Bishop Roy grew up in French speaking Quebec in the SSPX. We discuss his journey to the priesthood, his time with the SSPX and his ministry as a independent Sedevacantist priest and Bishop His chapel info: www.latinmassmaritimes.org/about
Thank you for sharing this interview with us, Mgr. Roy. I am IMMENSELY GRATEFUL to God for bringing you to Atlantic Canada and delivering me from the spiritual desert I was in. From the moment I met you as a newly-ordained priest, I knew I was in good hands. Your concern for our souls has seen you stick with us during the best and the worst of times. God does not forget such acts. Your work is bearing fruits in this world already and it shall do so in the next. Thanks for today's Mass and I shall see you on Palm Sunday, Good Friday, and Easter. Que Dieu vous benisse😇 Rina
Very interesting and encouraging. As a new convert that went straight from Protestantism to Sedevacantist it is so helpful to hear this X-SSPS perspective!
Great interview and we feel Blessed by God to have travelled with you on this journey of Faith! Thank you, we will be forever grateful and keep you in our prayers.
It is a pleasure and a grace to know of your existence. As a Sedevacantist Bishop as well I can identify with your sacrifice for the faith. God bless and keep you. let us pray for one another.
@Priestsfortherestoration9390 Your Excellency glad you heard this. I was going to send it to you. May God and Our Lady of Good Success Bless all you Sedvenvacantist Bishops standing up for Christ and His True!!! Church
@@CatholicGaming I was consecrated by Bishop Joseph Macek from the Thuc line. No, I have not created a video on my story. The video entitle, " The Blood of Christ on my hands" is the closes. God bless. Bp Tetherow, SVC
Bishop Roy was consecrated by Bishop de Silva, who was consecrated by Bishop Dolan, Bishop Dolan was consecrated by Bishop Pivarunas...whose Chapels are in Canada.
Thank you for airing this interview! May God And Our Lady of Good Success Bless, protect and guide you! There are alot of Sedvenvacantist Bishops and more joining tge ranks as the latity. We must stand up for Christ and the Truth!!! Prayers for Your Excellency 🙏
We may say Bishop Roy is a Sedevacantist Bishop, but I would rather say Bishop Roy is a “Catholic” Bishop, like other great Bishops of the past centuries in the Traditional Church - who seeks to please and serve God rather than pleasing the evils of the world. Thank you for interviewing Bishop Roy.
True Catholics accept no lies against the words of Christ. Starting with these infallible words. Vatican Council July 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.
I support your position Mgr. Pierre Roy, bishop should stop the squabbling already and come to the table to discuss the matter of the state of the Church, lest Sedevacantist become acephalous organizations just like the Orthodox.
I attend an FSSP parish and a coupe of years ago our assistant priest spoke against Francis during his homily. The homilies are published and recorded although we are asked not to share them. Well someone did and next thing you know that priest was gone.
@@dondarius7262 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." 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). Sedes bishops don't have any jurisdiction : as Popes taught, jurisdiction only comes through the Pope. Also, they don't have any canonical mission, they weren't sent by the Canonical Authorities, but the Council of Trent, at Sess. 23, canon 7, teaches that those who aren't sent by the ecclesiastical and canonical Authority of the Church aren't legitimate. It is de fide, without exception, and the Universal Ordinary Magisterium understands it this way.
It is a delicate balance between fighting for what you believe in and making an enemy of good for the sake of perfection. For whatever reason, I find these interviews of Catholic Church men to be fascinating.
I certainly know that Jesus Christ wasn't here in the 1960's. I'm 75 years old and my family for hundreds of years had the Tridentine Latin Mass I was brought up in it. We were taught the Tridentine Latin Mass was Christ's and was Perpetual and couldn't be changed. It was drummed into us. Novus Ordo Church is a Counterfeit and formed on a lie. They that accepted it without question are Liars.
That is why U stopped going to NO, then I stopped Society if Pius X because it isn’t no logic that Francis is a heretic and the Society kept quiet, now a sedevacantist in Mexico but no Mass near by 😢so have become a stay at home Catholic until I find a Latin Mass near enough that does not support Francis and his new church
I'd like to thank the interviewer for arranging this interview and will keep him in my prayers. I'd also like to ask people who are publicly criticising his interviewing skills to either provide some praise for what he did do well as well as comment on what he might improve upon (constructive criticism in a compliment sandwich) or keep their opinions to themselves, lest they sin against the second commandment and offend God.
Your welcome. Also, it’s ok about the criticisms. I know I am far from a professional interviewer (it looks easier than it is). I am very glad his excellency was willing to come on the channel. He was very gracious. I hope to get more interviews with others in the future
@@StAnthonyPaduaRadTrad I'm glad you think that way. I am however pointing this out not primarily for your sake, but for Gods glory and to assist the souls who are falling into this fault. You do yourself credit in your response.
My mother was from Moncton first language Canadian French yes? Do you know Boucher people? Where she lived no one argued with each other. This is in early 1900’s. Every one was traditional Catholics 💞🛐
It's not by the appearance. A modernist theologian and a priest says his Mass in a very holy manner. So, is he a holy person? No, he wants to destroy the Church. You need to ask an SSPX priest if he is together with a manifest heretic, Francis, in the prayers of the Canon. Is that accepted or rejected by God? Definitely, the answer is.. it is rejected by God and a sacrilege to God. It is not pleasing to God to offer a prayer for a manifest heretic in the Canon. God cannot work with the devil. We need to believe St. Bellarmine when he said that a heretic Pope ceases to be Pope. Common sense.. Pope means Vicar of whom? God or Satan?
Sede vacante is a Catholic term used when for the meantime that there is no Pope, we understood that, right. For example, when a Pope dies. But, (sedevacante is being used) today or during the Vatican II Council because this was the very first time that a Council did not produce a Vicar, a representative of God and in fact every Vatican II Popes wanted us to accept a non Catholic religion. So, they are all false Popes and we are in a sedevacante period of the Church. Now, regarding your question, the teaching of the Church is that the Cardinals, whether good or bad, as electors for the Pope, will never die out. There will always be Cardinals until the end and one day when the time is right for God, a true Pope to be elected will accept and enjoy the sacred authority given to him by Our Lord, Jesus Christ. When we say he will enjoy the Authority means he is truly for God and upon receiving the responsibility, he will always be guided by the Holy Ghost and will never fail to defend and protect the Church of Our Lord just like the 260 Popes. There were wicked Popes but they sinned against themselves and others but there was none who committed a heresy against God until Vatican II. The one that they say a heretic was just a weak Pope not a manifest heretic of today. If you believe in the teaching of the Church regarding the indefectibility and infallibility of the Church, we have to ask ourselves, if we consider that Francis is a true Pope then the Church can defect?!?!! It does not make sense, right? The Church can teach error, heresies, apostasy?!?? So, a manifest heretic Pope-elect and a false Council that force us to accept an abominable religion are not with God and we need to resist them as they are rejected by God. t@@shredder9536
Goodady Sir. I've been watching your interviews and i have suggestion. Would you b3 able to interview an African living in Africa concerning the faith. All we see online are those in West, but no one really knows how the faith goes on here. I hope i can be interviewed by you to give us a voice so that people can know how the faith is thriving in this forgotten area of the world. Thank you
Sede Lent Challenge: Donate as many mushrooms (canned or jarred) to your local novus ordo food donation bin as you can. (edit: cream of mushroom soup also counts)
Great interview! It was interesting to me that in the SSPX you can criticize the pope but not the superior. I personally learned a lot about the SSPX through this. (I never attended there so I’m clueless to how they operate)
It makes sense that they'd want to try and preserve public unity in a time of great disunity. It doesn't mean that I agree with this, but I understand their reasons. That they have invited Bp Roy back many times and immediately backed down when he took their threat seriously tells you that this was their purpose in warning him the way that they did. There were no teeth behind it.
Its true, in SSPX they push this idea there on You that You can't critisize their superiors and priests no matter what.( false obedience). I'm leaving society to after witnessing horrible treatment- physical ABUSE of one of older parishioner right after the Mass. Two younger man ( serving as altar man and training children) pushed a table at the older man and took the chair from underneath him so the man had fall on the floor twice. The priest said only to us that this man offended a lady and was NOT obedient when asked to leave. After such SCANDAL and POOR treatment , ABUSE of its own parishioners- I'm looking farward to join SEDEVACANTISTS catholic movement. God Bless You and please PRAY for me.
I'm confused about all this disunity. If there's no hierarchy who makes this man bishop? And if Sedes are the true church can they not just elect a Pope?
The “traditional” movement lacks one of the four marks of the Church because it currently lacks Bishops with Ordinary Jurisdiction. It is therefore not the Church. It continues the tradition of the Church in whole or in part, but is not the same thing as her. But they are not necessarily outside of her given the scope of the crisis. The SSPX has many errors as do the other groups. Our Lady’s intercession will end this crisis.
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." 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). Sedes bishops don't have any jurisdiction : as Popes taught, jurisdiction only comes through the Pope. Also, they don't have any canonical mission, they weren't sent by the Canonical Authorities, but the Council of Trent, at Sess. 23, canon 7, teaches that those who aren't sent by the ecclesiastical and canonical Authority of the Church aren't legitimate. It is de fide, without exception, and the Universal Ordinary Magisterium understands it this way.
What Mass are you celebrating? Is it the same 1962 Mass of the SSPX? I think you should go back to the PRE-55 TRADITIONAL LATIN MASS THAT SSPV are celebrating and this the true Mass although SSPV is also Sedevacantist.
Amusant ces sédévacantistes qui récusent l'autorité indiscutable de Pie XII et prennent le missel qui leur convient. On sait que l'obéissance n'est pas leur spécialité, mais là, autant écrire eux-mêmes leur missel!
It is erroneous to reject the Pius XII Holy Week. We either accept that the Church is infallible in her universal discipline as she herself teaches (this is secondary infallibility which is different to papal infallibility in that is will always be infallibly safe as opposed to being always the same and infallibly true) which includes her liturgy or we reject her teaching and walk a path away from her, the infallible teacher. The Novus Ordo could not have come from the Church as it contains offertory prayers taken from the Talmud which has already been condemned by the Church. Such a defect cannot be found in the Pius XII Holy Week. If you believe him to have been a Pope then you must follow the Church teaching on this matter and say his liturgy.
I've been considering sedevacantism for a while, but I have a few honest objections: 1) isn't a Pope only infallible while speaking _ex cathedra,_ like it was stablished in the Vatican I council? If so, then popes can err and sin but still be valid popes, right? 2) plenty of popes have commited grave sins in the past. For instance, John the XII had concubines. If we are as strict with other popes the same way that we are with post-vatican II popes, then the seat of Peter has been vacant since the middle ages, hasn't it? I sincerely thank any one who answers these objections.
Bad popes before yes, but nobody tried to preach a different religion or change the faith. Now is a whole new ball game. Praying for Francis conversion.
I agree with you; Ex Cathedra is the Chair or from the Chair of Peter by the rite and format of the declaration of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Everything else falls into the category of sin and error.
Vatican I, which defined papal infallibility, uses "infallible" in relation to doctrines "of the faith". Thus, we know that when a true pope speaks "ex cathedra", he is defining something as revealed and necessary for salvation. This is different than ordinary Magisterium, which is the ordinary means of teaching: through writings, preaching, etc. There has never been a true pope who has deviated from the Faith in his ordinary magisterium. This only makes sense, because Christ promised Peter that he (and his successors) would confirm the brethren in the Faith. When a true pope speaks on matters of Faith and morals, we can be sure that he cannot lead us astray. Vatican I affirms that in Pastor Aeturnus, and Pius XI affirms that in Quas Primas. A non-infallible statement may not be precise, or as detailed as an infallible statement (that is why the Immaculate Conception was not dogmatically defined in the days of St. Thomas Aquinas), but it isn't wrong, or heretical.
1) No, the ordinary magisterium is also considered infallible. This idea that the Pope is only infallible once per century or even less - when making specific dogmatic definitions - is a modern invention. Many Popes would, in that case, spend their entire papacies supposedly promulgating doubtful teachings. If that were the case, why would we need a pope at all? He would not be safe to follow. On the contrary, the Pope is the living rule of faith. By accepting the office of Pope he gains the protection of the Holy Ghost. Union with him in doctrine is the very definition of being a Catholic and always has been. Wouldn't that be dangerous, if Popes generally made wild statements and blessed mortal sin? Until these times, there may have been antipopes due to doubtful elections, or popes who were incorrect about issues that had not yet been defined, but the true pope never materially changed the faith by teaching something dangerous. It has never before been the case that following the 'Pope' would lead you to hell. Look at Jorge; can you really say that anyone can follow him and save their soul? 2) Personal sin has nothing to do with the question at hand. Of course every pope has been a sinner; they are only human. As you rightly point out, there have been wildly sinful men who were nonetheless legitimate successors of St Peter, even if they were bad ones. This is important: no sedevacantist is arguing that the pope is too sinful to be legitimate. The argument is that Vatican 2 began an entirely new religion by fundamentally defecting from the tenets of the Catholic faith. Vatican 2 and traditional Catholicism are by definition incompatible. Yes, the Vatican 2 popes are ALSO heretics, and are also deeply scandalous men. But the most fundamental reason they cannot be legitimate is that they do not teach or profess the Catholic faith. They are outside the Catholic church; they have defected. "What man is there among you, of whom if his son shall ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he shall ask him a fish, will he give him a serpent?" (Matt. 7:9-10) Yet this is exactly what's happening. We need sound teaching and they give us Assisi idolatry and Amoris Laetitia. These men are not of God. They are not Catholics. They cannot be Vicars of Christ.
@@aaronaukema1284all things is for a period of time. The Temple in Jerusalem fell in 70 A.D. not because Jews had false worship They didn't thats why Jesus and His Apostles attended the Temple in Jerusalem for Passover . The prayers said were His Death Prayers. It was the end of the Symbolic Paschal Lamb Sacrifice Yes!. The Apostles passed over to us Gentiles the Passover Prayers. Time has gone by and we are in the end times. The Church goes through the same chasetisements as HER Founder. Two world wars and Communism and finally the takeover of the Church from the top. He tells us Imposters and Apostates and Hirelings will take over the Church and a Remnant will remain. They have thrown His Death Prayers out of the Novus Ordo. They have created a Counterfeit an immitation. He has promised His Church will remain until end of time. That is the Tridentine Latin Mass with the Passover Prayers. He cannot be killed again and the Tridentine is Calvary . He does not abandon the people but, He does say "You do not listen and I will throw you out " many Catholics have no interest in knowledge thats the problem They are more interested in following apparitions and messages. Scripture tells us Shortly after the Jews gain Israel the Perpetual Sacrifice will be removed and the Abomination of Desolation replaced therin then comes the end of time for the Gentiles for Salvation comes from the Jews. Jews got Israel in 1948 and Vatican11 was in 1960's . Salvation here means WW111.
He seems like a very good Priest good for him. I just have don’t trust the Thuc line. I wouldn’t have a problem to attend his Mass since he is a real Priest. Bishop I don’t know. Only God knows
no they are not, the new rite of consecration completely changed the words of consecraton as established by Pius XII in Sacramentum Ordinis 1947. And also you are in union with papachamama bergoglio
The Novus Ordo Missae includes quotes directly from the Talmud, a book condemned by the Church. The Universal Ordinary Magisterium teaches that the Catholic Church is infallible in her universal discipline, which includes her liturgy. The Roman Rite of the Mass is considered universal. This infallibility is secondary infallibility, in that it cannot contain error, but may revised later on were the teaching of the Church to be clarified, or a law become harmful because of the circumstances of the times, e.g. Lenten Fasting laws were relaxed during World War I and II for obvious reasons. The conclusion to draw from the presence of Talmudic prayers in the offertory of the Novus Ordo Missae is that it couldn't have come from the Church. The new sacramental rites promulgated by Paul VI, like the Novus Ordo Missae have never been used in the history of the Church. Given that that the Novus Ordo Missae couldn't have come from the Church, the question needs to be asked, did these new sacramental rites come from the Church? In reality there is doubt as to the validity of the new rites of Ordination and Episcopal Consecration. Because of the importance of the sacraments for the salvation of those who have reached the age of reason, it is Church teaching that where there doubt as to their validity they must be avoided until the Roman Authorities have ruled on the matter. We are still waiting for such rulings to take place. It is however, important to note that the new rites of Exorcism published in the 2000's were rejected by most exorcists in favour of the pre-Vatican II rites because they were inefficacious, i.e. they didn't work. When your religion is promulgating inefficacious sacramental forms that are designed to specifically target evil spirits then there should be in any Catholic's mind serious doubts as to the validity of the other new Rites promulgated by Paul VI and his successors. In short, Catholics should avoid clergy ordained in the new Rites or those ordained in the old pre-Vatican II rites by Bishops consecrated in the new Rites.
27:20... No one was yelling at you. That is totally untrue. You say "...difficult to remember... these people were rather yelling at me than any thing else..." ? "...rather..."? So the following Sunday the DS Fr W complains from the pulpit that about 8 parishioners were yelling at Fr R saying they didn't want him here. So Fr W echoes what Fr R told him without any due diligence? I asked Fr W after his sermon, politely, in the church basement, but in no uncertain terms told him that his talk about those 8 (actually 9) was completely untrue. Wagner, worst of all, didn't bother to ask the ones they accused, if any of it was true. No wonder...? One thing leads to another.... This is why, as always, we truly, have to pray for the priests.
If the parishioners were angry and emphatic in their speech that can be characterized as yelling. A rude approach to a new priest is aggressive and uncharitable.
@@rccyberwarrior2267 Whatever one's definition of yelling, you question it all with an "If”. Answer. They were not "angry" nor "emphatic in their speech." They were not "rude". Totally, the opposite. Charity abounded.
@@truth7294 Your emphatic questioning and responses suggest that your attitude was aggressive to the young new priest (as he then was). I recommend that you let go of this incident and practice forgiveness -- as Christ calls us to do (seventy times seven).
@@rccyberwarrior2267 …the thread continues… Ok. To recap, someone unexpectantly brought up this subject about Fr Roy now being a Bhp. Definitely not one of the ‘accused’, said let’s watch this video. Why? I let go of that cobwebs story, et al, years ago. When I heard yet again, what this time, via the video, is said, on the net, I felt compelled to defend not only the other 8 but also the Bhp. Yes, and by association, yours truly. (Do you want to know what, I, one of the 9, actually said to the priest, when it was my turn to greet him?) Okay, maybe he forgot. Or facts got cloudy, pressure, deceptive, back then and or over the years, for the then, as you say, 'young new priest'. Surreal. Things happen. That’s okay. Whatever. That said, I will not give false witness about the other 8, nor thus be, untrue to myself. The instant lasting persecution, next to no dialogue, serious physical threats (one actual) that followed, reputations tarnished, from including, not a few, strident parishioners, became definitely a reality. Emphatically forgiven, so suggest.
While the guest was very gracious, I was embarrassed FOR the host! It seems he did little to no research before the interview. But WORST of all was him constantly asking questions THAT THE BISHOP HAD JUST ANSWERED! Talk about not laying attention!
Pierre Roy déguisé en évêque. On ne s'ennuie jamais avec la surenchère des groupuscules sectaires sédévacs. Je garde de côté pour quand j'aurai besoin d'un bon moment de rigolade. "I'm bishop Pierre Roy". Oh oui fais moi rire!
He's a priest. He's an alter Christus. Why are you mocking the Priest of Jesus? God made him a Priest not you. So are you mocking God through His Priest?
@@user-gv5hu5qj2u "Il se moque de Dieu lui-même avec ses délires de survie à la Paul VI..." C'est une accusation positive : Prouvez-le ou rétractez-vous. "...et son déguisement d'évêque." Voilà une autre accusation positive. Prouvez-la ou rétractez-vous.
☦Orthodox here. Forgive me my brutal honesty and see no bad intentions in it but neither the Traditionalists nor the Sedevacantists have a coherent set of dogmas. From my understanding both hold Unam Sanctam (1302) as true, which means they believe "that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff". Which of course rises some issues when you understand that the post-Vatican 2 Pontiffs are changing the sacraments, the liturgy, the understanding of the Gospel (as we all saw with Fiducia Suplicans) but also the sacred architecture and the sacred art. Also when you see the same Pontiffs promoting that heresies have truth in them, kiss the Quran, put idols on the altar such as the Pachamama etc. It has been obvious now that if you submit to those Pontiffs, you change your religion and become a Christian in name only. The solution of the Traditionalists is to continue practice the Latin rite in their little corner while being persecuted by the hierarchy while pretending they remain in communion with Francis. The problem is in the definition of "being in communion". Communion is not about submission. It's a communion of faith. So practicing in Latin does not suffice to separate you from the transgression happening in the rest of the Roman Church. In fact it's a situation (forgive me for the harshness of the description) best described as hypocritical. Traditionalists pretend to be in communion with Francis to check the dogmatic boxes such as Unam Sanctam, but in their heart they reject what Francis professes. The Sedevacantists tried to remove that hypocrisy by admitting they can't be in communion with Francis but they fall in another issue : How do they remain Catholic without being in communion with the actual Pontiff? The solution is the theory that Francis is nor a valid Pontiff and the chair of Peter is vacant since X or Y pontiff. This unfortunately destroys other dogmas of the Roman Church : - That the Roman church has never erred nor will ever err in perpetuity; - That one is not to be held to be catholic, who does not concord with the Roman church. - That the Roman pontiff, if he has been canonically ordained, is indubitably made holy by the merits of Blessed Peter... - That he himself must be judged by no one. Now here is the explanation we orthodox can provide to you : You are right to believe that the orthodoxy of the faith resides in the conservation of the unchanging teachings of the Church since our Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostles. The problem is that Rome has inserted another "guaranty" of orthodoxy : the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. Those two guaranties exclude each other as soon as you the Roman Pontiff contradicting even one single ancient dogma of the Church. Trads say "let's pretend nothing happened and pray in Latin", Sadevacs say "What Pontiff?" Orthodox say "Pontifical infallibility was just debunked." and I can prove it. Take the treatment of heretics (and the washing of the feet). The teaching of pope Francis is "Let me wash and kiss they feet" as he did to some Muslim in 2016. The teaching of pope Innocent IV (Ad extirpanda - 1252) was "Let the Inquisition tor_ture them to force their confession" The teaching of Pope Gregory VII (Dictatus papae - 1075) was "That all princes are to kiss the feet of the pope alone." The teaching of pope Nicholas I (Ad Consulta Vestra - 866) was that torture is against divine law since "violence should by no means be inflicted upon them to make them believe. For everything which is not voluntary, cannot be good." The teaching of our Lord Jesus when saint Peter refused to let him wash his feet was “Unless I wash you, you have no part with Me.” What can we see? The teaching of the papacy changed twice : From conversion without violence (866) to conversion with violence (1252) to neither conversion nor violence. The teachings of Christ on the washing of the feet went from "the Church is a servant that washes the feet of Christians" (Jesus) to "Kiss my pontifical feet as a sign of submission" (1075) to "The Pontiff is here to wash the feet of heretics" (2016) It is obvious that the teachings of the Roman Church changed not once but twice. We orthodox never changed. No once. Not twice. Never. We are in full communion with Christ when he told us "wash the feet of the Christians as servants, not as Kings who lord it over the Nations and call themselves benefactors". We are in communion with saint pope Nicholas I who wrote the king of the Bulgars that faith is voluntary and therefore cannot be imposed by force. You are, Roman Catholic brothers, focused on the last rupture that happened in your Church. Try and identify the previous one, the one between 866 and 1075. Lord have mercy on us all sinners.
@@connorlong3553 Not quite. Read what I wrote : If there is no pope then the Roman Catholic dogma scrambles down since it states "That the Roman church has never erred nor will ever err in perpetuity, as scripture testifies. " But if there is no pope it is erring like a chicken running about without a head... is it not?
