So those of us so called “rigid “ Catholics are all probably seds, but we just don’t realise it yet, or don’t feel they have the authority to openly declare it, thinking it would put them outside the church. A very good thought provoking presentation, thank you.
I've been making this exact argument for years. I called it a Pascalian Wager for sedevecantism. If VATICAN II is right we go to heaven even if we reject it.
Can't say enough good things about this video - excellent production quality, clear argumentation, and an easily digestible brevity. I especially liked the low-key classical music in the background. This is very helpful for discerning individuals looking for more information, like myself. I'll be sure to check out your longer form video, and I encourage you to continue producing additional content. Well done!
Please keep up your work. We need more content explaining our position that actually *LOOKS GOOD,* like this! I cannot emphasize enough how important aesthetics are in making teaching content. Also, please consider making short form video content on the topic.
@@Deuterocomical it shows that however you interpret the V2 documents to affirm the superiority of the Catholic Faith, your same clergy simply don't interpret the documents in that way. In practice, they do indeed treat the other religions as if they are "right".
@@CatholicTVC Brother, can you make a Video on Bergoglio's very first encyclical: *Evangelii Gaudium* Evangelii Gaudium: 247. "We hold the Jewish people in special regard *because their covenant with God has never been revoked* for “the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29). The Church, which shares with Jews an important part of the sacred Scriptures looks upon the people of the covenant and their faith as one of the sacred roots of her own Christian identity (cf. Rom 11:16-18). *As Christians, we cannot consider Judaism as a foreign religion* nor do we include the Jews among those called to turn from idols and to serve the true God ( 1cf. 1 Thes 1:9). *With them, we believe in the one God* who acts in history, and with them we accept his revealed word." Here Bergoglio is addressing the Universal Church through an encyclical, which is part of the universal and ordinary Magisterium, whence the document contains an article of faith and thus enjoys the charism of infallibility. Here is a Poope , that has blatantly contradicted the dogmatic council of Florence
Vatican II documents state that Christians, Muslims and Jews all worship The One True God (Yahweh/The Father) which is heresy and blasphemous because they do not worship The Son or The Spirit which means they do not worship the same God as us.
Excellent presentation of logic. It was along this same line of thinking I myself developed the courage to withdraw my family from the Vatican II religion years ago. If I am wrong, I am also right. But if V2 is wrong, it is catastrophically wrong for a billion souls.
Thank you , I've been saying this for a while. I'd also add that at worst, according to Canon law, sedevancantists aren't even schismatic. Because Canon law says those who reject a particular claimant to the papacy due to suspicion or even rumors of irregularities, are not to be considered schismatic. So, there ya go, even if sedevancantists are wrong, they can't be considered schematic, since there is ample reason to question the legitimacy of these popes... Especially Francis.
Just found this channel you really need more subscribers, you doing gods work, you prolly not gonna see this but i would love to do a interview brother.❤️✝️🙏
The problem being that the Church doesn’t teach some universalist doctrine, and never has. Firstly, salvation IS open to anyone until the hour of their death they have the freedom to choose Christ, baptism and his Church and attain salvation. But just because it is POSSIBLE for someone who is invincibly ignorant but in good faith to be saved doesn’t mean that anything goes. The Church has always and will always teach Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, but also maintains that outside of the visible church there does exist certain ways to be counted among the flock inside the Church if invisibly. So yes, Sedevacantists CAN be saved, but like schismatics, heretics and those with invincible ignorance their chances of eternal life are incredibly mitigated outside of the explicit and visible Catholic Church.
You're right. The Catholic Church has never taught universalism - never has, never will. But the post vatican-2, Novus-Ordo church does. You can see some of the precedent in this video but there are parts of the V2 documents that state that the RCC isn't even really Catholic, and that the real Catholic Church encompasses all of the other protestant and schismatic sects, too. And most importantly, look at the doctrines in practice... the Novus Ordo clergy, including the so-called "Popes" have prayed with other religions. Not just protestants or schismatics, but also Muslims and so on. You can't pray alongside another religion unless you imply that there is something legitimate about it, its theology and its practice. This was never allowed in the past. And no... it has nothing to do with invincible ignorance. If your a Muslim and the Pope himself is standing next to you, you can't be invincibly ignorant, can you? Yet, what if that "Pope" is praying alongside you as if your religion is legitimate?
@@CatholicTVC What you call the "Vatican 2 Novus Order Church" doesn't teach universalism. Now, you can distort different documents, appeal to different thinkers to justify being in schism with Christ's Church. But at the end of the day, Sedevacantism is a schismatic and heretical group. Why? Because it holds that Christ's promise that hell would not prevail against the Church expired, and that the Rock that Christ built his Church on crumbled. Throughout history, there have been schismatics who make the claim that the visible, Roman Catholic Church is no longer the true Church and has been usurped by something else. Protestants makes this claim. Mormons makes this claim. Countless heretical groups make this claim. Old Calendar Orthodox make this claim against regular Orthodox. Heck, Muslims say the same thing (although using different words). "haha, well if the Vatican 2 church is right than I'm okay. If it's wrong, then..." then what? If the Roman Catholic Church's supposed universalism is wrong, then who is right? Is it the Sedevacantist? The Mormons? Old Catholics? The Orthodox? What about the Eastern Catholic Churches? They are in union with Rome. They don't celebrate the Novus Ordo mass. They're not making these supposed universalism claims. What about the Canons Regular, the Fraternity of St Peter? What about all those TLMers who recognize Vatican 2's authority, while appealing to pre-Vatican 2 expressions of things? People say this is a great argument, when it's entirely dependent on a miss use, and miss understanding of what the Catholic Church teaches. Sedevacantism is really sad. It's lost. It's the inability to submit to authority. It's very Protestant. Protestants abuse scripture while Sedevacantists abuse Church documents. Sedevacantism isn't Catholic, it's simply anti-Catholic, anti-Pope. Same goes for Protestantism, Orthodoxy, SSPX, Old Catholics, Anglicans. It's sad.
Hi, TVC! New arrival in your channel, already a sedevacantist myself, and truly impressed by your exposition: simple, clear, cristalline and logical, and free of the prejudices so often found when talking about these themes. Already subscribed! Two questions for you, if you're willing to answer: 1: Which sede institute are you associated with? CMRI, Mater Boni Consilii, SGG, independent, etc.? 2: Have you ever looked into Griff Ruby's Lumen Gentium Theory? He, in his two Sede Vacante books, expounds all ecclesiological doctrines relevant to modern times and develops a Theory to explain all of them in an academic and organizer fashion. Most of the Theory, however can be found online. I think it's a great analysis of the current crisis, that goes beyond mere basic sedevacantism and offers a full doctrinal and theological basis (like Cassiciacum, but easier to understand and more self-consistent) Even if you happen to not agree with it, it's still very thought-provoking Long live Christ the King!
Curiously, the Theory holds that one can prove sedevacantism from the Vatican II documents themselves! (most particularly Lumen Gentium, since It redefines the very Nature of the Church)
Hello there, and thank you for your kind words and for reaching out. I am not tied to any one particular organisation but have co-operated with and received mass from priests from each, including some independent priests. I have not read Ruby's full thesis, although I have his books on my reading list. Do you happen to know if a condensed version of his theory is expounded anywhere?
Exactly, Christ did not purchase the Church with his own blood, so that being incorporated into it was optional. Every single baptized individual has a moral obligation, under pain of mortal sin, to enter into the Church before the end of their life. Of course the Church doesn't have jurisdiction over the non-baptized, as those individuals who die unbaptized, above the age of reason, are lost because of Original Sin.
Well put. It is sad that Bergoglio hates anybody that holds the true Catholic faith but loves all that go against Christs teachings. Reality seems to be these modernist Popes of the Novus Ordo religion know that people holding fast to the true religion jeopardize there objective of destroying any traditions or dogmas.
More quotes that are beyond the pale . I can’t beleive people think this is a serious religion. I’ve made the argument. I say the good news for ME is that I’m in you’re church! But it’s not good news for you if you’re wrong!
How would you respond to the argument that many Traditional Catholics who do not hold the sedevacantist position would make that the quotes you provided from the various popes/"popes" are not part of the OM as they contradict what has always been taught by the Catholic Church over many centuries and that they are simply incorrect and can therefore be ignored. I struggle with the OM and am always uncertain as to what exactly falls within it.
The documents of the council are (if Paul VI was a true pope) of the highest degree of authority and infallibility. Under no circumstances are catholics allowed to reject them if Paul VI was a true pope.
I would say "exactly". That's why I quoted "popes" and documents and things approved by the Vatican... it's not just that the popes said these things, it's the fact that the Church (as a whole) consistently teaches this stuff (which is what makes something OM). And so, if these Traditionalists believe that these guys are legitimate popes of a legitimate Catholic Church, they have to admit that the OM of this Church actively and explicitly contradicts Church teaching - it's starting all of them right in the face, as if they can't see it because it's on the end of their nose.
Fr Cekada's Sermon on the Universal Ordinary Magesterium BTW...it has been so drilled into modern post VII "Catholics". That infallibility only works in an excathedra proclamation. 😢
Ordinary Magisterium is infallible when the condition of universality is satisfied. Precisely what 'universal' means is the point under dispute. The trads you mention would say both universality in place (that means moral unanimity of bishops+pope today) and time (same thing but over centuries) are necessary. I would answer that either place or time suffices. For proof I'd appeal to some papal documents that I can't recall offhand now and will edit later, and to the books of Boulenger, van Noort, Franzelin, Tanquerey. I would also say that it is common sense. If both conditions were required these things would happen 1)you would have to go back and check teaching over years, impossible for even many clerics, let alone semi literate working men, to check, and is never required in the true Church because you're safe with the catechesis at your local parish at any time (indefectibility, church remaining what she is, the Ark). 2)the Church if at any time would teach error contrary to what came before, the mark of Catholicity and apostolicity will be lost. due to the disconnect. Then I add a historical tidbit that the Old 'Catholics' who schismed in 1870 used the same tactic (both/and) to reject V1. Trads only differ in using it to reject V2. Not saying V2 should be accepted but the only way to reject it is to say it's not the Church that gave it. You can't say Pope, hierarchy are valid, promulgated it and still we get to reject it because not one with the past, because 'not being one with the past' is an impossibility for the Church, no more possible than having a vegetarian egg.
I get the feeling you ignored aspects of those documents. The Church makes a distinction between those who are separated from the Church by circumstance and those who choose to dissent from the Church. You'd fall under the category of those in dissent. Picking and choosing is supposed to be a practice of liberal Catholics, is it not?
@@CatholicTVCI like how you didn’t show the proper full phrase where it references the passage in 1 Corinthians 12 where Paul states this. We are baptized. We are then part of the body of Christ. To say we can exclude ourselves from the Church is to sever part of Jesus’ body. You’re assuming that being in the church = being saved. Which isn’t the case. The Bible speaks of losing salvation, but not being no longer part of the body of Christ.
@@bourbonrebel5515The Church maintains its integrity even when members or large swaths of people separate themselves from it by either schism or heresy. Is Pius XII wrong?
One thing that definitely is not traditional about sedevacantism is a 60 (and going) year interregnum in the papacy, supposedly lacking a valid successor for the bishop of Rome; this is completely unprecedented. The longest interregnum was 4 years in the 1200’s, and that involved major political infighting among the cardinals which has no comparison with Vat2. Furthermore, everyone then knew that the election was being stalled, so there was no pope, meanwhile the postconciliar church has had consistent popes universally accepted by the faithful. You may say they are antipopes, and sure there have been antipopes in history but there was always a true pope somewhere. If 4 years is already extreme for an empty see, then 60 years is just too ridiculous to maintain. I thought Jesus had prayed that Peter’s faith not fail, that he would be the one to strengthen the others.
How is it not traditional? Where, exactly, in any Church document or pronouncement or decree does it say that 60 years is too long? You have already admitted that interregna can last multiple years. It is indeed unprecedented, but we live in grave times. That is no disproof. Sedevacantism is logical because you are faced with two choices: a) you admit that there has been a 60+ year interregnum (which is possible, even if it is extreme), or b) you admit that the church and its legitimate popes have been sailing the faithful towards heresy and damnation by the teaching of her magesterium for the last 60+ years (which is categorically impossible)
Really? By holding that the vacancy is ridiculous to maintain and too long with nothing from the true Church to back that up is akin to protestants saying that Jesus couldn't have possibly meant that we must eat His flesh and drink his blood even though He said that they were true meat and true drink, or that God cannot change common bread and wine into His Body and Blood. God can do whatever He wants to. Chastisements from God for His purposes aren't without precedence. We have been warned repeatedly of the wolves in sheep's clothing. We must pray for the scales to come off and the grace to persevere in God's truth, not fallen man's idea of truth.
My point is that precisely because it’s wildly unprecedented, it is not a tradition of the church that we ought to maintain. If you can show precedent, feel free. I really don’t think we live in such grave times to warrant 60 years of not having a visible head of the church. Again, even when there was prolonged interregna, it was due to political gridlock. There is no political gridlock with Vat2, in fact it was largely accepted. What in the postconciliar church do you think warrants this supposed interregnum if not gridlock? If you think it’s because the vast majority of the church fell away, including all the bishops in communion with Rome, then I’d have to say that’s even more untraditional since we believe the Church is indefectible. The Church will persist to the end of time, and it will be preserved unimpaired in its essential characteristics; it will never be corrupt in faith and morals, nor can it lose the apostolic hierarchy or the sacraments. To say the Pope and most bishops fell away is to argue the church is not indefectible, and Jesus’s kingdom on earth can be and is now decapitated. Honestly, that’s a false dichotomy, because I could argue for option c) that the church continues to have legitimate popes and that any supposed contradiction in their teaching with preconciliar church teaching is merely apparent and can be reconciled.
God can do whatever he wants, but when he has made a promise that his kingdom will never fall away, I don’t think it’s prudent to believe God contradicts his own promise by allowing the church to fall away. That’s like saying God promised that the Son will return at the end of time to judge the world, some to everlasting life and others to torment, but then instead decided there would be no judgment and everyone indiscriminately goes to hell because “God can do whatever he wants to.” If God can do whatever he wants to, then it’s just as valid to believe he can preserve the Church with an unbroken line of successors of St Peter until the end of time, even if the faith gets watered down in some places. At least this stance is consistent with the NT and sacred tradition, sedevacantism is consistent with novelties like the great apostasy theory many Protestants hold.
@@killianmiller6107 And so your options are: a) accept that most of the Clergy broke away (which is possible. See: the Aryan heresy), or b) admit that the church and its legitimate popes have been sailing the faithful towards heresy and damnation by the teaching of her magesterium for the last 60+ years (which is categorically impossible) Option c) is untenable as is proven by the consistent contradictions between Pre-V2 and Post-V2 teachings. One V2 publication that I quoted in the video states explicitly that the V2 documents give teachings on faith and morals that have never been taught by the church before.
When John XXIII was elected; the first of the non-popes of the new church. That was the start. But if you like, the schism was formalised by the time of the end of the council. What exact date did the Eastern Schism occur on?
I can see some mayor errors in the argument: First of all we should speak about the hierarchy of documents. Some interview with the pope does not hold the same authority as a dogmatic constitution. Second: I think there might be a missrepresentation of the idea exposed by the 2Vatican, because there is a difference between being in the church and obtaining salvation. Even someone in the church can obtain no salvation. When it is said that other members are also in the church, the intention is to say, that they might also get salvation. So, yeah a Sedevacantist might get salvation, despite of the scismatic believes. So, its not so simple, and preaching for scism is also problematic
the VII " hierarchy" have no jurisdiction/ authority. As non-catholic heretical apostates who cease to hold the faith. They are the wolves in sheep's clothing crucifying Christ's body( the church) The Church was pushed back into the catacombs in 1968 with the implementation of the diabolical sacrilege and Montini's (neo Caiphas... antipope Paul VI) demon baby ...Novus Ordo Missae and the deliberate demolition of ALL the Sacraments BEGINNING with Holy Orders
No, this is always shown to be a wood-though-the-trees argument. You might say that the authorities don't support these ideas if parts of them are read and interpreted in a very careful way, but the truth is that the V2 church actively, physically and publicly acted as if non-Catholic religion and schism is A-OK. That's why it allows Catholics to worship with non-Catholics and even for non-catholic services to be held in catholic churches; something that would have been unthinkable in the past because it's basically mixing the True religion of God with every other kind of demon-worship.
@@CatholicTVC when is it said that Catholics are allowed to "worship" with non-Catholics? Unless you're referring to the permission of some schismatics, such as the Eastern Orthodox, to receive the Eucharist
Even if you except sedeVaticanism true and reject Vatican 2 church. Which sedevaticanist sect do you follow? There is numerous ones and they all don't agree with each other. CMRI, SSPV, MHFM, and all the independent basement sedes.
@@lupea8079 All Sedevacantists are right about Sedevacantism. It doesn't follow that they're all equally correct about every other opinion they have. However, opinions are different from dogmas. And disagreements about opinions doesn't break you into a "sect". That's why all the main priests and organisations let you receive mass from each-other, despite their disagreements. To find a true organisation/priest they need 3 things. They must: 1. Accept Sedevacantism 2. Teach traditional Catholic Faith and Morals, and 3. Have valid ordinations That's all
the Council of Trent also states that all baptized are members of the body of Christ. this isn't mere Vatican II lingo. and even before Vatican II it was taught that valid sacraments exist outside the Church and if the people receiving them are invincibly ignorant such sacraments may benefit them however if you lack invincible ignorance then you cannot be saved even if you were a sedevacantist
@@MarktheShark98 the issue of Church membership is a hotly debated topic even long before Vatican II. Quoting Trent "the instrumental cause [of Justification] is the sacrament of baptism.....whence, man, through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives, in the said justification, together with the remission of sins, all these (gifts) infused at once, faith, hope, and charity." Canon 32 in the same decree also implies all justified are members of Christ's Body
@@mousakandah5188 Are Protestants members of the body in your view? Also it doesn’t say “all the baptized are members of the body of Christ.” Which decree is it?
Novus Ordites will say "ya but the documents still say you have to enter the Catholic Church to be saved" 😂😂 The V2 documents are littered with this type of double talk
Even if Mary was not a virgin, before, during or after the Lord's birth... even if Mary was not immaculately conceived or assumed into Heaven, and in teaching these things - the Church taught error - we are still saved.
Lumen Gentium 14 "Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse to enter it, or to remain in it.” 😂😂😂 What kind of nonsense is this? Like there is any Protestant or Orthodox out there that knows that the Catholic faith is the true faith but still remains in schism 😂😂😂 Or that the Novus Ordite who leaves the Church, still knows that the Church was established by Christ. 😂😂😂😂
Are EO right then? Are old Catholics that reject Vatican I right? Its just odd you claim sedevacantist reject Vatican II when they exist before that. It is just a weak argument when YOU happen to leave that is when its okay to reject the church.
That's like saying that if Islam, Judaism and Christianity all profess a God, how do you know which religion is right? The answer is that there are better and worse arguments for their respective claims. The EO, "Old Catholics", Protestants and Sedevacantists don't make the same claims for the same reasons. In fact, their ideas are radically different. Show some discernment.
The interpretations of Unitatis Redintegratio presented in this video are dubious at best. In your first quote, I note that paragraph 3 states that those liturgical actions *can* engender a life of grace and *can* aptly give access to the communion of salvation. Nowhere in the document does it state that schismatic churches that have these liturgical actions *necessarily do* engender a life of grace for someone that is actively resistant to the Catholic faith. In your second quote, it is clear that the things talked about as 'existing outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church' are things like the theological virtue of faith and charity and the Sacred Scriptures. Does anyone actually deny that the Scriptures do not exist outside the Catholic Church, or that nobody that is not in the Body of the Church cannot have the theological virtue of charity? That is an absurd conclusion that contradicts the Doctors of the Church. In your third quote from Lumen Gentium, I started to become convinced that this was actually interpreted in bad faith. I don't know any theologian that claims to be Catholic that would say that that part of LG 16 means that you're going to be saved if you accept the existence of God. That is simply ridiculous. Look no further than paragraph 14 to see that such an interpretation is crazy: "Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved." The Church has always taught that Christ is present in the worship of the heretics and the schismatics. The quote from Pope Benedict XVI avails nothing. The Church has also always taught that the indelible mark of Baptism is the entrance into the Church and that it cannot be removed. Does this mean that all sedevacantists will be saved? Obviously not. The quote from Pope Francis also avails nothing. It is evident that the Pope does not mean to say that nobody can apostatize from the one true Faith, but only that one cannot cut themselves off from God in a way that He is never willing to forgive them. Take note of what you left out in that audience, when the Holy Father says, "That the Church is reserved for the perfect? No. It means that it is the community of saved sinners . The Church is the community of saved sinners. This is a beautiful definition. No one can exclude themselves from the Church, etc." Why do sedevacantists have an addiction to taking the words of the Roman Pontiffs and spinning them, deleting words in the quote to make them sound like heretics? If you have the truth, good sir, why don't you show the entire quote, explain the context, and then give your interpretation? These interpretations are honestly worse than the Protestants' abuse of Scripture to suit their heresies.
The thing with these kinds of comments is that they seem to show a complete unawareness of the practice of your so-called Church... The quotes from the Popes avail nothing... your Church still regards Catholicism as necessary... these "Popes" hold to that sincerely... really? Are you unaware of the fact that these so-called "Popes" have openly honoured, prayed with and received blessings from other religions that have been denounced as schismatic at best and at worst, demonic? Are you unaware of the laissez-faire attitude that most parishes have towards whether "Catholics" pray in a catholic church or a protestant one? Are you unaware of the myriad occasions in which "Catholics" have joined in prayer with non-Catholics and even invited them into their Churches to share in prayer in the spirit of "ecumenism" as if all of these prayers and religions are equal, despite the fact that this would have been rank heresy in the past? The reason why a video like this can be made in confidence is because it's a slice of a bigger picture. How do we know that the V2 Church has confidence that other sects and even other religions are ways to salvation? Because that's how it acts. And there is clear precedent for that in these documents. You might think that they can be interpreted differently. In practice, your "Church" disagrees. A Pope can't support Islam yet condemn Sedevacantism. That's insane.
It’s a clever argument, but it does not stand up to scrutiny. For the sake of discussion, let’s leave Pope Francis aside. Cherry picking Benedict XVI and Vatican II quotes to make them sound universalist is misguided. I can quote you back more references from both that teach one must remain part of the true Church to be saved. In charity, then, we must interpret both in the most orthodox and consistent way, the same way we treat biblical statements that seem to contradict the faith (“call no man father”) but really don’t. Catholics must believe that God’s grace reaches beyond the visible boundaries of the Church. He can do anything He wants. That is far different from saying that all schismatics are saved. The Church never says this if you read her statements closely. Invincible ignorance can excuse people of the culpability of grave sins. Valid but schismatic priests can confer valid sacraments (that offer real graces) even if illicit. The Church has always understood these points. A person who knowingly participates in illicit Sacraments, however, may be committing a serious sin and be culpable for losing his salvation. While it endangers the soul to hold some false beliefs mixed with faith in Christ, a bigger problem is knowingly leaving the Church. A person born into Greek Orthodoxy without any exposure to Catholicism may be deemed by God invincibly ignorant, but the same cannot usually be said of the person who willingly leaves the Church. So the argument falls apart because there are some graces available to folks outside the visible boundaries of the Church, and the Church never taught (even in the quotes presented) that those folks would definitely be saved. Furthermore, it makes no attempt to understand subjective culpability.
Interesting exercise in the suspension of disbelief... "let's leave Pope Francis aside"... TVC, play in my sandbox according to my shifting rules so I can build the better sand castle...
@@CatholicTVC Can you cite the passage from Vatican 2 please? Also, sincere question: what would you do if you were at Thanksgiving dinner at an Eastern Orthodox relative’s house, and he led grace? Would you say, “Sorry, we can’t both pray to Jesus to bless this food”?
@@pronghornhunter I covered this question and presented the documents in my other video, Sedevacantism visualised. Plus, to your other question, there is a distinct and obvious difference between individual moments of prayer and attending services or other religions
@@DickDatchery There is no suspension of disbelief. I’m not trying to build a sand castle on Pope Francis. I’m just not addressing the topic of Pope Francis in this post. Could you address the other points I made?
Wow it is really hard to find so many sophisms in a video as short as this. Guys, sedevacantism is cismatic and the followers of this sect will be damn unless they find their way back to the Holy authority of the Pope. Period.
Meanwhile this is the same “church” that says that the other two “Abrahamic” religions worship “the same God” when nothing could be further from the truth. You literally gave up your ability to condemn anyone.
Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4 And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
Vatican II is an ecumenical council, the principles of which, especially concerning faith and morals, have been taught and enforced by the Universal Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. It therefore literally *MUST* be obeyed and treated as infallible or you are in schism with the Vatican. Or, you can accept that the Vatican II hierarchy is invalid authority...
Your videos are very well put together and easy to grasp. Thank you!
Thank you!
A+ 100% and happy face.
While I don't use this argument, it is entirely flawless. Good Job presenting it!
Heads: you loose, tails: I win.
So those of us so called “rigid “ Catholics are all probably seds, but we just don’t realise it yet, or don’t feel they have the authority to openly declare it, thinking it would put them outside the church.
A very good thought provoking presentation, thank you.
You're welcome and thank you. If this has been helpful, may I also suggest my other video, Sedevacantism Visualised?
Yes, if it is wrong, it must be RIGHT!
One of the best videos on the subject !! Congratulations :)
I've been making this exact argument for years. I called it a Pascalian Wager for sedevecantism.
If VATICAN II is right we go to heaven even if we reject it.
And there's no way it's right. It's so clearly heretical. Pope Francis is a straight-up communist anti-pope.
@@HarlanK I can't even see my comment. Weird.
Can't say enough good things about this video - excellent production quality, clear argumentation, and an easily digestible brevity. I especially liked the low-key classical music in the background. This is very helpful for discerning individuals looking for more information, like myself. I'll be sure to check out your longer form video, and I encourage you to continue producing additional content.
Well done!
Please keep up your work. We need more content explaining our position that actually *LOOKS GOOD,* like this! I cannot emphasize enough how important aesthetics are in making teaching content.
Also, please consider making short form video content on the topic.
Vatican II doesn’t state that other religions are “right”. In fact, it reaffirms the objective superiority of the Catholic faith.
The Novus Ordo clergy pray with Muslims
@@CatholicTVC what does that have to do with my comment?
@@Deuterocomical it shows that however you interpret the V2 documents to affirm the superiority of the Catholic Faith, your same clergy simply don't interpret the documents in that way. In practice, they do indeed treat the other religions as if they are "right".
@@CatholicTVC
Brother, can you make a Video on Bergoglio's very first encyclical: *Evangelii Gaudium*
Evangelii Gaudium:
247. "We hold the Jewish people in special regard *because their covenant with God has never been revoked* for “the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29). The Church, which shares with Jews an important part of the sacred Scriptures looks upon the people of the covenant and their faith as one of the sacred roots of her own Christian identity (cf. Rom 11:16-18). *As Christians, we cannot consider Judaism as a foreign religion* nor do we include the Jews among those called to turn from idols and to serve the true God ( 1cf. 1 Thes 1:9). *With them, we believe in the one God* who acts in history, and with them we accept his revealed word."
Here Bergoglio is addressing the Universal Church through an encyclical, which is part of the universal and ordinary Magisterium, whence the document contains an article of faith and thus enjoys the charism of infallibility.
Here is a Poope , that has blatantly contradicted the dogmatic council of Florence
Vatican II documents state that Christians, Muslims and Jews all worship The One True God (Yahweh/The Father) which is heresy and blasphemous because they do not worship The Son or The Spirit which means they do not worship the same God as us.
Brilliant. Such a relief! 😂
Great video, well done
Never realized how far Vatican II documents actually go with their "ecumenism". Simply ridiculous really
Oh my word, this is a class representation
Excellent presentation of logic. It was along this same line of thinking I myself developed the courage to withdraw my family from the Vatican II religion years ago. If I am wrong, I am also right. But if V2 is wrong, it is catastrophically wrong for a billion souls.
hahaha you have a point 😊 even if the sedevacantist is wrong it's still right 😅
Thank you , I've been saying this for a while. I'd also add that at worst, according to Canon law, sedevancantists aren't even schismatic. Because Canon law says those who reject a particular claimant to the papacy due to suspicion or even rumors of irregularities, are not to be considered schismatic. So, there ya go, even if sedevancantists are wrong, they can't be considered schematic, since there is ample reason to question the legitimacy of these popes... Especially Francis.
You nailed it
Just found this channel you really need more subscribers, you doing gods work, you prolly not gonna see this but i would love to do a interview brother.❤️✝️🙏
Sounds interesting. If you would like to speak more, send me an email:
tvcl.work@gmail.com
V2 is the end not the beginning.
Are you right? or wrong? It doesn't matter (postmodernist church...)
The problem being that the Church doesn’t teach some universalist doctrine, and never has. Firstly, salvation IS open to anyone until the hour of their death they have the freedom to choose Christ, baptism and his Church and attain salvation. But just because it is POSSIBLE for someone who is invincibly ignorant but in good faith to be saved doesn’t mean that anything goes. The Church has always and will always teach Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, but also maintains that outside of the visible church there does exist certain ways to be counted among the flock inside the Church if invisibly. So yes, Sedevacantists CAN be saved, but like schismatics, heretics and those with invincible ignorance their chances of eternal life are incredibly mitigated outside of the explicit and visible Catholic Church.
You're right. The Catholic Church has never taught universalism - never has, never will.
But the post vatican-2, Novus-Ordo church does.
You can see some of the precedent in this video but there are parts of the V2 documents that state that the RCC isn't even really Catholic, and that the real Catholic Church encompasses all of the other protestant and schismatic sects, too.
And most importantly, look at the doctrines in practice... the Novus Ordo clergy, including the so-called "Popes" have prayed with other religions. Not just protestants or schismatics, but also Muslims and so on. You can't pray alongside another religion unless you imply that there is something legitimate about it, its theology and its practice. This was never allowed in the past.
And no... it has nothing to do with invincible ignorance. If your a Muslim and the Pope himself is standing next to you, you can't be invincibly ignorant, can you? Yet, what if that "Pope" is praying alongside you as if your religion is legitimate?
@@CatholicTVC What you call the "Vatican 2 Novus Order Church" doesn't teach universalism. Now, you can distort different documents, appeal to different thinkers to justify being in schism with Christ's Church. But at the end of the day, Sedevacantism is a schismatic and heretical group. Why? Because it holds that Christ's promise that hell would not prevail against the Church expired, and that the Rock that Christ built his Church on crumbled.
Throughout history, there have been schismatics who make the claim that the visible, Roman Catholic Church is no longer the true Church and has been usurped by something else. Protestants makes this claim. Mormons makes this claim. Countless heretical groups make this claim. Old Calendar Orthodox make this claim against regular Orthodox. Heck, Muslims say the same thing (although using different words).
"haha, well if the Vatican 2 church is right than I'm okay. If it's wrong, then..." then what? If the Roman Catholic Church's supposed universalism is wrong, then who is right? Is it the Sedevacantist? The Mormons? Old Catholics? The Orthodox?
What about the Eastern Catholic Churches? They are in union with Rome. They don't celebrate the Novus Ordo mass. They're not making these supposed universalism claims.
What about the Canons Regular, the Fraternity of St Peter? What about all those TLMers who recognize Vatican 2's authority, while appealing to pre-Vatican 2 expressions of things?
People say this is a great argument, when it's entirely dependent on a miss use, and miss understanding of what the Catholic Church teaches.
Sedevacantism is really sad. It's lost. It's the inability to submit to authority. It's very Protestant. Protestants abuse scripture while Sedevacantists abuse Church documents.
Sedevacantism isn't Catholic, it's simply anti-Catholic, anti-Pope. Same goes for Protestantism, Orthodoxy, SSPX, Old Catholics, Anglicans.
It's sad.
Hi, TVC! New arrival in your channel, already a sedevacantist myself, and truly impressed by your exposition: simple, clear, cristalline and logical, and free of the prejudices so often found when talking about these themes. Already subscribed!
Two questions for you, if you're willing to answer:
1: Which sede institute are you associated with? CMRI, Mater Boni Consilii, SGG, independent, etc.?
2: Have you ever looked into Griff Ruby's Lumen Gentium Theory? He, in his two Sede Vacante books, expounds all ecclesiological doctrines relevant to modern times and develops a Theory to explain all of them in an academic and organizer fashion. Most of the Theory, however can be found online. I think it's a great analysis of the current crisis, that goes beyond mere basic sedevacantism and offers a full doctrinal and theological basis (like Cassiciacum, but easier to understand and more self-consistent) Even if you happen to not agree with it, it's still very thought-provoking
Long live Christ the King!
Curiously, the Theory holds that one can prove sedevacantism from the Vatican II documents themselves! (most particularly Lumen Gentium, since It redefines the very Nature of the Church)
Hello there, and thank you for your kind words and for reaching out.
I am not tied to any one particular organisation but have co-operated with and received mass from priests from each, including some independent priests.
I have not read Ruby's full thesis, although I have his books on my reading list. Do you happen to know if a condensed version of his theory is expounded anywhere?
@@CatholicTVC I’m sorry, but my comments are being removed for no discernible reason whatsoever. Try searching on the internet.
Try contacting John Gregory, or searching “Griff Ruby straight stuff”
Thank you. Many of my own comments get deleted too, for unknown reasons. So I appreciate the confusion. But yes, thank you for the recommendation
QED 🙏
If all churches are part of God and everyone is saved, then why remain Catholic ??
Exactly, Christ did not purchase the Church with his own blood, so that being incorporated into it was optional.
Every single baptized individual has a moral obligation, under pain of mortal sin, to enter into the Church before the end of their life.
Of course the Church doesn't have jurisdiction over the non-baptized, as those individuals who die unbaptized, above the age of reason, are lost because of Original Sin.
And the sacraments?
What is your question, specifically?
Well put. It is sad that Bergoglio hates anybody that holds the true Catholic faith but loves all that go against Christs teachings.
Reality seems to be these modernist Popes of the Novus Ordo religion know that people holding fast to the true religion jeopardize there objective of destroying any traditions or dogmas.
More quotes that are beyond the pale . I can’t beleive people think this is a serious religion. I’ve made the argument. I say the good news for ME is that I’m in you’re church! But it’s not good news for you if you’re wrong!
How would you respond to the argument that many Traditional Catholics who do not hold the sedevacantist position would make that the quotes you provided from the various popes/"popes" are not part of the OM as they contradict what has always been taught by the Catholic Church over many centuries and that they are simply incorrect and can therefore be ignored. I struggle with the OM and am always uncertain as to what exactly falls within it.
The documents of the council are (if Paul VI was a true pope) of the highest degree of authority and infallibility. Under no circumstances are catholics allowed to reject them if Paul VI was a true pope.
I would say "exactly".
That's why I quoted "popes" and documents and things approved by the Vatican... it's not just that the popes said these things, it's the fact that the Church (as a whole) consistently teaches this stuff (which is what makes something OM).
And so, if these Traditionalists believe that these guys are legitimate popes of a legitimate Catholic Church, they have to admit that the OM of this Church actively and explicitly contradicts Church teaching - it's starting all of them right in the face, as if they can't see it because it's on the end of their nose.
@@CatholicTVC 🎯
Fr Cekada's Sermon on the Universal Ordinary Magesterium
BTW...it has been so drilled into modern post VII "Catholics". That infallibility only works in an excathedra proclamation. 😢
Ordinary Magisterium is infallible when the condition of universality is satisfied. Precisely what 'universal' means is the point under dispute. The trads you mention would say both universality in place (that means moral unanimity of bishops+pope today) and time (same thing but over centuries) are necessary. I would answer that either place or time suffices. For proof I'd appeal to some papal documents that I can't recall offhand now and will edit later, and to the books of Boulenger, van Noort, Franzelin, Tanquerey. I would also say that it is common sense. If both conditions were required these things would happen 1)you would have to go back and check teaching over years, impossible for even many clerics, let alone semi literate working men, to check, and is never required in the true Church because you're safe with the catechesis at your local parish at any time (indefectibility, church remaining what she is, the Ark).
2)the Church if at any time would teach error contrary to what came before, the mark of Catholicity and apostolicity will be lost. due to the disconnect. Then I add a historical tidbit that the Old 'Catholics' who schismed in 1870 used the same tactic (both/and) to reject V1. Trads only differ in using it to reject V2. Not saying V2 should be accepted but the only way to reject it is to say it's not the Church that gave it. You can't say Pope, hierarchy are valid, promulgated it and still we get to reject it because not one with the past, because 'not being one with the past' is an impossibility for the Church, no more possible than having a vegetarian egg.
I get the feeling you ignored aspects of those documents. The Church makes a distinction between those who are separated from the Church by circumstance and those who choose to dissent from the Church. You'd fall under the category of those in dissent. Picking and choosing is supposed to be a practice of liberal Catholics, is it not?
4:42
@@CatholicTVCI like how you didn’t show the proper full phrase where it references the passage in 1 Corinthians 12 where Paul states this.
We are baptized. We are then part of the body of Christ.
To say we can exclude ourselves from the Church is to sever part of Jesus’ body.
You’re assuming that being in the church = being saved.
Which isn’t the case. The Bible speaks of losing salvation, but not being no longer part of the body of Christ.
@@bourbonrebel5515Heresy and schism separate you from the Church. I believe Pope Pius XII taught this, maybe in Mystici Corporis Christi.
@@jimmyplayscds The visible part yes. But if Jesus compares the Church to part of his body, then you’re saying part of his body is being severed.
@@bourbonrebel5515The Church maintains its integrity even when members or large swaths of people separate themselves from it by either schism or heresy. Is Pius XII wrong?
But there's no Sede Masses in England. 🤷♂️
Yes there are.
Here is a website which lists all of them:
ukmasses.com
In fact, we are having a pilgrimage this weekend
One thing that definitely is not traditional about sedevacantism is a 60 (and going) year interregnum in the papacy, supposedly lacking a valid successor for the bishop of Rome; this is completely unprecedented. The longest interregnum was 4 years in the 1200’s, and that involved major political infighting among the cardinals which has no comparison with Vat2. Furthermore, everyone then knew that the election was being stalled, so there was no pope, meanwhile the postconciliar church has had consistent popes universally accepted by the faithful. You may say they are antipopes, and sure there have been antipopes in history but there was always a true pope somewhere. If 4 years is already extreme for an empty see, then 60 years is just too ridiculous to maintain. I thought Jesus had prayed that Peter’s faith not fail, that he would be the one to strengthen the others.
How is it not traditional? Where, exactly, in any Church document or pronouncement or decree does it say that 60 years is too long? You have already admitted that interregna can last multiple years. It is indeed unprecedented, but we live in grave times. That is no disproof.
Sedevacantism is logical because you are faced with two choices:
a) you admit that there has been a 60+ year interregnum (which is possible, even if it is extreme), or
b) you admit that the church and its legitimate popes have been sailing the faithful towards heresy and damnation by the teaching of her magesterium for the last 60+ years (which is categorically impossible)
Really?
By holding that the vacancy is ridiculous to maintain and too long with nothing from the true Church to back that up is akin to protestants saying that Jesus couldn't have possibly meant that we must eat His flesh and drink his blood even though He said that they were true meat and true drink, or that God cannot change common bread and wine into His Body and Blood. God can do whatever He wants to.
Chastisements from God for His purposes aren't without precedence.
We have been warned repeatedly of the wolves in sheep's clothing.
We must pray for the scales to come off and the grace to persevere in God's truth, not fallen man's idea of truth.
My point is that precisely because it’s wildly unprecedented, it is not a tradition of the church that we ought to maintain. If you can show precedent, feel free. I really don’t think we live in such grave times to warrant 60 years of not having a visible head of the church. Again, even when there was prolonged interregna, it was due to political gridlock. There is no political gridlock with Vat2, in fact it was largely accepted. What in the postconciliar church do you think warrants this supposed interregnum if not gridlock? If you think it’s because the vast majority of the church fell away, including all the bishops in communion with Rome, then I’d have to say that’s even more untraditional since we believe the Church is indefectible. The Church will persist to the end of time, and it will be preserved unimpaired in its essential characteristics; it will never be corrupt in faith and morals, nor can it lose the apostolic hierarchy or the sacraments. To say the Pope and most bishops fell away is to argue the church is not indefectible, and Jesus’s kingdom on earth can be and is now decapitated.
Honestly, that’s a false dichotomy, because I could argue for option c) that the church continues to have legitimate popes and that any supposed contradiction in their teaching with preconciliar church teaching is merely apparent and can be reconciled.
God can do whatever he wants, but when he has made a promise that his kingdom will never fall away, I don’t think it’s prudent to believe God contradicts his own promise by allowing the church to fall away. That’s like saying God promised that the Son will return at the end of time to judge the world, some to everlasting life and others to torment, but then instead decided there would be no judgment and everyone indiscriminately goes to hell because “God can do whatever he wants to.”
If God can do whatever he wants to, then it’s just as valid to believe he can preserve the Church with an unbroken line of successors of St Peter until the end of time, even if the faith gets watered down in some places. At least this stance is consistent with the NT and sacred tradition, sedevacantism is consistent with novelties like the great apostasy theory many Protestants hold.
@@killianmiller6107 And so your options are:
a) accept that most of the Clergy broke away (which is possible. See: the Aryan heresy), or
b) admit that the church and its legitimate popes have been sailing the faithful towards heresy and damnation by the teaching of her magesterium for the last 60+ years (which is categorically impossible)
Option c) is untenable as is proven by the consistent contradictions between Pre-V2 and Post-V2 teachings. One V2 publication that I quoted in the video states explicitly that the V2 documents give teachings on faith and morals that have never been taught by the church before.
When did the schism happen? At the start of Vatican II? At the end? When John XXIII was elected? When Paul VI was?
When John XXIII was elected; the first of the non-popes of the new church. That was the start. But if you like, the schism was formalised by the time of the end of the council.
What exact date did the Eastern Schism occur on?
@@CatholicTVC So, you admit that you who are against John XXIII, every Pope since him, and Vatican II, are schismatics.
@@georgepierson4920 Except that neither he, nor the others are/were popes.
@@CatholicTVC How do you know they're not Popes?
@@virginlamo8202 Because they were public heretics who didn't hold the Catholic faith
I never understood those in Vatican II Church.
Only Catholic I met after 1967: Richard Burton/ Beckett✌
I can see some mayor errors in the argument: First of all we should speak about the hierarchy of documents. Some interview with the pope does not hold the same authority as a dogmatic constitution. Second: I think there might be a missrepresentation of the idea exposed by the 2Vatican, because there is a difference between being in the church and obtaining salvation. Even someone in the church can obtain no salvation. When it is said that other members are also in the church, the intention is to say, that they might also get salvation. So, yeah a Sedevacantist might get salvation, despite of the scismatic believes. So, its not so simple, and preaching for scism is also problematic
the VII " hierarchy" have no jurisdiction/ authority. As non-catholic heretical apostates who cease to hold the faith. They are the wolves in sheep's clothing crucifying Christ's body( the church)
The Church was pushed back into the catacombs in 1968 with the implementation of the diabolical sacrilege and Montini's (neo Caiphas... antipope Paul VI) demon baby ...Novus Ordo Missae and the deliberate demolition of ALL the Sacraments BEGINNING with Holy Orders
No, this is always shown to be a wood-though-the-trees argument. You might say that the authorities don't support these ideas if parts of them are read and interpreted in a very careful way, but the truth is that the V2 church actively, physically and publicly acted as if non-Catholic religion and schism is A-OK. That's why it allows Catholics to worship with non-Catholics and even for non-catholic services to be held in catholic churches; something that would have been unthinkable in the past because it's basically mixing the True religion of God with every other kind of demon-worship.
@@CatholicTVC when is it said that Catholics are allowed to "worship" with non-Catholics? Unless you're referring to the permission of some schismatics, such as the Eastern Orthodox, to receive the Eucharist
@@johnhoelzeman6683 In the Decree on Eccumenism. I cover this point more thoroughly in my video "Sedevacantism Visualised" under "Proofs Part 2"
Even if you except sedeVaticanism true and reject Vatican 2 church. Which sedevaticanist sect do you follow? There is numerous ones and they all don't agree with each other. CMRI, SSPV, MHFM, and all the independent basement sedes.
I answer this point in my video: Sedevacantism Visualised, at 8:08
@@CatholicTVC not really. So all sedes are correct then. Is that what you meant? All this stuff sounds confusing. I'd rather become Greek Orthodox.
@@lupea8079 All Sedevacantists are right about Sedevacantism. It doesn't follow that they're all equally correct about every other opinion they have.
However, opinions are different from dogmas. And disagreements about opinions doesn't break you into a "sect". That's why all the main priests and organisations let you receive mass from each-other, despite their disagreements.
To find a true organisation/priest they need 3 things. They must:
1. Accept Sedevacantism
2. Teach traditional Catholic Faith and Morals, and
3. Have valid ordinations
That's all
@@CatholicTVC oh okay got it. Thank you for your time.
@@lupea8079 you're welcome and God bless you
Than why can't I just use the same argument for being Protestant heretic?
Yes... that's the whole point of the argument.
If Vatican 2 is right, you may as well just be a Protestant or anything else.
the Council of Trent also states that all baptized are members of the body of Christ. this isn't mere Vatican II lingo. and even before Vatican II it was taught that valid sacraments exist outside the Church and if the people receiving them are invincibly ignorant such sacraments may benefit them
however if you lack invincible ignorance then you cannot be saved even if you were a sedevacantist
The V2 clergy worship with Muslims
@@CatholicTVCLol you couldn’t even rebut the argument.
Source from Trent? If Trent says that then it’s referring to Catholics obviously. With V2 the lines are blurred in practice, as this video shows.
@@MarktheShark98
the issue of Church membership is a hotly debated topic even long before Vatican II.
Quoting Trent
"the instrumental cause [of Justification] is the sacrament of baptism.....whence, man, through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives, in the said justification, together with the remission of sins, all these (gifts) infused at once, faith, hope, and charity."
Canon 32 in the same decree also implies all justified are members of Christ's Body
@@mousakandah5188 Are Protestants members of the body in your view?
Also it doesn’t say “all the baptized are members of the body of Christ.”
Which decree is it?
Novus Ordites will say "ya but the documents still say you have to enter the Catholic Church to be saved" 😂😂
The V2 documents are littered with this type of double talk
🤣😂😅
wow this such good news. there is no salvation
Why would you conclude that?
Even if Mary was not a virgin, before, during or after the Lord's birth...
even if Mary was not immaculately conceived or assumed into Heaven, and in teaching these things - the Church taught error - we are still saved.
The Church hasn't taught error. Mary was immaculately conceived.
Lumen Gentium 14
"Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse to enter it, or to remain in it.”
😂😂😂
What kind of nonsense is this?
Like there is any Protestant or Orthodox out there that knows that the Catholic faith is the true faith but still remains in schism 😂😂😂
Or that the Novus Ordite who leaves the Church, still knows that the Church was established by Christ.
😂😂😂😂
Are EO right then? Are old Catholics that reject Vatican I right? Its just odd you claim sedevacantist reject Vatican II when they exist before that. It is just a weak argument when YOU happen to leave that is when its okay to reject the church.
That's like saying that if Islam, Judaism and Christianity all profess a God, how do you know which religion is right? The answer is that there are better and worse arguments for their respective claims. The EO, "Old Catholics", Protestants and Sedevacantists don't make the same claims for the same reasons. In fact, their ideas are radically different.
Show some discernment.
The interpretations of Unitatis Redintegratio presented in this video are dubious at best.
In your first quote, I note that paragraph 3 states that those liturgical actions *can* engender a life of grace and *can* aptly give access to the communion of salvation. Nowhere in the document does it state that schismatic churches that have these liturgical actions *necessarily do* engender a life of grace for someone that is actively resistant to the Catholic faith.
In your second quote, it is clear that the things talked about as 'existing outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church' are things like the theological virtue of faith and charity and the Sacred Scriptures. Does anyone actually deny that the Scriptures do not exist outside the Catholic Church, or that nobody that is not in the Body of the Church cannot have the theological virtue of charity? That is an absurd conclusion that contradicts the Doctors of the Church.
In your third quote from Lumen Gentium, I started to become convinced that this was actually interpreted in bad faith. I don't know any theologian that claims to be Catholic that would say that that part of LG 16 means that you're going to be saved if you accept the existence of God. That is simply ridiculous. Look no further than paragraph 14 to see that such an interpretation is crazy: "Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved."
The Church has always taught that Christ is present in the worship of the heretics and the schismatics. The quote from Pope Benedict XVI avails nothing.
The Church has also always taught that the indelible mark of Baptism is the entrance into the Church and that it cannot be removed. Does this mean that all sedevacantists will be saved? Obviously not.
The quote from Pope Francis also avails nothing. It is evident that the Pope does not mean to say that nobody can apostatize from the one true Faith, but only that one cannot cut themselves off from God in a way that He is never willing to forgive them. Take note of what you left out in that audience, when the Holy Father says, "That the Church is reserved for the perfect? No. It means that it is the community of saved sinners . The Church is the community of saved sinners. This is a beautiful definition. No one can exclude themselves from the Church, etc."
Why do sedevacantists have an addiction to taking the words of the Roman Pontiffs and spinning them, deleting words in the quote to make them sound like heretics? If you have the truth, good sir, why don't you show the entire quote, explain the context, and then give your interpretation? These interpretations are honestly worse than the Protestants' abuse of Scripture to suit their heresies.
The thing with these kinds of comments is that they seem to show a complete unawareness of the practice of your so-called Church...
The quotes from the Popes avail nothing... your Church still regards Catholicism as necessary... these "Popes" hold to that sincerely... really?
Are you unaware of the fact that these so-called "Popes" have openly honoured, prayed with and received blessings from other religions that have been denounced as schismatic at best and at worst, demonic?
Are you unaware of the laissez-faire attitude that most parishes have towards whether "Catholics" pray in a catholic church or a protestant one?
Are you unaware of the myriad occasions in which "Catholics" have joined in prayer with non-Catholics and even invited them into their Churches to share in prayer in the spirit of "ecumenism" as if all of these prayers and religions are equal, despite the fact that this would have been rank heresy in the past?
The reason why a video like this can be made in confidence is because it's a slice of a bigger picture. How do we know that the V2 Church has confidence that other sects and even other religions are ways to salvation? Because that's how it acts. And there is clear precedent for that in these documents. You might think that they can be interpreted differently. In practice, your "Church" disagrees.
A Pope can't support Islam yet condemn Sedevacantism. That's insane.
It’s a clever argument, but it does not stand up to scrutiny. For the sake of discussion, let’s leave Pope Francis aside.
Cherry picking Benedict XVI and Vatican II quotes to make them sound universalist is misguided. I can quote you back more references from both that teach one must remain part of the true Church to be saved. In charity, then, we must interpret both in the most orthodox and consistent way, the same way we treat biblical statements that seem to contradict the faith (“call no man father”) but really don’t.
Catholics must believe that God’s grace reaches beyond the visible boundaries of the Church. He can do anything He wants. That is far different from saying that all schismatics are saved. The Church never says this if you read her statements closely. Invincible ignorance can excuse people of the culpability of grave sins. Valid but schismatic priests can confer valid sacraments (that offer real graces) even if illicit. The Church has always understood these points. A person who knowingly participates in illicit Sacraments, however, may be committing a serious sin and be culpable for losing his salvation.
While it endangers the soul to hold some false beliefs mixed with faith in Christ, a bigger problem is knowingly leaving the Church. A person born into Greek Orthodoxy without any exposure to Catholicism may be deemed by God invincibly ignorant, but the same cannot usually be said of the person who willingly leaves the Church.
So the argument falls apart because there are some graces available to folks outside the visible boundaries of the Church, and the Church never taught (even in the quotes presented) that those folks would definitely be saved. Furthermore, it makes no attempt to understand subjective culpability.
Then look at the V2 church's teaching on prayer with non-Catholics, and look at how widely it has been embraced...
Interesting exercise in the suspension of disbelief... "let's leave Pope Francis aside"... TVC, play in my sandbox according to my shifting rules so I can build the better sand castle...
@@CatholicTVC
Can you cite the passage from Vatican 2 please?
Also, sincere question: what would you do if you were at Thanksgiving dinner at an Eastern Orthodox relative’s house, and he led grace? Would you say, “Sorry, we can’t both pray to Jesus to bless this food”?
@@pronghornhunter I covered this question and presented the documents in my other video, Sedevacantism visualised.
Plus, to your other question, there is a distinct and obvious difference between individual moments of prayer and attending services or other religions
@@DickDatchery
There is no suspension of disbelief. I’m not trying to build a sand castle on Pope Francis. I’m just not addressing the topic of Pope Francis in this post. Could you address the other points I made?
Wow it is really hard to find so many sophisms in a video as short as this. Guys, sedevacantism is cismatic and the followers of this sect will be damn unless they find their way back to the Holy authority of the Pope. Period.
Meanwhile this is the same “church” that says that the other two “Abrahamic” religions worship “the same God” when nothing could be further from the truth.
You literally gave up your ability to condemn anyone.
I like the video, but isn't the irony a bit wasted when it comes from a supporter of BoD?
It may well do if you lack a basic understanding of what Baptism of Desire is and what it does
BoD is not biblical and has never be thought, its a false position.
@@asintonic Are you sure?
traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Information/Baptism_of_Desire.html
Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4
And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
@@asintonic taught. God Bless.
Vatican 2 is not dogmatic lol. The video follow a wrong premiss
It was presented as an ecumenical council, and therefore binding upon all of the faithful.
Vatican II is an ecumenical council, the principles of which, especially concerning faith and morals, have been taught and enforced by the Universal Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. It therefore literally *MUST* be obeyed and treated as infallible or you are in schism with the Vatican.
Or, you can accept that the Vatican II hierarchy is invalid authority...