Fr. Paul Kramer’s writing below is based on this response to Fr. David Hewko.
“In such a situation [i.e., of a doubtful pope], the only thing that can be certain is the verifiable existence of positive doubt, which all moralists and canonists teach is a just reason to withdraw submission to a papal claimant. This is why I made a reply to Fr. David Hewko, who has characterized my position on the question of whether Francis or Benedict is the true pope without examining my arguments, but simply gratuitously labelled it as ‘absurd’. In my reply I explained my position that a manifest heretic is not a member of the Church, and is therefore an incapable subject of the papacy. Even if a man who was elected pope should later be discovered to have been a heretic at the time of his election, he would not be a valid pope, but would simply need to be removed. That is the ruling of Pope Paul IV, confirmed by Pope St. Pius V. The proposition that a heretic pope would first need to be judged by the Church to lose office is logically incoherent and heretical. Fr. Hewko says, ‘The Pope is the highest authority on earth and no one can depose him. He must step down by his own volition, as Pope Benedict did.’ Fr. Hewko assumes a priori that Benedict renounced his munus; yet a careful analysis of the act of renunciation proves that he did not unequivocally renounce his claim on the munus, as is necessary by law for the act to be valid. Fr. Hewko has failed to explain how we can know that Francis is the pope when there are two claimants to the munus, and many Catholics are not certain as to which claimant would possess the supreme authority to judge the question; and after they depart this world, which claimant’s successor will possess the authority to judge these matters with finality. When it is said in response by others, ‘the Church’ must judge, is it not understood that the definitive and final judgment can only consist of a judgment ratified by a certain pope, and not a doubtful one? And such a ratification of a judgment of ‘the Church’ cannot be made unless the question would first be resolved? And how would it first be resolved, so that the judgment of ‘the Church’ could be ratified by a certain pope, unless men first arrive at a private judgment through the use of the intellective faculty of judgment to arrive at a reasonable and certain conclusion; so that the private judgment becomes a general consensus, leading to a universal acceptance of one claimant over the other? This is how schisms caused by antipopes were historically resolved: Not by a definitive judgment of ‘the Church’, which is quite impossible while the positive doubt persists over which man is the true pope representing the authority of the Church; but by private judgment which becomes the prevailing general consensus, and finally becomes a universal acceptance of one claimant over the other. Thus, the private judgment of St. Bernard of Clairvaux and Peter the Venerable, gained general ascendency, so that the whole Church eventually accorded universal acceptance and obedience to Innocent II, and abandoned Victor IV, who then submitted to Innocent II. This is how disputed papacies have nearly always been decided, when by means of private judgment a general consensus was reached in favour of one claimant;”
Kramer, Paul. On the true and the false pope: The case against Bergoglio (pp. 176-178). Gondolin Press. Kindle Edition.
To purchase the two volumes of To Deceive the Elect, please see the following links:
Hardcover versions: see here.
Softcover and electronic versions: see here and here.
If only “Father” Kramer would put just a fraction amount of the effort into attaining sub conditione ordinatiois as he has this thesis. As it is so often with many of his writings, his deficient conciliar formation clouds his judgement. In this case it prevents him from determining that the importance of removing the positive doubt to his orders is greater than any crusade of theological opinion. What a paradox; what a tragedy.
Typical ad hominem. You have nothing valuable to add to the post in question. You should be ashamed of yourself.
And by the way, Fr. Paul Kramer studied at the Angelicum in Rome in the early 1970s under the Dominicans, so the quality of his theological formation is difficult to contest.
Au contraire, this is no ad hominem attack, but simply a statement of fact. And by the way, what’s so invaluable about dispensing questionable Sacraments? That you brush off its importance speaks volumes. And to the point in question: since the man doesn’t place any importance on his doubtful orders, to many, it greatly diminishes the weight his opinion.
You very conveniently gloss over his years of formation form Holy Apostles Seminary. Then in the wacky 70’s Rome, his studies continued with conciliar instruction. Ergo: the conciliar rite ordination …so you’re making my point.
It is ad hominem because his ordination is not the subject of the post. Just because he believes that his ordination was valid doesn’t mean that his theological position on the subject of the post is incorrect. In the 70s, there were still solid theologians at pontifical universities. If you question his position on the subject of this post, then try to counteract it instead of diverting attention to another subject.
Winston, please prove with evidence that the following is NOT CORRECT-
” a manifest heretic is not a member of the Church, and is therefore an incapable subject of the papacy. Even if a man who was elected pope should later be discovered to have been a heretic at the time of his election, he would not be a valid pope, but would simply need to be removed. That is the ruling of Pope Paul IV, confirmed by Pope St. Pius V. The proposition that a heretic pope would first need to be judged by the Church to lose office is logically incoherent and heretical.”
Winston, are you going to accept the challenge?
It is NOT POSSIBLE for Winston to prove that Father Kramer is not correct because Father Kramer provides evidence that is irrefutable. If Winston could provide evidence, he surely would do so, BUT HE CAN NOT because it does not exist.
The following statement is NOTHING MORE THAN an OPINION-
”In this case it prevents him from determining that the importance of removing the positive doubt to his orders is greater than any crusade of theological opinion. What a paradox; what a tragedy”
The opinion above comes from a person who can not even admit that he has engaged in an ad hominem attack. Rather than back himself up with credible evidence that provides the facts to soundly discuss the matter with evidence, he attacks Father Kramer and then disappears.
The TRUTH that Father Kramer has provided the evidence to prove that bergoglio is NOT THE POPE is so far from absurd, that this TRUTH is as far apart from absurd as the heavens are from the earth.
The following is a very simplified help to explain that there is such a thing as invincible ignorance and the opposite which is vincible ignorance.
Invincible ignorance means that the individual was unable to arrive at the truth as in the following example being that an aborigine living in the remote areas of a place had no experience[s] given nor any opportunity available to neither hear nor to understand the truth of a particular matter even though the individual is of good will.
However, vincible ignorance is the opposite because an individual did have the experience[s] given and those made available in order to understand the truth of a particular matter; and even though the individual is thought to be of good will, the individual did not accept the truth and thereby neglected to arrive at the truth according to the free will choice made by that individual.
The above explanation offered is a very simplified and generalized explanation which helped me to grasp the truth pertaining to ignorance.
I am concerned that if I attend a Mass offered by Father Hewko I will be at least venially sinning if he continues in this manner. At this point, has he been saying that he doesn’t know who the real Pope is?
Fr. Hewko holds Jorge Bergoglio as the real pope. Often in his sermons, he will state “ex” Pope Benedict XVI.
Father Kramer just advised me recently that it is still possible that a Catholic priest names Bergoglio in error out of ignorance. The centuries old canonical tradition still in force after 600 years allows the faithful to attend such Masses. I pray for Father Hewko every day that he comes to the understanding of the truth.
Is the sorrowful truth perhaps that Fr. Hewko has not done the proper research in order to determine what is the only conclusion which presents itself as the undeniable TRUTH regarding antipope bergoglio that can be readily determined when one does do the research?
The result of vincible ignorance pertains to all of us who must discern properly but do not do so if and when we instead evade our responsibility to act with due diligence in order to research the TRUTH in such an important matter as this in our time.
GOD HIMSELF HAS PROVIDED ALL THE EVIDENCE which Father Kramer presents according to what has been established within salvation history through the ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, and APOSTOLIC CHURCH instituted by our LORD and SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST.
We pray and hope in GOD to give the light to Father Hewko to discern that Pope Benedict XVI remains the one and only true vicar of JESUS CHRIST on earth today.
I have urged Fr. Hewko on more than one occasion to read Fr. Paul Kramer’s To Deceive the Elect. Whether he has done so or not, I am not certain. The fact remains, however, that Fr. Paul Kramer has done extensive research on several but related questions which has convinced me of the truth of his positions on those questions. If Fr. Hewko (or anyone else) can systematically taken apart Fr. Kramer’s arguments, let him do so.