Father Kramer Refutes...
Reply to the Latest Rant of Quack Theologian Luke Ross
1) In the first errant proposition of his litany of non sequiturs, Ross gratuitously and recklessly accuses me of judging "imprudently". He makes no attempt at any kind of theological demonstration of his assertion that it is "imprudent" to judge a manifest heretic to be exactly what he manifests himself to be. I have repeatedly pointed out and explained that Jorge Bergoglio does not merely express heretical opinions, but openly denies the most basic dogmas of revelation. The absolute necessity of faith for justification and salvation is categorically denied by the heathen Bergoglio. Similarly, Bergoglio explicitly and directly rejects Christ's teaching and command to proselytize the whole world, declaring, "Proselytism is solemn nonsense." He rejects the explicit teaching of scripture and defined dogma that the Jewish Covenant has ceased. His rejection of the authority of Christ and the scriptures is patent. This is what distinguishes the perfidious infidel Bergoglio from the conciliar popes, and therefore Ross's rambling rant on the heresies of Joseph Ratzinger is an irrelevant red herring. I have explained this point many times, so that Ross has no excuse for mendaciously attributing "amnesia" to me about the heretical opinions of Joseph Ratzinger. I have read Ratzinger in his original German texts, and Bergoglio likewise in Italian and Spanish. I have analyzed and critically compared their doctrines. Ross ignores that and indulges in charlatanism.
2) Ross shows a clear manifestation of dementia when he attributes an "obvious contradiction" to me. My statement that I am not a sedevacantist does not in any way contradict my statement that I had believed the chair of Peter to be vacant for about 18 hours in November 2013. Ross's statement is patent lunacy. Ross, the delusional idiot insists that I am "still a sedevacantist", because, "One cannot be and not be at the same time." (!!!) Lunatic Ross maliciously refuses to acknowledge the patent and simple fact that I had at first (like a multitude of others) uncritically accepted Benedict's renunciation, but after reading the text of Pope Benedict's Declaratio, and examining its content in depth, it became plainly evident to me that the act of renunciation was null & void due to defect of intention. The document is fatally ambiguous, and is therefore null & void. If a juridical act does not clearly and unambiguously express the formal object of the act, that act is invalid. Hence, I believe Benedict remains in office to this day. Where's the contradiction Mr. Ross?
3) I have stated that when Pope Benedict dies, another pope will eventually be elected. Ross then stupidly replies with a question, "How would this happen when . . ." Ross obtusely assumes that the present situation of the hierarchy will remain as such in the future. Such an assumption is an utterly unfounded presumption. God will provide a valid successor to Pope Benedict. There is no reason why I must create hypothetical scenarios, and theorize how the next pope will be elected.
4) Ross again lapses into dementia when he claims that I, "make a foundation built on apparitions", "he has not proof that those apparitions apply to this time." Idiot Ross again demonstrates his utter incapacity to think on a theological level. I made no attempt to prove that the prophecies of Bl. Anna Maria Taigi and St. Ignatius of Santhia apply to the present time, because I never claimed that they do in fact apply to the present situation. Far from building a foundation on apparitions, I quoted their prophecies in order to point out the fact that the opinion that there can be a significant vacancy of the papal see is doctrinally orthodox. The very first criterion for judging one worthy of beatification/canonization is doctrinal orthodoxy. The eminent theologian, Edmond O'Reilly SJ elaborated on the possibility of a lengthy vacancy long before post conciliar Sedevacantism came into being. The belief that there could be a significant vacancy after the death of Benedict does not involve any doctrinal unorthodoxy. That was my point, which the obtuse mind of Luke Ross oafishly fails to grasp.
5) Ross pontificates on the visibility of the pope as if he considers himself to be a Church Father. The doctrine on the universal acceptance of a pope has not been dogmatically defined, and therefore its scope and signification are difficult to determine. Hence, there is the problem of its applicability to the present two pope situation of the Church. Ross gratuitously claims that the entire Catholic world accepts Fr. Bergoglio as pope. Has he conducted a scientific survey? Does he have any idea about just how many Catholics (increasingly) doubt or outright deny that Bergoglio is the valid Roman Pontiff? No, he does not. He just pontificates on subjects about which he is ignorant.
6) Ross pontificates, declaring that, "Fr. Kramer had personally and imprudently judged the pope as a formal heretic, . . . which he nor anyone else can do until the Church herself judges on such matters." What authority does Ross quote in support of his absurd belief that the Church must first pronounce in a such a situation in which it is impossible for the Church to pronounce, and in which the malice of heresy is patent? None! When the See is either vacant or impeded, it is quite impossible for the Church to pronounce in the matter, yet it is necessary for the faithful to recognize a false, infidel "pope" for what he is, and refuse submission to him. One may not follow an infidel "pope" into heresy and apostasy out of "obedience"!
Yet this appears to be precisely the onset of "mystery of iniquity" foretold by St. Paul in 2 Thessalonians, and summed up by the La Salette seer, Melanie Calvat: "Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist." Fundamentalistic simpletons like Luke Ross think that such propositions offend against the doctrine of the indefectibility of the Church, yet this opinion was expressed by no less than Pope Leo XIII, in the original text of the exorcism which he published in the Roman Ritual of 1903 (which makes it a document of the ordinary magisterium):
"Behold the Church, the Spouse of the Immaculate Lamb, filled with bitterness and inebriated with gall by the most crafty enemies; who have laid impious hands on all that is most sacred. Where the See of the most blessed Peter and the Chair of the truth, was constituted as the light of the nations, there they have set up the throne of their abominable impiety, so that the shepherd being struck, the sheep may be dispersed." Was Leo XIII offending against the doctrine of the visibility and indefectibility of the Church when he published these words in the Rituale Romanum, Mr. Ross???
Enough, nay, too much time wasted on, Luke Ross.