No arguments are needed whatsoever. A picture is worth 1000 words. Anybody praying over an iceberg is not practicing Catholicism nor is not Catholic. Anybody who can’t see that is blind.
Yes. This is where the average faithful come in. We have eyes that see with various degrees of clarity even when we haven't the academic ability to describe what we are seeing in theological terms. There is a sensus fidelium, and this is where the divide is. Is the sensus fidelium with tradition or with modernism? Obviously tradition. I would go so far as to say that the modernists are laboring to build a new sensus fidelium to defend their "church"
Is blessing an iceberg worse than JPII kissing the Koran? Or in the homily of his Mass in Bangkok, Thailand on May 10, 1984, John Paul II praised the 'wisdom' as well as the 'interior purification and liberation' of Buddhism. It is obvious that both the Buddhist and Hindu doctrines and methods are irreconciable with Catholic doctrine.
Or how about the actions of Benedict XVI who entered a synagogue as Benedict XVI did on April 27, 2008 in New York?
Benedict entered the Park East synagogue as a choir sang the liturgical song Sh’ma Yisrael, which is the central proclamation of faith of Judaism. That is to say, at the very moment of the entrance of the Vicar of Christ, the Jews re-affirmed that they do not accept Our Lord Jesus Christ. Then, he was invited to sit at the left side of the stage (bimah), a secondary place.
I am going to propose a different formulation to a public teacher of heresy losing office. What I am going to say is that they voluntarily through an act of their own will, in defiance of our Lord renounce office. Just as I would be voluntarily through my own choice renouncing my own salvation if I went on a mass killing spree (using an extreme example so as to avoid debate over whether such an action would be bad enough to be called a renunciation). I think this formula squares the circle you are pointing too in this debate and it answers all our questions. The Church is no longer indefectible nor Apostolic in its standing and authority because the Church in Rome *no longer wants to be* therefore, as God ultimately allows us to free choose our paths so the Church in Rome will be allowed to choose it but there will be consequences just as there are for us when we exercise this freedom of choice.
Maybe I'm new to the debate and crisis in our Church (it's been about 10 years for me), but I will say that this is the first time I have seen a a known person in the R&R publicly and respectfully debate NOW rather then dismiss sedes out of hand. Seems that NOW is moving the needle. Let the respectful debate continue.
I'm with Mario Derksen but with the added element of "sede impedita" at the 1958 conclave, which is not only supported by substantial evidence but it also provides the theological reason how John XXIII through Leo could betray Catholic faith and tradition, when it is Catholic teaching that a pope cannot become a heretic, nor can a heretic ever be elected pope.
“…this See of Saint Peter always remains unblemished by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: ‘I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail….’” – Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, 4.
The faulty 1958 conclave is the obvious solution. It is theologically the easiest solution. I don't understand why so many people don't accept it.
Those who hold that the 1958 five minutes of white smoke didn't mean what white smoke was intended to mean, and didn't mean what conclave white smoke has always been intended to mean, are the ones who have a pretty high burden of proof to overcome.
I'm not sure what the procedure is - so if anyone can point me to an EXACT description (if one exists) I'd be grateful. I don't even know if it's a secret or not - I have read M Martin but I can't remember if he gives a blow by blow account of the procedure.
I'm wondering why one couldn't just take the view that since none of us were there and so don't know at first hand what happened , it's possible that a genuine mistake was made and not noticed. The problem I have, as I said on another thread, is that if Cardinal Siri (or anyone) was elected and refused, why keep quiet about it? Didn't he owe an explanation after, I think it was 5 minutes of white smoke? Even if the claims that he might have been threatened into refusing are correct, in my opinion he still had a duty to make it public - at least in later years before he died. It seems a bit silly to me to claim he was elected Pope, without the man himself saying so or there being substantial and very concrete evidence and I've never read anything convincing.
Cardinal Siri wasn't elected and then refused. He was elected, accepted, took the name Gregory XVII, then was issued a threat from the Satanic Judeo-Masonic powers. That was the enabling act for ushering in the prophesied Great Apostasy and what Our Lady of La Salette foretold in 1846 as the "eclipse" (not destruction) of the Church. The substantial convergence of evidence at whitesmoke1958.com, supplemented by that at novusordowatch.org/2016/10/smoke-signals-white-smoke-1958 should convince any impartial student of what took place. "Impartial" should be emphasized, which is not easy with something like this.
Re- Malachi Martin, he wasn't the traditional Catholic many think. Martin admirerers won't want to hear this, but he was a deceptive agent of the Judeo-Masonic powers, employing limited hangout (where you "expose" a part of some plot which would have been exposed anyway and that way safeguard the parts of the plot that still remain hidden) to deflect attention from the overthrow of the papacy in 1958. In his book, The Keys of This Blood, he deceptively says that Siri was "pope elect" but he refused. No, he was validly elected, accepted, then invalidly abdicated under threat/duress. See the convincing evidence against Martin here:
When Siri said, and with great anguish, when asked if he were elected pope, "I am bound by the Secret.... The Secret is horrible....Very serious things have occurered, but I can say nothing," he was probably referrring not to the secret of the conclave but to the seal of confession, at leasst one of the conspirators having confessed to him so that he would be bound, under pain of excommunication, from revealing what was confessed.
Thank you for pointing out denied truths about Malachi Martin. There is a load of evidence that he was a clever conman. Before idolizing him, as even 'traditionalists' do, people should do a thorough research of his background. Not very edifying.
But again - perhaps, if there were evil shenanigans going on, someone might have misunderstood and sent out the wrong signal! .nd suspect we’ll never know what really happened until the next world.
There isn't going to be a purely human solution, based solely on theological/ecclesiological argumentation, however ably and amicably done. God will play a visible role in reclaiming His Church, with cooperation of as many of us as will choose to obey Him.
At a retreat where Fr. Chad Ripperger served at a Latin Mass I got to ask him a question (I as a pre V2 formed Catholic wandering for 45+yrs) if in my lifetime the church would be corrected. He said, "It is beyond human correction, it needs divine intervention". So yes, we await God's Almighty Hand.
The deep state and the deep “Church” flow from the same putrid Luciferian/Masonic New Order system.
It’s like St. Peter’s has been taken over by squatters who have flim-flammed the laity and civil authorities that they are the true tenants of the properties of the Catholic Church.
Trump has been anointed as Levites were by blood on the ear.
Leviticus 8:23: And when Moses had immolated it, he took of the blood thereof, and touched the tip of Aaron's right ear, and the thumb of his right hand, and in like manner also the great toe of his right foot.
The first thing Trump did after the bullet tore through his right ear was to touch it with his right, thumb and finger. Who knows about his great toe? The resemblance is uncanny!
My point is this: How could Trump defeat the NWO without also taking out the NOC?
And how could true Catholics take back their churches. As St. Athanasius said, “They have our buildings but we have the Faith!” but righteous civil authorities like Trump with God’s anointing could be the means by which we Catholics reclaim the Visible Church.
Just trying to figure out what our Lord may be planning, and full of hope too!
Thomistic-Scholastic logic and reason can resolve this situation because these errors are human enough, not divinely ordained as some would suppose. The Modernist Heresy can be and has been totally refuted many, many times; this is, thus, not a situation above and beyond human reason as guided by Catholic theology, of course. Authority Grants Power, NOT VIce Versa; Ontology is Ever Much Greater Than Epistemology as to Truly Valid Argumentation; Doctrines are GREATER Than a Mere Institutional Arrangement as an Argument.
Furthermore, the Office of the Papacy, the Holy See, is ever greater than any mere current occupant of the Chair of St. Peter. The same reasoning correctly applies to the Magisterium of the Church. Therefore, true apostolicity, genuine catholicity, authentic Magisterium, and valid ecclesiastical integrity all properly and necessarily derive by, through, and from the Papal Office, not from the simply contemporary or current holder of the Throne of St. Peter, in the Vatican in Rome. Q. E. D.
What you outline very well would take care of the problem if it were a matter of error alone, but the reason for the Modernist errors is not only theological but also part of the great apostasy and moral collapse reaching into the hierarchy itself, which remains responsible for the election of future popes. The crisis is playing out the ongoing spiritual warfare, which has been intensifying, as Leo XIII discerned in his famous locution from heaven and call for St. Michael prayers. God does not ordain error, but He permits human error taken in free will to expose its subtle poison and malice, until the day He will say, Enough!
Indeed! As Trump was defeated in 2020, just to make it clear to all the depravity of the deep state. During those 4 years in the “Wilderness,” Trump was able to prepare himself for the apocalyptic battle against the Luciferian/Malthusian NWO which runs the NO/post Vatican II “church.”
Thank you for seeing it as a mere outline. Yes, the evil is tremendously great and there is spiritual warfare too. It may, thus, take divine intervention to fully correct. However, my argumentation remains still valid for then properly undermining the demonic Modernist Heresy and its implications and related ramifications as well.
I deliberately divided the issue. An obvious impostor, as it logically may be said, merely sits on the Throne, NOT any actual or authentic Pope; however, the Office of the Papacy, the Holy See itself, ever remains completely perfect as is the foundation of the Church founded and still lead by the Lord Jesus Christ. In that sense, we do totally agree as to this terrible situation.
Not only is the Seat vacant, the entire Novus Ordo hierarchy is vacant: They are not a part of the Catholic Church, therefore we are NOT required to follow apostate leaders who have abandoned the faith/Church. The Church still exists, but it is NOT in Rome. Some remaining bishops are possibly still Catholic, but they are cowards who refuse to leave or defend the faith. They may wear the Catholic costumes and inhabit the real estate, but they are imposters.
The true Catholic Church is not nor never could be secular. That is why it should be obvious that the conciliar church is not the true Catholic Church because it is not only secular but its foundation, its birth, was inspired by the demonic and you know it by its fruits.
Thanks for this. I was unaware this conversation had taken place.
I will have to look at their actual exchange, but heresy is not the only reason denying the validity of the recent papal claimants. It is more the rejection of the full duty of office (if not the full rejection of the duty of office!) The principle duty being the preservation and communication of the Apostolic Faith. These men simply have not intended to BE popes, and did not have the authority, by mere election, to transform the papacy into something new, nor to make a New Advent of dogmatic transformation (not without signs from heaven). The very notion of a New Advent is apostate, and betrays the immanentist religiosity of the NO religion.
So it is not just personal heresy, but the systematic enactment of heresy upon the Church as reform that proves they are not popes.
For me this rejection of duty was made clear through a symbolic act, in October 1964, when Paul 6 took off his tiara. It was taken as a 'great act of humility', it was in truth an abdication of the duty of office. And he did not promulgate V2 until the following year.. I don't consider this a major theological thesis, but it makes the at times obscure theological round about clear.
Interesting read - the idea of Sede Usurpata, although new to me as an official 'position' supports my own long-term position of 'the Church as an occupied city'. Funnily enough, I did a quick search and found this which I haven't seen before. Too tired to read it in full tonight,but skimmed it and this too makes the same analogy. Thanks for posting.
As I said in another reply in this thread, the NOC are squatters on our properties. If I found squatters in my home I would turn to the civil authorities and petition them to remove them. Perhaps Trump is Our Lord’s plan to uproot the NWO which controls the NOC?
Squatters is a good word for them. I'm not American but do think that God may have a plan which involves Trump, much like He used Cyrus. Not because he's President but rather because he's the type of man who is actually capable of standing up to everyone and God may have endowed him with that gift for a specific purpose. That doesn't mean I agree with everything he does (and at this stage I don't trust anybody), but in general he's doing a good job from where I'm sitting.
I absolutely agree. I’m no Trump fanboy but Cyrus came to mind immediately after I saw that Trump had been through the four years in the desert (2020-2024) then spared certain (millimeters?) death with blood on his right ear. Cyrus was a gentile King but God loved him and used him to restore his people and temple. Maybe he will use Trump and I think Italy’s Meloni may be useful as well. Thank you for your reply!
Er… I’ll whisper that that’s possible, but your article entitled ‘Nulla Corona’ which discussed the issue of ‘Corona ante Thronum’ showed a lot of ‘thrones’ which looked pretty diabolic to me, especially the JPII one. I’ve never seen it before, despite living through his ‘Papacy’. Pretty horrific, and I’d love to see Francis’ expression whilst seated opposite the true Throne.
I agree on Paul VI (photos of whom always creeped me out as a child and teenager) renouncing the Papacy or job description by removing the Tiara - much as Francis refused to be Vicar of Christ. I’m not sure it would affect any other Pope - or it would have to be backdated to John - unless he needed to be Pope so he could ‘validly’ get VII passed and accepted.
I’ll pass on the metaphysics, naturalistic or otherwise, but will be reading ‘Remota Corona(m) later!!
The coronation liturgy was pretty specific in terms of instituting the office and its holder as king of the world (in Christ's stead). No pope since P6 took it off has put a tiara on, thus has not had the coronation ceremony. This strikes me as a significant change in the rite of ordination, though it has not peaked the attention of any serious canonists as far as I know.
I forgot about the rest of them not putting it on! I never followed Rome closely as I could never understand why in ‘religious education’ we were not being taught the ‘Faith/religion’ I had been taught literally just a few years earlier - in fact you could say that in a lot of ways I went from one to the other at school in the space of a year or two. It was most confusing and decidedly incomprehensible at the time. UK Catholic newspapers never seemed relevant to me either - nothing about 'public’ Catholicism seemed to have much to do with Catholicism any more - at least as I understood it.
I was an Anglo Catholic for a few decades. There was a quip that we were Catholicism without the pope. Truth is the institutional church was becoming Anglicanism WITH the pope.
People like you are in important historical witness to the radical transformation after the council. You get the idea we have entered into and age of the great forgetting, than many see the ancient Church through the lens of V2.
This is a fair and good summary of the discussion, I think. I would just like to offer a small correction: I do not hold that if a true Pope were to publicly teach heresy in his magisterium, he would automatically cease to be Pope. Rather, I hold that it would be impossible for such a thing to happen in the first place. On the other hand, if someone who appears to be Pope should be teaching heresy in his magisterium, it would be definitive proof that he is NOT in fact the Pope and never was.
The famous 'five opinions' outlined by St. Robert Bellarmine regarding the question of the 'heretical Pope' only concern the question of a Pope being a heretic in his capacity as a 'particular person', that is, as a private individual. It does not concern the question of a Pope teaching heresy in the official exercise of his magisterium, which was held to be impossible by all.
Church teaching is crystal clear regarding the heresy of Modernism. Church teaching is crystal clear that a heretic is not a member of the Church and can NEVER become a pope. Likewise, Church teaching is crystal clear that a validly elected pope immediately falls from his office if he teaches any heresy. Modernists like Gaspers love to insert drops of poison to dilute Church doctrine and dogma to the point that they can justify even Vatican II and the Novus Ordo as all valid. Furthermore, Montini changed the prayers of priestly ordination and episcopal consecrations such that it makes them invalid. The current so called hierarchy remain nothing but laymen. No debate will settle this because the Church’s Magisterium and pre-Vatican II popes have spoken definitively. Modernists all believe in the Development of Doctrine and Dogma heresy. This is what the traitorous bishops at Vatican II approved by over 75%. This is what allows the antichurch to disregard almost all Church teaching before the wretched Council.
Yes! Traditionalism says, “This was true, therefore it follows that this other teaching is true. “ Modernism says, this WAS true, but now the OPPOSITE IS TRUE!”
The Code of Canon Law (Book II, Part I, Title I, Can. 212, para. 3) has this:
'According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.'
Clearly, there's room for lawyerly debate in canonical terms about what may obtain in a given case, but this canon seems eminently reasonable. I bear witness to truth, as I can, in humility, and leave others to the judgment of God.
It's not complicated at all.. Conditions for holding papal office include: It must be held by a male. He must be a baptised member of the Church. He must hold and profess the Catholic Faith and must be validly elected. Can a lay Catholic determine what's heretical and what's orthodox? If a lay person cannot do that much then he'd best start learning his catechism again and cure his ignorance.
It's understandable why the true pope couldn't easily be identified during the great western schism seeing that all the claimants were male, baptised and professed the True Faith. We don't have such a dilemma confronting us today since the only claimant we have isn't a professimg Catholic. We do have at the very least 2 other claimants and maybe many more for all I know but none of them (though probably being professing catholics) are validly elected. What we definitely can determine is, Prevost can't legally hold the papal office due to his heresy and his failing to profess the Catholic Faith. How can I be so sure? Answer; Because he contradicts and opposes many infallibly declared Catholic dogmas that every mildly informed Catholic holds.
The fact that Catholics are required to profess their faith is based on the obvious assumption that Catholics are able to understand their faith. It would be meaningless to be required to profess something you don't understand.
The fact that we can understand our faith means that we can also, through our power of reason, recognize that which contradicts our faith. So when Prevost puts it out that doctrine can change, our reason informs us that Prevost cannot be a believing Catholic, and therefore can not be a valid pope.
Bravo to Mario and Matt!!! I’m so grateful something so proactive for the glory of God has happened in today’s milieu of such fighting. We are Catholic and want to do God’s holy Will. I applaud these men for acting like Catholic men.
I have to say that I’ve just come to understand that sedevantism is not a slur or a bad word. It is an actual situation that has happened in the Church previously. Only recently have I seen that the people of the sedevantism thinking are actually amazing Catholic people!!!! They are not like the protesters of the sixteenth century onwards who refused certain dogmas and/or doctrines of Holy Mother Church. They aren’t protesting anything except deviation from the true teachings of the Church. When they speak they have true love for Our Lord and Our Lady and Holy Mother Church. At least the priests and laity I’ve been listening to do.
The wonderful thing is is that we’re beginning to talk with one another and hash out the difficulties as has happened throughout the ages!!!!
It is said that when Satan does evil, Our Lord turns it into good! What we are seeing is the Refiner’s fire burning away all falsehood and the Holy Purification of His True Church in preparation for the coming of the Bridegroom!
Matt. 23 seems to address the problem when Jesus said: 2. Upon the chair of Moses have sitten the Scribes and Pharisees. 3. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe ye and do ye: but according to their works do ye not, for they say and do not.
The papacy is a completely different institution from the chair of Moses. Moses' Old Covenant was soon replaced with Jesus' New Covenant after Jesus' words you quoted.
Jesus was displaying His own loyalty to the Old Covenant as long as it was still in effect.
You miss the point. The Chair of Moses is somewhat equivalent to the Chair of St. Peter. What Christ said was they held that position the Chair of Moses - i.e., the highest religious authority properly; though one ought not to to follow their practices as they were corrupt.
The Chair of St. Peter is the highest authority in the Church, designed to safeguard the Faith, but now being used to dilute and destroy it. In the same measure one can recognize the Chair without accept the errors.
The Catholic Faith is immutable - semper idem. And, the Church belongs to Christ, not the Pope, clergy or hierarchy. The Faith is written down, one need only read and follow it based upon the ancient practices, while eschewing the innovations and novelties.
HINT: Authority Grants Power, NOT VIce Versa; Ontology is Much Greater Than Epistemology as to Truly Valid Argumentation; Doctrines are GREATER Than a Mere Institutional Arrangement as an Argument. Furthermore, the Office of the Papacy, the Holy See, is ever greater than any mere current occupant of the Chair of St. Peter. The same reasoning correctly applies to the Magisterium of the Church. Therefore, true apostolicity, genuine catholicity, authentic Magisterium, and valid ecclesiastical integrity all properly and necessarily derive by, through, and from the Papal Office, not from the simply contemporary or current holder of the Throne of St. Peter, in the Vatican in Rome. Logical Conclusion: Mario Derksen is, thus, definitely WRONG!
Correct. Being (ontology) supersedes knowledge (epistemology)—the latter proceeds from the former. Without institutional being, there cannot be institutional knowledge. Corrupt knowledge can and does proceed from institutional being. But to declare institutional being as abdicated/ “not being” because of corrupt knowledge is nonsensical. No one has the authority or power to judge the Supreme Pontiff. Our Lady of Fatima predicted a great apostasy from the Catholic Faith, starting at the top, but at no time even hinted at the Church itself collapsing out of existence. Rather both She (predicted a bad council) and Our Lord (predicted the pope will consecrate Russia but it will be late) spoke of terrible chastisements involving the Pope—how could these predictions be valid if no true pope exists? May God have mercy on us all.
No arguments are needed whatsoever. A picture is worth 1000 words. Anybody praying over an iceberg is not practicing Catholicism nor is not Catholic. Anybody who can’t see that is blind.
Yes. This is where the average faithful come in. We have eyes that see with various degrees of clarity even when we haven't the academic ability to describe what we are seeing in theological terms. There is a sensus fidelium, and this is where the divide is. Is the sensus fidelium with tradition or with modernism? Obviously tradition. I would go so far as to say that the modernists are laboring to build a new sensus fidelium to defend their "church"
Is blessing an iceberg worse than JPII kissing the Koran? Or in the homily of his Mass in Bangkok, Thailand on May 10, 1984, John Paul II praised the 'wisdom' as well as the 'interior purification and liberation' of Buddhism. It is obvious that both the Buddhist and Hindu doctrines and methods are irreconciable with Catholic doctrine.
Or how about the actions of Benedict XVI who entered a synagogue as Benedict XVI did on April 27, 2008 in New York?
Benedict entered the Park East synagogue as a choir sang the liturgical song Sh’ma Yisrael, which is the central proclamation of faith of Judaism. That is to say, at the very moment of the entrance of the Vicar of Christ, the Jews re-affirmed that they do not accept Our Lord Jesus Christ. Then, he was invited to sit at the left side of the stage (bimah), a secondary place.
Exactly, I was trying to be brief.
If I remember correctly he asked for forgiveness! Forgive what exactly?
GOD bless, always, for seeing so very clearly!!! Plain TRUTH!!!
You would be 💯 correct!
I am going to propose a different formulation to a public teacher of heresy losing office. What I am going to say is that they voluntarily through an act of their own will, in defiance of our Lord renounce office. Just as I would be voluntarily through my own choice renouncing my own salvation if I went on a mass killing spree (using an extreme example so as to avoid debate over whether such an action would be bad enough to be called a renunciation). I think this formula squares the circle you are pointing too in this debate and it answers all our questions. The Church is no longer indefectible nor Apostolic in its standing and authority because the Church in Rome *no longer wants to be* therefore, as God ultimately allows us to free choose our paths so the Church in Rome will be allowed to choose it but there will be consequences just as there are for us when we exercise this freedom of choice.
Maybe I'm new to the debate and crisis in our Church (it's been about 10 years for me), but I will say that this is the first time I have seen a a known person in the R&R publicly and respectfully debate NOW rather then dismiss sedes out of hand. Seems that NOW is moving the needle. Let the respectful debate continue.
I'm with Mario Derksen but with the added element of "sede impedita" at the 1958 conclave, which is not only supported by substantial evidence but it also provides the theological reason how John XXIII through Leo could betray Catholic faith and tradition, when it is Catholic teaching that a pope cannot become a heretic, nor can a heretic ever be elected pope.
whitesmoke1958.com
novusordowatch.org/2016/10/smoke-signals-white-smoke-1958
“…this See of Saint Peter always remains unblemished by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: ‘I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail….’” – Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, 4.
novusordowatch.org/2022/04/felix-cappello-heretical-pope-impossible;
novusordowatch.org/2015/04/heretical-popes-first-vatican-council
The faulty 1958 conclave is the obvious solution. It is theologically the easiest solution. I don't understand why so many people don't accept it.
Those who hold that the 1958 five minutes of white smoke didn't mean what white smoke was intended to mean, and didn't mean what conclave white smoke has always been intended to mean, are the ones who have a pretty high burden of proof to overcome.
I'm not sure what the procedure is - so if anyone can point me to an EXACT description (if one exists) I'd be grateful. I don't even know if it's a secret or not - I have read M Martin but I can't remember if he gives a blow by blow account of the procedure.
I'm wondering why one couldn't just take the view that since none of us were there and so don't know at first hand what happened , it's possible that a genuine mistake was made and not noticed. The problem I have, as I said on another thread, is that if Cardinal Siri (or anyone) was elected and refused, why keep quiet about it? Didn't he owe an explanation after, I think it was 5 minutes of white smoke? Even if the claims that he might have been threatened into refusing are correct, in my opinion he still had a duty to make it public - at least in later years before he died. It seems a bit silly to me to claim he was elected Pope, without the man himself saying so or there being substantial and very concrete evidence and I've never read anything convincing.
Cardinal Siri wasn't elected and then refused. He was elected, accepted, took the name Gregory XVII, then was issued a threat from the Satanic Judeo-Masonic powers. That was the enabling act for ushering in the prophesied Great Apostasy and what Our Lady of La Salette foretold in 1846 as the "eclipse" (not destruction) of the Church. The substantial convergence of evidence at whitesmoke1958.com, supplemented by that at novusordowatch.org/2016/10/smoke-signals-white-smoke-1958 should convince any impartial student of what took place. "Impartial" should be emphasized, which is not easy with something like this.
Re- Malachi Martin, he wasn't the traditional Catholic many think. Martin admirerers won't want to hear this, but he was a deceptive agent of the Judeo-Masonic powers, employing limited hangout (where you "expose" a part of some plot which would have been exposed anyway and that way safeguard the parts of the plot that still remain hidden) to deflect attention from the overthrow of the papacy in 1958. In his book, The Keys of This Blood, he deceptively says that Siri was "pope elect" but he refused. No, he was validly elected, accepted, then invalidly abdicated under threat/duress. See the convincing evidence against Martin here:
rumble.com/v359b0a-you-really-think-you-know-malachi-martin.html
The above was edited from youtube.com/@garygiuffre
Part 1 from 46 to 52 min.
Part 2 from 47 to 52 min & 56 to 58 min.
Part 3 from 56 min.
Go there to hear it in context.
Also at tradlatinmass.com/the-papacy-the-current-crisis
More on Martin at revisionisthistory.org/wire3.html
How do you know that Siri was elected, accepted, then threatened? He never spoke about what happened at the conclave.
He said enough.
The Pope: Could He Be Cardinal Siri? whitesmoke1958.com/the-pope-could-he-be-cardinal-siri
eclipseofthechurch.com/chapter_xvii_1.htm (Il Papa non eletto, Ch. 17, Siri asks for forgiveness)
Evidence points to a nuclear threat, enough to keep Siri from acting publicly.
whitesmoke1958.com/2021/05/27/grave-reasons-of-state
When Siri said, and with great anguish, when asked if he were elected pope, "I am bound by the Secret.... The Secret is horrible....Very serious things have occurered, but I can say nothing," he was probably referrring not to the secret of the conclave but to the seal of confession, at leasst one of the conspirators having confessed to him so that he would be bound, under pain of excommunication, from revealing what was confessed.
Siri was I believe the acknowledged front runner going into the conclave.
The 5 minutes of white smoke certainly meant that someone was elected.
Ask for the rest, I have no knowledge.
Thank you for pointing out denied truths about Malachi Martin. There is a load of evidence that he was a clever conman. Before idolizing him, as even 'traditionalists' do, people should do a thorough research of his background. Not very edifying.
They only do the white smoke if the elected one accepts.
Rosary Knight gives a more detailed explanation below.
But again - perhaps, if there were evil shenanigans going on, someone might have misunderstood and sent out the wrong signal! .nd suspect we’ll never know what really happened until the next world.
Ty Mr. Jackson for your efforts
There isn't going to be a purely human solution, based solely on theological/ecclesiological argumentation, however ably and amicably done. God will play a visible role in reclaiming His Church, with cooperation of as many of us as will choose to obey Him.
At a retreat where Fr. Chad Ripperger served at a Latin Mass I got to ask him a question (I as a pre V2 formed Catholic wandering for 45+yrs) if in my lifetime the church would be corrected. He said, "It is beyond human correction, it needs divine intervention". So yes, we await God's Almighty Hand.
Divine intervention saved Trump. How much more will Divine intervention save Christ's Church!
The deep state and the deep “Church” flow from the same putrid Luciferian/Masonic New Order system.
It’s like St. Peter’s has been taken over by squatters who have flim-flammed the laity and civil authorities that they are the true tenants of the properties of the Catholic Church.
Trump has been anointed as Levites were by blood on the ear.
Leviticus 8:23: And when Moses had immolated it, he took of the blood thereof, and touched the tip of Aaron's right ear, and the thumb of his right hand, and in like manner also the great toe of his right foot.
The first thing Trump did after the bullet tore through his right ear was to touch it with his right, thumb and finger. Who knows about his great toe? The resemblance is uncanny!
My point is this: How could Trump defeat the NWO without also taking out the NOC?
And how could true Catholics take back their churches. As St. Athanasius said, “They have our buildings but we have the Faith!” but righteous civil authorities like Trump with God’s anointing could be the means by which we Catholics reclaim the Visible Church.
Just trying to figure out what our Lord may be planning, and full of hope too!
Thomistic-Scholastic logic and reason can resolve this situation because these errors are human enough, not divinely ordained as some would suppose. The Modernist Heresy can be and has been totally refuted many, many times; this is, thus, not a situation above and beyond human reason as guided by Catholic theology, of course. Authority Grants Power, NOT VIce Versa; Ontology is Ever Much Greater Than Epistemology as to Truly Valid Argumentation; Doctrines are GREATER Than a Mere Institutional Arrangement as an Argument.
Furthermore, the Office of the Papacy, the Holy See, is ever greater than any mere current occupant of the Chair of St. Peter. The same reasoning correctly applies to the Magisterium of the Church. Therefore, true apostolicity, genuine catholicity, authentic Magisterium, and valid ecclesiastical integrity all properly and necessarily derive by, through, and from the Papal Office, not from the simply contemporary or current holder of the Throne of St. Peter, in the Vatican in Rome. Q. E. D.
What you outline very well would take care of the problem if it were a matter of error alone, but the reason for the Modernist errors is not only theological but also part of the great apostasy and moral collapse reaching into the hierarchy itself, which remains responsible for the election of future popes. The crisis is playing out the ongoing spiritual warfare, which has been intensifying, as Leo XIII discerned in his famous locution from heaven and call for St. Michael prayers. God does not ordain error, but He permits human error taken in free will to expose its subtle poison and malice, until the day He will say, Enough!
Indeed! As Trump was defeated in 2020, just to make it clear to all the depravity of the deep state. During those 4 years in the “Wilderness,” Trump was able to prepare himself for the apocalyptic battle against the Luciferian/Malthusian NWO which runs the NO/post Vatican II “church.”
Thank you for seeing it as a mere outline. Yes, the evil is tremendously great and there is spiritual warfare too. It may, thus, take divine intervention to fully correct. However, my argumentation remains still valid for then properly undermining the demonic Modernist Heresy and its implications and related ramifications as well.
Just to clarify, the Holy See is vacant. Therefore, there is no current holder of the Throne of St. Peter. Otherwise, I agree 100%!
I deliberately divided the issue. An obvious impostor, as it logically may be said, merely sits on the Throne, NOT any actual or authentic Pope; however, the Office of the Papacy, the Holy See itself, ever remains completely perfect as is the foundation of the Church founded and still lead by the Lord Jesus Christ. In that sense, we do totally agree as to this terrible situation.
Now I agree 110%!
Not only is the Seat vacant, the entire Novus Ordo hierarchy is vacant: They are not a part of the Catholic Church, therefore we are NOT required to follow apostate leaders who have abandoned the faith/Church. The Church still exists, but it is NOT in Rome. Some remaining bishops are possibly still Catholic, but they are cowards who refuse to leave or defend the faith. They may wear the Catholic costumes and inhabit the real estate, but they are imposters.
If the Church is not in Rome, where is it?
The Church is faithful Catholics. Faithful to the Deposit of Faith and Tradition.
Squatters! I’m loving this post and all the great energy!
I’m not a theologian. But who do you tell : “The Emperor has no clothes?”
Is this all a product of modern society? It seems that Modernism is the root of the secular society and that our church has become secular.
The true Catholic Church is not nor never could be secular. That is why it should be obvious that the conciliar church is not the true Catholic Church because it is not only secular but its foundation, its birth, was inspired by the demonic and you know it by its fruits.
Yes!!
Thanks for this. I was unaware this conversation had taken place.
I will have to look at their actual exchange, but heresy is not the only reason denying the validity of the recent papal claimants. It is more the rejection of the full duty of office (if not the full rejection of the duty of office!) The principle duty being the preservation and communication of the Apostolic Faith. These men simply have not intended to BE popes, and did not have the authority, by mere election, to transform the papacy into something new, nor to make a New Advent of dogmatic transformation (not without signs from heaven). The very notion of a New Advent is apostate, and betrays the immanentist religiosity of the NO religion.
So it is not just personal heresy, but the systematic enactment of heresy upon the Church as reform that proves they are not popes.
For me this rejection of duty was made clear through a symbolic act, in October 1964, when Paul 6 took off his tiara. It was taken as a 'great act of humility', it was in truth an abdication of the duty of office. And he did not promulgate V2 until the following year.. I don't consider this a major theological thesis, but it makes the at times obscure theological round about clear.
Here is a piece I wrote on the topic. https://williamthesamaritan.substack.com/p/nulla-carona
Interesting read - the idea of Sede Usurpata, although new to me as an official 'position' supports my own long-term position of 'the Church as an occupied city'. Funnily enough, I did a quick search and found this which I haven't seen before. Too tired to read it in full tonight,but skimmed it and this too makes the same analogy. Thanks for posting.
https://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/F089_Mas.htm
As I said in another reply in this thread, the NOC are squatters on our properties. If I found squatters in my home I would turn to the civil authorities and petition them to remove them. Perhaps Trump is Our Lord’s plan to uproot the NWO which controls the NOC?
Squatters is a good word for them. I'm not American but do think that God may have a plan which involves Trump, much like He used Cyrus. Not because he's President but rather because he's the type of man who is actually capable of standing up to everyone and God may have endowed him with that gift for a specific purpose. That doesn't mean I agree with everything he does (and at this stage I don't trust anybody), but in general he's doing a good job from where I'm sitting.
I absolutely agree. I’m no Trump fanboy but Cyrus came to mind immediately after I saw that Trump had been through the four years in the desert (2020-2024) then spared certain (millimeters?) death with blood on his right ear. Cyrus was a gentile King but God loved him and used him to restore his people and temple. Maybe he will use Trump and I think Italy’s Meloni may be useful as well. Thank you for your reply!
Though I really have no right using Latin. haha
Er… I’ll whisper that that’s possible, but your article entitled ‘Nulla Corona’ which discussed the issue of ‘Corona ante Thronum’ showed a lot of ‘thrones’ which looked pretty diabolic to me, especially the JPII one. I’ve never seen it before, despite living through his ‘Papacy’. Pretty horrific, and I’d love to see Francis’ expression whilst seated opposite the true Throne.
I agree on Paul VI (photos of whom always creeped me out as a child and teenager) renouncing the Papacy or job description by removing the Tiara - much as Francis refused to be Vicar of Christ. I’m not sure it would affect any other Pope - or it would have to be backdated to John - unless he needed to be Pope so he could ‘validly’ get VII passed and accepted.
I’ll pass on the metaphysics, naturalistic or otherwise, but will be reading ‘Remota Corona(m) later!!
The coronation liturgy was pretty specific in terms of instituting the office and its holder as king of the world (in Christ's stead). No pope since P6 took it off has put a tiara on, thus has not had the coronation ceremony. This strikes me as a significant change in the rite of ordination, though it has not peaked the attention of any serious canonists as far as I know.
I forgot about the rest of them not putting it on! I never followed Rome closely as I could never understand why in ‘religious education’ we were not being taught the ‘Faith/religion’ I had been taught literally just a few years earlier - in fact you could say that in a lot of ways I went from one to the other at school in the space of a year or two. It was most confusing and decidedly incomprehensible at the time. UK Catholic newspapers never seemed relevant to me either - nothing about 'public’ Catholicism seemed to have much to do with Catholicism any more - at least as I understood it.
I was an Anglo Catholic for a few decades. There was a quip that we were Catholicism without the pope. Truth is the institutional church was becoming Anglicanism WITH the pope.
People like you are in important historical witness to the radical transformation after the council. You get the idea we have entered into and age of the great forgetting, than many see the ancient Church through the lens of V2.
Thanks x2 !
This is a fair and good summary of the discussion, I think. I would just like to offer a small correction: I do not hold that if a true Pope were to publicly teach heresy in his magisterium, he would automatically cease to be Pope. Rather, I hold that it would be impossible for such a thing to happen in the first place. On the other hand, if someone who appears to be Pope should be teaching heresy in his magisterium, it would be definitive proof that he is NOT in fact the Pope and never was.
The famous 'five opinions' outlined by St. Robert Bellarmine regarding the question of the 'heretical Pope' only concern the question of a Pope being a heretic in his capacity as a 'particular person', that is, as a private individual. It does not concern the question of a Pope teaching heresy in the official exercise of his magisterium, which was held to be impossible by all.
Church teaching is crystal clear regarding the heresy of Modernism. Church teaching is crystal clear that a heretic is not a member of the Church and can NEVER become a pope. Likewise, Church teaching is crystal clear that a validly elected pope immediately falls from his office if he teaches any heresy. Modernists like Gaspers love to insert drops of poison to dilute Church doctrine and dogma to the point that they can justify even Vatican II and the Novus Ordo as all valid. Furthermore, Montini changed the prayers of priestly ordination and episcopal consecrations such that it makes them invalid. The current so called hierarchy remain nothing but laymen. No debate will settle this because the Church’s Magisterium and pre-Vatican II popes have spoken definitively. Modernists all believe in the Development of Doctrine and Dogma heresy. This is what the traitorous bishops at Vatican II approved by over 75%. This is what allows the antichurch to disregard almost all Church teaching before the wretched Council.
Yes! Traditionalism says, “This was true, therefore it follows that this other teaching is true. “ Modernism says, this WAS true, but now the OPPOSITE IS TRUE!”
The Code of Canon Law (Book II, Part I, Title I, Can. 212, para. 3) has this:
'According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.'
Clearly, there's room for lawyerly debate in canonical terms about what may obtain in a given case, but this canon seems eminently reasonable. I bear witness to truth, as I can, in humility, and leave others to the judgment of God.
It's not complicated at all.. Conditions for holding papal office include: It must be held by a male. He must be a baptised member of the Church. He must hold and profess the Catholic Faith and must be validly elected. Can a lay Catholic determine what's heretical and what's orthodox? If a lay person cannot do that much then he'd best start learning his catechism again and cure his ignorance.
It's understandable why the true pope couldn't easily be identified during the great western schism seeing that all the claimants were male, baptised and professed the True Faith. We don't have such a dilemma confronting us today since the only claimant we have isn't a professimg Catholic. We do have at the very least 2 other claimants and maybe many more for all I know but none of them (though probably being professing catholics) are validly elected. What we definitely can determine is, Prevost can't legally hold the papal office due to his heresy and his failing to profess the Catholic Faith. How can I be so sure? Answer; Because he contradicts and opposes many infallibly declared Catholic dogmas that every mildly informed Catholic holds.
Yes.
The fact that Catholics are required to profess their faith is based on the obvious assumption that Catholics are able to understand their faith. It would be meaningless to be required to profess something you don't understand.
The fact that we can understand our faith means that we can also, through our power of reason, recognize that which contradicts our faith. So when Prevost puts it out that doctrine can change, our reason informs us that Prevost cannot be a believing Catholic, and therefore can not be a valid pope.
Bravo to Mario and Matt!!! I’m so grateful something so proactive for the glory of God has happened in today’s milieu of such fighting. We are Catholic and want to do God’s holy Will. I applaud these men for acting like Catholic men.
I have to say that I’ve just come to understand that sedevantism is not a slur or a bad word. It is an actual situation that has happened in the Church previously. Only recently have I seen that the people of the sedevantism thinking are actually amazing Catholic people!!!! They are not like the protesters of the sixteenth century onwards who refused certain dogmas and/or doctrines of Holy Mother Church. They aren’t protesting anything except deviation from the true teachings of the Church. When they speak they have true love for Our Lord and Our Lady and Holy Mother Church. At least the priests and laity I’ve been listening to do.
The wonderful thing is is that we’re beginning to talk with one another and hash out the difficulties as has happened throughout the ages!!!!
Blessed be Jesus Whose mother is Mary!!!!
It is said that when Satan does evil, Our Lord turns it into good! What we are seeing is the Refiner’s fire burning away all falsehood and the Holy Purification of His True Church in preparation for the coming of the Bridegroom!
Matt. 23 seems to address the problem when Jesus said: 2. Upon the chair of Moses have sitten the Scribes and Pharisees. 3. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe ye and do ye: but according to their works do ye not, for they say and do not.
The papacy is a completely different institution from the chair of Moses. Moses' Old Covenant was soon replaced with Jesus' New Covenant after Jesus' words you quoted.
Jesus was displaying His own loyalty to the Old Covenant as long as it was still in effect.
You miss the point. The Chair of Moses is somewhat equivalent to the Chair of St. Peter. What Christ said was they held that position the Chair of Moses - i.e., the highest religious authority properly; though one ought not to to follow their practices as they were corrupt.
The Chair of St. Peter is the highest authority in the Church, designed to safeguard the Faith, but now being used to dilute and destroy it. In the same measure one can recognize the Chair without accept the errors.
The Catholic Faith is immutable - semper idem. And, the Church belongs to Christ, not the Pope, clergy or hierarchy. The Faith is written down, one need only read and follow it based upon the ancient practices, while eschewing the innovations and novelties.
HINT: Authority Grants Power, NOT VIce Versa; Ontology is Much Greater Than Epistemology as to Truly Valid Argumentation; Doctrines are GREATER Than a Mere Institutional Arrangement as an Argument. Furthermore, the Office of the Papacy, the Holy See, is ever greater than any mere current occupant of the Chair of St. Peter. The same reasoning correctly applies to the Magisterium of the Church. Therefore, true apostolicity, genuine catholicity, authentic Magisterium, and valid ecclesiastical integrity all properly and necessarily derive by, through, and from the Papal Office, not from the simply contemporary or current holder of the Throne of St. Peter, in the Vatican in Rome. Logical Conclusion: Mario Derksen is, thus, definitely WRONG!
Correct. Being (ontology) supersedes knowledge (epistemology)—the latter proceeds from the former. Without institutional being, there cannot be institutional knowledge. Corrupt knowledge can and does proceed from institutional being. But to declare institutional being as abdicated/ “not being” because of corrupt knowledge is nonsensical. No one has the authority or power to judge the Supreme Pontiff. Our Lady of Fatima predicted a great apostasy from the Catholic Faith, starting at the top, but at no time even hinted at the Church itself collapsing out of existence. Rather both She (predicted a bad council) and Our Lord (predicted the pope will consecrate Russia but it will be late) spoke of terrible chastisements involving the Pope—how could these predictions be valid if no true pope exists? May God have mercy on us all.