I grew up with the Latin Mass in the 1950s and 1960s in a very small village in the Moluccas. The village was 100% Catholic, it still is now. When we were introduced to the New Mass after Vatican Council 2 where our national language started to be used and the priest began to face the people with simpler Mass attires, my aunt stopped going to Mass. She said it was a made-up religion. We had to persuade her for a very long time before she could attend Mass again. I very often attend the Latin Mass virtually. When I do, it brings back sweet memories of holiness back then. I think the Latin Mass should still be practiced because in reality we have more then 20 rites. So why not the Latin Mass?
Which is wrong. Salza just wants to grift to sell books and have paid speaking engagements such as this. The Vatican sent both Bishop Schneider and Bishop Huondor to investigate the SSPX. They both reported the order to be a fully faithful part of our Church. I will listen to our Church hierarchy before I listen to this dramatizing man.
I don't know about all the legalistic stuff, but I got married by the SSPX. I'm Byzantine rite Catholic and my wife was baptized and entered the church in a parish church in Hawaii in 2020 during the COVID outbreak.(causing some strange things that needed a lot of paper work) Now we live in AZ so we had to get 4 bishops to sign off on our marriage. The Byzantine Arizonan, Latin Hawaiian, Latin Arizonian, and the SSPX Bishops all said we we're good. If my weeding caused a mini ecumenical council and none of these bishops objected... I think we're all good. I just go with the modo "be chill, worship God, let the politicians do the politics."
@@veronicasingermaciasI think it’s bc Pope Francis gave them those 2 faculties as an act of charity for the people. I’m not sure if that permission was just for that specific year or for all time going forward.
@veronicasingermacias It's important to remember that the marriages were conditional to permission from their local bishops. That permission is rarely sought, so those people that were married under the SSPX without the society obtaining episcopal permission are in objective mortal sin. This particular person obviously got permission for the SSPX to do the wedding, so that marriage is valid.
It would never happen. One of the most important unwritten rules of being a trad like Taylor Marshall or Kennedy Hall is to never publically engage or have real debates with anyone who disagrees with you. It's a loud echo chamber.
No need for a debate with Kennedy Hall. The Popes have settled matter for a long time. Until the SSPX fully receives the reforms of the Second Vatican Council and live in full communion with Holy Mother Church, no theological or canon law gymnastics and media P.R. campaign by SSPX members, sympathetic bishops and media celebrities can rescind the consistent papal judgment that the SSPX is "not in full communion with the Church" (JPII, Ecclesia Dei; BXVI, Ecclesiae Unitatem; and Francis, Traditiones Custodes). In the July 16, 2021 letter accompanying Traditiones Custodes Pope Francis mentions the status of the SSPX going back to JPII: "The faculty - granted by the indult of the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1984 and confirmed by St. John Paul II in the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei in 1988 - was above all motivated by the desire to foster the healing of the SCHISM with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre."
Debates are not the acid test of truth. A person eloquently peddling an errant falsehood could out-talk someone on the side of the truth. Truth is the truth, even if no one in the world believes it; and falsehood is worthless although everyone on the planet accepts it and actively propagates same. Alĺ that's needed is that there be good, reasonable reasons for the claims one puts on the table in the course of discussion. I think Matt's guest has done an excellent job in discussing this particular issue.
I’m a convert from being an atheist. I was baptized 3 years ago at 30 years old. The only advice I can give after struggling with this for so long comes from a priest I confessed to. Mass should not disturb your soul. You should not have to wonder whether or not the Mass your attending is licit or not. Keep the waters of your soul calm and still so that you can grow in faith, hope, charity, and love - do not let it become choppy lest a storm brews and drowns you. I haven’t had these experiences described at SSPX Masses - and for the most part, I’ve experienced some pretty reverent NO Masses. The NO masses had their issues in my opinion, but at the end of the day, what I had issues with in the NO mass came from a place of love for Christ in my heart. Slowly, over time, it became a bit prideful. Because I could see the pride growing, I know travel 2 hours (not boasting or anything) to attend an FSSP Mass. This is a small sacrifice to pay for the assurance of being in communion with our Bishop and celebrating what I believe to be a Mass that helps nurture your soul. The TLM
It’s all emotion. Emotions can lead you astray and that is what the novus ordo means new world order. My goodness you folks need to wake up , ask the Holy Spirit to help you
@@christophergros9884 I've been on both sides of this issue. The TLM has been the perfect expression consistent with centuries of refining. The NO mass has problems from the outset and many Bishops and Cardinals were outright lied to and misled by some of the members of the Vatican II council. The problem now is the Church is in crisis and will remain so until yet a new council can take up the issue, hopefully in a decade or so.
I think you should have a knowledgable pro-Society (one of their best, in their opinion) influencer or actual cleric debate Salza on this. Now that would be a very interesting and highly watched event.
Yep I do too! I think there are many inaccuracies in this podcast. I'm not pro SSPX but LeFevbre wasn't given everything he wanted, not even close. Rome did NOT accomadate him and anyone who has studied this issue at all knows this. I read or heard Salza say the exact opposite of what he is saying here merely 3 years ago. It's not a good thing to NOT be in communion with Rome. The SSPX needs to figure this out but the last three popes have not said they were is schism. That is untrue. If they were in schism why did Francis give them faculties to hear confessions?? I think the most honest experts in this topic simply say it's confusing and they are not sure because it's very confusing and no one is certain, they might think they are, and then a couple years later flip flop, just like Salza has done.
The SSPX and their defenders have been completely silent towards the arguments put forth by Salza, the only responses that have been put out are weak defenses by laymen which have already been rebuked or attacks on Salza's character/motives.
I’m not SSPX, but Jimmy Akin was on Catholic Answers explaining that Popes Francis and Benedict XVI affirmed SSPX priests do have faculties to celebrate the mass, and it does fulfill your Sunday obligation.
"As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church…In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers - even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty - do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church." - Pope Benedict XVI
Jimmy is a bit off on this. John goes into detail in the video. Furthermore the Church (through Mons Perl in his letter to F. John Loughnan) clarified that it does not fulfil the Sunday Obligation and exposes the faithful to the danger of becoming schismatic
@@eoinmcg88 he is a freemason, all the original documents on the subject say, he can only get confession on his death bed by the Pope himself. i wouldnt trust a word he says.
I too see myself as a "glad trad", but whilst much of this discussion was informative, some of it was completely wrong. I am not an SSPX apologist (and agree they can go to far), and I attend the TLM from a number of different priestly societies, SSPX included, but I still found the tone of this discussion unhelpful. It needed another voice to provide a sense of balance. Moreover, instead of alluding to what certain documents said, the documents should have been quoted, as Salza was simply incorrect in some instances. - the worst error is that of not fulfilling your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by an SSPX priest. This is clearly wrong. Just read the response by the Ecclesia Dei Commission on January 18, 2003 (which was requested to be published, hence is not particular to an individual's circumstances). It follows up on a letter sent to an individual, as noted in the discussion, but this is for public consumption. It points out: Points 1 and 3 in our letter of 27 September 2002 to this correspondent are accurately reported. His first question was "Can I fulfill my Sunday obligation by attending a Pius X Mass" and our response was: "1. In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X." - Abp Lefebvre never said the New Mass, he never "signed off on the New Mass". He adopted some of the earlier changes in the mid 1960s, but stopped around time time of the 1967 missal when he felt his faith being challenged. - the declaration of 1974 was not a general response to the changes, but a response to the scandalous behaviour of the Vatican visitors 10 days before. - the SSPX does not refuse communion with Novus Ordo Catholics. They even have a retired Bishop (Bishop Huonder) residing in one of their Switzerland houses. I have seen diocesan priests at SSPX events. The SSPX school in the UK had the diocesan Bishop visit them. - Abp Lefebvre may have signed the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, not the liturgical changes themselves. Many have argued that the latter is not a faithful representation of the former. To conflate the two is an unfortunate confusion of the issue. - Pope Francis' motu proprio cannot be said to be a direct result of the SSPX - it doesn't even affect them. Apparently, Cardinal Bergolio got on very well with the SSPX in Argentina. His letter talks of healing the schism in terms of the action of JPII (the actual wording is this: "The faculty - granted by the indult of the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1984 and confirmed by St. John Paul II in the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei in 1988 - was above all motivated by the desire to foster the healing of the schism with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre"), not his own opinion here and now. - Pope John Paul II did not give him a Bishop - they went through a number of names, and they repeatedly rejected by the Vatican, and in the end, Abp Lefebvre concluded they couldn't be trusted. This is a predental decision of the Abp. - please don't compare Old Catholics to the SSPX, they deny a dogma of the faith and reject Vatican I. - charges of schism. Listen to what Cardinal Hoyos, who dealt with their case in the Vatican said: "They had moments when they were away, but technically they never made any complete schism or heresy. For example, they did not create a separate jurisdiction, because to create a jurisdiction outside the jurisdiction of the Church, that means you want to separate." "We are not dealing with a case of heresy. One cannot say in correct and exact terms that there is a schism. There is, in the act of ordaining bishops without papal approval, a schismatic attitude. They are within the confines of the Church. The problem is just that there is a lack of a full, a more perfect-and as it was said during the meeting with Bishop Fellay-a more full communion, because communion exists.". Schismatics are outside the Church, Cardinal Hoyos (who was the authority on the matter) said they were within the confines the of the Church. Hence no schism. - if you want hard criticism of the Novus Ordo, apart from Abp Lefebvre, then just read the Cardinal Ottaviani & Bacci Intervention, for example: "It is evident that the Novus Ordo has no intention of presenting the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent, to which, nonetheless, the Catholic conscience is bound forever." This would seem to match up with the SSPX's claims regarding the Novus Ordo. Finally, the SSPX should be considered a life boat, it's not meant to be permanent. It's a temporary measure to bridge the crisis inside the Church. Obviously, the danger is there that it becomes so, but that certainly wasn't Abp Lefebvre's intention.
Love this reply. The history of the SSPX was completely misrepresented in this show. Mr. Salza gave a lot of opinion that forces people to believe what he’s saying. He also states we are not in communion with the local bishop which is also false because in our mass the priest prays for the local bishop.
43:01 Matt Fradd misunderstood John Salza when he said Abp Lefebvre signed off on the V2 documents. By signing those documents, Abp Lefebvre DID NOT sign off on the Novus Ordo Mass - those are two separate things. Mr. Salza knows that, and yet and he didn’t correct Mr. Fradd’s misunderstanding. Why not? Mr. Salza lost all credibility by not doing so.
I am a Catholic who grew up attending SSPX Masses, and attended a girl school run by SSPX Dominican sisters; I am also a big fan of this channel. I just wanted to address some things in this video that I felt were contrary to my understanding of the SSPX (this is my understanding. I am not claiming to represent exactly what the SSPX stands for because I could easily be wrong or have misunderstood). 1. We do not claim to be separate from the Church, nore that the Catholics who attend the Novosordo (I apologize if I spelled that wrong) Mass are separate from the Church, though we do discourage attending it because we feel that the purpose and mindset that it was made with, make it a danger to the faith, and that it does not give God proper worship. In the parish I am a part of, we have gotten a few sermons addressing the issue of treating Catholics who attend the Novosordo Mass as lesser or not part of the Church. 2. The story behind what led up to Arch Bishop Lefebvre making Bishops is told rather differently from the SSPX perspective, at least in the Crisis series podcast. For example in that description of the story, Archbishop Lefebvre asked for 4 bishops initially and was offered one, but they would not give him a date when he would receive the bishop. They kept moving the date, until he eventually told them that if they didn't agree to that date, he would move forward with making Bishops without Rome's approval. I don't know if this inconsistency is a matter of one side being wrong, or different sources, but as far as I know, the SSPX is trying to get Rome to approve our next set of bishops. One of the crisis in the Church videos includes Bishop Fellay, who is one of the four bishops who Archbishop Lefebvre ordained, and I am inclined to trust his explanation of the situation, as he was there for it. 3. I don't think I'm very good at explaining things, and I apologize if I misrepresented something. I highly recommend the Crisis in the church series. I think that Pints with Aquinas is really great and I would love to see an SSPX priest come on and be interviewed on this topic or even debate. I would be willing to try to reach out to one about the idea if you would be open to that. Thank you and God bless!
Glad to see that you're open to this discussion. While it's great that you and many more followers of the SSPX don't think that Catholics who attend regular diocesan liturgies aren't in schism, the official position of the SSPX, which has never changed, is that those liturgies are an offense to God and harmful to souls. Also just saying that you're not outside of the Church doesn't really mean anything. Protestants will swear on their life that they are part of Christ's Church. The SSPX can say whatever they want but it wouldn't change that they are in schism. Now individuals who attend their liturgy may still not be in schism for lack of culpability, but if you're informed about them, then there's a problem. From what I've seen, the perspective of Lefebrve being pushed by the Vatican and refusing to give him a date is false. Lefebrve signed the agreement to consecrate one bishop and then rejected that proposition literally the next day on his own. Doesn't sound at all like the narrative that the SSPX pushes.
@@john-el9636 it is definitely a complicated situation, and I don't think that I am informed well enough to make a firm judgement yet. I think it would be really beneficial to see an SSPX priest come onto the show to defend that position. I'm definitely planning on doing more digging into Vatican 2. I wish that things had never gotten so complicated and divided with the Church, and I can only hope that things will get better with the will of God.
I appreciate the back and forth because it is so nuanced, but the archbishop did write two very beautiful books on his own experience: “open letter to confused catholic,” and “they have uncrowned him.” Those books are clearly not written by a “rigid” man. They are very geared toward “the people”, and it is clear, by his own words, the archbishop’s concern is for Jesus and his flock. He points out many contradictions and so far as i know, alot of his critics do not adress his books. Why? I think itvwould go a long way to see if the archbishops reasoning could be picked apart by adressing thecwords in his book. Also, what facts or points of history, does the archbishop cite in his books, that are incorrect or mistaken? So far those two books carrry alot of weight still. The reader who cares about the catholic church, will be enriched by the archbishops obvious love for the church, for Christ, for the faith… where are his own, actual words, in those two books, taking acwrong turn. I see a bust of Luther in the vatican office, but alot of contempt for lefevre-- whats up with that?
@Inarticulus I would dispute the claim that Lefebvre wasn't rigid, but in any case Dr. Salza does refer to his open letter in this very video. I know he quotes from it extensively on his website as well. Lefebvre's heresies and errors are on full display in his own writings. Whether or not he had good intentions is pretty much meaningless.
You have a newer video titled, "Bishop Schneider's AMAZING Defense Against Sedes!" You should listen to B. Schneider and pull this horrible interview you did with Salza. B. Schneider investigated the SSPX and found them to not be sedes. But you took the word of Salza. You should vet your guests. Salza has a history of grifting and exaggerating to sell books. He did it with the masons and now he did it with the SSPX. I love your show Matt but you have had a couple guests that are really questionable.
Bishop Huondor made the same report to the Vatican. The SSPX are not schismatic. I don't know why we would listen to Salza over two good Bishops of the Church. Not every lawyer is oily but this one does seem to be an ambulance chaser, profiting from church division. It's shameful.
"As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church…In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers - even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty - do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church." - Pope Benedict XVI
I’m only 30 minutes in but this is by far the most in depth discussion of SSPX I’ve seen on RUclips. Extremely helpful. Thank you so much Matt for hosting this-it will be so beneficial to so many!!
The former high ranking freemason John Salza who made an oath to Lucifer and renounced Jesus Christ before his "conversion" to the Vatican II church and who now eagerly tries to bring all who want to be traditional catholics into that institution in which someone who builds temples for pagan god worship and who prays on the wailing wall "in which HaShem dwells" for the coming of "their" Moshiach must be venerated as a saint is proven to be a complete spiritual fraud in an audio file named "John Salza's Lies, Errors and Dishonesty" here on RUclips. I suggest you also study the article entitled "John Salza Has No Idea What He’s Talking About" (you can google it).
You go to the SSPX Mas for 15 years and then decide to look into whether they are valid… see right through this interview in 15 min, not 15 years. 9:15 You are an attorney and you’re very articulate and smart. Reading between the line, it’s a classic example of a compromiser. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. You had things right in the first three minutes of the interview… And then after 15 years something changed? Come clean… What’s your real beef with the SSPX? Because what you said in the interview is not the real reason! Anyone with a good eye sees right through this.
Well said. Perhaps he should've started his story when he was a Freemason. I'd be interested to hear about how he formally broke with Freemasonry and became Catholic. His lines are clearly rehearsed and he speaks like a politician constantly using the person he is speaking to's name in answers. Let us see Salza in live debate in PWA.
Salza’a teaching against the SSPX is unorthodox because he erroneously thinks the juridical structure of the Church is limited to receiving ordinary jurisdiction from the pope or local bishop. Whereas the Catholic Church teaches that situations can arise in which the Church indirectly gives jurisdiction outside of the local bishop. Salsa’s entire argument is based on the false premise that jurisdiction absolutely never extends beyond exactly explicit approval. Case in point, St Athanasius ordained bishops and priests in dioceses not only of formally Arian bishops, but also informally semi Arian bishops. In an extreme Crisis like that then and now, we Church law does give jurisdiction. And the Society recognizes that as part of Church teaching whereas John Salza does not. Not to mention Salza has a bad attitude in his anti SSPX diatribe. This is a very old and tiresome approach that divides traditional Catholics.
Trying to do my "research" on the SSPX, as I have some friends who are trying to get me to come to it, so I will try to act in good faith. Would this be similar to the situation with the Eastern orthodox? If there is a similarity in the jurisdiction as far as juridical people are concerned, then shouldn't his argument follow? My understanding is that the Sunday obligation is not satisfied when attending an Eastern Orthodox mass for the same reasons Salza gives for the SSPX about priests having proper faculties. This is a new difficulty that I think this argument brings up since it seems consistent on its face.
This is one of the most important conversations that we currently deal with. It forces people to identify and adhere to the one true body of the Catholic Church. The rejection of leftist errors does not mean we should jump on the bandwagon of schismatic groups. God bless to John, Matt, dude who is on the mic, Lofton, Dom, Andrew, and all others who are on the forefront of defending Catholic Orthodoxy.
@@deus_vult8111 Papal Addresses can absolutely be considered magisterial in nature if there is a definitive statement on matters regarding faith/morals/disciplines. The fact that the pope, in Singulari Quadam, explicitly says “for it must be held by Faith” directly followed by a statement of doctrine, makes clear that this fits the criteria for being within the bounds of the Magisterium.
"In my opinion"...I will take Michael Davies over John Salza. Fortunately, the SSPX didn't come to an agreement with the Pachamama ecumenism! Good for them!
Interesting discussion to consider for someone sympathetic to the SSPX. I just find it interesting that Matt devotes three hours to hammer the SSPX but he doesn't seem to have a problem with the orthodox and seems more than eager to attempt to find common ground with Muslims. I would direct folks to the Kennedy report for a decent rebuttal of this episode. He doesn't name Fradd, but it is clear this is what he is talking about.
Bravo. Mons. Lefevre's enemies are good calling Catholic Church's straight foes; separated brothers, brothers in the faith, christians, etc. "Love is love" when it comes about modernist. Hate is hate (with all of your guts) the SSPX.
2:10:00 I read that Bishop Lefevre was promised to be able to concentrate another bishop and that the consecration date was summarily canceled by Rome on several occasions and that is why he did what he did, because ot became clear Rome was acting in bad faith, that is the claim whether true or not I am no authority. Painfully aware of the game's chanceries/curias play, it is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility.
@@AnaMT1985 Do you have evidence to that effect or just how you feel about them? They do constantly accuse the Roman Curia of acting in bad faith. I realize it could be merely a projection but don't have great confidence either in the power brokers in Vatican City.
@@majorpuggington Does the actual correspondence between Rome and Lefebvre count as evidence? That is the evidence that Salza references, which I believe is also on his website.
Thank God that where I live in Mexico, Novus Ordo Masses are generally well done. I've never encountered any of what's mentioned in the discussions of NO vs TLM. I'm praying for the unity of the Church in the world. It seems our brothers in the US need it desperately.
I'm in switzerland. Very much a western land. But our NO masses are reverent. Even in modern ugly churches. I have the impression it's more some type of revolutionary spirit that gripped the US in the chaos after the council. The US was founded with a revolution after all. And so the liturgy was bent to their own image and... dare I say it... 'boomerized'. I know Germany has a similar problem, and they have a history of overly 'reforming' as well. And now there's a revolution going on against the new liturgy, and round and round it goes... I'll pray for my US and German brothers and sisters
@@chiyo256 I have never seen this in Mexico. Only a few parishes I have been to in thee US have that but thankfully things are getting better. A seemingly modern parish I have been going to for years got a young Filipino priest who is reverent and does not look for applauses. Our new older priest is reverent too.
@@chiyo256 That doesn't generally happen in my parish and some others I attend. I even see women with veils. Also, communion in hand is the way Apostles did it. I don't think it's the best for our times, for sure, but let's relax a little. Saludos desde Jalisco.
I really appreciate the "Middle Road" approach John is talking about here. I've felt this is the best answer to the problems Traditional Catholics are trying to point out. Thank you Matt Fradd for your work in this approach as well. And to Scott Hahn who also promotes this. When I had my conversion to the Faith, it was within the Novus Ordo Mass and my heart was on fire with the Holy Spirit. Then I got caught up in this drama of Trad vs. Novus Ordo, and found myself very unhappy and angry with the Church. I lost sight of what truly matters- Jesus Christ and His Kingdom. We can help our Lord build His Kingdom at the Novus Ordo AND the TLM. We don't need to pick sides or tear down the other side. The "Middle Road" is important for both sides to learn from and can bring peace of mind/heart/soul.
@@johnraymond-pz9bo I think we should pray for his conversion and still respect the office of the papacy. even if he's likely a freemason infiltrator. We've endured bad popes before. I don't think sedevacantism is the best response
John mentioned 'the appearance of the Church' vs what she really is at about 20min. God just taught me a similar lesson this Christmas. The whole family was sick with different viruses (including an awful influenza) all of advent and Christmas. We had a tree and some presents, but could not really eat much or really enjoy the tree and such. We were just too exhausted. What remains of Christmas if we take away the food and the cookies I was not able to bake. What remains if we can't enjoy the tree that much or be excited with th children about their new toys? Christ in the manger remains. It still felt like Christmas to me. I felt overflowing love for all of my family. And the holy family and little baby Jesus. But all the nice Christmas things got a little bit called out for being accessories. All good things, but not the main thing. And perhaps God is doing a similar thing in the Church atm. I like incense and all the traditional things. But what happens if it all falls away? What remains to cling to? Christ in the Eucharist. I'm not into modern barren churches with ugly modern art on the walls and awful acustic. But perhaps God wants me to look more to Christ directly? Perhaps he wants all of us to do that?
Beautifully said. The unfortunate irony here is that belief in the presence of Christ (body, soul, divinity) in the Eucharist is fading fast amongst NO parishes. This is the opposite for TLM parishes including in the SSPX where the number of faithful is growing.
It is reasonable to be attracted to the full-on display of reverence and tradition of the mass especially in these times. I've never been to a TLM but i want to join in one, and i suspect quite a lot of catholics are the same. But stip away all the vestments, the tradition, the reverence, and what we have are the absolute basics: apostolic succession and the magesterium, scripture and the cathecism, and the sacraments. If all else fails then these are the ones to hold on to. All tradition and reverence flows from these, but are they absolutely essential? Imo, in these times, its back to basics.
@@eddiedelatorre5925 it almost sounds like Church Universal would benefit from unity among her children! Wouldn't it be wonderful to reunite those who believe in the Real Presence with their NO brothers and sisters. The NO crowd can model obedience and submission to the authority of Christ's Church, while the TLM crowd can model proper Eucharistic faith. The point is we need to supplement each other's weaknesses through the strengths God has given us.
John doesn't tell me about his gigs like this anymore... but I'm glad one of my friends alerted me to this interview. I don't watch 3 hour shows unless it is true crime, but this was absolutely worth it to watch. I have to say, even though I worked with John for about 8 years on his website, I realize I did not get to fully appreciate John's capacity to teach with such clarity, calmness, precision, and humility. He should honestly be regarded as one of the top apologists for the Catholic Church and I am so glad that Matt gave him this opportunity to share John's expertise.
This was an excellent interview and my first PWA live since discovering Matt's channel a few months ago. I'm glad to say that I'm in R.C.I.A currently and eagerly await my baptism and confirmation this upcoming Easter. Thank you so much Matt Fradd for aiding in the Grace of The Holy Spirit. Gloria Patri!
None of us would have to worry about this if the Tridentine Mass was readily available in every diocese. We are a religion that holds our history and traditions as sacred. Our souls are always going to be moved by beauty, grace and reverence. We will never stop seeking it out and it's time that the church hierarchy accepts it. The restrictions on TLM are what is pushing people toward the "irregular", together with a lack of discipline of heterodox priests and bishops. This Pontificate worsened a situation that was previously on the mend. I normally love all PWA episodes but this was a chore to sit through. I do wish Matt vetted his guest and realized that Salza has a real credibility problem. A person needs credibility, otherwise, the audience becomes even more polarized on an issue. Reading through the comments here, I'm afraid that is exactly what's happened.
Great insight! I sense there is way more to the deliberate tension on removing TLM other than schism from the attitude of TLM participants. It appears to be 1. Deliberately Increase division within the Church and 2. Derail the benefits of the individual within TLM. This service provides a heightened focus and contemplation by participants by very nature (focus on a uncommon language) and a focus on the presence of God - when this happens, great things happen. Agents within and without the Church do not desire this for a plethora of reasons. Schism could be a result, but I sense not at the attitude or behest of the fold but from high ranking internal authority and external influence.
Matt, recently I’ve had a hard time getting through the hour and a half to two hour episodes. Usually bail out after hear a good nugget. This was a fascinating new story hadn’t heard and the 3 hours + flew by. As of now, for me, this is your Titanic episode.
I would have to disagree. I don't even go to SSPX but there is evidence Lefebvre had not a schismatic spirit. Promises were made but not fullfilled (One bishop was promised to the SSPX for ex).
Woe unto ye lawyers! For ye have taken away the keys of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered. = Luke 11:52
A very gossipy and feminine attitude permeates this entire podcast. Salza is not genuine. He has received an award from freemasons in 2018. He claims to have attended an SSPX chapel for 15 years without looking into the status/legitimacy. Not sure who is pulling the strings here. Regardless, this is uncharitable and shameful.
@@turbodood637 no its not When Salza was an sspx apologist nobody complained abiut he freemasonic past No suddenly the cope is everyhwere just to make people rejecting to hear clear & direct arguments
"A very gossipy and feminine attitude permeates this entire podcast" You realize how sexist that sounds right? You are implying that by default men are better at honest debate than woman are.
Amazing interview! John Salza very calmly and systematically breaks down the errors that have gripped so many well-meaning Catholics that have been scandalized into joining the SSPX. It's worth repeat watches.
This conversation was great and helped a lot. I have never nor did I ever want to attend a SSPX Mass. I still do not. However I do have to say the live chat during this show was frankly appalling. 1/ Sedes in the comments acting out. As they do. 2/ Mods and others being absolutely *callous* and uncharitable to those struggling with bad masses and difficult feelings about liturgy and other issues. MANY people do not have access to another other than a "typical" Novus Ordo. Some only have access to spiritually troubling ones. To be told to "get over it" and be repeatedly shouted down from questions was more than a little ridiculous. Those asking questions were repeatedly told to basically hush and listen, even when we clarified we were listening and simply were not understanding or needed clarification. Also, incorrect information was given about TC by mods. TC did not just "give power back to bishops". Two diocese in my state were told directly, after asking for clarification from Rome, to remove all TLMs from any parish setting. It was not left up to the bishops. It was stated they HAD to move, including one that had been at a cathedral since before Summorum. TLMs that our bishops *support* and have no issues with. And Rome told them they could no longer be in any parish. These well established communities were pushed out of long standing parish relationships. Apparently though, my direct experience isn't in line with what several mods insist is the truth about TC. I'm not one to use the term "gaslighting" lightly, but mods were absolutely skirting close to treating the audience that way during the live chat. I love Pints, appreciate this conversation and interview, but felt the above needed to be said.
Agreed. My diocese was known for it's abundant TLMs but our Bishop was *told* to remove permissions to preform them anymore. Not asked or given any other options. This is true across the board I believe.
In America, it is socially and psychologically very very important to be able to look at some group and say, “I’m not as religious as *THAT* I’m better than them cuz I’m less religious.” The only ones Catholics really have to crap on this way are other more conservative Catholics.
You should attend an SSPX Mass, which is valid and fulfils the Sunday obligation according to Rome, in order to solve the conflict between Rome and Econe.
This was an excellent interview. I just want to thank Dr. Salza and Mr. Fradd for making it happen. May God bless you both and may God protect Holy Mother Church 🙏🏻
I'm 30 minute into this, and I am not liking the vibes so far, (as he's making all one-sided arguments and cherry picking what suits his position, like a Protestant.). Also from what I have seen in past. . Plus he needs to be scrutinized closely as he reportedly was a 32 nd Degree Freemason, now with an agenda to shape Catholics, as he has been active for years at this. So any wonder his position?? . This is a long vid , so I will have to give him his Time to lay it all out, this is still early. . (Been attending Trad Mass for past years with occasional N.O.) I'd like to see him and Brother Peter Dimond debate for extended, thorough debate. That would be very helpful for Catholics.
@@24erstad - well, firstly, I have to finish the vid. Hearing anyone's one-line advice or opinion, no disrespect no intended., doesn't say anything. , you provide nothing to back it up.,and I don't know what you know or don't know. Have you seen the vids about the heresies of the past 4 or 5 popes? (Vatican catholic channel) Have you seen "Apocalypse Now ..." vid by Bros. Dimond? Have you seen Bro. Dimond debate. other guy on Pints w Aquinas? Bro Dimond clearly prevailed, not debate points, but substance. . It's not enough to say Sed is not the answer. (I never attended SSPX, btw). It seems the main question is whether V2 Church from Vatican is the anti-church. (If so, WHY,?) I want to practice Catholicism, but I don't want to be under a false Church. It is obviously pagan and not Catholic / Christian at the top. The actual Sr. Lucy said we are in final Times. If you can see all that is documented in those vids and explain to me that what is in Vatican is true Catholicism and not th count-church, that Our Lady of La Saltte, and reportedly Put Lady of Fatima spoke of , then I'm listening.. As I said, I will see what all JS includes and what he avoids. And I will certainly give him his chance and take in what all he says. I will check back in later, and pls do sam if u watch those vids! My only agenda is truth.
@@eoinmcg88 - If so, add THAT to the abominations of what looks like the Whore of Babylon and not the true RCC. (Bro, Ptr Dimond makes a great case for the former ,, which is why I'd like to see those 2 in an extended debate. Time for the feet of opposing sides to be held to the fire. Put it out there for everyone to see. - BUT with enough Time to get it all out there so that audience is adequately informed of content . rather than judge by debate skills, and may truth prevail. ..l
Judge a tree by its fruits, says the Lord. The homilies by SSPX priests are always centred on God, encouraging and guiding their parishioners towards holiness without any need for flambouyance, jokes, personal opinions, comparison with others. Their dedication to works of mercy and apostolate, the peaceful religious life they have to offer to aspirants and retreatants is in itself a mark above the rest. Just my own experience and I thank God for being able to feel assured that I would never one day have to receive my God and Lord at Holy Communion in any way less deserving manner as He has instituted it to be done. Deo gratias, Pax Christi.
"The homilies by SSPX priests are always centred on God, encouraging and guiding their parishioners towards holiness without any need for flambouyance, jokes, personal opinions, comparison with others" I'm sure Luther had some good sermons too. SSPX is modern day Lutheran church.
Actually, SSPX does publicly discourage attending non-Society masses or raises suspicion about the orthodoxy of the priests who might preach at the TLMs. Privately, you might hear something else.
Some of the points Salza makes are good and need to be discussed more. Other points he makes are not very accurate. I sympathize with Salza's analysis, but his tools of analysis are somewhat inadequate. One general impression I had here is that Salza lets his lawyer mentality show on numerous occasions. That’s not necessarily a good thing, because the mindset of Canon Law is not the same as the mindset of American / English civil law. Part of the reason for this is the difference between English Law systems and Roman Law systems. They are two different ways of thinking about law. An American lawyer studies American Law, which is based on the English Law system. I find myself agreeing with a number of Salza’s observations, because I've lived through these situations and I’ve been forced to confront the questions he raises. But at the same time, I disagree with the angle of John Salza's approach, because he focuses too much on what he calls the "legal reality" of the Church. There is a "legal reality" in the Church, of course, but that "legal reality" is not the "core reality" of the Catholic Church and never has been. The core reality of the Catholic Church is a theological reality that exists at the level of grace and charity. The legal reality is a human creation that exists to serve that core divine reality. I agree with Salza in what he mentions about certain arguments in the "crisis series" that the SSPX has on RUclips. They correctly enunciate a doctrine and then they don't seem to understand that they're contradicting it in their actions. "It's a mystery," they have to say. LOL When discussing necessity, Salza made an interesting point about how claiming “necessity” cannot become a reason to circumvent divine law. That should be discussed more! Unfortunately, Salza doesn't have a good grasp of where to draw the line between what is divine and what is ecclesiastical / human in the Church. He messed up on that a couple of times. So, there is certainly a lesson the SSPX needs to take on this point, but the point needs to be made with a better grasp of what that looks like in ecclesiology. Overall, Salza errs on the side of assuming that things are of divine institution when, in fact, many are of human / ecclesiastical institution. I was particularly irritated by how frequently he said "X is infallible". He got several of those assertions partially wrong, because in most cases there’s part that’s divine and part that’s human, and knowing where to draw the line is the key. Some of the things that Salza wants to be rock-solid "infallible" truths are, in fact, human constructs. Two tricky things for the civil lawyer mentality to grasp: (1) how law and doctrine evolve over time in the Church, and (2) evaluating how much we are uncertain about at any given point in that evolution. One problem that really jumped out at me was Salza's lack of nuance about the position, prerogatives, and selection process of Bishops in the Church. This has evolved significantly over time, and yet Salza just throws out "it's infallible" like candy. Salza's analysis of supplied jurisdiction for confessions was way off. Salza got hung up on the idea of "judgment of the community" like it's a specific and well-defined legal concept (it isn't, but I'm sure his lawyer mind wishes it were lol). He also failed to mention that there is more than one way to have supplied jurisdiction. Looking through my files I found an interview by Salza from 2007 wherein he refutes the argument he just gave in 2023. (You can look this up: Robert Sungenis interviewed John Salza in 2007 about his ongoing dispute with James Akin. The argument presented by Salza in 2007 is a good refutation of Salza’s own 2023 misunderstanding of the “judgment of the community” question.) Salza's take on where you can fulfill your Sunday obligation was bizarre. In canon law, the bar is low (like, really low) for what counts as fulfilling your Sunday obligation. So I was rolling my eyes when Salza put on his lawyer mode and started saying "let me tell you about some legalese nobody has ever heard of". And, no, your local bishop doesn’t get to decide what fulfills your Sunday obligation. Your local bishop might be a canon lawyer (or have one on staff, hopefully) and they can help interpret the law for you, but they don’t determine the law in this case. These oddities aside, I still think Salza is raising some worthwhile points, even when the way he got to the conclusion isn't quite right. In other words, I’d like to see some of these arguments reformulated with correct theology / ecclesiology, thereby rendering this critique of the SSPX more correct and potent.
The Sunday obligation and supplied jurisdiction moments were big eye rollers for me as well. The jurisdiction issue was given like none of the nuance it requires (how far the concept of common error should go was a debated point in the time of the study he cited and the new code actually appears to fall on the opposite side from Salza). And his explanation of the Sunday obligation was one of the most esoteric interpretations of canon law Ive ever heard lol. I even broke out my own commentary to double check that I wasn’t losing it. I wasn’t…
@berryjones1327 it’s the Canon Law Society of America study edition from Paulist Press. It’s not the absolute best (I’ve seen things that seem on the liberal side but I expect that from Paulist Press lol) I should pick one up at some point that I like better but it’s good for demonstrating what the prevailing mainstream interpretations are. Perhaps needless to say, designated locations for fulfilling a Sunday obligation is not in there lol. Salza kept mentioning “sui iuris” over and over again as if that isn’t a term that refers exclusively in canon law to a self governing Eastern hierarchy… 😂
I'm glad somebody wrote this. I am a lawyer, and I found myself cringing at Salza's commentary over and over. I actually found this to be a brutal interview, probably because I do this for a living and understand his argument structures and their limitations. His commentary and arguments will sound impressive to the untrained ear, but I just found myself raising numerous questions and realizing that many of his points were cherry-picked.
Excellent comment. Before reading this I wasn’t learned enough to know there are in fact differences between say English law and church law as you say Father… helpful for discernment. Thank you!
thank you for doing this interview! My husband and I nearly fell for the lies of the society shortly after becoming Catholic sadly because of certain commentators we were listening to. John Salza did an amazing job, he is so clear, knowledgable & articulate!
Dear Matt, it's only fair n right to invite SPPX Priests to clarify again n again n again the many attacks on SSPX being schismatics. I am too old to see how the good have always being attacked n the evil get away, *but Our GOD IS A JUST JUDGE n a MERCIFUL ONE TOO.* *When one door is closed,* *GOD always opens another!* *GOD works in mysterious ways.*
My entire family started attending the SSPX during Covid because it was the only church that was open. But slowly things started to get tremendously more radical and my heart is completely broken. Everything in this video answered the questions I've had for years now but whenever I wanted to ask the SSPX priest there wasn't any room to other than in confession which was for "confession" and a massive line was waiting after you. Everything Salza said in this video is exactly true to what happened to my family. My questions started when my parents said I couldn't go to the diocesan Latin Mass because they were giving communion on the hand under the Cardinal's orders. They started saying things like "as soon as it is given in the hand, it's no longer Jesus, it's just a wafer". But then they would say "we don't want to go to Novus Ordo Masses because there's Jesus all over the ground from them giving communion on the hand" it was so contradictory and warped but questioning wasn't allowed. Slowly one by one, it's gotten worse and now they refer to anything I say as "having the Novus Ordo demon" which I think was said about me by an SSPX priest to my parents. Their attacks on me and anyone inside the Church including our pope and clergy is purely attacks on their person and never the argument. Please pray for my parents and family and me. They really need it right now 🙏🏽💕
Who is "they"? A priest would never say Holy Communion suddenly ceases to be consecrated because it was handed to a lay person. The real horror of Communion in the hand is that it is the consecrated species, assuming the Mass was offered with the correct intentions etc Please don't confuse some of the ignorant weirdos who attend mass at the chapel with The Society proper.
Sounds like a weird experience, but these are not the positions of the Society as I've head them. The Novus Ordo is certainly illicit per Canon 13, Session 7 of the Council of Trent. The TLM is the Catholic Mass.
@@Felatay by "they" I mean my own parents. I'm speaking from my heart and what I have seen happen. I fully agree that communion on the tongue is much more respectful but that doesn't mean attending a LATIN MASS within the diocese which is closer to my house and ONLY gives communion on tongue should be something to fear.
@@backwaterfarmer it may sound "weird" to you but the sad truth is it is a reality for me. My parents who have started attending the society are completely confused. They refuse to attend any Latin mass except for that of the society even if it's the Latin Mass within the diocese that is given by the Oratorian fathers who who provide Latin mass. I'm so tired of all this confusion, fighting and division. I wish none of this on any Catholic family.
@@backwaterfarmer don't be a Protestant and quote one line out of context. But regardless, since you have quoted just one line let me explain what that line means. It states: "If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema." Believe it or not, but the "New Mass" was, however unfortunate, an "APPROVED" rite of the church. How was it approved? It was approved by the council convened by the Vicar of Christ. Just as there has been a Dominican rite, or Ukrainian rite, there have been many "approved" rites post Trent.
My wife is from Milwaukee and we go back every other year and have agreed that we will not attend another Novus Ordo there again. We either attend St. Stanislaus or the Melkite parish. I have only walked out of a handful of Masses in my life because I could not stand the sacrilege- all of them were Novus Ordo events (they could not qualify as legit Masses) in Milwaukee. I think there are people who are will8ng to allow a banal, saying ethos of Vatican IIism to run roughshod over them and their families rather than do what us necessary to save their souls. No one - NO ONE - is bound to submit themselves or their families to spiritual abuse and danger. Thank God for the Institute in Milwaukee.
This is the situation we’re in full time and it’s why we attend the Society Masses and Catechesis. The things we’ve heard (and seen) are our local parish, with our five impressionable little boys, is not to be believed.
It is theoretically possible to find ourselves in a sorry situation where our Bishop is running such a poor diocese that we cannot in good conscience assist at any masses under him. But that doesn't mean we then go outside the legitimate structure of the Church to have people mediate our relationship with Christ. To act in the person of Christ as a minister in the Church, you need God to give you that mission, otherwise you are appointing yourself to a position beyond your stature. It's intrinsically evil to present yourself as someone's representative without their permission, and this is what any ordained man does unless he has received a mission to act as a minister in the Church. Christ did not promise you access to daily mass and weekly confession. If your local situation is so dire, then simply stay home. Make the three-hour drive to the next diocese once a month, and do what you can to fix the situation in your local Church.
@@tomthx5804 breakaway sect that still recognizes Rome as the head of the church? That’s a stretch. The bishop in my diocese cancelled all TLM as of 1 January. Me and mine will attend the SSPX chapel and still pray for Pope Francis, Rome, and the union of the Society and Rome for mutual spiritual enhancement.
Actually, it’s not. We truly do not have any of that available to us. When I mention problems in our local diocese I’m talking about gravely serious issues, not “Oh, we just don’t like the guitars.” We have actually had the Holy Spirit referred to as a woman during Mass. The vax compared to Mary’s fiat to God. One hour of confession available once a week. Baptisms done in large groups several times a year when the priest feels like it. “Jesus is not really a man or a woman.” A pro-life group would be too political. It just goes on and on. In one of the two churches there are no kneelers and no kneeling allowed. Our bishop also happens to have been Theodore McCarrick’s personal secretary so there’s not much hope in going to him. We have no options like ICKSP or FSSP. Not everyone lives in a heavily Catholic area. I’m a convert of five years and attending Mass with the Society is the first time I’ve met priests that really, truly care and have time to listen to you. I’ve seen nothing devisive, no “attitude of schism.” You better believe we have prayed and prayed on this one and done all our research. There is nothing but confusion and conflicting opinions about the Society online but ultimately I see no evidence of any true authority that says they are schismatic. In fact, I see quite the opposite, I see Bishop Schneider saying they are in no way schismatic. I also see the fruits, I see the true joy there and love of Jesus Christ and his bride the Church. I see Pope Francis’ picture in the entryway and prayed for during the Mass. We are not schismatics, we love Holy Mother Church and we have had to make the difficult decision for our family to drive an hour both ways every Sunday to leave our local parish and go where we find true Catholic orthodoxy. Please pray for us, for the Pope and for the Church that this whole situation may become unnecessary. God bless you.
I will never argue with a person about attending the SSPX. In these demonic and terrible times in the Church we can only do what we can to defend our families and hold to the true Faith passed on for 2000 years. Under normal circumstances one should not attend the SSPX. Again, not going to ever condemn anyone for doing so. If you are a Novus Ordo only person - so be it. Enjoy. But...I do think where a bishop unjustly forbids the TLM and there are no other genuine alternative to the happy-slappy Susan-from-the- parish Novus Ordo with guitars and hand-holding, no Eastern Catholic, Anglican Ordinariate...I'm going to SSPX. But in our diocese we have a reputation for numerous Novus Ordo unicorn Masses - ad orientem, Latin, chant, incense, male only severs, Holy Communion kneeling and on tongue from priests, etc. Still I would prefer a low TLM over High NO. My preference of course.
I suppose it’s always easier to criticize the SSPX, the Ortho’s, Byzantine’s, etc, than to be forced to face the real schisms and heresies in our own diocese (that we can do nothing about). Now we can all feel better about ourselves and go back to sleep reassured. Remember you’re watching layman on RUclips.
How is it that bishop Huondor of Switzerland was granted permission to retire in the SSPX (2019), if they are, in fact, in schism? This would be an absurdity.
Should have brought this up before the debate, would have been great to hear it discussed. My take is that merely residing with them and even celebrating liturgies with them doesn't mean they're not in schism. For example, the orthodox are in schism but the Pope occasionally attends Divine Liturgies with them (and vice versa). I know of some priests who live in obscure locations who reside with Protestant clergy. Very long winded, but the point I'm trying to get across is "living with" is not equal to "in communion with".
@@matthewmorris9532 The problem is that Bishop Huonder has explicitly stated he lives with them because of what they preach and because he does not believe them to be in schism. This is quite different than a lone priest with nowhere to go being taken in out of charity by a non-Catholic. The Pope also does not assist at Orthodox Masses. There have been joint vespers, etc. but the Pope does not assist at schismatic celebrations of the Eucharist. Assisting at a schismatic Mass and adhering to the teachings of the schismatic minister would, in fact, make you schismatic. Since Bishop Huonder is apparently not in schism (nor are the lay faithful who assist at SSPX Masses) then we are quite clearly not dealing with the same situation as the orthodox
@@matthewmorris9532 "the orthodox are in schism but the Pope occasionally attends Divine Liturgies with them (and vice versa)." If the pope hasn't done this, bishops have. This was not done nor permitted prior to Vatican II. ""living with" is not equal to "in communion with"." That is a nuance that most everyone is not going to know or appreciate. By allowing a bishop to retire with schismatics and offer mass for them and with them and live with them day in and day out gives a sign of approval. Once could say it is scandalous.
Thanks for this discussion. It would be really good to have an SSPX priest on to explain their side of the story. John Salza obviously does not come from the same view point at all. He does not talk as if there has been and is a major crisis in the Church since Vatican II. He quotes laws of the Church, which are given for normal times. These are not normal times. He doesn't seem to acknowledge the dangers of Vatican II and seems to suggest that if Archbishop Lefebvre had continued under his local bishop, all would have been fine - the Archbishop could have continued forming traditional priests for the Church. No, the modernists wanted tradition banished. Thank God for Archbishop Lefebvre. John Salza insinuates that Archbishop Lefebvre lost it a bit. Ridiculous and false. He was the most well grounded, faithful, clear-sighted and charitable of men. Everyone knows this. As for bishops advising that we may go to SSPX masses, Bishop Schneider and Archbishop Vigano tell us that we can and should (two of the most Catholic bishops we have). They have nothing but praise for the saintly Archbishop. Please do have an SSPX priest on to explain in detail the real crisis and their position. In Jesus, Mary and Joseph,
Sadly I have to contradict. The canon law is not only valid in normal times, but always. Mostly Divine law is not changeable. And if it were true that because of the church’s current situation it weren’t normal times, who could decide that? It’s of course not up to individuals lay or ordained, but for the whole church. And if we look into church history I guess every time wasn’t normal and there has always been a sort of crisis…so it remains the same that canon law is valid.
A few questions: Bishop Athanasius Schneider was the Vatican delegate that was sent to assess the Catholicity and orthodoxy of the SSPX. He lived in their seminary for a month. His conclusion was that yhey were thoroughly Catholic and recommended their regularization. The bishop unequivocally denies they are in formal schism. He brought up the fa t the Pope CANNOT confer faculties to a group in formal schism without implicitly endorsing sed schism. And now that SSPX chapels can witness marriages on behalf of the Church. Our diocese doesn't even send a diocesan representative but just has them send a record of the marriage. So they have valid Mass, valid Confession, valid marriages...but they are in schism? I am not a regular attendee of the Society (90% Novus Ordo) but I find their presence in our diocese a great benefit and feel that when Satan is in full control of the hierarchy (which is soon coming to pass) the Society will be a refuge (along with other TLM communities) for the faithful when denied the fullness of the Faith.
Oh so everything is hunky dory and the sspx is no longer separate from the “conciliar modernist church” as lefev called it?? Did sspx become conciliar and modernist or renounce these words from lefev or has this so called “conciliar church” come around and said lefev was right and Rome was wrong and now they are in communion with the great self anointed defenders of “tradition” the sspx??? Lol what a joke.. larp harder
@@johnjaun9231 "Concilliar church" isn't something Lefevbre coined. It's something post VII bishops coined to justify novelty. He didn't just make it up, he's quoting their own theology.
The simple fact that you believe Satan can possibly be in full control of the Church hierarchy means the poison has already seeped into you. That's not catholic belief. Just as a reminder, the creed does not say we believe in the One Holy and Apostolic SSPX.
@@tanksgtThe Latin Rite offered the language in the languages of the people. There is nothing wrong with that. The mass was originally in Aramaic and eventually offered in Coptic, Syriac, and Greek. It was offered in Latin because it was the language that the people in the Roman Empire spoke. Eventually, Catholicism came to more countries so it is great that the Church offered the mass in the language that they can understand.
Couple of things to add: First: in 2016 Pope Francis himself granted direct jurisdiction in perpetuity to all SSPX priests to hear confessions and for the sacrament of marriage. In this decree it also states that the SSPX priest is to say Mass during the marriage. How can a priest from the SSPX celebrate Mass licitly on this day, but lose all faculties the next? Secondly, Archbishop Lefebvre never celebrated the Novus Ordo, but only the new rites of 1965 and 1967, which were much closer to the 1962 TLM than to the 1970 Novus Ordo. He was never a great liturgist, but he rejected the new theology of the Novus Ordo.
Oh so the sspx is no longer separate from what lefev called “the conciliar modernist freemason church”?? Wonderful so the sspx leadership have rejected these words from lefev or the “modernist conciliar church” is no longer modernist?? Great so we can just go to a NO or does the sspx say not to??
@@xanderjansen4539 where is your evidence to back up Fellay was given permission to ordain? Fellay has said that, but he has never produced a document to verify that. Anybody can say anything.
The way the faithful received Holy Communion in the first few centuries was different than how many receive it now in that they did not touch the Host, but had a cloth placed over their hand and put their head down to touch their tongue to it and place it in their mouths. The faithful developed the long standing practice of having the priest place the Host on their tongue very early on, but the recent receiving in the hand the way people do now was originally an abuse that was excused in 1977 because so many wayward bishops and priests initially out of Holland and Belgium were already allowing, advocating, and even mandating it in their dioceses to the detriment of faith in the Real Presence of the Eucharist. What you do with your body matters. Receiving communion in the hand was one of the first changes made during the Protestant Reformation in order to communicate this was NOT Christ's actual body, blood, soul, and divinity.
There is the issue of having hands consecrated to touch the Host, exception being in an emergency to protect the Host from danger. The early Church understood what something meant to be consecrated...think of their understanding of the Ark of the Covenant. While they did not understand molecules or atoms, they did understand dust. They would have understood that even the tiniest piece of the Host was just as much Christ as the entire whole Host. They would not have risked even the dust of the Host to be discarded. This developed even more fully as a practice within a few hundred years universally within the Church.
There are some Catholics who can receive on the hand and maybe don't lose faith in the Real Presence, but knowing about the possibility of discarding even the tiniest bit of the Host and knowing that the laity have not had their hands consecrated as a priest (diluting the sanctity of the priesthood itself and causing confusion as to why priests have been set apart by privilege of their office), why on earth would you continue to receive on the hand??? If it is just because it is awkward and uncomfortable having not done it that way before, humble yourself before the King of Kings who laid down his life for you. By and large, it has caused immense damage to the belief in the Real Presence.
I attend mass at an SSPX chapel. By no means would I refer to myself as an “SSPXer” since I don’t really feel comfortable throwing my support behind any of the prevalent camps in a sort of “party affiliation” style manner. All of them have things I agree and disagree with and I don’t fit neatly into a box that way. There’s certainly things you can criticize the Society about. Some of them fairly enough were brought up in this discussion. However, unfortunately I felt that the vast majority of Mr. Salza’s arguments relied on massive mischaracterizations of the positions held by actual Society members and parishioners, fallacious inclusion or at least implication of conclusions in his premises, consistent strawmanning of Society arguments, as well as what to me sounded like blatant falsehoods. I’m disappointed that the case for the Societies position has been presented so poorly and I hope Matt will consider having someone else on who shares more sympathy with the SSPX, maybe someone who attends a chapel, or even one of their priests, to represent a steel man case.
How is this a "misrepresentation" of the SSPX's position? Sounds like you're just hurt that someone called you out on hard truths. The reactionary attitude of the SSPX has not helped the Church's position in the world. What's saddening is that the beauty of the Mass in which the SSPX values is pridefully overcome by the arrogance to not find reconciliation with Rome. Pope Benedict XVI opened the door for healing, and yet the leadership stayed as stubborn as their founder did. Pride cometh before the fall, both progressively and reactionary. So please - explain the mischaracterizations (massive mischaracterizations, in your terms.)
While I enjoy John Salza pointing out canonical law, one thing I wish @PintsWithAquinas did was have someone like Bp. Bernard Fellay debate Mr. Salzas. Why Bp. Fellay? He was with the SSPX from the 1970s and was one of the bishops consecrated at Ecône and later became their Superior General from 1994 through 2018. In a video I saw of him (ruclips.net/video/bmcIGIPrFd4/видео.html), he mentioned Abp. Lefebvre corresponded with the Vatican but that they kept pushing back the date as to when he could consecrate bishops. According to Bp. Fellay, he said once Abp. Lefebvre informed the Vatican he was going to consecrate bishops (plural) as he got tired of waiting for a response from them, he stated the Vatican acquiesced and agreed to allow them to consecrate one bishop on August 15th but he had to provide them names of three new candidates from scratch. Why was Abp. Lefebvre in a hurry? He was diagnosed with cancer in 1983 and by the mid 1980s grew increasingly ill. At the time the SSPX was corresponding with then Cardinal Ratzinger and Abp. Lefebvre sensed the Vatican was playing a waiting game. According to Bp. Fellay in the video the eventually pushed the date back again to November and then Ratzinger responded with he didn't know when they would allow him to consecrate a bishop - at this point, according to Bp. Fellay, Abp. Lefebvre decided to go ahead with the consecrations thinking they're waiting for him to run out his personal time. I am in no way justifying what the SSPX did. I'm more interested in two knowledgeable experts, one on Canon Law, and another a witness and participant to the events that unfolded meting out the truth. The truth for everyone's benefit. Everyone who is faitfhful. I imagine there will be new information both sides had not heard before or ever considered. And again, I think everyone wants to discover the truth in fuller detail.
@@gruntpadre5337 There can be no "reconciliation," for Rome has fulfilled the prophecy of LaSallette. Rome has lost the Faith. When Rome chooses to be Catholic and not an agent and power pushing the agenda of the NWO, unity will be acheived. Salza's arguments convinces no one, for the Church has never FORMALLY condenmed the FSSPX in schism. In the 50 years of their existence, I have seen no evidence of this position. If Salza wanted to argue his point, he should be speaking to a reliable authority on the Society, and not to some pod caster who's had questionable moments on his show in the past. He is merely feeding more rubbish to those who agree with him. I will remain with Bishop Anthanasius Scheider, (who was assigned in the past to monitor them, and spent two weeks in an SSPX seminary), Archbishop Vigano, and Father Gerald Murray, a canon lawyer, who have repeatedely stated their non schismatic status. Salza is a mere layman, and has no power, nor authority to declare what is schismatic. This former Freemason's position and stance is well known, so he can continue to pontificate until the cows come home. In the light of what has happened to the Church in our times, he's just water under the bridge. We give thanks for the courage and determination of Archbishop Marcel Lefevebre, in his struggle to save the holy patrimony of Mother Church, and may God bless the work of the priests of the SSPX!
@@TonyG8297 You are correct about the situation that existed with the Archbishop prior to the Consecrations. Rome was giving the Archbishop the run around. They were waiting for him to die, hoping that his death would precipitate the demise of his movement. Anyone familiar with the life of the Archbishop, is fully aware of Rome's shabby treatment of him during his latter years. Horrendous when one considers how the man spent most of his life on this planet by bringing untold numbers to Christ, and a faithful son of the Church. The media and his Modernist, Novus Ordite, enemies made a rebel out of the him, but he was never such a thing. He remained true and loyal to the Catholic Church, and not the "ape of the church."
@@LUIS-ox1bv My concern is, and no disrespect to Bp. Fellay as I believe he means well, is he said Abp. Lefebvre told him he was getting the run around. So it’s hearsay … in other words I don’t know if there’s any document to back up what Abp. Lefebvre told Bp. Fellay. But even then my question is assuming documents proving this exist, or both are telling the truth, why was the Vatican delaying the consecration of a bishop? Was their concern the Traditional Latin Mass? Or was it because of the actions of Abp. Lefebvre? Remember, the church suppressed the SSPX in 1975, suspended Abp. Lefebvre who continued to ordain priests irregardless and was suspended a divinis. Again, was the concern with the TLM or Abp. Lefebvre? Without access to documentation It is a mystery to me. I wonder if there is more to the story which is why I think Bp. Fellay and Mr. Salza should discuss / debate this on air with a moderator like @PintsWithAquinas.
I really appreciated John’s approach to this. He’s so knowledgeable of the historical facts behind all of this and is able to communicate them calmly and clearly. This was so informative!
The former high ranking freemason John Salza who made an oath to Lucifer and renounced Jesus Christ before his "conversion" to the Vatican II church and who now eagerly tries to bring all who want to be traditional catholics into that institution in which someone who builds temples for pagan god worship and who prays on the wailing wall "in which HaShem dwells" for the coming of "their" Moshiach must be venerated as a saint is proven to be a complete spiritual fraud in an audio file named "John Salza's Lies, Errors and Dishonesty" here on RUclips. I suggest you also study the article entitled "John Salza Has No Idea What He’s Talking About" (you can google it).
I have the humility to say that if something isn't in good standing with the church, don't go to it. Even if it seems better and the sacraments are valid, if they don't accept the pope, they're off the ark. Just go to an fssp or move to a place that has one. We live in rough times we must offer up our sufferings and trust in the Lord for better times.
"I think most people who dont like their local Novus Ordo aren't involved, you can make a lot of changes very quickly by getting involved, usually there's not many people really volunteering" I took this from the chat and it's absolutely true.
It's absolutely true. We have Gregorian chant sung at every Mass as well as a new High Altar and Communion rails. The priest also says the Mass ad Orientem. All because parishioners were asking for it and they stepped in to help run the choir and teach altar boys
My brother was very involved in his local parish and was constantly met with resistance as priest after priest participated in liturgical abuses - and when he would point it out he was castigated and ridiculed - and even when he brought official publications from the church that would go over liturgical rubrics, the priest still wouldn’t listen. And when writing to his bishop - deaf ears. He now attends a local TLM - has to drive an hour to get there It really shouldn’t have to be this way.
@@mikeoconnor4590 it really should not have to be, but you're brother will be rewarded not only for his courage in asking for proper changes, but also for his bearing the abuses to adore His Lord and Savior. You're brother won't have to answer for these priests and Bishops sins. Bad clergy doesn't make the Church not the Church. Christ promised us He would never abandon us, he didn't promise us good and holy clergy.
Man, I've always heard good things about Salza, but this is my first time listening to him and I'm blown away. Can't wait to dive into the full video. Thanks for the great discussion guys!
The former high ranking freemason John Salza who made an oath to Lucifer and renounced Jesus Christ before his "conversion" to the Vatican II church and who now eagerly tries to bring all who want to be traditional catholics into that institution in which someone who builds temples for pagan god worship and who prays on the wailing wall "in which HaShem dwells" for the coming of "their" Moshiach must be venerated as a saint is proven to be a complete spiritual fraud in an audio file named "John Salza's Lies, Errors and Dishonesty" here on RUclips. I suggest you also study the article entitled "John Salza Has No Idea What He’s Talking About" (you can google it).
I'm from SE Europe, from Catholic area. I live in a reverent NO parish, with altar boys, only priests and deacons giving Holy Communion. I appreciate this video because I really like TLM and I want to learn more about it and also expand my knowledge about other important matters connected to our faith. Thank you and God bless you. 🙏✝️🕊️
The Novus Ordo is a Happy Meal. The "Traditional Latin Mass" is the Rite of St Peter, and a propitiatory sacrifice. It has nothing to do with "reverence". It has to do with ontology.
@@johnosumba1980 It would be absurd to think that St Peter went to Rome and was not familiar with Latin. St Paul of course knew Latin well, and was a great influence on the rest of the Apostles. In the meantime, Holy Mother Church cannot contradict herself, nor suppress the Apostolic Traditions which are her warp and woof- her heritage. What Paul VI did was an act of violence against the sacred, pure and simple. Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us. You are our only hope!
@@whitewolf1298 have you ever tried to find out how many times there has been changes in the way mass was being conducted? And do you believe that the gates of hell will never prevail against the Church? And do you think Jesus was wrong in giving Peter the power to bind and loose. I have been to so many places and believe that the Catholic Church is right in all the improvements they make, the problem lies down on implementation. Many people relate Vatican 2 to the problem bedeviling the world and forgetting that there were problems even before Vatican 2. Even at the beginning of the Church.
@@johnosumba1980 The Gates of Hell will never prevail against Holy Mother Church. The Dogma of the Faith will always be preserved and it will always be available to souls seeking salvation. Our Lord Never guaranteed that when He returns there will be a pope and hierarchy. Peter was definitely appointed Prince of the Apostles, and given the power to bind and lose in terms of discipline in the church. (For example, with one stroke of a pen the pope could cancel the whole of canon law and annul any penalties incurred.) But the pope CANNOT change the Divine Law nor the Apostolic Traditions. The Church has four marks- One, Holy, Catholic, and APOSTOLIC. The main duty of the pope and and bishops is to guard the sacred deposit of Faith. The way Mass is conducted has developed, properly speaking, not changed. Just as a puppy develops into a dog, over the centuries prayers have been added to the body of he Mass and Sts added to the canon. But NEVER have prayers been altered or deleted. And NEVER has the theology of Holy Mass been changed.
Sad. You, like many others, have been duped. To see why, check the articles at lesfemmes-thetruth.blogspot.com/p/sspx-is-not-in-schism.html These include statement by canon lawyers, theologians, priests, and Bishop Schneider who is much more trustworthy than the "former" homosexual freemason Salza.
I yearn for the mystery, awe and reverence of feeling that I’m in the presence of and worshiping God, who is above all; that makes me conscious that He is God and I am NOT.
@@eoinmcg88 he left freemasonry years and years and years ago. He’s given a bunch of talks that explain what happened to him in that organization and how freemasonry is a demonic entity. He recognized his error and left.
@@reinelantz3304 I know that, the point is his local priest told him he could join the freemasons, salza is saying go to Mass with your local priest instead of the sspx lol
Wow! John should stop with the legalism and his perspective is absurd. That said, John's rationalization downplaying how bishops caved in response to the COVID response is by far more telling. You don't need hindsight to know they were wrong there and you don't have to be a covid skeptic to recognize not having access to the faith was extremely problematic. What happened to John...
You may have heard the words he used, but you didn't hear what the man was saying. He clearly opposes the COVID lock-down, but it's a prudential judgment of our superiors which is within their competency. Sometimes we have to submit to orders we don't like-that comes with obedience, which is an essential virtue.
@@Dack105 Within whose competency? It is immoral to assent to the actions and dictates of midwits and cowards. Bishops have proven time and time again how often they erred prudentially when dealing with faggotry and abuse. Your definition of obedience lacks seriousness and has more in common with the vice of cowardice.
The SSPX has changed my life for the better, for sure! They represent the Catholic Church as it always was, always will be, they are not in lock step with the new order, I’ll put my chips with the fact that God does not change. But V2 is a change. John seems bitter a bit, I wonder what happened after 15 years? I down with the SSPX and they are growing! Thank God for the Archbishop!
the sspx does not represent who the church was when it was young and forming. there was very little consistency until 1500's. and even then there was sections in europe that were different. sspx just representing dissent in the west but not an historical artifact.
@@aeternusromanus yes, I did. Did you? John is obviously bitter. However the point of the Archbishop is still very valid, after V2 the Church changed, fact! God does not change, fact. Therefore the Archbishop who only wanted to preserve the faith as it was before modernism is doing what God asked not what man asks. Remember Adam only asked for fruit salad when God said no, and look at the mess since. God does not adapt or change.
47:46 To be fair to Archbishop Lefebvre- he did indeedy sign a document indicating his willingness to have a bishop named for him on August 15th, and the next day he reneged on this agreement, as he himself declared. So yes, you can say the Archbishop was "wishy washy". BUT it also remains true that, prior to his signing, Cardinal Ratzinger strongly hinted that Rome would accept his nomination to be consecrated, and then Rome changed ITS TUNE immediately upon getting his signature. That does not seem like "bending over backwards" to me, on the part of Rome.
"Well, that's a false dichotomy because both masses are illicit for different reasons. That would be my answer. The society masses are illicit because the priests don't have the faculties to say the mass. And those other masses are illicit because they are also engendering sacrilege and deviating from the rubrics. So that's a false dichotomy. It's NOT one or the other." Boom
He doesn't address the fact that Pope Pius V said in the Papal Bull Quo Primum that "no priest shall ever be penalized for saying this Mass" (i.e. the Traditional Latin Mass)
Matt Thank you again for doing this interview! I want to plead with you to please continue to interview folks explaining the schism of the society. I know its not fun to talk about but these talks truly are bringing people back from schism, heresy, or at least being on the brink. Without videos like this my husband and I may have completely fallen for the societies schism. Please don’t stop, souls need this! God bless & so thankful for John Salza he explained everything so well God bless him
To Reject the Bishops and the Pope Authority is to be an Anathema to Christ. Council of Trent Session 23, 24, and 14. You cant fight scandal by committing scandal. The SSPX founders did just that and still do
No. Talk to your parish priest and, if that is not clear, to your bishop. Remember: if someone says something is super important, and it isnt in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, then it just is *not* that important. We are not required to be theologians or canon lawyers or historians; whatever is clearly stated in the Catechism should be enough to silence the drums of outrage thst schismatics beat.
SSPX setting up its own Marriage Tribunal cannot be justified or explained. The *reasons* and *arguments* SSPX priests will use to justify the Society are irrelevant - Rome *has not* given them authority to judge marriages, say masses, or say the things they say (like dissuading the faithful from confessing to NO priests or attending NO masses).
@@LMC444111 No, you assume they are not. If they are Baptized and can say the Catholic Creed with the Church's intended meaning, then they are Catholics, full stop. To add anything more is to violate Jesus' warning not to invent and put obstacles in little childrens' way: better a millstone around our neck...
Sadly, this guest seems to stereotype those that attend the TLM. That is rash judging. I attend the TLM at a hermitage. Believe me, it was not because of the "bells and whistles ". I am still learning. All I know is that, after that first Mass, I was in love with Jesus - even after I struggled during that Mass - as I didn't know what was going on.
I'm a former sedevecantist (SGG, so strict they would deny you sacraments for attending the SSPX lol), my now wife went to the NO and I was the one who introduced her to the TLM. Trying to figure this kind of stuff out almost stopped us from getting married. We now attend an ICKSP (we are blessed to be quite near one) and wouldn't have it any other way. part of my family still goes to the sede church, most go to the SSPX, and one of my siblings goes to the Institute with his family as well. I've completely left sedevecantism, praise to the Lord, and while the institute is my home parish, I go to and receive at both the SSPX and the NO, not sure how many others are in similar situations. It's difficult because most in my family would deny the validity of the NO, and some of my in-laws aren't so sure of the validity of the TLM even at the Institute Really appreciate the information in this interview, God bless and keep up the good work everyone at PWA
You would probably benefit from listening to all of Michael Loftons videos over at Reason and Theology. I was initially raised in the SSPV and then when there was a big fight there my parents went over and raised us in the SSPX. I jabe learned so much about what the Church actually teaches from @Reason and Theology and @TheLogosproject.
@@AnaMT1985 Michael Lofton is a great resource for well thought out theology. I use to listen to Taylor Marshall until he started going down this rabbit hole. I unsubscribed from him, Kennedy, and recently, Tim Gordon. I prefer to spend my time with theologically strong Catholics...Pints with Aquinas, Trent Horn, Michael Lofton, Keith Nestor, Brian Holdsworth, BP. Barron, Catholic Answers, etc.. Leave SSPX....they have issues to workout with the Pope!
@@rosiegirl2485 yes, agree. I also immediately recognized the peace I felt after leaving all of the anger, bitterness and constant negativity of the celebrity ytubers you mentioned behind. It was refreshing coming over to those that don't treat everyone with the judgement of suspicion. It's nice to trust that the Church is indefectible and all of the problems I was taught about all my life in the SSPX are not mine to carry.
@@24erstad Trust me, they couldn't keep from name calling all while preaching to refrain from name calling. I believe their favorite one was "dingus". Maybe they were very efficient at hiding inappropriate comments, but if that's the case there was still no need for their rude responses to a bunch of invisible people.
@@eoinmcg88 and some people might say, they rather stay away from a society started by schismatic freemasons that hijacked a mass rite and holding it hostage.
@Commissary Thank you for your correction in fraternal charity. Perhaps if you state an issue you have with my assessment, I could respond to it. I have to confess that the inability to read minds is indeed a "weakness" of mine.
@Commissary since the chances of you or anyone else attending a Novus Ordo in Latin over the next few weeks are about 100 to 1, I believe the ongoing legal problems with the new mass are self-evident. One best conforms oneself - ironically - to the ideas in Sacrosanctum Concilium by attending the TLM. Thank you for referring to my response as petty. That was rich.
Looking for where it says the vernacular should be the norm and the music choice is completely up to the whims of whomsoever has been hired to manage it, but all I can find is that Latin should be preserved in the Roman Rite and that Gregorian chant is given pride of place. Also, where is communion in the hand defined as the preferred mode of reception in any document on the Liturgy? If I'm wrong on one of these points, let me know. Otherwise, the current widespread iteration of the Novus Ordo is an *ongoing legal problem*, because what the Church states as ideal is almost never executed in practice. It's weird to take the denial tack. We're not in a courtroom. I have seen maybe two or three parishes with NOs that checked all the boxes with SC, the GIRM, and the rubrics.
La Salette is approved On 19 September 1851, the local bishop formally approved the public devotion and prayers to Our Lady of La Salette. On 21 August 1879, Pope Leo XIII granted a canonical coronation to the image now located within the Basilica of Our Lady of La Salette
I've been attending a SSPX mass as they are the only ones who offer a Tridentine Mass in my area. I don't see the problem to be honest, they are genuine, serious catholics.
@@JohnFromAccounting the SSPX is acting without a canonical mission, which was anathematized by the Council of Trent. So when you go to Mass at the SSPX you're literally watching a priest commit mortal sin. There is nothing bad faith about wanting souls to go to Heaven and people to be in communion with the Holy See of Rome like that Church has always taught as necessary.
Superb episode. 3 hours is just great. Known John Salza through his works (scripturecatholic) for years. But only know appreciate his knowledge and stature. Thank you, thank you, John.
I have recently moved in the last year to a new state… unfortunately the nearest FSSP church is three hours away… so we have been going to the Novus ordo mass. I can tell you the things I see there take all the joy out of Sunday mass. when I converted to Catholicism I was very joyful… unfortunately I find it very hard to be joyful now… especially at mass.
Interesting discussion. However, considering the current state of our Church, I’ll go with what Bishop Athanasius Schneider has had to say regarding the Society after he visited the seminary in Econe. Lawyers like Mr. Salza can parse it amongst themselves.
To Reject the Bishops and the Pope Authority is to be an Anathema to Christ. Council of Trent Session 23, 24, and 14. You cant fight scandal by committing scandal.
@@auniversalwoman you can listen to it also and it is eye opening to say the least. Fr. Murr's interview with patrick coffin is fascinating also, ive listened to that 3 times i think. Of course there is also Dr. Marshalls book 'Infiltration".... so much out there, no reason to not understand that V2 was a liberal revolution. John XXIII and Paul VI were NOT good for the Church at all!
@@oldtimmy9481check the historical record, the Church itself goes against Bishops and Popes. That's a lame excuses for obedience, and it wouldn't mean anything anyway, even if True.
Thank u for interview Matt! I have been long time follower of PWA from Kazakhstan and love your show! I have asked my bishop and he said yes I can go to SSPX. Thanks Dr. Salza for advice to ask my bishop! Greetings from Astana 🇰🇿
Well done, John Salza👏👏 I have been waiting for you to do an interview like this. I myself got caught in Sedevacantism, and your Book and material helped get me out of it. I then went with the SSPX way for years and departed approximately 5 years ago, now attending TLM and NO adhering to Diocesan Bishop, etc. and never felt better! Keep up the solid work... you follow through with great, clear, concise style, clearing things up for the Church. Live Jesus our love and Mary our hope!
Hi Joshua! Over on my channel I host interviews with former Trads. It's helped a lot of people looking for answers and someone they can relate to. I would love to hear your story of what got you in and out of Sedevacantism, if you ever feel inclined to share! God bless you!
Also, regarding things that "lead [people] out of the Church," I'd argue that the "errors on the left" have done a far better job of clearing out the pews than anything else. Heck, the Steubenville conferences (with which Fradd has associated himself) and their seemingly Protestant-focused charismatic liturgy and discussions were the reason my brother stopped going to mass and hasn't considered himself a Catholic since high school.
Is mr salza still a freemasonic luciferian I wonder....mr fradd was a raging atheist by his own admission too....now both these men are taking jibes at the Saintly Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre....the devil is always in the detail it seems.
Pagan worship, sacrilege are mortal sins. Pope Francis gave honor & thumbs up to artist who did Blasphemy against Crucifix, by putting Crucifix in urine. Jesus Sacrifice on Cross, suffering so greatly, dying for love of us, to save us. Francis brought pagan idols into Vatican, when faithful Catholic threw in river, Francis got angry, had idols retrieved.
“This prerogative [inerrant teaching authority] granted to St. Peter by the Lord Jesus Christ was supposed to pass to all Peter’s successors because the chair of Peter is the center of unity in the Church. But if the Pontiff should fall into an error of faith, the Church would dissolve, deprived of the bond of unity. The bishop of Meaux speaks very well on this point, saying: ‘If this Roman See could fall and be no longer the See of truth, but of error and pestilence, then the Catholic Church herself would not have the bond of a society and would be schismatic and scattered-which in fact is impossible.” - Presentation given by Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser (1809-1879) to the general congregation of Bishops at the 1st Vatican Council.
The Pope is not evil simply because you say he is. For the Pope to truely and legitimately labeled evil or a heretic he must be officially rebuked but other authorities in the church such as the college of cardinals or an ecumenical council. To deny the legitimacy of the pope and magisterium is schismatic. You do not know better. You are a slave to your own pride.
I put off watching this because I thought it might be a hit piece on tradition, but it was not at all. Good conversation which actually answered some questions for me.
@@bobsmith425 No lie. This was originally supposed to be a debate with Kennedy Hall, until Kennedy backed out. Per Kennedy's email, "I will decline debating him, and he can say ‘Kennedy declined to debate me.” They reached out to the Society, and heard crickets. You're ignorant of the situation.
@@24erstad Since when is some layman the standard for the SSPX refusing to debate. Let them get an SSPX priest to demolish their false claims. John Salza himself was a long time defender of the SSPX. Don't forget that ! He could himself demolish his own false claims if he had any real integrity !
@@bobsmith425 Kennedy was the only one to respond to a debate request. The SSPX priests simply refused to the debate. When is the last time you've seen an SSPX priest do a public debate?
Wow, what a five-star guest! 25 minutes in and I’ve learned loads from this guy. Dr. Salza’s got a razor sharp legal mind. God bless you for bringing us these interviews, Matt 🙏. Greetings from Madrid 🇪🇸
@@helmanticus8624 Yes. Check into his background and you will find a lot to discredit him. Both Bishop Schneider and Bishop Huonder were sent by Rome to investigate the SSPX and both of them found that the SSPX are not schizmatics. I would believe them over this mason who just wants to drive up his book sales. Salza has written books, supposedly tell-alls of Freemasonry and the SSPX which are sensationalized fictional accounts, not accurate at all.
Thank you for this discussion. It gives so much clarity about an issue I’ve been turning over in my mind a lot recently. The Latin Mass was crucial in my reversion to the faith. It should be a point of unity, not division.
@@tradtruth If everyone agreed that Matthew 16:13-18 means what the Church always says then we already know the answer. Since people rejected the Council Teachings, even the Council of Trent who taught the same things as the Second Vatican Council about Matthew 16:13-18, we don't have the same agreement and submission to the Holy See. Since both Councils say the same thing about the Magisterium has the authority. You rejected that and most of the TLM laity which contradict to what you said. Please read the Catechism of the Council of Trent "Need of an Authoritative Catholic Catechism" (page 9).
Salza at 42:38 "The hammer is coming down on the TLM because of the SSPX." It's not enough to falsely accuse them of being in schism, now he has to scapegoat them. Mr. Salza, it looks like you are the one refusing to be in communion with your Cathollic brethren.
How is this opinion not a direct corollary to the explicit intention given by Pope Francis? 'A final reason for my decision is this: ever more plain in the words and attitudes of many is the close connection between the choice of celebrations according to the liturgical books prior to Vatican Council II and the rejection of the Church and her institutions in the name of what is called the “true Church.” One is dealing here with comportment that contradicts communion and nurtures the divisive tendency' He is clearly talking about rhetoric and attitudes that are fostered chiefly by the SSPX.
I commented on the livestream (which I hardly ever do) when I heard that. Seriously blaming traditiones custodes on the sspx and not on the hyper progressive bishops, Cardinals, and let's face it Pope?
We arent supposed to be in communion with our "Catholic brethren", we are supposed to be in communion with the Vicar or Christ and the Holy Catholic Church.
@@hamie7624 it’s actually both. It’s schismatic to remove yourself from communion with anyone inside the Church. You can’t, for instance, say that you are in Communion with the Holy See, but not the FSSP or the diocese of Gallup, New Mexico.
@@toddbyrd9071 ...that's ridiculous. If a group is in schism and we recognize that they are in schism, that doesn't make us wrong. "We" are only in schism with them because they put themselves in that state, and we are not obligated to remove ourselves from schism with Rome to be in communion with them, that would be folly. You demonstrate the fundamental issue with SSPX apologists, you dont know basic teachings and require large amounts of word games and mental gymnastics to justify your position.
Thank you hugely for this interview. It's an important matter for me, as I'm sometimes approached by SSPX to serve during their masses. Sadly most of my friends see no problem in that (but also offer no deeper thought, I think). It was very helpful for me to listen to John, especially regarding his long experience with SSPX and lawyer's approach to sources. I made a few pages of notes :) I appreciate Matt's requests to steel man arguments and not ridicule them.
My family and I attend SSPX, FSSP and diocesan TLMs however we are more aligned with the SSPX "recognize but resist" position. By the way, I was raised in the novus ordo for 40 years, attended Jesuit “catholic” schools from Kindergarten to High School and then graduated from a jesuit university in California. For all that time I never took my wishy washy watered down faith seriously until I started attending the Latin Mass. Under NO circumstances I will return to the novus ordo because it has proven to be a danger to my faith although I do think the Sacrament is confected during the ceremony, it is a an impoverished ritual offensive to pious ears. Furthermore, in the current state of necessity (chaos) the Church is in I don’t see a problem in attending the SSPX TLMs. Pope Francis has even granted the society priests with faculties to hear confessions so it is undeniable they are valid Catholic priests. The SSPX merely makes holy priests available who keep the Traditional Catholic Doctrine, Catholic Liturgy and Catholic morals without compromise with the modern errors, because without the Mass and the Sacraments, the faithful would spiritually starve: it was “operation survival" for the salvation of souls. The Society of St Pius X has always and continues to mention the Pope in the Canon of the Mass, and the local bishop: there was clearly no rejection of the hierarchy of the Church, and therefore no schism. Stop bashing the SSPX, worry about the german novus ordo schism and the like of Father "pro-sodomite" James Martin SJ, child abuser McCarrick, the sacrilege of communion in the hand, etc. etc. God bless!
"we are more aligned with the SSPX "recognize but resist" position." Ironically, the term "recognize and resist" was coined by a sedevacantist and the position is opposed to Catholic teaching on the papacy.
@@littlerock5256 as I mentioned previously I do not attend the SSPX chapels exclusively nor do I believe in the "no salvation outside the SSPX" position that *some* of their supporters and clergy adhere to; rather I am more aligned with the SSPX "recognize and resist" position, which by definition can not be a sedevacantist view because they do not recognize Pope Francis as a legitimate Pope. By the way, St Thomas Aquinas teaches that obedience is a moral virtue, and as all moral virtues, it consists in the right measure between a defect and an excess. The vice against obedience by defect is disobedience, not to comply with a legitimate order; the vice against obedience by excess is servility, i.e. to comply with illegitimate orders (like the imposition of the novus disordo!). Oftentimes, when there is a disagreement between a superior and an inferior, it is because the inferior resists a legitimate order, the wrong is on the part of the inferior, it is disobedience. But this is not always the case. Indeed, the Holy Scripture is very explicit and when the Apostles were commanded by the Sanhedrin not to preach the name of Jesus, “Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men”[Acts 5:29] . Sometimes indeed, men in authority command things which are against God, and in such case they should be resisted. In doing so, one is not disobedient, but rather one practices the virtue of obedience by avoiding the vice by excess, servility. But to each his own, I will most definitely stick with the Traditional Latin Mass as the most perfect way to worship God for Roman rite Catholics, resisting the errors of Francis (like the Pachamama, Assisi, etc.) while still recognizing him as Pope until a valid council of legitimate Cardinals with authority declares otherwise.. God bless!
@@rguerrah The "recognize and resist" position contradicts Catholic teaching. "to comply with illegitimate orders" I am familiar with this teaching. Note that it involves orders, not Church teaching on faith and morals from the pope or the Magisterium. " (like the imposition of the novus disordo!)" A pope has complete authority over the liturgy so if the pope is legitimate then so is the mass he imposes. "Sometimes indeed, men in authority command things which are against God, " The Catholic Church cannot promulgate or teach officially anything against God. "I will most definitely stick with the Traditional Latin Mass.." The 1962 missal is not traditional. It had the Canon altered, which hadn't been touched since Pope St. Gregory the Great, among other changes.
What did Jesus himself say when his disciples questioned whether to obey the Jewish leaders of the time? “Do everything they tell you, but dont BE like them!” Can we do anything different?
During lockdown Traditional Catholic Mass was celebrated( Thanks be to God) in the back of a trailer because Diocesan Bishops prevented Catholics their right to attend Holy Mass.
Catholics have no such “right” as implied here. This is coming from a typically American “individualist” notion of rights (our rights against the State). The Church is the protector of rights never oppressor by virtue of her charism. COVID 19 was an emergency, and the lack if public masses was temporary and excused. And of course, retuned once the crisis abated. No rights of the faithful were abrogated here.
I grew up in a “beige-Catholicism” parish with poor liturgies and formation. I even lapsed in my faith for a while. Eventually I came back to the. Church and fell in love with the TLM, even was a parishioner at a FSSP parish for a good while. I’ve been unsure about the whole SSPX question for a while, and it was John Salza (and The Logos Project channel) that last year finally put the nail in the coffin for the SSPX, and thoroughly convinced me of his position. He is rock-solid in his arguments, and I have not seen anything from SSPX apologists that would refute him. Thank you to PWA and Matt Fradd for having John Salza on to talk at length on this issue of great importance!
Thank you both John and Matt for having this discussion. I extremely appreciate the information and clarity in these hard times and found it very informative. THANK YOU🙏
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.
@@thelogosproject7 Is that supposed to be a response? 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 from the SSPX. But let this be known in order to show that this presentation is riddled with inaccuracy... how deliberate? only God knows.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
I grew up with the Latin Mass in the 1950s and 1960s in a very small village in the Moluccas. The village was 100% Catholic, it still is now. When we were introduced to the New Mass after Vatican Council 2 where our national language started to be used and the priest began to face the people with simpler Mass attires, my aunt stopped going to Mass. She said it was a made-up religion. We had to persuade her for a very long time before she could attend Mass again.
I very often attend the Latin Mass virtually. When I do, it brings back sweet memories of holiness back then. I think the Latin Mass should still be practiced because in reality we have more then 20 rites. So why not the Latin Mass?
He mentions he encourages people to go to the Latin Mass. Just not the SSPX
Which is wrong. Salza just wants to grift to sell books and have paid speaking engagements such as this. The Vatican sent both Bishop Schneider and Bishop Huondor to investigate the SSPX. They both reported the order to be a fully faithful part of our Church. I will listen to our Church hierarchy before I listen to this dramatizing man.
@@sethv2312And when it is banned everywhere else, what then?
Your aunt was spot on. Like the Monsignor Lefebvre ❤️❤️❤️
@@sethv2312but SSPX are about the only Latin & respectful priests around!!!
I don't know about all the legalistic stuff, but I got married by the SSPX. I'm Byzantine rite Catholic and my wife was baptized and entered the church in a parish church in Hawaii in 2020 during the COVID outbreak.(causing some strange things that needed a lot of paper work) Now we live in AZ so we had to get 4 bishops to sign off on our marriage. The Byzantine Arizonan, Latin Hawaiian, Latin Arizonian, and the SSPX Bishops all said we we're good. If my weeding caused a mini ecumenical council and none of these bishops objected... I think we're all good. I just go with the modo "be chill, worship God, let the politicians do the politics."
From my studies it seems so far that Marriage and reconciliation is licit, its Masses they may not be.
@@veronicasingermaciasI think it’s bc Pope Francis gave them those 2 faculties as an act of charity for the people. I’m not sure if that permission was just for that specific year or for all time going forward.
God and The Word and The Holy Spirit acknowledge and validate you. Love.
It was Benedict who allowed for the marriages to be validated. The SSPX has been doing this for a long time.
@veronicasingermacias It's important to remember that the marriages were conditional to permission from their local bishops.
That permission is rarely sought, so those people that were married under the SSPX without the society obtaining episcopal permission are in objective mortal sin.
This particular person obviously got permission for the SSPX to do the wedding, so that marriage is valid.
I would love to see a debate between Dr. John Salza and Kennedy Hall.
It would never happen. One of the most important unwritten rules of being a trad like Taylor Marshall or Kennedy Hall is to never publically engage or have real debates with anyone who disagrees with you. It's a loud echo chamber.
@@lardiop It would never happen because engaging with unaccomplished internet ankle biters serves no purpose
@@DaveS859 DR Salza is a canon lawyer and a published theologian. He's hardly an internet anklebiter.
No need for a debate with Kennedy Hall. The Popes have settled matter for a long time. Until the SSPX fully receives the reforms of the Second Vatican Council and live in full communion with Holy Mother Church, no theological or canon law gymnastics and media P.R. campaign by SSPX members, sympathetic bishops and media celebrities can rescind the consistent papal judgment that the SSPX is "not in full communion with the Church" (JPII, Ecclesia Dei; BXVI, Ecclesiae Unitatem; and Francis, Traditiones Custodes). In the July 16, 2021 letter accompanying Traditiones Custodes Pope Francis mentions the status of the SSPX going back to JPII: "The faculty - granted by the indult of the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1984 and confirmed by St. John Paul II in the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei in 1988 - was above all motivated by the desire to foster the healing of the SCHISM with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre."
Debates are not the acid test of truth. A person eloquently peddling an errant falsehood could out-talk someone on the side of the truth. Truth is the truth, even if no one in the world believes it; and falsehood is worthless although everyone on the planet accepts it and actively propagates same. Alĺ that's needed is that there be good, reasonable reasons for the claims one puts on the table in the course of discussion. I think Matt's guest has done an excellent job in discussing this particular issue.
I’m a convert from being an atheist. I was baptized 3 years ago at 30 years old. The only advice I can give after struggling with this for so long comes from a priest I confessed to. Mass should not disturb your soul. You should not have to wonder whether or not the Mass your attending is licit or not. Keep the waters of your soul calm and still so that you can grow in faith, hope, charity, and love - do not let it become choppy lest a storm brews and drowns you.
I haven’t had these experiences described at SSPX Masses - and for the most part, I’ve experienced some pretty reverent NO Masses. The NO masses had their issues in my opinion, but at the end of the day, what I had issues with in the NO mass came from a place of love for Christ in my heart. Slowly, over time, it became a bit prideful.
Because I could see the pride growing, I know travel 2 hours (not boasting or anything) to attend an FSSP Mass. This is a small sacrifice to pay for the assurance of being in communion with our Bishop and celebrating what I believe to be a Mass that helps nurture your soul. The TLM
It’s all emotion. Emotions can lead you astray and that is what the novus ordo means new world order. My goodness you folks need to wake up , ask the Holy Spirit to help you
@@christophergros9884 I've been on both sides of this issue. The TLM has been the perfect expression consistent with centuries of refining. The NO mass has problems from the outset and many Bishops and Cardinals were outright lied to and misled by some of the members of the Vatican II council. The problem now is the Church is in crisis and will remain so until yet a new council can take up the issue, hopefully in a decade or so.
It’s the abomination of desolation in the holy places ……….. The NO committed deocide.
I love how you explained your thoughts on the mass. I am so happy you are in the Kingdom of God. Be blessed.
@@christophergros9884novus ordo does not mean new world order lmao where did you come up with that ?
I think you should have a knowledgable pro-Society (one of their best, in their opinion) influencer or actual cleric debate Salza on this. Now that would be a very interesting and highly watched event.
Yep I do too! I think there are many inaccuracies in this podcast. I'm not pro SSPX but LeFevbre wasn't given everything he wanted, not even close. Rome did NOT accomadate him and anyone who has studied this issue at all knows this. I read or heard Salza say the exact opposite of what he is saying here merely 3 years ago. It's not a good thing to NOT be in communion with Rome. The SSPX needs to figure this out but the last three popes have not said they were is schism. That is untrue. If they were in schism why did Francis give them faculties to hear confessions?? I think the most honest experts in this topic simply say it's confusing and they are not sure because it's very confusing and no one is certain, they might think they are, and then a couple years later flip flop, just like Salza has done.
The SSPX and their defenders have been completely silent towards the arguments put forth by Salza, the only responses that have been put out are weak defenses by laymen which have already been rebuked or attacks on Salza's character/motives.
Strangely, the best man to debate Salza is Salza. Check out the article on 1 Peter 5 wherein "Salza answers Salza".
@@backwaterfarmer: Old John Salza evidently lost that debate. lol
@@tonyalongi4409 in his mind, apparently. Although, I find Old Salza a bit more articulate and a bit less anecdotal and self-contradictory.
I’m not SSPX, but Jimmy Akin was on Catholic Answers explaining that Popes Francis and Benedict XVI affirmed SSPX priests do have faculties to celebrate the mass, and it does fulfill your Sunday obligation.
"As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church…In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers - even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty - do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church." - Pope Benedict XVI
Yes, I came across that podcast recently. May I invite John and Matt to watch it? Thanks.
Jimmy is a bit off on this. John goes into detail in the video. Furthermore the Church (through Mons Perl in his letter to F. John Loughnan) clarified that it does not fulfil the Sunday Obligation and exposes the faithful to the danger of becoming schismatic
Thanks for everyone jumping in to clarify.
@@24erstad Thank you for putting this out there. Even though it's been said, again and again- ppl still don't believe it.
First time I’ve seen this guy, but 3 Hours and 15 min of John Salza not stuttering once. Just fantastic stuff Matt. Thank you.
@@eoinmcg88 he is a freemason, all the original documents on the subject say, he can only get confession on his death bed by the Pope himself. i wouldnt trust a word he says.
I found one 'umm' at 2:59:13 but this only proves your point of how good of a speaker he truly is.
Is mr salza still a freemasonic luciferian .....oh ...he appears to be an authority on the Catholic faith now ...I see....
Not stuttering like a good lawyer.
He is a good man who speaks truth.
I too see myself as a "glad trad", but whilst much of this discussion was informative, some of it was completely wrong. I am not an SSPX apologist (and agree they can go to far), and I attend the TLM from a number of different priestly societies, SSPX included, but I still found the tone of this discussion unhelpful. It needed another voice to provide a sense of balance. Moreover, instead of alluding to what certain documents said, the documents should have been quoted, as Salza was simply incorrect in some instances.
- the worst error is that of not fulfilling your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by an SSPX priest. This is clearly wrong. Just read the response by the Ecclesia Dei Commission on January 18, 2003 (which was requested to be published, hence is not particular to an individual's circumstances). It follows up on a letter sent to an individual, as noted in the discussion, but this is for public consumption. It points out: Points 1 and 3 in our letter of 27 September 2002 to this correspondent are accurately reported. His first question was "Can I fulfill my Sunday obligation by attending a Pius X Mass" and our response was: "1. In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X."
- Abp Lefebvre never said the New Mass, he never "signed off on the New Mass". He adopted some of the earlier changes in the mid 1960s, but stopped around time time of the 1967 missal when he felt his faith being challenged.
- the declaration of 1974 was not a general response to the changes, but a response to the scandalous behaviour of the Vatican visitors 10 days before.
- the SSPX does not refuse communion with Novus Ordo Catholics. They even have a retired Bishop (Bishop Huonder) residing in one of their Switzerland houses. I have seen diocesan priests at SSPX events. The SSPX school in the UK had the diocesan Bishop visit them.
- Abp Lefebvre may have signed the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, not the liturgical changes themselves. Many have argued that the latter is not a faithful representation of the former. To conflate the two is an unfortunate confusion of the issue.
- Pope Francis' motu proprio cannot be said to be a direct result of the SSPX - it doesn't even affect them. Apparently, Cardinal Bergolio got on very well with the SSPX in Argentina. His letter talks of healing the schism in terms of the action of JPII (the actual wording is this: "The faculty - granted by the indult of the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1984 and confirmed by St. John Paul II in the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei in 1988 - was above all motivated by the desire to foster the healing of the schism with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre"), not his own opinion here and now.
- Pope John Paul II did not give him a Bishop - they went through a number of names, and they repeatedly rejected by the Vatican, and in the end, Abp Lefebvre concluded they couldn't be trusted. This is a predental decision of the Abp.
- please don't compare Old Catholics to the SSPX, they deny a dogma of the faith and reject Vatican I.
- charges of schism. Listen to what Cardinal Hoyos, who dealt with their case in the Vatican said: "They had moments when they were away, but technically they never made any complete schism or heresy. For example, they did not create a separate jurisdiction, because to create a jurisdiction outside the jurisdiction of the Church, that means you want to separate." "We are not dealing with a case of heresy. One cannot say in correct and exact terms that there is a schism. There is, in the act of ordaining bishops without papal approval, a schismatic attitude. They are within the confines of the Church. The problem is just that there is a lack of a full, a more perfect-and as it was said during the meeting with Bishop Fellay-a more full communion, because communion exists.". Schismatics are outside the Church, Cardinal Hoyos (who was the authority on the matter) said they were within the confines the of the Church. Hence no schism.
- if you want hard criticism of the Novus Ordo, apart from Abp Lefebvre, then just read the Cardinal Ottaviani & Bacci Intervention, for example: "It is evident that the Novus Ordo has no intention of presenting the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent, to which, nonetheless, the Catholic conscience is bound forever." This would seem to match up with the SSPX's claims regarding the Novus Ordo.
Finally, the SSPX should be considered a life boat, it's not meant to be permanent. It's a temporary measure to bridge the crisis inside the Church. Obviously, the danger is there that it becomes so, but that certainly wasn't Abp Lefebvre's intention.
Very strong comment, thank you!
Well said....
Very very good points! He very much misrepresented the SSPX’s position
Thank you. Mr. Salza is on the wrong side here.
Love this reply. The history of the SSPX was completely misrepresented in this show. Mr. Salza gave a lot of opinion that forces people to believe what he’s saying. He also states we are not in communion with the local bishop which is also false because in our mass the priest prays for the local bishop.
43:01 Matt Fradd misunderstood John Salza when he said Abp Lefebvre signed off on the V2 documents. By signing those documents, Abp Lefebvre DID NOT sign off on the Novus Ordo Mass - those are two separate things. Mr. Salza knows that, and yet and he didn’t correct Mr. Fradd’s misunderstanding. Why not? Mr. Salza lost all credibility by not doing so.
I am a Catholic who grew up attending SSPX Masses, and attended a girl school run by SSPX Dominican sisters; I am also a big fan of this channel. I just wanted to address some things in this video that I felt were contrary to my understanding of the SSPX (this is my understanding. I am not claiming to represent exactly what the SSPX stands for because I could easily be wrong or have misunderstood).
1. We do not claim to be separate from the Church, nore that the Catholics who attend the Novosordo (I apologize if I spelled that wrong) Mass are separate from the Church, though we do discourage attending it because we feel that the purpose and mindset that it was made with, make it a danger to the faith, and that it does not give God proper worship. In the parish I am a part of, we have gotten a few sermons addressing the issue of treating Catholics who attend the Novosordo Mass as lesser or not part of the Church.
2. The story behind what led up to Arch Bishop Lefebvre making Bishops is told rather differently from the SSPX perspective, at least in the Crisis series podcast. For example in that description of the story, Archbishop Lefebvre asked for 4 bishops initially and was offered one, but they would not give him a date when he would receive the bishop. They kept moving the date, until he eventually told them that if they didn't agree to that date, he would move forward with making Bishops without Rome's approval. I don't know if this inconsistency is a matter of one side being wrong, or different sources, but as far as I know, the SSPX is trying to get Rome to approve our next set of bishops. One of the crisis in the Church videos includes Bishop Fellay, who is one of the four bishops who Archbishop Lefebvre ordained, and I am inclined to trust his explanation of the situation, as he was there for it.
3. I don't think I'm very good at explaining things, and I apologize if I misrepresented something. I highly recommend the Crisis in the church series. I think that Pints with Aquinas is really great and I would love to see an SSPX priest come on and be interviewed on this topic or even debate. I would be willing to try to reach out to one about the idea if you would be open to that.
Thank you and God bless!
Glad to see that you're open to this discussion. While it's great that you and many more followers of the SSPX don't think that Catholics who attend regular diocesan liturgies aren't in schism, the official position of the SSPX, which has never changed, is that those liturgies are an offense to God and harmful to souls.
Also just saying that you're not outside of the Church doesn't really mean anything. Protestants will swear on their life that they are part of Christ's Church. The SSPX can say whatever they want but it wouldn't change that they are in schism. Now individuals who attend their liturgy may still not be in schism for lack of culpability, but if you're informed about them, then there's a problem.
From what I've seen, the perspective of Lefebrve being pushed by the Vatican and refusing to give him a date is false. Lefebrve signed the agreement to consecrate one bishop and then rejected that proposition literally the next day on his own. Doesn't sound at all like the narrative that the SSPX pushes.
@@john-el9636 it is definitely a complicated situation, and I don't think that I am informed well enough to make a firm judgement yet. I think it would be really beneficial to see an SSPX priest come onto the show to defend that position. I'm definitely planning on doing more digging into Vatican 2. I wish that things had never gotten so complicated and divided with the Church, and I can only hope that things will get better with the will of God.
I appreciate the back and forth because it is so nuanced, but the archbishop did write two very beautiful books on his own experience: “open letter to confused catholic,” and “they have uncrowned him.” Those books are clearly not written by a “rigid” man. They are very geared toward “the people”, and it is clear, by his own words, the archbishop’s concern is for Jesus and his flock. He points out many contradictions and so far as i know, alot of his critics do not adress his books. Why? I think itvwould go a long way to see if the archbishops reasoning could be picked apart by adressing thecwords in his book. Also, what facts or points of history, does the archbishop cite in his books, that are incorrect or mistaken? So far those two books carrry alot of weight still. The reader who cares about the catholic church, will be enriched by the archbishops obvious love for the church, for Christ, for the faith… where are his own, actual words, in those two books, taking acwrong turn. I see a bust of Luther in the vatican office, but alot of contempt for lefevre-- whats up with that?
@Inarticulus I would dispute the claim that Lefebvre wasn't rigid, but in any case Dr. Salza does refer to his open letter in this very video. I know he quotes from it extensively on his website as well. Lefebvre's heresies and errors are on full display in his own writings. Whether or not he had good intentions is pretty much meaningless.
ruclips.net/video/DqgcCujfQF0/видео.html&ab_channel=Rev.AnthonyCekada
You have a newer video titled, "Bishop Schneider's AMAZING Defense Against Sedes!" You should listen to B. Schneider and pull this horrible interview you did with Salza. B. Schneider investigated the SSPX and found them to not be sedes. But you took the word of Salza. You should vet your guests. Salza has a history of grifting and exaggerating to sell books. He did it with the masons and now he did it with the SSPX. I love your show Matt but you have had a couple guests that are really questionable.
100%
Bishop Huondor made the same report to the Vatican. The SSPX are not schismatic. I don't know why we would listen to Salza over two good Bishops of the Church. Not every lawyer is oily but this one does seem to be an ambulance chaser, profiting from church division. It's shameful.
This.
"As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church…In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers - even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty - do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church." - Pope Benedict XVI
I’m only 30 minutes in but this is by far the most in depth discussion of SSPX I’ve seen on RUclips. Extremely helpful. Thank you so much Matt for hosting this-it will be so beneficial to so many!!
Check out our videos with John! Thanks for watching!
The former high ranking freemason John Salza who made an oath to Lucifer and renounced Jesus Christ before his "conversion" to the Vatican II church and who now eagerly tries to bring all who want to be traditional catholics into that institution in which someone who builds temples for pagan god worship and who prays on the wailing wall "in which HaShem dwells" for the coming of "their" Moshiach must be venerated as a saint is proven to be a complete spiritual fraud in an audio file named "John Salza's Lies, Errors and Dishonesty" here on RUclips. I suggest you also study the article entitled "John Salza Has No Idea What He’s Talking About" (you can google it).
You go to the SSPX Mas for 15 years and then decide to look into whether they are valid… see right through this interview in 15 min, not 15 years. 9:15 You are an attorney and you’re very articulate and smart. Reading between the line, it’s a classic example of a compromiser. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. You had things right in the first three minutes of the interview… And then after 15 years something changed? Come clean… What’s your real beef with the SSPX? Because what you said in the interview is not the real reason! Anyone with a good eye sees right through this.
Well said. Perhaps he should've started his story when he was a Freemason. I'd be interested to hear about how he formally broke with Freemasonry and became Catholic.
His lines are clearly rehearsed and he speaks like a politician constantly using the person he is speaking to's name in answers.
Let us see Salza in live debate in PWA.
Agreed.
Salza’a teaching against the SSPX is unorthodox because he erroneously thinks the juridical structure of the Church is limited to receiving ordinary jurisdiction from the pope or local bishop. Whereas the Catholic Church teaches that situations can arise in which the Church indirectly gives jurisdiction outside of the local bishop. Salsa’s entire argument is based on the false premise that jurisdiction absolutely never extends beyond exactly explicit approval. Case in point, St Athanasius ordained bishops and priests in dioceses not only of formally Arian bishops, but also informally semi Arian bishops. In an extreme Crisis like that then and now, we Church law does give jurisdiction. And the Society recognizes that as part of Church teaching whereas John Salza does not. Not to mention Salza has a bad attitude in his anti SSPX diatribe. This is a very old and tiresome approach that divides traditional Catholics.
Trying to do my "research" on the SSPX, as I have some friends who are trying to get me to come to it, so I will try to act in good faith. Would this be similar to the situation with the Eastern orthodox? If there is a similarity in the jurisdiction as far as juridical people are concerned, then shouldn't his argument follow? My understanding is that the Sunday obligation is not satisfied when attending an Eastern Orthodox mass for the same reasons Salza gives for the SSPX about priests having proper faculties. This is a new difficulty that I think this argument brings up since it seems consistent on its face.
Very good and concise reply to get to the heart of the matter
This is one of the most important conversations that we currently deal with. It forces people to identify and adhere to the one true body of the Catholic Church. The rejection of leftist errors does not mean we should jump on the bandwagon of schismatic groups. God bless to John, Matt, dude who is on the mic, Lofton, Dom, Andrew, and all others who are on the forefront of defending Catholic Orthodoxy.
@@deus_vult8111 larp harder
Now SSPX acts like Protestants 🤣
@@deus_vult8111 Papal Addresses can absolutely be considered magisterial in nature if there is a definitive statement on matters regarding faith/morals/disciplines. The fact that the pope, in Singulari Quadam, explicitly says “for it must be held by Faith” directly followed by a statement of doctrine, makes clear that this fits the criteria for being within the bounds of the Magisterium.
Ecclesiastical truth is, only the pope can lead the Church astray.
"In my opinion"...I will take Michael Davies over John Salza. Fortunately, the SSPX didn't come to an agreement with the Pachamama ecumenism! Good for them!
Interesting discussion to consider for someone sympathetic to the SSPX. I just find it interesting that Matt devotes three hours to hammer the SSPX but he doesn't seem to have a problem with the orthodox and seems more than eager to attempt to find common ground with Muslims. I would direct folks to the Kennedy report for a decent rebuttal of this episode. He doesn't name Fradd, but it is clear this is what he is talking about.
a link if you could, I should much like to hear it
@@christiaanmeadows9081 ruclips.net/video/Zm5vQMvqBLA/видео.html
Well said
Bravo.
Mons. Lefevre's enemies are good calling Catholic Church's straight foes; separated brothers, brothers in the faith, christians, etc.
"Love is love" when it comes about modernist.
Hate is hate (with all of your guts) the SSPX.
2:10:00 I read that Bishop Lefevre was promised to be able to concentrate another bishop and that the consecration date was summarily canceled by Rome on several occasions and that is why he did what he did, because ot became clear Rome was acting in bad faith, that is the claim whether true or not I am no authority. Painfully aware of the game's chanceries/curias play, it is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility.
That is the lie the SSPX has spread to justify Lefebvres disobedience.
@@AnaMT1985 Do you have evidence to that effect or just how you feel about them? They do constantly accuse the Roman Curia of acting in bad faith. I realize it could be merely a projection but don't have great confidence either in the power brokers in Vatican City.
@@majorpuggington Does the actual correspondence between Rome and Lefebvre count as evidence? That is the evidence that Salza references, which I believe is also on his website.
@@AnaMT1985 that would certainly count. I will take a look, thank you.
@Berry Jones hmmm, if that is the case in fact, it was misrepresented by the sspx in the account I read.
Thank God that where I live in Mexico, Novus Ordo Masses are generally well done. I've never encountered any of what's mentioned in the discussions of NO vs TLM. I'm praying for the unity of the Church in the world. It seems our brothers in the US need it desperately.
Very, true. They are very reverent. The people dress up too. When people visit the Cathedrals you can hear a pin drop.
I'm in switzerland. Very much a western land.
But our NO masses are reverent. Even in modern ugly churches.
I have the impression it's more some type of revolutionary spirit that gripped the US in the chaos after the council. The US was founded with a revolution after all. And so the liturgy was bent to their own image and... dare I say it... 'boomerized'.
I know Germany has a similar problem, and they have a history of overly 'reforming' as well.
And now there's a revolution going on against the new liturgy, and round and round it goes... I'll pray for my US and German brothers and sisters
¿¿¿¿¿¿?????? ¿ What about the comunion in hand? ¿Women in leggins, men in shorts, applauses?
@@chiyo256 I have never seen this in Mexico. Only a few parishes I have been to in thee US have that but thankfully things are getting better. A seemingly modern parish I have been going to for years got a young Filipino priest who is reverent and does not look for applauses. Our new older priest is reverent too.
@@chiyo256 That doesn't generally happen in my parish and some others I attend. I even see women with veils.
Also, communion in hand is the way Apostles did it. I don't think it's the best for our times, for sure, but let's relax a little.
Saludos desde Jalisco.
So glad you are having this conversation! Thank you. It's so critical for our Holy Mother Church!
Is mr salza now an authority on Catholicism....😮.....it seems not long ago he was a freemasonic luciferian...it is amazing how the devil operates
I really appreciate the "Middle Road" approach John is talking about here. I've felt this is the best answer to the problems Traditional Catholics are trying to point out. Thank you Matt Fradd for your work in this approach as well. And to Scott Hahn who also promotes this.
When I had my conversion to the Faith, it was within the Novus Ordo Mass and my heart was on fire with the Holy Spirit. Then I got caught up in this drama of Trad vs. Novus Ordo, and found myself very unhappy and angry with the Church. I lost sight of what truly matters- Jesus Christ and His Kingdom. We can help our Lord build His Kingdom at the Novus Ordo AND the TLM. We don't need to pick sides or tear down the other side. The "Middle Road" is important for both sides to learn from and can bring peace of mind/heart/soul.
The novus ordo is false it was written in preparation for the new world order ? Do you know what novus ordo means ? Now look at your 1 dollar bill
“But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, nor hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth." -Apoc. 3:16
False equivalence.
Is it Catholic to accept an apostate as Vicar of Christ?
@@johnraymond-pz9bo I think we should pray for his conversion and still respect the office of the papacy. even if he's likely a freemason infiltrator. We've endured bad popes before. I don't think sedevacantism is the best response
John mentioned 'the appearance of the Church' vs what she really is at about 20min.
God just taught me a similar lesson this Christmas. The whole family was sick with different viruses (including an awful influenza) all of advent and Christmas.
We had a tree and some presents, but could not really eat much or really enjoy the tree and such.
We were just too exhausted.
What remains of Christmas if we take away the food and the cookies I was not able to bake. What remains if we can't enjoy the tree that much or be excited with th children about their new toys?
Christ in the manger remains. It still felt like Christmas to me. I felt overflowing love for all of my family. And the holy family and little baby Jesus.
But all the nice Christmas things got a little bit called out for being accessories. All good things, but not the main thing.
And perhaps God is doing a similar thing in the Church atm. I like incense and all the traditional things. But what happens if it all falls away? What remains to cling to? Christ in the Eucharist. I'm not into modern barren churches with ugly modern art on the walls and awful acustic. But perhaps God wants me to look more to Christ directly? Perhaps he wants all of us to do that?
These is quite similar to my Christmas these year...,
Beautifully said. The unfortunate irony here is that belief in the presence of Christ (body, soul, divinity) in the Eucharist is fading fast amongst NO parishes. This is the opposite for TLM parishes including in the SSPX where the number of faithful is growing.
It is reasonable to be attracted to the full-on display of reverence and tradition of the mass especially in these times. I've never been to a TLM but i want to join in one, and i suspect quite a lot of catholics are the same. But stip away all the vestments, the tradition, the reverence, and what we have are the absolute basics: apostolic succession and the magesterium, scripture and the cathecism, and the sacraments. If all else fails then these are the ones to hold on to. All tradition and reverence flows from these, but are they absolutely essential? Imo, in these times, its back to basics.
Christo nihil praeponere
@@eddiedelatorre5925 it almost sounds like Church Universal would benefit from unity among her children! Wouldn't it be wonderful to reunite those who believe in the Real Presence with their NO brothers and sisters. The NO crowd can model obedience and submission to the authority of Christ's Church, while the TLM crowd can model proper Eucharistic faith. The point is we need to supplement each other's weaknesses through the strengths God has given us.
John doesn't tell me about his gigs like this anymore... but I'm glad one of my friends alerted me to this interview. I don't watch 3 hour shows unless it is true crime, but this was absolutely worth it to watch. I have to say, even though I worked with John for about 8 years on his website, I realize I did not get to fully appreciate John's capacity to teach with such clarity, calmness, precision, and humility. He should honestly be regarded as one of the top apologists for the Catholic Church and I am so glad that Matt gave him this opportunity to share John's expertise.
I agree. What a brilliant mind .
That website is great. Scripturecatholic, right?
This is top noych video.
Scripture Catholic was the site. Then we lost the domain in 2017 I think it was.
This was an excellent interview and my first PWA live since discovering Matt's channel a few months ago. I'm glad to say that I'm in R.C.I.A currently and eagerly await my baptism and confirmation this upcoming Easter. Thank you so much Matt Fradd for aiding in the Grace of The Holy Spirit. Gloria Patri!
Welcome home
Glory to Jesus Christ!
Is that GLR in your profile pic?
Such an excellent and much needed conversation! Thank you for caring for the salvation of souls!
None of us would have to worry about this if the Tridentine Mass was readily available in every diocese.
We are a religion that holds our history and traditions as sacred. Our souls are always going to be moved by beauty, grace and reverence. We will never stop seeking it out and it's time that the church hierarchy accepts it.
The restrictions on TLM are what is pushing people toward the "irregular", together with a lack of discipline of heterodox priests and bishops. This Pontificate worsened a situation that was previously on the mend.
I normally love all PWA episodes but this was a chore to sit through. I do wish Matt vetted his guest and realized that Salza has a real credibility problem. A person needs credibility, otherwise, the audience becomes even more polarized on an issue. Reading through the comments here, I'm afraid that is exactly what's happened.
Great insight! I sense there is way more to the deliberate tension on removing TLM other than schism from the attitude of TLM participants. It appears to be 1. Deliberately Increase division within the Church and 2. Derail the benefits of the individual within TLM. This service provides a heightened focus and contemplation by participants by very nature (focus on a uncommon language) and a focus on the presence of God - when this happens, great things happen. Agents within and without the Church do not desire this for a plethora of reasons.
Schism could be a result, but I sense not at the attitude or behest of the fold but from high ranking internal authority and external influence.
@@bryanliggitt3732that's how it looks to me, on the outside looking in. I clearly see the WAY being replaced by a way.
Matt, recently I’ve had a hard time getting through the hour and a half to two hour episodes. Usually bail out after hear a good nugget. This was a fascinating new story hadn’t heard and the 3 hours + flew by. As of now, for me, this is your Titanic episode.
Agreed. This episode is huge.
Until that shroud episode hit
I totally agree! Goes my super fast. Especially when I watch it at 1.25x. And even if it wasn't at that speed, it would still be okay.
Fradd, this is hand over fist one of the best episodes to date on Pints. Great discussion.
I would have to disagree. I don't even go to SSPX but there is evidence Lefebvre had not a schismatic spirit. Promises were made but not fullfilled (One bishop was promised to the SSPX for ex).
Woe unto ye lawyers! For ye have taken away the keys of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered. = Luke 11:52
A very gossipy and feminine attitude permeates this entire podcast. Salza is not genuine. He has received an award from freemasons in 2018. He claims to have attended an SSPX chapel for 15 years without looking into the status/legitimacy.
Not sure who is pulling the strings here.
Regardless, this is uncharitable and shameful.
It was not a problem while he was an sspx apologist haha
At least stop calling yourself "catholic"
@@katholischetheologiegeschi1319
Why wasn't it a problem?
Strawman argument followed by nonsense.
Very troubling.
@@turbodood637 no its not
When Salza was an sspx apologist nobody complained abiut he freemasonic past
No suddenly the cope is everyhwere just to make people rejecting to hear clear & direct arguments
"A very gossipy and feminine attitude permeates this entire podcast"
You realize how sexist that sounds right? You are implying that by default men are better at honest debate than woman are.
@@JdAskins99
I may have been extreme in my comment, but men are 100% better at debating. Women shouldn't be in the public arena of ideas.
Amazing interview! John Salza very calmly and systematically breaks down the errors that have gripped so many well-meaning Catholics that have been scandalized into joining the SSPX. It's worth repeat watches.
This conversation was great and helped a lot. I have never nor did I ever want to attend a SSPX Mass. I still do not. However I do have to say the live chat during this show was frankly appalling.
1/ Sedes in the comments acting out. As they do.
2/ Mods and others being absolutely *callous* and uncharitable to those struggling with bad masses and difficult feelings about liturgy and other issues. MANY people do not have access to another other than a "typical" Novus Ordo. Some only have access to spiritually troubling ones. To be told to "get over it" and be repeatedly shouted down from questions was more than a little ridiculous. Those asking questions were repeatedly told to basically hush and listen, even when we clarified we were listening and simply were not understanding or needed clarification.
Also, incorrect information was given about TC by mods. TC did not just "give power back to bishops". Two diocese in my state were told directly, after asking for clarification from Rome, to remove all TLMs from any parish setting. It was not left up to the bishops. It was stated they HAD to move, including one that had been at a cathedral since before Summorum. TLMs that our bishops *support* and have no issues with. And Rome told them they could no longer be in any parish. These well established communities were pushed out of long standing parish relationships. Apparently though, my direct experience isn't in line with what several mods insist is the truth about TC.
I'm not one to use the term "gaslighting" lightly, but mods were absolutely skirting close to treating the audience that way during the live chat.
I love Pints, appreciate this conversation and interview, but felt the above needed to be said.
Agreed. My diocese was known for it's abundant TLMs but our Bishop was *told* to remove permissions to preform them anymore. Not asked or given any other options. This is true across the board I believe.
"the live chat during this show was frankly appalling. 1/ Sedes in the comments acting out." Who is this and what did they say?
In America, it is socially and psychologically very very important to be able to look at some group and say, “I’m not as religious as *THAT* I’m better than them cuz I’m less religious.” The only ones Catholics really have to crap on this way are other more conservative Catholics.
You should attend an SSPX Mass, which is valid and fulfils the Sunday obligation according to Rome, in order to solve the conflict between Rome and Econe.
You didn’t listen to the video
This was an excellent interview. I just want to thank Dr. Salza and Mr. Fradd for making it happen. May God bless you both and may God protect Holy Mother Church 🙏🏻
I'm 30 minute into this, and I am not liking the vibes so far, (as he's making all one-sided arguments and cherry picking what suits his position, like a Protestant.). Also from what I have seen in past. . Plus he needs to be scrutinized closely as he reportedly was a 32 nd Degree Freemason, now with an agenda to shape Catholics, as he has been active for years at this. So any wonder his position?? . This is a long vid , so I will have to give him his Time to lay it all out, this is still early. . (Been attending Trad Mass for past years with occasional N.O.) I'd like to see him and Brother Peter Dimond debate for extended, thorough debate. That would be very helpful for Catholics.
@@finallythere100 sedevacantism is not the answer
@@24erstad - well, firstly, I have to finish the vid. Hearing anyone's one-line advice or opinion, no disrespect no intended., doesn't say anything. , you provide nothing to back it up.,and I don't know what you know or don't know. Have you seen the vids about the heresies of the past 4 or 5 popes? (Vatican catholic channel) Have you seen "Apocalypse Now ..." vid by Bros. Dimond? Have you seen Bro. Dimond debate. other guy on Pints w Aquinas? Bro Dimond clearly prevailed, not debate points, but substance. . It's not enough to say Sed is not the answer. (I never attended SSPX, btw). It seems the main question is whether V2 Church from Vatican is the anti-church. (If so, WHY,?) I want to practice Catholicism, but I don't want to be under a false Church. It is obviously pagan and not Catholic / Christian at the top. The actual Sr. Lucy said we are in final Times. If you can see all that is documented in those vids and explain to me that what is in Vatican is true Catholicism and not th count-church, that Our Lady of La Saltte, and reportedly Put Lady of Fatima spoke of , then I'm listening.. As I said, I will see what all JS includes and what he avoids. And I will certainly give him his chance and take in what all he says. I will check back in later, and pls do sam if u watch those vids! My only agenda is truth.
@@eoinmcg88 - If so, add THAT to the abominations of what looks like the Whore of Babylon and not the true RCC. (Bro, Ptr Dimond makes a great case for the former ,, which is why I'd like to see those 2 in an extended debate. Time for the feet of opposing sides to be held to the fire. Put it out there for everyone to see. - BUT with enough Time to get it all out there so that audience is adequately informed of content . rather than judge by debate skills, and may truth prevail. ..l
@@24erstad - Curious, do you believe"Francis" is a true pope? A Catholic? Christian?
I greatly appreciate your interviews and demeanor in these discussions. There's a lot to take away and reflect upon! Thank you!!
Best PWA in a hot minute. Devil’s advocate Matt at his best
He is really great at asking those questions.
Judge a tree by its fruits, says the Lord. The homilies by SSPX priests are always centred on God, encouraging and guiding their parishioners towards holiness without any need for flambouyance, jokes, personal opinions, comparison with others. Their dedication to works of mercy and apostolate, the peaceful religious life they have to offer to aspirants and retreatants is in itself a mark above the rest.
Just my own experience and I thank God for being able to feel assured that I would never one day have to receive my God and Lord at Holy Communion in any way less deserving manner as He has instituted it to be done.
Deo gratias, Pax Christi.
"The homilies by SSPX priests are always centred on God, encouraging and guiding their parishioners towards holiness without any need for flambouyance, jokes, personal opinions, comparison with others"
I'm sure Luther had some good sermons too. SSPX is modern day Lutheran church.
7:15
“Some people at SSPX think crazy thing SSPX doesn’t teach.” 95% of NO attendees are pro-contraception. So, like, pick battles.
And most Americans don't believe in the True Presence.
Actually, SSPX does publicly discourage attending non-Society masses or raises suspicion about the orthodoxy of the priests who might preach at the TLMs. Privately, you might hear something else.
Some of the points Salza makes are good and need to be discussed more. Other points he makes are not very accurate. I sympathize with Salza's analysis, but his tools of analysis are somewhat inadequate. One general impression I had here is that Salza lets his lawyer mentality show on numerous occasions. That’s not necessarily a good thing, because the mindset of Canon Law is not the same as the mindset of American / English civil law. Part of the reason for this is the difference between English Law systems and Roman Law systems. They are two different ways of thinking about law. An American lawyer studies American Law, which is based on the English Law system.
I find myself agreeing with a number of Salza’s observations, because I've lived through these situations and I’ve been forced to confront the questions he raises. But at the same time, I disagree with the angle of John Salza's approach, because he focuses too much on what he calls the "legal reality" of the Church. There is a "legal reality" in the Church, of course, but that "legal reality" is not the "core reality" of the Catholic Church and never has been. The core reality of the Catholic Church is a theological reality that exists at the level of grace and charity. The legal reality is a human creation that exists to serve that core divine reality.
I agree with Salza in what he mentions about certain arguments in the "crisis series" that the SSPX has on RUclips. They correctly enunciate a doctrine and then they don't seem to understand that they're contradicting it in their actions. "It's a mystery," they have to say. LOL
When discussing necessity, Salza made an interesting point about how claiming “necessity” cannot become a reason to circumvent divine law. That should be discussed more! Unfortunately, Salza doesn't have a good grasp of where to draw the line between what is divine and what is ecclesiastical / human in the Church. He messed up on that a couple of times. So, there is certainly a lesson the SSPX needs to take on this point, but the point needs to be made with a better grasp of what that looks like in ecclesiology. Overall, Salza errs on the side of assuming that things are of divine institution when, in fact, many are of human / ecclesiastical institution. I was particularly irritated by how frequently he said "X is infallible". He got several of those assertions partially wrong, because in most cases there’s part that’s divine and part that’s human, and knowing where to draw the line is the key. Some of the things that Salza wants to be rock-solid "infallible" truths are, in fact, human constructs. Two tricky things for the civil lawyer mentality to grasp: (1) how law and doctrine evolve over time in the Church, and (2) evaluating how much we are uncertain about at any given point in that evolution.
One problem that really jumped out at me was Salza's lack of nuance about the position, prerogatives, and selection process of Bishops in the Church. This has evolved significantly over time, and yet Salza just throws out "it's infallible" like candy.
Salza's analysis of supplied jurisdiction for confessions was way off. Salza got hung up on the idea of "judgment of the community" like it's a specific and well-defined legal concept (it isn't, but I'm sure his lawyer mind wishes it were lol). He also failed to mention that there is more than one way to have supplied jurisdiction. Looking through my files I found an interview by Salza from 2007 wherein he refutes the argument he just gave in 2023. (You can look this up: Robert Sungenis interviewed John Salza in 2007 about his ongoing dispute with James Akin. The argument presented by Salza in 2007 is a good refutation of Salza’s own 2023 misunderstanding of the “judgment of the community” question.)
Salza's take on where you can fulfill your Sunday obligation was bizarre. In canon law, the bar is low (like, really low) for what counts as fulfilling your Sunday obligation. So I was rolling my eyes when Salza put on his lawyer mode and started saying "let me tell you about some legalese nobody has ever heard of". And, no, your local bishop doesn’t get to decide what fulfills your Sunday obligation. Your local bishop might be a canon lawyer (or have one on staff, hopefully) and they can help interpret the law for you, but they don’t determine the law in this case.
These oddities aside, I still think Salza is raising some worthwhile points, even when the way he got to the conclusion isn't quite right. In other words, I’d like to see some of these arguments reformulated with correct theology / ecclesiology, thereby rendering this critique of the SSPX more correct and potent.
Very strong comment, thank you!
The Sunday obligation and supplied jurisdiction moments were big eye rollers for me as well.
The jurisdiction issue was given like none of the nuance it requires (how far the concept of common error should go was a debated point in the time of the study he cited and the new code actually appears to fall on the opposite side from Salza).
And his explanation of the Sunday obligation was one of the most esoteric interpretations of canon law Ive ever heard lol. I even broke out my own commentary to double check that I wasn’t losing it. I wasn’t…
@berryjones1327 it’s the Canon Law Society of America study edition from Paulist Press. It’s not the absolute best (I’ve seen things that seem on the liberal side but I expect that from Paulist Press lol)
I should pick one up at some point that I like better but it’s good for demonstrating what the prevailing mainstream interpretations are.
Perhaps needless to say, designated locations for fulfilling a Sunday obligation is not in there lol. Salza kept mentioning “sui iuris” over and over again as if that isn’t a term that refers exclusively in canon law to a self governing Eastern hierarchy… 😂
I'm glad somebody wrote this. I am a lawyer, and I found myself cringing at Salza's commentary over and over. I actually found this to be a brutal interview, probably because I do this for a living and understand his argument structures and their limitations. His commentary and arguments will sound impressive to the untrained ear, but I just found myself raising numerous questions and realizing that many of his points were cherry-picked.
Excellent comment. Before reading this I wasn’t learned enough to know there are in fact differences between say English law and church law as you say Father… helpful for discernment. Thank you!
thank you for doing this interview! My husband and I nearly fell for the lies of the society shortly after becoming Catholic sadly because of certain commentators we were listening to. John Salza did an amazing job, he is so clear, knowledgable & articulate!
Is mr salza still a freemasonic luciferian I wonder or does that matter , I wonder who was lying 🤔
Dear Matt, it's only fair n right to invite SPPX Priests to clarify again n again n again the many attacks on SSPX being schismatics. I am too old to see how the good have always being attacked n the evil get away, *but Our GOD IS A JUST JUDGE n a MERCIFUL ONE TOO.*
*When one door is closed,* *GOD always opens another!*
*GOD works in mysterious ways.*
My entire family started attending the SSPX during Covid because it was the only church that was open. But slowly things started to get tremendously more radical and my heart is completely broken. Everything in this video answered the questions I've had for years now but whenever I wanted to ask the SSPX priest there wasn't any room to other than in confession which was for "confession" and a massive line was waiting after you.
Everything Salza said in this video is exactly true to what happened to my family. My questions started when my parents said I couldn't go to the diocesan Latin Mass because they were giving communion on the hand under the Cardinal's orders. They started saying things like "as soon as it is given in the hand, it's no longer Jesus, it's just a wafer". But then they would say "we don't want to go to Novus Ordo Masses because there's Jesus all over the ground from them giving communion on the hand" it was so contradictory and warped but questioning wasn't allowed. Slowly one by one, it's gotten worse and now they refer to anything I say as "having the Novus Ordo demon" which I think was said about me by an SSPX priest to my parents. Their attacks on me and anyone inside the Church including our pope and clergy is purely attacks on their person and never the argument.
Please pray for my parents and family and me. They really need it right now 🙏🏽💕
Who is "they"? A priest would never say Holy Communion suddenly ceases to be consecrated because it was handed to a lay person. The real horror of Communion in the hand is that it is the consecrated species, assuming the Mass was offered with the correct intentions etc
Please don't confuse some of the ignorant weirdos who attend mass at the chapel with The Society proper.
Sounds like a weird experience, but these are not the positions of the Society as I've head them. The Novus Ordo is certainly illicit per Canon 13, Session 7 of the Council of Trent. The TLM is the Catholic Mass.
@@Felatay by "they" I mean my own parents. I'm speaking from my heart and what I have seen happen. I fully agree that communion on the tongue is much more respectful but that doesn't mean attending a LATIN MASS within the diocese which is closer to my house and ONLY gives communion on tongue should be something to fear.
@@backwaterfarmer it may sound "weird" to you but the sad truth is it is a reality for me. My parents who have started attending the society are completely confused. They refuse to attend any Latin mass except for that of the society even if it's the Latin Mass within the diocese that is given by the Oratorian fathers who who provide Latin mass. I'm so tired of all this confusion, fighting and division. I wish none of this on any Catholic family.
@@backwaterfarmer don't be a Protestant and quote one line out of context. But regardless, since you have quoted just one line let me explain what that line means.
It states: "If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema."
Believe it or not, but the "New Mass" was, however unfortunate, an "APPROVED" rite of the church. How was it approved? It was approved by the council convened by the Vicar of Christ. Just as there has been a Dominican rite, or Ukrainian rite, there have been many "approved" rites post Trent.
My wife is from Milwaukee and we go back every other year and have agreed that we will not attend another Novus Ordo there again. We either attend St. Stanislaus or the Melkite parish. I have only walked out of a handful of Masses in my life because I could not stand the sacrilege- all of them were Novus Ordo events (they could not qualify as legit Masses) in Milwaukee. I think there are people who are will8ng to allow a banal, saying ethos of Vatican IIism to run roughshod over them and their families rather than do what us necessary to save their souls. No one - NO ONE - is bound to submit themselves or their families to spiritual abuse and danger. Thank God for the Institute in Milwaukee.
This is the situation we’re in full time and it’s why we attend the Society Masses and Catechesis. The things we’ve heard (and seen) are our local parish, with our five impressionable little boys, is not to be believed.
It is theoretically possible to find ourselves in a sorry situation where our Bishop is running such a poor diocese that we cannot in good conscience assist at any masses under him. But that doesn't mean we then go outside the legitimate structure of the Church to have people mediate our relationship with Christ.
To act in the person of Christ as a minister in the Church, you need God to give you that mission, otherwise you are appointing yourself to a position beyond your stature. It's intrinsically evil to present yourself as someone's representative without their permission, and this is what any ordained man does unless he has received a mission to act as a minister in the Church.
Christ did not promise you access to daily mass and weekly confession. If your local situation is so dire, then simply stay home. Make the three-hour drive to the next diocese once a month, and do what you can to fix the situation in your local Church.
@@tomthx5804 breakaway sect that still recognizes Rome as the head of the church? That’s a stretch. The bishop in my diocese cancelled all TLM as of 1 January. Me and mine will attend the SSPX chapel and still pray for Pope Francis, Rome, and the union of the Society and Rome for mutual spiritual enhancement.
Actually, it’s not. We truly do not have any of that available to us. When I mention problems in our local diocese I’m talking about gravely serious issues, not “Oh, we just don’t like the guitars.” We have actually had the Holy Spirit referred to as a woman during Mass. The vax compared to Mary’s fiat to God. One hour of confession available once a week. Baptisms done in large groups several times a year when the priest feels like it. “Jesus is not really a man or a woman.” A pro-life group would be too political. It just goes on and on. In one of the two churches there are no kneelers and no kneeling allowed. Our bishop also happens to have been Theodore McCarrick’s personal secretary so there’s not much hope in going to him. We have no options like ICKSP or FSSP. Not everyone lives in a heavily Catholic area. I’m a convert of five years and attending Mass with the Society is the first time I’ve met priests that really, truly care and have time to listen to you. I’ve seen nothing devisive, no “attitude of schism.” You better believe we have prayed and prayed on this one and done all our research. There is nothing but confusion and conflicting opinions about the Society online but ultimately I see no evidence of any true authority that says they are schismatic. In fact, I see quite the opposite, I see Bishop Schneider saying they are in no way schismatic. I also see the fruits, I see the true joy there and love of Jesus Christ and his bride the Church. I see Pope Francis’ picture in the entryway and prayed for during the Mass. We are not schismatics, we love Holy Mother Church and we have had to make the difficult decision for our family to drive an hour both ways every Sunday to leave our local parish and go where we find true Catholic orthodoxy. Please pray for us, for the Pope and for the Church that this whole situation may become unnecessary. God bless you.
I will never argue with a person about attending the SSPX. In these demonic and terrible times in the Church we can only do what we can to defend our families and hold to the true Faith passed on for 2000 years. Under normal circumstances one should not attend the SSPX. Again, not going to ever condemn anyone for doing so. If you are a Novus Ordo only person - so be it. Enjoy. But...I do think where a bishop unjustly forbids the TLM and there are no other genuine alternative to the happy-slappy Susan-from-the- parish Novus Ordo with guitars and hand-holding, no Eastern Catholic, Anglican Ordinariate...I'm going to SSPX. But in our diocese we have a reputation for numerous Novus Ordo unicorn Masses - ad orientem, Latin, chant, incense, male only severs, Holy Communion kneeling and on tongue from priests, etc. Still I would prefer a low TLM over High NO. My preference of course.
I suppose it’s always easier to criticize the SSPX, the Ortho’s, Byzantine’s, etc, than to be forced to face the real schisms and heresies in our own diocese (that we can do nothing about). Now we can all feel better about ourselves and go back to sleep reassured.
Remember you’re watching layman on RUclips.
you nailed it
How is it that bishop Huondor of Switzerland was granted permission to retire in the SSPX (2019), if they are, in fact, in schism?
This would be an absurdity.
@@bbseal6174 It is indeed a very interesting question. How could Francis permit a bishop to retire with schismatics?
Should have brought this up before the debate, would have been great to hear it discussed. My take is that merely residing with them and even celebrating liturgies with them doesn't mean they're not in schism. For example, the orthodox are in schism but the Pope occasionally attends Divine Liturgies with them (and vice versa). I know of some priests who live in obscure locations who reside with Protestant clergy.
Very long winded, but the point I'm trying to get across is "living with" is not equal to "in communion with".
@@matthewmorris9532 The problem is that Bishop Huonder has explicitly stated he lives with them because of what they preach and because he does not believe them to be in schism. This is quite different than a lone priest with nowhere to go being taken in out of charity by a non-Catholic. The Pope also does not assist at Orthodox Masses. There have been joint vespers, etc. but the Pope does not assist at schismatic celebrations of the Eucharist.
Assisting at a schismatic Mass and adhering to the teachings of the schismatic minister would, in fact, make you schismatic. Since Bishop Huonder is apparently not in schism (nor are the lay faithful who assist at SSPX Masses) then we are quite clearly not dealing with the same situation as the orthodox
@@matthewmorris9532 "the orthodox are in schism but the Pope occasionally attends Divine Liturgies with them (and vice versa)." If the pope hasn't done this, bishops have. This was not done nor permitted prior to Vatican II.
""living with" is not equal to "in communion with"." That is a nuance that most everyone is not going to know or appreciate. By allowing a bishop to retire with schismatics and offer mass for them and with them and live with them day in and day out gives a sign of approval. Once could say it is scandalous.
@@toddbyrd9071 Precisely
Thanks for this discussion. It would be really good to have an SSPX priest on to explain their side of the story. John Salza obviously does not come from the same view point at all. He does not talk as if there has been and is a major crisis in the Church since Vatican II. He quotes laws of the Church, which are given for normal times. These are not normal times. He doesn't seem to acknowledge the dangers of Vatican II and seems to suggest that if Archbishop Lefebvre had continued under his local bishop, all would have been fine - the Archbishop could have continued forming traditional priests for the Church. No, the modernists wanted tradition banished. Thank God for Archbishop Lefebvre. John Salza insinuates that Archbishop Lefebvre lost it a bit. Ridiculous and false. He was the most well grounded, faithful, clear-sighted and charitable of men. Everyone knows this.
As for bishops advising that we may go to SSPX masses, Bishop Schneider and Archbishop Vigano tell us that we can and should (two of the most Catholic bishops we have). They have nothing but praise for the saintly Archbishop.
Please do have an SSPX priest on to explain in detail the real crisis and their position.
In Jesus, Mary and Joseph,
Sadly I have to contradict. The canon law is not only valid in normal times, but always. Mostly Divine law is not changeable. And if it were true that because of the church’s current situation it weren’t normal times, who could decide that? It’s of course not up to individuals lay or ordained, but for the whole church. And if we look into church history I guess every time wasn’t normal and there has always been a sort of crisis…so it remains the same that canon law is valid.
A few questions: Bishop Athanasius Schneider was the Vatican delegate that was sent to assess the Catholicity and orthodoxy of the SSPX. He lived in their seminary for a month. His conclusion was that yhey were thoroughly Catholic and recommended their regularization. The bishop unequivocally denies they are in formal schism. He brought up the fa t the Pope CANNOT confer faculties to a group in formal schism without implicitly endorsing sed schism. And now that SSPX chapels can witness marriages on behalf of the Church. Our diocese doesn't even send a diocesan representative but just has them send a record of the marriage. So they have valid Mass, valid Confession, valid marriages...but they are in schism? I am not a regular attendee of the Society (90% Novus Ordo) but I find their presence in our diocese a great benefit and feel that when Satan is in full control of the hierarchy (which is soon coming to pass) the Society will be a refuge (along with other TLM communities) for the faithful when denied the fullness of the Faith.
He addresses all these points in the video
Oh so everything is hunky dory and the sspx is no longer separate from the “conciliar modernist church” as lefev called it?? Did sspx become conciliar and modernist or renounce these words from lefev or has this so called “conciliar church” come around and said lefev was right and Rome was wrong and now they are in communion with the great self anointed defenders of “tradition” the sspx??? Lol what a joke.. larp harder
@@johnjaun9231 "Concilliar church" isn't something Lefevbre coined. It's something post VII bishops coined to justify novelty. He didn't just make it up, he's quoting their own theology.
The simple fact that you believe Satan can possibly be in full control of the Church hierarchy means the poison has already seeped into you. That's not catholic belief. Just as a reminder, the creed does not say we believe in the One Holy and Apostolic SSPX.
@@tanksgtThe Latin Rite offered the language in the languages of the people. There is nothing wrong with that. The mass was originally in Aramaic and eventually offered in Coptic, Syriac, and Greek. It was offered in Latin because it was the language that the people in the Roman Empire spoke. Eventually, Catholicism came to more countries so it is great that the Church offered the mass in the language that they can understand.
Couple of things to add:
First: in 2016 Pope Francis himself granted direct jurisdiction in perpetuity to all SSPX priests to hear confessions and for the sacrament of marriage. In this decree it also states that the SSPX priest is to say Mass during the marriage. How can a priest from the SSPX celebrate Mass licitly on this day, but lose all faculties the next?
Secondly, Archbishop Lefebvre never celebrated the Novus Ordo, but only the new rites of 1965 and 1967, which were much closer to the 1962 TLM than to the 1970 Novus Ordo. He was never a great liturgist, but he rejected the new theology of the Novus Ordo.
Also; in 2018 pope Francis gave permission to Bp. Fellay to ordain priests from that year forward.
(I’m going to be adding more as I’m watching)
Because that was the permission that was given.
Oh so the sspx is no longer separate from what lefev called “the conciliar modernist freemason church”?? Wonderful so the sspx leadership have rejected these words from lefev or the “modernist conciliar church” is no longer modernist?? Great so we can just go to a NO or does the sspx say not to??
@@xanderjansen4539 where is your evidence to back up Fellay was given permission to ordain? Fellay has said that, but he has never produced a document to verify that. Anybody can say anything.
@@AnaMT1985 I’m sure the Vatican just never got around to correcting him.
The way the faithful received Holy Communion in the first few centuries was different than how many receive it now in that they did not touch the Host, but had a cloth placed over their hand and put their head down to touch their tongue to it and place it in their mouths. The faithful developed the long standing practice of having the priest place the Host on their tongue very early on, but the recent receiving in the hand the way people do now was originally an abuse that was excused in 1977 because so many wayward bishops and priests initially out of Holland and Belgium were already allowing, advocating, and even mandating it in their dioceses to the detriment of faith in the Real Presence of the Eucharist. What you do with your body matters. Receiving communion in the hand was one of the first changes made during the Protestant Reformation in order to communicate this was NOT Christ's actual body, blood, soul, and divinity.
Do you have a source or citation for this
@@thomasgerard5401 ruclips.net/video/q7XKr4R4x5s/видео.html
I'm very happy to happy to believe but I would love a source for the communion in the hand. I hear and read so many contradictions on the Internet.
There is the issue of having hands consecrated to touch the Host, exception being in an emergency to protect the Host from danger. The early Church understood what something meant to be consecrated...think of their understanding of the Ark of the Covenant.
While they did not understand molecules or atoms, they did understand dust. They would have understood that even the tiniest piece of the Host was just as much Christ as the entire whole Host. They would not have risked even the dust of the Host to be discarded. This developed even more fully as a practice within a few hundred years universally within the Church.
There are some Catholics who can receive on the hand and maybe don't lose faith in the Real Presence, but knowing about the possibility of discarding even the tiniest bit of the Host and knowing that the laity have not had their hands consecrated as a priest (diluting the sanctity of the priesthood itself and causing confusion as to why priests have been set apart by privilege of their office), why on earth would you continue to receive on the hand??? If it is just because it is awkward and uncomfortable having not done it that way before, humble yourself before the King of Kings who laid down his life for you. By and large, it has caused immense damage to the belief in the Real Presence.
This guy sounds like he has a chip on his shoulder. What's the real reason he left the SSPX?
He's a freemason. Really available info online.
I attend mass at an SSPX chapel. By no means would I refer to myself as an “SSPXer” since I don’t really feel comfortable throwing my support behind any of the prevalent camps in a sort of “party affiliation” style manner. All of them have things I agree and disagree with and I don’t fit neatly into a box that way. There’s certainly things you can criticize the Society about. Some of them fairly enough were brought up in this discussion.
However, unfortunately I felt that the vast majority of Mr. Salza’s arguments relied on massive mischaracterizations of the positions held by actual Society members and parishioners, fallacious inclusion or at least implication of conclusions in his premises, consistent strawmanning of Society arguments, as well as what to me sounded like blatant falsehoods.
I’m disappointed that the case for the Societies position has been presented so poorly and I hope Matt will consider having someone else on who shares more sympathy with the SSPX, maybe someone who attends a chapel, or even one of their priests, to represent a steel man case.
How is this a "misrepresentation" of the SSPX's position? Sounds like you're just hurt that someone called you out on hard truths. The reactionary attitude of the SSPX has not helped the Church's position in the world. What's saddening is that the beauty of the Mass in which the SSPX values is pridefully overcome by the arrogance to not find reconciliation with Rome. Pope Benedict XVI opened the door for healing, and yet the leadership stayed as stubborn as their founder did. Pride cometh before the fall, both progressively and reactionary. So please - explain the mischaracterizations (massive mischaracterizations, in your terms.)
While I enjoy John Salza pointing out canonical law, one thing I wish @PintsWithAquinas did was have someone like Bp. Bernard Fellay debate Mr. Salzas. Why Bp. Fellay? He was with the SSPX from the 1970s and was one of the bishops consecrated at Ecône and later became their Superior General from 1994 through 2018. In a video I saw of him (ruclips.net/video/bmcIGIPrFd4/видео.html), he mentioned Abp. Lefebvre corresponded with the Vatican but that they kept pushing back the date as to when he could consecrate bishops. According to Bp. Fellay, he said once Abp. Lefebvre informed the Vatican he was going to consecrate bishops (plural) as he got tired of waiting for a response from them, he stated the Vatican acquiesced and agreed to allow them to consecrate one bishop on August 15th but he had to provide them names of three new candidates from scratch. Why was Abp. Lefebvre in a hurry? He was diagnosed with cancer in 1983 and by the mid 1980s grew increasingly ill. At the time the SSPX was corresponding with then Cardinal Ratzinger and Abp. Lefebvre sensed the Vatican was playing a waiting game. According to Bp. Fellay in the video the eventually pushed the date back again to November and then Ratzinger responded with he didn't know when they would allow him to consecrate a bishop - at this point, according to Bp. Fellay, Abp. Lefebvre decided to go ahead with the consecrations thinking they're waiting for him to run out his personal time. I am in no way justifying what the SSPX did. I'm more interested in two knowledgeable experts, one on Canon Law, and another a witness and participant to the events that unfolded meting out the truth. The truth for everyone's benefit. Everyone who is faitfhful. I imagine there will be new information both sides had not heard before or ever considered. And again, I think everyone wants to discover the truth in fuller detail.
@@gruntpadre5337 There can be no "reconciliation," for Rome has fulfilled the prophecy of LaSallette. Rome has lost the Faith. When Rome chooses to be Catholic and not an agent and power pushing the agenda of the NWO, unity will be acheived. Salza's arguments convinces no one, for the Church has never FORMALLY condenmed the FSSPX in schism. In the 50 years of their existence, I have seen no evidence of this position. If Salza wanted to argue his point, he should be speaking to a reliable authority on the Society, and not to some pod caster who's had questionable moments on his show in the past. He is merely feeding more rubbish to those who agree with him. I will remain with Bishop Anthanasius Scheider, (who was assigned in the past to monitor them, and spent two weeks in an SSPX seminary), Archbishop Vigano, and Father Gerald Murray, a canon lawyer, who have repeatedely stated their non schismatic status. Salza is a mere layman, and has no power, nor authority to declare what is schismatic. This former Freemason's position and stance is well known, so he can continue to pontificate until the cows come home. In the light of what has happened to the Church in our times, he's just water under the bridge. We give thanks for the courage and determination of Archbishop Marcel Lefevebre, in his struggle to save the holy patrimony of Mother Church, and may God bless the work of the priests of the SSPX!
@@TonyG8297 You are correct about the situation that existed with the Archbishop prior to the Consecrations. Rome was giving the Archbishop the run around. They were waiting for him to die, hoping that his death would precipitate the demise of his movement. Anyone familiar with the life of the Archbishop, is fully aware of Rome's shabby treatment of him during his latter years. Horrendous when one considers how the man spent most of his life on this planet by bringing untold numbers to Christ, and a faithful son of the Church. The media and his Modernist, Novus Ordite, enemies made a rebel out of the him, but he was never such a thing. He remained true and loyal to the Catholic Church, and not the "ape of the church."
@@LUIS-ox1bv My concern is, and no disrespect to Bp. Fellay as I believe he means well, is he said Abp. Lefebvre told him he was getting the run around. So it’s hearsay … in other words I don’t know if there’s any document to back up what Abp. Lefebvre told Bp. Fellay. But even then my question is assuming documents proving this exist, or both are telling the truth, why was the Vatican delaying the consecration of a bishop? Was their concern the Traditional Latin Mass? Or was it because of the actions of Abp. Lefebvre? Remember, the church suppressed the SSPX in 1975, suspended Abp. Lefebvre who continued to ordain priests irregardless and was suspended a divinis. Again, was the concern with the TLM or Abp. Lefebvre? Without access to documentation It is a mystery to me. I wonder if there is more to the story which is why I think Bp. Fellay and Mr. Salza should discuss / debate this on air with a moderator like @PintsWithAquinas.
Thankx to the missions of sspx some of my friends came back to the one true catholic faith.
I really appreciated John’s approach to this. He’s so knowledgeable of the historical facts behind all of this and is able to communicate them calmly and clearly. This was so informative!
Rather I found his neglect of context appalling.
@@philcortens5214 yes. Lefebvre was lied to by Rome. Multiple times. He had not a schismatic spirit (and I don't even go to a SSPX parish)
@@philcortens5214 Bingo!
Yeah right ....is salza still a freemasonic luciferian or an authority on the Catholic church now....just wondering ....
The former high ranking freemason John Salza who made an oath to Lucifer and renounced Jesus Christ before his "conversion" to the Vatican II church and who now eagerly tries to bring all who want to be traditional catholics into that institution in which someone who builds temples for pagan god worship and who prays on the wailing wall "in which HaShem dwells" for the coming of "their" Moshiach must be venerated as a saint is proven to be a complete spiritual fraud in an audio file named "John Salza's Lies, Errors and Dishonesty" here on RUclips. I suggest you also study the article entitled "John Salza Has No Idea What He’s Talking About" (you can google it).
I have the humility to say that if something isn't in good standing with the church, don't go to it. Even if it seems better and the sacraments are valid, if they don't accept the pope, they're off the ark. Just go to an fssp or move to a place that has one. We live in rough times we must offer up our sufferings and trust in the Lord for better times.
Would you stand with Arrio, knowing that he is teaching an error?
If you don't, with your logic, you would be rejecting the pope.
The SSPX does accept the pope and pray for him at their masses
Excellent vid, Matt. Many thanks to brother Salza for such a clearly articulated explanation.
"I think most people who dont like their local Novus Ordo aren't involved, you can make a lot of changes very quickly by getting involved, usually there's not many people really volunteering"
I took this from the chat and it's absolutely true.
I saw that too. It shot out at me and called me out.
It's super true, especially if you can sing. Very easy to get Gregorian chant going in your mass if you just talk to your priest, from my experience.
It's absolutely true. We have Gregorian chant sung at every Mass as well as a new High Altar and Communion rails. The priest also says the Mass ad Orientem. All because parishioners were asking for it and they stepped in to help run the choir and teach altar boys
My brother was very involved in his local parish and was constantly met with resistance as priest after priest participated in liturgical abuses - and when he would point it out he was castigated and ridiculed - and even when he brought official publications from the church that would go over liturgical rubrics, the priest still wouldn’t listen. And when writing to his bishop - deaf ears.
He now attends a local TLM - has to drive an hour to get there
It really shouldn’t have to be this way.
@@mikeoconnor4590 it really should not have to be, but you're brother will be rewarded not only for his courage in asking for proper changes, but also for his bearing the abuses to adore His Lord and Savior. You're brother won't have to answer for these priests and Bishops sins. Bad clergy doesn't make the Church not the Church. Christ promised us He would never abandon us, he didn't promise us good and holy clergy.
Man, I've always heard good things about Salza, but this is my first time listening to him and I'm blown away. Can't wait to dive into the full video. Thanks for the great discussion guys!
The former high ranking freemason John Salza who made an oath to Lucifer and renounced Jesus Christ before his "conversion" to the Vatican II church and who now eagerly tries to bring all who want to be traditional catholics into that institution in which someone who builds temples for pagan god worship and who prays on the wailing wall "in which HaShem dwells" for the coming of "their" Moshiach must be venerated as a saint is proven to be a complete spiritual fraud in an audio file named "John Salza's Lies, Errors and Dishonesty" here on RUclips. I suggest you also study the article entitled "John Salza Has No Idea What He’s Talking About" (you can google it).
I'm from SE Europe, from Catholic area. I live in a reverent NO parish, with altar boys, only priests and deacons giving Holy Communion. I appreciate this video because I really like TLM and I want to learn more about it and also expand my knowledge about other important matters connected to our faith. Thank you and God bless you. 🙏✝️🕊️
The Novus Ordo is a Happy Meal. The "Traditional Latin Mass" is the Rite of St Peter, and a propitiatory sacrifice. It has nothing to do with "reverence". It has to do with ontology.
@@whitewolf1298 that is according to you but not according to the Church. Have you ever known that St. Peter never used Latin?
@@johnosumba1980
It would be absurd to think that St Peter went to Rome and was not familiar with Latin. St Paul of course knew Latin well, and was a great influence on the rest of the Apostles.
In the meantime, Holy Mother Church cannot contradict herself, nor suppress the Apostolic Traditions which are her warp and woof- her heritage.
What Paul VI did was an act of violence against the sacred, pure and simple.
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us. You are our only hope!
@@whitewolf1298 have you ever tried to find out how many times there has been changes in the way mass was being conducted? And do you believe that the gates of hell will never prevail against the Church? And do you think Jesus was wrong in giving Peter the power to bind and loose. I have been to so many places and believe that the Catholic Church is right in all the improvements they make, the problem lies down on implementation. Many people relate Vatican 2 to the problem bedeviling the world and forgetting that there were problems even before Vatican 2. Even at the beginning of the Church.
@@johnosumba1980
The Gates of Hell will never prevail against Holy Mother Church. The Dogma of the Faith will always be preserved and it will always be available to souls seeking salvation. Our Lord Never guaranteed that when He returns there will be a pope and hierarchy.
Peter was definitely appointed Prince of the Apostles, and given the power to bind and lose in terms of discipline in the church. (For example, with one stroke of a pen the pope could cancel the whole of canon law and annul any penalties incurred.) But the pope CANNOT change the Divine Law nor the Apostolic Traditions. The Church has four marks- One, Holy, Catholic, and APOSTOLIC. The main duty of the pope and and bishops is to guard the sacred deposit of Faith.
The way Mass is conducted has developed, properly speaking, not changed. Just as a puppy develops into a dog, over the centuries prayers have been added to the body of he Mass and Sts added to the canon. But NEVER have prayers been altered or deleted. And NEVER has the theology of Holy Mass been changed.
Wow this is the best SSPX talk/explication on RUclips and i can say ive listen to very many .. great job
If inclined, our channel has more great videos with John. Thanks for watching!
Sad. You, like many others, have been duped. To see why, check the articles at lesfemmes-thetruth.blogspot.com/p/sspx-is-not-in-schism.html These include statement by canon lawyers, theologians, priests, and Bishop Schneider who is much more trustworthy than the "former" homosexual freemason Salza.
I yearn for the mystery, awe and reverence of feeling that I’m in the presence of and worshiping God, who is above all; that makes me conscious that He is God and I am NOT.
Mr.Salza is very charitable with his time and personally called me to discuss this topic a year ago. Pittsburgh has a growing sedevacantist community.
"Pittsburgh has a growing sedevacantist community." What group is that? Has CMRI expanded their twice monthly Masses?
Didn't john salza say before in a Fatima center talk that his local diocesan Bishop / priest said he could become a freemason?
@@eoinmcg88 he left freemasonry years and years and years ago. He’s given a bunch of talks that explain what happened to him in that organization and how freemasonry is a demonic entity. He recognized his error and left.
@@reinelantz3304 I know that, the point is his local priest told him he could join the freemasons, salza is saying go to Mass with your local priest instead of the sspx lol
That's great to hear about Pittsburgh.
Don't hear much about PA Sede's.
John Salza's lay apologetics is akin to a Protestant preacher. No thanks.
Great interview, Matt. Great questions. And you had the good sense to get out of Mr Salza's way and let him answer in full.
Wow! John should stop with the legalism and his perspective is absurd. That said, John's rationalization downplaying how bishops caved in response to the COVID response is by far more telling. You don't need hindsight to know they were wrong there and you don't have to be a covid skeptic to recognize not having access to the faith was extremely problematic. What happened to John...
You may have heard the words he used, but you didn't hear what the man was saying. He clearly opposes the COVID lock-down, but it's a prudential judgment of our superiors which is within their competency. Sometimes we have to submit to orders we don't like-that comes with obedience, which is an essential virtue.
@@Dack105 Within whose competency? It is immoral to assent to the actions and dictates of midwits and cowards. Bishops have proven time and time again how often they erred prudentially when dealing with faggotry and abuse. Your definition of obedience lacks seriousness and has more in common with the vice of cowardice.
This conversation is SO needed. Thank you for educating us in a charitable way. God bless you both.
So you were being educated by mr salza on Catholicism ....who was a freemasonic luciferian and now an authority on Catholicism....yeah right 😂
Google article "John Salza Has No Idea What He’s Talking About"
The SSPX has changed my life for the better, for sure! They represent the Catholic Church as it always was, always will be, they are not in lock step with the new order, I’ll put my chips with the fact that God does not change. But V2 is a change. John seems bitter a bit, I wonder what happened after 15 years? I down with the SSPX and they are growing! Thank God for the Archbishop!
I agree. God does not change. V2 and now John Salza are another story
the sspx does not represent who the church was when it was young and forming. there was very little consistency until 1500's. and even then there was sections in europe that were different. sspx just representing dissent in the west but not an historical artifact.
Did you even listen to the interview?
@@aeternusromanus yes, I did. Did you? John is obviously bitter. However the point of the Archbishop is still very valid, after V2 the Church changed, fact! God does not change, fact. Therefore the Archbishop who only wanted to preserve the faith as it was before modernism is doing what God asked not what man asks. Remember Adam only asked for fruit salad when God said no, and look at the mess since. God does not adapt or change.
@@leylinegoddess V2 is modernism in action, God does not change, fact. How can we be damned doing what God asked not what man asked?
47:46
To be fair to Archbishop Lefebvre- he did indeedy sign a document indicating his willingness to have a bishop named for him on August 15th, and the next day he reneged on this agreement, as he himself declared. So yes, you can say the Archbishop was "wishy washy".
BUT it also remains true that, prior to his signing, Cardinal Ratzinger strongly hinted that Rome would accept his nomination to be consecrated, and then Rome changed ITS TUNE immediately upon getting his signature.
That does not seem like "bending over backwards" to me, on the part of Rome.
"Well, that's a false dichotomy because both masses are illicit for different reasons. That would be my answer. The society masses are illicit because the priests don't have the faculties to say the mass. And those other masses are illicit because they are also engendering sacrilege and deviating from the rubrics. So that's a false dichotomy. It's NOT one or the other."
Boom
He doesn't address the fact that Pope Pius V said in the Papal Bull Quo Primum that "no priest shall ever be penalized for saying this Mass" (i.e. the Traditional Latin Mass)
Matt Thank you again for doing this interview! I want to plead with you to please continue to interview folks explaining the schism of the society. I know its not fun to talk about but these talks truly are bringing people back from schism, heresy, or at least being on the brink. Without videos like this my husband and I may have completely fallen for the societies schism. Please don’t stop, souls need this!
God bless & so thankful for John Salza he explained everything so well God bless him
But should we adhere to the Pope if/when he says it’s okay to bless gay marriages etc? Something clearly against the teaching of Jesus.
To Reject the Bishops and the Pope Authority is to be an Anathema to Christ. Council of Trent Session 23, 24, and 14. You cant fight scandal by committing scandal. The SSPX founders did just that and still do
I think you should talk to a SSPX priest about this. They will lay out their position very logically
No. Talk to your parish priest and, if that is not clear, to your bishop.
Remember: if someone says something is super important, and it isnt in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, then it just is *not* that important. We are not required to be theologians or canon lawyers or historians; whatever is clearly stated in the Catechism should be enough to silence the drums of outrage thst schismatics beat.
SSPX setting up its own Marriage Tribunal cannot be justified or explained. The *reasons* and *arguments* SSPX priests will use to justify the Society are irrelevant - Rome *has not* given them authority to judge marriages, say masses, or say the things they say (like dissuading the faithful from confessing to NO priests or attending NO masses).
@@rickjelliffe1580 You assume modernist parish priests and bishops are even Catholic these days.
If you are suggesting a debate on this channel, I doubt any SSPX leaders would agree to do that.
@@LMC444111 No, you assume they are not. If they are Baptized and can say the Catholic Creed with the Church's intended meaning, then they are Catholics, full stop. To add anything more is to violate Jesus' warning not to invent and put obstacles in little childrens' way: better a millstone around our neck...
Sadly, this guest seems to stereotype those that attend the TLM. That is rash judging. I attend the TLM at a hermitage. Believe me, it was not because of the "bells and whistles ". I am still learning. All I know is that, after that first Mass, I was in love with Jesus - even after I struggled during that Mass - as I didn't know what was going on.
He says multiple times that he attends TLM himself.
@@marthamcneely6877
Correct. However, I don't know/don't think that most TLM attendees think the NO not valid or just go because of their "feelings ".
I'm a former sedevecantist (SGG, so strict they would deny you sacraments for attending the SSPX lol), my now wife went to the NO and I was the one who introduced her to the TLM. Trying to figure this kind of stuff out almost stopped us from getting married. We now attend an ICKSP (we are blessed to be quite near one) and wouldn't have it any other way. part of my family still goes to the sede church, most go to the SSPX, and one of my siblings goes to the Institute with his family as well. I've completely left sedevecantism, praise to the Lord, and while the institute is my home parish, I go to and receive at both the SSPX and the NO, not sure how many others are in similar situations. It's difficult because most in my family would deny the validity of the NO, and some of my in-laws aren't so sure of the validity of the TLM even at the Institute
Really appreciate the information in this interview, God bless and keep up the good work everyone at PWA
I'm very familiar with Bishop Dolan's sermons.
Also no one considers eastern rites for a good option, you have ICK.
You would probably benefit from listening to all of Michael Loftons videos over at Reason and Theology. I was initially raised in the SSPV and then when there was a big fight there my parents went over and raised us in the SSPX. I jabe learned so much about what the Church actually teaches from @Reason and Theology and @TheLogosproject.
@@AnaMT1985
Michael Lofton is a great resource for well thought out theology.
I use to listen to Taylor Marshall until he started going down this rabbit hole. I unsubscribed from him, Kennedy, and recently, Tim Gordon.
I prefer to spend my time with theologically strong Catholics...Pints with Aquinas, Trent Horn, Michael Lofton, Keith Nestor, Brian Holdsworth, BP. Barron, Catholic Answers, etc..
Leave SSPX....they have issues to workout with the Pope!
@@rosiegirl2485 yes, agree. I also immediately recognized the peace I felt after leaving all of the anger, bitterness and constant negativity of the celebrity ytubers you mentioned behind. It was refreshing coming over to those that don't treat everyone with the judgement of suspicion. It's nice to trust that the Church is indefectible and all of the problems I was taught about all my life in the SSPX are not mine to carry.
Grabbing my popcorn for the comments section 🍿
Be gentle :) ...kidding...
The live chat was pretty rocky at times, thankfully Matt's got a lot of good Mods and Thursday the producer.
@@danguard8543 Seriously? I only started watching in the last hour, but the moderators were the only rockiness I saw in the chat.
@@willing_spirit6830 Doubt it
@@24erstad Trust me, they couldn't keep from name calling all while preaching to refrain from name calling. I believe their favorite one was "dingus". Maybe they were very efficient at hiding inappropriate comments, but if that's the case there was still no need for their rude responses to a bunch of invisible people.
Salza is so inconsistent that he honestly leaves people more confused.
GREAT CONVO! much needed info for a lot of people in these times.
Viva Cristo Rey!
@@eoinmcg88 and the cardinal who ordained marcel lefebvre was a free mason....
@@TheEdzy25 Archbishop Bugnini who created the novus ordo Mass was a freemason
@@eoinmcg88 the sspx also created by freemasons.
@@TheEdzy25 I prefer to stay away from a Mass created by a freemason with the help of 6 protestant ministers
@@eoinmcg88 and some people might say, they rather stay away from a society started by schismatic freemasons that hijacked a mass rite and holding it hostage.
Salza seems full of ressentiments. Most things he said are objectivley wrong. Very bad interview.
He's Masonic
There would be no FSSP without the SSPX. The original FSSP priests came out of ArchBp Lefebrvre's seminary at Econe Switzerland.
This gentleman should be as legalistic about the "new mass" as he is about the Society. Then we'd be in for quite a show.
What is legally problematic with the New Mass?
@@qdp03 in its almost universal, practical implementation? The dossier is too vast.
@Commissary Thank you for your correction in fraternal charity.
Perhaps if you state an issue you have with my assessment, I could respond to it. I have to confess that the inability to read minds is indeed a "weakness" of mine.
@Commissary since the chances of you or anyone else attending a Novus Ordo in Latin over the next few weeks are about 100 to 1, I believe the ongoing legal problems with the new mass are self-evident. One best conforms oneself - ironically - to the ideas in Sacrosanctum Concilium by attending the TLM. Thank you for referring to my response as petty. That was rich.
Looking for where it says the vernacular should be the norm and the music choice is completely up to the whims of whomsoever has been hired to manage it, but all I can find is that Latin should be preserved in the Roman Rite and that Gregorian chant is given pride of place. Also, where is communion in the hand defined as the preferred mode of reception in any document on the Liturgy?
If I'm wrong on one of these points, let me know.
Otherwise, the current widespread iteration of the Novus Ordo is an *ongoing legal problem*, because what the Church states as ideal is almost never executed in practice.
It's weird to take the denial tack. We're not in a courtroom. I have seen maybe two or three parishes with NOs that checked all the boxes with SC, the GIRM, and the rubrics.
La Salette is approved
On 19 September 1851, the local bishop formally approved the public devotion and prayers to Our Lady of La Salette. On 21 August 1879, Pope Leo XIII granted a canonical coronation to the image now located within the Basilica of Our Lady of La Salette
I've been attending a SSPX mass as they are the only ones who offer a Tridentine Mass in my area. I don't see the problem to be honest, they are genuine, serious catholics.
There is no problem. Keep doing your best to be a good Catholic and don't let the bad faith bullies get to you.
@@JohnFromAccounting the SSPX is acting without a canonical mission, which was anathematized by the Council of Trent. So when you go to Mass at the SSPX you're literally watching a priest commit mortal sin. There is nothing bad faith about wanting souls to go to Heaven and people to be in communion with the Holy See of Rome like that Church has always taught as necessary.
@@hamie7624 But that Priest committing mortal sin is allowed to hear confessions ? I'm bewildered.....
@@DJPTEXAS yes. It was declared they can hear confession as an act of mercy so their penetants sins can actually be forgiven.
@@hamie7624 so their sinners would confess and go sin again in their mass 30min later? Make it make sense.
Superb episode. 3 hours is just great.
Known John Salza through his works (scripturecatholic) for years. But only know appreciate his knowledge and stature. Thank you, thank you, John.
I have recently moved in the last year to a new state… unfortunately the nearest FSSP church is three hours away… so we have been going to the Novus ordo mass. I can tell you the things I see there take all the joy out of Sunday mass. when I converted to Catholicism I was very joyful… unfortunately I find it very hard to be joyful now… especially at mass.
For your Faith's sake you need to leave and find a TLM ASAP.
Interesting discussion. However, considering the current state of our Church, I’ll go with what Bishop Athanasius Schneider has had to say regarding the Society after he visited the seminary in Econe. Lawyers like Mr. Salza can parse it amongst themselves.
You can choose to live with your bias confirmation then and continue to bury your face in the sand.
Look what Rome is doing now!! I converted 13 years ago to get away from the nonsense going on now. I’m thinking Leveve was right.
yes he was ❤😊 i also converted last year from 🇩🇪Lutheranism
To Reject the Bishops and the Pope Authority is to be an Anathema to Christ. Council of Trent Session 23, 24, and 14. You cant fight scandal by committing scandal.
Yup. Everyone should read, free online, 'An Open Letter to Confused Catholics'
@@auniversalwoman you can listen to it also and it is eye opening to say the least. Fr. Murr's interview with patrick coffin is fascinating also, ive listened to that 3 times i think. Of course there is also Dr. Marshalls book 'Infiltration".... so much out there, no reason to not understand that V2 was a liberal revolution. John XXIII and Paul VI were NOT good for the Church at all!
@@oldtimmy9481check the historical record, the Church itself goes against Bishops and Popes. That's a lame excuses for obedience, and it wouldn't mean anything anyway, even if True.
Thank u for interview Matt! I have been long time follower of PWA from Kazakhstan and love your show! I have asked my bishop and he said yes I can go to SSPX. Thanks Dr. Salza for advice to ask my bishop! Greetings from Astana 🇰🇿
Well done, John Salza👏👏 I have been waiting for you to do an interview like this. I myself got caught in Sedevacantism, and your Book and material helped get me out of it. I then went with the SSPX way for years and departed approximately 5 years ago, now attending TLM and NO adhering to Diocesan Bishop, etc. and never felt better! Keep up the solid work... you follow through with great, clear, concise style, clearing things up for the Church. Live Jesus our love and Mary our hope!
Hi Joshua! Over on my channel I host interviews with former Trads. It's helped a lot of people looking for answers and someone they can relate to. I would love to hear your story of what got you in and out of Sedevacantism, if you ever feel inclined to share! God bless you!
Is mr salza no longer a freemasonic luciferian ....just wondering....as he now appears to be an authority on Catholicism....🤔🧐
Also, regarding things that "lead [people] out of the Church," I'd argue that the "errors on the left" have done a far better job of clearing out the pews than anything else. Heck, the Steubenville conferences (with which Fradd has associated himself) and their seemingly Protestant-focused charismatic liturgy and discussions were the reason my brother stopped going to mass and hasn't considered himself a Catholic since high school.
💯
Is mr salza still a freemasonic luciferian I wonder....mr fradd was a raging atheist by his own admission too....now both these men are taking jibes at the Saintly Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre....the devil is always in the detail it seems.
Disobedience to evil men is not a sin.
Public veneration of pagan idols is sinful and scandalous.
Slander and schism are mortally sinful
Pagan worship, sacrilege are mortal sins. Pope Francis gave honor & thumbs up to artist who did Blasphemy against Crucifix, by putting Crucifix in urine.
Jesus Sacrifice on Cross, suffering so greatly, dying for love of us, to save us.
Francis brought pagan idols into Vatican, when faithful Catholic threw in river, Francis got angry, had idols retrieved.
Jesus didn't give the Keys Schismatic Lefebrvre, He gave it to Peter and the successors. THAT IS DOGMATIC
“This prerogative [inerrant teaching authority] granted to St. Peter by the Lord Jesus Christ was supposed to pass to all Peter’s successors because the chair of Peter is the center of unity in the Church. But if the Pontiff should fall into an error of faith, the Church would dissolve, deprived of the bond of unity. The bishop of Meaux speaks very well on this point, saying: ‘If this Roman See could fall and be no longer the See of truth, but of error and pestilence, then the Catholic Church herself would not have the bond of a society and would be schismatic and scattered-which in fact is impossible.”
- Presentation given by Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser (1809-1879) to the general congregation of Bishops at the 1st Vatican Council.
The Pope is not evil simply because you say he is. For the Pope to truely and legitimately labeled evil or a heretic he must be officially rebuked but other authorities in the church such as the college of cardinals or an ecumenical council.
To deny the legitimacy of the pope and magisterium is schismatic. You do not know better. You are a slave to your own pride.
I put off watching this because I thought it might be a hit piece on tradition, but it was not at all. Good conversation which actually answered some questions for me.
Notice how they don't get an SSPX priest to respond to the false claims. Any SSPX priest would demolish these false claims.
SSPX priests and adherents have declined all of their requests for debates.
@@24erstad What lie that is. The SSPX and its clergy are more than willing to be given a voice to respond to the lies !
@@bobsmith425 No lie. This was originally supposed to be a debate with Kennedy Hall, until Kennedy backed out. Per Kennedy's email, "I will decline debating him, and he can say ‘Kennedy declined to debate me.”
They reached out to the Society, and heard crickets. You're ignorant of the situation.
@@24erstad Since when is some layman the standard for the SSPX refusing to debate. Let them get an SSPX priest to demolish their false claims. John Salza himself was a long time defender of the SSPX. Don't forget that ! He could himself demolish his own false claims if he had any real integrity !
@@bobsmith425 Kennedy was the only one to respond to a debate request. The SSPX priests simply refused to the debate. When is the last time you've seen an SSPX priest do a public debate?
Wow, what a five-star guest! 25 minutes in and I’ve learned loads from this guy. Dr. Salza’s got a razor sharp legal mind. God bless you for bringing us these interviews, Matt 🙏. Greetings from Madrid 🇪🇸
John Salza is a mason. Disappointed that Matt does not vett his guests. Salza is well known to be a grifter.
@@scaryspyce1713 Really? Is that so?
@@helmanticus8624 Yes. Check into his background and you will find a lot to discredit him.
Both Bishop Schneider and Bishop Huonder were sent by Rome to investigate the SSPX and both of them found that the SSPX are not schizmatics. I would believe them over this mason who just wants to drive up his book sales.
Salza has written books, supposedly tell-alls of Freemasonry and the SSPX which are sensationalized fictional accounts, not accurate at all.
WAS a Mason. When he learned that Catholics cannot be masons, he left them.
He also wrote a book explaining why Catholics can't be freemasons.
@@d.v.stuyvesant6944 That’s a relief. Thank you.
Thank you for this discussion. It gives so much clarity about an issue I’ve been turning over in my mind a lot recently. The Latin Mass was crucial in my reversion to the faith. It should be a point of unity, not division.
Sadly, Satan has used the zealots to pit the bishops, priests and laity against each other's.
Tell that to those who wish to abolish it
If everyone who attends the Novus Ordo would simply abandon it and begin to attend the Traditional Mass, the unity you long for would be achieved.
@@tradtruth If everyone agreed that Matthew 16:13-18 means what the Church always says then we already know the answer. Since people rejected the Council Teachings, even the Council of Trent who taught the same things as the Second Vatican Council about Matthew 16:13-18, we don't have the same agreement and submission to the Holy See. Since both Councils say the same thing about the Magisterium has the authority. You rejected that and most of the TLM laity which contradict to what you said. Please read the Catechism of the Council of Trent "Need of an Authoritative Catholic Catechism" (page 9).
@@ScreamingReel500 Who are you to say what I have rejected or not rejected? Who are you to judge?
Salza at 42:38 "The hammer is coming down on the TLM because of the SSPX." It's not enough to falsely accuse them of being in schism, now he has to scapegoat them. Mr. Salza, it looks like you are the one refusing to be in communion with your Cathollic brethren.
How is this opinion not a direct corollary to the explicit intention given by Pope Francis?
'A final reason for my decision is this: ever more plain in the words and attitudes of many is the close connection between the choice of celebrations according to the liturgical books prior to Vatican Council II and the rejection of the Church and her institutions in the name of what is called the “true Church.” One is dealing here with comportment that contradicts communion and nurtures the divisive tendency'
He is clearly talking about rhetoric and attitudes that are fostered chiefly by the SSPX.
I commented on the livestream (which I hardly ever do) when I heard that. Seriously blaming traditiones custodes on the sspx and not on the hyper progressive bishops, Cardinals, and let's face it Pope?
We arent supposed to be in communion with our "Catholic brethren", we are supposed to be in communion with the Vicar or Christ and the Holy Catholic Church.
@@hamie7624 it’s actually both. It’s schismatic to remove yourself from communion with anyone inside the Church. You can’t, for instance, say that you are in Communion with the Holy See, but not the FSSP or the diocese of Gallup, New Mexico.
@@toddbyrd9071 ...that's ridiculous. If a group is in schism and we recognize that they are in schism, that doesn't make us wrong. "We" are only in schism with them because they put themselves in that state, and we are not obligated to remove ourselves from schism with Rome to be in communion with them, that would be folly. You demonstrate the fundamental issue with SSPX apologists, you dont know basic teachings and require large amounts of word games and mental gymnastics to justify your position.
Man, I need a book with all this information in more detail & citings!!
Another vote for a book, please!!
Read Michael Davies book Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, it’s extremely well documented and it fills in the gaps that Salza is leaving out
Thank you hugely for this interview. It's an important matter for me, as I'm sometimes approached by SSPX to serve during their masses. Sadly most of my friends see no problem in that (but also offer no deeper thought, I think). It was very helpful for me to listen to John, especially regarding his long experience with SSPX and lawyer's approach to sources. I made a few pages of notes :)
I appreciate Matt's requests to steel man arguments and not ridicule them.
You should serve their masses. I wish I had a closer sspx to alter serve at.
My family and I attend SSPX, FSSP and diocesan TLMs however we are more aligned with the SSPX "recognize but resist" position. By the way, I was raised in the novus ordo for 40 years, attended Jesuit “catholic” schools from Kindergarten to High School and then graduated from a jesuit university in California. For all that time I never took my wishy washy watered down faith seriously until I started attending the Latin Mass. Under NO circumstances I will return to the novus ordo because it has proven to be a danger to my faith although I do think the Sacrament is confected during the ceremony, it is a an impoverished ritual offensive to pious ears. Furthermore, in the current state of necessity (chaos) the Church is in I don’t see a problem in attending the SSPX TLMs. Pope Francis has even granted the society priests with faculties to hear confessions so it is undeniable they are valid Catholic priests. The SSPX merely makes holy priests available who keep the Traditional Catholic Doctrine, Catholic Liturgy and Catholic morals without compromise with the modern errors, because without the Mass and the Sacraments, the faithful would spiritually starve: it was “operation survival" for the salvation of souls. The Society of St Pius X has always and continues to mention the Pope in the Canon of the Mass, and the local bishop: there was clearly no rejection of the hierarchy of the Church, and therefore no schism. Stop bashing the SSPX, worry about the german novus ordo schism and the like of Father "pro-sodomite" James Martin SJ, child abuser McCarrick, the sacrilege of communion in the hand, etc. etc. God bless!
What faith? I don't see any here. Just platitudes.
"we are more aligned with the SSPX "recognize but resist" position." Ironically, the term "recognize and resist" was coined by a sedevacantist and the position is opposed to Catholic teaching on the papacy.
@@littlerock5256 as I mentioned previously I do not attend the SSPX chapels exclusively nor do I believe in the "no salvation outside the SSPX" position that *some* of their supporters and clergy adhere to; rather I am more aligned with the SSPX "recognize and resist" position, which by definition can not be a sedevacantist view because they do not recognize Pope Francis as a legitimate Pope. By the way, St Thomas Aquinas teaches that obedience is a moral virtue, and as all moral virtues, it consists in the right measure between a defect and an excess. The vice against obedience by defect is disobedience, not to comply with a legitimate order; the vice against obedience by excess is servility, i.e. to comply with illegitimate orders (like the imposition of the novus disordo!). Oftentimes, when there is a disagreement between a superior and an inferior, it is because the inferior resists a legitimate order, the wrong is on the part of the inferior, it is disobedience. But this is not always the case.
Indeed, the Holy Scripture is very explicit and when the Apostles were commanded by the Sanhedrin not to preach the name of Jesus, “Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men”[Acts 5:29] . Sometimes indeed, men in authority command things which are against God, and in such case they should be resisted. In doing so, one is not disobedient, but rather one practices the virtue of obedience by avoiding the vice by excess, servility. But to each his own, I will most definitely stick with the Traditional Latin Mass as the most perfect way to worship God for Roman rite Catholics, resisting the errors of Francis (like the Pachamama, Assisi, etc.) while still recognizing him as Pope until a valid council of legitimate Cardinals with authority declares otherwise.. God bless!
@@rguerrah The "recognize and resist" position contradicts Catholic teaching.
"to comply with illegitimate orders" I am familiar with this teaching. Note that it involves orders, not Church teaching on faith and morals from the pope or the Magisterium.
" (like the imposition of the novus disordo!)" A pope has complete authority over the liturgy so if the pope is legitimate then so is the mass he imposes.
"Sometimes indeed, men in authority command things which are against God, " The Catholic Church cannot promulgate or teach officially anything against God.
"I will most definitely stick with the Traditional Latin Mass.." The 1962 missal is not traditional. It had the Canon altered, which hadn't been touched since Pope St. Gregory the Great, among other changes.
What did Jesus himself say when his disciples questioned whether to obey the Jewish leaders of the time? “Do everything they tell you, but dont BE like them!” Can we do anything different?
During lockdown Traditional Catholic Mass was celebrated( Thanks be to God) in the back of a trailer because Diocesan Bishops prevented Catholics their right to attend Holy Mass.
What "right" is this? You are using modern political concept (one that not all non-Americans ascribe to, even in tne West) not a Christian one.
Catholics have no such “right” as implied here. This is coming from a typically American “individualist” notion of rights (our rights against the State). The Church is the protector of rights never oppressor by virtue of her charism. COVID 19 was an emergency, and the lack if public masses was temporary and excused. And of course, retuned once the crisis abated. No rights of the faithful were abrogated here.
I grew up in a “beige-Catholicism” parish with poor liturgies and formation. I even lapsed in my faith for a while. Eventually I came back to the. Church and fell in love with the TLM, even was a parishioner at a FSSP parish for a good while.
I’ve been unsure about the whole SSPX question for a while, and it was John Salza (and The Logos Project channel) that last year finally put the nail in the coffin for the SSPX, and thoroughly convinced me of his position.
He is rock-solid in his arguments, and I have not seen anything from SSPX apologists that would refute him.
Thank you to PWA and Matt Fradd for having John Salza on to talk at length on this issue of great importance!
Same, but I'm a parishioner at the FSSP and don't plan on ever changing that.
Thank you both John and Matt for having this discussion. I extremely appreciate the information and clarity in these hard times and found it very informative. THANK YOU🙏
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.
🤦♂️
@@thelogosproject7
Is that supposed to be a response?
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 from the SSPX. But let this be known in order to show that this presentation is riddled with inaccuracy... how deliberate? only God knows.
@@1TheLove1ofWisdom1 he literally responds to your comment in the video you commented on.
@@thelogosproject7 can you give me a time stamp?
So they are rejecting some magesterial teachings covered by the third category? How it that better?
1:52:49
What an undignified depiction of a great saint.