Nowhere have I "defended this gang of four as the only thing standing between the RCC and false teaching". Overheated rhetoric and personal assessment do not facts make.

My position was and remains that they have requested a clarification for the purpose of confirming the brethren from the individual currently in the chair of Peter, and such a request is seemly and needed.

When you write "Burke and his henchmen", you leave the impression that in order to name the other three you would have to go look them up, and I believe this is for a reason. But since you only name him in dozens of posts, calling Hans Küng a "single theologian", as though it were a substantive issue, seems disingenuous.

Nor did anyone "win at the last conclave". The two synods affirmed the Church's teaching that marriage is indissoluble.

I’ll put “gang of four” “henchmen”,  "grave confusion”, and “sour faced” in the same bag as David Gibson’s and Carol Glatz’ inflammatory rhetoric and take it to the trash.