Does it mean that if the priest is spiritually offering the Mass with anti-popes, His Mass could be bad for us or invalid? And what if i go to Mass, but pray that this Mass is united with Saints and Holly Popes regardless of what the awarness priest has, which I cannot always know ?
No, it doesn't affect the validity of the sacraments. The solution is to go to mass offered by validly ordained sedevacantist clergy, where there is no doubt whatsoever.
1) If you don't have a valid AND licit Mass available to you, the Sunday precept ceases to oblige. 2) We go to Mass to please God. But the una cum Mass is unacceptable to God. God cannot be pleased by an act of worship offered in the name of a false Pope who happens to be the head of a false religion. The Mass is not only an act of the priest in persona Christi; it is also an act of the whole Church. Naming Bergoglio in the Canon legitimizes Vatican II, which is an implicit negation of the Church’s indefectibility. - Rev Nicolas Despósito
The entire logic of papal infallibility is that heresy can never be a condition of communion with the Roman Church and its bishop. Otherwise you’d be forced to choose: schism or heresy. If you believe that a Roman bishop imposing heresy simply makes him no longer the “true” Roman bishop, then papal infallibility is a completely pointless doctrine.
@@prevatican2catholicshow that illustrates precisely my point. If it's a valid intra-Catholic epistemic route to judge the validity of a papal election based on the teachings of the pope, then papal infallibility has no practical use anymore. It makes a lot more sense within that paradigm to just admit that Vatican I was wrong, and the Roman Church does not remain undefiled from heresy unto the end.
I don't think i'm understanding you. Vatican I made mention of the necessary submission to the ordinary means of teaching from the Church. If Vatican 2, and numerous post-Vatican 2 documents are filled with error and heresies, that would contradict the Church's indefectibility, and that would go directly against Vatican I. How does the Roman Church remain undefiled if Vatican I is wrong? Doesn't that mean it has defected?
![Megan Thee Stallion - Roc Steady (feat. Flo Milli) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HozPPyqW0dY/mqdefault.jpg)
Does it mean that if the priest is spiritually offering the Mass with anti-popes, His Mass could be bad for us or invalid? And what if i go to Mass, but pray that this Mass is united with Saints and Holly Popes regardless of what the awarness priest has, which I cannot always know ?
No, it doesn't affect the validity of the sacraments. The solution is to go to mass offered by validly ordained sedevacantist clergy, where there is no doubt whatsoever.
@@jimmyhun91 I understand, however distance( availability of such Mass) is sometimes difficult .
1) If you don't have a valid AND licit Mass available to you, the Sunday precept ceases to oblige.
2) We go to Mass to please God. But the una cum Mass is unacceptable to God. God cannot be pleased by an act of worship offered in the name of a false Pope who happens to be the head of a false religion. The Mass is not only an act of the priest in persona Christi; it is also an act of the whole Church. Naming Bergoglio in the Canon legitimizes Vatican II, which is an implicit negation of the Church’s indefectibility.
- Rev Nicolas Despósito
The entire logic of papal infallibility is that heresy can never be a condition of communion with the Roman Church and its bishop. Otherwise you’d be forced to choose: schism or heresy. If you believe that a Roman bishop imposing heresy simply makes him no longer the “true” Roman bishop, then papal infallibility is a completely pointless doctrine.
First of all, the Pope cannot promulgate false doctrines or heresies, period. From there we conclude that the seat is simply vacant.
@@prevatican2catholicshow that illustrates precisely my point. If it's a valid intra-Catholic epistemic route to judge the validity of a papal election based on the teachings of the pope, then papal infallibility has no practical use anymore. It makes a lot more sense within that paradigm to just admit that Vatican I was wrong, and the Roman Church does not remain undefiled from heresy unto the end.
I don't think i'm understanding you. Vatican I made mention of the necessary submission to the ordinary means of teaching from the Church. If Vatican 2, and numerous post-Vatican 2 documents are filled with error and heresies, that would contradict the Church's indefectibility, and that would go directly against Vatican I.
How does the Roman Church remain undefiled if Vatican I is wrong? Doesn't that mean it has defected?
@@prevatican2catholicshow if you believe that the Roman Church has taught error in a definitive capacity, that indeed means Vatican I is wrong.
But the Church hasn't taught error, Vatican I was a true council. It's Vatican II that's full of errors and heresies.