Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Feeling the heat?

Vatican promotes Book defending Francis against Claims he is not a true Pope

It looks like the pseudo-Catholic establishment in the Vatican is feeling the heat against “Pope” Francis.

After more and more people are beginning to voice doubt about the legitimacy of Jorge Bergoglio’s claim to being the Pope of the Catholic Church, the Vatican will host the presentation of a book against what they call “Sedevacantism”, on Tuesday evening, Nov. 21.

The book in question is called Sedevacantisti (“Sedevacantists”) and was written by Francesco Antonio Grana. It was released on Oct. 11, 2017 and is being published by Tau Editrice. It is available online for purchase and has already received some reviews.

Judging by what has been said about the book, it appears that it is not really about Sedevacantism as it is generally known. Rather, the work seeks to refute arguments made only against the legitimacy of Francis specifically, including arguments advanced by Antonio Socci in his 2014 book Non È Francesco (“He’s Not Francis”) and those who base their rejection of Bergoglio on conclave rules laid down by “Pope” John Paul II in 1996. It is unclear whether the validity of the resignation of Benedict XVI in 2013 — denied by the so-called “Resignationists” — is also defended.

But regardless: The fact that the words “Sedevacantism” and “Sedevacantists” are now being bandied about is a good thing, as it will lead to more people researching the topic. We remember a few months ago when “Archbishop” Georg Ganswein, who is both the prefect of Francis’ “papal” household and the private secretary of “Pope Emeritus” Benedict XVI, was asked to comment on a Novus Ordo Watch blog post.

Here are some photos of the author, Francesco Grana, handing a copy of his book to the man he defends as the “Vicar of Christ”:

Image source: Tau Editrice

Regardless of the actual content, it is a great satisfaction to know that someone put a book with the word “Sedevacantists” on it straight in Francis’ face.

The fact that a book that seeks to defend Francis’ claim to the Papacy as legitimate is being presented in a Vatican press conference, speaks volumes. Apparently the powers that be have decided that the need for defending Francis is greater than the embarrassment that inevitably accompanies such an occasion.

On Nov. 18, the Italian Vaticanist Marco Tosatti noted that the press conference announced by the Vatican for this book is unusually “guarded”:

Let us start with an odd announcement, regarding a press conference — about a book presentation — very heavily guarded. We reproduce the announcement here:

On November 21, in the Vatican, presentation of the book “Sedevacantisti” with Gomez and Saluzzi.

On Tuesday, November 21, in the Vatican, at 6 pm in the offices of Vatican Radio (Sala Marconi – Piazza Pia, 3 – Palazzo Pio, Vatican City), Peter Gomez, director of the website ilfattoquotidiano.it and Fq MillenniuM, Paola Saluzzi, journalist of Tv2000, and Javier Martínez-Brocal, director of Rome Reports, will present the book “Sedevacantisti” (Tau publishing house), by Francesco Antonio Grana, the Vaticanist from ilfattoquotidiano.it.

Francis has not been legitimately elected. He is a heretic. He even wants to canonize Martin Luther. During five years of pontificate, many critics, outside but especially also inside the Catholic Church, have been attacking Bergoglio, accusing him of heresy, like the four cardinals who have expressed their doubts about Bergoglio’s opening towards the divorced and remarried, or like those who printed 200 posters and put them up along the streets of Rome, making fun of the little amount of mercy the Latin-American Pope shows towards his opponents. “Sedevacantisti” aims to reply point by point to the groundless and unjustified attacks against Bergoglio, illustrating his big success in the ecclesiastical field and in the worldwide geopolitical scene.

Apart from the fact that the four cardinals did not attack the Pope accusing him of heresy, but asked him — along with many others — to clarify some ambiguous and controversial points of an apostolic exhortation; apart from the fact that the “great success” can be the object of a long debate, very lively and with an uncertain outcome; what is most striking is the outstanding preventive security measures. Marconi Hall often hosts press conferences and presentations of various kinds. The only access requirement is usually the mere ability to enter. Instead, take a look at this:

Ways of accreditation

Journalists and workers of the media who intend to take photos and videos must send a request to the Press Office of the Holy See, by email to [email protected], indicating their press affiliation, their role, and attaching a copy of an identification document. Those who already have an ORDINARY accreditation, which is valid for the Press Office of the Holy See, must submit a participation request. All requests must be received 24 hours before the event.

What are they afraid of? That a sedevacantist commando shouting “the pope is not the pope” will overthrow the speakers’ desks and beat up our friend Paola Saluzzi? We are afraid that, after the joke of the mobile billboard with the picture of [Cardinal] Caffarra, the sense of the ridiculous under the shadow of the Dome is fading away.

(Marco Tosatti, “Bestiario: Chi Ha Paura Del Sedevacantista Cattivo?”, Stilum Curiae, Nov. 18, 2017; our translation; special formatting in original.)

In a few hours, we will know what transpired, although we predict it will be pretty much a non-event. It will be an event no one attends about a book nobody reads because at this point the evidence about Francis is so manifest that those who like him, want him to be a true Pope, regardless of the evidence — and those who dislike him certainly won’t be convinced otherwise by reading a book about it that presumably “explains” that it’s all just a big misunderstanding.

Grana’s book could turn out to be very similar to Tom Hoopes’ What Pope Francis Really Said. It’s too little, too late — and, at this point, who can take it seriously?

102 Responses to “Vatican promotes Book defending Francis against Claims he is not a true Pope”

  1. jay

    Jorge Bergoglio is just a little more open about his heresies the other Vatican II sect anti popes were a little more guarded with their anti Catholic reforms. The truth is the Holy Spirit is starting to move and the Vatican II sect is fighting back, but it will be a losing battle. Padre Pio called the rosary his ‘weapon’ we should be using this weapon to hasten the demise of this manmade sect.

  2. Sonia

    “After more and more people are beginning to voice doubt about the legitimacy of Jorge Bergoglio’s claim to being the Pope of the Catholic Church.” If Catholics who understand that Bergoglio is a non-Catholic heresiarch, and that the Chair is empty, nonetheless concede the name ‘Catholic’ to heretics (consigning it to modernist relativism), then the des Lauriers thesis is dead in the water; because what church would another true pope be the head of? Novus Catholic? Post-Novus-Ordo? Catholics are not nominalists, despite those who use, abuse, usurp and twist the name like any modernist nominalist.

      • Sonia

        heheh. aaww. Dis and dismiss, Anyone who hopes for God in the West these days (a plague on the house of Mohammed with blaspheming ‘book’ and his pharisaic handlers) thinks on this continuum. And Frankie…no problemo.

    • corvinus ✓ᴰᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ

      The des Lauriers thesis doesn’t make any sense because it presumes that the College of Cardinals are valid electors, despite the fact that 1) they’re all heretics, leading to the absurd situation where not just non-Catholics, but anti-Catholics, have the power and right to elect the Pope; and 2) were given their putative offices by non-Popes. In this way, it still shackles true Catholicism to the Novus Ordo.

      • Siobhan

        corvinus-You may be interested to study in depth the positions held by Bp. Dolan & Fr. Cekada. They do not hold that they’re valid electors & do not hold to the privationism of Des Lauriers. Sometimes over the decades those who hold their position have been labelled “totalists.” This is why within talks they give together, His Excellency Bp. Sanborn & Father will respond slightly differently (yes, slightly,) when presented with inquiry & I’ve heard His Excellency, with great gentility, alert listeners to that in at least one talk. In order to respect the guidelines of this combox (in that it’ s not a forum) we of course cannot go into this in depth in this format, but I just thought I’d make a notation.

      • Orthopapist

        Agreed, sedes should refute sedeprivationism and it should be forgotten in my view

        It was ok as a brainstorm idea but beyond that I think sedevacantism clearly contradicts sedeprivationism: the election of a pre-election heretic yields an invalid election, not a “material pope”.

        Sedeprivationism is held to out of an idea of trying to preserve “material cardinals” who can in the future elect a pope, and/or to argue that trads have jurisdiction. But this is for another comment: the various trad clergy would not have ordinary jurisdiction, nor supplied really since they would be receiving orders from the suspended or excommunicated (+Lefebvre/+Thuc) – therefore I think the home alone sedevacantism position prevails of the known sede clergy.

        Beyond that, though, it seems possible to elect a pope without cardinals (“conclavism” of some kind – not necessarily requiring an imperfect council of bishops to elect), so that other reason for holding to sedeprivationism is also not necessary.

        Another sede independently reasons same as me that sedeprivationism ultimately can leave the Church’s elections “locked up” indefinitely and can prevent the Church from electing a “conclavist” pope for itself. This is another problem.

        There have been a few critics of sedeprivationism but there might be a few more things to refute to definitively discard it

  3. Clare Forkin

    “what are they afraid of? that a Sedevacantist Commando shouting” the Pope is not the Pope”, will overthrow the speakers’ desks and beat up our friend Paolo Saluzzi? ”
    The above scenario would seem hilarious if the situation were not so awful! However, as your post suggests, the very fact that the term Sedevacantism is the book’s title should be the first time such a suggestion has been aired, and this by those who are trying to cover up for Bergolio! The irony is unbelievable!

  4. Paul Bays

    That must have been a humbling experience. Imagine someone presenting you with a book with the front cover that basically says „why I think you are not a fake pope“… you can fool all the Catholics some of the time, some of the Catholics all of the time, but you can’t fool all the Catholics all of the time. The chickens are coming home to roost, keep saying the Rosary,

  5. Sonia

    So long as the bloke in the cassock is more important than the Holy Roman Church bound to which Christ gave us the Chair of St. Peter, it really looks like the bloke in the cassock could be Hillary Clinton and – who cares?

  6. Lee

    It reminds me of the an article written a couple years ago on this website https://novusordowatch.org/2015/09/francis-on-antipope-antichrist/
    Bergoglio has been aware of sedevacantist and he is going to continue his blasphemous apostate heretical church regardless of anybody telling him what to do. He just keeps proving that the Novus Ordo Church isn’t the Catholic Church and that the sedevacantist position is the necessary stance one must take to be Catholic.

  7. bartmaeus

    I’m Spartacus!

    I’m Spartacus!

    I’m Spartacus!

    I’m Spartacus!
    I’m Spartacus! !’m Spartacus!

    I’m Spartacus!
    I’m Spartacus!

    • Sonia

      Oh dear, I hope not.

      PS. a lot of weirdness, though. The una cum and sympathy for C.S. Lewis crowd are like cockroaches for the disgustingling impaired.

      • bartmaeus

        Strange days indeed, when someone writes a book, which the Vatican endorses, that declares:
        Francis IS Pope!
        Or was it FRANCIS is Pope!
        Or: Francis is POPE (and not Anti-pope)!

        • Sonia

          PS. RE: Poor Mr Lewis, folks should check out the inspirations of the ‘space’ novels. Anyway, he was a thoroughbred oculist who was once upon a time a friend John Tolkien. Tolkien later got fed up with Lewis’ plagiarism.

  8. BurningEagle

    The bothersome thing about the reaction to Jorge, is that it is a reaction to only Jorge Bergoglio, and not to any of the outrageous things from his predecessors.
    If the problem is only with Jorge, and not with the counter-Catholicism of Roncalli through Jorge, then we have gained nothing.
    Maybe I am too negative, but it appears most of the Novus Ordo folks objecting to Jorge would be just fine with a return to the way things were under either Wojtyla, or The Rat.

    • Sonia

      Well, that depends on how old you are. But then folks don’t seem to care. Seriously, anyone in doubt should have been jettisoned out of the antichrist filth by JPII – Grand Master of VII. But this is the great post-Christ apostasy where folks laud a satanic celebrity performance ‘artist’ like Marina Abramovic (Christ have mercy), another new age whore, much like W.B Yeats.

      • BurningEagle

        Exactly, most “folks don’t seem to care.” But, for those who do care, it seems they care only about Jorge and his tactics. That is what is distressing. They cannot (or will not) recognize any problems with the earlier non-catholic usurpers, from Roncalli through the Rat.

        • Pascendi

          I think you’re right. My sense is that among those in the Novus Ordo who question Bergoglio’s legitimacy, nearly all of them are waiting for the next “pope” whom they expect to be more conservative and then all will be well in their minds.
          In fact that is probably what will happen unless Bergoglio is successful in loading up the College with like minded thinkers. If they are foolish enough to elect a Jorge protège there will be open rebellion, though not immediately. At first he would be presented as more conservative than his predecessor, then the mask would come off and we’d see Chaos Frank 2.0.

          • BurningEagle

            Some of them are saying Jorge is not the pope, but the “arch-conservative,” saintly Ratzinger is still the pope. These people have no clue. Most “conservative” Novus Ordites long for the good ol’ days of Wojtyla. I only hope that some of them start studying the history of the last 120 years, and get an understanding of what has taken place.

    • bosco49

      My guess is that they don’t want Antonio Socci to show up at this party to defend his book
      “Non È Francesco” just as Bertone barred him from appearing at the public discussion of Socci’s earlier book “The Fourth Secret of Fatima”.

  9. Paul Bays

    I received this comment below from a 1P5 writer, where he describes Freemasonry and the Catholic Church, he still remains a faithful son of the church and acknowledges all this In his is article,here the quote „You can read my thoughts on Freemasonry and the problems in the Church in the following article. It’s the first of a three part series published here at 1P5:
    https://onepeterfive.com/revolution-in-tiara-and-cope-a-history-of-church-infiltration/
    I’m sorry, Paul, there are plenty of sede forums on the internet, but 1P5 is not one of them. If you want to talk about that stuff you’ll have to do it elsewhere.“

    • 2c3n1 .

      I’m still curious as to what is holding you back from sedevacantism? What makes you think Francis is the true pope when he believes and promotes blasphemous heresies and runs a religion that is blatantly heretical? How can the Catholic Church have problems in it’s doctrines and liturgies when She has already defined that’s impossible?

      • Paul Bays

        2c3n1 , I have just discovered this Sedevecantism, and I am trying to understand what is the Truth. Obviously no one is arguing that V2 has not caused havoc and something is terribly wrong . I also believe you Sedes make some very valid points, but there is something that doesn’t add up for me at the moment. I need to pray more. Saying we have no Pope is a big step, despite the evidence against these men, we have to be 100% certain of what we do. The Devil will play tricks on the human intellect, he is clever, I prefer to be obedient to Christ than clever in the eyes of men. Christ does not abandon his church, and it is not with our intellect that we discover God, it is with prayer.

          • Paul Bays

            Gabriel , Thankyou for your comments, but what about all the souls in those parishes who don’t know any better? Should they not also be helped? Isn’t that our duty? Where does evangelization fit in in the sedevecantist strategy?

          • john b

            Gabriel;
            Who taught you that nonsense.The church is our pillar of truth.
            1 Timothy 3;15
            15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
            Matthew 18;17
            17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

        • Lee

          I think you are a good person Paul and I understand this is new for you and you need some time.

          It’s true the devil is clever, but what makes you less than 100% sure of what has been said true? You haven’t said anything other than it being a big step saying we have no pope. Is that it? If there is evidence against the post Vatican II popes as you said and not any evidence in favor of them being true popes how does that persuade you that they are popes despite the evidence against them?

          Francis believes Martin Luther is a witness to the Gospel and even honors him along with the reformation and says Lutherans don’t need to convert. Do you believe that? Francis believes John XXIII and John Paul II are saints because he canonized them. Do you believe that they’re saints? Francis believes in the documents of Vatican II which teach numerous things condemned from previous popes. Do you believe Vatican II is Catholic? The list could go on and on.

          If they are true popes how can you obey them if you don’t believe in what they teach as popes?

          • Paul Bays

            Lee, thank you for your comments, I think you are also sincere. Can Satan be in a Pope? Yes he can, Satan spoke through St Peter correct, that’s why Jesus rebuked him. He is still the first Pope and he is still St Peter. What these V2 Popes are saying/doing (especially Francis) is not Catholic, but does that stop them from being the Pope. This we need to understand. Judas betrayed Christ he was still an Apostle. I feel at the present time we must fight from within the church, we must recognize and resist the evil we discover but we need to take back the parishes that are being lost to this anti Catholic behavior not run away and hide. That’s my position at the present time. But I continue to learn but I believe we need to be united as Catholics and help each other not have intellectual arguments when what we should be doing is uniting and bringing the Latin Mass pre V2 back to Catholics and Catholic Churches.

          • Lee

            Paul

            St. Peter did not receive his primacy as Supreme pastor until after the resurrection according to Vatican I in Pastor Aeternus which states “And it was to Peter alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, confided the jurisdiction of Supreme Pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying: “Feed my lambs, feed my sheep.” #3. When Jesus rebuked Peter that was before His death and it wasn’t like Peter was possessed but more or less was tempting Christ not to fulfill His mission to die on the cross. St. Peter never taught heresy which is totally different than today. Judas betrayed Christ and went to hell as a member of the Church, but again betrayal and heresy are two different things.

            A Sedevacantist doesn’t hide. This website isn’t hiding anything is it? It’s one amongst others like it that are exposing the new Church for what it really is. I agree with you about recognizing and resisting evil. Nevertheless, you can’t fight within the Church if what you think is the Church really isn’t the Church. The Church is always united in Faith. St. Athanasius once said “They have the buildings, we have the Faith.” I wish we had more people like you who were open minded from the R&R camps but most of them misrepresent us and find ways to continue you on their wrong path. Continue to pray and research.

            We haven’t left anything to form something different but rather have held on to that which we know is Catholic because their is no other option. No I don’t believe the Novus Ordo Mass is valid because the New rite of consecration of bishops has changed along with the ordination rite of the priesthood and certain prayers were deleted that were essential for validity which went against Sacramentum Ordinis by Pius XII. Plus the new mass changed the words of our lord from “for many” to “for all” even though it has been changed back yrs later what was the purpose the first time. The Catechism of the Council of Trent explains why the words “for all” were not to be used and how it was defective and yet it was approved by what you think is the Church. The Church can’t screw up something this obvious if it is the true Church.

        • 2c3n1 .

          First of all, I agree. Christ does not abandon his Church. If you noticed in the past, I numbered and answered all of your questions directly. May I humbly ask you to answer my other two questions? There’s a reason for asking…

          1. What makes you think Francis is the true pope when he believes and
          promotes blasphemous heresies and runs a religion that is blatantly
          heretical?

          Notice that I’m implying that the religion Francis runs is not the Catholic Church since the CC is not heretical, thus Christ has not abandoned His Church.

          2. How can the Catholic Church have problems in it’s doctrines
          and liturgies when She has already defined that’s impossible?

          The reason for this question is because you appear to hold a position that’s against the teaching of the Church since you seem to acknowledge doctrinal and liturgical problems in a religion you believe is the Catholic Church.

          • Paul Bays

            Dear 2c3n1,

            Thank you for your message, sorry about not answering all your questions. Please note my answers to your questions.

            1. re Pope Francis. The Devil wants you out of the Bark of St Peter, in the the reformation the Protestants argues they were going back to the church as it was in the past, The Sedes are arguing the same this time before Vatican 2. I agree that you are different to the Protestants because you still believe in the real presence and you are seeking to go back to the real beauty and reverence of the Catholic Faith. That is what I Like about you as people. BUT in the history of the church we have many real saints that we accept who have done things that are not good, most simple example the first Pope, Jesus said to St Peter ” get thee behind me Satan” Now imagine f Jesus said that to Francis, that would be enough for the sedevacantists to say there’s all the proof we need even Jesus has said he is speaking for Satan. BUT Jesus still chose St Peter as the first Pope. Now whether you like it or not, whether we like what Pope Francs says or not, he was elected Pope. The important thing to note is that Pope Francis cannot change the deposit of Faith and he cannot destroy the Church, even if he is the Pope. The Church Pope Francis is in charge of is still the catholic church But what he is doing is not Catholic. But remember he can do whatever he wants but he can’t destroy the church.

            2. The Catholic Church does not have problems in it Doctrines because the Doctrines cannot change. So now that we have established that what have we really as the Problem, We have bad Popes teaching “their error” thats not the churches error. If a Pope teaches error it is our duty to point it out and correct him, but it is not our duty to tell him he is not the Pope, if he teaches heresy he is automatically not the Pope, but it is still not my job to tell him he is not the Pope, it IS my job to try and correct him and to pray for him. Where you Sedevacantists are light years ahead of the rest of us Novus Ordo people, You guys really know the faith and I can imagine it can be very frustrating to deal with the likes of me who knows much less about the history of the church and the corruption ( but we are finding out) But how many of your Sedevacantists pray for Pope Francis, how many of you pray for his conversion like St Paul was converted, do any of you pray for him, or do you all hate him? I get the impression you all hate him and the other V2 Popes, you hate these men. The Devil has won because he wants you to hate these men, he doesn’t want you praying for their souls and for their conversion. He wants you to hate the church and he wants you outside the church.

            One thing is clear for me the devil does not want you Sedevacantists in the the real Catholic church, he wants you to be so angry and annoyed with the Popes that you cannot bring yourself to accept what they teach and consequently he wants you to declare we have no Pope. He wins, you are out of the church.

            No No! you say we have the real faith!! But you see, I also have the real faith ( but I do not know it like you do) but I am in the Roman Catholic church with a Pope who I agree is not teaching the true Faith, so the answer s to correct him.

            We are NOT obliged to accept what a bad Pope teaches if they teach error and if what they teach is contrary to the Faith and Doctrine of the past then we can ignore this and focus on what we know is the correct Faith, we must pray for these men for their souls.

            In my Parish I am alone trying to fight to bring back the Traditional Latin Mass, there are 6,000 catholic souls in that Parish and countless lost Protestants who need the one True Faith. Now if you 2c3n1 were in my Parish and helped me to reinstate the the Traditional Latin Mass, we would have the True Sacrifice of the Mass brought back into that church.

            2c3n1, what i feel is that the devil know that you Sedevacantists know a lot about what has happened, more than the rest if us, as long as you remain the angry outsiders, you are not such a big threat, you cannot dogmatically declare that there is no Pope. What you can do is you can still be in the Catholic church accept we have a Pope (albeit a Pope who is misleading the Faithful) but if you were helping people like me to bring back the Traditional Latin Mass into the church, what can he do about it, will he try and stop it in every church? one thing these bad Popes have done without realising it, in pursuing their Anti catholic strategy they have awoken the the lay people, we now know something is wrong. Now, we have to work together, As Gabriel, one of the other Sedevacantists said, there is something wrong with your name Sedevacantism, call yourself what you really are Roman Catholics, we must accept we have a Pope (even if he is bad) but we are not obliged to accept anything he teaches if it is contrary to the real Faith. We win.

            I am trying to bring back the Traditional Latin Mass in my church, I ask for your prayers to help me to do this and maybe one day I will be able to invite you good Roman catholic people to come to this Parish. God Bless

          • 2c3n1 .

            Pope Paul IV implied that a heretic could be elected by the real Cardinals but he still would not be the pope. You see, your argument doesn’t follow. You think Francis was pope because he was elected but that doesn’t make him pope. Popes must profess the Faith by law. Francis doesn’t. So now, let me ask again, why do you think Francis is a true pope since he doesn’t profess the Catholic Faith. He rejects it publicly and repeatedly.

            Secondly, true popes can’t err when teaching a law or doctrine to be held by the Faithful. They can err in an opinion where the Church hasn’t made a decision. Francis goes against the Faith as it has been defined which is impossible for a true pope. He, as with all Vat2 popes, has imposed heresy upon the Faithful to be held. That was my point. You say that we can’t dogmatically declare that we have no pope. What we’re doing is accepting the teaching and law of the Church on what makes a person a member of the Church and Francis doesn’t qualify. In accepting him as pope, you’re going against the law and teaching of the Church on what makes a person a member and not a member of the Church.

            We are not outsiders because we profess the Faith. Here is the key question for you….What makes you an insider when you’re rejecting the teaching and law of the Church on what makes a person a member of the Church?

          • anna mack

            Unfortunately, as BurningEagle pointed out on another thread, Paul Bays doesn’t have even the most rudimentary understanding of the Catholic Faith (which is not surprising, since he’s obviously very young and NO doesn’t want its followers to know anything about the True Faith).

            Having supposedly discovered that there is “something wrong in the state of Denmark”, it is encumbant upon him to go and *learn* about what the Church has always taught (indeed, it’s encumbant upon all of us who call ourselves Catholics). Until he does so, attempting to debate with him will remain an utterly fruitless endeavour, since he’s got no idea what he’s talking about.

            Again unfortunately, Paul Bays has no intention of learning anything. He gets his jollies by coming here and repeating the same trite stuff over and over again in the hope of irritating sedevacantists (in other words, he’s an Internet troll). If only we could find him as amusing as he finds himself…

          • BurningEagle

            Thank you Anna Mack. I agree. Furthermore, for the various other trolls:

            The bark of Peter? Really? Since when is the bark of Peter steered by a heretic?

            Are we to recognize the voice of the True Shepherd in Amoris Laetitia, the Scarlet Letter, as I like to call it? (No offense intended toward Nathaniel Hawthorne.) We are not talking about a Catholic pope who happens to be immoral. Rather, we are talking about men who have been, and are, the very personification of Modernism, the synthesis of all heresies! The bark of Peter has beach ball in it? The Bark of Peter officially condones divorce and remarriage?
            The current Novus Ordo Church is the result of “Saint John XXIII, Blessed Paul VI, Venerable John-Paul I, Saint John Paul II, the arch-conservative Benedict XVI, and the humble Jorge. If this Novus Ordo Church is the result of all these paragons of virtue, then I hope and pray I become more malicious and vicious.

            This gives me an occasion to post something which I tried to post to someone else on one of Paul’s favorite sites this morning, onepeterfive. I discovered it was struck from the site. It was regarding someone who asked if the Catholic Church had defected. (Forgive some repetition from other things I have written on NOW):

            The Church has not defected. These enemies who usurped the offices of the Church are just that: enemies and usurpers. It is analogous to a bunch of murderous bank robbers who dress-up like policemen in order to commit their crimes. You would not say: “The police department has gone bad, or has defected from the police department’s mission.” Rather, you would investigate, and find out that the robbers are NOT part of the police department, but have carried out an outrageous ruse, in order to pull off the crime.

            How do we know what to believe about the present situation? Read and study Quanta Cura of Pope Pius IX along with his syllabus of errors. Read and study Pascendi and Lamentabili Sane of St. Pius X. Read and study the Oath against Modernism by St. Pius X. Read and Study Mortalium Animos of Pius XI. Get a good college level catechism from before the rot, and study it. I suggest:
            Exposition of Christian Doctrine
            by a seminary Professor
            Intermediate Course,
            published by John Joseph McVey Philadelphia PA 1908,
            part of the course of religious instruction from the Institute of
            the Brothers of the Christian Schools.
            It comes in three volumes: I Dogma, II Moral, III Worship.
            (After all, there is supposed to be a “hermeneutic of continuity,” right? The new stuff is supposed to be identical to the old stuff, but just packaged differently, right? Well, if that is case, study the old stuff in detail, and see for yourself.)

            Also, one should become familiar with Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum (Latin) or “The Sources of Catholic Dogma” (English).

            Read and study Humanum Genus of Leo XIII and all the other writings from Catholics on the evil institution of Freemasonry.

            Lastly, read the book given to all the council fathers at Vatican II: The Plot against the Church by Maurice Pinay, 1962. It is a very good history book detailing the constant struggle the Church has had against Her enemies who sought to infiltrate Her, and corrupt Her.

            After doing this, one will see that the Novus Ordo, the Vatican II Church, the “Cult of Man” as Montini (Paul VI) called it, is 180 degrees out of phase with Catholicism. It is diametrically opposed to Catholicism. All of these Vatican II
            “popes” are heretics, based on what the Church has taught for nearly 2000 years.

            We are living in the apostasy foretold by St. Paul in II Thessalonians 2, 3. The original greek says “apostasia.” We must stick with the continual, uniform, consistent teaching of the Catholic Church (from 33 to 1958), and not the novelties of the enemies. We must “stand fast, and hold the traditions” of the Catholic Church, and reject this “operation of error.”

            Vatican II was supposed to be a “renewal,” a new “springtime in the Church.” Instead, take a look at the statistics. One will find that with the usurpation of John XXIII and the machinations of the enemies during Vatican II, and the subsequent garbage from Montini, Luciani, Wojtyla, The Rat, and Jorge, has resulted in a catastrophic destruction of Catholicism (as it was known from 33 to 1958).

            One must not be in communion with these enemies and heretics. One should disassociate oneself COMPLETELY from this apostasia or this operation of error.

            What has happened is not just the result of a pious mistake of some ignorant, yet well-meaning Catholics. No, rather, “An enemy hath done this.” These usurpers are intelligent, cunning, lying enemies of the One, True Church of Christ, outside of which there is no salvation.

          • Paul Bays

            2c3n1 sorry about the delay in answering your question. The answer is I am not rejecting the teaching and the law of the church on what makes a person a member of the church. If some Pope does not accept the teaching of a law that doesn’t automatically put a person at fault especially if That person is not even aware there is a serious problem. I agree with you that since V2 the church has experienced something that is very wrong, I also agree that Pope Francis is causing great confusion BUT the Dubia Cardinals are addressing these errors and he will be corrected . The fact that we don’t have the Latin Mass at our church (yet) doesn’t mean we won’t in the future. I can’t chane the past but I can effect the future, I believe from what I have researched that the TLM was far more respectful than the Novus Ordo Mass is today. The NO Mass wasn’t always so terrible, when I was younger the old priest did this Mass very reverently with some Latin and incense. But things have changed. I believe we are supposed to be in the visible bark of St Peter, Pope Francis needs to clarify the Dubia, if he doesn’t, we will most likely have a schism, this will then give the oppprtunity to bring the Truth back to the front. I am now starting to read the Roman Catechism of Trent. If was Truth then it must still be Truth now. The JP2 Catechism confuses me because it teaches that other churches can lead to salvation, if that is the case we don’t need the Catholic Faith. The only way a non Catholic „Christian „ church can lead anyone to the faith is if it leads that person to the One True Faith. I am still studying Sedevacantism and at the present time I am convinced that you ask valid questions and point out serious problems but I am not convinced that you are correct to take the step to fully reject these men as Popes, I would have thought it would serve the Catholic community more to point out this errors as loyal servant of the church by writing to the Popes and requesting he correct the errors rather than you declaring he is not Pope. Do you not think it is possible that God has allowed these bad Popes as a punishment to the world, these Popes and those previous to V 2 all ignored Our ladies request to consecrate Russia to her Imnaculate heart. Don’t you think that has consequences? I am sure you most of you Sedevacantists are sincere persons but I have noticed that there is a lot of anger towards the Popes of V2 and also the present one , when what is needed is fervent prayer to help them. Becoming a Sedevacantist is not a decision that can be rushed, it needs to be critically analyzed and any weaknesses addressed. We are talking about our eternal souls. I don’t believe God requires us to be Doctors of Theology to be Catholic, I think Sedevacantists are very knowledgeable and take the Faith seriously but they are very dismissive of Novus Irdo Catholics referring to them as following a sect. So 99% of people who call themselves Roman Catholic in your opinion are following a sect. All those millions of souls who faithfully pray their Rosary every day are following a sect ….You seriously believe that those God fearing Catholics are not really Catholics and are going to Hell? What’s their sin? That they were born after Vatican2. It takes time to arrive at the Truth and God willing God accepts a sincere soul who is searching for the Truth. I don’t know the Faith well enough to take myself and my kids outside what I understand to be the Catholic Church to call myself a Sedevacantist and then tell the millions of other Catholics…you are wrong. I need to learn more and I think there is no better way than to pray my Rosary, read the Roman Catechism, study the Bible and trust in God’s providence. I also think we need to pray for this man called Pope Francis. My question to you. Will you pray for Pope Francis?

          • 2c3n1 .

            Paul Bays, you’ve got some facts wrong and you didn’t answer my questions. If a pope doesn’t accept the teaching of the Church HE AUTOMATICALLY IS NO LONGER POPE. That’s the law. It’s called defection of faith. Again, the true Catholic Church couldn’t have given us the novus ordo mass. Your religion has it which means you’re not in the Catholic Church. Sure, God has permitted as a punishment for antipopes to reign. Yes, we are angry that men who are not Catholic are going around acting like popes confusing people like you and leading people to hell. Yes, without valid sacraments, your chances are severely hampered and most of your sacraments are not valid. But the fact remains you are not following the teaching and law of the Church on what makes a person a member of the Catholic Church. You are rejecting it and making up teachings that don’t exist.

            To answer your question: I can’t pray for Francis as pope. He’s not the pope. To say he’s pope is to deny the Catholic Faith.

          • Paul Bays

            2c3n1, thanks for your reply and thanks for your patience with me.

            I need to do more reading about this , to understand it all.

            God bless and thanks again for your explanations.

    • BurningEagle

      It looks as if that writer will remain in communion with the free masonic infiltrators, whom he is exposing in his article.
      As you are aware, many on this N.O.W. site refuse to be “in communion” with the enemies of Holy Mother Church.

  10. Daniel

    Jorge Bergoglio is the Pope of the Novus Ordo Religion, he is just not a Catholic Pope. Of course I
    cannot state this dogmatically but it is objectively true by all the evidence for those with eyes to see,
    and ears to hear. The ‘spirit of Vatican II’ is modernism and it has been growing like a virus inside the Catholic hierarchy since the 19th century. Pope St. Pius X exposed it in his encyclical Pascendi Dominis Gregis. The modernists got their first Novus Ordo ‘Pope’ installed on the chair of St. Peter at the election of
    John XXIII. To say the chair of St. Peter is vacant isn’t really true, it is occupied by a modernist
    pretender. Personally I find the term ‘sedevacantism’ to be a bit troublesome. I can hold the personal
    opinion that objectively speaking from all the evidence, Jorge Bergoglio is not a Catholic Pope because
    he rejects even the papacy itself and what it traditionally stands for. I do not even have to include the objective reality that he teaches and practices modernist heresies as did his Vatican II predecessors. Let the ‘Novus Ordites’ have their Pope, he suits their modernist beliefs. Those who are truly Catholic and
    love the truth will hold fast to traditional Catholic beliefs and practices and what is equally important will
    never do what the Catholic Church has always and everywhere condemned (‘Thuc’ Consecrations for
    instance). So enough with the ‘sedevacantist’ terminology, let’s deal with what modernists believe,
    point out their errors, pray and work for their conversion. Let’s do this by example first and foremost, by knowing and living our traditional Catholic faith, minute by minute, day by day. I don’t want to be identified as a ‘sedevacantist’ because that is an ambiguous term and I can say without a doubt, objectively speaking that ‘sedevacantist’ beliefs are diverse. Let’s be identified as a Roman Catholics and hold fast to what the Catholic Church truly teaches and practices. Even the ‘Novus Ordites’ know we cannot dogmatically declare the chair of St. Peter is vacant so why let them use this as a weapon against us? Objectively speaking I am a Roman Catholic and currently have no one I recognize as the Catholic Pope. The followers of the Novus Ordo Religion have a Pope whom they call Francis. I can only hope to help save one soul at a time, it is going to be a long and difficult battle. My God grant us all the grace of perseverance.

    Our Lady, Destroyer of Heresies, pray for us. Our Lady of Sorrows, pray for us.

    • Siobhan

      Yes, but the “dogmatic declaration” accusation is only made by those ignorant. I do agree that Modernism ought be emphasized more by us & also the effects of the Heresy upon those who remain within VII Sectarian parishes, including but not limited to (if you will,) the lack of the receipt of valid Sacraments among those blinded. In fact I think this cannot be emphasized enough. We must vehemently guard against opinionism, however, which is an anti-Catholic stance. I would link you to a paper on Opinionism by +Sanborn, but with utmost respect I doubt you’d welcome it bc of your apparent objection re: the Thuc line.

      • Daniel

        I am open to other peoples ideas and arguments regarding any of these issues, fully aware that I have no degrees in theology and may very well be in error.

        I’ve read the paper about a year ago regarding ‘Opinionism’ by Fr. Sanborn, and quite frankly was unable to comprehend his thinking. I also read his paper titled Explaination of the Thesis of Fr. Bishop Gerard DesLaurius and found that very difficult to comprehend as well. Why was it so difficult, does one need a degree in theology? I presume by ‘opinionism’ he means that some ‘sedevacantists’ hold that whether or not the man on the chair of St. Peter is Pope or not is just a matter of opinion. I am not of that mindset. It isn’t just a matter of my ‘personal’ opinion. I am saying that I cannot definitively declare for the entire human race dogmatically. I personally will not submit to his authority, I am not in communion with him or his religion. Even if he were to publicly renounce modernism does that make him a Pope, does that make the religion he is head of Catholic? A Catholic must follow a conscience which is informed and conformed to the teachings of the Catholic Church. What if we don’t know what these teachings are? Most ‘Novus Ordo’ followers I think are simply ignorant and probably quite content to remain that way. Those who really care can tell when Francis is contradicting the Catechism of the Council of Trent and when he contradicts what the Papacy stands for. These souls have to do the intellectually honest thing and reject this false religion and its Pope. We can tell when the ‘Emperor has no clothes’, but can we officially say he is not the emperor? The problem with the Papacy is that the Pope is the highest authority so who can judge him and officially declare him not to be the Pope? Who, can someone please tell me?

        In my research certain questions arose such as is it dogmatically declared anywhere in Catholic teaching that the man on the chair of St. Peter has to be a true Pope? Is it dogmatically declared that we will have a Pope on the chair of St. Peter at the second coming of Jesus Christ? If the man on the chair of St. Peter is not the Pope, can he automatically become one by renouncing his modernist beliefs and practices? Who can answer these questions? Do we even need to know the answers to these questions?
        I repeat the question, do we need to know the answer to these questions? I don’t think we do. We need to hold fast to Catholic tradition.

        What about the so-called ‘semii-traditionalists’?
        How can these ‘Catholics’ say he’s Pope and then treat him like he isn’t the Pope? If anyone did that in the normal everyday workplace they would be fired on the spot, it just doesn’t make sense. He’s the head of their ‘Catholic’ Church and yet they disobey him? This is the practice of the SSPX and FSSP. They ignore his authority and pretend it doesn’t matter? That’s why I say Francis and Benedict are the Popes of the Novus Ordo Religion because that is exactly what they are, nothing more, nothing less. Which is the bigger problem, the issue of whether the man on the chair of St. Peter is a true Pope or the reality that the Catholic religion has been replaced by the Novus Ordo Religion? The focus of the us so called ‘sedevacantists’ (and I really don’t like that label) should be to convert the followers of this false religion and bring them back to the Catholic faith. I wished someone would have done that with me. I wasn’t brought back to the Catholic religion by a ‘sedevacantist’ trying to convert me, it was by God’s grace that I recognized that Francis couldn’t possibly be teaching the Catholic faith because he was contradicting even his ‘Catholic’ predecessors. He was contradicting ‘Saint’ JPII and his Catechism of the ‘Catholic’ Church. That was the final straw. In researching the contradictions of Francis (synod on the family, year of mercy, Amoris Laetitia, etc, etc) it was then that I discovered that Vatican II had ushered in a completely new religion, the synthesis of all religions in fact, that’s what ecumenism was all about. Lot’s of reading followed like Pascendi, Mystici Corporis Christi, Arcanum, Casti Canubii, Vatican II Declaration on Ecumenism, Robber Church, Sacred and the Profane, Work of Human Hands, The Problems with Sacraments, and the list goes on and on…

        Then I discovered that all ‘sedevacantists’ do not share the same beliefs and that was really troublesome for me. Who do I trust? My answer, trust no one, listen to them all and try to sort it out. Siobhan, you said that the ‘dogmatic declaration’ is only made by those who are ignorant. I disagree, there are ‘sedevacantists’ who sincerely hold this position. Something is blinding them and I don’t think it is ignorance. Why, because I have listened to Fr. Jenkins explain very clearly the errors of certain ‘sedevacantists’ positions on certain matters and they just don’t get it so it isn’t just a matter of ignorance because they have been informed of the errors in their way of thinking. How can anyone deny Catholic teaching on Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire? There are ‘sedevacantists’ who do just that. I have the exact same failing and could not grasp the truth of certain matters no matter how well it was explained to me. It takes time and God’s grace and a love of truth to sort this all out.

        I had been a ‘Novus Ordite’ for 59 years, woke up to that reality last October 2016 and have been trying very hard to resolve this whole dilemma. I had faithfully followed the JPII Catechism, participated in ecumenical celebrations, communion in the hand, my daughters were alter servers, I believed Muslims worshiped the same God, believed the Divine Mercy private revelations, prayed the ‘luminous mysteries’ etc, etc. etc. Then I learned about modernism and their deceitful tactics. It is truly amazing how brilliant they are with their deceptions. I recently read an expose on how Paul VI actually undermined the Catholic teaching on the intrinsic evil of contraception in his Encyclical Humanae Vitae even though on the surface he seemed to be supporting Catholic teaching. Modernists are the Mozart’s, the Beethoven’s of deception, absolute masters of it. If the Vatican II ‘Popes’ aren’t the ‘heralds’ of the anti-Christ I can’t imagine who could possibly be the ones to fill that role. If this isn’t the time of the great apostasy then what would it look like? Did the Catholics living in during the Arian Heresy think they were in the great apostasy? Maybe, but there weren’t one billion Catholic faithful in the fourth century so how could it be classified as great? How can the last fifty years of modernist destruction of the Catholic faith be undone, what possible scenario would accomplish this and then what? Miraculously, the Novus Ordo religion reverts back to the Catholic faith? The ‘sedevacantists’ who are hoping for a ‘restoration’ are deluding themselves. If a restoration occurred now, how many years would it be before the real ‘great apostasy’ and the time of the anti-Christ? Someone enlighten me please. If this isn’t the great apostasy then someone please provide a hypothetical example of what it would look like. What role do ‘sedevacantists’ play in this great apostasy, are they a part of it and don’t even know it? Are some of them part of it and don’t know it? This is why I don’t like the label ‘sedevacantist’, I prefer the label Roman Catholic. ‘Sedevacantists’ of whatever persuasion are really Roman Catholics doing their best to hold fast to tradition, period. Maybe we don’t have all the issues figured out perfectly but we will keep working on it.

        I listened to how Fr. Donald Sanborn, Fr. William Jenkins, and Fr. Clerence Kelly and their efforts to get to the truth about the Thuc Consecrations. I listened to the debate between Fr. Cekada and Fr, Jenkins regarding these consecrations. This is a very serious issue because we lay people cannot assume valid consecrations and ordinations, we must be convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt. I read the book, The Sacred and the Profane by Fr. Kelly, and listened to the talk by Mario Derksen regarding the Thuc consecrations. How does a Catholic lay person deal with this situation? In examining the situation regarding the Thuc Consecrations it occurred to me that perhaps some traditional priests were ignoring Catholic tradition out of desperation. I asked myself the simple question, how can we trust a Bishop who consecrates non-Catholics, something that has always and everywhere been condemned by the Catholic Church? One doesn’t need a degree in sacramental theology to know something is wrong with these consecrations, they are clearly objectively doubtful. The ‘Notorious Fact’ argument of Mario Derksen simply doesn’t apply because these consecrations were not done under the normal Catholic practice of consecrating a Bishop with Vatican approval and normal protocols. As a Catholic lay person I must be convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are legitimate, unlike the situation as a ‘Novus Ordite’ when I just took them for granted since they had Vatican approval. My trust for all religious went out the window last October 2016. Now they have to earn my trust, it isn’t just taken for granted. How can I trust Bishop Thuc knowing what I know about the consecration of the non-catholic’s that he performed? Seriously? I am not following the particular ‘opinion’ of Fr. Cekada, Fr. Kelly, Fr. Sanborn, Fr. Jenkins or any of these priests or lay ‘experts’. I listen to all of them and then form my own conclusions. For me doubtful consecrations means doubtful sacraments it is that simple. I am not willing to risk my soul now after 59 years of invalid sacraments from the ‘Novus Ordo’ priests by receiving sacraments from priests or bishops from the Thuc line of consecrations it is that simple. Other Catholics have to make that choice for themselves. I choose to err on the side of caution. I will not condemn those who do not hold my position but hope they will take a long hard look at the implications should they be in error.

        One year ago I was attending a ‘traditional’ mass 5 days a week offered by an FSSP
        priest in a Novus Ordo Church and spent 7 days a week in what I believed to be ‘Eucharistic’ adoration in the Perpetual Adoration Chapel of a Novus Ordo Church. Now I am compelled to travel 2 1/2 hours one way (5 hours round trip) to attend a mass of Pope St. Pius V (Tridentine Mass) once per month and consider this a privilege, a great gift from God. If I was convinced that the priest who offered that mass had a doubtful ordination I would not attend. The Japanese were deprived of the sacraments for three centuries because the Catholic priests were not allowed to enter that country. Do we think we have a greater right to the sacraments than they do? The sacraments are a privilege, a gift from God.

        I sincerely hope I am wrong concerning the Thuc line of consecrations because if they are not legitimate then there are many, many invalid sacraments being received by ‘traditional’ Catholics just like is happening in the Novus Ordo Churches. Those priests who are from the Thuc line should remedy the situation and be conditionally re-ordained by a validly consecrated Bishop. Remove all the doubt, it is in their power to do this, so why don’t they do it? Is this too much to ask of them by faithful lay Catholics? Is my objective doubt unreasonable in the light of what has happened since Vatican II? I was told by a traditional priest that I was following ‘stupid’ theology regarding the Thuc consecrations. In reality I wasn’t following theology at all (I am not theologically educated), I was just following common sense the same way I determined the Novus Ordo Religion isn’t Catholic. The law of non contradiction. I was holding fast to my simple understanding of tradition. If one refuses to do what the Catholic Church has always and everywhere condemned then the Thuc consecrations of non-Catholics clearly fall into that category. Where in Catholic tradition has the consecration of non-Catholics ever been accepted? Please provide an example for me, anyone.

        May we all hold fast to tradition no matter what the cost.

        Our Lady, Destroyer of Heresies pray for us, Our Lady of Sorrows pray for us, especially our traditional priests, they need our prayers to persevere in this great spiritual battle.

        • Siobhan

          Daniel– of course a lot can be said but it would require a forum format. My heart goes out to you & all here, for all of us have our own histories, surrounding which we all exercise compassion for one another. Some personal histories go back decades as does mine, some a month or even less. Now, the Dimond bros & those like them who deny BOD & BOB are not Catholics so set them aside. To say more here would distract the entire point of the authors of this blog-the point being to introduce a fact to those heretofore unexposed; that fact being that Bergoglio is the head of the VII Sect ( sometimes referred to as the Norvus Ordo Sect) not the Holy Roman Catholic Church & then to get those readers thinking. Peace be to you.

          • Sonia

            Speak for yourself. Bishop Mendez, a thorough liberal, and consecrator of Bp Kelly, had far more controversy surrounding his consecrations. To understand why people are still talking about Archbishop Thuc in derogatory terms, one needs to do a little research on the character of Bp Kelly. At any rate, the Thuc line is authentic, his consecrations were authentic and meticulous.

        • Sonia

          http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=60&
          Meanwhile, I find it laughable that folks are arguing over whether a bloke who is a Novus Ordite, possibly never even tonsured, is the POPE, and people are picking over the bones of Archbishop Thuc’s consecrations (an indisputably Catholic Bishop who accepted excommunication, and consecrated for the continuation of the Christ’s Church). What I see is a swathe of people who are now looking to validate doubts, who want to ride the operation of error.

        • George

          Daniel, the bishops consecrated by Archbishop Thuc were consecrated by a valid bishop. That’s all you really need to know to be confident that the consecrations were valid. Moreover, although he made some glaring mistakes, all indications are that the Archbishop was a true Catholic, who rejected Vatican II, rejected the conciliar Church, and left it. In other words, he did that which was the duty of every bishop to do, but only he of all the bishops in the world did.

    • Paul Bays

      Daniel, I find your comments very interesting, I have often wondered why Sedes call themselves Sedes and not simply Roman Catholic. Catholics are born for combat correct? What I presently see is a lot of different Catholic groups each calling the other group wrong and each using their intellect to argue why they are right. I see them making new groups where they meet some recognizing the Popes, some not. The Devil must be absolutely delighted, you see he knows that divided we fall. What i don’t see is Roman Catholics coming together ready for combat to back parishes that rightfully belong to us. Everyone is running away looking for their safe place to blog and chat, but where are the Catholics who say “Right , we are taking this Parish Church back! Get the rogue priest converted or get him out” as you Sede cannot dogmatically day we have no Pope you should consider perhaps how you can join those on the front lines in rogue parishes and get churches saying the Latin Mass again, then we start winning again. United we stand divided we fall.

      • Sonia

        “What i don’t see is Roman Catholics coming together ready for combat to take back parishes that rightfully belong to Christ.” And do you think stopping people from using the word ‘sedevacantism’ will help?
        Truth is the ultimate weapon. True Catholic Popes have called valid Masses of heretics and schismatics abominable because they offer the Paschal Victim in utter falsehood – expecting the Father to bless them for debasing His Son, sacrificing Him to their heresy. The real thing is being with Christ – if one has the rare privilege during this Apostasy of having a Catholic Mass (not made abominable by connecting/communing itself with an antichrist (una cum bergog and the myriad hideous N.O. bishops who sully the Catholic name day in and day out)) what great graces upon these folks and all because the Holy Sacrifice, the sacraments continue. However we can, we must avail ourselves of them.
        Anyway, being with Christ means rejecting belial. Christ is the with us in the Catholic Faith, pleasing to the Almighty in the Real Presence of the unadulterated altar. Catholic Sees have been stolen here and there over the centuries; now we live through a time where the See of Rome has been made a wasteland for 6 or so decades by the ‘art of war’. What is Catholic? Know that and pray for the strength in the faith and you get through. But don’t expect comforts or condolences. This is exile (well, unless one is geographically graced).

        For those seeking: http://www.sgg.org/lessons-in-the-faith/

        • Paul Bays

          Who’s stopping anyone from using the term Sedevecantism? There is without question something Diabolical about the whole situation in the church, what is being pushed by priests Bishops and Popes is not correct. St Paul hated Catholics and then was converted, he didn’t ask for it , he was knocked off his horse blinded and told by God to go and speak to someone. Let’s take the present Pope, does he like traditional Catholics? But can he also be converted by God , of course he can, if he can do you have the right to say these men are not Popes? Don’t forget St Paul was getting Catholics killed, executed, persecuted. The Popes are not allowed to change Doctrine, they simply can’t, what has happened since V2 is that many have tried and are trying, they have to be resisted but once you start deciding who is and who is not Pope you go out on a limb. What do you think of the St Paul of old, the Catholic persecutor? Strange that you can accept someone who persecuted the church but these V2 Popes we are supposed to reject, try praying for them.

          • Sonia

            Who? I asked if you were for stopping it. Of course things are diabolical. This is the Great Apostasy. Bergoglio is not nor ever has been a Pope. VII has no Catholic authorities. One might pray for the conversion of these non-Catholics. It is surely worthwhile praying from true ground? VII is Apostasy. The Novus Ordo is non-Catholic. Catholicism is in exile – the formerly Catholic Sees are occupied by heretics. The interregnum has lasted since the death of Pope Pius XII. Anyway, I hope so many of the folks commenting recently are up for the truth, and not just Novus Ordo trolls. But only God knows.

          • Paul Bays

            Thanks for your comments Sonia, I think there are many people looking for the Truth, but are not rushing in to cut ties with what they were born into. We Novus Ordo who still go to Mass see there is a problem, but it’s only recently that it has become obvious, remember many of us received no teaching, I didn’t even know what a Catechism was until a few years ago and had never read one, the two I have read are after V2 , now I am going to read a pre V2. Catechism, we are searching for the Truth we are just maybe not so far along as you. God bless

          • Sonia

            Yes. It’s the great apostasy. Grace given to us to move away from the Novus Ordo teddy bear is hopefully received. Well, there are resources found on this site and in many countries true Bishops run seminaries and in even more countries they have sent forth true missionary priests. The true Holy Sacrifice of the Mass continues. It is generally accepted that when Christ said, ‘and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world’, He was also alluding to His Real Presence.

            Kyrie eleison.

  11. corvinus ✓ᴰᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ

    You’re most likely correct. It would appear that nowadays, Protestants and the irreligious are almost as likely to become traditional Catholic as Novus Ordos are.

    • Sonia

      Um.

      Fr Cekada, “Work of Human Hands” (which explains why people conclude sedevanatism in concrete terms even though the focus of the book is Novus Ordo liturgical attack.)

      “The Antimodernist Reader Volume One.”

      Steven Speray: “After Pius XII, the Deluge, How to Articulate Sedevacantism.”

      Not mention the plethora of articles, videos put out by MHTS and Fr Cekada on the topic.

    • Herman_U_Tick

      I would be happy if there were a really good, modern (rather than modernist) book which set out the doctrine of the True Church, with perhaps an appendix on Vatican 2.
      If a stranger (per impossibile) were to approach me in the street and say ‘I’m very interested in becoming a Traditional Catholic; could you recommend a suitable book to me?’ I would be unable to do so.

      Only a month ago I learned a teaching, previously unknown to me, which I found amazing and which has changed my view of history and the human situation. (I can’t possibly deal with it in a combox.)

      The closest thing I know to what I want is ‘The Teaching of the Catholic Church’ by canon G. D. Smith (1948), but this is neither comprehensive enough nor advanced enough and in many ways shows the defects of the approach taken 70 years ago: the author writes because he enjoys writing, and he writes about topics he finds interesting, in a style free from editorial oversight; if the reader benefits that is a bonus.

      A textbook I would cite — one among several — as a model of production is ‘The molecular biology of the cell’ by Alberts Bray. (new editions every 4-6 years) Authoritative in content, appealing in layout, a masterclass in what can be done if one has the humility to employ a technical author (or two).

    • Orthopapist

      Fair comment, this should also be put online for maximum discussion. I do not believe sedevacantism is proven, it is not proven that Vatican 2 is heretical but has simply been asserted, and they need to look more at counter-arguments offered before this is concluded as solid.

      Griff Ruby put out “Sede Vacante!” but again I doubt he proved the case, and if so why not release online so everyone becomes a sede then?

      I seriously do not believe sedevacantism has been proven, though I believe it is provable and tend towards this position (and then “conclavism” from that or that sedes will elect a pope)

      • poapratensis

        I have a similar disposition. I find that SV writers often try to make up for the lack of quality in their demonstrations of VII or post VII popes’ heresies with quantity. This very website is a testament to this. If a clear heresy could be demonstrated, but a single one would be necessary. Instead we get an avalanche of what appears to be heresy, but which does not rise to the “beyond reasonable doubt” certainty I feel should be required by a position as radical as Sedevacantism.

        Bergoglio is making it easier every day though, isn’t he?

        But I am begining to think of myself as a latter day sedevacantist. I think the vacancy began After February 28, 2013. Benedict XVI was probably a pope, and therefore he had the power to abdicate and overcome eccliastical law obstacles there may have been (Canon 188, etc.), but Bergoglio was never a pope because he isn’t even a Catholic, or because the conclave was invalid.

        • Novus Ordo Watch

          Of course only a single heresy is necessary, but the more you can demonstrate, the better. Most people don’t reason the way they should. Just because one heresy is enough, doesn’t mean people draw the necessary conclusion. Look at “Cardinal” Muller. The man is overtly heretical on Transubstantiation, but no one cares. He is still considered “orthodox” and “conservative”. It’s unbelievable.

          • poapratensis

            Well, I agree with you that he appears heterdox, and I don’t think he’s conservative or whatever, but could you put him on ecclesistical trial and convince a the jury he is a pertenacious heretic? If you could then that’s all you would need, and I’d like to think you’d have all of trad-world cheering you on.

            Unfortunately the Post VII popes (except Bergoglio) have been pretty good at maintaing a status of plausible deniability of heterodoxy. Even Paul VI. And it is much harder with JPI, JPII, and Benedict XVI. I’ve read every one of your dossiers many times. None would have convinced me as a juror held to a reasonable doubt standard of certainity except Bergoglio, the first to promulgate principles clearly contrary to BOTH previous teaching AND Our Lord’s divine word.

          • Novus Ordo Watch

            There is no question that heresy and pertinacity can be easily proved for Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis. The others are a bit more tricky, but then it’s not like the “papal heresy” argument is the only argument proving that these men are not Popes. I personally don’t care for the “papal heresy” argument that much, to be honest. I prefer the argument from the infallibility and indefectibility of the Church. In any case, no need to belaber the point. People who are interested in pursuing this further can do so. The whole web site is full of stuff, especially under the “Sedevacantism” option in the “The Issues” menu.

          • poapratensis

            If it were so easy you could deploy an unassailable, suscinct, and credible proof right now, for nothing could be as devestating to my challenges, but instead the old bury them with an avalanche of almost good enough evidence is deployed.

            Again, just one solid proof is all it takes, not a sprawling meta-narrative.

            This is why I think it essential to write a book. Start with the strong argument(s), providing them ample context and defending any a priori assumptions, and then in an organized, integral fasion incorporate all related, weaker corroborating elements. From there you will have a convincing rebuttal to True or False Pope and all other anti-sedevacantists.

          • Novus Ordo Watch

            What proof are you looking for? What proof do you still need? The “meta narrative” is often necessary in order to correct people’s mistaken ideas about heresy or pertinacity.

  12. resolution

    “The fact that the words “Sedevacantism” and “Sedevacantists” are now being bandied about is a good thing, as it will lead to more people researching the topic.” – You’d think so, but I would wonder whether they’re simply trying to muddy the waters in not addressing the real criticisms of those Catholics holding the sedevacantist position. Reality is limited to your perception of things. It’s easy to scapegoat an entire group of people when you control what the population think they believe rather than what they actually believe.

  13. Novus Ordo Watch

    You need to distinguish bad Popes from non-Catholic “Popes”. A Catholic Pope can be bad (immoral) but cannot be a non-Catholic. This is explained and documented even from history, here:
    https://novusordowatch.org/2014/03/bad-popes-argument/
    Many people are simply not aware of what the Church teaches about the Papacy. We have put together a little reality check on what would follow if indeed Bergoglio were a true Pope. Here is what you would have to believe about him:
    https://novusordowatch.org/2017/07/dangerous-experiment-francis-papacy/

    • john b

      Novus Ordo Watch;
      How many Sedevacantists worldwide there are maybe 200,000.Being catholic means accepting the governance of the church.You excommunicate yourself.Bringing you close to schism.Martin Luther was the same way in the 16th century.We had an anti pope a pope that spent luxuriously during Martin Luther’s time and Luther condemned the pope like Sedevacantists do today.Luther ended up leaving the church totally bringing with him other ex catholics including attacking the church.Creating a man made religion protestantism.
      We don’t have to like a pope and we can disagree with him.
      The difference is we have to accept that he is the leader of the church.
      The church has a way of purifying itself.Christ is the head.
      The church does not belong to you to me even the pope.
      You seem surprised by scandal in the church.
      Is this not the reason why Christ chose a Judas to let catholics know there will be sinner and saint in the church.
      If you have great faith great share it.But faith without charity is absolutely useless.
      Calling out Francis saying he is a heretic is just bad evangelizing.
      Right away he will just turn you off.
      No I refuse to believe that God Almighty would leave his children orphaned for over 50 years that’s just nonsense.However I can see and know history enough that we can have an anti pope to usurp the papacy.
      You see I have an European background.The Americans want to change the catholic church to their speed.Sorry the catholic church is not a democracy.
      Change takes a long time in the church.Peter’s boat is a large ship guided by Christ.
      Politics and culture should never change the church.
      We are here to change the culture.
      Without unity we have no church.

        • john b

          Novus Ordo Watch;
          Do you know what the Canon law of the catholic church says about this issue.
          They have authority you don’t.
          Is this not what it comes down to authority.
          If you rebel/protest against all teaching authority chair of Peter then call yourself protestant.Fix it within not the outside.
          When you are in full communion with Rome you are part of the mystical body of Christ.Christ says Repent and Believe in the gospel.Christ did not say Protest and believe in the gospel.It’s too late you are already too deep in your agenda.

          • Novus Ordo Watch

            We do not disagree in principle at all. I think you are misunderstanding our position. We do not protest the Chair of St. Peter. We do not rebel against the Pope. Rather, it is our conviction, based on objective evidence, that Francis isn’t the Pope. That’s a completely different thing. Not being Pope, he has no authority. And that goes not only for him but all of the Vatican II “Popes”.

  14. Siobhan

    Hi, Is it I-I’m not touching the Thuc Consecrations in this combox with a ten foot pole tbqh. That said, have you listened to Bp. Pivarunas also lecture at great length & detail on this matter? Just a friendly question, not wishing to “go there,” if you will. God Bless you, friend. If you need a link, let me know I’ll try to find one.

  15. Paul Bays

    Alexander thanks for this website link. I have read the first page. May I ask do you consider there to be one single honest, sincere and trustworthy Bishop or Cardinal in the entire “Novus Ordo” church as you call it? If so who is that?

    • Alexander Krawczyk

      Honestly, I couldn’t trust any of them so long as they persist in promulgating the heresies of Vatican 2 , Modernism, and that things which are sins are okay; even the so called “conservatives” fall into these things.

      I’ll tell you what though, I have limited internet access at the moment, but if you can find the mailing or email addresses of those clergy. I will write them a letter detailing the heresies of Vatican 2 and these modern errors in hopes of converting them.

      May the Sacred Heart of Jesus bless and protect you and the Immaculate Heart of Mary keep you!

    • 2c3n1 .

      The book is heretical because it rejects the law and teaching of the Catholic Church. When a Catholic knows his Faith, he knows that the Church does not promote heresy and errors by law and liturgy. He also knows that a pope, good or bad, professes the Catholic Faith. And he knows the religion of Vatican 2 (where women prance around the altars as servers and lectors, where the liturgy resembles Luther’s and Cramner’s mass, and it’s popes promote the heresies of religious liberty, communicatio in sacris with non-Catholics, and non-Catholic religions are a means to salvation, etc.) is not the Catholic Church.

  16. Herman_U_Tick

    John Daly’s article on Dignitatis Humanae over on romeward.com entitled:-
    ‘Religious Liberty – The Failed Attempts To Defend Vatican II’
    under ‘Errors of the Conciliar Church and its Leaders’, is brilliant.
    If anyone harboured a lingering suspicion that the doctrine of Vatican 2 might ever be reconciled with that of the True Church, this article annihilates it.
    And if the doctrine is false the papal claimant who promulgated it must be false.

  17. Sonia

    I guess the wee qualifier regarding WoHH was ignored by you. Nevermind.
    Sedevacantism: For one to have Catholic authority, one must profess the Catholic faith.
    Ok – if you have read any of the Antimodernist reader, yes, they want to make it accessible, but the references are thoroughly academic (as well as in Work of Human Hands).
    I suspect rigamortis may set in before you find the academic rigour you are looking for (Fr Cekada is famous for his footnoting rigour) on the subject of what you would like to hear about sedevacantism; why not write it yourself, if you are qualified, and if not, well, what qualifies you to dismiss the books mentioned?

    PS. If a Catholic Bishop and a Catholic Priest, both of whom lived through the VII scandal, had years of rigorous seminarian formation and decades in the real work of the Church during the Great Apostasy are not ‘credentialed authors’, then you really need to go elsewhere. Maybe the Archbishop of Canterbury could ‘help’ you.

    • jay

      I agree Sonia, these men have lived through an attack on Christ’s Church that exceeds any other since it came from within the Vatican and outside the Vatican. Experience is always the best teacher. Those who witnessed the Mass being changed to an assembly didn’t need a doctrinal thesis to know something was terribly wrong . The fruits of Vatican II and it’s anti popes are self-evident i.e. a mass exodus of Catholics from the Vatican II sect , a revolution in the secular world that has produced the greatest holocaust ever seen with the worldwide deaths from abortion that may have exceeded 1 billion children. A moral decline that even pagan societies would gasp at and an acceptance of “lifestyles” that even the Borgia’s would shun. I believe all this could not have come about without the Vatican II heresy being put in place first.

      • Sonia

        Yes -that even the the Borgia would shun.

        It has been suggested that Luther – debauched creep he was- would have been appalled at Henry 8s hanging, drawing and quartering thousands of Catholic clergy and laity; and the blitzing of most of the Catholic consecrated building/architecture; of which, ‘funnily’, the British National Trust try to preserve the last crumb at ridiculous expense.

      • poapratensis

        It doesn’t take much to know something is wrong, true, but doing something good about it, well that takes knowlege.

        I don’t know how to fly a helicopter, but if I see one in a tree I know something is wrong. I also would be of little help in remedying the situation.

    • poapratensis

      Well, if you think your little sentence there is an adequate exlanation, then I can’t really help you.

      I am uncertain of who you are refering to, but if it is the authors of the works you’ve cited, none of them benefited from the formation and education that would have been considered requisite to write serious theology books prior to Vatican II.

      Though I am unqualified to write such a book myself, and certainly lack the time to do so, I know enough to detect that Fr. Cekada is out of his depth with frequency that makes me question the credibility of everything he writes. Though I do credit him for at least trying, which is more than can be said for other Sedevacantist “clergy.” Among laymen, the score is better, with Mario Derksen, John Lane, and John Daly having done considerable work, but still, no book length, rigorous, and academic exposition of Sedevacantism.

      True or False Pope falls short on all those qualities but one–it is book length, and it does bear a forward written by Bishop Fellay which appears to endorse and approve of the book. There is simply nothing like this among Sedevacabtists, at least so far.

  18. Sonia

    It is pretty funny to have gotten to the point where the heresiarchs need to publish something saying they are not heresiarchs while they stand upon their heretical house of VII sand. Frankie and his gay mafia are entertaining on a soap opera level.
    Well, it would be funny, if it weren’t deadly, eternally serious.
    At any rate, God is Just. The true remnant keeping the faith against the constant injustices launched at us during this time will find justice before the Throne of the Almighty, if we simply stay true.

  19. Sonia

    johnb and Daniel. I hope you are visiting this site as a response to a grace for Truth. Supposing that sincerity, sadly your wish that the Catholic Mass will continue throughout post-Christendom (scourge of Luther and Henry 8 et al.) in what were once Catholic parishes is still many steps away from understanding what ‘the great falling away’ is. Throughout the life of the Church many many Catholics have had to survive the weariness of satan’s futile assaults, by keeping the faith, acknowledging authority where it is Catholic, and watching and praying, but in exile from what few Masses or Bishops God gives. The Matt & Co. (really it is a just useful term these days) would have everyone lose faith by twisting Christ’s solemn promise “That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” is novel and pretends to a man in a white cassock in Rome the charism of the Papacy – a wicked deceit. The Faith is clear, the Mass continues. We have no Pope -sede vacante- . We have the faith built on the Rock, however long the interregnum lasts.

  20. Lee

    The first sedevacantist priest to go public that I know of unless somebody else can add anything was Fr. Joaquin Saenz y Arriaga who was from Mexico. He wrote a couple books called “The New Montinian Church” (1971) and “Sede Vacante: Paul VI is no longer a legitimate Pope.” (1973). He died in 1976 of prostate cancer. The Unión Católica Trento as they are know as have several Catholic churches down there not in union with the Novus Ordo mainstream Church of Rome. The first bishop to go public was bp. Ngo Thuc from Vietnam around 1980 and after him the two first Mexican bishops were consecrated another from France a year later and then they consecrated bishops in America and the line continued. They’re some opinions that Catholics can have but not many because if everything was just an opinion then nothing would matter. Sedevacantistism is certainly not an opinion because if it were then we would have to submit and obey Francis I all they way back to John XXIII and this is impossible because in laymen terms if they are Catholic then the entire Church before Vatican II is not Catholic, if they are not the Catholic Church then before Vatican II there was the Catholic Church. They are both clearly two different Churchs teaching two totally different beliefs many of which that are now taught were condemned as heretical before. Our minds should focus on the teachings of the Catholic Church as it was in the beginning until Pope Pius XII and we must submit our minds according to the mind of the church. That’s what most (not all) sedevacantist try to do as best as they can.

    • john b

      Lee;
      I heard this group in error in the United States consecrated and elected 2 popes lol.
      One in Kansas City pope Michael in 2009 and one is the state of Washington.This is heresy.

      • Lee

        They have no relevance. They’re many more than that who claim to be pope right now. But in all truth even though many trad catholics and conservative novus ordos would never claim to be pope, they act as though they are the final authority on certain matters at the same level as a pope, and this is sad.

  21. Orthopapist

    As they say “any publicity is good publicity”, hopefully this has the “Streisand Effect” (where trying to conceal sedevacantism but publicizing it, leads to people looking it up online and questioning the Vatican)

    I have commented before that I was wondering why the Vatican hasn’t commented more on sedevacantism, put out like an official document explaining why sedes should join them … since they haven’t done this, and there are a minority of sedes but enough to warrant a response I thought – it suggests sedevacantism is true, or that direction.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.