Father Paul Kramer is a priest of most admirable tenacity, an incisive intellect and above all an indomitably Catholic will. His recent publications at Rad Trad Thomist (link to the post is here, and highly recommended for study) undertake a direct refutation of Siscoe and Salza’s legalistic filibustering; i.e. that the sin of heresy is distinct from the crime of heresy, that only clergy can know the crucial difference between the two, and that no one is allowed to acknowledge a heretical pope anyway, etc. Publishing with all the characteristic chutzpah of the rabbi, the S & S duo clearly have had a mission including no less than the following three steps: (1) establish Trad street cred by Salza’s allegedly leaving the freemasonic criminal cabal, (2) flood both page and screen with such suffocating logorrheic fog that the unsuspecting Catholic reader just gives up and submits to their predetermined conclusions. (3) Employ shameful ad hominem attacks on critics like Father Kramer. It just may be, that as the number of Catholics awaken to Bergy’s blasphemy of the day and know that something is wrong, that those in charge of keeping Catholics on the reservation are gradually losing control of the situation. There is a crude but apt epithet which is the wont of American tradesmen who sense a counter party’s shoveling of bee ess: “don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining.” Meet as such words may be for Siscoe and Salza’s PR campaign of Bergoglian damage control, they apply all the more so to the clergy and lay opinion shapers who insist that we pretend not to see Benedict’s jarringly non-real abdication and attempt to bifurcate the papacy into a diarchy.
To the above, the poor and browbeaten Catholic shouts down from pretended moral heights: “it is not our (read your) place to decide that the abdication and bifurcation are fakes.”
-Clearly such a thoroughly lay viewpoint makes no pretense at canonical jurisdiction, and is limited to the realm of exactly that, an opinion. However, lawful authority is also subject to limits set by Almighty God Himself; the laic is under no obligation to stifle his apprehension of reality, especially when such irrefutable evidence is staring him in the face. Reason itself impels such a one to name the contradiction and ask for clarity. Neither of these two, the acknowledgement of the problem and the seeking of correct understanding, ought give any offense to obedience, because the spirit of obedience undergirds the entire inquiry. It is in the thoroughly Catholic desire to know the truths of the Faith in one’s fullest capacity that the insistence is made: explain Benedict’s abdication and the Papacy’s true nature, so that I may give fully the assent of my will. Therefore, in conformity to both justice and the virtue of charity, the faithful have a right to receive; and the Catholic Clergy have a positive obligation to deliver one of the two following:
Explain how Benedict truly resigned in the face of prima facie evidence of the exact opposite.
Explain fully (with canonical and theological foundations), upon what basis a pope can change the singular nature of his own office to include both an active and passive member. Here’s how things have gone so far:
There are additional examples, but these make the essential point.
Another, nastier form of the above inquiry goes as follows. Question: Benedict and Bergoglio clearly attempt to both occupy the Chair of Peter. How can the Catholic Church have two Popes?
What this quick and nasty crowd does not seem to realize is that this same accusation can be flung right back at them. It’s really kind of a silly way of dodging the entire question, an absurdly closed minded way for self-described activists of Tradition to deal with a question that has no real answer. Actually, real life sedevacantists will be the first to disagree with that label, as they give not the slightest truck to a Catholic who affirms that Benedict XVI is Pope.
If he looks like a Pope, dresses like the pope, lives where the Pope lives, and goes by the name he took as Pope, that just might mean that the man in question thinks himself to be the Pope. If Benedict regards himself the Pope, how can he at the same time have ceased to be Pope? No one explains, obviously, because no one is stupid enough to attempt a formal denial of the principle of non contradiction. So this leads to the next category: learned Catholics, clergy and lay, who simply accept the force majeure argument and go on about their donation grubbing and subscription mongering. Their stances on the matter thus, due to their mental servility (or concealed desire to collaborate), devolve unto a haphazard pattern of complaining about the bad guys in power (fie on them!) and cheering for the bad guys’ controlled opponents (hurrah for them!) Theirs is a semi-voluntary participation in the entire system.
Perhaps it comes down to stubborn refusal to submit to the brutal intellectual violence of the whole thing. The nature of the fraud is so simple and obvious, that it may be a matter of not of the intellect but of the will. The will either submits to the violence of the situation, or it refuses. The Catholic Church, being Holy Mother of Divine Origin, dazzlingly adorned in her holy doctrines; which answer and satisfy every sincere inquirer, while justly and gently rejoining each truth-seeking critic; cannot deceive. Neither can she command one to give assent of Faith to a principle that is not only inexplicable, but positively inflicts violence on the mind in its contravention to reason itself.
Affirming the Church’s divine origin brings us to an even larger problem created by the just-shut-up-and-live-with-Bergy mentality. Their insistence, that without due instruction Bergy must be taken as Pope on pain of sinful disobedience or schism, helps in the spawning of a neo-gnostic pathogen among the dwindling number of faithful. To wit, the tacit understanding is set forth that the Catholic Church commands her children to assent to principles that can neither be explained nor understood; neither taught nor learned with the mind. Can the Catholic Church proclaim a doctrine or command a discipline that cannot be grasped by the intellect? With all due deference to being corrected by lawful authority, I say no.
The poor and purblind Judaic, whose salvation we ardently desire, labors under similar totalitarianism. For him, anything the Rabbi says to be true is ipso facto the truth. No questions allowed, lest one fall under the wheels of the pitiless Talmudic penal code. It is fitting perhaps that the Vatican II religion wields a similar iron fist against reason itself. There is a name given to the targeting of the minds of a population with the intent of denuding their wills to resist conquest: psychological warfare. How vastly successful has this psychological operation been when the plummeting number of Catholics who remain devoted to their Faith have fully internalized the thinking of the hostile regime: that doctrine can be contradicted in practice; that the office of the Papacy is fungible. It’s obvious why they don’t explain the reality-bending duality of Benedict and Bergy: because language reflects reality itself. The principle of non-contradiction stops things cold, and so Catholics look diffidently away, kicking the can to the Holy Ghost, plugging their ears and repeating, mantra-like, “Pope Francis, Pope Francis, etc.” as if doing so will mollify the brutal reality. Prima facie evidence of Benedict’s failure to resign be damned.
Thus the matter devolves to the will; “someone in Rome must have rubber-stamped this train-wreck with Divine approval, and I better not question it.” Thereby is imputed to Almighty God the act of taking hostage the Truth (His own consubstantial Son). They’ve been messing with our minds for so long that this servility is how things work now. If the following weren’t an absolute analogical match, it wouldn’t be said. Two and a half generations of Catholics have had done to their minds what the infiltrating molester priests inflicted on the bodies of the innocent. Just as the child rapists view the innocent child’s body as a target for their moral turpitudes, the doctrinal molesters target the docility of the Catholic mind to the voice of one regarded as shepherd. (We implore our victimized brethren, whose lives have been shattered and for whom we pray, not to take offense at this comparison. In so doing the attempt is made to call attention to the profound wickedness at work in both cases.) There are unspeakable things which only a psychopath could do to a child. Mutatis mutandis, the same applies for the Vatican II sect and the Catholic intellect and will, a multi-generational molestation of the mind and heart.