Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

In-correct, actually John. ABL at one point almost took the sedevacantist path. He was very sympathetic towards sedes.

Sympathy for one has nothing to do with the validity of their opinion.  I have sympathy for Protestants, who desire in their hearts to please God, yet are unable to do so because of the heresies they espouse.  The paramount question in dealing with the Society's relationship to sedevacantism is thus: did Archbishop Lefebvre assent, interiorly and with supernatural faith, the sedevacantist position as being a historical fact?  If he did, then we must ask why he never taught thus and continued until his death to offer prayers to heretical usurpers as though they were legitimate claimants to the Holy See.

Well, it seems to me that an even more basic question would be, "Is sedevacantism true?"

gladius_veritatis said:

No position as to the exact nature of the present problem is, or is even meant to be, a solution.  That is something that many overlook, plunging into heady discussions with all sorts of ideas distorted from the start.

"What, in fact, is the problem?" is a completely different question from "What is the solution to the present problem?"

That is a much more succinct version of what I was trying to say.

What you're saying, Spiritus, sounds like you're saying we should ignore ONE of the major problems of our time because acknowledging it won't have any effect.  Well, it may not change the world, which is in a mess for many other reasons besides the non-Popes, but for me it did have an effect -- I can separate myself from nests of heresy and error, and perhaps I can please God and show loyalty by doing so.

There is no such thing as 'sede vacantism'.   :heretic:

Do you mean sedevacantism or sede vacante?

He means that smoking weed is a sign of predestination...

SpiritusSanctus said:

Quote

More than believing the Chair of Peter is empty is needed to change the state the Church and world are in.

That is true.  But the chair is still empty.  Just because recognizing it as a fact isn't going to change anything, doesn't mean it's not a fact.

You could say "More is needed to change Hollywood than better studio presidents."  And that's true, because to change Hollywood, you'd have to somehow stop it from being nearly entirely Jєωιѕн.  Just changing the studio presidents wouldn't change that.  But nevertheless, isn't it a fact that Hollywood studio presidents put out lousy, immoral movies?

In the same way, recognizing that Benedict isn't the Pope won't change the apostasy, blasphemy, heresy and just general lukewarmness of the masses.  But all of those things are somehow connected to having no Pope.  It's like God has allowed the people to deliver themselves to their tormentors.  

So yes, there are two major things that are necessary:  ( a ) For God to end the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr, which we have been in, in my estimation, since roughly the end of World War I, and which is characterized by ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic democracies after the American model -- this will be surely be done via the Minor Chastisement and ( b ) For the world to finally recognize that the Vatican was taken over and that Vatican II was a sham.  

But these two things are connected.  The Chastisement is the shock that will snap people awake.  Some of them, anyway.  In the 20th century, the devil made people lazy and greedy with all of this fake money, that we are now beginning to realize never really existed, it was all playing with numbers, playing with debt.  When that illusion fades, when reality sets in, people will come back to God and the Church -- one hopes.  

I agree overall, but you can't exactly present sedevacantism as a fact. That is one highly debatable subject. Obviously the existance of God is a fact, as is the fact that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. But you can go either way on whether or not we have a true Pope. My opinion is that these are not anti-popes, these are just bad Popes.

Spiritus Sanctus, are you thinking they are bad popes because of some personal sin of theirs, something we are all guilty of.  Are you thinking they are bad popes because they are heretics?  Fact is a true pope can't be a heretic.  

It's a fact that hasn't yet been established as such by the Church, Spiritus... An objective fact, but not a legal one.

But if people keep pretending these are Popes they won't have a Church very long.  That is what frustratingly few Catholics seem to understand.  You'd think they'd never heard the Leo XIII vision about the devil having a hundred years to destroy the Church.  They look at the smoking ruins of what sits in Rome and think that somehow it's going to change itself?  That's simply denial.  You should see this as an all-out assault by the devil, not as the work of a couple bumbling modernists who just don't know any better... What has happened is far too widespread for that.

There are two drastic conclusions we can choose from.  One is that there has been no Pope for decades ( mine ).  The other is that this monstrosity in Rome is the true Church ( yours ).  Either one is bad; the only question is, which one is true?  But yours is no more moderate or reassuring than mine; far less so, I'd say.  Maybe you think sedes are like Savonarolas, expecting perfection, overly rigid.  But what we're dealing with here is more than just an explosion of risque art.  If these are true Popes, Popes who teach heresies, and not just as private people, then think about what that means.  It means we will never know what the truth is.  That is the real consequence of believing these are Popes.

Non-sede traditionalists act as if there is no Pope.  They certainly don't listen to anything he says.  So they are sedevacantists after their own fashion anyway, whether they admit it to themselves or not.  Come on, Spiritus, would you trust Ratzinger to settle a burning theological dispute, the way Popes are supposed to do?

It has all gone too far now.  I assume God is going to step in to make sure the devil doesn't entirely take over.  Looking at the economic situation it's clear that big things are developing.  The timing of it is amazing.  I will start a thread elsewhere about my new interpretation of Apocalypse 17 and 18 which will send chills up one or two spines, I think.  I believe this book describes everything we're going through.
 

Raoul's perspective is not mine. I do not know who the Pope is at this time. That is different from thinking that a bunch of anti-popes are true popes or that there is no Pope. No one has ever shown any evidence that there even is such a thing as a 'sede vacantist'.

Pope Gregory XVII-- personal choice of Pope Pius XII(XIII){ student and deciple of Cardinal Rampolla]-- was True Pope until his death in 1989. Some say he was murdered. Pope Siri is the only 1958 or 1963 cardinal that can claim to be legally elected.