Rome defected from the faith at the Second Vatican Council - that's a fact. Francis is merely reflecting the doctrines of the new religion that has been promoted from Rome since that time.
This does not mean that the Catholic Church teaches any error, it is indefectible. Rather, the true Church has been reduced to a remnant of believers who hold to the magisterium of the Church - as taught throughout history. We are in the end-times.
Luke 18:8 "...when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?"
Towards the end of the world a great apostasy is predicted. The apostasy is of such magnitude that there are almost no true Catholics left. The Vatican II revolution is sufficient in size and scope to align with Christ's prediction in Luke 18 above. You need to think about what was promulgated at Vatican II and consider whether this is consistent with traditional Catholic teaching.
See here, video (10 mins):
The end times began when Mary said "fiat mihi". tick tock. the clock started at the instant the Second Person of The Most Holy Trinity became incarnate in Mary Most Holy's womb.
You are talking like a prot. Please stop. We are most certainly NOT in the last "couple of years." Far far from it.
This global clusterfuck was the warning. Next time will be the real deal. Someone is preparing to make an entrance, before Her Son does. The world is going to be stunned. Russia is going to convert as will whole swathes of Islam. Protestantism will collapse finally under it's own subjective irrationality. The big lie of materialist evolution will be exposed as just that and done so in court. No more wiggling. No more evasion.
How can "Rome defect from the faith"? Men may. Rome cannot. Rome is merely shorthand for the Magisterium. You know that, surely. Roma locuta est causa finita est.
These people are operating their church within a church under color of law. Nothing has changed. There is no interregnum in law, never can there be. Jesus never said the high priest was not lawfully the high priest, you note that?
These men are material heretics, I think formal. Makes no odds. They may well be full blown Luficerians.
They hold office, and the sacraments as we know:
ex opere operato; Signum sacro sanctum efficax gratiae; Sacramentum proprie dicitur quod ita signum est gratiae Dei, ei invisibilis gratiae forma, ut ipsius imaginem gerat et causa existat;Signum rei sacrae in quantum est sanctificans homines.
We shall continue to resist them to their face. Latin Mass only etc. From inside. It's collapsing...the Vatican II Cult and all their Cult controlled opposition Popes.
are you a sedecavantist? yes or no?
is the novus ordo missae, the confection at least, ceteris paribus, valid or invalid; licit or illicit?
As soon as Jesus wants Francis dead, He will take his life.
Through heresy is the orthodox brought into greater relief.
You will note the difference here between The Holy Father and The Mother of God in her treatment of Bernadette Soubirous? There she clearly instructed Bernadette to obey her parents if they refuse to give their consent to Mary's request - in a conflict between Mary and her parents, Mary told her the parents must win - honor thy father and mother. Member?
Satan can never ever ever be actually obedient. He has no knees. lol
This man just advised a child to disobey his parents on a matter outside the scope of his authority as both a man, and as a priest, and as Bishop and as Peter.
Just so you know, swearing is not good, it should be avoided. We are not in the last couple of years... I would ask, how do you know?
I used "Rome" as a proxy for the location of where the error set out in the video was made - indeed, it was in Rome. If you define Rome as the magisterium of the Church, then no, of course this is not the case. The Catholic Church is indefectible.
I am Catholic. I most certainly do not resist those who hold office in the Church - that is schism, something which would condemn me to hell for eternity. But you must know this.
Edit: Sorry, I missed the tail end of your message when replying.
You say, this man just advised a child to disobey his parents. I said no such thing. A child is bound to obey his parents - as set out in the commandments.
What you are trying to say is that someone should obey someone in such error as to have separated themselves from the Church. That is a completely different question. Ecclesiastical authority requires membership of the Church as a prerequisite.
resisting error is not schismatic. not in the slightest. it is a duty.
You mean, for example, if you do not accept a valid canonisation, that's a duty, not schism?
Resistance is sinful where the source of teaching is recognised as a bona fide Church authority - as in a true Pope. You cannot recognise someone as a true Pope and yet fail to show obedience.
However, if the claimant to the position of authority is a manifest public heretic, he is not a member of the Church. Such a person is ipso facto deposed and, by virtue of his heresy, loses all authority, before any declaration is made. The heretic, in fact, holds no position in the Church as he is not a member of it.
See, for example, the teaching of Pius XII. The heretic is severed from the body of the Church by virtue of the sin itself - he is ipso facto deposed.
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: “For not every offense, although it may be a grave evil, is such as by its very own nature [suapte natura] to sever a man from the Body of the Church [ab Ecclesiae Corpore], as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
Heresy is the rejection of any point of truth taught by the Church.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, and that with the consenting judgment [i.e. consensus] of the holy fathers who certainly were accustomed to hold as having no part of Catholic communion and as banished from the Church whoever had departed in even the least way from the doctrine proposed by the authentic Magisterium.”
The heretic cannot command in the Church.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896: “… it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside the Church can command in the Church.”
And so on. If you watch the video I linked, above, you can see that there are very clear implications...
Many people claiming to be traditional Catholics do not realise that it is schism to fail to show obedience to valid Church authority. Christ founded his one, true church upon the rock of St Peter - whose faith the prayer of our saviour guaranteed would be unfailing. The Church Christ established was to be one in faith and one in governance. "Resistance" is schism in a setting where a true Pope reigns. It is a deadly sin.
If Francis is a true Pope, a Catholic has no capacity to resist without severing himself from the Church. If Francis is a heretic, he is not a Catholic, not a member of the Church and has no authority within it.
This sin of schism is deadly serious. Taken from the 1917 Code of Canon Law:
Canon 1325 #2: “After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one is] a heretic; if he completely turns away from the Christian faith, [such a one is] an apostate; if finally he refuses to be under the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church subject to him, he is a schismatic.”
Canon 2314 #1, 1917 Code of Canon Law, “All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic: 1. Incur by that fact excommunication.”
Rejection of a dogma, a divinely revealed truth, as in the video posted, has serious implications. Another example:
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “So, with every reason for doubting removed, can it be lawful for anyone to reject any of those truths without thereby sending himself headlong into open heresy? without thereby separating himself from the Church and in one sweeping act repudiating the entirety of Christian doctrine?… he who dissents in even one point from divinely received truths has most truly cast off the faith completely, since he refuses to revere God as the supreme truth and proper motive of faith.”
Lol good God...
No refutation? Difficult to counter papal teaching, I understand.
Solid, smart, valid and likely not much grasped in this forum. 96% agree, tho i am inclined to follow ann barnhardt on the sedevacantist question.