Did Sean Hiller Give a Reason Why Wojtyla Was Not Pope?

Can You Still Call Yourself Catholic If You Reject Church Teaching
Sean Hiller | 14 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmMKbEFYC3Q

Did Karol Wojtyla in 1992, both Galileo speech and CCC with its §283 reject Church teaching?

Icy Freez

@TheHockey991

How so?

My answer

was apparently removed. It referred to Genesis 5 and 11 and to Trent Session IV.

My point being that Genesis 5 and 11 need to be understood in the sense that the Church "hath held and now holdeth" ... not just one it recently changed to.

It could also have just been hidden bc it linked to the Bible chapters.

Paul Mualdeave

@paulmualdeave5063

Who would this be?

Please explain to me the Acts to Constantinople IV canon 21. It applies to your question.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@paulmualdeave5063 It kind of doesn't:

If, then, any ruler or secular authority tries to expel the aforesaid pope of the apostolic see, or any of the other patriarchs, let him be anathema.

It speaks of violent removal.

It doesn't speak of concluding in conscience and telling other people that such and such a person is not Pope.

Furthermore, if a universal synod is held and any question or controversy arises about the holy church of Rome, it should make inquiries with proper reverence and respect about the question raised and should find a profitable solution; it must on no account pronounce sentence rashly against the supreme pontiffs of old Rome.

This presupposes we actually have one.

You are aware that the Synod of Sutri could conceivably fall under this ban, and that Caerularius pretended Constantinople had for forty years omitted the Popes of Rome from the diptychs?

That's because after Sutri, a man became Pope who wouldn't have been, unless the secular ruler had (with soldiers) removed the previous claimant.

No, I don't think Constantinople IV, canon 21 can be used against either Sedevacantism or Conclavism.

Note also "false" in the following passage:

Whoever shows such great arrogance and audacity, after the manner of Photius and Dioscorus, and makes false accusations in writing or speech against the see of Peter, the chief of the apostles, let him receive a punishment equal to theirs.

Photius had falsely pretended the Pope was overstepping the territorial limits of his jurisdiction in Bulgaria.

Overall, it is possible that canon 21 is a disciplinary canon, and can be changed. Therefore doesn't decide a doctrinal question.

All the parties on Constantinople IV, Patriarch Nicholas (the one who had been deposed), Photius (who had replaced him), the Popes, the bishops assembled, were Young Earth Creationists, who held that Adam had been created directly by God, with no nearly human precursors, and also with no delay after Adam to Christ of more than some thousands of years (4 to 5 and a half, depending on text choice and other interpretative choices).

Now, the Caesaro-Papist boogey-man, so to speak, before Constantinople IV, was a secular power stepping in and violently replacing an ecclesial dignitary with an usurper.

Before Trent, we have a somewhat different scenario. Cranmer wasn't an usurper. But he did go against what his predecessors had taught.

So, Trent spoke out against not obeying the Church, on the explicit condition that it sticks to its prior teachings. A Pope may decide between two competing theories, a Pope may make binding what was before just recommended, but he cannot dissolve the teaching of previous centuries back to Christ. And before.