Maria Regina, you are so ignorant of theology.

Even Jesus Christ was a NOBODY in worldly sense, just as His mother. The Bible tells us so:

[1] Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? [2] And he shall grow up as a tender plant before him, and as a root out of a thirsty ground: there is no beauty in him, nor comeliness: and we have seen him, and there was no sightliness, that we should be desirous of him: [3] Despised, and the most abject of men, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with infirmity: and his look was as it were hidden and despised, whereupon we esteemed him not. [4] Surely he hath borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows: and we have thought him as it were a leper, and as one struck by God and afflicted. [5] But he was wounded for our iniquities, he was bruised for our sins: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his bruises we are healed.
- Isaias 53:1-5

In Luke chapter 1, the humility of the BVM isn't only in regard to her soul, but it's about her worldly position, too. One of the reasons she was so blessed was because she accepted her humble temporal conditions for the glory of God. She lived only for God, not worldly comfort, promotion or recognition. Because she did this, God elevated her to be His mother and the most blessed among women, and all generations are to call her blessed.

Lol. Regina misunderstands ER and thinks he is trying to denigrate Our Lady when he was simply referring to her initial obscurity, matched only by Our Lord's, when Fr. Kramer mistakes her opinion for ER's , which was perfectly sound if not for the fact that it was used to discern a nobody who thinks they're far more than they are with a truly important person who happens to be relatively unknown (Gajewski vs Matthew), and Regina apologizes... to the rogue priest and not to ER.

Well Fr. Kramer, you were Eric's spiritual director 5 years ago and it was 5 years ago Eric started to exhibit the behaviors which would later discredit him in a big way to the trad community. He has not shown to have a single shred of remorse for his actions, nor has he appeared to have grown past any one of his delusions. Yes it was 2014 he was blathering about the "core of his apostolate" consisting of calling female escorts to tell them about the Catholic Church with his history of living a "playboy" lifestyle. Sounds ill advised to me. Then he started claiming he was the head of an Order of Eagles and that he would "give the commands" and that he would "announce the restoration." In fact he was calling you his spiritual director all the way up until he came on to these forums in 2015 to spam links for his website when he decided it was better to threaten and to belittle and to use foul language instead of addressing the valid concerns regarding his work online. Has he changed since then? He's only gotten worse.

All the while I thought he must be exaggerating about his connection to you, but now I see he was perfectly accurate. You certainly were his spiritual director and so far the only spiritual director he's ever mentioned. The whole point was that a decent priest wouldn't have anything to do with such a man if he was properly informed. How could the aforementioned priest continue to associate with such a public scandal without a public and formal correction? As of now, it's clear you can't claim ignorance. You continue to be a frequent guest on his "show", and continue to visit the forum that first exposed him for who he is, and still have the gall to belittle and insult others for criticizing him. You crawled on your belly pretending you could distract from the point that you actually were his spiritual director by saying Eric never mentioned it on his show, (which is itself a big flat lie).  

So maybe you two used each other for your own purposes: he used you for your notoriety and you used him to proliferate your Benedict theory, a theory which only serves to create a worse Pope than Francis. Maybe it was completely innocent at first but then you'd rather slit your wrists than concede one point to your critics, even if it means turning a blind eye (or two) to Eric's cartoonishly vile buffoonery. Or perhaps you have an even darker agenda and here you are lurking again on this website plying a Hegelian dialectic to (further) fracture the community. In the end it doesn't matter who you work for, I know whom you serve.

Croixalist has an unhealthy obsession about Gajewski which manifests his mental derangement; and which leads him into the sacrilege of denigrating and defaming a Catholic priest.

I just don't like liars and con-artists. You defame your own priesthood when you lie, bloviate and throw names around. You can't dispute what I've posted so all you have now are ad hominems. Coming from a priest, you're even worse than Gajewski. Keep coming back, Father Backward Remark.

What no one can legitimately dispute is that Croixalist is guilty of inexcusabe and grave public sacrilege. To publicly denigrate a priest with insulting expressions of contempt is morally inexcusable; because it is a mortal sin, ex toto genere suo.

What cannot be disputed without falling into heresy is that a pope, while validly holding office, possesses full and universal jurisdiction. He is solemnly defined to be the "supreme judge", to whose jurisdiction all questions of faith and morals pertain. Therefore no council, synod, or the college of cardinals my pronounce a sentence of heresy on a reigning pontiff. This is the de fide teaching of the Church which St. Robert Bellarmine demonstrated theologically more than two centuries before Pastor Æternus. The logical inconsistencies in the opinions of Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus, Cajetan, John of St. Thomas, Suárez, Bordoni, (and others), is rooted in the problematic nature of the notion itself of a heretic pope. They all recognized that a heretic is an "incapable subject" of the papacy; and accordingly they all held the "first opinion" listed by Bellarmine, to be at least the most probable. An "incapable subject" lacks the "necessary disposition to preserve the form of the pontificate", as Bellarmine explained. Such a one is incapable of validly assuming the papacy, and therefore, if one elected is later discovered to have been a heretic, his election is null & void, even if he has received universal acceptance, according to the ruling of Paul IV confirmed by Pius V. The constant teaching of the popes since St. Gelasius is that the pope absolutely cannot be judged by anyone. A true pope cannot be deposed because he cannot become a formal heretic. It is only in the realm of a purely abstract hypothesis with no applicability in the real world that it can be said that a pope who falls into even occult formal heresy would cease automatically to be pope, because heresy would make him an intrinsically incapable subject. Although it would be of strict metaphysical necessity that he cease by himself immediately to be pope; it would be impossible for that to actually happen in reality; not for any intrinsic reason, but because of the effect: such a loss of office would result in the defection of the whole Church. For this reason, Bellarmine and the others mentioned, formulated opinions on how the Church would proceed in deposing a heretic pope. The fatal defect of all the arguments involving a judgment to be pronounced on a validly reigning pontiff is that no one possesses the jurisdiction to pronounce the pope guilty of formal heresy. John of St. Thomas explicitly concedes this difficulty. For the same reason, Bordoni held that by way of exception, a council would have jurisdiction, but his argument for such jurisdiction is logically inconsistent -- and since Pastor Æternus, is inadmissible. The constant doctrinal and canonical tradition of the Church, (as I demonstrate in volume one), presupposes that a pope cannot be a heretic, and that if a man is indeed a manifest heretic, or is proven to be a heretic, then he is not a true pope. This comment is only a brief abstract. The full exposition is set forth in Volume One of To Deceive the Elect.

In "De Auctoritate Summi Pontificis” Disputatio III, Articulus II, XVII De Depositione Papae & Seq. (translated by Fr. François Chazal), John of St. Thomas admits that his opinion is problematic on the point of jurisdiction: “Concerning the second point, namely by whose authority the declaration and deposition is to be made, there is dissent among theologians, and it does not appear by whom such a deposition is to be made, because it is an act of judgment, and jurisdiction, which can be exercised by no one over the pope.” Since the solemn definition of the universal primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, it is heresy for anyone to say that anyone or any synod, council, or body can ever pronounce a judgment on a reigning pontiff, who is the supreme judge of all questions of doctrine; and, upon assuming office acquires directly from God the absolute power of jurisdiction over the whole world - ("plenam absolutamque iurisdictionem supra totum orbem acquirit" - Pius XII, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis)

Again, Meg, you manifest your total incompetence in theological matters. John of St. Thomas, like Bellarmine, Cajetan, and all the others listed by Da Silveira as adhering to the first opinion, was of the belief that a pope cannot be a heretic. He treats of the question on deposing a heretic pope as a mere HYPOTHESIS, as does Bellarmine.