Fr. Kramer Explained – Email Exchange

Fr. Kramer said he is a sedevacantist. He also said he is not.
Fr. Kramer said pope Francis is not the pope and pope Benedict is.

Source - novusordowatch.org/2013/11/paul-kramer-rejects-francis/

On November 28, 2013, the Feast of St. Catherine Laboure, the Rev. Paul Leonard Kramer announced on his Facebook page [below] that he rejects Francis’ claim to the papacy due to manifest heresy found in his newly-published “Apostolic Exhortation” Evangelii Gaudium.

After Fr. Kramer published on his Facebook page his definitive announcement pope Francis is a “heretic”, he responded to a question where is pope Francis for him. Fr. Kramer replied: "The conclusion is inescapable. Sede Vacante."

Source - (email exchange below)

“While it is true that for approximately 18 hours in 2013 I was believing the papal see to be vacant.”

novusordowatch.org/2013/12/kramer-resignationists/

There seems to be some confusion as to what is Fr. Kramer’s newest position. Some say that he has not changed; some say that he is a sedevacantist; some say that he is a sedealtersit (believing that a different pope exists).

As in all things, go to the source.

Starting with Benedict XVI. When Benedict XVI resigned at age 85, or some would say, renounced or stepped down from the Papacy on Feb. 28, 2013, there was a shock in the world; rightly so. Some say that the terms he did so reflected more of a “presidency” over an institution than a reigning monarch instituted by Christ. There are a lot of theories out there to suggest, some with plausibility, that Pope Benedict had “resigned” inappropriately and illegally from Protocol and Canon Law, some other theories being that he was doing so out of fear and force. Then there are hosts of others, well, that are pretty far out as the world makes up new beliefs every day.

Regardless of any theories however, they will just remain theories; because of two facts:

First, if a pope’s disposition finds himself through mental or physical illness, including advanced age and deteriorating health, that he is incapable to govern the Church entrusted to him to guide the world’s flock, there is a provision in Canon Law to do so. Stating, that if it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns from his office, it is required for validity that his resignation be freely made and properly manifested, but it isn’t necessary that it be accepted by anyone. Which Pope Paul II had prepared when he was ill. In manifestation of this, if there is any anomaly of improper paperwork or protocol to carry this out, there is the second.

Second, the manifestation of intention and act meeting together. Benedict XVI went through the process, though they debate that it was not "legal" according to norms; yet, Benedict XVI had made many formal statements and act in abnegation of the reign of the seat of Peter. Benedict XVI had returned his official Fisherman's Ring, which is destroyed by Vatican officials to prevent documents being counterfeited. Benedict XVI had also submitted to the legal and canonical process of the election of the new pope. Benedict XVI had also bent his knee in act to honor and submit in obedience to the new pope [Francis] as the present reigning pope of the [Catholic] Church. The Catholic world had received and accepted the new pope (one of the conditions of legitimacy for a new pope). The Catholic world prays for the new pope [Francis] in the canon of the mass. Further, to this day, Benedict had submitted to all of the governing authority of the new pope and all of the legislative judgements.

So it is clear that Benedict’s disposition and intention was to resign. What is tainted however in many peoples mind is still the process and Benedict calling himself “Pope Emeritus” and still wearing the white cassock. I place the latter to the novelties of Vatican II more than the improperness of ancient tradition.

As mentioned above, though paternity cannot be resigned, there is yet real infirmity in the human condition to where the code of Canon law in 1917 provided for the resignation of a pope as do the regulations established by Paul VI in 1975 and John Paul II in 1996. However, a resignation induced through fear or fraud would be invalid. Even canonists argue that a person resigning from an office must be of sound mind (Canon 187).

Historical evidence for papal resignations is limited, especially if one eliminates resignations that may have been forced.

1. Clement I (92?-101): Epiphanius asserted that Clement gave up the
   pontificate to Linus for the sake of peace and became pope again after
   the death of Cletus.
2. Pontian (230-235): Allegedly resigned after being exiled to the mines of Sardinia during persecution of Maximinus Thrax.
3. Cyriacus: A fictional character created in the Middle Ages who supposedly received a heavenly command to resign.
4. Marcellinus (296-304): Abdicated or was deposed after complying with Diocletian's order to offer sacrifice to pagan gods.
5. Martin I (649-655): Exiled by Emperor Constans II to Crimea.
   Before he died, clergy of Rome elected a successor whom he appears to
   have approved.
6. Benedict V (964): After one month in office, he accepted deposition by Emperor Otto I.
7. Benedict IX (1032-45): Benedict resigned after selling the papacy to his godfather Gregory VI.
8. Gregory VI (1045-46): Deposed for simony by Henry III.
9. Celestine V (1294): A hermit, elected at age of 80 and
   overwhelmed by the office, resigned. He was imprisoned by his successor.
10. Gregory XII (1406-15): Resigned at request of Council of Constance to help end the Great Western Schism.

[Source: Patrick Granfield, "Papal Resignation" (The Jurist, winter and spring 1978) and J. N. D. Kelly, The Oxford Dictionary of Popes (1986).]

In Light of the World, Pope Benedict responded unambiguously to a question about whether a pope could resign: "Yes. If a Pope clearly realizes that he is no longer physically, psychologically, and spiritually capable of handling the duties of his office, then he has a right and, under some circumstances, also an obligation to resign."

So here denotes a disposition and an intention of Benedict XVI for which he claims he followed through with.

Remember the other side saying that it was out of fear and force, thus invalidating his resignation, this is where Fr. Kramer comes in. From the get go, Fr. Kramer said he had suspicion if invalidation and believed with a possibility that pope Benedict XVI is still the pope –though only a suspicion. And without any proof, one cannot judge the internal forum of another as one cannot prove a subjective sin of another -in this case- and at a minimum, we have to take Benedict XVI’s word for his reasoning.

Nonetheless, when Pope Francis was elected on March 13, 2013, Fr. Kramer, along with the rest of the Catholic world had accepted him as the new successor of Peter.

So now let Fr. Kramer tell us in his own words what Fr. Kramer’s new position is today.

There are 2-simutanious positions Fr. Kramer holds: 1.) A stated sedevacantism relating to Pope Francis out of heresy, and separately, 2.) An actual belief that Benedict XVI is still the pope.

1). A stated sedevacantism relating to Pope Francis out of heresy:

On Nov. 28, 2013, Fr. Kramer openly stated and announced on his Facebook page that he rejects Pope Francis' claim to the papacy due to manifest heresy found in his published "Apostolic Exhortation" Evangelii Gaudium.

On the same day, when asked by someone on his facebook page what he means by this, Fr. Kramer responded to affirm his announcement: "The conclusion is inescapable. Sedevacante."

With a random search on the internet for this, here are some links that picked up this story:

www.novusordowatch.org/wire/paul-kramer-rejects-francis.htm


2). Separately, an actual belief that Benedict XVI is still the pope:

The next day, Nov.29, 2013, Fr. Kramer then announced on his same facebook page his belief from the suspicion and possibility of Benedict XVI being the Pope to now believe that he is still the actual Pope.

www.novusordowatch.org/wire/kramer-resignationists.htm

And a sede site that is followed it more closely, sedevacantist.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1550

So you can see that Fr. Kramer has a time lapse of events and an evolving of belief.

A). By heresy, in Fr. Kramer's belief, Pope Francis is no longer the Pope = sedevacantism.
And separately,
B). By evolving, in Fr. Kramer's mind from a theory to an actuality = Benedict XVI still is the Pope.

In both cases, Fr. Kramer is wrong.

Fr. Chazal had even termed a coinage that Fr. Kramer is a Sedealterist. What is it? First, the word "sedealterist" is Latin meaning, the "seat is another" or "the other". Yet, there is absolutely no difference however between sedevacantism and sedealterism regarding the present accepted pope. They both believe that the present pope is NOT the pope nor has any authority. The only difference is sedealterism believes that there is another pope existing elsewhere. In Fr. Kramer's case, he believes that Benedict XVI is still the pope. Which he isn't as explained above.

It is further noted for Fr. Kramer, that if or when Benedict XVI dies, Fr. Kramer is up a creek without a paddle -he has no pope. And sedevacantism becomes more visible for him.

It is an untenable position.

In summation:

Correct:

1. Fr. Kramer, like us, acknowledges the anomaly of Benedict XVI's resignation.
2. Fr. Kramer, like us, acknowledged and submit(ed) to the papacy of Pope Francis when elected. -Key point.
3. Fr. Kramer, like us, recognizes that pope Francis states heresy and is a (material) heretic; as noted above.

Wrong by going too far:

1. Fr. Kramer stated that the pope he recognized as legitimate is no longer
   a pope because of his recent (wrongly judge by him as a formal) heresy =
   in result to him as sedevacantism. (Shown above.)
2. Fr. Kramer, the next day, stated that Benedict XVI is the pope going from suspicion to a [convenient] reality.

Reverse psychology:

• If Fr. Kramer did NOT think that pope Francis was the legitimate pope
  from the get go, and Benedict XVI was, then Fr. Kramer would not have
  any regard, reaction, or paid any attention to pope Francis or any of
  his writings because he would be to him an "impostor pope".
• Instead, Fr. Kramer did have a reaction of scandal from recognizing him
  as a pope: "I have been saying for years that when a pope will
  officially teach explicit and clear heresy...", and then to denounce in
  consequence the writings of pope Francis, followed with an announcement
  from him to say he is a heretic pope, with an affirmation stating: -
  "The conclusion is inescapable. Sedevacante."
• Fr. Kramer therefore cannot claim "sedevacante"-the seat is vacant if he
  believed that Benedict XVI was the pope unless he believed that pope
  Francis was the real pope at that time.
• Thus, Fr. Kramer became a sedevacantist and is still a sedevacantist
  while showing in "default" or in "utility", that Benedict XVI is now the
  pope; or he would say [still] the pope.

By convenience or by utility, a "default" is not a catholic concept.

The position to hold Benedict XVI beyond the anomaly, explained above, as still being a legitimate pope is untenable.

Dear ----------,

I have read a few pages of your newsletter -- enough to understand what is your position concerning myself. I have published many statements explaining my position on the situation of the papacy at present; so it somewhat mystifies me that you attempt to gain some understanding about my position not from my own writings and statements, but from the statements and writings of others.

While it is true that for approximately 18 hours in 2013 I was believing the papal see to be vacant, I have since explained very precisely in terms of theology and Canon Law exactly what my position is -- and it is not sedevacantism. I am not sedevacantist, nor am I sede this, sede that, or sede anything. A man was elected pope in 2005, and until he either dies or unequivocally renounces the petrine office, he remains in that office. There is absolutely no ambuguity in my statements about my position on the papacy. I have made my position crystal clear in a very public manner. How is it possible that anyone could have any doubt about my position on a point that I have repeatedly explained with the utmost clarity in a very public manner?

Sincerely Yours,

Fr. Paul L. Kramer

PS - You appear to be extremely confused, to the extent that it would require lenghty replies which your opuscule does not merit: 1) You refer to doctrinal differences in such a manner that makes it appear that you do not distinguish between doctrinal points that have been settled by the magisterium, and divergent theological opinions in matters that remain open questions; and 2) You imagine there would be something problematic about my position on the papacy if Pope Benedict were to die. This is utter nonsense. When one pope dies, another gets elected. The vacancy can be brief or long, but it always gets filled. Bl. Anna Maria Taigi foretells that there will be a vacancy of "twenty-five or more months", and St. Ignatius of Santhia also prophecies a confusing time of vacancy in which there will be three claimants. So, it is not I who am "up the creek without a paddle", but it is rather yourself who are theologically incompetent; and therefore I will waste no more time on your rants.

[It is with gratitude that Fr. Kramer acknowledged and being true our main statements; though at the same time continues to place a riddle to maneuver from it.]

Fr. Kramer said:
“While it is true that for approximately 18 hours in 2013 I was believing the papal see to be vacant.”

This sentence affirmed and confirmed:

1. He said it was true he [was] a sedevacantist “for approximately 18 hours”. Quote: "I have been saying for years that when a pope will officially teach explicit and clear heresy...", "The conclusion is inescapable. Sedevacante." (Fr. Kramer,Nov. 28, 2013).

2. Therefore, before those "18 hours" Fr. Kramer believed that Pope Francis was the valid and legitimate Pope.

3. Therefore, Fr. Kramer had personally and imprudently judged the pope as a formal heretic, in result for him to be a sedevacantist, which he nor anyone else can do until the Church herself judges on such matters.

Fr. Kramer said:
“I have since explained very precisely in terms of theology and Canon Law exactly what my position is -- and it is not sedevacantism.” I am not sedevacantist, nor am I sede this, sede that, or sede anything.

Yet, Fr. Chazal said he was a sedealterist

1. This is an obvious contradiction from his above affirmation that continues to this day.

2. For Fr. Kramer to licitly accept Pope Francis as the valid pope prior, as the whole world does, then for him to personally renounce the pope before the Church pronounces such a decision, Fr. Kramer is still a sedevacantist regardless of his personal opinion. One cannot be and not be at the same time.

Fr. Kramer said:
“A man [Benedict XVI] was elected pope in 2005, and until he either dies or unequivocally renounces the petrine office, he remains in that office.”

1. Fr. Kramer reverted back, after saying pope Francis is a [heretic], to say that Benedict XVI is [still] the pope; contrary to the catholic world.

2. Fr. Kramer refuses to acknowledge and accept Benedict XVI’s resignation (as explained above in “Fr. Kramer's Newest Position”).

3. For Fr. Kramer to have amnesia that Benedict XVI too had denied many things of the Catholic faith, and is a full-fledged modernist, is not being forthright. Benedict XVI had denied the Bodily Resurrection of Christ in his book entitled “Jesus of Nazareth” to be only a "story" along with other [material] heresies. Fr. Kramer cannot jump to one [material] heretic and then to another [material] heretic as it suits him. The Church had not yet judged on these matters for him to be a sedevacantist nor personally chose which pope he wants to elect or re-elect to follow.

See here: www.novusordowatch.org/wire/novus-ordo-vs-resurrection.htm

4. As described above by Fr. Chazal, Fr. Kramer is a sede-alterist , meaning the "seat is altered", changed, different. So Fr. Kramer is still a sedevacantist and a sedealterist.

Fr. Kramer said:
“You imagine there would be something problematic about my position on the papacy if Pope Benedict were to die. This is utter nonsense. When one pope dies, another gets elected.”

1. For him to say that another will be elected after he dies requires the College of Cardinals to elect him. How would this happen when the Cardinals and the rest of the Church recognizes the present pope Francis and his successor would be chosen as the pope?

Fr. Kramer said:
“Bl. Anna Maria Taigi foretells that there will be a vacancy of "twenty-five or more months", and St. Ignatius of Santhia also prophecies a confusing time of vacancy in which there will be three claimants.”

1. For Fr. Kramer to make a foundation built on apparitions, he has not proof that those apparitions apply to this time.

In conclusion:

Either which way one is to look at it, Fr. Kramer affirmed and confirmed everything written above regarding his past position and present position.

Father Kramer rejected Pope Francis on the grounds of his being a “formal” heretic, yet accepts Benedict XVI as Pope regardless of the fact that he too is a fully-blown modernist who is guilty of the same thing.

Witness the following:





Because the pope must be visible, a necessary corollary of this truth is that whoever is accepted as the pope by virtually all Catholics, we know must be the pope by that very fact, since the pope must be visible to the Church as the pope. This is true because, if virtually all Catholics accepted the legitimacy of an anti-pope, then the true pope would be “invisible”, i.e., unknown to the Church. Thus, because the pope must be visible to all, whoever is accepted as pope by virtually all Catholics, we know must be the pope.

St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Doctor of the Church, explained this truth as follows:​

Sedevacantism: Material or Formal Schism

Comments on the Latest Rant of a member.

In his "Response to Fr. Kramer's Response", the member has made absolutely no attempt at any kind of systematic and critical refutation of my position, but instead descends to the level of a deliberately mendacious and logically incohetent rant, which amounts to a defamatory misrepresentation of what I have plainly elaborated in my talks and writings.

1) In the first errant proposition of his litany of non sequiturs, gratuitously and recklessly accuses me of judging "imprudently". He makes no attempt at any kind of theological demonstration of his assertion that it is "imprudent" to judge a manifest heretic to be exactly what he manifests himself to be. I have repeatedly pointed out and explained that Jorge Bergoglio does not merely express heretical opinions, but openly denies the most basic dogmas of revelation. The absolute necessity of faith for justification and salvation is categorically denied by the heathen Bergoglio. Similarly, Bergoglio explicitly and directly rejects Christ's teaching and command to proselytize the whole world, declaring, "Proselytism is solemn nonsense." He rejects the explicit teaching of scripture and defined dogma that the Jewish Covenant has ceased. His rejection of the authority of Christ and the scriptures is patent. This is what distinguishes the perfidious infidel Bergoglio from the conciliar popes, and therefore said member rambling rant on the heresies of Joseph Ratzinger is an irrelevant red herring. I have explained this point many times, so that he has no excuse for mendaciously attributing "amnesia" to me about the heretical opinions of Joseph Ratzinger. I have read Ratzinger in his original German texts, and Bergoglio likewise in Italian and Spanish. I have analyzed and critically compared their doctrines. Your member ignores that and indulges in charlanatism.

2) The member shows a clear manifestation of dementia when he attributes an "obvious contradiction" to me. My statement that I am not a sedevacantist does not in any way contradict my statement that I had believed the chair of Peter to be vacant for about 18 hours in November 2013. The member's statement is patent lunacy. Said member, the delusional idiot insists that I am "still a sedevacantist", because, "One cannot be and not be at the same time." (!!!) Lunatic member maliciously refuses to acknowledge the patent and simple fact that I had at first (like a multitude of others) uncritically accepted Benedict's renunciation, but after reading the text and examining the matter in depth, it became plainly evident to me that the act of renunciation was null & void due to defect of intention. The document is fatally ambiguous, and is therefore null & void. If a juridical act does not clearly and unambiguously express the formal object of the act, that act is invalid. Hence, I believe Benedict remains in office to this day. Where's the contradiction member?

3) I have stated that when Pope Benedict dies, another pope will eventually be elected. Said member then stupidly replies with a question, "How would this happen when . . ." He obtusely assumes that the present situation of the hierarchy will remain as such in the future. Such an assumption is an utterly unfounded presumption. God will provide a valid successor to Pope Benedict. There is no reason why I must create hypothetical scenarios, and theorize how the next pope will be elected.

4) Said member again lapses into dementia when he claims that I, "make a foundation built on apparitions", "he has not proof that those apparitions apply to this time." Idiot member again demonstrates his utter incapacity to think on a theological level. I made no attempt to prove that the prophecies of Bl. Anna Maria Taigi and St. Ignatius of Santhia apply to the present time, because I never claimed that they do in fact apply to the present situation. Far from building a foundation on apparitions, I quoted their prophecies in order to point out the fact that the opinion that there can be a significant vacancy of the papal see is doctrinally orthodox. The very first criterion for judging one worthy of beatification/canonization is doctrinal orthodoxy. The eminent theologian, Edmond O'Reilly SJ elaborated on the possibility of a lenghty vacancy long before post conciliar Sedevacantism came into being. The belief that there could be a significant vacancy after the death of Benedict does not involve any doctrinal unorthodoxy. That was my point, which the obtuse mind of your member oafishly fails to grasp.

5) He pontificates on the visibility of the pope as if he considers himself to be a Church Father. The doctrine on the universal acceptance of a pope has not been dogmatically defined, and therefore its scope and signification are difficult to determine. Hence, there is the problem of its applicability to the present two pope situation of the Church. He gratuitously claims that the entire Catholic world accepts Fr. Bergoglio as pope. Has he conducted a scientific survey? Does he have any idea about just how many Catholics (increasingly) doubt or outright deny that Bergoglio is the valid Roman Pontiff? No, he does not. He just pontificates on subjects about which he is ignorant.

6)He pontificates, declaring that, "Fr. Kramer had personally and imprudently judged the pope as a formal heretic, . . . which he nor anyone else can do until the Church herself judges on such matters." What authority does he quote in support of his absurd belief that the Church must first pronounce in a such a situation in which it is impossible for the Church to pronounce; and in which the malice of heresy is patent? None! When the See is either vacant or impeded, it is quite impossible for the Church to pronounce in the matter, yet it is necessary for the faithful to recognize a false, infidel "pope" for what he is, and refuse submission to him. One may not follow an infidel "pope" into heresy and apostasy out of "obedience"!

Yet this would appear to be precisely the onset of the "mystery of iniquity" foretold by St. Paul in 2 Thessolonians, and summed up by the La Salette seer, Melanie Calvat: "Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist." Fundamentalistic simpletons like your member think that such propositions offend against the doctrine of the indefectibility of the Church, yet this opinion was expressed by no less than Pope Leo XIII, in the original text of the exorcism which he published in the Roman Ritual of 1903 (which makes it a document of the ordinary magisterium):

"Behold the Church, the Spouse of the Immaculate Lamb, filled with bitterness and inebriated with gall by the most crafty enemies; who have laid impious hands on all that is most sacred. Where the See of the most blessed Peter and the Chair of the truth, was constituted as the light of the nations, there they have set up the throne of their abominable impiety, so that the shepherd being struck, the sheep may be dispersed." Was Leo XIII offending against the doctrine of the visibility and indefectibility of the Church when he published these words in the Rituale Romanum, member??

Enough, nay, too much time wasted on this pompous ass, member

Thank you again Fr. Kramer.

There are two subjects: one regarding Pope Francis and his legitimacy as Pope, and the second regarding Benedict XVI and his “retirement”.

Regarding Pope Francis and his legitimacy as Pope.

There is only one kind of Catholic “systematic and critical refutation” to your position, as already demonstrated in “Fr. Kramer's Newest Position”,

A. NO PERSON, CATHOLIC OR PAGAN, CAN “FORMALLY’ JUDGE A POPE, RESIDING OR PREVIOUS, OUT OF OFFICE. That belongs to God and God ONLY.

B. When a Pope falls into [material] heresy, they do not lose the function, power and authority of their office to ministerial act (John of St. Thomas, Cajetan, and Bellarmine).

1. The “imprudence” is demonstrated in your own words judging the pope as being a “formal” heretic, beyond material, that you have no place or right to do, to which you had personally rejected the primacy of Pope Francis = sedevacantism.

You admit and confirm as true, written on your Facebook page (Nov. 28, 2013), to openly reject Pope Francis' claim to the papacy due to manifest heresy found in his published "Apostolic Exhortation" Evangelii Gaudium.

On the same day, when asked by someone on your Facebook page what you meant by this, you responded to affirm your announcement: "The conclusion is inescapable. Sedevacante."

With a random search on the internet for this, here are some links that picked up this story:

www.novusordowatch.org/wire/paul-kramer-rejects-francis.htm

2. You had clearly demonstrated within your own words that you believed that Pope Francis was the legitimate and valid pope up until your reading of his "Apostolic Exhortation" Evangelii Gaudium; to which you thereafter personally rejected his primacy = sedevacantism.

• If you did NOT think that pope Francis was the legitimate pope from the
  get go, and Benedict XVI was, then you would not have any regard,
  reaction, or paid any attention to pope Francis or any of his writings
  because he would be to you an "impostor pope".
• Instead, you did have a reaction of scandal from recognizing him as a
  pope: "I have been saying for years that when a pope will officially
  teach explicit and clear heresy...", and then to denounce in consequence
  the writings of pope Francis, followed with an announcement from you to
  say he is a heretic pope, with an affirmation stating: - "The
  conclusion is inescapable. Sedevacante."
• You therefore Fr. Kramer could not claim "sedevacante"-the seat is
  vacant, if you believed that Benedict XVI was the pope, unless you
  believed that pope Francis was the real pope at that time.
• Thus Fr. Kramer , you became a sedevacantist (and still showing
  to be a sedevacantist) while showing in "default" or in "utility" on the
  following day, Nov.29, 2013 on the same facebook page, to where you
  then announced that Benedict XVI is now the pope; or you would say
  [still] the pope.

Regarding Benedict XVI and his “retirement”.

1. The day after you announced “sede vacante”, Nov. 29, 2013, you announced and began claiming that Benedict XVI is the “official Pope”.

Quote:
“The Holy Father and still reigning Roman Pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI.”

2. Out of default or utility, it was convenient for you to declare the next day your personal support for a different pope (sede-alterist).

3. 2.3 years later, you still personally support your view, contrary from Benedict XVI himself and the rest of the world, that Benedict XVI is still the Pope. Not only has providence not manifested any support for your view, you remain in pertinacity to reject the papacy of the present Pope (Francis) of the Universal Church = sedevacantism.

4. As demonstrated in “Fr. Kramer's Newest Position”, because of two facts:

First, if a pope’s disposition finds himself through mental or physical illness, including advanced age and deteriorating health, that he is incapable to govern the Church entrusted to him to guide the world’s flock, there is a provision in Canon Law to do so. Stating, that if it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns from his office, it is required for validity that his resignation be freely made and properly manifested, but it isn’t necessary that it be accepted by anyone. Which Pope Paul II had prepared when he was ill. In manifestation of this, if there is any anomaly of improper paperwork or protocol to carry this out, there is the second.

Second, the manifestation of intention and act meeting together. Benedict XVI went through the process, though they debate that it was not "legal" according to norms; yet, Benedict XVI had made many formal statements and act in abnegation of the reign of the seat of Peter. Benedict XVI had returned his official Fisherman's Ring, which is destroyed by Vatican officials to prevent documents being counterfeited. Benedict XVI had also submitted to the legal and canonical process of the election of the new pope. Benedict XVI had also bent his knee in act to honor and submit in obedience to the new pope [Francis] as the present reigning pope of the [Catholic] Church. The Catholic world had received and accepted the new pope (one of the conditions of legitimacy for a new pope). The Catholic world prays for the new pope [Francis] in the canon of the mass. Further, to this day, Benedict had submitted to all of the governing authority of the new pope and all of the legislative judgements.

So it is clear that Benedict’s disposition and intention was to resign. What is tainted however in many peoples mind is still the process and Benedict calling himself “Pope Emeritus” and still wearing the white cassock. I place the latter to the novelties of Vatican II more than the improperness of ancient tradition.

As mentioned above, there is yet real infirmity in the human condition to where the code of Canon law in 1917 provided for the resignation of a pope as do the regulations established by Paul VI in 1975 and John Paul II in 1996. However, a resignation induced through fear or fraud would be invalid. Even canonists argue that a person resigning from an office must be of sound mind (Canon 187).

In Light of the World, Pope Benedict responded unambiguously to a question about whether a pope could resign: "Yes. If a Pope clearly realizes that he is no longer physically, psychologically, and spiritually capable of handling the duties of his office, then he has a right and, under some circumstances, also an obligation to resign."

So here denotes a disposition and an intention of Benedict XVI for which he claims he followed through with.

Though you say, Fr. Kramer, that he resigned out of “fear and force”, thus invalidating his resignation, you cannot judge the internal forum of another as one cannot prove a subjective sin of another -in this case- and at a minimum, we have to take Benedict XVI’s word for his reasoning.

Nonetheless, when Pope Francis was elected on March 13, 2013, you Fr. Kramer, along with the rest of the Catholic world, had accepted him as the new successor of Peter.

5. Your resoluteness of claiming “another” pope (sede-alterist) will be elected after Benedict XVI dies is unfounded in material support and ecclesiastical support; there are no college of cardinals in your view to elect separately a different and parallel pope for your view. God can certainly provide for your view; yet God cannot make a triangle round either.

6. There is no question that Benedict XVI had publicly made many statements and writings with [material] heresy. Why you choose one [material] heretic over another is beyond us. Under your same standards, Benedict XVI would certainly fall within your same guidelines of calling him a "formal" heretic. So please, let's not postulate over that.

7. In the time of St. Catherine of Siena, during the reign of Pope Urban VI (1378 - 1389), there was The Great Papal Schism. In this schism, there was announced by other prelates that there was an additional two claimants to the papacy (sede-alterists). While St. Catherine of Siena fought this atrocity, she stayed by the side of the legitimately elect pope God had provided for his visible Church – Pope Urban VI – and stated that while the others were “elected” by other cardinals, the other “two popes” were not legitimate to the Petrine throne.

While Benedict XVI stated his “retirement” as sincere, and gone through the process by intention and act that was accepted by all of the church, as mentioned originally, you, nor anyone else can make a contrary claim to the papacy to create another Papal Schism.


In conclusion,

The valid election of a new Pope, which you and the whole world recognized on March 13, 2013, by: 1.) a legitimate College of Cardinals, 2.) recognized by virtually all Catholics as Pope, and 3) prayed for in the canon by virtually all priests and Bishops of the world, is recognized as a true pope.

As Catholics, we do not have the authority to publicly declare these Popes to have lost their office due to “formal” heresy, until a competent authority from God had convened on the matter as in the past history and councils of the Church shows, as also within the history of Holy Scripture (1 Samuel, Leviticus 19); but we as Catholics do have the authority however to personally avoid them in their sin and errors (St. Paul).

St. Robert Bellarmine stated the same:
“Just as it is licit to resist a Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior.” (De Romano Pontifice, II.29.)”

St. Thomas also states:
"Since it belongs to the same authority to interpret and to make a law, just as a law cannot be made except by public authority, so neither can a judgment be pronounced except by public authority, which extends over those who are subject to the community .... Wherefore even as it would be unjust for one man to force another to observe a law that was not approved by public authority, so too it is unjust if a man compels another to submit to a judgment that is pronounced by other than the public authority.”

The Fourth Council of Constantinople states that individuals, be they laymen, priests or Bishops, cannot separate themselves from communion with their patriarch before a synod has passed judgment about the man. If they do so, they themselves are cut off from communion.

Quote:
“The Fourth Council of Constantinople-Canon #10: “As divine scripture clearly proclaims, Do not find fault before you investigate, and understand first and then find fault, and does our law judge a person without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does? Consequently this holy and universal synod justly and fittingly declares and lays down that no lay person or monk or cleric should separate himself from communion with his own patriarch before a careful enquiry and judgment in synod, even if he alleges that he knows of some crime perpetrated by his patriarch, and he must not refuse to include his patriarch's name during the divine mysteries or offices.

“In the same way we command that bishops and priests who are in distant dioceses and regions should behave similarly towards their own metropolitans, and metropolitans should do the same with regard to their own patriarchs. If anyone shall be found defying this Holy Synod, he is to be debarred from all priestly functions and status if he is a bishop or cleric; if a monk or lay person, he must be excluded from all communion and meetings of the church until he is converted by repentance and reconciled”. www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum08.htm

Thus, a sedevacantist cannot make a public judgment since he has no authority to do so; if they do, they cut themselves off from the communion of the Catholic Church.

Fr. chazal also mentioned that John of St. Thomas quotes an important decree of Gratian (I, Dist 40, D 79, C.11) “Eiectionem summorum sacerdoutum sibi Dominus reservavit, licet electionem eorum bonis sacerdotibus et spiritualibus populis concessisset” [“The Lord has reserved to Himself the deposition of the Sovereign Pontiffs”].

AZORIUS, quoted by John of St. Thomas says, “No heretic Bishop, no matter how visible his heresy may be, and in spite of him incurring excommunication, or loses jurisdiction and Episcopal power, until he is declared such by the Church and deposed.”

For Catholics to contradict the above and still say that they have a “right” to formally judge a pope, even by adding other theologians or saints, they also need to remember in New Testament History that even theologians and saints have been on the wrong side of which pope was the real pope (1378 in the Divine Providence of St. Catherine…).

Simply, if the Pope is a “formal” heretic, and the Holiness of the Church by God's voice has not manifested a "conclusion" to this crisis, which He is allowing for the greater good of a certain something, then no one can go around "privately or publicly” declaring that the Pope is an "anti-Pope". That would be much like Protestants in their independent spirit running around saying that the Holy Eucharist is not the Son of God…it ends in ruin.

I wish to reiterate why it is so imperative to examine this present situation that we find ourselves in with the reigning Pontiff and the Petrine Chair. The only answer to any question relating to God’s authority is to stay with the Faith that we know until God makes it manifest to do otherwise; not to abandon God’s order. It is God who governs and controls His Church; not us. As Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre warned in 1979:
We do not need to seek anything outside of the salvation God had already communicated to us for 6,000 years; and we must realize that God has placed rulers in authority over us and we should respect their positions (Romans 13:1-5):
“Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation. For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same. For he is God' s minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God' s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake.”

God gave us the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Obedience to His creative order gives us the conviction to serve Him and the love that He asks of us to be like His Son in the footsteps of His Cross.

 Dec. 2013

Dear Fr Kramer,

In the course of this year you have been a great help to our Resistance against the liberalisation of the world of Tradition, especially with your conference in London a few months ago about the new mass.

Alas I cannot follow you when you publicly declare that Francis is no pope while Benedict is instead. Yet I must thank you from the onset because you are dealing a severe blow to sedevacantism in the process.

It confirms that sedevacantism is in fact a logical Pandora s box, leading more to confusion than order, since, yet again, another theory emerges... one among so many species.

Just recently I bumped into another sedevacantist who told me that mgr Guerard des Lauriers is a traitor. But that Bishop is a founding father of the movement. Among the non conclavist sedevacantists, it is getting harder and harder just to know what the different schools think. Such total talmudization I refuse to find myself embarked on.

Archbishop Lefebvre was keen to say that the theory has some serious reasons, but it leads to no certain conclusions. It looks very clear at the start, yet ends in great confusion, leading to a dangerous fragmentation of the Remnant of the Faith. Theologians are split into those who don t even consider the case ant those who do... and among those who do, there again, their sentences are split.

We should be content with the principle of Nullam Partem with heretics, not denying the existence of heresies when they appear in Rome, unlike the XSPX, who threw us overboard on account of us sticking to that principle.

But the Archbishop always refused to tread beyond this point, the overall sterility of the sedevacantist movement proved him right. Just one look at the city of Cincinatti is enough to see: the turf wars, the mutual excommunications, the endless doctrinal hair splitting, the comparatives between the different lines of bishops and the quarrels around the validity of this or that line... all of it like the vain genealogies denounced by St paul.

I am aware that you believe that somebody is still on the See of Peter, but that reminds me too much of the theory of the two Paul VI, or the theory that cardinal Siri is the Pope (and the theory went on with a secret, Siri appointed successor of Peter). Conclavist sedevacantism is back.

Knowing you as a Fatima priest, especially as somebody so aware of the wickedness of ex pope ex card. Ratzinger, in your book "The Devil s Final Battle", in which Ratzinger plays second fiddle only to the Devil, I don t see why you make such a difference betwixt Francis and Benedict.

That Bishop Fellay mourns the good old days of pope Benedict in his recent DICI interview is no surprise... his liberal mind wanted to have a deal with the darling of the conservatives.... and such a deal would be much harder with the Francis administration (even if he still calls them the Church, and he denies that Francis is a theoretical modernist, and leaves many doors open, maintains the AFD...).

I don t see a difference of degree between these two modernists, between these two heretics. Only their approach differs. Benedict would do things differently, but the Revolution must move on; Francis has a "charism" that he lacks. Benedict recognizes and encourages that so called charism, for destruction. This recent attack on the authority of Peter, which is going to turn the office of the Papacy into a presidential job, was concocted, not by Francis, but by Benedict. Some of his unknown speeches refer to the redefining of the "Petrine ministry". Francis just executes the sentence of his predecessor.

I am very sure that you studied both of them sufficiently to see that their principles of theology are the same. They are two faces of a same coin, just like the parties in our modern masonic democracies. Francis is going to wreck further the faith in the official church, but there is no questionning that Benedict proved extremely dangerous to us, Traditionnal Catholics. I am glad he is gone, with Francis there is clarity to some extent.

So I hope and pray you will give us some relief on this issue. As you say, we are in the final moments. It is much better to keep our heads up to the Great Sign in the Heavens (Apoc XII), than to lower our spirit into some new confusion. Our poor little sheep are shepherdess enough as they are.

With all my best compliments on this wonderful feast of the Immaculate Conception,
Francois Chazal+

Source:  cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/letter-from-father-chazal-to-father-kramer.3087/