I do not believe we have a Pope. I don't say we don't, but if we do, I am not aware of him. Also, I do not know how we are to receive another, but this is irrelevant. What matters is holding the Catholic Faith whole and inviolate, but this cannot be done by someone who adheres to heretical or schismatic sects.
Siri went along with the bogus V2 cult so he is out, and anyone following him is schismatic, such as David Hobson and TCW. They are wrong about BOD as well, and Patrick Walsh's letter to MHFM did not cite dogma at all.
Also he falsely accuses MHFM of interpreting Scripture contrary to the Church when they talk about the abomination of desolation and such. Interpreting contrary to the Church would be a case, for example like interpreting John 3:5 contrary to how the Church has interpreted it for us already in infallible decrees. No solemn definition was given to the book of Apocalypse.
MHFM changed my life too, but I have come to understand that they are heretical on a few points, most notably this one: Basel.
They also subtly deny the Salvation dogma, allowing post age-of-reason Protestant children who adhere to their heretical sects to be somehow Catholic, but they have to deny a bunch of Papal teachings to do this.
Hold one second. You said this.
I beg to interject here. First of all, Gregory XVII was already pope, and was not subject to anything written by an antipope. He was also ill, and recalled it in an interview that he was ill during the council.
Also, he was under
great duress as it were, with threats to his life and probably his family.
When one becomes a pope, and is under duress, and perhaps even drugged, we have to be very cautious of how we judge. There's a lot of disinformation going around, and I pray that I've found correctly. In my conscience I have.
The declassified Department of State docuмents say he was elected and took the name Gregory XVII. If this is true, then there are very few ways he can get out of being the pope. YOU CANNOT resign under duress. If he was the choice of the Holy Ghost (which I sincerely believe he was) then we must be extremely cautious how we speak about him.
To make a blanket statement and say "Anyone who is following Gregory XVII's line of succession is schismatic," is a load of bullocks!
This is an extremely confusing time, and I could say the same thing about people that are "sede vacant" because infallably the church has taught that there will be a PERPETUAL LINE OF SUCCESSION, so there can't be a 60 year period of sede vacant, which is why I'm NOT sede vacant, and because of the evidence that Gregory XVII was really elected, and because of the anathematized statement made in regard to succession.
So either you believe that "Fat John XXIII" and his pretender successors are "popes" or you believe that Gregory XVII, who was elected on at least four or five ballots over a 30 year period, was the pope, and that he had successors. There's no "there's no pope." That would go against that council.
The Vatican Council 1869-1870 A.D.
Ex Cathedra On The Permanence of the Primacy of Blessed Peter in the Roman Pontiff:
"Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord Himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema."The Vatican Council, Fourth Session, First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, 2,5
On The Permanence of the Primacy of Blessed Peter in the Roman Pontiff -July 18th, 1870 A.D.
So, in conscience, I can't be sede vacant, but I can follow someone who's ballot was worthy of 5 minutes of white smoke coming from the Sistine Chapel.
Am I a "schismatic" for that? I dare you to say I am.