The formatting didn't come out right.

See here:

http://sede12.blogspot.com/2009/02/outline-of-sede-vacante-thesis.html

I am a sede and I do not consider those that attend the sspx heretics because of the unprecidented time that we live in. I think it is wrong for Bishop Dolan and Father Cekada to do this. We do live in confusing times. The best that we can do is pray and fast so that all Catholics are lead to the truth.

Thanks, Sedetrad.

I have for many years thought this subject involves the Third Secret.

"The pope will have much to suffer". What if it is a tiny mis-translation?  Like the papacy will have much to suffer?  There are several ways one might interpret that word pope or Holy Father.  She does not say which one.  It would be safe to say that perhaps all popes have much to suffer, as the are the Vicars of Christ, Who suffered for us.  .

Welcome, Elizabeth.  I am Eamon.  I just got canned from SGG - even barred from the property - for failing to quietly accept mind games delivered via sermon and gross hypocrisy that covers up the corrupting of children.  These are dark days, indeed, and none of us needs to have our burden made heavier by man-made mortal sins concocted by those who are naught but two-bit, mind-control goons.  Welcome and God speed.

If John-Paul II is the Antichrist, and Ratzinger is the power behind the Antichrist, how do you think God would feel about an "una cuм" mass mentioning either one?  Since the Man of Sin wants to be worshipped in the place of God, what is the difference between an una cuм mass and an indult or Motu Proprio Novus Ordo service?  Either one licks the warty, cheesy feet of Antichrist ( but pours some lovely Latin sweetener on those crusty knobs ).

Of course not everyone agrees that one of these men is the ACTUAL anti-Christ but we do know the deception would be incredibly subtle, hence "even the elect would be deceived, if it were possible."  I think JPII fits the bill better than the usual phony Hollywood version of Antichrist we all have in our imaginations, the pretty boy gone bad, who rants and raves and comes off like Vlad the Impaler after a couple cases of Red Bull.  It was never going to be that obvious; but the devil wanted you to think that it would be, so you would flatter yourself the way the Protestants do:  "The Antichrist will never fool ME."  Amazingly, many people still have the impression that the Anti-Christ will come in the future to blend all religions, when John-Paul II has ALREADY DONE THIS.  That is the magic trick of Satan -- making you constantly think that the bad stuff will happen in the future, so that you don't see it happening right under your nose today.  

At any rate, my soul screams out at the very notion of these mens' names in a Mass.  They are evil incarnate, as hyperbolic as that sounds.  Where dictators kill tens of millions of bodies, these Popes kill tens of millions of souls ( or more ).  If the only Mass available were twenty states away, I'd save my money and go to that Mass once a year rather than SSPX.  And while, yes, it is true  that I have an idealistic streak, I have shaved down my expectations for what to expect from Catholic priests in these times.  I don't expect the full truth from them about the political situation of the world, for instance, or to talk about Jєωιѕн control of the media and finance, or anything like that, as long as they hold to the essentials, to dogma.  The rest I can figure out on my own:  "The truth will set you free."

Is it dogma that heretical Popes should not be acknowledged whatsoever?  Perhaps not.  The reason I see this as an offense against God, even though it is not yet defined dogma, is because Christ says that those who don't gather with him are scattering.  Because of the hemmorhage of traditionalists who have all gone to the SSPX, the sedevacantists have no power and no numbers to elect a real Pope and are kept on the fringe, teetering on the verge of bankruptcy and obliteration.  And as soon as that happens, you can bet your bottom dollar that SSPX will go back into Vatican II.  So you can't just say that being a part of SSPX is harmless.  You are giving THEM your money instead of someone else -- but who really deserves it?  Who is really keeping the truth alive?

Because no good can come from apostate Rome at this point, all of those in communion with these anti-Popes, and who are engaged in this absurd game of make-believe that hard-bitten Modernists and Freemasons are going to "reform," are grievously harming the truth-tellers, the sedevacantists/privationists, and adhering to a comfortable half-truth.  It is pure make-believe that demon-possessed men like Ratzinger, after achieving their age-old Luciferian dream of obliterating the Vatican like piranhas, can be brought around by civilized dialogue and "talks."  And what is worse is that the SSPX knows it.  Abp. Lefebvre knew that the Vatican had been taken over, and often spoke of Freemasons and such.  That means his policy of being in perpetual, purgatorial dialogue with the lost cause that is Rome, not to mention his enforcement of the John XXIII mass and the "una cuм," is totally inexplicable unless -- though I hate to say it -- he was of the devil's party himself.  We can't afford to have false heroes anymore.  To call Abp. Lefebvre weak, wavering, senile or misguided is exactly the defense that many people once offered for John Paul II at Assisi.  The problem is that Lefebvre was a polymath, a genius, and so was JPII.  And how can it be that Bp. Fellay, who is middle-aged, has followed the EXACT same trajectory as Lefebvre, starting out as an uncompromising figure and then going soft?  If Vatican II is hell; and sedevacantism is heaven; clearly the SSPX is designed as a sort of limbo.

To continue the stream of verbiage, and direct it now towards the laity, I feel that those in the SSPX are worrying less about the truth, and more about covering their own behinds and finding a comfortable space in the middle.  Many of them in fact are terrified by the Vatican I pronouncement about the succession of visible Popes, having misunderstood it as prophecy.  Actually what the Vatican I Council wanted to do was to protect the power of the papacy from those who thought it was a vestige of the past, like monarchs and kings.  What is really says is that anyone who says there SHOULDN'T be a visible succession of Popes is anathema -- meaning, those who deny the Papacy altogether are anathema.  Not only that, but even if there is a long period of sede vacante, there is still a visible succession.

But here is the good news.  If you still hold that this Vatican I statement was prophecy, saying there would ALWAYS be popes at every moment, you can be a sedeprivationist -- meaning that they are material but not formal Popes.  I do not have enough expertise in canon law to say whether that is the case or not, and I hope to get into it further as I grow in knowledge.   Right now it seems a little picayune to me.  You have material but not formal priests, bishops, cardinals all electing other material but not formal priests, bishops, cardinals and Popes, in some kind of Through the Looking Glass version of the Catholic Church, where flesh-and-blood humans have been replaced by papier-mache figures... It's a bit silly.  I feel that either Christ is coming soon, or there will be a clean break and restoration, with no ties to these anti-Popes, but with apostolic succession through bishops such as Thuc.  Sedeprivationism, therefore, is very hard for me to get my head around.  But I do know it's a better position than is offered by SSPX.

When you think about it, when you study Archbishop Lefebvre's actions, he has done everything in his power to keep people allied to apostate Rome.  The question of whether they are to be "reintegrated" may just be a giant red herring, because through the una cuм mass they are ALREADY integrated.  
Magical sleight of hand, once again.  

Forget your dialogues and attempts at reconciliation.  Make a clean break.  Try to accept, because it's true, that the beautiful child named Rome has been kidnapped and instantly smothered to death, even though the kidnapper tells you he is still alive in order to get your ransom money.  Keep your money and put it on the kidnapper's head instead.  Support the real line of succession who will, if not save the world, at least save the remnant.

The man who feels the need to assert that all of the offices in the Church, including the Papal Office, should keep it to himself.  It has nothing to do with the Catholic faith.  It is a question of contingent fact.  It doesn't advance him one degree in grace and charity.  And without keeping it to himself, he ends in making the opinion the mark of unity, which is to commit the sin of schism.  Even if he does manage to hold his tongue, I fail to see what good making such an unnecessary judgment can accomplish.