CathInfo.com

The sede-doubt topic is an interesting one, but Fr Kramer's logic is still is a massive failure.  As do all of the indult communities, and the new-sspx, he fails to put all conciliar popes, from John 23 to now, into the same bucket.

Oh, yeah ... there's that for sure, where Father? Kramer has decided that Ratzinger was NOT a heretic because he didn't "mean it" when he taught the same heresy that he had first used to declare Bergoglio an AntiPope.

Father Kramer's first public statement that Bergoglio was an Anti-Pope was based on the latter's verbatim rejection of the dogmatic definition from Florence in claiming that the Old Covenant was still in force and salvific for the Jews.

Problem (for him):  Ratzinger (his hero) taught the exact same thing, on multiple occasions, and the "Saint" Wojtyla was the one who invented heresy.  In fact, Ratzinger was a brilliant man, even if a Modoernist, with advanced degrees from an era when they meant something ... whereas Bergoglio couldn't pass a quiz based on Baltimore Catechism No. 2, and called Traditional Catholics "Pelagians" when he obviously meant something like "Jansenists".  If anyone knew that what he was teaching denied prior dogmatic definition, that would have been Ratzinger and Wojtyla, where Bergoglio might quite believably plead ignorance were he confronted about this particular error.

I suspect that's why Father? Kramer decided that a Pope had to be "vehementer" ("vehemently") suspect of heresy before the Church could issue a judgment on his case.  I've never seen that qualificaition added by any of the Doctors or theologians who deal with the heretical pope problem.

But in his post there he slides from the "vehemently" position into "positive doubt".  So there's no positive doubt abuot the Rat?

I honestly believe that if the Traditional movement could "slough off" the dogmatic positions on either pole of this issue, there could be a real hope for unity.

As it is, those exert a polarizing effect on the entire Traditional movement, just like when you pull two opposite ends of a rubber band, everything in between also streches apart.

If we were to slap the fingers of those dogmatic types off Traditional Catholicism, it might end up taking its rightful shape.

Now, that does not mean there would not remain differences of opinion, or that every group could work together, practically speaking, since one group might use this version of the Mass or Holy Week Rites, another another, one might put "una cuм Prevosto [sic]" into the Canon, another not, and some migh have doubts about the Holy Orders of some other groups [more on that in second].  But ... so what?  We've always had different theological schools.  You had Thomist and Molinists calling each other heretics until the Pope intervened and told them to knock it off.  But outside of that you have different Rites, different spiritualities, different religious Orders, etc.  But the key thing is that these would be academic differences and no longer rise to the level of a schismatic attitude where those other who disagree with yoou should be refused the Sacraments and declared non-Catholics.  That's the difference.

While Father Jenkins was more moderate on the "doubtist" type of position, sadly he's gone along with the SSPV line (that I don't think he naturally would be inclined toward) that anyone who goes to a CMRI chapel or to a +Thuc-line priest should be refused Communion.  Now, you could OPINE that +Thuc Orders are positively doubtful, or that CMRI are problematic, and warn the faithful ... but WHO DIED AND MADE SSPV POPES?  How can you impose your opinion (a weak one at that) regarding the validity of the +Thuc lie on the consciences of the faithful and then weaponize threats of withholding the Sacraments against them?  You should warn them if you sincerely believe it ... "I think you're jeopardizing your soul if you keep doing that." ... but who are you to refuse Sacraments to those who disagree?  As for CMRI being "schismatic" because +Shuckhardt received Orders from Old Roman Catholic Daniel Brown ... not only do CMRI insist that Brown had repudiated any errors he had held before conferring Orders, but Canon Law does not consider someone schismatic just for obtaining Orders from a non-Catholic ... but the penalty was suspension.  Besides that, they don't even know the difference between Old Roman Catholics (not heretics but formerly schismatic, except ... if there's no Pope that's a tough accusation) and Old Catholics (heretics).

Finally, with regard to Holy Orders, I get disgusted at those who attack others for doubtful Orders almost as if they enjoy having some weapon they could use against their adversaries.  If some do have invalid Orders, that's a horrible and tragic situation, and nothing to relish.  See, a real Catholic with Christian charity would deplore the situation and ... OFFER TO CONDITIONALL CONSECRATE.  "Hey, Father(Bishop?) Dolan ... since you have questionable Orders, now that I have valid Orders, why don't I offer you a conditional.  You needn't admit thereby that you considered them doubtful, but we could both say that it's in the interests of bringing peace to consciences, and you could conditionall consecrate me also."  What we need is a Rebiba 2.0, someone who had conditional Orders from all the main Traditional lines out there, who would then conditioonally ordain any priests or bishiops out there.