Thank you so much for answering these questions. Now I can proceed with peace of mind to carry on my ardent desire to hear the Traditional Latin Mass which as far as I know only the SSPX holds here in my country the Philippines. Thanks be to God!✝️🙏🏼💙💖
@@italiantraditionalcatholic2390 Fr Malachi Martin said he believe that he was sent by God. He’s the reason why the Latin Mass has survived. Archbishop Lefebvre crucified himself to preserve the Latin Mass. His Revolution put so much pressure on the modernists in the Vatican.
What Saint? He disobeyed Pope John Paul II (by ordaining bishops against explicit papal orders and warnings, so he was excommunicated). He resisted and rejected Church magisterium like Vatican II (especially on liturgy and religious freedom). He was filled with pride (the opposite of humility which is the foundation of holiness and sainthood) thinking he’s more Catholic than the Pope. His SSPX followers and sympathizers carry on and participate in this sin of pride on the part of Lefebvre.
As a recent revert to the Catholic Church and someone who has been monitoring the situation regarding Vatican II and the Traditionalist movement, I am very thankful for this video since it helped clarify a lot of misconceptions that I had about the SSPX in the first place. I do consider myself a mild traditionalist and also an Eastern Catholic so admittedly I am concerned about the state of the Church today amidst all the controversy. However, knowing that the SSPX is not in schism, I'm happy to see that one day the SSPX won't be as much of complicated matter in the Church as it is now.
Long live the SSPX! I go to their Masses here in their priory in Manila, and they have helped my soul in my desire for eternal salvation. You can't get it anywhere in the Novus Ordo parishes these days. The SSPX is the way to go towards authentic Catholic teachings. May their tribe increase!
Paolo Miguel Cobangbang The SSPX will restore the Catholic Church to her former glory, and the Latin Mass will be fully restored. Count on it. Our Lady said so.
Paolo Miguel Cobangbang Sir, which Church in Manila? The only church I know that celebrates TLM is the Holy Family Parish in QC. Thank you po kapatid! May the good Lord bless us!
@@coinpat I suggest going to an FSSP Parish if you can instead or Institute of Christ the King Sovereign since both organizations are in full communion with Rome.
Devout Catholic ... it’s truly sad today particularly after the Amazon non sense. I’ve been practicing a Catholic Life in an SSPX Chapel and at 70 I’m convinced I’m living holy.
I worked in a Catholic school and it was so awful. They had athiests and lapsed Catholics teaching. It was also.very novus ordo friendly and anti Pre Vatican II
The Vatican II sect with its heretic pope of course... After so many years, more and more pple do now realize that there might be something wrong with the "pope" and the church. They have no clue, what's going on and don't know, what to do. But instead of searching the true church with the true catholic faith, they just want to stick with a heretic(pope), an apostate church, and the few good, not even validily ordained, priests.
So JP2 gave SSPX the boot .Does that de-legitimize them? Yet he LEGITIMIZES DIVINE MERCY, as well as goes along with he supposedly verified imposter posing as Sr. Lucia, who said that God condemns no one to hell. (Try telling that to the 3 Children of Fatima.)Also, JP2 said that the 3rd Secret of Fatima was about his attempted assassination. As Jesus said, we will know them by their fruits.
Is the SSPX in schism? No, never! Before the consecrations took place, the Society of Saint Pius X had been growing very popular. It was getting a lot of attention because it continued to use the Tridentine Mass. The Society did its best to dodge attempts of “modernization.” This caused many modernists in Rome to call the society a “rebel group.” Note: I am going to get very legalistic now, so pay close attention to the codes of Canon Law that I cite. On June 15th 1988 Lefebvre stated that he was going to consecrate four bishops so that his society could continue to grow. Lefebvre wished to expand his society in order to save souls and preserve the faith. The congregation of Bishops in Rome would then send a Canonical Warning to Lefebvre. The warning stated that if Lefebvre consecrated the Bishops without a papal mandate that he would receive excommunication. Canon 1013 and 1382 were cited in order to defend the possible excommunication. No other canons were cited and NO mention of schism was made. Archbishop Lefebvre would then consecrate the Bishops without papal permission which would result in his excommunication. The congregation of Bishops would then send him the letter of excommunication. This letter, however, contained a very big error. The letter stated that Lefebvre committed a schismatic act by consecrating the Bishops. The letter cited canon 1364 defending its accusation of schism. The problem with this is that NO mention of canon 1364 was given in the Canonical Warning. NO mention of schism was given in the Canonical Warning. Lefebvre was warned that he would receive excommunication for violating canon 1382 but then received excommunication for violating canon 1364. How can Lefebvre be excommunicated for a crime that he didn’t even commit? Here is an example of how absurd this is: A person robs a bank and does not kill anyone. Then the judge decides to send him to prison for robbery and first degree murder. Not only is it absurd to sentence someone for a crime they didn’t commit, it is also unjust. The fact that Archbishop Lefebvre was unjustly excommunicated raises questions to whether the excommunication was valid. The following day after the excommunication, July 2, 1988, Pope John Paul II issued an apostolic letter Motu Proprio "Ecclesia Dei" in which he solemnly confirmed both the excommunications and the existence of the schism. One must wonder if Pope John Paul II even knew about the excommunication. It is rather odd that he confirmed the excommunication one day after it occurred. If John Paul II did not know that the excommunication occurred until one day later then that means that there is doubt as to how it was decreed. Some have tried to argue that consecrating a Bishop without papal mandate constitutes a schism but they’re wrong. It does not! Here is the definition of schism according to canon law: Can. 751 ...Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him. No where in canon 751 does it say that consecrating a Bishop without a papal mandate is a schismatic act. In fact, consecrating a Bishop without a papal mandate is in a section of canon law called “penalties for particular offences title III: Usurpation of ecclesiastical offices and offences committee in their exercise.” This section of canon law has nothing to do with schism. This is even confirmed by expert in Canon Law Cardinal Lara: "The act of consecrating a bishop (without the pope's permission) is not itself a schismatic act," Cardinal Lara, President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law, in La Repubblica, October 7, 1988) It is important to understand that every act of schism is an act of disobedience but not every act of disobedience is an act of schism. How can Lefebvre be excommunicated for schism when there was no mention of schism in the canonical warning? How can Lefebvre be excommunicated for schism when consecrating a Bishop without a papal mandate is not in itself schismatic? It appears that Lefebvre was not validly excommunicated! Lefebvre responded to this unjust excommunication by citing canon 1323 in his defense. Canon 1323 §4 states that no one can receive a penalty if they acted under grave fear or reason of necessity. Canon 1323 paragraph 7 adds to this by stating that if the person believed that they were acting out of grave fear: they do not receive a penalty. Have a look: Can. 1323 No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept: 4° acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls; 7° thought, through no personal fault, that some one of the circumstances existed which are mentioned in nn. 4 or 5. As seen above, Lefebvre could not have received any excommunication in the first place. Lefebvre believed he was acting out of grave fear and that there was a reason of necessity. His grave fear was that the Tridentine mass would be abrogated and lost forever. His intent was to save souls. The consecration of Bishops was not an intrinsically evil act and was definitely not an act of schism. It is important to understand when there is doubt in Canon Law, the benefit is always given to the accused. Unless of course you’re a Catholic faithful to tradition... then you get the boot! Here is a quote from Lefebvre proving that he does not support schism: -Archbishop Lefebvre to his society “I beseech you to remain attached to the See of Peter, to the Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of all Churches, in the integral Catholic Faith, expressed in the various creeds of our Catholic Faith, in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, in conformity with what you were taught in your seminary.” (Message given to his priestly society) Summary: Archbishop Lefebvre along with the Bishops were not validly excommunicated because: -The decree given contained errors -The decree given contradicted the canonical warning -Lefebvre was charged for a crime he did not commit -Lefebvre’s actions were backed by canon 1323 -Canon 1323 prevents Lefebvre from receiving a penalty In addition to the above reasons: -Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications The SSPX is not a schismatic society because: -Consecrating bishops without a papal mandate is not a schismatic act -The SSPX has never denied the authority of the Pope -The SSPX receives its jurisdiction out of canon law -The SSPX upholds the faith and morals of the Church and refuses to accept heresy -The SSPX obeys the Pope in all things as long as they don’t contradict the unchangeable dogmas of the Church -The SSPX is allowed to resist a Pope who teaches heresy according to the statements of countless Popes, Saints, and Divine Law. -The Council of Trent and Quo Primum permit the SSPX to celebrate the Tridentine mass without any fear of penalty -The SSPX offers the Tridentine Mass in a time when Catholics find themselves in a state of necessity
Very well written and logical constructed defense of the sspx. I recently saw the debate on youtube with Jeff Cassman and David Gordon. "Is the sspx in schism?" Gordon makes some very good points that the sspx is in schism. Can you please watch the debate and comment. I and others would very much appreciate your feedback.
@wjm4268 Thank you! I watched some of it. I think Jeff Cassman won the debate. Watch how Cassman closes the debate towards the end of the video. He does a really good job. All Tim Gordon does is cite quotes from people who have no authority. The SSPX prays for the Pope at every Mass. And they also reject the heresies which are contained in Vatican II and the modern encyclicals. They are one of the few groups today that still hold the true faith. God bless Archbishop Lefebvre.
Wow! Did you compile most of this information yourself, or did you have extensive help from others? I have for years being trying to look for actual definite proof on this case, but mostly have run into vague claims and assumptions. You have being incredibly thorough. Also where did you find your sources, besides canon law? Reply in your own time. Thank you, God bless.
@@leomalone823 thanks. I’m just good at doing research. Most of the sources are simply found in canon law. The rest of the sources can be found in a mini book I wrote defending the SSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre. Highly recommend the video debate with Michael Davies. Davies makes a great defense of the Archbishop Lefebvre.
This short video explains that the SSPX was never in any schism nor outside the Church. Many Catholics rely on their priests to offer Holy Mass for them because there are no other clergy available to offer 2000 years worth of Sacred Tradition.
I’ll say this...I practice my Faith in an SSPX Chapel. I find nothing wrong with any of the teachings or practices. I’ve been a Catholic for 7 decades. Now I say this to those who speak out loudly on both sides of this issue. Take caution bringing scandal to your Mother’s son. You might think you know God’s Will, but do you? See you at Latin Mass 😇
@@BloodTar No protestant can ever go contextual with a critique. There are varying degrees of saints. Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.". So the greatest saint on earth at the time, St. John the Baptist, could not compare with the saints in Heaven. We have always taught that the saints in scripture refers to those who are real believers, as in they practice their faith. You, however, in wishing to find fault with Catholicism, nitpicking, caviling from the keyboard in a trollish fashion, have no one to gainsay your nonsense and you feel vindicated. You had your shot. How do you know your interpretation of scriptures is accurate? Try to answer that without saying you're the infallible interpreter of scripture. If you fail, as you will, you will only get angrier when you realize you THINK YOU are the infallible one. Right? The Church doesn't know, but you do. Am I right about that assessment? Research well, holiness, because you are guilty of a deep bias as observed from your statement. An infallible document like the bible needs an infallible interpreter, not 30 thousand interpreters who disagree on key issues.
carlistafilipino I support Traditional Catholicism as much as the next guy, but we must be wary of Sedevacantism. Its evil must not be allowed to overtake the Church. We mustn't have too much pride in having the Latin mass. It is Good, and amazing, but we mustn't be haughty.
Most everyone I run into in the SSPX has that Sedevacantist view. And they slam St. Faustina and the Chaplet of divine mercy devotion. Those guilty of accusing heresy are themselves guilty of the largest heresy. Publicly slandering the Pope is inf act cursing oneself. If you disgaree with teh Pope's latest staments, "shut up", and pray for him! Don't Martin Luther yourself.
Mater misericordiae remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/traditional-catholic-answers/item/2043-is-the-sspx-in-schism-a-point-by-point-rebuttal-to-cmtv-s-catholi-schism-video
We have Miraculous Medals available for 50 cents each. You can either call our offices or make a donation through our website with a note specifying your order. God bless you. 800-263-8160 fatima.org/donate/
I am really bothered with the lack of clarity regarding the status of SSPX in relation to Rome. There is certainty on the side of those who state SSPX is in full communion, and certainty on the side opposing this view. How is there not a clear answer? Incredibly frustrating
@@gogogolyra1340define full communion. Can you find me an example from history of a group being in “partial communion”? How does one attain “full” communion?
They’ve tried to help them come back under the Papacy. But because they’re prideful and refuse to do Novus Ordo Masses, they’ve resulted in being no longer a church under the Vatican. Under the Canon Law they’re more or less schismatics and operate as a separate denomination.
I pray that some day the SSPX will be united back into the Catholic Church. Until then, they are outside the church and except for confession and a few others duties, they should be avoided.
hello i wanted to attend the traditional latin mass but in my locality there isnt a priest who celebrates it but there is a mass celebrated by the sspx can i attend it does it fulfill my sunday obligation and does it justify for me to leave the new mass and attend the TLM celebrated by the sspx.
We believe so, and this was always Father Gruner's advice to people in this regard. You may be interested to see the Council of Trent's infallible definition of the tenet of divine law and Catholic dogma, by which the faithful are absolutely bound to the traditional rites of the Church: "If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church customarily used in the solemn administration of the Sacraments may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones, let him be anathema." (Session 7, Canon 13) Thus the traditional Roman Rite cannot lawfully be supplanted by a new rite by any authority whatsoever, not even by a Pope. (See also Father Gruner's discussion of this issue here: ruclips.net/video/rvqWbxsQ748/видео.html&lc=z12tdzjotyvzhhmca23chve4lnmoszzbw04) The SSPX's licit standing could hardly have been affected by the supposed process of suppression of the Society in 1975 - an utterly scandalous sham of juridical proceedings. (See sspx.org/en/legal-existence-sspx) As the members of the Society seem rightly to maintain, "Over and above the canonical question, there remains that of common sense: whether one must observe a censure when no crime can be pointed out, or when the identity or authority of the judge is unsure." (sspx.org/en/faq-page/wasnt-the-sspx-suppressed-faq3) God bless you.
@Thomas Gonsalves - If you are still looking to attend the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, I would suggest you to look at SSPX more carefully, as they have signed a deal with Rome. This is a complete reversal from the position held by Archbishop Lefebvre. Read the book "Open Letter to confused Catholics" (available free in english online), and learn the horrors that were left by the hierarchy at Vatican II, and later. Simply attending SSPX masses without understanding the errors of Vatican II will lead you straight back to the Novus Ordo into the hands of Modernists. To understand modernists, you will need to read the encyclicals by Pope Pius X (Lamentabili sane and Pascendi dominici gregis - available free in english online). Ave Maria.
@@williamavitt8264 i agree, you don't reform the Church OUTSIDE the Church. And pope francis is a terrible pope. Worse yet than criminals who were pope and had mistresses but when they mounted the podium on Sunday didn't give subversive "church of nice" error. 2 things can be true.
Why does SSPX have a problem with FSSP and vice cersa? Both groups use the 1962 Roman Missal so what is the difference? I can understand if SSPX used an older Missal but they don't. So why the problem? Even Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was okay with everything.
Of course we at The Fatima Center cannot speak for the SSPX or the FSSP. If there are issues here, the answer to your questions would have to come from a representative of the Society or the Fraternity.
We are at present a lay Marian apostolate, after the passing of our founding director, Father Nicholas Gruner, one year ago. Father Gruner was a diocesan priest (originally of Avellino, Italy and subsequently of Hyderabad, India), living and working in Ontario, Canada with his bishop's permission. Father offered Holy Mass exclusively according to the traditional Roman rite, and he was on very good terms with priests and faithful of the SSPX, but the apostolate has never been under the direction of the Society.
The SSPX IS in full communion. Incredible how many people still insist otherwise. The question isn't whether they're in full communion, because they are Catholic. They have an irregular canonical status, which is an internal Church matter that has no effect on the validity of their sacraments.
@@richardsellsaz6865 there is no such thing as partial communion with Rome, you either are or you aren't. If pope Benedict lifted the so called excommunication which wasn't rightly or justly given in the first place, then they are in communion
Áve María, grátia pléna, Dóminus técum. Benedícta tu in muliéribus, et benedíctus frúctus véntris túi, Iésus. Sáncta María, Máter Déi, óra pro nóbis peccatóribus, nunc et in hóra mórtis nóstrae. Ámen.
The SSPX does not teach this. While they carry on her full traditions, it's not the same as equating itself with the Church, as it would be a schismatic position.
SSPX isn’t a church at all under Canon Law. They have no ties to the Vatican as confirmed by Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Paul VI and Cardinal Burke. They’re effectively another denomination in this sense.
We would urge you to assist exclusively at the traditional rite of Mass, and not to be troubled by claims that it is schismatic to do so. The issue of the Society's present legal standing in the Church hinges on the very questionable validity of the supposed suppression of the Society in 1975. As members of the Society rightly maintain, "Over and above the canonical question, there remains that of common sense: whether one must observe a censure when no crime can be pointed out, or when the identity or authority of the judge is unsure." One honest admission which at last surfaced in 2007 with Pope Benedict's motu proprio Summorum Pontificum is that even legitimate Church authorities have no authority to dismantle the Church, such as by suppressing or forbidding from use the traditional rite of Holy Mass. It is a false and dangerous distortion of obedience (which St. Thomas calls sinful "indiscreet obedience, which obeys even in matters unlawful") that post-conciliar Church leaders have invoked against the functioning of the Society of St. Pius X. God bless you. sspx.org/en/faq-page/wasnt-the-sspx-suppressed-faq3 sspx.org/en/legal-existence-sspx sspx.org/en/what-canonical-status-sspx sspx.org/en/mass-locator
@@TheFatimaCenter a couple of things. Number one you don't have to go to an sspx Mass to attend a traditional Latin Mass. There is the fssp now and others. Second I thought the issue was in the 1980s where Pope John Paul II excommunicated Archbishop Lefae and the for Bishops he tried to consecrate. If he was told not to do that and he did it anyway wouldn't that be the crime. Not being disobedient about the traditional Latin Mass but being disobedient about consecrating Bishops that he was told not to.
@@KMF3 The Society is criticized on both counts, but the supposed excommunications would only have touched the Archbishop himself and the four bishops whom he consecrated. You might find the attached presentations by Fr. Gregory Hesse and Michael Davies of interest. ruclips.net/video/tjckUEBkkBI/видео.html ruclips.net/video/jK0h5qiui_w/видео.html
Paul Bevillard I think, though I'm not sure, that the presence of the reply feature is determined by what kind of device a poster is making his/her comment on.
Paul Bevillard I just cliicked on Roses of Time's name. It says, "This account has been terminated due to repeated or severe violations of our Terms of Service."
Schism is defined by the Code of Canon Law as: "the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him" That would mean that the SSPX is in schism.
But the SSPX is not guilty of either. As to communion, the SSPX have no qualms about administering the Eucharist to any properly prepared Catholic, and would allow their faithful to commune with other Catholics if divine and canon law were being duly observed in the celebration of the Sacraments. As to the refusal of submission, we know that men are not only *not* bound to obey a papal command that is contrary to divine law, but they are required to disobey it. Beyond this, the Code of Canon Law itself makes plain, that there are many cases when the law may be disregarded for one reason or another (doubt, grave inconvenience, etc.). It is the position of the SSPX, and I would say a very reasonable position, given that the Church's infallible definitions anathematize those who think it is possible for the approved rites of the Church for administering the Sacraments to be changed into other, new ones, or who would compel a priest to say Mass with some other Missal than that of Pius V, or who think that a new code of Canon Law could be acceptable which permits communio in sacris and other gravely sinful acts (by divine law) - and this is to say nothing of the many other moral perils, grave inconveniences and crises of conscience that may arise when a faithful Catholic is confronted with the insane contradictions of the Modernism now implemented - it is the position of the SSPX, I say, given all this, that one is certainly released from obedience to commands of hierarchs, even the pope, which are contrary to divine law, and one is excused by the Code of Canon Law itself (both the old and new code, often enough) from obedience to various sections of Canon Law now being used to pressure people into doing things contrary to Divine Law. This position is eminently reasonable, and has been defended by Saints and Doctors of the Church, great jurists and the Code of Canon Law itself. When the pope issues a command that can be obeyed without running the risk of such dangers, the SSPX would say he should be obeyed. So, in neither case is the SSPX guilty of schism. It would actually be more accurate to say that the pope is committing schismatic acts and acting as an (at least material) heretic, but that the competent authorities have not yet declared the manifest and obvious crisis in the Church, for a variety of reasons related to the impotence and degeneracy of modern times. The possibility of popes acting in such a manner has been regarded as a real possibility even by Doctors of the Church, such as St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Alphonsus Liguori, and also of often-cited authorities like Suarez, Cajetan, etc., and even by Blessed Pius IX.
If the Pope goes against the Magisterium, as Francis is doing, we are not in communion with his false teaching, and we reject it. If anyone is in schism it's the Vatican since Vatican II. The Catholic Church cannot reconcile with false churches. They must be reconciled with the One True Church, the Catholic Church. When was the last time you heard a priest, bishop, or cardinal say 'No salvation outside the Catholic Church?' I go to the Latin Mass every Sunday, but our pastor NEVER proclaims this. NOBODY DOES.
You are absolutely correct. The SSPX is in material schism, for many reasons, but primarily because they have committed the crime of refusing submission to the Roman pontiff. (one can see Churchmilitant.com's FBI episode "Catholi-schism" for many of these examples). One is also playing with fire by associating themselves with the SSPX. Remember Abp. Lefebvre died excommunicated, although the excommunications were lifted for the four illicitly ordained "bishops" as a mercy and overture toward reconciliation. Even though we have to submit to the Roman pontiff even if he is evil and/or teaches heresy, we can still resist. Remember some of the saints were excommunicated by the pope for resisting evil, but the Lord eventually vindicated them with the lifting of the excommunications. We can't run and hide in a schismatic organization, but must stay on the barque of Peter, no matter how much the water is cascading over the sides. Pope Boniface VIII, 1302: "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Catechism of the Council of Trent, Article IX: "Hence there are but three classes of persons excluded from the Church's pale: infidels, heretics and schismatics, and excommunicated persons." Pope Eugene IV, 1441 (Cantate Domino): "The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church can have a share in life eternal, but that they go into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels unless, before death, they are joined with her, and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation and they alone can receive an eternal recompense. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."
Brenda and Peter Greenen yawn. Submitting to the documents on religious liberty, ecumenism, and collegiality and the false spirit of Vatican II puts any Catholic in schism. If you follow the teachings of the post Conciliar Pope's then you are in schism. What they have done to the Church in the last 60 years or so is not Catholic. Plain and simple.
Brenda and Peter Greenen remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/traditional-catholic-answers/item/2043-is-the-sspx-in-schism-a-point-by-point-rebuttal-to-cmtv-s-catholi-schism-video
In the eyes of the modernist vatican 2 popes, the SSPX is in schism but I believe that in the eyes of GOD the SSPX is the one who is truly faithful to HIM.
The churchmen who presently control the Church are at odds with many of the Church's true teachings as well as with its traditional practices. For an explanation of these differences, see, for instance, the four-part article by Fr. Michel Somoulin, SSPX, about the problems with the New Catechism. sspx.org/en/new-catechism-catholic
@@gogogolyra1340 Narrow legalism does nothing to negate the faithfulness of the SSPX to Catholic Tradition. It is Pope Bergoglio who is the enemy of Tradition.
@@commissary4196 SSPX priests take an oath against modernism; which means they're faithful to the 2,000 years of the Papacy and Catholic doctrine/Tradition.
@Gregory Vess - Vatican II says Muslims adore the same God as Catholics, and has abandoned terms such as Heretics and Schismatics.At best SSPX are separated brethren, and should not be of any consequence to Rome, especially now because all Heretics, Schismatics, Muslims, Pagans, Atheists, etc. are signing deals with Rome. Ave Maria.
I'm sorry but one judgement by the court does not remove all previous history with the sspx. They are not in union with the chair of saint Peter. If the SSPX is not in schism why is it necessary for Pope Francis to give a indult for SSPX to hear confessions? I wish the SSPX was not in schism because I would rather not be forced in going to a novous ordo mass.
Truly the key to the question is in the history of the controversy. We urge you to investigate it thoroughly, with an open mind toward discovering who -- whether the Society, or the propagators of the Novus Ordo sacramentary -- is actually functioning licitly within the Church. We expect you will find it unnerving, to say the least, to have based your own participation in a form of worship condemned by both Catholic dogma and divine law, on the extremely questionable validity of the supposed suppression of the Society in 1975. As the members of the Society rightly maintain, "Over and above the canonical question, there remains that of common sense: whether one must observe a censure when no crime can be pointed out, or when the identity or authority of the judge is unsure." sspx.org/en/legal-existence-sspx sspx.org/en/faq-page/wasnt-the-sspx-suppressed-faq3 angeluspress.org/products/apologia-pro-marcel-lefebvre-vol-1 angeluspress.org/products/apologia-pro-marcel-lefebvre-vol-2 angeluspress.org/products/apologia-pro-marcel-lefebvre-vol-3 ruclips.net/video/rvqWbxsQ748/видео.html
John of Antwerp: how does the Roman pontiff describe himself his behavior, the way he treats the Almighty and His Sheep? I tell you what listening to the SSPX brings some relief from the oppression I have been feeling with the horrible and most disgusted and repulsive sex scandals in the Roman Catholic Church. Oh yes by all means, I would like to visit an SSPX Church. In the Catholic Church, the followers of Satan the rebellious fallen angel will persecute any faith that does not submit or bend to their requests and will. OBEDIENCE is the magic word that is being used for rape and commit other immoral sexual abuses. There is no faith out there that is good in the sight of the Clergy only the unremorseful predatory faith aims at raping our children and lie pertinently to the faithful. And we are saying NO and NO MORE.
The SSPX has place them self in in Schism by not following the Mideastern of the church on the Emaciate Consecration, and following the council of trent. I do wish they could work things out with Rome. I too love the Latin Mass. The Pope has the last word on this.
Isnt the ordination of bishops outside of the Pope an ecclesiastical crime? this is the problem with the SSPX. i laud theie fidelity to the magesterium of the saints of the church but when they ordained bishops in opposition to the pope while not formally a schimatic move but is in its actions schismatic. I do beleive the society is Catholic but is illicit as a group.
The Society of St. Pius X has published a series of articles explaining their position in this issue. A three-part theological study is followed by a five-part canonical study, all of which can be found through the initial link. sspx.org/en/theological-study-1988-consecrations-1
You don't know what you're talking about. It is not "in its actions" schismatic. Unless you can prove that Archbishop Lefebvre lied about his intention dozens and dozens of times.
Rome says FSSPX has no power to listen to confessions, due to the excommunication a divinis, although they are not excommunicated, Pope Francis extended the power to listen to confessions, after year of Mercy, my doubt is, once only confession is licit, Can I have communion in their chapel, because it is said the only Sacrament allowed is confession. Clear me up please! Can I invoke the state of need from Canonical code, I don't like modern masses in many parishes around here and I can't kneel for Communion.
The issue of the Society’s present legal standing in the Church hinges on the very questionable validity of the supposed suppression of the Society in 1975. sspx.org/en/legal-existence-sspx As the members of the Society rightly maintain, "Over and above the canonical question, there remains that of common sense: whether one must observe a censure when no crime can be pointed out, or when the identity or authority of the judge is unsure." sspx.org/en/faq-page/wasnt-the-sspx-suppressed-faq3 angeluspress.org/products/apologia-pro-marcel-lefebvre-vol-1 angeluspress.org/products/apologia-pro-marcel-lefebvre-vol-2 angeluspress.org/products/apologia-pro-marcel-lefebvre-vol-3
@Armando Alemida - Why dont you like the modern masses? "St." Pope Paul VI promulgated it at Vatican II. By the way FSSPX has long left the position held by Archbishop Lefebvre, and are on their merry way to Rome.
@@CatholicTruth I attend two sundays in FSSPX and other two sundays modern Mass, because I don´t like seeing people clapping and singing birthday in a Mass, also it is very difficult to kneel for Communion, I was told not even try to kneel, if I could have a document to show in order to kneel, this does not happen in Tridentine Mass, Almighty God the Father has spoken to a colombian Exorcist Priest, about whom has allowed the Communion in hand, Heaven does not accept this kind of Communion, even a Pope had allowed. Catholics wake up.
@Armando Almeida - What is it about the modern mass that bothers you? If it was promulgated by "St." Pope Paul VI, shouldn't it be good and true? You don't need to worry about constant kneeling and genuflections, and you can also receive the Sacred Eucharist by a charming lay person in the New Mass. The best part is the Priest wont talk about Hell, and might even allow 'lay persons' to say Homilies. In the future you can also have drone deliveries of the "consecrated" Eucharist. ruclips.net/video/XugFmYtKaT4/видео.html Ave Maria.@@armandoalmeida4414
+Jerusalem Knight , I find Michael Voris to be quite helpful for any Catholic who is humbling and sincerely seeking the Truth. Because Voris has allowed himself to be filled with such pride and arrogance, the Truth will always be the opposite of what Voris proclaims because pride by it's very nature ALWAYS opposes Truth. Since Voris, due to his pride, has so viciously attacked the SSPX we can be certain they are a great gift from God in these Dark End Times. Voris's vicious attack of the SSPX is reminiscent of the proud, arrogant Pharisee's vicious attack of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Like father like son.
+Kurt Homan i agree he has a certain style that is rough and arogant as we all have our faults. My father always told me to stay with rome, i know there are alot of problems with the current church but for the sake of us who arnt learned in these theological questions i think it is safest to trust in god follow his vicar and weather the storm. I refuse to believe god would abandon us so completly that the true faith was restricted to a small group like the sspx. I have never attended a latin mass or traditionalist parish, will i be damned becuase the novus ordo rites are invalid. Where peter is there is the church, i hope this sspx situation will be resolved and we can come to a solution to these problems.
Jerusalem Knight, " I refuse to believe god would abandon us so completly that the true faith was restricted to a small group like the sspx.".....It is not a matter of God abandoning us, but rather modern man abandoning God. Sadly, since VII Satan has gained the hearts of the majority of Bishops, and through them the majority of Priests and the laity. Even though the Novus Ordo is an inspiration from the Devil it still retains enough of the sacrificial nature of the Mass to still bestow Grace. In order for an individual to receive that Grace his heart must be open to receive. Most people who go to the Novus Ordo have no desire in their hearts to receive any Grace, they go simply to gratify their egos all to the loss of their eternal souls. I have been going to daily Mass for nearly 24 years now, and if I had a Latin Mass available to me I would choose that over the NO. The Latin Mass Catholics as a whole have a much more mature understanding of the Darkness that has entered the Church since VII. Most of those I attend daily Mass with at the NO Mass don't have a clue because they don't want to have a clue. We need a chastisement from God in the absolute worse way, and because of God's infinite love for us, we are about to get it. Praise be Jesus Christ !!!
St. Peter gave a different answer to the question of how to resolve such conflicts: "We ought to obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29) It is by no means safe at all to follow anyone, even churchmen, away from the teachings and traditions of the Catholic Faith.
*****, "We ought to obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29), Ever meet a heretic that didn't believe he was obeying God? Every man in these Dark End Times believes in his own lie.
I thought the issue is that the priests don't have licit faculties? Therefore they are indeed committing ecclesiastical crimes by hearing confessions, etc.?
izbavynasotlukavago Here is an article by an SSPX priest explaining the issue: archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/supplied_jurisdiction/validity_of_confessions_1.htm
+TheFatimaCenter I believed that their administration of sacraments was valid, but illicit and that it is not recommended to approach them. The page provided is their interpretation, but what does the Holy See have to say? Isn't there an official document (not an SSPX page) addressing the issue? Further, Pope Francis, in the year of mercy (and only throughout that year), shall allow for SSPX priests to hear confessions licitly. If that is so, doesn't it mean that indeed they are illicit?
Republic of MAC Father Gruner saw no true merit in the "official" warnings and disparagement alleged against the SSPX. In the meantime, it is no simple matter to determine what is meant by Francis' letter of September 1. www.ncregister.com/daily-news/some-canonical-question-regarding-pope-francis-year-of-mercy-indulgence/
Republic of MAC remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/traditional-catholic-answers/item/2043-is-the-sspx-in-schism-a-point-by-point-rebuttal-to-cmtv-s-catholi-schism-video
So I should not attend another Mass in my state as there are no SSPX, FSSP and the closest TLM is 2:30 from my home. Anyone I have had discussions with that are a part of the SSPX are very condemning of those of us who only have Novus Ordo, even though the Sacraments are valid, I am told I’m going to hell because of my attendance at a valid Mass. To many are very condescending toward people like myself, of the ones who have been kind(few and far between), they have told me priests have tried to address the attitudes surrounding many of their parishes. I have never condemned anyone from any church of SSPX, but I can assure you the dealings with the many I’ve come in contact with have turned me off. I guess I’ll stay home, because evidently going to Novus Ordo is a mortal sin, and all of us who attend are headed to the firery Gates. Maybe instead of condemning and rejecting Vatican II, why not try to correct what is supposedly wrong!
Thank you for your comment. An axiom addressing this situation has it that if there is no (suitable) Mass to miss, then one has not committed the sin of missing Mass. The Society of St. Pius X's website offers advice about what can be done to sanctify Sundays and Holy Days in cases where a traditional Mass is not available. Hopefully you will find it possible to make the long drive periodically, perhaps once a month? God bless you. sspx.org/en/news-events/news/new-video-no-obligation-attend-new-mass-9818
This is absolutely untrue. Archbishop LeFebvre consecrated 4 bishops in direct contravention of the Holy Father and was excommunicated. Catholics do not satisfy the Sunday obligation attending Mass at An SSSP church unless there is no other Catholic Church nearby. The Fraternal Society of St. Peter, which is in communion with the pope, offers traditional Latin Masses.
not helpful at all. I am still confused. If there is not issue with SSPX, that why are people beating around the bush about them? If you are not with the Church and under the authority of the Holy Father you stand apart from it. Seems simple enough to me.
The question is a very important one. We encourage you to pursue your investigation of the matter in fuller sources. sspx.org/en/legal-existence-sspx sspx.org/en/faq-page/wasnt-the-sspx-suppressed-faq3
@Br. Josh1198 - Simple answer - Satan hates Latin, and so does the Vatican II hierarchy. Thus SSPX and those Priests who offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as it was done since the time of St. Peter and St. Paul until Vatican II had to be removed. BTW, SSPX is now with Rome, and has long left the position held by Archbishop Lefebvre. Ave Maria.
Just because they do Latin Mass doesn't mean you should go there; they are in schism. Lucifer, Eve, and Adam fell from pride and disobedience. We should strive against those vices. The Latin Mass, although beautiful and reverential liturgy, becoming an idol is just as prideful as sex becoming an idol in the mainstream world, it's just a classier form of idolatry.
Fidelity to the traditional liturgy is fidelity to the divine law and to the Catholic Faith. Consider please this solemn and infallible definition of Catholic dogma, that we are bound in conscience to adhere to these traditional liturgical customs, since no one in the Church, not even a Pope, has the authority to set aside these received and approved rites for a new rite:: “If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be despised, or may be freely omitted by the ministers without sin, or may be CHANGED INTO OTHER NEW RITES BY ANY CHURCH PASTOR WHOMSOEVER, let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, Session VII, Canon 13, Dz. 856) ruclips.net/video/rvqWbxsQ748/видео.html
TheFatimaCenter The Church has complete authority to structure the Mass and determine the language(s) used for Mass and all the sacraments. To say otherwise is to deny the authority of the Pope, the Church, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Up until the Council of Trent, there were many "versions" of the Mass. In fact, Pope St. Pius V permitted any ritual of the Mass older than 200 years to continue alongside the Tridentine Mass. So even after the promulgation of the Roman Rite of 1570, there continued other forms of the Mass. And, in addition, there were several revisions of the Roman Rite up until the Second Vatican Council. The Last Supper was not in Latin. The first Masses were in Greek and Jewish. Many saints said small Masses in prison and chaplains say Mass before going into battle. Your quotation involves not changing a Mass in a particular form, but not if there are other forms of Mass. Please stop this idolatry of a language and liturgy in some vain attempt to court a schismatic spirit. Even if that is not your intent, some may begin to entertain the idea. We are called to be obedient despite bad clergy. Martin Luther had legitimate complaints about abuses and yet he was not justified. The Orthodox weren't even technically wrong on Filioque, but due to their arrogance and disobedience, caused a great divide.
In fact the Church has been given no such complete or arbitrary authority by Our Lord over the Sacraments as you describe. Sacred Tradition, rooted in the teachings and institutions of Our Lord Himself, and established in the Church's ancient rites through His Apostles, is not an open field for the inventions of modern-day churchmen. Saint Paul warns us that we are bound in conscience to this patrimony of the Church -- "If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema." (Gal. 1:9) -- for this immemorial body of teachings and practices established in the Church through the Apostles is ultimately of divine institution: "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you" (1 Cor. 11:23); "For I delivered unto you first of all, which I also received" (1 Cor. 15:3). Organic developments and accretions do not constitute the sort of "change" at issue. If you are interested in making a study of the issue, Fr. Adrian Fortescue's history of the Roman Rite is available online. archive.org/details/massstudyofroman00fort We offer two other magisterial references to the fact that we are bound to the traditional rites of the Sacraments, similar to that already supplied from the Council of Trent: 1) The Council of Constance under Pope Martin V (1417, Session 39, “On the Profession To Be Made by the Pope”) affirmed that even the Pope is bound no less than others of the faithful to the traditional rites of the Sacraments: “Since the Roman pontiff exercises such great power among mortals, it is right that he be bound all the more by the incontrovertible bonds of the faith and by THE RITES THAT ARE TO BE OBSERVED REGARDING THE CHURCH’S SACRAMENTS. We therefore decree and ordain, in order that the fullness of the faith may shine in a future Roman pontiff with singular splendor from the earliest moments of his becoming pope, that henceforth whoever is to be elected Roman pontiff shall make the following confession and profession in public, in front of his electors, before his election is published: ‘... I will firmly believe and hold the Catholic Faith, according to the traditions of the apostles, of the general Councils and of other holy fathers, ... and I will preserve this faith unchanged to the last dot ..., and likewise I will follow and observe in every way THE RITE HANDED DOWN OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL SACRAMENTS of the Catholic Church. ...’” 2) The Council of Florence under Pope Eugenius IV (1439, Decree for the Greeks, Dz. 692) solemnly defined the teaching that the Sacraments must be confected according to the traditions of the various ritual churches (e.g., Latin, Byzantine, Alexandrian, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite, Chaldean) - that is, to the received and approved rites proper to each of the Church’s liturgical traditions: “We have likewise defined that the Body of Christ is truly effected in unleavened or leavened wheaten bread; and that priests must effect the Body of Our Lord in either one of these, and each one namely ACCORDING TO THE CUSTOM OF HIS CHURCH, whether of the West or of the East.”
TheFatimaCenter Ok yeah they're not supposed to change the form of a liturgy for the Mass... even though they have changed the Latin Mass itself before, but there's nothing against a council approving a new Missal... again they had different forms of the Mass pre-Vatican 1. Even Fulton Sheen obeyed Vatican II and backed the Novus Ordo, although many abuse the liturgy, which is definitely a problem. Those 'rites' you are mentioning include the different forms of the Mass. Only if the Pontiff bans the Mass entirely or adds in heretical doctrine would there be a major issue, but that would probably cause an intervention from God Himself imo. I really don't care to continue this discussion, as I've had these debates ad nauseum with like-minded sedevacantist heretics. You guys are just picking another form of poison; I'm just trying to charitably warn you, and I LOVE the Latin Mass. You are in my prayers, God bless.
They are in schism. Rome might not say they are to keep them close and in the hope to have them return to the Church, but they ordained bishops without the consent of the Holy Father. Therefore all who were baptised, confirmed, given Communion or ordained after this deed, which causes them to be excommunicated, all this was invalid
The Society of St. Pius X has published a series of articles explaining their position regarding questions of schism and excommunication consequent to the 1988 consecrations. A three-part theological study is followed by a five-part canonical study, all of which can be found through this initial link: sspx.org/en/theological-study-1988-consecrations-1 On the present legal status of the Society, we find this article written by a professor of Canon Law: sspx.org/en/legal-existence-sspx We also recommend the following article on this subject by Dr. Brian McCall www.catholicfamilynews.org/blog/2018/6/30/understanding-the-1988-episcopal-consecrations-as-licit-under-higher-law
@@TheFatimaCenter I'm sure that through a lot of legal mumbojumbo, you could even prove Christ is not God, just like many discard Vaticanum II. However, we must stick to the facts. The bishops of the SSPX were excommunicated and then accepted back into the Church and so were the SSPX followers íf they acknowledged the validity of Vaticanum II and the authority of Peter. The SSPX, in the same roundabout way, finds ways in which they think they do not have to comply to these demands and still be in full communion. It's very simple, you either fall in line and be a critical and helpfull body of priests inside the Church or you are a bunch of protestants wearing catholic vestments outside the Church. Make your choice wisely
Yes they are in schism. There are traditional Latin Masses that are in full communion with the Catholic Church, SSPX is not one of them. Watch Church Militant, no happy flappy modernist, on how the SSPX is not in communion with the Church and why. I pray that you all will come back to full communion as I believe the Latin rite is proper and reverent.
I just don't understand why we need Latin Mass. It looks beautiful but you can't understand one thing spoken unless you know the language. I prefer understandable language to be used in Mass and my focus on the Mass is sacrifice (Eucharist) .
@@wilsonwong4029 @Wilson Wong - There are three sacred languages (Hebrew, Latin and Greek) on the Cross. St. Peter and St. Paul offered the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in Latin, and as Roman Catholics, we must continue to do so. Also, Satan hates Latin, which explains why Pope Paul VI and his buddies promulgated the Novus Ordo Missae (in vernacular). Strangely, conservative Catholics (in the conciliar Church, also known as Novus Ordo) only want the bells and whistles of the Latin Rite, but despise the pre-Vatican II Theology. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and Sacred Theology go hand in hand. Both were usurped at Vatican II, and replaced with Vatican II theology, under the watchful eyes of avowed Modernists, who are still running the show. Ave Maria.
@@CatholicTruth I understand Latin is an official language of the Church as many doctrines were written in Latin. However the language has been dead for a few hundred years. Never in the Bible or Church Fathers insisting that Latin must be used in Mass. Wouldn't God wants us to worship him with many languages just as the day of Pentecost, the disciples were filled with Holy Spirit and they gave praise to God in many languages. If Latin is sacred, why don't the Bible is in Latin. It does not serve any purpose of using Latin as God is Almighty and not bounded by languages.By the way Latin was used in the Church only in the 4th century. The early manuscripts are written in Hebrew or Aramaic.
@@@wilsonwong4029 - I can see your comment through notification, but dont see it here. You said Latin is a dead language. Sure. But thats what makes it special. You cannot change any words or their meaning, and you are certain that what St. Peter and St. Paul said and meant centuries ago when they offered the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, is exactly the same what the Priest today who offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is saying. For example, the text of the Our Father (Pater Noster), given by Our Lord Himself, has never changed in Latin. However, in English, there are many variations, and the most recent one comes from Pope Francis, who said a few months ago that the phrase 'lead us not into temptation' needs to be revised. Have you read the Council of Trent's decree on this very phrase? If Our Lord's prayer can be tampered with, where do we stop, and why should we stop? Ave Maria.
@Catholic Truth I understand Latin is an official language of the Church as many doctrines were written in Latin. However the language has been dead for a few hundred years. Never in the Bible or Church Fathers insisting that Latin must be used in Mass. Wouldn't God wants us to worship him with many languages just as the day of Pentecost, the disciples were filled with Holy Spirit and they gave praise to God in many languages. If Latin is sacred, why don't the Bible is in Latin. It does not serve any purpose of using Latin as God is Almighty and not bounded by languages.By the way Latin was used in the Church starting only in the 4th century. The early manuscripts are written in Hebrew or Aramaic.
![Eminem - Fuel (feat. JID) [Official Lyric Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/t5H_CewqpKA/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you so much for answering these questions. Now I can proceed with peace of mind to carry on my ardent desire to hear the Traditional Latin Mass which as far as I know only the SSPX holds here in my country the Philippines. Thanks be to God!✝️🙏🏼💙💖
I am in Kenya and firmly resolved to attend Traditional Latin Mass, thank you SSPX
Wow great to hear people in Africa also follow the traditional catholic religion, I didn’t know there were traditional Catholics in Africa
@@ProgressiveConservative We've been graced by the SSPX missionaries.
God speed!
@@ProgressiveConservative Thanks to Archbishop Lefebvre, who was a missionary on Africa (especially Senegal) for almost 30 years
🇮🇹❤️🇰🇪
I was confirmed by Archbishop Lefebvre Himself in 1985, what a privilege! A Saint...
*JEALOUS*
Your blessed my friend. Pray for me to receive this sacrament I am 35
He was heretic
@@jayjat-df7sl how so? What did he preach that was against the deposit of the faith? I hope you didn't fall for the lie that he was a sedevacantist.
@@jayjat-df7sl he was not. What is your basis? Please cite popes previous Vatican ii
Archbishop Lefebvre, of blessed memory, was a modern-day St. Athanasius. God bless him and God bless the SSPX
Lefebvre was good.. but not that good..no comparison
Italian Traditional Catholic how so exactly ! Have you read the bishops life sense childhood. I would truly say he possibly will be a saint one day.
@@italiantraditionalcatholic2390 Fr Malachi Martin said he believe that he was sent by God. He’s the reason why the Latin Mass has survived. Archbishop Lefebvre crucified himself to preserve the Latin Mass. His Revolution put so much pressure on the modernists in the Vatican.
He was excommunicated
What Saint? He disobeyed Pope John Paul II (by ordaining bishops against explicit papal orders and warnings, so he was excommunicated). He resisted and rejected Church magisterium like Vatican II (especially on liturgy and religious freedom). He was filled with pride (the opposite of humility which is the foundation of holiness and sainthood) thinking he’s more Catholic than the Pope. His SSPX followers and sympathizers carry on and participate in this sin of pride on the part of Lefebvre.
Going to my very first SSPX Mass today. So excited!
What state?
Vienna, Austria :)
oh lol. I go to one is PA, USA
Good for you orth82!
Which Chapel in PA? I go to the one in Northeast PA
As a recent revert to the Catholic Church and someone who has been monitoring the situation regarding Vatican II and the Traditionalist movement, I am very thankful for this video since it helped clarify a lot of misconceptions that I had about the SSPX in the first place. I do consider myself a mild traditionalist and also an Eastern Catholic so admittedly I am concerned about the state of the Church today amidst all the controversy. However, knowing that the SSPX is not in schism, I'm happy to see that one day the SSPX won't be as much of complicated matter in the Church as it is now.
FSSP is a Latin Mass ordinariate that is in full-union with Rome.
In light of current issues this is tremendously helpful. May the Almighty Father rest these good men's souls
R.I.P both of these great men!
Long live the SSPX! I go to their Masses here in their priory in Manila, and they have helped my soul in my desire for eternal salvation. You can't get it anywhere in the Novus Ordo parishes these days. The SSPX is the way to go towards authentic Catholic teachings. May their tribe increase!
Paolo Miguel Cobangbang The SSPX will restore the Catholic Church to her former glory, and the Latin Mass will be fully restored. Count on it. Our Lady said so.
Patrick Melody Amen!!!!
Paolo Miguel Cobangbang Sir, which Church in Manila? The only church I know that celebrates TLM is the Holy Family Parish in QC. Thank you po kapatid! May the good Lord bless us!
OLVC?
@@coinpat I suggest going to an FSSP Parish if you can instead or Institute of Christ the King Sovereign since both organizations are in full communion with Rome.
Fast forward to Oct 2019.
Now who’s in Schism??
Oh it's awful now. Novus ordo modernists will attack the traditional Catholic priests and get them canned
Devout Catholic ... it’s truly sad today particularly after the Amazon non sense. I’ve been practicing a Catholic Life in an SSPX Chapel and at 70 I’m convinced I’m living holy.
I worked in a Catholic school and it was so awful. They had athiests and lapsed Catholics teaching. It was also.very novus ordo friendly and anti Pre Vatican II
The Vatican II sect with its heretic pope of course...
After so many years, more and more pple do now realize that there might be something wrong with the "pope" and the church. They have no clue, what's going on and don't know, what to do. But instead of searching the true church with the true catholic faith, they just want to stick with a heretic(pope), an apostate church, and the few good, not even validily ordained, priests.
So JP2 gave SSPX the boot .Does that de-legitimize them? Yet he LEGITIMIZES DIVINE MERCY, as well as goes along with he supposedly verified imposter posing as Sr. Lucia, who said that God condemns no one to hell. (Try telling that to the 3 Children of Fatima.)Also, JP2 said that the 3rd Secret of Fatima was about his attempted assassination. As Jesus said, we will know them by their fruits.
RIP Fr. Gruner
Just had my children confirmed by Bishop Fellay of SSPX, most beautiful service and mass!!!!
SSPX Born and raised. From Phoenix OLSA
I went to our lady of Sorrows in Phoenix a few weeks ago
It's helpful to my soul . Amen humility is very important in our society.
Is the SSPX in schism? No, never!
Before the consecrations took place, the Society of Saint Pius X had been growing very popular. It was getting a lot of attention because it continued to use the Tridentine Mass. The Society did its best to dodge attempts of “modernization.” This caused many modernists in Rome to call the society a “rebel group.”
Note: I am going to get very legalistic now, so pay close attention to the codes of Canon Law that I cite.
On June 15th 1988 Lefebvre stated that he was going to consecrate four bishops so that his society could continue to grow. Lefebvre wished to expand his society in order to save souls and preserve the faith. The congregation of Bishops in Rome would then send a Canonical Warning to Lefebvre. The warning stated that if Lefebvre consecrated the Bishops without a papal mandate that he would receive excommunication. Canon 1013 and 1382 were cited in order to defend the possible excommunication. No other canons were cited and NO mention of schism was made.
Archbishop Lefebvre would then consecrate the Bishops without papal permission which would result in his excommunication. The congregation of Bishops would then send him the letter of excommunication. This letter, however, contained a very big error. The letter stated that Lefebvre committed a schismatic act by consecrating the Bishops. The letter cited canon 1364 defending its accusation of schism. The problem with this is that NO mention of canon 1364 was given in the Canonical Warning. NO mention of schism was given in the Canonical Warning.
Lefebvre was warned that he would receive excommunication for violating canon 1382 but then received excommunication for violating canon 1364. How can Lefebvre be excommunicated for a crime that he didn’t even commit?
Here is an example of how absurd this is:
A person robs a bank and does not kill anyone. Then the judge decides to send him to prison for robbery and first degree murder. Not only is it absurd to sentence someone for a crime they didn’t commit, it is also unjust.
The fact that Archbishop Lefebvre was unjustly excommunicated raises questions to whether the excommunication was valid.
The following day after the excommunication, July 2, 1988, Pope John Paul II issued an apostolic letter Motu Proprio "Ecclesia Dei" in which he solemnly confirmed both the excommunications and the existence of the schism. One must wonder if Pope John Paul II even knew about the excommunication. It is rather odd that he confirmed the excommunication one day after it occurred. If John Paul II did not know that the excommunication occurred until one day later then that means that there is doubt as to how it was decreed.
Some have tried to argue that consecrating a Bishop without papal mandate constitutes a schism but they’re wrong. It does not!
Here is the definition of schism according to canon law:
Can. 751 ...Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
No where in canon 751 does it say that consecrating a Bishop without a papal mandate is a schismatic act. In fact, consecrating a Bishop without a papal mandate is in a section of canon law called “penalties for particular offences title III: Usurpation of ecclesiastical offices and offences committee in their exercise.” This section of canon law has nothing to do with schism.
This is even confirmed by expert in Canon Law Cardinal Lara:
"The act of consecrating a bishop (without the pope's permission) is not itself a schismatic act," Cardinal Lara, President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law, in La Repubblica, October 7, 1988)
It is important to understand that every act of schism is an act of disobedience but not every act of disobedience is an act of schism.
How can Lefebvre be excommunicated for schism when there was no mention of schism in the canonical warning? How can Lefebvre be excommunicated for schism when consecrating a Bishop without a papal mandate is not in itself schismatic? It appears that Lefebvre was not validly excommunicated!
Lefebvre responded to this unjust excommunication by citing canon 1323 in his defense. Canon 1323 §4 states that no one can receive a penalty if they acted under grave fear or reason of necessity. Canon 1323 paragraph 7 adds to this by stating that if the person believed that they were acting out of grave fear: they do not receive a penalty. Have a look:
Can. 1323 No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept:
4° acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls;
7° thought, through no personal fault, that some one of the circumstances existed which are mentioned in nn. 4 or 5.
As seen above, Lefebvre could not have received any excommunication in the first place. Lefebvre believed he was acting out of grave fear and that there was a reason of necessity. His grave fear was that the Tridentine mass would be abrogated and lost forever. His intent was to save souls. The consecration of Bishops was not an intrinsically evil act and was definitely not an act of schism.
It is important to understand when there is doubt in Canon Law, the benefit is always given to the accused. Unless of course you’re a Catholic faithful to tradition... then you get the boot!
Here is a quote from Lefebvre proving that he does not support schism:
-Archbishop Lefebvre to his society
“I beseech you to remain attached to the See of Peter, to the Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of all Churches, in the integral Catholic Faith, expressed in the various creeds of our Catholic Faith, in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, in conformity with what you were taught in your seminary.” (Message given to his priestly society)
Summary:
Archbishop Lefebvre along with the Bishops were not validly excommunicated because:
-The decree given contained errors
-The decree given contradicted the canonical warning -Lefebvre was charged for a crime he did not commit -Lefebvre’s actions were backed by canon 1323
-Canon 1323 prevents Lefebvre from receiving a penalty
In addition to the above reasons:
-Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications
The SSPX is not a schismatic society because:
-Consecrating bishops without a papal mandate is not a schismatic act
-The SSPX has never denied the authority of the Pope
-The SSPX receives its jurisdiction out of canon law
-The SSPX upholds the faith and morals of the Church and refuses to accept heresy -The SSPX obeys the Pope in all things as long as they don’t contradict the unchangeable dogmas of the Church
-The SSPX is allowed to resist a Pope who teaches heresy according to the statements of countless Popes, Saints, and Divine Law.
-The Council of Trent and Quo Primum permit the SSPX to celebrate the Tridentine mass without any fear of penalty
-The SSPX offers the Tridentine Mass in a time when Catholics find themselves in a state of necessity
Very well written and logical constructed defense of the sspx. I recently saw the debate on youtube with Jeff Cassman and David Gordon. "Is the sspx in schism?" Gordon makes some very good points that the sspx is in schism. Can you please watch the debate and comment. I and others would very much appreciate your feedback.
@wjm4268 Thank you! I watched some of it. I think Jeff Cassman won the debate. Watch how Cassman closes the debate towards the end of the video. He does a really good job. All Tim Gordon does is cite quotes from people who have no authority. The SSPX prays for the Pope at every Mass. And they also reject the heresies which are contained in Vatican II and the modern encyclicals. They are one of the few groups today that still hold the true faith. God bless Archbishop Lefebvre.
Wow! Did you compile most of this information yourself, or did you have extensive help from others? I have for years being trying to look for actual definite proof on this case, but mostly have run into vague claims and assumptions. You have being incredibly thorough. Also where did you find your sources, besides canon law? Reply in your own time. Thank you, God bless.
@@leomalone823 thanks. I’m just good at doing research. Most of the sources are simply found in canon law. The rest of the sources can be found in a mini book I wrote defending the SSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre. Highly recommend the video debate with Michael Davies. Davies makes a great defense of the Archbishop Lefebvre.
What do you mean by the last sentence? " sspx offers the Tridentina Mass onnthe time Catholics find in necessity" something like that
This short video explains that the SSPX was never in any schism nor outside the Church. Many Catholics rely on their priests to offer Holy Mass for them because there are no other clergy available to offer 2000 years worth of Sacred Tradition.
God Bless the holy shepherds of the SSPX.
God Bless SSPX
We miss Fr. Gruner very much
I’ll say this...I practice my Faith in an SSPX Chapel. I find nothing wrong with any of the teachings or practices. I’ve been a Catholic for 7 decades.
Now I say this to those who speak out loudly on both sides of this issue. Take caution bringing scandal to your Mother’s son. You might think you know God’s Will, but do you?
See you at Latin Mass 😇
Archibishop LeFebre is our Catholic Faith Saviour. He will be a Saint one day.
@@BloodTar No protestant can ever go contextual with a critique. There are varying degrees of saints. Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.". So the greatest saint on earth at the time, St. John the Baptist, could not compare with the saints in Heaven. We have always taught that the saints in scripture refers to those who are real believers, as in they practice their faith. You, however, in wishing to find fault with Catholicism, nitpicking, caviling from the keyboard in a trollish fashion, have no one to gainsay your nonsense and you feel vindicated. You had your shot. How do you know your interpretation of scriptures is accurate? Try to answer that without saying you're the infallible interpreter of scripture. If you fail, as you will, you will only get angrier when you realize you THINK YOU are the infallible one. Right? The Church doesn't know, but you do. Am I right about that assessment? Research well, holiness, because you are guilty of a deep bias as observed from your statement. An infallible document like the bible needs an infallible interpreter, not 30 thousand interpreters who disagree on key issues.
I visited a Mass by SSPX for the first time tonight. 🙂
God Bless the SSPX and all independent Traditionalist organisations.
carlistafilipino I support Traditional Catholicism as much as the next guy, but we must be wary of Sedevacantism. Its evil must not be allowed to overtake the Church. We mustn't have too much pride in having the Latin mass. It is Good, and amazing, but we mustn't be haughty.
The SSPX isn't sedevacantist.
Most everyone I run into in the SSPX has that Sedevacantist view. And they slam St. Faustina and the Chaplet of divine mercy devotion. Those guilty of accusing heresy are themselves guilty of the largest heresy.
Publicly slandering the Pope is inf act cursing oneself. If you disgaree with teh Pope's latest staments, "shut up", and pray for him! Don't Martin Luther yourself.
SSPX is in schism
Mater misericordiae remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/traditional-catholic-answers/item/2043-is-the-sspx-in-schism-a-point-by-point-rebuttal-to-cmtv-s-catholi-schism-video
Where do i get the pin or medal to wear on my person
We have Miraculous Medals available for 50 cents each. You can either call our offices or make a donation through our website with a note specifying your order. God bless you.
800-263-8160
fatima.org/donate/
It’s so very sad there is so much of division in our church today.Please Pray,Pray.Pray.
SSPX thanks for saving me.
I am really bothered with the lack of clarity regarding the status of SSPX in relation to Rome. There is certainty on the side of those who state SSPX is in full communion, and certainty on the side opposing this view. How is there not a clear answer? Incredibly frustrating
I have stopped expecting any clarity on anything from the Vatican. I will follow my informed conscience and move on forward.
It's an inherent feature of Modernism and its adherents to be anything but clear.
They are not in full communion with the catholic church.
@@gogogolyra1340define full communion.
Can you find me an example from history of a group being in “partial communion”?
How does one attain “full” communion?
@@diegoazcuy300exactly; communion is like pregancy - you either are or you aren't.
Rome seem to not have the nerve to actually eject the SSPX from the Church, I find that very interesting.
They’ve tried to help them come back under the Papacy. But because they’re prideful and refuse to do Novus Ordo Masses, they’ve resulted in being no longer a church under the Vatican. Under the Canon Law they’re more or less schismatics and operate as a separate denomination.
Great explainations !!!
I pray that some day the SSPX will be united back into the Catholic Church. Until then, they are outside the church and except for confession and a few others duties, they should be avoided.
@thelogosproject7 do you home that this video is incorrect?
hello i wanted to attend the traditional latin mass but in my locality there isnt a priest who celebrates it but there is a mass celebrated by the sspx can i attend it does it fulfill my sunday obligation and does it justify for me to leave the new mass and attend the TLM celebrated by the sspx.
We believe so, and this was always Father Gruner's advice to people in this regard.
You may be interested to see the Council of Trent's infallible definition of the tenet of divine law and Catholic dogma, by which the faithful are absolutely bound to the traditional rites of the Church: "If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church customarily used in the solemn administration of the Sacraments may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones, let him be anathema." (Session 7, Canon 13)
Thus the traditional Roman Rite cannot lawfully be supplanted by a new rite by any authority whatsoever, not even by a Pope. (See also Father Gruner's discussion of this issue here: ruclips.net/video/rvqWbxsQ748/видео.html&lc=z12tdzjotyvzhhmca23chve4lnmoszzbw04)
The SSPX's licit standing could hardly have been affected by the supposed process of suppression of the Society in 1975 - an utterly scandalous sham of juridical proceedings. (See sspx.org/en/legal-existence-sspx)
As the members of the Society seem rightly to maintain, "Over and above the canonical question, there remains that of common sense: whether one must observe a censure when no crime can be pointed out, or when the identity or authority of the judge is unsure." (sspx.org/en/faq-page/wasnt-the-sspx-suppressed-faq3)
God bless you.
thanks you for replying i will attend the sspx mass this sunday please keep me in your prayers
@Thomas Gonsalves - If you are still looking to attend the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, I would suggest you to look at SSPX more carefully, as they have signed a deal with Rome. This is a complete reversal from the position held by Archbishop Lefebvre. Read the book "Open Letter to confused Catholics" (available free in english online), and learn the horrors that were left by the hierarchy at Vatican II, and later. Simply attending SSPX masses without understanding the errors of Vatican II will lead you straight back to the Novus Ordo into the hands of Modernists. To understand modernists, you will need to read the encyclicals by Pope Pius X (Lamentabili sane and Pascendi dominici gregis - available free in english online). Ave Maria.
I was raised Catholic. The church left me after Vatcan II. I returned to the origin. I am now Orthodox. Deo Gratias.
We are not in schism. It is the other way around.
God give us the strength to prevail
Martin Luther would have said the same thing
@@williamavitt8264 Anti-Pope Francis called Luther a great witness to the gospel. Shut up lol.
@@williamavitt8264 why many of your kind are saying that Abp Lefebvre = Martin Luther.
When the current pope, adore Luther quite much...
@@hesselfridyanto many of my kind? You mean "Catholics"? Protestants gonna prot
@@williamavitt8264 i agree, you don't reform the Church OUTSIDE the Church. And pope francis is a terrible pope. Worse yet than criminals who were pope and had mistresses but when they mounted the podium on Sunday didn't give subversive "church of nice" error. 2 things can be true.
Why does SSPX have a problem with FSSP and vice cersa? Both groups use the 1962 Roman Missal so what is the difference? I can understand if SSPX used an older Missal but they don't. So why the problem? Even Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was okay with everything.
Of course we at The Fatima Center cannot speak for the SSPX or the FSSP. If there are issues here, the answer to your questions would have to come from a representative of the Society or the Fraternity.
***** Then what group does The Fatima Center represent? The Novus Ordo crew or the even goofier Sedevacantists?
We are at present a lay Marian apostolate, after the passing of our founding director, Father Nicholas Gruner, one year ago. Father Gruner was a diocesan priest (originally of Avellino, Italy and subsequently of Hyderabad, India), living and working in Ontario, Canada with his bishop's permission. Father offered Holy Mass exclusively according to the traditional Roman rite, and he was on very good terms with priests and faithful of the SSPX, but the apostolate has never been under the direction of the Society.
***** Thank you for that helpful information. I have great respect for any organization such as yours which contributes positive actions to the world.
Because the FSSP wants it both ways, the TLM and the novus ordo
If both these men lived in 2021, they would have died of shock. Who is really in schism:(
So is the SSPX in full communion with Rome or not?
The SSPX is not in full union with Rome at this time,but FSSP that does the Traditional Latin Mass IS in full union with Rome
The SSPX IS in full communion. Incredible how many people still insist otherwise. The question isn't whether they're in full communion, because they are Catholic. They have an irregular canonical status, which is an internal Church matter that has no effect on the validity of their sacraments.
They are not fully recognized. But they certainly are not "not in communion".
They are not in full communion. They dont even have canonical status
@@richardsellsaz6865 there is no such thing as partial communion with Rome, you either are or you aren't. If pope Benedict lifted the so called excommunication which wasn't rightly or justly given in the first place, then they are in communion
They're in material schism but not formal schism. This is the learned opinion of both Cardinals Mueller & Burke.
Áve María, grátia pléna, Dóminus técum.
Benedícta tu in muliéribus, et benedíctus frúctus véntris túi, Iésus.
Sáncta María, Máter Déi, óra pro nóbis peccatóribus, nunc et in hóra mórtis nóstrae.
Ámen.
SSPX is the Holy Roman Church.
The SSPX does not teach this. While they carry on her full traditions, it's not the same as equating itself with the Church, as it would be a schismatic position.
SSPX isn’t a church at all under Canon Law. They have no ties to the Vatican as confirmed by Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Paul VI and Cardinal Burke. They’re effectively another denomination in this sense.
Unfortunately I'm even more confused now
We would urge you to assist exclusively at the traditional rite of Mass, and not to be troubled by claims that it is schismatic to do so.
The issue of the Society's present legal standing in the Church hinges on the very questionable validity of the supposed suppression of the Society in 1975. As members of the Society rightly maintain, "Over and above the canonical question, there remains that of common sense: whether one must observe a censure when no crime can be pointed out, or when the identity or authority of the judge is unsure."
One honest admission which at last surfaced in 2007 with Pope Benedict's motu proprio Summorum Pontificum is that even legitimate Church authorities have no authority to dismantle the Church, such as by suppressing or forbidding from use the traditional rite of Holy Mass. It is a false and dangerous distortion of obedience (which St. Thomas calls sinful "indiscreet obedience, which obeys even in matters unlawful") that post-conciliar Church leaders have invoked against the functioning of the Society of St. Pius X. God bless you.
sspx.org/en/faq-page/wasnt-the-sspx-suppressed-faq3
sspx.org/en/legal-existence-sspx
sspx.org/en/what-canonical-status-sspx
sspx.org/en/mass-locator
@@TheFatimaCenter a couple of things. Number one you don't have to go to an sspx Mass to attend a traditional Latin Mass. There is the fssp now and others. Second I thought the issue was in the 1980s where Pope John Paul II excommunicated Archbishop Lefae and the for Bishops he tried to consecrate. If he was told not to do that and he did it anyway wouldn't that be the crime. Not being disobedient about the traditional Latin Mass but being disobedient about consecrating Bishops that he was told not to.
@@KMF3 The Society is criticized on both counts, but the supposed excommunications would only have touched the Archbishop himself and the four bishops whom he consecrated. You might find the attached presentations by Fr. Gregory Hesse and Michael Davies of interest.
ruclips.net/video/tjckUEBkkBI/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/jK0h5qiui_w/видео.html
What the difference from sspx and fssp?
The practical difference is that the FSSP operates its chapels and parishes only under the invitation and permission of the local bishops.
And FSSP is in FULL UNION with Rome while the SSPX is not in full union at this time.I live in the Phoenix,AZ area and we have both groups here.
It's interesting Roses Of Time, that you chose to hide your reply button.
Paul Bevillard I think, though I'm not sure, that the presence of the reply feature is determined by what kind of device a poster is making his/her comment on.
Paul Bevillard I just cliicked on Roses of Time's name. It says, "This account has been terminated due to repeated or severe violations of our Terms of Service."
Magickirk1 One can disengage the 'reply' button form a computer console. I did it before.
Schism is defined by the Code of Canon Law as:
"the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him"
That would mean that the SSPX is in schism.
But the SSPX is not guilty of either. As to communion, the SSPX have no qualms about administering the Eucharist to any properly prepared Catholic, and would allow their faithful to commune with other Catholics if divine and canon law were being duly observed in the celebration of the Sacraments.
As to the refusal of submission, we know that men are not only *not* bound to obey a papal command that is contrary to divine law, but they are required to disobey it. Beyond this, the Code of Canon Law itself makes plain, that there are many cases when the law may be disregarded for one reason or another (doubt, grave inconvenience, etc.). It is the position of the SSPX, and I would say a very reasonable position, given that the Church's infallible definitions anathematize those who think it is possible for the approved rites of the Church for administering the Sacraments to be changed into other, new ones, or who would compel a priest to say Mass with some other Missal than that of Pius V, or who think that a new code of Canon Law could be acceptable which permits communio in sacris and other gravely sinful acts (by divine law) - and this is to say nothing of the many other moral perils, grave inconveniences and crises of conscience that may arise when a faithful Catholic is confronted with the insane contradictions of the Modernism now implemented - it is the position of the SSPX, I say, given all this, that one is certainly released from obedience to commands of hierarchs, even the pope, which are contrary to divine law, and one is excused by the Code of Canon Law itself (both the old and new code, often enough) from obedience to various sections of Canon Law now being used to pressure people into doing things contrary to Divine Law. This position is eminently reasonable, and has been defended by Saints and Doctors of the Church, great jurists and the Code of Canon Law itself. When the pope issues a command that can be obeyed without running the risk of such dangers, the SSPX would say he should be obeyed.
So, in neither case is the SSPX guilty of schism. It would actually be more accurate to say that the pope is committing schismatic acts and acting as an (at least material) heretic, but that the competent authorities have not yet declared the manifest and obvious crisis in the Church, for a variety of reasons related to the impotence and degeneracy of modern times. The possibility of popes acting in such a manner has been regarded as a real possibility even by Doctors of the Church, such as St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Alphonsus Liguori, and also of often-cited authorities like Suarez, Cajetan, etc., and even by Blessed Pius IX.
If the Pope goes against the Magisterium, as Francis is doing, we are not in communion with his false teaching, and we reject it. If anyone is in schism it's the Vatican since Vatican II. The Catholic Church cannot reconcile with false churches. They must be reconciled with the One True Church, the Catholic Church. When was the last time you heard a priest, bishop, or cardinal say 'No salvation outside the Catholic Church?' I go to the Latin Mass every Sunday, but our pastor NEVER proclaims this. NOBODY DOES.
You are absolutely correct. The SSPX is in material schism, for many reasons, but primarily because they have committed the crime of refusing submission to the Roman pontiff. (one can see Churchmilitant.com's FBI episode "Catholi-schism" for many of these examples). One is also playing with fire by associating themselves with the SSPX. Remember Abp. Lefebvre died excommunicated, although the excommunications were lifted for the four illicitly ordained "bishops" as a mercy and overture toward reconciliation. Even though we have to submit to the Roman pontiff even if he is evil and/or teaches heresy, we can still resist. Remember some of the saints were excommunicated by the pope for resisting evil, but the Lord eventually vindicated them with the lifting of the excommunications. We can't run and hide in a schismatic organization, but must stay on the barque of Peter, no matter how much the water is cascading over the sides.
Pope Boniface VIII, 1302: "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Article IX: "Hence there are but three classes of persons excluded from the Church's pale: infidels, heretics and schismatics, and excommunicated persons."
Pope Eugene IV, 1441 (Cantate Domino): "The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church can have a share in life eternal, but that they go into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels unless, before death, they are joined with her, and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation and they alone can receive an eternal recompense. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."
Brenda and Peter Greenen yawn. Submitting to the documents on religious liberty, ecumenism, and collegiality and the false spirit of Vatican II puts any Catholic in schism. If you follow the teachings of the post Conciliar Pope's then you are in schism. What they have done to the Church in the last 60 years or so is not Catholic. Plain and simple.
Brenda and Peter Greenen remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/traditional-catholic-answers/item/2043-is-the-sspx-in-schism-a-point-by-point-rebuttal-to-cmtv-s-catholi-schism-video
SSPX=❤️🔥🫱🏼🫲🏽❤️🔥
In the eyes of the modernist vatican 2 popes, the SSPX is in schism but I believe that in the eyes of GOD the SSPX is the one who is truly faithful to HIM.
I love the traditional way of the mass but, is that the only thing which makes SSPX apart from Rome?
The churchmen who presently control the Church are at odds with many of the Church's true teachings as well as with its traditional practices. For an explanation of these differences, see, for instance, the four-part article by Fr. Michel Somoulin, SSPX, about the problems with the New Catechism. sspx.org/en/new-catechism-catholic
Pablo before you spout the SSPX is in schism. Learn what it means. SSPX is neither schism a ticket nor heretic. Get educated! God bless your journey.
They are in schism that they are not Roman Catholic they have no valid rights
What about the Resistance?
How can the SSPX be "in schism" when it is so faithful to Catholic doctrine and Tradition?
They are not in full communion with the catholic church thats why they are considered schismatic
@@gogogolyra1340 Narrow legalism does nothing to negate the faithfulness of the SSPX to Catholic Tradition. It is Pope Bergoglio who is the enemy of Tradition.
How is disobeying the Pope faithful to Catholic doctrine and traditional in any sense of the word?
@@commissary4196
SSPX priests take an oath against modernism; which means they're faithful to the 2,000 years of the Papacy and Catholic doctrine/Tradition.
@@lorichet an ‘oath’ ? Really … sad
*when the Vatican states that the SSPX exercises no legitimate ministry within the church, and people are still arguing about it*
Gregory Vess remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/traditional-catholic-answers/item/2043-is-the-sspx-in-schism-a-point-by-point-rebuttal-to-cmtv-s-catholi-schism-video
@alice tt ???????
@Gregory Vess - Vatican II says Muslims adore the same God as Catholics, and has abandoned terms such as Heretics and Schismatics.At best SSPX are separated brethren, and should not be of any consequence to Rome, especially now because all Heretics, Schismatics, Muslims, Pagans, Atheists, etc. are signing deals with Rome. Ave Maria.
I'm sorry but one judgement by the court does not remove all previous history with the sspx. They are not in union with the chair of saint Peter. If the SSPX is not in schism why is it necessary for Pope Francis to give a indult for SSPX to hear confessions? I wish the SSPX was not in schism because I would rather not be forced in going to a novous ordo mass.
Truly the key to the question is in the history of the controversy. We urge you to investigate it thoroughly, with an open mind toward discovering who -- whether the Society, or the propagators of the Novus Ordo sacramentary -- is actually functioning licitly within the Church. We expect you will find it unnerving, to say the least, to have based your own participation in a form of worship condemned by both Catholic dogma and divine law, on the extremely questionable validity of the supposed suppression of the Society in 1975.
As the members of the Society rightly maintain, "Over and above the canonical question, there remains that of common sense: whether one must observe a censure when no crime can be pointed out, or when the identity or authority of the judge is unsure."
sspx.org/en/legal-existence-sspx
sspx.org/en/faq-page/wasnt-the-sspx-suppressed-faq3
angeluspress.org/products/apologia-pro-marcel-lefebvre-vol-1
angeluspress.org/products/apologia-pro-marcel-lefebvre-vol-2
angeluspress.org/products/apologia-pro-marcel-lefebvre-vol-3
ruclips.net/video/rvqWbxsQ748/видео.html
John of Antwerp: how does the Roman pontiff describe himself his behavior, the way he treats the Almighty and His Sheep? I tell you what listening to the SSPX brings some relief from the oppression I have been feeling with the horrible and most disgusted and repulsive sex scandals in the Roman Catholic Church. Oh yes by all means, I would like to visit an SSPX Church. In the Catholic Church, the followers of Satan the rebellious fallen angel will persecute any faith that does not submit or bend to their requests and will. OBEDIENCE is the magic word that is being used for rape and commit other immoral sexual abuses. There is no faith out there that is good in the sight of the Clergy only the unremorseful predatory faith aims at raping our children and lie pertinently to the faithful. And we are saying NO and NO MORE.
Yes obviously
The SSPX has place them self in in Schism by not following the Mideastern of the church on the Emaciate Consecration, and following the council of trent. I do wish they could work things out with Rome. I too love the Latin Mass. The Pope has the last word on this.
@Bob Bartholomew - Why do you love the Latin Mass, when "St." Pope Paul VI himself promulgated the Novus Ordo Missae?
The Pope does NOT have the last word on this. Jesus Christ Our Savior does. Jesus is God. The Pope is a man. Tell me, which is infallible?
Aren't they missing apostolic succession? Since the priests of the SSPX receive the rite of Holy Orders from people who are not actually bishops
Thank you for your question which we will submit for response in our Ask Father video series. God bless you.
Isnt the ordination of bishops outside of the Pope an ecclesiastical crime? this is the problem with the SSPX. i laud theie fidelity to the magesterium of the saints of the church but when they ordained bishops in opposition to the pope while not formally a schimatic move but is in its actions schismatic. I do beleive the society is Catholic but is illicit as a group.
The Society of St. Pius X has published a series of articles explaining their position in this issue. A three-part theological study is followed by a five-part canonical study, all of which can be found through the initial link.
sspx.org/en/theological-study-1988-consecrations-1
You don't know what you're talking about. It is not "in its actions" schismatic. Unless you can prove that Archbishop Lefebvre lied about his intention dozens and dozens of times.
Rome says FSSPX has no power to listen to confessions, due to the excommunication a divinis, although they are not excommunicated, Pope Francis extended the power to listen to confessions, after year of Mercy, my doubt is, once only confession is licit, Can I have communion in their chapel, because it is said the only Sacrament allowed is confession. Clear me up please! Can I invoke the state of need from Canonical code, I don't like modern masses in many parishes around here and I can't kneel for Communion.
The issue of the Society’s present legal standing in the Church hinges on the very questionable validity of the supposed suppression of the Society in 1975. sspx.org/en/legal-existence-sspx
As the members of the Society rightly maintain, "Over and above the canonical question, there remains that of common sense: whether one must observe a censure when no crime can be pointed out, or when the identity or authority of the judge is unsure." sspx.org/en/faq-page/wasnt-the-sspx-suppressed-faq3
angeluspress.org/products/apologia-pro-marcel-lefebvre-vol-1
angeluspress.org/products/apologia-pro-marcel-lefebvre-vol-2
angeluspress.org/products/apologia-pro-marcel-lefebvre-vol-3
@Armando Alemida - Why dont you like the modern masses? "St." Pope Paul VI promulgated it at Vatican II. By the way FSSPX has long left the position held by Archbishop Lefebvre, and are on their merry way to Rome.
@@CatholicTruth I attend two sundays in FSSPX and other two sundays modern Mass, because I don´t like seeing people clapping and singing birthday in a Mass, also it is very difficult to kneel for Communion, I was told not even try to kneel, if I could have a document to show in order to kneel, this does not happen in Tridentine Mass, Almighty God the Father has spoken to a colombian Exorcist Priest, about whom has allowed the Communion in hand, Heaven does not accept this kind of Communion, even a Pope had allowed. Catholics wake up.
@Armando Almeida - What is it about the modern mass that bothers you? If it was promulgated by "St." Pope Paul VI, shouldn't it be good and true? You don't need to worry about constant kneeling and genuflections, and you can also receive the Sacred Eucharist by a charming lay person in the New Mass. The best part is the Priest wont talk about Hell, and might even allow 'lay persons' to say Homilies. In the future you can also have drone deliveries of the "consecrated" Eucharist. ruclips.net/video/XugFmYtKaT4/видео.html
Ave Maria.@@armandoalmeida4414
michael voris attacked sspx i think hes right about them.
+Jerusalem Knight , I find Michael Voris to be quite helpful for any Catholic who is humbling and sincerely seeking the Truth. Because Voris has allowed himself to be filled with such pride and arrogance, the Truth will always be the opposite of what Voris proclaims because pride by it's very nature ALWAYS opposes Truth. Since Voris, due to his pride, has so viciously attacked the SSPX we can be certain they are a great gift from God in these Dark End Times. Voris's vicious attack of the SSPX is reminiscent of the proud, arrogant Pharisee's vicious attack of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Like father like son.
+Kurt Homan i agree he has a certain style that is rough and arogant as we all have our faults. My father always told me to stay with rome, i know there are alot of problems with the current church but for the sake of us who arnt learned in these theological questions i think it is safest to trust in god follow his vicar and weather the storm. I refuse to believe god would abandon us so completly that the true faith was restricted to a small group like the sspx. I have never attended a latin mass or traditionalist parish, will i be damned becuase the novus ordo rites are invalid. Where peter is there is the church, i hope this sspx situation will be resolved and we can come to a solution to these problems.
Jerusalem Knight, " I refuse to believe god would abandon us so completly that the true faith was restricted to a small group like the sspx.".....It is not a matter of God abandoning us, but rather modern man abandoning God. Sadly, since VII Satan has gained the hearts of the majority of Bishops, and through them the majority of Priests and the laity. Even though the Novus Ordo is an inspiration from the Devil it still retains enough of the sacrificial nature of the Mass to still bestow Grace. In order for an individual to receive that Grace his heart must be open to receive. Most people who go to the Novus Ordo have no desire in their hearts to receive any Grace, they go simply to gratify their egos all to the loss of their eternal souls. I have been going to daily Mass for nearly 24 years now, and if I had a Latin Mass available to me I would choose that over the NO. The Latin Mass Catholics as a whole have a much more mature understanding of the Darkness that has entered the Church since VII. Most of those I attend daily Mass with at the NO Mass don't have a clue because they don't want to have a clue. We need a chastisement from God in the absolute worse way, and because of God's infinite love for us, we are about to get it. Praise be Jesus Christ !!!
St. Peter gave a different answer to the question of how to resolve such conflicts: "We ought to obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29) It is by no means safe at all to follow anyone, even churchmen, away from the teachings and traditions of the Catholic Faith.
*****, "We ought to obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29), Ever meet a heretic that didn't believe he was obeying God? Every man in these Dark End Times believes in his own lie.
I thought the issue is that the priests don't have licit faculties? Therefore they are indeed committing ecclesiastical crimes by hearing confessions, etc.?
izbavynasotlukavago Here is an article by an SSPX priest explaining the issue: archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/supplied_jurisdiction/validity_of_confessions_1.htm
+TheFatimaCenter I believed that their administration of sacraments was valid, but illicit and that it is not recommended to approach them. The page provided is their interpretation, but what does the Holy See have to say? Isn't there an official document (not an SSPX page) addressing the issue? Further, Pope Francis, in the year of mercy (and only throughout that year), shall allow for SSPX priests to hear confessions licitly. If that is so, doesn't it mean that indeed they are illicit?
Republic of MAC Father Gruner saw no true merit in the "official" warnings and disparagement alleged against the SSPX. In the meantime, it is no simple matter to determine what is meant by Francis' letter of September 1. www.ncregister.com/daily-news/some-canonical-question-regarding-pope-francis-year-of-mercy-indulgence/
Republic of MAC remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/traditional-catholic-answers/item/2043-is-the-sspx-in-schism-a-point-by-point-rebuttal-to-cmtv-s-catholi-schism-video
So I should not attend another Mass in my state as there are no SSPX, FSSP and the closest TLM is 2:30 from my home. Anyone I have had discussions with that are a part of the SSPX are very condemning of those of us who only have Novus Ordo, even though the Sacraments are valid, I am told I’m going to hell because of my attendance at a valid Mass. To many are very condescending toward people like myself, of the ones who have been kind(few and far between), they have told me priests have tried to address the attitudes surrounding many of their parishes. I have never condemned anyone from any church of SSPX, but I can assure you the dealings with the many I’ve come in contact with have turned me off. I guess I’ll stay home, because evidently going to Novus Ordo is a mortal sin, and all of us who attend are headed to the firery Gates. Maybe instead of condemning and rejecting Vatican II, why not try to correct what is supposedly wrong!
Thank you for your comment. An axiom addressing this situation has it that if there is no (suitable) Mass to miss, then one has not committed the sin of missing Mass. The Society of St. Pius X's website offers advice about what can be done to sanctify Sundays and Holy Days in cases where a traditional Mass is not available. Hopefully you will find it possible to make the long drive periodically, perhaps once a month? God bless you.
sspx.org/en/news-events/news/new-video-no-obligation-attend-new-mass-9818
This is absolutely untrue. Archbishop LeFebvre consecrated 4 bishops in direct contravention of the Holy Father and was excommunicated.
Catholics do not satisfy the Sunday obligation attending Mass at An SSSP church unless there is no other Catholic Church nearby.
The Fraternal Society of St. Peter, which is in communion with the pope, offers traditional Latin Masses.
not helpful at all. I am still confused. If there is not issue with SSPX, that why are people beating around the bush about them? If you are not with the Church and under the authority of the Holy Father you stand apart from it. Seems simple enough to me.
The question is a very important one. We encourage you to pursue your investigation of the matter in fuller sources.
sspx.org/en/legal-existence-sspx
sspx.org/en/faq-page/wasnt-the-sspx-suppressed-faq3
@Br. Josh1198 - Simple answer - Satan hates Latin, and so does the Vatican II hierarchy. Thus SSPX and those Priests who offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as it was done since the time of St. Peter and St. Paul until Vatican II had to be removed. BTW, SSPX is now with Rome, and has long left the position held by Archbishop Lefebvre. Ave Maria.
Just because they do Latin Mass doesn't mean you should go there; they are in schism. Lucifer, Eve, and Adam fell from pride and disobedience. We should strive against those vices. The Latin Mass, although beautiful and reverential liturgy, becoming an idol is just as prideful as sex becoming an idol in the mainstream world, it's just a classier form of idolatry.
Fidelity to the traditional liturgy is fidelity to the divine law and to the Catholic Faith. Consider please this solemn and infallible definition of Catholic dogma, that we are bound in conscience to adhere to these traditional liturgical customs, since no one in the Church, not even a Pope, has the authority to set aside these received and approved rites for a new rite:: “If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be despised, or may be freely omitted by the ministers without sin, or may be CHANGED INTO OTHER NEW RITES BY ANY CHURCH PASTOR WHOMSOEVER, let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, Session VII, Canon 13, Dz. 856)
ruclips.net/video/rvqWbxsQ748/видео.html
TheFatimaCenter The Church has complete authority to structure the Mass and determine the language(s) used for Mass and all the sacraments.
To say otherwise is to deny the authority of the Pope, the Church, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Up until the Council of Trent, there were many "versions" of the Mass. In fact, Pope St. Pius V permitted any ritual of the Mass older than 200 years to continue alongside the Tridentine Mass. So even after the promulgation of the Roman Rite of 1570, there continued other forms of the Mass. And, in addition, there were several revisions of the Roman Rite up until the Second Vatican Council.
The Last Supper was not in Latin. The first Masses were in Greek and Jewish. Many saints said small Masses in prison and chaplains say Mass before going into battle. Your quotation involves not changing a Mass in a particular form, but not if there are other forms of Mass. Please stop this idolatry of a language and liturgy in some vain attempt to court a schismatic spirit. Even if that is not your intent, some may begin to entertain the idea. We are called to be obedient despite bad clergy. Martin Luther had legitimate complaints about abuses and yet he was not justified. The Orthodox weren't even technically wrong on Filioque, but due to their arrogance and disobedience, caused a great divide.
In fact the Church has been given no such complete or arbitrary authority by Our Lord over the Sacraments as you describe. Sacred Tradition, rooted in the teachings and institutions of Our Lord Himself, and established in the Church's ancient rites through His Apostles, is not an open field for the inventions of modern-day churchmen. Saint Paul warns us that we are bound in conscience to this patrimony of the Church -- "If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema." (Gal. 1:9) -- for this immemorial body of teachings and practices established in the Church through the Apostles is ultimately of divine institution: "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you" (1 Cor. 11:23); "For I delivered unto you first of all, which I also received" (1 Cor. 15:3).
Organic developments and accretions do not constitute the sort of "change" at issue.
If you are interested in making a study of the issue, Fr. Adrian Fortescue's history of the Roman Rite is available online. archive.org/details/massstudyofroman00fort
We offer two other magisterial references to the fact that we are bound to the traditional rites of the Sacraments, similar to that already supplied from the Council of Trent:
1) The Council of Constance under Pope Martin V (1417, Session 39, “On the Profession To Be Made by the Pope”) affirmed that even the Pope is bound no less than others of the faithful to the traditional rites of the Sacraments:
“Since the Roman pontiff exercises such great power among mortals, it is right that he be bound all the more by the incontrovertible bonds of the faith and by THE RITES THAT ARE TO BE OBSERVED REGARDING THE CHURCH’S SACRAMENTS. We therefore decree and ordain, in order that the fullness of the faith may shine in a future Roman pontiff with singular splendor from the earliest moments of his becoming pope, that henceforth whoever is to be elected Roman pontiff shall make the following confession and profession in public, in front of his electors, before his election is published: ‘... I will firmly believe and hold the Catholic Faith, according to the traditions of the apostles, of the general Councils and of other holy fathers, ... and I will preserve this faith unchanged to the last dot ..., and likewise I will follow and observe in every way THE RITE HANDED DOWN OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL SACRAMENTS of the Catholic Church. ...’”
2) The Council of Florence under Pope Eugenius IV (1439, Decree for the Greeks, Dz. 692) solemnly defined the teaching that the Sacraments must be confected according to the traditions of the various ritual churches (e.g., Latin, Byzantine, Alexandrian, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite, Chaldean) - that is, to the received and approved rites proper to each of the Church’s liturgical traditions:
“We have likewise defined that the Body of Christ is truly effected in unleavened or leavened wheaten bread; and that priests must effect the Body of Our Lord in either one of these, and each one namely ACCORDING TO THE CUSTOM OF HIS CHURCH, whether of the West or of the East.”
TheFatimaCenter Ok yeah they're not supposed to change the form of a liturgy for the Mass... even though they have changed the Latin Mass itself before, but there's nothing against a council approving a new Missal... again they had different forms of the Mass pre-Vatican 1. Even Fulton Sheen obeyed Vatican II and backed the Novus Ordo, although many abuse the liturgy, which is definitely a problem.
Those 'rites' you are mentioning include the different forms of the Mass. Only if the Pontiff bans the Mass entirely or adds in heretical doctrine would there be a major issue, but that would probably cause an intervention from God Himself imo. I really don't care to continue this discussion, as I've had these debates ad nauseum with like-minded sedevacantist heretics. You guys are just picking another form of poison; I'm just trying to charitably warn you, and I LOVE the Latin Mass. You are in my prayers, God bless.
@@sceptreandsword377 @Sceptre and Sword - Why do you love the Latin Mass, when "St." Pope Paul VI himself promulgated the Novus Ordo Missae?
They are in schism. Rome might not say they are to keep them close and in the hope to have them return to the Church, but they ordained bishops without the consent of the Holy Father. Therefore all who were baptised, confirmed, given Communion or ordained after this deed, which causes them to be excommunicated, all this was invalid
The Society of St. Pius X has published a series of articles explaining their position regarding questions of schism and excommunication consequent to the 1988 consecrations. A three-part theological study is followed by a five-part canonical study, all of which can be found through this initial link: sspx.org/en/theological-study-1988-consecrations-1
On the present legal status of the Society, we find this article written by a professor of Canon Law: sspx.org/en/legal-existence-sspx
We also recommend the following article on this subject by Dr. Brian McCall
www.catholicfamilynews.org/blog/2018/6/30/understanding-the-1988-episcopal-consecrations-as-licit-under-higher-law
@@TheFatimaCenter I'm sure that through a lot of legal mumbojumbo, you could even prove Christ is not God, just like many discard Vaticanum II. However, we must stick to the facts. The bishops of the SSPX were excommunicated and then accepted back into the Church and so were the SSPX followers íf they acknowledged the validity of Vaticanum II and the authority of Peter. The SSPX, in the same roundabout way, finds ways in which they think they do not have to comply to these demands and still be in full communion. It's very simple, you either fall in line and be a critical and helpfull body of priests inside the Church or you are a bunch of protestants wearing catholic vestments outside the Church. Make your choice wisely
Answer: Yes, and has heretical beliefs, as well. Next video.
Church Militant , Mr Michael Voris says otherwise 😳
might want to look into his ties with opus dei before you believe his "opinions"
Yes they are in schism. There are traditional Latin Masses that are in full communion with the Catholic Church, SSPX is not one of them. Watch Church Militant, no happy flappy modernist, on how the SSPX is not in communion with the Church and why. I pray that you all will come back to full communion as I believe the Latin rite is proper and reverent.
I just don't understand why we need Latin Mass. It looks beautiful but you can't understand one thing spoken unless you know the language. I prefer understandable language to be used in Mass and my focus on the Mass is sacrifice (Eucharist) .
@@wilsonwong4029 @Wilson Wong - There are three sacred languages (Hebrew, Latin and Greek) on the Cross. St. Peter and St. Paul offered the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in Latin, and as Roman Catholics, we must continue to do so. Also, Satan hates Latin, which explains why Pope Paul VI and his buddies promulgated the Novus Ordo Missae (in vernacular). Strangely, conservative Catholics (in the conciliar Church, also known as Novus Ordo) only want the bells and whistles of the Latin Rite, but despise the pre-Vatican II Theology. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and Sacred Theology go hand in hand. Both were usurped at Vatican II, and replaced with Vatican II theology, under the watchful eyes of avowed Modernists, who are still running the show. Ave Maria.
@@CatholicTruth I understand Latin is an official language of the Church as many doctrines were written in Latin. However the language has been dead for a few hundred years. Never in the Bible or Church Fathers insisting that Latin must be used in Mass. Wouldn't God wants us to worship him with many languages just as the day of Pentecost, the disciples were filled with Holy Spirit and they gave praise to God in many languages. If Latin is sacred, why don't the Bible is in Latin. It does not serve any purpose of using Latin as God is Almighty and not bounded by languages.By the way Latin was used in the Church only in the 4th century. The early manuscripts are written in Hebrew or Aramaic.
@@@wilsonwong4029 - I can see your comment through notification, but dont see it here. You said Latin is a dead language. Sure. But thats what makes it special. You cannot change any words or their meaning, and you are certain that what St. Peter and St. Paul said and meant centuries ago when they offered the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, is exactly the same what the Priest today who offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is saying. For example, the text of the Our Father (Pater Noster), given by Our Lord Himself, has never changed in Latin. However, in English, there are many variations, and the most recent one comes from Pope Francis, who said a few months ago that the phrase 'lead us not into temptation' needs to be revised. Have you read the Council of Trent's decree on this very phrase? If Our Lord's prayer can be tampered with, where do we stop, and why should we stop? Ave Maria.
@Catholic Truth I understand Latin is an official language of the Church as many doctrines were written in Latin. However the language has been dead for a few hundred years. Never in the Bible or Church Fathers insisting that Latin must be used in Mass. Wouldn't God wants us to worship him with many languages just as the day of Pentecost, the disciples were filled with Holy Spirit and they gave praise to God in many languages. If Latin is sacred, why don't the Bible is in Latin. It does not serve any purpose of using Latin as God is Almighty and not bounded by languages.By the way Latin was used in the Church starting only in the 4th century. The early manuscripts are written in Hebrew or Aramaic.