Surrenders to my ass yves dupont father Charles roux madame nhu and guess who petsin people it's marie antoinettes people magna carta condemned lutheran free state condemneded
This video is up yet this John Salza and “Br.” Andre Marie have run away from debating Bros. Peter and Michael Dimond from the Most Holy Family Monastery.
False argument. The Church is a mystical body where everyone professes the same one true faith. If one no longer professes that faith by his actions: words or deeds, then he is no longer a member of that Mystical body, and one outside the Church cannot lead from within. Hence proving Sedecavantism 😊
How about ARGUMENTS of FATHER CEKATA ( his recorded videos) who claims that before 1979 SSPX and Lefebrists didn't have problem with sedevacantism, because even Archbishop LEFEBVRE concluded that there is APOSTASY in Vatican and Pope might Not be a Pope?
For those who are quick to separate yourselves from The Catholic Church because of your idea that the Church or a Pope is false or corrupt. How many of you renounced your citizenship from The United States because of corruption in your government? Because of abortion becoming legal in your country? Because of a President you find either invalid or corrupt? How many renounced your American citizenship? Now ask yourself if your citizenship to your country is more important to you than your citizenship to The Church.
The United States do not claim to be a spokeperson and vicar or God. They do not claim the ability to speak infallible or that people can not judge the president. If they did, you know what the US would become? A dictatorship
I don't see how the Sedevacantists of Vatican II are any different from the Old Catholics of Vatican I, the Protestants of the Council of Trent, the Oriental Orthodox at the Council of Chalcedon, or the Arians of the Nicaea I...
@Joseph Boyat. We live in a world where media is focussed on high profile people almost 24/7. The question you should be asking is, given that intense media focus, have any of 'these' popes formally professed their defection from the Catholic Faith in favour of an allegiance to a non-Catholic Faith? No. Therefore, like it or not, the popes are the popes. By the way, your comment contained two major heretical statements. Kyrie eleison.
@Eli False. Pope Paul VI insisted that the following disclaimer be appended to the Acts of the Council: “Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding.” The Second Vatican Council never invoked the infallible Extraordinary Magisterium. There is no 'there there'. No solemn definitions of doctrine were issued. It is almost like an hysterical pregnancy that hippy Bishops are waiting to come to term. Meanwhile the hysteria is spreading and spawned empty crib known as sedevacantism. PS. Paul VI admitted in another place, “In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility....” (General Audience of January 12, 1966, 6th paragraph). Kyrie eleison.
Not even half a step. It is protestantism, just a new and more heretical version. At least the traditional Protestants removed themselves from Holy Mother Church.
***** Lol. Wow. I'm guessing you have the authority to declare popes to be heretics. Must be a nice grant of authority you got from somewhere...unless you gave it to yourself. If so then you're just another protestant heretic.
very interesting and educational talk on this matter. Now I know a little more on how to defend the authority of the pope. Not to make them seen perfect, but humans also. God came down here as a human, so why can't we live to be human also? So many atheists are always using them, popes, as excuses. Is it that these atheists do not ever want to follow anybody but themselves?
@@russelbangot8245 What? What are you talking about? It's in the website for the book True or False Pope?. Where else would it be? It's literally the most exposed Salza could make it be.
Prophecy of St. Nicholas of Fluh (1417-1487): “The Church will be punished because the majority of her members, high and low, will become so perverted. The Church will sink deeper and deeper until she will at last seem to be extinguished, and the succession of Peter and the other Apostles to have expired. But, after this, she will be victoriously exalted in the sight of all doubters.”
@@QuTeBug If he's a heretic, God eventually take care of the issue by either replacing him, or _(in the end times),_ to simply return to take care of it himself. The Saints along with scripture _did_ mention a final trial that would shake the faith of most Catholics, making some lose their faith -- or patience -- in the face of these troubled times. When a Catholic loses patience and lacks discernment regarding troubling events, situations like the Protestant Reformations occur. We ought to be smarter, and have faith. _(this doesn't mean we accept "all" that comes from the pope, especially heretical comments; we simply must remain faithful to the Church, obey official Church teachings, and wait for whatever purge God plans to take care of the issue. It ALWAYS comes.)_
@@MystoRobot Thank you for saying this. The Pope is THE Pope no matter what fly by the seat of his pants nonsense he says, what objections he leaves unanswered, what authority he defers to bad bishops, how worldly he is, or what pagan symbols he allows. We've had bad popes before but they were still the Pope. There's nothing new under the sun. It's actually simple stuff: pray, read your Bible, read your Catechism, go to Mass, have faith, put in the work, be charitable, be humble, evangelize, love God with everything, love your neighbors and yourself, love your enemies, and when they put pachimama on the alter be smart enough to recognize that's a bad thing. Otherwise just pray for Gods mercy and justice. We've lived in His mercy for a long time now; the age of justice is around the bend.
Matthew 7:16 16 "By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?You shall judge them by their fruits." In the history of the RCC, there is precedent for 'bad' Popes. Why not declare such now, if that's the case? The fact is undeniable: after VC2, the Church hierarchy introduced and forced a new religion upon faithful Catholics. Mass, all the other sacraments, churches, teachings, dogma, catechism ------ ALL have been changed, torn down, rewritten etc. Producing saints? After VC2, the office of "devil's advocate" was abolished, which was established to force deep investigation into claims of sainthood. ETC ETC I'm sick of people calling green red and expecting me to believe it.
Knowing the truth is an inside job! You pray and meditate on it! People have issues, Jesus doesn't! The Church is a mess because it is governed by human beings! Everyone has the " way"! Say your prayers, treat your fellow man as you would like to be treated, go to Mass and trust in Jesus!
I seem to remember that Saint Peter resisted Saint Peter. Peter accepted he was in the wrong and changed what he was doing. The Pope can make mistakes like the rest of us. We should always obey the Pope unless it is manifest that we are required to commit a sin by doing so. Thus Saints Athanasius, Basil and Hilary of Poitiers resisted Pope Liberius in his putative support of the arians but they did not reject the fact that he was the Pope.
John Salza is contradicting the excatedra bull of Pius IV which clearly states that we are to cease obedience to a heretic who is elected pope without the sin of schism. It also states that we don't have to wait for any official pronouncement from the Church. Scriptures say that no one is without sin, yet we know that the Virgin Mary is obviously an exception. So too there can be an exception to there being a pope in the end times as has been prophesied abundantly. Salza has good soundbites, but they don't quite follow through and he likes to ramble off on unimportant matters.
@@SensusFidelium what heresy is has already been determined. You don't have to be a coach to see a touchdown. Plus you are contradicting an excatedra Bull which is the work of God's Providence, which clearly states that we are not to wait for any official pronouncement from "Church" and that we are not to be charged with the sin of schism for separating. And what is the point of recognizing a heretic as pope if you reject his magisterium anyway. You are not one in faith with his supporters. The Church is one in faith.
@@SensusFidelium Bellarmine should be taken into account, no doubt. He is often quoted by sedes for saying that a Pope would automatically lose his office for heresy. But sometimes even the doctors of the Church also make mistakes. Only the Pope was promised that his faith would not fail (and that only under certain conditions, : speaking from the chair of Peter) Where have I interpreted. I've only gone by what is said in the Bull clearly. It is not fuzzy language in need of interpretation. It clearly says the election is invalid. No obedience is owed. Otherwise I would be in the awkward stance you are in. Francis is your "pope" but you reject his magisterium. You aren't allowed to reject Magisterial definitions. That, or you accept it and are therefore a heretic too (outside of the Church). Thank God I have the option laid down by Pope Pius IV. Otherwise we wouldn't know what to think.
@@SensusFidelium" Cum ex Apostolatus" states in #3(i)(a) that it's sanctions are applicable to ,,, any bishops and archbishops,,,who have been detected, or have confessed to have or have been convicted of having deviated, or fallen into heresy. (c) ,,, shall also automatically, without any exercise of law or application of fact, be thoroughly ,entirely and perpetually deprived of their Orders (ii) ,,, they shall be subverted in every way #5 Moreover, We also enact as follows concerning those who shall have presumed in any way knowingly to receive, defendm favout, believe or teach the teaching of those so apprehended, (i) they shall automatically incur sentence of excommunication #6 In addition that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop,,, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as ,,, Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy; (i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless (ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity,,,,nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or ,, obedience accorded to such by all, (iii) it shall not be partially legitimate in any way (vi) THOSE THUS PROMOTED OR ELEVATED SHALL BE DEPRIVED AUTOMATICALLY, AND WITHOUT NEED FOR ANY FURTHER DECLARATION, OF ALL DIGNITY, POSITION HONOUR, TITLE, AUTHORITY, OFFICE AND POWER. #7 Finally, also ; that any and all persons who would have been subject to those thus promoted ,,, ; shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens publicans and heresiarchs ,,,,nor shall those who withdraw on this account, in the aforementioned circumstances, from fidelity and obedience to those thus promoted and elevated, be subject, as are those who tear the tunic of the Lord, to the retribution of any censures or penalties.
When one loves the pope one does not stop to debate about what he advises or demands, to ask how far the rigorous duty of obedience extends and to mark the limit of this obligation. When one loves the pope, one does not object that he has not spoken clearly enough, as if he were obliged to repeat into the ear of each individual his will, so often clearly expressed, not only viva voce, but also by letters and other public documents; one does not call his orders into doubt on the pretext - easily advanced by whoever does not wish to obey - that they emanate not directly from him, but from his entourage; one does not limit the field in which he can and should exercise his will; one does not oppose to the authority of the pope that of other persons, however learned, who differ in opinion from the pope. Besides, however great their knowledge, their holiness is wanting, for there can be no holiness where there is disagreement with the pope. (Pope St. Pius X, Address to the Priests of the Apostolic Union, Nov. 18, 1912; in Acta Apostolicae Sedis 4 [1912], p. 695)
@voxx. The last bit of the statement you posted is as follows: "This is the cry of a heart filled with pain, that with deep sadness I express, not for your sake, dear brothers, but to deplore, with you, the conduct of so many priests, who not only allow themselves to debate and criticize the wishes of the Pope, but are not embarrassed to reach shameless and blatant disobedience, with so much scandal for the good and with so great damage to souls." Pius X was battling wayward modernists in the ranks below. In other writings he more than clearly expressed his thoughts on what to do in the face modernism - it must be resisted. After Pius IX declared the dogma of Infallibility, a concerned Bishop approached him. "Holy Father, what if, in the future, a pope teaches heresy?" Pope Pius IX, "Well, you don't follow him." Recognise and Resist is the Catholic response to bad shepherds. Kyrie eleison.
The Church is a mystical body where everyone professes the same one true faith. If one no longer professes that faith by his actions: words or deeds, then he is no longer a member of that Mystical body, and one outside the Church cannot lead from within. Hence proving Sedevacantism
No. If we know the Faith we obey the Faith. No one, not even the Pope, has the authority to force people to break God's laws. We know God's laws because we, hopefully at least, fear God. But likewise, mere laymen, and even priests cannot arrogate to themselves an authority they do not have. Ecclesiastical authority from God comes with a special grace to exercise it according to God's will. Those with such authority might reject the grace and do their own thing, refusing to exercise it according to the will of God (even prelates have free will). However, those without legal Ecclesiastical authority are simply never going to have that grace because they have not been given the authority by God. Yet sedevacantism resists, what it still recognises as the legal structure of the Roman Catholic Church, as being completely bereft of any authority from God. This is basically the sedevacantist supreme doctrine. It does not make sense. That men with proper authority have the free will to reject the grace to exercise it properly seems not to have occurred to them.
@@evangallion1661 no, non catholic worship is still forbidden. What was allowed as a prudential judgement was worship in common , so you can pray the our father prayer with Protestants , etc.. and that would be Catholic worship That maybe a bad prudential judgment, The Church is not infallible in prudential judgment, But this still it’s no way advocating non Catholic worship. And no one is bound to pray in common with non Catholics anyways.
This Peruvian goddess' name means "Mother Earth." The idol depicts partial nakedness. It is blasphemous to relate it to the Blessed Mother in any way and a diabolical lie. Antipope Francis scandalized the world with his idol worship. @@dwong9289
It truly takes a dark soul to preach what Salza is preaching here while familiar with our current situation. Disproving sedevacantism doesn't prove the Novus Ordo religion, it disproves "Catholicism" altogether in any form, true or heretical.
Our Lord said to be as simple as doves and wise as serpents. Since Vatican 2 our Church has so deteriorated and changed, it is very very hard (impossible) to recognize the true Catholic Church. The conciliar popes have betrayed us and gotten worse. In the words of Donald Trump, if you aren't willing to walk you cannot get a good deal. The conciliar church takes advantage of the people if they can do and say anything and nobody walks. What more has to happen for Catholics to wake up and face reality. "Pope" Francis cannot be a true pope, give me a break. God would not allow such a thing. Impossible. Following this "pope" will take people to hell - he is way more like Obama than Christ. Time to walk.
sarah wood here, we see faithlessness. Have faith in Christ! By saying that "God will not allow such a thing" you are basically believing what the atheists say to do with the problem of evil!
@Legiter. Hello. If you don't mind me asking, where do you go to Mass? Or are you 'home alone' abstaining from any and all sacraments because the sedevacantist priesthood are thousands of miles away? The Church is not an internet 'experience', and it is not a matter of private judgement. I was a sedevacantist and I spent years falling into increasing isolation, heaping money into sedevacantist clergy coffers in the hopes of one of the few priests in that self-proclaimed remnant of 'Catholicism' they declare is pleasing to God, maybe coming my way so I could receive absolution and Holy Communion. Nope (for which today I am so grateful to God or else I might have grown comfortable outside the Church). At any rate, I ended up watching stuttering internet masses, receiving about as much spiritual help from that clergy as Pope Francis can stand to touch the 'sheep' ( vimeo.com/326844933 ). Yes the Novus Ordo wounds the Faithful - it is so efficient at wounding a faithful Catholic (but this means we have the faith and must offer those wounds to God inside His House - there are numerous TLMs nowadays and the SSPX is prolific - good fruits.) The wounds inflicted by the Novus Ordo makes us even more vulnerable to the claims of the Sedevacantist Movement. One of the most important sedevacantist Bishops teaches that it is a mortal sin to receive the sacraments outside of the sedevacantist clergy based on the 'non-una-cum' dogma of the Sedevacantist Movement. I believed it. Christ called us sheep. As one faithful priest says, it is not a compliment. It means we are stupid and easily misled. God is not a trickster. The supernatural authority of His Church is in the confines of His visible Church and only those Bishops have the grace to exercise that authority. They may reject that grace, but the priests of the Sedevacantist Movement will never have that grace to reject. Archbishop Lefebvre was a legitimate and faithful Archbishop and he did not make an authoritarian public declaration that mortal sin is upon the 'sheep' who don't follow him exclusively. If a person believes he cannot keep the Faith inside the Church, then is he not already tipping outside? We need to recognise those who have been given authority or we are lost. And we must resist the parade of evil in Vatican II loving Bishops by holding to Tradition. Running away from the Chastisement in the Church is running away from God. Are the clergy in the Sedevacantist Movement making it up as they go along? Sedevacantism is about 'doubt'. The direction of its doubt is towards the visible Roman Catholic Church. The True Traditional Catholic Church lives only within the visible structure of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Not outside it. I pray that the Traditionally minded Catholics who are stuck in the deepening rut of the Sedevcantist 'spirit' return to the Church. Traditional Catholics in the pews are a rarity because they keep running away from the fight. Kyrie eleison.
Hello. No accusations thrown, just the lived facts. The SSPX chapels are prolific and Catholic and not completely rejecting the visible structure of legal authority in the Church as if it had been overcome by hell. If you go to a Mass not celebrated by a sedevacantist priest you commit a mortal sin (or if you don't go to a certain group then a mortal sin is occurring). They write it, they preach it. It is even 'sinful' to enter a non-sedevacantist Catholic Chapel and pray or light a candle as it may cause 'scandal'. I have been listening to these men for years. I have lived it, believed it and paid a heavy ('bad fruits') toll for it. Pray to the Immaculate Heart to obtain the grace to understand what is plain - hell cannot prevail. The back bone of the sedevacantist propaganda machine is daily mud-slinging at what they recognise as the legally elected Bishops of Holy Mother Church, yet reject any notion that they have authority (they even reject any notion that they have vaild orders). Well, they do, have valid orders and authority. They have the grace that comes with it. Most have spurned that grace, but the sedevacantists will never have the grace (to accept or reject) God's authority to rule as Princes of the Church. Anyway the 'Novus Ordo Watch' (Mario Derksen website) spirit is a spirit of tearing down and mudslinging - promulgates the outright denial of the Priesthood in the visible Church on a world wide scale - that was my first port of call to sedevacantism. I'm not saying that denial comes from hubris, but it is encouraging a hatred of Holy Mother Church, not a love, or loyalty. This only adds to the damage; but that is a core problem of the Sedevacantist Movement. Its praxis is that the gates of hell have prevailed (even if its thinkers won't admit it) and so it spends most of its fuel in attacking an already wounded Body of Christ - from the outside (as if there weren't enough enemies within). I shudder for my own soul as well as the souls of others (which I reckon you probably do too, you sound very sincere). But stepping outside of the House of God's Grace, is not the way to obtain grace.
PS. Tradition, the True Faith is alive in the Church. It has been beaten, mocked, scourged and shoved to the corner by the Vatican II Movement, but God will not allow the enemies within to win. The Traditional Mass and the Traditional unassailable Faith is in the Church by God's promise and God's authority. The gates of hell have not prevailed.
The Church is a mystical body where everyone professes the same one true faith. If one no longer professes that faith by his actions: words or deeds, then he is no longer a member of that Mystical body, and one outside the Church cannot lead from within. Hence proving Sedevacantism
In context, the phrase "the pope" is vague. Sometimes it's general, other times it's specific. I can say that the pope is the visible head of the Church, even when I'm not talking about any specific man, during a conclave, for example. To know whether they're formally and subjectively schismatic, you need to know whether there's a real pope on St. Peter's throne.
You say that the 4th council of Constantinople taught that it is not lawful to reject a bishop without formal declaration from the church against him. Can you give a reference?
The Church is a mystical body where everyone professes the same one true faith. If one no longer professes that faith by his actions: words or deeds, then he is no longer a member of that Mystical body, and one outside the Church cannot lead from within. Hence proving Sedevacantism
Recognizing that the election of a pope who, prior to his election, denied The Deposit of Faith, cannot possibly be valid, does not separate oneself from Christ, and His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. In fact, Christ warns us about false prophets. God declares what is Good. The erroneous notion that private morality and public morality can serve in opposition to one another and are not complementary, has led to grievous errors in both Faith and reason including in the hierarchy of Christ's Church. "Penance, Penance, Penance."
Sounds simple. But we need to define the magisterium rejected and define infallibility with regards to it. Then define 'the visible Church of Christ', then, explain jurisdiction, the grace that comes with this authority and upon whom it can be bestowed. Christ established a hierarchy for a reason. We are the sheep. As one faithful priest said, being called 'sheep' wasn't a compliment. People are stupid and easily misled. Vatican II isn't happening in the vacuum of some small Protestant sect, but on the world wide visible stage and it is an open visible battle between Tradition and heresy. Whatever the legitimacy of the arguments regarding the theories over 'sedevacantism', the Sedevacantist Movement is establishing a little protestant Church where alone one can find salvation. The Movement teaches that receiving sacraments from anyone but them (based on their non-una-cum 'dogma') is a mortal sin. Yet most recognise the visible Roman Catholic Church there for all to see, as 'legal'. Archbishop Lefebvre was a legitimate and faithful Prince of the Church and was prudent enough not to pontificate and condemn folks suffering the wounds of the Novus Ordo to hell. Those who love the Novus Ordo, it is those folks we need to pray for especially hard. And the 'hierarchy' of the Sedevacantist Movement. They have strong Catholic morals, the Church could use them. Kyrie eleison.
That's correct the laity does not get to decide, the Popes and The Magisterium have clearly defined things for us....this heretic and 32nd degree Freemason John Salza lies at the very first moment in describing what Sedevacantism is- but that is to be expected he lies many many times over; he's just like the master he serves. The very concept that Popes are infallible and that the gates of hell cannot prevail over the Church proves the correct position- these heretics cannot be popes because if they were then the gates of hell have prevailed. You lying baboons keep testafying falsely, no sedevacantist decides for themselves whether anyone is a heretic, the proof is in the pudding. But judgement is right around the corner; you'll see Rome destroyed for its spiritual atrocities and even then you will not repent as it is written! But I pray you do.
Sensus Fidelium Do the laity then sit quietly without means of accessing it earthy leaders? I'd judge all ministers and preachers by reading the Scriptures. I'd expect them to be able to decide if someone has departed at least docrinally from their faith. Having the authority to excommunicate a person is, or could be another level.
St. Paul say it himself. If I come back and teach a different Gospel ...... .. This is a no drainer....... frank is not pope. hes just a dope. and salsa is takin a lot of non thinkers to hell with him.
Sedevacante is just a sect for me! End of discussion! They are in the right in a great part but make the error to judge when you can't judge! Just THE LORD can judge his church and deposed the pope!
@William. Fr Cekada has been 'debunked in spades' by plain Catholic Doctrine. Either Father is a deeply confused priest or a deeply deceitful one. Either way, Our Lady of Sorrows, pray for Fr. Cekada and his confreres in grave error. Kyrie eleison.
Sheri For- True, the gates of hell have not nor will ever prevail against 'Christ Jesus, the Son of the Living God'. These men who corrupt the church are mortal...Christ Jesus is eternal.
It is true sedevacantism is not of the church. Nor is any pontiff who would totally dismantle the liturgy like John XXIII and his five successors. On the permanence of the primacy of Blessed Peter in the Roman Pontiff: "Therefore if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord Himself (that is to say by divine law) that Blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of Blessed Peter in his primacy: Let him be anathema". The Vatican Council, Fourth Session First Dogmatic Constitution on The Church of Christ 2,5 On the Permanence of the Primacy of Blessed Peter in the Roman Pontiff- July 18, 1870. But in the conclave of 1958 very strange things happened. Giuseppe Cardinal Siri was elected Pope on the first and I think second ballot. He even took the name Gregory XVII. The white smoke was coming out of The Sistine Chapel for a full five minutes, but no Pope appeared on the balcony. Even though he was never allowed to exercise his Papacy HE IS THE TRUE POPE. The Antichurch (masonry) took over the governing of the Vatican that very evening. If you think the notion of a true Pope (Siri, Gregory XVII) and a false Pope (Roncalli John XXIII) is crazy it happened in the past many times. Out of the 260 or so Popes in the history of the Church 1in 7 have been false popes. But along with the false Pope there was the truly elected Pontiff. You don't belive me? Well right here on TH-cam there is a video entitled "Papal Imposters" ThePopeinRed.com is an excellent website with loads of information on The Siri Thesis.
Here's the thing. The Bible says in 1 Corinthians 5:11 that we must have nothing to do with a variety of immoral people who call themselves Christians. That includes the Pope. Therefore I currently don't do Catholic Church. I follow Jesus. He is not corrupt. When the church gets cleaned out I will be back.
Six reasons why The Whore of Babylon in the Book of Revelation (Apocalypse) is the Roman Catholic Church: 1.Support of millions 2. Inhabitants of earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication 3. Woman arrayed in purple and gold 4. A golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication 5. Wealthy 6. Woman drunken with the blood of the saints (true believers) and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. "The doctrines of the Catholic Church are entirely independent of Holy Scripture." - Father Michael Muller, Familiar Explanation of Catholic doctrine, page 151.
Kyrie eleison. The Martyrs were faithful Catholics. In the times of the early Church the Roman Empire did not put to death people who called themselves Christians. It put to death the Christians who worshipped at the Holy Eucharist. When the Emperor Constantine ended the persecution of Christians, that meant the Catholic Church, her Pope and the Bishops, which is the Church of the sacraments - the Church of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The Nicene Creed was established during this era to root out Arianism. This didn't happen in a world that had the 'New Testament' yet. There were books still disputed throughout the 4th century - the final book to become a part of the canon was the Apocalypse of St John. Done entirely within the Holy Roman Catholic Church. PS. On pg 151 of 'Explanation of Christian Doctrine' ( archive.org/details/familiarexplana00mlgoog/page/n174 ) Fr Muller's catechism says no such thing. Catholic Doctrine stems, first from Tradition (Christ and His Apostles and Old the Testament), then as handed on teachings were written down, the 'New Testament' began to be collated - all rejecting error through the guidance of the Holy Ghost - a grace bestowed upon those with proper Apostolic Authority in the Church. Heresy arises when that grace is rejected. However, only those with apostolic authority within the hierarchy of the Catholic Church are given such a grace in the first place. To reject the Catholic Church is to reject the means by which Christ Himself willed the revelation of the salvation of souls the means by which this is to be given to the world.
A quick reminder that Salza dodged a debate with Bro. Peter Dimond.
Surrenders to my ass yves dupont father Charles roux madame nhu and guess who petsin people it's marie antoinettes people magna carta condemned lutheran free state condemneded
This video is up yet this John Salza and “Br.” Andre Marie have run away from debating Bros. Peter and Michael Dimond from the Most Holy Family Monastery.
John Salza is a liar and an agent of Satan.
The Dimond’s still haven’t responded to my debate challenge
THANK YOU SO MUCH for putting this discussion online..it’s so important to hear this right now...
False argument. The Church is a mystical body where everyone professes the same one true faith. If one no longer professes that faith by his actions: words or deeds, then he is no longer a member of that Mystical body, and one outside the Church cannot lead from within. Hence proving Sedecavantism 😊
@@deus_vult8111How is this any different than the Protestant view?
How about ARGUMENTS of FATHER CEKATA ( his recorded videos) who claims that before 1979 SSPX and Lefebrists didn't have problem with sedevacantism, because even Archbishop LEFEBVRE concluded that there is APOSTASY in Vatican and Pope might Not be a Pope?
For those who are quick to separate yourselves from The Catholic Church because of your idea that the Church or a Pope is false or corrupt. How many of you renounced your citizenship from The United States because of corruption in your government? Because of abortion becoming legal in your country? Because of a President you find either invalid or corrupt? How many renounced your American citizenship? Now ask yourself if your citizenship to your country is more important to you than your citizenship to The Church.
M Cephas Well said
B Robinson If all religions are Babylonian religions including Christianity then why are you even using the Bible??? Idiot.
I’m a citizen of Heaven. Scriptures tell us “ We are seated in Heavenly places.”
Doesn't work though as nations don't have laws automatically excommunicating people from there for corruption, the church does.
The United States do not claim to be a spokeperson and vicar or God. They do not claim the ability to speak infallible or that people can not judge the president. If they did, you know what the US would become? A dictatorship
I don't see how the Sedevacantists of Vatican II are any different from the Old Catholics of Vatican I, the Protestants of the Council of Trent, the Oriental Orthodox at the Council of Chalcedon, or the Arians of the Nicaea I...
Shut up! Go and have a Happy Party in your modernist chancel.
@@anyaforger8409 Solid argument founded in logic and statistics.
@Joseph Boyat. We live in a world where media is focussed on high profile people almost 24/7. The question you should be asking is, given that intense media focus, have any of 'these' popes formally professed their defection from the Catholic Faith in favour of an allegiance to a non-Catholic Faith? No. Therefore, like it or not, the popes are the popes. By the way, your comment contained two major heretical statements. Kyrie eleison.
@Eli False. Pope Paul VI insisted that the following disclaimer be appended to the Acts of the Council: “Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding.” The Second Vatican Council never invoked the infallible Extraordinary Magisterium. There is no 'there there'. No solemn definitions of doctrine were issued. It is almost like an hysterical pregnancy that hippy Bishops are waiting to come to term. Meanwhile the hysteria is spreading and spawned empty crib known as sedevacantism. PS. Paul VI admitted in another place, “In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility....” (General Audience of January 12, 1966, 6th paragraph). Kyrie eleison.
Joseph Boyat If the literal antichrist was elected “Pope” a lot of these folks would follow, but a lot would wake up. These folks need our prayers.
Oh would you look at all those Sedevacantist tears in the comments. Someone got rekt.
Sedevacantism is half a step removed from protestantism.
Not even half a step. It is protestantism, just a new and more heretical version. At least the traditional Protestants removed themselves from Holy Mother Church.
***** Lol. Wow. I'm guessing you have the authority to declare popes to be heretics. Must be a nice grant of authority you got from somewhere...unless you gave it to yourself. If so then you're just another protestant heretic.
The Vatican 2 popes renounced their office by their heresies according to law. Salza's argumentation has been refuted many times in the past.
Refresh my memory: Which pope is reading the Quran daily inside Saint Peter's ?
Sedevacantism is logical inconsistency - the heresy
very interesting and educational talk on this matter. Now I know a little more on how to defend the authority of the pope. Not to make them seen perfect, but humans also. God came down here as a human, so why can't we live to be human also? So many atheists are always using them, popes, as excuses. Is it that these atheists do not ever want to follow anybody but themselves?
This is refuted by the late Fr. Anthony Cekada "Dead on Arrival"
That video has already been refuted by John Salza in his site
@@mlz8019 In Salzas site only because Salza is afraid that his shoddy argumentation will be exposed to those of us who carefully study his argument😊
Why would Salza and Sisco first refute Abp. Lefever of his Sedevacantism statement first.
@@russelbangot8245 What? What are you talking about? It's in the website for the book True or False Pope?. Where else would it be? It's literally the most exposed Salza could make it be.
A 600 page book was refuted by a 30 min video? Yeah, sure…
Prophecy of St. Nicholas of Fluh (1417-1487): “The Church will be punished because the majority of her members, high and low, will become so perverted. The Church will sink deeper and deeper until she will at last seem to be extinguished, and the succession of Peter and the other Apostles to have expired. But, after this, she will be victoriously exalted in the sight of all doubters.”
Have some Faith people.. Holy Church already officially declared, the Pope, in the 1920’s that the Church will always have a bonafide visible Pope..
Can you share this source please?
Thanks!
Rose Luz ...Even if he is a heretic...
@@QuTeBug
If he's a heretic, God eventually take care of the issue by either replacing him, or _(in the end times),_ to simply return to take care of it himself. The Saints along with scripture _did_ mention a final trial that would shake the faith of most Catholics, making some lose their faith -- or patience -- in the face of these troubled times. When a Catholic loses patience and lacks discernment regarding troubling events, situations like the Protestant Reformations occur. We ought to be smarter, and have faith. _(this doesn't mean we accept "all" that comes from the pope, especially heretical comments; we simply must remain faithful to the Church, obey official Church teachings, and wait for whatever purge God plans to take care of the issue. It ALWAYS comes.)_
@@MystoRobot Thank you for saying this. The Pope is THE Pope no matter what fly by the seat of his pants nonsense he says, what objections he leaves unanswered, what authority he defers to bad bishops, how worldly he is, or what pagan symbols he allows. We've had bad popes before but they were still the Pope. There's nothing new under the sun.
It's actually simple stuff: pray, read your Bible, read your Catechism, go to Mass, have faith, put in the work, be charitable, be humble, evangelize, love God with everything, love your neighbors and yourself, love your enemies, and when they put pachimama on the alter be smart enough to recognize that's a bad thing. Otherwise just pray for Gods mercy and justice. We've lived in His mercy for a long time now; the age of justice is around the bend.
Matthew 7:16
16 "By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?You shall judge them by their fruits."
In the history of the RCC, there is precedent for 'bad' Popes. Why not declare such now, if that's the case? The fact is undeniable: after VC2, the Church hierarchy introduced and forced a new religion upon faithful Catholics. Mass, all the other sacraments, churches, teachings, dogma, catechism ------ ALL have been changed, torn down, rewritten etc.
Producing saints? After VC2, the office of "devil's advocate" was abolished, which was established to force deep investigation into claims of sainthood. ETC ETC
I'm sick of people calling green red and expecting me to believe it.
Lark Bird have faith in Christ!
Knowing the truth is an inside job! You pray and meditate on it! People have issues, Jesus doesn't! The Church is a mess because it is governed by human beings! Everyone has the " way"! Say your prayers, treat your fellow man as you would like to be treated, go to Mass and trust in Jesus!
When you resist a True Pope on ANY matter regarding the Faith you are no better than a Protestant
@voxxpop Oversimplification. Which seems to be a virus in a world where all knowledge has been 'horizontalised'.
Ok sede lol
I seem to remember that Saint Peter resisted Saint Peter. Peter accepted he was in the wrong and changed what he was doing. The Pope can make mistakes like the rest of us. We should always obey the Pope unless it is manifest that we are required to commit a sin by doing so. Thus Saints Athanasius, Basil and Hilary of Poitiers resisted Pope Liberius in his putative support of the arians but they did not reject the fact that he was the Pope.
@@ingridlinbohm7682 Did you mean, "Saint Paul" resisted "Saint Peter"? Covered in the book of ACTS in the Bible...
This is refuted by "EPIC Blunder of true or false Pope" by Dimond brothers.
John Salza is contradicting the excatedra bull of Pius IV which clearly states that we are to cease obedience to a heretic who is elected pope without the sin of schism. It also states that we don't have to wait for any official pronouncement from the Church. Scriptures say that no one is without sin, yet we know that the Virgin Mary is obviously an exception. So too there can be an exception to there being a pope in the end times as has been prophesied abundantly. Salza has good soundbites, but they don't quite follow through and he likes to ramble off on unimportant matters.
And who determines heresy? The church not the individual layman
@@SensusFidelium what heresy is has already been determined. You don't have to be a coach to see a touchdown. Plus you are contradicting an excatedra Bull which is the work of God's Providence, which clearly states that we are not to wait for any official pronouncement from "Church" and that we are not to be charged with the sin of schism for separating. And what is the point of recognizing a heretic as pope if you reject his magisterium anyway. You are not one in faith with his supporters. The Church is one in faith.
Gabriel Garza Bellarmine et al would disagree with your interpretation
@@SensusFidelium Bellarmine should be taken into account, no doubt. He is often quoted by sedes for saying that a Pope would automatically lose his office for heresy. But sometimes even the doctors of the Church also make mistakes. Only the Pope was promised that his faith would not fail (and that only under certain conditions, : speaking from the chair of Peter)
Where have I interpreted. I've only gone by what is said in the Bull clearly. It is not fuzzy language in need of interpretation. It clearly says the election is invalid. No obedience is owed. Otherwise I would be in the awkward stance you are in. Francis is your "pope" but you reject his magisterium. You aren't allowed to reject Magisterial definitions. That, or you accept it and are therefore a heretic too (outside of the Church). Thank God I have the option laid down by Pope Pius IV. Otherwise we wouldn't know what to think.
@@SensusFidelium" Cum ex Apostolatus"
states in #3(i)(a) that it's sanctions are applicable to ,,, any bishops and archbishops,,,who have been detected, or have confessed to have or have been convicted of having deviated, or fallen into heresy.
(c) ,,, shall also automatically, without any exercise of law or application of fact, be thoroughly ,entirely and perpetually deprived of their Orders
(ii) ,,, they shall be subverted in every way
#5 Moreover, We also enact as follows concerning those who shall have presumed in any way knowingly to receive, defendm favout, believe or teach the teaching of those so apprehended,
(i) they shall automatically incur sentence of excommunication
#6 In addition that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop,,, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as ,,, Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy;
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity,,,,nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or ,, obedience accorded to such by all,
(iii) it shall not be partially legitimate in any way
(vi) THOSE THUS PROMOTED OR ELEVATED SHALL BE DEPRIVED AUTOMATICALLY, AND WITHOUT NEED FOR ANY FURTHER DECLARATION, OF ALL DIGNITY, POSITION HONOUR, TITLE, AUTHORITY, OFFICE AND POWER.
#7 Finally, also ; that any and all persons who would have been subject to those thus promoted ,,, ; shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens publicans and heresiarchs
,,,,nor shall those who withdraw on this account, in the aforementioned circumstances, from fidelity and obedience to those thus promoted and elevated, be subject, as are those who tear the tunic of the Lord, to the retribution of any censures or penalties.
When one loves the pope one does not stop to debate about what he advises or demands, to ask how far the rigorous duty of obedience extends and to mark the limit of this obligation. When one loves the pope, one does not object that he has not spoken clearly enough, as if he were obliged to repeat into the ear of each individual his will, so often clearly expressed, not only viva voce, but also by letters and other public documents; one does not call his orders into doubt on the pretext - easily advanced by whoever does not wish to obey - that they emanate not directly from him, but from his entourage; one does not limit the field in which he can and should exercise his will; one does not oppose to the authority of the pope that of other persons, however learned, who differ in opinion from the pope. Besides, however great their knowledge, their holiness is wanting, for there can be no holiness where there is disagreement with the pope.
(Pope St. Pius X, Address to the Priests of the Apostolic Union, Nov. 18, 1912; in Acta Apostolicae Sedis 4 [1912], p. 695)
@voxx. The last bit of the statement you posted is as follows: "This is the cry of a heart filled with pain, that with deep sadness I express, not for your sake, dear brothers, but to deplore, with you, the conduct of so many priests, who not only allow themselves to debate and criticize the wishes of the Pope, but are not embarrassed to reach shameless and blatant disobedience, with so much scandal for the good and with so great damage to souls." Pius X was battling wayward modernists in the ranks below. In other writings he more than clearly expressed his thoughts on what to do in the face modernism - it must be resisted. After Pius IX declared the dogma of Infallibility, a concerned Bishop approached him. "Holy Father, what if, in the future, a pope teaches heresy?" Pope Pius IX, "Well, you don't follow him." Recognise and Resist is the Catholic response to bad shepherds. Kyrie eleison.
The Church is a mystical body where everyone professes the same one true faith. If one no longer professes that faith by his actions: words or deeds, then he is no longer a member of that Mystical body, and one outside the Church cannot lead from within. Hence proving Sedevacantism
So I'm allowed to worship whit other religious and im still catholic? Because that what vatican ll tell us to do
No. If we know the Faith we obey the Faith. No one, not even the Pope, has the authority to force people to break God's laws. We know God's laws because we, hopefully at least, fear God. But likewise, mere laymen, and even priests cannot arrogate to themselves an authority they do not have. Ecclesiastical authority from God comes with a special grace to exercise it according to God's will. Those with such authority might reject the grace and do their own thing, refusing to exercise it according to the will of God (even prelates have free will). However, those without legal Ecclesiastical authority are simply never going to have that grace because they have not been given the authority by God. Yet sedevacantism resists, what it still recognises as the legal structure of the Roman Catholic Church, as being completely bereft of any authority from God. This is basically the sedevacantist supreme doctrine. It does not make sense. That men with proper authority have the free will to reject the grace to exercise it properly seems not to have occurred to them.
The ordinary “magisterium” after VII has permitted and in courage’s just such a thing.
@@evangallion1661 no, non catholic worship is still forbidden. What was allowed as a prudential judgement was worship in common , so you can pray the our father prayer with Protestants , etc.. and that would be Catholic worship
That maybe a bad prudential judgment, The Church is not infallible in prudential judgment,
But this still it’s no way advocating non Catholic worship. And no one is bound to pray in common with non Catholics anyways.
Before I knew any better, I found these arguments persuasive. This is denial.
When Bergolio worshiped pachamama in public did that excommunicate him?
Yes, look up Most Holy Family Monastery
False. Pope Francis received an image of Our Lady of the Amazon (as indicated in the original video.)
This Peruvian goddess' name means "Mother Earth." The idol depicts partial nakedness. It is blasphemous to relate it to the Blessed Mother in any way and a diabolical lie. Antipope Francis scandalized the world with his idol worship. @@dwong9289
It truly takes a dark soul to preach what Salza is preaching here while familiar with our current situation. Disproving sedevacantism doesn't prove the Novus Ordo religion, it disproves "Catholicism" altogether in any form, true or heretical.
Best treatment is Bishop Sanborn’s pdf on Cassiciacum thesis by Bishop des Lauriers.
Our Lord said to be as simple as doves and wise as serpents. Since Vatican 2 our Church has so deteriorated and changed, it is very very hard (impossible) to recognize the true Catholic Church. The conciliar popes have betrayed us and gotten worse. In the words of Donald Trump, if you aren't willing to walk you cannot get a good deal. The conciliar church takes advantage of the people if they can do and say anything and nobody walks. What more has to happen for Catholics to wake up and face reality. "Pope" Francis cannot be a true pope, give me a break. God would not allow such a thing. Impossible. Following this "pope" will take people to hell - he is way more like Obama than Christ. Time to walk.
sarah wood here, we see faithlessness. Have faith in Christ! By saying that "God will not allow such a thing" you are basically believing what the atheists say to do with the problem of evil!
@Legiter. Hello. If you don't mind me asking, where do you go to Mass? Or are you 'home alone' abstaining from any and all sacraments because the sedevacantist priesthood are thousands of miles away? The Church is not an internet 'experience', and it is not a matter of private judgement. I was a sedevacantist and I spent years falling into increasing isolation, heaping money into sedevacantist clergy coffers in the hopes of one of the few priests in that self-proclaimed remnant of 'Catholicism' they declare is pleasing to God, maybe coming my way so I could receive absolution and Holy Communion. Nope (for which today I am so grateful to God or else I might have grown comfortable outside the Church). At any rate, I ended up watching stuttering internet masses, receiving about as much spiritual help from that clergy as Pope Francis can stand to touch the 'sheep' ( vimeo.com/326844933 ). Yes the Novus Ordo wounds the Faithful - it is so efficient at wounding a faithful Catholic (but this means we have the faith and must offer those wounds to God inside His House - there are numerous TLMs nowadays and the SSPX is prolific - good fruits.) The wounds inflicted by the Novus Ordo makes us even more vulnerable to the claims of the Sedevacantist Movement. One of the most important sedevacantist Bishops teaches that it is a mortal sin to receive the sacraments outside of the sedevacantist clergy based on the 'non-una-cum' dogma of the Sedevacantist Movement. I believed it. Christ called us sheep. As one faithful priest says, it is not a compliment. It means we are stupid and easily misled. God is not a trickster. The supernatural authority of His Church is in the confines of His visible Church and only those Bishops have the grace to exercise that authority. They may reject that grace, but the priests of the Sedevacantist Movement will never have that grace to reject. Archbishop Lefebvre was a legitimate and faithful Archbishop and he did not make an authoritarian public declaration that mortal sin is upon the 'sheep' who don't follow him exclusively. If a person believes he cannot keep the Faith inside the Church, then is he not already tipping outside? We need to recognise those who have been given authority or we are lost. And we must resist the parade of evil in Vatican II loving Bishops by holding to Tradition. Running away from the Chastisement in the Church is running away from God. Are the clergy in the Sedevacantist Movement making it up as they go along? Sedevacantism is about 'doubt'. The direction of its doubt is towards the visible Roman Catholic Church. The True Traditional Catholic Church lives only within the visible structure of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Not outside it. I pray that the Traditionally minded Catholics who are stuck in the deepening rut of the Sedevcantist 'spirit' return to the Church. Traditional Catholics in the pews are a rarity because they keep running away from the fight. Kyrie eleison.
Hello. No accusations thrown, just the lived facts. The SSPX chapels are prolific and Catholic and not completely rejecting the visible structure of legal authority in the Church as if it had been overcome by hell. If you go to a Mass not celebrated by a sedevacantist priest you commit a mortal sin (or if you don't go to a certain group then a mortal sin is occurring). They write it, they preach it. It is even 'sinful' to enter a non-sedevacantist Catholic Chapel and pray or light a candle as it may cause 'scandal'. I have been listening to these men for years. I have lived it, believed it and paid a heavy ('bad fruits') toll for it. Pray to the Immaculate Heart to obtain the grace to understand what is plain - hell cannot prevail. The back bone of the sedevacantist propaganda machine is daily mud-slinging at what they recognise as the legally elected Bishops of Holy Mother Church, yet reject any notion that they have authority (they even reject any notion that they have vaild orders). Well, they do, have valid orders and authority. They have the grace that comes with it. Most have spurned that grace, but the sedevacantists will never have the grace (to accept or reject) God's authority to rule as Princes of the Church. Anyway the 'Novus Ordo Watch' (Mario Derksen website) spirit is a spirit of tearing down and mudslinging - promulgates the outright denial of the Priesthood in the visible Church on a world wide scale - that was my first port of call to sedevacantism. I'm not saying that denial comes from hubris, but it is encouraging a hatred of Holy Mother Church, not a love, or loyalty. This only adds to the damage; but that is a core problem of the Sedevacantist Movement. Its praxis is that the gates of hell have prevailed (even if its thinkers won't admit it) and so it spends most of its fuel in attacking an already wounded Body of Christ - from the outside (as if there weren't enough enemies within). I shudder for my own soul as well as the souls of others (which I reckon you probably do too, you sound very sincere). But stepping outside of the House of God's Grace, is not the way to obtain grace.
PS. Tradition, the True Faith is alive in the Church. It has been beaten, mocked, scourged and shoved to the corner by the Vatican II Movement, but God will not allow the enemies within to win. The Traditional Mass and the Traditional unassailable Faith is in the Church by God's promise and God's authority. The gates of hell have not prevailed.
The Church is a mystical body where everyone professes the same one true faith. If one no longer professes that faith by his actions: words or deeds, then he is no longer a member of that Mystical body, and one outside the Church cannot lead from within. Hence proving Sedevacantism
In context, the phrase "the pope" is vague. Sometimes it's general, other times it's specific. I can say that the pope is the visible head of the Church, even when I'm not talking about any specific man, during a conclave, for example. To know whether they're formally and subjectively schismatic, you need to know whether there's a real pope on St. Peter's throne.
Which one is that visible church right now? Is it the novus ordo church?
You say that the 4th council of Constantinople taught that it is not lawful to reject a bishop without formal declaration from the church against him. Can you give a reference?
It's first in the morning, and I'm listening to this.
What a way to kick start the brain.
I'm so mean to me. Ouch. 🤭
2:19 excellent point! Lay people discern!!!!!! Excellent!
The Church is a mystical body where everyone professes the same one true faith. If one no longer professes that faith by his actions: words or deeds, then he is no longer a member of that Mystical body, and one outside the Church cannot lead from within. Hence proving Sedevacantism
Recognizing that the election of a pope who, prior to his election, denied The Deposit of Faith, cannot possibly be valid, does not separate oneself from Christ, and His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. In fact, Christ warns us about false prophets. God declares what is Good. The erroneous notion that private morality and public morality can serve in opposition to one another and are not complementary, has led to grievous errors in both Faith and reason including in the hierarchy of Christ's Church. "Penance, Penance, Penance."
Nancy D. The magesterium has elected for the Pope to be Pope, therefore he must be Pope!
You are discuss mainly the Sedevacantist, what about the SPPX group? Neither obeys the Pope so both must be in schism.
They are heretics because they accept a "pope" but reject his magisterium.
Sounds simple. But we need to define the magisterium rejected and define infallibility with regards to it. Then define 'the visible Church of Christ', then, explain jurisdiction, the grace that comes with this authority and upon whom it can be bestowed. Christ established a hierarchy for a reason. We are the sheep. As one faithful priest said, being called 'sheep' wasn't a compliment. People are stupid and easily misled. Vatican II isn't happening in the vacuum of some small Protestant sect, but on the world wide visible stage and it is an open visible battle between Tradition and heresy. Whatever the legitimacy of the arguments regarding the theories over 'sedevacantism', the Sedevacantist Movement is establishing a little protestant Church where alone one can find salvation. The Movement teaches that receiving sacraments from anyone but them (based on their non-una-cum 'dogma') is a mortal sin. Yet most recognise the visible Roman Catholic Church there for all to see, as 'legal'. Archbishop Lefebvre was a legitimate and faithful Prince of the Church and was prudent enough not to pontificate and condemn folks suffering the wounds of the Novus Ordo to hell. Those who love the Novus Ordo, it is those folks we need to pray for especially hard. And the 'hierarchy' of the Sedevacantist Movement. They have strong Catholic morals, the Church could use them. Kyrie eleison.
Sonia Martin You’re thinking of the monks from MHFM. Also Sedevacantism is a true proposition, not a movement.
How does the Catholic Church's laity decided if Christ has judge the Pope a heretic?
+DonswatchingtheTube You should check out the documentary "Pope Michael" on TH-cam for a good laugh.
Listen to the lecture. Hint: the laity don't get to decide that. So relax :)
+PapalSoldier oh look another one that can't listen to reason yet comments anyways. Protestant
That's correct the laity does not get to decide, the Popes and The Magisterium have clearly defined things for us....this heretic and 32nd degree Freemason John Salza lies at the very first moment in describing what Sedevacantism is- but that is to be expected he lies many many times over; he's just like the master he serves. The very concept that Popes are infallible and that the gates of hell cannot prevail over the Church proves the correct position- these heretics cannot be popes because if they were then the gates of hell have prevailed. You lying baboons keep testafying falsely, no sedevacantist decides for themselves whether anyone is a heretic, the proof is in the pudding. But judgement is right around the corner; you'll see Rome destroyed for its spiritual atrocities and even then you will not repent as it is written! But I pray you do.
Sensus Fidelium Do the laity then sit quietly without means of accessing it earthy leaders?
I'd judge all ministers and preachers by reading the Scriptures. I'd expect them to be able to decide if someone has departed at least docrinally from their faith. Having the authority to excommunicate a person is, or could be another level.
Gracias por las aclaraciones. Thanks.
If you can't lead Gods people the way God intended and follow his ways, you are not fit to represent anything.
St. Paul say it himself. If I come back and teach a different Gospel ...... .. This is a no drainer....... frank is not pope. hes just a dope. and salsa is takin a lot of non thinkers to hell with him.
Heresy
what happened to this book? i cant find it anywhere
Was throughly debunked by Most Holy Family Monastery
Sedevacante is just a sect for me! End of discussion! They are in the right in a great part but make the error to judge when you can't judge! Just THE LORD can judge his church and deposed the pope!
Fr. Anthony Cekada has debunked this book in spades!
He is a Sedevacantist "priest" so no thanks .
basically a Protestant.......
@William. Fr Cekada has been 'debunked in spades' by plain Catholic Doctrine. Either Father is a deeply confused priest or a deeply deceitful one. Either way, Our Lady of Sorrows, pray for Fr. Cekada and his confreres in grave error. Kyrie eleison.
but Jesus promised us THE GATES OF HELL WILL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST. I DONT UNDERSTAND WHY GOD CANT JUST CHASTISE THESE HERETICS SOMEHOW.
Sheri For 2 Thessalonian 2:10-12
Sheri For- True, the gates of hell have not nor will ever prevail against 'Christ Jesus, the Son of the Living God'. These men who corrupt the church are mortal...Christ Jesus is eternal.
It is true sedevacantism is not of the church. Nor is any pontiff who would totally dismantle the liturgy like John XXIII and his five successors. On the permanence of the primacy of Blessed Peter in the Roman Pontiff: "Therefore if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord Himself (that is to say by divine law) that Blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of Blessed Peter in his primacy: Let him be anathema".
The Vatican Council, Fourth Session First Dogmatic Constitution on The Church of Christ 2,5 On the Permanence of the Primacy of Blessed Peter in the Roman Pontiff- July 18, 1870.
But in the conclave of 1958 very strange things happened. Giuseppe Cardinal Siri was elected Pope on the first and I think second ballot. He even took the name Gregory XVII. The white smoke was coming out of The Sistine Chapel for a full five minutes, but no Pope appeared on the balcony. Even though he was never allowed to exercise his Papacy HE IS THE TRUE POPE. The Antichurch (masonry) took over the governing of the Vatican that very evening.
If you think the notion of a true Pope (Siri, Gregory XVII) and a false Pope (Roncalli John XXIII) is crazy it happened in the past many times. Out of the 260 or so Popes in the history of the Church 1in 7 have been false popes. But along with the false Pope there was the truly elected Pontiff. You don't belive me? Well right here on TH-cam there is a video entitled "Papal Imposters" ThePopeinRed.com is an excellent website with loads of information on The Siri Thesis.
This poorly-written book was already refuted by the Dimond brothers
These apostates couldn't care less. They have their pretty buildings and robes.
John Paul II CANNOT be called a false pope.
But we CAN believe he is not all he is inflated to be.
That Koran kisser? No true pope would do that
@@charlesburns3946 Yah sorry, but that action while wrong doesn't invalidate him.
@@a-aronander-son5861 wrong
So many sedevacantist tears.
Here's the thing. The Bible says in 1 Corinthians 5:11 that we must have nothing to do with a variety of immoral people who call themselves Christians. That includes the Pope. Therefore I currently don't do Catholic Church. I follow Jesus. He is not corrupt. When the church gets cleaned out I will be back.
Six reasons why The Whore of Babylon in the Book of Revelation (Apocalypse) is the Roman Catholic Church:
1.Support of millions
2. Inhabitants of earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication
3. Woman arrayed in purple and gold
4. A golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication
5. Wealthy
6. Woman drunken with the blood of the saints (true believers) and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.
"The doctrines of the Catholic Church are entirely independent of Holy Scripture." - Father Michael Muller, Familiar Explanation of Catholic doctrine, page 151.
Kyrie eleison. The Martyrs were faithful Catholics. In the times of the early Church the Roman Empire did not put to death people who called themselves Christians. It put to death the Christians who worshipped at the Holy Eucharist. When the Emperor Constantine ended the persecution of Christians, that meant the Catholic Church, her Pope and the Bishops, which is the Church of the sacraments - the Church of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The Nicene Creed was established during this era to root out Arianism. This didn't happen in a world that had the 'New Testament' yet. There were books still disputed throughout the 4th century - the final book to become a part of the canon was the Apocalypse of St John. Done entirely within the Holy Roman Catholic Church. PS. On pg 151 of 'Explanation of Christian Doctrine' ( archive.org/details/familiarexplana00mlgoog/page/n174 ) Fr Muller's catechism says no such thing. Catholic Doctrine stems, first from Tradition (Christ and His Apostles and Old the Testament), then as handed on teachings were written down, the 'New Testament' began to be collated - all rejecting error through the guidance of the Holy Ghost - a grace bestowed upon those with proper Apostolic Authority in the Church. Heresy arises when that grace is rejected. However, only those with apostolic authority within the hierarchy of the Catholic Church are given such a grace in the first place. To reject the Catholic Church is to reject the means by which Christ Himself willed the revelation of the salvation of souls the means by which this is to be given to the world.