Your other points are not pertinent to this thread. This thread is a continuation of others that expose the Feeneyite heresy.
It is actually very pertinent since Fr. Kramer has zero credibility and has no authority. He has already discredited himself with his agenda.
What credibility and authority do you have? If you want to put yourself on par with Kramer then go ahead, the only distinction to be made is that he presents the truth whereas you profess heresy.
The thread would be more fruitful if you could actually respond to his arguments.
Lover of Truth:
The argument will always distill to Fr. Kramer's belief and your belief in the orthodoxy of the 1949 Holy Office Letter which demonstrates exactly where "Baptism of Desire" ends. The Letter teaches that a Jєω as a Jєω, a Muslim as a Muslim, a Buddhist as a Buddhist, a Hindu as a Hindu, a Protestant as a Protestant, etc., etc., by a 'desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes can be justified, in a state of grace, a temple of the Holy Ghost, member of the Church and obtain salvation. This is the core "dogma" of Fr. Kramer's theology. His one and only unchangeable "truth." This is not just an esoteric observation in soteriology, but constitutes the central "truth" in his doctrinal theology, moral theology, and aesthetical theology as well. On it he has hung his very soul's salvation. All dogmas, revealed truths of God and formal objects of divine and Catholic faith, that define that membership in the Church, the sacraments, subjection to the Roman Pontiff, and explicit faith in the revealed truths of God, (i.e. that is, belief in dogma), have been indiscriminately thrown aside by Fr. Kramer.
I oppose this novelty of Fr. Kramer with the old orthodoxy of Fr. Kramer who once believed:
There Cannot be a "New Understanding" of Catholic Dogma. This post-conciliar attack on dogma through undermining and implicit contradiction cannot be justified as a "development" or "new insight" into dogma. As the First Vatican Council solemnly taught: "For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostle and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth." Further, as Vatican I taught, there cannot be any "new understanding" of what the Church has already infallibly defined. [....] Therefore, this "new" doctrine can only be pseudo-doctrine. This pseudo-doctrine contradicts doctrines that have been infallibly defined, then Catholics must cling to the infallible doctrines and reject the "new" doctrines. The dogma of the Faith cannot fail; but novelties can fail us. Men can fail; lay people can fail; priests can fail; bishops can fail; Cardinals can fail; and even the Pope can fail in matters which do not involve his charism of infallibility, as history has shown us with more than one Pope who taught or appeared to teach some novelty. [.....] From these examples in Church history we learn that everything proposed to us for our belief must be judged by those definitions. And so if a Cardinal , a bishop, a priest, a layman or even the Pope teaches us some novelty that is contrary to any definition of the Faith (dogma), we can know that the teaching is wrong and that it must be rejected for the salvation of our immortal souls. Yes even the Pope can fail, and he does fail in he expresses an opinion that is contrary to a solemn, infallible definition of the Catholic Church. This does not mean the Church fails when this happens, but only that the Pope has made a mistake without imposing it on the whole Church. And, of course, if even the Pope can make a mistake in teaching some novelty, then certainly Cardinals, bishops, and priests can make mistakes in their teaching and opinions.[......]
To summarize, truth is not a matter of numbers or rank; truth is a matter of what Christ and God have revealed in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, what has been solemnly defined by the Catholic Church, and what the Catholic Church has always taught - taught always, not just since 1965!
The Disastrous Effects of Tampering With Infallible Definitions. History likewise provides us with a prime example of what can happen to the Church when even one dogma is contradicted on a wide scale. The heresy of Arianism caused catastrophic confusion in the Church from 336 A.D. to 381 A.D. [.........]
Infallible Definitions Are Higher than Any Learning or Rank in the Church. Why did Athanasius know he was right? Because he clung to the infallible definition (dogma), no matter what everyone else said. Not all the learning in the world, nor all the rank of office, can substitute for the truth of one infallibly defined Catholic teaching. Even the simplest member of the faithful, clinging to an infallible definition (dogma), will know more than the most "learned" theologian who denies or undermines the definition. That is the whole purpose of the Church's infallibly defined teaching - to make us independent of the mere opinions of men, however learned, however high their rank. Now, in 325 the solemn definition of the Council of Nicea was infallible, but many people then did not fully realize that solemn definitions of the Faith were infallible. That is, at this time in Church history the Church had not yet issued the solemn definition teaching that the definitions of Faith are infallible. But in 1870, the First Vatican Council solemnly and infallibly defined the infallibility of the Church's solemn definitions. Now we know, infallibly, that solemn definitions are infallible. Once again: they cannot fail - ever.
The Infallible Definitions Are Under Attack in Our Time. In our day, therefore, there is no excuse for being taken in by heresy and giving up the defense of solemn definitions. But that is precisely what is happening today, just as in the time of Arius. Churchmen are judging things in light of the Second Vatican Council instead of judging the Second Vatican Council in light of the infallible definitions. They have forgotten that the infallible definitions, not Vatican II, are the unchanging standard by which on measures every doctrine, just as a 36-inch yardstick is the unchanging standard for measuring a yard.
Fr. Paul Kramer, The Devil's Final Battle
So, to
"actually respond to his arguments," let me restate the problem again. Fr. Kramer, Paolo, Ambrose, Nishant and yourself (?) have all now admitted that the 1949 Holy Office Letter is an orthodox expression of Catholic doctrine that teaches 'salvation by implicit desire.' Fr. Kramer's problem and yours is to explain why there could possibly be any principled opposition with the Novus Ordo doctrines of Religious Liberty, Ecuмenism and the Prayer Meeting at Assisi. With the 1949 Holy Office Letter, that was officially referenced for the New Ecclesiology in
Lumen Gentium, all the Novus Ordo changes are easily explained in the light of normal development of doctrine under the watchful guidance of the "living magisterium." It is all part of the "hermeneutic of continuity" that distinguishes in every dogma perennial truths and contingent historical accretions that have to be distilled away to arrive at greater purity of truth, etc., etc. etc. Somewhere between writing
The Devil's Final Battle and now, Fr. Kramer has "matured" in his thinking. What once was clear has become indistinguishably muddled. Fr. Kramer has actually shown me how he does it by literally changing words and adding additional words to a Catholic dogma to bring its meaning in line with more contemporary thought and understanding.
You see, even Archbishop Lefebvre believed that a "good willed" Hindu by being a "good willed" Hindu could as a "good willed" Hindu be justified, in the state of grace, temple of the Holy Ghost, member of the Church and heir to heaven. That being the case, all his followers cannot oppose the doctrine of Religious Liberty because it is in the free exercise of this Hindu's religious beliefs that demonstrates his "good will" by his 'desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes' that brings him to justification. And since there may be countless numbers of "good willed" members of other religions who are also justified and temples of the Holy Ghost, it is most reasonable for "good willed" Catholics to brotherhood about with them in ecuмenical pow-wows. How unreasonable it now appears for Archbishop Lefebvre to have called the Prayer Meeting at Assisi of Pope John Paul II an act of blasphemy.
Once you think this thing through maybe you will return to the Novus Ordo in time for the next Prayer Meeting at Assisi.
Drew