We can’t get enough of these types of podcasts. Excellent interview, excellent questions, excellent presentation. Thank you Kevin, and thank you, Your Excellency!
Please, don't do that. Every video that is done by an Opus Dei collaborator is immediately recognizable because there are always numerous comments that consist of canned, vague and overtly generic praise. I am not saying this has anything to do with Opus Dei, but it sure gives the impression of this being some hidden hand propaganda project. I have also noticed that wrt/ the Thesis the supporters and promoters play motte and bailey. First it is "the truth we all need" and their clergy even talk about "Totalist heretics". Then if you begin questioning it, it becomes just a thought experiment or "one possible theory" so you should leave it alone and not point out that it's just a misunderstanding of metaphysics.
I am not (yet) a sedevacantist, not that I don't see how logical it is, and how illogical it is for a Lutheran to be pope, but because of the dead end issue. But this video perhaps put that issue in better perspective with a solution that makes more sense than anything I've ever seen. Thank you for this and thank you your excellency.
@@christisking9773 Most totalists, according to their own logic, are novus ordos pretending to be Catholics without abjuration. When did they made their abjuration? By their own logic they would be cut from the Church.
@A Z, the Thesis either supposes that it is legal to elect a known heretic or that nobody had any idea what Roncalli and Montini or any of their successors believed or had done before the conclaves that elected them. Or the poor cardinals suddenly forgot all the laws and the doctrines when they entered the 1958 or any post-1958 conclave.
Bishop Donald Sanborn was instrumental in me becoming A sedevacantist. After I put on Brown Scapular... Soon, I saw him as Father Sanborn in 80s show, and absolutely was stunned at his love of church, knowledge, orthodoxy... I'd never seen anything like him... Even close... In Vatican II church... Respectfully, I don't believe Francis has any claims on papacy.
They didn't fall from papacy. They never became pope. A heretic can't become pope. On election of President... If a 17 year old citizen of Germany got the votes, he'd never get presidency.
I have more questions than I did before I watched the interview. It would be great to have a follow-up interview. I mean no disrespect, but have definite concerns. The novus ordo is mostly an organization of laymen with very few surviving (heretical) priests. How can you say that any heretical leaders of the novus ordo church have come to their position legitimately? How can a person be so emphatic in a segment of conversation that heretics running the novus ordo church can be granted Church-supplied jurisdiction to fix something in the Catholic Church, while ignoring supplied jurisdiction to true Catholics? Supplied jurisdiction is the sedevacantist's reason to be, the only justification for anything Catholic carrying on for the last 50 years. How can you invoke Epikeia and supplied jurisdiction to become a priest, ignore juridical excommunication, become a bishop, dispense sacraments, open a seminary, then seemingly punt by saying heretics appointed and promoted by the past generations of heretics hold the only jurisdiction for the Catholic Church in which they have no part? This is foolish. Christ in His Church has always been reasonable - epikeia, the Lawgiver is not a fool, the law cannot defeat its very own reason to be.
Hi CJ, nice to hear from you and I think you have some good points. I am trying to also have on a good Bishop or Priest to explain "Totalism". If then, either side would like to follow up and answer questions, it would be great. On my end, I'm truly aiming for unity in our Catholic Church and I think clarifying the arguments will help in doing so. And as Bishop Sanborn says, the Thesis is not necessary to our Faith.
@@kevingillikin5264 I would recommend interviewing Griff Ruby as he has already, with humility and in obedience to teachings of Holy Mother Church analysed the "Theses" (there are 5 versions) and shown them to not be compatible with Catholic teaching or basic Catholic principles.
@@thomassuscipe9381 the problem isn't that the Thesis is misunderstood. A heretic, previously pope, potentially pope, and actively governing the Catholic Church with any level of legitimacy flies in the face of the Catechism, Vatican I, and Canon Law and it's voluminous commentaries. The law makes clear the status of even eclesiastics that choose heresy (without need of declarations) with regard to Christ's Church. But let's get past even these simple truths as the situation and status of the novus ordo church does not even match the presuppositions of the Thesis. The problem is that to apply the Cassiciacum Thesis in our world/time and arrive at its conclusions one has to assume (more) downright impossible things, counter-Catholic things, chief among them being there is any level of legitimacy in the novus ordo church (as a religion, as a structure, as an anything) - it is a counterfeit church, a false religion, a work of the devil that teaches heresy and whose adherents hold heresy. Don't miss the forest for the trees, one shouldn't get locked into endless circular debate on whether the Thesis is valid or not. The Thesis, even if substantiated, cannot be applied in any false religion, including the novus ordo church (THE LAST TWO SENTENCES ARE THE ULTIMATE POINTS OF ALL MY POSTS)
@@cjstrain202 Who said Francis was "previously pope"? Who said Francis is "actively governing the Catholic Church"? I don't adhere to the Thesis. I've seen good refutations of the Thesis. Your comment is not one of them. Note that I didn't say that the Thesis is misunderstood; I said that it seems that YOU misunderstand the Thesis, and it looks like I'm right. Your statement that "one shouldn't get locked up in circular debate on whether the Thesis is valid or not" and your "The Thesis, even if substantiated" clears things up for me. Is it so hard to find good arguments against the Thesis? There are many. Yours are mostly just emotional "arguments" about how we should not place any legitimacy on the Novus Ordo. The Thesis adherents are clear that it is a false religion and that they do not have any authority. They simply have human designation. Their structure is just a dead corpse that will get revived when it's no longer imposing heresy. It's probably wrong, sure. But I don't understand how that sounds so offensive to you.
I want to add to my previous comment with utmost respect. My point was not to weigh on validity or invalidity of the conclusions of the thesis (the conclusion might be valid with the original assumptions being true). My proposal is that the thesis is no longer relevant because all the underlying assumptions made in 1960s are no longer a possibilities
Any underlying assumption of Bishop Des Lauriers that are no longer possible, have been corrected by further study by one of his direct assistants, Fr. Lucien. Fr. Lucien, who did go Novus Ordo but because he became convinced on the orthodoxy of Vatican II, not the because of the corrections to the thesis.
@@TheDTCory I'm not familiar with Father Lucian. As you share it, his resume does not speak well for him, although that doesn't in itself invalidate his related work. Delaurier's thesis assumed that a "potential pope" was at least a material leader of a truly Catholic Church. It was assumed that there were in fact valid Catholic Cardinals that elected this material leader, that there were Catholic clergy and Faithful beneath this material leader. Some of those assumptions had a possibility of being true in the 1960s, but no longer. Time has provided clarity, the Bride of Christ cannot formally teach error. The leaders of the novus ordo church have no relation formally, spiritually or materially to the Bride of Christ.
@@cjstrain202 the Novus Ordo constitutes a new religion, I agree. That it constitutes a new church separated from the Catholic Church, I deny. If the Novus Ordo was canonically separated from the Church, where is the declaration? Furthermore, it is precisely because there isn't a declaration that we must say that the Novus Ordo represents the corpse of the Church during this mystical crucifixion of the Catholic Church. Such a corpse will be resurrected and reunited with the soul when God converts the Novus Ordo. That soul being the mission of the Church carried out by valid Traditionalist Clergy.
@@TheDTCory So your position is this "new church", 1) must be/is identified as the Catholic Church, but 2) can formally teach heresy? There's a big problem with that.
@@cjstrain202 No. It is a corpse, that corpse being the institutions of the Church. It cannot teach heresy because it lacks divinely assisted authority, it can only transmit material apostolic succession.
Thank you for the explanation and for posting it. For some catholic believers who are interested in sedevacantism, it is difficult to make a decision because according to the Novus Ordo, the sedevacantists are excommunicated from the Church and they are in mortal sin, furthermore „blasphemy against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven unto men"
I don't see your problem. Sedevacantists are not trying to be a tribe within Novus Ordo. So to them it does not matter if Novus Ordo thinks so. Either Novus Ordo is Catholic and Sedes are not. Or Sedes are Catholic and Novus Ordo is not. Or both are but neither knows what it is talking about. Or neither is and both are right about the other. One should also consider separately Sedevacantism the idea and Sedevacantism the movement.
I am still interested in the position of the thesis and two more questions have arisen in me. I can`t separate this two things . How I see Sedevacantism is not a movement but a belief that the Church has no Pope. The magisterial mandate of the Pope is given by Jesus Christ, so the question is about the truth. It is about that Jesus says, he asked the Father that Peter's faith never fail. Jesus' prayers are affirmations. Jesus Christ did guarantee to teach the doctrene to Peter and the Apostles all together in communion with Peter. We are all weak, we see it in Luke 22:32 : Jesus makes an allusion to Peter's denial, but distinguishing in it between the courage that would have been shipwrecked that same night and the faith that would remain. Could it not be that the discourse therefore focuses on the faith and on its incorruptibility? / Second, in the Ecumenical Council, in the Novus Ordo all the 2500 bishops were united with the Pope not only materially but also in teaching. The documents of the Second Vatican Council were approved practically unanimously. Faced with such unanimity, one must recognize that Christ was with the Church and spoke through her. Jesus himself is committed to assisting the apostolic magisterium so that he never has to make errors.
@@ioseph7997, you are applying what was said of St. Peter as a person to the whole papacy. You are misusing a passage that does not apply and are not aware of many others that do and point to the opposite direction. Also, if you really wanted to understand something you would consider all the evidence independently instead of holding on to what you already believe and seeing everything else in relation to it and hedging the evidence to benefit your old view. The faith comes first, then the hierarchy. If the hierarchy falls away, the faith does not follow them to their apostasy. Also, Vatican 2 was not some sudden new thing, but the end of a long process.
BUT,the Novus Ordo prays with and has agreement with non-Catholics. Vatican 2 says non-Catholic false religions are a means of salvation. Why are traditional Catholics the only ones singled out as "excommunicated?"
@@seriouscat2231 Thank you for your answer. I think also that the faith comes first, then the hiearchy.As I understand, when Jesus established Peter as the first pope (Matthew 16:18) the election is not due to an act of virtue proper to Peter, but to the Father who, through the Holy Spirit works in Peter.The papacy is conferred on Peter by the Faith he confesses, and it is more the merit of the Father, and not the virtue of Peter. What Peter believed in Christ remains, so what Christ established in Peter remains. The person of the Roman pontiff could be linked to the person of Peter like an analogy between two relations. The popes when they carry out their mission, their act are moved by Peter. The subject of the pontifical authority, whose faith one must be united to to be Catholic is Peter, not Francis. If the personal faith of J.M. Bergoglio does not accord with the Catholic faith does not take his legitimacy as pope: it only makes him a not good pope and it is mainly his problem.(may occour a severe final judgment.)
R&R holds that Francis is a true Pope. M/F holds that Francis is a false "pope". R&R holds that to deny Francis has the form of the Papacy, i.e. Authority, is schismatic. M/F holds that to affirm Francis has the form of the Papacy, i.e. Authority would contradict the dogma of indefectibility. Both hold that V2 and its reforms constitute a new religion and that Francis' election to the Pontificate is valid. The world of difference is found in whether or not Francis is the Vicar of Jesus Christ.
@@pivotmaster345 As I said it is just a similar not yet totally desame.. I think we should really know what is the distinction between the similar ang desame.. as we know that this Cassiciacum thesis recognized materially that there is a pope..
That's a stretch to say the least! Even though I don't have a definite position on the Thesis/Totalism (so no, I won't debate the two possibilities here), the "thesis" is just an: 1. Attempt to demonstrate these heretics are/were NOT the popes while trying to save the "continuity of the papal lineage" in some sense (materially) 2. Their Masses are not sacrilegious in union with an "on your face" antipope. 3. They are not open to join this antipope as long as they are also accepted in his circus' tent. The R&R, on the other hand: 1. Will go to great lengths to argue Bergoglio IS the pope 2. Almost all their Masses are in UNION with a public and notorious heretic 3. They try to "negotiate" with all these "popes", including Bergoglio (to this day!), showing their absurd and, objectively speaking, non-catholic position: The pope is someone we can bargain with as long as we get what we want. So, the difference is clear as night and day for those with eyes to see and ears to hear...
There are a number of novus ordo clergy that openly call it conciliar church. One sedevacantist priest who broke from Vatican II was asked by novus ordo superior, but which church are you with. Sedes and even sspx will call it a new church.
Nice discussion! Get Ben Beal on for a discussion, he is a traditional Catholic who has had many debates with Protestants/muslims etc…. Would be a fun chat
I think this thesis tunnel-visions on the "pope" and ignores the fact the the novus ordo church is a new religion. It is not the Catholic religion or Church. The novus ordo religion has formally taught heresy (several times). It has poisoned all its adherents to the point that even well-meaning adherents hold heretical beliefs contrary to Faith. I can see why the thesis was potentially valid in the 60's and 70's, but how can anyone say it holds water 50 years later, with the fully and formally evolved heresies of novus ordo institution fully imbued in the past two generations?
When was the Novus Ordo Church founded (1958? 1963? 1965? 1969?), and who has the authority to receive the abjurations and lift the excommunications of the Novus Ordites who convert from their false church? Where was the true Church between the death of Pope Pius XII and the promulgation of the novus Ordo Missae by Paul VI?
I would say that the date of foundation is irrelevant. It was probably founded in the dark by Freemasons in the first half of the 20th century. The master minds of the novus ordo had control in the enclave after Pius XII's death. Vatican II certainly formalized it as an institution in opposition to Christ's church
@@cjstrain202 Again, the date is important, otherwise, everyone would be a novus ordo to this point, no matter if they later realized they were part of a "new church".
@@ludwigramirez4711 You are assuming the novus ordo "took over" the Catholic Church. You are assuming everyone accepted the Second Vatican Council and went allowing with the novus order abomination. That is not the case - many Catholics would have nothing to do with teh V-II church. It is historically accurate, consistent and observable that the novus order eclipsed the Catholic Church as its Head was struck. It is also a point of record that there were many believing Catholics and clergy of the 1960s mistaken through no fault of their own, who upon discovery of the deception disavowed the novus ordo church without worshipping at the altar of satan.
Anyone who knows Bp. Sanborn knows that he believes that the Novus Ordo is a new religion. He's always made that clear. The point here is that the Thesis points out that the modernists didn't create a new structure; they used the structures of the Catholic Church. Otherwise, you must give the clear date of the separation of the two structures.
What about the Bergoglio's questionable ordination (in the New post-1968 Rite of Ordination)? If he is not truly a priest how could he be a bishop and a pope?
Bishop Sanborn is a great Catholic hero. With respect, Francis can do whatever he wants. I'm not ever accepting him. (Part of fierce news is due to BP Sanborn). God bless Lefebvre Nine
I don't agree w Bishop Sanborn on everything but his approach plus the idea of not wanting to divide traditional Catholics is commendable. Good interview.
@@E.C.2 as Bp Sanborn is against the imperfect general council to elect the Pope, he can say what he wants to not divide traditional catholics, he's a hypocrit.
@@axz4477"You probably don't understand." That's correct as I'm not intelligent. Would love a Great Western Schism II, problem is,our hierarchy could be infiltrated & destroyed from within 20-25 yrs. Thuc, Mendez,Lefebvre,Duarte-Costa,and Varlet line Bishops should conditionally Ordain/ Consecrate each other so no one can doubt validity. There are few yet valid Duarte-Costa & Varlet line Bishops who are Catholic offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass Sacraments etc
Thank you for a program on this topic. 1) have you invited someone on the other side of the position, like Bishop Dolan from SSG to come on? 2) Bishop Sanborn mentioned jurisdiction. If Sede clergy have no Jurisdiction, how can a layman fulfill his duty of worship or receive licit sacraments from a Sede clergyman? 2a) I ask this because if a Sede priest was ordained validly by a true Bishop, but illicitly, then are we not, if attending an illicit groups Mass, in schism by attending? I am simply trying to understand this position better, because I have held for the last 2 years that Bergoglio and most of the clergy have defected from the faith and have not been to a Mass /Sacraments since. I don’t have a Sede parish near me and due to difficulties, am unable to travel too far with my family. that said, under the cassiciacum thesis, I have to be in union with my heretical “Bishop” of the NO because he has jurisdiction in the Church, but is heretical, but Sede priest are illicit, but orthodox. Is this correct?
@okumaa122, *disclaimer: I’m not a priest. Just a layperson sharing what clergy have taught me.* Sede priests and bishops ABSOLUTELY have jurisdiction to operate, administer sacraments, etc. They are absolutely licit. They are operating under supplied jurisdiction. The supreme law of the Church is salvation of souls. Souls need the sacraments. The Church needs priests. Because the whole diocesan structure is gone and there is no ordinary jurisdiction, Holy Mother Church provides for the needs of the faithful through supplied jurisdiction. I recommend asking a priest if you don’t understand. Any of them would be happy to explain things to you.
Thank you for the questions and I will answer number 1: I have invited someone on and it is only a question of if it seems to be for the best to do any more shows on the topic. But my personal hope is that we will have a clergy member on to explain "Totalism". For the second question, as a lay man I do not want to attempt an answer. But I would gladly get you in contact with a priest. Send me an email at kevin89davis@gmail.com. Tell me where you live and I will try to get someone who I know and trust to answer your question - of course, time permitting for our busy priests.
I love Bp Sanborn and this show. My hang up is the Church says that if the Church in general accepts a man is pope then he is pope. Well……..the Church has accepted every election since Roncalli. Now what? So, the sedes have to accept his election? I’m telling you if Bergoglio became a greater saint and champion of the faith than Pius X sedes would still have some problem with him. I don’t know
Obviously the very fact we exist and in good numbers with even those in the NO resisting their 'pope', the acceptance even by those terms and pretense is not universal.
So….. there’s no question that Bergoglio and company are not true popes. The question is: HOW are they not true popes. The thesis and totalism are potential answers to that question. You are permitted to believe either, though not required. You must, however, believe all the truths the Catholic Church has taught. Is this correct?
The last part is 100%. The Thesis is something that most Catholics need to not worry about AT ALL. Ask your priest, trust your priest. And it is a bit about HOW they are not Popes but also, I think maybe more importantly, how to elect a new Pope.
@@colettecrochet8316, beware a von Münchhausen trick here, i.e. pulling yourself out of a swamp by grabbing your own bootstrap. Some people hold that the validity of "your priest" that you are supposed to trust depends on whether the Thesis has explanatory power and is not simply a misuse of Aristotelian terminology.
Comparing a president-elect to a pope elect is apples to oranges a president-elect by law is barred from implementing his policies every Vatican 2 Pope elect has been able to implement their policies. And with this thesis aren't you accepting the Vatican 2 church as the true Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church?
No way. I can try with another example : if Judges are corrupted, as it happens a lot in our freemasonic societies, are they Legitimate judges ? On the paper yes. But as what their mission is about, NO. They are not supposed to work against what is true, and for what is bad. If they do so they are "judges" with the force of the administration, but not with the force of te mission of their job. But if they don't act as their mission ask them to act, so they are not legitimate, even if they have the material power to act. What is needed is that good judges bounce these bad judges off their place. Unless the whole administration has been corrupted. No force can organise a purification. So, does this administration can become righteous ? YES; They can always convert to be good judges. During this time. The corruption is damaging the society through the roof. We need more traditional priests to push the ones who are in the administration to convert, and this needs to tell the truth to the society.
Bp. Sanborn is a great Bishop, but he isnt representing the "totalists' view correctly, we believe that not only by "personal heresy" does he lose the papacy, but also we believe the same as him that by "promulgating" heresy is also not a Pope. And he is wrong the Church teaches that it ISNT necessary for a declaration of the Church for a Pope to fully lose all connection with the Papacy. And he is wrong that there "cant be long periods of vacancy to the papacy", because the Church teachings that there can be long vacancy of the seat of Peter. Bull of Pope Paul IV - Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, 1559 “Further, if ever it should appear that any bishop (even one acting as an archbishop, patriarch or primate), or a cardinal of the Roman Church, or a legate (as mentioned above), or even the Roman Pontiff (whether prior to his promotion to cardinal, or prior to his election as Roman Pontiff), has beforehand deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into any heresy, We enact, decree, determine and define: - “Such promotion or election in and of itself, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, shall be null, legally invalid and void. - “It shall not be possible for such a promotion or election to be deemed valid or to be valid, neither through reception of office, consecration, subsequent administration, or possession, nor even through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff himself, together with the veneration and obedience accorded him by all. - “Such promotion or election, shall not through any lapse of tune in the foregoing situation, be considered even partially legitimate in any way . . . - “Each and all of the words, as acts, laws, appointments of those so promoted or elected -and indeed, whatsoever flows therefrom - shall be lacking in force, and shall grant no stability and legal power to anyone whatsoever. - “Those so promoted or elected, by that very fact and without the need to make any further declaration, shall be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power.” A. Dorsch - Institutions Theologiae Fundamentalis, 1928 “The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, or even for many years, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state . . . “Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body . . . Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way -that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not . . . “For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died -for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate. “These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however,[perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary” (De Ecclesia 2:196-7). Fr. Edward J. O’Reilly, S.J. - The Relations of the Church to Society, 1882 “We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy. In the first place, there was all throughout, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a Pope -with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a Pope, really invested with the dignity of vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum.” Msgr. Charles Journet, The Church of the Incarnate Word B. The Church During a Vacancy of the Holy See We must not think of the church, when the Pope is dead, as possessing the papal power in act, in a state of diffusion, so that she herself can delegate it to the next Pope in whom it will be recondensed and made definite. When the Pope dies the Church is widowed, and, in respect of the visible universal jurisdiction, she is truly acephalous.* ‘But she is not acephalous as are the schismatic Churches, nor like a body on the way to decomposition. Christ directs her from heaven .. . But, though slowed down, the pulse of life has not left the Church; she possesses the power of the Papacy in potency, in the sense that Christ, who has willed her always to depend on a visible pastor, has given her power to designate the man to who He will Himself commit the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, as once He committed them to Peter. *During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, says Cajetan, the universal Church is in an imperfect state; she is like an amputated body, not an integral body. “The Church is acephalous, deprived of her highest part and power.” Msgr. Journet - The Church of the Incarnate Word “During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, neither the Church nor the Council can contravene the provisions already laid down to determine the valid mode of election (Cardinal Cajetan, O.P., in De Comparata, cap. xiii, no. 202). However, in case of permission (for example if the Pope has provided nothing against it), or in case of ambiguity (for example, if it is unknown who the true Cardinals are or who the true Pope is, as was the case at the time of the Great Schism), the power ‘of applying the Papacy to such and such a person’ devolves on the universal Church, the Church of God.” Cajetan, O. P. - De Comparatione Autoritatis Papae et Concilii “. . . by exception and by suppletory manner this power (that of electing a pope), corresponds to the Church and to the Council, either by the inexistence of Cardinal Electors, or because they are doubtful, or the election itself is uncertain, as it happens at the time of a schism.” Billot - De Ecclesia Christi “When it would be necessary to proceed with the election, if it is impossible to follow the regulations of papal law, as was the case during the Great Western Schism, one can accept, without difficulty, that the power of election could be transferred to a General Council.” “Because ‘natural law prescribes that, in such cases, the power of a Superior is passed to the immediate inferior, because this is absolutely necessary for the survival of the society and to avoid the tribulations of extreme need.” Vitoria - De Potestate Ecclesiae “Even if St. Peter would have not determined anything, once he was dead, the Church had the power to substitute him and appoint a successor to him… If by any calamity, war or plague, all Cardinals would be lacking, we cannot doubt that the Church could provide for herself a Holy Father. “Hence such an election; ‘a tota Ecclesia debet provideri et non ab aliqua partuculari Ecclesia.’ (“It should be carried by all the Church and not by any particular Church.”) And this is because “Ilia potestas est communis et spectat ad totam Ecclesiam. Ergo a tata Ecclesia debet provideri.’” (“That power is common and it concerns the whole Church. So it must be the duty of the whole Church.”) This is but a sample of Church quotes, for more quotes go to cmri.org, then under #1 Articles, then under #2 Pointes of Interest, then under #3 Vacancy of The Holy See, and lastly #4 Quotes from Theologians etc. on Sedevacantism.
I see a problem here that concerns this entire question. When people argue for or against something, they quote some source or authority and think that the source will then speak for itself. It would be far easier to follow your or anyone's argument if they stated clearly what are they using the quote for and what against. As far as I am concerned, the Thesis is only relevant if it is possible to ignore what is now known about the causes that both Roncalli and Montini advanced and participated in before their respective conclaves.
I'll repeat a comment made elsewhere. I'm a sedevacantist myself but I find it tragic when sedevacantists use the Bull "Cum ex Apostolatus" to defend sedevantism because it simply does not hold water and it has given the R&R people a lot of arguments to reject sedevacantism. "Cum Ex Apostolatus" was a legal document not a doctrinal one, therefore it was not binding to future Popes and future popes could change that law (and they have). It ceased to apply a long time ago. More importantly perhaps, that document was talking about heretics or apostates that had already been either legally sentenced or formally severed from the Church (i.e the Protestants). So either way, it does not apply to our current situation because the modernists Apostates in Rome were never legally or formally severed. The aim of the Bull was to prevent a current or even former Protestant from ever becoming Pope or cardinal. But we know that cardinal Newman was made a cardinal by Pope Leo which went in direct contradiction with that Bull as Newman was a former Protestant (of the Anglican variety).The reason Pope Leo XIII was able to do that is because he knew that that Bull was not binding to him as Pope and he could abrogate it...and since then we also have the 1917 Code of Canon Law anyway which makes Cum Ex completely obsolete...I cannot for the life of me understand why some sedevacantists keep using this as an argument.
@@WordsFromPeterDude you’re completely wrong, you obviously got those points from R&R pushers. A papal bull on faith and morals which this is is infallible church teaching, plus this bull is in complete unison with every other church teaching that I posted. I got those quotes from Bishop Pivarunas, who has studied canon law, and Church teaching extensively, and is probably the best Bishop there is that proves sedevacantism right from Church teaching it’s self, and not just personal opinion. The 1917 code refers back to previous laws to better understand the laws in the new code of canon by giving side references right next to the new codes for further clarification. Cardinal Newman ceased being an Anglican bishop, when he became a catholic, and therefore could be promoted into the hierarchy of the Church just as any former pagans, occultists, orthodox/schismatics, Jews, or satanists, because they’re no longer any of those things. And guess what these people all have been promoted to some of the highest levels in the Church after they converted, some taking along time, some almost instantly.
How does the Bishop reconcile the Thesis with Pope Paul IV bull Ex Apostoloatus Officio? This makes it clear that a Pope who has fallen into heresy loses his office with no official ruling, automatically.
So, let's say Francis says he renounces all his heresies and wants to be Catholic. What if I say, too bad. He was not Catholic when elected, he ain't pope. He has to re elected Am I anathema?
Catholic Family Podcast does not endorse the Cassiciacum Thesis, but *in theory*, in the event of an anti-pope converting to Catholicism and adequately purging Vatican II and its fruits, there would be a period of discernment in which either obedience (to the converted Pope) or prudence (in not following the converted Pope until his fruits were abundantly clear) would be an acceptably Catholic position.
Thank you for responding. You all have a good series. Catholic Sedevacantist clergy were crucial, but laity faithful to Church have helped me immeasurably during this tough time
Re at 13.06, What does Pope Paul IV and Pope St Pius V say? '... if prior to his election or elevation as ... Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or has fallen into some heresy ... it shall not be held to be partially legitimate in any way ... no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain ... shall be deprived automatically and without the need for any further declaration of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.' Re at 14:20, if a president elect is discovered to be ineligible for election because of citizenship, he cannot become the president.
Sedevacantism as a movement is based on ignoring lots of laws here and there. If they didn't do that they wouldn't have any clergy and therefore no sacraments. Before you say anything I must add that I agree with you, especially about the Novus Ordo. It all began with Roncalli and there's a reason why they try to ignore him entirely and Montini until the promulgation of Vatican II.
The R&R camp says that Bergoglio is formally the pope (because he is elected) but not materially (because he is a heretic). The Thesis says that he is materially the pope (because he is elected) but not formally (because he is a heretic). The problem with the Thesis is that it is an abstraction. The distinction it makes is not metaphysically valid. It is a mental game, a wordplay, not an application of Thomism. Also, if someone played Sanborn's game, he could say that Vatican II is Catholic because it has not yet been declared against and therefore every Catholic should believe what it says.
@@kimmosundqvist1201 Guerard De Laurier is a Thomist, and used Thomism for this thesis. You need to dig more on what you call a wordplay. Many of these objections have been answered in Sodalitium journal, but it's in french. Maybe the Sanborn organisation you may read their writings about the objections.
The thing with the Thesis is that it pretends to be "based on Thomist principles" (which it is not and whatever that even means), but in reality it's an abstraction, a thought experiment. He is pulling wool over people's eyes by selling it as metaphysics. It's not. Guerard des Lauriers may have been a Thomist at some point in his life, but arguing from that is like saying that if he burped after a meal then that was a Thomist burp. If you have a spoon made of steel, then the steel is the matter and the spoon is the form. Any idea of a spoon is just an idea and any lump of steel is just a lump of steel until these two come together. An election is neither the matter nor the form in any metaphysical sense, but just a legal abstraction.
It's a mess no one has all the answers but if you listen to Bishop Sanborn,it's more detailed. (I'm neutral on this issue all I know is Montini - Bergoglio is not Catholic)
@@E.C.2, I have listened enough of him to know exactly why he is bad news. There's nothing detailed in what he says and the whole Thesis is a deception. If you think that it's a mess then it's because of you, not because the situation is somehow unknowable.
Neville Goddard left 1972 and left truth about what man is, outside temples or churches fancy or filth has nothing to Bragg over Jesus in man most look outside themself. Luke 17:20And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. What you dress with to thinking it helps you is funny. Milk is tricky meat is truth in you not in outside that sees you think, 2Cor 13:5Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that !!Jesus Christ is in you!!, except ye be reprobates? Popes nor preacher help you, you do it like Saul to Paul woke inside himself not by man or religion, then could read the OT as allegory not secular history you think it was then you still like milk.
Bishop Sanborn: Your voice is greatly needed and much appreciated today. Please continue to lead and teach in such dark and confusing times.🌹
This was excellent. Thank you so much for the clear and cogent explanation, Your Excellency!
The interviewer did a great job. Very intelligible and clear presentation.
Thank you :)
We can’t get enough of these types of podcasts. Excellent interview, excellent questions, excellent presentation. Thank you Kevin, and thank you, Your Excellency!
Please, don't do that. Every video that is done by an Opus Dei collaborator is immediately recognizable because there are always numerous comments that consist of canned, vague and overtly generic praise. I am not saying this has anything to do with Opus Dei, but it sure gives the impression of this being some hidden hand propaganda project.
I have also noticed that wrt/ the Thesis the supporters and promoters play motte and bailey. First it is "the truth we all need" and their clergy even talk about "Totalist heretics". Then if you begin questioning it, it becomes just a thought experiment or "one possible theory" so you should leave it alone and not point out that it's just a misunderstanding of metaphysics.
I don't pretend to understand it all, but Bp. Sanborn is a theologian and I trust him. His love for the Truth has directed his whole life.
My first video watching Bishop Donald Sanborn. Sounds clear. (From Brazil)
I am not (yet) a sedevacantist, not that I don't see how logical it is, and how illogical it is for a Lutheran to be pope, but because of the dead end issue. But this video perhaps put that issue in better perspective with a solution that makes more sense than anything I've ever seen. Thank you for this and thank you your excellency.
@A Z same could more easily be said of totalism as I see it
@@christisking9773 Most totalists, according to their own logic, are novus ordos pretending to be Catholics without abjuration. When did they made their abjuration? By their own logic they would be cut from the Church.
@A Z, the Thesis either supposes that it is legal to elect a known heretic or that nobody had any idea what Roncalli and Montini or any of their successors believed or had done before the conclaves that elected them. Or the poor cardinals suddenly forgot all the laws and the doctrines when they entered the 1958 or any post-1958 conclave.
I'd give a possible suggestion but my comments are deleted constantly. IDK if it's UA-cam's algorithm or their censorship team?
@@E.C.2, change your choice of words if it is the algorithm. On the other hand, I am not in need of any suggestions.
Bishop Donald Sanborn was instrumental in me becoming A sedevacantist. After I put on Brown Scapular... Soon, I saw him as Father Sanborn in 80s show, and absolutely was stunned at his love of church, knowledge, orthodoxy... I'd never seen anything like him... Even close... In Vatican II church...
Respectfully, I don't believe Francis has any claims on papacy.
They didn't fall from papacy. They never became pope. A heretic can't become pope. On election of President... If a 17 year old citizen of Germany got the votes, he'd never get presidency.
"John Paul ll is the head of a Church. But he is not the head of the Catholic Church." --Reverend Father Joseph F Collins in or around 1983.
But seemingly these guys derive their validity from this head of this some church.
Christ is the Head of His Catholic Church. The Pope is His Vicar on Earth.
I have more questions than I did before I watched the interview. It would be great to have a follow-up interview. I mean no disrespect, but have definite concerns. The novus ordo is mostly an organization of laymen with very few surviving (heretical) priests. How can you say that any heretical leaders of the novus ordo church have come to their position legitimately? How can a person be so emphatic in a segment of conversation that heretics running the novus ordo church can be granted Church-supplied jurisdiction to fix something in the Catholic Church, while ignoring supplied jurisdiction to true Catholics? Supplied jurisdiction is the sedevacantist's reason to be, the only justification for anything Catholic carrying on for the last 50 years. How can you invoke Epikeia and supplied jurisdiction to become a priest, ignore juridical excommunication, become a bishop, dispense sacraments, open a seminary, then seemingly punt by saying heretics appointed and promoted by the past generations of heretics hold the only jurisdiction for the Catholic Church in which they have no part? This is foolish. Christ in His Church has always been reasonable - epikeia, the Lawgiver is not a fool, the law cannot defeat its very own reason to be.
Hi CJ, nice to hear from you and I think you have some good points. I am trying to also have on a good Bishop or Priest to explain "Totalism". If then, either side would like to follow up and answer questions, it would be great. On my end, I'm truly aiming for unity in our Catholic Church and I think clarifying the arguments will help in doing so. And as Bishop Sanborn says, the Thesis is not necessary to our Faith.
@@kevingillikin5264 I would recommend interviewing Griff Ruby as he has already, with humility and in obedience to teachings of Holy Mother Church analysed the "Theses" (there are 5 versions) and shown them to not be compatible with Catholic teaching or basic Catholic principles.
It seems to me that the problem is that you don't understand the Thesis. In your own words, what does the Thesis say?
@@thomassuscipe9381 the problem isn't that the Thesis is misunderstood. A heretic, previously pope, potentially pope, and actively governing the Catholic Church with any level of legitimacy flies in the face of the Catechism, Vatican I, and Canon Law and it's voluminous commentaries. The law makes clear the status of even eclesiastics that choose heresy (without need of declarations) with regard to Christ's Church. But let's get past even these simple truths as the situation and status of the novus ordo church does not even match the presuppositions of the Thesis.
The problem is that to apply the Cassiciacum Thesis in our world/time and arrive at its conclusions one has to assume (more) downright impossible things, counter-Catholic things, chief among them being there is any level of legitimacy in the novus ordo church (as a religion, as a structure, as an anything) - it is a counterfeit church, a false religion, a work of the devil that teaches heresy and whose adherents hold heresy. Don't miss the forest for the trees, one shouldn't get locked into endless circular debate on whether the Thesis is valid or not. The Thesis, even if substantiated, cannot be applied in any false religion, including the novus ordo church (THE LAST TWO SENTENCES ARE THE ULTIMATE POINTS OF ALL MY POSTS)
@@cjstrain202 Who said Francis was "previously pope"? Who said Francis is "actively governing the Catholic Church"?
I don't adhere to the Thesis. I've seen good refutations of the Thesis. Your comment is not one of them. Note that I didn't say that the Thesis is misunderstood; I said that it seems that YOU misunderstand the Thesis, and it looks like I'm right.
Your statement that "one shouldn't get locked up in circular debate on whether the Thesis is valid or not" and your "The Thesis, even if substantiated" clears things up for me.
Is it so hard to find good arguments against the Thesis? There are many. Yours are mostly just emotional "arguments" about how we should not place any legitimacy on the Novus Ordo. The Thesis adherents are clear that it is a false religion and that they do not have any authority. They simply have human designation. Their structure is just a dead corpse that will get revived when it's no longer imposing heresy. It's probably wrong, sure. But I don't understand how that sounds so offensive to you.
I want to add to my previous comment with utmost respect. My point was not to weigh on validity or invalidity of the conclusions of the thesis (the conclusion might be valid with the original assumptions being true). My proposal is that the thesis is no longer relevant because all the underlying assumptions made in 1960s are no longer a possibilities
Any underlying assumption of Bishop Des Lauriers that are no longer possible, have been corrected by further study by one of his direct assistants, Fr. Lucien. Fr. Lucien, who did go Novus Ordo but because he became convinced on the orthodoxy of Vatican II, not the because of the corrections to the thesis.
@@TheDTCory I'm not familiar with Father Lucian. As you share it, his resume does not speak well for him, although that doesn't in itself invalidate his related work.
Delaurier's thesis assumed that a "potential pope" was at least a material leader of a truly Catholic Church. It was assumed that there were in fact valid Catholic Cardinals that elected this material leader, that there were Catholic clergy and Faithful beneath this material leader. Some of those assumptions had a possibility of being true in the 1960s, but no longer. Time has provided clarity, the Bride of Christ cannot formally teach error. The leaders of the novus ordo church have no relation formally, spiritually or materially to the Bride of Christ.
@@cjstrain202 the Novus Ordo constitutes a new religion, I agree. That it constitutes a new church separated from the Catholic Church, I deny. If the Novus Ordo was canonically separated from the Church, where is the declaration? Furthermore, it is precisely because there isn't a declaration that we must say that the Novus Ordo represents the corpse of the Church during this mystical crucifixion of the Catholic Church. Such a corpse will be resurrected and reunited with the soul when God converts the Novus Ordo. That soul being the mission of the Church carried out by valid Traditionalist Clergy.
@@TheDTCory So your position is this "new church", 1) must be/is identified as the Catholic Church, but 2) can formally teach heresy? There's a big problem with that.
@@cjstrain202 No. It is a corpse, that corpse being the institutions of the Church. It cannot teach heresy because it lacks divinely assisted authority, it can only transmit material apostolic succession.
Very good description of “Papus Interruptus “ and the obvious sede vacantist de facto response. Thanks!
The more I’ve learned about Vatican 2 the more I agree with sedevacantists I think a lot like them
Thank you for the explanation and for posting it. For some catholic believers who are interested in sedevacantism, it is difficult to make a decision because according to the Novus Ordo, the sedevacantists are excommunicated from the Church and they are in mortal sin, furthermore „blasphemy against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven unto men"
I don't see your problem. Sedevacantists are not trying to be a tribe within Novus Ordo. So to them it does not matter if Novus Ordo thinks so. Either Novus Ordo is Catholic and Sedes are not. Or Sedes are Catholic and Novus Ordo is not. Or both are but neither knows what it is talking about. Or neither is and both are right about the other. One should also consider separately Sedevacantism the idea and Sedevacantism the movement.
I am still interested in the position of the thesis and two more questions have arisen in me. I can`t separate this two things . How I see Sedevacantism is not a movement but a belief that the Church has no Pope. The magisterial mandate of the Pope is given by Jesus Christ, so the question is about the truth. It is about that Jesus says, he asked the Father that Peter's faith never fail. Jesus' prayers are affirmations. Jesus Christ did guarantee to teach the doctrene to Peter and the Apostles all together in communion with Peter. We are all weak, we see it in Luke 22:32 : Jesus makes an allusion to Peter's denial, but distinguishing in it between the courage that would have been shipwrecked that same night and the faith that would remain. Could it not be that the discourse therefore focuses on the faith and on its incorruptibility? / Second, in the Ecumenical Council, in the Novus Ordo all the 2500 bishops were united with the Pope not only materially but also in teaching. The documents of the Second Vatican Council were approved practically unanimously. Faced with such unanimity, one must recognize that Christ was with the Church and spoke through her. Jesus himself is committed to assisting the apostolic magisterium so that he never has to make errors.
@@ioseph7997, you are applying what was said of St. Peter as a person to the whole papacy. You are misusing a passage that does not apply and are not aware of many others that do and point to the opposite direction. Also, if you really wanted to understand something you would consider all the evidence independently instead of holding on to what you already believe and seeing everything else in relation to it and hedging the evidence to benefit your old view. The faith comes first, then the hierarchy. If the hierarchy falls away, the faith does not follow them to their apostasy. Also, Vatican 2 was not some sudden new thing, but the end of a long process.
BUT,the Novus Ordo prays with and has agreement with non-Catholics.
Vatican 2 says non-Catholic false religions are a means of salvation.
Why are traditional Catholics the only ones singled out as "excommunicated?"
@@seriouscat2231 Thank you for your answer. I think also that the faith comes first, then the hiearchy.As I understand, when Jesus established Peter as the first pope (Matthew 16:18) the election is not due to an act of virtue proper to Peter, but to the Father who, through the Holy Spirit works in Peter.The papacy is conferred on Peter by the Faith he confesses, and it is more the merit of the Father, and not the virtue of Peter. What Peter believed in Christ remains, so what Christ established in Peter remains. The person of the Roman pontiff could be linked to the person of Peter like an analogy between two relations. The popes when they carry out their mission, their act are moved by Peter. The subject of the pontifical authority, whose faith one must be united to to be Catholic is Peter, not Francis. If the personal faith of J.M. Bergoglio does not accord with the Catholic faith does not take his legitimacy as pope: it only makes him a not good pope and it is mainly his problem.(may occour a severe final judgment.)
I think it is similar to the recognized and resist thesis, recognized materially but resisting or unrecognizing spiritually.
R&R holds that Francis is a true Pope. M/F holds that Francis is a false "pope". R&R holds that to deny Francis has the form of the Papacy, i.e. Authority, is schismatic. M/F holds that to affirm Francis has the form of the Papacy, i.e. Authority would contradict the dogma of indefectibility. Both hold that V2 and its reforms constitute a new religion and that Francis' election to the Pontificate is valid. The world of difference is found in whether or not Francis is the Vicar of Jesus Christ.
@@pivotmaster345 As I said it is just a similar not yet totally desame.. I think we should really know what is the distinction between the similar ang desame.. as we know that this Cassiciacum thesis recognized materially that there is a pope..
That's a stretch to say the least!
Even though I don't have a definite position on the Thesis/Totalism (so no, I won't debate the two possibilities here), the "thesis" is just an:
1. Attempt to demonstrate these heretics are/were NOT the popes while trying to save the "continuity of the papal lineage" in some sense (materially)
2. Their Masses are not sacrilegious in union with an "on your face" antipope.
3. They are not open to join this antipope as long as they are also accepted in his circus' tent.
The R&R, on the other hand:
1. Will go to great lengths to argue Bergoglio IS the pope
2. Almost all their Masses are in UNION with a public and notorious heretic
3. They try to "negotiate" with all these "popes", including Bergoglio (to this day!), showing their absurd and, objectively speaking, non-catholic position: The pope is someone we can bargain with as long as we get what we want.
So, the difference is clear as night and day for those with eyes to see and ears to hear...
That's exactly what it is.
There are a number of novus ordo clergy that openly call it conciliar church. One sedevacantist priest who broke from Vatican II was asked by novus ordo superior, but which church are you with.
Sedes and even sspx will call it a new church.
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves." (St Matthew 7:15)
Matthew 7:15 RSV-CE
Nice discussion! Get Ben Beal on for a discussion, he is a traditional Catholic who has had many debates with Protestants/muslims etc…. Would be a fun chat
I think this thesis tunnel-visions on the "pope" and ignores the fact the the novus ordo church is a new religion. It is not the Catholic religion or Church. The novus ordo religion has formally taught heresy (several times). It has poisoned all its adherents to the point that even well-meaning adherents hold heretical beliefs contrary to Faith. I can see why the thesis was potentially valid in the 60's and 70's, but how can anyone say it holds water 50 years later, with the fully and formally evolved heresies of novus ordo institution fully imbued in the past two generations?
When was the Novus Ordo Church founded (1958? 1963? 1965? 1969?), and who has the authority to receive the abjurations and lift the excommunications of the Novus Ordites who convert from their false church? Where was the true Church between the death of Pope Pius XII and the promulgation of the novus Ordo Missae by Paul VI?
I would say that the date of foundation is irrelevant. It was probably founded in the dark by Freemasons in the first half of the 20th century. The master minds of the novus ordo had control in the enclave after Pius XII's death. Vatican II certainly formalized it as an institution in opposition to Christ's church
@@cjstrain202 Again, the date is important, otherwise, everyone would be a novus ordo to this point, no matter if they later realized they were part of a "new church".
@@ludwigramirez4711 You are assuming the novus ordo "took over" the Catholic Church. You are assuming everyone accepted the Second Vatican Council and went allowing with the novus order abomination. That is not the case - many Catholics would have nothing to do with teh V-II church. It is historically accurate, consistent and observable that the novus order eclipsed the Catholic Church as its Head was struck. It is also a point of record that there were many believing Catholics and clergy of the 1960s mistaken through no fault of their own, who upon discovery of the deception disavowed the novus ordo church without worshipping at the altar of satan.
Anyone who knows Bp. Sanborn knows that he believes that the Novus Ordo is a new religion. He's always made that clear.
The point here is that the Thesis points out that the modernists didn't create a new structure; they used the structures of the Catholic Church. Otherwise, you must give the clear date of the separation of the two structures.
What about the Bergoglio's questionable ordination (in the New post-1968 Rite of Ordination)? If he is not truly a priest how could he be a bishop and a pope?
what does Bp Sanborn think of the Ratzinger resignation using imprecise latin wording (which i understand he helped craft while under Wojtyla)?
Bishop Sanborn is a great Catholic hero. With respect, Francis can do whatever he wants. I'm not ever accepting him. (Part of fierce news is due to BP Sanborn).
God bless Lefebvre Nine
I don't agree w Bishop Sanborn on everything but his approach plus the idea of not wanting to divide traditional Catholics is commendable. Good interview.
He's however hypocrit. Because he says that, by example, SSPX isn't catholic, CMRI a bit stupid, etc.
@@axz4477 Everyone is a hypocrite,this is why the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass the Sacraments Litanies Holy Rosary etc exist in the first place.
@@E.C.2 you probably dont understand.
@@E.C.2 as Bp Sanborn is against the imperfect general council to elect the Pope, he can say what he wants to not divide traditional catholics, he's a hypocrit.
@@axz4477"You probably don't understand." That's correct as I'm not intelligent.
Would love a Great Western Schism II, problem is,our hierarchy could be infiltrated & destroyed from within 20-25 yrs. Thuc, Mendez,Lefebvre,Duarte-Costa,and Varlet line Bishops should conditionally Ordain/ Consecrate each other so no one can doubt validity. There are few yet valid Duarte-Costa & Varlet line Bishops who are Catholic offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass Sacraments etc
Thank you for a program on this topic.
1) have you invited someone on the other side of the position, like Bishop Dolan from SSG to come on?
2) Bishop Sanborn mentioned jurisdiction. If Sede clergy have no Jurisdiction, how can a layman fulfill his duty of worship or receive licit sacraments from a Sede clergyman?
2a)
I ask this because if a Sede priest was ordained validly by a true Bishop, but illicitly, then are we not, if attending an illicit groups Mass, in schism by attending?
I am simply trying to understand this position better, because I have held for the last 2 years that Bergoglio and most of the clergy have defected from the faith and have not been to a Mass /Sacraments since. I don’t have a Sede parish near me and due to difficulties, am unable to travel too far with my family.
that said, under the cassiciacum thesis, I have to be in union with my heretical “Bishop” of the NO because he has jurisdiction in the Church, but is heretical, but Sede priest are illicit, but orthodox. Is this correct?
@okumaa122,
*disclaimer: I’m not a priest. Just a layperson sharing what clergy have taught me.*
Sede priests and bishops ABSOLUTELY have jurisdiction to operate, administer sacraments, etc. They are absolutely licit. They are operating under supplied jurisdiction. The supreme law of the Church is salvation of souls. Souls need the sacraments. The Church needs priests. Because the whole diocesan structure is gone and there is no ordinary jurisdiction, Holy Mother Church provides for the needs of the faithful through supplied jurisdiction.
I recommend asking a priest if you don’t understand. Any of them would be happy to explain things to you.
Thank you for the questions and I will answer number 1: I have invited someone on and it is only a question of if it seems to be for the best to do any more shows on the topic. But my personal hope is that we will have a clergy member on to explain "Totalism". For the second question, as a lay man I do not want to attempt an answer. But I would gladly get you in contact with a priest. Send me an email at kevin89davis@gmail.com. Tell me where you live and I will try to get someone who I know and trust to answer your question - of course, time permitting for our busy priests.
@@catholicfamilypodcast5501 When will they explain from totalism?
@okumaa122; You do not have to be in union with a heretical “Bishop” of the NO because he has jurisdiction in the Church.
The interesting conversation is here. Not the mangling one's body to defend he-said, she-said of the NO religion.
"The line of dogma has collapsed... which it has." What!?!
since we must believe in the pope as head of the church.. how can we be saved thinking there is no pope?
Especially for 65 years which surely breaks the dogma of “perpetual successors”
I love Bp Sanborn and this show. My hang up is the Church says that if the Church in general accepts a man is pope then he is pope. Well……..the Church has accepted every election since Roncalli. Now what? So, the sedes have to accept his election? I’m telling you if Bergoglio became a greater saint and champion of the faith than Pius X sedes would still have some problem with him. I don’t know
Obviously the very fact we exist and in good numbers with even those in the NO resisting their 'pope', the acceptance even by those terms and pretense is not universal.
So….. there’s no question that Bergoglio and company are not true popes. The question is: HOW are they not true popes. The thesis and totalism are potential answers to that question. You are permitted to believe either, though not required. You must, however, believe all the truths the Catholic Church has taught. Is this correct?
The last part is 100%. The Thesis is something that most Catholics need to not worry about AT ALL. Ask your priest, trust your priest. And it is a bit about HOW they are not Popes but also, I think maybe more importantly, how to elect a new Pope.
@@catholicfamilypodcast5501 Thanks!
@@colettecrochet8316, beware a von Münchhausen trick here, i.e. pulling yourself out of a swamp by grabbing your own bootstrap. Some people hold that the validity of "your priest" that you are supposed to trust depends on whether the Thesis has explanatory power and is not simply a misuse of Aristotelian terminology.
Comparing a president-elect to a pope elect is apples to oranges a president-elect by law is barred from implementing his policies every Vatican 2 Pope elect has been able to implement their policies. And with this thesis aren't you accepting the Vatican 2 church as the true Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church?
No way. I can try with another example : if Judges are corrupted, as it happens a lot in our freemasonic societies, are they Legitimate judges ? On the paper yes. But as what their mission is about, NO. They are not supposed to work against what is true, and for what is bad. If they do so they are "judges" with the force of the administration, but not with the force of te mission of their job. But if they don't act as their mission ask them to act, so they are not legitimate, even if they have the material power to act.
What is needed is that good judges bounce these bad judges off their place.
Unless the whole administration has been corrupted. No force can organise a purification. So, does this administration can become righteous ? YES; They can always convert to be good judges. During this time. The corruption is damaging the society through the roof. We need more traditional priests to push the ones who are in the administration to convert, and this needs to tell the truth to the society.
Bp. Sanborn is a great Bishop, but he isnt representing the "totalists' view correctly, we believe that not only by "personal heresy" does he lose the papacy, but also we believe the same as him that by "promulgating" heresy is also not a Pope. And he is wrong the Church teaches that it ISNT necessary for a declaration of the Church for a Pope to fully lose all connection with the Papacy. And he is wrong that there "cant be long periods of vacancy to the papacy", because the Church teachings that there can be long vacancy of the seat of Peter.
Bull of Pope Paul IV - Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, 1559
“Further, if ever it should appear that any bishop (even one acting as an archbishop, patriarch or primate), or a cardinal of the Roman Church, or a legate (as mentioned above), or even the Roman Pontiff (whether prior to his promotion to cardinal, or prior to his election as Roman Pontiff), has beforehand deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into any heresy, We enact, decree, determine and define:
- “Such promotion or election in and of itself, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, shall be null, legally invalid and void.
- “It shall not be possible for such a promotion or election to be deemed valid or to be valid, neither through reception of office, consecration, subsequent administration, or possession, nor even through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff himself, together with the veneration and obedience accorded him by all.
- “Such promotion or election, shall not through any lapse of tune in the foregoing situation, be considered even partially legitimate in any way . . .
- “Each and all of the words, as acts, laws, appointments of those so promoted or elected -and indeed, whatsoever flows therefrom - shall be lacking in force, and shall grant no stability and legal power to anyone whatsoever.
- “Those so promoted or elected, by that very fact and without the need to make any further declaration, shall be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power.”
A. Dorsch - Institutions Theologiae Fundamentalis, 1928
“The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, or even for many years, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state . . .
“Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body . . . Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way -that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not . . .
“For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died -for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate.
“These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however,[perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary” (De Ecclesia 2:196-7).
Fr. Edward J. O’Reilly, S.J. - The Relations of the Church to Society, 1882
“We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy. In the first place, there was all throughout, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a Pope -with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a Pope, really invested with the dignity of vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum.”
Msgr. Charles Journet, The Church of the Incarnate Word
B. The Church During a Vacancy of the Holy See
We must not think of the church, when the Pope is dead, as possessing the papal power in act, in a state of diffusion, so that she herself can delegate it to the next Pope in whom it will be recondensed and made definite. When the Pope dies the Church is widowed, and, in respect of the visible universal jurisdiction, she is truly acephalous.* ‘But she is not acephalous as are the schismatic Churches, nor like a body on the way to decomposition. Christ directs her from heaven .. . But, though slowed down, the pulse of life has not left the Church; she possesses the power of the Papacy in potency, in the sense that Christ, who has willed her always to depend on a visible pastor, has given her power to designate the man to who He will Himself commit the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, as once He committed them to Peter.
*During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, says Cajetan, the universal Church is in an imperfect state; she is like an amputated body, not an integral body. “The Church is acephalous, deprived of her highest part and power.”
Msgr. Journet - The Church of the Incarnate Word
“During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, neither the Church nor the Council can contravene the provisions already laid down to determine the valid mode of election (Cardinal Cajetan, O.P., in De Comparata, cap. xiii, no. 202). However, in case of permission (for example if the Pope has provided nothing against it), or in case of ambiguity (for example, if it is unknown who the true Cardinals are or who the true Pope is, as was the case at the time of the Great Schism), the power ‘of applying the Papacy to such and such a person’ devolves on the universal Church, the Church of God.”
Cajetan, O. P. - De Comparatione Autoritatis Papae et Concilii
“. . . by exception and by suppletory manner this power (that of electing a pope), corresponds to the Church and to the Council, either by the inexistence of Cardinal Electors, or because they are doubtful, or the election itself is uncertain, as it happens at the time of a schism.”
Billot - De Ecclesia Christi
“When it would be necessary to proceed with the election, if it is impossible to follow the regulations of papal law, as was the case during the Great Western Schism, one can accept, without difficulty, that the power of election could be transferred to a General Council.”
“Because ‘natural law prescribes that, in such cases, the power of a Superior is passed to the immediate inferior, because this is absolutely necessary for the survival of the society and to avoid the tribulations of extreme need.”
Vitoria - De Potestate Ecclesiae
“Even if St. Peter would have not determined anything, once he was dead, the Church had the power to substitute him and appoint a successor to him… If by any calamity, war or plague, all Cardinals would be lacking, we cannot doubt that the Church could provide for herself a Holy Father.
“Hence such an election; ‘a tota Ecclesia debet provideri et non ab aliqua partuculari Ecclesia.’ (“It should be carried by all the Church and not by any particular Church.”) And this is because “Ilia potestas est communis et spectat ad totam Ecclesiam. Ergo a tata Ecclesia debet provideri.’” (“That power is common and it concerns the whole Church. So it must be the duty of the whole Church.”)
This is but a sample of Church quotes, for more quotes go to cmri.org, then under #1 Articles, then under #2 Pointes of Interest, then under #3 Vacancy of The Holy See, and lastly #4 Quotes from Theologians etc. on Sedevacantism.
I see a problem here that concerns this entire question. When people argue for or against something, they quote some source or authority and think that the source will then speak for itself. It would be far easier to follow your or anyone's argument if they stated clearly what are they using the quote for and what against. As far as I am concerned, the Thesis is only relevant if it is possible to ignore what is now known about the causes that both Roncalli and Montini advanced and participated in before their respective conclaves.
@@kimmosundqvist1201 Good points.
I'll repeat a comment made elsewhere. I'm a sedevacantist myself but I find it tragic when sedevacantists use the Bull "Cum ex Apostolatus" to defend sedevantism because it simply does not hold water and it has given the R&R people a lot of arguments to reject sedevacantism. "Cum Ex Apostolatus" was a legal document not a doctrinal one, therefore it was not binding to future Popes and future popes could change that law (and they have). It ceased to apply a long time ago. More importantly perhaps, that document was talking about heretics or apostates that had already been either legally sentenced or formally severed from the Church (i.e the Protestants). So either way, it does not apply to our current situation because the modernists Apostates in Rome were never legally or formally severed. The aim of the Bull was to prevent a current or even former Protestant from ever becoming Pope or cardinal. But we know that cardinal Newman was made a cardinal by Pope Leo which went in direct contradiction with that Bull as Newman was a former Protestant (of the Anglican variety).The reason Pope Leo XIII was able to do that is because he knew that that Bull was not binding to him as Pope and he could abrogate it...and since then we also have the 1917 Code of Canon Law anyway which makes Cum Ex completely obsolete...I cannot for the life of me understand why some sedevacantists keep using this as an argument.
@@WordsFromPeterDude you’re completely wrong, you obviously got those points from R&R pushers. A papal bull on faith and morals which this is is infallible church teaching, plus this bull is in complete unison with every other church teaching that I posted. I got those quotes from Bishop Pivarunas, who has studied canon law, and Church teaching extensively, and is probably the best Bishop there is that proves sedevacantism right from Church teaching it’s self, and not just personal opinion. The 1917 code refers back to previous laws to better understand the laws in the new code of canon by giving side references right next to the new codes for further clarification. Cardinal Newman ceased being an Anglican bishop, when he became a catholic, and therefore could be promoted into the hierarchy of the Church just as any former pagans, occultists, orthodox/schismatics, Jews, or satanists, because they’re no longer any of those things. And guess what these people all have been promoted to some of the highest levels in the Church after they converted, some taking along time, some almost instantly.
How does the Bishop reconcile the Thesis with Pope Paul IV bull Ex Apostoloatus Officio? This makes it clear that a Pope who has fallen into heresy loses his office with no official ruling, automatically.
1917 code of canon law if I’m remembering right abrogated it
1917 code of canon law if I’m remembering right abrogated it
1917 code of canon law if I’m remembering right abrogated it
1917 code of canon law if I’m remembering right abrogated it
1917 code of canon law if I’m remembering right abrogated it
Does the bishop accept Pius xii's reform of Holy Week?
San born declareSPXS a cathoic religion religion?
So, let's say Francis says he renounces all his heresies and wants to be Catholic.
What if I say, too bad. He was not Catholic when elected, he ain't pope.
He has to re elected
Am I anathema?
Catholic Family Podcast does not endorse the Cassiciacum Thesis, but *in theory*, in the event of an anti-pope converting to Catholicism and adequately purging Vatican II and its fruits, there would be a period of discernment in which either obedience (to the converted Pope) or prudence (in not following the converted Pope until his fruits were abundantly clear) would be an acceptably Catholic position.
Thank you for responding. You all have a good series. Catholic Sedevacantist clergy were crucial, but laity faithful to Church have helped me immeasurably during this tough time
Re at 13.06, What does Pope Paul IV and Pope St Pius V say?
'... if prior to his election or elevation as ... Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or has fallen into some heresy ... it shall not be held to be partially legitimate in any way ... no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain ... shall be deprived automatically and without the need for any further declaration of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.'
Re at 14:20, if a president elect is discovered to be ineligible for election because of citizenship, he cannot become the president.
Sedevacantism as a movement is based on ignoring lots of laws here and there. If they didn't do that they wouldn't have any clergy and therefore no sacraments. Before you say anything I must add that I agree with you, especially about the Novus Ordo. It all began with Roncalli and there's a reason why they try to ignore him entirely and Montini until the promulgation of Vatican II.
Wasn't Pope Pius IX a liberal progressive type before his election?
I ask in all due respect.
@@E.C.2, he was. But "being a type" is not against the law.
@@kimmosundqvist1201 ...and?
@@E.C.2, what? Were you trying to make a point or not?
do sedes believe the validity of pope francis ? in the material ? or none.
None, he isn’t even a valid priest
The R&R camp says that Bergoglio is formally the pope (because he is elected) but not materially (because he is a heretic). The Thesis says that he is materially the pope (because he is elected) but not formally (because he is a heretic). The problem with the Thesis is that it is an abstraction. The distinction it makes is not metaphysically valid. It is a mental game, a wordplay, not an application of Thomism. Also, if someone played Sanborn's game, he could say that Vatican II is Catholic because it has not yet been declared against and therefore every Catholic should believe what it says.
@@kimmosundqvist1201 Guerard De Laurier is a Thomist, and used Thomism for this thesis. You need to dig more on what you call a wordplay. Many of these objections have been answered in Sodalitium journal, but it's in french. Maybe the Sanborn organisation you may read their writings about the objections.
Francis is a legal Pope but not a real Pope. Yes, I get that.
so somebody baptized is not baptized but somebody not baptized is. . . 🤔
The thing with the Thesis is that it pretends to be "based on Thomist principles" (which it is not and whatever that even means), but in reality it's an abstraction, a thought experiment. He is pulling wool over people's eyes by selling it as metaphysics. It's not. Guerard des Lauriers may have been a Thomist at some point in his life, but arguing from that is like saying that if he burped after a meal then that was a Thomist burp.
If you have a spoon made of steel, then the steel is the matter and the spoon is the form. Any idea of a spoon is just an idea and any lump of steel is just a lump of steel until these two come together. An election is neither the matter nor the form in any metaphysical sense, but just a legal abstraction.
It's a mess no one has all the answers but if you listen to Bishop Sanborn,it's more detailed.
(I'm neutral on this issue all I know is Montini - Bergoglio is not Catholic)
@@E.C.2, I have listened enough of him to know exactly why he is bad news. There's nothing detailed in what he says and the whole Thesis is a deception. If you think that it's a mess then it's because of you, not because the situation is somehow unknowable.
@@seriouscat2231 So im the reason for our global spiritual state in 2022?
I'm confused by your answer.
@@E.C.2, I said, in other words, that if you can't figure it out, then it's because of you. Not because the situation is somehow unknowable.
Neville Goddard left 1972 and left truth about what man is, outside temples or churches fancy or filth has nothing to Bragg over Jesus in man most look outside themself. Luke 17:20And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. What you dress with to thinking it helps you is funny. Milk is tricky meat is truth in you not in outside that sees you think, 2Cor 13:5Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that !!Jesus Christ is in you!!, except ye be reprobates? Popes nor preacher help you, you do it like Saul to Paul woke inside himself not by man or religion, then could read the OT as allegory not secular history you think it was then you still like milk.