Notes: 1: I meant to say Priests, not Bishops at 38:40 2: The words I said at 1:42:28 were "did and believed things." But it sounded like I said "didn't believe things," which would substantially change the point I was making.

🇻🇦THERE'S ONLY 1 HOLY CATHOLIC & APOSTOLIC CHURCH🇻🇦

I just want you to know that I'm probably going to spam this video at all the Sedes that show up on CoT. -Kyle

Brace yourself, Peter Dimond is probably going to make a 10 hour rebuttal to this video lol

BABE WAKE UP, NEW GEN Z CATHOLIC VIDEO JUST DROPPED!

Found your channel yesterday. Excited to dig into this video. Deus Vult 🇻🇦

As a former Sedevacantist, i thank you for this!! God bless

Almost became a Sede and I went searching for answers and I was told the answers. Gloria!

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:10 🕊️ *Overview of Church Issues* - Faithful Catholics facing problems in the Church. - Issues include idolatrous practices, divergent preaching by priests, and chaos in the Liturgy. 01:04 🚫 *Sedevacantism Proposition* - Sedevacantism posits the last six popes as anti-popes. - Concept suggests the current Catholic Church is false, and the true Church is with sedevacantists. 03:02 🌐 *Church Councils* - Definition of a Church Council as ecclesiastical assemblies to discuss church doctrine. - Overview of historical church councils, including ecumenical councils. 04:41 📜 *Vatican 2 Overview* - Brief description of Vatican 2, emphasizing its different approach from previous councils. - Mention of Vatican 2 documents covering various topics like religious liberty, ecumenism, and liturgy. 05:50 🎭 *LIturgical Abuses Post Vatican 2* - Instances of liturgical abuses post-Vatican 2, including changes in the Mass. - Description of unconventional practices like clown masses and destruction of traditional church elements. 11:11 ⛪ *Archbishop Tuk and Political Turmoil* - Introduction to Archbishop Tuk, his role in Vatican 2, and the political turmoil in Vietnam. - Tuk's struggles to return home, leading to frustration and isolation. 13:34 🔮 *Palmarian Church's Unfolding* - Archbishop Tuk's decision to follow the Virgin Mary's request in Spain, leading to the Palmarian Church. 15:12 🌐 *Spread of Sedevacantism in Mexico* - Archbishop Tuk's illicit consecrations and the spread of sedevacantism in Mexico. 17:05 🤝 *Formation of CMRI* - Formation of the CMRI by Francis Schukart and Dennis Shakin after being expelled from the Blue Army. 18:58 🕵️ *Bishop Shar's Legal Issues and Group Practices* - Bishop Shar faced legal issues, with police involvement and theft accusations. 21:07 🧐 *Bishop Shar's Claim of Papacy and CMRI Takeover* - Controversy around Shar claiming to be the Pope; conflicting statements exist. 23:30 💔 *CMRI Schools' Extreme Disciplinary Actions* - CMRI schools faced allegations of extreme and abusive disciplinary actions. 25:39 🌐 *SSPV and Formation of Sedevacantist Groups* - SSPV's split from SSPX, consecrations without Vatican approval in 1988. 27:06 🎙️ *Set of Aism's Mainstream Impact and Debate* - Set of Aism gains mainstream attention through the internet and debates. 29:25 🤔 *Key Sedevacantist Claims: Anti-Popes, Vatican 2, Invalid Ordinations* - Sedevacantism encompasses three main ideas: Vatican 2 popes as anti-popes, invalidity of Vatican 2, and invalid ordinations. 30:36 📚 *Sedevacantist Argument: Anti-Popes and Heresy* - Totalists claim Vatican 2 popes are not true popes due to heresy. 33:36 🤝 *Sedevacantist Argument: SED Privationism* - SED privationism argues Vatican 2 popes hold the papacy materially but lack the proper intention. 36:08 📜 *Sedevacantist Critique of Vatican 2 Documents* - Sedevacantists criticize Vatican 2 documents for perceived contradictions with traditional Catholic teachings. 36:50 🌐 *Ecclesiology and Vatican II* - Vatican II's passage raises concerns about the identification of the Church with the Catholic Church. 38:09 🕊️ *Sedevacantist views on Priestly Ordination and Episcopal Consecration* - Sedevacantists argue that the new rites of Priestly ordination and Episcopal consecration after Vatican II are invalid. 39:34 🔄 *Inconsistencies in Sedevacantist Methodology* - Sedevacantists are criticized for inconsistency and contradictions in their methodology. 41:24 🤔 *St. Robert Bellarmine's Views on a Heretical Pope* - St. Robert Bellarmine's five opinions on a heretical pope are presented. 43:03 🏛️ *Heresy, Notoriety, and Judgment* - Discussion on heresy, notorious heresy, and the distinction between notorious in law and notorious in fact. 51:23 🔄 *Sede Vacante's Shifting Positions* - Highlighting the inconsistency in Sedevacantists' views on the validity of post-conciliar popes' elections. 54:48 🚩 *Reception of the Beatific Vision and Implications* - Reception of the beatific Vision not dogmatically defined. 55:31 🌐 *Sedevacantism's Universal Acid and Historical Popes* - Sedevacantism as a universal acid affecting the entire papacy. 56:52 🤯 *Sedevacantists' Obsession with Heresy* - Sedevacantists' frequent accusation of heresy against popes. 57:33 📜 *Sedevacantists' Reading of Church Documents* - Examination of Sedevacantists' interpretation of Church documents. 01:00:45 🕊️ *Sedevacantists' View on Loss of Office - Sediprivationism* - Sediprivationism: Vatican 2 popes hold office materially but not formally. 01:03:16 🛑 *Sedevacantists' Belief in Vatican 2 as a False Council* - Sedevacantists' claim that Vatican 2 is a false council. 01:05:21 🕵️ *Cardinal Siri Thesis and Ecclesiological Considerations* - Examination of the Cardinal Siri Thesis and its weaknesses. 01:08:37 🔄 *Alleged Contradictions in Vatican 2* - Addressing the challenge of reconciling apparent contradictions in Church teachings. 01:10:13 💬 *Unitatis Redintegratio: Vatican 2's Decree on Ecumenism* - Clarification of Vatican 2's call for ecumenism and the goal of unity. 01:12:03 🕊️ *Vatican 2's Decree on Religious Liberty* - Church doctrine can be applied differently in changing historical contexts. 01:15:01 📜 *Understanding Religious Freedom* - Religious freedom condemned in the Syllabus of Errors differs from that in Dignitatis Humanae. 01:17:44 🌐 *Religious Liberty in Catholic Social Teaching* - Religious tolerance has roots in pre-Vatican 2 Catholic social teachings. 01:18:24 🔍 *Sedevacantist Critique of Lumen Gentium* - Sedevacantist objection to "subsists in" misinterprets Vatican 2's statement. 01:20:32 🤝 *Catholics and Muslims Worship* - Vatican 2's statement on Muslims professing the faith of Abraham is misunderstood. 01:22:38 🕊️ *Validity of New Rites of Priestly Ordination* - Sedevacantist claim of invalidity based on sacrificial nature omission is refuted. 01:25:54 ⛪ *Validity of New Rite of Episcopal Consecration* - Sedevacantist objection to the phrase "governing spirit" lacks foundation. 01:27:44 ❌ *Sedevacantism as an Untenable Position* - Sedevacantism is deemed an unsustainable position from its inception. 01:29:44 📜 *Vatican 1 Dogma on Perpetual Successors* - Vatican 1 dogmatically declared the papacy would have Perpetual successors. 01:31:09 🕰️ *Time Limits on Interregnum* - Vatican 1 doesn't specify a time limit for papal interregnum. 01:33:58 🤔 *Analogy of Perpetual Successors* - Analogizing the need for the Church to be ordered toward electing a new pope after each pontiff's death. 01:36:36 📖 *Biblical Predictions and Perpetual Successors* - Analyzing the argument that a 500-year vacancy in King David's Throne justifies a multiple-decade gap in papacy. 01:38:57 🌐 *Challenges to Future Papal Elections* - Sedevacantists face challenges in predicting how the Church would elect a future pope. 01:41:44 ⚖️ *Sede Vacante: Individual Rule of Faith* - Critique of sedevacantism as placing the individual's judgment above the Church. 01:45:27 🤔 *Exploring Ecclesiological Possibilities* - Consideration of the possibility that an anti-church has operated since the 1500s. 01:47:07 🧠 *Intellectual Litmus Test for Salvation* - Critique of the intellectual challenges presented by sedevacantist ecclesiology. 01:48:17 🌐 *Divisions Within Sedevacantism* - Observation of divisions and disagreements among sedevacantists. 01:49:11 🤝 *Magisterium's Active Function* - Discussion on the historical role of the magisterium in resolving questions. 01:51:45 ⛪ *Authority and Debates Within Sedevacantism* - Examination of the lack of authority to resolve debates within sedevacantism. 01:54:19 📚 *Private Judgment vs. Living Teaching Authority* - Critique of sedevacantists relying on private judgment and historical documents. 01:56:24 🚫 *Contradictions in Sedevacantist Claims* - Criticism of sedevacantists contradicting pre-conciliar authorities on the Church's eternal teaching authority. 01:57:48 ❌ *Sedevacantism Leading to Schism and Heresy* - Definition and application of schism and heresy to sedevacantism. 02:01:59 🧠 *Sedevacantism and Intellectual Pride* 02:02:41 😠 *Sedevacantism and Anger* - Sedevacantism often leads to anger, evident in interactions when their arguments are challenged. 02:02:55 😰 *Sedevacantism and Despair* - Sedevacantism can lead to despair due to the belief in the invalidity of most sacraments. 02:03:53 🤔 *Sedevacantism: A Protestant-like Alternative* - Sedevacantism, in practice, resembles Protestantism dressed in Catholic attire. 02:05:00 🌧️ *The Church in a Drought of Grace* - The speaker expresses a personal theory about a perceived drought of God's grace in the world. 02:06:38 🙏 *Trust in the Church AmidUncertainty* - Advocates humility and acknowledges the lack of a clear explanation for the Church's current state. 02:07:47 ⛪ *Call for Unity: Come Back to the Church* - Urges various sedevacantist groups and individuals to return to the Catholic Church. Made with HARPA AI

This was so well made. Congrats! 🎉

They’re gonna call you “Gen Z *quote* Catholic.”

My only recommendation would be to next time include parts for the video so we know which segments are dedicated to certain topics. Overall it was a good video. Congratulations on the baby and God Bless.

This is such an impressive video. Every Catholic needs to watch this. You need to be on Pints with aquinas.

This is a certified Catholic classic

There is a bit of a problem with the claims surrounding the expulsion of the 9 from the SSPX. The issues that they disagreed with Lefebvre with were not minor. They had to do with recognition of Novus Ordo marriage annulments, which were not authorized by Vatican II itself. The massive change in granting annulments with the possibility of remarriage led to doubtful second marriages. Lefebvre insisted that the priests accept these annulments. There was also a liturgical problem brought up by Bp. Dolan, but it wasn't over the 1962 missal. It was over a modified liturgy not authorized by Rome, and specific to the SSPX, which was an example of Abp. Lefebvre usurping Rome's authority by promulgating his own liturgical reforms. Abp. Lefebvre was also going back and forth on his stance concerning the validity of the 1968 rites. The schismatic position of the SSPX in those days posed a problem brought forth by the 9 priests in their letter to Lefebvre, and their interview 30 years later with Stephen Heiner. Things continued in the SSPX under Bp. Fellay, causing Fr. Neville to write a similar letter to him, objecting to the schismatic stance he took. This information is easily obtained.

In the beginning of my recent journey to catholicism i fell into sedevacantism but now i can see things clearly, the Holy Spirit will never abandon or fail to assist the church, may God have mercy on all of us and protect us from evil.

We've been waiting on this one! Let's go!

1:21:29 "Vatican 2 never teaches that God is pleased by or accepts muslim worship" Even though it says here: Vatican II, Nostra aetate 3:The Church also looks upon Muslims with respect. They worship the one God living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to humanity and to whose decrees, even the hidden ones, they seek to submit themselves wholeheartedly, just as Abraham, to whom the Islamic faith readily relates itself, submitted to God… Hence they have regard for the moral life and worship God in prayer, almsgiving and fasting.” This is a supposed infallible statement by Vatican II that teaches that the true Church of Christ esteems and respects a non-Catholic religion. It also teaches that the God of the Muslims is the 'Creator of heaven and earth.' even though, this is complete heresy, as the Trinity is the Creator of heaven and earth, not Allah.

That's for sure one of the most important apologetical video ever made! I'm impressed with the amount of information you were able to put on it! I'm from Brazil, and Sedevacantism is constantly growing here,, therefore I would like to ask you if is it possible for you to share the script of the video (if you still have it), so that I could work on a translation to add subtitles to it! It would be beneficial to the faith of many people due to the quality of the video! God Bless you!

Expect a Vatican catholic expose video on you soon

As a former evangelical who is in the process of converting to Catholicism, I almost fell prey to sedevacantism. Thank you for clearing things up

I appreciate learning of the history of sedevacantism, but some of the arguments made, especially the ones on Vatican II, are plainly sophistry. The modernist heretics admitted what they did in Vatican II, which is to use ambiguous language that may be interpreted in an orthodox way, but would allow them to interpret it in a heterodox way, which they preferred and meant to do. Reiterating the strained interpretations to make the council sound orthodox, which Pope Benedict called the “hermeneutic of continuity” and was pretty much trash canned by Bergoglio, glosses over the problems. In any case, if people can twist and stretch the meanings of words to make what is written in the documents sound orthodox, the question must be, why did they not just write the documents in a clearly orthodox way that did not require a straining of words to explain? Especially when violating the syllabus of errors, which, by the way, I believe Paul VI dispensed with along with the oath against modernism. One thing is for certain; the popes prior to the council were obsessed with a battle against modernism, which Pope St. Pius X called the “synthesis of all heresies.” After the council, the oath against modernism was abandoned. Did the Church surrender to modernism at Vatican II? What has happened since Vatican II? Why did Pope Paul VI say that the “smoke of Satan” had entered the church through some crack? Was that crack the Vatican II council he oversaw? Was he delusional, and everything was really fine in the Church? It is true that all of the popes since the council have been modernists in their thinking, and modernism is a heresy. This sad situation culminated in a heretical view of the Papacy by Benedict which likely rendered his resignation invalid, making the conclave electing Bergoglio invalid, which explains how an idol-worshipping apostate may sit in the chair of Peter spouting all manner of heresies, which was not thought to be possible for a valid pope, and may not be, if Bergoglio is not a valid pope. And the faithful, wishing to avoid schism, must now turn the world and reason on its head to make heresy sound orthodox. Haven’t we had enough of standing on our heads, squinting and closing one eye to make what the clown pope says line up with the eternal truths of the Church? I have. The most freeing thing I have done is reconcile myself with the fact that the problem is we don’t currently have a valid pope and something went terribly wrong at Vatican II. I am not a traditional sedevacantist, but Bergoglio certainly isn’t pope, and all the popes since the council certainly have made a mess of things, except maybe the guy who only lasted 33 days and was likely poisoned. He didn’t have time to make too bad a mess. If you want to be serious about looking into the troubles of the Church, look into Pascendi Domenici Gregis, and ask, “was Pius X wrong to be so worked up about this modernism thing? Or has the church seriously gone off the rails since John XXIII called his “Pastoral Council,” that addressed no issues of dogma, pronounced no anathemas, and seems to have no purpose other than to surrender to modernism. And then, you may look into the Freemason Bugnini and his “Novus Ordo Missae.” There are very good reasons why formerly faithful Catholics grasp at the straws of sedevacantism to explain the disasters befalling the one, holy, Catholic, apostolic Church. Is it still one? Holy? Catholic?

Sedevacantists have already refuted the claims in videos like this. As far as Roman Catholicism goes, all the evidence supports the Sedevacantist position; but God has handed the critics over to a spiritual blindness and delusion.

Sometines I get why the inquisition started. These people harm the Holy catholic church.

Christ is with us

First: God bless you, Gen Z Catholic! My english is not the best so, i apologize for any mistakes. Second: Thank you for this video, i was struggling with my faith recently and was considering converting to Eastern Orthodoxy because of the whole Papacy thing. Your video (among other things) helped me realize that our Holy Church is truly Una, Sancta, Catholica et Apostolica! Awesome video, very well produced with great arguments defending the tradition of our Holy Church and the Papacy, the role of the successors of Saint Peter! God bless you, i will pray for you!

Okay we are so back 😎

The problem with these videos, although good intentioned, do nothing to address any real conflicts. All you are going to do is alienate people that have major beefs with how the Catholic Church has presented itself since Vatican 2. Even when you go to a traditional Catholic site or channel, that are “in communion,” you will see lists and lists of arguments against Vatican 2. I watched an entire 2 hr video from a well-known channel, that went over the entire TLM compared to the Novus Ordo. No one can argue that critical parts of the TLM were essentially ripped out. There’s a real problem with this. People have a right to question these radical changes. The laity is not the fault here; the leadership in the Church is. When you go from the 1945 TLM to a clown mass, people are going to want to know what the heck happened. Then you go from clown masses to Traditionis custodes and Fiducia supplicans, you can clearly see that some folks will not accept that. When you have a Church that operates pretty much the same way for 1500 years, how do you get Fiducia supplicans out of that? God didn’t somehow tell humanity one thing in 1224, then in 2024 tell them something different. It’s not logical. We’ve gotten to a point where, depending on your point of view, everyone else is schismatic. How is that productive? Sedevacantists didn’t create V2; they are a result of poor leadership in the Church. They are a result of ideas that are accepted now that were never accepted prior to V2. These ideas are getting more radical, not less. So how can you fault a Sedevacantist for wanting to retain original Catholic beliefs? The Novus Ordo Church is a different belief system than the pre-V2 Church. I don’t think anyone can legitimately argue that. Now the author here states that the actual documentation of V2 doesn’t specifically authorize many of the things that the Novus Ordo parishes do, such as Mass using vernacular as an example, but in practical terms, it’s a different religion. There was no Ecumenism. Pope Pius X warned about Modernism and what it would do to the Church. V2 is the result. So don’t get mad at a Sedevacantist. If you want someone to blame, blame the faulty Church leadership. They are the root cause of the division. And if you keep the mission of the destruction of the TLM, you’re just going to alienate more faithful. Anyone who is going to a diocesan parish with the TLM and expecting that to not be banned at some point, is delusional. The walls are closing in. So it’s the Church leadership that will force people into the SSPX, SSPV, or even the CMRI. Eventually, even the SSPX will come under attack. They will have to make a decision at some point. These groups aren’t the ones creating division. Stop blaming the symptoms and start blaming the root causes of the problems. I want to express here that I say all of these things with good intentions and charity to my fellow man. God Bless you all! Ave Maria!

The reliance on Salza's redefinition of occult vs. public heresy and his definition of notoriety is problematic due to Mystici Corporis and the post-Vatican I canonists. It's not because of Torquemada. This was why Salza had previously attempted to differentiate between the sin of heresy and the crime of heresy, claiming that only the canonical crime was what caused the tacit resignation or loss of office under Canon 188.4. Pope Pius XII closed that door in 1943 by confirming what Pope St. Celestine and St. Jerome explained on this issue. It's not dishonest of sedevacantists to cite De Romano Pontificae, even if we believe that no claimant to the papacy lost his Pontificate. This is largely because the arguments brought forth by St. Robert Bellarmine from the Magisterium of Pope St. Celestine and Pope Nicholas regarding a heretical Bishop and Patriarch. If a cleric became a heretic and separated himself from the body of the church in doing so, he would be ineligible for elevation to the episcopacy in the church or election to the papacy due to the same divine law principle enshrined in Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio. To claim that Canon 188.4 abrogated Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio when it references it as its source if doctrine, and to say that a Bull using the Ex Cathedra formula on a matter of faith (i.e. heresy and non-Catholics governing the church) is merely disciplinary, isn't really a fair claim either. Certain disciplinary portions of the bull have certainly fallen out of force through the Cessation of Law principle and abrogation outside of Canon 6.6, but it is mainly the sedeprivationists who claim that it has been abrogated as a merely disciplinary bull. I don't think it was fair to claim that this was dishonest of sedevacantists. As an interesting note, there is one sedevacantist order which believes that the chair became vacant through loss of office. It's the Byzantine Catholic Patriarchate.

By the By, but minute 1 you're already incorrect. SedeVacantism is not a SOLUTION to the problem, but an EXPLANATION to the problem. OH MY, I'm sending this video to a friend. You're completely wrong in the NINE minute mark. You have NEVER read Vatican 2! 😂😂😂

Great job on the vid. you got a good knack for it.

Ain't watched this yet, but that intro already got me hooked

Do you agree it’s sinful to pray with non Catholics in the interreligious prayer?

Can you show us a text of the infaillible magisterium of the Church (before Vatican II) that says that Muslims worship the one true God? Can you show us a text of the infaillible magisterium of the Church (before Vatican II) that says that we should esteem the indigenous mysticism? Can you show us a text of the infaillible magisterium of the Church (before Vatican II) that says that professes religious liberty? We, as individuals, do not decide whether the Vatican II popes are valid ones, it is the Church that professes that the Pope cannot err in matters of faith and morals in his Magisterium. The Church condemns Vatican II and its popes, not “sedevacantists”. "To Peter the Prince of the Apostles, the divine Founder of the Church attributed the gifts of inerrancy in matters of faith and union with God." (Principi Apostorum Petro, Benedict XV) "For the sake of faith and the rule of morals, God has made the Church part of His divine Magisterium and has granted her the divine privilege of not knowing error. This is why she is the great and sure teacher of men, and has an inviolable right to freedom of teaching. (Libertas Praestantissimum, Leo XIII) "It is for this reason that, by the virtue of His prayers, Jesus Christ Our Lord obtained for Peter that, in the exercise of his power, his faith should never fail" (Satis Cognitum, Leo XIII). And a few quotes from saints: Saint Alphonsus de Liguori (The Supreme Pontificate): "Those who introduce plague and ruin into the Church, who deny that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Peter as regards authority in matters of faith and doctrine, or who affirm that the supreme Pastor of the Church, whoever he may be, can err in his judgments on matters of faith." Saint Robert Bellarmine (De Romano Pontifice, chapter 3): "The Supreme Pontiff cannot err in any way when he teaches the Church in matters of faith." Saint John Bosco (The General Councils and the Catholic Church): "It is therefore impossible for the Pope in matters of Faith to teach error, for it is impossible for Jesus Christ to lie, or to be unable to keep His promises." If we were schismatics, Bergoglio would happily invite us in Rome to celebrate Holy Mass, as he recently did with the Anglicans that have invalid Holy Orders. Vatican II popes never had the authority to rule the Church because they lacked the objective intention to be the Pope of the Catholic Church (as we can see in the heresies they spread and impose on the Universal Church).

Dude. Well done. I flirted with SVism for years, but (for reasons I couldnt articulate) never jumped ship. This led me to diving deep into SVism media and history. In the end, Sedes were the best apologists for refuting their own position. This movie takes into account all of the history, theology, nuances, and conclusions which shows the false nature of SVism. Congrats man. This was great.

This video is refuting the Catholic Church and the state in which she is at present.

Finally, a video essay I can get behind

Oh yeah, you would. Three questions: Can a heretic be an infallible pope? Can ecumenical councils teach heresies? Can Magisterium be contradictory to itself? If not, which is the right answer, then the case of sedevacantism practically solves itself. No need for over two hours to defend a lost position.

The Internet is to our time what the printing press was in Luther's time...

You know if you stack all the numerous Novus Ordo abuses such as the child abuse scandal against the Sedevacantist scandals you'd probably have to make a 10 part documentary and that probably wouldn't really cover how rotten the concilliar church really is. It's also ironic since in that case you'll just say 'well that just happens' but with the sedevacantist you offer an explanation saying 'that just goes to show how unstable they are'.

Sir please make a video on this new document controversy issue. Many people are saying this is very bad while others say it is fine. I am worried. Would appreciate your take. Thank you merry Christmas

The KZfaq apologist Trent makes a curious mistake stating that if there were gaps in the chain of popes, that would affect the Churchs "Apostolic Succession''. NOT TRUE. Apistolic succession is handed down by all validly consecrated episcopal successors of all of Christs Apostles, of all validly consecrated Bishops. Thus, a gap of time in the succession of the Roman Pontiffs affects nothing at all. Apostolic succession regards the sacrament of holy orders!

Brother Peter Diamond is currently malding creating a response video

Who's here before this video is magisterial

This is my first video since discovering the channel

We’ve been waiting for this!!! Hoorah

Not sede here. But your argumentation is flawed, almost every second argument is flawed. It's good that you started that discusion but... your video will be used by them. To show you the most obvious ones - you call out that most sedes feel like it's not their job to seek election of new pope (which i find logical most of them are not even italians and non of them is a cardinal - so ordinarly one who can elect) and yet those who did try you laugh off as pretenders and larpers (which i dont say they arent). One cannot hold to both of those condemnations at same time

I disliked it before watching it. By submitting to the Vatican II sect you refuse to profess the dogma that the Catholic Church alone is the one true Church of Christ.

It took me quite a while to watch this. Thank you for making it. It cleared up a lot of confusion for me and outlined the path I should be on. Please pray for me that God removes the obstacles on my path, because I am beginning to feel like I'm simply not enough to do this on my own.

It’s very interesting that many of the V2 defenders attend either Latin Mass or Eastern Rite parishes. It’s interesting that when given an option they choose something other than the Novus Ordo. I wonder why

Great video i must say, very high quality. You can see you put a lot of work into it, and it payed of, the video is AWESOME! God bless you and your family!✝️🇻🇦

Your video on the trad cath iceberg introduced me to Peter Dimond, which made me a staunch sedevecantist in the first place. Now this video very well end up making me reject the position. Whether the Seat is vacant or not, thank you very much.

I'm only 25 minutes into this (and I do plan to continue, since the historical information is very interesting), but so far I haven't heard a single thing that would constitute a refutation of sedevacantism. Edit: OK, I just finished. Despite the occasional straw-man argument, for the most part it was rather good. I've been convinced of the sedevacantist position for about 10 years, but I found several things here that are worth considering. I plan to watch again sometime soon and take notes. All I care about is the truth, and I hope that I'm not one of those people who are so long invested in something that they are unwilling to admit they were wrong. I hope I'm that rare specimen of the humble, non-angry sedevacantist. One place that I noticed something that was either weak or unfair: the false choice between true or false on the "subsists" issue. If it said "exclusively subsists" it would be totally fine. You put forth a false dilemma. But like I said, although I could nitpick all day, for the most part its rather good. Better than expected

Very interesting video, taught me a lot about Sedevacantism and Church Law. May God bless you for your high-quality work!

I would like to hear your take on Francis allowing for the blessing on 🌈 couples now. Why hasn’t the Church allowed this for 2,000 years before Francis said it’s ok to do??? Francis claims he is following the 2nd Vatican Council. Is he wrong in this regard???

After watching this video my ears almost started to bleed. Partially because of the nonsense spoken of in this video and partially because of the obnoxious corporate music. However I feel eager to adress your argument around intellectuality and "pride" of Sedevacantism and how God wouldn't let less intelligent people go to hell for being less intelligent. You see, you could make this argument an argument for justifying not converting to Catholicism from any sect. For example, a Protestant may not have the time to go through the early Church fathers to conclude that Catholicism is correct, but that doesn't excuse him to not join the Catholic Church or make a Protestant prideful and not respecting of his community if he abandons Protestantism and becomes a Catholic for any intellectual reason he might hold. Also, I don't hold that you can't be saved if you're not a sedevacantist, because you need to be a Catholic to be saved not necessarily sedevacantist. However, I believe that that's only possible under very special circumstances, since the person would have to follow traditional Catholic teaching and morals, which is very hard to do when surrounded with heretics. Btw you greatly misunderstand sedevacantism in this video, and think that it is it's own church and it's own religion, when no serious sede thinks that. Sedes believe that sedevacantism is an explanation of the state of the Catholic Church, and that she is the true Church.

(1/2) This is an evil video, full of sophistry, dishonesty and relativizations typical of modernism. Perhaps the author believes he did it with good intentions, but this is not from God. I will refute the points that seem relevant to me in this regard, and I apologize if I make spelling mistakes, I am not fluent in English. -Catholic doctrine teaches that the Pope cannot be a heretic, without exception, as follows from Luke 22:32: "But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” If the Vatican II "Popes" teach the heresy of modernism they demonstrate that they were never Popes in the first place. Pope Gregory XVI in his encyclical Quo Graviora: >"The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth - all of which truth is taught by the Holy Spirit. Should the church be able to order, yield to, or permit those things which tend toward the destruction of souls and the disgrace and detriment of the sacrament instituted by Christ?" -The Church demands full obedience, not only with regard to ex cathedra declarations, but also with regard to the ordinary magisterium, which would imply that all the faithful of the post-conciliar Church should in fact fully accept heretical modernism -but the true Church cannot teach error-. As Pope Pius IX teaches in Quanta Cura: >"Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that “without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church’s general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals.” But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church." -The bull "Cum ex Apostolatus Officio" was solemnly declared and is in fact a source cited in the Code of Canon Law of 1917 (188.4). Trying to discredit her for being "disciplinary" is absurd. That it is divine law is obvious, because it simply states that a manifest heretic does not belong to the Church and even less can he represent it. -You falsify the sedevacantist position regarding Robert Bellarmine on the question of the "heretic Pope", maintaining that the sedevacantists actually defend the thesis according to which occult heresy would depose the Pope from his function, because they could not demonstrate that the post-conciliar "Popes" are formal heretics and would simply be assuming it. But the confusion is that it is assumed that public heresy necessarily implies deliberation or formality of the act, and this contradicts the Canon of 1917 which maintains that it is enough for the heresy to be "public" for the charge to be annulled (188.4) without making any distinction between materiality or formality. "De Ecclesia Militante" in your quote expresses the same point, referring to the one who "publicly separates himself from the Church" ipso facto loses his position. That is, even if it were assumed that the post-conciliar "Popes" were legitimately elected, even then they could not sustain themselves in office. -The case of Pope John XXII is a complete fallacy, because his position on the beatific vision was a simple private opinion that he was explicitly willing to correct if it was wrong, it was never taught as a truth of faith, and it happened in a context where there was no official position on the matter. Those who accused him of being a heretic were an excommunicated group called "the spirituals", who wanted to depose the Pope for political reasons (see: www.newadvent.org/cathen/08431a.htm). Neither John XXII nor any legitimate Pope have ever been heretics as are the post-conciliar antipopes, who publicly show themselves as apostates, participating in false cults and teaching modernism already condemned by the Church. This is not mere "scandals", it is heresy and if you are not able to see it you are blind to the truth.

About 45 minutes in only (33% of the content) there is any sign whatsoever that this video attempts to begin to refute and address the sedevacantist thesis status quaestionis-wise, responding to them. I will try and watch the rest, but I don't like the chances it will address anything meaningfully; one of the signs being how long it took to actually get to work, a whopping 45 minutes in. This is how seemingly unwilling to address the matter from the start and lead with it the video is. I am about the 48 minutes mark and the video author is trying to argue the Vatican II era papal claimants never made a manifest/notorious heretical profession. This is untrue: Francis, for example, when asked by a boy in a public setting if the boy's deceased atheist father made it to heaven, responded the atheist father went to heaven or was saved because he was allegedly a good person, and Francis firmly made the crowd around him hold to this position. This is explicilty and unequivocally contrary to Gregory XVI's Mirari Vos nº 13, and the ex cathedra Athanasian Creed quoted in Mirari Vos nº13 on this very issue. The video's author offered a total misleading response, and that is why, seemingly at least, it took 33% of the video to even get to his response. That a person sets himself up to play this kind of stunt is mind-boggling.

28:28 What instance in the debate did Dimond not have an answer for Cassmans questions?

Thanks be to God.

from Catholic Family Podcast: History of the CMRI: In Defense of Archbishop Thuc kzfaq.info/get/bejne/epycg6qWtpnDg2w.html

1:28:02 "modernist and liberals who refuse to follow the pope" the man you claim is the pope is a modernist himself who agrees with the Lutherans on justification, endorses the lgbt james Martin. 1:28:15 also here you make yet again another strawman. yes sedevacantists say due to manifest hersey Vatican 2 "popes" have lost their office so the chair is vacant but you make the mistake by making a nonsensical comparison of us to protestants and eastern schismatics by trying to assert they "refuse to acknowledge a pope". The protestants and others acknowledge the papcy and a pope, they just belive he doesnt have primacy or infallibility where as we sedevacantists do. Because we do we don't accept a man who teaches heresy as the infallible pope. The way you try to morph it like we dont accept the concept of the papacy or we think that this Francis is a pope and reject him anyways is amazing really. another terrible misrepresenting argument. Do better research on what we believe.

My faborite part was the St. Augustine homily at the end. Thank you and God bless. 🙏🕊️

Excellent vid. Just what I needed! God bless

John Salza was a Freemason btw. "Sede sympathisers" @ 57:18 smh ...I've noticed more hostility from some towards Sede's than full blown antiChristians. I'm an hour in, and it's very late where I am, so will continue on later as I'm open to hearing this to the end too when I have the time, I just want truth, which is why I'm fine with listening to Sedevacantist Catholics as well as other Catholics too regarding what's going on and what happened.

The main objection to Unitatis Redintegratio is that it teaches that Protestant heretics are "Christi Incorporantur" through their baptisms. St. Thomas Aquinas' teachings on insincerity (including heresy) being an impediment to the grace of baptism. In the same way, Pope Pius XII teaches in Mystici Corporis that "only those to be seen as members of the Church are those who have received the lavre of regeneration and profess the true faith." The Council of Florence defined the Body of Christ as the Church. Pope Leo XIII's Satis Cognitum shows that "The teaching of the church has always been the same. Those fathers were wont to hold as having no part of Catholic communion, and alien to the Church whoever would recede in even the least degree from one point of doctrine proposed by her authentic Magisterium." Heretics do not profess the true faith. They are also "alien to the body of Christ, which is the Church" according to Florence and Satis Cognitum. This refutes the claims of partial communion and the claim that baptized heretics are incorporated into Christ, or in the Body of Christ, as Trent Horn teaches. Ratzinger ultimately taught that Protestantism isn't heresy in light of Unitatis Redintegratio, but that it now falls into a new, undefined category. As for Muslims worshipping the same god that we do, and the analogy that Protestants and Catholics read the Bible, there is a distinguishing difference mentioned in Lumen Gentium. This is the point that this god is "mankind's judge on the last day." Mankind's judge on the last day was identified as Jesus Christ at the Council of Jerusalem, and by Pope St. Damasus I at the Council of Rome. Muslims specifically do not worship Jesus as God, and explicitly say that he is not God. They say that God has no son, that he is not a father, and that Jesus is merely a prophet and not God, nor his son. We cannot gloss over the fact that this portion of Lumen Gentium remains heretical or blasphemous because this would be the Magisterium of the Church stating that that those who do not worship mankind's judge on the last day, actually do. The claim of the contradictory approach in the new rite of Episcopal Consecration is problematic also. The eastern rites were and remain valid. The significance of the words in the essential form are not based on private judgement by sedevacantists and our claims that certain words aren't good enough, it's due to the specific prescriptions of the essential form from Pope Pius XII's Apostolic Constitution: Sacramentum Ordinis. The omissions in the new rites remove things specifically defined as essential for validity. It's not that a new rite which contained everything that Pope Pius XII declared essential for validity in this infallible Constitution would be invalid. It would be valid. The doubt comes from omissions specifically forbidden by the Magisterium on a matter of faith (sacraments and the priesthood). You usually do better than this. It's not right to be so sloppy in your presentation of an opposing argument.

Please make more 'refute' videos, i really enjoy it!

based

amazing video!

This documentary needs to be shared, liked and commented on!!! Great job!!! I had a friend that grew up in a very liberal protestant household and after high school was drawn to the catholic faith. He initially was going to the traditional latin mass, which I greatly respected. Unfortunately during Covid, the church that he went to only allowed a small preselected group of people to attend. This ultimately mislead him into attending the SSPX, which is the only other church that has a latin mass in my city. This resulted in him rejecting allot of church doctrine. After a year went by of him attending the SSPX, He eventually stumbled upon some of the Diamond brothers videos about Sedevacantism. Initially he wasn't fully convinced but then as time went on he became a fervent Sedevacantism. I believe that if there were more videos like this my friend would still be Catholic. I believe that the Church and Catholic apologists need to keep on top of these heresy's especially in the digital age where information is spread so easily. If the church doesn't stay on top of heretical viewpoints, schism and defection from the church will increase. It's important that the laity is given the resources to strengthen and defend our faith!!! THANK YOU SOO MUCH FOR THIS VIDEO!!!

What do you use to edit ?

Side note, will you be posting the full interview you did with John Salza?

Can you be a practicing Mason and Pope at the same time ? Talking about Pope John the 23rd . It kind of unravels after that.

As a cradle catholic and tradcath, the more I see of Vatican II and it's repercussions, the more I realize Sedevacantism is the answer.

Thanks for the much needed video to stop the lies and deception of sedevacatism which use age old tactic mixed with truth and lies to lure catholics ,divide christians and faithful from following devotions, priests popes, dogmas and traditions and create a chaos and confusion among all faithful in guise of defending faith. They have website. They use word vatican catholic. Some serious action has to be taken. We keep in prayers 🙏🙏🙏

Really like your perpetual jumping analogy

"Is the pope Catholic?" This question highlights a fundamental truth about the pope even non-catholics understand: to be the pope he must be Catholic. To be Catholic means you hold the Catholic Faith WHOLE and INVIOLATE. WHOLE means you belueve all of the doctrines of the Church without rejecting a single point of doctrine. INVIOLATE means you believe all the doctrines of the Church without changing the meaning of those teachings. Do you believe jorge bergoglio holds the Catholic Faith WHOLE and INVIOLATE?

Produces tons of evidence that proves apostasy and heresy, then still claims Vatican II sect is still following the true faith. What a joke. I couldn’t stand to watch much of the self-refuting prattle, so I’ll ask: did the creator of this video mention the messages from Our Lady at La Salette and Fatima, that said unequivocally that the Church would be shadow?

Whats your thought about recognise and ressist position?

Gloria in excelsis deo!Christmas has come early

Outstanding documentary. Thank you for making this

Why not debate the Dimond brother ...

The dogmas of the Catholic Church teach that one must profess the true Faith in order to be in the Church, let alone hold office in the Church. Catholic teaching also declares that a heretic (i.e., one who rejects any Catholic teaching) cannot be in the Church, nor can they hold office (e.g., a bishop, even pope, etc.) in the Church. Lastly, a heretic, or apostate (i.e., someone who has given up the Catholic faith & Christian beliefs altogether) cannot be validly elected to an office of the Church, including the office of the Papacy. Also, Catholic dogma teaches that heretics lose office & church membership ipso-facto (immediately), without a declaration. This refutes any 'refutation' of Sedevacantism. This all proves that heretics such as Jorge Bergoglio ("Francis"), Joseph Ratzinger ("Benedict XVI") & all the heretical claimants to the papacy since 1958 (based on their public acts as well as their professions of faith - in words & deeds) cannot have been valid popes. Sedevacantism (recognizing that the Chair of St. Peter is vacant - that there currently is no pope), according to the teachings of the Catholic Church, is the true Catholic position at this time. This video below has irrefutable proof for the sedevacantist position. Heretics Can't be Popes - Irrefutable Proof for Sedevacantism kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mOCUaMqf3c7GfIE.html

Is there anywhere to reach out to you by?

Wow! They must be getting panick nervous to go through all this effort to make a documentary over 2 hours long about us!

Not bad ! nice job 👍 I'm a sedevacantist don't worry I'm one of the happy ones . You don't have to be intelligent. I followed Padre Pio's spiritual daughter, she went SSPX. A SSPX MC priest from Cebu is cool with me 😂 he believes SSPX and certain sedevacantists are Catholics. Friend, keep growing in knowledge eventually so does sorrow. - Don't despair tho If you are willing , you may ask for guidance from your priest or closest universal ordinary Magisterium about these: *New rite Episcopal Consecrations + Pope Pius XII say on it * Pope Boniface VIII Unam Sanctam = resisting Francis? May Mary keep you

1:55:46 St. Gregory Nazianz, Against the Arians: “Where are they who revile us for our poverty and pride themselves in their riches? They who define the Church by numbers and scorn the little flock?” Ignoring your ridicule, yes its possible that the true faithful can be reduced to a remnant and have been throughout Church history before. more than 95 percent of Bishops in the world used to be Arians, yet I dont see you appyling ad poplum fallacy in that situation.

John XXII did not said that the souls of the dead remained in the tomb after death. He said that they only could gaze upon the humanity of the Son, waiting for the Last Judgement to enter the full Beatific Vision of God.

The Dimond brothers are about to go in on you lol. Be prepared

Not watching. Sedevacante

14:46 I had rejected him before he died. Apparently, the Palmarian Catechism involves the statement: _"the Antichrist sees the world from the fourth dimension, the Most Pure Virgin from the eighth"_ Like the Spanish military, the Palmarians like to adress the Blessed Virgin as Virgen Purísima, and I have no quarrel with that -- or Her being more circumspect than the Antichrist. However, the world has three dimensions, not four or eight. I rejected him on that ground in October 2002.

Those who say that I changed my mind due to bullying, he hasn't said anything like that, I myself have received harassment from the sedevacants and I didn't change my mind, in the same way right now in the comments several sedevacants are threatening, mocking, ignoring him and saying Diamond is going to destroy him, is that not bullying or is it brotherly love?

Sedeprivationist here. My message to you guys is that Sedevacantism is not a solution to the crisis in the Church, it is merely the theological conclusion that there isn't a current Roman Pontiff. The solution to the crisis will be when a Roman Pontiff is reigning again in Rome. Hopefully, Francis converts to the Catholic faith soon to become the Roman Pontiff.

"Sedevacantism is a fractured group of many different sects" Hmmm, sounds kinda familiar...

I like the dungeon synth soundtrack

Thanks for a good video! One claim that I've heard sedes using is that Vatican II was invalid contradicts the church teaching on "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" that was for example confirmed at the council of Florence, thus making Vatican II contradict previous infallible doctrine. How would you answer this? (christianity stack exchange has a thread on this if you search "stack exchange vatican florence incompatibilities")

Not even 1 minute in and fallacy and misinformation

Im not a sede, but man, I don’t blame them. Every day the magisterium gets worse and worse. May God guide and bless us all

I would love to see a debate between Bp Guerard des Lauriers and Mr. Salsa.

This is a fantastic video, the current church has so many issues but sedevacantism is no different than Protestantism in running away from the church