Dear Moderator,

I wish to post this reply from Fr.Paul Kramer for the purpose of calling to your attention the treatment of a good Resistance Priest such as Fr.Paul Kramer has been abusively receiving from Mr.Gerard from FE. And I wish also to point out that we become accessory to the SIN by turning a blind eye.

After reading the reply of Fr.Paul Kramer, one can inescapably conclude that Mr.Gerard from FE has to be Banned from CathInfo for committing a GRAVE Sin against a priest in good standing.

Fr.Paul Kramer's letter below:


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."

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.

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. Gerard, who like Luther 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 (!): he spesks of "Council of Constance and it's dubious assertions."

  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.

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).

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! 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?")

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.

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?"

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.

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.  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".
    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.

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.

10) The remainder of Gerard's observations consist of nothing but off point comments, 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".

* 1 Cor. 11:23 - 24, ff. - ? ego enim accepi a Domino quod et tradidi vobis quoniam Dominus Iesus in qua nocte tradebatur accepit panem
et gratias agens fregit et dixit hoc est corpus meum pro vobis hoc facite in meam commemorationem " . . .?

wessex,

Quote

I am here in danger of echoing some of the sentiments of Bp. Williamson! He is prominent in pointing out the artificial world of 50s Catholicism and its stark contradictions. My parents were certainly living these contradictions to the point of having one set of beliefs on Sunday and another set on other days. I was growing up thinking that the Church on the surface merely proposed an ideal way of life which could never be achieved nor needed to. Confession was becoming a convenient gateway linking both worlds.

The 40's and, 50's, were the time when Merchantile Atlanticism came to dominate the older cultures of old Europe and Asia dividing the world of men,  and quickly drawing them away from the reality the Faith and into unbridled materialism where one's religion served as an adornment rather than a foundation in their lives.

The 60's were the tipping point and this anti-Christ orientation has been gaining ground since then, heading towards it conclusion. I have no doubt that we are in an end times war with it. It carries all of the necessary characteristics of anti-Chist within it.
Few today, can carry on with life's necessities without bearing its mark and enduring its dictates.
It is abundantly clear that the conciliar revolution was its vanguard within the religious world. Even most non-Catholic sects and Uniates have been corrupted by the conciliar presence. They are all collapsing together now, as they all come under the regime of the lust for commerce and power.  Vatican Bank, SSPX, Mega Church's, etc.

Having religion as an engaging accessory in life did apply to both rich and poor. There was a kind of democracy here where all could be involved notwithstanding echoes of the class model in the form of hierarchies at the high church end. We could with some justification say that the Church was at one time an accessory of the Italian aristocracy!

The expansion and ambitions of the middle-classes I suppose tested the resilience of the Church on earth. Yes, materialism was going to be the first priority even among seemingly devout Christians and churches were framing their activities to accommodate this reality. So, we now have the churches we deserve without too much objection on our part. The job is to get back to something that is better than materialism; something the rich cannot buy and something that eases the hardship of the poor. And the middle-classes have to persuaded that nirvana means more that a good pension!.

Are there any priests left out there who can defend The Church and himself with grace and charity and leave the name-calling on the school yard?