Fr. Paul Kramer Refuses Our Challenge to Submit His Work to a Panel of Traditional Catholic Theologians

Father Kramer refused our request to have the theological articles written by ourselves and him submitted to a neutral panel of traditional Catholic theologians for review Why would Fr. Kramer refuse to subject his work to independent analysis by qualified priests and seminary professors? You know why. Because he doesn’t want to be publicly refuted by his peers. After all, it’s easier for Kramer to avoid directly addressing our refutations of his erroneous positions by simply claiming he is a priest and we are mere laymen, which he has done throughout this debate (Kramer has little regard for the theological abilities of lay people, except when he is quoting Steve Speray or Eric Gajewski).
      This is why Kramer’s rants are full of accusations that Salza and Siscoe have no “formal” training, are “quack theologians,” and have “vilified” a priest who has dozens of books in his library and even (he claims) had a good Thomist professor in his Novus Ordo seminary 40 years ago. This must also be why Kramer thinks he can get away with constantly accusing us of positions we don’t hold, and even expressly refute in our book! (After all, priests don’t lie, do they?) 

       Evidently, Kramer’s cult followers on Facebook are quite impressed with his credentials. And this is why Kramer refuses to submit his work to a panel of his peers for their judgment on his work; because he can’t bully them and play the “cleric card” as he has done with us. Never mind that all the Cardinals and bishops (not mere laymen) of the Catholic Church also reject Kramer’s “antipope” Francis position. Kramer does not want to be refuted by our fellow priests and seminary professors, whether it be from the Society of St. Pius X, the Institute of Christ the King, the Fraternity of St. Peter, or even by his fellow friends in the so-called “Resistance,” who also support our work. Fr. Kramer evidently suspects that he would not fare very well with such priests, just like he hasn’t fared very well with us. Kramer knows it, we know it, and now Kramer knows that we all know it.  He is a pathetic spectacle, to be sure.

Kramer Reveals His Bad Faith

     As those who have followed this debate well know, Fr. Kramer began attacking about our book (which he has not read) on his Facebook page five months ago. No doubt he targeted our book because it is the definitive refutation of Sedevacantist theology, which he has adopted wholesale. When we began to respond to his posts, Kramer immediately revealed he wasn’t interested in a fair debate or the truth. How so? He blocked us from his Facebook page, and even began to send out emails about us behind our backs, and which contain nothing but blatant lies about us and theological positions we don’t hold. Ever since these unsolicited attacks, we have been in defensive mode, issuing articles to publicize the positions we actually hold, while refuting his errors, and to defend our good names against his calumny and slander. It has been truly sad to see this once-respected priest fall so far from grace and become so hardened in his errors. But this is the fruit of those who sin against the Faith, as Kramer has done.  

       To resolve this debate in good faith, we were approached by a friend and confidant of Fr. Kramer to see if we could reach a resolution that would put an end to this public exchange (an exchange which Kramer’s friend no doubt knew the priest was losing, and quite disgracefully). Because one of us personally knows and respects this gentleman, and because we believed that our respective positions were already adequately presented, we agreed to the proposed “cease fire.” To that end, we agreed to refrain from posting any additional material on our website, and were informed by the confidant that Kramer had also agreed to the same. 

       Nevertheless, the very next day following the “agreement,” Fr. Kramer, revealing that he has absolutely no integrity whatsoever, did the following: He (1) posted an extensive communique’ on his Facebook page attacking us and our work (and, again, accusing us of positions we don’t hold); (2) emailed the missive out to an extensive list of individuals; and (3) sent Robert Siscoe six (yes, six!) unsolicited emails containing further false accusations and outright calumny (and then publicly complained that Robert Siscoe was harassing him by responding to his e-mails). We immediately pointed this out to the confidant, and even gave Fr. Kramer three weeks to retract his material and rectify the breach of our agreement before we issued a response. Fr. Paul Kramer refused, even issuing further attacks upon us on his Facebook page, as we were confidentially notified by some of Kramer’s Facebook “friends.” 

        Needless to say, Fr. Kramer’s confidant was embarrassed by these actions, but we were not surprised in the least. After all, if a “Catholic” priest has such a dark side that he can actually accuse us of holding to heretical positions that we publicly reject (as documented in our book and many articles), and even being Freemasons, he has no honor and his word means nothing. But Kramer will no doubt shamefully twist the facts, lie about his conduct, and continue his demonic campaign against us and all who recognize that the Pope is still the Pope, perhaps with a new and false prediction about World War III, and maybe even a quote or two from a private revelation that nobody’s heard of. 

        Fr. Kramer’s embarrassed confidant had one last idea. He suggested that we (Salza/Siscoe and Kramer) agree to submit all of our articles to a panel of theologians that we would mutually agree to, and have them render a judgment on who holds the correct theological position. We could think of no better way for this dispute to be resolved, in an objective, academic and independent matter, and agreed to the approach. We also offered to submit names of priests, theologians and seminary professors for Fr. Kramer’s review, who could be members of the panel, and also agreed to review and consider any submissions of Fr. Kramer (even if they were priests from the Resistance). 

       What happened next? Did Fr. Kramer agree to this fair, neutral and objective approach? Did Kramer agree to be judged by theologians that even he himself could recommend to the panel? No, he did not. And he even refused to provide us an explanation for his refusal, although none is needed. We know why, as explained above. Fr. Paul Kramer is a cry-bully and a coward who is afraid of being refuted by real traditional Catholic theologians who forgot more theology than Kramer ever knew. Kramer is evidently content with being the “big shot” of his own little sect. And his cowardly refusal also indicates that he, like the Sedevacantists, has truly rejected the visible Church, since he believes that all the traditional priests and theologians of the world who recognize Francis is Pope are not really Catholics, but members of the mystical body of the antichrist, and whom he has publicly labeled “ignorant,” “blind,” and “Catholics in name only.” 

      If Fr. Kramer disagrees with our presentation of the facts, then let him come out and publicly agree to subject his work to the examination of real Catholic theologians, as his own confidant has suggested. Otherwise, let him shut his mouth, convert and do penance for his sins against the Faith and the Church (not to mention us, who he has vilified with lies and slander).


       Fr. Paul Kramer has indeed been called out, even by those close to him, who love and respect him, and he has refused to answer the call. He has refused to offer his “erudition” for the service of the truth and the resolution of this most heated debate. We, of course, know why. Thus, we will now turn our attention to other more important matters. We have nothing more to say to or about Fr. Kramer, who is not a man of truth, but an enemy of Christ and His suffering Church. And we have little hope of converting those who have already been deceived by Kramer, although we will pray for their conversion.

       Our work speaks for itself, and the process that is currently underway in Rome, with the Cardinals formally confronting Pope Francis about his errors (all the while they recognize him as Pope), is following precisely the process that we describe in our book – a heretical Pope is still the Pope, until the Church’s authorities judge him to be a formal heretic. It also proves that we are right and Kramer is wrong. Dead wrong. Perhaps a recent request from high churchmen in Rome for translations of our material (from True or False Pope?) on the deposition of a heretical Pope, just six weeks before the four Cardinals launched their confrontation of Pope Francis, was no coincidence. 

       As we point out, the process, which has begun with a request for clarification from the Pope (which the Cardinals have issued and Pope Francis has yet to respond), will involve ecclesiastical warnings from Church authorities (or, as Cardinal Burke said, “a correction of errors”). If the Pope is accused of heresy and refuses to recant his heresy after two warnings, the Church will have established his pertinacity. As we explain in our book, what follows next is subject to speculation (a declaration?; an ipso facto loss of office?; a ministerial deposition?), but one thing is clear: We are about to experience an historic moment in Church history, as we enter the centenary of the Fatima apparitions. 

       Let us commend ourselves to Our Lord and Our Lady, not attempting to make rash judgments about the Pope that belong to God’s chosen representatives and not us (as Paul Kramer and his cult followers have done), but rather praying as Christ Himself prayed, that the Pope “being once converted, [will] confirm thy brethren” (Lk 22:32).