I'm really confused. In the Great Western Schism we had multiple anti-popes, one even called a false council, parts of which were later ratified by the real pope. The Schism lasted 40 years, most people did not follow the true pope. Furthermore, according to tradition, it seems a formal heretic is not a Catholic. It is possible, therefore, that an anti-pope could call a council. Some of the writings of Vatican II seem to fly in the face of traditional statements. Some of the writings of the later popes, also seem to contradict tradition. Some of the statements, appealing to the Spirit of 1789, for example, sound like outright treason. At the critical point where Muller and others want to build the New World Order on the EU or a re-organized UN, the pope calls for a re-organized UN. To those studying this push toward a New World Order, the economic developments are completely predictable, to claim the new encyclical is prophetic is extremely misleading. The incredible ambiguity displayed in many statements - typical of those delivering a double message, one for the sheep, one for the initiates- the cowering before zionism, the outright acts of apostasy such as Assisi and allowing Buddha on the blessed tabernacle, and the numerous prophetic warnings from Our Lady, Catherine Emerich, etc. The decadence long for told, the P2-Vatican Bank scandal, the death of the whistle blower who wrote the article concerning the illegal conclave activities, the suspicious handling of the Third Secret of Fatima, the number of Freemasons reported to be in the Vatican, signing non-conversion agreements, convergence rather than conversion, its support for the hellish organization the UN....it all seems to me that we have a Novus Ordo Church in the making for a Novus Ordo Seclorum. I could go on and on.... If I was not Catholic, I would certainly look at Rome as overrun, it is only Our Lord's Promise, and His other Warning, "Where the body is, the vultures will gather" that I tarry. I don't want to be a heretic, whether that means following Rome, or becoming a sede-vacantist, I can no-longer determine. I appeal to the charity of any skilled apologist, please write or recommend, a solid work for Catholics on this matter, I believe it is more serious than the Protestant issues, and will become of greater concern as the New World Order tries to force Rome to comply to its will. Most of the defense offered against the sede-vacantist position that I have read is flimsy, and is often in direct opposition to dogmatic degrees or statements from earlier popes and councils, and works by Michael Muller, Rama Coomaraswamy, Dominic Bourmaud, etc. seem more convincing and inline with tradition. Gloria In Te Domine. 

@rsaj -