FEAR or FAITH? FRIGHT or FLIGHT?
Welcome Eagles to the New Crusade!
Will thou help defend the Fortress of Faith?

BOOKMARK us & check in DAILY for the latest Endtimes News!
SPREAD WORD TO YOUR FRIENDS & FAMILY!

"And I beheld, and heard the voice of one eagle flying through the midst of heaven,
saying with a loud voice: Woe, woe, woe to the inhabitants of the earth....
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 8:13]

Wednesday, January 24, 2018

Fr. Kramer Educates The Heretical Pseudo Theologians Salza & Siscoe......yet again!

Fr. Kramer Educates the Heretical Pseudo Theologians Salza & Siscoe......yet again!
It is frightening to think these two men are the right hand "theologians" of Bishop Fellay
Here is the heretic Paul Folbrecht speaking further madness to Father Kramer via email:  "Please, please recant your errors and come back into the proper Traditionalist fold, the Recognize & Resist camp led by The SSPX, The Remnant, and Catholic Family News, to which you had at one time made great contributions.  That is where you belong."
(The false traddies seem to have a patent on what traditional catholicism is.  The SSPX, Remnant and CFN arent leading anything)


First, heretic Salza states:
"You don't have to write 1,000 words to explain this simple concept. Let me simplify things.
Fr. Kramer is focusing on the nature of the thing, and argues that the sin of heresy by its nature severs one from the Body of the Church, but not the crime of heresy, because a crime is imposed by canon law and is thus extrinsic to public heresy, unlike the sin, which is intrinsic. That is his argument in nutshell (he argues this because, in his mind, he still wrongly thinks we necessarily require a judgment of the Church based on positive law to sever one from the Body of the Church).


Here is what Fr. Kramer fails to understand: Separation from the Soul of the Church is intrinsic to the nature of the internal act of heresy, and separation from the Body of the Church is intrinsic to the nature of the external act of heresy, even if external heresy were not a crime in canon law. This is because the nature of the internal act causes a loss of the theological bonds, and the nature of the external act causes a loss of the juridical bonds (e.g., profession of the faith). This is a metaphysical reality, not based on positive law. 
This refutes Fr. Kramer's accusations that we are saying (1) Church authority necessarily severs the bond; and that (2) something extrinsic to the public act necessarily severs the bond. He is wrong on both counts.
Publicly renouncing the Church as the rule of Faith (abandoning the profession of the faith) - by its nature - severs the juridical bonds. It is the nature of the act itself that does so without any extrinsic authority. And this can be the case even if the person is still united to the Soul of the Church, which proves that the nature of the sin of heresy does not sever the juridical, external bonds, like Fr. Kramer argues. It is rather the nature of notorious heresy that does so. Read our book. "



Now, let the class begin...Fr. Kramer states:

Salza's sloppy, deficient, and extremely imprecise characterization of my position: 

Fr. Kramer is focusing on the nature of the thing, and argues that the sin of heresy by its nature severs one from the Body of the Church, but not the crime of heresy, because a crime is imposed by canon law and is thus extrinsic to public heresy, unlike the sin, which is intrinsic.

     What I actually explained in my manuscript is that heresy apostasy, and schism, by their very nature sever one from the body of the Church, unlike all other sins and offenses by which one is separated from the body of the Church "by legitimate authority". This is exactly what Pius XII teaches in Mystici Corporis. 

Salza's error (the internal sin and the external sin are not of the same nature): "Separation from the Soul of the Church is intrinsic to the nature of the internal act of heresy, and separation from the Body of the Church is intrinsic to the nature of the external act of heresy, even if external heresy were not a crime in canon law." 

     The false premise on which this proposition is based is that the internal act and the external act are each of a different nature, and therefore (Salza concludes), that what is intrinsic to the nature of the external act (separation from the body of the Church), is not intrinsic to the nature of the internal act. However, the nature of both is one and the same. It is not the externality of the act -- a quality which is properly an accident pertaining to the matter of the sin and not to its specific nature; but only the form which specifies its nature. It is for this reason that Pius XII does not qualify his teaching by saying that only the external acts of heresy, schism, and apostasy by their very nature separate a man from the Body of the Church, but he simply states that heresy, schism, and apostasy by their very nature separate a man from the Body of the Church: "accordingly not all sins do as do schism, heresy, or apostasy -- by their very nature separate a man from the Body of the Church". It is the nature of the act, as a principle of motion, that causes the separation from the Church;  but in that nature, more specifically it is the form, which is the principle that causes the motion that effects the separation; while it is the quality of the matter, i.e. the visible externality of the public act that qualifies the separation as not merely an invisible internal spiritual separation, but a visible external sundering both the internal and external union with the Church.

     The quality of being 1) an external act, or 2) "an external violation of a law", (which makes it a crime), are accidental qualities which are not intrinsic to the specific nature of heresy, and therefore the public sin, which by its very nature severs one from the body of the Church is of the same nature as the occult external sin (which is likewise also happens to be a crime), and the internal sin (which is not a crime), both of which do not effect the separation from the body, but only from the soul of the Church. The specific nature of the internal act, the occult external act, and the public act of heresy is identical, and is expressed in the definition of heresy: the "pertinacious denial or doubt of a revealed truth that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith". The qualitative accidental circumstance of the act being internal or external is therefore extrinsic to the specific nature of the act of heresy. 
     The circumstance of being an external act is a qualitative accident that does not sever one from the body of the Church, if the external act is occult. For one to be severed from the body of the Church, the sin must be public (in the manner that the term public is defined in Moral Theology and Canon Law), so that the visible bond is severed. With the visible bond thus severed by the public sin of formal heresy, one ceases to be a member of the Church; being no longer united by either  internal or visible external union. 
     Since heresy is in its nature a "pertinacious denial or doubt of a revealed truth that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith", the act of obstinate public denial of a single article of faith, suapte natura, visibly separates one from the body of the Church. By the same act one also automatically loses all office, and all ecclesiastical dignity, ipso jure, as the Ecumenical Council of Constance explained in Session 37; and is likewise set forth in both the 1917 and 1983 Code of Canon Law. Ipso jure means "by the operation of the law itself"; and therefore the loss of office takes place ipso facto, without any judgment of Church authority, as the Canon Law faculties of Salamanca and Navarra explain in the passages of their commentaries which I quoted in my manuscript.
     
       Salza clearly does not understand that what is intended by the term "nature" in the above cited passage of Mystici Corporis is the specific nature of the act, which is expressed in the definition of "heresy". The speific nature of the internal act and the external act is the same for both. It is because of the quality of the visible public externality of the public sin of heresy that it suapte natura separates the heretic from the body of the Church by visibly severing both the internal and external bonds of union with the Church. Thus, by the public sin of obstinately denying a single article of faith, one ceases automatically to be member of the Church, and loses any office he may have held ipso jure without any judgment being made by Church authority. This is clearly the teaching of the Church which I have amply demonstrated beyond all shadow of doubt in my manuscript.

[NB - Salza & Siscoe explain in their book and in their articles that it is the crime and not the sin of heresy that separates one suapte natura from the body of the Church without an additional censure (i.e. without a vitandus declaration, but not without the judgment of the Church). Then they modify and contradict their earlier position, erroneously professing that the external act of heresy is according to its nature a crime which separates one from the Church without any censure. Now Salza contradicts his own position by saying that even if there were no law making it a crime, the external sin of heresy would by its nature separate the heretic from the Church: "separation from the Body of the Church is intrinsic to the nature of the external act of heresy, even if external heresy were not a crime in canon law." 
     This last proposition is correct, if it is understood in an unqualified manner; but Salza adds a qualifying condition: "Publicly renouncing the Church as the rule of Faith (abandoning the profession of the faith) - by its nature - severs the juridical bonds. It is the nature of the act itself that does so without any extrinsic authority."]
     That it is according to Salza a condition sine qua non is demonstrated by his own words which I quoted and commented on in my manuscript: 《Salza continues his errant rant: «Again, he [Billot] also requires a renunciation of the Magisterium as the RULE of faith by PUBLIC PROFESSION. You stand alone (sic) in disagreeing with Billot. You reject Billot’s teaching by saying “it is not necessary that such a one explicitly reject the Church as the rule of faith,” even though Cardinal Billot says “heresy by its nature REQUIRES departure from the RULE of the ecclesiastical magisterium.” » On page 281 and 282 of their screed, Salza & Siscoe declare: «By referring to heretics as those who “separate themselves from the Church,” who “turn away from the Church,” and who “depart by themselves from her,” Bellarmine is referring not to those who merely profess a heretical proposition, but to those who openly leave the Church (no longer accepting the Church as the rule of faith). » As has been shown above and will be explained more at length later in this work, it pertains to the very nature of heresy as a conscious denial of an article of faith, that it is a rejection of the ecclesiastical magisterium as the rule of faith, and hence, heresy, suapte natura, separates the heretic from the body of the Church.  From Bellarmine’s own words quoted above, we gather that same meaning when he says that heretics are outside the Church, and lose jurisdiction and all ecclesiastical dignity “ex natura haeresis”. Heresy in its nature is the obstinate denial or doubt of even a single dogma, and therefore, by its very nature separates the heretic from the body of the Church. If some additional qualifying act, such as explicitly rejecting the Church as the rule of faith, or formally declaring oneself separated from the Church, or joining some other denomination or sect, were to be necessary for a heretic to be separated from the body of the Church without judgment by Church authority, (as Salza & Siscoe claim); then heresy would not suapte natura separate one from the Church (as Pius XII teaches), but only heresy qualified by some additional act but not by its own nature would sever the heretic from membership in the Church. But the words,"heresy suapte natura", and “ex natura hæesis” mean precisely this: that heresy itself, according to its very nature as a rejection of an article of faith, and therefore by itself, separates the heretic from membership in the Church.》
      Salza & Siscoe claim that explicit rejection of the Church is necessary in order to "establish" pertinacity if the heretic has neither been judged by the Church after canonical warnings, nor explicitly acknowledged his heresy, nor joined another religion. I have demonstrated beyond all shadow of doubt with irrefutable documentation, that this is not the teaching of the Church. Pertinacity is simply this, as St. Alphonsus explains: for one to consciously remain in an error against the faith after it has been sufficiently explained to him that it is contrary to the faith of the universal Church: «pertinaciter errare … est eum [errorem] retinere, postquam contrarium est sufficienter propositum: sive quando scit contrarium teneri a reliqua universali Christi in terris Ecclesia, cui suum iudicium præferat»  Thus it is demonstrated to be a revealed truth of divine and Catholic faith, that the manifestly pertinacious SIN of denying or doubting a single article of faith by its very nature separates one from the body of the Church, and visibly severs the heretic from membership in the Catholic Church, without any judgment by Church authority. For an act of formal heresy to be certainly known to be pertinacious it suffices (as I prove in my manuscript) that the obstinately denied or doubted revealed truth of faith is either: 1) a revealed truth that pertains to natural law ; 2) a universally known dogma that no educated Catholic can possibly be ignorant of ; 3) if it is explicitly acknowledged by the heretic to be contrary to dogma; 4) or the doubt or denial persists after correction.
     Thus it can be plainly seen that John Salza and Robert Siscoe are in heresy. Their entire doctrine on heresy and loss of office is based on their heretical proposition: «heresy alone does not sever one from the Church » ; [and therefore they profess that separation from the body of thd Church due to formal heresy does not take place without the judgment of the Church. John Salza: «Again, Pope Pius XII is referring to the “offense” or CRIME (not SIN) (sic) of heresy, which severs one from the Body of the Church, after the formal and material elements have been proven by the Church (sic). After the crime has been established (sic), the heretic is automatically severed from the BODY (not SOUL) of the Church without further declaration (although most theologians maintain (sic) that the Church must also issue a declaration of deprivation) »]  So what has been John Salza’s response on this point? All he can say is, “You haven’t addressed Cardinal Billot’s teaching, who was an adherent to Bellarmine’s Fifth Opinion on the loss of office for a heretical Pope … you are not equipped to have this debate with us. You are in way over your head.”》

     Salza & Siscoe state repeatedly quite explicitly in their writings that not the sin, but only the crime of heresy separates the heretic from the body of the Church; and for this to happen the judgment of the Church is necessary.
     Salza says, "Publicly renouncing the Church as the rule of Faith (abandoning the profession of the faith) - by its nature - severs the juridical bonds. It is the nature of the act itself that does so without any extrinsic authority." However, this is not the the point under dispute. What Salza & Siscoe plainly deny in their writings is that heresy per se, i.e. the pertinacious denial or doubt of a revealed truth that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, by its very nature separates one from the body of the Church, and causes the automatic loss of office ipso jure before any judgment is made by the Church. They very explicitly state in their writings (which I have quoted verbatim) that the manifest public sin of heresy by itself neither separates one from the body of the Church, nor effects the ipso jure loss of ecclesiastical office without there first being made the public judgment of the Church. This opinion, which is the explicitly stated position of John F. Salza and Robert J. Siscoe is a sententia hæretica. 
     Salza & Siscoe then desperately resort to screaming that their positions are being misrepresented with a "stream of lies, slander and misrepresentation" --  but this ploy is plainly dishonest and fraudulent; since, when Dr. Chojnowski directly challenged them to plainly state their position, they refused. They don't plainly state their position, because they do not have a logically coherent position. Their position is self-contradictory on muliple points, such as clearly and explicitly asserting that the Church must first judge before a formal heretic ceases to be a member of the Church; but when I refute that proposition, they then change their position and say one is severed automatically from the body of the Church for the crime of heresy (i.e. the external act), but not the sin.
     Their only reply is always the same: "Read our book." However, their book is precisely the problem: 700 pages of evasive and convoluted verbal equivocation throughout which the authors apply the Masonic principle explained by Albert Pike, and according to which Masons, in their exposition, intend more to conceal  than to reveal -- therefore, adhering to this Masonic principle, Salza & Siscoe attempt to avoid making a clear, unequivocal and straightforward exposition of their doctrinal heterodoxy and heresy, (which, by astute and careful examination, can be excavated from under the heap of sophistry that disguises their errors as truth). What they attempt to conceal, but ultinately plainly manifest, is that they don't have a proper position of their own, but their only real intention is to defend their Masonic "Conciliar Church" by attacking Catholic doctrine with guileful sophistry and subterfuge.Their refusal to plainly state their positions is a manifest confession of guilt:

"dixit iniustus ut delinquat in semetipso non est timor Dei ante oculos eius quoniam dolose egit in conspectu eius ut inveniatur iniquitas eius ad odium" (Ps. 35: 2 - 3)

Then, Dr. Chojnowski asked John Salza several simple questions which were left unanswered directly but were only responded to with questions in return....


tap-dancing much?

 
How have some of the true Resistance responded recently:

First to suspected Mason Salza...


The Remnant Online has pickup this story. I tried to make a comment that Fr. Kramer is not a sedevacantist, as Father believes Pope Benedict is still Pope. My post was allowed by removed shortly afterwards. I also tried to link tot he video of Fr. Gruner talking about Pope Benedict still being Pope and that post was never allowed. (shocker!, not)



It is the position of Salza that a person WHO CLAIMS TO BE CATHOLIC cannot be considered a heretic until that person has been declared guilty of heresy by a lawful authority. According to him, if you claim to be Catholic, you can publicly adopt literally any position, no matter how heretical, and you are not to be considered a heretic until you are formally declared to be one. His position means that one could give speeches denying the deity of Christ and Papal Infallibility (or teach the heresy that there are non-Catholic martyrs repeatedly, as Francis does), and that person is not to be considered a heretic but a member of the Catholic faithful. His position is indeed heretical. These videos effectively refute and expose it as heretical:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3AnX_GBWJw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx4a0Szsawc

When you ask Salza questions, you should get him to answer whether he considers pro-abortion and pro-'gay marriage' heretics such as Tim Kaine, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden (etc.), who all say they are Catholic and have not been declared heretics, to be heretics or members of the faithful. This cuts straight to his error. When he starts to answer direct questions on this matter, his heresy and inconsistency will become even more obvious. His published position requires him to say the aforementioned heretics (such as Tim Kaine and Nancy Pelosi) are members of the faithful, since they claim to be Catholic and have not been declared guilty of heresy. But that is obviously absurd and contrary to Catholic teaching. It would mean that one can publicly and obstinately support gay 'marriage' and be considered a Catholic who professes the true faith, since only those who profess the true faith can be considered in the Church, and he holds that one must be considered in the Church if one claims to be Catholic and hasn't been declared a heretic. The heterodoxy and inconsistency of his position will become even more apparent if you ask him about this matter.

And just who is John Salza? By what or whose authority does he speak? Where are his credentials in Catholic theology? It is interesting that the SSPX has selected John Salza and Robert Siscoe as its lay "theologians" on this important matter concerning the papacy. Why are they granted more credibility than Fr. Cekada, Fr. Kramer, Bishop Sanborn, or Novus Ordo Watch (whose thorough research and citations of Church teaching is exemplary)? We do know that John Salza was (is?) a freemason. I wonder, given his expose of freemasonry, how is it that Mr. Salza is still living? Also, just who is the freemason who has infiltrated the Fatima Center, according to Fr. Gruner? Just wondering ... Perhaps, you could pose that question to him ... SiSi, NoNo ... 

Please secure your website. A 33rd degree Mason is now THE expert on the papacy?


Now, how about the response to heretic Siscoe trying to flex his internet toughness on Dr. Chojnowski...
 
Wow! What chutzpah to send such a "warning". It is getting ridiculous these days. So many people think that they are gods that can strike with lightning whomever displeases them. Thin skin seems to be rather prevalent amongst the "enlightened" class.
Barbara Epley

Gee, I thought the other half of the Siscoe, Salza duo might deliver the " threat". I mean it sounds so Much like what a Mason might do....even though we know of course that Salza is an "ex" Mason.

Ok, I've had enough of Siscoe and Salza's dissimulation routine. Their writing is so cryptic as to be just about impenetrable. They seem incapable of saying anything with frankness and clarity, and yet tap out thousands of words whenever their hands touch the keys. Are they just trying to stir the pot, to sew controversy where peasant Catholics are gaining a voice? When a priori reasoning seems obviously called for, S & S grope around inductively like hopping from rock-to-rock in mid stream. They constantly deny having said a certain thing, which is in fact fitting, because they seem to say so little of any substance. Their hair-splitting, equivocating, and grafting of their own thoughts onto the sources they quote as authorities make their writing seem downright Talmudic. Their work resembles the rabbis' trick to make the text say whatever they want; and yet never have to take responsibility for ever having said anything. Tiresome. Siscoe and Salza: your exit from the Bergoglian damage control crew is overdue. Perhaps find some pro bono work helping Hilarity Clinton parse the meaning of "is", should she be deposed. Please get lost. 

Yes, they are very creepy.

Yes, Salza & Siscoe are insidious, thin-skinned, obnoxious, obtuse, cunning, hypocritical, dishonest, uber-creepy characters.

So it's no surprise that their mission in life is to, in effect, support their Bergomeister.


 Why is Pseudo Traditionalism failing?

For those who havent watched this radio show I did exposing the absolute lunacy of Salza.  It also it exposes all the neo-trads, SSPX, Remnant and CFN included...

Salza & Siscoe Call Archbishop Lefebvre A Heretic! 



2 comments:

  1. I'm trying to work my way through Father's new book, Heretic Pope. It's amazingly detailed and well-referenced. Father Kramer truly possesses an enormous intellect, combined with a knack for making his point clear. These two pawns of the Masonic order(Salza and Siscoe) are intentionally trying to twist the meanings of clear church doctrine. The fact that BP. Fellay has not distanced himself from these two sophists should freeze the blood of any true Catholic. SSPX=sinking ship. Get the heck out while you still can!

    ReplyDelete
  2. A HERETIC..!!! Pope Benedict's comments are of little surprise, given the fact that he has previously called for a "New World Order" to combat terrorism, environmental problems, as well as economic imbalances during his Christmas 2005 speech. Pope John Paul II also called for a new world order in a 2004 new years speech....http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vatican/vatican_ratzinger09.htm

    ReplyDelete