Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Sigismund on May 05, 2014, 09:12:12 PM
-
I would be interested in knowing who sedevacantists on this forum regard as the last real pope. John XXIII, Pius XII, or someone earlier? I respectfully ask non-sede's (like myself) not to hijack this thread into an argument about the merits of sedevacantism or to attack sedevacantists.
Thanks.
-
Hi Sigismund. I am sure some of the more experienced posters can jump and give you more details but the short answer, I think, is that everyone agrees that Pius XII was the last 'for sure' pope. From there things divide. Some sedevacantists maintain that John XXIII was validly elected and the disputes begin as to exactly when he 'fell'. Others reject him out of hand. Pretty much all sedevacantists reject Paul VI as pope, but there is some dispute as to whether he was validly elected and then fell into heresy, or whether he was not validly elected at all. So in a nutshell:
Up until 1958, everything okay.
From 1958-1965 is where all the questions are asked. I think most sedevacantists are pretty honest in that the fine point of exactly when the See of Peter went vacant and exactly how, will have to be decided definitively by the Church at some later time. Still in the meantime, while we wait, it keeps things busy discussing, speculating and arguing.
Hope this helps, at least somewhat...
Luke
-
I would be interested in knowing who sedevacantists on this forum regard as the last real pope. John XXIII, Pius XII, or someone earlier? I respectfully ask non-sede's (like myself) not to hijack this thread into an argument about the merits of sedevacantism or to attack sedevacantists.
Thanks.
Pius XII certainly. John XXIII likely, I'm not sure if all of the evidence will ever surface one way or another because his reputation has been revised and polished for the Vatican II religion's agenda.
-
Sigismund,
A good question, here is a post I wrote recently on this subject:
Regarding John XXIII:
As many posters have already said: many sedevacantists remain unsure about John XXIII, and do not tread there. They will usually just say, "Pope Pius XII was our last certain Pope," leaving open the possibility that John XXIII was a true Pope.
For myself, as it stands now, I believe the evidence supports his claim to the Papacy. As a provisional position, I believe that his claim to the Papacy was most likely legitimate for the following reasons:
1. He was universally and peacefully accepted by the Church.
2. He was accepted by the Roman Clergy whom he ruled.
3. He was peacefully accepted by the hierarchy.
4. He never professed a public heresy.
5. He never taught any heresy or grave error against the Faith.
6. He never promulgated an evil universal disciplinary law.
7. He never signed the docuмents of Vatican II, he was long deceased before the end of the Council.
8. There is evidence to support the idea that he wanted the Council stopped.
9. The Holy Office under John XXIII continued to function as it should, with Cardinal Ottaviani as it's prefect.
10. All other functions of the Roman Curia and all dioceses continued to function properly and peacefully, during the reign of John XXIII.
11. It is a fact that overall, Catholics throughout the world in the 1950's and up until the death of John XXIII were completely oblivious to the fact that the Church was on the verge of a major revolution. No one grasped this until the ascendency of Paul VI, as the Council was already hijacked and the battle between the orthodox bishops and theologians (periti) vs. the liberals were becoming more public.
-
Thanks. I would very much like to hear from other sedevacantists here.
-
Well, I for one believe that the 1958 conclave was hijacked and that Siri was elected, making Roncalli "uncanonically elected".
Roncalli was suspect of modernism and considered a Communist sympathizer if not agent. One high-ranking Freemason claimed that Roncalli was inducted into Masonry in Paris (which have rendered him excommunicated). Masonic newspapers hailed his election.
In one of his early encyclicals he referred cryptically to a "mysterious force" rising in the world. "Mysterious Force" is the original name for Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.
-
We have this picture of the Holy Father hanging in the sacristy of the chapel I attend and it's the only papal portrait on display. Most, if not all consider Pope Pius XII the last Pope without question at my chapel:
(https://mundabor.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/pius-xii.jpg?w=604)
-
Not Giovanni Battista Montini
(http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/pTG2hgcQHhIYN.CTPZnb9w--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTU0OTtweW9mZj0wO3E9NzU7dz03Njg-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/afp.com/0ccd7d0604e7d18aa7ce156acd79c121e3bf9e30.jpg)
(overt Masonic handshake)
-
Pope Pius XII
Possibly Pope Gregory XVII
-
I regard Pius XII as certainly a true pope.
I regard John 23 as probably a true pope. I have heard the various arguments against his claim to the papacy, but the evidence does not seem to be very concrete. The Siri Thesis is also, to my view, weak, for Cardinal Siri never seemed to do any public action that would indicate that he claimed the papacy. On the other hand, John 23 did start the ball towards apostasy rolling and the new ecuмenism certainly was his view of doctrine, but was it truly manifest as required to truly fall from the papacy? I don't know. This is the reason I generally use the year 1960 as the Line of Demarcation as to what is safe and what is not to be considered safe.
Most of Ambrose's points are pretty accurate. I would, however, take issue with point number 8:
8. There is evidence to support the idea that he wanted the Council stopped.
It seems the evidence for this point is nill. It seems to be anecdotal with origins long after his death. It seems to be based on rumors--the same as the evidence that he was formally a Freemason.
I am not convinced that he was pope, nor am I convinced that he was not.
If Paul 6 was ever pope, he most certainly was not when he signed to Council docuмents that proclaim heresy as the teaching of the Catholic Church.
-
For me it is much easier to just say Pius XII was the last valid Pope but I believe we may have had a Pope until November 21st 1964. What is beyond question is that the docuмents in V2 after Lumen Gentium have things in them that cannot be interpreted as anything other than heresy, and that a valid Pope cannot render the sacraments invalid or doubtful as was done in 1968 and that a valid Pope could not have foisted the new Mass upon us as was done in 1969. The Mass that was foisted upon us in 1967 also could not have been done by a valid Pope.
All the stuff that has since happened, watering down the exorcism rite (does anyone other than me find this incredible even for one trying to pass himself off as a legitimate Pope!), approving a consecration rite as being a valid consecration without it even having a consecration formula, (incredible! This does not have anyone questioning the legitimacy of JP2?), having an out and out lie about the 3rd secret of Fatima approved by a Pope, canon law allowing heretics to receive the sacrament of unity the Holy Eucharist. No longer being able to proselytize the Orthodox or Jєωs, canonizations of anti-Catholics. All that shows that the Holy Ghost no longer had a valid Pope to protect from fallibility by the time the first docuмents after Lumen Gentium were approved in 1965.
So IMO the important thing for us now is that there is no way we have had a valid Pope since 1965. And if you want proof look at what has been officially approved by the false Popes since, starting with the V"2" council itself. There begins the endless stream of head-scratching. The head is scratch because we know valid Pope "could not have done that" but the guy claiming to be Pope did in fact do "that". Whatever the that might be from worshiping with heretics repeatedly to repeated acts of binding on the Church what certainly cannot be bound in Heaven. Either we have not had a Pope since the council or the Holy Ghost quit his job. It is one or the other.
-
Thanks to everyone for replying.
-
No clue but I know the ones since I've been Catholic weren't teaching Christian things.
-
Most sedevacantists claim that the last pope was Pius XII and that Pope John XXIII (Cardinal Roncalli) was invalidly elected because he was a heretic prior to claiming the papal throne. But according to the Ecclesiastical Law, in order for Cardinal Roncalli’s election to the papacy to have been invalidated for heresy, Pope Pius XII would have had to judge that Cardinal Roncalli was a heretic, since Pius XII is sole judge of his Cardinals under canons 1557 and 1558 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law. But he did not.
-
Pope Pius XII, was the last valid Pope.
Go to the "Crises of the Church" and listen to part 1 of the audio interview
from yesterday, Jim Condit, Jr. on the Explaining the "Siri Thesis", and the
Eclipse of the Church.
-
Albino Luciani and Karol Józef Wojtyła
(http://TraditionalCatholic.net/sede_vacante/JPI-JPII.jpg)
Freemasonic pass grip of a Master Mason
-
Most sedevacantists claim that the last pope was Pius XII and that Pope John XXIII (Cardinal Roncalli) was invalidly elected because he was a heretic prior to claiming the papal throne. But according to the Ecclesiastical Law, in order for Cardinal Roncalli’s election to the papacy to have been invalidated for heresy, Pope Pius XII would have had to judge that Cardinal Roncalli was a heretic, since Pius XII is sole judge of his Cardinals under canons 1557 and 1558 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law. But he did not.
I'm *shocked* that Cantarella chimed in here with a post against the SV position despite the OP's request:
I respectfully ask non-sede's (like myself) not to hijack this thread into an argument about the merits of sedevacantism or to attack sedevacantists
-
Most sedevacantists claim that the last pope was Pius XII and that Pope John XXIII (Cardinal Roncalli) was invalidly elected because he was a heretic prior to claiming the papal throne. But according to the Ecclesiastical Law, in order for Cardinal Roncalli’s election to the papacy to have been invalidated for heresy, Pope Pius XII would have had to judge that Cardinal Roncalli was a heretic, since Pius XII is sole judge of his Cardinals under canons 1557 and 1558 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law. But he did not.
I'm *shocked* that Cantarella chimed in here with a post against the SV position despite the OP's request:
I respectfully ask non-sede's (like myself) not to hijack this thread into an argument about the merits of sedevacantism or to attack sedevacantists
Cantarella is anti-SV first, then Catholic.
-
Most sedevacantists claim that the last pope was Pius XII and that Pope John XXIII (Cardinal Roncalli) was invalidly elected because he was a heretic prior to claiming the papal throne. But according to the Ecclesiastical Law, in order for Cardinal Roncalli’s election to the papacy to have been invalidated for heresy, Pope Pius XII would have had to judge that Cardinal Roncalli was a heretic, since Pius XII is sole judge of his Cardinals under canons 1557 and 1558 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law. But he did not.
I'm *shocked* that Cantarella chimed in here with a post against the SV position despite the OP's request:
I respectfully ask non-sede's (like myself) not to hijack this thread into an argument about the merits of sedevacantism or to attack sedevacantists
Cantarella is anti-SV first, then Catholic.
That certainly seems to be the case to me as well. Along with the likes of Machabees.