It is currently Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:18 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 
 Fr. Paul Kramer a sedevacantist! 
Author Message

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Fr. Paul Kramer a sedevacantist!
Fr. Paul Kramer said:

Quote:
"Pope" Francis in Evangelii Gaudium n. 247: "We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked". This text is an explicit profession of heresy, directly opposed to the solemn dogmatic definition of Pope Eugenius III and the Ecumenical Council of Florence, and the doctrine taught by the supreme magisterium of Pope Benedict XIV in Ex Quo Primum, set forth repeatedly and explicitly citing the definition of Florence, to wit, that the Mosaic covenant has been "revoked" and "abrogated". I have been saying for years that when a "pope" will officially teach explicit and clear heresy flatly contradicting the infallibly defined dogma of the Catholic faith, then you will know that he is the false pope prophecied in many Church approved prophecies and Marian apparitions. St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alohonsus Liguori, St. Antoninus and Pope Innocent III all teach that when the pope demonstrates himself to be a manifest heretic, i.e. a plainly manifested public heretic, he ceases to be pope (or, if already was a public heretic he was invalidly elected) because he is not a Catholic -- not a member of the Catholic Church. Bellarmine explains that the Roman Pontiff is the visible head of the Church, and the head is a member. One who is not a member cannot be the head, and therefore the election to the supreme pontificate of a public heretic is canonically null & void. The heresy of Bergoglio in no. 247 is such a clear cut case of manifest, public heresy, expressed in stark, unequivocal terms, that it can be said without doubt that if this proposition of no. 247 is not manifestly heretical, then nothing else can be said to be so. It is morally impossible that one who manifestly displays such clearly expressed contempt for a defined dogma of faith by plainly denying it, can be believed to validly hold the office of Roman Pontiff. St. Francis of Assisi foretold of the uncanonically elected pope who would not be "a true pastor but a destroyer". Bergoglio plainly fits the description.


This was from his facebook page.
(source: Fisheaters)

Another source: Dimond Bros

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Sun Dec 01, 2013 5:20 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:25 pm
Posts: 80
New post Re: Fr. Paul Kramer a sedevacantist!
He also said this on Nov. 30th in a comment on a Facebook thread:

"I am not 'sede', and I won't be until the pope dies. Benedict is still pope, not Bergoglio."


Sun Dec 01, 2013 1:59 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 4:08 pm
Posts: 48
New post Re: Fr. Paul Kramer a sedevacantist!
Actually, it would appear he has joined the growing ranks of sedebenediceplenism. https://www.facebook.com/paul.kramer.1023611?fref=ts

I don't really know how to use facebook, but scroll down a bit and you'll see it.


Sun Dec 01, 2013 2:02 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Fr. Paul Kramer a sedevacantist!
This idea that, somehow, Ratzinger's resignation is now void is one I just don't understand.

(Not that I ever thought he was pope. But I just don't see how these people who just can't abide sedevacantism can simply declare Ratzinger somehow regained the papacy because they see the reality of Bergoglio.)


Sun Dec 01, 2013 10:07 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 9:15 pm
Posts: 60
New post Re: Fr. Paul Kramer a sedevacantist!
TKGS wrote:
This idea that, somehow, Ratzinger's resignation is now void is one I just don't understand.

(Not that I ever thought he was pope. But I just don't see how these people who just can't abide sedevacantism can simply declare Ratzinger somehow regained the papacy because they see the reality of Bergoglio.)


It really is baffling, isn't it?!

As I recall, some people in the "sedebenediciplenist" camp don't even regard Ratzinger's resignation as legitimate due to some error in the Latin text (more on them shortly).

But I'd love to know -- what makes Bergoglio's Apostolic Exhortation so much worse than kissing the Koran and praying John the Baptist protect Islam? Or any number of things Montini said at the UN?

Already, just as there were those who defended Wotyla's indefensible actions, we now have the Internet Swiss Guard of the Conciliar Church spouting off that Bergo's Apostolic Exhortation is not heresy because he didn't use the phrase "Contrary to what [this or that council] taught" . . . I kid you not!

Looking again at the original formulation of sedebenediciplenism as elaborated by Mr. Aversa* I think it clear we can further subdivide this growing niche-of-a-niche into two groups: those who were sedevacantist prior to Bergoglio who have since regarded Ratzinger as legitimate post-resignation (I think I recently saw somebody compare this in an apt way to the old Montini-ears theories), and those who were sedeplenist prior to Bergoglio and still consider themselves to be sedeplenist... merely acknowledging Ratzinger as pope instead of Bergoglio, without throwing away Roncali-Wotyla. Fr. Kramer of course appears to fit the latter category. Perhaps we could refer to these as "sedebenediciplenist conciliar legitimists," and persons in the other category as "sedebenediciplenist conciliar illegitimists."

Like I said in the other thread, just when you think you've seen everything...









*the following is the original formulation of the theory:
Alan Aversa wrote:
proposed terminology:
sedebenediciplenism /sˌɛdɪbənɪdˈɪsɪplˌiːnɪzəm/ = the position where Benedict XVI is considered a true pope and Francis I is considered an anti-pope. Benedict XVI—initially not a true pope because of his leadership of the non-Catholic, schismatic Conciliar Church sect, although validly elected pope for the Catholic Church—became a true pope of the Catholic Church when he resigned his leadership role of the Conciliar Church on February 28, 2013. According to sedebenediciplenists, Benedict XVI did public penance for his ecumenical sins by promulgating Summorum Pontificum, un-"excommunicating" the SSPX bishops, disciplining LCWR and related groups, and supporting the SSPX; thus, he is no longer a heretic and can be and is a valid pope of the Catholic Church.

From viewtopic.php?p=15741#p15741

_________________
Thomas Williams


Sun Dec 01, 2013 11:28 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: Fr. Paul Kramer a sedevacantist!
TKGS wrote:
But I'd love to know -- what makes Bergoglio's Apostolic Exhortation so much worse than kissing the Koran and praying John the Baptist protect Islam? Or any number of things Montini said at the UN?
Even JPII even said/wrote that the Old Covenant is still in force today, didn't he?

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Last edited by Alan Aversa on Mon Dec 02, 2013 2:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

Mon Dec 02, 2013 1:40 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 11:18 pm
Posts: 20
New post Re: Fr. Paul Kramer a sedevacantist!
Thomas Williams wrote:
those who were sedeplenist prior to Bergoglio and still consider themselves to be sedeplenist... merely acknowledging Ratzinger as pope instead of Bergoglio,


The post-modern edition of the Siri Theory?


Mon Dec 02, 2013 2:37 am
Profile

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 9:15 pm
Posts: 60
New post Re: Fr. Paul Kramer a sedevacantist!
Alan Aversa wrote:
TKGS wrote:
But I'd love to know -- what makes Bergoglio's Apostolic Exhortation so much worse than kissing the Koran and praying John the Baptist protect Islam? Or any number of things Montini said at the UN?
Even JPII even said/write that the Old Covenant is still in force today, didn't he?


I recall reading something to that effect online, somewhere.

Oddly enough, found a book of Wotyla's in my house a week or two ago, Crossing the Threshold of Hope (I think it's one of his "encyclicals") . . . he offered the following bits which don't quite go the distance Bergoglio's Apostolic Exhortation has, but which nevertheless show a "bizarre-o" version of pre-conciliar Catholic attitudes and theology. Keep a brown paper bag nearby if you're acutely allergic to the V2 modernism ahead:

John Paul II. Crossing the Threshold of Hope. Vittorio Messori ed. New York: Alfred A. Knopf 1994. 96 wrote:
Both religious groups, Catholics and Jews, were united, I presume, by the awareness that they prayed to the same God.


Ibid, 98-100 wrote:
On my pastoral journeys around the world I always try to meet representatives of the Jewish community. But a truly exceptional experience for me was certainly my visit to the synagogue of Rome. The history of the Jews in Rome is a unique chapter in the history of the Jewish people, a chapter closely linked for that matter to The Acts of the Apostles. During that memorable visit, I spoke of the Jews as our elder brothers in the faith. These words were an expression both of the Council's teaching, and a profound conviction on the part of the Church. The Second Vatican Council did not dwell on this subject at length, but what it did affirm embraces an immense reality which is not only religious but also cultural.

This extraordinary people continues to bear signs of its divine election. I said this to an Israeli politician once and he readily agreed, but was quick to add: "If only it could cost less . . . " Israel has truly paid a high price for its "election." Perhaps because of this, Israel has become more similar to the Son of man, who, according to the flesh, was also a son of Israel. The two thousandth anniversary of His coming to the world will be a celebration for Jews as well.

I am pleased that my ministry in the See of Saint Peter has taken place during the period following the Second Vatican Council, when the insights which inspired the Declaration Nostra Aetate are finding concrete expression in various ways. Thus the way two great moments of divine election--the Old and the New Testaments--are drawing closer together.

The New Covenant has its roots in the Old. The time when the people of the Old Covenant will be able to see themselves as part of the New is, naturally, a question to be left to the Holy Spirit. We, as human beings, try only not to put obstacles in the way. The form this "not putting obstacles" takes is certainly dialogue between Christians and Jews, which on the Church's part, is being carried forward by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.

I am also pleased that as a result of the peace process currently taking place, despite setbacks and obstacles, in the Middle East, and thanks also to the initiative of the State of Israel, it became possible to establish diplomatic relations between the Apostolic See and Israel. As for the recognition of the State of Israel, it is important to reaffirm that I myself never had any doubts in this regard.

Once, after the conclusion of one of my meetings with the Jewish community, someone present said: "I want to thank the Pope for all that the Catholic Church has done over the last two thousand years to make the true God known."

These words indirectly indicate how the New Covenant serves to fulfill all that is rooted in the vocation of Abraham, in God's covenant with Israel at Sinai, and in the whole rich heritage of the inspired Prophets who, hundreds of years before that fulfillment, pointed in the Sacred Scriptures to the One whom God would send in the "fullness of time" (cf. Gal 4:4).


Now that all that harebrained nonsense of Wotyla's is out of the way...

Dominic07 wrote:
Thomas Williams wrote:
those who were sedeplenist prior to Bergoglio and still consider themselves to be sedeplenist... merely acknowledging Ratzinger as pope instead of Bergoglio,


The post-modern edition of the Siri Theory?


In a way (although infinitely less credible); but I think it's even more like a spiritual successor to the Montini Prisoner in the Vatican Theory! "He's being ordered to do these things," etc.

_________________
Thomas Williams


Mon Dec 02, 2013 2:58 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: Fr. Paul Kramer a sedevacantist!
Geremia wrote:
Didn't John Paul II also taught that the Old Covenant is still valid? If so, then Fr. Paul Kramer should've considered himself a sedevacantist for a long time now.
Here's something Ratzinger said in his only English-language full-length interview:
Quote:
Raymond: Very important. In God And The World, you reflect a little on Dominus Jesus, a document released in 2000. It was greeted with some controversy, because in it you said, “God did not revoke His covenant to the Israeli people, or the people of Israel, rather; but that Jesus is the Messiah for everyone and therefore, conversion was still necessary, or should be a possibility.” How do you reconcile those two ideas?

Cardinal: Perhaps, it’s not our possibility to reconcile it, to leave it to God. Because two things are very clear in the Holy Scripture. In the Letter of St. Paul to the Romans, he clearly says, “The fidelity of God is absolutely clear. He is faithful to His promises.” And so, the people of Abraham are always God’s people, on the one hand. And he says also clearly, “All Israel will be saved.” But, it’s also clear that Jesus is the Savior, not only of the other peoples, He is a Jew and He is the Savior, especially of His Own people.” St. Bernard of Clairvaux said, “God saved, reserved for Himself, the salvation of Israel. He will do it in His Own Person.” And so, we have to leave it to God’s Self, see, convinced and knowing that Christ is Savior of all of His Own people, and of all people. But how He will do it is in God’s Hand.
I didn't realize the Dominus Jesus discussed the same topic of Evangelli Gaudium 247. ("We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked…").

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Tue Dec 03, 2013 1:40 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:44 am
Posts: 76
New post Re: Fr. Paul Kramer a sedevacantist!
Thomas Williams wrote:
Looking again at the original formulation of sedebenediciplenism as elaborated by Mr. Aversa* I think it clear we can further subdivide this growing niche-of-a-niche into two groups: those who were sedevacantist prior to Bergoglio who have since regarded Ratzinger as legitimate post-resignation (I think I recently saw somebody compare this in an apt way to the old Montini-ears theories), and those who were sedeplenist prior to Bergoglio and still consider themselves to be sedeplenist... merely acknowledging Ratzinger as pope instead of Bergoglio, without throwing away Roncali-Wotyla. Fr. Kramer of course appears to fit the latter category. Perhaps we could refer to these as "sedebenediciplenist conciliar legitimists," and persons in the other category as "sedebenediciplenist conciliar illegitimists."

The sedebenedictiplenist position is a quite predictable one for the more conservative sedeplenists who are shocked by Frankie's in-your-face Modernism -- with Rev. Kramer being Exhibit A -- but are there actually people who consider John XXIII to JP2 antipopes, but Ratzo to be legitimate? That wouldn't make sense to me at all, especially considering Ratzo is the first conciliar antipope to not even be a valid bishop, and he doesn't appear to be any more conservative (or, more to the point, less of a heretic!) than Wojtyla was.


Sun Dec 08, 2013 5:06 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: Fr. Paul Kramer a sedevacantist!
Brendan if you still doubt the whole debate about not being a Bishop makes it impossible to be a true Pope, I would suggest you look at the forum. This is a dead dog that has been beat quite a bit, its pretty clear that the problem is not that they are not even priest or Bishop's its that they are not Catholic. Don't multiply arguments when it does not serve the cause of truth, because then the conversation with the sedeplenist will stick around that point of contention which is not even the real problem.

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Sun Dec 08, 2013 12:39 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:44 am
Posts: 76
New post Re: Fr. Paul Kramer a sedevacantist!
Jorge Armendariz wrote:
Brendan if you still doubt the whole debate about not being a Bishop makes it impossible to be a true Pope, I would suggest you look at the forum. This is a dead dog that has been beat quite a bit, its pretty clear that the problem is not that they are not even priest or Bishop's its that they are not Catholic. Don't multiply arguments when it does not serve the cause of truth, because then the conversation with the sedeplenist will stick around that point of contention which is not even the real problem.

It wasn't my intention to emphasize Ratzo not being a valid bishop, since I know that a non-bishop can be elected Pope. If that's what you thought I was trying to do, then we should just ignore it as a distraction from my main point, which is that Ratzo is not any less of a Modernist than Wojtyla was, and so therefore it wouldn't make sense to be sedevacantist under JP2 but sedebenedictiplenist now.


Sun Dec 08, 2013 11:45 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:00 pm
Posts: 12
New post Re: Fr. Paul Kramer a sedevacantist!
Dominic07 wrote:
Thomas Williams wrote:
those who were sedeplenist prior to Bergoglio and still consider themselves to be sedeplenist... merely acknowledging Ratzinger as pope instead of Bergoglio,


The post-modern edition of the Siri Theory?


The "Siri Theory" is far more credible than Kramer's absurd concept.


Mon Dec 23, 2013 4:20 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: Fr. Paul Kramer a sedevacantist!
A recent Facebook post from Fr. Kramer:
Fr. Paul Kramer wrote:
Bergoglio has a long history of heresy that is well documented. He has for a long time denied the dogma of the cessation of the Mosaic Covenant and its supercession by the New Covenant of Jesus Christ. Unlike the heretical expressions of Montini, Wojtyla & Ratzinger, which are heretical but capable of a benign interpretation, or else ambiguous and convoluted, Bergoglio's denial of defined dogma in no. 247 of Evangelii Gaudium is explicit, direct and univocal so that his meaning can only be that which is expressed by the objective signification of the terms. It's like someone saying, "God the Son did not become incarnate", or, "There are not three persons in one God." Anyone who speaks like that is most certainly a manifest heretic. Bergoglio's proposition is as direct, explicit and univocal as that, so he is without a shadow of doubt a manifest heretic, whereas Roncalli, Montini, Wojtyla, & Ratzinger are not. Unlike Bergoglio, when conscious of the heterodoxy of their positions, Wojtyla & Ratzinger modified their formulations. The dogma of the cessation of the Jewish Covenant and its supercession by the New & Everlasting Covenant of Jesus Christ is the basis for the foundation of the Catholic Church, and therefore was one of the basic dogmas taught to all children in catechism and religion classes before Vatican II, so it is morally inconceivable that Bergoglio is unaware that it is a defined article of faith. Having seen the classroom manuals used in Jesuit faculties in the middle of the last century, it is manifestly evident to me that it is not possible that he be excused for ignorance. Not only did he receive the formal theological training for the priesthood, but Bergoglio was a professor of theology. It is also inconceivable that he would not have researched and systemstically examined the point of doctrine before expressing his position on that point in no. 247 of Evangelii Gaudium.

Pope Innocent III states (Sermo 4) that when a pope "withers away into heresy", "he can be judged by men, or rather can be shown to be already judged" -- thus it is a teaching of papal magisterium that a heretic pope is to be rejected by the faithful like "salt that has lost its savour". Similarly Bellarmine and St. Alphonsus teach that when a pope "falls into manifest heresy" he loses his office. St. Alphonsus teaches that as soon as the pope "falls into heresy, he immediately falls from the pontificate". Those who say only a future pope can make such a judgment teach perversely: since an infidel who has fallen from the supreme pontificate must not be professed by the faithful to be the successor of St. Peter, since that would be professing a lie. God cannot possibly will and command that the Catholic faithful submit to obedience to a false pastor who is outside the Church, because the infinitely good God cannot command us to do evil or profess a lie. Yet, those who teach that we must refrain from making such a judgment and continue to acknoelrdge the heretic as pope until a formal ruling is made by a future pope fall into this perverse error. It is also plainly evident from the text and context of the cited passages of Bellarmine, Innocent III and St. Alphonsus, that to "fall into manifest heresy" or "wither away into heresy" is entirely a unilateral process that does not depend on any judicial sentence -- especially since no tribunal on earth has jurisdiction over a pope. One has the moral duty in conscience to make this kind of judgment when the question of papal heresy arises, since all Catholics are bound by their baptismal vows to be in communion with the successor if St. Peter, and to submit to him in obedience as to the Vicar of Christ: hence, there is the strict moral obligation for Catholics to discern and judge in the matter of a heretic pope to the extent that it is morally possible.
Yet another post from Fr. Kramer:
Quote:
Pope Innocent III teaches on the question of a heretic pope.

Who can "cast him out" "or trample him under foot"? Pope Innocent explains the pope has no superior but God, so no person or tribunal on earth possesses jurisdiction over the pope to pronounce a judicial verdict or sentence on the pope. However, the matter does not end there, "because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged" ("if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged.") In such a case, Pope Innocent teaches that such a "pope" is to be rejected by all Catholics because he is an infidel, i.e., "one who does not believe"; and hence: "In such a case it should be said of him: 'If salt should lose its savour, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled underfoot by men'." (Sermo 4) Thus the papal magisterium on the question of a pope who falls into heresy pronounces that such a one is to be rejected outright as a heretic. St. Robert Bellarmine likewise teaches, "A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be pope and head, just as he automatically ceases to be a Christian and a member of the Church." (De Romano Pontifice II.30) Likewise, St. Alphonsus, "If ever a pope," the holy Doctor explains, "should fall into heresy he would at once fall from the pontificate." (Opera 9: 232) It is a moral imperative that such an infidel "pope" be rejected at once, and that the hierarchy and faithful not wait for a future tribulal or a future pope to pronounce a judicial sentence or confirmation, 1) because one who is indeed an infidel must not be professed to be the Vicar of Christ since to so profess is to profess a lie, 2) one who is in fact an infidel must not be given the assent of the intellect to his false doctrines, and, 3) the perverse laws and precepts the infidel enacts must not be obeyed as if they were coming from one who possessed authority. Hence, those who say we must wait for the official judgment of a future pope teach perversely. The fact that Bellarmine is of the opinion that a true pope would not actually be able to fall into heresy is of no practical consequence, since it is possible for a man to appear to be a legitimate pope even when in fact he is not, since it may be argued that a true pope cannot become a heretic, but a manifest heretic is clearly not a pope even if there is some question whether he was ever validly pope or not, since there is no doubt about a manifest heresy of the heretic.

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Thu Jan 09, 2014 2:44 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: Fr. Paul Kramer a sedevacantist!
His recent post, a few hours ago:
Fr. Paul Kramer wrote:
Some say Wojtyla was a manifest formal heretic, others (like myself) gravely suspected him of that -- but whether formally or merely materially heretical; there's no doubt that he was in heresy whether he knew it or not.
Some Catholics cringe in servile, cowardly fear at the thought of even the mere possibility that the See of Peter may have been vacant since 1958; yet the Church will have to settle the very knotty issue of the conciliar popes -- and for all we know, it may very well come to pass that the magisterium might someday soon declare the conciliar popes to have been antipopes. The greatest persecution in the history of the Church is about to erupt, and will result in an indisputable sede vacante for as long as 25 months (according to one saint). When that happens, Sedevacantism won't be an ism but will be a fact. The 'pope' will be in communion with all religions; and his followers will all be apostates.

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:08 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: Fr. Paul Kramer a sedevacantist!
Fr. Kramer's Facebook page today:
Quote:
This is the post that just got me kicked out of the group "SSPX Faithful":

POPE BENEDICT DID NOT RESIGN THE PAPAL OFFICE, BUT ONLY RENOUNCED THE ACTIVE MINISTRY OF THE OFFICE

In order to understand the precise scope and extent of Benedict XVI's "renunciation" (not "resignation" or "abdication"), one must focus on his words which explain exactly what he renounced:

" Qui permettetemi di tornare ancora una volta al 19 aprile 2005. La gravità della decisione è stata proprio anche nel fatto che da quel momento in poi ero impegnato sempre e per sempre dal Signore. Sempre – chi assume il ministero petrino non ha più alcuna privacy. Appartiene sempre e totalmente a tutti, a tutta la Chiesa. Alla sua vita viene, per così dire, totalmente tolta la dimensione privata." ... " Il “sempre” è anche un “per sempre” - non c’è più un ritornare nel privato. La mia decisione di rinunciare all’esercizio attivo del ministero, non revoca questo."

"Here, allow me to go back once again to 19 April 2005. The real gravity of the decision was also due to the fact that from that moment on I was engaged always and forever by the Lord. Always – anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. He belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church. In a manner of speaking, the private dimension of his life is completely eliminated." ... "The 'always' is also a "for ever" – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to renounce the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this."

Here Benedict XVI states explicitly that the gravity his decision to accept the papacy consisted in the fact that he was thereby engaged in a committment, received from Christ, which is "for always", and his "decision to renounce the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this." Thus, Benedict did not renounce the Petrine office or its ministry, but only the active exercise of the ministry. He then goes on to say that he will no longer wield the power of office, but will remain "within the enclosure of St. Peter": " Non porto più la potestà dell’officio per il governo della Chiesa, ma nel servizio della preghiera resto, per così dire, nel recinto di san Pietro. San Benedetto, il cui nome porto da Papa, mi sarà di grande esempio in questo. Egli ci ha mostrato la via per una vita, che, attiva o passiva, appartiene totalmente all’opera di Dio." ("I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter. Saint Benedict, whose name I bear as Pope, will be a great example for me in this. He showed us the way for a life which, whether active or passive, is completely given over to the work of God.")
Hence, the intention expressed by Pope Benedict is to remain in the Petrine office and retain the passive aspect of its official service (munus), i.e. "the service of prayer"; and to hand over the active aspect of the munus, i.e. exercise of governance, to a successor, who will effectively fulfill the function of a coadjutor with power of jurisdiction. Thus, Benedict's clearly expressed intention was not to abdicate the office, but only to vacate the cathedra in the qualified sense of handing the seat of power of governance to one who will succeed him in the active governance, but not abdicating from the office itself. This solves the apparent mystery and explains why Benedict XVI refused to revert to being Cardinal Ratzinger; and why he retains his papal coat of arms and papal attire.
In his Declaration of Feb. 11, 2013, Pope Benedict states as the reason for his decision his waning energy and consequent inability to administer the official duties of the papacy due to advanced age: Conscientia mea iterum atque iterum coram Deo explorata ad cognitionem certam perveni vires meas ingravescente aetate non iam aptas esse ad munus Petrinum aeque administrandum.
However, he states his awareness of the spiritual nature of the official service, the munus of the petrine office; namely, it is not merely active and verbal, but is to be fulfilled to no lesser degree by praying and suffering: Bene conscius sum hoc munus secundum suam essentiam spiritualem non solum agendo et loquendo exsequi debere, sed non minus patiendo et orando. It is this passive function of the office that he expressly stated was his intention to retain in his above cited discourse of 27 Feb. 2013.
It was only the active service, the execution of the ministery regarding grave affairs of the Church and proclaiming the gospel, which he said he could no longer adequately perform: Attamen in mundo nostri temporis rapidis mutationibus subiecto et quaestionibus magni ponderis pro vita fidei perturbato ad navem Sancti Petri gubernandam et ad annuntiandum Evangelium etiam vigor quidam corporis et animae necessarius est, qui ultimis mensibus in me modo tali minuitur, ut incapacitatem meam ad ministerium mihi commissum bene administrandum agnoscere debeam.
Therefore, in the next sentence he declares his intention to renounce that ministry: Quapropter bene conscius ponderis huius actus plena libertate declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 aprilis MMV commisso renuntiare ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae, sedes Sancti Petri vacet et Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse.
One notices the corrected Latin in this Vatican website version of the Declaratio. In the official document the word "commissum" was used, and not "commisso" as you can see in the sentence. This is one of two glaring grammatical errors in the document that, according to the canonical custom which remains in force, renders the juridical act null & void. The 1983 Code of Canon Law states explicitly that where there is no statute or custom ruling on some matter in the Code, the jurisprudence of the Roman Curia is to be followed*. The precedents go back to Pope St. Gregory VII, as I have explained in previous posts.
However, leaving aside the question of the Latin errors; the far more weighty consideration of the pope's intention not to abdicate the munus, but only to renounce the active ministry is decisive in determining the nullity of the act. It is patent that a pope who intends to renounce the active exercise of the Petrine ministry, but who expresses his intention to retain the passive service of the munus which he received on 19 April 2005, does not vacate the office. Hence, the intention to render the chair vacant is defective, since one who retains the passive exercise of the munus retains the munus, and therefore still occupies the chair.

* Can. 19 - Si certa de re desit expressum legis sive universalis sive particularis praescriptum; aut consuetudo, causa, nisi sit poenalis, dirimenda est attentis legibus latis in similibus, generalibus iuris principiis cum aequitate canonica servatis, iurisprudentia et praxi Curiae Romanae, communi constantique doctorum sententia.

The assertion made by some, that Jorge Bergoglio is the "vicar of Christ on earth" is highly problematical (to put it mildly). Not only was Benedict's renunciation canonically defective, but Bergoglio's election, according to some eminent canonists, canonically irregular. Even more problematical is the matter of Bergoglio's belief system. He is no Christian, but a Deist who does not believe in objective moral standards, or supernatural dogmatic revelation. Revelation, for Bergoglio, is obtained through phenominological experience. His contempt for dogmatic Christianity is visceral. His "theology" is not the theology of the Catholic Church, but of the Deists, such as Lord Shaftesbury, Gotthold Lessing, and Friedrich Schleiermacher. By Catholic standards, Bergoglio is a heathen -- an unbeliever, an infidel. Such a one, even if he had been canonically elected, such a one is to be "cast out and trampled underfoot by men"; according to Innocent III (Sermo IV).
Could a pope really completely delegate his power of governance to someone else?

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Sun Jan 18, 2015 1:20 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: Fr. Paul Kramer a sedevacantist!
Yes and no.

He does this all the time to ordinary Bishops throughout the world, who help him govern the world of Catholic souls. However, there is not one historical case where he has ever given while still alive the actual reigns of St. Peter to someone else WHILE still remaining as Pope. When you resign, you would retain whatever previous ecclesiastical rank you held before the election.

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Mon Jan 19, 2015 5:25 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Fr. Paul Kramer a sedevacantist!
Jorge Armendariz wrote:
Yes and no.

He does this all the time to ordinary Bishops throughout the world, who help him govern the world of Catholic souls.


No, he doesn't delegate his power to ordinaries - their power is ordinary, not delegated. He merely appoints them to their offices - offices to which he, or a previous pope, has attached jurisdiction.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Jan 22, 2015 4:57 am
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.