CathInfo.com

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?

Since Fr. Kramer spoke to that, I'll just quote his answer:

Quote from: Fr. Kramer

John XXIII was "prudent" and therefore tight lipped about his heterodox beliefs. He could not be judged on available evidence as a "manifest heretic".
Paul VI was convoluted and ambiguous in his teachings -- he camoflaged his heresy with a smoke screen of ambiguities. He could not easily be convicted of formal heresy.
John Paul II was even more convoluted, verbose and expressing his heretical beliefs behind a dense fog of convolutions. He was not a manifest formal heretic.
Archbishop Bergoglio, on the other hand, expresses his beliefs with clear and explicit contempt for defined Catholic dogma -- he is a manifest heretic.

I was able to get the PDF. Just scanning it, I was shocked to read his views on marriage.

Quote from: Ambrose

Stubborn wrote:

Quote

Who picks/authorizes/agrees upon the core group of lawful electors and who is / are the willing papal candidate(s)?

It is not for any of us to determine the electors, the Church has already done that.  In the absence of the Cardinals, the right of election devolves to the hierarchy and the Roman Clergy.  It is for them alone to elect the Pope.  Any election that takes place with other electors is illicit and schismatic.

As I have been told (I'm not any kind of expert on this either), the reason the college of cardinals exists is to provide the lawful assembly of Roman clergy, each of whom is assigned a Basilica in Rome, to elect the Bishop of Rome, who is the pope.  When one Bishop named Roger Mahony was elevated to cardinal he was made pastor of one of those Basilicas.  BTW, personally I would have no problem with him being excluded from a legitimate conclave, but that's just my personal opinion.  I don't think he's qualified to vote for dogcatcher of East Los Angeles (a poor section of town).  

What Fr. Kramer has in mind I can't really say, but I do know he appears to be "going out on a limb" or "sticking his neck out" by saying the things he has said in these messages on Facebook.  He's no dummy.  He would seem to be lighting a fuse, as it were, to get things started, for he has a tone of "no time to waste" in those words.  He is not one to do such a thing as this (pronounce an alarming proposition) without having already done the groundwork.  His modus operandi has always been to thoroughly research a topic BEFORE he goes public with any unusual message.  

He isn't going to say this, but I will:  I think he would make a great pope, nor is he trying to "campaign" for the office.  He is without question entirely willing to put it into the hands of God, but at the same time, he is aware that God helps those who help themselves, and therefore, he believes the time is right to take action.  

Should we instead wait for nuclear war or The 10 Plagues of Egypt Revisited before the Roman Pharaoh lets God's people go?  We have been suffering this spiritual enslavement of the UNCLEAN SPIRIT OF VATICAN II AND THE NEWMASS for two or three generations already, so enough is enough IMHO.

When he put out his assessment of the NON-PROMULGATION of the Newmass, he did not shoot from the hip.  When Fr. Paul Kramer stands before the madding crowd and pronounces the conclusions of his study, he might not provide as well all the footnotes one might need to do a theological consortium investigation or whatever it's called, but in my experience, he has such items at the ready in the event anyone is willing to pay attention and learn a thing or two.  

Plus, you might not have seen it mentioned anywhere else, but he also plays a mean piano.  

In a word, he's not one to speak from ignorance.

Take a look at the new EC (cccxxxiii)* and pause to ponder what the Church would be like if Fr. Rioult was elected Pope.  I'm sure he would get Bishop Williamson's vote, for example.  Nor would +F, +TdM or +AdG be likely to agree, and therefore, the latent divisions cut DEEP, not only in Newchurch but in the so-called Traditional Movement.  

*If you think that is all +W has to say regarding the work of Fr. Rioult, think again!

How would +Mark Pivarunas and/or +Donald Sanborn and/or +Clarence Kelly lay aside their differences and join with a "core group" to make such a monumental and daring effort for the Truth?  

Don't get me wrong, I would expect that Fr. Kramer has thought about this.  

It might take some kind of preparatory action, such as the consecration of one or more new bishops, before this can be implemented.  

And I would expect that the list of Resistance priests is not a bad starting point, with Fr. Ronald Ringrose, Dom Tomas Aquino, Fr. Patrick Girouard, Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer, Fr. David Hewko, Fr. Francois Chazal, and so on.  I'm just going by memory, and don't have any list in front of me.

We are blessed with many courageous priests.


.