Author Topic: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available (Read 39356 times)

nottambula · « **on:** September 28, 2019, 05:59:41 AM »

https://www.sjmfatimacrusade.com/father-paul-kramer-book

The Servants of Jesus and Mary

Fatima Center in the USA since 1994

NOW AVAILABLE in hard copy (676 pages) for $45.00 (this includes shipping and handling).

To Deceive The Elect is a treatise on the Catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope which examines and elaborates the Catholic teaching on Defection from the Faith and the Church, focusing primarily on Heresy, and Loss of Ecclesiastical Office; and it is presented in such a manner to clear up the widespread confusion and refute the most common errors on these points that are being propagated at the present time. The book refutes primarily the arguments of the legalist-fundamentalist propagandists of Conciliarism, who profess that a Church council possesses the authority to juridically pass judgment on a reigning Pontiff for the delict of heresy.

Father Paul Kramer is an Irish-American native of Bristol, Connecticut, USA, who studied philosophy and theology in Rome at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas during the 1970s, and was ordained to the priesthood on April, 20, 1980 by Bishop Vittorio M. Costantini O.F.M. Conv. in the Cathedral of Sessa Aurunca (CA) Italy. Fr. Kramer served in parish ministry in Germany, Philippines, USA, and has carried out various missions in other countries, including Canada, Italy, Brazil, India, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, and England. Fr. Kramer is currently retired, and is living in Ireland. Fr. Kramer was a close collaborator with the world famous “Fatima Priest”, Fr. Nicholas Gruner from 1986 until the latter’s untimely death in April 2015; at whose request this book has been written, and to whose memory it is dedicated.

nottambula · « **Reply #1 on:** September 28, 2019, 06:02:19 AM »

Father Paul Leonard Kramer is a Traditional Roman Rite Priest who says the only Catholic Mass of the Roman Rite, the Traditional Latin Mass.

Kramer is an Irish-American native of Bristol, Connecticut, USA, who studied philosophy and theology in Rome at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas during the 1970s, and was ordained to the priesthood on April, 20, 1980 by Bishop Vittorio M. Costantini O.F.M. Conv. in the Cathedral of Sessa Aurunca (CA) Italy.

Father Kramer is also fluent in Latin and is the last of the living experts on the Fatima Prophecies.

The first was the great visionary, exorcist, author and Traditional Latin Mass priest, Father Malachy Martin.

Father Martin died mysteriously in 2001. There are at least two different accounts of his death. One of which was that he fell off of a ladder and the other was that he fell down steps in his wheel chair.

Father Malachy Martin made a lot of enemies in Rome in particular because he was exposing what was going on since a Satanic council was held in 1962 called Vatican II.

The second of the living experts who died in 2015 was Father Nicholas Gruner. Father Gruner was personal friends with both Father Malachy Martin and Father Paul Kramer.

Father Kramer is also an expert on Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ which has invaded The Church on every level.

In the book, “To Deceive The Elect”, Father Kramer illustrates how a validly elected Pope cannot be a manifest heretic.

Since 2013, people have been operating under a “false premise”, that Jorge Bergoglio, better known to the world as “pope Francis” is the real pope.

He is not and Father Kramer proves it in this book.

There simply cannot be two validly elected popes alive at the same time. This has never happened before in the history of 2000 years of Christendom.

This cannot happen. There is no such title, office, or department as “Pope Emeritus”.

What we are witnessing is a demonic deceit and con job just like the satanic council of Vatican II in 1962, only way worse.

This book is a shocking expose on how the entire world except for a few has been fooled by the masquerade going on in the Vatican since 2013.

To order the book : http://todeceivetheelect.us/

RomanTheo · « **Reply #2 on:** September 28, 2019, 08:10:39 AM »

Did anyone else follow the debate between Fr. Kramer and Pax Vobis(?) on Facebook a few months back? It was quite revealing and enlightening. Fr. Kramer's arguments were being systematically taken apart by his interlocutor, and his replies lacked any real substance. The debate went from bad to worse for Fr. Kramer. He eventually got frustrated and blocked the other person.

nottambula · « **Reply #3 on:** September 28, 2019, 09:53:57 AM »

Paul Kramer
August 26 ·

Pax Christi is simply parroting on my threads the fraudulent sophistry of the heretical writer, Robert Siscoe, whose errors have been thoroughly exposed, and his arguments totally demolished in my 676 page book, To Deceive the Elect, Volume One. I am not going to waste any more time here refuting Siscoe's arguments, which are already totally demolished in my book. Pax Christi is obviously a fake profile used by the theological charlatan, Robert Siscoe.
https://www.facebook.com/paul.kramer.1023611/posts/2704645719580822

Paul Kramer
August 27 ·

Hiding behind a fake name, Pax Christi, Robert Siscoe said:
Paul Kramer “A public heretic is one who obstinstely denies OR DOUBTS a revealed truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith in such a manner that is publicly known OR WILL SOON BE PUBLICLY KNOWN. Such a heretic is by canonical definition a PUBLIC HERETIC, who is ipso facto separated from the body of the Church, and loses ecclesiastical office ipso jure.”
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. Here is a short excerpt from The Delict of Heresy (1932), by Fr. MacKenzie, which describes the part of the process:
MacKenzie: “The discussion thus far has been confined to the simple heretic, and to the basic excommunication which is incurred by the commission of this delict. Canon 2314 imposes penalties upon two further offenses which are aggravated forms of the delict of heresy. OBDURATE HERESY — cases in which the delinquent perseveres in his erroneous tenets despite official correction by judicial superiors — receives a very severe punishment which will be examined in detail in the following two chapters. The essential note of this aggravated delict is the fact that the heretic CONTINUES OBSTINATELY to hold to his error despite clear knowledge that all the forces of the Church, her teaching authority and her judicial and coercive authority, are arrayed in condemnation of the heretical doctrine. This state of obsordescentia of its nature indicates that there is NO POSSIBILITY that the heretic is in ignorance of the malice of his sin. The heretic’s acts or words have been JUDICIALLY ESTABLISHED as heretical, and perhaps have been made the basis of a declaratory sentence. Furthermore, the heretic has been warned of impending canonical proceedings in which the heinousness of his delict is amply indicated by the grave punishments which are threatened IF HE SHOWS CONTINUED CONTUMACY. All of this indicates that heretics who are guilty of the delict punished by the second number of this first section of canon 2314 are necessarily formally guilty in both the internal and external fora, and that none of the excuses and extenuating circuмstances considered above can be alleged in their favor. The penalties established for heretics OF THIS TYPE include, first, a PRIVATION OF any benefice, dignity, pension, OFFICE or other charge which the heretic may have hitherto held in the Church, TOGETHER WITH JURIDICAL INFAMY. (…) even if he later repents and returns to the communion of the faithful, he can do so only as a simple member of the Church, without any rank above that of the ordinary faithful. This penalty presupposes that the heretic had previously been served with a canonical warning, and that the warning had not been heeded, in the sense that the heretic DID NOT RECANT WITHIN THE TIME SPECIFIED for that purpose. In the case of clerics, a further process may be instituted, beginning with a new warning; if this warning goes unheeded, and the heretic is thus proved still to continue pertinaciously and contumaciously in his error, a sentence of deposition MAY ensue. These vindictive penalties may indeed be assessed against any heretic whose delict can be JUDICIALLY PROVED, and who thereafter REFUSES TO RECANT and make reparation for the scandal and damage caused by his delict” (MacKenzie, Delict of Heresy, 1932, cap. IV).
It appears that you have fallen for the sedevacantist error of combining the canonical definition of “heresy” with that of “public” and concluding that one who meets the "combined meaning" of the two, has “publicly defected from the faith,” and lost his office, ipso facto, according to canon 188.4 (which is no longer on the books). Even a cursory reading of the approved commentaries on canon 2314 (1917 Code) should enable you to see the embarrassing absurdity of that sedevacantist error - an error that has been, as it were, the foundational error that has eventually led so many confused Catholics out of the Church and straight into heresy.
My replies follow in the comments section.
https://www.facebook.com/paul.kramer.1023611/posts/2707203915991669

Paul Kramer
August 28 at 4:55 PM ·

"Pax Christi's" (a.k.a. Robert Siscoe) latest fraud:
《Paul Kramer “The canons you quote are of the PENAL SECTION OF THE CODE, and have nothing whatsoever to do with TACIT RENUNCIATION OF OFFICE, which is not a penalty, but is incurred IPSO JURE, and WITHOUT ANY DECLARATION (sine nulla declaratione).” (Fr. Kramer)
Then let’s continue by reading what the same author says about canon 188.4, which is no longer on the books AND HAS NO IDENTICAL EQUIVALENT IN THE NEW CODE (more on this point that rips the foundation out of your entire argument later). But before doing so, I need to remind you of the sedevacantist error that’s at the root of your canonical confusion - namely, equating the definition of a “public heretic” that you invented (by combining the definition of "heresy" and "public"), with the canonical meaning of “public defection from the faith”. Any cleric who meets YOUR definition of a public heretic would fall under the provisions of canon 2314.2, which require that the matter of heresy is legally established and he be issued two warnings, and allowed a sufficient time to recant, BEFORE he can be deposed (see the commentary I provided previously from MacKenzie). There’s no ipso facto loss of office for someone who merely makes heretical “assertions that will become public.”
The ipso facto loss of office results from a different and far worse category of heresy, as described in the next canon, 2314.3. Here is what Fr. MacKenzie has to say about this canon:
“Canon 2314, §1, n. 3. legislates for another aggravated form of the delict of heresy; namely where the delinquent, IN ADDITION TO HIS HERETICAL WORDS OR ACTS [or “heretical assertion that will become public], FORMALLY JOINS SOME NON-CATHOLIC SECT, OR AT LEAST PUBLICLY ADHERES THERETO.” (The Delict of Heresy, 1932):
Notice that in addition to “manifesting heresy” by heretical words and acts, the heretics in this category has this category has left the Church and joined a non-Catholic sect, or at least publicly adhered to it. An example of this degree of heresy would be someone who read your writings, concludes that Francis is not the Pope, and begins attending Mass at a sedevacantist sect.
Not only would such a one incur ipso facto excommunication, but would also be ipso facto infamy, which is quite serious. Let’s continue with Fr. MacKenzie:
“The peculiar malice of this form of the delict of heresy (2314.3] is to be found in the fact that the heretic is not merely guilty of personal errors in regard to revealed religious truth, but likewise HAS MADE HIMSELF A CO-OPERATOR IN THE ORGANIZED LIFE AND ACTIVITIES OF A SOCIETY OPPOSED TO THE ONE TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST. The text of this legislation is as follows: ‘if they have joined a non-Catholic sect, or publicly adhered to it, they are ipso facto infamous, and clerics, in addition to being CONSIDERED TO HAVE TACITLY RENOUNCED ANY OFFICE THEY MAY HOLD, ACCORDING TO CANON 188.4, are, if previous warning proves fruitless, to be degraded” [Canon 2314.3]
As we can see, a cleric WHO LEAVES THE CHURCH AND JOIN A NON-CATHOLIC SECT is considered to have “tacitly renounced” his office, according to canon 188.4. Not a cleric who meets your definition of a “public heretic”, since he would fall under the provisions of 2314.2. The reason canon 2314.2 says makes no mention of tacit resignation from office, and canon 2314.3 does, is because of the disproportion between the two degrees of heresy.
Fr. MacKenzie continues by explaining the relation between canons 2314.3 and 188.4:
“If a cleric is guilty of this AGGRAVATED DELICT [c. 2314.3], the Code makes two further provisions. The first is referred to in the text quoted above: “the tacit resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of the law, and hence is effective without any declaration. §4 ‘if he has publicly defected from the faith’.” [Canon 188.4]
“This canon (188, §4) is one from the section treating of resignations from ecclesiastical charges; and the import of this section is that the act of severing connection publicly with the Church is a tacit resignation from any office, benefice or position, which resignation is accepted by the Church, without formal notice of acceptance being necessary on the part of the Bishop or any other official. IN OTHER WORDS, A CLERIC WHO JOINS A NON-CATHOLIC SECT STRIPS HIMSELF, BY THIS VERY ACT, OF ANY ECCLESIASTICAL POSITION HE MAY PREVIOUSLY HAVE HELD, AND NO LONGER HAS ANY RIGHTS OR POWERS DERIVING FROM THAT POSITION.”
There's the correct interpretation of canon 188.4.
Now, I can already hear the objection: But canonist X and canonist Y say one does not have to join a non-Catholic sect to fall under the provisions of canon 188.4. Yes, some canonists say that, but why do you think they bother to mention it in the first place? They do so because the question that naturally arises is: what if the culprit does not join a non-Catholic sect, but commits an equally egregious act, such as publicly renouncing belief in God, or leaving the Church to become a “home alone” Sedevacantist heretic? Would such acts, or others that have an equivalent degree of notoriety as joining a non-Catholic sect, render the office vacant? Most canonists answer yes, since it is logical to conclude that an equally egregious form of heresy or apostasy would likewise be deemed tacit resignation, BUT NOT AN ACT THAT HAS A LESSER DEGREE OF NOTORIETY, such as one that meets YOUR definition of a “public heretic”.
The point being, you are wasting your time trying to use canon 188.4 to prove that any of the recent popes lost their office, ipso facto, since none of them have committed an act of heresy or apostasy that is EQUIVALENT TO PUBLICLY JOINING A NON-CATHOLIC SECT.
One final point is that canon law itself provides that when applying the canons to individual cases, favorable things are to be given a broad interpretation, while odious ones are to receive a strict interpretation. The sedevacantists, of course, do the exact opposite by seeking out the most broad interpretation of canon 188.4, and using it in attempt to prove the recent popes lost their office (or never acquired it). You’re doing the same if you use the definition of a “public heretic” that you invented in an attempt to persuade anyone that Francis (or Benedict) lost their office, ipso facto, due to a public defection from the faith. And even if you don’t personally believe that (for whatever reason), that's the conclusion most will reach if they don't see through your canonical confusion and end by embracing the errors your spreading; or rather, the 20 year old Sedevacantist errors your parroting.》
MY REPLY:
Pax Christi : You blunder by making an error in elementary logic. Fr. McKenzie is commenting on Canon 2314 in the passage you cite. He is not interpreting Canon 188.4°, but is interpreting Canon 2314; and is applying the provision of canon 188.4° to a case that falls under canon 2314. By joining a non Catholic sect, or openly leaving the Church, one would, manifest a defection from the faith. He is not defining the meaning of "defection from the faith". He does not define defection from the faith as joining a non Catholic sect, or formally defecting from the Church. Joining a sect or formally defecting from the Church is one way of defecting from the faith; but defecting from the faith is not limited to formally defecting from the Church or joining a sect. Your deceitful comment is just one more example of Salza/Siscoe verbal con-artistry; since you are not quoting McKenzie on Canon 188.4°, but you deceptively try to make it appear that McKenzie's commentary on Canon 2314 is an interpretation of Canon 188.4°. This is the same trick you pulled in your heretical screed, True or False Pope?, SISCOE! It is simply amazing that after the identical fraud in your book was exposed, you would be so foolish to try it again!
The definition of "public heretic", which Robert Siscoe (a.k.a. Pax Christi) in the above comment says I "invented" can be found in the Code of Canon Law, and is explained in the authoritative commentaries of canon law I quoted. What a CLOWN! The interpretation I have given to Canon 188.4° in the 1917 Code and Canon 194 in the 1983 Code came straight out of the Salamanca and Navarra commentaries, as well as the commentaries of Frs. Augustine and McDevitt; all of which explain that public formal heresy suffices to provoke an ipso jure loss of office.
https://www.facebook.com/paul.kramer.1023611/posts/2709423832436344

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #4 on:** September 28, 2019, 10:22:11 AM »

Is this true about Pax?

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available (Read 39356 times)

nottambula

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

nottambula

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

RomanTheo

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

nottambula

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

Quo vadis Domine

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