Why I'm Not A Sedevacantist
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 бер 2024
- With all the confusion in the Church today, the bad fruits of the novus ordo coming to fruition, the looming utter destruction of the church, which will be averted by God himself, on the horizon, the neverending compromises with the world, such as the blessing of sinful unions, it makes a person wonder.
Were the Sedevacantists right?
I don't think so.
If I didn’t believe Jesus was protecting His bride 24/7, I wouldn’t be Christian, let alone Catholic. Peace be with you!
Ok, but what exactly does that prediction entail?
Catholic teaching has been "the church will follow her groom to the cross" for a long time, and Christ allowed many seemingly world ending events to happen
user-kb4dv1ud3f the relevance is that protection doesn't mean "always perfectly protected from all crises" otherwise we wouldn't have had things like the western schism or the reformation.
@@marvalice3455 whatever the Church teaches is safe to practice in faith and morals
We have had antipopes before yet the Church still stands and i stand with the Church.
So do all Sedevacantists
user-kb4dv1ud3f there's a video on my channel that explains why if you want a full answer (Sedevacantism Visualised)
But briefly, because the megesterium, Popes, Councils and Canon Law say that we do
@user-kb4dv1ud3f what?
user-kb4dv1ud3f why did you ask me those questions and not the original commenter, or the person who made the video?
@user-kb4dv1ud3f no... I was pointing out that you already know what the terms mean.
You already know what "Sedevacantism" means. That's why you didn't challenge the use of it by the video-maker.
You already know what it means to "stand with the Church" which is why you didn't challenge the OP.
What is your point?
I am like a kid on Christmas morning with each one of your new uploads. Thank you so very much. This channel is such a blessing.
Is there way you can make a video about Eastern Bynzatine Catholicism?
I am not a sedevacantist either. I don't criticize the pope or call him any names. If he is an Anti-pope the hand of God in the review of history will judge him.
Yes, Our Lady repeatedly asked us to pray for the Pope - not to depose him or libel him.
You are not a catholic either if you reached the age of reason and don't know if some man in a white cassock who speaks heresy is a pope . All those who follow heretics are also heretics.
Yes, he is not an Antipope, Christ made a promise and it will be kept because Christ is God and God is all just.
@@taylorrowe2002the Vatican II Sect is not the Catholic Church .
I will criticize the Pope as God is truth
Excellent video! I love the unique angle you took
Return to Tradition covered invalid baptisms in the Church, and Masses. The Church recognizes they were invalid.
That posed a problem in one case where one was a priest. Which made everything he did invalid.
Fr Malachi Martin, who read the third secret of Fatima, said people had to worry about valid sacraments. He claimed to watch some ordinations that he claimed were invalid. He seemed to think they were doing this deliberately.
Catherine Emmerich spoke of many going to Mass for some time, not realizing the sacraments were invalid. We are in great confusion now.
We don't know 100%
I don’t care what people CLAIM the third mystery says. Jesus Christ was not a liar. The gate of hell will not prevail. A person does not control a sacrament being valid or not. Only God. So if a priest commits grave sin the bread and wine do not cease in becoming the body and blood for believers who are faithful.
@@DylanGames1000 council of Hippo said grave sin does not invalidate the sacraments.
But, if you are excommunicated, you are officially outside the Church. So, during the antipope period many of the offices they filled were invalid.
Don't forget, Christ said, when He comes back, will be still find faith.
If all the destruction of the Apocalypse happens, and one Catholic is left, the Church is not destroyed.
Don't forget, Christ gave the Church to Satan for 100 years for him to try and destroy.
He seems to be doing quite a bit but, not succeeding yet.
God will win. But, according to many Saints not much will be left. They were quoting a Saint on the Fatima Center saying that when it's all over, there won't be enough people to fill St Peter's Square.
Book of Isiah says a small child will be able to count the Remnant
@@DylanGames1000 no one says it won't prevail. But, Many are so content with themselves they won't see the pitfalls.
If God had not shortened the time for the sake of the elect, no flesh would be left
@@DylanGames1000 The fact that you people cant tell the difference between hell's victory and hell's assault means you werent made for the battle to begin with, you might as well be a prod.
@@daniel8181 I was shown hell. I saw Christ. I didn't see you. I was shown much of what is coming. Looking at your comments, seems you need some help
Thank you so much for not only this video, but for all of your hard work, I’m sure I’m not the only person who really appreciates all that you’re doing with this channel.
This particular video has been immensely helpful to me. I’m from a Protestant background (specifically Baptist, although I was Christened as an infant) and over the years I’ve moved gradually towards Catholicism via becoming convinced of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and every other doctrine. Ironically I was looking for evidence of Protestant belief in the early Church but found quite the opposite. I’ve been firmly convinced of Catholic teaching for the past 2-3 years, but only now admitting this to myself and my Wife, who is Agnostic but leaning more and more towards belief in Christ. She attends the Evangelical Church we used to go to as a family, but I’ve not been there in about 2 years. Partly because I knew I was becoming more and more Catholic, but also because I am disabled and travelling is very painful for me.
I watch live streams of the Mass from our local Catholic Church, and I also pray the Rosary and the Morning Prayer from the Liturgy of the Hours daily, but I long to be able to be received into the Church, Lord-willing. With all of this, to then find videos on Sedavacantism was really confusing as the Catholic Church I watch the Mass from is Novus Ordo. It’s unlikely I’ll ever be able to go there with all of my health conditions and also my Wife going to the Evangelical Church, and then the Sedavacantist stuff too was just really discouraging.
I’m so sorry for such a long comment, but you have helped me so much because I’ve been really blessed by watching the Mass and Spiritual Communion. I know it’s not the same, and I long to be able to go to Confession and to be able to become a real Catholic, but I have to make do with what I can at the moment. I also appreciate our video on the Brown Scapular, and I just ordered one. My life is almost like a hermit, except that I have a wife and little boy, and until the day when God may bless me with being able to truly come home to the Church, I’ll try my best to live and pray as a Catholic while in the state that I am.
Thank you again 🙏
I was sedevacantist until recently. The fact that Saint Padre Pio and so many other saints said we must obey authority convinced me
The funny thing is that vaticancatholic a known sede tried to used Padre Pio to say the Popes weren’t legitimate meanwhile Padre Pio defended Popes he would consider “anti popes”.
@@superiorshotgun4348 exactly. Saint Padre Pio was in communication with post vat 2 popes and never denied their authority
Sedevacantist do not deny that one needs to obey authority. The question is whether the Vatican II claimants to the Papacy are legitimate authority, and the answer is most definitely no.
@@thegreatness7043Padre Pio died in 1968. He lived in the age before internet and towards the end of his life he was nearly blind. It is probable that he never read the documents of Vatican II. He also died before the new "mass" was promulgated. One can be mistaken in good faith about who is the Pope.
@the4gospelscommentary He wrote letter to pope Paul the 6th. He knew of the changes that had happened
Sedevacantism is based on two main Catholic teachings: 1) the Church is Indefectible, and 2) Public Manifest Heretics by their public sin of heresy are outside the church and cannot hold office much less the papacy.
And you think they're wrong? If the pope is leading people to hell, then sedevantist are right. The popes in the past centuries already condemned them. The doctrines, dogmas, magisterium and catechism can't be changed. The sedevacantist can't be wrong except for their teaching about NFP being okay for catholics to use. NFP is a mortal sin. Novus ordo catholics loves their lies.
Heretical Bishops not holding office is not a "main" teaching of the church. There have been times when heretics have kept their office as bishop like Nestorious for example.
Decent critique. I plan to delve deeper into the Church's understanding of the perpetuity of the papcy and other things defined at Vatican I.
What do you think about the prophecies of Alois Irlmaier?
I think he's amazing. Return to Tradition did some good vids on him.
Would love to see a video of him by I Miss Christendom
I attend a Tridentine Mass Parish (TLM) that is run by the FSSP. They are technically from the Lefevre lineage, but are in full communion with Rome, and Pope Francis recently granted them some blessings and protections from terrible Modern Rite Bishops who have been actively destroying Latin Mass all over the place. The SSPX is in Irregular Communion, which can be a little controversial to many, and many laity that attend SSPX have Sedevacantist attitudes, but ultimately I love the SSPX and their bravery. I just wish the FSSP had their own bishops like they were promised already, they'd be able to fend for themselves far better.
FSSP has to walk on eggshells lest the Vatican police gets after them.
This is how I started down the "traditionalist path" until I discovered the true Catholic Church. I don't follow Antipope Francis, but rather Pope Gregory XVIII. See tcwblog.
This concise study is excellent. I have been searching and wondering about the confusion around Holy Orders, liturgy, and praxis since the changes to the Mass beginning in the 1950's which have wrenched my heart since I found out there was such a thing as a "Traditional Mass". Like many of us, I was catechized (poorly) after Vatican II and therefore have had to find out about Tradition on my own. And although the Sedevacantist arguments are often compelling, after all discernment, like the author of this presentation, I could not reconcile how accepting their position makes me any different from a Protestant. How can I decide who is or is not Pope, Bishop, or Priest? How can I as a lay person with little knowledge decide which liturgies and sacraments are valid? I love, respect, and pray for all of my Christian brothers and sisters, regardless of their level of understanding of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith; and indeed I love, respect, and pray for all people who truly seek the One, True and Triune God, even if they are not Christian. But I am not Pope, I am not Bishop, and I am not Priest, and I don't get to make a call about who is, regardless of how compelling the counter-arguments are. God bless the author and all who view this. +JMJ+
This video actually helped push me to the position of sedevacantist!! I know it was not your intention but I just want to thank you for this!!
Didn't he debunk it?
@@aboi9865
He tried to but it actually shed light on some issues that became much clearer to me!
When he said that possibly Francis is not the Pope but all the other Vatican 2 Popes were true Popes I realized that Francis is only completing what the others started and without them paving the way this could not have happened.
@user-kb4dv1ud3f
Specify what?
@user-kb4dv1ud3f
What's wrong with Vatican II? FAQs
1. What is wrong with the Second Vatican Council?
The Second Vatican Council taught doctrines which had been already condemned by the Church, and enacted disciplines which are contrary to the Church's teaching and constant practice.
2. What doctrines did it teach which were already condemned?
There are four major errors concerning: (1) the unity of the Church; (2) ecumenism; (3) religious liberty; (4) collegiality.
3. What false doctrine does it teach concerning the unity of the Church?
Vatican II teaches heresy concerning the unity of the Church, namely that the Church of Christ is not exclusively identified with the Catholic Church, but merely subsists in it. This heretical doctrine is contained principally in Lumen Gentium, and its heretical meaning is confirmed in statements of Paul VI and his successors, particularly in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, in the 1992 Statement concerning Church and Communion, and in the Ecumenical Directory.
It is contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, contained principally in Satis Cognitum of Pope Leo XIII, Mortalium Animos of Pope Pius XI, Mystici Corporis of Pope Pius XII, and in the condemnations of the "Branch Theory" made by the Holy Office under Pope Pius IX.
4. What false doctrine does it teach concerning ecumenism?
The teaching of Vatican II concerning ecumenism, which states that non-Catholic religions are a "means of salvation," is overtly heretical. This doctrine directly contradicts the teaching of the Church that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, called by Pope Pius IX "a most well-known Catholic dogma." In addition, the ecumenical practices which have resulted from this heretical doctrine are directly contrary to Mortalium Animos of Pope Pius XI.
5. What false doctrine does it teach concerning religious liberty?
The teaching of Vatican II on religious liberty, contained in Dignitatis Humanae, nearly word for word asserts the very doctrine which was condemned by Pope Pius VII in Post Tam Diuturnas, by Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos, by Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura, and by Pope Leo XIII in Libertas Praestantissimum. The teaching of Vatican II on religious liberty also contradicts the royalty of Jesus Christ in society as expressed in Quas Primas of Pope Pius XI, and the constant attitude and practice of the Church with regard to civil society.
6. What false doctrine does it teach concerning collegiality?
The teaching of Vatican II concerning collegiality alters the monarchical constitution of the Catholic Church, with which she was endowed by the Divine Savior. The doctrine of Vatican II, confirmed by the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which states that the subject (the possessor) of the supreme authority of the Church is the college of bishops together with the pope, is contrary to the defined doctrine of the Council of Florence and of Vatican I.
7. What is wrong with the disciplines which have emanated from Vatican II?
The 1983 Code of Canon Law contains the heresy of Vatican II concerning the Church, mentioned above. It also permits sacrilege to the Blessed Sacrament, by approving of its reception by non-Catholics, which is a mortal sin, and permits communicatio in sacris (common public worship) with non-Catholics, which is a mortal sin. In addition, the Ecumenical Directory of 1993 permits ecumenical practices which have always been taught by the Church to be mortally sinful.
8. What does all this mean?
It means that Vatican II and its subsequent reforms have given us a new religion, a religion which is substantially different from the Roman Catholic Faith founded by Christ.
The reformers have substantially altered the three main components of religion: doctrine, worship, and discipline. The result is that the reformers are promoting a religion of ecumenism in place of the Roman Catholic religion, which has always taught that it alone is the one, true Faith, and that all other religions are false. The Vatican II religion teaches doctrines which have been condemned by the Church in the past. It has instituted rites and disciplines which are Protestant in nature.
As a result, the religion which Catholics find in their local parishes and schools, although in name Catholic, is a new, non-Catholic religion already condemned by the Catholic Church.
9. Could it be that you are merely giving a bad interpretation to Vatican II?
No. The heretical nature of this council is confirmed by:
the doctrinal interpretation given to Vatican II by Paul VI and his successors in their decrees, encyclicals, catechisms, etc.;
the series of abominations perpetrated by John Paul II against the First Commandment of God, in the form of ecumenical ceremonies which constitute false worship, even to pagan deities in some cases;
the alteration of the Sacred Liturgy in such a way that the Catholic Mass has been replaced by a Protestant supper service;
the tampering with the matter and form of the sacraments so that many of them, but most notably the Holy Eucharist and Holy Orders, labor under doubt or invalidity;
the promulgation of disciplines, especially the 1983 Code of Canon Law and the Ecumenical Directory, which approve of sacrilege against the Holy Eucharist and the Sacrament of Matrimony, and which demonstrate heresies concerning the unity of the Church as their theoretical basis;
the scandalous mockery made of the Sacrament of Matrimony by the granting of annulments for spurious reasons, constituting an abandonment of the sacred doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage;
the fact that John Paul II is in communion with manifest heretics, has openly declared himself to be in communion with non-Catholic sects, and has recognized an apostolic mission in schismatic and Lutheran bishops, all of which destroys the unity of faith. He has even kissed the Koran, which explicitly denies the Incarnation and the Trinity. He has also publicly prayed that St. John the Baptist protect Islam.
user-kb4dv1ud3f
There is no way Vatican 2 and the novus ordo is catholic.
Gotta go with the Diamonds on this point but I am learning a lot from what you say and how you say it. .... Cradle Catholic born and Baptized during WWII. Thanks for posting it. Salvé Regina indeed.
I think.all good catholics can do is pray the rosary. Consecrate yourself and family to Mary. Wear the brown scapular. We are in the age of confusion which God permitting due to our sins. I dont have all the answers but many seds are not even gping to mass. Doesnt the commandments and caon law says we must attend sunday mass? Sede are full of pride and refuse the trust God if their intellect cant accept they are confused as well. What saint or doctor of church said dont attend mass. I believe vactican 2 has errors period . I dont follow error and all the errors or hereies of a pope. We resist. I belive priest are still priests and sacraments still valid. Havent there been eucharistic miracles on new mass?
Things are not as confusing as people think. They just need to spend the little time they have here to focus on their own personal holiness and not allow themselves to be distracted with all this nonsense about the church. The devil is busy have people doubt the church and it’s pastors so as to lead many to Hell.
@figurefour633 , then follow their heresies blindly. See where you're gonna go in the end. Just to let you know, it won't be heaven if you follow their heresies. It's NFP method for straight catholics and LGBTQ support for the gay catholics that can put them in their demise.
The Apocalypse of St John 18:4-5
"And I heard another voice from heaven, saying: Go out from her, my people; that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and the Lord hath remembered her iniquities."
We live in the end times, this is why Papacy, as Lord's Regency on Earth is extinguished.
You don't see clear reference to Abomination of Desolation, nor to Jeremiah the prophet... 500 years without Davidic monarch is easily explained away by coming of Christ, and ~70 years of the new Babylonian captivity of the Novus Ordo will be fulfilled with coming of the Christ, taking over the reins, and Reign.
You are blinded by false apparitions, and false wonders, and you don't look for help in Infallible Magisterium, you rather get drowned in nominally accepting anti-magisterium of V2, and antipapacy.
St. Vincent Ferrer erred in good faith not accepting the real Pope, yet he was the Saint.
This is how wrong "Fr". Hesse was in his estimation. He didn't understand the 1st thing about the Faith.
I agree, the false and heretical "recognize and resist" position is the definition of being a "schismatic"; you might as well be Eastern "Orthodox". They should be obeying their Antipopes then and not resisting them. They need to just come to the conclusion that Sedevancantism is the truth when they see the rotten fruits of V2 & the "Popes" they themselves resist. Why are they resisting them then if nothing is wrong? I have come a long way where I'm at. Its a hard pill to swallow but once you comprehend it then the truth will set you free no matter the sacrifices you have to go through to preserve the truth. The true faith must not be compromised no matter what. The SSPX while I believe most of them are validly ordained in the traditional rite and they may say some true things every now then; sadly they are all heretics who denie the Catholic dogma "Extra Ecclesiam Nullus Sullus"; they believe souls can be saved in false religions; and because of that they sacrifice truths of faith for externals and community. They have no real faith. We are truly living in the last days. We must be in constant prayer for each other. Just think of this if Bergolio were to bring back the Latin Mass would it mean anything because it would still compromise the truths of the faith for external things? We love are Latin Mass alot more than the faith itself is what they would say. Sad times, sad times. Jesus says in Luke "will he find any faith on Earth" when he returns for judgement. Keep praying the rosary.
People jumped all over me the other day on the sede channel talking about exorcism.
I had to deal with an mk. Her father, mason, had her consecrated to Satan because he wanted an executive job.
I went everywhere for help. There were several of us working on it. They even went out and got a freelance priest to do the exorcism. Without authorization from a bishop it does nothing.
They didn't like the story I gave showing Benedict had authority in the spiritual realm.
A liturgical exorcism must have the bishop's authorization, but any priest may pray prayers of deliverance.
@@anng.4542 prayers of deliverance don't work for someone who needs an exorcism.
If the sede view is correct we have no local bishops to authorize exorcisms. Satan would have full reign then.
It was crazy what I had to go through, and the wild avenues I had to go to get her help.
And in the end she was kidnapped and probably sacrificed.
Took years. Good luck trying to get help. I know people who need help now and there is no where to go. The Bishops offices are taking the victims and disappearing them in psyc wards.
They call for help, po lice come to their door, they are secretly thrown in a psych ward and disappeared.
Often times, due to HIPPA laws you can't find out what happened to them
@@anng.4542 Deliverance prayers did nothing for the possessed. Like handing a band-aid to someone who needs heart or brain surgery.
Didn't help her in the slightest. There is a reason the office of exorcist is needed. I know people who need help now and can't get it.
Bishops are disappearing them when they ask for help. The same Bishops that covered up the ped 0 problems
Another banger of a video!
God bless you!
+---------+---------+
🌹 “Pray the Rosary every day, in order to obtain Peace in the world…”
-Our Lady’s Words at Fatima
May 13th, 1917 🌹
+---------+---------+
-God bless
🌹Ave Maria🌹
+Viva Cristo Rey+
You are right,the problem of holding to the idea and tenaciously advocating to Sedevacantism,is a rupture
How so? Please specify.
My question, if anyone knows, if you are a mason, that had imposed an automatic excommunication.
If you are excommunicated, how can what you do be valid?
I understand this had to be addressed during the time of the anti Popes
It is valid because the sacraments does not depend on the holiness of the person.
ex opere operato holds that the efficacy of the sacrament is a result not of the holiness of a priest or minister, but rather of Christ himself who is the Author of each sacrament.
@@figurefour633 this isn't questioning the holiness. I answered that in the other comment. Not being in a state of grace is not the same as being excommunicated.
That's saying you are no longer valid
@@Belladictathe heresy of Donatism was condemned in the third century. The sacraments does not depend on the holiness of the person. And atheist can baptist a person. Hitler could baptize a person. All that’s need is the person being baptized believing and the person doing the baptism to do as the church intend.i.e I baptize you in the name of the Father, and the Son and The Holy Spirit. Again the sacraments depends on Jesus not the person personal holiness. If you fail to accept this it’s a matter of a lack of faith in God.
@@Belladicta ok
@@figurefour633yes but the question is not whether an atheist can baptized someone or not, it's whether someone excommunicated can be validly ordained.
There was a priest Fr Hesse, who knew Fr Malachi Martin. He claimed that there was a section removed from the prophecy of Our Lady of La Sallette, of two worm ridden Popes.
If you look at our Popes, I don't know how any of those before V2 could be those Popes.
That’s nonsense. You only need to concern yourself on you own personal holiness and not endless speculations and falsehoods. It’s a distraction. The devil is laughing!
@@figurefour633 I do concern myself with that. You are also supposed to warn others. Fatima didn't happen for no reason. It was to warn us
As Paul said the wisdom of the Lord is foolishness to those who are perishing.
Many will follow the false Church and lose their souls.
Look at the Arian Heresy. About 150 years where it was taught that Christ wasn't God.
That gonna be you ❓ Are you going to be part of the next Heresy ❓
Our Lady of La Sallette,
Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of Antichrist.
We were warned. Amos says God will always tell His friends before He does anything.
First part of Fatima was showing hell
I did my 5 First Saturdays
Another argument against sedevacantism is the people themselves. Not once have I met or heard of one who wasn't an unhinged, miserable individual in desperate need of prayers. It's just as impossible to have a rational conversation with as it is with the born again's.
Sedevacantist are 100 percent correct. So they are Anathema in your eyes instead of the novus ordite heretics?. Wow.
The sedevacantists are right. Are you denying that the traditional catholic church shouldn't be changed?
@nl396, you just love lies right?
@@Elect-Tree-Cute Thanks for proving my point with your foolish words.
@nl396 , you think the sedevacantists are the schismatic rebels huh? Instead of the schismatic heretical vatican twoers.
Hello. I'm really struggling to find the true faith.Can you PLEASE PLEASE make a video on how Vatican II doesn't contradict Vatican I, Trent, or Fluorence because it seems to me that co tradictiins do exist. Furthermore, if Catholic teaching doesn't change, how do we explain inconsistencies in the positions of former popes with slavery and death penalty?
All the previous pope’s condemnation slavery not sure where you are getting your information. Stay away from people who criticize the church because you will always be confused trying to figure out all their lies. Once you begin to believe those lies is hard to get from underneath it in
The current Pope simply isn't based enough
@@figurefour633 Thx for the reply but not really... Some popes did condemn slavery but some allowed and even supported it. How are we ought to explain this seeming inconsistency?
@@Jamric-gr8gr dont listen to these fools, they are sick with modernism.
Slavery is a lie, it doesnt happen and didnt happen anything like how these fools tell it, and the death penalty is not saying "no to life" as these neo-modern sickos put it. The death penalty is a form of punishment that prevents the innocent from bearing continuous burden from the wicked. If you do not support it, it is akin to admonishing a man from killing another in mortal defense of his wife and child. It was long held by Popes, Saints, and Scholars that you must not suffer a corruption. They ONLY began to compare this to abortion as a way to weaken your will to abortion, because the devil is speaking through these people.
On slavery, the image of the brutalized man is a complete and utter fabrication. it is to read a story of a man abusing his dog and then assume that dogs are abused by men.
Slavery was not even always permanent, often it was equal to prison work release, and slaves were simply people who had jobs they could not refuse. Considering this, the Church FORBADE THE ABUSE of slaves, and it was not until the "enlightenment" heresies began that slavery really became this evil thing that must be condemned. The church, after being filled with the smoke of satan in the 60s, then made this new stance on slavery without context, in order to again confuse you and weaken your will.
Vat2 is contradictory because it was written under supervision of high ranking members of other "religions" whom serve satan. You will find no shortage of so called "hebrews" boasting of their successful assault on the church at this time. They hate you, they hate me, they hate the church, and they absolutely hate our Lord.
this is rather easy. each council normally, not always, makes a profession or declaration of faith. read the sacred constitution of the church as defined by the ecumenical council of Florence, it is the same or similar in nature and not contradicted by the sacred constitution of the church defined by the ecumenical council of Trent, it is the same or similar in nature and not contradicted by the sacred constitution of the church defined by the first ecumenical council of the Vatican, it is the same or similar in nature and not contradicted by the sacred constitution of the church defined by the second ecumenical council of the Vatican.
the sacred constitutions or solemn declarations of the profession of faith defined in an ecumenical council is the deposit of faith of the Church. it is never contradicted but expanded to define or explain an otherwise previously contested matter of the faith: like the nature God and the trinitarian formula (325, 381 AD), the natures of Christ (431), the mother of God (451)..., the unity of the church (1448), papal infallibility(1870).
the constitutions are not long readings (approx 3 pages long at most). read them for your own peace of mind.
if you attend mass, you normally recite the profession of faith of the first councils of nicea and Constantinople: the nicean creed.
Is there a good website or resource regarding Charles Columbe’s claim that many pre-Vatican II Popes spoke heresy?
A valid pope cannot teach heresy.
@@littlerock5256Honorius?
@@christsavesreadromans1096 Pope Honorius did not sufficiently squash heresy but he did not promulgate heresy.
@@littlerock5256 Pretty sure he was condemned as a heretic in catholic councils.
8:11 So, Jeremiah 33:17 speaks in a context starting with Jesus Christ. There is still no one lacking, since Christ is still both King and Priest.
Given that His Blessed Mother is cousin of St. Elisabeth, He's a Cohen as well as a Halakhmi / Ben David.
8:45 Thank you.
You have just noted why the parallel you made between Bible and Church documents does not hold, at least not like you think it does.
15:53 What you say about exorcisms is indeed a sign the bishop has some kind of jurisdiction.
Keep in mind, I'm talking from the perspective of an adherent of Pope Michael II, who already adhered to Michael I.
Now, when it comes to marrying, taking the Church as witness, if you have no direct access to a conclavist priest, involves formally sending the Vatican in Exile proof you were married with words of the Catholic rite before two witnesses, usually after civil marriage.
However, if you involve local loosely speaking Catholic clergy, Pope Michael actually prefers you use one "as witness" who is in communion with his bishop, as he is trying to act from ordinary jurisdiction, ordinary faculties. This would certainly explain how he would have also accorded ordinaries (even if presumed or suspected to be ontologically laymen, though he never decided that formally) the _jurisdiction_ over exorcisms.
It's not a fool proof sign that they have orders, though Michael II could define they have. Even if invalidity was one of the problems the then layman David Bawden presumed as making a threat to the Church before deciding his convocation to an election, it could be that the real invalidity of papacies involve matters of doctrine even of real bishop.
But the exorcism part immediately says more about their jurisdiction.
I've been considering writing a letter to Pope Francis asking if Die Hard is a Christmas movie. If he says its not, then I would feel the sedevacantist position to be justified.
You gotta be kidding
@@bruno-bnvmYa' think? The comment section tends to get heated on papal and/or SSPX issues, so I tossed in some comic relief. That said, Die Hard is a Christmas movie.😂
@@redneckpride4ever heretic.
Good!!! I am definitely not either!!!😊
Have you read Patrick Coffin's book on Pope Francis not being a valid Pope? Just curious. His argument is quite compelling. I'm not holding that Francis is not Pope however.
The question of Francis, whatever side you come down on, is quite different from the idea of there being no valid popes for 60 years.
12:31 As you mention Thuc, whose lines Pope Michael I _defined_ as valid, the "question on his mental state" by precisely _opponents of the consecrations_ is no valid reason for doubt.
1) It is interested. Biassed. Strategic.
2) It is based on a Soviet style concept of psychiatry, where believing "religious delusions" can be a reason for questioning the mental state.
3) Thuc (at least then and there) didn't and the ones questioning did hold the position "the real episcopacy is in danger" as a kind of delusion.
We are a very far cry from when a doctor took the pulse of Bernadette Soubirous and noted she was not in a state of excitation, therefore it was not madness.
The opposition to Sedevacantism with Orthopapism taking on this kind of Soviet overtones is obviously yet another reason to reject the validity of the "in Vatican" recent "papacies" ... and the Catholicity of those in communion with them.
3:56 1) The Catholic Church _never_ said that a man has no right to have his own understanding of the Bible on any point.
Trent Session IV sets certain limits for the own understanding:
* it must not countervene what the Church hath held and holds (that Church for which it is to _judge_ = pronounce binding sentence on the Bible)
* nor the unanimous sentence of the Church Fathers
Relying on ones own understanding is not an extra first situation which is forbidden, it's a dangerous situation which can function as a precursor to the two forbidden ones (it may be understood they are only forbidden with this prequel, so that for instance someone materially contradicting the magisterium or Church Fathers in the false belief brought on by someone else that he was following them would not be guilty, but this does still not mean that "proprio ingenio innisi" is a parallel rather than a precursor to _wresting_ Scriptures to an _idiosyncratic_ sense contrary to above limits).
2) The Bible is a collection of texts written in languages other than Latin in a pre-Christian culture.
We cannot presume all of the Bible is utterly obscure, but we must presume lots less obscurity for Church documents written in Latin in a Christian culture.
3) There has never been a formal ban for anyone, even a layman, to read the Church documents on his own. There have been restrictions for laymen to read Scripture on their own, but never Church documents.
Lol "a different man named Cephus" right another guy in the same area with the same contacts that fits the description who is also named Rock. Right....
Read St. Jerome's Commentary on Galatians. Jerome thought Cephas was not Peter.
Regardless, this is an open question, thus significantly undermining an #irrelevance often wielded as a #defeater.
I really wish we could discuss this issue without turning into a formal "debate." Dimond is VERY combative and not open to discussion - it's always attack, attack, attack. You seem more reasonable. What bothers me most about sedevacantists is not their arguments but their disposition and certainty. It seems everything they say could be applied to the whole Magisterium - there's a lurking Protestantism behind it, methinks.
So Frances is just a bad pope and valid. It’s just so confusing. I will stick with the old. I pray for Francis conversion everyday.
If Francis needs conversion he isn't Catholic, and if he isn't Catholic he isn't the pope.
@@littlerock5256 It is not licit to utter error in any prayer. "Pope" Francis is error but surely pray for the man Bergoglio even though he seems dedicated to Satan.,
@@leevjr686 I don't even know what my comment was because it appears to have been removed. But, indeed, he should not be called pope and therefore one should not attend any Mass that names Bergoglio as such in the Canon.
@@leevjr686 I agree. Therefore attend no Mass that names Francis as the pope.
@@littlerock5256 That's kinda difficult since this happens midway in the Mass. Most all Masses do this error and other errors but I have decided to show effort by attending when and where I can. I don't have to pray for the Pope, or agree with altered Scripture like Genesis 3:15. I pray the going to count to my credit and I know I am not responsible for any sin by others. Other blessings happen even where Vatican II has caused destruction by praying the Rosary with the others and also I'm there to share what I have learned should the occasion arise. I also follow along in my First Communion Missal (1956), respond in Latin and receive only on the tongue. Thanks for the Grace of a reply. Pax Dómini
Many Saints, like St Francis, talk about God sending an uncannonically elected Pope to destroy the Church in the end.
Many prophecies say it will seem as though the Church is wiped from the face of the earth. But, there will be a remnant.
Ven Catherine Emmerich spoke about in the end, there will be barely 100 priests who are still Catholic.
That’s false what you are saying St Francis said.
@@figurefour633 it's approved by the Church. Look it up. I've even got it on one of my playlists lists.
Look up our Lady of La Sallette also approved by the Church.
Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist
@@figurefour633 “A Man, not Canonically Elected, will be raised to the Pontificate… In those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor, but a Destroyer” - St Francis Assisi.
there are countless prophesies just like that, Pope Leo XIII, St Augustine, etc.
@@TeamCavalier123 That’s falsehood. Fake.
@@figurefour633 it's not, some people claim that the quote can be attributed to the people of his order, of his time. but you'd need to prove that, not that it matters, if it wasnt him that said it, itd likely reflect what he believed since that was the belief then and there, and it's kind of obvious as well that that's how the world will come to an end
13:02 Note that he only said sth about withholding intention about Clemente Dominguez, and you do not mention when he said it, even that could have been under some kind of duress, after making up with Vatican II holders, as part of the conditions of reconciliation, or because he was ashamed of the man when watching his carreere. As an ex-Palmarian, I can see reasons for such shame. Denying one had the intention could have been a way to safe face, as the Asiatics say.
Either way, we cannot extrapolate from that that he randomly withheld intention for several other people.
14:18 There would be another doubt on the Lefebvre lineage, as to bishops.
The question about mental status for Thuc and for Lefebvre has some similarities.
New releases of the footage about the consecrations leave out parts of the "apostolic mandate" passage.
It's most credible, and was the position finally of Michael I, that Lefebvre used "I hear the Popes of the past plead with me" was a figure of speech, or referring to how his thought process dramatised in an auditory visualisation, but I think the wording was such that some psychiatry friendly people _could_ argue he based his apostolic mandate on a hallucination. A highly misused concept, putting lots of sane people into mental care, especially when dealing with "auditory hallucinations" ... (I think some in France might abuse it _also,_ not by pretending the visualisation was a hallucination rather than a fantasy experienced as such, but if the one experiencing it rather than dismiss it because it is in the imagination instead _judges_ it is from God, an abuse which I hope is not covered by DSMH-V, but I am not sure).
My point is not that this is not a very devious way of opposing the FSSPX, it is very devious, my point is that Thuc probably faced the _same kind_ of deviousness.
By the way, I think in the Thuc case, there was no sister who made comments about his mental status at the near exact time.
What's wrong with Vatican II? FAQs
1. What is wrong with the Second Vatican Council?
The Second Vatican Council taught doctrines which had been already condemned by the Church, and enacted disciplines which are contrary to the Church's teaching and constant practice.
2. What doctrines did it teach which were already condemned?
There are four major errors concerning: (1) the unity of the Church; (2) ecumenism; (3) religious liberty; (4) collegiality.
3. What false doctrine does it teach concerning the unity of the Church?
Vatican II teaches heresy concerning the unity of the Church, namely that the Church of Christ is not exclusively identified with the Catholic Church, but merely subsists in it. This heretical doctrine is contained principally in Lumen Gentium, and its heretical meaning is confirmed in statements of Paul VI and his successors, particularly in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, in the 1992 Statement concerning Church and Communion, and in the Ecumenical Directory.
It is contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, contained principally in Satis Cognitum of Pope Leo XIII, Mortalium Animos of Pope Pius XI, Mystici Corporis of Pope Pius XII, and in the condemnations of the "Branch Theory" made by the Holy Office under Pope Pius IX.
4. What false doctrine does it teach concerning ecumenism?
The teaching of Vatican II concerning ecumenism, which states that non-Catholic religions are a "means of salvation," is overtly heretical. This doctrine directly contradicts the teaching of the Church that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, called by Pope Pius IX "a most well-known Catholic dogma." In addition, the ecumenical practices which have resulted from this heretical doctrine are directly contrary to Mortalium Animos of Pope Pius XI.
5. What false doctrine does it teach concerning religious liberty?
The teaching of Vatican II on religious liberty, contained in Dignitatis Humanae, nearly word for word asserts the very doctrine which was condemned by Pope Pius VII in Post Tam Diuturnas, by Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos, by Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura, and by Pope Leo XIII in Libertas Praestantissimum. The teaching of Vatican II on religious liberty also contradicts the royalty of Jesus Christ in society as expressed in Quas Primas of Pope Pius XI, and the constant attitude and practice of the Church with regard to civil society.
6. What false doctrine does it teach concerning collegiality?
The teaching of Vatican II concerning collegiality alters the monarchical constitution of the Catholic Church, with which she was endowed by the Divine Savior. The doctrine of Vatican II, confirmed by the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which states that the subject (the possessor) of the supreme authority of the Church is the college of bishops together with the pope, is contrary to the defined doctrine of the Council of Florence and of Vatican I.
7. What is wrong with the disciplines which have emanated from Vatican II?
The 1983 Code of Canon Law contains the heresy of Vatican II concerning the Church, mentioned above. It also permits sacrilege to the Blessed Sacrament, by approving of its reception by non-Catholics, which is a mortal sin, and permits communicatio in sacris (common public worship) with non-Catholics, which is a mortal sin. In addition, the Ecumenical Directory of 1993 permits ecumenical practices which have always been taught by the Church to be mortally sinful.
8. What does all this mean?
It means that Vatican II and its subsequent reforms have given us a new religion, a religion which is substantially different from the Roman Catholic Faith founded by Christ.
The reformers have substantially altered the three main components of religion: doctrine, worship, and discipline. The result is that the reformers are promoting a religion of ecumenism in place of the Roman Catholic religion, which has always taught that it alone is the one, true Faith, and that all other religions are false. The Vatican II religion teaches doctrines which have been condemned by the Church in the past. It has instituted rites and disciplines which are Protestant in nature.
As a result, the religion which Catholics find in their local parishes and schools, although in name Catholic, is a new, non-Catholic religion already condemned by the Catholic Church.
9. Could it be that you are merely giving a bad interpretation to Vatican II?
No. The heretical nature of this council is confirmed by:
the doctrinal interpretation given to Vatican II by Paul VI and his successors in their decrees, encyclicals, catechisms, etc.;
the series of abominations perpetrated by John Paul II against the First Commandment of God, in the form of ecumenical ceremonies which constitute false worship, even to pagan deities in some cases;
the alteration of the Sacred Liturgy in such a way that the Catholic Mass has been replaced by a Protestant supper service;
the tampering with the matter and form of the sacraments so that many of them, but most notably the Holy Eucharist and Holy Orders, labor under doubt or invalidity;
the promulgation of disciplines, especially the 1983 Code of Canon Law and the Ecumenical Directory, which approve of sacrilege against the Holy Eucharist and the Sacrament of Matrimony, and which demonstrate heresies concerning the unity of the Church as their theoretical basis;
the scandalous mockery made of the Sacrament of Matrimony by the granting of annulments for spurious reasons, constituting an abandonment of the sacred doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage;
the fact that John Paul II is in communion with manifest heretics, has openly declared himself to be in communion with non-Catholic sects, and has recognized an apostolic mission in schismatic and Lutheran bishops, all of which destroys the unity of faith. He has even kissed the Koran, which explicitly denies the Incarnation and the Trinity. He has also publicly prayed that St. John the Baptist protect Islam.
Since Vatican Two was a pastoral council and not a single article was presented as binding on the Faithful (e.g., "whoever denies this doctrine, let him be anathema. "), it's just an annoying distraction-an editorial.
@@sanjivjhangiani3243
I'm confused of what that means?
Nothing, if you're #Satan.
Don’t the Dimond Bros reject the Prophecies of the Great Catholic Monarch?
Will you do a video debunking their claims?
They also don't accept baptism of desire
The entire goal of MHFM is to instill fear in people to control them and make them only review and purchase material from their site. They're sick. They think they have the authority to point the finger at everyone and their mothers, telling them they are all going to hell. He plays God and paints God as evil and not loving. You can see how miserable they always look on video, the dude needs to touch grass.
Most Holy Family “Monastery” has man weird beliefs
@@steakfilly5199 He did expose Taylor Marshall though. So, did Novus Odor Watch
@@Belladicta No, You dont accept baptism of desire.
You believe in a false doctrine that has named itself "baptism of desire".
This is what you currently believe, whether you understand it or not:
A person can actively hate the Lord with all his heart in full earnest for his entire life, he can die with this hatred, and when he is to be judged he will be shown that he was wrong, and he can then chose to either go to heaven or to hell.
if you believe the so called "baptism of desire" then you might as well be an orthodox.
Dimond isnt always right, but in that her is certainly not wrong, this is a wicked idea that is spread along with the so called "divine mercy" which aims to prevent souls from turning from hell.
Bingo
There have ALWAYS been bad Popes & Bishops. We are going thru a PRETTY ROUGH TIME. I yearn for the time we had 4 GREAT POPES in a row. Popes Pius IX, Leo XXIII, Pius X & Pius XI.
10:25 Conclavists don't claim it was broken.
I'd like to have the specifics on Charles Coulombe's pretense that the council counted several times past popes were in heresy.
Honorius may have believed that Jesus had one will, but he never said so, he seems to say "it's an insoluble problem, don't bother" which is bad enough.
This cannot be compared to issuing CCC with paragraphs 283 and 390.
That it's "not up for individual discernment" is a very moot point. If remaining Catholic while accepting "Francis" or previously "Benedict" or "John Paul II" as Pope has become a matter of individual discernment rather than of straight off obedience to straight off orders, then there is no valid reason why precisely "such and such is a heretic, therefore not a Pope" should not also be at the disposal of at least initially, individual discernment.
Under Michael II, I don't hold it by individual discernment, I hold it under my Pope.
Empty See since Pius XII, which, in the length of years, is but a second.
Vatican 2 is a mere blip.
If you read Vatican 2 judiciously, cover to cover, every prostitution of the mass and the sacraments did not follow any writing there. All that mess came out of Paul VI's and his kowtower's minds. Which by definition is prohibited.
In the end, is useless to fight about it because the true Church is going underground. Read and reread the various prophesies. The throne of Peter _needs not be physically in Rome_ which, will be destroyed anyway.
The difference you refuse to acknowledge is the following: past Popes who were sinful, were doing their will. Paul 6th and the rest after him have purposefully eroded and attacked THE FAITH. The one most dedicated to that attack is Bergoglio. Such behavior is an altogether different thing.
Considering we are at the end of a 12068 year's sun cycle (allegedly at the end of the 2040's), and that most probably another earth flip with its normal life devastation is due, we should not be particularly concerned with who is right or who is wrong.
Spend that time preparing for a good death and for eternal life.
Bugnini.
0:41 "Blessing sinful unions" is a lie against the Magisterium. The Fiducia Supplicans itself and also later clarifications regarding the document by both Fernandez and Pope Francis emphasize the sinners/sin-distinction and that the "blessing" is not approval, but an invocation for Grace to turn away from the sinful irregular/same-sex relationship.
Exactly!
Yes again such unions cannot blessed in general either..By blessing the union your blessing the sin…The document is a wordy document.Many cardinals and canon lawyers say it’s an heresy,even the orthodox Coptic church refused to go in communion with Rome because of fiducia supplicans.So 20years work gone down the drain
Look. It was very obviously worded to give people "the wrong impression".
Ultimately, a law is what it does.
I agree that people make way to big a deal over it, but the document _is_ scandalous, and there's a reason why many of the controlled bishops took it as a license to bless sin.
@@marvalice3455 I can't help but disagree. Anyone who stops for a second and distinguishes between a couple and an union, it's clear that "couple" refers to two individuals. It's like "marriage" is different from "a married couple".
@@EL-dx5ts oh yeah sure.
Also you aren't actually upset about people not likely the document. You might think you are, but if you look into it, they only want to preserve the purity of the church! So it's not possible that it bothers you.
According to Cardinal Franzelin, the chief theologian at V1, perpetual successors means that the office shall remain in perpetuity and not that an incumbent shall always sit in the Chair, because of interregnums.
Nowhere does the Church teach on how long an interregnum may last.
You comparing us to Protestants with their private interpretation of scripture is laughable. Scripture isn't open to interpretation, Magisterial documents are what are known as the proximate rule of faith. The Magisterium gives us the authentic interpretation of these sources and have already been interpreted. A further interpretation Magisterial documents are not required
I wasnt comparing Sedes, alone. We all do it. Not just sedes
The Devil can FAKE Humility but he can never FAKE Obedience.
@user-kb4dv1ud3f I believe I have seen it quoted by one of the Saints.
@@Darth_Vader258 ,
I believe I am Santa sometimes.
Obedience to what is it pachamama or same sex blessing etc. You don't obey, what is contrary to God's laws or the defined truths of the Church. We were warned of wolves in sheep clothing, so by their fruits you should know them.
7:56 Yeah, I'm very much _not_ impressed by Peter Dimond's rebuttal.
The situation in my view _can_ be compared to the Western Schism if there are three papal claimants, Michael II, Peter III and "Francis" and one of them is validly Pope.
Also, while Pope Michael I to my best knowledge made no formal ruling that Novus Ordo rites are invalid, he did make one validating:
* Duarte Costa lineage
* _some_ Old Catholic lineage
* Thuc lineage
* Lefebvre lineage.
He can be presumed to have not disputed Eastern rite lineage, even after Vatican II. Everyone is presumed to not dispute Eastern Orthodox lineage as valid, though illicit.
But Sedevacantists proper, who hold the sedevacancy is still ongoing, have less reason to compare to the Western Schism.
Jeremiah 33:17 is completely different in the Septuagint Orthodox study Bible. It has ni resemblance to the Masoretic text.
If so, so?
Be sure to study Marie's connection to the ark of the covenant... because the arks journey is very much symbolicly relived in her life with things said to her ...u tube this interesting topic ....u tube (mary and the ark ark of the covenant )...or something similar..it's worth it
Mary is, in a way, the second Ark of the Covenant
7:01 Noted. If my position denies perpetual successors, it makes me excommunicated latae sententiae.
This can be the case with Sedevacantists who hold a vacancy has been going on for now soon 74 years.
It does not damn the position that Pope Michael II was elected after a vacancy of nearly one year. It most probably does not damn the position that Pope Michael I was elected after a vacancy of 32 years, after Pius XII, but on top of that, this need not even be considered, he was open to his election being within _one_ year of a valid but sinful Siri papacy.
One reason for sedevacantists to not accept new elections, one mentioned recently by I think Bishop Pivarunas, was "what if the see _isn't_ vacant but secretly held by a successor of Siri" ... a successor of Siri made in a secret election consenting from start to remain Pope in secret only would not be a Pope. Siri could have been validly Pope if:
* he was validly elected and accepted (white smoke)
* under duress and without inner assent abdicated (black smoke, followed by "false" white smoke)
* took up the sinful position of "being in the catacombs" by denying he was Pope, by pretending to be cardinal under false Popes.
Note, in such a case, his papacy would have begun validly, since he would have not had this sinful intention when taking up papacy.
But a successor taking up papacy with this sinful intention would ipso facto invalidate his papacy. The Church is not a secret society. Popes and cardinals may act as secret agents on other issues (like saving Jews in WW-II, they did), but the job description for a Pope or Cardinal is definitely _not_ to be a secret agent operating visibly under the umbrella of someone else's false papacy.
A sedevacancy being prolonged as long as 40 years (1950 -- 1990 = 40, if Pius XII lost papacy with Humanae Generis; 1958 -- 1990 < 40) was considered during the discussions of the council, and not condemned.
A sedevacancy of about 1 year, if Siri was validly but sinfully Pope, very certainly does not amount to a denial of perpetual successors.
You and many others will do everything possible to cope your way out of sedevacantism. The spiritual blindness is so great that I think you simply do not want the truth but institutions and buildings.
There is no blessings of sinful unions.
It's true, but this will back fire on clown world. A blessing on a sin becomes a curse, and a curse on something sacred becomes a blessing.
God cannot be mocked
@@marvalice3455 no, I mean literally, the church is not issuing blessings to sinful unions. That’s not what Feducia Suplicans does.
@@DJScootagroov have you read it?
I'm not asking if you watched a lifton video about, I'm asking if _you_ read it _personally_?
@@marvalice3455 yes. It says specifically, the blessing must not be confused for a sacramental blessing such as a marriage, and those seeking it “must not be seeking a legitimation of their situation”
In other words, the church is not telling them their union is okay. The blessing for them to break free of the sinful desires that keep them in it.
@@DJScootagroov as I said elsewhere. A document is what it does.
So, what has the effect of the document been?
10:32 Er, no.
1) Infallibility does not mean impeccability
2) It's not certain that Cephas in Galatians 2 actually is Peter
3) If it was, he took the rebuke of his inferior
4) he was not in fact excommunicating uncircumcised Christians, he was not using magisterial means, just social means of expressing an unwarranted disparagement.
Sedevecantists come across just like protestants to me, they use very similar logic in their arguments.
Then, you should have little difficulty defeating their arguments. Go.
I wonder if sedes existed all throughout church history
Literally anything happens:
Sedes: its over the Church has fallen
I mean, Protestants were basically the sedevecantists of their time.
Have #popes died throughout #Church #history?
'Literally anything happens:
Sedes: its over the Church has fallen'
Please _literally_ provide even _one_ instance of a Sede asserting, "It's over. The #Church has fallen."
@@RealLeFishe ,
Please #demonstrate the #veracity of the #proposition '#Protestants were basically the -sedevecantists- [#Sedevacantists ] of their time.'
@@NDGere well them saying “Rome will lose Faith” and “Vatican was been infiltrated” is a contradiction of Matthew 16:18
I thoroughly enjoy your channel but in my view anyone who says that the fiducia supplicans document "is the blessing of sinful unions" without fully qualifying the conditions for these blessings, has either not read the document for themselves or has conveniently left that clause out.
I already covered all that in a separate video.
The Most Holy Family Monastery ( MHFM) of Fillmore, New York, under Brothers Peter and Michael Dimond, are Sedevacantists, and, call Themselves " Traditional Catholics"( Trad Cats) . I Myself, John Rodriguez, was born at 0917( 9:17 AM) on Thursday 03 April AD 1969, in Brooklyn ( Kings County) , New York, and raised in Anderson ( Anderson County) , South Carolina, under the Novus Ordo Missae, promulgated by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, convened from 11 October AD 1962 to 07 December AD 1965. Do you NOT think that if Tucson ( Pima County), Arizona, had a Traditional Catholic Church with the Latin ( Roman Rite) Mass was celebrated , that, I would not be a new parishioner? Of course, I would. For now, this Latin ( Roman Rite) Catholic Christian has to settle for the Eastern ( Oriental Rite) Ukrainian Catholic Church.🇺🇲🇺🇲❤️🇻🇦🇻🇦✝️☦️🛐📖🙏⛪🕊️👼😇
It’s important to understand that even tho many may now be sedes they could still be schismatics for dissent against the Pope
3:34 opopop ... the anathemas are latae setentiae excommunications for later people falling into them.
If someone in the mid 16th C. held that God did not die for all men, he was excommnicated by the council.
If he then went on to still believe that after Trent defined otherwise, he was already excommunicated latae sententiae, by the sentence of Trent, before he could be (possibly) excommunicated in person before his bishop in a ferenda sententia. Modern canonists have been too critical of the latae sententiae model. It does not deprive someone of due process, as they claim. If someone is presumed to have fallen under a latae sententiae punishment and he disputes it, like "such and such a circumstance means I wasn't doing what the law is talking about" the sentence can be retroactively as well as onward lifted after hearing his case.
A famous example of this possibility in action lately is, a) sententia declarativa in 1988 saying that Lefebvre, Castro-Mayer, Williamson, Galareta, Tissier de Malleray and Fellay had incurred a latae sententiae punishment, to wit excommunication, for the consecrations in Écône, both those conferring and those receiving, b) the lifting of the excommunications in 2007. Whereupon Mgr Williamson was personally excommunicated (if truly so) for holocaust denial.
So, yes, the anathemas very much _do_ function as latae sententiae excommunications on "successors" should they presume to change the faith.
Take a look at CCC § 283 and later § 390 with its context. Confer Session V on Original Sin, where the first three canons definitely presume there was a literal first man referred to as Adam, and that original sin was incurred by his personal choice.
Like Cum Ex Apostolatus, there really was an intention of setting a booby trap for apostates in office.
16:15 Wait, not just episcopal jurisdiction, but also holy water and more especially eucharist?
What you just said after that would perhaps be the strongest argument against John Paul II being a heretic.
How credible is it a person who was in the exterior a heretic was not so before God and was therefore a saint that can be invoked?
In fact, my mother, before I left her, had prayed the rosary with me. She had some understanding of the Catholic faith and intended to convert. Yet, she remained in a civil marriage (or perhaps made it a Lutheran one) which the Catholic Church did not recognise, and she was buried by a Lutheran clergyman. Nevertheless, she seems to have prayed for me. I prefer saying "ora pro nobis" over "requiescat in pace" -- you are free to do otherwise, but if so, try ora pro nobis first, and _if_ that fails, pray a rosary for her repose!
It can be added, in Sweden she was under some extreme duress.
Hess was wrong. Bellarmine stated that Catholics who withdrew communion from Liberius upon hearing rumors that he compromised with the Arians were justified even if mistaken. Accepting a heretic like JP II has a member and head of the church after seeing his idolatrous assisi prayer events, teaching that Christ United himself to every man, cult of man, that every man is God, kissing the koran, praying at Gandhi’s tomb etc. has no faith whatsoever, they are drawn to physical buildings & vestments/robes over FAITH.
Mortalium Animos teaches that the church must remain visible, apparent, and exactly as Christ instituted it. Which you cannot accept as a sedevacantist.
@@christsavesreadromans1096 That’s a Non-Sequitur. Sedevacantists are quite visible
Sedevacantism is not a religion or a sect or even a solution to the confusion in the Church, but rather a rational conclusion (that the Apostolic See is presently vacant) based upon the perennial catholic principles found in the church's ordinary & extraordinary magisterium e.g., ecumenical councils, Apostolic Constitutions & papal encyclicals. It upholds the catholic concept of what the Papacy truly is, avoiding heresies from either coming from the left, such as its total rejection or from the right, such as recognize & resist.
Yes, but even if it is superficially reasonable - and I grant that it is - it is neither unassailable, nor beyond reasonable doubt. Worse - as would be expected from a superficially rational but false belief - it is very vulnerable to out-of-context questions/critiques. For example, even if the Sede position is entirely correct, where is the prophetic warnings, the signs and wonders, the public and indisputable prodigies, that would serve to correct those who through no or little fault of their own were led astray by the evil pretender of the Church?
Sedevacantism contradicts the Word of Christ Who said the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against my Church.
@@desertrat1111 I hold that interpretation myself, but there are some who hold the interpretation that the gates of hell shall not prevail while the rock holds. so if the rock is taken away, the gates of hell will prevail.
@@SarahD-uy5pf Benedict
I agree that sedevacantism can be just a rational conclusion, a private opinion, that this or that pope cannot truly be the pope because they are not Catholic, and therefore sedevacantism is not necessarily wrong, sinful, heretical, or schismatic. But I think in the real world it's typically more than that. It's people setting up their own churches, doing the somewhat shady consecrations, anathematizing everyone else, telling other Catholics they are in a "sect" when they are not, claiming all priests are now invalid and there is no Eucharist except in their tiny little church in Nowheresville, OH, etc.
6:51 your “perpetual successors” argument has been destroyed so many times. When we understand this we clearly see the meaning of this canon. This is emphasized at the end by the words “or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in the same primacy” let him be anathema. The canon is not declaring that we will have a pope at all times or that there won’t be gaps (even long extended gaps), as we clearly have had. The meaning of the canon is clear from what it says. It condemns those who deny that Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy - that is, those who deny that every time there is a true and lawful pope until the end of time he is a successor in the same primacy, with the same authority that St. Peter possessed.
This canon proves nothing for the non-sedevacantist, but it does prove something for us. Francis doesn’t believe in the papacy, he teaches that the Eastern Orthodox should not be converted to the catholic faith, that’s manifest heresy. He even signs mutual agreements with their “patriarchs” as to not convert each other. Sorry if you can’t see that then you have no faith
You make a lot of claims without a basis of authority. You know playing God and telling everyone and their mothers that they are going to Hell is also manifest heresy, yet the Dimond Sisters do it all the time. Tell them to touch grass. They look absolutely miserable in all of their videos and paint God as an evil dictator.
@@TruLuan who are the Dimond sisters? It’s two brothers
@@deus_vult8111 No, they're not Brothers. They're little girls who think they know everything.
It’s impossible for a true pope to preach a new gospel. Francis preaches a new gospel, ergo he is not a true pope.
You are a Sede Troll. You are on every Sede video and think you are superior to God, you think that you have the authority to point the finger at everyone and their mothers, and tell them that they will "burn in hell for accepting V2". You Sede's paint God as such an unloving father. Your masters, the Dimond bros, look like they haven't touched grass their entire lives.
@@TruLuan ,
For an alleged 'Sede Troll,' they seem pretty sluggish in their responses. _You,_ on the other hand...
1:10 There is another way of not being sedevacantist. Orthopapism.
Is the real Pope Michael II or Peter III? Does he reside in the Philippines or in Spain?
Gay unions are not being blessed. Did you read the document?
The concern is that "the document" represents the camel's nose under the tent. And it's already being done, for example, by James Martin.
@@anng.4542Not quite. Fr. Martin's problem with the blessing is not that it blessed the union.
But rather, that it did not look spontaneous, but rather planned.
How spontaneous and unplanned it was that a gay couple, a New York Times photographer were together at the same time with a priest.
What a coincidence.
@@pistumthe document is a wordy one and is heresy too…
@@rosaryjovan1490 Yes, according to your limited understanding.
You will be reviewed. BELIEVE IT!
What does that mean?
@@imisschristendom5293 The believe it part is from Naruto. The other part is...I review content for my channel. 🥳🥳
ty for all your hard work, except did you have to put music tracks in?
I always do. Judging from your name it doesn't sound like it will be a good review
Just looked your channel. Nope its not.
Oh well. Have fun
@@imisschristendom5293 Keep doing the good stuff. Thanks
@@imisschristendom5293 Matthew 7: 22 Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity
I found your reasoning lacking, your two primary points, Demons being tossed out and Eucharistic Miracles, I also found weak. The first the above Scripture stands as an objection (which means your religion is ANTI-biblical) but not all the "Eucharistic Miracles" of your religion are defensible.
But Interregnumism is not Sedevacantism.
Become Orthodox
And reject the biblically evident filioque? Be associated with a religion that allows divorce and contraception? No thank you.
@user-kb4dv1ud3f Don't you guys consider eastern and Oriental Orthodox as part of "the one true church". And didn't one of the popes say Christians and Muslims pray to the same God?
user-kb4dv1ud3f
Okay I'll give you that I was wrong about your guys view of the Orthodox Church. But in fairness I was told this by people in the only Catholic Church in my area that didn't have a pride progress flag. So I thought I could trust them lol.
Ok I'm a little confused if the sacraments are the means of salvation. And the Orthodox are valid then how come they are still damned? I understand the eastern Orthodox view because they believe that your guys sacraments are invalid. Also what about eastern Catholic that practice the same way as eastern Orthodox but they just submit to the pope.
@@igd1315 I don't know what the other guy said, but antipope benedict xvi did claim that your priests are pastors within the church. the belief also popularly held by all vatican 2 "catholics" is that you're in partial communion with the Church by rite of your baptism, which is a position that florence condemned - you are outside the Church. bergoglio also made a bunch of oriental "orthodox martyrs" "saints" recently. the correct Catholic teaching from prior to vatican 2 is that your sacraments are valid, but you receive them to the ruin of your own soul. so you can consecrate the Eucharist, however when you eat it outside the Church, you partake in His crucifixion and you sin mortally. as for baptism, you receive water baptism, but none of the sanctifying grace, however, you do go onto receive the effects of that baptism when you renounce your heretical beliefs and make an act of faith, etc.
as for the muslim thing, nostrae atatae #3 in vatican 2 bound all the faithful to the idea that allah is God. people dance around the issue saying its just a matter of acknowledging that they believe in 1 god, but that ofc doesn't work, most pagan religions will claim that all their gods are emanations of a one true false idol, just like islam. and if you look at nostrae atatae #4 just after, you can see that the men that wrote it were just straight up evil, they claim that the jews' covenant was never revoked, denying the divinity of Christ - so they tried to bind all the faithful to worshipping allah and denying Christ. people then claim that they're somehow not antipopes despite the 40 past antipopes never got anywhere near that level of apostasy.
check out vaticancatholic if you wanna save your soul though, i take it you're "orthodox" or looking into it. id say look into arguments from "orthodox" people defending their denial of florence being an ecumenical council and you'll see how hilariously silly their position is, they accepted all these things they claim to deny like purgatory.
Why?
You are a dissenter…
Sedes are cringe. Also trad caths get out of your bubble, there are plenty of good fruits of Vatican II/Novus Ordo, look at Catholicism growing in South America, Asia, and Africa. The bad fruits that you assume are results from Vatican II are actually the result of a general liberalization and degeneration of the west. I go to Novus Ordo at many parishes in Toronto Canada, one of the most liberal places in the world and the vast majority are reverent. Focus on better catechesis and stop blaming the popes,councils/novus ordo.
The Vatican II sect is the Whore of Babylon. The Church is in eclipse
You are blaspheming!
You are not a Sedevacantist because you lack Supernatural faith. Period.
You mean the opposite right?
dimond burner account spotted
@@joker18524 There are more Sedes than the dimonds, I reviewed the above video on last Sunday's episode.
@@SedePicanteit would legit be the other way around. To not have supernatural faith would be to believe that Christ allowed His church to fall to heresy, therefore breaking people down into small groups and leaving them without a pope, yknow the very thing He established to preserve unity?
Oh my goshhhhh did this dude ACTUALLY say the church blesses sinful unions? It LITERALLY SAYS it does not in the Vatican document. Freaken read. It’s 20 minutes