I suppose one thing that bothers me is the sneering tone of "Trad Inc.," implying that the diverse group of individuals who consider sedevacantism a non-starter of a position, one that a Catholic cannot take seriously, are doing so due to ignorance, prejudice, stupidity, or avarice. Maybe there are some who fall into those traps, but there are also those of us who have arrived at our views by way of argumentation and the search for truth.
For fifteen years or so I held what could broadly be called the "recognise and resist position." Certainly the common assumption in those circles is, as you put it, that the idea of an extended vacancy of the Holy See is "a non-starter of a position" and "one that a Catholic cannot take seriously".
This is confidently asserted by many people prior to an actual examination of the question. They never take the position seriously, because they have already dismissed it as a possibility. This is a good example of a prejudice.
When I began to consider the possibility that the see was vacant, I was not met with reasoned arguments explaining why it was "a non-starter of a position" and "one that a Catholic cannot take seriously" but simply an assertion that this was obviously so.
In fact, I am still waiting to read a convincing rebuttal of the arguments that I and S. D. Wright (and many others of course) have put forward. I will consider any arguments presented.
My experience is overwhelmingly that people simply don't want to consider the question because they are afraid of the further questions it raises, particular those that would affect them personally, such as doubts regarding the validity of the new sacramental rites.
These are very difficult questions, and I completely understand the reluctance that many people have to address these questions.
It's one thing not to consider a question, but quite another to vocally attack a position - and too often the people who hold it - without having considered it.
Yet the number of traditionalist commentators who vocally reject sedevacantism after, rather than prior to, considering the arguments are, I think, small minority.
They exist, but I do not think they are many.
In any case, I would be happy to consider any theological argument that attempts to show that an extended vacancy of the Holy See is "a non-starter of a position" and "one that a Catholic cannot take seriously".
Precisely the core of the problem you address is the reluctance (I'm more of the opinion now that it's a dread) to provide a refutation of the sede vacante position that actually deals with the real as opposed to the strawman arguments against it.
Nobody wants to be a sedevacantist by choice. It's the most reluctant position I ever had to adopt and other sedevacantist will say the same. I want there to be a Pope but I don't want it at the cost of the truth. Dr Peter responding to your article is a welcome positive sign and maybe the beginning of serious dialogue. No one should fear the truth and that's what dialogue is all about. The truth.
I uploaded a post today that so much relates to what you have said concerning Truth. Who in the R&Rcamp is willing to break the silence?
I reluctantly put finger to keypad knowing the effort and time required in doing so but at times I just can't remain silent. It makes me even more appreciative of what you guys do at the WM Review and the colossal amount of time and effort you' must surely put in to produce such well researched and scholarly works.
Your contrabutions have really stirred up the trad world to examine their position and inspire those in the NO to look a bit more deeply into the traditional teachings of the Church.
Obviously I have read fairly widely, but I want to give you the opportunity to suggest to me the three best articles in defense of sedevacantism that you know of, from any year or any author, that I may taken into consideration.
What do you consider the strongest objection(s) to sedevacantism to be? That would help me to determine the most helpful recommendations.
(By sedevacantism, I always mean only the theological conclusion that the Holy See has been vacant for an extended period, not association with any particular group etc.)
Could you outline the argumentation you followed--or point us to an article where you lay it out? I find it very difficult to go all the way to sedevacantism, but it's becoming more difficult by the day to reconcile the teachings/pronouncements and actions of the popes (particularly Leo XIV and Francis) with Scripture and Tradition.
I can't imagine leaving the Church--but I'm increasingly unclear as to what "the Church" actually is: a mystical phantom we all belong to and believe in and which can be misrepresented by the current hierarchy? An actual institution with faithful clerics that is largely invisible because of the predominance of apostates holding most official positions in the Vatican? Just what do I belong to if I do not accept the travesty that Rome has become? "Trad Inc." has earned this moniker by initially voicing caution about Prevost and then all of a sudden and, suspiciously in unison, doing an about face and telling us all to give him time.
All the info you'll need re- the truth of the sedevacantist position is at novusordowatch.org.
Personally, I'm convinced, although it's a minority sede position, that the prophesied Great Apostasy had its beginning with the vitiated 1958 papal conclave.
It makes sense theologically too, since 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). 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, 6.
Thank you for your comment. I'm aware of novusordowatch. In contrast to their sarcasm and name-calling, I prefer the more reasoned, careful arguments found here at wmreview. That's why I asked Dr. Kwasniewski for his line of reasoning--his work has been very important to me and I respect his anti-sedevacantist position. I'd just like to understand it in more depth.
I think you are speaking the truth. However I must admit it's only an intuition and I haven't enough time to study it and well frankly I'm not the smartest or most well-read person in the room often.
But I did read about that white-smoke thing happening twice in 1958 and it just goes so smoothly with what happened and John XXIII being an apostate is to me obvious. It is obvious he orchestrated the beginning of V2 takeover, it couldn't have worked without him.
And what does that tell you? By their fruits ye shall know them.
Just wanted to say this since I recognize people when they are speaking the truth. And I'm deeply happy about this, since I'm utterly alone in this regard mostly. It is very, very lonely being a minority of a minority of a minority. Frankly I find it very tiresome a burden.
Being alone & lonely in the sede conviction is part of the cross many are called to carry for the sake of the little known truth that we are in the time of the Great Apostasy. It greatly helps to learn as much as we can, especially, I'd say, from novusordowatch.org & whitesmoke1958.com. There's also Bishop Donald Sanborn on YouTube & others, including this WM site. If you can't get to a pre-V2 Mass it helps to have a trad Missal, e.g. St Andrew's or Fr Stedman Missal, best price at bookfinder.com. And the rosary is our spiritual weapon given more power in our time.
"In these last times in which we live, the Most Holy Virgin has given a new efficacy to the recitation of the Rosary to such an extent that there is no problem, no matter how difficult it is, whether temporal or above all spiritual, in the personal life of each one of us, of our families, our nations...that cannot be solved by the prayer of the Holy Rosary...." (Sr Lucia, 1957; last public words before being "disappeared" and replaced by an impostor) radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2019/03/is-this-interview-that-caused-her.html; sisterlucytruth.org
"God is giving two last remedies to the world: the Holy Rosary and devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. And, being the last remedies...there will be no others." (Ibid.)
Thank you for reminding me, I did today more decades than usually and it helped.
I have the St. Andrew's Missal and it's truly a wonderful book. I read it every Sunday if we can't access a latin mass, which is most Sundays. I very much like the spirit of the book.
It's just that... Well, here there's only few Catholics in the whole country. And there are very few latin masses. If I want to go to a more regular one I have to leave the country, which I've done a couple times but I can't afford it now.
So the loneliness is a little extreme. I'm not complaining, it's God's will, just saying that it can be a little extreme. And I've been Catholic only about 5 years, and had to go through the novus ordo system to find a latin mass and only recently discovered many of the these truths.
So it's a little bit heavy ride to be honest. Reading this substack helps a bit. Got to pray the rosary more, thanks again for reminding.
Do you read fathercoleridge.org too? And don't forget to spend time on prayer with the Lord. And also don't set too high an ideological bar for yourself on who you will and will not associate with.
I assume you believe in the long prophesied Great Apostasy, but that it will be sometime in the future rather than in our time. And as a Thomist you know St Thomas presents the strongest arguments of contrary positions before replying to them. Have you studied the strongest arguments for sedevacantism, e.g. at novusordowatch.org?
Have you seen the evidence for a vitiated 1958 papal conclave, i.e. the Judeo-Masonic overthrow of a validly elected pope? (This is the minority position of sedes, but I find it convincing. It also explains how a heretic can sit in the Chair of Peter when Vatican I determined that it can never happen. Cf. Pastor Aeternus, 6)
Then there is prophecy, including the real (or at least complete) 3rd Secret of Fatima.
Few know that the Third Secret was read by Pius XII in 1957 in the company of various prelates (unpublicized), one of them being the American Cardinal Samuel Stritch, who indirectly revealed 2 parts of it to 2 priest associates:
And that can only happen under a false pope, "the top," as Cardinal Mario Ciappi revealed. Cardinal Ciappi, who read the Third Secret, said, "In the Third Secret it is revealed, among other things, that the Great Apostasy in the Church will begin at the top" (letter to Prof. Baumgartner, 1995), i.e., the papacy, which we can be certain means John XXIII & his successors, allowing the counterfeit, Judeo-Masonic-inspired Vatican II church to be created.
If you become part of the "remnant Catholic faithful," you'll be poorer & marginalized (although many of your admirerers would surely follow you), but what price is too much to pay for the truth?
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, 6.
The Church Fathers, based on Apostolic Tradition and 2 Thes. 2:1-7, taught that the papacy would be removed during the time of the Great Apostasy. Whether it is restored is another question. Blessed Anna Maria Taigi prophesied that Sts Peter & Paul will appear in Rome to the astonishment of all & appoint a pope after a long period with the Chair of Peter held by false popes.
From Cardinal Manning:
“The apostasy of the city of Rome from the vicar of Christ and its destruction by Antichrist may be thoughts very new to many Catholics, that I think it well to recite the text of theologians of greatest repute. First Malvenda, who writes expressly on the subject, states as the opinion of Ribera, Gaspar Melus, Biegas, Suarez, Bellarmine and Bosius that Rome shall apostatize from the Faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ [Cardinal Siri/Poe Gregory XVII, 1958] and return to its ancient paganism. ...Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible; hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were from the face of the earth. Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church.” - Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, The Present Crisis of the Holy See, 1861, London: Burns and Lambert, pp. 88-90)
Peter, many of us are awaiting your refutation of the numerous questions disputing the Catholicity of your position. There are quite a few well articulated condemnations of your stance that employ irrefutable church teachings in support of their claim against you.. These critiques are certainty worthy of a reply, not just for us who disagree with your position but even moreso for those who follow you.
Surely your silence on these matters is not due to your own misgivings that your position could withstand this type of scrutiny. Therfore I put this to you as a dubia from all who seek answers and provide you with one such critique in the link below.
I think much of Salza and Siscoe's "True or False Pope" is well argued (though of course I regret their descent into "normies" in recent years).
I realize not everyone has time or money to get a book and read it. There have been some good articles online, I'd have to dig around and don't have time at the moment for that.
In recognition of the time involved in answering every such point made in refutation of your position may I request some clarity on just one such point?
The sedevacantist, in recognition of the indefectability of the Church holds that the heretic cannot be (by Divine law) head of the body of which he doesn't belong and therefore they refuse submission to such . While doing so they submit to every true Pope without reserve and all that he promugates, teaches or repeals in recognition of the promises made by Christ conderning His Vicar on earth.
You however feel at liberty to hold as questionable any such promulgations, teachings and annnulments made by who you consider to be true Popes but who, in the exercise of their Divinely instituted authority promulgate or repeal something that goes counter to your liking and you even go so far as to refuse submission to such..
How can this be considered a true Catholic position without reducing the Vicar of Christ to the status of a mere humanly, inspired legislator absent the Divine assistance promised and denying his promised indefectability?
Thank you seems so spare a comment….yet I offer it from the bottom of my heart. I said to a friend years ago, who was discussing with me resistance to seeing Truth, that until you are willing to let your heart be broken by the realization of how much you’d been lied to, you can’t.
We all tend to guard ourselves, at least to a degree, from the stark horrors of life. We are all waiting to exhale. Especially when the stakes are high, and what stakes could be higher than the Truth that is required for our salvation?
I read the following piece very recently. It is very different in some ways from yours (mine) and comes to perhaps a different conclusion but has that same beautiful and sincere ring of being willing to lose all for the sake of Truth.
As we negotiate this very tender but requisite moment in history may our common search for Truth be what binds us, even as Truth’s Sword divides away from us the Father of Lies and his works.
The title of the article would in an ideal world read “the mission of Catholics.” Thanks for writing it and attempting to address the social stigma that has been created to keep Catholics from the truth.
Also, really interesting that you both held the R&R position. It makes it easier to share your work with others who currently hold that position.
I do not know how to square the below passage of Newman's Grammar of Assent with the account of truth given in this article.
"All things in the exterior world are unit and individual, and are nothing else; but the mind not only contemplates those unit realities, as they exist, but has the gift, by an act of creation, of bringing before it abstractions and generalizations, which have no existence, no counterpart, out of it."
When Newman speaks of "abstractions and generalizations," he's referring to ideas or concepts we have in our intellect/mind, which exist only in the intellect & not in the material world, where only individual things/substances exist. Many individual cats exists in the material world, but the universal concept "cat" exists only in the mind.
The abstractions do reside only the intellect, but they conform to the reality of being outside the intellect.
For example, each individual tree is a particular instantiation of matter, distinct from every other tree. Yet the intellect can abstract from this sense data and see that they are all "trees", that they share the essence "tree".
This abstraction reside in the intellect, not in the things, but it conforms to the reality of the things.
Aristotle: "The true and the false reside not in things, but in the intellect."
Thank you, RosaryKnight and Mr. McCusker. I was nervous that Newman was denying the conformity of mind to reality by describing an ex nihilo "creation" of the abstraction with "no counterpart." But even his preceding line mentions externalities "brought home to us through the experiences and informations we have of them." So I just may not treat Newman as the clearest teacher on the subject.
The 'intellect' of R&R denies the indefectability of Christ's Church/Papal Infallibilty. V2 denies VI. Reality is 'beyond the pale', because big intellects are piqued by the audacity of God allowing a long interregnum.
The best answer I've heard to Pilate's question was given in video by Alice von Hildebrand in Stephen Payne's documentary, " The Wolf in Sheep's Clothing". The Truth is a man and God, Jesus Christ!
The combox for this site is not for long four-part monologues. You can use your own site for that.
I suppose one thing that bothers me is the sneering tone of "Trad Inc.," implying that the diverse group of individuals who consider sedevacantism a non-starter of a position, one that a Catholic cannot take seriously, are doing so due to ignorance, prejudice, stupidity, or avarice. Maybe there are some who fall into those traps, but there are also those of us who have arrived at our views by way of argumentation and the search for truth.
Thanks for your comment Dr Kwasniewski.
For fifteen years or so I held what could broadly be called the "recognise and resist position." Certainly the common assumption in those circles is, as you put it, that the idea of an extended vacancy of the Holy See is "a non-starter of a position" and "one that a Catholic cannot take seriously".
This is confidently asserted by many people prior to an actual examination of the question. They never take the position seriously, because they have already dismissed it as a possibility. This is a good example of a prejudice.
When I began to consider the possibility that the see was vacant, I was not met with reasoned arguments explaining why it was "a non-starter of a position" and "one that a Catholic cannot take seriously" but simply an assertion that this was obviously so.
In fact, I am still waiting to read a convincing rebuttal of the arguments that I and S. D. Wright (and many others of course) have put forward. I will consider any arguments presented.
My experience is overwhelmingly that people simply don't want to consider the question because they are afraid of the further questions it raises, particular those that would affect them personally, such as doubts regarding the validity of the new sacramental rites.
These are very difficult questions, and I completely understand the reluctance that many people have to address these questions.
It's one thing not to consider a question, but quite another to vocally attack a position - and too often the people who hold it - without having considered it.
Yet the number of traditionalist commentators who vocally reject sedevacantism after, rather than prior to, considering the arguments are, I think, small minority.
They exist, but I do not think they are many.
In any case, I would be happy to consider any theological argument that attempts to show that an extended vacancy of the Holy See is "a non-starter of a position" and "one that a Catholic cannot take seriously".
I addressed a few of the common objections here:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/we-shouldnt-be-afraid-of-concluding-that-francis-isnt-pope-heres-why/
Precisely the core of the problem you address is the reluctance (I'm more of the opinion now that it's a dread) to provide a refutation of the sede vacante position that actually deals with the real as opposed to the strawman arguments against it.
Nobody wants to be a sedevacantist by choice. It's the most reluctant position I ever had to adopt and other sedevacantist will say the same. I want there to be a Pope but I don't want it at the cost of the truth. Dr Peter responding to your article is a welcome positive sign and maybe the beginning of serious dialogue. No one should fear the truth and that's what dialogue is all about. The truth.
I uploaded a post today that so much relates to what you have said concerning Truth. Who in the R&Rcamp is willing to break the silence?
https://open.substack.com/pub/martinfegan/p/thoughts-on-cum-ex-apostolatus-and?r=3822lj&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
Nice to see you are writing on here too Martin!
Thank you M J.
I reluctantly put finger to keypad knowing the effort and time required in doing so but at times I just can't remain silent. It makes me even more appreciative of what you guys do at the WM Review and the colossal amount of time and effort you' must surely put in to produce such well researched and scholarly works.
Your contrabutions have really stirred up the trad world to examine their position and inspire those in the NO to look a bit more deeply into the traditional teachings of the Church.
Thanks!
Thank you, Matthew.
Obviously I have read fairly widely, but I want to give you the opportunity to suggest to me the three best articles in defense of sedevacantism that you know of, from any year or any author, that I may taken into consideration.
What do you consider the strongest objection(s) to sedevacantism to be? That would help me to determine the most helpful recommendations.
(By sedevacantism, I always mean only the theological conclusion that the Holy See has been vacant for an extended period, not association with any particular group etc.)
Could you outline the argumentation you followed--or point us to an article where you lay it out? I find it very difficult to go all the way to sedevacantism, but it's becoming more difficult by the day to reconcile the teachings/pronouncements and actions of the popes (particularly Leo XIV and Francis) with Scripture and Tradition.
I can't imagine leaving the Church--but I'm increasingly unclear as to what "the Church" actually is: a mystical phantom we all belong to and believe in and which can be misrepresented by the current hierarchy? An actual institution with faithful clerics that is largely invisible because of the predominance of apostates holding most official positions in the Vatican? Just what do I belong to if I do not accept the travesty that Rome has become? "Trad Inc." has earned this moniker by initially voicing caution about Prevost and then all of a sudden and, suspiciously in unison, doing an about face and telling us all to give him time.
All the info you'll need re- the truth of the sedevacantist position is at novusordowatch.org.
Personally, I'm convinced, although it's a minority sede position, that the prophesied Great Apostasy had its beginning with the vitiated 1958 papal conclave.
whitesmoke1958.com (including important interviews 1-3)
novusordowatch.org/2016/10/smoke-signals-white-smoke-1958
It makes sense theologically too, since 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). 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, 6.
novusordowatch.org/2022/04/felix-cappello-heretical-pope-impossible;
novusordowatch.org/2015/04/heretical-popes-first-vatican-council
"Just what do I belong to if I do not accept the travesty that Rome has become?"
You'd belong to the "remnant" Catholic Church during the Great Apostasy, faithful to Catholic Tradition in all things, the one true Church.
Thank you for your comment. I'm aware of novusordowatch. In contrast to their sarcasm and name-calling, I prefer the more reasoned, careful arguments found here at wmreview. That's why I asked Dr. Kwasniewski for his line of reasoning--his work has been very important to me and I respect his anti-sedevacantist position. I'd just like to understand it in more depth.
Laudetur Iesus Christus, RosaryKnight.
I think you are speaking the truth. However I must admit it's only an intuition and I haven't enough time to study it and well frankly I'm not the smartest or most well-read person in the room often.
But I did read about that white-smoke thing happening twice in 1958 and it just goes so smoothly with what happened and John XXIII being an apostate is to me obvious. It is obvious he orchestrated the beginning of V2 takeover, it couldn't have worked without him.
And what does that tell you? By their fruits ye shall know them.
Just wanted to say this since I recognize people when they are speaking the truth. And I'm deeply happy about this, since I'm utterly alone in this regard mostly. It is very, very lonely being a minority of a minority of a minority. Frankly I find it very tiresome a burden.
Being alone & lonely in the sede conviction is part of the cross many are called to carry for the sake of the little known truth that we are in the time of the Great Apostasy. It greatly helps to learn as much as we can, especially, I'd say, from novusordowatch.org & whitesmoke1958.com. There's also Bishop Donald Sanborn on YouTube & others, including this WM site. If you can't get to a pre-V2 Mass it helps to have a trad Missal, e.g. St Andrew's or Fr Stedman Missal, best price at bookfinder.com. And the rosary is our spiritual weapon given more power in our time.
"In these last times in which we live, the Most Holy Virgin has given a new efficacy to the recitation of the Rosary to such an extent that there is no problem, no matter how difficult it is, whether temporal or above all spiritual, in the personal life of each one of us, of our families, our nations...that cannot be solved by the prayer of the Holy Rosary...." (Sr Lucia, 1957; last public words before being "disappeared" and replaced by an impostor) radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2019/03/is-this-interview-that-caused-her.html; sisterlucytruth.org
"God is giving two last remedies to the world: the Holy Rosary and devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. And, being the last remedies...there will be no others." (Ibid.)
Thank you for reminding me, I did today more decades than usually and it helped.
I have the St. Andrew's Missal and it's truly a wonderful book. I read it every Sunday if we can't access a latin mass, which is most Sundays. I very much like the spirit of the book.
It's just that... Well, here there's only few Catholics in the whole country. And there are very few latin masses. If I want to go to a more regular one I have to leave the country, which I've done a couple times but I can't afford it now.
So the loneliness is a little extreme. I'm not complaining, it's God's will, just saying that it can be a little extreme. And I've been Catholic only about 5 years, and had to go through the novus ordo system to find a latin mass and only recently discovered many of the these truths.
So it's a little bit heavy ride to be honest. Reading this substack helps a bit. Got to pray the rosary more, thanks again for reminding.
Do you read fathercoleridge.org too? And don't forget to spend time on prayer with the Lord. And also don't set too high an ideological bar for yourself on who you will and will not associate with.
I assume you believe in the long prophesied Great Apostasy, but that it will be sometime in the future rather than in our time. And as a Thomist you know St Thomas presents the strongest arguments of contrary positions before replying to them. Have you studied the strongest arguments for sedevacantism, e.g. at novusordowatch.org?
Have you seen the evidence for a vitiated 1958 papal conclave, i.e. the Judeo-Masonic overthrow of a validly elected pope? (This is the minority position of sedes, but I find it convincing. It also explains how a heretic can sit in the Chair of Peter when Vatican I determined that it can never happen. Cf. Pastor Aeternus, 6)
novusordowatch.org/2016/10/smoke-signals-white-smoke-1958
whitesmoke1958.com (including important interviews 1-3)
Then there is prophecy, including the real (or at least complete) 3rd Secret of Fatima.
Few know that the Third Secret was read by Pius XII in 1957 in the company of various prelates (unpublicized), one of them being the American Cardinal Samuel Stritch, who indirectly revealed 2 parts of it to 2 priest associates:
youtube.com/watch?v=nO-8UhGOagg&t=4s (3 min, 40 sec; the YT channel has more)
Even Benedict XVI when cardinal credibly revealed to Fr Dollinger, a close friend of his, that the Third Secret of Fatima included the foretelling of "a bad council and a bad mass": onepeterfive.com/cardinal-ratzinger-not-published-whole-third-secret-fatima
And that can only happen under a false pope, "the top," as Cardinal Mario Ciappi revealed. Cardinal Ciappi, who read the Third Secret, said, "In the Third Secret it is revealed, among other things, that the Great Apostasy in the Church will begin at the top" (letter to Prof. Baumgartner, 1995), i.e., the papacy, which we can be certain means John XXIII & his successors, allowing the counterfeit, Judeo-Masonic-inspired Vatican II church to be created.
If you become part of the "remnant Catholic faithful," you'll be poorer & marginalized (although many of your admirerers would surely follow you), but what price is too much to pay for the truth?
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, 6.
novusordowatch.org/2022/04/felix-cappello-heretical-pope-impossible;
novusordowatch.org/2015/04/heretical-popes-first-vatican-council
The Church Fathers, based on Apostolic Tradition and 2 Thes. 2:1-7, taught that the papacy would be removed during the time of the Great Apostasy. Whether it is restored is another question. Blessed Anna Maria Taigi prophesied that Sts Peter & Paul will appear in Rome to the astonishment of all & appoint a pope after a long period with the Chair of Peter held by false popes.
From Cardinal Manning:
“The apostasy of the city of Rome from the vicar of Christ and its destruction by Antichrist may be thoughts very new to many Catholics, that I think it well to recite the text of theologians of greatest repute. First Malvenda, who writes expressly on the subject, states as the opinion of Ribera, Gaspar Melus, Biegas, Suarez, Bellarmine and Bosius that Rome shall apostatize from the Faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ [Cardinal Siri/Poe Gregory XVII, 1958] and return to its ancient paganism. ...Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible; hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were from the face of the earth. Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church.” - Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, The Present Crisis of the Holy See, 1861, London: Burns and Lambert, pp. 88-90)
Peter, many of us are awaiting your refutation of the numerous questions disputing the Catholicity of your position. There are quite a few well articulated condemnations of your stance that employ irrefutable church teachings in support of their claim against you.. These critiques are certainty worthy of a reply, not just for us who disagree with your position but even moreso for those who follow you.
Surely your silence on these matters is not due to your own misgivings that your position could withstand this type of scrutiny. Therfore I put this to you as a dubia from all who seek answers and provide you with one such critique in the link below.
Awaiting your considered response,.
Concerned Catholics.
https://youtu.be/1d7_qnsIwKo?si=-wM0AvjQtivcwTtQ
To the extent that I have made a reply it is found in this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Road-Hyperpapalism-Catholicism-Disintegration-Theological/dp/1990685102
Fuller responses by other authors are found here:
https://www.amazon.com/Ultramontanism-Tradition-Authority-Catholic-Studies/dp/1960711598/
I think much of Salza and Siscoe's "True or False Pope" is well argued (though of course I regret their descent into "normies" in recent years).
I realize not everyone has time or money to get a book and read it. There have been some good articles online, I'd have to dig around and don't have time at the moment for that.
I'm surprised and disappointed to see you saying you think that the SS book is "well argued," Prof. Kwasniewski.
In recognition of the time involved in answering every such point made in refutation of your position may I request some clarity on just one such point?
The sedevacantist, in recognition of the indefectability of the Church holds that the heretic cannot be (by Divine law) head of the body of which he doesn't belong and therefore they refuse submission to such . While doing so they submit to every true Pope without reserve and all that he promugates, teaches or repeals in recognition of the promises made by Christ conderning His Vicar on earth.
You however feel at liberty to hold as questionable any such promulgations, teachings and annnulments made by who you consider to be true Popes but who, in the exercise of their Divinely instituted authority promulgate or repeal something that goes counter to your liking and you even go so far as to refuse submission to such..
How can this be considered a true Catholic position without reducing the Vicar of Christ to the status of a mere humanly, inspired legislator absent the Divine assistance promised and denying his promised indefectability?
Thank you seems so spare a comment….yet I offer it from the bottom of my heart. I said to a friend years ago, who was discussing with me resistance to seeing Truth, that until you are willing to let your heart be broken by the realization of how much you’d been lied to, you can’t.
We all tend to guard ourselves, at least to a degree, from the stark horrors of life. We are all waiting to exhale. Especially when the stakes are high, and what stakes could be higher than the Truth that is required for our salvation?
I read the following piece very recently. It is very different in some ways from yours (mine) and comes to perhaps a different conclusion but has that same beautiful and sincere ring of being willing to lose all for the sake of Truth.
As we negotiate this very tender but requisite moment in history may our common search for Truth be what binds us, even as Truth’s Sword divides away from us the Father of Lies and his works.
https://open.substack.com/pub/radicalfidelity/p/how-to-keep-your-soul-when-the-church?r=c6q4u&utm_medium=ios
The title of the article would in an ideal world read “the mission of Catholics.” Thanks for writing it and attempting to address the social stigma that has been created to keep Catholics from the truth.
Also, really interesting that you both held the R&R position. It makes it easier to share your work with others who currently hold that position.
I do not know how to square the below passage of Newman's Grammar of Assent with the account of truth given in this article.
"All things in the exterior world are unit and individual, and are nothing else; but the mind not only contemplates those unit realities, as they exist, but has the gift, by an act of creation, of bringing before it abstractions and generalizations, which have no existence, no counterpart, out of it."
Is there a synthesis which I am missing?
When Newman speaks of "abstractions and generalizations," he's referring to ideas or concepts we have in our intellect/mind, which exist only in the intellect & not in the material world, where only individual things/substances exist. Many individual cats exists in the material world, but the universal concept "cat" exists only in the mind.
The abstractions do reside only the intellect, but they conform to the reality of being outside the intellect.
For example, each individual tree is a particular instantiation of matter, distinct from every other tree. Yet the intellect can abstract from this sense data and see that they are all "trees", that they share the essence "tree".
This abstraction reside in the intellect, not in the things, but it conforms to the reality of the things.
Aristotle: "The true and the false reside not in things, but in the intellect."
Thank you, RosaryKnight and Mr. McCusker. I was nervous that Newman was denying the conformity of mind to reality by describing an ex nihilo "creation" of the abstraction with "no counterpart." But even his preceding line mentions externalities "brought home to us through the experiences and informations we have of them." So I just may not treat Newman as the clearest teacher on the subject.
The 'intellect' of R&R denies the indefectability of Christ's Church/Papal Infallibilty. V2 denies VI. Reality is 'beyond the pale', because big intellects are piqued by the audacity of God allowing a long interregnum.
The best answer I've heard to Pilate's question was given in video by Alice von Hildebrand in Stephen Payne's documentary, " The Wolf in Sheep's Clothing". The Truth is a man and God, Jesus Christ!