Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available  (Read 32348 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Don Paolo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 481
  • Reputation: +90/-108
  • Gender: Male
Re: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available
« Reply #105 on: October 03, 2019, 09:17:58 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Pax Vobis: 《 Yet you judge +Francis guilty of heresy with no problem? 》

    I answer: If a man is in fact a manifest heretic, then one may judge accordingly.

    Pax Vobis: 《St Bellarmine mentions that the Cardinals or a council can declare a pope a heretic, if he rejects their rebuke attempts.》

    I answer: Bellarmine explains in what qualified manner a manifest heretic pope, AFTER HE HAS FALLEN FROM OFFICE BY HIMSELF may be judged and punished by the Church.

    Pax Vobis: 《f you can claim that +Francis isn't pope due to heresy, then the same situation is applicable to +Benedict, who was just as heretical. The only difference between the 2 was style.》

    I answer: The assertion is a gratuitous ipse dixit. I have already responded adequately to this vacuous objection.


    Offline Don Paolo

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 481
    • Reputation: +90/-108
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available
    « Reply #106 on: October 03, 2019, 09:31:07 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Pax Vobis: 《 So maybe a "council" is not allowed to declare a pope a heretic, but the Cardinals can?  Very similar, in my opinion. 》

    Not at all similar. No council may judge a reigning Pontiff. The Cardinals may declare that the Chair is vacant. As Pope Gregory XVI explained in the above quoted passage, such a judgment would not be made against the man who is actually the pope, but against the man who was before adorned with papal dignity. 
        I have already explained all of this above. Like a parrot, Pax Vobis, you are mindlesdly repeating the same vapid and vacuous objections after they have already been answered. STOP TROLLING!


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13034
    • Reputation: +8246/-2561
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available
    « Reply #107 on: October 03, 2019, 09:54:28 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • I'm not trolling, you just have an anger management problem.  You get unhinged when someone disagrees with you.

    Offline Don Paolo

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 481
    • Reputation: +90/-108
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available
    « Reply #108 on: October 03, 2019, 10:04:41 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You are trolling. You stupidly make the same objections over and over again, no matter how clearly I have already answered them. By merely pointing that out, it cannot be rationally asserted that I am "unhinged". You are just clowning, mr. "Pax Vobis" TROLL. There's nothing serious about your mindless repetition -- TROLL!

    Offline MiserereMeiDeus

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 498
    • Reputation: +448/-23
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available
    « Reply #109 on: October 03, 2019, 11:47:45 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    Wrong.  An objective sin is a sin, and an offense against God.  Only the culpability/guilt is changed, depending on the person's intent/knowledge.

    .
    So you agree he was a bad pope, but you disagree that he had bad will.  ??  So he was a bad pope "accidentally"?  Come on.

    Re "actual sin," you're right, I misspoke. I meant culpability.
    Regarding your assertion that to be a bad pope requires bad will -- absolute nonsense. It could as easily be a combination of mush-mindedness and weakness.
    I am done repeating the obvious. I feel like I'm arguing with poche. It's a waste of time. I don't expect to post any more to this thread. So have at it -- you have the last word. (From me, obviously. Others may have more tolerance.)
    "Let us thank God for having called us to His holy faith. It is a great gift, and the number of those who thank God for it is small."
    -- St. Alphonsus de Liguori


    Offline DecemRationis

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2336
    • Reputation: +882/-146
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available
    « Reply #110 on: October 29, 2019, 01:13:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Don Paolo,

    I purchased a Kindle edition of your book, To Deceive the Elect, and am enjoying it very much and find it well-written and frankly persuasive. I know you’re still around here from your presence recently, so I’d like to ask you a question about it, and members here may be interested in the answer.



    Quote
    However, since his first public expression after his election in March 2013 of manifestly formal heresy in an official docuмent was his rejection of the perpetually taught dogma of the abrogation of the Mosaic Covenant, a few words on this point are in order. “Pope” Francis in Evangelii Gaudium n. 247 asserts the inexcusable heresy: “We hold the Jєωιѕн 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 Ecuмenical 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”. It is not for no reason that the Fathers unanimously teach that the Old Covenant was revoked: they simply received that doctrine straight out of the New Testament writings of St. Paul (“in Christ it is made void” – 2 Cor. 3:15). In Chapter 8 of Hebrews, the Apostle explains that the Mosaic Covenant is called the Old Covenant precisely because it it made old by the New Covenant, and is to be ended: “ Now in saying a new, he hath made the former old. And that which decayeth and groweth old, is near its end.” On this solid basis of Scripture and Tradition, the Catholic Church has

    Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope (Italian Edition) (Kindle Locations 804-815). Gondolin Press. Kindle Edition.

    This continues:


    Quote
    defined (Council of Florence) that the Old Covenant is revoked, abolished, and abrogated (cf. Benedict XIV, Ex quo primum , 1 March 1756). It never occurred to Bergoglio that the the fulfillment of the Old Covenant not only does not logically oppose the notion of its revocation, but also contradicts the Catholic teaching that it is precisely in its fulfillment by the New Covenant of Jesus Christ that the Old Covenant is made void. The objection that says the Old Covenant was never revoked because the promise made to Abraham is irrevocable, is a heretical non sequirur . The Covenant with Abraham is irrevocable, but it is not and has never been professed to be the Old Covenant. Even for Jews, “The Covenant” is the Sinai Covenant, mediated by Moses. It was that covenant of which the prophet Jeremiah spoke, saying it would be replaced by a new covenant: “ Behold the days shall come, saith the Lord, and I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Juda: Not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt: the covenant which they made void, and I had dominion over them, saith the Lord.” (Jer. 31: 31-2).Thus it is patent that the doctrine of the non revocation of the Old Covenant, professed by Jorge Bergoglio; (and explicitly set forth in the so-called Catechism of the Catholic Church ), is contrary to the perpetual dogma of the Catholic faith, and is therefore heretical.

    I have been saying for more than four decades 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.

    Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope (Italian Edition) (Kindle Locations 815-828). Gondolin Press. Kindle Edition.


    The CCC, which “explicitly sets forth” the heresy of non-revocation of the Old Covenant, was promulgated by JPII and part of his teaching, his magisterium.
    How is it that he is not a manifest heretic and a “false pope”?

    It appears to me that, on the basis of what you say here, he is, and that there is not only a singular “false pope” (“the false pope”), but many.

    In anticipation of you deigning to reply . . .

    Many thanks,

    DR



    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.

    Offline Don Paolo

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 481
    • Reputation: +90/-108
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available
    « Reply #111 on: October 29, 2019, 01:55:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •      Bergoglio's proposition directly, explicitly, and immediately opposes the dogma of the revocation of the Mosaic Covenant according to the plain and clear sense of its words; leaving no doubt that he denies a dogma of faith about which he cannot conceivably be ignorant.
         Wojtyła and Ratznger phrase their propositions differently, in such a manner that erroneously construes the term "Old Covenant" not to refer specifically to the Mosaic Covenant, but to all the covenants of the Old Testament; most of which are irrevocable and unconditional. It is a grave error to speak of this collection of scriptural covenants as the "Old Covenant" because it is contrary to the clear and explicit teaching of Hebrews, Ch. 9, as well as the unanimous consensus of the Fathers, who teach in unison that the Old Covenant is specifically the Mosaic Covenant. While it is possible for someone (such as Wojtyła and Ratzinger) to err without dolus regarding the meaning of the term "Old Covenant"; it is inconceivable that Bergoglio could be ignorant of the universally known dogma of the revocation of the Mosaic Covenant.

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2336
    • Reputation: +882/-146
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available
    « Reply #112 on: October 29, 2019, 02:22:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •     Bergoglio's proposition directly, explicitly, and immediately opposes the dogma of the revocation of the Mosaic Covenant according to the plain and clear sense of its words; leaving no doubt that he denies a dogma of faith about which he cannot conceivably be ignorant.
         Wojtyła and Ratznger phrase their propositions differently, in such a manner that erroneously construes the term "Old Covenant" not to refer specifically to the Mosaic Covenant, but to all the covenants of the Old Testament; most of which are irrevocable and unconditional. It is a grave error to speak of this collection of scriptural covenants as the "Old Covenant" because it is contrary to the clear and explicit teaching of Hebrews, Ch. 9, as well as the unanimous consensus of the Fathers, who teach in unison that the Old Covenant is specifically the Mosaic Covenant. While it is possible for someone (such as Wojtyła and Ratzinger) to err without dolus regarding the meaning of the term "Old Covenant"; it is inconceivable that Bergoglio could be ignorant of the universally known dogma of the revocation of the Mosaic Covenant.

    Don Paolo,

    Ok. I looked at the statement in the CCC; it says, "The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.” (CCC, 121).  As you state in your book, Bergolio said in Evangelii Gaudium,  “[w]e hold the Jєωιѕн people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked.” They can be interpreted differently.

    However, what you say in your book makes it appear that the CCC is “explicitly set[ting] forth” the same heresy as Bergolio:


    Quote
    Thus it is patent that the doctrine of the non revocation of the Old Covenant, professed by Jorge Bergoglio; (and explicitly set forth in the so-called Catechism of the Catholic Church ), is contrary to the perpetual dogma of the Catholic faith, and is therefore heretical.

    I would change that in another edition; it’s confusing and a bit messy in light of your explanation, which I thank you for.

    Thanks for clarifying.

    DR
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.


    Offline Mr G

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2430
    • Reputation: +1594/-94
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available
    « Reply #113 on: October 29, 2019, 02:30:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Hello Fr. Kramer,

    I have seen a recent conference of Bishop Williamson were he mentions he has been given a copy of your new book, do you know of any other clergy that is reading your book? Or have you given it to any Cardinals or Bishops?




    Offline Nishant Xavier

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2873
    • Reputation: +1894/-1751
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available
    « Reply #114 on: October 29, 2019, 02:38:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Reverend Father Kramer, I recall reading some of your great articles or interviews in the Fatima Crusader about a decade and a half ago? Can I ask if you still believe the Fatima Consecration is necessary and possible? Supposing Pope Francis were to call for it, Pope Benedict XVI would surely join in. Wouldn't that be enough, and isn't it ok for us to keep working for that?

    From Catholic Tradition, "Father Kramer: On this point I would refer to the testimony of the Roman stigmatist, Antonio Ruffini. Pope Pius XII authorized the blessing of a chapel on the spot where Ruffini received the stigmata on the Via Appia, and Father Tomaselli, the miracle worker, wrote a booklet about him ----  a short account of the life of Ruffini. I myself knew Ruffini for many years. In the early 1990s Ruffini was asked point blank in his home: "Is John Paul II the Pope who is going to do the Consecration of Russia?" He answered: "No, it's not John Paul. It will not be his immediate successor either, but the one after that. He is the one who will consecrate Russia." That is, Benedict's successor, during this time of world war and persecution of the Church, will be the one to do the Consecration at long last and then the restoration and the triumph of the Immaculate Heart will begin." http://catholictradition.org/Mary/fatima40.htm So do you still believe that? Or do you believe this will happen only after a declaration that Francis is not the Pope? 

    Also, I'm not sure 20th century Catholic Theologians universally abandoned Cardinal Cajetan's opinion - or at least, they found a way to still apply it. For e.g. Cardinal Journet, whom Archbishop Lefebvre called a great Theologian, writing in Church of the Incarnate Word, 1954, stated on the Pope-heretic question, "Others, such as Cajetan, and John of St. Thomas, whose analysis seems to me more penetrating, have considered that even after a manifest sin of heresy the Pope is not yet deposed, but should be deposed by the Church, papa haereticus non est depositus, sed deponendus. Nevertheless, they added, the Church is not on that account above the Pope. And to make this clear they fall back on an explanation of the same nature as those we have used in Excursus IV. They remark on the one hand that in divine law the Church is to be united to the Pope as the body is to the head; and on the other that, by divine law, he who shows himself a heretic is to be avoided after one or two admonitions (Tit. iii. 10). There is therefore an absolute contradiction between the fact of being Pope and the fact of persevering in heresy after one or two admonitions. The Church’s action is simply declaratory, it makes it plain that an incorrigible sin of heresy exists; then the authoritative action of God disjoins the Papacy from a subject who, persisting in heresy after admonition, becomes in divine law, inapt to retain it any longer. In virtue therefore of Scripture the Church designates and God deposes. God acts with the Church, says John of St. Thomas, somewhat as a Pope would act who decided to attach indulgences to certain places of pilgrimage, but left it to a subordinate to designate which these places should be (II-II, q. I; disp. 2, a. 3, no. 29, vol. VII, p. 264). The explanation of Cajetan and John of St. Thomas — which, according to them, is also valid, properly applied, as an interpretation of the enactments of the Council of Constance — brings us back in its turn to the case of a subject who becomes in Divine law incapable at a given moment of retaining the papacy. It is also reducible to the loss of the pontificate by default of the subject. This then is the fundamental case and the others are merely variants." 

    Please see: http://theologicalflint.com/journet-on-a-heretic-pope-and-his-deposition/ Your thoughts, Father? God bless.

    Offline Don Paolo

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 481
    • Reputation: +90/-108
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available
    « Reply #115 on: October 29, 2019, 02:41:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Objectively the heresy is explicitly asserted in the CCC; but its authors cannot be judged guilty of the crime of heresy on that basis alone, due to their erroneous notion of the term, "Old Covenant".


    Offline DecemRationis

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2336
    • Reputation: +882/-146
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available
    « Reply #116 on: October 29, 2019, 02:46:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Objectively the heresy is explicitly asserted in the CCC; but its authors cannot be judged guilty of the crime of heresy on that basis alone, due to their erroneous notion of the term, "Old Covenant".

    If the heresy in the CCC is explicit, then the term “Old Covenant” means Mosaic Covenant, or has been defined by the Church as such, yes? Wouldn’t they, with their theological training (probably much better than Bergolio’s), have known (or can be legally judged to have known) that the phrase “Old Covenant” had been used by the Church to refer to the Mosaic?
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.

    Offline Nishant Xavier

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2873
    • Reputation: +1894/-1751
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available
    « Reply #117 on: October 29, 2019, 03:16:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • If the heresy in the CCC is explicit, then the term “Old Covenant” means Mosaic Covenant, or has been defined by the Church as such, yes? Wouldn’t they, with their theological training (probably much better than Bergolio’s), have known (or can be legally judged to have known) that the phrase “Old Covenant” had been used by the Church to refer to the Mosaic?

    Dear Decem Rationis, I'm not Fr. Kramer, but this is the problem in the wrong application of the idea that the Pope loses his office without any intervention of the Church - even to merely ascertain the degree of public pertinacity present - whatsoever. If a Pope makes a mistake when speaking non-infallibly, he can and should be rebuked for it by his inferiors, but the presumption remains that he is the Pope imho, unless he has clearly and manifestly, beyond any degree of doubt whatsoever, proved obstinate and manifestly so before all. And it is the Bishops themselves, not us, who will have to judge and declare that the Pope has now proved obstinate.

    What's to prevent sedevacantists from declaring tomorrow that Pope Pius XII lost his office or never had it to begin with, if they find what they deem to be heresies in his words? There are some sedevacantists who go back all the way to Pope Pius IX, and Ibranyi at last count has gone back a 1000 years or so. This can't be the Catholic Faith.

    God bless.

    Offline King Wenceslas

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 344
    • Reputation: +100/-136
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available
    « Reply #118 on: October 29, 2019, 04:11:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    “We hold the Jєωιѕн people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked”.

    If he was speaking about the Mosaic Covenant, then that is heretical.

    If he was speaking about the Abrahamic Covenant, that is true.

    Therefore, this is a non issue since one cannot tell which one he is talking about.

    Surprised that Fr. Kramer fell for this one.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47733
    • Reputation: +28224/-5287
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available
    « Reply #119 on: October 29, 2019, 04:16:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • ... but this is the problem in the wrong application of the idea that the Pope loses his office without any intervention of the Church ...

    Says you.  Bishop Guerard des Lauriers concluded otherwise, that formal authority was lost ... with the material office remaining to be removed by the Church.  That is in fact the most reasonable conclusion.  I'll go with perhaps the highest-ranking and most well-respected theologian in the Church right before Vatican II over the sloppy and poorly-researched ramblings of a former tax attorney with zero formal theological training.