Fr. Paul Kramer~When the break between the two papal claimants takes place....
For 40 years I have been telling people that the crisis in the Church that began after Vatican II would lead to a split in the Church, when there will be two popes. Unlike in past centuries when the papal claimants were rivals who rejected the other's claim, Benedict & Bergoglio thus far have been co-claimants, who both claim the Petrine munus, but both, thus far, accept the other's claim. That will soon change, since the relationship between the two becomes more strained with each passing day. It is inevitable, and is foretold in prophecy: The two co-claimants will become rival claimants: True Pope and false pope (antipope).
I always said you will be able to tell which one is the false pope, because he will permit things like divorce & re-marriage, etc. — and many other such things that a Catholic pope would never allow. Francis is a heretic. He has openly and explicitly rejected Christ's teaching to preach the Gospel to all nations and convert them to our Christian faith, saying it is "solemn nonsense". Francis says it is wrong to do that! He has also openly declared the heresy that faith is not needed for justification and redemption, but that even atheists who follow their conscience are without sin and can gain redemption. He is not a Catholic, but is a heretic.
Bergoglio's pertinacity is manifest and notorious. He obstinately rejects many manifest & defined dogmas. The conciliar popes like Paul VI, John Paul II, & Benedict XVI expressed heretical opinions, but pertinacity was not patent: but unlike Bergoglio, they did not directly deny manifest dogmas that are known to even the most ignorant Catbolics, and dogmas that pertain to thd Natural Law.
The Conciliar Popes were certainly material heretics, not entirely innocent (invincible ignorance), but ignorant nevertheless, an therecore culpable but not pertinacious. Even St. Robert Bellarmine who favoured the opinion that a pope cannot be a formal heretic, wrote that a pope can be a a material heretic due to ignorance. Such ignorance can even be culpable, but without the obstinate and knowing refusal to believe, there is no pertinacity, which is the form of the sin of heresy. The conciliar popes were valid popes, since there was no manifest pertinacity. Since Pope Benedict XVI did not renounce the Petrine munus, but explicitly stated his intention to retain it, his "resignation" is null & void, sinnce a valid papal resignation requires a properly expressed (rite manifestetur) renunciation of the munus (Canon 332 § 2. Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, ad validitatem requiritur ut renuntiatio libere fiat et rite manifestetur, non vero ut a quopiam acceptetur.)
When the break between the two papal claimants takes place, there will be clearly two rival popes and Churches (as foretold by Blessed Anna Katherine Emmerich): Pope Benedict XVI over the Catholic Church, and Antipope Francis over the counterfeit church, that will call itself Catholic, but in reality will be (and in some places already is) worse than the "reformed curches" of the Sixteenth Century.
Views: 323
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by David Kaftal on
-
Wow. Wow wow wow.
-
Permalink Reply by Cathleen on
-
You took the words out of my mouth......Wow!
David Kaftal said:Wow. Wow wow wow.
-
Permalink Reply by Dawn Marie on
-
Andreas Englisch: Pope Francis and Benedict are at complete odds with each other
Pope Francis and his predecessor Benedict XVI are reportedly in complete disagreement: “They do not speak a word with one another.” This is the startling message which Vaticanist Andreas Englisch presented on March 16 during a lecture in Limburg. For many years, Englisch was the Italy and Vatican correspondent for the [German] Axel Springer media conglomerate in Rome. With 30 years of experience in Rome, he is considered to be a renowned Vatican expert. At [Limburg’s] Josef Kohlmaier Hall Englisch told the inside story on the topic of “Francis – Fighter in the Vatican” [the title of his latest book], according to a March 18 report of the Nassauische Neue Post [newspaper]. The look behind the scenes at the Vatican which Englisch offered his audience was even more dramatic than the Nassauische Neue Post conveyed in its article.
“Francis and Benedict do not speak a word with each other”
It was not necessary for the journalist to hide his esteem for Francis, which is well-known already. Englisch knows how to fascinate his audience. Yes, Bishop Tebartz-van Elst has a new job at the Vatican, he said, at the “post office” — because under Pope Francis, that’s all there is for people who “put themselves above the doctrine of Jesus Christ and do not interact with the common faithful at eye level.” [These are] daring statements — by Englisch about the Pope and by the Pope about a brother bishop. What Englisch didn’t say: Who is suited for nothing more than the “post office” is not so much determined by real or imagined “golden bathtubs” [which Tebartz-van Elst was rumored to have purchased before his removal] than by one’s ideas about the Church. The social component with its myth about commitment for the poor is always well received by a public audience, but it is not very meaningful in terms of the actual issue; rather, it makes matters more obscure.
What’s more explosive — because it’s of much greater significance in its extent — than the Limburg case is what Englisch said about the relationship between Francis and Benedict XVI: The current and the former Pope have completely logged heads, he claimed, [adding that] the two are no longer on speaking terms. And that [has been the case] not just since yesterday.
What does this mean? According to his own testimony, Benedict XVI only appears in public at Francis’ express request. What is displayed on these few occasions, then — if we follow Andreas Englisch — is simply [Benedict] putting up a good front, with an exchange of pleasantries. Englisch mentions the Limburg case as the reason for the rift, in which Benedict reportedly intervened to get Bishop Tebartz-van Elst to stay [in office as the bishop of Limburg]. That is one aspect at best. Limburg is certainly not the main reason for such a fundamental break in the relationship between two Popes.
Francis “knows what he wants” and does “what he wants”
The Rome correspondent described Francis as a strong personality. He “knows what he wants” and makes it known. Benedict, by contrast, is a “solid theologian”, but was a “weak leader”, Englisch said.
For decades, however, this sounded quite different when in the German media the talk was always about the “tough armored cardinal” [“harten Panzerkardinal“]. In order to push a certain narrative, it seems that at any given time more or less anything goes, back then as well as today.
In any case, Englisch says, Benedict allowed many others to make decisions, whereas Pope Francis does “whatever he wants”.
If we reflect on Englisch’s testimony, this would mean that Benedict XVI was publicly demoted to [the role of] a mere supernumerary who barely has anything in common with Francis, but whom Francis needs every so often for the sake of [good] appearance, and whom he deploys as needed. Against this background, Benedict’s absence for the most recent elevation of cardinals on November 19 appears of greater significance. Francis’ creation of cardinals belongs to those few events for which the current Pope calls his predecessor to appear in public. Benedict XVI appeared at St. Peter’s Basilica for the elevation of cardinals in 2014 and 2015. For the third elevation, however, he was missing, whereupon Francis took the new cardinals and quickly drove them over to [see] Benedict at the Mater Ecclesiae monastery. Apparently [he did this] also in order to preventatively ward off the kind of conclusions which Englisch has now drawn. Francis apparently suspects a demonstrative act [on Benedict’s part] behind his no-show.
Pressure on Benedict XVI to resign
In any case, the timing does not suggest it was a courtesy visit, which is how the Vatican spun it; rather, it was highly explosive. Five days before the consistory the four cardinals Brandmüller, Burke, Caffarra, and Meisner had made public their dubia (doubts) concerning the controversial post-synodal document Amoris laetitia, because Pope Francis had failed to give them an answer for two months. With the dubia, they squarely put themselves in Francis’ way, who has since been trying to ignore the issue, which has forced his closest collaborators and supporters to [engage in] sweat-inducing verbal acrobatics. Francis has prevailed with his [strategy of] silence, yet he emerges weakened from the conflict as a Pope who refuses to answer questions that concern central issues of faith and morals. The damage [this has caused to his] image has greatly overshadowed his pontificate.
What the Nassauische Neue Post did not report: According to Englisch, different ecclesiastical forces pressured Benedict XVI to resign.
This statement has explosive force. The circumstances which led to the papal resignation, in this form quite unique in Church history, have been feeding serious doubts since then. Exactly where is the line between legitimate influence and coercion? Benedict himself has assured [us] that he resigned freely. Until the contrary is proven, these words retain their validity. At the same time, aside from the legal aspect, there is a strange stalemate in the air. Even more so if one takes into consideration Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini’s all-out demand, [made] in June 2012, that Benedict XVI resign, and the role played by the secretive Saint Gallen group, founded by Martini, at the election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio.
The fact is that Benedict XVI has left the stage, a stage that was afterwards occupied, like the staff of a military general, by [members of] Team Bergoglio of the clandestine Saint Gallen group, and which does not think of leaving it.
(Giuseppe Nardi, “Andreas Englisch: Papst Franziskus und Benedikt haben sich völlig ..., Katholisches, Mar. 20, 2017; our translation.)
-
-
Fr. Paul Kramer wrote:
"Since Pope Benedict XVI did not renounce the Petrine munus, but explicitly stated his intention to retain it, his "resignation" is null & void, since a valid papal resignation requires a properly expressed (rite manifestetur) renunciation of the munus (Canon 332 § 2. Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, ad validitatem requiritur ut renuntiatio libere fiat et rite manifestetur, non vero ut a quopiam acceptetur.)"
Does anyone on this forum know enough about theology and canon law to be able to explain what this means? What exactly is the Petrine munus, or for that matter any kind of munus?
-
-
Munus=Office
I've read much of Fr. Kramers arguments concerning Benedict's resignation and no matter how the cake is cut one can not get around the fact that Benedict specifically resigned from the "physical" munus /office of being pope (the physical running of the Church) while specifically retaining the "spiritual" munus/office of being the pope.
When a pope does resign there must be several conditions to make it valid. First and foremost if he is forced to do so it is an automatic null and void of the resignation. Benedict was clearly forced.
Second if he resigns he must resign specifically from both the physical AND spiritual aspect of his papacy.
In Benedict's case he resigned from the physical while retaining the spiritual. This is impossible and nullifies the resignation.
Of course the new church explains it away by saying there are then two popes which naturally there can not be.
That is the best way I know how to boil it all down. Hope that helps.
-
-
1 = 2 = 1. Newchurch math, I guess, like Bishop Williamson's examples of 2 + 2 equalling whatever modernists want it to.
Dawn Marie said:Munus=Office
I've read much of Fr. Kramers arguments concerning Benedict's resignation and no matter how the cake is cut one can not get around the fact that Benedict specifically resigned from the "physical" munus /office of being pope (the physical running of the Church) while specifically retaining the "spiritual" munus/office of being the pope.
When a pope does resign there must be several conditions to make it valid. First and foremost if he is forced to do so it is an automatic null and void of the resignation. Benedict was clearly forced.
Second if he resigns he must resign specifically from both the physical AND spiritual aspect of his papacy.
In Benedict's case he resigned from the physical while retaining the spiritual. This is impossible and nullifies the resignation.
Of course the new church explains it away by saying there are then two popes which naturally there can not be.
That is the best way I know how to boil it all down. Hope that helps.
-
-
Ooops... by the way, thank you very much DM!
-
-
No problem+
David Kaftal said:Ooops... by the way, thank you very much DM!
© 2025 Created by Dawn Marie.
Powered by
