Skip to main content

The Main Problems with Sedevacantism – Fr. Paul Kramer

 https://ecclesiamilitans.com/2021/02/14/the-main-problems-with-sedevacantism-fr-paul-kramer/

The Main Problems with Sedevacantism – Fr. Paul Fr. Kramer

Taken from this Facebook post:

https://www.facebook.com/louie.verrecchio/posts/3741874322560995

Comments

Anonymous said…
I’m going to save you many wasted years. Any trad group that insists Vatican II taught heresy implies that the Catholic Church defected. You can’t have the Church teaching heresy for sixty years and apostolic succession requires at least one bishop with legal authority

Merry Christmas!
Traditionalists, confronted by a Church in crisis, know that something has gone wrong somewhere. As a result, they are, I believe, more sober in assessing whether or not the Church exercises infallibility in a given case. That, allied to their looking at the present through the eyes of the past, helps traditionalists to see that the onus is on the present, not the past, to justify itself." - Fr. Chad Ripprger
Anonymous said…
Only God or a consortium of Bishops have the authority to depose a heretical Pope. Until that happens, we cannot say "there is no Pope", "the seat is vacant". That is to cease to be a Catholic and place oneself outside the Church thereby losing salvation. As Fr. Kramer states, one can remain inside the Church by never adopting heresy or error promulgated by a bad Pope. Catholics must maintain a respect for the Pope, despite recognizing his errors, for the sake of the Office of Peter. To disrespect the Papacy holds a grave danger of disrespecting Christ. Fr. Malachi Martin stated it is a danger to one's soul to recklessly speak disrespectfully about the Pope.
The question is:

Was Francis not just a heretic, but an antipope?

As with the case of Anacletus, it is possible Francis was a antipope if his election contradicted or violated the constitution promulgated by Pope John Paul II for electing his successor.

Bishop Rene Gracida brings forward evidence that the conclave that elected Francis was invalid because there were "serious irregularities" against John Paul II's constitution that governed the 2013 conclave.
Anonymous said…
You can turn around for years, trying to figure out what happened, but traditional Catholic theology what SSPX and more radical groups claim contradicts dogma. If they are right, the Church is wrong, and if the Church is wrong, they themselves are wrong.
the real story is more tragic, a coup was carried out by “experts” and ideologically motivated organizations who manipulated all the players (Pope, bishops, priests, and laity alike) into thinking that all the others wanted more and more radical liturgical “change”, putting everyone, in the interim, into such a state of psychosis, like COVID-19 or the Great Terror of the French Revolution - James Green

Popular posts from this blog

A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020

10:01pm November 3, 2020, a hour which will live in infamy, the United States of America presidential electoral integrity was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the forces of the Democrat Machine and some corrupt collaborators within the Republican Party. It will be recorded that "under the pretense of COVID, executive branch officials across a number of key battleground states violated election procedures passed by the legislative branches of those states in a number of ways that opened up the process to fraud on a massive scale, never before seen in the history of this country" which makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks before. During the time before and after the attack the Democrat Machine and its corrupt collaborators in the Media have deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.  The attack on United States has caused severe damage to the Ameri...

Could Francis be an Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?

Is it possible for someone to be an antipope even though the majority of cardinals claim he is pope? The case of Antipope Anacletus II proves that it is possible for a majority of cardinals to claim a man is pope while he, in reality, is an antipope. In 1130, a majority of cardinals voted for Cardinal Peter Pierleone to be pope. He called himself Anacletus II. He was proclaimed pope and ruled Rome for eight years by vote and consent of a absolute majority of the cardinals despite the fact he was a antipope. In 1130, just prior to the election of antipope Anacletus, a small minority of cardinals elected the real pope: Pope Innocent II. How is this possible? St. Bernard said "the 'sanior pars' (the wiser portion)... declared in favor of Innocent II. By this he probably meant a majority of the cardinal-bishops." (St. Bernard of Clairvaux by Leon Christiani, Page 72) Again, how is this possible when the absolute majority of cardinals voted for A...

If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?

Did Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) say that Francis is a heretic ?   On June 3, 2003 the then Cardinal Ratzinge r (and future Pope Benedict) , head of the Congregation for the Faith, said that the endorsement of  " homosex civil unions" was against Catholic teaching, that is heterodoxy : "Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimatization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil... The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions ." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons," June 3, 2003) Gloria.tv reported: " Francis made on October 21 his latest declaration in sup...