How to wrap Vatican II apostasy up in sentimentality and emotionalism.
Modern un-Franciscans, of which this man is a sad example, are horribly self-deluded if they think God will reward for them for their syncretistic betrayal of His Gospel.
They slavishly follow the Rothschild agenda for a one world government under a new one-world religion: the worship of Lucifer. And little by little, year by year, the conciliar antipopes take them down this primrose path.

To RevThreeVS21
Do you really think Benedict XVI's credentials are established by his "reinstatement" of the Roman Rite of the Mass as an "extraordinary form"? This was nothing but a sop to those he regards as suffering from nostalgia. He admits this himself in his motu proprio.

The identical motives inform his overtures to the SSPX. Traditional Catholics may be few but they constitute the One True Church. As such they pose a serious threat to the antichrist V2 sect. Hence the requirement to neutralize them by enticing them into the V2 antichurch.

To kfarley

You write: "Timothy Johnson-yes, you are wrong and we are correct. That's all that needs to be said." Everything you've written, in fact, has been nothing but a dreary variation on this childish theme.

If you wish to serve the Church, I suggest you first get a proper education, and since you brought the subject up, yes, Formal Logic is a key constituent of a proper education - that's why I teach it along with other traditional subjects like Latin and Ancient Greek.

Since you not only fly my challenge of a formal debate but also reject any semblance of logical discourse, our discussion (if it can be honoured with that term) is terminated. Adieu.

To kfarley

Sadly you appear to have nothing new to say except, "We're right; you're wrong; and you're an incorrigible fool." Hardly an impressive argument, is it? What a shame. Those who feel sure of their ground don't need to resort to such tiresomely repetitious abuse.

If you're really so convinced that the sedevacantist position can be disproved, I challenge you to provide a single, sustained argument in defence of your case and to follow it through systematically with me on this thread without deviation, irrelevance or abuse. One single argument.

You can join RevThreeVS21 in this if you want, but if you do, you and he must stick to your original choice and not wander off down all kinds of byeroads. And, above all, no abuse. You may call upon whomever you wish to help you (Salza, Sungenis, etc) but you must stick to the chosen debate and pursue it faithfully and logically. Just as chess has strict rules, so has debate.

To RevThreeVS21 -

(1) Do you really feel your arguments are assisted by repeatedly referring to me as "Pope Michael Johnson"? I have already pointed out on several occasions that your fellow American "Pope Michael", despite his evident sincerity, is deeply misguided if not delusional.

(2) It would help your case if you followed the elementary rules of grammar. When your write, for example,"I know for a fact, that the Church, CANNOT, teach infallibly" you declare a heresy, a heresy which you then go on to contradict.

(3) When you copy and paste the material of others, you should quote your sources and not pass it off as your own. Failure to do so is a particular kind of dishonesty called plagiarism.

(4) The Church's Magisterium is infallible; pseudo-churches, on the other hand, possess a pseudo-magisterium which is nothing but fallible. I assume that you, as a professed Catholic, accept this teaching, so what point are you making?

To KFarley
You write: "Your friend the koala has been excommunicated from this website."

Unlike yourself, I didn't have the pleasure of maintaining any correspondence with this member (Weaver?). You'll no doubt miss him. I'm sorry. For myself, I should mention that I don't share his views that geocentricity = eccentricity. Robert Sungenis argues the case for geocentrism very convincingly indeed. Alas, his contributions to the sedevacantist debate are not of the same order.

I am sure GloriaTV would not "excommunicate" respectful sedevacantist Catholics per se, so perhaps you should be asking yourself whether your own somewhat scatological contributions to their website might not sooner or later attract the same penalty.

To RevThreeVS21
Thank you for your quotation. It proves my point: Ratzinger dissuades Christians from converting Jews whilst at the same time holding that Jews need to be converted!

No wonder he feels compelled to drop the pretence of being pope while writing this. For who in their right mind would claim this as the teaching of the infallible Magisterium?

Of course, reprobate Jews will laud Ratzinger's theories to the skies. And so will judaized heretics. Note how they unite in attacking so-called Christian "supersessionism", i.e. the Chruch's dogmatic teaching that Christ is the prophesied seed of Abraham and that His Church is the True Israel.

True Catholics, however, see the conversion of the Jews as primary. Did not Jesus Himself say: "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Mt 15:24) According to Ratzinger, Jesus got the "sequence" wrong!

"It's Timothy Johnson's pope!" exclaims kfarley immediately after I had pointed out that "Pope Michael" is no more a pope than Joseph Ratzinger! I made a similar comment on this antipope's Youtube video over a month ago.

Come on kfarley. Surely you've got more to offer than strawman arguments and juvenile abuse. The children I teach behave in a more grown-up manner than you. You need to start using the wits God gave you in a more constructive and thoughtful manner.

This man is no more pope than is Joseph Ratzinger. But at least he doesn't seek to delude Catholics with the kind of evil teaching found in antipope Ratzinger's new book:

Catholics should not target Jews for conversion to Christ even though Jews need to believe in Christ in order to be saved.
Thesis from Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week by Josef Ratzinger

Weaver has rightly drawn attention to Ross' reliance on Mr John Salza.

So let's just discuss John Salza rather than the random, disorganised tidbits extracted from him and others which seek to answer points which I have never made.

No one becomes a 32nd degree freemason through mere youthful naivety. At this level we are talking explicit luciferianism and a thorough understanding of the judeo-masonic penetration of the institutions of the Catholic Church. Does Mr Salza discuss any of this? Or is he content to tell everyone he made a "mistake" and to "reveal" a few anodyne things about the freemasons which have long been in the public domain? Well, if you want to find out, watch his videos and read his book Masonry Unmasked. Anything here? No. Not a whisper. Right at the end of this book he finally makes a few "speculative" admissions about Freemasonry's role in the New World Order, but NOTHING, not a sausage, nada about how the Vatican and the V2 bishops are crawling with freemasons and about their age-old plans to infiltrate the Church. How extraordinary.

So what on earth is going on here? Why is he not he spilling the real beans on the crisis afflicting the Church. He could totally blow the cover off the judeo-masonic conspiracy if he really were a repentant ex-32 degree mason. His life would then be in real danger, of course, but this is surely the sacrifice Our Lord demands for joining such a virulently evil organisation in the first place.

And why on earth is Mr Salza so tranparently avoiding a live debate with Br Peter Dimond by insisting that the latter validate his OSB credentials first? Not only is this impossible in the climate of the V2 counter-church but it's utterly irrelevant - Dimond is not a private eyewitness whose veracity needs to be ratified; his testimony is drawn exclusively from the public treasures of the Church. Watch this videofor evidence of John Salza's apparently evasive and disingenuous behaviour.

Some are now beginning to suspect that Mr Salza remains very much a freemason, indeed a truly brilliant one, a real honour to the Lodge. In this thesis, he's been asked to infiltrate the Church rather like the thousands of young freemasons and communists who invaded the seminaries in the 1930s. His job? Who knows? But who is to say that blocking the ever-increasing flow of traditional Catholics towards the truth of the sede vacante position is not on the agenda? If you're an anti-sedevacantist looking to ward off attacks from your sedevacantist brethren, Mr Salza is at your ready service.

How many variations on the You're a sedevacantist nutter theme can one spin?

Quite a few if your name is kfarley! Below he asserts that I suffer from psychological issues, require professional consultation, and that sedevacantism is an illness, nay a psychosis!

Nor does this self-appointed psychologist stop here. He has elsewhere described another sedevacantist Catholic as mentally ill, insane, and requiring regular medication!

Now these are the defamatory tactics used by tyrannical regimes to repress any kind of rational, informed opposition. It's textbook ad hominem abuse, solely aimed at destroying an opponent's character and good name. As such, it constitutes mortal sin (Mt 5:21-22).

Have a good Lenten break, Ross. I respect your evident sincerity. I was once of your opinion, and it is only logical that you should excoriate me whilst you hold it.

Schism from the Vicar of Christ is a most appalling sin and leads to eternal perdition. But a sedevacantist rejects not Popes per se (God forbid!) but those whom he considers in good conscience to be apostate antipopes. One day, we will all learn the truth. If I should prove wrong, I repent wholeheartedly in advance.

In the meantime I am more than happy to accept the honour of being considered a schismatic from the V2 pseudo-church, which I formally denounce as Satan's most brilliant creation to date, a product of judeo-masonic infiltration, cowardice and betrayal.

Finally, let me add that, unlike some sedevacantists, I accept traditional non-sedevacantist Catholics as true members of Christ's Church. I believe I was one such for most of my life. In these confusing times, it seems one may have a foot in the pseudo-church and one's heart in the true Church at the same time - but clearly we can't go on like this indefinitely.

"Sedevacantist Timothy Johnson-you're not Catholic so your foolish comments on this website are meaningless." - kfarley

Perhaps kfarley would be so kind as to explain to everyone here the precise basis for his remarkable claim that I am not a member of Christ's Holy Catholic Church.

After all, is this not what this thread is essentially all about, i.e. who is and who is not a Catholic?

Now just how is it that this Vatican II "Catholic" feels equipped to excommunicate anyone? For according to the tenets of this 50 year old religion - a religion in which all have the right to profess their religious beliefs in public - such judgmental attitudes are viewed as highly inappropriate and unecumenical.

If the Vatican II "popes" see fit to pray with Protestants, Jews, Hindus, Animists, Voodoo priests and Snake Worshippers, just how is it that jfarley cannot find it in his heart to be a little more accommodating towards sedevacantist Catholics?

The video authors asks: Did St. [sic] Lucia, receive communion, before she died, in the New Mass, the N.O mass?

The answer is a resounding NO.

She died (was killed) in 1958/59 and was replaced by an impostor who didn't even look like her. That's why no one was allowed to see this woman for years, even her long-term spiritual director. Her family's annual visits were carefully stage-managed through a grille and curtain at that time. It was antipope John XXIII who masterminded this despicable deceit. He felt he had no choice, as the real Sr Lucy would have brought down his whole house of cards.

I suggest you look at the clear evidence for this on Youtube. There are three parts to it. Struggle to suspend your disbelief until you've watched it!

Had Jim Condit Jr posted his excellent comments at gloria.tv/reply/Qap8TfnvF7hB1XJuF3xetBDHd, they might well have been axed by now, depriving fellow Catholics of a yet another opportunity to consider this highly involved question from the sedevacantist perspective.

I submit that Catholics can earn vast graces from Heaven by having the humility to investigate the claims of Catholic sedevacacantism in prayer, diligent study, and above all patient trust in Our Lord's promise that he who seeks will find.

But before they can do this, they really do need to appreciate that:

(i) regarding the sedevacantist position as a joke displays a frivolous turn of mind bordering on the sinful;

(ii) sedevacantist theory possesses convincing answers for all the criticisms (not to mention cheap gibes) levelled at it;

(iii) sedevacantism places the Church's indefectibility (promised by Christ) before her universal visibility (imagined by wishful Catholics), and contradicts absolutely no dogmatic teachings of the Church (rightly understood);

(iv) sedevacantism frees us to preach the pure faith of the Church, something impossible to do for Catholics who refuse to break formally with the toxic anthropolatry espoused by the judaized agents of Vatican II.

To Revthreesvs21 - Thanks for response. The ramifications of sedevacantism are well known to me. The Blessed Virgin gave us Her warning specifically for 1960, indicating a crisis far far worse than the Arian when 97-99% of clerics lost the faith. In the light of Her (still undivulged) warning, the idea of a modernist, masonic antipope (and his successors) convoking an invalid Council, overturning Christian dogma, and deceiving almost every Catholic in the world does not seem at all far-fetched to me. Did not St Paul warn us of the Apostasy in the Last Days, a prerequisite for the appearance of The Antichrist whom something unspecified (genuine successors of St Peter most likely) was previously holding back? (2 Th 2)

But to return to my original point, your arguments would lead to a situation whereby Protestants and even pro-aborts would have justifiable access to the Sacrament of Unity itself, seeing that their heresy could simply be regarded as material. And in fact this is exactly the position of the V2 sect, who refuse to withhold Holy Communion from anyone (protestants, pro-aborts, sodomites, you name it) if they come up to sacrilegiously receive Our Lord's Body.

It is good to defend non-sedevacantism if one is truly sincere. But sooner or later, if one is truly honest and refuses to distort the evidence, God rewards us with a real understanding of our situation. Some, however, like Sungenis and Salza, are yet to receive this grace, and never will unless they have the humility to admit they have been wrong all along (as I was).

Benedict XVI is one of the most learned theologians in the Church, according to some the most learned. Therefore, if he above all men has publicly denied infallible teaching (both prior to his election to the papacy and since), it is simply not possible that such heresies could be anything other than formal.

This is the whole point of papal anathemas. They are judgments incurred automatically by those who would subsequently deny infallibly declared Catholic teaching. Only in the case of young children and those deemed theologically illiterate could a case be made that such denials merely constitute material heresy.

So Vatican II Catholics who truly wish to remain faithful to Christ and follow the "narrow road" to Heaven must ask themselves this question: Is Benedict XVI a theological illiterate? Or is he an apostate, a false pope usurping the See of Peter to teach numerous diabolical doctrines formerly condemned by true Popes whose authenticity no one contests?