FIrst I proved  that all dioceses are working for the State and Federal.  Which makes them communist.  Reading of Cardinal Manning and Cardinal Mindszenty shows just how the communist are and schemes and take overs.  Once I saw that and the pope is also in that arena and mentality, I knew that Pope Pius XI and XII stated, anyone who aligns themselves with communism, masonry are excommunicated.  So, it is not sedevacantist, it is not wanting to align myself and family with communist, Marxism.

* Does the Catholic Church have a pope right now?
-> Yes, it is Pope Paul VI, the last Pope acknowledged by the whole Church, and who has exiled from the Vatican in July 12th, 1981.

* For how long has the commonly-held pope (in Rome) not been the real pope?
-> For 37 years.

* If we have a Pope, who is he (name and place of residence)?
-> Pope Paul VI, living in Portugal: "In Portugal the dogma of the faith will always be preserved"

* Is the Catholic Church currently visible or invisible?
-> Visible through the traditionalist bishops who have a jurisdiction from Pope Paul VI.

* Is there any priest/bishop/pope you would currently trust now, or follow in matters of faith without judging his every move?
-> Those who consider themselves in communion with the true Holy Father.

* How do you reconcile Church indefectibility with the fact (as you hold it) that the current, putative Pope isn't actually a Pope? And the fact that the entire Church structure believes that he is the Pope?
-> The entire Church structure does not really believe that he is the Pope, because traditionalists do not act as though he were the Pope.

* Do you believe that Sedevacantism is a dogma of the Faith? When was it added to the Deposit of the Faith? What authority added it?
-> No, it is not, because several statements of sedevacantists are wrong. They deny pacific acceptance, the hierarchy of the Church, the Apostolic succession, the fact that bishops cannot teach heresy altogether...

* Do you believe it's possible to have a less-than-saintly pope on Peter's throne? How about a man who has committed, or who commits, sin? How about a Pope who commits grave sin(s)? How about a man who personally holds some errors? Are you familiar with many Popes throughout Church history? How about Popes that lived before the 18th century?
-> It is possible that a Pope be a great sinner, or even in some circuмstances that he teach errors when his teaching is not infallible - but he won't do that wilfully.

* How do you reconcile the notion that, in your estimation, the Catholic Church hasn't provided us laymen with any means of dealing with this unprecedented Crisis? Because as you see it, there is no Epikeia, no ability to disobey a lawful pope, no supplied jurisdiction, etc.
-> Because there is no need.

* What do you think of SSPX masses?
-> The SSPX priests should not name the antipope at Mass, because he has not been ackwnoledged by the whole Church, and he who has to be named is the last Pope who has been acknowledged by the whole Church, Pope Paul VI. There has not been valid elections after him, because he is still in life, and there is no need of any election, no vital necessity: the Church teaches as a dogmatic fact that Pope Paul VI is still in life.
-> However, people must not stay at home, because sedevacantist masses are not better, since the doctrine of priests has also an infuence of the Mass; now, the doctrine of sedevacantist priests is bad.

* What do you think of Archbishop Lefebvre?
-> He should have believed firmly and openly to Paul VI's survival, since it is he who has allowed the Swiss exorcisms.

* How many true priests/bishops/cardinals exist? A handful? Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Millions?
-> Idk.

* What kind of priest is needed to say the Mass you would attend? One from CMRI? SSPV? Indpendent? One ordained before 1962? Are there no priests left?
-> The priest of my area who celebrates Mass una cuм Paul VI.

* Do you realize that some independent priests are simply weak in the virtue of obedience? That is, while professing to be "fighting for the truth" and all, they merely couldn't follow orders in the SSPX, SSPV, FSSP, etc. and left so they could "be their own boss".
-> Sure.

* Should you attend some Traditional Latin Mass, or just stay at home?
-> Staying at home when you can attend mass is a sin.

* Can the crisis/lack of pope situation be resolved ever? How will you know a new legitimate Pope has been elected? Will Our Lord, Our Lady, St. Michael, Sts. Peter and Paul, etc. do something personally to appoint a Pope and/or cardinals? Are we waiting for something in the very short-term future such as  the Three Days of Darkness or The End of Time?
-> It is impossible that a Pope be appointed by a saint without any election, because the Church is Apostolic. It is also impossible that there be no true Pope currently, because there is not effort to provide an election; now, when the Church needs a Pope, the process of election begins, as a vital necessity: the Church is like a pregnant woman.

* Is there anything a person (priest, religious, or layman) can do to help end or ameliorate this Crisis? If so, what?
-> Pope Paul VI, who will soon reappear in Rome, denounce modernism, and reveal the names of his cardinals in pectore, so that the Apostolic succession remain.

* Are you aware of the actions of past popes throughout Church history? The Great Schism? The fact that St. Vincent Ferrer was on "the wrong side" in that crisis?
-> All the saints who were in error did not receive revelations in favor of the false pope, but were in ignorance or simply based their judgment on natural reason, which is feeble - but all the saints who received private revelations were in favor of the Roman Pope. In the same way, today, there is not a single sedevacantist of lefebvrist who has received a revelation telling him that his position was right - whereas several persons have heard the Lord tell them that Pope Paul VI was still alive.

* What do you think of the various priests/bishops who seem to be fearless in their defense of the Faith, though they are not sedevacantist? For example: Bishop Williamson, and many SSPX priests (though there are countless others!)
-> They do not accept the truth.

* Should we actually hate the pope? The modernist (or all) cardinals? Bishops? Catholics who are not sedevacantist?
-> We must love the sinner and pray for his conversion.

* What do you think of Fatima?
-> People do not understand Fatima, because they have despised the prophecy of Jacinta regarding the year 1972, which is the date of Paul VI's replacement with a double. One must add the prophecy regarding Portugal, which refers to the exile of the Pope.

* Do you acknowledge that normally the Catholic Church has a Pope, the spiritual leader of all Catholics? Do you believe that all Catholics must normally submit to this pope, or be in schism?
-> Sure.

* With the foregoing statement in mind, do you realize that Sedevacantism is a positive (in the sense that you're doing something) action, not a neutral one or a lack of action? That is, an SSPX-supporting Traditionalist isn't "making a choice" in the same way you're "making a choice".
-> Sure. Hence so many sedevacantists are proud: their doctrine has a negative influence on their soul.

* Especially if you deny the validity of 1962 masses, you have to ask yourself "Why would God abandon His people and His Church for 51 years, with no means of salvation available to the vast majority of people?"
-> The new mass is valid but does not provide as many blessings as the true Mass.

* Do you have a family? Do you honestly believe that staying at home (or attending a small chapel of 10 people) will be more beneficial to your children than attending, say, an SSPX chapel?
-> Staying at home is sinful.

After all, it's not like the Novus Ordo is said in the latter, and aside from mentioning the Pope's name during the canon (quietly), nothing else goes on that a Sede could complain about. Do you honestly think mentioning the Pope's name during Mass will destroy your child's faith?
-> It will be forbidden to keep naming Francis when it will be have been declared by the Church, that is to say by the true Pope, that Francis is an antipope. But now it is legal. Sedevacantist masses are not better because the doctrine of their priests contradicts Catholic doctrine, and it has a negative influence on the Mass.

Yes but that's not a problem. Firstly it is the Church herself who teaches that he is still alive, secondly I know a priest who has seen him in 2007 in Fatima, when he was already 110 years old...

Recently, a Japanese woman has died at 117 years old. In my area, there is a religious sister who is 107 years old (she used to assist a famous exorcist, Father Matthieu).

*
-> People do not understand Fatima, because they have despised the prophecy of Jacinta regarding the year 1972, which is the date of Paul VI's replacement...

So it was 1972... sorry I couldn't be bothered to brave that neck-deep morass of malarchy the first time round.

Amakusa - Presumably you're familiar with Fr. James Wathen's great book The Great Sacrilege? That was written in 1971 - so all of the many and very grave accusations Fr Wathen brought to bear against Paul VI were against the genuine one, and not the "double." How do you address these?

Just thought I'd ask (for fun, if nothing else).

BTNYC said:

but I do find his posts to be a good source of amusement. I suggest taking his posts in the same spirit.  

and he reads much easier than Glaston.

Amakusa subscribes to the "imposter Paul VI" thesis. He believes the "fake" Paul VI took control around 1972 or 1973 (somewhere around there, I don't remember exactly, but definitely no earlier than 1972). Of course, this still leaves the "real" Paul VI responsible for Vatican II and the Novus Ordo, which Amakusa, when it is pointed out to him, dismisses as the work of the Freemasons who "surrounded" Paul VI.

But just to clarify, you also believe that Paul VI was a true pope and remained so, only that he shoulders full responsibility for promulgating VII and the NO, rather than having been drugged and manipulated.

Quote from: Graham

Quote from: BTNYC

Amakusa subscribes to the "imposter Paul VI" thesis. He believes the "fake" Paul VI took control around 1972 or 1973 (somewhere around there, I don't remember exactly, but definitely no earlier than 1972). Of course, this still leaves the "real" Paul VI responsible for Vatican II and the Novus Ordo, which Amakusa, when it is pointed out to him, dismisses as the work of the Freemasons who "surrounded" Paul VI.

But just to clarify, you also believe that Paul VI was a true pope and remained so, only that he shoulders full responsibility for promulgating VII and the NO, rather than having been drugged and manipulated.

Correct. I judge the situation based on what is objectively known. I don't hold to an erroneous conception of papal infallibility which reduces the pope to a divinely animated automaton devoid of free will, so I have no need for absurdly fantastical speculations and conjectures designed to rescue adherents of that error from the conundrum that objective reality puts them in.

I'm not sure that needed "clarification," but thanks for casting light on it all the same.

That specific criticism of yours sounded like it was coming from a sedevacantist point of view, since, bluster aside, that is also a weak point of R&R.

Quote from: Graham

Quote from: BTNYC

Quote from: Graham

Quote from: BTNYC

Amakusa subscribes to the "imposter Paul VI" thesis. He believes the "fake" Paul VI took control around 1972 or 1973 (somewhere around there, I don't remember exactly, but definitely no earlier than 1972). Of course, this still leaves the "real" Paul VI responsible for Vatican II and the Novus Ordo, which Amakusa, when it is pointed out to him, dismisses as the work of the Freemasons who "surrounded" Paul VI.

But just to clarify, you also believe that Paul VI was a true pope and remained so, only that he shoulders full responsibility for promulgating VII and the NO, rather than having been drugged and manipulated.

Correct. I judge the situation based on what is objectively known. I don't hold to an erroneous conception of papal infallibility which reduces the pope to a divinely animated automaton devoid of free will, so I have no need for absurdly fantastical speculations and conjectures designed to rescue adherents of that error from the conundrum that objective reality puts them in.

I'm not sure that needed "clarification," but thanks for casting light on it all the same.

That specific criticism of yours sounded like it was coming from a sedevacantist point of view, since, bluster aside, that is also a weak point of R&R.

Only for those who hold to a similarly free-will-destroying conception of papal infallibility.

"Bluster aside?" Never. What do you think the "B" in my moniker stands for?

What does your username mean? Ive always wondered.