It's been nice to hear the gospel on Rogan, but having Wes Huff say that the Catholic Church tried to suppress the Bible, followed by having Mel Gibson (2 days later) saying that the face of the Catholic Church isn't the real Church is deeply concerning.
The Roman church actually attempted to prevent anyone but the priests read the scriptures for about 500 years by locking it in a box, (codex). Remember Catholics burned people for translating, possessing or even reading the Scriptures.
11 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +31
@saintmatthew956 babble. Wes Huss says alot of babble without a lot of facts. The church preserved the Bible. He clearly doesn’t know how difficult it was to put a bible together before the printing press. Also the church translated the bible before the heretic luther did. What luther did was have everyone have a bible and interpreted it by themselves which is heresy. We are not muslims
Fruits of protestants: feeding the poor, spreading the gospel to tribes and peoples in the worst places, spreading, building schools, churches and communities. Fruits of catholics: massacres and slaughter of Protestants, Worship of idols, vain repetitions, mass child abuse by church authority. It would be funny if it wasnt so tragic.
@@PGHFilter no it’s not. Do your research first and foremost. You clearly have no clue. Catholic Christian monks in the early century put the bible together. is widely believed that, to facilitate the lay reading of Scripture, Luther was first to translate the Bible into German. He was not. The first Bible in the German vernacular was produced in the eight century at the monastery of Monse. By the fifteenth century, there were 36,000 German manuscript bibles in circulation, and a complete printed Bible in the German vernacular appeared in 1529, five years before Luther’s translation was published. In short, the Church made Scripture accessible to laymen long before Luther and the Reformation did. There is, in fact, a sense in which the Bible is the product of the Catholic Church, as it was the bishops of the Church who decided which books circulating in the fourth century would be considered canonical. Indeed, the Church took great pains throughout its history to guard, defend, and preserve Scripture. Pope St. Damasus I (r. 366-383) first took up the task of publishing a vernacular version of Scripture, and he employed his brilliant yet irascible secretary St. Jerome (342-420) to accomplish the task. Jerome learned Greek and Hebrew to properly translate the word of God into the vernacular Latin. His translation, which became known as the Vulgate, was not well received in North Africa, where a riot erupted over his version of the book of Jonah. Widespread acceptance of the Vulgate in the Church took time. Perhaps part of the resistance can be attributed to the long memory of the Church. Jerome’s new translation came less than a hundred years after Diocletian initiated the Great Persecution. One of his edicts mandated the surrender of all copies of the sacred writings, an event so destructive that its memory remained with the Church long after the persecution ended. The Church maintained a great respect and love for the sacred word, as evidenced by the efforts of monks to preserve it. The sixth century was witness to the activity of a uniquely saintly man who renounced his worldly life to become a hermit. His reputation for holiness attracted many followers, and soon thereafter Benedict of Nursia founded a monastery at Monte Cassino. Benedict’s vision for his monks was rooted in the idea that monasticism was a “school of divine service” in which the monk committed himself to a life of obedience focused on a routine of work, prayer, study, and self-denial. Benedict’s monks preserved and maintained Western civilization through their painstaking work of copying ancient Greek and Roman manuscripts, as well as devoting time to copying and illustrating Scripture. Working in the scriptoriums of Benedictine monasteries in the Middle Ages was not easy. It took nearly a year to copy a Bible manuscript. The process was laborious and wearisome; as one monk recorded, “He who does not know how to write imagines it to be no labor; but though three fingers only hold the pen, the whole body goes weary.” Any copying work the monk did not finish during the day had to be completed at night, even in the cold winter months. Bibles were not only copied but richly and beautifully illuminated with elaborate images. Bible illumination began in the fifth century with Irish monks who painstakingly prepared the skins of calves, sheep, or goats into vellum that was used for the manuscripts. The famous Lindisfarne Gospels manuscript, copied and illuminated in the eighth century, was the work of one scribe who used 130 calfskins and took five years to complete the work. The amount of labor that went into each copy of the Bible led to preventing their theft either by locking them in containers or chaining them to desks. In other words, these were security measures, not efforts to keep Scripture from the faithful. Indeed, protecting an expensive Bible by securing it allowed greater, not lesser, access to it. Moreover, the Bible was usually placed in a public area of a church so those who could read could peruse its pages. The first mention of this protective policy occurs in the mid eleventh century in the catalogue of St. Peter’s Monastery in Weissenburg, Alsace, where it was recorded that four Psalters were chained in the church. Moreover, the practice was not exclusive to the Catholic Church: Protestants also utilized the well-known security measure, as evidenced by the chaining of the Great Bible (also known as the Chained Bible) published by command of King Henry VIII of England in 1539. The Real Story The Protestant principle of sola scriptura led to the myth that the Catholic Church kept the word of God from the faithful to maintain its authority; the chaining of bibles in medieval churches was seen as evidence of this. It also led to the false claim that Martin Luther’s translation of the Bible into German was the first such vernacular edition; in fact, there had been many vernacular editions preceding Luther’s, including St. Jerome’s Vulgate. It was the Church that, far from suppressing the Bible, determined the canon of its books and then preserved and authoritatively interpreted the written word of God throughout its history. Catholic monks painstakingly preserved the sacred writings and beautifully illustrated them throughout the medieval period. These priceless manuscripts were chained or locked up in churches not to prevent their use but to protect against theft, thus allowing greater access to them, which was standard practice in both Catholic and Protestant churches until the printing press enabled mass production of bibles. I suggest you do your research.
Father, I don't know how you don't see the hidden danger we follow God and laws he left us to follow no matter what that includes the Pope. I'm praying for you and all clergy Father.
I was almost a sedevacantist once. I was listening to some of their arguments and I was convinced that something was wrong. It got to the point that I wouldn't even receive communion because I didn't trust that the priests, even the priests serving TLM in my town, were validly ordained. As a convert, it broke my heart to see all the offenses and degradations to my new beloved home. But overtime, I began to hear Jesus call to me, everytime communion was served. I was thoroughly confessed, going to mass multiple times a week, and at every communion Jesus would call me. Why wasn't I going to receive Him? He wanted me, I needed Him. Finally I got fed up with it. I realized that it must be real communion if Jesus was calling me to receive. If it wasn't, then Jesus wouldn't have said anything, He would have called me elsewhere. And it didn't make sense in my convert brain, why I would adhere to another branch of Protestantism when specifically made the jump into Catholicism. What is Catholicism but the unity of Christ's people around His altar, around His flesh and blood. Once I got my head wrapped around the fact that Jesus was still present, I had to come to terms with priestly ordination, and then papal succession. I'm no Pope-splainer, nor am I happy about the grievances that have come about because of the Novus Ordo, but I learned that if I can trace it all back to Jesus, then I can trust Him and His church, no matter how bad it looks, or how far off the reservation Pope Francis goes.
Thank you so much for sharing your beautiful testimony . You’ve touched on many important points . God bless you & may Our Blessed Mother’s maternal and loving mantle protect your soul onto The Lord ✝️🙏🏼🕊️✨
@thebitterrootranger4405 - you are right on - and just as Jesus showed at Mat 23:2-7 that even when those in the office He established have personal corruption we are still to follow the teachings established by Our Lord that are in their care - just don't follow their personal failures.
I am no "Pope-splainer" either, but I think that Pope Francis is far more orthodox than many people give him credit for. I just think that he isn't very good a communication. Maybe it is a language thing with being a Spanish speaking Pope or just not being a very eloquent speaker. Either way, I think not-great-popes are an excellent opportunity for catechesis. Also, good pope or bad pope, they are still the pope and we need to give religious submission of will and intellect to them. Even Benedict XVI didn't always see eye-to-eye with Francis on how to run the Church, but recognized it wasn't his decision to make, but Francis'. I also love pointing to St. Peter. Could you only imagine the Sedevacantists if Francis denied knowing Jesus even once, nonetheless 3 times? Sin doesn't disqualify someone from being the Pope.
Some crackpot idea from Gibson is perhaps less damaging than Rogan’s claim - spoken with total confidence and one that Mel basically let pass - that the Catholic Church is a “dark institution”, as that view is shared by many.
@ How empty is Christ's promise if it really means 'well the entire Church with billions of people in possession of all the dioceses of the world can apostatize and appear like the Church I made, but there will still be a couple people against whom the gates of hell shall not prevail'?
Mel Gibson ditched his wife and eight kids and is now in an adulterous relationship. Honestly I really can't take him seriously for that reason, until and unless he repents publicly.
He “ditched” his wife? Were you there? I don’t think I can take you seriously until you publicly admit you really have no clue what his situation really was.
He didn't ditch his wife and his children were grown up. His wife left him. You can argue it was understandable that she couldn't be with him any more because of the pressure. But don't spread lies about people just because you can't cope with the fact that Mel is right about what happened in 1958 and you'd rather turn a blind eye to child abuse and satanism than face facts.
I’m a new Catholic. This civil war is a terrible thing. I’m way to new and ignorant it have an opinion about Francis’s validity. I did read that st Gregory the great proclaimed we must never slander or detract a Catholic clergyman. I do know that Francis isn’t the first pope that’s hard to love. I just pray he does Gods will.
Relatable. I converted in 2022 from protestantism. The problem is both sides, to be honest. There are radtrad types who mislead people, who are very hyperbolic, and unhelpful. The problem is, the radtrad movement is a response to clear and undeniable subversion in the Church from modernist. The "spirit of Vatican two" has done more harm to the church than anything else. It is both disheartening and ridiculous to prioritize RadTrads as the primary problem while overlooking people like Father Martin, McElroy, the German bishops, pretty much all of the Jesuit order, etc.... Hyper prioritizing the response to a problem, but never addressing the problem is only going to make more of the response. It is gaslighting. There will be no Unity until the hierarchy comes down on people like Father Martin and these egregious subversive movements in the Church. America magazine is a perfect example. More secular classical liberal than Catholic. The proof is in the pudding. You will know them by their fruits. Where there is life. The traditional parishes in the church have way larger numbers of young people and new converts compared to these dying modernist subversive movements. Then you have people who aren't themselves morally subversive who make a bunch of excuses for scandal. We don't need to go anywhere other than scripture to say that it's perfectly okay to critique the pope. Saint Paul clearly and undeniably critiqued St Peter himself. That doesn't mean we need to be ridiculous and we shouldn't be respectful and loving. We should want everybody in the hierarchy to serve god well and to have the health of their soul. I pray for Francis, I personally believe him to be the true Vicar of Christ, but it's no good to pretend like there aren't problems some people who care more about fitting in with secular classical liberal sensibilities than Catholic traditional teaching. There are white pills here though. Younger Catholics and seminarians tend to be more traditional. There's going to have to be a kind of convergence and revisiting of the church on Vatican 2 and how it needs to be properly interpreted for us to actually heal going forward. It can only be interpreted strictly in texturalist way. That's the only way to get rid of all of the spirit of the "spirit of Vatican 2" nonsense.
I too am a new Catholic who left my Protestant roots to embrace the Ancient church only to find out it was at war with itself. I actually thought I was finally entering a type of spiritual refuge and the answer to all my concerns with the Church in this age. I am deeply saddened by this. We must take heed to the fact that we are having a negative impact on the faithful, both old and new and the harvest of new souls looking for Truth.
Turns out that we are all sinners even bishops, cardinals and the pope. As Catholics we continue to follow Jesus and participate in his earthly church despite all the flawed sinners within. We will have to trust that Jesus knows and has a plan.
There have always been heretics and those that disagreed with the Church. As you read the Bible you’ll see that this goes back to the time of Moses and was a constant concern of the Apostles who had to stamp out foes and warned us more was coming. If your faith is shaken by some celebrities and TH-camrs, you are in for a rough ride and more likely to fall away from the faith. Mel Gibson’s crazy rantings aren’t taken seriously by 99% of the faithful, and no serious person. You can relax and grow in your faith in peace. God bless
I disagree. You would not call the orthodox protestants. While they disagree with the papacy or the last council, they are still apostolic holding to the 73 book canon, the infallibility of most popes and councils and otherwise are not at all comparable to them. Your approach should be entorely different approaching one or the other.
What the comments prove: if you thought Protestant anti-Catholicism was bad, wait until you see “Catholic” (SSPX/Sedevacantist) anti-Catholicism… Another excellent video from Joe, as usual.
Not just SSPX- it’s deep in many TLM groups. They walk a fine line- and if you don’t agree that the pope is evil/is a false pope- you will be ostracized from the TLM(not by the priests- the parishioners).
@@JVSak dear brother, I am a TLM daily mass in Virginia and know all the people in Front Royal and Gainesville Holy Trinity! I just converted into Catholic and this TLM families in this places are so wonderful, they just love tradition, silence, reverence, Latín, over all God! They are very devoted Catholics and don't criticize or condemn anyone else if don't attend this mass, I myself and my wife and many others time to time go to Novus Ordo and to attack the TLM in general is a big mistake, I encourage you to attend one day any TLM church group. Blessings 🙏🏾
Mel Gibson for me is a tragic person. The Passion Of The Christ was a cinematic masterpiece. His personal life is a mess. He is living in adultery. And his Sedesvacantism is evil.
@@TomasTomi30 Then maybe give Mel some time, and maybe he will repent, assuming he's still doing those things. I wonder what you are doing? I'm glad you're not a public figure!
Plus, bro, your heroes are a dude who sends his friend and soldire off to get killed in war to steal his wife and add her to his concubine of HUNDREDS of women. Then you have a man who literally murdered CHRISTIANS by sending them to be eaten by lions. But Mel had a bad marriage and drinks too much. GET a GRIP lmao! You learned nothing from the bible.
It started off so good, and as someone who is investigating Catholicism I was super happy to see a Catholic on the show. I was a little disappointed. Still super interesting though.
Listen to it again. Mel did fantastic. There's nothing disappointing about telling the truth about the evil people who have snuck into the church and are trying to destroy her. If you approve of the child molesters, which i assume you don't, you're not ready to be a true Catholic.
Rogan needs to have an actual Catholic on his show, sedevacantists are not Catholic by definition
11 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา
@@macroglossumstellatarum3068gibson should look into his closet. Sedes are just closet Protestants . They don’t know that they’re spitting at Christ and calling him a liar pretty much.
I think I'll go through this whole comment section and repeat this a dozen times. Mel Gibson is not a catholic. He is a sedevacantist. Read about him on wikipedia.
10 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา
@@ryankiel4895 he might as well be a protestant. All you can do is pray for the guy. He’s basically calling christ a liar. 1 john 2: 19 They went out from us, but they were not really of our number;* if they had been, they would have remained with us. Their desertion shows that none of them was of our number.
Glad Joe is pointing this out. At best Mel is bringing scandal to the Church. At worst he’s making Protestants and Orthodox Christians on the fence have excuses.
Shall we ever stop thinking of our judgement, when Christ will ask for an account of every idle word, and show us every soul who was damned that we could have helped?
Much rather be him on judgement day than any of the prelates that sheltered child abusers, deprived the faithful of sacraments during Covid, or who have cowed down to way of the world.
He called himself "John XXIII", litterally the name of an anti pope... Yeah and? What's he gonna do instead? Call himself John XXIV and just leave out the 23 in the succession because some dude who wasn't a legitimate pope claimed the number first? What kind of logic is that?
@@jamessauve2419 as Joe pointed out that was not the first time it had happened and the fact that some ani-pope takes a name dose not declare the name "unpapalble"
"erm, popes just need stop taking the name John so _I,_ local stupid, don't get confoozed cuz me can't handle concept. if there's one guy bad, no name, even if 20x that number of guy good. but one guy bad tho!! Ohhh such head ache!! Urggh"
@@TimMiller-n7k if there is no pope (past the time where one could be elected), then the papacy has failed. if the papacy has failed, Christ’s Church has failed. if Christ’s Church has failed, then Christ is a liar. if Christ is a liar, Christianity is false. don’t try and make God a liar.
How dare they poop on child molesters and those who cover for them and idol worship and satanic orgies on Homy ground. Naughty. The child molesters aren't the problem, Mel Gibson is the problem for telling the truth about them.
Me too. I was so excited to see a Catholic on Rogan and then he opened his mouth. I’m sorry I’m not going to let an actor tell me that my faith and how I practice my Catholic faith is wrong because he’s put his “genus” father on a pedestal. I love his work and as an actor and director but maybe he should leave the Catholic explanations to Apologist and theologians.
I'm so glad you posted this. I've been trying to summarize my question for Catholic Answers since I saw the Mel Gibson interview... and you just answered everything. Thank you for everything you do.
I think the most basic way to present it is this: Jesus Christ established a Church, and promised that the gates of hell won't prevail over it, and established the papacy to be a permanent part of the structure of that Church. Both Orthodoxy and sedevacantism recognize that the pope HAD some kind of authority, but each claim that he lost it at some point (namely, once the pope disagreed with them). But that doesn't make sense if Jesus is the source of papal authority in the first place.
I would say the average catholic is completely lost when it comes to the basics of the faith. You don’t need a go between with Jesus. Read the Bible. Pray. Commune. If you were stuck on a desert island with a Bible you wouldn’t end up being a Catholic.
I think this is more problem with Joe Rogan's podcast. Popularists are who get on the show, no matter where they lean. It is not there to promote truth, as much as some may think otherwise with Wes's appearance. It's a podcast- entertainment, not an evangalising or truth seeking tool.
Glad someone is pointing it out. A lot of Catholics that I follow on X were excited about what he had to say but no one seemed concerned by his sedevacantist views.
You are a heartfelt answer to a prayer!! I have been wondering for quite a while about this view and wondering if what I have been hearing is true. In tearful prayers, just yesterday, I begged God to let me know in some way what the truth is…and then I listen to your podcast this morning. It cleared up so many issues. May God reward you for defending His Church and helping the ignorant!! You will always remain in my prayers!!❤️🙏
Oddly, despite leaving the church Nicholson maintained "respect’ for it, and would actually get angry at people bad mouthing the church in his presence
Thanks for this. I’ve never taken a dive into exactly why sedes were wrong other than the obvious logical issues. As a Protestant convert, I mostly just pointed out that they were being Protestant, lol. Now I have a bit more knowledge.
Just one more thing... If the Sedevecantists are correct that someone was validly elected before John XXIII, how do we know it was Siri who was validly elected?
They don’t have any evidence Siri was elected. It’s just based on pure speculation, a theory which Gibson’s father abandoned himself realizing it to be wanting. Never mind the fact that Siri acknowledged St. Pope John XXIII as Pope which further contradicts the absurdity of the “Siri theory.”
I'm not even 3 minutes in. However, I just wanted to say THANK YOU for addressing this. I'd been looking for a video from one of our brilliant apologists who would tackle it.
It’s unreal how blatantly dishonest many criticisms of Pope Francis are, not just from protestants but even Catholics. Him saying “all religions are a path to God” doesn’t mean every religion is equally true and all will lead to salvation. If you’re giving any charity to Francis whatsoever you’ll understand he’s obviously not denying Christ, he’s saying other religions can have aspects of truth. Which is already acknowledged by the church. It’s just purely dishonest. They know very well he didn’t mean that and yet continue to act as if he did. This is why I don’t take many of these critics seriously
I think that is stretching his statement. "All religions are a path to God" is misleading at best and heretical at worst. It's not "disingenuous" to interpret it that way. If someone else said that, you would think the same. I thought the argument is that the Pope is not infallible but the authority of the church is still better and clearer in totality than "personal" or "disjointed" popery. Trent Horn gave a better response. Those words aren't "disingenuous" to interpret in that manner. Infact, the manner you wish Protestants to interpret it in is excessively charitable
@@VicecrackVoldermort It is 100% disingenuous when you know the person saying it is the pope and has spent a lifetime serving Christs church. You really, honestly think that he just casually denied Christ after all this time spent in service of him? This one sentence means he’s a heretic suddenly? It would depend on the context, but no I wouldn’t necessarily think someone is saying that, I’d definitely ask them to explain what they mean by that because the statement is a bit ambiguous. But the reaction to it, towards the pope no less, has been super overly critical and uncharitable I think. And yes, you’re right, he’s not infallible. I don’t defend every single thing he says. But this isn’t something to come after him for. It was at an interfaith dialogue where he was emphasizing commonalities over differences. Obviously
Exactly! People judge Pope Francis so harshly for his words they wouldn’t dare do the same for themselves if they get anything slightly wrong. And in this case, the Pope isn’t even wrong. Yet they call him a heretic. What do you want from him? To please your every whim? Well good thing he only aims to please Christ.
@@onetowardslove For your first question, I don't think he wants to deny Christ but I think his statements lean to doing so. This isn't rare to me. I am not American. I am Nigerian. And we are a very religious country with almost everyone either being Muslim or Christian and very few traditionalists. There are interreligious marriages and the Christians in those marriages justify that, despite telling all their friends about Christ and how he is the Way, Truth and Life, praying and partaking in communion, and otherwise behaving in a respectable manner that shows a devotion to Christ, there are multiple ways to God. Or, "We all worship the same God". I have heard a few of them say the exact thing the pope said. It isn't disingenuous to understand that devoted Christians can say misguided things. Or even believe in some of them. Hope that helps. I also hope you understand how optically terrible what the Pope did was. The Christians I was talking about are Protestants and while even non-denominationals don't affirm such statements as true, false doctrines like that is what led me to be Catholic-curious. To hear the Pope misspeak in such a way, no matter where he is, was disappointing.
It would be wonderful, as a self-professed candidate/baby-catholic, to avoid making giant public statements like “I disagree with the Pope” and rather to spend a lot of time in prayer and study of sure sources like scripture, the catechism, and the great spiritual writers.
@jimcampbell7675 I can do all of that lol. I don't necessarily think the Pope is right about some of the things he's said but I also think he's been taken out of context and twisted a lot of times. I pray for the Pope and Magisterium and am submitting to their authority under the Church.
@@NoxnoctisSicarius my point is you can’t “submit” to the magisterium while also publicly saying the Pope is not right. That’s the opposite of religious submission, especially when you’re not specifying what levels of authority the statements are that you’re disagreeing with. It’s not a spiritually safe thing to do, especially publicly, is all I’m saying.
Your statement is contradictory. Makes my head hurt. I would suggest taking a few more steps into the Church, but with humility. We must have humility. We must have humility. We must have humility. Pray the Litany of Humility. I will pray one for you and for me. Division is what those fallen angels are screaming at you. But demons hate humility!!! There are three things that work for me: 1) carry a little bottle of holy water. 2) say Hail Mary's... for me all it takes is one for sins of thought... venial or more serious. 3) Grab your crucifix. Very simple actions. Obviously, do a full examination of conscience and go to confession. Focus, on what Mother Mary says fasting, prayer and properly receiving Eucharist. If you like add a prayer to help Pope Francis or any clergy.
I almost accepted the Sedevacantist when Francis shut down my TLM Masses and the Pochamama debacle. My wife was the Liturgist and music director at a mega parish of 1300 families (10,000 people) while this was occurring. We later moved and our new parish had a TLM that was forced out of the local church to a closed church. The point is that I have had real personal "attacks" by Francis on my family and our faith. I've had multiple priests say that the Holy Spirit is protecting the Church and guiding Francis. If the Holy Spirit wasn't guiding Francis, he might be doing much more horrible things. My wife and other Liturgists and musicians have been "ignoring" statements made by Francis and continue to do their jobs serving their parishioners as best they can. It's been said we get the Pope the people deserve. Good or bad. I trust that Jesus founded and maintains His Holy Catholic Church and not even the gates of hell will prevail against her.
I agree with your view and I also don’t agree with sedevacantism. It is obvious that there are malign figures in powerful positions in the Church and traditiones Custodes made it clear that the feel good cries for the ‘new evangelisation’ were dissembling as the motivation was revealed to be alarm at the number of young people who were gravitating to the TLM. I always found it very suspect that the bishops etc persisted with the NO and the V2 changes in the face of tens of thousands of religious leaving their vocations and millions leaving the pews. Show me the CEO of a company that would bring in radical changes and then, when their customer base walked away, persisted (& with the current one, doubled down) on the same novel changes. They did not turn around and say ‘maybe we should go back to the liturgy that has been the centre of the faith for the time since Christ - that liturgy that sustained the martyrs and saints’ . Instead, they persisted and now persecute the traditional Catholics. I am like your wife - I simply ignore this lot and hope. The claims of the ‘holy spirit’ itself is a Protestant characterisation of the Holy Spirit - the worst of Protestant sledges against Catholics - as though the Holy Spirit operates in the election of the pope like some magic talisman. There was hard evidence of Masonic presence in the hierarchy at the time of Vatican 2 and the mason who revealed the names of those in the Vatican was murdered. So, while sedevacatism is an empty answer to the corruption we are witnessing, my disappointment with Joe heschmeyer on this video is that he has taken a straw man argument (Guiffre) and demolished it - probably to counter the damage that a high-profile person such as Mel Gibson would do. In doing so, yes, he will get the people in this comments section relaxing. However, he has not really addressed the issues - and we are seeing an ongoing persecution of the traditional Catholic community and this will lead to more animosity. Their problem is that Vatican 2 was a man-made movement and it’s time has gone. It did not work.
One thing that was helpful for me was having it pointed out that Saul, Solomon et al acted wickedly yet they were still God's anointed. This Is helpful to think about when we hear church leadership say things that sound more in line with the spirit of the times than the Holy Spirit. Kissing a koran, praying in mosques, "every religion is a way to arrive at God", sexual abuse/coverups and on and on. Growing up Protestant, any one of those events would have been enough for us to fire a pastor and move on. But, if we believe that the Catholic Church is divinely instituted it seems the only course of action in line with the truth is to stay, pray, and suffer. Thank you for your work Joe.
To be honest theories of son of a autism and traditional Catholicism were things that got me very interested in learning about catholic dogma’s and history way back in my protestant days. Your book Pope Peter was the straw that broke the camel’s back, but to normies and Joe Rogan’s audience a theory of infiltration and corruption might actually make them interested.
Communism did not end in Poland in 1990, just changed its face. All the communists "miraculously" became enthusiasts of the European Union just over 1 night.
Joe glad you are addressing Sededvacantism. I also posted on Trents channel that we need serious Catholic YT channels like yours, Trents and others to tackle the craziness of Sedevacantism . Regarding Mel Gibson's appearance on Joe Rogan which as of 15 January 2025 has now an incredible 6.5 million views is that Mel is defacto now the most visible spokesman for Sedevacantism broadly speaking. Although Mel Gibson was raised by a 1958 Sedevacantist father as you note, 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]. I think we all need to pray for Mel and feel sorry for Mel losing his home, as all the folks in California with the wild fires, but hope and pray Mel Gibson gets his life in order, it is a mess. Raised in 1958 Sedevacantist home, surprisingly he marries a lady who was a protestant (Episcopalian) and has 7 kids. He gets divorced and has a child with a young Russian Model and now is with a young 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. Since Mel's Joe Rogan appearance, I have had Sedevacantist YT channels pop up. Perhaps the Sedevacantist groups are using Mel's appearance on JR to promote their sect but at the same time they are nervous that Mel is in fact now the most visible spokeman for their movement. In this context, I think what you are doing is what Catholic YT creators need to do, that is directly address the world of Sedevcantism and show how wild it can get. You have the 1958 Sedevacantist who are anti Bishop Thuc Line consecrations (SSPV and CSPV). Fr. William Jenkins is in the anti-Thuc line group and very vocal about it. The CMRI who are also 1958 Sedevacantist was founded by a laymanr Frances Schuckhardt who was consecrated a priest and Bishop by and Old Catholic Bishop named "Daniel Brown", oh the irony. Today the CMRI presiding Bishop is led by a Bishop from the Thuc line. Then you have the RCI group under Bishop Sanborn who also has Bishop Thuc line consecration, but holds to the Sedeprivationist position mentioned above. Then there 2 groups that come out of Fr. Feeney's movement "Feeneyism" The Dimond Brothers group holds to 1958 Sedevacantism and considers all the above groups (SSPV, CSPV, CMRI and RCI) as heretics. Then you have this group called "Mary's Little Remnant" who split from the 1958 Feeneyism movement and hold to 1134 AD Sedevacantism (I kid you not) do to the controversial papal elections that elected Pope Innocent II. So thanks Joe for tackling the craziness of Sedevacantism directly. It needs to done directly and forcibly, but of course in charity. And the information regarding Pope John XXIII taking the name he took is dead on and the other evidence of Popes taking names to in essence cancer out the Anti-Popes. Excellent work. God Bless.
Loyalty to the Pope is one of the hallmarks of fidelity to Christ. So true is this, that we can measure our love for Christ by our love for the Vicar of Christ." - Fr. John Hardon, S.J. Servant of God Even if there is a defect in the election the defect is resolved by the universal acceptance of the Church, sedevacantism is just as crazy a Protestantism, Arianism, or any other heretical view.
Scandal based on truth sometimes tragically begets scandal based on falsehood. All the more important to call out scandals with a true basis to avoid fomenting scandal based on errors.
A point about Mel’s father, it does not follow that being good at Jeopardy equates with reasoning ability, just that you have a good memory for trivia.
1- by His divine authority, Jesus built His church upon Peter and gave him the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 2- All Popes ever since have been elected through an apostolic succession process grounded on the divine authority of Jesus. 3- Sedevacantists rely on their own authority to arbitrarily deny the Popes elected under the authority of Jesus. 4- Sedevacantists will not prevail against the church Jesus built upon Peter even if their names end with Gibson. 5- full stop.
Can we say it makes no sense why leadership would sabotage and disparage their own history, tradition, and Latin identity...unless they don't like it and they actually reject it. If that's the case, then how can we we trust them now? What they're demanding, the current novelty, as being sacred and honored may just be rejected in the future. That's the problem with neglecting and rejecting tradition... if it's not sacred and to be revered, who is to say the current liturgy is?
Yeah, there's no evil men in the Vatican promoting idol worship, molesting nuns and abusing children, and having rainbow orgies with cocain, especially not the higher ups ones who are in Washington and such places. That totally doesn't happen. And the people who calmly talk about those things are just ranting, raving lunatics. Stop turning a blind eye to child abusers. I dont understand why people like you don't care about evil men who are trying to destroy our Church from the inside out.
I nearly fell for sedevacantism years ago in my quest to "find the truth" I spoke against the Divine Mercy devotion and against JPII later when God taught me, through others, my errors, I went back and untaught all those I taught the nonsense and exhorted them to pray the Divine Mercy devotion. You mean to tell me I was this close to being this insane? JEEZZZ
Yeah if one listens to a Sede’s and Rad Trad’s arguments long enough and takes them to their final conclusions, they do sound like Protestants. And ironically enough, they’ll never acknowledge that it’s their language and mindset that goes against the Church and will claim they are the “true remnant of the Church.”
I hope Joe Rogan has the openness and intellectual capacity to understand that he needs to interview a faithful Catholic priest instead of Protestants and Mel Gibson if he wants the full Catholic truth.
I'm a loyal traditional Catholic, and I've had my spate with apostasy due to sedevacantist poison, but the attempts to explain away the ambiguity in Vatican II is inexcusable. The fact of the matter is there is ambiguity in so much that happened during the 1960s with the Church that all one is left with is wondering whether the ambiguity was deliberate for the purposes of sowing seeds of confusion or if it is merely a byproduct of clergy having lost their faith. I came back full force with faith that God knows what he's doing, separating the wheat from the chaff. Love God, and discern truth. As far as Gibson is concerned, I pray for him for having sacrificed his wife and seven children instead of himself (as we are commanded by Christ to do, as husbands and fathers). Pax domini.
We just have to be patient, the Holy Spirit will sort it out in the end. There was far worse infighting after the council of Nicaea, and even after Constantinople it took a long time for Arianism to fade away, but the Church got there in the end as she always does
@@AndrewDolder What if he has? If he still thinks their ambiguous then your response will be "Submit" anyway. It's totally irrelevant if he or anyone reads them as their interpretation of those documents are meaningless, the only path is submission.
Are you familiar with any of the ambiguities in prior ecumenical councils? Trust me, they were not all clean like we might think they were, some councils were called precisely to clarify ambiguities in prior councils. History is often much messier than our romanticized version. All to say any ambiguity in V2 isn’t entirely without precedent, and if you have a problem with that, then imagine being alive between Nicaea and Ephesus.
If you deny the Papacy because you disagree with a Pope, even if you're right about the disagreement, then your a Protestant..... ...and you're calling Christ a liar, as he promised us "the gates of hell would not hold out" against the church he founded with the Apostles
@robertkolinsky1286 I agree with your statement - I think you misread my comment - it can be ok to disagree with the Pope on a great number of things, but not to "deny the Papacy" because you disagree with a Pope. To deny the Papacy is to deny the authority of the Church, which is directly from Christ. There have been 'bad' Popes in history, but their bad behaviour does not invalidate their office
@@StevenHolland-bz2vo growing up sedevacantis, it's false to say they reject the papacy since the fully accept it and appear to be very informed on alot of what popes taught at least the priest. They just don't believe these past popes are true popes. The problem they have is not a matter of a pope being sinful that makes him a false pope but that he teaches heresy since they believe a pope can't teach error even in his non- infallible authoritive teachings. They also speculate and believe that there would eventually have to be a true pope to set things right. Growing up when we see tge rosary before mass, the priest would cite at the beginning of the rosary certain things they pray for and one of them is for there to be a true pope. So Sedevacantis fully believe in the papal office and pray that God would send a true Pope.
Non Catholic Christians believe there has been and always will be disciples of Christ, which they understand to be "the church." Your interpretation of that verse is different but it's absurd to think that non Catholic Christians are making Christ out to be a liar.
Thanks for doing this. My daughter is traumatized by sedevacantism. The idea horrifies her. I can see what people are thinking but don't have a visceral response. This debate has given me so much more compassion for her.
@ If I’m wrong I apologize, but what percentage of the lead apologetics go to NO every week? From time to time I see Catholic social media point out they don’t. Just in recollection I’ve recognized a similar trend (might be confirmation bias), but I’ve never seen anyone state otherwise. It’s treated as a known thing.
There is a beautiful Byzantine Church near Catholic Answers. I am a regular NO goer (English, Spanish, Portuguese and Korean mass)and have attended the Latin Mass many times, Byzantine Divine Liturgy and Maronite mass. They are all beautiful. I don’t think that the fact that some of them attend the Byzantine liturgy means that they created a wall. In fact, I think that they created a bridge. I had no idea that the other rites even existed.
VII skeptics just find it awkward that the biggest defenders of the NO go to what they would call a more “revenant” Mass instead of NO. They see it as weakening the argument.
Trent Horn went Byzantine. I don’t really know if he did it formally and canonically, but I’ll assume he did. But who else? Jimmy Akin and Joe didn’t change rites as far as I’m concerned. They are Latin rite Catholics, aren’t they?
I just went through the comments of that Joe Rogan video, didn’t see a single person bring up his sedevacantism, so I thank you and Lofton for making videos on it
I thank God I have neither the authority nor the competence to judge the Pope. As for the Masonic takeover of the Vatican, read Mnsgr Dillon's "Grand Orient Freemasonry Unmasked." Then read "Pascendi."
Modernism is the synthesis of all heresy. Too many of our bishops and cardinals are thoroughly steeped in modernism. Even if the faithful remain true to the Orthodox Magesterium, it will take decades to clear the rot in the hierarchy. O Most Holy Theotokos Pray for us!
Excellent video! And I do think it's helpful advice to not go down the rabbit-hole of conspiracies and theological obscurities when it comes to sedevacantism. Best to keep it simple. And the simple fact is that if we can't depend on the Church in the present (such that the visible Church is gone), then we can't depend on the Church in the past either, so we might as well give up on Catholicism altogether if sedevacantism is true.
Jay Dyer, I was listening to him for a bit when I was interested in orthodoxy. He really know his stuff but then he starts talking in a toxic way and it turned me off from listening to him
I think we're missing maybe the simplest argument against sedevecantism: the Pope is the Bishop of Rome. We have a validly consecrated bishop with apostolic succession serving as the head of the Diocese of Rome. Conclave or not, that makes him the Pope. Even the Avignon Popes were still the Bishop of Rome. Sedevacantism doesn't only rely on the papacy being vacant, but also that Rome hasn't even had a bishop in all this time.
I’ll add also that without the Pope there is no Church, so sedevacantism effectively doesn’t believe the dogma of the indefectibility of the Church and that the Church is visible and doesn’t believe our Lord’s guarantee that “the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Mt. 16:18). I’d be worried if I were them, they need to repent.
Some are way more tolerant of heretics than of people like Mel Gibson - who isn’t perfect but is trying to follow Christ. If he holds to Tradition, then he deserves some respect that we afford the Orthodox.
Florence states that someone that doesn’t submit to the pope isn’t going to heaven. He isn’t traditional. There isn’t a tradition that lets us pick and choose who the pope is.
@@MikeJDP Mel Gibson is a heretic by Catholic stabdards. It's commendable that he condemns modern left wing errors, but that doesn't excuse his own errors or put him above criticism
@@pierrepincet4442 The point of the video isn't to discuss Vatican II, and frankly, accusing an ecumenical council of heresy is a pretty sinful thing to do as a Catholic
@ you should revisit what infallability means. Vatican II was indeed an ecumenical council, but only a pastoral one. John-Paul XXIII refused to call it dogmatic, and no document issued from the council dogmatically defined anything. Which makes it very much debatable. I did not say heresy was teached, but some documents, sentences and words used by Vatican II texts are more or less directly opposing pre-existing ecumenical councils and infallable definitions of the catholic dogma (on oecumenism, liberty of religion and the sacraments, notably).
@ Though I agree the video wasn't specifically on Vatican II, sedevacantism was born from the council, and explaining why this position is totally illegitimate should not automatically lead to assuming everything the council has been teaching is right is my point. Vatican II did not provide any infallable documents and was only a pastoral council, not a dogmatic one.
@@tsitsifloramunikwa5468as somebody who attends a NO Parish, I must say fellow Catholics like you are part of the problem. You guys are part of the reason why people become sedes because you guys gloss over problems in the Church, with the hierarchy, etc.... it's gaslighting. Basically both sides of the argument are wrong
Exactly. We can't attack Mel Gibson for speaking the truth while burying our heads in the sand about what a satanic destroyer the man who dared to call himself Francis is.
Not in his Magisterium, he didn't. He made an argument in an interfaith discussion which sounds similar to this but requires further nuance and context.
Because even Saint Thomas Aquinas says religion is a virtue. "Religion is a special virtue, not because its object, God, is special, but because it directs man to a special aspect of good, namely, to render due worship to God." So someone sincerely adhering to their religion, even if they are worshipping wrongly or worshipping some god other than THE God, they are at least moving closer to God by the practice of this virtue. For example, a sincere Hindu is better than an atheist who dismisses all practice of religion. - You can argue (and rightly, I think) that the Pope should have spoken more clearly about the supremacy of Catholicism over all other religions. But I can't make sense of what you imply here, namely that since the Pope didn't make Catholicism's supremacy clear enough, one should leave Catholicism.
The damage that Francis has done to the Church is incalculable. After a decade of his bullshit, Sedevacantism starts to look appealing. Wrong, but appealing.
@tsitsifloramunikwa5468 young people are joining traditional parishes not modernist subversive parishes. You can look at most diocese in America and what you will find is the fssp and the i c k p s parishes have far larger numbers of young people and baptisms. I go to a NO parish, but one which is publicly socially conservative. There is zero tolerance for anything lgbtq. We have way more baptisms than other compromising parishes in our diocese. People are joining the church but not because of Francis. I know from personal experience. I joined in 2022 and he was one of the largest stumbling blocks along with over half of my rcia group of nearly 40 people Thank God my parish is morally traditional and does not play footsie with secular classical liberal Society like much of the hierarchy does.
@@John_Six He preaches heresy. He participates in pagan worship. He participates in jewish worship. He says it's a sin to evangelize. He says Martin Luther did not error on justification. He teaches that protestants, anglicans and eastern "orthodoxy" are in the body of christ. That baptism isn't required for salvation. He preaches the heresy of baptism of desire. etc. Can you not see the damage Francis has done? Wake up!
I understand the point, but I’ve heard of many lapsed Catholics returning to the faith due to his emphasis on God’s mercy and forgiveness. Many. And we can even hear online that during Pope Francis’ pontificate, the Catholic Church is thriving in Africa and in Asia. It’s getting massively relevant even in Muslim countries like Indonesia, where Christianity used to be invisible. For good or worse, his politics of admitting the hard way with China maintains the availability of the sacraments for the Chinese and, for example, Catholicism is making a huge impact in South Korea. But I guess Mel Gibson’s conspiracy theories do much good to the Internet Church! You Americans are wacko! (And I don’t even like Pope Francis, here in Brazil we joke that only an Argentinian pope could be that confusing).
You know who could fix all these problems? The hierarchy. This isn’t the fault of the laity or this & that Protestant sect. It’s the fault of those in authority. Speaking of supposed unsubstantiated “rumor & innuendo” ever read The Plot Against The Church?
By their fruits..... (V2, and on, has produced some terrible fruits.) Then there's all the prophesies (*WARNINGS* both Marian and various saints) that there will be a "false church".
@@AlexanderMichael17 Our Lady of Quito Ecuador 1594AD - 1634AD, Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich prophetic visions - Died 1824AD, Our Lady of La Salette 1846AD. This is a good place to start. There are more (Google is your friend 😏)
@@madmachio No, not even close. Sam Shamoun and David Wood have absolutely "destroyed" your islam and your false prophet. Where do you see satan fighting against islam? You don't because it's a demonic false religion. Sam & David have done a great job exposing islam.
I asked Siri if he is the Pope. He denied it. I'll try google later 😂
You beat me to it. Why was the name Siri chosen for this function? 🤔😂
I noticed from your comment Siri looks like Sin when someone first looks at it
I thought that was what you had written.
I laughed, and then wished I could go back in time and steal this joke.
@@shamelesspopery th-cam.com/video/n3MILQysfXA/w-d-xo.html
It's been nice to hear the gospel on Rogan, but having Wes Huff say that the Catholic Church tried to suppress the Bible, followed by having Mel Gibson (2 days later) saying that the face of the Catholic Church isn't the real Church is deeply concerning.
The Roman church actually attempted to prevent anyone but the priests read the scriptures for about 500 years by locking it in a box, (codex). Remember Catholics burned people for translating, possessing or even reading the Scriptures.
@saintmatthew956 babble. Wes Huss says alot of babble without a lot of facts. The church preserved the Bible. He clearly doesn’t know how difficult it was to put a bible together before the printing press. Also the church translated the bible before the heretic luther did. What luther did was have everyone have a bible and interpreted it by themselves which is heresy. We are not muslims
Fruits of protestants: feeding the poor, spreading the gospel to tribes and peoples in the worst places, spreading, building schools, churches and communities.
Fruits of catholics: massacres and slaughter of Protestants, Worship of idols, vain repetitions, mass child abuse by church authority.
It would be funny if it wasnt so tragic.
Both are true.
@@PGHFilter no it’s not. Do your research first and foremost. You clearly have no clue. Catholic Christian monks in the early century put the bible together.
is widely believed that, to facilitate the lay reading of Scripture, Luther was first to translate the Bible into German. He was not. The first Bible in the German vernacular was produced in the eight century at the monastery of Monse. By the fifteenth century, there were 36,000 German manuscript bibles in circulation, and a complete printed Bible in the German vernacular appeared in 1529, five years before Luther’s translation was published. In short, the Church made Scripture accessible to laymen long before Luther and the Reformation did.
There is, in fact, a sense in which the Bible is the product of the Catholic Church, as it was the bishops of the Church who decided which books circulating in the fourth century would be considered canonical. Indeed, the Church took great pains throughout its history to guard, defend, and preserve Scripture. Pope St. Damasus I (r. 366-383) first took up the task of publishing a vernacular version of Scripture, and he employed his brilliant yet irascible secretary St. Jerome (342-420) to accomplish the task. Jerome learned Greek and Hebrew to properly translate the word of God into the vernacular Latin.
His translation, which became known as the Vulgate, was not well received in North Africa, where a riot erupted over his version of the book of Jonah. Widespread acceptance of the Vulgate in the Church took time. Perhaps part of the resistance can be attributed to the long memory of the Church. Jerome’s new translation came less than a hundred years after Diocletian initiated the Great Persecution. One of his edicts mandated the surrender of all copies of the sacred writings, an event so destructive that its memory remained with the Church long after the persecution ended. The Church maintained a great respect and love for the sacred word, as evidenced by the efforts of monks to preserve it.
The sixth century was witness to the activity of a uniquely saintly man who renounced his worldly life to become a hermit. His reputation for holiness attracted many followers, and soon thereafter Benedict of Nursia founded a monastery at Monte Cassino. Benedict’s vision for his monks was rooted in the idea that monasticism was a “school of divine service” in which the monk committed himself to a life of obedience focused on a routine of work, prayer, study, and self-denial. Benedict’s monks preserved and maintained Western civilization through their painstaking work of copying ancient Greek and Roman manuscripts, as well as devoting time to copying and illustrating Scripture.
Working in the scriptoriums of Benedictine monasteries in the Middle Ages was not easy. It took nearly a year to copy a Bible manuscript. The process was laborious and wearisome; as one monk recorded, “He who does not know how to write imagines it to be no labor; but though three fingers only hold the pen, the whole body goes weary.” Any copying work the monk did not finish during the day had to be completed at night, even in the cold winter months.
Bibles were not only copied but richly and beautifully illuminated with elaborate images. Bible illumination began in the fifth century with Irish monks who painstakingly prepared the skins of calves, sheep, or goats into vellum that was used for the manuscripts. The famous Lindisfarne Gospels manuscript, copied and illuminated in the eighth century, was the work of one scribe who used 130 calfskins and took five years to complete the work. The amount of labor that went into each copy of the Bible led to preventing their theft either by locking them in containers or chaining them to desks. In other words, these were security measures, not efforts to keep Scripture from the faithful.
Indeed, protecting an expensive Bible by securing it allowed greater, not lesser, access to it. Moreover, the Bible was usually placed in a public area of a church so those who could read could peruse its pages. The first mention of this protective policy occurs in the mid eleventh century in the catalogue of St. Peter’s Monastery in Weissenburg, Alsace, where it was recorded that four Psalters were chained in the church. Moreover, the practice was not exclusive to the Catholic Church: Protestants also utilized the well-known security measure, as evidenced by the chaining of the Great Bible (also known as the Chained Bible) published by command of King Henry VIII of England in 1539.
The Real Story
The Protestant principle of sola scriptura led to the myth that the Catholic Church kept the word of God from the faithful to maintain its authority; the chaining of bibles in medieval churches was seen as evidence of this. It also led to the false claim that Martin Luther’s translation of the Bible into German was the first such vernacular edition; in fact, there had been many vernacular editions preceding Luther’s, including St. Jerome’s Vulgate.
It was the Church that, far from suppressing the Bible, determined the canon of its books and then preserved and authoritatively interpreted the written word of God throughout its history. Catholic monks painstakingly preserved the sacred writings and beautifully illustrated them throughout the medieval period. These priceless manuscripts were chained or locked up in churches not to prevent their use but to protect against theft, thus allowing greater access to them, which was standard practice in both Catholic and Protestant churches until the printing press enabled mass production of bibles.
I suggest you do your research.
I don't think it's such a "hidden" danger. Thank you for all you do, JH.
Praying for all the clergy and the Pope, including you Father.
@@tsitsifloramunikwa5468 Thank you so much! Count on my prayers in return.
Father, I don't know how you don't see the hidden danger we follow God and laws he left us to follow no matter what that includes the Pope. I'm praying for you and all clergy Father.
@@maryandrew3109 I was trying to say that the "hidden" danger in sedevacantism is plain to see. Thanks for your prayers. I always need them.
@@maryandrew3109he’s saying it’s in the open not hidden. Smh.
I was almost a sedevacantist once. I was listening to some of their arguments and I was convinced that something was wrong. It got to the point that I wouldn't even receive communion because I didn't trust that the priests, even the priests serving TLM in my town, were validly ordained. As a convert, it broke my heart to see all the offenses and degradations to my new beloved home. But overtime, I began to hear Jesus call to me, everytime communion was served. I was thoroughly confessed, going to mass multiple times a week, and at every communion Jesus would call me. Why wasn't I going to receive Him? He wanted me, I needed Him. Finally I got fed up with it. I realized that it must be real communion if Jesus was calling me to receive. If it wasn't, then Jesus wouldn't have said anything, He would have called me elsewhere. And it didn't make sense in my convert brain, why I would adhere to another branch of Protestantism when specifically made the jump into Catholicism. What is Catholicism but the unity of Christ's people around His altar, around His flesh and blood. Once I got my head wrapped around the fact that Jesus was still present, I had to come to terms with priestly ordination, and then papal succession.
I'm no Pope-splainer, nor am I happy about the grievances that have come about because of the Novus Ordo, but I learned that if I can trace it all back to Jesus, then I can trust Him and His church, no matter how bad it looks, or how far off the reservation Pope Francis goes.
Thank you so much for sharing your beautiful testimony . You’ve touched on many important points . God bless you & may Our Blessed Mother’s maternal and loving mantle protect your soul onto The Lord ✝️🙏🏼🕊️✨
@thebitterrootranger4405 - you are right on - and just as Jesus showed at Mat 23:2-7 that even when those in the office He established have personal corruption we are still to follow the teachings established by Our Lord that are in their care - just don't follow their personal failures.
Well said
As a convert as well from Mormonism to agnostic to Catholic. Your experience and insight is the same as mine.
I am no "Pope-splainer" either, but I think that Pope Francis is far more orthodox than many people give him credit for. I just think that he isn't very good a communication. Maybe it is a language thing with being a Spanish speaking Pope or just not being a very eloquent speaker.
Either way, I think not-great-popes are an excellent opportunity for catechesis.
Also, good pope or bad pope, they are still the pope and we need to give religious submission of will and intellect to them. Even Benedict XVI didn't always see eye-to-eye with Francis on how to run the Church, but recognized it wasn't his decision to make, but Francis'.
I also love pointing to St. Peter. Could you only imagine the Sedevacantists if Francis denied knowing Jesus even once, nonetheless 3 times? Sin doesn't disqualify someone from being the Pope.
Some crackpot idea from Gibson is perhaps less damaging than Rogan’s claim - spoken with total confidence and one that Mel basically let pass - that the Catholic Church is a “dark institution”, as that view is shared by many.
The most insidious failing of sedevacantism is that it allows for blasphemy of the Catholic church under the assumption it isn't the Catholic church.
Mel slightly corrects by saying “well the institution was put in place by Christ” the defense isn’t really good because of his sedevacantism though.
@ How empty is Christ's promise if it really means 'well the entire Church with billions of people in possession of all the dioceses of the world can apostatize and appear like the Church I made, but there will still be a couple people against whom the gates of hell shall not prevail'?
@@AnjfjgjigulI think that never crosses their mind just as it never crosses Protestants mind.
You are spot on.
I was going to be a sedevacantist, but balked at the cost of all the thumbtacks, yarn, and corkboards I would need. 🤣
🤭
Are you old enough to remember the movie Mel Gibson did called conspiracy theory? 😂
@@jhssuthrnmama Gravy for the brain...
😂😂😂 Too funny.
Surely we've all been there 😂
Mel Gibson ditched his wife and eight kids and is now in an adulterous relationship. Honestly I really can't take him seriously for that reason, until and unless he repents publicly.
Oh interesting! How scandalous! I wonder if he wanted to start his own church
He “ditched” his wife? Were you there? I don’t think I can take you seriously until you publicly admit you really have no clue what his situation really was.
@@thatsfunny2051 well that unfortunate
He didn't ditch his wife and his children were grown up. His wife left him. You can argue it was understandable that she couldn't be with him any more because of the pressure. But don't spread lies about people just because you can't cope with the fact that Mel is right about what happened in 1958 and you'd rather turn a blind eye to child abuse and satanism than face facts.
So judgmental as if you know the situation fully smh
I’m a new Catholic. This civil war is a terrible thing. I’m way to new and ignorant it have an opinion about Francis’s validity. I did read that st Gregory the great proclaimed we must never slander or detract a Catholic clergyman. I do know that Francis isn’t the first pope that’s hard to love. I just pray he does Gods will.
Relatable. I converted in 2022 from protestantism. The problem is both sides, to be honest.
There are radtrad types who mislead people, who are very hyperbolic, and unhelpful. The problem is, the radtrad movement is a response to clear and undeniable subversion in the Church from modernist. The "spirit of Vatican two" has done more harm to the church than anything else. It is both disheartening and ridiculous to prioritize RadTrads as the primary problem while overlooking people like Father Martin, McElroy, the German bishops, pretty much all of the Jesuit order, etc.... Hyper prioritizing the response to a problem, but never addressing the problem is only going to make more of the response. It is gaslighting. There will be no Unity until the hierarchy comes down on people like Father Martin and these egregious subversive movements in the Church. America magazine is a perfect example. More secular classical liberal than Catholic.
The proof is in the pudding. You will know them by their fruits. Where there is life. The traditional parishes in the church have way larger numbers of young people and new converts compared to these dying modernist subversive movements.
Then you have people who aren't themselves morally subversive who make a bunch of excuses for scandal. We don't need to go anywhere other than scripture to say that it's perfectly okay to critique the pope. Saint Paul clearly and undeniably critiqued St Peter himself. That doesn't mean we need to be ridiculous and we shouldn't be respectful and loving. We should want everybody in the hierarchy to serve god well and to have the health of their soul. I pray for Francis, I personally believe him to be the true Vicar of Christ, but it's no good to pretend like there aren't problems some people who care more about fitting in with secular classical liberal sensibilities than Catholic traditional teaching.
There are white pills here though. Younger Catholics and seminarians tend to be more traditional. There's going to have to be a kind of convergence and revisiting of the church on Vatican 2 and how it needs to be properly interpreted for us to actually heal going forward. It can only be interpreted strictly in texturalist way. That's the only way to get rid of all of the spirit of the "spirit of Vatican 2" nonsense.
When they schism its not longer a civil war, they are outside the Church now
I too am a new Catholic who left my Protestant roots to embrace the Ancient church only to find out it was at war with itself. I actually thought I was finally entering a type of spiritual refuge and the answer to all my concerns with the Church in this age. I am deeply saddened by this. We must take heed to the fact that we are having a negative impact on the faithful, both old and new and the harvest of new souls looking for Truth.
Turns out that we are all sinners even bishops, cardinals and the pope. As Catholics we continue to follow Jesus and participate in his earthly church despite all the flawed sinners within. We will have to trust that Jesus knows and has a plan.
There have always been heretics and those that disagreed with the Church. As you read the Bible you’ll see that this goes back to the time of Moses and was a constant concern of the Apostles who had to stamp out foes and warned us more was coming. If your faith is shaken by some celebrities and TH-camrs, you are in for a rough ride and more likely to fall away from the faith. Mel Gibson’s crazy rantings aren’t taken seriously by 99% of the faithful, and no serious person. You can relax and grow in your faith in peace.
God bless
The epitome of "too smart for your own good"
Just wordly wisdom
Arius was noted to be an extremely well-educated and intelligent person. Unfortunately, it is a curse as much as it is a gift.
@@brandonedwards1181 The worst part of intelligence is that you can think your way straight out of the truth.
Pride is a deadly thing
Sedevacantism is just protestantism with extra steps.
Protestants don't believe in Catholic dogma and doctrine. I would say that it would just be another Catholic church in schism
Vatican 2 is literally protestantism....
I disagree. You would not call the orthodox protestants. While they disagree with the papacy or the last council, they are still apostolic holding to the 73 book canon, the infallibility of most popes and councils and otherwise are not at all comparable to them. Your approach should be entorely different approaching one or the other.
Yes, I call it "fancy Protestantism."
But the novus ordo (a protestant service replica) and ugly churches and people acting like dancing baboons in them totally isn't protestant. Noooo.
What the comments prove: if you thought Protestant anti-Catholicism was bad, wait until you see “Catholic” (SSPX/Sedevacantist) anti-Catholicism…
Another excellent video from Joe, as usual.
Not just SSPX- it’s deep in many TLM groups. They walk a fine line- and if you don’t agree that the pope is evil/is a false pope- you will be ostracized from the TLM(not by the priests- the parishioners).
Please do not lump the SSPX in with sedevacantists - Abp Lefebvre took firm action against the latter back in the 80s.
Sspx is Catholic and it's not sedevacantist
@@guido122 ** yawn **
@@JVSak dear brother, I am a TLM daily mass in Virginia and know all the people in Front Royal and Gainesville Holy Trinity! I just converted into Catholic and this TLM families in this places are so wonderful, they just love tradition, silence, reverence, Latín, over all God! They are very devoted Catholics and don't criticize or condemn anyone else if don't attend this mass, I myself and my wife and many others time to time go to Novus Ordo and to attack the TLM in general is a big mistake, I encourage you to attend one day any TLM church group. Blessings 🙏🏾
Mel Gibson for me is a tragic person. The Passion Of The Christ was a cinematic masterpiece. His personal life is a mess. He is living in adultery. And his Sedesvacantism is evil.
So were all you little heroes from the Old Testament. Go look into all of David's evil crap.
@@stadiagames390David repented.
@@stadiagames390 But he repented and did thoose things no more
@@TomasTomi30 Then maybe give Mel some time, and maybe he will repent, assuming he's still doing those things. I wonder what you are doing? I'm glad you're not a public figure!
Plus, bro, your heroes are a dude who sends his friend and soldire off to get killed in war to steal his wife and add her to his concubine of HUNDREDS of women. Then you have a man who literally murdered CHRISTIANS by sending them to be eaten by lions. But Mel had a bad marriage and drinks too much. GET a GRIP lmao! You learned nothing from the bible.
It started off so good, and as someone who is investigating Catholicism I was super happy to see a Catholic on the show. I was a little disappointed. Still super interesting though.
Listen to it again. Mel did fantastic. There's nothing disappointing about telling the truth about the evil people who have snuck into the church and are trying to destroy her. If you approve of the child molesters, which i assume you don't, you're not ready to be a true Catholic.
Rogan needs to have an actual Catholic on his show, sedevacantists are not Catholic by definition
@@macroglossumstellatarum3068gibson should look into his closet. Sedes are just closet Protestants . They don’t know that they’re spitting at Christ and calling him a liar pretty much.
I think I'll go through this whole comment section and repeat this a dozen times. Mel Gibson is not a catholic. He is a sedevacantist. Read about him on wikipedia.
@@ryankiel4895 he might as well be a protestant. All you can do is pray for the guy. He’s basically calling christ a liar.
1 john 2: 19
They went out from us, but they were not really of our number;* if they had been, they would have remained with us. Their desertion shows that none of them was of our number.
Joe Heschmeyer = straight-up awesome guy
A straight-up faithful man of God.
I wholeheartedly agree.
Amen to this
His penchant for hysterics is chronic
Glad Joe is pointing this out. At best Mel is bringing scandal to the Church. At worst he’s making Protestants and Orthodox Christians on the fence have excuses.
Shall we ever stop thinking of our judgement, when Christ will ask for an account of every idle word, and show us every soul who was damned that we could have helped?
If an EO is on the fence, then they weren't properly catechised.
I grew up thinking that Gibson was a devout catholic. Now, I’m disgusted and shocked at what he actually believes
Much rather be him on judgement day than any of the prelates that sheltered child abusers, deprived the faithful of sacraments during Covid, or who have cowed down to way of the world.
He called himself "John XXIII", litterally the name of an anti pope...
Yeah and? What's he gonna do instead? Call himself John XXIV and just leave out the 23 in the succession because some dude who wasn't a legitimate pope claimed the number first? What kind of logic is that?
Bro, just repent and stop being a schismatic protestant. God bless.
Or he could have just called himself Pius XIII and avoided the whole controversy to begin with.
I think that’s actually how it goes ngl
@@jamessauve2419 as Joe pointed out that was not the first time it had happened and the fact that some ani-pope takes a name dose not declare the name "unpapalble"
"erm, popes just need stop taking the name John so _I,_ local stupid, don't get confoozed cuz me can't handle concept. if there's one guy bad, no name, even if 20x that number of guy good. but one guy bad tho!! Ohhh such head ache!! Urggh"
Sedevacantists Running wild in the comment section today
@@Wiemcc It's the most visible their church can be
Ie stating simple facts.
@1214gooner Did you time travel from the 2010's?
@@1214gooner
Fact: sedevacantists are not Catholic
@ Genius
Sedevacantism leads to atheism
Calling out the enemy leads to losing the war.
@@1984SheepDog never once witnessed this. Seen the opposite countless times.
@@TimMiller-n7k I've talked to many sedevecantists over the past couple of years. At least a couple abandoned the faith entirely
@@TimMiller-n7k A lot of radical trads apostate. They believe every lie the media spins or some crazy conspiracist but they wont believe the Church.
@@TimMiller-n7k if there is no pope (past the time where one could be elected), then the papacy has failed. if the papacy has failed, Christ’s Church has failed. if Christ’s Church has failed, then Christ is a liar. if Christ is a liar, Christianity is false.
don’t try and make God a liar.
Ive been looking forward this one
i couldn't finish that Rogan-Gibson episode, had to quit listening after they started pooping on the Vatican and the Pope, etc.
How dare they poop on child molesters and those who cover for them and idol worship and satanic orgies on Homy ground. Naughty. The child molesters aren't the problem, Mel Gibson is the problem for telling the truth about them.
It was heartbreaking.
Me too. I was so excited to see a Catholic on Rogan and then he opened his mouth. I’m sorry I’m not going to let an actor tell me that my faith and how I practice my Catholic faith is wrong because he’s put his “genus” father on a pedestal. I love his work and as an actor and director but maybe he should leave the Catholic explanations to Apologist and theologians.
Well said. Same situation for me, couldn't finish watching them for the same reason.
Mel Gibson is not a catholic. He's a sedevacantist.
I'm so glad you posted this. I've been trying to summarize my question for Catholic Answers since I saw the Mel Gibson interview... and you just answered everything. Thank you for everything you do.
It’s such obvious lunacy that it is hard to believe that more than three people even entertained the idea for more than three minutes.
Prayers for Mel's repentance/salvation
This is real inside baseball, very difficult to explain to people who struggle with basics of the faith
I honestly try to never have this conversation with anyone unless they mention it.
Joe seemed to understand perfectly and was very receptive to what Mel said. We can't be embarrassed by the truth.
@@racheljames7 What truth? Sedevacantism?
I think the most basic way to present it is this: Jesus Christ established a Church, and promised that the gates of hell won't prevail over it, and established the papacy to be a permanent part of the structure of that Church. Both Orthodoxy and sedevacantism recognize that the pope HAD some kind of authority, but each claim that he lost it at some point (namely, once the pope disagreed with them). But that doesn't make sense if Jesus is the source of papal authority in the first place.
I would say the average catholic is completely lost when it comes to the basics of the faith. You don’t need a go between with Jesus. Read the Bible. Pray. Commune. If you were stuck on a desert island with a Bible you wouldn’t end up being a Catholic.
I think this is more problem with Joe Rogan's podcast. Popularists are who get on the show, no matter where they lean. It is not there to promote truth, as much as some may think otherwise with Wes's appearance. It's a podcast- entertainment, not an evangalising or truth seeking tool.
Glad someone is pointing it out. A lot of Catholics that I follow on X were excited about what he had to say but no one seemed concerned by his sedevacantist views.
You are a heartfelt answer to a prayer!! I have been wondering for quite a while about this view and wondering if what I have been hearing is true. In tearful prayers, just yesterday, I begged God to let me know in some way what the truth is…and then I listen to your podcast this morning. It cleared up so many issues. May God reward you for defending His Church and helping the ignorant!! You will always remain in my prayers!!❤️🙏
Thanks Joe for this video, it helped me with questions that had been troubling me.
As Mel Gibson gets older, he is turning more into Jack Nicholson. His voice, his body language, his eye brow movement.
Oddly, despite leaving the church Nicholson maintained "respect’ for it, and would actually get angry at people bad mouthing the church in his presence
Thank you for addressing this 🙏🏻
Well argued, Joe! Gibson has long had issues that Catholics should be wary of. The problem now has just been given a much larger platform.
Thanks for this. I’ve never taken a dive into exactly why sedes were wrong other than the obvious logical issues. As a Protestant convert, I mostly just pointed out that they were being Protestant, lol. Now I have a bit more knowledge.
Just one more thing... If the Sedevecantists are correct that someone was validly elected before John XXIII, how do we know it was Siri who was validly elected?
Because their tinfoil hats told them so
@RightCross22 Fair.
They don’t have any evidence Siri was elected. It’s just based on pure speculation, a theory which Gibson’s father abandoned himself realizing it to be wanting. Never mind the fact that Siri acknowledged St. Pope John XXIII as Pope which further contradicts the absurdity of the “Siri theory.”
I'm not even 3 minutes in. However, I just wanted to say THANK YOU for addressing this. I'd been looking for a video from one of our brilliant apologists who would tackle it.
Great video Joe!!!
It’s unreal how blatantly dishonest many criticisms of Pope Francis are, not just from protestants but even Catholics. Him saying “all religions are a path to God” doesn’t mean every religion is equally true and all will lead to salvation.
If you’re giving any charity to Francis whatsoever you’ll understand he’s obviously not denying Christ, he’s saying other religions can have aspects of truth. Which is already acknowledged by the church.
It’s just purely dishonest. They know very well he didn’t mean that and yet continue to act as if he did. This is why I don’t take many of these critics seriously
I think that is stretching his statement. "All religions are a path to God" is misleading at best and heretical at worst. It's not "disingenuous" to interpret it that way. If someone else said that, you would think the same.
I thought the argument is that the Pope is not infallible but the authority of the church is still better and clearer in totality than "personal" or "disjointed" popery.
Trent Horn gave a better response. Those words aren't "disingenuous" to interpret in that manner. Infact, the manner you wish Protestants to interpret it in is excessively charitable
@@VicecrackVoldermort It is 100% disingenuous when you know the person saying it is the pope and has spent a lifetime serving Christs church.
You really, honestly think that he just casually denied Christ after all this time spent in service of him? This one sentence means he’s a heretic suddenly?
It would depend on the context, but no I wouldn’t necessarily think someone is saying that, I’d definitely ask them to explain what they mean by that because the statement is a bit ambiguous. But the reaction to it, towards the pope no less, has been super overly critical and uncharitable I think.
And yes, you’re right, he’s not infallible. I don’t defend every single thing he says. But this isn’t something to come after him for. It was at an interfaith dialogue where he was emphasizing commonalities over differences. Obviously
Exactly! People judge Pope Francis so harshly for his words they wouldn’t dare do the same for themselves if they get anything slightly wrong. And in this case, the Pope isn’t even wrong. Yet they call him a heretic. What do you want from him? To please your every whim? Well good thing he only aims to please Christ.
@@onetowardslove For your first question, I don't think he wants to deny Christ but I think his statements lean to doing so. This isn't rare to me. I am not American. I am Nigerian. And we are a very religious country with almost everyone either being Muslim or Christian and very few traditionalists. There are interreligious marriages and the Christians in those marriages justify that, despite telling all their friends about Christ and how he is the Way, Truth and Life, praying and partaking in communion, and otherwise behaving in a respectable manner that shows a devotion to Christ, there are multiple ways to God. Or, "We all worship the same God". I have heard a few of them say the exact thing the pope said. It isn't disingenuous to understand that devoted Christians can say misguided things. Or even believe in some of them. Hope that helps. I also hope you understand how optically terrible what the Pope did was. The Christians I was talking about are Protestants and while even non-denominationals don't affirm such statements as true, false doctrines like that is what led me to be Catholic-curious. To hear the Pope misspeak in such a way, no matter where he is, was disappointing.
Or Pope Francis is very very imprudent. Sloppy in the way he communicates. Something which he himself has admitted. So, it can be both
As a Candidate/baby-Catholic I disagree with the Pope but I respect and understand the office.
It would be wonderful, as a self-professed candidate/baby-catholic, to avoid making giant public statements like “I disagree with the Pope” and rather to spend a lot of time in prayer and study of sure sources like scripture, the catechism, and the great spiritual writers.
@jimcampbell7675 I can do all of that lol. I don't necessarily think the Pope is right about some of the things he's said but I also think he's been taken out of context and twisted a lot of times. I pray for the Pope and Magisterium and am submitting to their authority under the Church.
@@NoxnoctisSicarius my point is you can’t “submit” to the magisterium while also publicly saying the Pope is not right. That’s the opposite of religious submission, especially when you’re not specifying what levels of authority the statements are that you’re disagreeing with. It’s not a spiritually safe thing to do, especially publicly, is all I’m saying.
So you know better than the pope?
Your statement is contradictory. Makes my head hurt.
I would suggest taking a few more steps into the Church, but with humility.
We must have humility.
We must have humility.
We must have humility.
Pray the Litany of Humility.
I will pray one for you and for me.
Division is what those fallen angels are screaming at you. But demons hate humility!!!
There are three things that work for me:
1) carry a little bottle of holy water.
2) say Hail Mary's... for me all it takes is one for sins of thought... venial or more serious.
3) Grab your crucifix.
Very simple actions. Obviously, do a full examination of conscience and go to confession.
Focus, on what Mother Mary says fasting, prayer and properly receiving Eucharist. If you like add a prayer to help Pope Francis or any clergy.
It's good that we are having this discussions a lot of truths can be apparent by them.
Mel Gibson has done substantially less damage to the church than Francis has
Sedes can never agree as to when exactly the seat became empty. Another schismatic way of thought introduced by the Devil.
Thank you Joe, for talking about this matter. May God bless you.
I almost accepted the Sedevacantist when Francis shut down my TLM Masses and the Pochamama debacle. My wife was the Liturgist and music director at a mega parish of 1300 families (10,000 people) while this was occurring. We later moved and our new parish had a TLM that was forced out of the local church to a closed church.
The point is that I have had real personal "attacks" by Francis on my family and our faith. I've had multiple priests say that the Holy Spirit is protecting the Church and guiding Francis. If the Holy Spirit wasn't guiding Francis, he might be doing much more horrible things. My wife and other Liturgists and musicians have been "ignoring" statements made by Francis and continue to do their jobs serving their parishioners as best they can.
It's been said we get the Pope the people deserve. Good or bad. I trust that Jesus founded and maintains His Holy Catholic Church and not even the gates of hell will prevail against her.
I agree with your view and I also don’t agree with sedevacantism. It is obvious that there are malign figures in powerful positions in the Church and traditiones Custodes made it clear that the feel good cries for the ‘new evangelisation’ were dissembling as the motivation was revealed to be alarm at the number of young people who were gravitating to the TLM. I always found it very suspect that the bishops etc persisted with the NO and the V2 changes in the face of tens of thousands of religious leaving their vocations and millions leaving the pews. Show me the CEO of a company that would bring in radical changes and then, when their customer base walked away, persisted (& with the current one, doubled down) on the same novel changes. They did not turn around and say ‘maybe we should go back to the liturgy that has been the centre of the faith for the time since Christ - that liturgy that sustained the martyrs and saints’ . Instead, they persisted and now persecute the traditional Catholics. I am like your wife - I simply ignore this lot and hope. The claims of the ‘holy spirit’ itself is a Protestant characterisation of the Holy Spirit - the worst of Protestant sledges against Catholics - as though the Holy Spirit operates in the election of the pope like some magic talisman.
There was hard evidence of Masonic presence in the hierarchy at the time of Vatican 2 and the mason who revealed the names of those in the Vatican was murdered. So, while sedevacatism is an empty answer to the corruption we are witnessing, my disappointment with Joe heschmeyer on this video is that he has taken a straw man argument (Guiffre) and demolished it - probably to counter the damage that a high-profile person such as Mel Gibson would do.
In doing so, yes, he will get the people in this comments section relaxing. However, he has not really addressed the issues - and we are seeing an ongoing persecution of the traditional Catholic community and this will lead to more animosity. Their problem is that Vatican 2 was a man-made movement and it’s time has gone. It did not work.
I’m glad to hear Joe address sedevacantism.
The hardest thing in the world is to want your protestant loved ones use all this to not cross the Tiber.
One thing that was helpful for me was having it pointed out that Saul, Solomon et al acted wickedly yet they were still God's anointed. This Is helpful to think about when we hear church leadership say things that sound more in line with the spirit of the times than the Holy Spirit. Kissing a koran, praying in mosques, "every religion is a way to arrive at God", sexual abuse/coverups and on and on. Growing up Protestant, any one of those events would have been enough for us to fire a pastor and move on. But, if we believe that the Catholic Church is divinely instituted it seems the only course of action in line with the truth is to stay, pray, and suffer. Thank you for your work Joe.
To be honest theories of son of a autism and traditional Catholicism were things that got me very interested in learning about catholic dogma’s and history way back in my protestant days. Your book Pope Peter was the straw that broke the camel’s back, but to normies and Joe Rogan’s audience a theory of infiltration and corruption might actually make them interested.
“Son of a autism” is an awkward auto-correct 😂
@@macroglossumstellatarum3068 You know, maybe the siri theory is true, that was an iPhone autocorrect
Communism did not end in Poland in 1990, just changed its face.
All the communists "miraculously" became enthusiasts of the European Union just over 1 night.
This was a very rough episode to get through. Mel G. was a lost case long time ago. Continuing to pray he finds peace some day.
Joe glad you are addressing Sededvacantism. I also posted on Trents channel that we need serious Catholic YT channels like yours, Trents and others to tackle the craziness of Sedevacantism .
Regarding Mel Gibson's appearance on Joe Rogan which as of 15 January 2025 has now an incredible 6.5 million views is that Mel is defacto now the most visible spokesman for Sedevacantism broadly speaking. Although Mel Gibson was raised by a 1958 Sedevacantist father as you note, 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].
I think we all need to pray for Mel and feel sorry for Mel losing his home, as all the folks in California with the wild fires, but hope and pray Mel Gibson gets his life in order, it is a mess. Raised in 1958 Sedevacantist home, surprisingly he marries a lady who was a protestant (Episcopalian) and has 7 kids. He gets divorced and has a child with a young Russian Model and now is with a young 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.
Since Mel's Joe Rogan appearance, I have had Sedevacantist YT channels pop up. Perhaps the Sedevacantist groups are using Mel's appearance on JR to promote their sect but at the same time they are nervous that Mel is in fact now the most visible spokeman for their movement.
In this context, I think what you are doing is what Catholic YT creators need to do, that is directly address the world of Sedevcantism and show how wild it can get. You have the 1958 Sedevacantist who are anti Bishop Thuc Line consecrations (SSPV and CSPV). Fr. William Jenkins is in the anti-Thuc line group and very vocal about it. The CMRI who are also 1958 Sedevacantist was founded by a laymanr Frances Schuckhardt who was consecrated a priest and Bishop by and Old Catholic Bishop named "Daniel Brown", oh the irony. Today the CMRI presiding Bishop is led by a Bishop from the Thuc line. Then you have the RCI group under Bishop Sanborn who also has Bishop Thuc line consecration, but holds to the Sedeprivationist position mentioned above.
Then there 2 groups that come out of Fr. Feeney's movement "Feeneyism" The Dimond Brothers group holds to 1958 Sedevacantism and considers all the above groups (SSPV, CSPV, CMRI and RCI) as heretics. Then you have this group called "Mary's Little Remnant" who split from the 1958 Feeneyism movement and hold to 1134 AD Sedevacantism (I kid you not) do to the controversial papal elections that elected Pope Innocent II.
So thanks Joe for tackling the craziness of Sedevacantism directly. It needs to done directly and forcibly, but of course in charity. And the information regarding Pope John XXIII taking the name he took is dead on and the other evidence of Popes taking names to in essence cancer out the Anti-Popes. Excellent work.
God Bless.
Loyalty to the Pope is one of the hallmarks of fidelity to Christ. So true is this, that we can measure our love for Christ by our love for the Vicar of Christ."
- Fr. John Hardon, S.J.
Servant of God
Even if there is a defect in the election the defect is resolved by the universal acceptance of the Church, sedevacantism is just as crazy a Protestantism, Arianism, or any other heretical view.
Scandal based on truth sometimes tragically begets scandal based on falsehood. All the more important to call out scandals with a true basis to avoid fomenting scandal based on errors.
A point about Mel’s father, it does not follow that being good at Jeopardy equates with reasoning ability, just that you have a good memory for trivia.
Underrated comment. Also, that you know a bunch of random facts.
I wonder where my comment went
Great video, I learned a lot from defense and counter points. Would you make a second video talking about the idolatry claim about Francis
See Reason and Theology podcast. He has videos covering those myths.
@@StringofPearls55Reason and Theology has less credibility than anyone I can think of.
Why? Did you buy into the Lofton slander?
Thanks Joe! Your analysis is SO incredibly necessary in this divisive spirit that has infected Our Lord's body.
1- by His divine authority, Jesus built His church upon Peter and gave him the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
2- All Popes ever since have been elected through an apostolic succession process grounded on the divine authority of Jesus.
3- Sedevacantists rely on their own authority to arbitrarily deny the Popes elected under the authority of Jesus.
4- Sedevacantists will not prevail against the church Jesus built upon Peter even if their names end with Gibson.
5- full stop.
Lanterin IV. Article 1 admission of faith.
Read what it says about the keys.
Can we say it makes no sense why leadership would sabotage and disparage their own history, tradition, and Latin
identity...unless they don't like it and they actually reject it. If that's the case, then how can we we trust them now? What they're demanding, the current novelty, as being sacred and honored may just be rejected in the future. That's the problem with neglecting and rejecting tradition... if it's not sacred and to be revered, who is to say the current liturgy is?
Seds: Sources?I made it up. *Proceeds to rant about the new world order, or something*
Yeah, there's no evil men in the Vatican promoting idol worship, molesting nuns and abusing children, and having rainbow orgies with cocain, especially not the higher ups ones who are in Washington and such places. That totally doesn't happen. And the people who calmly talk about those things are just ranting, raving lunatics.
Stop turning a blind eye to child abusers. I dont understand why people like you don't care about evil men who are trying to destroy our Church from the inside out.
Awesome episode!!! Thank you :)
Isn’t Mel Gibson a Sedeprivationist, not a Sedevacantist?
Not defending him, but they are different systems.
He attends a sedevecantist / Protestant church that doesn't follow anything after V1.
I nearly fell for sedevacantism years ago in my quest to "find the truth" I spoke against the Divine Mercy devotion and against JPII later when God taught me, through others, my errors, I went back and untaught all those I taught the nonsense and exhorted them to pray the Divine Mercy devotion. You mean to tell me I was this close to being this insane? JEEZZZ
Mel Gibson takes an annual retreat to MHFM
Thanks for your good service! Rogan just reshared this!
Ortho, sedes, prots... 2 sides of the same coin
Yeah if one listens to a Sede’s and Rad Trad’s arguments long enough and takes them to their final conclusions, they do sound like Protestants. And ironically enough, they’ll never acknowledge that it’s their language and mindset that goes against the Church and will claim they are the “true remnant of the Church.”
Dont speak about Orthodox. You were the first Protestants. No wonder you spawned more.
Orthodoxy is the full truth. Not bogged down by heresy. Even your own authority says the Orthodox Church is 100% valid
@orlog3343 sure man, valid sacraments sure.. but you dont have any real church structure. The Russian church is separating as we speak
@@davidgallegos4771 Catholics were the first Protestants
I hope Joe Rogan has the openness and intellectual capacity to understand that he needs to interview a faithful Catholic priest instead of Protestants and Mel Gibson if he wants the full Catholic truth.
I'm a loyal traditional Catholic, and I've had my spate with apostasy due to sedevacantist poison, but the attempts to explain away the ambiguity in Vatican II is inexcusable. The fact of the matter is there is ambiguity in so much that happened during the 1960s with the Church that all one is left with is wondering whether the ambiguity was deliberate for the purposes of sowing seeds of confusion or if it is merely a byproduct of clergy having lost their faith. I came back full force with faith that God knows what he's doing, separating the wheat from the chaff. Love God, and discern truth. As far as Gibson is concerned, I pray for him for having sacrificed his wife and seven children instead of himself (as we are commanded by Christ to do, as husbands and fathers). Pax domini.
Did you even read the Vatican II documents?
We just have to be patient, the Holy Spirit will sort it out in the end. There was far worse infighting after the council of Nicaea, and even after Constantinople it took a long time for Arianism to fade away, but the Church got there in the end as she always does
@@AndrewDolder What if he has? If he still thinks their ambiguous then your response will be "Submit" anyway. It's totally irrelevant if he or anyone reads them as their interpretation of those documents are meaningless, the only path is submission.
@@Thunderjerrkkyy No, my response would be to ask what ambiguity he is referring to? But if he didn't read it, why does he make such reckless claims?
Are you familiar with any of the ambiguities in prior ecumenical councils? Trust me, they were not all clean like we might think they were, some councils were called precisely to clarify ambiguities in prior councils. History is often much messier than our romanticized version. All to say any ambiguity in V2 isn’t entirely without precedent, and if you have a problem with that, then imagine being alive between Nicaea and Ephesus.
As he was saying all this on Joe Rogan his hiuse caught fire in LA.and burnt down..
I'm watching, learning and waiting for the upcoming debate JH🎉
Love your in depth explanation of all this, thanks for sharing! 🙏
I say to Mel Gibson what I would say to any other artist: shut up and make movies
If you deny the Papacy because you disagree with a Pope, even if you're right about the disagreement, then your a Protestant.....
...and you're calling Christ a liar, as he promised us "the gates of hell would not hold out" against the church he founded with the Apostles
That's a false understanding of papacy because not everything a pope says or does demands agreement
@robertkolinsky1286 I agree with your statement - I think you misread my comment - it can be ok to disagree with the Pope on a great number of things, but not to "deny the Papacy" because you disagree with a Pope.
To deny the Papacy is to deny the authority of the Church, which is directly from Christ.
There have been 'bad' Popes in history, but their bad behaviour does not invalidate their office
@@StevenHolland-bz2vo growing up sedevacantis, it's false to say they reject the papacy since the fully accept it and appear to be very informed on alot of what popes taught at least the priest. They just don't believe these past popes are true popes. The problem they have is not a matter of a pope being sinful that makes him a false pope but that he teaches heresy since they believe a pope can't teach error even in his non- infallible authoritive teachings. They also speculate and believe that there would eventually have to be a true pope to set things right. Growing up when we see tge rosary before mass, the priest would cite at the beginning of the rosary certain things they pray for and one of them is for there to be a true pope. So Sedevacantis fully believe in the papal office and pray that God would send a true Pope.
Non Catholic Christians believe there has been and always will be disciples of Christ, which they understand to be "the church." Your interpretation of that verse is different but it's absurd to think that non Catholic Christians are making Christ out to be a liar.
@@robertkolinsky1286the papacy is visible and the principle of unity. You cannot have a non visible empty seat papacy. Think about that for a minute.
Brilliant, Joe! Thank you for this 🙏
The problem is some conspiracy theory minds believe in where there is smoke there is always fire. 😂 Yes, pun intended😂
Thanks for doing this. My daughter is traumatized by sedevacantism. The idea horrifies her. I can see what people are thinking but don't have a visceral response. This debate has given me so much more compassion for her.
I’m saying this as a NO goer, but Catholic Answers puts up an unnecessary wall when their whole staff is Byzantine rite.
Our whole staff isn't Byzantine rite, though? Where is this idea coming from? (With all love to the eastern rites, of course!)
@ If I’m wrong I apologize, but what percentage of the lead apologetics go to NO every week?
From time to time I see Catholic social media point out they don’t. Just in recollection I’ve recognized a similar trend (might be confirmation bias), but I’ve never seen anyone state otherwise. It’s treated as a known thing.
There is a beautiful Byzantine Church near Catholic Answers. I am a regular NO goer (English, Spanish, Portuguese and Korean mass)and have attended the Latin Mass many times, Byzantine Divine Liturgy and Maronite mass. They are all beautiful. I don’t think that the fact that some of them attend the Byzantine liturgy means that they created a wall. In fact, I think that they created a bridge. I had no idea that the other rites even existed.
VII skeptics just find it awkward that the biggest defenders of the NO go to what they would call a more “revenant” Mass instead of NO. They see it as weakening the argument.
Trent Horn went Byzantine. I don’t really know if he did it formally and canonically, but I’ll assume he did. But who else? Jimmy Akin and Joe didn’t change rites as far as I’m concerned. They are Latin rite Catholics, aren’t they?
Hi Joe. Keep up the great work!
Sedevacantists loosing their minds in the comment section 🔊😅😅😂
Thank you for this, Joe. I pray it helps many
Sedes are schizo
I just went through the comments of that Joe Rogan video, didn’t see a single person bring up his sedevacantism, so I thank you and Lofton for making videos on it
I thank God I have neither the authority nor the competence to judge the Pope. As for the Masonic takeover of the Vatican, read Mnsgr Dillon's "Grand Orient Freemasonry Unmasked." Then read "Pascendi."
Modernism is the synthesis of all heresy. Too many of our bishops and cardinals are thoroughly steeped in modernism.
Even if the faithful remain true to the Orthodox Magesterium, it will take decades to clear the rot in the hierarchy.
O Most Holy Theotokos Pray for us!
Excellent video! And I do think it's helpful advice to not go down the rabbit-hole of conspiracies and theological obscurities when it comes to sedevacantism. Best to keep it simple. And the simple fact is that if we can't depend on the Church in the present (such that the visible Church is gone), then we can't depend on the Church in the past either, so we might as well give up on Catholicism altogether if sedevacantism is true.
Debate Jay Dyer
He wont, just like voice of reason wont. Papists are more often then not alergic to debate.
Jay Dyer, I was listening to him for a bit when I was interested in orthodoxy. He really know his stuff but then he starts talking in a toxic way and it turned me off from listening to him
I think we're missing maybe the simplest argument against sedevecantism: the Pope is the Bishop of Rome. We have a validly consecrated bishop with apostolic succession serving as the head of the Diocese of Rome. Conclave or not, that makes him the Pope. Even the Avignon Popes were still the Bishop of Rome. Sedevacantism doesn't only rely on the papacy being vacant, but also that Rome hasn't even had a bishop in all this time.
I’ll add also that without the Pope there is no Church, so sedevacantism effectively doesn’t believe the dogma of the indefectibility of the Church and that the Church is visible and doesn’t believe our Lord’s guarantee that “the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Mt. 16:18). I’d be worried if I were them, they need to repent.
Catholics influencers: scrutinising sheep while pretending to be blind while looking at clergy..
Excellent video Joe. I learned a lot from it. God bless you and your family 🙏
Some are way more tolerant of heretics than of people like Mel Gibson - who isn’t perfect but is trying to follow Christ. If he holds to Tradition, then he deserves some respect that we afford the Orthodox.
@MikeJDP More, even, becauze he is still a Catholic and not in heresy or schism
Florence states that someone that doesn’t submit to the pope isn’t going to heaven. He isn’t traditional. There isn’t a tradition that lets us pick and choose who the pope is.
@@thehitomiboy7379 He's not a Catholic. He's outside of communion with Rome
@@MikeJDP Mel Gibson is a heretic by Catholic stabdards. It's commendable that he condemns modern left wing errors, but that doesn't excuse his own errors or put him above criticism
@john-el9636 Oh? Has the pope issuea an excommunication for him?
Thank you, Joe! VERY COOL!!
Sedevacantism being wrong does not magically rehabilitate all of Vatican II' flaws and even borderline heretical propositions.
Matthew 16:18-19 and Luke 10:16 and what Vatican I teaches says otherwise
@@pierrepincet4442 The point of the video isn't to discuss Vatican II, and frankly, accusing an ecumenical council of heresy is a pretty sinful thing to do as a Catholic
It's actually heresy to say that an ecumenical council can teach heresy.
@ you should revisit what infallability means. Vatican II was indeed an ecumenical council, but only a pastoral one. John-Paul XXIII refused to call it dogmatic, and no document issued from the council dogmatically defined anything. Which makes it very much debatable.
I did not say heresy was teached, but some documents, sentences and words used by Vatican II texts are more or less directly opposing pre-existing ecumenical councils and infallable definitions of the catholic dogma (on oecumenism, liberty of religion and the sacraments, notably).
@ Though I agree the video wasn't specifically on Vatican II, sedevacantism was born from the council, and explaining why this position is totally illegitimate should not automatically lead to assuming everything the council has been teaching is right is my point.
Vatican II did not provide any infallable documents and was only a pastoral council, not a dogmatic one.
Thanks for this!
Francis has driven me to agree with Gibson about this
Your loss.
@@tsitsifloramunikwa5468as somebody who attends a NO Parish, I must say fellow Catholics like you are part of the problem. You guys are part of the reason why people become sedes because you guys gloss over problems in the Church, with the hierarchy, etc.... it's gaslighting. Basically both sides of the argument are wrong
It's fascinating how similar sedevantists think and independent fundamentalist baptist think.
Didn't pope Francis say all religions lead to God?? How can someone still be catholic ..
Exactly. We can't attack Mel Gibson for speaking the truth while burying our heads in the sand about what a satanic destroyer the man who dared to call himself Francis is.
@@David-zm3wk He didn't.
Not in his Magisterium, he didn't. He made an argument in an interfaith discussion which sounds similar to this but requires further nuance and context.
Worst case, even if Pope Francis believes that, how that comes across, it doesn’t mean anything. The pope can be wrong. Say things that are wrong.
Because even Saint Thomas Aquinas says religion is a virtue. "Religion is a special virtue, not because its object, God, is special, but because it directs man to a special aspect of good, namely, to render due worship to God." So someone sincerely adhering to their religion, even if they are worshipping wrongly or worshipping some god other than THE God, they are at least moving closer to God by the practice of this virtue. For example, a sincere Hindu is better than an atheist who dismisses all practice of religion. - You can argue (and rightly, I think) that the Pope should have spoken more clearly about the supremacy of Catholicism over all other religions. But I can't make sense of what you imply here, namely that since the Pope didn't make Catholicism's supremacy clear enough, one should leave Catholicism.
As someone exploring Catholicism, I greatly appreciate this explanation of sedevacantism.
The damage that Francis has done to the Church is incalculable. After a decade of his bullshit, Sedevacantism starts to look appealing. Wrong, but appealing.
What damage?
What damage? More young people are interested in Catholicism than ever, the Church is thriving.
@tsitsifloramunikwa5468 young people are joining traditional parishes not modernist subversive parishes. You can look at most diocese in America and what you will find is the fssp and the i c k p s parishes have far larger numbers of young people and baptisms. I go to a NO parish, but one which is publicly socially conservative. There is zero tolerance for anything lgbtq. We have way more baptisms than other compromising parishes in our diocese.
People are joining the church but not because of Francis. I know from personal experience. I joined in 2022 and he was one of the largest stumbling blocks along with over half of my rcia group of nearly 40 people Thank God my parish is morally traditional and does not play footsie with secular classical liberal Society like much of the hierarchy does.
@@John_Six He preaches heresy. He participates in pagan worship. He participates in jewish worship. He says it's a sin to evangelize. He says Martin Luther did not error on justification. He teaches that protestants, anglicans and eastern "orthodoxy" are in the body of christ. That baptism isn't required for salvation. He preaches the heresy of baptism of desire. etc. Can you not see the damage Francis has done? Wake up!
Thank you Joe! God bless.
Oh no, Mel Gibson is going to cause almost as much damage to the Catholic Church as the Francis.
not nearly as much!!! cant be worse than francis tbh
Francis is blessing to Church. God bless him!
Mel Gibson doesn't cover for child abusers or worship idols, so calm the heck down.
How? We all know what’s going on already. He speaks truth.
I understand the point, but I’ve heard of many lapsed Catholics returning to the faith due to his emphasis on God’s mercy and forgiveness. Many. And we can even hear online that during Pope Francis’ pontificate, the Catholic Church is thriving in Africa and in Asia. It’s getting massively relevant even in Muslim countries like Indonesia, where Christianity used to be invisible. For good or worse, his politics of admitting the hard way with China maintains the availability of the sacraments for the Chinese and, for example, Catholicism is making a huge impact in South Korea. But I guess Mel Gibson’s conspiracy theories do much good to the Internet Church! You Americans are wacko!
(And I don’t even like Pope Francis, here in Brazil we joke that only an Argentinian pope could be that confusing).
You know who could fix all these problems? The hierarchy.
This isn’t the fault of the laity or this & that Protestant sect. It’s the fault of those in authority.
Speaking of supposed unsubstantiated “rumor & innuendo” ever read The Plot Against The Church?
Especially the pachamama incident!
By their fruits..... (V2, and on, has produced some terrible fruits.) Then there's all the prophesies (*WARNINGS* both Marian and various saints) that there will be a "false church".
Which apparition
@@AlexanderMichael17 Our Lady of Quito Ecuador 1594AD - 1634AD, Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich prophetic visions - Died 1824AD, Our Lady of La Salette 1846AD. This is a good place to start. There are more (Google is your friend 😏)
Then Muslims are the chosen peeps... Look how big they are and growing.. 😂 Y'all are withering on the vine
@@madmachio No, not even close. Sam Shamoun and David Wood have absolutely "destroyed" your islam and your false prophet. Where do you see satan fighting against islam? You don't because it's a demonic false religion. Sam & David have done a great job exposing islam.
@@dansworld9635 When has it been the responsibility of unorthodox laymen to correct the Magisterium of Christ bud?