@@24erstad Bishop Athanasius Schneider was appointed by Bénédict XVI to investigate the SSPX so he knows à lot about it. Bishop Burke is great but Bishop Schneider is more fit to talk about it. John Salza is a joke.
‘I have no personal doctrine in the manner of religion. All of my life I have held to what I was taught in the French seminary in Rome’ - Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics
But through clear disobedience to the roman pontiff, This makes zero sense. I used to support the SSPX until I seen what Lefebvre actually done which is disobey exactly the opposite of who we are called to be as catholics
Listen to what the SSPX says about themselves. You’ve heard the one side, now, listen to the other. Would you want a protestant to tell the world about Catholicism? No. Here both sides. Otherwise you’re making a judgment without all of the information. And that is foolish.
@@CatholicNanaShould you listen to a transgender person to understand transgenderism? That's the argument you are making, that you have to listen to adherents to an ideology to properly understand the ideology.
@@flabiger Yes, you definetely should, why would you not? The only reason I can see you would rather not listening to both sides is if you're insecure about your own position, Trent Horn is a good apologist, he talks to and watches atheists and transgender rethoric all the time.
I’m very disappointed that Matt Fradd has jumped on the SSPX bashing bandwagon. How about inviting a society priest or Mgr Schneider who was actually officially sent to investigate the SSPX seminaries? The SSPX bears wonderful fruit in the world, and there are many conversions. They welcome people with open arms and give very solid catholic catechism. All their content comes from the catechism of the council of trent and from the Tradition of the church. How on earth can being faithful to that be called schismatic? It just shows how far the Church has drifted away from Her mission and how people think in rigid legalistic terms and don’t consider the substance of the matter at hand
@@zazszdzfzgzhzjzkzlzxguys please pray for archbischop huonder, he got very bad news from his doc. God please, we need your brave servant here in this difficult times
He has lost me as a fan. Being boys with absolute grifters and jokes like Michael Lofton yet bashes the SSPX. Casting doubt upon their legitimacy. Disgusting.
Friend, love you guys that go to sspx, but we obey the infalibility leadership of the Pope and church doctrine, Like it or not, we have to obey our leader even if we aren't a true fan of him or his opinions. The gates of hell will not prevail even with a bad pope. If you like the TLM join the FSSP instead. They are in good standing with the church while the sspx is not in good standing.
Does Salza have the teaching authority to tell faithful to not go to the SSPX, or some layman podcast on the internet? I would rather listen to Bishop Athanasius Schneider about this non-issue.
@@TokugawaPatrick That doesn't change the fact Peter was still the leader, Jesus forgave him afterwards and even reaffirmed his duty as leader. He also still sent the apostles to teach in His name as a group. John was part of that group, not against (unlike the SSPX that denies the rest and believes is the "only one in the right"). If they simple defended TLM tradition while also accepting Novus Ordo, there wouldn't be any problem at all, everyone would support them, but they believe that only the old rite is valid, that only them are right and the others wrong, they are more like Iscariot, not John. They are the pharisees, but not Nicodemo.
I’d rather listen to Cardinal Burke, who said they are in schism and not part of the church. Or to Fulton Sheen, who said to stay away from them as they have no ecclesiastical approval. If we’re going to side with prelates who are unquestionably orthodox, I’m going with the ones whose statements line up with the popes who have authority to pass judgement in these matters.
I am not particularly a supporter of the SSPX, and I have found that on several matters John Salza speaks the truth. But I'm afraid that this argument is simply quite ridiculous. Basically he's saying that because members of the SSPX have reservations on one particular paragraph of the 1989 Profession of Faith, they therefore reject the whole thing and are therefore rejecting "dogmas of the faith". That's about as ridiculous as claiming that the Orthodox reject the whole content of the Nicene Creed just because they don't affirm the filioque. Contrary to what Mr Salza seems to believe, the fact that Catholics owe religious submission of intellect and will to non-definitive teachings is NOT a dogma of the faith. For that matter, neither is it a dogma (strictly speaking) that infallibility extends to teachings of the "secondary object" of the infallible magisterium (i.e. "2nd paragraph" teachings). Rather, that is "only" Catholic Doctrine. So let alone teachings of the "3rd paragraph".
Both dogma and doctrine can be infallibly taught. Placing something in the profession of faith is just about the most authoritative magisterial teaching there is-how could the Chruch be indefectible if part of the universal profession of faith is in error?
Members of the SSPX like to point out that they accept 95% of Vatican II, and it's the last 5% they're asking questions about. Meanwhile, many clerics reject 95% of Vatican II to uphold the questionable 5%, and we're supposed to believe it's the SSPX in schism, not the actual schismatics. Keep in mind that Lefebvre himself voted in favour of the V2 documents, but he did not vote for catastrophic "reform".
@@JohnFromAccounting The Catholic position is to accept 100% of the teachings of the ecumenical councils. It's hardly a defence of the SSPX to point out that some liberals are worse. It's possible that they're both wrong and that the truth lies along a truly narrow road.
When freemasons are praising the teachings of an ecumenical council there is something wrong with that ecumenical council".... "We've also had a different expression of the Catholic faith in the twentieth century,we've had a new mass that was concocted out of thin air by Annibale Bugnini whose own autobiography provides evidence that he was a Freemason"... "There has been a freemasonic revolution in the Catholic Church in the 20th century"... "And yet these same high Church Men view Father Gruner, view the Priests of the Society of St Pius X and other Faithful, Catholics who hold the faith of all time, as outside the Church, only the devil is the Author of such confusion"... John Salza He says all these things in this video, including the doctrinal problems with the second vatican council ruclips.net/video/HKsn7ygDnx4/видео.html
I'm 2000 years old, the Mass I grew up with for 200 years was in Koine Greek. People received communion in the hand, and priests were married. We have a living magisterium, not a Church frozen in time.
The question comes down to another question: Are Vatican II and the New Mass doctrinally sound? What about the new teaching on religious liberty, ecumenism, Islam (nobiscum), ecclesiology, new prayers and so on?
If the revised missal is not doctrinally sound then the Church has defected. Disciplinary infallibility is defined Catholic teaching, you can’t dissent from it
@@austinkent8811 the new mass is doctrinally vague by omission of elements that would offend protestants. It's not a lie to leave out the hard truth, but you lose the fullness of revealed truth when you do. Worse yet, some walk away still believing the lies.
@@dylantemple2509 No it isn’t. I used to believe these trad myths and then actually educated myself and found out it’s nonsense based on fake quotes. You don’t have over 40 votive Masses of the Blessed Virgin if you’re trying to not offend Protestants.
Apparently not. Now I understand why Catholics keep quiet about their faith in the town square. Issa mess these day. Just as the the Vatican 2 designers intended.
To say that the SSPX rejects -Dogmas of the Faith- is such a weird claim and completely false. There is no De Fide proposition that states that every Catholic has to submit his intellect and will to non-definitive teachings. „Christ has revealed we must hear the Church“ is a very sloppy way of trying to prove that such a De Fide proposition exists. As if the church would not have explicated these words exactly in order to make clear for the faithful what they mean. The dogma which is related to this is the reality of the infallibility of the church which states that The Church is infallible in the final decision on doctrines of faith and morals. Final means -definitive-. There might be a proposition on a lower level which states that you have to submit your intellect and will also to non-definitive teachings, but the thing is that such a proposition is not De Fide, otherwise all these levels wouldn’t make sense at all. If everything is De Fide, nothing is. Mr. Salza needs to be much more precise in his arguments.
Yes, it is funny. How can I submit definitely to something that is not definitive? And what happens when that non-definitive teaching changes? It is laughable. A tax lawyer pretending to be a theologian, wiser than the popes and Ecclesia Dei commission secretaries.
To elaborate, it seems almost like the same logic Protestants use when saying if the pope is infallible then we must follow everything he teaches no matter what. Well no. Infallible statements are very specific. We don’t have to follow non-infallible statements. Is it a good idea to still listen to the Pope? Sure, when what he says aligns with the Catholic faith. Same for non-definitive Church teaching. Should we listen to the Church if it is non-definitive? Sure, if it aligns with what the Church has definitively taught.
Yes. They are doctrinally sound because they teach what the Catholic Church taught for thousands of years, and what all good priests and bishops still teach today. They teach the Gospel of Christ, as is their duty.
It's hard to teach what the Church has always taught when you yourself as a group of clerics don't obey or follow what the Church has always and still teaches.
@flabiger I think your take is a little off, I understand it as since the corruption attached to the 2nd Vatican counsel bore that Mass style as a fruit through the acts of a covert freemason, it is guilty by association of being an errant form. Just my understanding.
The SSPX couldn't be more faithful to the Church, it literally couldn't, as all it does is continue to practice what all Catholics always have practiced. If the society rejects anything it is because it goes against faith or tradition.
Decades of invalid confessions and marriages. Decades of illicit Masses. Countless canonical censures for illicit acts. Rejections of the Church's Profession of Faith. Promotion of false doctrines. Fallacious appeals to supplied jurisdiction. The erection of a schismatic canonical tribunal which usurps the authority of the bishops and the Holy See. Schisms (various sects within Sedevacantism and SSPX Resistance, Avrille Dominicans). Publicly promoting hostility to the Pope and Holy See. Disregarding warnings not to ordain priests without permission. Sent priests to minister without incardination. Excommunication Would you consider this faithful to the Church?
What Catholic has “always practiced” their faith by disobeying the hierarchy (as a rule, not an exception), publicly ministering where they are not permitted, and existing based on the premise that they are necessary because only they have the fullness of the faith? They may worship according to the same books as previous Catholics, but do not conduct themselves as previous Catholics ever did.
@@andym5995yeah sure OK like Vatican II Novus Ordo land is soooooo full of obedient Catholics rocking out to Kool & the Gang, blessing same sex unions with guitars, giving communion to people on their 5th divorce and civil remarriage, ordaining womyn priests, using pizza and coke for communion, making up their own liturgies for the Sacraments.... 😂
First time i went to an sspx mass they invited me because there was a men's night. It was in Orlando, so you had lots of people who were come and go parishoners. Lots of them were very normal and not pretentious. The novice their was very kind and had this personality like i was the only one in the room. He even told me that the society and the bishop have good relations. At least they are trying to reach out to their bishop.
Not at all my experience in another city. My entire family started attending during Covid, and today I just want you to know they did not attend Sunday mass because they had a gun license class so they watched the mass on tv last night ... the slope and teachings are so slippery and completely contrary to the tradition of the church which clearly states not attending mass on a Sunday is a mortal sin.
Do SSPX reject the V2 teaching that Protestants are separated brethren? I am a Protestant who lives in Orlando and was considering going to the SSPX parish in Sanford, but I would not feel comfortable going if this were the case. I could not even be Catholic if all Protestants were considered fully hell bound regardless of their love of God.
@beanwilkins6970 they say this term is irrelevant and misleading, because it doesn't change the fact that protestantism is heretical. Does this mean protestants are all going to hell? It doesn't, because every individual case is different and judged only by God. As St. John Bosco explained and Fr. Gauldron, SSPX, himself reaffirmed: they can be saved if they have a honest intention of being part of the Church of Christ (that is, the Catholic Church), but faultlessly didn't become part of the body of the Church. But they are part of the soul of the Church because they are catholics in voto (in their intentions) and they would be faithful of the Catholic Church if they were presented the truth and comprehended it. So they are saved because they were catholics in their hearts, as St John Bosco says. So they were saved, ALTHOUGH they were protestants, not BECAUSE they were protestansts. This applies to every false religion too, such as Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc. This is the explanation of the dogma "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus". That's the Catholic belief, the SSPX also holds it, although they're often a little more violent sometimes when talking to Catholic faithful (which is a matter of prudence, not doctrine).
Note I'm not saying that the Church says all protestants (or other religions) are saved. The Church says the well intentioned people who faultlessly fall into error can also be saved if they are faithful to the graces God gave them. That only God can know, since only God judges the inside. The Church only judges the outside and that's why She cannot go further than, pastorally, calling the protestants "separated brethren". I hope it's clear! God bless you 🙏🏻
I think a discussion with an SSPX priest would bring more clarity and might work to end the widespread uncharitable and unfair characterization of them…
Talk to an SSPX priest. By John's standard we should assent our intellect and will even if heresy is non definitively taught. Imagine if this was the standard throughout the Churches history? Those that have been persecuted by the church have become great Saints not because they assented their intellect and will to whatever the church said but because they stood up for truth proclaimed by the gospel.
This is your friendly reminder that Vatican II was a pastoral and NOT a doctrinal council. Also, "by their fruits you shall know them"; look at the fruits of Vatican II as a help to discern how healthy it really was for the Church.
@@ajmeier8114 John XXIII and Paul VI specifically said that it is merely a pastoral council, not trying to teach or define any doctrine nor condemn error. It doesn't contain a single anathema.
@@apisDei To my knowledge they never said it was MERELY a pastoral council. But it is very pastoral in nature. But regardless that does not make it an invalid council and it doesn't mean we don't have to consent to the teachings of the council. It also reaffirms doctrines already established. In my experience, when people claim the council is pastoral, they are hinting that they don't have to give consent to the council and can pay it no attention.
With all due respect, brother, but that's a very ill-intended comment. There are people out there, still living, that had children of their own before Vatican II was even a thing. Let that sink in for a minute. That's how recent it is. Saying "look at its fruits" when it has yet to mature and be fully and truly implemented by all [and the existence of the SSPX is proof of this] is just simply contemptuous at best. In many parts of the world it has definitively worked, if it were not for it I may not even have embraced Catholicism as fondly as I do today, nor I would be interested on it. Granted, it may have room for improvement, but it has done more good than not, and has a lot more of potential if properly embraced. As far as I can tell, for all the videos I've seen and comments I've read about the subject, the SSPX followers [and I don't mean the clergy, but the laity] are mainly there solely for "the show" [so to speak]. They are usually the people that yell "sacrilege" when the Eucharist is given in hand instead of directly to mouth and stuff like that [despite that the original way of giving it was by hand, heck, Jesus Himself gave it by hand]; they are traditionalists for the sake of being traditionalist, not for the sake of the virtue behind the tradition [the things that give tradition value to begin with]. In the end, Vatican II has opened the faith to many people, so they could understand it better, regardless if masses are not as pretty as the TLM [it would be cool if they were as pretty, though, the TLM is indeed beautiful]. But if I had to choose between being able to understand my faith by being a layman, or simply "obeying tradition because it sounds pretty", I choose to understand it any day, and so should anyone that truly wants to defend Christianity in this wicked times. My two cents. God Bless.
@@GranMaese Thank You Sir ! People tend to limit the catholic Church to the Western world, completely ignoring other continents where the council bears great fruits. Catholicism, despite persecutions all around the world, is the religion that grows the most everywhere, everywhere except in the West. Secularization and sexual revolution damages Europe and North America during the 60's 70's; and the decline of faith is imputed to the Council and the New Mass: pure fallacy. SSPX indeed act like a sect; they cannot even hold the same discourse ! Their apparence (beautiful liturgies, solid teachings, priest in cassocks, etc.) are attractive to many, and they presume It is the place to be. But indeed they act like a sect, for they forbid people to attend any other parishes than theirs. A schism calls other schisms, and in the society, we are witness of It with Mgr Williamson!
As I understand it, the sspx does not reject the profession of faith, but have issues with 3rd category *items*. ... not the 3rd category carte blanche. That would be a misrepresentation of the SSPX in my opinion. Here is where they explicitly state that the SSPX accepts the authentic magisterium, but has issues with some of the things stated by it. ruclips.net/video/dUt1q0D9qM0/видео.html Salza misrepresents many other things about the SSPX. But let this be known in order to show that this presentation is riddled with inaccuracy... how deliberate? only God knows.
The SSPX submit to the Council of Trent, which outweighs non-dogmatic councils. Why aren't priests giving full religious assent to the Council of Trent is the real question?
This was done for the sake of the souls who entrust themselves to the Society; it does not act as a healing of the division between the Society and the Church. However, it gets repeated by those who support the SSPX.
And think about that... if they were forbidden to be Priests and not valid how would that be possible ? They would be considered laity ?...... give me a break.
I wouldn’t feel bad about it. My point really though is that if the Vatican sees SSPX as schismatic, and TC was supposed to combat that, it had the opposite effect. For me and I imagine many, once you discover the TLM, that’s your Mass, and an attack on that becomes an attack on your faith.
@@hunter1029016 As far as I'm aware, the main difference between the FSSP and the SSPX is that when their bishops were excommunicated back when, the FSSP sought communion with Rome. The SSPX priests at the time didn't. That's all I need to know. The main argument for Catholicism is that it has authority. Due to its authority, it is able to direct the faithful to incorrect dogma unless it is preserved from doing that by the Holy Ghost. So it must be so, since 'the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it.' Speaking against ecumenical councils and the Pope's official correspondence to the people on faith and morals is a statement against having faith in the the Holy Ghost. Full Stop.
The SSPX is the de facto remnant of the true Church, preserving the deposit of faith handed down to us as best they can, in the face of a hierarchy that is manifestly apostate. Rather than condemn them for lack of obedience, we should be happy they remain patiently obedient in every way possible, save for compromising the faith. I'm humbly grateful for the privilege of worshipping with them.
Hmm, I wonder what St. Pope Pius X would have said about this. "Do not allow yourselves to be deceived by the cunning statements of those who persistently claim to wish to be with the Church, to love the Church, to fight so that people do not leave Her…But judge them by their works. If they despise the shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all means of evading their authority in order to elude their directives and judgments…, then about which Church do these men mean to speak? Certainly not about that established on the foundations of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone” - Pope Pius X, Allocution in May 10, 1909
Yes, Christ said 'He who hears you, hears me,' but recall that no one listened or took Lefebvre seriously when he wrote to the Pope and Rome about his concerns with certain texts in Vatican II, or liturgical and Eucharistic abuse resulting from the new Mass etc.; No one can say Lefebvre did not love the Church, the Magisterium, or tradition. He did what he did because he loved. Because he was only passing on what he first received. I have no extensive knowledge in moral theology or Church Doctrine, but when I think of what Catholics during those times were dealing with (fear of modernism, relativism and liturgical abuse, to name just a FEW) can we blame them for what they did?
What he should have received was the duty of obedience to the Pope. That is divine law. When he ordained three additional bishops against the will of the pope, he violated DIVINE law. Therefore, I can easily question whether he loved the Church.
@@johndouglas4826 Yes, except for two; one concerning 'Religion and Freedom' and another called 'The Church and the Modern World'. He had problems with these two due to relativism and modernism.
@@emmadumais2337 Which documents and what source suggests he didn't sign them and also I argue this then means that Magisterium can err and we shouldn't be catholics at all if this is to genuinely be believed.
I have watched a lot of Salza’s commentary on the SSPX issue. He is a smart man, but I’m afraid I don’t trust his judgment. He ignores that the hierarchy are teaching and promoting error. He is very good at lining up hard hitting quotes that make people surmise the issue. The one that caught my attention before was when he said in one of his clips Rome bent over backwards to try to accommodate Archbishop Lefebvre. But this isn’t true. As Archbishop Lefebvre said on June 29, 1976. “This I have heard twice from the envoys of the Holy See, who told me that the social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ was no longer possible in our time; that we must accept definitely the pluralism of religions. That is what they told me. That the Encyclical Quas Primas, which is so beautiful, on the social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which was written by Pope Pius XI, would never be written today by the Pope. This is what they said to me-the official envoys of the Holy See. Well, we are not of this religion. We do not accept this new religion. We are of the religion of all time; we are of the Catholic religion. “ That’s spiritual blackmail. And it changes the context of the relations between Rome and SSPX. Now if John Salza is going to judge that as bending over backwards, then his judgment is negligent, and shouldn’t be trusted. Also, evidenced from the quote above that is ignored, he generally gives the hierarchy a free pass. He doesn’t really state the teaching on resisting superiors and popes that the church teaches and saints practiced. This Includes direct commands of popes. He doesn’t say here are the principles for obeying and disobeying superiors and popes and this is why they don’t apply here. It is just a constant strengthening of the authority, without explaining when the authorities are misusing it and can and should be resisted. Another comment is that there is no sense of a crisis or necessity. If there was no crisis Archbishop Lefebvre wouldn’t have done what he deemed necessary. It’s as if everything is more or less ok. When in fact the situation is extremely grave. For example there is error in canon law, the new catechism, papal encyclicals and Vatican two. This is extremely relevant, as if it is left out of the discussion it gives the false picture that people are not resisting error which is within their rights and duties, but are simply disobeying legit authorities and are hence schismatic. Finally I would saying regarding the hierarchy getting a free pass, they condemn people going to schismatic liturgies and churches but leave out the fact that popes they defend who attacked the SSPX do these very things. Pope Benedict went to orthodox liturgy in Constantinople. Now, what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If it’s a mortal sin for the laity to go schismatic masses then it is for the popes. Not only that but these popes have gone to non Christian religious services. Pope Benedict prayed in a mosque facing Mecca with his shoes off with immas.
@@roshinobi Certainly scandalous, but I'll believe ignorance in the case of Pope Francis because he's not the most intellectually alert prelate we've had.
"When freemasons are praising the teachings of an ecumenical council there is something wrong with that ecumenical council".... "We've also had a different expression of the Catholic faith in the twentieth century,we've had a new mass that was concocted out of thin air by Annibale Bugnini whose own autobiography provides evidence that he was a Freemason"... "There has been a freemasonic revolution in the Catholic Church in the 20th century"... "And yet these same high Church Men view Father Gruner, view the Priests of the Society of St Pius X and other Faithful, Catholics who hold the faith of all time, as outside the Church, only the devil is the Author of such confusion"... John Salza He says all these things in this video, including the doctrinal problems with the second vatican council ruclips.net/video/HKsn7ygDnx4/видео.html
Speaking of resisting superiors in error,in the video below John Salza says "only those Angels who resisted their leader were saved", speaking of Lucifer and the fallen Angels. He says this at 2:57-3:01 in this video ruclips.net/video/QOKem57rkZg/видео.html
Why would a smart man like John attend a mass from the society and not question the accusations of schism or the jurisdictional status for 15 years? I suspect something else is the reason. I would not attend the society unless I had a strong conviction to do so in light of these issues. I have been attending for three years.
I disagree with Mr Salsa’s perspective here. Firstly, he begins saying that they are not doctrinally sound, and makes a case based on their hesitation to offer a specific type of assent to Non-infallible judgements of the Holy See (judgements which the Church herself understands are NOT settled doctrine). Furthermore, the fact that this is in a papal profession of faith does not de facto elevate to a matter of dogma that we should give religious assent of intellect and will to non-infallible judgements. This is not a sound argument. I think their hesitation is all the more clearly understood when you see a large number of recent papal statements of that category that are clearly wrong- are we bound to offer this respect and obedience to what is against the faith? Or perhaps are we held to believe that the faith is changing not in development but in contradiction to what came before? This does not seem to be sufficient grounds to declare them doctrinally unsound, perhaps you might criticize their prudence in how they go about “rejecting statements” but ultimately they’re not rejecting any doctrine or dogma itself.
Christ be with you. Charity would suggest that an explanation should be given for why the SSPX do not accept this version of the profession rather than simply stating they don't. These points are important and perhaps should be discussed with some like his Excellency Bishop Athanasius Schneider who has in the past come out in support of the SSPX while not being a member himself. God bless you
Bishop Schneider would not look into if the Society priests meet the requirements and conditions for validity of priestly ordination. he simply sympathizes with the TLM goers. The Hammers go down is unfair to the TLM because the culprits use the TLM to speak against the Council and the N.O. mass. They SSPX Bishops and priest were digging in by raising a monster which will destroy them if they obey the Holy See now. All this time they preached to the people that they don't have to obey Vat 2 and now if do, the SSPX laity will turn on them. Simple as that. Imagine the sspx laity hear on Sunday from their priest that now we are in submission to Vat 2 and the N.O. mass is valid. That would be the biggest shockwave that they witness. I think it's up to the individual sspx laity to figure out their priests not in union with the Holy See and if they wanted to stay in the illusion that they have the true Catholic faith they will stay, and if not, they will leave. But the leaderships will not budge. They simply become another Anglican type of Church not having the Holy Order passed down from the Apostles.
@@ScreamingReel500 Christ be with you Sorry I am not sure what you mean. Bishop Athanasius Schneider has visited SSPX seminaries, and made comments on their validity. Please look them up on line. I find him to be perhaps the most Holy man in the Church. Since this Holy man has supported the SSPX, it would be worth posing these questions. I go to a SSPX Church and our priest do not in any way promote disobedience to the Pope. What I understand the SSPX are looking for are explanations on how new doctrines are reconciled with the old. It is not that the don’t obey Vatican 2, it is that the need to have it reconciled with Church teachings of the past. The SSPX Church I go to does not say the Novus Ordo is invalid, only that it lacks reverence. Currently as far as I can see the Novus Ordo does not obey Vatican 2 as it says Latin should be retained, similarly Gregorian Chant; where are they? God bless you
@@MrKev1664 I don't know if the bishop verified the validity of the SSPX priests or not. No priest = no Eucharist. He only said the mass is done correctly with reverence. Catechism: #83 "The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition. Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium." 85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
@@ScreamingReel500 Christ be with you Still not sure what you mean. It is not the Bishop who decides whether a Priest is valid, it is apostolic tradition. This is why the orthodox mass is valid. Apostolic tradition has not been lost in the SSPX. God bless you
@@MrKev1664 Hmm, not sure what you mean by "It is not the Bishop who decides whether a Priest is valid, it is apostolic tradition." So, anyone can ordain himself by the words of God? Because the 'apostolic Traditions" is the words of God. And what word or words in particularly that you have to say when you ordain a priest? What are the criteria, requirements, and conditions that must be met by the one who performs the Sacrament and the one who receives the sacrament of Holy Order? This is alien to me that there is no history of and rules that must follow for the sacrament. Are you sure?
You are putting Catholics between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Where is the place of the conscience in the life of a Catholic, including a cleric? Maybe, Lefebre refused a Vatican appointed bishop because those he appointed were schooled in orthodox teaching. Is the Christian faith simply a matter of legalities? Where is the place of the conscience? Maybe this whole thing is a lot more nuanced than you say. Maybe some of the bishops felt pressured to sign the Vatican II documents. Maybe they didn't expect the abuses which we are now seeing. Maybe there was a lot of naivite on the part of some clerics. How about the real truth about Vatican II? It was co-opted right from the start. That's a fact. Maybe Lefebre had the insight to see those abuses coming. Some of us realize that the so called legal Catholic church will likely "normalize" homosexuality and female deacons. We know there were priests who rejected Humannae Vitae when it was pusblished. We konw there are priests who accept abortion, sadly. How is it "legal" for one pope to contradict what the previous pope proclaims as in allowing the Latin Mass? Rather than trying to squash it altogether by making it practically illegal. which will actually have the opposite affect, why not permit the Latin Mass in every diocese as an option? Not every SSPX community speaks against the Latin Mass in the diocese. Maybe Lefebvre had a change of heart after Vatican II. Maybe tmany bishops felt obligated to sign the documents although they felt that something is off. Perhaps, this discussion is not as cut and dry as you make it sound.
@@boethius8114 Bad faith arguments? How? He’s literally quoting the Church Fathers and Magisterial documents. 😂😂😂 More like his arguments are irrefutable thus why the sspx won’t touch them with a 10 foot pope.
@@AnaMT1985 he argues their mission is contrary to the mission of the church based on one quote. Bad faith argument. He says the profession is ‘essentially’ dogma. Bad faith argument.
Please go after the novus ordo where you see the abuses and talk abt how to make it more reverent. The abuse is everywhere and you guys don't care abt it.
I have a feeling a lot of the post conciliar Catholics are going to soon find out they are on the wrong side of history. When the history books are written it’s going to show how persecuted the SSPX was by Catholics of the new rite and how they stood fast and saved the traditions and dogmas of the faith. It’s not simply about the mass. Every last one of the sacraments were also changed. Even the breviary was changed. Nothing of the pre conciliar church was safe. Archbishop Lefebvre will go down as a Saint. This is all so similar to the Maccabean Revolt in which a few saved tradition against the many.
@@commissary4196 Modern age does not need a unique address. People have been the same since creation. We are all fallen creatures. The church should be the unchanging stalwart of dogma, theology and morality. To change it or address it any differently would be to introduce the errors of modernism which has been condemned many times over.
The Franciscans were in a similar way in the medieval period. There was also a heretical movement closely related to the Franciscans, many claiming to be Franciscans, but ultimately were villains. The same can be said of the SSPX being the persecuted, but noble, society, with the sedevacantists as the heretics that muddy the water.
@@epistemophiliac5334 Likewise im so impressed when I look at how little TLM parishes there are, the low attendance and the resentment parishioners hold for the Holy Father, Bishops and the hierarchy.
@@epistemophiliac5334 Not even at high points of the calendar does my TLM get even close to a NO attendance rate. As people and their children return to their faith that they abandoned in the secular age. The overwhelming majority will choose the NO. The church played the long game. Smart move. The See of Peter never fails.
This was super helpful. I'm in the middle of RCIA but I found an SSPX Chapel in my town and was considering attending sometime out of curiosity. Will skip the SSPX and keep attending my local parish I've been attending the past year instead without worry until I can finally receive the Sacraments 🙏
Not to persuade you one way or another. But if you have grandparents or great grandparents that were Catholic then the SSPX mass is the only mass structure that they ever knew.
Some diocesan bishops visit the priories of the Sspx because they like what they’re doing; they see the obvious fruit and that it’s a work of God. What Salza is saying here is ridiculous, and is exactly highlighting the problems with V2 and the reason why we cannot except some things because of the danger it poses to souls. He’s speaking in a way that’s trying to exaggerate every possible detail to present it to this audience in a package that doesn’t claim anything really. I don’t know why he’s making a fuss about this because the simple matter is said and done; there is no schism from the Sspx. We’re beating a dead horse here. I second the notion that one should just listen to Bishop Athanasius Schneider on this non issue, as he actually has the authority to speak on the matter for the faithful.
What authority does the Auxiliary Bishop of Astana have over the issue of the SSPX? If we are following authority, should we not follow the Pope? 'Ecclesia Dei' declared to the universal Church that we have a grave obligation to cease any support for the SSPX, and that formally adhering to them is punishable by excommunication.
Im a photographer of profession, im used to read the image not the words, i converted due to the fsspx. - Priest facing the altar not the people, - Altar boys working on a ritual, - Secondary priest all the time in the confessionary to give confessions and great advise. - Homillies not about how God loves me but about scripture and salvation or damnation of our souls. - Heads covered, singles are white, married have black, this is huge because this makes the church a place where you are reminded that you are expected to marry and have children, this is so huge thesesdays. - More men, also a huge point. - No lay men giving catequisis or reading scripture in mass, (none of that worldly "liberte, egalite, fraternite" nonsense) this is also huge. -fruits layed barren for anyone to see, young families having kids and keeping together. The whole picture reads GOD IS HERE I dont see any of this when i would go to a novis ordus mass, quite the oposite, the whole church just felt part of the world, part of the status quo, filled with ideas of equality, giving lay men participation and voice. Not a single word of condemnation on the erasure of European lands, as if God created the white man for it now to disappear into race mixing, not a single world of condemnation of jewish power and degeneration over the west, i trully believe tuat Marcel Lefebre read well what was happening in the church, its a complete takeover of freemasons and modernists who have already destroyed the western world on the political level, of course they would never been able to do it if they didnt found a way to neutralize the Church first...
I have a great Idea, both you and Salza go to an SSPX Mass and tell me what the difference is between it and a FSSP Mass ? And note the Picture of Pope Francis hanging in the hallways......
I could set up a chapel and put on a 'mass' that has all the appearances of being a Catholic Mass without even being validly ordained. This is such a skin-deep talking point. If you wish to represent Christ, to act _In persona Christi_, you must receive permission from the one you are claiming to represent. There are two ways to confirm this mission: through the governance of the visible Church, or by the working of miracles. The SSPX has neither, and so has no mission. The FSSP does, and so they can legitimately claim to represent Christ in their ministry. A relationship is two way. The SSPX can claim to be under Pope Francis until they're blue in the face-it only becomes true when the Pope reciprocates, which he would do by allowing the priests to be incardinated. Francis hasn't done that.
I've been with sspx for a long time in France and never seen a picture of pope Francis. I actually heard many times harsh critics about pope Francis during homilies. Sometimes I felt I was in a protestant church!
@@Thurold Different here in the USA I guess. When I attended the NO mass in Italy while living there it also was much different than how it is said here....
The SSPX, in my experience, are focused on teaching Christ, while the FSSP take most opportunities they have to bash the Pope. This is not a criticism of the FSSP because I like them too, but a recognition that the FSSP, who are fully accepted by Rome, are more vocal about their disagreements with the Pope than the SSPX are.
A superbly articulated explanation of where the fundamental theological errors lay ,without engaging the side issues of the Latin Liturgical Traditions arguments.
I went to SSPX school and Mass for 6 years. It was a great experience where I learned so much about the Faith. I also made amazing friends who were in love for God and the saints. I had everything Catholicism could offer, except obedience to Rome. I ended up leaving SSPX, but my devotion to God and his family of saints continues to grow. I'm grateful to SSPX for teaching me catholicism well, including obedience to the pope (although in word only). I'm grateful for the friends I made (although I lost them when I left SSPX, because they must ostracize you if you don't belong). Thanks to FFPX, we can have literally every good thing SSPX offers, plus loyalty to the Vicar of Christ.
Is your comment sort of ironic? Do you recommend me to also follow your footsteps and make the experience of SSPX?😂 i cinverted last year and have some sspx friends my age (25) and for sure they are also of the type you noted😂
@@karlheven8328 I’m just expressing the good that came out of SSPX. It doesn’t justify the fact that SSPX is a schismatic cult. I say stay away from SSPX and stick within the safety of the Roman Catholic Church.
@@robbklobb6501Thank you for your thoughts. I am not trying to be flippant, but I feel like the Novus Ordo rite is schismatic. It is disrespectful to God, the Priesthood and lay folks. The Latin Mass is the marker for orthodoxy.
We live in extremely sad times of diabolical disorientation where we are unable to discern which group is right and where most Catholics are very partisan, forming their own silly cliques, and at each other’s throats. We are truly divided and deaf to the Gospel. This situation is caused by evil shepherds.
That is why Jesus Christ instituted a visible Church which can teach authoritatively. Hear the Church, listen to her and obey her and don't set yourself up against her.
It is a matter of public record that the Archdiocese of Kansas City [which includes the largest SSPX community in the USA] (1) “does not consider the SSPX to be schismatic,” (2) affirms that Catholics do “canonically … fulfill” their Sunday and holy day obligation by attending an SSPX mass (while still discouraging such attendance), and (3) “does … grant SSPX priests the faculty to witness marriages when the priests request it,” which is apparently the norm at present. But maybe that's all irrelevant...
My prayers on the subject concerning SSPX have been answered... I always sort of *shrink* when I hear that society speaking like there are two levels in Catholicism... Their level as being superior and holy (better dressed) and (better postures), and the Holy Catholic Church as being sort of irreverent... At 78, I lived through the Latin Mass, and came out of the Mass not having understood much in that language. I still love to reminisce about those good old days, but since Mother Church is a good mother; she decided that each faithful would be better served hearing the Mass in their own language...I immediately cheered that decision indeed. Please don*t tell me that back in those days that I was receiving Holy Communion in a more reverent way, as one grows in the love of receiving the Body, Blood Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. Ps One should not even notice if others are receiving on the tongue or in the hand if one is concentrated on who one receives.
The three theological virtues always takes precedence over other virtues. Faith, hope, and charity should never be sacrificed for a lesser virtue, like obedience. If you sacrifice faith for obedience, you’re doing it wrong. Obedience goes out the window if you cannot maintain faith, hope, and charity. Obedience must be kept as long as the main three are satisfied.
I will never understand the almost constant anti-SSPX content from most of Catholic RUclips. It is clear they are at the very least canonically irregular however I think they have a point with the extraordinary mission thing. Additionally, with the benefit of hindsight, I think Archbishop Lefevre was correct with his claim that the modern crisis necessitated his response. We clearly live in extraordinary times and the church is under assault both from without and within. It's a rally around the flag moment and I'll take anyone who will answer the call. Has the SSPX gone too far in some ways, sure. But the Church has made the mistake of not conceding when the SSPX has a legitimate point
Seriously, listen to the entire interview and really hear everything he is saying….you won’t keep making this argument, at least not without seriously rethinking it. He is not attacking it, he is pointing out all of its errors. I get frustrated when people just boil down clear and canon law-based critiques as attacks and “anti” content. If I point out the fallacies of the LGBTQ community, am I attacking it?? Am I “anti”? God bless you.
Actually he is attacking and creating a series of straw man arguments. And he makes a number of basic theology errors in his assertions. He imbibed in an error of form of Donatism mixed with a caricature of Feeneyism, and claims that babies and the disabled that are baptized validly in non-Catholic settings are not members of the Catholic Church. So he thinks there are different kinds of valid Baptisms and not one Baptism nd how he reconciles it all with the dogma of no salvation outside the church is a mystery
Odds are someone is writing a check somewhere to gaslight Catholics into servile false obedience and to dissuade people from orthodoxy and most of all orthopraxy.
I think if most saw the pre-concilliar church there would be far less to attack the society for. I mean we can all name Lefebvre excommunicated for the horrible crime of appointing bishops, however there are cardinals bishops and clerics who have done far worse.
Maybe, Lefevre was correct in rejecting more recent changes to annulments. Look at the increase of annulments in recent times. Maybe the church hasn't done her people, including her clergy, any favours with many of these updates.
Did you know in Vatican II documents mention small changes to the mass not radical changes? There were a lot disobedience to the church such as communion in the hands (which was forced into indult), Pope Paul VI said to keep the keep communion on tongue, more than 65% of bishops voted no on the survey to communion on the hands, yet Pope Paul VI gave in to Memoriale Domini document to allow as an alternative with very detail instruction of not abusing the communion in the hands. I as most people grew up in 70's to now with only one option, communion in the hands. I found out in early 90's communion on the tongue is allow and very much preferred by the Church but not promoted or encouraged. Now, we see this a major problem, close to 70% of mass goers do not believe the Eucharist as the real Body of Christ. This is one of the big reason SSPX has great concern back in the 70's about this.
Few comments on my side: * Extraordinary Miracle, ironically enough, for me, -the ability to recognize the problems of the "New Advent Church" that was born from Vatican II. * Dr Sanza is the best example of a modernist: relativism and contradiction all over. * Matt Fratt obviously is a memeber of the new catholic religion, not of the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore has a need to support the new church, easy as that. Last statement: *Nice words needed to fill the lack of logic, princess, bishops, anyways, nobody is bounded to accept heresy. So thank God there a brave priests out there defending the flock from the wolves and dare to say, we wont be laid in our faces!
Since not everyone speaks and understands Latin, using it as the exclusive language will hinder efforts to evangelize the entire world. During Pentecost, the disciples received the gift of tongues. This event is described in the Book of Acts, specifically Acts 2:1-4. On the day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit descended upon the disciples, enabling them to speak in various languages. The gift of tongues, also known as glossolalia, is considered one of the spiritual gifts mentioned in the New Testament. It played a significant role in the early Christian church, particularly in spreading the message of Jesus to diverse populations.
Perhaps that's because the N.O. Catholics don't know what the SSPX says about them. According to them, you should go to confession for assisting at your parish's Sunday mass, no-matter how reverently it was celebrated.
Shallow position on the Faith. Ideological and violence to reason. We see with our eyes and hear with our ears that Rome has lost the Faith but yet they argue that we must submit to them.
Matt Fradd will invite everyone under the sun EXCEPT an SSPX priest...come to think of it, has matt fradd EVER invited a Traditional Catholic Priest? FSSP? ICKSP? Matt Fradd is CLEARLY part of catholic inc
This is pretty nit picky to call out the sspx for not being soctrinally sound because we don't believe in blind obedience while the NO and all the new teachings that contradict the faith out in the open are doctrinally sound? Give me a break
Has anyone ever wonder why individual SSPX priests arent in comment sections destroying weak arguments like this and cranking out content from their own channels? Its because they are A) not allowed to have social media because its a waste B) preach against being keyboard warriors and lay subject matter experts C) have souls to minister to. Imagine if SSPX priests were to spend an hour of their day just going into SSPX bashing videos like this and pick apart content that doesnt hold muster. It might allow the Society priests to defend their good reputation but at the same time it would destroy their inner peace and ability to stay out of all the muck. Invite an SSPX priest on your show, Matt. They will have to go through their superior and get permission. Because the Society priests are not hear for Internet face time. They're here for the salvation if souls.
You hit it right in the target 🎯. I made a retreat in Ridgefield CT & the three SSPX are solid in tradition. They don’t pay any mind to what going on out there but focus on Jesus, Mary & the Saints.
Wow! I feel real comfy taking a high degree masons word for what’s right and wrong about the SSPX. Almost like I believe a Muslim telling me he’ll accept Christianity and let me live for standing firm in my faith. I mean, one can lie to me because it’s part of their faith/oath. I’ll think for myself thank you.
I guess with that logical we cannot listen and trust St. Paul since he held the coats of those stoning the first Christian martyrs. How can we be sure his conversion was real? What if his conversion was just a conspiracy? It's better to argue with what the man has to say than to use his past as an argument for why what he says is untrue. (A classic case of ad hominem)
I’ve heard about how these masons, once being elevated to high degrees, can’t leave and can be killed if they leave. Either way, the past 2+ years have taught me to trust no one. I used to only truly trust myself and as I age I’m starting to mistrust myself. Only God knows all the games we play.
This. Exactly. Study for yourself. I did. I have a mother who is very active in her NO parish so I go there to confession every now and then , it's virtually empty , and the SSPX chapel is so packed it's hard to get in at all after multiple tries. Ask yourself why. I would point to many speeches given by the late Father Gregory Hesse , a Canon lawyer , who goes through the entire SSPX history and calls into question the validity of ANY sacrament given in a NO church. It's clear to me after researching that our faith has been so watered down that it's almost unrecognizable. I'm re-catechizing myself to learn my faith properly with the excellent book , My Catholic Faith a catechism in pictures by Bishop Morrow. Suggest other Catholics do the same. The word of God doesn't change , but the Freemasons have tried to bring down the Catholic Church since their existence. Then , one starts saying the SSPX is heretical 😂 I guess if you live long enough you see everything
Non-definitive statements from the magisterium get submission of intellect. So, if the church changes judgment from A to B, and during the time the church taught A, you espoused B, were you sinning?
This was poorly explained, and poorly backed up. Where is the proof that the SSPX rejects assent of the will/intellect for anything the Catholic Church teaches infallibly? Criticism isn't rejection. This guy is too lost in letter of law that he is missing the fundamental truths/realities of where the sspx stands on issues.
Not everything any common SSPX priest says should be taken as the stance the entireity of the society holds. If we did that for the novus ordo, boy oh boy, would there be issues.
@@peternaus3934I love your last point about the NO. Seriously, if we went by -dare I even say- the majority of NO priests, you wouldn’t even have Catholicism. What a time to be alive and Catholic.
@peternaus3934 The SSPX has well known and public statements about the Roman Rite of 1970, they have public statements about the Second Vatican Council, they publish the works of people who accuse these things of error or heresy. I have heard their priests publicly preach these things.
@@StoaoftheSouth There are serious issues with the Novus Ordo mass (it was created by protestants. That is a historical fact, not making it up, and there are serious issues with its existence and structure, see Quo Primum) I am not saying I 100% endorse the SSPX but I really like the Latin Mass because that is the most appropriate way for mass to be said, and is the way mass was said across the globe for more than 500 years.
Vatican I, Session 4, Chapter 4, para. 6: For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter NOT so that they might, by his revelation, make known some NEW doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously GUARD and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith TRANSMITTED BY THE APOSTLES. Emphasis mine for clarity. This supercedes Vatican II and therefore takes precedence in the order of heirarchy. At the end of this section that anyone who would declare anything contrary to these declarations is anathema. Also earlier sessions reaffirm the anathemas on heresies anyone who does NOT accept all of the sacred books of the Bible canonically declared and reaffirmed, anathema. So suddenly, Vatican II decides that they are not anathema (all of the sects outside of the Church). None of this flies. The Church has strayed from Catholic Dogma from time immemorial and has attempted with such devilish cunning as St. Paul said so clever as: "to fool the elect", except for a special grace given by God to resist falsehoods proposed as doctrines. Don't be a dingas, uphold the True Catholic Faith. Amen. +
@@Dack105 He probably meant the part were Salza said that he wants the Society priests to come into communion with the Church so that they can serve her, because the Church needs men like that. Manifesting a lot of hatred right there.
If it wasn't for AB Lefebvre and the SSPX there would be no TLM today. Thank God for AB Lefebvre and the SSPX for preserving and saving the Catholic church!
Wrong: Both "Vale dos Caídos" Monastery and "Escorial" Monastery near Madrid in Spain hold an exception to host the TLM that dates from before the SSPX foundation, to let alone those Carthusian, Benedictine, Franciscan or Dominican rites that have never been suspended after the creation of the Novus Ordo. Even the Opus Dei holds an exception to celebrate TLM on their centers!
Oh, obviously lay Catholics could attend those. The TLM was being shut down post V2 and all lay Catholics did not have any TLMs. Again, if it wasn't for AB Lefebvre and the SSPX there would be no TLM today!
From the Catechism of the Council of Trent: "Study Of The Word Of God Now all the doctrines in which the faithful are to be instructed are contained in the Word of God, which is found in Scripture and tradition. To the study of these, therefore, the pastor should devote his days and his nights, keeping in mind the admonition of St. Paul to Timothy, which all who have the care of souls should consider as addressed to themselves: Attend to reading, to exhortation, and to doctrine, for all Scripture divinely inspired is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct injustice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work." (note: The Council of Trent defined the 'tradition' in this paragraph as the oral form of the words of God also, as the Catechism promulgated by Pope JP 2 that we have today. The 2nd Council did not say ecclesial traditions are the word of God, but thru ecclesial traditions, the Sacred Tradition/Living Traditions/Apostolic Traditions are expressed). The Catechism of the Council of Trent is needed to counter the Protestant movement and teaching the faithful and is great gift of faith. As always, the Church do not teach in a random haphazard way but an orderly and systematically method so no one will be confused of what She teach. We are more structural now, that does not mean from the Apostal time there is no structure and organized Chruch because there was not a written New Testament. The word 'Traditions' or 'traditions' must be viewed in the context of what it used for, not by their fundamental/literal meaning alone.
It's not just the SSPX who reccomend against NO if you can help it and to go to TLM. In fact, beyond even things like FSSP you have Fr.Z, Scott Hahn, Fr.Ripperger, Bishop Schneider and Strickland and so many more solid clergy saying this. For goodness sakes.. give it a rest! Lord have Mercy... they know not what they do ✝️
their most grave error is that they teach the authentic Universal fallible magisterium can teach Heresy while this fallible Magisterium is not protected from error, it is always protected from heresy a Pope can be a heretic as a private theologian, but he can never ever teach this heresy as a universal teacher for all Christians in his Magisterium
No. The personal opinions of the pope as a private theologian is what the authentic Magisterium is. Pope Benedict XVI could write authentically and give the opinions of Joseph Ratzinger and be very wrong or even heretical.what he can't do is bind the Universal Church to that error.
Yes, what you say applies to a True Pope! But, a public heretic is not a Catholic. And if a man is a public heretic, he cannot be validly elected a Pope, because he isn’t Catholic. Every Pope since John XXIII was a public heretic before their election. They are antipopes.
How is a teaching non-definitive if you're still required to agree with it no matter what? Catholicism looks like a ridiculous mess of word games from the outside.
@@ScreamingReel500 Because up until the late 19th century, most bishops outside the Papal States were not selected by the Pope. In the early Church, bishops were chosen in a variety of ways. The Church is not structured like a corporation, with the Pope as CEO, and bishops as regional managers, as Bl. Pius IX made clear.
@@quireman8329 That is false information. They might be not selected, or handpicked by the Pope, but they must be approved by the Pope. So, they must be in submission the Pontificate of Rome. By saying they are not selected by the Pope you imply they are not required to adhere to the mandate. By the term "mandate' which is a decree of important, they can ignore or reject it. What Church are you talking about?
@@ScreamingReel500 St Eusebius went around consecrating lots of bishops in defiance of the Pope at the time, who was disastrously bad and controlled by the Roman Emperor.
It is tantamount to calumny to criticize Archbishop Lefebvre without acknowledging the fact that he a member of a missionary congregation and spent his entire life spreading the faith in Africa. Quite successfully as well. If you put his later actions in this context you can see a much different picture. Your program is intellectually dishonest and I might add, not too interesting.
In all fairness Matt, you should follow up with John Salza's accusation and invite Fr Jonathan Loop on your show. Who better to clarify what was said than the person who said it? St. Thomas Aquinas would. 😁 This smells of scaremongering. Father Gerald Murray, a canon lawyer from NY (outside the SSPX), did his thesis on the SSPX. The only claim he could make was that Archbishop Lefebvre was disobedient in consecrating 4 Bishops (not just one, as Rome suggested). Several Bishops outside the SSPX have supported them in principle: Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, Archbishop Alexander Sample, and Bishop Thomas Olmsted (retired). Does this provide proof of anything? No, but let's get a balanced perspective. A person who tends to speak with certainty, like John, doesn't prove anything either. There are higher experts in the Catholic Church who would disagree with John.
you have lost my respect. This is so biased and unfair…SSPX have the most reverent masses and altogether reverence in their worship. Being legalistic is for Pharisees, why can’t the general public just appreciate their love and respect for God. Before you criticize go see for yourself. Totally thumbs down on this podcast.
It pains me to say this, but the reverence of SSPX masses is an end without good means of achieving. The ends not excusing the means is a good rule of thumb for assessing spiritual warfare that would help out here. I would suggest praying to Our Lady of Sorrows to help out with understanding the situation in the Church. She loves you and wants to help.
Deaf dumb and blinded which is only understandable from where these poor brothers are standing.it’s not complicated when put in the right order. Thank God for the SSPX and its priests. Archbishop Lefebvre pray for us!
Matt Fradd you should invite Bishop Athanasius Schneider and interview him on the SSPX.
Or Cardinal Burke
@@24erstad Bishop Athanasius Schneider was appointed by Bénédict XVI to investigate the SSPX so he knows à lot about it. Bishop Burke is great but Bishop Schneider is more fit to talk about it. John Salza is a joke.
Why would Bishop Schneider be the person to talk to? He is neither a member of the SSPX nor a Canon Lawyer.
@@Seethi_C He was appointed by Pope Benedict XVI to investigated the FSSPX
@@movfana92 Ah, ok gotcha. I’ll have to look into what he says then.
‘I have no personal doctrine in the manner of religion. All of my life I have held to what I was taught in the French seminary in Rome’
- Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics
But through clear disobedience to the roman pontiff, This makes zero sense. I used to support the SSPX until I seen what Lefebvre actually done which is disobey exactly the opposite of who we are called to be as catholics
Listen to what the SSPX says about themselves. You’ve heard the one side, now, listen to the other. Would you want a protestant to tell the world about Catholicism? No. Here both sides. Otherwise you’re making a judgment without all of the information. And that is foolish.
@@CatholicNanaShould you listen to a transgender person to understand transgenderism? That's the argument you are making, that you have to listen to adherents to an ideology to properly understand the ideology.
@@johndouglas4826 Go and watch the Kennedy Report. He has the real answers about the SSPX. This man you hear, is a total liar.
@@flabiger Yes, you definetely should, why would you not? The only reason I can see you would rather not listening to both sides is if you're insecure about your own position, Trent Horn is a good apologist, he talks to and watches atheists and transgender rethoric all the time.
I’m very disappointed that Matt Fradd has jumped on the SSPX bashing bandwagon. How about inviting a society priest or Mgr Schneider who was actually officially sent to investigate the SSPX seminaries?
The SSPX bears wonderful fruit in the world, and there are many conversions. They welcome people with open arms and give very solid catholic catechism. All their content comes from the catechism of the council of trent and from the Tradition of the church. How on earth can being faithful to that be called schismatic? It just shows how far the Church has drifted away from Her mission and how people think in rigid legalistic terms and don’t consider the substance of the matter at hand
And you now can add Bishop Vitus Huonder to the list of prelates sent to investigate them officially and then come out in full support of SSPX
@@zazszdzfzgzhzjzkzlzxguys please pray for archbischop huonder, he got very bad news from his doc. God please, we need your brave servant here in this difficult times
He has lost me as a fan. Being boys with absolute grifters and jokes like Michael Lofton yet bashes the SSPX. Casting doubt upon their legitimacy. Disgusting.
Please see 0:58.
Friend, love you guys that go to sspx, but we obey the infalibility leadership of the Pope and church doctrine, Like it or not, we have to obey our leader even if we aren't a true fan of him or his opinions. The gates of hell will not prevail even with a bad pope. If you like the TLM join the FSSP instead. They are in good standing with the church while the sspx is not in good standing.
Does Salza have the teaching authority to tell faithful to not go to the SSPX, or some layman podcast on the internet? I would rather listen to Bishop Athanasius Schneider about this non-issue.
@ndfan9236 What did the vast majority of the pharisees say? I'd rather side with Nicodemus.
@@roshinobi What did Judas Iscariot said? I'd rather side with the other apostles.
@@GranMaese How many apostles stood at the foot of the cross at calvary? One and it wasn't the rock.
@@TokugawaPatrick That doesn't change the fact Peter was still the leader, Jesus forgave him afterwards and even reaffirmed his duty as leader. He also still sent the apostles to teach in His name as a group. John was part of that group, not against (unlike the SSPX that denies the rest and believes is the "only one in the right").
If they simple defended TLM tradition while also accepting Novus Ordo, there wouldn't be any problem at all, everyone would support them, but they believe that only the old rite is valid, that only them are right and the others wrong, they are more like Iscariot, not John. They are the pharisees, but not Nicodemo.
I’d rather listen to Cardinal Burke, who said they are in schism and not part of the church. Or to Fulton Sheen, who said to stay away from them as they have no ecclesiastical approval. If we’re going to side with prelates who are unquestionably orthodox, I’m going with the ones whose statements line up with the popes who have authority to pass judgement in these matters.
I am not particularly a supporter of the SSPX, and I have found that on several matters John Salza speaks the truth. But I'm afraid that this argument is simply quite ridiculous. Basically he's saying that because members of the SSPX have reservations on one particular paragraph of the 1989 Profession of Faith, they therefore reject the whole thing and are therefore rejecting "dogmas of the faith". That's about as ridiculous as claiming that the Orthodox reject the whole content of the Nicene Creed just because they don't affirm the filioque. Contrary to what Mr Salza seems to believe, the fact that Catholics owe religious submission of intellect and will to non-definitive teachings is NOT a dogma of the faith. For that matter, neither is it a dogma (strictly speaking) that infallibility extends to teachings of the "secondary object" of the infallible magisterium (i.e. "2nd paragraph" teachings). Rather, that is "only" Catholic Doctrine. So let alone teachings of the "3rd paragraph".
The filioque specifically is a dogma in itself. Salza is making the same argument regarding the profession of faith.
Both dogma and doctrine can be infallibly taught. Placing something in the profession of faith is just about the most authoritative magisterial teaching there is-how could the Chruch be indefectible if part of the universal profession of faith is in error?
Members of the SSPX like to point out that they accept 95% of Vatican II, and it's the last 5% they're asking questions about. Meanwhile, many clerics reject 95% of Vatican II to uphold the questionable 5%, and we're supposed to believe it's the SSPX in schism, not the actual schismatics. Keep in mind that Lefebvre himself voted in favour of the V2 documents, but he did not vote for catastrophic "reform".
@@JohnFromAccounting The Catholic position is to accept 100% of the teachings of the ecumenical councils. It's hardly a defence of the SSPX to point out that some liberals are worse. It's possible that they're both wrong and that the truth lies along a truly narrow road.
When freemasons are praising the teachings of an ecumenical council there is something wrong with that ecumenical council"....
"We've also had a different expression of the Catholic faith in the twentieth century,we've had a new mass that was concocted out of thin air by Annibale Bugnini whose own autobiography provides evidence that he was a Freemason"...
"There has been a freemasonic revolution in the Catholic Church in the 20th century"...
"And yet these same high Church Men view Father Gruner, view the Priests of the Society of St Pius X and other Faithful, Catholics who hold the faith of all time, as outside the Church, only the devil is the Author of such confusion"...
John Salza
He says all these things in this video, including the doctrinal problems with the second vatican council
ruclips.net/video/HKsn7ygDnx4/видео.html
I am 88 and the Mass offered by the SSPX is the Mass I grew up with.
Take that you two. Take your show to marshy land where your weeds will spread fast and tall.
I'm 2000 years old, the Mass I grew up with for 200 years was in Koine Greek. People received communion in the hand, and priests were married.
We have a living magisterium, not a Church frozen in time.
Joan. I respect the aged voice of wisdom. SSPX.
@@lourdesmenezes4974
😂😂😂
What does that even mean?
The question comes down to another question: Are Vatican II and the New Mass doctrinally sound? What about the new teaching on religious liberty, ecumenism, Islam (nobiscum), ecclesiology, new prayers and so on?
If the revised missal is not doctrinally sound then the Church has defected. Disciplinary infallibility is defined Catholic teaching, you can’t dissent from it
@@austinkent8811 the new mass is doctrinally vague by omission of elements that would offend protestants. It's not a lie to leave out the hard truth, but you lose the fullness of revealed truth when you do. Worse yet, some walk away still believing the lies.
@@dylantemple2509 No it isn’t. I used to believe these trad myths and then actually educated myself and found out it’s nonsense based on fake quotes. You don’t have over 40 votive Masses of the Blessed Virgin if you’re trying to not offend Protestants.
Apparently not.
Now I understand why Catholics keep quiet about their faith in the town square. Issa mess these day. Just as the the Vatican 2 designers intended.
To say that the SSPX rejects -Dogmas of the Faith- is such a weird claim and completely false. There is no De Fide proposition that states that every Catholic has to submit his intellect and will to non-definitive teachings.
„Christ has revealed we must hear the Church“ is a very sloppy way of trying to prove that such a De Fide proposition exists. As if the church would not have explicated these words exactly in order to make clear for the faithful what they mean. The dogma which is related to this is the reality of the infallibility of the church which states that The Church is infallible in the final decision on doctrines of faith and morals. Final means -definitive-. There might be a proposition on a lower level which states that you have to submit your intellect and will also to non-definitive teachings, but the thing is that such a proposition is not De Fide, otherwise all these levels wouldn’t make sense at all. If everything is De Fide, nothing is.
Mr. Salza needs to be much more precise in his arguments.
Yes!
Yes, it is funny. How can I submit definitely to something that is not definitive? And what happens when that non-definitive teaching changes? It is laughable. A tax lawyer pretending to be a theologian, wiser than the popes and Ecclesia Dei commission secretaries.
I was going to comment on this very thing. I don’t see how Christ saying follow the Church is the same as saying follow all nondefinitive statements.
To elaborate, it seems almost like the same logic Protestants use when saying if the pope is infallible then we must follow everything he teaches no matter what.
Well no. Infallible statements are very specific. We don’t have to follow non-infallible statements. Is it a good idea to still listen to the Pope? Sure, when what he says aligns with the Catholic faith.
Same for non-definitive Church teaching. Should we listen to the Church if it is non-definitive? Sure, if it aligns with what the Church has definitively taught.
Yes. They are doctrinally sound because they teach what the Catholic Church taught for thousands of years, and what all good priests and bishops still teach today. They teach the Gospel of Christ, as is their duty.
It's hard to teach what the Church has always taught when you yourself as a group of clerics don't obey or follow what the Church has always and still teaches.
That sounds very Protestant-minded to me.
@@AnaMT1985 Without mentioning legalistic nonsense, name one thing where the SSPX teaches contrary to the Catholic tradition.
@@JohnFromAccountingThey teach that the Novus Ordo mass is evil in itself.
@flabiger I think your take is a little off, I understand it as since the corruption attached to the 2nd Vatican counsel bore that Mass style as a fruit through the acts of a covert freemason, it is guilty by association of being an errant form. Just my understanding.
The SSPX couldn't be more faithful to the Church, it literally couldn't, as all it does is continue to practice what all Catholics always have practiced. If the society rejects anything it is because it goes against faith or tradition.
Decades of invalid confessions and marriages.
Decades of illicit Masses.
Countless canonical censures for illicit acts.
Rejections of the Church's Profession of Faith.
Promotion of false doctrines.
Fallacious appeals to supplied jurisdiction.
The erection of a schismatic canonical tribunal which usurps the authority of the bishops and the Holy See.
Schisms (various sects within Sedevacantism and SSPX Resistance, Avrille Dominicans).
Publicly promoting hostility to the Pope and Holy See.
Disregarding warnings not to ordain priests without permission.
Sent priests to minister without incardination.
Excommunication
Would you consider this faithful to the Church?
ruclips.net/video/DqgcCujfQF0/видео.html
Well, it seems they are only faithful as long as they like what it asks from them.
What Catholic has “always practiced” their faith by disobeying the hierarchy (as a rule, not an exception), publicly ministering where they are not permitted, and existing based on the premise that they are necessary because only they have the fullness of the faith? They may worship according to the same books as previous Catholics, but do not conduct themselves as previous Catholics ever did.
@@andym5995yeah sure OK like Vatican II Novus Ordo land is soooooo full of obedient Catholics rocking out to Kool & the Gang, blessing same sex unions with guitars, giving communion to people on their 5th divorce and civil remarriage, ordaining womyn priests, using pizza and coke for communion, making up their own liturgies for the Sacraments.... 😂
First time i went to an sspx mass they invited me because there was a men's night. It was in Orlando, so you had lots of people who were come and go parishoners. Lots of them were very normal and not pretentious. The novice their was very kind and had this personality like i was the only one in the room. He even told me that the society and the bishop have good relations. At least they are trying to reach out to their bishop.
@@Schrodj1 yep
Not at all my experience in another city. My entire family started attending during Covid, and today I just want you to know they did not attend Sunday mass because they had a gun license class so they watched the mass on tv last night ... the slope and teachings are so slippery and completely contrary to the tradition of the church which clearly states not attending mass on a Sunday is a mortal sin.
Do SSPX reject the V2 teaching that Protestants are separated brethren? I am a Protestant who lives in Orlando and was considering going to the SSPX parish in Sanford, but I would not feel comfortable going if this were the case. I could not even be Catholic if all Protestants were considered fully hell bound regardless of their love of God.
@beanwilkins6970 they say this term is irrelevant and misleading, because it doesn't change the fact that protestantism is heretical.
Does this mean protestants are all going to hell? It doesn't, because every individual case is different and judged only by God. As St. John Bosco explained and Fr. Gauldron, SSPX, himself reaffirmed: they can be saved if they have a honest intention of being part of the Church of Christ (that is, the Catholic Church), but faultlessly didn't become part of the body of the Church. But they are part of the soul of the Church because they are catholics in voto (in their intentions) and they would be faithful of the Catholic Church if they were presented the truth and comprehended it. So they are saved because they were catholics in their hearts, as St John Bosco says. So they were saved, ALTHOUGH they were protestants, not BECAUSE they were protestansts. This applies to every false religion too, such as Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc. This is the explanation of the dogma "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus".
That's the Catholic belief, the SSPX also holds it, although they're often a little more violent sometimes when talking to Catholic faithful (which is a matter of prudence, not doctrine).
Note I'm not saying that the Church says all protestants (or other religions) are saved. The Church says the well intentioned people who faultlessly fall into error can also be saved if they are faithful to the graces God gave them. That only God can know, since only God judges the inside. The Church only judges the outside and that's why She cannot go further than, pastorally, calling the protestants "separated brethren". I hope it's clear! God bless you 🙏🏻
Can you invite a SSPX priest?, please.
That would be awesome.
I’d like to see a debate between an SSPX priest and FSSP priest.
I think a discussion with an SSPX priest would bring more clarity and might work to end the widespread uncharitable and unfair characterization of them…
Or a Bishop. Two of them live in the USA.
They should definitely bring on a protestant priest, maybe Martin luther
Talk to an SSPX priest. By John's standard we should assent our intellect and will even if heresy is non definitively taught. Imagine if this was the standard throughout the Churches history? Those that have been persecuted by the church have become great Saints not because they assented their intellect and will to whatever the church said but because they stood up for truth proclaimed by the gospel.
When Matt stops having heretics on his show, then he can discuss what is doctrinally sound.
@@J93392 So John Salza is a Heretic, but Matt isn't? How did you come to that conclusion?
Sauza never stopped being a ma son. Lies about Fr Kramer also
So true. Excellent example. Savonarola was excommunicated and is now up for canonization.
This is your friendly reminder that Vatican II was a pastoral and NOT a doctrinal council. Also, "by their fruits you shall know them"; look at the fruits of Vatican II as a help to discern how healthy it really was for the Church.
Can you elaborate on how it was not a doctrinal council?
@@ajmeier8114 John XXIII and Paul VI specifically said that it is merely a pastoral council, not trying to teach or define any doctrine nor condemn error. It doesn't contain a single anathema.
@@apisDei To my knowledge they never said it was MERELY a pastoral council. But it is very pastoral in nature.
But regardless that does not make it an invalid council and it doesn't mean we don't have to consent to the teachings of the council.
It also reaffirms doctrines already established.
In my experience, when people claim the council is pastoral, they are hinting that they don't have to give consent to the council and can pay it no attention.
With all due respect, brother, but that's a very ill-intended comment. There are people out there, still living, that had children of their own before Vatican II was even a thing. Let that sink in for a minute. That's how recent it is. Saying "look at its fruits" when it has yet to mature and be fully and truly implemented by all [and the existence of the SSPX is proof of this] is just simply contemptuous at best. In many parts of the world it has definitively worked, if it were not for it I may not even have embraced Catholicism as fondly as I do today, nor I would be interested on it. Granted, it may have room for improvement, but it has done more good than not, and has a lot more of potential if properly embraced.
As far as I can tell, for all the videos I've seen and comments I've read about the subject, the SSPX followers [and I don't mean the clergy, but the laity] are mainly there solely for "the show" [so to speak]. They are usually the people that yell "sacrilege" when the Eucharist is given in hand instead of directly to mouth and stuff like that [despite that the original way of giving it was by hand, heck, Jesus Himself gave it by hand]; they are traditionalists for the sake of being traditionalist, not for the sake of the virtue behind the tradition [the things that give tradition value to begin with].
In the end, Vatican II has opened the faith to many people, so they could understand it better, regardless if masses are not as pretty as the TLM [it would be cool if they were as pretty, though, the TLM is indeed beautiful]. But if I had to choose between being able to understand my faith by being a layman, or simply "obeying tradition because it sounds pretty", I choose to understand it any day, and so should anyone that truly wants to defend Christianity in this wicked times.
My two cents. God Bless.
@@GranMaese Thank You Sir !
People tend to limit the catholic Church to the Western world, completely ignoring other continents where the council bears great fruits. Catholicism, despite persecutions all around the world, is the religion that grows the most everywhere, everywhere except in the West. Secularization and sexual revolution damages Europe and North America during the 60's 70's; and the decline of faith is imputed to the Council and the New Mass: pure fallacy.
SSPX indeed act like a sect; they cannot even hold the same discourse ! Their apparence (beautiful liturgies, solid teachings, priest in cassocks, etc.) are attractive to many, and they presume It is the place to be. But indeed they act like a sect, for they forbid people to attend any other parishes than theirs. A schism calls other schisms, and in the society, we are witness of It with Mgr Williamson!
As I understand it, the sspx does not reject the profession of faith, but have issues with 3rd category *items*. ... not the 3rd category carte blanche. That would be a misrepresentation of the SSPX in my opinion.
Here is where they explicitly state that the SSPX accepts the authentic magisterium, but has issues with some of the things stated by it.
ruclips.net/video/dUt1q0D9qM0/видео.html
Salza misrepresents many other things about the SSPX. But let this be known in order to show that this presentation is riddled with inaccuracy... how deliberate? only God knows.
The SSPX submit to the Council of Trent, which outweighs non-dogmatic councils. Why aren't priests giving full religious assent to the Council of Trent is the real question?
These are 1980’s arguments, and Mr. Salza arguments are plainly erroneous.
And that comment is no argument
@ you’re right. It was a comment.
Francis granted sspx status to hear valid confessions and marriages!
They discuss that in the main interview video.
This is addressed in the video
This was done for the sake of the souls who entrust themselves to the Society; it does not act as a healing of the division between the Society and the Church. However, it gets repeated by those who support the SSPX.
And think about that... if they were forbidden to be Priests and not valid how would that be possible ? They would be considered laity ?...... give me a break.
@@DJPTEXAS watch the interview in full before dismissing out of hand because it makes you uncomfortable.
SSPX wouldnt even be a temptation for me if Traditionis Custodes didn’t wipe out almost all of the TLMs in my diocese.
I wouldn’t feel bad about it. My point really though is that if the Vatican sees SSPX as schismatic, and TC was supposed to combat that, it had the opposite effect. For me and I imagine many, once you discover the TLM, that’s your Mass, and an attack on that becomes an attack on your faith.
We certainly agree.
@@hunter1029016 As far as I'm aware, the main difference between the FSSP and the SSPX is that when their bishops were excommunicated back when, the FSSP sought communion with Rome. The SSPX priests at the time didn't. That's all I need to know.
The main argument for Catholicism is that it has authority. Due to its authority, it is able to direct the faithful to incorrect dogma unless it is preserved from doing that by the Holy Ghost. So it must be so, since 'the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it.' Speaking against ecumenical councils and the Pope's official correspondence to the people on faith and morals is a statement against having faith in the the Holy Ghost. Full Stop.
@@Eye_of_a_Texan Well put, you hit the nail on the head.
The TLM will and must make a comeback, but it’s not the Church itself. Don’t put the TLM above faithfulness to the Rock and Christ.
Yes. The SSPX is doctrinally sound.
If you’re anti sspx you’re not a serious person
The SSPX is the de facto remnant of the true Church, preserving the deposit of faith handed down to us as best they can, in the face of a hierarchy that is manifestly apostate. Rather than condemn them for lack of obedience, we should be happy they remain patiently obedient in every way possible, save for compromising the faith. I'm humbly grateful for the privilege of worshipping with them.
Hmm, I wonder what St. Pope Pius X would have said about this.
"Do not allow yourselves to be deceived by the cunning statements of those who persistently claim to wish to be with the Church, to love the Church, to fight so that people do not leave Her…But judge them by their works. If they despise the shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all means of evading their authority in order to elude their directives and judgments…, then about which Church do these men mean to speak? Certainly not about that established on the foundations of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone”
- Pope Pius X, Allocution in May 10, 1909
Yes, Christ said 'He who hears you, hears me,' but recall that no one listened or took Lefebvre seriously when he wrote to the Pope and Rome about his concerns with certain texts in Vatican II, or liturgical and Eucharistic abuse resulting from the new Mass etc.; No one can say Lefebvre did not love the Church, the Magisterium, or tradition. He did what he did because he loved. Because he was only passing on what he first received. I have no extensive knowledge in moral theology or Church Doctrine, but when I think of what Catholics during those times were dealing with (fear of modernism, relativism and liturgical abuse, to name just a FEW) can we blame them for what they did?
🍷🗿
What he should have received was the duty of obedience to the Pope. That is divine law. When he ordained three additional bishops against the will of the pope, he violated DIVINE law. Therefore, I can easily question whether he loved the Church.
He signed the documents
@@johndouglas4826 Yes, except for two; one concerning 'Religion and Freedom' and another called 'The Church and the Modern World'. He had problems with these two due to relativism and modernism.
@@emmadumais2337 Which documents and what source suggests he didn't sign them and also I argue this then means that Magisterium can err and we shouldn't be catholics at all if this is to genuinely be believed.
I have watched a lot of Salza’s commentary on the SSPX issue. He is a smart man, but I’m afraid I don’t trust his judgment. He ignores that the hierarchy are teaching and promoting error. He is very good at lining up hard hitting quotes that make people surmise the issue. The one that caught my attention before was when he said in one of his clips Rome bent over backwards to try to accommodate Archbishop Lefebvre. But this isn’t true. As Archbishop Lefebvre said on June 29, 1976.
“This I have heard twice from the envoys of the Holy See, who told me that the social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ was no longer possible in our time; that we must accept definitely the pluralism of religions. That is what they told me. That the Encyclical Quas Primas, which is so beautiful, on the social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which was written by Pope Pius XI, would never be written today by the Pope. This is what they said to me-the official envoys of the Holy See.
Well, we are not of this religion. We do not accept this new religion. We are of the religion of all time; we are of the Catholic religion. “
That’s spiritual blackmail. And it changes the context of the relations between Rome and SSPX.
Now if John Salza is going to judge that as bending over backwards, then his judgment is negligent, and shouldn’t be trusted.
Also, evidenced from the quote above that is ignored, he generally gives the hierarchy a free pass. He doesn’t really state the teaching on resisting superiors and popes that the church teaches and saints practiced. This Includes direct commands of popes. He doesn’t say here are the principles for obeying and disobeying superiors and popes and this is why they don’t apply here. It is just a constant strengthening of the authority, without explaining when the authorities are misusing it and can and should be resisted.
Another comment is that there is no sense of a crisis or necessity. If there was no crisis Archbishop Lefebvre wouldn’t have done what he deemed necessary. It’s as if everything is more or less ok. When in fact the situation is extremely grave. For example there is error in canon law, the new catechism, papal encyclicals and Vatican two. This is extremely relevant, as if it is left out of the discussion it gives the false picture that people are not resisting error which is within their rights and duties, but are simply disobeying legit authorities and are hence schismatic.
Finally I would saying regarding the hierarchy getting a free pass, they condemn people going to schismatic liturgies and churches but leave out the fact that popes they defend who attacked the SSPX do these very things. Pope Benedict went to orthodox liturgy in Constantinople. Now, what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If it’s a mortal sin for the laity to go schismatic masses then it is for the popes. Not only that but these popes have gone to non Christian religious services. Pope Benedict prayed in a mosque facing Mecca with his shoes off with immas.
Don't forget the pagan pachamama ceremony in the Vatican gardens.
@@roshinobi Certainly scandalous, but I'll believe ignorance in the case of Pope Francis because he's not the most intellectually alert prelate we've had.
"When freemasons are praising the teachings of an ecumenical council there is something wrong with that ecumenical council"....
"We've also had a different expression of the Catholic faith in the twentieth century,we've had a new mass that was concocted out of thin air by Annibale Bugnini whose own autobiography provides evidence that he was a Freemason"...
"There has been a freemasonic revolution in the Catholic Church in the 20th century"...
"And yet these same high Church Men view Father Gruner, view the Priests of the Society of St Pius X and other Faithful, Catholics who hold the faith of all time, as outside the Church, only the devil is the Author of such confusion"...
John Salza
He says all these things in this video, including the doctrinal problems with the second vatican council
ruclips.net/video/HKsn7ygDnx4/видео.html
Speaking of resisting superiors in error,in the video below John Salza says "only those Angels who resisted their leader were saved", speaking of Lucifer and the fallen Angels.
He says this at 2:57-3:01 in this video
ruclips.net/video/QOKem57rkZg/видео.html
Why would a smart man like John attend a mass from the society and not question the accusations of schism or the jurisdictional status for 15 years? I suspect something else is the reason. I would not attend the society unless I had a strong conviction to do so in light of these issues. I have been attending for three years.
I disagree with Mr Salsa’s perspective here. Firstly, he begins saying that they are not doctrinally sound, and makes a case based on their hesitation to offer a specific type of assent to Non-infallible judgements of the Holy See (judgements which the Church herself understands are NOT settled doctrine). Furthermore, the fact that this is in a papal profession of faith does not de facto elevate to a matter of dogma that we should give religious assent of intellect and will to non-infallible judgements. This is not a sound argument. I think their hesitation is all the more clearly understood when you see a large number of recent papal statements of that category that are clearly wrong- are we bound to offer this respect and obedience to what is against the faith? Or perhaps are we held to believe that the faith is changing not in development but in contradiction to what came before? This does not seem to be sufficient grounds to declare them doctrinally unsound, perhaps you might criticize their prudence in how they go about “rejecting statements” but ultimately they’re not rejecting any doctrine or dogma itself.
Christ be with you.
Charity would suggest that an explanation should be given for why the SSPX do not accept this version of the profession rather than simply stating they don't.
These points are important and perhaps should be discussed with some like his Excellency Bishop Athanasius Schneider who has in the past come out in support of the SSPX while not being a member himself.
God bless you
Bishop Schneider would not look into if the Society priests meet the requirements and conditions for validity of priestly ordination. he simply sympathizes with the TLM goers. The Hammers go down is unfair to the TLM because the culprits use the TLM to speak against the Council and the N.O. mass. They SSPX Bishops and priest were digging in by raising a monster which will destroy them if they obey the Holy See now. All this time they preached to the people that they don't have to obey Vat 2 and now if do, the SSPX laity will turn on them. Simple as that. Imagine the sspx laity hear on Sunday from their priest that now we are in submission to Vat 2 and the N.O. mass is valid. That would be the biggest shockwave that they witness. I think it's up to the individual sspx laity to figure out their priests not in union with the Holy See and if they wanted to stay in the illusion that they have the true Catholic faith they will stay, and if not, they will leave. But the leaderships will not budge. They simply become another Anglican type of Church not having the Holy Order passed down from the Apostles.
@@ScreamingReel500
Christ be with you
Sorry I am not sure what you mean.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider has visited SSPX seminaries, and made comments on their validity.
Please look them up on line.
I find him to be perhaps the most Holy man in the Church.
Since this Holy man has supported the SSPX, it would be worth posing these questions.
I go to a SSPX Church and our priest do not in any way promote disobedience to the Pope.
What I understand the SSPX are looking for are explanations on how new doctrines are reconciled with the old.
It is not that the don’t obey Vatican 2, it is that the need to have it reconciled with Church teachings of the past.
The SSPX Church I go to does not say the Novus Ordo is invalid, only that it lacks reverence.
Currently as far as I can see the Novus Ordo does not obey Vatican 2 as it says Latin should be retained, similarly Gregorian Chant; where are they?
God bless you
@@MrKev1664 I don't know if the bishop verified the validity of the SSPX priests or not. No priest = no Eucharist. He only said the mass is done correctly with reverence.
Catechism:
#83 "The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.
Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium."
85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
@@ScreamingReel500
Christ be with you
Still not sure what you mean.
It is not the Bishop who decides whether a Priest is valid, it is apostolic tradition.
This is why the orthodox mass is valid.
Apostolic tradition has not been lost in the SSPX.
God bless you
@@MrKev1664 Hmm, not sure what you mean by "It is not the Bishop who decides whether a Priest is valid, it is apostolic tradition." So, anyone can ordain himself by the words of God? Because the 'apostolic Traditions" is the words of God. And what word or words in particularly that you have to say when you ordain a priest? What are the criteria, requirements, and conditions that must be met by the one who performs the Sacrament and the one who receives the sacrament of Holy Order? This is alien to me that there is no history of and rules that must follow for the sacrament. Are you sure?
Thank God for Archbishop Lefebvre
He saved the Latin mass
Cognitive dissonance is real. Be in communion with the Pope not excommunicated Bishop.
@@MrsSquishy2010 ruclips.net/video/Er7KAphrwFE/видео.html
@@MrsSquishy2010 He wasn't excommunicated. Benedict XVI even clarified this.
JPII did excommunicate him.
You are putting Catholics between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Where is the place of the conscience in the life of a Catholic, including a cleric? Maybe, Lefebre refused a Vatican appointed bishop because those he appointed were schooled in orthodox teaching. Is the Christian faith simply a matter of legalities? Where is the place of the conscience? Maybe this whole thing is a lot more nuanced than you say. Maybe some of the bishops felt pressured to sign the Vatican II documents. Maybe they didn't expect the abuses which we are now seeing. Maybe there was a lot of naivite on the part of some clerics. How about the real truth about Vatican II? It was co-opted right from the start. That's a fact. Maybe Lefebre had the insight to see those abuses coming. Some of us realize that the so called legal Catholic church will likely "normalize" homosexuality and female deacons. We know there were priests who rejected Humannae Vitae when it was pusblished. We konw there are priests who accept abortion, sadly. How is it "legal" for one pope to contradict what the previous pope proclaims as in allowing the Latin Mass? Rather than trying to squash it altogether by making it practically illegal. which will actually have the opposite affect, why not permit the Latin Mass in every diocese as an option? Not every SSPX community speaks against the Latin Mass in the diocese. Maybe Lefebvre had a change of heart after Vatican II. Maybe tmany bishops felt obligated to sign the documents although they felt that something is off. Perhaps, this discussion is not as cut and dry as you make it sound.
Exactly...
That's a lot of what if's!
Why not have someone on that is SSPX to explain themselves. I’m not, but I bet they would be able to rebuttal a lot of what this guy is saying
They have been asked by Salza himself over and over to come and rebut what he has to say and the sspx refuses.
@@AnaMT1985not surprised considering his arguments are bad faith
@@boethius8114 Bad faith arguments? How? He’s literally quoting the Church Fathers and Magisterial documents. 😂😂😂 More like his arguments are irrefutable thus why the sspx won’t touch them with a 10 foot pope.
@@AnaMT1985 he argues their mission is contrary to the mission of the church based on one quote. Bad faith argument.
He says the profession is ‘essentially’ dogma. Bad faith argument.
@@AnaMT1985 is the churches mission to save souls?
Or make women priests and bless sodomite ‘unions’
Please go after the novus ordo where you see the abuses and talk abt how to make it more reverent.
The abuse is everywhere and you guys don't care abt it.
Exactly!!!!
I have a feeling a lot of the post conciliar Catholics are going to soon find out they are on the wrong side of history. When the history books are written it’s going to show how persecuted the SSPX was by Catholics of the new rite and how they stood fast and saved the traditions and dogmas of the faith. It’s not simply about the mass. Every last one of the sacraments were also changed. Even the breviary was changed. Nothing of the pre conciliar church was safe. Archbishop Lefebvre will go down as a Saint. This is all so similar to the Maccabean Revolt in which a few saved tradition against the many.
This is a wish. Vat II is impressive, not one other religion has addressed the modern age like it has.
@@commissary4196 Modern age does not need a unique address. People have been the same since creation. We are all fallen creatures. The church should be the unchanging stalwart of dogma, theology and morality. To change it or address it any differently would be to introduce the errors of modernism which has been condemned many times over.
The Franciscans were in a similar way in the medieval period. There was also a heretical movement closely related to the Franciscans, many claiming to be Franciscans, but ultimately were villains. The same can be said of the SSPX being the persecuted, but noble, society, with the sedevacantists as the heretics that muddy the water.
@@epistemophiliac5334 Likewise im so impressed when I look at how little TLM parishes there are, the low attendance and the resentment parishioners hold for the Holy Father, Bishops and the hierarchy.
@@epistemophiliac5334 Not even at high points of the calendar does my TLM get even close to a NO attendance rate. As people and their children return to their faith that they abandoned in the secular age. The overwhelming majority will choose the NO. The church played the long game. Smart move. The See of Peter never fails.
Salus Animarum Suprema Lex Est, Mr. Salza.
Cmon you know FR€€M4$0N$ can't read Latin
This was super helpful. I'm in the middle of RCIA but I found an SSPX Chapel in my town and was considering attending sometime out of curiosity. Will skip the SSPX and keep attending my local parish I've been attending the past year instead without worry until I can finally receive the Sacraments 🙏
Congrats on the RCIA! I highly recommend the book "An Open Letter to Confused Catholics" by Archbishop Marcel Lefebrve! God Bless.
The sacraments you are receiving from the archdiocese mass are invalid because they don't have validly ordained priests
Not to persuade you one way or another. But if you have grandparents or great grandparents that were Catholic then the SSPX mass is the only mass structure that they ever knew.
Some diocesan bishops visit the priories of the Sspx because they like what they’re doing; they see the obvious fruit and that it’s a work of God.
What Salza is saying here is ridiculous, and is exactly highlighting the problems with V2 and the reason why we cannot except some things because of the danger it poses to souls. He’s speaking in a way that’s trying to exaggerate every possible detail to present it to this audience in a package that doesn’t claim anything really. I don’t know why he’s making a fuss about this because the simple matter is said and done; there is no schism from the Sspx. We’re beating a dead horse here. I second the notion that one should just listen to Bishop Athanasius Schneider on this non issue, as he actually has the authority to speak on the matter for the faithful.
You are right
What authority does the Auxiliary Bishop of Astana have over the issue of the SSPX?
If we are following authority, should we not follow the Pope? 'Ecclesia Dei' declared to the universal Church that we have a grave obligation to cease any support for the SSPX, and that formally adhering to them is punishable by excommunication.
If you think V2 poses danger to souls, Why are you catholic? This would mean the church can err? One may as well be protestant
The only churches I've been to that have the enthusiasm and participation that Vatican II desired are Latin Mass parishes.
@@johndouglas4826 🤦♂️
Im a photographer of profession, im used to read the image not the words, i converted due to the fsspx.
- Priest facing the altar not the people,
- Altar boys working on a ritual,
- Secondary priest all the time in the confessionary to give confessions and great advise.
- Homillies not about how God loves me but about scripture and salvation or damnation of our souls.
- Heads covered, singles are white, married have black, this is huge because this makes the church a place where you are reminded that you are expected to marry and have children, this is so huge thesesdays.
- More men, also a huge point.
- No lay men giving catequisis or reading scripture in mass, (none of that worldly "liberte, egalite, fraternite" nonsense) this is also huge.
-fruits layed barren for anyone to see, young families having kids and keeping together.
The whole picture reads GOD IS HERE
I dont see any of this when i would go to a novis ordus mass, quite the oposite, the whole church just felt part of the world, part of the status quo, filled with ideas of equality, giving lay men participation and voice. Not a single word of condemnation on the erasure of European lands, as if God created the white man for it now to disappear into race mixing, not a single world of condemnation of jewish power and degeneration over the west, i trully believe tuat Marcel Lefebre read well what was happening in the church, its a complete takeover of freemasons
and modernists who have already destroyed the western world on the political level, of course they would never been able to do it if they didnt found a way to neutralize the Church first...
I have a great Idea, both you and Salza go to an SSPX Mass and tell me what the difference is between it and a FSSP Mass ? And note the Picture of Pope Francis hanging in the hallways......
They'll just cope and call it a deception.
I could set up a chapel and put on a 'mass' that has all the appearances of being a Catholic Mass without even being validly ordained. This is such a skin-deep talking point.
If you wish to represent Christ, to act _In persona Christi_, you must receive permission from the one you are claiming to represent. There are two ways to confirm this mission: through the governance of the visible Church, or by the working of miracles. The SSPX has neither, and so has no mission. The FSSP does, and so they can legitimately claim to represent Christ in their ministry.
A relationship is two way. The SSPX can claim to be under Pope Francis until they're blue in the face-it only becomes true when the Pope reciprocates, which he would do by allowing the priests to be incardinated. Francis hasn't done that.
I've been with sspx for a long time in France and never seen a picture of pope Francis. I actually heard many times harsh critics about pope Francis during homilies. Sometimes I felt I was in a protestant church!
@@Thurold Different here in the USA I guess. When I attended the NO mass in Italy while living there it also was much different than how it is said here....
The SSPX, in my experience, are focused on teaching Christ, while the FSSP take most opportunities they have to bash the Pope. This is not a criticism of the FSSP because I like them too, but a recognition that the FSSP, who are fully accepted by Rome, are more vocal about their disagreements with the Pope than the SSPX are.
SSPX is more doctrinally sound than Vatican II.
A superbly articulated explanation of where the fundamental theological errors lay ,without engaging the side issues of the Latin Liturgical Traditions arguments.
Wow! Well said!
I went to SSPX school and Mass for 6 years. It was a great experience where I learned so much about the Faith. I also made amazing friends who were in love for God and the saints. I had everything Catholicism could offer, except obedience to Rome. I ended up leaving SSPX, but my devotion to God and his family of saints continues to grow.
I'm grateful to SSPX for teaching me catholicism well, including obedience to the pope (although in word only). I'm grateful for the friends I made (although I lost them when I left SSPX, because they must ostracize you if you don't belong).
Thanks to FFPX, we can have literally every good thing SSPX offers, plus loyalty to the Vicar of Christ.
Is your comment sort of ironic?
Do you recommend me to also follow your footsteps and make the experience of SSPX?😂 i cinverted last year and have some sspx friends my age (25) and for sure they are also of the type you noted😂
@@karlheven8328 I’m just expressing the good that came out of SSPX. It doesn’t justify the fact that SSPX is a schismatic cult. I say stay away from SSPX and stick within the safety of the Roman Catholic Church.
@@robbklobb6501Thank you for your thoughts. I am not trying to be flippant, but I feel like the Novus Ordo rite is schismatic. It is disrespectful to God, the Priesthood and lay folks. The Latin Mass is the marker for orthodoxy.
We live in extremely sad times of diabolical disorientation where we are unable to discern which group is right and where most Catholics are very partisan, forming their own silly cliques, and at each other’s throats. We are truly divided and deaf to the Gospel. This situation is caused by evil shepherds.
That is why Jesus Christ instituted a visible Church which can teach authoritatively. Hear the Church, listen to her and obey her and don't set yourself up against her.
It is a matter of public record that the Archdiocese of Kansas City [which includes the largest SSPX community in the USA] (1) “does not consider the SSPX to be schismatic,” (2) affirms that Catholics do “canonically … fulfill” their Sunday and holy day obligation by attending an SSPX mass (while still discouraging such attendance), and (3) “does … grant SSPX priests the faculty to witness marriages when the priests request it,” which is apparently the norm at present. But maybe that's all irrelevant...
My prayers on the subject concerning SSPX have been answered...
I always sort of *shrink* when I hear that society speaking like there are two levels in Catholicism... Their level as being superior and holy (better dressed) and (better postures), and the Holy Catholic Church as being sort of irreverent...
At 78, I lived through the Latin Mass, and came out of the Mass not having understood much in that language.
I still love to reminisce about those good old days, but since Mother Church is a good mother; she decided that each faithful would be better served hearing the Mass in their own language...I immediately cheered that decision indeed.
Please don*t tell me that back in those days that I was receiving Holy Communion in a more reverent way, as one grows in the love of receiving the Body, Blood Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Ps
One should not even notice if others are receiving on the tongue or in the hand if one is concentrated on who one receives.
The three theological virtues always takes precedence over other virtues. Faith, hope, and charity should never be sacrificed for a lesser virtue, like obedience. If you sacrifice faith for obedience, you’re doing it wrong. Obedience goes out the window if you cannot maintain faith, hope, and charity. Obedience must be kept as long as the main three are satisfied.
You aren’t going to talk to an SSPX priest on this because you know they are going to completely shut down your absurd arguments.
John Salza is right
Well that explains everything. This guy must be a lawyer.
Salsa is the last person to listen to on anything Catholic. A wolf in sheep clothing? Very wishy washey.
I will never understand the almost constant anti-SSPX content from most of Catholic RUclips. It is clear they are at the very least canonically irregular however I think they have a point with the extraordinary mission thing. Additionally, with the benefit of hindsight, I think Archbishop Lefevre was correct with his claim that the modern crisis necessitated his response. We clearly live in extraordinary times and the church is under assault both from without and within. It's a rally around the flag moment and I'll take anyone who will answer the call. Has the SSPX gone too far in some ways, sure. But the Church has made the mistake of not conceding when the SSPX has a legitimate point
Seriously, listen to the entire interview and really hear everything he is saying….you won’t keep making this argument, at least not without seriously rethinking it.
He is not attacking it, he is pointing out all of its errors. I get frustrated when people just boil down clear and canon law-based critiques as attacks and “anti” content. If I point out the fallacies of the LGBTQ community, am I attacking it?? Am I “anti”?
God bless you.
Actually he is attacking and creating a series of straw man arguments. And he makes a number of basic theology errors in his assertions. He imbibed in an error of form of Donatism mixed with a caricature of Feeneyism, and claims that babies and the disabled that are baptized validly in non-Catholic settings are not members of the Catholic Church. So he thinks there are different kinds of valid Baptisms and not one Baptism nd how he reconciles it all with the dogma of no salvation outside the church is a mystery
Odds are someone is writing a check somewhere to gaslight Catholics into servile false obedience and to dissuade people from orthodoxy and most of all orthopraxy.
SSPX is quickly running out of cover. The orthodox trad community is getting wise to their nonsense.
I think if most saw the pre-concilliar church there would be far less to attack the society for. I mean we can all name Lefebvre excommunicated for the horrible crime of appointing bishops, however there are cardinals bishops and clerics who have done far worse.
No, because the SSPX has no canonical mission. Their bishops have not been sent by the Pope.
Maybe, Lefevre was correct in rejecting more recent changes to annulments. Look at the increase of annulments in recent times. Maybe the church hasn't done her people, including her clergy, any favours with many of these updates.
Did you know in Vatican II documents mention small changes to the mass not radical changes? There were a lot disobedience to the church such as communion in the hands (which was forced into indult), Pope Paul VI said to keep the keep communion on tongue, more than 65% of bishops voted no on the survey to communion on the hands, yet Pope Paul VI gave in to Memoriale Domini document to allow as an alternative with very detail instruction of not abusing the communion in the hands. I as most people grew up in 70's to now with only one option, communion in the hands. I found out in early 90's communion on the tongue is allow and very much preferred by the Church but not promoted or encouraged. Now, we see this a major problem, close to 70% of mass goers do not believe the Eucharist as the real Body of Christ. This is one of the big reason SSPX has great concern back in the 70's about this.
Few comments on my side:
* Extraordinary Miracle, ironically enough, for me, -the ability to recognize the problems of the "New Advent Church" that was born from Vatican II.
* Dr Sanza is the best example of a modernist: relativism and contradiction all over.
* Matt Fratt obviously is a memeber of the new catholic religion, not of the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore has a need to support the new church, easy as that.
Last statement:
*Nice words needed to fill the lack of logic, princess, bishops, anyways, nobody is bounded to accept heresy. So thank God there a brave priests out there defending the flock from the wolves and dare to say, we wont be laid in our faces!
Meanwhile, N.O. parishes continue to shrivel and Traditional parishes continue to expand. It's all about the fruit, y'all.
Since not everyone speaks and understands Latin, using it as the exclusive language will hinder efforts to evangelize the entire world. During Pentecost, the disciples received the gift of tongues. This event is described in the Book of Acts, specifically Acts 2:1-4. On the day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit descended upon the disciples, enabling them to speak in various languages. The gift of tongues, also known as glossolalia, is considered one of the spiritual gifts mentioned in the New Testament. It played a significant role in the early Christian church, particularly in spreading the message of Jesus to diverse populations.
It seems like FSSP and other traditionalists dislike the SSPX more than Novus Ordo Catholics do.
Perhaps that's because the N.O. Catholics don't know what the SSPX says about them.
According to them, you should go to confession for assisting at your parish's Sunday mass, no-matter how reverently it was celebrated.
Have you ever heard what the sspx call people who go to a fssp mass? The rallies. To them, it's an insult to be faithful to the pope.
The SSPX is the most irrelevant thing in my country thankfully.
Only some. Most traditionally formed priests support Lefebvre at least privately, and often without reservation.
@@kristincusick1342 I don't think they say it's invalid
Shallow position on the Faith. Ideological and violence to reason. We see with our eyes and hear with our ears that Rome has lost the Faith but yet they argue that we must submit to them.
Matt Fradd will invite everyone under the sun EXCEPT an SSPX priest...come to think of it, has matt fradd EVER invited a Traditional Catholic Priest? FSSP? ICKSP?
Matt Fradd is CLEARLY part of catholic inc
John Salza wouldn't know a dogma was if he was married to it. This is embarrassing, for you, not for me and certainly not for any member of the SSPX.
This is pretty nit picky to call out the sspx for not being soctrinally sound because we don't believe in blind obedience while the NO and all the new teachings that contradict the faith out in the open are doctrinally sound? Give me a break
Has anyone ever wonder why individual SSPX priests arent in comment sections destroying weak arguments like this and cranking out content from their own channels? Its because they are A) not allowed to have social media because its a waste B) preach against being keyboard warriors and lay subject matter experts C) have souls to minister to.
Imagine if SSPX priests were to spend an hour of their day just going into SSPX bashing videos like this and pick apart content that doesnt hold muster.
It might allow the Society priests to defend their good reputation but at the same time it would destroy their inner peace and ability to stay out of all the muck.
Invite an SSPX priest on your show, Matt. They will have to go through their superior and get permission. Because the Society priests are not hear for Internet face time. They're here for the salvation if souls.
You hit it right in the target 🎯. I made a retreat in Ridgefield CT & the three SSPX are solid in tradition. They don’t pay any mind to what going on out there but focus on Jesus, Mary & the Saints.
Matt the request for sspx to accept the third part was dropped by the Vatican. This man’s information is not current
Wow! I feel real comfy taking a high degree masons word for what’s right and wrong about the SSPX. Almost like I believe a Muslim telling me he’ll accept Christianity and let me live for standing firm in my faith.
I mean, one can lie to me because it’s part of their faith/oath. I’ll think for myself thank you.
I guess with that logical we cannot listen and trust St. Paul since he held the coats of those stoning the first Christian martyrs. How can we be sure his conversion was real? What if his conversion was just a conspiracy?
It's better to argue with what the man has to say than to use his past as an argument for why what he says is untrue. (A classic case of ad hominem)
I’ve heard about how these masons, once being elevated to high degrees, can’t leave and can be killed if they leave. Either way, the past 2+ years have taught me to trust no one. I used to only truly trust myself and as I age I’m starting to mistrust myself.
Only God knows all the games we play.
This. Exactly. Study for yourself. I did. I have a mother who is very active in her NO parish so I go there to confession every now and then , it's virtually empty , and the SSPX chapel is so packed it's hard to get in at all after multiple tries. Ask yourself why. I would point to many speeches given by the late Father Gregory Hesse , a Canon lawyer , who goes through the entire SSPX history and calls into question the validity of ANY sacrament given in a NO church. It's clear to me after researching that our faith has been so watered down that it's almost unrecognizable. I'm re-catechizing myself to learn my faith properly with the excellent book , My Catholic Faith a catechism in pictures by Bishop Morrow. Suggest other Catholics do the same. The word of God doesn't change , but the Freemasons have tried to bring down the Catholic Church since their existence. Then , one starts saying the SSPX is heretical 😂 I guess if you live long enough you see everything
The SSPX rejects the Profession of Faith of 1989.
By the fruit you shall know them ✝️✝️✝️
I liked it just because you called everyone a dingus! Hahaha🤣 It really works!
Non-definitive statements from the magisterium get submission of intellect. So, if the church changes judgment from A to B, and during the time the church taught A, you espoused B, were you sinning?
This was poorly explained, and poorly backed up. Where is the proof that the SSPX rejects assent of the will/intellect for anything the Catholic Church teaches infallibly? Criticism isn't rejection. This guy is too lost in letter of law that he is missing the fundamental truths/realities of where the sspx stands on issues.
Not everything any common SSPX priest says should be taken as the stance the entireity of the society holds. If we did that for the novus ordo, boy oh boy, would there be issues.
@@peternaus3934I love your last point about the NO. Seriously, if we went by -dare I even say- the majority of NO priests, you wouldn’t even have Catholicism. What a time to be alive and Catholic.
@peternaus3934 The SSPX has well known and public statements about the Roman Rite of 1970, they have public statements about the Second Vatican Council, they publish the works of people who accuse these things of error or heresy.
I have heard their priests publicly preach these things.
@@StoaoftheSouth There are serious issues with the Novus Ordo mass (it was created by protestants. That is a historical fact, not making it up, and there are serious issues with its existence and structure, see Quo Primum) I am not saying I 100% endorse the SSPX but I really like the Latin Mass because that is the most appropriate way for mass to be said, and is the way mass was said across the globe for more than 500 years.
@@piews-and-brews W Steve.
Vatican I, Session 4, Chapter 4, para. 6:
For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter NOT so that they might, by his revelation, make known some NEW doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously GUARD and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith TRANSMITTED BY THE APOSTLES. Emphasis mine for clarity. This supercedes Vatican II and therefore takes precedence in the order of heirarchy. At the end of this section that anyone who would declare anything contrary to these declarations is anathema. Also earlier sessions reaffirm the anathemas on heresies anyone who does NOT accept all of the sacred books of the Bible canonically declared and reaffirmed, anathema. So suddenly, Vatican II decides that they are not anathema (all of the sects outside of the Church). None of this flies. The Church has strayed from Catholic Dogma from time immemorial and has attempted with such devilish cunning as St. Paul said so clever as: "to fool the elect", except for a special grace given by God to resist falsehoods proposed as doctrines. Don't be a dingas, uphold the True Catholic Faith. Amen. +
Thank God for the SSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre
Is the SSPX doctrinally sound? YES, of course it is!!
We should pray for Salza that God delivers him from his hatred of SSPX brethren. Very sad.
He has no hatred for SSPX. Maybe u should listen to the full interview before passing judgment especially the first 20minutes.
@@thefuzzfactor2989 brother do you have ears to hear and eyes to see? Please listen to the whole interview yourself my friend.
@@paulpereira9317 Do you mean the part where he says how much he loves all his SSPX friends and respects those of their priests he knows personally?
@@Dack105 He probably meant the part were Salza said that he wants the Society priests to come into communion with the Church so that they can serve her, because the Church needs men like that. Manifesting a lot of hatred right there.
@@StoaoftheSouth, agreed, he's manifesting a LOT of hatred.
Weak argument. But sounds convincing though. The devil likes legal arguments too. Just ask deliverance ministry priests.
Have Fr. Robinson on at least to discuss this… and I’m sorry but Salza is not credible on these matters. I love the SSPX and will continue to go.
Imagine thinking the SSPX isn't Catholic and saying "come into the Church."
They are as Catholic as Orthodox are Catholic.
@Benjamin Dennison yep, I watched the whole thing on RUclips
Another video that starts mid-sentence. Annoying!
Matt, can you please have an SSPX priest on to counter this nonsense? Please! 🙏
This Salza is so wrong..... and never an SSPX Priest for a rebuttal.........
Prove he is wrong
@@grandekev1 You prove he is right...
Opus Dei does not accept SSPX.
My big Problem today is that the Vatican and Pope Jorge Bergoglio today…..Reject Doctrinally our Catholic Faith!!! Rev. Fr. James M. Th.D.
If it wasn't for AB Lefebvre and the SSPX there would be no TLM today. Thank God for AB Lefebvre and the SSPX for preserving and saving the Catholic church!
Wrong: Both "Vale dos Caídos" Monastery and "Escorial" Monastery near Madrid in Spain hold an exception to host the TLM that dates from before the SSPX foundation, to let alone those Carthusian, Benedictine, Franciscan or Dominican rites that have never been suspended after the creation of the Novus Ordo. Even the Opus Dei holds an exception to celebrate TLM on their centers!
Oh, obviously lay Catholics could attend those. The TLM was being shut down post V2 and all lay Catholics did not have any TLMs. Again, if it wasn't for AB Lefebvre and the SSPX there would be no TLM today!
From the Catechism of the Council of Trent:
"Study Of The Word Of God
Now all the doctrines in which the faithful are to be instructed are contained in the Word of God,
which is found in Scripture and tradition. To the study of these, therefore, the pastor should
devote his days and his nights, keeping in mind the admonition of St. Paul to Timothy, which all
who have the care of souls should consider as addressed to themselves: Attend to reading, to
exhortation, and to doctrine, for all Scripture divinely inspired is profitable to teach, to reprove,
to correct, to instruct injustice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good
work."
(note: The Council of Trent defined the 'tradition' in this paragraph as the oral form of the words of God also, as the Catechism promulgated by Pope JP 2 that we have today. The 2nd Council did not say ecclesial traditions are the word of God, but thru ecclesial traditions, the Sacred Tradition/Living Traditions/Apostolic Traditions are expressed). The Catechism of the Council of Trent is needed to counter the Protestant movement and teaching the faithful and is great gift of faith. As always, the Church do not teach in a random haphazard way but an orderly and systematically method so no one will be confused of what She teach. We are more structural now, that does not mean from the Apostal time there is no structure and organized Chruch because there was not a written New Testament. The word 'Traditions' or 'traditions' must be viewed in the context of what it used for, not by their fundamental/literal meaning alone.
It's not just the SSPX who reccomend against NO if you can help it and to go to TLM. In fact, beyond even things like FSSP you have Fr.Z, Scott Hahn, Fr.Ripperger, Bishop Schneider and Strickland and so many more solid clergy saying this. For goodness sakes.. give it a rest! Lord have Mercy... they know not what they do ✝️
their most grave error is that they teach the authentic Universal fallible magisterium can teach Heresy
while this fallible Magisterium is not protected from error, it is always protected from heresy
a Pope can be a heretic as a private theologian, but he can never ever teach this heresy as a universal teacher for all Christians in his Magisterium
No. The personal opinions of the pope as a private theologian is what the authentic Magisterium is. Pope Benedict XVI could write authentically and give the opinions of Joseph Ratzinger and be very wrong or even heretical.what he can't do is bind the Universal Church to that error.
@@gerry30
Oh yeah, sorry I should have qualified that with the term "universal"
Yes, what you say applies to a True Pope! But, a public heretic is not a Catholic. And if a man is a public heretic, he cannot be validly elected a Pope, because he isn’t Catholic. Every Pope since John XXIII was a public heretic before their election. They are antipopes.
@@mtaylor3771
Cool story now apply this same standard to heretical Popes before vatican II
@@mousakandah5188 which the Society universally reject.
Thank you Mr. John Salza
Little does Matt know that most of his followers like what the SSPX is doing...
...and what about it? If I wanted religious democracy I would be protestant, not Catholic.
The SSPX accepts every dogma and anathema pronounced at Vatican 2.
Is that the same profession of faith in which John Paul the second embraces, when he brought the Buddhists to Fatima?
Wow! The bad will and dishonesty of this guy!!!
How is a teaching non-definitive if you're still required to agree with it no matter what? Catholicism looks like a ridiculous mess of word games from the outside.
Replacing the 1962 missal with a the vastly changed new missal is protestant... Fact
It is not of the essence of the Church that bishops receive their mandate from the Pope.
And why not?
@@ScreamingReel500 Because up until the late 19th century, most bishops outside the Papal States were not selected by the Pope. In the early Church, bishops were chosen in a variety of ways. The Church is not structured like a corporation, with the Pope as CEO, and bishops as regional managers, as Bl. Pius IX made clear.
@@quireman8329 That is false information. They might be not selected, or handpicked by the Pope, but they must be approved by the Pope. So, they must be in submission the Pontificate of Rome. By saying they are not selected by the Pope you imply they are not required to adhere to the mandate. By the term "mandate' which is a decree of important, they can ignore or reject it. What Church are you talking about?
@@ScreamingReel500 St Eusebius went around consecrating lots of bishops in defiance of the Pope at the time, who was disastrously bad and controlled by the Roman Emperor.
It is tantamount to calumny to criticize Archbishop Lefebvre without acknowledging the fact that he a member of a missionary congregation and spent his entire life spreading the faith in Africa. Quite successfully as well. If you put his later actions in this context you can see a much different picture. Your program is intellectually dishonest and I might add, not too interesting.
This polemic is demoralizing both sides.
In all fairness Matt, you should follow up with John Salza's accusation and invite Fr Jonathan Loop on your show. Who better to clarify what was said than the person who said it? St. Thomas Aquinas would. 😁
This smells of scaremongering. Father Gerald Murray, a canon lawyer from NY (outside the SSPX), did his thesis on the SSPX. The only claim he could make was that Archbishop Lefebvre was disobedient in consecrating 4 Bishops (not just one, as Rome suggested).
Several Bishops outside the SSPX have supported them in principle: Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, Archbishop Alexander Sample, and Bishop Thomas Olmsted (retired).
Does this provide proof of anything? No, but let's get a balanced perspective. A person who tends to speak with certainty, like John, doesn't prove anything either. There are higher experts in the Catholic Church who would disagree with John.
I desire mercy not sacrifice
Is Mr. Salsa a Norvus Ordo hard-liner? Perhaps an interview with Ralph Martin may be a better choice; a less biased approach.
Listen to the longer interview. Don't assume bias.
you have lost my respect. This is so biased and unfair…SSPX have the most reverent masses and altogether reverence in their worship. Being legalistic is for Pharisees, why can’t the general public just appreciate their love and respect for God. Before you criticize go see for yourself. Totally thumbs down on this podcast.
Mormons and Muslims have love and respect for God...
Muslims and Mormans worship demons.
Actually, ignoring the SSPX's problems because they have aesthetically pleasing masses is pharisaical.
@Stephen937 because the Popes they ignore were not validly elected.
It pains me to say this, but the reverence of SSPX masses is an end without good means of achieving. The ends not excusing the means is a good rule of thumb for assessing spiritual warfare that would help out here. I would suggest praying to Our Lady of Sorrows to help out with understanding the situation in the Church. She loves you and wants to help.
Nostra Aetate, a VII doc, says that holiness is found in non-Catholic religions. Thats heresy.
Deaf dumb and blinded which is only understandable from where these poor brothers are standing.it’s not complicated when put in the right order. Thank God for the SSPX and its priests. Archbishop Lefebvre pray for us!