Must We Embrace Gallicanism In Order to Save the Conciliar Church? Fr. Kramer's Doctrinal Response to the Objections of Salza and Sisco

                                         King Louis XIV, Proponent of Gallicanism BEFORE
                                          it was known to be a heresy, receiving  ambassadors
                                                                         from Siam.

Dear Readers:
Publishing the controversy between Fr. Kramer and John Salza and his co-writer Robert Siscoe is not meant for entertainment or useless controversy. Here is treated one of the most fundamental questions which a real Catholic must ask him or herself in the year 2018. Why the solid doctrinal presentation of the question by Fr. Paul Kramer is so important is that, regardless of how each individual applies Catholic doctrine and theology to these strange ecclesiastical circumstances, we must NEVER abandon or alter the doctrine of the Catholic Church expressed by Her Sacred Magisterium. We must not lose the very reality and meaning of the Church in order to ensure that as many as possible of the Conciliarists and Modernists are included within Her Walls. If what Salza and Siscoe say is true concerning the need for specific ecclesiastical judgment in order to have someone ACTUALLY DEFECT FROM THE Catholic Church, then really the entire "Catholic Church" would be in heresy and only the frowned upon "fringe" would have the actual Catholic Faith. How can 99.9% of the Catholic Church NOT HAVE THE TRUE CATHOLIC FAITH OR REAL CATHOLIC PRACTICE? This is certainly not possible.

To be fair, here is the link to the Salza and Siscoe article on the latest from Fr. Kramer and then Fr. Kramer's response to it.



http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/exposing-theerrors-of-fr.html?m=1


Fr. Kramer's Latest Response:
Their latest article is very easily refuted, and it makes explicit some errors that were previously expressed less clearly. Here are the two most glaring examples:

1) "The external act of heresy is, by its nature, a crime." On the basis of this error, they state the heresy: "What separates a Catholic from external union with the Body of the Church is
not the nature of the sin of heresy (again, as Kramer argues above), but rather the nature of the external act (crime[4]) of notorious heresy."

I have already quoted in my manuscript the canons that defines the term "crime" as an external violation of a law which is gravely imputable; and therefore the proposition that, "The external act of heresy is, by its nature, a crime", is patently false. The external act of heresy in its nature is only a sin, since it is not in the nature of the external act that it violates ecclesiastical law, but it is the enactment of ecclesiastical law that makes heresy (or any other sin as well) a crime. Thus, the the error is patent: "Unfortunately, someone needs to call Peter Chojnowski’s office and inform him that his cute title is entirely misleading, at best, since heresy includes everything from the
internal sin alone, to the public crime of notorious heresy - and only the latter automatically severs a person from external union with the Church 'without a declaration.' "

2) Salza & Siscoe resort to the false paradigm of "spiritual separation" vs. "legal separation"; leaving out all mention of the Church's doctrine which infallibly teaches (as I demonstrated) that one ceases to be a member of the Church by the visible external separation from the body of the Church which takes place by the act of defection into heresy, apart from any violation of ecclesiastical positive law (which alone constitutes the defection as a canonical crime). Apart from penal law which makes heresy a crime, the fact of the defection by itself ipso jure severs one from membership in the Church. Hence, one does not need to be convicted of the crime of heresy to be juridically severed from membership in the Church (as is clear from the canons I quoted in my manuscript). The public sin of heresy, as defined identically in Canon Law and Moral Theology, apart from any human law, suffices to sever one from membership in the Church. This is de fide. It also suffices, apart from any human law, to effect the loss of office ex natura hæresis, as St. Robert Bellarmine proves from the unanimous teaching of the ancient Fathers.

These are the most fundamental errors in their article. There are many more.

Comments

Popular Posts

Fraud: Facial Recognition Technology With 2,400 Picture Comparisons Shows Sister Lucy I (Pre-1958) and Sister Lucy II (Post-1958) are Definitely NOT the Same Person.

Patience! Sister Lucy Truth Investigation Barrels Forward. New Experts Added to Team With New Information. Facial Recognition and Forensic Report Coming Soon.

It's Romanitas! Duh! Michael Matt Just Needs to Settle Down. Where did you Expect the last two Superior Generals of the SSPX (1982-2018) to be sent? Zimbabwe?

SSPX Defines Itself with Archbishop Lefebvre's 1974 Declaration "Which the Society embraces in its Entirety." Is the Lefebvre Ram back in the Pen and has the Reb[r]anded Wether Been Sent to the Butcher?

St. Robert Bellarmine Waits for the Remnant to Renounce Writer Who Wrote that Cardinals can Depose and Remove a Pope. I don't think that it is mere coincidence that St. Robert Bellermine's Feast Day is May 13th!

In 2009 Interview, Fr. Florian Abrahamowicz Singles out New SSPX Superior as Priest who was "Vehemently Opposed" to Deal with the Conciliar Church. Rejected Idea of Converting Modernists "From Within."

Is this Why they Needed to Get Rid of Sister Lucy and Substitute an Impostor? I wonder what "False Church" Padre Pio was speaking about in 1960? Can't Imagine.

Mama Mia! Mike it's "RAD TRAD THOMIST" Hear Michael Matt Attack RadTrad Thomist and set up a Straw Man Argument in Order to Hide the Fact that the Remnant has sent Authors emails saying that Anyone who Writes for Louie Verrecchio Is BANNED from Writing in the Remnant.