So, initially Barnhardt rejected being called a sedevacantist, declaring that there's a huge difference between saying the See has been vacant for a few hours / days and saying it's been vacant since 1958.

How much time has to pass before she's a "sedevacantist"?  If Bergoglio is still in office a year from now, will she be a "sedevacantist" then?

Then the next conclave would be illegitimate for Bennyvacantists, so this could go on for years.

Perhaps then they'll realize that the "Catholic Church" wasn't Catholic and then woked up one day in 2013 and ceased to be Catholic.

She has a live count-up clock on her site --

Too bad Der Panzer Kardinal was cut from the same cloth as Bergi anyway but good of her to acknowledge the only possible situation given her position.  That was probably a little painful to do.

I should program a similar clock from the moment of the death of Pope Pius XII.

As of 12:30 Eastern, it's --

64 years, 97 days, 13 hours, 38 minutes

since the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958 (10:52 Eastern)

The 3rd Secret had to be released no later than 1960 as its meaning would be 'more clear' then.

"In the 3rd Secret it is foretold, among other things, that the Great Apostasy begins at the top." - Cardinal Ciappi

It's clear the death of Pope Pius XII marked a decisive turn for the Church and human history.  I've been musing on this for a while but am I the only one who thinks the 3rd Secret actually mentions there being no shepherd for a time and this is why they've been so loathed to release it?  Nothing says 'fake religion' like a message from the Queen of Heaven supported by a Miracle of the Sun (in addition to Pius XII also seeing it on four separate occasions).

Absolutely not.  I've been convinced for a long time that the Third Secret is precisely about V2, NOM, and the takeover of the Holy See.

I always thought that, logically, the sedevacantists should reject the authenticity of Fatima, since it refers to "the pope of 1960."

But if there was no pope in 1960, how could the apparitions be true (for them)?

Perhaps the pope was not specified as the person to reveal the letter? 

This article suggests that could be the case: https://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/F039_Secret1960.html (i.e., it was definitely supposed to be opened in 1960, but not necessarily by the pope).

And this article contains a conversation between Cardinal Oddi and John XXIII, regarding why the latter said "this message is not for our time" (his excuse for not revealing it):

https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g19htBertone_Secret_2.html

1. Cardinal Silvio Oddi, who was Prefect of the Congregation of the Clergy in the Pontificate of John Paul II and very close to John XXIII during his reign, relates this very revealing anecdote about a conversation he had with the latter:

Oddi: John XXIII commanded me to never mention the Third Secret

Taking advantage of the great confidence that reigned between us, I said to him straightforwardly, “Holy Father, there is something for which I cannot pardon you.”
“What is it?” he asked.
“The whole world has waited for so many years, and with some months having already passed since the beginning of 1960, we still know nothing (about the Third Secret).”
Pope Roncalli answered, “Do not speak to me of this again.”
I replied, “If that is what you want, I won’t speak about it again. But you can’t prevent others from doing so.”
“I have already told you not to speak again of it.”
“And I did not insist.” (2)

Thirty years later, after much water had run under the bridge, Cardinal Oddi confessed to the same magazine (30 Giorni): “The Secret of Fatima contains a sad prophecy about the Church and, for this reason Pope John did not divulge it. And neither have Paul VI or John Paul II. It seems to me that what is basically written is that the Pope would convene a Council in 1960 which, contrary to expectations, would indirectly result in many difficulties for the Church.” (3)


The implication is clear: John XXIII wanted Vatican II, and the 3rd Secret foretold it would be the undoing of the Church.

I always thought that, logically, the sedevacantists should reject the authenticity of Fatima, since it refers to "the pope of 1960."

I love how you put the expression "the pope of 1960" in quotes, as if it were a direct quote, even though you made that up completely.  Our Lady said that the Third Secret should be revealed or made public NO LATER THAN 1960.  Then Sister Lucy asked why 1960 (i.e. why that date is the deadline), and she said that the Third Secret would be much clearer then.  Secret could have been revealed by either the Bishop of Leiria-Fatima, to whom it was originally entrusted, or the Pope, as the former "punted" it over to Rome.  There's no reference to "the pope of 1960" in anything Sister Lucy said.

IMO, the Pope of 1960 was Gregory XVII (Siri), and I believe that Pius XII was poisoned by the nefarious Galeazzi-Lizi and died prematurely, and that Sister Lucia was murdered.  But we'll find out the truth someday.

Mocking them seems too cruel but hard to not watch the train wreck:

The Luminous Cross at Benedict’s Funeral was a Sign from Heaven
January 27, 2023 Editor 25 Comments

Editor’s Note: Imagine my shock to find that the Cross which appeared in Heaven at the Pope’s funeral, pointing south, should be featured in painting on Canvas, affixed to the wall above the Restaurant, at the Hotel where the Election of his successor, God willing, shall take place on Monday!

And for the incredulous, and curious, the Luminous Cross appeared in the direction of the Mariott Park Hotel, so if you want any more signs from God about what one is to do in the future, I do not know what you would expect.

The Hotel Staff says that this canvas was commissioned by the owners of the Hotel, who are devout Catholics from Sicily. However, the canvas does NOT depict the vision of the Cross of Constantine, because that occurred at the Milvian Bridge, further up the Tiber river. In this image, the light of the cross appears to emanate and fall on the Piazza of San Pietro, where the funeral of Pope Benedict XVI was conducted. — In this canvas, two smaller Angels carry a banner, which reads, “In hoc signo vinces!”, that is, “In this sign, you shall conquer!”

At the corners of the canvas, on each side, one can see the Apostle Saint Peter, on the left, and Saint Paul the Apostle on the right. St. Peter is crouched, evidently, to indicate that the See of Peter is vacant, and awaits a new Pope.

https://www.fromrome.info/2023/01/27/the-luminous-cross-at-benedicts-funeral-was-a-sign-from-heaven/

Is that legit?

1. The Apostolic See be legitimately vacant
2. The electors be members of the Roman Church
3.All the electors be invited by public notice
4.The electors gather together in a public meeting
5.The electors chose a Catholic man who is an adult, not married, and free from ecclesiastical censure.

Is he campaigning here?

He would need to add the entire premise for his entire movement.  That the electors who are designated by a previous pope (i.e. the Cardinals) would have lost their right to elect the Pope.  Bugnolo grossly misreads Wojtyla's docuмent, which nowhere states that if the Conclave does not being at 20 days after the death of the Pope, the Cardinals would lose their authority to elect the Pope.  So if for some reason they had to start on Day 21, they would lose the right to elect and Bugnolo could gather his conclave?  That's not what Wojtyla meant.  Wojtyla was clearly saying that the Cardinals must wait at least 15 days ... to allow all the Cardinal electors to get to Rome ... but after 20 should go ahead with it.  There's no penalty stipulated if for some reason they wait til day 21 or day 51.  It would seem to be left to the prudence of the Cardinals.  Let's say there was some worldwide disruption of international flight, causing delays.  Bugnolo could then convene his conclave on Day 21 while the Cardinals start on Day 22?  It's ridiculous, and it's tragic that Bugnolo can't see it.  This provision was put in there by Wojtyla only to prevent some shennanigans where the Cardinal who happened to live in Rome would start the conclave before the others could get there from around the world, and elect a Pope on the basis of the votes of like 10 of them who resided in Rome.