Uncategorized

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.

The Subject Matter of the Second Volume of To Deceive the Elect – Fr. Paul Kramer

by

“…..the primary purpose of the first part of this volume is to briefly elaborate the teaching of the Church on the nature of ecclesiastical authority insofar as it applies to the Church’s power to determine infallibly and judge between multiple claimants to the papal throne, or to judge on the legitimacy of a doubtful pope who is reputed to be the valid pontiff — a putative pope. In the second part, I will apply this doctrine to the claims on the Petrine munus of Jorge Bergoglio and Joseph Ratzinger; and I will prove that Bergoglio is a formal heretic, and therefore an   incapable subject of the papacy, and therefore not a valid pope; while, Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI), according to the standards of canonical tradition, does not present in his doctrines any certain indicia of formal heresy which would constitute proof sufficient to disqualify him from holding the Petrine office. A brief but concise exposition on the nullifying canonical defects of Benedict’s renunciation will also be included this volume, which will demonstrate that Benedict XVI, even as Pope Emeritus remains in full possession of the Petrine munus, so that upon his death, the Apostolic See will become vacant, and it will then be necessary for a new pope to be elected.”

Kramer, Paul. On the true and the false pope: The case against Bergoglio (p. 61). Gondolin Press. Kindle Edition.