Is everyone paying attention to the timeline? If All things on Earth and As it is in Heaven are in Gods authority, power and control, we must innerstand this is Gods will be done. We're going into Chastisment period. Its quite obvious to me. I pray Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ takes off all the scales from everyone's eyes to see clear. Much love and many blessings. Ave Maria ❤️🙏
Part II is on the way. Should be ready within the month. What is traditional Catholicism? Also Sede vacantism but I’m not sure if I should make those separate videos.
@@catholiccrusaderfilms3974 Great! Thanks. For whatever it's worth, you should dedicate an entire video to the topic of Sedevacantism; as I suspect it's understood even less than Traditional Catholicism. I like the Sedevacantist position very much, what little I know about it; but the thing that troubles me the most is the question of the Eucharist and the sacraments. Do Sedevacantist churches have valid sacraments? I don't know of any Sedevacantist churches anywhere in my country; so even if they have valid sacraments, I wouldn't be able to access them, if it requires traveling outside my own country to partake of them. Do the Sedevacantists believe the SSPX have valid sacraments?
Stay away from sedevacantism. it is not catholic because when you declare the apostolic succession null and void you effectively call the church dead but that is not catholic @@kenmcrae8591
Can you please re-upload your very well-done video on "the chosen" to rumble & other platforms so that people can access, copy & distribute it widely? Thank you
This video was taken down by RUclips due to a copyright complaint from the Chosen. My channel was also given a strike. I have appealed this and should know within two weeks weather RUclips and put it back up. If my appeal is denied I will I’ll still put something back up even if I have to edit out much of the video from the show. Please pray for this intention.
Yes I’m going to make a Rumble and Facebook channel for Catholic Crusader Films. I will put everything from this channel on them. It will be a good opportunity for me to fix some audio with a few of the catechism lesson as well.
@@catholiccrusaderfilms3974 thanks. A lot of people saw it & more were asking about it. Jesse Romero discussed it & promoted your video on rumble. Absurd that it was axed, it was obviously only fair use excerpts & protected from copyright. Interesting that the chosen didn't want such a good & competent critique floating around.🙏🏻
Thank you for your video on exposing The Chosen; I have been sharing it across all social media. Regarding this video, when you say, "One cannot reject the authority of one Pope, without rejecting the authority of all Popes", why do you think this is not so when an individual thinks that a Pope is not a valid Pope? And, who has the authority to decided which Popes are valid or not? Are you using your "own private judgement" in this matter? Did you know that the sins within the hierarchy of the Church that you rightly recognized have been in existence for centuries before Vatican II and are simply publicly exposed?
It’s hard to answer that kind of a question with a short comment but I will try. You must be one in Faith with the Pope. Actually all Catholics must be one in faith with each other. If the members of the church could hold different beliefs, then the church would not have the mark of unity. Do you hold the same faith as Francis? I have a video almost ready to publish on sedevacantism that will talk about this.
Good detailed analysis, but with several errors and a dramatically bad error in final conclusion. I would mostly certainly would be happy to address your errors, but first I would like to pose a question to which if you could please answer. If a Pope teaches something opposed to dogma such as it okay to murder, steal, and blaspheme or that Jesus does not posses a divine nature; do you still say we must follow those teachings? If yes then good luck with that, but if no, then what would you propose as the prudent course of action? And no, this is not a straw man argument, because it has happened in the past. Pope Honorius in 681 was condemned as a Heretic by the the 3rd council of Constantinople which pronounced him "Anathema Sit", because he supported a heresy in two letters he wrote to the patriarch of Constantinople (Sergious). But the council not having the authority to judge the first sea; the successor of Honorius (Pope Leo 2nd) ratified the decrees of the council on Honorius. This means that a Pope was condemned by both a council AND a subsequent Pope. This also proves a Pope can be in error. We also have proof in scripture itself of resisting a pope when St. Paul "resisted Peter to his face". And because St. Paul did so, Peter when back into line (so to speak) So, was St. Paul wrong also; because your argument would suggest that St. Paul was wrong? When you answer these questions. we can continue to "dialogue" (to use V2 terminology).
On matters of faith and morals, the pope is protected from teaching error by a divine promise. The idea of a pope officially teaching error is like a square circle. It simply can’t exist. If a pope could teach error. the papacy would useless. Each Catholic would need to sift his teachings to weed out the error. Do you contend that the pope could teach error but the society that sifts his teachings could not? As for the case of Honorius it does not prove what you think it proves. This supposed letter was not discovered until many years after his death. After this trial the letter was burned. What kind of a trial burns the evidence? Perhaps the kind that is afraid the evidence might be discovered to be a forgery. Even if the letter were not a forgery it was a private letter not officially promulgated teaching. Honorius certainly never taught heresy. It is true that he was condemned but it was not for heresy. It is also of interest that the arguments you cite were also used by the anti-infallible faction at Vatican I. If you find yourself using the same arguments that are used by the enemies of the church you might want to examine your position a little more closely.
If the Pope can teach error then we would need a pope checker to sift his teachings. But pope checkers are not infallible. What if they make an error? In such a Church Each believer would need to sift the sifters to ensure that they were not teaching error. This would actually make each believer their own authority. This is a Protestant view of the Church. Once you accept the idea that the pope can teach error you have left the Catholic Church.
There were no errors in the video, there are only errors in your comment. You gave a false premise that the pope can teach error with Pope Honorius, your premise is false because the fact is that Honorius fell from the papacy and was no longer the Pope the moment he embraced heresy. That is why it is impossible for the pope to teach error or heresy with full consent of will because the moment he does he is no longer the Pope. So your point crumbles because it is false. Pope Leo II infallibly declared that Honorious by failing to defend against the heresy of monothelitism, the heresy that Christ only had one will and not two wills human and divine, Leo II said because Honorious failed to defend against the heresy he showed it favoritism and became a heretic himself. And the Church Fathers infallibly teach that the Pope ceases to be the pope when he becomes a heretic. Therefore your claim that Pope Honorius is proof that a pope can teach error is completely false because if a valid Pope teaches error he is no longer the Pope. I will give you infallible Church teaching, explained by the Doctors, with examples in Church History. The Church teaches when the Church Fathers are unanimous on something it is infallible. The Church Fathers are unanimous that the pope loses the papacy in four different ways. By death, by becoming a tyrant, by willingly embracing heresy, or by stepping down of his own free and uncompromised will. Doctor of the Church St Robert Bellarmine, along with Doctors St Augustine, St Ambrose, and St Jerome all say since the pope can be judged by none, if he embraces heresy, he should be approached by a group of Bishops or a Council and presented with the heresy he preached, presented with the true teaching of the Church, and ask the pope if he accepts correction or if he refuses correction. If the pope accepts correction, his heresy was only material and he has not lost the papacy. If he refuses correction, it is not the Bishops who judge him because the pope can be judged by none, the pope has judged himself and has proclaimed himself a heretic by refusing correction and he himself proving he clings to the heresy by self evident fact. The Bishops simply acknowledge that by his own mouth the pope refuses correction on his error and reveals the heresy he holds in his heart, therefore they acknowledge the fact that he presents that he is no longer the pope. Since he is obstinately clinging to heresy, he has excommunicated himself and is outside the Church, is no longer the pope and can now be judged and punished by the Church. The Doctors say at this point the Church wIll elect a new pope. We see an example of a pope falling into material heresy with Pope John the 22nd, who taught that the souls in heaven will not get the beatific Vision until after the resurrection. Nobody had the courage to approach the pope on his heresy and correct him, and only one priest in Rome dared to speak out against the pope and condemn his heresy. The Priest was arrested, and an inquisition was held. After 3 years of investigation, the Inquisition discovered the priest was correct and the pope was preaching heresy. John the 22nd was on his deathbed and he was approached by the Inquisition and asked why he was teaching heresy because it should be impossible for the pope to teach heresy. John the 22nd replied that he did not know he was teaching heresy, he accepted the correction and received the sacraments on his deathbed. John the 22nd did not lose the papacy because he accepted correction and did not cling to error when he was corrected. Therefore his heresy was only material. This falls right in line with the dogmatic Council of Vatican one which teaches the Pope is infallible when he speaks from the Chair of Peter. When he is not speaking from the chair of Peter it is possible for him to go into material heresy, but accept correction and not lose the papacy because the error was in ignorance. If he refuses correction, then his error was not material and he lost the papacy the moment he embraced the heresy in his heart, which is brought to light and made evident by his refusal of correction. Furthermore, just like when Bishop Nestorius taught the heresy that Mary was not the Mother of God, and Pope Sixtus III, Pope Saint Celestine V, and Pope Paul IV infallibly taught the people were correct to immediately refuse all obedience to Nestorius the moment he declared heresy because he lost his office instantly without any action from the Church, and the people should not wait for the Church to conduct any investigation or take action and should immediately refuse obedience to a manifest heretic. In the same way Pope Leo II praised the people who immediately refused all obedience to Pope Honorius when he tried to order everyone to silence and not to fight the heresy. Pope Leo II declared the people were correct to disobey Honorious because he was no longer the Pope by his fusel to fight heresy. It is only the Sedevacantist position that is backed up by the infallible teaching of the church fathers, explained by the doctors, with examples in church history. Those who refuse to acknowledge infallible Church teaching that the pope can lose the papacy do not take their belief to its logical conclusion. If the pope could preach heresy and refuse correction and remain pope, that means he can literally get out a list of every single dogma and infallible teaching, go down the list and reject every single one of them one at a time, stomp on the eucharist, burn a picture of the Blessed Mother, spit upon the faithful, and worship a pachamama idol and remain the Pope. Pope Leo the 13th said it is an absurdity to say those outside the Church can hold office inside the Church. And that is why the laity, Priests and Bishops are correct and in full communion with Rome when they reject a manifest heretic Pope, who is in reality not the pope but an antipope. Error has no rights.
@Steve can you help me understand the current situation with the 4 dubia cardinals asking for clarification on Amoris Laetitia. Has the pope received their request or acknowledged it at all?
6:10 why do you call Lefebvre by glorious title of Archbishop. He lost his office by accepting these heretics as pope, and their church as Catholic? Many brilliant sedes ordo this also. It seems to undercut your arguments.
Is everyone paying attention to the timeline? If All things on Earth and As it is in Heaven are in Gods authority, power and control, we must innerstand this is Gods will be done. We're going into Chastisment period. Its quite obvious to me. I pray Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ takes off all the scales from everyone's eyes to see clear. Much love and many blessings. Ave Maria ❤️🙏
SSPX SAVED THE CHURCH
Do you mean the SSPX saved the heretical Novus Ordo Church?
@@catholiccrusaderfilms3974 Where is Part 2 of this video? And is there a Part 3?
Part II is on the way. Should be ready within the month. What is traditional Catholicism? Also Sede vacantism but I’m not sure if I should make those separate videos.
@@catholiccrusaderfilms3974 Great! Thanks. For whatever it's worth, you should dedicate an entire video to the topic of Sedevacantism; as I suspect it's understood even less than Traditional Catholicism.
I like the Sedevacantist position very much, what little I know about it; but the thing that troubles me the most is the question of the Eucharist and the sacraments. Do Sedevacantist churches have valid sacraments?
I don't know of any Sedevacantist churches anywhere in my country; so even if they have valid sacraments, I wouldn't be able to access them, if it requires traveling outside my own country to partake of them. Do the Sedevacantists believe the SSPX have valid sacraments?
Stay away from sedevacantism. it is not catholic because when you declare the apostolic succession null and void you effectively call the church dead but that is not catholic @@kenmcrae8591
What’s the source for Pope Pius IX saying that he is Tradition around the 9:00 mark?
SSPX is not in schism.
Can you please re-upload your very well-done video on "the chosen" to rumble & other platforms so that people can access, copy & distribute it widely? Thank you
This video was taken down by RUclips due to a copyright complaint from the Chosen. My channel was also given a strike. I have appealed this and should know within two weeks weather RUclips and put it back up. If my appeal is denied I will I’ll still put something back up even if I have to edit out much of the video from the show. Please pray for this intention.
Yes I’m going to make a Rumble and Facebook channel for Catholic Crusader Films.
I will put everything from this channel on them. It will be a good opportunity for me to fix some audio with a few of the catechism lesson as well.
@@catholiccrusaderfilms3974 thanks. A lot of people saw it & more were asking about it. Jesse Romero discussed it & promoted your video on rumble. Absurd that it was axed, it was obviously only fair use excerpts & protected from copyright. Interesting that the chosen didn't want such a good & competent critique floating around.🙏🏻
RUclips has put my video about the Chosen back up. Please share it with as many people as you can before the Chosen tries to have it taken down again.
Copyright complaint?😂😂😂
Weasels
Thank you for your video on exposing The Chosen; I have been sharing it across all social media. Regarding this video, when you say, "One cannot reject the authority of one Pope, without rejecting the authority of all Popes", why do you think this is not so when an individual thinks that a Pope is not a valid Pope? And, who has the authority to decided which Popes are valid or not? Are you using your "own private judgement" in this matter? Did you know that the sins within the hierarchy of the Church that you rightly recognized have been in existence for centuries before Vatican II and are simply publicly exposed?
It’s hard to answer that kind of a question with a short comment but I will try.
You must be one in Faith with the Pope. Actually all Catholics must be one in faith with each other. If the members of the church could hold different beliefs, then the church would not have the mark of unity.
Do you hold the same faith as Francis?
I have a video almost ready to publish on sedevacantism that will talk about this.
Arch Bishop LeFevbre was correct
Do you care to be more specific?
Good detailed analysis, but with several errors and a dramatically bad error in final conclusion. I would mostly certainly would be happy to address your errors, but first I would like to pose a question to which if you could please answer. If a Pope teaches something opposed to dogma such as it okay to murder, steal, and blaspheme or that Jesus does not posses a divine nature; do you still say we must follow those teachings? If yes then good luck with that, but if no, then what would you propose as the prudent course of action?
And no, this is not a straw man argument, because it has happened in the past. Pope Honorius in 681 was condemned as a Heretic by the the 3rd council of Constantinople which pronounced him "Anathema Sit", because he supported a heresy in two letters he wrote to the patriarch of Constantinople (Sergious). But the council not having the authority to judge the first sea; the successor of Honorius (Pope Leo 2nd) ratified the decrees of the council on Honorius. This means that a Pope was condemned by both a council AND a subsequent Pope. This also proves a Pope can be in error. We also have proof in scripture itself of resisting a pope when St. Paul "resisted Peter to his face". And because St. Paul did so, Peter when back into line (so to speak) So, was St. Paul wrong also; because your argument would suggest that St. Paul was wrong? When you answer these questions. we can continue to "dialogue" (to use V2 terminology).
On matters of faith and morals, the pope is protected from teaching error by a divine promise. The idea of a pope officially teaching error is like a square circle. It simply can’t exist.
If a pope could teach error. the papacy would useless. Each Catholic would need to sift his teachings to weed out the error.
Do you contend that the pope could teach error but the society that sifts his teachings could not?
As for the case of Honorius it does not prove what you think it proves.
This supposed letter was not discovered until many years after his death.
After this trial the letter was burned.
What kind of a trial burns the evidence? Perhaps the kind that is afraid the evidence might be discovered to be a forgery.
Even if the letter were not a forgery it was a private letter not officially promulgated teaching.
Honorius certainly never taught heresy. It is true that he was condemned but it was not for heresy.
It is also of interest that the arguments you cite were also used by the anti-infallible faction at Vatican I. If you find yourself using the same arguments that are used by the enemies of the church you might want to examine your position a little more closely.
If the Pope can teach error then we would need a pope checker to sift his teachings.
But pope checkers are not infallible.
What if they make an error?
In such a Church Each believer would need to sift the sifters to ensure that they were not teaching error.
This would actually make each believer their own authority. This is a Protestant view of the Church.
Once you accept the idea that the pope can teach error you have left the Catholic Church.
There were no errors in the video, there are only errors in your comment.
You gave a false premise that the pope can teach error with Pope Honorius, your premise is false because the fact is that Honorius fell from the papacy and was no longer the Pope the moment he embraced heresy. That is why it is impossible for the pope to teach error or heresy with full consent of will because the moment he does he is no longer the Pope. So your point crumbles because it is false.
Pope Leo II infallibly declared that Honorious by failing to defend against the heresy of monothelitism, the heresy that Christ only had one will and not two wills human and divine, Leo II said because Honorious failed to defend against the heresy he showed it favoritism and became a heretic himself.
And the Church Fathers infallibly teach that the Pope ceases to be the pope when he becomes a heretic.
Therefore your claim that Pope Honorius is proof that a pope can teach error is completely false because if a valid Pope teaches error he is no longer the Pope.
I will give you infallible Church teaching, explained by the Doctors, with examples in Church History.
The Church teaches when the Church Fathers are unanimous on something it is infallible. The Church Fathers are unanimous that the pope loses the papacy in four different ways. By death, by becoming a tyrant, by willingly embracing heresy, or by stepping down of his own free and uncompromised will.
Doctor of the Church St Robert Bellarmine, along with Doctors St Augustine, St Ambrose, and St Jerome all say since the pope can be judged by none, if he embraces heresy, he should be approached by a group of Bishops or a Council and presented with the heresy he preached, presented with the true teaching of the Church, and ask the pope if he accepts correction or if he refuses correction.
If the pope accepts correction, his heresy was only material and he has not lost the papacy. If he refuses correction, it is not the Bishops who judge him because the pope can be judged by none, the pope has judged himself and has proclaimed himself a heretic by refusing correction and he himself proving he clings to the heresy by self evident fact.
The Bishops simply acknowledge that by his own mouth the pope refuses correction on his error and reveals the heresy he holds in his heart, therefore they acknowledge the fact that he presents that he is no longer the pope.
Since he is obstinately clinging to heresy, he has excommunicated himself and is outside the Church, is no longer the pope and can now be judged and punished by the Church.
The Doctors say at this point the Church wIll elect a new pope.
We see an example of a pope falling into material heresy with Pope John the 22nd, who taught that the souls in heaven will not get the beatific Vision until after the resurrection.
Nobody had the courage to approach the pope on his heresy and correct him, and only one priest in Rome dared to speak out against the pope and condemn his heresy. The Priest was arrested, and an inquisition was held.
After 3 years of investigation, the Inquisition discovered the priest was correct and the pope was preaching heresy. John the 22nd was on his deathbed and he was approached by the Inquisition and asked why he was teaching heresy because it should be impossible for the pope to teach heresy.
John the 22nd replied that he did not know he was teaching heresy, he accepted the correction and received the sacraments on his deathbed.
John the 22nd did not lose the papacy because he accepted correction and did not cling to error when he was corrected. Therefore his heresy was only material.
This falls right in line with the dogmatic Council of Vatican one which teaches the Pope is infallible when he speaks from the Chair of Peter. When he is not speaking from the chair of Peter it is possible for him to go into material heresy, but accept correction and not lose the papacy because the error was in ignorance.
If he refuses correction, then his error was not material and he lost the papacy the moment he embraced the heresy in his heart, which is brought to light and made evident by his refusal of correction.
Furthermore, just like when Bishop Nestorius taught the heresy that Mary was not the Mother of God, and Pope Sixtus III, Pope Saint Celestine V, and Pope Paul IV infallibly taught the people were correct to immediately refuse all obedience to Nestorius the moment he declared heresy because he lost his office instantly without any action from the Church, and the people should not wait for the Church to conduct any investigation or take action and should immediately refuse obedience to a manifest heretic.
In the same way Pope Leo II praised the people who immediately refused all obedience to Pope Honorius when he tried to order everyone to silence and not to fight the heresy. Pope Leo II declared the people were correct to disobey Honorious because he was no longer the Pope by his fusel to fight heresy.
It is only the Sedevacantist position that is backed up by the infallible teaching of the church fathers, explained by the doctors, with examples in church history.
Those who refuse to acknowledge infallible Church teaching that the pope can lose the papacy do not take their belief to its logical conclusion.
If the pope could preach heresy and refuse correction and remain pope, that means he can literally get out a list of every single dogma and infallible teaching, go down the list and reject every single one of them one at a time, stomp on the eucharist, burn a picture of the Blessed Mother, spit upon the faithful, and worship a pachamama idol and remain the Pope.
Pope Leo the 13th said it is an absurdity to say those outside the Church can hold office inside the Church.
And that is why the laity, Priests and Bishops are correct and in full communion with Rome when they reject a manifest heretic Pope, who is in reality not the pope but an antipope.
Error has no rights.
@@Steve_Milo very well written. Thank you.
@Steve can you help me understand the current situation with the 4 dubia cardinals asking for clarification on Amoris Laetitia. Has the pope received their request or acknowledged it at all?
6:10 why do you call Lefebvre by glorious title of Archbishop.
He lost his office by accepting these heretics as pope, and their church as Catholic?
Many brilliant sedes ordo this also.
It seems to undercut your arguments.
And Sheen and Pio. It's like he's a saint, even listening to sedes.