.

"The cement has already dried..."

... if he would "reverse" the Church's teachings on the immorality of artificial contraception or ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ acts, ...

Two things about the WYD visit:


1)  When he put the beach ball and the T-shirt on the altar at
St. Mary Major, I thought, "These are things they passed out
at WYD," so to speak, inasmuch as they are mundane objects
that remind one of the event.  Well, what else do they "pass
out"at WYD?  They pass out the Eucharist like it's candy, and
they pass out condoms.  Now he wouldn't need to set the
Eucharist on the altar at St. Mary Major, and he wouldn't dare
set some condoms on the altar.  But what he DID set there so
we can be reminded of WYD reminded me of those two other
things, and so, by association, what's the difference?  To me,
the message is literally the same:  it was as if Francis had set
a plastic cup with Communion hosts, along with a few
packages of condoms on the TRADITIONAL altar of St. Mary
Major.  I know a traditional priest, who has a degree in
theology from the Pope in Rome, so he is an approved
theologian, and when I told him this, he agreed with me: It's
the same thing by association!  He told me, that when he was
in Rome he wanted to say Mass at that altar of St. Mary Major,
but he was unable to get "permission."  It is among the most
ornate and beautiful un-corrupted altars left in the world.  It is a
principal archbasilica in Rome, second only to St. John Lateran,
the Pope's "Cathedral." What's interesting is, the Pope didn't
need permission to have access to this most inaccessible altar,
and he made a media event out of placing a beach ball there
with a WYD T-shirt.  But a trad priest, with a degree in theology
from the Pope in Rome, is "not allowed" to say Mass at this
same altar.  IOW, on the surface, this beach ball / T-shirt "event"
is a "so what?" kind of thing, but if you look at it a bit more
critically, it becomes quite ominous, indeed, as it implies papal
approval of contraception by association.



2)  What did the so-called president of Brazil do the day after
Francis left?  She signed into law the legalization of same-sex
so called marriage in Brazil.  Now, that's not something that
Francis would have gone on record condoning, but did he react
to it?  Did he publish a denouncement?  Did he show his
disapproval in any way whatsoever?  No.  So, by his SILENCE,
he approves of it.  And her apostate act can be seen as a bad
fruit of Francis' visit to her country, when he met her in person
and is on YouTube planting a hot kiss on her cheek.  "By their
fruits you shall know them."

Quote from: Neil Obstat

So then you should be fine when JPII is "canonized a saint."

I don't know.  I guess that it depends if the sede position is correct, and as someone who has seriously considered that position, I don't know.

Seriously considered the position is the last thing it looks like you have done.

You routinely ignore what is directed at you and respond nothing.

Tell me, have you read all the articles and arguments of sedevacantism from start to finish? At least the ones Cekada has written?

It is difficult to believe that a true Pope can canonize someone who is not in Heaven; how could someone who genuinely possesses the "Keys to the Kingdom" do such a thing?

Uh, HELLO!!! EARTH TO JEHANNE!!! HE COULD NOT BECAUSE HE IS NOT A REAL POPE!

And NEWSFLASH: this already happened anyways.

Did they not "canonize" Mother Teresa and Escriva, both public heretics and apostates? Do you accept those "con-anizations"?

On the other hand, if Pope Francis is a fake, an anti-Pope, no explanation is needed, is there?

What is said in the movie The Song of Bernadette applies to people like you:

For those who believe in God no explanation is necessary; for those who don't believe in God no explanation will suffice.

For me, what would be the "final straw"?

I would bet Jorge could celebrate Hannukah with Jєωs and light menorahs and deny Christ in front of Rabbis and you would still consider him Pope.

Oh wait...that already happened.

I suppose if Pope Francis would ever contradict, explicitly, the Church's teachings on the natural law, I would become a sede.

Oh so the fact that he has said and done EXPLICITLY HERETICAL, BLASPHEMOUS AND APOSTATE things is not enough for you?

The natural law is above the Divine Law then?

You are an idolater.

For instance, if he would "reverse" the Church's teachings on the immorality of artificial contraception or ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ acts, then I would certainly be convinced that sedevacanatism is the correct position.  Right now I have some doubts, but that's all that they are.  No "smoking gun" so far, but that remains to be seen.

The smoking gun has been there for decades without even getting into the issue of the personal heresy or apostasy of the antipopes.

That is, it has been there for honest and good willed people.

There is no bigger blind than the one who doesn't want to see.

Leave them alone: blind they are, guides of the blind. And if the blind be guide to the blind, both fall into the ditch.