Fr. Kramer on "Calling Someone a heretic"
To dispel the modernist/pseudo- traditionalist myth we cannot call anyone a heretic...
The Novus Ordo is Heretical. It is a New Religion...
2. If every word that comes out of a Pope's mouth and even documents were to be used as basis [to] determine if a Pope is a heretic, then most Popes will be heretic[s]. If that judgment were to be given by laymen, every Pope will be [a] heretic.》-- I ANSWER:
A priest or layman cannot judicially declare a pope to be a heretic, since the priest or layman lacks jurisdiction. The pope is subject to no one on earth. No one can depose a pope. However, any Catholic who possesses sufficient knowledge to judge has the right and the moral duty to judge as a private person in such a matter when the situation becomes a case of conscience. It become a case of conscience for the Catholic when he is faced with the problem of obedience to the pope's decrees, and above all, when there is the question of assent to the pope's magisterial teachings.
The same criteria apply to the pope as to any other person: If someone manifests himself to be non-Catholic, then we must judge them to be so. If your Catholic parish priest one day begins to emphatically profess that "Prophet Jesus" did not die on the Cross and rise from the tomb, and that the one God is Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet," -- you would be entirely correct and within your rights to judge him to have become an infidel; but you would lack the jurisdiction to depose him from office (although he would already have ipso facto lost office upon his defection into heresy). If the pope were to defect in exactly the same manner, you would as a private person have the same right to make the same personal judgment of conscience against the pope, exactly as in the case of the parish priest. At a certain point, it becomes a moral obligation to make such a judgment; such as when a "pope" solemnly defines against Catholic dogma or morals; or issues universal decrees preceptively mandating reforms or other measures which directly oppose the Catholic faith by violating divine law.
Likewise, a similar judgment, would be necessary in the case of a "pope" who manifests himself to be a perfidious infidel by his actions -- deliberately instituting policies consciously and manifestly directed to the purpose of effectively demolishing the primacy of Rome by reforms which would decentralize the administration of the Church and de facto transform the national hierarchies into autonomous ecclesial denominations.
(In the case, however, of a misguided pope, who, like Pope Paschal II would institute a policy that violates the divine constitution of the Church: he would need to be resolutely resisted in the same manner as the entire Catholic hierarchy resisted and refused to obey Pascal II.)
Furthermore: It pertains to the nature of man as a creature endowed with the intellective faculty to kmow the truth when that truth is presented to the mind with sufficient reason to affirmatively judge it as true. It is therefore impossible and tyrannical for any law on earth, civil or ecclesiastical to prohibit such a judgment, because that would be contrary to nature, and therefore contrary to reason.
Law is by definition an ordinance of reason, and therefore a law that would frustrate nature would be contrary to reason -- and thus would oppose the very definition of law: "Lex tryannica, cum non sit secundum rationem, non est simpliciter lex; sed magis est quædam perversitas legis." (St. Thomas Aq. in Ia IIæ.)
It pertains to the nature of man as a creature endowed with the intellectual faculty to know the truth when that truth is presented to the mind with sufficient reason to affirmatively judge it as true. It is therefore impossible and tyrannical for any law on earth, civil or ecclesiastical to prohibit such a judgment, because that would be contrary to nature, and therefore contrary to reason.
Law is by definition an ordinance of reason, and therefore a law that would frustrate nature would be contrary to reason -- and thus would oppose the very definition of law: "Lex tryannica, cum non sit secundum rationem, non est simpliciter lex; sed magis est quædam perversitas legis." (St. Thomas Aq. in Ia IIæ.)
It does not apply equally to the conciliar popes as it does to Bergoglio, because only the matter of heresy was publicly manifested in the heresy of the popes from Roncalli to Ratzinger. Formal heresy cannot simply be presumed. In the case of Bergoglio, he pronounces against the natural law, so it is impossible for his heresy to be only material, but the form of heresy is manifest, because the natural law is written in the heart of man.
Jorge B. is not a pastor but a bogus 'de facto' "pope" -- he is an infidel destroyer whose only religion is the Hermetic Mysteries of Freemasonic Gnosticism.
Q.《Does moral theology supersede the laws of the Church?》 -- or may a pope issue laws, pastoral directives and policies that are contrary to the moral doctrine of the Church?
A. Moral Theology is the systematic elaboration of the Church's moral doctrine. All human positive laws must be in conformity with the doctrine of the Church, since that doctrine has been received by the Church from Christ through the apostles; and is derived directly from, and is indeed a reflection of the Lex Æterna -- the Eternal Law, which is the divine wisdom in so far as it is directive of all actions and motions. ("Lex æterna est divina sapientia inquantum est directiva omnium actuum et motionum" - St. Thomas Aquinas) Hence, all human laws, whether ecclesiastical or civil must be formulated in accordance with the divine law; and therefore, they must be in conformity with the Natural Law as well as the divine commandments -- both of which form the basis of Catholic moral doctrine, since both are derived from the Eternal Law.
Therefore, if a pope were to knowingly institute reforms and policies that directly violate divine law, he would thereby manifest himself to be a perfidious infidel; since, as Mattheus Conte a Coronata explains, a heretic manifests his infidelity either by his words or by his actions.