Most Christians would be aware that the Hebrew word Shalom means peace. However, this is only a small part of the real meaning. Strong’s Concordance defines it’s meaning as ‘completeness, wholeness, health, peace, welfare, safety, soundness, tranquility, prosperity, perfectness, fullness, rest, harmony, the absence of agitation or discord‘ – phew!
Dr. Chojnowski: As we read through Fr. Kramer's book, "To Deceive the Elect," we find the the following concerning Francis' apostate teaching that there is some race of men that need not submit to the law and baptism of Jesus Christ because of their ethnic origin. Is this not a fundamental rejection of the very fundamentals of the Catholic Religion? If it is not, what exactly would such a rejection look like? Add to this the denial of the need for faith as the foundation for the life of grace and for salvation. Here is the citation from pp. 46-50 of Fr. Paul Kramer's book:
"Francis in Evangeli Gaudiumn n. 247 asserts the inexcusable heresy: 'We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked'. This text is an explicit profession of heresy, directly opposed to the solemn dogmatic definition of Pope Eugenius III and the Ecumenical Council of Florence, and the doctrine taught by the supreme magisterium of Pope Benedict XIV in Ex Quo Primum, set forth repeatedly and explicitly citing the definition of Florence, to wit, that the Mosaic covenant has been 'revoked' and 'abrogated'. It is not for no reason that the Fathers unanimously teach that the Old Covenant was revoked: they simply received that doctrine straight out of the New Testament writings of St. Paul ("In Christ it is made void" -- 2 For. 3:15), In Chapter 8 of Hebrews, the Apostle explains that the Mosaic Covenant is called the Old Covenant, and is to be ended: 'Now in saying a new, he hath made the former old. And that which decayeth and growth old, is near its end.' On this solid basis of Scripture and Tradition, the Catholic Church has defined (Council of Florence) that the Old Covenant is revoked, abolished, and abrogated (cf. Benedict XIV, Ex quo primum, March 1, 1756). It never occurred to Bergoglio that the fulfillment of the Old Covenant not only does not logically oppose the notion of its revocation, but also contradicts the Catholic teaching that it is precisely in its fulfillment by the New Covenant of Jesus Christ that the Old Covenant is made void....Thus it is patent that the doctrine of the non-revocation of the Old Covenant, professed by Jorge Bergoglio (and explicitly set forth in the so-called Catechism of the Catholic Church [1993], is contrary to the perpetual dogma of the Catholic faith, and is, therefore, heretical [emphasis mine].
JP!! taught it also. Ratzinger taught it also. Vatican II taught it also!
ReplyDeleteAll Vatican II from John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and now Francis are heretics and perhaps in Francis case is Apostate... They all worship, support and promote New World Order
ReplyDeletewhich is the religion of the Jewish Cabals, the communists, the Zionists of the Luciferians Cult. They are wolves in sheep clothing.
As much as I pray for Benedict XVI for his conversion, as much as I blame on him for the downfall of the Catholic Church and the world on his entire life compromised the "Faith" and be wishy washy with the enemy. He has no gut to defend Christ but stabbed on Our Lord. He has nobody to blame but himself. Read his heresy that he spread for many years under John Paul II and never spoke up against those insult the Dogmas of the Catholic Faith.
One who obstinately denies a truth deliberately, despite his knowing that the Church proposes it as divinely revealed is a formal heretic and not a member of the Church.
ReplyDeleteOn page 46 of the same book mentioned above, Fr. Kramer also lists other basic Catholic dogmas that Bergoglio rejected "outright" and "explicitly":
"Bergoglio's rejection of Christ's explicit teaching on evangelizing and converting all nations; his rejection of the dogma of absolute necessity of faith for justification and redemption; his rejection of the Catholic doctrine on marriage; his rejection of the dogma of hell...; his pagan notion of 'God' which logically denies the dogmatic Christian doctrine of God as distinct from and infinitely transcending the created universe, which he (Bergoglio) contemptuously dismisses as a 'vague idea in the clouds', a 'god spray'...; and his rejection of the dogma of the cessation of the Mosaic Covenant and its supercession by the new covenant of Jesus Christ."
Needless to say, Bergoglio is a manifest formal heretic and not a true pope (and that's putting it mildly). The evidence is tremendous. Unfortunately, some people don't want to admit the truth because if they did, then it could be a giant step towards Sedevacantism. (It's a mystery why they're not as afraid about having an agent of the devil as "pope".)
We have Fr. Kramer's book, "To Deceive the Elect". It's an excellent reference regarding loss of ecclesiastical office. If Fr. Kramer can be accused of anything, it would be that he's (personally) over-scrupulous and will not judge the other Vatican II popes of being formal heretics.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Jorge Bergoglio's heresies are (according to Fr. Kramer) "explicit, direct, and univocal". Therefore, Fr. Kramer arrived at the conclusion as early as 2013 (with Bergoglio's denial of defined dogma in Evangelii Gaudium) that Bergoglio was a manifest formal heretic and could not be a true pope.
What happened afterwards? Regardless of Fr. Kramer's over-scrupulosity regarding the other Vatican II popes, he was nevertheless mercilessly attacked and publicly calumniated by his former R+R friends, who fraudulently altered the meaning of his arguments, falsified his words, and called him "Father of lies".
Regardless, Fr. Kramer demolished Salza/Siscoe's arguments, even those against Sedevacantism.
Thank-you Fr. Kramer for letting a wider audience see the diabolical heresy of the R&R position.
On the particular article of faith concerning the Jews, Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and Francis have all on the material level taught heresy. While Francis on other articles of the faith, mainly that faith itself is not necessary for salvation, has manifest to the pubic that he is not Catholic. The question is, has he manifest to the public that he knows what the Church teaches concerning the salvation of the Jews, but teaches the contrary? He may think Pope John Paul II’s or Pope Benedict XVI’s material heresy on this article of faith is the teaching of the Catholic faith, so remains heretical on the material level only, concerning this particular article of the faith. Because Pope John Paul II as pope and Pope Benedict XVI as head of the CDF dealt with the followers of Fr. Feeney, if their heresy remains material, it’s not because of ignorance of the Churches teachings concerning the Jews, but it could be a sort of absent minded failure to connect the dots coupled with an actual fear of the Jews. This is where dubia’s come in handy! There should have been dubia’s sent to all the conciliar popes!
ReplyDeleteNo such thing as popes who are material heretics.
DeleteFormal heresy is not judged by what a person "thinks". It is judged by what he "manifests". Something that is manifest is clear or obvious to the mind or eye. If a person manifests heresy, then he's a formal heretic. Period.
Canon 2200.2 1917 Code of Canon Law: "When an external violation of the law has been committed, malice is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proven."
"The very commission of any act which signifies heresy, e.g. the statement of some doctrine contrary or contradictory to a revealed and defined dogma gives sufficient ground for juridical presumption of heretical depravity... Excusing circumstances have to be proved in the external forum, and the burden of proof is on the person whose action has given rise to the imputation of heresy. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH PROOF, ALL SUCH EXCUSES ARE PRESUMED NOT TO EXIST." (Rev. Eric F. Mackenzie...The Delict of Heresy, Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America, 1932, p. 35 (Cf. Canon 2200.2)
Also, dubia are a type of question, to be answered in the affirmative or negative, addressed to the Holy Father or the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Dubia do not apply to heretic "popes" who've denied truths that the Church proposed as divinely revealed.
"Canon 2200.2 1917 Code of Canon Law: "When an external violation of the law has been committed, malice is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proven.”"
DeleteWhich gives you the right to resist and withdraw obedience not the right to judge. In other words, when the heresy is material, you have the right to act and the moral obligation to admit what you really do not know, rather then to proclaim as true that what you presume!
""The very commission of any act which signifies heresy, e.g. the statement of some doctrine contrary or contradictory to a revealed and defined dogma gives sufficient ground for juridical presumption of heretical depravity... Excusing circumstances have to be proved in the external forum, and the burden of proof is on the person whose action has given rise to the imputation of heresy. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH PROOF, ALL SUCH EXCUSES ARE PRESUMED NOT TO EXIST." (Rev. Eric F. Mackenzie...The Delict of Heresy, Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America, 1932, p. 35 (Cf. Canon 2200.2)"
And you have a moral obligation to realize that you presume and do not know. The right to presume is the right to resist and withdraw, not the right to judge or declare you know something.
"Also, dubia are a type of question, to be answered in the affirmative or negative, addressed to the Holy Father or the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Dubia do not apply to heretic "popes" who've denied truths that the Church proposed as divinely revealed."
And yet without a dubia, sometimes you can only presume, and other times, without a dubia, you don’t even get the right to presume anything. All I am saying is that a dubia helps to prove things.
If a pope cannot contradict previous magisterium why did a pope in the past tell Sergy the patriarch of Constantinople one could baptize in the name of the Father and Son only, when the Church teaches for a baptism to be valid one has to baptize in the Name of the Father Son, and Holy Ghost?
When a pope contradicts previous magisterium the presumption of guilt gives one the right to withdraw obedience, until the pope proves he is Catholic. It’s does not give you the right to say he is not Catholic, your presuming his gilt, not proving it. He has to manifest publicly that he is not Catholic. When a heretical pope is questioned with a dubia and he fails to answer, then you can presume, and say he is not Catholic, because he failed to prove he is Catholic.
Sedevacantist: I declare I know what I presume and I don’t have to be obedient because there is no jurisdiction, and I know that, because the Church says I can presume that, we don’t even have to give a heretical pope a chance to prove he is or is not Catholic, because we know he is not Catholic, till he proves he is Catholic, for a material heretic is not Catholic, till he proves he is Catholic.
DeleteNormal Catholic: Since I cannot declare I know what I presume, I can operate outside normal jurisdiction, because the Church gives me a right to do so till we know if there is any normal jurisdiction to operate outside of! Should the pope decide he is Catholic by admitting his error, what can he convict us of, but being faithful!
It’s all matter of interpretation, determined by the color of your/our pom poms! ;)
May God Bless You,