Editor’s Note: I won’t name this neo-Sedevacantist, but if you click the image above you can read his whole article. He evidently does not read Italian, because he has attempted to reproduce the entire debate about what Pope Benedict XVI thought of the ecclesiology of Tyconius, a late Roman Donatist heretic, who had the theory that the Church of the antiChrist and the Church of Christ shared the same Mystical Body but that at the end of time, the two would separate and never come back together: this separation being called in Latin a “decessio”, a departure.
But what the author of that article above cited fails to tell you, and perhaps, honestly I will admit, may not even know, is that Cardinal Ratzinger called Tyconius’ idea of the great final decessio “not Catholic”.
The Catholic notion of what the Church is excludes any corrupt conspiracy of men. For men who are heretics are not her members, even if they have not yet been deposed from offices as canons 192 & 194 require. Nor was it ever the intention of Christ Jesus that the Church harbor an evil entity. The correct Christian vision about this is given by Our Lord and Master in the parable of the wheat and tares, where the Church is the field, and only on the Last Day, will Our Lord Himself divide the faithful from the unfaithful who have been pretending to be Her members.
But the above screen shot is the real sign of frustration, because to call the Save Rome Project a “sedevacantist” position, is as I explained in my article, “Was St Hildebrand a sedevacantist?”, simply absurd, because sedevacantists hold, as does the author of the above article, a ideological position about who is and who is not a true pope or a member of the Church, which they use as a cookie-cutter to excuse them from communion with the Apostolic See. Both are also involved in the protestant error of private judgement, in the sense that they see their own personal capacity to judge as sufficient, without any need for a tribunal of the Church to make any declaration. — Both, like even Archbishop Viganò speak like the enemies of the Church, in that they attribute the wickedness of wicked clerics to the substance or being of the Church Herself.
These writers are trying to gaslight you about what the Church is in Her very essence. They want you to give up the fight for the Heavenly Jerusalem on Earth and let evil and wicked men possess Her and rape her.
So from their manner of speech and the goals for which they speak, Neo-Sedevacantists are clearly known and recognized as anti-Catholic, Masonic and Satanic. Have nothing to do with them!
Finally, an observation: the author of the above heretical delirium does not name who or what he is attacking, to prevent his readers from finding out what is the truth about it. In this, the author shows totally disregard for the rights of those who read his screed and uses the Masonic tactic of never speaking of your enemy to prevent him from gaining supporters, while haranguing your own followers: a practice which is highly unethical for a journalist, but quite customary among propagandists.
+ + +
The Book on the Trinity, every faithful Catholic priest would love as his next present
This is Br. Bugnolo's English Translation, of Saint Bonaventure's encylopedic book of theology on the Trinity: With this book, your priest will always have something intelligent and awesomely inspiring to preach to you about
God the Father, God the Son & God the Holy Spirit!
+ + +

Although you didn’t mention it here, elsewhere you have: there is a difference between ideological sedevacantism and juridical sedevacantism. This distinction, it seems to me, can’t be repeated enough. When someone asks you, “Are you a sedevacantist?” unless one is prepared to rapidly respond with this clear distinction, the chances of the other truly knowing and understanding the difference seems less likely. Do you think the “PTB” (powers that be) first concocted the sede movement as an ideological weapon so that when this very moment arrived people would be so conditioned as not to recognize the “real mcoy” when the time came?
Giovanni, being a Catholic my whole life and being Italian, I have always found it impossible to be so stupid as to think that Sedevacantism, of the ideological type, is rationally based. As everyone can see, if I think a conclave is juridically invalid, I take action immediately, I do not go off into the wilderness and stick my head in the ground. Sedevacantism does serve the Masonic Agenda and does arise from the traitionalist movement, some of the early leaders of which are known intelligence agents. Once you insist on being traditional but refuse to take action to clear up the problem, sedevacantism of the ideological type, becomes possible emotionally and intellectually.