Sede Vacante Thread

Is the Chair of St. Peter Vacant?

  • Yes

    Votes: 39 37.5%
  • No

    Votes: 34 32.7%
  • Unsure

    Votes: 13 12.5%
  • Not Catholic

    Votes: 18 17.3%

  • Total voters
    104

Sinabelus

Sparrow
Well, the fact being that you are yourself a Sede, it does not surprise me that you do not find Sedes to be mostly problematic. Not only Roosh, but various others only here on this forum can attest to this. Just look in this thread. Or even the mildly autistic posts by Pioneer. Also, calling everyone that does not agree with your weird opinions, Novus Order heretics and the like, is not exactly helping your cause, is it now?
You didn't really answer my question to be honest. Given that I can't scroll through every post the only thing that makes me ask is that Roosh sides with those claims, and I know him to be impartial. So I guess there is problematic elements on both sides. On a side note, you may not like the post style of Pioneer and other sedes, and I agree sedes have more literal and dogmatic type people not surprisingly, which is neither good nor bad, but I personally find Pioneer's post to be quite interesting and usually on point.

How do you want us to call catholics who follow V2? Catholics? You wouldn't call us catholics even though that's we sedes claim to be, you call us integrist or sedes, and that's fine we don't whine about it. Besides I would not call a NO catholic a heretic in his face and I've rarely seen it around here.
 

Pioneer

Sparrow
Indeed. Did you also notice how many Novus Ordo Catholics here get offended by the term "Novus Ordo", which wasn't invented by sedes, and contains no value judgement at all ? It seems to sound like the worst kind of insult to them. The only explanation I can find to that is that they have a troubled conscience in regard to this matter.
Yes. Do you also notice they aren’t really offended that Catholicism is mocked, slandered, vilified? They do it themselves all the time. They’re perfectly happy bashing the Argentinian apostate, and every aspect about the Conciliar Sect themselves, they do it with glee, and they aren’t the least bit defensive when others do. The only thing that really offends them is us pointing out the fact that Francis is not even Catholic, much less the “Pope” of the Roman Catholic Church; the fact that the institution they so casually slime isn’t the Holy Roman Catholic Church at all but a Modernist-Masonic Counterfeit. Fennaroli posted this vid, with the caption:
If you think you’ve seen it all, let me introduce you to “Fr.” Bob Maguire.
“Everything that is wrong with the Novus Ordo in one man

IF someone else posted the same video, with the caption “Everything that is wrong with the Catholic Church in one man”, and presented “Fr.” Bob Maguire as Father Bob Maguire (as if he were a real priest), they wouldn’t have batted an eye! There’s a “Pope Francis Thread” on here that starts out: “He just did it - Pope 'The Cuck' Francis just crossed the rubicon…”, calls him a “liberal Marxist f***er” and blasphemously states: “This is it folks - the end of the catholic church - it is DONE.” They have NO problem with that! But heaven forbid you be a sedevacantist and state the fact that this “liberal marxist” ISN’T a pope at all, or that the Catholic Church cannot fail and will never be destroyed; then all hell breaks loose.
That’s the most disturbing thing about all of this, these Novus Ordo self-proclaimed “Catholics” almost seem to WANT the Church to fail.
 

Pioneer

Sparrow
You didn't really answer my question to be honest. Given that I can't scroll through every post the only thing that makes me ask is that Roosh sides with those claims, and I know him to be impartial. So I guess there is problematic elements on both sides. On a side note, you may not like the post style of Pioneer and other sedes, and I agree sedes have more literal and dogmatic type people not surprisingly, which is neither good nor bad, but I personally find Pioneer's post to be quite interesting and usually on point.

How do you want us to call catholics who follow V2? Catholics? You wouldn't call us catholics even though that's we sedes claim to be, you call us integrist or sedes, and that's fine we don't whine about it. Besides I would not call a NO catholic a heretic in his face and I've rarely seen it around here.
@Sinabelus I’ve put him on ignore and you ought to do the same. Put him on “mute”. This juvenile has proven himself to be disingenuous and ill-willed. He’s trying to hijack the thread. Ignore him as you would a drunken heckler.
 
Last edited:

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
Yes. Do you also notice they aren’t really offended that Catholicism is mocked, slandered, vilified? They do it themselves all the time. (...) That’s the most disturbing thing about all of this, these Novus Ordo self-proclaimed “Catholics” almost seem to WANT the Church to fail.

Why yes of course, they want the "Church" to be a purely human thing, to their level. As I always say, the NO "Church" is the Church's enemies' dream come true. Now, finally, there is a "Church" suited to its enemies' wishes, full of degeneracy (including, but not limited to, sexual), full of fideism and weird mental hoops.

All this reminds me every time of Psalm 50:21 :

Psalm 50:21 said:
These things hast thou done, and I was silent. Thou thoughtest unjustly that I should be like to thee: but I will reprove thee, and set before thy face.
 

SilentCal

Robin
It’s not just Roosh, it’s everyone else on the forum who thinks sedes’ behavior is awful. The fact that you don’t see this, and project it onto your opponents instead, shows how blind you all are.

@Pioneer those sede vlogger videos you posted are omega cringe - I hope for your sake that isn’t you. But the fact that you won’t say whether it is or not makes me think it is.
 
+Ad majorem Dei gloriam

@Bismark_Geist1571
Don’t bother with SilentCal! He is not worth your or anyone’s time. As far as I can see his sole objective on this forum is to troll, harass, and heckle True Catholics, to derail threads and to degrade the overall discourse with cheap drive-by taunts and jeers. Seriously, just browse through his post history…That’s ALL he does. Bad juju all around.

Here’s how another forum member so accurately put it:
“Your behaviour, SilentCal, is absolutely insufferable. You're hijacking every thread and every post about sedevacantism, spewing vitriol and being passive-agressive if not outright agressive, and your dishonesty and ill-will in arguments boggles the mind.” Touché!

Mindful of Our Lord’s wise counsel in Matthew 7:6, I for one have concluded that, where SilentCal is concerned, silence is golden indeed. So, I’m making use of this forum’s convenient “Ignore” feature. I encourage anyone else here to do the same.

Thank you for your kind words.

Sometimes I think the rise of the NO church and eclipse of the church (predicted by many saints and theologists) were the original con, and prepared the populations of the world for future mass scale hoaxes like the corona hoax.

Think about it: hundreds of thousands of priests, just went along, for the sake of going along. The Cardinal College was infiltrated (read Bella Dodd and massive infiltration program decades before the VII), hundreds of millions of Catholics just obeyed because they thought "if the pope said so , it must be right, doesn't it? and hey, they are becoming more flexible and modern". Granted, in their days, the lies were more subtle and almost imperceptible unless one delved into the voluminous files and Encyclicals that almost no one reads. With "Francis", the errors et al are now in your face, like a wake up call.
 
Last edited:

NoMoreTO

Ostrich
It’s not just Roosh, it’s everyone else on the forum who thinks sedes’ behavior is awful. The fact that you don’t see this, and project it onto your opponents instead, shows how blind you all are.

@Pioneer those sede vlogger videos you posted are omega cringe - I hope for your sake that isn’t you. But the fact that you won’t say whether it is or not makes me think it is.

extra Ecclesiam nulla salus

This is an early dogma shared by both Catholics and EOs. Dogma - no Salvation outside the Church

Your position stated on the Filioque as "not important" on another thread puts you outside of the dogma of the Catholic Church. While these differences may seem small to some of us but we must decide whether we are seeking to have common ground with others or whether we are more interested in defending Mother Church. The importance of the filioque to the Church, and hithero God is clear, EO's will agree with this, although not with the Filioque. Rejecting this or saying it is not important publicly is essentially saying that the teachings of the Catholic Church are not important.

If you are able to say the "filioque" is not important, then how can you have a fruitful discussion with a Sede Vacante or discuss the position itself. If Filioque is "not important" to you, then how is it that you argue and maintain that dogmas related to the Papacy are "important"?
 

SilentCal

Robin
extra Ecclesiam nulla salus

This is an early dogma shared by both Catholics and EOs. Dogma - no Salvation outside the Church

Your position stated on the Filioque as "not important" on another thread puts you outside of the dogma of the Catholic Church. While these differences may seem small to some of us but we must decide whether we are seeking to have common ground with others or whether we are more interested in defending Mother Church. The importance of the filioque to the Church, and hithero God is clear, EO's will agree with this, although not with the Filioque. Rejecting this or saying it is not important publicly is essentially saying that the teachings of the Catholic Church are not important.

If you are able to say the "filioque" is not important, then how can you have a fruitful discussion with a Sede Vacante or discuss the position itself. If Filioque is "not important" to you, then how is it that you argue and maintain that dogmas related to the Papacy are "important"?
I never said the filioque was not important. I said I didn’t see why the issue (i.e.) controversy was such a big deal, and I explained why. Try reading my post again, and the attached article.
 
Last edited:

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
I never said the filioque was not important. I said I didn’t see why the issue (i.e.) controversy was such a big deal

You've got me very perplexed here. What would be the difference between the filioque is not important and the issue (i.e.) controversy is not such a big deal ???
Are you denying that the filioque is an issue (i.e.) controversy ???
My friends would say you're waffling.
 

SilentCal

Robin
You've got me very perplexed here. What would be the difference between the filioque is not important and the issue (i.e.) controversy is not such a big deal ???
Are you denying that the filioque is an issue (i.e.) controversy ???
My friends would say you're waffling.
You talk to your friends about me? I’m flattered.

The filioque is obviously important because it affirms the divinity of Christ, the order of procession if the Trinity, and I would guess some other truths that are above my pay grade. I recite it at Mass so of course I admit it’s important.

The controversy does not seem so important, because the critics of the filioque are attacking a straw man. They think it compromises the Father’s position as first in the order of procession, but it doesn’t. That’s why the form of the Creed could either have it or not, and still be a proper Catholic Creed, as long as it’s properly understood. So the controversy doesn’t really need to exist.

Eastern Catholic Churches recite the Creed without the filioque, for example, but they also admit that adding the filioque is a legitimate form.
 

roger808

Pigeon
All this sacramentalism is a claim more novel than anything in Vatican II.
@Sitting Bull Could you unpack this a little more? The conversation drifted in other directions, but I'm interested in what you mean by "sacramentalism". Do you mean simply prioritizing the necessity of its availability over acknowledgement of the problems of changes in NO theology? Or something else completely. Depending on your definition, I may or may not be interested in how it is more novel than anything in Vatican II. Thank you.
 
I wasn't lying but you missed the part where Bergoglio states:

"“I believe that ethically everyone should take the vaccine,” the pontiff told Italy’s Canale 5 TV station. “It is an ethical choice because you are gambling with your health, with your life, but you are also gambling with the lives of others.”


Technically you are right, he is not calling it a sin to refuse the jab....yet, however the ambiguity of it all just furthers the agenda. But as I said, let´s agree to disagree, your decision is already taken, and so is mine. I accept my mistake...about Bergoglio in this regard and I thank you for that.

I'll just leave with this:

Yes! The ambiguity never ends! This isn’t the thread for this, but you just can’t get get any clarity from this man. Even if you were all about what Pope/not Pope Francis says, in terms of “social justice, encounter, blather etc” you still don’t even know what he’s referring to? Generalities and vagueness help no one. No he doesn’t say it’s a sin, yet he says “gambling with someone else’s life. So where’s the sin, is it gambling? Is it “killing” people inadvertently? Also, what is ethical?? The lack of leadership, whether you believe he’s Pope or not, is just ripping the Catholic church apart.
 
Yes! The ambiguity never ends! This isn’t the thread for this, but you just can’t get get any clarity from this man. Even if you were all about what Pope/not Pope Francis says, in terms of “social justice, encounter, blather etc” you still don’t even know what he’s referring to? Generalities and vagueness help no one. No he doesn’t say it’s a sin, yet he says “gambling with someone else’s life. So where’s the sin, is it gambling? Is it “killing” people inadvertently? Also, what is ethical?? The lack of leadership, whether you believe he’s Pope or not, is just ripping the Catholic church apart.

I think this is part of the idea, it's a feature, not a bug in the system. Ambiguity allows for all sort of aberrations and some will support them, others will not, but the "pope" will just be a "neutral" bystander. I think it's time for those in the fence to wake to reality.
 

Louis IX

Pelican
Not as much au fait with theology compared to most , but what I can see is that Sedevacantists are often talking about Traditionalists with big arrogance and huge condescendence . I wonder why they do this.
Apart from that , most of what they say besides the Pope thing is usually correct - since it's basically traditionalism.
 

Novus Ordo Priest becomes Sedevacantist, Diocese Excommunicates

July 13, 2021

Rev. Michael DeSaye of Trenton, NJ

On June 2, 2018, Rev. Michael G. DeSaye was ordained a Catholic priest.

At least that is what he thought at the time.

Less than three years after what he has since come to understand was an invalid ordination ceremony, presided over by a Modernist layman rather than a Roman Catholic bishop, “Father” DeSaye asked his local ordinary, “Bishop” David M. O’Connell, to accept his resignation from the diocese of Trenton, New Jersey. The request was granted.

On May 10 of this year, “Bp.” O’Connell released the following extremely diplomatic announcement:

“Rev. Michael G. DeSaye, parochial vicar of Holy Innocents Parish, Neptune, NJ, and Catholic chaplain at Jersey Shore University Medical Center, has resigned from ministry in the Diocese of Trenton effective immediately to pursue his vocation elsewhere.”
(“Clergy Appointments Announced”, Our Diocese Today, May 10, 2021)


As Rev. DeSaye has related, he was “excommunicated” from the diocese for schism, which makes sense from the Novus Ordo point of view. After all, he has defected from the communion of the faithless, having found that he does not believe in the counterfeit Catholicism of Vatican II but in the pre-conciliar and timeless Roman Catholic religion, the religion of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, that of St. Bernard of Clairvaux and St. Francis of Assisi, that of St. Alphonsus Liguori and St. Pius X, that of St. Bernadette Soubirous and St. Maria Goretti.

The theological errors of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) become ever more glaring with each day that passes. How ironic that the religion that now blasphemously proclaims that God wills a diversity of religions to exist has no room for the only true one, that is, for Roman Catholicism. On second thought, however, it is not really ironic, for it should stand to reason that if there is one thing the “operation of error” (2 Thess 2:10) cannot tolerate, it is “the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15).

In 2018, the diocese of Trenton had released the following brief informational video about Mr. DeSaye and his vocation:

Michael DeSaye’s case is a beautiful testimony to the love and pursuit of truth and the fruit it bears, enabled and assisted by God’s grace. In this he has much in common with Fr. Michael Oswalt, a former Novus Ordo priest from the diocese of Rockford, Illinois, who became a Sedevacantist and, after proper seminary training, was ordained a real Catholic priest.

To explain his departure, Fr. Oswalt penned a letter to his former diocese which lays down the facts very succinctly. It is available on the internet in English and Spanish:

-Rejecting the Impostor Church (Letter to the Clergy of the Diocese of Rockford)
-Rechazando a la Iglesia Impostora (Carta a la clerecía de la Diócesis de Rockford)

Fr. Oswalt also gave a presentation on the Novus Ordo Church from the inside, so to speak, and he produced nine podcast episodes on why and how to leave this false church:

-An Inside Look at the New Church of Vatican II by Fr. Michael Oswalt
-Escape from the Novus Ordo (Podcast Series)

For a Novus Ordo priest to recognize not only that he has been unwittingly caught up in a counterfeit “Catholic” church, but also that through no fault of his own he is not even validly ordained and thus all his Masses, absolutions, and anointings have likewise had no sacramental effect, is extremely difficult. We ought to pray and make sacrifices for these souls, who are but human! May they recognize this truth: “I can do all these things in him who strengtheneth me” (Phil 4:13).

Like Fr. Oswalt, Mr. DeSaye too has released a letter in which he lays out why he has left his diocese and is now pursuing studies and, eventually, ordination at a real Catholic seminary. The text of this letter was printed as an appendix (pp. 3-4) in the June 2021 newsletter of Most Holy Trinity Seminary in Brooksville, Florida, under the direction of Bp. Donald Sanborn. We reproduce it here:

Letter of Former Novus Ordo Priest Michael DeSaye to His Friends on the Reasons for His Departure from the Novus Ordo

Dear Friends,

A short while ago, I requested that Bishop O’Connell accept my resignation from the Diocese of Trenton and the removal of my priestly faculties. Upon informing the Bishop that I was in agreement with the position of Most Holy Trinity Seminary in Florida, a position called sedevacantism, and that I intended to pursue studies there, I also received notice of excommunication for the crime of schism.

I assure you that this decision was not made lightly, nor was it a reaction to any stimulus of emotion, anger, stress, or frustration. My motivation was not tactical or political, nor was I desirous for a career change. The decision was the result of prayer and contemplation, and from an independent study of the teachings of the popes and doctors of the Church. It was a decision that became necessary for me to make because of a conclusion derived from applying traditional principles of Catholic theology. Permit me to offer a brief explanation of how I reached this decision, along with a list of references that support it.

In my research, I came to understand that the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) teaches error against Catholic faith and morals, and is irreconcilable with the previous magisterium of the Catholic Church.

It is a Catholic doctrine that the Church of Christ cannot err when it teaches universally concerning matters of faith and morals. The reason for this inerrancy is that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, whom Our Lord sent to teach [lead] us “into all truth” (John 16:13). In theology, the common term for this inerrancy is indefectibility. For two thousand years, from the time of the Apostles to the present day, the Catholic Church has consistently taught the true faith and morals of Jesus Christ and his Church to the Catholic faithful. She has done so without the slightest deviation, i.e. without the slightest defect. This indefectibility is not an accident of history, but an essential property of the Church.

The Second Vatican Council is commonly held to be a general or ecumenical council of the entire Catholic Church, duly promulgated, and upheld by successive popes until the present day. It is commonly held to teach universally, with the authority of Christ, concerning matters of faith and morals.

In reality, this council clearly and absolutely contradicts the previous magisterium of the Catholic Church on those same matters of faith and morals. These contradictions present an enormous problem for Catholics. For contradictions in matters of faith and morals cannot exist at the universal level in the Catholic Church, since she is protected from error in these matters by the Holy Spirit. If Catholics were to accept the council as having been promulgated with the authority of Christ, then Christ would be leading the whole Catholic Church away from Himself. Catholics would be obliged to confess that the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church, contrary to the prophecy of Our Lord. She would have defected from her divine bridegroom by the universal promulgation of a false faith. But this is impossible according to the perennial Catholic doctrine which has been taught repeatedly by the Church’s magisterium from the apostles until the present day. It is impossible to apply the counterargument that these teachings were only applicable to modern times rather than all times, for such an argument is rooted in modernism, and would end by reducing the entire magisterium to contingencies. It also does not help us to apply the hermeneutic of continuity, for hermeneutics can only help to show continuity if continuity already exists.

Therefore, we must conclude that the Second Vatican Council did not come from the universal teaching authority of the Catholic Church. The popes who promulgated Vatican II did not possess the authority over the Church to teach universally in the name of Christ. They were legally delegated to receive the papacy, but did not actually receive the spiritual authority from God to rule, sanctify, and teach the Catholic Church. Their authority was only an apparent authority. They were not true popes.

This position has a rather unattractive-sounding name: sedevacantism. It is the position of those Catholics who, by applying the logic of indefectibility, conclude to a present vacancy of the See of Peter, due to the universal promulgation of error. Sedevacantism is the only theologically correct observation concerning the present crisis in the Church because it is the only position based on traditional Catholic principles. It is not a schismatic sect based on personal feelings.

This conclusion is profoundly difficult to process emotionally. Catholic instinct shuns the idea of a false pope who is only an apparent authority, rather than a real authority. Many practical questions immediately spring to mind: how could a pope be legally elected and not have the papacy? Are Catholics allowed to make a judgement of this sort? How could thousands of bishops be wrong? If this thesis is true, then where is the Catholic Church? How do apostolic succession and jurisdiction function in this context? How would the present crisis be resolved?

These are good questions that deserve to be answered, but it would require too much space for this brief letter. The point that I wish to articulate here is that, as difficult as it might be, Catholics are bound to reject falsehoods taught against the faith, even when they come from apparent authorities. If we who live in these times wish to preserve our Catholic faith, which is necessary for our salvation, then it is essential that we acknowledge Vatican II as invalid, along with the papacies of those who promulgated it and continue to promulgate it.

Our Lord said that pseudo-prophets and pseudo-Christs would rise up and deceive, if possible, even the elect. St. Paul taught that even if he or an angel from heaven should teach a gospel against what he has taught, let him be cursed. In the Apocalypse, St. John predicted a worldwide religious deception. Thus we have direct warnings from Sacred Scripture that a fate such as what is described here would someday befall mankind. It is not for us to choose the times in which we live. It is for us to witness to the truth, even at great personal cost.

Fr. Michael DeSaye

List of References

1. The principal error of Vatican II (the heresy of ‘partial communion’) condemned by the Catholic Church: https://mostholytrinityseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Triple-Column-Ecclesiology.pdf

2. A common conservative or ‘trad’ objection is that we should acknowledge Vatican II and Francis as something like wayward authorities. Even though they impose universal errors upon us, we should ignore them until a future traditional pope arrives to fix the situation. This position has also been condemned by the Catholic Church:
Vatican I, Session IV, Chapter 3, No. 2
Pope Leo XIII: Epistola Tua(1885)
Pope Leo XIII: Est Sane Molestum (1888)
Pope Pius XII: Mystici Corporis(1943), No. 41

3. Answers to common questions arising as a result of sedevacantism:
Traditionalmass.org
Romancatholicinstitute.org
Novusordowatch.org


4. I was personally astonished to discover how many times, and with such great force, the popes and saints condemned the errors of Vatican II (please email me for a detailed list of these teachings). In reflecting on the reason why I did not learn these teachings in seminary, it became evident that the academic program for priests has taken great care to remove certain aspects of the previous magisterium, saints, and doctors of the Church because they are not in conformity with Vatican II. This is the principal reason why I am currently seeking additional formation at Most Holy Trinity Seminary.

Deo gratias!

May God bless Mr. DeSaye and grant him great perseverance in his beautiful vocation! May his conversion give courage to those souls who are also pondering making this big step but for one reason or another are reluctant to do so.

“Being confident of this very thing, that he, who hath begun a good work in you, will perfect it unto the day of Christ Jesus” (Phil 1:6).
 
Last edited:

SilentCal

Robin

Novus Ordo Priest becomes Sedevacantist, Diocese Excommunicates

July 13, 2021

Rev. Michael DeSaye of Trenton, NJ

On June 2, 2018, Rev. Michael G. DeSaye was ordained a Catholic priest.

At least that is what he thought at the time.

Less than three years after what he has since come to understand was an invalid ordination ceremony, presided over by a Modernist layman rather than a Roman Catholic bishop, “Father” DeSaye asked his local ordinary, “Bishop” David M. O’Connell, to accept his resignation from the diocese of Trenton, New Jersey. The request was granted.

On May 10 of this year, “Bp.” O’Connell released the following extremely diplomatic announcement:

“Rev. Michael G. DeSaye, parochial vicar of Holy Innocents Parish, Neptune, NJ, and Catholic chaplain at Jersey Shore University Medical Center, has resigned from ministry in the Diocese of Trenton effective immediately to pursue his vocation elsewhere.”
(“Clergy Appointments Announced”, Our Diocese Today, May 10, 2021)


As Rev. DeSaye has related, he was “excommunicated” from the diocese for schism, which makes sense from the Novus Ordo point of view. After all, he has defected from the communion of the faithless, having found that he does not believe in the counterfeit Catholicism of Vatican II but in the pre-conciliar and timeless Roman Catholic religion, the religion of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, that of St. Bernard of Clairvaux and St. Francis of Assisi, that of St. Alphonsus Liguori and St. Pius X, that of St. Bernadette Soubirous and St. Maria Goretti.

The theological errors of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) become ever more glaring with each day that passes. How ironic that the religion that now blasphemously proclaims that God wills a diversity of religions to exist has no room for the only true one, that is, for Roman Catholicism. On second thought, however, it is not really ironic, for it should stand to reason that if there is one thing the “operation of error” (2 Thess 2:10) cannot tolerate, it is “the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15).

In 2018, the diocese of Trenton had released the following brief informational video about Mr. DeSaye and his vocation:

Michael DeSaye’s case is a beautiful testimony to the love and pursuit of truth and the fruit it bears, enabled and assisted by God’s grace. In this he has much in common with Fr. Michael Oswalt, a former Novus Ordo priest from the diocese of Rockford, Illinois, who became a Sedevacantist and, after proper seminary training, was ordained a real Catholic priest.

To explain his departure, Fr. Oswalt penned a letter to his former diocese which lays down the facts very succinctly. It is available on the internet in English and Spanish:

-Rejecting the Impostor Church (Letter to the Clergy of the Diocese of Rockford)
-Rechazando a la Iglesia Impostora (Carta a la clerecía de la Diócesis de Rockford)

Fr. Oswalt also gave a presentation on the Novus Ordo Church from the inside, so to speak, and he produced nine podcast episodes on why and how to leave this false church:

-An Inside Look at the New Church of Vatican II by Fr. Michael Oswalt
-Escape from the Novus Ordo (Podcast Series)

For a Novus Ordo priest to recognize not only that he has been unwittingly caught up in a counterfeit “Catholic” church, but also that through no fault of his own he is not even validly ordained and thus all his Masses, absolutions, and anointings have likewise had no sacramental effect, is extremely difficult. We ought to pray and make sacrifices for these souls, who are but human! May they recognize this truth: “I can do all these things in him who strengtheneth me” (Phil 4:13).

Like Fr. Oswalt, Mr. DeSaye too has released a letter in which he lays out why he has left his diocese and is now pursuing studies and, eventually, ordination at a real Catholic seminary. The text of this letter was printed as an appendix (pp. 3-4) in the June 2021 newsletter of Most Holy Trinity Seminary in Brooksville, Florida, under the direction of Bp. Donald Sanborn. We reproduce it here:



Deo gratias!

May God bless Mr. DeSaye and grant him great perseverance in his beautiful vocation! May his conversion give courage to those souls who are also pondering making this big step but for one reason or another are reluctant to do so.

“Being confident of this very thing, that he, who hath begun a good work in you, will perfect it unto the day of Christ Jesus” (Phil 1:6).
What do you know, another first-time sedepost. Do y’all have nothing to do other than crawl forums to spam them with your propaganda?
 
SilentCal, do you really believe a legitimate pope would publicly proclaim that to proselytize the Catholic faith is a sin as Francis has said?
Just let that statement sink in for a moment. Isn't the pope supposed to be the guy in charge of the great commission to spread the gospel?
Or, how about when that other heretic Benedict said that jews have a different covenant and don't need Christ for salvation?
If that's the case why did the 12 apostles bother to become Christians since they were all jews.
 
The latest TradCast Express 136 episode from Novus Ordo Watch takes apart Francis’s “Traditionis in Custodes” Latin Mass cancellation and provides initial commentary. Please pass it on if you find it valuable!
 
Top