The need for this kind of material regarding sedevacantism cannot be understated. This is a gem. May God bless you for this. I am sharing with everyone.
Purely a personal opinion, but I think far more research needs to be done on the work and legacy of Archbishop Thuc. He was a man of heroic sanctity, with many gifts of the Holy Spirit, and who operated at the highest levels. He may have been held incommicado while in the US, as he, and his brother in Vietnam, seem to have became aware of an immense coup in the Church (V2) and, indeed, the State during the War.
Especially when he belived in fake Marian apperitions and illelegaly consecrated bishops for Palmarian sect, when he concelebrated Novus Ordo for financial reasons etc. Fr. Jenkins from SSPV has good talk about it
Heroic sanctity? A coup in the church? No such thing as a coup in the church. I think what you see is the truth spilling out and that's how your mind deals with it by pretending it's isolated or against church standards. Unwavering boot on the necks of human beings is the church's goal and it hasn't failed yet. It definitely changes it's approach from time to time but never it's goal.
Thank you! This was excellent. I wish I could send it to my father, but he will not read or listen to anything I send him anymore. We had to “agree to disagree”. 🙄
Same with my sister it took me months when I decide to be a sedevacantist to tell her because I know it won’t be easy for her to take it. I hope she’ll open her mind to what’s true.
No, one can attend a non-sede Chapel such as the SSPX or Resitance; since sede-vacantism is still only a theological opinion, until the Church were to confirm it. @@Razer-Reddy
This video seems to be describing a sectarian version of sedevacantism. One problem with this sectarian viewpoint is that it assumes a totally false hierarchy exists. However, it is de fide that the Apostolic College is part of the Divine Constitution of the Church and cannot be destroyed. The Apostolic College is not preserved amongst the sacramental bishops of the traditional groups as none of these hold offices with ordinary jurisdiction nor do they have a formal mission from the Church both of which are required in addition to valid orders in order to be Successor of the Apostles and be part of the College of Bishops. The Roman Rites of Holy Orders were invalidated by Montini et al., but the same is not true of the Eastern Rites who still have valid orders and other sacramental rites. Their Bishops are also elected by the local clergy. The actions of an AntiPope may be supplied with jurisdiction from the Church when it comes to filling vacant offices under the principle of Common Error. Under this principle the Church supplies jurisdiction to all acts of an AntiPope that are for the common good. Where an Eastern Rite Bishop retains the Catholic Faith and holds an office with ordinary jurisdiction he is a true successor of the Apostles provided the office he is in was created by a true Pope (antiPopes cannot create new or modify existing offices). Yes, a new organization was formed at Vatican II, but not all of those who remain attached to the physical structures of the Catholic Church are non-Catholic and Apostolic Succession necessarily remains within her.
Hello there, calling from NZ, a convert.. Been with SSPX since 1983, then took the side of the Resistance but over the last two years, I started taking notice of the sedevacantist position and did a lot of research on UA-cam on all the sedes websites. It's been quite a slog, but I'm now convinced of the sedes position. The CMRI is here, there is a number to call but I'm hesitating, knowing their history. One priest does the whole country, their numbers are very small compared to SSPX. Big step for me; value your opinion. Btw, good to hear an Englishman's perspective as this area is dominated by the Americans who express themselves differently. God bless.
@francisheperi4180 Hello. Firstly, Godspeed to you on your journey (I also hope this message gets to you because I don't always trust the UA-cam tagging system). In response to your enquiry... I would advise to proceed with the CMRI. I have personally met and attended the masses of Sedevacantist priests from the RCI, IMBC, CMRI and independents and in my experience, the CMRI priests have been both good and sound. It is also worth keeping in mind that as an organisation, each priest operates somewhat independently. Usually, they don't regard themselves as "part" of the CMRI but was "working with" the CMRI in terms of support and administration. I don't know if that rule is universal, but from what I glean, the CMRI just wants to support priests to carry out their pastoral duties in any way that they can according to the situation that are in (namely, to administer the Sacraments). Also, every CMRI priest I have spoken to has been of good character and theologically sound. However, you will of course understand that I cannot vouch for everyone and invite you to make your own enquires and check anything that you are not sure about. Some Catholic, Sedevacantist priests are amongst the best men I have ever met, but not all. Humans are humans, after all. My other suggestion would be to connect with communities and like-minded people. As GK Chesterton once said, "two is infinitely more than one" and so, connecting with even a few laity can help a lot. Of course, the main focus is on Christ. As a general rule, if you accept from the outset that your life may now be more difficult than ever, and that you will meet difficulties from either the situation or the people you meet, but that you are willing to do all that for Christ, you will be able to face the situation with more sobriety (and be more nicely surprised when you do in fact find the good people who are willing to help you). Thank you for your kind words. If you have any more questions, please feel free to ask. P.S. I could recommend my "Sede Stories" series which is on the channel if you're interested in hearing some other peoples' conversions.
Thank you so much for the Lux Vera Directory! Praise be God! Pray for me. My family are Novus Ordo Catholics and live in Puerto Rico and they have little to no valid Latin Masses nor validly ordained priests that I can locate.
Love the clarity and simplicity. God bless you. Question: If the valid clergy, who retain the faith (as some have) even should the cardinals decent, retain the power to select a Papal successor then why have the valid Sedevacantist Clergy not done so in nearly 75 years? It would seem to be their Sacred Duty.
Given how few people are aware of that there's even a problem, does it seem prudent to? It's very conceivable that whilst Sedevacantism remains so poorly understood and genuine Catholicism so small, a new Pope would seem utterly insane to the vast majority or the world and Novus Ordo Catholics. It may well be better to wait until there is a critical mass of people before a new Pope is likely to receive wide recognition and, by extension, do more good
@@CatholicTVCThat is one of the 3 main theories of the late Rev. Fr. Anthony Cekada (God rest his soul) along with the Cassiciacum Thesis and Divine Intervention. The third possible way Papal restoration can occur is when a vast majority of the hierarchy is corrupted, the clergy in Rome can hold a general election to select a new Pope. Or for a more applicable theory, if a vast majority of the hierarchy recognize the corruption against the Church and are willing to address it, then they can hold a general council. If there is a council where the bishops of the world, including and especially traditional Bishops (Indult, SSPX, and Sedevacantist) can hold a general council and/or election to discuss the corruption in the modern institution and restore it to traditional Catholic teaching, then that would be a good way to resolve this on-going crisis. Though I will more so accept it if Vatican II is properly address and its many errors and heresies corrected or condemned, and be headed by Sedevacantist Bishops.
Heaven is always involved in choosing a Pope This time after so many years of absence Heaven's involvement will be very apparent in the spiritual and the physical side of choosing a Pope. For the Vatican II cult to be exposed and removed a very visible divine intervention must take place. It is my opinion that the next Pope will be the Holy Pope whom prophecy foretells will reign at the time of the Great Monarch. If St. Malachy's prophecies are true then the Papalicy will end with antipope Bergoglio. @@CatholicTVC
Universal acceptance is the problem. Once sufficient numbers recognize the false New Order Church is shown to be the Impostet Church that it is, this could be theoretically possible. However, prophecy shows that the Imposter Church is the Harlot of Babylon (Revelation 17), she is Destroyed (Revelation 18), and after the Final Judgement, The Groom, Christ is wed to the Ever-Faithful Bride, the Remnant Church consisting of those who rejected the heretics, as Scripture demands(Galatians 1:8-9; 2John9-11), and held firm to the one true religion (Revelation 19), when the New Heaven & Earth are established (Revelation 20). There is only 1 great Apostasy. Antichrist will reign before the general judgement, the removal of Christ’s vicar was the precondition to the final act of the apostasy (2 Thessalonians 2: 7, accomplished 10/9/1958). Thus it appears that it is mutually exclusive in God’s plan for Antichrist and His Vicar to reign simultaneously.
This is an excellent presentation. A question: @15:50 the Pius IX quote says it's from 1864, 1686. What is the "1686"? Also, one correction: @18 min you show figures of women wearing short shorts or short skirts, which every pre-Vatican II pope would condemn, and which Our Lady of Fatima foretold would come and "offend Our Lord very much," and further saying, "Woe to women on account of immodesty!" Women shouldn't even be wearing pants. Deuteronomy 22:2 even calls such "wearing of men's clothing" an "abomination."
When paul rebuked peter, he never rejected his Authority. Similarly, when a Father has a scandal in the household, one cannot say he isn’t the father anymore. Likewise in the catholic faith, we cannot say there is no Pope in times of scandal. We must pray
@@CatholicTVC It is not our duty to decide whether the Pope is formally or materially the Pope. It is not our duty to judge him, but we cannot follow the directives coming from Rome that are in contradiction with the teachings of the Church. We have the duty to resist the errors and innovations that are destroying the Church, while at the same time maintaining respect for the office of the Pope and the authority of the Roman Pontiff and Vicar of Christ
@@CatholicTVC Even if the Pope is promoting errors, this does not mean he has lost his pontificate. It means we have to resist him and pray for him, while still recognizing his office.
@@DrazzBreh if you are judging that he is committing errors, when he and his clergy say that they're not, then you're still judging him (according to your argument). But in any case, we don't "judge" him, any more than we judge that "2+2=4", as if our judgement is the deciding factor. The non-pope is judged by God, automatically, by divine law. And by that same law, removed from the Church. No one "judges" that. We just recognise it.
@@CatholicTVC recognizing errors doesn’t equate to judging the Pope personally but to adhering to the immutable teachings of the Church. Just as St. Paul opposed St. Peter when he erred (Galatians 2:11), we must resist teachings contrary to tradition. The holy Church has always upheld that no one, not even the Pope, can alter divine law. The infallibility of the Pope is limited to definitive statements ex cathedra on faith and morals, not every utterance. We remain loyal to the papacy by staying true to the faith handed down through the ages, as Archbishop Lefebvre fought for. It’s not judgment, it’s fidelity to the truth. “We remain attached to the Holy See, to Eternal Rome, and to the successor of Peter, but we refuse to follow the neo-modernist and neo-Protestant Rome which clearly manifested itself in the Second Vatican Council and after the Council in all the reforms which issued from it.” - His Excellency Archbishop Lefebvre
Thank you for this clear and succinct presentation of the sedevacantist position. However, I don't think that you've adequately addressed the argument from indefectibility. Indefectibility has a very specific definition, and there are Catholic dogmas concerning the essential properties of the Church -- i.e. those attributes which the Church must possess in order to be the Church. _One of these essential characteristics is the papacy._ One can see the problem this creates rather easily. Most sedevacantists believe that that there hasn't been a valid pope since the death of Pius XII in 1958. However, if it's possible for the Catholic Church to have no pope for 66 years yet still remain the true Church, then why may this not be true for, say, 1,000 years? _And if it is possible, at least in principle, for the Catholic Church to have no pope for 1,000 years without losing its status as the true Church (that is, without defecting), then in what sense is the papacy essential to the Church?_ To claim that the papacy is not essential to the Church is to blatantly contradict Vatican I. Vatican I's _First Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ_ says: _"He [that is, Jesus Christ] set Blessed Peter over the rest of the Apostles. And He fixed in him the abiding principle of this two-fold unity with its visible foundation... For none can doubt, and it is known to all ages, that the holy and Blessed Peter, the Prince and Chief of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from Our Lord Jesus Christ..."_ Vatican I also talks about Peter's Apostolic Primacy: _"And since the gates of Hell, with greater hatred each day, are rising up on every side, to overthrow, if it were possible, the Church and Her divinely-established foundation, We, for the preservation, safe-keeping, and increase of the Catholic flock, with the approval of the Sacred Council, judge it to be necessary to propose, for the belief and acceptance of all the faithful, in accordance with the ancient and constant faith of the universal Church, the doctrine of the institution, perpetuity, and nature of the sacred Apostolic Primacy, by which the strength and solidity of the entire Church is established, and at the same time to proscribe and condemn the contrary errors, which are so harmful to the flock of Christ."_ Finally, Vatican I asserts the primacy of the Roman See: _"Thus, whosoever succeeds Peter in this Chair, obtains, by the institution of Christ Himself, the Primacy of Peter over the whole Church. Therefore, the disposition of truth remains, and Blessed Peter, persevering in the fortitude of the Rock that he accepted, has not relinquished the governance of the Church that he received._ _"Therefore, it has always been necessary that each Church -- that is, those who are the faithful everywhere -- should agree with the Roman Church, because of the greater power of the principality that She has received, in order that, all being joined together in the unity of that Seat, from the veneration of which the rights of communion flows to all, might associate closely as members of one Head, in the compact unity of the body."_ One can cite many dogmatic pronouncements indicating that the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church is that, without the papacy, _there is no Church._ For example, in _Satis Cognitum,_ Pope Leo XIII says: "15. From this it must be clearly understood that Bishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling, if they deliberately secede from Peter and his successors; because, by this secession, _they are separated from the foundation on which the whole edifice must rest_ [emphasis mine]. They are therefore outside the edifice itself; and for this very reason they are separated from the fold, whose leader is the Chief Pastor; they are exiled from the Kingdom, the keys of which were given by Christ to Peter alone." "[T]he foundation on which the whole edifice must rest" is something without which the edifice -- that is, the Church -- cannot exist. That foundation is the papacy. _Hence, if there is no pope, there is no Church._ Sedevacantists are correct that the current post-Vatican-II "popes" are blatant and notorious heretics who say and do things on a regular basis that any pope between Saint Peter and Pius XII would have unreservedly condemned. They are also correct that deliberate heresy automatically separates one from body of the Church and would even be sufficient to depose a pope and strip him of his authority. That is what Pope Celestine taught. However, when Vatican I proclaimed papal infallibility and papal primacy as dogmas, it became Catholic dogma that the Catholic Church cannot exist without a pope. _Hence, if a pope knowingly utters a heresy, or if the chair of Saint Peter becomes vacant for any other reason, it follows that a defection has occurred._ The problems in the Catholic Church appear to have begun not with Vatican II, but with Vatican I. The so-called Old Catholics -- that is, those Catholics who reject Vatican I's teachings on papal infallibility and primacy -- may be sedevacantists without believing that the Church has defected, but those who accept Vatican I may not be. This ultimately seems to point to a much deeper problem with the magisterium itself -- or at least the magisterium as it was from the time of Vatican I onward. _That magisterium is inconsistent. It contains contradictions._ If the Catholic Church cannot exist without a pope -- as Vatican I clearly teaches -- then each and every time that a pope dies and there is a papal interregnum -- to say nothing of the more extraordinary situation occurring after Vatican II -- the Church defects. You've asserted the mere death of a pope does not entail the defection of the Church, _but why doesn't it?_ The fact that members of the Church have historically refused to see this implication does not mean that it does not hold. _If there truly cannot be a Church without a pope, then whenever a pope dies, the Church ceases to exist._ If the Church _can_ exist without a pope, then the papacy is inessential to the true Church, and Vatican I was wrong. As things stand, I don't see any way out of this. Of course, the Church may escape this by eliminating the practice of papal election altogether and simply having valid popes appoint their successors. That way, as soon as one pope dies, another man immediately comes to occupy the office, and there is no unbroken succession. Why hasn't the Church done this? Your guess is as good as mine. This one one reason why, despite agreeing with the sedevacantists on many things, I can't see my way to being a Catholic.
You're confusing the office of the Papacy with the person of the Pope. The Office of the Papacy is essential to the Church. Not the actual existence of a Pope in that office 100% of the time. Hence interregna. As explained, the office of the Pope remains, and there is nothing in law which says how long interregna can be. The principle seems to have always been clear and obvious. The Papal Office has always necessarily been a core part of the true, Christian faith because disputes finally need to come down to an arbiter in order to maintain consistency and unity. No other version of Christianity boasts this institution. That institution is "paused" during an interregna, and during that time disputes can build up, to be corrected for again once it is "un-paused" at the election of a new Pope. And so, this idea that the Church needs a living Pope 100% of the time with no possible gaps is something that you seem to be imposing upon Catholic Doctrine, but that Catholics have never adhered to, nor is necessary for the Papal function. The office perpetually exists, and when that office is occupied the Faithful are to submit to the legitimate Pope. That's all that's required. Now we are in a very long interregna, true enough. And disputes are accruing, as we were always taught they would if such a situation should befall the church. How long will this interregna last, and how long will these current faithful be allowed to accrue their disputes? God knows. It is and has always been His prerogative to present such challenges to His faithful, calling for more patience, faith, and perseverance. But the Church really hasn't defected because the office remains, as does the power to elect a new Pope. It hasn't happened yet because, amongst other things, it is taking people enough time to even realise that such a colossal satanic subversion has taken place, and it will take more time for them to come together to address it. As for your view of Catholicism... what are you presented with? A version of Christianity which currently appears to be in crisis or has been in crisis as far back as Vatican I, according to your view? But even if we take those as hypotheses, it would still be the most consistent and active version of Christianity throughout history. Even in light of your comments about the Papacy, it really is still the only version of Christianity that has ever had a Papacy and therefore the ability to resolve conflicts and maintain consistency. No other version of Christianity has this and are all ultimately illogical. For more on that point, there is this article here: www.tonyvclowe.com/post/zero-to-sedevacantism-the-logical-case Thank you for your time.
@@CatholicTVC -- Thank you for your reply, but I don't think it works. If you interpret "the papacy" to merely mean "the office of the papacy," then this only creates more problems. For instance, the purpose of the papacy, as you acknowledge, is, among other things, to guarantee unity within the Church. But how does anyone unite around a mere abstract office with no occupant? Furthermore, the Church should be visible, as you also acknowledge. You pointed out that sedevacantist clergy exist and that it is possible to locate such clergy, but if you are correct that "the papacy" only means "the office of the papacy," then the mere existence of sedevacantist clergy is not enough to overcome the visibility problem. If the office of the papacy is an essential part of the Church, then in order for the Church to be visible, it, too (that is, the office), must be visible. But in what sense is an abstract office with no occupant visible? _The office of the papacy is only visible insofar as it has a discernible occupant and/or a discernible location where it is based._ In Vatican I's dogmatic statement on the constitution of the Church, the components of the papacy are described and enumerated, as are the papacy's purposes and essential characteristics. The components of the papacy include the office of the papacy, the Roman See as a physical location (not necessarily the city of Rome itself) and the person of the pope. The purposes of the papacy include its place as the foundation of the Church and the guarantor of its unity. All of these attributes go together. Any attempt to divide them vitiates the visibility of the papacy, and hence, of the Church itself (because the papacy is essential to the Church). If it is not possible to discern where the papacy is seated (because the Novus Ordo sect occupies Rome) or who the current occupant of the office is (because the chair of St. Peter is vacant), how can the papacy be said to be visible? I don't think I'm imposing anything on Catholic doctrine. I'm simply drawing out the conclusions of what Vatican I declared. If you accept Vatican I as a valid council, then you cannot sunder the person of the pope from the office of the papacy, and you must treat the entirety of the papacy -- consisting the office of the papacy, the person of the pope and the Holy See together -- as essential to the Church. _From this, the conclusion follows that any papal interregnum, however short or however long, constitutes a defection._ The explanation that you gave for why papal interregna do not entail defection is only acceptable if one rejects Vatican I.
@@IvanTheHeathen if you view visibility, the Papacy, and interegna in terms of how Catholicism has always treated them, and not in terms of how they strike you, you will have your answers.
@@CatholicTVC -- With all due respect, you aren't addressing my concerns. If you have an explanation of how papal interrega, visibility and indefectibility are all consistent with the papacy, as defined by Vatican I, I'm all ears. Of course, these things can be reconciled, and were reconciled, in the Church as it existed _before_ Vatican I declared papal infallibility, primacy and essentiality to be dogma, but that was never in dispute here. There are only two possibilities: Either there is some subtle means of reconciling these things that I have missed -- in which case, I'd ask you to provide me with the explanation -- or the Catholic Church has blithely ignored this contradiction for more than 150 years and proceeded as if it didn't exist. I don't dispute that it's possible to be a sedevacantist and reject Vatican I (that clearly is possible), but I don't see how one can be a sedevacantist while accepting it (Vatican I) as valid. Of course, the other alternative is to simply acknowledge the Novus Ordo popes, but we can agree that that isn't on the table.
I believe your definition of sedevacantism is correct. I would have pointed out that this position is exactly what we have every time a pope dies and until the next conclave. So, objectively, there is nothing controversial about it. The controversy arises when we have someone sitting on Peters chair and is claimed by some to be an illegitimate pope.
Lol, current sedevacatism is not Interregnum. Because Interregnum doesn't destroy all Cardinals, all ordinary bishops, all Roman Curia, all Roman clergy, all Roman Church itself, all jurisdiction, all apostolic mission, all formal apostolic succesion, apostolicity of the Church, all hierarchy and legal episcopacy and visibility of the Church.
If current sedevacatism is indeed Interregnum, you must actually show where are cardinals or at least bishops and Roman clergy appointed by last valid pope.
@@kamilmurawski1136 This is a highly underrated comment. Most schismatics of the sedevacantist sect will attempt to paint their church as the true Catholic Church. However, they fall into almost precisely the same error as the Protestants in saying that they have continuity of doctrine with the true church of the Fathers and the true Roman Pontiffs, yet they deny the indefectibility of the visible Body of the Church for all intents and purposes. Their sect has completely done away with the entirety of the visible Church, and thus they are forced to say that the Church is not Catholic, but rather small and remote, only having a few hundred churches in the world in total. Bellarmine is rolling in his grave every time he hears a sedevacantist talk about him. They CLEARLY violate the second, third, fourth, and fifth marks of the Church as laid out by St. Bellarmine. On a similar note, they deny the entire point that chapter 17 of "On the Church Militant", namely that not all of the shepherds of the visible Church may err. Either the Church headed by Pope Francis is the true and visible Catholic Church or it is not. If it is, then Bellarmine condemns them in chapter 17. If it is not, then Bellarmine condemns them in the fourth and fifth marks of the Church. Either way, they are condemned by Bellarmine, who they are wont to call both heretic and hero.
No, objectively it is the most off the charts extreme view anyone could possibly have, and the controversy arises when layman are so prideful as to actually think that by their own sinful fallible personal judgement they know anything at all about the successor of St. Peter, the Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Christ. And by the way, what exactly are you talking about when you say this "position" is exactly what we have every time a pope dies? Because I 100% agree, when a pope dies, a successor is selected by the Church, and that's it until the next time. That's exactly what visibly happened, Pius XII, John XXIII, JP1, JP2, Benedict XVI, and Francis, and has happen with no complaints to speak of for 1000 years or whatever. However, I'm going to guess the last time there was anything like an unknown fringe group of malcontents hanging onto their changeable liturgical traditions after a Council called by the Pope decided they needed to make changes, and started claiming that the popes were not the real, the council was invalid, the changes were not allowed, etc., was after Trent, and that probably had something to do with why Pius V used the strong language he did in quo primum. Shut these people down and not allow their disobedience to get to the point of impacting Church Unity. what Paul VI should have done
Pope Paul's bull Demands laity reject a non Catholic who wins conclave. So does St Paul if anyone preach a new gospel.... It's our duty. People who don't are in catch 22 of schism or heresy. Not good!
I have a MAJOR Question - I Was Baptized in 1967 under I believe to be the Catholic Rite, But All my other Sacraments were done in The Vatican II ( catholic ) church ... I attend TLM by the FSSP for about 5 years now. Am I Legitimately Receiving Our Lord and Penance. Were my Sacraments Legit ? Please help.............. Kevin
Hi Kevin, The short answer is: probably not. According to the FSSP: "The Fraternity of St. Peter accomplishes this mission using the liturgical books in force in 1962, as specified in its decree of erection in 1988, confirmed by a decree of Pope Francis." Hence, on the one hand, this organisation is part of the false Novus Ordo hierarchy and on the other, they will be using the New Novus Ordo liturgy. The big problem with this is that many of the sacramental rites were changed in the new liturgy and some changes are significant enough to invalidate the sacraments. Here is a helpful resource on this: cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/invalidity-of-the-novus-ordo-missae/ And so, the best bet is to seek out priests who explicitly reject the Vatican II church and only use the old Missae, and who serve TLMs which are non una-cum (because an una-cum TLM gives recognition to the false popes and their church). If you are based in the UK, we have attempted to create a list of such masses with this website: www.ukmasses.com/ I hope this helps.
All the new rites are invalid. You need to find an eastern catholic priest or a priest ordained in the traditional rite by a traditional bishop and make a general confession.
Hi Kevin, you have been receiving valid and livid sacraments. Please look to your priest at the FSSP parish you attend to ask these serious questions to. God bless, Brother in Christ
The legitimate bishops (=named by a pope) constitute the hierarchy of the Church. To cut oneself off from them, as the sedevacantists do, has already been condemned by Leo XII and Leo XIII. These popes were targeting a group whose members denied the legitimacy of Pope Pius VII: like the sedevacantists. Leo XII, Pastoris Aeterni: “Your Little Church cannot therefore in any way belong to the Catholic Church. By the very admission of your masters, or rather of those who deceive you, there are no longer any French bishops who support and defend the party you follow. Moreover, all the bishops of the Catholic Universe, to whom they themselves have appealed, and to whom they have addressed their schismatic claims in print, are recognized as approving the conventions of Pius VII and the acts which followed, and the whole Catholic Church is now entirely favorable to them.” Leo XIII, Eximia nos laetitia: “Absolutely no bishop considers them and governs them as his sheep. From this they must conclude with certainty and evidence that they are defectors from the fold of Christ. Now, just as the Little Church had no bishop who recognized them, so the sedevacantists had no legitimate bishop who recognized them, all of whom recognized the Council in 1964 and 1965 (they were consecrated under Pius XII).
Friend this is a very well put together video. I see that you have a great zeal for the LORD! .... I hope that you will take the time to 👉dialogue with me👈 on why 'Sedevacantism' is not biblical and a dangerous position to have my friend! Let's start with... Luke 12:41-46 Then Peter said to him, "Lord, do You speak this parable 👉only to us, or to all people?"👈 And the Lord said, "Who then is that faithful and wise 👉STEWARD,👈 whom his master will make ruler 👉OVER HIS HOUSEHOLD,👈 to give them their portion of food in due season? Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing 👉WHEN HE COMES.👈 Truly, I say to you that he will make him ruler over all that he has. 👉BUT👈 IF THAT SERVANT says in his heart, 'My master is delaying his coming,' and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and be drunk, the master of that servant will 👉COME ON A DAY👈 when he is not looking for him, and 👉AT AN HOUR👈 when he is not aware, and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. Do you notice that the STEWARD of the house still holds the position as STEWARD until the master comes? 👉THEN👈 he will be rewarded or punished. That is not the position you are holding my friend. GOD Bless you!!!
Hello, thank you for your kind words but it's only fair to tell you from the start that I won't dialogue with you any further than this comment. The reason is that this kind of Biblical interpretation is Protestant, not Catholic. The Catholic approach is to understand revelation as taught and interpreted by The Church. That is why I have appealed to The Church and Her teachings in the video and everything else I would say has already been said there.
@@CatholicTVC Oh... OK? This is a first for me. I have never been accused of a 'Protestant interpretation' when it comes to pointing out the Primacy of a Steward/Prime Minister/Pope Etc in Scripture before. To give a fair assessment of what I've been accused of... Can I please have your interpretation of this passage? As always GOD Bless!!!
@@mayheaddlight6072 No... let me be clear. I don't mean to say that the interpretation that you have given is Protestant, I mean that the fact that you are appealing to your own interpretation of the Bible is a protestant approach to the problem, and not a Catholic approach. You have basically asked: "can we exchange interpretations in order to solve this issue about The Church?" The answer is "No." because Catholics don't resolve these problems by exchanging interpretations of The Bible. They solve them by listening to what The Church has taught and proceed from there.
@@CatholicTVC The Church has defined a very small percentage of the Bible. It's also worth mentioning the fact that the Bible itself is a Catholic Church document my friend. Your standpoint on this is to render the Bible to no effect! .... Doesn't something seem deficient there?? I appeal to... 2 Timothy 3:16-17 all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable 👉FOR DOCTRINE,👈 👉FOR REPROOF,👈 👉FOR CORRECTION,👈 👉FOR INSTRUCTION👈 in righteousness, that the 👉MAN OF GOD MAY BE COMPLETE,👈 👉THOROUGHLY EQUIPPED 👈 for every good work. As for 'Sedevacantism' ... Maybe this passage would be better suited considering it doesn't need the 👉authority of interpretation👈 to render its simplicity, due to it being a narrative account. Acts 23:1-5 Then Paul looking earnestly at the council, said, "Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day." And the 👉HIGH PRIEST👈 Ananias commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said to him, "God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! For you sit to judge me according to the law, and do you command me to be struck contrary to the law?" And those who stood by said, 👉"DO YOU REVEAL GOD'S HIGH PRIEST?"👈 Then Paul said, 👉"I DID NOT KNOW,👈 brethren, that he was 👉THE HIGH PRIEST;👈👉FOR IT IS WRITTEN,👈👉'YOU SHALL NOT SPEAK EVIL OF A RULER OF YOUR PEOPLE.'👈 Paul already knew that the Old Testament Covenant was being overturned at this point... and he dared not to speak against what God has established. Is this not also contrary to your position? You are a part of a kingdom... not a democracy my friend! Be careful when you go against the government GOD established. To deny the King's government... is to deny the King Himself! Where do you find in the davidic Kingdom the king being removed from his office.... but only invisibly? Considering many of them did evil in the LORD's sight! GOD Bless!!!
I appreciate your thorough research and explanation of your ecclesiological position. I wonder how would you explain the apparent contradictions that are found in Sacred Scripture? As someone who was formerly almost convinced by the sedevacantist position, I caution others to consider VERY deeply your conviction of these arguments and make sure you are fully convinced. It is a grave sin to knowingly reject the pope or participate in schism. If you have ANY doubt, you are safer staying with the Pope. Be attentive also to your tendency toward self-righteousness, desire (or lack thereof) for communion with others, and the presence of the fruits of the Spirit while you consider this position. The Holy Spirit helped me to remain in the bosom of Holy Mother Church, and I am eternally grateful. I hope and pray no one is led astray like I was. That said, there is nothing quite like the quest for truth. The struggle is part of it. May our hearts all be in the right place as we search for it / Him :)
"You are safer to stay with the Pope" ... unless, of course, he isn't the Pope. In which case, it is very, very dangerous to stay with him (and, we might add, places you in schism).
@@CatholicTVC that’s fair! Part of why I say that too though is it is hard to believe is our good and gracious God would expect all His children to read and intellectually assent to a position that is so difficult to come to. It means agreeing with all those contradictions you covered plus more. This video was an hour long, and as you said it did not cover the whole of it, and in my opinion hardly scratched the surface. To hold your position, not only do you have to accept all teachings pre-Vatican II, you also have to REJECT her teachings, post-Vatican II. Interesting as I think about it. To be a sedevacantist, you have to reject the documents that come from the very church you do not believe is the true church. The position cannot hold true otherwise. So essentially you are saying the one true church is the one true church ONLY because the truth is LACKING in the conciliar church. The “truth” would be found based on an absence of truth... how is that possible?
@@Marian99834 Yet, if you call yourself a Catholic you know it's perfectly possible. For many, many people, Catholicism generally is a very hard and complex position to come to. For many others, it's hard to tell why Christianity is truer than Islam. Still, our good and gracious God allows billions to be deceived by Islam, whilst thinking it is the true faith. But God isn't the one to blame, here. The devil is because he is the one spreading the lies. We have the ability to see through these lies, if we would choose to. And once again, you are presenting a nonsensical/circular argument and, ironically, making it more complex than it needs to be... If the conciliar church has produced and spread heresy it is not/was not acting as the church. If the current conciliar "priests" and "bishops" and "popes" teach and live by heresy in both word and deed (which they do), then they are not Catholic clergy. The effect is automatic. Truth separates itself from non-truth. That's basic logic. And really, that's all there is to it. At its core, Sedevacantism is simple. There's just so much to say about it because people raise so many confusions, conflations and misinterpretations.
@@CatholicTVC I see your point. What makes it complicated is assenting that truth has separated from not truth between pre and post Vatican II. I just do not believe that is what happened. There are many examples of what you may call stark contradictions surely even between pre-Vatican II documents (and as stated before, in the Bible itself). To be a Catholic or a Christian, one does not necessarily have to disprove other religious. To be a Sedevacantist, one has to disprove the truth of the teachings, doctrine, etc. of the post-Vatican II church. I do understand your position though. It’s unfortunate that there is so much confusion, but the church is still made of human beings. We cannot expect her members to make everything crystal clear all the time, although that would surely be preferred.
@@Marian99834 Two key differences: Firstly, we're not Protestants and so we do not interpret the Bible for ourselves, that is the prerogative of the Church. Second, we know that the Vatican-II contradictions (heresies) are substantial not only because of what they state but how they have been interpreted and put into action. For example, I showed in the video that the Church has always explicitly anathematised worship alongside false religions. You might say that I am just reading the documents wrong. But here's the problem: your "Popes" and clergy definitively agree with what Sedevacantists are claiming... How do we know? Because there are many instances of the conciliar "Popes" stating as much. And, more importantly, the conciliar church has globally allowed for more and more prayer with non-Catholic religions and even the so-called "Popes" have publicly taken part in non-Catholic worship. Don't just think... look. Sedevacantism is simple. The moment you see a so-called "Pope" worshiping with Muslims or pagans, that should pretty much seal the matter. But if you also need an argument for how that is connected to Vatican-II documents, the evidence can be clearly presented.
The discussion of visibility around 27:55 very conspicuously leaves out the *formal* visibility of the Church. Yet this is one of the most serious obstacles to sedevacantism. And when you refer to material visibility, the listener naturally expects you will go on to address formal visibility, yet this is not done. Sedevacantism certainly consists with the *material* visibility of the Church, as you explain. But the whole drift of the Catholic Encyclopedia passage you quote from is that material visibility is far less significant than the *formal* visibility that makes the Church *readily recognizable to the ordinary person* as Christ’s Church. Yet you cut off quoting from the passage and simply do not address how sedevacantism is consistent with the formal visibility of the Church. If anything, even Eastern Orthodox bodies would seem strictly superior to sedevacantism in this respect. This is a big deal. For example, many shopworn sedevacantist criticisms of +Lefebvre’s position seem much weaker when he is seen as taking a narrow reading of indefectibility *in order to avoid the total capitulation on visibility* that characterizes sedevacantism. It would seem that only two responses are possible: 1) The Guerardian thesis might be argued to preserve the requisite visibility of the Church through its acknowledgment that the visible Vatican institution retains at least material designation. “Visible but in eclipse” etc. 2) It could be argued that we must be in the last days, and in the buildup to the great deception of the last days, the visibility of the true Church might become very limited or qualified. I have seen e.g. Mario Derksen lean in that direction, and there appears to be some theological support for it. I also take his resort to it to be a tacit acknowledgment that otherwise the note of formal Visibility would be a potentially fatal objection to the sedevacantist position.
From the Catholic dictionary: "The Church is also formally visible in possessing certain sensibly perceptible properties, notably the required profession of a common faith, the practice of a definite ritual, and obedience to identifiable laws under an authorized hierarchy." If Sedevacantism is true, the Church retains all of that for reasons addressed in the video. The objection isn't fatal. You're over-complicating the argument.
As a sedevacantist myself, I would say that both material and formal visibility are clearly secured if one identifies the true Roman Catholic Church of all centuries with the Traditionalist community (I.e.: those that reject Vatican II teachings, adhere to the true Latin Mass and profess the Catholic Faith of all centuries). Both sedevacantist and non-sedevacantists should be considered, since mistaken adherence to a false pope not declared such by the Church does not sever one from Her (see Western Schism). One cannot but admit that Traditional Catholics form a clearly distinguished society in the modern world, manifestly different from the Novus Ordo and from other religions or sects. What do you think? Would this fulfill the requirement of both material and formal visibility (my argument was rather short; I should look into a book of mine about the subject to answer more potential objection)
About 2 years ago and I think the Dimond Brothers are very good overall; very well researched and well supported arguments. They are correct about Sedevacanstim. However, they are incorrect about other issues such as the lack of valid priests and baptism of desire.
@@josephng9976 Sure. Baptism of desire has been taught in the magisterium many times and in many different ways; by Popes, Councils, Catechisms, Saints and we even see support in Canon Law. A good resource for this can be found here: baptismofdesire.com/index.html As you will see, it is a doctrine which has been taught consistently enough and widely enough to be regarded as infallible Church teaching.
I am staying in Singapore. If I hold the position that Sedevacantism is the correct position, how do I continue to attend mass and avail myself of the other sacraments like confession?
You are in a difficult situation because there are no legitimate (Sedevacantist) Masses being administered in Singapore (at least to my knowledge and at least not listed publicly). My suggestion is to go to luxvera.org and see if there are any priests in the Philippines or Australia who might know something; just drop them a phone call or an email. If there is nothing in Singapore, you might have to travel abroad to receive the sacraments (you will not be the only one who has had to do this). I must emphasize: any mass you attend must be a *non* una-cum mass. If you're unsure about this, check with your priest. They will know what you mean. The brief reason is that unless the mass is *non* una-cum, it is still connected to the false church and is therefore schismatic and illicit, even if it uses the traditional form. You have my sympathies but I would also point out... knights of the Crusades might have only received the sacraments once a year. If Sedevacantism is true, remaining Catholics find themselves in a position of great inconvenience. Still, truth is truth. I hope this helps
You must get to confession to a validly ordained eastern catholic or traditionally ordained priest as soon as possible. With regard to the dogmatic non-una cum issue presented by tvc, it is not a sin to attend such a Mass for many reasons: 1. The prayer in the Te igitur is an accidental part of the Mass 2. The prayer primarily expresses communion with the Holy See, not the person of the Pope 3. St. Vincent Ferrer and padre Pio prayed "una cum" antipopes. 4. The Holy See never issued any warnings that people attending masses "una cum" Nestorius were sinning. etc. etc. I've been deluded by the schismatic non-una cum mentality for a short while myself right after becoming sedevacantist, unfortunately. However, I have since studied the issue and it is clear that attendees do not share in the sin of the priest offering a Mass una cum a heretic. God bless.
@@WebCitizen But then, if the priest is commiting heresy by having an una-cum mass, and you attend his mass knowing this, then you are knowingly taking part in the mass of a heretic...
"Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved." (Lumen Gentium 14) If you interprete the Second Vatican Council as saying the Church isn't necessary for salvation, you're misinterpreting it.
Yet, it esteems other religions, despite the fact that they were previously called diabolical... One way to lie is by telling a truth at one point, and then contradicting that same truth later.
@@CatholicTVC Or it isn't a lie and it's just focusing on the good aspects of other religions instead of just the bad ones. Of course there is demonic influence in other religions, but even the Apostle Paul recognized that there was good as well.
@@josephmiller3672 Yet, zoom out and see the total shift in attitude towards other religions, respect given to them as false religions and the new practices of common prayer... but this was all covered in the video.
Some atheists give large amounts of money to charity and are kind to their families are they saved because of it? Christ tells us no Many false religions do many good works but are they saved. Matt 22:14 Give us the answer. @@josephmiller3672
24:00 Here's my response against the private judgment argument: Palmarian "Church" has a "pope", and you are laity. You therefore do not have the authority to reject him, by that logic.
You give up? Just as you would have given up in the earliest days when only a handful of Christians were visible upon the earth... Just as you would have given up during the Arian Heresy when but a few remained true to the faith and the rest were deceived... Just as you would have given up during the reformation when doubts were raised about whether the Catholic Church was really true or whether the true Church was simply to be found in every individualistic and fractured sect... In every case, you may well have said "you know, I might as well give up, because I can't be sure..." Yet, the true Church has always remained. It remains amongst those who live-out its practice and who profess the true faith. The Church has always been there; it is always visible. You just have to *look.* Whether you're confused or struggling or wrestling with the truth is one thing. But if you're willing to give up simply because you're unwilling to look... then what?
I hear yah!!! It's rather exasperating to think you have to rely on figuring it all out. As a former Protestant who converted to the One True Catholic and Apostolic Church, I kissed the days goodbye where I'd have to do that and I was so grateful to receive a Catechism to learn what the Church actually taught. I have spent A LOT of time over the past 16 years, learning about the Traditional expression of the Roman Rite. I love this quote by Matthew Arnold. It kinda sums up my conclusions over the years. "There are two expressions of the Roman Rite but only One Church ~ and we're all in it together".
@@CynthiaToni There are NOT two expressions of the Roman Rite. The Novus Ordo is completely fraudulent. And the entity now led by Antipope Francis, having manifestly been overcome by hell, cannot possibly be the actual Catholic Church.
It has generally struck me as a distinction without a difference (which is also why I know IMBC priests who will say that they are "Sedevacnatist" without feeling the need to clarify (although, they would if pressed)) If we can call the thesis "Sedeprivationism", Sedevacantists say: "The offices are not held validly." Sedeprivationists say: "The offices are held, but not by anyone who is valid." And the results are practically the same. I hope that answers your question.
@@CatholicTVC One distinction I can think of is that they believe Francis is validly elected, but did not properly accept the papacy. They make the material formal distinction which "totalists" do not. Thanks for reply.
@TVC you just want your way. You have no authority from God to talk about these matters. Baptism of desire was never taught in our religion. Sedevacantists don't have the authority to decide. They don't speak by the Holy Ghost.
@@bweatherman3345 What - exactly - are you attacking/referring to? This thread is about the Thesis of Cassiciacum, not BOD. I gave my opinion of the thesis but don't regard it as dogmatic (because its not). As for Baptism of Desire, that's simply wrong. It has been taught dozens of times in the Catholic religion: www.baptismofdesire.com/
@@bweatherman3345 if this channel has "no authority from God to talk about these matters", then I suggest neither do you. As for Baptism of desire, please see the Catechism of the Council of Trent.
You can if you receive them from a genuine Catholic priest, with valid orders, who doesn't work within the V2 Novus Ordo Church. Me and many other Sedevacantists receive valid Sacraments regularly
@@CatholicTVCI watched. He is correct. V1 states the church must be visible in Rome. Also there is no Apostolic succession. If the church was allowed to be taken by heretics then it is defectable. I could go on. How long is an acceptable period of interregnum of no pope?
t is not in the interest of your salvation to be cut off from the Seat of Peter which Christ clearly placed as the foundation of His Church on Earth. Regardless of the caliber of Popes which has varied down through the history of the Church and the cockle or false Catholics inside the Church, Christ maintains the elect inside the Church without them having to separate from it or its foundation - the Papacy. Christ does not abandon His Church regardless of the enemies who presently occupy high positions. It is clear Christ raised up Archbishop Lefebvre to maintain the Faith within the official Church structure. SSPX endure the trials and conflicts presently in the hierarchy and Church while preserving the Faith and with patience work to convert those in the Church who are fallen.. Sedevacantism is another form of Protestantism - turning away from the Office of Peter into a form of a mystical, invisible Church. Each Protestant denomination or sect along with the Orthodox believe they are the true 'church' and the Roman Catholic Church with the Papacy is false. The true Church is the one with the Seat of Peter. Christ being God knew the importance of this crucial foundation as the sole and perpetual identifier of His Church.
This kind of comment always baffles me; as if Sedevacantists are the only ones in any possible danger of error... It is not in the interest of your salvation to co-operate with a false religion and to at once declare your loyalty to this apparent papacy and at the same time reject and trivialise its authority. If this is truly a Papacy and a true Church, you do not adhere to it as a true Catholic ought to. And if, as a true Catholic, you ought not adhere to it, then it is no true Papacy, nor a true Church.
The need for this kind of material regarding sedevacantism cannot be understated. This is a gem. May God bless you for this. I am sharing with everyone.
When you decide to become sedevacantist everything will be much clearer than before. MHFM is an absolute blessing for me in my life.
Calm and well presented. An issue like this usually gets emotional so such a presentation is very useful
Purely a personal opinion, but I think far more research needs to be done on the work and legacy of Archbishop Thuc. He was a man of heroic sanctity, with many gifts of the Holy Spirit, and who operated at the highest levels. He may have been held incommicado while in the US, as he, and his brother in Vietnam, seem to have became aware of an immense coup in the Church (V2) and, indeed, the State during the War.
Especially when he belived in fake Marian apperitions and illelegaly consecrated bishops for Palmarian sect, when he concelebrated Novus Ordo for financial reasons etc. Fr. Jenkins from SSPV has good talk about it
Oh yes, the sspv cult that was created by the liberal Menendez after being conned by CIA operatives in Clarence Kelly and his minions....
Heroic sanctity? A coup in the church? No such thing as a coup in the church. I think what you see is the truth spilling out and that's how your mind deals with it by pretending it's isolated or against church standards. Unwavering boot on the necks of human beings is the church's goal and it hasn't failed yet. It definitely changes it's approach from time to time but never it's goal.
The reseach has been done, he was wrong and comitted schism which is a grave sin agaisnt charity according to Thomas Aquinas.
@@kamilmurawski1136 Fr. Francis Miller knew Archbishop Thuc and assisted him for a while and speaks very highly of him.
Well expressed, clearly , calmly and with great insight , thank you and God bless )
Shared and will share more. This is outstanding. Thank you. God bless and the Virgin protect you always.
This is really good Tony. Well laid out, clear, and easy to follow. Thank you.
Thank you! This was excellent. I wish I could send it to my father, but he will not read or listen to anything I send him anymore. We had to “agree to disagree”. 🙄
Same with my sister it took me months when I decide to be a sedevacantist to tell her because I know it won’t be easy for her to take it. I hope she’ll open her mind to what’s true.
Thanks for the video. Simple, logical and to the point. I'll try to share it around.
Godspeed.
Thank you
@tvc1440 , how to be sedevacantist? Stay at home?
No, one can attend a non-sede Chapel such as the SSPX or Resitance; since sede-vacantism is still only a theological opinion, until the Church were to confirm it. @@Razer-Reddy
@@MichaelWilson-ky3pp , where could I go to confession? Since those sedevacantist priests are really far away from me.
You can go to any validly ordained priest, such as the SSPX, Resistance and independent traditionalist priests. @@Razer-Reddy
Can the script for this video be made available for download please? I would love to be able to both listen to this and also read it too please!
This video seems to be describing a sectarian version of sedevacantism. One problem with this sectarian viewpoint is that it assumes a totally false hierarchy exists. However, it is de fide that the Apostolic College is part of the Divine Constitution of the Church and cannot be destroyed. The Apostolic College is not preserved amongst the sacramental bishops of the traditional groups as none of these hold offices with ordinary jurisdiction nor do they have a formal mission from the Church both of which are required in addition to valid orders in order to be Successor of the Apostles and be part of the College of Bishops.
The Roman Rites of Holy Orders were invalidated by Montini et al., but the same is not true of the Eastern Rites who still have valid orders and other sacramental rites. Their Bishops are also elected by the local clergy. The actions of an AntiPope may be supplied with jurisdiction from the Church when it comes to filling vacant offices under the principle of Common Error. Under this principle the Church supplies jurisdiction to all acts of an AntiPope that are for the common good. Where an Eastern Rite Bishop retains the Catholic Faith and holds an office with ordinary jurisdiction he is a true successor of the Apostles provided the office he is in was created by a true Pope (antiPopes cannot create new or modify existing offices).
Yes, a new organization was formed at Vatican II, but not all of those who remain attached to the physical structures of the Catholic Church are non-Catholic and Apostolic Succession necessarily remains within her.
Hello there, calling from NZ, a convert.. Been with SSPX since 1983, then took the side of the Resistance but over the last two years, I started taking notice of the sedevacantist position and did a lot of research on UA-cam on all the sedes websites. It's been quite a slog, but I'm now convinced of the sedes position. The CMRI is here, there is a number to call but I'm hesitating, knowing their history. One priest does the whole country, their numbers are very small compared to SSPX. Big step for me; value your opinion. Btw, good to hear an Englishman's perspective as this area is dominated by the Americans who express themselves differently. God bless.
@francisheperi4180 Hello. Firstly, Godspeed to you on your journey (I also hope this message gets to you because I don't always trust the UA-cam tagging system).
In response to your enquiry... I would advise to proceed with the CMRI. I have personally met and attended the masses of Sedevacantist priests from the RCI, IMBC, CMRI and independents and in my experience, the CMRI priests have been both good and sound. It is also worth keeping in mind that as an organisation, each priest operates somewhat independently. Usually, they don't regard themselves as "part" of the CMRI but was "working with" the CMRI in terms of support and administration. I don't know if that rule is universal, but from what I glean, the CMRI just wants to support priests to carry out their pastoral duties in any way that they can according to the situation that are in (namely, to administer the Sacraments).
Also, every CMRI priest I have spoken to has been of good character and theologically sound.
However, you will of course understand that I cannot vouch for everyone and invite you to make your own enquires and check anything that you are not sure about. Some Catholic, Sedevacantist priests are amongst the best men I have ever met, but not all. Humans are humans, after all.
My other suggestion would be to connect with communities and like-minded people. As GK Chesterton once said, "two is infinitely more than one" and so, connecting with even a few laity can help a lot.
Of course, the main focus is on Christ. As a general rule, if you accept from the outset that your life may now be more difficult than ever, and that you will meet difficulties from either the situation or the people you meet, but that you are willing to do all that for Christ, you will be able to face the situation with more sobriety (and be more nicely surprised when you do in fact find the good people who are willing to help you).
Thank you for your kind words.
If you have any more questions, please feel free to ask.
P.S. I could recommend my "Sede Stories" series which is on the channel if you're interested in hearing some other peoples' conversions.
See "Bishop Sanborn and John Salza Are Totally Wrong on Manifest Heresy" put out by type: MHFM (Most Holy Family Monastery)
God bless you - Blessed Trinity guide you - great work.
And may God Bless you. Thank you
I’m a Catholic therefore I’m a sedevacantist 🙏🏼♥️
Excellent presentation! Nicely done!!
Agreed!!! "Nicely done!!" and so is Calvinism to the Calvinists, Mormonism to the Mormons, Armenianism to the Armenians...
Very good video. Concise, simple to understand.
Thank you
retardation often is simple.
Thank you so much for the Lux Vera Directory! Praise be God!
Pray for me. My family are Novus Ordo Catholics and live in Puerto Rico and they have little to no valid Latin Masses nor validly ordained priests that I can locate.
Will you please do a few more videos on "proofs" in this style?
Very well done. Thank you for this.
So time for an Inquisition?
Thank you. Very helpful!
Love the clarity and simplicity. God bless you.
Question: If the valid clergy, who retain the faith (as some have) even should the cardinals decent, retain the power to select a Papal successor then why have the valid Sedevacantist Clergy not done so in nearly 75 years?
It would seem to be their Sacred Duty.
Given how few people are aware of that there's even a problem, does it seem prudent to? It's very conceivable that whilst Sedevacantism remains so poorly understood and genuine Catholicism so small, a new Pope would seem utterly insane to the vast majority or the world and Novus Ordo Catholics.
It may well be better to wait until there is a critical mass of people before a new Pope is likely to receive wide recognition and, by extension, do more good
There's no such thing as a novus ordo Catholic, except in rare circumstances.
If 75% of sedevacantist clergy agreed for conclave, I'd accept outcome
@@CatholicTVCThat is one of the 3 main theories of the late Rev. Fr. Anthony Cekada (God rest his soul) along with the Cassiciacum Thesis and Divine Intervention.
The third possible way Papal restoration can occur is when a vast majority of the hierarchy is corrupted, the clergy in Rome can hold a general election to select a new Pope.
Or for a more applicable theory, if a vast majority of the hierarchy recognize the corruption against the Church and are willing to address it, then they can hold a general council. If there is a council where the bishops of the world, including and especially traditional Bishops (Indult, SSPX, and Sedevacantist) can hold a general council and/or election to discuss the corruption in the modern institution and restore it to traditional Catholic teaching, then that would be a good way to resolve this on-going crisis. Though I will more so accept it if Vatican II is properly address and its many errors and heresies corrected or condemned, and be headed by Sedevacantist Bishops.
Heaven is always involved in choosing a Pope This time after so many years of absence Heaven's involvement will be very apparent in the spiritual and the physical side of choosing a Pope. For the Vatican II cult to be exposed and removed a very visible divine intervention must take place. It is my opinion that the next Pope will be the Holy Pope whom prophecy foretells will reign at the time of the Great Monarch. If St. Malachy's prophecies are true then the Papalicy will end with antipope Bergoglio. @@CatholicTVC
Universal acceptance is the problem. Once sufficient numbers recognize the false New Order Church is shown to be the Impostet Church that it is, this could be theoretically possible. However, prophecy shows that the Imposter Church is the Harlot of Babylon (Revelation 17), she is Destroyed (Revelation 18), and after the Final Judgement, The Groom, Christ is wed to the Ever-Faithful Bride, the Remnant Church consisting of those who rejected the heretics, as Scripture demands(Galatians 1:8-9; 2John9-11), and held firm to the one true religion (Revelation 19), when the New Heaven & Earth are established (Revelation 20). There is only 1 great Apostasy. Antichrist will reign before the general judgement, the removal of Christ’s vicar was the precondition to the final act of the apostasy (2 Thessalonians 2: 7, accomplished 10/9/1958). Thus it appears that it is mutually exclusive in God’s plan for Antichrist and His Vicar to reign simultaneously.
Excellent! Thank you.
Excellent video!
This is an excellent presentation. A question: @15:50 the Pius IX quote says it's from 1864, 1686. What is the "1686"? Also, one correction: @18 min you show figures of women wearing short shorts or short skirts, which every pre-Vatican II pope would condemn, and which Our Lady of Fatima foretold would come and "offend Our Lord very much," and further saying, "Woe to women on account of immodesty!" Women shouldn't even be wearing pants. Deuteronomy 22:2 even calls such "wearing of men's clothing" an "abomination."
Thank you, and 1686 is a reference to Denzinger
How to be sedevacantist? Just stay home?
@@Razer-Reddy find Sedevacantist priests and communities. Continue living by traditional Catholicism, and pray.
@CatholicTVC , Donald Trump is being gun shot today. Civil war might happen. As a sedevacantist can we kill in self defense?
When paul rebuked peter, he never rejected his Authority. Similarly, when a Father has a scandal in the household, one cannot say he isn’t the father anymore. Likewise in the catholic faith, we cannot say there is no Pope in times of scandal. We must pray
@@DrazzBreh did you watch the video?
@@CatholicTVC It is not our duty to decide whether the Pope is formally or materially the Pope. It is not our duty to judge him, but we cannot follow the directives coming from Rome that are in contradiction with the teachings of the Church. We have the duty to resist the errors and innovations that are destroying the Church, while at the same time maintaining respect for the office of the Pope and the authority of the Roman Pontiff and Vicar of Christ
@@CatholicTVC Even if the Pope is promoting errors, this does not mean he has lost his pontificate. It means we have to resist him and pray for him, while still recognizing his office.
@@DrazzBreh if you are judging that he is committing errors, when he and his clergy say that they're not, then you're still judging him (according to your argument).
But in any case, we don't "judge" him, any more than we judge that "2+2=4", as if our judgement is the deciding factor. The non-pope is judged by God, automatically, by divine law. And by that same law, removed from the Church. No one "judges" that. We just recognise it.
@@CatholicTVC recognizing errors doesn’t equate to judging the Pope personally but to adhering to the immutable teachings of the Church. Just as St. Paul opposed St. Peter when he erred (Galatians 2:11), we must resist teachings contrary to tradition. The holy Church has always upheld that no one, not even the Pope, can alter divine law. The infallibility of the Pope is limited to definitive statements ex cathedra on faith and morals, not every utterance. We remain loyal to the papacy by staying true to the faith handed down through the ages, as Archbishop Lefebvre fought for. It’s not judgment, it’s fidelity to the truth.
“We remain attached to the Holy See, to Eternal Rome, and to the successor of Peter, but we refuse to follow the neo-modernist and neo-Protestant Rome which clearly manifested itself in the Second Vatican Council and after the Council in all the reforms which issued from it.”
- His Excellency Archbishop Lefebvre
Thank you for this clear and succinct presentation of the sedevacantist position. However, I don't think that you've adequately addressed the argument from indefectibility. Indefectibility has a very specific definition, and there are Catholic dogmas concerning the essential properties of the Church -- i.e. those attributes which the Church must possess in order to be the Church. _One of these essential characteristics is the papacy._
One can see the problem this creates rather easily. Most sedevacantists believe that that there hasn't been a valid pope since the death of Pius XII in 1958. However, if it's possible for the Catholic Church to have no pope for 66 years yet still remain the true Church, then why may this not be true for, say, 1,000 years? _And if it is possible, at least in principle, for the Catholic Church to have no pope for 1,000 years without losing its status as the true Church (that is, without defecting), then in what sense is the papacy essential to the Church?_
To claim that the papacy is not essential to the Church is to blatantly contradict Vatican I. Vatican I's _First Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ_ says:
_"He [that is, Jesus Christ] set Blessed Peter over the rest of the Apostles. And He fixed in him the abiding principle of this two-fold unity with its visible foundation... For none can doubt, and it is known to all ages, that the holy and Blessed Peter, the Prince and Chief of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from Our Lord Jesus Christ..."_
Vatican I also talks about Peter's Apostolic Primacy:
_"And since the gates of Hell, with greater hatred each day, are rising up on every side, to overthrow, if it were possible, the Church and Her divinely-established foundation, We, for the preservation, safe-keeping, and increase of the Catholic flock, with the approval of the Sacred Council, judge it to be necessary to propose, for the belief and acceptance of all the faithful, in accordance with the ancient and constant faith of the universal Church, the doctrine of the institution, perpetuity, and nature of the sacred Apostolic Primacy, by which the strength and solidity of the entire Church is established, and at the same time to proscribe and condemn the contrary errors, which are so harmful to the flock of Christ."_
Finally, Vatican I asserts the primacy of the Roman See:
_"Thus, whosoever succeeds Peter in this Chair, obtains, by the institution of Christ Himself, the Primacy of Peter over the whole Church. Therefore, the disposition of truth remains, and Blessed Peter, persevering in the fortitude of the Rock that he accepted, has not relinquished the governance of the Church that he received._
_"Therefore, it has always been necessary that each Church -- that is, those who are the faithful everywhere -- should agree with the Roman Church, because of the greater power of the principality that She has received, in order that, all being joined together in the unity of that Seat, from the veneration of which the rights of communion flows to all, might associate closely as members of one Head, in the compact unity of the body."_
One can cite many dogmatic pronouncements indicating that the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church is that, without the papacy, _there is no Church._ For example, in _Satis Cognitum,_ Pope Leo XIII says:
"15. From this it must be clearly understood that Bishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling, if they deliberately secede from Peter and his successors; because, by this secession, _they are separated from the foundation on which the whole edifice must rest_ [emphasis mine]. They are therefore outside the edifice itself; and for this very reason they are separated from the fold, whose leader is the Chief Pastor; they are exiled from the Kingdom, the keys of which were given by Christ to Peter alone."
"[T]he foundation on which the whole edifice must rest" is something without which the edifice -- that is, the Church -- cannot exist. That foundation is the papacy. _Hence, if there is no pope, there is no Church._
Sedevacantists are correct that the current post-Vatican-II "popes" are blatant and notorious heretics who say and do things on a regular basis that any pope between Saint Peter and Pius XII would have unreservedly condemned. They are also correct that deliberate heresy automatically separates one from body of the Church and would even be sufficient to depose a pope and strip him of his authority. That is what Pope Celestine taught. However, when Vatican I proclaimed papal infallibility and papal primacy as dogmas, it became Catholic dogma that the Catholic Church cannot exist without a pope. _Hence, if a pope knowingly utters a heresy, or if the chair of Saint Peter becomes vacant for any other reason, it follows that a defection has occurred._
The problems in the Catholic Church appear to have begun not with Vatican II, but with Vatican I. The so-called Old Catholics -- that is, those Catholics who reject Vatican I's teachings on papal infallibility and primacy -- may be sedevacantists without believing that the Church has defected, but those who accept Vatican I may not be. This ultimately seems to point to a much deeper problem with the magisterium itself -- or at least the magisterium as it was from the time of Vatican I onward. _That magisterium is inconsistent. It contains contradictions._ If the Catholic Church cannot exist without a pope -- as Vatican I clearly teaches -- then each and every time that a pope dies and there is a papal interregnum -- to say nothing of the more extraordinary situation occurring after Vatican II -- the Church defects.
You've asserted the mere death of a pope does not entail the defection of the Church, _but why doesn't it?_ The fact that members of the Church have historically refused to see this implication does not mean that it does not hold. _If there truly cannot be a Church without a pope, then whenever a pope dies, the Church ceases to exist._ If the Church _can_ exist without a pope, then the papacy is inessential to the true Church, and Vatican I was wrong. As things stand, I don't see any way out of this.
Of course, the Church may escape this by eliminating the practice of papal election altogether and simply having valid popes appoint their successors. That way, as soon as one pope dies, another man immediately comes to occupy the office, and there is no unbroken succession. Why hasn't the Church done this? Your guess is as good as mine. This one one reason why, despite agreeing with the sedevacantists on many things, I can't see my way to being a Catholic.
You're confusing the office of the Papacy with the person of the Pope.
The Office of the Papacy is essential to the Church. Not the actual existence of a Pope in that office 100% of the time. Hence interregna. As explained, the office of the Pope remains, and there is nothing in law which says how long interregna can be.
The principle seems to have always been clear and obvious. The Papal Office has always necessarily been a core part of the true, Christian faith because disputes finally need to come down to an arbiter in order to maintain consistency and unity. No other version of Christianity boasts this institution.
That institution is "paused" during an interregna, and during that time disputes can build up, to be corrected for again once it is "un-paused" at the election of a new Pope.
And so, this idea that the Church needs a living Pope 100% of the time with no possible gaps is something that you seem to be imposing upon Catholic Doctrine, but that Catholics have never adhered to, nor is necessary for the Papal function. The office perpetually exists, and when that office is occupied the Faithful are to submit to the legitimate Pope. That's all that's required.
Now we are in a very long interregna, true enough. And disputes are accruing, as we were always taught they would if such a situation should befall the church. How long will this interregna last, and how long will these current faithful be allowed to accrue their disputes? God knows. It is and has always been His prerogative to present such challenges to His faithful, calling for more patience, faith, and perseverance. But the Church really hasn't defected because the office remains, as does the power to elect a new Pope. It hasn't happened yet because, amongst other things, it is taking people enough time to even realise that such a colossal satanic subversion has taken place, and it will take more time for them to come together to address it.
As for your view of Catholicism... what are you presented with? A version of Christianity which currently appears to be in crisis or has been in crisis as far back as Vatican I, according to your view? But even if we take those as hypotheses, it would still be the most consistent and active version of Christianity throughout history. Even in light of your comments about the Papacy, it really is still the only version of Christianity that has ever had a Papacy and therefore the ability to resolve conflicts and maintain consistency. No other version of Christianity has this and are all ultimately illogical. For more on that point, there is this article here:
www.tonyvclowe.com/post/zero-to-sedevacantism-the-logical-case
Thank you for your time.
@@CatholicTVC -- Thank you for your reply, but I don't think it works. If you interpret "the papacy" to merely mean "the office of the papacy," then this only creates more problems.
For instance, the purpose of the papacy, as you acknowledge, is, among other things, to guarantee unity within the Church. But how does anyone unite around a mere abstract office with no occupant? Furthermore, the Church should be visible, as you also acknowledge. You pointed out that sedevacantist clergy exist and that it is possible to locate such clergy, but if you are correct that "the papacy" only means "the office of the papacy," then the mere existence of sedevacantist clergy is not enough to overcome the visibility problem. If the office of the papacy is an essential part of the Church, then in order for the Church to be visible, it, too (that is, the office), must be visible. But in what sense is an abstract office with no occupant visible? _The office of the papacy is only visible insofar as it has a discernible occupant and/or a discernible location where it is based._
In Vatican I's dogmatic statement on the constitution of the Church, the components of the papacy are described and enumerated, as are the papacy's purposes and essential characteristics. The components of the papacy include the office of the papacy, the Roman See as a physical location (not necessarily the city of Rome itself) and the person of the pope. The purposes of the papacy include its place as the foundation of the Church and the guarantor of its unity. All of these attributes go together. Any attempt to divide them vitiates the visibility of the papacy, and hence, of the Church itself (because the papacy is essential to the Church). If it is not possible to discern where the papacy is seated (because the Novus Ordo sect occupies Rome) or who the current occupant of the office is (because the chair of St. Peter is vacant), how can the papacy be said to be visible?
I don't think I'm imposing anything on Catholic doctrine. I'm simply drawing out the conclusions of what Vatican I declared. If you accept Vatican I as a valid council, then you cannot sunder the person of the pope from the office of the papacy, and you must treat the entirety of the papacy -- consisting the office of the papacy, the person of the pope and the Holy See together -- as essential to the Church. _From this, the conclusion follows that any papal interregnum, however short or however long, constitutes a defection._ The explanation that you gave for why papal interregna do not entail defection is only acceptable if one rejects Vatican I.
@@IvanTheHeathen if you view visibility, the Papacy, and interegna in terms of how Catholicism has always treated them, and not in terms of how they strike you, you will have your answers.
@@CatholicTVC -- With all due respect, you aren't addressing my concerns. If you have an explanation of how papal interrega, visibility and indefectibility are all consistent with the papacy, as defined by Vatican I, I'm all ears. Of course, these things can be reconciled, and were reconciled, in the Church as it existed _before_ Vatican I declared papal infallibility, primacy and essentiality to be dogma, but that was never in dispute here.
There are only two possibilities: Either there is some subtle means of reconciling these things that I have missed -- in which case, I'd ask you to provide me with the explanation -- or the Catholic Church has blithely ignored this contradiction for more than 150 years and proceeded as if it didn't exist.
I don't dispute that it's possible to be a sedevacantist and reject Vatican I (that clearly is possible), but I don't see how one can be a sedevacantist while accepting it (Vatican I) as valid. Of course, the other alternative is to simply acknowledge the Novus Ordo popes, but we can agree that that isn't on the table.
@@IvanTheHeathen you're smart enough and you already have your answer
Love registering to you. Loved immediately "non tolerant" language of Catholic Church, true one.
Triumphalism
This is good.
God is good 🙏🏻
I believe your definition of sedevacantism is correct. I would have pointed out that this position is exactly what we have every time a pope dies and until the next conclave. So, objectively, there is nothing controversial about it. The controversy arises when we have someone sitting on Peters chair and is claimed by some to be an illegitimate pope.
Lol, current sedevacatism is not Interregnum. Because Interregnum doesn't destroy all Cardinals, all ordinary bishops, all Roman Curia, all Roman clergy, all Roman Church itself, all jurisdiction, all apostolic mission, all formal apostolic succesion, apostolicity of the Church, all hierarchy and legal episcopacy and visibility of the Church.
If current sedevacatism is indeed Interregnum, you must actually show where are cardinals or at least bishops and Roman clergy appointed by last valid pope.
@@kamilmurawski1136 This is a highly underrated comment. Most schismatics of the sedevacantist sect will attempt to paint their church as the true Catholic Church. However, they fall into almost precisely the same error as the Protestants in saying that they have continuity of doctrine with the true church of the Fathers and the true Roman Pontiffs, yet they deny the indefectibility of the visible Body of the Church for all intents and purposes. Their sect has completely done away with the entirety of the visible Church, and thus they are forced to say that the Church is not Catholic, but rather small and remote, only having a few hundred churches in the world in total.
Bellarmine is rolling in his grave every time he hears a sedevacantist talk about him. They CLEARLY violate the second, third, fourth, and fifth marks of the Church as laid out by St. Bellarmine. On a similar note, they deny the entire point that chapter 17 of "On the Church Militant", namely that not all of the shepherds of the visible Church may err.
Either the Church headed by Pope Francis is the true and visible Catholic Church or it is not. If it is, then Bellarmine condemns them in chapter 17. If it is not, then Bellarmine condemns them in the fourth and fifth marks of the Church. Either way, they are condemned by Bellarmine, who they are wont to call both heretic and hero.
No, objectively it is the most off the charts extreme view anyone could possibly have, and the controversy arises when layman are so prideful as to actually think that by their own sinful fallible personal judgement they know anything at all about the successor of St. Peter, the Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Christ.
And by the way, what exactly are you talking about when you say this "position" is exactly what we have every time a pope dies? Because I 100% agree, when a pope dies, a successor is selected by the Church, and that's it until the next time. That's exactly what visibly happened, Pius XII, John XXIII, JP1, JP2, Benedict XVI, and Francis, and has happen with no complaints to speak of for 1000 years or whatever.
However, I'm going to guess the last time there was anything like an unknown fringe group of malcontents hanging onto their changeable liturgical traditions after a Council called by the Pope decided they needed to make changes, and started claiming that the popes were not the real, the council was invalid, the changes were not allowed, etc., was after Trent, and that probably had something to do with why Pius V used the strong language he did in quo primum. Shut these people down and not allow their disobedience to get to the point of impacting Church Unity. what Paul VI should have done
Pope Paul's bull Demands laity reject a non Catholic who wins conclave.
So does St Paul if anyone preach a new gospel....
It's our duty. People who don't are in catch 22 of schism or heresy. Not good!
I have a MAJOR Question - I Was Baptized in 1967 under I believe to be the Catholic Rite, But All my other Sacraments were done in The Vatican II ( catholic ) church ... I attend TLM by the FSSP for about 5 years now. Am I Legitimately Receiving Our Lord and Penance. Were my Sacraments Legit ? Please help.............. Kevin
Hi Kevin,
The short answer is: probably not.
According to the FSSP: "The Fraternity of St. Peter accomplishes this mission using the liturgical books in force in 1962, as specified in its decree of erection in 1988, confirmed by a decree of Pope Francis."
Hence, on the one hand, this organisation is part of the false Novus Ordo hierarchy and on the other, they will be using the New Novus Ordo liturgy. The big problem with this is that many of the sacramental rites were changed in the new liturgy and some changes are significant enough to invalidate the sacraments.
Here is a helpful resource on this:
cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/invalidity-of-the-novus-ordo-missae/
And so, the best bet is to seek out priests who explicitly reject the Vatican II church and only use the old Missae, and who serve TLMs which are non una-cum (because an una-cum TLM gives recognition to the false popes and their church).
If you are based in the UK, we have attempted to create a list of such masses with this website:
www.ukmasses.com/
I hope this helps.
All the new rites are invalid. You need to find an eastern catholic priest or a priest ordained in the traditional rite by a traditional bishop and make a general confession.
Hi Kevin, you have been receiving valid and livid sacraments. Please look to your priest at the FSSP parish you attend to ask these serious questions to.
God bless,
Brother in Christ
@@LordMazdamundi On what grounds do you claim that they're valid?
The legitimate bishops (=named by a pope) constitute the hierarchy of the Church. To cut oneself off from them, as the sedevacantists do, has already been condemned by Leo XII and Leo XIII.
These popes were targeting a group whose members denied the legitimacy of Pope Pius VII: like the sedevacantists.
Leo XII, Pastoris Aeterni: “Your Little Church cannot therefore in any way belong to the Catholic Church. By the very admission of your masters, or rather of those who deceive you, there are no longer any French bishops who support and defend the party you follow. Moreover, all the bishops of the Catholic Universe, to whom they themselves have appealed, and to whom they have addressed their schismatic claims in print, are recognized as approving the conventions of Pius VII and the acts which followed, and the whole Catholic Church is now entirely favorable to them.”
Leo XIII, Eximia nos laetitia: “Absolutely no bishop considers them and governs them as his sheep. From this they must conclude with certainty and evidence that they are defectors from the fold of Christ.
Now, just as the Little Church had no bishop who recognized them, so the sedevacantists had no legitimate bishop who recognized them, all of whom recognized the Council in 1964 and 1965 (they were consecrated under Pius XII).
Friend this is a very well put together video. I see that you have a great zeal for the LORD! .... I hope that you will take the time to 👉dialogue with me👈 on why 'Sedevacantism' is not biblical and a dangerous position to have my friend!
Let's start with...
Luke 12:41-46 Then Peter said to him, "Lord, do You speak this parable 👉only to us, or to all people?"👈 And the Lord said, "Who then is that faithful and wise 👉STEWARD,👈 whom his master will make ruler 👉OVER HIS HOUSEHOLD,👈 to give them their portion of food in due season? Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing 👉WHEN HE COMES.👈 Truly, I say to you that he will make him ruler over all that he has. 👉BUT👈 IF THAT SERVANT says in his heart, 'My master is delaying his coming,' and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and be drunk, the master of that servant will 👉COME ON A DAY👈 when he is not looking for him, and 👉AT AN HOUR👈 when he is not aware, and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.
Do you notice that the STEWARD of the house still holds the position as STEWARD until the master comes? 👉THEN👈 he will be rewarded or punished.
That is not the position you are holding my friend.
GOD Bless you!!!
Hello, thank you for your kind words but it's only fair to tell you from the start that I won't dialogue with you any further than this comment.
The reason is that this kind of Biblical interpretation is Protestant, not Catholic. The Catholic approach is to understand revelation as taught and interpreted by The Church. That is why I have appealed to The Church and Her teachings in the video and everything else I would say has already been said there.
@@CatholicTVC Oh... OK? This is a first for me. I have never been accused of a 'Protestant interpretation' when it comes to pointing out the Primacy of a Steward/Prime Minister/Pope Etc in Scripture before.
To give a fair assessment of what I've been accused of... Can I please have your interpretation of this passage?
As always GOD Bless!!!
@@mayheaddlight6072 No... let me be clear. I don't mean to say that the interpretation that you have given is Protestant, I mean that the fact that you are appealing to your own interpretation of the Bible is a protestant approach to the problem, and not a Catholic approach.
You have basically asked: "can we exchange interpretations in order to solve this issue about The Church?"
The answer is "No." because Catholics don't resolve these problems by exchanging interpretations of The Bible. They solve them by listening to what The Church has taught and proceed from there.
@@CatholicTVC The Church has defined a very small percentage of the Bible. It's also worth mentioning the fact that the Bible itself is a Catholic Church document my friend.
Your standpoint on this is to render the Bible to no effect! .... Doesn't something seem deficient there??
I appeal to...
2 Timothy 3:16-17 all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable 👉FOR DOCTRINE,👈 👉FOR REPROOF,👈 👉FOR CORRECTION,👈 👉FOR INSTRUCTION👈 in righteousness, that the 👉MAN OF GOD MAY BE COMPLETE,👈 👉THOROUGHLY EQUIPPED 👈 for every good work.
As for 'Sedevacantism' ... Maybe this passage would be better suited considering it doesn't need the 👉authority of interpretation👈 to render its simplicity, due to it being a narrative account.
Acts 23:1-5 Then Paul looking earnestly at the council, said, "Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day." And the 👉HIGH PRIEST👈 Ananias commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said to him, "God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! For you sit to judge me according to the law, and do you command me to be struck contrary to the law?" And those who stood by said, 👉"DO YOU REVEAL GOD'S HIGH PRIEST?"👈 Then Paul said, 👉"I DID NOT KNOW,👈 brethren, that he was 👉THE HIGH PRIEST;👈👉FOR IT IS WRITTEN,👈👉'YOU SHALL NOT SPEAK EVIL OF A RULER OF YOUR PEOPLE.'👈
Paul already knew that the Old Testament Covenant was being overturned at this point... and he dared not to speak against what God has established. Is this not also contrary to your position?
You are a part of a kingdom... not a democracy my friend!
Be careful when you go against the government GOD established.
To deny the King's government... is to deny the King Himself!
Where do you find in the davidic Kingdom the king being removed from his office.... but only invisibly? Considering many of them did evil in the LORD's sight!
GOD Bless!!!
I appreciate your thorough research and explanation of your ecclesiological position. I wonder how would you explain the apparent contradictions that are found in Sacred Scripture?
As someone who was formerly almost convinced by the sedevacantist position, I caution others to consider VERY deeply your conviction of these arguments and make sure you are fully convinced. It is a grave sin to knowingly reject the pope or participate in schism. If you have ANY doubt, you are safer staying with the Pope. Be attentive also to your tendency toward self-righteousness, desire (or lack thereof) for communion with others, and the presence of the fruits of the Spirit while you consider this position. The Holy Spirit helped me to remain in the bosom of Holy Mother Church, and I am eternally grateful. I hope and pray no one is led astray like I was.
That said, there is nothing quite like the quest for truth. The struggle is part of it. May our hearts all be in the right place as we search for it / Him :)
"You are safer to stay with the Pope" ... unless, of course, he isn't the Pope. In which case, it is very, very dangerous to stay with him (and, we might add, places you in schism).
@@CatholicTVC that’s fair! Part of why I say that too though is it is hard to believe is our good and gracious God would expect all His children to read and intellectually assent to a position that is so difficult to come to. It means agreeing with all those contradictions you covered plus more. This video was an hour long, and as you said it did not cover the whole of it, and in my opinion hardly scratched the surface. To hold your position, not only do you have to accept all teachings pre-Vatican II, you also have to REJECT her teachings, post-Vatican II. Interesting as I think about it. To be a sedevacantist, you have to reject the documents that come from the very church you do not believe is the true church. The position cannot hold true otherwise. So essentially you are saying the one true church is the one true church ONLY because the truth is LACKING in the conciliar church. The “truth” would be found based on an absence of truth... how is that possible?
@@Marian99834 Yet, if you call yourself a Catholic you know it's perfectly possible. For many, many people, Catholicism generally is a very hard and complex position to come to. For many others, it's hard to tell why Christianity is truer than Islam. Still, our good and gracious God allows billions to be deceived by Islam, whilst thinking it is the true faith. But God isn't the one to blame, here. The devil is because he is the one spreading the lies. We have the ability to see through these lies, if we would choose to.
And once again, you are presenting a nonsensical/circular argument and, ironically, making it more complex than it needs to be...
If the conciliar church has produced and spread heresy it is not/was not acting as the church. If the current conciliar "priests" and "bishops" and "popes" teach and live by heresy in both word and deed (which they do), then they are not Catholic clergy. The effect is automatic. Truth separates itself from non-truth. That's basic logic.
And really, that's all there is to it. At its core, Sedevacantism is simple. There's just so much to say about it because people raise so many confusions, conflations and misinterpretations.
@@CatholicTVC I see your point. What makes it complicated is assenting that truth has separated from not truth between pre and post Vatican II. I just do not believe that is what happened. There are many examples of what you may call stark contradictions surely even between pre-Vatican II documents (and as stated before, in the Bible itself).
To be a Catholic or a Christian, one does not necessarily have to disprove other religious. To be a Sedevacantist, one has to disprove the truth of the teachings, doctrine, etc. of the post-Vatican II church.
I do understand your position though. It’s unfortunate that there is so much confusion, but the church is still made of human beings. We cannot expect her members to make everything crystal clear all the time, although that would surely be preferred.
@@Marian99834 Two key differences:
Firstly, we're not Protestants and so we do not interpret the Bible for ourselves, that is the prerogative of the Church.
Second, we know that the Vatican-II contradictions (heresies) are substantial not only because of what they state but how they have been interpreted and put into action.
For example, I showed in the video that the Church has always explicitly anathematised worship alongside false religions. You might say that I am just reading the documents wrong. But here's the problem: your "Popes" and clergy definitively agree with what Sedevacantists are claiming...
How do we know? Because there are many instances of the conciliar "Popes" stating as much. And, more importantly, the conciliar church has globally allowed for more and more prayer with non-Catholic religions and even the so-called "Popes" have publicly taken part in non-Catholic worship.
Don't just think... look.
Sedevacantism is simple. The moment you see a so-called "Pope" worshiping with Muslims or pagans, that should pretty much seal the matter. But if you also need an argument for how that is connected to Vatican-II documents, the evidence can be clearly presented.
The discussion of visibility around 27:55 very conspicuously leaves out the *formal* visibility of the Church. Yet this is one of the most serious obstacles to sedevacantism. And when you refer to material visibility, the listener naturally expects you will go on to address formal visibility, yet this is not done.
Sedevacantism certainly consists with the *material* visibility of the Church, as you explain. But the whole drift of the Catholic Encyclopedia passage you quote from is that material visibility is far less significant than the *formal* visibility that makes the Church *readily recognizable to the ordinary person* as Christ’s Church. Yet you cut off quoting from the passage and simply do not address how sedevacantism is consistent with the formal visibility of the Church. If anything, even Eastern Orthodox bodies would seem strictly superior to sedevacantism in this respect.
This is a big deal. For example, many shopworn sedevacantist criticisms of +Lefebvre’s position seem much weaker when he is seen as taking a narrow reading of indefectibility *in order to avoid the total capitulation on visibility* that characterizes sedevacantism.
It would seem that only two responses are possible:
1) The Guerardian thesis might be argued to preserve the requisite visibility of the Church through its acknowledgment that the visible Vatican institution retains at least material designation. “Visible but in eclipse” etc.
2) It could be argued that we must be in the last days, and in the buildup to the great deception of the last days, the visibility of the true Church might become very limited or qualified. I have seen e.g. Mario Derksen lean in that direction, and there appears to be some theological support for it. I also take his resort to it to be a tacit acknowledgment that otherwise the note of formal
Visibility would be a potentially fatal objection to the sedevacantist position.
From the Catholic dictionary:
"The Church is also formally visible in possessing certain sensibly perceptible properties, notably the required profession of a common faith, the practice of a definite ritual, and obedience to identifiable laws under an authorized hierarchy."
If Sedevacantism is true, the Church retains all of that for reasons addressed in the video. The objection isn't fatal. You're over-complicating the argument.
As a sedevacantist myself, I would say that both material and formal visibility are clearly secured if one identifies the true Roman Catholic Church of all centuries with the Traditionalist community (I.e.: those that reject Vatican II teachings, adhere to the true Latin Mass and profess the Catholic Faith of all centuries). Both sedevacantist and non-sedevacantists should be considered, since mistaken adherence to a false pope not declared such by the Church does not sever one from Her (see Western Schism). One cannot but admit that Traditional Catholics form a clearly distinguished society in the modern world, manifestly different from the Novus Ordo and from other religions or sects.
What do you think? Would this fulfill the requirement of both material and formal visibility (my argument was rather short; I should look into a book of mine about the subject to answer more potential objection)
So now the doctrine of discovery is not infallible
When did you begin holding to the sedevacantist position? What do you think of the Dimond brothers?
About 2 years ago and I think the Dimond Brothers are very good overall; very well researched and well supported arguments. They are correct about Sedevacanstim.
However, they are incorrect about other issues such as the lack of valid priests and baptism of desire.
@@CatholicTVCCan you elaborate on why you think they are wrong on baptism of desire?
@@josephng9976 Sure.
Baptism of desire has been taught in the magisterium many times and in many different ways; by Popes, Councils, Catechisms, Saints and we even see support in Canon Law.
A good resource for this can be found here:
baptismofdesire.com/index.html
As you will see, it is a doctrine which has been taught consistently enough and widely enough to be regarded as infallible Church teaching.
Many thanks for replying.
@@josephng9976 Anytime
I am staying in Singapore. If I hold the position that Sedevacantism is the correct position, how do I continue to attend mass and avail myself of the other sacraments like confession?
You are in a difficult situation because there are no legitimate (Sedevacantist) Masses being administered in Singapore (at least to my knowledge and at least not listed publicly).
My suggestion is to go to luxvera.org and see if there are any priests in the Philippines or Australia who might know something; just drop them a phone call or an email. If there is nothing in Singapore, you might have to travel abroad to receive the sacraments (you will not be the only one who has had to do this).
I must emphasize: any mass you attend must be a *non* una-cum mass. If you're unsure about this, check with your priest. They will know what you mean. The brief reason is that unless the mass is *non* una-cum, it is still connected to the false church and is therefore schismatic and illicit, even if it uses the traditional form.
You have my sympathies but I would also point out... knights of the Crusades might have only received the sacraments once a year. If Sedevacantism is true, remaining Catholics find themselves in a position of great inconvenience. Still, truth is truth.
I hope this helps
Thank you for your reply.
@@johnfrancis3178 Anytime
You must get to confession to a validly ordained eastern catholic or traditionally ordained priest as soon as possible. With regard to the dogmatic non-una cum issue presented by tvc, it is not a sin to attend such a Mass for many reasons:
1. The prayer in the Te igitur is an accidental part of the Mass
2. The prayer primarily expresses communion with the Holy See, not the person of the Pope
3. St. Vincent Ferrer and padre Pio prayed "una cum" antipopes.
4. The Holy See never issued any warnings that people attending masses "una cum" Nestorius were sinning.
etc. etc.
I've been deluded by the schismatic non-una cum mentality for a short while myself right after becoming sedevacantist, unfortunately. However, I have since studied the issue and it is clear that attendees do not share in the sin of the priest offering a Mass una cum a heretic.
God bless.
@@WebCitizen But then, if the priest is commiting heresy by having an una-cum mass, and you attend his mass knowing this, then you are knowingly taking part in the mass of a heretic...
"Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved." (Lumen Gentium 14)
If you interprete the Second Vatican Council as saying the Church isn't necessary for salvation, you're misinterpreting it.
Yet, it esteems other religions, despite the fact that they were previously called diabolical...
One way to lie is by telling a truth at one point, and then contradicting that same truth later.
@@CatholicTVC Or it isn't a lie and it's just focusing on the good aspects of other religions instead of just the bad ones. Of course there is demonic influence in other religions, but even the Apostle Paul recognized that there was good as well.
@@josephmiller3672 Yet, zoom out and see the total shift in attitude towards other religions, respect given to them as false religions and the new practices of common prayer... but this was all covered in the video.
Some atheists give large amounts of money to charity and are kind to their families are they saved because of it? Christ tells us no Many false religions do many good works but are they saved. Matt 22:14 Give us the answer. @@josephmiller3672
24:00 Here's my response against the private judgment argument: Palmarian "Church" has a "pope", and you are laity. You therefore do not have the authority to reject him, by that logic.
But Sedevacantists don't judge a Pope. They "judge" a non-Pope
@@CatholicTVC No, I was making a pro-sedevacantist argument, sorry for the confusion.
@@chemmius Ah, the apology is mine. Sorry for the misunderstanding
lf we can't even be sure where the true Church is I give up.
You give up?
Just as you would have given up in the earliest days when only a handful of Christians were visible upon the earth...
Just as you would have given up during the Arian Heresy when but a few remained true to the faith and the rest were deceived...
Just as you would have given up during the reformation when doubts were raised about whether the Catholic Church was really true or whether the true Church was simply to be found in every individualistic and fractured sect...
In every case, you may well have said "you know, I might as well give up, because I can't be sure..."
Yet, the true Church has always remained. It remains amongst those who live-out its practice and who profess the true faith. The Church has always been there; it is always visible. You just have to *look.*
Whether you're confused or struggling or wrestling with the truth is one thing. But if you're willing to give up simply because you're unwilling to look... then what?
Don’t be effeminate. Man up.
I hear yah!!! It's rather exasperating to think you have to rely on figuring it all out. As a former Protestant who converted to the One True Catholic and Apostolic Church, I kissed the days goodbye where I'd have to do that and I was so grateful to receive a Catechism to learn what the Church actually taught. I have spent A LOT of time over the past 16 years, learning about the Traditional expression of the Roman Rite. I love this quote by Matthew Arnold. It kinda sums up my conclusions over the years. "There are two expressions of the Roman Rite but only One Church ~ and we're all in it together".
@@CynthiaToni There are NOT two expressions of the Roman Rite. The Novus Ordo is completely fraudulent. And the entity now led by Antipope Francis, having manifestly been overcome by hell, cannot possibly be the actual Catholic Church.
@@JeremiahAlphonsus How did I know I’d receive a reply like this? lol!!! Whatever.
Thoughts on the thesis of cassiciacum?
It has generally struck me as a distinction without a difference (which is also why I know IMBC priests who will say that they are "Sedevacnatist" without feeling the need to clarify (although, they would if pressed))
If we can call the thesis "Sedeprivationism",
Sedevacantists say: "The offices are not held validly."
Sedeprivationists say: "The offices are held, but not by anyone who is valid."
And the results are practically the same.
I hope that answers your question.
@@CatholicTVC One distinction I can think of is that they believe Francis is validly elected, but did not properly accept the papacy. They make the material formal distinction which "totalists" do not. Thanks for reply.
@TVC you just want your way. You have no authority from God to talk about these matters. Baptism of desire was never taught in our religion. Sedevacantists don't have the authority to decide. They don't speak by the Holy Ghost.
@@bweatherman3345 What - exactly - are you attacking/referring to? This thread is about the Thesis of Cassiciacum, not BOD. I gave my opinion of the thesis but don't regard it as dogmatic (because its not).
As for Baptism of Desire, that's simply wrong.
It has been taught dozens of times in the Catholic religion:
www.baptismofdesire.com/
@@bweatherman3345 if this channel has "no authority from God to talk about these matters", then I suggest neither do you. As for Baptism of desire, please see the Catechism of the Council of Trent.
Lots to think about…I now feel very anxious and scrupulous
Why anxious?
@@CatholicTVC because of sedevacantism is real I can never know if I’m truly receiving the sacraments
You can if you receive them from a genuine Catholic priest, with valid orders, who doesn't work within the V2 Novus Ordo Church. Me and many other Sedevacantists receive valid Sacraments regularly
@@CatholicTVC including Sunday Mass?
@@samuellariviere4784 Yes
Sedevacantism as a visual is a man sawing off the branch upon which he sits over a pit of deadly snakes.
Please refrain from commenting if you haven't watched the video
@@CatholicTVCI watched. He is correct. V1 states the church must be visible in Rome. Also there is no Apostolic succession. If the church was allowed to be taken by heretics then it is defectable. I could go on. How long is an acceptable period of interregnum of no pope?
t is not in the interest of your salvation to be cut off from the Seat of Peter which Christ clearly placed as the foundation of His Church on Earth. Regardless of the caliber of Popes which has varied down through the history of the Church and the cockle or false Catholics inside the Church, Christ maintains the elect inside the Church without them having to separate from it or its foundation - the Papacy. Christ does not abandon His Church regardless of the enemies who presently occupy high positions. It is clear Christ raised up Archbishop Lefebvre to maintain the Faith within the official Church structure. SSPX endure the trials and conflicts presently in the hierarchy and Church while preserving the Faith and with patience work to convert those in the Church who are fallen.. Sedevacantism is another form of Protestantism - turning away from the Office of Peter into a form of a mystical, invisible Church. Each Protestant denomination or sect along with the Orthodox believe they are the true 'church' and the Roman Catholic Church with the Papacy is false. The true Church is the one with the Seat of Peter. Christ being God knew the importance of this crucial foundation as the sole and perpetual identifier of His Church.
This kind of comment always baffles me; as if Sedevacantists are the only ones in any possible danger of error...
It is not in the interest of your salvation to co-operate with a false religion and to at once declare your loyalty to this apparent papacy and at the same time reject and trivialise its authority.
If this is truly a Papacy and a true Church, you do not adhere to it as a true Catholic ought to. And if, as a true Catholic, you ought not adhere to it, then it is no true Papacy, nor a true Church.