Traditional Catholicism in Nigeria (Crede, ut intelligas): August 2016

26 Aug 2016

A Reply to John Salza and Robert Siscoe IV

By Father Paul Kramer

John Salza

"vae qui dicitis malum bonum et bonum malum ponentes tenebras lucem et lucem tenebras" (Isaiah 5:20)

Salza and Siscoe begin Part II of their utterly dishonest screed against me with an enormous and very deliberate lie: "Fr Kramer Rejects the Common Theological Opinion on the Loss of Office for a Heretical Pope. He Claims that a Pope Loses His Office Due to the Sin of Heresy, Without the Judgment of the Church."

I say the lie is deliberate because even after the falsehood has been thoroughly exposed, Salza and Siscoe remain obstinately entrenched in propagating the two lies that my position 1) misinterprets the doctrine of St. Robert Bellarmine; and, 2) rejects a common theological opinion on the loss of office for a heretical pope.

Salza and Siscoe quote my own words: "The main thrust of Bellarmine’s argument is that a pope who in FACT became a manifest heretic ceases to be a pope, a Christian and member of the Church." Salza and Siscoe then mendaciously comment: "This, Fr. Kramer, tells us is the “thrust” of Bellarmine’s argument (translation: Bellarmine didn’t actually say it), even though Bellarmine not only says no such thing, but says the complete opposite!"

They are saying that St. Robert Bellarmine did not say what I paraphrased him to have said (and I later quoted verbatim) on the automatic loss of office of a pope who becomes a public heretic; but that he said the opposite! So what did St. Robert Bellarmine actually say? Here is exactly what he said: "Now the fifth true opinion, is that a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: whereby, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately (or 'soon') lose all jurisdiction, and namely St. Cyprian who speaks on Novation, who was a Pope in schism with Cornelius: “He cannot hold the Episcopacy, although he was a bishop first, he fell from the body of his fellow bishops and from the unity of the Church” [332]. There he means that Novation, even if he was a true and legitimate Pope; still would have fallen from the pontificate by himself, if he separated himself from the Church. The same is the opinion of the learned men of our age, as John Driedo teaches [333], those who are cast out as excommunicates, or leave on their own and oppose the Church are separated from it, namely heretics and schismatics. He adds in the same work [334], that no spiritual power remains in them, who have departed from the Church, over those who are in the Church. Melchior Cano teaches the same thing, when he says that heretics are not part of the Church, nor members [335], and he adds in the last Chapter, 12th argument, that someone cannot even be informed in thought, that he should be head and Pope, who is not a member nor a part, and he teaches the same thing in eloquent words, that secret heretics are still in the Church and are parts and members, and that a secretly heretical Pope is still Pope. Others teach the same, whom we cite in Book 1 of de Ecclesia. The foundation of this opinion is that a manifest heretic, is in no way a member of the Church; that is, neither in spirit nor in body, or by internal union nor external. For even wicked Catholics are united and are members, in spirit through faith and in body through the confession of faith, and the participation of the visible Sacraments. Secret heretics are united and are members, but only by an external union: just as on the other hand, good Catechumens are in the Church only by an internal union but not an external one. Manifest heretics by no union, as has been proved."(I have slightly modified Ryan Grant's translation.)

The plain and univocal sense of these words in opinion no. 5, which Bellarmine says is the "true opinion", is that the pope who is a manifest heretic, by himself, ceases to be pope and head, just as he, by himself ceases to be a Christian and a member of the Church; and it is precisely because he is already ipso facto no longer pope and no longer a member of the Church, that he may be judged and punished. Whether "mox" is interpreted as "immediately" or "soon" is of no major consequence. Most translate "mox" as "immediately", since the context seems to indicate the fully conscious and deliberate act of heresy, which would have the immediate effect of severing the pope from the body of the Church. If the sin is not made at first obstinately with full knowledge and consent, but becomes obstinately only later, then "mox" would be understood as "soon". In either case, the pope would lose office "by himself", and not by any judgment pronounced on him by the Church, because no one in the Church has any jurisdiction over the pope, as Innocent III teaches (Sermo IV), as well as Bellarmine in the same Chapter XXX.

The pope as a public heretic would cease by himself, (and not by or after any judgment of the Church), to be pope, because the heretic by himself ceases to be a member of the Church: "those who . . . leave on their own and oppose the Church are separated from it, namely heretics and schismatics."; and he cites the opinion of St Jerome: "Jerome comments . . . saying that other sinners, through a judgment of excommunication are excluded from the Church; heretics, however, leave by themselves and are cut from the body of Christ, "

The teaching of Bellarmine and St. Jerome on the nature of the sin of heresy by which one casts one's self out of the body of the Church is set forth by Pope Pius XII in his Encyclical, Mystici Corporis.

In no. 22 of Mystici Corporis, Pius XII teaches that those who "separate themselves from the unity of the body" are not members of the Church: "In Ecclesiae autem membris reapse ii soli annumerandi sunt, qui regenerationis lavacrum receperunt veramque fidem profitentur, neque a Corporis compage semet ipsos misere separarunt, vel ob gravissima admissa a legitima auctoritate seiuncti sunt."*

So, those who have been excluded by an act of authority, and those who "separate themselves from the unity of the Body", are not members of the Church. Those who "separate themselves from the unity of the body" are heretics, schismatics, and apoststes, because by the very nature of the sin of schism, heresy, or apostasy, one is severed from the body of the Church: "Siquidem non omne admissum, etsi grave scelus, eiusmodi est ut — sicut schisma, vel haeresis, vel apostasia faciunt — suapte natura hominem ab Ecclesiae Corpore separet."**

The magisterial doctrine must be understood according to the mind of the Church, which is best explained first and foremost by those officially recognized as Doctors of the Church, and by the Church's eminent theologians; such as one who would be recognized as a homo theologus – one who is/was a professor of theology at a pontifical university, and has authored a major work in theology.

St. Robert Bellarmine, and modern authors explain that the internal sin of heresy does not sever one visibly from the body of the Church; and neither does the secret external sin of heresy, which is canonically the occult crime of heresy. The public sin of heresy ipso facto separates one from all communion with the Church, and from any visible unity with the body of the Church; and therefore this is the proper understanding of the doctrine.

The utterly specious objections made by Salza and Siscoe, that a manifest heretic would need to be warned first before losing office; and that the loss of office only would take place after an official judgment is made contradicts the plainly stated meaning in Bellarmine's opinion no. 5, and is based on a faulty and uncritical exegesis of the passages where these things are mentioned.

When Bellarmine says, "For Jurisdiction is certainly given to the Pontiff by God, but with the agreement of men, as is obvious; because this man, who beforehand was not Pope, has from men that he would begin to be Pope, therefore, he is not removed by God unless it is through men", he refutes the second opinion that holds that a pope who would be even a secret heretic would be deposed by God. A pope cannot be deposed, but can be removed, and only by men. A pope could be judged for heresy by men, i.e. by Church authorities who determine that the sin is obstinate, and then they can declare the loss of office; or he can lose office by himself alone by manifest heresy if the obstinacy is patent in a notorious manner. In both cases, the pope would lose office by the notoriety of his own criminal act. In the first case the declaration would make the obstinacy notorious. In the second, the notoriety of the act itself would ipso facto effect the loss of office, before the judgment is made. Having lost office, the former pope could then be judged and punished by the Church.

Let the reader make note of the fact that I quoted Bellarmines opinion no. 5 as the one I subscribe to, but Salza and Siscoe deliberately, maliciously and falsely claimed that I "apparently" hold to opinion no. 2 which Bellarmine refutes. What ruthless and bold faced liars!

The opinion that according to Bellarmine, a manifestly obstinate heretic would have to be warned first before losing office is preposterous. Bellarmine speaks of, "The Authority is of St. Paul, who commands Titus that after two censures, that is, after he appears manifestly pertinacious, a heretic is to be shunned: and he understands this before excommunication and sentence of a judge;" in order to refute the error of Cajetan that a manifestly heretical pope does not lose office ipso facto before judgment is pronounced, but must be deposed by the Church. He explains that if the heretic pope remains in office even after the warnings, then he cannot be shunned because he is still the head. And then he cites the opinion of St. Jerome, "that other sinners, through a judgment of excommunication are excluded from the Church; heretics, however, leave by themselves and are cut from the body of Christ." This is Bellarmine's argument from authority. His argument from reason to refute Cajetan forms the basis of opinion no. 5, which he says is the "true opinion", according to which the manifestly heretical pope loses office ipso facto, and not after deposition by the Church. That argument is, "Now in regard to reason this is indeed very certain. A non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan affirms in the same book [324], and the reason is because he cannot be the head of that which he is not a member, and he is not a member of the Church who is not a Christian. But a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as St. Cyprian and many other Fathers clearly teach [325]. Therefore, a manifest heretic cannot be Pope."

*"Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."

**"For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy."

-----------------------------------------

The claim of Salza and Siscoe, that I reject "the Common Theological Opinion on the Loss of Office for a Heretical Pope;"is in fact a very cunning lie.

First they quote Billuart who does not speak of a common opinion, but of a more common opinion: “According to the more common opinion, Christ by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquillity of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he should be declared a manifest heretic by the Church.”

What they neglect to mention is that Billuart died in 1758, and that opinion is no longer the more common one. With their characteristic truculence, Salza and Siscoe say, 《 "If Fr. Kramer rejects this teaching (and he does), let him produce a citation from a reputable theologian who teaches otherwise – that is, that a heretical pope will lose his office". Here's the citations:

Dominic Prummer: “The power of the Roman Pontiff is lost. . . (c) By his perpetual insanity or by formal heresy. And this at least probably. . . . The Authors indeed commonly teach that a pope loses his power through certain and notorious heresy, but whether this case is really possible is rightly doubted.” (Manuale Iuris Canonci. Freiburg im Briesgau: Herder 1927. p. 95)

F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: “Finally, there is the fifth opinion – that of Bellarmine himself – which was expressed initially and is rightly defended by Tanner and others as the best proven and the most common. For he who is no longer a member of the body of the Church, i.e. the Church as a visible society, cannot be the head of the Universal Church. But a Pope who fell into public heresy would cease by that very fact to be a member of the Church. Therefore he would also cease by that very fact to be the head of the Church. Indeed, a publicly heretical Pope, who, by the commandment of Christ and the Apostle must even be avoided because of the danger to the Church, must be deprived of his power as almost all admit.” (Ius Canonicum. Rome: Gregorian 1943. 2:453)

Note that Wernz and Vidal interpret Bellarmine as I do, and as did all other experts in Canon Law. Salza and Siscoe attempt to deceive their readers by twisting Bellarmine's words out of context to make it appear like he's saying the opposite of what he intends.

A. Vermeersch, I. Creusen: “The power of the Roman Pontiff ceases by death, free resignation (which is valid without need for any acceptance, c.221), certain and unquestionably perpetual insanity and notorious heresy. At least according to the more common teaching, the Roman Pontiff as a private teacher can fall into manifest heresy. Then, without any declaratory sentence (for the supreme See is judged by no one), he would automatically fall from a power which he who is no longer a member of the Church is unable to possess.” (Epitome Iuris Canonici. Rome: Dessain 1949. p. 340)

Eduardus F. Regatillo: “The Roman Pontiff ceases in office: . . . (4) Through notorious public heresy? Five answers have been given: 1. ‘The pope cannot be a heretic even as a private teacher.’ A pious thought, but essentially unfounded. 2. ‘The pope loses office even through secret heresy.’ False, because a secret heretic can be a member of the Church. 3. ‘The pope does not lose office because of public heresy.’ Objectionable. 4. ‘The pope loses office by a judicial sentence because of public heresy.’ But who would issue the sentence? The See of Peter is judged by no one (Canon 1556). 5. ‘The pope loses office ipso facto because of public heresy.’ This is the more common teaching, because a pope would not be a member of the Church, and hence far less could be its head.” (Institutiones Iuris Canonici. 5th ed. Santander: Sal Terrae, 1956. 1:396).

Matthaeus Conte a Coronata: “2. Loss of office of the Roman Pontiff. This can occur in various ways: . . . c) Notorious heresy. Certain authors deny the supposition that the Roman Pontiff can become a heretic. It cannot be proven however that the Roman Pontiff, as a private teacher, cannot become a heretic – if, for example, he would contumaciously deny a previously defined dogma. Such impeccability was never promised by God. Indeed, Pope Innocent III expressly admits such a case is possible. If indeed such a situation would happen, he would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one. He who openly professes heresy places himself outside the Church, and it is not likely that Christ would preserve the Primacy of His Church in one so unworthy. Wherefore, if the Roman Pontiff were to profess heresy, before any condemnatory sentence (which would be impossible anyway) he would lose his authority.” (Institutiones Iuris Canonici. Rome: Marietti 1950. I:3I2, p. 3I6).

25 Aug 2016

A Reply to John Salza and Robert Siscoe – Conclusion of Part III

By Father Paul Kramer

John Salza

Salza and Siscoe take issue with my entirely orthodox comment that, "The visible entity will be APOSTATE. The true Church will be a remnant in hiding. The Church will be briefly INVISIBLE, as the Fathers teach. "According to their grotesquely distorted and fundamentalistic notion of the Church, that which has been clearly foretold in scripture and expounded by the Fathers and by ecclesiastical writers through the ages of Catholicism, constitutes a denial of the indefectibility visibility of the Church. However, as we have seen in the preceding segment of this article, it is Salza and Siscoe who deny Catholic doctrine by maintaining that the Church will not be reduced to a small number during the reign of Antichrist; and similarly, the diminution of the Church's visibility correlative to its reduction in numbers as a logical corollary of that reduction of numbers.

Cardinal Manning expounds meticulously and at some length, citing the writings of the Fathers and other eminent authorities, that Rome will apostatize, and a counterfeit entity will rise in Rome, where the Vicar of Christ formerly reigned – a pagan counterfeit entity will rise in its place. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass will cease, and counterfeit pagan worship will take its place.

Fr. E. Sylvester Berry, D.D., in The Church of Christ, An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise, explains, “The prophecies of the Apocalypse show that Satan will imitate the Church of Christ to deceive mankind; he will set up a church of Satan in opposition to the Church of Christ. Antichrist will assume the role of Messias; his prophet will act the part of Pope, and there will be imitations of the Sacraments of the Church.” (p. 119). Since the scriptures themselves foretell that the reign of Antichrist will be universal, the false worship of the apostate entity will be globally imposed. (Apoc. 13:7-8) Thus, Fr. Berry says, “there seems to be no reason why a false Church might not become universal, even more universal than the true one, at least for a time.” (p.155).

Even after the cessation of the Holy Sacrifice, when the Church, reduced to a small number and nearly everywhere in hiding, will appear to have been swept from the face of the earth; even then, the essential marks of catholicity, and the essential attribute of indefectibility and its corresponding visibility will remain intact, although diminished for a time. In The Divine Plan of The Church, by the Rev. John MacLaughlin, (Burns & Oates, London, 1901. Chapter VI, on indefectibility. Pp. 93-94.), we read:

“We concede, moreover, that there may have been occasions in the past (and such intervals may occur in the future) when, through the opposition of anti-popes and a variety of untoward circumstances, it was difficult for individuals for the moment to tell where the right source of authoritative teaching was to be found.

“This, however, does not change the state of the case in the least; the one true Church was in the world somewhere all the same, and in full possession of all her essential prerogatives, although, for the passing hour – from transient causes – she may not have been easily discernible to the less observant.

“Just as there have been times when some dense fog or mist made it impossible for the ordinary observer to tell the exact spot the sun occupied in the sky, although everybody knew that he was there somewhere; knew, too, that he would in due course make the exact location of his presence visible to all, and that, as soon as the mist lifted, his rays would come straight to the earth again, and every one would see that he was identically the same luminous orb that had shone before.”

Thus the accusation made by Salza and Siscoe, that "By claiming that the “visible entity” will become “apostate,” Fr. Kramer, in a single sentence, has just publicly denied the indefectibility of the Church", is plainly seen not only to be false, but contrary to the plain teaching of scripture as understood according to the mind of the Church.

"And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them. And power was given him over every tribe, and people, and tongue, and nation.

And all that dwell upon the earth adored him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb, which was slain from the beginning of the world."

(To be continued).

24 Aug 2016

A Reply to John Salza and Robert Siscoe III (continued)

By Father Paul Kramer

John Salza

There exists only one word that adequately describes the method of argumentation of Salza & Siscoe in their misrepresentation of my theological arguments, and their falsification and inversion of Catholic teaching; and that word is FRAUD.

Their silly claim that I have made a "procedural error" is a falsehood. I did not have access to the Latin text of the St. Athanasius letter, so I had to make do with three versions of the passage in question in modern languages that I was able to find. All the translations were identical, and had the identical reference. The page numbers in the reference in English, Spanish and French were "p. 411-412". Somewhere along the line of transmission, a typographical error occurred, which Salza & Co. gratuitously and maliciously assume is a "procedural error".

It was only afterwards, when I had learned that the letter begins with the words, "Deus quidem vos consoletur", that I was able to locate sources containing the letter, and verify the fact that the passage in question is indeed spurious. However, Salza/Siscoe state falsely that, "Fr. Kramer simply pulled the quotation from an internet source without checking the reference to see if it was authentic". In fact, long before the internet became available to the general public, I had to rely on the word of the SSPX in one of their publications concerning the passage in question, since I did not have an adequate library at my disposal to verify the authenticity of the passage.

The much more grave error of Salza & Siscoe is their claim that, "Fr. Kramer errs by confusing the predictions of an underground Church during the end times, with a farcical reduction of the number of faithful to only a handful, and ends by denying the mark of catholicity." As I have already stated, I have never said that the number of faithful will actually be reduced to a handful – this claim is a malicious invention of Salza & Siscoe.

What I have said is that the Church will be reduced to a small number during the great persecution foretold in the book of the Apocalypse; and not only does this opinion not deny the dogma of the indefectibility of the Church by destroying its catholicity or its visibility, but is in fact the doctrine of scripture as interpreted by the ancient Fathers, as is therefore at the very least proxima fidei.

In the above cited work of Cardinal Manning, it is stated that, "The writers of the Church tell us that in the latter days the City of Rome will probably become apostate from the Church and the Vicar of Jesus Christ; and that Rome will again be punished, for he will depart from it, and the judgment of God will fall on the place from which he once ruled over the nations of the world." (p.87) Fr. E. Sylvester Berry, in his work on The Apocalypse of St. John says, "After the destruction of Rome in the days of Antichrist, it shall forever remain a heap of ruins and the haunt of filthy animals; "that great city shall be found no more at all." (p.193)

At the beginning of Chapter XX, Fr. Berry explains, "[P]ractically all interpreters who accept these conclusions (that Antichrist must be a definite individual and . . . that he has not yet made his appearance in the world) take the reign of Antichrist as a prelude to the last judgment end of the world. Then contrary to the plain sense of Holy Scripture, they place the universal reign of Christ before the reign of Antichrist." (p.189)

"A careful reading of the Apocalypse," Fr. Berry explains, "shows clearly that Antichrist will appear long centuries before the last judgment and the end of the world. In fact his reign will be but the final attempt of Satan to prevent the universal reign of Christ in the world." (p. 189-90) This opinion of Fr. Berry is supported by the prophecy of St. John Eudes (which I read about 25 years ago), who foretold that the triumph of the Heart of Mary will be a triumph over the Antichrist. I mention this here only in order to dispel the false interpretations that conclude that the great tribulation of the time of Antichrist cannot happen in the very near future; and also to provide a general context for the events that are foretold in scripture and by ecclesiastical writers, when the Church will be persecuted to near extinction, but will, by divine intervention, rise in triumph from her apparent defeat.

In this context one can place the future events spoken of by Cardinal Manning, who wrote, "And therefore the writers of the Church tell us that the City of Rome has no prerogative except only that the Vicar of Christ is there; and if it becomes unfaithful, the same judgments which fell on Jerusalem, hallowed though it was by the presence of the Son of God, of the Master, and not the disciple only, shall fall likewise upon Rome." (p.88) Manning cites multiple authorities, including St. Robert Bellarmine: "In the time of Antichrist, Rome shall be desolated and burnt, as we shall learn from the sixteenth verse of the seventeenth chapter of the Apocalypse." (p.89)

Manning continues, "Finally, Cornelius à Lapide sums up what may be said to be the common interpretation of theologians . . . 'These things are to be understood of the city of Rome, not that which is, nor that which was, but that which shall be at the end of the world. . . For from Christian it shall again become heathen. It shall cast out the Christian Pontiff, and the faithful who adhere to him. It shall persecute and slay them . . . '". (p.90)

Thus we have the context of Cardinal Manning's words quoted earlier:

“The apostasy of the city of Rome from the vicar of Christ and its destruction by Antichrist may be thoughts very new to many Catholics, that I think it well to recite the text of theologians of greatest repute. First Malvenda, who writes expressly on the subject, states as the opinion of Ribera, Gaspar Melus, Biegas, Suarrez, Bellarmine and Bosius that Rome shall apostatize from the Faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ and return to its ancient paganism. ...Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible; hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were from the face of the earth. Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church.”

"Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers," says Manning, the Church "will be as it was in the beginning" – "invisible, hidden . . . swept, as it were from the face of the earth"; and this is "the universal testimony of the Fathers"; but according to Salza & Siscoe, this is an opinion that denies the essential mark of the catholicity of the Church.

In the great commentary of Cornelius à Lapide, explanation is given of the meaning of the words spoken by Christ in the 12th chapter of the Gospel of St. Luke, where the Lord describes His church as a "pusillus grex", a "little flock". And the first reason given why the Lord refers to the Church as a "little flock" is: "PUSILLUS GREX, id est parvus, Primo, quia tum pauci erant fideles" – at the beginning the number of faithful was small; and also is small in comparison with the great number of the infidels and the wicked (pusillus est grex fidelium si comparatur cum maxima multitudine infidelium, & impiorum); and he cites the opinion of Bede, according to whom the flock is small in comparison to the number of reprobates (ad comparationem majoris numeri reproborum).

The Church will be comprised of a small number of faithful especially during the persecution of Antichrist for all the reasons given above, because, as ecclesiastical writers explain, that during that exceptional persecution, by the disposition of the divine will, the Church will revert for a time to the state it was in during the early persecutions. This is explained by Cardinal Manning not as merely his own personal opinion, but, as he says in his own words, “In treating of this subject, I shall not venture upon any conjectures of my own, but shall deliver simply what I find either in the Fathers of the Church, or in such theologians as the Church has recognised, namely, Bellarmine, Lessius, Malvenda, Viegas, Suarez, Ribera, and others”.

"The history of the Church," says Cardinal Manning, "and the history of Our Lord on earth, run as it were in parallel. For three-and-thirty years the Son of God incarnate was in the world, and no man could lay hand upon Him. No man could take Him, because His "hour was not yet come." There was an hour foreordained when the Son of God would be delivered into the hand of sinners. He foreknew it; He foretold it."

In like manner with His Church. Until the hour is come when the barrier shall, by the Divine will, be taken out of the way, no one has power to lay a hand upon it. The gates of hell may war against it; they may strive and wrestle, as they struggle now with the Vicar of Our Lord; but no one has the power to move Him one step, until the hour shall come when the Son of God shall permit, for a time, the powers of evil to prevail. That He will permit it for a time stands in the book of prophecy. When the hindrance is taken away, the man of sin will be revealed; then will come the persecution of three years and a half, short, but terrible, during which the Church of God will return into its state of suffering, as in the beginning; and the imperishable Church of God, by its inextinguishable life derived from the pierced side of Jesus, which for three hundred years lived on through blood, will live on still through the fires of the times of Antichrist." (pp. 55-6)

"THE CHURCH OF GOD WILL RETURN INTO ITS STATE OF SUFFERING, AS IN THE BEGINNING" – when it was a "pusillus grex" (Luke 12:32); a "little flock", small in number.

Cardinal Louis Edoard Pie, a contemporary of Cardinal Manning, wrote, "The Church, though still a visible society, will be increasingly reduced to individual and domestic proportions." . . . "Surrounded on all sides, as the other centuries have made her great, so the last will strive to crush her. And finally the Church on earth will undergo a true defeat: . . . 'and it was given unto him [the Antichrist] to make war with the saints and to overcome them.'" (Apocalypse 13:7)

Hillaire Belloc, honoured by Pius XI with the title, "Defender of the Faith", expresses the same opinion, (which Salza claims to be heretical), namely, that the Church during the great tribulation will be severely reduced in numbers. In The Great Heresies, (which I read multiple times and of which I have multiple copies, including an original edition), Belloc says, "The Church will not disappear, for the Church is not made of mortal stuff; it is the only institution among men not subject to the universal law of mortality. Therefore we say, that the Church may not be wiped out, but that it may be reduced to a small band almost forgotten amid the vast numbers of its opponents and their contempt of the defeated thing."

This conviction, which Salza & Siscoe say is heretical, has been voiced also by the future Pope Benedict XVI in a radio address on Hessisscer Rundfunk in Germany in 1969:

“It [the Church] will become small and will have to start pretty much all over again. It will no longer have use of the structures it built in its years of prosperity. The reduction in the number of faithful will lead to it losing an important part of its social privileges.”

(To be continued).

23 Aug 2016

A Reply to John Salza and Robert Siscoe (Part III)

By Father Paul Kramer

John Salza

"Scrutati sunt iniquitates; defecerunt scrutantes scrutinio" (Ps. 63)

Using the methods so chronically used by Masons, the former (?) Mason Salza and his partner Siscoe falsify my position by craftily misrepresenting it; and then they proceed to refute the caricature of their own making. Salza/Siscoe claim, "Fr. Kramer errs by confusing the predictions of an underground Church during the end times, with a farcical reduction of the number of faithful to only a handful, and ends by denying the mark of catholicity." This is a bold faced lie: Nowhere have I ever stated such a thing.

Again, Salza/Siscoe state falsely, " [T]he problem with Fr. Kramer’s position is that he conflates an underground Church (which the Fathers predicted during the end times) with a Church consisting of only few members". Following the perverse dictum of the Freemason Voltaire, ("Mentez, mentez, il en restera toujours quelque chose".), Salza/Siscoe brazenly repeat the lie, hoping that something of it will stick in the minds of their unfortunate readers. Again, I have not asserted the proposition that the universal Church will be reduced to only a mere handful of scattered members; but only that during the exceptional time foretold in sacred scripture and permitted by God, the Church will be greatly reduced, and scattered; as many approved and eminent authorities have explained.

Salza/Siscoe skilfully misrepresent my position by deftly interpreting a quotation expressed in the conditional mode, according to an indicative sense. Thus, their bogus interpretation of the (in fact spurious) words attributed to St. Athanasius, “Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones that are the true Church of Christ." These words do not state that the Church will in fact be literally reduced to a mere handful, but express in hypothetical mode that IF such a thing WERE to happen, then that small group WOULD still be the true Church of Christ. Hence, there is absolutely nothing heterodox about the quotation; but it is only the malicious spinning of it by Salza/Siscoe that makes it seem heretical. It is in fact no more heretical than the prophecy of Our Lord Jesus Christ who foretold that in the time of tribulation, "there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect." (Mt. 24:24)

If the elect were really to be deceived, then the defection of the Church would result, thereby nullifying the attribute of indefectibility promised by Christ Himself. However, the conditional qualifying "if" does not permit such an heretical interpretation of the verse to be made; and that same qualifying "if" in the spurious Athanasius quotation likewise rules out categorically that its meaning may be interpreted heretically to mean that the Church will indeed be reduced to a mere handful.

Furthermore, the spurious quotation is not the basis of my theological opinion on the exceptional circumstances that will befall the Church during the great tribulation foretold in scripture, by the ancient Fathers, and in the approved writings of many saints and theologians. I have already set forth what is the basis of my position in my brief article (and in previous posts and comments), "Re: My Reply to John Salza" – which manifests the absurdity of the Salza/ Siscoe claim that, "By embracing the spurious quote, Fr. Kramer errs by denying an essential mark of the Church."

As I have shown, the quotation does not deny an essential mark of the Church, and the quotation is not the basis of my theological opinion. St. Thomas Aquinas wrote against the errors of the Greeks, supporting his position with spurious quotations of the Fathers. The fact that many of the passages he cited were later shown to be spurious did not diminish the orthodoxy of his opuscule, Contra Errores Græcorum – and neither does the fact that the Athanasius quotation is in fact spurious diminish in the least the orthodoxy of my theological position on the tribulation the Church will undergo in the time of tribulation.

I did not say that the Church will be reduced to a handful. What I did say is that the Church will be greatly reduced, and driven into the catacombs in the manner described by Cardinal Edward Manning. Salza/Siscoe engage in the verbal manipulation of relative terms like "large" and "small", in the deliberate attempt to misrepresent me in a heretical manner. In the great tribulation in which it can be foreseen that a great portion of humanity will perish, and a huge number of Catholics will apostatize, one can safely conclude, without violating the principle of "moral catholicity" that the total number of Catholics will be significantly reduced to a small number in comparison to what it was before.

The manner in which it will be reduced to in visibility and in numbers is described by Cardinal Manning:

(To be continued).
See also: A Reply to John Salza (Part I)

http://traditionalcatholicisminnigeria.blogspot.com.ng/2016/08/a-reply-to-john-salza-part-i.html,

A Reply to John Salza (Part II)

http://traditionalcatholicisminnigeria.blogspot.com.ng/2016/08/a-reply-to-john-salza-part-ii.html,

and RE: OUR REPLIES TO FR. PAUL KRAMER

http://traditionalcatholicisminnigeria.blogspot.com.ng/2016/08/re-our-replies-to-fr-paul-kramer.html

22 Aug 2016

A Reply to John Salza and Robert Siscoe (Part II)

By Father Paul Kramer

John Salza

Nescierunt, neque intellexerunt, in tenebris ambulant" - (Ps. 81:5)

The Salza/Siscoe doctrine that the heretic is not ipso facto, i.e., by the act of heresy itself, immediately severed from communion with the Church, and thus auto-excommunicated, presupposes the heretical premise that the bond of communion can exist between the Church and an unbeliever, and is not severed until the crime has been proven by Church authority.

As I quoted earlier, Salza claims, "Again, Pope Pius XII is referring to the 'offense' or CRIME (not SIN) of heresy, which severs one from the Body of the Church, after the formal and material elements have been proven by the Church. After the crime has been established, the heretic is automatically severed from the BODY (not SOUL) of the Church without further declaration (although most theologians maintain that the Church must also issue a declaration of deprivation)."

The sin of heresy can be distinguished from the crime solely according to the circumstance of whether or not the sin was committed internally, i.e. in thought, or by an external act. The internal sin severs one from the soul of the Church, because it is by the internal act of faith that one is united to the soul of the Church; but the internal act of infidelity does not separate one from the body of the Church. The internal sin of heresy, therefore, constitutes a grave sin against faith, but is not properly an act of heresy which separates one visibly from communion with the Church. Like the sin of murder, one is not actually a murderer guilty of murder unless one commits the external act of killing; and one is not properly called a heretic, until the act of severing communion by an external act has been committed.

The external act can be occult or public, and even the occult act incurs the latæ sententiæ excommunication, since the act itself incurs the latæ sententiæ excommunication: "Can. 1364 — § 1. Apostata a fide, haereticus vel schismaticus in excommunicationem latae sententiae incurrit . . ."

By the act itself, the heretic, apostate or schismatic self inflicts the penalty of excommunication upon himself. This has always been the case, and remains so under the 1983 Code of Canon Law. In the Canon Law Society of America commentary, we read: "The anomaly about the severe consequences is that some of the most serious of them are 'automatic or self imposed' (ipso iure, ipso facto, latæ sententiæ) - (James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green, Donald E. Heintschel; THE CODE OF CANON LAW, A Text and Commentary, Commissioned by THE CANON LAW SOCI ETY OF AMERICA, p. 915). The Canon explicitly states that the heretic, schismatic or apostate INCURS the excommunication LATÆ SENTENTIÆ -- thus, the heretic excommunicates himself, exactly as Pope St. Celestine I explained in the heresy judgment against Nestorius. While excommunication per se does not entail the loss of office, the crime of heresy effects the consequence of both the immediate excommunication and loss of office by the heretic. This is clearly not a mere canonical provision pertaining to "merely ecclesiastical law" (Can. 11 "legibus mere ecclesiasticis"), but pertains to the divine constitution of the Church. Since, as Bellarmine in the earlier quoted passage stated it was the unanimous teaching of the ancient Fathers that heretics lose office, it would therefore appear to be heretical to say that one who commits the public act of heresy does not lose office until the crime is declared by ecclesiastical authority.

Salza's explanations on excommunication reveal a profound ignorance of the subject matter. There is not a canonist in the entire world who agrees with his eccentric interpretations of Canon Law on excommunication. During the years I spent in Rome, I read many works of diverse authors on Canon Law and spoke with a good number of professors of Canon Law. They all knew perfectly well what excommunicatio latæ sententiæ means – only Salza and Siscoe do not.

The Catholic Encyclopaedia explanation on excommunication is in total agreement with every canonist I have ever heard or read. Here are the most salient points:

"A jure and ab homine

Excommunication is either a jure (by law) or ab homine (by judicial act of man, i.e. by a judge). The first is provided by the law itself, which declares that whosoever shall have been guilty of a definite crime will incur the penalty of excommunication. The second is inflicted by an ecclesiastical prelate, either when he issues a serious order under pain of excommunication or imposes this penalty by judicial sentence and after a criminal trial.

"Latæ and Ferendæ Sententiæ

Excommunication, especially a jure, is either latæ or ferendæ sententiæ. The first is incurred as soon as the offence is committed and by reason of the offence itself (eo ipso) without intervention of any ecclesiastical judge; it is recognized in the terms used by the legislator, for instance: "the culprit will be excommunicated at once, by the fact itself [statim, ipso facto]". The second is indeed foreseen by the law as a penalty, but is inflicted on the culprit only by a judicial sentence; in other words, the delinquent is rather threatened than visited with the penalty, and incurs it only when the judge has summoned him before his tribunal, declared him guilty, and punished him according to the terms of the law.

"Public and occult

Excommunication ferendæ sententiæ can be public only, as it must be the object of a declaratory sentence pronounced by a judge; but excommunication latæ sententiæ may be either public or occult. It is public through the publicity of the law when it is imposed and published by ecclesiastical authority; it is public through notoriety of fact when the offence that has incurred it is known to the majority in the locality, as in the case of those who have publicly done violence to clerics, or of the purchasers of church property. On the contrary, excommunication is occult when the offence entailing it is known to no one or almost no one. The first is valid in the forum externum and consequently in the forum internum; the second is valid in the forum internum only. The practical difference is very important. He who has incurred occult excommunication should treat himself as excommunicated and be absolved as soon as possible, submitting to whatever conditions will be imposed upon him, but this is only in the tribunal of conscience; he is not obliged to denounce himself to a judge nor to abstain from external acts connected with the exercise of jurisdiction, and he may ask absolution without making himself known either in confession or to the Sacred Penitentiaria. According to the teaching of Benedict XIV (De synodo, X, i, 5), "a sentence declaratory of the offence is always necessary in the forum externum, since in this tribunal no one is presumed to be excommunicated unless convicted of a crime that entails such a penalty". Public excommunication, on the other hand, is removed only by a public absolution; when it is question of simple publicity of fact (see above), the absolution, while not judicial, is nevertheless public, inasmuch as it is given to a known person and appears as an act of the forum externum."

The excommunication for heresy is a jure, and is latæ sententiæ. The key passage in the above cited quote is: "Excommunication, especially a jure, is either latæ or ferendæ sententiæ. The first is incurred as soon as the offence is committed and by reason of the offence itself (eo ipso) without intervention of any ecclesiastical judge; it is recognized in the terms used by the legislator, for instance: "the culprit will be excommunicated at once, by the fact itself [statim, ipso facto]". Thus, the heretic is excommunicated by the commission of the act itself, incurred ipso facto without any declaration by a judge, and not "after the formal and material elements have been proven by the Church", as Salza maintains.

For a public crime, no declaratory sentence is required: The teaching of Benedict XIV quoted by the Encyclopaedia refers exclusively to excommunication for occult crimes. The excommunication is public either by declaration by a judge, OR BY THE NOTORIETY OF THE FACT OF THE CRIME: "It is public through the publicity of the law when it is imposed and published by ecclesiastical authority; it is public through notoriety of fact when the offence that has incurred it is known to the majority in the locality, as in the case of those who have publicly done violence to clerics, or of the purchasers of church property."

Thus, a public heretic ceases to be in communion with the Church by the very fact of his crime; ceases to be a member of the Church and ipso facto loses all ecclesiastical office.

According to Salza's crackpot theory, the doctrine which I have presented on the topic of a heretical pope self excommunicating himself and ipso facto losing office is heterodox; yet it is taught by Doctors of the Church, and is still acknowledged today as "an accepted opinion": “Communion becomes a real issue when it is threatened or even lost. This occurs especially through heresy, apostasy and schism. Classical canonists discussed the question whether a pope, in his private or personal opinions, could go into heresy, apostasy or schism.” The foot note refers to S. Sipos, Enchiridion Iuris Canonici, 7th ed. (Rome: Herder, 1960) “cites Bellarmine and Wernz in support of his position; this view, however, is termed ‘antiquated’ by F. Cappello, Summa Iuris Canonici (Rome: Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, 1961), 297.”

The Commentary continues: “If he were to do so in a notoriously and widely publicised manner, he would break communion and, according to an accepted opinion, lose his office ipso facto (c. 194 par. 1, n. 2). Since no one can judge the pope (c. 1404) no one could depose a pope for such crimes, and the authors are divided as to how his loss of office would be declared in such a way that a vacancy could then be filled by a new election.” – James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green, Donald E. Heintschel; Ibid., p. 272

(To be continued).

21 Aug 2016

A Reply to John Salza and Robert Siscoe (Part I)

By Father Paul Kramer

John Salza

"Os autem impiorum iniquitatem operit" (Prov. 10:6).

In their "Replies to Father Paul Kramer -- One Error at a Time", John Salza and Robert Siscoe manifest a nearly unfathomable incapacity to understand Catholic doctrine according to the mind of the magisterium of the Church, along with a self serving and sacrilegious contempt for the Catholic priesthood. The Salza/Siscoe falsifying fundamentalist hermeneutic is so skilfully, systematically and pervasively applied in both their interpretation of doctrine as well as their fraudulent analysis of their opponents' arguments; that one reasonably suspects it is not theological incompetence and critical ineptitude, but rather the conscious intention to distort, falsify and deceive, which has accomplished with an almost admirable perfection their work of the total inversion of truth – "Os autem impiorum iniquitatem operit".

Salza/Siscoe make the errant claim that it is "Fr. Kramer’s scholarship that is lacking, especially in regard to the theology concerning a heretical Pope." Everything I have written on the topic of a heretical pope has been taken from approved theological works, some of which are eminent authorities; whereas the Salza/Siscoe doctrine grossly distorts Catholic teaching and rests on heretical premises. Their doctrine, which they mendaciously claim is the teaching of the Church, is not the teaching of the Church, but is their own, which they prefer over the teaching of the Church – "Os autem impiorum iniquitatem operit".

What I say, however, is simply an application of the clearly set forth doctrine of the popes, Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Salza/Siscoe reject their teaching by distorting it to mean the opposite of what it says; while guilefully claiming to adhere to it: "Os autem impiorum iniquitatem operit".

Here is the opinion I expressed on a heretical pope, which Salza/Siscoe perversely judge to be unorthodox:

I absolutely do not fear in any way the opinions of those who argue against reason. St. Alphonsus de Liguori, whose works were declared free of doctrinal error by Pope Gregory XVI, taught that a pope who falls into heresy immediately falls from the pontificate. St. Robert Bellarmine, basing himself on the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, explains why that is so.

Salza's gross misinterpretation of Bellarmine's teaching collapses when one understands how he legalistically attempts to force the strict canonical meaning of "manifest heretic" to fit into a context that plainly does not intend to use the word in that canonical sense, but in the meaning of the term as it is commonly understood. If interpreted in that arbitrarily imposed canonical sense, Bellarmine's teaching becomes logically incoherent and unintelligible. His text cannot be understood that way – it is out of context. The main thrust of Bellarmines argument is that a pope who in FACT becomes a manifest heretic, ceases to be a pope, a Christian, and member of the Church. It is precisely due the FACT of loss of office that he may be judged and punished by the Church. For so long as he holds office, a pope may not be judged by anyone. This is exactly what Innocent III taught: the pope may be judged by no one – except if "he withers away into heresy" – then he can "be judged by men, or rather", "he may be shown to be already judged" because "the unbeliever is already judged [by God]".

Bellarmine EXPLICITLY rejects the argument that the pope holds office even as a heretic, until the Church pronounces judgment. If he still holds office as a heretic, then he may not be judged by anyone on earth. How can Salza possibly believe that Bellarmine proposes a position that he expressly rejects?

Furthermore, the legalistic argument is against reason and natural law; since, one cannot ever be morally or canonically bound to withhold assent to a truth that is known with certitude. When a person rejects the dogmas of faith in such a crass and obstinate manner that constitutes manifest heresy, it is a fact that is immediately evident with certitude. One cannot be bound by any law in heaven or earth to believe a falsehood, or withhold assent to a known truth, BECAUSE THAT IS AGAINST NATURAL LAW. If it is KNOWN with certitude that a "pope" is a manifest heretic, then he is KNOWN CERTAINLY to not be the visible head, nor even a member of the Church. It is an utterly perverse opinion to say that one can be bound morally to profess a falsehood – that a manifest infidel is a valid pope."

Now, let us see where this doctrine comes from:

“If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate.” – St. Alphonsus Liguori, Opera Omnia 9:232.

Pope Innocent III in Sermo 4:

"The Roman Pontiff has no superior but God. Who, therefore, (should a pope ‘lose his savour’) could cast him out or trample him under foot — since of the pope it is said ‘gather thy flock into thy fold’? Truly, he should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honour and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged. In such a case it should be said of him: “If salt should lose its savour, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.”

Thus, if it is a publicly known fact that a "pope" is a manifest heretic, he is "already judged" – he has by his unbelief visibly severed himself from communion with the body of the Church, since the first bond of communion is faith, without which one is not in communion with the Church. Hence:

St. Robert Bellarmine:

“A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Where fore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.” (De Romano Pontifice, II.30).

In this passage Bellarmine expresses the same doctrine as St. Alphonsus Liguori, that a pope who becomes a heretic immediately loses office and all jurisdiction; and having lost the papal office and jurisdiction, he may be judged and punished by the Church.

Now, let us consider the Salza/Siscoe doctrine, which has already been adequately refuted by another author (Steven Speray), who, (unlike myself) has endured the somewhat penitential work of reading through the entire 700 page book. I have read enough excerpts to gain an adequate understanding of the errant Salza/Siscoe arguments. One does not need to jump into a refuse bin and asphyxiate on the putrid fumes to recognize its contents – a couple of sniffs suffice for the olfactory apparatus to make its determination. Likewise, it is not necessary for one to read through an entire work to recognize by the stink of their errors that the authors of the work are theologically incompetent, as are Salza and Siscoe.

Speray quotes Salza/Siscoe directly:

"The sin of heresy alone, which has not been judged and declared by the Church, does not result in the loss of ecclesiastical office for a cleric. The loss of office for a cleric is a vindictive penalty, and there is a process in Church law which must precede vindictive penalties….

“This also means that the loss of office for a cleric must be imposed (ferendae sententiae) by Church authority [70] which makes the loss of office a “vindictive penalty.” Footnote 70 – In the old 1917 Code, there was an exception to this rule for the more severe vindictive penalty (canon 188, §4). This topic will be discussed at the end of this chapter. (True or False Pope – Refuting Sedevacantism and other Modern Errors, p. 260, emphasis mine.)"

Speray presents a more than adequate refutation of this nonsensical Salza/Siscoe argument which contains multiple errors, conflicts with the explicit teaching of Pope St. Celestine I, the two greatest post-Tridentine Doctors of the Church, as well as the learned and unanimous opinions of expert canonists – and is based on unstated heretical premises. Speray's entire refutation can be read here: (https:/stevensperay.wordpress.com/2016/03/17/canon-188-4-and-defection-of-faith-why-john-salza-and-robert-siscoe-get-it-wrong-part-iii/ )

First off, Speray makes a very telling observation: "Salza/Siscoe’s main argument hinges on how the loss of office occurs. Canon law defines it. Not once in 700 pages did Salza/Siscoe present an expert’s commentary on canon 188.4 because no canonist supports them. Salza/Siscoe use their private judgment on how the canons are to be interpreted."

Speray presents lengthy quotations from eminent authorities which refute the Salza/Siscoe grotesquely absurd interpretation of Canon Law: Loss of office is not a penalty, but is the direct result of the act of publicly defecting from the Catholic faith into heresy or apostasy. That the loss of office is the direct consequence of the defecting into heresy is demonstrated by Fr. Geeald McDevitt: " And in a letter to the clergy of Constantinople, Pope St. Celestine I says: The authority of Our Apostolic See has determined that the bishop, cleric, or simple Christian who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after the latter began to preach heresy shall not be considered deposed or excommunicated. For he who had defected from the faith with such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever."

In order to justify their error, Salza/Siscoe propose yet another error which would distinguish between the crime and the sin of heresy; and only the crime after having been declared by the Church results in loss of office. Speray mentions that Salza/Siscoe simply repeat an older Salza error on this point: " “The sin of heresy alone does NOT ‘sever the person from the Body of the Church’ because sin is a matter of the internal forum "; and, " Again, Pope Pius XII is referring to the “offense” or CRIME (not SIN) of heresy, which severs one from the Body of the Church, after the formal and material elements have been proven by the Church. After the crime has been established, the heretic is automatically severed from the BODY (not SOUL) of the Church without further declaration (although most theologians maintain that the Church must also issue a declaration of deprivation)."
The quotation Salza refers to is: "Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943" : “For not every offense, although it may be a grave evil, is such as by its very own nature [suapte natura] to sever a man from the Body of the Church [ab Ecclesiae Corpore], as does schism or heresy or apostasy.” "

Salza’s nearly gnostic interpretation of Pius XII's teaching resorts to an esoteric understanding of a plainly expressed and universally taught doctrine, that the act of heresy by its very nature separates one from the Church. He does this by uncritically and falsely interpreting the word "admissum" too strictly to mean "crime" as opposed to "sin". Both the proper understanding of the word "admissum" and the Catholic doctrine on heresy refute this bogus distinction as formulated by Salza.

We consider first the moral theological definition of the sin of heresy: "Hæresis est error intellectus, et pertinax contra Fidem, in eo qui Fidem sucepit. ... Unde patet, ad Hæresim, ut et Apostasiam, duo requiri, 1. Judicium erroneum, quod est ejus quasi materiale. 2. Pertinaciam; quae est quasi formale. Porro pertinaciter errare non est hic acriter, et mordicus suum errorem tueri; sed est eum retinere, postquam contrarium est sufficienter propositum: sive quando scit contrarium teneri a reliqua universali Christi in terris Ecclesia, cui suum iudicium præferat” – St. Alphonsus M. De Liguori, Lib. II. Tract. I. De præcepto Fidei. Dubium III. Now the canonical crime of heresy (and apostasy): "Can. 751 — Dicitur haeresis, pertinax, post receptum baptismum, alicuius veritatis divina et catholica credendae denegatio, aut de eadem pertinax dubitatio; apostasia, fidei christianae ex toto repudiatio". They are exactly the same; only St. Alphonsus also explains the distinction between the matter and the form of heresy.

The key phrase of Mystici Corporis which Salza interprets against the mind of the Church is: “Siquidem non omne admissum”. Salza claims that the word "admissum" means "crime" as opposed to "sin". Lewis & Short do not limit the word to mean "crime", but define it as, "a voluntary fault, a trespass, a crime". Speray points out that most translations, including the Vatican's own website translate the word as "sin"; but Salza says it does not mean sin but "crime". This is either extreme incompetence or extreme dishonesty on the part of John Salza.

(To be continued).

See also:

RE: OUR REPLIES TO FR. PAUL KRAMER

http://traditionalcatholicisminnigeria.blogspot.com.ng/2016/08/re-our-replies-to-fr-paul-kramer.html

Traditional Catholicism in Nigeria (Crede, ut intelligas)

26 Aug 2016

A Reply to John Salza and Robert Siscoe IV

See also: A Reply to John Salza and Robert Siscoe (Part I)

25 Aug 2016

A Reply to John Salza and Robert Siscoe – Conclusion of Part III

See also: A Reply to John Salza and Robert Siscoe (Part I)

24 Aug 2016

A Reply to John Salza and Robert Siscoe III (continued)

See also: A Reply to John Salza and Robert Siscoe (Part I)

23 Aug 2016

A Reply to John Salza and Robert Siscoe (Part III)

22 Aug 2016

A Reply to John Salza and Robert Siscoe (Part II)

See also: A Reply to John Salza (Part I)

21 Aug 2016

A Reply to John Salza and Robert Siscoe (Part I)