Post by Eric Gajewski on Apr 23, 2018 21:17:21 GMT
TRADCATKNIGHT: Fr. Kramer Refutes Sean Johnson
What Sean Johnson hasn't figured out is that the Salza/Siscoe critique of Fr. Kramer's interpretation of Bellarmine is based on the totally gratuitous and false assumptions that, 1) Fr. Kramer does not understand Cajetan's argument, which Bellarmine refutes. (Although Salza & Siscoe speak only of Bellarmine's "attempted refutation" of Cajetan.) Cajetan's argument is presented in my book. I know perfectly well what Bellarmine was refuting; and I present a much more in depth critical examination of Bellarmine's doctrine on this point than anyone else who is writing on the topic at the present time; and 2) that Fr. Kramer fails to take into account Bellarmine's refutation of the Second Opinion; according to which a pope who is put into the papacy by men is not removed from the papacy without the judgment of men.
tradcatknight.blogspot.com/2018/04/fr-kramer-refutes-sean-johnson.html
What Sean Johnson hasn't figured out is that the Salza/Siscoe critique of Fr. Kramer's interpretation of Bellarmine is based on the totally gratuitous and false assumptions that, 1) Fr. Kramer does not understand Cajetan's argument, which Bellarmine refutes. (Although Salza & Siscoe speak only of Bellarmine's "attempted refutation" of Cajetan.) Cajetan's argument is presented in my book. I know perfectly well what Bellarmine was refuting; and I present a much more in depth critical examination of Bellarmine's doctrine on this point than anyone else who is writing on the topic at the present time; and 2) that Fr. Kramer fails to take into account Bellarmine's refutation of the Second Opinion; according to which a pope who is put into the papacy by men is not removed from the papacy without the judgment of men.
tradcatknight.blogspot.com/2018/04/fr-kramer-refutes-sean-johnson.html