Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: Matthew on April 26, 2018, 10:57:00 AM
-
I kindly ask ALL CATHINFO MEMBERS to please vote in this poll. It only takes a few seconds.
You need to be a CathInfo member to vote in the poll. If you are not a CathInfo member yet, perhaps now is the time to sign up for an account. There is no obligation to post in the future, or give out any information which might identify you. You can talk about yourself as much or as little as you like.
The results will be kept anonymous; the poll is "for entertainment purposes only". I'm not going to look up the results and ban all the sedevacantists or something. I already know who most of the sedevacantists are; if that was my goal I wouldn't bother with a poll.
;)
Once again, I consider myself good at writing polls. That is to say, the poll is clear, FOCUSED, easy to understand, each option is exclusive, with no overlap, and everyone fits into one of the options. Please select the option that most closely fits your position.
And since I know Trads so well, I have to add: Please don't flatter yourself; I assure you that I thought of your position, and included it in the poll. Please select it.
The focus of this poll is the OPINION of each CathInfo member on the status of Pope Francis. This is not about what the Church has or hasn't decided, what will be decided eventually, the value of a layman's personal opinion, or any of that.
If you believe he's pope by default and it's up to the Church to declare otherwise, then great! Select "Recognize and Resist" or "I just don't know, I have my doubts".
This poll also has NOTHING AT ALL to do with where you attend Mass. You can believe he's the Pope and attend a sedevacantist chapel, or be sedevacantist and attend an SSPX chapel. This is only about each member's fragile, relatively worthless, personal opinion on the status of Pope Francis.
-
#3 includes the option "sede-doubtist". What is the difference between that & #5: "I just don't know or I have my doubts."?
It seems like including "sede-doubtist" in #3 will split votes for those who "doubt" between #3 & #5. Just an observation.
The difference is that "I don't know" means they haven't figured out EXACTLY the nature of Pope Francis' impediments to his papacy, etc.
In other words, they don't know which of the nuanced positions they would best fit in.
And don't worry, when collating results, those two will logically be lumped together by most. Just like conclavist sede and sede go together.
But the best thing about this poll is that it's completely public and specific, so thinkers and writers everywhere can refer to it and use the results as they see fit. Anyone using these results will have to justify (to their audience) why they counted "sedevacantist" and "recognize and resist" together to estimate the number of sedevacantists in the world. Know what I mean?
The results are here for anyone to verify and see.
TL;DR: You can always merge categories later. You can't split them out later. Being specific is good, because you never know what details a future reader is going to be interested in.
-
Why would that be? A conclavist sede is very different than a sede.
1. Of course they are different. That's why they are different poll options!
2. They are both sedevacantist, so MOST writers would group them together.
3. But it doesn't matter if you disagree with a given hypothetical, future "grouping" or not -- I'm keeping them separate in this poll, and the results are public! So if you disagree with a grouping, please take it up with the hypothetical future author who takes these results and illogically combines this or that pile together.
Sound good?
-
Great poll, Matthew. This will be fun; I hope we get a good turnout. ...One problem...you didn't include "Paul VI is still pope" as an option. :jester: :popcorn: :laugh2:
You know what? I went ahead and improved the poll a tad. I changed the last option to include ALL fringe opinions about the Pope, for example "Pope Benedict is still Pope".
Any other alternative popes, however, should be included under the first option. At least if they were elected by a special conclave of sedevacantist(s) after Vatican II.
Just for kicks, I added another option for "Siri Thesis" as well. It's about as fringe as "Pope Benedict is Pope", but I might as well include it.
-
I- of course- voted Siri thesis but am not so sure he appointed a successor. :cheers:
-
I- of course- voted Siri thesis but am not so sure he appointed a successor. :cheers:
I don't think he did either, but I believe he was elected. I voted sede-doubtism of course. Even with the Siri hypothesis, we do not have any smoking-gun proof that would give us any certain closure on the matter.
-
who said that lmao
LOL, that's Amakusa. He claims that a demon told an exorcist that Paul VI was still alive (must be around 130 by now) and that he would return to reclaim his office and end the crisis. Taking no account of the fact that Montini very much caused said crisis. Perhaps then he repented of his ways and re-converted (according to sedeprivationism, he would then resume being formally the pope).
Hey, we could come up with a scenario that includes ALL of the above positions. That might be fun.
-
R&R and he is as certainly pope as Jesus is God COULD be combined I suppose.
I've made a big point of the fact that during a normal legitimate papacy, we MUST be as certain of legitimacy as we are of any defined dogma, since legitimacy is a dogmatic fact. If it wasn't absolutely certain with the certainty of faith that Pius XII was pope, then it's not certain with the certainty of faith that Our Lady was assumed into heaven.
So my contention is that there are VERY FEW TRUE SEDEPLENISTS among Traditional Catholics. Every SSPX bishop has at one point speculated that they MIGHT be illegitimate. That already makes them DOUBTFUL POPES and on that account NO POPES (Papa Dubius Nullus Papa) ... for all intents and purposes. And it's BECAUSE of that doubt that we are justified in resisting their Magisterium and Universal Discipline ... thus my sededoubtist position. So, for this reason, I do not consider +Lefebvre to have been a sedeplenist but a sededoubtist ... much like myself. In the practical order, he resolved the doubt (giving benefit of the doubt) in favor of legitimacy ... but he was by no means certain with the certainty of faith that they were legitimate. There are tons of quotes from him speculating that they very well might not be.
-
LOL, that's Amakusa. He claims that a demon told an exorcist that Paul VI was still alive (must be around 130 by now) and that he would return to reclaim his office and end the crisis. Taking no account of the fact that Montini very much caused said crisis. Perhaps then he repented of his ways and re-converted (according to sedeprivationism, he would then resume being formally the pope).
Hey, we could come up with a scenario that includes ALL of the above positions. That might be fun.
The 50 Year Apostasy and the Revenge of Montini - coming to a book store near you.
I'm so glad we have a demon's testimony to rely on to know Montini still lives at 130 years of age. If it were a man I mightn't believe it, but a demon would surely never tell fibs.
-
The 50 Year Apostasy and the Revenge of Montini - coming to a book store near you.
I'm so glad we have a demon's testimony to rely on to know Montini still lives at 130 years of age. If it were a man I mightn't believe it, but a demon would surely never tell fibs.
For your reading pleasure:
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-apocalypse-unveiled/
I must say that it is highly entertaining.
-
For your reading pleasure:
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-apocalypse-unveiled/
I must say that it is highly entertaining.
This is even better than that guy who claimed the last Pope, Peter the Roman, was some random exorcist in America that he refused to name. At least Amakusa is saying someone else is the true Pope, rather that the aforementioned guy who I believe was referring to himself.
-
Ladislaus,
I've made a big point of the fact that during a normal legitimate papacy, we MUST be as certain of legitimacy as we are of any defined dogma, since legitimacy is a dogmatic fact.
Well, that is precisely the point. The conciliar papacies have been anything but normal, in fact there have been so many clear departures from both the Tradition and doctrine from almost any preceeding papacy, and at a level which was unheard of, that a definite element of uncertainty has been introduced.
Who can be sure with divine and Catholic Faith that these men could be legitimate sucessors of Peter? Infilltrators who have circuмvented the papal selection process.
One might say, "it cannot happen", but the fact of the matter is that it is more likely than not that it has.
-
Every SSPX bishop has at one point speculated that they MIGHT be illegitimate. That already makes them DOUBTFUL POPES and on that account NO POPES (Papa Dubius Nullus Papa) ... for all intents and purposes.
None of the popes since the council can be considered "doubtful," according to the teaching of the canonists.
Wernz-Vidal explains that the phrase "Papa dubius est papa nullus" can be understood negatively or positively. It is understood positively when, "after a careful examination of the fact, competent men in the Catholic Church would pronounce: 'The validity of the canonical election of this Roman pontiff is uncertain'." This has not taken place.
Werns-Vidal go on to explain that the words "no pope" do not apply to a pope who was at first accepted by the entire Church, "but concerning whose election so many difficulties are subsequently brought to light that he becomes 'a doubtful pope' in such a way that he would thereby forfeit the pontifical power already obtained." Once his election is accepted by the entire Church, as has been the case with every pope from John XXIII until now, any later doubts that arise, even if the doubts are real, will not make, nor will it suggest, that he is "no pope". The reason is because the acceptance of the election by the entire Church makes his legitimacy infallibly certain, and he will legally retain the pontificate until he ether dies, resigns, or is declared deposed by the competent authorities due to insanity or heresy.
The negative way in which a pope can be legitimately deemed doubtful is if his election was always in doubt from the beginning and continues to remain in doubt. "But the other part of this axiom could have the meaning that a Roman pontiff whose canonical election is uncertain and remains subject to positive and solid doubts after studious examination, absolutely never did acquire also the papal jurisdiction from Christ the Lord." In this case it would be legitimate to refuse him obedience, but not because of doubts that arise after his election has been accepted as pope by the entire Church.
Obedience can be refused to a legitimate Pope if the command given is illicit, being opposed to faith or charity, but he must be obeyed in all other things. I would also note that, whereas I fall into the category of "Recognize and Resist", I have never refused any direct command of the Pope. Maybe we should come up with a third category to further divide traditional Catholics.
-
Obedience can be refused to a legitimate Pope if the command given is illicit, being opposed to faith or charity, but he must be obeyed in all other things. I would also note that, whereas I fall into the category of "Recognize and Resist", I have never refused any direct command of the Pope. Maybe we should come up with a third category to further divide traditional Catholics.
Well none of the recent popes have paid me a visit, called me on the phone, or even sent an e-mail. I haven't explicitly disobeyed any of them either.
Unless you count not going to the Novus Ordo Mass.
-
I voted sedevacantist, but I'm prefectly open to someone explaining that there *is* a Pope. The position is much more about who *isn't* Pope than insisting that there isn't one at all.
-
The Saint Louis Catholic blog conducted a similar poll last September.
Pope vs. Antipope: Dissecting the Poll
"Therefore I put up a poll last week asking readers just to give their opinion: Who do you really think is pope, and why? Even allowing for the undeniable traditionalist (or as others rightly point out, Catholic) bent of the blog, the results surprised me.
I think many are saying, "Hey, I'm either not crazy or else most of us are, but I think Benedict is still pope!" And of those, most cite the ineffectiveness of the putative abdication or some combination of factors including also allegations of heresy, invalid election, deposition, or mistake of fact.
No, this is definitely not a scientific poll. Votes were limited only by platform, and a person with multiple devices could theoretically vote more than once. Yet there were 674 votes, and a sample of 500 in a scientific poll would yield a +/- of 5%. No, it was not a random sample. Yes, most respondents would be considered traditional Catholics or "conservative" Catholics-- but then again, the poll was intended for Catholics only. I don't consider the editorial board of NCR or America to be Catholic.
But even considering the limitations, the results are, I believe, quite significant:
WHICH BEST DESCRIBES YOUR OPINION ABOUT THE CURRENT POPE?
Francis is Pope 16%
Benedict is Pope 72%
Some other person is Pope 1%
No one is Pope 9%
IF YOU CHOSE ANY ANSWER IN POLL ABOVE THAT INDICATES FRANCIS IS NOT POPE, WHY DO YOU THINK SO?
Benedict's abdication was not effective 38%
Francis' election was invalid 5%
Francis has lost his office due to heresy 4%
Some combination of the above 42%
Neither Francis nor Benedict was ever pope 8%
Out of 674 votes, a staggering 490 said that in their opinion, Benedict XVI is still Pope. That's 72% of those who voted. But who cares if it were "only" half? It boggles the mind.
Of those, the plurality focused on the ineffectiveness of the putative abdication. Meaning, either he never intended to resign; he wrote his resignation in a legally ineffective way; he made a mistake in fact by not intending to resign the whole office; or that he was coerced such that it was truly involuntary.
Even allowing for the readership's "style" of Catholicism (for which Francis does not care), even allowing for some multiple votes-- the least that can be said is that hundreds of Catholics who found this poll on this blog have the opinion that Benedict XVI is still Pope and that the guy the world and most of the self-identified Catholics of the world hail as pope is in fact NOT THE POPE. Ann Barnhardt cited this for the notion that such persons should not feel isolated, weird or crazy-- that there are others. True, but I ask you to consider this: When was the last time in history (not including obvious interregnum periods) that at least 400 Catholics at any one time were not certain who the Pope was? It's unprecedented-- unless the sedes are right. And I don't believe they are.
This uncertainty, in addition to the maladies arising from personnel, policies and persecutions-- this uncertainty by and of itself-- is a chastisement from God. A chastisement that only the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart can alleviate.
There are perhaps practical solutions. Perhaps a true public correction/declaration of deposition would solve the problem of the current occupant. But it would not lift a cloud over the next conclave unless that declaration of deposition leads Benedict to claim the mantle that may still be his, or else prove that he did (or now would) freely and effectively resign, explaining away the coercive indicators from the last such time."
http://stlouiscatholic.blogspot.com/2017/09/pope-vs-antipope-dissecting-poll.html
-
TL;DR: You can always merge categories later. You can't split them out later. Being specific is good, because you never know what details a future reader is going to be interested in.
Indeed!
The corresponding practice of splitting in software-design and programming is also highly advisable [†]. Perhaps Matthew's experiences in that field are what evoked his strong feelings expressed in this poll topic.
The dogmatic refusal to provide more than, e.g., 5 choices in a poll or menu at any 1 time, claiming justification by citing results from some psychology-Ph.D.'s "cognition" research, is a stupidly artificial limitation on readers that often produces confusing complications for users [××].
-------
Note †: A technical issue known as atomicity. E.g.: When a programmer needs only a separate date or a separate time--not both--yet he's limited to--i.e., stuck with--a programming interface that combines both values, so he's required to do extra work to extract only the one he needs. It's also extra work for the thousands of other programmers on other projects who need the same separate things from the same interface. And no, don't even think of arguing that such programmers really ought to prefer the combination instead of its aforementioned components.
Note ××: E.g., Microsoft Windows' habitual isolation of menu items for accomplishing perfectly ordinary tasks into artificially extra "advanced" menus.
-
We’re up to 74, come on folks don’t be shy, vote early and vote often😁 Surely we can do better than the 600 mentioned in the post below.
-
We’re up to 74, come on folks don’t be shy, vote early and vote often😁 Surely we can do better than the 600 mentioned in the post below.
That has to be a mainstream or perhaps "conservative" Catholic blog. To get those kind of numbers, you have to go well beyond the kind of serious Trads you find on CathInfo.
-
That has to be a mainstream or perhaps "conservative" Catholic blog. To get those kind of numbers, you have to go well beyond the kind of serious Trads you find on CathInfo.
72% of them voted Benedict was still Pope. That's roughly 485 people. I didn't realise there were that many people on the planet who held that view. I thought it was just Father Kramer and a handful of others.
-
72% of them voted Benedict was still Pope. That's roughly 485 people. I didn't realise there were that many people on the planet who held that view. I thought it was just Father Kramer and a handful of others.
Did you catch the other detail?
They said that it was only limited by IP address, so you could vote as many times as you could snag another IP address (Tor, proxy, mobile, work, home, etc.)
So it's a pretty worthless poll.
-
Did you catch the other detail?
They said that it was only limited by IP address, so you could vote as many times as you could snag another IP address (Tor, proxy, mobile, work, home, etc.)
So it's a pretty worthless poll.
True enough, I think some Benedictist must've voted many times, because unless it's a blog specifically for people who believe Benedict's still Pope(and the excerpt suggested it wasn't).
-
72% of them voted Benedict was still Pope. That's roughly 485 people. I didn't realise there were that many people on the planet who held that view. I thought it was just Father Kramer and a handful of others.
I actually believe it. I think, among the "conservative" and indult-type Novus Ordites, most who believe Francis is not pope do in fact believe Benedict is still pope. It will be interesting to see what these folks will say when Benedict finally kicks the bucket.
-
I actually believe it. I think, among the "conservative" and indult-type Novus Ordites, most who believe Francis is not pope do in fact believe Benedict is still pope. It will be interesting to see what these folks will say when Benedict finally kicks the bucket.
What would happen if Francis kicks the bucket before Benedict?
-
What would happen if Francis kicks the bucket before Benedict?
That's a good question too.
-
What would happen if Francis kicks the bucket before Benedict?
Don't think it'd change their stance on Benedict's secret Papacy. I wonder what they believe would happen if Francis died, a new Pope was elected, and THEN Benedict died. Would that Pope be valid in their eyes? Probably not. But would his successor?
-
I am not sure. There is no doubt that Francis is a heretic; even the stupidest of people could figure this out. At the same time, I'm not sure how to approach the nearly six-decade long interregnum if sedevacantism is the answer. That seems like an unusually long time to not have the pope.
-
I am not sure. There is no doubt that Francis is a heretic; even the stupidest of people could figure this out. At the same time, I'm not sure how to approach the nearly six-decade long interregnum if sedevacantism is the answer. That seems like an unusually long time to not have the pope.
We're caught between two impossibilities - that the Church could have 60 years of heretical/borderline heretical possibly masonic Popes, or that the Church could have 60 years with no Pope. This is why, although I disagree with it, I can understand why R&R is safe middleground, cautioning against two risky extremes.
-
Don't think it'd change their stance on Benedict's secret Papacy. I wonder what they believe would happen if Francis died, a new Pope was elected, and THEN Benedict died. Would that Pope be valid in their eyes? Probably not. But would his successor?
I think if Francis' successor is another Benedict....say Burke or Sarah, then these folks will suddenly forget about Benedict's "forced" resignation and consider Benedict XVII a true pope.
-
Even guys that support Bishop Fellay, like Louie Verrechio, don't believe that Francis is Pope. The whole Benedict/resignationist thing is much much bigger than what people see at first look, as in there are many more people who believe it is likely. And what is most interesting is that they are spread out in many groups (SSPX/Resistance/Ecclesia Dei/ Diocesan).
For anyone with time to watch a 15 minute video, it's worth it.
https://vimeo.com/246334596
-
I happen to really like Louie Verrecchio even though I do not agree with him.
Unfortunately the problem with most Resignationists/those who think Benedict is the true pope is that they completely miss the boat on Vatican II (although this is not true of Verrecchio). They miss the boat that the real issue is Vatican II and therefore the real issue involves all of the post-Vatican II popes, not just Francis.
-
The Saint Louis Catholic blog conducted a similar poll last September.
Pope vs. Antipope: Dissecting the Poll
"Therefore I put up a poll last week asking readers just to give their opinion: Who do you really think is pope, and why? Even allowing for the undeniable traditionalist (or as others rightly point out, Catholic) bent of the blog, the results surprised me.
I think many are saying, "Hey, I'm either not crazy or else most of us are, but I think Benedict is still pope!" And of those, most cite the ineffectiveness of the putative abdication or some combination of factors including also allegations of heresy, invalid election, deposition, or mistake of fact.
No, this is definitely not a scientific poll. Votes were limited only by platform, and a person with multiple devices could theoretically vote more than once. Yet there were 674 votes, and a sample of 500 in a scientific poll would yield a +/- of 5%. No, it was not a random sample. Yes, most respondents would be considered traditional Catholics or "conservative" Catholics-- but then again, the poll was intended for Catholics only. I don't consider the editorial board of NCR or America to be Catholic.
But even considering the limitations, the results are, I believe, quite significant:
WHICH BEST DESCRIBES YOUR OPINION ABOUT THE CURRENT POPE?
Francis is Pope 16%
Benedict is Pope 72%
Some other person is Pope 1%
No one is Pope 9%
IF YOU CHOSE ANY ANSWER IN POLL ABOVE THAT INDICATES FRANCIS IS NOT POPE, WHY DO YOU THINK SO?
Benedict's abdication was not effective 38%
Francis' election was invalid 5%
Francis has lost his office due to heresy 4%
Some combination of the above 42%
Neither Francis nor Benedict was ever pope 8%
Out of 674 votes, a staggering 490 said that in their opinion, Benedict XVI is still Pope. That's 72% of those who voted. But who cares if it were "only" half? It boggles the mind.
Of those, the plurality focused on the ineffectiveness of the putative abdication. Meaning, either he never intended to resign; he wrote his resignation in a legally ineffective way; he made a mistake in fact by not intending to resign the whole office; or that he was coerced such that it was truly involuntary.
Even allowing for the readership's "style" of Catholicism (for which Francis does not care), even allowing for some multiple votes-- the least that can be said is that hundreds of Catholics who found this poll on this blog have the opinion that Benedict XVI is still Pope and that the guy the world and most of the self-identified Catholics of the world hail as pope is in fact NOT THE POPE. Ann Barnhardt cited this for the notion that such persons should not feel isolated, weird or crazy-- that there are others. True, but I ask you to consider this: When was the last time in history (not including obvious interregnum periods) that at least 400 Catholics at any one time were not certain who the Pope was? It's unprecedented-- unless the sedes are right. And I don't believe they are.
This uncertainty, in addition to the maladies arising from personnel, policies and persecutions-- this uncertainty by and of itself-- is a chastisement from God. A chastisement that only the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart can alleviate.
There are perhaps practical solutions. Perhaps a true public correction/declaration of deposition would solve the problem of the current occupant. But it would not lift a cloud over the next conclave unless that declaration of deposition leads Benedict to claim the mantle that may still be his, or else prove that he did (or now would) freely and effectively resign, explaining away the coercive indicators from the last such time."
http://stlouiscatholic.blogspot.com/2017/09/pope-vs-antipope-dissecting-poll.html
.
For a first-time poster, your contribution is more impressive than any others I've seen in the past.
.
Your poll and its results are noteworthy. However, I have a different outlook.
It seems to me rather ironic that Catholics would be so eager to welcome Benedict XVI back as if he's somehow a better option.
During the Evil Council, erstwhile Fr. Joseph Ratzinger was a prime mover of the unclean spirit of Vat.II and its evil.
If it were not for him and his fellow piriti, like Rahner, Schillebeeckx, Congar, Murray, etc., we wouldn't have had an evil council.
.
One of the most ominous and dangerous blights on the history of the Church is Benedict XVI's "hermeneutic of continuity."
.
If ever there were a preference for the lesser of two evils, this is it.
.
-
It seems to me rather ironic that Catholics would be so eager to welcome Benedict XVI back as if he's somehow a better option.
Indeed, he's a WORSE option, since he can more readily convince people that he's orthodox. But there's no heresy that Father Kramer imputes to Jorge Bergoglio that Ratzinger didn't hold to first. He's got a file about a mile long if laid out from end to end. Ratzinger, however, offers Mass (Novus Ordo) in Latin, gives sermons in Latin, issued the Motu, etc. ... so shallow Traditionalists who are only worried about liturgical matters don't recognize that he's promoted some wildly-heretical ideas throughout his life.
-
I actually believe it. I think, among the "conservative" and indult-type Novus Ordites, most who believe Francis is not pope do in fact believe Benedict is still pope. It will be interesting to see what these folks will say when Benedict finally kicks the bucket.
Since Father Paul Kramer has distributed his views about Benedict still being pope on the Servants of Jesus and Mary mailing list, most likely more people are agreeing with his analysis month by month. Note that Fr. Paul's persuasive writings have been distributed not just once, but many times.
-
Quote from: forlorn on Yesterday at 11:49:05 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/poll-personal-position-on-the-pope/msg605925/#msg605925)
who said that lmao
[^ post that has been deleted ^]
LOL, that's Amakusa. He claims that a demon told an exorcist that Paul VI was still alive (must be around 130 by now) and that he would return to reclaim his office and end the crisis. Taking no account of the fact that Montini very much caused said crisis. Perhaps then he repented of his ways and re-converted (according to sedeprivationism, he would then resume being formally the pope).
Hey, we could come up with a scenario that includes ALL of the above positions. That might be fun.
.
When October arrives, read about it again, and think it over. There could be more than one way of "returning."
.
I ran into a cult that believed with their whole ascent of mind and will that Paul VI had been replaced with a double, sometime in the late 1960's -- as I recall they thought it was before the Novus Ordo came out so they thought the new mass was therefore a fraud. They said you could see it in before-and-after photos because the new guy's ear lobes were longer in later photographs, while it is common knowledge that ear lobe length doesn't change overnight, they claimed.
.
Not so sure about that.............
.
......................................................... (https://s15-us2.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.piercingtime.com%2Fimages%2F343%2FLower-Lip-And-Extreme-Modification-Piercing-With-Ear-Stretching.jpg&sp=8d9f82e5f643b03dd254e41ec963ecd9)
.
Taking no account of the fact that Montini very much caused said crisis.
.
I agree. But for the cult I described above, it was the SECOND Montini, the DOUBLE who they think caused it, and so, if the FIRST Montini - that is, the REAL Montini - the REAL Pope Paul VI were to "return" they would think that's a good thing.
.
-
Well, some of the Montini-double "evidence" I've found to intriguing ... especially the voice print analysis. And my gut instinct from just looking at some of the different pictures is that there could very well have been 2 men posing as Montini over the years. But who knows why. Montini was a known Communist sympathizer (agent?) long before his election ... so not sure why they would have needed a double. But, would I put anything past the Jєωs/Masons/Illuminati? Nope.
(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/97a94a7e9a96.jpg)
(http://www.nuestrasenoradelasrosas.org/news1/clues.7.jpg)
-
Indeed, he's a WORSE option, since he can more readily convince people that he's orthodox. But there's no heresy that Father Kramer imputes to Jorge Bergoglio that Ratzinger didn't hold to first. He's got a file about a mile long if laid out from end to end. Ratzinger, however, offers Mass (Novus Ordo) in Latin, gives sermons in Latin, issued the Motu, etc. ... so shallow Traditionalists who are only worried about liturgical matters don't recognize that he's promoted some wildly-heretical ideas throughout his life.
.
Wildly heretical ideas the foremost of which is that extra ecclesiam nulla salus means just the opposite of what it says.
.
And we can thank him and his associates for that, associates not excluding one Cardinal who died 10 years before Vat.II began, Francesco Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani (d. Jan 13th, 1951), erstwhile secretary of the Holy Office.
.
-
I happen to really like Louie Verrecchio even though I do not agree with him.
Unfortunately the problem with most Resignationists/those who think Benedict is the true pope is that they completely miss the boat on Vatican II (although this is not true of Verrecchio). They miss the boat that the real issue is Vatican II and therefore the real issue involves all of the post-Vatican II popes, not just Francis.
I agree but to save myself all the stress of worrying about the past popes (even those of us raised in the SSPX in our 30s only remember JP2) I just focus on the here and now. If this Bergoglio guy is the pope, I don't know, but it seems unlikely. I don't say he isn't, but I don't see how he could be. Verrechio and others ain't bad guys. We have to remember that they're living through the post-conciliar crisis with the rest of us.
-
Well, some of the Montini-double "evidence" I've found to intriguing ... especially the voice print analysis. And my gut instinct from just looking at some of the different pictures is that there could very well have been 2 men posing as Montini over the years. But who knows why. Montini was a known Communist sympathizer (agent?) long before his election ... so not sure why they would have needed a double. But, would I put anything past the Jєωs/Masons/Illuminati? Nope.
(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/97a94a7e9a96.jpg)
(http://www.nuestrasenoradelasrosas.org/news1/clues.7.jpg)
That pic also supposes he was swapped AFTER Vatican 2 and the promulgation of the New Mass. So damage already done by the "real" Montini.
-
I voted R & R.
-
It's baffling how few people have voted. It takes two seconds, there's an "I don't know" option, and who voted for what is not publicly visible. What are people afraid of?
-
Wouldn't "I just don't know or I have my doubts." be along the lines of "Sede-privationist, Sede-impeditist, Sede-doubtist, etc. - something in between." ? If yes, then it seems there are almost more essentially privationists than others who voted in the poll.
It can also be argued the many R&Rs are essentially privationist except for the semantics they use to profess their beliefs. Therefore, there are certainly more privationists that actually admitted.
Go back to page 1 and actually read the thread before asking questions. For all you know, I already answered that question!
In this particular case, I certainly did.
https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/poll-personal-position-on-the-pope/msg605869/#msg605869
-
I voted R & R.
.
Ironically, if you consider what the entire Automotive Industry means when they say "R & R," this would say that you're in favor of removing Francis and replacing him with someone else.
.
(Work order reads, "R & R brake shoes" means remove existing brake shoes and install replacement brake shoes.)
(Although in Auto Shop classroom work, this could be to remove the shoes, show the instructor, and put the same ones back in place.)
.
If it were the MILITARY meaning, R & R refers to rest and relaxation.
.
Where is the alligator when you need him?
.
-
I agree but to save myself all the stress of worrying about the past popes (even those of us raised in the SSPX in our 30s only remember JP2) I just focus on the here and now. If this Bergoglio guy is the pope, I don't know, but it seems unlikely. I don't say he isn't, but I don't see how he could be. Verrechio and others ain't bad guys. We have to remember that they're living through the post-conciliar crisis with the rest of us.
You might be interested in the latest from Louie V:
https://akacatholic.com/consequences/
-
It's interesting that almost half of the respondents say they are either sede or don't know the status of the pope (possible sede-in-waiting).
That is much higher than I expected, especially for the I-don't-know crowd.
-
You might be interested in the latest from Louie V:
https://akacatholic.com/consequences/
Wow! I didn’t get a chance to read it all, but I am admiring his stance. He really isn’t in it for viewers or subscribers. He seems bent on the truth.
-
Wow! I didn’t get a chance to read it all, but I am admiring his stance. He really isn’t in it for viewers or subscribers. He seems bent on the truth.
I am glad that he calls out the SSPX.
It seems that they have all but left the battlefield, or perhaps they have convinced themselves that the Bergoglian crisis isn’t their battle. Either way, it appears that they have gone A.W.O.L.
-
Wow! I didn’t get a chance to read it all, but I am admiring his stance. He really isn’t in it for viewers or subscribers. He seems bent on the truth.
It's one of the main reasons why I admire him.
-
Even guys that support Bishop Fellay, like Louie Verrechio, don't believe that Francis is Pope. The whole Benedict/resignationist thing is much much bigger than what people see at first look, as in there are many more people who believe it is likely. And what is most interesting is that they are spread out in many groups (SSPX/Resistance/Ecclesia Dei/ Diocesan).
For anyone with time to watch a 15 minute video, it's worth it.
https://vimeo.com/246334596
What an awesome intro!
-
I am glad that he calls out the SSPX.
Yes, he has. I suspect that that's because some of us Resistance-types kept mentioning (in the combox) the problem with the new orientation of the SSPX over the last couple of years. The sedes who haunt the combox there aren't interested in this. They are just happy to have a guy like Louie who is as obsessed with Francis as they are.
-
I am glad that he calls out the SSPX.
He calls out all Recognize and Resist bishops:
Seriously, where is Bishop Bernard Fellay, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, or so-called “resistance” leader, Bishop Richard Williamson, for that matter?
-
He calls out all Recognize and Resist bishops:
Seriously, where is Bishop Bernard Fellay, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, or so-called “resistance” leader, Bishop Richard Williamson, for that matter?
Yes, I suppose he does on occasion. I don't look at Louie's blog as much these days, though I was an avid follower from when he first began the blog. It's been taken over by sedes. Not much point in posting in the combox there now. You're a regular poster in the combox, so you know what I mean.
-
Yes, I should have said R&R, not just the SSPX.
-
He calls out all Recognize and Resist bishops:
Seriously, where is Bishop Bernard Fellay, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, or so-called “resistance” leader, Bishop Richard Williamson, for that matter?
Goes to show you who comments on things like they know what they’re talking about when they don’t. I read his calling out of the SSPX and Resistance bishops. It was all in the same sentence! I just didn’t put that in my first comment. Verrechio has shown he’s no sell out or concerned with comment boxes.
-
Goes to show you who comments on things like they know what they’re talking about when they don’t. I read his calling out of the SSPX and Resistance bishops. It was all in the same sentence! I just didn’t put that in my first comment. Verrechio has shown he’s no sell out or concerned with comment boxes.
Yeah, well, Louie is still only a Benevacantist, right? He's not a full-fledged sede yet. Though I suppose the sedes can hope.
-
Goes to show you who comments on things like they know what they’re talking about when they don’t. I read his calling out of the SSPX and Resistance bishops. It was all in the same sentence! I just didn’t put that in my first comment. Verrechio has shown he’s no sell out or concerned with comment boxes.
WRT comments on his blogs, his only request is that we stay on the topic of the specific entry and that we don't go on a soapbox. Some of us (sede and non sede alike) do a better job of complying than others. I do think that sometimes it's hard to stay on topic because so many issues are interrelated. And once one person goes off topic it is very easy to follow suit.
Here is a post he wrote not too long ago:
https://akacatholic.com/on-francis-and-sedevacantism/
-
I chose "other" for more personal reasons, one of which is my ignorance in many ways on this whole matter.
I don't really see the "R&R" thing, if Francis is going against the Faith, I believe that would hardly make him the Vicar of Christ, then again, the first pope denied Christ three times himself, so, who knows?
As for the Sede position, I believe that's highly unlikely, I mean, how many decades are we going now with the chair being empty? Not saying much for the gates of hell not prevailing and all that. Actually, not saying much for the "true" Church, can't even maintain a legitimate pope for a few years for crying out loud. Pathetic itz.
Makes me want to head east sometimes. Meh, they have their problems as well, they're more confused than we are at times.
Anyway, it's hard for me to judge a pope, even a liberal basket case like Bergoglio.
-
Yeah, well, Louie is still only a Benevacantist, right? He's not a full-fledged sede yet. Though I suppose the sedes can hope.
Sounds like hope isn't even really necessary... it's only a matter of time before Benedict is no longer alive and he's forced into some form of sede-ism.
-
While the poll shows that Sede-isms haven't exactly taken over here, I think that if they did, it would have much more to do with Francis than with the rhetoric skills of those arguing for the position.
-
While the poll shows that Sede-isms haven't exactly taken over here, I think that if they did, it would have much more to do with Francis than with the rhetoric skills of those arguing for the position.
Very true.
-
Ok, the poll has been running for over a week, so it's time to draw some conclusions. This poll had 8 selections, and only one of them received 0 votes. True, a couple of these poll options are similar, but not all of them.
Sedevacantist - 19 (15.6%)
Sede-privationist, Sede-impeditist, Sede-doubtist, etc. 15 (12.3%)
Recognize and Resist - 46 (37.7%)
I just don't know or I have my doubts. 23 (18.9%)
He is the Pope, as certainly as Jesus Christ is God. 6 (4.9%)
OTHER - (e.g., Pope Benedict is still Pope) 10 (8.2%)
Siri Thesis - 3 (2.5%)
TOTAL VOTES: 122
(NOTE: For simplicity sake, I will be rounding ALL results to the nearest whole number in the discussion below, using normal rounding rules.)
But just look at the distribution and lack of consensus! There was barely a winner at all (Recognize and Resist), but that winner received only 38% of the total.
And Sean Johnson (and others) were exasperated by the Sedevacantist presence on CathInfo. They are only 16%! And of that number, only a small portion are any kind of outspoken, aggressive, etc.
And R&R and Sedevacantists, taken together, only constitute 54% of the forum population. Almost half of the forum identifies as neither of these positions. A huge variety!
And I should point out that none of the sedevacantists on CathInfo are "dogmatic sedevacantists", which is defined as: those who consider the empty chair to be another dogma of the Catholic Faith, such that non-sedevacantists can only save their souls if they repent before death, or are invincibly ignorant. For example, the Dimond brothers. Dogmatic sedevacantists are routinely banned, and are forbidden from reading or posting on CathInfo. That's why I didn't offer that as an option in the poll. Any CI member holding such a position is keeping his opinion hidden from me.
So on just this one heading (the status of the current pope) there is a HUGE disagreement among Trads.
I'm really tired of people calling me trad-cuмenical, liberal, or even ecuмenical, when it comes to allowing a wide range of Traditional Catholic opinions on CathInfo.
Just consider how many forums there would have to be, if JUST THIS ONE POINT required unity among forum members. But need I point out that there are many, many other disputed points in the Traditional Catholic world which further divide opinion.
Ecuмenical/liberal is only a valid criticism when the things being tolerated are ERRORS or HERESIES. But in the context of the Traditional movement, there are few errors, and mostly fallible opinions of greater or lesser probability or popularity. The Crisis in the Church is unprecedented and all of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church never in their wildest nightmares imagined a situation like the one we call "reality" today. You can quote St. Robert Bellarmine, I can quote St. Matthew, and the debate goes on and on forever. There is no last word or silver bullet on the issue. You might be convinced by this or that quote, or combination of quotes. But the undeniable fact is: others are not. And they are not thereby "of bad will" as you might claim.
Therefore, in this unprecedented time of diabolical disorientation and confusion, I give Traditional Catholics the benefit of the doubt, and allow everything on CathInfo that isn't a clear-cut heresy. Why help the devil to divide us into smaller and smaller groups? If the devil wants division among Traditional Catholics, I want more unity!
When you have an issue that is disputed among theologians, how can you consider one or the other side to be heretical? Of course the one side thinks the other is wrong! But the fact of the matter is: a disputed point is a disputed point.
"In necessariis unitas" - in necessary things (Catholic Faith, dogmas), unity.
"In dubiis libertas" - in doubtful things, liberty.
"In omnibus caritas" - in all things, charity.
Sedevacantism is not a little-known theory, that CathInfo's owner can keep under wraps by banning all mention of it. Trying to ban all mention or discussion of sedevacantism is completely futile, and very Angelqueen, with their BLEEPS! and other nonsense. The members of CathInfo are (mostly) grown adults, who can think and make decisions for themselves. They are going to find out about the option known as "Sedevacantism" one way or another. I can't control them by enacting draconian measures on my little forum here. Some people (I won't get into descriptions) are inclined to the apparent solution to the Crisis offered by sedevacantism, and for this group no amount of arguing is going to keep them away from the position.
As to why we have more than 2 or 3 sedevacantists on CathInfo, I have three explanations: 1. The Crisis in the Church, 2. Human nature, 3. Pope Francis
Several conclusions I am drawing from this poll, in no particular order:
1. CathInfo is not a Sedevacantist forum, not by any stretch of the imagination.
2. No one can say CathInfo isn't a Resistance forum, or a primarily "Recognize and Resist" forum. The winner of the poll was Recognize and Resist, with 38% of the votes. The #2 position was "I just don't know, or I have my doubts" with 19%.
3. There is a wide variety -- and more importantly, a wide distribution -- of opinions on the current status of the Papacy held by CathInfo members. It would seem that CathInfo is NOT populated by a bunch of sheep, following any strong voice that comes along. Everyone already has a strong opinion on this matter. So posting a convincing-sounding collection of pro-Sedevacantist quotes is not going to result in a flood of converts to the position.
4. The overbearing, loud contingent of sedevacantists haven't been very convincing or THAT successful in making converts. But nevertheless, even if it were demonstrated that more and more Trads are considering, talking about, and even embracing the sedevacantist position over the last few years, one should attribute the cause (or "place the blame") squarely where it is due: Pope Francis. Blaming discussion forums for an increase in sedevacantism is motivated by emotion, particularly frustration. It's like blaming gun manufacturers for an increase in murders. Wouldn't it be better to look into WHY more people are trying to kill each other, rather than focusing on the material tool they used to get the job done? A murderer is going to murder even if you refuse him a gun.
5. The idea that I should ban all sedevacantists is ridiculous. Why, because they disagree with my personal Recognize and Resist position? If so, wouldn't I have to ban all the other positions as well? Because let's face it: they all disagree with Recognize and Resist in some way. If I started banning those who I personally considered "in error" -- those I disagreed with -- then where would I stop? I would wake up with a tiny sliver of the original CathInfo membership; a small circle of like-minded friends. But communication among this tight-knit group would be easier by e-mail than a full-on message board. Especially since we'd seldom have anything to talk about!
-
Voting is still open, but I'm locking this topic for discussion. To discuss the poll/results, please head to the CONCLUSION thread:
https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/conclusions-to-personal-position-on-pope-poll/