I generally agree with him, but he has a slant contrary to Sedevacantism and Conclavism, I do some comments to correct that.
Did The Catholic Church EXECUTE Jan Hus?! (What You've NEVER Heard)
Voice of Reason | 19 Oct. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kj4FC7C1fU
1:57 OK. Pope Michael II, Bergoglio as "Francis", Odermatt as "Peter III" — I agree, only one of them is Pope, then there are two anti-popes.
3:28 Not to be confused with Roncalli, the second anti-Pope "John XXIII" ....
13:05 Correction.
There was so far a schism only between Rome and Constantinople. Like Kiev later on, Antioch and Jerusalem were in communion with both up to the Crusades. One argument from the Orthodox side you'll hear is, the Crusades spread the schism to those patriarchates.
15:20 We know in retrospect, from canonisations of Sts Bridget and Catherine of Siena, the line from Urban VI was the true line.
At the time, one man who was on both sides consecutively, St. Vincent Ferrer, admitted there were real saints on both sides. And miracles happened on both sides.
Speaking of miracles, the miracles attributed to Formosus do not mean he is a saint we venerate. Also, Sergius III confirmed the verdict against him.
18:35 At the time, cardinals could be deacons, priests or bishops, it was the clergy of Rome with suffragan bishops (out to Ostia for instance).
A man could be elected Pope without already being bishop and in such cases it happened the Cardinal Bishop of Ostia consecrated him bishop same day or soon after the day of his election.
The record longest delay for a Pope elected before becoming bishop until he became one no doubt goes to Michael I, RIP (if he needs it, or OPN). Elected in 1990, consecrated Gaudete Lord's Day in 2011/2012 Church Year.
He also holds the record of longest papacy after St. Peter, beating even Pius IX by a few months.
Thanks for noting this was created 11th C. This means, it is not de jure divino and can be set aside in an emergency, as was the case claimed by David Bawden for his emergency "conclave."
19:41 Exactly. In the first millennium it usually happened by popular vote, usually or even always involving clergy, but at times they were severely outnumbered
The Cardinals weren't created because the popular vote didn't exist, but because voters were being pushed around.
The vote about David Bawden who took the name Michael, well, that was a temporary reversal to this older situtation, in a newer one when Cardinals were pushed around by Commies, Freemasons, all sorts of Modernists.
24:04 A King of Germany was Holy Roman Emperor Elect.
He was crowned in Frankfurt as King of Germany, but if he (once in a while) was crowned as Holy Roman Emperor, that was in Rome, same as with Charlemagne.
27:57 With the then laws about heresy, wasn't the Church functioning as comparable to Coroner and then the Secular Court as Jury Voting the Penalty?
What exact leeway did the then secular court have to NOT burn him, given the legislation?
If you say sometimes heretics were condemned to prison, no, precisely not, prison for heretics were part of a still Ecclesial trial. As long as you were in prison, you were not yet delivered to the secular court. Obviously, once he was delivered to that one, he didn't walk freely in town, he was still in custody, but that custody prior to death penalty getting voted and executed was different from prison as a sentence on connexion with the Inquisition. So, you cannot say the secular court could have condemned him to prison instead.
As with Tyndale, we shouldn't focus on "was it the Church or the Secular court that pronounced death penalty" but "was the death penalty deserved, was he a heretic?"
28:39 Yes, we know that Church men as Church men did not pronounce death penalty.
The question is, was the secular court free to apply any other penalty than death penalty after such a verdict?
The Americas were not discovered, exile from all Christian lands and getting to colonise a piece of land where no Catholics were around to be seduced was not an option.
Theoretically, exile would as such be an option, but exile to other Christian countries had in practise ceased to be that. It was seen as unsolidaric. Later on, in the Reformation era, it would again be an option, Servetus was allowed to escape the Spanish Inquisition, to seek refuge with Calvin, and then it was Calvin who had him burned on the stake for denying the Holy Trinity.
30:39 St. Augustine was not generally against the death penalty, he was against the death penalty for ecclesial offenses (something which did happen, for instance with Priscillianists, and partly because some heretics, both Priscillianists and Circumcellions were also somewhat violent anarchists).
In City of God he is making a reflection on the miseries of this life, and part of it is, judges are forced to convict people to death over legally binding evidence, when they may in fact not be guilty, and yet this is unavoidable.
31:03 With "the other means that we have today" ... like forensic psychiatry?
That's more cruel than death penalty and more likely to push a Christian to despair and damnation.
Look what it has done to the semi-Christian more or less faith that Britney Spears once had.
She is trapped in bitterness, has lost "all trace of Christian faith" (not really, but she is an atheist), it is psychiatry that did it. Partly to help her parents dominate her and exploit her pretty large incomes.
Look at Amy Winehouse. She was forced more or less into a rehab. She tried to get out and was certainly forced back at gun point. She came out, she took a dose of vodka that would have left her unconscious, but not killed her, back before the rehab. BUT, the rehab had decreased her tolerance, so that dose killed her. Again, something similar to psychiatry did it.
Look at Susana Maiolo. Some Sedevacantist had fun at the fact she was trying to floor Ratzinger, I as a Trad (attending SSPX) certainly had fun at her actually flooring Etchegaray, a known Modernist. But normally she shouldn't have done such a thing. Well, I would have understood her, if it had been about protesting about the clergy that had not helped her against 17 months of internment in psychiatry. Unfortunately, when Gänsewein spoke to her, if he didn't censor a part, all she had to say was repeating a bad message from or shared by Sarah Silverman about the Church's riches or helping the poor. And I more than half suspect psychiatry pushed her to saying that instead of a perfectly understandable distress at the power abuses of psychiatry.
If my mother refrained from converting, on hearing this from the change in the catechism (I think it was earlier than previous year, when she died), I cannot consider that as a failure to convert. One doesn't convert to what amounts to a harlot of psychiatry. She was not allowed access to SSPX let alone Pope Michael I's heirs (she died prior to the election of Michael II).
The Council of Meaux is cited in Michael McCormick. "Origins of the European Economy, subtitled Communications and Commerce AD 300 - 900."
It specifically bans selling slaves to the Infidels. Psychiatry very often is infidels, so, selling people to Psychiatry is going against the decrees of that council. It was a local council, and if Bergoglio were Pope, he would obviously be above it, but the fact that he obviously endorses Psychiatry (like his modernist Anglican erstwhile friend Tony Palmer, I presume) is one of the reasons (even if Michael I hadn't been Pope) that his election was invalid.
31:39 Whatever the Church wanted in connexion with Martin Luther, once he was condemned as a heretic, if he was, the options would have been handing over to Secular Authorities or what happened, or hidden by a corrupt lord. Confer Wartburg.
Now, in 1521, he was excommunicated. He was excommunicated for scism (yes, the bull omitted the Greek spelling schisma) and for new and false doctrines. However, the ones that he had been cited to abjure in Exsurge Domine were not yet the Lutheran heresies, it was more a kind of severe Jansenism (before Baius, Jansenius and Quesnel). So, at least from the papacy, in 1521 he was not yet a condemned heretic.
However, when it comes to heresy, the Diet of Worms was actually a Secular court, a kind of feudal assembly. Church men were there, but as experts, not as judges.
Luther refused to recant his writings. He is sometimes also quoted as saying: "Here I stand. I can do no other". Recent scholars consider the evidence for these words to be unreliable since they were inserted before "May God help me" only in later versions of the speech and not recorded in witness accounts of the proceedings.[82] However, Mullett suggests that given his nature, "we are free to believe that Luther would tend to select the more dramatic form of words."[80]
Over the next five days, private conferences were held to determine Luther's fate. The emperor presented the final draft of the Edict of Worms on 25 May 1521, declaring Luther an outlaw, banning his literature, and requiring his arrest: "We want him to be apprehended and punished as a notorious heretic."[83] It also made it a crime for anyone in Germany to give Luther food or shelter. It permitted anyone to kill Luther without legal consequence.
That's from wiki. Notice, he was at this point not a heretic from the Church, but an outlaw from the state (also a heretic from the state, probably without being judged as such by the Church).
The Edict of Worms was a decree issued on 25 May 1521 by Emperor Charles V. Its contents proscribed Luther's writings, declaring him a heretic and an enemy of the state, even permitting anyone to kill Luther without legal consequence; the imperial ban. Though it was never enforced, (the movement for reform and protection from Protestant supporters acted in his favour) Roman Catholic rulers sought to suppress Luther and his followers, and Luther's travels were restricted for the rest of his life.
It was later on, at Wartburg, that he actually became what we now know as a Lutheran heretic. Up to this point, he had basically been a Jansenist.
35:07 In Geneva, Calvin was not just Church leader, but also Civil Authority, much like the Pope in the Papal States.
The following video is by his friend Mike:
A question for all Catholics (response to Voice of Reason)
True Christian | 29 July 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCvXdfv7bFc
2:53 As far as I can see, Alex misrepresents what Clemente Vincente said, when claiming to be "Gregorio XVII" ...
I'm an ex-Palmarian, and it was Sts. Peter and Paul who supposedly had elected him.
As to episcopal consecreation, he got that from Bishop Thuc, he didn't claim to be consecrated by Christ Himself, through a vision.
After him there is now Odermatt claiming to be Peter III.
All new Papal claimants of Palmar de Troya after this have been elected by a normal process of Palmarian "cardinals" except "Gregorio XVII" had no authority to name any.
The reasons why I reject Palmar de Troya now is, a) I adher to Pope Michael I and his now successor Michael II, and b) I rejected "Gregorio XVII" when I got news that his catechism says "the Antichrist sees the world from the Fourth Dimension, the Most Pure Virgin from the Eighth" ... what's wrong with that? Well, the world has three dimensions, to hint at the Blessed Trinity. "Eight Dimensions" is modernist nonsense. Whatever spoke that to "Gregorio XVII" cannot have been God or someone in Heaven.
34:53 Calvin burned Miguel Serveto, or Michael Servetus.
Not only that, but in 1612, the English law from 1401 "de heretico comburendo" (voted by Parliament and Ratified by King) was applied against two Anabaptists. That was the year after King James I of England issued the "Authorised Version"
3:01 "it only has 1500 people" is arguably true, but irrelevant.
The Catholic Church can be reduced to as few as one bishop. That is all it takes at any given moment for Jesus to have kept the promise in Matthew 28:16--20.
At a certain time, how many of the 120 in the Upper Room coincided with the 500 whom Jesus had appeared to? So many less than 620 (down to 500) + all the guys that were neither in the Upper Room nor among the 500.
3:46 Technically, those people, whether Sedevacantist or Conclavist or Palmarian are at least as far from the Church of Alex, as the Rome and Avignon obediences in 1400 were from each other.
Do 3:58 Catholics believe that it's actually 4:01 impossible for anything to infiltrate 4:03 your Church and therefore as long as 4:06 it's within my Church we're good?
Per Matthew 28:16—20 and per Matthew 16:18 b (not the part that you disagree about who or what is the rock, but what follows), this is NOT possible for the entire Catholic Church.
It already had happened, by the Council of Trent, in countries like England or Sweden. It will at least at some time have happened over most of the Catholic Church, but, as said not all of it.
4:17 Since Scripture is Geocentric, it condemns modern cosmology, therefore more than Three Dimensions, if not directly, at least in its source.
That's how I discovered 14 months into being Palmarian that Palmar de Troya was not the Catholic Church. Note, I do not say "from Scripture Alone" there were also decrees against Heliocentrism, most famously in 1633.
6:12 Length of time of when they arrived ...
That really is important. There was an Avignon Papacy that started in 1309, so, if you wanted to say "they arrived in 1309, not in 33" that's not valid, since it's the place where actual Popes were in this period.
BUT in 1376 or 1377, there really is an important question of whether it was the Avignon or Rome claimants that arrived that year. When you have two popes, one is a false one.
Now, Alex is wrong in pretending it always was clear to everyone which of the papacies in 1378 went back to St. Peter and which had just started.
So, for 1978, the question is, was Clemente Vincente or Albino Luciani the actual intruder? Or were both? And later, same year, was Clement Vincente or Karol Wojtyla the actual intruder, or were both?
I would now say both were so, real Catholics were at this time (1978) divided into:
- Sedevacantist
- Recognise and Resist
- people obeying good orders and ignoring bad ones from false Vatican II Popes. Or the false ones in Palmar and in Saint-Jovite.
And I mean ignoring as genuinely ignoring, not as ignoring on purpose. If they were ignoring on purpose, that falls under Recognise and Resist. It can also involve genuinely ignoring what the real and historic rule of the Catholic Church is, so that they innocently obey orders that are not innocent.
From 1990, real Catholics were either:
- in Communion with Michael I (as yet not consecrated bishop)
- or belonging to other groups of real Catholic souls, misplaced such, but genuine such.
Between 1990 and 2011 the order of Bishops were one elected and not yet consecrated one, and some consecrated ones in material schism (Pope Michael I confirmed both Lefebvre lines and Thuc lines are valid, and so are obviously some Old Catholic ones as well as the Duarte Costa one -- the source he eventually got consecrated through.
Please note, there is no similar doubt on who was the newcomer in the Reformation at Wittenberg after the Wartburg period. What Luther was doing in 1525, no man, not even Hussites, had been doing Church like that, for at least several centuries. There are optimistic Protestant scholars who claim it reflects what the Early Church did, but that's a nono, the real Church or any real and binding doctrine of it cannot be suspended while error rules in its place, that's against Matthew 28.
6:47 Joseph Smith and Mohammed are wrong, precisely for the same reason that Luther and Calvin somewhat more discretly are wrong, they contradict Matthew 28.
Now, if you were a believer in Trail of Blood, in Ruckman, you would agree with Matthew 28 in principle, but you would apply it in a totally unrealistic way.
A Protestant scholar in 1600 claiming Albigensians were Protestants or a Protestant scholar in the 2000's claiming Albigensians were a monastic order, well, that's nonsense. You are FORTUNATELY not successors of Albigensians, and similarily, Catholicism is not successor to Nimrod's Babylon, as a certain Hislop wanted to imagine. Basically all he affirmed about Babylon was a calque on Roman Catholicism, in order to misattribute the origin of Roman Catholicism. Just so, Ruckman misattributes the succession of the early Church up to this day.
By the way, Clemente Vincente's revelation does not contradict Matthew 28. Indeed, according to it, within a few hours of one Pope dying, another one was already elected.
The claim is false, but it takes more than just Matthew 28 to disprove it.
7:02 Clemente Vincente did not say the papacy fell apart, but that "Paul VI" was bullied by infiltrators that Antipope Roncalli had introduced after his false election.
Theologically, if someone is truly elected and truly accepts, he is Pope, and if he steps down under duress, his abdication is not valid. This means, if Siri was elected and accepted and then forced to back down under a threat of Communist persecution (and it's obvious Commies did want things to change after Pius XII), that automatically means an ensuing election of Roncalli was invalid.
Again, if Roncalli had uttered heresy prior to his supposed election, that also disqualifies his supposed election, even if "white smoke, grey smoke, white smoke" didn't happen.
The ONLY ground a Vatican II-ist can take, theologically, is, disproving the claims of "white smoke, grey smoke, white smoke" as a false rumour and analyse the utterances of the Vatican II-Popes, prior to or after elections or supposed such in the light of Pre-Conciliar, and ideally not just 1950's, theology and show continuity.
7:43 St. Augustin acted like a Vatican II-ist would be acting if in relation to Palmar de Troya or Pope Michael II, they would say:
"I must not cite Vatican II against you or CCC, or encyclicals of John Paul II, and you must not cite the Palmarian Catechism or decisions by Pope Michael or his book previous to election _Will the Catholic Church Survive the Twentieth Century, but we must look to common ground, Scripture, tradition, fathers, scholastics, Trent, Vatican I, popes up to 1958 (or 1950)" ...
The point was not to say Nicaea was not owner of the allegiance of all Christians, or that only Scripture was, the point was to avoid disputing about what authorities one could accept ... and between Catholics and Donatists, there was apparently only Scripture. But as the schism was fairly recent, there was also a very long common ground in how to read Scripture. This means, they really could expect to reach at least partial agreements from Scripture.
The Protestants cannot really take this to the table, since, even in 1520's, they initiated a departure from how they themselves had previously as Catholics or near Catholic schismatics, read Scripture, and because such departures have since then accumulated.
That a Protestant, whether yourself or Gavin Ortlund, should appeal to Fathers for Sola Scriptura, is pretty ironic. But you at least had the candour to read more of the St. Augustine quote and give the relevant context showing that he was not in fact teaching Sola Scriptura.
8:00 Yes, it seems Donatists had disagreed with Nicaea, so the only common ground was precisely Scriptures, arguably the full 73 book canon.
Between a Vatican II-er, myself, a Palmarian, the common ground would definitely go as far on as Vatican I (one can say Vatican I, even if one counts Vatican II as an anti-Council, just as St. Thomas said "Ephesus I" about the canonic council, while conceding that "Ephesus II" was a Robber Synod). It would also include at least selected parts of Papal statements between 1870 and 1950 (or 58).
8:56 St. Augustine was using rhetoric, he was not saying the verba ipsissima of the Shepherd were to be used to generally judge traditions, he was saying they should then and there judge a divergence between different traditions.
Can you prove from Scripture alone that it was evil to burn heretics? No, you can't.
You use a Protestant tradition about what Jesus asked of the Apostles personally. But for Leo X and Charles V, Luther was not agressing Pope Leo X, he was agressing Holy Scripture.
No comments:
Post a Comment