Pope Benedict XVI Remains in Full Possession of the Primacy – Fr. Paul Kramer

by

“The incontestable fact that Pope Benedict XVI has maintained some claim on his papal munus proves absolutely, that he remains in full possession of the primacy as a result of the conditionality of his renunciation of the munus. The reason for this is that the nature of the papacy is such, that the actual holder of the office possesses the primacy in virtue of the Petrine munus which he possesses in its absolute and indivisible fullness, so that a pope who would attempt to renounce the papal office by an act that lacks a total and unconditional renunciation of the munus, by the very act of his stipulating a qualifying condition of the renunciation, whereby the intention is asserted in the act, to retain anything whatsoever of the munus he received from Christ upon his election, albeit only ‘spiritual’ and not jurisdictional, nullifies the act in virtue of the fatal equivocation brought about by the logical opposition of contradictory assertions made in the act.”

Kramer, Paul. On the true and the false pope: The case against Bergoglio (pp. 350-351). Gondolin Press. Kindle Edition.

Cum ex Apostolatus Officio Can Be Applied to Determine whether a Papal Claimant Is Actually a True Pope – Fr. Paul Kramer

by

“I explained earlier that the ruling of Paul IV mentioned above [that the election of a heretic is invalid] is founded on the doctrinal principle that a heretic per se is an incapable subject of the papacy; and since no specific divine precept prescribing a remedy for the case of papal heresy can be found in divine revelation, we have what is a certain proof from reason that a pope cannot fall into formal heresy: It would contradict the divine wisdom if God were to permit that the Church should be ruled and governed by an illegitimate pastor and heretical destroyer of the Church, without prescribing any clear and infallible remedy for what Bordoni rightly calls the necessitas maxima of such a catastrophe of there being a pope, who exhibits the indicia of pertinacity in formal heresy, or in his words and actions exhibits the indicia of the gravest suspicion of heresy, without there being in place by divine institution an infallible juridical remedy to prevent the heretic from destroying the Church. The only remedy that does exist is the one prescribed by Paul IV — which is the same as what the medieval canonists referred to as an exceptio. This remedy could be practically applied to ferret out the heretic and expose his pertinacity by means of dubia, formal correction; and finally a declaratory sentence of heresy, nullity, and vacancy. By this means it would be proven that the ‘pope’ in question from the time he was elected was never a valid holder of the Petrine office.”

Kramer, Paul. On the true and the false pope: The case against Bergoglio (pp. 285-286). Gondolin Press. Kindle Edition.

It Is Impossible for a True Pope to Fall into Formal Heresy – Fr. Paul Kramer

by

“…..it lies within the Church’s power only to judge whether or not a claimant was validly elected, and for that, the Church would have to judge whether or not the claimant was a capable subject of assuming the papacy. Therefore, TWO CORROLARIES FOLLOW BY STRICT LOGICAL NECESSITY: 1) that it is impossible for a true pope to fall into formal heresy, and; 2) a manifest heretic pope is one who can be shown by the fact alone of manifest heresy to have never validly assumed the papacy, nor to have ever legitimately occupied the pontifical office.”

Kramer, Paul. On the true and the false pope: The case against Bergoglio (p. 285). Gondolin Press. Kindle Edition.