The series as a whole follows a kind of Thomistic outline, one that rationally examines all aspects of a subject, and doesn't focus on the emotional and reactional. It should be required viewing for anyone who wonders what happened to the Church since the Council. Since it's the Society, most people won't watch it because they have their minds made up, but they absolutely should.
Been attending the SSPX for over a year now after many years in the Conciliar structure. No more contradictions. The Catholic faith is being preserved here until the Modernists have their day and die off. Pray for the NO to die!
I'm with you on the SSPX. I started attending Feb 2022. Left the NO in the '84/'85 era. It is quite different today. Even if the NO Mass went back to a more reverential and hallowed format that would be a great start. Toss out the heresy. Clean house at the highest levels if needed. Start standing for those principles that made us stand out not too many decades earlier... Blessings to you my friend in Christ Velox Versutus Vigilans
This is so hard because I have listened to some of their arguments and they make sense but then I understand how if they say there is no pope then they say Jesus lied. Living through this insanity is so hard. I would NEVER leave the bark of Peter but I will not listen to a pope who wants to destroy the church and spreads nothing but confusion! God help us get through this!!!
I have been flirting with sedevacantism for a long time not so much because I believed it but because the crisis in the Church has been so testing of my faith. I almost WANTED it to be true because it would be so much easier. But this talk has truly put the nail in the coffin for me on this position. We simply live in trying times but I will not lose faith. The SSPX exists. That is proof alone that God has not abandoned his Church
You: I almost WANTED it to be true because it would be so much easier. Marina Knife: the subject in reality is so much more complicated than some make it out to be
We must affirm sede vacante in order to maintain the dogma of the indefectible nature of the Church. If sedevacantism is false, the Catholic Church gave us an evil Mass, had a Magisterium that taught heresy for 64 years and counting, taught heresy in an Ecumenical Council, and Canonized heretics as Saints. In other words, if sedevacantism is false, then the Church defected.
Very glad I watched this - the subject in reality is so much more complicated than some make it out to be. The information in the discussion has clarified some of the issues for me & eased the problem with all the awful things that chip away at ones faith. Thank you for putting these talks together.
I disagree with Father's conclusions, but if he would be willing, I strongly implore him to debate Boshop Sanborn or Father Desposito publicly for the benefit of the faithful. If this position is true, then it behooves the SSPX to engage in debate - pitting their best theologians against the best of the sedevacantists. I implore you to ask him
Just want to know how sedevacantist priests receive orders. For example, to divorce a woman from her husband. To tell a parishioner that he can not receive the sacraments anymore. Among other things. Can one of these sedevacantist priests make these decisions on his own. If anybody who is sedevacantist, please answer these questions
@@bweatherman3345 well as far as I understand this notion of jurisdictional order: the priests under Bishop Sanborn receive their jurisdiction from him. He has consecrated by Robert McKenna and you call follow their line of episcopal succession back from there. Interestingly it actually stretches back into the Chaldean Catholic Church. The way the priest discusses the notion of order he presents I find vague.
The Norvus Ordo religion is not Catholic, therefore the Pope's of that religion are not Pope's of the true and valid Roman Catholic church. The recognise and resist position of the SSPX makes no sense what so ever I cannot agree with this priest as his argument makes no sense at all. On the other hand Bp Sanborn makes perfect sense and is logical. The SSPX confuse the faithful. Their founder said himself that the Rome has lost the faith and is in Apostasy, that their priest's are not genuine priests and also their bishops and their liturgy. This is utter confusion. The only way to be is Sedevecantist as the Norvus Ordo Pope's are the supreme Pontiffs of a secular non Catholic religion.
It is not difficult for an educated Catholic to determine when any Catholic is spewing heresy in a clear cut case (for example; "Souls destined for hell are annihilated and cease to exist"). This is not "judging the Pope", it is, instead, recognizing clear heresy.
You are not judging the pope when you recognize that he is teaching and refuses to stop teaching heresy even though charitably admonished many times.. He is not the pope but a non catholic who has made himself so. It is not you who have made him a reprobate and a dead branch bu judging him to be a heretic. He has done it himself in his perverse bad will, as St. Paul teaches. When you judge him to be a heretic he is no longer a pope or anything you cannot judge. And of course in judging this antipope you do not think to pass final judgement on his soul, for he may repent and save himself. But such conversions from pertinacious heresy are very rare and some would say non-existent.
Thank you father for your clear explanation of the sedevacantist perspective and the position of the SSPX. Thank you! We want to know how we can continue to be faithful Catholics and find our way (in peace) through these long long years of modernism corrupting our sacred home and failing our children. You explained so beautifully how we can always be Catholic, no matter what a particular pope is doing..and how we can continue to be joyful in our faith. God bless you.
I've been saying this before I even knew of the SSPX. The hierarchy is nonessential to celebrating the Mass. These Bishops and Cardinals have lost discipline.
Don Tranquillo is brilliant! Maybe he could do another video about supplied jurisdiction as such? This is now more a historical topic but I think it’s important for the activity of the Society.
33:30 I was just putting together a table comparing various groups and their reactions to the Crisis, and I observed that so far as I could tell, Sedes lined up largely the same as with the Novus Ordite blind followers on the issues of papal infallibility, church indefectibility, and obedience… But I did not see this revelation coming that they have to hold the same position as Lumen Gentium on jurisdiction. Fascinating.
Wait a minute! Didn’t Abp Lefebvre rely on “supplied jurisdiction”? And is it fair to present your own versions, not necessarily accurate, of the sedevacantist positions & then proceed to demolish them with no right of clarification or reply? And by what right does the SSPX recognise the Pope & the bishops & then refuse to be subject to them whenever they judge them to be in error?
You obviously haven't watched the whole episode. Fr. explains the difference between Abp. Lefebvre's concept of supplied jurisdiction (coming from the pope) and sedevacantist one. Also, "being subject to someone" is not a question of particular act, but of relationship between persons. You are either subject to someone or You aren't. Resistance to particular commandment doesn't necessarily proceed from refusal of subjection, as explained in Episode 33. Child who disobeys father's illicit commandment doesn't stop being a subject to him.
For your first question, the SSPX does not deny that the sedevacantists have supplied jurisdiction; they even say so in this video. For your second question, I agree this episode could’ve been more academic. For your last question, view the last video.
Matthew ch.23 is the finest proof that heresy and jurisdiction can live together, for the sake of the "seat" , aka authority of God. Thank you Andrew and Father Don for this excellent episode. I slightly fell into sedevacantism last year.
Except the SSPX don’t obey the Antipopes authority. So SSPX are essentially sedevacantist in practice while “acknowledging” a heretic like Bergoglio as “pope” which is demonic
We shouldn’t be talking about feelings and opinions. This isn’t what Thomism is about. The sedevacantist position doesn’t rely on feelings and opinion but intellectual rigor. The logical conclusion to their arguments may not satisfy many, but the conclusion does not depend on feelings or opinion.
47:28 - 48:56 It seems Father Tranquillo has basically described the Cassiciacum Thesis of des Lauriers. The conciliar church clergy hold juridical/canonical authority, but they do not actually use it "appropriately" since they are instead adhering to a new sect/religion. Father Tranquillo is restating the Cassiciacum Thesis in his own words.
But they are teaching heresy in the place of the Truth. Example CCC #841. We do not worship the same God as the Muslims but that's what the new sect is teaching. How can these people have judicial or actual or any form of authority. If you were going to a doctor and found out they were poisoning you would cease to go to them and go to someone who actually healed you. A doctor who only harms people has no authority and should be resisted. Bsp. Sanborn also uses the analogy of a pilot, if the pilot attempts to fly the plane into a building he forfeits his authority and should be resisted.
It is best and helpful that these explanations are provided with references. If not then they can be of opinion and opinion is not based on facts / truth.
I'm concerned about the non-SSPX Seminarians training to be traditional priests to offer the Tridentine Mass. I'm sure they are committed and doubt most would sign loyalty oaths to the Novus Ordo or want to concelebrate the new mass. Is Pope Francis setting them up for ex-communication? Can Pope Francis cause a Schism in this way and then excommunicate all of us who will not affirm the Novus Ordo?
That excommunication would not be valid. I suggest watching the video Dr. Taylor Marshall did with Fr. Robinson on Apr 20, 2020, regarding canon law and the SSPX. At the 44-minute mark they talk about Canon 1323 and how it would protect from that penalty. So in that hypothetical scenario, P.Francis could certainly verbally proclaim the "penalty" and even perhaps have the people who are supposedly under that "penalty" physically removed from a church, but that would not mean that those people are spiritually excommunicated.
Pope Benedict XVI did not resign the Munus. He didn't make a proper resignation according to Canon Law and that makes him he's still the Pope. He still wears white and signs P. P. as Pope.
This is an hypothesis. But if that was the case, Francis is considered Pope by “common error or positive doubt in fact or in law” that creates jurisdiction (“Church supplies”) This “common error” could disappear if Benedict retakes his papacy.
Sedevacantism is a diagnosis. Of course it is not a solution. The question is: is the diagnosis of sede vacante correct? The answer is: most certainly.
@@nmatthew7469 It is the majority opinion of theologians that a heretical Pope would ipso facto cease being Pope as a heretic is outside of the Church and cannot be the head of what he is not part of. There is a minority opinion with a different opinion. The Church hasn't settled the debate either way and both positions are permitted. There are private revelations approved by the Church such as those of Our Lady of Good Success to Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres that have been approved by the Church and warn of the calamities of the 20th Century that will arise for souls because the Church will be without a Father aka a Pope. There is certainly room for discussion on the nature of this present crisis with regards to the issue of the Holy See being vacant. The other positions that a sectarian sedevacantist might hold that contradict Catholic dogma are not up for discussion as they must be wrong about this aspect of the crisis.
A Vatican council where the pope says he is using Apostolic Authority, such as Paul VI did for Vatican II, would not have been a "human action" if Paul VI had been pope. General Councils of the Church where the pope and bishops are assembled together are infallible in their doctrines, they cannot teach that false religions are true and a "means of salvation" and the other heresies that were taught at Vatican II. General Councils such as Vatican Councils have always been considered as infallible by the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. A pope's private opinion on what he should eat for dinner, is fallible. The two are worlds apart. The same goes for synods, canonizations and other Acts of the Magisterium that SSPX continually try to downplay. Anyone who believes such things has simply never done any independent research, beginning in the catechism, for example.
The Sedevacantist position is not unreasonable, although as the good Priest speaks to here it surely raises many serious questions to be answered. If we have one orthodox Bishop in public view, who advocates for the ancient Magisterium and timeless Truths, then Divine Providence has provided that a valid Catholic Remnant exists to reconstitute Order and cast out the imposters. Do we see even one such Bishop standing against the errors of Modernism and Liberalism previous Popes have called out since Gregory XVI? Sedevacantism is itself not offered as a solution, but rather the evidence for the health of The Church.
@@soniamartin2007 Your Luther example proves nothing, has nothing to do with The Church today, is superficial with regard to Sedevacantism, looks away from the headlines and fails Prophesy in Scripture, the prophetic writings of Saints and Mary Herself. Out of Charity for Catholics suffering End Times Confusion (also written), I admit there are serious Theological Absolutes to resolve which compel every devoted son and daughter of The Church to resolve where there are apparent conflicts. And I remind all who read this that the apparent conflict of Dogmas kept some of the brightest minds and hearts in Catholic History to deny The Immaculate Conception of Mary .... like Aquinas, and Bonaventure. The Deposit of The Faith is an ongoing exploration and always will be because we desire to know God, Who is Infinite, Perfect and Eternal for every act (Matt. 5:48, DR).
How do you explain in the Apocalypse chapter 17 ,he saw a woman clothed around about with purple and scarlet with a golden cup in her hands. she was drunk with the blood of the saints and the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. he said to me the waters which thou sawest were the harlots sitteth are peoples and nations and tongues. and the women which though sawest is the great city which have kingdom over all the kings of the Earth. chapter 18 verse 4 and I heard another voice from heaven saying go out of her my people that you be not partakers of her sins and that you receive not of her plagues. It seems to me like a definition Rome. And could it be that instead of sedevacantists calling Jesus a liar, there is a problem with interpretation or at least our understanding of what Jesus said. for instance the Jews were looking for something different in Christ than what they received because of their interpretation. One thing I know for sure. as long as the devil keeps us divided he will conquer. Say the rosary everyday. If you find the mother she will lead you to her son and may God-bless you all
I know this podcast is old but can you send me a link to the update to the Papal Bull by Paul 4th? Where he clarifys you need to be CONDEMNED a heretic?
God bless you for making these amazing videos! Could you discuss the canon 209 (1917) in details in one of your episodes? Canon 209. In common error or in positive or probable doubt about either law or fact, the Church supplies jurisdiction for both the external and internal forum.
Father, how then is the Eastern Orthodox sacrament of confession considered valid even though they have no Pope? Couldn't this be applied to the sedevacantists?
Based on what Father Tranquillo is saying, despite not recognizing the primacy as such, they would still derive their authority from the pope... that they don't even recognize has having a valid office in the first place.
With the sedevacantists they still adhere to the papacy as such, whereas the Eastern Orthodox do not recognize and de jure primacy of any bishop, even though they do de facto.
The Church cannot exist forever without a Pope, if I read Vatican I correctly, because Peter should have successors until the end of time. But if supplied extraordinary jurisdiction is sufficient to care for souls (as opposed to the 'magisterium' of the putative Roman Pontiff), then why wouldn't supplied extraordinary jurisdiction be sufficient to elect a new Pope? Then from this new Pope, ordinary jurisdiction would be restored.
Captain’s die all the time, yet nobody jumps ship and eventually the ship returns to port...Stand strong in our Faith, let not Satan devour your Souls!!
That's the correct position. Maintain the TLM, participle. The act of participation is what has the current Pope rattled. Again, as we have seen with all liberals it’s about control.
But the captain didn’t die. He’s alive and well. But he’s aiming his ship directly towards an iceberg, and, in the process, he is going against his very duty to protect his ship. Meanwhile, anyone who calls attention to the captain’s obvious breech of duty is labeled a “schismatic” or “protestant”. Can they be blamed for abandoning ship when they find out that, not only the captain, but the first mate and the rest of the crew are in league with the suicidal captain?
Praied be Jesus Christ! I have two questions: 1) Is only the one, who was validly ordained to the priesthood or bishophood, be able to receive the ordinal jurisdiction? 2) If so, do you think it is indirect, but quite strong proof in favour of validity priestly ordinations and episcopal consecrations in the new rite (of course, in general)? Thank you for answer. Greetings from Poland.
So where does the jurisdiction come from in the case of the heretical/schismatic/excommunicated priest who administers confession to a dying man, in an interregnum, without any bishop with ordinary jurisdiction nearby?
If jurisdiction comes from the pope, how can you hear a confession when a pope dies and a new one isn’t elected yet? It seems that jurisdiction comes from God through the pope but this doesn’t mean that He can work outside of that just like the logic of baptism of desire where God is not bound by the sacraments.
@@bradycutler8192 D. Tranquilo seems to be saying this. I don't agree, I think he overstates his case. The teaching that "all jurisdiction comes directly from the Pope", is not a dogma of the faith according to the pre-Conciliar Dogmatic Manuals I have consulted, such as "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" by Dr. Ott.
the answer is in the video, apparently you haven't listened to it. When the Pope dies, local bishops named by him still have jurisdiction, that they had received from him. So Papacy remains the source of all jurisdiction, even qhen the Pope dies: the effects of Papacy remain after his death. No jurisdiction without the Pope
So an accusation of heresy Must come from many Bishops and in writing? Are all the Cardinals let’s say theologians, Liturgists, priests and bishops before becoming a cardinal? They are appointed by the Pope? If bishops and popes are all products of the Vat II and bowing to the Protestant, Modernist, Rationalist, liberalist forms of the sacraments and liturgy, (Novis Ordo), canons, isn’t it a little late for changing back to the pre 1950 to 1970 Church. Then the magisterium must be changed from within spiritually…to be God-centric as before by His intercession.
Jurisdiction is supplied by the Church. In times past when communications wasn't so efficient the local peoples often elected their own bishops. In later times they were chosen by the monarch and later approved by the Pope. In the Eastern rites the local clergy elect their Bishops to this day and they are only approved by the Pope. The Church supplies jurisdiction in all cases.
This is without doubts that sedevacantism has or supports EO ecclesiology. If papacy is accidental than there is no reason why not become Eaatern Orthodox or Old Catholic
In hindsight Benedict XVI will be seen as the last pope and Paul VI the first modernist pope. Francis has forfeited the title. IMO if we think he's bad we dont have a clue what's coming after him
Excellent series, I really enjoy listening to Don Tranquillo. I do have one question, though: How can anyone seriously contend that any of the Popes in question did not intend to teach using their papal authority, i.e. the Magisterium? Who would believe that John Paul II or Francis made a positive act of the will saying "I do not intend to teach according to my ecclesiastical office, but merely in a human manner"? The same goes for the Council: Lumen gentium certainly intends to teach magisterially in general (that's why it is called "Dogmatic Constitution", though it contains no new dogmas), and even specifically in various places.
In regards to the next video on Pope Benedict’s resignation please address the three reasons his resignation was not valid… A) Pope Benedict was forced out B) The conclave was manipulated to institute Pope Francis C) Pope Benedict retained and split the papacy and held on to some aspects of it If just one of these are true then Benedict is still Pope. I believe all three are true.
They have delegated jurisdiction to witness marriages and hear confessions, and had supplied jurisdiction to do so beforehand. They do not have ordinary jurisdiction because they are not diocesan bishops or priests, although I believe the SSPX priests in Argentina are fully regularized.
@@russelbangot8245 what? just because they dont assent to heresy doesnt mean they are outside the church. 'If a future pope teaches heresy, do not follow him' -Pope Pius IX
Why cannot the sedevacantist Bishops claim extraordinary jurisdiction explaining it to be derived from the ordinary jurisdiction of the last valid Pope, regardless of which Pope they'd presume that to have been?
Because you cant claim extraordinary jurisdiction to take over a jurisdiction, it must be given from a superior, the Church is not a democracy, it is an absolute Monarchy.
As I understand it, the concept of supplied jurisdiction means that the jurisdiction is supplied by the Church directly (Canon Law 144). Where is it specified that there must be an office of ordinary jurisdiction through which the extraordinary jurisdiction flows? Hypothetically, the Church (militant, penitent, and triumphant) would still exist even if every ordinary Bishop died at once. Could the Church triumphant not supply this jurisdiction? "... the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see" (Vatican I, Session IV:2:2) I'm just trying to connect the dots.I suppose the keys are necessarily excercised through the Popes.
@@jaroslavotradovec5983 it was laid out rather plainly by the video. God gives all earthly power of the Church to the Pope, (the keys of heaven and earth) who then delegates ordinary jurisdiction to the bishops, who then further delegate to their priests. If we say "any bishop can in extreme circumstances receive ordinary jurisdiction from Christ directly" then the Orthodox were always right, and the Pope is only honored among equals, because all Bishops ultimately receive their jurisdiction from Christ
When Paul VI promulgated the documents of Vatican II, did he do that as Pope or not? As a consequence, are be to hold what is in those documents as part of the Catholic Faith or not? Or can we decide ourselves whether or not he used his authority "properly"? How can we decide what they (post VII "popes") want or not? Surely we cannot judge someone's intention, only his fruits.
The Society of St. Pius V holds firm on the structure of the Church that a Pope is objective and required. That is why Pope St. Pius X is the Pope that is quoted the most with regards to the errors of modernity. To say that sedevacantism thinks the Pope is subjective is wrong.
quoting PiusX does not prove that they don't think the pope is subjective. it just proves that they think the pope is 'sometimes' subjective, which is effectually the same as saying the pope is subjective.
Thank-you, interesting episode. For years, I thought, being familiar with a sedevacantist SSPX Priest, that they were all the same. So now that there are 2 groups, why are the sedevacantists not removed from the original SSPX formed by Archbishop Lefebvre? Their followers are difficult people to talk to and full of hate, has been my experience. Therefore putting me off track from the authentic SSPX. Is this sedevacantist division the reason why the Vatican has been severe in pushing excommunication? For the sedevacantists are disturbing the consistancy of the group as a whole, although we could all sympathize with their reasons. So will the sedevacantists be allowed to remain or will there be an official splinter eventually???
Lefebvre did remove the sedes from the SSPX already. Your post is confusing. Do you have a name for this priest that was teaching sedevacantism? What SSPX chapel was he in?
Sedevacantism comes from two latin words: sede, meaning seat, and vacante, meaning vacant. Sedevacante therefore means the seat is vacant. Or, the seat of Peter is vacant. In other words, there is no sitting pope, or, there is no pope. This can better be understood by adverting to the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas on being and act. For every being, there is an act. Hence, since being is represented by a certain nature, from a nature issues forth an act proper to that nature. Nature determines what act is; act on the other hand does not determine nature. When Jesus Christ changed the name of Simon to Peter, much like changing Abram to Abraham and Jacob to Israel, He said: Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build My Church, it was not a name that He created. He was creating a nature in Peter; He was making a sitting pope, and he was making a pope, or the office of the Pope, or the seat of Peter. Since sitting on the seat of Peter implies having the authority of Peter, Sedevacante may mean there is no authority in one sitting on the seat of Peter. Since having the nature of Peter implies a person with the nature of Peter, Sedevacante may mean the death of the person having the nature of Peter. From the preceding explanation, one can readily see that Pope Francis does not have the nature of a Pope because Benedict who has the nature of a Pope is still alive. Pope Francis is pope from the act following from nature, which is what Benedict resigned from. Moreover, Francis is still pope (by act) even when he teaches heresy, because act follows from nature. Finally, Francis still wields authority despite teaching heresy, because authority emanates from nature of being pope (by act) and not from the act of authority.
The Pope is supreme, but the church can, and has, existed without one for extended periods of time-years in fact. It exists without one every time the pope dies and the bishops must elect a new one-which has taken years in some cases. Granted, this is the longest period. As long as valid bishops still exist, the church is not dead; whether there is a pope in the chair or not. The only reason for the Archbishop to consecrate Bishops was his worry that valid bishops were dying out, as the validity of the rites for consecrating bishops and priests was doubtful. Seen in any other light, his consecration of the 4 bishops is absolutely frivolous, because any valid NO priest could have (in theory) decided to say the Latin Mass.
You have to have valid bishops with ordinary jurisdiction, like dioecesan bishops. If valid bishops without jurisdiction from the pope suffice for indefectibility of the Church, than pope is not essential for Church like EO belive.
Those who hold that they are Catholic but that the popes since council II are all illegitimate are silly. You cannot say that you accept a tree but that you reject the roots, the branches, the leaves, and even the air that the tree respires. However, the arguments that the current pope has crossed some sort of line that the church needs to respond to in some way do interest me.
Sedevacatism was/is teneble position as long as there are still valid electors od next pope (cardinals, ordinary bishops, anyone with jurisdiction, at least one). This can be applied to sedevacatism since 2013 but certainly not to mainstream sedevacatism (since 1958 or even 1963).
I became sola scrptura. I aint going back . We are saved through Jesus Christ. I know ex Catholics that left in 1969 never sent the children to a Catholic school. I admire SSPX they fought the good fight . My view Rome Apostacised. .
Scripture alone makes no sense because you can justify any behavior with snippets out of context, and now we have edits over the centuries that have created many different bibles.
Jenette please reconsider this position. Ask yourself why you are watching this material if you were confirmed in the heresy of faith alone. The Lord inspires you but you must allow yourself to be influenced, the Holy Ghost calls you but you must open yourself up to His exclaiming. Reminding you always that outside of the Holy Catholic Church you have neither Christ nor salvation. -TCT
@@johnyanke7335 In the defense of Pope Pius IX, he never taught that, but taught just the opposite. Read his encyclicals and don't rely on phony quotes given by deceived priests. Most of all, read his definition of infallibility in Vatican I "the Holy See knows no erring" on doctrine. "In this See the Catholic religion has always remained unchanged."
Wow ! Fr Tranquillo is so intellectually and spiritually refreshing . He has clarified a most confounding position.
The series as a whole follows a kind of Thomistic outline, one that rationally examines all aspects of a subject, and doesn't focus on the emotional and reactional. It should be required viewing for anyone who wonders what happened to the Church since the Council. Since it's the Society, most people won't watch it because they have their minds made up, but they absolutely should.
Thomistic philosophy is the root for all studies in SSPX seminaries.
Been attending the SSPX for over a year now after many years in the Conciliar structure. No more contradictions. The Catholic faith is being preserved here until the Modernists have their day and die off. Pray for the NO to die!
I'm with you on the SSPX. I started attending Feb 2022. Left the NO in the '84/'85 era. It is quite different today. Even if the NO Mass went back to a more reverential and hallowed format that would be a great start. Toss out the heresy. Clean house at the highest levels if needed. Start standing for those principles that made us stand out not too many decades earlier...
Blessings to you my friend in Christ
Velox Versutus Vigilans
Unfortunately SSPX rejects sedevacantism despite the clear evidence for it. They do some good things though.
This is so hard because I have listened to some of their arguments and they make sense but then I understand how if they say there is no pope then they say Jesus lied. Living through this insanity is so hard. I would NEVER leave the bark of Peter but I will not listen to a pope who wants to destroy the church and spreads nothing but confusion! God help us get through this!!!
Please see Bishop Sanborn’s pdf on Cassiciacum thesis, best explanation yet
Absolutely love don Tranquillo, the way he talks, it soothes my soul
Might call it... tranquil
@@darkduck-qg2so underrated comment
@@darkduck-qg2so Haha. I like the comment
I have been flirting with sedevacantism for a long time not so much because I believed it but because the crisis in the Church has been so testing of my faith. I almost WANTED it to be true because it would be so much easier. But this talk has truly put the nail in the coffin for me on this position. We simply live in trying times but I will not lose faith. The SSPX exists. That is proof alone that God has not abandoned his Church
There's nothing about the current crisis that is easy. The most important thing is to do you duties and save your soul.
You: I almost WANTED it to be true because it would be so much easier.
Marina Knife: the subject in reality is so much more complicated than some make it out to be
It's not "so much easier". Rnrs always say this and yet many sedes go without mass and the sacraments
The sede position is not "easy." That's cope.
We must affirm sede vacante in order to maintain the dogma of the indefectible nature of the Church. If sedevacantism is false, the Catholic Church gave us an evil Mass, had a Magisterium that taught heresy for 64 years and counting, taught heresy in an Ecumenical Council, and Canonized heretics as Saints.
In other words, if sedevacantism is false, then the Church defected.
I am in awe how sedevacantism was dismantled in such an articulate and logical way here. I cant thank you enough for this upload
Thank you,Rev Fr for this talk it really gives me the strength to carry on loving and stay faithful to His holy Church.
i thoroughly enjoy all of these discussions especially the dissection of controversial subjects such as this one.
Very glad I watched this - the subject in reality is so much more complicated than some make it out to be. The information in the discussion has clarified some of the issues for me & eased the problem with all the awful things that chip away at ones faith. Thank you for putting these talks together.
You: the subject in reality is so much more complicated
Idnznzn fjsnsnsms: I almost WANTED it to be true because it would be so much easier.
I disagree with Father's conclusions, but if he would be willing, I strongly implore him to debate Boshop Sanborn or Father Desposito publicly for the benefit of the faithful. If this position is true, then it behooves the SSPX to engage in debate - pitting their best theologians against the best of the sedevacantists. I implore you to ask him
Contra principia negantem disputari nequit.
Just want to know how sedevacantist priests receive orders. For example, to divorce a woman from her husband. To tell a parishioner that he can not receive the sacraments anymore. Among other things. Can one of these sedevacantist priests make these decisions on his own. If anybody who is sedevacantist, please answer these questions
@@bweatherman3345 well as far as I understand this notion of jurisdictional order: the priests under Bishop Sanborn receive their jurisdiction from him. He has consecrated by Robert McKenna and you call follow their line of episcopal succession back from there. Interestingly it actually stretches back into the Chaldean Catholic Church. The way the priest discusses the notion of order he presents I find vague.
@Tjkillingsworth I agree.
The Norvus Ordo religion is not Catholic, therefore the Pope's of that religion are not Pope's of the true and valid Roman Catholic church. The recognise and resist position of the SSPX makes no sense what so ever
I cannot agree with this priest as his argument makes no sense at all. On the other hand Bp Sanborn makes perfect sense and is logical. The SSPX confuse the faithful. Their founder said himself that the Rome has lost the faith and is in Apostasy, that their priest's are not genuine priests and also their bishops and their liturgy. This is utter confusion. The only way to be is Sedevecantist as the Norvus Ordo Pope's are the supreme Pontiffs of a secular non Catholic religion.
Hope the people who accuse the SSPX of sedevacantism have the good will to watch this episode.
Please debate Br. Peter Dimond.
It is not difficult for an educated Catholic to determine when any Catholic is spewing heresy in a clear cut case (for example; "Souls destined for hell are annihilated and cease to exist"). This is not "judging the Pope", it is, instead, recognizing clear heresy.
You are not judging the pope when you recognize that he is teaching and refuses to stop teaching heresy even though charitably admonished many times.. He is not the pope but a non catholic who has made himself so. It is not you who have made him a reprobate and a dead branch bu judging him to be a heretic. He has done it himself in his perverse bad will, as St. Paul teaches. When you judge him to be a heretic he is no longer a pope or anything you cannot judge. And of course in judging this antipope you do not think to pass final judgement on his soul, for he may repent and save himself. But such conversions from pertinacious heresy are very rare and some would say non-existent.
I agree. And I don't think it is prideful to judge that someone is stating espousing a heresy. Charity does not command us to deceive ourselves.
Don Tranquillo is absolutely right. Many years ago I once had the privilege of serving his Mass at a sspx chapel in Wimbledon London UK
Clear and concise!!
Amazingly helpful clarification. Thank you. God bless you.
This is a great explanation of this subject. It's amazing how much I did not know about my religion. Thank you SSPX.
Francis didn't "fall" into heresy...he jumped!
Thank you father for your clear explanation of the sedevacantist perspective and the position of the SSPX. Thank you!
We want to know how we can continue to be faithful Catholics and find our way (in peace) through these long long years of modernism corrupting our sacred home and failing our children. You explained so beautifully how we can always be Catholic, no matter what a particular pope is doing..and how we can continue to be joyful in our faith. God bless you.
I've been saying this before I even knew of the SSPX. The hierarchy is nonessential to celebrating the Mass. These Bishops and Cardinals have lost discipline.
At the same time we are very sad. Because they took our churches from us, including the true sacraments. Among many other things.
@@johantrenier1685 the SSPX is not saying that the hierarchy is nonessential.
Don Tranquillo is brilliant! Maybe he could do another video about supplied jurisdiction as such? This is now more a historical topic but I think it’s important for the activity of the Society.
33:30 I was just putting together a table comparing various groups and their reactions to the Crisis, and I observed that so far as I could tell, Sedes lined up largely the same as with the Novus Ordite blind followers on the issues of papal infallibility, church indefectibility, and obedience…
But I did not see this revelation coming that they have to hold the same position as Lumen Gentium on jurisdiction. Fascinating.
52:33 There it is again-that correspondence.
Deo Gratias for the SSPX making these videos!!! Dear God, please grant the SSPX more auxiliary bishops to defeat Modernism!!
The Vatican let a novus ordo bishop retire to a SSPX priory.
Short answer: no. Thank you Fr for bringing up this essential topic
Wait a minute! Didn’t Abp Lefebvre rely on “supplied jurisdiction”? And is it fair to present your own versions, not necessarily accurate, of the sedevacantist positions & then proceed to demolish them with no right of clarification or reply? And by what right does the SSPX recognise the Pope & the bishops & then refuse to be subject to them whenever they judge them to be in error?
You obviously haven't watched the whole episode. Fr. explains the difference between Abp. Lefebvre's concept of supplied jurisdiction (coming from the pope) and sedevacantist one. Also, "being subject to someone" is not a question of particular act, but of relationship between persons. You are either subject to someone or You aren't. Resistance to particular commandment doesn't necessarily proceed from refusal of subjection, as explained in Episode 33. Child who disobeys father's illicit commandment doesn't stop being a subject to him.
For your first question, the SSPX does not deny that the sedevacantists have supplied jurisdiction; they even say so in this video. For your second question, I agree this episode could’ve been more academic. For your last question, view the last video.
Matthew ch.23 is the finest proof that heresy and jurisdiction can live together, for the sake of the "seat" , aka authority of God.
Thank you Andrew and Father Don for this excellent episode. I slightly fell into sedevacantism last year.
Except the SSPX don’t obey the Antipopes authority. So SSPX are essentially sedevacantist in practice while “acknowledging” a heretic like Bergoglio as “pope” which is demonic
We shouldn’t be talking about feelings and opinions. This isn’t what Thomism is about. The sedevacantist position doesn’t rely on feelings and opinion but intellectual rigor. The logical conclusion to their arguments may not satisfy many, but the conclusion does not depend on feelings or opinion.
This video is very important, even more after the sedevacantist debate on Pints with Aquinas
SSPX position didn't fare well in that debate.
Great explanation. Thanks for sharing!
What about the Indefectibilty of the Church ? V2 changed all sacraments.
if theres one group of people who can go to internet war fast...
What do you mean?
Great episode. I am still left to wonder how Don Tranquillo believes that we can identify an antipope. There have been several in Church history.
....and it's not working, exactly the point of sedevacantism.
Excellent interview, please interview again
47:28 - 48:56
It seems Father Tranquillo has basically described the Cassiciacum Thesis of des Lauriers. The conciliar church clergy hold juridical/canonical authority, but they do not actually use it "appropriately" since they are instead adhering to a new sect/religion. Father Tranquillo is restating the Cassiciacum Thesis in his own words.
But they are teaching heresy in the place of the Truth. Example CCC #841. We do not worship the same God as the Muslims but that's what the new sect is teaching. How can these people have judicial or actual or any form of authority. If you were going to a doctor and found out they were poisoning you would cease to go to them and go to someone who actually healed you. A doctor who only harms people has no authority and should be resisted. Bsp. Sanborn also uses the analogy of a pilot, if the pilot attempts to fly the plane into a building he forfeits his authority and should be resisted.
It is best and helpful that these explanations are provided with references. If not then they can be of opinion and opinion is not based on facts / truth.
I'm concerned about the non-SSPX Seminarians training to be traditional priests to offer the Tridentine Mass. I'm sure they are committed and doubt most would sign loyalty oaths to the Novus Ordo or want to concelebrate the new mass. Is Pope Francis setting them up for ex-communication? Can Pope Francis cause a Schism in this way and then excommunicate all of us who will not affirm the Novus Ordo?
That excommunication would not be valid. I suggest watching the video Dr. Taylor Marshall did with Fr. Robinson on Apr 20, 2020, regarding canon law and the SSPX. At the 44-minute mark they talk about Canon 1323 and how it would protect from that penalty. So in that hypothetical scenario, P.Francis could certainly verbally proclaim the "penalty" and even perhaps have the people who are supposedly under that "penalty" physically removed from a church, but that would not mean that those people are spiritually excommunicated.
Pope Benedict XVI did not resign the Munus. He didn't make a proper resignation according to Canon Law and that makes him he's still the Pope. He still wears white and signs P. P. as Pope.
This is an hypothesis. But if that was the case, Francis is considered Pope by “common error or positive doubt in fact or in law” that creates jurisdiction (“Church supplies”) This “common error” could disappear if Benedict retakes his papacy.
Fr. Tranquillo debunks this in episode #38 of this series.
And Interregnumism is not Sedevacantism.
Sedevacantism is a diagnosis. Of course it is not a solution. The question is: is the diagnosis of sede vacante correct? The answer is: most certainly.
False, all the saints who had private revelation about the matter disagree with sedevacantism.
@@nmatthew7469 There was no V2 in the time of the saints. Sedevacantists reject the V2 Council and its popes.
@@nmatthew7469 It is the majority opinion of theologians that a heretical Pope would ipso facto cease being Pope as a heretic is outside of the Church and cannot be the head of what he is not part of. There is a minority opinion with a different opinion. The Church hasn't settled the debate either way and both positions are permitted. There are private revelations approved by the Church such as those of Our Lady of Good Success to Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres that have been approved by the Church and warn of the calamities of the 20th Century that will arise for souls because the Church will be without a Father aka a Pope. There is certainly room for discussion on the nature of this present crisis with regards to the issue of the Holy See being vacant. The other positions that a sectarian sedevacantist might hold that contradict Catholic dogma are not up for discussion as they must be wrong about this aspect of the crisis.
The reasoning is so beautifully clear, I love it.
Thank you DON Tranquillo for your talk and may GOD bless you.
A Vatican council where the pope says he is using Apostolic Authority, such as Paul VI did for Vatican II, would not have been a "human action" if Paul VI had been pope. General Councils of the Church where the pope and bishops are assembled together are infallible in their doctrines, they cannot teach that false religions are true and a "means of salvation" and the other heresies that were taught at Vatican II. General Councils such as Vatican Councils have always been considered as infallible by the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. A pope's private opinion on what he should eat for dinner, is fallible. The two are worlds apart. The same goes for synods, canonizations and other Acts of the Magisterium that SSPX continually try to downplay. Anyone who believes such things has simply never done any independent research, beginning in the catechism, for example.
Good points.
The Sedevacantist position is not unreasonable, although as the good Priest speaks to here it surely raises many serious questions to be answered. If we have one orthodox Bishop in public view, who advocates for the ancient Magisterium and timeless Truths, then Divine Providence has provided that a valid Catholic Remnant exists to reconstitute Order and cast out the imposters. Do we see even one such Bishop standing against the errors of Modernism and Liberalism previous Popes have called out since Gregory XVI? Sedevacantism is itself not offered as a solution, but rather the evidence for the health of The Church.
@@soniamartin2007 Your Luther example proves nothing, has nothing to do with The Church today, is superficial with regard to Sedevacantism, looks away from the headlines and fails Prophesy in Scripture, the prophetic writings of Saints and Mary Herself. Out of Charity for Catholics suffering End Times Confusion (also written), I admit there are serious Theological Absolutes to resolve which compel every devoted son and daughter of The Church to resolve where there are apparent conflicts. And I remind all who read this that the apparent conflict of Dogmas kept some of the brightest minds and hearts in Catholic History to deny The Immaculate Conception of Mary .... like Aquinas, and Bonaventure. The Deposit of The Faith is an ongoing exploration and always will be because we desire to know God, Who is Infinite, Perfect and Eternal for every act (Matt. 5:48, DR).
Thank you for bringing clarity to a very important issue.
Great Faith in the TRUTH-JESUS CHRIST.
thank you Fr.
He is right...for we know and some...have experienced the movements of the enemy we know or some have an idea how it will be used!
How do you explain in the Apocalypse chapter 17 ,he saw a woman clothed around about with purple and scarlet with a golden cup in her hands. she was drunk with the blood of the saints and the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. he said to me the waters which thou sawest were the harlots sitteth are peoples and nations and tongues. and the women which though sawest is the great city which have kingdom over all the kings of the Earth. chapter 18 verse 4 and I heard another voice from heaven saying go out of her my people that you be not partakers of her sins and that you receive not of her plagues. It seems to me like a definition Rome. And could it be that instead of sedevacantists calling Jesus a liar, there is a problem with interpretation or at least our understanding of what Jesus said. for instance the Jews were looking for something different in Christ than what they received because of their interpretation. One thing I know for sure. as long as the devil keeps us divided he will conquer. Say the rosary everyday. If you find the mother she will lead you to her son and may God-bless you all
Please see Bishop Sanborn’s pdf on Cassiciacum thesis by Dominican theologian and confessor to Pius XII, Bishop Guerard des Lauries, OP
I know this podcast is old but can you send me a link to the update to the Papal Bull by Paul 4th? Where he clarifys you need to be CONDEMNED a heretic?
God bless you for making these amazing videos! Could you discuss the canon 209 (1917) in details in one of your episodes?
Canon 209. In common error or in positive or probable doubt about either law or fact, the Church supplies
jurisdiction for both the external and internal forum.
Father, how then is the Eastern Orthodox sacrament of confession considered valid even though they have no Pope? Couldn't this be applied to the sedevacantists?
Based on what Father Tranquillo is saying, despite not recognizing the primacy as such, they would still derive their authority from the pope... that they don't even recognize has having a valid office in the first place.
With the sedevacantists they still adhere to the papacy as such, whereas the Eastern Orthodox do not recognize and de jure primacy of any bishop, even though they do de facto.
Thank you for the thorough examination of heresy & modernist's infiltration in the Vatican 11.
How does it feel to listen an italian speaking english? Sounds weird or it's ok? (I'm also italian)
As an Italian American it is like hearing an English Priest from London speaking “English” , quaint and interesting.
I am English and I like the Italian accent. It sounds musical.
Can you make a video on eastern orthodoxy too, many people are leaving the one true Chruch an becoming orthodox.
The Church cannot exist forever without a Pope, if I read Vatican I correctly, because Peter should have successors until the end of time. But if supplied extraordinary jurisdiction is sufficient to care for souls (as opposed to the 'magisterium' of the putative Roman Pontiff), then why wouldn't supplied extraordinary jurisdiction be sufficient to elect a new Pope? Then from this new Pope, ordinary jurisdiction would be restored.
The problem is we have corrupt Bishops 😪around Francis.
Oh yeah, Francis himself could never be the problem. Pachamama. Lutherans. No God.
Captain’s die all the time, yet nobody jumps ship and eventually the ship returns to port...Stand strong in our Faith, let not Satan devour your Souls!!
That's the correct position. Maintain the TLM, participle. The act of participation is what has the current Pope rattled. Again, as we have seen with all liberals it’s about control.
But the captain didn’t die. He’s alive and well. But he’s aiming his ship directly towards an iceberg, and, in the process, he is going against his very duty to protect his ship. Meanwhile, anyone who calls attention to the captain’s obvious breech of duty is labeled a “schismatic” or “protestant”. Can they be blamed for abandoning ship when they find out that, not only the captain, but the first mate and the rest of the crew are in league with the suicidal captain?
Praied be Jesus Christ!
I have two questions:
1) Is only the one, who was validly ordained to the priesthood or bishophood, be able to receive the ordinal jurisdiction?
2) If so, do you think it is indirect, but quite strong proof in favour of validity priestly ordinations and episcopal consecrations in the new rite (of course, in general)?
Thank you for answer.
Greetings from Poland.
Maybe I'm confused. If jurisdiction always comes from a pope, what pope supplies it during an interregnum after a real pope dies?
He addressed this starting at 15:58
@@samuelwalker1410 Thank you. You're right.
Thank you
So where does the jurisdiction come from in the case of the heretical/schismatic/excommunicated priest who administers confession to a dying man, in an interregnum, without any bishop with ordinary jurisdiction nearby?
Doors are there to be opened..
Awesome topic on sedevecantism.
If jurisdiction comes from the pope, how can you hear a confession when a pope dies and a new one isn’t elected yet? It seems that jurisdiction comes from God through the pope but this doesn’t mean that He can work outside of that just like the logic of baptism of desire where God is not bound by the sacraments.
I’m not a sede I’m just confused
@@bradycutler8192 D. Tranquilo seems to be saying this. I don't agree, I think he overstates his case. The teaching that "all jurisdiction comes directly from the Pope", is not a dogma of the faith according to the pre-Conciliar Dogmatic Manuals I have consulted, such as "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" by Dr. Ott.
the answer is in the video, apparently you haven't listened to it. When the Pope dies, local bishops named by him still have jurisdiction, that they had received from him. So Papacy remains the source of all jurisdiction, even qhen the Pope dies: the effects of Papacy remain after his death. No jurisdiction without the Pope
Oh boy, now we're about to have some fun!
So an accusation of heresy
Must come from many Bishops and in writing?
Are all the Cardinals let’s say theologians, Liturgists, priests and bishops before becoming a cardinal? They are appointed by the Pope?
If bishops and popes are all products of the Vat II and bowing to the Protestant, Modernist, Rationalist, liberalist forms of the sacraments and liturgy, (Novis Ordo), canons, isn’t it a little late for changing back to the pre 1950 to 1970 Church.
Then the magisterium must be changed from within spiritually…to be God-centric as before by His intercession.
Our biological fathers remain our fathers even if they deny their paternity, are bad or absent.
So, what happens when a Pope dies Fr. Don, Does that mean when every Sacrement takes place during the time of the Popes vacancy is invalid?
He said that the Bishops' authority is used
no, because the *effects* of the papacy (bishops with ordinary jurisdiction that they had received from the pope) are still present.
Jurisdiction is supplied by the Church. In times past when communications wasn't so efficient the local peoples often elected their own bishops. In later times they were chosen by the monarch and later approved by the Pope. In the Eastern rites the local clergy elect their Bishops to this day and they are only approved by the Pope. The Church supplies jurisdiction in all cases.
I don't agree.
This is without doubts that sedevacantism has or supports EO ecclesiology. If papacy is accidental than there is no reason why not become Eaatern Orthodox or Old Catholic
I thought the sedevacantist thinks a certain pope from the past is there authority. Dead but not in thoughts.?
No Catholic is allowed to reject a pope from the past. Almost all sedevacantists say that Pope Pius XII is the last pope.
In hindsight Benedict XVI will be seen as the last pope and Paul VI the first modernist pope. Francis has forfeited the title. IMO if we think he's bad we dont have a clue what's coming after him
Excellent series, I really enjoy listening to Don Tranquillo. I do have one question, though: How can anyone seriously contend that any of the Popes in question did not intend to teach using their papal authority, i.e. the Magisterium? Who would believe that John Paul II or Francis made a positive act of the will saying "I do not intend to teach according to my ecclesiastical office, but merely in a human manner"? The same goes for the Council: Lumen gentium certainly intends to teach magisterially in general (that's why it is called "Dogmatic Constitution", though it contains no new dogmas), and even specifically in various places.
In regards to the next video on Pope Benedict’s resignation please address the three reasons his resignation was not valid…
A) Pope Benedict was forced out
B) The conclave was manipulated to institute Pope Francis
C) Pope Benedict retained and split the papacy and held on to some aspects of it
If just one of these are true then Benedict is still Pope. I believe all three are true.
And we are now in an interregnum as a result of Pope Benedict XVI's death.
Does the SSPX have jurisdiction?
They have delegated jurisdiction to witness marriages and hear confessions, and had supplied jurisdiction to do so beforehand. They do not have ordinary jurisdiction because they are not diocesan bishops or priests, although I believe the SSPX priests in Argentina are fully regularized.
@@TheDeanMachineTV Absurdity in broad day light. They have jurisdiction from the institution they dont want to be part of.
@@russelbangot8245 what? just because they dont assent to heresy doesnt mean they are outside the church. 'If a future pope teaches heresy, do not follow him' -Pope Pius IX
@@russelbangot8245they want to be part of the church. Just not accent to heresy.
Why cannot the sedevacantist Bishops claim extraordinary jurisdiction explaining it to be derived from the ordinary jurisdiction of the last valid Pope, regardless of which Pope they'd presume that to have been?
Because you cant claim extraordinary jurisdiction to take over a jurisdiction, it must be given from a superior, the Church is not a democracy, it is an absolute Monarchy.
I have the same question as @Ryan but I am not satisfied with the answer of @Word Bearer.
As I understand it, the concept of supplied jurisdiction means that the jurisdiction is supplied by the Church directly (Canon Law 144).
Where is it specified that there must be an office of ordinary jurisdiction through which the extraordinary jurisdiction flows? Hypothetically, the Church (militant, penitent, and triumphant) would still exist even if every ordinary Bishop died at once. Could the Church triumphant not supply this jurisdiction?
"... the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see"
(Vatican I, Session IV:2:2)
I'm just trying to connect the dots.I suppose the keys are necessarily excercised through the Popes.
@@jaroslavotradovec5983 it was laid out rather plainly by the video. God gives all earthly power of the Church to the Pope, (the keys of heaven and earth) who then delegates ordinary jurisdiction to the bishops, who then further delegate to their priests.
If we say "any bishop can in extreme circumstances receive ordinary jurisdiction from Christ directly" then the Orthodox were always right, and the Pope is only honored among equals, because all Bishops ultimately receive their jurisdiction from Christ
Pius XII says in Ad Apostolorum Principis that God gives ordinary jurisdiction only though the pope.
When Paul VI promulgated the documents of Vatican II, did he do that as Pope or not? As a consequence, are be to hold what is in those documents as part of the Catholic Faith or not? Or can we decide ourselves whether or not he used his authority "properly"? How can we decide what they (post VII "popes") want or not? Surely we cannot judge someone's intention, only his fruits.
The Society of St. Pius V holds firm on the structure of the Church that a Pope is objective and required. That is why Pope St. Pius X is the Pope that is quoted the most with regards to the errors of modernity. To say that sedevacantism thinks the Pope is subjective is wrong.
quoting PiusX does not prove that they don't think the pope is subjective. it just proves that they think the pope is 'sometimes' subjective, which is effectually the same as saying the pope is subjective.
Don Tranquillo -- Tranquil Father, no? Please give p
Thank-you, interesting episode. For years, I thought, being familiar with a sedevacantist SSPX Priest, that they were all the same.
So now that there are 2 groups, why are the sedevacantists not removed from the original SSPX formed by Archbishop Lefebvre? Their followers are difficult people to talk to and full of hate, has been my experience. Therefore putting me off track from the authentic SSPX. Is this sedevacantist division the reason why the Vatican has been severe in pushing excommunication? For the sedevacantists are disturbing the consistancy of the group as a whole, although we could all sympathize with their reasons.
So will the sedevacantists be allowed to remain or will there be an official splinter eventually???
Lefebvre did remove the sedes from the SSPX already. Your post is confusing. Do you have a name for this priest that was teaching sedevacantism? What SSPX chapel was he in?
You mean priest or laypeople?. Laypeople can't be kicked out, they are just confused.
Sedevacantism comes from two latin words: sede, meaning seat, and vacante, meaning vacant. Sedevacante therefore means the seat is vacant. Or, the seat of Peter is vacant. In other words, there is no sitting pope, or, there is no pope. This can better be understood by adverting to the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas on being and act. For every being, there is an act. Hence, since being is represented by a certain nature, from a nature issues forth an act proper to that nature. Nature determines what act is; act on the other hand does not determine nature. When Jesus Christ changed the name of Simon to Peter, much like changing Abram to Abraham and Jacob to Israel, He said: Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build My Church, it was not a name that He created. He was creating a nature in Peter; He was making a sitting pope, and he was making a pope, or the office of the Pope, or the seat of Peter. Since sitting on the seat of Peter implies having the authority of Peter, Sedevacante may mean there is no authority in one sitting on the seat of Peter. Since having the nature of Peter implies a person with the nature of Peter, Sedevacante may mean the death of the person having the nature of Peter. From the preceding explanation, one can readily see that Pope Francis does not have the nature of a Pope because Benedict who has the nature of a Pope is still alive. Pope Francis is pope from the act following from nature, which is what Benedict resigned from. Moreover, Francis is still pope (by act) even when he teaches heresy, because act follows from nature. Finally, Francis still wields authority despite teaching heresy, because authority emanates from nature of being pope (by act) and not from the act of authority.
If God did not remove the jurisdiction of the fallen angels, why would he remove jurisdiction of the Pope
The Pope is supreme, but the church can, and has, existed without one for extended periods of time-years in fact. It exists without one every time the pope dies and the bishops must elect a new one-which has taken years in some cases. Granted, this is the longest period. As long as valid bishops still exist, the church is not dead; whether there is a pope in the chair or not. The only reason for the Archbishop to consecrate Bishops was his worry that valid bishops were dying out, as the validity of the rites for consecrating bishops and priests was doubtful. Seen in any other light, his consecration of the 4 bishops is absolutely frivolous, because any valid NO priest could have (in theory) decided to say the Latin Mass.
You have to have valid bishops with ordinary jurisdiction, like dioecesan bishops. If valid bishops without jurisdiction from the pope suffice for indefectibility of the Church, than pope is not essential for Church like EO belive.
Ubi Petrus, Ibi Eccesia, ibi deus. Non ibi sedevacanti.
Lord have mercy on us ---save your Holy Church from wrong decisions which are not from THE HOLY SPIRIT.
Quite so. Such is the Novus Ordo.
Those who hold that they are Catholic but that the popes since council II are all illegitimate are silly. You cannot say that you accept a tree but that you reject the roots, the branches, the leaves, and even the air that the tree respires. However, the arguments that the current pope has crossed some sort of line that the church needs to respond to in some way do interest me.
Sedevacatism was/is teneble position as long as there are still valid electors od next pope (cardinals, ordinary bishops, anyone with jurisdiction, at least one). This can be applied to sedevacatism since 2013 but certainly not to mainstream sedevacatism (since 1958 or even 1963).
I became sola scrptura. I aint going back . We are saved through Jesus Christ. I know ex Catholics that left in 1969 never sent the children to a Catholic school. I admire SSPX they fought the good fight .
My view Rome Apostacised. .
Scripture alone makes no sense because you can justify any behavior with snippets out of context, and now we have edits over the centuries that have created many different bibles.
So you became a heretic to reject heresy? How does that make any sense?
Jenette please reconsider this position. Ask yourself why you are watching this material if you were confirmed in the heresy of faith alone. The Lord inspires you but you must allow yourself to be influenced, the Holy Ghost calls you but you must open yourself up to His exclaiming. Reminding you always that outside of the Holy Catholic Church you have neither Christ nor salvation.
-TCT
No to sedevacantism!
If He is the pope then you need to be obeying him!
'If a future pope teaches heresy, do not follow him' -Pope Pius IX
@@johnyanke7335 In the defense of Pope Pius IX, he never taught that, but taught just the opposite. Read his encyclicals and don't rely on phony quotes given by deceived priests. Most of all, read his definition of infallibility in Vatican I "the Holy See knows no erring" on doctrine. "In this See the Catholic religion has always remained unchanged."
No one is required to obey a commandment to evil. The New Mass is a danger to salvation, and therefore, evil.
Sedevacantist clergy do not have supplied jurisdiction. I will be addressing this in an upcoming article.
Sede sink into Protestantism