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.

It makes me wonder whether the next step for Fr Kramer is to name them all anti-popes.  Hindsight 20/20 and all.  I mean let's get to the bottom of this once and for all.

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

What about them?

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.


.

Neil,

All of the Cardinals are appointees of Pope Pius XII and for that matter John XXIII are deceased.  The power of election then falls to the bishops and members of the Roman clergy lawfully appointed.

I admire Fr. Kramer greatly for clearly identifying Francis as a public heretic, therefore an antipope, but the same principles apply to Benedict XVI, John Paul II and Paul VI.

Heresy is not only identified by words, but it can also be ascertained by actions and even a failure to act.  The case against the other men I mentioned is no less weak, and I think Fr. Kramer, if he has time to dwell on it, will see that as well.  

So what's the deal here?  Does this guy really believe sede vacante?  Or is he just wishing Benedict XVI was back in the chair?

Quote from: 2Vermont

So what's the deal here?  Does this guy really believe sede vacante?  Or is he just wishing Benedict XVI was back in the chair?

He is saying Pope Benedict is the current valid pope. The sede sites are intentionally omitting his following comments to use deceit to promote their agendas. I can not seem to add a snap shot of the comments. He says una cuм papa nostro Benedicto. He is saying Bergoglio is not pope and pope Benedict is. It is worth opening a Facebook account to see for yourself what he says instead of intentionally remaining confused.

I don't think anyone is "intentionally omitting [anything] to use deceit to promote their agendas."  

I think there is genuine confusion about his stand on the issue.  He does seem to say both "sede vacante" and "Benedict XVI is pope".  I tend to agree, however, that he is absolutely anti-sedevacantist and will grope for anything that he can grasp to deny sedevacantism.

It also seems that this viewpoint I describe here is beginning to get out.

Quote from: Centroamerica

Quote from: 2Vermont

So what's the deal here?  Does this guy really believe sede vacante?  Or is he just wishing Benedict XVI was back in the chair?

He is saying Pope Benedict is the current valid pope. The sede sites are intentionally omitting his following comments to use deceit to promote their agendas. I can not seem to add a snap shot of the comments. He says una cuм papa nostro Benedicto. He is saying Bergoglio is not pope and pope Benedict is. It is worth opening a Facebook account to see for yourself what he says instead of intentionally remaining confused.

I don't think anyone is "intentionally omitting [anything] to use deceit to promote their agendas."  

I think there is genuine confusion about his stand on the issue.  He does seem to say both "sede vacante" and "Benedict XVI is pope".  I tend to agree, however, that he is absolutely anti-sedevacantist and will grope for anything that he can grasp to deny sedevacantism.

It also seems that this viewpoint I describe here is beginning to get out.

I think NovusOrdoWatch should include his other comment then (about him believing Benedict XVI is the real pope).  I don't believe they do.

Quote from: 2Vermont

I think NovusOrdoWatch should include his other comment then (about him believing Benedict XVI is the real pope).  I don't believe they do.

Check out the Wire.  They just did.

http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/

Good. I guess we can stop hearing accusations that they are intentionally withholding info to push their own agenda.

It is interesting that Fr Kramer is saying he has evidence that Benedict XVI was coerced into resigning.  I need to check out the interview mentioned in the update.

I read the link! (Just wanted you to know I read your link, Centro)

And oh I would just CHEER on ANYONE that might try to take on the Vatican. Imagine that little freak berGOGlio running over top of Dolan and the other "cardinals" and cronies and old battle axes (Marxist women) who lay there dying (probably coming back to life like zombies...) If that happened NOW?! Oh, I'd want it recorded in HDTV to see over and over again. St. Pope Piux X's dream had kept me hanging on  — not to Rome, but to TV, so I might see such a GLORIOUS EVENT.

Alas, to have that great abyss to Hell, the Vatican, filled in, I imagine it would take the Second Coming. The end.  Which of course will also be GLORIOUS, but I won't be watching any TV as much as trying to get to Heaven. I want us over on the "wheat" side, and safe distance away from the Vatican.

So I think it (S. PPX's dream) has already happened. Since St. Pius X said it would be someone of his same name, I'd guess it happened to either Pius XI or Pius XII, and just wasn't widely reported. Well, there were wars going on, of course. But given the condition of Pius XII's body, and what steam-rolled into the Vatican and took up residence ever since, I've got to think the Pope Saint's dream referred to Pope Pius XII. Maybe (LIKELY) Pius XII suffered way more than we could know, and Bugnini was calling more shots than we know (seems to be the case with the changes the rat Bugnini made which are attributed to Pius XII and Bugnini).

Has there since been schism since? Uh, affirmative. Oh yes.  

And 99% of the Cardinals or Bishops since that time have been proven, well, demonic oath-breakers who became Modernists and rape children. So I think the dream has happened. And we're on dude #8 since Pius XII, though who knows if you can count the one after Montini since his own hellions killed him so quickly. (I would note, Wojtyla couldn't get shot dead even when a guy TRIED. Imagine that shooter's utter horror when Wojtyla emerged into his jail cell and said, "BOW DOWN BEFORE ME, PEON!" —oh, I get the shivers. And the guy bowed down! I suppose that's a sign we shouldn't take things into our own hands; let God handle THIS, or we risk losing our souls.)

But the thought of that imp in there now being the anti-Christ... I don't know. Yes, he did supplant/usurp, and yes all manner of evil comes from his mouth. He fits the other qualifications (a modernist heretic who is proud but calls himself "humble", offers beach balls on altars, is a kook, lies, etc). I suppose I was just expecting a more ...impressive-looking Anti-Christ. Someone BIG and IMPOSING, for one. Someone you would be tempted to get on board with; who looks the part. Attractive, tempting to believe, Robert Redford or just ... not Frank. But, not my call.  :farmer: