You’re being diverted, and herded. I explain here: https://7thhorn.com/2022/01/16/youre-being-diverted-again/.
Despite my disagreement with many Sedes and Beneplenests about the una cum issue, which I explain here: https://7thhorn.com/2022/01/18/on-the-una-cum/ – it’s clear that the antichurch is attempting to confuse low information Catholics into thinking that their primary focus should be on the controversy over the Mass v the Freemasonic Cranmer meal.
You’re being diverted, and herded – and I very much fear that we’re all being herded into the SSPX, with whom I confidently assist Mass every week.
Personally, I’m blessed with an error free and holy priest. Not all SSPX priests are. But, I feel comfortable here, currently.
I’m very afraid that will not last much longer. There’s a fix in the mix – an “et tu Brute?” coming. The signs are already there.
Our Lady warned us that, near the end, we’d only be left with the rosary, and the sign of her Son.
The winnowing continues, and the confusion escalates.
Rejoice in the escalation. It signals the intervention of Our Lord.
Septima Buccina 
I feel like I just dropped a big black pill. I don’t have the expertise or authority to open an inquisition to determine the living valid apostles of Christ but I suspect that they can be found amongst the SSPX and Sedevacantists Bishops. I don’t think that it is impossible that at some point they do a thorough inquisition into the validity of each one their consecrations to determine who is reasonably authorized to elect a Pope in this state of emergency. I assume that a very grave threat was applied to the Church in order to bring us to this circumstance so I don’t see why an equally grave threat won’t be applied again. So the election of a Pope would likely gravely endanger possibly the entire world population. Probably it should still be done, no? It certainly appears like we are in danger regardless. The children of satan do not value our lives but they value our souls and they want them in hell. We value our lives but certainly we value our souls more. They are bullies and they won’t just leave us alone because we don’t have a Pope, that doesn’t guarantee our damnation, so we might as well have a Pope in the hopes of the salvation of more souls.
LikeLike
“I feel like I just dropped a big black pill.” On me? No.
As for the pope issue, pre Vatican II eschatologists believed that Revelation 12 related to Satan’s (internal) war against the Church.
We know the woman is the Church, not Mary, because she travails in child birth. Fathers Berry and Kramer both believed that “and the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered; that, when she should be delivered, he might devour her son” referred to Satan and his minions going to great lengths to make sure that a pope is not elected.
Then, according to them, after much struggle, a valid papal conclave occurs – the woman gives birth to the son who is to rule the earth with an iron rod.
He then does very dramatic things. Father Kramer surmises that he will issue 7 papal encyclicals or bulls, and that they correspond with the 7 Thunders.
At that point, Satan gives up on his war against the Church *internally,* and begins the external war in earnest, starting with murdering this miraculous and final pope.
And the Woman (the Church) flees into the wilderness for 1,260 – which despite all the metaphorical and symbolic image in the Apocalypse, is generally taken to be a literal or near literal number.
SO … at least according to these eschatologists, we will have one more pope. How? I have no clue. But Our Lord did tell Peter that Satan had demanded to put him (both him in the present, and his office in the future) to the test, and that He prayed that Peter would “be converted” and confirm his brethren. Interesting language.
I also think it’s very interesting that both of these theologians wrote these things before Vatican II, and they essentially say that it is a matter of scripture that we will experience an interregnum, and an epic supernatural battle will take place to stop us from having another valid conclave.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I hope you don’t mind me continuing this subject. I find that Sedevacantists, who I’ve only encountered online, are extremely reluctant to discuss it. I’m only guessing because they want their focus to remain on convincing Catholics that we don’t have a Pope and of course because they don’t know how we will get one. But you point out that it’s interesting language that Peter would be “converted.” I was just wondering if this caused you to give weight to the Cassiciacum thesis holding that the New Order claimants hold the office in potentiality and they await one of them being converted. My gut reaction to this thesis is that it also sustains an interregnum indefinitely and so naturally I don’t like that. I feel like I’m kind of alone in this and definitely frowned upon for feeling like I’d be an awful lot more comfortable receiving Sacraments from a Priest who has been sent to me by the Pope. Also, I feel like the world is in an uncontrolled downward spiral without one and I’d hate to see my kids watch the world deteriorate at an even faster rate than I have. Anyway, I understand your opinion holds no authority but obviously I respect your opinion or I wouldn’t be reading here. Do you have thoughts on it?
Also a P.S. I’ve gotten the impression that the adherents to this thesis are the most kind of exclusive of the groups, as far as not allowing that Catholics should go to SSPX for Sacraments or really anybody besides themselves, I think. I just find that a little weird. So basically they say just wait for a New Order claimant to convert to Catholicism and in the mean time attend Mass here with me only me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t know that I could call myself a sedevecantist, as most people understand the term.
I guess, technically, I am, in that I’m morally certain Bergoglio isn’t pope, and no longer can see how B16 could be, for very similar reasons.
But, regarding what took place before that, all I can say publicly is that their claims regarding the other post conciliar popes seem to have to a lot of merit.
Perhaps more troubling is that I believe their position and analysis regarding the invalidity of episcopal consecrations has a LOT of merit. It would also explain why this would take six decades to come to fruition.
As to the rest, as I’ve said recently, I used to find the notion of a sustained interregnum offensive and absurd. I no longer do. In fact, there’s evidence of very long interregnum’s in the patriarchy before Christ, which was the leadership and teaching authority over God’s people.
But, I have no desire to attempt to convince people that the seat has been empty since 1958. I couldn’t do that in good conscience, because I’m not 100% certain that it is true.
I can only speak publicly about (these type of) things I feel certain about, so when I meet our maker, if I’m wrong, at least my culpability will be less due my sincerity and (hopefully) restraint.
But I have no problem asking questions and expressing doubt – and I very much doubt the validity of post conciliar episcopal consecrations, for the same reason that Leo XIII invalidated the Anglican rites when they changed theirs.
As for “theorists,” v “absolutists” – all these people do is expose the flaws in their position, and demonstrate that the certainty and pride behind their “dogmatic” assertions is woefully misplaced.
If I were a Sede bishop, I’d simply say “I don’t know how we’ll ever get another pope. All I know is that this guy isn’t one, and I’m not associating with him.”
Look, some of my most valued friends are sedevecantists, and they won’t be surprised when I admit that I really don’t like Twitter sedevecantists very much. They can be horribly prideful and toxic people.
On the other hand, the ones I know personally are some of the most sincere, kind, prayerful, and holy folks I know.
So, am I a “sedevecantist?”
🤷🏼♂️ I’m a Catholic who knows Bergoglio isn’t pope.
P.S. “Thesis” holders are “sedeprivationists,” which, if you research the thesis, as shockingly similar to the “Recognize and Resist” people of Trad Inc. In fact, Trad Inc. are all sedeprivationists, though they don’t realize it.
So, I find it especially rich that the thesis holders are the most militant regarding the “una cum” issue – which is an issue that they invented.
LikeLiked by 1 person
When Bergoglio usurped the Throne, I was an Orthodox Christian at the time. My attitude then was, “Welp, I’m glad that my Faith doesn’t rest on whatever chuckle____ resides in the Vatican.”
I am a Catholic now but still hold the same attitude.
If the whole Church turns on the whims of whoever happens to occupy the See at any given moment, we essentially have a cult of everlasting novelties and therefore no ontological robustness. Any serious Catholic convert (i.e. not converting just to marry a sexy ethnic) would have trouble reconciling John 14:6 and Hebrews 13:8 when the directives of the Vatican are molded by those who are non or even anti-Catholic.
We also have a serious problem in that Catholicism is just part of the package of being Mexican/Irish/Polish/Filipino rather than the other way around. Growing up as a Protestant in a Catholic family, I always struggled with the fact that Catholicism was just something based on social obligations rather than something earnestly believed in (although as a smug Protestant, I believed that Catholics were just a bunch of superstitious fools that didn’t read the Bible).
So what we have ultimately is an overwhelming majority of Catholics who do not engage their own Faith past the bare necessity of social obligation combined with a Catholic “mouthpiece” who turns on the whim of people like Jeffrey Sachs or Klaus Schwab (or Albert Bourla). The average Catholic tunes into EWTN (or more likely, any secular MSM that interprets what Bergoglio says), gets ratified in their tepidity and remains asleep.
Sorry if I’m rambling. I guess what I’m saying is that I have more respect for the sedes than the Bogus Ordites since they are at least able to see past their own eyelashes regarding what a real sensus Catholicus looks like.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s been true since the 60s. To me, the only explanation for that is the elimination of the sacraments through the slow poison of invalid episcopal consecrations.
LikeLike
I wrote that badly and I apologize. I am also a Catholic who recognizes that we are lacking a Pope and I find it offensive to be labeled anything else. I was kind of expressing that you also seemed to recognize the same thing without seeming to be on a laser focused mission to convert people to “sedevecante.” And… therefore maybe you might be open to a person going, so do you have any ideas how this might get fixed? I was actually referring to sedevacantists who call themselves that specifically and that’s not to imply that they aren’t Catholic but they do seem to be on a mission to convert and they kind of get upset if you sidetrack them. Jorge is doing a pretty decent job with those conversions all by himself. I’d just like to have a Pope, lol.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying.
I blame the false una cum theory, now “dogmatized,” for most of those problems.
My SSPX chapel is full of people who think Bergoglio is an antipope.
LikeLike
Yes, where we’re all being herded and diverted.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t fully disagree with you there, Michael, but I wouldn’t go as far, like any debate, it should increase our knowledge on the matter, but if it is being used as a weapon for divide and conquer from without, then it’s better left alone.
To add to the rest of the debate, whether we know it or not, all Catholics are Sedevacantists after a valid Pope dies until the next valid Pope is consecrated.
Of course we would never refer to ourselves as Sedevacantists in that instance, and I wouldn’t now. We haven’t changed, it’s the Church hierarchy that have changed, so why should I change?
I don’t mind declaring sede vacante when joining these particular topics here, otherwise I identify as a Catholic.
In the US, you are more knowledgeable in your faith, which elicits a little envy for me, so you are more aware of the problems, especially as you have been the epicenter of the modernist assault.
Elsewhere, “lukewarm” Catholics haven’t even noticed a problem since Vatican II, nor have they the slightest inkling that the Popes are not Popes. They think we’ve just survived a ‘Spanish Flu’, and now we’re back to normal.
More on the Sedevacantist groups. Excluding the groups that have already elected their own Popes, I view the Sedevacantists as societies within the Church. As a society, they hold their own particular devotion within the Church, their calling, which I would say is to maintain a production line of valid Priests, and to wake up “lukewarm” Catholics to the activities of these Anti-Popes, who lead a non-Catholic Church.
Their goal is to save as many souls as is possible, but they end up devoting an inordinate amount of time to defending themselves from attacks.
Well, that’s my reading of it, and I hope I’m not wrong.
So although I’d like to see scholarly works from these properly ordained clergy to grow my faith, they are not big enough in numbers to do more than their current activities.
I once heard Bishop Dolan say he has 300 people in his Parish. What are the chances of producing a Doctor of the Church from such a small pool of people?
It is close to impossible, as the power of Bishops is strengthened and protected by the primacy of the Pope. Therefore during an interregnum, I think they’re all weakened.
If they continue to maintain a production line of valid clergy & also wake up Catholics in these terrible times until the bitter end, then thatt is beautiful.
As for the SSPX. They have the size to achieve what the Sedevacantists can only dream of, and yet, their hierarchy are seemingly in communion with the Bergogster by not calling him what he is.
So it appears to me that the SSPX is a microcosm of what effects the greater Church.
Perhaps, the plan behind corralling Novus Ordo Catholics into the SSPX is to provide cover for some wolves in sheep’s clothing? Perhaps some Hollywood Trad Caths are soon to join the SSPX. We’ll see.
If the SSPX hierarchy would call it as it is, and the other Sedevacantist groups buried their differences and joined together, I would shed a tear of joy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“If the SSPX hierarchy would call it as it is, and the other Sedevacantist groups buried their differences and joined together, I would shed a tear of joy.”
So would I, my friend.
With regard to the very small influence Sedes have, and the potential influence the SSPX squanders, while I don’t pretend to be able to judge culpability, I suspect that there’s less blame to go around (in these circles) than we might be tempted to think.
I am of the firm opinion that Our Lord has been gradually removing His grace from the world for 100 years, and that we’re now suffocating from its lack.
But … I’m also of the opinion that He’s going to absolutely flood the world with it again, as He did in the early Church, at a very distinct point in time. Soon, in relative terms.
Peace brother.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Amen, brother, I believe too!
My neighbours who moved away, the husband is Catholic, the wife a Protestant, and I’d often say to her, look to the skies, and imagine being here when Jesus Christ chariots in on the clouds! Her reaction of pure joy was always child like, which always increased my own joyous thoughts.
We are brothers and sisters in Our Lord God Jesus Christ, we’ve so much to be happy about!
Look to the skies!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can’t help but think God has allowed this to happen because he WANTS to be offended and He was worried hell was getting a little too spacious.
If nothing happens without God’s will, doesn’t it mean that He wants billions of people to go to hell?
Why does He reward His faithful with more privations, more insults from Bergoglio?
LikeLike
Well, when you change premises into variables, you can reason yourself into all sorts of crises.
God doesn’t want us to go to Hell. He wants us to go to Heaven. We know because He said so. That is an irrefutable premise to the entire Christian faith. It isn’t a variable.
So, when you look at the world with that understanding, then your brain forces the analysis to discover lines of thought that are more sensible than “God wants us to go to hell.”
This is very similar to people struggling with suicidal ideation. When suicide is considered one of various options, their brain keeps coming back to it until it seems like the only option. But, when they’re able to accept that suicide is never an option, suddenly their brain opens up and allows them to see other possibilities.
Simply put, there are certain bedrock principles that are not negotiable. When you start reasoning against them, you lose faith and hope in everything.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have had suicidal ideation in the past. This makes a lot of sense.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m sorry to hear that, and am delighted you’re here chatting with me :).
Life can be terrible, but it can be much more terrible in our own minds, if we allow our minds to consider escape an option. If we don’t allow our brains to pick at that option, a natural survival mechanism kicks in … our brain starts to consider different options.
I’ve had rough times too, my friend. Hang in there, and God bless.
LikeLike
I guess I’m going through too much, too quickly.
Recently my employer put me on unpaid leave for refusing to take the Devil Juice (originally, they were going to fire me outright but I suppose a letter I sent them stating that they were going to be in trouble for religious discrimination gave them pause, so they’re “reviewing” my exemption while refusing to pay me/let me work. I’m remote BTW).
During my last week, I also caught some mystery illness. I never got tested, but of course my terrified sheep parents assumed it was Omicron. I’m better, btw–all I did was rest and take vitamins, though it felt like forever and I wanted to die so I wouldn’t have to live under VirusRegime.
My father keeps asking me when I’m going to get Devil Juice’d. He’s boosted, works for the Federal Government, and is a big fan of “Cardinal” Cupich and Beefcake Barron. He wasn’t too happy that I refused to sing in a Bogus Ordo parish that requires the mask and banned communion on the tongue.
I am now in a relationship with a woman who sees eye-to-eye with me w.r.t. the VirusRegime. I’m feeling awfully insecure because we started dating once my job was under threat and she’s with me even though I’m currently not employed. She’s an angel because she drove 3 hours one way to cook for me while I was sick. I am not sure what she sees in me, but I guess sympathizing with her decision never to get vaccinated was enough.
And of course we have this ongoing Church drama and my own personal struggles with doubt and despair.
Glad to see you are recovered. We dirty unvaccinated Trads need each other 🙂
LikeLike
I wish I couldn’t relate to all of that. Unfortunately, I can. I suppose we can take heart in the fact that even Job got depressed, and cursed the day he was born. “Why is light given to him that is in misery, and life to them that are in bitterness of soul? That look for death, and it cometh not, as they that dig for a treasure: And they rejoice exceedingly when they have found the grave. To a man whose way is hidden, and God hath surrounded him with darkness? Before I eat I sigh: and as overflowing waters, so is my roaring: For the fear which I feared hath come upon me: and that which I was afraid of, hath befallen me. Have I not dissembled? have I not kept silence? have I not been quiet? and indignation is come upon me.” 3:20-26.
As for the girl, congratulations!
And fair warning – if you insist on believing that you’re not good enough for her, you will definitely convince her that you’re right.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Please be happy – this is great news about your relationship – don’t think you are not good enough. She thinks you are and that should be enough for you!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pretend that I’m not 100% confident that we haven’t had a Pope since Pope Pius XII and I’m just playing devil’s advocate. If the goblins were going to impede the election of the Pope in 1958 and install an invalid anti-Catholic imposter…say they set up a Freemason who would change the religion and set up a new worship service called the New Order. Now let’s assume that there are some small amount of Catholics who would notice that this was a different religion and not the Mass, wouldn’t it be a good move to afford them a place to go peacefully without the hassle of acknowledging that the Papacy had been usurped by a ruthless and violent enemy who would harm us. Being nuked and shot and imprisoned and starved is a hassle and there’s been no leader or army to look to. I have to believe there is something to be done otherwise why bother with the decoy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t know that the gift of perceiving that means that there something to be done, or whether Our Lord simply makes some things obvious for the benefit of our souls.
We know that the Church before Christ (Israel), was enslaved by the Egyptians after Joseph died for sometime between 86 and 116 years.
During this time, they didn’t have a patriarch. That’s an interregnum.
Then, when they got their next patriarch (Moses) he freed them and spun them around in the desert for 40 years.
So, long periods of desolation have a lot of precedence.
LikeLike
As long as a person has the Sacraments whether they be from SSPX or Sedevacantist Priest, the conclusion appears to be that we should just wait until God fixes it. Why not? That person suffers limited deprivation, but for maybe a smaller community and distant travel. If those people didn’t have the Sacraments and in fact needed a Pope, I feel like there would be more motivation to install a Catholic man to the Papacy. What if as Catholics we shouldn’t be receiving those Sacraments from any of them? I’m just presenting the idea. The reception of those Sacraments does serve to sustain the empty seat. And in fact we do need a Pope.
LikeLike
Well, I think the fact that the sacraments have continued to be available has certainly prolonged the issue. You might say to our detriment, and I might argue that it’s a mercy. The truth is, neither of us know. Regardless of which answer is true, I would never take anybody seriously if they suggested that I withhold the sacraments from myself and my family.
Our first responsibility is to get ourselves to Heaven. Our second, our spouses. Third, children. Fourth, the world.
Personally, I’m still struggling with the first three.
LikeLike
I hope this isn’t egregiously uncharitable but I have little to no concern about whether other Catholics are receiving the Sacraments and from whom. I’m confident God will sort them out with perfect justice. The concern I have is that nobody thinks anything should be done and are presuming that God will step in to do what we have always done and were instructed to do.
LikeLike
Have you ever considered that we may not have seen anything like that occur precisely because people aren’t receiving valid sacraments, and therefore growing supernaturally in grace and virtue?
LikeLike
I have considered and only considered that there is the possibility we are not growing supernaturally in grace and virtue because we are receiving valid Sacraments illicitly.
LikeLike
That’s also possible. I lack the authority, ability, and certainty to say which is more likely. My educated positive doubt and personal experience mean nothing to the world at large.
LikeLike