Fr. Paul Kramer Objects to a Claim of a Sede Impedist

Comments posted on Facebook on February 4, 2024

Note that Mr. Mongiardo states, “Only Don Minutella and Andrea Cionci show the path forward and desired by Jesus and Mary, via the loyalty to the last Vicar of Christ.”  He is one of those Sede Impedists that I mentioned in previous posts (see here and here) that treat their impeded see thesis as if it were dogma.  He doesn’t see that, since the see is no longer impeded, the current immediate cause of Jorge Bergoglio’s not being pope is his public manifest formal heresy, regardless of whether he was elected validly or invalidly.  If the competent Church authorities would declare Jorge Bergoglio an antipope because of his public manifest formal heresy, and then proceed to elect another pope, this would be sufficient to continue the papacy, all without the need to first acknowledge a formerly impeded see.

12 thoughts on “Fr. Paul Kramer Objects to a Claim of a Sede Impedist”

  1. Demonstrating Bergoglio’s heresies will require lengthy and time consuming discussions and arguing among theologians and it will be applied at the time of the first heresy, leaving room for many early actions of the antipope to stay in place, including cardinal nominations.By recognizing the invalidity of the 2013 Conclave, not only the Canon Law would be honored but the ejection of Bergoglio would be immediate and all he did would be considered null. It seems to me that there is no comparison between the route of the heresies and the one of the non abdication, hands down far more effective the second one. The fact that there is not an impeded see now is completely irrelevant, what matters is that the Declaratio was not an abdication, that is a historic fact. It is not a dogma, it’s the law and it is unchallengeable. I believe this is what Nick Mongiardo is saying. Why waisting time and resources in declaring someone a heretic pope if he is not the Pope? Did Pope Benedict renounced the munus in his declaration? No. Was that an abdication? No. Was the following Conclave legitimate? No. Bergoglio is not the Pope then. That is why he can be an apostate, no need to spend time arguing that. I suggest we keep it simple.

    • For how long has the see not been impeded? Since Dec. 31, 2022, the death of Pope Benedict XVI.

      For how long has Jorge Bergoglio been considered pope by 99.9% of Catholics? Since 2013.

      Does then the canonical defect of the invalid election (ecclesiastical human law) of 2013 now prevent Jorge Bergoglio from being pope? No.

      Does the divine impediment of being a public manifest formal heretic (Divine Law) prevent Jorge Bergoglio from being pope? Yes.

      Sorry, but the public heresy route is more effective.

      • The answers to your question: “Does then the canonical defect of the invalid election (ecclesiastical human law) of 2013 now prevent Jorge Bergoglio from being pope?” is a resounding YES for me and from the Canon Law perspective. That’s why the invalid abdication route appears to be the most effective. Here is the proof:
        the art 77 of the Universi Dominici Gregis states that the abdication has to occur in accordance with art. 332.2. In the Declaratio Pope Benedict did not renounce in accordance with the art. 332.2 because he did not renounce the office (munus) What happens now? We find the answer in the art 76 of the Vatican Constitution, the UDG, which states:

        “Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.”

        Therefore, not only the election, in our case the 2013 conclave, is null and void but also there is no need for a declaration to confirm it. That means that a single Cardinal who says “The Pope is dead” will put in motion the call for a Conclave with the cardinals elected pre-2013.

        The notification of this situation has been already legally done by the petition signed by almost 15,000 people and received and recorded at the Secretary of State of the Vatican. The petition is still open and when more people will know about this solution, more will sign it and hopefully one of the Cardinals will make the move. I believe they all know about this, they just need the support of many faithful to act. That is why we need to let people know about this option.

        I add the text of the art. 77 from the UDG below:
        “I decree that the dispositions concerning everything that precedes the election of the Roman Pontiff and the carrying out of the election itself must be observed in full, even if the vacancy of the Apostolic See should occur as a result of the resignation of the Supreme Pontiff, in accordance with the provisions of Canon 333 § 2 (this is a mistake in the English version of the UDG, the article mentioned is the 332.2) of the Code of Canon Law and Canon 44 § 2 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.”

        • You are giving TOO much importance to human ecclesiastical law, in this case, Universi Dominic Gregis. Once again, the impediment now preventing Jorge Bergoglio from becoming pope is a Divine one (public manifest formal heresy). If Jorge Bergoglio was Catholic, he would have become pope after the death of Benedict XVI through peaceful and universal acceptance. Please read the case of Pope St. Martin I and his successor, Pope St. Eugene I.

          • I am glad you cannot deny that following the law is a concrete and detailed possibility. The Canon Law is written by people but it has a divine connotation to it in almost the same was as the Pope has a divine mandate, the Munus.
            The question is not how human or divine is the UDG, the question is what are the art. 77, 76 and 332.2 of the Code of Canon law say? Why having a Code of canon Law and a Constitution if we then decide or not to apply it? Why does the Church has lawyers and teaches Canon law? Is it right to say that the law does not apply for the Church? If Bergoglio was Catholic and was regularly elected, he would not have been an apostate. Again, he can be an apostate because, according to Canon Law, he is not a Pope. He has an advantage because, since he is very likely working for the devil, he can lye and deceive people, being an expert at it. Why should we put to trial for heresy someone that is not the Pope? We could do the same for Fr. James Martin or cardinal Zuppi but they, like Bergoglio are not the Popes. It would be too much work done in giving consideration to a fraud like Bergoglio is.

              • No, because Pope BVXI did not abdicate. Wasn’t there an antipope that was a Saint? I cannot remember who it was but he was still an antipope. I think we Catholics need to support the Pope by fighting head-on the antipopes whenever they show up. This one, Bergoglio, has been the most dangerous. I believe that we are living the third secret of Fatima.
                I have not read yet the case you mentioned (S.Martin I) but I will, it seems very peculiar.

                  • I am smiling because when I read it I thought: “Is this a trick question?” :).
                    The law is absolute by definition. I think that your focus is on liking the law or not but that’s a separate issue, it becomes a relativistic issue, subjective. The fact that Pope Benedict died does not change the fact that the 2013 Conclave was against the law. Something is either according to the law or not, for the years to come. Bergoglio is not Pope before the fact that he is heretical, nobody would have been Pope coming out of the illegitimate 2013 conclave. By law. If we do not want to follow the law, perhaps because we think it is too human or we do not like the Popes who wrote it, then we can subjectively choose that. If we follow the law we follow the ratio and we maintain objectivity.

                    • Canon law is not absolute. It normally needs to be followed but it can be changed from pope to pope, which proves that it is not absolute. By making it absolute, you are implying that unless and until the church authorities acknowledge that Benedict XVI did not validly resign, then any future elections will not be accepted by you. Am I correct?

    • Isn’t there a historical time when a anti-pope became a pope after the death of an actual pope? Since the death of Pope Benedict XVI, it is necessary to point out that Francis manifested his heresy before the death of Pope Benedict XVI.
      Francis has already demonstrated he is not Catholic by not answering the dubia, by publicly denying the divinity of Christ, by publicly denying faith is necessary for salvation. No demonstration is necessary, all that is necessary is for these examples to be published by some cardinals and bishops to warn the faithful not to follow him, because he is not Catholic and thus not a pope.

      There are scandalous things said and done by Popes Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI. Had the faithful sent them a dubia, they would have been forced to either re-state Catholic orthodoxy or they would have manifested their heresy or apostacy. That failure leaves heresy and apostate acts not publicly manifested. Yet, when what we (or one of our parents) have to have (faith) and to know (Jesus is God) to be baptized is denied publicly. There is no way to claim one is ignorant that the Church teaches, that. So it manifests a conclusion without any questioning or trial, or authority needed. The conclusion is, such a person is not Christian and certainly not Catholic, and thus not a Pope.


Leave a Comment