I stumbled upon this new video by Jeremiah Bannister that tries to destroy sedevacantism by quoting St. Francis de Sales. I am not a sedevacantist nor do I condemn sedevacantists. What do the sedes on this forum think about this video?

I'll try to give it a listen on the drive to/from work this week. But I have a feeling it won't be much more than the same-old from the anti-sede camp.

"Nothing under the sun is new" Eccl. 1:10

Almost 40m in no real arguments just slander against MHFM and talking about antipope Michael. Is there an actual argument presented here Dusty? Link a timestamp. Likening the SSPV and CMRI to Luther is another meme talking point. There is literally nothing new in this.

Edit:  50m in now. This video is dishonest. This guy is an ex-sede and knows the arguments. I want to be careful but he is forwarding arguments that people of bad will use.

I am of the opinion that sedevacantists can't be condemned for their views because the Church has never condemned the sedevacante question. Several well known theologians have raised this question, and yet the Church never condemned them for doing so. The problem comes when some sedevacantists try to impose their consciences on others who do don't believe in sedevacantism. The conciliar Popes are suspect and I don't think it's wrong to have these suspicions.

1h1m in he just starts harassing some sede woman and calling her a blasphemer and a Protestant.

This is paid content, correct? He works for Reason and Theology? He hasn't actually put forward a new argument yet. The reason I bring up this being paid is because he is an ex sede and knows the responses to these "arguments".

It was a livestream and people can send in donations. I don't consider reason and theology to be traditional Catholic

I am of the opinion that sedevacantists can't be condemned for their views because the Church has never condemned the sedevacante question. Several well known theologians have raised this question, and yet the Church never condemned them for doing so. The problem comes when some sedevacantists try to impose their consciences on others who do don't believe in sedevacantism. The conciliar Popes are suspect and I don't think it's wrong to have these suspicions.

Indeed, the enemy of Traditional Catholicism and what's preventing any kind of unity among us is unwarranted DOGMATISM.  Traditional Catholics should be "in communion" with other Traditional Catholics even if they disagree with them on theological issues.  It's OK for Traditional Catholics to debate and argue with all their might ... and is expected given the confusion of this Crisis ... but they cross the line by effectively excommunicating one another, refusing to work with one another, refusing Sacraments, setting up rival chapels 2 blocks from another one to steal faithful, etc.  Instead of having 3-4 options in Cincinnati area (for instance, as this goes on everywhere) all trying to steal one another's faithful, how about spreading out and establishing chapels where the faithful are poorly served?

Maybe we need a thread entitled "Sedevacantism and Marijuana"?   

1h1m in he just starts harassing some sede woman and calling her a blasphemer and a Protestant.

This is paid content, correct? He works for Reason and Theology? He hasn't actually put forward a new argument yet. The reason I bring up this being paid is because he is an ex sede and knows the responses to these "arguments".

How "ecuмenical" of him. 

Seriously, it frustrates me that those who side so vehemently with Newchurch refuse to take the logic of Newchurch to its end. If a Hindu can die an "anonymous Christian" so long as he is a "good person" (by vague worldly standards, of course) and if the "Orthodox" don't need to renounce their schism, then what does it matter if Sedevacantists were really Protestant anyways?

This kind of behavior reminds me of this quote:

"So integrally is this doctrine [EENS] woven into the fabric of the Faith that, by sardonic irony, it is the implicit basis whereby the conciliar establishment has achieved its hold over its ensnared captives and keeps them in line. It does this while it promotes general apostasy, especially that falsity which maintains that those outside the Church can and will be saved. Moreover, those who refuse to yield up their Faith are treated as being out of the Church, and threatened with legal censures of the Church, which, let it be noticed, are nothing else but the legal application of this holy doctrine."

                                                - Fr. James Wathen, Who Shall Ascend? Vol.I, pgs. 26-27


Additionally, didn't Michael Lofton (who runs No Reason and Fake Theology) make a video where he tried to make an argument that the Syllabus of Errors was and is not authoritative papal teaching? 

(Seems like a blatantly heretical claim; plus he cites Cardinal Newman in making this argument, who was a liberal and voted against Vatican I's definition of Papal Infallibility)

I found it, here it is:



Videos on Card. Newman's liberalism: 

I am of the opinion that sedevacantists can't be condemned for their views because the Church has never condemned the sedevacante question. Several well known theologians have raised this question, and yet the Church never condemned them for doing so. The problem comes when some sedevacantists try to impose their consciences on others who do don't believe in sedevacantism. The conciliar Popes are suspect and I don't think it's wrong to have these suspicions.

I absolutely agree. I once was far less charitable in my opinion towards sedevacantists, but thankfully I have grown beyond such pettiness.