Have you never heard of or read the docuмent on the Alta Vendita, or other such items?

Yes but they said at that time (the 1820s) - that they did not want the Pope to directly join their cause, instead to be an unwitting agent.  Which is the role I think they intended for Pius IX.  They also said the work could go on for a century or more.  Let's be honest, when they talked about putting "the Church in her tomb" - in the eyes of the world, the grave is dug and the body is about to be put in, because it seems to be dead.

Oh, I forgot the Society is in on it now too. Bishop Fellay has been a double agent from the beginning. But then again maybe ABL set up the Society as a traditional Trojan horse! Diabolical genius...

These are serious questions. I want to know what all I've missed in "traddie-land". I need to get up to speed on this conspiracy.

These are serious questions. I want to know what all I've missed in "traddie-land".

For starters, it would be wise to consider and accept the obvious fact that many non-sede clerics have used the terms heresy, schism, and/or apostasy, etc., to describe the words and deeds of the V2 and post-V2 'pontiffs'.  To act as if no one has made a solid case for the presence of heresy, even material, is total nonsense.  The Abbe de Nantes, for one, wrote an entire (and truly excellent) book of accusations against Paul VI for...heresy, schism, and apostasy.  While he certainly would have disagreed with me, for example, about the consequences, there was little to no difference in how he and I perceived the material to be examined.

Go dig up some of ABL's comments -- they are likely much harder-hitting than you think.  The idea that there just isn't any heresy is only held by a few, less-than-erudite men.  The difference comes into play when we discuss whether or not it is formal, what follows if it is formal, etc.

FWIW, you need to get up to speed on more than just 'the conspiracy', stevus.  You speak about things of which you are ignorant.  Now, ignorance is often excusable -- but to speak as if you know about something, when you really do not, is less so.  Perhaps you should ask about certain things, rather than trying to teach those who know more than you?  Just an idea.  Godspeed :)

I realize many churchmen have uttered heresy in the last 50 years. I think it is very debatable whether post conciliar Popes have uttered material heresy. I have stated repeatedly it is impossible for you or anyone else to judge the Pope of formal heresy, thus I fail to see how you can say BXVI is not Pope. As for apostasy and faithlessness among Romans and most all Catholics since VCII, no kidding.

I'd suggest you stop assuming what others know and what they don't and stick to the facts.

stick to the facts.

The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita by John Vennari, costs $2.50

I'm well aware of the Alta vendita. It is no mystery the Freemasons at the time it was written meant what they said. It is no secret the Church is under attack and has been infiltrated by Communists and others. But cօռspιʀαcιҽs only go so far and are limited by their nature.

I think it is a mistake to turn the crisis in the Church into a vast century spanning plot with millions of co conspirators. We now have people claiming the Society has been infiltrated and BF is in on it, etc. It is ridiculous. This is where sede-ism leads. A conspiracy first mindset, paranoia, believing body double theories, Cardinal Siri theses, etc. Once you can actually bring yourself to believe there hasn't been a Pope for 50 years, you begin to believe anything.

I'm well aware people accuse the Popes of heresy all the time. The Dim-onds find about 2,000 heresies per day. The fact is, they can prove none of it. They take an ambiguous phrase out of context, assume the worst interpretation and declare heresy. The very nature of liberalism makes it so these Popes are masters of wordsmanship and double speak. They are not going to be so stupid as to declare clear heresy.