So sad to see lazy Catholics who love The Church continue to make excuses for the errors of recent Popes. Find a TLM and attend when you can and study the Dogmas which can not be changed or ignored. Salvé Regina indeed.
Stay away from sspx they are in heresy also. There is no Catholic mass anymore except at MLR, The faith comes before mass, sacraments, signs and wonders etc. The stigmata of padro pio is of the devil. Don't be decieved by false prophets. Visit john the baptist . us, all one word for your only hope of salvation in these end times with many false prophets. May the one true Catholic God bless you🙏
There is no holy sacrament of the mass anymore, how can there be when heretic occupy the Church's. Faith before signs and wonders, mass, sacraments etc. The Church is in apostasy since 1134.
@@bt8722 wow.. what a strong reaction to a little comment. Btw, do you believe in and recite the Rosary? And if you do, do you recite the Luminous, or is it man made? Not Biblical enough? Bc Papa JP2 was not Marian enough or not a real Pope? Makes me think: TLMs cry for Latin that they can’t understand. Novus ordo complain that foreign, non American priests speak w heavy accents they they can’t understand. We seem to be crying any which way so much I wonder if we can just take up the Cross and grow up. I seem to remember the Israelites in the wildernesss in the days of Moses were criers and demanders too. As Catholics, we should not be like the PROTESTANT 2 month old spiritual crybabies. I would love to see true Marian obedience, submission, humility, and gentleness in the many “TLM” comments, especially since the true Mass should bring one closer to God and bring many graces to imitate Christ (oh, maybe like in Thomas a Kempis book) but I seem to not feel it. Why is that? It just feels cafeteria- Catholicky, or very rampant, vitriolic PROTEST/rANTy somehow.
Find a valid Priest or Bishop who offers the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and fasting after midnight for Holy Communion like the the Saints and Martyrs is important.
He spoke off the cuff and spoke in error but the Vatican has corrected him. He was not speaking ex-cathadra. St. Peter left eating with gentiles to eat with Jews. St. Paul corrected him.
There are degrees of teaching and long standing Cannon Law on what is a dogma and how it is stated. What has been preached since 1958 is obviously contrary to what came before. Partial or relative truth is no truth at all.
@@leevjr686 That didnt answer the question. If you say there are degrees of teaching then on one end there must be something like the Pope is not teaching and the other end is when he alone defines infallibly ex cathedra. Right? Otherwise, your holding the Pope to a standard that no other Pope has been subjected to because of technological advancement.
A genuine question from one struggling to make sense of all this... Whose names does a priest say in the beginning of the Canon when he should insert the name of the pope and bishop, if that priest believes the Chair vacant?
Check out Mary little remnant, Br. Richard Joseph Michael Ibranyi at john the baptist . Us all one word for your only hope of salvation. You will get all the true Catholic answers there. May the one true Catholic God bless you✝️
We follow the same rules that are set down for when a Pope or Bishop has died and omit the mention of a Pope or Bishop entirely. This is what was done pre-Vatican 2.
@@jeanettepetersen3514 "Non Una Cum" is a belief but +Sanborn has zero authority to enforce it on his faithful. He has no office nor jurisdiction within the Church,he is in error. It's fine one believes he shouldn't be mentioned in the Canon but it's not enforceable on the faithful.
How about this Catholic clear teaching from the 1983 Code of Canon Law which states in Canon. 1404 The First See is judged by no one. Now based on your comment that Pope Pius XII lost his office in 1956, then lets go back to Canon 1556 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law which states in Canon 1556: The First See is judged by no one. So any individual layman, or priest, or Bishop or Cardinal by Catholic Doctrine has absolutely no authority to judge a Pope. This side of heaven only a successor Pope can judge a predecessor Pope. Now while a Pope himself may know if he is a private heretic (it is possible) only God can ultimately judge that as He is the only one that knows the heart. So we are left back to what Canon Law said before Vatican II in the 1917 Code and what it stated the same way after Vatican II in the 1983 Code, the first See is judged by no one.
@@E.C.2 What does that have to do with Judging the Pope? It says no individual priest has the right to change the received and approved Rites of the Church. That does not mean a Pope can modify or reform Rites. That happened quite quickly after Pope Pius V in 1570 issued his Missal. The Feast of Our Lady of Lepanto was added a few years after, for example by the Pope's decree, not a priest on his own accord.
Regarding Angelo Roncalli who became Pope John XXII in 1958, he studied Canon Law in Rome during the time of Pope Pius X. He was ordained a priest in 1904 and Pope Pius X asked to meet Fr. Roncalli who it appears was viewed as an outstanding Canonist. Fr. Roncalli was consecrated Bishop in 1925 at the direction of Pope Pius XI (titular Bishop in Jordan) and then served as a Vatican Representative of Pope Pius XI in Bulgaria and Greece. He was elevated to Cardinal and Patriarch of the Church in Venice by Pope Pius XII in 1953. So here is my question for you, when do you say Angelo Roncalli as a priest, studied in Rome and ordained when Pope Pius X was Pope, as Bishop, consecrated Bishop during Pope Pius XI Papacy or when he was Cardinal, elevated to that rank by Pope Pius XII was a "formal heretic" for if he was in fact a heretic, then the Seminaries in Rome where Angelo Roncalli studied did not weed him out when Pope Pius X was Pope, nor did Pope Pius XI stop from appointing him as Bishop nor did it nor did Pope Pius XII well before he elevated him to Cardinal stop it as Pope Pius XII appointed Roncalli as his Papal Nuncio in France in 1944, which was a very, very important appointment given that WW2 was raging then. So you have by what you said made the Popes all the way back to Pope Pius X complicit in heresy (Benedict XV, Pius XI and also Pius XII. This is the danger of Sedevacantism, where does it stop. This Mary's Little Remnant group now says the see of Rome has been vacant since 1134 AD.
Thank you. A common argument promoted even by post-conciliar traditionalist religious and theologians (e.g. Fr. Ripperger, Bishop Schneider) is that the election of a pope by the College of Cardinals makes it so. Pope Paul IV decreed otherwise.
“Cardinal Fernandez (Prefect of the Holy Office) has explained it all. There is the dry and dusty “Theology of Tradition” (that is, the Catholic Faith which comes to us from the Apostles). There is the new and improved “Theology of Francis”. However, this is made up of the personal views and opinions of the Pope. They do not amount to ex cathedra teachings by the Pope on matters of faith and morals. So, the Pope can offer views contrary to the Faith, which are, however, not binding on the Faithful, so, he is not teaching heresy, because what he offers are personal views and opinions only. Cardinal Fernandez says “wouldn’t it be nice if we all put aside the dry and dusty Theology of Tradition and voluntarily chose to embrace, in its place, the new and improved Theology of Francis.” We can’t be forced to do so. Since the Pope has not altered the Deposit of Faith at all, he can not be considered as an heretic. So, for example, while the Theology of Tradition teaches that two men may not live together and engage in sodomy, the Pope says “well, yes, technically, that is the Theology of Tradition, but, if, embracing my new and improved Theology they do live together and engage in sodomy, I shall give them my blessing - while they may be committing a mortal sin, that does not bother me, personally, because I don’t believe that there is a literal Hell - I am not denying the teaching of the Church on the point, I just don’t, personally, believe that the Church is right, so please follow me and choose to believe the same - I am not forcing you to do so, if I did I should be an heretic and no longer the Pope, but I invite you to share my own personal views and opinions which is that much of the Catholic Faith is not actually true - I will maintain the integrity of the Catholic Faith, since, as Pope, I am forced to, against my will, but I don’t actually believe a lot of it, so follow my example.” Hopefully, that is all quite clear.
A liar has no authority in any organization where that person makes up their own rules, and any sensible person following someone issuing illegal orders is compromising the stated mission of it.
The church is in Apostasy since 1134, there is only one true Catholic Church 'Mary little remnant. The law of epikeia applies. Check out Richard Joseph Michael Ibranyi the true spiritual ruler of the Catholic Church in these end times.
I have read about the Mary Little Remnant sedevacantist but first time I have seen one make the 1134 Sedevacantist claim. Wow! very interesting. So in 1134 Pope Innocent II was elected but it was controversial and some claimed Anacletus II was the valid Pope. So if I understand your claim, the last valid Pope was Pope Honorius II?
How wacky. Sounds similar to the Anabaptist Trail of Blood where they fantasized they were the true “Christian martyrs” who went underground as a remnant in the early 1st 2-4 centuries, only to have the Holy Spiritan revive them in modern day, to be possesssed by the Spirit to Babel away gibberish tongues and gyrations.
Oh contra! Pope Honorius I (625-638) Honorius I was accused of supporting Monothelitism, a heretical view that Christ had only one will (divine) rather than two wills (divine and human). Honorius was posthumously anathematized as a heretic by the Third Council of Constantinople (680-681), which condemned Monothelitism.
@m.k.7630 "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
@@MichaelReilly-r7h Well, ok, but I didn't come to argue. There's another comment on this stream where @american1911 references Pope Honorius I (625-638), who was anathematized by the Roman church (synod) itself for his apostasy. He had accepted the ancient heresy of Monothelitism, which was condemned at the third ecumenical council (680-681). Just one pre-schism example. I am admittedly Orthodox, and thus view popes after the different schism differently from Rome. However Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism may argue theology, I take the equally pertinent Orthodox approach that begins with church practice and the Christian life. St. Peter certainly recognized his sin in denying Christ before the crucifixion. Romans are fond of remembering that he was yet given the keys to the kingdom of heaven, although they mean by that something a little different from Orthodox. Yet both of us regard that as having considerable import. And as for him, he never claimed authority to decide for everyone what was of the faith and what was not, but always met with the faithful around him, and deciding and declaring in council with the leaders. If he made no such claim, why should any Pope? Furthermore, the universal testimony of all orthodox saints, pre-schism or post-schism, is that they are sinners, and have declared through their advice and counsel in their writings what their understanding is of how to repent and pray to be granted grace to cease sinning. Christ told many during his ministry here "go, and sin no more", and it is His salvation that makes that possible. But while we live on earth, we are still subject to the fallen nature we inherited from Adam, meaning that even if we do not sin further, we nevertheless are not invulnerable to temptation and falling. Thus we must always be vigilant to watchful to avoid doing so. And being human, most of us do continue to fall. It is our nature here on earth. We are freed of that nature entirely only when God makes everything new in the new Creation after Judgement Day. Only then is anyone unable to sin, because we are then fully united to God, as Adam in Paradise. My own fundamental objection to this claim for Popes is that it denies the entire Christian life over the centuries. Christ never promised any of us, no matter our position, that we would be unable to sin in any matter, but only that we would be able to avoid sin if we remained with Him. The latter is given to many saints through His grace, but it has never been given through election, laying on of hands, or rising to positions of prominence in the Church. Witness the misdeeds of many clergy at all ranks in both Roman and Orthodox Churches (and Protestant for that matter). I can only conclude that there is hubris involved: that most deadly and basic temptation to put onesself, or anyone else, above all others (not just one other, but *everyone* else). Such a place is Christ's alone, and I (among many) cannot countenance claiming that a Pope is equal to Christ in anything. By the way, I have no problem in recognizing Francis as a Pope. As far as I can tell, he was elected in accordance with Roman Catholic practice. It is not any problem for me. I think it is only a problem for Catholics because of the claim to supremacy of Popes.
Hi my friend The pope can not be a heretic The reason he can not be a heretic because the people in the Catholic faith give the pope that authority over your faith in God See the Catholic church belongs to the pope of Rome Jesus makes it clear in mathew Chapter 20, verses 25 to 28 Whoever we make our chief or servant is the one who will minister unto us Jesus also speaks of the princes of the gentile would have Dominion and Great Authority over them but not us Kjv Bible So by your own authority when you give the pope the title of the rock and the pope becomes the successor of Saint Peter You are giving the pope that authority This is why we have protestant faiths Because the protestant protest against the pope of being their rock Jesus is our rock, for he was the one who died for us As long as you are a Catholic you give the pope that authority over your faith because catholicism belongs to the pope it does not belong to Jesus christ
Did you know the pope have given themselves the title of The princes of the apostles over the gentiles Jesus is speaking of the popes in mathew Chapter 20, verses 25 to 28 And this is the reason why the Catholic priest never has a sermon on Sunday on mathew Chapter 20, verses 25 to 28 If they did, they would incriminate the Catholic faith
Oh? He very much *can*, our first pope, Peter himself, was not only a *heretic* but an actual *apostate* while he was validly pope at the same exact time, so we literally all know that the whole magisterium is a collection of lies and the godhead is Himself the father of lies only for so dumb a claim as you've made to even have become part of the doctrine of the faith!
St. Peter was corrected by a Council and those affairs have been happening since that time. What is needed in the modern age is another Council if we can gather enough believers to repair The Church.
@ Incorrect timeline, and no, it doesn't require nor could it require a superior or a council to rebuke a pope from such an act; or the laity are lost to Hell through no say of our own, and that proves by even having been taught once that God is literally *the* devil While at the same exact time being God Himself, and automatically ipso-facto, all worship and all contact with the afterlife is forbidden as the sorcery it is by that even having been said once to be solid teaching! Plus, we *are* to judge God and Hs vicar by the bad acts of *any* of His agents, due to His regal status in the hierarchy of being, or He is wicked in and of Himself, nay, He automatically *is* evil solely because it was once declared that the laity are not free to defend themselves against false teachings from the pulpit even once in all of Church history; and yes, this even includes the old testament! And they foisted a false god at Mt. Sinai for crying out loud; thus mandating heretical worship to begin with, and forever disqualifying the real Deity from EVEN EVER BEING God Himself and removed the status from ever being able to be tolerated, let alone trusted at all!
Basically, this priest says: 1. The Pope can not be a heretic. 2. Pope Francis is a heretic. 3. Therefore, Francis is not the Pope. In an effort to make the world Catholic again, here is the truth: 1. The Pope cannot be a heretic. 2. Pope Francis is a heretic. 3. Therefore, YOU are the heretic, not Pope Francis. Shame on this priest for his scandalous sermon. Check out Michael Lofton for the truth on sedevacantism and Pope Francis.
I am really surprised that this channel let your post stand. While many Sedevacantist post on Catholic YT channels that are from content creators who are in communion with a local Bishop who is communion with the Bishop of Rome, who is currently Pope Francis they tend to delete any comments that challenge their narrative. So I give this channel credit for allowing your post to stand. If you are going to make an argument that the See of Rome is vacant, then you should be willing to hear counter arguments. My YT algorithm has recommended several videos from Sedevacantist and Pope Francis. My theory, and that is all it it is, is that Mel Gibson appeared on Joe Rogan and that video has as of today 12 January 2025 over 5.1 million views. Mel was raised in a 1958 Sedevacantist home and I think he has moved towards the Sedeprivationism position held by the late Dominican Theologian Fr. Michel-Louis Guérard des Lauriers [25 October 1898 - 27 February 1988]. So with Joe Rogan, Mel Gibson defacto has become the most visible proponent of the Sedevacantist movement in general and in particular the more nuanced Sedeprivationist position noted above. I feel sorry for Mel losing his home, as all the folks in California with the wild fires, but lets be honest while I hope and pray Mel Gibson gets his life in order, it is a mess. Raised in Sedevacantist home, gets involved with a protestant (Episcopalian) and gets her pregnant, then married with 7 kids. Leaves wife for young Russian Model and has a child with her. Leaves the young Russian Model for an actress named Rosalind Moss and has a child with her. So 9 Kids with 3 different women. Now at least he did not try to get married to ladys 2 and 3 as one presumes his first marriage was a valid sacramental marriage, but still Mel needs prayers. Cheers and God Bless to all
You obviously have not studied minor logic and the form of the syllogism. The major premise contains the predicate of the conclusion. The minor premise contains the subject of the conclusion. In addition, you reject the Magisterium mentioned by Fr. Radecki.
@@michaelcreighton5116 Well not going to get into the Logic and syllogism debate. But lets just go to what the Church has said regarding who can judge the Pope. Lets just keep it simple.
The CMRI priests hold the position that the FSSPX "una cum mass" is valid. That is a contradiction and contradictions don't come from God, but from de devil.
While the CMRI acknowledges the validity of these priests’ sacraments, it does not endorse their theological position regarding the pope or their inclusion of “una cum” in the Canon. The faithful are advised to exercise caution when approaching such priests, especially concerning their children, to avoid confusion about the papacy and the Church’s teachings on infallibility. The CMRI states that Catholics may receive sacraments (e.g., Confession, Eucharist) from traditional priests who offer “una cum” Masses. This position acknowledges the validity of sacraments offered by such priests, even if they include the pope’s name in the Canon.
You are exactly saying two contradictory statements: 1.According to the law of non-contradiction in logic, "one thing cannot be both something and its opposite at the same time and in the same sense". By acknowledging the validity of those priests’ sacraments, they are endorsing their position. 2.“ This position acknowledges the validity of sacraments offered by such priests, even if they include the pope’s name in the Canon”. By including the “pope’s name” in the Canon, they are lying and committing a sacrilege act because there is no pope. Book of Moral Theology of Father Ferreres, paragraph 273, 1a, “He who bows his knees, even only externally, to an idol, or makes other manifestations of false religion, e.g. by frequenting the communion of heretics, etc., sins gravely against the faith”. [Google translation]. Bergoglio is an idol who stands in the place of Christ and acts against Him. The members of the FSSPX are heretics. 292. IV. “In sacred things it is per se unlawful to communicate with heretics, and it is PROHIBITED BY THE CHURCH, not only in things that contain heresy, as is natural, but even in things that are celebrated with Catholic rite. Because even in the latter there is a danger to religion, that is, there is a certain appearance of adherence to the condemned sect, and it generally fosters indifference, gives occasion to scandal and carries with it the danger of perversion itself ”. [Google translation].
Thank you for sharing another outstanding sermon by a priest of the CMRI. May God bless Fr. Dominic Radecki.
So sad to see lazy Catholics who love The Church continue to make excuses for the errors of recent Popes. Find a TLM and attend when you can and study the Dogmas which can not be changed or ignored. Salvé Regina indeed.
I wish the Catholic church was not so complicated these days. It seems really confusing in my opinion.
Find a Sedevacantist or Resistance-SSPX chapel,talk to the Priest after Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Maybe it,s by design . 🤷🏽♀️
Stay away from sspx they are in heresy also. There is no Catholic mass anymore except at MLR, The faith comes before mass, sacraments, signs and wonders etc. The stigmata of padro pio is of the devil. Don't be decieved by false prophets. Visit john the baptist . us, all one word for your only hope of salvation in these end times with many false prophets. May the one true Catholic God bless you🙏
It's not confusing. Your problem is that you think that the apostate Rome is the Church, which is a group of heretic apostates.
There is no holy sacrament of the mass anymore, how can there be when heretic occupy the Church's. Faith before signs and wonders, mass, sacraments etc. The Church is in apostasy since 1134.
We're often advised, "Find and attend a 'TLM' to maintain your traditional Catholic faith," but it's just not that simple, is it?
Who told you that? Novis ordite tlm people? God calls no one to compromise...so don't! Blessings
@@bt8722 wow.. what a strong reaction to a little comment. Btw, do you believe in and recite the Rosary? And if you do, do you recite the Luminous, or is it man made? Not Biblical enough? Bc Papa JP2 was not Marian enough or not a real Pope?
Makes me think:
TLMs cry for Latin that they can’t understand.
Novus ordo complain that foreign, non American priests speak w heavy accents they they can’t understand.
We seem to be crying any which way so much I wonder if we can just take up the Cross and grow up. I seem to remember the Israelites in the wildernesss in the days of Moses were criers and demanders too. As Catholics, we should not be like the PROTESTANT 2 month old spiritual crybabies.
I would love to see true Marian obedience, submission, humility, and gentleness in the many “TLM” comments, especially since the true Mass should bring one closer to God and bring many graces to imitate Christ (oh, maybe like in Thomas a Kempis book) but I seem to not feel it. Why is that?
It just feels cafeteria- Catholicky, or very rampant, vitriolic PROTEST/rANTy somehow.
Find a valid Priest or Bishop who offers the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and fasting after midnight for Holy Communion like the the Saints and Martyrs is important.
th-cam.com/video/ggm_dMae8io/w-d-xo.html
Fr. Ripperger says God frowns on schism (even for the tridentine mass)
@ sounds very Eastern Orthodox… hmmm…. lol
Very good
Then all the cancelled priests and bishops are invalidly cancelled.
Unless their ordination was invalid in the first place.
Frances is heretic. All religions don't lead to God. how much error will we accept? Souls being lost!!!!
He spoke off the cuff and spoke in error but the Vatican has corrected him. He was not speaking ex-cathadra.
St. Peter left eating with gentiles to eat with Jews. St. Paul corrected him.
Is the Pope ever not teaching? When he makes remarks in public, is he by definition "teaching"?
There are degrees of teaching and long standing Cannon Law on what is a dogma and how it is stated. What has been preached since 1958 is obviously contrary to what came before. Partial or relative truth is no truth at all.
@@leevjr686 That didnt answer the question. If you say there are degrees of teaching then on one end there must be something like the Pope is not teaching and the other end is when he alone defines infallibly ex cathedra. Right? Otherwise, your holding the Pope to a standard that no other Pope has been subjected to because of technological advancement.
@@leevjr686 That doesnt answer the question. Would you say that the role of teacher applies infallibly and non infallibly?
A genuine question from one struggling to make sense of all this... Whose names does a priest say in the beginning of the Canon when he should insert the name of the pope and bishop, if that priest believes the Chair vacant?
Check out Mary little remnant, Br. Richard Joseph Michael Ibranyi at john the baptist . Us all one word for your only hope of salvation. You will get all the true Catholic answers there. May the one true Catholic God bless you✝️
We follow the same rules that are set down for when a Pope or Bishop has died and omit the mention of a Pope or Bishop entirely. This is what was done pre-Vatican 2.
@@jeanettepetersen3514 "Non Una Cum" is a belief but +Sanborn has zero authority to enforce it on his faithful. He has no office nor jurisdiction within the Church,he is in error. It's fine one believes he shouldn't be mentioned in the Canon but it's not enforceable on the faithful.
You and I are "the church" and we are NOT infallible. ONLY the pope is granted the charism of infallibility, not "the church."
Thank you Father EXCELLENT serman ❤❤❤.
Michael Lofton reviewed the Joe Rogan/Mel Gibson (Sedevacantist) interview for anyone interested.
th-cam.com/users/livey3Ki4AKtyCM?si=Vjvif4rabw16LMdw
🙏
Unpopular opinion,Pius XII lost his office in 1956. He (P XII) also promoted +Montini and +Roncalli.
Franciscans and Dominicans have been tossing various theological opinions back and forth for centuries, although not quite so defamatory
How about this Catholic clear teaching from the 1983 Code of Canon Law which states in Canon. 1404 The First See is judged by no one.
Now based on your comment that Pope Pius XII lost his office in 1956, then lets go back to Canon 1556 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law which states in Canon 1556: The First See is judged by no one. So any individual layman, or priest, or Bishop or Cardinal by Catholic Doctrine has absolutely no authority to judge a Pope. This side of heaven only a successor Pope can judge a predecessor Pope. Now while a Pope himself may know if he is a private heretic (it is possible) only God can ultimately judge that as He is the only one that knows the heart.
So we are left back to what Canon Law said before Vatican II in the 1917 Code and what it stated the same way after Vatican II in the 1983 Code, the first See is judged by no one.
@@PalermoTrapani Council of Trent Session 7 Canon 13.
@@E.C.2 What does that have to do with Judging the Pope? It says no individual priest has the right to change the received and approved Rites of the Church. That does not mean a Pope can modify or reform Rites. That happened quite quickly after Pope Pius V in 1570 issued his Missal. The Feast of Our Lady of Lepanto was added a few years after, for example by the Pope's decree, not a priest on his own accord.
Regarding Angelo Roncalli who became Pope John XXII in 1958, he studied Canon Law in Rome during the time of Pope Pius X. He was ordained a priest in 1904 and Pope Pius X asked to meet Fr. Roncalli who it appears was viewed as an outstanding Canonist. Fr. Roncalli was consecrated Bishop in 1925 at the direction of Pope Pius XI (titular Bishop in Jordan) and then served as a Vatican Representative of Pope Pius XI in Bulgaria and Greece. He was elevated to Cardinal and Patriarch of the Church in Venice by Pope Pius XII in 1953.
So here is my question for you, when do you say Angelo Roncalli as a priest, studied in Rome and ordained when Pope Pius X was Pope, as Bishop, consecrated Bishop during Pope Pius XI Papacy or when he was Cardinal, elevated to that rank by Pope Pius XII was a "formal heretic" for if he was in fact a heretic, then the Seminaries in Rome where Angelo Roncalli studied did not weed him out when Pope Pius X was Pope, nor did Pope Pius XI stop from appointing him as Bishop nor did it nor did Pope Pius XII well before he elevated him to Cardinal stop it as Pope Pius XII appointed Roncalli as his Papal Nuncio in France in 1944, which was a very, very important appointment given that WW2 was raging then.
So you have by what you said made the Popes all the way back to Pope Pius X complicit in heresy (Benedict XV, Pius XI and also Pius XII.
This is the danger of Sedevacantism, where does it stop. This Mary's Little Remnant group now says the see of Rome has been vacant since 1134 AD.
Thank you. A common argument promoted even by post-conciliar traditionalist religious and theologians (e.g. Fr. Ripperger, Bishop Schneider) is that the election of a pope by the College of Cardinals makes it so. Pope Paul IV decreed otherwise.
“Cardinal Fernandez (Prefect of the Holy Office) has explained it all. There is the dry and dusty “Theology of Tradition” (that is, the Catholic Faith which comes to us from the Apostles). There is the new and improved “Theology of Francis”. However, this is made up of the personal views and opinions of the Pope. They do not amount to ex cathedra teachings by the Pope on matters of faith and morals. So, the Pope can offer views contrary to the Faith, which are, however, not binding on the Faithful, so, he is not teaching heresy, because what he offers are personal views and opinions only. Cardinal Fernandez says “wouldn’t it be nice if we all put aside the dry and dusty Theology of Tradition and voluntarily chose to embrace, in its place, the new and improved Theology of Francis.” We can’t be forced to do so. Since the Pope has not altered the Deposit of Faith at all, he can not be considered as an heretic. So, for example, while the Theology of Tradition teaches that two men may not live together and engage in sodomy, the Pope says “well, yes, technically, that is the Theology of Tradition, but, if, embracing my new and improved Theology they do live together and engage in sodomy, I shall give them my blessing - while they may be committing a mortal sin, that does not bother me, personally, because I don’t believe that there is a literal Hell - I am not denying the teaching of the Church on the point, I just don’t, personally, believe that the Church is right, so please follow me and choose to believe the same - I am not forcing you to do so, if I did I should be an heretic and no longer the Pope, but I invite you to share my own personal views and opinions which is that much of the Catholic Faith is not actually true - I will maintain the integrity of the Catholic Faith, since, as Pope, I am forced to, against my will, but I don’t actually believe a lot of it, so follow my example.” Hopefully, that is all quite clear.
A liar has no authority in any organization where that person makes up their own rules, and any sensible person following someone issuing illegal orders is compromising the stated mission of it.
He can’t be because he can declare himself unable to he a Heritic 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Well surprise he is. ☦️☦️☦️
The church is in Apostasy since 1134, there is only one true Catholic Church 'Mary little remnant. The law of epikeia applies. Check out Richard Joseph Michael Ibranyi the true spiritual ruler of the Catholic Church in these end times.
I have read about the Mary Little Remnant sedevacantist but first time I have seen one make the 1134 Sedevacantist claim. Wow! very interesting. So in 1134 Pope Innocent II was elected but it was controversial and some claimed Anacletus II was the valid Pope. So if I understand your claim, the last valid Pope was Pope Honorius II?
How wacky. Sounds similar to the Anabaptist Trail of Blood where they fantasized they were the true “Christian martyrs” who went underground as a remnant in the early 1st 2-4 centuries, only to have the Holy Spiritan revive them in modern day, to be possesssed by the Spirit to Babel away gibberish tongues and gyrations.
Very Convenient assumption and belief!
Watch the entire video.
Lazy comment, nothing convenient at all about not having a pope.
No big hats in my religion. Simple, good old-fashioned faith, like Christ intended, friend.
So much religion ... anybody have a consciousness connection with the higher power?
Your desire to connect with the higher power is a form of religion.
Oh contra!
Pope Honorius I (625-638)
Honorius I was accused of supporting Monothelitism, a heretical view that Christ had only one will (divine) rather than two wills (divine and human).
Honorius was posthumously anathematized as a heretic by the Third Council of Constantinople (680-681), which condemned Monothelitism.
@@american1911 Not exactly. Check out Michael Lofton for the full story on Honorius.
Go to novus ordo watch, NOT to the popesplainers.
@m.k.7630 "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
Patently untrue, and historically untrue. That is anathema.
So tell us why. Happy to hear your side. I do accept Francis is Pope. If only he were'nt
@@MichaelReilly-r7h Well, ok, but I didn't come to argue. There's another comment on this stream where @american1911 references Pope Honorius I (625-638), who was anathematized by the Roman church (synod) itself for his apostasy. He had accepted the ancient heresy of Monothelitism, which was condemned at the third ecumenical council (680-681). Just one pre-schism example. I am admittedly Orthodox, and thus view popes after the different schism differently from Rome.
However Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism may argue theology, I take the equally pertinent Orthodox approach that begins with church practice and the Christian life. St. Peter certainly recognized his sin in denying Christ before the crucifixion. Romans are fond of remembering that he was yet given the keys to the kingdom of heaven, although they mean by that something a little different from Orthodox. Yet both of us regard that as having considerable import. And as for him, he never claimed authority to decide for everyone what was of the faith and what was not, but always met with the faithful around him, and deciding and declaring in council with the leaders. If he made no such claim, why should any Pope?
Furthermore, the universal testimony of all orthodox saints, pre-schism or post-schism, is that they are sinners, and have declared through their advice and counsel in their writings what their understanding is of how to repent and pray to be granted grace to cease sinning. Christ told many during his ministry here "go, and sin no more", and it is His salvation that makes that possible. But while we live on earth, we are still subject to the fallen nature we inherited from Adam, meaning that even if we do not sin further, we nevertheless are not invulnerable to temptation and falling. Thus we must always be vigilant to watchful to avoid doing so. And being human, most of us do continue to fall. It is our nature here on earth. We are freed of that nature entirely only when God makes everything new in the new Creation after Judgement Day. Only then is anyone unable to sin, because we are then fully united to God, as Adam in Paradise.
My own fundamental objection to this claim for Popes is that it denies the entire Christian life over the centuries. Christ never promised any of us, no matter our position, that we would be unable to sin in any matter, but only that we would be able to avoid sin if we remained with Him. The latter is given to many saints through His grace, but it has never been given through election, laying on of hands, or rising to positions of prominence in the Church. Witness the misdeeds of many clergy at all ranks in both Roman and Orthodox Churches (and Protestant for that matter). I can only conclude that there is hubris involved: that most deadly and basic temptation to put onesself, or anyone else, above all others (not just one other, but *everyone* else). Such a place is Christ's alone, and I (among many) cannot countenance claiming that a Pope is equal to Christ in anything.
By the way, I have no problem in recognizing Francis as a Pope. As far as I can tell, he was elected in accordance with Roman Catholic practice. It is not any problem for me. I think it is only a problem for Catholics because of the claim to supremacy of Popes.
Rubbish! A pontiff can become a heretic!
Go to school
A heretic pope is automatically excommunicated
from the Catholic Church.
Pray and do penance for Holy Mother the church and for the triumph of Mary's immaculate heart
Hi my friend
The pope can not be a heretic
The reason he can not be a heretic because the people in the Catholic faith give the pope that authority over your faith in God
See the Catholic church belongs to the pope of Rome
Jesus makes it clear in mathew Chapter 20, verses 25 to 28
Whoever we make our chief or servant is the one who will minister unto us
Jesus also speaks of the princes of the gentile would have Dominion and Great Authority over them but not us
Kjv Bible
So by your own authority when you give the pope the title of the rock and the pope becomes the successor of Saint Peter
You are giving the pope that authority
This is why we have protestant faiths
Because the protestant protest against the pope of being their rock
Jesus is our rock, for he was the one who died for us
As long as you are a Catholic you give the pope that authority over your faith because catholicism belongs to the pope it does not belong to Jesus christ
Did you know the pope have given themselves the title of
The princes of the apostles over the gentiles
Jesus is speaking of the popes in mathew Chapter 20, verses 25 to 28
And this is the reason why the Catholic priest never has a sermon on Sunday on mathew Chapter 20, verses 25 to 28
If they did, they would incriminate the Catholic faith
Oh? He very much *can*, our first pope, Peter himself, was not only a *heretic* but an actual *apostate* while he was validly pope at the same exact time, so we literally all know that the whole magisterium is a collection of lies and the godhead is Himself the father of lies only for so dumb a claim as you've made to even have become part of the doctrine of the faith!
How dare you insult God and st Peter.
St. Peter was corrected by a Council and those affairs have been happening since that time. What is needed in the modern age is another Council if we can gather enough believers to repair The Church.
@ Incorrect timeline, and no, it doesn't require nor could it require a superior or a council to rebuke a pope from such an act; or the laity are lost to Hell through no say of our own, and that proves by even having been taught once that God is literally *the* devil While at the same exact time being God Himself, and automatically ipso-facto, all worship and all contact with the afterlife is forbidden as the sorcery it is by that even having been said once to be solid teaching!
Plus, we *are* to judge God and Hs vicar by the bad acts of *any* of His agents, due to His regal status in the hierarchy of being, or He is wicked in and of Himself, nay, He automatically *is* evil solely because it was once declared that the laity are not free to defend themselves against false teachings from the pulpit even once in all of Church history; and yes, this even includes the old testament!
And they foisted a false god at Mt. Sinai for crying out loud; thus mandating heretical worship to begin with, and forever disqualifying the real Deity from EVEN EVER BEING God Himself and removed the status from ever being able to be tolerated, let alone trusted at all!
Basically, this priest says:
1. The Pope can not be a heretic.
2. Pope Francis is a heretic.
3. Therefore, Francis is not the Pope.
In an effort to make the world Catholic again, here is the truth:
1. The Pope cannot be a heretic.
2. Pope Francis is a heretic.
3. Therefore, YOU are the heretic, not Pope Francis.
Shame on this priest for his scandalous sermon.
Check out Michael Lofton for the truth on sedevacantism and Pope Francis.
You're making the case the Francis is NOT a heretic?
I am really surprised that this channel let your post stand. While many Sedevacantist post on Catholic YT channels that are from content creators who are in communion with a local Bishop who is communion with the Bishop of Rome, who is currently Pope Francis they tend to delete any comments that challenge their narrative. So I give this channel credit for allowing your post to stand. If you are going to make an argument that the See of Rome is vacant, then you should be willing to hear counter arguments.
My YT algorithm has recommended several videos from Sedevacantist and Pope Francis. My theory, and that is all it it is, is that Mel Gibson appeared on Joe Rogan and that video has as of today 12 January 2025 over 5.1 million views. Mel was raised in a 1958 Sedevacantist home and I think he has moved towards the Sedeprivationism position held by the late Dominican Theologian Fr. Michel-Louis Guérard des Lauriers [25 October 1898 - 27 February 1988].
So with Joe Rogan, Mel Gibson defacto has become the most visible proponent of the Sedevacantist movement in general and in particular the more nuanced Sedeprivationist position noted above. I feel sorry for Mel losing his home, as all the folks in California with the wild fires, but lets be honest while I hope and pray Mel Gibson gets his life in order, it is a mess. Raised in Sedevacantist home, gets involved with a protestant (Episcopalian) and gets her pregnant, then married with 7 kids. Leaves wife for young Russian Model and has a child with her. Leaves the young Russian Model for an actress named Rosalind Moss and has a child with her. So 9 Kids with 3 different women. Now at least he did not try to get married to ladys 2 and 3 as one presumes his first marriage was a valid sacramental marriage, but still Mel needs prayers.
Cheers and God Bless to all
Spoken like a true hyperpapalist! You realize a pope can be declared an antipope?
You obviously have not studied minor logic and the form of the syllogism. The major premise contains the predicate of the conclusion. The minor premise contains the subject of the conclusion. In addition, you reject the Magisterium mentioned by Fr. Radecki.
@@michaelcreighton5116 Well not going to get into the Logic and syllogism debate. But lets just go to what the Church has said regarding who can judge the Pope. Lets just keep it simple.
The CMRI priests hold the position that the FSSPX "una cum mass" is valid. That is a contradiction and contradictions don't come from God, but from de devil.
While the CMRI acknowledges the validity of these priests’ sacraments, it does not endorse their theological position regarding the pope or their inclusion of “una cum” in the Canon. The faithful are advised to exercise caution when approaching such priests, especially concerning their children, to avoid confusion about the papacy and the Church’s teachings on infallibility. The CMRI states that Catholics may receive sacraments (e.g., Confession, Eucharist) from traditional priests who offer “una cum” Masses.
This position acknowledges the validity of sacraments offered by such priests, even if they include the pope’s name in the Canon.
You are exactly saying two contradictory statements:
1.According to the law of non-contradiction in logic, "one thing cannot be both something and its opposite at the same time and in the same sense". By acknowledging the validity of those priests’ sacraments, they are endorsing their position.
2.“ This position acknowledges the validity of sacraments offered by such priests, even if they include the pope’s name in the Canon”.
By including the “pope’s name” in the Canon, they are lying and committing a sacrilege act because there is no pope.
Book of Moral Theology of Father Ferreres, paragraph 273, 1a, “He who bows his knees, even only externally, to an idol, or makes other manifestations of false religion, e.g. by frequenting the communion of heretics, etc., sins gravely against the faith”. [Google translation].
Bergoglio is an idol who stands in the place of Christ and acts against Him. The members of the FSSPX are heretics.
292. IV. “In sacred things it is per se unlawful to communicate with heretics, and it is PROHIBITED BY THE CHURCH, not only in things that contain heresy, as is natural, but even in things that are celebrated with Catholic rite. Because even in the latter there is a danger to religion, that is, there is a certain appearance of adherence to the condemned sect, and it generally fosters indifference, gives occasion to scandal and carries with it the danger of perversion itself ”. [Google translation].