Cardinal Calls Francis "Unwise," "Inexplicable"

To: Just Me:
Thank you very much for your great post. Yes, I heard of Fr. Hesse. I think if I am not mistaken, he was a very well known traditionalist Catholic priest from Germany. Unfortunatly, I believe he died very young from a heart attack. I think he was affiliated to a sede vacantist group of very traditional good CAtholics. He celebrated the TLM in peoples homes when it was still not allowed in parishes. Bergoglio has seen to it that once again, its not allowed in parishes. I hope he is judged very harshly when the time comes for that sin. But I know of Fr. Hesse. I also watched the videos (when these tapes were still only available on VHS) of another good traditionalist priest who also was a sede vacantist Catholic, Fr. Rama Koomariswamy, who was also a very famous cardiologist from India before he became a priest. I think he was born in India as a Hindu, became a Catholic, married, had children, and then was a widower. After the rot of Vatican II, be became affiliated to sedevacantist Catholicism, and became a priest. He was brilliant.
So many traditional Catholics are horrified by the sedevacantists. Why? They maintain the True Faith, True Mass, and True Sacraments. They only hold that the present "pope" Francis, and all others that came after the great Venerable Pope Pius XII are illegitimate popes, first John XXIII due to the very suspect way in which he was elected, and then Paul VI, JPI, JPII, Benedict XVI and especially Francis, because of their promotion of Vatican II and its results, and persecution of the True Faith and Mass. But there are dozens of sedevacantist Catholic groups, all adhering to the traditions of th Faith and the Mass as it was before 1962. There are several very large groups, and others which are only a handful. The large groups have established seminaries, monasteries, and religious Orders. As has the very well known SSPX which is NOT a sedevacantist group.
Perhaps I don't "hate" Pope Francie per se, but I very much am against him, and all of his appointees and his agenda. I do believe 100%, that Pope Francis will be dead very soon from what I have read, and frm what the Vatican is covering up, and that a new Pope may very well be very much the opposite of Francis. Very many Cardinals in Rome and elsewhere despise his agenda and papacy. Several have been rising up to voice their objection and opposition to him even in recent weeks. I hope more join n their condemnations of him. I read he is very much opposed in the Vatican and Curia, and that only a small group support him, and shield him from those against him.
So thank you for your great posting. I appreciated it. Like you, I hope we have a new, traditional and orthodox Pope who loves the TLM and traditions (or at least fosters them rather than persecutes them), in the very,very near future.

To Just Me:

Thank you very much. Yes, I know the story of CArdinal Siri. Frightening, isn't it. He actually was elected Pope in October, 1958. They even had the white smoke go out. I believe he took the papal name of Gregory. But the French and German cardinals were very much against him. They knew he was orthodox and traditional.They knew he would be very anti-Soviet Union/Communism like Pius XII was. And they were much more of the liberal type. Something happened in the conclave that caused Siri to have second thoughts and resign the office. Some say he was threatened physically, some say that the French cardinals said they knew people who would threaten his family. So instead, the cardinals voted again, and elected Cardinal Roncalli. Cardinal Roncalli was very well know to the French and Germans. He had been Papal Nuncio in France, and was sympathetic to progressivist elements in the Church there. There is even talk that during his time in France he became a Freemason. I don't know if that is true. But he succeeded at 76 to be John XXIII. Siri I think was only 52. If he had accepted his election fully, he would have been Pope for 31 years (died, May, 1989). John XXIII was meant to be a stop-gap Pope, someone who would do nothing. I wish he had done nothing. He opened the door to tremendous evil in Vatican II (probably unwittingly, because by the time Vatican II opened in October 1962, he had been diagnosed with terminal stomach cancer the month before and would be dead in 8 months (June 1963). In came Paul VI who was made a cardinal in 1958 by John XXIII. Not many people know it, but when John XXIII announced Vatican II, Cardinal Montini(Paul VI), was originally very much against it. He knew the trouble it would cause. Rather than close it down, like he wanted to (not many people know this either.....he wanted to close Vatican II down, but could not because of the popularity of John XXIII. A quote from him shortly after his election is " I have been appointed to be like a train conductor, to guide the Church along a path I would not have chosen(the Council)." Unfortunatly, he was guided by a gang of heretic cardinals and bishops (Suenens of Belgium, Alfrink of Netherlands, Koenig of Germany, Annibale Bugnini (liturgy commitee who wrecked the Mass), and liberal theologians (Congar, DeLubac among others).
JPI (Albino Luciani) had a reputation as a very humble and simple pastor, but he was not a liberal like Paul VI. He has a false reputation as a progressive for ridiculous reasons (he smiled alot and was friendly, he originally refused the Sedia Gestatoria, he refused to be crowned, etc.). But on issues, and the liturgy, he was conservative...if not traditionalist. He did not like liturgical abuses, for one thing, or the "protestantization" of the Mass. I think that PERHAPS he might have been a good pope.
On a scale of 1-10, I give John Paul II (1978-2005) a C+. He did some good things, but it seemed all he did (or liked to do), was travel....which in the long run accomplised nothing. He delegated admin. work, and appointed scores of unfortunatly liberal, radical, and sometimes even pervert (McCArrick) cardinals and bishops. But to be fair, he also removed several radical liberal bishops too.
Benedict XVI I think was the very best of a bad Vatican II lot. He brought back much of the beauty of the papal liturgies, even wearing the papal fanon, (which in my short life of alomst 28 years had never seen) The liturgies were a vast improvement over the protestant looking Masses of Paul VI. Benedict XVI was too timid and weak to stand up to the evil St.Gallen Mafia cardinals, who were furious at his election, and did their best to ruin his reign, chief among them MArtini of Milan, and Danneels of Belgium, and Silvestrini of the Curia.
I won't go into Francis. His horrible papacy speaks for itself, and the destruction he has caused.
But somehow, I do think that we will get a Pope who is much more like Benedict XVI, than another Francis (and I don't believe that it will be any "Peter the Roman", because it would have to be a Cardinal born in Rome, and there are not any. But I've read that so many Cardinals in Rome and elsewhere are disgusted with Francis papacy (and not just the orthodox either.....many moderate/conservative think he is ruining the Church. So I think we will be in for a happy surprise.....perhaps someone well known, but who happens not even to be a cardinal, yet.