CathInfo.com

Rather, the neoSSPX, the fake resistance and all their 62’ missal minions are the compromised status quo.

And taking a $100 million bribe in 2010, from a Dresden Marrano to rebrand your religious order… is big time grifting 😊

Demonizing you’re fellow Catholics who don’t agree with your Liturgical and Sacramental compromises to newChurch’s ecclesiastical Freemasons…
is wholesale calumny.

The Substack page is set to private. Could you post it on a public page? Thanks. I personally haven't seen the "Sea of Peter will become the Antichrist" bit the last time I looked for the original La Salette text. I'm also not sure which version / text was approved of the Vatican.

That being said, the "two worm-ridden popes" can mean any pair of popes. It could mean Paul VI and JPII, JPII and Benedict, Benedict and Francis, etc. So, that wouldn't "disprove" sedevacantism per se. Also, why just two? We've had more than two bad popes by now, one worse than the other.

I am personally anti-sedevacantist, but I obviously cannot overlook the purely canonical problems, which have nothing to do with judging heresy (Viganós arguments):

- Benedict did not resign properly and after "resigning" still dressed in white, gave the apostolic blessing, etc. (obviously this was intentional from a Modernist perspective, in order to split the munus and magisterium and pave the way for a primus-inter-pares papacy)
- Leo was voted in by too many cardinals
- 1917 Canon law requiring the pope to be at least a valid priest, yet the NO bishop rites are likely invalid, which means that Francis and Leo would not have been valid priests and therefore canonically not admissable to the papacy

So even with La Salette, it doesn't resolve the above - purely canonical - doubts.

I think the smartest solution is naming the pope "sub conditione", as it's valid either way. Some Resistance priests do this.