@KC101X Instances without a pope were genuine interregnums where either the cardinals had a hard time coming together to vote or their votes kept locking up. However, there has never been a time where there was no pope and no cardinals were attempting to come together for a conclave. The Sedevacantist scenario is not a true interregnum and Vatican I already addressed it.
Can someone explain to me what the crisis is? Are you saying that me going to an english mass, holding hands during the lord's prayer, etc. is a problem? Or is it something else?
@SSLinebeck According to Sedevacantists, due to various alleged heresies, the man we call pope is not truly a pope. I attempt to refute this thesis in my video.
@SeptemberCatholic18 Sedevacantists are zealots/puritans and most of all Apostates. Their views are the same as Protestants whether they admit it or not.
SeptemberCatholic18, why did you refuse to accept Brother Peter Dimond's offer for a debate ? Maybe its because you know he will defeat you on practically every topic concerning the Catholic faith ?
(cont.) This explanation is agreed in principle by all Catholic theologians so far as I am aware. The only difference came in as to just how, and by whom, such a pope would be judged. And that is chiefly what you are debating here, even though you continually confuse it with the issue as whether Catholics may, or even must, make an individual judgment of the situation in sense 2 which I have explained, prior to the judgment of the matter by the Church (in sense 1). Two different issues. Clear?
Now what does it mean by the Pontiff "may judge all."
The Catholic Encyclopedia states that a pope has NEVER been deposed ipso facto. So you are wrong to suggest it. Once again, it is under "Infallibility."
In history, a number of popes have ACTUALLY been deposed. In canon law, there is an exception to the "judged by no one" principle if the pope shows himself a heretic. In that case, he may, indeed must, be judged.
Theologians resolve this without impairing the absolute primacy of the pope. They argue that a pope who lapses into heresy (or who was already one when elected) is not, IN FACT, actually the pope, but a sort of impostor. Therefore, to judge him is not to judge the pope.
(cont.) For instance, you may or may not have an opinion as to the O.J. Simpson case. If you do, that is a judgment, in the 2nd meaning I just defined. But only the two juries, in the criminal and civil trials, judged him in the first sense, as any jury must do, and as the judge must do in a case without a jury. A court judges; a court passes judgment.
And that's the meaning of "Prima Sedes a nemine iudicatur."
Now what does it mean by the Pontiff "may judge all."
(I'll otherwise ignore the fact that you completely contradicted the Catholic Encyclopedia where it says that a council has the authority to depose a pope for heresy.)
(cont.) It (the First See) is judged by NOBODY. It is NOT judged by bishops, even in a general council, as the Gallicans maintained.
For that reason, there is no power on earth which can depose the pope (which requires a legal condemnation), because they have no jurisdiction over him, as pope.
And that's all that it means.
It does not mean "judged" in the sense of an individual judgment, a conclusion any person with the use of reason arrives at constantly about things of all sorts.
Actually, the Encyclopedia states that a council MUST be called in such situations.
Also, the council WOULD be infallible WITHOUT the pope, because this is an extra-constitutional crisis. Under regular constitutional rule, the council would need to be validated by the pope. But in such a crisis, the pope's legitimacy is questionable.
Your second sentence: Now you are openly making up your argument. It's obvious to anyone who knows theology that a council without a pope cannot be infallible nor ecumenical. That's why you give no authority for this amazing, and heretical, claim.
My, an "extra-constitutional crisis." Too bad the Catholic Encyclopedia doesn't say anything like this (nor does any other Catholic authority).
Sorry, you probably input this while I was typing another comment. I just dealt with this in another comment, but to reiterate:
Yes, the CE talks about an "extra-constitutional crisis." You are right that far (and it's a perfectly valid point). However, it does NOT say this makes the council infallible, as you apparently wish people to think the CE said. And THAT is the point at issue. It is insane to think that a council is infallible without a pope.
Why in the world would the CE talk about an extra-constitutional crisis without mentioning an extraordinary event that could occur within?
Obviously, it is saying that it is infallible. That's why it is under the section "SCOPE OF INFALLIBILITY." If it wasn't infallible, then how could it have authority over an alleged pope?
My friend, you have lost all credibility. As soon as I make this a video, there will be no refutation but from stubborn people as yourself.
I'm sure any sedevacantist would love to see a council convened to judge the heresies of Benedict XVI et al., even though they don't think it's necessary in itself. Wouldn't you? You think there's a doctrinal crisis in the Church. Why not petition Benedict XVI to call a council to settle these issues, including the issue of his own orthodoxy? Are you proposing that the Church put him on trial?
Actually, if you read St. Robert Bellarmine's work closely, he states that all of his opinions are merely theoretical, as he does not believe a pope would ever fall into formal heresy. This is suggested by Christ's promise in Luke 22:32.
Yes, there is a difference between convincing people that something is wrong, and dismantling it. I can explain it to you if prompted.
No, I don't think Pope Benedict has committed any material heresy. If he has, then yes, we might need a trial.
I HAVE read Bellarmine closely; I doubt very much whether you have even seen his book. And no, he does not state that "all of his opinions are merely theoretical." That's a complete fabrication, whether yours or (more likely) someone else's.
I will be glad to send you a facsimile of the actual text (in Latin) of the chapters of De Romano Pontifice which we are dealing with, along with a translation. That way you can read it for yourself.
Also, I hereby prompt you to explain "dismantling" etc.
Here is where he says he is speaking theoretically:
"This opinion [that the Pope could not become an heretic] is probable and easily defended... Nonetheless, in view of the fact that this is not certain, and that the common opinion is the opposite one, it is useful to examine the solution to this question, within the hypothesis that the Pope can be an heretic."
De Romano Pontifice (Milan, 1857), vol. II, chap. 30
"They leave the Church"? Sounds like a judgment of schism or heresy? Either you think you're infallible, or you're completely inconsistent, or you've given up the idea that it's necessary to read souls to judge formal heresy (or schism). Which is it?
Yes, it is indeed a judgment of schism, and I am in my right. You wanna know why? Because one is allowed to judge suspected heretics and schismatics if they appear to be such.
Yet there are limits to how one may judge. One may not judge superiors. They may resist until a decision is handed down. Sedevacantists are not superiors. I can judge them.
I do not claim, however, to know with definite knowledge whether anybody is a formal heretic. But I do suspect Sedevacantists are just that.
So we have yet a new position, which you haven't mentioned previously. OK, what Catholic theologian or canonist (much less pope) teaches that there is any difference between superiors and anyone else when judging heresy? I'll answer that - none.
You are confusing two different things. 1) Judgment of a judge in court - official, legal, etc. 2) Judgment meaning a conclusion of the mind about some fact- in this case, heresy.
A superior can't be "judged" by an inferior, e.g. a district court judge can't overrule the Supreme Court. But he can "judge" (sense 2) that the Supreme Court is wrong.
It's just like the different senses of "depose" (one purely metaphorical) which I already pointed out. Maybe you'll get around to reading that and commenting.
And that's the origin of the whole theological controversy. Canon law and tradition teach that the pope can't be judged by anybody...
I actually already used this argument far before my discussion with you. Go watch my video dismantling Sedevacantism in four steps. I explicitly use the argument there and even defend it using Church teaching.
By the way, I am not confusing anything about judging. Cum Ex makes it clear that we are not to judge the pope. That means we cannot accuse him of formal heresy if there is reasonable doubt to suspect he may not be. There is indeed reasonable doubt now!
No, that isn't what it means, and your confusion continues. Cum Ex Apostolatus says absolutely that a manifest heretic cannot be validly elected pope. It does not say, or mean, "we cannot accuse him of formal heresy" etc.; that's entirely your contribution. All along, you have referred to documents to give them impression they teach your theories, when they don't. Are you misleading viewers deliberately or just out of ignorance?
I congratulate you on "reasonable doubt." That's admitting that there's abundant proof of Benedict's heresy and of his predecessors'. All the same, this isn't true that there's reasonable doubt, if for no other reason, because Paul VI and his successors have absolutely refused to answer the countless public accusations against their orthodoxy (beginning with Cardinal Ottaviani's, 40 years ago).
You are mistaken. I said that there is reasonable doubt to the position of Sedevacantism. The fact that a pope has not responded to charges brought against him does not dispel that doubt.
The only thing that could dispel doubt is an infallible council. End of story. Until then our ideas and conclusions are fallible.
If I am wrong, then what, pray tell, does "judged by none" mean? Humor me.
Where does the Catholic Encyclopedia say that a pope was disposed? Or is this more opinions?
A reasonable man, on seeing a crime or what appears to be one, gives the guilty man an opportunity to defend himself. If a reasonable doubt is established, he should be given the benefit. Agreed. What if a man caught red-handed refuses to defend himself? What if the evidence is more than adequate to convict him? A reasonable person would have to say that the time for doubt is past. This isn't an abstract issue for Catholics; we must obey God and not men (nor antipopes). Our souls are at stake.
There is no red-handedness. You are simply referring to ambiguous actions by the pope which by no means constitutes as formal heresies simply because you interpret them as such. For example, I am seeing the SAME thing you are seeing, yet I reject your position. There is still reasonable doubt.
Second, a court can be wrong. If you are comparing yourself to the judge in the courtroom, then you only vindicated me. Your conclusion may be invalid.
(continued) However, both canon law and the history of the Church show that popes have actually been deposed. The problem is resolving this apparent contradiction. Neither of the main sides, Bellarmine and Cajetan (your position) denies that popes have ACTUALLY BEEN DEPOSED FOR HERESY, and that it has LAWFULLY AND RIGHTLY BEEN DONE (in at least one instance).
OK, send me your mailing address and I'll send the relevant chapter and maybe some other related texts.
"Fallible judgment"? As opposed to the fallible judgment of who? Let's see: you, priests you know, John Salza, your bishop (who is in crisis according to you), your pope and council (who judged nothing infallibly, as I believe you admitted), etc?
Actually, I make no judgment. THAT'S THE POINT! The pope is judged by none in this world. I give him the benefit of the doubt, which is the safe route. You always err on the side of caution.
Therefore, I will not employ my fallible judgment, I will leave pope-deposing decisions to the infallible Church.
On dismantling, it's just a quibble on my part, but I commented on it because you seemed to think that people should be convinced by you on any other basis but your arguments. They certainly shouldn't believe you just because they see you on youtube, should they? As for arguments, maybe I should move over to your other video as you suggested. I concentrated on this one just to show casual viewers that your credibility is nil.
Well I think you failed at this drastically. You are left still employing fallible judgment and there is still reasonable doubt to be taken into account.
You have cited Bellarmine as if he is infallible, and used that premise to support your thesis. That is despicable. Such drastic decisions ought to be supported by something a bit more solid than opinion.
Despicable? Quoting a Doctor of the Church is despicable? That's a pretty strange statement.
Quoting John Salza is NOT despicable?
Maybe the problem is that Bellarmine is a Doctor of the CATHOLIC Church, not the conciliar, Vatican II one, which you adhere to.
Sedevacantists question popes for no other reason than their (the popes') rebellion against all past popes and councils, and you come telling them that justifying their position by Catholic arguments is DESPICABLE?
I'd suggest you reduce the heat and get back to logic, which you mentioned a while back.
We all know that no human being (apart from the authors of Sacred Scripture) is infallible except popes, and papally approved councils, when defining ex cathedra.
That applies to St. Robert Bellarmine, to you, to me, to John Salza, to Cajetan and various authors you have cited.
So just where exactly does that get you? Nowhere at all, at least in LOGIC.
No, it gets me all the way to the finish line! Think.
Here is your argument: fallible logic is sufficient enough to warrant declaring that the pope is invalid.
Here is my logic: only infallible declarations can depose a pope, especially since they are explicitly given this authority.
I actually have the Catholic Encyclopedia backing me on this. It has been decided. You rest your entire thesis on fallible pillars, regardless of what you make of them.
I guess we're in a speed typing contest, but you're getting ahead of yourself. I already asked you to give us the quote from the (non-infallible) Catholic Encyclopedia. It certainly doesn't say what you claim. In fact, it's laughable. Take a half hour or so off and try to find it. Please, pull this down and go back and learn some CATHOLIC theology and law.
"It is also generally held, and rightly, that questions of dogmatic fact, in regard to which definite certainty is required for the safe custody and interpretation of revealed truth, may be determined infallibly by the Church. Such questions, for example, would be: whether a certain pope is legitimate."
I shouldn't even have to answer made-up arguments, but you seem confused even as to a papal heretic. Are you saying that a council WITHOUT the pope can issue an infallible judgment of the POPE? That seems to be your point. Yet any Catholic knows that councils are only valid with papal approval. So are you saying a heretical pope would have to approve his own condemnation? Benedict XVI is going to excommunicate himself? Is that your point? If not, what is?
My last comment seems to have disappeared, so apologies if it shows up again. Thanks for the quote; could you please give the name of the article? That's the minimum for a valid cite.
OK, to the point. What this refers to is judgments as to the validity of a PAST pope, not the existing one (without whom the council would not even be lawful, much less infallible). I know of no such instances, but it is possible. No quarrel here at all. It has nothing to do with deposing a pope.
Thank you. I've made my point below, but I'll look at the whole section. Certainly, the Catholic Encyclopedia is not taking the absurd position that a heretical pope can be deposed by a supposedly infallible council. By a council, yes; but they don't really depose the pope, merely declare that the man who was pope, or apparently so, is not ACTUALLY the pope by reason of his heresy. This would NOT be AN INFALLIBLE JUDGMENT. I certainly wish this would happen, then we'd all be happy.
Once again, you are returning to the idea of infallible judgments. A little while ago, you admitted that what you really meant was authoritative judgments, binding the Church. All you are doing is going around in circles.
And really, Sept., please tell us, do you really think that a council can issue an infallible judgment WITHOUT the pope, even AGAINST the pope? How about proving that one (after you finally decide which it is).
Here is the Encyclopedia's response to that objection:
"This was what might be described as an extra-constitutional crisis; and, as the Church has a right in such circumstances to remove reasonable doubt and provide a pope whose claims would be indisputable, even an acephalous council, supported by the body of bishops throughout the world, was competent to meet this altogether exceptional emergency without thereby setting up a precedent that could be erected into a regular constitutional rule."
Please note: nothing is said here about the acephalous (that is, headless) council being INFALLIBLE, which is what I am disputing.
Such a council would remove REASONABLE doubts, to the extent they existed. It still could not do so infallibly. Yes, I have said several times, why not call such a council? If you are worried about sedevacantist souls, wouldn't this solve the problem? Why not call for and petition the hierarchy for such a council? If you don't, you are a hypocrite, it seems to me.
Wow. I've never seen so much denial in the face of such explicit evidence.
The purpose of the second part is to explain that an acephalous council would be infallible in a crises where the pope was in question.
That's why it says that this is the sole exception, and it would be so "without thereby setting up a precedent that could be erected into a regular constitutional rule."
Also, this text says that such a council is a proper way of dealing with a doubtful pope, which I agree with and never denied. It does NOT say it is the ONLY way of removing reasonable doubt. It is one way, probably the best way. Until then, nothing prevents Catholics from doing their duty, which is to avoid heresy and heretics, even those claiming to be the the pope. If some disagree about the pope, that's their right.
The existing hierarchy is grossly failing its duty by NOT calling one.
Again, this refers to a judgment on the validity of a pope by a council held under a future pope, which can decide this infallibly.
A council was after the questioned pontificate of Anacletus II. I don't know whether it issued an ex cathedra judgment as to Anacletus II's validity, but it might have. And that would be infallible. But the point is, this council was convened and approved by the existing pope, and therefore was a true ecumenical council. You don't seem to grasp the difference.
"A similar exceptional situation might arise were a pope to become a public heretic, i.e., were he publicly and officially to teach some doctrine clearly opposed to what has been defined as de fide catholicâ. But in this case many theologians hold that no formal sentence of deposition would be required, as, by becoming a public heretic, the pope would ipso facto cease to be pope. This, however, is a hypothetical case which has never actually occurred."
To continue this irrelevant point about infallibility, just who was it who first cited Bellarmine to prove your point, even mentioning (and rightly so) that he is a Doctor of the Church? You did.
Like a bad lawyer, you cite (out of context) quotes to make it appear that a BIG, BIG authority (which he is) agrees with you. When this is disproved, all of a sudden it's "he's not infallible" and "This is despicable" etc.etc.
Your endless inconsistencies prove you have no argument.
Look, I'm done trying to prove to you that Bellarmine is not on your side. You are simply so very stubborn, even upon seeing Bellarmine himself say he was offering an opinion in a theoretical situation.
Here is what I am going to force you to admit:
You are basing your entire thesis on fallible logic. A person can be a Sedevacantist even if they may be in error. The potential for error does not make the Sedevacantist position unreasonable.
To get to the substance, yes, St. Robert says that on this precise point, whether a pope (a true pope, obviously) can BECOME a heretic, it's merely a pious opinion that he considers probable. But because it can't be proved with certainty, and it is not held by many other Catholic authorities, he does not use it as an argument when considering the whole question as to the deposition of a heretical pope (this is a close paraphrase of his actual words, not my gloss on them).
Actually, it appears that he is saying his entire analysis on heretical popes is based on the assumption that they can become formal heretics. He inserts this disclaimer to show that none of this is sealed in Church teaching, and he is giving, as you said, his personal opinion.
Sedevacantists cite him as if it is dogma. It's not! It's a humble opinion regarding a theoretical situation. That is very shaky ground to rest the rejection of a Pontiff.
Wrong again. Bellarmine says, after arguing over the whole ground (including the position of Cajetan, which is closest to yours), that his conclusion IS THE TRUE ONE.
(He says Cajetan's can't even be defended.)
All theologians since that time have agreed with him.
Sedevacantists think this is pretty solid ground. Doctor of the Church, remember? It's a lot more solid than the sand castle of Vatican II, its popes, and its shiny new religion (looking a bit run down by now, like a 63 Chevy)
It has to be kept in mind that, contrary to what you say, this is not a merely theoretical point for St. Robert Bellarmine. He maintains as FACT that popes have actually been deposed, and that it was rightly and lawfully done, as with Liberius. I have mentioned this elsewhere; don't know if you've addressed it.) It was not a "theoretical" concern when John XXII was threatened with immediate deposition by cardinals and by the king of France (and rightly so, until he corrected himself).
Actually, I don't think anyone considers Felix to have become the pope. He has never been included in any pope list that I know, and he is not listed in the Catholic Encyclopedia as a pope, but instead, an anti-pope.
Bellarmine was either wrong, or he is being taken out of context.
Also, he was arguing to be correct within the theoretical situation. It is still his opinion. Once again, you are treating Bellarmine to be an infallible source.
Also on Bellarmine: you are quite emphatic that "it's never happened" that a pope has been deposed. Well, St. Robert Bellarmine does not agree with you. He holds that Liberius was deposed by the Roman clergy, in favor of St. Felix II (who prior to that point was an antipope). When Liberius began to go along with the Arians, he was condemned as a heretic on account of his actions (Felix presumably repented of his own schism before being accepted as pope). This is all according to St. Robert B.
St. Robert Bellarmine is entirely against your position, even though you try to make it appear otherwise. He maintained that a manifestly heretical pope loses his office by the fact itself. No "official" declaration of his heresy is required, as you and a few theologians (such as Cajetan, all refuted by Bellarmine) maintain. Their view hasn't been held by any important theologians or canonists since Bellarmine's day. The question is closed, as any seminary student of canon law would learn.
That's right. He is also not infallible in judgments on individuals, even when issued by full papal authority, even for heresy, such as in Luther's case. You put a lot of emphasis on this point, but apparently you didn't look it up first in any Catholic theologian or canonist. You seem to be making it up as you go along.
This comment was not to Sedevacantists. I was addressing a Protestant individual who wanted to suggest that we do not need a pope because he can sin so much.
I didn't necessarily argue that ecclesiastical judgments are infallible, rather, I was arguing that they have the binding AUTHORITY to depose and end all reasonable doubt on a matter.
Well, I'm just continuing the actual topic. September, you've said repeatedly and emphatically that an INFALLIBLE judgment is needed. When I called you on it, immediately you changed your position. So you're admitting this was a fabrication? Or were you just confused? Either way, your credibility=0
No, read what I said. "I didn't NECESSARILY argue that ecclesiastical judgments are infallible."
That is true. Their judgments are not always infallible. It depends if the council intends to make their judgments infallible or if they have the authority to bind the Church to their decision.
As the Catholic Encyclopedia states, judgments of deposition are indeed infallible. You simply misunderstood me.
No, it is not true that "their judgments [of individuals] are not always infallible." They are NEVER infallible.
You are confusing the simple Catholic point that only judgments on faith and morals are infallible. You don't seem to be aware of this, and you think even the Catholic Encyclopedia isn't aware of it, even though every Catholic 8th grader before V2 would have learned this. How about giving us the actual quote, if I am wrong?
You completely ripped my words apart. "their judgments" did not refer to individuals, as you plugged in. I was talking about general councils.
"The Church has a right in such circumstances to remove reasonable doubt and provide a pope whose claims would be indisputable."
"The Councils of Constance and Basle, and Gallican theologians, hold that a council may depose a pope on two main grounds...In point of fact, however, heresy is the only legitimate ground."
Going back to my original question, since you did not answer it: did you come up with the citations yourself, and add them to the voice-over written by Mr. Salza? What article of his are you referring to? I found two on his website, and neither one has any citations. I must not be looking at the right place- could you help me out here?
Correction: I see that you cite the title of one of Salza's titles. This is one of the ones I saw. It has no citations, so where did you get them? Is this based on your own research? Just wondering. Of course, if you actually read Bellarmine for yourself, you would realize that he's a "sedevacantist" as I pointed out in other comments.
(P.S. continued) Secondly, that without being able to consult Fr. Sutton's text, the viewers cannot even verify whether or not he really supports your argument, or whether you are just quoting him out of context. Perhaps you could supply a more extended quote from Fr. Sutton along with his citations, if he has any (if not, this quote isn't worth anything).
This video is simply a presentation, word-for-word, citation-for-citation of John Salza's article. I am presenting his work for the public to view.
The purpose of this video is, not to dismantle Sedevacantism, but rather, to convince people that Sedevacantism is wrong. I assume that they trust my honesty, and I trust the honesty of the persons who use these citations in this context.
For those who do not, skip this video and watch my other one.
I wasn't asking you to pull it down; I was just pointing out your inconsistency. You need to get your own logic straight before you attack the logic of the sedevacantists.
What's the difference between dismantling sedevantism, and convincing people it's wrong? None. This is also illogical.
It's not a question of honesty. It's a question of accuracy. Do you expect people to take it on faith that you and John Salza got it all right?
P.S. In regard to your cite to one Fr. Sutton (note 6), my idea partly was that he may cite to accessible sources (e.g. published books by known authors) or to the original sources in the strict sense, which someone could then verify.
So the references were compiled by you rather than being provided by John Salza? If that's the case, how and where did you find them? In particular, no. 6 cites an unavailable source (at least, unknown and unfindable) for a prominent point in your argument. Thus, it's not useful. The original source should be cited, not an obscure article. Thanks for further info.
Not all original sources are readily available in English or in popular print. You don't have to accept my source. I offer them on the side to allow for people to look into them.
Even without this quote, my argument stands, and the video I made after this one (about Sedevacantism) was sufficient enough without this quote at all.
Besides, we should not get too bogged down in a quote fight. This issue can be settled without all that. I believe Sedevacantism is logically incoherent.
Then you should pull this video and start over, because it mostly consists of citing sources (quite rightly). Your argument here is that sedevacantism doesn't square with Catholic doctrine or law, not that it's illogical. Of course, for Catholics, that's the essential issue. But you seem to be shifting your ground as soon as one of your sources is questioned. That indicates that your own position isn't really thought out, just thrown together.
I am not too keen on the image of Archbishop Lefevbre and the SSPX bishops being superimposed on a discussion of sedevacantism. The SSPX are not only NOT sedes, they are opposed to the sede position.
Sorry, that was a genuine blunder. I actually was already aware of this, but for some reason it did not connect in my mind that it would be bad judgment to associate these two.
Anyways, I think there is at least a bit of relevance, since Sedevacantism flourished after the Lefevbre controversy. Sedevacantists took things to the extreme.
Well, I could not agree with that logic, however, with all due respect. The SSPX "controversy" came after Vatican II, should Vatican II be to blame? Even though it followed temporally, it does not mean that sedevacantism was caused by the SSPX. However, it is a fact that sedevacantists came out of the ranks of SSPX clergy and laity as well. The SSPV (sedevacantist priests) came out of those expelled by Archbishop Lefebvre when they articulated their position.
Please do not think that I have a negative view of the SSPX. I admit, it was poor judgment on my part, and the logic I used was weak. I made this through the night without sleep; can you blame me?
Thanks for the compliment. I will be careful not to make this connection again.
Well, I am just trying to be fair to all sides. Hence I am not "batting" for any teams in this debate. I am content presuming myself to be an umpire. :-)
I'll leave Jesus in the position to judge souls. However, I will say that you will do yourself a great service to learn the teachings of the Church and investigate how Scriptural they are. I recommend watching my videos on the various teachings.
@ArmoredCatholic i appreciate the response. I have read the bible from cover to cover, and I have discovered that some of the teachings of the catholic church are far from scriptural, but I have tremendous respect for some of the early church fathers(St. Thomas Aquinas, Augustine of Hippo).
"I'll leave Jesus in the position to judge souls."
I agree with this statement, but the very same Church you adhere to judges souls by giving people "sainthood."
The Church is Jesus' body, and she has the authority to determine (not judge) whether someone has made it to heaven, for she is the "pillar and ground of truth" (1 Tim 3:15).
If you think that our teachings are far from Scripture, then you might have either a poor understanding of our teachings or of the Bible itself. I don't mean to insult you, but I have investigated each teaching, and I have never heard a rational objection in my 3 years making videos.
@ArmoredCatholic The church is the body of Christ, yes. And the church is the spiritual union of true believers in Christ., not some physical building or religious institution. I dont mean to defend you either, but if I had a quarter for every catholic I knew who left the church because they started reading the bible, I would be a millionaire. Peter never claimed to be any higher than the other disciples, he actually says he is a "fellow elder." The papal system is never taught in the nt.
And if I had an additional quarter for each of those Catholics who never knew the faith properly in the first place, we could be rich together. I have delved into Scripture myself, and truly love the Word of God. All I see is evidence for Catholicism with every page I read.
Of course Peter was a fellow elder. The pope is also a fellow elder among the rest. He is a priest, and he is a bishop of Rome. God may have given him particular authority, but he is still a fellow elder.
@SeptemberCatholic18 I know you mean well, but the stuff that the catholic church teaches is just not in the bible, its just not there. If peter was the first pope, dont you think he would have made it clear in his writings? He never said anything about any such papal system that you adhere to. Peter taught humilty, and he rebuked the man that tried to bow down before him, because he knew he was only a man. Do the popes do this? Absolutely not, The pope is no holier than you and I
It is a common misconception that Catholics believe the pope is holier than the rest. He is, of course, just a man, and I never said he was any more. I believe Scripture made it perfectly clear enough that the papacy is true. You don't see the apostles explicitly explaining the Trinity, yet we see it is there, and we all believe in it.
If you don't believe that Catholicism is in the Bible, then you need to watch some of my videos. All I do is quote Scripture (KJV)!
@SeptemberCatholic18 Then please tell me why the Catholics are always bowing down to the man, calling him "holy father"? That is heresyand there is no way around it. You have to understand this. The trinity is explicitly in the bible, Scripture is clear on the doctrine. I have watched some of your videos, and I enjoy them, I just disagree. Reading the bible and seeing my valiant catholic friend leave the church because he started reading the bible was pretty much the nail in the coffin for me.
We bow out of respect of the office, not the man himself. Bowing is a sign of respect and not always worship (see Genesis 19:1). The title is also just a sign of respect for the office. Remember in Acts when the people would flock the streets to see Peter and have his shadow pass over them? Respect.
The Trinity is not explicitly in the Bible. It's in there, but only implicitly. No one ever says "God is three persons and one being." That is something understood.
@SeptemberCatholic18 "do not call any man on earth your father. For you have one father, and he is in heaven." (Matthew 23:7). In Genesis 19, Lot was bowing down to angels, not to any man. If I were in the presence of a man that witnessed Jesus rise from the dead, i would want to get close to him too(ie pass over his shadow). Like I said before, peter rebuked the man that tried to bow down before him, because he knew he was only a man, something the pope fails to realize.
You are taking Matthew 23:7 way out of context. What do you call your male parent if not father? Even the apostles called the patriarchs fathers. I made an entire video on this verse.
The Bible says it is okay to bow to men too (1 Chronicles 21:21). I can quote several more verses that show men bowing to men out of RESPECT. Peter only rebuked because he was being worshiped.
The pope does not fail to realize he is only a man. John Paul II called himself "almost nothing."
@InDefenseofChrist Did the disciples ever teach us to pray to saints, mary, "venerate" images, or teach purgatory? No. We know from history that praying to saints derives from pagan religion. Purgatory is never taught and the scriptures that Catholics use to prove it are taken way out of context. There are two roads, one that leads to death and one to life, there is no middle ground(Matthew 7:13-14). I could go on and on.
You obviously have a poor understanding of what purgatory is. Purgatory is not a "middle ground." It is the perfection which God grants us before we enter heaven (Heb 12:23).
Praying to the saints is not pagan. The Jews even did it and they still do today! Ever heard of the Jewish holiday called Yom Kippur? They have prayers on behalf of the dead. Ever read Revelation 5:8? Those in heaven are seen interacting with the prayers.
@ArmoredCatholic haha i dont have a poor understanding of scripture thank you. You have taken that scripture in Hebrews to mean something completely different then what it actually says, and you know it, brother. Praying to saints is paganism, its pretty much understood historically that the doctrine derived from pagan Rome to make the transition from paganism to Catholicism easier.
Praying to the saints is not pagan. The Jews even did it and they still do today! Ever heard of the Jewish holiday called Yom Kippur? They have prayers on behalf of the dead. Ever read Revelation 5:8? Those in heaven are seen interacting with the prayers.
Even Christ prayed to His Father alongside the holy ones, Saint Abraham and Saint Elijah. We Catholics simply pray as Christ has taught us; that is, alongside our predecessors, the saints, including Christ Himself, who have undeniably conformed themselves to Christ. What we do here echoes into eternity because the human soul is created to live eternal.
@ArmoredCatholic The church is the body of Christ, yes. And the church is the spiritual union of true believers in Christ., not some physical building or religious institution. I dont mean to offend you either, but if I had a quarter for every catholic I knew who left the church because they started reading the bible, I would be a millionaire. Peter never claimed to be any higher than the other disciples, he actually says he is a "fellow elder." The papal system is never taught in the nt
Perhaps a video on the invalid or over-accentuated aspects of Jansenism, Clericalism and Triumphalism may be of some help.
It seems to me that all sedevacantists have a tendency to follow "tradition" to such an extreme degree that they tend to forget the Sacred Scriptures themselves.
Sacred Tradition is at the service of Divine Revelation, NOT the other way around.
When a "tradition" or argument contradicts the very words of Sacred Scripture, it is to be rejected. Period!!
You know down here in Houston Texas we have Tridentine Mass with union with the Bishop of Rome. Its a very Traditional Catholic community with all the bells and whistles. They are not Sedevacantism at all,,they are part of Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston. They have communion rail with only the Priest and Deacon give out Holy Communion. They only used young men as altar boys.
From my team? Yes. From me? Perhaps a few more. I am currently working on a new one, and plan to make a few web-cam responses. Besides that, I am not sure how much more I want to focus on these guys. I never took them seriously, and I still do not.
I only address them as if I take them seriously because others DO take them seriously. Therefore, for the sake of those souls, I will make intelligent responses. But keep in mind, there are other matters to attend to! I have my hands full!
I did not get that feeling. In fact, I already feel rushed myself as it is. This Youtube crisis recently broke out and caused much scandal, and I raced as quickly as I could to understand the issue and respond to it before any damage could be done.
If I am permitted, I will post a video today, but definitely one by tomorrow night. Perhaps even two videos. Then a few web-cam responses, then who knows. I might go back to addressing another scandal: Protestantism!
@SeptemberCatholic18 I think the reason there is so much attention is because some of these individuals produced solid, enjoyable pro-Catholic videos in the past.
It is more sad to see someone fall away when you've seen them at their best before.
Your synopsis of the problems with sedevacantism are so to-the-point and fundamentally devastating, that Paleocrat and Glenn MUST answer or face utter defeat. Every YouTube user can see how the points in your video go right to the heart of their "argument" and irrefutably destroy it. Great job. We will be waiting for Paleocrat/Glenn to attempt a resurrection of their "argument" from this rebuttal.
Way to go, SeptemberCatholic18! If you think about it, when hasn't the Church gone through a theological and disciplinary crisis? As long as sin exists, I think this is something that we almost have to expect. We had it before and after Trent, we had it during the Lateran councils, the Christological controversies (which btw, were MUCH worse than what we're facing right now in the post-conciliar Church), etc. Sin exists and will continue to exist, but it will never prevail against the Church...
I guarnantee as soon as a new Pope is elected, which hopefully is not anytime soon, the sedevacantists will immediately start looking through his past comments and writings to take one or two quotes out of context, and then they will dogmatically declare him a heretic. Their position will only get weaker as time goes on. Great video, thanks for making it.
I think I heard mhfm1 say in one of his videos that it happened many times in church history that there was no pope. Wikipedia also says there was no pope between the years 204 and 208, 209-210, 12411243, 12681271, 12921294, as well as 13141316. They also claim we have proclaimed an Antipope a Saint. I don't know if any of this is true, but it sounds confusing.
I would need more information to make an appropriate response to those claims, but I'm willing to bet that those "gaps" in the line of succession were interregnums which were elongated due to some frustration in the cardinals' ability to meet and vote on a new pope.
I guarantee you these gaps do NOT exist because the cardinals elected a heretic, and thus there was no true pope for some time. That has never happened in Church history.
Septembercatholic18, according to my understanding on the issue, you are correct. There has never been an anti-Pope without a sitting Pope. As for the gaps, the explanation I heard was no Pope was in office, but the Cardinals got distracted from continuing the conclave (before they got locked in). Another explanation was there were several candidates where all had their supporters and it took a long time to work out the final selection.
This has been flagged as spam show
i would love to see you debate brother peter diamond. you raise some good points
donrobertoni 3 weeks ago
i would love to see you debate brother peter diamond. You have some good points
donrobertoni 3 weeks ago
Great message, i favourited this video
88kmitchell 1 month ago
Good job!!
Christiscatholic33ad 2 months ago
@KC101X Where has it been foretold that there will be a great apostasy? I'm not denying it; I'm genuinely curious.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
@KC101X Instances without a pope were genuine interregnums where either the cardinals had a hard time coming together to vote or their votes kept locking up. However, there has never been a time where there was no pope and no cardinals were attempting to come together for a conclave. The Sedevacantist scenario is not a true interregnum and Vatican I already addressed it.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
Can someone explain to me what the crisis is? Are you saying that me going to an english mass, holding hands during the lord's prayer, etc. is a problem? Or is it something else?
SSLinebeck 1 year ago
@SSLinebeck According to Sedevacantists, due to various alleged heresies, the man we call pope is not truly a pope. I attempt to refute this thesis in my video.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 Sedevacantists are zealots/puritans and most of all Apostates. Their views are the same as Protestants whether they admit it or not.
neocon2009 3 months ago
Bravo. Keep it up!
DominicanAllSaints 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SeptemberCatholic18, why did you refuse to accept Brother Peter Dimond's offer for a debate ? Maybe its because you know he will defeat you on practically every topic concerning the Catholic faith ?
HolyBeThyName 1 year ago
(cont.) This explanation is agreed in principle by all Catholic theologians so far as I am aware. The only difference came in as to just how, and by whom, such a pope would be judged. And that is chiefly what you are debating here, even though you continually confuse it with the issue as whether Catholics may, or even must, make an individual judgment of the situation in sense 2 which I have explained, prior to the judgment of the matter by the Church (in sense 1). Two different issues. Clear?
sottovoce45 2 years ago
Now what does it mean by the Pontiff "may judge all."
The Catholic Encyclopedia states that a pope has NEVER been deposed ipso facto. So you are wrong to suggest it. Once again, it is under "Infallibility."
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
(cont.)
In history, a number of popes have ACTUALLY been deposed. In canon law, there is an exception to the "judged by no one" principle if the pope shows himself a heretic. In that case, he may, indeed must, be judged.
Theologians resolve this without impairing the absolute primacy of the pope. They argue that a pope who lapses into heresy (or who was already one when elected) is not, IN FACT, actually the pope, but a sort of impostor. Therefore, to judge him is not to judge the pope.
sottovoce45 2 years ago
(cont.) For instance, you may or may not have an opinion as to the O.J. Simpson case. If you do, that is a judgment, in the 2nd meaning I just defined. But only the two juries, in the criminal and civil trials, judged him in the first sense, as any jury must do, and as the judge must do in a case without a jury. A court judges; a court passes judgment.
And that's the meaning of "Prima Sedes a nemine iudicatur."
This leads to an apparent contradiction. ...
sottovoce45 2 years ago
Now what does it mean by the Pontiff "may judge all."
(I'll otherwise ignore the fact that you completely contradicted the Catholic Encyclopedia where it says that a council has the authority to depose a pope for heresy.)
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
(cont.) It (the First See) is judged by NOBODY. It is NOT judged by bishops, even in a general council, as the Gallicans maintained.
For that reason, there is no power on earth which can depose the pope (which requires a legal condemnation), because they have no jurisdiction over him, as pope.
And that's all that it means.
It does not mean "judged" in the sense of an individual judgment, a conclusion any person with the use of reason arrives at constantly about things of all sorts.
sottovoce45 2 years ago
"The only thing that could dispel doubt is an infallible council. End of story. Until then our ideas and conclusions are fallible.
If I am wrong, then what, pray tell, does "judged by none" mean? Humor me."
Excellent question, September. I'll try once more. "Prima Sedes a nemine iudicatur"-that's the Latin. "The First See is judged by no one."
That means that no earthly court (of law), whether of the Church or of the secular government, can sit in judgment (i.e., try) the pope.
sottovoce45 2 years ago
Well said my friend.
God bless you.
dodge0808 2 years ago
what about the third secret of fatima
WizArdOZfan42 2 years ago
Actually, the Encyclopedia states that a council MUST be called in such situations.
Also, the council WOULD be infallible WITHOUT the pope, because this is an extra-constitutional crisis. Under regular constitutional rule, the council would need to be validated by the pope. But in such a crisis, the pope's legitimacy is questionable.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
Please QUOTE the CE. (as to your first sentence)
Your second sentence: Now you are openly making up your argument. It's obvious to anyone who knows theology that a council without a pope cannot be infallible nor ecumenical. That's why you give no authority for this amazing, and heretical, claim.
My, an "extra-constitutional crisis." Too bad the Catholic Encyclopedia doesn't say anything like this (nor does any other Catholic authority).
sottovoce45 2 years ago
I quoted the Encyclopedia EXACTLY.
I already cited it for you. It is under the topic "Infallibility." Under the section "scope of infallibility" and under point two of that section.
For the second part, it is found under the same topic under the section "mutual relations of the organs of infallibility."
Don't make me laugh. You are actually saying that I made this up and that what the Encyclopedia teaches is heretical?
Wow. That is just gold.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
Sorry, you probably input this while I was typing another comment. I just dealt with this in another comment, but to reiterate:
Yes, the CE talks about an "extra-constitutional crisis." You are right that far (and it's a perfectly valid point). However, it does NOT say this makes the council infallible, as you apparently wish people to think the CE said. And THAT is the point at issue. It is insane to think that a council is infallible without a pope.
Logic does require simple distinctions.
sottovoce45 2 years ago
Denial, denial, denial.
Why in the world would the CE talk about an extra-constitutional crisis without mentioning an extraordinary event that could occur within?
Obviously, it is saying that it is infallible. That's why it is under the section "SCOPE OF INFALLIBILITY." If it wasn't infallible, then how could it have authority over an alleged pope?
My friend, you have lost all credibility. As soon as I make this a video, there will be no refutation but from stubborn people as yourself.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
Great video.
PioKolby 2 years ago
Hmm, who else thought they knew better than God (or the Church established by Jesus Christ) - oh yea, that would be Satan
WizArdOZfan42 2 years ago
I'm sure any sedevacantist would love to see a council convened to judge the heresies of Benedict XVI et al., even though they don't think it's necessary in itself. Wouldn't you? You think there's a doctrinal crisis in the Church. Why not petition Benedict XVI to call a council to settle these issues, including the issue of his own orthodoxy? Are you proposing that the Church put him on trial?
sottovoce45 2 years ago
Actually, if you read St. Robert Bellarmine's work closely, he states that all of his opinions are merely theoretical, as he does not believe a pope would ever fall into formal heresy. This is suggested by Christ's promise in Luke 22:32.
Yes, there is a difference between convincing people that something is wrong, and dismantling it. I can explain it to you if prompted.
No, I don't think Pope Benedict has committed any material heresy. If he has, then yes, we might need a trial.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
I HAVE read Bellarmine closely; I doubt very much whether you have even seen his book. And no, he does not state that "all of his opinions are merely theoretical." That's a complete fabrication, whether yours or (more likely) someone else's.
I will be glad to send you a facsimile of the actual text (in Latin) of the chapters of De Romano Pontifice which we are dealing with, along with a translation. That way you can read it for yourself.
Also, I hereby prompt you to explain "dismantling" etc.
sottovoce45 2 years ago
Yes, please send me Bellarmine's works in full.
Dismantle is to show to be completely false. I don't have to necessarily dismantle a position to convince them it is wrong.
For instance: Sedevacantists employ fallible judgment to reach their conclusion. Therefore they leave the Church despite the possibility of error.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
Here is where he says he is speaking theoretically:
"This opinion [that the Pope could not become an heretic] is probable and easily defended... Nonetheless, in view of the fact that this is not certain, and that the common opinion is the opposite one, it is useful to examine the solution to this question, within the hypothesis that the Pope can be an heretic."
De Romano Pontifice (Milan, 1857), vol. II, chap. 30
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
"They leave the Church"? Sounds like a judgment of schism or heresy? Either you think you're infallible, or you're completely inconsistent, or you've given up the idea that it's necessary to read souls to judge formal heresy (or schism). Which is it?
sottovoce45 2 years ago
Yes, it is indeed a judgment of schism, and I am in my right. You wanna know why? Because one is allowed to judge suspected heretics and schismatics if they appear to be such.
Yet there are limits to how one may judge. One may not judge superiors. They may resist until a decision is handed down. Sedevacantists are not superiors. I can judge them.
I do not claim, however, to know with definite knowledge whether anybody is a formal heretic. But I do suspect Sedevacantists are just that.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
So we have yet a new position, which you haven't mentioned previously. OK, what Catholic theologian or canonist (much less pope) teaches that there is any difference between superiors and anyone else when judging heresy? I'll answer that - none.
You are confusing two different things. 1) Judgment of a judge in court - official, legal, etc. 2) Judgment meaning a conclusion of the mind about some fact- in this case, heresy.
sottovoce45 2 years ago
(continuing previous comment)
A superior can't be "judged" by an inferior, e.g. a district court judge can't overrule the Supreme Court. But he can "judge" (sense 2) that the Supreme Court is wrong.
It's just like the different senses of "depose" (one purely metaphorical) which I already pointed out. Maybe you'll get around to reading that and commenting.
And that's the origin of the whole theological controversy. Canon law and tradition teach that the pope can't be judged by anybody...
sottovoce45 2 years ago
I actually already used this argument far before my discussion with you. Go watch my video dismantling Sedevacantism in four steps. I explicitly use the argument there and even defend it using Church teaching.
By the way, I am not confusing anything about judging. Cum Ex makes it clear that we are not to judge the pope. That means we cannot accuse him of formal heresy if there is reasonable doubt to suspect he may not be. There is indeed reasonable doubt now!
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
No, that isn't what it means, and your confusion continues. Cum Ex Apostolatus says absolutely that a manifest heretic cannot be validly elected pope. It does not say, or mean, "we cannot accuse him of formal heresy" etc.; that's entirely your contribution. All along, you have referred to documents to give them impression they teach your theories, when they don't. Are you misleading viewers deliberately or just out of ignorance?
sottovoce45 2 years ago
I congratulate you on "reasonable doubt." That's admitting that there's abundant proof of Benedict's heresy and of his predecessors'. All the same, this isn't true that there's reasonable doubt, if for no other reason, because Paul VI and his successors have absolutely refused to answer the countless public accusations against their orthodoxy (beginning with Cardinal Ottaviani's, 40 years ago).
sottovoce45 2 years ago
You are mistaken. I said that there is reasonable doubt to the position of Sedevacantism. The fact that a pope has not responded to charges brought against him does not dispel that doubt.
The only thing that could dispel doubt is an infallible council. End of story. Until then our ideas and conclusions are fallible.
If I am wrong, then what, pray tell, does "judged by none" mean? Humor me.
Where does the Catholic Encyclopedia say that a pope was disposed? Or is this more opinions?
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
A reasonable man, on seeing a crime or what appears to be one, gives the guilty man an opportunity to defend himself. If a reasonable doubt is established, he should be given the benefit. Agreed. What if a man caught red-handed refuses to defend himself? What if the evidence is more than adequate to convict him? A reasonable person would have to say that the time for doubt is past. This isn't an abstract issue for Catholics; we must obey God and not men (nor antipopes). Our souls are at stake.
sottovoce45 2 years ago
There is no red-handedness. You are simply referring to ambiguous actions by the pope which by no means constitutes as formal heresies simply because you interpret them as such. For example, I am seeing the SAME thing you are seeing, yet I reject your position. There is still reasonable doubt.
Second, a court can be wrong. If you are comparing yourself to the judge in the courtroom, then you only vindicated me. Your conclusion may be invalid.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
(continued) However, both canon law and the history of the Church show that popes have actually been deposed. The problem is resolving this apparent contradiction. Neither of the main sides, Bellarmine and Cajetan (your position) denies that popes have ACTUALLY BEEN DEPOSED FOR HERESY, and that it has LAWFULLY AND RIGHTLY BEEN DONE (in at least one instance).
sottovoce45 2 years ago
OK, send me your mailing address and I'll send the relevant chapter and maybe some other related texts.
"Fallible judgment"? As opposed to the fallible judgment of who? Let's see: you, priests you know, John Salza, your bishop (who is in crisis according to you), your pope and council (who judged nothing infallibly, as I believe you admitted), etc?
sottovoce45 2 years ago
Actually, I make no judgment. THAT'S THE POINT! The pope is judged by none in this world. I give him the benefit of the doubt, which is the safe route. You always err on the side of caution.
Therefore, I will not employ my fallible judgment, I will leave pope-deposing decisions to the infallible Church.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
On dismantling, it's just a quibble on my part, but I commented on it because you seemed to think that people should be convinced by you on any other basis but your arguments. They certainly shouldn't believe you just because they see you on youtube, should they? As for arguments, maybe I should move over to your other video as you suggested. I concentrated on this one just to show casual viewers that your credibility is nil.
sottovoce45 2 years ago
Well I think you failed at this drastically. You are left still employing fallible judgment and there is still reasonable doubt to be taken into account.
You have cited Bellarmine as if he is infallible, and used that premise to support your thesis. That is despicable. Such drastic decisions ought to be supported by something a bit more solid than opinion.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
Despicable? Quoting a Doctor of the Church is despicable? That's a pretty strange statement.
Quoting John Salza is NOT despicable?
Maybe the problem is that Bellarmine is a Doctor of the CATHOLIC Church, not the conciliar, Vatican II one, which you adhere to.
Sedevacantists question popes for no other reason than their (the popes') rebellion against all past popes and councils, and you come telling them that justifying their position by Catholic arguments is DESPICABLE?
sottovoce45 2 years ago
Please listen: YOU ARE USING BELLARMINE AS IF HE IS INFALLIBLE.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
I'd suggest you reduce the heat and get back to logic, which you mentioned a while back.
We all know that no human being (apart from the authors of Sacred Scripture) is infallible except popes, and papally approved councils, when defining ex cathedra.
That applies to St. Robert Bellarmine, to you, to me, to John Salza, to Cajetan and various authors you have cited.
So just where exactly does that get you? Nowhere at all, at least in LOGIC.
sottovoce45 2 years ago
No, it gets me all the way to the finish line! Think.
Here is your argument: fallible logic is sufficient enough to warrant declaring that the pope is invalid.
Here is my logic: only infallible declarations can depose a pope, especially since they are explicitly given this authority.
I actually have the Catholic Encyclopedia backing me on this. It has been decided. You rest your entire thesis on fallible pillars, regardless of what you make of them.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
I guess we're in a speed typing contest, but you're getting ahead of yourself. I already asked you to give us the quote from the (non-infallible) Catholic Encyclopedia. It certainly doesn't say what you claim. In fact, it's laughable. Take a half hour or so off and try to find it. Please, pull this down and go back and learn some CATHOLIC theology and law.
sottovoce45 2 years ago
"It is also generally held, and rightly, that questions of dogmatic fact, in regard to which definite certainty is required for the safe custody and interpretation of revealed truth, may be determined infallibly by the Church. Such questions, for example, would be: whether a certain pope is legitimate."
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
I shouldn't even have to answer made-up arguments, but you seem confused even as to a papal heretic. Are you saying that a council WITHOUT the pope can issue an infallible judgment of the POPE? That seems to be your point. Yet any Catholic knows that councils are only valid with papal approval. So are you saying a heretical pope would have to approve his own condemnation? Benedict XVI is going to excommunicate himself? Is that your point? If not, what is?
sottovoce45 2 years ago
Don't get mad at me. Get mad at the source.
This is a "question of dogmatic fact." Definite certainty is required, it says. It then gives the example of the validity of the pope. Case closed.
To answer your question, the encyclopedia states that this is simply "the removal of a pretender by those on whom he wishes to impose will."
You should go and read it in context if you don't believe me. New Advent.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
My last comment seems to have disappeared, so apologies if it shows up again. Thanks for the quote; could you please give the name of the article? That's the minimum for a valid cite.
OK, to the point. What this refers to is judgments as to the validity of a PAST pope, not the existing one (without whom the council would not even be lawful, much less infallible). I know of no such instances, but it is possible. No quarrel here at all. It has nothing to do with deposing a pope.
sottovoce45 2 years ago
It's under the topic "Infallibility" and under the section "Scope of Infallibility" and under point two of that section.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
Thank you. I've made my point below, but I'll look at the whole section. Certainly, the Catholic Encyclopedia is not taking the absurd position that a heretical pope can be deposed by a supposedly infallible council. By a council, yes; but they don't really depose the pope, merely declare that the man who was pope, or apparently so, is not ACTUALLY the pope by reason of his heresy. This would NOT be AN INFALLIBLE JUDGMENT. I certainly wish this would happen, then we'd all be happy.
sottovoce45 2 years ago
Once again, you are returning to the idea of infallible judgments. A little while ago, you admitted that what you really meant was authoritative judgments, binding the Church. All you are doing is going around in circles.
And really, Sept., please tell us, do you really think that a council can issue an infallible judgment WITHOUT the pope, even AGAINST the pope? How about proving that one (after you finally decide which it is).
sottovoce45 2 years ago
Here is the Encyclopedia's response to that objection:
"This was what might be described as an extra-constitutional crisis; and, as the Church has a right in such circumstances to remove reasonable doubt and provide a pope whose claims would be indisputable, even an acephalous council, supported by the body of bishops throughout the world, was competent to meet this altogether exceptional emergency without thereby setting up a precedent that could be erected into a regular constitutional rule."
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
Please note: nothing is said here about the acephalous (that is, headless) council being INFALLIBLE, which is what I am disputing.
Such a council would remove REASONABLE doubts, to the extent they existed. It still could not do so infallibly. Yes, I have said several times, why not call such a council? If you are worried about sedevacantist souls, wouldn't this solve the problem? Why not call for and petition the hierarchy for such a council? If you don't, you are a hypocrite, it seems to me.
sottovoce45 2 years ago
Wow. I've never seen so much denial in the face of such explicit evidence.
The purpose of the second part is to explain that an acephalous council would be infallible in a crises where the pope was in question.
That's why it says that this is the sole exception, and it would be so "without thereby setting up a precedent that could be erected into a regular constitutional rule."
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
Also, this text says that such a council is a proper way of dealing with a doubtful pope, which I agree with and never denied. It does NOT say it is the ONLY way of removing reasonable doubt. It is one way, probably the best way. Until then, nothing prevents Catholics from doing their duty, which is to avoid heresy and heretics, even those claiming to be the the pope. If some disagree about the pope, that's their right.
The existing hierarchy is grossly failing its duty by NOT calling one.
sottovoce45 2 years ago
Actually, my friend, it refers to
"...questions of dogmatic fact, in regard to which DEFINITE CERTAINTY IS REQUIRED for the safe custody and interpretation of revealed truth..."
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
Again, this refers to a judgment on the validity of a pope by a council held under a future pope, which can decide this infallibly.
A council was after the questioned pontificate of Anacletus II. I don't know whether it issued an ex cathedra judgment as to Anacletus II's validity, but it might have. And that would be infallible. But the point is, this council was convened and approved by the existing pope, and therefore was a true ecumenical council. You don't seem to grasp the difference.
sottovoce45 2 years ago
"A similar exceptional situation might arise were a pope to become a public heretic, i.e., were he publicly and officially to teach some doctrine clearly opposed to what has been defined as de fide catholicâ. But in this case many theologians hold that no formal sentence of deposition would be required, as, by becoming a public heretic, the pope would ipso facto cease to be pope. This, however, is a hypothetical case which has never actually occurred."
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
Did you get my PM? I honestly just stumbled on this. I'm about to make a new video.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
To continue this irrelevant point about infallibility, just who was it who first cited Bellarmine to prove your point, even mentioning (and rightly so) that he is a Doctor of the Church? You did.
Like a bad lawyer, you cite (out of context) quotes to make it appear that a BIG, BIG authority (which he is) agrees with you. When this is disproved, all of a sudden it's "he's not infallible" and "This is despicable" etc.etc.
Your endless inconsistencies prove you have no argument.
sottovoce45 2 years ago
Look, I'm done trying to prove to you that Bellarmine is not on your side. You are simply so very stubborn, even upon seeing Bellarmine himself say he was offering an opinion in a theoretical situation.
Here is what I am going to force you to admit:
You are basing your entire thesis on fallible logic. A person can be a Sedevacantist even if they may be in error. The potential for error does not make the Sedevacantist position unreasonable.
Yes to all of then right?
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
To get to the substance, yes, St. Robert says that on this precise point, whether a pope (a true pope, obviously) can BECOME a heretic, it's merely a pious opinion that he considers probable. But because it can't be proved with certainty, and it is not held by many other Catholic authorities, he does not use it as an argument when considering the whole question as to the deposition of a heretical pope (this is a close paraphrase of his actual words, not my gloss on them).
sottovoce45 2 years ago
Actually, it appears that he is saying his entire analysis on heretical popes is based on the assumption that they can become formal heretics. He inserts this disclaimer to show that none of this is sealed in Church teaching, and he is giving, as you said, his personal opinion.
Sedevacantists cite him as if it is dogma. It's not! It's a humble opinion regarding a theoretical situation. That is very shaky ground to rest the rejection of a Pontiff.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
Wrong again. Bellarmine says, after arguing over the whole ground (including the position of Cajetan, which is closest to yours), that his conclusion IS THE TRUE ONE.
(He says Cajetan's can't even be defended.)
All theologians since that time have agreed with him.
Sedevacantists think this is pretty solid ground. Doctor of the Church, remember? It's a lot more solid than the sand castle of Vatican II, its popes, and its shiny new religion (looking a bit run down by now, like a 63 Chevy)
sottovoce45 2 years ago
It has to be kept in mind that, contrary to what you say, this is not a merely theoretical point for St. Robert Bellarmine. He maintains as FACT that popes have actually been deposed, and that it was rightly and lawfully done, as with Liberius. I have mentioned this elsewhere; don't know if you've addressed it.) It was not a "theoretical" concern when John XXII was threatened with immediate deposition by cardinals and by the king of France (and rightly so, until he corrected himself).
sottovoce45 2 years ago
Actually, I don't think anyone considers Felix to have become the pope. He has never been included in any pope list that I know, and he is not listed in the Catholic Encyclopedia as a pope, but instead, an anti-pope.
Bellarmine was either wrong, or he is being taken out of context.
Also, he was arguing to be correct within the theoretical situation. It is still his opinion. Once again, you are treating Bellarmine to be an infallible source.
Do you believe there is no reasonable doubt?
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
Also on Bellarmine: you are quite emphatic that "it's never happened" that a pope has been deposed. Well, St. Robert Bellarmine does not agree with you. He holds that Liberius was deposed by the Roman clergy, in favor of St. Felix II (who prior to that point was an antipope). When Liberius began to go along with the Arians, he was condemned as a heretic on account of his actions (Felix presumably repented of his own schism before being accepted as pope). This is all according to St. Robert B.
sottovoce45 2 years ago
St. Robert Bellarmine is entirely against your position, even though you try to make it appear otherwise. He maintained that a manifestly heretical pope loses his office by the fact itself. No "official" declaration of his heresy is required, as you and a few theologians (such as Cajetan, all refuted by Bellarmine) maintain. Their view hasn't been held by any important theologians or canonists since Bellarmine's day. The question is closed, as any seminary student of canon law would learn.
sottovoce45 2 years ago
If the popes can make big mistakes then what is the importance of a pope anyway if he supposed to guide and give an example to the catholic church?
mitchel123456789 2 years ago
The pope is only infallible in matters of faith and morals. That doesn't mean he can't sin.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
That's right. He is also not infallible in judgments on individuals, even when issued by full papal authority, even for heresy, such as in Luther's case. You put a lot of emphasis on this point, but apparently you didn't look it up first in any Catholic theologian or canonist. You seem to be making it up as you go along.
sottovoce45 2 years ago
This comment was not to Sedevacantists. I was addressing a Protestant individual who wanted to suggest that we do not need a pope because he can sin so much.
I didn't necessarily argue that ecclesiastical judgments are infallible, rather, I was arguing that they have the binding AUTHORITY to depose and end all reasonable doubt on a matter.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
Well, I'm just continuing the actual topic. September, you've said repeatedly and emphatically that an INFALLIBLE judgment is needed. When I called you on it, immediately you changed your position. So you're admitting this was a fabrication? Or were you just confused? Either way, your credibility=0
sottovoce45 2 years ago
No, read what I said. "I didn't NECESSARILY argue that ecclesiastical judgments are infallible."
That is true. Their judgments are not always infallible. It depends if the council intends to make their judgments infallible or if they have the authority to bind the Church to their decision.
As the Catholic Encyclopedia states, judgments of deposition are indeed infallible. You simply misunderstood me.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
You are still making it up as you go along.
No, it is not true that "their judgments [of individuals] are not always infallible." They are NEVER infallible.
You are confusing the simple Catholic point that only judgments on faith and morals are infallible. You don't seem to be aware of this, and you think even the Catholic Encyclopedia isn't aware of it, even though every Catholic 8th grader before V2 would have learned this. How about giving us the actual quote, if I am wrong?
sottovoce45 2 years ago
You completely ripped my words apart. "their judgments" did not refer to individuals, as you plugged in. I was talking about general councils.
"The Church has a right in such circumstances to remove reasonable doubt and provide a pope whose claims would be indisputable."
"The Councils of Constance and Basle, and Gallican theologians, hold that a council may depose a pope on two main grounds...In point of fact, however, heresy is the only legitimate ground."
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
Going back to my original question, since you did not answer it: did you come up with the citations yourself, and add them to the voice-over written by Mr. Salza? What article of his are you referring to? I found two on his website, and neither one has any citations. I must not be looking at the right place- could you help me out here?
sottovoce45 2 years ago
@sottovoce45
Correction: I see that you cite the title of one of Salza's titles. This is one of the ones I saw. It has no citations, so where did you get them? Is this based on your own research? Just wondering. Of course, if you actually read Bellarmine for yourself, you would realize that he's a "sedevacantist" as I pointed out in other comments.
sottovoce45 2 years ago
(P.S. continued) Secondly, that without being able to consult Fr. Sutton's text, the viewers cannot even verify whether or not he really supports your argument, or whether you are just quoting him out of context. Perhaps you could supply a more extended quote from Fr. Sutton along with his citations, if he has any (if not, this quote isn't worth anything).
sottovoce45 2 years ago
I will not pull it down, and here is why:
This video is simply a presentation, word-for-word, citation-for-citation of John Salza's article. I am presenting his work for the public to view.
The purpose of this video is, not to dismantle Sedevacantism, but rather, to convince people that Sedevacantism is wrong. I assume that they trust my honesty, and I trust the honesty of the persons who use these citations in this context.
For those who do not, skip this video and watch my other one.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
I wasn't asking you to pull it down; I was just pointing out your inconsistency. You need to get your own logic straight before you attack the logic of the sedevacantists.
What's the difference between dismantling sedevantism, and convincing people it's wrong? None. This is also illogical.
It's not a question of honesty. It's a question of accuracy. Do you expect people to take it on faith that you and John Salza got it all right?
sottovoce45 2 years ago
P.S. In regard to your cite to one Fr. Sutton (note 6), my idea partly was that he may cite to accessible sources (e.g. published books by known authors) or to the original sources in the strict sense, which someone could then verify.
sottovoce45 2 years ago
So the references were compiled by you rather than being provided by John Salza? If that's the case, how and where did you find them? In particular, no. 6 cites an unavailable source (at least, unknown and unfindable) for a prominent point in your argument. Thus, it's not useful. The original source should be cited, not an obscure article. Thanks for further info.
sottovoce45 2 years ago
Not all original sources are readily available in English or in popular print. You don't have to accept my source. I offer them on the side to allow for people to look into them.
Even without this quote, my argument stands, and the video I made after this one (about Sedevacantism) was sufficient enough without this quote at all.
Besides, we should not get too bogged down in a quote fight. This issue can be settled without all that. I believe Sedevacantism is logically incoherent.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
Then you should pull this video and start over, because it mostly consists of citing sources (quite rightly). Your argument here is that sedevacantism doesn't square with Catholic doctrine or law, not that it's illogical. Of course, for Catholics, that's the essential issue. But you seem to be shifting your ground as soon as one of your sources is questioned. That indicates that your own position isn't really thought out, just thrown together.
sottovoce45 2 years ago
I am not too keen on the image of Archbishop Lefevbre and the SSPX bishops being superimposed on a discussion of sedevacantism. The SSPX are not only NOT sedes, they are opposed to the sede position.
pacislander4life 2 years ago
Sorry, that was a genuine blunder. I actually was already aware of this, but for some reason it did not connect in my mind that it would be bad judgment to associate these two.
Anyways, I think there is at least a bit of relevance, since Sedevacantism flourished after the Lefevbre controversy. Sedevacantists took things to the extreme.
I hope I cleared things up.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
Well, I could not agree with that logic, however, with all due respect. The SSPX "controversy" came after Vatican II, should Vatican II be to blame? Even though it followed temporally, it does not mean that sedevacantism was caused by the SSPX. However, it is a fact that sedevacantists came out of the ranks of SSPX clergy and laity as well. The SSPV (sedevacantist priests) came out of those expelled by Archbishop Lefebvre when they articulated their position.
pacislander4life 2 years ago
So, I would be very careful to make the connection.
pacislander4life 2 years ago
btw, I think this is an excellently produced video. You certainly have a gift with technology.
pacislander4life 2 years ago
Please do not think that I have a negative view of the SSPX. I admit, it was poor judgment on my part, and the logic I used was weak. I made this through the night without sleep; can you blame me?
Thanks for the compliment. I will be careful not to make this connection again.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
Well, I am just trying to be fair to all sides. Hence I am not "batting" for any teams in this debate. I am content presuming myself to be an umpire. :-)
pacislander4life 2 years ago
Play ball.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
By the way, although it comes very late, I added an annotation to the video clarifying that the SSPX are not Sedevacantists.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
Thank you.
pacislander4life 2 years ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 am I going to hell because I am not catholic?
InDefenseofChrist 1 year ago
@InDefenseofChrist
I'll leave Jesus in the position to judge souls. However, I will say that you will do yourself a great service to learn the teachings of the Church and investigate how Scriptural they are. I recommend watching my videos on the various teachings.
ArmoredCatholic 1 year ago
@ArmoredCatholic i appreciate the response. I have read the bible from cover to cover, and I have discovered that some of the teachings of the catholic church are far from scriptural, but I have tremendous respect for some of the early church fathers(St. Thomas Aquinas, Augustine of Hippo).
"I'll leave Jesus in the position to judge souls."
I agree with this statement, but the very same Church you adhere to judges souls by giving people "sainthood."
InDefenseofChrist 1 year ago
@InDefenseofChrist
The Church is Jesus' body, and she has the authority to determine (not judge) whether someone has made it to heaven, for she is the "pillar and ground of truth" (1 Tim 3:15).
If you think that our teachings are far from Scripture, then you might have either a poor understanding of our teachings or of the Bible itself. I don't mean to insult you, but I have investigated each teaching, and I have never heard a rational objection in my 3 years making videos.
ArmoredCatholic 1 year ago
@ArmoredCatholic The church is the body of Christ, yes. And the church is the spiritual union of true believers in Christ., not some physical building or religious institution. I dont mean to defend you either, but if I had a quarter for every catholic I knew who left the church because they started reading the bible, I would be a millionaire. Peter never claimed to be any higher than the other disciples, he actually says he is a "fellow elder." The papal system is never taught in the nt.
InDefenseofChrist 1 year ago
InDefenseofChrist
And if I had an additional quarter for each of those Catholics who never knew the faith properly in the first place, we could be rich together. I have delved into Scripture myself, and truly love the Word of God. All I see is evidence for Catholicism with every page I read.
Of course Peter was a fellow elder. The pope is also a fellow elder among the rest. He is a priest, and he is a bishop of Rome. God may have given him particular authority, but he is still a fellow elder.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 I know you mean well, but the stuff that the catholic church teaches is just not in the bible, its just not there. If peter was the first pope, dont you think he would have made it clear in his writings? He never said anything about any such papal system that you adhere to. Peter taught humilty, and he rebuked the man that tried to bow down before him, because he knew he was only a man. Do the popes do this? Absolutely not, The pope is no holier than you and I
InDefenseofChrist 1 year ago
@InDefenseofChrist
It is a common misconception that Catholics believe the pope is holier than the rest. He is, of course, just a man, and I never said he was any more. I believe Scripture made it perfectly clear enough that the papacy is true. You don't see the apostles explicitly explaining the Trinity, yet we see it is there, and we all believe in it.
If you don't believe that Catholicism is in the Bible, then you need to watch some of my videos. All I do is quote Scripture (KJV)!
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 Then please tell me why the Catholics are always bowing down to the man, calling him "holy father"? That is heresyand there is no way around it. You have to understand this. The trinity is explicitly in the bible, Scripture is clear on the doctrine. I have watched some of your videos, and I enjoy them, I just disagree. Reading the bible and seeing my valiant catholic friend leave the church because he started reading the bible was pretty much the nail in the coffin for me.
InDefenseofChrist 1 year ago
@InDefenseofChrist
We bow out of respect of the office, not the man himself. Bowing is a sign of respect and not always worship (see Genesis 19:1). The title is also just a sign of respect for the office. Remember in Acts when the people would flock the streets to see Peter and have his shadow pass over them? Respect.
The Trinity is not explicitly in the Bible. It's in there, but only implicitly. No one ever says "God is three persons and one being." That is something understood.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 "do not call any man on earth your father. For you have one father, and he is in heaven." (Matthew 23:7). In Genesis 19, Lot was bowing down to angels, not to any man. If I were in the presence of a man that witnessed Jesus rise from the dead, i would want to get close to him too(ie pass over his shadow). Like I said before, peter rebuked the man that tried to bow down before him, because he knew he was only a man, something the pope fails to realize.
InDefenseofChrist 1 year ago
@InDefenseofChrist
You are taking Matthew 23:7 way out of context. What do you call your male parent if not father? Even the apostles called the patriarchs fathers. I made an entire video on this verse.
The Bible says it is okay to bow to men too (1 Chronicles 21:21). I can quote several more verses that show men bowing to men out of RESPECT. Peter only rebuked because he was being worshiped.
The pope does not fail to realize he is only a man. John Paul II called himself "almost nothing."
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
*offend
@InDefenseofChrist Did the disciples ever teach us to pray to saints, mary, "venerate" images, or teach purgatory? No. We know from history that praying to saints derives from pagan religion. Purgatory is never taught and the scriptures that Catholics use to prove it are taken way out of context. There are two roads, one that leads to death and one to life, there is no middle ground(Matthew 7:13-14). I could go on and on.
InDefenseofChrist 1 year ago
@InDefenseofChrist
You obviously have a poor understanding of what purgatory is. Purgatory is not a "middle ground." It is the perfection which God grants us before we enter heaven (Heb 12:23).
Praying to the saints is not pagan. The Jews even did it and they still do today! Ever heard of the Jewish holiday called Yom Kippur? They have prayers on behalf of the dead. Ever read Revelation 5:8? Those in heaven are seen interacting with the prayers.
ArmoredCatholic 1 year ago
@ArmoredCatholic haha i dont have a poor understanding of scripture thank you. You have taken that scripture in Hebrews to mean something completely different then what it actually says, and you know it, brother. Praying to saints is paganism, its pretty much understood historically that the doctrine derived from pagan Rome to make the transition from paganism to Catholicism easier.
InDefenseofChrist 1 year ago
@InDefenseofChrist
Praying to the saints is not pagan. The Jews even did it and they still do today! Ever heard of the Jewish holiday called Yom Kippur? They have prayers on behalf of the dead. Ever read Revelation 5:8? Those in heaven are seen interacting with the prayers.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
@InDefenseofChrist
Even Christ prayed to His Father alongside the holy ones, Saint Abraham and Saint Elijah. We Catholics simply pray as Christ has taught us; that is, alongside our predecessors, the saints, including Christ Himself, who have undeniably conformed themselves to Christ. What we do here echoes into eternity because the human soul is created to live eternal.
+++
Alms, Fasting, Prayer.
ammazzamoro 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ArmoredCatholic The church is the body of Christ, yes. And the church is the spiritual union of true believers in Christ., not some physical building or religious institution. I dont mean to offend you either, but if I had a quarter for every catholic I knew who left the church because they started reading the bible, I would be a millionaire. Peter never claimed to be any higher than the other disciples, he actually says he is a "fellow elder." The papal system is never taught in the nt
InDefenseofChrist 1 year ago
Somebody marked my comment down??? Jerks!!! whoever you are!
pacislander4life 2 years ago
Very good defence of our Holy Mother Church and the Vicar of Christ
smitten508 2 years ago
Sergio,
Perhaps a video on the invalid or over-accentuated aspects of Jansenism, Clericalism and Triumphalism may be of some help.
It seems to me that all sedevacantists have a tendency to follow "tradition" to such an extreme degree that they tend to forget the Sacred Scriptures themselves.
Sacred Tradition is at the service of Divine Revelation, NOT the other way around.
When a "tradition" or argument contradicts the very words of Sacred Scripture, it is to be rejected. Period!!
Very basic.
ProdigalSonship 2 years ago
Extremly good video.
I have read John Salza's article and even though much of what was said were direct quotations, you arranged it very well.
Childinfaith 2 years ago 2
Very informative video. Thank you.
iSATANRIKUZUSU 2 years ago
You know down here in Houston Texas we have Tridentine Mass with union with the Bishop of Rome. Its a very Traditional Catholic community with all the bells and whistles. They are not Sedevacantism at all,,they are part of Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston. They have communion rail with only the Priest and Deacon give out Holy Communion. They only used young men as altar boys.
jmctigret 2 years ago
Thank you for posting this video. Very well done and necessary. Peace +
nanabonniez 2 years ago
i enjoyed this video very much. are there any more coming?
Radfahrer1985 2 years ago
From my team? Yes. From me? Perhaps a few more. I am currently working on a new one, and plan to make a few web-cam responses. Besides that, I am not sure how much more I want to focus on these guys. I never took them seriously, and I still do not.
I only address them as if I take them seriously because others DO take them seriously. Therefore, for the sake of those souls, I will make intelligent responses. But keep in mind, there are other matters to attend to! I have my hands full!
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
yes, yes. i understand that. please don't get the feeling like i'm rushing you. i didn't mean it like that.
Radfahrer1985 2 years ago
I did not get that feeling. In fact, I already feel rushed myself as it is. This Youtube crisis recently broke out and caused much scandal, and I raced as quickly as I could to understand the issue and respond to it before any damage could be done.
If I am permitted, I will post a video today, but definitely one by tomorrow night. Perhaps even two videos. Then a few web-cam responses, then who knows. I might go back to addressing another scandal: Protestantism!
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
right. anyways, good luck with all your work. i love it. God bless.
Radfahrer1985 2 years ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 I think the reason there is so much attention is because some of these individuals produced solid, enjoyable pro-Catholic videos in the past.
It is more sad to see someone fall away when you've seen them at their best before.
Excellent video. God bless!
BaronGrackle 2 years ago 5
Thank You!
Peace and Good in Jesus and Mary
Sspeedyme 2 years ago
amazing!
You are 10!
TheEcumenator 2 years ago
Wow Great work this hole thing caught my eye. Well done my friend
Ignatius1125 2 years ago
Your synopsis of the problems with sedevacantism are so to-the-point and fundamentally devastating, that Paleocrat and Glenn MUST answer or face utter defeat. Every YouTube user can see how the points in your video go right to the heart of their "argument" and irrefutably destroy it. Great job. We will be waiting for Paleocrat/Glenn to attempt a resurrection of their "argument" from this rebuttal.
deliveringit 2 years ago 4
Thank you, but please, John Salza gets the credit for this one. I just pulled together the citations, recorded the audio, and compiled the images.
I'm still waiting to hear the rest of the answers to the 25 questions you asked. Thanks for that, by the way.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
He is correct. I am prom. this video on my channel
Theologica37 2 years ago 4
Excellent Work
Mkvine 2 years ago
Well researched....
mapollo 2 years ago
Way to go, SeptemberCatholic18! If you think about it, when hasn't the Church gone through a theological and disciplinary crisis? As long as sin exists, I think this is something that we almost have to expect. We had it before and after Trent, we had it during the Lateran councils, the Christological controversies (which btw, were MUCH worse than what we're facing right now in the post-conciliar Church), etc. Sin exists and will continue to exist, but it will never prevail against the Church...
vint7107 2 years ago
You forgot Pope John Paul I :P
This has been the best presentation on the issue.
BlackCappa 2 years ago
Excellent work and I learned much from your video. GBU
Bingolly1 2 years ago 2
Great work!
AbdielAbiram 2 years ago 2
I guarnantee as soon as a new Pope is elected, which hopefully is not anytime soon, the sedevacantists will immediately start looking through his past comments and writings to take one or two quotes out of context, and then they will dogmatically declare him a heretic. Their position will only get weaker as time goes on. Great video, thanks for making it.
ComeHomeCatholics 2 years ago 4
Excellent video. This video needed to be posted. Great work 5/5
sulkow82 2 years ago 2
This is excellent and so great that you made it into a video. There are a lot of good points made here.
BeingBob 2 years ago 2
I think I heard mhfm1 say in one of his videos that it happened many times in church history that there was no pope. Wikipedia also says there was no pope between the years 204 and 208, 209-210, 12411243, 12681271, 12921294, as well as 13141316. They also claim we have proclaimed an Antipope a Saint. I don't know if any of this is true, but it sounds confusing.
Zami9000 2 years ago
sorry I wanted to say 1241-1243, 1268-1271, 1292-1294
Zami9000 2 years ago
I would need more information to make an appropriate response to those claims, but I'm willing to bet that those "gaps" in the line of succession were interregnums which were elongated due to some frustration in the cardinals' ability to meet and vote on a new pope.
I guarantee you these gaps do NOT exist because the cardinals elected a heretic, and thus there was no true pope for some time. That has never happened in Church history.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
Septembercatholic18, according to my understanding on the issue, you are correct. There has never been an anti-Pope without a sitting Pope. As for the gaps, the explanation I heard was no Pope was in office, but the Cardinals got distracted from continuing the conclave (before they got locked in). Another explanation was there were several candidates where all had their supporters and it took a long time to work out the final selection.
sulkow82 2 years ago
Bravo! You really know your stuff. I salute you!
- Христос рождаєтся!
SwordsmanOfFaith 2 years ago 2
Brilliant! *****
God bless you and keep you.
FIDESetRATIOihtys 2 years ago 2
Sergio, excellent job as always.
God Bless You.
Naturalhit 2 years ago 3