The November 2019 Issue (#49) of The Recusant has been published. I would like to thank Mr. Gregory Taylor for his kind words regarding my work exposing Ambrose Moran. However, on another note, I do have an issue with this statement of his on page 6:
“Sedevacantism is as much a post-conciliar novelty as all the other rubbish, as is the insane ‘Benedict is still Pope’ theory of Fr. Kramer (do pray for him).”
Fr. Kramer and others, including myself, have shown that ‘Benedict is still Pope” is not a theory; it is a fact. We have backed up our conclusion with argumentation and evidence. However, Mr. Taylor calls it “insane’ without any argumentation or evidence. So are we to take it as a given because Mr. Taylor says so?
Please, Mr. Taylor, give us more than just a gratuitous assertion.
Firs tthere has to be, you know, an actual election, before the result of said election can be universally and peacefully accepted.
Quite apart from the fact that “in past centuries” there were no canons covering the resignation of a reigning pontiff.
St Alphonsus’ citation is hopelessly misapplied here. One might as well drive through a red light and when the police come tell them according to a principle from the 14th century the carriage from the right has right of way. See how far that gets you.
The universal acceptance principle is treated as the norm for validating an election. This is a grave error. What must be followed first and foremost is the Divine Law and secondly, canon law promulgated by the Supreme Pontiff.
What the 1983 code of canon law? The one the neo sspx have adopted?
I have already discussed this with you. If you cannot accept the 1983 Code of Canon Law, then you cannot accept Benedict XVI’s “resignation” as valid.
Keep wasting time on this case and see where it gets you.
Waste of time? Rather, it has gotten me in union with the true Roman Pontiff, Benedict XVI. You, on the other hand, have provided no substantial argument to the contrary.
Not required. Its not my duty but a distraction.
It is not your duty to be in union with the true pope? Then you remain in schism, at least materially.
your full acceptance of 1983 code makes u a modernist, at least materially.
Where did I say that I fully accept the 1983 Code of Canon Law?
‘It is the 1983 Code that is operational in the Church today however bad it may be in some of the canons.’ You words.
So by this you interpret that I accept the bad canons???
Please read Footnote #26 of my paper.
I retract my accusation that you are a material modernist but I do not accept that I am in schism.
Thank you for your retraction. Unfortunately, however, I cannot retract that you are in material schism so long as you accept Jorge Bergoglio as pope.
So answer me this, when Benedict dies willl you become a sedevacantist?
When Pope Benedict XVI dies, the Chair of Peter becomes vacant.
So when Pope Francis dies, Rome elects another Pope, you still accept Benedict?
Pope Benedict XVI remains pope until he dies unless he renounces his office beforehand.
Lucy the theologette, dont overthink it which is a common theme amongst ‘resignationists.’ It is not our duty so lets keep it simple.
So why don’t you just go with the crowd and go Novus Ordo? Not much thinking is required to do that.
“It is of no importance that in past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud. It is enough that he was accepted afterwards by the whole Church as Pope, since by such an acceptance he would become the True Pontiff.” St Alphonsus De Ligouri, Doctor of the Church.
Please supply the full context of this quote and how it applies to the case of Benedict XVI.
A Doctor of the Church has spoken. Case closed.
So, in other words, you cannot provide the context nor can you apply it to the case of Benedict XVI. Therefore, you have failed to close anything. All you did was take a quote from a Doctor of the Church out of the proper context and implicitly misapply it to the case of a pope that has not renounced his office (munus) and that is still living. So the logic of your conclusion is that the office of the papacy can be taken away from a pope that has not renounced it and that is still living because the cardinals have elected another “pope” in his place. Nonsense!
https://www.barnhardt.biz/2019/10/20/q-if-we-cant-trust-the-church-to-tell-us-who-the-pope-is-doesnt-that-mean-the-church-has-defected/
Robert Siscoe even used this absurd argument in a attempted defense of Bergoglio several months back on 1 Peter 5. Christ, Who has bound Himself to Benedict, nevertheless strips Benedict of the office and confers it on Bergoglio, all because the cardinals “elected” Bergoglio.