วีดีโอ

@@ardalla535 Matthew 16:13-19 is clear, Jesus established a Church; Jesus gave Simon Peter the keys of the Kingdom; the Book of Acts shows a definitive , hierarchical Church, fully operative in the 1st Century. All the writings of the Church fathers show a Christianity utterly organized around the authority of Bishops, with loyalty to the Bishop and belonging to the visible , living Church as the litmus test for truly being a Christian. Read the seven letters of Ignatius of Antioch as a clear example. There was no definitive cannon of New Testament Scripture until 382 AD, established by the Council of Rome under Pope Damasus and the Bishops of the Church. Which came first, the Complete Bible or the Church? Answer: The Church, that in turn, by its Divine authority, gave us the New Testament.

@@morganqasabian8480 So true.

@@joncardenas3203 Thanks, appreciate it, pray for me. 🙏

@@philfrank5601 Thanks for the comment and the advice. God Bless .🙏

@@kenofken9458 😂🤣😅Ka-pla! !!!

@@simonewilliams7224 ???

That same Pope altered the litgury a few years later. Litguries always are changing. Most people are using a litgury from somewhere in the 20th century.

Receiving the Eucharist in the hands was the acceptable form for 800 years, so no its not sacrilege, however there is a way to recieve in the hands by coupling your hands as to form a throne to recieve.

@@Swish82 Welcome Home to His Holy Church!

@@Harbinger290 Luke was not an Apostle; Mark was not an Apostle; Paul was chosen by Christ well after the resurrection and ascension of Christ; The epistles of Paul were not epistles of the 12 as Paul was not one of the 12. The successors of the Apostles (over 3 centuries later) selected the 1st century writings, rejecting many others, put them into a canon of scripture as the 27 books of the New Testament in 382 AD. Prior to this they were circulating letters. Those several generations of Christians for the first 3 centuries were 90 % illiterate , and there would be no moveable type printing press until the 1400s. So the idea ( a Protestant one) of an exclusively Book centered faith is unhistorical, irrational and false. Jesus established a Church, and that Church in turn established the canon of scripture, and is its interpreter. I ask again, how do you know the collection of books that make up the New Testament are the correct ones? Is the table of contents of your Bible itself infallible scripture? The only way to seriously claim an infallible collection of books is to have an infallible editor to choose them. Jesus established a Church, He never mentioned anything about a future set of texts. I believe the scriptures are correct because the Leaders of His Church selected them, How do you know?

@@catholicskeptic So I see your position is that you control the scriptures so you alone can interpret them. For the sake of fruitless argument let’s go with your assertions? Who controlled the written word of God before you took control of it?? Thx

@@martinmartin1363 The spirit of antichrist is certainly operative in these days, yet we are promised the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church. It may at times appear that way, but ultimate victory will come.

@@catholicskeptic Thanks l understand what you are saying but I fear a great persecution coming for Catholics everywhere

This is what our Lord tells us,as Catholics we were protected and separated from the evil plan to defile his church,always protected us,the fight to rid the cancer of his church of actors cheats and perverts worst decisions was going after his children,pope Francis is cleaning out our church and if you can't stand up for that then you have lost the holy spirit

This shows remarkably little faith in the Church.

@@atrifle8364 I don’t know you and you don’t know me to say I have little faith shows a lack of humility

I am a later life convert who entered a Lutheran seminary in the early 1970s. At that time, everything was changing and in chaos. An old Baptist professor counselled me that everything depends on the reality, or not, of God. I really appreciate this presentation, which evokes this theme. "The Prior Actuality of God". Lex Orandi Lex Credendi. Worship must be God centred.

@@myleshagar9722 Thanks, and amen. And that was the Latin phrase I couldn't remember in the video. Thanks, God Bless. 🙏

​@@myleshagar9722- The problem is that God doesn't need Mass. We need Mass to worship God. The people who I see who insist on that quite often mean ironically, "Mass should be done to my specifications"

i would like to do most of a NO in latin.

@@williammcenaney1331 These reasons you present are very compelling arguments, but I would exercise some serious caution in simply a accepting them at face value. As Catholics we place such high importance upon the principle that we have a "living Church ", that Christ established a "living Church", and set over it shepherds to guide His flock. To get too caught up in the concepts to which you are referring, is also to suggest that each of us may also simply make our private interpretations and judgments on the magisterium of the last several decades. The resulting possible paranoia can set in to one's mindset and govern all our theological choices, possibly resulting in a very protestant mindset concerning doctrine, in spite of believing very Catholic Traditions. I know there is much suspicion, and some of it quite reasonable, that appears to demonstrate a definite conspiracy, and that is a possibility, but I also believe that we must guard our own personal perceptions with a strong dose of humility. Although what you describe is very much possible, and even evidential , , nevertheless I still think it wise not to ascribe motives, evil intentions or anything like that to all party's involved in the decisions that have led to the current confusions of how things are done. I see the dangers at work, but I am reminded that we wrestle not against flesh and blood. It's more vital to pray, and guard our own hearts. But what you describe is a sad and troubling reminder of the times we live in.

@@catholicskeptic I I trust the Church an am happy to obey Christ my obeying her and Christ's vicar the Pope. But does that me that I must approve the Pachamama event that shocked Catholics in 2019? Should I praise the interreligious prayer meetings Pope John Paul II chaired in Assisi in 1986 and 2002, where pagans committed idolatry? Was it alright for Pope Benedict XVI to give Holy Communion to Brother Roger Schutz merely because he, a Protestant, dreamed of receiving it? Strictly, that may have been at least objective sacrilege if there was no sanctifying grace in his soul. How did I judge privately by quoting the Cardinal who headed the Holy Office during Vatican II? I mention the Pachama event and so forth partly because I hope you'll tell me whther Catholics should agree with those things merely because a Pope does them. It's hard to know what you mean by "living Church" when I remember the Modernist sense of "living tradition." After all, you probably know that sense, the phrase implies that doctrinal statements can change their meanings when Vatican I teaches that those meanings must always stay the same. That document tells us that, "For, the doctrine of faith which God revealed has not been handed down as a philosophic invention to the human mind to be perfected, but has been entrusted as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding "Therefore […] let the understanding, the knowledge, and wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries; but let it be solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding.'' [Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, 23, 3]." inters.org/Vatican-Council-I-Dei-Filius But Pope John Paul II appealed to "living tradition" in Ecclesia Dei Afflicta when he said Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre acted schismatically when he consecrated the four bishops in 1988. I'm not accusing that Holy Father of anything. Still, the charge seems false when I reread the sermon His Grace preached before consecrating them. The Archbishop said, "Lastly, you have at your disposal at the bookstall some books and flyers which contain all the elements necessary to help you better understand why this ceremony, which is apparently done against the will of Rome, is in no way a schism. We are not schismatics! If an excommunication was pronounced against the bishops of China, who separated themselves from Rome and put themselves under the Chinese government, one very easily understands why Pope Pius XII excommunicated them. There is no question of us separating ourselves from Rome, nor of putting ourselves under a foreign government, nor of establishing a sort of parallel church as the Bishops of Palmar de Troya have done in Spain. They have even elected a pope, formed a college of cardinals... It is out of the question for us to do such things. Far from us be this miserable thought to separate ourselves from Rome!" JPII wrote, "4. The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth".(5)" How do laymen help doctrine develop? For years, Catholics have accused the Archbishop of causing a schism. So, to be charitable to those people, I'll assume they didn't know about that sermon. Then again, I suggest that if that Pontiff knew had read it,, he wouldn't have accused the Archbishop. If I thought the Archbishop was schismatic after I'd read his sermon, I'd be shockingly uncharitable by suspecting that he lied, Maybe I'm biased because I'm a tertiary because I'm a tertiary in the SSPX's Third Ordo and a parishioner at an SSPX chapel. But I think you see points. Archbishop Lefebvre got unjustly accused and and Catholics sometimes must question novelties. I don't mean to judge privately. I merely want to believe what the Catholic has always taught and worship the way Latin Rite Catholics had always done that before Vatican II. Please forgive me for this long post because I need to quote Pope Benedict XVI's book "Principles of Catholic Theology." I'm sure you know he wrote about Bl. Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors when he, Benedict said, "If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text [Gaudium et Spes] as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of countersyllabus. Harnack, as we know, interpreted the Syllabus of Pius IX as nothing less than a declaration of war against his generation. This is correct insofar as the Syllabus established a line of demarcation against the determining forces of the nineteenth century: against the scientific and political world view of liberalism. In the struggle against modernism this twofold delimitation was ratified and strengthened. Since then many things have changed. The new ecclesiastical policy of Pius XI produced a certain openness toward the liberal understanding of the state. In a quiet but persistent struggle, exegesis and Church history adopted more and more the postulates of liberal science, and liberalism, too, was obliged to undergo many significant changes in the great political upheavals of the twentieth century. As a result, the one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church under Pius IX and Pius X in response to the situation created by the new phase of history inaugurated by the French Revolution was to a large extent, corrected via facti, especially in Central Europe, but there was still no statement of the relationship that would exist between the Church and the world that had come into existence after 1789. In fact, an attitude that was largely prerevolutionary continued to exist in countries with strong Catholic majorities. Hardly anyone today will deny that the Spanish and Italian Concordats strove to preserve too much of a view that no longer corresponded with the facts. Hardly anyone today will deny that, in the field of education and with respect to the historico-critical method in modern science, anachronisms existed that corresponded closely to this adherence to an obsolete Church-state relationship. Only a careful investigation of the different ways in which acceptance of the new era was accomplished in various parts of the Church could unravel the complicated network of causes that formed the background of the "Pastoral Constitution", and only thus can the dramatic history of its influence be brought to light. Let us be content to say that the text serves as a countersyllabus and, as such, represents, on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789. ~ Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987) pp. 381-2." Let me ebd this post with a question, How can Pope Benedict XVI expect Catholics to know for sure that Vatican II is consistent with what the Chuch has always taught when he seems to want us to believe some falsehoods Pius IX condemned? After all, "counter" means against. By the way, I'm quoting an online source. But I've read the quotatiob in that book by Benedict. www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9syll.htm www.rosarychurch.net/marxism/counter_syllabus.html inters.org/Vatican-Council-I-Dei-Filius www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Episcopal-Consecration.htm www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

@@williammcenaney1331 I agree with much of you say here. And I am a fan of the late Michael Davies, and his work on Archbishop Lefevr ( I know I spelled that wrong, sorry). I am in fact sympathetic to Traditionalist positions. I merely point out the importance of guarding our hearts. Some on youtube whom I like , do have a tendency to spend time calling Pope Francis evil in heart, an evil Pope, etc. While I admanently disagree with him and his choices, many statements, documents, etc. I will not , by God's grace assign him motives, not my call. For the record Pachmama was blasphemous, Idolatrous and sickening. JP II 's participation in the Assisi event was awful, and don't even get me started on the current head of the Dicastery, 🤢. But yes your concerns are all valid, and nothing in me will keep my head in the sand concerning these issues and events. But I emphatically pray for the Holy Father everyday, and trust Christ that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church. God Bless. And thanks for siting all the sources, I will look into them.

@@catholicskeptic Mr.Quinn it's a joy to know how much common ground we've discovered, especially about the Assisi meetings and Pachamama. Although I hide the pain, I want to sob when I reflect on events like the ones we agree on. How can any orthodox Catholic approve when even a Pope approves of ecumenical gatherings suggesting that any religion is good enough to to get people. No pope and obligate any Catholic to do anything that would make him doubt any Catholic doctrine. I've met many Protestants because I belonged to Protestant youth groups during high school. Pastor Walter Litke and his wife were heroically. virtuous Lutherans who always put my to shape, even now when they've left this life. But since Christ's Mystical Body is the Catholic Church they were objectively outside it. And their denomination was not an never will be a part of it. In my opinion, events like the Assisi meetings are immoral. Pagans commit idolatry there and those meetings suggest the religious indifferentism Blessed Pope Pius IX. condemns in the Syllabus. I'm not required to approve of anything like that, Neither are you. Pope Benedict XVI was a brilliant scholar and an admirably tactful man. But with all his wonderful intentions, he still helped prolong the Church's current crisis. I love him because he published Summorum Pontificum. Sadly, if this what this article says is true, he wanted to replace the TLM with a hybrid. Benedict wouldn't have written Traditionis Custodes. He wouldn't have tried to abolish the TLM. But like Pope Francis, he wanted it to go away. www.traditioninaction.org/bev/095bev02-27-2008.htm Others will disagreee with me when I tell you I think the Novus Ordo is a schismatic rite. No, I'm not suggesting that Catholics behave schismatically by attending it. I use the phrase "schismatic rite" because like many other traditionalist Catholics, I believe Pope St. Pius V bound his successors when he published Quo Primum Temporae to codify the TLM. In that document, he wrote that the only other allowed rites of Mass were already at least 200 years old. The Council of Trent teaches that the TLM is the received an approved rite of Mass for the Church's Roman rite.That means the Novus Ordo can't be the received and approved one since in came out in 1969 or 1970. Many will tell you that document was merely disciplinary. Still, I think it's much more than that. As you know Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci knew that many doubted or even lost the Faith because of the Novus Ordo. You also remember that the Novus Ordo's "institution narrative" can invalidate a Mass if the priest reads it as though it's a mere story. The liturgical way we pray determines what we believe. And the Novus Ordo explains why many Catholics stopped believing in the Real Presence. Remember the memorial acclamation, "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again." The priest says or says that when Our Lord is already on the altar. So, the acclamation distracts the faithful from Our Eucharist Lord to remind then of his second coming. www.papalencyclicals.net/pius05/p5quopri.htm Catholics must obey Christ, the Church, and the Pope, though we're not obligated to obey blindly. So, I always remember what Melchior Cano pointed out during or after the Council of Trent. Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See-they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations. -MELCHIOR CANO, Theologian of the Council of Trent Ferrara, Christopher; Woods Jr., Thomas. The Great Facade: The Regime of Novelty in the Catholic Church from Vatican II to the Francis Revolution (Second Edition) . Angelico Press. Kindle Edition. I adore Our Lord and love his Church. So, I'd feel privileged to die for either or both of them. But I can't embrace the novelties that came during and after Vatican II. If I'm around or disobedient because I resist those things, I pray Our Lord will show me that I'm mistaken. But for now, I see now reason to change my mind. Please pray that what I'm going won't get God to reject my soul and me during my particular judgment. I strive to be loyal to the Holy Trinity. If I'll be damned for disloyalty, that will be my fault and mine alone. Thank you for your excellent podcast and your admirable prudence.

​@@catholicskeptic- "Patchemama" was Mary and Elizabeth, a set of statues from Amazon representatives. Patchemama is from the Andes, a faceless goddess that means something like "Mother Nature". The Andes and Amazon, while both in South America, are almost different worlds, with vastly different cultures and histories. The English speaking media is not truthful, which is why I keep encouraging research. It only takes finding a few corrections to see the pattern the media uses. Pope Francis may well be a saint already or mostly there. I have learned to hesitate when it involves media contraveries.

@@TheLjdevlin86 Sure, the Missal I was reading from is Saint Joseph Daily Missal Confraternity Version Catholic Book Publishing Co. New York, 1959 edition . ( TLM) And Blessed Trinity Missal And Prayer Book 2011 Mass Translation ( Novis Ordo) Thanks for the comment. God Bless.

@@catholicskeptic many thanks! 🙏

The word Breakfast means Break The Fast, eating after morning Mass. It's the same in Spanish, with Desayuno meaning Un Fasting.

I've seen more hosts falling out of the mouth of people receiving in the tongue than in the hand. Because their mouth is dry. People don't know that water does not break fast. This is also the cause for the host to stick to the roof of your mouth which is uncomfortable. Anyway it is the whole person who is in a state of grace or not. The hand is no more sinful than the tongue; quite the contrary if you follow James' epistle. Communion is a true food, as Jesus said, and you do with it as you do with food. You use your hands to take food to your mouth. People sometimes don't know that it is not sinful to bite and chew the host, for example. Watch the priest.

The current Missal asks pewsitters to learn to love their neighbors. It's built into the experience. The way that current Missal of 1962 is generally done, to perfect specs with a small and entirely on board congregation, asks next to nothing in that regard. Unfortunately, I routinely surprise people by simply asking "Do you understand/interact with your Mass?" There's scramble to point out the translated missals. For too many, it's a 45 minute meditation session until "the goods". Learning to love God and the Catholic faith through a Mass that is less then perfect is black belt Catholicism. Jesus through Peter offers a yoke that is easy, but it is still a yoke. Peter's requests should be honored as having supernatural importance, even if we don't understand them. If the removal of the Missal of 1962 is suffering, I understand. But it's suffering that God is asking from you, for your own good. It can be offered back to Him. Eternity with God is worth a lifetime of bad Masses. It's something we can give back, rather than insist our Sundays WILL be perfect.

@@atrifle8364 lol!

@@atrifle8364 you honestly think God ordained the removal of the 1962 mass in order to make us suffer, and force is to shake hands with our neighbours? Honestly! I go to two churches, an ICKSP TLM, where we don’t do the sign of peace, but the families offer a bring and share meal for everybody after Sunday mass, and welcome newcomers to join in, and I also go to weekday mass and some Saturday vigils to an NO parish in Wales, UK where we do the sign of peace (just when Jesus is present in the altar, so I don’t think the timing is great) however we all cheerfully and with live greet one another, and it’s very nice. We didn’t need to have God’s beautiful mass cancelled in order to live one another!

@@atrifle8364 Do you not recall the private Prayers Before Mass - and - Prayers After Mass (all devotionally in the vernacular, btw)? Not only neighbour and God, but charity toward onself was redolent in them. And keeping the Christian Sabbath 'holy' as God is Holy (aka Perfect) is not an option but a requirement in the Catholic Church, and all of it as imperfect as we Her mortal members are in the 'flesh' (coo! there's an old fashioned word for you). God bless. ;o)

@@Kitiwake Pope Paul VI name it that , Novis Ordo means New Order.

@@catholicskeptic Indeed, also Benedict referred to the masses as the Novus and Vetus Ordo. However, trads use Novus Ordo as a derisive term, almost an insult, so we should avoid using it. Including that iblasphemous joke, "the Novus Ordo mass is NO mass".

@@catholicskeptic - At the risk of repetition, I agree with @charlesduke9750 the issue is not the name Novus Ordo. It's in use officially in Vatican documents. However, the name currently is as used as an insult/slur, which I have seen for years online. "Current missal" sidesteps the issue of the slur that has developed while aligning with formal Vatican documents. "Missal of 1962", also from formal Vatican documents, allows precision without what amounts to folk/pop name for a particular liturgy. It's also a reminder that all liturgies are prone to semi-constant tweaking/updates, including the current missal.

@@charlesduke9750 - I deeply appreciate what you've added here to the conversation. The business of defending/explaining the authentic Vatican II is somewhat lonely online. :)

​@@charlesduke9750exactly.

@@ralf547 Haha, I love your arrogant presumption concerning my motives. I make it clear what I prefer, both Masses are valid, and bring the genuine Presence of Christ. As for your man- made Lutheran service, well, .... 😂🤣😅

The vast majority of pre-Vatican II Mass were low Masses, which is perhaps an explanation of why Vatican II didn't bother to produce a high one.

I have a Missal from 1936. It has both latin and the translation on the side. There’s all the responses you claimed to not understand and their translation. If you were really an altar boy, how could you have not come across something like that?

@@MB-zn9vg - If he was an 10 in 1965 and serving in the 7th and 8th grade, that makes him serving in 1967/68, which is basically the year before the transition to the current missal. It should have been all the talk. He should remember friends who served after.

That’s an important question, and as someone who isn’t Catholic, I find it disheartening to witness the Roman Catholic Church embracing LGBTQIA+ perspectives alongside other religions. I came across a rather troubling article recently that reported about a new ministry in the Catholic Church in New York called "Out at St. Paul." This initiative offers a safe zone to encourage individuals to embrace being both gay and Catholic. Furthermore, it appears they have implemented guidelines that effectively silence the biblical teachings that condemn or call for repentance from such behaviors. These are truly challenging times, and it pains me to see the RCC filling their church’s with debauchery!! Search this headline if you care to read: New York Priest Celebrates ‘Pride Mass’ Outside of Gay Monument - on LGBT Flag With almost 200 people in attendance, the priest celebrated Mass wearing a rainbow stole. God bless, and stay strong!

@@Harbinger290 Always appreciate you presenting the private interpreted Protestant version of scripture . Yet you only know things Jesus said because you read it in the Gospels selected by the leaders of His infallible Church , in 382 AD. that He established . ( Matthew 16:13-19)But every comment you send helps grow the channel and spread the Catholic Faith! Gotta love those algorithms! 😎

@@catholicskeptic Sir which verse is wrongly interpreted? Let me know and I’ll happily change my interpretation? To sharpen your efforts can you address Acts 16:30-32 and correct me from there. Thanks so much! God Bless!

@@halleylujah247 Yep, they do show up. I am well, thanks, hope are doing too. God Bless!

@@halleylujah247 I agree, I go to to a Novus Ordo parish, and the priests there do an excellent Mass. I enjoy it very much. I did this video to explain why I do like the Latin Mass, but I most definitely am not one who opposes the Novus Ordo. I just find in reading the English Translation of the TLM Missal, that there are do many beautiful prayers and deep expressions of Faith, that were sadly discarded. But I fully believe both Masses can be beautiful expressions of Worship, for sure. I can only occasionally get to a Latin Mass. Thanks for the comment, Halley. God Bless.

Where in "Europe"?

If you partake it's not "boring". If you find something boring, why go?

@@charlesduke9750 Oh there are many aspects of the Novus Ordo that also very good. I just wanted to highlight sone reasons I prefer the TLM. But I do attend the Novus Ordro and do see it done well and have a very beautiful worship experience.

@@catholicskeptic - Part of the issue is that the Missal of 1962 is very divisive. What is ahistorical is having a rite split over a liturgy. There is usually simply one.

@@Kitiwake - Probably France, given the SSPX.

@@flipneleanor7370 Which sedevacantist? This is an interesting and poetic claim but it has no authority behind it.

Yes they do

@@flipneleanor7370 So this means sedevcantists believe that there will be no more valid Popes? Also my understanding is that Sedevcantists believe there are currently no valid Sacraments? If this is true, then there is no saving grace and that the gates of hell have prevailed, at least until Christ's second coming?

The question is, who decides which Pope is valid and which is not, and on what basis? Except for Francis whose election could be debatable, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI were elected in canonical conclaves. Even in the case of Francis, it is not up to anyone to decide that he's not valid. Only a council of bishops could decide that. Sedevacantists are in schism, and they are not the first to deny the validity of Popes, starting with Martin Luther. It is only a question of time for sedevacantists and rad trads to declare it openly and elect an antipope. This is not the first time schisms have occurred after councils. After the council of Ephesus, some couldn't accept the Mother of God dogma and separated, becoming the Nestorian Church, an obscure sect which still exists somewhere in the Middle East. After Vatican I, some couldn't accept the teachings and separated into a sect called "Old Catholics". They still exist, an obscure protestant sect affiliated to Anglicanism who ordain women and gays and perform gay marriage, as well as accept abortion. The traditionalists will be the protestant sect surging out of Vatican II and will have the same destiny as those others, because a branch separated from the trunk withers.

Difficult question to answer. The easiest answer is that manifest heretics lose authority and jurisdiction from the moment they begin to preach heresy, no canonical warning is required. So when Francis, JP2, Ratzinger etc, preach Martin Luther did not error in Justification, that the eastern "orthodox", Anglicans and protestants are in the body of Christ, and when they teach that it's a sin to evangelize, that's manifest heresy. They cease being the pope from the moment they preach heresy. You could even go a step further and claim that Vatican is heretical, so if elected popes accept Vatican 2, they are apostate heretics.

If Pius V had the right to institute a certain Rite, Paul VI had the same right as a successor of Peter. Pius V canceled several other rites when he instituted the Tridentine mass, Did he have the right? Yes, likewise Paul VI had the same right. Pius V established that nothing be added to his Rite as proclaimed, to keep standard procedures, but this doesn't mean the rite itself cannot be substituted. What rite is used in mass is a matter for the Church to decide and it is not a dogma of faith that it has to be so and so. Have you actually READ all the Vatican II documents? I have, and they contain no errors, heresies or contradictions. Before you go proclaiming myths, be sure of what you are saying. In fact they affirm all the beliefs of the Church. The only major changes are that it suggests that the mass be revised to bring it up to the needs of the times, and that married permanent deacons be established again. The actual changes to the mass were made by Paul VI after the council had ended. Furthermore, all the changes and abuses that happened afterwards were not a product of anything the Council said but of a false interpretation called "the spirit of the Council" which is nowhere to be found but was used by the masonic infiltrators to put everything upside down.

@@charlesduke9750 You're not being honest. The Vatican 2 document is full of errors, heresies and contradictions. Here's one example from the very first thing the document states, that's how many errors and heresies there are. At the very beginning of its decree on ecumenism, Vatican II teaches that almost everyone longs for a truly universal Church whose mission is to convert the world to the Gospel. What is the truly universal Church whose mission is to convert the world to the Gospel? It is the Roman Catholic Church, of course, which alone is the one true Church of Christ. So what is Vatican II talking about then? Why is Vatican II teaching that almost everyone longs for one the truly universal Church of Christ when we already have it? What Vatican II is teaching at the very beginning of its decree on ecumenism is that people must long for the true Catholic Church because it does not yet exist! It is teaching that the true Church of Christ - the universal Catholic Church - does not yet exist!

​​@@flipneleanor7370He is being honest. Address his points maybe. What errors did Vatican 2 specifically institute? Quote a document. The "heresy" you are claiming is the same claim as Saint Paul.

@@flipneleanor7370 It refers to those who haven't found the truth. People can long for it, but they haven't found it. Nothing wrong with longing. VC II clearly affirms that the Catholic Church is the only true way. Your arguments are specious. You would make a good protestant.

@@ultrasignificantfootnote3378 Yes I did once myself, a very bleak existence, to live believing there is no meaning; no purpose; no pint to anything, other than what one chooses to make up. Been there , done that. Then I found out God was and is very real, that He became a Man, entering in to human history. Jesus Christ had such an impact on history that he split it in two. Now the civilized all date their calendars AD. Despite the silly CE and BCE nonsense . Will be praying for you. Thanks for the comment.

@@catholicskeptic In my life there is an abundance of meaning because it is limited.

@@lenadoyle5155 Thanks for your kind words, all Glory to God for any good that comes of these videos.

Fortunately, the parishes in the Diocese of Peoria are sound.

@@artyeff3008 Well, I know what you're saying, and it isn't really refutable.🤷‍♂️

Good luck following your heretical pastor. (entire Bible)

@@sirkamyk9886 Great comeback.

And not just the "pope" I would argue the problem is much worse as most of the "magisterium " are like minded with Francis and Francis has "stacked the court" i.e the next conclave with dozens of new Cardinal appointments . If I was a betting man i would wager the next "pope" will be atleast as liberal and heretical (probably even worse).

​@catholicskeptic in fairness whether it's a good comeback or not you don't deny Francis to be heretical or provide any refutation of the problem.

@@Adam-ue2ig What problem? Your verse can be applied to any Protestant pastor. The Pope's infallibility only prevents him from making heretical statements in very specific circumstances, which Pope Francis hasn't invoked even once.

Hail Mary, Full of Grace, The Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of death. Glory Be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. Amen.