Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: ElwinRansom1970 on May 09, 2025, 06:39:21 AM
-
Now that the world has had its frolic in Piazza San Pietro, where do you stand in regard to the claimed Papacy of the US-born man from Peru who is presented as Pope Leo XIV?
(https://i.imgur.com/5tSc9hN.png)
-
Clearly just another AntiPope, except that you define that term as requiring there being a real Pope somewhere. I'm not sure I agree with that definition. I think that it's meant to exclude various crackpots with 3 or 4 followers, since that would water down the term, but I believe that anyone with significant following could qualify as an AntiPope. But that's just semantics.
I don't believe he's a material Pope either ... despite being a sedeprivationist in principle. I believe that the material continuity has long been servered, though I know you hold that it was severed during Bergoglio's term.
-
He's an american, so I trust him 100%. He's the realest pope since St Peter. His name speaks volumes; what else do we need to know? Canonize him immediately! (sarcasm alert)
-
Clearly just another AntiPope, except that you define that term as requiring there being a real Pope somewhere. I'm not sure I agree with that definition. I think that it's meant to exclude various crackpots with 3 or 4 followers, since that would water down the term, but I believe that anyone with significant following could qualify as an AntiPope. But that's just semantics.
I don't believe he's a material Pope either ... despite being a sedeprivationist in principle. I believe that the material continuity has long been servered, though I know you hold that it was severed during Bergoglio's term.
Wait why do you believe the material continuity was severed again?
-
Wait why do you believe the material continuity was severed again?
So for me it's based on the Siri Theory. I agree in principle with the formal/material distinction (makes perfect sense) ... but just believe that Siri was the rightfully-elected Pope, and that he was forced to step down under duress, which would make his resignation invalid, and thus legitimate election to the office (the material aspect) would have been impeded by Siri's rightful posession of it, until his death in 1989. By that time, there were no legitimate electors left form the Pius XII era, or if there was 1 or 2 (I doubt it due to the age limit started I think by Montini ... perhaps for this reason?), who knows who they voted for.
Others believe that Bergoglio's election was (materially) invalid due to the collusion (St. Gallen mafia) or alternatively because of his non-resignation (munus vs. ministerium).
Interestingly, just the other day on Taylor Marshall's show / video, someone chatted in (the SuperChat where you pay to get your question answered) about whether any popes in recent memory had been elected but turned down the election. Marshall casually mentioned that Siri turned it down in 1958. Oh, really, Taylor? So, how do you know this? Siri never said one way or the other, since he said he was bound by the oath. Consequently, that was clearly an attempt by Marshall to contradict (falsely, with no information) the Siri Theory.
-
Clearly just another AntiPope, except that you define that term as requiring there being a real Pope somewhere. I'm not sure I agree with that definition. I think that it's meant to exclude various crackpots with 3 or 4 followers, since that would water down the term, but I believe that anyone with significant following could qualify as an AntiPope. But that's just semantics.
I don't believe he's a material Pope either ... despite being a sedeprivationist in principle. I believe that the material continuity has long been servered, though I know you hold that it was severed during Bergoglio's term.
If Prevost was to miraculously make a public conversion, repentance, anathematize V2, new mass, all the conciliar popes as anti-popes, etc. do you think sedevacantists would accept him as Pope? I tend towards sedeprivationalism, and I think I would accept him as Pope as unlikely as that all happening is. Aside from God Himself appointing the next true Pope, that seems like the most realistic option to me..but I'm not sure how theologically sound it is
-
If Prevost was to miraculously make a public conversion, repentance, anathematize V2, new mass, all the conciliar popes as anti-popes, etc. do you think sedevacantists would accept him as Pope? I tend towards sedeprivationalism, and I think I would accept him as Pope as unlikely as that all happening is. Aside from God Himself appointing the next true Pope, that seems like the most realistic option to me..but I'm not sure how theologically sound it is
Yeah when you consider the 'practical' way this crisis gets solved there isn't many logical options, and God mostly does work through natural means not supernatural.
-
If Prevost was to miraculously make a public conversion, repentance, anathematize V2, new mass, all the conciliar popes as anti-popes, etc. do you think sedevacantists would accept him as Pope? I tend towards sedeprivationalism, and I think I would accept him as Pope as unlikely as that all happening is. Aside from God Himself appointing the next true Pope, that seems like the most realistic option to me..but I'm not sure how theologically sound it is
Not that this would happen, but hypothetically I think the SVs would get on board ... since a lot of them promote the notion of "Universal Peaceful Acceptance".
So the WM Review had an article about the matter, where they said most groups of Traditional Catholics would be "satisfied" by such a scenario, and so I cautioned him against getting "satisfied" into accepting an AntiPope, and poked at him about about "Universal Peaceful Satisfaction".
I think there's much danger for the Traditional Catholics ... because very few of them really believe in EENS dogma, and the core / fundamental error, the root cause of all the V2 errors and heresies, has been a view of EENS dogma that logically leads directly to the V2 errors as logical conclusions. So while they denounce the Vatican II's ecclesiology, they unfortunately believe the same ecclesiology themselves, and if you were to dress up the denial of EENS in Latin, traditional vestments, and smells & bells, they'd embrace it enthusiastically.
-
Ann Barnhardt is reporting that Prevost is 1/4 black (of Creole heritage.)
Of course this doesn't matter unless as a liberal he uses it as some sort of leverage.
-
So for me it's based on the Siri Theory. I agree in principle with the formal/material distinction (makes perfect sense) ... but just believe that Siri was the rightfully-elected Pope, and that he was forced to step down under duress, which would make his resignation invalid, and thus legitimate election to the office (the material aspect) would have been impeded by Siri's rightful posession of it, until his death in 1989. By that time, there were no legitimate electors left form the Pius XII era, or if there was 1 or 2 (I doubt it due to the age limit started I think by Montini ... perhaps for this reason?), who knows who they voted for.
Others believe that Bergoglio's election was (materially) invalid due to the collusion (St. Gallen mafia) or alternatively because of his non-resignation (munus vs. ministerium).
Interestingly, just the other day on Taylor Marshall's show / video, someone chatted in (the SuperChat where you pay to get your question answered) about whether any popes in recent memory had been elected but turned down the election. Marshall casually mentioned that Siri turned it down in 1958. Oh, really, Taylor? So, how do you know this? Siri never said one way or the other, since he said he was bound by the oath. Consequently, that was clearly an attempt by Marshall to contradict (falsely, with no information) the Siri Theory.
Taylor Marshall is so very dangerous ( with a smile of course!)
-
Not that this would happen, but hypothetically I think the SVs would get on board ... since a lot of them promote the notion of "Universal Peaceful Acceptance".
So the WM Review had an article about the matter, where they said most groups of Traditional Catholics would be "satisfied" by such a scenario, and so I cautioned him against getting "satisfied" into accepting an AntiPope, and poked at him about about "Universal Peaceful Satisfaction".
I think there's much danger for the Traditional Catholics ... because very few of them really believe in EENS dogma, and the core / fundamental error, the root cause of all the V2 errors and heresies, has been a view of EENS dogma that logically leads directly to the V2 errors as logical conclusions. So while they denounce the Vatican II's ecclesiology, they unfortunately believe the same ecclesiology themselves, and if you were to dress up the denial of EENS in Latin, traditional vestments, and smells & bells, they'd embrace it enthusiastically.
Yes I think EENS will be a big tell. My own little prediction is that the next true Pope, whoever and whenever he is, will give the most explicit and definitive reassertion of EENS the Church has ever given. This will cause the majority of Novus Ordites to formally apostasize and declare him an anti Pope, as the true teaching on Salvation is completely incompatible with what the Conciliar Church has been teaching, and is even at odds with what most Catholics have been taught about EENS for probably a couple hundred years at least. I also think BOD/B will be condemned which may cause at least some part of trad Catholics to reject the Pope as well
-
So for me it's based on the Siri Theory. I agree in principle with the formal/material distinction (makes perfect sense) ... but just believe that Siri was the rightfully-elected Pope, and that he was forced to step down under duress, which would make his resignation invalid, and thus legitimate election to the office (the material aspect) would have been impeded by Siri's rightful posession of it, until his death in 1989. By that time, there were no legitimate electors left form the Pius XII era, or if there was 1 or 2 (I doubt it due to the age limit started I think by Montini ... perhaps for this reason?), who knows who they voted for.
Others believe that Bergoglio's election was (materially) invalid due to the collusion (St. Gallen mafia) or alternatively because of his non-resignation (munus vs. ministerium).
Interestingly, just the other day on Taylor Marshall's show / video, someone chatted in (the SuperChat where you pay to get your question answered) about whether any popes in recent memory had been elected but turned down the election. Marshall casually mentioned that Siri turned it down in 1958. Oh, really, Taylor? So, how do you know this? Siri never said one way or the other, since he said he was bound by the oath. Consequently, that was clearly an attempt by Marshall to contradict (falsely, with no information) the Siri Theory.
I don't know exactly what Marshall said, but based on your explanation, I don't think he was contradicting the Siri Theory in the way you think. He was just catering (or he believes it himself) to the Indult/anti-conspiracy-theory crowd, the naive bunch of "conservative" catholics who can't grasp that there are actually evil people in the world.
These people will read about the vision of Pope Leo XIII and how God will let satan try to destroy the church.
These people will read the Fatima prophecies that the 'errors of russia' will lead to the good being martyred and millions of souls going to hell.
These people will read the stories of the infiltration of communists into the vatican starting in the 1930s or the stories of Pius IX being imprisoned in the Vatican.
And they'll think "it can't happen in my lifetime."
I have so many family members who just won't/can't accept that evil people want to do really evil things. There's a blindness there which I can't grasp. So either Marshall has this personal blindness or he's furthering it by catering to those who do. Either way, such a mindset isn't going away.
The "conspiracy tin foil hat nutters" propaganda is the greatest lie in modern times, 2nd only to "the devil doesn't exist" lie. It's an amazing piece psychological brainwashing. Hats off to our enemies on this one. You gotta give them credit.
-
I'm a bit curious about option #3. It says he is a false pope while someone else truly does hold the papal office.
Who would that other person be? :confused:
-
I'm a bit curious about option #3. It says he is a false pope while someone else truly does hold the papal office.
Who would that other person be? :confused:
Seems hypothetical (to underscore a definition of an Antipope ... and no one has answered in that manner yet).
I can see a hypothesis about a "hidden pope", whether those alleged "secret Cardinals" some claim (with zero evidence) that Siri created ... or for some altogether different line.
-
Ann Barnhardt is reporting that Prevost is 1/4 black (of Creole heritage.)
Of course this doesn't matter unless as a liberal he uses it as some sort of leverage.
.
I'm actually a bit curious what she thinks. She had a post on her site that seemed to imply that she thought this election was valid (though she really didn't say that directly at all, so I might even be wrong about that), but she still has the "sede vacante" image on her website and the clock that counts how many days the see has been vacant, which started when Ratzinger died. She still has the clock up there, and it is still counting how many days the see has been vacant, so that seems to imply she thinks it's still vacant.
Maybe she doesn't know what to think yet.
-
So for me it's based on the Siri Theory. I agree in principle with the formal/material distinction (makes perfect sense) ... but just believe that Siri was the rightfully-elected Pope, and that he was forced to step down under duress, which would make his resignation invalid, and thus legitimate election to the office (the material aspect) would have been impeded by Siri's rightful posession of it, until his death in 1989. By that time, there were no legitimate electors left form the Pius XII era, or if there was 1 or 2 (I doubt it due to the age limit started I think by Montini ... perhaps for this reason?), who knows who they voted for.
Others believe that Bergoglio's election was (materially) invalid due to the collusion (St. Gallen mafia) or alternatively because of his non-resignation (munus vs. ministerium).
Interestingly, just the other day on Taylor Marshall's show / video, someone chatted in (the SuperChat where you pay to get your question answered) about whether any popes in recent memory had been elected but turned down the election. Marshall casually mentioned that Siri turned it down in 1958. Oh, really, Taylor? So, how do you know this? Siri never said one way or the other, since he said he was bound by the oath. Consequently, that was clearly an attempt by Marshall to contradict (falsely, with no information) the Siri Theory.
The material election of the pope is merely saying that
a) the duly appointed Cardinals
b) held a valid election (per election rules in place)
c) and a new pope was elected, accepted and rules the vatican govt.
Whether or not every Cardinal is a raging heretic, who has been spiritually nullified by canon law, or by Divine Law, is irrelevant. God gave to St Peter the power to 'bind and loose'. Part of the papacy is material/human and part is spiritual.
The Siri thesis proves the point that a material pope is possible. Thus, even if every cardinal was a formal heretic (and I don't think ALL of them are), you can still have the valid election of a material/governing pope. He would simply have 0 spiritual authority and be under imposition of a vast array of canon law excommunications (same as the Cardinals).
-
Seems hypothetical (to underscore a definition of an Antipope ... and no one has answered in that manner yet).
I can see a hypothesis about a "hidden pope", whether those alleged "secret Cardinals" some claim (with zero evidence) that Siri created ... or for some altogether different line.
.
Yes, certainly hypothetical, but I don't know of anyone (and certainly not any known group of any size) that rejects the Vatican 2 antipopes on the basis of sedevacantist principles, who actually thinks there is a real pope in hiding or something.
-
Ann Barnhardt is reporting that Prevost is 1/4 black (of Creole heritage.)
Of course this doesn't matter unless as a liberal he uses it as some sort of leverage.
Speaking of Barnhardt ...
White smoke. Pray, and no matter what happens, trust in The Lord.
The first valid conclave since my conversion to Catholicism in ARSH 2007 is over.
Pray for the gift of Counsel.
Trust in the Divine Providence which is always perfect.
No matter what, today is a day that The Lord has made. Rejoice and be glad in it.
Tomorrow we Catholics will still be Catholic. The Mass will still be the Holy Sacrifice of Calvary, and Our Lord will be reposed in the Tabernacle.
I'm very tired of her obnoxious/arrogant "ARSH" (as if the Anno Domino that everyone in the Church has used forever wasn't good enough for her ... narcissism, anyone?) ...
but apart from that, I'd love to find out how she thinks this was a "valid conclave", since Bergs (whom she considers an Antipope, without her being a sedeprivationist or even knowing what that term means) appointed 108 of the 133 Cardinals who voted.
-
but apart from that, I'd love to find out how she thinks this was a "valid conclave", since Bergs (whom she considers an Antipope, without her being a sedeprivationist or even knowing what that term means) appointed 108 of the 133 Cardinals who voted.
.
Ah, there it is. So she says the conclave was valid, but the sede vacante clock is still running on the sidebar.
-
Mario / Tradcast re: AKA Leo XLV
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/tradcast/id960667794
-
In his acceptance speech (if that's what it's called), he explicitly mentioned his continuity with Bergoglio.
-
Bergs […] appointed 108 of the 133 Cardinals who voted.
Yes, that's 81% of the 133 voting cardinals.
data source: https://collegeofcardinalsreport.com/cardinals/?_voting_status=voting&_created_by=francis
-
he explicitly mentioned Bergoglio's blessing Rome and the whole world
https://youtu.be/MuZnEkz7fHQ?t=291
-
Mario / Tradcast re: AKA Leo XLV
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/tradcast/id960667794
Have I been asleep for a few centuries? There's now a Pope Leo The 45th??:(
-
Clearly just another AntiPope, except that you define that term as requiring there being a real Pope somewhere. I'm not sure I agree with that definition. I think that it's meant to exclude various crackpots with 3 or 4 followers, since that would water down the term, but I believe that anyone with significant following could qualify as an AntiPope. But that's just semantics.
I don't believe he's a material Pope either ... despite being a sedeprivationist in principle. I believe that the material continuity has long been servered, though I know you hold that it was severed during Bergoglio's term.
Do you believe the material continuity has been severed because there are no longer any validly consecrated bishops? Do you think Bp. Guérard des Lauriers would believe that his thesis would still be valid under today's conditions?
-
Do you believe the material continuity has been severed because there are no longer any validly consecrated bishops? Do you think Bp. Guérard des Lauriers would believe that his thesis would still be valid under today's conditions?
So I believe that the Siri Theory is the most plausible (and, quite frankly, only workable) explanation for what's taken place. So in that case Roncalli was never even materially the Pope, the Cardinals he appointed not even material Cardinals, etc.
Others who don't believe in the Siri Theory believe that Jorge's election was illegitimate, either because of Ratzinger's non-resignation (which would have resulted in an impeded See similar to what would have prevailed in the Siri scenario), or else due to collusion on the part of the electors (St. Gallen mafia).
Invalid Episcopal Consecration would still have permitted these men to remain material Popes, though without valid consecration they could not formally exercise certain aspects of the office that required being a bishop, in particular teaching authority.
I'm not sure what Bishop des Lauriers would say.
-
Ah, there it is. So she says the conclave was valid, but the sede vacante clock is still running on the sidebar.
Not sure ... maybe she's decided that Prevost is a heretic like Bergoglio. Who knows with her? She's all over the map.
-
Here's that piece of trash Michael Matt defending his support for the latest Antipope, so he can keep his revenue stream going ... and deriding "Traditional Catholics" who were opposed to Ratzinger. They were right about Ratzinger, unless you're just a shape-shifting dishonest Modernist-heretic grifter shill like Michael Matt. What a dirtbag this guy is.
https://x.com/Michael_J_Matt/status/1920905331305042020
-
Have I been asleep for a few centuries? There's now a Pope Leo The 45th??:(
I hit the Capital letter key by accident. Get over it
-
I swear, if I were pope, Michael Matt and Taylor Marshall would be the first two that I would excommunicate by name, even before the Modernists, since the non-membership of the latter in the Church goes without saying.
I'd require them to do public penance, issue apologies, give their ill-gotten gains to the poor, get real jobs, and never again make a public statement for the rest of their lives before readmitting them to communion with the Church.
Next on the list would be some of the neo-SSPX types pushing various flavors of thinly-veiled Old Catholicism.
After that the rabid EENS-haters need to be slapped upside the head and/or beaten with fists.
It's like the hot or cold syndrome mentioned by Our Lord. I HAVE MUCH MORE RESPECT for an OPEN RABID Modernist like Jorge who just sticks to his guns than these waffling grifting fence-sitting cowardly turds like Matt and Marshall, who need to be vomited forth from the mouth of the Church. At least Jorge is honest and sincere.
-
Speaking of Barnhardt ...
I'm very tired of her obnoxious/arrogant "ARSH" (as if the Anno Domino that everyone in the Church has used forever wasn't good enough for her ... narcissism, anyone?) ...
but apart from that, I'd love to find out how she thinks this was a "valid conclave", since Bergs (whom she considers an Antipope, without her being a sedeprivationist or even knowing what that term means) appointed 108 of the 133 Cardinals who voted.
I'm not a hardcore Barnhardt fan- I find her consistently (and insistently) wrong on a lot of things (like Benevacantism) but I check the website often because many times she gets things right , so it an interesting blend if you are willing to sift through her stuff.
What I do like about her , however is that she doesn't feign false piety which is repulsive to me.
-
I swear, if I were pope, Michael Matt and Taylor Marshall would be the first two that I would excommunicate by name, even before the Modernists, since the non-membership of the latter in the Church goes without saying.
I'd require them to do public penance, issue apologies, give their ill-gotten gains to the poor, get real jobs, and never again make a public statement for the rest of their lives before readmitting them to communion with the Church.
Next on the list would be some of the neo-SSPX types pushing various flavors of thinly-veiled Old Catholicism.
After that the rabid EENS-haters need to be slapped upside the head and/or beaten with fists.
It's like the hot or cold syndrome mentioned by Our Lord. I HAVE MUCH MORE RESPECT for an OPEN RABID Modernist like Jorge who just sticks to his guns than these waffling grifting fence-sitting cowardly turds like Matt and Marshall, who need to be vomited forth from the mouth of the Church. At least Jorge is honest and sincere.
So what do you have against being salty and uniting the clans??!!
Don't you want to be on the TEAM?? (team Mammon)
LOL
-
So what do you have against being salty and uniting the clans??!!
Don't you want to be on the TEAM?? (team Mammon)
LOL
In fact, I would lobby to be elected Pope ... with a promise of resigning after a few days ... just so I could excommunicate those guys.
-
I'm not a hardcore Barnhardt fan- I find her consistently (and insistently) wrong on a lot of things (like Benevacantism) but I check the website often because many times she gets things right , so it an interesting blend if you are willing to sift through her stuff.
What I do like about her , however is that she doesn't feign false piety which is repulsive to me.
She has some good information there, especially when she was getting the scoop from Argentina about Bergoglio ... but you just have to ignore anything "theological" that comes from her mouth, and I do think her ARSH stuff is a kind of false piety or narcicism.
-
Here's a take from a non-sedevacantist where he's talking about Matt and Trad, Inc. "falling for it". See, I'm of a different mindset. I think they are quite deliberately gatekeeping and/or at least compromising. I cannot conclude anything other than that Matt is primarily driven by revenue potential and the never-ending quest to maximize his audience and his revenue. He could very well even be a paid shill gatekeeper.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQ6UXKKjkl8
-
I mean, the apple ain't gonna fall too far from the tree. Anyone really think things are going to turn around now and Vatican II will get dumped?
-
I mean, the apple ain't gonna fall to far from the tree. Anyone really think things are going to turn around now and Vatican II will get dumped?
Right ... Bergoglio would not have appointed to high rank in the Conciliar Church anyone with a Traditional bone in his body.
-
Why people think that we have anything different happening? It puzzles me.
The game has been going on since 1958. If the man is miraculously a good and Catholic Pope, we will soon know. Every single piece of evidence we have indicates that he is just the same as all the others.
-
Why people think that we have anything different happening? It puzzles me.
The game has been going on since 1958. If the man is miraculously a good and Catholic Pope, we will soon know. Every single piece of evidence we have indicates that he is just the same as all the others.
Trad, Inc. are pushing in that direction.
It's really all about your paradigm of the Conciliar Revolution. Is this about Liberal vs. Conservative in the Church?
No, the Church has been taken over and it's as much just kayfabe in the Conciliar Church as it is in the US government.
-
For those who chose "I am not sure", I would be interested in knowing why...if you don't mind explaining.