I have always thought of that response as them being too lazy or afraid to address the heart of the sedevacantist arguments. Francis actively praises Talmudic Jews for example, there is no way to square that with Catholic teaching.

They should ask how Noah felt when he knew he would be the only one to survive while the rest of the world is destroyed in a flood. That was an apocalypse-type situation.

I like that I didn't know there was a name for it@@yppoe

I'm a new Catholic (I think, unless the sedevacantists are right!) and "the truth" is not the same as "The Truth," as far I can see. What we "see" happening around us seems so real and impactful, but if what we see is an interpretation of events, perhaps we interpreted the events incorrectly. If Jesus said that he would never leave His Church, how could the Church have left us? It is not the horribleness of something that is the important part, but the Truth of something. The Church teaches that someone would always continuously be in the chair of St. Peter. Once you doubt that, you can then justify doubting God, and once you do that, Then you ARE doomed! Believe that this is all a test. Believe either that which is within our narrow scope of understanding or have instead have faith that God will never leave us (the Church.) Jesus will not leave His bride no matter how badly she behaves. The fate of the Church is not based on the behavior of the people in it, but on God's Word. Have some hope!

We have a pope now who likes to think of hell as empty and bless same sex couples… so what does that tell you about “the church” today???

Orthodox.

The Church is the Body of Christ. Christ is Perfeft. The Vatican isn't the body of Christ. Never was. Never will be.

This ❤

Orthodox.

@@adamf.4823 Just because the problems in Orthodoxy aren't shouted, doesn't mean they don't exist.

Honestly, probably cause we're living it.

People have always been scared. They have always thought things are changing too much. Today we have technology that affects the culture at a speed unprecedented.

Western Catholicism was in free fall before WWII, along with the West in general.

That’s because it is. Just the fact that they exonerated the “Elder brothers in the faith” aka the Dei-ciders should have been enough to suspect it.

@@partydean17 We’re talking about literal idolatry in the Vatican. That’s more than just “one more little change that makes people uncomfortable.” That’s apostasy.

You have put 2 seconds effort into an important conversation. There have been many bad Popes. The Church didn't end. Catholics still exist. . Unfortunately so do demons and the confused nonsense they encourage within the minds of "small c" Catholics!

Part of the gig is not existing too. I mean, he initially was sent to Israel anyway. Which, essentially leaves the rest of the world in the dark. So, when someone argues “but Jesus never came and therefore doesn’t exist tho.” Then, I’m all like sure bro. YOU got it😉

So true! I love the profile picture btw.

The gates of hell has been defined by Pope’s n Saints eg Aquinas as the “death dealing tongues of heretics”. So if the V2 claimants are true Pope’s, then the Church defected

Sedevecantism does not mean that “the Church is gone.” It means that nobody is sitting on the chair of St Peter. That’s not the same thing.

The Church does not have the authority to overthrow the teachings of Jesus or his apostles - more specifically, Saint Paul. It is blasphemy to say otherwise and heresy to attempt as much!

@@eaglehawkpanther Real quick, where, by chance, did you read the readings of Saint Paul?

@@eaglehawkpanther so you agree with Sola Scriptura? Welcome to Protestantism!

There have been robber councils in the past. We are saying the “council” did not come from the Church, which is proven by the fact that is contains heresy.

@@Essex626 Wrong.

1974 ... that's fascinating since that's a long time and you would have seen a lot and so have a long perspective, plus you've obviously still survived. I also consider myself traditional, orthodox, and fully Catholic, but not affiliated with any groups outside of the Church. I only started in 1993 or shall I rather say that God started me. What a blooming battle. I've done Ignatian meditation which is very beneficial, and I really should resume it. What ultimately helped me was not to be so distracted by all of the controversies and focus deliberately on the sacred heart of Christ, offering to Him my indignations with the imperfections, faults, and apparent heresies manifesting through various clergy. I came to see all of these battles as akin to the spiritual combat that began with Lucifer and one-third of the bad angels in Heaven and so it continues throughout time. The angels and mortals are tested for love, fidelity, and trust in God not only inherently, but to avenge any evils that are beyond our capacity to resolve. We are tested even in the face of scandal. There are not always solutions or answers, but Jesus always provides consolation and protection. My job is to give more attention to Him than to the spiritual wars and rumors of wars. Perhaps you can teach me some lessons that you've learned.

You didn't cite a single verse from God's Word.

@@rolandovelasquez135 Can you kindly elaborate?

@@MM22272 Rolando is protestant. Just block him. Not unlike a sedes he likes to start an argument, or hurl an insult while feeling justified.

Rolando likes to troll.

And you were much better off

There has always been division from the beginning and there will always be until the end. All of the armchair quarterbacks making $$ off of debacle need to chill.

Ignorance is bliss for normal person, but not the theologian or the philosopher. Truth requires disputation

What's the link to the debate?

@@pacceli2009 Here it is. It's on Pints with Aquinas, and is pretty long :kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qq-RqK1zl8XdYZc.html&lc=UgykkwD0gdm_tkyOvK14AaABAg.9goXR_0OkjV9gpRh3AbLjv

If francis is a heretic how does that make all his predacessors heretics?

@@ShaNaNa242 The same way you know in your heart that Francis is a heretic, look at the facts and work your way down to the next anti-pope

The bishops constitute the hierarchy of the Church. To cut oneself off from them, as the sedevacantists do, has already been condemned by Leo XII and Leo XIII. These popes were targeting a group whose members denied the legitimacy of Pope Pius VII: like the sedevacantists. Leo XII, Pastoris Aeterni: “Your Little Church cannot therefore in any way belong to the Catholic Church. By the very admission of your masters, or rather of those who deceive you, there are no longer any French bishops who support and defend the party you follow. Moreover, all the bishops of the Catholic Universe, to whom they themselves have appealed, and to whom they have addressed their schismatic claims in print, are recognized as approving the conventions of Pius VII and the acts which followed, and the whole Catholic Church is now entirely favorable to them.” Leo XIII, Eximia nos laetitia: “Absolutely no bishop considers them and governs them as his sheep. From this they must conclude with certainty and evidence that they are defectors from the fold of Christ. Now, just as the Little Church had no bishop who recognized them, so the sedevacantists had no bishop who recognized them, all of whom recognized the Council in 1964 and 1965. How can your Church be Apostolic, if it doesn't have a single Ordinary bishop in it, if there is no more jurisdiction, therefore no more Authority ? This is against the Mark of Apostolicity.

@@ShaNaNa242 That's a non sequitur. John XXIII through Francis are all invalid Popes because they were manifest heretics *BEFORE* their elections. Pope Paul IV's bull Cum ex apostolatus declared that a public heretic cannot be a valid Pope, which was referenced in the 1917 Code of Canon Law that objectively applied during the elections of John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul 1, and John Paul 2. A heretic separates themselves from the mystical body of Christ, so how can they be the head of a body that they're no longer apart of? If John XXIII through Francis are valid Popes, then any non-Catholic could become a valid Pope. These false Popes have also taught in error regarding faith and morals, meaning that accepting their "Papacies" means believing that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church. If the Pope can teach in error regarding the faith, then there is no point to the Papacy and it only gives credence to the Eastern Orthodox's erroneous beliefs about the Papacy.

@@fidefidelis4912 Heretical bishops are no bishops, all of that is easily refuted from Cum Ex Apostolatos Officio. There are real bishops and priests of course, who aren't heretics and who have being validly ordained/consecrated with certainty with pre-V2 rites. Most sede Catholics do not fall in the Dimond camp, most have legitimate priests and bishops.

Yep, I was more in despair being in the novus ordo. Realizing the truth of the sedevacantist position brought me peace, even though it's still a horrific situation.

I was in exactly the same position your are a year ago, after 42 years of hardcore Calvinism. You keep your eyes front on Our Lord and Our Lady, and ignore the lithping pwinthes bursting their silks, mewling about humility and poverty. Remember that Judas was an apostle, and that St. Athanasius is a saint. Eyes front on Jesus. Walk on the water. Stay at the foot of the cross with John and Our Lady, not fled like the remaining ten apostles.

I am coming into the Church, I quit my job as a youth pastor. Greatest piece of advice for understanding Father Francis: read his actual words with Scripture next to you and praying the whole time. He is an excellent teacher of Christian orthodoxy but nobody listens to the cry of ad fuentes… blessings!

Prayers going out Tom , God bless, find a traditional parish for support, I suggest FSSP , or consider a Eastern Byzantine Catholic Rite.

@Rick W Don’t forget ICKSP!

@@RickW-HGWT There are great NO priests too.

Of course the church shall be restored, just not by the hand of any pope.

Sedevacatism means most people are doomed

So how do you access sacraments?

I go where ever the is a known traditional mass where the priests and sacraments are without doubt sill valid and preferably to a sedevacantist chapel. @@user-jn8nn6bf6v

I don't agree with the Sedevacantists but I also don't think they're despairing if they're perfectly ok doing what they think is right and finding salvation that way. It seems like Brian wants to be one but can't get over leaving the mainstream Catholic church. Can't say I've heard any that are in fact despairing more than usual

​​@@joeblow9657Your position sounds a lot like relativism and protestantism.

Most of the ones I've met are despairing, gloomy, and dysfunctional. Granted I've only met a couple dozen. Still, you don't actually answer any of Brian's logical objections to their position. He is providing clarity and encouragement to people who are bombarded with distracting and sensational predictions. Of course that brings hope amidst the anxieties people have to deal with.

What anti-Catholic ideas does Pope Francis preach

@@killianmiller6107 saying atheists are saved and that Jesus is not the only way

Have you considered reading what he said with a hermeneutic of charity, not one of suspicion? Read him very carefully, and tell me again that he means to teach us that Jesus is not the only way. The immediate response from me to understand his words is that, in obeying their conscience faithfully, atheists have an implicit faith in Jesus, which he can work with. And then be sure to go and read where he teaches how Jesus IS the only way to the Father: for instance I found one homily from April 18, 2016, where he said that those who attempt to reach heaven by a different way than Jesus “is a thief and a robber.” In fact, I recently heard from an exorcist who told a story where an atheist husband committed suicide off a bridge, and his Catholic wife was anxious over his salvation; and in church where she was praying about it, St John Vianney came out of the confessional and told her that her husband was saved (purgatory), that when he was falling, he had time to make an act of contrition. We never know what God can do for a person in their last moments.

@@killianmiller6107 There’s no two ways about not only his abominable words but also his apostate actions like praying in Mosques or Synagogues (actually, merely attending them is apostasy).

How does that prove he’s not the pope? All it might prove is he’s a sinner if he actively prayed in communion with Jews and Muslims, or at the very least it’s passive communion, praying in their presence, which is still scandalous. Also, apostasy has a particular definition, that is the total repudiation of the faith, and last I checked, Pope Francis is still Christian and calls himself so.

Who is supplying the jurisdiction? I have only been told the Son of God gave it to Peter. Accepting the authority of the office is not optional.

@@atrifle8364 That is a separate question whether the supplied jurisdiction is legit. I only try to refer their position. Yeah, some Sedevacantists say the Church practically died or vanished (and there are no valid bishops/priests anymore), and Mr. Holdsworth addressed rather their position... but other groups claim they have their jurisdiction supplied (I suppose by the Church directly, but I am not an expert on these topics).

Supplied jurisdiction exist only for Sacrements. God doesn't "supply jurisdiction" for the Authority of teaching and governing, in such a way that we would must believe them without any proof that they have indeed the Authority to teach and govern. Sedes bishops are usurping these powers by preaching, by writings, and by founding and ruling seminaries and institutes, placings superiors, etc. These are jurisdictionnal acts. But the Church teaches that if someone claim to be sent by God directly, they must prove it by miracles. The Church never accepts a claim of extraordinary mission unless it is accompanied by miracles. In Cum Ex Injuncto, Pope Innocent III wrote the following to the Bishop of Metz concerning the Waldensian and Cathar heretics: "[N]o one should indifferently usurp the duty of preaching for himself. For, according to the Apostle: “And how shall they preach unless they be sent?” (Romans 10:5). … If anyone perhaps responds shrewdly to this that such men are sent invisibly by God, even if they are not visibly sent by man … it can and should certainly be answered reasonably that when that inner mission is hidden, it does not suffice for anyone to assert so boldly that he is sent by God, since any heretic may profess this: but it is necessary that he proves that invisible mission by the working of miracles or by special testimony of the Scriptures. From which, when the Lord wanted to send Moses into Egypt to the sons of Israel, he gave him a sign, that he might change a staff into a snake, and change the snake back again into a staff, so that they would believe that he was sent by God. John the Baptist also offered a special testimony of his mission from Scripture, responding to the priests and Levites … "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Isaias” (John 1:23). Therefore, he who says that he is sent by God should not be believed, since he has not been sent by man, unless he personally offers special testimony from Scripture, or he shows an obvious miracle." Therefore, sede bishops must prove their authority by miracles. Since they didn't did a single miracle, they must not be believed, but rejected, because they preach in the name of God, but God didn't sent them at all.

Here is what st. Francis of Sales wrote in his book "Controverses" : "These reasons are so strong that the most solid of your party have taken ground elsewhere than in the ordinary mission, and have said that they were sent extraordinarily by God because the ordinary mission had been ruined and abolished within the true Church itself, under the tyranny of Antichrist. This is their most safe refuge, which, since it is common to all sorts of heretics, is worth attacking in good earnest and overthrowing completely. Let us then place our argument in order, to see if we can force this their last barricade. First, I say then that no one should allege an extraordinary mission unless he proves it by miracles: for, I pray you, where should we be if this pretext of extraordinary mission was to be accepted without proof? Would it not be a cloak for all sorts of reveries? Arius, Marcion, Montanus, Messalius - could they not be received into this dignity of reformers, by swearing the same oath?" After explaining that it is common to all sorts of heretics to appeal to an extraordinary mission to justify their unlawful ministries, St. Francis reminds the faithful that the burden of proof is on the claimants to prove it by miracles, otherwise they should be rejected. He writes: "Never was any one extraordinarily sent unless he brought this letter of credit from the divine Majesty. Moses was sent immediately by God to govern the people of Israel. He wished to know his name who sent him; when he had learnt the admirable name of God, he asked for signs and patents of his commission: God so far found this request good that he gave him the grace of three sorts of prodigies and marvels, (…). If then they allege extraordinary mission, let them show us some extraordinary works, otherwise we are not obliged to believe them. (…) But as to the Apostles, - who does not know the miracles they did and the great number of them? Their handkerchiefs, their shadow, served for the prompt healing of the sick and driving away of the devils: by the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done amongst the people (Acts xix. V.); and that this was in confirmation of their preaching S. Mark declares quite explicitly in the last words of his Gospel, and S. Paul to the Hebrews (ii. 4)." The Doctor of the Church goes on to ask a series of questions that pertain directly to those who exercise the priesthood without canonical mission: "How then shall those in our age who would allege an extraordinary mission excuse and relieve themselves of this proof of their mission? What privilege have they greater than an Apostolic, a Mosaic? What shall I say more? If our sovereign Master, consubstantial with the Father, having a mission so authentic that it comprises the communication of the same essence, if he himself, I say, who is the living source of all Ecclesiastical mission, has not chosen to dispense himself from this proof of miracles, what reason is there that these new ministers should be believed on their mere word? Our Lord very often alleges his mission to give credit to his words: - As my Father hath sent me I also send you (John xx. 21); … to give authority to his mission, he brings forward his miracles, and attests that if he had not done among the Jews works which no other man had done, they would not have sinned in not believing him. And elsewhere he says to them: Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? Otherwise believe for the works themselves (ibid. xiv. 11, 12). He then who would be so rash as to boast of extraordinary mission without immediately producing miracles, deserves to be taken for an impostor." This direcly refutes sedevacantist & SSPX bishops and priests.

@@atrifle8364 Look up what epikeia is. The mission of the Church is to save souls, which it does through the sacraments. If ecclesiastical laws inadvertently harm this cause, then divine law trumps it. We're not legalistic like the Pharisees.

Thats like a fetiche for them

This should rank as the top comment.

I think you are referring to "Old Catholics". That's not the same thing as Sedevacantists.

Hello my brethren in Christ. As someone who loves Latin, prays in it and would attend TLM if I had access to it (only attended once as part of a work trip where I was blessed to find a Church that practiced it). I have personally maintained that the actions of clergy to restrict the TLM is no different to clergy that restrict the NO in a local vernacular. The response to either situation is NOT to take a sedevacantist position. I don't think those who hold to sedevacantist position understand the theological position they are in. They are making the following claims implicitly or explicitly whether they like it or not: 1) The Holy Spirit failed to guide the Church - No different a claim to all manner of Protestants, LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses etc. 2) Jesus allowed Satan to overcome the Church and Jesus did not remain with His Church till the end of the Age - No different a claim to all manner of Protestants, LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses etc. 3) Disobedience to Christ's Authority on earth is a serious sin - Jesus himself told the Jews of his day to obey the Authority of the rabbis and Temple priests, despite whatever level of corruption they had. Jesus prioritises telling people to obey God's Authority that was legitimately delegated and held by the priesthood at the time. Matthew 23:3 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition 3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not. 4) It was only after the establishment of the new covenant, that the Authority was revoked from the Jewish priests and Peter and the Apostles reject the Authority of the priests. Acts 5:27-32 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition 27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them, 28 Saying: Commanding we commanded you, that you should not teach in this name; and behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and you have a mind to bring the blood of this man upon us. 29 But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men. 30 The God of our fathers hath raised up Jesus, whom you put to death, hanging him upon a tree. 31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand, to be Prince and Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins. 32 And we are witnesses of these things and the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to all that obey him. *Has Jesus instituted a new covenant and revoked his delegated Authority from the Magisterium and the Pope?*

@@user-kb4dv1ud3f Thank you. I never knew that. It could be useful indeed.

This is the one comment that perfectly expresses my sentiments about this video.

Agreed.

I'm a sede, so I expressly believe we are right, yet I thank you for defending us to an extent. May God bless you and bring you ever closer to the truth

He's talking specifically about Dimond's position.

Hello my brother in Christ. Could you give me the sede response to points #3 and #4 below? As someone who loves Latin, prays in it and would attend TLM if I had access to it (only attended once as part of a work trip where I was blessed to find a Church that practiced it). I have personally maintained that the actions of clergy to restrict the TLM is no different to clergy that restrict the NO in a local vernacular. The response to either situation is NOT to take a sedevacantist position position. I don't think those who hold to sedevacantist position understand the theological position they are in. They are making the following claims implicitly or explicitly whether they like it or not: 1) The Holy Spirit failed to guide the Church - No different a claim to all manner of Protestants, LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses etc. 2) Jesus allowed Satan to overcome the Church and Jesus did not remain with His Church till the end of the Age - No different a claim to all manner of Protestants, LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses etc. 3) Disobedience to Christ's Authority on earth is a serious sin - Jesus himself told the Jews of his day to obey the Authority of the rabbis and Temple priests, despite whatever level of corruption they had. Jesus prioritises telling people to obey God's Authority that was legitimately delegated and held by the priesthood at the time. Matthew 23:3 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition 3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not. 4) It was only after the establishment of the new covenant, that the Authority was revoked from the Jewish priests and Peter and the Apostles reject the Authority of the priests. Acts 5:27-32 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition 27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them, 28 Saying: Commanding we commanded you, that you should not teach in this name; and behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and you have a mind to bring the blood of this man upon us. 29 But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men. 30 The God of our fathers hath raised up Jesus, whom you put to death, hanging him upon a tree. 31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand, to be Prince and Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins. 32 And we are witnesses of these things and the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to all that obey him. *Has Jesus instituted a new covenant and revoked his delegated Authority from the Magisterium and the Pope?*

SSPV and CMRI both believe in salvation outside the Catholic Church. They believe that someone above the age of reason doesn't need to hold the Catholic faith or be baptized to be saved which is obviously heresy. They hold that you can be a member of any false religion under the sun and be saved by a mysterious implicit desire. They are not that dissimilar to the Vatican II church. They reject the Athanasian Creed and John 3:5 which the Council of Trent interprets as it is written (literally). And yes, God is not bound by His sacraments or anything else but He CHOOSES to have salvation inextricably linked to His Church, His faith, and His sacrament of baptism as the Church teaches. Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451 A.D.: "For there are three who give testimony - Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. (1 Jn. 5:4-8) In other words, the Spirit of sanctification and the blood of redemption and the water of baptism. These three are one and remain indivisible. None of them is separable from its link with the others.” Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”

The bishops constitute the hierarchy of the Church. To cut oneself off from them, as the sedevacantists do, has already been condemned by Leo XII and Leo XIII. These popes were targeting a group whose members denied the legitimacy of Pope Pius VII: like the sedevacantists. Leo XII, Pastoris Aeterni: “Your Little Church cannot therefore in any way belong to the Catholic Church. By the very admission of your masters, or rather of those who deceive you, there are no longer any French bishops who support and defend the party you follow. Moreover, all the bishops of the Catholic Universe, to whom they themselves have appealed, and to whom they have addressed their schismatic claims in print, are recognized as approving the conventions of Pius VII and the acts which followed, and the whole Catholic Church is now entirely favorable to them.” Leo XIII, Eximia nos laetitia: “Absolutely no bishop considers them and governs them as his sheep. From this they must conclude with certainty and evidence that they are defectors from the fold of Christ. Now, just as the Little Church had no bishop who recognized them, so the sedevacantists had no bishop who recognized them, all of whom recognized the Council in 1964 and 1965. Also, sedes don't have the mark of Apostolicity, since to possess it, the Church needs to possess bishops who are Successors of the Apostles. But only those who have the power of jurisdiction, which can only be received by the Pope (this is the Catholic doctrine, not a mere canonical law). But since sedes don't have bishops who possess power given to them by a pope (since they nelieve there's none), they don't possess any Successor of the Apostles, therefore they're not Catholic.

bbSeal, I sought to forestall my acting in error on numerous errors in the Vatican Council 11 (1962-65) documents and follow up documents and United Nations documents by seeking objective social confirmation of my judgement. These documents were at least inattentive to the simultaneous authorisations by the economist statistician and consecrated married Colin Clark in 1964 of Pope St Paul V1's Commission on Population and the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO). These documents included particularly: "Declaration on Christian Education", Vat 11, GE, 1965, 3: "... those others to whom the parents entrust some share in their duty to educate ..."; Decree on the Training of Priests", Vat 11, OT, 1965, 10: "greater excellence of virginity consecrated to Christ"; Pope St Paul V1's Encyclical Letter: "Of Human Life", Humanae Vitae, 1968, 12 omitting 'qualitatively equal' with "inseparable" for "union and procreation" in marriage; and of the FAO in transposing two columns of their statistics comparing rate of growth of population and food supplies in the developing countries so asserting in error that two-thirds of the population of the world was malnourished. A helper of my family as my housemaster at Downside School, UK from 1960-1965, Dom Martin Salmon osb, Downside Benedictine Abbey, UK, in his letter to me, dated 30 October 1994, gave objective social confirmation of this judgement by me as follows: I was directed in my then unknown to both me and all others, though in uncertainty believed by me and all others to be my identity and role by Pope St John Paul 11's Council for the Laity letter addressing me asking its contents be communicated to me, dated 28 September 1994 (ref. 874/94/S-61/F), through the Our Lady of the Rosary parish of the Archdiocese of Brisbane, Australia that I served as a catechist: "... to sustain what you consider to be your rights." I take these "rights" to also be yours as referred to in Pope St John Paul 11's Exhortation: "Christ's Faithful", 1988, 40: "In such a way, the family can and must require from all ... the respect for those rights which in saving the family, will save society itself." This sustaining directed of me is by out occulting or out camouflaging in my unknown to me and all both identity and role the occult as hidden or camouflaged, grooming by diseased "familyists" for their families tax exemption and lower insurance cost economic advantages of their psychologically and or emotionally vulnerable family members with an occult as hidden, incest connected as substitute mate, non-economic false status inducement of "higher vocation" of consecrated celibate marriage to consecrated male female marriage. In both of these marriages, celibate vowed to man in Christ and male female vowed to God, Mary, mother of Jesus and Mother of God, was simultaneously authorised by an absolute power to be joined by applications of ensuring her procreation gift role and insuring need of union of her identity. This sustaining is in your ensuring your procreation roles as gifts as confirmed de facto by Pope Francis on 10 June 2021 on the reference point of Mary, mother of Jesus, by her simultaneous authorisations recorded at Luke 1: v. 29&34 and 38 confirmed by what in uncertainty she "believed" v.45 and two members of my family, my father, Colin Clark by his simultaneous authorisations of church and state in 1964, and me by my simultaneous authorisations of church and state on 24 January 1995. It is a matter of in uncertainty belief as the keeping of the inseparability and qualitative equality of thinking reason and having faith religion that these simultaneous authorisations, particularly those of Mary, mother of Jesus, exercised an absolute power of authorisation as a reference point for Pope Francis. This sustaining by Pope Francis on 10 June 2021 is: (a) in the continuing Cardinal Angelo Becciu and nine other Vatican state citizens or employees alleged embezzlement of charity donations case presently been heard in Pope Francis' Vatican state court, (b) on the "Zan" anti-homophobia bill before the Italian Parliament case as an unacceptable risk of fraud on union need of family members of consecrated marriages completed in early November 2021 by its defeat after a protest note against this bill authorised by Pope Francis. I am obeying this direction of me on 28 September 1994 (referenced as above) by Bishop Paul Cordes as Vice President of the Pope's Council for the Laity by to this end of: "to sustain what you consider to be your rights", responding to all of what I consider are the relevant posts needing this sustaining by a comment. My references of a copy of the letter to the Brisbane parish I served directing me from Bishop Paul Cordes, dated 28 September 1994, and of the letter to me from Fr Martin Salmon osb, dated 30 October 1994, giving objective social confirmation of my judgement of the inseparability and equality in both quantity and quality of consecrated male female marriage vowed to God and celibate marriage vowed to man in Christ, on which I then acted by my simultaneous authorisations of church and state helpers of the family on 24 January 1995, will be sent to you on any request by you to my email address below. Oliver Clark, oliver_clark5@telstra.com

Brian, Brian - where are you going? To extremes, and that is dangerous. Converts generally go overboard in any religion and you are a perfect example of this. You want to be more Catholic than the Catholic Church. St. Peter never celebrated ( it is the Celebration of the Mass - not the Saying of the Mass ) the Mass in Latin. He spoke Aramaic and Greek. And the language of the Mass was changed from Greek to Latin in or around the year 400 AD, because the Romans did not understand Greek. In other words, the language of the Mass was changed to the “ vernacular “; that is, the language that people spoke and understood. The Greek “ Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom “ remained in the Greek language, because that was the language of the Eastern Catholic Churches. So the language of the Celebration of the Mass did not become Latin because the language was “ holier “ than the Greek language. It is similar to Vatican II changing the language of the Mass from Latin to the language that the people speak in their country- ie the “ vernacular “. For us in North America, it is English. One can pray in silence almost anywhere and at anytime. But the Celebration of the Mass is meant to be a communal gathering of the Faithful. It is so important to the life of the Church that to miss Mass on Sunday and Holy Days is considered a Mortal Sin.

@@pjsmith4369 Pope Francis is the first Pope or "Papa" as Father that I note to keep or allow the inseparability and qualitative equality; that is, covenant, non-presumed reciprocity, of his consecrated "Papa" family member identity in need of union and his consecrated procreation gift role as a "Papa" helper of the family within the family. This keeping or allowing in uncertainty of his belief by Pope Francis was on 10 June 2021 by his simultaneous authorisations in exercising an absolute power in the cases of alleged not ensuring procreation gift by Cardinal Angelo Becciu and nine others (alleged embezzlement of charity donations presently on indictment been heard in Pope Francis Vatican state court) and the of the not insuring union need of identities of family members of consecrated valid marriages, both male female vowed to God and celibate vowed to man in Christ, by the "Zan" anti-homophobia bill before the Italian Parliament (defeated in early November 2021 following a protest note to the Italian government against it as an unacceptable risk of fraud on identities of family members of valid marriages need of union). "Sedevacantism" appears to have continued up to Pope Francis since St Paul's "opinion" at 1 Cor 7: 25-34 that the calling to consecrated celibacy marriage vowed to man in Christ surpassed in excellence, was superior to, the calling to consecrated male female marriage vowed to God.

​@user-kb4dv1ud3fYes, that is correct. This is why Sedevacantists reject Donatism and focus specifically on ineligibility for office or loss of office.

He was saying their beliefs should logically lead one to despair, and any who do not despair have not thought rationally about their opinions.

@@jimmymelonseed4068 Sede vacante is the majority opinion of Catholic Theologians on what would happen if a heretic was elected to the papacy or a Pope fell into public heresy as proposed by Doctor of the Church St Robert Bellarmine. Michael Dimond holds the same belief as Bellarmine on the issue of a heretical Pope but also hold other errors against de fide dogmas of the Church which would place him outside of the Catholic Church if he knew about them. Such dogmas include the continual actual existence of the Apostolic College (it must always exist, in all times, in any event) which is required to preserve the Apostolicity of the Church. He also denies the universal Church teaching on baptism of blood and desire, extrapolating the teaching of the excommunicated Fr Feeney. If you wish to understand the Catholic teaching on this topic, it would be best to consult Catholics who don't hold the sectarian positions that many like Michael Dimond have embraced. The best discussion I have seen on this topic was a series of long-form interviews between Louie Verracchio (attended FSSP at the time, was a Benedict XVI resignationist) and John Lane (attends FSSPX but has written publicly in support of the Catholic faith including the sede vacante position). You can find these here: crisisinthechurch.com/interviews

@@jimmymelonseed4068 I'm a Sede and I'm not despairing. We still have valid priests dispensing the sacraments and offering valid Masses, even if it's in a low number. Don't know for sure how the Sedevacante issue will be resolved, but my trust is in God to deliver us in His way on His time. We're living through a time of great apostasy and chastisement, not unlike what the Israelites went through several times in their history.

@@jimmymelonseed4068 I see Traditional Catholics (Recognize and Resist, I should say, since sedevacantists are also Traditional Catholics) more often despairing, when they come to the conclusion that what the Church has always taught about the papacy isn’t true. Two thousand years of teaching on the papacy is a lot to give up on as we are encouraged to “rethink” the teaching. It’s really tragic that Catholics find that concept appealing. To hold R&R is to reject the source of unity left to us by Christ Himself. Peter is the Rock upon which Christ built His Church, not the laity, not even very pleasant and likable members of the laity who have KZfaq channels or publish magazines and websites. It is terrible to think we live at a time when we have no pope, but it’s far worse to think we live at a time that would change the concept of the papacy just so we can continue to call a heretic the Holy Father. Where is the logic in that? Where is the hope versus despair in the future of the Catholic Church?

@@comicsans1689 From whence do their priests and sacraments derive their validity?

Orthodoxy calls

Sede vacante is the majority opinion of Catholic Theologians on what would happen if a heretic was elected to the papacy or a Pope fell into public heresy as proposed by Doctor of the Church St Robert Bellarmine. Michael Dimond holds the same belief as Bellarmine on the issue of a heretical Pope but also hold other errors against de fide dogmas of the Church which would place him outside of the Catholic Church if he knew about them. Such dogmas include the continual actual existence of the Apostolic College (it must always exist, in all times, in any event) which is required to preserve the Apostolicity of the Church. He also denies the universal Church teaching on baptism of blood and desire, extrapolating the teaching of the excommunicated Fr Feeney. If you wish to understand the Catholic teaching on this topic, it would be best to consult Catholics who don't hold the sectarian positions that many like Michael Dimond have embraced. The best discussion I have seen on this topic was a series of long-form interviews between Louie Verracchio (attended FSSP at the time, was a Benedict XVI resignationist) and John Lane (attends FSSPX but has written publicly in support of the Catholic faith including the sede vacante position). You can find these here: crisisinthechurch.com/interviews

@@xxFairestxx that's just protestantism with pomp, no thanks. Communion with the bishop of Rome or nothing.

@@MutohMech The Catholics disagree with you. The RCC says the EC has all the sacraments and is the full church, “too”…..You’re uneducated.

You need to confess and get to Mass

Wow, I didn't know KZfaq allowed comments of that length.

It causes despair for me

@@samuellariviere4784Why should it? Recognize/Resist folks live in and endure exactly the same crisis and situation as sedes do. Their view also leads to despair, because, when their oh-so-holy pope finally gets elected (supposing he does), the revolutionary modernists bishops will simply recognize and systematically resist him, alleging the very example of the SSPX as a historical precedent. R&R’s have completely destroyed the hope of an unified Catholic Church, because they question the very essence of papal obedience; for them, you only have to obey the pope when he says what YOU THINK is right and orthodox. The final authority is no longer in Rome, but in YOU. Sad, very sad Hope that helps.

never having pope so it could never even defect ...

There was a time, not long before the Reformation, that the Church was under the dominion of one of the most scandalous sinners in her history, Rodrigo Borgia (Alexander VI) and his basically Mafia family. Before that, she was in a crisis where there were two, and sometimes three, Popes simultaneously. Before that, she went through a lengthy period where the Pope was little more than a mouthpiece of the French king. The Church survived all of these crises and came out all the stronger for it. She'll survive this one too. Unfortunately, those fairweather friends like you who jumped ship at the first sign of rocky waters won't get to glory in that renewal. If you weren't true to the Church in her time of need, why should she be true to you?

Kinda disappointed with Brian on this one… summed up the sedevecantism via reducto ad absurdum argument. Many Catholics have been stranded without local priests throughout history and even now… while priests still exist elsewhere. There can also be a remnant of validly ordained by bishops (not directly from pope) priests, or the coming of Christ again which both inspire hope.

Hello my brother in Christ. As someone who loves Latin, prays in it and would attend TLM if I had access to it (only attended once as part of a work trip where I was blessed to find a Church that practiced it). I have personally maintained that the actions of clergy to restrict the TLM is no different to clergy that restrict the NO in a local vernacular. The response to either situation is NOT to take a sedevacantist position position. I don't think those who hold to sedevacantist position understand the theological position they are in. They are making the following claims implicitly or explicitly whether they like it or not: 1) The Holy Spirit failed to guide the Church - No different a claim to all manner of Protestants, LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses etc. 2) Jesus allowed Satan to overcome the Church and Jesus did not remain with His Church till the end of the Age - No different a claim to all manner of Protestants, LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses etc. 3) Disobedience to Christ's Authority on earth is a serious sin - Jesus himself told the Jews of his day to obey the Authority of the rabbis and Temple priests, despite whatever level of corruption they had. Jesus prioritises telling people to obey God's Authority that was legitimately delegated and held by the priesthood at the time. Matthew 23:3 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition 3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not. 4) It was only after the establishment of the new covenant, that the Authority was revoked from the Jewish priests and Peter and the Apostles reject the Authority of the priests. Acts 5:27-32 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition 27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them, 28 Saying: Commanding we commanded you, that you should not teach in this name; and behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and you have a mind to bring the blood of this man upon us. 29 But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men. 30 The God of our fathers hath raised up Jesus, whom you put to death, hanging him upon a tree. 31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand, to be Prince and Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins. 32 And we are witnesses of these things and the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to all that obey him. *Has Jesus instituted a new covenant and revoked his delegated Authority from the Magisterium and the Pope?*

It's not about Latin. It's about Catholic dogma. There are other rites than Latin. It's not Latin Mass-ism. The Indefectability of the Church is a dogma which must be believed to be Catholic. The Church cannot do a 180°. 1. If the Vatican II popes are true popes, then the Holy Ghost is deceiving the Church, which is what you propose. Arianism taking over almost the whole Catholic world didn't mean that the Holy Ghost failed to guide the Church. We are also not the ones actually celebrating Luther, Bergoglio has. 2. The Church Fathers and theologians teach about the great apostasy. It is not against Church teaching to say there will be a great apostasy. "I say to you, that he will quickly revenge them. But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?" - St. Luke 18:8 3. Non-Catholics cannot be pope. Disobeying protestants is not disobedience to Christ's authority. His authority isn't exercised by heretics. 4. I'm not sure what this point means, are you saying that there has been a dispensation after the Christian dispensation? Has Christianity become false? Has something else been delivered? No. What was delivered once remains true now. "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema." - Galatians 1:8

You know about the oriental churches of the catholic church surprise someones masses are not in latín, that mesns that they're not catholic? And about arrisnism, this no be aproved in noone concilium, and just the concilium vatican II was wrong, really You know that supuse that the hoy Spirit guiee the concilium​@@collinadkisson4437

And that is not an argument, because many things were not official Church doctrine until they were made so by an Ecumenical Council.

As someone who loves Latin, prays in it and would attend TLM if I had access to it (only attended once as part of a work trip where I was blessed to find a Church that practiced it). I have personally maintained that the actions of clergy to restrict the TLM is no different to clergy that restrict the NO in a local vernacular. The response to either situation is NOT to take a sedevacantist position position. I don't think those who hold to sedevacantist position understand the theological position they are in. They are making the following claims implicitly or explicitly whether they like it or not: 1) The Holy Spirit failed to guide the Church - No different a claim to all manner of Protestants, LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses etc. 2) Jesus allowed Satan to overcome the Church and Jesus did not remain with His Church till the end of the Age - No different a claim to all manner of Protestants, LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses etc. 3) Disobedience to Christ's Authority on earth is a serious sin - Jesus himself told the Jews of his day to obey the Authority of the rabbis and Temple priests, despite whatever level of corruption they had. Jesus prioritises telling people to obey God's Authority that was legitimately delegated and held by the priesthood at the time. Matthew 23:3 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition 3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not. 4) It was only after the establishment of the new covenant, that the Authority was revoked from the Jewish priests and Peter and the Apostles reject the Authority of the priests. Acts 5:27-32 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition 27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them, 28 Saying: Commanding we commanded you, that you should not teach in this name; and behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and you have a mind to bring the blood of this man upon us. 29 But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men. 30 The God of our fathers hath raised up Jesus, whom you put to death, hanging him upon a tree. 31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand, to be Prince and Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins. 32 And we are witnesses of these things and the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to all that obey him. Has Jesus instituted a new covenant and revoked his delegated Authority from the Magisterium and the Pope?

St. Athanasius is the model.

Focus on being faithful to Christ and to the Church in terms of the Catechism. Popes and clergy come and go. They re-present Jesus, but imperfectly. So, the temptation can be to become distracted and entwined in the controversies. Pause, step back, and redirect your attention to the sacred heart of Christ Who is our end, not the clergy. Praise the Lord, because through the clergy they provide the sacraments, but our consolation is the Lord Jesus. Saint Teresa of Avila: Let nothing disturb you, Let nothing frighten you, All things are passing away: God never changes. Patience obtains all things Whoever has God lacks nothing; God alone suffices. It seems to me that the sedevacantists become struck and stuck in the apparent faults of the clergy - pope or otherwise. Like Saint Peter when the Lord bid him to walk on water, they notice the winds of the world, lose their focus, become stubbornly entrenched, and sink in the waters of despair. Like other attuned Catholics, I'm more or less aware of the spiritual potholes in the Church, but I've learned and am learning slowly to leave them to God to resolve, for who among us can do any better. My job is to attend to my duties and focus on Him. He is, after all, the Lord and bids us to cast our worries on Him.

It’s as simple as just not judging for me. A simple and convenient spiritual tax write off😎

@@the2ndcoming135This new springtime feels like winter

@@TruthSeeker-333 yeah, man. At this point I’m just securing a peaceful exodus for us believers. Then the Muslims can have at it😂

It is interesting that these well spoken and well meaning Catholics feel from time to time an urge to disparage fellow Catholics without studying what they actually say and how they live. I like to listen to Brian, but this is not him…

It is also interesting that well meaning Catholics look to heretics for leadership.

@@Johnny8229 such as?

@@tubaceous Francis

@@Johnny8229 agree… it is puzzling. It is also puzzling how weak -at the same time -are their anti-sedevacantist arguments. Makes you wonder if they are bona fide…

You and he are on the path to Hell. You cannot be a manifest and notorious heretic and a pope simultaneously. Much less Catholic. And you must be in union with and profess the same faith as the Pontiff to be Catholic.

He's building a strawman of sedevacantism based on Dimond brother feeneyites that deny the de fide teachings of baptism of desire and baptism of blood There's nothing profound about this video. It's an argument against a strawman, based on emotionalism with no real theology

@@deusvult6920 You are ignorant just slightly less ignorant than he is. if you investigated the Brother’s material, you would find that they reject Fr. Feeney’s explanation of Justification. You would find that BOD is condemned by the Church. And you would find that Pope Pius XII’s condemnation of Fr. Feeney was not infallible, and that they also excommunicated him merely because he asked why he was being summoned to Rome. And you might learn that you are nearly as Faithless as the Novus ordo because you believe people can be saved outside the Catholic Church as if EENS has exceptions.

@@deusvult6920 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bZuhbK9jlcvPZWg.html

Some Sedevacantists reject the CMRI, like the Dimonds. You guys can't even agree amongst yourselves.

Right. Bishop Pivarunas said in his lecture at our last Fatima Conference that the CMRI now consists of 219 priests, brothers and seminarians (not counting the minor seminarians). 5 new priests ordained on the same day this year. That would not be possible if we were all following the heretical position of the Dimond Brothers.

Do you know if Sedevacantists have accounts on Minds or something?

Lol

Seems like a position that is only validated more and more over time by actions of the current person in the chair of St Peter. Divine and private revelations begin fulfilled are also a sign of hope.

Not fact at all.

I’ve watched a lot of videos on this subject both for and against the sedevacantist position, and every time I am more reinforced in the sede position. It seems those who argue against it fail in reason, logic and the dogmas of the church (session 7 cannon 13 of the council of Trent) they never address the elephant in the room, which is the creation of the New Order counter church.

Exactly, that's why I had to downvote the video. If there has been an infiltration, it explains everything we're seeing that is blasphemous and heretical, it explains the abuse and hierarchy etc. and why they're so useless ... it's not despair, it's okay, we know why, we know what we have to do to fix this now and get back on the right track to the real Catholic church and worshipping/venerating God (as well as preaching the gospel and ending blasphemy and sin where we can and protecting persecuted Christians).

It brings you joy that the majority of humans are going to suffer in hell for eternity for factors that they could not control?

@@ComicRaptor8850 On the contrary, I hope that otherwise pious & traditional minded Vatican II Catholics are invincibly ignorant that a counterfeit church was established. Jesus said that in the latter times even the elect will be deceived. Something counterfeit needs to appear genuine in order to deceive the majority of people. Vatican II initiated an unprecedented revolution, the Church before that always preserving tradition in all things. The "9/11" scene of the monumental & diabolical crime was the vitiated 1958 papal conclave, where a rightful pope was threatened into invalid abdication and "exiled" back to his archdiocese under close guard. This is the fulfillment of prophecy & is explained at the White Smoke 1958 site. Much more could be said but see the Chiesa Viva site which Fr Luigi Villa founded, the Novus Ordo Watch site & the startling Padre Pio quotes in my other comments.

Pride, self-reliance, rebellion, and disobedience only breed division. Please stop trying to make yourself the religious expert. Leading people away from the Church is gravely sinful. "Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” "Follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles." - St Ignatius of Antioch

Right on target!

But there 101 variants in the Vatican II Sect. Is the Vatican II Sect ONE? No. It is an amalgamation of a church. Conservative N.O, liberal N.O, FSSP, SSPX all believing 101 different things about Masses, Vatican II, etc. "Trads" & Novus Ordites each have a separate wing in the church. No unity of belief = Not the Catholic Church

This video highlights my point. And why we must necessarily rule out the Vatican II Sect as being the Catholic Church. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/adeko7qbzNTKppc.html

That's not a problem with sedevacantism as a principle, just its application.

No idea why? Really?

Sede vacante is the majority opinion of Catholic Theologians on what would happen if a heretic was elected to the papacy or a Pope fell into public heresy as proposed by Doctor of the Church St Robert Bellarmine. Michael Dimond holds the same belief as Bellarmine on the issue of a heretical Pope but also hold other errors against de fide dogmas of the Church which would place him outside of the Catholic Church if he knew about them. Such dogmas include the continual actual existence of the Apostolic College (it must always exist, in all times, in any event) which is required to preserve the Apostolicity of the Church. He also denies the universal Church teaching on baptism of blood and desire, extrapolating the teaching of the excommunicated Fr Feeney. If you wish to understand the Catholic teaching on this topic, it would be best to consult Catholics who don't hold the sectarian positions that many like Michael Dimond have embraced. The best discussion I have seen on this topic was a series of long-form interviews between Louie Verracchio (attended FSSP at the time, was a Benedict XVI resignationist) and John Lane (attends FSSPX but has written publicly in support of the Catholic faith including the sede vacante position). You can find these here: crisisinthechurch.com/interviews

True. Judas was valid.

You dance around it. They are heretics! End of story.

The third secret was revealed, and has been revealed for decades now.

They teach a false religion, therefore cannot have authority from Christ. Simple arguement, don’t strawman it

What practice? Receiving the Holy Eucharist? Going to Confession? How can you receive those if there are no priests to receive them from? How can those be the means of our salvation that Christ instituted on earth if there is no longer a way of receiving them? Wouldn’t it follow that there is no way to be saved and we are all going to hell no matter what we do?

"If, then, any should deny that it is by the institution of Christ the Lord, or by divine right, that blessed Peter should have a perpetual line of successors in the Primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema." First Vatican Council

​@@Marcel---RomeI don't follow roman Catholicism anymore thank God for the Orthodox Church

@@menofvirtue6238 well have you looked into the evidence of second nicea for the Catholic church? The filioque controversy is simply something orthodox reject however they have really no reason to reject its historical consensus among the early church especially in second council of nicea the patriarch of Constantinople tarasios stated "I believe in one God the Father almighty, and in one Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God and our God, born of the Father timelessly and eternally, and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father through the Son and is acknowledged to be himself God, a consubstantial Trinity, sharing the same honor and throne, eternal, uncreated, the maker of all creatures, one rule, one Godhead and lordship, one kingship and power and authority in three hypostases. ⁃ The Acts Of The Second Council Of Nicaea, Sess. 3, Tarasios' Profession Of Faith (Richard Price, p. 211) tarasios obviously supports the filioque and the filioque model is *the holy spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son* or I prefe *the holy spirit proceeds from the Father Nad the son* now both are filioque and valid I'm happy for byzantine catholics using the first model but back to the topic tarasios obviously states a filioque model he supports and it's evident that even Eastern father's like Gregory of nyssa spoke about this exact modal now the problem is the orthodox church refuses to recognize this modal and states "To the same, who say that the Father is, through the Son, the cause of the Spirit, and who cannot conceive the Father as the cause of the hypostasis of the Spirit ⁃ giving it existence and being - except through the Son...we cut them off from the membership of the Orthodox, and we banish them from the flock of the Church of God." ⁃ Second Synod of Blachernae, Tomus, #3, 1285; Aristeides Papadakis, Crisis in Byzantium. now orthodox certainly can interpret the letter tarasios made as the announcement was only a relationship but regardless the relationship is still theological understanding and saying the procession that's unrecognizable to the model the orthodox use is honestly contradicting and self refuting they used accept the filioque model as tarasios.

@@menofvirtue6238 Now another part is that not only did the orthodox aprove the filioque at one point that's evident in the patriarch of Constantinople tarasios but they also accepted catholic doctrine during the schism as it said "We come to our last example, which is the Council of Florence-Ferrara (1438-39). It had all the characteristic traits of an Ecumenical Council and was the most representative, as far as its attendance is concerned, in the entire history of Christianity. Delegates from all the churches, including the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Metropolitan of Moscow, were present, not to mention the Byzantine Emperor. - ⁃ Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev, The Reception Of The Ecumenical Councils In The Early Church They obviously don't accept Florence however the admit to Florence as an ecumincal Council now what Florence Council with the Catholic Church and Orthodox Bishop stated, "A second reunion council was held at Florence in 1438-9. The Emperor John VIII... attended in person, together with the Patriarch of Constantinople and a large delegation from the Byzantine Church, as well as representatives from the other Orthodox Churches... a formula of union was drawn up, covering the Filioque, Purgatory, 'azymes', and the Papal claims; and this was signed by all the Orthodox present at the council except one... Thus, in matters of doctrine, the Orthodox accepted the Papal claims... they accepted the doctrine of the... Procession of the Holy Spirit... they accepted the Roman teaching on Purgatory... ⁃ Bishop Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, Penguin Books, 1993, pp. 70-71 Now, amazingly, the reason for this denial is : "Despite the emperors' best efforts, the Florentine union remained unpopular, as the Byzantines generally believed it was 'better to die than to Latinize". Now for the letters Pope hardian sent to tarasios, the council states: THE PAPAL LEGATES TO THE COUNCIL "Let the holy council tell us if it accepts the letters of the most holy pope of Elder Rome or not.' THE COUNCIL RESPONDED "'We follow, accept, and approve them.' - The Acts Of The Second Council Of Nicaea, Sess. 2, 787 (Richard Price, p. 182). The contents of Pope's hadrians letter approve papal primacy and hadrian stating: "You are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my church. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you lose upon earth will be loosed in heaven. His see shines forth as primatial throughout the world and is the head of all the churches of God. And continues to say Therefore the same blessed Peter the Apostle shepherding the Church at the command of the Lord, has left nothing to neglect, but upholds, and has always upheld, her authority. If your sacredness cleaves to our Apostolic See, which is the head of all the churches of God, and endeavors from the depth of your heart and with sincere intention to follow its sacred and orthodox model without corruption or pollution, being yourself truly orthodox and religious you will offer this principal sacrifice to the Lord Almighty... ⁃ Pope Hadrian I To Patriarch Tarasios, Approved By The Second Council Of Nicaea In Sess. 2 (Price, p. 180) And so without a doubt the pope speaks and appoves papal primacy and tarasios response was "Your fraternal high-priestly holiness, presiding lawfully and by God's will over the holy hierarchs, enjoys universal repute.. - Patriarch Tarasios, 2nd Letter To Pope Hadrian After The Council (Acts Of Nicaea I1, Price, p. 632). And so the second council of nicea teaches both filioque and papal primacy as upheld by the patriarch of Constantinople and Pope Hadrian and the orthodox admit "The primacy which Rome enjoys takes its origin from three factors... The Orthodox Church acknowledges Peter as the first among the Apostles: it does not forget the celebrated 'Petrine texts in the Gospels (Matthew xvi, 18-19; Luke xxii, 32; John xxi, 15-17)... most [Orthodox theologians]... admit that the Bishop of Rome is Peter's successor in a special sense." ⁃ Bishop Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, Penguin Books, 1993, pp. 27-28 and another admiting the Catholic doctrine regarding the papal claims, which gives the Catholic church a higher stance.

​​@@menofvirtue6238welp youtube deleted all my comments, so i recommend you vaticancatholics channel on orthodoxy

To be fair sedevacantists have often their own Priest coming mostly from the FSSPX. I have sedevacantist Friends and they are knowledgeable and prayful. Im not sede tough.

I'm curious, was it a protestant who sent you one of Peter's videos?

@@MikeyJMJ No it was another Catholic contemplating sedevecantism

@@Zoeyelizanelson Sedevecantism means the Papal seat is VACANT right. Although the QUESTION Sedevecantists must ANSWER is this, how long do Sedevecantists CONSIDER the Papal seat VACANT?

@@Darth_Vader258 They have answered this in a way that is seemingly sound but once you look at other popes and saints quotes is easily dismissed as wrong… you’d have to watch some of their videos but if you’re quick to be persuaded I might refrain.

@@Zoeyelizanelson I will NEVER be a Sedevecantist, because I get to RECEIVE the Real Presence Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ ✝️ EVERY Sunday in the Norvus Ordo Mass.

Have you considered returning to ortodoxy?

No, I don't think so. The bishops constitute the hierarchy of the Church. To cut oneself off from them, as the sedevacantists do, has already been condemned by Leo XII and Leo XIII. These popes were targeting a group whose members denied the legitimacy of Pope Pius VII: like the sedevacantists. Leo XII, Pastoris Aeterni: “Your Little Church cannot therefore in any way belong to the Catholic Church. By the very admission of your masters, or rather of those who deceive you, there are no longer any French bishops who support and defend the party you follow. Moreover, all the bishops of the Catholic Universe, to whom they themselves have appealed, and to whom they have addressed their schismatic claims in print, are recognized as approving the conventions of Pius VII and the acts which followed, and the whole Catholic Church is now entirely favorable to them.” Leo XIII, Eximia nos laetitia: “Absolutely no bishop considers them and governs them as his sheep. From this they must conclude with certainty and evidence that they are defectors from the fold of Christ. Now, just as the Little Church had no bishop who recognized them, so the sedevacantists had no bishop who recognized them, all of whom recognized the Council in 1964 and 1965. St. Francis would never separate from all bishops of the world.

@@fidefidelis4912 I will not defend sedevacanties as I find their position to be untenable. My position is that they must be accepted as fellow Catholics because of the confusion and ambiguity which is coming from the top down. Your quotations from Leo XII & XIII rather proves my point. Here we have two Pontiffs making a clear and concise statement about the disposition of groups which have separated themselves from The Church. Let us compare and contrast that to the actions of Pope Francis. Just to choose one of a myriad of examples is his actions is the case of Fr. James Martin, SJ. This man, in order to defend a lifestyle of those who commit a sin crying out to heaven for vengeance is on public record as stating The Bible got it wrong when it comes to homosexuality; he also rejects the teaching of the current Catechism of The Catholic Church on homosexuality. What then are we to make of Pope Francis appointing him to important committees, meeting with him in an encouraging basis, exchanging public letters with encouraging his "ministry"? Along the same lines, the Flemish bishops immediately before their ad limina visit issue a document that allows for the "blessing" of "same sex couples." The result was absolute silence from Pope Francis. One could go on and on here, even pointing out the confusion sown by him with amoris laetitia. So back to the poor sedevacanties, these faithful Catholics have tried to reconcile the actions and inaction of the last several popes and have made a serious miscalculation about the current existence of the Pope. In this case, seriously: who are we to judge?

Hello my brother in Christ. As someone who loves Latin, prays in it and would attend TLM if I had access to it (only attended once as part of a work trip where I was blessed to find a Church that practiced it). I have personally maintained that the actions of clergy to restrict the TLM is no different to clergy that restrict the NO in a local vernacular. The response to either situation is NOT to take a sedevacantist position position. I don't think those who hold to sedevacantist position understand the theological position they are in. They are making the following claims implicitly or explicitly whether they like it or not: 1) The Holy Spirit failed to guide the Church - No different a claim to all manner of Protestants, LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses etc. 2) Jesus allowed Satan to overcome the Church and Jesus did not remain with His Church till the end of the Age - No different a claim to all manner of Protestants, LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses etc. 3) Disobedience to Christ's Authority on earth is a serious sin - Jesus himself told the Jews of his day to obey the Authority of the rabbis and Temple priests, despite whatever level of corruption they had. Jesus prioritises telling people to obey God's Authority that was legitimately delegated and held by the priesthood at the time. Matthew 23:3 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition 3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not. 4) It was only after the establishment of the new covenant, that the Authority was revoked from the Jewish priests and Peter and the Apostles reject the Authority of the priests. Acts 5:27-32 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition 27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them, 28 Saying: Commanding we commanded you, that you should not teach in this name; and behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and you have a mind to bring the blood of this man upon us. 29 But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men. 30 The God of our fathers hath raised up Jesus, whom you put to death, hanging him upon a tree. 31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand, to be Prince and Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins. 32 And we are witnesses of these things and the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to all that obey him. *Has Jesus instituted a new covenant and revoked his delegated Authority from the Magisterium and the Pope?*

As someone who loves Latin, prays in it and would attend TLM if I had access to it (only attended once as part of a work trip where I was blessed to find a Church that practiced it). I have personally maintained that the actions of clergy to restrict the TLM is no different to clergy that restrict the NO in a local vernacular. The response to either situation is NOT to take a sedevacantist position position. I don't think those who hold to sedevacantist position understand the theological position they are in. They are making the following claims implicitly or explicitly whether they like it or not: 1) The Holy Spirit failed to guide the Church - No different a claim to all manner of Protestants, LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses etc. 2) Jesus allowed Satan to overcome the Church and Jesus did not remain with His Church till the end of the Age - No different a claim to all manner of Protestants, LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses etc. 3) Disobedience to Christ's Authority on earth is a serious sin - Jesus himself told the Jews of his day to obey the Authority of the rabbis and Temple priests, despite whatever level of corruption they had. Jesus prioritises telling people to obey God's Authority that was legitimately delegated and held by the priesthood at the time. Matthew 23:3 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition 3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not. 4) It was only after the establishment of the new covenant, that the Authority was revoked from the Jewish priests and Peter and the Apostles reject the Authority of the priests. Acts 5:27-32 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition 27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them, 28 Saying: Commanding we commanded you, that you should not teach in this name; and behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and you have a mind to bring the blood of this man upon us. 29 But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men. 30 The God of our fathers hath raised up Jesus, whom you put to death, hanging him upon a tree. 31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand, to be Prince and Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins. 32 And we are witnesses of these things and the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to all that obey him. *Has Jesus instituted a new covenant and revoked his delegated Authority from the Magisterium and the Pope?*

Sedevacantism struggles the most when it makes overly specific claims.

But the Dimonds say they don’t have jurisdiction because they are heretics who believe in Baptism of desire 😂 This is why we say sedes are like Protestants, they all interpret doctrine on their own and anathematize those who disagree with them

baptism of blood and desire is not heresy, and it's the only way to go when bergoglio is proclaimed the pope and he is a rank heretic. The SSPX sure aren't the way to go in the absenced of a real pope

@@jeffreylazarusbuggy4787 Do you see my point though? Since all sedevacantists have given up on the Church, they become their own popes and determine doctrine for themselves. So even if I was interested in becoming a sede, how would I know which group had the fullness of truth?

@@Seethi_C By their fruits you shall know them. I see the fruits of the CMRI everyday, and I'm at perfect peace with it

The bishops constitute the hierarchy of the Church. To cut oneself off from them, as the sedevacantists do, has already been condemned by Leo XII and Leo XIII. These popes were targeting a group whose members denied the legitimacy of Pope Pius VII: like the sedevacantists. Leo XII, Pastoris Aeterni: “Your Little Church cannot therefore in any way belong to the Catholic Church. By the very admission of your masters, or rather of those who deceive you, there are no longer any French bishops who support and defend the party you follow. Moreover, all the bishops of the Catholic Universe, to whom they themselves have appealed, and to whom they have addressed their schismatic claims in print, are recognized as approving the conventions of Pius VII and the acts which followed, and the whole Catholic Church is now entirely favorable to them.” Leo XIII, Eximia nos laetitia: “Absolutely no bishop considers them and governs them as his sheep. From this they must conclude with certainty and evidence that they are defectors from the fold of Christ. Now, just as the Little Church had no bishop who recognized them, so the sedevacantists had no bishop who recognized them, all of whom recognized the Council in 1964 and 1965.

If I'm not mistaken, that would be Paul F. Jernberg - «Introit: The Love of God». But could be some other song. A link to Paul F. Jernberg songs page is in the video's description.

@@GranMaese God bless you, you’re right. You can find it on the composer’s Spotify at the 2 minute point of that track.

Deb9ra Gorton, I sought to forestall my acting in error on numerous errors in the Vatican Council 11 (1962-65) documents and follow up documents and United Nations documents by seeking objective social confirmation of my judgement. These documents were at least inattentive to the simultaneous authorisations by the economist statistician and consecrated married Colin Clark in 1964 of Pope St Paul V1's Commission on Population and the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO). These documents included particularly: "Declaration on Christian Education", Vat 11, GE, 1965, 3: "... those others to whom the parents entrust some share in their duty to educate ..."; Decree on the Training of Priests", Vat 11, OT, 1965, 10: "greater excellence of virginity consecrated to Christ"; Pope St Paul V1's Encyclical Letter: "Of Human Life", Humanae Vitae, 1968, 12 omitting 'qualitatively equal' with "inseparable" for "union and procreation" in marriage; and of the FAO in transposing two columns of their statistics comparing rate of growth of population and food supplies in the developing countries so asserting in error that two-thirds of the population of the world was malnourished. A helper of my family as my housemaster at Downside School, UK from 1960-1965, Dom Martin Salmon osb, Downside Benedictine Abbey, UK, in his letter to me, dated 30 October 1994, gave objective social confirmation of this judgement by me as follows: I was directed in my then unknown to both me and all others, though in uncertainty believed by me and all others to be my identity and role by Pope St John Paul 11's Council for the Laity letter addressing me asking its contents be communicated to me, dated 28 September 1994 (ref. 874/94/S-61/F), through the Our Lady of the Rosary parish of the Archdiocese of Brisbane, Australia that I served as a catechist: "... to sustain what you consider to be your rights." I take these "rights" to also be yours as referred to in Pope St John Paul 11's Exhortation: "Christ's Faithful", 1988, 40: "In such a way, the family can and must require from all ... the respect for those rights which in saving the family, will save society itself." This sustaining directed of me is by out occulting or out camouflaging in my unknown to me and all both identity and role the occult as hidden or camouflaged, grooming by diseased "familyists" for their families tax exemption and lower insurance cost economic advantages of their psychologically and or emotionally vulnerable family members with an occult as hidden, incest connected as substitute mate, non-economic false status inducement of "higher vocation" of consecrated celibate marriage to consecrated male female marriage. In both of these marriages, celibate vowed to man in Christ and male female vowed to God, Mary, mother of Jesus and Mother of God, was simultaneously authorised by an absolute power to be joined by applications of ensuring her procreation gift role and insuring need of union of her identity. This sustaining is in your ensuring your procreation roles as gifts as confirmed de facto by Pope Francis on 10 June 2021 on the reference point of Mary, mother of Jesus, by her simultaneous authorisations recorded at Luke 1: v. 29&34 and 38 confirmed by what in uncertainty she "believed" v.45 and two members of my family, my father, Colin Clark by his simultaneous authorisations of church and state in 1964, and me by my simultaneous authorisations of church and state on 24 January 1995. It is a matter of in uncertainty belief as the keeping of the inseparability and qualitative equality of thinking reason and having faith religion that these simultaneous authorisations, particularly those of Mary, mother of Jesus, exercised an absolute power of authorisation as a reference point for Pope Francis. This sustaining by Pope Francis on 10 June 2021 is: (a) in the continuing Cardinal Angelo Becciu and nine other Vatican state citizens or employees alleged embezzlement of charity donations case presently been heard in Pope Francis' Vatican state court, (b) on the "Zan" anti-homophobia bill before the Italian Parliament case as an unacceptable risk of fraud on union need of family members of consecrated marriages completed in early November 2021 by its defeat after a protest note against this bill authorised by Pope Francis. I am obeying this direction of me on 28 September 1994 (referenced as above) by Bishop Paul Cordes as Vice President of the Pope's Council for the Laity by to this end of: "to sustain what you consider to be your rights", responding to all of what I consider are the relevant posts needing this sustaining by a comment. My references of a copy of the letter to the Brisbane parish I served directing me from Bishop Paul Cordes, dated 28 September 1994, and of the letter to me from Fr Martin Salmon osb, dated 30 October 1994, giving objective social confirmation of my judgement of the inseparability and equality in both quantity and quality of consecrated male female marriage vowed to God and celibate marriage vowed to man in Christ, on which I then acted by my simultaneous authorisations of church and state helpers of the family on 24 January 1995, will be sent to you on any request by you to my email address below. Oliver Clark, oliver_clark5@telstra.com

Right, it's 'Bulverism'. "You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong."

It’s a 2+2=4 level question.

Frank DiSilvio, As forestalling my acting in error on numerous errors in the Vatican Council 11 (1962-65) documents and follow up documents and United Nations documents inattentive to the simultaneous authorisations by the economist statistician and consecrated married Colin Clark in 1964 of Pope St Paul V1's Commission on Population and the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO), particularly: "Declaration on Christian Education", GE, 1965, 3: "... those others to whom the parents entrust some share in their duty to educate ...", Decree on the Training of Priests", OT, 1965, 10: "greater excellence of virginity consecrated to Christ"; Pope St Paul V1's Encyclical Letter: "Of Human Life", Humanae Vitae, 1968, 12 omitting 'qualitatively equal' with "inseparable" for "union and procreation" in marriage; and the FAO in transposing two columns of their statistics comparing rate of growth of population and food supplies in the developing countries so asserting in error that two-thirds of the population of the world was malnourished, a helper of my family as my housemaster at Downside School, UK from 1960-1965, Dom Martin Salmon osb, Downside Benedictine Abbey, UK, in his letter to me, dated 30 October 1994, gave objective social confirmation of this judgement as follows: I was directed in my then unknown to both me and all others, though in uncertainty believed by me and all others to be my identity and role by Pope St John Paul 11's Council for the Laity letter addressing me asking its contents be communicated to me, dated 28 September 1994 (ref. 874/94/S-61/F), through the Our Lady of the Rosary parish of the Archdiocese of Brisbane, Australia that I served as a catechist: "... to sustain what you consider to be your rights." I take these "rights" to also be yours as referred to in Pope St John Paul 11's Exhortation: "Christ's Faithful", 1988, 40: "In such a way, the family can and must require from all ... the respect for those rights which in saving the family, will save society itself." This sustaining directed of me is by out occulting or out camouflaging in my unknown to me and all both identity and role the occult as hidden or camouflaged, grooming by diseased "familyists" for their families tax exemption and lower insurance cost economic advantages of their psychologically and or emotionally vulnerable family members with an occult as hidden, incest connected as substitute mate, non-economic false status inducement of "higher vocation" of consecrated celibate marriage to consecrated male female marriage. In both of these marriages, celibate vowed to man in Christ and male female vowed to God, Mary, mother of Jesus and Mother of God, was simultaneously authorised by an absolute power to be joined by applications of ensuring her procreation gift role and insuring need of union of her identity. This sustaining is in your ensuring your procreation roles as gifts as confirmed de facto by Pope Francis on 10 June 2021 on the reference point of Mary, mother of Jesus, by her simultaneous authorisations recorded at Luke 1: v. 29&34 and 38 confirmed by what in uncertainty she "believed" v.45 and two members of my family, my father, Colin Clark by his simultaneous authorisations of church and state in 1964, and me by my simultaneous authorisations of church and state on 24 January 1995. This sustaining by Pope Francis on 10 June 2021 is: (a) in the continuing Cardinal Angelo Becciu and nine other Vatican state citizens or employees alleged embezzlement of charity donations case presently been heard in Pope Francis' Vatican state court, (b) on the "Zan" anti-homophobia bill before the Italian Parliament case as an unacceptable risk of fraud on union need of family members of consecrated marriages completed in early November 2021 by its defeat after a protest note against this bill authorised by Pope Francis. I am obeying this direction of me on 28 September 1994 (referenced as above) by Bishop Paul Cordes as Vice President of the Pope's Council for the Laity by to this end of: "to sustain what you consider to be your rights", responding to all of what I consider are the relevant posts needing this sustaining by a comment. Oliver Clark, oliver_clark5@telstra.com

So which sedevacantist group has the fullness of truth?

@@user-kb4dv1ud3f Is this some sort of strange argument in favor of sedevacantisim?

@user-kb4dv1ud3f Holy shit buddy, did you even read what I wrote? 🤣

@user-kb4dv1ud3f If I wasn’t confused before, I am now. You’re a strange one. God bless you.

@@firstnamelastname5751 Hello my brother in Christ. As someone who loves Latin, prays in it and would attend TLM if I had access to it (only attended once as part of a work trip where I was blessed to find a Church that practiced it). I have personally maintained that the actions of clergy to restrict the TLM is no different to clergy that restrict the NO in a local vernacular. The response to either situation is NOT to take a sedevacantist position position. I don't think those who hold to sedevacantist position understand the theological position they are in. They are making the following claims implicitly or explicitly whether they like it or not: 1) The Holy Spirit failed to guide the Church - No different a claim to all manner of Protestants, LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses etc. 2) Jesus allowed Satan to overcome the Church and Jesus did not remain with His Church till the end of the Age - No different a claim to all manner of Protestants, LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses etc. 3) Disobedience to Christ's Authority on earth is a serious sin - Jesus himself told the Jews of his day to obey the Authority of the rabbis and Temple priests, despite whatever level of corruption they had. Jesus prioritises telling people to obey God's Authority that was legitimately delegated and held by the priesthood at the time. Matthew 23:3 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition 3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not. 4) It was only after the establishment of the new covenant, that the Authority was revoked from the Jewish priests and Peter and the Apostles reject the Authority of the priests. Acts 5:27-32 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition 27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them, 28 Saying: Commanding we commanded you, that you should not teach in this name; and behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and you have a mind to bring the blood of this man upon us. 29 But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men. 30 The God of our fathers hath raised up Jesus, whom you put to death, hanging him upon a tree. 31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand, to be Prince and Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins. 32 And we are witnesses of these things and the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to all that obey him. *Has Jesus instituted a new covenant and revoked his delegated Authority from the Magisterium and the Pope?*

rick leeo, I sought to forestall my acting in error on numerous errors in the Vatican Council 11 (1962-65) documents and follow up documents and United Nations documents by seeking objective social confirmation of my judgement. These documents were at least inattentive to the simultaneous authorisations by the economist statistician and consecrated married Colin Clark in 1964 of Pope St Paul V1's Commission on Population and the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO). These documents included particularly: "Declaration on Christian Education", Vat 11, GE, 1965, 3: "... those others to whom the parents entrust some share in their duty to educate ..."; Decree on the Training of Priests", Vat 11, OT, 1965, 10: "greater excellence of virginity consecrated to Christ"; Pope St Paul V1's Encyclical Letter: "Of Human Life", Humanae Vitae, 1968, 12 omitting 'qualitatively equal' with "inseparable" for "union and procreation" in marriage; and of the FAO in transposing two columns of their statistics comparing rate of growth of population and food supplies in the developing countries so asserting in error that two-thirds of the population of the world was malnourished. A helper of my family as my housemaster at Downside School, UK from 1960-1965, Dom Martin Salmon osb, Downside Benedictine Abbey, UK, in his letter to me, dated 30 October 1994, gave objective social confirmation of this judgement as follows: I was directed in my then unknown to both me and all others, though in uncertainty believed by me and all others to be my identity and role by Pope St John Paul 11's Council for the Laity letter addressing me asking its contents be communicated to me, dated 28 September 1994 (ref. 874/94/S-61/F), through the Our Lady of the Rosary parish of the Archdiocese of Brisbane, Australia that I served as a catechist: "... to sustain what you consider to be your rights." I take these "rights" to also be yours as referred to in Pope St John Paul 11's Exhortation: "Christ's Faithful", 1988, 40: "In such a way, the family can and must require from all ... the respect for those rights which in saving the family, will save society itself." This sustaining directed of me is by out occulting or out camouflaging in my unknown to me and all both identity and role the occult as hidden or camouflaged, grooming by diseased "familyists" for their families tax exemption and lower insurance cost economic advantages of their psychologically and or emotionally vulnerable family members with an occult as hidden, incest connected as substitute mate, non-economic false status inducement of "higher vocation" of consecrated celibate marriage to consecrated male female marriage. In both of these marriages, celibate vowed to man in Christ and male female vowed to God, Mary, mother of Jesus and Mother of God, was simultaneously authorised by an absolute power to be joined by applications of ensuring her procreation gift role and insuring need of union of her identity. This sustaining is in your ensuring your procreation roles as gifts as confirmed de facto by Pope Francis on 10 June 2021 on the reference point of Mary, mother of Jesus, by her simultaneous authorisations recorded at Luke 1: v. 29&34 and 38 confirmed by what in uncertainty she "believed" v.45 and two members of my family, my father, Colin Clark by his simultaneous authorisations of church and state in 1964, and me by my simultaneous authorisations of church and state on 24 January 1995. It is a matter of in uncertainty belief as the keeping of the inseparability and qualitative equality of thinking reason and having faith religion that these simultaneous authorisations, particularly those of Mary, mother of Jesus, exercised an absolute power of authorisation as a reference point for Pope Francis. This sustaining by Pope Francis on 10 June 2021 is: (a) in the continuing Cardinal Angelo Becciu and nine other Vatican state citizens or employees alleged embezzlement of charity donations case presently been heard in Pope Francis' Vatican state court, (b) on the "Zan" anti-homophobia bill before the Italian Parliament case as an unacceptable risk of fraud on union need of family members of consecrated marriages completed in early November 2021 by its defeat after a protest note against this bill authorised by Pope Francis. I am obeying this direction of me on 28 September 1994 (referenced as above) by Bishop Paul Cordes as Vice President of the Pope's Council for the Laity by to this end of: "to sustain what you consider to be your rights", responding to all of what I consider are the relevant posts needing this sustaining by a comment. My references of a copy of the letter to the Brisbane parish I served directing me from Bishop Paul Cordes, dated 28 September 1994, and of the letter to me from Fr Martin Salmon osb, dated 30 October 1994, giving objective social confirmation of my judgement of the inseparability and equality in both quantity and quality of consecrated male female marriage vowed to God and celibate marriage vowed to man in Christ, on which I then acted by my simultaneous authorisations of church and state helpers of the family on 24 January 1995, will be sent to you on any request by you to my email address below. Oliver Clark, oliver_clark5@telstra.com

That makes them Western Orthodox (like Eastern Orthodox) not Catholic. Peter's chair is not an optional part of the Catholic faith.

@@atrifle8364 Ofcourse the The Pope is necessary. The seat is just vacant for the time being.

Saint Padre Pio: Pray, hope, and don't worry. Saint Teresa of Avila: Let nothing disturb you, Let nothing frighten you, All things are passing away: God never changes. Patience obtains all things Whoever has God lacks nothing; God alone suffices.

It feels like Dimond reduces this all to a guessing game.

If you belong to the 'Vatican' II Counterchurch then you'll be unable to enter Heaven. The Holy Church ⛪ still exists and we can go to confession and avoid all sin, particularly mortal sins and ask God for forgiveness for sins committed.

@@stlouisix3 That's your personal theory that rejects the promises of Christ. He said the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church, not "until VII" Being Catholic means trusting all of the councils, not all of them minus the newest one. It is also the sort of legalism Christ condemned in the Pharisees. To make salvation a set of rituals from 1962 is make a tiny Christ, unable to reach through time to us.

Eva - I see someone is here to scare you again. Trust in Our Lord and his promises. The litgury always varies, the men always fallen. Anyone coming by insisting that only x rituals will save you isn't believing Christ.

hi may I know how to have access to that debate please? thanks and Godbless...

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qq-RqK1zl8XdYZc.html From Matt Fradd's channel, Pints with Aquinas

Sede vacante is the majority opinion of Catholic Theologians on what would happen if a heretic was elected to the papacy or a Pope fell into public heresy as proposed by Doctor of the Church St Robert Bellarmine. Michael Dimond holds the same belief as Bellarmine on the issue of a heretical Pope but also hold other errors against de fide dogmas of the Church which would place him outside of the Catholic Church if he knew about them. Such dogmas include the continual actual existence of the Apostolic College (it must always exist, in all times, in any event) which is required to preserve the Apostolicity of the Church. He also denies the universal Church teaching on baptism of blood and desire, extrapolating the teaching of the excommunicated Fr Feeney. If you wish to understand the Catholic teaching on this topic, it would be best to consult Catholics who don't hold the sectarian positions that many like Michael Dimond have embraced. The best discussion I have seen on this topic was a series of long-form interviews between Louie Verracchio (attended FSSP at the time, was a Benedict XVI resignationist) and John Lane (attends FSSPX but has written publicly in support of the Catholic faith including the sede vacante position). You can find these here: crisisinthechurch.com/interviews

@@noelnana2059 pints with Aquinas channel has it, Dimond vs Cassman

It actually brings a lot of hope. That the great King is coming back in our lifetime and we are of the few that can discern truth from lies.

Saying that the seat is vacant is more of a black pill than saying that the Holy Mother Church could provide a defective liturgy, modernists in the seat of Peter and disciplines contrary to faith and morals?? I think not. Sede Vacante.

@@christianthinker2536 "Father" Cekada and "Bishop" Dolan have no authority to address the faithful

@@christianthinker2536 Putting aside that their schismatic opinions are irrelevant, most people do not have access to a Sede parish, so Sedevacantism thus mandates that their adherents abstain from receiving the sacraments in the majority of cases. If that's not a spiritual black pill, I don't know what is.

The blackpilled “hidden remnant church” idea is tied to a historical pessimism that is also shared by neo-jansenist RadTrads (the world is getting worse and worse, and Christ will return to a world that has been almost completely defeated and overrun by evil). This idea that the Church will fail it’s mission to Christianize the world, and is destined to be an underground remnant by the End Times is a pipeline to sedevacantism. But you see this doom and gloom pervasive in Traditional Catholicism. This effeminate despair and headline-hysteria is repulsive and kills the heart and militancy of the faith.

@@christianthinker2536 It’s absolutely ironic how you say *It is not a sin to not attend mass* and then proceed to say it is a sin to attend a valid TLM. Please hear yourself the propositions you are posing are absolutely ridiculous .

Sedevacantism is a cope

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qq-RqK1zl8XdYZc.html The debate, on pints with aquinas, was between Dr Cassman v. Br. Peter Dimond

@@killianmiller6107 No, the Novus Ordo is.

No, Sede’s cope over the Novus Ordo because to them, nothing but the defection of the Church could explain the liturgical abuses and increasing secularization after the council, so they cope by saying the council wasn’t valid and/or the popes aren’t really the popes. This to me reveals their utter lack of faith in Jesus (Mark 4:35-41).

Sede vacante is the majority opinion of Catholic Theologians on what would happen if a heretic was elected to the papacy or a Pope fell into public heresy as proposed by Doctor of the Church St Robert Bellarmine. Michael Dimond holds the same belief as Bellarmine on the issue of a heretical Pope but also hold other errors against de fide dogmas of the Church which would place him outside of the Catholic Church if he knew about them. Such dogmas include the continual actual existence of the Apostolic College (it must always exist, in all times, in any event) which is required to preserve the Apostolicity of the Church. He also denies the universal Church teaching on baptism of blood and desire, extrapolating the teaching of the excommunicated Fr Feeney. If you wish to understand the Catholic teaching on this topic, it would be best to consult Catholics who don't hold the sectarian positions that many like Michael Dimond have embraced. The best discussion I have seen on this topic was a series of long-form interviews between Louie Verracchio (attended FSSP at the time, was a Benedict XVI resignationist) and John Lane (attends FSSPX but has written publicly in support of the Catholic faith including the sede vacante position). You can find these here: crisisinthechurch.com/interviews

@@drjanitor3747 : It's the truth. Just what we all need to hear!

@@alhilford2345 so you are okay with being apart of a bastard religion??? The NO is not the Catholic Church. It’s a new religion and it has usurped the True Faith. Sedevacantism is just simiply practicing the Catholic Faith as it was always taught , and we reject the False “popes”.

Siri went with the modernists too, so even if it were true, the Siri thesis doesn't do anyone any good.

​@@collinadkisson4437 Siri was under duress! It appears that he was the pope until he died, likely murdered, in 1989, and providing for the election of his successor.