The Doubtfulness of Benedict XVI’s Papacy (Kramer, 2019)
Apr 30, 2019 10:26:28 GMT -5
Caillin likes this
Post by Pacelli on Apr 30, 2019 10:26:28 GMT -5
This is Fr. Kramer’s current position on the status of the Holy See. Take note that since Benedict’s resignation Fr. Kramer has defended the view that Benedict did not resign his office in a correct manner, that it was lacking, and therefore he remained Pope. Whether or not that is true is irrelevant to the argument that Benedict was not a Pope due to public heresy, and that is now what Fr. Kramer is focusing on.
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)
(Posted on his Facebook account, April 30, 2019)
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)
(Posted on his Facebook account, April 30, 2019)