Post by Admin on Feb 22, 2020 13:10:06 GMT
Fr. Paul Kramer
Dear friends of The Catacombs, there has been some contention in the last few years since the demise of Fr. Nicholas Gruner, famous for his defense of Our Lady of Fatima, that he began to question the pontificate of Pope Francis shortly before his death. These claims (all post-humous, I believe) state that Fr. Gruner had begun to adhere to the opinion that Pope Francis was not the Pope and that Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI was the still-reigning Pope. (This opinion is often referred to as either 'benevacantism,' the 'resignationist theory,' and most recently the 'non-resignationist theory,' etc.)
I unexpectedly came across this article [below] by one who is clearly not a friend of Fr. Paul Kramer. However it's merit and value are that it appears to give an authentic (a screenshot of Fr. Kramer's Facebook page is provided) exchange on social media wherein Fr. Kramer essentially alleges that 'God killed Fr. Gruner because Fr. Gruner adhered to the pontificate of Pope Francis as legitimate.' It also notes that one week before his demise (on April 29, 2015) Fr. Gruner was still referring to Francis as "Pope Francis" publicly.
Again, despite it's clearly antagonistic tone towards Fr. Kramer, it appears that this is a authentic quote from that priest, based on the fact that the screenshot of Fr. Kramer's Facebook page is provided. If it is authentic, it helps to give some understanding of Fr. Gruner's mind (i.e. that he still firmly acknowledged Francis as Pope up until he died) and certainly gives an insight into Fr. Kramer's thinking.
I am including only an excerpt here, filtering out certain comments that speak rather ill of Fr. Kramer. Whether such comments are true or not, God knows. The only purpose of posting this article is to give a more accurate picture of the situation and possibly exonerate Fr. Gruner if the claims that he felt Benedict was still Pope are utterly false, based on these words of Fr. Kramer himself.
Without further ado [red-font emphasis mine, all other emphasis in the original]:
DID GOD KILL FR. GRUNER FOR RECOGNIZING FRANCIS AS POPE? FR. KRAMER SAYS YES.
[...] Fr. Kramer’s fixation on Pope Francis’ illegitimacy has reached the point that he now claims God "took" Fr. Guner for recognizing him as Pope.
The following is Kramer’s posts in response to a Mr. Robert Sullivan:
Mr. Sullivan: Why would Fr. Gruner, only one week before his death, publicly call Francis, Pope Francis, if he was 100% sure he was an Anti-Pope? Posted August 9, 2016 at 1.01am. [Emphasis - The Catacombs]
Fr. Kramer: I don’t want to be too harsh in my judgment, but Fr. Gruner had one opinion, but dissimulated about the other -- … (Posted August 9, 2016 at 1.08am, emphasis added).
Mr. Sullivan: ? (Posted August 9, 2016 at 1.08am).
Fr. Kramer: Yes, Robert Sullivan you heard me. I don’t want to say more in judgment.
Fr. Gruner singlehandedly informed the whole world about the request of the consecration of Russia. When that happens, the Church and the world will have a great debt of gratitude to Fr. Gruner. Nevertheless, he dissimulated about “Pope” Francis. He knew better, but still postured as though Francis were the pope. God intervened. I do not wish to take anything away from the accomplishments of Fr. Gruner regarding the work for the consecration of Russia – but in the divine scheme of things, he did not adjust to the changed situation in the Church . . . (Posted August 9, 2016 at 1.08am, emphases added).
[Click to enlarge photo]
Mr. Sullivan: And just to be clear are you saying “God intervened” by taking Fr. Gruner out of this world, because, in your opinion “he dissimulated about ‘Pope’ Francis. …” (Posted August 9, 2016, 1:32am, emphasis added).
Fr. Kramer: “Quod scripsi, scripsi [What I have written, I have written]. I have no further comments to make about Fr. Gruner. …” (Posted, August 9, 2016)
John Salza: Folks, there you have it. According to Fr. Paul Kramer, God killed Fr. Gruner as a punishment for publicly recognizing Francis as Pope. He was asked point blank if this is what he meant and he did not deny it (“Quod scripsi, scripsi”). So according to Fr. Kramer, God took the life of one of his most faithful priests, loved beyond words by Jesus Christ and Our Lady, because this priest submitted to the public judgment of Christ’s Church on who is Pope! Only a crazy person would make such a statement, and do so publicly.
Let’s be clear about the implications of Fr. Kramer’s statement [...] Fr. Kramer claims that Fr. Gruner “dissimulated” (he says it two times) about Francis being Pope. That is, he claims that Fr. Gruner did not really believe Francis was Pope, but spoke and acted like he did believe he was Pope. In other words, by accusing him of “dissimulation,” Fr. Kramer accuses Fr. Gruner of being a public liar and a sinner.
As St. Thomas explains, “is it contrary to truth to employ signs of deeds or things to signify the contrary of what is in oneself, and this is what is properly denoted by dissimulation. Consequently dissimulation is properly a lie told by the signs of outward deeds. Now it matters not whether one lie in word or in any other way, as stated above (110, 1, Objection 2). Wherefore, since every lie is a sin, as stated above (Question 110, Article 3), it follows that also all dissimulation is a sin.” Again, by accusing him of “dissimulation,” Fr. Kramer has accused Fr. Gruner of being a public liar and a sinner, since Fr. Gruner allegedly “signified the contrary” of what was in himself, namely, he believed that Francis was not the true Pope, even though “by the signs of outward deeds” Fr. Gruner spoke and acted as if he believed Francis were the true Pope.
And note well the additional implications of Fr. Kramer’s accusation against Fr. Gruner. Scripture condemns lying as it does other mortal sins which merit eternal damnation. As the Catholic Encyclopedia states, “In places almost innumerable Holy Scripture seems to condemn lying as absolutely and unreservedly as it condemns murder and fornication.” Indeed it does. In the Apocalypse, Christ Himself warns that liars will share the same eternal fate as idolaters and other wicked sinners when He says: “But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murders, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, they shall have their portion in the pool burning with fire and brimstone, which is the second death” (Apoc. 21:8). Thus, by accusing Fr. Gruner of being a public liar, Kramer is suggesting that Fr. Gruner, who persevered in his “lie” until death (a death Fr. Kramer claims God inflicted on him for his “sin”), may indeed be burning in hell. [...]
[Fr. Kramer] certainly knows that dissimulation is a lie and thus “always a sin,” and that lying about grave matters is a mortal sin meriting eternal punishment. As even the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, “Lying is the most direct offense against the truth” and “By its very nature, lying is to be condemned.”
Now, Fr. Gruner not only knew, but also preached to the faithful of the absolute necessity of recognizing the true Pope and submitting to his judgments in all things lawful. Fr. Gruner would often refer to the Church’s dogmatic definition “that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” He did so because he himself was falsely accused by his enemies of not being in subjection to the Popes for pointing out their failures to consecrate Russia and reveal the Third Secret of Fatima, and he wanted the faithful to understand the difference between being “subject to the Roman Pontiff” while, at the same time, “resisting” his errors.
Thus, Fr. Gruner no doubt considered the public acknowledgment and submission to the true Pope a most grave matter of salvation. Indeed, this is precisely why Fr. Gruner taught the faithful that they must be both in submission to the Popes while also resisting their errors and omissions regarding the Message of Fatima – so they could save their souls. Consequently, it is certain that Fr. Gruner rejected Sedevacantism and the opinion that one can declare, by his own private judgment, that the elected Pope is an antipope, contrary to the public judgment of the Church. This also means that Fr. Gruner rejected the erroneous theology of Fr. Kramer.
Thus, if Fr. Gruner truly believed in his conscience that Francis was not the Pope and interiorly resisted submission to him (as Kramer accuses him), while teaching other people that Francis was in fact the true Pope and to submit to him (which Fr. Gruner did teach), then Fr. Gruner would have been guilty of “intentionally deceiving” the faithful on a matter of salvation, and thus guilty of mortal sin. This would be the case even though Fr. Gruner’s external actions were in conformity to the truth, since the Catechism teaches that “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.” And if Fr. Gruner persevered in this mortal sin until death, it follows that he would now be suffering eternal punishments in hell. Surely, Fr. Kramer, theologian or not, knows that such a conclusion can be easily drawn from his grave and public accusations against Fr. Gruner, which makes them all the more reprehensible and revolting. And [Fr.] Kramer actually had the nerve to say “I don’t want to be too harsh in my judgment.”
Fr. Gruner suffered more injustice, lies, and calumny during his priestly life then most men would be able to endure. And, now, even after his shocking and untimely death, he is still having his reputation publicly attacked by the likes of Fr. Paul Leonard Kramer, who claims that God struck him dead for being a public liar.
 ST, II-II, q 111, a. 1.
 See also 1Tim. 10 and Titus 1:12.
 ST, II-II, q 111, a. 1.
 CCC 2483.
 CCC 2485.
 Pope Boniface’s Unam Sanctam (November 18, 1302).
 The Catechism says: “A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving. The Lord denounces lying as the work of the devil…” (CCC 2482).
 CCC 1790.
 St. Thomas teaches that when dissimulation is in the form of hypocrisy, it is a “mortal sin” when “it is contrary to the love of God or of his neighbor.” ST, II-II, q. 111, a. 4. St. Thomas explains that this would happen if the man simulated to “obtain ecclesiastical preferment” or “any temporal good in which he fixes his end.” Ibid.