I would like to know what sedevacantists think about Padre Pio. Do they think he is a saint like I do, even though he was canonized by the conciliar Church? Or do they have problems with him because they think he accepted Vatican II and followed and accepted antipopes as popes?

First of all, I'd like to point out that there is no sedevacantist position on this or any other matter other than the position that the See of Rome is currently vacant and that the current claimant in Rome cannot be pope because he is a notorious and pertinacious heretic.

Individual sedevacantists may have hold a variety of views on any matter that is not a matter of faith and morals and certainly on any matter that has not been definitively settled by the Church.

As for Padre Pio, this sedevacantist believes he was a holy man during his lifetime.  There is a high likelihood that he may be a saint in heaven, just as there are others who are saints even though they are not specifically acknowledged as saints.  The private devotion to him is entirely appropriate; after all, there would be no declared saints if Catholics did not have a private devotions to particular individuals.  

However, his public veneration as a saint is not appropriate simply because the Vatican has so perverted the canonization process that no declaration on the matter of Blesseds or Saints can be trusted and they should not be publicly venerated.  This is why the Church celebrates All Saints Day.  

Extremely well said, TKGS.

Redoing canonisations?

Sigismund, many Catholics do not think the Church officially promulgated the NOM.

Please point us to the docuмent wherein you think it was officially promulgated.

The General Instruction to The Roman Missal.  Also, it seems to me that Pope Paul decreeing that it would be the ordinary liturgy of the Latin rite is promulgation.

What decree? Can you point us to the text please?

The General Instruction to The Roman Missal.  Also, it seems to me that Pope Paul decreeing that it would be the ordinary liturgy of the Latin rite is promulgation.

I have to side with Unregistered Guest on this issue.  Paul 6's decree announcing the Novus Ordo is entitled, Missalae Romanum, the same title as Pope Pius V's docuмent.  The General Instruction for the Novus Ordo does not actually promulgate the Novus Ordo, it merely explains how it is to be performed (and I use that word intentionally).

Paul 6's docuмent also does not actually promulgate the Novus Ordo either.  In fact, upon reading the docuмent it actually makes two commands:

1.  That the "words of the Lord be identical in each form of the canon" in this new missal; and,

2.  That the effective date is the First day of Advent of the current year.

Frankly, Paul 6 doesn't even authorize anyone to say this new mass let alone require anyone to say this new mass.

The fact is that, in spite of these facts, just about everyone took the new mass as being obligatory and ruthlessly persecuted anyone who refused.  There simply is no actual law, even in the Conciliar Church, that allows, authorizes, or requires anyone to use the Paul 6 Missal.

Padre Pio was very holy.
Wise Sedevacantists agree with that obvious fact.