CathInfo.com

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?

Fr. Kramer wrote violenter which is a higher degree of suspicion than vehementer.  Nevertheless, Father is just describing the degree of suspicion that he holds Leo XIV to be at.  I don't think he has made it clear that violenter is the necessary degree of suspicion to justify doubt.  In his book on the issue of a heretical "pope", he uses the term "positive doubt" several times.