Recognize and Resist leads to Sedevacantism

“You’re already a sedevacantist, you just don’t know it yet.”

[s_hrndz]

How can Francis “canonize” Gregory of Narek who was a schismatic Armenian “Orthodox”?

How can the “Church” picture St. Thomas Aquinas together with Gregory of Palamas at the Redemptoris Mater Chapel in Rome ?

[s_hrndz]

How can Mother Teresa of Calcutta be a “saint” who said she wanted Muslims to be better Muslims and Hindus to be better Hindus, who venerated the tomb of the Hindu Gandhi, was a total religious indifferentist & False ecumenist??

[scopeguy]

Taylor Marshall is a sedevacantist now, but won't use the word.

[stocktonking]

With this logic, the only logical conclusion would be that the Sedevacantist position is correct.

[pdreo]

Wondering if you know about some works from Father Álvaro Calderón, like
"La Lámpara Bajo el Celemín: Cuestión Disputada Sobre La Autoridad Doctrinal Del Magisterio Eclesiástico Desde El Concilio Vaticano II" (The lamp Under the Bushel),
"Prometheus: the Religion of Man: An Essay on the Hermeneutics of the Second Vatican Council",
and the annexed study "The Problem of the Liturgical Reform" with a letter to John Paul II.

Judging by your comments on "madtrads", I would say no. Altough his works are not so known in the U.S. Traditionalism in the U.S. being Dr. Peter, Taylor Marshall, The Remnant and Catholic Family News is ridiculous.

Anyways, I hope you try reading those books I cited for understanding what you said in this video doesn't hold water.

[lostindimension]

You seem to ignore the glaring fact that John XIII and Paul VI, both popes presiding over the Council never utilized infallible teaching and instead kept it purely pastoral. There is no infallibility, or binding force keeping R&R from being logically consistent because there *is* nothing binding us to the council doctrinally. This does not mean we can just ignore the council, but it does mean it does not have the same weight as canons and decrees clearly defining and anathematizing certain positions. Likewise all popes since Vatican II speaking of doctrinal matters have utilized nothing but motu proprio's. Motu propio's being the absolute lowest form of papal magisterium, often times just being opinions or personal thoughts of a pope.

[colemanbenson]

This is only true if one holds to the overly-strict position that sedes take in saying that everything promulgated by the authorities of the Church must be infallible. Yet, this is never how the Church's infallible magisterium has operated nor been defined - documents and liturgical practices once promulgated have been abrogated before. Someone can say the documents of Vatican II seem to contain error on a matter that is not dogmatically proclaimed, because only dogmatic proclamations of ecumenical councils have the character of infallibility. Someone can also hold that the new Mass, though promulgated by legitimate authority, seems scandalous to the faith - once again, because promulgation of liturgical practices does not have the character of infallibility. The sense of the faith and tradition among the laity has a role in the Church's infallible magisterium, though it is subordinated to all other human authority within the Church. Laity have a right to point out what seems to be wrong, in faith and obedience, so that it can be either more clearly defined or corrected. I do not see how this leads someone to view the pope is not being the pope.

[lorichet]

Sorry but a false counter-church was foretold in the Book of Revelation, 2 Thessalonians, the Catholic Church Catechism, and by saints and Church-approved apparitions.

[jorgepenaloza]

Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio for the win!

:) Bergoglio is a heresiarc anti-pope.