Father Paul Kramer, his long-time friend late Father Nicholas Gruner,
and Cardinal Martino holding Father Kramer’s book, The Suicide of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy, during
the Fatima: Your Last Chance Conference, held in Rome in 2012. [http://traditionalcatholicisminnigeria.blogspot.com/2017/06/why-does-father-paul-kramer-still.html?m=1]
BUT—unlike what some Sedevacantists
teach—the loss of faith does not, in and of itself, sever a man from the body of
the Church. A mortal sin against faith does not, in and of
itself, sever a man from the body of the Church. And if the man who loses
the faith happens to be pope, he does not thereby lose his office.
This is a crucial point that is often missed by even the most
learned defenders of the Sedevacantists’ position. Formal heresy in the
internal forum only severs a man from the soul of the
Church. It requires formal heresy in the external forum to sever a man
from the body of the Church, and formal heresy in the external forum is declared heresy
by the proper authorities—i.e. a Church Council. - Catholic pundit Jonathan Ekene Ifeanyi's article "Why does Father Paul Kramer still maintain that Francis is not the true pope?"
On February 20, 2020, John Salza claimed that Francis was "universally accepted":
"In
no case were any of these antipopes universally accepted by the entire
episcopacy following their election, as in the case with Pope Francis."
[http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/annbarnhardt-is-liar-and-fool-byjohn.html?m=1]
Salza's editors at the
Remnant and 1P5 are not allowing free debate and argument on the
validity of the papacy of Francis in their publications or comment sections. So,
this seems like a good time to see if their greatest theologian of all time will answer five simple yes or no dubia questions and then respond to Bishop
Rene Gracida's rejection of their and Salza's teaching since he would
have to be part of that great and powerful infallible teaching of
"universal acceptance":
1. Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales said ” The Pope… when he
is explicitly a heretic… the Church must either deprive him or as some
say declare him deprived of his Apostolic See.” Was St. Francis de Sales
a Sedevacantist or a Benevacantist? Answer: yes or no.
2. “Universal Acceptance” theologian John of St. Thomas said “This
man in particular lawfully elected and accepted by the Church is the
supreme pontiff.” Was John of St. Thomas for saying “the supreme
pontiff” must be BOTH “lawfully elected and accepted by the Church” a
Sedevacantist or a Benevacantist? Answer: yes or no.
3. Do you think that a “supreme pontiff” if “universally accepted” is
still Pope if, to quote papal validity expert Arnaldo Xavier de
Silveira on “dubious election[s]”, that he is “a woman… a child… a
demented person… a heretic… a apostate… [which] would [thus] be
invalid[ed] by divine law”? Answer: yes or no.
4. Renowned Catholic historian Warren Carroll agreed with Bishop René
Gracida on the determining factor for discerning a valid conclave for a
valid papal election besides divine law. Carroll pronounced:
“But each Pope, having unlimited sovereign power as head of the
Church, can prescribe any method for the election of his successor(s)
that he chooses… A papal claimant not following these methods is also an
Antipope.”
Are renowned historian Carroll and Bishop Gracida for saying this Sedevacantists or Benevacantists? Answer: yes or no.
5. Is Bishop Gracida really only a pawn of the legendary and
notorious “Sedevacantist and Benevacantist” mastermind Ann Barnhardt for
convincingly demonstrating that there is valid evidence that Pope John
Paul II’s conclave constitution “Universi Dominici Gregis” which
“prescribe[d].. [the] method for the election of his successor(s)” was
violated and must be investigated by Cardinals? Answer: yes or no. [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/06/5-dubia-questions-for-steve-skojec.html]
Finally, on March 23, 2019, Bishop Gracida who would have to be part of such
a "universal acceptance" demonstrated that Salza's statement is false:
https://abyssum.org/2019/03/23/why-do-intelligent-men-pursue-the-application-of-an-obsolete-concept-universal-acceptance-to-the-problem-of-the-invalidity-of-the-papacy-of-francis-the-merciful-in-this-day-and-age-of-instant-elec/ - The Catholic Monitor [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2022/04/most-infallible-1p5remnant-francis-trad.html]
Before Francis came on the scene, Fr. Nicholas Gruner's close collaborator Fr. Paul Kramer was a member in good standing with the Traditionalist establishment including
John Vennari, Christopher Ferrara, Michael Matt, and the Fatima Center as everyone knows. Why did the Trad establishment turn against Fr. Kramer?
Ann Barnhardt says that there was a power struggle between the bad guys, Ferrara and Salza, against Fr. Kramer on rather Francis was a heretic and an antipope
Salza agrees with Barnhardt, but, of course, claims that Kramer was the bad guy:
"[T]here was a split in the Fatima Center, not
over some orchestration of a purge through the leverage of a million dollar
donation (events which never occurred), but rather the influence that Fr. Paul
Kramer was attempting to exert over the Fatima Center, and the untenable
theological positions that he (and Barnhardt) holds. That’s right. And that is
why the donor family in question raised their concerns (and they weren’t the
only ones). It was public knowledge, shortly after the death of Fr. Gruner,
that Fr. Kramer was attempting to seize control over the Fatima Center. And it
was Fr. Kramer (not Messrs. Ferrara and Salza) who sought to purge the
apostolate of those who didn’t agree with his antipope Francis position,
including Mr. Salza." [http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/annbarnhardt-is-liar-and-fool-byjohn.html]
The fact is that Salza's opinions and ideas are well known because the Trad establishment promotes his positions and even falsely accuses Fr. Kramer of Sedevacantism.
The Catholic Monitor thought that in fair play it would be good to give the other side of the argument and first quote Kramer's book "On the True and the False Pope: The Case against Bergoglio" on what Kramer believes is Salza's position on Pope Benedict XVI and Francis:
"Salza... deliberately mak[es] it appear that he is accusing... Pope Benedict of the dolus of formal heresy while exonerating the heretic Bergoglio." (Page 326)
Next, we want to quote at length Catholic pundit Jonathan Ekene Ifeanyi's article "Why does Father Paul Kramer still maintain that Francis is not the true pope?" on Kramer's thesis on Francis:
To start with, we note that Fr.
Kramer initially accepted Francis as a valid pope, which of course shows he has
no personal issue with him but is only striving to keep the Faith, which is
simply his duty as a priest of Christ. As I pointed out in my
article, How Pope
Ratzinger messed up the papacy!, “the fact that Bergoglio is
indisputably a public heretic has been Father Kramer’s major reason for
rejecting the current “pontificate”. The other idea of some mafias wanting to
force Benedict XVI to resign is simply not a fiction as well, but
it’s just secondary.” Being a cautious priest, his rejection of Francis came
later only as a result of Francis’ teaching of “explicit and clear heresy
flatly contradicting the infallibly defined dogma of the Catholic Faith.” And
what dogma exactly?
On November 28, 2013, Fr. Kramer
announced on his Facebook page that he rejects Francis’ claim to the
papacy due to manifest heresy found in his (then newly-published) “Apostolic
Exaltation” EvangeliiGaudium. He wrote:
"“Pope” Francis in Evangelii Gaudium n.
247: “We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with
God has never been revoked”. This text is an explicit profession of heresy,
directly opposed to the solemn dogmatic definition of Pope Eugenius III and the
Ecumenical Council of Florence, and the doctrine taught by the supreme
magisterium of Pope Benedict XIV in Ex Quo Primum, set forth repeatedly and explicitly
citing the definition of Florence, to wit, that the Mosaic covenant has been
“revoked” and “abrogated”. I have been saying for years that when a “pope” will
officially teach explicit and clear heresy flatly contradicting the infallibly
defined dogma of the Catholic faith, then you will know that he is the false
pope prophesied in many Church approved prophecies and Marian apparitions. St.
Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus Liguori, St. Antoninus and Pope Innocent III
all teach that when the pope demonstrates himself to be a manifest heretic,
i.e. a plainly manifested public heretic, he ceases to be pope (or, if already
was a public heretic he was invalidly elected) because he is not a Catholic —
not a member of the Catholic Church. Bellarmine explains that the Roman Pontiff
is the visible head of the Church, and the head is a member. One who is not a
member cannot be the head, and therefore the election to the supreme
pontificate of a public heretic is canonically null & void. The heresy of
Bergoglio in no. 247 is such a clear cut case of manifest, public heresy,
expressed in stark, unequivocal terms, that it can be said without doubt that
if this proposition of no. 247 is not manifestly heretical, then nothing else
can be said to be so. It is morally impossible that one who manifestly displays
such clearly expressed contempt for a defined dogma of faith by plainly denying
it, can be believed to validly hold the office of Roman Pontiff. St. Francis of
Assisi foretold of the un-canonically elected pope who would not be “a true
pastor but a destroyer”. Bergoglio plainly fits the description."
Here, we shall consider the
following questions:
1 Is it true
that no. 247 of Francis’ Evangelii Gaudium is an
explicit profession of heresy, as Fr. Kramer says — “directly opposed to the
solemn dogmatic definition of Pope Eugenius III and the Ecumenical Council of
Florence, and the doctrine taught by the supreme magisterium of Pope Benedict
XIV in Ex Quo Primum, etc.—that the Mosaic
covenant has been “revoked” and “abrogated””?
2 Can we
demonstrate how the text opposes any of the solemn dogmatic definitions of the
Church? If so, what then can be the consequence of this?
3 Is it
truly the teaching of the Church that “when the pope demonstrates himself to be
a manifest heretic, i.e. a plainly manifested public heretic, he ceases to be
pope (or, if already was a public heretic he was invalidly elected) because he
is not a Catholic — not a member of the Catholic Church”?
4 Did St.
Francis of Assisi prophesy that there would be an un-canonically elected pope
who would not be “a true pastor but a destroyer”?
[...]
So then, question number 2: Can we
demonstrate how the text opposes any of the solemn dogmatic definitions of the
Church? If so, what then can be the consequence of this?
Yes, we can. The doctrine of
the supersession of the Old Testament by the New is a universal and perpetual
doctrine of the Catholic Church. It is a defined article of the Catholic
Faith—i.e. a solemn, dogmatic definition. The solemn Profession of Faith of the
Ecumenical Council of Florence under Pope Eugene IV, (1441, ex cathedra), says the following:
“The Holy Roman Church ...
firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the Old
Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites,
sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something
in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after
Our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and
the sacraments of the New Testament began; ... All, therefore, who after that
time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the
law, it (the Roman Church) declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the
least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from
these errors.”
Again,
Pope Benedict XIV reiterated this dogma in his encyclical Ex Quo Primum:
“The
first consideration is that the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law were abrogated by
the coming of Christ and that they can no longer be observed without sin after
the promulgation of the Gospel.” (Ex Quo Primum, # 61)
Again, Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, ex cathedra:
“The
Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all
those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews
...cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire
which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined
to the Church before the end of their lives...”
As already mentioned, the above declaration of the Ecumenical Council of Florence—as well as Benedict XIV's Ex Quo Primum and that of Eugene IV—is simply a dogma.
And what is a dogma? A dogma is what has been infallibly defined by the
Catholic Church. The dogma of the Faith is known by the solemn, infallible
definitions of the magisterium of the Church. “Dogma is the name given to a proposition that is proclaimed with all
possible solemnity either by the Roman pontiff or by an ecumenical council. A
dogma is a revealed truth that the Roman Catholic church solemnly declares to
be true and to be revealed; it is most properly an object of faith. Vatican I
declared that the pope, when he teaches solemnly and in the area of faith and
morals as the supreme universal pastor, teaches infallibly with
that infallibility that the church has.” (Encyc. Brit., 2014). The word infallible means “cannot fail”.
Therefore the dogmatic definitions of the Faith, solemnly defined by the
Church, cannot fail. Again: “Dogma (for all who receive
it) is an affirmation which it is sinful to deny, or to change, or to ignore.
...From Nicaea onwards formulated dogma is accompanied by anathemas,” says the
Encyclopaedia Britannica. (Encyc. Brit. Vol. 7; 1955, pp.
501-502).
In 1870 the First Vatican Council solemnly and
infallibly defined the infallibility of solemn dogmatic definitions. So we now
know what the Faith is, what the dogma of the Faith is, by the solemn,
infallible, dogmatic definitions. Men can fail; lay people can fail; priests
can fail; bishops can fail; cardinals can fail; and even the pope can fail in
matters which do not involve his charism of infallibility, as history has shown
us with more than one pope. For example, 42 years after his death, Pope
Honorius I was condemned by the Third Council of Constantinople (680 AD)
for aiding and abetting heresy,
precisely for supporting the doctrine of “one will in Christ”, and that
condemnation was confirmed by Pope Leo II in 682, (who stated that Honorius
“allowed the immaculate faith to be stained” by teaching not “in accord with
apostolic tradition.”) and repeated by later popes. Note, however, that Pope
Honorius wasn’t even a manifest heretic, yet he was anathematized. He wasn’t
the originator of the heresy. The heretics were the Monothelites—Sergius and
co—and Honorius was condemned together with them. And why? The anathema
of the Third Council of Constantinople read, after mentioning the chief
Monothelites, “and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as
having followed them in all things.” Furthermore, the Acts of the
Thirteenth Session of the Council state, “And with these we define that there
shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who
was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to
[Patriarch] Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed
his impious doctrines.” The Sixteenth Session adds: “To Theodore of
Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the
heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic,
anathema!”
But according to Bellarmine, “Here the fact
must be remarked upon that, although it is probable that Honorius was not a
heretic, and that Pope Hadrian II was deceived by corrupted copies of the Sixth
Council, which falsely reckoned Honorius was a heretic, we still
cannot deny that Hadrian, with the Roman Council, and the whole Eighth Synod
sensed that in the case of heresy, a Roman Pontiff can be judged.” Hence Pope
Leo II’s letter of confirmation of the Third Council of Constantinople
interprets the council as intending to criticize Honorius not for error of
belief, but rather for “imprudent economy of silence”. Leo's
letter states: “We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that
is, Theodore, Sergius, ... and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify
this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane
treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.” The New Catholic
Encyclopedia notes: “It is in this sense of guilty
negligence that the papacy ratified the condemnation of Honorius.”
The point we’re trying to make here is the fact
that even a pope, as a private person, can fail. But the solemn dogmatic
definitions of the Faith, defined by the Pope, or the Pope together with all
the bishops in a Council of the Church—such as the above definition of the
Ecumenical Council of Florence under Pope Eugene IV regarding the Jews—cannot fail.
Everything, therefore, must be judged by these definitions that cannot fail.
As Fr. Nicholas Gruner once put it during the era of John Paul II, in response
to “new Catholic doctrines” which surfaced since Vatican II and which simply
contradict or at least “revise” the solemn dogmatic definitions: “The
infallible definitions are the unchanging standard by which one measures every
doctrine, just like a 36-inch yardstick is the unchanging standard for
measuring a yard. We don’t suddenly decide that the new standard for measuring
a yard is a 35-inch stick. Everything in the Faith must be measured against the
yardstick of infallible definitions. Even the pronouncements of the popes must
be measured and weighed against this standard.” (The Fatima Crusader,
Summer 2001, Issue 67, p.48).
Fr. Gruner further stated: “Solemn definitions, by
necessity, must say “this is the Catholic Faith” and therefore, by strict
logical implication, also say, “those who say the opposite are
anathema”—meaning, they are cut off from the Faith and the Church. In other
words, you must believe this in order to be saved. So by necessity, the
definitions also must state or imply that those who don’t believe this are
condemned.” (Ibid. p.49)
In his article, “Defection from the Faith &
the Church - Faith , Heresy, and Loss of Office - An Exposé of the Heresy of
John Salza & Robert Siscoe Part I (Revised and amplified),” Fr. Kramer quotes Pope St. Pius X who makes
this very clear “in Question 200”:
“Whoever would not believe in the solemn
definitions of faith or would doubt them, would sin against faith; and
remaining obstinate in unbelief, would no longer be a Catholic, but a heretic.”
(“Chi non credesse alle definizioni solenni del Papa, o anche solo ne
dubitasse, peccherebbe contro la fede, e se rimanesse ostinato in questa
incredulità, non sarebbe più cattolico, ma eretico.”).
“Heretics are not only those who stubbornly doubt
or deny any solemn definitions,” writes Fr. Kramer, “but the same Pontiff
teaches that they are heretics who refuse to believe any truth revealed by God
which the Catholic Church teaches as “de fide”: “Gli
eretici sono i battezzati che ricusano con pertinacia di credere qualche verità
rivelata da Dio e insegnata come di fede dalla Chiesa cattolica” (Q.
228).”
Therefore, from the perspective of Catholic
doctrine, the consequence of the above teaching of Francis is that he is indeed
a notorious heretic, already separated from the Body of Christ, and indeed, accursed—and
likewise all those who know his blatant heresies but refuse to reject and
denounce him.
Question number 3: Is it
truly the teaching of the Church that “when the pope demonstrates himself to be
a manifest heretic, i.e. a plainly manifested public heretic, he ceases to be
pope (or, if already was a public heretic he was invalidly elected) because he
is not a Catholic — not a member of the Catholic Church”?
The answer is a resounding YES. To
start with, when Fr. Kramer first stated that a manifest—and not a
secret—heretical pontiff loses his office ipso facto, not only did
many “traditional Catholics” not believe him, some in fact ridiculed him. But
that attitude now seems to have abated only because Raymond Cardinal Burke—a
high-ranking prelate—has now acknowledged the same fact! In an interview with
Catholic World Report, Burke, a canon lawyer, said: “If a pope would formerly
profess heresy, he would cease, by that act, to be the pope. It’s automatic.”
(See: “If a Pope would formally profess heresy, he would
cease, by that act, to be the Pope. It’s automatic”. (Raymond Cardinal Burke).).
So YES, it is the teaching of the
Church that a manifestly heretical pope automatically ceases to be pope, and is
not a member of the Church. A manifest heretic is a formal heretic in
the external forum—this is quite unlike a formal heretic in the
internal forum, that is, an occult or secret heretic. There are
two kinds of heresies—material heresy and formal heresy.
On the one hand, a material heresy, or the matter of heresy,
is a belief that is contrary to a defined dogma—a belief quite contrary to what
a Catholic must accept with divine and Catholic Faith. The matter of
heresy exists in the intellect and can be present with innocent ignorance, or
with sinful pertinacity in the will.
On the other hand, a formal
heresy, or form of heresy—what renders an erroneous belief
formally heretical—is pertinacity in the will. When a person knowingly
rejects a dogma of the faith, or when he wilfully doubts a
defined dogma, he is guilty of formal heresy in the internal
forum (the realm of conscience). And since heresy is contrary to faith, a
person who wilfully disbelieves a single article of faith immediately loses all
supernatural faith. Just as one mortal sin removes all supernatural
charity (grace) from the soul, so too a single heresy removes all supernatural
faith. St. Thomas Aquinas writes: “Just as mortal sin is contrary to
charity, so is disbelief in one article of faith contrary to faith. Now charity
does not remain in a man after one mortal sin. Therefore neither does faith,
after a man disbelieves one article… Therefore it is clear that such a heretic
with regard to one article, has no faith in the other articles, but only a kind
of opinion in accordance with his own will”. (ST. Pt II-II, Q. 5, A.
2).
A man who is guilty of the sin of
heresy immediately loses all supernatural faith; and since faith is the
foundation of the supernatural life, when faith is lost, so too are the
theological virtues of hope and charity, which, along with faith, unite a man
to the soul of the Church. Therefore, when one loses the faith—the foundation
of the supernatural life—he is completely severed from the
soul of the Church.
BUT—unlike what some Sedevacantists
teach—the loss of faith does not, in and of itself, sever a man from the body of
the Church. A mortal sin against faith does not, in and of
itself, sever a man from the body of the Church. And if the man who loses
the faith happens to be pope, he does not thereby lose his office.
This is a crucial point that is often missed by even the most
learned defenders of the Sedevacantists’ position. Formal heresy in the
internal forum only severs a man from the soul of the
Church. It requires formal heresy in the external forum to sever a man
from the body of the Church, and formal heresy in the external forum is declared heresy
by the proper authorities—i.e. a Church Council.
However, before such a declaration
a person who is guilty of a formal heresy in the external forum is
already automatically severed from the body of the Church,
that is, he is ipso facto excommunicated, or
rather, he automatically excommunicates himself.
This is simply the official teaching of the Catholic Church
and anyone who doesn’t believe it is simply in grave error. Just like apostasy
and schism, the sin of heresy per se has the intrinsic effect of separating the
heretic from the Church by itself, without any ecclesiastical censures; and is
distinguished from other sins which do not by their very nature separate the
sinner from the body of the Church. For these other sins, for other grave
offenses the sinner can only be separated from the Church by a sentence of
excommunication incurred or inflicted by legitimate ecclesiastical authority.
But a heretic is automatically separated from the Church by
his own heresy. This is the infallible teaching of the universal magisterium of
the Church which must be believed de fide divina et Catholica under
pain of heresy. As Pope St. Pius V teaches in the Roman Catechism:
“Heretics and schismatics are
excluded from the Church, because they have defected (desciverunt) from her and
belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have
deserted."; whereas those who have not left the Church by defecting, but
are excluded from the Church by excommunication, are "cut off by her
sentence from the number of her children and belong not to her communion until
they repent.” (Quoted by Fr. Kramer in the article cited
above).
[...]
Catholics who are now awaiting the
world Cardinals and bishops to denounce Francis are greatly mistaken because,
as Fr. Kramer rightly puts it, “It is plainly evident that in our own
time, a sort of blindness has fallen upon almost all the bishops of the
Latin Church. With a prophetic insight, more than 1,500 years ago St.
Vincent described the present condition of the Church today: “if some novel
contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but
the whole”. Under such circumstances, he says, “the clergy and faithful cannot
reasonably be expected to suspend judgment on manifest heresy until the Church
pronounces officially, and remain subject to a ravenous wolf and destroyer of
souls – quod esset miserrima conditio Ecclesiæ, si lupum manifeste grassantem, pro pastore agnoscere
cogeretur. (Bellarminus).”
The Church’s attitude
regarding “Catholics” who support manifest heretics like Francis is simply excommunication,
as we read in the following:
“Moreover, we determine to subject to excommunication believers who
receive, defend or support heretics… If however, he is a cleric, let him be
deposed from every office and benefice, so that the greater the fault the
greater the punishment. If any refuses to avoid such persons after they have
been pointed out by the Church [postquam ab ecclesia denotati fuerint], let
them be punished with the sentence of excommunication until they make suitable
satisfaction. Clerics should not, of course, give the sacraments of the Church
to such pestilent persons nor give them a Christian burial…” (Fourth
Lateran Council, Constitution 3, On Heretics. Pope Innocent III. 1215).
Therefore, it is our
collective duty, as Catholics, to recognise exactly what the
Church teaches on this very essential matter, then unite and reject as well as
denounce Francis and his innumerable poisonous heresies—even if no bishop or
cardinal is in support. This is Fr. Kramer’s position.
Question 4: Did St. Francis of
Assisi prophesy that there would be an un-canonically elected pope who would
not be “a true pastor but a destroyer”?
YES. St Francis of Assisi (whose
name Bergoglio intentionally bears in order to mess it up) prophesied: “A Man, not Canonically Elected, will be
raised to the Pontificate… In those days Jesus Christ will send them
not a true Pastor, but a Destroyer.”
Finally, let us kindly note that
John Paul II and Benedict XVI—as well as the heretical Second Vatican Council—laid the foundation of Francis’ heresy regarding
the Jews, the only difference between them being that the duo never expressed
their errors officially as Francis
has done. The errors of John Paul II and Benedict XVI in this regard are well
documented by Mr. John Vennari in his article: Judaism & the Church: before & after Vatican II, written before Francis' invasion.
John Paul II, Benedict XVI and
Francis praying at the Wailing or Western Wall in Jerusalem.
While both John Paul II and
Benedict XVI expressed their heretical opinions in their bad books, scandalous speeches,
and by their visits to the synagogue as well as praying at the Western Wall, Francis has now taught this heresy officially. “I have been saying for
years that when a “pope” will officially teach explicit and clear heresy flatly
contradicting the infallibly defined dogma of the Catholic faith, then you will
know that he is the false pope prophesied in many Church approved prophecies
and Marian apparitions.” (Fr. Kramer). [http://traditionalcatholicisminnigeria.blogspot.com/2017/06/why-does-father-paul-kramer-still.html?m=1] Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis's Amoris Laetitia. |
