not issued a
juridical declaration, he must always be considered the Pope.[4]
(…) Bellarmine and Suarez are of the
opinion that, by the very fact that the Pope is a manifest heretic and
declared to be incorrigible [i.e. judged by the Church], he is deposed by
Christ our Lord without any intermediary, and not by any authority of the
Church.”[5]
We can see that one of the main actors
in the debate (who happens to be one of the great Thomists the Church has ever
produced) confirmed that Bellarmine and Suarez held the same opinion, which is
that the ipso facto loss of office
occurs after the Church judges the
Pope.
Kramer: Both Ballerini and Pope Gregory XVI understood
the doctrine in this manner, as did Wernz-Vidal and Matteo Conte da Coronata
OFM Cap. (and many others) in the 20th Century. For more than a century it has
been the sententia communior (more common opinion), and according to Dominic
Prummer OP, the sententia communis (common opinion).
Kramer refers to a lot of
authorities, but quotess none of them. And
when he does quote authorities, he usually only provides the Latin, and not an
English translation, even though he surely knows that the vast majority of
those who read his rants do understand Latin.
Is Kramer simply trying to impress his readers by citing the Latin only
(and thereby prevent most of his readers from noticing that the authorities
don’t teach what he claims), or does he want them to actually understand what
they are reading? If it’s the latter,
why would he only cite the Latin, and not also
provide a translation?
And we can be absolutely certain that none
of the authorities Kramer references teach that a layman in the pew, or an
individual priest in Ireland who spends his day posting of Facebook, can declare,
on their own authority, that a pope, who is accepted as such by the Church, is
a heretic and therefore not a true pope. In fact, Bellarini (who Kramer referenced
above) explicitly teaches that a pope who is preaching heresy would have to be
publicly warned by “the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by the Synod”
(the proper authorities) before losing his office.
Ballerini held the position that if a
pope publicly professed heresy, the Church would have to issue a solemn warning. Following this warning, if the Pope persisted
in his error, he would thereby “manifested” his heresy (his pertinacity) and
essentially abdicate the Pontificate, even before a council was called. This differs slightly from what others taught
(since they say the council would have to render the judgment), but it is certainly
a valid opinion. According to
Ballerini’s opinion, if a council was later called (after the Pope was
considered a “manifest heretic” by the Church’s judgment), it would issue a
declaration of deprivation affirming that the Pope had already lost his office.
But even according to Ballerini, the loss of office would not occur before the
Church issued the solemn warnings and established by crime (which is the
minimal that we say suffices for the loss of office in the book). Needless
to say, the teaching of Ballerini in no way supports Kramer’s position, since
Francis has not remained hardened in heresy following a solemn warning by the
proper authorities, and hence is not a “manifest heretic” according to the Church’s judgment.
Kramer: The opinions of Suarez and Cajetan also
suffer from the defect that they consider the manifest heretic pope to remain
in office until he is judged by the Church. The problem with that is that a
manifest heretic ceases by himself to be a member of the Church by his own
judgment against himself, by which he leaves the Church and therefore ceases to
be pope -- and without the judgment of anyone else -- only his own judgment
against himself (as Bellarmine explains in his refutation of opinion no. 4).
First, what those who hold either of
the two opinions require is that the pope be a “manifest heretic” according to the Church’s judgment,
before he will lose his office; the private
judgment of individual laymen and priests does not suffice. If Fr. Kramer disagrees with this, on what
basis can he object to the opinion of the Sedevacantists who reject all the
popes since Pius XII? After all, they
personally judge these Popes to have been “manifest heretics.” Therefore, if
the private judgment of individual Catholics suffices, how can Fr. Kramer
disagree with them, other than to claim their private judgment is wrong and his
private judgment is correct? And since
Fr. Kramer must know that his judgment is not infallible, how can he be certain
that his private judgment is correct and theirs is not? Furthermore, on what basis could he object to
the Sedevacantist Richard Ibranyi, who now rejects every pope since the year
1130 AD (yes, you read that correctly)?
Ibranyi sincerely believes that all these men were heretics and
therefore were not true popes. He even
claims to have “definitive proof” in support of his position. How can Kramer
disagree if he believes a pope will lose his office (i.e., that Christ will
depose him) when he is a manifest heretic according
to private judgment?
What this should demonstrate to a
reasonable person of sound mind, is why it is necessary for a public judgment
to come from the public authority, as St. Thomas taught, and why Christ will
not depose a pope until the proper authorities establishes the crime.
Second, when Kramer speaks of a pope who
“leaves the Church” (as he did above), does he mean a Pope who publicly leaves
the Church of his own free will, and is publicly acknowledged by the Church to have done so? If so, he should know that we concede, in the
book, that a case could be made that Christ would depose such a one even before
the Church renders a formal judgment, since, in this extreme case, the Church
would have no reason to recognize, as its head, one who no longer presented
himself as such. But this is not the situation we are facing, nor is it a situation
the Church has ever faced.
Kramer: The judgment of the Church can be only
an official post factum recognition by which the heretic pope can be
"shown to be already judged". (Innocent III - Sermo 4)
Once again we have a short “drive by” comment by Fr. Kramer with no
explanation. Therefore, I will provide the explanation along with a refutation
of what Fr. Kramer is clearly getting at. We will begin with the citation from
Innocent III that Fr. Kramer referenced (without actually quoting, as usual):
“However,
he [the Pope] should not flatter himself foolishly because of his power, nor
should he recklessly glory in his sublimity or honor; for, to the extent that
he is judged less by man, to that extent he is judged more rigorously by God. I
say that he is judged less; for he can be judged by men—or rather, he can be
shown to be judged—in the case that he loses his savor through heresy; for
“he who believes not is already judged” (Jn. 3).”
They key phrase is “shown to be
judged.” In other words, the Pope has already been judged (by God) and men
merely show that he has already been judged.
But here is the question: does Fr. Kramer interpret this teaching of
Innocent III as meaning that, because the pope has already been judged by God (for being an unbeliever),
it means he has already been deposed
by God? If not, then how does this teaching
of Innocent III help his case? And if he
does interpret it Innocent as meaning
that a pope who has “already been judged” (by God) has already been deposed (by
God), he is not only departing from the clear teaching of Bellarmine, but he is
being inconsistent with his own position. Why do I say that? Because Fr. Kramer holds that an occult
(secret) heretic remains a true pope, even though a secret heretic is an unbeliever who has already been
judged by God. Therefore, Fr. Kramer
cannot hold that a Pope, who has already been judged by God, has already been deposed
by God. The two are not quivalent, even according to Kramer’s own position.
Kramer: The opinion of John Salza & Robert
Siscoe are therefore heretical on these two points: 1) they deny that the
public sin of heresy "in sua natura" separates the heretic from the Church…”
We do not reject that teaching and never have.
Kramer: … (and causes the ipso facto loss of
office)…
It is not heretical to hold that a pope who has committed the public sin
of heresy (i.e., manifest heresy), according
to private judgment, retains his office.
It is not even heretical for one to hold that a pope who commits the
public sin of heresy, according to the
Church’s judgment, retains his office. That is only one of two perfectly acceptable
opinions, and nothing in Vatican I changed it (I say this because this is what
most Sedevacantists claim). To prove this point, I will cite the following from
Elements of Ecclesiastical Law,
published after Vatican I, which affirms that both opinions are still licit.
And when reading the following citation, notice that it does not even hint that
either of the two opinions is more likely correct than the other:
“Question:
Is a Pope who falls into heresy deprived, ipso jure, of the Pontificate?
Answer:
There are two opinions: one holds
that he is by virtue of divine appointment, divested ipso facto, of the Pontificate [i.e., Bellarmine and Suarez]; the
other, that he is, jure divino, only removable [Cajetan and John of St. Thomas].
Both opinions agree that he must at
least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church, i.e., by an ecumenical
council or the College of Cardinals.”[6]
Notice, there are “two opinions” (i.e.,
the Jesuit Opinion and the Dominican Opinion), and “both opinions agree that he
must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the church,” which is exactly what Fr. Kramer rejects, since he publicly rejects
a pope who has not been declared guilty of heresy by the Church.
It is also worth noting that that the
aforementioned book by Fr. Smith was sent to Rome for review following its
initial publication. The Preface of the Third Edition explains that Cardinal
Simeoni, Prefect of the Propaganda Fide, “appointed
two Consultors, doctors in canon law, to examine the ‘Elements’ and report to
him. The Consultors, after examining the book for several months, made each a
lengthy report to the Cardinal-Prefect.” Their detailed reports noted five
inaccuracies or errors in Fr. Smith’s book, all of which were corrected in the
Third Edition. The above citation about the loss of office for a heretical pope
was not among the requested revisions. This shows that canonists in Rome found
no error or inaccuracy in the assertion that there are “two opinions”
concerning the question of the loss of office for a heretical Pope, and that
both opinions agree that he “must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the
church, i.e., by an ecumenical council or the College of Cardinals”. Therefore,
it is clearly not “heresy,” as Fr. Kramer claims, to hold to the opinion of
Cajetan and John of St. Thomas.
Kramer: without the ecclesiastical penalty of
excommunication (as Bellarmine explains in ch. 30);”
We have never claimed that a pope loses his office by excommunication,
since a pope cannot incur an excommunication, as Cajetan himself (and others) explains.
Kramer: … and they oppose the dogma of the
petrine primacy by professing that the Church may pronounce judgment on a pope
while still in office.
Saying that the Church must establish the crime of heresy before a
pope will lose his office is not a denial of the dogma of the petrine
primacy. If it were, Bellarmine himself,
a Doctor of the Church, would have been guilty of this crime, as would Pope
Innocent III, and a plethora of other theologians I could cite (some of whom I
quoted above).
Kramer: Salza &
Siscoe stubbornly assert that their heretical opinion is the common opinion
today -- although there is not a theologian in the world who agrees with them.
But how would Fr. Kramer know what
our opinion is, since he hasn’t read our book. And how does he know what every theologian in the world
thinks? Has he interviewed them all? And if Kramer did read our book, he would see
that we do not hold to the opinion of any theologian as being definitive. All
we do is demonstrate that Fr. Kramer’s position is not supported by any
reputable theologian. And to be clear, Fr. Kramer’s position is
that if Joe Catholic in the pew, or Joe Priest in Ireland who spends his days
slandering people on Facebook, personally judges that a pope has committed the
“public sin” of heresy, they are permitted to publicly declare him to be a
heretic and therefore not a true pope. Kramer will search in vain for any reputable
(or non-reputable) theologian who has ever taught such an absurd doctrine. Excuse me, I mean “dogma”.
Kramer: A complete refutation of the errors and
heresies of Salza & Siscoe will soon follow.
We can’t wait. But if Kramer is
going to provide a completely refutation of the “errors and heresies of Salza
& Siscoe” he better at least quote us directly before “refuting” what he claims
we hold, and he better provide a citation for the quote. I say this, not only because he continuously
misrepresents our position (since he doesn’t understand it), but also because
he recently posted a “refutation” that contained an alleged quotation from John
Salza that is not what he or I hold;
and it is not what we argue in the book .
John and I searched high and low for that alleged “quote” and it was
nowhere to be found, and Fr. Kramer
refused to provide a source when we requested it. I personally asked him a half dozen times to
tell us where he got the quote, and he
refused to do so. Was it from a
radio interview in which John misspoke? Was it from a private e-mail between
John and Fr. Kramer from years ago that John wrote in haste? Or did Fr. Kramer simply make up the quote
out of thin air? We don’t know because
he refuses to tell us where the alleged quote came from. How do you think Fr. Kramer would react if we
publicly cited an alleged “quotation” from him that affirmed a position he does
not hold, and then refused to tell him where it came from? No doubt he would immediately take to
Facebook to report the lies of the malicious slanderers, Salza &
Siscoe. Yet this is precisely what
Kramer himself has done to John: he posted an alleged quote that is certainly not what he believes,
and refuses to say where it came from. And, I’m sorry to say, Fr. Kramer has already been caught red
handed citing a completely fraudulent quote (from St. Athanasius) against us
and in order to justify his errant ecclesiology (this is what happens when
someone gets their information from the internet, as does Fr. Kramer, without
verifying it). Had Kramer read our book,
he would have known that the quotation was fraudulent since we prove it (Kramer
himself now concedes that the “quote” is a complete fabrication).
So, when Kramer issues his “refutation of
the errors and heresies of Salza & Siscoe” make sure he quotes us directly,
and be sure to look and see if he provides a reference. And then, presuming the
source for the “quote” can be located, look and see if we are giving our
opinion, or simply explaining the opinion of this or that Church approved
theologian – the least of whom is in a league far superior to Fr. Kramer. And if
he was a serious scholar (which he evidently is not) he would quote directly from or book, rather than from our
short online articles. The reason for
this is because, as mentioned earlier, the book contains a much more clear
exposition of our position (including definitions of our terms) than do the short
articles we post on our website.
I will close by thanking the kind
gentleman for sending us Fr. Kramer’s e-mail, and look forward to being privy
to what Kramer sends out in the future.
I would also ask everyone to pray for Fr. Kramer, who appears to be
completely losing his mind; and also for any confused Catholics who may be
persuaded by the grave errors he is spreading via the world wide web. And also let us remember in our prayers those
Catholics of sound mind who may become completely scandalized by Kramer’s
public antics and be tempted to lose respect for the priesthood, since there is
no doubt that the troubling, and dare I say insane,
public behavior of Fr. Kramer will result in a diminishing of the respect for
the priesthood for some. So, many
prayers are needed during this unprecedented crisis in the Church, and this
time of “diabolical disorientation” that has overtaken certain priests who
spend their day slandering people on Facebook.
[1] Si Papa, dist 40, ch 6; Latin
found in Brian Tierney, The Crisis of Church and State (Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1964), p. 124.
[2] Cajetan, De Comparatione
Auctoritatis Papae et Concilii, English Translation in Conciliarism &
Papalism, by Burns & Izbicki (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997),
p. 103.
[3] ST, II-II, q.
60, a. 6
[4] John of St.
Thomas, Cursus Theologicus, Tome 6.
Questions 1-7 on Faith.
Disputation 8., Article 2
[5] John of St.
Thomas, Cursus Theologici Ii-Ii, On The Authority Of The Supreme Pontiff, Disp.
2, Art. 3.
[6] Smith, Sebastian
B. Elements of Ecclesiastical Law (revised third edition), New York: Benzinger Brothers,
1881.
