The Despair of Sedevacantism
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 жов 2024
- Support the channel by visiting brianholdswort...
Music written and generously provided by Paul Jernberg. Find out more about his work as a composer here: pauljernberg.com
In times of crisis, it’s easy to sympathize with those who are willing to consider extreme solutions to account for the extreme situation that they find themselves in. And if you’re a Catholic today and you’re paying attention, you can probably admit that the situation is extreme.
Which is why I don’t sympathize with Catholics and especially prelates who are carrying on as if it’s just business as usual. The sheep of the flock are suffering and confused, they are disenchanted, and they need a voice of reassurance. And in the absence of such authoritative voices, there are those with easy answers that are more than happy to lead people astray.
If I had started my channel 10 years ago, I think it would have been rare to see comments that say things like, “The Vatican 2 Church is false and you are a false prophet for supporting it.” Or simply, “Sedevacantism is true.”
I mean, those voices would have existed, but you’d have to search for them, whereas now, those voices have conspicuously multiplied so that on almost every video I publish, I will see a comment like that pop up.
And so, to reiterate, I sympathize with people who are struggling to make sense of things. Things are not as neat and tidy as they once were for Catholics and especially those who try to defend the Catholic position through apologetics.
Now we have any number of scandals to contend with from which there has been a lot of lip service from the highest authorities, but their actions are at best complacent and at worst, and there’s a lot of at worst, perpetuating, nurturing, and even encouraging the same corruption that created the scandals.
And among those same sectors of the Church, we find scandalous and incoherent teachings if not explicitly heretical. Which makes those of us who are trying to reconcile our beliefs with the historic tradition and the infallibility of the Church - anxiety inducing.
More recently, there was a debate published online that discussed sedevacantism that has amplified that anxiety for many people. And because there have been responses from competent apologists and thinkers like Trent Horn and Michael Lofton, I’m not going to repeat what they said, but I would encourage you to check out their efforts with the same open-mindedness that you brought to that initial debate.
And if you can’t do that, then ask yourself if you’re just looking for satisfaction and justification for your anger and indignation. It might be that you just want to give yourself excuses not to be meek and humble of heart as the reading from Ephesians at last Sunday’s Latin Mass implores us to do for the sake of unity in the Church.
But the thing about indignation is that it is dependant upon anger and for anger to be sustained, it will compete with reason. Righteous anger and indignation are good when needed as a response to something like war or a grave injustice, but if they are sustained for too long, you will forfeit reason. Beware of that. So come, let us reason together.
Podcast Version: brianholdswort...
Though I don’t share Dimonds position, I never understood this argument against the Sedes. “Well, the chair can’t be vacant because that would be too horrible!”
To me, the Truth is the truth, regardless of how terrible it might be.
It’s the same line of thinking some people use to avoid Hell. “How could a loving God send people to Hell? That’s just too horrible!”
Just because something seems too horrible for our small human intellects to grasp does not mean it’s not true. God still has a plan. God can work with any disaster, no matter how “horrible” it is. Trust in God and the Catholic Church.
I have always thought of that response as them being too lazy or afraid to address the heart of the sedevacantist arguments. Francis actively praises Talmudic Jews for example, there is no way to square that with Catholic teaching.
They should ask how Noah felt when he knew he would be the only one to survive while the rest of the world is destroyed in a flood.
That was an apocalypse-type situation.
I like that I didn't know there was a name for it@@yppoe
I'm a new Catholic (I think, unless the sedevacantists are right!) and "the truth" is not the same as "The Truth," as far I can see. What we "see" happening around us seems so real and impactful, but if what we see is an interpretation of events, perhaps we interpreted the events incorrectly.
If Jesus said that he would never leave His Church, how could the Church have left us?
It is not the horribleness of something that is the important part, but the Truth of something.
The Church teaches that someone would always continuously be in the chair of St. Peter. Once you doubt that, you can then justify doubting God, and once you do that, Then you ARE doomed!
Believe that this is all a test.
Believe either that which is within our narrow scope of understanding or have instead have faith that God will never leave us (the Church.) Jesus will not leave His bride no matter how badly she behaves.
The fate of the Church is not based on the behavior of the people in it, but on God's Word.
Have some hope!
We have a pope now who likes to think of hell as empty and bless same sex couples… so what does that tell you about “the church” today???
CHRIST IS KING
Although I don’t agree with the sedevacante position, I can’t help but think that it sure does seem like the post V 2 church seems like a different church than that of our ancestors and it scares me.
Honestly, probably cause we're living it.
People have always been scared. They have always thought things are changing too much. Today we have technology that affects the culture at a speed unprecedented.
Western Catholicism was in free fall before WWII, along with the West in general.
That’s because it is.
Just the fact that they exonerated the “Elder brothers in the faith” aka the Dei-ciders should have been enough to suspect it.
@@partydean17 We’re talking about literal idolatry in the Vatican. That’s more than just “one more little change that makes people uncomfortable.” That’s apostasy.
another thing I'd like to add is that Jesus said "the gates of hell will never prevail"
so if the sedevacantists are right and the true Church is gone, then that means Christ lied to us, which is literally impossible
You have put 2 seconds effort into an important conversation. There have been many bad Popes. The Church didn't end. Catholics still exist. . Unfortunately so do demons and the confused nonsense they encourage within the minds of "small c" Catholics!
Part of the gig is not existing too. I mean, he initially was sent to Israel anyway. Which, essentially leaves the rest of the world in the dark. So, when someone argues “but Jesus never came and therefore doesn’t exist tho.” Then, I’m all like sure bro. YOU got it😉
So true! I love the profile picture btw.
The gates of hell has been defined by Pope’s n Saints eg Aquinas as the “death dealing tongues of heretics”. So if the V2 claimants are true Pope’s, then the Church defected
Sedevecantism does not mean that “the Church is gone.” It means that nobody is sitting on the chair of St Peter. That’s not the same thing.
But Bishop Barron says that Christianity is the privileged way, which implies there is salvation outside the Church. And then PF says God wills other religions and participates in pagan rituals. So why be a Catholic? - a rhetorical question.
The Sedevacantist position doesn't say that Church no longer exist but remains in a remnant few. The Church being destroyed from within is enough cause for indignation. Being lied to regarding true Catholicism, souls falling to hell due to false teachings is enough for anyone who loves God to be angry. Sedevacantism holds on to the truth of Catholicism.
So you’re focusing on emotions and not the truth. Btw, it brings me great joy to know that the new religion is not Catholic along with the neo Protestant “novus ordo” missae. I’m happy to have the faith of our forefathers. The heretics may occupy the Church’s, but we hold the faith. St Athanasius, ora pro nobis 🙏
Yep, I was more in despair being in the novus ordo. Realizing the truth of the sedevacantist position brought me peace, even though it's still a horrific situation.
Just looking through all the comments, I find a great boost of hope and encouragement in the great and growing number of Sedevacantists on here. Nothing to despair about whatsoever!
@@user-kb4dv1ud3f Thank you. I never knew that. It could be useful indeed.
I'm a sedevacantist. I don't feel despair. If anything I've received more graces for standing firm in the true Catholic faith.
My despair is knowing that Vatican II anti Catholics are going to hell for aligning with the false masonic doctrine of Vatican II and all of its heresies.
I despair that Satan is using Christian virtues, obedience and fear of God to keep people trapped in this falsehood.
The world has hijacked the Catholic church, desecrated her with lies and turned her into the church of England.
Call me an apostate if you will but I won't walk blindly into hell, because I didn't have the spiritual discernment to see, that the Holy spirit has fled, and left behind nothing but an empty shell full of evil men, ushering hoards of Christ's lost sheep through the gates of hell.
' Come out of her, my people, so that you do not take part in her sins, and so you do not share in her plagues' Rev 18:4
Right on target!
How do you define despair? The apostasy of Vatican II leads to damnation. That is true despair even the Novus Ordo Catholics feeling good and not despair. Truth is not about feelings. Listen to Archbishop Vegano if you want to be with Christ and save your soul condemn Vatican II in its entirety. That is the starting point otherwise you would like the Arians put yourself outside the Church. In fact Novus Ordo should consider themselves a Protestant sect even they number over one billion because Vatican II is the great apostasy predicted by Our Lady of Lasalett and verified by the Vatican II documents.
It's amazing the waves that first debate is making. I never even knew as a catholic that these things even existed.
And you were much better off
There has always been division from the beginning and there will always be until the end. All of the armchair quarterbacks making $$ off of debacle need to chill.
Ignorance is bliss for normal person, but not the theologian or the philosopher. Truth requires disputation
What's the link to the debate?
@@pacceli2009 Here it is. It's on Pints with Aquinas, and is pretty long :ua-cam.com/video/tIauJB2_y1c/v-deo.html&lc=UgykkwD0gdm_tkyOvK14AaABAg.9goXR_0OkjV9gpRh3AbLjv
The Church is broken, but it is still the Church. "Lord, to whom shall we go, you have the word of eternal life."
Orthodox.
The Church is the Body of Christ. Christ is Perfeft. The Vatican isn't the body of Christ. Never was. Never will be.
This ❤
Orthodox.
@@adamf.4823 Just because the problems in Orthodoxy aren't shouted, doesn't mean they don't exist.
I appreciate your measured tone.
As someone who is yet outside the Church, it has only been in realizing that the post V2 Pope's may be irregular at least, and possibly heretical, that has opened me up to seek how to join the Apostolic Church in spite of their witness. Which is truly a tragedy.
Their 'testimony' fills me with the despair of uncertainty.
For by the plainest reading of the V2 Ecumenism, there is no reason for me to convert and join the Catholic Church. That is, the more I take these Pope's authority seriously, the more I should just seek my own way. That is crazy making.
So only in rejecting their authority can I pursue the Apostolic faith, and a sacramental life.
As someone who loves Latin, prays in it and would attend TLM if I had access to it (only attended once as part of a work trip where I was blessed to find a Church that practiced it). I have personally maintained that the actions of clergy to restrict the TLM is no different to clergy that restrict the NO in a local vernacular. The response to either situation is NOT to take a sedevacantist position position.
I don't think those who hold to sedevacantist position understand the theological position they are in. They are making the following claims implicitly or explicitly whether they like it or not:
1) The Holy Spirit failed to guide the Church - No different a claim to all manner of Protestants, LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses etc.
2) Jesus allowed Satan to overcome the Church and Jesus did not remain with His Church till the end of the Age - No different a claim to all manner of Protestants, LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses etc.
3) Disobedience to Christ's Authority on earth is a serious sin - Jesus himself told the Jews of his day to obey the Authority of the rabbis and Temple priests, despite whatever level of corruption they had. Jesus prioritises telling people to obey God's Authority that was legitimately delegated and held by the priesthood at the time.
Matthew 23:3 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition
3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.
4) It was only after the establishment of the new covenant, that the Authority was revoked from the Jewish priests and Peter and the Apostles reject the Authority of the priests.
Acts 5:27-32 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition
27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them,
28 Saying: Commanding we commanded you, that you should not teach in this name; and behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and you have a mind to bring the blood of this man upon us.
29 But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men.
30 The God of our fathers hath raised up Jesus, whom you put to death, hanging him upon a tree.
31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand, to be Prince and Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins.
32 And we are witnesses of these things and the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to all that obey him.
Has Jesus instituted a new covenant and revoked his delegated Authority from the Magisterium and the Pope?
I think this is a misrepresentation of what the sedes believe. I have sat and talked to many priests and even a bishop. They say the church is not gone per day but greatly reduced in number. CMRI, FSSP, SSPX etc are all stuck in a precarious situation. The Church is CLEARLY in a crisis. What do you do? These groups have different answers but the main thing they have in common is the Latin mass and the love for it. Seeing Archbishops restrict the Latin mass is alarming and some of the new doctrines in the last 60 years are concerning. Do you resist? Do you reject? Both?
Everyday, CMRI Priests and Nuns pray for the reunity of the Church in their morning prayers. It is a daily occurrence for them and a priority. As you said, sedes are lead to a mystery. What does one do? The usual answer that I have heard is to pray, take the sacraments, and focus on your Catholic faith and life as you try to evangelize to others by way of your actions.
I’ll say for myself, as a wannabe convert to Catholicism, I am conflicted. I see all of the issues of the modern church and understand why the sedes reject it. But, it’s hard to simply just reject the current state of Rome. I’m honestly not sure what to do but I do know that the representation of sedes is massively wrong and portraying them as Protestants is not a correct statement
Pray for me. I could use it
Blessings,
Tom
I was in exactly the same position your are a year ago, after 42 years of hardcore Calvinism. You keep your eyes front on Our Lord and Our Lady, and ignore the lithping pwinthes bursting their silks, mewling about humility and poverty. Remember that Judas was an apostle, and that St. Athanasius is a saint. Eyes front on Jesus. Walk on the water. Stay at the foot of the cross with John and Our Lady, not fled like the remaining ten apostles.
I am coming into the Church, I quit my job as a youth pastor. Greatest piece of advice for understanding Father Francis: read his actual words with Scripture next to you and praying the whole time. He is an excellent teacher of Christian orthodoxy but nobody listens to the cry of ad fuentes… blessings!
Prayers going out Tom , God bless, find a traditional parish for support, I suggest FSSP , or consider a Eastern Byzantine Catholic Rite.
@Rick W Don’t forget ICKSP!
@@RickW-HGWT There are great NO priests too.
1) Vatican 2 created a new religion, since it is impossible to change Catholicism since it was created by God (God’s teachings are Perfect. God doesn’t change). Vatican 2 teaches content that contradicts Catholicism and was condemned by Popes in the past. To be Catholic, you must practice Catholicism.
2) The Pope can’t be a heretic. A heretic can’t become the Pope. The Pope must be Catholic in order to be the Vicar of Christ. A heretic is not part of the Body of Christ, therefore he can not be it’s visible head on earth. The Pope guards the faith, not attempt to destroy it.
3) The Novus Ordo Religion and it’s worship leads to the loss of faith and logically an increased likelihood of losing one’s salvation (if you are no longer Catholic; there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church). The Spotless Bride of Christ does not provide evil (contradictory teachings from heretics and a worship service which leads to the loss of faith in the Real Presence).
4) The Eastern Catholic Churches have valid holy orders/sacraments and traditional Catholic Liturgies, so actual Catholic clergy still exist. The question boils down to if they have the Catholic faith or if they are modernist heretics.
5) actual Roman Catholic clergy (such as the SSPV) have valid apostolic succession, have the actual Catholic faith, and worship God the same way Catholics always did before the Satanic modernist invasion from Hell. Catholicism still exists and always will exist, just don’t fall for the Satanic trap that the counterfeit Church of vatican 2 is the actual Catholic Church.
Viva Cristo Rey! ☦️
Francis says atheists are chilling in heaven ua-cam.com/video/bRbUTfSds0U/v-deo.html
Have you actually been to an Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy? Because it's a lot more similar to the Novus Ordo than it is to the Tridentine Mass, so I fail to see how you can praise the Divine Liturgy while saying the Novus Ordo leads to a loss of faith.
As someone who is halfheartedly trying to come back to the church, mostly staying at home and keeping faith and prayer there as well, this made me a bit uncomfortable. As it should, probably.
Orthodoxy calls
Sede vacante is the majority opinion of Catholic Theologians on what would happen if a heretic was elected to the papacy or a Pope fell into public heresy as proposed by Doctor of the Church St Robert Bellarmine. Michael Dimond holds the same belief as Bellarmine on the issue of a heretical Pope but also hold other errors against de fide dogmas of the Church which would place him outside of the Catholic Church if he knew about them. Such dogmas include the continual actual existence of the Apostolic College (it must always exist, in all times, in any event) which is required to preserve the Apostolicity of the Church. He also denies the universal Church teaching on baptism of blood and desire, extrapolating the teaching of the excommunicated Fr Feeney.
If you wish to understand the Catholic teaching on this topic, it would be best to consult Catholics who don't hold the sectarian positions that many like Michael Dimond have embraced. The best discussion I have seen on this topic was a series of long-form interviews between Louie Verracchio (attended FSSP at the time, was a Benedict XVI resignationist) and John Lane (attends FSSPX but has written publicly in support of the Catholic faith including the sede vacante position). You can find these here: crisisinthechurch.com/interviews
@@xxFairestxx that's just protestantism with pomp, no thanks. Communion with the bishop of Rome or nothing.
@@MutohMech The Catholics disagree with you. The RCC says the EC has all the sacraments and is the full church, “too”…..You’re uneducated.
You need to confess and get to Mass
Hmmm don't some Sedevacantists appeal to "supplied jurisdiction"? So in their case, it is not that hopeless as presented.
Who is supplying the jurisdiction? I have only been told the Son of God gave it to Peter. Accepting the authority of the office is not optional.
@@atrifle8364 That is a separate question whether the supplied jurisdiction is legit. I only try to refer their position.
Yeah, some Sedevacantists say the Church practically died or vanished (and there are no valid bishops/priests anymore), and Mr. Holdsworth addressed rather their position... but other groups claim they have their jurisdiction supplied (I suppose by the Church directly, but I am not an expert on these topics).
Supplied jurisdiction exist only for Sacrements. God doesn't "supply jurisdiction" for the Authority of teaching and governing, in such a way that we would must believe them without any proof that they have indeed the Authority to teach and govern. Sedes bishops are usurping these powers by preaching, by writings, and by founding and ruling seminaries and institutes, placings superiors, etc. These are jurisdictionnal acts.
But the Church teaches that if someone claim to be sent by God directly, they must prove it by miracles.
The Church never accepts a claim of extraordinary mission unless it is accompanied by miracles. In Cum Ex Injuncto, Pope Innocent III wrote the following to the Bishop of Metz concerning the Waldensian and Cathar heretics:
"[N]o one should indifferently usurp the duty of preaching for himself. For, according to the Apostle: “And how shall they preach unless they be sent?” (Romans 10:5). …
If anyone perhaps responds shrewdly to this that such men are sent invisibly by God, even if they are not visibly sent by man … it can and should certainly be answered reasonably that when that inner mission is hidden, it does not suffice for anyone to assert so boldly that he is sent by God, since any heretic may profess this: but it is necessary that he proves that invisible mission by the working of miracles or by special testimony of the Scriptures. From which, when the Lord wanted to send Moses into Egypt to the sons of Israel, he gave him a sign, that he might change a staff into a snake, and change the snake back again into a staff, so that they would believe that he was sent by God. John the Baptist also offered a special testimony of his mission from Scripture, responding to the priests and Levites … "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Isaias” (John 1:23).
Therefore, he who says that he is sent by God should not be believed, since he has not been sent by man, unless he personally offers special testimony from Scripture, or he shows an obvious miracle."
Therefore, sede bishops must prove their authority by miracles. Since they didn't did a single miracle, they must not be believed, but rejected, because they preach in the name of God, but God didn't sent them at all.
Here is what st. Francis of Sales wrote in his book "Controverses" :
"These reasons are so strong that the most solid of your party have taken ground elsewhere than in the ordinary mission, and have said that they were sent extraordinarily by God because the ordinary mission had been ruined and abolished within the true Church itself, under the tyranny of Antichrist. This is their most safe refuge, which, since it is common to all sorts of heretics, is worth attacking in good earnest and overthrowing completely. Let us then place our argument in order, to see if we can force this their last barricade.
First, I say then that no one should allege an extraordinary mission unless he proves it by miracles: for, I pray you, where should we be if this pretext of extraordinary mission was to be accepted without proof? Would it not be a cloak for all sorts of reveries? Arius, Marcion, Montanus, Messalius - could they not be received into this dignity of reformers, by swearing the same oath?"
After explaining that it is common to all sorts of heretics to appeal to an extraordinary mission to justify their unlawful ministries, St. Francis reminds the faithful that the burden of proof is on the claimants to prove it by miracles, otherwise they should be rejected. He writes:
"Never was any one extraordinarily sent unless he brought this letter of credit from the divine Majesty. Moses was sent immediately by God to govern the people of Israel. He wished to know his name who sent him; when he had learnt the admirable name of God, he asked for signs and patents of his commission: God so far found this request good that he gave him the grace of three sorts of prodigies and marvels, (…). If then they allege extraordinary mission, let them show us some extraordinary works, otherwise we are not obliged to believe them. (…) But as to the Apostles, - who does not know the miracles they did and the great number of them? Their handkerchiefs, their shadow, served for the prompt healing of the sick and driving away of the devils: by the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done amongst the people (Acts xix. V.); and that this was in confirmation of their preaching S. Mark declares quite explicitly in the last words of his Gospel, and S. Paul to the Hebrews (ii. 4)."
The Doctor of the Church goes on to ask a series of questions that pertain directly to those who exercise the priesthood without canonical mission:
"How then shall those in our age who would allege an extraordinary mission excuse and relieve themselves of this proof of their mission? What privilege have they greater than an Apostolic, a Mosaic? What shall I say more? If our sovereign Master, consubstantial with the Father, having a mission so authentic that it comprises the communication of the same essence, if he himself, I say, who is the living source of all Ecclesiastical mission, has not chosen to dispense himself from this proof of miracles, what reason is there that these new ministers should be believed on their mere word? Our Lord very often alleges his mission to give credit to his words: - As my Father hath sent me I also send you (John xx. 21); … to give authority to his mission, he brings forward his miracles, and attests that if he had not done among the Jews works which no other man had done, they would not have sinned in not believing him. And elsewhere he says to them: Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? Otherwise believe for the works themselves (ibid. xiv. 11, 12). He then who would be so rash as to boast of extraordinary mission without immediately producing miracles, deserves to be taken for an impostor."
This direcly refutes sedevacantist & SSPX bishops and priests.
@@atrifle8364 Look up what epikeia is. The mission of the Church is to save souls, which it does through the sacraments. If ecclesiastical laws inadvertently harm this cause, then divine law trumps it. We're not legalistic like the Pharisees.
Hi Brian,
Thank you for your video. I can appreciate why you would respond to "sedevacantism" in this manner, given the supposed means by which you were presented with the position by way of the recent debate involving a Feeneyite as "the" proponent for sedevacantism. However, Feeneyites heretically reject the Church's established teaching on baptism of desire; they shouldn't be relied on for any credible explanation for the crisis the Church is presently faced with. But rest assured: there are still Catholic priests and bishops with valid orders who routinely offer the sacraments to the faithful. And no Catholic worth taking serious would tell you to stay home and pray the Rosary if you have access to the Mass, which is relatively easy for those of us in the United States. Feeneyites are a collective red-herring (which perhaps is why they're so quickly identified with the sedevacantist position by the mainstream?) and should be ignored.
Instead, I encourage you to look into the Cassiciacum Thesis, which adequately explains today’s crisis and why the Chair of St. Peter has been vacant since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958. It offers a well-reasoned explanation consistent with Catholic principles of theology and philosophy, making the proper distinctions to preserve those principles and Church teaching. "The Little Catechism on The Thesis" was recently published by Rev. Nicolás E. Despósito of Most Holy Trinity Seminary (mostholytrinityseminary.org/). Its straightforward presentation of the Cassiciacum Thesis and, for those unfamiliar with the subject matter, makes for a great introduction to the sedevacantist position that does not compromise Church teaching; the 10-page document can be accessed here: t.co/X6EHRX4TPO.
I, myself, arrived at the sedevacantist position about two and half years ago. Prior to that, I had been attending an FSSP parish for almost two years. Although switching over to the Latin Mass after decades in Novus Ordo churches provided a sense of repose and helped me learn (some of) what the Church had taught and believed for nearly 2,000 years prior to Vatican II, there was still a cognitive dissonance and despair simmering below the surface. I couldn't reconcile how Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Missae could have truly come from the Church? If they did then why was I resisting those "changes"? Why was I getting all worked up over "Pope" Francis' and/or Bishop [X]'s latest threats and actions against "traditional-minded Catholics" or what some liberal priest said or did? Why was I fighting (at least in my heart and mind) against the very Church established by Our Lord Himself, the spotless Bride of Christ? Our Lord prayed that the faith of St. Peter, the Church's first pope and visible head-“the rock"-*would not fail*. So how could this be reconciled with the promotion and imposition of the errors Vatican II and its subsequent "changes" by Francis and his VII predecessors on the Catholic faithful? Not having an answer to these questions left me more, distressed, confused, and filled with anxiety because even though I was going to an FSSP church, I still remained attached to the Vatican II false religion and illegitimate hierarchy. And as long as that was the case, I was tacitly (yet incorrectly) admitting that the Church is defectible and that Roman Catholicism is a false religion.
But, by God's grace, I eventually came to learn and realize that the Church's attributes consist of her indefectibility and infallibility, at which point it soon became clear that the "changes" wrought by Vatican II did not come from the authority of the Church because they *can't* come from the Catholic Church since she is divinely-protected by the Holy Ghost from giving error. (You implicitly know this, too; why else would you seek out TLM?) Rather, these "changes" have been foisted on the faithful by papal imposters who do not (and did not) have the authority to teach, rule, and sanctify on account of their *objective intention* to promote and impose the Vatican II false religion.
I've never had so much hope and optimism since coming to this realization. I no longer have to worry about and agonize over "what the Church will do next" and "how to raise your children to be Catholic in a anti-Catholic 'Catholic' Church." Yes, the circumstances can be rather difficult for those of us who take the sedevacantist position (e.g., driving over an hour for Mass in some tiny, and often cramped, chapel in a rough part of town). But these challenges are nothing compared to having the Faith, undefiled, and practicing the same Catholic religion as the saints and martyrs who lived before me.
May God bless you and anyone else who cared to read this.
Sincerely,
Tom
Wow, I didn't know UA-cam allowed comments of that length.
Sedevacantism does not stir up anxiety, indignation or despair in me at least. It was thoroughly enlightening learning about it and completely explains the crisis in the church. No pop = disunity, discord and the general corruption and destruction of what the Church was up till the death of Pius XII. That does not mean the gates of Hell have prevailed either!! It remains a mystery how the Church will be restored, and it is one of all the other many mysteries we have to believe as we progress spiritually through life. God Bless. H
Of course the church shall be restored, just not by the hand of any pope.
Sedevacatism means most people are doomed
So how do you access sacraments?
I go where ever the is a known traditional mass where the priests and sacraments are without doubt sill valid and preferably to a sedevacantist chapel. @@AuthenticityVeritas
@hughbatchelor8599 That is a wonderful attitude. Many people do not realize that the Church dogmatically defined what Our Lord meant by the gates of Hell prevailing. The gates of Hell prevailing are heresies/heretics, and so truly those who say John XXIII-Francis I are true popes would have to admit that the gates of Hell have prevailed, since they allowed heresy and error into the Magisterium.
Good analysis. But as a Trad who's been in the fight since 1974, I can tell you sedes are among the most stubborn in giving an inch. Meantime, you should be aware that despair and desolation are two different things. Despair is a sin against hope. Desolation is the absence of consolation. As St. Ignatius Loyola says, both joy and tears are a consolation. It's when we can discern no response in our sentiments at all, i.e., we feel spiritual dryness, that we are said to be in desolation. We earn the most merit when we continue to persevere regardless of desolation. Keep up the good work! May Our Lady protect and guide you.
1974 ... that's fascinating since that's a long time and you would have seen a lot and so have a long perspective, plus you've obviously still survived. I also consider myself traditional, orthodox, and fully Catholic, but not affiliated with any groups outside of the Church.
I only started in 1993 or shall I rather say that God started me. What a blooming battle. I've done Ignatian meditation which is very beneficial, and I really should resume it. What ultimately helped me was not to be so distracted by all of the controversies and focus deliberately on the sacred heart of Christ, offering to Him my indignations with the imperfections, faults, and apparent heresies manifesting through various clergy.
I came to see all of these battles as akin to the spiritual combat that began with Lucifer and one-third of the bad angels in Heaven and so it continues throughout time. The angels and mortals are tested for love, fidelity, and trust in God not only inherently, but to avenge any evils that are beyond our capacity to resolve. We are tested even in the face of scandal. There are not always solutions or answers, but Jesus always provides consolation and protection. My job is to give more attention to Him than to the spiritual wars and rumors of wars.
Perhaps you can teach me some lessons that you've learned.
You didn't cite a single verse from God's Word.
@@rolandovelasquez135 Can you kindly elaborate?
@@MM22272 Rolando is protestant. Just block him. Not unlike a sedes he likes to start an argument, or hurl an insult while feeling justified.
Rolando likes to troll.
So are you saying that all of the dark prophecies of the saints and Our Lady about the future of the Church in the days of apostacy, that because it isn't pleasant to think about or accept as reality, and some might despair after reading it, then it must not be true?
How about the many quotes of the saints on the number of souls who fall into hell?
St. Teresa of Avila
"I had the greatest sorrow for the many souls that condemned themselves to Hell, especially those Lutherans. [...] I saw souls falling into hell like snowflakes."
Pope St. Gregory the Great
"The more the wicked abound, so much the more must we suffer with them in patience; for on the threshing floor few are the grains carried into the barns, but high are the piles of chaff burned with fire."
That could easily lead people to despair and think they have no chance of Heaven. So does it make that not true?
It is because of the prophecies of the saints about these times that we do not despair, because we know that in the end Our Lady's Immaculate Heart will triumph and the Church will be restored and the faith will be greater than ever throughout the world! I have never in my 20 years being a Sedevacantist despaired of the predicament. Rather I rejoiced in finding out the truth growing up in the Novus Ordo and seeing so much evil, and then knowing that it was not the true Church! I rejoiced even more when I went to my first Latin Mass and have never had a moment of doubt or regret.
Sorry, but Sedevacantists are the few who uphold the dogmas of papal infallibility and the Church's indefectibility and therefore don't actually despair, having made their conclusion by magisterial teaching alone.
Hello my brother in Christ.
As someone who loves Latin, prays in it and would attend TLM if I had access to it (only attended once as part of a work trip where I was blessed to find a Church that practiced it). I have personally maintained that the actions of clergy to restrict the TLM is no different to clergy that restrict the NO in a local vernacular. The response to either situation is NOT to take a sedevacantist position position.
I don't think those who hold to sedevacantist position understand the theological position they are in. They are making the following claims implicitly or explicitly whether they like it or not:
1) The Holy Spirit failed to guide the Church - No different a claim to all manner of Protestants, LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses etc.
2) Jesus allowed Satan to overcome the Church and Jesus did not remain with His Church till the end of the Age - No different a claim to all manner of Protestants, LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses etc.
3) Disobedience to Christ's Authority on earth is a serious sin - Jesus himself told the Jews of his day to obey the Authority of the rabbis and Temple priests, despite whatever level of corruption they had. Jesus prioritises telling people to obey God's Authority that was legitimately delegated and held by the priesthood at the time.
Matthew 23:3 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition
3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.
4) It was only after the establishment of the new covenant, that the Authority was revoked from the Jewish priests and Peter and the Apostles reject the Authority of the priests.
Acts 5:27-32 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition
27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them,
28 Saying: Commanding we commanded you, that you should not teach in this name; and behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and you have a mind to bring the blood of this man upon us.
29 But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men.
30 The God of our fathers hath raised up Jesus, whom you put to death, hanging him upon a tree.
31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand, to be Prince and Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins.
32 And we are witnesses of these things and the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to all that obey him.
*Has Jesus instituted a new covenant and revoked his delegated Authority from the Magisterium and the Pope?*
Sedes haven't abandoned the church. The church abandoned the faith and inserted bad or false popes. There are still valid Bishops and More to come.
Sedevacantism is Correct in the situation we're in right now and ABSOLUTELY ONLY Catholics can enter Heaven. ALL Catholic people have been baptised☦️🕊✝️
I came here to see good arguments against sedevacantism but saw a lot of straw man fallacy. You can't refute sedevacantism in a 12-minute video. Their arguments are very well based.
Brian, yours is a balanced and practical approach, and I commend your perspective. But I have never heard one of your videos with which I disagreed, and you always make me think. I appreciate so much your work!
To be fair sedevacantists have often their own Priest coming mostly from the FSSPX. I have sedevacantist Friends and they are knowledgeable and prayful. Im not sede tough.
If the obviously true position is causing you despair, it's a good indication that your spiritual life is not in good order. Catholicism is not about externals or buildings, it's about holding the true faith and loving God. The Vatican II sect does neither.
If your position leads you to deny the Cathecism altogether, and leads you away from the Mass, from the body of the Lord, from confession, etc... YOU HAVE FALLEN AWAY. You've become a new age protestant.
@guidohlizzi06 Yeah, we don't get the faith from catechisms. We get the faith from the Chair of St. Peter. I do go to Mass. I do go to confession. Stop repeating the talking points of Lofton and get to the truth.
@@j.knight9335
Do you see the contradiction?
The video is about sedevacantism bringing confusion and despair, you criticized the host saying that sedevacantism is the truth… yet you go to Mass and receive sacraments that, according to the position you defended, should not be valid?
@@j.knight9335
Also, the truth is defined in the cathecism by the magisterium.
@@guidohlizzi06 I go to an Eastern Rite parish with a priest who is validly ordained. The Catechism of JPII is jam-packed full of heresy. It's a modernist document promulgated by Satan.
Despair? On the contrary, it leads to hope because it affirms that the Church has not defected and cannot defect.
It causes despair for me
@@samuellariviere4784Why should it? Recognize/Resist folks live in and endure exactly the same crisis and situation as sedes do. Their view also leads to despair, because, when their oh-so-holy pope finally gets elected (supposing he does), the revolutionary modernists bishops will simply recognize and systematically resist him, alleging the very example of the SSPX as a historical precedent. R&R’s have completely destroyed the hope of an unified Catholic Church, because they question the very essence of papal obedience; for them, you only have to obey the pope when he says what YOU THINK is right and orthodox. The final authority is no longer in Rome, but in YOU.
Sad, very sad
Hope that helps.
never having pope so it could never even defect ...
There was a time, not long before the Reformation, that the Church was under the dominion of one of the most scandalous sinners in her history, Rodrigo Borgia (Alexander VI) and his basically Mafia family. Before that, she was in a crisis where there were two, and sometimes three, Popes simultaneously. Before that, she went through a lengthy period where the Pope was little more than a mouthpiece of the French king. The Church survived all of these crises and came out all the stronger for it. She'll survive this one too. Unfortunately, those fairweather friends like you who jumped ship at the first sign of rocky waters won't get to glory in that renewal. If you weren't true to the Church in her time of need, why should she be true to you?
Kinda disappointed with Brian on this one… summed up the sedevecantism via reducto ad absurdum argument. Many Catholics have been stranded without local priests throughout history and even now… while priests still exist elsewhere. There can also be a remnant of validly ordained by bishops (not directly from pope) priests, or the coming of Christ again which both inspire hope.
Brian has totally succeeded in misrepresenting the sede position. He admits we are living in the great apostasy but fails to recognize those who represent it and that is the New Order Church and yes they have a pope named Francis.
Brian can keep Francis, I’ll Keep The Faith.
I really would love to have you "reason with" some of the people I've come across. Would you be willing to do that, really? You're talking about what you think they believe instead of what they actually believe. It would be so interesting to listen to a discussion between you and one of them. So ... would you?
1:57 Brian, the great apostasy was foretold. Jesus the Christ will not return until the great apostasy. From this, we must accept that such an apostasy is possible. St. Paul addresses this in one of the letters to the Thessalonians. All of this was predicted. The theological question to ask is if we are in the midst of the great apostasy or not. Spoiler: we are. Yet, when you discuss these issues, you seem incredulous at the very idea such an apostasy is possible and therefore it must be false. Or that it would bring you great despair, so it must be false. Our Lady was visibly sad in many of her apparitions because of all the people she knew were on their way to hell and because of such suffering. Fr. Chad Ripperger reports that exorcists noticed a major increase in difficulty in exorcisms essentially overnight in 1963. This coincides exactly when Satan was enthroned in the Vatican just after midnight on July 1, 1963. I think the book by Malachi Martin says it was on June 29, 1963, but Antipope Paul VI was coronated on June 30, 1963, and the enthronement would have been after the coronation. Malachi Martin changed some details in Windswept House, and I think that date may have been one of the details he changed in his “faction” novel. the prophecies said it would occur during the reign of a man named Paul. Antipope Paul VI was photographed in papal attire in official duties wearing a blasphemous breastplate of a Jewish high priest. He was effectively a Protestant masquerading as the pope. We are living in the end times as foretold in the Bible, and Jesus will return sooner than most people realize. We are in the final days. Is it in the next year? The next five years? The next decade? I don’t know, but all signs point to it during the course of one human lifetime from now. We are about to hit the 60-year anniversary of the Vatican enthronement of Satan. The second temple in Jerusalem was destroyed 70 years after the birth of Christ. 70 is a significant number, so ten years from now would make a lot of sense. But if it happens before then, I certainly wouldn’t be surprised. The prophecies say He will come like a thief in the night like the original Passover with Moses. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed on a sunny day. Only God knows the actual day of His return, but God has given us a lot of clues, and they all point to -> soon. Repent from sin today. Fall on your knees and pray the Rosary. If you don’t know how, then learn. Pray the original Rosary as given to St. Dominic by Our Lady. The only modification is the Fatima prayer addition as instructed directly by Our Lady. *NO LUMINOUS MYSTERIES* *NO DIVINE MERCY CHAPLET* *THESE APPEAR TO BE DEMONIC DISTRACTIONS* Learn the one true faith taught by the popes. The last visible true pope was Pius XII, and he died ca. 1958. Don’t listen to the Vatican II sect run by the father of lies, the Devil. He enacted a plan using Freemasons to infiltrate the Church. The Devil has co-opted the externals of Christ’s Church. Most “bishops” now are possessed wolves in sheep’s clothing that lead you to the slaughter of the Devil. Be a sheep slave for the Good Shepard, Jesus the Christ, our one true King of the Universe. Avoid the Devil and all his evil at all costs. Pray the Rosary daily. All 15 decades daily. Or more. Daily. Every day. Don’t skip a day. Pray for yourself. Pray for your family. Pray for society. Pray for our world. Avoid Freemasons like the plague. If you know any, they must renounce Freemasonry or you must leave them forever. Freemasonry is a religion of the Devil. One cannot be both a Catholic and a Freemason. They are opposing forces. Catholicism is from God and Freemasonry is from the Devil. Choose God always.
It's even all laid out in Luke 18:8.
Wait one second, there also happen to be Sedevacantists out there who have some cause or the other to believe that the antipope line actually extended further back beyond the Vatican II Popes, and for this reason they condemn other Sedecavantists as heretics on the road to hell. Why is this? When it should be the last set of realizations anyone comes to?
Your premise is false. We shouldn’t ask ourselves the question is sedevacntism hard and uncomfortable to accept? We should ask is it true? Sincere truth seekers who inquire into what the Catholic Church actually teaches, end up finding out that it is indeed true.
Sorry Brian, I usually like your content (and I am also on your donor list) but I see this video as nothing but emotionally charged sophistry.
I'm used to more of your level-headed response videos where you actually "steel-man"(as opposed to strawman) the objections of your opponents. But in this video you treat the sedes as if they don't have any answers to any of the objections you made here in this video. I guarentee you that they do have answers. And I guarentee you they have sources to backup their claims. They are smart. That doesn't make their position correct, it simply means you aren't treating their argument with philosophical fairness, but instead falling into practical sophistry.
Still love your work, just throwing out my opinion. God bless.
This is the one comment that perfectly expresses my sentiments about this video.
Agreed.
I'm a sede, so I expressly believe we are right, yet I thank you for defending us to an extent. May God bless you and bring you ever closer to the truth
He's talking specifically about Dimond's position.
Hello my brother in Christ. Could you give me the sede response to points #3 and #4 below?
As someone who loves Latin, prays in it and would attend TLM if I had access to it (only attended once as part of a work trip where I was blessed to find a Church that practiced it). I have personally maintained that the actions of clergy to restrict the TLM is no different to clergy that restrict the NO in a local vernacular. The response to either situation is NOT to take a sedevacantist position position.
I don't think those who hold to sedevacantist position understand the theological position they are in. They are making the following claims implicitly or explicitly whether they like it or not:
1) The Holy Spirit failed to guide the Church - No different a claim to all manner of Protestants, LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses etc.
2) Jesus allowed Satan to overcome the Church and Jesus did not remain with His Church till the end of the Age - No different a claim to all manner of Protestants, LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses etc.
3) Disobedience to Christ's Authority on earth is a serious sin - Jesus himself told the Jews of his day to obey the Authority of the rabbis and Temple priests, despite whatever level of corruption they had. Jesus prioritises telling people to obey God's Authority that was legitimately delegated and held by the priesthood at the time.
Matthew 23:3 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition
3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.
4) It was only after the establishment of the new covenant, that the Authority was revoked from the Jewish priests and Peter and the Apostles reject the Authority of the priests.
Acts 5:27-32 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition
27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them,
28 Saying: Commanding we commanded you, that you should not teach in this name; and behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and you have a mind to bring the blood of this man upon us.
29 But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men.
30 The God of our fathers hath raised up Jesus, whom you put to death, hanging him upon a tree.
31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand, to be Prince and Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins.
32 And we are witnesses of these things and the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to all that obey him.
*Has Jesus instituted a new covenant and revoked his delegated Authority from the Magisterium and the Pope?*
After reading the comments here, it appears to me that many people don't understand the meaning of the words.
Sede vacante!
Empty chair!
Thats like a fetiche for them
Thanks Brian! Very wise and intelligent speech that we need to hear.
I believe it’s best to ride out the storm trusting in Jesus Christ. It is His Church, His Sacraments and His to defend. It is not important for us to speculate if the sacraments are valid, of course they are, we are to pray.
This should rank as the top comment.
Ecumenism was never taught by the Catholic Church and still doesn't, but the Vatican ll church does.The same goes for collegiality and indefectibility.
And that is not an argument, because many things were not official Church doctrine until they were made so by an Ecumenical Council.
@@baldwinthefourth4098That doesn't follow, ecumenism as is on display the last 70 years was explicitly condemned throughout Church history.
@@caseycardenas1668 The type of Ecumenism that Vatican II calls for has not been condemned.
Do you understand why heresy is such a grave sin and why separates you from the church? When you have clergy of the Church teaching something contrary to what the Church teaches or what our Lord taught, then it causes confusion especially among those who are not on as high a spiritual level as they should be. How does that help someone to to return to the Lord. The supreme law of the Church is to save souls. Every pope since Pius XII has committed public heresy and has separated themselves from the Church either before or after they were elected.
Why is Sedevecantism being portrayed as despair ? It’s my understanding that their position is that Catholic principles and Vatican I teaching demonstrate a severe contradiction with statements/teaching in Vatican 2 and all of this is expressed in scripture as a time when a counter church will appear clothed in the appearance of the legitimate church.
It seems to me if anyone wanted to rebuff sedevecansitm all it would take is clarification on the points of controversy by the pope.
I think you are referring to "Old Catholics". That's not the same thing as Sedevacantists.
@@portagooseyOld Catholics reject Vatican 1. Sedevacantists reiect Vatican 2
Thank you you explained the craziness of Sede so well.
Very helpful .
You've convinced me to never go down the Sede path.
God bless your apostolate.
Pax
@@drjanitor3747 :
It's the truth.
Just what we all need to hear!
@@alhilford2345 so you are okay with being apart of a bastard religion??? The NO is not the Catholic Church. It’s a new religion and it has usurped the True Faith. Sedevacantism is just simiply practicing the Catholic Faith as it was always taught , and we reject the False “popes”.
Quick note: u don’t choose sedevacntism but one becomes sedevacantist automatically when a non validly ordained bishop is elected in St Peter’s square. U could be sedevacantist unbeknownst to u. Who’s hiring Francis? Is it Pachamama?
Speaking as a relatively recent sede: I was in more despair at the FSSP, trying to square the circle of Francis with Catholic doctrine on the Papacy, than I am as a sedevacantist.
If francis is a heretic how does that make all his predacessors heretics?
@@ShaNaNa242 The same way you know in your heart that Francis is a heretic, look at the facts and work your way down to the next anti-pope
The bishops constitute the hierarchy of the Church. To cut oneself off from them, as the sedevacantists do, has already been condemned by Leo XII and Leo XIII.
These popes were targeting a group whose members denied the legitimacy of Pope Pius VII: like the sedevacantists.
Leo XII, Pastoris Aeterni: “Your Little Church cannot therefore in any way belong to the Catholic Church. By the very admission of your masters, or rather of those who deceive you, there are no longer any French bishops who support and defend the party you follow. Moreover, all the bishops of the Catholic Universe, to whom they themselves have appealed, and to whom they have addressed their schismatic claims in print, are recognized as approving the conventions of Pius VII and the acts which followed, and the whole Catholic Church is now entirely favorable to them.”
Leo XIII, Eximia nos laetitia: “Absolutely no bishop considers them and governs them as his sheep. From this they must conclude with certainty and evidence that they are defectors from the fold of Christ.
Now, just as the Little Church had no bishop who recognized them, so the sedevacantists had no bishop who recognized them, all of whom recognized the Council in 1964 and 1965.
How can your Church be Apostolic, if it doesn't have a single Ordinary bishop in it, if there is no more jurisdiction, therefore no more Authority ? This is against the Mark of Apostolicity.
@@ShaNaNa242 That's a non sequitur. John XXIII through Francis are all invalid Popes because they were manifest heretics *BEFORE* their elections. Pope Paul IV's bull Cum ex apostolatus declared that a public heretic cannot be a valid Pope, which was referenced in the 1917 Code of Canon Law that objectively applied during the elections of John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul 1, and John Paul 2. A heretic separates themselves from the mystical body of Christ, so how can they be the head of a body that they're no longer apart of? If John XXIII through Francis are valid Popes, then any non-Catholic could become a valid Pope. These false Popes have also taught in error regarding faith and morals, meaning that accepting their "Papacies" means believing that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church. If the Pope can teach in error regarding the faith, then there is no point to the Papacy and it only gives credence to the Eastern Orthodox's erroneous beliefs about the Papacy.
@@fidefidelis4912 Heretical bishops are no bishops, all of that is easily refuted from Cum Ex Apostolatos Officio. There are real bishops and priests of course, who aren't heretics and who have being validly ordained/consecrated with certainty with pre-V2 rites. Most sede Catholics do not fall in the Dimond camp, most have legitimate priests and bishops.
If you think despair is the only "logical reaction" to the position of Sedevacantists, you're not a true Catholic yourself. I can't believe you just said there is no point in praying the rosary if you can't receive the sacraments. Shame on you!
I have a friend in the Açores Island in Portugal who finds himself very blessed when he has a Mass once every month or is able to fly to the mainland or go to France to attend a valid Latin Mass. He is not depressed and has never despaired of his situation. This is a small act of suffering, which is something Catholics know and do best in the world.
How about the Japanese who were converted to the faith by Portuguese Jesuits hundreds of years ago, and then Japan outlawed Catholicism and there was no Mass or a single priest in Japan for centuries, but those converts kept baptizing their families throughout those centuries because it was the only sacrament they could perform without a priest. Were their prayers pointless? Was their faith false?
You really need to get out of the Novus Ordo. It sounds like it has gotten far more desparate and horrible than it was when I was in there over 20 years ago.
Sedevacantists are desperately bringing the faith and hope to Catholics
It actually brings a lot of hope. That the great King is coming back in our lifetime and we are of the few that can discern truth from lies.
Christ founded the Catholic Church not the novous ordo and its new Sacraments, new catechism, new type of saints that organize prayer meetings in Assissi with pagans praying to thier false gods, buddy placed upon the altar of sacrifice etc... how come these issues aren't addressed? Sedevacantist are trying to preserve the faith while we had popes destroying it. But no one addresses these especially Assissi
"If, then, any should deny that it is by the institution of Christ the Lord, or by divine right, that blessed Peter should have a perpetual line of successors in the Primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema."
First Vatican Council
@@Marcel---RomeI don't follow roman Catholicism anymore thank God for the Orthodox Church
@@menofvirtue6238 well have you looked into the evidence of second nicea for the Catholic church? The filioque controversy is simply something orthodox reject however they have really no reason to reject its historical consensus among the early church especially in second council of nicea the patriarch of Constantinople tarasios stated "I believe in one God the Father almighty, and in one Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God and our God, born of the Father timelessly and eternally, and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father through the Son and is acknowledged to be himself God, a consubstantial Trinity, sharing the same honor and throne, eternal, uncreated, the maker of all creatures, one rule, one Godhead and lordship, one kingship and power and authority in three hypostases.
⁃ The Acts Of The Second Council Of Nicaea, Sess. 3, Tarasios' Profession Of Faith (Richard Price, p. 211) tarasios obviously supports the filioque and the filioque model is *the holy spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son* or I prefe *the holy spirit proceeds from the Father Nad the son* now both are filioque and valid I'm happy for byzantine catholics using the first model but back to the topic tarasios obviously states a filioque model he supports and it's evident that even Eastern father's like Gregory of nyssa spoke about this exact modal now the problem is the orthodox church refuses to recognize this modal and states "To the same, who say that the Father is, through the Son, the cause of the Spirit, and who cannot conceive the Father as the cause of the hypostasis of the Spirit ⁃ giving it existence and being - except through the Son...we cut them off from the membership of the Orthodox, and we banish them from the flock of the Church of God."
⁃ Second Synod of Blachernae, Tomus, #3, 1285; Aristeides Papadakis, Crisis in Byzantium. now orthodox certainly can interpret the letter tarasios made as the announcement was only a relationship but regardless the relationship is still theological understanding and saying the procession that's unrecognizable to the model the orthodox use is honestly contradicting and self refuting they used accept the filioque model as tarasios.
@@menofvirtue6238 Now another part is that not only did the orthodox aprove the filioque at one point that's evident in the patriarch of Constantinople tarasios but they also accepted catholic doctrine during the schism as it said
"We come to our last example, which is the Council of Florence-Ferrara (1438-39). It had all the characteristic traits of an Ecumenical Council and was the most representative, as far as its attendance is concerned, in the entire history of Christianity. Delegates from all the churches, including the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Metropolitan of Moscow, were present, not to mention the Byzantine Emperor.
-
⁃ Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev, The Reception Of The Ecumenical Councils In The Early Church
They obviously don't accept Florence however the admit to Florence as an ecumincal Council now what Florence Council with the Catholic Church and Orthodox Bishop stated, "A second reunion council was held at Florence in 1438-9. The Emperor John VIII... attended in person, together with the Patriarch of Constantinople and a large delegation from the Byzantine Church, as well as representatives from the other Orthodox Churches... a formula of union was drawn up, covering the Filioque, Purgatory, 'azymes', and the Papal claims; and this was signed by all the Orthodox present at the council except one... Thus, in matters of doctrine, the Orthodox accepted the Papal claims... they accepted the doctrine of the... Procession of the Holy Spirit... they accepted the Roman teaching on Purgatory... ⁃ Bishop Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, Penguin Books, 1993, pp. 70-71
Now, amazingly, the reason for this denial is : "Despite the emperors' best efforts, the Florentine union remained unpopular, as the Byzantines generally believed it was 'better to die than to Latinize".
Now for the letters Pope hardian sent to tarasios, the council states: THE PAPAL LEGATES TO THE COUNCIL
"Let the holy council tell us if it accepts the letters of the most holy pope of Elder Rome or not.'
THE COUNCIL RESPONDED
"'We follow, accept, and approve them.'
- The Acts Of The Second Council Of Nicaea, Sess. 2, 787 (Richard Price, p. 182).
The contents of Pope's hadrians letter approve papal primacy and hadrian stating: "You are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my church. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you lose upon earth will be loosed in heaven. His see shines forth as primatial throughout the world and is the head of all the churches of God. And continues to say Therefore the same blessed Peter the Apostle shepherding the Church at the command of the Lord, has left nothing to neglect, but upholds, and has always upheld, her authority. If your sacredness cleaves to our Apostolic See, which is the head of all the churches of God, and endeavors from the depth of your heart and with sincere intention to follow its sacred and orthodox model without corruption or pollution, being yourself truly orthodox and religious you will offer this principal sacrifice to the Lord Almighty...
⁃ Pope Hadrian I To Patriarch Tarasios, Approved By The Second Council Of Nicaea In Sess. 2 (Price, p. 180)
And so without a doubt the pope speaks and appoves papal primacy and tarasios response was "Your fraternal high-priestly holiness, presiding lawfully and by God's will over the holy hierarchs, enjoys universal repute..
- Patriarch Tarasios, 2nd Letter To Pope Hadrian After The Council (Acts Of Nicaea I1, Price, p. 632). And so the second council of nicea teaches both filioque and papal primacy as upheld by the patriarch of Constantinople and Pope Hadrian and the orthodox admit
"The primacy which Rome enjoys takes its origin from three factors... The Orthodox Church acknowledges Peter as the first among the Apostles: it does not forget the celebrated 'Petrine texts in the Gospels (Matthew xvi, 18-19; Luke xxii, 32; John xxi, 15-17)... most [Orthodox theologians]... admit that the Bishop of Rome is Peter's successor in a special sense."
⁃ Bishop Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, Penguin Books, 1993, pp. 27-28 and another admiting the Catholic doctrine regarding the papal claims, which gives the Catholic church a higher stance.
@@menofvirtue6238welp youtube deleted all my comments, so i recommend you vaticancatholics channel on orthodoxy
Grateful for your analysis of this topic....and you. God bless you and your efforts for the Church.🙏
V2 and some popes like John the 23rd and a Francis aren’t ideal and are up to something, hence why Francis preaches such weird things and John 23rd was so scared of the 3rd Fatima secret being revealed but it doesn’t make them not valid
True. Judas was valid.
You dance around it. They are heretics! End of story.
The third secret was revealed, and has been revealed for decades now.
They teach a false religion, therefore cannot have authority from Christ. Simple arguement, don’t strawman it
"The Truth of God leads to Hope, not to despair" Thank you, Brian Holdsworth for an excellent video here. As an Anglican, the head of whose denomination has just finished a conference where the result was an acknowledgement of deep and currently irreconciliable differences BUT a decision that this would not cause us to break us apart, the sedevacantist argument has made NO sense. The huge concern around "synodality" has made very little sense. Yet even the best single, absolute certainty does not include the tools to work inside chaos, and chaos is what the world has, and chaos can lead to despair, which is why your church works so hard to avoid it.
Your explanation on this topic has helped me to understand. We all need to hold fast to "the Truth of God leads to Hope, not to despair"... hope, not happiness or all our wishes granted, but HOPE.
This feels like damage control. Their position wasn't there is no salivation for anyone right now, it's none outside the traditional catholic church. The issue still remains with Francis teaching anti-catholic ideas
What anti-Catholic ideas does Pope Francis preach
@@killianmiller6107 saying atheists are saved and that Jesus is not the only way
Have you considered reading what he said with a hermeneutic of charity, not one of suspicion? Read him very carefully, and tell me again that he means to teach us that Jesus is not the only way. The immediate response from me to understand his words is that, in obeying their conscience faithfully, atheists have an implicit faith in Jesus, which he can work with.
And then be sure to go and read where he teaches how Jesus IS the only way to the Father: for instance I found one homily from April 18, 2016, where he said that those who attempt to reach heaven by a different way than Jesus “is a thief and a robber.”
In fact, I recently heard from an exorcist who told a story where an atheist husband committed suicide off a bridge, and his Catholic wife was anxious over his salvation; and in church where she was praying about it, St John Vianney came out of the confessional and told her that her husband was saved (purgatory), that when he was falling, he had time to make an act of contrition. We never know what God can do for a person in their last moments.
@@killianmiller6107 There’s no two ways about not only his abominable words but also his apostate actions like praying in Mosques or Synagogues (actually, merely attending them is apostasy).
How does that prove he’s not the pope? All it might prove is he’s a sinner if he actively prayed in communion with Jews and Muslims, or at the very least it’s passive communion, praying in their presence, which is still scandalous. Also, apostasy has a particular definition, that is the total repudiation of the faith, and last I checked, Pope Francis is still Christian and calls himself so.
Catholics who believe the church is in the state of sede vacante do not believe the church no longer has any bishops. The church has given us lefebvre and Thuc as lines of Consecration of Bishops. They are the ones holding fast to tradition and resisting modernism, as commanded by the Church/ previous Popes. Please don’t straw man this position.
That makes them Western Orthodox (like Eastern Orthodox) not Catholic. Peter's chair is not an optional part of the Catholic faith.
@@atrifle8364 Ofcourse the The Pope is necessary. The seat is just vacant for the time being.
About jurisdiction, I agree that some sedevacantists don't claim that the teaching Hierarchy is gone. But, objectively, if Pius XII was the last true Pope, then the teaching Hierarchy would be gone, due to the fact that all bishops named (directly or not) by Pope Pius XII and his predecessors are dead.
Sedevacantist bishops weren't named by any pope, not even indirectly, they have received no canonical mission from any pope, so they can't be counted among the legitimate Successors of the Apostles (see Council of Trent, sess. XXIII, can. 7 (dogma)). These bishops have no teaching or governing Authority, as the episcopal Authority isn't received in virtue of the consecration, even if done in "case of necessity". It isn't sufficent to just have "valid bishops".
Supplied jurisdiction (if we suppose that your bishops enjoy it for decades) doesn't grant an Authority to teach or govern, nor does it makes a bishop a member of the Teaching Church. Even schismatic and heretic prelates can have supplied jurisidiction, as it merely allows them to grant some sacrements to the faithful, it doesn't makes them members of the Hierarchy.
The necessity of being sent (at least indirectly) by a Roman Pontiff in order to be a legitimate Successor of the Apostles and a member of the Teaching Church can't be bypassed by the "state of necessity", because such necessity is by divine Will, and not merely due to ecclesiastical law.
You've never heard of the line of bishops and priests in the Thuc line, such as Bishop Mark Pivarunas who is a validly consecrated bishop, and the sacrements survive in the CMRI order under him.
But the Dimonds say they don’t have jurisdiction because they are heretics who believe in Baptism of desire 😂
This is why we say sedes are like Protestants, they all interpret doctrine on their own and anathematize those who disagree with them
baptism of blood and desire is not heresy, and it's the only way to go when bergoglio is proclaimed the pope and he is a rank heretic. The SSPX sure aren't the way to go in the absenced of a real pope
@@jeffreylazarusbuggy4787 Do you see my point though? Since all sedevacantists have given up on the Church, they become their own popes and determine doctrine for themselves.
So even if I was interested in becoming a sede, how would I know which group had the fullness of truth?
@@Seethi_C By their fruits you shall know them. I see the fruits of the CMRI everyday, and I'm at perfect peace with it
The bishops constitute the hierarchy of the Church. To cut oneself off from them, as the sedevacantists do, has already been condemned by Leo XII and Leo XIII.
These popes were targeting a group whose members denied the legitimacy of Pope Pius VII: like the sedevacantists.
Leo XII, Pastoris Aeterni: “Your Little Church cannot therefore in any way belong to the Catholic Church. By the very admission of your masters, or rather of those who deceive you, there are no longer any French bishops who support and defend the party you follow. Moreover, all the bishops of the Catholic Universe, to whom they themselves have appealed, and to whom they have addressed their schismatic claims in print, are recognized as approving the conventions of Pius VII and the acts which followed, and the whole Catholic Church is now entirely favorable to them.”
Leo XIII, Eximia nos laetitia: “Absolutely no bishop considers them and governs them as his sheep. From this they must conclude with certainty and evidence that they are defectors from the fold of Christ.
Now, just as the Little Church had no bishop who recognized them, so the sedevacantists had no bishop who recognized them, all of whom recognized the Council in 1964 and 1965.
The title is comical. There is no despair in sedevacantism. The despair comes when you attempt to reconcile indefectability and infallibility within the Novus Ordo Church.
There is no despair in sedevacante. The despair comes when you think your HOLY father is evil.
@user-kb4dv1ud3fYes, that is correct. This is why Sedevacantists reject Donatism and focus specifically on ineligibility for office or loss of office.
I think that debate proves NO conservatives are nervous
Hello my brethren in Christ.
As someone who loves Latin, prays in it and would attend TLM if I had access to it (only attended once as part of a work trip where I was blessed to find a Church that practiced it). I have personally maintained that the actions of clergy to restrict the TLM is no different to clergy that restrict the NO in a local vernacular. The response to either situation is NOT to take a sedevacantist position.
I don't think those who hold to sedevacantist position understand the theological position they are in. They are making the following claims implicitly or explicitly whether they like it or not:
1) The Holy Spirit failed to guide the Church - No different a claim to all manner of Protestants, LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses etc.
2) Jesus allowed Satan to overcome the Church and Jesus did not remain with His Church till the end of the Age - No different a claim to all manner of Protestants, LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses etc.
3) Disobedience to Christ's Authority on earth is a serious sin - Jesus himself told the Jews of his day to obey the Authority of the rabbis and Temple priests, despite whatever level of corruption they had. Jesus prioritises telling people to obey God's Authority that was legitimately delegated and held by the priesthood at the time.
Matthew 23:3 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition
3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.
4) It was only after the establishment of the new covenant, that the Authority was revoked from the Jewish priests and Peter and the Apostles reject the Authority of the priests.
Acts 5:27-32 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition
27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them,
28 Saying: Commanding we commanded you, that you should not teach in this name; and behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and you have a mind to bring the blood of this man upon us.
29 But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men.
30 The God of our fathers hath raised up Jesus, whom you put to death, hanging him upon a tree.
31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand, to be Prince and Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins.
32 And we are witnesses of these things and the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to all that obey him.
*Has Jesus instituted a new covenant and revoked his delegated Authority from the Magisterium and the Pope?*
@alisterrebelo9013 The Holy Spirit didn't fail, the secular individual sitting in the Seat of Saint Peter abandoned the Holy Spirit, or do you deny free will of humans to disregard the teachings of Christ?
The gates of hell haven't prevailed against the Church, this is just a brief speed bump in the long history of the Church. Those who remain faithful to the Catholic faith and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ are evidence that hell has not prevailed.
God bless
Whether the sedes are right or wrong about the popes, they are not necessarily despairing, and, from what I see, they are not.
In contrast, many praising Brian’s message here sound relieved, like they are escaping their own anxiety. As if now that the sedes have been properly discarded, they can sleep again.
Who’s actually despairing?
I don't agree with the Sedevacantists but I also don't think they're despairing if they're perfectly ok doing what they think is right and finding salvation that way. It seems like Brian wants to be one but can't get over leaving the mainstream Catholic church. Can't say I've heard any that are in fact despairing more than usual
@@joeblow9657Your position sounds a lot like relativism and protestantism.
Most of the ones I've met are despairing, gloomy, and dysfunctional. Granted I've only met a couple dozen. Still, you don't actually answer any of Brian's logical objections to their position. He is providing clarity and encouragement to people who are bombarded with distracting and sensational predictions. Of course that brings hope amidst the anxieties people have to deal with.
@@PursuitofTruth22Imagine the constant anxiety of having to defend Bergoglio. Couldn't be me.
Here’s a thought, interview a competent Sedevacantist.
Sedevacantism is not a solution, it is a statement of fact.
Seems like a position that is only validated more and more over time by actions of the current person in the chair of St Peter. Divine and private revelations begin fulfilled are also a sign of hope.
Not fact at all.
It's a simple exercise of logic. The only reason to believe almost anything the Church teaches is because you believe the Church has authority to teach. If then, that Church doesn't have the authority to promulgate Vatican II, then every other teaching prior to that point also becomes suspect. You have to make a choice. The Church either is, or is not, instituted by Christ and given the protection of the Holy Spirit. Make a choice, choose wisely.
The Church does not have the authority to overthrow the teachings of Jesus or his apostles - more specifically, Saint Paul. It is blasphemy to say otherwise and heresy to attempt as much!
@@eaglehawkpanther Real quick, where, by chance, did you read the readings of Saint Paul?
@@eaglehawkpanther so you agree with Sola Scriptura? Welcome to Protestantism!
There have been robber councils in the past. We are saying the “council” did not come from the Church, which is proven by the fact that is contains heresy.
@@Essex626 Wrong.
One can deal with reality without falling into the state of despair.
It is interesting that these well spoken and well meaning Catholics feel from time to time an urge to disparage fellow Catholics without studying what they actually say and how they live. I like to listen to Brian, but this is not him…
It is also interesting that well meaning Catholics look to heretics for leadership.
@@Johnny8229 such as?
@@tubaceous Francis
@@Johnny8229 agree… it is puzzling. It is also puzzling how weak -at the same time -are their anti-sedevacantist arguments. Makes you wonder if they are bona fide…
Brother Dimond just now released a new video exposing Trent Horn and challenging him to a debate.
Do you know if Sedevacantists have accounts on Minds or something?
Lol
Can you blame them? The Popes since Vatican II have been utterly terrible
This is so interesting. The way you are describing sedevacantists, Brian, is the way Traditional Catholics were described to me growing up. Guess what? I learned, as I bet you have too, Brian, that that was really a kind of propaganda coming from people - and I mean priests and the hierarchy - who didn't want us to look too closely at Tradition. But then, finally, when I was almost 60 years old, I started going to the TLM and found out that what I was told wasn't true. Now, I see the same kind of talk about sedes, and I'm meeting sedes, and I'm finding out that what you're saying about them isn't true, either. It's popular among a lot of Traditional Catholics to talk about them like this, but it's not true.
I wonder who you personally know who is so full of despair. It doesn't describe the people I'm coming across at all. Truly, it doesn't. You may not agree with them, but to describe them as you do is simply inaccurate. I think the tide is turning and the opinion against sedevacantists will largely change. It will start to be the popular thing to say nice things about them instead of so many unfortunately inaccurate things like what you're saying here.
He was saying their beliefs should logically lead one to despair, and any who do not despair have not thought rationally about their opinions.
@@jimmymelonseed4068 Sede vacante is the majority opinion of Catholic Theologians on what would happen if a heretic was elected to the papacy or a Pope fell into public heresy as proposed by Doctor of the Church St Robert Bellarmine. Michael Dimond holds the same belief as Bellarmine on the issue of a heretical Pope but also hold other errors against de fide dogmas of the Church which would place him outside of the Catholic Church if he knew about them. Such dogmas include the continual actual existence of the Apostolic College (it must always exist, in all times, in any event) which is required to preserve the Apostolicity of the Church. He also denies the universal Church teaching on baptism of blood and desire, extrapolating the teaching of the excommunicated Fr Feeney.
If you wish to understand the Catholic teaching on this topic, it would be best to consult Catholics who don't hold the sectarian positions that many like Michael Dimond have embraced. The best discussion I have seen on this topic was a series of long-form interviews between Louie Verracchio (attended FSSP at the time, was a Benedict XVI resignationist) and John Lane (attends FSSPX but has written publicly in support of the Catholic faith including the sede vacante position). You can find these here: crisisinthechurch.com/interviews
@@jimmymelonseed4068 I'm a Sede and I'm not despairing. We still have valid priests dispensing the sacraments and offering valid Masses, even if it's in a low number. Don't know for sure how the Sedevacante issue will be resolved, but my trust is in God to deliver us in His way on His time. We're living through a time of great apostasy and chastisement, not unlike what the Israelites went through several times in their history.
@@jimmymelonseed4068 I see Traditional Catholics (Recognize and Resist, I should say, since sedevacantists are also Traditional Catholics) more often despairing, when they come to the conclusion that what the Church has always taught about the papacy isn’t true. Two thousand years of teaching on the papacy is a lot to give up on as we are encouraged to “rethink” the teaching. It’s really tragic that Catholics find that concept appealing. To hold R&R is to reject the source of unity left to us by Christ Himself. Peter is the Rock upon which Christ built His Church, not the laity, not even very pleasant and likable members of the laity who have UA-cam channels or publish magazines and websites. It is terrible to think we live at a time when we have no pope, but it’s far worse to think we live at a time that would change the concept of the papacy just so we can continue to call a heretic the Holy Father. Where is the logic in that? Where is the hope versus despair in the future of the Catholic Church?
@@comicsans1689 From whence do their priests and sacraments derive their validity?
sir. you show your ignorance when you claim sedevacantists say there is no visible church. True it is deminished becaused of Vatican 2 modernism. note there is no unity in the novus ordo, vat 2 religion. one fact among many which you avert to which proves,just cause it calls it self catholic does not mean it is. The vat 2 religion is not the one founded by christ.
I think that the right tittle of this Video is "The desperate Move of Vatican II Catholics to defend the heresy of Vatican II and thier popes". The heresy of Novus ordo popes shines bright too much through sedevacantism's exposition how uncatholic they are . It is demonstrated by the recent debate between Bro . Peter Dimond and Jeff Cassman (Pints of Aquinas)😊
You are not well informed about sedevacantism.
Brian's arguments essentially boil down to strawmen, gaslighting, and appeals to emotion rather than actual Catholic teaching/doctrine. The home alone sedes may be misguided and off the mark (the Church will always have the Sacraments and legitimate magisterium, etc), but the Catholics in general who hold the sedevacante position are 100% on the mark. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a true pope to be a manifest heretic or preach heresy either infallibly (V2 has done so, Bergoglio, and any "pope" professing the V2 religion) or through the Universal Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. V2 Sacraments for Ordination and Consecration are highly doubtful to even be real. Brian argues in bad faith by only addressing the home-aloners and using them to represent the overall sedevacante position. Most sedevacante Catholics believe there are real bishops and priests (consecrated and ordained using the valid and un-doubtful pre-V2 rites) and attend Mass while firmly believing that one day a real pope will be elevated to the office, rather than an imposter. This is not in any way against Catholic teaching or dogma, and I dare anyone to prove that wrong. Brian doesn't know what Catholic unity even means. Catholic unity: one Lord (V2 believes many religions are true and valid, like Islam), one Faith (again, Vatican 2 and false Ecumenism), and one Baptism (one rule of Faith, yet there are many differing rules of faith in V2). And again, Brian puts out a strawman and represents all sedes with the same position that the Dimonds take, when in fact, most Sedes actually believe in Baptism of Blood and Desire. Brian may be well intended, but he's clearly no theologian, nor does he appear to have a decent knowledge of his opponent's positions, at least not well enough to argue against them in good faith.
It says other religions have some truth not that they are entirely true or the full truth.
@@christophersnedeker V2 explicitly states that there are saving graces in other religions. That is explicitly heretical and condemned by the Church.
Hey Brian, I'm not a sede myself but I find that Catholics generally don't have good arguments against sedevacantism because they don't understand it. You are correct in that you can't necessarily address the arguments of everyone who holds to that position at once. However, the most holy family monastery is on the very fringes of sedevacantism. Its fine to respond to him, but if you want your video to be about sedevacantism itself and not his fringe group, then look into arguments presented by the SSPV and CMRI and perhaps try to respond to those. I think this debate stirred a lot of interest in the topic, so it is important that we address the position seriously. When I first discovered the actual arguments, I know that I felt that Catholics usually strawman this position - including apologists and even theologians. That doesn't make the orthodox position look good from the perspective of the person that understands the real arguments sedes make.
SSPV and CMRI both believe in salvation outside the Catholic Church. They believe that someone above the age of reason doesn't need to hold the Catholic faith or be baptized to be saved which is obviously heresy. They hold that you can be a member of any false religion under the sun and be saved by a mysterious implicit desire. They are not that dissimilar to the Vatican II church. They reject the Athanasian Creed and John 3:5 which the Council of Trent interprets as it is written (literally). And yes, God is not bound by His sacraments or anything else but He CHOOSES to have salvation inextricably linked to His Church, His faith, and His sacrament of baptism as the Church teaches.
Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451 A.D.: "For there are three who give testimony - Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. (1 Jn. 5:4-8) In other words, the Spirit of sanctification and the blood of redemption and the water of baptism. These three are one and remain indivisible. None of them is separable from its link with the others.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”
The bishops constitute the hierarchy of the Church. To cut oneself off from them, as the sedevacantists do, has already been condemned by Leo XII and Leo XIII.
These popes were targeting a group whose members denied the legitimacy of Pope Pius VII: like the sedevacantists.
Leo XII, Pastoris Aeterni: “Your Little Church cannot therefore in any way belong to the Catholic Church. By the very admission of your masters, or rather of those who deceive you, there are no longer any French bishops who support and defend the party you follow. Moreover, all the bishops of the Catholic Universe, to whom they themselves have appealed, and to whom they have addressed their schismatic claims in print, are recognized as approving the conventions of Pius VII and the acts which followed, and the whole Catholic Church is now entirely favorable to them.”
Leo XIII, Eximia nos laetitia: “Absolutely no bishop considers them and governs them as his sheep. From this they must conclude with certainty and evidence that they are defectors from the fold of Christ.
Now, just as the Little Church had no bishop who recognized them, so the sedevacantists had no bishop who recognized them, all of whom recognized the Council in 1964 and 1965.
Also, sedes don't have the mark of Apostolicity, since to possess it, the Church needs to possess bishops who are Successors of the Apostles. But only those who have the power of jurisdiction, which can only be received by the Pope (this is the Catholic doctrine, not a mere canonical law). But since sedes don't have bishops who possess power given to them by a pope (since they nelieve there's none), they don't possess any Successor of the Apostles, therefore they're not Catholic.
bbSeal, I sought to forestall my acting in error on numerous errors in the Vatican Council 11 (1962-65) documents and follow up documents and United Nations documents by seeking objective social confirmation of my judgement.
These documents were at least inattentive to the simultaneous authorisations by the economist statistician and consecrated married Colin Clark in 1964 of Pope St Paul V1's Commission on Population and the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO).
These documents included particularly:
"Declaration on Christian Education", Vat 11, GE, 1965, 3: "... those others to whom the parents entrust some share in their duty to educate ...";
Decree on the Training of Priests", Vat 11, OT, 1965, 10: "greater excellence of virginity consecrated to Christ";
Pope St Paul V1's Encyclical Letter: "Of Human Life", Humanae Vitae, 1968, 12 omitting 'qualitatively equal' with "inseparable" for "union and procreation" in marriage;
and of the FAO in transposing two columns of their statistics comparing rate of growth of population and food supplies in the developing countries so asserting in error that two-thirds of the population of the world was malnourished.
A helper of my family as my housemaster at Downside School, UK from 1960-1965, Dom Martin Salmon osb, Downside Benedictine Abbey, UK, in his letter to me, dated 30 October 1994, gave objective social confirmation of this judgement by me as follows:
I was directed in my then unknown to both me and all others, though in uncertainty believed by me and all others to be my identity and role by Pope St John Paul 11's Council for the Laity letter addressing me asking its contents be communicated to me, dated 28 September 1994 (ref. 874/94/S-61/F), through the Our Lady of the Rosary parish of the Archdiocese of Brisbane, Australia that I served as a catechist: "... to sustain what you consider to be your rights."
I take these "rights" to also be yours as referred to in Pope St John Paul 11's Exhortation: "Christ's Faithful", 1988, 40: "In such a way, the family can and must require from all ... the respect for those rights which in saving the family, will save society itself."
This sustaining directed of me is by out occulting or out camouflaging in my unknown to me and all both identity and role the occult as hidden or camouflaged, grooming by diseased "familyists" for their families tax exemption and lower insurance cost economic advantages of their psychologically and or emotionally vulnerable family members with an occult as hidden, incest connected as substitute mate, non-economic false status inducement of "higher vocation" of consecrated celibate marriage to consecrated male female marriage.
In both of these marriages, celibate vowed to man in Christ and male female vowed to God, Mary, mother of Jesus and Mother of God, was simultaneously authorised by an absolute power to be joined by applications of ensuring her procreation gift role and insuring need of union of her identity.
This sustaining is in your ensuring your procreation roles as gifts as confirmed de facto by Pope Francis on 10 June 2021 on the reference point of Mary, mother of Jesus, by her simultaneous authorisations recorded at Luke 1: v. 29&34 and 38 confirmed by what in uncertainty she "believed" v.45 and two members of my family, my father, Colin Clark by his simultaneous authorisations of church and state in 1964, and me by my simultaneous authorisations of church and state on 24 January 1995.
It is a matter of in uncertainty belief as the keeping of the inseparability and qualitative equality of thinking reason and having faith religion that these simultaneous authorisations, particularly those of Mary, mother of Jesus, exercised an absolute power of authorisation as a reference point for Pope Francis.
This sustaining by Pope Francis on 10 June 2021 is:
(a) in the continuing Cardinal Angelo Becciu and nine other Vatican state citizens or employees alleged embezzlement of charity donations case presently been heard in Pope Francis' Vatican state court,
(b) on the "Zan" anti-homophobia bill before the Italian Parliament case as an unacceptable risk of fraud on union need of family members of consecrated marriages completed in early November 2021 by its defeat after a protest note against this bill authorised by Pope Francis.
I am obeying this direction of me on 28 September 1994 (referenced as above) by Bishop Paul Cordes as Vice President of the Pope's Council for the Laity by to this end of: "to sustain what you consider to be your rights", responding to all of what I consider are the relevant posts needing this sustaining by a comment.
My references of a copy of the letter to the Brisbane parish I served directing me from Bishop Paul Cordes, dated 28 September 1994, and of the letter to me from Fr Martin Salmon osb, dated 30 October 1994, giving objective social confirmation of my judgement of the inseparability and equality in both quantity and quality of consecrated male female marriage vowed to God and celibate marriage vowed to man in Christ, on which I then acted by my simultaneous authorisations of church and state helpers of the family on 24 January 1995, will be sent to you on any request by you to my email address below.
Oliver Clark, oliver_clark5@telstra.com
Brian, Brian - where are you going? To extremes, and that is dangerous.
Converts generally go overboard in any religion and you are a perfect example of this.
You want to be more Catholic than the Catholic Church.
St. Peter never celebrated ( it is the Celebration of the Mass - not the Saying of the Mass ) the Mass in Latin. He spoke Aramaic and Greek. And the language of the Mass was changed from Greek to Latin in or around the year 400 AD, because the Romans did not understand Greek. In other words, the language of the Mass was changed to the “ vernacular “; that is, the language that people spoke and understood.
The Greek “ Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom “ remained in the Greek language, because that was the language of the Eastern Catholic Churches.
So the language of the Celebration of the Mass did not become Latin because the language was “ holier “ than the Greek language.
It is similar to Vatican II changing the language of the Mass from Latin to the language that the people speak in their country- ie the “ vernacular “. For us in North America, it is English.
One can pray in silence almost anywhere and at anytime. But the Celebration of the Mass is meant to be a communal gathering of the Faithful. It is so important to the life of the Church that to miss Mass on Sunday and Holy Days is considered a Mortal Sin.
@@pjsmith4369 Pope Francis is the first Pope or "Papa" as Father that I note to keep or allow the inseparability and qualitative equality; that is, covenant, non-presumed reciprocity, of his consecrated "Papa" family member identity in need of union and his consecrated procreation gift role as a "Papa" helper of the family within the family.
This keeping or allowing in uncertainty of his belief by Pope Francis was on 10 June 2021 by his simultaneous authorisations in exercising an absolute power in the cases of alleged not ensuring procreation gift by Cardinal Angelo Becciu and nine others (alleged embezzlement of charity donations presently on indictment been heard in Pope Francis Vatican state court) and the of the not insuring union need of identities of family members of consecrated valid marriages, both male female vowed to God and celibate vowed to man in Christ, by the "Zan" anti-homophobia bill before the Italian Parliament (defeated in early November 2021 following a protest note to the Italian government against it as an unacceptable risk of fraud on identities of family members of valid marriages need of union).
"Sedevacantism" appears to have continued up to Pope Francis since St Paul's "opinion" at 1 Cor 7: 25-34 that the calling to consecrated celibacy marriage vowed to man in Christ surpassed in excellence, was superior to, the calling to consecrated male female marriage vowed to God.
Lots of strawmen. Sedevacantists don't believe the Church "doesn't exist" as you claim midway through. God, due to the ever-increasing sins of man, has greatly reduced the size of the Church (has happened before, so there is a historical precedent) but there are still valid priests and bishops.
I am not a sedevacantist but I don’t blame them. It seems now we almost have to choose between being a obedient heretic or a faithful schismatic
St. Athanasius is the model.
Focus on being faithful to Christ and to the Church in terms of the Catechism. Popes and clergy come and go. They re-present Jesus, but imperfectly. So, the temptation can be to become distracted and entwined in the controversies. Pause, step back, and redirect your attention to the sacred heart of Christ Who is our end, not the clergy. Praise the Lord, because through the clergy they provide the sacraments, but our consolation is the Lord Jesus.
Saint Teresa of Avila:
Let nothing disturb you,
Let nothing frighten you,
All things are passing away:
God never changes.
Patience obtains all things
Whoever has God lacks nothing;
God alone suffices.
It seems to me that the sedevacantists become struck and stuck in the apparent faults of the clergy - pope or otherwise. Like Saint Peter when the Lord bid him to walk on water, they notice the winds of the world, lose their focus, become stubbornly entrenched, and sink in the waters of despair. Like other attuned Catholics, I'm more or less aware of the spiritual potholes in the Church, but I've learned and am learning slowly to leave them to God to resolve, for who among us can do any better. My job is to attend to my duties and focus on Him. He is, after all, the Lord and bids us to cast our worries on Him.
It’s as simple as just not judging for me. A simple and convenient spiritual tax write off😎
@@the2ndcoming135This new springtime feels like winter
@@TruthSeeker-333 yeah, man. At this point I’m just securing a peaceful exodus for us believers. Then the Muslims can have at it😂
Interesting way to judge what is true to the religion; not church teaching, but what causes despair. So, the Pope putting an Pachamama idol on the Alter of Saint Peter is okay because it might cause "despair". No. The sources of Catholic Dogma come from the Bible and the teachings of the Church, and the teachings of Pope Pius V and the Council of Trent is that only the rites of the mass that were two hundred years old at the time could be said. That's the Tridentine mass in the Roman Rite.
Either the Council of Trent is false and Pope Pius V was a false Pope, and thus there were no validly ordained bishops for 500 years,
OR
The Pope Pius V and The council of Trent was right and the current Novus Ordo church is false and and an anathema, and those who are faithful have to shun them.
Either way, the Novus Ordo Church is not the Church of Christ.
Well said.
Straw man. No sede says there are no bishops left, that’s heresy. We just don’t know where they are or their names. The Japanese didn’t have mass or confession for 300 years. They remained catholic, unlike this Ecumenical ginger.
What despair? I am a Sedevacantist, because there is no other logical option. The Church can’t teach error .
Do you go to Mass every week?
@@Seethi_C yes and it’s 100% valid, though the proper. Term for what I attended is a Kidasse. Why d ask
@@llandonross1372 is that orthodox or eastern Catholic?
@@Seethi_C in 2019 I was brought into the church by the SSPX. Before that I was attending a FSSP church, but I was already wrestling with the Sede position then. I did a lot of research and prayed. I have also talked with many a priest who were the first in the in the restoration movement who came to that conclusion ( Sedevacantism).
@@Seethi_C and why do you ask. Even if I attended a orthodox service would it mean anything I said any less true
You are so eloquent thank you. The gates of hell will NOT prevail against my church-J. Christ
The gates of Hell have prevailed if you believe that John XXIII through Francis are valid Popes. For example, John Paul II signed a joint declaration on Justification with the Lutherans, repudiating Catholic doctrine on the matter. He also authorized a document on the Nestorians that permits Chaldean Catholics to validly attend their Masses and take communion from them, even though one of the old anaphoras commonly used, called Addai and Mari, does not contain the words necessary for a valid eucharistic consecration to take place. The document does not mandate that this anaphora use the words of Institution, but it "warmly" encourages them to do so if Chaldean Catholics are present. More vague nonsense that will be ignored. John Paul II was a greater heretic than even Francis, which is really saying something.
@@comicsans1689 it seems you are calling Jesus a liar?
@@KW-mz4pn I'm not calling Jesus a liar. Quite the opposite! I reject the false papacies of John XXIII through Francis because a manifest heretic cannot be a valid pope. John XXIII through Francis have all taught error in various ways, and none of them believed in the uncompromised Catholic faith based on their external words and actions. Holy Mother Church cannot teach in error regarding the faith, as the Pope is the guardian of the faith, so therefore those imposters are not real popes. Otherwise, Catholicism is a sham.
@@comicsans1689 Hello my brethren in Christ.
As someone who loves Latin, prays in it and would attend TLM if I had access to it (only attended once as part of a work trip where I was blessed to find a Church that practiced it). I have personally maintained that the actions of clergy to restrict the TLM is no different to clergy that restrict the NO in a local vernacular. The response to either situation is NOT to take a sedevacantist position.
I don't think those who hold to sedevacantist position understand the theological position they are in. They are making the following claims implicitly or explicitly whether they like it or not:
1) The Holy Spirit failed to guide the Church - No different a claim to all manner of Protestants, LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses etc.
2) Jesus allowed Satan to overcome the Church and Jesus did not remain with His Church till the end of the Age - No different a claim to all manner of Protestants, LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses etc.
3) Disobedience to Christ's Authority on earth is a serious sin - Jesus himself told the Jews of his day to obey the Authority of the rabbis and Temple priests, despite whatever level of corruption they had. Jesus prioritises telling people to obey God's Authority that was legitimately delegated and held by the priesthood at the time.
Matthew 23:3 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition
3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.
4) It was only after the establishment of the new covenant, that the Authority was revoked from the Jewish priests and Peter and the Apostles reject the Authority of the priests.
Acts 5:27-32 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition
27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them,
28 Saying: Commanding we commanded you, that you should not teach in this name; and behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and you have a mind to bring the blood of this man upon us.
29 But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men.
30 The God of our fathers hath raised up Jesus, whom you put to death, hanging him upon a tree.
31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand, to be Prince and Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins.
32 And we are witnesses of these things and the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to all that obey him.
*Has Jesus instituted a new covenant and revoked his delegated Authority from the Magisterium and the Pope?*
"People need to address these issues head on [...] because the unity of the faith requires it." - Br.Diamond
Would you rather a Pope Honorius I, or a Pope Marcellinus, sit as the Bishop of Rome, or would you rather anathematize them for suspect of heresy & apostasy to false gods? Sedevacante for their seats, unless they publically repent and revert to orthodoxy, or another taked their place post-removal of office; á la Nestorius & the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
Inquisition Vatican II honestly, for the faith obligates it. Lest, potential robber councils succeed in usurpation for a time.
Some hold no position where the Pope is the Pope and some are sedepravationists like Bishop Donald Sanborn some where previously SSPX and left to form thier order and are flourishing with big families and solid vocations. They see the defects with the new V2 new religion and 1962 Missal which was a pathway to the NWO New Mass and most use the 1955 Missal and rubrics. All we can do is to pray in these times of confusion to be guided by the Holy Ghost 🙏🙏🙏
Would you have a debate with brother Peter Dimond? About this topic ?
Oh, a novus ordite praising protestants?! Well, now I’ve heard everything... that’s sarcasm, if you can’t tell
The Catholic Church teaches that a heretic would cease to be pope, and that a heretic couldn’t be validly elected pope.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt by a baptized person of an article of divine and Catholic Faith. In other words, a baptized person who deliberately denies an authoritative teaching of the
Catholic Church is a heretic.
Martin Luther, perhaps the most notorious heretic in Church history, taught the heresy of Justification by faith alone, among many others.
Besides antipopes reigning from Rome due to uncanonical elections, the Catholic Church teaches that if a pope were to become a heretic he would automatically lose his office and cease to be the pope. This is the teaching of all the doctors and fathers of the Church who addressed the issue:
St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church.
Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the
Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St.
Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. De great. Christ. Cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope."
St. Francis De Sales (17th century), Doctor of the Church, The Catholic Controversy, pp. 305-306: "Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church..."
St. Antoninus (1459): "In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since
he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church." (Summa
Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub.)
That a heretic cannot be a pope is rooted in the dogma that heretics
are not members of the Catholic Church
It should be noted that the teaching from the saints and doctors of the Church, which is quoted above - that a pope who became a heretic would automatically cease to be pope - is rooted in the infallible dogma that a heretic is not a member of the Catholic Church.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives…”2
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943:
“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
We can see that it’s the teaching of the Catholic Church that a man is severed from the Church by heresy, schism or apostasy.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and
alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9):
“No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to a single one of these he is not a
Catholic.”
Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208: “By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”
Thus, it’s not merely the opinion of certain saints and doctors of the Church that a heretic would cease to be pope; it’s a fact inextricably bound up with a dogmatic teaching. A truth inextricably
bound up with a dogma is called a dogmatic fact. It is, therefore, a dogmatic fact that a heretic
cannot be the pope. A heretic cannot be the pope, since one who is outside cannot head that of which he is not even a member.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896: “No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.”
Only popes can excommunicate other popes. Our job as lay people is to stop trying to mind read, be the next Pope and cannon lawyer combined and get to a Mass authoriized by the Holy See.
You can receive grace through prayer, penance, alms giving and the Sacraments. Some Japanese who had been converted kept the faith in secret for 250 years without priests. So the idea that praying the rosary is a waste of time without the sacraments shows your ignorance of the faith. Just because a person denies that those Vatican II occupiers of the buildings represent the Catholic Faith doesn't mean there is no Catholic Faith. Those who hold firmly to what the Church has always taught are the true Catholics, they exist, and the Church exists through them. You can not save your soul by compromising with the truth. You can not save your soul by participating in the worship service of heretics, a worship service that is completely contrary to what the Church always taught until 1965, a worship service that no longer considers the Mass to be what it always was: the perfect sacrifice for sins.
Excellent video. I would submit though that we must accept sedivacanties as fellow Catholics. If such a great saint as St. Vincent Ferrer can make an error about the identity of the pope than because of the confusion and ambiguity in the modern Church it is understandable that they have made an error about the existence of the pope. Especially considering the fact that the confusion and ambiguity is coming from the top down.
No, I don't think so. The bishops constitute the hierarchy of the Church. To cut oneself off from them, as the sedevacantists do, has already been condemned by Leo XII and Leo XIII.
These popes were targeting a group whose members denied the legitimacy of Pope Pius VII: like the sedevacantists.
Leo XII, Pastoris Aeterni: “Your Little Church cannot therefore in any way belong to the Catholic Church. By the very admission of your masters, or rather of those who deceive you, there are no longer any French bishops who support and defend the party you follow. Moreover, all the bishops of the Catholic Universe, to whom they themselves have appealed, and to whom they have addressed their schismatic claims in print, are recognized as approving the conventions of Pius VII and the acts which followed, and the whole Catholic Church is now entirely favorable to them.”
Leo XIII, Eximia nos laetitia: “Absolutely no bishop considers them and governs them as his sheep. From this they must conclude with certainty and evidence that they are defectors from the fold of Christ.
Now, just as the Little Church had no bishop who recognized them, so the sedevacantists had no bishop who recognized them, all of whom recognized the Council in 1964 and 1965.
St. Francis would never separate from all bishops of the world.
@@fidefidelis4912 I will not defend sedevacanties as I find their position to be untenable. My position is that they must be accepted as fellow Catholics because of the confusion and ambiguity which is coming from the top down.
Your quotations from Leo XII & XIII rather proves my point. Here we have two Pontiffs making a clear and concise statement about the disposition of groups which have separated themselves from The Church.
Let us compare and contrast that to the actions of Pope Francis. Just to choose one of a myriad of examples is his actions is the case of Fr. James Martin, SJ. This man, in order to defend a lifestyle of those who commit a sin crying out to heaven for vengeance is on public record as stating The Bible got it wrong when it comes to homosexuality; he also rejects the teaching of the current Catechism of The Catholic Church on homosexuality.
What then are we to make of Pope Francis appointing him to important committees, meeting with him in an encouraging basis, exchanging public letters with encouraging his "ministry"? Along the same lines, the Flemish bishops immediately before their ad limina visit issue a document that allows for the "blessing" of "same sex couples." The result was absolute silence from Pope Francis. One could go on and on here, even pointing out the confusion sown by him with amoris laetitia.
So back to the poor sedevacanties, these faithful Catholics have tried to reconcile the actions and inaction of the last several popes and have made a serious miscalculation about the current existence of the Pope. In this case, seriously: who are we to judge?
Hello my brother in Christ.
As someone who loves Latin, prays in it and would attend TLM if I had access to it (only attended once as part of a work trip where I was blessed to find a Church that practiced it). I have personally maintained that the actions of clergy to restrict the TLM is no different to clergy that restrict the NO in a local vernacular. The response to either situation is NOT to take a sedevacantist position position.
I don't think those who hold to sedevacantist position understand the theological position they are in. They are making the following claims implicitly or explicitly whether they like it or not:
1) The Holy Spirit failed to guide the Church - No different a claim to all manner of Protestants, LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses etc.
2) Jesus allowed Satan to overcome the Church and Jesus did not remain with His Church till the end of the Age - No different a claim to all manner of Protestants, LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses etc.
3) Disobedience to Christ's Authority on earth is a serious sin - Jesus himself told the Jews of his day to obey the Authority of the rabbis and Temple priests, despite whatever level of corruption they had. Jesus prioritises telling people to obey God's Authority that was legitimately delegated and held by the priesthood at the time.
Matthew 23:3 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition
3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.
4) It was only after the establishment of the new covenant, that the Authority was revoked from the Jewish priests and Peter and the Apostles reject the Authority of the priests.
Acts 5:27-32 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition
27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them,
28 Saying: Commanding we commanded you, that you should not teach in this name; and behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and you have a mind to bring the blood of this man upon us.
29 But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men.
30 The God of our fathers hath raised up Jesus, whom you put to death, hanging him upon a tree.
31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand, to be Prince and Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins.
32 And we are witnesses of these things and the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to all that obey him.
*Has Jesus instituted a new covenant and revoked his delegated Authority from the Magisterium and the Pope?*
The joy to celebrate as God wanted it, and the knowledge that V2 makes the pleasure of demons (we know this by exorcisms).
Hello my brother in Christ. Do you really trust the word of demons over Jesus and the Apostles? Read points 3 and 4 below.
As someone who loves Latin, prays in it and would attend TLM if I had access to it (only attended once as part of a work trip where I was blessed to find a Church that practiced it). I have personally maintained that the actions of clergy to restrict the TLM is no different to clergy that restrict the NO in a local vernacular. The response to either situation is NOT to take a sedevacantist position position.
I don't think those who hold to sedevacantist position understand the theological position they are in. They are making the following claims implicitly or explicitly whether they like it or not:
1) The Holy Spirit failed to guide the Church - No different a claim to all manner of Protestants, LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses etc.
2) Jesus allowed Satan to overcome the Church and Jesus did not remain with His Church till the end of the Age - No different a claim to all manner of Protestants, LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses etc.
3) Disobedience to Christ's Authority on earth is a serious sin - Jesus himself told the Jews of his day to obey the Authority of the rabbis and Temple priests, despite whatever level of corruption they had. Jesus prioritises telling people to obey God's Authority that was legitimately delegated and held by the priesthood at the time.
Matthew 23:3 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition
3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.
4) It was only after the establishment of the new covenant, that the Authority was revoked from the Jewish priests and Peter and the Apostles reject the Authority of the priests.
Acts 5:27-32 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition
27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them,
28 Saying: Commanding we commanded you, that you should not teach in this name; and behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and you have a mind to bring the blood of this man upon us.
29 But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men.
30 The God of our fathers hath raised up Jesus, whom you put to death, hanging him upon a tree.
31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand, to be Prince and Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins.
32 And we are witnesses of these things and the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to all that obey him.
*Has Jesus instituted a new covenant and revoked his delegated Authority from the Magisterium and the Pope?*
There are sedevecantists that disagree with Br Dimond....
So which sedevacantist group has the fullness of truth?
Bravo. Brian, I think you’ve come on the scene for a time such as this. Thank you for such simple yet profound, salient observations for the faithful Catholic. Thank you for using your gifts to build up the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church. God bless you.
You and he are on the path to Hell. You cannot be a manifest and notorious heretic and a pope simultaneously. Much less Catholic. And you must be in union with and profess the same faith as the Pontiff to be Catholic.
He's building a strawman of sedevacantism based on Dimond brother feeneyites that deny the de fide teachings of baptism of desire and baptism of blood
There's nothing profound about this video. It's an argument against a strawman, based on emotionalism with no real theology
@@deusvult6920 You are ignorant just slightly less ignorant than he is. if you investigated the Brother’s material, you would find that they reject Fr. Feeney’s explanation of Justification. You would find that BOD is condemned by the Church. And you would find that Pope Pius XII’s condemnation of Fr. Feeney was not infallible, and that they also excommunicated him merely because he asked why he was being summoned to Rome. And you might learn that you are nearly as Faithless as the Novus ordo because you believe people can be saved outside the Catholic Church as if EENS has exceptions.
@@deusvult6920 ua-cam.com/video/75q9L20ek54/v-deo.html
I think we need to begin calling sedavacantism what it is and always was. It is Protestantism by another name. There is really no meaningful difference between sedavacantism and Protestant sects when you break it down to what the true error of Protestantism is. Many Catholics write off Protestantism by cultural markers. But it's always been deeper than that. It's a rejection of Church authority. Either outright, or often because someone has reasoned that at some point the Church erred and now the REAL truth lies with these other people. Luther, Lefebver, the sede Church. Doesn't matter. "The Church" is now wrong and they are right.
At the end of the day, sedavacantism is not very different than Luther. And of course, they think they are right just like Luther did. And I think once we start being honest about what sedavacantism is, we can better address it. It is another in a long, long line of "alternatives" to Catholicism. It isn't the first nor is it the last to try and be both an alternative and also still calling itself "Catholic." But at the end of the day, it is what it is. And there will ALWAYS be an excuse as to why its adherents view the current pope as illegitimate. There is zero set of circumstances that will ever right the ship in their eyes. I think we're just not used to such a prominent break against the Church in our generation because we've gotten so used to the standard "Protestant." The "denomination" type. It'll probably take a few centuries before history clues in that sedavacantism is just another in a long line of major ruptures that is adrift from the home Church. By then, they'll probably fragment further while there will still be a pope a magisterium, and a Catholic Church, and new things that people will use as an excuse to join some breakaway sect.
You can also add and say the same thing about the Orthodox churches.
Exactly. The only difference between sedes and Protestants is sedes quote papal encyclicals (with their personal interpretation) rather than scripture.
The problem is that Protestantism is cool now under V2 ecumenism. So the circularity of the word salad goes around and around to no purpose.
@@williamjones6971 not from the debates I've watched.
@@williamjones6971 Not just cool but embraced, look at the statue of luther and the stamp honoring him issued by the Vatican. Paganism ans atheism are embraced evidenced by the pacama and the earth mother coin. His deal with the atheist ccp betraying our Chinese brethren , brokered by the hematochezia mccarrick proves that.
Papal Infallibility gives believers a very powerful rule for detecting Anti-Popes. If a 'Pope' speaks ex-cathedra, and makes an error in doing so, he must not actually be a pope, as a Pope doing that would be infallible.
Sedevacantism does not make sense to a person if they have not acknowledged that we are in and/or in the end times, living through the great apostasy as told by scripture, the church fathers, and revelations and apparitions.
It makes sense such confusion, as only a small minority are truly saved.
The situation is grave. Cardinal Muller, former head of the CDF no less, just said that the church is on the verge of a hostile take-over. Apologetics of ordinary times are not working. This is eschatological... "unless the days be shortened even the elect could be lost." Ecclesiastical eclipse, remnant theology may be needed. Jesus said that the bride must go where the Lamb has gone.
When has the mystical body of Christ not been grave?
In Heaven Lucifer and one-third of the angels began the rebellion against God and the angelic Church when then continued onto Adam and Eve and through the Old Testament in addition at once upon all of mankind.
From Jesus' birth he was slated for death and so it continued against the Church with both heresies to destroy the faith as well as physical assaults from the Romans, the barbarians, Vikings, the Muslims, aboriginal people wherever evangelisation occurred, the Protestants, other civil governments around the world (Napoleon, Bismarck, Musolini, the Mexicans, English, etc.) and it continues today with neo-Marxists and all manner of anti-Christs of various degrees.
Since Jesus came, mankind has already been in the last age or end times. Many have believed that their small bit of history was the end, but it hasn't been. For most of us, our end times will be just before we die which is far more important than forecasting what only the Father knows.
Saint Teresa of Avila offers these words:
Let nothing disturb you,
Let nothing frighten you,
All things are passing away:
God never changes.
Patience obtains all things
Whoever has God lacks nothing;
God alone suffices.
Either we have faith in the promises of Christ or we don't. Where you cannot control, your prayers are enough. The gates of Hell will not prevail, because Christ said so. It's enough.
Does the quote “and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it” mean nothing to you? Come on man, stop falling into despair.
@@AndrewTheMandrew531, thank you . Of course, the words of Matthew 16 mean much to a heart of faith. Also the injunction of our Savior: As they have harried me, so will they harry you. So Jesus was harried to death even as death did not close its jaw on Him forever. Like Him the Church will arise, but like him, it will suffer in an eschatological wrench, betrayed by her own.
@@AndrewTheMandrew531 Then how about Luke 18:8?
There is absolutely no despair in knowing you practice the True Catholic Faith and are in the Body of Christ, while modernists and false traditionalists who can not let go of the buildings and institutions in Rome because of their pride, reject the teachings of the Infallible Magisterium for the teachings of men and youtube personalities.
What practice? Receiving the Holy Eucharist? Going to Confession? How can you receive those if there are no priests to receive them from? How can those be the means of our salvation that Christ instituted on earth if there is no longer a way of receiving them? Wouldn’t it follow that there is no way to be saved and we are all going to hell no matter what we do?
During these times of much confusion, I rely on John 10:27 “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;." Through much prayer, contemplation, reflection, and discernment, if ever I feel uneasy I know not to follow it. God speaks to us daily but the "noise" of the world drowns Him out. There is so much to say, but I am nowhere at the level of debating and would end up in a tangled mess.
Samantha Frontauria-Greene, As forestalling my acting in error on numerous errors in the Vatican Council 11 (1962-65) documents and follow up documents, particularly: "Declaration on Christian Education", GE, 1965, 3: "... those others to whom the parents entrust some share in their duty to educate ...", Decree on the Training of Priests", OT, 1965, 10: "greater excellence of virginity consecrated to Christ"; Pope St Paul V1's Encyclical Letter: "Of Human Life", Humanae Vitae, 1968, 12 omitting 'qualitatively equal' with "inseparable" for "union and procreation" in marriage, a helper of my family as my housemaster at Downside School, UK from 1960-1965, Dom Martin Salmon osb, Downside Benedictine Abbey, UK, in his letter to me, dated 30 October 1994, gave objective social confirmation of this judgement as follows:
I was directed in my then unknown to both me and all others, though in uncertainty believed by me and all others to be my identity and role by Pope St John Paul 11's Council for the Laity letter addressing me asking its contents be communicated to me, dated 28 September 1994 (ref. 874/94/S-61/F), through the Our Lady of the Rosary parish of the Archdiocese of Brisbane, Australia that I served as a catechist: "... to sustain what you consider to be your rights."
I take these "rights" to also be yours as referred to in Pope St John Paul 11's Exhortation: "Christ's Faithful", 1988, 40: "In such a way, the family can and must require from all ... the respect for those rights which in saving the family, will save society itself."
This sustaining directed of me is by out occulting or out camouflaging in my unknown to me and all both identity and role the occult as hidden or camouflaged, grooming by diseased "familyists" for their families tax exemption and lower insurance cost economic advantages of their psychologically and or emotionally vulnerable family members with an occult as hidden, incest connected as substitute mate, non-economic false status inducement of "higher vocation" of consecrated celibate marriage to consecrated male female marriage.
In both of these marriages, celibate vowed to man in Christ and male female vowed to God, Mary, mother of Jesus and Mother of God, was simultaneously authorised by an absolute power to be joined by applications of ensuring her procreation gift role and insuring need of union of her identity.
This sustaining is in your ensuring your procreation roles as gifts as confirmed de facto by Pope Francis on 10 June 2021 on the reference point of Mary, mother of Jesus, by her simultaneous authorisations recorded at Luke 1: v. 29&34 and 38 confirmed by what in uncertainty she "believed" v.45 and two members of my family, my father, Colin Clark by his simultaneous authorisations of church and state in 1964, and me by my simultaneous authorisations of church and state on 24 January 1995.
This sustaining by Pope Francis on 10 June 2021 is:
(a) in the continuing Cardinal Angelo Becciu and nine other Vatican state citizens or employees alleged embezzlement of charity donations case presently been heard in Pope Francis' Vatican state court,
(b) on the "Zan" anti-homophobia bill before the Italian Parliament case as an unacceptable risk of fraud on union need of family members of consecrated marriages completed in early November 2021 by its defeat after a protest note against this bill authorised by Pope Francis.
I am obeying this direction of me on 28 September 1994 (referenced as above) by Bishop Paul Cordes as Vice President of the Pope's Council for the Laity by to this end of: "to sustain what you consider to be your rights", responding to all of what I consider are the relevant posts needing this sustaining by a comment.
I think we should stop referring to sedes as “radical traditionalists”
We prefer the term "Catholic".
@@stephanusghibellino Quote Catholic
There are 4 different positions recognizing the vacancy of the See. The one you refer is referred acephalus and sedefinites, which are wrong because they terminate the Church, Apostolicy, Sacraments, etc. The right position is known as Conclavism, looking for a universal Conclave among real bishops descending from valid lines and supletory jurisdiction until a new real Pope confirm them. Take a time to hear M. Mark Pivarunas and you will find the real remaining Catholic Church. Regards
Right. Bishop Pivarunas said in his lecture at our last Fatima Conference that the CMRI now consists of 219 priests, brothers and seminarians (not counting the minor seminarians). 5 new priests ordained on the same day this year. That would not be possible if we were all following the heretical position of the Dimond Brothers.
Very timely. Too many traditionalists (and I count myself a traditionalist) are too quick to leap straight to this response to modernism. Well argued.
Have you considered returning to ortodoxy?
Yet another refutation of the Cassman/Dimond debate, where Dimond blew Cassman out of the water. Now, all Cassman's buddies are running to rescue him from his very clear defeat. You are all liars, deceivers and hypocrites! The more you try to expose sedevacantism, the more it exposes you.
I am not FOR Sedevacantism, but I do think that a intermediate level theologian who maybe is not so involved in the minutia of the church would be sympathetic to this claim at this time.
I think you can be open to the vacancy of the seat in Rome w/o being heretical.
If it follows that a pope can die and the seat can naturally be vacant why can a pope not in some capacity abandon the seat and disqualify themselves spiritually or materially? I think that it is a simpler for a common person to dismiss the current pope's nonsense with an openness to this possibility. I don't find it causes despair to think we might be in a time without papal leadership, rather it allows us to cling to the the catechism and sacraments as we should and think and live in a very local way, anticipating a faithful Pope.
This is generally how I feel about the issue, that we might have a Pope, we might not, and it doesn't really change my experience and expression of faith. It only explains simply some papal nonsense that has happened with our current Pope.
I feel like commonly the ANTI-Sedevacantist position seems to really bend over backwards to rationalize some pretty ridiculous things... The anti position seems to commonly, unintentionally, make the case for an openness to Sedevacantism.
I always appreciate your reflections on these Topics Brian, Kudos for your charitable disposition.
Sedevacantism struggles the most when it makes overly specific claims.
The Vatican II cult is not the Catholic Church. The evil fruits of this cult have been shown continuously since the first seeds were planted by Roncalli. The cult members refuse the truth because of pride. They cannot admit that they have spent their time and treasure in this false church. It is not hard to understand this, millions of people follow false religions and refuse Christ because of temporal reasons pride, and ignorance. We can only pray that the Holy Ghost opens them all up to the truth.
Brian, I like your videos, but the reason this video won't persuade sedevacantists that they are in error is because they claim they ARE the Catholic Church, not that the Church has been overrun with heretics. A lot of Catholic UA-camrs don't really understand sedevacantism and don't do a good job of disproving it. Please continue making videos against it, and please try to look more into it first! We are counting on you. We need more guys out there calling this stuff out
It looks like you could use a Sededucation as well.
I don’t want to sound harsh, but the entire premise of your video is based on a misunderstanding.
Sedevacantism does NOT imply that there are no valid bishops left. Neither does sedevacantism say that there is no visible Church or Sacraments.
The last two errors in particular are really egregious, and they show us that you didn’t do basic research before publishing this video - which has now been seen by 12,000 people. I really think you should post a correction.
As I said in the video, I'm not replying to all forms of sedevacantism, just that particular version popularized in the recent debate, which, if it doesn't say that, it argues for it. Furthermore, even for those sects that insist there still is a line of valid bishops? Where are they? Most people have no access to them and no way of, confidently, knowing about them. For all practical purposes, for the overwhelming vast majority of people today, the "true" Church would be concealed from them.
@@BrianHoldsworthSince you want to talk about the Dimonds, let's talk about the Dimonds. It only took me about 15 seconds to find an article they wrote attacking John Paul II for allegedly denying the visibility of the Church. So I think we can safely assume they believe in a visible Church. As for Sacraments, the Dimonds have also given their opinion on where to go to confession and the Mass, so it's pretty clear that you're mistaken on this point too.
And to be clear, I'm not a fan of the Dimonds, and I don't agree with all their positions. I just think we should accurately represent people's views.
Regarding valid bishops, let's be clear on what we're talking about. If you just mean a man with valid episcopal orders, there are plenty of them, and many traditionalist groups include them in their ranks. If you mean diocesan bishops, I think the best place to look for them would be in the Eastern rites. The Novus Ordo was never imposed in the East, and Catholics there continued to attend their parishes. I see no reason to assume all the Eastern rite bishops are illegitimate, but if you have a case against them backed up with authoritative pre-Vatican II theology, I'll look at it.
I'd also like to ask, Mr Holdsworth, what is this meme about despair all about? Is it about the Dimonds' advice where to go to Mass?
The sedes I know are marked by joy, peace, love for the Church, and patience while we wait for the end of this bizarre period. You can say "I wasn't talking about all sedes" but I think we can all see that that is not an adequate answer.
One observation to be made is that sedevacantism does not entail a Church or sect of which YOU are not a part. It is a (true) conclusion held by some Catholics. If you are a Catholic, and you don't agree, that doesn't mean that you're part of a different church by that fact. This is the sort of thing that has to be understood if you're going to make a video about fellow Catholics (or indeed anyone) viewed by 1000s of people.
I hope that none of this comes across to harsh or hectoring! Thanks!
@@BrianHoldsworthFeenyites are heretics. You missed that point and misled people into thinking Sedevacantists had no bishops. This is true because that's what I thought you were saying. You must clarify on this point to your audience that has been misled from the truth.
Furthermore...
Anyone can find a Sede church. They're posted. Priests do travel. It's hard to get to one, but they're not invisible.
@@BrianHoldsworth there are sede bishops and priests literally all over the world, even in "the middle of nowhere." They also travel a lot.
And as far as knowing about them, uh, idk maybe a little something called the INTERNET??
Your cope is embarrassing. 🤦🏻
"Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ."
"It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church."
This Is "Unitatis Redintegratio" Point 3
1- How can a NO Catholic not recognize a sede as a "separated brother" given the fact that he has precisely the same things that are listed in UR and that are directed to Prostestants and "Orthodox"?
2- How can a NO Catholic call a sede a "heretic" in the same Moment that he's calling a protestant or an "orthodox" "separated brothers"? Aren't protestants/"orthodoxs" denying the papacy? Isn't the believe in the supreme office of the pope a defined dogma? And at this point what is a heresy? Has the term been redefined?
3-If the term has been redefined so that It no longer applyes to protestants or "orthodoxs" how so? And what is the new definition of this term that calls those groups "separated brothers' and sedes "heretics"?
4- If the term has not been redefined then what are the effects of the sin of heresy? Doesn't it exclude one from the communion with the visibile Church and from the Body of Christ? If so then, what is "partial communion", a doctrine explained in Unitatis Redintegratio and Lumen Gentium, has this doctrine ever been taught by The Fathers pr by a Pope or by any ecumenical council, if so when and where? And what has The Church always taught about communion? Is it a IN or OUT thing or does It have nuances?
3- There are two types of heresy - material heresy and formal heresy. Material heresy is when someone believes a heresy, but doesn't realize that it goes against church teaching and still honestly intends to follow the teaching of the Church. Formal heresy is when someone understands that they are in disagreement with Church doctrine and obstinately refuse to change their beliefs. As such most protestants and EO are material heretics, but very few of them are actually formal heretics. And the sin of heresy only applies to formal heresy, I'm pretty sure. It means to reject the truth because of a worldly attachment, which also compromises your spiritual life.
In modern times we are reluctant to use words like "heretic" so the people who do tend to mean formal heresy, if they are aware of the distinction in the first place. It's not helpful to accuse material heretics of heresy, since if you aren't a saint, you probably are a material heretic. It is also factually wrong since the sin of heresy only applies to formal heresy.
1,2 - We ought to treat everyone, including non-Christians with love and compassion since all men are made in God's image and likeness. We don't because we are sinners.
There is a slight difference in that modern heresies, like sedevacantism, are made up of more formal heretics than material heretics. Prots and EO on the other hand more often than not grew up in a community that didn't see itself as a part of the Catholic Church, so they hold to heretical beliefs mostly due to ignorance (material heresy).
That being said, our separated brothers are heretics and the sede heretics are our separated brothers.
4- On "partial communion" there is a story in Acts where st. Peter baptizes recognizes that the Holy Spirit has come upon a certain community and baptizes them. Acts 10:44-11:18 So it is hardly a new phenomenon to have the Holy Spirit acting outside the visible bounds of the Church.
Then you have doctrines like baptism of belief or baptism by blood. If you intend to join the Church, but die before you are baptized, you are still saved. Or if you are martyred before being baptized.
I really hope this is helpful!
Ok, you are totally mixed up, which is understandable because it does get confusing. The "type" of sedevacantist that you are using as an example are moreso called "home aloners" and are not the typical sede. 99% of Sedevacantist's are under a bishop that has been ordained by a pre- 1970s, so they do not fall under the "despair and desolation" you speak of. I have good friends that are sede, and have done lots of research over 20 years on their position. Feel free to ask or look around under cmri or "independent traditional catholic priests".
Ok, just wanted to clarify that.
Its easy to answer them. Rather than depend on membership to a "visible church", depend on faith in the gospel and repentance to be saved.
There is too much related to your salvation that depends on a visible Church, according to Jesus and the gospels for that to be true. For one, he tells us to "Go to the Church" to resolve disputes with our brothers in Matt. 18 : 17. That's impossible without a visible, authoritative Church. He also tells us to listen to his missionary apostles and that whoever does not listen to them does not listen to Jesus and the one who sent him (ie. the Father) in Luke 10 : 16. That requires there to be specifically appointed people who represent him. He also gave them the authority to forgive and retain sins of others (his own uniquely divine authority) in John 20 : 23. Well, again, that would require that we are able to recognize those who have this unique, divine authority. There are quite a few more examples, but those are some pretty important starters.
@@BrianHoldsworth Just chiming in 7 months later to add that I am now im the process of conversion to Catholicism. I was a Protestant at the time the comment was made.