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'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!
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
@@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
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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!
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?
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😉
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
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.
I'm glad someone has taken care of the comments section here. We have a small mission with monthly sacraments from our priest who travels and a lady just joined us who had been going to the local novus ordo approved Latin Mass. She finally decided to break from the comforts of having a community and a massive parish in favor of uncompromising Catholic doctrine. It's much more a despair being in a position of uncertainty when you love truth and love God which requires orthodoxy of us. But it's there, and waiting for people to find it. When people are tired of pretending that Francis is a Catholic, we'll be here for you.
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?*
It's not about Latin. It's about Catholic dogma. There are other rites than Latin. It's not Latin Mass-ism. The Indefectability of the Church is a dogma which must be believed to be Catholic. The Church cannot do a 180°. 1. If the Vatican II popes are true popes, then the Holy Ghost is deceiving the Church, which is what you propose. Arianism taking over almost the whole Catholic world didn't mean that the Holy Ghost failed to guide the Church. We are also not the ones actually celebrating Luther, Bergoglio has. 2. The Church Fathers and theologians teach about the great apostasy. It is not against Church teaching to say there will be a great apostasy. "I say to you, that he will quickly revenge them. But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?" - St. Luke 18:8 3. Non-Catholics cannot be pope. Disobeying protestants is not disobedience to Christ's authority. His authority isn't exercised by heretics. 4. I'm not sure what this point means, are you saying that there has been a dispensation after the Christian dispensation? Has Christianity become false? Has something else been delivered? No. What was delivered once remains true now. "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema." - Galatians 1:8
You know about the oriental churches of the catholic church surprise someones masses are not in latín, that mesns that they're not catholic? And about arrisnism, this no be aproved in noone concilium, and just the concilium vatican II was wrong, really You know that supuse that the hoy Spirit guiee the concilium@@collinadkisson4437
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
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.
@user-kb4dv1ud3fYes, that is correct. This is why Sedevacantists reject Donatism and focus specifically on ineligibility for office or loss of office.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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!
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.
I am so very happy I have decided to become a sedevacantist. The despair has disappeared. It is an extremely clear path. After being a member of the Novus Ordo church and the extreme and disturbing liturgical practices, I decided to explore the Traditional church. I have also attended the FSSP and the SSPX. I now attend Holy Family Traditional Chapel. So many who have left the same Novus Ordo Church have begun attending this same Parrish. The local Bishop terminated all Traditional masses in our diocese, leaving Catholics with only two options; attend the Novus Ordo or stay home. See Fr. Mawdsley, "What Sedevacantism has Right" on his channel, Scripture and Tradition. Holy Family is very strict with attendance at all Sunday masses, Holy Days, and the administration of all the sacraments, etc. All is done using the pre-Vatican II practices.
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?*
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.
Our Lady said that the world would be saved by the Rosary and brown scapular, so if the Mass and the other sacraments become no longer available souls will still be saved. God Bless. H
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.
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
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?*
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?
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
Far from feeling anxiety or despair when coming to realize that there had been an enemy takeover of the papacy in 1958, sending a validly elected pope back to his archdiocese after issuing a very serious threat (see "Grave Reasons of State"), I felt a sense of relief, since I could connect the dots in my mind and know the true cause of the unprecedented revolution in the Church since the 1960s. Participating in an apostate counter-church is what gave me anxiety, or more accurately displeasure and often disgust. Like for many sedes, it was the obvious agent of Satan Francis that lead me into researching what actuallly happened in the Church that could lead to such an abomination. I chanced on the video "Papal Imposters" and it made a lot of sense to me, although I found out later that Malachi Martin was a double agent exercising "limited hangout" in his books and interviews. He knew Siri was validly elected and accepted in 1958 before being issued a threat, evidence pointing to a nuclear threat against the Vatican, if not more. Then finding the White Smoke 1958 and Novus Ordo Watch sites helped fill out the picture for me. As far as visibility goes, as Christ was in the tomb, likewise His mystical Body experiences a corresponding "eclipse," as Our Lady of La Salette foretold, before its glorious and miraculous "resurrection" will take place through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, as God has willed it. "They (the heretics) have the churches, but we have the faith. Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." (St Athanasius) "Is it Tradition? Ask no more!" (St John Chrysostom)
I’ve watched a lot of videos on this subject both for and against the sedevacantist position, and every time I am more reinforced in the sede position. It seems those who argue against it fail in reason, logic and the dogmas of the church (session 7 cannon 13 of the council of Trent) they never address the elephant in the room, which is the creation of the New Order counter church.
Exactly, that's why I had to downvote the video. If there has been an infiltration, it explains everything we're seeing that is blasphemous and heretical, it explains the abuse and hierarchy etc. and why they're so useless ... it's not despair, it's okay, we know why, we know what we have to do to fix this now and get back on the right track to the real Catholic church and worshipping/venerating God (as well as preaching the gospel and ending blasphemy and sin where we can and protecting persecuted Christians).
@@ComicRaptor8850 On the contrary, I hope that otherwise pious & traditional minded Vatican II Catholics are invincibly ignorant that a counterfeit church was established. Jesus said that in the latter times even the elect will be deceived. Something counterfeit needs to appear genuine in order to deceive the majority of people. Vatican II initiated an unprecedented revolution, the Church before that always preserving tradition in all things. The "9/11" scene of the monumental & diabolical crime was the vitiated 1958 papal conclave, where a rightful pope was threatened into invalid abdication and "exiled" back to his archdiocese under close guard. This is the fulfillment of prophecy & is explained at the White Smoke 1958 site. Much more could be said but see the Chiesa Viva site which Fr Luigi Villa founded, the Novus Ordo Watch site & the startling Padre Pio quotes in my other comments.
Pride, self-reliance, rebellion, and disobedience only breed division. Please stop trying to make yourself the religious expert. Leading people away from the Church is gravely sinful. "Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” "Follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles." - St Ignatius of Antioch
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.
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
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.
@@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?
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.
@@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.
Sedevacantism is Correct in the situation we're in right now and ABSOLUTELY ONLY Catholics can enter Heaven. ALL Catholic people have been baptised☦️🕊✝️
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
I recently prayed over Mark 4, the calming of the sea. The Church is the boat in which the disciples are traveling across the sea, and Jesus is asleep (not physically present). There came a storm bad enough to splash water into the boat (scandal and abuse), bad enough for the disciples to fear of perishing (the church falling away). But they go to Jesus and plead for his help, and Jesus wakes up and calms the storm; he will not let his church capsize. I think Sedes have little faith in Christ’s Church (why are you terrified, do you not yet have faith?), and they cope with the scandal by saying the church has fallen away, as if that’s the reason we have our current scandal.
"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.
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.
My main problem with sedevacantism is precisely what you said at the begining: there are so many vertents nowadays that you can't even grasp it. In my country there's people who refuse anything post vatican II, there's people who just reject Pope Francis, and then there's people who rejected anything post 40s (no idea why). A lot of times I feel they are giving me the "but you don't understand" treatment and here am I feeling like a radical and asking myself what should I do
But there 101 variants in the Vatican II Sect. Is the Vatican II Sect ONE? No. It is an amalgamation of a church. Conservative N.O, liberal N.O, FSSP, SSPX all believing 101 different things about Masses, Vatican II, etc. "Trads" & Novus Ordites each have a separate wing in the church. No unity of belief = Not the Catholic Church
This video highlights my point. And why we must necessarily rule out the Vatican II Sect as being the Catholic Church. ua-cam.com/video/3qtpWjgnfvc/v-deo.html
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
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
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.
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…
@@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…
Among the truisms regarding Marcel Lefebvre is that he was a true prophet. One only has to read "I Accuse The Council' [written 60 years ago] to come to that conclusion. The question " As the Church abandons its traditions is the remaining shell the Catholic Church', I believe is an open one.
rick leeo, 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 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
I saw the debate and Trent Horn’s refutation of it. Both were troubling to me for reasons I won’t go into here. Brian, just want to say that I appreciate your sound wisdom. For my part, I will never leave the Church despite all the confusion.
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
As long as there are still good people in the Church, there is hope. If the Church is bleeding , then go there and be the light! That is the heroic attitude. The church is not just an organisation, but an organism! If you love the Church, don't abandon her! The Catholic Church will not SINK!
At some point, even the most ardent worshipers of the Vatican II cult will realize that it is not the Catholic Church. Then as it is now some will still insist that it is the Church given to us by Christ carried down to us by the Apostle's Popes and Saints. Even when their Ecumenical mass is presided over by a Lesbian Priestess sacrificing a Sow on a dining table to the chanting of "sacred" Amazonian drum music in a Cathedral dedicated to Alan Pike. The real problem today is that most people who identify with being Catholic are not.
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
@@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.
I thank God that there are true and valid Bishops and priests. The Bishops and priests in the SSPX and the SSPV given to the faithful by Abp Lefebvre. We the faithful receive Holy Communion and attend confession from validly ordained priests. We attend their Holy Mass and so we are not outside of the RC faith. Deo gratias🙏🏽
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.
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?
This brother is inviting us to judge truthfulness of a theological position by type of feelings it arouses. Sad feelings = wrong. Happy feelings = right. That is quite a novelty…!
@@BrianHoldsworth thank you for your input, brother. Despair is sin only if agreed to and/or acted upon by our free will. One can despair both as a sedevacantist as well as ‘Novus Ordo’ catholic (especially trad-minded one). What I propose to you as an antidote to despair is the opposing virtue of hope. As despair can be sin for a Catholics adhering to any allowable Catholic opinion (including sedevacantism), the virtue of hope can be practiced by all also. Peace, thank you for responding!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
@@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”.
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?*
"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.
Brian, I struggle between EO and Catholicism praying for unity one day. However, I do believe the Pope is the Pope, and is a man, who can have flaws. As a friend says… the Catholic Church has survived really bad Popes over the millennia. However, one thing is clear, you are 100% correct and grounded when you say that things which lead to despair cannot be from God. Excellent points in this presentation. Well thought out, and well spelled out. Thank you 🙏🏻.
If I can offer my thoughts on that, I would insist in acknowledging the distinction between, on the one hand, the social reign of Christ over the Church and the society in general, and on the other hand - Christ Himself. The first is the actual effect of the genuine Faith as practiced by the community of believers, but we ought to love Christ primarily, not its effects. Loving the effects of being able to enjoy a true Christian society more than Christ is a disordered zeal - the one I believe St Paul condemned in Galatians 4. Now, the desire to look into EO from a catholic perspective, in my opinion, is grounded in the illusion of seeking an earthly Christian glory. This is loving the effect more than the cause. I say it's an illusion because I believe it's not even true, orthodoxy has its set of similar issues, if not identical. The prestige is a seductive temptation to all men that even the devil tried to use against Christ when he led him to a mountain to contemplate the human communities. I think there is no perspective in reunion with EO, we missed the occasion at the council of Florence partly because we were guilty of being rude to them. EO has locked itself in a tradition where it can no longer get out. They are now incoherent in themselves. They pretend to hold to the Father's tradition, but those Fathers who were in communion with Rome proclaimed and acclaimed at Nicaea II, Constantinople III, and Ephesus, respectively these things: the Pope of Old Rome is the most holy and ecumenical Patriarch and the roman Church is the spiritual mother and the head of all Churches. The roman Pontiffs received the promise from the Lord that the faith of the apostolic pontiffs would not fail and are charged by the Lord to strengthen their brethren in the Faith. The Apostolic See in Rome is the holy head, the head of the whole faith and head of the apostles. During the time the patriarchs of Constantinople tried to give themselves the title of "ecumenical patriarch" in the 6-7th century, Pope Boniface III obtained from the byzantine emperor, that the patriarch of Constantinople renounced to what he considered an exclusively roman title. The patriarch of Constantinople, after having examined the affair with his theologians, validated the roman objection and made an answer to Rome in which, using Roman 1:8, he admitted that the Faith spread throughout the world is indeed the roman Faith. Then they developed an alternative explanation. They say the pope has the primacy over the entire Church, but one of honor and not jurisdiction. Moreover, they condemned the filioque dogmatically in both forms "from the Father and the Son", and "from the Father through the Son", which even contradicts their favorite Church Fathers, and the comparison between Rev 22:1, Jn 7:38-39 and the greek script of the Nicene creed. If they also deny papal infallibility, then how do they make sense that what the Church taught for centuries is supposed to be correct. For instance, from Nicaea I to 843 sat 22 notorious heretics on the episcopal See of Constantinople, and a dozen more were suspected of heresy. This represents approximately 32 patriarchs out of 57 during this period. How could they know if EO now is not living under heresy or schismatic ideas. Rome has only little to lose from welcoming EO back into communion, whether it is done by fusion or absorption because the principle of unity is already within herself. But for the EO, to come back into communion means they have to acknowledge they were wrong, that they didn't have correct ecclesiological and dogmatic teachings, that they have to accept catholic saints, such as St Josaphat, whom they consider acted as a tyrant. Also, that their teaching on the practice of divorce has to do a complete turn-around I am more confident in finding reunion with Oriental orthodoxy and with the Assyrian churches. We have already recognized that our divisions were caused by a poor mutual understanding due to the words we use to designate the reality of God's incarnation in Jesus Christ, and made common christological declarations. We have even admitted some regulated instances of participation in communion. Despite the catholic part having made more than legitimate concessions, nothing as such was ever reached with the EO. I saw in EO from some of their teachers superstitious explanations on this - they say that the perfect number of 7 ecumenical councils was reached therefore, there shall be no more till the end of times. Even if EO shined, anything that shines ain't gold (the visible effects), and gold has to be purified by the fire of Charity (to make sure it is rooted in Christ and not a disordered zeal: Zech 13:9, Wis 3:6, 1Pet 1:7, 1Cor 3:12-13). While praying for Church Apostolic unity. All Grace and Charity from the Father through the Son ending in the Spirit.
Tony James, As forestalling my acting in error on numerous errors in the Vatican Council 11 (1962-65) documents and follow up documents and United Nations documents 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), 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; and 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 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
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?
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
You can feel despair/blackpilled briefly and then continue onwards, that doesn't mean something isn't true. Truth is truth. I considered it and it horrified me ... but you get over it, what matters is the truth, because that's what is needed to fix this mess, you have to acknowledge something is happening to then fix it, faith and works! ...
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! ☦️
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.
Fr. Edmund J. O'Reilly commenting on the great schism and protestant reformation, The Relations of the Church to Society, 1892, p.288: "What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit; [...] we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree."
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.
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.
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?*
I will put my opinion here and say: people way more qualified than me have said both that Vatican II is great and that it has serious issues. I personally believe such confusions and discussions are common for a period of time after a council. I don't think the state the Church is in can be blamed on the council. What I've seen inside the Church is a sort of boomerized culture, that has weakened the Church. We no longer see a combative and heroic Church like that of Leo XIII, or John Paul II, or of the times of the early fathers, willing to combat communism, liberalism, heresies, liberation theology...anything that leads Christians astray. Today we see this "Church of dialogue", like a hippie church, that prefers to escape confrontation with the world.
@@j.cgallagher7092 Look at his insults, outrages and profonations. Look at the heritics, perverts and traitors he surrounds himself .He doesn't have change the doctrine to do damage, with all the problems he attacks traditional religious and laity why ?. He has failed the faithful and the church by promoting his own agenda, rather then the true faith, we deserve better then this poor hireling.
@@j.cgallagher7092 Nor could he change it on his own. It must be in with the college of bishops. Personal opinions and extemporaneous remarks don't change doctrine.
@@collinadkisson4437 Siri was under duress! It appears that he was the pope until he died, likely murdered, in 1989, and providing for the election of his successor.
and quoting @Eric Mason below: "...people like Brian are arguing in bad faith. He keeps using emotional appeals (like despair), while ignoring true Theological arguments (like how a pope can't be a manifest heretic and the Church can't lead people into error (touches on Infallibility, Indefectibility, Divine Law towards heretics, etc). In addition, he misrepresents the entire sede position with the extremely small position of the Dimonds. Most sedes have legitimate bishops, priests, Sacraments, etc, and we do believe there is a visible Catholic Church, it's just suppressed and oppressed by the imposter V2 church of heresy. V2 is nothing except a more dangerous form of protestantism, a wolf in sheep's clothing in the truest sense."
"Despair" isn't a matter of emotion, but of the theological virtue of hope. Believing in the defection of the Church and telling people not to receive the Sacraments is an act of despair. Even when you tell people to pray the rosary, they are only able to hope for salvation by deluding themselves. Irony of ironies, they show contempt for the Church and the Sacraments because they are scandalized by Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, and so they deprive themselves of the Sacraments which they confess are necessary for salvation. And why? If one has no access to a Catholic priest, one may lawfully receive the Sacraments from a priest in schism, but they would rather neglect Easter Duty than receive the Eucharist from an Eastern Orthodox priest.
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 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.
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.
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.
@@firstnamelastname5751 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?*
"pope francis lookin sussy, wut da?" In all seriousness, I am thankful for Matt Fradd into bringing this topic into the limelight. This was an obscure position that was not refuted elegantly in large number until now. I cannot wait for more discussions like it where obscure positions are better refuted like this.
@@stephanusghibellino I have one refutation: "From this it follows that those who arbitrarily conjure up and picture to themselves a hidden and invisible Church are in grievous and pernicious error..." (Satis Cognitum, 3) This is from an encyclical from Pope Leo XIII. Any reason as to why it is not a refutation, let me know.
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
Thank you for this Brian! My husband and I entered the church recently and attend the Latin mass. After being sent a video from Peters channel we were very confused and somewhat compelled by their position. After praying to our lady of sorrows she revealed to me my pride in being so compelled, and how focusing on so many negative things within the church can do this so easily to others. Focus on the Lord, the mass, the saints, your families. We need to pray for the sedevecantists!
@@Zoeyelizanelson Sedevecantism means the Papal seat is VACANT right. Although the QUESTION Sedevecantists must ANSWER is this, how long do Sedevecantists CONSIDER the Papal seat VACANT?
@@Darth_Vader258 They have answered this in a way that is seemingly sound but once you look at other popes and saints quotes is easily dismissed as wrong… you’d have to watch some of their videos but if you’re quick to be persuaded I might refrain.
@@Zoeyelizanelson I will NEVER be a Sedevecantist, because I get to RECEIVE the Real Presence Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ ✝️ EVERY Sunday in the Norvus Ordo Mass.
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.
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?
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 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.
@@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?*
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.
Also, in a recent conversation I had with a sedevacantist he told me that I could never receive salvation because I am a member of the Knights of Columbus which is an occult organization operating under the guise of the apostate Catholic Church. Please pray for these people 🙏🙏
This gave me so much hope. I’ve been so anxious this past year, thinking what if they’re right? Am I damned because I don’t believe in their position? Am I not doing enough to discern? But I think I can sleep a little more easy now. Thank you truly
Saint Padre Pio: Pray, hope, and don't worry. 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.
If you belong to the 'Vatican' II Counterchurch then you'll be unable to enter Heaven. The Holy Church ⛪ still exists and we can go to confession and avoid all sin, particularly mortal sins and ask God for forgiveness for sins committed.
@@stlouisix3 That's your personal theory that rejects the promises of Christ. He said the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church, not "until VII" Being Catholic means trusting all of the councils, not all of them minus the newest one. It is also the sort of legalism Christ condemned in the Pharisees. To make salvation a set of rituals from 1962 is make a tiny Christ, unable to reach through time to us.
Eva - I see someone is here to scare you again. Trust in Our Lord and his promises. The litgury always varies, the men always fallen. Anyone coming by insisting that only x rituals will save you isn't believing Christ.
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.
@@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.
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???
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.
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.
CHRIST IS KING
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
I'm glad someone has taken care of the comments section here.
We have a small mission with monthly sacraments from our priest who travels and a lady just joined us who had been going to the local novus ordo approved Latin Mass. She finally decided to break from the comforts of having a community and a massive parish in favor of uncompromising Catholic doctrine.
It's much more a despair being in a position of uncertainty when you love truth and love God which requires orthodoxy of us. But it's there, and waiting for people to find it. When people are tired of pretending that Francis is a Catholic, we'll be here for you.
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?*
It's not about Latin. It's about Catholic dogma. There are other rites than Latin. It's not Latin Mass-ism. The Indefectability of the Church is a dogma which must be believed to be Catholic. The Church cannot do a 180°.
1. If the Vatican II popes are true popes, then the Holy Ghost is deceiving the Church, which is what you propose. Arianism taking over almost the whole Catholic world didn't mean that the Holy Ghost failed to guide the Church. We are also not the ones actually celebrating Luther, Bergoglio has.
2. The Church Fathers and theologians teach about the great apostasy. It is not against Church teaching to say there will be a great apostasy.
"I say to you, that he will quickly revenge them. But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?"
- St. Luke 18:8
3. Non-Catholics cannot be pope. Disobeying protestants is not disobedience to Christ's authority. His authority isn't exercised by heretics.
4. I'm not sure what this point means, are you saying that there has been a dispensation after the Christian dispensation? Has Christianity become false? Has something else been delivered? No. What was delivered once remains true now.
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema." - Galatians 1:8
You know about the oriental churches of the catholic church surprise someones masses are not in latín, that mesns that they're not catholic? And about arrisnism, this no be aproved in noone concilium, and just the concilium vatican II was wrong, really You know that supuse that the hoy Spirit guiee the concilium@@collinadkisson4437
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
I am so very happy I have decided to become a sedevacantist. The despair has disappeared. It is an extremely clear path. After being a member of the Novus Ordo church and the extreme and disturbing liturgical practices, I decided to explore the Traditional church. I have also attended the FSSP and the SSPX. I now attend Holy Family Traditional Chapel. So many who have left the same Novus Ordo Church have begun attending this same Parrish. The local Bishop terminated all Traditional masses in our diocese, leaving Catholics with only two options; attend the Novus Ordo or stay home. See Fr. Mawdsley, "What Sedevacantism has Right" on his channel, Scripture and Tradition. Holy Family is very strict with attendance at all Sunday masses, Holy Days, and the administration of all the sacraments, etc. All is done using the pre-Vatican II practices.
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?*
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.
Our Lady said that the world would be saved by the Rosary and brown scapular, so if the Mass and the other sacraments become no longer available souls will still be saved. God Bless. H
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?*
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.
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.
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.
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😂
Far from feeling anxiety or despair when coming to realize that there had been an enemy takeover of the papacy in 1958, sending a validly elected pope back to his archdiocese after issuing a very serious threat (see "Grave Reasons of State"), I felt a sense of relief, since I could connect the dots in my mind and know the true cause of the unprecedented revolution in the Church since the 1960s. Participating in an apostate counter-church is what gave me anxiety, or more accurately displeasure and often disgust.
Like for many sedes, it was the obvious agent of Satan Francis that lead me into researching what actuallly happened in the Church that could lead to such an abomination. I chanced on the video "Papal Imposters" and it made a lot of sense to me, although I found out later that Malachi Martin was a double agent exercising "limited hangout" in his books and interviews. He knew Siri was validly elected and accepted in 1958 before being issued a threat, evidence pointing to a nuclear threat against the Vatican, if not more. Then finding the White Smoke 1958 and Novus Ordo Watch sites helped fill out the picture for me. As far as visibility goes, as Christ was in the tomb, likewise His mystical Body experiences a corresponding "eclipse," as Our Lady of La Salette foretold, before its glorious and miraculous "resurrection" will take place through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, as God has willed it.
"They (the heretics) have the churches, but we have the faith. Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." (St Athanasius)
"Is it Tradition? Ask no more!" (St John Chrysostom)
I’ve watched a lot of videos on this subject both for and against the sedevacantist position, and every time I am more reinforced in the sede position. It seems those who argue against it fail in reason, logic and the dogmas of the church (session 7 cannon 13 of the council of Trent) they never address the elephant in the room, which is the creation of the New Order counter church.
Exactly, that's why I had to downvote the video. If there has been an infiltration, it explains everything we're seeing that is blasphemous and heretical, it explains the abuse and hierarchy etc. and why they're so useless ... it's not despair, it's okay, we know why, we know what we have to do to fix this now and get back on the right track to the real Catholic church and worshipping/venerating God (as well as preaching the gospel and ending blasphemy and sin where we can and protecting persecuted Christians).
It brings you joy that the majority of humans are going to suffer in hell for eternity for factors that they could not control?
@@ComicRaptor8850 On the contrary, I hope that otherwise pious & traditional minded Vatican II Catholics are invincibly ignorant that a counterfeit church was established. Jesus said that in the latter times even the elect will be deceived. Something counterfeit needs to appear genuine in order to deceive the majority of people. Vatican II initiated an unprecedented revolution, the Church before that always preserving tradition in all things. The "9/11" scene of the monumental & diabolical crime was the vitiated 1958 papal conclave, where a rightful pope was threatened into invalid abdication and "exiled" back to his archdiocese under close guard. This is the fulfillment of prophecy & is explained at the White Smoke 1958 site.
Much more could be said but see the Chiesa Viva site which Fr Luigi Villa founded, the Novus Ordo Watch site & the startling Padre Pio quotes in my other comments.
Pride, self-reliance, rebellion, and disobedience only breed division. Please stop trying to make yourself the religious expert. Leading people away from the Church is gravely sinful.
"Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
"Follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles."
- St Ignatius of Antioch
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
Sedevacantism is Correct in the situation we're in right now and ABSOLUTELY ONLY Catholics can enter Heaven. ALL Catholic people have been baptised☦️🕊✝️
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.
I recently prayed over Mark 4, the calming of the sea. The Church is the boat in which the disciples are traveling across the sea, and Jesus is asleep (not physically present). There came a storm bad enough to splash water into the boat (scandal and abuse), bad enough for the disciples to fear of perishing (the church falling away). But they go to Jesus and plead for his help, and Jesus wakes up and calms the storm; he will not let his church capsize. I think Sedes have little faith in Christ’s Church (why are you terrified, do you not yet have faith?), and they cope with the scandal by saying the church has fallen away, as if that’s the reason we have our current scandal.
Wow!! I never thought of it this way! Thank you for sharing with us. God bless.
"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.
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
My main problem with sedevacantism is precisely what you said at the begining: there are so many vertents nowadays that you can't even grasp it. In my country there's people who refuse anything post vatican II, there's people who just reject Pope Francis, and then there's people who rejected anything post 40s (no idea why). A lot of times I feel they are giving me the "but you don't understand" treatment and here am I feeling like a radical and asking myself what should I do
But there 101 variants in the Vatican II Sect. Is the Vatican II Sect ONE? No. It is an amalgamation of a church. Conservative N.O, liberal N.O, FSSP, SSPX all believing 101 different things about Masses, Vatican II, etc. "Trads" & Novus Ordites each have a separate wing in the church. No unity of belief = Not the Catholic Church
This video highlights my point. And why we must necessarily rule out the Vatican II Sect as being the Catholic Church. ua-cam.com/video/3qtpWjgnfvc/v-deo.html
That's not a problem with sedevacantism as a principle, just its application.
No idea why? Really?
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
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!
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.
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…
Among the truisms regarding Marcel Lefebvre is that he was a true prophet. One only has to read "I Accuse The Council' [written 60 years ago] to come to that conclusion. The question " As the Church abandons its traditions is the remaining shell the Catholic Church', I believe is an open one.
rick leeo, 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 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
I saw the debate and Trent Horn’s refutation of it. Both were troubling to me for reasons I won’t go into here. Brian, just want to say that I appreciate your sound wisdom. For my part, I will never leave the Church despite all the confusion.
hi may I know how to have access to that debate please? thanks and Godbless...
ua-cam.com/video/tIauJB2_y1c/v-deo.html
From Matt Fradd's channel, Pints with Aquinas
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
@@noelnana2059 pints with Aquinas channel has it, Dimond vs Cassman
As long as there are still good people in the Church, there is hope. If the Church is bleeding , then go there and be the light! That is the heroic attitude. The church is not just an organisation, but an organism! If you love the Church, don't abandon her! The Catholic Church will not SINK!
I know this post is a year old but thanks, I needed to read that
At some point, even the most ardent worshipers of the Vatican II cult will realize that it is not the Catholic Church. Then as it is now some will still insist that it is the Church given to us by Christ carried down to us by the Apostle's Popes and Saints. Even when their Ecumenical mass is presided over by a Lesbian Priestess sacrificing a Sow on a dining table to the chanting of "sacred" Amazonian drum music in a Cathedral dedicated to Alan Pike. The real problem today is that most people who identify with being Catholic are not.
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
Here’s a thought, interview a competent Sedevacantist.
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
@@Roman_Leo3I 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
I thank God that there are true and valid Bishops and priests. The Bishops and priests in the SSPX and the SSPV given to the faithful by Abp Lefebvre. We the faithful receive Holy Communion and attend confession from validly ordained priests. We attend their Holy Mass and so we are not outside of the RC faith. Deo gratias🙏🏽
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?
This brother is inviting us to judge truthfulness of a theological position by type of feelings it arouses. Sad feelings = wrong. Happy feelings = right. That is quite a novelty…!
Despair is not a feeling, it's a sin against hope and it's thoroughly grounded in our theological tradition as an element in discernment.
@@BrianHoldsworth thank you for your input, brother. Despair is sin only if agreed to and/or acted upon by our free will. One can despair both as a sedevacantist as well as ‘Novus Ordo’ catholic (especially trad-minded one). What I propose to you as an antidote to despair is the opposing virtue of hope. As despair can be sin for a Catholics adhering to any allowable Catholic opinion (including sedevacantism), the virtue of hope can be practiced by all also.
Peace, thank you for responding!
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.
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.
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
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.
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”.
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?*
"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.
Brian, I struggle between EO and Catholicism praying for unity one day. However, I do believe the Pope is the Pope, and is a man, who can have flaws. As a friend says… the Catholic Church has survived really bad Popes over the millennia. However, one thing is clear, you are 100% correct and grounded when you say that things which lead to despair cannot be from God. Excellent points in this presentation. Well thought out, and well spelled out. Thank you 🙏🏻.
I honestly side with the EO but until the Catholic church renounces papal supremacy and papal infallibility, there will be no reunification.
If I can offer my thoughts on that, I would insist in acknowledging the distinction between, on the one hand, the social reign of Christ over the Church and the society in general, and on the other hand - Christ Himself. The first is the actual effect of the genuine Faith as practiced by the community of believers, but we ought to love Christ primarily, not its effects. Loving the effects of being able to enjoy a true Christian society more than Christ is a disordered zeal - the one I believe St Paul condemned in Galatians 4.
Now, the desire to look into EO from a catholic perspective, in my opinion, is grounded in the illusion of seeking an earthly Christian glory. This is loving the effect more than the cause. I say it's an illusion because I believe it's not even true, orthodoxy has its set of similar issues, if not identical. The prestige is a seductive temptation to all men that even the devil tried to use against Christ when he led him to a mountain to contemplate the human communities.
I think there is no perspective in reunion with EO, we missed the occasion at the council of Florence partly because we were guilty of being rude to them. EO has locked itself in a tradition where it can no longer get out.
They are now incoherent in themselves. They pretend to hold to the Father's tradition, but those Fathers who were in communion with Rome proclaimed and acclaimed at Nicaea II, Constantinople III, and Ephesus, respectively these things: the Pope of Old Rome is the most holy and ecumenical Patriarch and the roman Church is the spiritual mother and the head of all Churches. The roman Pontiffs received the promise from the Lord that the faith of the apostolic pontiffs would not fail and are charged by the Lord to strengthen their brethren in the Faith. The Apostolic See in Rome is the holy head, the head of the whole faith and head of the apostles.
During the time the patriarchs of Constantinople tried to give themselves the title of "ecumenical patriarch" in the 6-7th century, Pope Boniface III obtained from the byzantine emperor, that the patriarch of Constantinople renounced to what he considered an exclusively roman title. The patriarch of Constantinople, after having examined the affair with his theologians, validated the roman objection and made an answer to Rome in which, using Roman 1:8, he admitted that the Faith spread throughout the world is indeed the roman Faith.
Then they developed an alternative explanation. They say the pope has the primacy over the entire Church, but one of honor and not jurisdiction.
Moreover, they condemned the filioque dogmatically in both forms "from the Father and the Son", and "from the Father through the Son", which even contradicts their favorite Church Fathers, and the comparison between Rev 22:1, Jn 7:38-39 and the greek script of the Nicene creed. If they also deny papal infallibility, then how do they make sense that what the Church taught for centuries is supposed to be correct. For instance, from Nicaea I to 843 sat 22 notorious heretics on the episcopal See of Constantinople, and a dozen more were suspected of heresy. This represents approximately 32 patriarchs out of 57 during this period. How could they know if EO now is not living under heresy or schismatic ideas.
Rome has only little to lose from welcoming EO back into communion, whether it is done by fusion or absorption because the principle of unity is already within herself. But for the EO, to come back into communion means they have to acknowledge they were wrong, that they didn't have correct ecclesiological and dogmatic teachings, that they have to accept catholic saints, such as St Josaphat, whom they consider acted as a tyrant. Also, that their teaching on the practice of divorce has to do a complete turn-around
I am more confident in finding reunion with Oriental orthodoxy and with the Assyrian churches. We have already recognized that our divisions were caused by a poor mutual understanding due to the words we use to designate the reality of God's incarnation in Jesus Christ, and made common christological declarations. We have even admitted some regulated instances of participation in communion. Despite the catholic part having made more than legitimate concessions, nothing as such was ever reached with the EO. I saw in EO from some of their teachers superstitious explanations on this - they say that the perfect number of 7 ecumenical councils was reached therefore, there shall be no more till the end of times.
Even if EO shined, anything that shines ain't gold (the visible effects), and gold has to be purified by the fire of Charity (to make sure it is rooted in Christ and not a disordered zeal: Zech 13:9, Wis 3:6, 1Pet 1:7, 1Cor 3:12-13).
While praying for Church Apostolic unity.
All Grace and Charity from the Father through the Son ending in the Spirit.
@@siegeheavenly3601 - The EO accepted papal supremacy for a 1000 years. This is a pride issue.
Tony James, As forestalling my acting in error on numerous errors in the Vatican Council 11 (1962-65) documents and follow up documents and United Nations documents 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), 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; and 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 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
stay away from EO!!! They are schismatic for the lasy 1000 years. I know they have beautiful liturgy and all but its still schis
matic.
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?
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.
Thank you!! I was feeling some anxiety and despair.
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?
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.
God's Church is timeless, just as he is. Beware the anti 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
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.
Would you have a debate with brother Peter Dimond? About this topic ?
You can feel despair/blackpilled briefly and then continue onwards, that doesn't mean something isn't true. Truth is truth. I considered it and it horrified me ... but you get over it, what matters is the truth, because that's what is needed to fix this mess, you have to acknowledge something is happening to then fix it, faith and works! ...
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.
Fr. Edmund J. O'Reilly commenting on the great schism and protestant reformation, The Relations of the Church to Society, 1892, p.288: "What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit; [...] we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree."
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.
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.
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?*
Thanks Brian! Very wise and intelligent speech that we need to hear.
I will put my opinion here and say: people way more qualified than me have said both that Vatican II is great and that it has serious issues. I personally believe such confusions and discussions are common for a period of time after a council. I don't think the state the Church is in can be blamed on the council. What I've seen inside the Church is a sort of boomerized culture, that has weakened the Church. We no longer see a combative and heroic Church like that of Leo XIII, or John Paul II, or of the times of the early fathers, willing to combat communism, liberalism, heresies, liberation theology...anything that leads Christians astray. Today we see this "Church of dialogue", like a hippie church, that prefers to escape confrontation with the world.
Amen !.
I hear a lot of criticism of Francis but to my knowledge I don't think he has attempted to change church doctrine?
@@j.cgallagher7092 Look at his insults, outrages and profonations. Look at the heritics, perverts and traitors he surrounds himself .He doesn't have change the doctrine to do damage, with all the problems he attacks traditional religious and laity why ?. He has failed the faithful and the church by promoting his own agenda, rather then the true faith, we deserve better then this poor hireling.
@@RickW-HGWT He is still our Pope and the heir to Peter. I think he means well but has made mistakes.
@@j.cgallagher7092 Nor could he change it on his own. It must be in with the college of bishops. Personal opinions and extemporaneous remarks don't change doctrine.
The best explanation for world events since the death of Pius XII, in the Siri Thesis.
Siri went with the modernists too, so even if it were true, the Siri thesis doesn't do anyone any good.
@@collinadkisson4437 Siri was under duress!
It appears that he was the pope until he died, likely murdered, in 1989, and providing for the election of his successor.
Grateful for your analysis of this topic....and you. God bless you and your efforts for the Church.🙏
and quoting @Eric Mason below:
"...people like Brian are arguing in bad faith. He keeps using emotional appeals (like despair), while ignoring true Theological arguments (like how a pope can't be a manifest heretic and the Church can't lead people into error (touches on Infallibility, Indefectibility, Divine Law towards heretics, etc). In addition, he misrepresents the entire sede position with the extremely small position of the Dimonds. Most sedes have legitimate bishops, priests, Sacraments, etc, and we do believe there is a visible Catholic Church, it's just suppressed and oppressed by the imposter V2 church of heresy. V2 is nothing except a more dangerous form of protestantism, a wolf in sheep's clothing in the truest sense."
"Despair" isn't a matter of emotion, but of the theological virtue of hope. Believing in the defection of the Church and telling people not to receive the Sacraments is an act of despair. Even when you tell people to pray the rosary, they are only able to hope for salvation by deluding themselves. Irony of ironies, they show contempt for the Church and the Sacraments because they are scandalized by Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, and so they deprive themselves of the Sacraments which they confess are necessary for salvation. And why? If one has no access to a Catholic priest, one may lawfully receive the Sacraments from a priest in schism, but they would rather neglect Easter Duty than receive the Eucharist from an Eastern Orthodox priest.
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 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.
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.
Im a relatively recent (six months ago) convert, and I've been really confused. Thank you for this video. God bless you!
@@user-kb4dv1ud3f Is this some sort of strange argument in favor of sedevacantisim?
@user-kb4dv1ud3f Holy shit buddy, did you even read what I wrote? 🤣
@user-kb4dv1ud3f If I wasn’t confused before, I am now. You’re a strange one. God bless you.
@@firstnamelastname5751 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?*
"pope francis lookin sussy, wut da?"
In all seriousness, I am thankful for Matt Fradd into bringing this topic into the limelight. This was an obscure position that was not refuted elegantly in large number until now. I cannot wait for more discussions like it where obscure positions are better refuted like this.
Yes, I am a zoomer aware of the popular game Among Us.
@@MohicanIncan Amogus
@@stephanusghibellino Exactly. These guys aren’t presenting any good options at all.
@@stephanusghibellino I have one refutation:
"From this it follows that those who arbitrarily conjure up and picture to themselves a hidden and invisible Church are in grievous and pernicious error..."
(Satis Cognitum, 3)
This is from an encyclical from Pope Leo XIII. Any reason as to why it is not a refutation, let me know.
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
Thank you for this Brian! My husband and I entered the church recently and attend the Latin mass. After being sent a video from Peters channel we were very confused and somewhat compelled by their position. After praying to our lady of sorrows she revealed to me my pride in being so compelled, and how focusing on so many negative things within the church can do this so easily to others. Focus on the Lord, the mass, the saints, your families. We need to pray for the sedevecantists!
I'm curious, was it a protestant who sent you one of Peter's videos?
@@MikeyJMJ No it was another Catholic contemplating sedevecantism
@@Zoeyelizanelson Sedevecantism means the Papal seat is VACANT right. Although the QUESTION Sedevecantists must ANSWER is this, how long do Sedevecantists CONSIDER the Papal seat VACANT?
@@Darth_Vader258 They have answered this in a way that is seemingly sound but once you look at other popes and saints quotes is easily dismissed as wrong… you’d have to watch some of their videos but if you’re quick to be persuaded I might refrain.
@@Zoeyelizanelson I will NEVER be a Sedevecantist, because I get to RECEIVE the Real Presence Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ ✝️ EVERY Sunday in the Norvus Ordo Mass.
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.
Hope in the lord. May Jesus guide and help you. I still believe in one true Catholic Church. Let's pray the spirit to lead us.
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.
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?*
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.
Also, in a recent conversation I had with a sedevacantist he told me that I could never receive salvation because I am a member of the Knights of Columbus which is an occult organization operating under the guise of the apostate Catholic Church. Please pray for these people 🙏🙏
This gave me so much hope. I’ve been so anxious this past year, thinking what if they’re right? Am I damned because I don’t believe in their position? Am I not doing enough to discern? But I think I can sleep a little more easy now. Thank you truly
Saint Padre Pio: Pray, hope, and don't worry.
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 feels like Dimond reduces this all to a guessing game.
If you belong to the 'Vatican' II Counterchurch then you'll be unable to enter Heaven. The Holy Church ⛪ still exists and we can go to confession and avoid all sin, particularly mortal sins and ask God for forgiveness for sins committed.
@@stlouisix3 That's your personal theory that rejects the promises of Christ. He said the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church, not "until VII" Being Catholic means trusting all of the councils, not all of them minus the newest one. It is also the sort of legalism Christ condemned in the Pharisees. To make salvation a set of rituals from 1962 is make a tiny Christ, unable to reach through time to us.
Eva - I see someone is here to scare you again. Trust in Our Lord and his promises. The litgury always varies, the men always fallen. Anyone coming by insisting that only x rituals will save you isn't believing Christ.
Excellent. The best video I have seen about this topic
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?