I am sedevacantist and conclavist, we need a new Pope!!!

Hi, I am sedevacantist and conclavist, I mean, I do not recognize the Popes of Vatican II. The last valid Pope was Pius XII, who died in 1958.
In Uruguay, since last year, we want to hold a conclave to elect a new pope, but so far we have not achieved it.
That's why I had opened this thread, in forum V SUIS: http://vsuis.forouruguay.net/t1073-conclave-papal-en-uruguay
Any ideas? Any proposal to choose a new Pope?, a Pope who faces Francis of Vatican II.

Lord Stob wrote:Hi, I am sedevacantist and conclavist, I mean, I do not recognize the Popes of Vatican II. The last valid Pope was Pius XII, who died in 1958.
In Uruguay, since last year, we want to hold a conclave to elect a new pope, but so far we have not achieved it.
That's why I had opened this thread, in forum V SUIS: http://vsuis.forouruguay.net/t1073-conclave-papal-en-uruguay
Any ideas? Any proposal to choose a new Pope?, a Pope who faces Francis of Vatican II.

What are your thoughts regarding the Papal Prophecies of St. Malachy?

I think they are true, only that in truth "Pastor et nauta" in front are the names of the antipopes, or else, a pope who is a shepherd and navigator has not yet arrived ....
I do not know if I explain myself very well...
On September 19, 1846, the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to two children in La Salette, France and predicted that: "Rome will lose faith and become the seat of antichrist, the Church will be eclipsed."

I suppose there is very little left for the end: ”In extrema S.R.E. sedebit Petrus Romanus qui pascet oues in multis tribulationibus, quibus transactis ciuitas septicollis diruetur, & Judex tremendus iudicabit populum suum. Finis”.

Lord Stob wrote:I think they are true, only that in truth "Pastor et nauta" in front are the names of the antipopes, or else, a pope who is a shepherd and navigator has not yet arrived ....
I do not know if I explain myself very well...
On September 19, 1846, the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to two children in La Salette, France and predicted that: "Rome will lose faith and become the seat of antichrist, the Church will be eclipsed."

Actually, antipopes are still included in the prophecies of St. Malachy, as evidenced by its mention of the numerous antipopes who reigned during the Great Western Schism (1378 to 1417). "Shepherd and Sailor", for example, refers to John XXIII who was from Venice - a maritime city. On the same note, Paul VI's coat of arms featured three flowers, indicating he was "Flower of Flowers". And John Paul I was unquestionably "From the Midst of the Moon". His name, Albino Luciani, means "white light"; he was born in the diocese of Beluno, which means "beautiful moon"; he was elected during a half moon, reigned for one month, and died just following a lunar eclipse. If he didn't fulfill the prophecy, no one did. The point being, antipopes are included in the prophecies of St. Malachy.

As for LaSalette: I know this is going to be painful to hear, but it needs to be said... Within the secret of LaSalette are found numerous failed prophecies. In fact, I don't think a single one ever came true. And there were many. This fact alone should be enough evidence to sink the apparition (or, at the very least, the Secret). But it doesn't end there. In the same secret of Melanie, "Our Lady" also makes clear mention of the "Globe" of the earth. What are we to think about this? Finally, common sense tells us that a Catholic Pope cannot possibly be the Antichrist, as (according to Scripture) the entire world is not only going to love and obey the Antichrist, but worship him as "God". This is impossible given the state of mind of non-Catholics today.

Look around you, the entire world hates Catholicism. They can't bear to even hear the word "Catholic". It instinctively makes them cringe. And they particularly hate the "pope" - no matter who he is. In the mind of Protestants, he's been the "Antichrist" since the beginning of Christianity. Ergo, to imagine that Catholic-hating Protestants, New Agers, homosexuals, and the entire communion of godless pagans throughout the world, are going to suddenly bow down to the "pope", clearly violates the dictates of sound reason. And not only bow to him; but praise, glorify, and hail him as "God"? It could never happen - no matter how much he might pander to the status quo. The world absolutely hates Catholicism. It's an undeniable fact. And I'm not talking about a simple bias either. I'm talking about a deep-seated hatred bred into them by the Devil since birth. It runs through their veins. You know this. Nor can it be argued that perhaps the Novus Ordo "Pope/Antichrist" will profess such a mutilated form of Catholicism that the world will swallow it. I'll leave you to ponder the complete absurdity of that argument. The point being, to imagine that one day the entire world is going to suddenly fall in love with the "pope", and "Catholicism", betrays both common sense and human nature itself. It could never happen.

I don't mean to be critical of you, personally. As a fellow sedevacantist, I've no doubt you've succumbed to the influence of the Dimond Brothers. Most sedevacantists do. Nevertheless, we have to use a little common sense (and prayer!) in these matters. The Dimond Brothers believe they are the Two Witnesses of the Apocalypse. Based upon this belief, they interpret present-day events as if they were fulfillments of Apocalyptic prophecy. In other words, since they believe they are the Two Witnesses, they believe we are in the Apocalyptic Age, and therefore its prophecies are being fulfilled right before our eyes. This illusion that they are the Witnesses lies at the heart of all their prophetic (mis)interpretations. As just one example of these, the Dimonds have claimed on their website for years that the prophesied "Fall of Babylon" refers to the "Fall of Rome from the Catholic Faith". At the same time, Scripture tells us that all of Heaven rejoices at the Fall of Babylon (Apoc. 19). Ergo, in order to uphold the Dimonds' interpretation, one has to maintain that "All of Heaven rejoices at the Fall of Rome from the Catholic Faith" - which is theologically preposterous. And believe me, this is merely the tip of the iceberg. My point being, if you are swallowing the Dimonds' interpretation of Apocalyptic prophecy, you're being led down a road of errors and delusion. And the prophecy you quoted from LaSalette is no exception.

That being said, I maintain that the prophecies of St. Malachy are true, and of Divine origin. There's absolutely no question about it. This does NOT mean, however, that the interpretations of its prophecies are all correct. Take the interpretation of "Peter the Roman" for example. The quote you cited above is incorrect. There's actually a period following the word "sedebit". Everyone misses this. And no, it's not a typo. If you'll notice, there's a period following every individual clue in the prophecy. In other words, the phrase: "In persecutione extrema S.R.E. sedebit" is actually the 112th clue. And the same rules of interpretation apply to it, as apply to all others. The initials, S.R.E., for example, stand for the Holy Roman Church, as everyone knows. But why is it abbreviated? Why didn't St. Malachy just write it out? Perhaps there's a deeper meaning here? Let's see: What is an abbreviated, or smaller, form of the Holy Roman Church? A smaller form of the Church is evidently "a remnant". In other words, the prophecy should read: "In extreme persecution, a remnant of the Holy Roman Church will sit." On the same note, we can propose that the word "sedebit" ("sit") is a play on words - a trick used many times in the interpretations of the papal prophecies. As such, the term "sedebit" could cryptically refer to a period of sedevacantism. And so, we have here a prophecy referring to The Remnant going through a period of sedevacantism - and this, just prior to the election of "Peter the Roman". Wonder of wonders.

But you are correct about one thing: Francis I is NOT the prophesied "Peter the Roman". That's an entire subject in itself, though. And, unfortunately, I don't have the time right now to tackle it.

Thanks for your explanation.
Yes, indeed for a few years I followed the Dimonds, but now I am independent, waiting for a new Pope.

"But you are correct about one thing: Francis I is NOT the prophesied "Peter the Roman". That's an entire subject in itself, though. And, unfortunately, I don't have the time right now to tackle it."

I'm very glad; that means then, that there is a possibility that the sedevacantists all together, after so much time, can come together and elect a new pope. I do not have much time either, but when we have time we can discuss it. There were already several attempts to do this with the conclavism, but they were all unsuccessful, with Lino, Michael, Bonifacio X, etcetera.

Lord Stob wrote:Thanks for your explanation.
Yes, indeed for a few years I followed the Dimonds, but now I am independent, waiting for a new Pope.

"But you are correct about one thing: Francis I is NOT the prophesied "Peter the Roman". That's an entire subject in itself, though. And, unfortunately, I don't have the time right now to tackle it."

I'm very glad; that means then, that there is a possibility that the sedevacantists all together, after so much time, can come together and elect a new pope. I do not have much time either, but when we have time we can discuss it. There were already several attempts to do this with the conclavism, but they were all unsuccessful, with Lino, Michael, Bonifacio X, etcetera.

I'll be in touch some time within the next week or so - via your website.
Peace

Well, I'm waiting. Regards.