The writers of Traditio could very well be the only group of Sedevacantists who are absolutely certain that Pope John XXIII was a valid pontiff. What are the thoughts of some fourm members here? Was Pope John XXIII a weak, misguided pope who was easily controlled by Modernists, or was he really a Freemason?  The culpability of Pope Paul VI can never be denied though.

http://www.traditio.com/papal/john23.htm

Pope John XXIII (1958-1963)
Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli (1881-1963)

Pope John XXIII summoned the Italian bishops to the Roman Synod of 1959 as an anticipation of the Second Vatican council. In a massive reaffirmation of traditional practice, the pope solemnly confirmed the use of Latin, condemned all attempts at creativity on the part of the celebrant of Holy Mass, ordered Gregorian Chant, and forbade women entry to the altar area.

A year later the pope issued his Apostolic Constitution Veterum Sapientia, On Promoting the Study of Latin, as the Church's cultural and religious heritage and as its living language -- universal, immutable, and non-vernacular. He bound bishops to "be on their guard lest anyone under their jurisdiction, being eager for innovation, write against the use of Latin in the teaching of the higher sacred studies or in the liturgy, or through prejudice makes light of the Holy See's will in this regard or interprets it fa1sely." He attributed a very special importance to this docuмent, promulgating it with a solemnity unique in the history of the present century -- in person, in St. Peter's upon the Confession of St. Peter himself, and in the presence of the cardinals and of the Roman clergy.

When he opened the Second Vatican Council on October 11, 1962, Pope John XXIII charged the Council Fathers "that the Sacred Deposit of Christian Doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously [with a] renewed, serene, and tranquil adherence to all the teachings of the Church in their entirety and preciseness, as they still shine forth in the acts of the Council of Trent and the First Vatican Council."

In fact, the Second Vatican Council was apparently a great disappointment to the pope. According to Anne Muggeridge, the daughter-in-law of the famous British Catholic convert and journalist Malcolm Muggeridge), in The Desolate City, John Cardinal Heenan of Westminster reported that when, during the rebellious first session of the Council, the pope realized that the papacy had lost control of the process, he attempted to organize a group of bishops to try to force it to an end.

Malcolm Muggeridge, who reported from Rome on the Second Vatican Council for the British Broadcasting Corporation, considered Pope John "politically naive and unduly influenced by the handful of 'liberal' clerics with whom he is in close contact." In a 1985 interview, he gave his assessment of the pope thus:

    Really Pope John -- who was built up as a saintly and perfect pope, the good man of our time -- whether consciously or unconsciously, did more damage to the Church than possibly any other individual man had ever done in the whole of its history.... It seemed almost as though Pope John was operating on behalf of the devil without being in any way conscious of it.

Whatever Pope John's disposition was, however, before the second session of the council could open, he died. His last words on his deathbed, as reported by Jean Guitton, the only Catholic layman to serve as a peritus at the Council, were: "Stop the Council; stop the Council." In any case, it is a fact that Pope John signed not one docuмent of the Second Vatican Council.

I think Traditio has said before that they are not sedevacantist.

Anyway, I disagree with this:

Our point was not to claim that John XXIII was perfectly traditional, but to point out the factual error of those traditionalists who ignore the clear evidence and nevertheless state that Pius XII was the "last traditional pope." In fact, the evidence indicates that Pius XII was more Modernist-leaning than the myth that certain traditionalists like to paint about him --myths that are not backed up by the facts. This latent Modernism of Pius XII is already clear in the "nuanced" language that he used in his 1947 Encyclical Letter Mediator Dei, On the Sacred Liturgy

No way. John XXIII was almost certainly a Masonic infiltrator. Pope Pius XII was not a modernist.

Traditio has a tendency to act as if they know everything sometimes. I think they're wrong here.

I agree with Traditio on this one!  I actually agree with Traditio on many issues and find their website a lot of fun and adventurous!

John XXIII may someday be declared an anti-pope or judged harshly, and rightfully so.  

However, Pope Paul VI is the one who did the damage.

Even if it were true it may have been a moment of clarity in his final hours. At that momnent, facing judgement, he may have seen his errors and  repented, nobody knows though.

Quote from: Ck104

His last words on his deathbed, as reported by Jean Guitton, the only Catholic layman to serve as a peritus at the Council, were: "Stop the Council; stop the Council."

I heard this before and I was not sure it was true. I told this to a sedevacantist friend of mine and he did not believe it. It is interesting to hear it confirmed. It is nice to hear something good about a pope these days.

That quote has made its rounds on the internet quite a bit. However, none of us can know for certain if its true.

I agree with Traditio on this one!  I actually agree with Traditio on many issues and find their website a lot of fun and adventurous!

John XXIII may someday be declared an anti-pope or judged harshly, and rightfully so.  

However, Pope Paul VI is the one who did the damage.

The NO is fruit of the council, along with the rest of its sacrilegious and heretical fruits.  If John XXIII didn't intend the course of the council then he was less prudent than a jackass in ignoring wise counsel against convening it and about as powerful as a neutered fag-breed dog with a ribbon in his hair in controlling it.

The writers of Traditio could very well be the only group of Sedevacantists who are absolutely certain that Pope John XXIII was a valid pontiff. What are the thoughts of some fourm members here? Was Pope John XXIII a weak, misguided pope who was easily controlled by Modernists, or was he really a Freemason?  The culpability of Pope Paul VI can never be denied though.

The case of John XXIII, is one that is murky, it is hard to form your mind about it, because we do not have all the facts.  But, what I can say is this:  Unlike the Vatican II "popes", John XXIII never taught heresy or error to universal Church and never imposed evil disciplinary laws.  

It may be that John XXIII goes down in history as a "bad" pope who failed to adequately defend the Church, but not a heretical pope who actually defected from the Faith.  

If John XXIII was not a heretic, then he would not have lost his office, and the presumption must be that he was pope, unless the Church declares otherwise.  John XXIII was universally recognized as Pope by the cardinals, the clergy of Rome, the bishops of the world, and the entire Church.  There was no doubt about his claim and no one resisted him or his teachings.  The same cannot be said of Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI.  

It is a very bold step to make a judgment against another Catholic that they are guilty of heresy.  The criteria that must be present are that the heresy must be public and that the person must be pertinacious.  In order to form a judgment, one must be morally certain that such a person is a heretic and they understand that what they are holding is in conflict with the teaching of the Church on a teaching that is de fide.  In the case of John XXII, I am not aware of him professing public heresy.  

I am no fan of John XXIII, but this is about principles, not emotion.