




 St. Pius V teaches in the Roman Catechism: "Heretics and schismatics are excluded from the Church, because they have defected (desciverunt) from her and belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted."; whereas those who have not left the Church by defecting, but are excluded from the Church by excommunication, are "cut off by her sentence from the number of her children and belong not to her communion until they repent.”
  In order to understand how it is that heretics leave the Church by themselves -- i.e.,  that heresy per se, by the very nature of the transgression, separates the heretic from the body of the Church as a consequence intrinsic to the nature of the sin, (as Pius XII teaches, "suapte natura hominem ab Ecclesiae Corpore separet"); and that by the fully deliberate and obstinate act of heresy, the heretics have left the Church and separated themselves from union with the body of the Church: "a Corporis compage semetipsos misere separarunt", (as distinguished from those who for reason of a most grave fault have been cut off by the legitimate ecclesiastical authority -- "ob gravissima admissa a legitima auctoritate seiuncti sunt" [either a jure, i.e. latæ sententiæ, or ab homine, i.e. sententia ferenda] ); it is necessary first to understand how one enters the Church as a faithful member; since it is by faith that one becomes a Christian and a member of the Church, and therefore it is by defecting from the faith into heresy or apostasy that one departs from the Church and ceases by the very nature of the sin to be a member.
     It is first and foremost by faith that one is a Christian, without which, (as St. Thomas teaches), no one can be said to be a Christian: "Primum quod est necessarium Christiano, est fides, sine qua nullus dicitur fidelis Christianus." By faith, even before baptism (Acts 10:47), one can become united to the soul of the Church, and becomes a member not "in re" but "in voto" (as St. Robert Bellarmine teaches). This is, as St. Thomas explains, in virtue of the effects of faith: 1) It is by faith that the soul is first united to God: "Primum est quod per fidem anima coniungitur Deo: nam per fidem anima Christiana facit quasi quoddam matrimonium cum Deo";[2] and for that reason it is that one who is baptised must first profess the faith: "Et inde est quod quando homo baptizatur, primo confitetur fidem, cum dicitur ei, credis in Deum?".[2] And thus it is that Baptism is first a sacrament of faith: "Quia Baptismus est primum sacramentum fidei." -- and for this reason Baptism is said to be "the door", the vitæ spiritualis ianua and the door to the other sacraments; for it is by this sacrament of faith that one enters the Church, and without faith the sacrament is of no benefit: "Baptismus enim sine fide non prodest."[1] From there it becomes clear that in order to be a member of the Church, it is necessary, (as St. Pius X teaches), to be baptised, and to believe and profess the doctrine of Jesus Christ ("Per esser membro della Chiesa è necessario esser battezzato, credere e professare la dottrina di Gesù Cristo"); since the Church is "the congregation of all baptized persons united in the same true faith, the same sacraments, and the same sacrifice, under the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff and the bishops in communion with him" -- and therefore, "To remain a real member of the Church after Baptism a person must profess the one true faith and must not withdraw from the unity of the body of the Church in schism or heresy or be excommunicated by legitimate authority because of serious sins."
     Thus, the heretic, schismatic, and apostate withdraw from unity and leave the Church, and thereby cease to be members, as St. Pius X teaches (in Question 200), Whoever would not believe in the solemn definitions of faith or would doubt them, would sin against faith; and remaining obstinate in unbelief, would no longer be a Catholic, but a heretic. ("Chi non credesse alle definizioni solenni del Papa, o anche solo ne dubitasse, peccherebbe contro la fede, e se rimanesse ostinato in questa incredulità, non sarebbe più cattolico, ma eretico.) Heretics are not only those who stubbornly doubt or deny any solemn definitions; but the same Pontiff teaches that they are heretics who refuse to believe any truth revealed by God which the Catholic Church teaches as "de fide": "Gli eretici sono i battezzati che ricusano con pertinacia di credere qualche verità rivelata da Dio e insegnata come di fede dalla Chiesa cattolica" (Q. 228).
    The doctrine that not only the solemn definitions, but all that has been taught by the universal and ordinary magisterium of the Church as divinely revealed must be believed with divine and Catholic faith was set forth with precision in the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filiusby the First Vatican Council: "Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed." Thus it follows that heresy consists not only in the denial or refusal to believe solemnly defined dogmas, but any revealed truth taught by the universal magisterium that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith: "Can. 751 — Dicitur haeresis, pertinax, post receptum baptismum, alicuius veritatis divina et catholica credendae denegatio, aut de eadem pertinax dubitatio; apostasia, fidei christianae ex toto repudiatio". (Codex Iuris Canonici).....

Salza & Siscoe go to great lengths to insist that in Mystici Corporis, the words "admissa" and "admissum" mean, "crime(s)", and not "sin(s)"; but when you examine the syntax of text very carefully, it makes no difference how you translate the terms. Read the Latin text very carefully – it says: "And thus not every offense (sin, fault, crime), even a grave crime, does such – as schism, heresy, and apostasy do – by their very nature separate a man from unity of the body the Church." There it is: Others are separated from the Church "by the legitimate authority of the Church"; as opposed to those who "miserably separate themselves from union with the body" of the Church by heresy, schism, or apostasy, which separate them not by the authority of the Church, but suapte natura. It pertains to the nature of a crime that it separates one from the Church by the penalty of excommunication, incurred or inflicted by the authority of the Church. Heresy, schism and apostasy are declared by Pius XII, (in conformity with the constant teaching of the universal magisterium), to be the sole exceptions, because heretics, schismatics, or apostates are declared not to be separated from the body of the Church “by legitimate authority”, but by the very nature of the sinful act, by which they “miserably separated themselves from the unity of the Body” of the Church (a Corporis compage semet ipsos misere separarunt). Salza & Siscoe interpret this papal magisterial text by conflating it with the private opinion of John of St. Thomas, in order to support their heretical belief that the sinful act of manifest formal heresy by itself does not suapte natura separate a man from the Church unless there is pronounced a judgment of the Church for the “crime” of heresy, but "without an additional censure" – (according to them), there must be some judgment, condemnation or penal censure, but not the additional censure. i.e. a vitandus declaration. According to them, it must be a canonical delict – a penal offense judged by the Church for heresy to separate a man from the Church “suapte natura”! However, if there is any judgment or censure at all, then the heretics are separated by the "legitimate authority of the Church", and therefore not by heresy suapte natura, by which they "miserably separated themselves from the unity of the body" of the Church. One is either separated from the body of the Church by excommunication, i.e. “by legitimate authority”, or by one’s own sinful act of desertion, which according to its very nature separates one from the body of the Church, as St. Pius V and St. Pius X teach in their catechisms. There exists no third way out of the Church, by which one is separated from the body of the Church by some judgment, before being excommunicated or declared vitandus. Thus, their interpretation of the passage of Mystiici Corporis would render it entirely irrational. Now, the act of formal heresy is a mortal sin ex toto genere suo; and therefore, heresy, properly considered in its nature, is the SIN ofheresy,  and therefore not considered under its formal aspect as a crime, which does not pertain to the nature of heresy – so when Pius XII wrote saying that heresy suapte natura separates one from the body of the Church, he wrote specifically of the sin of heresy, and not heresy considered formally as a crime, for which one would be excluded from Church membership "by legitimate authority", as Pius explained....MORE TO COME.........


  1. "Whosoever desires to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith. Which faith, except every one do keep entire and inviolate, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly." The Athanasian Creed. The ancient Hammer of Modernism and the heretics.

    1. It seems that they have all been heretics since the Council. They have all taught error themselves, and backed the Council which is full of error. So where does that leave us. Fifty years without a pope?

  2. The above is self-evident. The only mystery is why Father Kramer does not apply this truth to the other post-conciliar "popes".

    1. I cannot say that we have been without a pope. I am not a theologian and have no authority to judge the iternal dispositions of anyone, much less an apparent occupant of the See of Peter. My point is only that, objectively speaking, they all promoted heresy.

  3. Could you please show me Catholic Church teaching which says you must be a theologian in order to observe heresy? Would you kindly show me in church teaching where it says that in order to recognize public heresy that you need to judge someone's internal forum?

    You are just repeating talking points which someone has taught you. Rather, listen to God: John 2:1
    "Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. 10If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you. 11For he that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works."

    1. This is my reply to you. I know that all of the Conciliar popes have taught heresy by word and deed and, by the grace of God, I recognized it, which is why I have clung to the SSPX for nearly 35 years. I am not smarter or more competent in theological matters than was Archbishop Lefebvre, or Bishop Williamson, for that matter, and I will wager that you are not either. Recognizing heretical pronouncements and judging that someone is in fact a heretic, are two different things. Personally, I believe that anyone who accepts the Council has accepted heresy. But they may not realize it. What we are enjoined to do in the Gospels, is to fly from heretics and I have done so and continue to do so. Our Lady never said anything about deposing popes. She did ask us to pray for them.
      It's good to be eaten up with zeal for the Church, but there are too many who have no peace of soul and are not content with recognizing heresy and avoiding it. They also must condemn others who do not just exactly agree with their position on this crisis.

    2. Virginie, Your reply is sort of a jumble of oft-repeated Society talking points, none of which addresses the topic at hand. I'll address them one at a time, beginning with your last comment.

      Nobody is "condemning" you. Okay? Now that we have that out of the way, I'll go through your list of talking points in order.

      1. "... not smarter than ABL or BP Williamson.
      Answer: Perhaps you did not read my post above. ABL stated several times that it was a distinct possibility that the man in the chair was not the pope. He knew that heresy severs a man from the church and spoke of that possibility. I am allowed to adhere to the teachings of Holy Scripture, church documents, doctors of the church and saints on this matter. The "you're not smarter than fill-in-the-blank" is kind of a junior high playground argument. It's Irrelevant. We are trying to discuss Father Kramer's book here. As for "being smart in theological matters", Saint Robert Bellarmine, Saint Paul, Saint Jerome, Saint Alphonsus Ligouri, Saint Francis de Sales, et al. are pretty smart, don't you think?

      2. "recognizing and judging heresy two different things"
      Did anyone ask you to judge? Nope. Nobody asked you to judge. And nobody else is judging, either. I fear you are not studying the sources cited.

      A public pertinacious heretic severs HIMSELF from the church. Saint Robert Bellarmine explains that God has already judged him. Saint Alphonsus Ligouri, Saint Ambrose, Saint Francis de Sales, Saint Jerome, and Saint Paul agree. There is no judgement or "sentence" necessary. There, don't you feel better? You don't have to judge. God did it for you. You can relax.

      3. "they may not realize it (his heresy)"
      I presume that you have studied Francis enough that you know better. He has been eloquently and persistently warned in writing by hundreds of scholars, theologians, priests, and his own cardinals. You would really have to be willfully blind to believe that he does not know he is teaching against the gospel of Jesus Christ.

      4. "What we are enjoined to do in the gospels"...
      Read Galatians 1:8 one more time. Saint Paul even says it TWICE just to be sure you get it.

      5. "Our Lady never said anything about deposing popes"
      This is your most comical one. Nobody is talking about deposing popes. Why would anyone depose a pope? And of course we pray for popes, and even our enemies the fake ones. Irrelevant.

      6. "not content with recognizing heresy and avoiding it"
      Are you "content" having a heretic pope? I'm not.

      Does that make me over-zealous? I think not.
      As Saint Robert Bellarmine explains in his treatise on the matter, it is impossible to avoid one's own head. You can't "avoid" Francis if he is a pope. If he is not a pope and instead is an heretical imposter, you can't be "content" with that. I could cite many church documents which explain your responsibility to defend the faith, but I have a feeling that you are more of a talking point repeater than a reader. Calling a bold public pertinacious heretic a Vicar of Christ is a bit blasphemous, don't you think?

      Lastly, don't worry. Studying the faith will not disturb your peace of soul. You may want to start with Bellarmine, but Father Kramer makes it really easy by summarizing church teaching right here on RTT. From the things you are saying, I can see that you have not even read the passages from Father Kramer's book. Good luck, and get studying! We are not to hide our light beneath bushel baskets.

    3. Virginie, You need to reconsider your position, for it is a very grave sin to believe that a true pope can actively promulgate heresy. If you believe otherwise, it is because you have been misled by fake traditionalists who falsify both history and Catholic doctrine to teach that certain popes (notably Liberius, Honorius and John XXII) did exactly that. Michael Davies is the person chiefly to blame for this scandalous misrepresentation of the true facts; his 'scholarship' was shoddy.

      Furthermore, you do not appear to understand that the faithful are called to judge heresy in the EXTERNAL FORUM alone. You write, 'Recognizing heretical pronouncements and judging that someone is in fact a heretic, are two different things.' That is false. If a person who should know better deliberately gainsays Catholic doctrine in public, then the faithful are duty bound to presume that he is a heretic and automatically cut off from the Church. This excision happens automatically, by Divine Law, without any need of a canonical trial and ensuing excommunication. To obstinately persist in recognizing such a manifest heretic as a member of the Catholic Church is a mortal sin. We are absolutely forbidden to profess communion with one who seeks to rend the One true Faith. We are absolutely forbidden to lend him the authority he needs to spread his pernicious doctrine. If we pretend humility to excuse our disobedience in this regard, we deceive but ourselves, for God abominates those who aid and abet His enemies.

      In recognizing that Jorge Bergoglio is a fake pope, one is Not deposing a pope, one is simply accepting the clear evidence that he was never a true pope in the first place. No one on earth can depose a true pope, not even an Ecumenical Council. If a true pope is deposed, it can only be because he has deposed himself through heresy, resignation, or patent insanity. But none of this happened in Mr Bergoglio's case, since he was a manifest heretic before his counterfeit accession to the papacy. Moreover, he is not even a priest, having been invalidly ordained under the Pauline Ordinal (the 'ordinal' put out by Antipope Paul VI).

      One should not follow the SSPX, one should follow the Catholic Church. One should not seek companionship by communing with false shepherds like Bishop Richard Williamson and his misguided flock.

    4. Listen to this man, Timothy Johnson. He is 100% correct.

  4. The explanation by Father Kramer regarding heresy/heretics is a good detailed text book one. However, when it is applied to the last 6 false 'popes', it is rather moot. These guys are not catholics. They are Nazi jews. Nazi jews cannot be pope, whether they dress up in a pope's costume or not. Father Kramer must admit the truth. Why he hasn't, is a very good question.
    Why, Father Kramer? Please answer. You owe it to Catholics and to God. Please.

    The Catholic Church has been openly infiltrated since the death of the saintly Pope Pius XII, who, by the way, before his own death, chose his own successor (Cardinal Guiseppe Siri). Utlimately, Siri was indeed elected. They exiled him and eventually murdered him too. The jews continue to attack the Catholic faith; the Church, the faithful, the Sacraments. It's all gone.

    READ ALL ABOUT IT, for a very helpful and concise explanation as to the 6 false/fake 'popes' and how they came into being. You will be shocked.


    The "pope" (Frankie) is NOT a pope. He's a jew. Fact: The g-o-d of the jews is satan. After the MURDER of Pope Pius XII (that's correct...MURDER), the following took place. But first, Frankie was NOT validly elected because the Papal conclave, by design, was invalidated within the hour, by the 'forced' resignation of the validly elected Cardinal Guiseppi Siri (who took the name of Pope Gregory XVII, the real Pope and who was sent into guarded exile in FRANCE, by B'nai Brith, (who had already infiltrated the Vatican) under the threat of death to himself and his family. Our saintly Pope Gregory XVII was then later murdered by B'nai Brith decades later as he finally had help within the international priesthood to reveal the truth to the entire world).
    Remember, it was the jews who called for the crucified death of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, the Son of God).

    It will take an act of God to revalidate the Papal Conclave. He will, but not until after the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, which will NOT occur until after the end of the 3rd day of WWIII (this war has to be DECLARED and signed by a 'valid' President of the USA (not by someone who takes over by a coupe/dictator).

    In short, all so-called "popes" since Pope Gregory XVII, have not been popes at all. In fact, they have been jews and even the devil himself, in disguise. They can dress them up in the costume of a pope, but they are not. It's a full-fledged impossibility. There have been no Papal Conclaves, sanctioned by God and the God the Hoy Ghost, since Pope Gregory XVII was FORCED to resign (against his will), thusly and effectively invaliding any and all future conclaves. This was done by the jews with purpose and malice to destroy the Catholic Church from both within and without (as far back as 1958). The only ones who knew the scam, were the jews.

    Catholics knew nothing all this time. Padre Pio knew though. He refused to say the new mass because he knew it wasn't the Tridentine Mass. The one and only Holy Mass of all time.

    The new Mass is satan's Mass (satan's mess). Catholics have been wasting their time going to what they think is still their "church". The 7 Holy Sacraments, ordained by Jesus Christ, Himself, have been restructured to NOT be the Sacraments at all. And I do mean ALL of them. It's not and it has not been the Catholic Church since the death of Pope Pius XII. That's when the conclave was invalidated and that's when the forced resignation of our last pope occurred (OCTOBER, 1958).

  5. Heresy has been consistently taught by all the popes since the Council. Archbishop Lefebvre knew it, Dr. Chojnowski knew it, we all knew it. Still, +Lefebvre did not proclaim the seat vacant, neither did the good Doctor to my knowlege. So what has changed? Why now suddently is the pope no longer the pope? The heresies contained in the Council were extreme and the resulting loss of Faith has been extreme and evident for 50 years.
    Where does this sudden indignation come from? Why now is the seat vacant?

    1. Virginie, one must study ALL, of ABL's speeches and writings, not just what is doled out to you as a talking point from the pulpit. Study him deeply. My goodness, he was already talking about the possibility of Paul Vl being an antipope in 1976! He repeated over and over again that the conciliar church is NOT the catholic church and that Rome was in apostasy. He wasn't talking about the mayor, you know. I read an article this morning written about Muller, head of the CDF under Ratzinger's pontificate. He was making it abundantly clear that the doctrinal constitutions of Vatican ll are...ummmm....doctrine. The talking point that Vll is only "pastoral" is complete fiction. The fiction of "ABL never considered sedevacantism feasible" and the fiction of "Vatican ll is not doctrinal" together make up the BIG LIE which has enabled the attempted destruction of the faith by the modernists. Yes, it is difficult to face. If you accept Vatican ll, stop being a traddy, blow up a balloon and enjoy the floor show. If you reject Vatican ll, you must reject those who are forcing it upon us as doctrine. The burden is on catholics to prove how rejection of Vatican ll and acceptance of its promulgators is possible.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog
