Francis' Ideas ARE Vatican 2

[@UrielAngeli147]

"By their fruits you shall know them." The fruits of VII are blatantly obvious. To everyone.

[@rpmgrlca]

The only ones who don't see it, don't WANT to see it.

[@pamdidio9622]

I would like to understand y the Title" Vicar of CHRIST" WAS DROPPED.?????

[@LarchmontLady]

They want nothing to do with Christ.

[@UrielAngeli147]

Because he isn't and never was?

[@JohnAlbertRigali]

Papa Frank dropped that title. I don't know whether that's official or unofficial.

[@loulasher]

He ain't! I think he knows his election was bogus, that Ratzinger didn't resign, & he's playing us for his "god" of surprises.

[@johnchristiancanda3320]

Because Bergoglio is an Antipope.

[@janetechaney7099]

You are correct. Too many are afraid to abandone this heretical CVII.

[@littlerock5256]

To abandon Vatican II means one must abandon those who promulgated it and those who continue to teach it. That began, at least, with Paul VI and goes to the present.

[@sheilanorth1993]

I wondered about Jimmy Akin...he never sat right with me. I was confused why Fr. Chris Alar praised him so highly. Now I see more clearly .

[@jefffinkbonner9551]

The whole fake cowboy getup on top of his subtle smug vibe make his popesplaining all the more repugnant.

[@notyou9743]

What about Fr Chris ?

[@charlescrockett6410]

jimmy for sure is a heretic as is antipope francis who is NOT catholic..................proof ?? see vatican catholic

[@seppe1701]

Fr. Chris Alar I wouldn’t rate either! He pushes the Divine Mercy devotion.

[@pamdidio9622]

YOUR NEW CHANNEL IS NEEDED!

[@karlhrkal]

Enjoy your show. Francis also said. "Is my God more important than yours?" He then acknowledges there are more than one god. The most heretical part of his speech is when he puts all gods on the same level.

[@davethesid8960]

Exactly the opposite, he acknowledged that there's only one God, hence why the question doesn't make sense.

[@concernedcitizen780]

I want to cry ever time I hear what the “new” Church is doing.

[@VABE81030]

My 2 cents, having lived through it all. Yes I’d think scrapping VII would be a good start, but VII was a springboard letting the implementors have free rein. Seriously back in the 60s pre-Internet nearly nobody read these documents. Is there anyone who has read them all? What changed things was above all the New Mass which illustrated that tradition and morals were now open to change at whim of those in power; consequently, people lost faith. Lex orandi, lex credendi.

[@littlerock5256]

When Vatican II goes, everything is spawned will go with it.

[@speedygonzales9993]

Right on! I no longer listen to J. Akin. Akin is another lay version of Bergoglio. I always say this - Call a spade a spade!

[@PetiteFleurBleue2009]

I watched the video of J. Akin in which he tried in vain to defend Francis speech in Singapore. I was horrified at the distorsion of reality, and at the numerous bullies who threatened the people in the forum who dared question what Francis had said.

[@uncomfortabletruth-nr3gv]

It's like the alcoholic who's in complete denial , you can tell him where and how to get help but they refuse and won't even admit there's a problem , these modernist s would rather stay in their drunken stupor Rather than take the necessary steps to get help

[@gabrielleeliseo6062]

Correct

[@chrisdelong2932]

The Sabbath will be the great test of loyalty, for it is the point of truth especially controverted. When the final test shall be brought to bear upon men, then the line of distinction will be drawn between those who serve God and those who serve Him not. While the observance of the false sabbath in compliance with the law of the state, contrary to the fourth commandment, will be an avowal of allegiance to a power that is in opposition to God, the keeping of the true Sabbath, in obedience to God's law, is an evidence of loyalty to the Creator. While one class, by accepting the sign of submission to earthly powers, receive the mark of the beast, the other, choosing the token of allegiance to divine authority, receive the seal of God. GC 605.2 Amen!

[@rosariamcnierney7477]

I have stopped listening to all those poopsplainers. I’m over all of them. Vatican 2 was from hell. Cling to tradition and persevere. 🙏🏻

[@loulasher]

Nostra Aetate sounds like the worst doc of the bunch. Also, it's like peak upper-middle class liberalism to speak for all these false religions and say what those guys thought was true in them. "Stay in your lane" applies, because it's narrow.

[@sueadauctus3306]

"The Council teaches us..." i hear this on locsl radio all t 6:46 he time. I think they substituted it for Jesus.

[@BezalelExodus]

If a church council is wrong and a pope is wrong where does that leave the authority of the Church? What is your perspective on this question?

[@marccrotty8447]

@@BezalelExodus Vatican 2 did not respond to any questions of faith and was not declared infallible.

[@littlerock5256]

@@marccrotty8447 Ecumenical Councils are all, by definition, infallible and binding. Paul VI promulgated all the documents as binding. The only way out of VCII is if Paul VI did not have papal authority.

[@littlerock5256]

An ecumenical council nor a pope can promulgate error in faith and morals. Vatican II was taken over by Modernists and is a robber council. It spawned a new religion under the guise of Catholicism.

[@marccrotty8447]

@@littlerock5256 My understanding is that V2 was a Pastoral Council and thus not infallible. It did not comply with the following infallible criteria: "1. Through the Extraordinary Episcopal Magisterium when the Bishops gather in ecumenical councils and define dogmas and 2. When Bishops meet in Councils Universally and concur on some matter of faith and morals and teach it definitively."

[@littlerock5256]

@@marccrotty8447 There is no such thing as a . Also, pastoral does not mean something isn't binding. Two of the documents promulgated at Vatican II are called .

[@marccrotty8447]

Francis both writes and speakes "off the cuff." Ignore trash Vatican documents.

[@BobbyBobBob-d5l]

POPE BENEDICT XVI: “People should not fear God, thinking he is always ready to punish, but rather they should love him because he is always ready to forgive. God is not a relentless sovereign who condemns the guilty, but a loving father whom we must love not out of fear of punishment, but because of his goodness. The Lord is a God who is just, but always ready to reveal himself as merciful and compassionate.God loves us in a way that we might call “obstinate” and enfolds us in his inexhaustible tenderness. The anger and mercy of the Lord alternate in a dramatic sequence, but love triumphs in the end, for God is love. God’s passionate love for his people - for humanity - is at the same time a forgiving love. It is so great that it turns God against himself, his love against his justice.”

[@irishdancer2753]

Thank you! 🙏🏻

[@edisonfrisbee6345]

The $64,000 question: why do B16 and JP2 get a pass for essentially the same beliefs and support of Vatican 2? Bergoglio is just more open about it.

[@littlerock5256]

It began with Vatican II. They are all a product of it.

[@jimbuck-xn8co]

becouse JP2 was a POLITICAL CONSERVATIVE and francis is a political liberal. you can teach all the heresy you want as long as you are a conservative. Im protestant BTW, ALL rightwing protestants LOVED JP2!, they praised him constantly, but none like francis due to politics not theology.

[@stevefurman7720]

The god of Vatican II is man.

[@stevefurman7720]

Should not have capitalized God, apologies

[@stevefurman7720]

Oh boy, god I mean

[@charlescrockett6410]

well actually their god is satan, not man..................see vatican catholic for real catholic truths

[@juliemcsweeney6434]

So Francis is simply highlighting what VII always was and is - heresy ☘

[@hoadhialab1817]

I'm not trying to argue here, but rather trying to understand something. If V2 is so flawed (I firmly believe there are problems with it), then why didn't the Saint popes we have had since then correct it? Being proclaimed a Saint by the Church is infallible, right? I'm thinking JPII for example. I just can't wrap my head around it - guess I'm kind of slow! Thanks.

[@dianneraimondi8382]

Post conciliar popes embraced modernism, which took over vat2. These popes were corrupted in their academic experience.their being saints, I have doubts. Again ,everything is corrupted by modernism. This corruption touch ALL aspects of the church. I question the validity of many recent canonizations.

[@toddpund5761]

Maybe because they were part of it? They called them saints to mislead people? Just a guess..

[@marcokite]

You really think Paul VI and JPII were/are saints???? Their words and actions were often very dodgy.

[@hoadhialab1817]

@@marcokite So, are you saying that the Church erred in naming them Saints? How many others? Was every Saint after V2 an error?

[@edisonfrisbee6345]

Not infallible if "canonized" by an anti-pope (Bergoglio).

[@marcokite]

Jimmy Akin is ONE of the many reasons why I am now Orthodox ☦☦☦☦☦☦☦

[@speedygonzales9993]

RIGHT!

[@loulasher]

That's like saying Celerino Sanchez is why you're not a Yankees fan.

[@kimberHD45]

So a man made you deny Christ and his holy Church? That’s quite an admission

[@chrisflorescu6743]

So are you a greek orthodox that in the Creed say that they believe on one Catholic Church? or are you russian, romanian, serbian orthodox that say in the Creed "sobornicesc"? Do you celebrate the Christmas on Jan 7 (russian, serbian orthodox) or on Dec 25? Do you enjoy the libations for dead? - all orthodox have them in one way or the other. I have a lot more questions but let's start with this. BTW I used to be an orthodox.

[@clarewoosley8376]

I agree that what you highlighted in yellow and green is very misleading. However, in the part that you didn’t highlight, it states that other religions present “ways” . . . “ to counter the restlessness of the human heart.” Then it says that “the Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions.” I agree that there is SOME truth in all religions, and the Catholic Church does not need to and never should reject Truth! In the next sentence it says that the other religions “often reflect A RAY of that Truth which enlightens all men.” This is NOT saying that they think all religions are a path to God. The last sentence of the paragraph confirms this. However, I completely agree with you that Pope Francis did not say this; he actually said that all religions lead to God. There is a big difference between the meaning of this paragraph and what Pope Francis said.

[@dianneraimondi8382]

What truth that is in false religions belong to the Catholic Church. But any true found is totally distorted in the mist of errors that consumes false religions.

[@Seppe2-qu1dk]

There is no truth and holiness in other religions! Please describe what is true and holy.

[@JoeHonestTruth]

If we assume being a Hindu, Buddhist, a Moslem or another religion creates a path to God, that doesn’t equate to entering eternal life. Jesus’ core teaching for 3 years was telling his apostles and his audience to stop sinning, repent, extend mercy and forgiveness to others. Jesus took 3 years explaining that Heaven exists for faithful believers and followers who stop sinning and when sin happens, to repent and join his new church that was granted the keys to salvation through his church. The other religions don’t recognize the 10 commandments and Jesus’ teaching how to receive salvation with him, since he is not only the savior but the “judge” to renders judgment of hell or heaven for each human. So, the other religions don’t focus on sins and repentance and obeying Jesus’ teachings. Therefore, these other religions can’t deliver eternal life because their sins block salvation and entry to heaven. The fact remains that the other religions allow and permit sins because it doesn’t matter in that religion Islam is the worse on this issue. Muslims everyday commit grave sins because they don’t believe and follow the 10 commandments. Islam permits 4 wives. Islam permits wife beatings. Islam preaches hate of Jews and Christians. Islam preaches holy jihad to kill people. Islam tolerates all kinds of sins The bottomline is that heaven exists only for followers and believers in Jesus, and obey his teachings and join his Catholic Church that was given the keys to save souls through baptism, confession of sins, a promise to stop sinning, and partaking of communion Eucharist while in a state of grace after proper confession and absolution for sins.

[@niroshangovinder4042]

I agree with alot of what you have said. Except, where you said that 'other religions allow and permit sins, because it doesn't matter in that religion.' Dude, it does matter, but thankfully we don't serve God (and avoid sins) just so that we entertain some self-serving agendas, coupled with an elitist mindset that promulgates that all others are demoniac. The Hare Krishna religion is about serving rather than gaining. Note: When you explained that it took 3 years or so for Jesus Christ to reveal many theological aspects, I really thought you were going to express that, the Glory and Glories of God, could not really have been done justice at just that; stint of time. And that, we should be open to accepting that God and His Servants from all over the world have experienced God's love and touch, and of course shared it too. But alas, you made it clear that the Abrahamic elitist mindset still persists. Btw, if heaven is for only the saved and the exclusivists, then enjoy yourself in that 'heaven', with all the Muslims and the Natzis and every other Christian denomination that thinks that they solely are the only ones that own that 'zone.'

[@davethesid8960]

That's not true, non-Catholics can be saved.

[@JoeHonestTruth]

@@davethesid8960 Good luck with that opinion. I pray for all humans to be saved, but Jesus squarely and clearly explained the path to salvation and that includes stop sinning, repentance, and forgiveness to others. Jesus spoke often who shall inherit eternity and who doesn’t. Jesus created his church to facilitate salvation. The main problem with the pope’s remarks is that he didn’t even mention Jesus Christ, who is the savior and judge in his capacity as the son of God. The path is to Jesus which the Pope refrained from talking about.

[@davethesid8960]

@@JoeHonestTruth Have you read CCC 847?

[@JoeHonestTruth]

@@davethesid8960 Of course I know it. It supports my point totally. The non-Catholic has to in effect jump through a lot of hoops to reach salvation. People in other faiths are like 99.99% aren’t going to qualify because they by death, must be full faithful innocent believers and obey Jesus’ teachings and repent from a lifetime of sins they accumulated.

[@jamesMartinelli-x2t]

I detest Vatican 2 and all its detritus.

[@rogieignacio9324]

The gates of Hell shall not prevail against her (The Church)... we should not believe that the devil sat on Vatican II but rather TRUST that the Holy Spirit guided the conclave. Jesus said... "whoever is not against us is for us.".... Augustine said... "do not try to understand so that you may believe... but believe so that you may understand. In the Fullness of His Time... the Church will go ecumenical... fully catholic (universal)... For God so love the world... Jesus said not Jews, nor Disciples but the "world".... and that is the TRUTH...

[@Snipe3598]

Jimmy Akin is in complete denial

[@-maccabee]

But sspx members told me v2 doesnt teach on faith or morals? 🤡

[@catholicesquire]

They probably said V2 doesn't teach dogmatically on faith and morals.

[@-maccabee]

@@catholicesquire how was v2 not dogmatic? the v2 "church" took it so seriously they locked priests out of their own churches who refused to say the new mass... and bishops were forced to leave their positions. in fact one of main reasons the v2 church wont reunite with the sspx is because they refuse to acknowledge teachings on faith from the v2 documents..

[@paulmurray3671]

You are hateful toward our Pope Francis. Maybe you should get to Confession.

[@marccrotty8447]

@@paulmurray3671 Francis banned my Mass on Holy Days and weekdays. Less opportunity to make my confession.

[@ColinWrubleski-eq5sh]

The open idolatry of Pachamama, the human-sacrifice goddess, which "Francis" brought into both the Vatican gardens and various Roman churches, made it clear to my mind that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a usurper, that he was not validly elected as pontiff, so criticizing him as harshly as possible (in the manner of Cardinal Vigano, who for exposing Bergoglian malfeasance must remain in hiding while fleeing for his life) is not a matter for Confession but rather for emulation... That the election of JMB to the papal throne violated the rules for papal conclaves as established by JP II is pretty much incontrovertible, and the bizarre semi-resignation of Benny the Bull XVI further confused matters ("Benny is no longer the pope, but he still gets to keep his hummous-- err, munus." What sort of demonic confusion is that-???). Frankie's patronage of pro-sodomy propagandists (e.g., fellow Jesuit Jim-Bob Martin), his praise for abortionists (e.g., the Italian woman who boasts aloud about committing 10000 abortions), his betrayal of the faithful Chinese by the treasonous pact with the CCP, the shuttering of the churches and advocacy of abortion-tainted depopulation vaccines and collaboration with anti-human WEF globalists during the WHO-Han biological weapon attack, the sacrilegious mockery of Confession with the recent creation of a list of fictitious sins against fictitious "synodality", the ridiculous Madison Avenue-esque "synod on synodality" marketing catch-phrase with its intent of destroying the hierarchical apostolic nature of the Church, his brutal and uncharitable suppression of the Latin Mass, his tripling down on the "Singaporean heresy", encouraging divorced couples and unrepentant same-sex couples to commit sacrilege by unworthily receiving Communion, etc. et ad nauseum et ad infinitum---> on every issue, Frankie is on the side of sin and evil. Surely if any one item from the above long list in isolation is not definitive, the cumulative effect is that he cannot possibly be a valid pope. 😢😮

[@aireyc]

You are incorrect, Francis is incorrect, and Vatican II is correct. You're thinking about this the wrong "way." From Mark 9:40: "For whoever is not against us is for us." Reality isn't "either-or" as you present it. Rather, reality is a combination of choice and ignorance. A person doesn't either choose Christ or reject Christ. A third possibility is to be ignorant of Christ, and Mark 9:40 affirms that someone who hasn't rejected Christ should be viewed as one of us. At the moment of conception, our soul is completely, intellectually ignorant. This is at odds with God who is complete perfection and truth. As one grows in another religion, they will learn and make choices, and some of that understanding and some of those choices will align with God's truth, even though the person doesn't find it through the Catholic Church. VII is saying that we aren't going to reject the truth that people reach, even if it happens to be through another religion. To be dismissive of the good because someone "is on the other team" is uncharitable and serves what purpose to save souls? The Church isn't saying those religions are completely correct and a valid alternative to Catholicism, but it acknowledges that the desires of the individuals are often the same desires that Catholics have. The Catholic Church calls all of us to the complete truth (to Christ), but it isn't going to throw the baby out with the bathwater and condemn the aspects of other religions that point to God. The part in red simply reaffirms that Christ is the complete truth (the fullness of religious life), and for that reason the Catholic Church is the only path to the perfection of God. Yes, everyone should be Catholic as all other religions have some degree of incorrect teaching, but we shouldn't be blind to the good that can come from other faiths. Where the Pope went wrong is implying that all religions allow us to reach the same, COMPLETE truth. That is the heresy. He should have acknowledged that while there may be some degree of truth in what other religions teach, they all err in some way, and only through the Catholic Church will one find the entirety of God.

[@margaretmary1139]

14Wherefore, my dearly beloved, fly from the service of idols. 15I speak as to wise men: judge ye yourselves what I say. 16The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? 17For we, being many, are one bread, one body: all that partake of one bread. 18Behold Israel according to the flesh. Are not they that eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? 19What then? Do I say that what is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? Or that the idol is any thing? 20But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils and not to God. And I would not that you should be made partakers with devils. 21You cannot drink the chalice of the Lord and the chalice of devils: you cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord and of the table of devils. 22Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he? All things are lawful for me: but all things are not expedient. So just a little bit of evil or heresy is okay?

[@JohnAlbertRigali]

Since Catholicism is the one correct way to the Lord Jesus Christ, and Christ is the only way to the Heavenly Feather, it's incumbent upon the pope (or apparent pope, as the case may be) to point that out to souls who don't embrace Catholicism. For a Catholic - especially a pope or apparent pope - to contradict or contravene that is heresy, and that's exactly what Papa Frank did.

[@clarewoosley8376]

I agree with you completely on this. Please see my response that I just posted in fewer words but with the same meaning as yours.

[@toddpund5761]

Lol..

[@dianneraimondi8382]

These truths,which actually belong and are a part of catholicism,because all truth is in the Catholic Church. True in other religions belongs by right to the catholic church. Also these truths which that are part of the Catholic Church are presented in vague and ambiguous ways as the abundance of errors distort these truths.

[@michaelspeyrer1264]

8:45 you still aren’t dealing wi the the dogmatic teaching councils can’t teach error so that 100% means your interpretation of Nostra Aetate is flawed.

[@catholicesquire]

Well, it obviously taught error because there can't be multiple mediators to God and one Mediator at the same time. Both were taught in N.A. So one of these teachings was in error, which leads to the second obvious conclusion, it was either not a valid Council at all, or simply some type of failed Council that never intended to teach dogmatically.