This most awesome article by Mario Derksen, is the type of article that got me infatuated with using the terms "willfully blind" and "intellectually dishonest".

We see how Father Kramer speaks one way about Father Ratzinger before he becomes "Pope" and an entirely different way after.

We cannot judge subjective culpability but we can judge the actual words as meaning what they say.

I was receiving Catholic Family News, and The Remnant when this onslaught against SV happened, and had recently been open to the SV reality.  When I saw my heroes who were teaching me and getting it right about the Church suddenly do an about face after Ratzinger got "elected" I was disheartened.  I believe this is why some SVs feel betrayed.  Judging by the words of others, on their face, we see a duplicitousness from a former friends in the movement and it rightfully irks us.  Why the change?  Hmm.  I guess we can only guess:

http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/05Oct/oct7mdi.htm

  The Summer 2005 issue (#80) of the Fatima Crusader has truly been ominous. It is probably well known by now that this issue contains two ill-fated attempts to rebut the sedevacantist position as untenable, impossible, and “insane.” But what may not be so well known is that there is a third article in there, written by Fr. Paul Kramer, on the Third Secret of Fatima and “Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, now “Pope” Benedict XVI.

      It is this third article I wish to draw everyone’s attention to, for not only does it make several highly important claims, it even, no doubt unwittingly, contradicts the anti-sedevacantist stance of the articles by Mr. Christopher Ferrara and Fr. Nicholas Gruner in the very same issue. The article is so full of “good stuff” that I felt compelled to write about it. You will see what I mean in a minute.

      The article is entitled “The Imminent Chastisement for Not Fulfilling Our Lady’s Request” by “Father Paul Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.B., M.Div., S.T.L. (Cand.).” It spans pages 32-45 and is available online here: http://www.fatimacrusader.com/cr80/cr80pg32.asp. Though I consider the validity of the ordinations of “Fathers” Gruner and Kramer to be objectively doubtful (both were ordained in the Novus Ordo rite of Paul VI, to my knowledge), I will nevertheless refer to both individuals as “Father” in this essay, out of courtesy and because this is how they are officially known to people. Let me also mention that I take neither joy nor glee in the fact that neither of them may be a real priest; I consider this a great tragedy.

      Having clarified this, let me move on to an examination of Fr. Kramer’s article, especially in light of the essays of Fr. Gruner and Mr. Ferrara against sedevacantism. The article is an “edited transcript of a speech” given on September 24, 2004, when Benedict XVI was still only “Cardinal” Ratzinger. The article reflects the change in Ratzinger’s status, so I suppose this is the main reason why the transcript was edited.

      Fr. Kramer begins by giving a general introductory overview of the bad times we live in, the message of Our Lady of Fatima, mankind’s need for repentance, and the necessity for the Pope to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Only when this happens will the Great Restoration begin. Kramer adds that Our Lady herself said that when all seems lost, when wickedness seems to have triumphed, that will be the time when Her hour has come. So far, so good.

      But then Fr. Kramer starts to speak of the Great Chastisement, foretold by so many holy souls, as well as by Pope Pius XII. He adds that in 1976, John Paul II, as “Cardinal” Wojtyla, also spoke of that Chastisement, which would involve the Catholic Church in a great trial “between the Church and the anti-Church; the Gospel and the anti-Gospel” (p. 34). Father then briefly relates that in 1981, John Paul II “returned to that same theme” and made it clear that this is what the Third Secret of Fatima was all about.

      Here we have our first curious reference, but just how curious it is will only become clearer later in the article, so I will have to save the best for later. For right now, though, we notice with curiosity that John Paul II is implicitly presented here as a friend of Fatima, as someone who shares concern for the Catholic Church and her well-being, and who warns the faithful of great trials that would befall the Church in the future (i.e., some time after 1981). Fr. Kramer makes it seem as though John Paul II had been on our side, that is, on Fatima’s side.

      Next, Kramer mentions the Vatican’s would-be “Third Secret” of Fatima, released on June 26, 2000, that long text about a vision Sr. Lucy supposedly had of a bishop dressed in white getting killed while walking up a mountain. This, the Novus Ordo Vatican assured us, was the long-awaited “Third Secret” that they had kept hidden from the world since 1960. Fr. Kramer relates that he was speaking with a Brazilian bishop who asked that if this was not the whole Third Secret, as the Fatima Crusader has long correctly and bravely argued, nay, proved, then wouldn’t it seem that the Vatican is lying to the world? (Imagine that! A bunch of modernist enemies of the Catholic Faith lying to us!) To my utter amazement, Fr. Kramer says no, they’re not lying. Instead, he assures us: “Cardinal Ratzinger is using a mental reservation. The entire Secret is implicitly contained in that vision. In that sense, in that very restricted sense, it is the whole Secret.” (p. 34)

      This kind of answer reminds me of modernist Rome. But one has to ask: does Fr. Kramer know this? If so, how does he know? But what’s really surprising here is that this does not at all sound like the Fr. Kramer of the past. I remember reading the book The Devil’s Final Battle (2002), which is an excellent chronology of the Vatican’s Fatima cover-up. Though there are several contributors and co-authors of the book, it stands to reason that Fr. Kramer, whose name appears on the book’s cover as the main editor and compiler, endorses the book’s contents. The curious thing is that Fr. Kramer’s position regarding “Cardinal” Ratzinger as laid out in the Devil’s Final Battle is very different from the position he takes in his article in the Summer 2005 issue of the Fatima Crusader. In the Devil’s Final Battle, we didn’t hear anything about a supposed “mental reservation” regarding “Cardinal” Ratzinger. On the contrary, Fr. Kramer didn’t mince words as he took Ratzinger and his fellow-modernists to task. Here are a few choice excerpts:

  …the proof now suffices to identify the four men we must in conscience accuse in this book. They are:
Cardinal Angelo Sodano
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone

Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos

 

…it is these men who have taken the lead in attempting nothing less than the murder of the Message of Fatima…. They have combined and conspired, and then acted publicly, to impose upon the Church a version of the Fatima Message that bears no resemblance to the Catholic prophecy of the Mother of God…. it is they who have specialized, as it were, in the demolition of Fatima. Thus they deserve to be identified as the principals of the crime we allege here.

[p. 130; bold print in original]

 

The Introduction to TMF [the Vatican’s commentary “The Message of Fatima”] states on the next page that “there is only one manuscript, which is here reproduced photographically.” This … has to be considered a lie.

…If it is a lie, which is what we firmly believe, then it means that the theological and historical interpretations presented are deliberately leading towards a wrong conclusion or message. Commonly this is called fraudulent….

The following pages of TMF’s Introduction reiterate the lie that the Consecration has been done, especially p. 8 which cites an unsigned letter by “Sister Lucy” which, as we showed in a previous chapter, is a manifest fake, as shown also by Father Paul Kramer.

[p. 132]

 

Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement of 1984 is in direct contradiction to his downplaying of the Third Secret in TMF.

[p. 137]

 

In other words, according to Cardinal Ratzinger, no one in the Church is obliged to follow the message of Fatima….

Cardinal Ratzinger takes this approach, it seems, with all of the extraordinary revelations of the past two centuries. For example, he reduces the extraordinary revelations about the Corpus Christi Feast and the Sacred Heart to St. Margaret Mary Alacoque to an event that merely had an “effect even on the liturgy.” This borders on blasphemy….

[p. 138]

 

Cardinal Ratzinger has to pretend that these real signs of the times have nothing to do with that event known as the Second Vatican Council….

[p. 139]


Cardinal Ratzinger’s “attempt to interpret the ‘secret’ of Fatima” completely fails to interpret what is not the secret as such anyway, as this has not been revealed, but he succeeds in debunking nothing less than the Immaculate Conception herself. …Ratzinger does not shrink from inflating this term, reserved to the Mother of God, to include any “heart, which, with God’s grace, has come to perfect interior unity and therefore ‘sees God.’” He is not even ashamed to abuse the Gospel for his interpretation by citing Matthew 5:8…. blasphemous … is exactly what one ought to think of Cardinal Ratzinger’s trivializing the Immaculate Heart.

[p. 140]


If Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement is to mean what it says, he would be at least a material heretic…. Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement is either an expression of a subjectivist or heretical mind. The latter seems to be the case, when we consider the statement: “There is no immutable destiny.”

[p. 141]


…Cardinal Ratzinger, like the Phrarisees [sic] of old, is full of subtleties and citations to Scripture which, artfully arranged, obscure the simplicity of God’s truth. And like the Pharisees, the Cardinal presents his obfuscation with a great show of respect for the Messenger and the Message; but beneath the appearance of respect is a thinly disguised contempt. By the time the Cardinal is done with his pharisaical “tribute” to Fatima, nothing is left of it. For him, the matter is all very subtle—so subtle that it vanishes away.

[p. 142]


…The Pharisees of old were dangerous precisely because they seemed to have a genuine respect for the truth. Today a feigned respect for the Message of Fatima conceals its most determined opponents.

[p. 143]

      Ah, how refreshing to hear such common sense, such good judgment, such reasonable analysis of the facts! Too bad the people at the Fatima Crusader seem to forget all these reasonable things they have said and the principles their good judgment was based on when these very things and principles would lend support to sedevacantism, which they feel they must vigorously oppose in order to “defend the Church.” (How arguing that the demolition and profanation of the Catholic Church and her sacraments was accomplished by real Catholic Popes is supposed to be a defense of the papacy is anyone’s guess.)

      So we see here a collection of statements from the Devil’s Final Battle, edited and compiled by Fr. Kramer, accusing “Cardinal” Ratzinger of heresy, blasphemy, lying, deception, cover-up, and impiously downplaying and discrediting the Fatima apparitions and messages. Ratzinger has been exposed as an enemy of the Faith and of Fatima who seeks to hide his enmity by attempting to appear orthodox, scholarly, “subtle,” and a friend of the Fatima apparitions and messages. This is the analysis Fr. Kramer gave us in 2002. And having read all of the Devil’s Final Battle, I must say I agree that this analysis is spot-on.

      But that was then. Apparently, we are now supposed to believe that this very Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, who now sports the title “Benedict XVI,” is a friend of Fatima? That he is in good faith? That he is now somehow only using a “mental reservation”? That, if he gets enough petitions, he will consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, when he does not even believe in the Immaculate Heart but blasphemously and impiously trivializes and contradicts it? This is what Fr. Kramer seems to be saying now.

      Sometimes it would be really good for the people at the Fatima Crusader and their anti-sedevacantist friends to reread their back issues to see what they have actually argued and said. Joseph Maurer’s Open Letter to Catholic Family News underscores what I mean:
http://www.novusordowatch.org/story091605.htm

      Another nice article that dealt with reality realistically is posted here:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/remnant/forte.htm

      You see, before April 19, 2005, Christopher Ferrara dealt with Ratzinger more or less the way he ought to be dealt with. In particular, note this sentence from the article: “More and more it becomes apparent that this man is perhaps the most industrious ecclesial termite of the post-conciliar epoch, tearing down even as he makes busy with the appearance of building up. The longer Ratzinger ‘guards’ Catholic doctrine, the more porous the barriers that protect it become.” Interesting, isn’t it? Of course, we sedevacantists who question Ratzinger's legitimacy are now "madmen," according to Ferrara. But note how Ferrara clearly implies deliberation on Ratzinger's part here, as he says that Ratzinger tears down but is busy to appear building up. It's amazing what April 19, 2005, has done to the non-sedevacantists traditionalists (a.k.a. "Neo-Traditionalists").

       I think I could go on and on with that list of quotes from The Devil’s Final Battle and similar publications establishing that Fr. Kramer and his friends rightly considered Ratzinger a dangerous enemy of the Faith and of Fatima, one who seeks to hide his enmity in countless subtleties and pseudo-scholarly diatribes that all water down, belittle, or outright deny the Catholic Faith and/or Catholic piety. It is all the more curious, therefore, that Fr. Kramer should now seem to come to Ratzinger’s defense.

      But let me continue examining Fr. Kramer’s article. Having assured us that Ratzinger only used a “mental reservation” and was not lying, Fr. Kramer then relates to us the anecdote of a “seminary professor, who is a close friend of Pope John Paul II, and who also knows personally Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger” (p. 36), who, upon reading the Vatican version of the “Third Secret” on June 26, 2000, had the (very reasonable!) impression that this was not the Third Secret, for that would be impossible. So far, so good, but here comes the most interesting part:

And so he went to the Vatican, he visited Cardinal Ratzinger, and he confronted him. He did not mince his words. He said, “This is impossible! This cannot possibly be the entire Third Secret!” And he insisted that Ratzinger answer him yes or no. “Is this the whole thing? Is this the whole thing, or isn’t it? It cannot be; now you tell me!” Ratzinger admitted, “Truly, that was not all of it.” … He pressed on further for an answer, he would not back off. And he demanded, “What is in the Secret? If that’s not all of it, well, what is there?” Ratzinger’s answer makes it clear. There’s no longer any mystery why they have kept it hidden for so many years…. Ratzinger said that in the Third Secret, Our Lady warns that there will be an evil council. And She warned against the changes: She warned against making changes in the liturgy; changes in the Mass. This is explicitly set forth in the Third Secret.”

 

[The Fatima Crusader, Summer 2005 issue (no. 80), p. 36]

      At this point, you should be asking yourself whether you’re waking or dreaming. Did Fr. Kramer just write that “Cardinal” Ratzinger himself has admitted that the Third Secret warned against an evil council and changes to be made to the Mass? In other words, did Ratzinger just admit that the Third Secret condemns Vatican II and the New Mass?

      You’d expect Fr. Kramer to lose it at this point and condemn the pharisaical, blasphemous, heretical, deceptive, impious, and Fatima-hating Joseph Ratzinger in the strongest of terms! So Ratzinger knows the truth and deliberately hides it! He is covering up the true Third Secret and is continuing his complicity in the big Fatima cover-up and in building and maintaining the New Church! He knows that Our Lady condemns him, Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, and his wicked works! Having read The Devil’s Final Battle, one would think that this is the last straw Fr. Kramer needed to definitively convict Ratzinger as a pertinacious enemy of the Faith and of Fatima.

      But what does Fr. Kramer do instead? He merely notes:

However, men like Cardinal Ratzinger believe that the word of the Second Vatican Council is equivalent to the word of God. They cannot believe that there was any evil in the Council. And so they choose not to believe the Message of Fatima. And this is why Cardinal Ratzinger made a suggestion that the apparition of the Lady of Fatima is something conjured up in the imagination of Sister Lucy.

 

[p. 36]

      This is unbelievable! At long last, Fr. Kramer had all he needed to expose the fraud that is Ratzinger, and what does he do? He proceeds to find excuses for him! And lame ones at that! Ratzinger simply “cannot believe” that Vatican II is the council mentioned in the Third Secret? Is Fr. Kramer kidding?? And I suppose Ratzinger also sincerely “cannot believe” that the changes to be made to the Mass could refer to the “banal on-the-spot product” (Ratzinger’s own words) of the New Mass? If you can believe this, perhaps I could sell you my little 2001 KIA for a good price….

      Fr. Kramer is acting as though Benedict XVI were in good faith about this, an utter absurdity if there ever was one. After all that he exposed about Ratzinger in the Devil’s Final Battle, the last thing you could say is that Ratzinger is “innocently misled” about all this.

      Which brings me to another important point. What we just read here was the long-awaited admission by a high-ranking Vatican official that the Third Secret of Fatima, penned in the 1930’s, is about what we all more or less assumed it was about, namely, a heavenly warning against the wicked Second Vatican Council, the New Mass, and the loss of Faith resulting therefrom (cf. The Devil's Final Battle, pp. 32-33, 167-170). So, let me ask you something: how come this hasn’t made the biggest headlines in the Fatima Crusader and similar publications? This is, essentially, the story they were waiting for: the true content of the Third Secret! Why is it not the top story at www.fatima.org or at least in the pages of the Fatima Crusader? Why is this buried in the middle of a lengthy article in an issue opposing sedevacantism? Why have other similar publications not picked up on this (at least I'm not aware that they have)? This is practically the mother of all news stories, the smoking gun! Short of perhaps St. Pius X coming back to life and putting an end to the Novus Ordo church, this is the story they (and also we sedevacantists) had been waiting for!

      It is, of course, very unfortunate for the Fatima Crusader and their associates that the wicked, heretical, lying blasphemer Joseph Ratzinger is now “the Pope” of the “Catholic Church.” The man they have implicated in a cover-up and spiritual and moral crimes of horrendous proportions, and exposed as an enemy of the Faith and of Fatima, is now at the helm of what they absolutely insist is the Catholic Church (or Conciliar Church—they seem to use the terms interchangeably, depending on which use favors the point they wish to make). But then again, apparently the Fatima Crusader already knew of this admission on Ratzinger's part back in 2004, when Benedict XVI was still "Cardinal" Ratzinger, so I really don't know why this wasn't made public until now, but it can't be because Ratzinger is now claiming to be the Pope. But I think we should not speculate about motives. We do not wish to fall into the sin of rash judgment. Let's just stick to the facts. And one of these curious facts is that Ratzinger admitted (apparently in 2004) that the real Third Secret was about an evil council and changes to be made to the Mass, and no one published this news—until now (and then only almost as a side note in an issue attacking sedevacantism).

      But with Benedict XVI's claim to the papacy, the Fatima Crusader and their associates are in a terrible situation now, a dilemma perhaps. They demonize as non-Catholics the people who use the information they themselves have given them—namely, that we can reasonably infer that Joseph Ratzinger is an enemy of the Catholic Faith and does not hold the Catholic Faith (e.g., his impious denial of the Immaculate Conception or his basically verbatim denial of Vatican I’s dogma of papal primacy)—and then logically conclude that Ratzinger cannot be the head of the Catholic Church, or even a member.

      At this point, though, let me briefly go back to the issue of the “mental reservation” Ratzinger allegedly used. We must examine what mental reservations are and when or how they may be used: There are strict mental reservations and broad mental reservations. A strict mental reservation is the same as a lie from a moral perspective. So, for instance, if a thief were to say, “I did not steal” and mentally added “with the left hand, but with the right hand,” his assertion that he had not stolen would not in any way become less of a lie. It is clear, therefore, that Fr. Kramer cannot say that “Cardinal” Ratzinger was using a strict mental reservation, for that would be the same as accusing him of lying. What about the broad mental reservation? Let me quote Fr. Heribert Jone, from whom I also took the example about the strict mental reservation: “The broad mental reservation is had if the real meaning of the expression can be inferred either from the circuмstances of the question or the answer, or from customary usage…” (Heribert Jone, Moral Theology, TAN Books edition, p. 249).

      I venture to say that “Cardinal” Ratzinger’s alleged “mental reservation” of the entire Third Secret being contained in the vision of Sr. Lucy (that is, what the Vatican published as the “Third Secret”) does not qualify as a mental reservation at all. It is, quite simply, a lie. That is the only reasonable inference to draw. But why the shock? Why the hesitation to accuse Ratzinger of lying, in the face of this evidence? Fr. Kramer already amply demonstrated that Ratzinger denies the Faith, derides Catholic piety, and mocks Fatima. Why would a man who does such things back away from lying? But aside from that, it is by no means the case that a broad mental reservation may be used at any time, but only “provided there is a sufficient reason for using it and the questioner has no right to know the truth” (p. 249, italics added). Do the faithful have a right to know that which the Blessed Virgin Mary asked to be revealed 45 years ago?

      Unfortunately, the oddities of Fr. Kramer’s essay do not end here. Next he goes into how Vatican II was not an infallible council, something he must say because he accuses the council of heresy (something other folks in Fr. Kramer’s group, like Chris Ferrara, insist is absolutely impossible). Heresy about what? Ecuмenism, of course (Ferrara, on the other hand, not only says that the teaching on ecuмenism is not heretical but not even erroneous). Note well what Fr. Kramer says:

There are grave errors in the Second Vatican Council. The teaching on ecuмenism, strictly speaking, is heretical.
    . . . In the Second Vatican Council we see that all of the non-Catholic and non-Christian religions are described as being good. In the Conciliar church (i.e. not the Catholic Church of all time) all religions are considered to be good, and true. According to the Conciliar church, they suffer the misfortune of having some errors, and there are some evils mixed in with the good, but they are good, and they are true.

[p. 38]

      OK now, somehow Fr. Kramer now managed to bring up a “conciliar church” which, of course, is not the Catholic Church. As I said earlier, it seems to me that whenever Fr. Kramer and his friends need to predicate something heretical or really bad of the Church after 1958, it becomes the “conciliar church,” but when it comes to the issue of the papacy, for instance, then Ratzinger is the Pope of the Catholic Church, of course, not of the conciliar church, which then somehow vanishes into oblivion. But that’s not the point here. The point is that Fr. Kramer finds heresy in the conciliar church and Vatican II. Read on:

That’s the false doctrine of the new ecuмenical church — the #### conciliar ecuмenical church. The Roman Catholic Church has always had a different teaching: there is only one true religion. There is only one true Church. There is only one true Faith, and it is Catholic. All other religions are false religions. All other churches are false churches. That has always been the teaching and the Faith of the Catholic Church.

[p. 38]

      So now the “conciliar church” has grown to be the “#### conciliar ecuмenical church,” and it is at grave odds with the Catholic Church, which teaches something completely different. Of course, I agree with Fr. Kramer on this point: there is the false ecuмenical conciliar church on the one hand, and then there’s the Catholic Church. But Fr. Kramer insists at the same time that Fr. Ratzinger, Benedict XVI, is the Pope of the Catholic Church, and that we must not deny it, for to do so would be madness and endangering our salvation, as two other essays in the very same issue of the Fatima Crusader tell us!

      But we continue:

So here we see, already, the beginnings of what is going to become the greatest heresy in the history of the Church — that will bring about the greatest suffering that the world has ever seen, as was told by Pope Pius XII.

[pp. 38-39]

      The greatest heresy in the history of the Church—OK, but which Church? Now he capitalizes the word “Church” again, so I’m confused. Is this heresy in the Catholic Church, which, as Fr. Kramer says, teaches the opposite, or is it in the new protestant ecuмenical conciliar whatever church? It strikes me that what Fr. Kramer mentions is “the beginning of the greatest heresy” (something I tend to agree with) is denied by people like Chris Ferrara as being any heresy at all!

      But you watch, it gets even better. Next, Fr. Kramer speaks of a coming Anti-Pope and Anti-Church:

Anne Catherine Emmerich, the stigmatic Augustinian nun, described the counterfeit church, what she called the “False church of darkness”. The errors of Orthodoxy and of Protestantism will be embraced by that false church, it will be an ecuмenical church because the Anti-Pope will be recognized by the world — not by the faithful, but by the world — by the secular world and the secular governments.
The Anti-Pope will be recognized as the legitimate Pope of the “church,” and the legitimate head of the Vatican State. That “church” will be united with all the false religions. They will be united together under the universality of the Masonic umbrella. In that motley ecuмenical union will be the established religion of the so-called civilized world. This is how we will get into the time of great persecution such as the world has never seen.

[p. 40]

      So we now hear of the “false church of darkness” prophesied by the Ven. Anne Catherine Emmerich. We hear of an Anti-Pope who will rule in the Vatican and be recognized as Pope by the world. We hear of a “motley ecuмenical union” that this false church will be based on. Well, is a picture emerging yet? Could it be, dear reader, that perhaps this “false church of darkness” is the very protestant ecuмenical conciliar church with its heresy of ecuмenism that Fr. Kramer rails so much against? Could it be that perhaps this false conciliar church with its conciliar heresy of ecuмenism and its motley Assisi interfaith crew is that false church of darkness with the false Anti-Pope ruling in the Vatican? Hello?

      But no, this could not be! Not for Fr. Kramer, at least. Kramer simply will not identify the false ecuмenical conciliar church with the false church of darkness and its Anti-Pope. But why not? It is the height of irony that this blueprint for sedevacantism should appear in the Fatima Crusader’s anti-sedevacantist issue! What Fr. Kramer has done here is outline the case against the New Vatican II Church—you know, that church with Paul VI and John Paul II and all the other usual suspects. The Church of Vatican II with its heresies and contempt for Fatima.

      I find it curious that Fr. Kramer should say that the coming Anti-Pope will be recognized as Pope by the world but not by the faithful. How an Anti-Pope should convincingly fool the world without fooling 1,000,000,000 Catholics is a mystery to me. Instead, the Lord Jesus Christ said that the deception at the end would be so great as to deceive even the elect, if that were possible! To me, this doesn’t sound like only the non-Catholics would be fooled. But Fr. Kramer believes the Vatican II Church to be the Catholic Church and its 1,000,000,000 adherents to be formal Catholics, i.e. “the faithful,” so at least from his point of view, this doesn’t make any sense.

      Fr. Kramer then goes into the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr, World War III, and the importance of Russia. “Every excuse is made not to consecrate Russia. They’re saying we cannot consecrate Russia because that will provoke persecution of the Church. The Church is already persecuted in Russia,” Fr. Kramer notes on page 43. A friend of mine once told me what he thought was the real reason they will always manage to get any possible consecration just a tad bit wrong. It’s not that they’re too stupid to get it right, or misled, or fear the reaction of the world. Rather, it is the fact that if they were to do it right, then they would be exposed as charlatans. For our Lady said the Pope must consecrate Russia. But Ratzinger is not the Pope. So if he did consecrate Russia exactly the way Our Lady has requested, Russia would not convert and Benedict XVI would be exposed as an imposter. Doesn’t that seem reasonable? No wonder John Paul II never got the consecration right!

      So Fr. Kramer believes there will be an Anti-Pope ruling his Anti-Church in the Vatican. This Anti-Church will be based on ecuмenism. Why Fr. Kramer cannot see that this very church already exists in the Vatican, complete with ecuмenism and Anti-Popes, is a great puzzle to me. He’s already got everything he has predicted: the Anti-Pope in the Vatican mixing with all religions and teaching ecuмenism!

      In conclusion, many thought-provoking points are raised by Fr. Kramer’s curious article in the anti-sedevacantist issue of the Fatima Crusader. But one thing that perhaps stands out most is the lesson for all anti-sedevacantist traditionalists: be careful which Novus Ordo cardinal you criticize and accuse of heresy, blasphemy, conspiracy, hypocrisy, lying, and covering up the message of Fatima. In the future, you might just have to acknowledge him as “Pope,” pretend that you never made all those nasty accusations, and petition him to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

      Is this not truly a case of the blind leading the blind?


Mario Derksen

They just can not or will not accept the cold hard reality. I can't say I blame them. It's an absolutely horrible thing to accept. But at the same time objective reality is what objective reality is.

I didn't want to accept it either, no one does, but my logical mind would not let me not accept it after a while. It's the only logical position, unfortunately. Any one who really studies and thinks about the issue must come to the SV conclusion sans politics. Which is what I think is really going on.