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.
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!!!
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-w1j Bingo! Not merely is their position incoherent, but they are hypocrites disobedient to the teachings of Pope Francis, who teaches that no one is excluded from the body of Christ.
@@Maya-yp2ey y’all must not know anathemas aren’t even a thing to Protestants because Protestants aren’t even Catholic .. how can you be anathema or excommunicated from a church you aren’t even apart of… even ima Protestant lessening orthodox and Catholicism and I know this
Why? All religions lead to God right? Atheists can go to heaven and muslims, following the fullness of their faith can go to heaven right? So Sedevacantism is just as right as Catholicism?
Thanks for talking about this. As a new Catholic I have been heavily harassed by these Sedes online. It makes it very confusing while I’m trying to learn.
@LiliesofEden Yep, that's the experience of many of us. Sides kavk charity, are virulent, many not well theologized, lacking in hope and trust in the church. They are essentially protestant. I have had interactions with sides for over 30 years
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.
@@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.)
@@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. 😛😂😂
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.
@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 When a man denies the divinity of Christ while on earth and denies the sinlessness of Mary and denies the omnicience and the perfection of God, insisting God changes his mind and is still in the process of learning how to be a good God from His own creation, and for many many more reasons, any ordinary non-idiot can safely conclude, and has the rational authority to conclude, that that man, Francis, is a heretic, and a blantant heretic can't be pope.
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.
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.
@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"
"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.
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
@@stevedoetsch No that is not true, it clearly says All Salvation if from Christ through the Catholic Church. The ? is are there elements of Grace outside the Visible Communion of the Catholic Church in Communion with the Pope. Thus, can someone be united to the Catholic Church, even though not visibly, and thus have access to the means of God's grace by which no man can be saved. The answer is in fact yes and this was taught prior to Vatican II. Baptism of Blood, Baptism of Desire and someone who through no Fault of their own (that language was used by Pope Pius X in His Catechism) and is rooted in the Doctrine of Invincible ignorance (Which Saint Thomas Aquinas Taught in Question 76 of His summa)) and taught by Pope Pius IX (1846-1878) in 2 Papal Encyclicals: 1) Singulari quadam issued 9 December 1854 and 2) Quanto conficiamur moerore issued 10 August 1863.
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.
How can it be that Jimmy Akin believes we can never call out heretics/heresies as we will never really know them? This comes off as highly irrational to me if not outright dangerous. And by the way: Psychology is a secular heretical and ungodly spiritual practice, designed by heretical deeply dubious figures all looking for a way of 'salvation' outside Christ and His Church, and is warned about in Psalm 1. It is not mentioned in the Bible as we do not need it, as worshiping, praising, and abiding by the rules of The Lord is making sure He is the keeper of our Soul. No need to analyze a psyche (soul), except for sin to repent of.
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.
In Aristotle's own words: “It is impossible for to belong and not to belong at the same time to the same thing and in the same respect” (Metaphysics, IV
The multiverse theory, which encompasses diverse iterations of Mary and Jesus, (this theory is completely anti-Catholic) is endorsed by Jimmy Akins. Nevertheless, his dismissal of fundamental Catholic tenets and the catechism disqualifies him from being a reliable authority on what constitutes Catholicism. I will offer prayers for his conversion.
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.
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.
According to the modernists and semi-modernists, the only group that is truly schismatic and in error are those unwilling to compromise Catholic doctrine.
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.
@@crusaderACR 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.
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
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
Explain how God still permits eucharistic miracles at the novus ordo. Would still seem that the priests are still valid and the sacraments are still valid like he wouldn't abandon his church no matter that change. It sure does seem like our Lord Jesus Christ can overcome anything like he did death itself as well as defeat Satan again. This stuff about the mass being invalid and sacraments invalid since Vatican II is crazy, you make seem like Christ abandon his people and is incapable of overcoming changes to words or form of mass sounds like something Satan is counting on to lead people astray leading them away from valid sacraments.
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.
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.
@@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 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 think a lot of Catholics have to much pride makes them deny or stray away from topics of heresy that happens in the papacy whether it’s doctrine issues or the sexual abuse cases. You need to be honest with yourself and hold these people accountable.
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.
Actually it's because Paul VI changed the rite of ordination and the mass to match protestant ones by removing vital parts to the form of the consecrations.
@@Nicolas-sr6zx I would have to research it, but I've heard that the essential forms are malleable under papal authority except for Baptism and the Eucharist. Some of the older forms of consecration, ordination and absolution that I've read in historical references and in various rites are surprising. Pius XII wrote concerning the form of the sacraments "It follows that, even according to the mind of the Council of Florence itself, the traditio instrumentorum is not required for the substance and validity of this Sacrament by the will of Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. If it was at one time necessary even for validity by the will and command of the Church, every one knows that the Church has the power to change and abrogate what she herself has established."
A sede is simply someone who refuses to change religions, and chooses to remain faithful to all Catholic doctrine taught by Jesus Christ and His Magisterium for 1958 years. So who are the schismatics: those who remain faithful to Gospel and New Testament teaching, or those who preach a new Gospel, e.g. Vatican II?
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.
@@gerry30 I am well aware the at Fr. Feeney reconciled with the Church I think during the pontificate of Pope Paul VI in 1972, so that would be post Vatican II. He was excommunicated during the papacy of Pope Pius XII in 1948 I think it was. The issue of strict necessity of Baptism with Water (Matter) and Form (the Holy Trinity) is the normative means of Baptism. It is clear from the Decrees of the Council of Trent on the nature of the Sacraments that baptize is the surest means to Gods' Grace, and thus this would be Dogma of the Church. So while Dogmas of the Church are that subset of Doctrine, that the Church has via infallible magisterial teaching defined as Divinely revealed by Christ, that does not mean that well prior to Vatican II, the Church taught both Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood as Doctrine. It most surely did. Baptism of Blood is Doctrine via Lex Orandi Lex Credendi as the Feast of the Holy Innocents has been on the Christmas Liturgical calendar since the time of Saint Augustine (died in 430 AD) and is observed in not only the Catholic Church on 28 December each year, but the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox reflecting the Universality of this Doctrine. Regarding the Baptism of Desire, I refer to the Council of Trent's Decree on Justification (Chapter IV) decreed on 13 January 1547 speaks of the lavender of regeneration (baptism) Or the desire thereof (notice it is an Or). The Council of Trent's Decree on Sacraments (Canon IV) decreed on 3 March 1547 is in line with the Decree on Justification when it speaks of that if someone rejects that the sacraments are necessary for salvation, or desire thereof, they are anathema. The Catechism of Pope Pius X speaks of someone not united to the Catholic Church (visibly) but if they have the implicit desire of Baptism, they are united to her Soul, and thus on their way to salvation (response to Question 29 related to article 9 on the Creed). In the response to Question 17 (related to the Sacrament of Baptism), it answers the question can the grace of Baptism be supplied in other ways. The answer is yes, baptism of blood, a perfect act of contrition or desire for baptism. So yes Fr. Feeney was in fact pushing a view of EENS that was not orthodox and was in direct opposition to the recent Catechism of Pope Pius X, the Council of Trent and Tradition (Feast of the Holy Martyrs) Cheers and God Bless
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.
@@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.
"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?
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.
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.
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.
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’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.
PP Francis teaches that God "wills the diversity of religions" and that "no one can exclude themselves from the Church". Please obey PP Francis on the matter of schism about which he teaches that no one is excluded from the Church. “No one can exclude themselves from the Church, we are all saved sinners...those who have denied the faith, who are apostates, who are the persecutors of the Church, who have denied their baptism: Are these also at home?...Yes, these too. All of them. The blasphemers, all of them. We are brothers. This is the communion of saints. The communion of saints holds together the community of believers on earth and in heaven, and on earth the saints, the sinners, all." -PP Francis February 2, 2022 Vatican weekly wednesday general audience
Yes, but that is God's permissive Will allows it, not positively. That does not negate that Christ founded a Church with the fullness of Divine Revelation and thus orthodox Apostolic Tradition and that is the Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome, i.e. the Pope
@@heterodoxx5300 Does not God wish all to be saved? the answer is yes (1 Timothy 2:4). Do we believe in Universal salvation that all will be saved? the Answer is No. Thus while God positively wills that all will be saved, since God is beyond human comprehension, God in his permissive will allows man to freely reject his offer of Grace and never repent and come into communion with God and thus will not be saved. That is a theological truth.
Akins is a Vatican II adherent, not a Catholic. Sedevacantists have the Church from the Apostles to Pope Pius XII and Jimmy has the Vatican II leaders from Roncalli to Bergoglio.
_"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.
A question, why did Pope Bendict XVl continue to wear the white of a Pope? Why did he decide to continue to be addressed as, "Your Holiness? Why did he continue to sign his name as ,"Pope Benedict XVl PP"? Also why not a program as to why Bergoglio was not validly elected according to the Binding Rules of a Conclave?
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.
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..
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!
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
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.)
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.
Sedevacantists like me recognize the vatican2 cult, contrary to Catholic tradition, teaches all religions are acceptable, man can be saved outside Catholic Church, a heretic/apostate/schismatic can be Pope, and other falsehoods. Really recommend Br. Peter and Michael Dimond's many YT videos, they do an incredible job explaining and refuting every heresy and apostasy. It's not enough to possess knowledge. You also need wisdom and humility, as in knowing your limits and faults, and that being learned is useless if do not ask Jesus," I am an evil person, unworthy sinner. Teach me to use this knowledge and all as You see fit, even if it means I must unlearn every evil I've accepted as normal." Can see Akin just floundering here. He doesn't appear to want to understand our position or reasons, let alone the many public proofs such as that ratzinger participated in non-Catholic rituals. Instead, he's willfully ignorant because desperately gambling that he's "right"; this has become his false god that exists only in his imagination. As such, unless this heretic repents, he is headed straight to Hell.
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.
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!
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 !
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
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.
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!!!
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.
@@AndrewPont-w1j Bingo! Not merely is their position incoherent, but they are hypocrites disobedient to the teachings of Pope Francis, who teaches that no one is excluded from the body of Christ.
@@Maya-yp2ey y’all must not know anathemas aren’t even a thing to Protestants because Protestants aren’t even Catholic .. how can you be anathema or excommunicated from a church you aren’t even apart of… even ima Protestant lessening orthodox and Catholicism and I know this
The real question is can one be a proponent of the conciliar church and still be catholics?
Why? All religions lead to God right? Atheists can go to heaven and muslims, following the fullness of their faith can go to heaven right? So Sedevacantism is just as right as Catholicism?
Thanks for talking about this. As a new Catholic I have been heavily harassed by these Sedes online. It makes it very confusing while I’m trying to learn.
Vatican2 is a new pagan religion, you're not Catholic if you follow it
@LiliesofEden Yep, that's the experience of many of us. Sides kavk charity, are virulent, many not well theologized, lacking in hope and trust in the church. They are essentially protestant. I have had interactions with sides for over 30 years
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.
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.)
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 🙄🤣
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
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.
user-kb4dv1ud3f When a man denies the divinity of Christ while on earth and denies the sinlessness of Mary and denies the omnicience and the perfection of God, insisting God changes his mind and is still in the process of learning how to be a good God from His own creation, and for many many more reasons, any ordinary non-idiot can safely conclude, and has the rational authority to conclude, that that man, Francis, is a heretic, and a blantant heretic can't be pope.
user-kb4dv1ud3f Incoherent as always.
@laverdadescatolica5 ok but what if the pope came out one day and denied the council of Trent’s teaching on justification? What then?
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.
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.
I would love to see Bro. Diamond debate Jimmy Akin.
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?
@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"
"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.
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.
In the Vatican II religion, you can find salvation in literally any religion except for traditional Catholicism.
That's pretty much how they operate. 😂
@@stevedoetsch No that is not true, it clearly says All Salvation if from Christ through the Catholic Church. The ? is are there elements of Grace outside the Visible Communion of the Catholic Church in Communion with the Pope. Thus, can someone be united to the Catholic Church, even though not visibly, and thus have access to the means of God's grace by which no man can be saved. The answer is in fact yes and this was taught prior to Vatican II. Baptism of Blood, Baptism of Desire and someone who through no Fault of their own (that language was used by Pope Pius X in His Catechism) and is rooted in the Doctrine of Invincible ignorance (Which Saint Thomas Aquinas Taught in Question 76 of His summa)) and taught by Pope Pius IX (1846-1878) in 2 Papal Encyclicals: 1) Singulari quadam issued 9 December 1854 and 2) Quanto conficiamur moerore issued 10 August 1863.
You proved a point that I had sedevacantists dont know how to read documents
You cannot reject the spiritual authority of the holy father, sorry.
@@drkissinger1 A non-Catholic can’t lead the Catholic Church, sorry.
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.
How can it be that Jimmy Akin believes we can never call out heretics/heresies as we will never really know them? This comes off as highly irrational to me if not outright dangerous.
And by the way: Psychology is a secular heretical and ungodly spiritual practice, designed by heretical deeply dubious figures all looking for a way of 'salvation' outside Christ and His Church, and is warned about in Psalm 1. It is not mentioned in the Bible as we do not need it, as worshiping, praising, and abiding by the rules of The Lord is making sure He is the keeper of our Soul. No need to analyze a psyche (soul), except for sin to repent of.
He’s a deep state stooge boy. Wake up.
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.
In Aristotle's own words: “It is impossible for to belong and not to belong at the same time to the same thing and in the same respect” (Metaphysics, IV
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
@@tommyofaquino OP was being ironic by describing schism as irregularity in the same way mortal sins can be described as "irregular relationship"
The multiverse theory, which encompasses diverse iterations of Mary and Jesus, (this theory is completely anti-Catholic) is endorsed by Jimmy Akins. Nevertheless, his dismissal of fundamental Catholic tenets and the catechism disqualifies him from being a reliable authority on what constitutes Catholicism. I will offer prayers for his conversion.
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.
I love these interviews. Thanks for the great work Matt.
Excellent camera setup BTW.
Jimmy has officially jumped the shark.
He’s always been a modernist heretic.
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?
According to the modernists and semi-modernists, the only group that is truly schismatic and in error are those unwilling to compromise Catholic doctrine.
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.
@@crusaderACR 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.
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 💯
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
@@andrewcogswell341 Lol, go tell that to any other person you would consider to be a non-Catholic.
@@lettucearsebiscuits8375 Your public self-identification betrays your lack of zeal for the things of God.
Aikin acts like the whole situation with b16 was no problem.
He’s of bad will.
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
@@dizz8989 Jeremiah 17:9
A few months ago I would not have agreed with you but today I agree with you after hearing the strong arguments of Gerry Matatics.
Explain how God still permits eucharistic miracles at the novus ordo. Would still seem that the priests are still valid and the sacraments are still valid like he wouldn't abandon his church no matter that change. It sure does seem like our Lord Jesus Christ can overcome anything like he did death itself as well as defeat Satan again. This stuff about the mass being invalid and sacraments invalid since Vatican II is crazy, you make seem like Christ abandon his people and is incapable of overcoming changes to words or form of mass sounds like something Satan is counting on to lead people astray leading them away from valid sacraments.
How can I take this seriously WHEN YOU ARE SMOKING 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🫤🫤🫤🫤🫤🫤🫤🫤
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.
This subject is complicated, but all I know is the Catholic Church NEEDS UNITY.
No. It needs Christ.
@@elijeremiah1058 Unity THROUGH Christ
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.
@@johncalla2151 I agree with you.
"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
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."
Why not have Brother Peter on again and refute him, or do you actually fear him because of the ramifications of if he's actually right?
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 think a lot of Catholics have to much pride makes them deny or stray away from topics of heresy that happens in the papacy whether it’s doctrine issues or the sexual abuse cases. You need to be honest with yourself and hold these people accountable.
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.
Actually it's because Paul VI changed the rite of ordination and the mass to match protestant ones by removing vital parts to the form of the consecrations.
@@gerry30 it's mainly because the new rite of consecration of bishops completely lacks the form.
@@Nicolas-sr6zx I would have to research it, but I've heard that the essential forms are malleable under papal authority except for Baptism and the Eucharist. Some of the older forms of consecration, ordination and absolution that I've read in historical references and in various rites are surprising. Pius XII wrote concerning the form of the sacraments "It follows that, even according to the mind of the Council of Florence itself, the traditio instrumentorum is not required for the substance and validity of this Sacrament by the will of Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. If it was at one time necessary even for validity by the will and command of the Church, every one knows that the Church has the power to change and abrogate what she herself has established."
@@gerry30 is it not that the rite can change, but it has to express what it does?
A sede is simply someone who refuses to change religions, and chooses to remain faithful to all Catholic doctrine taught by Jesus Christ and His Magisterium for 1958 years. So who are the schismatics: those who remain faithful to Gospel and New Testament teaching, or those who preach a new Gospel, e.g. Vatican II?
At what point did John XXIII become a false Pope? Was it from the very first day of his election? Or was it later than that?
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.
@@gerry30 I am well aware the at Fr. Feeney reconciled with the Church I think during the pontificate of Pope Paul VI in 1972, so that would be post Vatican II. He was excommunicated during the papacy of Pope Pius XII in 1948 I think it was. The issue of strict necessity of Baptism with Water (Matter) and Form (the Holy Trinity) is the normative means of Baptism. It is clear from the Decrees of the Council of Trent on the nature of the Sacraments that baptize is the surest means to Gods' Grace, and thus this would be Dogma of the Church. So while Dogmas of the Church are that subset of Doctrine, that the Church has via infallible magisterial teaching defined as Divinely revealed by Christ, that does not mean that well prior to Vatican II, the Church taught both Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood as Doctrine. It most surely did. Baptism of Blood is Doctrine via Lex Orandi Lex Credendi as the Feast of the Holy Innocents has been on the Christmas Liturgical calendar since the time of Saint Augustine (died in 430 AD) and is observed in not only the Catholic Church on 28 December each year, but the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox reflecting the Universality of this Doctrine.
Regarding the Baptism of Desire, I refer to the Council of Trent's Decree on Justification (Chapter IV) decreed on 13 January 1547 speaks of the lavender of regeneration (baptism) Or the desire thereof (notice it is an Or). The Council of Trent's Decree on Sacraments (Canon IV) decreed on 3 March 1547 is in line with the Decree on Justification when it speaks of that if someone rejects that the sacraments are necessary for salvation, or desire thereof, they are anathema. The Catechism of Pope Pius X speaks of someone not united to the Catholic Church (visibly) but if they have the implicit desire of Baptism, they are united to her Soul, and thus on their way to salvation (response to Question 29 related to article 9 on the Creed). In the response to Question 17 (related to the Sacrament of Baptism), it answers the question can the grace of Baptism be supplied in other ways. The answer is yes, baptism of blood, a perfect act of contrition or desire for baptism.
So yes Fr. Feeney was in fact pushing a view of EENS that was not orthodox and was in direct opposition to the recent Catechism of Pope Pius X, the Council of Trent and Tradition (Feast of the Holy Martyrs)
Cheers and God Bless
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.
Great clip, great clarification!
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.
"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
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.
It's an oxymoron to say that sedevacantists are Protestant when vat 2 was guided by 6 Protestants
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.
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.
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?
These vatican 2 types like to throw around the schismatic label even though they dont believe in true Catholic teaching.
Such as?
Such as Outside the Catholic Church there no salvation.
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.
PP Francis teaches that God "wills the diversity of religions" and that "no one can exclude themselves from the Church". Please obey PP Francis on the matter of schism about which he teaches that no one is excluded from the Church.
“No one can exclude themselves from the Church, we are all saved sinners...those who have denied the faith, who are apostates, who are the persecutors of the Church, who have denied their baptism: Are these also at home?...Yes, these too. All of them. The blasphemers, all of them. We are brothers. This is the communion of saints. The communion of saints holds together the community of believers on earth and in heaven, and on earth the saints, the sinners, all." -PP Francis February 2, 2022 Vatican weekly wednesday general audience
Yes, but that is God's permissive Will allows it, not positively. That does not negate that Christ founded a Church with the fullness of Divine Revelation and thus orthodox Apostolic Tradition and that is the Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome, i.e. the Pope
Did he really say this? Wow, I am astonished.
@@heterodoxx5300 Does not God wish all to be saved? the answer is yes (1 Timothy 2:4). Do we believe in Universal salvation that all will be saved? the Answer is No.
Thus while God positively wills that all will be saved, since God is beyond human comprehension, God in his permissive will allows man to freely reject his offer of Grace and never repent and come into communion with God and thus will not be saved.
That is a theological truth.
When will Francis be having an r Ukr ical prayer service with sedevacantists?
Akins is a Vatican II adherent, not a Catholic. Sedevacantists have the Church from the Apostles to Pope Pius XII and Jimmy has the Vatican II leaders from Roncalli to Bergoglio.
Thanks much for this video.
@JimmyAkin knows andrea cionci's work and his book?
How about SSPX? What is their status?
Their excommunications were lifted and they're not in schism.
_"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.
Can we get a debate between Jimmy Akin and the former CA guy?
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.
A question, why did Pope Bendict XVl continue to wear the white of a Pope? Why did he decide to continue to be addressed as, "Your Holiness? Why did he continue to sign his name as ,"Pope Benedict XVl PP"? Also why not a program as to why Bergoglio was not validly elected according to the Binding Rules of a Conclave?
He's not Quoting any of the texts he's talking about.
This is all more and more crazy. How we did this from just 2 commandments? So many rules
?
The true faith is that of the position that sedevacants hold. There is no salvation outside the Catholic church.
No- they’re not schismatic.
Notice how Mr cowboy hat won't dare debate Bro Dimond
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
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!
Jimmy's paycheck depends on him towing the company line.
100%….intellectually dishonest company man. Vatican II “salesmen”.
He’s always been a deep state stooge…
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..
@catholictruth102Vatican 2 teaches that other religions and schismatics don’t need to convert. That’s blatant heresy
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!
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
We get the Pope we DESERVE 😢
Where is this in Catholic teaching?
There is no Pope.
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.)
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.
He’s no more the pope than your mailman is the pope.
Is patrick the caller ? 😂
Sedevacantists like me recognize the vatican2 cult, contrary to Catholic tradition, teaches all religions are acceptable, man can be saved outside Catholic Church, a heretic/apostate/schismatic can be Pope, and other falsehoods. Really recommend Br. Peter and Michael Dimond's many YT videos, they do an incredible job explaining and refuting every heresy and apostasy.
It's not enough to possess knowledge. You also need wisdom and humility, as in knowing your limits and faults, and that being learned is useless if do not ask Jesus," I am an evil person, unworthy sinner. Teach me to use this knowledge and all as You see fit, even if it means I must unlearn every evil I've accepted as normal."
Can see Akin just floundering here. He doesn't appear to want to understand our position or reasons, let alone the many public proofs such as that ratzinger participated in non-Catholic rituals. Instead, he's willfully ignorant because desperately gambling that he's "right"; this has become his false god that exists only in his imagination. As such, unless this heretic repents, he is headed straight to Hell.
@@Brom2855
I was just wondering... Does the proof that the New Mass is a heretical practice lie in the fact that it was promulgated by a false Pope ?
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.
jimmy won’t debate brother dimond so he makes all his wrong and recycled points within his v2 hugbox
Probably because he knows that Br. Diamond will call him out as a heretic and destroy his weak arguments.
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!
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 !
What a joke. "If you use bribery to get elected, it is still a valid election, it just invalidates the bribery" 😂😂😂😂😂😭
You sound like a Donatist.
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.
I am seriously thinking about becoming a Catholic. The current pope is an obstacle
@catholictruth102 You are correct, it isn't an insurmountable obstacle.
PWA, Catholic Answers STILL coping 😂
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.
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.
Congratulations I guess. But I was more than willing to help.
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.
I bet Jimmy is heartbroken seeing his old CA pal Pat Coffin go down this path.
Pope Francis is the greatest Christian ✝️ in our time
No, they’re not. And they’re not even interesting.
"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?
That’s great
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.
Pope Francis is the valid Pope. He may not be doing a great job, but he is our Holy Father.
AMEN. Keep educating them