Perhaps some misunderstand the Faith. It has nothing to do with "survival" as one commenter said. It has everything to do with the proper worship of God in the holy sacrifice of the Mass his only Son established.
Yes, it is of critical importance that the faithful continue to point out errors we see in the novus ordo excuse for a mass, which it is NOT, and to point out the errors those clergy commit whose main obligation to God is salus animarum, suprema lex.
Keep up the good work, and pray for the heretics that they may repent, for the salvation of THEIR souls is at stake.
Instead of “1958 Sedevacantism,” I'm convinced of the significant converging evidence of 1958 "sede impedita," Cardinal Giuseppe Siri/Pope Gregory XVII being threatened into invalid abdication of the papacy two days before John XXIII was invalidly elected, becoming the prophesied "pope in exile." Whether sede impedita became sede vacante at his death in 1989 or before, matters little. The evidence is at
There are also theological reasons to support such a position. The Fathers of the First Vatican Council concluded that no Pope had ever been a heretic – not Liberius, Honorius I, John XII, John XXII, nor any other name that is brought up in association with the accusation of “papal heresy.” Nor had any pope failed to maintain Apostolic Tradition in doctrine, worship, sacramental rites, discipline or anything essential to the Catholic faith & practice. NEVER HAPPENED AND NEVER WILL. The Holy Spirit also prevents heretics from being elected pope (like the Freemason Rampolla in 1903), and a true pope can’t even teach, promote or approve anything injurious to faith or morals or perfect worship, and not just when teaching ex cathedra.. This is the Tradition of the Church.
“…this See of Saint Peter always remains unblemished by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord & Savior to the prince of his disciples: ‘I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail….’” – Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, 4.
Question for WM Review: Where do you stand on the use of the 1962 John XXIII missal since you have not taken a firm position on the validity of his papacy? +
Thank you for the response. For better understanding of your position, would you participate in a 1962 Mass? Do you consider John XXIII's papacy to be doubtful, thus his Mass to be doubtful?
Interesting question. I’ve not really given it much though to be honest. It was accepted by the whole Church and has been the main form that has continued since V2, so it’s not a great source of anxiety for me at all.
Thank you for these archived presentations. I listened to material like this years ago before I knew how to make sense of the current state of Catholicism, as an outsider. I am grateful that I have been given the knowledge in time, to follow this analysis, and I appreciate the variety of arguments in support of the reality of a prolonged Sede Vacante.
Yet, I am uncertain if there is a 'true' position, as we are looking at a negation rather than a position. As Aristotle said, "You cannot apply qualities to a nullity". Yet, the deficit of intention to fulfill the duties of office in the post V2 Bishops of Rome is made obvious by the teachings and disciplines by these false claimants, and this for no other reason than these promulgations are an offence to the previous 1965 years of Church rule and teaching.
Yet, I am but a pending convert, who will remain a layman, and as visual artist, I crave simple graspable symbols. As such I am a November 13, 1964 Sedevacantist, the day Paul 6 took off his tiara he rejected the full duties of office, and made this rejection of intent to rule as those before him had plain enough for a child to see. And he did not promulgate the documents of the council until after his abdication. Of course this symbolic action only confirms the other deficits we take as evidence that these men have not been legitimate popes. But our Lord makes plain the the more involved reasoning required to make a case by canon law, by this simple act.
And if I may offer my hope, that in this symbol we will see, if a man will have the courageous virtue to put the crown back upon his head, we will have a clear sign of the restoration of the papacy. For any Modernist that crown is an unbearable madness, so it provides a litmus test. I certainly do not present this 'thesis' as the 'true' Vacante position, that would be ridiculous. I only offer it as a signpost for the simple to see what is at times obscured in the more elaborate, though necessary, arguments.
I wrote a few short entries on this topic under 'Nulla Corona' and 'Romata Caronam'. I'm sure the Latin could use some tweaking, haha. I wrote them more as personal devotions than as theological treaties. Also this work is not of your standards.
I focus on Natural Philosophy and Cosmology, not theology directly nor canon law, as the first two can be engaged with only a solid knowledge of first principles and logic.
And the last thing this 'movement' needs is another theological dabbler.
Have gained much from your carful research.
Pretty sure these 'popes' could not bear the weight of the Papal Tiara. In a photo of B16 receiving one as a gift from lay catholics, he looks a bit caught out, like he is looking at a bad memory he would rather not have been reminded of.
The parallel of the current state of the Church with a terminal disease or chronic condition is one that bears fruit. That the seat is vacant is the best explanation of the panoply of symptoms currently being experienced, without even speculating on how and when this disease began.
I think one could also look upon the papacy and the hierarchy of the Church as something akin to the body's immune system.
Former Bergoglio critics who now call Prevost critics “pope bashers” haven’t merely changed their minds, they’ve received new programming.
They just aren’t operating on Catholic principles when it comes to the crisis. They probably never were.
Very thorough review of the issues that separate us from the R&R camp, and done in a very respectful way.
Thank you!
Perhaps some misunderstand the Faith. It has nothing to do with "survival" as one commenter said. It has everything to do with the proper worship of God in the holy sacrifice of the Mass his only Son established.
Yes, it is of critical importance that the faithful continue to point out errors we see in the novus ordo excuse for a mass, which it is NOT, and to point out the errors those clergy commit whose main obligation to God is salus animarum, suprema lex.
Keep up the good work, and pray for the heretics that they may repent, for the salvation of THEIR souls is at stake.
Instead of “1958 Sedevacantism,” I'm convinced of the significant converging evidence of 1958 "sede impedita," Cardinal Giuseppe Siri/Pope Gregory XVII being threatened into invalid abdication of the papacy two days before John XXIII was invalidly elected, becoming the prophesied "pope in exile." Whether sede impedita became sede vacante at his death in 1989 or before, matters little. The evidence is at
whitesmoke1958.com
novusordowatch.org/2016/10/smoke-signals-white-smoke-1958
There are also theological reasons to support such a position. The Fathers of the First Vatican Council concluded that no Pope had ever been a heretic – not Liberius, Honorius I, John XII, John XXII, nor any other name that is brought up in association with the accusation of “papal heresy.” Nor had any pope failed to maintain Apostolic Tradition in doctrine, worship, sacramental rites, discipline or anything essential to the Catholic faith & practice. NEVER HAPPENED AND NEVER WILL. The Holy Spirit also prevents heretics from being elected pope (like the Freemason Rampolla in 1903), and a true pope can’t even teach, promote or approve anything injurious to faith or morals or perfect worship, and not just when teaching ex cathedra.. This is the Tradition of the Church.
“…this See of Saint Peter always remains unblemished by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord & Savior to the prince of his disciples: ‘I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail….’” – Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, 4.
novusordowatch.org/2022/04/felix-cappello-heretical-pope-impossible;
novusordowatch.org/2015/04/heretical-popes-first-vatican-council
Question for WM Review: Where do you stand on the use of the 1962 John XXIII missal since you have not taken a firm position on the validity of his papacy? +
If you tag your question with @sdwright you’re more likely to get a quicker response.
Thanks John and Michael. I have no firm position on that either.
Thank you for the response. For better understanding of your position, would you participate in a 1962 Mass? Do you consider John XXIII's papacy to be doubtful, thus his Mass to be doubtful?
Interesting question. I’ve not really given it much though to be honest. It was accepted by the whole Church and has been the main form that has continued since V2, so it’s not a great source of anxiety for me at all.
Thank you again for responding. Maybe you can post an article on the topic once you give it greater thought, if you find it worth your time. +
Thank you for these archived presentations. I listened to material like this years ago before I knew how to make sense of the current state of Catholicism, as an outsider. I am grateful that I have been given the knowledge in time, to follow this analysis, and I appreciate the variety of arguments in support of the reality of a prolonged Sede Vacante.
Yet, I am uncertain if there is a 'true' position, as we are looking at a negation rather than a position. As Aristotle said, "You cannot apply qualities to a nullity". Yet, the deficit of intention to fulfill the duties of office in the post V2 Bishops of Rome is made obvious by the teachings and disciplines by these false claimants, and this for no other reason than these promulgations are an offence to the previous 1965 years of Church rule and teaching.
Yet, I am but a pending convert, who will remain a layman, and as visual artist, I crave simple graspable symbols. As such I am a November 13, 1964 Sedevacantist, the day Paul 6 took off his tiara he rejected the full duties of office, and made this rejection of intent to rule as those before him had plain enough for a child to see. And he did not promulgate the documents of the council until after his abdication. Of course this symbolic action only confirms the other deficits we take as evidence that these men have not been legitimate popes. But our Lord makes plain the the more involved reasoning required to make a case by canon law, by this simple act.
And if I may offer my hope, that in this symbol we will see, if a man will have the courageous virtue to put the crown back upon his head, we will have a clear sign of the restoration of the papacy. For any Modernist that crown is an unbearable madness, so it provides a litmus test. I certainly do not present this 'thesis' as the 'true' Vacante position, that would be ridiculous. I only offer it as a signpost for the simple to see what is at times obscured in the more elaborate, though necessary, arguments.
Thanks for this William. I didn't realise you were a catechumen. Best of luck with your instruction and eventual reception.
Interesting comments re the crown. Although don't give the modernists ideas. They might decide just to put it on to confuse people!
Thank you,
I wrote a few short entries on this topic under 'Nulla Corona' and 'Romata Caronam'. I'm sure the Latin could use some tweaking, haha. I wrote them more as personal devotions than as theological treaties. Also this work is not of your standards.
I focus on Natural Philosophy and Cosmology, not theology directly nor canon law, as the first two can be engaged with only a solid knowledge of first principles and logic.
And the last thing this 'movement' needs is another theological dabbler.
Have gained much from your carful research.
Pretty sure these 'popes' could not bear the weight of the Papal Tiara. In a photo of B16 receiving one as a gift from lay catholics, he looks a bit caught out, like he is looking at a bad memory he would rather not have been reminded of.
Yes I remember that photo I think.
Thank you for this and all the links to previous articles. I still have a lot of catching up to do!
Thanks Alan!
The parallel of the current state of the Church with a terminal disease or chronic condition is one that bears fruit. That the seat is vacant is the best explanation of the panoply of symptoms currently being experienced, without even speculating on how and when this disease began.
I think one could also look upon the papacy and the hierarchy of the Church as something akin to the body's immune system.