Posted on 02/03/2021 4:35:10 PM PST by ebb tide
[EDITOR’S NOTE: In the following essay, as the number of endnotes alone suggests, Fr. Kramer has left few stones unturned in examining the nature of papal primacy and the prospect of a pope who has fallen into heresy. Like the recent article by Robert Siscoe and John Salza, it will take considerable effort to read, but I can assure you that it is well worth your time as you will come away with a deeper understanding and appreciation for the way in which Christ constituted His Church. So, please, persevere! – LV]
It is claimed by some that a true and certain pope can be judged for heresy, but cases of heresy, since they are concerned with matters of faith can only be settled with finality by an infallible papal judgment. Only the pope, because he succeeds Peter not merely as an apostle in the manner that other bishops are successors of the Apostles, but because he succeeds Peter as Cephas in his function as the infallible Rock foundation of the Church, and as head of the Church over all the bishops, possesses the singular power to judge infallibly, which even all the bishops together without the pope do not possess; for which reason judgments in matters of faith are ultimately reserved to him alone, and his definitive judgment is final.
(Excerpt) Read more at akacatholic.com ...
By the late 19th Century, Fr. Sydney Smith SJ (in 1895) testified to the fact that Ballerini’s opinion, that a manifestly heretical pope would cease automatically to be pope, and that only a declaratory sentence on the one who was no longer pope would need to be pronounced, had already become the common opinion of theologians:
“[I]t has been generally held that, given the possibility of a personally heretical Pope, he would ipso facto cease to be Pope by ceasing to be a member of the Church. The Church in that case, as represented by the Cardinals or otherwise, could on due information of the fact pass a declaratory sentence on one who being no longer Pope was no longer its superior, and then take measures to remove him from the See in which he had become an intruder.”[20]
Ping
How fitting that it is the testimony of a Jesuit!
So how to square the circle. If the Pope says he is not a heretic and the bishops and cardinals can't say he is a heretic, then how to get a heretic out of office?
Oh, and if you don't fully understand all of the intricate arguments and you come to a slightly different conclusion than the author, then you yourself are a heretic and damned to Hell.
Great.
Boy, the church has sure flip-flopped on this one at least half a dozen times.
You must not have read the entire article to make that comment.
The church, in the future, will consider Jorge to be an invalid Pope. An anti-pope
We have 2 popes
He says that only the Pope can depose a true Pope. Then he says all it takes is a mere statement and anyone can depose a heretic (because the heretic really isn't the Pope.)
But nowhere does he state a solution when the Pope, and most of the cardinalate declare that the Pope is a true Pope even if his statements are heresy.
What was I missing? Please clarify either why we should be OK with the current Pope or why he hasn't already been shown the door.
Sorry. But I don't believe you.
Honorius I was anathematized, but a valid pope
Jorge. A destroyer. Non-canonically elected
So I take it you are a supporter of the true Pope Francis.
I just don’t believe you, nothing more.
If Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, popes, councils, Ecumenical Councils, etc, were to say “no to (x)” or “(x) is sin” and Francis were to say “?yes to (x)” or “(x) isn’t sin” he would be contradicting a host of popes and all the way back to Sacred Scripture.
If he did that he would be trying to override more popes than he, and would even be trying to override Sacred Scripture itself.
St. Peter was inspired to write Sacred Scripture while also being a part of it.
Ergo, Francis might as well then be trying to override St. Peter, and thus saying no to Jesus’ words “Thou art Peter...”.
If Francis does not repent over inviting pagan Pachamama devotees and allowing them and the pagan, demonic idol onto sacred ground, and repent for bowing in obeisance to the false god via the idol, and repent for parading the idol in front of the high altar, he would be saying no to 1 Peter 4:3 where St. Peter told his listeners enough with their sins and idolatry and that it’s time for them to quit doing this.
It’s nothing new
Pope John Paul II, in two homilies delivered in Peru and Bolivia, identified homage to Pachamama as an ancestral recognition of divine providence that in some sense prefigured a Christian attitude toward creation.
On February 3, 1985, he stated that “your ancestors, by paying tribute to the earth (Mama Pacha), were doing nothing other than recognizing the goodness of God and his beneficent presence, which provided them food by means of the land they cultivated.”[13] On May 11, 1988, he stated that God “knows what we need from the food that the earth produces, this varied and expressive reality that your ancestors called “Pachamama” and that reflects the work of divine providence as it offers us its gifts for the good of man.”[14]
Wikipedia
I know about it, and what JP II did was scandalous, but what Francis did was nothing short of an abomination.
He actually let devotees bring an idol obto sacred ground and then took it to the next level by bowing before it and then took it to a higher level by parading it in front of the high altar and then capped it off by placing a bowl of dirt on the altar.
Usually is it God who handles these matters. He is allowing it for a reason we cannot see. Fiat voluntas tua
Fr. Kramer is a unique sedevacantist, if he is one, in that he only believes that Francis is not a true pope. Most sedevacantists believe the first false pope in the modern era was John XXIII.
Meanwhile Catholic metmom merely grunts and squeaks. He has been interviewed by a YouTube character who calls himself TradCatKnight. I looked him up a while ago and he appears to have gone off the rails a bit.
Personally I am open to the possibility that John XXIII and following have all been false popes. If you want to look into this I would recommend Fr. Cekada who recently passed. However, he has a number of YouTube videos where he discusses Siscoe and Salza's book and critiques it after having actually read it.
This entire discussion is between the sedevacantists and the R&R (Recognize & Resist) group of traditionalists. Each group claims the other group are heretics. I don't think this is very helpful. It is a callous form of purity spiraling that helps no one.
The Remnant recently held a meeting to "rally the clans" to try and get people from the various traditional Catholic viewpoints together to work on what they all agree to. Unfortunately the folks at Church Militant and the sedevacantists seem unwilling to join together to fight against the modernist corruption of the Church.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.