I don't think it's a heresy.  Yet.   I just think it's unjust to separate yourselves from other sedevacantists, as if we don't want a Pope, as if we are some lower species because we don't have an imaginary friend as Pope.  Roscoe especially is incredibly aggravating when he tries constantly to disassociate himself from... Himself.  Because whether he likes it or not, he is a sedevacantist.

You can see the same desperation in the "sedeprivationist" theory.  The Popes under this so-called "Cassiacuм thesis" are material but not formal Popes.  And the priests and bishops with invalid Holy Orders are therefore material but not formal priests and bishops.  So we have an entire Church of material but not formal clergy -- a ghost Church, a Through the Looking Glass church.  If all these ghost priests, ghost bishops and their ghost Pope suddenly have a change of heart, if they recant their errors, THEN they will be restored formally to the faith and it will once again be the Catholic Church.

Granted.  If they renounce their errors, it will be.  But they are not going to.  And in the meantime, all those who don't make a clean break are weakening the resistance, the real Church, which is now in eclipse.  

The human capacity for self-delusion really is limitless.

Sedeprivationists and Siri-ites hinder unity in an emotional sense, but not in a real sense.  In general, parentsfortruth and roscoe agree with the detested "sedes" on the essentials.  We probably go to the same kind of sede/trad churches.  For that reason I can't say they're being divisive.  

But their acolytes do show a certain reluctance to face reality -- a reluctance I understand, as nothing is harder for a Catholic than to say there is no Pope.  But that doesn't change the fact that we DO NOT HAVE A POPE.  Even if one is being kept in a cage somewhere in Vietnam, with bamboo shoots being shoved under his fingernails, suffering for the faith, he still can't guide us or teach us.  This is why I say that the dreaded term "sedevacantism" reflects our predicament perfectly.  

---

The "other side" is not so kind.  I recall David Hobson saying that Bishop Pivarunas of CMRI "holds the heresy of popeless ecuмenism."  Does he even know what "ecuмenism" means?  And how is saying that we're without a Pope a heresy?  The Church is not only without a Pope whenever one Pope dies, but there have been times where people were confused about the very identity of the Pope.  

Siri-ites, I must question your discernment of spirits if fast-talking hucksters like Hobson and Malachi Martin are the guys you really want to follow.  You need better spokesmen, and badly.  I read all through Hobson's website and he has no proof of Siri being Pope, he just tells us to blindly believe it because he says so.  Well, who are you, David Hobson?  

I think that its just another variation on the religion of man, some people just can't believe that there is no pope, they need a pope to follow, its just not enough for them to say "Sede Vacante!"and just follow the dogmas of the Catholic faith, etc.

And the entire Siri thesis pretty much relies on the testimony of one Vietnamese priest.

Not really. You can cite the testimony of Cardinal Tisserant as regards the conclaves. Also, the docuмents that were cited in the book The Vatican Exposed. So it's not just one testimony, it's several sources.

Quote from: DeMaistre

I think that its just another variation on the religion of man, some people just can't believe that there is no pope, they need a pope to follow, its just not enough for them to say "Sede Vacante!"and just follow the dogmas of the Catholic faith, etc.

And the entire Siri thesis pretty much relies on the testimony of one Vietnamese priest.

Not really. You can cite the testimony of Cardinal Tisserant as regards the conclaves. Also, the docuмents that were cited in the book The Vatican Exposed. So it's not just one testimony, it's several sources.

Oh well, I think that he was elected pope, but he became a heretic.

UFO abductee stories are MK Ultra ops and they certainly are demonic.

There is much information about Gregory XVII. I have found alot in just a cursory glance on the computer. For the love of pete, even the C.I.A. has records that he was validly elected pontiff, and that he was "subjected to ill/violent treatment," and then voila out comes commie John.
And as far as condoning anything, I am telling you that they can force anyone to look like they are doing something or saying something when under torture,duress, or drugging.
That was a strange time to be a Catholic. My mother remembers it well. Pious XII was alive, and they all awaited the Secret of Fatima. Then, the death of Pious and she said the world went upside down. No secret released, but worse EVERYTHING she had been taught as a young girl who went to Catholic school her whole life was changed. NOTHING was the same. She any many others then proceeded down the road to perdition, why after all if this teaching changes, eventually they will all change.

There is only two alternatives to 1958-- Roncalli or Siri. Since we know that John is an anti-pope, there is no other possibility than Greg XVII being the true Pope. FBI or CIA confirmation is only one item of evidence.

And what part of "I am bound by the secret" don't you understand?  Why can't you just take him at his word for it and move on?  Why force him into positions at the mere force of your will?  Because of fantastic intrigue?  Wake up!