Father Kramer: Fatima, 3rd Secret & Dollinger

Father Kramer: Fatima, 3rd Secret & Dollinger
Taken from facebook the last few days...

The Vatican is LYING about the Third Secret. The part that was publish reveals the martyrdom of the true pope. The part which remains concealed reveals the heretical antipope of the apostate counterfeit church. Both of these things have been foretold in other Marian apparitions and Catholic prophecies. Long before it bacame a taboo topic, Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli revealed the gist of the Secret in 1931:

《 I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in Her liturgy, Her theology and Her soul…. I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject her ornaments and make her feel remorse for her historical past.

A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God. In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them. Like Mary Magdalene, weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, “Where have they taken Him?》

The "dangers which menace the Church"; is a phrase that is remarkably similar to Cardinal Ratzinger's comment on the Secret: "the dangers to the faith and to the life of the Christian".
"[T]he suicide of altering the faith in [1] her liturgy", (i.e. making radically ecumenical Protestant changes in the Mass); 2) altering "her theology and her soul" (i.e. the heretical novelties of Vatican II, such as Ecumenism, Religious Liberty); and 3) the great apostasy in the Church which will begin "at the top" (Cardinal Ciappi), "at the summit" (Cardinal Ottaviani); spearheaded by a "pope who will be completely under the power of the devil" who will lead the stampede into apostasy (Cardinal Bea through Malachi Martin). Malachi personally confirmed to me in 1997 that the "pope" who will lead the apostasy in the Church will be a HERETIC and an ANTIPOPE. 

The heretic antipope of the apostate counterfeit church was also foretold by St. Francis of Assisi, Bl. Anna Katherine Emmerich, and Sr. Jeanne le Royer. Can anyone guess his name?

Reply to the Nonsensical Comments of Kevin Symonds:

My clarification to Kevin Symonds was blunt and to the point, and utterly refuted the specious claims (which he argued with some degree of sophistry) of contradictions and discrepancies between the various reports (including my own) regarding Dr. Döllinger's conversations with Cardinal Ratzinger, as well as alleged logical opposition between the content of the secret reported by Cardinal Ratzinger to Dr. Döllinger, and the words of Sr. Lucia in a letter attributed to her. Although my reply was blunt, it was not rude, as he falsely claims.

My sole purpose in replying to his initial message was to clear up the confusion he was creating with his own very confused misrepresentations which he made in his attempt to critically examine the various reports concerning the Ratzinger - Döllinger conversations. My purpose was to clarify and correct -- not to be interviewed.

Since he was (evidently) displeased with my withering critique of his less than logically coherent observations; he abandoned the discussion of the matter of my reply to him, and then attempted to engage me in an interrogation. His attempt was rebuffed. Evidently Mr. Symonds does not accept correction humbly or graciously, and therefore he mendaciously replied: 《Father, with all due respect, you have been very discourteous with me. I wrote you, respectfully and politely, and you came down on me rather rudely.》 The statement is false. It is a lie. My words were brutally blunt, but not rude or discourteous by any stretch of the imagination. Certainly the deceptive claims of discrepancies and contradictions alleged by him against me can hardly be considered courteous or polite. Kevin Symonds is using two weights and two measures.

Text of my Clarification:

Dear Mr. Symonds,

This statement you made is totally erroneous:

《There is at least one significant difference between Fr. Kramer’s version of the story from Dr. Hickson’s account. The first major difference is that in Kramer’s version, Fr. Dollinger is said to have relayed that the conversation between Dollinger and Ratzinger took place in 1990.》

There is in fact no discrepancy whatsoever. The only difference is that my account was more complete. Dr. Hickson reports on a conversation that Dr. Döllinger had with Cardinal Ratzinger not long after the June 26, 2000 publication of the vision of the Third Secret. I also reported on that conversation; but I also mentioned how that conversation referred back to an earlier conversation between Döllinger and Ratzinger around 1991. Dr. Hickson only fails to mention that there were two conversations, and that the latter refers back to the earlier conversation.

I spoke at length with Dr. Döllinger. Döllinger related to me that he had spoken with Cardinal Ratzinger some time shortly after the publication of the vision of the 3rd Secret. I have already reported on this years ago in issue no. 92 of the Fatima Crusader:

《The elderly German priest, Ratzinger’s long-time personal friend, took note of the fact that when this vision of the Third Secret was published it did not contain those things, those elements of the Third Secret that Cardinal Ratzinger had revealed to him nearly ten years earlier. The German priest — Father Döllinger — told me that his question was burning in his mind on the day he concelebrated with Cardinal Ratzinger. Father Döllinger said to me, “I confronted Cardinal Ratzinger to his face.” And of course he asked Cardinal Ratzinger, “how can this be the entire Third Secret? Remember what you told me before?”

Cardinal Ratzinger was cornered. He didn’t know what to say and so he blurted out to his friend in German, “Wirklich giebt es da noch etwas” which means “really there is something more there,” meaning there is something more in the Third Secret.》

This statement is false and nonsensical:《 What is most perplexing is that he has apparently directly contradicted Sr. Lúcia herself. 》

I repeat here my comment to XXXXXXXXXXXX:

《There is no "discrepancy". There is no contradiction. What there is, is possibly only some apparent inconsistency (on the part of Sr. Lucia) at most. . .

Assuming (hypothetically) that Sr. Lucy wrote those words, the most that one can say is that there is possibly some inconsistency between what she says in her letter, and Our Lady's words which she wrote in the secret. People can be inconsistent. That is an effect of human weakness and fallibility. However, the use by Sr. Lucy of the adjective "holy" in reference to the Council in her letter does not logically contradict or oppose Our Lady's use of the expression "evil council" in the Secret. In some ways one can say the council was holy. In other ways it can be said to be evil. Furthermore, the fact that Sr. Lucy would use the words "holy council" in one qualified sense does not in any way logically deny or oppose Our Lady's words in the Secret that referred to the "evil council" in some other very specific respect. There exists no logical opposition, because the modifying words are not applied to the term by the same person in the same manner and in the same respect. Thus, there is really no real "discrepancy" or any logical inconsistency there at all.

So, to Symond's question, "

How is it possible for Sr. Lúcia to refer to the Second Vatican Council as a “holy” or “Sacred” [Sagrado] Council in her letter to Mother Martins if Our Lady had told Sr. Lúcia that it was a “bad” (schlecht) Council?", we can reply that Mr. Symonds is somewhat disingenuous in his overly simplistic thinking that the alleged "discrepancy" between Sr. Lucy's words "holy council" in her letter somehow renders the expression in Our Lady's words "evil council" in the Secret problematic or impossible. That is patently doltish reasoning.

The fact remains that Cardinal Ratzinger did attribute the words "evil council" to the text of Third Secret, since he made this disclosure not only to Dr. Döllinger, but to another priest as well, who was later elevated to the dignity of archbishop. That archbishop told a priest who is well known to us that Cardinal Ratzinger had revealed some contents of the Secret to him, specifically the statement about the evil Council.

"In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word stand." (2 Cor. 13:1) It is hardly plausible that both the archbishop and Dr. Döllinger, independently of each other fabricated the content of the secret that each of them had heard from Cardinal Ratzinger.》

I reproduce here two portions of a redacted version of another of my comments to John Vennari:

《I have been to the seminary in Anapolis on two occasions, in which young clerics there spoke of details of the Secret of Fatima they had heard from Dr. Döllinger; as well as on other occasions in various locations of the Anapolis diocese where priests who know Dr. Döllinger spoke on what they had heard from Döllinger about the Secret. One priest in particular spoke of having heard about the "evil council". I am not at liberty to divulge his name.

In 2005 I met with Dr. Döllinger at his home in Wigratzbad. He described how he had concelebrated the Mass with Card. Ratzinger after the June 26 2000 publication of the "vision" of the 3rd Secret. Since Döllinger had been told some details of the Secret about 9 years earlier, he was burning with the question about the contens of the Secret not being in theJune 26 2000 version of the Secret. Döllinger said to me, "I confronted Ratzinger to his face." He said that more than once. Being cornered, Ratzinger blurted out to Döllinger, "Wirklich giebt es da noch etwas."》

《When Fr. XXXXXXXXXXXX was in Fort Erie some years ago, I discussed with him the revelations made by Cardinal Ratzinger to Dr. Döllinger about the 3rd Secret, and specifically the mention in the Secret about the "evil council", which Ratzinger had related to Döllinger. It was then that Fr. XXXXXXX mentioned that he had spoken with (Archbishop) XXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Cardinal Ratzinger; and that XXXXXXX said he had heard from Ratzinger the same detail in the Secret about the evil council.》

 

Fr. Paul Kramer