It is this third article I wish to draw everyone’s
attention to, for not only does it make several highly important
claims, it even, no doubt unwittingly, contradicts the anti-sedevacantist
stance of the articles by Mr. Christopher Ferrara and Fr. Nicholas
Gruner in the very same issue. The article is so full of “good
stuff” that I felt compelled to write about it. You will see what
I mean in a minute.
The article is entitled “The Imminent Chastisement
for Not Fulfilling Our Lady’s Request” by “Father Paul Kramer,
B.Ph., S.T.B., M.Div.,
S.T.L. (Cand.).” It spans pages 32-45
and is available online here: http://www.fatimacrusader.com/cr80/cr80pg32.asp.
Though I consider the validity of the ordinations of “Fathers”
Gruner and Kramer to be objectively doubtful (both were ordained
in the Novus Ordo
rite of Paul VI, to my knowledge), I will nevertheless refer to
both individuals as “Father” in this essay, out of courtesy and
because this is how they are officially known to people. Let me
also mention that I take neither joy nor glee in the fact that
neither of them may be a real priest; I consider this a great
Fr. Kramer begins by giving a general introductory
overview of the bad times we live in, the message of Our Lady
of Fatima, mankind’s need for repentance, and the necessity for
the Pope to consecrate Russia
to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Only when this happens will the
Great Restoration begin. Kramer adds that Our Lady herself said
that when all seems lost, when wickedness seems to have triumphed,
that will be the time when Her hour has come. So far, so good.
But then Fr. Kramer starts to speak of the Great
Chastisement, foretold by so many holy souls, as well as by Pope
Pius XII. He adds that in 1976, John Paul II, as “Cardinal” Wojtyla,
also spoke of that Chastisement, which would involve the Catholic
Church in a great trial “between the Church and the anti-Church;
the Gospel and the anti-Gospel” (p. 34). Father then briefly relates that in 1981, John Paul II “returned to
that same theme” and made it clear that this is what the Third
Secret of Fatima was all about.
Here we have our first curious reference, but
just how curious it is will only become clearer later in the article,
so I will have to save the best for later. For right now, though,
we notice with curiosity that John Paul II is implicitly presented
here as a friend of
Fatima, as someone who shares concern for the Catholic Church
and her well-being, and who warns the faithful of great trials
that would befall the Church in the future (i.e., some time after
1981). Fr. Kramer makes it seem as though John Paul II had been
on our side, that is, on Fatima’s side.
Next, Kramer mentions the Vatican’s would-be
“Third Secret” of Fatima, released on June 26, 2000, that long
text about a vision Sr. Lucy supposedly had of a bishop dressed
in white getting killed while walking up a mountain. This, the
assured us, was the long-awaited “Third Secret” that they had
kept hidden from the world since 1960. Fr. Kramer relates that
he was speaking with a Brazilian bishop who asked that if this
was not the whole Third
Secret, as the Fatima Crusader has long correctly and bravely
argued, nay, proved,
then wouldn’t it seem that the Vatican
is lying to the world? (Imagine that! A bunch
of modernist enemies of the Catholic Faith lying
to us!) To my utter amazement, Fr. Kramer says no,
they’re not lying. Instead, he assures us:
Ratzinger is using a mental reservation.
The entire Secret is implicitly contained in that vision. In that
sense, in that very restricted sense, it is the whole Secret.”
Cardinal Angelo Sodano
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
Cardinal Dario Castrillon
…it is these men who have taken the lead
in attempting nothing less than the murder of the Message of Fatima….
They have combined and conspired, and then acted publicly, to
impose upon the Church a version of the Fatima Message that bears
no resemblance to the Catholic prophecy of the Mother of God….
it is they who have specialized, as it were, in the demolition
of Fatima. Thus they deserve to be identified as the principals
of the crime we allege here.
[p. 130; bold print
The Introduction to
TMF [the Vatican’s
commentary “The Message of Fatima”] states on the next page that
“there is only one manuscript, which is here reproduced photographically.”
This … has to be considered a lie.
it is a lie, which is what we firmly believe, then it means that
the theological and historical interpretations presented are deliberately
leading towards a wrong conclusion or message. Commonly this is
following pages of TMF’s
Introduction reiterate the lie that the Consecration has been
done, especially p. 8 which cites an unsigned letter by “Sister
Lucy” which, as we showed in a previous chapter, is a manifest
fake, as shown also by Father Paul Kramer.
statement of 1984 is in direct contradiction to his downplaying
of the Third Secret in TMF.
In other words, according
to Cardinal Ratzinger, no one in the
Church is obliged to follow the message of Fatima….
Ratzinger takes this approach, it
seems, with all of the extraordinary revelations of the past two
centuries. For example, he reduces the extraordinary revelations
about the Corpus Christi Feast and the Sacred Heart to St. Margaret
Mary Alacoque to an event that merely
had an “effect even
on the liturgy.” This borders on blasphemy….
has to pretend that these real signs of the times have nothing
to do with that event known as the Second Vatican Council….
“attempt to interpret the ‘secret’ of Fatima” completely fails
to interpret what is not the secret as such anyway, as this has
not been revealed, but he succeeds in debunking nothing less than
the Immaculate Conception herself. …Ratzinger does not shrink from inflating this term, reserved
to the Mother of God, to include any “heart, which, with God’s
grace, has come to perfect interior unity and therefore ‘sees
God.’” He is not even ashamed to abuse the Gospel for his interpretation
by citing Matthew 5:8…. blasphemous … is exactly what one ought
to think of Cardinal Ratzinger’s trivializing the Immaculate Heart.
If Cardinal Ratzinger’s
statement is to mean what it says, he would be at least a material
heretic…. Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement
is either an expression of a subjectivist or heretical mind. The
latter seems to be the case, when we consider the statement: “There
is no immutable destiny.”
like the Phrarisees [sic] of old, is
full of subtleties and citations to Scripture which, artfully
arranged, obscure the simplicity of God’s truth. And like the
Pharisees, the Cardinal presents his obfuscation with a great
show of respect for the Messenger and the Message; but beneath
the appearance of respect is a thinly disguised contempt. By the
time the Cardinal is done with his pharisaical “tribute” to Fatima,
nothing is left of it. For him, the matter is all very subtle—so subtle that it vanishes away.
…The Pharisees of old
were dangerous precisely because they seemed to have a genuine
respect for the truth. Today a feigned respect for the Message
of Fatima conceals its most determined opponents.
Ah, how refreshing to hear such common sense,
such good judgment, such reasonable analysis of the facts! Too
bad the people at the Fatima Crusader seem to forget all these
reasonable things they have said and the principles their good
judgment was based on when these very things and principles would
lend support to sedevacantism, which they feel they must vigorously
oppose in order to “defend the Church.” (How arguing that the
demolition and profanation of the Catholic Church and her sacraments
was accomplished by real Catholic Popes is supposed to be a defense of the papacy is anyone’s
So we see here a collection of statements from
the Devil’s Final Battle, edited and compiled
by Fr. Kramer, accusing “Cardinal” Ratzinger
of heresy, blasphemy, lying, deception, cover-up, and impiously
downplaying and discrediting the Fatima
apparitions and messages. Ratzinger has been exposed as an enemy of the Faith and of
Fatima who seeks to hide his enmity by
attempting to appear orthodox, scholarly, “subtle,” and a friend
of the Fatima apparitions and messages.
This is the analysis Fr. Kramer gave us in 2002. And having read
all of the Devil’s Final Battle, I must say I agree
that this analysis is spot-on.
But that was then. Apparently, we are now supposed to believe that this very Fr. Joseph Ratzinger,
who now sports the title “Benedict XVI,” is a friend of Fatima? That he is in good faith?
That he is now somehow only using a “mental reservation”? That,
if he gets enough petitions, he will consecrate Russia
to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, when he does not even believe
in the Immaculate Heart but blasphemously and impiously trivializes
and contradicts it? This is what Fr. Kramer seems to be saying
Sometimes it would be really good
for the people at the Fatima Crusader and their anti-sedevacantist friends to reread their back issues to see what
they have actually argued and said. Joseph Maurer’s Open Letter
to Catholic Family News underscores what I
Another nice article that dealt with reality
realistically is posted here:
You see, before
April 19, 2005, Christopher Ferrara
dealt with Ratzinger more or less the
way he ought to be dealt with. In particular, note this sentence
from the article: “More and more it becomes apparent that this
man is perhaps the most industrious ecclesial termite of the post-conciliar
epoch, tearing down even as he makes busy with the appearance
of building up. The longer Ratzinger
‘guards’ Catholic doctrine, the more porous the barriers that
protect it become.”
Interesting, isn’t it?
Of course, we sedevacantists who question Ratzinger's legitimacy
are now "madmen," according to Ferrara. But note how
Ferrara clearly implies deliberation on Ratzinger's part
here, as he says that Ratzinger tears down but is busy to appear
building up. It's amazing what April 19, 2005, has done to the
non-sedevacantists traditionalists (a.k.a. "Neo-Traditionalists").
I think I could go on and on with that list
of quotes from The Devil’s
Final Battle and similar publications establishing that Fr.
Kramer and his friends rightly considered Ratzinger
a dangerous enemy of the Faith and of Fatima, one who seeks to
hide his enmity in countless subtleties and pseudo-scholarly diatribes
that all water down, belittle, or outright deny the Catholic Faith
and/or Catholic piety. It is all the more curious, therefore,
that Fr. Kramer should now seem to come to Ratzinger’s
But let me continue examining Fr. Kramer’s article.
Having assured us that Ratzinger only
used a “mental reservation” and was not lying, Fr. Kramer then
relates to us the anecdote of a “seminary professor, who is a
close friend of Pope John Paul II, and who also knows personally
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger” (p. 36),
who, upon reading the Vatican version of the “Third Secret” on
June 26, 2000, had the (very reasonable!) impression that this
was not the Third Secret, for that would be impossible. So far, so good,
but here comes the most interesting part:
And so he went to the Vatican,
he visited Cardinal Ratzinger, and he
confronted him. He did not mince his words. He said, “This is
impossible! This cannot possibly be the entire Third Secret!”
And he insisted that Ratzinger answer
him yes or no. “Is this the whole thing? Is this the whole thing,
or isn’t it? It cannot be; now you tell me!” Ratzinger
admitted, “Truly, that was not all of it.” … He pressed on further
for an answer, he would not back off. And he demanded, “What is
in the Secret? If that’s not all of it, well, what is there?”
Ratzinger’s answer makes it clear. There’s
no longer any mystery why they have kept it hidden for so many
years…. Ratzinger said that in the Third
Secret, Our Lady warns that there will be an evil council. And
She warned against the changes: She warned against making changes
in the liturgy; changes in the Mass.
This is explicitly set forth in the Third Secret.”
Fatima Crusader, Summer 2005 issue
(no. 80), p. 36]
At this point, you should be asking yourself
whether you’re waking or dreaming. Did Fr. Kramer just write that
“Cardinal” Ratzinger himself has admitted that the Third Secret warned
against an evil council and changes to be made to the Mass? In
other words, did Ratzinger just admit
that the Third Secret condemns Vatican II and the New Mass?
You’d expect Fr. Kramer to lose it at this point
and condemn the pharisaical, blasphemous, heretical, deceptive,
impious, and Fatima-hating Joseph Ratzinger
in the strongest of terms! So Ratzinger knows the truth and deliberately hides
it! He is covering up the true Third Secret and is continuing
his complicity in the big Fatima cover-up
and in building and maintaining the New
Church! He knows that
Our Lady condemns him, Fr. Joseph Ratzinger,
and his wicked works! Having read The
Devil’s Final Battle, one would think that this is the last
straw Fr. Kramer needed to definitively convict Ratzinger
as a pertinacious enemy of the Faith and of Fatima.
But what does Fr. Kramer do instead? He merely
However, men like Cardinal Ratzinger believe that the word of the Second Vatican Council
is equivalent to the word of God. They cannot believe that there
was any evil in the Council. And so they choose not to believe
the Message of Fatima. And this is why Cardinal Ratzinger
made a suggestion that the apparition of the Lady of Fatima is
something conjured up in the imagination of Sister Lucy.
This is unbelievable! At long last, Fr. Kramer
had all he needed to expose the fraud that is Ratzinger,
and what does he do? He proceeds to find excuses for him! And
lame ones at that! Ratzinger simply “cannot believe” that Vatican II is the council
mentioned in the Third Secret? Is Fr. Kramer kidding?? And I suppose
Ratzinger also sincerely “cannot believe” that the changes to
be made to the Mass could refer to the “banal on-the-spot product”
(Ratzinger’s own words) of the New Mass?
If you can believe this, perhaps I could sell you my little 2001
KIA for a good price….
Fr. Kramer is acting as though Benedict XVI were
in good faith about this, an utter absurdity if there ever was
one. After all that he exposed about Ratzinger
in the Devil’s Final Battle, the last thing you could say is that Ratzinger is “innocently misled” about all this.
Which brings me to another
important point. What we just read here was the long-awaited
admission by a high-ranking Vatican official
that the Third Secret of Fatima, penned in the 1930’s, is about
what we all more or less assumed it was about, namely, a heavenly
warning against the wicked Second Vatican Council, the New Mass,
and the loss of Faith resulting therefrom
(cf. The Devil's Final Battle, pp. 32-33, 167-170). So,
let me ask you something: how come this hasn’t made the biggest
headlines in the Fatima
Crusader and similar publications? This is, essentially, the
story they were waiting for: the true content of the Third Secret!
Why is it not the top story at www.fatima.org or at least in the
pages of the Fatima Crusader?
Why is this buried in the middle of a lengthy article in an issue
Why have other similar publications
not picked up on this (at least I'm not aware that they have)?
This is practically the mother of all news stories, the
smoking gun! Short of perhaps St. Pius X coming back to
life and putting an end to the Novus Ordo church, this is the
story they (and also we sedevacantists) had been waiting for!
It is, of course, very
unfortunate for the Fatima Crusader and their associates that the wicked, heretical, lying
blasphemer Joseph Ratzinger is now “the
Pope” of the “Catholic Church.” The
man they have implicated in a cover-up and spiritual and moral
crimes of horrendous proportions, and exposed as an enemy of the
Faith and of Fatima, is now at the helm of what they absolutely
insist is the Catholic Church (or Conciliar Church—they seem to
use the terms interchangeably, depending on which use favors the
point they wish to make).
But then again, apparently
the Fatima Crusader already knew of this admission on Ratzinger's
part back in 2004, when Benedict XVI was still "Cardinal"
Ratzinger, so I really don't know why this wasn't made public
until now, but it can't be because Ratzinger is now claiming to
be the Pope. But I think we should not speculate about motives.
We do not wish to fall into the sin of rash judgment. Let's just
stick to the facts. And one of these curious facts is that Ratzinger
admitted (apparently in 2004) that the real Third Secret was about
an evil council and changes to be made to the Mass, and no one
published this news—until now (and then only almost as a side
note in an issue attacking sedevacantism).
But with Benedict XVI's claim to the papacy,
the Fatima Crusader and their associates are in a terrible
situation now, a dilemma perhaps. They demonize as non-Catholics
the people who use the information they themselves have given
them—namely, that we can reasonably infer that Joseph Ratzinger is an enemy of the Catholic Faith and does not hold
the Catholic Faith (e.g., his impious denial of the Immaculate
Conception or his basically verbatim denial of Vatican I’s
dogma of papal primacy)—and then logically conclude that Ratzinger
cannot be the head of the Catholic Church, or even a member.
At this point, though, let me briefly go back
to the issue of the “mental reservation” Ratzinger allegedly used.
We must examine what mental reservations are and when or how they
may be used: There are strict mental reservations and broad mental
reservations. A strict mental reservation is the same as a lie
from a moral perspective. So, for instance, if a thief were to
say, “I did not steal” and mentally added “with the left hand,
but with the right hand,” his assertion that he had not stolen
would not in any way become less of a lie. It is clear, therefore,
that Fr. Kramer cannot say that “Cardinal” Ratzinger
was using a strict mental reservation, for that would be
the same as accusing him of lying. What about the broad
mental reservation? Let me quote Fr. Heribert
Jone, from whom I also took the example
about the strict mental reservation: “The broad
mental reservation is had if the real meaning of the expression
can be inferred either from the circumstances of the question
or the answer, or from customary usage…”
Moral Theology, TAN
Books edition, p. 249).
I venture to say that “Cardinal” Ratzinger’s
alleged “mental reservation” of the entire Third Secret being
contained in the vision of Sr. Lucy (that is, what the Vatican
published as the “Third Secret”) does not qualify as a mental
reservation at all. It is, quite simply, a lie. That is the only
reasonable inference to draw. But why the shock?
Why the hesitation to accuse Ratzinger
of lying, in the face of this evidence? Fr. Kramer already amply
demonstrated that Ratzinger denies the
Faith, derides Catholic piety, and mocks Fatima.
Why would a man who does such things back away from lying?
But aside from that, it is by no means the case that a broad mental
reservation may be used at any time, but only “provided there
is a sufficient reason for using it and
the questioner has no right to know the truth” (p. 249, italics
added). Do the faithful have a right to know that which the Blessed
Virgin Mary asked to be revealed 45 years ago?
Unfortunately, the oddities of Fr. Kramer’s essay do not end
here. Next he goes into how Vatican II was not an infallible council,
something he must say because he accuses the council
of heresy (something other folks in Fr. Kramer’s group, like Chris
Ferrara, insist is absolutely
impossible). Heresy about what? Ecumenism, of course (Ferrara,
on the other hand, not only says that the teaching on ecumenism
is not heretical but not even erroneous).
Note well what Fr. Kramer says:
There are grave errors in the Second Vatican Council.
The teaching on ecumenism, strictly speaking, is heretical.
. . . In the Second Vatican Council we
see that all of the non-Catholic and non-Christian religions are
described as being good. In the Conciliar church (i.e. not the
Catholic Church of all time) all religions are considered to be
good, and true. According to the Conciliar
church, they suffer the misfortune of having some errors, and
there are some evils mixed in with the good, but they are good,
and they are true.
OK now, somehow Fr. Kramer now managed
to bring up a “conciliar church” which, of course, is not
the Catholic Church. As I said earlier, it seems to me that
whenever Fr. Kramer and his friends need to predicate something
heretical or really bad of the Church after 1958, it becomes the
“conciliar church,” but when it comes to the issue of the papacy,
for instance, then Ratzinger is the
Pope of the Catholic Church,
of course, not of the conciliar church, which then somehow vanishes
into oblivion. But that’s not the point here. The point is that
Fr. Kramer finds heresy in the conciliar church and Vatican II.
That’s the false doctrine of the new ecumenical
church — the Roman Protestant conciliar ecumenical church. The
Roman Catholic Church has always had a different teaching: there
is only one true religion. There is only one true Church. There
is only one true Faith, and it is Catholic. All other religions
are false religions. All other churches are false churches. That
has always been the teaching and the Faith of the Catholic Church.
So now the “conciliar church” has grown to be the “Roman Protestant
conciliar ecumenical church,” and it is at grave odds with the
Catholic Church, which teaches something completely different.
Of course, I agree with Fr. Kramer on this point: there is the
false ecumenical conciliar church on the one hand, and then there’s
the Catholic Church. But Fr. Kramer insists at the same time that
Fr. Ratzinger, Benedict XVI, is the
Pope of the Catholic Church, and that we must not deny it, for
to do so would be madness and endangering our salvation, as two
other essays in the very same issue of the Fatima
Crusader tell us!
But we continue:
So here we see, already, the beginnings of what
is going to become the greatest heresy in the history of the Church
— that will bring about the greatest suffering that the world
has ever seen, as was told by Pope Pius XII.
The greatest heresy in the history of the Church—OK,
but which Church? Now he capitalizes the word
“Church” again, so I’m confused. Is this heresy in the Catholic
Church, which, as Fr. Kramer says, teaches the opposite, or is
it in the new protestant ecumenical conciliar whatever church?
It strikes me that what Fr. Kramer mentions is “the beginning
of the greatest heresy” (something I tend to agree with) is denied
by people like Chris Ferrara as being any heresy at all!
But you watch, it gets even better. Next, Fr.
Kramer speaks of a coming Anti-Pope and Anti-Church:
Anne Catherine Emmerich,
the stigmatic Augustinian nun, described the counterfeit church,
what she called the “False church of darkness”. The errors of
Orthodoxy and of Protestantism will be embraced by that false
church, it will be an ecumenical church because the Anti-Pope
will be recognized by the world — not by the faithful, but by
the world — by the secular world and the secular governments.
The Anti-Pope will
be recognized as the legitimate Pope of the “church,” and the
legitimate head of the Vatican
State. That “church” will be united with all the false religions.
They will be united together under the universality of the Masonic
umbrella. In that motley ecumenical union will be the established
religion of the so-called civilized world. This is how we will
get into the time of great persecution such as the world has never
So we now hear of the “false church of darkness”
prophesied by the Ven. Anne Catherine
Emmerich. We hear of an Anti-Pope who
will rule in the Vatican
and be recognized as Pope by the world. We hear of a “motley ecumenical
union” that this false church will be based on. Well, is a picture
emerging yet? Could it be, dear reader, that perhaps this “false
church of darkness” is the very protestant ecumenical conciliar
church with its heresy of ecumenism that Fr. Kramer rails so much
against? Could it be that perhaps this false conciliar church
with its conciliar heresy of ecumenism and its motley Assisi interfaith
crew is that false church of darkness with the false Anti-Pope
ruling in the Vatican?
But no, this could not be! Not for Fr. Kramer,
at least. Kramer simply will not identify the false ecumenical
conciliar church with the false church of darkness and its
Anti-Pope. But why not? It is the height of irony that this blueprint
for sedevacantism should appear in the Fatima
Crusader’s anti-sedevacantist issue!
What Fr. Kramer has done here is outline the case against the
New Vatican II Church—you know, that church with Paul VI and John Paul II and all the
other usual suspects. The Church of Vatican II
with its heresies and contempt for Fatima.
I find it curious that Fr. Kramer should say
that the coming Anti-Pope will be recognized as Pope by the world
but not by the faithful. How an Anti-Pope should convincingly
fool the world without fooling 1,000,000,000 Catholics is a mystery
to me. Instead, the Lord Jesus Christ said that the deception
at the end would be so great as to deceive even the elect, if
that were possible! To me, this doesn’t sound like only the non-Catholics
would be fooled. But Fr. Kramer believes the Vatican II Church
to be the Catholic Church and its 1,000,000,000 adherents to be
formal Catholics, i.e. “the faithful,” so at least from his point
of view, this doesn’t make any sense.
Fr. Kramer then goes into the New World Order,
World War III, and the importance of Russia.
“Every excuse is made not to
consecrate Russia. They’re saying we cannot consecrate Russia because that will provoke persecution of the Church. The
Church is already persecuted in Russia,” Fr. Kramer notes on page 43. A friend of mine once told
me what he thought was the real reason they will always manage
to get any possible consecration just a tad bit wrong. It’s not
that they’re too stupid to get it right, or misled, or fear the
reaction of the world. Rather, it is the fact that if they were
to do it right, then they would be exposed
as charlatans. For our Lady said the Pope must consecrate
Russia. But Ratzinger is not the Pope.
So if he did consecrate Russia exactly the way Our Lady has requested, Russia would not convert and Benedict XVI would be exposed as an
imposter. Doesn’t that seem reasonable? No wonder John Paul II
never got the consecration right!
So Fr. Kramer believes
there will be an Anti-Pope ruling his Anti-Church in the Vatican. This Anti-Church will be based on ecumenism. Why Fr. Kramer
cannot see that this very church already exists in the Vatican, complete with ecumenism and Anti-Popes, is a great puzzle
to me. He’s already got everything he has predicted: the Anti-Pope
in the Vatican mixing
with all religions and teaching ecumenism!
In conclusion, many
thought-provoking points are raised by Fr. Kramer’s curious article
in the anti-sedevacantist issue of the Fatima Crusader.
But one thing that perhaps stands out most is the lesson for all
be careful which Novus Ordo cardinal you criticize and accuse of heresy, blasphemy,
conspiracy, hypocrisy, lying, and covering up the message of Fatima.
In the future, you might just have to acknowledge him as “Pope,”
pretend that you never made all those nasty accusations, and petition
him to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Is this not truly a
case of the blind leading the blind?
For past columns by Mario Derksen, see Archives for www.DailyCatholic.org/2005mdi.htm