Why I am not a Sedevacantist... | Kennedy Hall
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 жов 2024
- SSPX BOOK: www.amazon.com...
TKR STORE PRODUCT PAGE: thekennedyrepo...
EMAIL LIST: thekennedyrepo...
DONATE HERE thekennedyrepo....
PATREON: / thekennedyreport
BOOK - Terror of Demons: www.amazon.com...
BOOK - Lockdown with the Devil: www.amazon.com...
![[UA] NAVI проти G2 Esports | Blast Premier Fall Final](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QWlIm4FGESQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Read - Fr. Cekada's “Work of Human Hands” is very good book for a serious study for this matter to decide for yourself!
“A schismatic is not one who merely disobeys. A schismatic disputes the authority of the Pope in principle. It can never be repeated too many times: schism goes against the theological virtue of Charity and not against the moral virtue of obedience. It is thus that the true schismatic inevitably comes to profess an error against the Faith: a denial of authority in the Church and mainly that of the Roman Pontiff. Such is obviously not the position of the Society of Saint Pius X!” -- Father Philippe Laguérie
Thank you for your fairness in discussing this matter. God bless you!
"I am not saying the Pope is not the Pope. l am only saying that I can't see how he can be"
good comment
People should stop judging everyone, everyone is at their own pace and journey due to the confusion in The Church..... Jesus will meet them where they are and Help!!!+ 😊🙏❤️🕊️✝️
@katie... We're called at times to make judgements: Jesus, His Apostles, Church Fathers, etc. are clear on that: yet they MUST be done with justice and truth (honestly seeking truth, going where the facts lead; and striving for a fair decision), AND doing ALL that >with Caritas and genuine care for the spiritual-and physical, also-good of the other person.
Jesus was Not "nice." At times His words of condemnation ring out stronger than any vitriol spouted today-"whited sepulchers... full of dead men's bones," He called them. Yet He was >always< truthful, just and reaching out with charity when the person had good will. Eg., He literally went beyond any rules of the Law, of strict justice or accepted custom... to show kindness to the woman caught in adultery... and to try to open the mind and Faith of the woman at the well (just two egs.)
Katie, the hardest part nowadays is trying to discern between those in authority-who we >should be able to trust< yet many of whom speak & act AGAINST the Deposit of Faith AND Morals.
Lord HAVE mercy-on us all
Our Lady Seat of Wisdom, pray for us.
💫Padre Pio said the "Rosary is the weapon!" So many more we need to pray.
💡ps. for those who pray the Rosary-especially the full Rosary, »Mary's Psalter,« as St. Louis de Montfort explained that was >the complete prayer< intended by Our Lady-Mary's promises include being guided with the >light of Faith< and Not being deceived by error that endangers the soul.
🙏 Jesus and Mary bless and protect you always.
That's called relativism or luke warm, it won't fly.
You sound like a liberal
Yes. If you can pass High School & especially if you were Confirmed in the Catholic Faith, you MUST judge.
Your soul & the souls you help bring in this world require this of you.
I agree you don't judge the person only the sin!!!❤️ PS don't argue with the bots on here! Hail Mary most pure conceived without sin!
The bishops have no problems with the new theology, Pacamama, Abu Dhabi, Assisi, etc. They have huge issues with the TLM and traditional theology. Too much about sin and justice.
Very Good job Kennedy my Brother. I am Also in the same Position. I Agree Totally with you. I love how you brought it to the conclusion, we both share. Amen my Brother !!!!!
Speaking of fruits, the SSPX now has over 700 priests. How about them apples?!
Now they just need to consecrate new Bishops and stop using the Novus Ordo “Bishop” Huonder (unless they conditionally consecrate him in the Old rite).
More priests with less (and much older) Bishops will be a problem very soon
It doesn't prove Jack. I think their priests are under a gag order no different than ICK and FSSP and I've attended all of their Masses. To be "in communion with Rome" is to compromise with the devil. At least the SSPX resistance aren't ignoring the elephant in the room although I still differ with them about Jorge and I know where they and people like Kennedy and Marshall and Matt ad nauseum are coming from - fear of losing their souls if they deny that the see of Peter is occupied. Yes I know, because I was on their side of the fence for many years. It's just a stage their going through.
We're not supposed to have to figure out all these complicated things, but these are the times we're living through... I'm not a sedevacantist myself, but I understand why someone might end up becoming one. That said, I agree that it's tragic how they go after the SSPX.
Hello, 'Catholic Lady', I'm one of those 'tragedies' who attend the God-given SSPX. Bergoglio's TC murdered the only Diocesan TLM for hundreds of miles leaving 'tragic' folks homeless. St Peter, pray for us.
Say what you will about us sedes, it doesn’t alter the fact that we have no pope.
Yep
I'm no intellectual but I refuse to accept a Pope who is a heretic! He's not even Catholic IMO! I attend a Pius X Mass, which I believe to be a legitimate Mass. I have never heard the subject of sedevacantism discussed by any of the attendees. It's not an issue, Mass is!
We've been Sede vacante before many times, nothing new. When a pope passes and we're waiting for another and I forget the year but the Church also went about three years without having a pope. Just because we don't have a pope at the moment doesn't mean that the Church died off. How can any Catholic possibly think that Francis is pope? Come on, let's use the eyes and ears God gave us.
Waiting for a new Pope to be elected and rejecting a reigning one are two very different things. You really can’t compare them.
@@bradlarsen5337
Can you please elaborate on what makes one acceptable and one third rail unacceptable?
I agree!!!!!!!!!
We've got a lot of awful Popes along History. In the old times people wouldn't just take notice. They would keep their Faith and practices as ever, and go on. Let's do the same.
@AsturGalicia The difference is, those were personal sins, they weren't teaching heresy.
I have attended both the Novus Ordos and the Tridentine Mass and truly believe I’m in the present of Lord .
I would like to read strong arguments against Sedevacantism. I have not found any.
Exactly. None of the arguments are based on sound reasoning. They tend to dodge the issue with tripe like "well we had bad popes in the past;" "there has to be a competent authority to declare him a heretic" and the inevitable "let's pray for him." I have one question to all the tradcats: If Jesus Christ were to appear before you and ask, "so with all that that man has said and done, do you sincerely believe that he represents me?" I for one could not answer, "yes Lord."
You won’t find any. Even Kennedy said he only rejects it out of an emotional reaction against it.
His comment can be found on the 8:00-8:10 mark
To say 'that man ain't the pope because....' is one thing; but the professional sede-vacantists reject the visible Catholic Church as a whole. Bp SEDE preaches that it is a sin to pray in a Catholic church .... unless it is one sanctioned by him or his confreres. Professional lay-sede declares priests 'mr'. The promise of Christ (Matthew 16), for the Professional sede-Vacantists has failed; therefore the Sedevacantist Movement as some sort of authority, is satanic, despite their sincerity. Their 'get out of jail free card' is using V2 as a golden calf, which it is, but that didn't make Israel cease to be Israel. St Peter, pray for us.
The only serious argument (of any) is based on the teaching that is not possible for the hierarchy of jurisdiction to fully break down.
1)
The assertion that the Hierarchy of Jurisdiction cannot fully Break down has strong Support in traditional theology. However there is no clear pronouncement of the Magisterium on this issue.
2)
Sedevacantism doesn’t imply that all sees are vacant.
@@CatholicChristSaves938 "sede vacante" translation means the chair is empty. There is no current pope. It is the correct position. The new religion created at Vatican II is not Catholic.
I don’t think SSPX people of good will are schismatics as well 😁
They aren’t .
@@johantrenier1685 I know.
It was meant as sarcasm since Kennedy kept saying “I dont think sedevacantists of good will are not schismatic”.
"Valid Mass" is the operative phrase for 20:12 the SSPX controversy.
If Rome would come right out and say that the SSPX Sacraments are legit beyond confessions and marriage, that would be helpful.
The fact that the Vatican does not clarify this tells me that they want discord within the faithful.
Orémus Y'all.
They already have. All 7 sacraments are valid at the SSPX.
Wcbohio priests are very good and they are sede
Hall reveals himself to be a mental midget who is unqualified to debate this topic. He often begins an argument by assuming something to be true which he has yet to prove as such. As any Intro to Logic student knows this fundamental logical error is called "begging the question."
Appreciate you.
On the spot, Kennedy.
Poor Church leadership has everyone scrambling, biting and pitting at one another. Respect is sorely needed. What are we Protestants? Our Blessed Mother is in tears over Catholics arguing and criticizing each other. I recently unsubscribed from a fellow podcaster for this very reason. Lately Dr. Taylor is getting clobbered and why? He is doing exceeding well. Breaks my heart. I was diocesan NO for years and finally fled because I couldn't stand where the Church was headed. The Holy Ghost led me to an SSPX chapel not far from me. Glory be to the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost. Let's be civil and practice charity, patience and tolerance. After all, God is truly in charge.
God bless you and your family, Kennedy!
Watch: "Papal Imposters" Read: "The Nine" by Fr. Cekada
ua-cam.com/video/DqgcCujfQF0/v-deo.htmlsi=mQH4wgftgfekjVz7
Kennedy, since you know spanish, in order to help bolster the SSPX defence, have you looked into the book by Fr Alvaro Calderon on the Post Vatican II Magisterium? It doesn't seem to have an english version, so it's not like I can shove link on naysayers' faces (I own and have read the portuguese translation).
The Spanish title is: La Lámpara bajo el celemin - Cuestión disputada sobre la autoridad del magisterio eclesiastico desde el concilio Vaticano II.
Excuse me! Not all "Novus Ordo types" are "Pope 'Splainers."
I certainly don't agree much of what Pope Francis says and does, including the PM issue.
Did you watch the Cassman/Dimond debate?
Hey Kennedy I thoroughly enjoy ALL your content and thank you 👍 I am 73 years old and fondly remember the BEAUTIFUL LATIN MASS of my childhood. I just couldn’t take the NO mass any longer and am currently attending a mission mass in PA from the main Sede church In OH. I don’t feel like I’m a true sede because I do believe Francis is the pope albeit a terrible one. I pray that God will forgive me but I’m just trying to worship Him in the true Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. which we only have the opportunity twice a month 😢
don't tell them you aren't sede because they will probably refuse you the sacraments. Sanborn does this in Florida.
You shouldn’t be receiving communion there then. As a Sedevecantist we don’t recognize anything post Vatican II. So if you have been receiving at a Vatican II church that’s on par with going to a Protestant communion service, and so it needs to be confessed before you can receive the blessed sacrament in a sedevecantist church. But if you are actually a modern catholic that believes Francis is pope, then how could you possibly give sedevecantist priests legitimacy by going to the sacraments with them? You can’t be both and only one is correct.
Frank I don’t receive any sacraments at any novus ordo churches. I am so confused about the whole pope thing though. Even though bergolio is definitely a heretic do I have the right to proclaim he’s not the pope? I just don’t think I have that authority. However I desperately want and need the TRUE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. And yes I don’t share these feelings with my sede group as I am afraid they may deny me holy communion 🥲
I bought a copy of your new book. Thank you!
Kennedy Hall is a GREAT balance between the sedevacantists and the modernists. He validly criticizes the Pope but still remains on the ship ✝️🇻🇦
For me there is no pope but a bishop of Rome , pope is a respectful word that means papa and we all know there is but one father and that,s the Creator .
I'm not a Sedevacantist but I believe I would go to a Sedevacantist Bishops or Priests mass over a Novus ordo mass if I had the choice. Not because I agree with their ideology but because of the Mass itself.
I was ready to disagree with you on this but you've spoken truth and l can't dispute that.
Prayers for the Holy Father.
That’s how you people always want to resolve the issue. When the anti Christ appears, are you going to say, “let’s pray for him?” Will you pray that Jorge’s demons will be exorcised? I will.
Nothing holy about the bishop of Rome and he is not my father , I have only one father and that,s the creator . Praying yes but no action is a dead faith . I,m not saying this it,s in the book .
The point is: where is the line between a sedevacantist and a non-sedevacantist?
I agree with you Kennedy 100% on every argument you make ! 👍 Incredible Job !
If you think Francis is the pope despite knowing all of his manifest heresies & apostasies then you de facto unite yourself to those heresies because all in the Church are one in faith with the Pope, One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism.
Very refreshing and helpful discussion. Thank you.
My mother was a Sede Vacantist. She was also a schizophrenic, who believed she was THE Bride of Christ.
In my city there is a large and very beautiful Sedevacantist church. I’m curious about their church but unsure if they could be considered to be in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, in the sense that I’d like to know if they offer valid sacraments?
7:23 I think Paul Natterer's _Wie müssen wir zum Pabst stehen_ is among the stronger ones. It was not a single sermon, but I think a series covering all six sermons of Lent one of the years before 1993.
I enjoyed Catholic Family Podcast’s recent video on your book. And this video by you was also excellent. I enjoy attending both the SSPX and CMRI chapels. When both sides can articulate their points without emotion/ad hominem it’s enjoyable. Thanks for another great commentary, Mr Hall!
I also attend both sspx and CMRI chapels. Mainly the CMRI, but I do enjoy the sspx
Thank you, Kennedy, for your brilliant commentary. God bless you & your family!🙏❤🙏
Echoes my sentiments exactly that with ALL the terrible things going on in the Church those who focus on the SSPX and attacking it are really missing the mark and quite frankly wasting their time. Where it could be better spent in actually going after the real issues. I also think the attack on sedes at times mirrors this same problem. I agree that those of good will are the least of my worries compared to the Novus Ordo cult of liberal non-Catholics and its leadership and their counterfeit Catholicism. Trads attacking trads is such a waste of energy. Should be more focussed on the ‘ape of the Church’ the NO and all the damage they continue to cause.
14:49 Does Father Charles Murr:
* believe what happened was Pachamama worship?
* recite "una cum papa nostro Francisco"?
I Agree so strongly with this opinion. I told my husband recently that I don't think I could sort out the sedevacantist position via research and argument, but I don't trust their position because 1. Many of them hate(d) Marcel Lefebvre, which to me seems akin to hating John the Baptist-- how can you despise a Saint? And 2) I have seen many bad fruits stem from sedes: weird priests who leave Catholicism and become occultist, anger and rage against family members who question, slings of "heretic and schismatic" from sedes against other trads, etc, etc. Doesn't look like charity to me, doesn't sound like divine wisdom to me.
I have listened to many Sedevacantist Clergy and I personally attended a Sedevacantist Chapel, and I have NEVER heard anyone say they hate the Good Archbishop. Many of them were ordained by him.
As a sedevacantist, I highly admire the good archbishop Lefebvre. I would say that the majority of us do!
People get so carried away with the term "hate." It's so typical of people with liberal tendencies. I'm a sede and I feel it was a great privilege meeting Lefebvre more than when I met Bishop Sheen as a boy. I think that he waffled on the sede issue but spoke volumes when he was quoted as saying, "how can those who've excommunicated themselves, excommunicate me?" Does that mean I "hate" him? I've noticed that many tradcats revere Lefebvre as a posthumous pope. Things were bad enough in l988, but under the Argentinian imposter I can't possibly imagine Lefebvre regarding him as the Vicar of Christ. Your #2 strikes me as quite a stretch Maria. So much for your divine wisdom.
i'm so sick of this mess. either you're catholic or you're not.
💯 agree. God Bless and Mary protect you, your Family and your work!
I reluctantly reached the position that the purported popes are not popes. It was a choice between unequivocally holding to papal infallibility & indefectability of the Church, or pretending that the everlasting equivocations, misrepresentations and outright falsehoods that even the best of the Sede-Occupationists hold & must hold. To maintain that the See is rightly and truly occupied, you must resort to extreme casuistries & sophistries to explain how plain errors in faith & morals really aren’t errors, or to say “well, I can’t just that that is any error”. So one must deny plain reason and simplicity, and so whittle down both the papacy and the meaning of faith that undoes the original basis for the papacy. Of every purported pope from John XXIII on, the faithful have to say “Even though he said x or did y, which seems to deny a doctrine or is heterodox, he’s still pope. And it’s above my pay grade.” That’s not faith, and certainly not the faith handed from Christ to the apostles and down through the centuries.
the pope is not catholic but he is a pope. all about business. in all- you are all favorless salt
Because you don't believe in the Papacy
You are speaking so much sense ❤
Amen, thank you... Yeah it's pretty crazy
Well, overall, this is a balanced and reasonable position to take, I agree with 99% of what you have said. I haven't actually taken a position on this subject. I'm obviously not a Sedevacantist that rejects the Popes after Pius XII, but I certainly may be one that rejects Francis. My "pet peeve" here is that it these UA-cam bloggers seem to believe that a person has to have a P.Hd in Theology in order to "be saved". My question to them would be, do they believe that 90% of all Catholics in the Middle ages, before literacy went above 5% all went to HELL??? And, what shocked me was the interview that Matt Fradd did with Ralph Martin, where the two of them seemed to ridicule my friend Patrick Coffin. I lost so much respect for Ralph Martin whom I had held in esteem for so long, and I don't watch Fradd anymore, even when he has a good guest.
Great show 🔥! Thank you 😎. God bless 🙏⛪⚓
Don’t be an original Woke-eee, a Protestant. Live out an authentic Christian life.
Gee... how gracious of you not to be.
When a conclave takes place, there is only one thing that the world is allowed to know about what has gone on inside the conclave. And that is, that when white smoke appears at the top of the chimney, a pope has been elected and has accepted and has even chosen his new name. In other words, the white smoke is sent heavenwards to deliberately announce to all creation that we have a new pope. "Papam habemus!" the vast crowd looking at the chimney joyfully cheers.
At the 1958 conclave, the white smoke poured out of the chimney for over 5 minutes. Going by the only thing by which we can know what has taken place In the conclave, we know that for over 5 minutes we had a new pope.
But then the smoke turned black. This meant that we did not now have a pope.
What are we to think about this?
Of course one could posit that the 5 minutes of white smoke was just, well, a mistake. But this would be succumbing to a degree of naivete that I am just not willing to stoop to. What grounds is there to hold that the whole concave was utterly incompetent when it came to the simple matter of choosing between two (opposite) colors of smoke? That the conclave's incompetency lasted for over 5 minutes? Seriously, would anyone have suggested that the conclave could have been this incompetent before this smoke event did occur? Of course not. Let us give no credence to any proposition that the 5 minutes of white smoke was a mere mistake.
So what did happen? Other than acknowledging that we had a new pope for 5 minutes, we can't know what went on. But given the infiltration that we now know had been going on in the Church decades before and leading up to this event, it is not unreasonable to suspect that more was going on In this conclave than should have been going on, and that not everyone participating in the conclave was a person of good will.
Did the 5 minute pope soon resign? If so, did he resign validly? (Pardon me if I seem to have invalid papal resignations on my mind, but really you know, matters in this area have been very provocative!)
An invalid resignation might answer a lot of thorny questions as to the validity of certain subsequent popes 'elected' before Pope Benedict.
As the principle known as Occam's Razor posits, often the simplest solution is the correct one.
Like most Canadians you end up in the middle on the subject, You need to read and listen to Stan Rodgers. A cocked hat does not make a General.
Ooo so excited for this one
Greetings from NZ 🇳🇿.......your thoughts on the sedeprivationist position?
2:34 Acts 4:19 *But Peter and John answering, said to them: If it be just in the sight of God, to hear you rather than God, judge ye.*
Now, here is a very important point on whether this applies. I think it was Monseigneur Lefebvre himself who said, but it could have been Father Liebermann (earlier re-founder of the Holy Ghost Fathers, convert from Judaism), but the point is, "Peter obeyed God over obeying the Jewish Priests" ...
In the theology I believe, or used to believe, with some second thoughts, the OT had ceased to be valid. Kaiaphas, Hannas, the other guys in the Temple had ceased to be superiors, by the betrayal of God by Kaiaphas and the rending of the veil. Not the priests St. Peter was talking to, but St. Peter himself, was the highest religious authority on earth, by now.
So, if you are dragged before a Novus Ordo court and make that kind of answer, isn't the logical conclusion that you should consider the guys as apostates, like the Apostasy happening in the Temple?
When it comes to St. Paul resisting "Cephas" face to face, two problems before you apply it:
* this was _an odd moment_ - not a succession of "odd moments" spanning 53 years by now (OK, in 1970 no one was trying seriously to forbid SSPX, but you see what I mean, perhaps one should speak of 47 years) with never reestablished either normal relation to authority or (see next) dismissal of authority as fake;
* some (notably St. Clement the Stromatist) have noted that the Cephas in question was not St. Peter, and so not really a superior of St. Paul at all, though this is not the opinion of St. Thomas Aquinas. Credits to Dimond brothers for this point.
4:55 Yeah, what were you saying again about denying Catholic status? You just compared Sedevacantism to the Caerularian and Neo-Photian schism.
As a revert from that one, I found out the hard way, "schism" is not really saying too much.
Also, their view on how bishops function with an orthodox Pope of Rome and an unorthodox one, is borderline between your own and the usual Sede attitudes to papacies of "Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Francis" ...
I am not Sede, but also see their arguments are quite convincing.
SSPX have also done podcasts against the Sedevacantist position. I have listened to at least 4, and have not found their arguments convincing. The podcasts just left me with more questions. Anyway, the point being, they also spend energy on opposing the position. Perhaps that is because many attending the SSPX find it hard to stomach the fact that the Vatican II popes could possible be popes, because as you say , look at the fruits.
It might be wiser to approach the situation from a purely intellectual position. I have been turned off by how intensely they argue their position, but perhaps that is their passion, because they are so offended by what has happened since Vatican 11. When Our Lord saw what happened in the Temple with the money exchanging, He became angry and fought them. Sometimes, I think, the Sedevacantist become enraged for the same reason.
Best wishes. I am a fence sitter who wishes to find moral certainty!
19:30 Father Cekada pointed out the "una cum" problem - which is obviously one more closely concerning your clergy.
Someone on FSSPX, forget if it was Bp Fellay or someone else, responded by showing a missal for England with "una cum rege nostro NN" and I helped Fr Cekada point out that at this time Catholics recignised as valid kings of England, Scotland and Ireland the exiled Stuarts who were Catholics.
He thanked me, but he didn't care to promote an occasional promoter of Pope Michael.
I dont have enougj testrogen to grow a beard☹
In 2023? Yip! He is a chap who doesn't like the papacy - as it was (in his younger days), or at least he is a pope who seeks to magnify St Paul VI's attempts to remould what the papacy 'is' - into something else, more suited to some 'advanced' 20th-century ideas (already long out of date). The SSPX does not .. quite .. reject the papacy as a reality, nor as an office, nor even as filled still by flawed men, true; however, on point of principle, Archbishop Lefebvre and his Society of Priests did publicly disregard and then openly disobey a pope or two, to such an extent that one of them reproved him and them - with canonical censure (later ameliorated to some extent by two others).
So the SSPX as a body today is not, officially, sede vacante .. even in principle .. its members simply choose (in oddly Modernist style) which bits of present-day popery they will accept, and then apply, and which they will not. That is, in truth, the Holy See may as well be vacant .. in terms applicable for the SSPX - as these men view themselves - for they judge, for themselves, what shall bind them and what shall not, as they see fit (according to their own principles, more or less following the saintly yet also flawed Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre).
In its own eyes, the SSPX is (called to be) .. the faithful witness of the Church of Sacred Tradition, as it views such things, and all others are not (wholly so, or in part) = faithful to that Sacred Tradition (understood by the SSPX); thus - it would seem - the rest of the Church is, from the SSPX perspective, in schism (unofficially, but really); so far, at least, as I understand their various official presentations of their witness.
Keep the Faith; tell the truth, shame the devil, and let the demons shriek.
God bless. ;o)
Please.
*It's very hard for me to believe that those involved really do care about souls.-Kennedy Hall* [17'05"f] 💡SPOT ON!
Kennedy, you hit the bull's eye! Those who try to justify going ¹against the Deposit of Faith AND Morals by pope francis on the one hand; OR those who cast doubt on the conscience/state of soul of those who practice the Faith with the New Mass, etc.... both do wrong.
¹pope francis repeatedly speaks heresy: eg., in 2022 against De Fide declaration of the Council of Trent on the Eucharist; directly casts doubt on the Immaculate Conception of Mary in a Vatican homily (2016 or 18); states (with expert advisors on hand) that shacking up ("cohabitating couples") are >in a marriage and "having the grace of marriage" (2016). These are just the tip of the iceberg>of deception< fabricated by francis. How can any Catholic who cares the dangers to people's souls excuse or justify any of that?
Yet ²attacking fellow traditional Catholics OR those who practice the New Mass, Sacraments, etc. withOUT approving anything against Faith and Morals... is also destructive... AND does Not to strive to help and save souls.
²There's a huge difference between reasoned critique/correction being given VS. vehement hostility being spouted (eg., Voris's rants against FSSPX).
Thank -you- Kennedy for a thoughtful discussion of this subject.
Kennedy, - the ‘sedevacantism’ is certainly a probable catholic opinion/theological position which can be applied in times like these. There are individual sedevacantists who elevate it to the level of dogma. That of course is wrong in absence of authoritative church pronouncement. What is important for any lay person is to step back and make this crucial distinction. That would solve many problems and allow traditional Catholic laity to unite, at least on the level of doctrine.
Now, uniting on the level of the traditional movement as such is more complicated, because we are talking personalities and different histories and cultures of individual groups, which are not always conducive to cooperation. Here I would like to point out sedevacantist clergy who are dedicated to fostering unity in Church, one name that comes to mind is bp Pivarunas from CMRI.
Also, I would caution Mr Hall to take ‘internet’ criticism at its face value. The problem may be more internet and ‘social media mentality’ then people themselves.
Peace and Ave!
3:01 1) Between the person dismissed as non-father and the father not obeyed on one occasion, there is a parallel which SSPX has brought forth more than once : the alcoholic or drug abusing father, who must be not obeyed on more than one occasion;
2) Your father's being your father neither depends on his good manners, not on his orthodoxy, but on half of his chromosomes helping to constitute your body, the other half coming from your mother. However, the spiritual fatherhood of superiors depends on the capacity to give direction directed to your spiritual good. Alexander VI was probably capable of telling priests to not have concubines and add "do as I say, not as I do" ... but that's because he was perfectly orthodox, perhaps except for canon law in the Savonarola case. A heretical pope:
a) according to St. Francis of Sales would automatically lose papacy on preaching heresy;
or b) according to St. Robert Bellarmine, this could never happen to a Pope, falling after election assumed, that deep, but it would if it could imply loss of papacy, and a more realistic case is his never being validly elected in the first place.
3) While you plead a penalty could only strike him after culpability being ascertained by his superiors, which couldn't happen with a pope, and this verification being only possible if he was compos sui, and modern heresies being a kind of madness, you are in fact encouraging the idea of treating one's father as a madman (for instance, simply because he'd been to mental hospital and had a diagnosis). Your alternative to assuming what normally doesn't need special proof, absence of diminished responsability, is assuming diminished responsability to the point where it encourages slave hunt. In this context, Mgr Fellay is from a highly psychiatry friendly and highly CPS friendly Switzerland.
Remember Kennedy you can never be Sede enough for the Sades🧐. I actually interact with many Sades, even listen to St Pius V podcasts. But their theme is always to be critical of the Society. But one thing am it is Novus Ordoist😮
1:15 Actually, Pope Michael _did_ consider SSPX and "regular sedes" as schismatics.
Not really caring who is the pope or not caring if you have one ...?
There is a problem with saying "una cum papa nostro so and so" and then not obeying so and so in or after Mass (and the laity are by attending solidaric with the prayers of the priest, that's what "Amen" said by the server after one or more prayers in the canon means).
6:18 WM review?
Found it! Perfect! (A providential pun on the timestamp, since the ratio 1 : 0.618 is the golden ratio, a canon of geometric perfection outside the human body, and often involved in geometric perfectionS in it).
Thank you. Never heard of it before, or just was very hurried very long ago.
11:32 Sorry, but first millennium episcopal elections in the West follow the pattern still used in the East.
The actual election was made by laymen.
St. Ambrose of Milan was a Catechumen, a small boy shouted "Ambrose for bishop" and this got repeated more than small boys after this up to the one who said "he's actually naked" about the Emperor's new clothes. This repetition _among laymen_ constituted his election.
Then he got baptised and ordained on the same day (presumably baptism, confirmation, priesthood, day of election, episcopal dignity next day, like Pope Michael was consecrated Gaudete Sunday of 2011 / 2012, and had been ordained priest the day before).
Much appears to be confession by projection
Thank you, Kennedy. You have a very good point. I pray that we can "unite" around the truth. I think those leaders or laity with the sede position have fought the battle also for so long that there is a little weariness & maybe some crankiness has set in. The sedes & SSPX are in their 2nd or 3rd generations & want to uphold the critical points why there is great apostasy in the main stream Catholic Church since the 60s. Thank God for Archbishop Lefebvre for his great defense of the Faith. It's so important in the 2nd & 3rd generations to not compromise & make deals with those who are not upholding the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. As the SSPX has grown & even become looked upon as just a different outlet of the Catholic Church, some of the distinction has been lost. The 3rd & 4th generations may think it's just about a style & not about truth, the doctrine as upheld by Pope Pious the 10th & Pope Pious the V..
Continue fighting. as the good Archbishop would have, for every truth. Every doctrine. The SSPX, along with other sede groups, did not shut down & abandon their flock these past years. but the SSPX ended up encouraging the jab. It's those half hearted positions that are discouraging for many. The sedes want to follow a real Pontiff some day, but won't nod to Rome while the current Apostasy increases there. Stay strong. The SSPX will be asked to compromise more & more.
Please don't compromise & pray for the Popes conversion, not his intentions. 🙏✝️🙏
The much bandied 'compromise'. A bit like calling Ananias, Azarias and Misael, 'compromisers' for stepping into the flames.
@@soniamartin2007 All the trads ( or nearly so) greatly appreciate Archbishop Lefebvre. Without him the SSPX & other Sede groups would not exist. It's just now is not the time to be "comfortable" with being accepted back - just a little - into the mainstream Catholic Church. There is still too much that is heretical about the Church of Rome today. As time goes by complacency sets in. Continue the resistance, don't cave.
It's not a time to be comfortable. It's always a time to pray for the restoration of Peter's chair & pray for Bergogulio's conversion. 🙏
@@soniamartin2007 Who are the NOWs you equate with the Sanbornists? I'm not sure of your point. Bishop Sanborn was ordained by Marcel Lefebvre. His stance is far from money based.
The reference to Jesus declaring Peter as the leader of Christ's kingdom is a direct reference to Peter's declaration. Jesus is the head of His Church. Jesus is declared the Messiah, the son of the Living God. It's the Gospel. It's the responsibility to stand for this Gospel. Any man, Council, teaching that does not confirm Christ's Divinity & uphold His teaching is not of Him.
Ecumenism, embraced as a new doctrine at last Council, is anti Jesus' teaching. Christ said "I am the way, truth & life. No one comes to the Father, but by me. "
One cannot support an Ecumenical Church & The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The positions are diametrically opposed. Ergo, sedes exist. I applaud Archbishop Lefebvre.
Bishop Sanborn just believes Lefebvre needed to go a little farther.
I would not be "proud" of aligning with the Rome of 2023. Are you?
Pray that Christ's Kingdom will come & Our Heavenly Father's will is done
🙏✝️🙏
Before I listen. Why I _am_ (kind of) a Sedevacantist.
The last pope died on Aug 2 last year, and the conclave hasn't been assembled yet, let alone resulted in white smoke.
2:04 In my case it's more like grieving over having to classify you as a schismatic despite agreeing with you over so much.
Hopping it's in your case only objective and not subjective schism, I wish you a blessed Pentecost.
How about francis being an antipope. Mv
How about going to Hell for willingly rejecting the authority that Christ has established, just because you don't like him?
@petros-estin-petra- . Not very charitable to say that. Because of my opinion. Godbless 🙏
@@markvasquez9023 It's not very charitable to just let your brethren walk into eternal demnation
My brothers, if any among you strays from the truth and one turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.
James 5
Kennedy thank you for this video. Thank you for expressing what I have on my mind regarding this crisis in the Church. I attend the SSPX where I live, and I want to complement your remark with something I said to a Sede in a discussion. Instead of worrying about the attacks from the Novus Ordo (I deal with it personally on a daily basis with my family) and from the Sedevacantists (unrelenting nitpicking), I actually rejoice in this situation because the Devil does not attack what is not worthy to be destroyed. Even though I understand the compelling arguments by the Sedes, I do not find their position as charitable either with the Novus Ordo or the SSPX, since they consider both positions as heretical, apostate, or outright stupid. I can't accept the Sede position, since it has so many shades, that it is incongruent in itself. God bless
As a trad I too have been accosted various times by sedevacantists. Sadly to say none of the discussions was congenial. Some even outright disgusting coming from their end. It may not be schism that puts them in trouble, it's the total lack of charity. The other wek a parishioner sent me a link to a video and told me to have an open mind. I don't know about you, but that comment about keeping an open mind does not sound like something coming from God.
It wonders me. Usually it is SSPX that has the reputation to be cold and nasty.
Nope.
Good afternoon Mr. Hall
I hope your family is well, especially your wife after her skating accident.
I'm sure you're aware but recently Tim Flanders had a discussion with an anti-SSPX fellow named Andrew Bartel (IIRC) where he called you out regarding your "failure," to provide more arguments against the SSPX in your recent book "SSPX: The Defence."
Do you plan on responding to his arguments? He makes several claims of the SSPX being "not in full communion."
He made the usual arguments anti-SSPXers make, ie all of those the admitted "former," Freemason John Salza made on Pints With Aquinas not too long ago.
Personally, it's really frustrating to me, because John Salza literally lied about the SSPX's positions vis a vis the current post Vatican II Magisterium, but the best book explaining the SSPX's position is by Fr Alvaro Calderon of Argentina, but it doesn't have an english translation, so it's not like I can shove it into the face of English podcasters. The spanish title is: La Lámpara bajo el celemin - Cuestión disputada sobre la autoridad del magisterio eclesiastico desde el concilio Vaticano II.
@@thereasonableman2424 No problem, I can read in Spanish no problem.
I'll look into that book thanks
Right on Kennedy.
I am a parishioner at church where the New Mass is the only Mass.
I don't have a problem with Traditionalists, nor with Sedevacantists.
I don't agree with much of what is going on with the Church.
But I prefer to stay where I am for now.
11:39 I think all sedes except a very small margin believe there are valid bishops.
Pope Michael's list for (Western Rite) valid lines, updated 2016:
* Old Catholic
* Duarte Costa
* Thuc
* Lefebvre.
Dimond brothers believe there are valid bishops giving valid and gracegiving sacraments in other countries, but not the US (Hispanic clergy traditionally are somewhat closer to the Feeneyite position than English clergy).
All priestly fraternities, including offshots or at least one offshot of SSPX, the SSPV, believe there are valid bishops.
However, I have read exactly one or perhaps two Sedevacantist journalists in Rivarol, who have stated "the apostolic succession is broken" - I think, and most Sedes think, this is heretical, it would go against Christ's promise in Mt 28:16 - 20 to be with His precisely (first, and by extention later also other) _bishops_ to the end of time. Pope Michael found it most probable there would also be a Pope when the Trump sounds. It was not he.
12:00 I think the idea that Sedevacantism leads to despair may come in some great part from Parisian either SSPX-ers or Novus Ordo's who are aware of the two journalists in Rivarol or the one journalist (sure of Annibal, less sure of Scipion de Salm), who had stated "apostolic succession is broken" which may be very true for Novus Ordo lines, but is false if taken universally.
I love you buddy. I'm a good ol Catholic dad myself. I'm sure that Bishop Barron, Doc Taylor Marshall, and yourself are on the same page. If you aren't then who's got the problem?
Marshall is a schismatic: ua-cam.com/video/9x9yaaFHU7A/v-deo.html
Barron is an apostate: ua-cam.com/video/6efbqi8hd4s/v-deo.html
@@WebCitizenThat covers all bases 😀
Who is left? Kennedy?
@@JackFalltrades Unfortunately, Mr. Hall is consistently disobedient to those who recognizes as legitimate authorities and supports a group independent of his authority for more than 50 years which makes him a schismatic.
I sincerely recommend looking at the many reasons why these devil-worshipping apostates can't be true Popes: ua-cam.com/play/PLx7nJ5O4AHdteXuGw3Iam5KHPV8olrUpK.html
The New "Mass" is sacrilegious and gravely sinful to attend. The evidence is covered in the playlist.
Please pray 15 decades of the rosary each day, or at least one mystery, for the light of truth.
SSPX excludes Sedevacantists even at the moment of death from the sacraments.
One SSPX priest even said to me that the papacy of Francis is as dogma as the Immaculate Conception.
There is one Orthodox Church.
False and heretical church
There are multiple Orthodox Churchs, some of which do not even commune with each other
@@soniamartin2007 there is only one church, the Holy Roman Catholic Church founded by Christ the King. The Orthodox were once a part of that true church until they thought they knew better and walked away. They didn’t know better and they still don’t. They are schismatic and heretics now. As for the prottys? They’re even worse. Thousands of man made denominations who are all wrong and leading their misled followers into the pit.
A major problem with Sedevecantism, is that they don't like my book. Lol
Schism is by definition refusal to submit to the Roman Pontiff
sedes do that and thus by definition they are schismatics
whether the schism is material or formal is another question
but to say that "sedevacantism is not schism" you betray Catholic Theology
You have just demonstrated a textbook case of petitio principii, commonly known as begging the question.
We are not refusing submission to the Roman Pontiff but to a manifest heretic who CLAIMS to be the Roman Pontiff.
Here's a couple of experts on schism:
“Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation...”
~ Wernz-Vidal: Ius Canonicum, Vol vii, n. 398
"Nor is there any schism if......one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state."
~ Szal, Rev Ignatius: Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, CUA, 1948, p.2
"Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded ['probabiliter'] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refs to Sanchez and Palao]."
~ de Lugo: Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8
So we see that recognizing that someone is the Pope is a CONDITION for being a schismatic. In fact, the recognize and resist position of the Lefebvrites is precisely the definition of schism - resisting those you recognize as the legitimate authority.
Theres been PLENTY of scholarly debate re: whether Bergoglio is Pope - because B16 never stopped being Pope and/or cuz Bergoglio has sown schism! So, your discernment is shallow, your labeling too broad, and your logic surface. 🤦♀️
This is that very base and thin understanding of Vatican 1 characteristic of Lofton. So if a pope says a circle is a square and it's not do I then forfeit my catholicism?
Schism is a rejection of the Petrine office. Rejecting papal heresy is not.
@@aloyalcatholic5785
Sedes do not merely withhold assent on minor issues where it is lawful to disobey the Pope
They dissent from him entirely which is different from the case you are describing
Yes Pope Francis is the Pope. God bless His Holiness Pope Francis. Amen ❤️🙏
Francis is the pope , but a BAD one.
😂😂😂😂😂😂