Видео

What sort of real Catholics consider heretics as true popes?

Being invalidly ordained or consecrated does not take away jurisdictional appointments. Bigger questions for totalists: Where did the Church go in the period from 1958 to the first sedevacantists?

​@@prevatican2catholicshowFor many years there were validly ordained priests who kept offering the Mass of St. Plus V, and who did not accept the mew Masonic religion. The men, including Montini, who promulgated the new ecclesiology of Lumen Gentium, separated themselves from the Church by this schismatic act. Personally, I do not want to link myself in any way, including by theory, to the Masonic church of the Council.

@@greyhoundmama2062 That's not how jurisdiction or apostolicity works, totalism destroys apostolicity and reduces the Church to mob rule. If you get into a discussion with a competent R&R or Novus Ordite, you won't convince anyone. As I said, canon law provides a process for unsentenced heretics. The Thesis covers all of this.

If he disagreed with the Thesis he was wrong, if he agreed he was right. And his consecration of Bp. Guérard was valid, legal as much as it could be, and perfectly licit.

Thanks for your story, definitely look into the Cassiciacum Thesis.

@@prevatican2catholicshow I have no problem with the Thesis. However, for the evangelist, it's a distinction without a difference. Sure, it's interesting to theorize how the seat of Peter can eventually be filled, but I still would not guide someone to the Novus Ordo for salvation. Most lay people are not prepared to sift out the distinctions between the "matter" and the "form" of the Papacy. Just keep completely away from the Great Apostasy. btw, I forgot to mention that doubtful ordinations come into this issue. Do you believe that the Episcopal consecration formula of Paul VI is valid? Have you researched Novus Ordo ordinations? I would say they're doubtful, at best. If the hierarchy imbedded in Rome are lay persons, then isn't the Thesis a real stretch of the imagination?

There's no problem with evangelism because it deals with any issue a Novus Ordite or Recognize and Resister might bring up squarely and clearly, e.g. supplied jurisdiction, colored titles etc. Canon Law is clear that undeclared heretics can validly elect and be elected in the Church, at least for as long as their delict of heresy is not recognized. If we're talking about evangelism, then Totalism has serious problems: where was the Catholic Church from 1958 until sedevacantism? How will the Church get a new pope? (Please don't say conclave)

@@prevatican2catholicshow If these men inhabiting the Vatican have neither true Apostolic succession (due to the invalid Episcopal consecrations) not true faith (V2 destroys the First Commandment) why should they be consequential in any sense? I guess I'm missing something. Thanks for the discussion.

Because they have material succession (a juridical fact), they preserve the legal juridical structure of the Church, even if they are deprived of authority. The Cardinals do not elect the pope exercising jurisdiction (power to rule), they elect him using the faculty of designation, which is a legal/human faculty. Undeclared heresy & the faculty to designate are compatible. The biggest problem with "Totalism" is it demolishes the legal structure of the Church and destroys apostolicity. Why would Canon law have a special provision for undeclared heretics if they are of no consequence?

Brilliant analysis, and also false. Supplied jurisdiction and colored titles are real whether you like to admit it or not. Were you by Bp. Guerard's bed during his last days?

What is your group's project?

You shouldn't be freely interpreting sacred scripture, it'll lead to error after error.

@prevatican2catholicshow Catholics have a problem with many parts of the Bible. I was a catholic until I started reading the Bible. All I can say to that is I put my faith in the word of God and not in man. When I give someone the truth and they don't accept it, I dust off my feet and go to the next house and pray they heed the warning just as Jesus says to do.

You probably left the Novus Ordo, which is fake Catholicism. Let me know when you find the instruction of sola scriptura in the Bible, and who has the authority to remove Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Machabees from the Bible which contain inconvenient anti-Protestant doctrine.

Thanks for sharing I will watch it. I think Totalism has serious problems though. God bless Fr Okerulu anyway.

If they were properly instructed they would immediately abandon "Recognize & Resist", which is the point.

​@@prevatican2catholicshowwhat is your definition of "properly catechized?" In this, I have another sincere question--is there OT precedent for a sede position. Where the Master of the Palace office was left vacant?

A properly catechized Catholic would know that the Church cannot defect or teach harmful doctrine ever. They would know it's non-Catholic to sift through the magisterium to pick and choose what doctrine they like or recognize someone as the pope and then ignore everything he says. In terms of precedence, we are in unprecedented times but the Cassiciacum Thesis analyzes the situation with no contradiction in timeless Catholic and Thomistic principles.

By "Orthodox" are you referring to the Eastern Schismatics who deny that the Holy Ghost proceeds from both the Father and the Son?

@@prevatican2catholicshow You are the SCHISMATICS whom changed the Holy Creed The councils never took place in Rome but in the Greek city of Nicea because rome was NEVER the Capital of Christianity and never will be ! Even the document is in Greek not in latin the language of the Assains of Christ ! You might be bad because JesusLord was here in Egypt with the Theotokos and Saint Joshep but they never visited the city of rome because it was worthless however he sent some Apostles and you murdered them then and now you wanna claim to be the succesors of the Apostles you murdered 🤣 HERETIC pagans !

You're doing a great job of convincing me.

@@prevatican2catholicshow Only Christ can convice you and he was a Eastern man not a Western as a fact , i'll pray for you 🙏🏻☦️

Even if I disagreed with someone, I wouldn't resort to laughing emojis and typing hysterically. Like I said, you come off quite ridiculous.

Thank you for the kind words!

God bless Fr Petrizzi. 🙏

Sorry you feel that way!

Get to Confession. Say your daily Rosary. Be at peace,

and cut ties with Vatican 2 asap.

🙏 agreed!

Sometimes history is more interesting and crazier than fiction.

The problem is there is no common theological ground. "Recognize and Resist" is plain non-Catholic. "Totalism" destroys apostolicity, the legal order and reduces the Church to mob rule. The Thesis offers an explanation for the beginning and gives a solution for the end based on traditional Catholic theological principles.

Not familiar with that, will need to look it up.

A real true (formal) Pope, indeed, has the full power to bind and loose here on earth, despite what "recognize and resist" adherents claim.

@@prevatican2catholicshow are you guy’s sedevacants

@johnnylightning1967 material/formal sedevacantists (Thesis of Bishop Guérard des Lauriers) thethesis.us

@@prevatican2catholicshow So you deny the present of the Lord in all the Tabernacles of the world till the end of time ?

If your Novus Ordo priest has a doubtful ordination because he was "ordained" by a bishop of the invalid 1968 episcopal rite, how is he going to validly consecrate the Host? You need a true priest with valid Holy Orders. Absolutely Null and Utterly Void, The 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration - Rev. Anthony Cekada mostholytrinityseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/NewEpConsArtPDF2.pdf

Here's the Cassiciacum Thesis in Question and Answer format: thethesis.us

Sanctus - Franz Schubert

No, Pope Honorius was a real pope who didn't teach heresy, as believed by some. Bergoglio, on the other hand, is a false pope, possessing only a valid election, but no authority from Christ because of his objective intention to spread heresy. None of the Vatican 2 popes were real popes.

@@prevatican2catholicshow thanks for clarifying

You're welcome!

@@prevatican2catholicshow…Says the schismatic Protestant with no authority.

Indeed we have no authority to make a legal declaration, but we are obliged by our faith to reject new doctrines that have been previously condemned by the magisterium. Also, you're not being very ecumenical according to Vatican 2, shouldn't you encourage me to follow my conscience?

You're welcome!

Who are you referring to?

I'm not sure!

Thank you, no I haven't read it.

From a historical perspective, the heliocentric model was held as one of two possibilities until the late 1800s. Tycho Brahe had a model that answered all Galileo's objections, but had the Earth in its proper place (the center). Both were "scientifically acceptable" until anti-Catholic academics in the post-French Revolution eras needed to pull the plug on a Christian worldview (literally). Einstein's "general theory" of relativity was developed to explain heliocentricism, but it was insufficient...so he developed the "special theory", which is proof of geocentrism. Despite his flakiness in terms of the NO being Catholic, Dr. Robert Sungenis is good on this, as was the late Dr. Wolfgang Smith.

What's the point of rejecting one error and falling into another big one, namely "recognize and resist"? That's totally non-Catholic.

@@prevatican2catholicshow Because Catholics are not in a position to formally declare Francis a heretic.That is up to a future Pope or council.I like Archbishop Lefebvre and many other Catholics do not believe the Pope has the authority to ban the Tridentine Mass.If the Pope bans the recitation of the Rosary should we obey?If the Pope forbids the use of Latin in the Mass despite what Vatican 2 clearly said should they obey?If the Pope told all religious not to wear habits should they obey?No No No

Simply incorrect, and a false understanding of the power of a true Pope. Lefebvrism is a maddening neo-Gallican position. "A (true) pope is the supreme legislator for ecclesiastical law and has the power to change ecclesiastical laws enacted by his predecessors. Quo Primum was an ecclesiastical law, and a true pope did indeed have the power to abrogate it or modify any of its provisions. The forever clause was merely a type of legal boilerplate common in all sorts of papal legislation... Traditionalists should stop using the Quo Primum argument. It’s a canon law urban legend" Fr. Anthony Cekada. (www.fathercekada.com/2007/05/17/quo-primum) Vatican 2 is the _main issue_ , and needs to be dumped. thethesis.us

You're welcome!

Appreciate the kind words.

Fr. Dutertre discusses the issue in the Thesis site. See: thethesis.us/chapter-xiii/

@@prevatican2catholicshow thank you for the reply, I have read it before, I think the article clearly defines church teaching better and it is clearer in terminology. I agree 100% with the article. I assume Father was being much more succinct in the video, I think parts of it could confuse people regarding an undeclared heretic but I understand time was a factor. It is a topic that would probably take a whole video to go into the details, maybe a good future episode? Thanks

Indeed, compared to the brevity of an interview, a written article is more clear. Everyone should check out the Thesis website as a first stop.

You can get in touch with Fr Palma at the Mary Help of Christians Chapel website.

All these points are addressed in the Thesis of Bp. Guérard des Lauriers, explained in detail on this site: thethesis.us Also read "The Errors of the Recognize and Resist System", by Rev. Damien Dutertre mostholytrinityseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/RR_Dutertre_2022.pdf

@@prevatican2catholicshow Thank you:+) God bless~

Regarding material/formal: It is possible for ordinary laity like you and me to be mistaken about a point of doctrine, but it is not possible for clergy to be ignorant of doctrine since that is part of their education and traing in the seminary. It is the pope's duty to pass on and defend the Faith. If the Cardinals elected a man who doesn't know the fundamentals of Catholicism I'd say the election is probably not valid and I'd treat him as a Bergoglio, a doubtful pope.

This doesn't affect validity of orders. Ignorant, badly or untrained (in this case traditional) priests were the subject of a famous article by Father Anthony Cekada: Untrained and Un-Tridentine: Holy Orders and the Canonically Unfit (2003) mostholytrinityseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/UntrainedUnTrid.pdf

@@kristin1659 I agree that the clergy SHOULD know the faith. But the seminaries were hijacked a loooong time ago. So if a young man in good faith entered he was either lied to or subjected to two "faiths" that were taught i.e. modernism and tradition/the true faith. +Williamson notes this about +Ratzinger's formation. We are living in bat crazy times:+( God bless~

Much appreciated, thank you.

They're in serious error and misguided, but I believe most are in good faith (R&R).

Late 2nd Century Heresy that a select group of members of the Church claim they were guided by the Holy Spirit to correct the Church in Rome for lax penances for those who had abandoned the Faith during times of trials put on them by the Roman Empire. Eventually, the Montanist would hold that any lapsed Catholic could never be reconciled back to communion with God and the Church (so Sacrament of Confession/Penance is not needed, etc). Saint Irenaus of Lyons went to Rome to discuss it with Pope Eleutherius when was bishop of Rome (174-189). Saint Irenaus of Lyons stayed loyal to Rome, Tertullian who was one of the first Great writers in Latin and was orthodox till 200 AD then He broke from Rome after that time. I am a Catholic who is in communion with all Post Vatican II Popes but I have make a correction on Fr. Palma's understanding of Church History. The Montanist was a late 2nd century heresy and the Donatist started in the 4th century and like the Montanist they broke from Rome and argued that only a priest in a State of absolute Grace can offer the Sacraments, so even if a priest had a venial sin, it would make any Sacrament null and void. Saint Augustine wrote many papers against the Donatist position clearly saying the Sacraments was a property of the Church and priesthood itself and not whether the priest was in 100% state of grace.

I answered your question but the Mods deleted it. Montanism is a 2nd century heresy. It is not the same thing as Donatism which started in the 4th century.

Montanism www.newadvent.org/cathen/10521a.htm

@@prevatican2catholicshow Thank you.

How are these priests appointed. Do they have apostolic succession via the bishops

I prefer to think that most are mistaken and in serious error but are in good faith. So we have to help point out the errors.

There's nothing crazy about preserving the Church's indefectibility by jettisoning a false ecumenical council (Vatican II). They have it right. I think SSPX is harmful to the traditional movement because it believes that liturgy is the primary battle ground, instead of doctrine. So you get "recognize and resist", a contemptible position.

@drywalllifetv6265 "1) If you don't have a valid AND licit Mass available to you, the Sunday precept ceases to oblige. 2) We go to Mass to please God. But the una cum Mass is unacceptable to God. God cannot be pleased by an act of worship offered in the name of a false Pope who happens to be the head of a false religion. The Mass is not only an act of the priest in persona Christi; it is also an act of the whole Church. Naming Bergoglio in the Canon legitimizes Vatican II, which is an implicit negation of the Church’s indefectibility. 3) Don’t follow people, follow principles. When analyzing different points of view, look for consistency." - Rev. Nicolas Despósito

He's speaking the truth.

Not a great achievement to be better than the average novus ordoite.

First of all, the Pope cannot promulgate false doctrines or heresies, period. From there we conclude that the seat is simply vacant.

@@prevatican2catholicshow that illustrates precisely my point. If it's a valid intra-Catholic epistemic route to judge the validity of a papal election based on the teachings of the pope, then papal infallibility has no practical use anymore. It makes a lot more sense within that paradigm to just admit that Vatican I was wrong, and the Roman Church does not remain undefiled from heresy unto the end.

I don't think i'm understanding you. Vatican I made mention of the necessary submission to the ordinary means of teaching from the Church. If Vatican 2, and numerous post-Vatican 2 documents are filled with error and heresies, that would contradict the Church's indefectibility, and that would go directly against Vatican I. How does the Roman Church remain undefiled if Vatican I is wrong? Doesn't that mean it has defected?

@@prevatican2catholicshow if you believe that the Roman Church has taught error in a definitive capacity, that indeed means Vatican I is wrong.

But the Church hasn't taught error, Vatican I was a true council. It's Vatican II that's full of errors and heresies.

If heretics are ipso facto deposed according to a misunderstood quote of St Bellarmine, why did canon law include a process for heretics? On the Heretical Pope (Rev. Damien Dutertre) mostholytrinityseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Heretical_Pope_Dutertre_2022.pdf Totalism is "guts theology", with no foundation in theology, history or canon law.

​@@prevatican2catholicshow This does not apply to those heretics who deny dogmatic teachings of the church or divine law. There is no process to permit someone to excused when they have denied the dogmatic teachings of the church More theological acrobats and obfuscation by the defenders of this heresy , just like the word totalist became a word more frequently used by Sanborn to describe those who don't agree with his heresy

@@prevatican2catholicshow Another thing, why doesn't Sanborn come out and state the thesis for exactly what it is ? Explain that it was th efforts of one man post VII to come up with a solution for the takeover by non Catholic masonic forces? Why does he not say that anyone (including his seminarians) are in no way obliged to accept it? Is this position explained to potential seminarians or does it come after fact ? It is explained that , as far as I know, every other traditional Catholic organization rejects this ?

Wrong, an impediment of divine law still needs to be juridically established to have juridical effects. Just like an invalid mariage which suffers of an impediment of divine law still needs to be declared invalid.

They've stated it as clearly as possible with very a detailed website, numerous videos and lengthy articles. It's not their fault that people who refuse to accept the conclusion cannot help but misrepresent the position and go on rants. Why don't totalists say they have no clue how to fix the crisis, especially as "divine intervention" will immediately break apostolicity?

I'm a music teacher and it was great to ask those questions, hope to have a Catholic episode purely about music one day with a priest.

SSPX R&R theology is just as awful, maybe worse, because they damage the office of the papacy with "resistance" to someone they consider their pope.

@@prevatican2catholicshow your channel literally expresses the opinion that Francis is materally the pope. Secondly, you do damage to the visibility of the Church when you posit that the last "real" pope's jurisdiction has effectively died because all the bishops who received jurisdiction under him are now dead. It's not simply a interregnum. During an interregnum, the bishops don't lose jurisdiction, but it's continued because it was given to them from the late pope. And finally, I guess St. Robert Bellarmine, in your mind, was just an ignorant R&R guy when he wrote that it's lawful to resist a pope who is trying to destroy the Church.

"Visibility concerning the material - legal - human - juridical structure of the Church, is preserved in the N.O. hierarchy. Visibility, taken as the way to recognize the body of the faithful is preserved by Catholics who integrally profess the faith by adhering to sedevacantism." - Rev. Nicolas Despósito A material (possessing a valid legal title) pope lacks the form of the papacy (authority), so he needs to return to the Catholic faith to remove the obstacle to becoming a real, true, formal pope. As of now, he's no pope at all. St Bellarmine is always misquoted and taken out of context. Here's his real positions on a heretical pope: mostholytrinityseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Heretical_Pope_Dutertre_2022.pdf

@@prevatican2catholicshow and how is that different from Lefebvre distinguishing the false "church" of Vatican II from the true Church? You're espousing Sedeprivationism though. 🤔

Because it is not a new church at all, but a new religion (Vatican 2). The false hierarchy retain valid legal (colored) titles but lose authority because of their intention to promulgate a false religion. Indeed, I support the Thesis by Bp Guérard des Lauriers.

At least Mr. B is open, Benedict XVI is a far more dangerous heretic, because he outwardly looks like a traditionalist and traps conservatives in Vatican II. Benedict XVI on the resurrection mostholytrinityseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/RazResArt.pdf

@prevatican2catholicshow your right! A little more sugar in the coffee and it's still coffee!

I would really recommend checking out the Cassicacum Thesis by Bp. Guérard des Lauriers. It's the best explanation of the situation by one of the best theologians of the 20th century (adviser on the dogma of the assumption and ghost author to the Ottaviani intervention). The Thesis website: thethesis.us And all the articles at: mostholytrinityseminary.org/articles

The biggest problem with SSPX is the "recognize and resist" position which is totally untenable for a Catholic.

@@prevatican2catholicshow Why? A superior who is in error actually should be resisted. Particularly in their governance and in all pastoral matters a Pope is NOT protected by papal infallibility as given in Pastor Aeternus. Popes can err an in fact have erred regarding matters like the validity of sacraments. Consider the time of the cadaver synod where several Popes in quick succession had ALL of the sacraments their predecessors performed declared invalid and then having this declaration of invalidity declared invalid. A Pope who even appears to contradict the past teaching is grossly imprudent and uncharitable in so doing, IN contrast we have either sedevacantism: because my father is evil he is not now and never was may father> Or my father is my father, therefor he cannot be evil. All offices of authority can be abused. They can also be perverted, that is used in opposition to their ends. The papacy is ordered toward preserving and passing on tradition. But tradition while involving the Pope is not order toward the preservation of his office. The authority of an office is the power to do or command X. It does not necessarily included a guarantee of success or even a protection against perverse use of the power. Infallibility, for good of for ill, is ultimately very limited. And while there is an obligation to obey non-infallible directives, this is superseded by the obligation to disobey evil directives.

Sorry, but none of this is backed up by anything concrete in terms of theology or canon law. I noticed you cited nothing to support yourself, just opinions. Recognize and Resist utterly destroys the papacy while formal sedevacantism (Cassiciacum Thesis) saves the papacy. A Pope can never teach heresy! That would contradict the Church's indefectibility. Honorius was condemned for his imprudence, not for his teaching heresy to the universal church. I would invite you to read the best takedown of R&R: mostholytrinityseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/RR_Dutertre_2022.pdf

@@prevatican2catholicshow I have heard of them but I find the the thesis of classical sedevanctism to be ultimately unconvincing in so much as I find pharisaical Judaism to be ultimately unconvincing. It is a series of logical arguments ultimately abstracted. If the Popes have not been valid, and many of the bishops one is reduced to truly Judaic Levitical analysis of whose order might be valid traced through this one and that. I wish them well enough, heaven knows these are trying times in the Church and have been for fifty years. Tell me succinctly what does sedvacantimsm offer the Church and honestly address its drawbacks. Recognize and resist puts one under a tension and raises the problematic potential of being infiltrated with modernism. What will sedevanctimsm bring the Church? Are all sedes untied? Do they all agree open whose sacraments are or are not valid? It is not Protestantism ( I have always disliked the loose use of the term) because it seeks to adhere to tradition and doctrine, but its potential for fragmentation and the near extinction of sacraments considered valid is problematic We shall all ultimately play the game and see who has the better of it. If in 20 years only the Sedes are left standing I shall have to tip my hat to them and see it as a sign that God has indeed favored them. If the SSPX dies out or is subsumed into the modernism in Rome I shall have to admit their path has failed. But if the answer is because this and this and this erudite theological refence .. I will say "yes yes O doctor of the law... I admit you are indeed a doctor of the law and well schooled in your craft to boot, but time and not your pen or podcast shall tell the providence of God. Time and what he permits shall tell tis tale." But its great mistake maybe but we shall preserve the honor of the papacy. The practical problems of a vacant seat not withstanding, time is better spent teaching the moral law and administering the sacraments. God will sort out the papacy and have a later Pope formally declare who was valid or not. Time spent doing A is time spent not doing B. I remember watching a few SSPX resistance sermons and thinking "with all due respect... please shut up about church politics and hierarchy and how the non resistance SSPX is bad and such..... quit wasting time and tell me how to save my soul how to live the moral life. So you have sermon on why faction X is the Church is wrong...OK what does that do for the average layman? Spend more time writing sermons about living the virtues or how to more fruitfully receive sacrament than talks about which scholar of the law thinks whose sacraments are valid or not.

@@prevatican2catholicshow But let me drive home the point. I am fifty and have little interest in losing hours on someone's interpretation of cannon law and nonbinding theological opinion. My own may not be greater but they are cheaper and lest likely me to cost me that precious commodity of time. Elevator pitch sede to me if you will but..... "my son of writing books there is no end"... and that goes double for theological debates. Tell we why I need sedevanctism. How will it help me practically in day to day life save my soul? Bother who thinks who is Pope!!! How can you help me save my soul in daily life. Now I would be inclined to look favorably upon some priest who ended up Sede... was not the late Fr Cekada a confirmed sedevacantist? Love to hear a sermon from him on the moral like. On why Pope X is not valid ... life is too short.