Not really.  He thinks that the problem is with Bergoglio and there was nothing wrong with Ratzinger.

Are you sure Fr. Kramer has said there is "nothing wrong with Ratzinger"? Maybe quote some passengers in his book Devils Final Battle, when referring to Cardinal Ratzinger or in his new book to prove your point. Seems everything I read from him over the years shows that there is a problem with Pope Benedict, John Pau II and Pau VI. I think you are wrong to say "nothing" but may be right to say "not as much as".

Are you sure Fr. Kramer has said there is "nothing wrong with Ratzinger"? Maybe quote some passengers in his book Devils Final Battle, when referring to Cardinal Ratzinger or in his new book to prove your point. Seems everything I read from him over the years shows that there is a problem with Pope Benedict, John Pau II and Pau VI. I think you are wrong to say "nothing" but may be right to say "not as much as".

Fr. Paul Kramer has consistently publicly acknowledged that Vatican II and the New Mass are not Catholic.

Some of us guessed, correctly that this is where they were heading...


                                                         Pope Viggy

Some of us guessed, correctly that this is where they were heading...


                                                        Pope Viggy

I think the speech was very good (although parts of it were difficult to understand), but I still don't agree with his "lack of consent" reasoning (since it still means that, according to him, Bergoglio is the only false pope).

Regardless, we're still left with a Novus Ordo "bishop".  If he intends to ordain priests in his new seminary in Italy

Archbishop Vigano Establishes the Collegium Traditionis - page 1 - Crisis in the Church - Catholic Info (cathinfo.com)

then he MUST be conditionally consecrated first AND he needs to make that PUBLIC asap.  Otherwise, he just remains part of (if not adds to) the problem rather than looking like papal material.

I think the speech was very good (although parts of it were difficult to understand), but I still don't agree with his "lack of consent" reasoning (since it still means that, according to him, Bergoglio is the only false pope).

Except that he went far beyond that.  He stated quite clearly the Bellarmine principle that a heretic / apostate cannot be the head of the Church.  He dismissed the formal/material heresy argument typically used by R&R, saying that Bergoglio's status goes far beyond that of being heretical on an isolated point or two or three, but crosses over into apostasy.  He speculates that Begoglio is an agent of the enemies of the Church, operating under Luciferian intelligence, infiltrating the Church on behalf of whoever he reports to in order to destroy it.  He also stated ... and listed by name ... J23, P6, JP1, JP2, and B16 as complicit in the revolution, though he stopped short of questioning their legitimacy.  Nevertheless, he's a very small logical leap from admitting that there are serious problems with the legitimacy of those also.  He states that we can be morally certain that Bergoglio is not pope, but don't have the authority to "declare" it, settle it legally ... so eschewing a dogmatic SVism (holding more to a position like that of Father Jenkins, for example).  He says that St. Robert envisioned a scenario where there was a heretical pope and the Church would deal with him, and not one where the entire hierarchy (that was supposed to deal with him) would have gone just as corrupt as Bergoglio, that this Crisis is unprecedented, and believes that this can only be solved by divine intervention.

He disparaged those (Trad, Inc.) who go after Bergoglio but won't attack V2 and Bergoglio's predecessors, referring to them twice as "Montinians".  He also pushed aside the SSPX position.

So he went FAR beyond his vitium consensus argument.  In fact, while making a passing reference to the "Canon Law" argument (from people like Barnhardt, one of the hosts of this conference), he actually subtly undermined it, by stating that this situation far transcends a consideration of legal technicalities, and in a sense went beyond his own vitium consensus position as well.

So +Vigano has gone far beyond the "lack of consent" argument in this latest speech.  It was brilliant really.

.

Did he explain why he calls himself "Archbishop" and says at the same time that he is not a member of the hierarchy or can't remove Bergoglio?

I also don't understand why he doesn't call out the conservative members of the hierarchy (if that's what he thinks they are) for refusing to remove Bergoglio.

I wondered similar things.