CathInfo.com

It's a bit different than other Patristic Tradition in that it's possible that even St. John didn't understand EXACTLY how it would play out, as he was merely recounting what he saw in his visions.

Kind of similar to the vision of Ezechiel 1, knowing that angels do not have physical forms, so he just recounted what he saw in material and symbolic terms. I don't doubt that the substance of the revelation was lost on St. John at all, but it's likely that the comprehension of just what he saw was limited by his human understanding; again, just like Ezechiel.

Ok, then don't act like his book is some kind of gospel, especially when a) the saints/doctors who he "skipped" (including St Augustine) wrote 100x more than he did on the subject (i.e. 1 book).  And don't act like just because it's pre-V2 that it's some kind of eureka moment to understanding the last days.

I'm not. I was up-front about my basing what I know of Apocalyptic commentaries on him and Fr. Berry, with some of Dupont, and others. You are the one vehemently dismissing it because it doesn't fit your own interpretation.

It sounds to me like he wanted to cater to protestants, because he ignores the 1,000 years when the world is most catholic and also admits he wants a "less spiritual" answer.  Sounds just like a V2 mindset.

"Sounds like" = "I have not read the book"
Just like you dismissing the exegesis of MHFM without viewing their arguments. I'm sorry, but that's just intellectually dishonest.

As for "less spiritual", him following the logic of Pope Leo XIII's Providentissimus Deus and taking the literal interpretation (a la St. Augustine) before moving to the "spiritual", i.e. allegorical, moral or anagogical senses:

15. But he must not on that account consider that it is forbidden, when just cause exists, to push inquiry and exposition beyond what the Fathers have done; provided he carefully observes the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine-not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires;

And further, the same section of Pope Leo XIII's epistle supports the decision of Fr. Kramer to avoid relying too much on the Fathers because they emphasized a more "spiritual" (i.e. allegorical or moral) sense over the literal:

although it is true that the holy Fathers did not thereby pretend directly to demonstrate dogmas of faith, but used it as a means of promoting virtue and piety, such as, by their own experience, they knew to be most valuable.

For Fr. Kramer to provide an exegesis on the letter of the Apocalypse for the purpose of drawing out what can be applied to history, rather than the moral or allegorical sense like the Fathers, and then claim that he's attempting to "cater to protestants" shows that you don't know what you're talking about because, again, you haven't done the reading.

From the note following the Bibliography:

Many other modem commentaries, Catholic and Protestant, have been read and analysed carefully, and in all of them many parts have been found that agree exactly with the interpretation presented here. But many swerve off from the logical sequence in too many places to make a clear picture and narrative possible. Through many of them our interpretation might be said to run like a red line. How near it is to the truth, the advent of future facts of history must reveal.

Note: he is trying to make a clear picture of the Apocalypse for Catholic readers, therefore justifying why he decides to stray from the moral/allegorical ("Spiritual") sense emphasized by so many Fathers. That isn't modernism.

Sounds just like a V2 mindset.

Right. So, that's exactly why I came across his book through sedevacantist traditionalists, because of his V2 mindset. Get back to me when you want to be objective and actually take the time to do the reading.