Prodino, how is acknowledging him and his successors as Popes "resisting" him?  You're not resisting him; you're licking his scaly hooves.

Do you know that these people, modernists, liberals, Freemasons, have been planning this for a long time?  They will elect one of themselves, then another, then another, and this will go on forever until people see the truth.  The fact that people so far AREN'T seeing the truth is because we are in the great apostasy.  

The Church before Vatican II had Catholics who were more liberal and those who were more conservative, but the liberals have since taken over and let me tell you, just as any communist regime shows, these guys don't mess around.   They have made sure to set up a draconian screening process for any future priest that eliminates anyone who is against ecuмenism and doesn't worship at the altar of the Jєωs.  Heck, it probably even eliminates anyone who is heterosɛҳuąƖ, except for the occasional token like Father Cutie.  You want to stake your eternal salvation on a Jєωιѕн-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ crime ring that operates exactly like Hollywood?  Oh, and besides that, dogmatically enforces heresy and destroys the Church Militant by reducing Catholicism to just one religion among many paths to the truth?  Hey dude -- go right ahead.  

The resistance can only succeed if the sede movement becomes strong enough that it grows and grows while Vatican II shrinks and shrinks.  You who are in SSPX, unless you have grave reasons for going there -- such as no sede chapels in your area -- are SAPPING US.  When you go to SSPX, your butt in that seat means an empty pew for a sede church.  You are involved in this endless waiting game with the usurpers in Rome, a game that is impossible to win.  In your minds you think you are being "reasonable" and taking the moderate position, you think you are espousing humility.  No.  You're actually helping evil to flourish.  God does not ask us to humbly defer to rampant Satanism and the overthrow of "all that is called God," as Daniel puts it.  I hope that you see this one day and wake up out of your trance.  I won't say "I'll pray for you" because it's condescending and corny ( but I will ).

When it begins to dawn on people naturally that the sedevacantists/privationists are the real Church and that Vatican II is an impostor sect, a real Pope can be chosen by the Holy Spirit ( with help from the sede bishops ).  I suppose SSPX priests and bishops can participate too if they recant their errors.  We wouldn't want to be Donatists.  

But just as Dulcamara is sure that SSPX's attitude will prove to be correct, I am sure that the sedevacantists will prove to be correct.  They have already been proven to be correct by the incoherent ridiculous fluctuating of SSPX and by the fact that SSPX implicitly denies papal infallibility and is thus persistently denying a dogma.  

I also notice that those in SSPX seem to deny the very existence of a conspiracy in the Church, yet someone like Williamson sees the conspiracy of the h0Ɩ0h0αx.  This is kind of the opposite of the sedes, all of whom see through the Freemasonic takeover of the Church but don't seem to be able to trace the same causes in politics.  While it's best to see through both types of conspiracy, as they are really one and the same, it is MORE crucial to see through the religious one as that is where our faith hangs in the balance.  

I don't know why I bother.  If you can't see the myriad contradictions in your position, such as how Lefebvre talks about the Church being taken over by Freemasons and then acts as if he can somehow talk them out of what they're doing... You've rendered judgment on yourself.  If a rabid dog got into your house, completely deprived of its senses and looking to kill, what would you do, offer it tea and crumpets?  What kind of blissful, incredible ignorance is this?  The devil is on a joyride, he's on a pleasure cruise, he's made the Vatican into his dragon and he's riding it across the night sky.  Entire populations are falling like dominoes into hell.  And you want to have polite discussions?  Ratzinger is playing you like a Steinway baby grand.

Prodinoscopus, you talk about authority as though my lack of it matters.  No it doesn't.  The fact that sedevacantism is the correct position is what matters.

Your lack of authority does matter, absolutely. You can be convinced in your own mind that Benedict XVI is a manifest and pertinacious heretic, yet you have no authority or power whatsoever to bind anyone else to that conviction. All that you can do is try to impose your point of view.

It is an objective truth, and as such, anyone who doesn't recognize it will suffer, by their own judgment, and I have to ask WHY people don't recognize it.  There must be some bias, some vested interest holding you back from making the sacrifices and changes needed in your life, or from wanting to believe that you have to make these changes.

The only objective truth that truly matters is Divine Revelation, to which we must cling in order to be saved. Sedevacantism is not revealed truth, it is a point of view. You talk about sacrifices and life changes.  Does not the Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ require us to make sufficient sacrifices and life changes? "Sell all that you have and give it to the poor, and come, follow Me." Why do we need to add to the Gospel the further requirement of accepting the sedevacantist thesis? By seeking to bind people to that thesis, you make yourself into a Pharisee.

Raoul76, do you have hard evidence to show that Benedict XVI is a Freemason? I do not ask for evidence that he says things that savor of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ (there is no lack of it), but that he is in fact a member of a Masonic Lodge. Absent such evidence, I do not accept at face value any claim that the Freemasons have literally "taken over the Church" all the way up to the Papacy.  Until you provide such evidence, it is going to be difficult for me take anything that you say seriously.

No one wants to be a sede. We have to. No one asked for this, and trust me, I hate being a "sede".

Be a sede, if you conscience compels you.  Just don't try to bind my conscience to your conviction.

Like you, I'll most likely end up damned either way.

Don't say that, DeMaistre.  I understand your feeling and I've said the same thing many times myself. (I think that we both have been influenced by St. Alphonsus -- and that's certainly not a bad thing.) You've said elsewhere that we all must try our best to live a Catholic life, irrespective of our views concerning sedevacantism. You were right about that. I'll pray for you, I'm sure that you'll do the same for me. I won't pray that you "convert" to non-sedevacantism. I do not think that your salvation depends on reaching a "correct" conclusion on that issue, despite past comments of mine to the contrary.

Sedevacantism is defined here as "believing that the man commonly known as Pope Benedict XVI is not the pope")...The Crisis in the Church is not a simple matter.

Defining sedeplenism as the contrary of sedevacantism, we proceed:

1. What do you think about being a co-religionist with Hans Kung?
2. Do you think the fact that Mahoney and COUNTLESS others are still a part of your Church takes away therefrom?  Do you feel the incessant need to answer for their stupidity, perversity, and abominable heresy/apostasy/etc?
3. Why do you think I should be taken up with answering for those lunatic elements among those who deny BXVI?  Mathematically, you have FAR MORE in the way of lunatics, perverts, etc., on your side of the equation.  Does this make you uneasy?  Probably not.  Why do you presume I would be uneasy about the 'pope' from Mushroom Rock?
4. So, why don't you stop bringing up BS that has no application to any reasonable discussion?
ETC., ETC., ETC....

Believe me, I could go ON and ON and ON with questions for those who support V2 and the purveyors thereof.

Btw, Matthew, it is clear from your comments/questions that you do not understand some of the points of disagreement.  For example, the 'date of departure' for the Rite of Ordination is in 1968, not 1962.  Little things to be sure, but you might want to learn about them before constructing another list.  Getting the facts wrong often makes people ignore even the correct and well-framed questions.  God speed.

Actually, the list was meant to be arbitrary, based on my own experiences. Yes, 1968 is A MORE LOGICAL departure date, but what place has logic in many people's beliefs?

Your particular brand of Sedevacantism might respect a priest ordained in 1967, but there are PLENTY of Sedes out there who would consider them "novus ordo" since they were ordained after Vatican II was convoked, or under the reign of John XXIII/Paul VI.

Can Dulcamara's signature (the WIDTH, not the content) be excommunicated?

Gladius, you work a late-shift at a hotel?  

I tried to get a job like that, it didn't work out.  I like to stay up all night.  Maybe we are "symbolically" staying up through the dark night of the Church, waiting for daylight.  

I think the Church is plenty visible.  As soon as I figured out something was wrong in VII, it took me no time at all to scout around on the Internet and discover sedevacantism.  Heck, Mel Gibson made us world-famous, even if he is not the best advocate.  No one can say that they haven't heard of traditional Catholics.  God has seen to it with the Internet and all the other blessings He's given us that no one has an excuse ( yes, the Internet is a blessing in our time, without it there is no way I'd have found sedevacantism ).


I'm not sure what this list you're referring to is, though.  Isn't Matthew ChantCD?  He didn't post here so I'm guessing you're posting in the wrong thread.

Agreed.  When I first realized that they changed the "mass" for the drastic worse.  Then realized that it was invalid as they change the consecration not only with the "for all" but also for the "mystery of faith" and also with "unto the remission of sins" not starting a new sentence but link with the sentence "this the blood of the New and Everlasting Covenant which is shed UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS.  

Then when I saw that V2 clearly teaches heresy on Ecuмenism, Religious Liberty and on the definition of the Catholic Church among other things.  And this did admittedly take time as the popes not being the popes were the last thing on my mind.  I thought who approved v2 and the new mass and who enforces them.  No Catholic Pope could even if they wanted to.  So the guys who did and are doing it are imposters.  In actuallity it really is not all that complicated.

It takes humility and sincerity to gain the grace to see it.  But it is right there plance and simple.