King Wenceslas - Well, seeing that Fr. Kramer is out to prove: "that Benedict XVI remains in office as the sole Vicar of Christ on earth; and that Francis is a manifest heretic who cannot validly occupy the papal throne", then it makes no sense that he would choose to open up his introduction with a quote that appears to say it is a *true* pope who would "deny all truths of faith and to put himself in place of God." 

In context with the quote right above from St. Francis of Assisi: "At the time of this tribulation a man not canonically elected will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavour to draw many into error and death", then it does make sense that the seer, Bruno Cornacchiola, didn't actually dream that it would be a *true* pope who would "deny all truths of the faith..." ("a man not canonically elected will be raised to the Pontificate" -- so he would just *appear* to be Pope). 

And just as the St. Francis of Assisi quote above ends: "for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor, but a destroyer", both were meant to be taken in context of the other. At least that is how I read it, especially given the subject matter Fr. Kramer is out to prove. 

Simply impossible according to Pastor Aeternus and the Baltimore Catachism:

“What I have dreamed is never to come, it is too painful and I hope that the Lord will not allow the Pope to deny all truths of faith and to put himself in place of God. How much pain I felt in the night, my legs became paralyzed and I could not move any more, for the pain I felt when I saw the Church reduced to a cluster of ruins”

Bruno Cornacchiola (Seer of the Apparition of Our Lady of Revelation)

One must be always be on guard with seers. They can be true but many times they send off false signals.

One cannot be Pope and deny "all truths of faith and put himself in place of God". If that were true then Vatican I and the Baltimore Catechism teach error.

I agree that we need to be cautious with seers, but I think Father Kramer's point is that our current pope is Pope Benedict.

Excerpt from: "THE PAPACY IN THE SECRET OF FATIMA - PART XI"  by Father Paul Kramer

The argument that Pope Benedict can equally be accused of heresy is utterly fallacious. In the works of Ratzinger there is a profession of belief in dogma, but there is also a warped understanding of dogma rooted in theology based on a framework of modern philosophy; in Bergoglio, there is a patent malice of unbelief; a conscious rejection of the "absolute truth" of dogma and the "moral absolutes".

I will present a systematic exposition on the question of the Bergoglian "pontificate" vs. the true and valid pontificate of Benedict XVI, in Vol. II of this work. But to those who object saying, "Why on earth do you think he's (Benedict) any better than Francis?" I reply: The "god" of Jorge "Francis" Bergoglio is the "world soul" (anima mundi) of Shaftesbury, Teilhard de Chardin, and the 'ancient Mysteries' of the Pagans and Freemasons - i.e. the pandeistic Deus of Natura of Spinoza. The God Pope Benedict XVI professes is the God of Christians - the God of the apostles, prophets and philosophers; as he eloquently explained in his first part of his first major work, Einfuhrung in das Christentum.

Bergoglio's religion worships the "god" of Spinoza in the reformed and dogma denying ecuмenical "church" of doctrinal and moral relativism that is emerging out of the post-conciliar Church - the Bergoglian counterfeit "church" which apes the Catholic Church and usurps its name - and which is now seen to be in the process of visibly separating itself from the Catholicism of the past two millennia. Pope Benedict XVI professes and worships the true God of Catholic dogma, as does the remnant Church of which he remains the true pope and supreme Pontiff, in spite of the mass of confusion among the faithful and clergy concerning the identity of the true pope.

Both men, the true pope and the false pope will die, but the false "church" and the true Church will survive their deaths. It does not suffice for salvation that a Catholic resist false doctrine and personally adhere to the true dogma of Faith; but one must remain within the fold of the true Church of Jesus Christ as a member of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, outside of which there is no salvation. The Catholic must visibly separate himself from the organization of those who visibly separate themselves from the true Church by their public defection from the faith into heresy, but who remain as illegitimate squatters and usurpers within the material structural framework formerly occupied by the Catholic Church and identified pertaining to it.

https://storage.googleapis.com/wzukusers/user-29953306/docuмents/5b8bd7790493bJaBjfkU/2018%20Sept%20Newsletter.pdf

If Francis is a manifest heretic, then so is Benedict.  They believe the same things ... only Bergoglio is just more open and shameless about it.  What heresy does Bergoglio hold that Benedict could also not be quoted as promoting?

And that is why I am not a true sedevacantist. If there actually have been no popes since 1958, I would cease to remain in the Catholic Church and become Orthodox. 60 years without popes effectively would destroy the Catholic Church. In another 100 years sedevacantism, as it is adhered to by its followers today, would destroy anyone's Catholic faith. Sedevacantists actually have no idea where they are going. The blind leading the blind.

But then again Bruno's statement could mean the papacies of JXXVIII, PVI, JPII, and BXVI where he calls out for them to not deny all the truth's and put themselves in the place of God.

PF obviously has put himself in the place of God.

But here I am reading too much into it.

So you strictly adhere to the fact that their have been no Popes since 1958? How about 1938? Pius XII did some pretty shaky things like the reform of Holy Week? Pius XII promulgated Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis which permitted an election of a pope who is a heretic before he goes into a conclave? Pius XI sold out the Cristeros? Benedict XV was a secretary of C. Rampolla the Mason? Pius IX promulgated Pastor Aeternus which got us into this fix of picking between a Pope and the Apostolic Faith? Where does it stop?

So you strictly adhere to the fact that their have been no Popes since 1958?

The facts do not depend on my assessments of the situation or on the level of strictness with which I adhere to my own moral decisions.

I repeat: The answer to the question whether a specific pope (or any other person) is a manifest heretic or is not a manifest heretic depends only on his past and/or present words and deeds.

Now, you and I have to inform ourselves about the true faith and about the persons who pretend to have apostolic authority, who pretend to have been sent by Our Lord Jesus Christ to guide us. We have to verify whether they teach the true gospel or whether they lead us to hell. Then we have to follow our schooled conscience.

How about 1938? Pius XII did some pretty shaky things like the reform of Holy Week? Pius XII promulgated Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis which permitted an election of a pope who is a heretic before he goes into a conclave? Pius XI sold out the Cristeros? Benedict XV was a secretary of C. Rampolla the Mason? Pius IX promulgated Pastor Aeternus which got us into this fix of picking between a Pope and the Apostolic Faith? Where does it stop?

Well, said popes may have been manifest heretics too. In case of doubt you should look for heretical statements. We're not talking about incomprehensible words or acts, or about possibly suboptimal administration, but about manifest heresy.

At the robber council of the 1960s there were gathered roughly 2500 bishops of the Church (as far as they hadn't been manifest heretics before) declaring a series of heresies in a most solemn way. All their constitutions, decrees, and declarations have a statement claiming the assistance of the Holy Ghost. Being the highest apostolically authorized shepherds of the Church gathered in one place, they have no excuse of the kind "sorry, we were not aware that we're contradicting defined dogma".

If you can show me, where Pius XII, Pius XI, Benedict XV ... uttered heresy without possible excuse, please do so! I am interested in the facts.