Meanwhile Jimmy Akin and most people who believe as he does will extend more grace to people who reject the idea of the papacy entirely over tradtionalists vocalizing clear contradictions within church teachings.
@@AndrewPont-w1j so true Jimmy Akin also rejects the dogma outside the Catholic Church there’s no salvation. He’s not a Catholic still a Protestant just masquerading as a Catholic.
The thing with Benevacantists, is Benedict was quite lucid and functioning after his resignation. If he somehow didn't intend to resign, I have a very hard time believing he wouldn't have said something. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The implication is that he wrote about it in his private documents to be revealed after his death through his personal secretary Archbishop Georg Gänswein. Except after his death all of his writings were quickly burned by Francis. Pretty strange thing to do, after all, he could have a following of people calling for his canonization in a few decades. His belongings should have been kept for investigation for such reasons. Yet Francis burned them. Then, Georg Gänswein was sent away and silenced. Doesn't take much leap of logic to see what could have happened there, not unlike a woman running for President and destroying her illegal private servers with a hammer. Powerful people destroy evidence and face no consequences all the time.
also I think he were to not say something, i think that would be maybe a mortal sin, allowing someone else to take the throne while not intending to actually resign.
The problem still remains lucid or not, he attempted to create an innovation where the Papacy is reducible to the episcopacy of Rome. If this was valid, then why had it never ever occurred to any other pope in the history of the Church? The two previous popes (who really did resign) never for a moment believed that could have just legitimately have retired instead. Also, what about a pope like Paul VI who was explicitly leaving business for the next pontificate because he was too weak and to tire. I mean, if he could have just formally retired (as he was effectively retiring already), then why wouldn't he have done this? The best we could say is that Ratzinger's own theological genius allowed him to rationalize doing something that was gravely evil and inappropriate.
@@Starwarp02Well it certainly would be problematic. If Pope Benedict did a fake resignation or a partial resignation, and he let the entire world think Pope Francis was the Pope perhaps including Pope Francis himself, then this would be a great deal of trouble probably a great deal of scandal. The Cardinals convene to elect a new pope. And that was the message that was sent. Pope Benedict appeared to resign and everybody in the world believed he did. And he certainly respected Pope Francis as the new pope and let him make decisions. Do I think Pope Benedict did a bad thing? No I don't. I think he resigned especially after witnessing his dear friend and predecessor St John Paul II languish away with old age and sickness on the throne, and Pope Benedict made the hard decision to step down completely and fully.
@@iamdigory But the problem is hiding behind the "We're all Christians" to promote the Indifferentism. Also Anglicans tend to believe they are still a a part of the Catholic Church but they are having a "squabble" about papal privileges. I remember when JPII died, the High Anglican Church in the city had bunting around the doors and offered Requiem "masses" for the Pope. God only knows if anything was valid due to Catholic priests becoming Anglicans or Anglican priests getting the "Dutch Touch" ordinations.
Akin is semi-Calvanist.. he's spoken on something he calls "multilocation" in place of transubstantiation and that the use of contraception both in and out of marriage isn't an intrinsic evil due principle of double effect. I find his stance that anathemas issued by Ecumenical Councils to be null and void to be schismatic, imo.
@@Imreallybadatvideogames Not just schismatic, but heretical. Maybe in one of the other universes he talks about it isn't schismatic or heretical, so he can be ok just as he made Amoris Laetita ok (before the addition of the Argentine interpretation to the AAS.)
Prayed in my Rosary! Thanks for yesterday's episode with John Doyle. It was good. However, the Jimmy Akin episode is my favorite of the year besides the Dr. Carrie Gress one. Please keep making segments! And please keep bringing Jimmy on! Thank you! Hope you and your family has a light-filled peaceful good day.
Sedevacantism has been defined as a particular theological position and group that the see has been vacant since Pius XII. It is not intellectuallly honest to say that those who believe that the see is vacant since Benedict XVI are the same. That the see is vacant since pre-Vatican II is one group. That the see is vacant because of Benedict is another. You can't use a theological name already defined for a particular postion/ group for another group.
Sounds like you’re making up your own rules and definitions, a sede is one who believes the chair is vacant. There’s many variations of that position, some accept John 23 , some accept Paul 6 , others reject Pius 12 , some even go further back before Pius 10 , Both they’re all sede’s . Different denominations of the same idea
@@Deuterocomical Hmm...maybe that dischord won't work. The one you're linked to in your channel doesn't like people who accept and hold all the teaching of the Catholic Church. 😛😂😂
Did we cover people who think Francis is not pope on the basis of he's a heretic? (Francis is not the pope because he's a heretic) I just wanna know whether to sit through a 45 hour interview or not. Thanks!
@@jacobecklund3651 They think we that stupid to believe them taking away our trust in God. God will decide for 1.4 billion faithful before a division which I am getting from these people. Its not even in the local churches. Out priest never said a word about Pope Francis on anything about the Pope or even a whisper from our gossipy laity.
If you read Vatican II, you’ll see that even Schismatic and Protestant sects are “means of salvation” (which is heresy) : so if you adhere to Vatican II, why do you think being schismatic is bad? Bergoglio said in his official “magisterium” that we should “esteem the indigenous mysticism”, so why are you mad at sedevacantists? Do you believe that Francis (Bergoglio) is pope (and therefore infallible in his judgments on faith and morals)? : "Now, all that is contained in the Holy Scriptures and in tradition, and all that is proposed by the Church as divinely revealed truth, either by solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, is to be believed with divine and catholic faith." (Dei Filius, Vatican I) = do you believe with divine and catholic faith all that Bergoglio teaches in his ordinary magisterium (Amoris Laetitiae, Querieda Amazonia, etc)? "To Peter the Prince of the Apostles, the divine Founder of the Church attributed the gifts of inerrancy in matters of faith and union with God." (Principi Apostorum Petro, Benedict XV) = does Bergoglio and his predecessors have this gift of inerrancy in matter of faith and union with God? "For the sake of faith and the rule of morals, God has made the Church part of His divine Magisterium and has granted her the divine privilege of not knowing error. This is why she is the great and sure teacher of men, and has an inviolable right to freedom of teaching. (Libertas Praestantissimum, Leo XIII) = Bergoglio and his predecessors have the divine privilege of not knowing error? "It is for this reason that, by the virtue of His prayers, Jesus Christ Our Lord obtained for Peter that, in the exercise of his power, his faith should never fail" (Satis Cognitum, Leo XIII) = Bergoglio’s faith never failed? And a few quotes from saints: Saint Alphonsus de Liguori (The Supreme Pontificate): "Those who introduce plague and ruin into the Church, who deny that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Peter as regards authority in matters of faith and doctrine, or who affirm that the supreme Pastor of the Church, whoever he may be, can err in his judgments on matters of faith." Saint Robert Bellarmine (De Romano Pontifice, chapter 3): "The Supreme Pontiff cannot err in any way when he teaches the Church in matters of faith." Saint John Bosco (The General Councils and the Catholic Church): "It is therefore impossible for the Pope in matters of Faith to teach error, for it is impossible for Jesus Christ to lie, or to be unable to keep His promises." Let's be consistent with the Holy Catholic Faith that the Lord passed on to us through His Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and which has been faithfully preserved by all the legitimate successors of Saint Peter. To say that John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis are popes would be a great offense to Our Lord and His most Pure and Immaculate Church, or else it would mean that the Church has failed, which is a terrible blasphemy. If Francis is not Pope (like his predecessors since John XXIII), then it is perfectly logical and pleasing to God to refute his errors, to recognize the invalidity of the sacraments instituted after Vatican II (apart from baptism and marriage), and to attend "non una cum" Masses ("not in communion" with Francis) because, to introduce the name of a notorious heretic into the Canon of the Mass is a sacrilege and a lie. Only "non una cum" Masses are pleasing to God, for they are the only ones that do not soil the Immaculate Lamb, the Bread of Angels, by adulterous communion with individuals who, concretely, do not have the Holy Catholic Faith.
@user-kb4dv1ud3f Yes it is a ridiculous comparison, as ridiculous as having my remark deleted while responding is cowardly. If the man occupying the Chari of Peter is not a Catholic, then the pope, at that point in history, is not Catholic Currently, an immutable truth denier like Francis, is not even a theist.
user-kb4dv1ud3f most people anywhere and everywhere go to a job they don’t like for 8-9 hours then come home for leisure. They don’t have enough time or capability in the day to devote to something that requires immersion in a manner neither you nor I could comprehend. Duty? Again, no individual person that lacks authority and experience has anything but their angry opinion to offer to anyone regarding the pope. We should go to mass and receive the sacraments and PRAY. That is all we common lay-folk can do at this time. Christ has founded the Roman Catholic Church and bequeathed unto it via time and history a system within to profess dogmatic statements. To quote a renowned philosopher: “there’s rules to this s…”
user-kb4dv1ud3f I remember Father Gruner once saying something to that effect. Unless of course you want to break off from the ONE TRUE HOLY and APOSTOLIC church to create your own church … in which case you would be following your seed of distrust/suspicion/rebellion to it’s full blossom. Again, not YOU (per se), but about what you are talking.
One of the hardest lessons in Catholicism is the Pope you get is not always the Pope you want but IS always the Pope God has chosen for His purposes. So even if you hate the current pope you cannot argue that he is not the Pope God intended. That said His reasons and the implications of our current pope deeply concern me. It has some pretty stark implications for what's coming in the future. Have your lamp oil ready.
God choses the Pope just as much as He choses the President of America. Americans elect the President and Cardinals elect the Pope, God merely tolerates the election in his 6d chess plan to save as many souls as He can This rethoric of "God picks the Pope" needs to go away and enter the dustbin of history
God does not choose the Pope. This is a dangerous misconception that needs to be stamped out, and a significant roadblock in the reconciliation with our Orthodox and Protestant brethren. The Holy Spirit guides the Cardinals during the election, but He doesn't override their free will. The Cardinals can choose to completely ignore the Holy Spirit, or they can be confused. God allows the Pope to be chosen, but that's His passive will rather than His active will. God does not take the Cardinals' free will away. That's how we end up with awful Popes like Honorius, John XII, John XXII, or Francis.
@@cfban splitting hairs in terminology. The holy Spirit yes indeed does guide the Cardinals to choose the Pope they got to prove something. Whoever gets in the position is the one God allows. It's even in the Bible that any post of authority is specifically allowed and chosen by God. Again in text it's hard to go into the details as I don't feel like typing out 70 billion words to put it just vernacular so. Understand the general gist of the meaning this is a comment section not a dissertation in front of a classroom
@@diamondback2085 no, it's absolutely not splitting hairs. The distinction between the active and passive will of God is extremely important. God doesn't actively will cancer in children. His passive will allows it. Yes, God allows the Pope to be elected. But that's entirely different from Him electing the Pope Himself. He guides the Cardinals, but the Cardinals can choose to ignore Him. Just like He gives you (and me) enough Grace to never, ever, ever sin. Yet the two of us constantly ignore His Grace and we sin again and again and again.
At the end of this he said something interesting. If you reject Communion with the Pope, or any part of the Church in Communion wth Him, you are in a state of ecommunication. So if somebody rejects a part of the Church because of a Missal or Rite aid they do not like, that rejection excommunicates one from the Church.
why does it matter if the current pope says there is salvation outside the church for protestants? the whole point of ex communication historically was that it was taught there is no salvation outside communion with catholic church ....
@@qwerty22421There is no salvation outside the Church, but only those culpable for their own errors are formal heretics or schismatics. A baptized individual who’s invincibly ignorant of papal supremacy, transubstantiation, or the Filioque is not in an enviable position (especially if he lacks access to valid sacraments), but his ignorance alone won’t render salvation impossible for him.
@@andrewburch3694Almost no Protestant alive today is invincibly ignorant of Church teaching on those issues. That's just a dishonest sidestep. "Invincible ignorance" only pertains to those who have no natural ability to learn the truth. That does not apply to "Joe Protestant" who has access to the internet and/or a library. According to the Vatican II church "Joe Protestant" has no obligation to accept the truth and cease in his rejection of the Catholic faith.
@@qwerty22421The purpose of excommunication is medicinal: to aid the person in repenting of their sins so that they can return to full communion with Jesus Christ and His Bride, the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
"If you refuse communion with those who are in communion with the Roman Pontiff" I'm curious whether or not this covers a lot more kinds of people than we might initially think. There are a lot of people out there who think Mass of Paul VI Catholics (normal Catholics) are untouchable.
Maybe the Holy Ghost is allowing yet another reprehensible Pope or even an anti-Pope to reign so as to inspire Catholics to stop being so lukewarm and get up and defend the Faith.
@@littlerock5256 ok then Jesus’ words to St. Peter were vain and disproves Jesus’ words entirely. Yeah, no buddy. Repent. I bet you’re thinking of ways to misinterpret Mat. 16:18 just like prots and orthodox do. Wompwomp you’re no more different than anglicans, orthodox, and Lutherans.
@@DMServant It is precisely because of Jesus's words to St. Peter that Bergoglio cannot be the pope. Bergoglio says that we need all the denominations and that the Orthodox don't have to convert and the Vatican has told Anglicans not to convert. Bergoglio said Luther was not mistaken. So it's all good.
You asked me to leave a comment so here it is .. This was weak, straw man argument. Mr Akin didn't represent the Sede view accurately ONE LITTLE BIT. I predict with some certainty you will never again have Br. Diamond on again because he defends Sede position with well established Catholic ex cathedra papel teachings and teachings from the saints (like St. Robert Bellarmine). I have to admit I watch this podcast less and less due to these flagrant mis representations on this, the single most important issue of our faith. Here's a video link that describes the Sede view and the peace the Lord gives us with his truth. ruclips.net/video/wUbMS0lA_tA/видео.htmlsi=4lYcKIrljFo-mARl
"Is the pope Catholic?" This question speaks a fundamental truth about the pope even non-Catholics understand: in order to be pope he must be Catholic. To be Catholic means you hold the Catholic Faith WHOLE and INVIOLATE. WHOLE means you believe all of the teachings of the Church without rejecting a single point of doctrine. INVIOLATE means you believe all of the teachings of the Church without changing the meaning of the teachings. Do you believe jorge bergoglio holds the Catholic Faith WHOLE and INVIOLATE?
All I know is that the teachings, laws and Commandments never, never, ever changed to fit the agenda of godless people who want to changed it to fit the agenda of satan who is the master of lies, falsehood, darkness and deceit. God Almighty help us all Catholics to continue defending the truth. Viva Cristo Rey.
Hey, I am with you. When I heard about this rumor and I say rumor because it did not even reach the local churches. Our priest never said anything about the Pope or what is going on. Somebody created something and wanted to make it big. My hope is that there are 1.4 billion of us around the world who are UNTAINTED with all of this. In fact when worse comes to worse God takes over right away and is in control over that billion fully UNITED and ONE with Him.
@@Pax_Christi_Tecum Establishing authorial intent is a basic rule for interpreting any form of writing, from a text message to Sacred Scripture. Pope Benedict XVI could not have been clearer about his intention to resign. Those who are trying to claim it wasn’t are splitting hairs to an enormous degree.
@@tomershahrabani129 I'm not saying he tried to secretly not resign. I've never heard that and frankly it sounds silly. But the fact remains no one can possibly know another's true intent, we can only surmise. It's intellectually fraudulent to claim you surely know their intent and therefore your case is true.
@@Pax_Christi_Tecum That’s fair, and I agree that we cannot know with certainty a person’s true intention. But at that point, there is a basic element of trust that is called for (in any relationship, from parent-child, friends, spouse, Pope-faithful, etc.) Unfortunately, trust and trustworthiness is getting harder and harder to come by these days, so I can understand why people have a harder time accepting this fact.
@@tomershahrabani129 The question is, was he coerced into resigning? There was no need for him to engage in that word-salad of a resignation except that he was "fleeing for fear of the wolves."
You can be ipso facto (automatically) excommunicated if you are 1. Catholic, and 2. Obstinately hold to heresy, yes. Can. 1364- § 1. An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, without prejudice to the provision of can. 194 § 1 n. 2; he or she may also be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336 §§ 2-4. Also if you’ve fallen into heresy into the past as a Catholic, you’re deemed “irregular” and cannot be ordained.
@@catholictruth102 You also have to take into account all of canon 1323, which lays out the exceptions for those penalties to occur. Jimmy Akin has a good article on this called "The Eucharist & Excommunication"
This subject is not complicated. Rebellious people are rebellious. See them for what they are and move on. Christians are not required to give ear to any rebels. You can know they are rebels by how they treat those in authority. Don't listen to rebels.
@@wheatandtares-xk4lp The people you’re calling rebels are distancing themselves from a satanic religion that blesses gay couples. No good Catholic is a Christian.
The Church of today also needs unity with its past. The break -- or fracture -- occurred decades ago, and was quite evidently pushed by the enemies of the Church. Maybe that wasn't clear back then, but today we have 20/20 hindsight vision and it is undeniable. To continue to be submissive to the will of these enemies is a form of disunity with the Church of the past.
They will make a legalistic arguments and pretend that abuses and bad translations don't exist. I know of a bunch of priests for whom English is a very difficult language. "I absolve you.." seems to be almost impossible for them to get correctly. The number of invalid absolutions must be astounding for them.
We cannot enter schism, regardless of SOME of these groups’ good intentions, which I believe they have. We cannot "flee" what is left of the visible church. God does not need us to create grassroots churches and break from the teaching of His Church- we must be humble and not despair. If the church survived the Arian heresy or the 8 years of the reign of anti-pope Anacletus II, or the papacy of John XII who praised satan and admired pagan gods (Jupiter)- it will survive the end times and the heresy of modernism (the synthesis of all heresies) and Francis. God does not need grassroots "traditional" churches without the Four Marks of the Church (One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic). God gave us the four marks to identify His Church- certainly, the Catholic Church remains in the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church- they elect their own Patriarchs, and bishops and have their own canon law, separate from the Western/Roman hierarchy- regardless of the imperfections of men and the many attacks they suffer under satan's influence. God promised a VISIBLE church under His authority and that the gates of hell will not prevail, through the end of the world- though there might be few remaining (a remnant)- certainly God will decide the actual number of the remaining remnant, not you or I. Eastern Rite Catholics are 16 million compared to 1.2 billion Roman Rite Catholics. Remember the Four Marks are four separate dogmas of the Catholic Church which we must believe to remain Catholic. Who has the Four Marks is not up for interpretation- grass-root traditional chapels without authority (or the same beliefs for that matter) are not Catholic, regardless of good intentions, these churches are outside the Catholic Church. The Church never left us, and traditional communities have zero authority to declare it gone and declare themselves the Catholic Church, which changes from one traditional community to another- SSPV, SSPX, CMRI, Gertrude boys, Feeneyites, Sanborn group, various independent groups, etc etc etc.... - which would be apostatizing if they did. Certainly, we cannot claim that the traditional churches that grew out of zero authority somehow claim that authority. If you do claim that- which one is right and what authority are they all following? God humbled me and in humility, you find direction and truth- the Church (what is left of it) provides the Truth under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Why create your own church and "traditional" communities when God still provides and as if God needs it? St. Athanasius who was exiled 5 times, called a heretic, deposed, detracted, etc.-he did not fall into despair and make his own church even when it looked seemingly that the pope was favoring heresy. He did not make bishops, he did not open churches- he prayed, fasted, and put his hope in God- even when 90% of Catholic leadership was actually schismatic and Arian. I always found it amusing that traditionalists (including myself for a time) will speak of doctrine- but ignore dogmas, CHARITY, the Gospel, authority, promises by Jesus, the Four Marks, etc. The problem is traditionalists are just like the Nestorians, Arians, Old Catholics, and Orthodox of yesterday and today (all of which were started by overzealous, despairing, and power-hungry Catholics). They all, in their misguided zeal, and maybe with good intentions- broke from the church to "save it"- yet, in the end, they all became fractured and believed different things from church to church- the difference in beliefs between the multiple Orthodox churches is innumerable and Old Catholics today now have female bishops. Traditionalist groups all condemn each other and now that the first generation is gone, they all believe in something different, make up their own mortal sins yet disregard others- they are schismatic sects. "The great sign of the demonic is scattering. God is a great gathering force. Whenever things come together, when a community forms, that is a sign of the Holy Spirit. The scattering power is a sign of the darker powers. When families get scattered, when business organizations, communities, and cultures get divided, that comes from the demonic." Obviously, all the traditional groups continue to splinter and splinter, and they all think they are right- yet they are not- God is right and we must submit- not to heresy, not to evil, but to His promises, the indefectible Dogmas of the Catholic Faith and the Holy Words of the Gospels. Humility, prayer, and fasting are our refuge. The Japanese who had no sacraments for over 200 years after the emperor outlawed Catholicism-did not start their own underground church. All the Japanese had were catechists. All they had for sacraments was Baptism and Marriage. Yet, when priests were allowed to return to Japan, they still had the Catholic Faith. God will protect His own. Traditionalists (including myself) fail (failed) to have the faith of these men, women, and children of yesterday. The traditional movement was born out of the sin of despair. We are in just a spec of time- we will get through Francis (and the rest of the Western Church) and every other evil that comes our way with total faith, trust, and abandonment in Jesus. Remember- "Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity." (Matthew 7:22-23) This is for ALL culpable people who claim they follow Christ and follow their own doctrine instead of the words of Christ. "Neither on account of the Pharisees, to whom you maliciously compare us, did our Lord command the chair of Moses to be forsaken; (in which chair he verily figured his own) for he warned the people to do what they say, and not what they do, and that the holiness of the chair be in no case forsaken, nor the unity of the flock divided, on account of the wicked lives of the pastors."-Commentary from Haydock Bible. We must trust in the ways of Jesus. In His humility, He did not tell the people to ignore the valid precepts of these corrupt leaders, but insisted they listen to all that was good. Jesus corrected these Jewish leaders, and most did not listen. God the Father allowed His Son to be Crucified under their corruption, yet never did Jesus preach to break from the Faith as an answer. Traditionalism is breaking from the Faith. In the lifetime of Jesus, the King of the Jews, Herod, was assigned by the Roman Emperor, nor was he truly Jewish. Caiaphas bought his “High Priesthood”, and the Sanhedrin was corrupt with false teachings and a desire for political gain and prestige. With all of this being a reality, Jesus still preached in the Synagogues and did not declare them as false leaders to be deposed. He corrected them, prayed for them, and asked the Eternal Father to forgive them. We must follow this example if we want to be saved. God allowed these men to hold their positions, however corrupt they may be. This suffering was allowed for our purification and for our eyes to be opened to our own sins. Francis will be declared as an antipope, most likely many years from now as many antipopes were declared after their deaths. Sedevacantism, other misguided theological theories, and schism are not and cannot be the answer. Jesus has spoken. We are held to the Four Marks of the Church whether we like it or not; It is part of the Deposit of Faith, which makes it incontestable, Christ is the true head of the Catholic Church, not the new Caiaphas. ALSO- it should be noted that the Catholic Church never condemned the masses or the people who went to them where the name of an anti-pope was included in the Mass, as in the 8-year case of Anti-pope Anacletus II. These are times of confusion, and the Catholic church is a mother- the Catholic Church knows we have zero authority to declare anything, and this judgment will fall on the hierarchy and the usurpers- so it is very important to pray for the 6 Eastern Patriarchs and the remaining faithful Western Clergy. Many saints, including St. Vincent Ferrer himself, put the wrong name (of the Anti-Pope) in the Mass and defended doing so for a time. Once the AUTHORITY of the Church spoke, he did as the Bride of Christ told him to do. The Church never condemned his masses, nor him. In fact, he was declared a saint regardless of his temporary blindness as a well-renowned miraculous priest. That formal declaration has not come for us yet, but it will come one day- either in a restored and smaller church or at the end of the world. But even at the end of the world- The Catholic Church will be there carrying the necessary Four Marks, something traditional groups will never be able to claim.
You said a lot, but SSPX is not sedevacantist to my knowledge. I guess you are saying "traditionalist groups" and lumping them into that, but the archbishop was about preserving the mass - and he did. You mentioned the eastern rites. Just imagine if those rites were also banned and if some new mass and other rites were imposed on them by decree. You think they would be so passive? Canon law SUPPOSEDLY says that we have a right to practice in the rite we were baptized in, but this doesn't seem to apply to Latin Rite Catholics anymore, yet it does to the various eastern rites? If the eastern rites can be preserved, why can't the Latin Rite? If the Latin Rite can be banned and replaced with an ad hoc modern innovation, why can't all the eastern rites? Nothing is sacred anymore, so why not? According to Bergoglio, the way to have 'unity' is by ALL being forced into the new mass in the vernacular. I wonder if the geniuses in the Vatican are applying this to their efforts to reach out to the Orthodox? "You know, we used to allow you to come back and have the ancient liturgy you are used to, but not anymore. You're going to have to have the new mass in English or we can't have unity." Yeah, right. Never! They have to be so accommodating to the East, but they can run roughshod over the West and just tell everyone to shut up and take it. Something is wrong with this picture. You shouldn't leave the Church per se, but you also shouldn't allow the Faith to be trampled underfoot and for Tradition to be uprooted and thrown out like yesterday's garbage.
John Paul II when he was Cardinal was disobeying Paul VI with illicit ordinations directly against the Pope's declared wishes. I guess he was schismatic too.
@@MillionthUsername I don't think we should be passive. However, God has allowed this. We do have a right to the Rite we were baptized in, but there are many Latin Catholics living in nations that have Easter Catholic Churches and they go where Jesus is present, and they are not worried about the rites. If We have the Priestly Fraternity or other Indult groups within the Church that are surviving this attack- go there. If you do not have those available, then go to Eastern Rites. I greatly empathize with Archbishop Lefevere, but he made a wrong choice. We must protect the Four Marks- Christ gave us those marks to identify HIS Church. With that said I totally agree with your statement: " You shouldn't leave the Church per se, but you also shouldn't allow the Faith to be trampled underfoot and for Tradition to be uprooted and thrown out like yesterday's garbage." But we must be careful, for our souls' sake, that we remain obedient to the Trinity and the Church of Christ- the Catholic Church. The traditional movement is like the wild west, it is all liturgy and so little faith- they make up sins and ignore others, disregard canon law, and are full of scandals. . I have experienced this for 40 years. We must submit to God, He has allowed this and He does not need us to fix it. We must pray and do what we can do, but that doesn't mean overstepping.
I think the main thing people are struggling with is the perceived contempt that certain generations of clerics display for Church orthodox teaching, cultural heritage and church history. This manifests as what appears to be "ecumanism" in the pastoral doctrine but manifests ultimately as unbelief in the supremacy and truth of the Catholic faith. Tragically you see this manifest in the sacramental life as disinterest in sacraments like reconciliation, baptism, and the unbelief in the eucarist. I think sedecavantism as an idea in the minds of many lay faithful is nothing more than them trying to reconcile that disonance. I'm reminded of this verse: Mathew 12: 25-28 Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? And if I drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. This is not to claim anyone is a demon. Only to understand opposing forces and effect. Maybe this verse can help us all to understand the effects of our own actions and those of others. I don't have an answer, only have lived with the conflict within the church my entire adult life. I'm extremely confident in our Catholic Church and even optimistic out of not only faith but looking at trends. I think in the next 5 years we will turn the corner in the west and see a revival, and I think laity have done most of the leg work on this over the past decade and have infused new generations of Clerics to be on fire for the Lord. It was one such amazing young priest who served my family so well during the covid lock downs. God Bless.
The one thing I don't understand is how Sedevacantist is schismatic if the church naturally has a vacant seat at intervals... its a natural state, with an undetermined timeline. It seems like a purely speculative issue for most people where they observe simple conflict in the church, a house divided against itself after a fashion and they know that is wrong and in their simplicity don't know how to make sense of the wrong. Contemplating the absence of a guiding influence of a just pope, it seems rational, simple... and natural. Not even like, "oh man I don't like that francis guy" but more like, "Maybe he's not really the guy we thought he was because that guy wouldn't do these things." In the same way that I feel a cleric who denies sacraments in covid was doing horrible wrong by the faithful, I would wonder about a pope who seemingly sides against faithful communities that venerate the eucharist and hate abortion in favor of communities that are the opposite, that something isn't right there. I submit myself to the authority of the church up to a point. Are we then made to understand there is no moral accountability within the clerical order? I do hope we can all just talk about this soberly.
@@jkellyid Simple answer as to why you don't understand it. Jimmy Akin is wrong. He comes from the "rah, rah, rah" "John Paul II, we Love You!" group of apologists that had an exaggerated view of the Papacy. Much of it is tied to charismatics and so, the Pope has a bunch of undeclared powers and "charisms" that make him irresistible in all things and as far as they are concerned impeccable in governance. He's basically getting his marching orders from God Himself. They won't admit this but it's discernible in their overall arguments.
@@jkellyid Sede vacante is originally the term for the interregnum period (to use other terms). A short while, no more. But Sedevacantists go even further. Their name (self assigned) betrays the full extent of their schism. There is no Catholic Church to point to when you talk to them. No bishops, no cardinals, no nothing. If there ever is, it's with a broken apostolic succession. What they advocate is more of a Protestant situation. The Church died and we were left orphans, so let's build it from scratch. You say Francis is not fit for Pope, or not worthy of it. Let me tell you something. You've been spoiled. We've gotten a Saint Pope and a Theologian Pope in quick succession, but that's an anomaly. We rarely get really good Popes worth of the honor. There have been terrible Popes. For Francis to be ANYTHING like the top 10 worst Popes (like the Borgias or Benedict 15th), he'll need to walk around with a mistress publicly, appoint his illegitimate children as high ranking officials, and excommunicate out of spite. To be anything like Peter was at his lowest, Francis would need to apostasize in words, publicly, several times, through oaths and curses. Francis isn't a good Pope, sure, but he's the Pope we got. Even through our roughest periods we've never been bound into error, and the Church has prevailed. Hades hasn't torn our Church down. To declare NOW (of all times!) that Hell did prevail upon the Papacy and the College of Bishops isn't the rational position. What we should do is tighten our belts, ride the tide, and let God see that we endured like the saints we ought to be. Do not jump ship. The storm may be strong, and the currents wild, but we will get through this. Have faith, brother, as this ship wasn't built with human hands.
@@alonsoACR You are strawmanning a bit the sedevacantist position. I am not one of that frame of mind, but they do have bishops with apostolic succession. My criticism of their position is that I think they have too broad a view of Church indefectibility and papal infallibility. Their view is basically, "Since the Church is indefectible and these bishops / popes appear to be flaming heretics, the only possible explanation is that they've lost the office." I don't agree with that but it's undeniable there have been some heavy-hitter saints of the past with similar views re: heresy and office. Although those saints were always speaking of hypothetical cases.
@@johncalla2151 If that was a reasonable explanation then the Anglicans and the Lutherans are in fact Catholic and Apostolic. But they aren't. Name one saint of the Church that said it's possible for the office of the Papacy to be dead.
If you cannot defend the pope’s authority then you cannot defend the faith. Be Catholic and submit to the pope. Stop reading headlines and watching shorts. Renounce sin and become virtuous. Once you have done that , read all Vatican documents on your own and reason from the text. Ignore your hearts sinful desires and trust in the sacred heart of Jesus.
Lol!!! You are asking for me to cite sources to explain the existence of a pope in the Catholic Church. Francis is the pope. Give me my free chicken!!!
One of the serious problems with Benedict's resignation though, was his insistence on the bifurcation of the papacy, as if his successor were an active pope and he himself was a pope of contemplation or the same minister but only thought the capacity of spiritual prayer and support. And that's the problem, it's not right, that's where the most amount of confusion is coming from, but it seems like something that Francis has floated as if he also supposes as a potentially legitimate way of "resigning" (When he said he wouldn't resign, but he would be willing to retire, as if one can be a quasi-pope, or offer a semi-resignation from the papacy). The fact that Benedict misunderstood this is a problem, the fact that Francis seems to be carrying on the same misunderstanding is also potentially problematic. We need to answer that issue.
Do the current sede's have any way of reconciling in their mind outside of a conclave? I mean bishops are only valid bishops by the determination of the pope... What happens when those that were ordained by the last "valid" pope die?
I asked Jimmy Akin a question on the "Catholics Answers" livestream on March 3rd, 2023 (@ the 1:25:26 mark) on how, in Acts 8:21, St. Peter judged the heart of Simon the first heretic as not being right in the sight of God, thus proving that Catholics in the state of grace can judge those who dissent from the teaching of the Church (thereby oblitering post-Vatican II nonsense about our supposed inability to discern the heart regardless of the person's external works). He responded by basically saying, "Well, St. Peter as an inspired Apostle was either given a supernatural revelation or he was basing this decision on the underdeveloped psychology of the ancient world and may have been wrong here". The text was clearly stating that St. Peter was in the right, so his only seemingly coherent defense is that St. Peter was given special revelation to discern Simon's state of heart in the sight of God, yet that is nowhere stated in the text. It serves as a microcosm example of how the Church deals with unbelievers which is consistently radiated down through the centuries (just read Denzinger for an hour and you'll see that). So rather than reject the modernism of the age, he would rather call into question the accuracy of St. Peter and the Bible. That's modernism in a nutshell.
I am thinking of a particular priest who became popular during covid who claims you can't be a democrat and Catholic, and a lay-person who used to work at Catholic Answers in particular who need our prayers to repent, confess, and come back into full communion with the church. They should also submit themselves publicly to the Holy Roman Pontiff who was validly elected, since they are so public about not accepting Pope Francis as the rightful Pope.
The Church has been very clear on her stance of whether or not abortion, contraception, or IVF are moral. On all of those questions the Church has definitively said no. So to say that it is a good thing or a moral thing to claim to be Catholic and support people accessing any of these three things is just wrong. To then actively support the political party that wants people to access abortion at any time, for any reason, and also wants them to be tax payer funded is gravely wrong. So can you be a democrat and Catholic? Sure, but you should not be voting for candidates within the party that support those ideas, which at this point, is all of them running for elected office on the federal stage.
@@loganleroy8622 you missed the point of what I was articulating. I merely providing a marker for who the priest is we should be praying for, for those who know who he is. I don't want to name him so I don't scandalize others who don't.
@@christopherthelen3562 "I don't want to name him so I don't scandalize others" Wow. And you are not scandalized by "blessings for same-sex 'couples'?"
I’m Catholic & I’m with the Diamond brothers. Doesn’t mean I’m any less Catholic when recognizing that Vatican II IS THE COUNTER CHURCH- WHITE HATS AND BLACK HATS .. IM WITH PETERS ROCK..
@@AndrewDolder They say the eastern schismatics don't need to convert. They allow Anglicans and eastern sects to have their services in Catholic churches.
Yep, because of these things I'm studying. Might go full sede soon. And if I do find enough evidence to dismiss the anti-sede arguments, I'll be taking some friends with me.
I've conversed with priests of Sspx; sedevacantist( Brothers- mhfm and Priests -cmri ); benevacantists and Novus Ordo ; reverent Novus Ordo; and a Benedictine Monk ( great guy who loves the Faith but a Feeneyite ) *I got to the point of talking to 2 Orthodox priests and understand their view of Roman Catholicism( I'm still Roman Catholic - LORD willing I am) My personal conclusion is that universal ordinary magisterium is split into at least 5+ minds. Is The Church in an eclipse? No doubt it is. It's bishop against bishop. I tried to defend one side and the other but it's impossible. *Only the Rosary sorta connects us. It's better that nothing.
There's nothing heterodox about the position of Fr. Feeney. Back in the day, Cardinal Ratzinger when welcoming the St. Benedict Center back into canonical regularity, he stated that Catholics have the option to hold to a more strict understanding of the necessity of water Baptism. It's the more modern, nuanced speculations that are of dubious orthodoxy but currently permitted.
I came back to the Church after 40 years as an Evangelical. I love the Mass, I love the Eucharist. All this and I’ve found that in bits and pieces I will always be a bit Evangelical and a bit Orthodox (filoque). I truly believe that that is good. I found the Church to have a stifling bureaucracy in Rome. Also, Catholics argue about the jot and tittle rather than the important call that Christ gave to the Church. When the Church stops looking to fit in with the “cultural sin du jour” (blessing of same sex couples) and begins to excommunicate politicians who promote abortion with gusto, maybe then it will be the Church that Christ called it to be. I think Mother Theresa would have been a great Pope. 😮😉 She knew and practiced what we are called to be as members of the Church.
He has no authority to give up the papacy. If the office is special and all that, you only abandon it at death regardless of what Benedict thought he was doing.
I think this Jimmy Akin will be my next candidate for the papacy. Pope Benedict was ready to retire on his first day when most of those bald headed bishop at the curia gave him a stern look from head to toe as he was passing by so why wouldn't he declared himself Pope Emeritus to get out fully from his responsibilities. Jimmy Akin solved my question that there might be some people at headquarters as well as around us here who thinks we the laity are that stupid so they try to inject fear in us hoping that 1.4 billion CC will scatter themselves and divide.
I’m of the opinion that Benedict was still Pope after his resignation, but that Francis became Pope as soon as Benedict died. I’m just skeptical that resignation is even possible. Is there really just a combination of words that when said remove your powers as pontiff? I find that hard to believe. I see the pontificate as a covenant, like marriage, that is indissoluble, that can’t be “annulled” just by saying you’re done. It can only end with death.
After personal experience I realize sedes and SSPX correct that Faustina ‘divine mercy’ devotion is demonic 💯 Hard to believe Seat of Peter (Mt 16:18; 23:2) empty though, so I gotta side w SSPX
Just interview someone who holds the ‘22 interregnumist position for goodness sake Matt!! Jimmy doesn’t know what he’s taking about with this. Benedict did not abdicate the munus petrinum in accordance with canon 332.2. He resigned de facto the active exercise of the ministry (ministerium of bishop of Rome) which led to a de jure impeded see (canons 412 and 335) from 2013 to his death in 2022 when the See became vacant. One of the quotes from Benedict which support this thesis is “No Pope has resigned in a thousand years, it was an exception in the first millennium of the papacy” now either Benedict was wrong since the last abdication was in 1415, or his resignation is not an abdication, which would make sense since in 1013 Benedict VIII resigned the ministerium and fled Rome yet REMAINED Pope.
Now this I can give a hearty Amen Amen Amen! If you are not subjecting yourself to Christ by being in communion with the person of Peter in the current Holy Father, get there! Blessings!
That sounds like just a slogan. What exactly does being subject and in communion with the Pope mean? I go by the Vatican I teaching and the definition of obedience of Thomas Aquinas. You are not obligated to follow a Pope who is trying to destroy the Church. So, Paul VI's ideas about "kenosis" are to be rejected. John Paul II's Assisi gatherings and Francis' destructive ,subjective and absurd personal judgements and contradictions are to be resisted.
Dear@@gerry30, that does not make sense. Who told you that these popes are not popes? And why would you give such people authority over your eternal soul? Do you not know that they will be judged for misrepresenting the Church and lying about Vatican II? If you are consciously "resisting" the earthly representative of Jesus the King, are you not resisting Jesus Himself? Vatican 1's document "Pastor aeternus" says in Chapter 2: "1. That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time [See Mt 7, 25; Lk 6, 48.]." and: "3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. "So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received" [Leo I, Serm. (Sermons) 3 (elsewhere 2), ch. 3 (PL 54, 146).]." and from Chapter 3: "1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence [Council of Florence, session 6 (p. 528).], which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the "holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people. To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church. All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons." " and from Chapter 4: "1. That apostolic primacy which the Roman Pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching. This Holy See has always maintained this, the constant custom of the Church demonstrates it, and the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it." and again: "6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."[Lk 22, 32.]" Where does Vatican 1 say that anyone but a subsequent pope can judge a pope?
@@gerry30 Tradition is a slogan?! That is news to me! Just mentioning VI and The Angelic Doctor does nothing to bolster your own opinion, it is akin to proof-texting the Sacred Scriptures. Give me one legitimate example of how he is trying to destroy the Church, not the same tired arguments of Pachamama or blessings, or really anything that is ever mentioned as his so-called nefarious plans for the future of the Church, that has not been disproven a thousand times over for the wise and prudent thinker. We are obligated to obey our authority even when we, with our egotistical desire to be our own Pontiffs, do not agree. So many examples of Saints that were correct about something being censored by their superiors but they realized their duty to obey. Not really sure what crazy sedevecantist position about the Magisterium and therefore Christ and His words concerning the CHurch, you are really advocating for, I will be praying for you. Blessings!
_"you can you can reinterpret what __1:07__ anybody says if you get to make up the __1:11__ rules but this is another case of __1:14__ reading a text contrary to the intention __1:18__ of its author"_ Genesis 1 though 11. CCC § 283. CCC §§ around 390. You have pretty much summed up what three of _your_ "Popes" (counting since 1992 when that "catechism" came out) did to Moses.
@hglundahl so are you saying that because the catechism does not take the creation story in Genesis literally and allows for belief in big bang/evolution, they are wrong because the author of Genesis meant it to be taken literally?
@@luke9747 Well, even half literal, like Day Age and Gap Theory for Genesis 1, but literal from there on, even that is far more marginal in Church history than Benevacantism is in present matters. Let alone non-literal, allowing for Adam and Eve to not be two actual persons or not the actually first men or not actually within a few thousand years before Abraham ... So, yes, I am saying precisely that.
@@hglundahlThe Catholic Church holds that Catholics must believe Adam and Eve were real, individual people, regardless of their thoughts concerning the literal timeline of the events of Genesis.
And Jimmy Akin says....nothing. I love the "there are attempts..." no, there are arguments people make. They are either arguments that hold up or don't. All this greasing of the skids with biased descriptives makes Akin's position come off as protective and tenuous. Akin is also promoting a sort of Rahnerian "anonymous schismatic" If a person unknowingly subjects himself to the wrong man whom he believes to be Pope, he's not schismatic. He's in error. St. Vincent Ferrer wasn't a schismatic when he followed and supported an anti-pope. Consequently if say a future Pope declares Francis to be invalid and an anti-Pope, the people who believed he was Pope were not schismatic. And if a Pope incorrectly declares a Pope invalid, like Stephen's judgment against Formosus that doesn't make the people that believed the Pope's error schismatic or the ones that disbelieve the Pope's error as schismatic.
Sedevacantists in my opinion is the only way to stay catholic if you follow the new religion that has developed since Vatican 2 your not staying true to the historical teachings and practices of the catholic faith. This is just my opinion but I can’t follow Francis and Vatican 2 and feel in my heart that I’m a catholic. God bless everyone
From the beginning, using complicated words and then attacking a subject that is worthy of discussion and will be from great theologians for years to come. That’s why I stopped listening to “Catholic answers” Patric Coffin only asks tough questions that many other Catholics that don’t fear truth are asking. But some continue to hide, like in 2020 and still haven’t discussed tough questions about the reactions of the hierarchy then and now. I guess discussing suspension of good priest and Bishops is off the table as well. Wow !
It is absurd to think public heretics like the V2 Antipopes, who have praised Luther, enemy of the church and whose false doctrines led so many souls to perdition, are actual Popes. They are outside the church, not Catholic. The heresies of the post V2 Antipopes are in fact the deception warned about in Scripture, in Matthew. That there would be a falling away from the faith, most will believe a lie, few will be saved. Every heretic who is a cleric automatically loses his office and cannot be part of Christ flock. That is Catholic teaching, so that they cannot spread poisonous error to Christ's faithful.
I don't believe that Benedict xvi was the last Pope, I KNOW that he was the last pope. Yes, I am a sedevacantist since December 31, 2022 and I am not subjected, thank God, to the impostor that sits in the chair of Peter. I do attend Mass and Take the Eucharist on my knees and mouth on a Novus Ordus Mass said reverently enough. I know that the Holy Mother Church won't be with no visible head for long time, I know things are about to change soon, of course, I do not know the exact month or year but I am ok with that. I have zero confusion and anguish. I feel and pray for the millions of catholics that believe that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has been a real Pope all these 11 years, distracted catholics that think they have a spiritual father in this man and they still think he all he has done with the help and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Jesus is coming soon!
Pope Benedict never wrote anything in which he stated, 'I hereby resign'. The only thing he wrote was a statement stating that he would resign in the future. That is not a resignation according to Canon law or even the plain use of language. And of course after the 'conclave' Pope Benedict continued to act as though he had not fully resigned the papacy.
@@GreenKnight1979 Pope Benedict's long time personal secretary, Archbishop Ganswein, told a conference in 2016 that Pope Benedict had "fundamentally changed" the nature of the papal office forever (basically with a sort of two pope configuration). Pope Benedict saw himself as occupying the spiritual side of the papacy, while Bergoglio occupied the ministerial side of the papacy.
@@davegaetano7118 so that would make Benedict a heretic as the nature of the papal office cannot be changed. But that wouldn't change the legal fact that he freely declared the see was vacant.
@@GreenKnight1979 He would only be a heretic if he formally taught that heresy. But if he merely put it into practice, he would not be a heretic. An example would be that the practice of adultery does not make you a heretic on the teaching that adultery is wrong. As I said in my original comment above, he never stated that the see was vacant. He only said that it would be vacant at a future date. It is not at all clear that this satisfies the requirements of Canon law, which I believe requires that a resignation be made manifest, not merely promised. In any case, any assertion about the future is problematic as to whether it will ever actually happen.
@@davegaetano7118 it satisfied Benedict himself who was the final interpreter of the law and the Papal conclave which he complied with, thereby making anybody else's opinion irrelevant.
If diamond is sedavacantist, then matt or jimmy, debate.brother on liturgy, escotology, and so fourth etc if you claim your a REAL catholic. The novus ordo, the lavender mafia, francis actions, id like to you defend that. After all whats the harm
Don't listen to this guy; he doesn't know what he's talking about re: schism. Schism is when somebody rejects in principle the idea of a pope. I.e., the Orthodox churches (which the ecumenical conciliar church falls over backwards to placate) or somebody like King Henry VIII. A person who has a different idea about who is actually pope (e.g., St. Vincent Ferrer) or who believes the See is vacant for one reason or the other, is not in schism. (I happen to believe Francis is pope. A bad pope, yes, but the Church has had them in the past, so it is possible.)
Sedevacantists remind me of those self righteous pedantic Jews who were constantly calling into question Christ's actions concerning the law. Lesson for sedevacantists concerning the validity of the NO Mass; Matthew22:19 How blind you are! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 So whoever swears by the altar, swears by it and by everything on it; 21 and whoever swears by the sanctuary, swears by it and by the one who dwells in it; 22 and whoever swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by the one who is seated upon it. By calling into question the validity of the liturgy which gives us the Body of Christ, you are clearly calling into question the consecration itself and are no better than protestants who deny the real presence. Clearly the, 'gift/eucharist,' in this case is greater than the, 'altar/liturgy,' but we're not to lose site of what has made the eucharist sacred in the first place. Those who deny this reality will be answerable to God.
paul vi literally wore a jewish high priest's vestments. jp2 was also a jew, as was john xxiii - and they have all engaged in; at best false ecumenism with jews, at worst, worship with jews in synagogues to false gods. what a silly comparison to say "you are like the jews". can't make up this anti-sede trite, it's so boring.
@@TeamCavalier123 - At least quote me right, I said, _"self righteous pedantic Jews."_ Many Pharisees followed Christ, and Jesus tells the crowds and his own disciples to do whatever the Pharisees and scribes taught them because they sit on the seat of Moses.(Matthew23:1-3) It isn't surprising that Pope Paul VI wore a replica of Aaron's breastplate, the Jews believed this was one of the instruments that God used to give the High Priest infallible oracles, see the Talmud Yoma73b. Infact I would argue that the High Priest was the Jewish equivalent to the Papacy.
Jimmy is usually steeped in brilliant detail, excellent premises, and shows his metaphoric work. Not so here. Canon law disagrees with Jimmy. John Paul II, God blessed and saintly pope that he was, made politicing in conclave grounds for immediate latae sententiae excommunication for all involved. Cardinal Daneels explicitly wrote that he and others did just that. Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio stated publicly in video remarks that he did. Take the author's intention at face value. Yhey claimed to do EXACTLY what results in immediate, non-trial, excommunication. Where's the opposite valid argument? I would like to hear it but Jimmy hasn't done it. He gives it a glib, one word, invective attack. Very un-Jimmy of him. What he expressed here is not good reasoning, whatever side he's on.
More complicated than that. There was Pope Formosus and later his enemy Pope Stephen VI was elected. He dug up Formosus, put the corpse on trial, declared him an invalid anti-Pope and declared all of his ordinations and consecrations of bishops invalid. Later, a Pope overturned Stephen. After that, a later Pope reaffirmed Stephen's judgement on Formosus and after that it was overturned and it flipped around a few more times. So, when is a person schismatic? When they believe whatever the Pope says whenever the Pope says it? In the Spring it's "yes" and in the fall it's "no" about what is often mislabeled as a "dogmatic fact" concerning who is the Pope?
Who’s to say that a “bad” pope means that the Catholic Church isn’t the institution of God? Manasseh, from the OT, burned his children in fire and he was still the valid king of Judah.
Because they're talking about ecclesiology here - not faith or morals, where each Church teaching can generally be easily identified in Scripture. The Bible was never intended to be an ecclesiological document - It describes the first successor to an apostolic office in Acts 1, and has a bit on how the early Church was structured throughout the NT (for example, the threefold ministry of presbyters, bishops and deacons), but otherwise, the Sacred authors weren't writing a manual for how to run the Church. That's primarily the job of Sacred Tradition, with practical developments made over the centuries. This is actually something Protestants also believe they have a ton of freedom on. Where in the Bible does it say that you should meet on Sunday mornings, or that the church is led by a 'pastor', or that you should play songs with electric guitars and drums, or that pastors should come up with topical sermon series, or that kids should go to the sunday school while the adults go to regular church, etc? Nowhere, but that's okay, because the Bible never intended to give us a step by step guide of how to run the Church. Christ DID give us the papacy though, and rejecting the papacy and the authority of the apostolic Church IS a big problem.
The Bible is extremely catholic. From the chapter and verse divisions, which were created by Catholics, to the canon, which was decided by catholic councils, to the teaching of the Bible, which is also very catholic. -Baptismal regeneration (Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21, John 3:5, Mark 16:16) -Eucharist (John 6:53-59, Matthew 26:26) -Purgatory (1 Corinthians 3:15) -Corporal works of mercy (Matthew 25:31-46) -Catholic penance (prayer, fasting, almsgiving); from the sermon on the mount And much more.
Sort a legalisitic argument being made regarding Benedict XVI's badly worded and mangled resignation. The same standard isn't applied to Pope's who bound error because they were determined to have been under coercive force. But applying Akin's standard, the Catholic Church failed. A reasonable standard would be, there are questions, valid ones raised against whether Benedict XVI actually resigned. Attempting to split the Petrine ministry, keeping the papal name, wearing white papal garments. A whole host of confusing communications. Benedict XVI could have lost the papacy by actually trying to split the Petrine ministry is even another layer. Those are the facts and Akin just doesn't seem to like that we are in confusing and unclear times.
It's not Catholic teaching that God positively chooses the Pope. Public Revelation has closed with the death of John the Apostle. The Holy Ghost may inspire a certain choice but Cardinals can ignore it or on occasion respond to it.
This is a strawman argument. You have to go deep into what Benedict XVI' theology. From his writing and what Benedict XVI said, we can infer that he believes becoming a Pope enters one's being, as if it leaves a sacramental character and therefore doesn't leave him. Thus he might have thought he held the papacy in some capacity in a more passive way while in spiritual retirement.
All Aiken is doing is burning the entire credibility of Jesus to the ground. If bergoglio is a "valid" pope then the Promise of Jesus to protect the Church from the gates of hell has obviously failed. Aiken's arguements just destroy all of the Christian and Catholic supernatural claims.
Not to defend Akin, but Jesus didn't promise to the protect the Church from the gates of Hell. He promised that the gates of Hell would not survive the assaults of the Church. The fact that the Church is doing less and less to be actively fighting the gates of Hell doesn't invalidate Christ's promise.
@@gerry30 the problem with this kind of thinking though is that it drains the promise of any objective meaning. It turns Jesus into another pharisee who has no substance and is all talk. It results in the same thing.
@@davidmascarenas9830 I think there's no problem with accurately depicting what Jesus promised and what he didn't promise. There is a huge difference between promising the Church the power to overwhelm evil if the Church men use it correctly and promising that the Church cannot be infiltrated and peopled with enemies undermining it from within. Too many people go around citing Church scandals as a claim that the "gates of Hell have prevailed." When that has no relevance to Church corruption and Christ's promise is not applicable.
@@CaryChiltonno, I am acting in truth and reality. Nothing less is Christian. Christianity is note about emotional reasoning to paper over uncomfortable truths.
Benedict knew the proper form of a resignation. Who is the guy who wears white, lives in the Vatican, wears red shoes and the papal ring, and gives apostolic blessings? That guy is the pope. There is no such thing as a “pope emeritus.” Who is the guy who denies hell exists or hopes it is empty, processes pagan idols into St. Peter’s Basilica, and authorizes the blessing of sinful relationships? That guy is not the pope. You cannot be elected pope while there still is a living pope, even if he calls himself a “pope emeritus,” and believes he has only resigned the ministry but not the office of the pope. Benedict believed a man remains pope even after he resigns the papacy. That is an error. And that error in belief led to an invalid resignation. Bergoglio never intended to accept the duties of a pope (the defense of the traditions of the faith) when he accepted the papacy. He intended to change the Church’s teaching in a revolution. That means he cannot be a valid pope, even if you think Benedict’s resignation was valid, which clearly, it was not. There are so many ways Bergoglio is believed not to be pope. That’s because he isn’t pope. Despite all of these serious concerns about the validity of his papacy, some people actually claim that he is pope by “universal and peaceful acceptance,” which is laughable.
@@DaltonHBrown You are incorrect. There have been popes who were no longer pope, but there never, until Benedict, were any pope emeritus. The title was created by Benedict based on a misconception of the papacy. That misconception is a false notion that the papacy is somehow infused into a pope. But the papacy is an office. There is no such Catholic belief that a pope remains somehow a pope once he has resigned the “ministry” without resigning the “office” of the papacy. What Benedict tried to do is not possible to do, hence he remained pope. A pope is no longer pope if he resigns. He doesn’t live in the Vatican, wear papal garments and the red shoes, wear the papal ring and give apostolic blessings. These are things a pope does. And there can be only one pope. If your resignation was not valid because of an error in perception, you remain pope.
Jimmy akin also said Protestants are not anathema
Meanwhile Jimmy Akin and most people who believe as he does will extend more grace to people who reject the idea of the papacy entirely over tradtionalists vocalizing clear contradictions within church teachings.
@@AndrewPont-w1j so true Jimmy Akin also rejects the dogma outside the Catholic Church there’s no salvation. He’s not a Catholic still a Protestant just masquerading as a Catholic.
@@AndrewPont-w1jwhich means his faith is compromised. If you are willing to leave wiggle room you do not have genuine faith.
The thing with Benevacantists, is Benedict was quite lucid and functioning after his resignation. If he somehow didn't intend to resign, I have a very hard time believing he wouldn't have said something.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The implication is that he wrote about it in his private documents to be revealed after his death through his personal secretary Archbishop Georg Gänswein. Except after his death all of his writings were quickly burned by Francis. Pretty strange thing to do, after all, he could have a following of people calling for his canonization in a few decades. His belongings should have been kept for investigation for such reasons. Yet Francis burned them. Then, Georg Gänswein was sent away and silenced.
Doesn't take much leap of logic to see what could have happened there, not unlike a woman running for President and destroying her illegal private servers with a hammer. Powerful people destroy evidence and face no consequences all the time.
also I think he were to not say something, i think that would be maybe a mortal sin, allowing someone else to take the throne while not intending to actually resign.
The problem still remains lucid or not, he attempted to create an innovation where the Papacy is reducible to the episcopacy of Rome. If this was valid, then why had it never ever occurred to any other pope in the history of the Church? The two previous popes (who really did resign) never for a moment believed that could have just legitimately have retired instead. Also, what about a pope like Paul VI who was explicitly leaving business for the next pontificate because he was too weak and to tire. I mean, if he could have just formally retired (as he was effectively retiring already), then why wouldn't he have done this?
The best we could say is that Ratzinger's own theological genius allowed him to rationalize doing something that was gravely evil and inappropriate.
What better evidence than his own actions, in continuing in some circumstances to act as only a pope can act?
"Actions speak louder than words."
@@Starwarp02Well it certainly would be problematic. If Pope Benedict did a fake resignation or a partial resignation, and he let the entire world think Pope Francis was the Pope perhaps including Pope Francis himself, then this would be a great deal of trouble probably a great deal of scandal. The Cardinals convene to elect a new pope. And that was the message that was sent. Pope Benedict appeared to resign and everybody in the world believed he did. And he certainly respected Pope Francis as the new pope and let him make decisions. Do I think Pope Benedict did a bad thing? No I don't. I think he resigned especially after witnessing his dear friend and predecessor St John Paul II languish away with old age and sickness on the throne, and Pope Benedict made the hard decision to step down completely and fully.
Since when does Akin care for being schismatic? I heard him talk about Protestantism as indifferent as can be.
I think the difference is that everybody knows that protestants aren't catholics, including protestants. But sedes claim to be catholics.
@@iamdigory But the problem is hiding behind the "We're all Christians" to promote the Indifferentism. Also Anglicans tend to believe they are still a a part of the Catholic Church but they are having a "squabble" about papal privileges. I remember when JPII died, the High Anglican Church in the city had bunting around the doors and offered Requiem "masses" for the Pope. God only knows if anything was valid due to Catholic priests becoming Anglicans or Anglican priests getting the "Dutch Touch" ordinations.
Akin is semi-Calvanist.. he's spoken on something he calls "multilocation" in place of transubstantiation and that the use of contraception both in and out of marriage isn't an intrinsic evil due principle of double effect. I find his stance that anathemas issued by Ecumenical Councils to be null and void to be schismatic, imo.
@@Imreallybadatvideogames do you have a link or reference for the contraception statement you mention?
@@Imreallybadatvideogames Not just schismatic, but heretical. Maybe in one of the other universes he talks about it isn't schismatic or heretical, so he can be ok just as he made Amoris Laetita ok (before the addition of the Argentine interpretation to the AAS.)
Prayed in my Rosary! Thanks for yesterday's episode with John Doyle. It was good. However, the Jimmy Akin episode is my favorite of the year besides the Dr. Carrie Gress one. Please keep making segments! And please keep bringing Jimmy on! Thank you! Hope you and your family has a light-filled peaceful good day.
Sedevacantism has been defined as a particular theological position and group that the see has been vacant since Pius XII. It is not intellectuallly honest to say that those who believe that the see is vacant since Benedict XVI are the same. That the see is vacant since pre-Vatican II is one group. That the see is vacant because of Benedict is another. You can't use a theological name already defined for a particular postion/ group for another group.
Sounds like you’re making up your own rules and definitions, a sede is one who believes the chair is vacant. There’s many variations of that position, some accept John 23 , some accept Paul 6 , others reject Pius 12 , some even go further back before Pius 10 , Both they’re all sede’s . Different denominations of the same idea
Who makes that up?
@@mycatholicexperience8409 This arrogant man Akin calls anyone who doesn't agree with his idolatry of a morally degenerate Pope as a sedevacantist.
Oh boy, that thumbnail is going to attract some sedes to the comment section lol
Here I am Lord!
Is it I Lord?
I have heard you typing in the comments!
@@SedePicante Are we gonna collab btw? It would be very ecumenical 😂
@@Deuterocomical I'll jump into the dischord you have in your vids
@@Deuterocomical Hmm...maybe that dischord won't work.
The one you're linked to in your channel doesn't like people who accept and hold all the teaching of the Catholic Church.
😛😂😂
@@SedePicante 🙄🤣
I love these interviews. Thanks for the great work Matt.
Excellent camera setup BTW.
Did we cover people who think Francis is not pope on the basis of he's a heretic? (Francis is not the pope because he's a heretic) I just wanna know whether to sit through a 45 hour interview or not. Thanks!
Do these people also think there isn't currently a pope? If so, that's the definition of sedevacantism.
@@jacobecklund3651 They think we that stupid to believe them taking away our trust in God. God will decide for 1.4 billion faithful before a division which I am getting from these people. Its not even in the local churches. Out priest never said a word about Pope Francis on anything about the Pope or even a whisper from our gossipy laity.
No; not here as this clip is really only a few minutes long.
We don't say "schism" anymore... we say people are in an "irregular" relationship with the Church.
I doubt His Holiness is consistent enough to apply his logic to his enemies
Canon Law defines schism, and that definition is repeated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
@@AndrewDolder The Catechism also defines adultery, and here we are using words like "irregular"
There are important distinctions between irregularity and schism. Those are different
@@tommyaqua OP was being ironic by describing schism as irregularity in the same way mortal sins can be described as "irregular relationship"
If you read Vatican II, you’ll see that even Schismatic and Protestant sects are “means of salvation” (which is heresy) : so if you adhere to Vatican II, why do you think being schismatic is bad?
Bergoglio said in his official “magisterium” that we should “esteem the indigenous mysticism”, so why are you mad at sedevacantists?
Do you believe that Francis (Bergoglio) is pope (and therefore infallible in his judgments on faith and morals)? :
"Now, all that is contained in the Holy Scriptures and in tradition, and all that is proposed by the Church as divinely revealed truth, either by solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, is to be believed with divine and catholic faith." (Dei Filius, Vatican I) = do you believe with divine and catholic faith all that Bergoglio teaches in his ordinary magisterium (Amoris Laetitiae, Querieda Amazonia, etc)?
"To Peter the Prince of the Apostles, the divine Founder of the Church attributed the gifts of inerrancy in matters of faith and union with God." (Principi Apostorum Petro, Benedict XV) = does Bergoglio and his predecessors have this gift of inerrancy in matter of faith and union with God?
"For the sake of faith and the rule of morals, God has made the Church part of His divine Magisterium and has granted her the divine privilege of not knowing error. This is why she is the great and sure teacher of men, and has an inviolable right to freedom of teaching. (Libertas Praestantissimum, Leo XIII) = Bergoglio and his predecessors have the divine privilege of not knowing error?
"It is for this reason that, by the virtue of His prayers, Jesus Christ Our Lord obtained for Peter that, in the exercise of his power, his faith should never fail" (Satis Cognitum, Leo XIII) = Bergoglio’s faith never failed?
And a few quotes from saints:
Saint Alphonsus de Liguori (The Supreme Pontificate):
"Those who introduce plague and ruin into the Church, who deny that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Peter as regards authority in matters of faith and doctrine, or who affirm that the supreme Pastor of the Church, whoever he may be, can err in his judgments on matters of faith."
Saint Robert Bellarmine (De Romano Pontifice, chapter 3):
"The Supreme Pontiff cannot err in any way when he teaches the Church in matters of faith."
Saint John Bosco (The General Councils and the Catholic Church):
"It is therefore impossible for the Pope in matters of Faith to teach error, for it is impossible for Jesus Christ to lie, or to be unable to keep His promises."
Let's be consistent with the Holy Catholic Faith that the Lord passed on to us through His Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and which has been faithfully preserved by all the legitimate successors of Saint Peter.
To say that John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis are popes would be a great offense to Our Lord and His most Pure and Immaculate Church, or else it would mean that the Church has failed, which is a terrible blasphemy.
If Francis is not Pope (like his predecessors since John XXIII), then it is perfectly logical and pleasing to God to refute his errors, to recognize the invalidity of the sacraments instituted after Vatican II (apart from baptism and marriage), and to attend "non una cum" Masses ("not in communion" with Francis) because, to introduce the name of a notorious heretic into the Canon of the Mass is a sacrilege and a lie.
Only "non una cum" Masses are pleasing to God, for they are the only ones that do not soil the Immaculate Lamb, the Bread of Angels, by adulterous communion with individuals who, concretely, do not have the Holy Catholic Faith.
Amen. The heretic will always contradict himself at some point.
Amoris lætitiae isn’t ordinary magesterium
@@cardboardcapeii4286
how do you know it is not ?
Are you infaillible ?
Do you think the “pope” needs laymen to interpret his “magisterium” ?
Ironic. You quote these great saints like they wouldn't eat you alive. No matter how you spin it, you are a delusional schismatic.
Excellent. Akins, while an otherwise rational thinker, here only touched upon one area of the Sedvacantist argument.
I think calling into question weather the pope is catholic is a valid question
@user-kb4dv1ud3f A ridiculous comparison. An anti-Catholic bigot, which Francis is clearly, can not be a Catholic.
@user-kb4dv1ud3f Yes it is a ridiculous comparison, as ridiculous as having my remark deleted while responding is cowardly. If the man occupying the Chari of Peter is not a Catholic, then the pope, at that point in history, is not Catholic Currently, an immutable truth denier like Francis, is not even a theist.
Sure, just not for lay people who have bills to pay and have no SUBSTANTIVE education training to discern things beyond their authority 😊
user-kb4dv1ud3f most people anywhere and everywhere go to a job they don’t like for 8-9 hours then come home for leisure. They don’t have enough time or capability in the day to devote to something that requires immersion in a manner neither you nor I could comprehend.
Duty? Again, no individual person that lacks authority and experience has anything but their angry opinion to offer to anyone regarding the pope. We should go to mass and receive the sacraments and PRAY. That is all we common lay-folk can do at this time.
Christ has founded the Roman Catholic Church and bequeathed unto it via time and history a system within to profess dogmatic statements. To quote a renowned philosopher: “there’s rules to this s…”
user-kb4dv1ud3f I remember Father Gruner once saying something to that effect. Unless of course you want to break off from the ONE TRUE HOLY and APOSTOLIC church to create your own church … in which case you would be following your seed of distrust/suspicion/rebellion to it’s full blossom. Again, not YOU (per se), but about what you are talking.
One of the hardest lessons in Catholicism is the Pope you get is not always the Pope you want but IS always the Pope God has chosen for His purposes. So even if you hate the current pope you cannot argue that he is not the Pope God intended. That said His reasons and the implications of our current pope deeply concern me. It has some pretty stark implications for what's coming in the future. Have your lamp oil ready.
God choses the Pope just as much as He choses the President of America. Americans elect the President and Cardinals elect the Pope, God merely tolerates the election in his 6d chess plan to save as many souls as He can
This rethoric of "God picks the Pope" needs to go away and enter the dustbin of history
God does not choose the Pope. This is a dangerous misconception that needs to be stamped out, and a significant roadblock in the reconciliation with our Orthodox and Protestant brethren.
The Holy Spirit guides the Cardinals during the election, but He doesn't override their free will. The Cardinals can choose to completely ignore the Holy Spirit, or they can be confused.
God allows the Pope to be chosen, but that's His passive will rather than His active will. God does not take the Cardinals' free will away. That's how we end up with awful Popes like Honorius, John XII, John XXII, or Francis.
@@cfban splitting hairs in terminology. The holy Spirit yes indeed does guide the Cardinals to choose the Pope they got to prove something. Whoever gets in the position is the one God allows. It's even in the Bible that any post of authority is specifically allowed and chosen by God. Again in text it's hard to go into the details as I don't feel like typing out 70 billion words to put it just vernacular so. Understand the general gist of the meaning this is a comment section not a dissertation in front of a classroom
@@diamondback2085 no, it's absolutely not splitting hairs. The distinction between the active and passive will of God is extremely important. God doesn't actively will cancer in children. His passive will allows it.
Yes, God allows the Pope to be elected. But that's entirely different from Him electing the Pope Himself. He guides the Cardinals, but the Cardinals can choose to ignore Him. Just like He gives you (and me) enough Grace to never, ever, ever sin. Yet the two of us constantly ignore His Grace and we sin again and again and again.
@@diamondback2085 It's not splitting hairs, it's an extremely important distinction
Great clip, great clarification!
At the end of this he said something interesting.
If you reject Communion with the Pope, or any part of the Church in Communion wth Him, you are in a state of ecommunication.
So if somebody rejects a part of the Church because of a Missal or Rite aid they do not like, that rejection excommunicates one from the Church.
why does it matter if the current pope says there is salvation outside the church for protestants? the whole point of ex communication historically was that it was taught there is no salvation outside communion with catholic church ....
@@qwerty22421There is no salvation outside the Church, but only those culpable for their own errors are formal heretics or schismatics.
A baptized individual who’s invincibly ignorant of papal supremacy, transubstantiation, or the Filioque is not in an enviable position (especially if he lacks access to valid sacraments), but his ignorance alone won’t render salvation impossible for him.
Yes, the novus ordo only types are just as schismatic as TLM only
@@andrewburch3694Almost no Protestant alive today is invincibly ignorant of Church teaching on those issues. That's just a dishonest sidestep. "Invincible ignorance" only pertains to those who have no natural ability to learn the truth. That does not apply to "Joe Protestant" who has access to the internet and/or a library. According to the Vatican II church "Joe Protestant" has no obligation to accept the truth and cease in his rejection of the Catholic faith.
@@qwerty22421The purpose of excommunication is medicinal: to aid the person in repenting of their sins so that they can return to full communion with Jesus Christ and His Bride, the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
"If you refuse communion with those who are in communion with the Roman Pontiff"
I'm curious whether or not this covers a lot more kinds of people than we might initially think. There are a lot of people out there who think Mass of Paul VI Catholics (normal Catholics) are untouchable.
In the Vatican II religion, you can find salvation in literally any religion except for traditional Catholicism.
Thanks much for this video.
The sede vacantist I know is crazy! Down that road lies madness!
Same with lovers of the so called “new theology”
@@TheGringoSalado madness!
@@jackieo8693 Indeed. the New Theology is utter madness. Live not by lies.
@@TheGringoSalado so is sede vacantism I'm afraid
@@jackieo8693 💯
Like the pope or not, he is the pope. Cope and seethe and trust in the Holy Spirit.
Maybe the Holy Ghost is allowing yet another reprehensible Pope or even an anti-Pope to reign so as to inspire Catholics to stop being so lukewarm and get up and defend the Faith.
Like Francis or not, he is not the pope. Cope and seethe and trust in the Holy Spirit.
@@littlerock5256That's the difference between a catholic and a protestant.
@@littlerock5256 ok then Jesus’ words to St. Peter were vain and disproves Jesus’ words entirely. Yeah, no buddy. Repent.
I bet you’re thinking of ways to misinterpret Mat. 16:18 just like prots and orthodox do. Wompwomp you’re no more different than anglicans, orthodox, and Lutherans.
@@DMServant It is precisely because of Jesus's words to St. Peter that Bergoglio cannot be the pope.
Bergoglio says that we need all the denominations and that the Orthodox don't have to convert and the Vatican has told Anglicans not to convert. Bergoglio said Luther was not mistaken. So it's all good.
You asked me to leave a comment so here it is ..
This was weak, straw man argument. Mr Akin didn't represent the Sede view accurately ONE LITTLE BIT.
I predict with some certainty you will never again have Br. Diamond on again because he defends Sede position with well established Catholic ex cathedra papel teachings and teachings from the saints (like St. Robert Bellarmine). I have to admit I watch this podcast less and less due to these flagrant mis representations on this, the single most important issue of our faith. Here's a video link that describes the Sede view and the peace the Lord gives us with his truth.
ruclips.net/video/wUbMS0lA_tA/видео.htmlsi=4lYcKIrljFo-mARl
How can he do that when your position is inherently dishonest.
Submit to Rome
What a joke. "If you use bribery to get elected, it is still a valid election, it just invalidates the bribery" 😂😂😂😂😂😭
"Is the pope Catholic?"
This question speaks a fundamental truth about the pope even non-Catholics understand: in order to be pope he must be Catholic.
To be Catholic means you hold the Catholic Faith WHOLE and INVIOLATE.
WHOLE means you believe all of the teachings of the Church without rejecting a single point of doctrine.
INVIOLATE means you believe all of the teachings of the Church without changing the meaning of the teachings.
Do you believe jorge bergoglio holds the Catholic Faith WHOLE and INVIOLATE?
Facts
All I know is that the teachings, laws and Commandments never, never, ever changed to fit the agenda of godless people who want to changed it to fit the agenda of satan who is the master of lies, falsehood, darkness and deceit.
God Almighty help us all Catholics to continue defending the truth. Viva Cristo Rey.
Hey, I am with you. When I heard about this rumor and I say rumor because it did not even reach the local churches. Our priest never said anything about the Pope or what is going on. Somebody created something and wanted to make it big. My hope is that there are 1.4 billion of us around the world who are UNTAINTED with all of this. In fact when worse comes to worse God takes over right away and is in control over that billion fully UNITED and ONE with Him.
Aikin acts like the whole situation with b16 was no problem.
I’m very thankful for Jimmy’s clarity on the matter.
"I know Benedict's intentions" is not clarity it's fraud.
@@Pax_Christi_Tecum Establishing authorial intent is a basic rule for interpreting any form of writing, from a text message to Sacred Scripture. Pope Benedict XVI could not have been clearer about his intention to resign. Those who are trying to claim it wasn’t are splitting hairs to an enormous degree.
@@tomershahrabani129 I'm not saying he tried to secretly not resign. I've never heard that and frankly it sounds silly. But the fact remains no one can possibly know another's true intent, we can only surmise. It's intellectually fraudulent to claim you surely know their intent and therefore your case is true.
@@Pax_Christi_Tecum That’s fair, and I agree that we cannot know with certainty a person’s true intention. But at that point, there is a basic element of trust that is called for (in any relationship, from parent-child, friends, spouse, Pope-faithful, etc.) Unfortunately, trust and trustworthiness is getting harder and harder to come by these days, so I can understand why people have a harder time accepting this fact.
@@tomershahrabani129 The question is, was he coerced into resigning? There was no need for him to engage in that word-salad of a resignation except that he was "fleeing for fear of the wolves."
I thought that you can automatically excommunicate your self “latae sentiaate”. And you don’t have to go through a canonical process…?
I think he was referring to the requirements for a laetae sententiae excommunication to occur.
You mean these people who are creating division here?
You can be ipso facto (automatically) excommunicated if you are 1. Catholic, and 2. Obstinately hold to heresy, yes.
Can. 1364- § 1. An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, without prejudice to the provision of can. 194 § 1 n. 2; he or she may also be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336 §§ 2-4.
Also if you’ve fallen into heresy into the past as a Catholic, you’re deemed “irregular” and cannot be ordained.
@@catholictruth102 You also have to take into account all of canon 1323, which lays out the exceptions for those penalties to occur. Jimmy Akin has a good article on this called "The Eucharist & Excommunication"
This subject is complicated, but all I know is the Catholic Church NEEDS UNITY.
No. It needs Christ.
@@elijeremiah1058 Unity THROUGH Christ
This subject is not complicated. Rebellious people are rebellious. See them for what they are and move on. Christians are not required to give ear to any rebels. You can know they are rebels by how they treat those in authority. Don't listen to rebels.
@@wheatandtares-xk4lp The people you’re calling rebels are distancing themselves from a satanic religion that blesses gay couples. No good Catholic is a Christian.
The Church of today also needs unity with its past. The break -- or fracture -- occurred decades ago, and was quite evidently pushed by the enemies of the Church. Maybe that wasn't clear back then, but today we have 20/20 hindsight vision and it is undeniable. To continue to be submissive to the will of these enemies is a form of disunity with the Church of the past.
Dont they also believe that the sacraments after v2 are invalid?
They will make a legalistic arguments and pretend that abuses and bad translations don't exist. I know of a bunch of priests for whom English is a very difficult language. "I absolve you.." seems to be almost impossible for them to get correctly. The number of invalid absolutions must be astounding for them.
"Don't bring up Coffin, don't bring up Coffin, don't bring up Coffin..."
We were all thinking it.
Are you referring to Patrick Coffin?
@@stephenfrancismoran6729yes
Lol. That was a rough one.
😂 I love Patrick Coffin but I was definitely thinking it
We cannot enter schism, regardless of SOME of these groups’ good intentions, which I believe they have. We cannot "flee" what is left of the visible church. God does not need us to create grassroots churches and break from the teaching of His Church- we must be humble and not despair. If the church survived the Arian heresy or the 8 years of the reign of anti-pope Anacletus II, or the papacy of John XII who praised satan and admired pagan gods (Jupiter)- it will survive the end times and the heresy of modernism (the synthesis of all heresies) and Francis. God does not need grassroots "traditional" churches without the Four Marks of the Church (One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic). God gave us the four marks to identify His Church- certainly, the Catholic Church remains in the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church- they elect their own Patriarchs, and bishops and have their own canon law, separate from the Western/Roman hierarchy- regardless of the imperfections of men and the many attacks they suffer under satan's influence.
God promised a VISIBLE church under His authority and that the gates of hell will not prevail, through the end of the world- though there might be few remaining (a remnant)- certainly God will decide the actual number of the remaining remnant, not you or I. Eastern Rite Catholics are 16 million compared to 1.2 billion Roman Rite Catholics. Remember the Four Marks are four separate dogmas of the Catholic Church which we must believe to remain Catholic. Who has the Four Marks is not up for interpretation- grass-root traditional chapels without authority (or the same beliefs for that matter) are not Catholic, regardless of good intentions, these churches are outside the Catholic Church. The Church never left us, and traditional communities have zero authority to declare it gone and declare themselves the Catholic Church, which changes from one traditional community to another- SSPV, SSPX, CMRI, Gertrude boys, Feeneyites, Sanborn group, various independent groups, etc etc etc.... - which would be apostatizing if they did.
Certainly, we cannot claim that the traditional churches that grew out of zero authority somehow claim that authority. If you do claim that- which one is right and what authority are they all following? God humbled me and in humility, you find direction and truth- the Church (what is left of it) provides the Truth under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Why create your own church and "traditional" communities when God still provides and as if God needs it? St. Athanasius who was exiled 5 times, called a heretic, deposed, detracted, etc.-he did not fall into despair and make his own church even when it looked seemingly that the pope was favoring heresy. He did not make bishops, he did not open churches- he prayed, fasted, and put his hope in God- even when 90% of Catholic leadership was actually schismatic and Arian. I always found it amusing that traditionalists (including myself for a time) will speak of doctrine- but ignore dogmas, CHARITY, the Gospel, authority, promises by Jesus, the Four Marks, etc.
The problem is traditionalists are just like the Nestorians, Arians, Old Catholics, and Orthodox of yesterday and today (all of which were started by overzealous, despairing, and power-hungry Catholics). They all, in their misguided zeal, and maybe with good intentions- broke from the church to "save it"- yet, in the end, they all became fractured and believed different things from church to church- the difference in beliefs between the multiple Orthodox churches is innumerable and Old Catholics today now have female bishops. Traditionalist groups all condemn each other and now that the first generation is gone, they all believe in something different, make up their own mortal sins yet disregard others- they are schismatic sects. "The great sign of the demonic is scattering. God is a great gathering force. Whenever things come together, when a community forms, that is a sign of the Holy Spirit. The scattering power is a sign of the darker powers. When families get scattered, when business organizations, communities, and cultures get divided, that comes from the demonic." Obviously, all the traditional groups continue to splinter and splinter, and they all think they are right- yet they are not- God is right and we must submit- not to heresy, not to evil, but to His promises, the indefectible Dogmas of the Catholic Faith and the Holy Words of the Gospels. Humility, prayer, and fasting are our refuge. The Japanese who had no sacraments for over 200 years after the emperor outlawed Catholicism-did not start their own underground church. All the Japanese had were catechists. All they had for sacraments was Baptism and Marriage. Yet, when priests were allowed to return to Japan, they still had the Catholic Faith. God will protect His own. Traditionalists (including myself) fail (failed) to have the faith of these men, women, and children of yesterday. The traditional movement was born out of the sin of despair.
We are in just a spec of time- we will get through Francis (and the rest of the Western Church) and every other evil that comes our way with total faith, trust, and abandonment in Jesus. Remember- "Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity." (Matthew 7:22-23) This is for ALL culpable people who claim they follow Christ and follow their own doctrine instead of the words of Christ. "Neither on account of the Pharisees, to whom you maliciously compare us, did our Lord command the chair of Moses to be forsaken; (in which chair he verily figured his own) for he warned the people to do what they say, and not what they do, and that the holiness of the chair be in no case forsaken, nor the unity of the flock divided, on account of the wicked lives of the pastors."-Commentary from Haydock Bible.
We must trust in the ways of Jesus. In His humility, He did not tell the people to ignore the valid precepts of these corrupt leaders, but insisted they listen to all that was good. Jesus corrected these Jewish leaders, and most did not listen. God the Father allowed His Son to be Crucified under their corruption, yet never did Jesus preach to break from the Faith as an answer. Traditionalism is breaking from the Faith. In the lifetime of Jesus, the King of the Jews, Herod, was assigned by the Roman Emperor, nor was he truly Jewish. Caiaphas bought his “High Priesthood”, and the Sanhedrin was corrupt with false teachings and a desire for political gain and prestige. With all of this being a reality, Jesus still preached in the Synagogues and did not declare them as false leaders to be deposed. He corrected them, prayed for them, and asked the Eternal Father to forgive them. We must follow this example if we want to be saved. God allowed these men to hold their positions, however corrupt they may be. This suffering was allowed for our purification and for our eyes to be opened to our own sins. Francis will be declared as an antipope, most likely many years from now as many antipopes were declared after their deaths.
Sedevacantism, other misguided theological theories, and schism are not and cannot be the answer. Jesus has spoken. We are held to the Four Marks of the Church whether we like it or not; It is part of the Deposit of Faith, which makes it incontestable, Christ is the true head of the Catholic Church, not the new Caiaphas. ALSO- it should be noted that the Catholic Church never condemned the masses or the people who went to them where the name of an anti-pope was included in the Mass, as in the 8-year case of Anti-pope Anacletus II. These are times of confusion, and the Catholic church is a mother- the Catholic Church knows we have zero authority to declare anything, and this judgment will fall on the hierarchy and the usurpers- so it is very important to pray for the 6 Eastern Patriarchs and the remaining faithful Western Clergy. Many saints, including St. Vincent Ferrer himself, put the wrong name (of the Anti-Pope) in the Mass and defended doing so for a time. Once the AUTHORITY of the Church spoke, he did as the Bride of Christ told him to do. The Church never condemned his masses, nor him. In fact, he was declared a saint regardless of his temporary blindness as a well-renowned miraculous priest. That formal declaration has not come for us yet, but it will come one day- either in a restored and smaller church or at the end of the world. But even at the end of the world- The Catholic Church will be there carrying the necessary Four Marks, something traditional groups will never be able to claim.
You said a lot, but SSPX is not sedevacantist to my knowledge. I guess you are saying "traditionalist groups" and lumping them into that, but the archbishop was about preserving the mass - and he did.
You mentioned the eastern rites. Just imagine if those rites were also banned and if some new mass and other rites were imposed on them by decree. You think they would be so passive? Canon law SUPPOSEDLY says that we have a right to practice in the rite we were baptized in, but this doesn't seem to apply to Latin Rite Catholics anymore, yet it does to the various eastern rites?
If the eastern rites can be preserved, why can't the Latin Rite? If the Latin Rite can be banned and replaced with an ad hoc modern innovation, why can't all the eastern rites? Nothing is sacred anymore, so why not? According to Bergoglio, the way to have 'unity' is by ALL being forced into the new mass in the vernacular. I wonder if the geniuses in the Vatican are applying this to their efforts to reach out to the Orthodox? "You know, we used to allow you to come back and have the ancient liturgy you are used to, but not anymore. You're going to have to have the new mass in English or we can't have unity." Yeah, right. Never! They have to be so accommodating to the East, but they can run roughshod over the West and just tell everyone to shut up and take it. Something is wrong with this picture.
You shouldn't leave the Church per se, but you also shouldn't allow the Faith to be trampled underfoot and for Tradition to be uprooted and thrown out like yesterday's garbage.
John Paul II when he was Cardinal was disobeying Paul VI with illicit ordinations directly against the Pope's declared wishes. I guess he was schismatic too.
@@MillionthUsername I don't think we should be passive. However, God has allowed this. We do have a right to the Rite we were baptized in, but there are many Latin Catholics living in nations that have Easter Catholic Churches and they go where Jesus is present, and they are not worried about the rites. If We have the Priestly Fraternity or other Indult groups within the Church that are surviving this attack- go there. If you do not have those available, then go to Eastern Rites. I greatly empathize with Archbishop Lefevere, but he made a wrong choice. We must protect the Four Marks- Christ gave us those marks to identify HIS Church. With that said I totally agree with your statement: " You shouldn't leave the Church per se, but you also shouldn't allow the Faith to be trampled underfoot and for Tradition to be uprooted and thrown out like yesterday's garbage." But we must be careful, for our souls' sake, that we remain obedient to the Trinity and the Church of Christ- the Catholic Church. The traditional movement is like the wild west, it is all liturgy and so little faith- they make up sins and ignore others, disregard canon law, and are full of scandals. . I have experienced this for 40 years. We must submit to God, He has allowed this and He does not need us to fix it. We must pray and do what we can do, but that doesn't mean overstepping.
Not reading all that
@@gerry30what was the ordinations?
I bet Jimmy is heartbroken seeing his old CA pal Pat Coffin go down this path.
I think the main thing people are struggling with is the perceived contempt that certain generations of clerics display for Church orthodox teaching, cultural heritage and church history.
This manifests as what appears to be "ecumanism" in the pastoral doctrine but manifests ultimately as unbelief in the supremacy and truth of the Catholic faith.
Tragically you see this manifest in the sacramental life as disinterest in sacraments like reconciliation, baptism, and the unbelief in the eucarist.
I think sedecavantism as an idea in the minds of many lay faithful is nothing more than them trying to reconcile that disonance.
I'm reminded of this verse:
Mathew 12: 25-28
Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? And if I drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
This is not to claim anyone is a demon. Only to understand opposing forces and effect. Maybe this verse can help us all to understand the effects of our own actions and those of others. I don't have an answer, only have lived with the conflict within the church my entire adult life.
I'm extremely confident in our Catholic Church and even optimistic out of not only faith but looking at trends. I think in the next 5 years we will turn the corner in the west and see a revival, and I think laity have done most of the leg work on this over the past decade and have infused new generations of Clerics to be on fire for the Lord.
It was one such amazing young priest who served my family so well during the covid lock downs.
God Bless.
The one thing I don't understand is how Sedevacantist is schismatic if the church naturally has a vacant seat at intervals... its a natural state, with an undetermined timeline.
It seems like a purely speculative issue for most people where they observe simple conflict in the church, a house divided against itself after a fashion and they know that is wrong and in their simplicity don't know how to make sense of the wrong. Contemplating the absence of a guiding influence of a just pope, it seems rational, simple... and natural. Not even like, "oh man I don't like that francis guy" but more like, "Maybe he's not really the guy we thought he was because that guy wouldn't do these things."
In the same way that I feel a cleric who denies sacraments in covid was doing horrible wrong by the faithful, I would wonder about a pope who seemingly sides against faithful communities that venerate the eucharist and hate abortion in favor of communities that are the opposite, that something isn't right there.
I submit myself to the authority of the church up to a point. Are we then made to understand there is no moral accountability within the clerical order? I do hope we can all just talk about this soberly.
@@jkellyid Simple answer as to why you don't understand it. Jimmy Akin is wrong. He comes from the "rah, rah, rah" "John Paul II, we Love You!" group of apologists that had an exaggerated view of the Papacy. Much of it is tied to charismatics and so, the Pope has a bunch of undeclared powers and "charisms" that make him irresistible in all things and as far as they are concerned impeccable in governance. He's basically getting his marching orders from God Himself. They won't admit this but it's discernible in their overall arguments.
@@jkellyid Sede vacante is originally the term for the interregnum period (to use other terms). A short while, no more.
But Sedevacantists go even further. Their name (self assigned) betrays the full extent of their schism.
There is no Catholic Church to point to when you talk to them. No bishops, no cardinals, no nothing. If there ever is, it's with a broken apostolic succession.
What they advocate is more of a Protestant situation. The Church died and we were left orphans, so let's build it from scratch.
You say Francis is not fit for Pope, or not worthy of it.
Let me tell you something. You've been spoiled. We've gotten a Saint Pope and a Theologian Pope in quick succession, but that's an anomaly. We rarely get really good Popes worth of the honor.
There have been terrible Popes. For Francis to be ANYTHING like the top 10 worst Popes (like the Borgias or Benedict 15th), he'll need to walk around with a mistress publicly, appoint his illegitimate children as high ranking officials, and excommunicate out of spite.
To be anything like Peter was at his lowest, Francis would need to apostasize in words, publicly, several times, through oaths and curses.
Francis isn't a good Pope, sure, but he's the Pope we got. Even through our roughest periods we've never been bound into error, and the Church has prevailed. Hades hasn't torn our Church down.
To declare NOW (of all times!) that Hell did prevail upon the Papacy and the College of Bishops isn't the rational position.
What we should do is tighten our belts, ride the tide, and let God see that we endured like the saints we ought to be.
Do not jump ship. The storm may be strong, and the currents wild, but we will get through this. Have faith, brother, as this ship wasn't built with human hands.
@@alonsoACR You are strawmanning a bit the sedevacantist position. I am not one of that frame of mind, but they do have bishops with apostolic succession. My criticism of their position is that I think they have too broad a view of Church indefectibility and papal infallibility. Their view is basically, "Since the Church is indefectible and these bishops / popes appear to be flaming heretics, the only possible explanation is that they've lost the office." I don't agree with that but it's undeniable there have been some heavy-hitter saints of the past with similar views re: heresy and office. Although those saints were always speaking of hypothetical cases.
@@johncalla2151 If that was a reasonable explanation then the Anglicans and the Lutherans are in fact Catholic and Apostolic. But they aren't.
Name one saint of the Church that said it's possible for the office of the Papacy to be dead.
@JimmyAkin knows andrea cionci's work and his book?
If you cannot defend the pope’s authority then you cannot defend the faith. Be Catholic and submit to the pope. Stop reading headlines and watching shorts. Renounce sin and become virtuous. Once you have done that , read all Vatican documents on your own and reason from the text. Ignore your hearts sinful desires and trust in the sacred heart of Jesus.
Chair is vacant. Heretic isn't a pope
If there is no pope then the gates of hell have prevailed and our god is a liar. No reason to be Catholic after that.
I don’t need to defend the popes authority. He was elected by cardinals same as any other pope that you may or may not have agreed with.
So can there be a Catholic Church without St. Peter?
Lol!!! You are asking for me to cite sources to explain the existence of a pope in the Catholic Church. Francis is the pope. Give me my free chicken!!!
One of the serious problems with Benedict's resignation though, was his insistence on the bifurcation of the papacy, as if his successor were an active pope and he himself was a pope of contemplation or the same minister but only thought the capacity of spiritual prayer and support. And that's the problem, it's not right, that's where the most amount of confusion is coming from, but it seems like something that Francis has floated as if he also supposes as a potentially legitimate way of "resigning" (When he said he wouldn't resign, but he would be willing to retire, as if one can be a quasi-pope, or offer a semi-resignation from the papacy). The fact that Benedict misunderstood this is a problem, the fact that Francis seems to be carrying on the same misunderstanding is also potentially problematic. We need to answer that issue.
Do the current sede's have any way of reconciling in their mind outside of a conclave? I mean bishops are only valid bishops by the determination of the pope... What happens when those that were ordained by the last "valid" pope die?
I asked Jimmy Akin a question on the "Catholics Answers" livestream on March 3rd, 2023 (@ the 1:25:26 mark) on how, in Acts 8:21, St. Peter judged the heart of Simon the first heretic as not being right in the sight of God, thus proving that Catholics in the state of grace can judge those who dissent from the teaching of the Church (thereby oblitering post-Vatican II nonsense about our supposed inability to discern the heart regardless of the person's external works). He responded by basically saying, "Well, St. Peter as an inspired Apostle was either given a supernatural revelation or he was basing this decision on the underdeveloped psychology of the ancient world and may have been wrong here". The text was clearly stating that St. Peter was in the right, so his only seemingly coherent defense is that St. Peter was given special revelation to discern Simon's state of heart in the sight of God, yet that is nowhere stated in the text. It serves as a microcosm example of how the Church deals with unbelievers which is consistently radiated down through the centuries (just read Denzinger for an hour and you'll see that). So rather than reject the modernism of the age, he would rather call into question the accuracy of St. Peter and the Bible. That's modernism in a nutshell.
We get the Pope we DESERVE 😢
Where is this in Catholic teaching?
I am thinking of a particular priest who became popular during covid who claims you can't be a democrat and Catholic, and a lay-person who used to work at Catholic Answers in particular who need our prayers to repent, confess, and come back into full communion with the church. They should also submit themselves publicly to the Holy Roman Pontiff who was validly elected, since they are so public about not accepting Pope Francis as the rightful Pope.
You can't support infanticide and be Catholic.
Let your yes be yes and no be no. If you have something to say you should say it.
@@Roihclem871 your assertion is fallacious.
The Church has been very clear on her stance of whether or not abortion, contraception, or IVF are moral. On all of those questions the Church has definitively said no. So to say that it is a good thing or a moral thing to claim to be Catholic and support people accessing any of these three things is just wrong. To then actively support the political party that wants people to access abortion at any time, for any reason, and also wants them to be tax payer funded is gravely wrong. So can you be a democrat and Catholic? Sure, but you should not be voting for candidates within the party that support those ideas, which at this point, is all of them running for elected office on the federal stage.
@@loganleroy8622 you missed the point of what I was articulating. I merely providing a marker for who the priest is we should be praying for, for those who know who he is. I don't want to name him so I don't scandalize others who don't.
@@christopherthelen3562 "I don't want to name him so I don't scandalize others"
Wow. And you are not scandalized by "blessings for same-sex 'couples'?"
I’m Catholic & I’m with the Diamond brothers. Doesn’t mean I’m any less Catholic when recognizing that Vatican II IS THE COUNTER CHURCH- WHITE HATS AND BLACK HATS .. IM WITH PETERS ROCK..
That makes you a schismatic. Repent.
@@catholictruth102Vatican 2 teaches that other religions and schismatics don’t need to convert. That’s blatant heresy
@@jakethebased7195 That’s false.
Can we get a debate between Jimmy Akin and the former CA guy?
The Vatican II church constantly praises and affirms schismatics of every stripe. Your own religion betrays you.
In what context? It certainly condemns schism as a mortal sin, both in Canon Law and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
@@AndrewDolder They say the eastern schismatics don't need to convert. They allow Anglicans and eastern sects to have their services in Catholic churches.
Yep, because of these things I'm studying. Might go full sede soon. And if I do find enough evidence to dismiss the anti-sede arguments, I'll be taking some friends with me.
@@jimmyplayscds Familiar with novus ordo watch? Tons of info.
@@AndrewDolderHeretics always contradict themselves. Look at the actions of the post-VII antipopes.
I've conversed with priests of Sspx; sedevacantist( Brothers- mhfm and Priests -cmri ); benevacantists and Novus Ordo ; reverent Novus Ordo; and a Benedictine Monk ( great guy who loves the Faith but a Feeneyite )
*I got to the point of talking to 2 Orthodox priests and understand their view of Roman Catholicism( I'm still Roman Catholic - LORD willing I am)
My personal conclusion is that universal ordinary magisterium is split into at least 5+ minds.
Is The Church in an eclipse?
No doubt it is.
It's bishop against bishop.
I tried to defend one side and the other but it's impossible.
*Only the Rosary sorta connects us. It's better that nothing.
The Rosary will change the world
There's nothing heterodox about the position of Fr. Feeney. Back in the day, Cardinal Ratzinger when welcoming the St. Benedict Center back into canonical regularity, he stated that Catholics have the option to hold to a more strict understanding of the necessity of water Baptism. It's the more modern, nuanced speculations that are of dubious orthodoxy but currently permitted.
I came back to the Church after 40 years as an Evangelical. I love the Mass, I love the Eucharist. All this and I’ve found that in bits and pieces I will always be a bit Evangelical and a bit Orthodox (filoque). I truly believe that that is good. I found the Church to have a stifling bureaucracy in Rome. Also, Catholics argue about the jot and tittle rather than the important call that Christ gave to the Church. When the Church stops looking to fit in with the “cultural sin du jour” (blessing of same sex couples) and begins to excommunicate politicians who promote abortion with gusto, maybe then it will be the Church that Christ called it to be. I think Mother Theresa would have been a great Pope. 😮😉 She knew and practiced what we are called to be as members of the Church.
And also when they stop protecting pedophilic priests and condemn them
This is all more and more crazy. How we did this from just 2 commandments? So many rules
?
He has no authority to give up the papacy. If the office is special and all that, you only abandon it at death regardless of what Benedict thought he was doing.
How about SSPX? What is their status?
I think this Jimmy Akin will be my next candidate for the papacy. Pope Benedict was ready to retire on his first day when most of those bald headed bishop at the curia gave him a stern look from head to toe as he was passing by so why wouldn't he declared himself Pope Emeritus to get out fully from his responsibilities. Jimmy Akin solved my question that there might be some people at headquarters as well as around us here who thinks we the laity are that stupid so they try to inject fear in us hoping that 1.4 billion CC will scatter themselves and divide.
I’m of the opinion that Benedict was still Pope after his resignation, but that Francis became Pope as soon as Benedict died.
I’m just skeptical that resignation is even possible. Is there really just a combination of words that when said remove your powers as pontiff? I find that hard to believe. I see the pontificate as a covenant, like marriage, that is indissoluble, that can’t be “annulled” just by saying you’re done. It can only end with death.
That’s great
Is patrick the caller ? 😂
The original interview with Aiken is the gift that keeps on giving
Akin
After personal experience I realize sedes and SSPX correct that Faustina ‘divine mercy’ devotion is demonic 💯
Hard to believe Seat of Peter (Mt 16:18; 23:2) empty though, so I gotta side w SSPX
Just interview someone who holds the ‘22 interregnumist position for goodness sake Matt!! Jimmy doesn’t know what he’s taking about with this. Benedict did not abdicate the munus petrinum in accordance with canon 332.2. He resigned de facto the active exercise of the ministry (ministerium of bishop of Rome) which led to a de jure impeded see (canons 412 and 335) from 2013 to his death in 2022 when the See became vacant.
One of the quotes from Benedict which support this thesis is “No Pope has resigned in a thousand years, it was an exception in the first millennium of the papacy” now either Benedict was wrong since the last abdication was in 1415, or his resignation is not an abdication, which would make sense since in 1013 Benedict VIII resigned the ministerium and fled Rome yet REMAINED Pope.
I'm not a sede, but this is awful. Jimmy Akin's made up Magisterium.
Do you really know him? He is one of our brilliant apologist. I do not see what he is GAINING from all the negative comments about him here.
@@mathildamiller7075 He has problematic takes on many topics.
STILL trying to damage control after that beating Cassman took! I’d like to see Jimmy Akin go against Br. Peter and see how long he lasts!
Now this I can give a hearty Amen Amen Amen! If you are not subjecting yourself to Christ by being in communion with the person of Peter in the current Holy Father, get there! Blessings!
That sounds like just a slogan. What exactly does being subject and in communion with the Pope mean? I go by the Vatican I teaching and the definition of obedience of Thomas Aquinas. You are not obligated to follow a Pope who is trying to destroy the Church. So, Paul VI's ideas about "kenosis" are to be rejected. John Paul II's Assisi gatherings and Francis' destructive ,subjective and absurd personal judgements and contradictions are to be resisted.
Dear@@gerry30, that does not make sense. Who told you that these popes are not popes? And why would you give such people authority over your eternal soul? Do you not know that they will be judged for misrepresenting the Church and lying about Vatican II? If you are consciously "resisting" the earthly representative of Jesus the King, are you not resisting Jesus Himself?
Vatican 1's document "Pastor aeternus" says in Chapter 2:
"1. That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time [See Mt 7, 25; Lk 6, 48.]."
and:
"3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. "So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received" [Leo I, Serm. (Sermons) 3 (elsewhere 2), ch. 3 (PL 54, 146).]."
and from Chapter 3:
"1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence [Council of Florence, session 6 (p. 528).], which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the "holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people. To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church. All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons." "
and from Chapter 4:
"1. That apostolic primacy which the Roman Pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching. This Holy See has always maintained this, the constant custom of the Church demonstrates it, and the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it."
and again:
"6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."[Lk 22, 32.]"
Where does Vatican 1 say that anyone but a subsequent pope can judge a pope?
The Vatican II church teaches that communion with the Pope is meaningless.
@@gerry30 Tradition is a slogan?! That is news to me! Just mentioning VI and The Angelic Doctor does nothing to bolster your own opinion, it is akin to proof-texting the Sacred Scriptures. Give me one legitimate example of how he is trying to destroy the Church, not the same tired arguments of Pachamama or blessings, or really anything that is ever mentioned as his so-called nefarious plans for the future of the Church, that has not been disproven a thousand times over for the wise and prudent thinker. We are obligated to obey our authority even when we, with our egotistical desire to be our own Pontiffs, do not agree. So many examples of Saints that were correct about something being censored by their superiors but they realized their duty to obey. Not really sure what crazy sedevecantist position about the Magisterium and therefore Christ and His words concerning the CHurch, you are really advocating for, I will be praying for you. Blessings!
_"you can you can reinterpret what __1:07__ anybody says if you get to make up the __1:11__ rules but this is another case of __1:14__ reading a text contrary to the intention __1:18__ of its author"_
Genesis 1 though 11.
CCC § 283. CCC §§ around 390.
You have pretty much summed up what three of _your_ "Popes" (counting since 1992 when that "catechism" came out) did to Moses.
Context?
@@igorlopes7589 Jimmy is conscious of author content in the abdication of "Benedict" but not the Bible.
@hglundahl so are you saying that because the catechism does not take the creation story in Genesis literally and allows for belief in big bang/evolution, they are wrong because the author of Genesis meant it to be taken literally?
@@luke9747 Well, even half literal, like Day Age and Gap Theory for Genesis 1, but literal from there on, even that is far more marginal in Church history than Benevacantism is in present matters.
Let alone non-literal, allowing for Adam and Eve to not be two actual persons or not the actually first men or not actually within a few thousand years before Abraham ...
So, yes, I am saying precisely that.
@@hglundahlThe Catholic Church holds that Catholics must believe Adam and Eve were real, individual people, regardless of their thoughts concerning the literal timeline of the events of Genesis.
And Jimmy Akin says....nothing. I love the "there are attempts..." no, there are arguments people make. They are either arguments that hold up or don't. All this greasing of the skids with biased descriptives makes Akin's position come off as protective and tenuous.
Akin is also promoting a sort of Rahnerian "anonymous schismatic" If a person unknowingly subjects himself to the wrong man whom he believes to be Pope, he's not schismatic. He's in error. St. Vincent Ferrer wasn't a schismatic when he followed and supported an anti-pope. Consequently if say a future Pope declares Francis to be invalid and an anti-Pope, the people who believed he was Pope were not schismatic. And if a Pope incorrectly declares a Pope invalid, like Stephen's judgment against Formosus that doesn't make the people that believed the Pope's error schismatic or the ones that disbelieve the Pope's error as schismatic.
PWA, Catholic Answers STILL coping 😂
Sedevacantists in my opinion is the only way to stay catholic if you follow the new religion that has developed since Vatican 2 your not staying true to the historical teachings and practices of the catholic faith. This is just my opinion but I can’t follow Francis and Vatican 2 and feel in my heart that I’m a catholic. God bless everyone
Congratulations I guess. But I was more than willing to help.
From the beginning, using complicated words and then attacking a subject that is worthy of discussion and will be from great theologians for years to come. That’s why I stopped listening to “Catholic answers” Patric Coffin only asks tough questions that many other Catholics that don’t fear truth are asking. But some continue to hide, like in 2020 and still haven’t discussed tough questions about the reactions of the hierarchy then and now. I guess discussing suspension of good priest and Bishops is off the table as well. Wow !
The Pope is a very poor pope, but a pope nevertheless
It is absurd to think public heretics like the V2 Antipopes, who have praised Luther, enemy of the church and whose false doctrines led so many souls to perdition, are actual Popes. They are outside the church, not Catholic. The heresies of the post V2 Antipopes are in fact the deception warned about in Scripture, in Matthew. That there would be a falling away from the faith, most will believe a lie, few will be saved. Every heretic who is a cleric automatically loses his office and cannot be part of Christ flock. That is Catholic teaching, so that they cannot spread poisonous error to Christ's faithful.
I don't believe that Benedict xvi was the last Pope, I KNOW that he was the last pope. Yes, I am a sedevacantist since December 31, 2022 and I am not subjected, thank God, to the impostor that sits in the chair of Peter. I do attend Mass and Take the Eucharist on my knees and mouth on a Novus Ordus Mass said reverently enough. I know that the Holy Mother Church won't be with no visible head for long time, I know things are about to change soon, of course, I do not know the exact month or year but I am ok with that. I have zero confusion and anguish. I feel and pray for the millions of catholics that believe that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has been a real Pope all these 11 years, distracted catholics that think they have a spiritual father in this man and they still think he all he has done with the help and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Jesus is coming soon!
Pope Benedict never wrote anything in which he stated, 'I hereby resign'. The only thing he wrote was a statement stating that he would resign in the future. That is not a resignation according to Canon law or even the plain use of language.
And of course after the 'conclave' Pope Benedict continued to act as though he had not fully resigned the papacy.
Then why did he allow Pope Francis to do everything else? Did Benedict believe you can have two Popes at once? It's nonsense.
@@GreenKnight1979
Pope Benedict's long time personal secretary, Archbishop Ganswein, told a conference in 2016 that Pope Benedict had "fundamentally changed" the nature of the papal office forever (basically with a sort of two pope configuration). Pope Benedict saw himself as occupying the spiritual side of the papacy, while Bergoglio occupied the ministerial side of the papacy.
@@davegaetano7118 so that would make Benedict a heretic as the nature of the papal office cannot be changed. But that wouldn't change the legal fact that he freely declared the see was vacant.
@@GreenKnight1979
He would only be a heretic if he formally taught that heresy. But if he merely put it into practice, he would not be a heretic. An example would be that the practice of adultery does not make you a heretic on the teaching that adultery is wrong.
As I said in my original comment above, he never stated that the see was vacant. He only said that it would be vacant at a future date. It is not at all clear that this satisfies the requirements of Canon law, which I believe requires that a resignation be made manifest, not merely promised. In any case, any assertion about the future is problematic as to whether it will ever actually happen.
@@davegaetano7118 it satisfied Benedict himself who was the final interpreter of the law and the Papal conclave which he complied with, thereby making anybody else's opinion irrelevant.
No- they’re not schismatic.
Yes they obviously are. Read Etsi Multa.
If diamond is sedavacantist, then matt or jimmy, debate.brother on liturgy, escotology, and so fourth etc if you claim your a REAL catholic. The novus ordo, the lavender mafia, francis actions, id like to you defend that. After all whats the harm
Don't listen to this guy; he doesn't know what he's talking about re: schism. Schism is when somebody rejects in principle the idea of a pope. I.e., the Orthodox churches (which the ecumenical conciliar church falls over backwards to placate) or somebody like King Henry VIII. A person who has a different idea about who is actually pope (e.g., St. Vincent Ferrer) or who believes the See is vacant for one reason or the other, is not in schism. (I happen to believe Francis is pope. A bad pope, yes, but the Church has had them in the past, so it is possible.)
If you reject the Pope then you’re a schismatic. Take a read of Etsi Multa.
Sedevacantists remind me of those self righteous pedantic Jews who were constantly calling into question Christ's actions concerning the law.
Lesson for sedevacantists concerning the validity of the NO Mass;
Matthew22:19 How blind you are! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 So whoever swears by the altar, swears by it and by everything on it; 21 and whoever swears by the sanctuary, swears by it and by the one who dwells in it; 22 and whoever swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by the one who is seated upon it.
By calling into question the validity of the liturgy which gives us the Body of Christ, you are clearly calling into question the consecration itself and are no better than protestants who deny the real presence. Clearly the, 'gift/eucharist,' in this case is greater than the, 'altar/liturgy,' but we're not to lose site of what has made the eucharist sacred in the first place. Those who deny this reality will be answerable to God.
Excellent book is Work of Human Hands: A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI.
@@littlerock5256 just proved OPs point 🥱
@@DMServant What is ?
paul vi literally wore a jewish high priest's vestments. jp2 was also a jew, as was john xxiii - and they have all engaged in; at best false ecumenism with jews, at worst, worship with jews in synagogues to false gods. what a silly comparison to say "you are like the jews". can't make up this anti-sede trite, it's so boring.
@@TeamCavalier123 - At least quote me right, I said, _"self righteous pedantic Jews."_ Many Pharisees followed Christ, and Jesus tells the crowds and his own disciples to do whatever the Pharisees and scribes taught them because they sit on the seat of Moses.(Matthew23:1-3)
It isn't surprising that Pope Paul VI wore a replica of Aaron's breastplate, the Jews believed this was one of the instruments that God used to give the High Priest infallible oracles, see the Talmud Yoma73b. Infact I would argue that the High Priest was the Jewish equivalent to the Papacy.
Are you?
Jimmy is usually steeped in brilliant detail, excellent premises, and shows his metaphoric work. Not so here.
Canon law disagrees with Jimmy.
John Paul II, God blessed and saintly pope that he was, made politicing in conclave grounds for immediate latae sententiae excommunication for all involved.
Cardinal Daneels explicitly wrote that he and others did just that.
Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio stated publicly in video remarks that he did.
Take the author's intention at face value. Yhey claimed to do EXACTLY what results in immediate, non-trial, excommunication.
Where's the opposite valid argument? I would like to hear it but Jimmy hasn't done it.
He gives it a glib, one word, invective attack.
Very un-Jimmy of him.
What he expressed here is not good reasoning, whatever side he's on.
"Okay, God, you allowed that Pope to be elected, but I don't agree with it.
Therefore, he cannot be considered Peter's successor."
More complicated than that. There was Pope Formosus and later his enemy Pope Stephen VI was elected. He dug up Formosus, put the corpse on trial, declared him an invalid anti-Pope and declared all of his ordinations and consecrations of bishops invalid. Later, a Pope overturned Stephen. After that, a later Pope reaffirmed Stephen's judgement on Formosus and after that it was overturned and it flipped around a few more times. So, when is a person schismatic? When they believe whatever the Pope says whenever the Pope says it? In the Spring it's "yes" and in the fall it's "no" about what is often mislabeled as a "dogmatic fact" concerning who is the Pope?
Day 5 asking Matt Fradd to invite Francis Chan to PWA
I am seriously thinking about becoming a Catholic. The current pope is an obstacle
Who’s to say that a “bad” pope means that the Catholic Church isn’t the institution of God? Manasseh, from the OT, burned his children in fire and he was still the valid king of Judah.
@@catholictruth102 You are correct, it isn't an insurmountable obstacle.
Listening to all this makes me realize how much outside the Bible Catholicism really is.
1) Seek help 2) your English is atrocious
Because they're talking about ecclesiology here - not faith or morals, where each Church teaching can generally be easily identified in Scripture. The Bible was never intended to be an ecclesiological document - It describes the first successor to an apostolic office in Acts 1, and has a bit on how the early Church was structured throughout the NT (for example, the threefold ministry of presbyters, bishops and deacons), but otherwise, the Sacred authors weren't writing a manual for how to run the Church. That's primarily the job of Sacred Tradition, with practical developments made over the centuries.
This is actually something Protestants also believe they have a ton of freedom on. Where in the Bible does it say that you should meet on Sunday mornings, or that the church is led by a 'pastor', or that you should play songs with electric guitars and drums, or that pastors should come up with topical sermon series, or that kids should go to the sunday school while the adults go to regular church, etc? Nowhere, but that's okay, because the Bible never intended to give us a step by step guide of how to run the Church. Christ DID give us the papacy though, and rejecting the papacy and the authority of the apostolic Church IS a big problem.
The Bible is extremely catholic. From the chapter and verse divisions, which were created by Catholics, to the canon, which was decided by catholic councils, to the teaching of the Bible, which is also very catholic.
-Baptismal regeneration (Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21, John 3:5, Mark 16:16)
-Eucharist (John 6:53-59, Matthew 26:26)
-Purgatory (1 Corinthians 3:15)
-Corporal works of mercy (Matthew 25:31-46)
-Catholic penance (prayer, fasting, almsgiving); from the sermon on the mount
And much more.
Sort a legalisitic argument being made regarding Benedict XVI's badly worded and mangled resignation. The same standard isn't applied to Pope's who bound error because they were determined to have been under coercive force. But applying Akin's standard, the Catholic Church failed.
A reasonable standard would be, there are questions, valid ones raised against whether Benedict XVI actually resigned. Attempting to split the Petrine ministry, keeping the papal name, wearing white papal garments. A whole host of confusing communications. Benedict XVI could have lost the papacy by actually trying to split the Petrine ministry is even another layer.
Those are the facts and Akin just doesn't seem to like that we are in confusing and unclear times.
A bad pope is different to a prefered one.....a pope is chosen by God not by a man preference
Where Jesus is there is Catholic Church
So you are saying that in the past *God* chose murderers and adulterers as Pope?
This psychotic belief really has to die
It's not Catholic teaching that God positively chooses the Pope. Public Revelation has closed with the death of John the Apostle. The Holy Ghost may inspire a certain choice but Cardinals can ignore it or on occasion respond to it.
There have been approximately 40 anti-popes in the history of the Church, and that is prior to Vatican II.
AMEN. Keep educating them. Their name sounds like seventhdayadventist and they heated the CC.
Pope Francis is the greatest Christian ✝️ in our time
This is a strawman argument. You have to go deep into what Benedict XVI' theology. From his writing and what Benedict XVI said, we can infer that he believes becoming a Pope enters one's being, as if it leaves a sacramental character and therefore doesn't leave him. Thus he might have thought he held the papacy in some capacity in a more passive way while in spiritual retirement.
All Aiken is doing is burning the entire credibility of Jesus to the ground. If bergoglio is a "valid" pope then the Promise of Jesus to protect the Church from the gates of hell has obviously failed. Aiken's arguements just destroy all of the Christian and Catholic supernatural claims.
Not to defend Akin, but Jesus didn't promise to the protect the Church from the gates of Hell. He promised that the gates of Hell would not survive the assaults of the Church. The fact that the Church is doing less and less to be actively fighting the gates of Hell doesn't invalidate Christ's promise.
@@gerry30 the problem with this kind of thinking though is that it drains the promise of any objective meaning. It turns Jesus into another pharisee who has no substance and is all talk. It results in the same thing.
@@davidmascarenas9830 I think there's no problem with accurately depicting what Jesus promised and what he didn't promise. There is a huge difference between promising the Church the power to overwhelm evil if the Church men use it correctly and promising that the Church cannot be infiltrated and peopled with enemies undermining it from within. Too many people go around citing Church scandals as a claim that the "gates of Hell have prevailed." When that has no relevance to Church corruption and Christ's promise is not applicable.
You are seriously acting in hatred
@@CaryChiltonno, I am acting in truth and reality. Nothing less is Christian. Christianity is note about emotional reasoning to paper over uncomfortable truths.
Pope Francis is the valid Pope. He may not be doing a great job, but he is our Holy Father.
AMEN. Keep educating them
Benedict knew the proper form of a resignation. Who is the guy who wears white, lives in the Vatican, wears red shoes and the papal ring, and gives apostolic blessings? That guy is the pope. There is no such thing as a “pope emeritus.”
Who is the guy who denies hell exists or hopes it is empty, processes pagan idols into St. Peter’s Basilica, and authorizes the blessing of sinful relationships? That guy is not the pope. You cannot be elected pope while there still is a living pope, even if he calls himself a “pope emeritus,” and believes he has only resigned the ministry but not the office of the pope.
Benedict believed a man remains pope even after he resigns the papacy. That is an error. And that error in belief led to an invalid resignation. Bergoglio never intended to accept the duties of a pope (the defense of the traditions of the faith) when he accepted the papacy. He intended to change the Church’s teaching in a revolution. That means he cannot be a valid pope, even if you think Benedict’s resignation was valid, which clearly, it was not.
There are so many ways Bergoglio is believed not to be pope. That’s because he isn’t pope. Despite all of these serious concerns about the validity of his papacy, some people actually claim that he is pope by “universal and peaceful acceptance,” which is laughable.
Except that pope emeritus IS a thing. It's a person who was Formerly pope but no longer.
@@DaltonHBrown
You are incorrect. There have been popes who were no longer pope, but there never, until Benedict, were any pope emeritus. The title was created by Benedict based on a misconception of the papacy. That misconception is a false notion that the papacy is somehow infused into a pope. But the papacy is an office. There is no such Catholic belief that a pope remains somehow a pope once he has resigned the “ministry” without resigning the “office” of the papacy. What Benedict tried to do is not possible to do, hence he remained pope.
A pope is no longer pope if he resigns. He doesn’t live in the Vatican, wear papal garments and the red shoes, wear the papal ring and give apostolic blessings. These are things a pope does. And there can be only one pope. If your resignation was not valid because of an error in perception, you remain pope.
Francis is "pope" of the Vatican 2 sect, not the Catholic Church.
Cry about it schismatic condemned by Etsi Multa (Pius IX)
The copium is strong with this one
And the "Sect" is 1.36 Billion strong, and growing! 😊
“Waaaah ecumenical councils waaaaaaah!” -every sedevacantist
Quit being a schismatic, repent and go to confession.
@@JeTeFermeTonCaquet what a gay opinion