Who was the Last Pope?

[Robert Robbins]

It is a matter of Catholic common sense that neither Francis nor Benedict XVI are Roman Pontiffs. But there is much dispute about who was the last pope. In this topic, all positions and theories are welcome, for it is only in discussion and proper argument that the truth of the matter may be known. The current position of CatholicEclipsed is that His Holiness Pope Pius XII was our last beloved Holy Father. Yet there is a cohort of no doubt sincere Home Alone Catholics who do not think so. If you are one such person, I invite you to share your reasons, to answer the question: Who was the last pope?

[Ezekiel]

Hi RR / CE,

I’m in agreement with Pius XII being the last pope, although I wonder if he was an “occult heretic” (unknown to the world) or simply being misled by the modernists. The Holy Week revisions suggest either malice or ignorance, as they seem to pave the way toward further “reforms” we disagree with. Also the legislation that BetrayedCatholics mentions that he issued which seems to “lock up” papal elections suggests either he was trying to protect against rogue conclavist elections or if it is possible for Catholics to elect a pope in some way then his legislation seems to put an obstacle to that unnecessarily.

I’ll try to summarize some of the other positions I’ve seen out there so that they can be thought about or discussed.

Many people know the RJMI position which claims there haven’t been popes in about a millennium. Besides people dismissing this as being “crazy” or “too much”, I decided to look at what his beliefs were and I disagree with his argument that scholasticism is a kind of heretical attempt to bring pagan philosophy in to Catholicism, or that decorations of false gods at Catholic churches constitutes apostasy. There may be some other things, but that was his main argument I think, that popes since around the 1100s allowed such art in churches or such philosophy to be taught.

Moving on, I don’t know if this is an actual position but Michael Hoffman has claimed there has been an unacceptable reversal by Catholic popes of the teaching on interest on loans since the 1500s. I think it was also brought up that there is a curious obelisk in St. Peter’s Square; the story is that it was brought there to be a kind of example of Catholicism triumphing over paganism, but I think the detractors take an argument like RJMI that they were just trying to put pagan statues in a holy space. I do think Hoffman’s arguments hold some ground that the moral teaching seemed to be compromised on and watered down, but I don’t think this constitutes a “apostasy” from the faith. But I just wanted to mention it for further consideration. Vatican 2 didn’t happen overnight and I do think it was the culmination of many things that happened over time. The Jansenist heresy which emphasized too much that perhaps only few would be saved, might have been set up to get people to react to it in the opposite direction eventually with the tendency today for people to argue that most people will be saved, with even some holding the heresy that all will be saved.

Next up, there were a few voices I saw who claimed Pius X was the last pope: “Our Lady’s Resistance” and “Mike4Dogma” (Immaculata-one) websites. I think they did pull up quotes that sound like other quotes we’ve complained about with Vatican 2 “popes”, although I wasn’t sure anything crossed the line so far that it would make them to not be popes. It seems possible there may have been a string of “occult heretic popes” who were publicly pope but secretly not Catholic, because all kinds of people would have been promoted in to place that perhaps shouldn’t have been.

Next in line is our view of Pius XII being the last pope.

Then we had a few like the Traditio website that thought John XXIII was “good pope John”. I think they have come to reject that view, and have become skeptical of Pius XII more lately. I’ll note that it seems “sedevacantism” really started in reaction to “Paul VI” issuing the ambiguous Vatican 2 document in December 1965, so it seemed like Roncalli might have escaped condemnation. After that event, it was eventually reasoned that Paul VI probably wasn’t pope in the first place, nor was Roncalli, because Roncalli unnecessarily called the Second Vatican Council in to session, was officially suspect of modernism by the Holy See at one time, and allegedly spoke a heresy prior to his election in a sermon, calling orthodox “brothers” ambiguously. My only argument in favor of John XXIII being “pope” is that the arguments showing him to be a heretic to me don’t look that convincing – but as a personal opinion, he was definitely at least some kind of occult heretic it seems. At least I would like to see the arguments improved if this is going to be the starting point argument to convince others sedevacantism is true.

The primary arguments for sedevacantism sometimes shift around. Was it Roncalli being a pre-election heretic that starts the vacancy? Or the issuing of the erroneous documents by “Paul VI”? Or was it the issuing of the “New Mass”? Those last two events were the big points of “rupture” it seems, and then arguments against Roncalli’s claim to the papacy came after the fact.

Then with “Paul VI”, I think some might think he was pope up until approving Vatican 2 documents. After that moment, various trads weren’t sure if he was “pope”, a “material pope”, no longer pope, or not pope to begin with. If sedeprivationism is true, which I don’t think it is, or even if “Paul VI” somehow continued to formally be pope as the “recognize and resist” view claims, if it was possible for him to continue as a “heretical pope”, then still the election of “John Paul I” should have been considered invalid by both those camps, making “Paul VI” the last pope for the sedeplenists and sedeprivationists.

I think there have been a couple people who thought maybe John Paul II was a pope, but rejected him after the Assisi event, and some people may have thought Benedict XVI was pope, rejecting the claim of Francis as pope. But they’re kind of outside of the “core” sedevacantist view which seems to think the last pope was either Pius XII, John XXIII, or Paul VI.

[Alice]

I believe the last Pope to be Pius IX. This was proved to me by the creator of Ourladysresistance.org and I thank God everyday for leading me to that website. He also proved “Our lady of Fatima” was in fact demonic in origin. So I hope to spread this message far and wide to everyone so you will no longer be deceived by the false apparitions and by the apparent infallibilty of these false popes who were smokescreens to usher in the Antichrist. His website ourladysresistance.org is out there online still in Internet Archive, they ended it at the end of 2019 so you can search for it from that year.

[Robert Robbins]

Thank you, Alice, for your contribution. I have heard of the theory that Pius IX was the last pope, but I find that those who hold to this view do not have a very firm grasp of the evidence to determine who was and was not a pope. The reasons to disqualify or deem a man illegitimate are few and straightforward, and so the proof required to show who is and is not a pope is easy. Notwithstanding this, those who propound the Pius IX as last pope theory have shaky evidence which can be demonstrated to be false.

That said, I invite you to succinctly enumerate why you believe Pius IX to be the last pope, which thesis would require you to show how the popes from Leo XIII to Pius XII (who I would say was our last pope) are either A. Heretics or B. Not duly elected. In the absence of which evidence for your thesis it must be believed that you have fallen into error on account of giving too much ear to a false teacher—who doesn’t even have an active website anymore.

By the way, the whole point of Alice in Wonderland was that it was a dream. What Alice should have been doing was hearing her lesson instead of listening to the distorted imaginations of her own brain.

[Alice]

I will help you all find the link to the proof of the absence of Papal prerogatives of both Leo XIII and Pius X.
1. Type Internet archive in google
2. Type Ourladysresistance.org and scroll to the year 2019.
You can find the whole website as how it was left.

Or

You can just type:
http://ourladysresistance.org/no-papal-prerogatives.html

There’s so many strong evidence against The Antipopes you won’t regret it!

[Robert Robbins]

Here is the thing, Alice. If I go into the archived website and try to read the info there, then I am arguing with someone who does not exist (virtually, anyway). Further, the evidence would be presented elsewhere than this forum, which means that no one would benefit from seeing the evidence unless they went to that archive page. But I wanted you to present your reasons for believing the last popes after Pius IX were not popes here on Galaxy, so everyone could see the reasons. Then I would see if they hold water or not.

If you want to, you can show us why you believe Pius XII not to be the last pope, either because of a faulty election or else because of heresy. If you do so, then we can move on to the next in the line. This shouldn’t be hard, since there is so much evidence against these supposed popes.

[Alice]

I want you to understand that you have to leave off all prejudices you already conceived about the material of Ourladysresistance.org. Whatever commentator you’ve read who disparaged the writings of him must be ignored since they just took some quotes and hissed at it while you yourself have not read the whole book from start to finish. The evidence proposed by him is eye opening and the truth will surprise you, but we Catholics have the duty to search for the truth because there is nothing in the world better than to know the truth. Catholics who stay at home think like the sedevacantists that they know it all already and they don’t have to do any more homework because their group leader knows more than them and has told them all they need to know. And they sneer at Catholics who stay at home who want to show them about Fatima and the Antipopes after Pius IX yet they don’t want to listen they believe we are crazy and label us with a group of other heretics just because some commentator said so.

[Robert Robbins]

Alice, I have no prejudices toward Ourladyresistance.org, because I have never read anything from there. I have corresponded with individuals who believe that Leo XIII and following are not popes, but believe so on no doctrinally sound basis (for instance, that Leo XIII said men are brothers because God is Father of all men, which is true and even scriptural; or that Pius XI did business with Jews and sold titles of Roman real estate, as if he didn’t have a right to dispense with Church property as the pope!).

All I ask is that, if you are going to come to this forum and claim that all the popes after Pius IX were not popes, then please give a few reasons why you believe so. This shouldn’t be hard to do, if your intellect is so swayed by the evidence of this author and his book. Because you refuse to offer any reasons for your belief, I must conclude you have none which may hold up to scrutiny.

If you didn’t believe we landed on the moon, then offering a few reasons why you believe this would be expected; but not to offer any reason whatever, but send us to a website that doesn’t exist or tell us to read a book to answer a simple question, smacks of mind-control and conspiracy theory mongering.

[Author]

Posts