Renouncing the Office of the Papacy Is an All or Nothing Act

If one can show that Benedict XVI had the intention to retain even one iota of the office (munus) of the papacy, he shows that Benedict XVI remains pope.  This is because renouncing the office of the papacy is an all or nothing act.  There is no partial renunciation.  The renunciations of former popes showed unequivocally that they completely relinquished any claim whatsoever to any part, no matter how small, of the office of the papacy.  This is not the case with Benedict XVI.  In his Declaratio, he unequivocally showed his intention to retain some aspect of the office of the papacy by only renouncing the ministerium (i.e., exercise of the active ministry).  Therefore, he remained pope.  Twice in his Declaratio he used the term “munus” (office) before announcing the object of his renunciation and yet it was not the “munus” he renounced.  That the cardinals proceeded to “elect” another pope does not matter.  No cardinal, either singly or together with the whole college, can declare a renunciation of the office of the papacy when the pope himself did not renounce it.

My friends, it really is that simple.  You Catholics who know your Faith, especially you Catholics of the Resistance, need to use your reason and stop making excuses.  Your souls are in danger if you persist in foolishness.  And please stop saying that you will wait for the Church to decide because the Church has already decided; Pope Benedict XVI, the visible head of the Catholic Church, made the decision in 2013 to retain some aspect of the office of the papacy.  That is enough for you to accept that he has been the pope since 2005.

The Pope of the Catholic Church Is Benedict and Not Antipope Francis – Fr. Paul Kramer

Fr. Paul Kramer made the above comments on this Facebook post:

The reference to Bishop Schneider is regarding the following:

Retraction and Apology regarding “True Pope” and Its Implication

I am issuing a retraction and apology for an error I made regarding the term “true pope” and its implication.  In several of my past posts I presented the following syllogism:

Every true pope is a validly consecrated bishop.
But Jorge Bergoglio, elected by the cardinals in 2013, is doubtfully a validly consecrated bishop.
Therefore, Jorge Bergoglio is doubtfully a true pope.

Whereas the argument is valid (i.e., the conclusion follows from the premises), there is a problem with my meaning of the term “true pope” in the major premise.  What I meant by the term “true pope” is that he is a baptized male, who is validly elected, who accepts his election, and who is validly consecrated a bishop.  Only once these four things are in place, he has universal jurisdiction (i.e., the power to teach and govern the whole Church). Without universal jurisdiction, he cannot be a “true pope”.  By doubting the validity of Jorge Bergoglio’s episcopal consecration (or even that of Joseph Ratzinger), I wrote that that segment of the Catholic Resistance that has such a doubt must conclude that they doubt whether Jorge Bergoglio is or Joseph Ratzinger was a true pope.  By such a conclusion, in their eyes we have not had a certain pope since 2005 (i.e., the death of Pope John Paul II).  Therefore, I accused them of being closer to “sede vacante” (not Sedevacantism) than those (like me) who hold Benedict XVI as the current true pope.  After further investigation, I found that I made an error in thinking that a valid episcopal consecration is required BEFORE obtaining universal jurisdiction.  I used the 1917 and 1983 Codes of Canon Law to support my position.  However, looking back at them and looking at other documents, I now believe that the truth was an issue of canonical procedure rather than an issue of doctrine.

Here are some references that show that a layman may be validly elected and have the power of jurisdiction before his episcopal consecration:

1. “Even if a layman were elected pope, he could accept the election only if he were fit for ordination and willing to be ordained. But the power to teach and govern, as well as the divine gift of infallibility, would be granted to him from the very moment of his acceptance, even before his ordination.”
(Pope Pius XII, Guiding Principles of the Lay Apostolate, 1957)

2. “A layman can be validly elected to the office, since the power of jurisdiction can be exercised without the the power of Orders.  In such a case, the person elected would receive the power of jurisdiction immediately upon his election, but the power of Orders would come only through the Sacrament of Orders, which he would be obliged to receive, since Christ evidently intended that His Church be governed by bishops,- bishops by the power of Orders as well as by the power of jurisdiction.”
(Fr. E. Sylvester Berry, The Church of Christ, 1955, Chapter XII)

3. Pope Adrian V was a layman elected to the papacy on July 12, 1276.  He annulled the regulations of his predecessor, Pope Gregory X, concerning papal conclaves.  Pope Adrian V died before being consecrated a bishop.  Nevertheless, his legal act was not considered invalid by future popes.

I apologize to the priests and faithful of the Catholic Resistance that I accused of being closer to “sede vacante”.  I also apologize to everyone for any confusion or concern I have caused.

Private Individuals Have the Right to Prudently Judge a Manifest Heretic – Fr. Paul Kramer

“If the heresy and its pertinacity are manifest or at least apparent without evidence to the contrary, then private individuals have the right to prudently judge privately and state their private opinions in a prudent manner even in public; but as private individuals they may not presume to judge in any official capacity. It is because the loss of office takes place ex natura hæresis, according to divine law, and therefore takes place independently of any ecclesiastical law or act of jurisdiction, that the individual has the right in conscience to form an opinion even before a judgment is pronounced by Church authority. As Christopher Ferrara explains in Fatima Perspectives, ‘It is an axiom of our religion that no person on earth can judge the Pope in the sense of a penal sentence with juridical effect.’ Since ecclesiastical law recognizes the ipso facto loss of office to take place ipso jure, it pertains strictly to ecclesiastical jurisdiction for a judgment to be pronounced with juridical effect.”
Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope. Kindle Edition.

Many in the Catholic Resistance have no problem judging that the Novus Ordo Rite of Mass and Vatican II are not Catholic ahead of a definitive judgment of the Church.  Yet, when it comes to judging that a man is a public manifest formal heretic or that a man seemingly occupying the See of Peter is an antipope, they immediately scream out, “You have no right to judge!  You have to wait for the Church to make a judgement!”  What nonsense.  Read the wise words above of Fr. Paul Kramer.  One has a right to form a private judgment on whether a man is a heretic based on the evidence.  However, one’s private judgment does not have a juridical effect as this pertains properly to the ecclesiastical authority.

Catechism 101:

Question:  What is rash judgement?
Answer:  Rash judgment is believing a person guilty of sin without a sufficient cause.

But what if there is a sufficient cause?  You do the math.

Where is the Resistance in regards to the Pope?

Friends, it is interesting to see how grace is working in those outside of the Catholic Resistance in regards to “who is the true pope” question.  Whereas those outside of the Catholic Resistance are at least willing to entertain the question, many in the Catholic Resistance shut the door.  The Catholic Resistance is failing us on this question.  Very sad.