Note sent to his Excellency on September 4th, 2024. No acknowledgement or reply as of yet. He is an exceedingly busy man. Your Excellency, below are some thoughts I’ve shared with a fellow Catholic who is producing a video in opposition to the Thesis. You may not have considered them. I’m sharing them that you might see the Thesis through another lens. This is all in the interest of unity in truth as novelty is never unifying for Catholics. In focusing on how and why something is sustainable, sometimes one overlooks why it is not. We all talk about the bad fruit of Vatican II. The bad fruit of Vatican II came from the Modernist & FreeMasonic hierarchy. How can we expect good fruit from a Bad tree? It's not God's ways. Our Lord told us a bad tree cannot give good fruit. Thus, the notion that the poisonous tree will give us a Catholic Pope is contrary to the words of Christ. Also, in rejecting Christ's doctrine and legitimizing the doctrines of demons, the Novus Ordo Institution has cut itself off of the vine. Unconnected to the vine it can do nothing of merit. The production of a true Pope would be of tremendous merit. So that too is incompatible with the teachings of Christ. Finally, the Catholic Church possesses the Marks and Attributes of the Church always, with continuity over time. The Virgin Bride the Lord will marry in Revelation 19 will be dressed in white a reflection of her faithfulness to the Groom. Here too, I'm proud to be a totalist. Mustn't our Holy Mother the Church also be a totalist when it comes to faithfulness? Saint Paul tells us in Ephesians 5, that our Lord will present her to himself himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish. If all of a sudden the apostate institution produced a Catholic that the Apostate institution claimed as the Pope, how would that institution then become indefectible/ever-faithful from the inception? It can't. Note on Ephesians 5: [24] "Church is subject to Christ": The church then, according to St. Paul, is ever obedient to Christ, and can never fall from him, but remain faithful to him, unspotted and unchanged to the end of the world. DELETED PARAGRAPH Our Lord's Bride must be ever faithful, for what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? 2 Corinthians 6: 15. Belial will not be His bride! This is deductive logic by analogy, but it may help describe why the thesis is so appalling to Catholics who believe in the Church as the Indefectible ever-faithful Bride of Christ. To call the Vatican II Institution the HRCC is also to call it the Bride of Christ. Whichever of these nouns one might use, to make that claim is a BLASPHEMY against: 1. Christ, who promised to send the Holy Ghost to Guide her in all truth forever, 2. the Holy Ghost who would have failed to succeed in the purpose for which Christ sent the Holy Ghost; and 3. our Lord's ever-faithful Bride herself. To think the papacy will be filled by the Harlot just really galls the Catholic who believes all that the Church has taught about herself, including that She is the Pillar & Ground of Truth. That in no way describes the Harlot. This is the continuity problem. All of these qualities are meaningless if they are not ever-present. Thus, to promote the Thesis is to Blaspheme God and the Church. It's simply despicable. Again, for what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever? The Harlot cannot become the Bride. They are separate and distinct for after the Harlot is judged and destroyed, then the marriage takes place. The Harlot and Bride are never the same thing.
The Thesis is total absurdity, that runs against the teaching of Paul IV, who said as supreme authority that the authority of those deviated from the Faith is Null and Void and that the faithful should treat them as herisiarch, publican and warlocks (there's nothing penal about this, just to crush that silly sophism). It's the word of a Roman Pontiff vs the word of 1 theologian and followers. I take the word of the Roman Pontiff any day.
There's also problems with "anti Una Cum" philosophy. Traditional Catholics need to unite and talk about our "opinions" privately. Opinions have no authority,traditional Catholic unity! After 2 decades,I admit to not having the answer & stick to tradition.
A little note. If you divide form and matter, you still have matter. Matter is just the changing, visible stuff. This is true in all cases. When the human body dies, what remains is the matter and is called a "corpse" Otherwise corpse would have to COME INTO being at the moment of death. Even if the bread wafer for the Eucharist is not transubstantiation, the matter persists until it is destroyed.
If you separate the form from the matter, you do not have the thing. You may have the individual components but not the thing itself. When you combine the form and matter, they become something new. But the thesis is talking about things that cannot be separated. You cannot separate the church from the religion. Neither can exist without the other. The church without the religion is no longer the Catholic church.
I see the issue as this: the Philosophical principle of Non-Contradiction. A thing cannot be both be and not be at the same time. Either there is a pope or not the pope. He cannot both be the Pope and not be the Pope at the same time. The matter of rubber that makes a ball, but not having the form of a ball, means you don’t have a ball… it also means you don’t have gasket either. It can any number of things before form takes shape.
@@BreakingTradSermons It reminds me of a tactic one might see from shady politician who promised a formal tax cut but only delivered a materiel tax cut.
@@catholiccrusaderfilms3974 Were undeclared but manifestly Jansenist Bishops teaching the catholic religion? Or a false Jansenist religion? Were they still in the Catholic Church? There were multiple generations of Jansenist and crypto Jansenists in the French episcopacy for many decades. What religion were the semi-arian Bishops who held Episcopal seats in the Catholic church? They were not the Catholic religion, but were still material Bishops in the Catholic church. It seems that totalists like yourself are the ones changing the church's teachings. You believe that the Form of the church can completely change from undeclared heresy.
The problem with "the Thesis" is understandable, as you have laid out here. The problem with totalism is also understandable. Since the recognition of the V2 claimants as heretics is a matter of private opinon on the part of the one who holds it, it has no binding authority on anyone else who wills to be Catholic. The only one who could declare - with binding authority - that the man claiming to be a Pope is not actually a Pope, is a Pope. I don't regard the post V2 claimants as Popes, but I do not think this is going to be universally settled with completely satisfying proposals. Each explanation has big problems. It's a mystery. Hold fast to tradition.
Our opinions created the division amongst the Catholic remnant but "opnions" are meaningless which have no authority. I personally think there are agent provocateurs in the traditional movement making sure traditional Catholics don't achieve unity.
That is an absolute lie. Canon 188.4, along with Cum ex Apostolato Officio, which it refers to, makes it perfectly clear that a public heretic is immediately excommunicated from the Church without any declaration required by ANYONE. Your continued attempts at denying this fact that a child can understand is ridiculous. The law itself convicts AND Judges them. this is absolutely clear and logical. A non-Catholic is a non-Catholic. Duh.
It absolutely is NOT a matter of opinion. It is the dogmatic, infallible, magisterium of the Church that has stated it categorically, simply, and eternally. In Canon 188.4 and the related ex cathedra and permanent cum ex apostolato officio. Stop pretending otherwise.
“Divine Law” (which supersedes Canon Law) is not opinion. Neither is Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, written by Pope Paul IV. He was plain and clear in his Papal Bull.
I wan to know: (I) the identity of the one speaking; (ii) if the one speaking reading from something that has been writing by someone else; (iii) how can I get citations supporting what is being said. I’m asking because the Thesis is written and I’m familiar with the response of the SSPX to the Thesis, but I’m wondering if there are responses from the Sedevcantists know as Totallists.
The most concise explanation of the "totalist" position I've seen until now, was Father John Okerulu's article: "On the present state of the Church of Christ - A defense of the theological sedevacantist position". There is also the 2 articles by Father Lehtoranta critizicing the Thesis and the WM Review articles.
Bp Dolan (shortly before his sudden death) stated that the thesis is "a theological error or savors of heresy", Fr. Cekada (may he rest in peace) also denounced the Thesis In addition to this both the CMRI and SSPV also denounce it I'm sure Bergoglio and the NO are fine with it
Towards the end you mention you aren't calling for a council among traditionalists to end the crisis and elect a Pope, but the example you bring up of the Great Western Schism was literally ended by a council that was later ratified by the elected Pope as you yourself mentioned. My question is, if the thesis is (rightfully) acknowledged as an inadequate and erroneous explanation of the modern crisis, and traditionalist bishops are not even considered, how can you avoid falling into the other error that denies a continual succession of apostolic pastors? I do not see how there can be any other solution than that our traditionalist bishops are the last links of the unbroken chain of apostolic successors, and thus have the extraordinary faculties necessary to bring an end to this crisis. Whether they would be able to organize themselves to actually do so I have serious doubts, but in terms of preserving Church visibility, apostolicity, and maintaining necessary authority/jurisdiction, I see no other solution.
@@neyoriquans7782 there remain valid bishops and valid priests. Just not that many. And they have full apostolic succession. The reason not to call a council should be obvious. The truth has to reach enough lay people to reach a ripping point first. Numbers and time are irrelevant to God and to actual Catholics. We know who wins in the end.
@@The-Kurgan Who would you say are the valid bishops and priests? The traditionalist clergy, or the eastern novus ordo catholics? Those are the only two off the top of my head I can think of anyone making any type of plausible argument for full apostolic succession.
@@neyoriquans7782 The ONLY Valid Catholic clergy left are the Sedevacantist bishops and priests of places like the IMBC, RCI, an CMRI who TOTALLY reject anyone and anything connected to Vatican II. The fact Bishop Sanborn espouses the Cassiciacum theory means he is operating under a theological error, but it in no way invalidates his apostolic succession. And other more properly sedevacantist clergy exist that do not subscribe to the Cassiciacum theory. The ENO are just as non-catholic as the Western NO fake clergy, as they recognise Bergoglio as Pope, which is obviously an absolute absurdity.
No Cacciacum thesis In Guérard des Lauriers' time, this Cacciacum hypothesis may have had some comprehensibility, but definitely not in the 21st century.
I didn't find it disrespectful, he has been saling this grave error which causes yet another splinter among traditionalist. The Thesis is nothing but Lefevreism version 2.0
@@haroldramirezmedina9153 how can you call it a grave error when it is not something that the church has officially taught? The Thesis is a way to understand how all teaching of the Church would make sense in light of what a theologian saw happening. I’ve never seen it used to divide but a theory to explain. Go after the Dimon bros.
Well, that's not accurate, enough people have said about the heresies. But the enemies of Christ control the media, which have used effectively to promote a counter Gospel, and by the time of the usupation in 1958 to 1970, they had 12 years of preparation to roll out Vatican II plan. Mind you, they had worked covertly of many decades before the council to promote error.
All of the so called "priests" and "bishops" of the NO are no longer valid due to the invalid rites , a total rewrite mind you, of ordination of priests and consecration if bishops in 68. They strip the priest of the ability to consecrate and forgive sins, they carried out the same steps clearly condemned by Leo XIII in "Apostolicae Curae" declaring them null and utterly void So now this whole thesis has become totally stupid as he would have to maintain these non Catholic priests and bishops which have been ordained into the non Catholic masonic cult of man ... those that don't even understand what the real Catholic churche professes and they themselves holding a non Catholic faith if anything at all now would be able to just become real Catholics with real apostolic authority ... if you had to hold this ridiculous train of thought how could you ever determine what is real or not in any other line of reasoning ... it is absolutely mind numbing Bp. Sanborn is a heretic and by pushing this insanity , if one soul is lost because of it , he will be on the hook for that soul
Sedeprivationist. A Partialist. Somehow a series of invalid AntiCatholic false Cardinals who were nominated by anticatholic papal claimants and who taught a false contradictory religion have power to elect the next anticatholic false pope in a sham election, rinse and repeat and then someday if these anticatholics who have waged war against Catholicism screw up and elect a Catholic posing as a modernist somehow this guy becomes pope. Never mind that all of these guys are modernists, communists, and Freemasons who use murder, intimidation, etc. in these conclaves, somehow these guys could actually produce validly and legally their opposite and their enemy. It is so absurd it’s laughable. Bishop Sanborn is an intelligent man but how he can actually believe this and convince bright seminarians is astounding!!! What a crock!
@@ChristianRescue not sire what a perplexity prompt is. Would be grateful if you could explain? As for any arguments against totalism, as I said, there simply aren’t any valid ones.
Are ypu listen to yourself? You madeup new meanings of the words, that was never expressed. And you think you are in a clear with your reasoning? Any reason you quoted against never touched original thoughts, but only some of your imaginery problems.
I thought this was a well thought out explanation of the errors of the "thesis". Thanks for putting it together. This makes a lot of sense.
This is what Im thinking for a long long time that the "thesis is a hybrid Recognize & Resist" and its been mentioned here.
Note sent to his Excellency on September 4th, 2024. No acknowledgement or reply as of yet. He is an exceedingly busy man.
Your Excellency, below are some thoughts I’ve shared with a fellow Catholic who is producing a video in opposition to the Thesis. You may not have considered them. I’m sharing them that you might see the Thesis through another lens.
This is all in the interest of unity in truth as novelty is never unifying for Catholics.
In focusing on how and why something is sustainable, sometimes one overlooks why it is not.
We all talk about the bad fruit of Vatican II. The bad fruit of Vatican II came from the Modernist & FreeMasonic hierarchy. How can we expect good fruit from a Bad tree? It's not God's ways. Our Lord told us a bad tree cannot give good fruit. Thus, the notion that the poisonous tree will give us a Catholic Pope is contrary to the words of Christ.
Also, in rejecting Christ's doctrine and legitimizing the doctrines of demons, the Novus Ordo Institution has cut itself off of the vine. Unconnected to the vine it can do nothing of merit. The production of a true Pope would be of tremendous merit. So that too is incompatible with the teachings of Christ.
Finally, the Catholic Church possesses the Marks and Attributes of the Church always, with continuity over time. The Virgin Bride the Lord will marry in Revelation 19 will be dressed in white a reflection of her faithfulness to the Groom. Here too, I'm proud to be a totalist. Mustn't our Holy Mother the Church also be a totalist when it comes to faithfulness? Saint Paul tells us in Ephesians 5, that our Lord will present her to himself himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish. If all of a sudden the apostate institution produced a Catholic that the Apostate institution claimed as the Pope, how would that institution then become indefectible/ever-faithful from the inception? It can't.
Note on Ephesians 5: [24] "Church is subject to Christ": The church then, according to St. Paul, is ever obedient to Christ, and can never fall from him, but remain faithful to him, unspotted and unchanged to the end of the world.
DELETED PARAGRAPH
Our Lord's Bride must be ever faithful, for what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? 2 Corinthians 6: 15.
Belial will not be His bride!
This is deductive logic by analogy, but it may help describe why the thesis is so appalling to Catholics who believe in the Church as the Indefectible ever-faithful Bride of Christ.
To call the Vatican II Institution the HRCC is also to call it the Bride of Christ. Whichever of these nouns one might use, to make that claim is a BLASPHEMY against:
1. Christ, who promised to send the Holy Ghost to Guide her in all truth forever,
2. the Holy Ghost who would have failed to succeed in the purpose for which Christ sent the Holy Ghost; and
3. our Lord's ever-faithful Bride herself.
To think the papacy will be filled by the Harlot just really galls the Catholic who believes all that the Church has taught about herself, including that She is the Pillar & Ground of Truth. That in no way describes the Harlot. This is the continuity problem. All of these qualities are meaningless if they are not ever-present.
Thus, to promote the Thesis is to Blaspheme God and the Church. It's simply despicable.
Again, for what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever?
The Harlot cannot become the Bride. They are separate and distinct for after the Harlot is judged and destroyed, then the marriage takes place. The Harlot and Bride are never the same thing.
Very interesting. Good points raised
The Thesis is total absurdity, that runs against the teaching of Paul IV, who said as supreme authority that the authority of those deviated from the Faith is Null and Void and that the faithful should treat them as herisiarch, publican and warlocks (there's nothing penal about this, just to crush that silly sophism). It's the word of a Roman Pontiff vs the word of 1 theologian and followers. I take the word of the Roman Pontiff any day.
Bunch of hypocrites. Popesplainers.
What a bunch hypocrites popesplainers!
Im glad that lately I have been getting notifications for your videos. I share your videos with alot of people. Thank you for taking this on.
Thesis salesman is disrespectful. It's your excellency.
Excellent. Thank you for this concise and well-researched video.
Excellent. I am putting your video on my blog.
Come on, Gio-I thought you had better taste than to do something like that! 😉
@@tommastroianni641 Do I know you? Because you clearly don’t know me. Truth and logic matter. Egos don’t.
thanks for this excellent response from the hybrid position.
There's also problems with "anti Una Cum" philosophy. Traditional Catholics need to unite and talk about our "opinions" privately. Opinions have no authority,traditional Catholic unity! After 2 decades,I admit to not having the answer & stick to tradition.
A little note. If you divide form and matter, you still have matter.
Matter is just the changing, visible stuff. This is true in all cases. When the human body dies, what remains is the matter and is called a "corpse" Otherwise corpse would have to COME INTO being at the moment of death.
Even if the bread wafer for the Eucharist is not transubstantiation, the matter persists until it is destroyed.
If you separate the form from the matter, you do not have the thing. You may have the individual components but not the thing itself. When you combine the form and matter, they become something new. But the thesis is talking about things that cannot be separated. You cannot separate the church from the religion. Neither can exist without the other. The church without the religion is no longer the Catholic church.
No mind no matter
I see the issue as this: the Philosophical principle of Non-Contradiction. A thing cannot be both be and not be at the same time. Either there is a pope or not the pope. He cannot both be the Pope and not be the Pope at the same time.
The matter of rubber that makes a ball, but not having the form of a ball, means you don’t have a ball… it also means you don’t have gasket either. It can any number of things before form takes shape.
@@BreakingTradSermons It reminds me of a tactic one might see from shady politician who promised a formal tax cut but only delivered a materiel tax cut.
@@catholiccrusaderfilms3974 Were undeclared but manifestly Jansenist Bishops teaching the catholic religion? Or a false Jansenist religion? Were they still in the Catholic Church? There were multiple generations of Jansenist and crypto Jansenists in the French episcopacy for many decades. What religion were the semi-arian Bishops who held Episcopal seats in the Catholic church? They were not the Catholic religion, but were still material Bishops in the Catholic church. It seems that totalists like yourself are the ones changing the church's teachings. You believe that the Form of the church can completely change from undeclared heresy.
Here we Go!
The problem with "the Thesis" is understandable, as you have laid out here.
The problem with totalism is also understandable. Since the recognition of the V2 claimants as heretics is a matter of private opinon on the part of the one who holds it, it has no binding authority on anyone else who wills to be Catholic.
The only one who could declare - with binding authority - that the man claiming to be a Pope is not actually a Pope, is a Pope.
I don't regard the post V2 claimants as Popes, but I do not think this is going to be universally settled with completely satisfying proposals. Each explanation has big problems. It's a mystery. Hold fast to tradition.
And that's why I hold to the Totalist opinion. I hold on to the Faith and leave the solution to the crisis in God's Hands.
Our opinions created the division amongst the Catholic remnant but "opnions" are meaningless which have no authority. I personally think there are agent provocateurs in the traditional movement making sure traditional Catholics don't achieve unity.
That is an absolute lie. Canon 188.4, along with Cum ex Apostolato Officio, which it refers to, makes it perfectly clear that a public heretic is immediately excommunicated from the Church without any declaration required by ANYONE. Your continued attempts at denying this fact that a child can understand is ridiculous. The law itself convicts AND Judges them. this is absolutely clear and logical. A non-Catholic is a non-Catholic. Duh.
It absolutely is NOT a matter of opinion. It is the dogmatic, infallible, magisterium of the Church that has stated it categorically, simply, and eternally. In Canon 188.4 and the related ex cathedra and permanent cum ex apostolato officio. Stop pretending otherwise.
“Divine Law” (which supersedes Canon Law) is not opinion.
Neither is Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, written by Pope Paul IV. He was plain and clear in his Papal Bull.
I wan to know: (I) the identity of the one speaking; (ii) if the one speaking reading from something that has been writing by someone else; (iii) how can I get citations supporting what is being said.
I’m asking because the Thesis is written and I’m familiar with the response of the SSPX to the Thesis, but I’m wondering if there are responses from the Sedevcantists know as Totallists.
The most concise explanation of the "totalist" position I've seen until now, was Father John Okerulu's article: "On the present state of the Church of Christ - A defense of the theological sedevacantist position". There is also the 2 articles by Father Lehtoranta critizicing the Thesis and the WM Review articles.
Bp Dolan (shortly before his sudden death) stated that the thesis is "a theological error or savors of heresy", Fr. Cekada (may he rest in peace) also denounced the Thesis
In addition to this both the CMRI and SSPV also denounce it
I'm sure Bergoglio and the NO are fine with it
There's also the question of the first Pope Stephen II. Where does The Thesis leave him?
Towards the end you mention you aren't calling for a council among traditionalists to end the crisis and elect a Pope, but the example you bring up of the Great Western Schism was literally ended by a council that was later ratified by the elected Pope as you yourself mentioned.
My question is, if the thesis is (rightfully) acknowledged as an inadequate and erroneous explanation of the modern crisis, and traditionalist bishops are not even considered, how can you avoid falling into the other error that denies a continual succession of apostolic pastors?
I do not see how there can be any other solution than that our traditionalist bishops are the last links of the unbroken chain of apostolic successors, and thus have the extraordinary faculties necessary to bring an end to this crisis. Whether they would be able to organize themselves to actually do so I have serious doubts, but in terms of preserving Church visibility, apostolicity, and maintaining necessary authority/jurisdiction, I see no other solution.
@@neyoriquans7782 there remain valid bishops and valid priests. Just not that many. And they have full apostolic succession. The reason not to call a council should be obvious. The truth has to reach enough lay people to reach a ripping point first. Numbers and time are irrelevant to God and to actual Catholics. We know who wins in the end.
@@The-Kurgan Who would you say are the valid bishops and priests? The traditionalist clergy, or the eastern novus ordo catholics? Those are the only two off the top of my head I can think of anyone making any type of plausible argument for full apostolic succession.
@@neyoriquans7782 The ONLY Valid Catholic clergy left are the Sedevacantist bishops and priests of places like the IMBC, RCI, an CMRI who TOTALLY reject anyone and anything connected to Vatican II. The fact Bishop Sanborn espouses the Cassiciacum theory means he is operating under a theological error, but it in no way invalidates his apostolic succession. And other more properly sedevacantist clergy exist that do not subscribe to the Cassiciacum theory. The ENO are just as non-catholic as the Western NO fake clergy, as they recognise Bergoglio as Pope, which is obviously an absolute absurdity.
@@neyoriquans7782 sede priests and bishops. RCI, IMBC, MCRI etc
@@The-Kurgan I would agree.
No Cacciacum thesis In Guérard des Lauriers' time, this Cacciacum hypothesis may have had some comprehensibility, but definitely not in the 21st century.
As “salesman” has become a derogatory term it seems unnecessary to call Bp. Sanborn that. It shows a lack of respect. Do you not have respect for him?
No.
I didn't find it disrespectful, he has been saling this grave error which causes yet another splinter among traditionalist. The Thesis is nothing but Lefevreism version 2.0
@@haroldramirezmedina9153 how can you call it a grave error when it is not something that the church has officially taught? The Thesis is a way to understand how all teaching of the Church would make sense in light of what a theologian saw happening. I’ve never seen it used to divide but a theory to explain. Go after the Dimon bros.
@@jamiejaegel7962Bishop Sandborn and the RCI are nothing but big critics of the CMRI.
@@Tradcatholicman why do the lay people have to get caught up in theological drama?
I am holding Catholic Crusader Films solely responsible for the content of this video!
Thanks for watching it all the way through. Don't forget to hit like share and subscribe to the channel.
My problem is how is Vatican II manifest heresy, evident to all, when not all would say so?
I'm sure Martin Luther did not consider himself a heretic either.
Well, that's not accurate, enough people have said about the heresies. But the enemies of Christ control the media, which have used effectively to promote a counter Gospel, and by the time of the usupation in 1958 to 1970, they had 12 years of preparation to roll out Vatican II plan. Mind you, they had worked covertly of many decades before the council to promote error.
The only people NOT saying so are either deceivers, or completely ignorant of their professed religion. No other option exists.
All of the so called "priests" and "bishops" of the NO are no longer valid due to the invalid rites , a total rewrite mind you, of ordination of priests and consecration if bishops in 68. They strip the priest of the ability to consecrate and forgive sins, they carried out the same steps clearly condemned by Leo XIII in "Apostolicae Curae" declaring them null and utterly void
So now this whole thesis has become totally stupid as he would have to maintain these non Catholic priests and bishops which have been ordained into the non Catholic masonic cult of man ... those that don't even understand what the real Catholic churche professes and they themselves holding a non Catholic faith if anything at all now would be able to just become real Catholics with real apostolic authority ... if you had to hold this ridiculous train of thought how could you ever determine what is real or not in any other line of reasoning ... it is absolutely mind numbing
Bp. Sanborn is a heretic and by pushing this insanity , if one soul is lost because of it , he will be on the hook for that soul
@@ChristianRescue SSPV , they reject the thesis as well
So is bishop Sanborn not a sedevavantist?
Only materially, no formally ;)
Haha. But did he used to be sedevacantist and now is not?
@josephsarto689 He is a sedevacatist, and for many decades, but the type of sedevacatism he adheres to is called Sedeprevism
Sedeprivationist. A Partialist. Somehow a series of invalid AntiCatholic false Cardinals who were nominated by anticatholic papal claimants and who taught a false contradictory religion have power to elect the next anticatholic false pope in a sham election, rinse and repeat and then someday if these anticatholics who have waged war against Catholicism screw up and elect a Catholic posing as a modernist somehow this guy becomes pope. Never mind that all of these guys are modernists, communists, and Freemasons who use murder, intimidation, etc. in these conclaves, somehow these guys could actually produce validly and legally their opposite and their enemy. It is so absurd it’s laughable. Bishop Sanborn is an intelligent man but how he can actually believe this and convince bright seminarians is astounding!!! What a crock!
Has anyone done an attack on Totalism?
I don't know if attack is the right word, but Bishop Sanborn has done much criticism. I used some of the clips of that criticism in this video.
A valid one can’t be done. Just like you can’t find fault with 2+2 equalling 4.
@@ChristianRescue not sire what a perplexity prompt is. Would be grateful if you could explain? As for any arguments against totalism, as I said, there simply aren’t any valid ones.
In fact they teach, that the Body of Christ is possessed by the devil
That’s as bad (and blasphemous) as the Mormons preaching that Our Lord was once “brothers” with Lucifer. 🤮
Are ypu listen to yourself? You madeup new meanings of the words, that was never expressed. And you think you are in a clear with your reasoning? Any reason you quoted against never touched original thoughts, but only some of your imaginery problems.
Bull
Papal Bull?