Author Topic: Father Krammer is Sede? (Read 7299 times)

Centroamerica · « **Reply #25 on:** November 30, 2013, 10:03:23 AM »

For the first few hours Fr. Kramer was declaring Pope Benedict's resignation valid. I mentioned him in a comment responding to a question that he was simply asserting Pope Benedict's resignation valid while providing no evidence. He then joined in the conversation to continue asserting. I asked him to examine this article and tell me what he thought......http://www.ultimostiempos.org/7-noticias/150-bxvi

Soon after he was declaring Una cuм papa nostro Benedicto. Perhaps the article is worth circulating perhaps it is not. I do not hold the views of the article or Fr. Kramer at this time, but I do believe this article shows evidence that Pope Benedict is the valid pope and was sufficient enough to change the father's opinion.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #26 on:** November 30, 2013, 10:07:40 AM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

If the covenant "never revoked" put him over the edge with Francis, I'm not sure how he held JPII was pope. Didn't he say the exact same thing?

Fr. Kramer did elaborate on this that Pope John Paul 2 said the covenant was never revoked and then later back-tracked when confronted and said that he was referring to the pre-Mosaic covenant which Fr. Kramer says excuses Pope John Paul 2 from manifest heresy. For that reason Francis is the first post-conciar pontiff who can be proved with evidence to show manifest heresy. I hope that answers your question.

soulguard · « **Reply #27 on:** November 30, 2013, 10:32:20 AM »

Must say this:
Does anyone else think that if clergy were going to become sedevacantist because of a "pope's" heresy, that they would have found countless other instances in which he revealed himself to be a non-Catholic, instead of something as abstract as whether the old covenant with jews was still in effect?

John Grace · « **Reply #28 on:** November 30, 2013, 10:50:57 AM »

I thought Fr. Kramer was favourable to what Antonio Ruffini stated. Pope Francis will be the one.If he doesn't of course the sede argument may hold.

http://www.fatimacrusader.com/cr80/cr80pg32.asp

Quote

Pope St. Pius X said he had a vision, and he saw in the vision his successor fleeing over the dead bodies of his brethren, and that this Pope would have to go into exile. He would go into hiding, he would have to wear a disguise to conceal his identity. He would live in retirement, but then he would be discovered, and he would suffer a cruel death.

I think we can safely conclude that these prophecies may be fulfilled in this Pontificate of Benedict XVI. One reason why I believe this, is because I personally knew the Roman Stigmatist, Antonio Ruffini. I knew him for almost 20 years. He received the visible stigmata in 1955, and he was so highly esteemed by Pope Pius XII, that Pius XII authorized the construction of a chapel on the spot where Ruffini had received the stigmata.

I asked Ruffini point-blank, "What about the Consecration of Russia? Will it be Pope John Paul II who consecrates Russia?" And Ruffini answered, "No, it will not be John Paul II. It will not be the Pope immediately after him. But the one after that, he is the one who will consecrate Russia."

That leaves between John Paul II and his second successor, only one pontificate in-between. He may be the Pope of the Chastisement, the one that Pope Pius X saw in the vision. As Our Lady, in one of Her apparitions, said, "Rome will undergo a great revolution". That’s when there will be the slaughter, the massacre in the Vatican. And the Pope will flee Rome in disguise.

2Vermont · « **Reply #29 on:** November 30, 2013, 02:37:24 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Larry
Fr. Kramer is one of the foremost experts in the world on the Traditional liturgy. He's studied it, and its implications, for years. I would bet the house that he has been conditionally reordained if he believes it was a necessity for him. He just might not make a public deal about it. There are other priests like him who have done the same thing.

Fr. Kramer was ordained by a bishop consecrated in the old rite. I do not know if the Paul VI rite was used or not, but even if it was the case, the argument of invalidity based on the ordination rite as opposed to the rite of consecration of bishops is much weaker.

Agreed. IMHO I lean more towards validity if a VII priest was ordained by an Old Rite bishop.