In the Old Testament in Exodus 32 Aaron the high priest (a prefiguration of the Pope) created a Canaanite idol of a gold calf and said "These are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt." So he literally not only worshiped an idol but he's the one who made it and attributed God's actions to it. That seems pretty bad too. But then after in Numbers 16 Core tried to schism from Moses and Aaron (Jude 1:11 calls it the contradiction of Core. So it's relevant in the New Testament and referenced as an error the faithful should not fall into) but that angered God and as punishment for the schism God opened up the Earth and the schismatics of Core were swallowed up and fell into hell while they were still alive. Aaron didn't seem to lose his authority or position. Take that for what it is at face value...
As a revert I would just want to know if what I am following is under Christ. My Priest travels very far every week to bring the Latin Mass to fellow Catholics and to me, a sinner. We should spend more time praying for them instead of fighting about sects of the church that obviously exist.
Bellucci Grace thank you for your response. I agree on our responsibility to act when there is a wrong. My problem is with the nitpicking of the church. You have people attending V2 mass who are devoted. Priests who are devoted and faithful. These people believe what they have been taught. You have traditionalists who are the same. You have Sedes who believe that everything since V2 is wrong. When read between the three sides it’s usually very well researched and represented. Each one telling the other they are heretical. Here I am going to TLM believing there is a middle ground. That maybe we should concentrate more on our Lord, prayer, the sacraments, and living a Catholic life. For sure act when we need to but stop worrying about hand holding during the Our Father as long as the Priest gives a proper Mass. it just all seems a bit scrupulous. 🤷🏻♂️
Bellucci Grace that’s very sad to hear about the lack of sacraments. I’m working towards giving my first confession. I’m really starting to desire the Lord.
thank you, in ways i can't briefly write for me, .... (only a social catholic, who, having read a little about what st. pius x says on modernism and relativism, becomes interested again in the church) this is absolutely fascinating and a delight to hear. that there is guidance from the tradition on even this ;) .... truly, holy mother church has amazing riches, as is fitting for His bride p.s. and that good men earnestly and humbly enquire into this matter, minds illumined due to the purity of motive, is a wonderful thing; allelujah amen, and is a sign sufficient in itself to carry the fragrance of the mount of olives
A true catholic doesn’t create enemies amongst his brethren. To an extent of agreeing with what the pope has to say we do not all agree ,ok yes .But we do not seperate from the mother church . We fight for our church . Separation is a tactic of the devil . God bless yah Sensus fedelium. Tradition is blessed something we do miss in our modern church .
Moe Gibbs I can’t really be bothered debating yah . The truth is you take things out of context and are asking a lot of questions which will take time to answer . “One by one” .Now since separation isn’t from the devil in your eyes . Since there’s no pope in your eyes 👀. Since you separated from the Catholic Church . Let me tell yah something brother what about the eastern churches .Think about what your saying ! We eastern Catholics there’s a big lists Maronite Coptic Melkite Chaldean Catholic and so many more are not divided . Don’t come here with your conspiracy theories . You sound like a Protestant .im not here to debate yah like I said . But God is far smarter than you are Mr moey Gibbs. God doesn’t allow devision Evil men do 👀. You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church I give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven . For watever is loosened on earth I will loosen in heaven . For the gates of hades will not prevail against it .
These guests are great! They know much about ecclesiology. They should come on again and give a Catholic defense against orthodoxy, which is making ground in the west by taking confused Catholic
Read also "Sedevacantism Delusion" by John C. Pontrello. It clearly demonstrates how sedevacatism contradits Vatican I and indefectiblily of the Church in many ways. Or just find Jay Dyer's talk about sedevacantism.
What sounds like extreme leniency, but is intended as grace, has allowed heresy into the Church. Leaders should be faithful to the dogmas and be role models. If they slip, they need to be defrocked, but not excommunicated. That would keep the Church pure as in Saint Peter's day.
How far are we supposed to go in obedience to the Pope, break the 1st commandment, second, fifth, sixth,,,? What if after doing my own searching into original documents etc am convinced that the Novus Ordo is offensive to God?
Then you are correct and should hold and practice the traditional Catholic Faith unto death. This is an irregular situation which precipitates either a major chastisement or the end of the world.
"Wherefore, let the faithful also be on their guard against the overrated independence of private judgment and that false autonomy of human reason. For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord." - Casti Connubii
@@flabiger I would point out though, that studying the doctrine of the Catholic Church which has been interpreted for us can hardly be construed as making judgments in matters of faith. Nor can any Pope over rule any previously doctrine already set in stone.
Our Blessed Mother is correct, many priests bishops cardinals and the hierarchy of the church will lead many souls in to perdition. I believe the blessed mother not an apostate pope.
"True & False Pope" by Salza and Sisco was demolished by Fr. Anthony Cekada in his "Dead on arrival and dignified burial" he call the scholarship out of "STUPIDITY"
I am sorry but I will have to say this with utmost respect to these men discussing here. Sugercoating of reality as it is, has never been part of the catholic tradition! The church fathers and saints used to immediately oust heretics or even heretical councils! This is pure sugercoating and circumventing what is going on! When you people say heretic has to publicly manifest themselves, hasn't JPII, BVI and currently Bergoglio done? Kissing qurans, telling us to have interfaith prayers which Bergoglio still ask us to, asking God to intervene with Covid! I mean are you serious? It's one thing to err one or two times but it's another to purposely teach and ask the faithful to do! This is what the impostor popes do! So, would God give you such men so that you go straight to damnation?? R&R does not make sense!
Well said!!! This is not a serious or even valid explanation or exposition of Sedevacantism, but rather just a mere attack from an ignorant viewpoint, and I say this with all due respect. Not that these men are ignorant, because they are obviously very learned, but rather just ignorant of why Sedevacantists do not accept the validity of the changes introduced by the V2 church. In order to shed true light on Secantism, it would only be proper to interview well known Sedevacantists like Donald Sanborn, Clarence Kelly, Anthony Cekada etc, or to just watch the old 1990's TV programme "What Catholics Believe" with Julius Smetona, and let the viewers compare these viewpoints with the "who am I to judge", communion in the hand and without confession, Pachamama circus on offer at present, and then decide which is the real, legitimate and authentic Catholic Church. I realise that a one and a half hour interview with well known Sedevacantist authorities is probably, not only an uncomfortable challenge, but also a risky one at that, as any of these men would be able to clearly and convincingly explain the Sedevacantist position and refute these guests with facts on theology, Magisterium, doctrine and every other aspect of the Catholic faith and remove all doubt that what has progressively evolved out of V2 is a new religion that wants to keep the title "catholic" because of the universality it implies.
Honest question I used to go to a protestant church, genuinely felt a calling for the catholic church b/c of the eucharist there. But recently I've heard of forgeries justifying increased papal power over time. And apparently even recent Pope Benedict mentioned that the orthodox are correct in the mater of papal power. Should I go orthodox, I'm new to being genuinely Christian so I dont have many roots. I believe in the catholic miracles but should I be baptized in a orthodox church. B/c the lack of error.
@@Hevander75 Dear, I greet you in the name of our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ. I want to assure you that the Roman Catholic Faith in its traditional sense is the only true faith of God here on earth. All the teachings of RCC have been divinely revealed and contain no errors. The RCC differ from the orthodox in number of ways e.g. the orthodox do not believe that the Holy Ghost comes from the father and from the son as The RCC declares in the filioque clause of the creed. However the gospel of st. John easily disputed the orthodox and gives evidence of the filioque. However, our church has the problem of the ministers. The ministry itself is perfect in all its sense. The ministers who are supposed to continue the traditions and expounding on the true faith, to a large extent have departed from it. That has left the sheep in disarray. I may not have the answers for now but stay in the ark, buy traditional catholic books (there are many) and familiarize yourself with the true teachings, find appropriate RCC with Tridentine Latin mass and be a member. Have no communion with members of the clergy who preach and teach reverse gospels. Pray your rosary and do penance as often as you can. You will be fine. May our Almighty God give you peace.
@@mende72 you will not see perfection in the church or from the seat of peter this side of heaven. So yes, you will see mistakes and failings in both, sad as that is to us in the church. But you trust to little in the providence of Christ and to little in the promise he made to the church that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church. What you are arguing for is protestant heresy, and damning to souls.
Vatican II is the latest revolution: “New liturgy!” “New understanding of the Church!” “New Canon Law!” “New Morals!” “New Sacraments!” “New Presiders!” “New Idols!” “New understanding of evolution!” ETC….
@Moe Gibbs the simple reason is the Church must always have legitimate Bishops with ordinary Jurisdiction. I learned that almost 20 years ago from John Lane. But didn't understand what the really meant. Much of The book is really just an exughsted Caticism on what makes the Church Catholic . Second point , I found that a Catholic is perfectly free to believe and practice the faith IN THE CHURCH the same as Catholics did before the councle.
@Moe Gibbs legitimate Bishops with ordinary Jurisdiction fall under the mark of Apostolic. Its a perminant quality of the Church. The teaching of the Church on this is Clear The answer to this objection that John Lane gave years ago , was he insisted that at least one Pius 12 bishop who retained the faith after V2. Must still be alive somewhere And 20 years ago that was the common answer given by sedevacantists . But now 20 years later it is becoming impossible to still insist on this... The mark of Apostolic, has a deep theology behind it , it's a certitude of faith. I respectfully suggest you study it a little deeper, understand it before you dismiss the objection. Every Caticism teaches this at least briefly , if you have a more in depth Caticism like the " Catisism explained " you will find a more complete teaching on the mark of Apostisity. And the distinction between a legitimate bishop , (formal apostolic succession) and non legitimate bishop (material apostolic succession)
My family and I attended Mater Dei FSSP pariah in Irving, TX for a handful of years. We kept asking our “priest” questions about Vatican 2 and ecclesiology. The only response we would get from them is read: “true or false pope”. So I did. The book only proves the SV position in my mind. It is one of the reasons why we left the novus ordo and now only attend Sede mission chapels. Thanks Robert and John!!! Lol
@@JeremyConstantino I don’t mean to disrespect you, but I find it hard to believe you read the book (based on your comment). So can you point to something in the book that lead you to your conclusion? Thanks
One undeniable error repeatedly stated in this video is that those who are baptised as infants in a heretical sect are not Catholic until professing the Catholic Faith at a later date. This is precisely the opposite of what the Church teaches: that those baptized as infants in a heretical sect are members of the Catholic Church until and unless they formally reject the Church by adhering to the heretical sect after reaching the age of reason. This truth is intimately connected to the Baptismal character itself and the validity of child Baptism - both dogmas of the Church. The truth itself has been taught in Catechisms throughout the world, rendering it a teaching of the universal ordinary magisterium concerning faith and morals: a DOGMA. Therefore the aforementioned error is in fact a heresy.
@@Tjkillingsworth " that those baptized as infants in a heretical sect are members of the Catholic Church until and unless they formally reject the Church by adhering to the heretical sect after reaching the age of reason." Then explain why someone who was baptized outside the Church as an infant, and never rejected the Catholic Church or adhered to a heretical sect, is unable to receive communion in the Catholic Church as an adult without being formally received into the Church.
@@richardross8680 @Richard Ross de interinis non judicat ecclesia - the Church does not judge in the internal forum. That is to say, if said person does not visibly enter the Catholic Church upon reaching the age of reason, the Church regards him as a heretic. It is not that such a one remains Catholic until publicly and formally rejecting the Church, but rather that upon reaching the age of reason, and thus being capable of formal heresy, the heresy is manifest in the external forum by their non-entry to the Church. So for instance, if a young child is baptised validly in a heretical sect, and their parents convert before the child reaches the age of reason, an abjuration of heresy will never be required of the child, as a child is not capable of formal heresy. It will however be required of the adult, who was baptized in, and manifestly adhered to a heretical sect. The example you posit is impossible. Such a man was already formally received into the Church upon his baptism. Having reached the age of reason, he becomes a non-Catholic by failing to adhere to the Church in the external forum. Someone who approaches Holy Communion as an adult, and was baptised in a heretical sect, has manifestly rejected the Church in the time between attaining use of reason and his present adulthood. This is why any such person remains fully subject to the Church and Her laws, while retaining none of the rights of a Christian. This is taught in any dogmatic theology text. See Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, or Tanqueray's Dogmatic Theology for instance. I did make a mistake in the quote you posted though: I should have stated "...until and unless the MANIFESTLY reject the Church..."
It's the crisis of the changing of the traditional magisterium not the SV assembly that is distorting the traditional Roman Catholic Faith. Why are you blaming those who wish to preserve the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church instead of the false Catholic Church that is in charge of Rome today. SVs hold fast to the true Catholic Faith and ALL the Church Councils and teachings of over 200 Popes, just not the last few Popes. The gates of Hell WILL NOT prevail. However, the current Pontiff is completely embracing real extreme false doctrine and is prevailing in Rome today. SVs pray for true unity around the true doctrine of Christ. Pray the true teachings of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church prevail. 🙏✝️🙏
Would Pope Pius the 12th or any other pope prior to him endorse putting Buddha on a Catholic church altar and worshiping him. What about Pacha Mama‘s. Kissing the Koran. Wake up!!! They are not teaching Catholicism!!!
St. Matthew 16:18 DRC: And I (Jesus) say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Great video guys. I had a conversation with a couple of SSPX priests recently before my catechism class. We talked about this exact topic. Our reasoning went a little something like this: Just because you have a bad president or king doesn't meant that a state or province will leave its nation. Just because we have a bad pope doesn't mean we abandon God's Holy Church. That would be the highest idiocy. In fact to paraphrase a bit from the book that you guys are talking about: the The Church can separate itself from a heretical pope. Basically fire him and replace him.
The remake of the "bad dad" argument. The pope can cease to be the pope, your Father can never resign being your father even if he wants to like the pope does.
No, it cannot. Wherever Peter is, there is the Church. The idea that a pope can teach heresy and can be resisted is absolutely non-Catholic. He either is the pope, then you owe him respect and submission; or he is not pope. A heretic cannot be pope, for he is outside the Church. It is absurd to imagine that someone who is not in the Church can command in the Church.
@@princessaiko Precisely. So what then do you make of the Vatican II doctrines promulgated by everyone from Paul VI on? If they are true Popes, then their universal laws - be it in the form of approved catechisms, approved rites like the Novus Ordo, and all of the doctrines influenced by Vatican II - are binding, and are guaranteed by the Church's divine authority granted to her by Christ to be safe for the faithful to follow. If they are **not**, then that implies a defect in the authority which promulgated them. One cannot jettison Vatican II and its doctrines without jettisoning the pontiffs who promulgated them. www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/V2Obligatory.pdf
And whether the pope is „bad“ (a public sinner or falling short in virtues) is not the question. Of course, a pope could be all this. But a pope cannot be a heretic, because a heretic ceases to be a member of the Church. Thus, a valid pope, even if „bad,“ cannot be resisted. That‘s the problem with R&R. They consider a total heretic like Francis the pope, but then they resist and correct and insult him in every other statement, thereby undermining the whole concept of the papacy as instituted by Christ. If Francis is a heretic, then he cannot be a valid pope. That‘s the traditional Catholic dogma.
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the faithful elect their own bishops prior to the Middle Ages? I mean, we know that most bishops prior to, at least, 1054 were elected by either the faithful or the clergy of the diocese, not selected by the Pope. Thus, "jurisdiction" is not an essential element of the visibility of the Church. A validly ordained bishop, like, say Bishop Fellay, or Bishop Kelley are still bishops. From a historical standpoint, then, the papal decree assigning jurisdiction is relatively new.
That's not what I am arguing. His Excellency Fellay was NOT chosen by the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, he was elected and consecrated by members of the venerable Society of St. Pius X...and has no geographical jurisdiction, which is what is being argued as essential here. Visibility is different than what is being argued here.
@@kamilmurawski1136 Explain, please. Pius XII says that jurisdiction is what provides a bishop the ability to govern a diocese, and provides him with authority to teach and decide on canonical issues. The same document distinguishes that from the authority that is intrinsic to the order of bishop: confirmations and ordinations. Everything else requires jurisdiction. So what did Leo XIII specifically say that contradicts what I said?
Just to clarify what i meant in the live chat about working wasn't some ludicrous or weird thing about a desperate search. I meant working on building friendships and connections as recommended by the BIBLE and tradition. Not some wacko creeper search for just one type of person. I have no idea why modern men weren't able to determine that. That entire conversation was a travesty. But for those of you who were there or will see that later: The parish will only grow through prayer and work. You wont gain connections or friendships unless you pray...and work for them. I was speaking on the relationships of people on the whole, not between man and woman specifically. Boil it down: Prayer and Cooperation, I'm going to take this moment to apologize to Sensus Fidelium I do however stand by what I said. If I am theologically mistaken or am misinterpreting the aforementioned sources I am open to serious discussion for edification.
As i was preparing a snack i was inspired by something rather simple to illustrate this point. Christ our Lord died on the cross for the salvation of mankind. He died for you. All you need to do is accept this and declare him your Lord and Savior. The kicker here is: YOU must make the conscience effort to choose. He will not force you but you must not resist. You must make the effort choose Him or Hell, life or death.
Luke 14:26-33 If any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother and wife and children and brethren and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever doth not carry his cross and come after me cannot be my disciple. For which of you, having a mind to build a tower, doth not first sit down and reckon the charges that are necessary, whether he have wherewithal to finish it: Lest, after he hath laid the foundation and is not able to finish it, all that see it begin to mock him, Saying: This man began to build and was not able to finish. Or, what king, about to go to make war against another king, doth not first sit down and think whether he be able, with ten thousand, to meet him that, with twenty thousand, cometh against him? Or else, while the other is yet afar off, sending an embassy, he desireth conditions of peace. So likewise every one of you that doth not renounce all that he possesseth cannot be my disciple.
consider an irregular selection of a pope, or forced hiatus of an election, to await in hope for a valid election; would that comprise sedevacanteism, Basically is time of papal absence the automatic dissipation of the hierarchical church
Moe Gibbs yes that’s not what gnostic means, and then it does, perhaps I should have said they have the “spirit of gnostic.” An influence from the evil one who shares untruths about the Truth. I will go along with what the Lord Jesus Christ said to the Church, Matt 28:20”teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” And to Saint Peter in Matt 16:18-19” And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Get off the barque, then cut yourself off. I am sorry about all of the sedevacantists, who do not love the Pope, that is the major problem, throwing poisonous darts at His See, doing just the opposite of what Jesus commanded His children. They should be united and praying for the Holy Father. No wonder they have strayed from the Way, and no wonder they feel abandoned, it’s pride.
Moe Gibbs yes there is a Holy Father. It seems you are getting angry, and you will not win anything by being angry except a big temptation to fall in the 5th commandment. I am really sorry, because I had no idea until now that I was responding to a sedevacantist. It is a special kind of heresy you are spouting. Do you not believe what Jesus said about the Church, are you following your own will? I think calling me a witch is rude and unwarranted. You don’t personally know me, so how can you accuse me of being a wicked wicked woman? Obedience to the Holy Mother Church and Magisterium, love for the Holy Father, and obey the Commandments, and don’t jump ship. I pray God gives you some light and perhaps a mirror so you can see yourself and the hate that you are spreading. Peace of Christ.
Moe Gibbs yes Saint Michael pray for us, and Saint Michael pray for the Holy Father Francis and the Holy Roman Catholic Church against all heresy, especially protect the Church from the sedevacantist heresy, amen. Mary, Mother of the Church secure the graces needed for the Holy Church from the onslaught of the malignant enemy. Jesus, please help moe.
I think Bishop Pivarunas adequately answers the objections to sedevacantism. The "Recognize and Resist" (a.k.a. "R&R") is really untenable for a Catholic.
How he answer to objection that according to sedevacatists to there is no hierarchy left anywhere and entiren hierarchy Has been destroyed while Catholic Dogma is that Church absolutely cannot lose hierarchy?
I think you guys are splitting hairs. There are very few reasonable thinking people that could say francis isn't a heretic. If he isn't a legal heretic he's been a piss poor example to every believing Catholic and especially our youth. You guys know that in your heart that what I am saying is true. To me he is a rebel and a trouble maker and he hasn't done one thing to earn my respect. He's been a disaster and a disgrace and he doesn't send a Catholic message to the world.
He is a Satanist, just like all the Ecclesiastical Freemasons, inckuding Roncali, Woltija, and maybe Ratzinger, unless he had some epiphany which led to Summorum Pontificum.
@Moe Gibbs the gates of hades shall not prevail against it. Can i ask u what happened in history afther luther had problem with our pope if i were u i wouldnt try to make any decisions our doubts brother cause my opinuion or urs dos not count u should just go to mass except the body of christ hear the gospel go to confession and pray and let god do hes work in hes time for he said the gates of hades shall not prevail so why worry trust jesus
Do u trust jesus when he said the gates of hades shall not prevail against it if u dont text me back if u do then just say ur prayers confess ur sins eat hes flesh drink hes blood listen to gospel preached go to mass and let the god do the work so my friend since ur trying to show ur intelegence explain to me do u nottrust our lord and saviour when hesaid the gates of hades shall not preveail against hes church and since im not intelegent im going to allow my lird to keep hes word il trust hes word so il let him work away now my intelegent friend answer my question and ul be answering ur own at the one time do u belive that or lord jesus said the gates of hades shall not prevail against it and do u trust our lord. Since ur trying to be intellegent and undermind my intelgence lets just talk do u trust lord when he promised that the gates of hades shall not preveail or are u going against the seat god gave the authurty to just like luther did answer me then i wont have to ask u anything cause u just answered urselve amen brother
@Moe Gibbs no brother i am not being dishonest brother heres my answer i belive my lord i belive what my lord said and thats my answer to any question that anyone in our outside the church says about hes church so i let things play out tru god hes the only one who fixes. Things so can i ask u do u trust our lord and to trust my church and if god didint want him their he be well gone so whats ur answer bro to my question
Dogma. Stick to the Catechism of Trent, or Baltimore, and you will be assured of learning infallible teaching - dogma and established doctrine. The Church can not contradict infallible dogma, and she never has. Errors have only been introduced through fallible means by men, not Christ (i.e. outside of the ex cathedra requirements and within fallible documents - including the modern CCC). Satan is using canon law (which itself can be fallible) to confuse Catholics about what is true (dogma). But beneath the deception of men, Christ has never allowed these men to infallible (officially with divine authority), overturn any dogmatic declaration. Dogma is still true, even if a Pope, bishop or priest says the opposite.
@@luxsit1 The introduction of the Catechism of the Catholic Church has the following from John Paul II: "The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the kingdom!" This is cited from Fidei Depositum, which was an "apostolic constitution", which is THE MOST SOLEMN form of legislation promulgated by a Pope. Such past apostolic constitutions include Quo Primum by St. Pius V (promulgating the Tridentine Mass), Ineffabilis Deus by Pius IX (promulgating the dogma of the Immaculate Conception), and Munificentissimus Deus by Pius XII (promulgating the dogma of Mary's Assumption). To assert that the CCC is fallible, despite being universally promulgated by John Paul II by virtue of his "Apostolic Authority" as a "sure norm for teaching the faith", and a "statement of the Church's faith and of Catholic doctrine", is to imply either a lack of understanding in what a Catholic is bound to believe (I recommend the following for guidance on that, because it isn't just 'ex cathedra' definitions which are binding upon the faithful: novusordowatch.org/hughes-what-are-catholics-bound-to-believe/), or an implicit assertion that John Paul II's authority was lacking (i.e., he wasn't a true Pope).
@@pikespeakaudio8898 You have incorrectly read the statement. The CCC was promulgated by his authority, but the book itself and its contents as compiled, paraphrased and expanded from doctrine and dogma, are not infallible. This is a common misconception. A Catechism is a teaching document, not a magisterial or ex cathedra declaration itself. Dogma itself is infallible, but an exposition or explanation of dogma, and extended teaching are considered fallible - i.e. subject to incorrect explanation, delivery, or interpretation. Here is one example: the CCC states that Muslims "share in the plan of salvation". This can not be true in light of the infallibly declared dogma, Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, and the dogmas defining the nature of God as Trinitarian, and Christ is His Son (both of with Islam rejects). Jesus said that "no man comes to the Father by by me". To reject Christ, is to reject the one true God. Muslims can not be saved unless they become Catholic. There is no path of salvation through Islam. No new document can contradict the Council of Trent or Pope Eugene IV's ex cathedra pronouncement on this. Dogma can never change, but it can be misrepresented by fallible men - this is how Satan is luring even faithful Catholics away from the Church, whether it be to modernism/relativism, papolatry (the idea that the Pope can never speak or write in error), or sedevacantism (assuming the a true Pope can never state error, so if one does, he must not be Pope). None of these 3 is a correct belief. The idea that the Pope can never err is a misunderstanding of papal authority, ex cathedra, the magistierum and Christ promise to the Church. If there is an ambiguity or clear contradiction to dogma in any modern document (Vatican II document, CCC, etc), refer to the dogma and what was taught previously. The Church's 2000 years of infallible teaching (dogma) can not be contradicted, or she was never true to begin with.
@@luxsit1 "You have incorrectly read his statement." How, exactly? It was pretty clear on endorsing the orthodoxy of the CCC by virtue of John Paul II's putative apostolic authority. The translation of Fidei Depositum on the Vatican's own website isn't ambiguous about that in the least. "but the book itself and its contents...are not infallible" Infallibility has nothing to do with it. It was promulgated by a putative Pope to the Church entire as a sure norm and a faithful exposition of Catholic doctrine. To say otherwise means you place yourself on a higher authoritative position on its orthodoxy than John Paul II. However, as you yourself have noted, there are objective errors within it. Thus, you have two options: - The Church's own hierarchy - up to the highest degree - can promulgate a catechism (via an apostolic constitution, no less) that contains pernicious errors and heretical doctrine that contradicts prior doctrine. (It should go without saying that this has disastrous consequences for the indefectibiloty of the Church.) - In light of traditional Catholic theology on the Papacy and the universal ordinary Magisterium, there must have been a defect in the authority by which the CCC was promulgated. Pick one. :)
We are also experiencing Sedevacantism younger sister this days: Benevacantism - the error stating Francis is not the Pope and Benedict is. Both should be avoided.
Calling them heretics makes no sense, no one with a sound mind is going to go the way of Pope Michael and other sedevacantist abominations or the Old Catholic Church tendencies. They have no jurisdiction, so they effectively have no Church, this has nothing to do with the 3 Pope situation where each party had considerable political power and were not basement dwellers or phantoms. I've also heard that the Dimond Brothers were part of a religious order which has a history of disobedience even before all this talk about the council. So you're following them down into hell.
@@VirginMostPowerfull so using your flawed logic, St Athanasius would be schismatic breaking from the Arian bishops.Only a handful remained faithful to Christ and His Divine Nature! Is there no apostasy bergolio can commit to make you see straight!
No, they don't blow anything out of the water, they just blow. I love how even other sedevacantists distance themselves from that awful dishonest cult "vatican catholic". They are definite protestants and they ripped off their interpretation of the book of Revelation straight from the Lutheran profession of faith that the Pope is the antichrist lol
@@williamschultz104 The Dimwit brothers don't want you to know this cause it undermines their narrative but there is a Saint that submitted to the false authority of actual literal anti-popes the great Saint Vincent Ferrer (canonized in 1455) who submitted to and zealously supported the anti-pope Clement VII and though he became disillusioned with anti-pope Benedict XIII (not because he thought he was false but he didn't like how he was handling the Great Western Schism) he never rejected him and instead took the R&R position. He even disagreed with Saint Catherine of Siena (who submitted to the correct Pope) on which Pope was legitimate. So, hypothetically speaking even if there was an anti-pope today simply submitting to him still wouldn't be enough to cut you off from the Church lol
They have a head Christ is their head and their the best better than all the rest better than any other priest I have ever met doing the mass every day most sound teaching ever. Born in 1951 know the new mass is invalid and no priest or bishops left only in the latin mass. Your bearing false witness. You have no clue who you are mocking they dont do that. It about being in a state of grace, wearing your scapular and saying the rosary every day. Live in penance get saved. Or maybe you cant repent but my 2 priest I would never trade them for your modern priest that are really not priest under Paul 6 but just laymen. You dont even have real communion. You know not who you condem.
"So with that introduction" - are you kidding me? Does anyone think that was a fair even handed reasonable humble, charitable introduction that really made an honest sincere attempt to clearly articulate what sv's believe? people are seriously struggling with this so why not give a fair treatment. Offering an easy solution? Really? fr Cekada has gone through this book and rebutted every relevant point on youtube. why don't you bring him in instead of these guys who are trying to sell books and have a serious discussion?
Even the majority of sedevacantists don’t take the Diamonds seriously, They proof text Church documents worse then Protestants proof text the Bible , (Scanning for quotes to prove the conclusion they already have , and ignoring everything else that refutes their conclusion)
@@TheCleanTech Thats your problem and the rest of false traditionalist R n R. You do mot even refute the Dimond because if you see the video Great Proof text for sedevacantism you cannot and it will only expose the shoddy scholarship of a tax lawyer and a property consultant.
@@russelbangot8245 more declarations, not one argument yet . Lol. I respectfully suggest you read the book , and at least understand what the arguments actually are against sedevacantism , Then you could at least be taking seriously in a debate by offering what ever objections you may have to the actual arguments. BTW, I m not a “R&R “ pointing to any errors that may be held by “R&R” folks doesn’t discredit the arguments against sedevacantism . And whatever the profession Sisco and Salza make their living at isn’t an argument either , and at least neither of them pretend to be Benidictian monks . (Like the Diamonds). Who even most sedevacantists don’t take seriously
@@TheCleanTech you have so many words to say you did not even refute Fr. Cekada's "Dead on arrival & Dignified burial" of the shoddy scholarship of a tax lawyer and a property consultant true or false pope as well as the Dimond bro "Great Proof text" for the sake of charity can you do it please?????
@@russelbangot8245 I’m waiting for you to provide an argument, all you have done so far is make declarations. You really want me to refute two entire videos on a RUclips commentary? I could just say the same thing to you , “ refute the 700 page book true or false Pope”. Do it now ! Lol. Or we can try being human and have a conversation on a point of disagreement. , but you haven’t offered an argument yet , just calling names and declaring things like “stupid scholarship,, “tax lawyer “. etc .”
He used to be a Protestant, just another talking head. He is not a consecrated priest, not even a Novus Ordo priest. His spin in Church of England spam.
Dont read this book please. neither one of the authors are trained theologians and never have been. they tend to attack real theologians like Fr Kramer when their errors in this book are exposed. Just because it has certain truths in it, like vatican 2 has truths in it, does not mean you should use this to understand the Church's many challenges and issues now under bergoglio. Fr. Kramers work on the same topic is much more interesting and contains real charity. A waste of time is anytime one listens to armchair theologians who add to the current crisis rather than clarify it.
@@enslavedbytruth to be fair, salza exited masonry long ago. the issue is with serious nature of the church crisis, so men that did not take years to learn this stuff are not helping a bad situation.
@Bellucci Grace i see what you mean - they take a blood oath and can be killed for leaving the masons. i think the answer is we are to be grateful. salza has some VERY GOOD talks on fatima which are highly credible. so this book is bad, but he has some good work too and very good work at that. as far as masonic killings - examples - the banker hung off the bridge in london and jp1 killed in 33 days from being elected.
Many theologians more accomplished then Fr Kramer have endorsed the book. Read the book and examine the material. Do your due diligence , Any time you remove your self from legitimate Authority, you are responsible for your position, make sure your right.
One of my favorite priests on sensus fidelium. Good to finally see what he looks like.
Absolutely. I heard him speak & thought, "I know that voice!"
Yeah he's good
@@tgriff5747 Yes, one of the best preachers by far. Very well informed; solid and balanced.
@@bobsmith425 I like Father with the super thick Boston accent too. I don't hear him much any more but he's got some old ones
I love him too and am glad to see his face
When Francis allowed in the Pachamama idols, and participated in what appeared to be adoration of the idols, wasn't that an outward sign of heresy?
Yes!
Francis already was accused of heresy by some Bishops too.
Yes
A (mortal) sin against the First Commandment... it’s hard to reconcile such abhorrent evil being conducted by our Pope. 😞
In the Old Testament in Exodus 32 Aaron the high priest (a prefiguration of the Pope) created a Canaanite idol of a gold calf and said "These are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt." So he literally not only worshiped an idol but he's the one who made it and attributed God's actions to it. That seems pretty bad too. But then after in Numbers 16 Core tried to schism from Moses and Aaron (Jude 1:11 calls it the contradiction of Core. So it's relevant in the New Testament and referenced as an error the faithful should not fall into) but that angered God and as punishment for the schism God opened up the Earth and the schismatics of Core were swallowed up and fell into hell while they were still alive. Aaron didn't seem to lose his authority or position. Take that for what it is at face value...
As a revert I would just want to know if what I am following is under Christ. My Priest travels very far every week to bring the Latin Mass to fellow Catholics and to me, a sinner. We should spend more time praying for them instead of fighting about sects of the church that obviously exist.
Bellucci Grace thank you for your response. I agree on our responsibility to act when there is a wrong. My problem is with the nitpicking of the church. You have people attending V2 mass who are devoted. Priests who are devoted and faithful. These people believe what they have been taught. You have traditionalists who are the same. You have Sedes who believe that everything since V2 is wrong. When read between the three sides it’s usually very well researched and represented. Each one telling the other they are heretical. Here I am going to TLM believing there is a middle ground. That maybe we should concentrate more on our Lord, prayer, the sacraments, and living a Catholic life. For sure act when we need to but stop worrying about hand holding during the Our Father as long as the Priest gives a proper Mass. it just all seems a bit scrupulous. 🤷🏻♂️
Bellucci Grace that’s very sad to hear about the lack of sacraments. I’m working towards giving my first confession. I’m really starting to desire the Lord.
thank you, in ways i can't briefly write
for me, .... (only a social catholic, who, having read a little about what st. pius x says on modernism and relativism, becomes interested again in the church) this is absolutely fascinating and a delight to hear. that there is guidance from the tradition on even this ;) .... truly, holy mother church has amazing riches, as is fitting for His bride
p.s. and that good men earnestly and humbly enquire into this matter, minds illumined due to the purity of motive, is a wonderful thing; allelujah amen, and is a sign sufficient in itself to carry the fragrance of the mount of olives
"Do we not have Bishop against Bishop?"
A true catholic doesn’t create enemies amongst his brethren. To an extent of agreeing with what the pope has to say we do not all agree ,ok yes .But we do not seperate from the mother church . We fight for our church . Separation is a tactic of the devil . God bless yah Sensus fedelium. Tradition is blessed something we do miss in our modern church .
Moe Gibbs I can’t really be bothered debating yah . The truth is you take things out of context and are asking a lot of questions which will take time to answer . “One by one” .Now since separation isn’t from the devil in your eyes . Since there’s no pope in your eyes 👀. Since you separated from the Catholic Church . Let me tell yah something brother what about the eastern churches .Think about what your saying ! We eastern Catholics there’s a big lists Maronite Coptic Melkite Chaldean Catholic and so many more are not divided . Don’t come here with your conspiracy theories . You sound like a Protestant .im not here to debate yah like I said . But God is far smarter than you are Mr moey Gibbs. God doesn’t allow devision Evil men do 👀. You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church I give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven . For watever is loosened on earth I will loosen in heaven . For the gates of hades will not prevail against it .
Moe Gibbs “For the gates of hades will not prevail against it “👂
Most of the people on here aren't listening to you, but hopefully some will...
@Moe Gibbs pretty clear you are your own Pope....
These guests are great! They know much about ecclesiology. They should come on again and give a Catholic defense against orthodoxy, which is making ground in the west by taking confused Catholic
The Church and his Passion has come!
Read also "Sedevacantism Delusion" by John C. Pontrello. It clearly demonstrates how sedevacatism contradits Vatican I and indefectiblily of the Church in many ways. Or just find Jay Dyer's talk about sedevacantism.
What sounds like extreme leniency, but is intended as grace, has allowed heresy into the Church. Leaders should be faithful to the dogmas and be role models. If they slip, they need to be defrocked, but not excommunicated. That would keep the Church pure as in Saint Peter's day.
How far are we supposed to go in obedience to the Pope, break the 1st commandment, second, fifth, sixth,,,? What if after doing my own searching into original documents etc am convinced that the Novus Ordo is offensive to God?
Then you are correct and should hold and practice the traditional Catholic Faith unto death. This is an irregular situation which precipitates either a major chastisement or the end of the world.
@@thedudeabides3930 well said.
"Wherefore, let the faithful also be on their guard against the overrated independence of private judgment and that false autonomy of human reason. For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord." - Casti Connubii
@@flabiger this is quite an old post, after much study, I conform completely to the ancient Papal Bull Unam Sanctam.
@@flabiger I would point out though, that studying the doctrine of the Catholic Church which has been interpreted for us can hardly be construed as making judgments in matters of faith. Nor can any Pope over rule any previously doctrine already set in stone.
Our Blessed Mother is correct, many priests bishops cardinals and the hierarchy of the church will lead many souls in to perdition. I believe the blessed mother not an apostate pope.
"True & False Pope" by Salza and Sisco was demolished by Fr. Anthony Cekada in his "Dead on arrival and dignified burial" he call the scholarship out of "STUPIDITY"
65 + years without a head , sedevacantism is never ending
I am sorry but I will have to say this with utmost respect to these men discussing here. Sugercoating of reality as it is, has never been part of the catholic tradition! The church fathers and saints used to immediately oust heretics or even heretical councils! This is pure sugercoating and circumventing what is going on! When you people say heretic has to publicly manifest themselves, hasn't JPII, BVI and currently Bergoglio done? Kissing qurans, telling us to have interfaith prayers which Bergoglio still ask us to, asking God to intervene with Covid! I mean are you serious? It's one thing to err one or two times but it's another to purposely teach and ask the faithful to do! This is what the impostor popes do! So, would God give you such men so that you go straight to damnation?? R&R does not make sense!
Well said!!! This is not a serious or even valid explanation or exposition of Sedevacantism, but rather just a mere attack from an ignorant viewpoint, and I say this with all due respect. Not that these men are ignorant, because they are obviously very learned, but rather just ignorant of why Sedevacantists do not accept the validity of the changes introduced by the V2 church. In order to shed true light on Secantism, it would only be proper to interview well known Sedevacantists like Donald Sanborn, Clarence Kelly, Anthony Cekada etc, or to just watch the old 1990's TV programme "What Catholics Believe" with Julius Smetona, and let the viewers compare these viewpoints with the "who am I to judge", communion in the hand and without confession, Pachamama circus on offer at present, and then decide which is the real, legitimate and authentic Catholic Church. I realise that a one and a half hour interview with well known Sedevacantist authorities is probably, not only an uncomfortable challenge, but also a risky one at that, as any of these men would be able to clearly and convincingly explain the Sedevacantist position and refute these guests with facts on theology, Magisterium, doctrine and every other aspect of the Catholic faith and remove all doubt that what has progressively evolved out of V2 is a new religion that wants to keep the title "catholic" because of the universality it implies.
👌👌👌
Honest question I used to go to a protestant church, genuinely felt a calling for the catholic church b/c of the eucharist there. But recently I've heard of forgeries justifying increased papal power over time. And apparently even recent Pope Benedict mentioned that the orthodox are correct in the mater of papal power. Should I go orthodox, I'm new to being genuinely Christian so I dont have many roots. I believe in the catholic miracles but should I be baptized in a orthodox church. B/c the lack of error.
@@Hevander75 Dear, I greet you in the name of our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ. I want to assure you that the Roman Catholic Faith in its traditional sense is the only true faith of God here on earth. All the teachings of RCC have been divinely revealed and contain no errors. The RCC differ from the orthodox in number of ways e.g. the orthodox do not believe that the Holy Ghost comes from the father and from the son as The RCC declares in the filioque clause of the creed. However the gospel of st. John easily disputed the orthodox and gives evidence of the filioque. However, our church has the problem of the ministers. The ministry itself is perfect in all its sense. The ministers who are supposed to continue the traditions and expounding on the true faith, to a large extent have departed from it. That has left the sheep in disarray. I may not have the answers for now but stay in the ark, buy traditional catholic books (there are many) and familiarize yourself with the true teachings, find appropriate RCC with Tridentine Latin mass and be a member. Have no communion with members of the clergy who preach and teach reverse gospels. Pray your rosary and do penance as often as you can. You will be fine. May our Almighty God give you peace.
@@mende72 you will not see perfection in the church or from the seat of peter this side of heaven. So yes, you will see mistakes and failings in both, sad as that is to us in the church.
But you trust to little in the providence of Christ and to little in the promise he made to the church that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church. What you are arguing for is protestant heresy, and damning to souls.
Vatican II is the latest revolution: “New liturgy!” “New understanding of the Church!” “New Canon Law!” “New Morals!” “New Sacraments!” “New Presiders!” “New Idols!” “New understanding of evolution!” ETC….
Our Lady of La Salette, Sept 19, 1846. “Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the antichrist. The Church will be in eclipse”.
This was prior to Vatican II and Vatican I as well. What if Rome lost the faith during Vatican I?
I lave the Saturno in the background
They follow all the teachings of the church
The book is real good. Helped me get out of sedevacantism
@Moe Gibbs the simple reason is the Church must always have legitimate Bishops with ordinary Jurisdiction. I learned that almost 20 years ago from John Lane. But didn't understand what the really meant. Much of The book is really just an exughsted Caticism on what makes the Church Catholic . Second point , I found that a Catholic is perfectly free to believe and practice the faith IN THE CHURCH the same as Catholics did before the councle.
@Moe Gibbs legitimate Bishops with ordinary Jurisdiction fall under the mark of Apostolic. Its a perminant quality of the Church. The teaching of the Church on this is Clear
The answer to this objection that John Lane gave years ago , was he insisted that at least one Pius 12 bishop who retained the faith after V2. Must still be alive somewhere
And 20 years ago that was the common answer given by sedevacantists .
But now 20 years later it is becoming impossible to still insist on this...
The mark of Apostolic, has a deep theology behind it , it's a certitude of faith. I respectfully suggest you study it a little deeper, understand it before you dismiss the objection.
Every Caticism teaches this at least briefly , if you have a more in depth Caticism like the " Catisism explained " you will find a more complete teaching on the mark of Apostisity. And the distinction between a legitimate bishop , (formal apostolic succession) and non legitimate bishop (material apostolic succession)
My family and I attended Mater Dei FSSP pariah in Irving, TX for a handful of years. We kept asking our “priest” questions about Vatican 2 and ecclesiology. The only response we would get from them is read: “true or false pope”. So I did. The book only proves the SV position in my mind. It is one of the reasons why we left the novus ordo and now only attend Sede mission chapels. Thanks Robert and John!!! Lol
@@JeremyConstantino what are the 4 Marks of The Church? Could you please define Apostolicity?
@@JeremyConstantino I don’t mean to disrespect you, but I find it hard to believe you read the book (based on your comment). So can you point to something in the book that lead you to your conclusion? Thanks
One undeniable error repeatedly stated in this video is that those who are baptised as infants in a heretical sect are not Catholic until professing the Catholic Faith at a later date. This is precisely the opposite of what the Church teaches: that those baptized as infants in a heretical sect are members of the Catholic Church until and unless they formally reject the Church by adhering to the heretical sect after reaching the age of reason. This truth is intimately connected to the Baptismal character itself and the validity of child Baptism - both dogmas of the Church. The truth itself has been taught in Catechisms throughout the world, rendering it a teaching of the universal ordinary magisterium concerning faith and morals: a DOGMA. Therefore the aforementioned error is in fact a heresy.
This is why converts from heretical sects need not make an abjuration of errors unless they are 14 years or older.
@@Tjkillingsworth " that those baptized as infants in a heretical sect are members of the Catholic Church until and unless they formally reject the Church by adhering to the heretical sect after reaching the age of reason."
Then explain why someone who was baptized outside the Church as an infant, and never rejected the Catholic Church or adhered to a heretical sect, is unable to receive communion in the Catholic Church as an adult without being formally received into the Church.
@@richardross8680 @Richard Ross de interinis non judicat ecclesia - the Church does not judge in the internal forum. That is to say, if said person does not visibly enter the Catholic Church upon reaching the age of reason, the Church regards him as a heretic. It is not that such a one remains Catholic until publicly and formally rejecting the Church, but rather that upon reaching the age of reason, and thus being capable of formal heresy, the heresy is manifest in the external forum by their non-entry to the Church. So for instance, if a young child is baptised validly in a heretical sect, and their parents convert before the child reaches the age of reason, an abjuration of heresy will never be required of the child, as a child is not capable of formal heresy. It will however be required of the adult, who was baptized in, and manifestly adhered to a heretical sect.
The example you posit is impossible. Such a man was already formally received into the Church upon his baptism. Having reached the age of reason, he becomes a non-Catholic by failing to adhere to the Church in the external forum. Someone who approaches Holy Communion as an adult, and was baptised in a heretical sect, has manifestly rejected the Church in the time between attaining use of reason and his present adulthood.
This is why any such person remains fully subject to the Church and Her laws, while retaining none of the rights of a Christian. This is taught in any dogmatic theology text. See Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, or Tanqueray's Dogmatic Theology for instance.
I did make a mistake in the quote you posted though: I should have stated "...until and unless the MANIFESTLY reject the Church..."
What books do they mention here?
It's the crisis of the changing of the traditional magisterium not the SV assembly that is distorting the traditional Roman Catholic Faith. Why are you blaming those who wish to preserve the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church instead of the false Catholic Church that is in charge
of Rome today. SVs hold fast to the true Catholic Faith and ALL the Church Councils and teachings of over 200 Popes, just not the last few Popes.
The gates of Hell WILL NOT prevail. However, the current Pontiff is completely embracing real extreme false doctrine and is prevailing in Rome today. SVs pray for true unity around the true doctrine of Christ.
Pray the true teachings of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
prevail.
🙏✝️🙏
Would Pope Pius the 12th or any other pope prior to him endorse putting Buddha on a Catholic church altar and worshiping him. What about Pacha Mama‘s. Kissing the Koran. Wake up!!! They are not teaching Catholicism!!!
So true, and worse than that...I love God and His Holy Catholic Church. That's why I know what these creeps really are.
St. Matthew 16:18 DRC: And I (Jesus) say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Great video guys.
I had a conversation with a couple of SSPX priests recently before my catechism class. We talked about this exact topic. Our reasoning went a little something like this: Just because you have a bad president or king doesn't meant that a state or province will leave its nation. Just because we have a bad pope doesn't mean we abandon God's Holy Church. That would be the highest idiocy. In fact to paraphrase a bit from the book that you guys are talking about: the The Church can separate itself from a heretical pope. Basically fire him and replace him.
The remake of the "bad dad" argument. The pope can cease to be the pope, your Father can never resign being your father even if he wants to like the pope does.
No, it cannot. Wherever Peter is, there is the Church.
The idea that a pope can teach heresy and can be resisted is absolutely non-Catholic. He either is the pope, then you owe him respect and submission; or he is not pope. A heretic cannot be pope, for he is outside the Church. It is absurd to imagine that someone who is not in the Church can command in the Church.
@@princessaiko Yes!
@@princessaiko Precisely.
So what then do you make of the Vatican II doctrines promulgated by everyone from Paul VI on?
If they are true Popes, then their universal laws - be it in the form of approved catechisms, approved rites like the Novus Ordo, and all of the doctrines influenced by Vatican II - are binding, and are guaranteed by the Church's divine authority granted to her by Christ to be safe for the faithful to follow.
If they are **not**, then that implies a defect in the authority which promulgated them.
One cannot jettison Vatican II and its doctrines without jettisoning the pontiffs who promulgated them.
www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/V2Obligatory.pdf
And whether the pope is „bad“ (a public sinner or falling short in virtues) is not the question. Of course, a pope could be all this.
But a pope cannot be a heretic, because a heretic ceases to be a member of the Church.
Thus, a valid pope, even if „bad,“ cannot be resisted. That‘s the problem with R&R. They consider a total heretic like Francis the pope, but then they resist and correct and insult him in every other statement, thereby undermining the whole concept of the papacy as instituted by Christ.
If Francis is a heretic, then he cannot be a valid pope. That‘s the traditional Catholic dogma.
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the faithful elect their own bishops prior to the Middle Ages? I mean, we know that most bishops prior to, at least, 1054 were elected by either the faithful or the clergy of the diocese, not selected by the Pope. Thus, "jurisdiction" is not an essential element of the visibility of the Church. A validly ordained bishop, like, say Bishop Fellay, or Bishop Kelley are still bishops. From a historical standpoint, then, the papal decree assigning jurisdiction is relatively new.
That's not what I am arguing. His Excellency Fellay was NOT chosen by the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, he was elected and consecrated by members of the venerable Society of St. Pius X...and has no geographical jurisdiction, which is what is being argued as essential here. Visibility is different than what is being argued here.
Well, you just denied teachings of Pius VI, Pius IX, Leo XIII and Pius XII
@@kamilmurawski1136 Explain, please. Pius XII says that jurisdiction is what provides a bishop the ability to govern a diocese, and provides him with authority to teach and decide on canonical issues. The same document distinguishes that from the authority that is intrinsic to the order of bishop: confirmations and ordinations. Everything else requires jurisdiction.
So what did Leo XIII specifically say that contradicts what I said?
Just to clarify what i meant in the live chat about working wasn't some ludicrous or weird thing about a desperate search. I meant working on building friendships and connections as recommended by the BIBLE and tradition. Not some wacko creeper search for just one type of person. I have no idea why modern men weren't able to determine that. That entire conversation was a travesty. But for those of you who were there or will see that later: The parish will only grow through prayer and work. You wont gain connections or friendships unless you pray...and work for them. I was speaking on the relationships of people on the whole, not between man and woman specifically.
Boil it down: Prayer and Cooperation,
I'm going to take this moment to apologize to Sensus Fidelium I do however stand by what I said. If I am theologically mistaken or am misinterpreting the aforementioned sources I am open to serious discussion for edification.
As i was preparing a snack i was inspired by something rather simple to illustrate this point.
Christ our Lord died on the cross for the salvation of mankind. He died for you. All you need to do is accept this and declare him your Lord and Savior. The kicker here is: YOU must make the conscience effort to choose. He will not force you but you must not resist. You must make the effort choose Him or Hell, life or death.
Luke 14:26-33
If any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother and wife and children and brethren and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever doth not carry his cross and come after me cannot be my disciple. For which of you, having a mind to build a tower, doth not first sit down and reckon the charges that are necessary, whether he have wherewithal to finish it: Lest, after he hath laid the foundation and is not able to finish it, all that see it begin to mock him, Saying: This man began to build and was not able to finish. Or, what king, about to go to make war against another king, doth not first sit down and think whether he be able, with ten thousand, to meet him that, with twenty thousand, cometh against him? Or else, while the other is yet afar off, sending an embassy, he desireth conditions of peace. So likewise every one of you that doth not renounce all that he possesseth cannot be my disciple.
Where is liberalism in vatican 1 & 2? Or is it still completely free of liberal infiltration. The line must be drawn, where is it?
consider an irregular selection of a pope, or forced hiatus of an election, to await in hope for a valid election; would that comprise sedevacanteism, Basically is time of papal absence the automatic dissipation of the hierarchical church
kita tunduk kepada tahta petrus tapi tidak kepada pemurtad.
No subtitles? :(
They are gnostic as well.
Moe Gibbs Sedevacantists.
Moe Gibbs, know it alls.
Moe Gibbs yes that’s not what gnostic means, and then it does, perhaps I should have said they have the “spirit of gnostic.” An influence from the evil one who shares untruths about the Truth. I will go along with what the Lord Jesus Christ said to the Church, Matt 28:20”teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” And to Saint Peter in Matt 16:18-19” And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Get off the barque, then cut yourself off. I am sorry about all of the sedevacantists, who do not love the Pope, that is the major problem, throwing poisonous darts at His See, doing just the opposite of what Jesus commanded His children. They should be united and praying for the Holy Father. No wonder they have strayed from the Way, and no wonder they feel abandoned, it’s pride.
Moe Gibbs yes there is a Holy Father. It seems you are getting angry, and you will not win anything by being angry except a big temptation to fall in the 5th commandment. I am really sorry, because I had no idea until now that I was responding to a sedevacantist. It is a special kind of heresy you are spouting. Do you not believe what Jesus said about the Church, are you following your own will? I think calling me a witch is rude and unwarranted. You don’t personally know me, so how can you accuse me of being a wicked wicked woman? Obedience to the Holy Mother Church and Magisterium, love for the Holy Father, and obey the Commandments, and don’t jump ship. I pray God gives you some light and perhaps a mirror so you can see yourself and the hate that you are spreading. Peace of Christ.
Moe Gibbs yes Saint Michael pray for us, and Saint Michael pray for the Holy Father Francis and the Holy Roman Catholic Church against all heresy, especially protect the Church from the sedevacantist heresy, amen. Mary, Mother of the Church secure the graces needed for the Holy Church from the onslaught of the malignant enemy. Jesus, please help moe.
I wonder if he is in a religous order or in a Diocese
@Moe Gibbs No, he's never been FSSP.
Father Wolf is aFSSP Priest full Communion with Rome
I think Bishop Pivarunas adequately answers the objections to sedevacantism. The "Recognize and Resist" (a.k.a. "R&R") is really untenable for a Catholic.
How he answer to objection that according to sedevacatists to there is no hierarchy left anywhere and entiren hierarchy Has been destroyed while Catholic Dogma is that Church absolutely cannot lose hierarchy?
♥️🙏❤️ great chanel
I think you guys are splitting hairs. There are very few reasonable thinking people that could say francis isn't a heretic. If he isn't a legal heretic he's been a piss poor example to every believing Catholic and especially our youth. You guys know that in your heart that what I am saying is true. To me he is a rebel and a trouble maker and he hasn't done one thing to earn my respect. He's been a disaster and a disgrace and he doesn't send a Catholic message to the world.
He is a Satanist, just like all the Ecclesiastical Freemasons, inckuding Roncali, Woltija, and maybe Ratzinger, unless he had some epiphany which led to Summorum Pontificum.
Dosint the cathcism say if u doubt ur pope ur not worthy to recieve the communion
Who doubtful of the pope god or u
@Moe Gibbs the gates of hades shall not prevail against it. Can i ask u what happened in history afther luther had problem with our pope if i were u i wouldnt try to make any decisions our doubts brother cause my opinuion or urs dos not count u should just go to mass except the body of christ hear the gospel go to confession and pray and let god do hes work in hes time for he said the gates of hades shall not prevail so why worry trust jesus
Do u trust jesus when he said the gates of hades shall not prevail against it if u dont text me back if u do then just say ur prayers confess ur sins eat hes flesh drink hes blood listen to gospel preached go to mass and let the god do the work so my friend since ur trying to show ur intelegence explain to me do u nottrust our lord and saviour when hesaid the gates of hades shall not preveail against hes church and since im not intelegent im going to allow my lird to keep hes word il trust hes word so il let him work away now my intelegent friend answer my question and ul be answering ur own at the one time do u belive that or lord jesus said the gates of hades shall not prevail against it and do u trust our lord. Since ur trying to be intellegent and undermind my intelgence lets just talk do u trust lord when he promised that the gates of hades shall not preveail or are u going against the seat god gave the authurty to just like luther did answer me then i wont have to ask u anything cause u just answered urselve amen brother
@Moe Gibbs ok go on but u most still answer my question afther it
@Moe Gibbs no brother i am not being dishonest brother heres my answer i belive my lord i belive what my lord said and thats my answer to any question that anyone in our outside the church says about hes church so i let things play out tru god hes the only one who fixes. Things so can i ask u do u trust our lord and to trust my church and if god didint want him their he be well gone so whats ur answer bro to my question
Alguém poderia fazer uma legenda em português??
So how the church makes sure we are not teach heresy by any priest, Bishop or Pope?
Dogma. Stick to the Catechism of Trent, or Baltimore, and you will be assured of learning infallible teaching - dogma and established doctrine. The Church can not contradict infallible dogma, and she never has. Errors have only been introduced through fallible means by men, not Christ (i.e. outside of the ex cathedra requirements and within fallible documents - including the modern CCC). Satan is using canon law (which itself can be fallible) to confuse Catholics about what is true (dogma). But beneath the deception of men, Christ has never allowed these men to infallible (officially with divine authority), overturn any dogmatic declaration. Dogma is still true, even if a Pope, bishop or priest says the opposite.
Deposit of the Faith
@@luxsit1 The introduction of the Catechism of the Catholic Church has the following from John Paul II:
"The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the kingdom!"
This is cited from Fidei Depositum, which was an "apostolic constitution", which is THE MOST SOLEMN form of legislation promulgated by a Pope. Such past apostolic constitutions include Quo Primum by St. Pius V (promulgating the Tridentine Mass), Ineffabilis Deus by Pius IX (promulgating the dogma of the Immaculate Conception), and Munificentissimus Deus by Pius XII (promulgating the dogma of Mary's Assumption).
To assert that the CCC is fallible, despite being universally promulgated by John Paul II by virtue of his "Apostolic Authority" as a "sure norm for teaching the faith", and a "statement of the Church's faith and of Catholic doctrine", is to imply either a lack of understanding in what a Catholic is bound to believe (I recommend the following for guidance on that, because it isn't just 'ex cathedra' definitions which are binding upon the faithful: novusordowatch.org/hughes-what-are-catholics-bound-to-believe/), or an implicit assertion that John Paul II's authority was lacking (i.e., he wasn't a true Pope).
@@pikespeakaudio8898 You have incorrectly read the statement. The CCC was promulgated by his authority, but the book itself and its contents as compiled, paraphrased and expanded from doctrine and dogma, are not infallible. This is a common misconception. A Catechism is a teaching document, not a magisterial or ex cathedra declaration itself. Dogma itself is infallible, but an exposition or explanation of dogma, and extended teaching are considered fallible - i.e. subject to incorrect explanation, delivery, or interpretation. Here is one example: the CCC states that Muslims "share in the plan of salvation". This can not be true in light of the infallibly declared dogma, Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, and the dogmas defining the nature of God as Trinitarian, and Christ is His Son (both of with Islam rejects). Jesus said that "no man comes to the Father by by me". To reject Christ, is to reject the one true God. Muslims can not be saved unless they become Catholic. There is no path of salvation through Islam. No new document can contradict the Council of Trent or Pope Eugene IV's ex cathedra pronouncement on this. Dogma can never change, but it can be misrepresented by fallible men - this is how Satan is luring even faithful Catholics away from the Church, whether it be to modernism/relativism, papolatry (the idea that the Pope can never speak or write in error), or sedevacantism (assuming the a true Pope can never state error, so if one does, he must not be Pope). None of these 3 is a correct belief. The idea that the Pope can never err is a misunderstanding of papal authority, ex cathedra, the magistierum and Christ promise to the Church. If there is an ambiguity or clear contradiction to dogma in any modern document (Vatican II document, CCC, etc), refer to the dogma and what was taught previously. The Church's 2000 years of infallible teaching (dogma) can not be contradicted, or she was never true to begin with.
@@luxsit1 "You have incorrectly read his statement." How, exactly? It was pretty clear on endorsing the orthodoxy of the CCC by virtue of John Paul II's putative apostolic authority. The translation of Fidei Depositum on the Vatican's own website isn't ambiguous about that in the least.
"but the book itself and its contents...are not infallible" Infallibility has nothing to do with it. It was promulgated by a putative Pope to the Church entire as a sure norm and a faithful exposition of Catholic doctrine. To say otherwise means you place yourself on a higher authoritative position on its orthodoxy than John Paul II.
However, as you yourself have noted, there are objective errors within it. Thus, you have two options:
- The Church's own hierarchy - up to the highest degree - can promulgate a catechism (via an apostolic constitution, no less) that contains pernicious errors and heretical doctrine that contradicts prior doctrine. (It should go without saying that this has disastrous consequences for the indefectibiloty of the Church.)
- In light of traditional Catholic theology on the Papacy and the universal ordinary Magisterium, there must have been a defect in the authority by which the CCC was promulgated.
Pick one. :)
You are sedevac.???
It is Catholicism that teaches that a heretic cannot be pope, not "sedevacantism" which is a made up for some true Catholics.
Uhhh
We are also experiencing Sedevacantism younger sister this days: Benevacantism - the error stating Francis is not the Pope and Benedict is. Both should be avoided.
No, the latter should be avoided.
In summary: Pope Francis is truely The Pope.
A heretic cannot be Pope. Pope Paul IV declared it in Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio
And an awful one
Brother Peter Diamond at Vatican Catholic.com blows these heretics out of the water!
Calling them heretics makes no sense, no one with a sound mind is going to go the way of Pope Michael and other sedevacantist abominations or the Old Catholic Church tendencies.
They have no jurisdiction, so they effectively have no Church, this has nothing to do with the 3 Pope situation where each party had considerable political power and were not basement dwellers or phantoms.
I've also heard that the Dimond Brothers were part of a religious order which has a history of disobedience even before all this talk about the council. So you're following them down into hell.
@@VirginMostPowerfull so using your flawed logic, St Athanasius would be schismatic breaking from the Arian bishops.Only a handful remained faithful to Christ and His Divine Nature!
Is there no apostasy bergolio can commit to make you see straight!
No, they don't blow anything out of the water, they just blow. I love how even other sedevacantists distance themselves from that awful dishonest cult "vatican catholic". They are definite protestants and they ripped off their interpretation of the book of Revelation straight from the Lutheran profession of faith that the Pope is the antichrist lol
@@williamschultz104 The Dimwit brothers don't want you to know this cause it undermines their narrative but there is a Saint that submitted to the false authority of actual literal anti-popes the great Saint Vincent Ferrer (canonized in 1455) who submitted to and zealously supported the anti-pope Clement VII and though he became disillusioned with anti-pope Benedict XIII (not because he thought he was false but he didn't like how he was handling the Great Western Schism) he never rejected him and instead took the R&R position. He even disagreed with Saint Catherine of Siena (who submitted to the correct Pope) on which Pope was legitimate. So, hypothetically speaking even if there was an anti-pope today simply submitting to him still wouldn't be enough to cut you off from the Church lol
@Moe Gibbs How about this. You don't get to tell me what to do and instead you denounce the dimwit bros and become an actual Catholic.
They have a head Christ is their head and their the best better than all the rest better than any other priest I have ever met doing the mass every day most sound teaching ever. Born in 1951 know the new mass is invalid and no priest or bishops left only in the latin mass. Your bearing false witness. You have no clue who you are mocking they dont do that. It about being in a state of grace, wearing your scapular and saying the rosary every day. Live in penance get saved. Or maybe you cant repent but my 2 priest I would never trade them for your modern priest that are really not priest under Paul 6 but just laymen. You dont even have real communion. You know not who you condem.
You're just admitting you're sectarians, not a good look.
Why don't you join Pope Michael in his basement.
Lets pray for the 16 dunmies that put thumbs down
@Moe Gibbs Yes.
.....
"So with that introduction" - are you kidding me? Does anyone think that was a fair even handed reasonable humble, charitable introduction that really made an honest sincere attempt to clearly articulate what sv's believe? people are seriously struggling with this so why not give a fair treatment. Offering an easy solution? Really? fr Cekada has gone through this book and rebutted every relevant point on youtube. why don't you bring him in instead of these guys who are trying to sell books and have a serious discussion?
This video is utterly destroyed by "Great Proof text of Sedevacantism" by Dimond bro.
Even the majority of sedevacantists don’t take the Diamonds seriously, They proof text Church documents worse then Protestants proof text the Bible , (Scanning for quotes to prove the conclusion they already have , and ignoring everything else that refutes their conclusion)
@@TheCleanTech Thats your problem and the rest of false traditionalist R n R. You do mot even refute the Dimond because if you see the video Great Proof text for sedevacantism you cannot and it will only expose the shoddy scholarship of a tax lawyer and a property consultant.
@@russelbangot8245 more declarations, not one argument yet . Lol. I respectfully suggest you read the book , and at least understand what the arguments actually are against sedevacantism , Then you could at least be taking seriously in a debate by offering what ever objections you may have to the actual arguments.
BTW, I m not a “R&R “ pointing to any errors that may be held by “R&R” folks doesn’t discredit the arguments against sedevacantism . And whatever the profession Sisco and Salza make their living at isn’t an argument either , and at least neither of them pretend to be Benidictian monks . (Like the Diamonds). Who even most sedevacantists don’t take seriously
@@TheCleanTech you have so many words to say you did not even refute Fr. Cekada's "Dead on
arrival & Dignified burial" of the shoddy scholarship of a tax lawyer and a property consultant true or false pope as well as the Dimond bro "Great Proof text" for the sake of charity can you do it please?????
@@russelbangot8245 I’m waiting for you to provide an argument, all you have done so far is make declarations. You really want me to refute two entire videos on a RUclips commentary? I could just say the same thing to you , “ refute the 700 page book true or false Pope”. Do it now ! Lol. Or we can try being human and have a conversation on a point of disagreement. , but you haven’t offered an argument yet , just calling names and declaring things like “stupid scholarship,, “tax lawyer “. etc .”
He used to be a Protestant, just another talking head. He is not a consecrated priest, not even a Novus Ordo priest. His spin in Church of England spam.
Father Wolf is a FSSP Priest
Dont read this book please. neither one of the authors are trained theologians and never have been. they tend to attack real theologians like Fr Kramer when their errors in this book are exposed. Just because it has certain truths in it, like vatican 2 has truths in it, does not mean you should use this to understand the Church's many challenges and issues now under bergoglio. Fr. Kramers work on the same topic is much more interesting and contains real charity. A waste of time is anytime one listens to armchair theologians who add to the current crisis rather than clarify it.
They are Freemason Lawyers
@@enslavedbytruth to be fair, salza exited masonry long ago. the issue is with serious nature of the church crisis, so men that did not take years to learn this stuff are not helping a bad situation.
@Bellucci Grace i see what you mean - they take a blood oath and can be killed for leaving the masons. i think the answer is we are to be grateful. salza has some VERY GOOD talks on fatima which are highly credible. so this book is bad, but he has some good work too and very good work at that. as far as masonic killings - examples - the banker hung off the bridge in london and jp1 killed in 33 days from being elected.
Many theologians more accomplished then Fr Kramer have endorsed the book. Read the book and examine the material. Do your due diligence ,
Any time you remove your self from legitimate Authority, you are responsible for your position, make sure your right.