Author Topic: Dr Chojnowski receives a Warning from Robert Siscoe (Read 1276 times)

Mr G · « **on:** January 22, 2018, 07:58:47 AM »

http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/01/alert-i-have-received-warning-from.html

Here is Robert Siscoe's Warning to Me and My blunt Response:

[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.85098)]Warning to Peter Chojnowski[/color]

Mr. Chojnowski,

You need to retract the following false statement that you just posted on your website: "If what Salza and Siscoe say is true concerning the need for specific ecclesiastical judgment in order [to] have someone ACTUALLY DEFECT FROM THE Catholic Church…"

We have never said that "a specific ecclesiastical judgment" is require for someone to "actually defect from the Catholic Church." This is one more lie Fr.Kramer has been spreading online. Did you read Part I of our reply? Fr. Kramer's entire argument against us is full of lies.

In the future, if you think we hold an erroneous position, ask us directly before posting it online. And if you are wise, you won't believe anything Fr. Kramer says.

Robert Siscoe

My response:

Dearest Bob,

I can paraphrase the essence of your argument in any way that I choose on my own blog. If readers wanted to read your actual text and your arguments against Fr. Kramer, I provided the actual link —— given to me by Fr. Kramer —— to your own site. I don’t believe that any one is arguing about whether a “Catholic” who goes to the Jehovah Witnesses Hall and is not formally condemned by the Church has nevertheless defected. This is insignificant for the entire discussion you have been having on the question of how public heresy separates one from the Catholic Church without need for any kind of canonical judgment. You and Attorney Salza say that you need such a judgment since simply public and notorious heresy —— in your very novel turn of mind — does not necessarily separate one from the Church. If this is not what you are ultimately arguing THAN WHAT ARE YOU ARGUING? My summary of your position is not Fr. Kramer's, it is mine. He is taking you apart in a technical and systematic way. I am simply summarizing your position for my readers.

Knowing Fr. Kramer, as we both know him, your statement that we should not believe ANYTHING that he says, as if he has not cited innumerable theological texts to justify his simple and Catholic position that a public heretic cannot be in the Church or even a Christian, is strange and indicates a certain “battle fatigue.” To tell you the truth, I have never, in all the controversies that I have been involved in over the past 20 years ever received a note headed “Warning to Peter Chojnowski.” That’s just creepy.

Yours, Peter E. Chojnowski, Ph.D. (Fordham, 1993).

Mr G · « **Reply #1 on:** January 22, 2018, 04:15:29 PM »

http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/01/my-honest-attempt-to-attain-clear.html Dr. Chojnowski gives John Salza a try.

Dear Mr. Salza,

First question: Do you or do you not hold that public heresy of its very nature separates one from the Catholic Church without any declaration by Church authority?

Second question: Do you hold that a public heretic can retain office in the Church even though, through public heresy, he is no longer a member of the Church?

Please answer these simple and basic questions. Realize of course that I will publicize your answers. This will end whatever confusion you say exists and avoid any needless “hair-splitting.”

Yours, Peter Chojnowski

Well, as expected, here comes the hair-splitting:

Dear Peter:

Your questions require essential distinctions.

First question: Do you mean from the Soul of the Church or the Body of the Church?

Second question: Do you mean a public heretic according to private judgment or the Church's judgment?

John Salza

Okay, I will take the bait, even though I wanted SISI or NONO.

Question #1: Is it the case that Public Heresy separates you from membership in the body of the Catholic Church?

Question #2: Can you objectively hold public office in the Catholic Church if you are guilty of the sin of Public Heresy and hence are no longer a member of the body of the Catholic Church?

Answer Coming.......

Incredulous · « **Reply #2 on:** January 23, 2018, 11:05:19 AM »

In the grand battle to preserve Catholic tradition, Siscoe/Salza are just a comedy team.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #3 on:** January 23, 2018, 11:50:40 AM »

.
Bishop of Rome Francis must be so pleased with the fallout from his remarkable term of office so far.

Mr G · « **Reply #4 on:** January 23, 2018, 12:59:14 PM »

Update from Dr. Chojnowski: Sorry dear readers I have been absolutely unable to get Salza and Siscoe to clarify their position and indicate how it is exactly applicable to the current situation in the Church. When I asked Atty. Salza to answer a few basic questions with a simple yes or no answer --- using their own terminology --- all that I received back were further questions DIRECTED TOWARDS ME! (See original post above) I could not get any where when attempting to clarify the situation. I have therefore decided to stop all personal communication with Siscoe and Salza. It is simply fruitless and just causes more adjectives to be added to the word "heretic" (e.g., notorious, public, private, according to private judgment, according to the Church's judgment, that which separates from the Body of the Church, that which separates from the Soul of the Church, by law, by fact.............). I am still very much interested in this question and will publish the interesting doctrinal articles that come my way.

Below was may last email attempt at clarification. No answers. Just questions to me......

Dear Mr. Salza,

Just two more follow-up questions:

Are the following men, according to our knowledge of them over the past decades, “public and notorious by fact or law HERETICS? Only YES or NO answers would be helpful here.

A) Hans Kung:

B) Scott Hahn:

C) Francis I:

Next question. Is a sede vacante situation, other than in the usual interregnum or a situation in which the “universally acclaimed” man is not the actual true pope but someone else is: POSSIBLE OR IMPOSSIBLE (Please, only a one word response here to help clarify my understanding of your own views.)

Thank you.

Yours, Peter

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #5 on:** January 23, 2018, 02:25:58 PM »

Mr G, in all fairness you are asking 'unanswerable' questions. They are unanswerable for the following reasons:

1. Sicso's answer, Salza's answer, your answer, my answer - they mean nothing - we aren't the Church. So, who cares what their answer is?
2. You are trying, by simple logic, to form a conclusion of heresy and loss of office based on facts + canon law. But the Church doesn't work that way, in regards to heresy. The Church is a monarchy, not a democracy. "We the people" cannot make decisions, only the Church can. Until She does, we wait.
3. You want 'yes/no' answers to very complex questions - ones that are so complex that theologians have been arguing about them for centuries. They are not 'dodging' your questions (which are valid and important) just pointing out that the questions are not as simple as you would like them to be.

Mr G · « **Reply #6 on:** January 23, 2018, 02:39:03 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on January 23, 2018, 02:25:58 PM

Mr G, in all fairness you are asking 'unanswerable' questions. They are unanswerable for the following reasons:

1. Sicso's answer, Salza's answer, your answer, my answer - they mean nothing - we aren't the Church. So, who cares what their answer is?
2. You are trying, by simple logic, to form a conclusion of heresy and loss of office based on facts + canon law. But the Church doesn't work that way, in regards to heresy. The Church is a monarchy, not a democracy. "We the people" cannot make decisions, only the Church can. Until She does, we wait.
3. You want 'yes/no' answers to very complex questions - ones that are so complex that theologians have been arguing about them for centuries. They are not 'dodging' your questions (which are valid and important) just pointing out that the questions are not as simple as you would like them to be.

Thanks for your reply. Especially point #1. But to be clear, these questions are from Dr. Peter Chojnowski and not me.

Author Topic: Dr Chojnowski receives a Warning from Robert Siscoe (Read 1276 times)

Mr G

Dr Chojnowski receives a Warning from Robert Siscoe

Mr G

Re: Dr Chojnowski receives a Warning from Robert Siscoe

Incredulous

Re: Dr Chojnowski receives a Warning from Robert Siscoe

Neil Obstat

Re: Dr Chojnowski receives a Warning from Robert Siscoe

Mr G

Re: Dr Chojnowski receives a Warning from Robert Siscoe

Pax Vobis

Re: Dr Chojnowski receives a Warning from Robert Siscoe

Mr G

Re: Dr Chojnowski receives a Warning from Robert Siscoe