Wednesday, September 2, 2015

How does Fr.Paul Kramer offer Holy Mass after changing the Nicene Creed ?

19 h
Father Kramer changes Nicene Creed in the Mass.
Michelle Maher31 ago
Where did you find this info. Please show me.

Question:Father Kramer changes Nicene Creed in the Mass ?
He has written an article which was posted on some traditionalist websites.1 I have responded to that article on my blog and on those forums 2
Fr.Paul Kramer:
Dear Feeneyite,

You argue as one who has passed through Alice's looking glass into the irrational realm of the fairies. You stubbornly insist that doctrine of Baptism of Desire & Baptism of Blood is a "common error",

Yes, when it is inferred that the baptism of desire is objectively visible to us and then assumed to be an explicit exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is a common error.

No,when it is reasoned that the baptism of desire is not objectively visible to us.Since there are no known cases it cannot be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It does not contradict Fr.Leonard Feeney.
Fr.Paul Kramer:
and "heresy", that it offends against the dogma of nulla salus extra Ecclesiam (EENS), and has been infallibly condemned by the Council of Trent.

To infer that there are known exceptions to the thrice defined dogma is heresy.
Then to infer that these cases, invisible for us, are visible, is irrational and a falsehood.
Fr.Paul Kramer:
If that were indeed the case, then what would be the source of this heresy? The source of this "heresy" would be the writings of the Fathers & Doctors of the Church!
None of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church have said that the baptism of desire is explicit for us. Reason tells us that it is subjective, theoretical, accepted in principle or faith, only.
No Father or Doctor of the Church has said that the baptism of desire is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is a possibility but not an exception to the dogma.
Fr.Paul Kramer:
The worst propagators of this heresy would be the Doctors of the Church, -- and the popes who have either, 1) taught it explicitly, 2) formally approved of it by declaring the authors of this heresy to be Doctors of the Church, 3) by authorizing this heresy to be officially taught by the ordinary & universal magisterium throughout the world (especially in the catechisms and the sacred liturgy), and 4) by never having issued any explicit condennation of it...
They have not said that the baptism of desire is explicit.
When Fr.Paul Kramer suggests that these cases are exceptions to the dogma he implies that they are explicit to be exceptions. So a defined dogma whose text does not mention any exceptions, has exceptions for him.The  meaning of the dogma has been changed with these alleged exceptions which are unknown to him in personal life.A  defined dogma has been rejected and those who still support the traditional interpretation are pejoratively referred to as Feeneyites, as if the popes and saints were not Feeneyites too.
Then not only has he rejected the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict he has also rejected the Nicene Creed in which we say 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin'.For him there are three baptisms, water, desire and blood.
The baptism of water is visible and repeatable and known. Where are the baptism of desire and blood cases, without the baptism of water, which are known to him personally?
Not only has he changed the Nicene Creed with new baptisms of persons unknown to him, he uses the same irrationality to interpret Vatican Council II.For him Vatican Council II has changed the old ecclesiology since LG 16 etc refer to explicit cases , without the baptism of water.So Vatican Council II is a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the old ecclesiology.Obviously if in your premise, implicit cases are explicit, invisible cases are considered visible, then Vatican Council II would be a break with the old ecclesiology and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Are those saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16), elements of sanctification and truth(LG 8), seeds of the Word(AG 11) etc are known to us in the present times ? They are explicit for us or implicit for us?For him they are explicit since they are exceptions to the old ecclesiology which he thinks has been changed by Vatican Council II.
Where in the writings of the Fathers & Doctors of the Church do they say that implicit cases are explicit for us ? This has to be wrongly inferred. Since they were not irrational.
The other sedevacantists, Bishops Pirvanus, Bishop Sanborn and Fr.Anthony Cekada, use the same irrational reasoning.
-Lionel Andrades

Fr. Paul Kramer infers cases of the baptism of desire are visible for us.So they are exceptions to the dogma for him



No comments: