It took a Dominican. Thank you Father for making this very clear. I pray that both the Avrille Dominican friars & nuns make a foundation here in the US.

@tau7260

3 күн бұрын

I concur with you on both counts and please, God.

PRAY, PRAY, PRAY FOR THE TRUE CATHOLIC CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST !!!

It seems to me that Bergoglio has already been admonished, and not only two times. What cardinals, bishops and priests (also laity) have written concerning any heresies, has also already been made known. So that aspect has been fulfilled. The next step would be to contact all the bishops of the world asking them to call a council to depose Bergoglio before the church is entirely destroyed. Although Bergoglio has many followers within his counterfeit, One World Religion Church, it could be possible that a council is called with the backing of some influential persons. Think of the African nations which refuse his gay blessings and other things The council would not have to be in Rome, would it? The next question would be: what makes a council legitimate? Are people serious enough to undertake such matters? A legitimate council would prohibit any kind of schism.

" Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [i.e. antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: "He would not be able to retain the episcopate [i.e. of Rome], and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church." " St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice

i love father albert 🤍

Outstanding synthesis!! Bravo! Thank you!

A distinction must be made between deposing (really just evicting) an anti-pope who has always been an anti-pope, and deposing an anti-pope who is fresh off the orthodoxy train.

The Synod of Sutri, held in 1046, was convened by Emperor Henry III to address the crisis in the papacy caused by the presence of multiple claimants to the papal throne. At this time, there were three individuals claiming to be pope: Pope Benedict IX (Theophylactus of Tusculum): He had been pope three times in his life, most recently from 1032 to 1044. He was known for his scandalous behavior and had sold the papacy to his godfather, John Gratian, who became Gregory VI. Pope Gregory VI (John Gratian): He became pope by purchasing the office from Benedict IX in 1045. Though his intentions were arguably good, the act of simony (buying and selling of church offices) was considered a grave sin. Pope Sylvester III (John of Sabina): He had been elected pope in January 1045, during a brief period when Benedict IX was forced out of Rome. Benedict IX soon returned, however, and deposed Sylvester III. Outcome of the Synod of Sutri The Synod of Sutri, led by Emperor Henry III, sought to resolve the conflict by deposing all three claimants: Benedict IX was declared deposed, primarily due to his scandalous life and previous abdications. Sylvester III was deposed and ordered to return to his original position as Bishop of Sabina. Gregory VI was forced to resign due to the circumstances of his election (simony). Following the deposition of these three popes, the synod paved the way for the election of a new pope. On December 24, 1046, Pope Clement II (Suidger of Bamberg) was elected as the new pope. His election was influenced by Henry III, who sought to restore order and integrity to the papacy.

@bobtosi9346

3 күн бұрын

How did you find this information?

@CKSLAFE

3 күн бұрын

@@bobtosi9346 Internet, is up to you to confirm it, but I have also heard about it from other reliable sources. Look at this information as just a hint. I have no authority nor I can attest the veracity of each statement.

@dariaschooler

3 күн бұрын

Back when the leaders of nations cared about the faith.

Bergoglio is not the Pope, NOT because of his heresies etc, he's NOT Pope because is been elected while Pope Benedict was still alive and never resigned or abdicated. He rather declared that as at 1st March 2013 he shall be placed in the state where he won't be able to discharge his office. Canon 332.2 for a Pope to validly resign he MUST resign his munus (the Office or the "to be a Pope") he rather resigned from the ministry of Pope (to act). Which Automatically placed him in "Impedeed See). Pope Benedict has BEEN Pope until his death. The REAL catholic Chutch -NOT Bergoglio's fake church- is now in the state of "Vacant See".

@bobtosi9346

3 күн бұрын

Are you a lawyer? This is actually a very interesting observation. It does make sense but the sedevacantist position just still seems untenable.

@loulasher

3 күн бұрын

Exactly! All the "no one can judge the holy see" stuff, that we see every time the question is raised, is inapplicable.

@lincas2461

2 күн бұрын

@paolodanesi3433, You are correct 100%.

I'm not sure why we can't just say that we follow the pope except where he depart from tradition (i.e., the deposit of faith) to which nothing has been added or taken away at least since Vatican II.

@patriciagrenier9082

3 күн бұрын

Vatican 2 was a big mistake. Our Lady of Fatima tried to prevent it by telling Sr Lucia the last part of the secret, the explanation of the vision, to reveal it by 1950, The time j23 was dreaming up his vat2. He dismissed the children as false, just kids. And the message not relevant. This Church lacks in following Jesus. And is poisoned by Freemasons for over 150 yrs. The N O was prepared by one Read: MURDER IN THE 33rd DEGREE. True and shows the disastrous effects now.

29:40 sqq. -- Whether or not a Pope can be deposed according to Suárez was fully analysed by Francesco Spanedda in ‘L’ecclesiologia di Francesco Suárez’ (1937). A pope who becomes a heretic or an apostate or a schismatic and is incorrigible or relapsing or contumacious cannot be judged by any court ("Prima Sedes a nemine iudicatur" = "The First See is judged by no one"); but he can and must be declared unworthy of the Pontificate and deposed by the Church, more specifically, by the Bishops of the whole world, gathered in a council or synod(s) (page 83). In Suárez, "sententia" does not mean "(court) ruling", but "(solemn) statement": cf. his 'Tractatus de Fide', disp. 10, sec. 16, n. 6 (in: Opera omnia, ed. Vivès, t. 12, p. 317.)

Which church is gonna depose him? The same church that elected him in the first place? 🤔

@loulasher

3 күн бұрын

That's the church that read Benedict's declaration as a resignation. Dr Mazza shows it wasn't. It requires a lot of humility to say "oops. We misread that document."

@AlexanderLayko

3 күн бұрын

@@loulasher Once again. Nobody "made" the cardinals write down Jorge Bergoglio's name. Nobody "made" Joseph Ratzinger resign. Also "Benedict XVI" was part of the same spirit of Vatican II Church. There was nothing "trad" about him.

@loulasher

3 күн бұрын

@@AlexanderLayko @AlexanderLayko what's with the "once again"? I'm not sure what that references. Other than that, I agree with you but see some of those as seperate issues. None of those need to be true, well Benedict "resigning" I guess has to (including the quote marks), for the conclave to be wrongly convened. But, you're making a fully sede argument. Would you say any of the people who elected Bergolio, or Ratzinger, are actual Cardinals? If not, then: what are the actual Bishops (Sanborn, etc) doing? They all want to be united under a pope, right? How is this mess not the perfect opportunity to point out that 1) the whole thing is broken; 2) that it's designed be, V2 if that is taken seriously and not as a sad artifact from and typical of the 60s, the ape of the church and not the Church; 3) all the sub-routines and excess code, or all the blackboards full of epicycles, are to be earased like V2 was a mistake or like it cancelled itself out? The apostles did not just wait for the 2nd coming. They acknowledged Peter. They appointed Judas' replacement. They accepted Paul. They continued those processes. What are we/they/them/anyone doing?

Father, can you please do a video on the, Sutri Initiative?

This question has to be posed to the Conference of Catholic Bishops in all countries, including the US / Canada Conference of Catholic Bishops, and we would like to listen to their response. we do not want to hear from The Fatima Center only.

AVE MARIA AMEN

Is it true that the Pope has banned the Latin Mass?

@TheFatimaCenter

3 күн бұрын

Thank you for your question. It is rumored that something of that nature will be attempted on July 16th. God bless you. rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2024/06/urgent-urgent-growing-rumors-of-final.html#more

Yes he is Pope.

BENEDICT 9 was deposed by the S. council.

@karenmunch4316

3 күн бұрын

I'm sorry, which council?

@CKSLAFE

3 күн бұрын

@@karenmunch4316 Sutri

@CKSLAFE

3 күн бұрын

@@karenmunch4316 The Synod of Sutri, held in 1046, was convened by Emperor Henry III to address the crisis in the papacy caused by the presence of multiple claimants to the papal throne. At this time, there were three individuals claiming to be pope: Pope Benedict IX (Theophylactus of Tusculum): He had been pope three times in his life, most recently from 1032 to 1044. He was known for his scandalous behavior and had sold the papacy to his godfather, John Gratian, who became Gregory VI. Pope Gregory VI (John Gratian): He became pope by purchasing the office from Benedict IX in 1045. Though his intentions were arguably good, the act of simony (buying and selling of church offices) was considered a grave sin. Pope Sylvester III (John of Sabina): He had been elected pope in January 1045, during a brief period when Benedict IX was forced out of Rome. Benedict IX soon returned, however, and deposed Sylvester III. Outcome of the Synod of Sutri The Synod of Sutri, led by Emperor Henry III, sought to resolve the conflict by deposing all three claimants: Benedict IX was declared deposed, primarily due to his scandalous life and previous abdications. Sylvester III was deposed and ordered to return to his original position as Bishop of Sabina. Gregory VI was forced to resign due to the circumstances of his election (simony). Following the deposition of these three popes, the synod paved the way for the election of a new pope. On December 24, 1046, Pope Clement II (Suidger of Bamberg) was elected as the new pope. His election was influenced by Henry III, who sought to restore order and integrity to the papacy.

Before the Synod of Sutri in 1046, determining who was the legitimate pope according to canonical law is complex due to the tumultuous and irregular circumstances surrounding the papacy. Here's a summary of the situation: Pope Benedict IX (Theophylactus of Tusculum): He was pope three times, first from 1032 to 1044. He was forced out in 1044 but reclaimed the papacy later in 1045. Pope Sylvester III (John of Sabina): Elected in January 1045, during a period when Benedict IX was ousted. His papacy was brief, as Benedict IX returned and deposed him later that year. Pope Gregory VI (John Gratian): He became pope by purchasing the papacy from Benedict IX in May 1045. This act of simony (the buying and selling of ecclesiastical offices) tainted his legitimacy. Canonical Legitimacy Based on strict canonical law: Benedict IX was the legitimate pope until his first abdication in 1044. However, his subsequent return and abdication again complicate his legitimacy. Sylvester III's election was seen as irregular since it happened during Benedict IX's ousting, making his claim disputable. Gregory VI's election was tainted by simony, which was against church laws. Given these circumstances: Sylvester III's claim could be considered the weakest due to his brief and contested election. Benedict IX technically remained pope until he sold the papacy to Gregory VI. Gregory VI's election, despite the simony, was accepted at the time because it was arranged by the previous pope, Benedict IX. Conclusion Before the Synod of Sutri, Pope Gregory VI was generally recognized as the sitting pope, despite the problematic nature of his election. His acceptance by many in Rome and his active role in the church until the synod further support his de facto position as pope prior to the council's decision.

In other words, it's complicated.

@loulasher

3 күн бұрын

It's not in this case because the question is moot. Dr Mazza shows the declaratio was not a proper legally valid resignation.

@philcortens5214

3 күн бұрын

@@loulasher Right. Did Fr. Kallio quote him? I noticed a commentator below made that point.

@loulasher

3 күн бұрын

​@@philcortens5214 he doesn't address Dr Mazza's idea, nor the very similar idea of a guy in Italy-- I think that idea is called "the Ratzinger Code". Father Kallio lays out arguments around what to do is a pope is a heretic. This covers arguments made by Father Altman. I hope his arguments count as a formal declaration of heresy, of whuch 2 are needed if I heard Father Kallio correctly. But AB Vigano's argument is that there was no intention on Bergolio's part to be faithful to the office and thus didn't accept the office legitimately. His argument is analogous to saying a marriage between a gold-digger who will not give up her boyfriends and will do nothing a wife should do, to a 80 year old guy who wants a beautiful young woman because he's too old to drive the Porsche, was not a validly accepted marriage (by either of them). Vigano is saying, I think, that Bergolio was never pope. Proving or enforcing Vigano's accusations about Bergolio's legitimacy might be similar to what Father lays out here (as with Father Altman's accusations). Dr Mazza is, and the guy in Italy is as well but with slightly differeny suppositions about motivation, saying that the seat was not vacant when then elected him. None of what Father K is saying applies to that. The Cardinals will have to admit they didn't really read or understand Benedict's declaration. I could easily see this, an unwillingness to address that issue honestly, being the birth of, or a coming of age party for, the ape of the church even if the moment of conception was V2 or the scrapping of the initial agenda of it.

The problem with some "Trads" engaging in a kind of "popesplaining" is the deficient argument of the Pope cannot teach heresy "ex cathedra" but seems to believe a True Pope could teach heresy in his ordinary universal magisterial teaching i.e. Encyclicals, Apostolic Exhortations and Papal Audiences etc. This is nonsense to suggest of course but it is exactly what they are saying and as such make Papal infallibility a curiosity that rarely happens and suggests the Principle of Unity in the Church is not to be trusted unless speaking under these very narrow conditions. A lot of mental gymnastics just to try to cope with the cognitive dissonance caused by the desire to be faithful to the office of the Papacy and allegiance to a Public manifest formal heretic.

@Janusz-um5cv

2 күн бұрын

"popesplaining" lol

@john_scott

Күн бұрын

@ACatholicDad The solution to what you have presented as seemingly contradictory is very simple and it actually is contained in your own comment. You would agree that a person can speak their own mind and output an error from their own mouth without understanding, wouldn't you? Anybody, for example, can make a simple mistake, can't we all? If, say, a pope is in the act of declaring a dogma in a public speech, but is making a simple mistake twisting one word that actually changed the sense of the sentence, without realising it, does it mean that a pope has just declared a false dogma? No, it means that he has made a private mistake and obviously he needs to make a correction and repeat the correct formula for it to become a valid declaration. But it is possible for even a pope to make a private mistake like that. What is also possible for a pope, as for anybody else, is to say things that are essentially not true but without properly realising that they are not true, instead maybe even being strongly convinced that they are true. This is a private error, which anybody can make, including a pope. Also in doctrinal domain. A pope is able to materially (in matter) teach a doctrinal error, without realising that what he actually teaches is untrue and possibly very dangerous. The papal office does not make a person holding the office infallible in private, but only that what is correctly stated by a pope by the power of his office under certain specific conditions is infallible. Our Lord, by saying to Peter that his (Peter's) faith is not going to be in deficit, does not mean Peter's private own faith that he (Peter) privately professed. What Our Lord means is that what is being professed by the power of the Holy Office in matters of faith and morals is without deficit. Therefore a pope can materially (meaning without proper form, but only in content) teach even heretical statements. This is called 'material heresy'. But then he needs to be approached and corrected and has a duty before God to correct his own false statements and/or behaviour. Just like St. Peter changed his ways after having been admonished by St. Paul. Peter has not lost his papal office by the fact that he privately made a dangerous mistake by behaving in a certain way, dangerous to the faith of the faithful. Also, St. Paul has not made St. Peter lost his office simply by admonishing and correcting Peter's actions. Paul did not act as a judge or jury, the act of admonishing was canonical but extrajudicial in nature, so a sitting pope has not been judged by Paul, but only canonically corrected.

@larrytischler570

11 сағат бұрын

It seems to me that your description of Trads is wrong since you jump over the true arguments against Cardinal Bergolio and what has been asserted by Saints and Church Doctors concerning changing the Church not follow the teachings of Jesus.

@Lcoch2482

11 сағат бұрын

@@larrytischler570 perhaps you don't understand the use of quotation marks . Also nothing I said is incorrect but feel free to prove me wrong in a logically consistent way. Since you fail to understand I'm not stating the actual Traditional Catholic position but the position of those who claim to be Traditional Catholic and yet purpose the very argument I reiterated.

@Lcoch2482

11 сағат бұрын

@@john_scott in short no because my argument isn't based on mere error or material heresy but that the indicia of public manifest formal heresy is in the reems of evidence by this point but so called "Trads" refuse to acknowledge the 400 pound Bergoglian Ape in the room.

These theologians' positions, while interesting, especially in the way they concur as Fr. Kallio so patiently explains, are not pertinent to the case of Jorge Bergoglio. The problem with Bergoglio is that he claimed possession of the Sancta Sede when Pope Benedict has not relinquished it. In his Declaratio Benedict XVI clearly declared, (and this was published in the Latin version) on the Vatican website) that he was only renouncing the MINISTERIUM. Canon Law clearly states that a pope does not resign unless he renounce the MUNUS. This, Pope Benedict DID NOT DO. Go to the Vatican website and read it for yourselves. Therefore, Pope Benedict's Declaratio was not a proper relinquishment of the Papal Munus, whatever his reasoning, or even his own belief. Therefore the conclave which elected Jorge Bergoglio was illegitimate. Therefore Jorge Bergoglio cannot possibly be recognised as 'pope.' Some people muddy the waters by saying that 'Ministerium' and 'Munus ' can and have been used interchangeably. This may indeed be the case, but the Law still states categorically that the word MUNUS must be used in a declaration of abdication. In other words, the election of Jorge Bergoglio to the position of pope was executed on a FALSE BASE PREMISE. The false base premise was that Benedict has resigned the papacy, when he hadn't. This is the nettle that needs to be grasped by everyone, and interrogated by theologians and Canon Lawyers. Let's get the basics right!

@john_scott

Күн бұрын

Please, stop this unlearned nonsense, Teresa. The office of Peter is not divisible, it can be held by only one person at a time. It is not possible to divide it into 'munus' and 'ministerium'. There cannot be a passive pope and an active pope. Therefore it is not possible for a pope, one person, to resign from 'ministerium' only, but to somehow retain 'munus'. And to give away an unspecified unwanted 'ministerium' to another 'bishop in white'. Perhaps you need to find a photo or a video where Benedict embraces Francis, and ask yourself a question: what am I looking at? A 'true pope' embracing an antipope? A 'munus pope' embracing a 'ministerium pope'? The Catholic doctrine is very clear about the papacy: only one office held by only one person. Not one 'pope' holding 'munus' separate from another 'pope' holding only 'ministerium'. These unlearned speculations based on unlearned private opinions need to stop.

Why would anyone want to depose Pope Francis, he has been horribly misquoted and misrepresented. Agree or disagree with his alleged words (misquotes) To assert he isn’t the pope is ridiculous and schismatic. This recent string if schismatic rad trad videos is sad. Unsubscribe.

@ryanscottlogan8459

3 күн бұрын

Francis is a heretic.

@senghtan

3 күн бұрын

@@ryanscottlogan8459 that's for all the Conference of Catholic Bishops in all countries to confer and make an evaluation, not you.

@peace-and-quiet

3 күн бұрын

​@senghtan Yes, because we all know that ALL bishops are stand-up guys. 🙄 Get you head out of the sand.

@senghtan

3 күн бұрын

@@peace-and-quiet [a] ALL bishops from all the countries of each Catholic Conference of Catholic Bishops are stand-up guys, including the ones in your diocese? each appointment of the priest has to go through prayers, proper screening & a suitable period of time, depending on the candidate. the same goes for the Bishop --- we have watched ordination masses --- have you? [b] you are not in the position to make the statement regarding ALL bishops; including "we all know..." --- speaking in behalf of every one.

@edmondironside240

3 күн бұрын

@@ryanscottlogan8459he isn’t…