I am of the impression that Francis is doing this upcoming act primarily, if not solely, because a tremendous amount of publicity (at least in the Catholic media) was generated when the Ukrainian Bishops formally and publicly requested him to do it and to refuse to do it would be very bad press for him.  He would be caught in a real bind trying to explain his way out of refusing in light of the fact that it was the Ukrainian bishops themselves who were beseeching him to do it.  It would seem quite difficult for him to beg out of it. 

Query as to why the Russian bishops did not join in with their fellow Ukrainian bishops! And still have not or if they have it has not been made public.  Did they even know that their Ukrainian counterparts were going to make this request?  It is just one more example of how incredibly disunited the Church is.

Assuming that he is, indeed, the Pope of the Catholic Church, and assuming that the consecration is pursuant to Our Lady's request and ends up being efficacious, I really don't care why he is doing it.  If it takes the Ukrainian bishops shaming him into it, so be it, perhaps they are God's instrument to make it happen.

Let's see what happens, and how things look this time next week.

And here's something else that is going to happen on Friday.  Going to be a busy day.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10634447/Biden-visit-Warsaw-Friday-meeting-Polish-President-Andrzej-Duda.html

Catholic Encyclopedia

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01559a.htm



St. John supposes in his Epistles that the early Christians are acquainted with the teaching concerning the coming of Antichrist. "You have heard that Antichrist cometh" (1 John 2:18); "This is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh" (1 John 4:3). Though the Apostle speaks of several Antichrists, he distinguishes between the many and the one principal agent: "Antichrist cometh, even now there are become many Antichrists" (1 John 2:18). Again, the writer outlines the character and work of Antichrist: "They went out from us, but they were not of us" (1 John 2:19); "Who is a liar, but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denies the Father, and the Son" (1 John 2:22); "And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God; and this is Antichrist" (1 John 4:3); "For many seducers are gone out into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh: this is a seducer and an Antichrist" (2 John 7). Also the time, the Apostle places the coming of Antichrist at "the last hour" (1 John 2:18); again he maintains that "he is now already in the world" (1 John 4:3).

Taylor Marshall

What if "2 Popes" do a "Double Consecration" of Russia?
4min 12sec





I'm so tired of the good pope vs bad pope false paradigm.


Both Benedict and Francis went to the Wailing Wall which is a public sign of denouncing of the Holy Sacrifice of Jesus (and prayer to the female Shekhinah?) and waiting for the coming of the Moshiach (Antichrist) and building of the third temple.


What's more is that both have made many statements showing they would be considered antichrists by St John the Apostle.

Benedict said Jєωs don't need to be converted. 

St John would call him an antichrist.

Someone downvoted me without rebutting the evidence or argument.


It's really not my argument but the definition put forth by St John the Apostle.

What would St John say?

These are but a few examples. There are many more.

 Is this not denying Jesus is the Christ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_the_Jєωs#:~:text=Pope%20Benedict%20XVI%20in%20his,%27%20at%20the%20proper%20time.%22

Pope Benedict XVI in his book Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week[4] (2011) has suggested that the church should not be targeting Jєωs for conversion efforts, since "Israel is in the hands of God, who will save it ‘as a whole’ at the proper time."[5]


Catholics Should Not Try To Convert Jєωs, Vatican Commission Says

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/10/459223058/catholics-should-not-try-to-convert-Jєωs-vatican-commission-says


Jєωs don't need to be redeemed
https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-2007-07-27-0707260165-story.html


https://novusordowatch.org/2018/09/controversy-after-benedict16-essay-judaism/

https://novusordowatch.org/2018/11/benedict16-no-mission-to-jews-just-dialogue/


How can someone who denies Christ consecrate anything to His Mother Mary?

The wailing wall is the perfect litmus test as to who is compromised, and who is not.

Agreed.  That almost seems like a Jєωιѕн ritual that’s the equivalent of dropping those grains of incense to the emperor ... only on the altar of Judaism.  I’ve seen pictures of nearly every leader doing it.

Sedevacantism is only secondarily about the pope at all (whether interior dispositions or heretical actions).  It's about what we believe about the Catholic Church.

R&R:  Church is capable of teaching grave error, of leading souls to hell, and of promulgating a Rite of Mass (Church's publish worship) that undermines faith and offends God.

SV:  Church can't do that.

THIS is what the SV vs. R&R conflict is about, and often it descends down into the weeds where people lose sight of the big picture.

Conservative Novus Ordo agree with SV, while liberal Novus Ordo agree with R&R on this MAJOR (of the entire crisis).

MAJOR:  Catholic Church cannot do such evil (SVs + Conservative NO) - rejected by R&R and Liberal NO
MINOR:  Conciliar Church did such evils. (SVs + R&R) -- rejected by Conservative NO + Liberal NO
CONCLUSION:  Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church (SVs)

*Liberal NOs like the reforms, but might think, for example, that the Church did evil in the past

I grant that SV's think this is the logical conclusion of R and R but I'm not sure its what R and R usually/always says.

I guess the difference seems to be that in the R and R scheme its possible for a pope to take non infallible magisterial action WITHOUT that action representing the Church.  Along with this sometimes would come the whole notion that the same Pope is the head of two different societies, the Catholic and the Conciliar, with all the non infallible heresy only being directed at the former.

I'm not saying it isn't a stretch, just trying to be fair to it.

You need more premises to make your point.  I think the argument might look something like

1: If a true Pope, even in a non infallible capacity, attempts to bind Catholics to a heretical teaching, this destroys the indefectibility of the Catholic Church

2: The Catholic Church is Indefectible

3: The Conciliar Popes have, at least in a non infallible capacity, attempted to bind Catholics to a heretical teaching.

4: The Conciliar Popes cannot be true popes

So I think you argue as if R and R denies 2, but I think what they actually deny is 1, which you think logically leads to 2 (which might be true, but isn't the same as denying 2.)

I guess the difference seems to be that in the R and R scheme its possible for a pope to take non infallible magisterial action WITHOUT that action representing the Church.

That's why I prescinded from making the argument about "the Pope" and the precise limits of infallibility.  You have to look at the bigger picture about what the Conciliar Church has become in its official teaching and its official public worship.  It's more about indefectibility of the Church, the notes and marks of the True Church, rather than quibbling about the precise limits of infallibility regarding a specific act.

If it were just a question of one or two problematic statements in Vatican II and there had been no New Mass, there would be no Traditional movement at all.  This is primarily about the New Mass.  Very few Catholics become Traditional Catholics after reading the docuмents of Vatican II.  They become Traditional Catholics after they see what's going on with the Novus Ordo Mass and see the Modernist theology being taught far and wide by the Conciliar Church.

That is in fact the one place where private judgment does come into play, in recognizing (or not recognizing) that the institution (as a whole) called the Conciliar Church has the marks and notes of the one True Church of Christ.  Archbishop Lefebvre clearly and repeatedly stated that it does not.  He then prescinded from dealind with the papacy, deferring to official judgment of the Church.  He clearly articulated the principle that the Papacy is guided and protected by the Holy Spirit and cannot falter like this, but then says that he cannot make a solid conclusion about how this happened.  He entertains a number of possible explanations.  Was the pope drugged?  Was the pope being controlled?  Was the pope replaced by a double?  [He didn't ask:  was the Pope blackmailed?]  He dismisses these as absurd.  Then he asks whether the See could be vacant?  And he concludes that it's quite possible, but defers to the judgment of the Church to eventually draw that conclusion.

Archbishop Lefebvre did not subscribe to Modern dogmatic R&R, which holds that indeed it's possible for the Papacy to go corrupt to this degree.  He always rejected that.  His was more a "sede-doubtist" type of position, where he felt he did not have the authority to decide the question and simply left it there.  This was also echoed by the then-Superior-General Father Schmidberger, who held the "benefit of the doubt" position [melior est conditio possidentis].  Modern dogmatic R&R (such as held here by Stubborn) falsely claims to be supported by Archbishop Lefebvre, whereas nothing could be farther from the truth.  Either you believe that the Papacy is guided and protected by the Holy Spirit or you don't.

Interesting, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre Died: March 25, 1991, Martigny, Switzerland.

That is interesting.

It appears to confirm what we already suspected: 

That there are real Catholics still in the Ukraine and in Russia there are not…

What appears to confirm this?  I don't follow.

Mentioning Ukraine is to limit (and mischaracterize) the scope of the consecration also.  He is consecrating Russia top stop the invasion of Ukraine, and not to stop the "errors" that will spread around "the [entire] world".  Nor does it have anything to do with reparation for the blasphemies (including Bergoglio's) against the Immaculate Heart of Mary.