@@soupoftheweek2402 Of Course! Therefore St. Pius X was a heretic; and so was St. Pius V, who approved of the Catechism of the Council of Trent; and the Church therefore can teach heresy and the "gates of Hell" have prevailed.
Reply. It does not work like that. In the same way Verecchio questions RNR not having support for resisting the pope in questions of universal teaching. I question him that he find anything in tradition that the faithful or bishops have to declare a new pope when everyone seems to agree that he is pope despite everything. The truth that is hard to swallow is that all of this happened because of the hyperpapalism that already existed. One cannot deny that everyone accepted him and it is no one's right to say someone is not Catholic unless it is evident heresy, in which case one just has to find a different parish where one doesn't find heresy. The Church is not to be understood in her relation to the pope alone, it was because of this false understanding that people thought a single person could change the mass of the ages. The Orthodox would never have accepted this from the mightiest of their patriarchs for example, and in this they are right friends. Sedevacantists are wrong, and two proofs they are absolutely wrong: no miracles, no strong adherence.
Two men of seemingly good will and character. Excellent dialogue. Please continue with these types of conversations. Interlocutors like this are often able to articulate points we as laymen haven’t the words for.
This conversation is one where I listen twice and notice that I hold my breath both in anticipation of not missing a word and , in the validation of hearing my own questions asked.
The interviewer is awesome. I like how he words the questions. He’s able to put into words our confusion and Louie Verecchio does a great job in providing answers.
You are both to be commended for having discussions such as these, thank you! This is what we need more of, debate and discussion👏 I believe most catholic speakers here on youtube lack the integrity and courage, you both displayed, to engage in proper dialogue, especially with those whose opinions and positions on these matters are contrary to their own. Let's hope this talk will inspire many others. So many great points raised here. May God Bless you both!
Fascinating conversation. Thank you both. I don’t really know what the answers to all these questions are, but I do know that we need to pray fervently for a holy Pope to sort all of this out. Providentially, today is the Feast of St. Peter in Chains, when: “prayer was made without ceasing by the church unto God for him ”. God bless.
It is in some way a relief to note the distinction between " rectifying our situation - and surviving it " with our salvation in tact . Blessings and appreciation from Sydney Australia .
Thank you gentlemen. This is exactly what I was searching for when I started (2021) discerning the SVist position, but couldn't find. The arguement that finallly gave me peace was; the post concilliar "Church" says there is salvation outside the Catholic Church....so even if we're wrong, we're good.
Exactly the types of conversations that should be had between practicing Catholics of good will. Amidst the severe challenges of this crisis, the most distressing is the circular firing squad among those who are striving to live the authentic Faith. The Devil uses the nitpicking to divide.
A very thought provoking and much needed exchange of views - thank you both. Permit me to be parochial for a moment - I grew up, during the 70s & 80s, in the very hostile presbyterian locale that was the north of Ireland. I sincerely hope that Mr Verrecchio may appreciate that myself, as a 'trad', being compared to a protestant is utterly risible. In hoc signo vinces +.
He is projecting his own protestant eccelesiology onto the R&R position because he misunderstands the nature of the Papacy and the hierarchal structure of the Church.
Looking more and more like sede-vacantism since 1958 is the only logical course. And speaking of "hyper-papalism, " it may have existed, but John Paul II made it worse. And if Francis is the pope, we have learned that it is better for our salvation to ignore and even reject his teaching. And that is opposed to what the Church believes. Fine job, gentlemen, in comparing views.
This is the strongest argument for Sedevacantism that I’ve heard, and the response to it doesn’t really get at its force. If the seat is vacant, it casts a completely different perspective on the Church and the state of the world.
Hell has overcome the entity now led by Antipope Francis. But we’re divinely assured (Mt. 16:18) that hell shall NOT overcome the actual Catholic Church. Thus the entity now led by Francis cannot possibly be the actual Catholic Church. To call it so is to call Jesus Christ a liar.
The church of Rome and the episcopal sees throughout the world in union with it are indefectible even when there is no Pope. The reason this organization is indefectible even when there is no Pope, is because the efficient cause of indefectibility is not the Pope, it is the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Ghost remains with the Church even during interregnums.
It in fact perfectly explains the state of the Church and the world. It's why I eventually accepted it. I skipped the R&R because there was nothing really ore Vatican 2 supporting it just a bunch of people calling sedes ultramontanists which I then looked up on the Cathilic Encyclopedia and saw "the integral and active Catholic Faith"
It's time to get real; really real. Be not afraid. Man up. Seek truth; - embrace the Orthodox Church which is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by the Lord Jesus Christ. Leaving the Roman Catholic Church for Orthodoxy is the best thing I did. Glory to God! ☦☦☦
Which one of the various "autocephalus" Orthodox churches did you join; I hope it isn't one of the ones that have been excommunicated by the other or vice-versa. There is no unity in so called Orthodoxy.
By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles [Matthew 7:16] 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.
Thank you for this. I followed Verrechio a few years ago, but not recently. It seems to me that the argument that trads who are inclined to recognize and resist will eventually develop a pick and choose, protestant attitude is very weak. The reason for resistance is doctrinal and moral (as is the case with sede's) and for the sole purpose of holding to what the church has always taught, even to the point of rejection and persecution, and is not at all based on personal opinion or preferences. To me, this is no different than N.O. Pope-splaners and the like suggesting that our adherence to the traditional Mass, doctrine and all, is prideful, rigid and disobedient and at best, a sentimental attachment to smells and bells. The current pontificate , although the product of, and perhaps the culmination of Vatican II, is, I think, unique and must be dealt with as such. Perhaps this is the beginning of the downfall of the N.O. deep church. The line in the sand is being drawn and I think Archbishop Vigano is helping us fellow Trads (from all stripes) to simply hold to the truth, stand our ground and they will finish, as it were, digging the hole that they will fall into. Recognize and resist or Sede it is clear that we have the faith, they have the chair of Peter, for now. Ave Maria Purisima.
I feel Mr V's specific sedevacantist view ACTUALLY disproves Catholicism, after this long..after this many years..thats why one cannot hold to it..God bless Mary protect +++
From the SSPX daily email today. Happy Feast of St Ignatius. Perhaps a remedy for the confusion. "What touches the faithful, in an Ignatian retreat, is the synthesis. It brings together all of philosophy, all of theology, Holy Scripture, the life of our Lord Jesus Christ, Christology, all in the space of six days. Then people see their own life in a kind of summary. We speak to them of the four last things, of the mysteries of our Lord Jesus Christ; we open a new horizon on the divine life that is in them; we speak to them of the Christian life, then of the obligations which flow from it if they wish to remain Christian." --Archbishop Lefebvre
The thing that most stands out in my mind, is the lack of arguments based on the magisterium of the Church, from the host ; he objects that in the Middle Ages, people did not much pay attention to the decrees of the Popes; he also makes the objection that what caused Vatican II was 'hyper-Papalism' or "ultra-montanism" (whatever these may be) and finally, that the sedes have no clear answer as to how the Church will emerge from this crisis. All are interesting points of discussion, but besides this, one would expect someone "fleshing out" with a sede, their ideas, to have recourse to authoritative texts, such as Papal Encyclicals etc. etc. Apart from that, I thought that Mr. V. Did a very good job explaining his position, and I thought the discussion was at a very good level.
He seems to arrived at a position that ia for his own sense of peace more than making sense. Wants to be above and beyond the hard work and fortitude of traditionalism.
That is inexact. Do you know what Galicanism is? Well, for many culturally Protestant nations, like the USA, is very natural to fall into that heretical attitude. The Vatican II situation is an anomaly that can not change the doctrine about the papacy (that is what they want!). Verrecchio is right in that point.
I'm sorry but Peter's faith did fail. It failed to the extent that he publicly proclaimed that he didn't even know who Jesus was (sound familiar anyone?) yet he was still Peter and his faith still was recovered. We are now in the moment of Peter's denial and as the host pointed out this is not just a Francis problem
As Father Hesse said, "The burden of proof is on the side of the accuser." Also, with respect to the Mass, it is evident that nobody can change it; you don’t need to know whether the Pope is the Pope or not to understand this. However, it is not as evident to determine if the Pope is not the Pope (Without the proper legal procedures, which do exist, as was the case with Pope Benedict IX) But if everyone is abandoning their duties, what else is left but to pray? Or is someone going to self-appoint to a position of authority to call a council? I think this is simply the passion of the Church; there is not much to do but endure until the end, being as holy as we can.
Peter, thank you for being open enough to host Louie. I’ve wondered what your view on sedevacantism was. I will say that yours is my favorite show on RU-vid. You have great guests and your commentaries are always very apt and succinct. Here, however, you bring up thoroughly dismantled arguments that are easy to find. The Dimond’s are heretics and do not speak for the majority of sedevacantists, I’m glad Louie delivered the reply to that polemic. You seem genuine, and I’ve learned a ton from your channel and have been much inspired. Many of the “influencers” in your camp, though, are more than suspect; teaching well meaning Catholics to resist the pope, hanging out in theosophical lodges reading tarot cards, and wanting to “baptize” Hermes Trismigistus to influence the church. How can these things be ignored when you’re all so good at hammering the occultists? May God Bless you and your work.
@@stephenbisset9627 Baptism of blood and baptism of desire.. Look, I agree with much of their content, but in the end they hold themselves as the arbiters of Catholicism, not restricting their scope to anti-popes, but feel at liberty to sift the magisterium pre 1958 just like the R&R crowd. And depriving their followers of sacraments and valid clergy, seems cultish and diabolical.
Thank you for your comment. If you are referring to Mr Coulombe's actions I think you should take into account his public apology for and renunciation of certain activities. That takes great courage and sincerity. It is certainly good enough for me.
@@vendeeradio6794 yes, I have and admit it must have taken great humility to do so. Perhaps I shouldn’t bring up something that has been renounced, my apologies. It’s just, something very wicked comes this way, and I fear we are nearing its conclusion.
The presence of Christian Hermeticists in Catholic circles, including 'traditional' ones, is very disturbing. It seems widespread especially among Catholic academics. What worries me is that there has been a lot of endorsement of Tomberg and his book, almost glorification. Apart from the extraordinary heterodoxy found in his book, Tomberg is known for believing in Reincarnation and holding Teilhard de Chardin as one of his favourite thinkers. And now popular Catholic influencers such as Hall and Stine are praising Wolfgang Smith, seen by some as a Christian Hermeticist. Smith was a member of the Traditionalist School, which has nothing to do with the Traditional Latin Mass, but is a philosophical movement also known as perennialism. One of the most prominent promoters of this movement was Guénon, an apostate, an esotericist (especially of the Islamic sort), and a freemason. How is that Catholic one may ask? I tried to find out what the Church's position is on Christian Hermeticism from two different priests, both strong promoters of the Traditional Latin Mass. One said he didn't know, but thought the term an oxymoron. The other also didn't know, he thought I was asking about Christian Eremitism. He was appalled when I told him the title of Tomberg's book. So while the priests remain unaware, these movements, characterised by a strong gnostic streak, are unobtrusively flowing into the Church. St Alphonsus Ligouri, pray for the Church!
A second comment as this was an excellent conversation and some topics got mentioned without in-depth discussion a part 2 would be greatly appreciated. God Bless Also I note a new tone and style among the comments which were not there at the outset of this channel. I suspect there are comments included with a studied attempt at dividing the audience and distracting from the excellent presentations.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Admittedly it is a neuralgic issue. Not to sound trite but people would do well to remember that charity obliges that we are patient with our brethren who take different views of the mysterious and unprecedented crisis.
I recognize that as a non-Catholic and indeed rabid anti-Catholic, Francis cannot possibly be an actual pope, since actual popes must be actually Catholic. One cannot be the visible head of a body of which one is not a member. I further recognize that he’s not just a "bad father." One must first be an actual father to be a bad father. But Francis has never been an actual spiritual father at all. His status as an impostor has nothing to do with any electoral irregularities or any attempted bifurcation of Benedict XVI's "papacy" in 2013. Francis isn't a father, isn't a pope, solely because he isn't a Catholic; and he wasn't a Catholic long before 2013. Just as only actual Catholics can be actual popes, only actual Catholics can become actual popes. I also recognize that since we’re divinely promised (Mt. 16:18) that hell shall not prevail over the actual Catholic Church, the entity now led by Francis cannot possibly be the actual Catholic Church, since hell HAS prevailed over the entity now led by Francis. To call the entity now led by Francis the actual Catholic Church is to simultaneously call Jesus Christ a liar. Finally, I recognize that it takes absolutely no legal authority to recognize all of this manifest reality, just as one need not be a coroner to recognize a manifestly dead body. Our minds were made for truth. It's permissible, indeed essential for us, to recognize the truth. Any future legal judgment by the actual Catholic Church, which is now in the catacombs once again, will simply be a recognition of the present factual reality spitting in our faces daily. Scripture repeatedly warns us to flee the ravaging wolves. This presupposes that we have the capacity to recognize them as such and therefore to flee them immediately; that is, to flee them without any intervention from authority. It's time to get real; really real. Be not afraid. Man up. Seek truth, not comfort. Flee the Novus Ordo Antichurch. Flee it entirely. “Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever?” (2 Cor. 6:14-15)
At this point what reason do you even have to believe we ended up on the right side of the Schism of 1054? If all of this actually turns out to be true, doesn’t this just completely disprove Catholicism and vindicate Eastern Orthodoxy? That’s why I can’t believe this, because if I did I couldn’t justify staying Catholic and despite all the errors I still believe we ended up on the right side of the split.
'Less is more'. It's time to get real; really real. Be not afraid. Man up. Seek truth, not comfort - embrace the Orthodox Church which is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by the Lord Jesus Christ. Leaving the Roman Catholic Church for Orthodoxy is the best thing I did. Glory to God! ☦☦☦
This was a nice interview to listen to thank you for posting. It’s sad the current state of the church but it could be worse! The Book “work of human hands” by fr Cekada was helpful for me when I started realizing there is a major problem.
Mr. Verrecchio's argument is one that i hear often but the logic just doesn't work for me. He is essentially saying that we can't ignore the pope because it's not catholic so we have to adopt his position, which is a personal judgment to declare Bergoglio not to be the pope, so that we can then continue to ignore him as a not-pope. It's seems sedes in general have a problem with others reserving judgment on the situation inside the Church and i think this is what makes sedes in general so hard to listen to and to get along with. it's like in their pride, they think that they are somehow immune to the confusing times we are all in and they further cannot take the fact that others come to a different conclusion than they do. It's like those people that think advertising and propaganda doesn't work on them. They think they can't be fooled.
Common sense - evaluate everything what comes from your prelates in view of what you know is true and moral. Occasional slip can be passed. Frequent habitual slippage raises question of catholicity of a given prelate. Jesus by inviting us to His Church did not ask us to dispense with our reason and free will, ie being in His image…😂😂😂
You make a personal judgement when you determine your Anti-Catholic Freemasonic Pope is wrong, making yourself Pope. No, the truth is Catholics must say: that’s NOT CATHOLIC! You are not EVEN IN THE CHURCH. If you can determine his teachings are wrong, the Catholic concludes you can’t both be wrong and be Pope! Vatican Council (1870), Session 4, Chapter 4, Paragraph 6: For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [Luke 22:32] . This is why ALL KNOWLEDGEABLE CATHOLICS are Sede. Christ, Pope Pius IX, and Vatican Council (1870) told us, people who teach error on faith and morals are most assuredly NOT THE VICAR OF CHRIST!! By their fruits you shall know them. Jesus Christ!
The Church is not here to confuse. The whole point of the Church is to know truth from the lips of the rule of faith: the Pope. A canonically elected Male Catholic. None of J23-Francis have been remotely Catholic but rather have implemented a plan to expunge Catholicism from the world aided and abetted by cowards who won’t say: that’s not Catholic. They are waiting for Satanists to become honest and remove themselves when it’s working so perfectly for them!
But we don't exist within the paradign of the traditional Church, but a new, post Conciliar Church. A Church which is in the process of shedding its traditional, hierarchical skin to emerge as a new Synodal Church. There is nothing normal about our age or about our Church. Laymen have grounds to be careful in what is coming out of Rome these days.
In other words, you reject the Catholic doctrine of indefectibility. You believe that the actual Catholic Church has defected, even though the actual Catholic Church cannot defect. But the entity now led by Antipope Francis manifestly HAS defected. Therefore, this entity cannot possibly be the actual Catholic Church. In other words, hell has overcome the entity now led by “Pope” Francis. But we’re divinely assured (Mt. 16:18) that hell shall NOT overcome the actual Catholic Church. Thus the entity now led by Francis cannot possibly be the actual Catholic Church. To call it so is to call Jesus Christ a liar.
Excellent presentation! Kudos! Molto Bene! and Bravo! Edifying and true on both sides. Louie, I agree with you. You have the Sensus Catholicus, but with all my doubts about Bergoglio, I defer to Jesus Christ’s Kingship. Which means I focus on the Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (with Faith in Christ and deferred judgement). Theo, thank you. More on the Synagogue, the Sanhedrin, the Freemasonic Republic that has the Vatican in captivity and the catholic plebeian under the Diabolical Disorientation. Theo, thi$ was quality. Coin i$ in the mail.
You can have a model in your head and be 100% sure that reality will follow your model, much like a calculation for building a bridge. However, this will only be true in reality when you actually build the bridge, because your model cannot account for all variables. It simplifies reality. In my opinion, the same applies to the Church and the Pope: we can form opinions about him, but unless there is a legal procedure backed by the authority of the Church, our thoughts about him are merely theoretical. The legal procedure with the Church’s authority anchors reality. And since no one is taking action, we can only hope for God's intervention. But this is just an opinion; if I’m wrong, I would be glad to be corrected.
With respect to the Mass, the Church has already declared it to be unchangeable, just as it has declared the dogma of the Assumption to be unchangeable. Therefore, you don't need to prove that the Mass is unchangeable; the Church has already done that. This is why proving that the Pope is not the Pope is different from waiting for proof that the Mass can change. One is an active task (proving the Pope is not the Pope), while the other is a passive one (waiting for proof from the Pope that the Mass can change). And since he can't do that you just don't follow him. Because the head of the Church is Jesus, and He cannot be irrational.
Can the Church that dogmatically claims to be indefectible and is guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth (John 16:13), give us a destructive ecumenical council, or a Mass that isn't good enough? These are pretty critical and crucial things to get wrong.
The Church can't, but men in the hierarchy can, by turning down the guidance of the Holy Spirit in order to do their own thing under color of authority.
@@a.m.6028 Men in the hierarchy have free will to reject the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but doesn't Church Indefectibility protect us from something as critical as ecumenical council documents or a new Mass (done correctly) being harmful or detrimental to souls?
@@LeicesterTradCatholic We were certainly protected from having Vatican II carry the note of infallibility (it explicitly did not), and from having the Novus Ordo be mandatory (it has never been mandatory, even if it has been forced on us by raw power). But the last 60 years have shown us that God will allow the Church, by a just punishment and for her purification, to suffer the effects of the hierarchy's malfeasance.
Canon 188.4 that states: I. The Text of Canon 188.4 A. Translation and Latin Text: “Through tacit resignation, accepted by the law itself, all offices become vacant ipso facto and without any declaration if a cleric: ...n.4. Has publicly forsaken the Catholic Faith.”
The talking in circles and constant goal post moving that this and many other sedevacantists do is very reminiscent of the sort of arguments the talmudically inclined are often making.
Agree - there are two positions- we have pope or we do not have pope. They are trying to have him and not have him at the same time… quite sore view!😂😂😂
This is the talk I have been waiting for and hoping that a channel would provide. Both men addressed their side of the issue very clearly, and with philosophical and historic accuracy. I am of the unique position that all the Popes were valid until Francis. While Pope Benedict was alive, Francis was able to act under the auspices of his authority, but the very day that Benedict passed, it became very apparent to me that Francis no longer had any authority. This is not something I can prove to anyone else, so I don't try, but to me, it's as plain as day. However, what is objectively demonstrable is that the teachings of Pope Francis contradict the historic teachings of the Church and cannot be followed.
Nope. The other gentleman in this discourse, is way more grounded, charitable, and not prone to roller painting all Traditionalists as budding, future, Protestants. Nonsensical rhetoric that deflates his credibility at bit. Jabs at those who do not agree with his views, torpedoes his positions. This window slit of Verrechioism, explains why I keep him on a leash, and do not read his output as much as I once formerly did.
Correct. Louie did an excellent job. As for being in communion with Antipope Francis, no one who knows and loves actual Catholicism can possibly remain in communion with him. Nor can any straight man possibly remain in communion with him.
@@JeremiahAlphonsusI disagree. There are so many who know and love Catholicism or are striving to re-educate themselves on it who do not draw the same conclusions as you. It’s sweeping generalizations about the hearts of people like me that makes me want to discredit all the conclusions of people like you. I don’t want to discredit everything you hold to. I want to understand and grapple with these things without having sweeping statements made about my love for Holy Mother Church to shut down any further conversation. Good for you that everything is so crystal clear. Have charity and patience with people who are of a different temperament who also have genuine arguments for not drawing all of your conclusions.
Reflect on the following: can I with honesty, in the sight of Almighty God, acknowledge Pope St. Pius X as a true Pope, and at the same time acknowledge Francis as a true Pope?
I find it painfully ironic that he says you must obey the pope fully and completely, and then says there is no pope. It’s like telling us to obey the Byzantine emperor
@@angelaemmans2350 it’s essentially a thought experiment, since the man will never recognize anyone as a true pope for the rest of his life yet he emphatically sustains that the pope must be obeyed. In other words, the one pope that can be obeyed he refuses to obey yet he emphatically says that you can’t chose to resist the papacy
What do you think of the bizarre views of E Michael Jones? On social and cultural issues he has so much insight but when it comes to Traditionalism he just doesn't get it. He advises everyone to attend the local novus ordo church.
I think if you were able to sit down with each attendee of SSPX chapels and priories at an open bar with an appropriately designed questionaire and/or matrix; you would find a varied representation of positions. Many don't work through it all in an academic and methodical way but respond in a visceral instinctual and sometimes emotional way.
I'm no theologian. I grew up in NO & like many, fell away. By the grace of the Good Lord, I am home. In the first 3 years of coming back to the Church, I learned more than I ever did in the previous half century. In my humble opinion, the bible verse from Saint Paul telling us that even if an angel should preach a different gospel... Is sufficent to say that Catholics have been taught to be on their guard for error coming out of the Pope or anyone else. I look back over the men who drew up the blueprints for the false church, approved them & began the wrecking and rebuilding. How can it be I ask, that a fool like me can see, yet a Holy Pontif with much more grace and the warning of the previous Popes could not? Not just 1 Pope either.. Either their intentions were evil, or they had lost the faith and blindly followed satan's blueprints. Either way, I am truly concerned for the many souls that have been, or are being led astray by the false church. Pray for the liberty and exaltation of Holy Mother Church.
I came home (by the Grace of the Lord) this year to the Orthodox Church, which is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by the Lord Jesus Christ. ☦☦☦
Going to watch this tomorrow. I've been planning on going to church but sedevacantism makes it hard because it teaches you can't go to any mass in communion with the vatican, obviously. Seems like a great way to destroy any unity in Catholicism.
That is incorrect. 1) the principle issue is valid sacraments. The NO sacraments, and those associated with the NO (FSSP, ICKSP), are at best doubtful because they don't come from the Holy Catholic Church and thus have no guarantee. 2) there is debate about "una cum" Masses (those said "one with" Bergoglio). Not every sedevacantist group says you can't go to an una cum Mass.
Pius XII was a disaster as pope. His liturgical decisions were catastrophic and were the forerunners of the post Vatican ii disaster. The idea that he was any better than John XXIII is absolutely crazy
I think that the main point should be trying to uphold and expand the latin mass, what matter does it make who or when the last pope was, honestly it's a moot argument. Preservation and expansion of the latin mass is all that is needed. we need to stop dividing over points that matter little in the grand scheme.
As a Society attendee I find LVs position attractive and well presented. Still I put more trust in Archbishop Lefebvre who is a voice from well before "the Council".
@@E.C.2 Not to discredit Abp. Lefebvre but there is a problem with "Lefebvrism" resulting in semi-trads elevating him and the SSPX as the standard over the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
@@blueyedmule It is the POPE and no one else, not an Archbishop Lefebvre, or even a St. Athanasius. It is the POPE who keeps the Catholic Church always adhering to Christ, to His true doctrine, and to true and unstained worship.
@@dexteradomini7103 I didn't say pro nor con about +ABL. You don't understand my comment. +Thuc was Consecrated before +ABL and held the Holy See vacant. This is my point.
According to Fr. Paul Kramer, "Even the great Ballerini explained in his De Potesate Ecclesiastica that a valid pope can teach errors against faith (which are therefore intrinsically pernicious) when he is not defining." Mr. Verrecchio and the 58 Sedevacantists seem reluctant to admit the "authentic" non-infallible magisterium can teach error and contradict infallible doctrine and infallible dogma. Those who believe Francis is the pope. Believe that is why he can be the pope, even though, that fact is not something that can prove Francis is Catholic and the pope. All faithful do have the right and obligation to ferret the non-infallible magisterium against the infallible magisterium. That does not make them Protestant. 58 Sedevacantists are saying it's not possible for Francis to be Catholic. Those who say Francis is pope say, yes it is. The non-Sedevacantists that don't deny the evidence that Francis has manifested he is not Catholic say, we are not judging a pope. A claimant has manifested to us he is not Catholic, and we don't have the spent costs needed to deny the evidence. The distinguishing line separating the Catholic Church from "the church of man" or "the conciliar church" or the "Whore of Babylon." The false church uses that which is pastoral or that which is non-infallible to diminish and replace that which is infallible. The Catholic Church is that infallible Church which never changed and never will change and has never taught error or heresy, and has never led the faithful to error. The scam is not the faithful pointing out the heresy of those in authority, but the inversion of hierarchical order of the magisterium by those in authority. As for individual Catholics, normally when we point out to them that they are diminishing and replacing that which is infallible with that which is pastoral or non-infallible, and they do not cease and desist in that project. They are no longer members of the Catholic Church and become members of the church of man. Yet we can say a sufficient attempt to do this was done during the time of Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger declared a hermeneutic of continuity without ever proving a hermeneutic of continuity. Yet after that many traditionalists concluded there is no hermeneutic of continuity. Pertinacity was never proven by the popes against themselves since they have no authority to prove it against them. So from Pope Paul VI - Benedict XVI they seem to have been unintentionally the popes of both the Catholic Church and the church of man. Since Pope Benedict engaged in substantial error when attempting to resign he remained the pope of the Catholic Church and Francis became the pope of the church of man. Since Francis failed to answer the dubia and denied the divinity of Christ as well as the necessity of faith for salvation. Manifesting publicly that he is not Catholic he never became the pope of the Catholic Church after Pope Benedict died. Perhaps Pope Benedict remained the head of the church of man with Francis because maybe the church of man can have two heads? That's for them to decide! Vatican II will be declared having not engaged the magisterium for lack of proper intent and to not have been a valid council for lack of proper intent. So the only heresies we really have to deal with is those in the letters, papal encyclicals, and papal bulls, of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. Scripture and Tradition are the rules of faith, not the pope or the magisterium. Historically when heresy arises in the Church, it is followed by neo-heresy before it returns to Catholic orthodoxy. Most traditionalists despise the 58 Sedevacantists who only misinterpreted and misapply a Catholic dogma. While they themselves deny some dogmas and doctrines of the magisterium usually because they refuse to study the books of those pointing that out to them. The medieval Church may have had some false brethren. But they didn't have weeds and those formed and molded by weeds. Mr. Verrecchio thinks the magisterium should be pro-active, but history shows it to be reactive. There was no need for the faithful to juxtapose the non-infallible magisterium against the infallible magisterium before the time of the weeds!
Isn't it true that there's a acclaimed R&R 'trad" that has gone back to Vatican I and criticized that council for giving the pope too much power. This same man has also criticized St. Pius X. The R&R is a dangerous road.
I enjoyed it. Good show. There seems to be a difference of perspective or emphasis between these two positions on the doctrines of infallibility and indefectibility. Is the Pope perfect because he is the Pope, or is he not Pope because he is not perfect? "Hyper-papalism" and the lack of a "new" pope seems to be a weakness of Mr. Verrecchio's position. I don't think it can be denied that a false notion of obedience is what got us to where we are in the church, and yet it is a defined truth that every human creature must be entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff ! ??. I would be willing to wager that the suppressed Third Secret of Fatima would shed some light on this quandary.
Its because there was no internet or the like that we dont have a precedent for what's happening now..if the internet was around during the reign of john xxvii with the Beatific Vision controversy or in the, i think it was the 400s with the pope that seemed to side with the Arians (forget who), there would most definitely be laity inquiring and thinking to themselves that whether they followed this or that, their soul might be in jeopardy..God bless Mary protect +++
Unless he were a truly saintly pope, then that would have been most edifying…but still, scandal could be given by any imprudent use of the internet by a holy man with authority.
If it is necessary to salvation to submit to the Roman Pontiff as the Church infallibly teaches, then it is also necessary to determine who that Pope is, or if he exists. If such is a precept of salvation, God would not make it impossible to figure out. It is simple: an authority given by God cannot promulgate evil, therefore these men are not true Popes. It is out of love for the papacy and carrying out the duty of submission to a true Pope that this conclusion is made.
You made a point at around 42min mark about the Diamonds and the Rebuke of St Peter. There is precedent for this option:- Francesco Antonio Zaccaria, S.J., Dissertation VIII, paragraph III, page 196 (18th cent.): "And in truth from the earliest times to the present day supporters of the Arduinian opinion have been found; Clement of Alexandria, ancient writer of the second Christian century in the fifth book of his Hypotyposes, of which Eusebius tells us in the first book of the Ecclesiastical History, clearly taught that Cephas rebuked by the Apostle Paul was one of the 70 disciples." Francesco Antonio Zaccaria, S.J., Dissertation VIII, paragraph VII, page 203 (18th cent.): "In verses 7 and 8 St. Paul tells us about Peter, and calls him Peter. In verse 9 (we read) Cephas. So those ancients said: this is a different person. It is true that Cephas and Peter are names which have the same meaning; but why would Paul, wishing to identify the same person after calling him by the common name of Peter... have used a name of a different language...?" Also Eusebius wrote Church History (Book I) Chapter 12. The Disciples of our Saviour. 2. They say that Sosthenes also, who wrote to the Corinthians with Paul, was one of them. This is the account of Clement in the fifth book of his Hypotyposes, in which he also says that Cephas was one of the seventy disciples, a man who bore the same name as the apostle Peter, and the one concerning whom Paul says, When Cephas came to Antioch I withstood him to his face. Galatians 2:11
@@vendeeradio6794 Gal. 2:7-14 - A critical examination shows that the references to Peter and Cephas must be understood as distinguishing Peter from Cephas. If they were the same, why does Paul refer to Peter in 2 places and to Cephas in 3 others? This strange lack of consistency makes no sense.
Fr. Pujol's thesis is reinforced by such observations as the following: Whether the dispute at Antioch between Paul and Cephas occurred before or after the Council of Jerusalem, it was chronologically impossible that Peter could have been there at either time. The assumption that Peter and Cephas were the same person is dependent upon the Antioch incident occurring after the Council of Jerusalem (with Peter strangely subverting the Council's decree for which he was largely instrumental in obtaining). The fact is that the Antioch incident must have taken place before the Council of Jerusalem at a time, however, when Peter could not have been present in Antioch. If the "New American Bible" (NAB) is correct in stating that the James of Gal. 2:9 - "James and Cephas and John" - could not have been the Apostle James the Less, why jump equally to the conclusion that the Cephas in the passage was the Apostle Peter, or that "John" was the Apostle? Moreover, "reputed to be pillars" is a strange expression to apply to Apostles whose role as foundations of the Church was indisputable. The expression rather smacks of irony as applied by Paul to his three Judaizing opponents. The word-order of personages (in I Cor. 1:11-13 and 3:21) further militates against Cephas' identification with Peter whose primacy as first and chief of the Apostles would ordinarily have received due recognition. Both I Cor. 9:15 and I Cor 15:5 are better interpreted as viewing "Cephas" as someone distinct from the Apostles. The common opinion identifying Peter and Cephas has been based on the supposition that the name Cephas was borne by only one person in history, Simon Peter. The name Kepa (Kephas or Cephas) was surely more common than has been thought. Fr. Joseph A. Fitzmeyer has noted an ancient non-Palestinian Aramaic legal document (dated c. 416 B.C.) which witnesses to the existence of "Aqab, son of Kepa" (See his "To Advance the Gospel", Crossroad, N.Y., 1981). Lastly, as Fr. Pujol has insisted, the "vulgar confusion" of Cephas with Peter was fostered by a faulty reading of Scripture resulting from the error of early Greek and Latin copyists who substituted Petros for Cephas and Cephas for Petros in various passages in Galatians.
Hypothetically speaking, while my father is a drunk I cannot accept his judgments in that frame of mind. However, if he were to put aside his drunkenness, what would prevent me from being docile to his leadership again? The painting of 'recognize and resist' as having some kind of cultural power to shift people positively away from docility to the Pope seems to be rooted in an abstraction.
I don't follow the R&R position. I'm required to be an historian and read a load of books to understand if the Pope can remove my high altar? So I understand the entire tradition and deposit of the faith...then I can judge the pope? Seems like I would have to know more than the pope...but then again with bergoglio that might be true.
Excellent talk. A few subjects that should have been good to bring up for the discussion would have been the Chinese rites controversy, and Leo XIII fumbling with the French republicans. Louie is also right regarding Holy Mother Church cannot consistently err with Her disciplines and continual teaching authority as taught in Auctorem Fidei.
Perfect demonstration of the absurdity of both the sede and R&R positions. The same heresies and schisms always pop up throughout history in different guises. As always, stay near the successor of St Peter and you’ll be guided safely between the errors of both left and right. God bless our holy father Francis.
@austinkent881 If you claim to follow Pope Francis then do you think that you are displaying ecumenism towards traditionalists and following PP Francis teaching that God "wills the diversity of religions" and that "no one can exclude themselves from the Church"? PP Francis also teaches that proselytizing is a sin against ecumenism, so you risk disobedience to the Magesterium if you prosteletize to traditionalists against the command of Pope Francis. Earlier this year Pope Francis received a blessing from Buddhist monks who chanted in his presence. So would you follow his example by respecting the beliefs and receive a blessing from Bishop Vigano? How are you "staying close to Peter" when you directly contradict what Pope Francis tells you about how to show ecumenism towards people with differing views? “No one can exclude themselves from the Church, we are all saved sinners...those who have denied the faith, who are apostates, who are the persecutors of the Church, who have denied their baptism: Are these also at home?...Yes, these too. All of them. The blasphemers, all of them. We are brothers. This is the communion of saints. The communion of saints holds together the community of believers on earth and in heaven, and on earth the saints, the sinners, all." -PP Francis February 2, 2022 Vatican weekly wednesday general audience
@@stevedoetsch so your response is to distort what Pope Francis actually teaches as some sort of gotcha? Again, same thing every heresiarch and schismatic in history has done against Christ’s vicar.
@@austinkent8811 then please give a concrete example of what the other person distorted rather than waffling. He also gave a full length quote Francis said a couple of years ago.
If the R&R position is nowhere to be found in the Tradition, where is the Sedevacantist position? Mr. Verrichio needs to accept that his solution to the problem is just as novel as the position he is critiquing
Incorrect. The sedevacantist thesis is the logical conclusion of the application of what the Church infallibly teaches about Herself to the present situation. It isn't a solution, but the problem. There have been over 40 antipopes in the past, and periods of prolonged sede vacante. In addition, the Church has never determined how long a period of sede vacante can last. Not only is the sedevacantist thesis consistent with Church doctrine and Tradition, it also is consistent with Church history.
@@aaronaukema1284 I will simply say in response that even if one accepts that the sedevacantist thesis follows logically from Church teaching, the application (by laymen) is certainly novel. None of the 40 antipopes were declared to be such exclusively by laymen, to my knowledge. Again, this is not to say the sede thesis is incorrect. That was not the point of my comment. Just pointing out that claiming the R&R position is utterly novel and a danger to the Faith because of its attitude towards the Pope is a percarious situation. All of that applies to the sedevacantist position, as well.
@@toddbyrd9071 First, the sedevacantist thesis was first produced by bishops and priests, not laymen. Bishop Gerard Delauriers, who was an eminent theologian under Pope Pius XII was one of the first sedevacantists. Archbishop Lefebvre, prior to the 1986 Asisi abomination, posed the question of the validity of JPII, based on Church teaching. It is their early work that current sedevacantists, including laity, use. Pope Innocent II was opposed by Anacletus II, who was universally accepted as pope. St. Bernard of Clairvaux, using canon law and the Tradition of the Church, determined that Anacletus was an antipope. Through his work, numerous princes (not clergy) removed their submission to Anacletus and declared for Innocent. The mounting pressure of the laity called the bishops to consider the issue, and in the end, Anacletus's successor resigned his claimed, abjured his error, and submitted to Innocent. This series of events follows that of the sedevacantist thesis: clerics, especially learned theologians and scholars, use Tradition and formulate their conclusion. Laity follow their lead, to the point where they become most vocal.
@@toddbyrd9071 You also fail to show how sedevacantism is a novelty and therefore a dangerous belief. First, the Church has already posed the question of a heretical pope (St. Robert Bellarmine, and the 1917 CIC, 188.4). Second, She has already ruled that a heretic cannot be elected pope (Pope Paul IV, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio). Third, the Church has had periods of extended sede vacante. Fourth, the Church has had false claimants to the See of Peter before. None of this is new or novel. Heck, we even had schismatic sects arise from formerly Catholic bishops that made their own liturgical rites, and called itself "Catholic" that many faithful thought was Catholic (Anglicanism). In addition, the Church has elected a new pope when no one could foresee a solution (Council of Constance). Pre-Vatican II theologians argued that a period of 30 years without a Pope is not out of the realm of possibility. Again, none of what sedevacantists argue is new or novel. It's not like the Church has never been without a pope before, so even the idea that the See is vacant isn't novel. Perhaps you are referring to the situation in which the See is vacant, yet there are heretics who claim to possess it? That is a novel situation, to be sure.
@@toddbyrd9071 The R&R position is not only novel, but denies the perennial teaching of the Church that faithful Catholics are to be obedient to true popes and as the R&Rer's believe Francis is a true pope and the other leaders of the Church since Vatican II were true popes but resist or dissent from the teachings they don't agree with. So they deny a perennial teaching of the Church. The sedevacantist position is that of the perennial teaching of the Church that faithful Catholics are to be obedient to a true pope. By simply comparing the words and acts of Francis and the leaders of the Church since Vatican II with the teachings of the Catholic Church up until then, they simply recognize the fact that Francis and these leaders cannot possibly be true popes.
Pope Pius XI taught, as part of the authentic Magisterium in Quas Primas, that the Church is perennially prevented from teaching any error regarding faith and morals. This has serious consequences. The Vatican Council (1870) teaches us that 1) the See of Peter HAS NEVER deviated from the Faith and 2) that the See of Peter is essential to the Catholic Church. We are not free to ignore that. Further, popes from Gregory XVI to Pius XII have all affirmed that 1) the pope is the proximate rule of faith, 2) the teachings of the pope (as pope) are guaranteed to be beneficial, or at least not harmful, to the faithful, and 3) because of these, we are obliged to give religious assent to all acts of the authentic Magisterium of the Church and the pope. Based on Quas Primas, we cannot make up a term like "hyperpapalism" to repudiate those Catholics who hold what the popes have taught concerning their authority, and we must accept that the authority and deference granted to the papal claimants like John XXIII and Paul VI is entirely Catholic (if not misplaced). If you hold Jorge Bergoglio to be pope, you MUST provide religious obedience to his teachings dealing with faith and morals. You are not free to ignore a true pope. That said, the pope is the proximate rule of faith. To accept a claimant as pope is to accept them as the proximate rule of faith. If you are looking to Tradition to see if you can listen to some the the pope says (or an internet talking head, or a retired doctor of philosophy, or a retired doctor of liturgical music, etc) or if you are ignoring him, then OBJECTIVELY, you do not recognize the man claiming to be pope as "pope". Thus, there has not been "universal peaceful acceptance" of ANY papal claimant since 1963 (if not 1958) because each Conciliar claimant has been bypassed by some group in favor of some other authority. In my view, the key is the dogma of indefectability. The Catholic Church, the Church of Christ, cannot lead souls into error. She cannot promulgate laws or disciplines that harm faith or morals. She cannot produce defective liturgies. She cannot contradict herself. Doctrine cannot change (a dogmatic definition of The Vatican Council). As the Roman Catechism teaches, any entity that DOES any of these is NOT the Catholic Church, but an imposter and of satan. Anyone who is associated with such a false church is not, CANNOT BE, a Catholic. You cannot be a Catholic and a non-Catholic at the same time. If you hold the Novus Ordo is defective, then you NECESSARILY admit the institution that produced it CANNOT be the Catholic Church. As Catholics we also are beholden to flee from false churches. If an institution is NOT the Catholic Church, we are to have absolutely nothing to do with it...
Not true the Council of Constance teaches a Pope can fall short, Unigenitus states that People can reject their graces. It's philosophically dull to say a person cannot control their own actions.
@@DysmasOfBabylon There is a difference between teaching error and focusing on things aside from faith and morals. For instance, we know we've had popes who were focusing on their (illegitimate) children as opposed to teaching the Faith. They are not accepting the grace of office. However, as Vatican I taught no pope had deviated from the Faith in their teaching. Pope Benedict XV, the successor of St. Pius X, stopped Pius X's anti-Modernist commissions, and was relatively quiet concerning Modernism. That is "falling short".
@aaronaukema1284 lol that's clearly not true from a historic aspect, multiple councils that were thought to be ecumenical were rejected by later Pope's and Councils, there are even councils by Pope's that Anathematize true Ecumenical Councils, that were later rejected, most notably 2 documents of the Council of Constance were rejected while the condemnations of the Council were Canonized. Vatican 1 was Deviously interrupted by invasion, and was never finished.
@aaronaukema1284 uhhh, there are multiple rejected councils by legitimate Pope's that are not of the Holy Spirit. They have rejected legitimate councils to only be rejected themselves. What you are saying isn't in line with Church History.
@@DysmasOfBabylon Definitions matter. The Vatican Council (1870) defined a Sacred (or Ecumenical) Council as a meeting of bishops from all the Church, under the auspices and authority of the pope, to decide matters of Faith and morals as well as discipline. Sacred Councils are free from error, by virtue of their relationship to the pope. Other councils and synods have no guarantee of being error free. Thus, Pius VI "tossed" the Synod of Pistoia, because it didn't just contain error, but also heresy. The degree of authority a council has is based on its relationship to the universal ordinary Magisterium. You say that pope rejected "legitimate" councils that reject themselves. Which "legitimate" council has been rejected? Which popes have been rejected by themselves? We know Honorius was condemned posthumously for allowing monothelitism to spread, but Vatican I's scholars were of one mind: he did not teach error, and in fact, personally he was orthodox. His allowance of error to be spread (a rejection of the guidance of the Holy Ghost) is condemnable...but that doesn't mean he taught error.
How do you cope with the fact that before CVII the Church capitulated in matters of morals in what concerns the sin of usury? This is very well documented in Michael Hoffman's book on the subject. If Popes before CVII taught heresy, how far in the past you have to go back to be in the true faith (thinking like seeds think)?
That’s incorrect and a typical modernist talking point. Try and bring up previous errors or contradictions where none existed to cover for current heterodox practices. The teaching on usury hasn’t changed. They stopped preaching about it because of the complexities of modern economics but the teaching is still the same.
It does not work like that. In the same way Verecchio questions RNR not having support for resisting the pope in questions of universal teaching. I question him that he find anything in tradition that the faithful or bishops have to declare a new pope when everyone seems to agree that he is pope despite everything. The truth that is hard to swallow is that all of this happened because of the hyperpapalism that already existed. One cannot deny that everyone accepted him and it is no one's right to say someone is not Catholic unless it is evident heresy, in which case one just has to find a different parish where one doesn't find heresy. The Church is not to be understood in her relation to the pope alone, it was because of this false understanding that people thought a single person could change the mass of the ages. The Orthodox would never have accepted this from the mightiest of their patriarchs for example, and in this they are right friends. Sedevacantista are wrong, and two proofs they are absolutely wrong: no miracles, no strong adherence.
This is good but, it sounds like Louie believes we should learn our faith from recent papal decrees. The Catholic Faith is an infused virtue. In prudence we should study and nourish it but, we certainly don't get it by simply following Papal teaching. We're in this present crisis due to unbelief, our unbelief in Jesus and not the Papacy.
Some of this is reminscent of "once saved always saved, if intially authentically saved". A true question is posed, but we are waiting for someone with the authority and power to rule on the matter.
If Francis is the true pope, and he publishes/ teaches apparent heresy, should we not assume that at some point he will correct it? Perhaps that is a “Catholic” approach to the dilemma?
The hierarchy should hold him to correction without relent. It would seem they have no intention of doing so (same as with P6, JP2, etc.), and so the Vatican has gone completely rotten. Where are the true shepherds? The sheep have been scattered.
This isn't hard, the Pope cannot be a heretic, period. Theo did not answer any of Louie's points with any authority and his comment on prudential judgement in the local ordinary was weak. So, it's either resist the pope, which has never been done, ever, (tradservative) or go along because the "pope" issued a new decree (novus ordo). Taking the latter approach, "I was only following Church teaching" sounds a lot like " I was only following orders" in front of a military tribunal. I commend both for taking the time for this discussion. We are living in the most challenging time the Church has faced now that the enemy has entered the gates. I can't remember which apparition of Our Lady that She is said with regard to the Church that at some future time only faith will survive. Listening to this conversation leads me to believe She was referring to this time as the differences seem too great, I can't see Theo agreeing with Louie on the main point and vice versa. She also said at LaSalette that the Rome would lose the faith and become the seat of anti-christ. She has been warning the Church for centuries.
Hell has overcome the entity now led by Antipope Francis. But we’re divinely assured (Mt. 16:18) that hell shall NOT overcome the actual Catholic Church. Thus the entity now led by Francis cannot possibly be the actual Catholic Church. To call it so is to call Jesus Christ a liar.
…but exactly what does “Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the antichrist…” mean? The image it conjures up for me may be entirely different from your image. Is it to be taken literally and in a physical sense or mystically, or symbolically, or all of the above? There are reasons why people hold so many differing opinions and are grappling with it all. I’m glad this isn’t hard for you. Pray for those it is hard for, like me.
CORRECTION: You make a personal judgement when you determine your Anti-Catholic Freemasonic Pope is wrong, making yourself Pope. No, the truth is Catholics must say: that’s NOT CATHOLIC! You are not EVEN IN THE CHURCH. If you can determine his teachings are wrong, the Catholic concludes you can’t both be wrong and be Pope! Vatican Council (1870), Session 4, Chapter 4, Paragraph 6: For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [Luke 22:32] . This is why ALL KNOWLEDGEABLE CATHOLICS are Sede. Christ, Pope Pius IX, and Vatican Council (1870) told us, INFALLIBLY that a man who teach error on faith and morals is most assuredly NOT THE VICAR OF CHRIST!! By their fruits you shall know them. Jesus Christ!
It's odd that Mr. Verrechio says that Francis or any modern Pope Prelate or cleric that believes in VII etc would be executed (not by the Church..but temporal order) in the 16th century for such beliefs..while he doesn't see that he himself (Verrechio) would be executed as well for the beliefs he holds..he says there's been no Visible Church for 66 years and that includes no Pontiff since then..that belief and not to mention outwardly contradicting the assumed Pontiff and talking as he does about the Church and any reigning Pontiff (Pope or antipope) would get him 🔥 (again..by the state)..no Pope or antipope would put up with such mess and disrespect..especially when many have executed for much less..I'm not saying Francis isn't the Pope or is an antipope..I have speculations..but I will not have a full on conviction until the Church comes to a conclusion (ratification likely)..because unlike Mr V I do believe in an unbroken Visible Church via apostolic succession (a Catholic doctrine one must hold fast to)..how does one claim to get a new Pope or reinstall apostolic succession if it's been broken for 66 years? Convenient for Mr V..he just doesn't know 😉..also if it's already been broken, then that already invalidates the claim..he's going to end up like the priestess old believers.. Thank you for your informative videos Theo and keep rockin'.. stay grounded unlike (and i pray for him) your current guest..in all humility his opinion just seems rather lazy..and it just cant be the answer..after invalidating a Visible Church and apostolic succession. Honestly from whom is he going to get new Bishops, Cardinals and a Pope from..HIMSELF?!?!? 😅..and again..if its already broken and invisible, then the claim is already invalidated..God bless Mary protect +++ CLARIFICATION: I will and do say that Francis IS the Pope (or any Pontiff) until the Church says otherwise..I humbly submit and say that they have that authority..I dont..I do have private speculations and thoughts though..but not fully fledged beliefs in the matter..not even private..I wonder how can this be..then a take solace in the fact that Christ said the gates won't prevail..it may come mighty close though and that might be a test of faith..It's confusing and unprecedented times for everyone..and as a result I don't think one will find the answer in Church history..and because of that, someone that feels as if they have it all figured out *a-hem, cough..Verrechio* is IMHO to full of pride..even if coming from a good place with good intentions..I'm not comparing Mr V with leftists, but they oftentimes to think they're doing the right thing as well..Mr V is 10000 X the ppl they are
It strikes me that Louie Verrechio is like the flipside of the coin of Michael Lofton. He thinks the roman pontiff is like the catholic equivalent of the Mormon oracle and cannot ever be contradicted. I could be getting his ideas wrong but that's what I've gleaned from him here. Catholic history is replete with examples of popes that needed to be resisted on some level or another, so I am not sure this absolutist approach was really ever part of the full witness of the church.
I have to repeat my comment to another ill formed and informed opinion: That is inexact. Do you know what Galicanism is? Well, for many culturally Protestant nations, like the USA, is very natural to fall into that heretical attitude. The Vatican II situation is an anomaly that can not change the doctrine about the papacy (that is what they want!). Verrecchio is right in that point. The RemnantTv people are good people, but their position toward the crisis have grown up from false premises and have got to think that doctrine can be jeopardized on the interest of human tactics and strategies and temporal victories.
Nice survey of the landscape. One possibility that was omitted is that you are simply wrong about everything and you don't understand what God it doing. Solution - stop worrying about it, it's not your job, and have faith in God and in His Church. If there is a problem, God will take care of it. and instead humbly and obediently accept Vatican II and all the Popes since, and cheerfully put your efforts into becoming a saint in your life. Everything else is a defection.
Sure, like when the Church found itself Arian. "The whole world groaned and was astonished to find itself Arian". Or when the Catholics in England found themselves Anglican.
Louie is a good example of needing to have definite answers to a mystery. It is no different than the Pharisees wanting signs and wonders to believe in Our Lord's divinity.
@@rob7800 You can have mystery. You cannot have contradiction. The Mystical Bride of Christ cannot contradict herself. Making an apostate heretic “the pope” is not a solution. A contradicting Church is a dead end, not sedevacantism. "Sedevacantism may lead you to mystery, but it does not lead you to contradiction." --Most Rev. Donald J. Sanborn, Resistance and Indefectibility (1991)
Those who claim Pope Francis teaches heresy and error, are themselves ignorant of Catholic teaching and Canon Law and Holy Scripture! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
So sacraments for divorced and remarried are OK? And what God wanting different religions? How about heretics and schismatics being part of church? And how about annihilating damned? That is not heretical teaching? And what about his ‘synodality’ - OK, too? Blessings for homosexual couples- seems like you consider it just fine! You can easily find more of your care to look!
@tubaceous I bet you one million dollars before Jesus Christ, that you have never read any of the encyclicals of Pope Francis or his Biblical commentaries! Pope Francis teaches, as has other Popes, that God permits other Religions, as man has free will. Pope Francis never taught that God desires other Religions! You made that up! Plus, Pope Francis teaches, as have other Popes, That in extreme and rare circumstances, those in divorce should not be denied access to the Sacraments, confession and the need to admit sin and receive Holy Communion. Your ignorance of Canon Law is quite evident! Plus, Pope Francis teaches that marriage is for man and woman alone, and that no other sexual union outside of this, can be blessed by God! Again, you obviously have never read any of the encyclicals of Pope Francis or his papal documents! As lies were told of Jesus Christ at His trial, so too even now of Pope Francis by modern day elders! Again, those who claim Pope Pope teaches heresy and error, are themselves ignorant of Catholic teaching and Canon Law and Holy Scripture! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 perhaps seeing idols in his basilicas was just hallucination. Or perhaps authors of ‘Filial Correction’ ‘Fraternal Correction’ or African bishops also did not read what he wrote or said, making you the only one in the whole universe who did. Bless you, brother, for being the only one who sees correctly and uncovering such a wide conspiracy…🤣😂🤣
@@tubaceous Again, Pope Francis teaches that Jesus Christ ALONE saves and that the One Triune God alone is to be worshipped! You obviously would not know that, since you have never read any of the encyclicals of Pope Francis or his Biblical commentaries! As lies were told of Jesus Christ at His trial, so too even now of Pope Francis by modern day elders! Those who claim Pope Francis teaches heresy and error, are themselves ignorant of Catholic teaching and Canon Law and Holy Scripture! Again, Pope Francis teaches that marriage is for man and woman alone, and that no other sexual union outside of this, can be blessed by God! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
You do not know what I am reading. Certainly one can read anything selectively, focusing on true stuff, to the neglect of untrue. Seems to me that you are engaging in this fallacy…😂😂😂
Me verecchio is wrong. Catholics are exhorted by Christ to recognize true shepherd. That means their actions and - yes - their teachings! Not only that: they are exhorted NOT to follow such shepherds! 😂😂😂
@@davidniedjaco9869 I do not know if pope said that. But even if he did not, it is in the Gospels, which should be enough - problem is that average Catholic does not know Gospels…
One cannot simultaneously be both the Vicar of Christ and the Vicar of Satan. Francis has abundantly proven that he is the Vicar of Satan. Therefore, Francis cannot possibly be the actual Vicar of Christ.
Who is the authority today to determine who the true body of Christ is? Last time I checked Jesus determined that Peter was the rock on which He built His church and apostolic succession determines that Pope Francis is the legitimate successor of Peter and the authority confered by Jesus. You are trying to be the authority in yourselves without any kind of conferred devine legitimacy.
@@liammacneil5672 so you are the new authority then. Wow. The new pope. But then you wiĺl have to go through the other contenders first...like Vigano, and then Taylor Marshall et all. It's tough competition and I advise you not to enter the race. Some of these play dirty with their own and would have no problem eating you alive.
I find it funny that as Louie has continued to go more and more extreme... his haircut and beard have become more and more weird. Now it's a full on Cpt. Kangaroo bowl cut!😅
@@thaddeuskozinski3246 why are you spiraling? I’ve much enjoyed your line of thought in the past. Your recent comments accusing good willed Catholics holding the sedevacantist view of blaspheming the Holy Ghost are pushy, outrageous and desperate. Have you ever studied the arguments in good faith?
Theo seeks truth while you act as it’s arbiter. Stop slinging mud, and get a hold of yourself. You’re a bright man and I used to enjoy your content, but this kind of behavior is repulsive and sadly ironic.
@@TheRav9 I realized how evil traditionalism has become when I saw through the pious mask of Fr. Fraudsley and how Theo, Will Tucker, and Doug Haugen knee-jerkly defended his blasphemy and malice against the Servant of God Luisa. Then I heard their insane ramblings about all the popes after Vatican II being kabbalists to one extent or the other. Their obesession with the JQ has led them off the deep end. This woke me up. Don't go near SSPX, for it tends towards 1958 sede and pharisseism and bizarre hatred and slander against John Paul II (as a secret kabbalist) and Divine Mercy, and be careful of all trad sub cultures, which are rampant with neurosis and fear and judgment, and trad priests, many of whom are Jansenist and ideological and prideful. Fertility Calvinism and denigration of women is rampant in many trad circles. I love the Latin Mass, of course, and the traditional teachings of the Church. But traditionalism has become more of an ideology than authentic Catholicism.
@@stephenbisset9627he has had bad interactions online and that makes traditionalism bad. It's an emotional reaction from someone who is terminally online.
Great conversation. This is something I often struggle with. Thanks very much. Also, the link to the podcast version of your show still appears to be dead.
