He didn't acknowledge being an American in his opening speech from the loggia. He sent greetings in Italian and Spanish to the Church at Rome and "greeting to all and especially to my beloved diocese of Chiclayo, in Peru, where a faithful people accompanied their bishop, shared their faith and gave so, so much to continue being a Church that is faithful to Jesus Christ." He hasn't been a Bishop in Peru since 2023. I have never heard him speak a word of English when addressing a group since his election. People keep parsing every word from his mouth. How about addressing the FACT that he has never spoken English or acknowledged being an American, but sends a special greeting in Spanish to a diocese he governed TWO YEARS AGO. Yea, they'll take BILLIONS in American tax payer dollars to flood the country with illegals. But they won't speak our name.
But Father... Thank you for getting up early. Your thoughts on this? How was it handled? Was it quick? As far as I'm concerned, you Thank you. Do you hear anything from your inside? really is going on. At this point. Thanks for being here. Well, it's great to be back, and I have to say, it's too soon for me to really get any feedback from Rome, but I've got some clear impressions already. When Bergoglio was elected, there was a phenomenon that was rather unusual because I experienced it. I spoke to a number of people. The first person I spoke to about that was my mother. When I told her that when Bergoglio was elected, my immediate reaction was, something is wrong here. Something is terribly wrong. This man shouldn't be pope. My mother had the same feeling. I was talking to other people. I was talking to many people, many people in different places, in different countries, and they all had the same feeling when Bergoglio was elected. And this time around, when they announced, when Cardinal Mamberti announced Habemus Papa, we have a Pope, he pronounced the name Robert. And my first thought was Robert Sara. And I was thinking, oh, this is wonderful. And, but it wasn't Robert Sara. It was another one that I, I'd only heard the name of Cardinal Prevost. I had no idea who the man was. Really? Really? So a man of very little repute. Interesting. Even though he worked in Bergoglio's Vatican, he was the prefect for the dicastery for bishops. Which meant that the cardinals knew him because they had to do business with him. Many of the cardinals, however, didn't even know that he was an American. So, understandably, if they didn't know, some of them didn't really know what they were getting. Certainly I didn't. My reaction, and many people had the same reaction, as soon as they heard the name Robert Prevost, and we saw this man walking out onto the balcony of St. Peter's. The first reaction I had, and many other people had, was, who is this man? What are we getting? Big question mark. Huge question mark. But my judgment right now is to suspend my judgment. Because there are too many conflicting signals coming out of Rome now about this man. Give me some examples. What are you hearing? What are the conflicting signals? Where are they pointing? I don't need names or anything, of course, but just because of the chaos right now, the turbulence, right? This happened in just two days. So does that suggest anything to you, that the shortness of the deliberations? That's awfully quick. There was the election of John Paul I, and that was the very first day. Okay. So. That goes back a while, right? Yeah. So, the mere quickness itself is not a sure indication of anything. There could be machinations of the Zanz Galen group, but I don't think that could be a conclusive judgment. It's a question of the question mark. It's unknown. How did this man get elected? I don't have an answer for that. We'll have to wait for some feedback. In fact, someone always talks, even though they have the oath that remains for secrecy. Yes, yes. I mean, I actually heard a cardinal, with my own ears, I heard a cardinal talk about the election of John Paul I. So, decades later, I looked it up, I think, on Wikipedia or something like that. There was something on some website that had what was purported to be authoritative reports about what went on in the conclave, and it was correct. I don't know what sources they had, but what I heard from the cardinal's mouth, the man was overcome with emotion because he had seen what he thought to be a supernatural sign, and he said, I was not the only cardinal who saw it. Many of us saw it. They saw what looked like a luminous, a light around the head, like a halo around the head of Cardinal Luciani. And he was elected on the third ballot. He asked for another ballot, and then he was elected unanimously. So on the very day that he was elected, I had heard that. And decades later, I read a report that on the third ballot, he was elected, and there was a fourth ballot after that, which was unanimous. So that just shows you that some reports are really true. And I'm hoping that we'll hear something like that to fill us all in on exactly what took place at the Conflict, because we're at a very critical moment in the history of the Church and in the history of the world. And some inside information would shed light on exactly what happened and what we're getting. There are a number of red flags with this man that it is too early for me to judge. We don't have to judge them. We can certainly mention material facts that have been associated with his career. We can do that. We don't have to draw any long-term conclusions. Yeah, that's true. But I mean, some people have already concluded and absolutely ruled out that this man could be anything but another Bergoglio, even worse than Bergoglio. And I think there are too many counterindications to rush to that kind of a judgment. When I listened to the man, I heard his first sermon at his first Mass as Pope. And his phraseology, the way he talks, very strongly suggests that this man actually does believe in the profession of faith of the Catholic Church, that he believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ, that he believes the dogmas of faith, the articles of faith. So in that sense, I would categorize him most likely to be more like someone, like a hybrid combination of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, rather than, he's not a clone of Francis Bergoglio. That is clear, even by his choice of name. He took the name Leo, a very interesting choice of name, because the last Pope Leo was long before the Second Vatican Council. He didn't take John. He didn't take Paul. He didn't take John Paul. He didn't take Francis. He didn't take Benedict, which was the pope who was forced into retirement, Leo. Now, Pope Leo XIII was an interesting pope. He was a great pope. Hold on, hold on. He was a great pope, all right? So he, that name was picked to associate with greatness in the church, as it was at that time then, all right? He, Leo XIII, he was the one who insisted that the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas be taught in the seminaries. He was the one who came up with the formulation of the Church's social teaching in his famous encyclical, Rerum Navarum. So, exactly what was the motive for the name Leo XIV? It may be that. It may be associating with his agenda as Pope with the doctrine of Pope Leo XIII on social justice. That could be it. I would hope that it would also be equally the insistence on doctrinal orthodoxy. The doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas. He studied canon law at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas, which is the Angelicum in Rome, which is where I studied. And I was there during the early 70s, on and off, up until 1981, I was there at the Angelicum in Rome. So I may actually have crossed paths with him, but I didn't know him. He was studying canon law. I was studying first theology and then theology, philosophy and theology. So, no, I didn't know him. I remember the man who became Cardinal Worrell. He was a professor there, and I avoided him, and I'm glad I did. I had much better professors. I always chose the older professors who were the retired ones, the emeritus professors, because they were the ones who gave that university. It's what they called the golden age of the Angelica Moon. It was the number one faculty of Thomistic learning in the entire world. So I chose my professors from that group before the Second Vatican Council, when that was the number one university for the doctrine at the same time as Aquinas. But this man studied canon law, so I don't know if he got the benefit of the Thomistic theology from studying at that university, because canon law is a very specialized branch of study. That being said, listening to the way the man speaks, he uses the kind of vocabulary and theological terminology that one would associate with doctrinal orthodoxy, with the Catholic faith. So there is this sign of hope that we have most likely a man who believes as Catholics believe, even though, like Pope John Paul II, like Pope Benedict XVI, their understanding of the Articles of Faith was somewhat painted, at times twisted, with the post-conciliar theology and with modernist theology, to be quite frank about it. So their understanding, even John Paul II, in matters of dogma, and Pope Benedict XVI, their understanding of dogma was somewhat corrupted by the influence of modernism on their thinking. So much so that from the time of Montini, Paul VI, until Benedict XVI, the most conservative of the popes was Benedict XVI among that group, and yet even Benedict XVI, when he was the young Father Ratzinger studying for his doctorate, the theologian, Michael Schmaus, made the observation that respected the young Fr. Ratzinger of modernist leanings, and he was too much under the influence of modernism. And after the Second Vatican Council, one could say the same thing about Schmaus. So he was not exactly a beacon of Thomistic orthodoxy by any means, but even Schmaus had his misgivings about the young Fr. Ratzinger. So I... I think we have a man who was something like Ratzinger theologically, something like John Paul II pastorally, more like Ratzinger and Doitiwa rather than Bergoglio. That is my impression. Now, he speaks of being a builder of bridges, and the word pontifex, a pontiff, is an interesting choice of words because that's what the word pontiff means. And for the Roman pontiff, we certainly have a great deal of Romanita coming out of this man already, a man of the Roman Curia. It's not surprising. I think he wants to not stir up opposition against himself by coming out too strongly with what his own papal agenda is going to be, so that he talks about Francis in a very favorable light. And that is not, that's something that that's, I have great misgivings, I have great misgivings about that, but I don't think that's a sign that he's going to just go full steam ahead on the Bergoglian agenda. Well, all right. Okay, let's pause on that. I have a note here that Prevost mentioned synodality in his opening statement. Did you catch that? Yes, I did. I listened to it in the original Italian, so I didn't have to trust any translations. And yes, he did mention synodality, but he mentioned something about the synodality of the Church. How does he understand this? Of course, there has been an aspect of synodality in the Church since the very beginning. But the Bergoglian synodality is a heresy. That's for sure. I would have preferred he not even use that word, but again, with the Romanitan that this man is employing, it may very well be that he's using that term because he does not want to stir up opposition from the synodalists. Yeah, all right. Okay. He's making the same kind of mistake, I think, if he is an orthodox believer in Catholicism, he's making the same kind of mistake that Wojtyla made as John Paul II and as Ratzinger made as Benedict XVI, which he's trying to, a ship that is falling apart, you can't hold it together. You've got to get the crew and passengers onto the life rafts and let that ship sink. And that's going to happen eventually. Now, if he is a man of faith, eventually he will come to the realization that that's the only possibility left. And then we might have a pontificate, something reminiscent of Pius IX, who we recall he was elected. And even Freemasonry was very pleased with the election of Pius IX. They thought he was their man because he was liberal. But they tried to pressure him with their agenda, with their liberal agenda, which was beyond anything that was acceptable to a man of the Catholic faith. And there was a point beyond which he would not bend. And then they turned against him and they eventually tried to kill him. And the result was that we had a man famously known to history as Pope Pius IX, the staunch arch-conservative traditionalist who was so hated by Freemasonry after the confrontation and after he prevailed in favor of the Church's traditions and dogma rather than the liberal agenda And that had somewhat infected his mind when he was first elected. So we might have a parallel to that with this man. That's what I strongly suspect will be the case. Now, again, it's too early to judge. It's too early for me to make a judgment. I needed eight months to reach the conclusion that Bergoglio was an imposter, that he was not a valid pope. But my first impression is that if this Leo XIV is the man of faith that he projects every indication that he is, although, again, like I say, his understanding of the faith may be somewhat corrupted with the modernist doctrine he received in his seminary and university studies, Nevertheless, he may find himself being pushed beyond an acceptable, pushed across an unacceptable line, like they tried to do with Wojtyla, John Paul II, and there was an attempt to get him to resign. And I think it was in Ancona when he said, he's not going anywhere, he's not going anywhere. He was going to hold his ground. And even, I think, Malachi Martin pointed out that he feared what might come after him. And what came after him, not immediately, but was eventually, was Bergoglio. What came immediately after him was Ratzinger, and the Ecclesiastical Freemasonry, the Zankalen group, and those types, they hated Benedict with such a ferocious hatred that... He himself, Pope Benedict, even spoke of the opposition he was up against, and he used the term Antichrist. That's what he said he was up against. He was up against Antichrist. If Leo XIV is the man of faith that he appears to be, he is going to be up against the opposition, the forces of Antichrist. And if that's the case, he may have a change, of course, as did Pius IX. That is, and that's not going to be my judgment or prediction. That's just what I have of, it's just my... You have a sense for it, I got it. My sense for understanding the future, that's, yes, that's my intuition. The intuition of the immediate future of the Church, that's what I believe, in spite of all of his shortcomings, and there are no shortage of red flags about this man either, so I'm not, I don't rule anything out, but let's wait and see and watch how this develops. And for Catholics should not rush to judgment. There are some who are, some Catholics on the flimsiest basis, on the flimsiest of evidence, are reaching the conclusion that this man is an Antichrist, that he is, that he's Bergoglio on steroids, he's Francis II. It's far too early for anyone to justify such a judgment. We don't have a lot of data. No, there's none, really, to speak of. It's too soon. The data really derives from questions. Why did the college vote an unknown so quickly? How could that possibly have transpired among a college of a lot of men who have their own minds and their own views of things to come together to vote this man in? The time frame is a concern. That's a concern for me as a non-Catholic. Number two, his mention of synodality is another issue. He didn't have to mention that word at all. But by mentioning that word, he has put that word in play, that whole concept in play. And I got another note here. Pope Leo's one brother in the U.S., he has two brothers, says he will be just like Pope Francis Bergoglio. Quote, they believed in the same issues, end quote, says the brother who was interviewed. One brother made that statement. There are three pieces of early information that will need to be watched, considered, and factored into any thought process about where this is going to go. So, the quickness of it is, again, and I'm not a Catholic, raises an eyebrow right away. This guy is an unknown. He doesn't have a track record of consorting with anyone that I can determine in reading the stories I have. You'd know more about that than I, by far. You were there in the school, the seminary school, at the same time. So, those three things are a bit of a concern. Why mention synodality at all? What was the context, you listened, of the word and how he used it? Was there anything to be deduced from that? Well, there's only two possibilities for why he used that term. One, the worst case scenario is that he's a synodalist. And if that's the case, then the church is in for a very rough ride, if that's the case. Yeah. What I think is more likely is that this is an example of his employment of Romanita, which is to pacify the synodalists so that he won't stir up opposition against himself from that camp. I see that. It's like chess. It's like a chess move. I understand. So it could very well be that. As far as his brother is concerned, I don't think his brother is going to understand. So theologically, what is the mind of this man? They're from intellectually, they're from completely two different worlds, even though they're physically from the same family. They have completely different educational backgrounds. Certainly, as far as social issues, this is another red flag about this man. And he seems to be politically on the liberal side. That I'm not too pleased with, but if he is going to understand the political realities of the world and try to sort it out according to the teaching of Pope Leo XIII, well, then that's not so bad at all, after all. So, again, we have to wait and see. I got it. I understand. That's very pragmatic and correct. I agree. Again, as a non-Catholic, the pragmatism aspect has to be held up high right now. It's too soon. I still am very intrigued. How's that? By how many in the college that did the voting? Oh, I'm not sure of the number, but it's more than 120. It's a really high number. Right. So how, and we were told that something like 80% of these people, I believe, were appointed by Bergoglio, some extraordinarily high percentage. Yeah, about 80%. So how does an 80% majority in the College of Cardinals, if that's the right term, vote in a guy who nobody really knew, nobody knew this guy, he was wallpaper, they vote him in, and now they're going to face the potential of having to rewind and backstep all of the, forgive my use of the term, progress in the wrong way. Long direction. The synodal progress that Bergoglio made. Why would they put that in jeopardy if their goal is to turn the church into some nativistic, revamped, nature-loving entity? Why would they take that chance with somebody they apparently don't know? Unless they have it locked in iron that this guy is Francis II. Now, I just threw a lot of stuff out there, but any thoughts come to mind? The process for selecting bishops is such that there is a list that is submitted to Rome. That is why you're going to have many men who are going to not see eye to eye with Bergoglio, who were made bishops, and from these bishops, some became cardinals. So not all of the creatures of Bergoglio are Bergoglians. Okay. Why would the majority, and let's assume it is a majority anyway, why would the majority risk the, quote, progress that Bergoglio made in taking the church down? Why would they risk any of that? That was pretty awful what happened, or are they afraid that the vast numbers of Catholics around the world are anti-senodal in their sentiments and they're having to back up a little bit, at least on the face of it? Are they afraid? I don't know. This is a very, this would make one heck of a motion picture, I guess, huh? Yeah, the scenario we're watching unfold. We don't know anything about this guy. I'm sure there will be films about it. But I would think that there are some parallels here. When Bergoglio was elected, I think many of the cardinals who voted for Bergoglio didn't know what he was, didn't know what they were getting. That verges on incompetence, doesn't it? Well, they were depending on the wrong sources of information. It's difficult for cardinals to have an in-depth knowledge of every other cardinal. And Bergoglio, of course, was the archbishop of Buenos Aires. He was, to use a term that was his favorite term, he was a man of the peripheries himself, insofar as regarding the Church of Rome. He was not a Roman Curialist. He was from, like John Paul II said when he was elected, I come from a distant country. Well, not as distant as Argentina. He came from Poland, yet he was not a Cardinal of the Curia, but he was much more associated with the Curia and with the Second Vatican Council. Then, of course, Bergoglio was only a seminarian at the time of the Second Vatican Council. So they couldn't be expected of an in-depth knowledge. They were depending on certain kinds of news media. This was before the days of the Internet where you could do some more in-depth searches. You could search on your own and find a lot more information than being spoon-fed by the corporate media in the newspapers. And that was the situation back in 1978 when Vojtivo was elected. But even when Bergoglio was elected, the cardinals did not have enough information to really know what they were getting. So they were caught by surprise. Did you have any input that the cardinals were unhappy with Bergoglio and the Bergolians and they realized that they had strayed too far from church dogma and doctrine with this guy and they're trying to move back in the other direction? Was there any conscience involved en masse with this group? They did the electing? Is that possible? Yes, there was a number of cardinals who even were of the belief that this man is a heretic. Well, yeah. This Bergoglio was a heretic. And indeed he was. The man had a different ecclesiology than what is according to the Catholic faith. He had a different Christology than he didn't believe in Christ as Catholics believe. And like I mentioned last time, Father Maurizio Gronchi, professor of Christology at the Patitical Urbanianum in Rome, even went so far as to say that Bergoglio was a neo-Gnostic and a neo-Pelagian heretic. And I explained that indeed he was. This is in my second volume of my book, which is on papal heresy and on the distinguishing between the true and the false pope. And it was my second volume on the true and the false pope, the case against Bergoglio, that I explained that these were his heresies, among others. So, yes, there were cardinals who understood that he was a heretic. There were bishops, priests, theologians, who publicly corrected him, and he dismissed their correction with contempt, which meant that he was an incorrigible heretic. But the bigger question is, was he acting with the support of the majority of cardinals? Or did he just run off the reservation? The majority of cardinals, theologically, their mind is a fog area, unfortunately. I'm sorry, a what area? Fog area. Okay, fog, I got you. You know, when you're on the highway, when you see signs that will say fog area to warn you that you're going to get not so very clear visibility because this is a zone where you're going to get a lot of fog. And unfortunately, there's too much fog in the minds of the hierarchy because after the Second Vatican Council, they changed the theological and philosophical formation in the seminaries and Catholic universities so that the Catholic hierarchy, like education in general, has been dumbed down. And we have that situation where, theologically, it's pathetic when I hear some bishops talk. I have heard bishops talking about some of the most radical, worst, radical theologians, and they don't know. They haven't read the works of these men, and they hear that these are reputable theologians, and they think highly of them because so many professors speak well of these men. And so many bishops have given the priests in their diocese positions of authority based on their intellectual prowess rather than on their faith. And this has been a problem in the decades after the Second Vatican Council. So, on the other hand, even in spite of the faulty education that so many of the bishops have had, many of them do still have the Catholic faith. And they do, insofar as they're capable of doing so, they have their own mind of trying to maintain their fidelity to Christ and to his church. And so they do have a mind of their own also. And that is why you might have seen, have been accomplished in this conclave that a man who is not a radical Bergoglian clone, someone who's going to have an agenda somewhat different, more along the line of John Paul II and Benedict, I think, than Francis. I hope that's true, because if we do have Francis II, like I say, the Church is in for a very rough ride. I think the Church, from my perspective, if that happens, we don't know it will, but if it does turn out to be Francis II, the Church is going to have to split at that point into the real Church and the synodal Church. If that word comes up again, we'll find out. Now, just like President Trump, there will be appointments made by Leo XIV. Will you be watching those appointments that he makes with care and concern? Will that tell you a lot? It will be very indicative of where this pontificate is going. And as far as the split in the Church, that is inevitable. Either way, if he is a Francis II, then the Catholics are going to flee to the lifeboats and get out of the Bergoglian ship. Right. If he is more along the lines of Pope Benedict XVI and John Paul II, the synodalists will provoke the split themselves. And they could be foreseen to accomplish what was foretold by Cardinal Henry Edward Manning. He said on the authority of all the ancient fathers who spoke about the days we're living in. He said, well, Rome will return to its ancient paganism, and the true vicar of Christ, which is the Pope, will be driven out of Rome. The Pope will be driven out of Rome, and I don't think that will be Leo XIV, who will be driven out of Rome. If he is a Catholic and not an enemy within, I think it would be his successor who will be the one driven out of Rome. I understand. I follow you. Yeah. I look at image a lot. People, how they handle themselves, how they photograph, how they try to appear in photographs. This guy has a picture of him that is, it's a little bit unnerving. It's this holier than thou smile smirk with his head tipped slightly to our left, I believe it is. It's a very arrogant, quietly arrogant image he's projecting. I don't know if that's who he is. We'll find out. But I am again concerned with the idea that he used the word, took two days to do this, awfully quick. He's an unknown. He's not someone that, oh, we find out he was kind of a Robin Hood folk hero in the background amongst the cardinals. They didn't talk about him much, but everybody knew him, and he's just the guy to bring the church back toward regaining its position on the railroad tracks. It's run off the tracks now. Bergoglio took it off the tracks. Well, the way these papal elections go, there are things that happen behind the scenes that you don't hear about. I'll go back to 1978 when Wojtyla was elected and took the name John Paul II. Cardinal Gagnon was not yet a cardinal. He was still an archbishop. Archbishop Gagnon. During the conclave, when the Pope had not even elected, Archbishop Gagnon was at a restaurant having dinner, and he was spotted by a journalist who came over to him and started asking him questions about who might be a compromise candidate, because they were already a couple of days into the conclave, and they hadn't elected a pope yet, so they're thinking in terms of there must be a compromise candidate. And various names were being mentioned, and Archbishop Gagnon said to him, there's one name you need to consider as a compromise, and that is Wojtyla. And the journalists had no idea that this man was even being considered as a candidate, as a compromise candidate. Well, Wojtyla was elected. This was the next day after that conversation took place, and after Wojtyla was elected, took the name John Paul II, Archbishop, the future Cardinal Gagnon, had dinner in a different restaurant in the Monte Verde section of Rome, and I was one of the guests at that dinner with him, so I heard him relate the story, how he had encountered this journalist who was asking all these names about the compromised candidates that were being mentioned in the news media and press, and he came up with this name, Wojtyla, that was not being mentioned in New media and press. And so he said, I made the decision of not going back to that restaurant tonight as soon as Morty was elected, because he would be met by that same journalist who would have many questions for him. All right, I have something in the mailbox. Just came in, forwarded by Diane. We'll leave it with that. Thank you, Diane. And thank you, Jeffrey, for sending this over. Here's a statement, apparently, from the Holy See Press. Now, there's some Latin in here, and I'm not good at Latin. It says, quote, His Holiness, Leo XIV, has expressed the wish that the heads and members of the institutions of the Roman Curia, as well as the secretaries and the president of the Pontifical Commission for the Vatican City State, The Holy Father, in fact, wishes to reserve for himself. This is Leo XIV talking. A period of reflection, prayer, and dialogue before making any definitive appointments or confirmations. Period. End of quote. That was the mistake made by John Paul I. John Paul I did the same thing. He didn't act decisively, in other words, you're saying? He didn't act decisively from day one. Okay. And we know what happened to him. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah, I remember that. Because they have... Yes, thank you again, Diane, for sending this along, and appreciate it. It is another indicator, so now we have four indicators, I think, in some that we can look at to see where this is going. Go ahead, please. No decisive Leo XIV, at least in behavior at this point. In fact, the opposite has just been stated. A period of reflection, prayer, and dialogue before making any definitive appointments or confirmations. At least he hasn't definitively reinstated anyone yet. But when John Paul I was elected, I remember the late Monsignor Mario Marini said that Paul VI had given him a gift that he had wasted. Because except for just a few offices, everyone loses their authority after the death of the Pope. So the new Pope, from the very beginning, can make new appointments without having to terminate the other ones, because they've all been basically terminated, and you just have, as the new Pope, you just have to name a successor to those people who lost their jurisdiction at the time of the death of the previous pontiff. I've got another important thing to put in here. Matthew sent this in. Bishop Sanborn said, a fast conclave, an election, was a sign the Bergolians got their man. He was a trusted man in Bergoglio's government. He was instrumental in establishing leftist bishops. And he helped get rid of Muller and Strickland. End of statement. And, again, he was working for Bergoglio. What will he do? He's not working for Bergoglio now. Will he be his own man? Only time will tell. That's true. Well, we'll have a week and we'll be back with you next Friday. All right? Okay. We'll take another look then. Thank you very much, Father Kramer. This is very helpful for a lot of people, although it doesn't solidify anything, but it certainly lays out the option of different directions that may or may not come to pass. We'll find out. We'll know a lot more by next Friday, for sure. Thank you, Father Kramer, again, as always. Bye now. Okay. All right. We've got to wrap it up. So, yeah, 1.2 billion people are watching this very closely. Have a good weekend. Take good care and do try to prepare. Things are very dicey out there. All right. We'll talk soon. Be well.
"When I told her that when Bergoglio was elected, my immediate reaction was, something is wrong here. Something is terribly wrong. This man shouldn't be pope"
---
The same was my reaction with Prevost. More dangerous than Bergoglio as not so overt and so grotesque.