I grew up with the Latin Tridentine Mass so I thought something was very wrong when my local church changed to the Novus Ordo and we stopped going to the mass. Later on I found out about Archbishop Marcel LeFebvre and we drove an hour to again go to the Latin Mass.
I guess you're mentioning SSPX 62 Missal that they use the word "tridentine" which was foreign before because The Pre-55 was always called THE TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC LATIN MASS OF THE ROMAN RITE. In 62, or 65 there were changes such as on January 1 is no longer the Feast of the CIRCUMCISION OF OUR LORD. They omitted this but retained the Octave of the Mass (St. Dominic Chapel, Sta. Ana, CA. Priest: Father Cedrik Starbuck pls. try to listen to his sermon - SUNDAY WITHIN THE OCTAVE OF CHRISTMAS).
My mother left the Church shortly after the changes of V2. In 1970 at age 7 I went to an Anglican/Episcopalian church that was about a block away from our apartment. It looked just like the traditional Catholic mass with the alter rail, the dean facing the alter, people knelt to receive communion, and so forth. I went to this church off and on until maybe age 9 or 10. At age 17 I asked my mother what denomination I was supposed to be, to which she surprisingly said, "Roman Catholic, of course!". Shortly after that, I went to what I thought was the Catholic Church but automatically knew there was something totally wrong with it. At age 19 I was on a city bus when the bus driver asked me what religion I was. I told him I was Roman Catholic, but I didn't like how the mass was, so I quit going. He asked me if I've heard of Mount St. Michael's, which at that time in 1980 I didn't. He got me going up the Mount. What a blessing to get on a city bus where the driver was a traditional Roman Catholic and cared enough to tell me about the traditional Catholic religion. God bless the priests at Mount St. Michael's for explaining the errs of Vatican II and their 'popes' to me.
Vatican ll fixed everything that was not broken. There was no need for the changes that came about. St. John Paul ll condemned, "Change for the mere sake of change." He called for the "Reform of the reforms" He started the restoration by bringing back the Tridentine Mass.@@kyleellis8665
i converted to catholicism only to be disappointed by the activist priests, preaching leftist ideology, and horrible music and liturgy. when i first attended a latin mass - i was blown away by the beauty. I spent 6 months learning some basic Latin. I pray the Divine Office in Latin, daily. I am never looking back.
@@Loudes012everyone makes mistakes. I feel sory for any priest, bishop, archbishop, or cardinal who lived through the v2 sessions. So few stood up against it or it's obvious fruits & the new order. They were all given tough, bad, choices. If you're given bad choices, you're going to make a bad choice. I've seen bad things and doubts about AB Thuc refuted clearly by others. But, regardless, he is not responsible for other's actions.
Sinc Francis announcement about the LGTBQ stance has experienced a $20 million dollar decrease in donations' in just two weeks. That may be the single factor to reconsider this position. BUT right now they are doing anything to avoid that topic.
Novus ordo really angered when attended one about 2 weeks ago after very long period of resting: 1) The kids singing were doing hand gestures to "participate" in the music 2) No pipe organ, just pop-era piano like it's exciting. What about immersing us in true Catholic music? 3) Priest constantly facing us, very distracting from Jesus 4) Everyone lining up to receive Eucharist on hand, like Jesus is just another Pringle. I was the only one who kneeled. 5) Bare bones, almost no beautiful decoration to lift our attention to Jesus. After watching a Latin Mass, and learning more about the novus ordo trash--the modernists at Vat II used Martin Luther's advice (to separate people from God, get them treating Him as another handout)--yeah, can't waste time there anymore. Novus ordo isn't a valid mass. Thanks Montini, Wojcytla, Bergoglio, and all their ilk for pushing this insult on us.
Recently discovered website Sodalitium Pianum /Solidity of Saint Pius X especially an article in Defense of Umberto Benigni who was a Lion of Tradition against Liberal/Modernists precursors of Novus Ordo/Vatican II of his own day 1862/1934 So it came as shocking surprise that not one SSPX article on him exists that I have yet to find let alone a Biography
i have only seen/followed non-Sedevacantist position channels. i'm "protestant", though loathe the label obviously, and have found the teachings pre-VII to be irreconcilable with VII. do you have anything you'd point to highlighting the distinctions? i'd like to learn more about this starting more popularly, preferably, and then working more complex as the arguments seem valid. the current Papal issues seem to only further highlight how this position makes sense so i'm very curious. God bless either way! I for sure hope "The Church" is more inclusive than pre-VII states, but i at least appreciate the consistency of the position in denying it is so.
Read Wemhoff's book: "John Courtney Murray, Time/Life and the American Proposition: How the CIA's Doctrinal Warfare Program Changed the Catholic Church"
I do agree, the Roman "Catholic" Church is just another protestant Church since long time ago, that´s why i became Orthodox ☦ even tho i live in the Amazonian surrounded by the Jungle and it is not easy to be Orthodox here but we are building the holy temple for Christ ☦💒
This explains what is an accidental change or an essential change. The word is used in a philosophical sense. plato.stanford.edu/entries/essential-accidental/
@@StAnthonyPaduaRadTrad I don't know about your personal position, but I will speak the truth. Don't follow Antipope Francis, but rather Pope Gregory XVIII who succeeded Pope Gregory XVII (a.k.a. "Cardinal" Siri).
Consecrated bishop by a sedevacantist bishop before he was expelled by SSPX. He (Sanborn) is better described as a NON SERVIAM Non Bishop. He is Fr Sanborn at best there is nothing Most Reverend about him.
There is nothing objectionable in the Vatican II documents - Archbishop Lefebvre signed off all the documents of Vatican II - so there is nothing objectionable in them. If you think so, list a specific item or items, give examples, eg, what is objectionable about verse 1 of the first document.
Alan Schreck, "Catholicsm and Christian", pages 30-31 shows that people were excommunicated for not accepting the bishops or popes teachings. It was seen as a rebellion against God. Calling Vatican 2 a heresy is heresy itself. You have excommunicated yourselves if you believe this and are not Catholic. We cannot pick and choose which beliefs we submit to and follow. Criticism must still have acceptance. There is no acceptance in calling something heresy. You are not Catholic believing this and are making your own tradition of Man, no different than what Protestants do.
So is only the teaching of the most recent pope important? Even if previous popes dogmatically taught something different? Which one do you believe/accept? This is a major stumbling block for me with Pope Francis and the other post V2 popes.
@@johnraymond-pz9bo You need to reject Vatican I then if that is your opinion and of you study all the Ecumenicals Councils using your same hermeneutic of rupture, you will find yourself denying Trent and all the others. Your thinking is exactly how Protestants came to reject the Deuterocanonical books. They too look at random criteria to reject church teachings. Who in the church rejected the Council of Jerusalem? Im pretty sure everyone obeyed what the apostles did. How in Catholic tradition is your own understanding superior to the pope and college of bishops from Vatican II on? Where is this Protestant nature in Catholicism? You need to stop taking the Eucharist. It’s hypocritical of you to not be in full communion and take it. You are an authority on to yourself. That’s Protestantism. There is no difference in you and the 451 AD church of Alexandria schismatics that rejected Chalcedon. Repent and see what the church says. Or stop calling yourself Catholic.
Pretty serious claims, but "How can you preach lest ye be sent?" Where are your "letters of credit"? Or if you have been sent by the direct mission of God to preach this message, you must prove your message is legitimate by performing visible public miracles. Otherwise, you must not be listened to.
@@johnraymond-pz9bo thanks. This is a very serious claim to make, certainly a claim that would determine the state of my soul for eternity. so I'm just asking the same question that St. Paul asks the Romans - "How can ye preach lest ye be sent?" In other words, how can i know this message is true? Obviously it did not come from the Pope or a Bishop. And unless me and 99.99% of the world missed it, God Himself has not announced it in an irrefutable display of power as he has done previously; such as parting the Red Sea, stopping the flow of the Jordan River, or rising from the dead. Did you figured it out yourself based on your own abilities? In other words, do you "testify to yourself", but then why should i believe you? The only other way is God gave you or someone else this message directly, such as in a vision or dream or appearing in a burning bush. But then I ask the same question that Moses asked to God, "what if they do not believe that You appeared to me?". To which God answered by showing Moses the miracles that he would perform. That is the same testimony that God has used for many prophets, apostles, fathers, and saints throughout all history. So if you do not have miracles or some similar undisputable testimony that this messages comes from God, why should I believe this message? Especially when the visible Church is still here just like always, with the actual successor of Peter, the rock where Christ built his indefectible Church, and the successors of the apostles with formal jurisdiction, and they have answered all these ridiculous claims.
Jesus wouldn't watch these kinds of viideos, because they're divisive and gossipy and whiny. Instead, He would be out in the world spreading tolerance and forgiveness and helping the poor. So why are you watching? Good grief.
I appreciate your super-tolerant view, Eric, but don’t we have a right to find out what we are missing out on? The mass that my dad loved and grieved the loss of? The mass that the saints celebrated? And frankly all sinners are welcomed into the church - we are all sinners, aren’t we? But I cannot see how we can ‘cheapen’ the Eucharist and remain in a state of grace.
@MsDormy - the protestant churches welcome sinners. The changes at the V2 Council brought in a different mass. Even 'Pope' Paul VI called the mass Vatican II the "novus ordo"...meaning new mass. I go to the mass of Jesus Christ which isn't at all the same as the one the Second Vatican created. Beware of sheep in wolves clothing. If you watch a video on the traditional Latin mass and the modern mass you can clearly see for yourself they don't even resemble one another. God bless you.
St John Henry Newman is the "Father of Vatican II" for Vatican II is based on his writings and vision for the Church. If you reject Vatican II you reject St John Henry Newman. Archbishop Lefebvre signed all the documents of Vatican II so there can be nothing objectionable, nothing to reject in Vatican II. No doctrine was added or taken away by Vatican II. A bishop who rejects Vatican II places himself outside the Church.
What are your points? Who cares about Novus Ordo “Saint” John Newman” and so what he signed all the docs? He changed his mind I suppose. We can see that the supposed Popes approve of what was always a mortal sin (ecumenism). They claim it is from Vatican 2. I believe them
![Eminem - Fuel (feat. JID) [Official Lyric Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/t5H_CewqpKA/mqdefault.jpg)
I grew up with the Latin Tridentine Mass so I thought something was very wrong when my local church changed to the Novus Ordo and we stopped going to the mass. Later on I found out about Archbishop Marcel LeFebvre and we drove an hour to again go to the Latin Mass.
I guess you're mentioning SSPX 62 Missal that they use the word "tridentine" which was foreign before because The Pre-55 was always called THE TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC LATIN MASS OF THE ROMAN RITE. In 62, or 65 there were changes such as on January 1 is no longer the Feast of the CIRCUMCISION OF OUR LORD. They omitted this but retained the Octave of the Mass (St. Dominic Chapel, Sta. Ana, CA. Priest: Father Cedrik Starbuck pls. try to listen to his sermon - SUNDAY WITHIN THE OCTAVE OF CHRISTMAS).
Do you know if Fr Starbuck has been conditionally ordained? Does he work with any Bishop?
But the Sspx weren’t and still are not Roman Catholic but a schismatic and apostate extension of the novus ordo sect
I learned there is a Traditional Latin Mass in Baltimore at St.Alphonsus Liguri. It's intriguing
At least you had a choice....we didn't have a choice here in S Africa ...we woke up one day and the Sacredness was gone .
My mother left the Church shortly after the changes of V2. In 1970 at age 7 I went to an Anglican/Episcopalian church that was about a block away from our apartment. It looked just like the traditional Catholic mass with the alter rail, the dean facing the alter, people knelt to receive communion, and so forth. I went to this church off and on until maybe age 9 or 10. At age 17 I asked my mother what denomination I was supposed to be, to which she surprisingly said, "Roman Catholic, of course!". Shortly after that, I went to what I thought was the Catholic Church but automatically knew there was something totally wrong with it. At age 19 I was on a city bus when the bus driver asked me what religion I was. I told him I was Roman Catholic, but I didn't like how the mass was, so I quit going. He asked me if I've heard of Mount St. Michael's, which at that time in 1980 I didn't. He got me going up the Mount. What a blessing to get on a city bus where the driver was a traditional Roman Catholic and cared enough to tell me about the traditional Catholic religion. God bless the priests at Mount St. Michael's for explaining the errs of Vatican II and their 'popes' to me.
What’s wrong with V2?
@@kyleellis8665V2 breaks from Catholic tradition in doctrine, discipline and practice.
@@deus_vult8111 how
@@kyleellis8665 watch the video
Vatican ll fixed everything that was not broken. There was no need for the changes that came about. St. John Paul ll condemned, "Change for the mere sake of change." He called for the "Reform of the reforms" He started the restoration by bringing back the Tridentine Mass.@@kyleellis8665
i converted to catholicism only to be disappointed by the activist priests, preaching leftist ideology, and horrible music and liturgy. when i first attended a latin mass - i was blown away by the beauty. I spent 6 months learning some basic Latin. I pray the Divine Office in Latin, daily. I am never looking back.
I am a convert as well from the Presbyterian Church in America
Were you hoping for something more hate-filled?
Bishop Sanborn I trust and respect as a practising Catholic
I praise God that I am delivered from this new religion of Vatican II!❤
I attend ONLY a SSPV CHAPEL!
Yes but what do you say to the faithful that say it's morally incorrect to have a sedavacantist stand.
? P.S. Archbishop Thuc, from what I learned was a man for tradition but he made some grave mistakes.
@@Loudes012SSPX are not sede
@@Loudes012everyone makes mistakes. I feel sory for any priest, bishop, archbishop, or cardinal who lived through the v2 sessions. So few stood up against it or it's obvious fruits & the new order. They were all given tough, bad, choices. If you're given bad choices, you're going to make a bad choice. I've seen bad things and doubts about AB Thuc refuted clearly by others. But, regardless, he is not responsible for other's actions.
Vatican II doesn’t go against anything the Church has taught for 2000 years
Sinc Francis announcement about the LGTBQ stance has experienced a $20 million dollar decrease in donations' in just two weeks. That may be the single factor to reconsider this position. BUT right now they are doing anything to avoid that topic.
How did you arrive at the $20 million figure? Very interesting!
Website: 30+ Church Giving statistics@@michaelciccone2194
Lack of donations may save the Church .
I am not Catholic but maybe what the Pope did recently come as a blessing so that many in the Catholic church may wake up and fellow the Lord only
Maybe Sodomites Central?@@GGME7777
THE GREAT APOSTASY
Jesus would without hesitation speak TRUTH, whether it divides or not. See the bread of life discourse in the gospel of John
I look forward to following these talks!
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves." (St Matthew 7:15)
Matthew 7:15 RSV-CE
Novus ordo really angered when attended one about 2 weeks ago after very long period of resting:
1) The kids singing were doing hand gestures to "participate" in the music
2) No pipe organ, just pop-era piano like it's exciting. What about immersing us in true Catholic music?
3) Priest constantly facing us, very distracting from Jesus
4) Everyone lining up to receive Eucharist on hand, like Jesus is just another Pringle. I was the only one who kneeled.
5) Bare bones, almost no beautiful decoration to lift our attention to Jesus.
After watching a Latin Mass, and learning more about the novus ordo trash--the modernists at Vat II used Martin Luther's advice (to separate people from God, get them treating Him as another handout)--yeah, can't waste time there anymore. Novus ordo isn't a valid mass.
Thanks Montini, Wojcytla, Bergoglio, and all their ilk for pushing this insult on us.
just subscribed. God bless and happy new year
Glad to have you. Ave Maria
how long Lord ?
😇 What?! It's not a simple hershey chocolate bar? What is it then? a Snicker?
It is a BabyRuth. That is an apostasy of a chocolate bar
Thank goodness it's not a Three Musketeers bar because I really like those!😊 I've never heard V2 referred to as a chocolate bar before. 😁
Recently discovered website Sodalitium Pianum /Solidity of Saint Pius X especially an article in Defense of Umberto Benigni
who was a Lion of Tradition against Liberal/Modernists precursors of Novus Ordo/Vatican II of his own day 1862/1934
So it came as shocking surprise that not one SSPX article on him exists that I have yet to find let alone a Biography
i have only seen/followed non-Sedevacantist position channels. i'm "protestant", though loathe the label obviously, and have found the teachings pre-VII to be irreconcilable with VII. do you have anything you'd point to highlighting the distinctions? i'd like to learn more about this starting more popularly, preferably, and then working more complex as the arguments seem valid. the current Papal issues seem to only further highlight how this position makes sense so i'm very curious. God bless either way! I for sure hope "The Church" is more inclusive than pre-VII states, but i at least appreciate the consistency of the position in denying it is so.
The Catholic Church is not supposed to be inclusive, but rather to seek the conversion of their followers.
Read Wemhoff's book: "John Courtney Murray, Time/Life and the American Proposition: How the CIA's Doctrinal Warfare Program Changed the Catholic Church"
@@rccyberwarrior2267 I will look into it. thank you!
I do agree, the Roman "Catholic" Church is just another protestant Church since long time ago, that´s why i became Orthodox ☦ even tho i live in the Amazonian surrounded by the Jungle and it is not easy to be Orthodox here but we are building the holy temple for Christ ☦💒
What sect of orthodox?
Yes what sect? 3, 6 or 9 councils ?
Orthodox is the original and the straight forward church that stood strong in the biblical faith for 2000 years
@@GGME7777 they have far from stood firm in the biblical faith; they permit divorce and remarriage up to several times as one of many examples.
@@StAnthonyPaduaRadTrad
Divorce is not allowed in the Orthodox church except for adultery
When was this speech held?
How, give me a verse - give me a document eg verse 1 of document 1
is attending novus ordo complicit in new church coming into being ?
The Novus Ordo is the new church
should i never go ? even if that is all i have ???@@StAnthonyPaduaRadTrad
????????????????????
@@StAnthonyPaduaRadTrad
Yes, you should never go. Treat it like a Protestant service. Also, I am not always available to answer you immediately, so chill
sorry. but i have been struggling with this question for a long time.@@StAnthonyPaduaRadTrad
Accidental?
This explains what is an accidental change or an essential change. The word is used in a philosophical sense.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/essential-accidental/
@@StAnthonyPaduaRadTrad I don't know about your personal position, but I will speak the truth. Don't follow Antipope Francis, but rather Pope Gregory XVIII who succeeded Pope Gregory XVII (a.k.a. "Cardinal" Siri).
@@truecatholic1 i don’t follow Francis
@@truecatholic1 he is an antichrist not an antipope
St Paul did not say Latin Masses nor wore fancy vestments.
You know this how?
Archeologism is a condemned heresy.
@@StAnthonyPaduaRadTradSt. Paul didn’t speak latin. He was a greek speaker and writer.
@francis He was also a Roman citizen. There is no reason to assume he also didn’t know Latin. It was one of the languages nailed to the cross
Read "Quo Primum Tempore."
"Our historians researched to bring the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass back to it's original form,closely as possible."
Consecrated bishop by a sedevacantist bishop before he was expelled by SSPX. He (Sanborn) is better described as a NON SERVIAM Non Bishop. He is Fr Sanborn at best there is nothing Most Reverend about him.
Bishop Sanborn was consecrated after he left the SSPX
He is a GREAT CATHOLIC HERO AND BISHOP.
A member of Lefebvre Nine, A great Catholic group of fierce Catholic Priests
There is nothing objectionable in the Vatican II documents - Archbishop Lefebvre signed off all the documents of Vatican II - so there is nothing objectionable in them. If you think so, list a specific item or items, give examples, eg, what is objectionable about verse 1 of the first document.
It s false
So you haven't a clue what you are talking about. Thought so.
@@chrismason8476 certain signatures were only acts of presence and not acceptances of the texts
@@chrismason8476 ruclips.net/video/vL8TtuxvDKI/видео.htmlsi=npWG46G_eJdnre8a
Lefebvre not only signed off on his presence - he actually signed off on the documents themselves.
Alan Schreck, "Catholicsm and Christian", pages 30-31 shows that people were excommunicated for not accepting the bishops or popes teachings. It was seen as a rebellion against God. Calling Vatican 2 a heresy is heresy itself. You have excommunicated yourselves if you believe this and are not Catholic. We cannot pick and choose which beliefs we submit to and follow. Criticism must still have acceptance. There is no acceptance in calling something heresy. You are not Catholic believing this and are making your own tradition of Man, no different than what Protestants do.
So is only the teaching of the most recent pope important? Even if previous popes dogmatically taught something different? Which one do you believe/accept? This is a major stumbling block for me with Pope Francis and the other post V2 popes.
We have to reject Vatican II.
Montini was not Catholic when he won conclave. All his acts are null and void.
@@johnraymond-pz9bo
You need to reject Vatican I then if that is your opinion and of you study all the Ecumenicals Councils using your same hermeneutic of rupture, you will find yourself denying Trent and all the others.
Your thinking is exactly how Protestants came to reject the Deuterocanonical books. They too look at random criteria to reject church teachings.
Who in the church rejected the Council of Jerusalem? Im pretty sure everyone obeyed what the apostles did. How in Catholic tradition is your own understanding superior to the pope and college of bishops from Vatican II on? Where is this Protestant nature in Catholicism?
You need to stop taking the Eucharist. It’s hypocritical of you to not be in full communion and take it. You are an authority on to yourself. That’s Protestantism. There is no difference in you and the 451 AD church of Alexandria schismatics that rejected Chalcedon. Repent and see what the church says. Or stop calling yourself Catholic.
Pretty serious claims, but "How can you preach lest ye be sent?" Where are your "letters of credit"? Or if you have been sent by the direct mission of God to preach this message, you must prove your message is legitimate by performing visible public miracles. Otherwise, you must not be listened to.
Canon law ceases when it interferes with SALVATION OF SOULS
@@johnraymond-pz9bo thanks. This is a very serious claim to make, certainly a claim that would determine the state of my soul for eternity. so I'm just asking the same question that St. Paul asks the Romans - "How can ye preach lest ye be sent?" In other words, how can i know this message is true? Obviously it did not come from the Pope or a Bishop. And unless me and 99.99% of the world missed it, God Himself has not announced it in an irrefutable display of power as he has done previously; such as parting the Red Sea, stopping the flow of the Jordan River, or rising from the dead.
Did you figured it out yourself based on your own abilities? In other words, do you "testify to yourself", but then why should i believe you? The only other way is God gave you or someone else this message directly, such as in a vision or dream or appearing in a burning bush. But then I ask the same question that Moses asked to God, "what if they do not believe that You appeared to me?". To which God answered by showing Moses the miracles that he would perform. That is the same testimony that God has used for many prophets, apostles, fathers, and saints throughout all history. So if you do not have miracles or some similar undisputable testimony that this messages comes from God, why should I believe this message? Especially when the visible Church is still here just like always, with the actual successor of Peter, the rock where Christ built his indefectible Church, and the successors of the apostles with formal jurisdiction, and they have answered all these ridiculous claims.
Jesus wouldn't watch these kinds of viideos, because they're divisive and gossipy and whiny. Instead, He would be out in the world spreading tolerance and forgiveness and helping the poor. So why are you watching? Good grief.
Our Lord wouldn’t watch any videos. Why not take your fake piety and comment on some worthy video?
I appreciate your super-tolerant view, Eric, but don’t we have a right to find out what we are missing out on? The mass that my dad loved and grieved the loss of? The mass that the saints celebrated? And frankly all sinners are welcomed into the church - we are all sinners, aren’t we? But I cannot see how we can ‘cheapen’ the Eucharist and remain in a state of grace.
"I come not to bring Peace but the sword."
@MsDormy - the protestant churches welcome sinners. The changes at the V2 Council brought in a different mass. Even 'Pope' Paul VI called the mass Vatican II the "novus ordo"...meaning new mass. I go to the mass of Jesus Christ which isn't at all the same as the one the Second Vatican created. Beware of sheep in wolves clothing. If you watch a video on the traditional Latin mass and the modern mass you can clearly see for yourself they don't even resemble one another. God bless you.
Jesus would be preaching the truth not tolerance to unrepentant sin.
This is schismatic nonsense
How so? Care enough to explain? And be specific.
@@GloryBeToGodOnHigh the documents say nothing of apostasy for one reason.
St John Henry Newman is the "Father of Vatican II" for Vatican II is based on his writings and vision for the Church. If you reject Vatican II you reject St John Henry Newman. Archbishop Lefebvre signed all the documents of Vatican II so there can be nothing objectionable, nothing to reject in Vatican II. No doctrine was added or taken away by Vatican II. A bishop who rejects Vatican II places himself outside the Church.
You’re barking up the wrong tree here Chris. You may want to move on
I made some legitimate points - answer them.
What are your points? Who cares about Novus Ordo “Saint” John Newman” and so what he signed all the docs? He changed his mind I suppose. We can see that the supposed Popes approve of what was always a mortal sin (ecumenism). They claim it is from Vatican 2. I believe them
Looks like you have just lost the argument
@@chrismason8476YOU lost your argument. The ecumenism from VII is CONTRARY to the true doutrine of the Church.