Author Topic: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available (Read 10338 times)

Don Paolo · « **Reply #30 on:** September 29, 2019, 06:40:22 AM »

Pax Christi Siscoe, you are deliberately lying. Canon 188.4° statutes an ipso jure loss of office not as a penal deprivation, which would be a punishment for a crime, but on the basis of the fact of defection alone. Fr. Augustine explains, “Besides express or explicit resignation, both the old and the new law admit also a TACIT RESIGNATION, which is brought about and signified by a fact, especially one upon which the law itself has decreed the loss of an ecclesiastical office.” As is abundantly clear from the texts I quoted of St. Augustine, St. Jerome, St. Thomas, St. Robert Bellarmine, and Pius XII; heresy, as defined in the Code directly and per se severs a man from the from the body of the Church suapte natura, and for that reason, directly causes the loss of ecclesiastical office ex natura hæresis. The FACT of defection is accomplished by public schism, heresy, and apostasy. St. Augustine and Bellarmine declare that all heretics and all schismatics have departed from the Church. I quoted Bellarmine: «s. Augustinus … Sic enim ait … Omnes hæretici, omnes schismatici ex nobis exierunt idest, ex Ecclesia exierunt» ALL HERETICS AND SCHISMATICS HAVE DEPARTED FROM THE CHURCH. Bellarmine: "For those Fathers, when they say that heretics lose jurisdiction, do not allege any human laws which maybe did not exist then on this matter; rather, they argued from the nature of heresy." Thus, Fr. Charles Augustine explains how defection from the faith takes place: “Defection from the Catholic faith, if public, deprives one of all ecclesiastical ofices he may hold; [C. 9, X, V, 7.] not, however, mere schism, if unconnected with heresy.” Canon 188.4° did not clearly include pure schism. Canon 194 in the 1983 Code does. The Canon Law commentary of the Pontifical Faculty of Canon Law of the University of Salamanca explains that the sole necessary condition for such a loss of office to take place, is that the act be freely committed, and then the loss of office follows necessarily: “El hecho por el que se presupone la renuncia debe ser puesto voluntariamente, a tenor del canon 185; pero, cuмplida esta condición, la perdida del oficio se produce necesariamente.” Hence, if a pope were to cease entirely by himself to be a member of the Church because of manifest heresy, Schism or apostasy, he would by that very act, publicly defect from communion with the Church, cease to be a member of the Church; and therefore, according to the prescription of Canon 194 §1. 2° * (Canon 188. 4° in the 1917 Code ); he would lose office automatically (ipso jure); and the loss of office would then be enforced juridically by a merely declaratory sentence (Canon 194 §2). On this point, the canon is absolutely clear and unequivocal: “Can. 194 §1. The following are removed from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself: […] 2° a person who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church; […]§2. The removal mentioned in nn. 2 and 3 can be enforced only if it is established by the declaration of a competent authority.” In the commentary on the Code of Canon Law composed by the Canon Law faculty of the University of Navarra, it is explained: “In the 2nd and 3rd cases, the act of the ecclesiastical authority is declarative, and it is necessary, not to provoke the vacating of the right of the office, but so that the removal can legally be demanded (also for the purposes of 1381 § 2), and consequently the conferral of the office to a new officeholder can be carried out (cfr. C. 154).” Public defection from the faith is accomplished directly and per se by a public act of manifest formal heresy, and therefore, as the Salamanca commentary explains, if the act is voluntary, the loss of office follows necessarily. You have deliberately disregarded all of this doctrine on heresy in order to twist McKenzie's comments into conformity with your own depraved opinion. Fr. Gerald McDevitt explained Tacit Loss office exactly as I do, and he even quoted Fr. Eric McKenzie's commentary in support of his exposition on that provision. But you, Siscoe the con artist, would have us believe that you, and not the expert canonist, have interpreted McKenzie correctly; and that your twisted interpretation of McKenzie and Fr. Augustine refutes the Church's universal magisterium on these points, namely, that MANIFEST, PUBLIC FORMAL HERESY BY ITS VERY NATURE VISIBLY SEVERS ONE FROM THE BODY OF THE CHURCH AND DEPRIVES ONE OF ALL OFFICES AND ECCLESIASTICAL DIGNITY. Fr. Charles Augustine explains how defection from the faith takes place: “Defection from the Catholic faith, if public, deprives one of all ecclesiastical ofices he may hold; [C. 9, X, V, 7.] not, however, mere schism, if unconnected with heresy.”* Heresy alone, and not joining a non-Catholic sect or formally renouncing the Church, is all that is required for the defection from the faith to take place; and therefore public heretics, are defectors from the faith according to can. 188 4° – «heretics who, having been bapized, retain the name of Christians, but obstinately deny or doubt some of the truths that must be believed by divine or Catholic faith. . . a heretic is one who wilfully rejects or doubts only the one or or other truth revealed and proposed by the Catholic Church. . . Obstinacy may be assumed when a revealed truth has been proposed with sufficient clearness and force to convince a reasonable man.»** This is all that is required for loss of office to take place: the external act of defection into heresy that is public or liable to become public, before any judgment, and without any judgment pronounced by the Church. * The Rev. P, Chas. Augustine, O.S.B., D.D.; A COMMENTAY ON THE NEW CODE OF CANON LAW., Vol. II, St. Louis and London, 1919, p. 159. ** Ibid. Vol. VI, St. Louis and London, 1921, p. 335.

Mr G · « **Reply #31 on:** September 29, 2019, 10:14:52 AM »

Quote from: Don Paolo on September 29, 2019, 06:32:36 AM

There exists only one case in the entire history of the Church that a papal claimant has been validly and legitimately deposed by ecclesiastical authority, and that was the deposition of Benedict XIII (Pedro de Luna) by the Council of Constance (Sess. 37)

1.) In the case of Benedict XIII (Pedro de Luna), what was the result of recognizing any juridical acts? Did Benedict XIII create any Cardinals or consecrated bishops, and were these acts nullified or accepted after Pedro de Luna was deposed?

2.) Assuming, there are some bishops and cardinals who eventually realize that pope Francis is indeed a manifest, public formal heretic, then practically speaking, what would be the most realistic steps that would need to be done regarding all of Pope Francis's juridical acts and their resulting consequences?

Don Paolo · « **Reply #32 on:** September 29, 2019, 10:36:39 AM »

Roman Theo is obviously not playing with a full deck if he really thinks Siscoe has systematically dismsntled my arguments. Siscoe's (and Salza's) arguments tread beyond the pale of doctrinal orthodoxy and mental sanity. According to Sslza & Siscoe, against papal teaching and the universal magisterium, the sin of heresy does not separate the heretic from membership in the Church. Salza says, "«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) » –John Salza Responds to Another Sedevacantist.

Don Paolo · « **Reply #33 on:** September 29, 2019, 11:04:52 AM »

In support of their absurd and heretical opinion, they quote Msgr. Joseoh Fenton, who explains that according to Mystici Corporis, the sin of heresy separates the heretic from membership in the Church! True or False Pope? (P 158): «In fact, Msgr. Fenton addressed this point in an article published in the American Ecclesiastical Review in March of 1950. The purpose of Fr. Fenton’s article was to show that this citation from Mystici Corporis Christi was in no way contrary to the teaching of St. Bellarmine, who, as we have seen, taught that the sin of heresy alone does not sever a person from the Body of the Church. Fr. Fenton began by explaining that the teaching of Pius XII was identical to what Bellarmine himself wrote in the fourth chapter of De Ecclesia Militante, when he taught that heresy, schism and apostasy, of their nature, sever a man from the Body of the Church. Fr. Fenton wrote: “In the encyclical, the Holy Father speaks of schism, heresy, and apostasy, as sins [admissum] which, of their own nature, separate a man from the Body of the Church. He thereby follows the traditional procedure adopted by St. Robert himself in his De Ecclesia Militante. The great Doctor of the Church devoted the fourth chapter of his book to a proof that [public] heretics and apostates are not members of the Church.”34 Fr. Fenton then noted that Bellarmine dedicated the tenth chapter of the same book (De Ecclesia Militante) to demonstrating that occult infidels or heretics (those guilty of the sin of heresy by an internal act) are really members of the Body of the Church. » [Salza & Siscoe have clearly lost the plot. Msgr. Fenton (as does Msgr Van Noort) speaks of the “sins” (not crimes) which “of their own nature separate a man from the Church”. Msgrs. Fenton and Van Noort both understand Mystici Corporis to mean that the sins of heresy, apostasy, and schism, (committed not internally, but by an external act), by their very nature separate a man from the body of the Church. What Msgr. Fenton explained is Bellarmine’s distinction between the sin of public heresy and the sin of occult heresy; and not between the crime of heresy and the internal sin of heresy.] In Footnote 252 of To Deceive the Elect: «The Salza/Siscoe interpreration of Mystici Corporis is not shared by any academically qualified theologian in the world. Mons. Van Noort wrote: “b. Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of three factors—baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy—pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church. The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church. ‘For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy’.” (Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, p. 241-242.)» So, Van Noort teaches that the sins of heresy, schism and apostasy separate one from the body of the Church, but Salza & Siscoe say he doesn't teach that! This is what Canon George Smith wrote in his erudite work on Catholic Doctrine only five years after Pius XII issued Mystici Corporis:

The TEACHING of the CATHOLIC CHURCH Canon George F. Smith, D.D., Ph.D. London, Second Edition, 1952 XX THE CHURCH ON EARTH — § VI : MEMBERSHIP

[p. 706] «Pius XII has reaffirmed in the clearest language what are the conditions for membership of the Church. “Only those are to be accounted really members of the Church who have been regenerated in the waters of Baptism and profess the true faith, and have not cut themselves from the structure of the Body by their own unhappy act or been severed there from, for very grave crimes, by the legitimate authority.”» … [p. 707] «Nevertheless the melancholy possibility must be envisaged of those who may have “cut themselves off from the structure of the Body by their own unhappy act or been severed there from, for very grave crimes, by the legitimate authority.” In other words, the Church, as being a perfectly constituted society, has the right for grave reasons of excluding from membership. She may pass sentence of, or lay down conditions which involve excommunication.» … [p. 708] «Certain sins — viz., apostasy, heresy and schism [Can. 1325, § 2.] — of their nature cut off the guilty from the living Body of Christ. […] Heresy, objectively considered, is a doctrinal proposition which contradicts an article of faith; from the subjective point of view it may be defined as an error concerning the Catholic faith, freely and obstinately persisted in by a professing Christian.» […] «It can hardly be denied that those who take up any of these positions — [I.e. heresy, schism, or apostasy] … sever themselves by their own act from membership of the Church.»
On this point Siscoe & Salza can be seen to be manifestly in heresy; and the premise upon which their heretical proposition is founded is the equally unorthodox proposition that "Sin is internal". They deny the perpetual Catholic doctrine that distinguishes between internal sin and external sin. These two clowns are fit for the looney bin -- and so is anyone who agrees with their nonsense.

Don Paolo · « **Reply #34 on:** September 29, 2019, 12:28:43 PM »

By the time the Council was about to declare "Benedict XIII" deposed, nearly his entire following had abandoned him and prudently aligned with the Council. Since the Roman faction never accepted any acts of the Avignon faction as valid, there was no complicated business of needing to nullify particular acts of the Avignon claimant.
As far as what needs to be done regarding validation or nullification of Bergoglio's acts; that is best left to the next true Roman Pontiff who will be left with the task of sorting that out.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #35 on:** September 29, 2019, 01:36:52 PM »

Quote from: Don Paolo on September 29, 2019, 06:00:22 AM

Father, with all due respect, that is so manifestly absurd on its face, and so easily shown to be false when considered in light of the historical practice of the Church, that it is difficult to believe you actually wrote it. No bishop or priest in 2000 years of Catholicism has lost his office, ipso jure, for merely doubting a dogma with obstinacy, in a manner that “will soon become” publicly known. That's not how it works. The Church is a juridical institution with laws and procedures governing how heretics are to be deprived of their office. In a case such as you described above, after the heretical matter had been juridically established, the culprit would be canonically warned and given ample opportunity to renounce his error, BEFORE any loss of office would take place.

Siscoe is completely wrong. "No bishop of priest in 200 years of Catholicism has lost his office ..." Uhm, we're not talking about a bishop or priest here. This is the pope and you cannot do anything "juridically" against a Pope, since the Holy See CANNOT BE JUDGED. Siscoe wrongly attempts to apply legal procedures for bishops and priests to the Pope. Besides that, a Pope can relieve a bishop or priest of his office on a mere whim. Yet a Pope cannot be removed by man, only by God. So what has to happen is merely an awareness by the Church of what has taken place. This awareness by the Church need not take on any specific form. It can happen without any declaration whatsoever if the Church unanimously comes to the awareness. If Bergoglio suddenly decided to go become a Buddhist, the Church could just go ahead and elect another man without any official declaration of something that's acknowledged to be true by everyone. If there is a declaration by the Church, it would be to resolved a situation of doubt. Let's say that Catholics are divided 50-50 about whether he's the Pope. Then a Council of Bishops could gather to discern and settle the issue. Whatever was declared there has no force of law but is just a clarification.

Praeter · « **Reply #36 on:** September 29, 2019, 02:04:01 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on September 29, 2019, 01:36:52 PM

Siscoe is completely wrong. "No bishop of priest in 200 years of Catholicism has lost his office ..." Uhm, we're not talking about a bishop or priest here. This is the pope and you cannot do anything "juridically" against a Pope, since the Holy See CANNOT BE JUDGED.

But the sedevacantists use the same reasoning against the other bishops, saying they also lost their office. Where are the historical precedents to support the ipso facto loss of office for any bishop?

I would add that St. Robert does not teach that a manifestly heretical pope is ipso facto deposed because he can't be judge. He says the reason is because the fathers of the Church all taught that all manifest heretics (pope or non pope) are outside the Church and lack jurisdiction. Since St. Robert's argument for why a Pope is ipso facto deposed is based on a teaching of the Fathers that applies to any bishop, there should be historical precedents of other bishops being ipso facto deposed for manifest heresy.

Don Paolo · « **Reply #37 on:** September 29, 2019, 02:12:16 PM »

Consider Siscoe's first propositon: "Bellarmine AND ALL THE FATHERS of the Church understood the term, refers to an OBJECTIVE category of men - which was neither determined nor affected by what those around them subjectively believed them to be". This proposition is absurd on its face. A manifest heretic is precisely a manifest heretic, precisely because his heresy is visible to others, and he is seen and known by others to be blatantly and obviously a heretic; but the irrational Siscoe says the manifest heretic 's status as a manifest heretic is "neither determined nor affected by what those around them subjectively believed them to be". Siscoe, the master sophist, has adroitly imparted a deceptive half-truth. The term "manifest heretic" indeed "refers to an objective category of men"; but the quality of being "manifest" is not an essential attribute intrinsic to the nature of being a heretic; but is an accidental circuмstance extrinsic to its nature, namely that the heresy is visible in an obvious manner; so a manifest heretic today can become an occult heretic in some other place tomorrow, or can in the same place become an occult heretic in the future, and cease altogether to be a manifest heretic. Historically there are numerous instances of both. However, at the place and time the public heretic feigns conversion, he becomes an occult heretic and ceases to be a manifest heretic. Siscoe is plainly irrational, non compos mentis -- (that's Latin for "not playing with a full deck") -- he appears to believe his own lies -- mentita est iniquitas sibi. The other objections have been sufficiently dealt with in my responses given above.

Don Paolo · « **Reply #38 on:** September 29, 2019, 03:00:20 PM »

The example mentioned by Bellarmine of a bishop who lost office ipso facto for public heresy is Nestorius.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #39 on:** September 29, 2019, 03:12:23 PM »

Quote from: Praeter on September 29, 2019, 02:04:01 PM

But the sedevacantists use the same reasoning against the other bishops, saying they also lost their office.

Some do; some don't. There's a difference with bishops in that bishops receive authority from the Pope and not from God. So long as a Pope keeps a bishop in office, he has some degree of authority or jurisdiction. But it is not the Church who keeps the Pope in office; it's God. So the Church needs to discern whether or not God has kept him in office.

Sedeprivationists say that a bishop could lose office formally but retain it materially.

Don Paolo · « **Reply #40 on:** September 30, 2019, 03:45:10 AM »

The devious mind of Robert Siscoe (a.k.a. Pax Christi) argues:《 the Council of Constance, ratified by Martin V, did not err when it legally establish Benedict's crimes, declared him deprived if any title, and deposed him. If it did err in doing so, then Pope Martin erred in approving it 》

Siscoe's argument is founded on the false premise that an imperfect council possesses jurisdiction during a vacancy of the Apostolic See, or over a pope in a case of papal heresy. The Code of Canon Law allows for neither. A council cannot exist and act juridically without the authority of the pope. If the pope dies or leaves office, the council is suspended. The Council of Constance did not juridically establish anything on its own; and it did not juridically deprive or depose Pedro de Luna. However, the Council did not ERR. Its acts were deficient; they were incomplete or insufficient, but not in the nature of an ERROR. Hence, Martin V did not err in approving the Council's acts, which were invald on their own without papal ratification. In fact, there have been previous councils whose invalid acts were subsequently ratified by a papal act.

Don Paolo · « **Reply #41 on:** September 30, 2019, 05:50:04 AM »

《THE ONLY PROBABLE CASE OF SUCH TACIT RESIGNATION WITH THE BISHOP WOULD BE PUBLIC APOSTASY 》

As I pointed out in my reply, Siscoe quotes Fr. Kletotka in vain. I will disregard here all of Siscoe's assinine comments about sevevacantism, since they amount to enough red herrings to fill a large kettle; and I'll focus on what is essential, namely, that manifestly pertinacious heretics, insofar as their heresy fulfills the canonical specifications of public heresy and public defection from the faith, lose office ipso jure and without any declaration. (sine ulla declaratione). The reason why this is so pertains to the nature of heresy, as St. Robert Bellarmine explains in his exposition on the fourth opinion (De Romano Pont. lib. ii cap. xxx). Bellarmine, citing the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, explains that ALL HERETICS (i.e. visible public heretics) are outside the Church, and are deprived of jurisdiction. He quotes the doctrine St. Thomas, as I noted above, as the theological basis for his own position. St. Thomas explains in the passage I quoted above, that heresy is a sin which of its own nature is schismatic: i.e., by its very nature it severs one from the body of the Church. On this basis, in the passage quoted by Bellarmine, St. Thomas explains that heretics, being outside the Church, lose their jurisdiction ipso facto. The doctrine that heresy as such, by its very nature severs one from membership in the Church is taught by Pius XII in Mystici Corporis. Since he declares that the sin suapte natura severs one from the BODY of the Church, it is absolutely clear that he refers to an external sin of manifest heresy, and not occult heresy which does not visibly sever one from membership suapte natura.
Now since heresy as such is an act of defection from the faith which suapte natura severs one from membership in the Church and deprives the heretic of his jurisdiction ex natura hæresis; heresy alone, without apostasy or explicit schism suffices to deprive the manifest public heretic of office according to can. 188. 4°, (and canon 194 of the 1983 Code). Public Heresy as an act that severs one from membership in the Church and deprives one of office ipso jure must be understood strictly as defined in the Code. The provision for ipso jure loss of office must be understood according to the literal wording of the canon (can. 17) and not according to interpretations which add conditions and qualifications which substantially modify the meaning of the canon and arbitrarily restrict its application. This is the fatal defect in Fr. Kretotka's argument, which is refuted in the commentary of the Canon Law Faculty of Navarra (quoted in my book) which simply explains that the terms used in the canons must be understood as defined in the canons; and the provisions must be interpreted literally according to the text and context of the statutes (can. 17), without the addition of any external modifying elements.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #42 on:** September 30, 2019, 07:34:32 AM »

Quote

Bellarmine ... explains that ALL HERETICS (i.e. visible public heretics) are outside the Church...

No he doesn't. He says "manifest" heretics are outside the Church. "Manifest" is a canon law term, which does not mean "visible, public". It means much more than that. You need to research what manifest heretic means, per Church law...AND what it meant at the time of +Bellarmine, because it's been used differently in different centuries. This whole thing is not as clear cut as you (or Siscoe) make it out to be. Why else did +Bellarmine, Cajetan, John of St Thomas, etc, etc debate for DECADES on the topic? Same reason that Trads today debate - there's not a straightforward answer.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #43 on:** September 30, 2019, 08:11:32 AM »

Indeed, this is not a clear-cut question, which is why it was so hotly contested. I believe we'll likely find the truth somewhere in the middle.

If a Pope were to come out openly and say, "I don't believe in Catholicism anymore; I've become a Buddhist."

or, alteratively,

"I know the Church teaches this dogma, but I don't believe it."

In both these cases, I believe that there's absolutely no need for any formal declaration or any kind of "proceedings". Church could just convene a conclave and elect someone else.

That's because, as Bellarmine teaches, these are outside the Church by divine law.

Where the confusion comes in is in the case where a Pope DENIES that his position on some dogma is heretical. This is where there must be SOME kind of declaration.

But, even then, the Church absolutely CANNOT pass any kind of juridical sentence against a pope, and the Church cannot in any formal legal way find the defendant (the pope) guilty of the crime of heresy ... since it's absolutely certain that only God can depose a Pope. Any notion of judging the private person vs. the person as Pope entails a separation between the man and the office which contradicts other Catholic teaching.

So the "declaration," or whatever that would be on the part of the Church, would be simply a formal statement regarding the fact that the Church has discerned this to be the case.

In some cases, the Church could just unanimously decide (without any dispute) that, hey, this guy is clearly a heretic.

But then the issue is further complicated by the scenario of: 50% of Catholics think he's a heretic, but 50% do not. What, then, is the "mind of the Church"? How is it resolved? And what is the status of a Pope in that scenario? What if only 10% of Catholics think he's not the Pope? What if it's only 10% because the remaining 90% has also bought into whatever error the Pope holds (as in if the Arians had managed to elect an Arian pope). What if the Arians had installled their own Pope? Would that man then have been a legitimate Pope? I don't see how that could be the case. And, in my, opinion, that is PRECISELY the situation we find ourselves in.

I think that, certainly, if you get a point of 50-50 division (or more or less) in the Church about whether he's a Catholic, he's then in a papa dubius situation. And, the problem with the papacy is that, unless his legitimacy is know with the absolutely certainty of faith, he can't legitimately exercise the papal office, or, at the very least, he is incapable of binding consciences.

But, in a 90-10 split, where only 10 percent think he's a heretic, what if those 10% are in fact right and the 90% are largely not even Catholic because they've bought into the same heresy?

We're in the same situation that the Church found herself during the Great Schism, where some Catholics are on one side, others on another. Back then the dispute was whether he was legitimately elected; not the dispute is over whether he's Catholic. But apart from the details, the situation is the same, with great uncertainty about which side is right.

And the only way this will be solved is when God decides to solve it. We are at His mercy. None of us is in any position of solving this or doing anything about it. We each try to discern what we must do in our conscience before God. I feel like probably most of the Church did during the Schism, which is, I have no idea who's who or what's what. All I know is that I'm a Catholic trying to save my soul.

This is what the position I take is that of "sede-doubtism", the situation where the legitimacy is not known with the certainty of faith and is disputed among Catholics. In the practical order, this absolves me from schism if I were to reject these men, just as St. Vincent Ferrer was not guilty of schism for siding with the wrong guy.

Don Paolo · « **Reply #44 on:** September 30, 2019, 09:28:32 AM »

Pax Vobis quotes me saying:

《Bellarmine ... explains that ALL HERETICS (i.e. visible public heretics) are outside the Church...》

Pax Vobis ignorantly replies:

《 No he doesn't. He says "manifest" heretics are outside the Church. "Manifest" is a canon law term, which does not mean "visible, public". It means much more than that. You need to research what manifest heretic means, per Church law...》

What an idiot! The term "manifest heresy" appears nowhere in canonical legislation. It is not a canonical term. Canonically considered, heresy is internal or external; occult, public or notorious. I have worked three years to produce a detailed, in depth, and critical exposition on heresy and loss of office, and this ignorant "genius" tells me that I don't understand the meaning of "manifest heretic" -- which I have expounded in great detail in my book; and he most ignorantly asserts that Bellarmine did not write what he in fact wrote in De Controversiis Christianae Fidei Adversus Hujus Temporis Haereticos, Tomus Secundus, Liber Tertius, De Ecclesia Militante Toto Orbe Difusa, Cap. X, Neapoli, 1837, p. 89; and Bellarmine cites St. Augustine as his authority for this position: «s. Augustinus … Sic enim ait … Omnes hæretici, omnes schismatici ex nobis exierunt idest, ex Ecclesia exierunt». No one need wonder why I spend so little time answering the stupidities of such fools as Pax Vobis. It's a waste of valuable time more profitably spent in the serious pursuit of writing systematic expository works.

Author Topic: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available (Read 10338 times)

Don Paolo

Re: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available

Mr G

Re: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available

Don Paolo

Re: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available

Don Paolo

Re: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available

Don Paolo

Re: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available

Ladislaus

Re: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available

Praeter

Re: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available

Don Paolo

Re: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available

Don Paolo

Re: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available

Ladislaus

Re: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available

Don Paolo

Re: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available

Don Paolo

Re: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available

Pax Vobis

Re: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available

Ladislaus

Re: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available

Don Paolo

Re: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available