"Fr." Paul Kramer denies Catholic salvation dogma

A so-called “priest” named Paul Kramer recently called the Catholic Church’s dogmatic teaching, that no one can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism, “heretical.”  Kramer also says that those who hold the Church’s teaching on this point, and reject the false doctrine of “baptism of desire,” commit mortal sin and are “formal heretics.”  The audio below contains comments about the heretic.

13 Minute Audio about the Heretic "Fr." Paul Kramer (Audio)

KRAMER'S COMPLETE REJECTION OF DEFINED DOGMA

Concerning the dogmatic definition from the Council of Florence quoted below, which declares that all who die as non-Catholics are lost, Paul Kramer writes:

The Devil’s Final Battle, compiled and edited by “Fr.” Paul Kramer, p. 69: “This teaching must not be understood to preclude the possibility of salvation for those who do not become formal members of the Church if, through no fault of their own, they do not know of their objective obligation to do so… only God knows whom He will save (in some extraordinary manner) from among the great mass of humanity which has not exteriorly professed the Catholic religion.”

This is complete heresy.  Kramer boldly rejects the dogma.  He redefines it contrary to what the Church has defined and declared.  Despite the dogmatic definition which states that all who die as non-Catholics are lost, he teaches the opposite: that any of them might be saved.  He’s a complete heretic.  Kramer holds and teaches the objective-subjective heresy: that God objectively reveals that you have to be Catholic to be saved, but subjectively we just don’t know who is saved.  According to Kramer, God might extraordinarily save anyone in any situation, even though Catholic dogma teaches that only those who die as Catholics can be saved.  His position is heretical.  It is modernism.  It denies that dogmas are truths fallen from Heaven.  The idea that dogmas are not truths fallen from Heaven was condemned by Pope Pius X in the Errors of the Modernists, Lamentabile, Error #22.  Moreover, the idea that dogmas are to be held only according to a practical sense, as perceptive norms for acting and not as norms for believing, was condemned as modernism.  In other words, the idea that we act as if there is no salvation outside the Church, and we tell people that they need to become Catholic, but we just don’t know for sure what the reality is and how God works it out in His sight, is heresy.  It’s impossible for God to lie (Hebrews 6:18).  Thus, when God reveals something as a truth of faith, it’s not only what He's telling the Church, but it’s what He holds to be true in reality and in His sight.  Hence, the idea that He could extraordinarily save people in a way that’s contrary to His revelation is heretical.  It’s blasphemous.  It holds that dogmas are not certain and infallible truths of faith.   Since Kramer applies his false idea to the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation, he obviously holds that souls can be saved in any religion.  He rejects the dogma as the Church has defined it – period.  His position necessarily means that anyone could be saved by God in any religion – people who don’t believe in Christ, people who reject Christ, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, etc.  Kramer has no faith. 

He's a pernicious heretic who leads people to Hell.

THE DOGMATIC DEFINITION, TO BE BELIEVED AS THE CHURCH HAS "ONCE DECLARED" (VATICAN I)

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, 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 or heretics and schismatics, 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; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH'S INFALLIBLE AND MAGISTERIAL TEACHING ON WATER BAPTISM, WHICH OBSTINATE "BAPTISM OF DESIRE" HERETICS (SUCH AS KRAMER) REJECT

Here are a few quotes:

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation: let him be anathema.”

Pope Clement V, The Council of Vienne, 1311-1312: “Besides, one baptism regenerating all who are baptized in Christ must be faithfully confessed by all just as ‘one God and one faith’ [Eph. 4:5], which celebrated in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit we believe to be the perfect remedy for salvation for both adults and children.”

Pope Clement V, The Council of Vienne, 1311-1312: “But since one is the universal Church, of regulars and seculars, of prelates and subjects, of exempt and non-exempt, outside of which absolutely (omnino) no one (nullus) is saved (salvatur), one is the Lord, one is the Faith and one is the baptism of all.”

Consider these two dogmatic statements from The Council of Vienne on baptism as a unit.  All in the Church (outside of which no one at all is saved) have one and the same baptism; and that one baptism (which all in the Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, have) is of water.

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “With the admonition of the apostle that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5) may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever.  They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him.  Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate’(Athanasian Creed)."

Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, The Council of Chalcedon, 451: “Let him heed what the blessed apostle Peter preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ’s blood (1 Pet. 1:2); and let him not skip over the same apostle’s words, knowing that you have been redeemed from the empty way of life you inherited from your fathers, not with corruptible gold and silver but by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, as of a lamb without stain or spot (1 Pet. 1:18). Nor should he withstand the testimony of blessed John the apostle: and the blood of Jesus, the Son of God, purifies us from every sin (1 Jn. 1:7); and again, This is the victory which conquers the world, our faith. Who is there who conquers the world save one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? It is He, Jesus Christ, who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood. And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies. For there are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. (1 Jn. 5:4-8) IN OTHER WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF BAPTISM. THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE. NONE OF THEM IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS.”

Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas (#15), Dec. 11, 1925, addressed to the universal Church, concerning entrance into the Kingdom of God: “Which Kingdom indeed is set forth in the Gospels as one into which men prepare to enter by doing penance but are unable to enter except through faith and baptism, which, although it is an external rite, nevertheless signifies and effects an interior regeneration.”

Pope Pius XII Mediator Dei (#47), Nov. 20, 1947, addressed to the universal Church, referring to the Sacrament of Baptism: “… the washing of baptism distinguishes and separates all Christians [christianos omnes] from the rest whom this stream of atonement has not washed and who are not members of Christ…”

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 22), June 29, 1943, addressed to the universal Church: “Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith…”

 ADDENDUM: PAUL KRAMER ANATHEMATIZES HIMSELF

There’s an interesting update to our recent post on Paul Kramer.  Kramer was apparently arguing with someone about the necessity of Baptism.  He attempted to address the teaching of Jesus, Scripture and Catholic dogma, that one must be “born again of water and the Holy Ghost” to enter Heaven.  It’s always interesting when “baptism of desire” heretics attempt to explain their position.  If they even begin to interact with the dogmatic arguments which refute it (a rare occurrence), they always wind up contradicting themselves and/or falling into new errors and heresies.  That’s why they typically choose to ignore all the arguments which obliterate their position – preferring, instead, to talk endlessly about objections for “baptism of desire” that have already been completely refuted.

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”

So, in attempting to explain how “baptism of desire” is compatible with the dogma that one must be “reborn of water and the Holy Ghost” to be saved, Paul Kramer falls into another significant and very revealing heresy.

Supporters of “baptism of desire” typically admit that “baptism of desire” is not a sacrament and does not provide the “rebirth of water and the Spirit.”  “Baptism of desire”, by definition, lacks the “water” of Baptism (the matter of the Sacrament).  To assert that it is a sacrament would be theologically absurd and heretical.  While admitting that “baptism of desire” isn’t a sacrament, supporters of “baptism of desire” will generally contend that the “true understanding” of John 3:5, and the Church’s teaching on it, is that being “reborn of water” is not absolutely necessary.  That contention is of course false and inconsistent with Catholic teaching, as the passage from Florence above and many other arguments prove.  Kramer, however, has invented his own heresy on the matter.  He actually argues that the recipients of “baptism of desire” are “reborn by water and the Holy Ghost”! 

Faced with the evidence in Trent and Florence, that the Church teaches that no one enters Heaven without being reborn of water and the Spirit, Kramer writes:

“Fr.” Paul Kramer: “I have already theologically demonstrated previously, by way of a critical analysis of the Latin texts of the Decree on Justification (and related canons), that Chapter 4 defines that one who has been justified by the laver of regeneration or the votum of it, to have been reborn by water and the Holy Ghost.”

“Fr.” Paul Kramer: “First, it must be noted that Chapter 4 of the Decree on Justification already defined that those who have been justified by the laver of regeneration or the votum of it, have been reborn by water and the Holy Ghost…”

This is an incredible assertion.  He even makes it twice.  His statement is completely heretical.  Many supporters of “baptism of desire” might even agree.  Kramer truly doesn’t know what he’s talking about.  In taking such a position he proves, once again, that he has been anathematized.

It’s dogmatically defined (by both Florence and Trent) that the rebirth of “water and the Holy Ghost” involves REAL AND NATURAL WATER in the Sacrament of Baptism.  In Exultate Deo, Florence states that the rebirth “of water and the Spirit” refers to the Sacrament and that “the matter of this sacrament is real and natural water” (Materia huius sacramenti est aqua vera et naturalis).  It uses the demonstrative adjective “huius” (of this) connected with “sacramenti” (sacrament) to define the “rebirth of water and the Spirit” mentioned by Jesus as the one which involves “real and natural water” (vera et naturalis) “of this sacrament” (huius sacramenti).

Primum omnium sacramentorum locum tenet sanctum baptisma, quod vitae spiritualis ianua est : per ipsum enim membra Christi ac de corpore efficimur Ecclesiae. Et cum per primum hominem mors introierit in universos (cf: Rom 5, 12), nisi ex aqua et Spiritu renascamur, non possumus ut inquit Veritas, in regnum caelorum introire (cf. Jo 3, 5 ). Materia huius sacramenti est aqua vera et naturalis.

If that weren’t enough proof that it’s heretical to assert that one can be “reborn of WATER and the Spirit” without real and natural water in the Sacrament of Baptism, we have Canon 2 of Trent on Baptism:

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra:

"Si quis dixerit, aquam veram et naturalem non esse de necessitate baptismi, atque ideo verba illa Domini nostri Iesu Christi: 'Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto' [Io 3, 5] ad metaphoram aliquam detorserit: A.S."

“If anyone should say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account should distort those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], into some metaphor: let him be anathema.”

Here we see that to assert that the rebirth of “water and the Holy Spirit” does not mean real and natural water, but spiritual water or metaphorical water, as Kramer does, is specifically anathematized heresy!  Kramer has fallen into this embarrassing and outrageous heresy, which would put him outside the Church if he weren’t already outside of it, because he is arrogantly, obstinately and pertinaciously defending heresy.  In the same piece in which he teaches the aforementioned heresy, he again condemns people who hold the Catholic position that everyone must be born again of water and the Spirit in the Sacrament to be saved (Council of Florence).  When heretics rail against the truth, God often allows them to fall into even bigger mistakes.  That’s clearly what happened here.

By the way, it should be noted that Canon 2 on Baptism would not be the first passage to bring forward to demonstrate that one must be baptized to be saved.  Exultate Deo from the Council of Florence, Can. 5 of Trent on the Sacrament of Baptism, and many other arguments should be mentioned first.  However, when “BOD” heretics attempt to circumvent the teaching of the Church, that one must be “reborn of water and the Spirit,” they can sometimes fall into heresy against Canon 2 on the back end of the argument, if you will.  That is to say, if, in desperation, they assert that “baptism of desire” somehow satisfies the requirement to be “born again of water,” at that point they fall into heresy against Canon 2 on what “the water” of John 3:5 necessarily and dogmatically means (real and natural water).

It’s also noteworthy that certain “baptism of desire” supporters, oblivious to the heresy being fed to them by Kramer, were applauding his response.  That’s truly an exercise in self-condemnation.  In their blindness, they were only cheering a man for rejecting a defined dogma, distorting the words of Jesus Christ in direct opposition to Catholic teaching, and paving their own path to damnation.  They are truly sons of Hell (Mt. 23:15), enemies of Christ and His Church.

Another reason Kramer fell headlong into heresy on this point is that Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent declares that Jesus’ declaration in John 3:5 is true “as it is written” (sicut scriptum est).  That is of course directly incompatible with “baptism of desire,” which posits salvation without rebirth of water and the Spirit.  If “baptism of desire” were true (and it’s not), then the proper understanding of John 3:5 would not be “as it is written.”  But in every single dogmatic text on John 3:5, including Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent, those words of Jesus are understood as they are written.  It would of course make no sense at all for Trent to be teaching that one can be saved without rebirth of water by “baptism by desire,” while in the very same sentence declaring that Jesus’ declaration in John 3:5 is to be understood “as it is written.”  That’s another proof that Sess.  6, Chap. 4 of Trent did not teach that one can be justified by desire, as our article on that matter, a careful examination of the text, and a clear grammatical and dogmatic precedent proves.

Perceiving the problem, namely, that the Church (and the very passage of Sess. 6, Chap. 4) understands John 3:5 “as it is written,” Kramer chose to adopt the novel heresy that people who aren’t baptized are somehow “born again of water and the Spirit.”  In doing so he fell under the anathema of the aforementioned dogma against twisting Jesus’ words, and adopted a position that’s rejected by almost all of his fellow “baptism of desire” heretics.  Just as the more Antipope Francis talks the more proof we have that the Chair of St. Peter is vacant, the more “baptism of desire” heretics attempt to explain their position the more evidence we have for why it’s false.

Finally, the reader should remember that the inconsistency and the outrageous heresy articulated by Kramer on this issue arose from his attempt to address just one angle of the argument.  The number of contradictions and errors would only grow in direct proportion to the number of attempts he made to address dogmatic arguments against his position.  There is of course the distinct but related matter of whether “baptism of desire” (putting aside what they think “born again of water” means) even grants the grace of Baptism.  Their attempts to answer that question only yield more heresies and contradictions.  The same could be said of their responses to numerous other dogmatic arguments against their position.  That’s because “baptism of desire” is an utterly false, completely indefensible false doctrine of man.  Only bad-willed individuals and heretics obstinately adhere to it in the face of the irrefutable dogmatic arguments against it.

KRAMER DOES NOT ACCEPT OUR DEBATE CHALLENGE

In July of 2014 I wrote to Kramer and challenged him to a debate on the issue of 'baptism of desire.'

July 9, 2014

To Paul Kramer.  My name is Bro. Peter Dimond.  Our website is www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com It recently came to our attention that you condemn as ‘heretical’ the position that no one can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism.  You also condemn those who adhere to that position (i.e., those who don’t believe in ‘baptism of desire’) as ‘heretics.’  In charity I must tell you that your accusations are false and your position is wrong.  Your position is actually contrary to Catholic teaching, as the material we have published on Outside the Church There is No Salvation and the Church’s teaching on Baptism show.  The Church indeed infallibly teaches that no one can enter Heaven without receiving the Sacrament of Baptism and having the Catholic faith.  You condemn the Church’s infallible and magisterial teaching as heretical.  That’s a grave sin and demonstrates that you are in heresy.  As you may know already, we discuss and refute your claims and your false position on this matter in the material on our website and in this file.

“Fr.” Paul Kramer denies Catholic salvation dogma

Sadly, you believe souls can be saved in false religions, contrary to Catholic dogma.   For example, this paragraph, which is from a book you edited, is a denial of the Church’s infallible teaching on Outside the Church There is No Salvation:

The Devil’s Final Battle, compiled and edited by “Fr.” Paul Kramer, p. 69: “This teaching must not be understood to preclude the possibility of salvation for those who do not become formal members of the Church if, through no fault of their own, they do not know of their objective obligation to do so… only God knows whom He will save (in some extraordinary manner) from among the great mass of humanity which has not exteriorly professed the Catholic religion.”

This statement, which you endorsed, means that souls could be saved in non-Catholic religions.  It is a denial of defined Catholic dogma.  Your position on ‘baptism of desire’ is false and indefensible.  It cannot withstand careful scrutiny or cross examination, as I would show if we debated the issue.

So, I challenge you to a recorded telephone debate about ‘baptism of desire’ or some aspect of it.  Let me know if you are interested.

If you don’t respond, I will assume that you don’t accept the challenge.  We desire your conversion.  However, as the file above mentions and demonstrates, you are in heresy and deeply in sin for viciously condemning Catholic teaching on this matter.  You are a heretic and on the road to Hell.  Unless you were re-ordained, you are also not a true ‘priest’, having been ordained in the invalid New Rite.

Moreover, your position that Francis is not the pope, but apparently that the previous pre-Vatican II ‘popes’ are true popes, is illogical.  It’s contrary to Catholic teaching as well.  You also probably adopted it because it’s more palatable to men to reject Francis than to reject Benedict XVI, etc., even though the other antipopes were also manifest heretics.  It’s another example of how you don’t have the faith and don’t stand for the truth.

-Bro. Peter Dimond

Not surprisingly, Kramer did not respond.  He wants no part of such a debate.  In a debate his heretical and contradictory position would be (further) refuted and exposed. 

“Baptism of Desire” Buried (video)

Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation (book)

“Baptism of Desire” Refuted – Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4 (article)

St. Alphonsus' Blatant Error on 'Baptism of Desire' (article)

How Can ‘Baptism of Desire’ Be Contrary to Dogma? (An important section of the debate below, which discusses how saints and popes have been wrong about dogmatic issues without becoming heretics)

‘Baptism of Desire’ Debate: Catechism of Trent – Council of Florence (debate)

www.vaticancatholic.com