Fr. Kramer: "Salza... deliberately mak[es] it appear that he is accusing... Pope Benedict of the Dolus of Formal Heresy while exonerating the Heretic Bergoglio"
Father Paul Kramer, his long-time friend late Father Nicholas Gruner,
and Cardinal Martino holding Father Kramer’s book, The Suicide of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy, during
the Fatima: Your Last Chance Conference, held in Rome in 2012. [http://traditionalcatholicisminnigeria.blogspot.com/2017/06/why-does-father-paul-kramer-still.html?m=1]
BUT—unlike what some Sedevacantists teach—the loss of faith does not, in and of itself, sever a man from the body of the Church. A mortal sin against faith does not, in and of itself, sever a man from the body of the Church. And if the man who loses the faith happens to be pope, he does not thereby lose his office. This is a crucial point that is often missed by even the most learned defenders of the Sedevacantists’ position. Formal heresy in the internal forum only severs a man from the soul of the Church. It requires formal heresy in the external forum to sever a man from the body of the Church, and formal heresy in the external forum is declared heresy by the proper authorities—i.e. a Church Council. - Catholic pundit Jonathan Ekene Ifeanyi's article "Why does Father Paul Kramer still maintain that Francis is not the true pope?"
On February 20, 2020, John Salza claimed that Francis was "universally accepted":
no case were any of these antipopes universally accepted by the entire
episcopacy following their election, as in the case with Pope Francis."
Salza's editors at the Remnant and 1P5 are not allowing free debate and argument on the validity of the papacy of Francis in their publications or comment sections. So, this seems like a good time to see if their greatest theologian of all time will answer five simple yes or no dubia questions and then respond to Bishop Rene Gracida's rejection of their and Salza's teaching since he would have to be part of that great and powerful infallible teaching of "universal acceptance":
1. Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales said ” The Pope… when he is explicitly a heretic… the Church must either deprive him or as some say declare him deprived of his Apostolic See.” Was St. Francis de Sales a Sedevacantist or a Benevacantist? Answer: yes or no.
2. “Universal Acceptance” theologian John of St. Thomas said “This man in particular lawfully elected and accepted by the Church is the supreme pontiff.” Was John of St. Thomas for saying “the supreme pontiff” must be BOTH “lawfully elected and accepted by the Church” a Sedevacantist or a Benevacantist? Answer: yes or no.
3. Do you think that a “supreme pontiff” if “universally accepted” is still Pope if, to quote papal validity expert Arnaldo Xavier de Silveira on “dubious election[s]”, that he is “a woman… a child… a demented person… a heretic… a apostate… [which] would [thus] be invalid[ed] by divine law”? Answer: yes or no.
4. Renowned Catholic historian Warren Carroll agreed with Bishop René Gracida on the determining factor for discerning a valid conclave for a valid papal election besides divine law. Carroll pronounced:
“But each Pope, having unlimited sovereign power as head of the Church, can prescribe any method for the election of his successor(s) that he chooses… A papal claimant not following these methods is also an Antipope.”
Are renowned historian Carroll and Bishop Gracida for saying this Sedevacantists or Benevacantists? Answer: yes or no.
5. Is Bishop Gracida really only a pawn of the legendary and
notorious “Sedevacantist and Benevacantist” mastermind Ann Barnhardt for
convincingly demonstrating that there is valid evidence that Pope John
Paul II’s conclave constitution “Universi Dominici Gregis” which
“prescribe[d].. [the] method for the election of his successor(s)” was
violated and must be investigated by Cardinals? Answer: yes or no. [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/06/5-dubia-questions-for-steve-skojec.html]
https://abyssum.org/2019/03/23/why-do-intelligent-men-pursue-the-application-of-an-obsolete-concept-universal-acceptance-to-the-problem-of-the-invalidity-of-the-papacy-of-francis-the-merciful-in-this-day-and-age-of-instant-elec/ - The Catholic Monitor [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2022/04/most-infallible-1p5remnant-francis-trad.html]
Before Francis came on the scene, Fr. Nicholas Gruner's close collaborator Fr. Paul Kramer was a member in good standing with the Traditionalist establishment including John Vennari, Christopher Ferrara, Michael Matt, and the Fatima Center as everyone knows. Why did the Trad establishment turn against Fr. Kramer?
Ann Barnhardt says that there was a power struggle between the bad guys, Ferrara and Salza, against Fr. Kramer on rather Francis was a heretic and an antipope
Salza agrees with Barnhardt, but, of course, claims that Kramer was the bad guy:
"[T]here was a split in the Fatima Center, not over some orchestration of a purge through the leverage of a million dollar donation (events which never occurred), but rather the influence that Fr. Paul Kramer was attempting to exert over the Fatima Center, and the untenable theological positions that he (and Barnhardt) holds. That’s right. And that is why the donor family in question raised their concerns (and they weren’t the only ones). It was public knowledge, shortly after the death of Fr. Gruner, that Fr. Kramer was attempting to seize control over the Fatima Center. And it was Fr. Kramer (not Messrs. Ferrara and Salza) who sought to purge the apostolate of those who didn’t agree with his antipope Francis position, including Mr. Salza." [http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/annbarnhardt-is-liar-and-fool-byjohn.html]
The fact is that Salza's opinions and ideas are well known because the Trad establishment promotes his positions and even falsely accuses Fr. Kramer of Sedevacantism.
The Catholic Monitor thought that in fair play it would be good to give the other side of the argument and first quote Kramer's book "On the True and the False Pope: The Case against Bergoglio" on what Kramer believes is Salza's position on Pope Benedict XVI and Francis:
"Salza... deliberately mak[es] it appear that he is accusing... Pope Benedict of the dolus of formal heresy while exonerating the heretic Bergoglio." (Page 326)
Next, we want to quote at length Catholic pundit Jonathan Ekene Ifeanyi's article "Why does Father Paul Kramer still maintain that Francis is not the true pope?" on Kramer's thesis on Francis:
“The Holy Roman Church ... firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after Our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; ... All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it (the Roman Church) declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors.”
Again, Pope Benedict XIV reiterated this dogma in his encyclical Ex Quo Primum:
“The first consideration is that the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law were abrogated by the coming of Christ and that they can no longer be observed without sin after the promulgation of the Gospel.” (Ex Quo Primum, # 61)
Again, Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews ...cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives...”
As already mentioned, the above declaration of the Ecumenical Council of Florence—as well as Benedict XIV's Ex Quo Primum and that of Eugene IV—is simply a dogma. And what is a dogma? A dogma is what has been infallibly defined by the Catholic Church. The dogma of the Faith is known by the solemn, infallible definitions of the magisterium of the Church. “Dogma is the name given to a proposition that is proclaimed with all possible solemnity either by the Roman pontiff or by an ecumenical council. A dogma is a revealed truth that the Roman Catholic church solemnly declares to be true and to be revealed; it is most properly an object of faith. Vatican I declared that the pope, when he teaches solemnly and in the area of faith and morals as the supreme universal pastor, teaches infallibly with that infallibility that the church has.” (Encyc. Brit., 2014). The word infallible means “cannot fail”. Therefore the dogmatic definitions of the Faith, solemnly defined by the Church, cannot fail. Again: “Dogma (for all who receive it) is an affirmation which it is sinful to deny, or to change, or to ignore. ...From Nicaea onwards formulated dogma is accompanied by anathemas,” says the Encyclopaedia Britannica. (Encyc. Brit. Vol. 7; 1955, pp. 501-502).