I have not become a sedevacantist, but I better understand the sedevacantist position and sympathize with it more, especially what Archbishop Lefebvre had said in the past that came to near to sedevacantism. According to what a friend of mine told, if any saint was around in our day and saw the Assisi meetings, the saint would at first glance say that the man claiming to be Pope has lost the faith and is no longer the Pope. I would say that situation is still pretty complex though with all the different factors that have to be considered. I myself await a judgment from Holy Mother Church on whether John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI will have been declared to have been true Popes. The sedevacantist, SSPX, the Bishop Williamson/Vienna Five camp, indultarians, and the conservative NO all disagree on many issues, but there is one thing I know for certain: the Church in the future will judge our situation today.

It's good to think over these stances.  

Put aside the umbrella of sedevacantism and just focus on Assissi.

By participating in Assissi (I, II, III), is the pope giving the impression that all religions of the world should join together?  Is he intentionally or inadvertently giving the impression that all world religions are OK to worship and follow?  

Just stick to the Assissi question.  Remember, the Hans Kungs were all saying that JP II was praying with the other religions and this is a positive first step (Everything's a first step with those intellectually childish types), but JP II was saying "we're praying in Assissi with others" to try to play the semantic word games.  

Also, although I really haven't done any real studying on Assissi but what is the prime motivation to participate in such an event?  The secular media already lumps all religions together as superstition so JP II couldn't think he was scoring brownie points with them.  The primitive religions of the Third World aren't concerned with operating on a world scale.  The fallen away Catholics, who were completely disillusioned by the changes post-Vatican II, aren't going to see the hodge podge combo of the pope standing among the others and come running back.  What exactly did JP II (and B XVI) think they were achieving?

Is it possible that Assissi is the concilliarists deliberately thumbing their noses at Our Lady?

Wasn't there a portion of one of the Assissi's where a bunch of voodoo dancers were dancing in the presence of a statue of Our Lady of Fatima?  

Here is something on one of the Assisi's.

Remember when Lefebvre said that if they go through with Assisi it might be time to say "the pope is not the pope".  They went through with it big time:

http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/11Oct/oct4ftt.htm

The following is a news release with the then "Cardinal" Ratzinger commenting on the 2002 Assisi gathering:

ROME, (Zenit.org).- Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger described the train that took religious leaders from the Vatican to Assisi as "a symbol of our pilgrimage in history."

In an article in the forthcoming issue of 30 Days magazine, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith evaluates the historic summit that gathered the leaders Jan. 24.

"Are we not all, perhaps, passengers on the same train?" Cardinal Ratzinger asks in the article. "Is not the fact that the train chose as its destiny peace and justice, and the reconciliation of peoples and religions, a great inspiration and, at the same time, a splendid sign of hope?"

Multitudes of people gathered in all the stations between the Vatican and Assisi to greet the pilgrims of peace, says the German cardinal, who himself was a passenger on the train. The enthusiasm was no less in Assisi, especially among young people.

The people´s applause was directed above all to the Pope, who called the meeting "with the force of his personality, the depth of his faith, and the passion for peace and reconciliation that stems from it," Cardinal Ratzinger writes.

The applause was also for "all those who along with him seek peace and justice, and it was a sign of the profound desire for peace felt by individuals in face of the devastation that surrounds us, caused by hatred and violence," the cardinal adds. In his address that day, the Pope said that Christ is our peace. "As Christians, we must not hide this conviction: On the part of the Pope and the Ecuмenical Patriarch the confession of Christ our peace was clear and solemn" that day, the cardinal says.

The way undertaken by the world´s religious leaders "must be for all a way of purification," Cardinal Ratzinger continues.

Before his conversion, St. Francis was a Christian, but then he began to think of Christianity in a new way (not like the erroneous old way that was handed down from Christ through his Apostles and their Successors - JG). Only after this experience was he able to hear the voice of the Crucified, to see his nakedness, his poverty, and humiliation in contrast to the luxury and violence that previously seemed normal, the cardinal notes.

"Only then did he really know that the Crusades were not the appropriate way to protect the rights of Christians in the Holy Land, but that one had to take literally the message of the imitation of the Crucifix," the cardinal explains. From Francis "emerges even today the splendor of a peace that convinced the sultan and really knocked down the walls," Cardinal Ratzinger emphasizes.

"If we as Christians undertake the way of peace following St. Francis´ example, we must not fear to lose our identity: It is precisely then when we find it," the cardinal concludes. (Emphasis mine throughout - JG from Cardinal Ratzinger Comments on Lessons of Assisi

    In a nut-shell, Ratzinger is saying that Christ did not give us the deposit of faith which could be infallibly explained to the faithful by the Church, at least not until Vatican 2, for until then only some people got some parts of it, like Saint Francis, but that it never caught on until the 1960's heretical council was foisted upon us. You see, the Catholic Church was wrong to condemn, over and over again, and with the greatest clarity, that it is a mortal sin to worship with heretics as was done at the Assisi gatherings. For, according to Ratzinger, not only is it not a mortal sin to worship with heretics, but we "must" undertake the "way" by the "worlds religious leaders" as "a way of purification." So not only is it okay to worship with heretics but we "must" embrace their "way". Read again from the horse's mouth above if what I share seems to be unworthy of belief.

    I am now obliged to share the antidote to the poison from Ratzinger you were just forced to swallow:

 2. A similar object is aimed at by some, in those matters which concern the New Law promulgated by Christ our Lord. For since they hold it for certain that men destitute of all religious sense are very rarely to be found, they seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life. For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little, turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion. (Mortalium Animos, Pope Pius XI, January 6, 1928)
 
   Before I go on, I would like to ask that you read and understand the last sentence above a second and third time. This being done, you will see that Ratzinger is clearly condemned for his approval and association with the Assisi gatherings. We are left with a "pope" who plainly teaches and acts in direct opposition to what the Catholic Church teaches. What is a poor Catholic to do? That answer is crystal clear: Avoid Ratzinger as if your soul depended upon it...because it does!

    Saint Francis would go on to warn the army of the 6th Crusade not to go, not because Crusades were wrong, but because they would be defeated. The Crusades, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, were expeditions undertaken, in fulfillment of a solemn vow, to deliver the Holy Places from Mohammedan tyranny. Here again, if we listen to Ratzinger, we find out that it was wrong to deliver the Holy Places from Mohammedan tyranny, in part because the Muslim religion, according to Ratzinger, is, despite some imperfections, a good religion, and the devout Catholic should have no qualms about taking part in the worship of that religion. We find again and again the historical facts regarding the reasons for the Crusades, being distorted by the enemies of the Church, including those who claim to be her head. For the facts we must again leave Ratzinger and turn to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Notwithstanding their final overthrow, the Crusades hold a very important place in the history of the world. Essentially the work of the popes, these Holy Wars first of all helped to strengthen pontifical authority; they afforded the popes an opportunity to interfere in the wars between Christian princes, while the temporal and spiritual privileges which they conferred upon crusaders virtually made the latter their subjects. At the same time this was the principal reason why so many civil rulers refused to join the Crusades. It must be said that the advantages [from the Crusades] thus acquired by the popes were for the common safety of Christendom. From the outset the Crusades were defensive wars and checked the advance of the Mohammedans who, for two centuries, concentrated their forces in a struggle against the Christian settlements in Syria; hence Europe is largely indebted to the Crusades for the maintenance of its independence. Besides, the Crusades brought about results of which the popes had never dreamed, and which were perhaps the most, important of all. They re-established traffic between the East and West, which, after having been suspended for several centuries, was then resumed with even greater energy; they were the means of bringing from the depths of their respective provinces and introducing into the most civilized Asiatic countries Western knights, to whom a new world was thus revealed, and who returned to their native land filled with novel ideas; they were instrumental in extending the commerce of the Indies, of which the Italian cities long held the monopoly, and the products of which transformed the material life of the West. Moreover, as early as the end of the twelfth century, the development of general culture in the West was the direct result of these Holy Wars. Finally, it is with the Crusades that we must couple the origin of the geographical explorations made by Marco Polo and Orderic of Pordenone, the Italians who brought to Europe the knowledge of continental Asia and China. At a still later date, it was the spirit of the true crusader that animated Christopher Columbus when he undertook his perilous voyage to the then unknown America, and Vasco de Gama when he set out in quest of India. If, indeed, the Christian civilization of Europe has become universal culture, in the highest sense, the glory redounds, in no small measure, to the Crusades.

    The same encyclopedia speaks of Saint Francis' "burning desire for the conversion of the Saracens [Muslims - JG]."

    Ratzinger does not even suggest anyone to convert.

    Saint Francis' desire for the conversion of Muslims is also made clear in Butler's "Lives of the Saints - Saint Francis of Assisium":

Whatever he did, or wherever he was, his soul was always raised to Heaven, and he seemed continually to dwell with the angels. He consulted God before every thing he did, and he taught his brethren to set a high value upon, and by humility, self-denial, and assiduous recollection, to endeavour to obtain the most perfect spirit of prayer, which is the source of all spiritual blessings, and without which a soul can do very little good. The practice of mental prayer was the favorite exercise which he strongly recommended. Persons who labored under any interior weight of sadness, or spiritual dryness, he vehemently exhorted to have recourse to fervent prayer, and to keep themselves as much as possible in the presence of their heavenly Father, till He should restore to them the joy of salvation.

    Otherwise, said he, a disposition of sadness, which comes from Babylon, that is, from the world, will gain ground, and produce a great rust in the affections of the soul, whilst she neglects to cleanse them by tears, or a spiritual desire of them. After extraordinary visits of the Holy Ghost, the saint taught men to say: "It is You, O Lord, Who by Your gracious goodness, have vouchsafed to give this consolation to me a sinner, most unworthy of Your mercy. To You I commend this favor, that You preserve its fruit in my heart; for I tremble lest by my wretchedness I should rob you of your own gift and treasure."

    He was accustomed to recite the Lord's Prayer very slowly, with singular gust in each petition, and in every word. The doxology, Glory be to the Father, &c., was a beloved aspiration of this saint, who would repeat it often together at work, and at other times, with extraordinary devotion, and he advised others to use the same. A certain lay-brother once asking him leave to study, the saint said to him: "Repeat assiduously the doxology, Glory be to the Father, &c., and you will become very learned in the eyes of God." The brother readily obeyed, and became a very spiritual man. St. Francis sometimes cried out in the fervor of his love: "Grant, O Lord, that the sweet violence of Thy most ardent love may disengage and separate me from every thing that is under Heaven, and entirely consume me, that I may die for the love of Thy infinite love. This I beg by Thyself, O Son of God, Who diedst for love of me. My God, and my All! Who art Thou, O sweetest Lord? and who am I, Thy servant, and a base worm? I desire to love Thee, most holy Lord, I have consecrated to Thee my soul and my body with all that I am. Did I know what to do more perfectly to glorify Thee, this I would most ardently do. Yes: this I most ardently desire to accomplish, O my God."

    St. Francis sometimes expressed his pious breathings in Canticles. St. Teresa writes: "I know a person who, without being a poet, has sometimes composed, upon the spot, stanzas of very exact metre, on spiritual subjects, expressing the pain which her soul felt in certain transports of divine love, and the joy with which she was overwhelmed in this sweet pain." Several among the sacred writers, under the influence of the divine inspiration, delivered the heavenly oracles in verse. St. Francis, in raptures of love, poured forth the affections of his soul, and of the divine praises sometimes in animated verse.

    Two such canticles composed by him are still extant, and express with wonderful strength and sublimity of thought, the vehemence and tenderness of divine love in his breast, in which he found no other comfort than, could it be gratified, to die of love, that he might be for ever united to the great object of his love. His thirst of the conversion of souls was most ardent. He used to say, that for this, example has much greater force than words, and that those preachers are truly to be deplored, who, in their sermons, preach themselves rather than Christ, seeking their own reputation more than the salvation of souls; and much more those who pull down by their wicked and slothful lives, what they build by their good doctrine. He prayed and wept continually for the conversion of sinners with extraordinary fervor, and recommended to his religious to do the same, saying that many sinners are converted and saved by the prayers and tears of others; and that even simple laymen, who do not preach, ought not to neglect employing this means of obtaining the divine mercy in favor of infidels and sinners.

    So great was the compassion and charity of this holy man for all such, that, not contenting himself with all that he did and suffered for that end in Italy, he resolved to go to preach to the Mahometans and other infidels, with an extreme desire of laying down his life for our Lord. With this view he embarked, in the sixth year after his conversion, for Syria, but straight there arose a tempest, which drove him upon the coast of Dalmatia; and finding no convenience to pass on further, he was forced to return back again to Ancona. Afterwards, in 1214, he set out for Morocco, to preach to the famous Mahometan king Miramolin, and went on his way with so great fervor, and desire of martyrdom, that though he was very weak and much spent, his companion was not able to hold pace with him. But it pleased God that in Spain he was detained by a grievous fit of sickness, and afterwards by important business of his Order, and various accidents, so that he could not possibly go into Mauritania. But he wrought several miracles in Spain, and founded there some convents; after which he returned through Languedoc into Italy.

    The Orders of St. Francis and St. Dominic had been approved by word of mouth, by Pope Innocent III., who died in 1219, having sat eighteen years. Honorius III., who succeeded him, confirmed that of St. Dominic by two bulls dated the 22nd of December, 1216. St. Francis obtained of this pope an approbation of his missions; and in 1219 set sail with B. Illuminatus of Reate and other companions from Ancona, and having touched at Cyprus landed at Acon or Ptolemais, in Palestine. The Christian army in the sixth crusade lay at that time before Damiata in Egypt, and the soldan of Damascus or Syria, led a numerous army to the assistance of Meledin, soldan of Egypt or Babylon; for so he was more commonly called, because he resided at Babylon in Egypt, a city on the Nile, opposite to the ruins of Memphis; Grand Cairo rose out of the ashes of this Babylon. St. Francis with brother Illuminatus hastened to the Christian army, and upon his arrival endeavored to dissuade them from giving the enemy battle, foretelling their defeat as we are assured by three of his companions; also by St. Bonaventure, Cardinal James of Vitri, who was then present in the army, and Marin Sanut. He was not heard, and the Christians were driven back into their trenches with the loss of six thousand men. However, they continued the siege, and took the city on the 5th of November the same year.

    In the mean time St. Francis, burning with zeal for the conversion of the Saracens, desired to pass to their camp, fearing no dangers for Christ. He was seized by the scouts of the infidels, to whom he cried out: "I am a Christian; conduct me to your master." Being brought before the soldan, and asked by him his errand, he said with wonderful intrepidity and fervor: "I am sent, not by men, but by the most high God, to show you and your people the way of salvation, by announcing to you the truth of the gospel." The soldan appeared to be moved, and invited him to stay with him. The man of God replied: "If you and your people will listen to the word of God, I will with joy stay with you. If yet you waver between Christ and Mahomet, cause a great fire to be kindled, and I will go into it with your Imams (or priests) that you may see which is the true faith." The soldan answered, that he did not believe any of their priests would be willing to go into the fire, or to suffer torments for their religion, and that he could not accept his condition for fear of a ѕєdιтισn. He offered him many presents, which the saint refused. After some days, the soldan, apprehending lest some should be converted by his discourse, and desert to the Christians, sent him, escorted by a strong guard, to their camp before Damiata, saying to him privately: "Pray for me, that God may make known to me the true religion, and conduct me to it." The soldan became from that time very favorable to the Christians, and according to some authors was baptized a little before his death.

    How many of us would be willing to challenge Muslims or Protestants or heathens of eastern religions to the fire test. How many of us would be willing to follow through? That is the test of Faith, not the word salad of the Hegelian arch-enemy of Christ from Bavaria who currently poses as Benedict XVI.

    Perhaps Father Ratzinger does not know all that St. Francis preached or believed. Do ya think? Was that a pig I just saw fly by? No, it wasn't because Ratzinger knows very well what Catholic doctrine is, but as a died-in-the-wool progressive Hegelian he must not be satisfied with Catholic truth but always seek out new avenues to agitate in a perfectionist mode, which rather than getting to the truth, only circuмvents and creates more fallacies that result in a field day for his ally lucifer to recruit more souls into hell.

    Is Benedict aware that shortly before the saint of Assisi and founder of the Order of Friars Minor died, he penned some prophesies as recorded in Works of the Seraphic Father St. Francis of Assisi, Washburne, published in 1882 during the pontificate of Pope Leo XIII which can be found at Novus Ordo Watch. What are a few of those omens he warned of? Here are just a few:

"1. The time is fast approaching in which there will be great trials and afflictions; perplexities and dissensions, both spiritual and temporal, will abound; the charity of many will grow cold, and the malice of the wicked will increase.

"2. The devils will have unusual power, the immaculate purity of our Order, and of others, will be so much obscured that there will be very few Christians who will obey the true Sovereign Pontiff and the Roman Church with loyal hearts and perfect charity. At the time of this tribulation a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavor to draw many into error and death.

   Do you think Ratzinger's aware of that little prophecy above? Note: "not canonically elected." Please note Pope Paul IV's infallible decree cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio as to what authority a heretic would have and how Ratzinger and his conciliar predecessors could not be "canonically elected." Read on: "will be raised to the Pontificate." Was not Ratzinger and his conciliar predecessors "raised to the Pontificate" and yet one of the holiest of saints warns that we will not have a valid true Sovereign Pontiff. Then we read "by his cunning, will endeavor to draw many into error and death." Oh, that fits Ratzinger and his conciliar predecessors to a tee. Can you say ecuмenism, syncretism, globalism, universal salvation, and of course, Modernism the heresy of heresies as Pope St. Pius X identified it for they are heresies all. And yet the vast majority have been deceived into thinking these men were true popes.

    Does the above and the following not sound eerily familiar? Yes, St. Paul said the same thing in 2 Thessalonians 2: 3-5:

"Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God. Remember you not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

    Now, the Church defines "revolt" here as the following:

"'A revolt'... This revolt, or falling off, is generally understood, by the ancient fathers, of a revolt from the Roman empire, which was first to be destroyed, before the coming of Antichrist. It may, perhaps, be understood also of a revolt of many nations from the Catholic Church; which has, in part, happened already, by means of Mahomet [Mohammed], Luther, &c., and it may be supposed, will be more general in the days of the Antichrist."

    And who might that "man of sin" be? Let us provide the discernment of the Church:

"'The man of sin'... Here must be meant some particular man, as is evident from the frequent repetition of the Greek article: 'the man of sin, 'the son of perdition, 'the adversary or opposer. It agrees to the wicked and great Antichrist, who will come before the end of the world.

    And the temple? Well we can see it playing out in the headlines today with the Muslim manipulation of the Mideast that threatens to destroy Jerusalem and spread its hideous hate throughout the world into a global caliphate (khalifa) where Islam rules and Sharia Law is the law of the land. Goodbye Constitution, goodbye Church Law, goodbye freedom, goodbye Sacred Scripture; Hello, Koran and Hate like you could never have believed! Maybe that's all part of the great chastisement and our call to be martyrs for Christ. See below what the Church discerns as the meaning of "temple":

"'In the temple'... Either that of Jerusalem which some think he will rebuild; or in some Christian church, which he will pervert to his own worship: as Mahomet has done by the churches of the east.

    Now see the third thing St. Francis predicted:

"3. Then scandals will be multiplied, our Order will be divided, and many others will be entirely destroyed, because they will consent to error instead of opposing it.
 
   Here again we can see the scandals multiplied with the sex scandals and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, not to mention silent consent to abortion and, possibly worse the deception of souls. Oh, it will not go well for them when they face their Maker. Francis says "will consent to error instead of opposing it" and we immediately equate that to 2 Thessalonians 2: 10-11:

"And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe a lie. That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity."
 
   Woe! Read that carefully because St. Francis was dead on with that omen which we can attest to has occurred and continues to play out in this time of the Great Apostasy. Below is the Church's explanation of the meaning if anyone was still in doubt.

"'God shall send'... That is God shall suffer them to be deceived by lying wonders, and false miracles, in punishment of their not entertaining the love of truth."

    Is this not exactly the state of so many Catholics today and the world as well? They revel in lying wonders, willingly accepting the deception out of indifference and rebellion; out of laziness and greed for to acknowledge and accept the truth would mean they would have to move out of their comfort zone and into that rarified air of seeking to be saints by accepting everything Christ's Church teaches, no exceptions. Because of man's stubbornness, God has left man to his own malaise allowing the revolution against the Church and holy Faith from Mohammed to Luther to Vatican II. It is so clear that it's amazing how people can't see the truth. The great question is: Do they really want to know the truth? Sadly, most do not.

"4. There will be such diversity of opinions and schisms among the people, the religious and the clergy, that, except those days were shortened, according to the words of the Gospel, even the elect would be led into error, were they not specially guided, amid such great confusion, by the immense mercy of God.
 
   Did you catch that? "Diversity of opinions and schisms", "the religious and the clergy", and "amid such great confusion", sound familiar? The Gospel of St. Matthew, Chapter 24 and modern day times over the past century lay out our situation today. Oh, yes it is so crystal clear. There are more prophesies to be found at the above mentioned site, but let me leave you with the seventh and final one that should definitely ring the clarion that we are in the times foretold by holy Scripture and St. Francis.

"7. Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor, but a destroyer."

    Woe again! Have the vast majority of preachers not remained silent? Have others, such as progressives, Communists, heathens and Hegelians not trampled the truth under foot and deny more and more Catholic truths in order to please man? And what of the "Sanctity of Life" where abortion has become the law of the land and man plays God. Oh, the humanity. We then should not be surprised that rather than a true pope, Christ by His permitting Will, has sent not a true Pastor, but a destroyer. Have not Roncalli, Montini, Wojtyla, and Ratzinger been such destroyers? If you can't answer that in the affirmative, then I pray you wake up soon from the nightmare that is reality.

    On this 25th commiseration of the Heresy of Syncretism publicly dating back to the first Assisi Summit, all need to realize the veracity of St. Francis's words. How many are aware of how the perfect storm is forming for fulfillment of all foretold? How close are we to Christ returning? Stay tuned and pray. St. Francis of Assisi, pray for us. Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us who are so dense we cannot see the signs Thou hath provided.

Quote from: Kephapaulos

I have not become a sedevacantist, but I better understand the sedevacantist position and sympathize with it more, especially what Archbishop Lefebvre had said in the past that came to near to sedevacantism. According to what a friend of mine told, if any saint was around in our day and saw the Assisi meetings, the saint would at first glance say that the man claiming to be Pope has lost the faith and is no longer the Pope. I would say that situation is still pretty complex though with all the different factors that have to be considered. I myself await a judgment from Holy Mother Church on whether John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI will have been declared to have been true Popes. The sedevacantist, SSPX, the Bishop Williamson/Vienna Five camp, indultarians, and the conservative NO all disagree on many issues, but there is one thing I know for certain: the Church in the future will judge our situation today.

God has already made clear His judgment.

Galatians 1:8- "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. [9] As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema."

Do the last 5 antipopes "preach a new gospel"? Absolutely.

St. Paul tells us we are to anathematize him, an Apostle, should he come with another gospel.

Where's the hold up? What's there to "think about" and "wait around" for?

And if that wasn't enough, here is more:

The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”

St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30: "A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30: "This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. De great. Christ. Cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope."

St. Francis De Sales (17th century), Doctor of the Church, The Catholic Controversy, pp. 305-306: "Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinions, as did John XXII; or be altogether a heretic, as perhaps Honorius was. Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church..."

St. Antoninus (1459): "In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church." (Summa Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub.)

Pope Paul IV, Bull cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559:
 6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact,
determine, decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop,
even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the
aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the
Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff,
has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the
unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus
acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent
authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all,
nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way…
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power…

10. No one at all, therefore, may infringe this docuмent of our approbation, reintroduction,
sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash presumption contradict it. If anyone, however, should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul.

Given in Rome at Saint Peter's in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1559, 15th February, in the fourth year of our Pontificate.

+ I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church…”

The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Papal Elections,” 1914, Vol. 11, p.
456: "Of course, the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female [as Pope] would be null and void."

Pope Innocent III (1198–1216): “Still less can the Roman Pontiff boast, for he can be judged by men — or rather, he can be shown to be judged, if he manifestly ‘loses his savor’ in heresy. For he who does not believe is already judged.” [Sermo 4: In Consecratione PL 218:670.]

“To this end faith is so necessary for me that, though I have for other sins God alone as my judge, it is alone for a sin committed against the faith that I may be judged by the Church. For ‘he who does not believe is already judged’.” Sermo 2: In Consecratione PL 218:656.

St. Alphonsus Liguori (†1787) “If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate.” Oeuvres Complètes. 9:232

Vatican I (1869), Serapius Iragui (1959) “What would be said if the Roman Pontiff were to become a heretic? In the First Vatican Council, the following question was proposed: Whether or not the Roman Pontiff as a private person could fall into manifest heresy? “The response was thus: ‘Firmly trusting in supernatural providence, we think that such things quite probably will never occur. But God does not fail in times of need. Wherefore, if He Himself would permit such an evil, the means to deal with it would not be lacking.’ [Mansi 52:1109] “Theologians respond the same way. We cannot prove the absolute unlikelihood of such an event [absolutam repugnatiam facti]. For this reason, theologians commonly concede that the Roman Pontiff, if he should fall into manifest heresy, would no longer be a member of the Church, and therefore could neither be called its visible head.” Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae. Madrid: Ediciones Studium 1959. 371.

Canon 2314, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic: 1) Incur ipso facto [by that very fact] excommunication…”

Canon 188.4, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “There are certain causes which effect the tacit (silent) resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of the law, and hence is effective without any declaration. These causes are… (4) if he has publicly fallen away from the faith.”

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943:“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum #9, June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.

St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).”


The "I will wait for a judgment of the Church" position is dead wrong.

There you have the Church's judgment.

And this all stems from the dogma that heretics, schismatics and apostates are not Catholic, have no authority in the Church, can hold no offices, have no jurisdiction, and are definitely outside the Church.

Nice Post!    :cheers: