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

Sister Lucy's Smile: Sister Lucy I + New Teeth = Sister Lucy II. Right? Wrong. Look at the Evidence Here.

There WAS an Imposter. On the Day of the Miracle of the Sun, We Publish Our First of Many Expert Reports. A Plastic Surgeon's Judgment on the Case of the Two Sister Lucys.

The Blessed Emperor and the Tragic Fall of A Catholic Dynasty: Why Nobody Should Be Celebrating the End of World War I.

Dr. Chojnowski with the Latest on TradCat Knight!

Yawn! Nothing to See Here! The Fatima Center's Response to Reader's Inquiry About the Sister Lucy Truth Project.

Help Sister Lucy Truth Crack the Secret of the Third Secret: General Call for Writing Samples from "Sister Lucy".