The previously discussed article by Aldo Maria Valli ((in English here at 1P5) was immediately reposted by multiple Catholic media outlets, making his words their own: Rome is without a Pope.
The progression of the schism went more or less like this:
1. unjust criticism of Pope Francis
2. ever harsher accusations, including propagating heresy
3. assertions that Francis has taught heresy, and is guilty of apostasy or idolatry
4. Recognize and Resist — where Francis is recognized as the Pope, but is opposed at every turn.
5. Maybe Francis is the false prophet associated with the Antichrist, or is the Antichrist, or is an immediately or close precursor
6. And now we have the utter rejection of Francis as Pope: “Rome is without a Pope”.
Throughout all of these accusations, there is very little theology. They just have no interest. While claiming to represent Tradition or to be defending the perennial teaching of the Church, they simply proclaim their judgement against the Pope, idolizing their own understanding.
To say that Rome is without a Pope is not merely sedevacantism, as if sedevacantism were merely one of many theological positions. It is public obstinate schism.
Canon 1364, n. 1: “an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.”
Can. 915 “Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.”
Anyone who says that Rome is without a Pope may not receive Communion under both Canons above. They are schismatics, and they are obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin by their false accusations against the Pope, such as accusing him of idolatry and heresy. It is also schismatic to put oneself above the Pope to judge him at all, since such judgment implies a rejection of his authority over you.
This is a new stage in the rebellion against Pope Francis. Previously, they tried to claim that Francis is the Pope, but that he could somehow be Pope and also be a heretic or apostate or idolater. That is of course contrary to the unanimous opinion of all the Church fathers, who held that manifest heretics cease to be members. A Pope who is a manifest heretic would cease to be Pope. So finally, they admit what is obvious in their position, that they cannot so accuse the Pope and also claim that he is a valid Pope.
This new position is that Pope Francis is an antipope. It is a false position, since no valid Pope can lose his authority, except by death or resignation. But at least they admit that they are schismatics.
Of all the contenders who are popular and have a name among these people, who do you think they’ll rally around as their legitimate “Pope”? It seems like a logical progression to me, to set up a false one next. Or will there be many and not just one? I say “who are popular” because of course there is “Pope” Michael and the Palmarians, but these people have few followers and haven’t been leading the “charge” against Pope Francis as the people at LSN, 1P5, and other more visited sites have been doing.
Thank you for your work Mr. Conte, and may God bless you and all who are here.
They do not have a leader who could make a credible claim to be Pope. So they are stuck as sedevacantists, just like the SSPX. Grace and peace to you.
I have one simple question to all those traditionalists who want pope Bergoglio the first Francis (as the name would be pronounced in the Middle ages) to resign: will they feel better if he retires tomorrow? He could and would at one point. Will they feel any better?
They hope for cardinal Sarah to be elected. The reality is other. The best they can get is a moderate pope who would follow more or less the steps of Francis and would probably take the name Francis II. I don’t even expect Benedict XVII or John Paul III. And the worst for them…pope Marx I. Face the reality! Pope Francis is the best chance still for the Catholics to enter united in the second quarter of 21st century and rediscover what it means to be a Catholic, not as they want it to be, not as it was 5 centuries ago, but as it was preached by apostle Peter.
1.Why pope removed cardinal Sarah?
2.Why pope Francis support gay marriages by civil unions laws.
3.Why he supports homosexuals by saying
“Who I’m I to judge?”
4. From Wikipedia, I saw he was against homosexual in Argentina before 2013.
But later, gradually, he became to bad side ?What happened to this GOOD pope? Mercy to gay person is ok. But why he supports them by civil unions laws?
I think, evil attacked his brain, because end times is near.
Read Israel 365news. Anyway do you happy ,if Jesus comes in 2026? If chip is ready, what else? Only God’s will. Please pray and ask God to send him early. Then no arguments.
1.We all should repent for our sins
2.Ask thru mother Mary to send Jesus soon
3.if you like, you and I can request other Christian site to do this.
1. Cardinal Sarah was 75 years old, which is mandatory retirement age. But there is also some friction between the Pope and the Cardinal, as Sarah has not been supportive of Pope Francis. Sarah is conservative and Francis is liberal.
2. Gay persons have a right to live by their consciences, even if they are mistaken.
3. Read the whole context of that statement. You can find it online in various sources.
4. See #2 above. Trust in the Magisterium of the Pope, and do not put your own judgements above that of the Pope.
Jesus cannot return until all is fulfilled, which will not be for several more generations (a few hundred years). There is no “chip” as the mark of the beast. The Antichrist is not in the world today.
1.Considering the age of conchita , 2021 has a chance.
2. USA gay bill is coming
3. Syria air strikes by US then Iran might attack Jerusalem
4.Can Russia overrun the world(China,Cuba, North koria ,Vietnam, Parkistan, Kasakastan, Sri Lanka,…)