I met Mr. Heiner 20ish years ago at a small party at the Coroleski sister's place. He is good friends with my sister in law Theresa Cabler. she is married to my wife's brother. Steven has been communicating on some of these issues with her after her interest was piqued after my famly broiught Bishop Pivarunas to Easter dinner. Pray she converts as I think it will bring the whole extended family over to the TRUTH
Thank you, Nikhil, for another great interview. (You’re 5 for 5 😉.) Stephen’s work at True Restoration has been an immense blessing and resource for me and, by extension, my family. I also highly recommend the Francis Watch episodes he and some of his colleagues at TR did with His Excellency Bishop Sanborn and +Fr. Cekada. I “binged on” many of these as I was coming out of the Novus Ordo. They not only helped articulate-using pristine Catholic doctrine-the absurdities of Vatican II and the post-“Conciliar” papal claimants (sentiments that I had known at least intuitively for many years prior to “officially” arriving at the sedevacantist position) but also exhibited a “joyful warrior” spirit with their legitimately funny humor and resignation to God’s holy will. Many people (wrongly) believe Traditional Catholics are just scared and mentally-deranged zealots, most likely due to the disproportionate attention a certain set of “brothers” receive from their online ranting and ravings. But TR allowed me to hear from both clergy and laity alike who are normal, well-adjusted people who make it their aim to live Catholic lives in this period of turmoil and crisis. If anything, they’re even more normal than normal people insofar as they (dare I say “we”) can see the reality of the situation for what it is and adjust our lives accordingly, namely, that the authority of the Church cannot give evil to the faithful, Vatican II is evil and the VII anti-popes have imposed it on the faithful, therefore VII didn’t come from the authority of the Church and the VII anti-popes (by virtue of their objective intention to harm the Church) do not have the formal authority of the papacy to teach, rule, and sanctify-ergo, the Chair of St. Peter has been vacant since 1958. Anyway, sorry for the long comment. I just want to express my gratitude towards you and your guests. God bless you all!!!
0:00 Intro 0:20 Start 1:46 Tell me your journey from Novus Ordo to SSPX to Sedevacantism 11:21 A fateful interview with Bp. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais 25:54 Are there SSPX priests who are sedevacantist in practice? 30:22 Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre 36:46 Does the SSPX use John Paul II's catechism? 41:37 Non-Una Cum 52:48 What would Bp. Sanborn or Fr. Cekada say about Fr. Martin Stepanich's article on Non-Una Cum? 55:06 Western Schism 1:06:16 Pre-1955 Holy Week 1:12:06 Cassiciacum Thesis vs Totalism 1:22:41 Final thoughts 1:24:12 Wrapping Up 1:24:50 Outro
The Japanese Catholics went for hundreds of years without any of the sacraments. And the Gerry Matatics-type "home aloners" keep the faith without the sacraments
Other than being comatose or just plain stupid, there’s no longer any legitimate excuse to remain yoked to Antipope Francis and the Novus Ordo Antichurch he leads, which has manifestly been overcome by hell and thus can’t possibly be the actual Catholic Church.
Or they are dishonest. I find it fascinating that conservative novus ordo types will quote previous Church teaching to argue against Sedevacantism, but don't recognise that the same individuals whom they believe to be the legitimate Catholic hierarchy rebuff and reject that very same magisterium. They don't see the hypocrisy when the Vatican issues decrees of excommunication against the likes of Vigano for rejecting Vatican II, while simultaneously refusing to excommunicate immoral public sinners & manifest heretics. What value does an excommunication have from a body that doesn't believe it has the absolute truth, nor in the penalty for dying outside the church, i.e. hell? If Protestants are saved, as Bergy says, why would an excommunication mean anything in the spiritual order. It's totally toothless. According to the N.O., we sedes are a means of salvation, so they really have no ground on which to stand 😂😂😂
There was a lot of confusion early on. LeFebvre was part of that. The clarity has been increasing; it is fair that not all saw or see the exact arguments.
But there’s now no excuse left to remain yoked to Antipope Francis and the Novus Ordo Antichurch he leads, which has manifestly been overcome by hell and thus can’t possibly be the actual Catholic Church.
For future interview ideas, I'd recommend trying to get an interview with Prof. Atila Sinke Guimaraes and Dr. Marian Horvat of Tradition in Action. I'm surprised that nobody has yet interviewed them. Their thoughts on how the Church and Christendom will be restored would be interesting.
@@JeremiahAlphonsus I know, but they have a lot of info to share which is not privy to ordinary people. I'll interview them myself in the future, if they agree.
I had a complete conversion from being a Protestant evangelist by praying the Rosary. The Catholic Church was "downloaded" and I was instantly Catholic. So I went to a church. I was horrified by the Novus Ordo and Vatican II. I requested Catechism via correspondence with an CMRI nun. It was perfect. I was conditionally baptized by a CMRI priest. Then I went back home, where there is no traditional parish within driving distance. I eventually traveled again, and found myself at an SSPX monastery in the mountains of New Mexico. I loved it there. One of the priests convinced me to "come back to the Church", that Francis is Pope, but a very bad one. He convinced me. But it was not good for my faith. When I went back home, I dutifully tried to "stay in the Church" and I began attending Novus Ordo services. Pretty cringe, but I thought I was doing the right thing. About a year into that, I became inspired to immerse myself in the Holy Face devotion, something I had chanced upon a couple of years earlier. The prayers are very powerful, actually an exorcism for lay persons, against revolutionary forces, both physical and spiritual. A couple of weeks later, I left the Novus Ordo and, God willing, do not plan to return. So, my personal experience is that the SSPX is like smoking pot. It won't really hurt you, but it opens the door to something much worse.
@@prevatican2catholicshow I have no problem with the Thesis. However, for the evangelist, it's a distinction without a difference. Sure, it's interesting to theorize how the seat of Peter can eventually be filled, but I still would not guide someone to the Novus Ordo for salvation. Most lay people are not prepared to sift out the distinctions between the "matter" and the "form" of the Papacy. Just keep completely away from the Great Apostasy. btw, I forgot to mention that doubtful ordinations come into this issue. Do you believe that the Episcopal consecration formula of Paul VI is valid? Have you researched Novus Ordo ordinations? I would say they're doubtful, at best. If the hierarchy imbedded in Rome are lay persons, then isn't the Thesis a real stretch of the imagination?
There's no problem with evangelism because it deals with any issue a Novus Ordite or Recognize and Resister might bring up squarely and clearly, e.g. supplied jurisdiction, colored titles etc. Canon Law is clear that undeclared heretics can validly elect and be elected in the Church, at least for as long as their delict of heresy is not recognized. If we're talking about evangelism, then Totalism has serious problems: where was the Catholic Church from 1958 until sedevacantism? How will the Church get a new pope? (Please don't say conclave)
@@prevatican2catholicshow If these men inhabiting the Vatican have neither true Apostolic succession (due to the invalid Episcopal consecrations) not true faith (V2 destroys the First Commandment) why should they be consequential in any sense? I guess I'm missing something. Thanks for the discussion.
Because they have material succession (a juridical fact), they preserve the legal juridical structure of the Church, even if they are deprived of authority. The Cardinals do not elect the pope exercising jurisdiction (power to rule), they elect him using the faculty of designation, which is a legal/human faculty. Undeclared heresy & the faculty to designate are compatible. The biggest problem with "Totalism" is it demolishes the legal structure of the Church and destroys apostolicity. Why would Canon law have a special provision for undeclared heretics if they are of no consequence?
Hello. I have a question that maybe Stephen can clear up for me. I've been trying to get to the bottom of it for years. In the interview of The Nine Bishop Sanborn speaks of Fr Schmitzberger (sp??) being a sédé.. that 'he spoke to him the day he arrived' (at Econe). Then at the end, Fr Schmitzberger seems to be siding with Bishop Williamson and not sédé ??? What was the situation pls?
I'm unfortunately one of those people "without the will" to leave the SSPX. Two problems, though, are that I am uncomfortable with what I'm expected to believe at a sedevacantist parish. Do I have to accept that there has been no pope since 1958 or, as one of the owners of The William Review says, am I sede just by being certain that Francis isn't the pope? Do I have to believe that the NO is invalid, or can I go to an NO parish, where I never attend Mass, and believe I'm visiting Jesus? I have a Pius V parish not too far from me. Should I go there, even though I don't agree with their position that Francis's papacy is only doubtful? And as far as una cum versus non-una cum, who has the authority to tell me I must go to non-una cum? I can't turn to the authority of Tradition, because this has never come up.
Sharon 😊, we don't know if it - "una cum a heretic" - has never come up in Church history unless you assert you know it all and have read and understood absolutely everything? And that's no of course not, Shazza. What we do know is that Bergoglio is not our Pope. God's authority dictactes our conscience of right and wrong generally, and our actions, by fact of *knowing* things and acting in harmony not contradiction with that *knowing* . Sedes *know* that Bergoglio is not the Pope by arriving at that conclusion based on objective facts, faith and morals. For a Sede to give public assent of attending a mass offered "together with our Pope Francis" is a *contradiction* for the sede who knows Bergoglio is *NOT* our Pope. Whether one argues laboriously that it is a "prayer foooor the pope" doesn't save anything because Bergoglio is not the Pope. Also we should not be publicly praying for heretics in the Mass. It's a lose/lose for the "it's a prayer f-o-o-o-r the pope" political campaigners. The "una cum" though silent is a *public* prayer and is in *the most sacred* part of the Mass, the Canon. Faithful Catholics know that something does not *have* to be a sin to avoid it. Attending the "una cum" masses does not *have* to be a mortal sin or any sin to avoid giving assent by attending it because people are *not allowed* to do *anything* that even *MAY* be sinful.
SSPX is not encouraging independent searching or questioning them about sth. They present it as dangerous, they don't encourage internet search, books only recommended or sold by them, some priests are trying even cut the use of phones ( although I understand that smart phones and unlimited computers can be dangerous especially for kids). Sometimes - even overcontrol of people.( I was told once that my bag was to big ).
SSPX is "Recognize and Resist", and thus to be dismissed as a viable organization. mostholytrinityseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/RR_Dutertre_2022.pdf
False the Roman/latin rite liturgy comes from St. Peter in the 1st century, not St John Chrysostom in the 4th century, though no doubt he and others added to it throughout the years. 3:30 is Mr. Heiners statement.
I've never heard a priest refer to the Roman Rite dating to St. Peter, but rather to St. Gregory the Great in the 6th century and the form we have now is from the 7th century. The Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is markedly different. In any case, both rites are of ancient usage.
This interview convinced me against CMRI's position on una cum mass. So I won't attend SSPX masses in the future. By the way is it true that CMRI uses the 1955 Holy Week (Bugnini creation)?
The SSPX is not the organization that started the idea of Holy Mass being mandatory. That’s ridiculous. It was always part of the true Catholic faith that you had to attend Mass on Sunday, Ever read the 10 commandments?
Oh yes your position is very logical and all but when your solution is to go without the sacraments you have lost the plot. "the sspx invented the need for mass" I have been arguing with a Protestant for five months and these are the exact things I argue with him about so you people are definitely going towards protestantism. You should be ashamed of promoting such scandal as "you don't need the eucharist"
The Problem With the Una-Cum Mass - Interview with Most Rev. Donald J. Sanborn ruclips.net/video/e86OkMmRbac/видео.html Should I Assist at a Una Cum Mass? by Rev. Anthony Cekada mostholytrinityseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/B16inCanon.pdf The Grain of Incense: Sedevacantists and Una Cum Masses, by Rev. Anthony Cekada mostholytrinityseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/SedesUnCum.pdf
Below is a Calvinist raised convert and Calvinist Donald Veitch website after two years now remains only RUclips site with some videos on two Papal Historians who were Catholics namely Ludwig Von Pastor 1854 to 1928 who spent last nine years as Vienna Ambassador to Rome /Surely unique among Ambassadors? and whose Diaries kept in Vatican The other was English Monsignor Horace Mann who also passed away in 1928 Nothing on either / their own lives or their writings is available on RUclips except on Calvinist website mentioned above Finally in this year now ending in which Cardinal Pell Passed away this January Professor Peter Price of Monash University in Australia wrote book on 10 Australians surprisingly all conservatives who attended Vatican ONE Would you make a video on this as well as All Americans who Attended led by very very liberal Bernard MCQUAID ? They came from the ends of the earth in 1870
Stephen ‘I-Don’t-Need-Sacraments’ Heiner. Otherwise known as Stephen ‘You-Don’t-Need-Sacraments’ Heiner. Also as Stephen ‘Show-Me-The-Canon-Where…’ Heiner.
Archbishop Lefebvre was a very integral part of where we are.,
I met Mr. Heiner 20ish years ago at a small party at the Coroleski sister's place. He is good friends with my sister in law Theresa Cabler. she is married to my wife's brother. Steven has been communicating on some of these issues with her after her interest was piqued after my famly broiught Bishop Pivarunas to Easter dinner. Pray she converts as I think it will bring the whole extended family over to the TRUTH
Thank you, Nikhil, for another great interview. (You’re 5 for 5 😉.) Stephen’s work at True Restoration has been an immense blessing and resource for me and, by extension, my family. I also highly recommend the Francis Watch episodes he and some of his colleagues at TR did with His Excellency Bishop Sanborn and +Fr. Cekada. I “binged on” many of these as I was coming out of the Novus Ordo. They not only helped articulate-using pristine Catholic doctrine-the absurdities of Vatican II and the post-“Conciliar” papal claimants (sentiments that I had known at least intuitively for many years prior to “officially” arriving at the sedevacantist position) but also exhibited a “joyful warrior” spirit with their legitimately funny humor and resignation to God’s holy will. Many people (wrongly) believe Traditional Catholics are just scared and mentally-deranged zealots, most likely due to the disproportionate attention a certain set of “brothers” receive from their online ranting and ravings. But TR allowed me to hear from both clergy and laity alike who are normal, well-adjusted people who make it their aim to live Catholic lives in this period of turmoil and crisis. If anything, they’re even more normal than normal people insofar as they (dare I say “we”) can see the reality of the situation for what it is and adjust our lives accordingly, namely, that the authority of the Church cannot give evil to the faithful, Vatican II is evil and the VII anti-popes have imposed it on the faithful, therefore VII didn’t come from the authority of the Church and the VII anti-popes (by virtue of their objective intention to harm the Church) do not have the formal authority of the papacy to teach, rule, and sanctify-ergo, the Chair of St. Peter has been vacant since 1958. Anyway, sorry for the long comment. I just want to express my gratitude towards you and your guests. God bless you all!!!
Thank you for the kind comment! I really appreciate it. I'm so glad we have a growing number of fellow travelers in the faith.
0:00 Intro
0:20 Start
1:46 Tell me your journey from Novus Ordo to SSPX to Sedevacantism
11:21 A fateful interview with Bp. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais
25:54 Are there SSPX priests who are sedevacantist in practice?
30:22 Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
36:46 Does the SSPX use John Paul II's catechism?
41:37 Non-Una Cum
52:48 What would Bp. Sanborn or Fr. Cekada say about Fr. Martin Stepanich's article on Non-Una Cum?
55:06 Western Schism
1:06:16 Pre-1955 Holy Week
1:12:06 Cassiciacum Thesis vs Totalism
1:22:41 Final thoughts
1:24:12 Wrapping Up
1:24:50 Outro
I am so pleased I❤. This needs to be heard!
Such an enlightening video-thank you!
Jesus said that without the Eucharist, we have not life within us. Please address that.
The Japanese Catholics went for hundreds of years without any of the sacraments. And the Gerry Matatics-type "home aloners" keep the faith without the sacraments
@@Cecilia_MarieJapan springs to mind
Other than being comatose or just plain stupid, there’s no longer any legitimate excuse to remain yoked to Antipope Francis and the Novus Ordo Antichurch he leads, which has manifestly been overcome by hell and thus can’t possibly be the actual Catholic Church.
Or they are dishonest. I find it fascinating that conservative novus ordo types will quote previous Church teaching to argue against Sedevacantism, but don't recognise that the same individuals whom they believe to be the legitimate Catholic hierarchy rebuff and reject that very same magisterium. They don't see the hypocrisy when the Vatican issues decrees of excommunication against the likes of Vigano for rejecting Vatican II, while simultaneously refusing to excommunicate immoral public sinners & manifest heretics. What value does an excommunication have from a body that doesn't believe it has the absolute truth, nor in the penalty for dying outside the church, i.e. hell? If Protestants are saved, as Bergy says, why would an excommunication mean anything in the spiritual order. It's totally toothless. According to the N.O., we sedes are a means of salvation, so they really have no ground on which to stand 😂😂😂
Can you clarify what it is that Stephen is talking about at about the 26:00 minute mark about undeclared heretics?
Very illuminating. I've a lot of reading to do.
Thanks, Lou!
There was a lot of confusion early on. LeFebvre was part of that. The clarity has been increasing; it is fair that not all saw or see the exact arguments.
But there’s now no excuse left to remain yoked to Antipope Francis and the Novus Ordo Antichurch he leads, which has manifestly been overcome by hell and thus can’t possibly be the actual Catholic Church.
How does one get "Conditionally Confirmed" once one becomes a Sedevacantist?
When I came into the CMRI, they confirmed me with Bishop Pivarunas and it was not conditional.
For future interview ideas, I'd recommend trying to get an interview with Prof. Atila Sinke Guimaraes and Dr. Marian Horvat of Tradition in Action. I'm surprised that nobody has yet interviewed them. Their thoughts on how the Church and Christendom will be restored would be interesting.
Thanks for commenting, I'll be focusing more on RCI and IMBC clergy, I believe they need more amplification.
@@prevatican2catholicshow I'm curious. Do you attend mass where you live?
They’re resolutely R&R.
@@JeremiahAlphonsus I know, but they have a lot of info to share which is not privy to ordinary people. I'll interview them myself in the future, if they agree.
Very informative interview!! Keep up the excellent work!!👍👍
Thank you so much!
I had a complete conversion from being a Protestant evangelist by praying the Rosary. The Catholic Church was "downloaded" and I was instantly Catholic. So I went to a church. I was horrified by the Novus Ordo and Vatican II. I requested Catechism via correspondence with an CMRI nun. It was perfect. I was conditionally baptized by a CMRI priest. Then I went back home, where there is no traditional parish within driving distance. I eventually traveled again, and found myself at an SSPX monastery in the mountains of New Mexico. I loved it there. One of the priests convinced me to "come back to the Church", that Francis is Pope, but a very bad one. He convinced me. But it was not good for my faith. When I went back home, I dutifully tried to "stay in the Church" and I began attending Novus Ordo services. Pretty cringe, but I thought I was doing the right thing. About a year into that, I became inspired to immerse myself in the Holy Face devotion, something I had chanced upon a couple of years earlier. The prayers are very powerful, actually an exorcism for lay persons, against revolutionary forces, both physical and spiritual. A couple of weeks later, I left the Novus Ordo and, God willing, do not plan to return. So, my personal experience is that the SSPX is like smoking pot. It won't really hurt you, but it opens the door to something much worse.
Thanks for your story, definitely look into the Cassiciacum Thesis.
@@prevatican2catholicshow I have no problem with the Thesis. However, for the evangelist, it's a distinction without a difference. Sure, it's interesting to theorize how the seat of Peter can eventually be filled, but I still would not guide someone to the Novus Ordo for salvation. Most lay people are not prepared to sift out the distinctions between the "matter" and the "form" of the Papacy. Just keep completely away from the Great Apostasy. btw, I forgot to mention that doubtful ordinations come into this issue. Do you believe that the Episcopal consecration formula of Paul VI is valid? Have you researched Novus Ordo ordinations? I would say they're doubtful, at best. If the hierarchy imbedded in Rome are lay persons, then isn't the Thesis a real stretch of the imagination?
There's no problem with evangelism because it deals with any issue a Novus Ordite or Recognize and Resister might bring up squarely and clearly, e.g. supplied jurisdiction, colored titles etc. Canon Law is clear that undeclared heretics can validly elect and be elected in the Church, at least for as long as their delict of heresy is not recognized.
If we're talking about evangelism, then Totalism has serious problems: where was the Catholic Church from 1958 until sedevacantism? How will the Church get a new pope? (Please don't say conclave)
@@prevatican2catholicshow If these men inhabiting the Vatican have neither true Apostolic succession (due to the invalid Episcopal consecrations) not true faith (V2 destroys the First Commandment) why should they be consequential in any sense? I guess I'm missing something. Thanks for the discussion.
Because they have material succession (a juridical fact), they preserve the legal juridical structure of the Church, even if they are deprived of authority. The Cardinals do not elect the pope exercising jurisdiction (power to rule), they elect him using the faculty of designation, which is a legal/human faculty. Undeclared heresy & the faculty to designate are compatible.
The biggest problem with "Totalism" is it demolishes the legal structure of the Church and destroys apostolicity.
Why would Canon law have a special provision for undeclared heretics if they are of no consequence?
More Mr. Heiner!
I agree!
Hello. I have a question that maybe Stephen can clear up for me. I've been trying to get to the bottom of it for years. In the interview of The Nine Bishop Sanborn speaks of Fr Schmitzberger (sp??) being a sédé.. that 'he spoke to him the day he arrived' (at Econe). Then at the end, Fr Schmitzberger seems to be siding with Bishop Williamson and not sédé ??? What was the situation pls?
He decided to not be sede anymore.
@@StephenHeiner ahh shucks. Thank you for your réponse and ALL that you do (you have no idea!). God bless you abundantly.
@@chantelouverbojarski6116 no prob! Thanks.
I'm unfortunately one of those people "without the will" to leave the SSPX. Two problems, though, are that I am uncomfortable with what I'm expected to believe at a sedevacantist parish. Do I have to accept that there has been no pope since 1958 or, as one of the owners of The William Review says, am I sede just by being certain that Francis isn't the pope? Do I have to believe that the NO is invalid, or can I go to an NO parish, where I never attend Mass, and believe I'm visiting Jesus? I have a Pius V parish not too far from me. Should I go there, even though I don't agree with their position that Francis's papacy is only doubtful? And as far as una cum versus non-una cum, who has the authority to tell me I must go to non-una cum? I can't turn to the authority of Tradition, because this has never come up.
As far as sedevacantists, the only source I trust is Most Holy Trinity Seminary (Roman Catholic Institute).
Sharon 😊, we don't know if it - "una cum a heretic" - has never come up in Church history unless you assert you know it all and have read and understood absolutely everything? And that's no of course not, Shazza.
What we do know is that Bergoglio is not our Pope. God's authority dictactes our conscience of right and wrong generally, and our actions, by fact of *knowing* things and acting in harmony not contradiction with that *knowing* . Sedes *know* that Bergoglio is not the Pope by arriving at that conclusion based on objective facts, faith and morals. For a Sede to give public assent of attending a mass offered "together with our Pope Francis" is a *contradiction* for the sede who knows Bergoglio is *NOT* our Pope. Whether one argues laboriously that it is a "prayer foooor the pope" doesn't save anything because Bergoglio is not the Pope. Also we should not be publicly praying for heretics in the Mass. It's a lose/lose for the "it's a prayer f-o-o-o-r the pope" political campaigners.
The "una cum" though silent is a *public* prayer and is in *the most sacred* part of the Mass, the Canon.
Faithful Catholics know that something does not *have* to be a sin to avoid it. Attending the "una cum" masses does not *have* to be a mortal sin or any sin to avoid giving assent by attending it because people are *not allowed* to do *anything* that even *MAY* be sinful.
@@prevatican2catholicshow Agreed. They always make sense and answer all questions. Sedeprivationist
SSPX is not encouraging independent searching or questioning them about sth. They present it as dangerous, they don't encourage internet search, books only recommended or sold by them, some priests are trying even cut the use of phones ( although I understand that smart phones and unlimited computers can be dangerous especially for kids). Sometimes - even overcontrol of people.( I was told once that my bag was to big ).
SSPX is "Recognize and Resist", and thus to be dismissed as a viable organization.
mostholytrinityseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/RR_Dutertre_2022.pdf
Why isn this is exclusively a Cassiciacum Thesis channel??
It is, I support the Thesis of Guérard des Lauriers fully.
False the Roman/latin rite liturgy comes from St. Peter in the 1st century, not St John Chrysostom in the 4th century, though no doubt he and others added to it throughout the years. 3:30 is Mr. Heiners statement.
I've never heard a priest refer to the Roman Rite dating to St. Peter, but rather to St. Gregory the Great in the 6th century and the form we have now is from the 7th century. The Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is markedly different. In any case, both rites are of ancient usage.
"O Lord, I thank Thee that I am not like that [SSPX-er, Novus Ordo-ite, fill-in-the-blank] . . . ____________________ over there."
This interview convinced me against CMRI's position on una cum mass. So I won't attend SSPX masses in the future. By the way is it true that CMRI uses the 1955 Holy Week (Bugnini creation)?
Yes, but MHT seminary is great. Clear and uncompromising
@@readerm8313 MHT is the best, second to none!
Yes, CMRI uses every liturgical practice up until the death of Pius XII and that includes Dialogue Masses
🙏❤
The SSPX is not the organization that started the idea of Holy Mass being mandatory. That’s ridiculous. It was always part of the true Catholic faith that you had to attend Mass on Sunday, Ever read the 10 commandments?
Oh yes your position is very logical and all but when your solution is to go without the sacraments you have lost the plot. "the sspx invented the need for mass" I have been arguing with a Protestant for five months and these are the exact things I argue with him about so you people are definitely going towards protestantism. You should be ashamed of promoting such scandal as "you don't need the eucharist"
The Problem With the Una-Cum Mass - Interview with Most Rev. Donald J. Sanborn
ruclips.net/video/e86OkMmRbac/видео.html
Should I Assist at a Una Cum Mass? by Rev. Anthony Cekada
mostholytrinityseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/B16inCanon.pdf
The Grain of Incense: Sedevacantists and Una Cum Masses, by Rev. Anthony Cekada
mostholytrinityseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/SedesUnCum.pdf
lol
Pope Benedict was a modernist
Below is a Calvinist raised convert and Calvinist Donald Veitch website after two years now remains only RUclips site with some videos on two Papal Historians who were Catholics namely Ludwig Von Pastor 1854 to 1928
who spent last nine years as Vienna Ambassador to Rome /Surely unique among Ambassadors?
and whose Diaries kept in Vatican
The other was English Monsignor Horace Mann who also passed away in 1928
Nothing on either / their own lives or their writings is available on RUclips except on Calvinist website mentioned above
Finally in this year now ending in which Cardinal Pell Passed away this January Professor Peter Price of Monash University in Australia wrote book on 10 Australians surprisingly all conservatives who attended Vatican ONE
Would you make a video on this as well as All Americans who Attended led by very very liberal Bernard MCQUAID ?
They came from the ends of the earth in 1870
SSPX uses BALTIMORE CATHECHISM.
That's a good one, I was taught with the Deharbe.
Stephen ‘I-Don’t-Need-Sacraments’ Heiner.
Otherwise known as Stephen ‘You-Don’t-Need-Sacraments’ Heiner.
Also as Stephen ‘Show-Me-The-Canon-Where…’ Heiner.
lol
Stephen sounds like an opinionist to me🤷🏼♂️
on what?
@ I don't remember, would have to watch again
@ maybe you were making it sound like it wasn't such a big deal which position people hold as long as sincere? I'm not sure, 8 months ago lol
@ yeah I’ve never said anything like that. I did say I understand where people are on Pius XII Holy Week.