Sedevacantism Refuted - (Full Documentary 2023)

Sedevacantism is a fast growing position in the Church. In this video, the history, positions, and arguments of Sedevacantism are analyzed and refuted.
If you are considering the Sedevacantist position, please watch this video in its entirety. There are certainly a lot of problems in the Church that make Sedevacantism seem reasonable. But, as will be shown in this video, Sedevacantism is not the solution and is ultimately untenable.
Special thanks to:
John Salza
Trent Horn (@TheCounselofTrent)
Bryan Mercier (@CatholicTruthOfficial)
Pinesap (@pinesap34)

[@genzcatholic3366]

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

[@stevenharrington3220]

Dude when you made the iceberg video on Traditional Catholicism you were somewhat optimistic about Sedevacantism, then you mentioned in the following video that you were being harassed for going easy on Sedevacantism. Is a little cyber bullying really enough to sway you from it? Also Sedevacantism is not really an answer to the problem in Rome, it is meant to be an explanation for it.

[@ignaciogrial1872]

@@stevenharrington3220 There is that video that will be the thorn in the shoe his whole life

[@stevenharrington3220]

@@ignaciogrial1872 I'm just saying his whole attitude changed over what he described as harassment.

[@StAquinasPrayForUs]

Sedevacantism is not a solution. It is purely schismatic and nonsensical. He merely came to his senses and ACTUALLY did research on it.

[@calebadcock363]

@@stevenharrington3220Is that your critique of the video contents? It would be the genetic fallacy to assume that his arguments are false because he didn’t have a good reason for adopting his position.

[@OliveMule]

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

[@b.r.holmes6365]

Does Francis know?

[@jeffreylonigro4081]

Which church would you belong to in 299 A.D.? Odds say Arian.

[@ryan20652]

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

[@bonifaceonuh424]

I'm sure you "went searching for answers" in the wrong places. Otherwise, by now you'd be a sedevacantist, nay a true traditional Catholic.

[@collectiveconsciousness5314]

By who?

[@michaelallen1953]

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

[@genzcatholic3366]

Thank you for your kind words! I'd love to be on Pints with Aquinas someday, but I doubt that'll ever happen 😂

[@SedePicante]

Don't worry I'm helping to spread this video around too! I did a few parts on it, showing just how it doesn't actually answer jack.

[@UnionistInitiative]

This was so well made. Congrats! 🎉

[@igormarins1227]

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

[@deus_vult8111]

The Holy Spirit never abandons the Church. The Vatican II sect isn’t guided by the Holy Spirit, that’s why they teach that it’s good to participate in non-catholic worship with Protestants, Orthodox, Jews, Muslims, Hindus etc. like the apostate mother theresa… the only worship they seem to shun is Catholics going to independent traditional latin mass chapels. But besides that, literally anything goes as long as you call the sodomite francis bergoglio “Pope”… “You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held.” -Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#13), Jun. 29, 1896. None of your Post-Vatican II antipopes believed that the faith of Rome must be held, that’s why they lifted the excommunications on the schismatic eastern orthodox and joined with heretical protestants. If you cannot see it with the idolatrous Assisi prayer events sponsored by the same antipopes then you’re sadly blind

[@Hild1]

If you're not completely braindead, you will, if you continue to reject the sedevacantist position and believe that people like JP2 can be and are popes and even saints rather than heretics who undoubtedly burn in hell, either join some other sect like one of the various eastern schismatic or protestant churches or you will renounce Christ and consider Christianity merely a tool of the Juice's grab for world dominion.

[@brentmichael4770]

Oh yeah! Sure, the church ran by man will never become currupted. The devil always wins because we are all fools and so easy to trick. God wants us to be visual and point out the obvious. When we don't, we pay dearly.

[@ci6516]

@@brentmichael4770the church is run by god . The church is god. No Mather what corruption may exist , the Holy Spirit will always guide the church the right way. How is this not obvious . Satan reside in some churches , and some may be tainted ; but god always wins. The Catholic Church is the church Jesus commanded to be built . It will never be corrupted beyond the grace of god

[@Zach-rq5rd]

Brother Peter Diamond is currently malding creating a response video

[@jeffreyfrench6401]

Are you serious or sarcastic?

[@shredder9536]

Did he ever do one?

[@portagoosey]

from Catholic Family Podcast: History of the CMRI: In Defense of Archbishop Thuc kzbin.info/www/bejne/emfPgXqbhpiSiZo

[@fidefidelis4460]

Council of Trent, at Sess. 23, canon 7, says that those who aren't sent by the ecclesiastical and canonical Authority of the Church aren't legitimate. It is a de fide dogma, without exception. But sedes bishops weren't sent by any Canonical Authority, therefore they are illegitimate.

[@ColiteDominum]

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

[@venture7486]

Protestants knowingly departed from the one true church, and they don't even believe in the efficacy of the Sacraments. What conscious departure did all the 1b+ Catholics today make from the church that YOU consider to be the genuine article? For all they know, the Catholic Church today is the same church that has existed since antiquity. Why would God punish all these Catholics by rendering their Sacraments null and void, potentially jeopardising their salvation?

[@nicholausjamesjay83]

Yep

[@roys5563]

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

[@deus_vult8111]

Bro really thought he did something here by citing *Trent Horn* (who’s been refuted by Peter Dimond and refuses to debate him), *John Salza* (another liar who’s been refuted by the Dimonds who also dodges debates), and _“Pinesap”_ (who actually had the gall to debate Bro. Peter but was soundly destroyed when his position admits that someone can be a practicing Muslim/Jew/Hindu and yet “mystically” be united to the Catholic Church. If you think the Vicar of Christ can engage in acts of apostasy and idolatry and even deny the Faith word for word and think such a person is pope or even a catholic you are sadly deluded and don’t know the first thing about Catholicism. This apostasy was prophesied to occur at the end of the world. We’re living through it. Everyone in the Church professes the same one Faith and they share the same one Baptism (water) just as they have the same One Lord (Jesus Christ). If you don’t have either of those you are not a Catholic. If you depart in just one article of divinely revealed truth you deny all faith. “Heretics not only differ from the Church in faith, but they also differ among themselves, a proof that they have not the one true faith, which is one. The Holy Catholic Church has never suffered, and will never suffer, a difference in faith in regard to any article...” -St. John Eudes The beginning of your video you admitted that there’s “confusion” in the “church”. In the Vatican II Sect there is confusion, that’s why it’s called Babylon. In true Catholicism nobody is confused as to who is Catholic and who is not.

[@ben-ben2366]

Good point by st. John Eudes how heretics differ in faith. In the Vatican 2 sect there are LGBT Bishops, pro abortion politicians, idol promoters and yet also "conservatives" like Marshall or church millitant professing one sect together. How is there such a vast spectrum of beliefs calling themselves "Catholic" when it says dogmatically in Vatican 1 that all the faithful are united in one faith with the pope?

[@AM-tt2wp]

Interestingly there is actually WAY more division and confusion (percentage-wise) in the Sedevecantist church. And it's only been around for a few decades! Yikes... Good luck with that.

[@ben-ben2366]

@@AM-tt2wp there is no such thing as a "sedevacantist church" you don't even know what sedevacantism means.

[@therefinedcanine]

When did pinesap debate him?

[@AM-tt2wp]

@@ben-ben2366 I know there isn't. It's just random groups of people with very little cohesion, but I think you know what I meant when I said sedevecantist church.

[@VesselofMercy100]

Great video . Thank you! If the pope preaches new doctrines and denies dogmas. Isn’t that gravely sinful and also make him to be separated from the church due to gravely sinful actions? If I am confused, forgive the questions and ignorance. I am a Catholic here sincerely asking questions because the hierarchy (and spherically the pope) have caused a lot of confusion and scandals. I have been struggling with these issues myself. Any help is welcomed .

[@genzcatholic3366]

Thank you for your comment. Its true that in some cases, a Pope could lose his office because of heresy. But this would have to be from him not only denying a dogma, but also doing it in a way where he makes it clear that he's aware of what the magisterium teaches and he rejects it anyways (For example, if Pope Francis released a statement tomorrow saying that the Church's teaching on the assumption is wrong and Pius XII had no authority to declare it, he would stop being the Pope) But not every theological error separates someone from the Church. It may constitute a mortal sin and destroy the bond of charity interiorly. But it doesn't necessarily separate them from exterior communion with the Church The section of the video starting at 39:57 goes over this in more detail. Hope this helps!

[@happydog2524]

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

[@nijikabestpopeweeb]

>Do you believe jorge bergoglio holds the Catholic Faith WHOLE and INVIOLATE? Yes and his name is Pope Francis. 😎

[@venture7486]

@user-kb4dv1ud3f No proof of that.

[@NUUKEE]

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

[@sacred-heartsoldier227]

Good analyses and excellent viewpoints were presented. However, the background music in this video is highly annoying and distracting that I could not listen to through the video

[@matheuspinho4987]

this video - and the acknowledged fact the new mass has eucharist miracles - converted me from the sedevacantist cult from Brazil, God and Our Lady bless you and your life, CenZ Catholic

[@sebastianaquino7454]

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

[@nijikabestpopeweeb]

@@user-kb4dv1ud3f The solution is that the magisterium isn't getting worse. So sedevacantism is dissenting from an infallible magisterium.

[@petemitchel1454]

Did this person who made this video read some of the comments of how people are treating others ? If you think sedevacantism is wrong and claim to be a “true” Catholic how can treat some one so hatefully ?

[@TheRealMagicBananaz]

This was extremely well made. Well done

[@N81056]

Thank you so much for this. You saved me from being a sede

[@hglundahl]

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

[@ben-ben2366]

Question for you "Gen z Catholic". 1. Is there any living manifest heretical priests or Bishops on earth that you name. 2. Is it a mortal sin to pray with someone who openly Denys a dogma of the Catholic church.

[@icxcarnie]

Who's here before this video is magisterial

[@ben-ben2366]

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

[@SedePicante]

shh, you're just supposed to believe the editor of this video. Don't ACTUALLY watch the Dimon debate.

[@stevenharrington3220]

This guy changed his view on Sedevacantism over cyber bullying from Novis Ordo Catholics.

[@mathfrom0to96]

Maybe conciliarism, but fair question

[@luked7956]

I remember Cassman couldn't answer many of Brother Peter's questions, such as whether Francis professes the true faith. I don't remember Brother Peter not having an answer. He usually has an answer for things, even if it's strange or incorrect, he is certainly quick.

[@SedePicante]

@@luked7956yes he's very smart and good with books

[@dominicdeniziuk]

We needed this. Bad.

[@ChallengerTheo]

In the new rite of consecration, it does have an explicit mention of fullness of thy ministry. It says "Are you resolved to pray for the people of God without ceasing, and to carry out the duties of one who has the **fullness of the priesthood** so as to afford no grounds for reproach?"

[@ChallengerTheo]

@@user-kb4dv1ud3f it means new rite, like the rite which is newer than the old rite

[@jorgepenaloza6834]

1:53:14 This is a good point. My answer is, neither can settle the issue because there is no Pope. Many sedevacantists want to act as Popes of their own, but the whole point of the current situation is that these contested issues will be unresolved till a Pope arrives.

[@thecalderasiblings7198]

W Video. Catholic W, Sede L

[@stevenharrington3220]

I don't see how, this video was just mental gymnastics.

[@thecalderasiblings7198]

@@stevenharrington3220Stay mad! Sedevacantism is schism and L.

[@SanctusPaulus1962]

How? I'm not even a sede, but this was a terrible video. It barely even acknowledged the problems sedes have with Vatican II or all the Popes since then

[@cousinmartin]

One objection not answered in this video is that: popes after Vatican II have not merely said or done scandalous things but have uniquely *taught* things through encyclicals (which are magisterial documents where all are called to offer the obsequiousness of intelligence and will) that a Catholic could not believe under pain of mortal sin, such as Amoris Laetitia (adulterous unions) and Fiducia Supplicans (blessings of same-sex couples). Resisting the teachings of the popes until a return to the traditional positions would thus be the only option then. However, that seems to go against your point of being able to completely trust the Chruch's hierarchy without relying on your own judgement. Even if one did not subscribe to Sedevacantism, this is a pressing question to answer.

[@Seethi_C]

So we should have resisted Pope John XXII? We should resists his canonization of Aquinas?

[@czmychal]

@@Seethi_C John XXIII, not XXII

[@Seethi_C]

@@clint5814 Did you watch the video you are commenting on? John XXII taught heresy regarding the beatific vision. And John XXII is the one who canonized Aquinas. If John XXII was an anti-Pope, then Aquinas was never canonized. Also, Aquinas denied the Immaculate Conception, and taught Baptism of Desire, which some Sedes consider to be heresy.

[@Seethi_C]

@@czmychal No, John XXII. Did you watch the video you are commenting on?

[@czmychal]

@@Seethi_C And where did you get that?

[@quisutdeus77]

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

[@icyeevee]

I think the video answers a lot of these questions you have...

[@quisutdeus77]

@@icyeevee there is not even one text of the Magisterium before Vatican II that supports the heresies of Vatican II. We have proofs and infaillible documents and this video speaks about theologian’s opinion or documents that are not part of the Magisterium: none of this is infallible

[@Deuterocomical]

These are silly questions. It’s like asking for an infallible statement on Papal Infallibility prior to Vatican I. The whole point of a council is to define something that wasn’t defined prior to it.

[@quisutdeus77]

@@Deuterocomical the problem here is that Vatican II and its “popes” contradict the teachings of the Church. For example : religious liberty was condemned by the Church before Vatican II ; the Church clearly taught that Schismatics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims, if they do not convert, will perish in Hell ; the Church teaches that the Missal promulgated by Pius V is valid jn perpetuity and therefore the Mass can never be modified, etc… The Church cannot contradict itself.

[@quisutdeus77]

@@Deuterocomical and for your information, all teachings of the Magisterium from Saint Peter to Pius XII are infaillible. The Pope didn’t “start” to be infallible in the 19th century. Papal infallibility was always believed by the Universal Church. Dogmas do not appear from nowhere.

[@hglundahl]

1:01:24 _"This still violates the principle of perpetual successors"_ Two corrections here. 1) For me, there has been a Pope since 1990, with a brief interruption 2022 to 2023, a bit less than a year, this makes the sedevacancy one of 32 years from 1958 to 1990. 2) At least a sedevacancy of 40 years, specifically mentioned by council fathers of Vatican Council, does not violate the principle. You may have a very good point about the ones who pretend the Sedevacancy is still ongoing.

[@Laj-t9k]

Perpetual: "occurring repeatedly; so frequent as to seem endless and uninterrupted."

[@Laj-t9k]

@@user-kb4dv1ud3f I thought the "point" was obvious: the sedevacantist position is untenable if we hold a common sense interpretation of what perpetual means.

[@Laj-t9k]

@@user-kb4dv1ud3f "Sedevacantist" (See also, "ultimate cope," etc.).

[@Laj-t9k]

@@user-kb4dv1ud3f An interregnum between the death of one pope and the election of another does not vitiate perpetual succession, but a 6 decade absence of a pope does.

[@ben-ben2366]

1:42:43 the amount of herseys here... Oh man.

[@sauceplayz8606]

WE'RE SUBMITTING TO THE POPE WITH THIS ONE 🥶🥶🥶🥶👌👌👌👌✝✝✝✝🇻🇦 🇻🇦 🇻🇦 🇻🇦

[@AltcoinAnalysis]

This provided spectacular clarity for me. Thank you!

[@hglundahl]

1:07:02 The story I have heard actually says: * he accepted * he was then forced to resign. The resignation being under duress (like a commie threat of a nuke war, forwarded by a freemason), it would have been invalid. Siri could then have later lost the papacy on not stepping forward. Either way, Siri was not the Pope when Pope Michael was elected, since he died on 2 May 1989, and Pope Michael was elected on 16 July 1990.

[@jasonallen4028]

Really like your perpetual jumping analogy

[@josephbrothers4511]

Not even 1 minute in and fallacy and misinformation

[@icyeevee]

Prove your claim.

[@josephbrothers4511]

@icyeevee I will be doing a full video rebuttle...point by point. Father Hess a Theologian and doctor of canon law and never a sede expressed that the sedevacantist were at worst in a pius error. Bigotry against sedes is just raw arrogance and pharasiticalism on the part of sorta trads

[@tonysaid6184]

You CAN'T refute it, when the unanimous consent of the ancient Fathers teaches it, and some of the greatest Catholic Saints and Doctors and canonists of the Church also teach it. If ALL the ancient Fathers of the Church teach it ( as St. Robert Bellarmine says they do in his great work on the Papacy "De Romano Pontifice", Bk.II, Cap. 30), that makes the teaching a De Fide doctrine of the Church. Do you think perchance that the election of a man to the Papacy confers an indelible mark, as in the case of the Sacrament of Orders? But it simply doesn't. The papacy is not a Sacrament. As per the ex Cathedra Bull of Pope Paul IV, "Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio", a man can be elected to the papacy with full consent of the Cardinals and the election can be null and void, because it is discovered that he held and taught heresy before the election. For the proof both that a validly elected Pope loses/falls from the papacy automatically ( ie.,before any canonical trial, because he is "notorious in fact"), if he teaches manifest heresy publicly, and that a papal election is rendered null and void, because of the discovery of prior held heresy, in spite of a canonically correct election, go to vaticancatholic.com and look up the above cited documents given there in full.

[@genzcatholic3366]

You didn't watch the video.

[@Nieden-Pilled]

As Gen Z Catholic said, you didn't watch the video. If a pope who was elected did publicly teach heresy fully knowing it was heresy and rejecting the authority of Church dogma before their election, yes their election would have been void as they would have been outside the church. St. Robert Bellarmine outlines what would invalidate a pope's office. They need to be a Manifest heretic (as in they need to be publicly displaying their heresy, as opposed to an occult heretic who is internally a heretic but does not profess their beliefs). To be considered a Manifest heretic, the church either needs to convict you as one (which popes can be, but none of the recent popes have) or they need to be a Heretic in fact. Now, as Gen Z Catholic points out, St. Bellarmine's bar for being notorious in fact is incredibly high. To be notorious in fact, you have to profess heretical beliefs KNOWING they are against Church Dogma and then refuse to adjust them. Even if you can find seemingly heretical things Popes have said, you have to then prove they said these things knowing they were against Church Dogma, and then prove they made no attempt to correct/adjust their statements. A manifest heretic stops being a manifest heretic if they renounce their heretical beliefs. To prove the last 6 popes have been heretics, you would need to find evidence of them saying something heretical, prove they knew it was going against Church Dogma and not caring, then prove they never tried to adjust/alter their statement to conform to Church Dogma.

[@JPPorcaro]

Based!!!!!!!!

[@SanctusPaulus1962]

Yeah, based on lies, excuses, and deflections

[@jorgepenaloza6834]

9:30 This is deceptive: Yes, it never said those things on the official conciliabulum documents. But the very same people who where physically present at Vatican -2 were in charge of executing what they believe to be the meaning of the council in practice. They executed the things they believed to be the council, in the way they believed to be applicable, they also trained in the seminaries, the invalid priests, and how they should behave. Further, by not punishing these public acts, they also show these to be according to their liking. Don't split the text authors and the people who applied the text, sometimes is one and the same, literally. If a lawyer presents a contract in writing that sounds good, but then, that same lawyer, applies the contract in all the malicious ways possible, you can still sue to correct the application of it, saying that you didn't consent to such acts.

[@jorgepenaloza6834]

1:06:16 I will continue to watch the video, but so far, is unimpressive. It is also not entirely clear you are being honest or just ignorant of many facts that are important to address sedevacantism fairly.

[@jamesmcgrath3841]

The debate between Diamond and Cassman on Matt Fradd's show reminds me of something Chesterton said about debating a madman. You may think you will win. But he will have an internal "logic" that is irrefutable. He may well best you, and you won't quite know how or why. But you will still know he is wrong. You will still know he is mad. Diamond would get away with arguing from an "original" standpoint, not confined to the facts, using tactics that wouldn't work again in a repeat performance. He would have been ready for Cassman, but Cassman could not have been prepared for Diamond. On first outing. He would have a ton of research to do on the sedevacantist position before he could even begin to refute what Diamond would have argued.

[@jeandurtal8404]

Yes, ignore the myriad of salient points Dimond made and just call him "mad." There's a reason the overwhelming majority of viewers of the debate said he won. If you can't even answer whether your "pope" believes basic Catholic doctrine there is a very, VERY big problem there. Attacking sedes for having the conviction of making a very rational inference based on the information available does not change that fact. You quote Chesterton, but this quote from St. Anthony I think is more applicable: "A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him, saying, 'You are mad; you are not like us.”

[@jamesmcgrath3841]

@@jeandurtal8404 What are you talking about, Jean? Where on earth did you get the idea that I "can't even answer whether the Pope (no need for the quotation marks...) believes basic Catholic doctrine"? This is a ridiculous thing to say. Nor I didn't "quote" Chesterton. I referenced him. As for your St Anthony quote? I think you are right. Men have indeed gone mad. They have gone sede.

[@jamesmcgrath3841]

@@user-kb4dv1ud3f I'm glad "the moon reminds you of cheese," user. Anything else even more irrelevant to observe?

[@jamesmcgrath3841]

@@jeandurtal8404 "There's a reason the overwhelming majority of viewers of the debate said he won." Indeed. I refer you to my original comment... 😁

[@jeandurtal8404]

@@jamesmcgrath3841 Yes, it's such a "ridiculous thing to say" when Cassman himself couldn't answer that question. I doubt you can do any better.

[@AOitsAO]

So spiritually blind 😢

[@Deuterocomical]

No u

[@TheCounselofTrent]

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

[@felipegarcia1733]

Mr. TRENT I am glad to see you here. I didn't know you were a fan as well. I love all you do for Mother Church and defending her.

[@portagoosey]

Why? So they can all destroy it and expose all the fallacies presented in it?

[@genzcatholic3366]

It's quite optimistic of you to assume that sedes will actually watch this video XD

[@ben-ben2366]

​@@genzcatholic3366I've watched your video, it sucks.

[@superior9980]

@@genzcatholic3366 reply to @SedePicante then

[@Deuterocomical]

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

[@VincentVu846]

Get trent horn on the ready STAT! XD

[@robbiee3479]

@@VincentVu846 please dont do that he is insane in a different way.

[@greg28]

@@robbiee3479how?

[@Deuterocomical]

@trinityune634 I challenged them to a debate on the topic of magicians, and I never heard back from them

[@Deuterocomical]

@trinityune634 Don’t get your hopes up, they hold all their comments for review

[@connorroyse7914]

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

[@dominicluke7]

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

[@sopadeeletras]

Harpa AI is goated for this

[@SoyEnjoyer]

Bump

[@Ditmike2235]

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

[@DanielD-no1gp]

What?! Wowowoowoww

[@rickshelley1287]

Oh my dear heavens, I must sit down and fan myself!😊

[@Beetlechoose-1]

Gen Z heretics.

[@Beetlechoose-1]

Of sedevacantism is right. All who disagree are in severe diabolical fog.

[@Hild1]

The former high ranking freemason John Salza who made an oath to Lucifer and renounced Jesus Christ before his "conversion" to the Vatican II church and who now eagerly tries to bring all who want to be traditional catholics into that institution in which someone who builds temples for pagan god worship and who prays on the wailing wall "in which HaShem dwells" for the coming of "their" Moshiach must be venerated as a saint is proven to be a complete spiritual fraud in an audio file named "John Salza's Lies, Errors and Dishonesty" here on KZbin. I suggest you also study the article entitled "John Salza Has No Idea What He’s Talking About" (you can google it).

[@feliz2564]

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

[@AVEAVECHRISTUSREX]

Heretic.

[@bernardjackson6594]

Amen! Ave Christus Rex

[@VicenzoGuerinoCecchini]

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

[@genzcatholic3366]

Send me an email at [e-mail], and I can send you the script

[@VicenzoGuerinoCecchini]

@@genzcatholic3366 Sent! Thank you so much!

[@Mark-nu5nn]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/hJ2nqqdtr8p3m5osi=kllnq9jh1JAXGy8w

[@jouda2097]

No way! Hey Vincenzo! I didn't know you are watching genzcatholic too! Lmao

[@VicenzoGuerinoCecchini]

@@jouda2097 yes mate! Amazing channel!

[@ben-ben2366]

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

[@ben-ben2366]

Unlike your sect we believe in papal infallibility and primacy which is why when the council of Trent, Florence and legit pope's like innocent the third taught infallibly that there exists one church, not of heretics, outside of which there is no salvation, your sect rejects that. Since it and it's members purport that protestants, jews and muslims could be saved. That a person who claims to be a Catholic yet rejects numerous dogmas is still in the church.

[@rasheedlewis1]

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

[@stevenharrington3220]

GenZ"Catholic" didn't go into detail on how Brother Peter apparently was losing his debate. Also in his iceberg video his attitude on Sedevacantism is completely different. When you watch the video that came after he mentions how he was harassed and all in a sudden he was supposed to oppose Sedevacantism.

[@luked7956]

Yeah, I remember he was pretty fair and honest to all sides in the iceberg argument. Now he has teamed up with Salza, which is not conducive to fairness or honesty, no matter which position of Salza's somebody takes before he changes sides again.

[@gabrielonibudo5566]

@@luked7956 Plus Salza is a "former" 32nd degree freemason. Who cares what he has to say.

[@somewhatreallycoolguy7439]

@@stevenharrington3220actually he did. the reason why dimond didn't necessarily win the debate was because dimond is not a member of the clergy, and thus he is a layman who submits to no clerical authority. the idea that a layman can decide what is/isn't authorative is entirely contradictory to catholic theology. that's why cassman kept repeating the same question, because he knew dimond didn't have a satisfactory answer to it.

[@Durovicccc]

Unsubscribed. This video is full of lies, double standards and strawmans. The truth isnt in you. May God guide you away from your errors.

[@venture7486]

You believe that your sede God couldn't even guide his church out of error, and yet you think he'll do so here? Get lost, you dog.

[@gregg1069]

Expect a Vatican catholic expose video on you soon

[@mick411411]

Thinking the same thing. Damn they do come prepared

[@AM-tt2wp]

Filled with ad hominem attacks and irrelevant monologues citing fallible sources as though they're infallible.

[@luked7956]

​@@AM-tt2wpExcept when they claim that infallible sources are fallible and can teach heresy. It's really strange that they don't apply their principles consistently. MHFM has gone off the rails, sadly. They're brilliant guys but they've definitely fallen into heresy concerning Providentissima Mater Ecclesia and the 1917 CIC.

[@SanctusPaulus1962]

​@@AM-tt2wp You mean just like this video?

[@lupea8079]

Yeah the dimond brothers give a very convincing argument for sedevaticanism. I was considering it. But yeah when Peter Dimond states on his website to avoid all masses but the one they celebrate. Yeah I'm not gonna do that. I'm not risking my salvation based on a man I've never meet.

[@jerrypawlak2396]

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

[@fidefidelis4460]

Then, I advice you to read the following arguments : The legitimate bishops (=named by a pope) constitute the hierarchy of the Church. To cut oneself off from them, as the sedevacantists do, has already been condemned by Leo XII and Leo XIII. These popes were targeting a group whose members denied the legitimacy of Pope Pius VII: like the sedevacantists. Leo XII, Pastoris Aeterni: “Your Little Church cannot therefore in any way belong to the Catholic Church. By the very admission of your masters, or rather of those who deceive you, there are no longer any French bishops who support and defend the party you follow. Moreover, all the bishops of the Catholic Universe, to whom they themselves have appealed, and to whom they have addressed their schismatic claims in print, are recognized as approving the conventions of Pius VII and the acts which followed, and the whole Catholic Church is now entirely favorable to them.” Leo XIII, Eximia nos laetitia: “Absolutely no bishop considers them and governs them as his sheep. From this they must conclude with certainty and evidence that they are defectors from the fold of Christ." Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei : "1. The proposition, which asserts “that in these later times there has been spread a general obscuring of the more important truths pertaining to religion, which are the basis of faith and of the moral teachings of Jesus Christ,” is heretical." Benedict XIV, Ex Quo : "Pope Pelagius II who held the Apostolic See in the sixth century of the Church gives this weightier statement on Our present subject in his letter: “I am greatly astonished at your separation from the rest of the Church and I cannot equably endure it. For Augustine, mindful that the Lord established the foundation of the Church on the Apostolic sees, says that whosoever removes himself from the authority and communion of the prelates of those sees is in schism." Pius IX, Etsi Multa :"Christ Himself is asked; He says ‘and this gospel will be preached in the whole world, in testimony to all nations, and then will come the end.’ Therefore the Church will be among all nations until the end of the world." Now, just as the Little Church had no bishop who recognized them, so the sedevacantists had no legitimate bishop who recognized them, all of whom recognized the Council in 1964 and 1965 (they were consecrated under Pius XII).

[@bruh-dg5yw]

Nah, I actually respect Pope Michael I even though I am a VII Catholic and think he is wrong. At least you could tell he was pretty honest and believed what he did, it seems to me that he wasn’t a larper (even though I don’t know all that much about him, I could be wrong). He also seemed like a pretty charitable guy. May God have mercy on him.

[@Mokinono45]

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

[@jeffreyfrench6401]

Yes, he was dead wrong. He clearly hasn't read the Vatican II document Sacrosanctum Concilium. He claimed that Vatican II never said anything about removing images, ect.. Sacrosanctum Concilium #128: "The ecclesiastical canons and statutes which deal with the provision of visible things for worship are to be revised as soon as possible..."

[@ColiteDominum]

Can't wait for all the sedes to band together and release dozens of refutations of this video before New year's Day.

[@portagoosey]

@@ColiteDominum We have better things to do like prepare for the birth of Christ into the world and celebrate it. We already have the refutations available online. Just posting links in the comments :)

[@jeremiahmitchel3636]

@@jeffreyfrench6401 Taking a single line out of context and presenting it with an understanding directly opposed to the actual intention and context... a sede classic!

[@Onlyafool172]

​​@@jeremiahmitchel3636yeah i just read the doccument that guy is a clown

[@coltwooda793]

First

[@wes4736]

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

[@wes4736]

I'm listening to this for work, since I'm on break now I'd like to give a very short testimony. I was raised Mormon, I believed the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was the one true Church. My mom and I left when I was a teenager in 2015 and I was infuriated by Mormonism's lie. I wanted to find the Church Mormonism claimed to be, and my mother became a Protestant and she thinks that the idea of one true Church is too Mormon for her to ever believe that again. I was learning more about Catholicism when I found Vatican Catholics refutation of Martin Luther, and I went down the rabbit hole for more than two years. I found a Ukrainian Catholic Church near me, as well as a dioscan TLM parish. It was my integration into the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church that convinced me Sedevacantism can't be true, though this was just as the Pachamama scandal came out, and shook my faith but it held. I also found out through a confusion in my own genealogy that I wasn't ethnically Ukrainian, only related by a marriage. But I didn't mind, they took me in as one of their own, and I was formally baptised into the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church in December of 2020 after three years of attendence and gradual catechesis. I had to move away, and currently attend a traditional, but still Novus Ordo parish that has been gracious to take me in while I'm in college and live far away from my hometown. God bless all who've read, and all who haven't. I don't think I've ever heard anyone else outside myself give this argument, but I think Eli is a good refutation of Sedevacantism. He and his sons were corrupt and sinned against God, but he still held the office of High Priest and he did not invalidate the old covenant. Even though I'm often scandalised by Francis, and he often gives confusing statements, his confusions does not invalidate the new covenant, nor the Papacy.

[@VincentVu846]

​@@wes4736This story is definitely relevant where i am, im surrounded by mormons 😅😅

[@wes4736]

​@@VincentVu846- the religion is absolutely cooky, but the Mormons themselves are some of the kindest people out there. Pray tell, where are you from? I'm from a place in the US Mormonism was Still very much a minority.

[@VincentVu846]

@@wes4736 absolutely true, kindest people I've ever met though unfortunately still in theological error. I'm from Idaho where Mormonism maintains a strong influence in government in my area.

[@izzymarz6788]

​@@wes4736 Mormons are not kind, maybe in public, in private they trash everyone like no other

[@Vertiasluxmea]

based

[@Stormtrooper-gq9in]

on heresy

[@Vincent_Sallow]

​@@Stormtrooper-gq9inliterally lol

[@delosconversos6891]

You convinced me sedes are correct.

[@FideFidelis]

The legitimate bishops (=named by a pope) constitute the hierarchy of the Church. To cut oneself off from them, as the sedevacantists do, has already been condemned by Leo XII and Leo XIII. These popes were targeting a group whose members denied the legitimacy of Pope Pius VII: like the sedevacantists. Leo XII, Pastoris Aeterni: “Your Little Church cannot therefore in any way belong to the Catholic Church. By the very admission of your masters, or rather of those who deceive you, there are no longer any French bishops who support and defend the party you follow. Moreover, all the bishops of the Catholic Universe, to whom they themselves have appealed, and to whom they have addressed their schismatic claims in print, are recognized as approving the conventions of Pius VII and the acts which followed, and the whole Catholic Church is now entirely favorable to them.” Leo XIII, Eximia nos laetitia: “Absolutely no bishop considers them and governs them as his sheep. From this they must conclude with certainty and evidence that they are defectors from the fold of Christ." Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei : "1. The proposition, which asserts “that in these later times there has been spread a general obscuring of the more important truths pertaining to religion, which are the basis of faith and of the moral teachings of Jesus Christ,” is heretical." Now, just as the Little Church had no bishop who recognized them, so the sedevacantists had no legitimate bishop who recognized them, all of whom recognized the Council in 1964 and 1965 (they were consecrated under Pius XII). It is also impossible that the true doctrine could be generally obscured, as there would always be jurisdictionnal bishops to teach, govern and sanctify the faithful.

[@cardboardcapeii4286]

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

[@Deuterocomical]

Why would that be sinful?

[@cardboardcapeii4286]

@@Deuterocomical because Pope Pius XI said it was sinful in Moritalium Animos

[@portagoosey]

@@Deuterocomical I should think it would be evident why. For one, you are giving credit to false religions by participating in them. That can confuse and lead souls astray. Another thing, because those are false heretical religions, the things they pray for might be sinful or blasphemous. We are not permitted to participate in false religion ceremonies or prayers ever. Of course Vatican II contradicted and went against that by making all religions equal.

[@dawidtrybula]

@@cardboardcapeii4286”we don’t care what the Pope says” but „come back to church”.

[@massacolonel5950]

Yes it is. You can only pray with other Catholics. You cannot pray with heretics, Jews or Pagans.

[@AmericanCrusader222]

Christ is with us

[@Hunter-zp5hd]

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

[@bonifaceonuh424]

Well articulated!

[@joanmaxime9716]

Very charitable and balanced opinion. Surely they are not our enemies.

[@gregscott2005]

This video does a disservice to all members of the Church, V2 Catholics and Traditionalists. Too red herrings and a lack of trying to really understand what gripe the Traditionalists have. I’m not one. Frankly, they do get a bit uptight for me. But I listen to their arguments and I don’t appreciate an insincere characterization of their pointing out heresy and the how V2 card was played to attack what’s holy. This video punts on addressing real heresy that’s culminated in this pontificate. And using a former freemason, John Salza, as an attack dog is where the rub is. We know freemasons infiltrated the Church. So, like a majority of bishops were Arians in St. Athanasius’ day, so a majority of bishops being freemasons today wouldn’t be without precedent. And if that’s the case, they’ll never oppose a pope who teaches heresy. So, St. R. Bellermine’s point 5 doesn’t stand the light of day. But this isn’t considered in this video. This video was divisive when the Church doesn’t need anymore division.

[@crookbrother]

Don’t be so sure that our TLM is a lost cause… otherwise I agree, surely our poor leadership is to blame for what’s happened

[@josephthehuman6713]

This is a certified Catholic classic

[@ozuamark8318]

This is nonsense.

[@Kixirr]

@@ozuamark8318nonsense, keep coping sede heretic

[@beardown851]

@@ozuamark8318 oh no is hewatic mad his wittle conspiwacy thewoy got wecked boo hoo heretic Submit to Rome

[@ozuamark8318]

@@beardown851 the seat is empty, I submit to Catholic Rome not modernist Rome.

[@ozuamark8318]

@@Kixirr you are a heretic and apostate just like your pope Jorge bergolio. I am see becos I am Catholic loyal to the true popes.

[@luked7956]

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

[@Seethi_C]

What do you mean by “Novus Ordo annulments”? Did annulments not exist prior to V2?

[@luked7956]

@@Seethi_C They existed but the standards for granting them were high because there isn't much required for sacramental validity in marriage. Annulments were rare because they didn't consider "psychological incompatibility" as something which invalidates a marriage. Nowadays, almost all annulment requests are granted. Before changes to the proceedings, Our Lord's words and commands in Matt. 5, Matt. 19, Mark 10 and Luke 16 were followed. Nowadays, they reject him on this issue.

[@Seethi_C]

@@luked7956 As humans learn more about psychology, it makes sense that we would discover new impediments to consenting in marriage. But the principle remained unchanged, which is that an annulment can only be given if the impediment existed prior to the marriage. I think a big reason for the increase in annulments granted is because tribunals were established at the Diocesan level which meant more hands on deck, so of course they could be more efficiently investigated and granted. Also, what is your basis for saying that almost all annulments are granted?

[@luked7956]

@@Seethi_C It is from Msgr. Clarence Hettinger's 1993 study: Homiletic and Pastoral Review. He was one of many who determined that the psychological justifications were defective. Learning more about psychology doesn't necessarily make marriages invalid. A sodomy-pushing church in which 68% believe BC and Contraception are ok and in which 70% deny the real presence didn't necessarily make changes to its procedures which proved that an extremely large number of marriages throughout history were invalid due to our discoveries in Freudian atheist-run psychology. It turns out it's not really the matter and form which makes a sacrament valid, it's an unseen, until recently undiscovered secret which only comes out later, long after the sacrament and contract were formed. That's awesome sacramental theology. Even most Protestants reject that. As people learn more about psychology, more SSRIs were also pushed under fraudulent pretenses, and more children were given drugs which cause bad reactions and lifelong addiction. As man learns more about psychology, he becomes more degenerate.

[@ci6516]

@@luked7956I’d really like the challenge if these annulments are as common as you make be. Sounds like the clown masses you guys like to point out which are 1 in a million

[@noir_noctael]

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

[@noir_noctael]

(2/2) -The existence of a prolonged interregnum does not contradict the perpetuity of the papacy, as demonstrated by the three-year interregnum after the death of Pope Marcellinus. Even if a papal election is questioned in the context of sedevacantism, the above must still be admitted. -It is absurd and dishonest to say that the attitude of rejecting the post-conciliar Church can be applied to almost any period of the Church, because we are not talking about a doctrinal development, but rather an explicit contradiction of tradition. -It is false that Sedevacantism makes the salvation of the faithful depend on erudition. It is natural law to recognize that the worship of other gods is opposed to the worship of the only God (first commandment). It must be understood that we are not in normal circumstances, but precisely apocalyptic ones. We know that it is through sin that God gives men over to perdition, and it is written that in the last times men will be deceived by their wickedness, and will fall into apostasy before the arrival of the Antichrist. -The teachings of the VII are clearly contrary to tradition, but even if it is granted that they could be interpreted according to it, it would have to be maintained that the Holy Spirit inspired an ambiguous teaching, susceptible to being interpreted heretically and that in fact had as a consequence direct heresy and apostasy, which is absolutely impossible and offensive against God. -On the "meetings with non-Catholics", it is enough to refer to Mortalium Animos: "this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ." -Regarding religious freedom, it is ridiculous to agree that Catholic doctrine does not change and then say that situations do, as if this implied that the doctrine is not such precisely in every situation. This is mere relativism and sophistry to mislead the faithful. Saying that religious freedom can be understood in two different ways is irrelevant because ultimately the consequences are the same. The Church would never teach that man has a right to choose something other than the true faith, and implying this is already contrary to tradition. -From Lumen Gentium, maintaining that the Church "subsists" in the Catholic Church is complete nonsense and is only formulated in this way with the deliberate intention of founding the false teaching that other sectarian denominations participate in the unity of the faith, which It is the basis of ecumenism. Saying that A subsist in B implies in itself a differentiation between the two, and this in itself is heretical, because it deviates from the sense of the full and indivisible identity of the Church. Not only this, but subsisting implies that A does not exhaust B, that is, it does not fully identify itself, which is why it logically follows that it "merely" subsists, "subsist" is always less than "being". All this is pure heresy. -To say that Sedevacantism is comparable to Protestantism for supposedly professing private interpretations is ridiculous, because while Protestants claim to derive specific doctrines from the Scriptures, which are precisely complex and depend on the Magisterium to be interpreted, Sedevacantism, for its part, simply repeats the explicit teachings given by Tradition, without adding anything about it. In fact, while Sedevacantism adheres to tradition, modernists for their part accept doctrines explicitly contrary to tradition, and so-called traditionalists seek to adhere to doctrine while resisting the authority they consider legitimate. -The division found among the sedevacantists does not differ from that among the modernists, and must be understood in the context of confusion and apostasy in which we find ourselves. The teachings of tradition are clear, even though there are many who allow themselves to be led into error. Pointing out that there are disagreements among sedevacantists does not mean that sound doctrine does not exist, and how ridiculous this is when it is recognized that the post-conciliar Church, far from offering any stability, teaches error after error, contradicting tradition and leading to confusion and conflict to its adherents. -The correct Catholic position is sedevacantism, that is, that the Church was infiltrated by its enemies and that Pius XII was the last Pope. John XXIII and his successors are heretical antipopes who were never Popes to begin with. The post-conciliar Church is the religion of the Antichrist, which unites all the cults of the world in a vain imitation of the true faith. -Finally, I would like to share some Catholic prophecies that show the time in which we find ourselves and confirm sedevacantism as the true Catholic position: >Saint Nicholas of Flue says: “The Church will be punished because the majority of her members, high and low, will become so perverted. The Church will sink deeper and deeper until she will at last seem to be extinguished, and the succession of Peter and the other Apostles to have expired. But, after this, she will be victoriously exalted in the sight of all doubters.” -St. Nicholas of Flue, in Catholic Prophecy, edited by Yves Dupont, p. 30 >Saint Francis of Assisi announced to the members of his order what would happen in recent times: "[...] a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavour to draw many into error and death [...] even the elect would be led into error, were they not specially guided, amid such great confusion, by the immense mercy of God. [...] Those who preserve their fervour and adhere to virtue with love and zeal for the truth, will suffer injuries and, persecutions as rebels and schismatics [...] in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor, but a destroyer." - (Works of the Seraphic Father St. Francis Of Assisi, [London: R. Washbourne, 1882], pp. 248-250; underlining and paragraph breaks added.) May the Lord have mercy on us.

[@tonysaid6184]

Yes you are totally right. I am glad someone stood up to the lies and heretical nonsense of this video. An legitimate successor of St. Peter MUST be a Catholic. A man who is seen to be a manifest heretic or even suspect of heresy before his election, even if that election proceeded according to the canonical norms is not the pope. The same is true of a validly elected Pope who notoriously falls into manifests heresy and continues in it. He automatically falls from his office. Why? Again, because he is not a Catholic (he has made himself a non-Catholic "by his OWN judgement -St. Paul), and is therefore no longer a member of the Mystical Body of Christ; People like the author of the video confuse the Sacrament of Orders with the election to the Papacy. They think that such an election can never be revoked, not realizing that the Papacy is a service and not a sacrament, and confers no indelible mark. Most of the anti-sedevacantists ignore what the Bible says about this , and have never read St. Robert Bellarmine on the subject or the ex Cathedra Bull of Pope Paul IV on the nullification of the election of a man suspect of heresy before his election. I am afraid also that they have little supernatural Faith. They need to have a visible person clothed in the garb of a pope to believe in the Church and even in Christ. Many older Catholics were raised with the idea that a pope in his personal capacity can never do or teach anything wrong concerning the discipline or doctrine of the Church. This popalatry is also heresy; and thank God that it is being rooted out now by the Lord..

[@rasheedlewis1]

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

[@albertusjung4145]

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

[@Seethi_C]

If John XXII was an antipope, then how can we know that the Pope after him is valid? If John XXII invalidly created Cardinals, then the voting process is compromised.

[@wingedhussar1683]

Does that go for the Old Catholics,Jansenists, and gnostic Church clerics who were validly ordained too? Why shouldn’t they be included in the Church according to your standard if all that is required to be a cleric in the Church is valid orders? Fortunately, the sedevacantists own pre-V2 popes in their encyclicals condemned their own position/illicit sects/clerics operating without jurisdiction or a mission from the Holy See.

[@PerseusPBear]

I know this is a few months old but technically speaking Apostolic succession in Catholic theology consists of two elements, a material one and a formal one. Material succession concerns valid consecration and can be acquired illicitly. Formal/ legitimate succession is when a pope gives a bishop ordinary jurisdiction. Apostolic Succession concerns legitimate succession to the apostles, and thus includes both orders and jurisdiction. So Trent probably meant that legitimate/formal succession (succession in the fullest and true sense) would be lost for there would be no popes conferring ordinary jurisdiction for decades, if not centuries. TLDR: Apostolic succession concerns both the power of orders and the power of jurisdiction, not orders alone. And Apostolic succession would be lost if there were no popes to confer ordinary jurisdiction for they alone could.

[@norgun7550]

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

[@stevenharrington3220]

Explain to me how a Pope could allow a Buddhist idol on an alter, Pachamamas in the Vatican, allow Gay Blessings?

[@ignaciogrial1872]

@@stevenharrington3220 In the same way that a pope gambled and gave prayers and praise to pagan gods, being faithful to the church and not to man.

[@wes4736]

@@stevenharrington3220 - Why, the same way a high priest could cover up his sons adultrous acts, or their blasphemies against God. Or how one could profane God's Temple, all without invalidating the Old Covenant. Through God's forgiveness of sin, ya numpty! Our salvation is not contingent on our leaders. We are to submit to them, yet not do what they do, because it is THEY who will have to give account. Christ himself, his brother, and Saint Paul all preach this.

[@stevenharrington3220]

@@wes4736 The Sedevacantists have a point about Paul VI, there is evidence he was a B'nai Brith Freemason. Yet he was canonized with the heretic JPII, the man who hosted the Prayer at Asisi event, where he prayed with Pagans and Moslems.

[@wes4736]

@@stevenharrington3220 - I still don't see how this invalidates the New Covenant. I also don't know if it was you I asked somewhere else here, but if it was, why haven't you answered me about that whole mason thing? If that was someone else, I apologize.

[@ben-ben2366]

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

[@czmychal]

it seems Gen Z "Catholic" didn't do his homework

[@garyolsen3409]

God is not pleased by Muslim worship. Muslims don't believe in the Trinity and that Jesus Christ is God. Vatican II teaches contrary to Catholic teaching in most areas, but most serious that salvation can come through other religions. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.

[@vorynrosethorn903]

He went into it within the video, interpreting it in an incredibly distorted way, but still one that would correct the falsity inherent in such a statement. Personally I am extremely doubtful that the Holy Sprint is going to make valid doctrine out of what a group of communists have to say about religious matters, just as the patriarch of Moscow couldn't be trusted during the Soviet Union even if he held and exalted position, the orthodox church outside of Russia was wise not to supplicate themselves to him. Likewise the Catholic Church is besieged from within by Liberalism (which is Satanism), much of the Anglican Church has already fallen and the protestants largely haven't offered resistance in the first place but have schismed some more and been picked off in mass. Catholicism seems to have grown the problem of treating the Pope as both Emperor and Pope in one, and having the foolishness of thinking that if you define something as incorruptible that alone will mean the devil can't attack you through it. At the very (and I mean very) least the devil is using the pontiff to sow doubt and confusion among the faithful through contradicting statements and malicious policies. However I don't think myself that there is much doubt that he himself is a Liberal rather than a Christian, as such a weakened Church is faced with an occupation by the enemy, as the cardinals picked are going to elect a fellow boiler of frogs. The fact that the seat of Emperor is currently vacant makes it so that such men can not be legitimately deposed within the regular mechanisms of the Church. Basically we need divine intervention in the selection of the next Pope, and him being a man of personal qualities rarely seen even among the best Popes (basically an Augustine as Pope), or else the political environment in Europe resulting in a restoration of the Emperor of Rome and resulting in a purge of corruption by Imperial authority. For each we must Pray.

[@lemmingkingyt5618]

Hey, I'm curious about the sede position: That V2 teaches that the true Church of Christ esteems and respects a non-Catholic religion, or that it teaches that the God of the Muslims is the 'Creator of heaven and earth' - just from my reading of your comment here, it seems neither of these directly impose a contradiction with what Gen Z said, which per your quote was "Vatican 2 never teaches that God is pleased by or accepts muslim worship". Are you saying that The Church's esteem for Moslems is (de facto) tantamount to The Church saying that God esteems their religion? I don't follow why that's a necessary move to make.

[@mors4000]

@@czmychal HAHA

[@arialthor]

Why not debate the Dimond brother ...

[@fura21]

why dont you debate him instead?? or you need your daddy to defend you?

[@arialthor]

@@fura21 it seems you depends much on A Daddy thing...or much "Feelings" thing...is just a honest Q since both KZbinr talk about Sedevacantism (pro & cons)...may the best argument with doctrine & facts then prevail...ors is that asking to much now days due to woke culture spread among the Useful Idiots

[@fura21]

@@arialthor so in short you wouldnt debate him and you prefer others to debate him instead of you. COW4RD

[@Seethi_C]

Debate is not the only way to discern truth. Dimond has literally devoted his whole life to this one topic, so he can probably win any debate he wants. But being quick on your feet is not what determines who is right or wrong.

[@arialthor]

@@fura21 why would i debate him since i am not the expert of the topic ...what i want is to learn is the outcome from the debate...why is it hard for you to understand COW4RD...well you can not fixed stupid it seems...or A Low IQ for this matter...

[@RealLeFishe]

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

[@donfan6475]

Im a catholic Vatican II sect is what they call us but this dude named RZApologist made a documentary responding to this and it’s convincing lowkey has me scared and I might be considering joining sedevacantism

[@holyromanemperor420]

​@@donfan6475 Trent Horn has made a good and brief rebuttal of Sedevacantism.

[@cw8790]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/p2bVeHusnt6cp7csi=wq6oEBCMzTzwXPYf Sedevcantism proves Orthodoxy

[@icyeevee]

That is wonderful! I pray you continue on your journey.

[@venomouswolf]

@donfan6478 look up Jay Dyer on sedevacantism, the issue goes back much farther than Vatican 2

[@josephcillojr.7035]

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

[@lhetzel101]

Amen 🙏 well said!!!! I actually came back to the church; the TLM , after 10 years -after realizing the smoke of satan had entered! I was so confused until recognizing Satan doesn’t mess with “fake” religions & that’s when I knew not to run but draw in closer✝️🫡🙏☝️⚡️

[@PanagiaDespina]

Rightist protestant, you didn't even answered ONE of his arguments, lol.

[@josephcillojr.7035]

@@PanagiaDespina I’m not at all sure what you mean by “rightest Protestant.” Is that some title you made up for people who are critical of modernists and the mess they are making and the cowardly surrender to modernism the Church made at Vatican II? Read Pascendi Domenici Gregis, and ask yourself what happened to the fight against modernism Pope St. Pius X was waging. Was he a “rightest Protestant?”

[@george40nelson4]

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

[@wes4736]

What evidence have you that he was a practicing Mason? I ask because though I've never practiced masonry myself,my Mormon family was entrenched also in Masonry and I still have many books handed down to me on the subject.

[@iraqiimmigrant2908]

Please, can you point me to the evidence? I’m not debating, I really want to know as well. God bless you.

[@ozuamark8318]

@@iraqiimmigrant2908 there is sufficient evidence that John xxiii was a mason as revealed by a grand master of a Masonic lodge himself. He was also a modernist.

[@TeamCavalier123]

@@iraqiimmigrant2908 the "pontiff" of grand orient masonry in italy said that he (john 23rd) was initiated into the lodges. you could call into question whether they're lying or not - but as a general rule of thumb, masons don't tend to lie about who is and isn't a mason from modern times. you go way back and ofc theyre gonna lie, saying alexander the great or Jesus were of their cult. there are many other things that point to the antipopes being into the occult; the connection between blavatsky and jp2 that you can look into, hand gestures they make, the heresies they state, etc, etc, etc. anyone remotely conservative and capable of putting one and two together is either going to become a sedevacantist or reject Christ's Church, because these are clearly not His Bishops.

[@jeremiahmitchel3636]

@@TeamCavalier123 So... an organization known to lie about membership with an extreme hatred of the Church of Christ is not going to lie about whether a pope was a mason to sow confusion? Regardless, he was included by Pius XII in the conclave and the rules of election explicitly rescinded any impediment for the papal election.

[@user20867]

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

[@seankivlehan4085]

Your comment is the perfect example of the fruits of Vatican 2. Your faith has been seriously damaged by the actions of the V2 "popes" and how could it not. The latest scandal of blessing gay relationships. What is very sad is your faith is been restored by watching a flawed 2 hour video produced by a lay person with very limited theological ability. Think about that! The Pope is supposed to build your faith and keep you strong in the church but it is working against you. Pray the three decades of the Holy Rosary daily. Our Lady will not abandon you.

[@user20867]

@@seankivlehan4085 How foolish of you to think i was struggling with my faith because of the Pope or his actions, the very opposite. The lack of the Pope or Church Structure leads a Catholic to Eastern Orthodoxy, not the "modernism in church" or a "liberal Pope", you are as schismatic as the Orthodox, you just have Marian devotions and watch a "western liturgy" - both allowed by Orthodoxy, btw. That's the problem with Sedevacantism and other "trad positions", it leads you to schism, which is a mortal sin, i almost fell for that, then i almost fell for Eastern Orthodoxy, and my Lord brought me back home, the church

[@seankivlehan4085]

@@user20867 You unfortunately don't understand the Faith. You haven't even read what V2 states about the Eastern Orthodox who are schismatic. V2 claims they are inside the body of the Church. So you were considering leaving a schismatic religion (Vatican 2) to join another schismatic religion (Eastern Orthodox) but the original schismatic religion you hold to (Vatican 2) states that all who are Baptised and believe in Jesus Christ are inside the Church. So you are in communion with the Easter Orthodox, the 30,000 sects of Protestantism and the Mormons.

[@luked7956]

@@user20867 Are you familiar with the differences between the Western Orthodox, Old Catholics and Sedevacantists on the teachings of the papacy? Isn't there a big difference between doubting the validity of a claimant to the office and rejecting the entire concept of the office?

[@luked7956]

@Abdullahexmuslim Thank you so much. I got in touch with him and can't wait for part 2. Congratulations on your conversation. Ya Masih madad.

[@cristiancaiola9588]

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

[@BreakingTradSermons]

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

[@bruh-dg5yw]

Read the document bro, and also listen to the Vatican clarifications (which exist due to lying media). Nothing wrong with FS.

[@S.I.A.B.]

The entire problem with the Catholic Church is evolution of Dogma. What do you even mean with 'traditional catholocism'? There we're catholics that already split in the 18e and 19e centuries because of the constant additions of new dogma. Again, the point of the Catholic CHurch is following the Pope, not directly adhering to traditions, that's why they constantly add innovations to the faith, the biggest one being the innovation of innovations, the Fiolioque.

[@baldwinthefourth4098]

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

[@TheRomanCatholicChurch]

You believe in faith alone, support worship designed to emulate Protestants, and celebrate the "Reformation".

[@luked7956]

I'm not sure that's different from the factions within the main church?

[@portagoosey]

Sedevacantism isn't a group. It's a position. The fact that there is no head of the church in Rome is the cause behind all the division.

[@luked7956]

@@portagoosey Yes, that's certainly true.

[@bruh-dg5yw]

@@portagoosey Protestantism isn’t really a “group” either, they all just share some things in common like sedes do. There are many flavors of Protestantism. They reject the papcy just like sedes do, so of course there is division in both.

[@luked7956]

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

[@jeremiahmitchel3636]

St Bellarmine explicitly holds that the chair is lost by a discovery of the crime in council (discretionary judgement) or notoriety by fact (2 warnings establishing public pertinacity). This is the exact understanding of the sin vs crime distinction, and is supported by Wenz-Vidal "...establishes the fact of the crime by which the pontiff has judged himself". To claim that 'public sin of heresy' causes loss of office is nonsense, MCC specifically calls this an offense/crime/sin (admissum) whose nature causes loss of office, but is often misunderstood by sedes as indicating the sin itself removes from office. If this were the case then occult sin of heresy would do the same, and you would have no confidence in any cleric ever. Cekada claims that it is 'public sin', but uses the definition of crime held by every modern canonist for such a sin. Read the rest of St. Bellarmine 'On Councils' and 'On the Marks of the Church"

[@NickFogtower]

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

[@stevenharrington3220]

Or how the Papal Conclaves that led to the elections of John XXIII and Paul VI apparently had outside communication with the B'nai Brith Freemasons.

[@ColiteDominum]

Noooooooo you forgot the "nuance" and "distinctions"!!!

[@stevenharrington3220]

@@ColiteDominum Pachamamas and gay blessings.

[@helenakurcewiczowna6695]

...and Revelation 18:4

[@Awakeningspirit20]

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

[@tenets128]

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

[@luked7956]

And he claims the chicken and egg question about Roncalli and Montini is allegedly a big disagreement over a matter of faith, when all sedevacantists who reject them as antipopes agree that heretical claimants promulgated a false council. The disagreement over a matter of faith is supposedly whether the heretic or heresy came first? Meanwhile, in the Vatican II Church, disagreements over whether the Church should condemn sodomy rage on among the 30% of U.S. Novus Ordo attendees who still believe in the real presence....thanks, Gen Z Catholic.

[@tenets128]

@Abdullahexmuslim is the documentary maker affiliated with MHFM?

[@pinesap34]

Okay we are so back 😎

[@entusiasta7270]

We are soooooo back

[@EdReed-r8n]

You got humiliated in that debate with the sedevecantist. Embarrassing.

[@Vincent_Sallow]

​@user-uy8wx4pk4h link?

[@ozuamark8318]

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

[@fidefidelis4460]

We can know, with absolute certainty, that Sedevacantism is false, and that Paul VI and all his successors are popes. Here's how : The legitimate bishops (=named by a pope) constitute the hierarchy of the Church. To cut oneself off from them, as the sedevacantists do, has already been condemned by Leo XII and Leo XIII. These popes were targeting a group whose members denied the legitimacy of Pope Pius VII: like the sedevacantists. Leo XII, Pastoris Aeterni: “Your Little Church cannot therefore in any way belong to the Catholic Church. By the very admission of your masters, or rather of those who deceive you, there are no longer any French bishops who support and defend the party you follow. Moreover, all the bishops of the Catholic Universe, to whom they themselves have appealed, and to whom they have addressed their schismatic claims in print, are recognized as approving the conventions of Pius VII and the acts which followed, and the whole Catholic Church is now entirely favorable to them.” Leo XIII, Eximia nos laetitia: “Absolutely no bishop considers them and governs them as his sheep. From this they must conclude with certainty and evidence that they are defectors from the fold of Christ." Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei : "1. The proposition, which asserts “that in these later times there has been spread a general obscuring of the more important truths pertaining to religion, which are the basis of faith and of the moral teachings of Jesus Christ,” is heretical." Benedict XIV, Ex Quo : "Pope Pelagius II who held the Apostolic See in the sixth century of the Church gives this weightier statement on Our present subject in his letter: “I am greatly astonished at your separation from the rest of the Church and I cannot equably endure it. For Augustine, mindful that the Lord established the foundation of the Church on the Apostolic sees, says that whosoever removes himself from the authority and communion of the prelates of those sees is in schism." Pius IX, Etsi Multa :"Christ Himself is asked; He says ‘and this gospel will be preached in the whole world, in testimony to all nations, and then will come the end.’ Therefore the Church will be among all nations until the end of the world." Now, just as the Little Church had no bishop who recognized them, so the sedevacantists had no legitimate bishop who recognized them, all of whom recognized the Council in 1964 and 1965 (they were consecrated under Pius XII).

[@deus_vult8111]

@@fidefidelis4460Paul VI was a demonic antipope, literally wore the breastplate of a Jewish high priest like Caiaphas condemning Jesus when he introduced the abominable Novus Ordo on Passover Day of 1969.

[@portagoosey]

@@deus_vult8111 Didn't Paul VI also hand over the papal tiara to the U.N. and say that the U.N. is the world's last hope for peace?

[@ozuamark8318]

@@fidefidelis4460 sedevacantism is true the popes you quoted are true popes who taught the truth, not error. John xxiii and his successors taught error in words and deeds. Read the papal bull of pope Paul iv .

[@ozuamark8318]

@@fidefidelis4460 your religion is not the Catholic religion but the modernist Vatican 2 church. Pls repent. Sedevacantists are the true Catholics. The true popes you quoted are not talking about faithful Catholics who hold the Catholic faith whole and entire and hold are in communion with the true popes from St Peter to pope Pius xii. When God grants us a true pope we will a knowledge as pope.

[@ben-ben2366]

1:43:24 "can a computer be considered infallible if its up to your fallible judgement." Yeah i think your referring to dogmatic church statements. The problem with you heretics is that you don't understand what a ex cathedra means or a dogmatic statement hence why when a council says "we believe in one holy Catholic church, not of heretics. Outside which there is no salvation" you heretics are like "well that could mean a alot of thing's, you know a jew can still be unknowingly baptized and untied to the church...." You treat the infallibie statements like they can be interpreted or judged. No THAT IS THE INTERPRETATION AND JUDGEMENT on a topic. A middle man is not required. Bottom-line is you don't believe in the infallibility of the magestirium.

[@selfloathingweekly]

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

[@stevenharrington3220]

He acts as tho there is no reason many Sedevacantists believe the Vatican II popes are invalid, while forgetting to mention that there was proof that during the Papal Conclaves that led to the elections of John XXIII and Paul VI certain Cardinals had communication with the B'nai Brith Freemasons.

[@selfloathingweekly]

@@stevenharrington3220 don't forget how John Paul I literally DIED under "mysterious" circumstances after going against Vatican II

[@mors4000]

@@stevenharrington3220 WHAT?? The more I find out about these scandals the more hilarious and absurd they become. Vatican II is abhorrent

[@Seethi_C]

@@selfloathingweeklyFalse. John Paul I died suddenly from the covid vaccine

[@fura21]

Sedevacantism leads either to Eastern quote orthodox or agnosticism/atheism

[@deacon6221]

I personally lean towards the chair of St Peter being empty but…those currently within the church can be saved you don’t have to study thousands of documents for salvation, you must instead believe in Christ, be baptized, and work out your salvation with fear and trembling.

[@San-rx9kh]

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

[@beardown851]

Ok SSPX isn’t schismatic they promoted john salzas anti sede book on their website before he left

[@San-rx9kh]

@@beardown851 I know ,I get you. Francis & Vatican II are okay with us as other religions but not the rest of Catholics. Only one priest from sspxmc sees me as a brother. I see Vigano might open up to us soon! I tell you, if Francis causes a few more stirs that may trigger it

[@wes4736]

@@San-rx9kh - I'm sorry, but I will NOT sit by as you pray for the further destruction of the Church! May God damn your heresy! My brother, what merciful God is going to allow a billion and a half souls down a Church that CANNOT be salvaged? What merciful God is going to use keyboard warriors to spread his for real Church? My Brother, if you care at all about anything past your own self righteousness, you would not pray that Francis sews even MORE confusion to bring souls to your cause. As a Former Sedevacantist, as a Catholic speaking to you, I plead: Fight for the Church! You're Godforsaken, you cannot fight for the Church when you've cut yourself off from the Church. Come back to the Church, so you can fight with us against this confusion in the Church. Hell will not overcome the Church because by the will of the Holy Spirit, there will be those who fight for her. We need fighters, but you're not fighting for the Church by cutting yourself off entirely and fighting the whole church. You don't fight an infection in the hand by cutting off a man's shoulder. There's power in numbers, The Lord's brother said so much. 250,000 Sedevacantists worldwide, if you were to pray for the Church, instead of praying against the Church, you would be monumental! But look at where we are, because you all have cowered. I'm not a coward, I don't hide in fear. I know there's evil and corruption in the hierarchy of the Church, but that does not mean I will perpetuate the confusion or evil that's been sewn. Come and join us, before your cowardice lands us in a Pornocracy so severe to make the Popes of ages past blush.

[@luked7956]

​@@beardown851and Salza now treats them as schismatic

[@luked7956]

Thank you for this comment. I am a happy Sedevacantist too. I was delivered from the despair I found in the Vatican II Church and the R&R movement in particular.

[@bottomlesspitangel]

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

[@luked7956]

Oh yeah, just keep watching. After you get past the 33% mark you can find more answers at minute 66:06.

[@PedroHLima-ss7hy]

@@luked7956 I prefaced my comment by saying " I profess their [the Dimonds'] theological positions generally speaking", which should make anyone refrain from taking me to clearly be a nonsedevacantist. I am a sedevacantist, and I take the exact position of the Dimonds on the theological and moral deviations of "sedevacantist" clergymen. But what you did right there, disregarding the points I was making, making it clear by your response that what I said went over your head, and subliminally making clear you couldn't care less what someone says if this someone holds to a position you don't already understand; what you did right there encapsulates the problem of the Dimond Brothers group. Jude 1:10: "But these men blaspheme whatever things they know not". The whole premise of your group is to take presumption as a virtue, if not the highest ideal of virtue. The one insult that is most likely to make a Dimond brothers supporter feel angry and gnash their teeth, at best likely to make them despise you, is to suggest to them you know something they don't. It takes an herculean effort to explain to a dimondite he ignores something. I succeeded to explain to a dimondite once, after a lot of strawmanning on his part and a lot of my patience being tried. Unexpectedly the guy eventually realized "Wait a minute, what is this you are saying? You're saying something of interest" It was one of the most surprising/ unexpected experiences I have ever been through to see a dimondite change tune and listen to something he didn't already know. It was so unexpected I can still figuratively ask myself to this day "Did that really happen?" It kind of amazes me it did, no kidding.

[@luked7956]

@@PedroHLima-ss7hy I am also a Sedevacantist. I was making a joke about how GenZ Catholic decided to learn Catholicism from a known Kabbalistic high-degree initiate apostate in Salza.

[@luked7956]

@@PedroHLima-ss7hy I have also had some bad run ins with cultish followers of the Brothers, unfortunately. They certainly have a substitute Magisterium.

[@CEmmanuel1988]

Thank you for your work, I think this is a good video. I have problems with the reasoning in the part of the muslims and the same God, and some other claims in V II texts an may be that shold get an aclarations in the future but I'm agree that we must be humble and do not proclaim ourselves auutoritys. It is a difficult time, I do beieve nevertless that also we have to work hard in the solution of this problem in our personal life but withot leaving the Church but finding the people and the teachin that nurses our souls. I'm personally goingo with FSSPX the old mass and good preaching help me a lot spiritually but I am still hoping that this hard situation end soon.

[@luked7956]

Going to Brother Peter and Brother Michael from 2014 on where one may receive sacraments and presenting it as where sedevacantists go to receive sacraments would be like a traditionalist presenting the mainstream Novus Ordo as a bunch of clown masses. We all know that isn't accurate. This documentary named the largest groups of sedevacantists with priests and bishops in the US in the beginning, and then presented the fringe position of 2 monks which they don't even hold anymore. If there were little to no clergy, and no places to go for sacraments, then there would be no reason for so many diocesan priests and bishops to tell people to stay away from independent or sedevacantist Churches throughout the country. Again, this was extremely sloppy and easily refuted. It was weak when Michael Lofton did it, and it hasn't aged well in the last year.

[@portagoosey]

Even calling the Dimond brothers monks is dodgy.

[@portagoosey]

@@user-kb4dv1ud3f It is rather tiresome when these people assume or claim that all Sedevacantists take the position of the Dimond Brothers, whose horribly uncharitable uncompassionate behavior I have seen towards my own friends. I won't go into detail on here, but they reap what they sow.

[@Leonie-s9f]

​@portagoosey Wait, would you like to talk to me? I'm a bit confused. I'm a Belgian Catholic. I saw these videos of the Dimond brothers and I do agree with alot of what they say on Vatican 2.. But at some point, idk, they behave a bit like a cult too..

[@harrisonsamson]

In obedience to the will of Christ, i recognise and submit to the God-given authority of Saint Peter and his successors. I trust that the Holy Spirit is protecting and preserving Church from error since Pentecost.

[@julia-nu4fj]

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

[@Thatsgay123]

It’s both. That’s the point, or neither. V2 does are written in double speak, kinda like listening g to Led Zeppelin backwards. Libs say it’s approved, and they are right, conservatives say it’s wrong and we need to ahem pray for the holy father. And ignore it. It’s a satanic church, get away from it.

[@ben-ben2366]

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

[@jeffreyfrench6401]

“When the Son of man comes, will he find faith on the Earth?” (Luke 18:8).

[@ben-ben2366]

​​@@jeffreyfrench6401yes the scriptures, the opinions of various saints and prophesies like LaSallate and Fatima indicate that nearing the end of the world that there will be some kind of apostasy, that the man of sin will be setting in the temple of God. But Vatican 2 supporters will never believe in these since they have no supernatural faith at all.

[@ignaciogrial1872]

And is it that Catholics who maintain the union with Rome but oppose scandals are not a poor and small remnant?

[@ben-ben2366]

@@ignaciogrial1872 no they are not Catholic because they maintain union with a false sect that teaches notorious heresy and promotes idolatry.

[@ben-ben2366]

@@ignaciogrial1872 also the dishonesty with you Vatican 2 followers to use words like "scandal" when describing the numerous acts of apostacy, Hersey and false ecumenism happening with the members of the Vatican 2 sect. That's not a scandal, that's a new religion.

[@LavaDrink]

The arguemnt about staying home on Sunday is bad. Cannon law does not require you to go to Mass, but rather to keep Sunday holy. If there is a Mass available, you are required to go under penalty of sin. According to Sede's, all NO Masses are invalid and their for you are not bound to go. I am not a sede, but I thought it would be helpful to point it out.

[@jeandurtal8404]

This two hour + video is almost entirely composed of straw manning, ad hominems and poisoning the well. It obviously isn't feasible to answer all of your "refutations" here, but I will point out that in a "documentary" ostensibly refuting the sedevacantist position in which you interview a number of novus ordos attacking the position you don't once actually let a sede speak for himself, or give their answer to these arguments a fair shake. The most obvious example being that you show a clip from a video by Fr. Cekada but don't acknowledge that he himself has answered John Salza's (who's associated with the Society of Pius X, who are themselves "schismatics" by your own standard, btw) incorrect interpretation of the definitions of material/formal/occult/notorious heresy. You also end the video in typical liberal fashion by attacking sedevacantists as "angry," "mean" and "lacking grace." A strong indication of lacking grace, imo, is lying and obstinately refusing to acknowledge the truth. You might want to consider doing some self-reflection in that regard before accusing others of "lacking grace."

[@jesseMadoo]

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

[@StBonaventureEnthusiast]

I’d recommend contra sedevacantism’s ebook, you can find it on his blog, has a really good and in depth refutation of the common sedevacantist arguments, if you’re interested in hearing the counter arguments.

[@wendys390]

It would be great for you to have a debate with Peter Dimond, who in my opinion holds the correct position. I don't think you've refuted it, and I disagree completely with the idea that we don't have a clear understanding of heresy for purposes of knowing when one is outside the Church, or that it isn't heresy until some formal finding or declaration. If it's heretical and this is plain to see, it cannot be that it still requires some official recognition to become what it already is. How many times since Bergoglio took office did people have occasion to sit back in astonishment at something he did or said? Why were they astonished? Because they couldn't believe a so-called Pope was doing or saying that, and why? because it's heresy. Also you're not describing the reasons he gives for why the last six Popes were invalid. Br. Peter DOES give X, Y and Z and that's why it is what it is. He's known for that. So I'm not sure who you are refuting, as it's not him. You also give an incomplete description of the circumstances of the conclave which brought about John XXIII, and misstate some of what you do describe. Interested perrsons should check out the vaticancatholic channel or their website of the same name, for details galore.

[@BiblicalJosephXP]

They deny the canon of 1917(because it teaches baptism of desire) they say it’s not infallible because it “only” binds the Latin Church. But the Catholic Church not only posses direct infallibility but also indirect infallibility that is IF the canon of 1917 leads the latin church to heresy( and damnation eventually) then the whole church would be affected because of the Latin church fallibility. Just think of it if we cannot trust even the code of canon law then what can we as Catholic trust?? They deny the lower levels of magisterium in which the code of canon law is included and that was already condemned by the church.

[@luked7956]

​@@thisisturok1084We actually have a video we will be producing on this issue soon on the AWMD channel. Our debate with Nick Santusuosso drew that issue to the surface and caused us to get many messages about it.

[@holyromanemperor420]

He is in error. He has been refuted numerous times by Catholic apologists like Trent Horn. Please tell me what heresy Pope Francis has bind the Church to? Btw, give me the source. Not asking for links due to yt policy, just asking for the title of documents or name of the interview.

[@luked7956]

@@holyromanemperor420 Have you seen the recent Sedevacantism debate on the AWMD channel?

[@holyromanemperor420]

@@luked7956 No but you didn't answer my argument