I'll still refrain from saying whether or not Fr. Gruner "knew better."  But it always struck me as bordering on unfathomable that his view of Francis was so unhesitatingly favorable.  Gruner didn't just look at Francis and say (like the SSPX), "well, he's a bad dad but still our dad!"  He said, "this dad is going to be the one to consecrate Russia.  Just you watch."  And he stuck to that.  That is just bizarre.  It's one thing to insist he's the pope, it's another thing to insist that he's been selected by God at the behest of Our Blessed Mother to restore Christendom.  That guy?

Some might say "but look at St. Paul, he hated Christ and God selected him."  Sure, but if you're lukewarm you're vomited out of his mouth, and that's what indifferentists like Francis are.  God wouldn't just need to knock Francis off a horse, He'd need to knock him off a horse and have him tumble down a mountain into the depths of the sea, get swallowed by a whale, spit back out, land on a beach full of jihadists, get forty stripes with a machete, and then Francis might be the sort of material that could serve God efficaciously.

Mith said: "He said, "this dad is going to be the one to consecrate Russia.  Just you watch."  And he stuck to that.  That is just bizarre.  It's one thing to insist he's the pope, it's another thing to insist that he's been selected by God at the behest of Our Blessed Mother to restore Christendom.  That guy?"

I was never much of a follower of Father Gruner so maybe someone who knows more about him can correct me, but I remember learning that Gruner believed Francis would consecrate Russia because a stigmatist and mystic named Antonio Ruffini told him that not John Paul II and not his successor, but the Pope after that would consecrate Russia. I don't know if he had other reasons for believing that Francis would consecrate Russia, but I remember that.

.
Yes, I remember that too.  But when a private mystic who enjoys no approbation of the Church whatsoever says some thing or another that seems pretty well incompatible with raw, ubiquitous evidence in front of a person, it's advisable to discount the mystic rather than reality.

It is true that Fr. Gruner did not believe that Bergoglio was pope. A good friend of mine, who was a close friend of John Vennari's, was told by him (as well as by Fr. K) at Fr. G's funeral that the latter did not believe Bergoglio was pope.
Would Mr. Salza conclude that Father Gruner is in Hell if he indeed believed Bergoglio to be an antipope?

I re-confirmed this information with my friend. Not only did Fr. G believe that Bergoglio was a false pope, Vennari and/or Kramer also added that he was planning to put out a book with Fr. K on that subject. So it's strange that Fr. K would come out and say that God struck him dead for dissimulating about about Francis.

Siscoe and Salza are complete clowns.  Even the SSPX is distancing themselves from them, because their theology is complete hogwash.  Instead, they've commissioned Fr. Gleize to attempt a scholarly serial retort to sedevacantism about as soon as the S&S tome hit a trad bookshelf near you.  I don't know about Fr. Kramer's contentions re: Fr. Gruner, but just to be clear, what Kramer is saying is that God ended Fr. Gruner because Fr. Gruner knew better.  This isn't a question of whether or not someone can innocently follow an anti-pope, there's virtually no one who denies that, and Kramer is not arguing that Gruner was hit by a lightning bolt because he "recognized" Francis, but because he recognized him against what he "really" knew to be the case.  And there's no doubt that, whatever the case, if we deny what we know to be true, it is a grievous offense against God.  God expects us to act in ways proportionate and referential to our abilities.  For some, that will never mean much because they are inexorably simple and cannot handle the anxieties of learning about certain issues.  For others, the expectation is higher.  I don't know if Fr. Gruner should have known better or not, and I don't think that Kramer can really say, though if anyone could say, Kramer would be in the best position to.

No, Fr. Kramer is not in a position to say whether Fr. Gruner knew better any more than he is to say his death was a direct punishment for his position on Francis. This is utter hogwash. If there was one person on this earth who could have backed that up, it would have been John Vennari and we know that clearly wasn't his opinion. As for what Fr. Gruner was privately mulling over versus what he was willing to publically state, I'm perfectly willing to give him all the room he would have needed. I saw both Fr. Gruner and John Vennari start out incredibly hopeful for Francis at his election, and as critical as they would later become, I usually saw Fr. hold out hope that this Pope could make a miraculous turn around at some point and do what needed to be done. Even if he did finally accept Fr. Kramer's idea of a continued Benedict XVI papacy, that doesn't exactly solve everything for me either!

It's a real shame that I see some sedes here jump behind this divine retribution idea. It shows a real defect in character. I would never fault anyone for having serious doubts about Francis, but when it comes to making official pronouncements about who's Pope or not, it's going to have to come from a much higher source than you or me. Fr. Kramer has his own strange agenda it appears and he's perfectly content with backstabbing his former "friend" while keeping Boston and GaJєωski on his radar. This is assuming "he knows better." Maybe he doesn't! Maybe it's a case of the blind leading the blind... and speaking of his sunglasses, I wonder if he'd appreciate having his near-blindness regarded as a punishment from God?

If supporting an antipope were an absolute mortal sin, then I suppose we ought to strip St. Vincent Ferrer of his sainthood and make an official condemnation! At least in his day there was another claimant who had more than his family members electing him. Let's place the blame squarely where it truly and justly resides: the VII Popes. If it wasn't for their disastrous behavior, there wouldn't be any doubt to begin with.

Fr. Kramer's ridiculous claims of divine punishment on Fr. Gruner is entirely consistent with his status as "spiritual director" to the notorious spaz headcase Eric GaJєωski

Exactly!

 Sungenis has never been shy about discussing the subversive role played by these people.  But as for most of the other popular contemporary traditionalist leaders, including Fr. Gruner, John Vennari, Chris Ferrara, Michael Matt, John Salza, and, of course, Fellay & Co., there seems almost to be a conspiracy of silence among them when it comes to discussing the Jєωs.  They don't go there. 

Good for Robert Sungenis!  As for the others, it does indeed seem to be a sort of conspiracy of silence!

Did Fr. Gruner or Fr. Kramer support Bayside?