Bp. Sanborn, your name sometimes comes up during coffee hour at our sspx chapel. You are well respected by many. This nightmare called Vatican II will end someday.
In all charity and kindness, I am sure His Excellency would urge you to leave the SSPX with their illogical and unCatholic position of recognize & resist.
@@johnraymond-pz9bo We lay people can do nothing to depose a Pope. It's complicated even when I've heard it explained with St. Robert Bellermine's writings on the subject. I attend the SSPX because there is nothing else in my are and I am not a sedevacantist but they certainly have some very persuasive, logical arguments to support their position. I love Fr. Jenkins on TH-cam's What Catholics Believe, Fr. Altman and all that group of cancelled Priests and Archbishop Vigano. I believe those Popes after Vatican II were validly consecrated (or not, I don't know), but they are using the appearance of everything Catholic while also trying to destroy the Church and create a New World Order Religion. That's exactly what Pope Francis is doing. Fr. Hesse gave 3 very excellent conferences on the Papacy that showed up on TH-cam by Catholic Family News. I read them all but couldn't figure out how to retrieve them. I'm computer-challenged.
S.C. they never became popes. They can't be deposed because heresy made them ineligible papal claimants. If we had Catholic armies and Princes, they would be physically removed from the Vatican.
Indeed it is. But remember, our fight isn't for Latin, or for the TLM, it's for doctrine and the Faith. It is this faith which underpins the Traditional Mass and is what makes it beautiful. This is why Bishop Sanborn says to have the TLM inside of the Novus Ordo Church doesn't make sense, for the very authority of that Church disavow the faith which that Mass expresses: transubstantiation, the sacrificing priesthood etc. etc.
Bp. may not be as funny as Fr. Cekada, but when Bp., Fr. and Steven did the Francis Watch series the laughter was infectious and delightful. Three very sharp minds sharpened each other and the humor sparks flew!❤ Have listened to the series more than once. Please pray 3 Hail Marys for each of them.
@mhtseminary I hope you can enlighten some of the conservative Novus Ordites in the comments, as some are criticising the Bishop for encouraging schism, etc. and clearly still think that despite heresy, the Novus Ordo religion remains the Catholic one and Francis is the Pope.
I am 72. When in high school my sophomore history teacher who was questioning his faith and who knew I was 'devout' asked me," so if the pope is infallible, then what would happen if he were a nut" I smiled and said ,"God would not allow that that happen". More than 50 years later I stand corrected! God moves in mysterious ways. As to traditionalist infighting, let us borrow the very modernist concept, (which they violate regularly) of mutual flourishing. One may not like the FSSP,( I personally thing they are useless) or the pas de deux that the SSPX engages in with Rome, however, we need to pick our battles. The main battle is to assure that the TLM continues to thrive and is celebrated. There is only one battle, that is to see that the Mass is made available to Catholics. Eventually the NO church and its valid but very flawed Mass will weaken and disappear. We see this happening before our eyes. Traditionalists need to refrain from attacking each other and recognized that as long as the Mass of the historic Church is presented to Catholics then all of the other things will eventually fall into place. Rome, to be ironic, was not built in a day!
@JohnFDonovan-by1nt I'm sorry John, but I daresay the Bishop would disagree with you there. I would encourage you to purchase and read the late, Fr. Cekada's, "Work of Human Hands" before you rush to issue the platitude that the New Mass is valid, just defective trope. From the admission of its creators, it was a generic Christian rite formed by Consilium to foster ecumenism, which was the spirit of Vatican II. To say that it is as valid as the True Mass is a falsehood. And to have these two liturgies exist side by side turns Catholics into Anglicans, whereby there's a liberal pentecostal wing with guitars and happy, clappy "Alleluias" and a High Church wing, complete with smells, bells and Latin. Both believe entirely different things, as manifested by their worship, but claim to be part of one communion. That is not the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church is One. There's also the issue of the Epsicopal rite of consecration of 1968, which was changed along with ordination, rendering the sacrament doubtful, which has dire consequences for the Novus Ordo hierarchy. No real Bishops=no real priests=no real sacrifice. Please read the following article, if you believe I'm speaking on my own supposition: www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=74&catname=11 If that link doesn't work, go to Traditionalmass.org, select Articles, then sacraments, and read, "Absolutely Null and Utterly Void".
@@jimmyhun91 Please remember that the Church's standard for "validity" is not complicated and shockingly minimalist . i attend the NO, and listen very carefully to the Canons particularly when one of the alternative ones is used. I must admit that i am spoiled recuse the Franciscan shrine where I attend alomst exclusively uses the Roman Canon and not the latter one's introduced after the council. While I would agree with most of your observations about what the Consilium did, the specific question of validity is quite different. I dislike platitudes. Saying the NO is valid albeit quite flawed is not one of them.
@JohnFDonovan-by1nt One detail that should concern you, or give you pause for thought, is the fact that in Pre-Vatican II sacramental theology manuals, it was taught that if the consecration was recited in a purely narrative sense, it was certainly invalid. In the Novus Ordo, the priest is encouraged to do this. The prayer is even called, "The institution narrative". And, as I said, the new 1968 rite of episcopal consecration should concern you more, as to the "validity" of the New Mass. Take the time to read through Father Cekada's article and let me know what you think.
@@jimmyhun91 My question would be how does one know that the words of consecration are being recited in a purely narrative sense? Does this mean that the intention of the priest in reciting the words of consecration could invalidate the Mass? In the TLM the words of consecration cannot be heard by the congregation, does this not open up the possibility that with malicious intent the priest might not say them and no one would be the wiser? We know from the miracle of Bolseno that the priest did not believe in the Real Presence and yet the miracle occurred! The priest in the Novus Ordo is not encouraged to recite the words of consecration in only a purely narrative sense. Again while I would agree that for 'ecumenical purposes" the very precise superior sacrificial language of the TLM was dangerously reduced, the bare essentials are still there so in can in no way can I accept that this invalidates the Mass. I will try to read some of the articles you have suggested. Pax
@JohnFDonovan-by1nt The reason why the words "Hoc Est Enim Corpus Meum" are enlarged in the Altar Missal is because the priest has to slow down, to pronounce the words actually, as if he is saying "This Is my body". Certainly, it could open up the possibility. I'm simply telling you that this is what I've heard taught at the seminary, by Bishop Sanborn. There is an emphasis on not reciting this part merely, "narrativo," as though you were telling a story. I will happily send you the 3 pages in which Father Cekada discusses this over email. This aside though, I wouldn't want to attend a Mass that was put together in a heretical spirit, to please Protestants and eliminate mentions of "sacrifice" , "hell" "miracles" "judgement for sin", "purgatory", "intercession of saints", and all other concepts anathema to the heretical mind. The issue with the new rite of episcopal consecration is that it doesn't convey what it is supposed to signify. As you'll see from Fr. Cekada's article, there is a most ambiguous phrase in "Spiritus Principalis". The experts at the consilium and other defenders of the new rite said that it was taken from an Eastern formula, but as Father shows, this was a lie. The rite was, in fact, closely resembling only one-the installation of a Patriach, who is already a Bishop. Therefore, it lacks what is essential in the words for conveying what this Holy Order does, namely confer the fullness of the priesthood. In doing so, the revisers compromised its validity.
The only conflict I see is how to deal with "The Pope" who is engraved in the Catholic Faith as the Supreme Father (papa in Greek is Father). By definition he is (or he is supposed to be) the Supreme Custodian of the Faith and Tradition. Thus all the divisions among traditionalists arise.
There are going to be conflicts in any type of organization that has leadership. But the question would be does the leadership have the authority to lead or are the leaders lacking certain qualifications/requirements to lead? (If you have ever been on active duty/military -being promotable but needing a school or TIG/TIS to meet the cutoff score)
Well…certainly part of the answer of a unified response cannot include disunity. Luther tried that with devastating results. St. Francis was enormously effective in the reform brought from within.
St. Francis wasn't opposing heresy inside of the Church structure. Luther was himself a heretic and a moral reprobate. None of those situations apply to the heresy/apostasy of Vatican II.
Most maybe all sedes would immediately submit to a true Pope. And disunity would disappear. A few arguments here and there do not mean disunity. It means sedes still have a brain
@bwn1988 That's a rather evasive non-answer, culminating in a tacit accusation of causing division/heresy hunting, which isn't even remotely true. It doesn't substantiate or explain what point you were attempting to make, nor does it refute what I wrote. I could reverse the charge and say that you are being wilfully ignorant, by refusing to see or acknowledge the blatant heresies within Vatican II, and those of the post-conciliar Papal claimants, expounding a flase equivalency argument from history, which falls apart upon examination. There is no precedent for, "Well, we have to resist from within a Church that openly proclaims error". If that were true, the Roman Catholic Church and her reigning Pontiff would be capable of erring in Her/their magisterial capacity. This undermines the indefectability of the Church. I would encourage you to read through the documents of Vatican II and, since it pertains to this video, the writings of the Bishop. Sanborn and others.
@bwn1988 What was the point of your analogy, then? St. Francis, as the founder of a new religious order, rooted in the apostolic principles laid out in the Gospels was certainly a reformer and visionary in the true sense, but he wasn't opposing false magisterial teaching or questioning the nature and legitimacy of the Church he belonged to. Martin Luther believed that he could bring the Church to his way of thinking, and when they wouldn't, he revealed his true motivations. He didn't want to "reform" the Church or just to correct abusive practices, as many Protestants falsely claim, he wanted to invert and destroy Her teaching to suit his perverted worldview & theology. He disavowe the Church of Rome as the "Whore of Babylon", mocked the idea of transubstantiation, the celibate priesthood, and invented the hideous idea of "Sola Fidei", later to be explicitly condemned by the Council of Trent. Interestingly the Vatican II religion now agrees with Luther's theory of justification, in a public declaration, and Bergoglio says that Luther gave, "greater centrality to sacred scripture", and claims that there were saints in their heretical sect. Trying to say that we should stay in this institution, namely the Novus Ordo, because that's sort of similar to what St. Francis did, or say that to leave it, on the basis of "abuses" is to be like Martin Luther, is just patently false.
With all due respect, your Excellency, Padre Pio did in fact (prior to Vatican II), not only predict, but stated in the present tense (in 1960) to his arguably favorite spiritual son, Fr. Gabriele Amorth, that Satan had entered the very bosom of the Church and would soon be ruling a false Church.
Only God has the answers to V2, the Pope. Maybe we don’t ask the right questions. The Shepherd is struck, the sheep are scattered. In the time of the Judges, “…there was no king in Israel and each one did that which was right in his own eyes…” In Our Lord’s time, the high priest and the Sanhedrin were thoroughly corrupt. Didn’t Our Lord say that the Pharisees sat in the place appointed by God, but to do as they say, not as they do. He indeed submitted to them, even to death. What are the parallels to our time? Maybe different “traditionalists” should approach the problems in different ways?
@mariekatherine5238 While I empathise with the sentiment, I don't think "different strokes for different folks" is the Catholic position here. The SSPX position, for example, is entirely false. To borrow Bishop Sanborn's/Stephen's analogy, they are like soldiers on a battlefield who continue to follow the last orders of their dead general, despite the situation on the ground having changed. Worse still, part of their unit wants to defect to the other side.
Thank you Bp. Sanborn, for your helpful insight. I have thought too much about this; Pope Francis is the first Jesuit pontiff, and he is a man of paradoxes: at once a populist and a prince of the church, a reformer and an enforcer, a man who speaks of dialogue while sending his dissenters packing. To understand him is to grasp a peculiar concoction of Argentine Peronism, Jesuitical subtlety, and a distinctly modern vision of the Church’s mission. Francis fashions himself as the pastor of a Church that must "go out" to the peripheries, not to defend the gates of orthodoxy but to scatter seeds in the shifting sands of modernity. Francis is a shepherd in the fullest sense, but one who believes that the fences of doctrine might hinder the wandering sheep. He tends to prefer the open pasture over the safety of the fold. Pope Francis also places Mercy Over Clarity where the heart takes precedence over the mind. G K Chesterton once pointed out that many heretics lose their way not by loving truth too little, but by loving a single truth too much; Francis's single truth is mercy, even if it leaves Catholic doctrine suffocating. The scandalous irony here is that he has little mercy for those who resist his vision, as evidenced by his treatment of folks like Bishop Strickland and the traditionalist faithful.
@@ChestertonsJest-lol4u2c If by distinctly modern vision, you mean modernist, then you're correct. What you say about the Papal pretender is true, but he isn't the problem: The second Vatican Council and the Post-Conciliar magisterium is. Chaos Frank is simply bringing those decrees to their logical conclusion.
@@jimmyhun91 I am trying to avoid using terms that have become polarizing; yes, it appears that Francis is bringing full-blown Modernism to the Roman Church, and we must be respectful when talking about the Pope- we can respectfully criticize his action but not him as the Vicar of Christ. Until a future Pope in line with the College of Cardinals says otherwise, Pope Francis is our dully elected pope.
@ChestertonsJest-lol4u2c Vatican II already brought Modernism, complete with its relativism and religious indifference into the body of the Church. Bergoglio is merely one of its rotten fruits. We flee heretics; we don't enter into communion with them and pray for them in the Canon of the Mass. You should watch and listen to more of Bishop Sanborn's sermons and read both his and other articles, penned by sedevacantist clergy. A heretical Pope who intends to impose heresy on the entire Church and promulgate it as doctrine, ipso facto, loses his legitimacy and ability to function as Pontiff. Hence, we say that since the death of Pius XII, we have been without a shepherd. From Roncalli onwards, all have been modernists, foisting on the Church evil disciplines and laws contrary to the previous circa 2,000 years of the Church.
@ChestertonsJest-lol4u2c From your comment, perhaps you don't know that Bishop Sanborn is a sedevacantist. Your comment seems to reveal the fact that you believe that the Church can err in her ordinary magisterium and the Pope can be a manifest heretic and still be function as Pope, teaching, ruling and sanctifying the Church. That simply is not so. And, it's not just Bergoglio's "actions"-it's his teaching, which, if you believe him to be a legitimate succesor to St. Peter, you have to accept as Ordinary Magisterium. It is binding upon you as a Roman Catholic. That means that "Amoris Laetitia", which permits communion to the divorced and remarried, has to carry the same authority as St. Pius X's, "Pascendi". I encourage you to do more reading on the subject, as TH-cam isn't the proper forum for such discussion: Please visit: thethesis.us/ Mostholytrinityseminary.org Traditionalmass.org All the best.
The Harlot Council will be formally condemned by a Pope when we get one. But it is already condemned by earlier Popes. I love to listen to their documents read on TH-cam, but especially the Anathemas. I just lovebit. This council from hell and anyone who dares believe it IS CONDEMNED BY HOLY MOTHER CHURCH
Concordo se são hereges não devemos nos unir há eles Só um caminho, muito Jejum e oração, pois os modernistas vivem cometendo o pecado do sexto Mandamento e acham normal, e pior , dizem amar a Deus. E o divórcio é toda essa desordem do pecado está destruindo as famílias, que trocam os filhos por bichinhos de estimação levando eles até passear de carrinho. O mundo precisa de cada um fazendo sua parte e abandonando o erro por amor a Dus e seus Mandamento, parar de usar o nome Santo de Deus em vão.
Maybe no one ever conceived of that possibility because it's impossible within the bounds of Catholic teaching. "There's no rulebook ... we're on our own to figure out the best way to deal with it." Doesn't sound like the actual traditional Catholic response which is to remain guided by the Church. The bishop saying he wants to be completely separate from the Catholic Church is the epitome of schism.
@catholic_tradition As opposed to Bergoglio, who worships Pagan goddesses in the Vatican Gardens. Apostasy = fine Schism from the Novus Ordo = scandalous! Fleeing from heresy is a very Catholic response. And Bishop Sanborn has written enough to substantiate this point if you care to read his articles.
Bp. Sanborn, your name sometimes comes up during coffee hour at our sspx chapel. You are well respected by many. This nightmare called Vatican II will end someday.
In all charity and kindness, I am sure His Excellency would urge you to leave the SSPX with their illogical and unCatholic position of recognize & resist.
If SSPX would stop calling an idolator Pope, many of us sedevacantists would have a Mass to go to...
@@johnraymond-pz9bo
We lay people can do nothing to depose a Pope. It's complicated even when I've heard it explained with St. Robert Bellermine's writings on the subject. I attend the SSPX because there is nothing else in my are and I am not a sedevacantist but they certainly have some very persuasive, logical arguments to support their position. I love Fr. Jenkins on TH-cam's What Catholics Believe, Fr. Altman and all that group of cancelled Priests and Archbishop Vigano. I believe those Popes after Vatican II were validly consecrated (or not, I don't know), but they are using the appearance of everything Catholic while also trying to destroy the Church and create a New World Order Religion. That's exactly what Pope Francis is doing.
Fr. Hesse gave 3 very excellent conferences on the Papacy that showed up on TH-cam by Catholic Family News. I read them all but couldn't figure out how to retrieve them. I'm computer-challenged.
S.C. they never became popes. They can't be deposed because heresy made them ineligible papal claimants.
If we had Catholic armies and Princes, they would be physically removed from the Vatican.
@sweetcoraline
Nobody thinks the "Pope" is deposed.
Bergoglio and his predecessors were never Popes to begin with. Bp. Sanborn explains the Thesis.
Good morning from S Africa...its 1am...glad to catch this ...
Good night from Eastern Shore, Maryland, USA, 9:49 PM on Tuesday, 11/26/24.
Huge time difference
Good evening from a fellow South African.
Bp Sanborn is a gift from God, he says it like it is - the word of God can't be changed/warped/bent. The TLM is a little piece of Heaven on Earth
Indeed it is. But remember, our fight isn't for Latin, or for the TLM, it's for doctrine and the Faith. It is this faith which underpins the Traditional Mass and is what makes it beautiful. This is why Bishop Sanborn says to have the TLM inside of the Novus Ordo Church doesn't make sense, for the very authority of that Church disavow the faith which that Mass expresses: transubstantiation, the sacrificing priesthood etc. etc.
Lord please help us. Thanks be to God.
i attend sspx mass because of accessibility. But I always listen and follow to sedevacantist youtube channels, and other social media 😊
Bp. may not be as funny as Fr. Cekada, but when Bp., Fr. and Steven did the Francis Watch series the laughter was infectious and delightful. Three very sharp minds sharpened each other and the humor sparks flew!❤ Have listened to the series more than once. Please pray 3 Hail Marys for each of them.
Where can I find the series please?
m.soundcloud.com/franciswatch
Nobody is as funny as Father Cekada.
Bishop Sanborn has some very funny moments.
@mhtseminary I hope you can enlighten some of the conservative Novus Ordites in the comments, as some are criticising the Bishop for encouraging schism, etc. and clearly still think that despite heresy, the Novus Ordo religion remains the Catholic one and Francis is the Pope.
If only all traditional catholics would be so rational.
Thank you and God bless!🙏🏻
Modernists need to go as God never made mistakes. May God have Mercy on us.
Thank you
I am 72. When in high school my sophomore history teacher who was questioning his faith and who knew I was 'devout' asked me," so if the pope is infallible, then what would happen if he were a nut" I smiled and said ,"God would not allow that that happen". More than 50 years later I stand corrected! God moves in mysterious ways. As to traditionalist infighting, let us borrow the very modernist concept, (which they violate regularly) of mutual flourishing. One may not like the FSSP,( I personally thing they are useless) or the pas de deux that the SSPX engages in with Rome, however, we need to pick our battles. The main battle is to assure that the TLM continues to thrive and is celebrated. There is only one battle, that is to see that the Mass is made available to Catholics. Eventually the NO church and its valid but very flawed Mass will weaken and disappear. We see this happening before our eyes. Traditionalists need to refrain from attacking each other and recognized that as long as the Mass of the historic Church is presented to Catholics then all of the other things will eventually fall into place. Rome, to be ironic, was not built in a day!
@JohnFDonovan-by1nt I'm sorry John, but I daresay the Bishop would disagree with you there. I would encourage you to purchase and read the late, Fr. Cekada's, "Work of Human Hands" before you rush to issue the platitude that the New Mass is valid, just defective trope. From the admission of its creators, it was a generic Christian rite formed by Consilium to foster ecumenism, which was the spirit of Vatican II. To say that it is as valid as the True Mass is a falsehood. And to have these two liturgies exist side by side turns Catholics into Anglicans, whereby there's a liberal pentecostal wing with guitars and happy, clappy "Alleluias" and a High Church wing, complete with smells, bells and Latin. Both believe entirely different things, as manifested by their worship, but claim to be part of one communion. That is not the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church is One. There's also the issue of the Epsicopal rite of consecration of 1968, which was changed along with ordination, rendering the sacrament doubtful, which has dire consequences for the Novus Ordo hierarchy. No real Bishops=no real priests=no real sacrifice. Please read the following article, if you believe I'm speaking on my own supposition:
www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=74&catname=11
If that link doesn't work, go to Traditionalmass.org, select Articles, then sacraments, and read, "Absolutely Null and Utterly Void".
@@jimmyhun91 Please remember that the Church's standard for "validity" is not complicated and shockingly minimalist . i attend the NO, and listen very carefully to the Canons particularly when one of the alternative ones is used. I must admit that i am spoiled recuse the Franciscan shrine where I attend alomst exclusively uses the Roman Canon and not the latter one's introduced after the council. While I would agree with most of your observations about what the Consilium did, the specific question of validity is quite different. I dislike platitudes. Saying the NO is valid albeit quite flawed is not one of them.
@JohnFDonovan-by1nt One detail that should concern you, or give you pause for thought, is the fact that in Pre-Vatican II sacramental theology manuals, it was taught that if the consecration was recited in a purely narrative sense, it was certainly invalid. In the Novus Ordo, the priest is encouraged to do this. The prayer is even called, "The institution narrative". And, as I said, the new 1968 rite of episcopal consecration should concern you more, as to the "validity" of the New Mass. Take the time to read through Father Cekada's article and let me know what you think.
@@jimmyhun91 My question would be how does one know that the words of consecration are being recited in a purely narrative sense? Does this mean that the intention of the priest in reciting the words of consecration could invalidate the Mass? In the TLM the words of consecration cannot be heard by the congregation, does this not open up the possibility that with malicious intent the priest might not say them and no one would be the wiser? We know from the miracle of Bolseno that the priest did not believe in the Real Presence and yet the miracle occurred! The priest in the Novus Ordo is not encouraged to recite the words of consecration in only a purely narrative sense. Again while I would agree that for 'ecumenical purposes" the very precise superior sacrificial language of the TLM was dangerously reduced, the bare essentials are still there so in can in no way can I accept that this invalidates the Mass. I will try to read some of the articles you have suggested. Pax
@JohnFDonovan-by1nt The reason why the words "Hoc Est Enim Corpus Meum" are enlarged in the Altar Missal is because the priest has to slow down, to pronounce the words actually, as if he is saying "This Is my body". Certainly, it could open up the possibility. I'm simply telling you that this is what I've heard taught at the seminary, by Bishop Sanborn. There is an emphasis on not reciting this part merely, "narrativo," as though you were telling a story. I will happily send you the 3 pages in which Father Cekada discusses this over email. This aside though, I wouldn't want to attend a Mass that was put together in a heretical spirit, to please Protestants and eliminate mentions of "sacrifice" , "hell" "miracles" "judgement for sin", "purgatory", "intercession of saints", and all other concepts anathema to the heretical mind. The issue with the new rite of episcopal consecration is that it doesn't convey what it is supposed to signify. As you'll see from Fr. Cekada's article, there is a most ambiguous phrase in "Spiritus Principalis". The experts at the consilium and other defenders of the new rite said that it was taken from an Eastern formula, but as Father shows, this was a lie. The rite was, in fact, closely resembling only one-the installation of a Patriach, who is already a Bishop. Therefore, it lacks what is essential in the words for conveying what this Holy Order does, namely confer the fullness of the priesthood. In doing so, the revisers compromised its validity.
Can His Excellency give his opinions on what the future of the Church looks like?
Stakes are high but we still have to do what God expect of us . God is in control . Its going to be Biblical
America's Bishop Strickland is right when he says truth is not coming out of the Vatican right now!...as per say pre-Vatican 2.
Unfortunately, he sees and bemoans the withering leaves but doesn't look to the roots. The problem is, and always has been, Vatican II.
Strickland won't call Jorge a non Catholic non bishop. Has he renounced Vatican II? The new "mass/sacrilege"?
I think he liked medjagorge?✌😂
Edit non Catholic non pope.
Strickland underwent new new new consecration.
The only conflict I see is how to deal with "The Pope" who is engraved in the Catholic Faith as the Supreme Father (papa in Greek is Father). By definition he is (or he is supposed to be) the Supreme Custodian of the Faith and Tradition. Thus all the divisions among traditionalists arise.
There are going to be conflicts in any type of organization that has leadership. But the question would be does the leadership have the authority to lead or are the leaders lacking certain qualifications/requirements to lead? (If you have ever been on active duty/military -being promotable but needing a school or TIG/TIS to meet the cutoff score)
Yes the question of the Pope is a problem. He is supposed to be the unifying remedy to division. Traditionalists can only be united by a true Pope.
Well…certainly part of the answer of a unified response cannot include disunity. Luther tried that with devastating results. St. Francis was enormously effective in the reform brought from within.
St. Francis wasn't opposing heresy inside of the Church structure. Luther was himself a heretic and a moral reprobate. None of those situations apply to the heresy/apostasy of Vatican II.
Most maybe all sedes would immediately submit to a true Pope. And disunity would disappear.
A few arguments here and there do not mean disunity. It means sedes still have a brain
@@jimmyhun91 Heresy was not the point of the analogy given. Hunting heresies is not everyone’s raison d’être. Happy splintering!
@bwn1988 That's a rather evasive non-answer, culminating in a tacit accusation of causing division/heresy hunting, which isn't even remotely true. It doesn't substantiate or explain what point you were attempting to make, nor does it refute what I wrote. I could reverse the charge and say that you are being wilfully ignorant, by refusing to see or acknowledge the blatant heresies within Vatican II, and those of the post-conciliar Papal claimants, expounding a flase equivalency argument from history, which falls apart upon examination. There is no precedent for, "Well, we have to resist from within a Church that openly proclaims error". If that were true, the Roman Catholic Church and her reigning Pontiff would be capable of erring in Her/their magisterial capacity. This undermines the indefectability of the Church. I would encourage you to read through the documents of Vatican II and, since it pertains to this video, the writings of the Bishop. Sanborn and others.
@bwn1988 What was the point of your analogy, then? St. Francis, as the founder of a new religious order, rooted in the apostolic principles laid out in the Gospels was certainly a reformer and visionary in the true sense, but he wasn't opposing false magisterial teaching or questioning the nature and legitimacy of the Church he belonged to. Martin Luther believed that he could bring the Church to his way of thinking, and when they wouldn't, he revealed his true motivations. He didn't want to "reform" the Church or just to correct abusive practices, as many Protestants falsely claim, he wanted to invert and destroy Her teaching to suit his perverted worldview & theology. He disavowe the Church of Rome as the "Whore of Babylon", mocked the idea of transubstantiation, the celibate priesthood, and invented the hideous idea of "Sola Fidei", later to be explicitly condemned by the Council of Trent. Interestingly the Vatican II religion now agrees with Luther's theory of justification, in a public declaration, and Bergoglio says that Luther gave, "greater centrality to sacred scripture", and claims that there were saints in their heretical sect. Trying to say that we should stay in this institution, namely the Novus Ordo, because that's sort of similar to what St. Francis did, or say that to leave it, on the basis of "abuses" is to be like Martin Luther, is just patently false.
With all due respect, your Excellency, Padre Pio did in fact (prior to Vatican II), not only predict, but stated in the present tense (in 1960) to his arguably favorite spiritual son, Fr. Gabriele Amorth, that Satan had entered the very bosom of the Church and would soon be ruling a false Church.
Only God has the answers to V2, the Pope. Maybe we don’t ask the right questions. The Shepherd is struck, the sheep are scattered.
In the time of the Judges, “…there was no king in Israel and each one did that which was right in his own eyes…”
In Our Lord’s time, the high priest and the Sanhedrin were thoroughly corrupt. Didn’t Our Lord say that the Pharisees sat in the place appointed by God, but to do as they say, not as they do. He indeed submitted to them, even to death.
What are the parallels to our time?
Maybe different “traditionalists” should approach the problems in different ways?
Catholic teaching is you can't submit to non Catholics , in your religion.
You're private interpretation if Bible can't change Catholic teaching
@mariekatherine5238 While I empathise with the sentiment, I don't think "different strokes for different folks" is the Catholic position here. The SSPX position, for example, is entirely false. To borrow Bishop Sanborn's/Stephen's analogy, they are like soldiers on a battlefield who continue to follow the last orders of their dead general, despite the situation on the ground having changed. Worse still, part of their unit wants to defect to the other side.
Thank you Bp. Sanborn, for your helpful insight.
I have thought too much about this; Pope Francis is the first Jesuit pontiff, and he is a man of paradoxes: at once a populist and a prince of the church, a reformer and an enforcer, a man who speaks of dialogue while sending his dissenters packing. To understand him is to grasp a peculiar concoction of Argentine Peronism, Jesuitical subtlety, and a distinctly modern vision of the Church’s mission. Francis fashions himself as the pastor of a Church that must "go out" to the peripheries, not to defend the gates of orthodoxy but to scatter seeds in the shifting sands of modernity. Francis is a shepherd in the fullest sense, but one who believes that the fences of doctrine might hinder the wandering sheep. He tends to prefer the open pasture over the safety of the fold. Pope Francis also places Mercy Over Clarity where the heart takes precedence over the mind.
G K Chesterton once pointed out that many heretics lose their way not by loving truth too little, but by loving a single truth too much; Francis's single truth is mercy, even if it leaves Catholic doctrine suffocating. The scandalous irony here is that he has little mercy for those who resist his vision, as evidenced by his treatment of folks like Bishop Strickland and the traditionalist faithful.
@@ChestertonsJest-lol4u2c If by distinctly modern vision, you mean modernist, then you're correct. What you say about the Papal pretender is true, but he isn't the problem: The second Vatican Council and the Post-Conciliar magisterium is. Chaos Frank is simply bringing those decrees to their logical conclusion.
A non Catholic can't become pope.
@@jimmyhun91 I am trying to avoid using terms that have become polarizing; yes, it appears that Francis is bringing full-blown Modernism to the Roman Church, and we must be respectful when talking about the Pope- we can respectfully criticize his action but not him as the Vicar of Christ. Until a future Pope in line with the College of Cardinals says otherwise, Pope Francis is our dully elected pope.
@ChestertonsJest-lol4u2c Vatican II already brought Modernism, complete with its relativism and religious indifference into the body of the Church. Bergoglio is merely one of its rotten fruits. We flee heretics; we don't enter into communion with them and pray for them in the Canon of the Mass. You should watch and listen to more of Bishop Sanborn's sermons and read both his and other articles, penned by sedevacantist clergy. A heretical Pope who intends to impose heresy on the entire Church and promulgate it as doctrine, ipso facto, loses his legitimacy and ability to function as Pontiff. Hence, we say that since the death of Pius XII, we have been without a shepherd. From Roncalli onwards, all have been modernists, foisting on the Church evil disciplines and laws contrary to the previous circa 2,000 years of the Church.
@ChestertonsJest-lol4u2c From your comment, perhaps you don't know that Bishop Sanborn is a sedevacantist. Your comment seems to reveal the fact that you believe that the Church can err in her ordinary magisterium and the Pope can be a manifest heretic and still be function as Pope, teaching, ruling and sanctifying the Church. That simply is not so. And, it's not just Bergoglio's "actions"-it's his teaching, which, if you believe him to be a legitimate succesor to St. Peter, you have to accept as Ordinary Magisterium. It is binding upon you as a Roman Catholic. That means that "Amoris Laetitia", which permits communion to the divorced and remarried, has to carry the same authority as St. Pius X's, "Pascendi". I encourage you to do more reading on the subject, as TH-cam isn't the proper forum for such discussion:
Please visit:
thethesis.us/
Mostholytrinityseminary.org
Traditionalmass.org
All the best.
Vatican II is not going to go away.
The Harlot Council will be formally condemned by a Pope when we get one.
But it is already condemned by earlier Popes. I love to listen to their documents read on TH-cam, but especially the Anathemas. I just lovebit.
This council from hell and anyone who dares believe it IS CONDEMNED BY HOLY MOTHER CHURCH
Concordo se são hereges não devemos nos unir há eles Só um caminho, muito Jejum e oração, pois os modernistas vivem cometendo o pecado do sexto Mandamento e acham normal, e pior , dizem amar a Deus. E o divórcio é toda essa desordem do pecado está destruindo as famílias, que trocam os filhos por bichinhos de estimação levando eles até passear de carrinho. O mundo precisa de cada um fazendo sua parte e abandonando o erro por amor a Dus e seus Mandamento, parar de usar o nome Santo de Deus em vão.
Maybe no one ever conceived of that possibility because it's impossible within the bounds of Catholic teaching.
"There's no rulebook ... we're on our own to figure out the best way to deal with it." Doesn't sound like the actual traditional Catholic response which is to remain guided by the Church.
The bishop saying he wants to be completely separate from the Catholic Church is the epitome of schism.
@catholic_tradition As opposed to Bergoglio, who worships Pagan goddesses in the Vatican Gardens. Apostasy = fine
Schism from the Novus Ordo = scandalous!
Fleeing from heresy is a very Catholic response. And Bishop Sanborn has written enough to substantiate this point if you care to read his articles.
Catholics are to reject non Catholics as shepherds. Perennial Catholic teaching.
The Vatican II church is a cruel insane step mother.
USMC (Force Recon) v USA (Special Forces) v USN (SEALs)? Special Operations community.