Fr. Kramer's FB post - March 24, 2017
Feb 22, 2020 16:20:39 GMT
Post by Admin on Feb 22, 2020 16:20:39 GMT
It has not gone unnoticed that there are a few souls (it is my understanding that the majority are mostly Conciliar adherents) who subscribe to the opinion that Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI invalidly resigned in 2013 and by consequence, Pope Francis is not the Pope but rather Benedict remains so. As some of you may know, The Catacombs does not subscribe to this opinion, as it has many of the hallmarks of sedevacantism which we also strongly reject, following the line of Archbishop Lefebvre.
As far as I know, Fr. Paul Kramer is the sole traditional priest (at least publicly?) who promotes this opinion and has written voluminously in favor of this theory. Of note, he has recently published a 600+ page book on this very subject. This is in addition to copious writings on forums, social media, etc. Needles to say, he is very vocal in this matter.
There is one Facebook post from three years ago that has come to my attention recently and as a simple layperson trying to follow the traditional line of Archbishop Lefebvre, have found it worrisome. This is because Fr. Kramer appears to subtly promote sedevacantism and appears to demonstrate that he may not be as traditional as we might give him credit for, that is, that he is more Indult-esque Catholic, or more conservative Catholic, than traditional Catholic? God only knows. Again, it is worrisome.
I am including Fr. Kramer's FB post from March 24, 2017 in it's entirety, though ellipses are utilized to allow breaks for my comments. Fr. Kramer's words are in black, my comments in red.
* * *
Fr. Kramer: For 40 years I have been telling people that the crisis in the Church that began after Vatican II [one could argue it began during Vatican II when a real revolution was being unleashed by the periti and the Protestant “observers” who gave suggestions throughout the Council …] would lead to a split in the Church, when there will be two popes.
Admin: I think it is important to distinguish that Fr. Kramer implies that this is his personal prophecy. Not to be confused in this instance with the approved prophecies of the Mystics of the Church.
Fr. Kramer: Unlike in past centuries when the papal claimants were rivals who rejected the other's claim, Benedict & Bergoglio thus far have been co-claimants, who both claim the Petrine munus, but both, thus far, accept the other's claim. That will soon change, ...
Admin: Again, this appears to be another Fr. Kramer prophecy. Note: I say this for clarity's sake, not with sarcasm.
Fr. Kramer: ... since the relationship between the two becomes more strained with each passing day. It is inevitable, and is foretold in prophecy [Which prophecy?]: The two co-claimants will become rival claimants: True Pope and false pope (antipope).
Admin: As Fr. Hewko recently noted, it is difficult to argue that Pope Francis is an antipope when the entire college of Cardinals elected him, unlike antipopes in the past who perhaps had a few Cardinals support or ‘elected’ them or they proclaimed themselves pope.
The 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia notes the definition of an antipope is "A false claimant of the Holy See in opposition to a pontiff canonically elected. At various times in the history of the Church illegal pretenders to the Papal Chair have arisen, and frequently exercised pontifical functions in defiance of the true occupant."
We can easily see from this definition that Pope Francis is not and has not acted in "in opposition" or "in defiance" to Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. Benedict is often on record applauding and approving of the pontificate of Pope Francis. But then again, if you keep repeating a lie often enough, people begin to think it's the truth. Many, if not all(?), of those who hold to this non-resignationist opinion, call Pope Francis an antipope. He is not.This is not a reality.
Fr. Kramer: I always said you will be able to tell which one is the false pope, because he will permit things like divorce & re-marriage, etc. — and many other such things that a Catholic pope would never allow.
Admin: These errors of marriage and divorce are moral errors but not doctrinal. Pope Paul VI presided over Vatican II, which was a complete revolution of many doctrines of the Church. The old adage holds true here as well: When the doctrine goes, so too the morals. Pope Francis' errors with regard to moral errors are the fruit of the doctrinal errors of his Conciliar predecessors.
Fr. Kramer: Francis is a heretic.
Admin: Here we plainly see that Fr. Kramer has decided Pope Francis is a heretic - Fr. Kramer has made himself judge and jury. This is sedevacantism pure and simple. The interesting thing about Pope Francis is that he is a product of the Conciliar Church from start to finish, he was ordained in the New Rite, consecrated in the New Rite, etc. The Conciliar Church is arguably all he knows. This could certainly make him a material heretic, but not necessarily the formal heretic Fr. Kramer has judged him as. Again, this is the typical sedevacantist mentality and position.
Fr. Kramer: He has openly and explicitly rejected Christ's teaching to preach the Gospel to all nations and convert them to our Christian faith, saying it is "solemn nonsense". Francis says it is wrong to do that! He has also openly declared the heresy that faith is not needed for justification and redemption, but that even atheists who follow their conscience are without sin and can gain redemption. He is not a Catholic, but is a heretic.
The inversion of Catholics' mission regarding the members of other religions -
Rather than exhort the faithful to a renewed energy for converting the greatest number of unbelievers possible by wresting them out of the shadows they are in, in Nostra Aetate §2, the Council exhorts her sons:
In other words, it is saying that [the Church's sons] should conduct themselves in such a way that the Buddhists, Hindus, Moslems, and Jews, etc., remain Buddhists, Hindus, Moslems, and Jews, etc., and that [the Church's sons] should even "promote" the social and cultural values of their respective religions, all hostile to revealed truth. This exhortation expresses a general principle set forth by the Council to the "Church" which was to be born of its reforms and which defines itself as "the Conciliar Church" (cf. Cardinal Benelli), a principle which tells "the people of God"-priests and laity-the attitude that they are to take concerning the "separated brethren" and all non-Christians. This and other pastoral exhortations (for example in Lumen Gentium §17'; Gaudium et Spes §28; Unitatis Redintegratio §4) constitute overt treason against the order given by the Risen Christ Jesus to the Apostles: "Go then, teach all nations" (Mt. 28:19), an order which, mutatis mutandis, is valid for all believers, insofar as they are able, because every believer, as miles Christi, must bear witness to the faith according to the works of corporal and spiritual mercy.
Rather than exhort the faithful to a renewed energy for converting the greatest number of unbelievers possible by wresting them out of the shadows they are in, in Nostra Aetate §2, the Council exhorts her sons:
Prudently and lovingly, through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, and in witness of Christian faith and life, acknowledge, preserve, and promote the spiritual and moral goods found among these men, as well as the values in their society and culture.
Fr. Kramer unjustly attributing this condemnation of lack of proselytizing solely to Pope Francis as a reason to reject him and his pontificate. Yet, we see, once again, that the foundation for this Conciliar mentality was planted 55 years ago. It is not unique to Pope Francis. Remember the well-known ambiguities and ‘time bombs of Vatican II’ that were embedded in the documents of that pernicious Council that gave seed to such liberal interpretations when the milieu would allow for it.
Fr. Kramer: Bergoglio's pertinacity is manifest and notorious. He obstinately rejects many manifest & defined dogmas. The conciliar popes like Paul VI, John Paul II, & Benedict XVI expressed heretical opinions, but pertinacity was not patent ...
Admin: Why is Fr. Kramer the sole judge in this matter?
Fr. Kramer: ... but unlike Bergoglio, they did not directly deny manifest dogmas that are known to even the most ignorant Catbolics, and dogmas that pertain to thd Natural Law. The Conciliar Popes were certainly material heretics, not entirely innocent (invincible ignorance), but ignorant nevertheless, ...
Admin: It seems rather difficult to argue for the ignorance of Francis' Conciliar predecessors, knowing that their training and formation was traditional – e.g. Pope John XXIII was ordained in 1904; Pope Paul VI was ordained in 1920; Pope John Paul II was ordained in 1946; and Pope Benedict XVI was ordained in 1951. Pope Francis, however, was ordained in 1969, in the hay-day of Vatican II.
Fr. Kramer: ... an therecore culpable but not pertinacious.
Admin: Again, who is Fr. Kramer to judge this, especially since we have seen over and over during the pontificates of Paul VI, John Paul II, and in his interactions with Cardinal Ratzinger, Archbishop Lefebvre speak to the 'pertinacious' insistence of those Popes on the acceptance of the errors of Vatican II! Why is Pope Francis judged by Fr. Kramer using a different yardstick?
Fr. Kramer: Even St. Robert Bellarmine who favoured the opinion that a pope cannot be a formal heretic, wrote that a pope can be a a material heretic due to ignorance. Such ignorance can even be culpable, but without the obstinate and knowing refusal to believe, there is no pertinacity, which is the form of the sin of heresy. The conciliar popes were valid popes, since there was no manifest pertinacity.
Admin: Again, is this not a sedevacantist premise?: That if they were manifestly pertinacious then they would cease to be popes? See how sly and subtle this reasoning is? Without even realizing it, one ends up slowly embracing the sedevacantist premises by accepting this line of thinking?
Fr.Kramer: Since Pope Benedict XVI did not renounce the Petrine munus, but explicitly stated his intention to retain it, his "resignation" is null & void, sinnce a valid papal resignation requires a properly expressed (rite manifestetur) renunciation of the munus (Canon 332 § 2. Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, ad validitatem requiritur ut renuntiatio libere fiat et rite manifestetur, non vero ut a quopiam acceptetur.)
Admin: This whole line of reasoning is based on the ‘pernicious’ 1983 Code of Canon Law, which Archbishop Lefebvre noted, enshrined Vatican II. It is hard to use this as a legitimate yardstick by which to judge this novel situation of Benedict XVI claiming he is Pope Emeritus, since it is very likely that like the New Mass and the New Sacraments, the New Code of Canon Law will also be one day rejected. With this in mind, we humbly wait for the Church to declare what is legitimate and what is not. This manner of praying and waiting while resisting error is entirely in the line of Archbishop Lefebvre, for he stated:
"As long as that spirit prevails in Rome, that spirit of ecumenism, liberalism, modernism, we cannot hope for anything. So let us wait, pray, and work. God will decide, He knows better than we do, (He) who creates all things, He is the almighty, He can change the situation in no time, let us trust in God. But is impossible, absolutely impossible, today, to trust in the Roman authorities in any way.” Source
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais also echoes this line of Archbishop Lefebvre's thinking when he noted in 1991:
Without a doubt we can indeed question the legitimacy of certain bishops, and one can even have questions concerning that of the pope himself. But these are but questions. We do not have the authority to decide on these questions.
The Church will herself judge. A future council or pope will decide on the mysterious situation of this Pope John Paul II and his predecessor Pope Paul VI. It is not for us to judge. We do not have the power. Even a single bishop does not have the power to decide on these things. It is the Church who will have to resolve this problem as she will without doubt do.
It will without doubt not make a decision saying "This pope was not pope." I do not think so, for this has never happened in the Church, to say that this pope was not a pope. But it will be declared: "This was a bad pope... who professed errors... and even heresies!" Hence we cannot say that the hierarchy of the Church no longer exists. It has in large part defaulted, but we cannot say that it no longer exists. We cannot say this.
The Church will herself judge. A future council or pope will decide on the mysterious situation of this Pope John Paul II and his predecessor Pope Paul VI. It is not for us to judge. We do not have the power. Even a single bishop does not have the power to decide on these things. It is the Church who will have to resolve this problem as she will without doubt do.
It will without doubt not make a decision saying "This pope was not pope." I do not think so, for this has never happened in the Church, to say that this pope was not a pope. But it will be declared: "This was a bad pope... who professed errors... and even heresies!" Hence we cannot say that the hierarchy of the Church no longer exists. It has in large part defaulted, but we cannot say that it no longer exists. We cannot say this.
Fr. Kramer: When the break between the two papal claimants takes place, ...
Admin: Again, it appears that this is Fr. Kramer’s prophecy, yet it is presented here as if it’s a legitimate and approved prophecy ...
Fr. Kramer: ... there will be clearly two rival popes and Churches (as foretold by Blessed Anna Katherine Emmerich): ...
Admin: Where did she prophecy this? No citation is given. However, based on other times in the past Fr. Kramer did provide a citation, a link was given on his FB page, as was noted in this 2013 article (who also make obvious note of the apparent bias of Fr. Kramer against Pope Francis to the exclusion of the other Conciliar popes):
If this particular website's version of the prophecies of Anne Catherine Emmerich's is the one Fr. Kramer has been using (as seems to be the case), it is an abridged version of the mystic's words. And as an abridged version, it can well be misleading and this may contribute to an erroneous understanding of her prophecy and possiibly erroneous conclusions that are made based upon that shortened version. See the full text of this particular vision here.
On his [Fr. Kramer's] Facebook page, he posted a link to the prophecies of the Ven. Anne Catherine Emmerich, which he believes foretold “Bergoglio’s false church.” Yet, as the Daily Catholic pointed out in a column published many years ago, the very false church Kramer denounces didn’t just arrive with Francis but has been around since the Second Vatican Council. It is incredibly difficult to see how Kramer can conclude that Francis is a charlatan but his five predecessors weren’t. Source
Fr. Kramer: ... Pope Benedict XVI over the Catholic Church, -
Admin: Fr. Kramer seems to be switching back from Anne Catherine Emmerich's prophecies to his own interpretation? Also, does Fr. Kramer mean Benedict would be over the Conciliar Church? This seems a legitimate question since Benedict, who as then-Cardinal Ratzinger, was well known for attempting to constantly pull Archbishop Lefebvre into this same Conciliar Church, trying to get him to abandon Tradition, trying to get him to accept Vatican II ? Just a few examples of this may be found here: Archbishop Lefebvre on the then- Cardinal Ratinger
Fr. Kramer: ... and Antipope Francis over the counterfeit church, that will call itself Catholic, but in reality will be (and in some places already is) worse than the "reformed curches" of the Sixteenth Century.
Admin: Again, this appears to be Fr. Kramer's personal interpretation on how to understand the words of the mystic (which seem to be based on the abridged and possibly out-of-context version of her words?). We must be careful here.
* * *
Based on what Fr. Kramer has written in these few lines, it is hard to think he does not hold in a considerable measure to the main tenets of sedevacantism. Sadly, sedevacantism is not new to Fr. Kramer. Again, on his own Facebook page in November of 2013, he wrote:
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 [of Pope Francis' Evangelii Gaudium; “We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked."] 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. [Note: The sedevacantist source of this quote enthusiastically applauded Fr. Kramer for his rejection of Pope Francis in this article.]
I believe Fr. Kramer later retracted or clarified this statement and rather quickly switched over to the the non-resignationist opinion as his platform to explain why Pope Francis was not pope in his mind.
This 'covenant not revoke heresy' attributed to solely to Pope Francis by Fr. Kramer has been discussed by both Popes JPII and Benedict XVI. Therefore it seems not a little biased to attribute this error solely to Pope Francis:
The question of the "never-revoked covenant" between God and the Jews – a phrase that goes back to John Paul II and belongs to the now obvious interpretive horizon of Judaism from a Christian perspective – needs, according to Benedict XVI, for some distinctions to be made.
Although the phrase is in principle "considered to be correct, but in detail, nevertheless, many clarifications and greater precision are still needed" in the sense that there was not only one covenant between God and his people, but many covenants. Also, the notice of the dismissal of a covenant does not belong to the theological conceptual world of the Old Testament. Also the idea accompanying it of an agreement between equals does not correspond to biblical theology.
"The formula of the “covenant never revoked” may have been of help in a first phase of the new dialogue between Jews and Christians, but it is not suitable in the long run to adequately express the magnitude of reality," Benedict concludes. Source
Although the phrase is in principle "considered to be correct, but in detail, nevertheless, many clarifications and greater precision are still needed" in the sense that there was not only one covenant between God and his people, but many covenants. Also, the notice of the dismissal of a covenant does not belong to the theological conceptual world of the Old Testament. Also the idea accompanying it of an agreement between equals does not correspond to biblical theology.
"The formula of the “covenant never revoked” may have been of help in a first phase of the new dialogue between Jews and Christians, but it is not suitable in the long run to adequately express the magnitude of reality," Benedict concludes. Source
Time has shown that even the staunchest traditional bishops, priests, and laity may easily fall into error. Has the Church not experienced this time and time again? It seems once again, the surest path is the one of Archbishop Lefebvre. I realize that Fr. Kramer was never SSPX, rather, he was formed and ordained in the Conciliar Church and later came to tradition. I believe he was considered a "friend of the SSPX." His previous good works under Fr. Gruner and the Fatima Center are much to be applauded. Let us pray much for him, for the clergy can do either much good or much evil for souls.
Let us "be sober and watch," as Our Lord solicitously warns us through His first Pope, "because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour." [1 Peter 5:8]
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!