He Breaches an Agreement to Stop this Ongoing Exchange
and Lies About Our Position on the Legal/Speculative Questions
Concerning the Loss of Office for a Heretical Pope
and Lies About Our Position on the Legal/Speculative Questions
Concerning the Loss of Office for a Heretical Pope
 |
| Paul Leonard Kramer |
Even after Kramer breached the agreement
(now two weeks ago), we still maintained our end by not responding to his continuous stream of lies, misrepresentations, and accusations of “heresy” for
allegedly holding positions that we explicitly refute in our book. Since Kramer has, unfortunately, proven that he lacks the
self-control necessary to stop spreading lies and misinformation, we will respond to his
false accusations for the sake of the truth.
At the outset, we have to say that the
sheer number of lies, misrepresentations, and straw man arguments that Kramer spreads
via his posts is astonishing, and it would take an entire book to respond to them
all. But what this shows is that the devil has changed tactics. He began his attempts to discredit us and True or False Pope? by articles and
videos produced by the Sedevacantists, which contained red-herrings and other
arguments that were easily refuted. This
tactic having failed, the devil then began a campaign of lies, first with Fr.
Cekada’s recent video (which we responded to here) and now with the veritable
tsunami of lies being spread by Fr. Paul Leonard Kramer, who has shown himself
to be a true “Father of Lies.”
Another point is that because Kramer has been a public critic of Sedevacantism
for many years, the devil evidently imagined that he could use Kramer’s
recent conversion to the errors of Sedevacantism (which he uses to justify his
rejection of Francis) to deceived an entirely new group of Catholics. The devil accomplishes this by a self-proclaimed opponent of Sedevacantism, yet who spreads the very errors that lead to the Sedevacantist conclusion. For example, we see Kramer spreading the error
which maintains that it is up to each individual Catholic in the pew to decide
for himself if the man elected, and recognized as Pope by the Church, is guilty
of the sin of heresy. If they conclude
that he is, then they must also conclude that he is not the Pope. This
error leads quickly to the next, namely, that they are permitted to formally
separate from him, and publicly declare him to be an antipope.
Suffice it to say that not a single
theologian has ever taught the laity, or individual priest, are permitted render such a judgment or make such public declarations on their own authority. Before a person can conclude that a Pope has
lost his office for heresy, it requires an antecedent (prior) judgment that he
has, in fact, fallen into heresy. The antecedent judgment must be rendered by
the Church before the consequent judgment can be declared. And if the antecedent judgment is forbidden, as Kramer now argues ("a Pope cannot be judged, even for heresy") how could the consequent judgment (that he lost his office for heresy) ever be determined? If the Church was not permitted to render a judgment of heresy concerning a pope, it would be equally forbidden to declare that a Pope had lost his office for heresy. This explains an why the famous axiom "the first see is judged by no one" has been understood to include the exception "unless he is accused of heresy." But only the Church possesses the authority to render such a judgment and make any consequent declarations. All of these
errors Kramer is spreading have been addressed and refuted in our book – a
book, mind you, that Kramer has not even read and refuses to read.
While it would take an entire book to
refute all of Kramer’s lies and misrepresentations (the same tactic successfully
used by the devil to have Christ put to death), we will briefly address just one, which is a perfect example of the modus operandi of Fr. Paul Leonard Kramer and his slander campaign.
We will begin by quoting Fr. Kramer, who
chose to comment on a mere two sentences we wrote in a recent article. We will
then cite the previous paragraph, as well as the remainder of the paragraph from
which the two sentences were taken, in order prove that Kramer completely
misrepresented our position. We will then quote several pages from True or False Pope? in which we address
this same issue.
In the following Facebook post, Kramer refers
to the “NONSENSICAL STUPIDITIES OF SISCOE & SALZA” (in all caps) for
allegedly holding that the question of how the Church would deal with an
heretical Pope has already been resolved.
Kramer: NONSENSICAL STUPIDITIES OF SISCOE & SALZA: “The
question of the Loss of office for a heretical pope contains 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
ceased to be pope.” [Siscoe/Salza]
[NB: As you will see below, just because Kramer saw the
words “question of law,” he immediately jumped to the false conclusion that we meant
the “question of law” (regarding how a heretical Pope loses his office) have
been settled by the Church! This is what he refers to as our “nonsensical stupidities.” The problem is that we never say the
questions of law have been settled. On
the contrary, we explicitly say the opposite, as we will show.]
COMMENT [by Kramer]: There is nothing in Canon Law that
addresses the loss of office for a heretical pope. Salza & Siscoe
are peddling snake oil, as usual. The question of the loss of office for a
heretical pope is strictly a question of speculative theology. The Church does
not provide for any remedy in Canon Law.
In the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia one reads, “No canonical provisions
exist regulating the authority of the College of Cardinals sede Romana
impedita, ie., in case the pope became insane, or personally a heretic; in such
cases it would be necessary to consult the dictates of right reason and the
teachings of history.”
Now, it is obvious that in the two sentences Kramer quoted, we were simply
stating the the loss of papal office for heresy concerns “questions
of fact” and “questions of law”. Nowhere
in those two sentences, or anywhere else, do we say the "questions of law" have been
settled.
If Kramer would have paid closer attention
to what he was reading, he would have realized that our underscoring the lack of definitive guidance on the
deposition of a heretical Pope was the very
point we were making in the paragraph (and the previous one). The reason we were
spotlighting this point is because it completely destroys the dogmatic
Sedevacantist position. The reason it
does so is because, since the Church has not settled the “questions of law”
(i.e. if, when or how a heretical Pope would lose his office), no one can treat the
opinion of any theologian as being the definitive teaching of the Church, and
then use the theological opinion as a certain premise to draw a certain
conclusion. The fact that this is the point we were making in the two sentences Kramer
cited is clear from what we wrote in the previous paragraph, and even from the
remainder of the paragraph from which the two sentences were taken (which
Kramer conveniently failed to cite).
The following are the two complete paragraphs:
“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.”
What we see is that Kramer cited a mere two
sentences and then accused us of “peddling snake oil” for
allegedly saying the exact opposite of what we were arguing. This is just one example of the constant stream of lies,
misrepresentations and strawman arguments being spread across the internet by
Paul Leonard Kramer.
Furthermore, we describe the questions
of law concerning the deposition of a heretical Pope using the same words Fr. Kramer did, namely, by referring to them as “speculative theology” which have not been resolved by the Church! The following is taken from “True or False
Pope?”:
“Clearly, these priests are guilty of doing precisely what they
complained about in 1983 – namely, usurping Magisterial authority by attempting
to settle definitively questions of speculative theology which
have not been resolved by the Church.”
And from our article against Mario
Derksen:
“Specifically, he has to meet his burden of proving that the Church
invests him with the authority to establish the “fact” that the Pope is a
heretic in the external forum (which is contrary to the Church’s public
judgment), and resolve the speculative questions of theology and
law that would govern the Pope’s fall from office (questions that have not
even been resolved by the Church). Again, Derksen simply needs to show us
where the Church gives him the authority to settle these questions of fact and
law, and if he cannot do so, the debate is over. It’s that simple.”
To further demonstrate that Kramer’s desperate
accusation is entirely false, we will cite several pages from the section of True or False Pope? in which we address
thieissue of “fact” and “law” (i.e., speculative theology). The context of
what follows is a refutation of an argument peddled by Mario Derksen of Novus
Ordo Watch, who claims that the issue of whether a Pope has lost his office is “solely
a question of fact” that anyone can make for themselves. The following is our
response:
“But
let us further demonstrate why one cannot look solely to the “law” or to the
“facts” to resolve the complex question of whether the Pope is a manifest
heretic who has lost his office. The following illustrates the “question of
fact” versus “question of law” distinction:
Question
of Fact – Is the Pope a manifest heretic?
Question
of Law – Does a heretical Pope lose his office for heresy? (If so, when, how and who judges?)
As we have seen, St. Bellarmine said
there were five different opinions about the question of law, none of which
have been definitively adopted by the Magisterium. This point alone
demonstrates that the issue of Sedevacantism is not “solely a question of
fact,” but involves a more fundamental question of law that must be resolved
first. Even if one agrees with Bellarmine’s opinion on the question of law,
that is, that a manifestly heretical Pope loses his office ipso facto and not
by Church deposition, the opinion has not been adopted by the Church, and there
are reputable theologians who disagree with this opinion. And even assuming Bellarmine’s position on ipso
facto loss of office is correct, precisely when and how the loss of office
occurs, and who has the authority to judge whether it has occurred, are
additional questions of law which have been extensively debated for centuries.
This point further proves that the question of the loss of office for a
heretical Pope is a mixed question of fact and law, and not solely “based on
the order of fact.”
Sedevacantists cannot even get to first
base with their “question of fact” approach until they resolve these “questions
of law,” and yet resolving these complex questions are not within their power (not
even the Magisterium has chosen to settle these questions). The entire
Sedevacantist case, as it relates to “law,” rests upon nothing more than their
own private interpretation of the opinions of certain theologians (especially
that of Bellarmine, whom Sedevacantists have failed to understand), and which
in no way constitutes the official teaching of the Church.
The fact that individual Catholics (even
priests and bishops) have no authority to settle speculative questions of
theology and law which have not been resolved by the Church was even conceded
by Fr. Cekada, Bishop Sanborn, and seven of their colleagues. In 1983, these nine priests (former members
of the Society of St. Pius X) wrote a letter to Archbishop Lefebvre complaining
that they were not permitted to question the validity of the New Mass and the
new rite of ordination. They claimed that forbidding them to do so was
infringing on their liberty since, as they said, these speculative questions
had not been resolved by the Church (as if approving a rite of Mass and
ordination did not constitute the Church’s judgment on the matter). Here is
what these nine priests wrote in their 1983 letter:
‘The present situation in the Church has
generated many unprecedented problems of a theological and practical nature —
for example the question of the in se [in itself] validity or invalidity of the
New Mass… The Society must not presume to settle such speculative questions in
an authoritative and definitive fashion, since it has absolutely no authority
to do so. Any attempt by the Society to teach and impose its conclusions on
matters of speculative theology as the only positions suitable for a Catholic
to embrace is dangerous and opens the door to great evils, for it assumes a
magisterial authority which belongs not to it but to the Church alone.
Now, while in theory the Society may
deny any claim to such teaching authority, in practice it has acted as though
it did have such an authority.’
At the end of the letter, these nine
priests (who were soon to be expelled from the Society), added the following “resolution”:
‘Respect for the magisterial authority
of the Church as the sole arbiter of theological questions shall be enforced.
Therefore, the Society shall faithfully adhere to the teachings of the Church,
but shall never usurp that teaching authority by attempting to settle
definitively questions of speculative theology.’
So, according to the reasoning of the
priests who signed this letter (most or all of whom are now Sedevacantists),
the Society of St. Pius X is not permitted to insist on the validity of a Mass
that was approved by the Church [when said with the correct form, matter and
intention], yet the Sedevacantists themselves are permitted to settle
speculative questions of theology and law regarding when and how a Pope loses
his office for heresy. In fact, Fr. Cekada and Bishop Sanborn are so dogmatic
about their personal opinion regarding this matter, that they not only publicly
declare that the last six Popes have been antipopes, but they go further by
publicly declaring that it is forbidden to attend a Mass in which the Pope’s
name is mentioned in the canon (and this is the same Bishop Sanborn who
concedes that the post-Vatican II Popes are legal Popes). Clearly, these priests are guilty of doing
precisely what they complained about in 1983 – namely, usurping Magisterial
authority “by attempting to settle definitively questions of speculative
theology,” which have not been resolved by the Church. Indeed, in the
Sedevacantists’ own words, their entire thesis “is dangerous and opens the door
to great evils, for it assumes a magisterial authority which belongs not to it
but to the Church alone.”
As we have seen, even if the question of
fact (i.e., is the Pope a public and notorious heretic?) was established by the
proper authorities, the question of law (exactly when and how does the Pope
lose his office) remains unresolved. It is clear that the unresolved question
of law, in and of itself, completely negates the Sedevacantist position,
without even addressing the question of fact, which is likewise something
Sedevacantists have no authority to judge.
As the reader can see, nowhere do we
claim that the “questions of law” have been settled by the Church, as Kramer
would have his readers believe.
On the contrary, we explicitly state the exact opposite, and we
do so over and over again.
Fr.
Kramer’s dishonest tactic of “hit-and-run” Facebook posts may be sufficient to
deceive or confuse some already confused Catholics, who are understandably scandalized
by the situation in the Church, but they won’t deceive those who actually read
our book and articles.
