From Fr. Kramer's Facebook page. My responses i blue.
As expected, Gerard (of Fish Eaters) pontificates a load of codswallop which betrays a woeful lack of formal theological formation. A dolt indeed -- who spouts effusions of logically flawed empty hot air; and with the maximum stupidity thinks that his knuckleheaded pontifications will effect the result that, "Fr, Kramer will have his argument destroyed." (LOL) My dear Gerard: As my high school teacher, Sr. Concetta used to say, "It is better to be thought a fool than to speak and end all doubt."
Dear Fr. Kramer,
Be assured my pontification are all subject to the traditional rites of the Church.
While I appreciate your estimation of my load of codswallop as the work of a dolt. I also understand it has been a very long time since you engaged in theological thought and you've more than likely forgotten most of it.
And it's wonderful that you give your nun from high school credit for quotes that don't originate with her. I've come to expect no less. I long to hear your lecture on Pope St. Judas Iscariot and the circuмstances of his famous Catholic maxim, "Where's the Beef?"
Is your former high school teacher "Saint Concetta" now by any chance? Soon enough I'm sure.
Of course that's where this whole shebang began with a misquote of Annibale Bugnini, that I corrected.
The apoplectic siezures induced by simply correcting a misquote is astounding indeed. The false quote must be valuable indeed.
1) ?The deceitful sophistry is pretending one of the most dangerous councils in the history of the Church which is known as the "Concilliarists" council in which the attempt to hobble the papacy was manifested actually does bind the papacy.?
The deceitful sophistry consists in Gerard's private judgment which, in a desperate attempt to undermine its authority, rails against a duly papally ratified ecuмenical council of the Catholic Church that has been generally accepted by the Church throughout the Catholic world.
Here it is plainly put, I'm detaching the actual authority of the Council from your mischaracterization of it. You claim that the Pope is "bound" to the specific liturgy of the Latin Church during the 15th century.
You hold Pope "Saint" Martin V as having ratified the Council and set it in stone in perpetuity.
It's not my private judgement that says in the Council of Constance approved by Pope Martin V that the Pope is "bound" to convene Ecuмenical Councils at specific intervals of time.
It's not my private judgement that says that the very same Pope. Martin V singularly overturned what that very same session in that very same Council decrees that he was "bound" to observe.
You're ad hoc conciliarism, is simply dishonest. An ambiguous and Concilarist tinges statement from what is considered a "quasi-ecuмenical" council, not on my authority but you can look it up in the Catholic Encyclopedia in which theologians are cited stating that the Popes gave general approval to the Council but did not intend to bind the papacy in any way that you assert.
2) ?The cute trick is misleading people into thinking that Martin V ratified the heresy of Conciliarism which put Councils above Popes. ?
Gerard, in the manner of heretics, gives more weight to his own private judgments against the Council of Constance than the universal acceptance by the Church of those acts of that Council which were duly ratified.
That's a dodge. As stated above, the Council says the Pope is "bound" to call councils.
If, as you say, the Pope is "bound" by that Council, then Martin V is condemned by that same Council.
The contradiction and error isn't' in the Church, it's in your analysis.
Gerard, who like Luther
cute pronouncing the Epistle of St. James to be an "epistle of straw", rails against the judgment of the Church which accepts the authority of that Council's ratified decrees, privately judging its doctrines to be dubious (!)
Fr. Kramer who like Satan (see how I can do that trick too?) tried to confuse people is engaging in a really deceptive trick here.
By setting up a false opposition (like the modernists) he plays a Trojan Horse game by equating his private judgement of the Council of Constance and its decrees with the actual Magisterium of the Church. He uses the Council to hide his errors.
My bringing to the fore, the objective logical inconsistencies in his conclusions based on Church sources and undisputed historical facts is then set in opposition with a straw man argument concerning the Council and the Magisterium.
I'm analyzing Fr. Kramer's private judgment. He pretends his private judgement is infallible and Magisterial and binding on the faithful. It's not. If it were, Martin V would be a saint. : he spesks of "Council of Constance and it's dubious assertions."
If there was nothing dubious in it, Pope Eugene would not have given it approbation with due consideration for papal prerogatives. It has the same odor of the Preliminary Explanatory note of Paul VI.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia again: From the Catholic Encyclopedia: " Hefele, after carefully weighing the main arguments of the Gallicans (viz. that Pope Martin V approved the declaration of the Council of Constance, and Pope Eugene IV the identical declaration of the Council of Basle, affirming the superiority of an Ecuмenical synod over the pope), concluded that both popes, in the interests of peace, approved of the councils in general terms which might imply an approbation of the point in question, but that neither Martin nor Eugene ever intended to acknowledge the superiority of a council over the pope. (See Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, I, 50-54)" However, his assertion that I engage in "misleading people into thinking that Martin V ratified the heresy of Conciliarism which put Councils above Popes[,]" is an outright, gratuitous falsehood which reveals him to be a malicious and sacrilegious bold faced liar.
NEITHER MARTIN V NOR EUGENE IV RATIFIED ANYTHING THAT PUTS COUNCILS ABOVE POPES, AND I HAVE SAID NOTHING THAT EVEN REMOTELY SUGGESTS SUCH A THING. GERARD IS A SACRILEGIOUS SLANDERER OF PRIESTS.
Nope. Not at all. You are claiming that a Pope is "bound" by the Council of Constance to a particular liturgical rite.
Yet you ignore the fact that Pope Martin V eventually dismissed the "binding force" of session 39 where it states the Pope is bound to call councils at specific intervals.
3) ? And the convenience by which all of that conciliar intrigue is glossed over . . .?
Scurrilous off point objection: Conciliar intrigue has no bearing whatsoever on the doctrinal authority of the ratified acts of a council.
This, as we shall see, is the fatal logical defect of nearly all of Gerard's arguments: "scurrilitas quae ad rem non pertinent" (Eph. 5:4).
Context is either apt or not depending on convenience then? So, if the "intrigue" engaged in by Annibale Bugnini or Freemasons or Communists, Modernists and Progressives have bearing on the Novus Ordo, Vatican II and Collegiality, why does Constance have an exemption from intrigue and Paul VI not from his duly appointed authority to introduce a new rite of Liturgy or modify old ones as Benedict XVI did?
4) ?Actually Gregory XII was accepted as the legitimate Pope. The Council was reconvened under his authority as condition of his resignation. It's the authority of Gregory XII that allows for the legitimate election of Martin V.?
OFF POINT! What has this to do with the authority of the papal approbation of the ratified decrees of the Council? NOTHING!
You were trying to provide background information. I was clarifying it.
You wrote: ""After his election, Pope Martin V had the task of modifying and ratifying, or rejecting the acts of the Council that had taken place before his election, when there was no pope who could effectively preside, (since there were three competing claimants at the time)."
it was clarifying the deliberate (or not) vagueness/sloppiness present in your statement that allows a reasonable person to infer that the Council had been given the power to elect a Pope by itself and not under the power of the papacy of Gregory XII.
So, it is on point in that it avoids the Conciliarism you are imbibing in for the purpose of binding a Pope where he is not bound. A Florentine's reply to such stupidity would be: "Cosa c'entra il culo colle quarant'ore?" (Literally translated, "What has my arse to do with the Forty Hours Devotion?")
More hypocritical showboating. What does a Florentine or your high school nun or Martin Luther on St. James have to do with the current argument?
Your just creating distractions form your fraudulent argument.
5) ?Ecuмenical Councils require papal authority for convocation, direction and confirmation. The authority to elect Pope Martin didn't come retroactively from Pope Martin. It was given by Pope Gregory and affirmed by Martin.?
OFF POINT. The authority to elect Martin V, or how, or by whom the Council was convoked, are utterly irrelevant to the matter under discussion. What matters only is that Martin V and Eugene IV were legitimate popes who ratified most of the acts of the Council, and that those acts have been generally accepted throughout the Church ever since.
So, by that standard, Annibale Bugnini's intentions, the intrigue, the Freemasons and the Modernists don't matter when it comes to the Novus Ordo.
What matters according to your standard of argumentation is that Pope Paul VI was a legitimate Pope who published a new liturgy as he is able to according to the encyclical Mediator Dei of Pius XII and the decrees of papal supremacy in the Church of the First Vatican Council.
It's a strange mix of Conciliarism /Gallicanism and Neo-Ultramontanism in that Paul VI is bound by the "binding" decrees of Constance, but Martin V St. Pius V or John XXIII or Benedict XVI are not. Situational ethics requiring Cafeteria heresy.
6) ?Anti-Pope John XXIII who originally called the council had fled and was deposed and Benedict XII never submitted to being deposed.?
Again, Sig. Gerardo -- "Cosa c'entra il culo colle quarant'ore?"
This is simply more context provided to avoid the impression of a well-ordered Council convened and conducted with satisfying and certain conclusions on all points. But I guess your private judgement is sufficient as to what context is allowed in a discussion and what context is to be avoided.
7) ?[N]either Martin nor Eugene ever intended to acknowledge the superiority of a council over the pope. (See Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, I, 50-54)" ?
There is no end to this dolt's scurrilous outbursts. Gerard doltishly confuses authority which a council can never exercise over a reigning pontiff, with the doctrinal authority which a duly ratified council can bind popes and the whole Church in perpetuity. The DOCTRINE that the traditional rites are binding on all popes has been repeatedly taught throughout Church history, as I have amply demonstrated in my book, The ѕυιcιdє of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy.
Yeah. That's a partial quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia, not me. So, I'm not the only "dolt" that acknowledge the Conciliarist strain in the Council of Constance that lead to Popes having to proclaim again and again their supreme power in the Church.
As to doltish confusion, I notice how Fr. Kramer continues the shell game by claiming that Popes are bound by "rites" and infers that, that must mean liturgy.
There is no uniformity of rites in the Church. Any understanding of "rites" in the context of Constance must be understood as the substance of "the functions of a religious body."
Not a specific liturgy. As Pius XII stated unequivocally the liturgy and anything touching the worship of God is SUBJECT to the Apostolic See and the Pope alone has the AUTHORITY to INTRODUCE NEW RITES or MODIFY OLD ONE as HE SEES FIT.
The utterly asinine formulation of Fr. Kramer puts the Pope in some bizarre submission to an organically developed temporal liturgy already with wide variation suddenly frozen in time, hobbling the due power of regulation that a Pope requires and given by Christ in perpetuity. 8) ?It should be that much more embarrassing that this "dolt" is telling the truth and Fr. Kramer the "genius" is simply an intellectual slob who spreads "heresy"! He makes up history where he sees fit and spreads heresy to support his political agenda.?
After all the scurrilous sophistry and stupidity Gerard has presented in his off point rants, he then has the sacrilegious effrontery to call a Roman educated priest with multiple ecclesiastical degrees "an intellectual slob", "who makes up history", "to support his political agenda".
Said by the guy who sits in judgement of the Popes. You are a scandal and it is an act of charity to call you to task.
Don't cower behind clerical privilege to try to get away with verbal abuse with impunity.
Here's the truth. I am not a "dolt." That is simply you spouting calumny and hyperbolic rhetoric.
You are an intellectual slob based on the utter sloppiness of your docuмented argument.
I"m not making excuses for my mistakes. I haven't made any.
You've written false statements and made the excuses that it was "inadvertent" and it's been "forty years"
Excuse making is the retreat of the intellectual slob.
Gerard is guilty of public sacrilege for graruitously vilifying a priest. He is therefore to be considered a public sinner to be deprived of receiving Holy Communion, as is set forth in can. 915 of the Code of Canon Law.
Telling the truth is not a sin.
Furthermore, you have no canonical authority to declare me guilty of "gratuitous" sacrilege or anything I can back up what I state. You can't.
If you want to go down that road, tell me where you are incardinated and who your superior is.
I'll write him a letter and if he thinks your case has merit he can contact Archbishop Chaput and I'll go have a talk with him. He's lives less than a 10 minute drive away from me.
And aside from all that, you need to go to your confessor to deal with your public sins of wrath, rash judgement, pride and calumny before you receive Communion.
9) The lenghty quotation of Mediator Dei is totally off point. No Catholic denies the pope's authority to regulate the liturgy, but no Catholic may deny the dogma founded on scripture * which teaches that the Catholic conscience is bound, and the pope in particular is BOUND to the traditional rites; and it is HERESY to say that any pope may abolish the traditional rites, and change them into new rites.
Mediator Dei is quite apt. Again, you keep bouncing between "rites" and "liturgy" as if they are the same thing.
Pius XII states clearly that rites can be modified (changed) and new rites can be introduced as the Pope sees fit.
What the Pope can't change is the substance of the rites of the sacraments. He can't change them into new rites of different substance but he can introduce new rites of the same substance. 10) The remainder of Gerard's observations consist of nothing but off point comments,
No. They are apt and I've demonstrated why.
To claim otherwise without support is simply more evidence of being an intellectual slob. and abusive personal insults which reveal his state of mind as that of a Narcissistic megalonaniac wretch who is possessed of the pathological obsession to win an argument -- even to the point of heretically denying a dogma of faith in pursuit of his ignoble purpose -- so that "Fr. Kramer, will have his argument destroyed".
…sniff…sniff… I would swear this smells like the set up for the "dismount" where he just can't deal with such a person anymore. He's got important things to do. hurumph…hurumph…
I think you are projecting your own view of yourself there.
You obviously treat others the way you want to be treated.
So, with the first comment of "dolt" you threw the gauntlet down and I simply returned in kind but honestly with far less proportionality than was warranted.
Had I unloaded proportionatly, I think you would have burst into tears instead of that hilariously idiotic ranting calumny of sacrilege against me.
I find it hypocritical that Fr. Kramer makes excuses for falsehoods he declares, engages in dodges, distractions and attempts to exert clerical privilege in the hopes of duping the ignorant all the while hurling insults like exactly what he is. a desperate intellectual slob caught red-handed trying to manipulate people. The unsupported and unsupportable nature of his insults betrays his need to create a false attribution fallacy in order to try and cover his tracks.
Fr. Kramer won't descend into the details of the 39 session of Constance and how the Pope is "bound" to call specific Councils in the future and how it was essentially blown off by the Popes.
He's ignored the fact that I've presented from the Catholic Encyclopedia that there is no uniformity of believe on the ratification of statements "binding" the Pope from Constance.
He avoids distinguishing between the substance of a rite in terms of a function of a religions and narrower definition of rite meaning a liturgy of the Church which the Pope has every right to alter without the Church committing ѕυιcιdє.
But hey, He's not an intellectual slob if he gets upset that a misquote has been clarified, and he can canonize who he wants, "What's the big deal?"
He can avoid dealing with any argument he can't rebut with the dismissive "off point" while he presents a plethora of truly off point comments.
Look at the meltdowns he engages in with just a simple questioning and probing of what he spews out that may or may not be accurate. Because he's convinced he's ultimately right or not, just don't question anything buy the book and wait for the next one.
In reviewing this, I was going to comment that the overarching phenomena is one of a parasite feeding off of the worst fears of gullible traditional Catholics.
But on a second thought, taking into account the viciousness and clever obfuscation of Fr. Kramer's replies, it's more akin to that of a sociopath being challenged in their grip over their victims.
So self-assured in their domination, the sociopath will eventually get lazy as the dominated become more docile. So, when the challenge and the potential risk of being exposed as such comes forth, the claws come out.
Topic: Fr, Kramer unleashed intellectual slobbery on my corrections of him. (Read 7389 times)