Peter Dimond’s Sedevacantism (REBUTTED)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ก.ย. 2024
- In this episode Trent rebuts the arguments Peter Dimond made in a recent Pints with Aquinas debate on the issue of sedevacantism, or the claim that there have been no valid popes since 1958.
To support this channel: / counseloftrent
Original video: • Sedevacantism Debate: ...
True or False Pope?: www.amazon.com...
How the “Lady Doctors” teach us obedience in the midst of scandal: • How the “Lady Doctors”...
Can confirm Trent has not slept in five days.
Oh no! But many thanks to Trent though for this very important video!
What a funny hidden comment lol 😅
😂
Because the debate where Peter Dimond mopped the floor explosing how the novus ordo sect is the church of the anti-christ shook him to his core.
@@ACF1901 Can confirm this was not the reason
Dimond said in his rebuttal video he is willing to debate. Will you take him up on this? Please do!
Brother Peter Dimond debunked Trent Horn and Michael Lofton on Francis and Proselytism. The following is a must see video.
th-cam.com/video/s-r5p50vi6k/w-d-xo.html
Fr fr
Don’t hold your breath!
the author of this video would not debate diamond. he is a coward just look at this video. why doesn't he just debate diamond... no he has to do it like in a coward style
The major take-away I got from this rebuttal (did you watch it?) was that Dimond's "Gish gallop" debate tactic is purposefully tricky and unsubstantiated, while affording the speaker an appearance of success. I think Trent addressed Dimond's points pretty thoroughly. I'm curious to watch Dimond's rebuttal.
I can not BEGIN to express the level of grattitude to the creaction of this singular video.
Thank you
Thank you
Thank you
To stress, because of brother diamond, I nearly killed myself over two years ago with the near irradication of my peace and stability of my mind. Due to the seemingly unbreakable arguments I simply couldn't refute and didn't know or even think there was anywhere to begin to try refuting.
Thank God I had been given enough grace to go to the nearest priest and to talk me through my rapid descent of my crumbling mind. I had honestly stopped going to church as a result, because I didn't know who was right and I just have been paralized from action because- to be frank- I did not want to f up.
So, to say again Mr. Trent,
Thank you
Thank you
Thank you
Did you debated him personaly?
@@YiriUbic3793 no, I'm not sure how you would even do that as a lay person. Brother Diamond is like any other youtuber, so to do a formal debate is hard to do when you aren't a youtuber yourself- or a person of some renoune or in the public eye in some way.
He will respond to comments- he seems pretty good at responding back' as far as I have seen. But text debates are absolutley horrendous- it is not a suitable platform to debate someone, as far as my experince goes.
Amen, what a grace you found the rebuttal, and thank God, unlike other sedes, who won't even watch this rebuttal because they will upfront discount Trent because he is not one of them. Which begs the question, why not a follow up debate with Trent and Dimond
@@spirestocksnotification6710 Yep, Thank God!
As for a follow up- yes, Trent would be a great opponent for Peter diamond. I didn't know anything of Mr. Cassmen, and Mr. Trent aludes to him being a rrally good debater, but seeing this as the first time REALLY dis not biuld a strong opinion of him for me in this debate.
If you were suicidal over that... I mean maybe you need to do some soul searching. Ask yourself and be honest: do you really believe?
I'm not trying to be mean, but that is not a normal response. Perhaps your suicidality is a result of something else you're ignoring.
Do you really believe what you claim to? Are you latching onto it, hoping it will give you meaning? Maybe there is abuse you have suffered and haven't properly dealt with?
Of course I also must say, logically, that you may also simply be lying to discredit the Dimonds and MHFM. I think Dimond is objectively correct.
I hope you never feel suicidal again, if you truly were. It's a terrible thing to deal with.
Dimond is gonna film a 12 hour rebuttal and say you’re possessed 😂
The demonic indeed has an effect in the intellect.
It’d be 12 hours because Trent provides so much easy content and views to rebuttal and debunk.
@@dacoyote7699 pretty much. I used to like Trent, but now I see he is just another shill. Just like Lofton, Fradd, Marshall, etc.
Dimond is preaching the objective truth. It's not *his* teaching. He supports everything he says with magisterium, and even when he does declare an opinion, he is explicit and still refers to magisterium and Church Fathers to support his opinion.
@@dacoyote7699 meaning what exactly?
@@RedWolf5 what are you trying to say?
Sedevacantism is when you spend too much time online instead of going to Mass
Yep, those darn sedevacantist priests never going to Mass. 🤡
When are you planning your Mosque prayer meeting?
The Novus Ordo is just another protestant sect
@aperson0adGod bless you brother, I believe you’re right about the only way to disarm the Sedecanvatists is to carefully disprove their positions (which there is adequate evidence to do) and present those arguments on effectively. I’m so glad you found your way back home to the Church❤
@Credo in Unum Deum As a sedevacantist, I believe the thesis of cassiciacum has the best answer to the issue of ordinary jurisdiction (or the lack thereof). Simply put, ordinary jurisdiction exists in potency, but not actuality. The Church still possesses this attribute, or rather possesses the ability to attain this attribute, but currently there is no Bishop who has ordinary jurisdiction.
When I was forming my faith and was confused and tempted by Sedevacantist arguments like those from Vatican Catholic, one of the things that saved me was seeing how their rhetoric felt very "Protestant." Like, "The Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon! See how Rome sits on seven hills?? And you don't have to go to Church (in this case, since there's no valid apostolic succession), just pray at home!" So I'm glad you brought some of that up. At the end of the day, I think it just shows an extreme lack of faith in God's promises, love, and mercy to say that He would let His Church be abandoned to the point that millions, maybe billions, of otherwise faithful saints-to-be would be doomed to hell, all in the name of some final test which apparently only a couple thousand people around the world have been capable of passing. I know the gate is narrow, but God's not that arbitrary, haha.
It also places oneself as the highest position in the hierarchy. If you are a sedevacantist, you've declared yourself the highest authority. And that is protestantism to a t.
@@josephmoya5098 Sedes is worse, because each sede, as a lay person, in and of themselves have declared their private revelation of assigning them the authoritative role to determine a heretic even at the Papal level! as if each sede person has assigned themselves as judge and was a god, goes beyond a lay person within a certain protestant denomination
@@spirestocksnotification6710 Until those lay people in a Protestant denomination decide to start their own church.
But that is not to hate on Protestants. All trads who try to rationalize their personal opinion that the 1958 missal is superior end up as Protestants.
@@josephmoya5098 Yes! Correct, I was going to include that but typically it is the board/pastor helpers/advisors that tend to separate not the "common"/"ordinary" attendee of the Sunday service, but great point!
You're deluding yourself. Look at biblical Israel.
Thanks for this, I'm a protestant considering Catholicism but sedevacantism has been a stumbling block.
The Novus Ordo is not the Church.
I feel like I seen you before. Aren't you in Sentinel apologetics comment section?
@@YovanypadillaJr occasionally
@@floridaman318 If you are denying the validity Novus Ordo, you are denying what has been decided in an ecumenical council, therefore denying Jesus promess to protect the Church. God does not think like us, sometimes we give more importance to the ritualistic aspect and all the steps that are involved (that was how the pharisees behaved back in the days), but God sees the heart, the most important part of the sacred liturgy is the consecration of the Host and is valid in both. As long as you do the liturgy with reverence, being TLM or NO, both would be valid (I would agree that TLM being a little more reverent is preferred, but that does not mean the NO is invalid). Remember the the weapon of the enemy is the division.
@@austinapologetics2023 well I wish you all the best with your journey
Dimond's theology is analogous to one believing they are working on a multi-step math problem perfectly, but arrive at an answer that doesn't match the one in the answer key. Rather than consider the possibility that they may have erred in one of the mathematical steps, they reject the answer key.
Perfect analogy, i might steal it for future use
Where do you get the answer key from? if you think Holy Scriptural is not the final authority
@@yajunyuan7665 Holy Scripture is a final authority, but the authoritative qualifications to interpret what the Scripture actually means is essential to the understanding of Scripture
@@spirestocksnotification6710 The qualifications required for interpretation is a knowledge of history and a knowledge of the original languages.
@@yajunyuan7665 And a legitimate assigned Catholic Church interpretation since the Catholic Church with Holy Spirit is author of Scripture Canon going back initially to the Fourth Century
Thank you Trent Horn. I was confused after the debate but kept my faith that a solid rebuttal would find its way to my TH-cam. I was an atheist most of my life and your channel has guided me into RCIA and I look forward to being accepted into the church this upcoming Easter! Cheers!
So instead of *investigating Church teaching and what the Fathers say, you put your faith in the TH-cam video of a layman? Think about it.
@@floridaman318 I'll pray for you brother! I hope you'll do the same.
@@justinwoodworth3668 hypocrite.
@@floridaman318 God bless 🙌
@@floridaman318 Why so much anger? Justin didn't write that he puts his faith in a TH-cam video, but that Trent's (excellent, in my opinion) channel has helped him.
Thanks, Trent
Shill.
🏅
@@yajunyuan7665 you again? I don't understand why you keep lurking? Why do you care about sedevacantism?
@@floridaman318 because I believe in sedevacantism since 64AD, if the principle is valid the only difference is on the length of vacancy.
@@yajunyuan7665 so if we haven't had any legitimate bishops or popes for 2000 years, then by your logic, how can we be sure we have anything correct at all if the only thing that has passed on the knowledge of Christ is an institution you believe was compromised from the beginning? And please don't say "muh prophet Martin Luther revealed the truth!" I'm not buying that one even if it's free.
That's why when I was thinking of leaving the Catholic church, the Holy Spirit told me, to stay because, I needed the Sacraments.
The same thing with me, when l don't truly know about Catholic JESUS appears to me in voice and told me not to leave that Catholic church is his own.
He established her as His own . I go back l am Catholic Christian now forever in CHRIST JESUS. Amen.
how did the Holy Spirit tell you?
Yes, but a sedevacantist would tell you valid sacrements are better. It's all about interpretation at the end.
Thank you for this video I’m fourteen and a catechumen in the Catholic Church (my parents are atheist) and I can’t wait to be received into the Church this Easter Vigil after a 2 year conversion, but people like this make me feel weird like they have hatred so we must all have hatred. Please pray for me and God Bless!
46 year old and DEUS VULT I will also be received in this church coming Easter, these people are in every church and every religion also in every organisation. How you relate to that can be difficult and will never be totally solved because there will always be farizees/sadducees etc etc. It just means you need to be vigilant. Don't condemn people to easily and also do not go along with them, use your mind, your heart and prayers at all times. You sound sincere so trust in yourself you have alifetime to Grow in Christ,
"Trent" Horn is a heretic that runs from debates.
Bergoglio is not the Pope, Brother Peter is 100% right.
I'm a 15 yo catachumen with atheist parents lol. Pretty annoying when they joke about it
Please join a Traditional Catholic Church. Check out an SSPV Chapel in your area. The "Novus Ordo" church is NOT the Catholic Church. It's the prophesied End times counter church.
@@universalflamethrower6342 DO NOT trust your heart or your own understanding! Jeremiah the Book of Proverbs, the Gospel of St Mark, and St. Paul all teach against it. To pray and place all your faith and trust in God and he will make straight your paths. Research all you can to attain all the available information, and God will make the truth self evident for you❤️
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence (ex-Cathedra and infallible):“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation
Yikes, watch the protest- err I mean sedevacantists ignore that little detail.
@@yppoe are you a sedevacantist?
And yet vat 2 states the opposite
@@KortovElphame No it does not, I have LG 14 right in front of me, it clearly says that Hence, they (people) could no be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse to either enter it, or to remain in it. However, it does clearly teach that catechumens, who have not yet been baptized, are incorporated into the the Church, thus Christ (Baptism of Desire).
LG15 deals with those in Churches (Orthodox) or ecclesiastical communities (protestants) who are validly baptized (water and Trinity) are related to the Church, even though not in full communion . But Vatican II did also clearly distinguish the Eastern Orthodox from the protestants. We know this because Pope Pius XII in His Papal Apostolic Constitution Sacarmentum Ordinis, issued on 30 November 1947 in paragraph 3 fully declared that the Council of Florence recognized the Validity of the Rite of Consecrations for Eastern Orthodox Bishops as valid with respect to Matter and form (see paragraph 3). Thus, if the Eastern Orthodox have valid Bishops, the priests they ordain are valid Priests and the Eastern Orthodox would have valid Sacraments.
LG16 is where it talks about Jewish or Muslim believers, who through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or the Catholic Church, they and here is the the context "may achieve salvation". Although in ways know to God himself, God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.
How did the Catholic Church understand the notion of "no fault of their own", which only God knows, the Doctrine of Invincible ignorance. i am not sure u are aware, but Saint Thomas Aquinas in the Summa (Question 76) taught invincible ignorance. Pope Pius IX (1846-1878) in , 9 December 1854 Singulari quadam; and 10 August 1863 encyclical, Quanto conficiamur moerore teach Invincible ignorance as does Pope Pius XII in His June 29, 1943 encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi.
Cheers and God Bless
This was excellent. I like the no nonsense format of Trent's rebuttal videos, every minute being used to progress his rebuttal, rather than 3 hours of video worth 30 minutes of the purpose of the video being respected, like a lot of other Catholic content on TH-cam.
A blog called "Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell" has rebutted Trent. The post is, "Trent Horn and His Critique of Sedevacantism."
Trent is a hieratic and will lead you down the path of destruction.he is a VC2 defender. If you’re watching you already know something is wrong with this new religion, it’s not Catholic.
And Dimond has exposed Trent as a heretic in his response to this video.
@@JeremiahAlphonsus As a conciliar church apologist, Horn follows its errors.
Great rebuttal, Trent. Sedevecantism almost convinced me until I became more nuanced in my faith. Yourself and Michael Lofton helped me greatly.
They are both heretics that would get demolished in a debate with Br. Peter.
@YP Poe lol you sedevacantists are the most bitter and unfounded and least nuanced people I’ve seen. You’re position is devoid of all hope and you are possessed by a spirit of dread.
A blog called "Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell" has rebutted Trent. The post is, "Trent Horn and His Critique of Sedevacantism."
@YP Poe I would welcome a debate between Horn and a Dimond.
No good. Trent got a respond by brother Peter th-cam.com/video/PS7qgmx8k0M/w-d-xo.html
Trent I hope you read this. After leaving a Sedevacantist sect ( we didn’t originally know it was sede, just wanted to attend a traditional Latin mass ) this video of yours is the final piece I needed to end that chapter. This quote especially helped me:
“Bishops Separated from Peter and His Successors, Lose All Jurisdiction
15. From this it must be clearly understood that Bishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling, if they deliberately secede from Peter and his successors; because, by this secession, they are separated from the foundation on which the whole edifice must rest. They are therefore outside the edifice itself; and for this very reason they are separated from the fold, whose leader is the Chief Pastor; they are exiled from the Kingdom, the keys of which were given by Christ to Peter alone.”
There’s an incredible ironic justice in this quote. Because the sedevacantists point this exact claim to the entire Catholic Church, while missing the fact that for them to do so is a hypocritical act.
Anyway I have a lot to say but would like to let you know, my entire family are being baptised in two days, officially under the archdiocese of our city. And this video of yours confirms for me that this is the correct decision for my family. There are basically no videos out there with a good rebuttal to the Sedevacantist perspective. And one thing I give them credit for, they are incredible bookworms and miners of quotes (from pre - 1962 popes) to support their agenda. So it’s a taxing and arduous task to rebut them aswell as you did in this video. So god bless you and your family Trent, thank you sir.
@user-kb4dv1ud3fDo you think accusing someone of lacking critical thinking is a going to win them to your side?
Your lack of charity is probably due to your refusal to receive the Sacraments
Trent" Horn is a heretic that runs from debates.
Bergoglio is not the Pope, Brother Peter is 100% right.
thank you for such a sound rebuttal! As a new Catholic convert from protestantism my husband and I nearly fell for sedevacantism- it is so protestant in its ideas! So thankful for The One Holy Catholic & apostolic Church and Our Lords promise of The Church!
Fall for what? Is there really that much difference between the Vatican II sect and the protestant religion?
It was a lousy rebuttal, and what's Protestant is the Novus Ordo, which was created with the help of Protestant ministers and which utterly GUTS the actual Mass. It's not Catholic. I had no idea what they did at Vatican II, I thought they changed one or two little things. Oh no. It was an attack on the Church, and the attackers won.
@@francisoconner3596 There is indeed a massive chasm between the rebellious attitude of becoming your own magisterium and the spirit of charitable submission.
@@vroomkaboom108 Anyone whom is with the Church of Rome is not in the Catholic Church. The Three Pillars of the Catholic Church are prayer, penance, and study and know one’s Catholic Faith.
Due to scholastics and philosophy, the Catholic Church was infiltrated approximately 1130 A.D. From that point on if one looks upon Catholic Churches one will see pornography, demons, and inappropriate ungodly creatures surrounding the Catholic Church. Along with scholastics and philosophy, they began to debate the truth of God that had already been sent forth the first thousand years of the Church along with the Dogmas of the Church from the apostles.
Because most of the people on this blog do not know their Catholic faith, and do not understand where they’re headed, and they think they’re in the Catholic Church. But they are not because according to Church teaching the first thousand years of the Church that if a pope, bishop, cardinal, priest, or any clergy, or laity that taught heresy, apostasy and idolatry were automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church. Due to the scholastics and philosophers, they decided to debate and change and argue regarding the Dogmas of the Church. Dogma‘s are Divine Revelations that can never be changed in any way, shape or form.
Throughout scripture, God makes it perfectly clear that his will will be simplistic to understand, and nobody is supposed to change it or deviate from it. But this is exactly what the scholastics and philosophers did, because they wanted to debate the truth of God. That is heresy.
Wake up before it’s too late because the way you’re headed is into the fires of Gehenna.
@@vroomkaboom108 By the way, it’s called a schism. Yes, the current church in Rome has departed a.k.a. schism from the true Catholic church. There is a remnant of the church all over the world. We still follow the true teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ from 33 A.D. Not from 1130 A.D. forward because of all the heresies, apostasies and idolatry’s. Please get back to the Three Pillars of the Catholic faith.
I’m glad that you highlighted that Diamond’s Sedevacantism, isn’t the same as hierarchical sedevacantism!
Do you have any links where I could read what "hierarchical" sedevacantism is?
Try Anthony Cekadas channel. Traditional catholic sermons on yt is good too. Novus Ordo watch has many articles that one can read too.
@@floridaman318 I'm of the Sede position, but I've not heard that term before either. I believe what Tartan Gloria is trying to say is that the Dimond's of MHFM are fringe and not accepted by most Sedevacante view holding Catholics for numerous reasons. Three of the principle reasons are -
1: They falsely preach that Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are false (Feenyism).
2: They falsely preach that there are no legitimately consecrated bishops or ordained priests whatsoever. Most Catholics of the Sedevacante position believe certain lines of Apostolic Succession to still be legitimate due to the legitimate pre-V2 rites being used. Examples are Bishops Sanborn and Neville, the CMRI Bishops like Bishops Pivarunas and McGuire, and the SSPX Bishops (who are clearly not of the Sede position, but who reject the heresies of Vatican 2 nonetheless).
3: The Dimond's are untrained theologians who bring large measures of a Protestant-like interpretation of Scripture and certain other topics into their discussion. They accept council from no one, even when properly refuted or advised, and they act 100% of things which no competent, humble, and honest theologian would assert as 100% fact.
These are at least some of the major issues with the Dimonds that separate them from the majority of sedevacante leaning Catholics, but by no means all of the controversies.
I’m simply referring to Sedevacantists who have a hierarchy through a line of succession. Thuc bishops etc.
@@TartanCatholic yes I have listened to him and Sanborn. Is hierarchical sedevacantism referring to the cassiciacum thesis?
I hope you consider a formal debate with Bro. Peter Dimond on Pints with Aquinas. His rebuttal to this video insinuated he is open to it!
It's clear that Brother Peter wishes to debate, it's not an insinuation. th-cam.com/video/PS7qgmx8k0M/w-d-xo.html
Trent's afraid to debate MHFM-following sedevacantists. Bro. Peter Dimond OSB is 100% willing to debate Trent and he challenged Trent Horn to debates multiple times.
Not everyone's calling is as a debater. Brother Peter spends all of his time on this. He is an excellent debater. He uses specific tactics That are quite good. Yes, I believe he won the debate. However, winning a debate does not mean that he is right, it merely means he won the debate. On another day it could have turned out differently. The basic problem is his position starts from detest, anger, pompousness, pride. No one like that is following Jesus. You can look back on popes from Pius the 12th and before and there are hints of compromise as well. Not everything that is wrong is heresy. It may just be wrong. Not everything that is wrong is from the devil. I may think one plus one equals 3 but I don't think the devil is involved in that. Any Catholic who cares to put any effort in has all the information they need for salvation and the sacraments. Brother Dimond must think he's perfect not even being able to go to confession. This is the tail wagging the dog. Pure and simple. But, my offer stands. I will debate brother Peter if he will.
Gish Gallop explains most of Dimonds videos as well, and also why people mistakenly think he "won" the debate yet can't explain why they still won't take his view.
Brother Peter Dimond debunked Trent Horn and Michael Lofton on Francis and Proselytism. The following is a must see video.
th-cam.com/video/s-r5p50vi6k/w-d-xo.html
@@drjanitor3747 So what now? There is no Church anymore? I thought the Gates of Hell would not prevail.
@@santiagotrevinomartinez567 definition of church in catechism refers to faithful who hold on to traditions and established dogma. Hope that clears it up for you. Catholic church is the few real catholics who do not compromise over God's teaching.
@@Massachusetts3005sounds like the definition Protestants use.
Geez that post on the website to not go to church on Sundays is scary. Pray for Peter Diamond and other sede’s that they might see their errors and come back to the church
This is so true. Every one of these groups don't have the keys of Peter. They decide on difficult problems as they wish. It could be wrong because they don't have the authority of the catholic church.
True, the advice the Dimonds give about not going to Mass is scary because, contrary to what they believe, there are still validly ordained priests giving the sacraments. There are lots of valid Sedevacantist Mass centers.
I HOPED FOR SO LONG HE WOULD MAKE A VIDEO ON THIS!
Me too! Literally been waiting for a few years lol
Trent Horn and other Vatican II sect defenders are now trying to do damage control. That's because Br Dimond easily proved, in a recent debate, that the V2 papal claimants are heretics.
@@angelperinmusic9956 As a former follower of the dimonds, Inhave been waiting for to long as well!
@@nick.s.c3102 Amen! Welcome home!
Sometimes god uses lost people and scary moments to bring about something really great, like Trent’s rebuttal here.
“Gish-galloping.” No better term exists to describe the way Dimond disguises how ridiculously weak his positions really are.
Or maybe your understanding is weak. Or perhaps you just don't want to be objective and look in depth into his claims.
Vatican I seems to refute sedevacantism in Pastor Aeternus: "That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ’s authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time." And Pope St. Pius X appears to confirm it: “The office divinely committed to Us of feeding the Lord’s flock has especially this duty assigned to it by Christ, namely, to guard with the greatest vigilance the deposit of the faith, delivered to the saints, rejecting the profane novelties of words and oppositions of knowledge falsely so-called. There has never been a time when this watchfulness of the Supreme Pastor was not necessary to the Catholic body….” Please do not be led astray by the doubt sown by men who prefer their idea of what the Church should be to that which Christ established and entrusted to the care of Peter and his successors, though weak and imperfect Peter and his successors may be and very well are.
I'm partial to "throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks" myself, but I'll grant that whether or not it's a *better* term is a matter of preference. Feel free to substitute "spaghetti" for any other gooey, messy, or even unpleasantly brown substance of course
@@michaeldulman5487 read cum ex apostolatus officio.
@@floridaman318 Tent literally covers this in the video, it applies to people who were manifest heretics before hand, among others, John XXIII could not have fallen into this category
Thank you Trent for tirelessly serving the church. God bless you and your family!
Hvaljen Isus i Marija❤️🔥
Dear Trent Horn, thank you for this calm and detailed rebuttal. Bless you and keep you in health and hope and joy
Can’t wait to see the debate between you two !
Brother Peter will destroy his litany of heresy
@@haydendude gish galloping as Mr. Peter Diamond has done is intellectually dishonest.
If you’re going to be a sedevacantist, you might as well be a Protestant.
Go in peace.
@@beatlecristian Brother Peter ibased his rebuttal on Sacred scripture. Writing of the Fathers and Holy Popes. Not in the catechism from hell of John Paul 2
The sedevecantist position is hopeless- if no real popes or cardinals are alive today, then there can never be a new pope, no new real priests and no sacraments.
It ends in hopelessness and it’s not something I can buy into for that reason.
Thesis of Cassiciacum, formulated by the late Bishop Guerard des Lauriers. In this thesis there is a possibility of a Pope. Bishop Sanborn explains it on Catholic family podcast (yt)
While I am not a sedevacatists, there are sedevacatists who do say there can and will be a pope in the future. Some who even say each Pope after vat2 was a valid Pope up to the point they preached some sort of heresy. Each branch believes something slightly different
Yes, some do believe that.
They broke off from the true church because they declare that church is in error. And now they begin doctrinally breaking off from each other because they slowly form different beliefs within their own breakoff.
Sounds familiar, as though something similar happened maybe around 500 years ago, with Catholics who began to deny a few of the truths of the church....and left in favor of beginning their own set of doctrines.
Ultimately, it leads to Eastern Orthodoxy as the conclude One, True, Holy, Apostolic, Church, of which the Roman Patriarch schismed himself from since 1054. Hence, why there have been issues over the course of the millennia, only recent of which is VII
Is Trent Horn going to debate Br. Dimond as Br. Dimond said he would debate him?
Unfortunately Peter Dimond and his colleague are seriously heretical. We must PRAY PRAY PRAY for them and those they mislead.... 😥😥😥
"Trent" Horn is a heretic that runs from debates.
Bergoglio is not the Pope, Brother Peter is 100% right.
Why don't you _show_ us _how_ they mislead since you're so sure. It should be easy for someone like you.
Deep.
Satis Cognitum by Pope Leo XIII refutes your position Trent. No declaration is needed for one to lose membership in the Church:
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “So, with every reason for doubting removed, can it be lawful for anyone to reject any of those truths without thereby sending himself headlong into open heresy? without thereby separating himself from the Church and in one sweeping act repudiating the entirety of Christian doctrine?... he who dissents in even one point from divinely received truths has most truly cast off the faith completely, since he refuses to revere God as the supreme truth and proper motive of faith.”
Holy cow Trent, this was awesome. You really showed me through your meticulous research and knowledge that being a sede only makes sense on the surface level and out of context.
When are you planning your Mosque prayer meeting?
A blog called "Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell" has rebutted Trent. The post is, "Trent Horn and His Critique of Sedevacantism."
Trent only has a surface level understanding of Sedevacantism. He doesn't truly understand the position.
A respond from brother Peter to heretic view by Trent th-cam.com/video/PS7qgmx8k0M/w-d-xo.html
A respond from brother Peter to heretic view by Trent th-cam.com/video/PS7qgmx8k0M/w-d-xo.html
To a protestant on her way to Rome, this guy doesnt realize hes just another protestant.
God bless and welcome! I have made sedes and SSPX alike upset by calling them Protestants online. It is unfortunately true.
The Vatican II sect give Communion to Protestants and call them members of the Church. Sedevacantists reject that, because we are Catholic.
@@atrifle8364 they got mad? Must have struck a nerve.
@@YourBoyJohnny94Ignorance
@@YourBoyJohnny94 Actually it was because of the mistranslation that took place
If a pope prayed in a synagogue with the Jews for the coming of their "messiah", isn't that a public act of apostasy? Either JP2 or Benedict did that, and he mentioned that in the debate.
It depends on the context. If by intent they are praying for conversion, then no. It is scandal because it's confusing. But right now our leadership is in love with ecumenism.
Yes, it’s an act of apostasy by traditional standards. Sadly, there are liars who deny the obvious.
No pope can do np wrong
@@atrifle8364 But these modern popes are against trying to convert them
At worst it's a scandalous act of interreligious dialogue, not manifest heresy
Trent I respect you and admire you for your hard work, and for always defending our catholic doctrine 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
No he is not defending the catholic doctrine. Nor tradition he is using jp2 catechism to debunk brother Peter and also unitatis redintegratio Vatican 2 degree on ecumenism. Disgusting
@@haydendude Now, go and join the Protestants
@@mortensimonsen1645 really why would I do that. That’s your sect you go there every Sunday. Continue reading jp2 blasphemous catechism pray to pachamama along with Francis. I rather stay in the Roman traditional catholic apostolic church .
@@haydendude i feel sorry for you, repeating lies about we should be praying to pachemama. Its just like the protestants saying that we worship the saints.
@@mortensimonsen1645 no I feel sorry for you for attending the mass of Satan the new mass for probably having a picture of jp2 in your home a man that committed so many public mortal sins I rather stay in the traditional Roman Catholic Church and their doctrine.
My only concern is that it seems like on Trent's view, the Pope could basically say absolutely anything without any consequence. For example, if the Pope publicly said "Jesus was not God", Trent could just say "Well we can charitably interpret that as him referring to Jesus' human nature only". Or if the Pope said "Christianity isn't true", Trent could say "We can interpret him charitably as meaning that Christianity is so true that it transcends truth itself" or whatever. It seems like you can always charitably interpret anything away.
So hypothetically, is there anything the Pope could say which would disqualify him as Pope? Or could you always just say "Well he's not speaking infallibly there, so we can just disagree".
Problem here is that this objection is basically just a hypothetical, and a bad one at that. We know that Pope's are protected from teaching heresy, binding the faithful to error, and habitually erring on their own. So to ask about the hypothetical situation where the Pope denied the divinity of Christ is already disingenuous. It's no different from an atheist asking "what would you do if God said He's not God?" It's not even on our radar because it's essentially an impossibility.
Now, a lot of people "quote" Pope Francis saying things that sound heterodox when completely taken out of context, but I haven't seen a single claim like that actually hold water when you just go to the source and read the whole statement. I don't know why people have trouble doing that. We're supposed to read everyone with context and charity except Pope Francis I guess.
Frankly, there's no error the Pope can say that would result in him losing his office. I say that because of the aforementioned doctrines regarding his office, and the fact that the Papacy has existed for 2000 years and that has happened exactly zero times. The Pope can only lose his office if a competent authority removes him, and since the only authority that's equal or greater than him is God, then nobody on earth could declare him as a heretic and take away his power.
@YP Poe Let's apply that logic to God shall we? If a modernist went up to you and said "You have to accept LGBT ideology because Jesus said to love everyone", how do you respond? Do you point out the contradictions between LGBT ideology and Sacred Scripture? What happens when the modernist says "God allowed polygamy and divorce in the Old Testament and then changed the rules in the New. So God can just allow LGBT whatever now." Are you going to then make qualifications about how certain practices were allowed at different times in the plan of salvation, using the same reasoning you condemned in your comment? Or would you concede to the modernist point of view?
@@john-el9636 I've read the context around his controversial statements and they don't vindicate him. He very plainly and literally teaches people not to try to convert people to Catholicism. It's not just him condemning "proselytizing" conceived of as coercive or aggressive tactics. He literally teaches that you shouldn't say anything at all. That is plain and simple false teaching.
@Doctor G.K. Spodermin, Sr. I'm sorry but you haven't read the context if you came to that conclusion. For instance, I've seen multiple people claim that Pope Francis thinks the Eastern Orthodox don't need to convert because he once said that we shouldn't try to convince them of our faith. Or proselytize them if you will. The problem is that evangelization and proselytizing aren't the same thing. Pope Francis has openly encouraged evangelization multiple times and specified the distinction between that and proselytizing already.
If you'd like, please share an example of a statement made by Pope Francis that you believe is irreconcilable with Catholicism.
It is good that someone has given a talk on sedevacantism. We need to remember that sedevacantists are schismatics.
Novus Ordo Church has schismd from the Church. It’s in full on apostasy right now, if you can’t see that then well that’s on you
Dimond is not a schismatic, but a heretic. Hes is a feenyite.
The bishops constitute the hierarchy of the Church. To cut oneself off from them, as the sedevacantists do, has already been condemned by Leo XII and Leo XIII.
These popes were targeting a group whose members denied the legitimacy of Pope Pius VII: like the sedevacantists.
Leo XII, Pastoris Aeterni: “Your Little Church cannot therefore in any way belong to the Catholic Church. By the very admission of your masters, or rather of those who deceive you, there are no longer any French bishops who support and defend the party you follow. Moreover, all the bishops of the Catholic Universe, to whom they themselves have appealed, and to whom they have addressed their schismatic claims in print, are recognized as approving the conventions of Pius VII and the acts which followed, and the whole Catholic Church is now entirely favorable to them.”
Leo XIII, Eximia nos laetitia: “Absolutely no bishop considers them and governs them as his sheep. From this they must conclude with certainty and evidence that they are defectors from the fold of Christ.
Now, just as the Little Church had no bishop who recognized them, so the sedevacantists had no bishop who recognized them, all of whom recognized the Council in 1964 and 1965.
@@fidefidelis4912 We have Bishops from the line of Thuc.
@@christianthinker2536 They aren't Successors of the Apostles since they don't have any power of teaching or jurisdiction. So your Church has not the Apostolic Mark. Plus, it lacked bishops from 1958 to 1981.
Hahaha, I've gotten into debates with this guy online in the past. His ideas were so fringy and nutty it was hard to have any kind of meaningful discussion.
Maybe because you luck the comprehension necessary to engage with him.
@@Radtrad_strada or the good will. Or the attention span to actually read the documents he cites in support of his arguments for themselves.
@@Radtrad_strada As Trent points out it's hard to argue with a guy who just makes a bunch of claims. When the claims are way outside the ball field, it's way too much of a chore to run around and collect the needed source material to refute them for the sake of one person who won't believe you anyway. I'm glad Trent took the time.
@DaeinExplains I don't agree woth him for one of his claims he says that pope john paul was the antichrist. But I do ask, do you believe that the prayer meetings at Assisi where pagan prayed to thirler false gods which St Paul called devils, do you believe this is Catholic and obeys the forst commandment?
@seanlegendhavemeyer9936 What happens when your glorious leader, Dimond dies 😅😂
As a Protestant who just reverted to the CC, with dread in my heart b/c of this pope, you have helped me have a more reasoned perspective on the pope and things he's said. thank you
Bergoglio is not the Pope, Brother Peter is right.
@@unamsanctamecclesiam4073 that's like saying as an american citizen, Biden is not the president. As much as he sucks, he really is the president
@user-kb4dv1ud3f The Church is the Church. All else is heresy or heathenism. Just because you call something "protestant" does not make it so. It does not matter if you think the current leadership of the church is sinful. That does not make the Catholic church not the Catholic Church. You are professing relativism, which is the fruit of Protestantism.
Dear Trent, I think perhaps to some extent you are "Pope-splaining". I am not a sedevacantist, but I am very dismayed about our current Pope. You defend a lot of the things he says or does, in the interests of being "charitable" (which I think morphs into a bit of pope-splaining), but the issue as I see it is why do we have a Pope who says or does things that we always have to try to figure or out the "real" meaning of???? Why does he say things or do things in such a way as to be ambiguous? When has a Pope ever done that? The Council of Trent defined dogmas with such exactness that it was impossible to misunderstand what they meant. All the previous Popes and Councils were super-careful to ensure that when they said something, it could not be mis-interpreted. A good example is the definition of the dogma of the Assumption. Pope Pius XII said "having completed the course of her earthly life, Mary was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory" - he did not address things which he was unsure about or did not have revelation about (e.g. whether Mary had died or not). He said exactly what he meant and every word he said was carefully chosen. In contrast, we have the current Pope Francis whose almost every single word or phrase has to be re-interpreted or looked at it all different possible ways, or we have to look into every possible double meaning or permutation or combination to justify what he says or to see some sort of "orthodoxy" in it. This shows that he is not the "Servants of the Servants of God", that he does not "confirm his brothers in the faith", that he is not a true "Vicar of Christ". This man (Francis) is no Catholic leader. He may be the legitimate Pope, but he is not orthodox and he may well be a heretic. This is the sad thing/fact we need to address. We should stop justifying (pope-splaining) what he says and call him out. Your defense of Francis and looking for nuances in things he says is pretty much similar to me saying to my wife "darling, I hate your guts" and you leaping to my defence telling her "well, may be your husband meant that he doesn't like how you're small intestine functions, but really he obviously does love you". Sorry to be critical of you Trent, but I think you need to consider this.
th-cam.com/video/PS7qgmx8k0M/w-d-xo.html
A true Master Class in effective rebuttal. Thanks for all your ongoing efforts in Catholic apologetics. They are helping a lot of people including me.
When are you planning your Mosque prayer meeting?
It’s not a masterclass. Trent is being overly charitable to Francis. It’s clear he literally agrees with Lutheran justification and he said that he likes Lutherans who follow the true faith of Christ. That’s heresy and Trent only blabbers a bit but he doesn’t refute it as he also failed to refute other points
A blog called "Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell" has rebutted Trent. The post is, "Trent Horn and His Critique of Sedevacantism."
A good respond by brother Peter th-cam.com/video/PS7qgmx8k0M/w-d-xo.html
The only thing Trent Horn is helping is keeping people of bad will in the false church. His arguments is strawman-based from the very start, and circular ("the CVII is true because it says so in their documents").
I don't find most of trents arguments convincing. they all amount to giving Francis the benefit of the doubt, that he didn't mean what he's being accused of; he actually meant it in this other sense. This is why Tim Gordon says that at best , Francis weaponizes ambiguity.
Giving charity makes plenty of sense, given that many of Pope Francis’ statement may even appear to contradict each other! He would never intentionally defect from the Church’s teaching
Mr. Horn states that "sedevacantism is spiritually dangerous" and "leading souls to Hell" (which is False, the opposite is true), but meanwhile, the interreligious and sacrileges prayer meetings held by antipopes JPII an BXVI definitely led souls to hell by way of public mortal sin /scandal in violation of the first and most important commandment, and yet he, I am assuming, has never and will not condemn nor warn souls about these actions.
No he excuses it all.
*I guess you can convince people to accept anything with pretty enough robes and buildings.
hi Trent can you rebut Dimond's videos on JP2, Benedict 16 and Francis as anti-popes? It would be most helpful to confused Catholics like myself. Thanks!
Dimond has released a short video responding to this, and specifically deals with the claim the baptized non-Catholics are a part of the Body of Christ.
You know the title perchance?
@@Brom2855 They've got several by now, although I can't remember which one I was referring to. I think the first one is Trent Horn Refuted by Bro Peter Dimond on the Catholic Church. They also have Trent Horn and Michael Lofton Debunked on Francis $ Proselytism, as well as Trent Horn is Wrong about the Throne of David & Sedevacantism.
You have just converted me from Sedevacantist to someone who has a lot of issues with the Pope (and wouldn't be surprised if he does commit a manifest heresy crime someday). Bottom line is I'm Roman Catholic for life.
I watched you take on both Jay Dyer and Peter Dimond today. If you teach or offer lesson plans or whatever I would be very interested. I will continue to learn from you one way or the other. Cheers, and God bless.
As a Catholic, you should pray for Pope Francis rather than judge him. He is not infallible at every thing he does in life. Whether he does something questionable or not. He hasn’t done something overtly heretical and that’s why he is still pope. He isn’t perfect but also you must remember every pope has had issues in their time but none have had the media, cameras, technology, etc…that are watching his every move like Pope Francis has to deal with. Every single thing he does will be scrutinized in a way no other pope had to deal with.
He's backing up his boy Matt. Love it.
But what I can't figure out is, why did Matt have these two men on for this debate in the first place? Like, what was the purpose of having two guys who stand in opposition to Roman Catholic belief have a debate amongst themselves on his show? No matter who wins, Catholicism loses. I don't get it.
@@adamrad2220 - Yep. If Matt could not win the debate, he should have never taken it on.
@@adamrad2220 Matt has made it pretty clear he made a mistake by having an SSPX debate a Sedevacantist.
@@adamrad2220 He constantly does this thing where he tries hard to take the Devil's Advocate position. It's quite annoying because instead of letting his guests advance their arguments they just have to keep answering question proposed from faithless people.
33:35 You got that wrong, Trent; God chose the jews, but the jews forsaken God, hence why the New Testament was created. Saint Paul did not revoke the jews' capacity to be saved, but gave their unique blessing to all people of the world as punishment for rejecting the Messiah.
If I had to defend Bergoglio's many outrageous statements that offend Catholic sensibilities, I would look as tired as Trent also.
Bergoglio is not the Pope, Brother Peter is right.
It is Mr Horned's fault, so let's restrict playing the tiny violin to five seconds.
“They obstinately reject and oppose the infallible magisterium both of the Roman Pontiff and of the whole Church in teaching matters. Incredibly, they boldly affirm that the Roman Pontiff and all the bishops, the priests and the people conjoined with him in the unity of faith and communion fell into heresy when they approved and professed the definitions of the Ecumenical Vatican Council. Therefore they deny also the indefectibility of the Church and blasphemously declare that it has perished throughout the world and that its visible Head and the bishops have erred.
These unhappy men undermine the foundations of religion, overturn all its marks and properties, and invent so many foul errors, or rather, draw forth from the ancient store of heretics and gather them together and publish them. Yet they do not blush to call themselves Catholics and Old Catholics, while in their doctrine, novelty, and number they show themselves in no way to be either old or Catholic”
Pius IX, Etsi Multa
Pretty prophetic of modern sedevacantists
Oh hey, fancy seeing you here. -Kyle
@@TheCounselofTrentJust doing some more research before I call the Monastery again 😂
Thanks for making a video about this.
Get ready for a hit-piece from the Dimond bros…
Hit-piece? He just posted a 15 minute rebuttal and challenge Trent to a debate.
@@yppoe not at all brother I think is the other way around.
As a lay person who clicked on the debate as background noise (while I was cleaning)I’m very glad to hear your explanation. It was very confusing at times they both sounded like Protestants to me! And trying to figure out which one was sspx and getting it wrong , wow. Cassman didn’t do a terrible job it just took him a while to get going on his points and I think he underestimated his opponent. Thanks Trent!
A blog called "Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell" has rebutted Trent. The post is, "Trent Horn and His Critique of Sedevacantism."
Here a respond to Trent’s heretic views by brother Peter th-cam.com/video/PS7qgmx8k0M/w-d-xo.html
Here a respond to Trent’s heretic views by brother Peter th-cam.com/video/PS7qgmx8k0M/w-d-xo.html
They are Protestants.
@@atrifle8364 ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS POPE FRANCIS TO PARTICIPANTS AT THE PLENARY OF THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN UNITY, Friday, 6 May 2022
A first significant ecumenical result of the pandemic has been a renewed awareness of belonging to one Christian family...for a Christian, it is not possible or practicable to go alone with one’s own denomination. Either we go together, all the fraternal denominations, or we do not go ahead at all. Today the awareness of ecumenism is such that one cannot think of journeying on the path of faith without the company of brothers and sisters from other Churches of ecclesial communities. And this is a great thing. Alone, never. We cannot do it. Indeed, it is easy to forget this profound truth. When it happens to Christian communities, it exposes us to the serious risk of the presumption of self-sufficiency and self-referentiality, which are grave obstacles to ecumenism.
It is so easy to talk yourself into heresy. Take care folks, and trust in God and His Church. Blessings to you ! 💗💗💗
The bishops constitute the hierarchy of the Church. To cut oneself off from them, as the sedevacantists do, has already been condemned by Leo XII and Leo XIII.
These popes were targeting a group whose members denied the legitimacy of Pope Pius VII: like the sedevacantists.
Leo XII, Pastoris Aeterni: “Your Little Church cannot therefore in any way belong to the Catholic Church. By the very admission of your masters, or rather of those who deceive you, there are no longer any French bishops who support and defend the party you follow. Moreover, all the bishops of the Catholic Universe, to whom they themselves have appealed, and to whom they have addressed their schismatic claims in print, are recognized as approving the conventions of Pius VII and the acts which followed, and the whole Catholic Church is now entirely favorable to them.”
Leo XIII, Eximia nos laetitia: “Absolutely no bishop considers them and governs them as his sheep. From this they must conclude with certainty and evidence that they are defectors from the fold of Christ.
Now, just as the Little Church had no bishop who recognized them, so the sedevacantists had no bishop who recognized them, all of whom recognized the Council in 1964 and 1965.
Was with you all the way until you defended pachamama. Some view it analogous to the Blessed Virgin, are you serious?! That distorted, serpentine shaped, naked abomination that our Holy Father let people form a circle and prostrate themselves to right in front of him? I am not defending Dimond by any means, and the rest of this video is a beautiful dismantling of his arguments, but there is very little defense for pachamama. At BEST it was the biggest, most imprudent, and scandalous mistake the papacy has made in decades (if not centuries). Then a virus "coincidentally" takes away the sacraments from the faithful all around the world just a month or so later.
I am currently in RCIA, and I am very thankful for this video. Too many people, Catholics and otherwise, are accusing the Pope of things he did not say. Thank you so much for putting some of these statements in context.
Say? Look at the thing he *does!*
Well I mean he does *say* these things. Trent is just saying not to take much of it at face value. I wish we didn't have this issue at all.
@@Mrs_Homemaker you're delusional.
@@Mrs_Homemaker Yes, but the things he says have to be interpreted in context.
Go watch R&T. He’s got his PHD in studying the magisterium and the Pope. These seda guys are just schismatics. They ignore a valid Ecumenical Council because they don’t agree with it
I'm literally less than 4 minutes into this, and it's already helpful. Thanks Trent!
A blog called "Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell" has rebutted Trent. The post is, "Trent Horn and His Critique of Sedevacantism."
th-cam.com/video/PS7qgmx8k0M/w-d-xo.html
Trent makes some surprising errors just minutes into the video - so I'd be a little more cautious if I were you.
@@polonius9101 thanks for the opinion random stranger on the internet. God bless ya.
Brother Peter Dimond debunked Trent Horn and Michael Lofton on Francis and Proselytism. The following is a must see video.
th-cam.com/video/s-r5p50vi6k/w-d-xo.html
I saw Dimond's rebuttal, and if Horn debated Dimond now, I actually think Horn would probably lose. It wouldn't at all be the same as debating fundamentalist Protestants.
It says there's a reply but I can't see it
@@T_frog1
YP Poe
2 weeks ago
Ecclesial mercenaries mostly rehash softball subjects at a profit, financial or otherwise; Fra Dimond isn't bringing that at all.
A problem with fighting softies all the time is that you assimilate their incompetence and zero-calorie "arguments," which is fine unless you tangle with the real deal. Cassman, for example, got his lunch eaten and his wallet taken and would have lost his missus. It would be no different with the rest, mark words.
The best they could do is get a Ripperger in to baffle people with big-worded bologna.
It would have taken me 4 YEARS to do the research necessary for this video. So well done Trent! Thank you!!
I was a sede for over 40 years , and it did take me 3 years to examine the arguments to see they are wrong , Trent compacted 3 years of study in to one video. :)
A blog called "Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell" has rebutted Trent. The post is, "Trent Horn and His Critique of Sedevacantism."
Dimond has replied, but not to every point. He deals with Horn's defense of the claim that baptized non-Catholics are a part of the body of Christ. I believe he does so successfully.
Brother Peter Dimond debunked Trent Horn and Michael Lofton on Francis and Proselytism. The following is a must see video.
th-cam.com/video/s-r5p50vi6k/w-d-xo.html
Peter has responded and devastates Horns remarks about baptism and membership in the Church.
@YP Poe Exactly...
@@joserexatinan9781 Just watched it. Great to see the Novus Ordos liars exposed. Trent Horn is a huge deceiver. He is just a jewish-masonic spin doctor, not Catholic. He doesn't preach catholicism, he is just a shield to defend the apostate Jorge Bergoglio, yet doesn't even follow what Bergoglio teaches.
Such a typical jewish American, where shekels and fame come first above the truth and love of God.
It's impossible for the Dimond's to destroy anything other than a person's brain cells
@@john-el9636 spoken like a typical American liberal.
@@ACF1901 Except I'm not. Might wanna tweak your ability to discern people's politics bud. Or just stop acting pretentious
Why is Trent Horn, Michael Lofton, and other Vatican II sect defenders afraid to accept Br Dimond's debate challenge?
Because they'd get demolished.
Because they have no arguments that don't involve strawmanning Sedevacantism. They don't actually understand the position, and they're too scared to research the position enough to actually know what they're trying to refute because their faith is so shaky. For these people, they'll hold any view that isn't Sedevacantism.
@@comicsans1689 that isn’t very charitable of you…
Sedevacantism is a horribly heretical position.
Excellent rebuttal. It always amazes me how people can so confidently misrepresent people to support their position. You always take for granted that people are arguing in good faith.
Trent the Main argument that the sedevacantist ask is can a Catholic who claims to be Pope that teaches Heresy or contrary to Catholic doctrine can still be Pope???
Yes, because a Pope is fallible except when speaking ex cathedra
A person who is baptized Catholic can still separate themselves from the body of Christ through sin including rejecting the teachings of the church. How then are protestants part of the body of Christ if after being baptized they reject dogmatically true teachings? I would like Trent to grapple with this.
I'm surprized how many people decided to refute peter dimond.
It’s because he did so well I’m the debate. I can’t stand sedevacantism, but I can recognize that he won.
@@paulnolack297 He exampled a certain impotence of SSPXers against Sedevecantists, because Sedes simply take all that is objectionable in the SSPX (esp. that the magisterium of the Church is not a safe guide in matters of faith and morals) to their logical conclusion.
Because he made so many baseless claims
@@matthewschmidt5069 he supports everything he says with magisterium and Church Fathers. He is being about as objective as one can be. And if you were objective, you'd see that.
@@paulnolack297 generally if one wins a debate, their position is correct. Just fyi.
What truly annoys me with the Sede and SSPX is that they proclaim to be the "true" Catholics and are leading many astray with their deceit.
What about the deceit & ecumenism promoted from the Vatican?
@@collectiveconsciousness5314 - It doesn't matter. Either you trust Jesus and His Church..or you don't.
It’s deeper than this rebuttal. th-cam.com/video/Cf9oy7wDkms/w-d-xo.html
@@atrifle8364 If the Vatican starting preaching ecumenism that would matter.
@@collectiveconsciousness5314 I don't feed the trolls. There are an invasive species on the internet.
Thank you! I was going through suffering, agony and emptiness because I didn't know what was true or not. May God bless you and everyone struggling with their faith in Christ.
@@drjanitor3747 Wow he rebutted, congratulations. That doesn't mean Dimond is right. It's called listening to the words coming out of both of their mouths. Clearly Trent has pointed out the heresy that sedevacantists ignore and accuse others of. Trent has also pointed out that although popes can be found wrong, that doesn't make them not the pope nor does it mean they are actively defying the dogmas of the church.
@@drjanitor3747 Trent has established that the Pope isn't heretical. Congratulations, you failed. Sedevacantists are hypocritical in every way.
You dont need to suffer you just need to belive in the lord, What difference would it make if there was or not a pope, he cant get you into heaven, until i started to study and read the Bible and truly no scripture . I wanted to know how long will i be in purgatory, how do i no if i did enough pennants or have enough grace to get out of purgatory or even go to heaven at all. I searched the Bible but i couldn't find anything on purgatory, pennants or sacraments. Then i came to this passage in the Bible *Ephesians 2: 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. *Now i was confused because the Catholic Church teaches works through faith i must do sacraments, pennants, confession to a priest, to do all these things to have enough grace to get out of purgatory to go to heaven. I went to the priest maybe he can clear things up, i can get some answers,* i told him right here in scripture GOD says for it is Grace through faith NOT OF WORKS that no man shall boast GOD says its a free gift ,on the cross JESUS said IT IS FINISHED. nothing more needs to be done CHRIST DIED and PAID OUR SIN DEBT IN FULL *I said this is the complete opposite what the Church teaches, *He said i can not answer your questions, *I said why he said i only know what the Church teaches me, he didnt even have a bible, he was being honest he didnt know, most Catholic priests dont. That was my last day in Catholic Church that was 20 years ago, i got married learned more about the bible and GODS simple plan. *Call on the name of the lord and ask him into your heart, repent belive he is lord and savior and rose from the dead all have come short to the glory of GOD all have sinned, its a transformation of the heart you are living for GOD saved in the lord this is a new life living for GOD calling on him serving him praising him. ***The lord said this is the only way to enter into the kingdom of heaven, you must be saved through grace its a free gift, so no man can boast. You want Everlasting life, just ask him in and belive in him, Only the Lord can assure you everlasting life , the Catholic Church can not do this, * purgatory, sacraments, pennants doing all these unbiblical works are NO WHERE IN THE BIBLE, its Catholic Doctrines and traditions they changed GODS holy word once the Church left the council of TRENT in the 1500s they were no longer the one true Church, thats when they brought these unbiblical doctrines in. *Once you know the lord, the truth dont hide anymore. *Where here to help show people GODS word what he said you must do to enter into his kingdom, if you die with your sins you can not enter heaven.The Catholic Church thinks there the authority, **no only GOD is he has RISEN hes not on the cross anymore he paid everything in full its FINISHED. Someone showed me the truth ,please ask questions read the BIBLE ,dont you want GODS assurance, you no where your going when you die, here is a video John Barnett hes a incredible teacher and Scholar for 40 years ,he has free classes, i learned so much from him th-cam.com/video/blvtzXuayX8/w-d-xo.html . i hope this may help you or someone who needs answers .
@@littlesilver2205 I am a little skeptical that you asked a priest and he couldn't give you an answer to your question. The Grace received at baptism IS a gift of God, and if you stay in a state of Grace then you will go to Heaven. People sin, however, and must confess those sins and receive absolution. The Catholic Church didn't "introduce" new ideas. They used the guidance of the Holy Spirit to further define points about God's nature, about our obligations, etc.
@@drjanitor3747Dimond's position is insane. According to it, the RCC doesn't even exist anymore, because it has been replaced by some evil, which is a par exellance protestant position.
Also, a huge red flag is on his website, where he says that their little monastery is the only one with THE CORRECT position in the WORLD😂 Can't make this up.
And let's not get into his views on the alleged world domination by jews and his views on the holocaust😅
Not the most rational fellow
I think most people that thought Peter won the debate have never heard his videos or didn't see enough of them. When I watched the debate I immediately thought "it's the same old thing over and over again."
He also won a debate against the SSPX position...both are in error
Same old facts over and over again
@@yajunyuan7665 I thought you agreed with him.
@@phoult37 how is SSPX in error? They are in communion with the church
@@luke9747 *imperfect communion with the Church. Also, I don't know/read many SSPXers who accept and/or embrace the NO liturgy. It's an uneasy relationship between the SSPX and the RCC at large.
Horn accused Dimond of using the same argument as fundamental protestants regarding the Catholic Church being the Whore of Babylon. However, Dimond did not say the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon, he said the post Vatican II sect is, which he distinguished from the Catholic Church. Ironically, Trent himself espoused a fundamental protestant position when he said that St. Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 was referring to the temple in Jerusalem and which would mean it would have to be rebuilt. This is a protestant opinion. Fr. Herman Kramer in "The Book of Destiny," which has a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur from 1956, writes on page 321: St. Paul says that Antichrist "sitteth in the temple of God"...This is not the ancient Temple of Jerusalem, nor a temple like it built by Antichrist...this temple is shown to be a Catholic Church, possibly one of the churches in Jerusalem or St. Peters in Rome which is the largest church in the world and is in the full sense, "THE temple of God." (Capitalization in original.)
Exactly. A temple built by the Antichrist is in no way the "temple of God", that doesn't make any sense. The only temple of God is the Catholic Church, and this reaches its culmination in St. Peter's Basilica, the largest church in the world.
You can't separate the Church after Vatican II from the Church beforehand like that. If the Church is the "whore of Babylon" after Vatican II then it couldn't have been the Catholic Church originally. So Trent's criticism remains valid.
The notion that 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is in reference to the temple in Jerusalem isn't a "fundamental protestant position." Firstly because something this obscure cannot be fundamental to Protestantism. Second, just because a protestant took the view that this is in reference to the temple in Jerusalem doesn't mean that this belief is incompatible with Catholicism. Remove Kramer's insistence on it being related to the Catholic Church and there's no error. So your criticism is erroneous.
@@john-el9636 "You can't separate the Church after Vatican II from the Church beforehand like that." They are absolutely different. Not only is it obvious, but Msgr. Pogge, who was the Archbishop of Avignon, admitted in 1976 that the church of Vatican II is new.
"If the Church is the "whore of Babylon" after Vatican II then it couldn't have been the Catholic Church originally." As they are different, it certainly could be.
"The notion that 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is in reference to the temple in Jerusalem isn't a "fundamental protestant position." It most certainly is a fundamental protestant position. A former protestant, who is investigating Orthodoxy and Catholicism, just sent me a text the other day: "I find it interesting that the nation state of Israel isn't revered in traditional orthodoxy and Catholicism like it is in most of protestantism." This notion that the temple needs to be rebuilt, with its attendant support for Israel is particularly strong among evangelical protestants. Just a little search and you will see. I welcome you to share a pre Vatican II source that says the temple needs to be rebuilt in Jerusalem.
@@littlerock5256 How many times have we heard protestants argue that Constantine altered Christianity at Nicaea I? How many Arians made similar claims during the centuries following the council? The Magisterium of the Catholic Church is the only authority on this matter, and it has determined that Vatican II was a legitimate ecumenical council which espoused orthodoxy. No Catholic can defy this unless they wish to separate themselves from the Church. Any notion of needing to personally research this material to find "true Catholicism" creeps towards the heresy of Gnosticism. So no, they aren't different. Just adding that one Archbishop from Avignon might've said that the Church changed after the council means literally nothing.
No, if the Church became the "whore of Babylon", then it was never the Catholic Church at all. We both know that it's been doctrinally defined long before Vatican II that the Church will persist as a visible, hierarchical institution perpetually. And that the papacy will as well since it is a necessity. Saying that the Church fell away or turned into a borderline nonexistent confederacy of sedevacantists with little to no affiliation is ludicrous, and it's the only way you could take this argument without abandoning the faith for Eastern Orthodoxy or Protestantism proper, or what have you.
In what way is this interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2:4 fundamental to protestantism? I've talked to a lot of fervent protestants but I've never heard any of them even mention this interpretation of the text. I've also never seen any protestant apologists use this in their argumentation. Heck even your quote didn't really do so. At least not with the implication of the temple itself as Trent Horn used.
The rest of your comment is a non sequitur. The connection you've made between Trent's interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2:4 does not lead to nor necessitate the belief in the reconstruction of the temple in Jerusalem. Literally all he's saying here is that St Paul could be referring to the destruction of the temple in this passage. That's it, and the loss of the temple is congruent with the time this letter has been dated.
@@john-el9636 "The Magisterium of the Catholic Church is the only authority on this matter, and it has determined that Vatican II was a legitimate ecumenical council which espoused orthodoxy." The Council was hijacked by Modernists and contradicted previous Church teaching. I highly recommend the book Iota Unum by Romano Amerio.
"Any notion of needing to personally research this material to find "true Catholicism" creeps towards the heresy of Gnosticism." I suggested you apprise yourself of the truth regarding the strong protestant position in support of Israel and the need for the temple in Jerusalem to be rebuilt. No secret knowledge here. It is easy to verify.
"Just adding that one Archbishop from Avignon might've said that the Church changed after the council means literally nothing." He's not the only one. Fr. Congar repeatedly stated that the Church of Pius IX and Pius XII is finished. This is covered in Iota Unum.
"if the Church became the "whore of Babylon", then it was never the Catholic Church at all." Dimond maintans that this new structure is the Whore of Babylon, not the Catholic Church.
"And that the papacy will as well since it is a necessity." The papacy is perpetual, but it does not always have a occupant.
"Saying that the Church fell away" The Church didn't fall away.
"Eastern Orthodoxy or Protestantism proper" The post VCII sect loves these two.
"Literally all he's saying here is that St Paul could be referring to the destruction of the temple in this passage." No, Trent supported the position of rebuilding the temple in Jerusalem. The last time the temple was attempted to be rebuilt God did not allow it and the project had to be abandoned.
Memo to Trent Horn...There are NO Christains outside of the Catholic Church and praying with non Catholics (Heretics), is to participate in their Heresy!
@user-kb4dv1ud3fPlease tell me what the difference is between a heretic and an apostate
One can bring the idea that the Holy Father slaps Our Holy Mother (the Church) in the face, while we weep and pray for his conversion, and still maintain the idea that yes, he is Pope. It has happened many times throughout history. And every Catholic should think the other way around; if our Church is so filled with subversives, it is our duty to maintain that it IS OUR Church and fight to maintain its faith, not stray away from it.
Trent is a powerhouse. And he speaks in a way that a dumb guy like me can understand.
This is such a shill-like statement lol
@@CatholicismAppreciator because you're just singing his praises. Lol focus on the arguments and evidence, not the man.
I personally requested this rebuttal in one of your recent videos. Thank you so much for listening!
A blog called "Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell" has rebutted Trent. The post is, "Trent Horn and His Critique of Sedevacantism."
The Dimonds already rebutted your request. So much for that.
Please debate Peter Dimon, that would be really good!
The fact he actually released a video after this titled Trent Horn EXPOSED is so funny to me
I still can’t believe Matt Fradd let a lefebvrite debate a sedevacantist. Neither of them would represent the Church 🤦♂️
Perhaps Fradd is trying to show the problem with the SSPX...it leads to sedes
Ultimately, it leads to Eastern Orthodoxy as the One, Holy, Universal, Apostolic, Church. Sedevacantism is of such infamy that one is to just conclude that the Roman Patriarch schismed from the true church since 1054, and thus why there's so many issues with the RCC for over a millenial (only the recent of which is VII).
@YP Poe ...Says the guy who feigns politeness & subsequently spews ad hominem such as schismatic & hellhound towards the gratuitous. The born and raised Orthobros look at your Novus Ordo church of modernism with dark humour mixed with outright horror; promulgated by slave-ish hyperpapalist obedience to the overreach in authoritative liturgical abuse & universal jurisdiction to globally replace local Rites of sacred tradition (Tridentine) with 1967 novelty. They've kept the deposit of faith, the Patriarchates, sacred liturgical tradition, and you have your guitar mass with women altar girls, lectors, & extra-ordinary ministers without consecrated hands. Open your eyes to good-willed criticism.
@@Phoenix-lk3mg This would only be true if the EO didn't have their own issues
@@Phoenix-lk3mg How's Patriarch Putin working out for you guys? He must possess the keys to the kingdom of Heaven.
Thank you Trent, I always lose to sedevacantists in debates, to a point that I become doubtful of my position. This clarifies lots of questions I had. This is a very relevant video in a church crisis. Thanks
Funny. People keep saying that sedes are winning debates yet never once think they might actually be right... Curious that.
@@floridaman318 - You can win debates by successfully getting both parties lost in minutiae. The issue is being able to step back and insist on the bigger picture.
The bigger picture is that if you and your "Pope" have a different faith, then you both are not in the same Church.
Do you and Francis profess the same faith?
@@atrifle8364 "minutiae" eh? That's a funny way of referring to the magisterium.
@@CatholicHusband the Catholic Church professes one single faith. Just one. And we profess our faith every Sunday. The pope of COURSE professes the same faith, otherwise, he wouldn’t be pope. And if he didn’t profess the faith, then it would mean the Holy Spirit is not within this Church and that the Catholic Church is not the one true church, and if that were the case, then bro, I’ll just convert to Judaism. Seriously. But I didn’t convert, because I read the CCC and realized the Church is the true Church and the Pope is the vicar of Christ. Period. End of story.
I admire both of you my brothers in Christ. Though I would agree with Mr Trent, valid rebuttals sir. The church was given perpetuity, meaning there will never be a time when the church is not just because the Pope said we should embrace and welcome LGBTQ in the church doesn't mean we are affirming them, in fact, they badly need the church now and forever. We should not condemn right away esp if we are not in the position to cast judgement.
It's the first time I encounter the word "sedevacantism"!
I heard this word last year..
I grew up with Sede friends. It's been around for decades. I think this Pope is driving Catholics to look for answers to the crazy things he says and they are finding the sedevacatists.
If you're Not from the USA it is really unlikely you will ever meet one in real life. I only met two: one in Poland and one in Germany (he pretends to be a priest) and both are borderline psychotic and hold many delusional conspiracy theorist views (Like the Dimond brothers)) nevertheless we have to pray for them
There’s also sedeprivationism.
@@johnthecatholic914 all the ones I know are level headed and not conspiracy theorists. Though they grew up in it so it's in no way radical or different to them. They just consider themselves normal Catholics. I've always had pleasant conversations with them about Catholicism
Haven't watched more than a few minutes of this yet, but there's already an inaccuracy at the beginning: that the Holy See is vacant isn't the reason the Dimonds consider there to be few if any validity consecrated bishops, they take this view because of changes made to the Rite of consecration following Vatican II. It is an altogether separate argument.
valid point. also metaphorically : a ship can be still afloat but the legit captain is dead, disposed, or a mutiny takes place. i'm interested in both sides and what they had to say in on this topic. additionally the "Gish Gallop" issue is still a valid rhetorical technique, one can say it's not an esteemed tactic but still valid perhaps Matt should have framed the encounter as a discussion rather than debate.
Another inaccuracy a few more minutes in: the claim that Cassman a "member" of the Society of Saint Pius X. The S.S.PX is a priestly society, so members must be priests. There is a 'third order' and also 'brothers' of the S.S.P..X, but Cassman is neither.
Excellent rebuttal. Thank you Trent for the erudition in your presentation.
He is rebutting with heresy. He is using jo2 blasphemous catechism and other v2 documents full of heresy
@@haydendude vatican 2 documents are not heretical document but Church official documents. It is those who reject Church official documents who are heretics just as they have always been throughout the centuries.
A blog called "Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell" has rebutted Trent. The post is, "Trent Horn and His Critique of Sedevacantism."
@@littlerock5256 since Sedevacantism is already in error, I do not believe that they have rebutted Trent's orthodox view on the Catholic faith. But feel free to share the link here for our own review.
@@ericgatera7149 "since Sedevacantism is already in error" What is the error?
"But feel free to share the link here for our own review." I didn't include a link because they usually get removed. A quick search should bring you to it. I will reply again with the link and we shall see if it remains.
Why don't you go and debate Bro. Peter to see how your arguments hold up?
@YP Poe The Dimonds never back out against any debate. They welcome anyone.
@@glennraya How do you know that?
how dare Brother Diamond point out the errors and malfeasance of these "holy" men? Being "catholic" these days is all about tolerating error, becoming inured, desensitized, adjusted to it. Devaluation of value is a good thing. What's the big deal with calling a drug dealer holy father in this day and age? Meaning making is a democratic process and words are just arbitrary signs and they all have the equal value of their lowest common denominator. It would be conceited wouldn't it to expect the Church to be the fountainhead of truth, goodness and beauty. No, these are the old values, it's baggage, there is no such thing as THE truth any more, everybody has got their own truth so that the Jews and the Christians worship the same God, as the new "catholic" doctrine teaches in Lumen Gentium. Yes, let's all keep up with the world, let's not be ashamed to be lame; let's hold hands, let's yield to mediocrity and sing all you need is love at mass
You know if sedevacantism is true then all sacraments are invalid. So no confession, no baptism, no MARRIAGE, etc. 😂
'The Pope's words need a "charitable interpretation"' (by us, the laity). Everyone should stop what they are doing, sit down in a comfortable chair, and think about this sentence.
Trent. There is magisterial documents that says thay the Old Covenant was abolished. What is irrevocable is the calling of God to the jewish to come to salvation (in the New Testament of course), God did not reject them as a whole, but that do not mean that the old covenant still a valid way for salvation. You could debate this with Sungenis
I've been waiting for you to address Dimond!!!!
JP2 declared man as God therefore making himself God.
So you’re wrong about that.
Do you really think that Satan will make it so obvious?
Huh?
Council of Trent please debate Diamond Brothers to make it clear who is telling the truth
He wont
@@EzeBall1710 ,
Of course not; that would further clarify that it is neither Horned nor Cashman.
Br. Diamond’s argument was that just because the seat of the Papacy is vacant does not mean that the Church has been destroyed. The existence of the Church has nothing to do with the presence of a living Pope.
Finally some simplicity and common sense.
It's really that simple.
Exactly. These Novus Ordo's are sadly worshippers of robes rather than adhering to authentic Catholicism regardless of where it leads them.
This comment seems to be in opposition to both Vatican I and 2000 years of history, noting interegnum, due to a Pope's death, is different than 60 years of the Sedes view of no legitimate pope back to Pope Pius the XII
@@spirestocksnotification6710 1000 years is as yesterday to God (Psalm 89:4), how much more is 60 years?
@BeCatholic OrBeLost Yes, God lives in the present but in Scripture and in Vatican I he promised a Visible and Holy and One and Apostolic and Perpetual Church as his Bride. So any amount of time after interregnum would not be fulfilling that promise which is why the Sedes back to 1962ish is not viable and now with no successive "valid" Cardinals and or bishops according to them, they can never get back to a successive and visible Church Foundation. Sheer logic refutes their position
Trent. How have the Jews not had their covenant revoked? Judaism is entirely a different religion now than it was back in the time of St. Paul.
Thank you for doing this Trent, I was disturbed that a channel with Matt’s reach gave this guy a platform, lots of people don’t exercise their critical thinking and fall for this stuff
Why not? If he gives atheist the chance to debate, why not Peter Dimond? And for the record i do not agree with Peter Dimond. I don’t even know if he’s an actual Brother.
So what? We are all adults responsible for our own souls and Matt didn't endourse anything or amplify without opposition. Intellectual discourse is healthy and running away from it can be much more damaging.
Pints with Aquinas gives platform to all sorts of people during debates, including Atheists. This is the nature of debate. Maybe Matt Frad should have brought a better debator for the Orthodox view such as Eric Y Barra or Michael Lofton or even Trent Horn.
OMG you’re right. How dare he give non Catholics a chance to speak? We should only talk to people who agree with us. That means no more debates. Lol on a serious note what an idiotic comment.
Time to face this head on and not look the other way while Catholics leave for a sedevacantist position
Notice, Trent always wants to debate. He doesn’t want to bring up a debate with Peter: the quintessential catholic, even has the name. He is a strong line strict believer of Trent’s supposed beliefs. The proof against Trent is: where is his debate with Peter? If he is willing, Dimond is more willing, but I bet, except for influence and pressure Trent won’t debate him. All we need to know. How about it Trent? Get it done. Always want to debate Protestants, debate your professed own. Let’s see it. Let’s see your wordsmithing then.
52:38 "Even a Catholic who commits the worst sin possible [e.g. apostasy] is not removed from the Church, as if he now became a pagan who had to be baptized all over again." Trent Horn
"Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body....not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy."
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi
Still wouldn't need to be rebaptised.
@@christophersnedeker ,
Which is a good thing, as there is no such thing.
52:51 "Such a notorious sinner [e.g. an apostate] is still our brother, and so we can encourage him, for example, as a brother in the faith, to repent..." - Trent Horn
How can an apostate be our brother in the faith?
"And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican." Matthew 18:17
@@garrmeyer ,
Stop confusing us with facts!
You're awesome Trent! So scholarly, unbiased, and extensive... thanks. God bless you always.
Where's the vatican 2 sect's priests to defend your sect? Why does it send laymen with no authority?
This is a great question. Just go to a novus ordo mass and see how weak the priests are in their preaching. Its hard to get an ounce of truth or courage out of any of them.
@@jdk050507 Of Course, because they aren't the Catholic Church.
At least we have priests, you guys just have fake monks
Thank you for posting this video. I was just watching the debate earlier this morning. Deo Gratias!
Thanks for this video, Trent. This pernicious sedevacantist teaching needs to be countered.
The bishops constitute the hierarchy of the Church. To cut oneself off from them, as the sedevacantists do, has already been condemned by Leo XII and Leo XIII.
These popes were targeting a group whose members denied the legitimacy of Pope Pius VII: like the sedevacantists.
Leo XII, Pastoris Aeterni: “Your Little Church cannot therefore in any way belong to the Catholic Church. By the very admission of your masters, or rather of those who deceive you, there are no longer any French bishops who support and defend the party you follow. Moreover, all the bishops of the Catholic Universe, to whom they themselves have appealed, and to whom they have addressed their schismatic claims in print, are recognized as approving the conventions of Pius VII and the acts which followed, and the whole Catholic Church is now entirely favorable to them.”
Leo XIII, Eximia nos laetitia: “Absolutely no bishop considers them and governs them as his sheep. From this they must conclude with certainty and evidence that they are defectors from the fold of Christ.
Now, just as the Little Church had no bishop who recognized them, so the sedevacantists had no bishop who recognized them, all of whom recognized the Council in 1964 and 1965.
Michael Lofton, Christian B. Wagner and Trent Horn all curbstomping Dimond when Cassman tried and failed to do so, you love to see it.
Also, shout-out to Trent for shouting out John Salza. Even if he doesn’t agree with Salza on everything, it’s good to see him spreading the word about one of the best anti-sede apologists out there.
@@Jack-uo7gz Salza is useless is he really the best yous have? His book was debunked in 30 mins by Fr Cekada lol
@@Frank-828 It's also funny how Salza eventually disavowed the SSPX while still keeping the foreword by Bishop Fellay
Dimond says that Pope Pius XII was the last true Pope, that the Seat of Peter became vacant with his death , and that the new rite of the priesthood is invalid. It omits all mention of the “sacrificial priesthood” and the power to forgive sins. Anyone ordained after 1967 is said to be an invalid priest. That priests and Bishops only ordained before that time can validly forgive sins. He does not say that “all the bishops are invalid”. Because there are older bishops who were ordained and consecrated by valid bishops before 1967 . Again, Dimond says that mostly all bishops today hold some heresy.
Which they do. The Vatican is “full of every kind of evil and uncleanliness”.
I am not Catholic and you ruffle my feathers with your protestant videos Trent. However I am happy you are on TH-cam and being honest with your faith, unlike most Sedevacantists who clearly try to dance around the obvious apostasy they've committed.
In general I've not only enjoyed your channel, but learned quite a bit with regard to defending my faith. As the sole practicing Catholic in a protestant bible study you have been an advisor and teacher in many ways.
To say that Dr. James Martin is a product of bad management, or that an idol of well known pegan oragin on St Peter's alter doesn't really mean what we all can clearly see it is, feels dishonest. Like Ray Cumforts saying Catholics rearranged the 10 commandments to cover for removing a commandment, or people unable to say what a woman is in Mr. Walsh's documentary. While there are plenty of fan boys saying atta boy, give it to him, a good portion of the Catholic responses to the sede' claims are unsatisfying, which is why it's such an uncomfortable position.
Pope: You're trying to make me say that *I think Coolsville sucks!"*
Brother Dimond: " write that down, write that down!"
quote miners