Fr. Kramer Declares that Benedict is a Heretic and Calls Upon All Clergy to Consider the See Vacant … and then verbally attacks some for calling him a Sedevacantist
After initially accepting Francis as Pope, Fr. Kramer judge him to be a heretic, concluded that he was no longer the Pope, and then publicly declared on his Facebook account that the Papacy was vacant.
The next day he decided that the Benedict XVI was the true Pope and spent the next five years trying to prove it. Then, in April of 2019, Fr. Kramer again judged the person he believed to be the Pope while he was judging him, and concluded that Benedict was also a heretic. He then promptly declared it on his Facebook page, and called upon "the few remaining Catholic prelates and clergy," to consider the see vacant! Below is his Facebook post.
Paul Kramer Facebook Post April 30 at 5:12 AM
On the Likelihood of a
Vacancy of the Apostolic See
"Francesco Bordoni, a qualificator of the
Holy Inquisition, explains in his work on prosecuting heretics (which I have
cited in To Deceive the Elect), that two indicia of vehement suspicion equal
one indicium of violent suspucion of heresy, so even if we were to presume a
possible benign interpretation to Ratzinger's words on the Jewish Question,
that would be at minimum an indicium of vehement suspicion; but combined with
his heretical propositions on 1) the resurrection of the body, 2) on the
judgment of the living and the dead, 3) on transubstantiation, and 4) on the
Incarnation of Christ, Ratzinger is manifestly to be considered at minimum to
be violenter suspectus hæresis -- which denotes moral certitude of formal
heresy, which means his formal heresy is not to be reasonably doubted, and if
he were to remain obstinate after being presented with evidence that would
convince a reasonable man that his opinions are heretical, then he would have
to be judged as not merely violently suspect of heresy, but would be a formal
heretic manifestly guilty of the crime of heresy. Gregory XVI explains in the
passsge cited below that such a judgment would not violate the rights of the
Primacy, but would be pronounced against the one who was the pope before
falling from office.
"WHAT THIS ALL PROVES IS THAT THE SEE OF
PETER IS AT BEST, PROBABLY AND PRESUMABLY VACANT; which means that the
governance of the Church devolves temporarily from a monarchical form of
government to an aristocratic form of government, as Gregory XVI explains in a
passage I quote in my first volume of To Deceive the Elect.* It is explained by
Gregory XVI, Ballerini, Bordoni, and St. Alphonsus de Liguori (in passages I
quote in my book) that the see is to be presumed vacant if it is impossible to
determine with certitude that a claimant is a valid pope. That leaves the
Church in essentially the same situation that existed at the time of the
Council of Constance, when it could not be determibed with any degree of
certitude which, if any of the three claimants, was the legitimate occupant of
the papal throne.
"Today, of the two claimants, Bergoglio is
manifestly a formal heretic, as I have briefly proven in the Introduction in
Volume One; and Ratzinger can now be seen to be violenter suspectus of formal heresy.
THAT MEANS THAT IT CANNOT BE REASONABLY CONCLUDED THAT THE SEE OF PETER IS
OCCUPIED BY A VALID POPE; and therefore a probable vacancy is to be presumed.
It remains within the jurisdiction of the Catholic hierarchy, as the above
mentioned authors explain, to resolve the uncertainty regarding the occupancy
of the papal chair, and to restore it to the state of moral certitude of valid
occupancy such as existed before the Second Vatican Council. Such an
intervention and deposition would not infringe on the rights of the papacy,
because, as Gregory XVI explains, "In fact, by ceasing in this hypothesis
the deposed Pope to be a true Pope, the deposition is not a prescription
against the rights of the Primacy, and therefore against the current representation
of the Church in the Pope recognized as such, but only against the person, who
was before adorned with papal dignity ." **
"Pertinacity can sometimes be as apparent as
the heretical assertion, but not always. The criteria must be strictly applied
according to the canonical indicia of heresy in order to judge with certitude,
rather that to form a merely well founded opinion. In my opinion, there is well
founded positive doubt that Benedict XVI is capable of holding ecclesiastical
office. It can only be certain that the see is vacant if the fact of defection
is verified by proof of pertinacity. However, since the indicia against
Ratzinger are strong, he can no longer enjoy a reasonable presumption of
regularity: Papa dubius papa nullus. The presumption, although not conclusive,
is against him being a valid pope. There exists a well founded probability of a
vacancy.
"Thus, it is not to be considered a heretical
or schismatical judgment to consider the see vacant under the present
circumstances of positive and probable doubt, but it is a presumption that is
amply justified according to the eminent authorities I have cited. Indeed, in a
similar situation of doubt AT THE TIME OF THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE, THE
CATHOLIC HIERARCHY PRESUMED THE SEE OF ROME TO BE VACANT and acted accordingly,
by electing Pope Martin V. I CAN NOW ONLY EXHORT THE FEW REMAINING CATHOLIC
PRELATES AND CLERGY TO "GO AND DO LIKEWISE." (Luke 10:37)
"* "Pope Gregory XVI explains why this
is so: «In the times of the antipopes, as well as of the dead Pope, the form of
the government ordained by Christ does not remain obscure, even in a case where
there is founded doubt, so that it is not clear who should be venerated for
Pope, yes in the case of sede vacante it happens in the Church what happens in
different monarchies, in which in time of interregnum the government resides in
some senate; as practiced also in the ancient Roman empire, in which the Roman
senate commanded in time of interregnum; so in the mean while in those cases
the government of the Church is aristocratic. But who does not know that this
cannot be its natural state? Who can recognize him from the same dilligence
that the Church gave to elect her head, suffering ill from remaining headless
for a long time?»" («Nei tempi degli antipapi, come anche di Papa morto,
non resta oscurata la forma del governo ordinato da Cristo, imperciocché sì nel
caso in cui siavi dubbio fondato, per cui non si sappia bene chi debbasi
venerare per Papa, sì nel caso di sede vacante succede nella Chiesa ciò che
succede in diverse monarchie, nelle quali in tempo di interregno il governo
risiede in qualche senato; come praticavasi pure nell’antico impero romano, nel
quale il senato romano comandava in tempo d’interregno; quindi in quei casi il
governo della Chiesa è intrattanto aristocratico. Ma chi non sa, che questo non
può essere lo suo stato naturale? Chi può riconoscerlo dalle stesse premure che
dessi la Chiesa per eleggersi il suo capo, mal soffrendo di starsene acefala
per lungo tempo? » [D. Mauro Cappellari ora Gregorio XVI, Il trionfo della
santa sede e della chiesa contro gli assatti dei novatori, Venezia, 1832, p.
29] )"
Not long after this posting this public declaration, Fr. Kramer changed his mind, and decided that the see was not vacant after all, as evidenced by the fact that he viciously attacked someone on a Catholic forum for referring to him as a Sedevacantist, which he most certainly would have been, if he still consider the see vacant.
Unfortunately, when his May 2019 public declaration was brought to his attention, Fr. Kramer refused to say if he again believes Benedict is the Pope, or if he now think someone else is the Vicar of Christ, submission to whom, as the Church teaches, is necessary for salvation.
We will await Fr. Kramer's next public declaration to find out who it is that he now believes is the true Pope, presuming, of course, that he hasn't yet judged him to be a heretic.
