This is the flip side to what the Reason and Theology channel just posted on his community page. It was a quote from another pope that the pope has to be obeyed and followed, no matter what.
While I can agree (as I assume most would also agree) that Fr. Altman lacks the authority to declare Pope Francis as a formal heretic, the question is whether Fr. Altman’s assessments of the actions and remarks of the pope are correct. Fr. Altman’s assertions seem valid to me. That is the troubling part of all of this; can a pope speak and act contrary to Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium? I am really struggling with this question right now. Many have commented negatively on Fr. Altman’s remarks i.e his lack of authority, his retaliatory reasoning, etc., but I haven’t come across anything that actually addresses and convincingly refutes these remarks. Are Fr. Altman’s comments themselves wrong in substance? I don’t think that his observations are wrong and that is what is so troubling about them. Also, what about the Dubia and other attempts of fraternal correction? The argument that Fr. Altman’s remarks (and those of others) are wrong because they should be made in another way (as fraternal correction) is not valid because this has been attempted and ignored. Again, I am struggling with this…
It might help to read Dr John Joy on this subject. You can Google "Dr John Joy One Peter Five Authentic Magisterium and Religious Submission" you will find the article to which I am referring
You should also take some time to listen to the serious sedevacantists (look up Donald sanborn and Roman Catholic media), who have been objecting to these issues of papal heresy since the 1970s.
You bring up very good points. I think the problem is that there are two separate issues which often get conflated. First, there is the issue of whether Pope Francis is a heretic. Second, if he is a heretic, does that mean he's no longer pope? As to the first issue, Fr. Altman brings up some very good evidence. While I don't agree with it all, it's at least true that Francis has willingly allowed heresy to flourish in his pontificate. But let's assume he's a heretic, then what about the second issue. Does this mean he's no longer pope? Contrary to what many sedevacantists claim, this is not a settled question in the Church. I detail this some in the linked article "Is Francis the Pope?" But we do know that when it comes to offices in the Church, there is a process to formally depose someone from office for heresy or other crimes. There is, however, so such process when it comes to a pope. One thing is for sure, however, and that is a layman or a priest or even a single bishop can't depose a pope, so we must accept him as pope until some formal procedure (which we don't know what it would look like) declares otherwise. So whether or not Francis is a heretic is almost a moot point, in a sense. Of course it's important and we should resist any errors coming from the Vatican, but we can't do anything about his office. As Fr. Charron said, we need to focus on what we can control, and that's our own faith life. -ES
@@Cavebear66 you're very welcome. I personally found that very helpful in light of the pressure frankly put on by some internet commentators for example with regard to adhering to every jot and tittle of the Authentic Magisterium of the current papacy. It's not a license to dissent, but as the guest said, in light of proper catechesis, a well formed conscience and adherence to proper tradition, certain distinctions can be made with regard to certain pronouncements of the pope. We still need to tread carefully on it, but I think that basically over time if the pope says something that doesn't sound catholic, it's because it probably isn't.
If the Supreme authority of the Church promotes heresy against the universal traditional magisterium of the Faith. It must be taken up by the Bishops ... but if the Bishops are cut off at the knees by elevating the Papal chair to supremacy beyond the deposit of the faith., what recourse is there, but to be like St. Athanasius and resist, resist & preserve the Faith and, of course, pray. 🙏
You've got the wrong vocabulary coming out of you. You are incorrectly using the word, 'resist' when you should be using the word, 'persevere.' I do not resist Pope Francis, I largely dismiss him except to acknowledge his name during Holy Mass and to pray for his intentions. I Instead focus on transubstantiation.
@@matthewvelazquez2013 Resist the robber. Barricade the door. Protect the Blessed Sacrament at all costs. Would you tolerate a woman priest for transubstiation? Hopefully not. No tolerating this & no tolerating homosexual blessings. This is disordered & against natural law & if you teach by tolerating sin to the little ones in our society, Christ will call you to account whether you are laity or a some Prelate. I tolerate a bland meal, I resist being poisoned, for myself & my offspring & from this age into the age to come. It's not just about the here & now. Your tolerance echos throughout eternity.
@@patriciamathews5975 worst case scenario: we will be a Church of the Catacombs once more...I don't enjoy Matt Fradd much; however, he released a clip of himself on vacation wearing a baseball cap. In the clip he explained 3 stances to take. His perspective he relayed from his spiritual director is the right one. Please look it up.
@@katherinec.1497 I know the catechism. Vatican I was interrupted by war. The war was about the remaining Papal States of Europe so emphasis was placed upon the Papacy & it's authority in light of secular authority usurping Divine power. Most do not know the origins of this doctrine. Within the Church long standing tradition from the earliest Church Fathers only gave primacy to the Roman Bishop (Pope), not infallibility. This doctrine at Vatican I was never fully vetted. In light of historical precedence, this law will someday be ordered back to a primacy of place, I pray. All the Apostles acted in good Holy Faith. Peter was granted authority to set doctrine when the Council fathers were in agreement in the magisterium. (Example is in the Acts of the Apostles.) Thank God for Apostle John. Thank God for Apostle James. A one legged stool will always totter. We have a great cloud of witnesses backing up Our One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Church is living in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit and encompasses the past, present & future. It is new & eternally ancient & it's eternal doctrines are fixed.
I know you've said Archbishop Lefebvre was an ultra-montanist. But in practice, did he not exercise the same things this priest is saying? I mean, the Archbishop didn't obey the pope (Paul VI), when he, in effect, was mandating the Protestantization of the Catholic Church. Sure Paul VI did not verbatim say--become Protestant and neither does Pope Francis. But fundamentally, in essence, that's what they're doing. The same logic applies to the time the Archbishop consecrated the 4 bishops. JPII mandated him not to--when it was clear the reason was the Vatican feared the growth of the TLM as there would be priests ordained in the old rite. In addition, asking direct permission from the pope was also a Vatican II innovation (see Bishop Schneider's Springtime). So... Lefebvre, in practice, was not ultramontanist since he was able to identify the essence of "papal infallability' this priest is talking about. Only difference is, Archbishop Lefebvre saw it early on before most others ever did. When the situation called for it, the Archbishop correctly applied the essence of the doctrine.
Good review of Authority in relation to Bishops & the primary Bishop of Rome. Our Heavenly Mother, at Fatima, also put primacy on ALL the Bishops, and the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, when she stated she wanted the consecration of Russia to be attended, in prayer, by the Pope, in unity with ALL the Bishops of the Catholic Church. It becomes even more clear every day that primacy of position is not equivalent to absolute Position. Jesus, alone, occupies the absolute position over the Church. The Chuch must return to this position & the Bishops must assume their great supportive & affirmative role to assure that the deposit of faith is not highjacked by a renegade Pope.
Saint Jacinta had a special love for the Holy Father and had visions of him in tears. I just pray for the Holy Father. And no one more than Our Lady of Sorrows has helped me with this 🙏🏻
I very much appreciate how you refer to us in the western church as “Latin Catholics”. This is the correct term I believe rather than using the term “Roman Catholic” to refer to only the Latin rite. The Latin Church and the Eastern Churches are all “Roman” because we all submit to the Roman Pontiff of the See of Rome. We Latins look to the Bishop of Rome not only as Pope of the universal church but also as our Patriarch of our particular church. All these particular churches in union with each other, through our shared communion with Rome, altogether make up the body of believers known as the “Catholic Church”. It just so happens that the Latin Church makes up the vast majority of the members of the Catholic Church. Latin Catholics make up about 98% of Catholics. Only about 2% of Catholics are Eastern Catholics. We Catholics are the body breathing with one lung. Eastern Schismatics are the dead lung removed. Eastern Catholics are the dead lung returning to health.
I don't mind being referred to as a Latin Catholic. I think it's honorable to be referred to as a Latin Catholic. All of the other rites in the Catholic Church are explicitly nationalist and ethnocentric. The Latin rite is the truly Universal rite...because it is not exclusive to Italians. Dulce clavos, Dulce lignum, Dulce pondus sustinet. ❤ ✝️
@@matthewvelazquez2013 sorry I just realized my first sentence could have come off as being sarcastic. I was speaking sincerely. I really do love the name “Latin Catholic” and do see the “Latin Church” as the proper name of the Western Church.
@@matthewvelazquez2013 This idea of equating the Latin Church with the Universal Church is part of what I believe has us in this mess. It’s true… most Catholics (99%) are Latin Rite - so it’s common to just equate the Latin Church as the Catholic Church. But the Pope is head of the universal Catholic Church AND he is head of the particular Latin Church as our Patriarch. The Catholic Church just is what we call this body of churches (Latin and Eastern) in communion with the church of Rome. Many of the liturgical reforms made to our Latin patrimony were done in the name of creating a more intentionally “universal global rite Catholicism” because most Catholics across the globe were Latin Catholics. This is why the Latin liturgy is under attack - because we are de-latinizing in the name of diversity in order to transform or sacrifice our own particular Latin rite into a visible universal Global rite of Catholic Diversity (what once was the Latin rite now liquifies into Mayan rite, Amazonian rite, Zairean Rite). But this is mistaken I think. The faith isn’t spread as a default blank-slate “Catholicism” made ready to be “inculturated”. The faith spreads by Catholics who were themselves members planted and steeped in particular churches Latin or Eastern. So the Philippines were evangelized by Latins. The americas were evangelized by Latins. China and Japan were evangelized by Latins. Africa was evangelized by Latins. True inculturation has happened before and can happen again. But the lesson should be that we don’t have to totally dissolve our de-emphasize our Latin distinctiveness in order for inculturation to work. I believe it was better to hand off the Latin tradition and have a true cultural exchange and building from there vs our modern experiment of manufacturing a malleable liturgy that requires and encourages creativity.
@@Rome_77 stances change as we learn and grow...keep learning, keep growing... The Eastern Rites are not dead but, instead are much less universal compared to The Latin Rite... I've stated before on other videos, "The Latin Rite enjoys first place under heaven. All the Eastern Rites are tied for second place." Feathers are ruffled every time I make that statement. 🤣 Christus vincit Christus regnat Christus imperat
I don’t think that that is why the name “Roman” is used historically. Why do you think this? The Turks still call EO Christians the “Rum,” I believe. The Romanian Orthodox might also quibble. And I doubt Coptic Catholics think that their Roman just because they commemorate the Roman pope before their Coptic patriarch.
The mechanism to depose a Pope would be for the Dean of the College of Cardinals to declare sede vacante. As for the Council of Constance, I went to university in that city as a young man. I know the building where the Council was held. I went to orchestral concerts in there.
Super confusing. It’s interesting to see that the Eastern Bishops only go to Rome upon severe disputes. Also confusing is how within the church structure, so many different rites.
Interesting conversation to this EO. I don’t think the EO would necessarily support the German synod in its call for liberalizing communion guidelines. EO recognition of divorce isn’t a carte blanche. It may be a too-much-used pastoral ekonomia. But so are RC annulments, which are often a form of official ecclesiastical hypocrisy. I don’t think either communion earns points on this score. Recognizing a papal primacy is probably an easier task than settling the Filioque or the issue of created grace-divine essence/energies. But, “with God all things are possible.”
I think a big point to clarify to ALL CATHOLICS is this concept of "development of doctrine" because this is at least one of the sources of major confusion because people think "change of dogma" or "change of Church teachings" or "change of Revelation" and so on. It really should be called "development of understanding of doctrine and revelation" or similar to avoid this idea that the church can change based on the current times which is ridiculous and impossible. THAT alone would help remove some of these other "confusions" especially in secular circles who understand NOTHING ABOUT CATHOLICS or CATHOLIC THEOLOGY. and CATHOLICS need to STOP ACTING LIKE PROTESTANTS and either be 100% obedient or leave the church. If you are looking for perfect people and leaders then you are the one being misled and are wrong. WE have a hierarchy in the church for a reason and if you refuse to obey or want to pick and choose what or who you follow--you are Protestant! Stop whining, carry your Cross as Our Lord demanded and stop undermining Christ's church.
Ultramontanism is Catholicism and defined in Attwater's Catholic Dictionary and the Catholic Encyclopedia online. I cannot find hyperpapalism defined prior to Vatican II, nor afterwards.
@@littlerock5256 The word "hyperpapalism" was coined by Peter Kwasniewski (he has a book with the word in the title). It's means 'ultramontanism' but is more self explanatory and easier to understand.
Please don't insult our common sense. If it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it's a duck. We don't need a degree in theology to see clearly that Bergoglio is not Catholic. And by the way, for those who have no common sense, Fr. Altman cited respected theologians in his brilliant and courageous analysis.
Idk I have had bad experiences listening to this priest in Pints of Aquinas, I don’t like his political views, and I think some of his opinions are not based in facts. Its disappointing to have him as an expert. NO THANK YOU
We should not be so political that we cannot listen to those with whom we have prudential political views, especially when they are addressing an unrelated subject.
@@CrisisMag I concur in disapproval of Charron. He's sloppy and was sloppy with Shapiro. You had to save him concerning the Council of Constance by pointing out that the Council did not depose the pope. He resigned. We have enough confusion in the Church without elevating wannabee celebrities. Parish priests should stay home and mind their flocks. And yes, I do have a very high bar for anyone publicly teaching the Faith.
@@utubeo The priest pointed out that there isn't a procedure for deposing a pope & he cited the Council of Constance trying to deal with competing antipopes as the closest process. I see no error in what he said.
Amazing show! Love Father Jason Charron. He speaks truth, with such Charity. 🙏🏻
Excellent, most enlightening interview.
Great topic.
Thank you Mr.Sammons and Fr. Charron
Great interview! I needed to hear this.
God bless Fr Charron.
Thank you gentlemen for this!
Glory To Jesus Christ 🙏✝️🇻🇦⛪️❤️ pray for our One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church 🙏
This is the flip side to what the Reason and Theology channel just posted on his community page. It was a quote from another pope that the pope has to be obeyed and followed, no matter what.
Lofton has lost all credibility
This is great. Thank you ❤
While I can agree (as I assume most would also agree) that Fr. Altman lacks the authority to declare Pope Francis as a formal heretic, the question is whether Fr. Altman’s assessments of the actions and remarks of the pope are correct. Fr. Altman’s assertions seem valid to me. That is the troubling part of all of this; can a pope speak and act contrary to Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium? I am really struggling with this question right now. Many have commented negatively on Fr. Altman’s remarks i.e his lack of authority, his retaliatory reasoning, etc., but I haven’t come across anything that actually addresses and convincingly refutes these remarks. Are Fr. Altman’s comments themselves wrong in substance? I don’t think that his observations are wrong and that is what is so troubling about them.
Also, what about the Dubia and other attempts of fraternal correction? The argument that Fr. Altman’s remarks (and those of others) are wrong because they should be made in another way (as fraternal correction) is not valid because this has been attempted and ignored.
Again, I am struggling with this…
It might help to read Dr John Joy on this subject. You can Google "Dr John Joy One Peter Five Authentic Magisterium and Religious Submission" you will find the article to which I am referring
@@aloyalcatholic5785 Thank you!
You should also take some time to listen to the serious sedevacantists (look up Donald sanborn and Roman Catholic media), who have been objecting to these issues of papal heresy since the 1970s.
You bring up very good points. I think the problem is that there are two separate issues which often get conflated.
First, there is the issue of whether Pope Francis is a heretic.
Second, if he is a heretic, does that mean he's no longer pope?
As to the first issue, Fr. Altman brings up some very good evidence. While I don't agree with it all, it's at least true that Francis has willingly allowed heresy to flourish in his pontificate.
But let's assume he's a heretic, then what about the second issue. Does this mean he's no longer pope? Contrary to what many sedevacantists claim, this is not a settled question in the Church. I detail this some in the linked article "Is Francis the Pope?" But we do know that when it comes to offices in the Church, there is a process to formally depose someone from office for heresy or other crimes. There is, however, so such process when it comes to a pope. One thing is for sure, however, and that is a layman or a priest or even a single bishop can't depose a pope, so we must accept him as pope until some formal procedure (which we don't know what it would look like) declares otherwise.
So whether or not Francis is a heretic is almost a moot point, in a sense. Of course it's important and we should resist any errors coming from the Vatican, but we can't do anything about his office. As Fr. Charron said, we need to focus on what we can control, and that's our own faith life.
-ES
@@Cavebear66 you're very welcome. I personally found that very helpful in light of the pressure frankly put on by some internet commentators for example with regard to adhering to every jot and tittle of the Authentic Magisterium of the current papacy. It's not a license to dissent, but as the guest said, in light of proper catechesis, a well formed conscience and adherence to proper tradition, certain distinctions can be made with regard to certain pronouncements of the pope. We still need to tread carefully on it, but I think that basically over time if the pope says something that doesn't sound catholic, it's because it probably isn't.
Thank you. Great conversation.
If the Supreme authority of the Church promotes heresy against the universal traditional magisterium of the Faith. It must be taken up by the Bishops ... but if the Bishops are cut off at the knees by elevating the Papal chair to supremacy beyond the deposit of the faith., what recourse is there, but to be like St. Athanasius and resist, resist & preserve the Faith
and, of course, pray. 🙏
You've got the wrong vocabulary coming out of you. You are incorrectly using the word, 'resist' when you should be using the word, 'persevere.' I do not resist Pope Francis, I largely dismiss him except to acknowledge his name during Holy Mass and to pray for his intentions. I Instead focus on transubstantiation.
The First See is judged by no one. Canon 1404. And no, the current Pope hasn't taught nor promoted heresy so far.
@@matthewvelazquez2013 Resist the robber. Barricade the door. Protect the Blessed Sacrament at all costs. Would you tolerate a woman priest for transubstiation? Hopefully not. No tolerating this & no tolerating homosexual blessings. This is disordered & against natural law & if you teach by tolerating sin to the little ones in our society, Christ will call you to account whether you are laity or a some Prelate. I tolerate a bland meal, I resist being poisoned, for myself & my offspring & from this age into the age to come. It's not just about the here & now. Your tolerance echos throughout eternity.
@@patriciamathews5975 worst case scenario: we will be a Church of the Catacombs once more...I don't enjoy Matt Fradd much; however, he released a clip of himself on vacation wearing a baseball cap. In the clip he explained 3 stances to take. His perspective he relayed from his spiritual director is the right one. Please look it up.
@@katherinec.1497 I know the catechism. Vatican I was interrupted by war. The war was about the remaining Papal States of Europe so emphasis was placed upon the Papacy & it's authority in light of secular authority usurping Divine power. Most do not know the origins of this doctrine. Within the Church long standing tradition from the earliest Church Fathers only gave primacy to the Roman Bishop (Pope), not infallibility. This doctrine at Vatican I was never fully vetted. In light of historical precedence, this law will someday be ordered back to a primacy of place, I pray.
All the Apostles acted in good Holy Faith. Peter was granted authority to set doctrine when the Council fathers were in agreement in the magisterium.
(Example is in the Acts of the Apostles.) Thank God for Apostle John. Thank God for Apostle James. A one legged stool will always totter. We have a great cloud of witnesses backing up Our One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
The Church is living in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit and encompasses the past, present & future. It is new & eternally ancient & it's eternal doctrines are fixed.
I know you've said Archbishop Lefebvre was an ultra-montanist. But in practice, did he not exercise the same things this priest is saying? I mean, the Archbishop didn't obey the pope (Paul VI), when he, in effect, was mandating the Protestantization of the Catholic Church. Sure Paul VI did not verbatim say--become Protestant and neither does Pope Francis. But fundamentally, in essence, that's what they're doing. The same logic applies to the time the Archbishop consecrated the 4 bishops. JPII mandated him not to--when it was clear the reason was the Vatican feared the growth of the TLM as there would be priests ordained in the old rite. In addition, asking direct permission from the pope was also a Vatican II innovation (see Bishop Schneider's Springtime). So... Lefebvre, in practice, was not ultramontanist since he was able to identify the essence of "papal infallability' this priest is talking about. Only difference is, Archbishop Lefebvre saw it early on before most others ever did. When the situation called for it, the Archbishop correctly applied the essence of the doctrine.
''The Pope is the custodian of the deposit of faith not the inventor of it.'' Fr Jason Charron 🙏🏻
Good review of Authority in relation to Bishops & the primary Bishop of Rome.
Our Heavenly Mother, at Fatima, also put primacy on ALL the Bishops, and the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, when she stated she wanted the consecration of Russia to be attended, in prayer, by the Pope, in unity with ALL the Bishops of the Catholic Church.
It becomes even more clear every day that primacy of position is not equivalent to absolute Position. Jesus, alone, occupies the absolute position over the Church. The Chuch must return to this position & the Bishops must assume their great supportive & affirmative role to assure that the deposit of faith is not highjacked by a renegade Pope.
Saint Jacinta had a special love for the Holy Father and had visions of him in tears. I just pray for the Holy Father. And no one more than Our Lady of Sorrows has helped me with this 🙏🏻
I very much appreciate how you refer to us in the western church as “Latin Catholics”. This is the correct term I believe rather than using the term “Roman Catholic” to refer to only the Latin rite. The Latin Church and the Eastern Churches are all “Roman” because we all submit to the Roman Pontiff of the See of Rome. We Latins look to the Bishop of Rome not only as Pope of the universal church but also as our Patriarch of our particular church. All these particular churches in union with each other, through our shared communion with Rome, altogether make up the body of believers known as the “Catholic Church”.
It just so happens that the Latin Church makes up the vast majority of the members of the Catholic Church. Latin Catholics make up about 98% of Catholics. Only about 2% of Catholics are Eastern Catholics.
We Catholics are the body breathing with one lung. Eastern Schismatics are the dead lung removed. Eastern Catholics are the dead lung returning to health.
I don't mind being referred to as a Latin Catholic. I think it's honorable to be referred to as a Latin Catholic. All of the other rites in the Catholic Church are explicitly nationalist and ethnocentric. The Latin rite is the truly Universal rite...because it is not exclusive to Italians.
Dulce clavos,
Dulce lignum,
Dulce pondus sustinet. ❤ ✝️
@@matthewvelazquez2013 sorry I just realized my first sentence could have come off as being sarcastic. I was speaking sincerely. I really do love the name “Latin Catholic” and do see the “Latin Church” as the proper name of the Western Church.
@@matthewvelazquez2013 This idea of equating the Latin Church with the Universal Church is part of what I believe has us in this mess. It’s true… most Catholics (99%) are Latin Rite - so it’s common to just equate the Latin Church as the Catholic Church. But the Pope is head of the universal Catholic Church AND he is head of the particular Latin Church as our Patriarch. The Catholic Church just is what we call this body of churches (Latin and Eastern) in communion with the church of Rome. Many of the liturgical reforms made to our Latin patrimony were done in the name of creating a more intentionally “universal global rite Catholicism” because most Catholics across the globe were Latin Catholics. This is why the Latin liturgy is under attack - because we are de-latinizing in the name of diversity in order to transform or sacrifice our own particular Latin rite into a visible universal Global rite of Catholic Diversity (what once was the Latin rite now liquifies into Mayan rite, Amazonian rite, Zairean Rite). But this is mistaken I think. The faith isn’t spread as a default blank-slate “Catholicism” made ready to be “inculturated”. The faith spreads by Catholics who were themselves members planted and steeped in particular churches Latin or Eastern. So the Philippines were evangelized by Latins. The americas were evangelized by Latins. China and Japan were evangelized by Latins. Africa was evangelized by Latins.
True inculturation has happened before and can happen again. But the lesson should be that we don’t have to totally dissolve our de-emphasize our Latin distinctiveness in order for inculturation to work. I believe it was better to hand off the Latin tradition and have a true cultural exchange and building from there vs our modern experiment of manufacturing a malleable liturgy that requires and encourages creativity.
@@Rome_77 stances change as we learn and grow...keep learning, keep growing... The Eastern Rites are not dead but, instead are much less universal compared to The Latin Rite... I've stated before on other videos, "The Latin Rite enjoys first place under heaven. All the Eastern Rites are tied for second place." Feathers are ruffled every time I make that statement. 🤣
Christus vincit
Christus regnat
Christus imperat
I don’t think that that is why the name “Roman” is used historically. Why do you think this? The Turks still call EO Christians the “Rum,” I believe. The Romanian Orthodox might also quibble. And I doubt Coptic Catholics think that their Roman just because they commemorate the Roman pope before their Coptic patriarch.
Very enlightening.
Francis has said more then once he is not the Vicar of Christ, how much hhigher authority must one have when he himself negates his papacy.❤
The mechanism to depose a Pope would be for the Dean of the College of Cardinals to declare sede vacante.
As for the Council of Constance, I went to university in that city as a young man. I know the building where the Council was held. I went to orchestral concerts in there.
Super confusing. It’s interesting to see that the Eastern Bishops only go to Rome upon severe disputes.
Also confusing is how within the church structure, so many different rites.
Interesting conversation to this EO. I don’t think the EO would necessarily support the German synod in its call for liberalizing communion guidelines. EO recognition of divorce isn’t a carte blanche. It may be a too-much-used pastoral ekonomia. But so are RC annulments, which are often a form of official ecclesiastical hypocrisy. I don’t think either communion earns points on this score. Recognizing a papal primacy is probably an easier task than settling the Filioque or the issue of created grace-divine essence/energies. But, “with God all things are possible.”
Fr Charron is not EO
I think a big point to clarify to ALL CATHOLICS is this concept of "development of doctrine" because this is at least one of the sources of major confusion because people think "change of dogma" or "change of Church teachings" or "change of Revelation" and so on. It really should be called "development of understanding of doctrine and revelation" or similar to avoid this idea that the church can change based on the current times which is ridiculous and impossible. THAT alone would help remove some of these other "confusions" especially in secular circles who understand NOTHING ABOUT CATHOLICS or CATHOLIC THEOLOGY.
and CATHOLICS need to STOP ACTING LIKE PROTESTANTS and either be 100% obedient or leave the church. If you are looking for perfect people and leaders then you are the one being misled and are wrong. WE have a hierarchy in the church for a reason and if you refuse to obey or want to pick and choose what or who you follow--you are Protestant! Stop whining, carry your Cross as Our Lord demanded and stop undermining Christ's church.
I haven't watch the video yet. What's the difference between hyperpapalism and ultramontanism?
None
Ultramontanism is Catholicism and defined in Attwater's Catholic Dictionary and the Catholic Encyclopedia online.
I cannot find hyperpapalism defined prior to Vatican II, nor afterwards.
@@littlerock5256 The word "hyperpapalism" was coined by Peter Kwasniewski (he has a book with the word in the title). It's means 'ultramontanism' but is more self explanatory and easier to understand.
@@crushtheserpent Hyperpapalism has no meaning in Catholicism. Ultramontanism does, and it is synonymous with Catholicism.
The papacy is the order of Melchizedek.
Funny. I thought Christ was. 🤦🏻
@@traceyedson9652well yes, but He gave authority to partake in it to His Apostles, who passed it on.
Please don't insult our common sense. If it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it's a duck. We don't need a degree in theology to see clearly that Bergoglio is not Catholic. And by the way, for those who have no common sense, Fr. Altman cited respected theologians in his brilliant and courageous analysis.
The problem is we can't make the final call... so he is the Pope. He can be deposed after due process
Fernandez is a total flake.
Idk I have had bad experiences listening to this priest in Pints of Aquinas, I don’t like his political views, and I think some of his opinions are not based in facts. Its disappointing to have him as an expert. NO THANK YOU
We should not be so political that we cannot listen to those with whom we have prudential political views, especially when they are addressing an unrelated subject.
@@CrisisMag did you hear that he thinks CardenalTagle is a good candidate for the Papacy 😳
@@CrisisMag I concur in disapproval of Charron. He's sloppy and was sloppy with Shapiro. You had to save him concerning the Council of Constance by pointing out that the Council did not depose the pope. He resigned.
We have enough confusion in the Church without elevating wannabee celebrities.
Parish priests should stay home and mind their flocks.
And yes, I do have a very high bar for anyone publicly teaching the Faith.
It would be interesting to see an Eastern Monk explain the Eastern view. Monks are usually separated from the worldly clerics.
@@utubeo The priest pointed out that there isn't a procedure for deposing a pope & he cited the Council of Constance trying to deal with competing antipopes as the closest process. I see no error in what he said.
St. Anthony went into the desert and focused on God. The desert is going to be crowded!!