Sedevacantist II

Francisco and Jacinta Marto, Fatima visionaries

The title of this blog, Sedevacantist II, is admittedly abstruse. But in the overall context of Spiritual Warfare, it behooves the Apostles of the Last Days to become better acquainted with the details of the ongoing existential crisis in the Church of Rome. As I’ve written previously, the Vatican is the epicenter of two warring vanguards: The Children of Light and The Children of Darkness.

We selected Francisco and Jacinta, the visionaries of Fatima, Portugal, to be the inspirational avatars of the Children of Light for this piece. The 1917 secrets of Fatima are particularly germane to eschatology, i.e. the Christian End Times. Although public revelation ended when humanity received all that’s required for salvation, private revelations, such as those in Fatima and Medjugorje continue.

“Surely the Sovereign LORD does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets.” (Amos 3:7)

War in Heaven

While it is dubious that the full text of the highly anticipated Third Secret of Fatima was ever fully released by the Church, the future Pope Benedict XVI, then Cardinal Ratzinger, did confirm that its contents were virtually identical to the Third Secret of Akita (1973). Here is a portion of the 1973 Akita secret:

The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres…churches and altars sacked; the Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord.

A sedevacantist is one who believes the Chair (sede) of St Peter is now vacant and that Pope Francis is illegitimate, mostly for these two reasons. First, many Catholics, including prominent theologians, refer to him as an injudicious heretic more concerned with gay rights, climate change, U.N. dictates and migrant affairs than with the sanctity of the Magisterium. In other words, he is a globalist.

Secondly, it is my personal belief, shared by others, that Pope Benedict’s resignation, were it even canonically possible for a Pope to resign, impacted only his temporal duties – the day-to-day tasks and function of the papacy. Benedict himself has admitted as much; it is not feasible to renounce the office: “..the office [munus] enters into your very being,” wrote Benedict. Not the “function” or “ministry,” but the office itself!

Pope Francis

In other words, the Petrine office becomes ontologically imbued within a newly elected pope when he is coronated. This mystical transformation, however, occurred at that precise moment, nunc sacri, Cardinal Bergoglio (Pope Francis) responded “yes” following his election; it became an irrevocable fiat. Ergo, Pope Benedict XVI unequivocally remains the Pontiff of the Holy Catholic Church and shall remain so until his death.

So what happens then? Will Pope Francis be summarily legitimized? No, not at all! The Chair of St Peter will continue to remain vacant. Another conclave will necessarily have to be called to elect a legitimate pope – most doubt that will ever happen. Many traditional Catholics consider all popes since Vatican II illegitimate; that the Holy See has been vacant since Pope Pius XII. Hence, the title of this blog, Sedevacantist II.

“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Mt. 16:19)

Demonic Corruption

Rome should adhere to God’s rules. Rampant homosexual pedophilia and sexual deviancy, endless cover ups, financial corruption, false ecumenism, false teachings, plus a host of other errors routinely bubbling up from the Ministry of Inequity pervade the modern Church and have for many years across many papacies. What pervades the Church pervades the world; “As above, so below.”

Following Pope Benedict’s eventual passing, should Pope Francis refuse to convene a second papal conclave, effectually submitting his papacy to a vote of confidence, he might well be considered a de facto antichrist. Some already think he is the antichrist. Consequently, the Church of Rome would likely become schismatic. Sadly, future events may unfold along these lines. The antichrist is defined as one who will lead the faithful away from the truth by preaching heresy and blasphemy.

It’s also possible that Pope Emeritus Benedict could convene a Council. Professor Daniel O’Connor recently opined, “Throughout the history of the Church, there has been a great number of ways in which the details of Papal Election have transpired. Even if it is not the canonically ordinary way to convoke a new conclave, we are not exactly living in canonically ordinary times, and entertaining the possibility that a genuine prophecy could speak of a Pope Emeritus being the one to even informally call the Cardinals together to elect a new Pope should not even be considered such a stumbling block, much less considered as heretical.” The ‘prophecy’ O’Connor refers to was given by Fr. Michel Rodrigue, whose “Virtual Retreat” we highly recommend.

John makes clear in his letters that the spirit of the antichrist is “of the world’ and not of God. (1 John 4:4-6) “Children, it is the last hour; and just as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. This is how we know it is the last hour.” (1 John 2:18)

Our Lady of Sorrows

 

© Toney Brooks, OS, 2020

3 thoughts on “Sedevacantist II

    1. The term “Benevacantist” implies that Benedict vacated the chair, the opposite of my position. By the way, thank you for your comment and question. I draw a distinction between “abandon” and “retire.” The two medieval popes you mentioned did, in fact, abandon their office. Benedict did not abandon his office. Quite the contrary, he invoked the “indelible metaphysical character” of the papacy, which cannot be revoked. Perhaps the best term to describe the current state of the papacy would be “sededuo” – both Benedict and Francis claim complementary aspects of the Chair of Peter; Benedict’s claim is spiritual (the primacy) and Francis’ claim is secular (the episcopy). So to answer your question directly, I assert that the Episcopy of Rome can be resigned, but not the Primacy of Rome. (This is a thesis articulated by Dr. Ed Mazza.) Again, thank you for your comment.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s