I enjoy a spirited discussion just as much as the next guy. And while I understand that Fr. Kramer may have been crass at times in his replies to Gerard, I also understand why he was. I was always taught to converse with respect and measured tones when speaking with a priest, even if the priest was wrong, crass, verbally abusive, or even heretical in his position. This is out of respect, if not for the person, then certainly for the office.
I wonder, however, if during this entire exchange, how Gerard would fare here if, instead of Fr. Kramer, the priest in question was another resistance priest, such as Fr. Voigt, or Fr. Zendajas.
Gerard has been nothing if not energetic in arguing that old women and others can go to the New Mass, that it's not sinful, etc. If that's his position, and he wants to defend it, that's one thing. My problem, and clearly the problem of many on this board, is that Gerard goes much further than that. He lays the foundation that the revolution itself is legitimate. But he doesn't do this systematically, logically. He contradicts what his opponent says, inserts his own opinion and presents it as a fact, adds a number of additional points that divide and perry the opposition's response, and then does it again, and again, and again, overwhelming most normal people's time and patience. The majority on this board will make our case, argue and banter back and forth, and then move on. Gerard, on the other hand, doesn't do this. He's relentless in his exonerating the revolution.
My concern is that after reading Gerard's posts, his arguments that the Novus Ordo is simply "weak" yet absolutely legitimate, that Paul VI and Bugnini had "good intentions", that ecuмenism is Catholic, that modernism isn't a heresy, etc., he presents a serious danger to the weak-willed or neophyte trad. Many here clearly see through his arguments and his mode of arguing and write him off. Over time, however, this board will change, and Gerard has made no effort to hide the fact that this is his intention.