A long complex discussion but very fulfilling... Fr. McFarland's depth of knowledge is amazing. He is drawing me closer to faith. Reality is I am not a Catholic but it is increasingly clear that I will accept the Lord through the Roman Catholic faith.
These podcasts are fascinating. I just stumbled across them yesterday and I had to go back to the beginning to listen to them all. How did I miss them?.
Same here. Our nearest SSPX is our regular Sunday morning journey of 34 miles to Manchester Great Britain. We were Received into the Church by SSPX priest at Manchester UK in 2019. Praise God!
Excellent series.....well produced, and the issues clearly defined. I had no idea the mess we're in goes all the way back to before Luther. That makes sense though, as the devil is in this for the long haul. In addition, I like the running written commentary elucidating the salient points. One of the areas of confusion (prevalent among friends and family) is that so many are convinced that "everyone gets to heaven"........I believe it is called "universalism". Bishop Robert Barron (auxiliary bishop of L.A.) states for all to see on his TH-cam channel that "we have reasonable hope that hell is basically empty"........... implying "being a good person " is enough. This suggests that "heaven is the default". This idea is incredibly pervasive in Modernist Catholic circles. Another topic or two? 1. Universalism......why being a "good person" is not enough 2.The denial of Dogma adding fuel to the crisis The reality of hell and what the saints and Our Lady of Fatima said about hell The four last things
so refreshing to hear someone actually say the truth that we are not equal and it is offense against God's design and His justice to pretend otherwise.
Truth concerning the Eucharist: A.) 1.) St. Sixtus 1 (circa 115): "The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord." 2.) St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution." St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault. 3.) The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue *receiving Holy Communion by hand.* 4.) This was *confirmed* by the Synod of Toledo. 5.) Saint Leo the Great read the sixth chapter of Saint John's Gospel as referring to the Eucharist (as all the Church Fathers did). In a preserved sermon on John 6 (Sermon 9), Saint Leo says: "Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur" (Serm. 91.3). This is translated strictly as: “This indeed is received by means of the mouth which we believe by means of faith. "Ore" is here in the ablative and in the context it denotes instrumentation. So then, the *mouth* is the means by which the Holy Eucharist is received. 6.) The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against *sacrilege.* The Council of Rouen (650): “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman but *only in their mouths.”* 7.) The 6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors *with excommunication.* 8.) St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): "Out of reverence towards this Sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], *nothing touches it,* but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this Sacrament." (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8.) 9.) The Council of Trent (1545-1565): "The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an *Apostolic Tradit
B.) Protestant schismatic modernistsare like Luther denied adherence to all popes in concert with Councils past. 1-9, above, which say no to unconsecrated hands touching sacred vessels, say no to hands receving communuion except in times of persecution, etc. All of these cannot be expressed any differently. Truth is truth except for schismatic modernist relativists in the Catholic church. But sin is sin, per Sacred Scripture, Tradition, etc. Ecumenical Counsels, the Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, or the solemn teachings of supreme pontiffs are binding to the faithful: "But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.” All of 1-9 are in agreement. The popes in concert with the councils are in agreement, and the popes before and after each council are in agreement and Trent is the capstone that by citing "Apostolic Tradition" anchors them in the New Testament making it irreversible forever.
It sounds like people would very much prefer to recieve communion by hand. I don't see the big deal. Jesus is supposed to be for us all. He died for everyone. These priests are trying to make it sound like they have holier hands than you and I. We are all sinners in the eyes of the Lord. Get over yourself Padre!
Been loving this series, thank you for it! Would you be able to cover church architecture in this series, by chance? I'm currently reading "Ugly as Sin" by Michael Rose and in it the book talks about how many new-style Catholic churches aren't just ugly, but they actually distort the Faith and lead people away from Catholicism. I think it would be an interesting topic!
Agree. Truth and beauty go hand in hand. Modern "round churches" are ugly. Any Catholic Church without a central tabernacle is just plain wrong. I was under the impression that Catholic Church architecture was to reflect the Temple in Jerusalem which itself reflected the architecture of the Heavenly Throneroom.....nave of the church (outer court) for the layperson, sanctuary (Holy place-inner court) for the anointed (priests only) and the Holy of Holies (Tabernacle) at the highest central alter place in the church
There are two types found promoting the Novus Ordo: 1.) Those afraid to say something about Pope Pachamama's obeisance toward Pachamama and her devotees. 2.) Those who wait with bated breath for Pope Pachamama to declare her to be the one true God (Goddess). Sure, this is tongue in cheek but not by much. Devoteea of Pachamama get more love from schismatic, modernist CC leadership than Traditionalists get.
Im a recent convert to the catholic faith. So what does it mean when an encyclical is wrong or in error? I thought encyclicals had a certain authority. And what can we as catholics do to restore tradition in the higher levels of the church? Is there any hope?
Well the encyclical made by the post conciliar popes are just plain modernist VII doctrine. Popes can be in error unless if the speak ex catedra. Well, ifyou trust God there is always hope, the fact that SSPX exists, and also I noticed people seem to be getting closer to tradition in the past 10 years. The situation is very bad but don't lose hope, for God promised the gates of hell wouldn't prevail
There is a difference between License and Freedom. License is a destructive freedom. Even the Founding Fathers recognized this. There should be laws to curb bad human behavior. True Freedom should make someone free, not enslave them to vice. Freedom that leads to slavery is degrading (e.g. addictions) and makes man less free. The Christian and Catholic understanding of Freedom recognizes this perfectly. The quest for True Freedom requires a deeper understanding. False freedom is fool's gold and an idol. Likewise with equality. We seek true equality and the breaking down of unfair barriers (all racial barriers, for instance, should be removed). However, we cannot seek to be equal with people such as unrepentant criminals. Therefore, we make a wise distinction in seeking true equality with people of equal morals and ethics, while removing unfair barriers. The Bible recognizes this spiritually in Galatians 3:28: For you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Thank you, Andrew and Father McFarland, for this discussion. I wonder how the Liberals would communicate with the NAZI regime or Mao's regime or Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Napoleon. Would they, the Liberals, say that if a being a ruthless, mass murdering dictator makes someone happy, then they have the right to be so.
Pope Honorious was excommunicated at the third council of constantinople for doing nothing to combat heresy, but in a private letter from the Pope responsible to his excommunication he said he was also a heretic himself and that was the biggest reason for his excommunication. Pope John XXII also held heresies on the Beatific Vision, but he recanted before the passed away. Yes, a Pope can be a heretic. Yes, there have been heretic Popes. Yes, we can handle them and their heresy after they expire. The only threat is the presence of their Cardinals they elect putting in a new Pope, which is what is happening now, since Pius XII they keep putting real scum of the earth in the college like Mccarick.
Yes. The Pope isn't Jesus. He is a man tasked with the supreme authority of leading his flock, Christ's bride the Holy Mother Church on Earth and given special graces to handle that responsibility. But it is still the choice of the Pope to follow his role. The past Popes since Vatican 2, otherwise known as the Conciliar Popes, started to stray from that role. They saught to slowly but surely reduce the Catholic Church to a state where it is today as nothing more then a liberal lawless relativistic hellscape. John Paul II being the most naturalistic and progressive besides Francis. JPII was the first Pope to really attempt to use the media as a means to elevate himself as an Icon and lull the NO Catholics to sleep. He was branded as a Holy man, that fought back Nazis. The real story is a lot more complicated then that. I'm not suggesting he was the worst Pope we ever had. He isn't, but he paved the way for Vatican 2 to be spell casted into most Catholics minds as above the Bible, Tradition, and Doctrine of the Church. Francis is just the next logical step in JPII's ideology.
This why SSPX have to choose between Sedevacantism or actually submit to the person it sees to be the Pope. This third position the in between Sedevacantism and Actually submit to the person it sees to be the Pope that SSPX finds it's self in is inherently inconsistent.
Sedevacantism or submitting to "Pope Francis" is the two logical position you have to choose the only there'd position inbetween these two position is inconsistent.
Fr. McFarland made a mistake, I think. On the one hand, he says the modernists deny that the supernatural exists. On the other hand, he tells us they're agnostic about that. There's a difference between denying that it exists and doubting that it does. An agnostic doesn't know whether there's a God. An atheist believes there's no God.
Equality is illogical for man and women have been made different , God wills men to be rich and poor, able bodied and disabled. The sinner has to be punished and the righteous rewarded The only equality that’s legitimate is providing all with truth regardless of gender and race , to welcome all to church and love all
People have natural personal liberty given by God. It means person can make decisions about own life and or his children etc and it consist also the responsibility about results of his decisions. For example I decide if i confess or no and I will responce on God judgement why i did so. The guarantee of our natural liberty and our autonomy on this materialistic world is our private property (not material equality). So it means if I am reach, still only I can decide if I am good for God - if I help poor people, if I donate for example monastery and pro life hospitals... - they are my autonomic decisions about my life and my money. St. John Paul II also described economical freedom as a Catholic "rights". But Pope Francis looks "prefer" equality = more state control over private ownership, more state distribution and government "help" to poor. It means socialism/marxism. Governmental money distribution means taking ownership from one and giving to other. It takes the natural liberty and personal responsibility from the people. State can not do good for God, free people can. I just love teachings of father Jacek Gniadek SVD about Gods and peoples economy, it is very Catholic.
It is actually the FSSPX. It is from the French, Fraternite Sacerdotale Saint Pie X. This translates to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X. The FSSPX or SSPX is a society of Catholic priests that was formed to pray the Traditional Latin Mass. Seminarians had been harassed for saying the Holy Rosary in post Vatican II seminaries. So, some seminarians went to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to see if he could start a seminary that would encourage the Rosary and prepare seminarians to say the traditional Latin mass. The Catholic Church gave Archbishop Lefebrve permission to start his seminary in Switzerland. Archbishop Lefebvre's society is known as the FSSPX. I have attended their churches in Switzerland and France and they are growing and growing.
![โอ้เธอช่าง... - บี้เดอะสกา ft. ต๋อง เทวัญ (Prod. by ป๋าเพชร) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zbWhiLFmVL0/mqdefault.jpg)
Excellent work
Thank goodness for the SSPX.
I agree! We are both in the SSPX in Great Britain. God powerfully lead us to the Society. Thank you, God! I love you! Amen.
Wow, just wow. I am in awe. This is no ordinary priest, more than a cut above the average product of the "regular" seminaries. Well done SSPX.
So uplifting to hear a true priest that is so young, this is the future of our Church.
A long complex discussion but very fulfilling... Fr. McFarland's depth of knowledge is amazing. He is drawing me closer to faith. Reality is I am not a Catholic but it is increasingly clear that I will accept the Lord through the Roman Catholic faith.
These podcasts are fascinating. I just stumbled across them yesterday and I had to go back to the beginning to listen to them all. How did I miss them?.
very informative for us Catholics here in Phillipines, Thank you Father
Excellent as always, Father!
Excellent.
So thankful for these podcasts! They sustain me between my Sunday visits to our local SSPX chapel.
Same here. Our nearest SSPX is our regular Sunday morning journey of 34 miles to Manchester Great Britain. We were Received into the Church by SSPX priest at Manchester UK in 2019. Praise God!
Excellent series.....well produced, and the issues clearly defined.
I had no idea the mess we're in goes all the way back to before Luther. That makes sense though, as the devil is in this for the long haul.
In addition, I like the running written commentary elucidating the salient points.
One of the areas of confusion (prevalent among friends and family) is that so many are convinced that "everyone gets to heaven"........I believe it is called "universalism".
Bishop Robert Barron (auxiliary bishop of L.A.) states for all to see on his TH-cam channel that "we have reasonable hope that hell is basically empty"........... implying "being a good person " is enough. This suggests that "heaven is the default". This idea is incredibly pervasive in Modernist Catholic circles.
Another topic or two? 1. Universalism......why being a "good person" is not enough
2.The denial of Dogma adding fuel to the crisis
The reality of hell and what the saints and Our Lady of Fatima said about hell
The four last things
Satan is playing a long game, for sure.
so refreshing to hear someone actually say the truth that we are not equal and it is offense against God's design and His justice to pretend otherwise.
Praise God for this podcast!
Great presentation, Thank you and God bless you!
This is so enlightening! Thank you father! God bless you!
Truth concerning the Eucharist:
A.) 1.) St. Sixtus 1 (circa 115): "The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord."
2.) St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution."
St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.
3.) The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue *receiving Holy Communion by hand.*
4.) This was *confirmed* by the Synod of Toledo.
5.) Saint Leo the Great read the sixth chapter of Saint John's Gospel as referring to the Eucharist (as all the Church Fathers did).
In a preserved sermon on John 6 (Sermon 9), Saint Leo says: "Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur" (Serm. 91.3). This is translated strictly as: “This indeed is received by means of the mouth which we believe by means of faith. "Ore" is here in the ablative and in the context it denotes instrumentation. So then, the *mouth* is the means by which the Holy Eucharist is received.
6.) The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against *sacrilege.*
The Council of Rouen (650): “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman but *only in their mouths.”*
7.) The 6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors *with excommunication.*
8.) St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): "Out of reverence towards this Sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], *nothing touches it,* but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this Sacrament." (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8.)
9.) The Council of Trent (1545-1565): "The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an *Apostolic Tradit
B.) Protestant schismatic modernistsare like Luther denied adherence to all popes in concert with Councils past. 1-9, above, which say no to unconsecrated hands touching sacred vessels, say no to hands receving communuion except in times of persecution, etc. All of these cannot be expressed any differently. Truth is truth except for schismatic modernist relativists in the Catholic church. But sin is sin, per Sacred Scripture, Tradition, etc.
Ecumenical Counsels, the Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, or the solemn teachings of supreme pontiffs are binding to the faithful:
"But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.”
All of 1-9 are in agreement. The popes in concert with the councils are in agreement, and the popes before and after each council are in agreement and Trent is the capstone that by citing "Apostolic Tradition" anchors them in the New Testament making it irreversible forever.
It sounds like people would very much prefer to recieve communion by hand. I don't see the big deal. Jesus is supposed to be for us all. He died for everyone. These priests are trying to make it sound like they have holier hands than you and I. We are all sinners in the eyes of the Lord. Get over yourself Padre!
Remain n FAITHFUL. To the Holy Church of CHRIST 🙏💞🌹
Thank you dear father of our lady of sorrows! Fr Mc Farland..Love you..and your Spirit of Truth! Wish you became our Pope someday!..
Been loving this series, thank you for it!
Would you be able to cover church architecture in this series, by chance? I'm currently reading "Ugly as Sin" by Michael Rose and in it the book talks about how many new-style Catholic churches aren't just ugly, but they actually distort the Faith and lead people away from Catholicism. I think it would be an interesting topic!
Agree. Truth and beauty go hand in hand. Modern "round churches" are ugly. Any Catholic Church without a central tabernacle is just plain wrong.
I was under the impression that Catholic Church architecture was to reflect the Temple in Jerusalem which itself reflected the architecture of the Heavenly Throneroom.....nave of the church (outer court) for the layperson, sanctuary (Holy place-inner court) for the anointed (priests only) and the Holy of Holies (Tabernacle) at the highest central alter place in the church
@@mashannon1 Yeah, sadly modern churches aren't anymore 😢
thank you Fr 🙏
Good interviewing, Andrew....
Freedom and Equality = modernism
There are two types found promoting the Novus Ordo:
1.) Those afraid to say something about Pope Pachamama's obeisance toward Pachamama and her devotees.
2.) Those who wait with bated breath for Pope Pachamama to declare her to be the one true God (Goddess).
Sure, this is tongue in cheek but not by much. Devoteea of Pachamama get more love from schismatic, modernist CC leadership than Traditionalists get.
Good job
So true
Young priests with old souls.
Vatican 2 didn't like definitions either.
Im a recent convert to the catholic faith. So what does it mean when an encyclical is wrong or in error? I thought encyclicals had a certain authority. And what can we as catholics do to restore tradition in the higher levels of the church? Is there any hope?
Well the encyclical made by the post conciliar popes are just plain modernist VII doctrine. Popes can be in error unless if the speak ex catedra. Well, ifyou trust God there is always hope, the fact that SSPX exists, and also I noticed people seem to be getting closer to tradition in the past 10 years. The situation is very bad but don't lose hope, for God promised the gates of hell wouldn't prevail
What can we do now that the pope teaches naturalism, and the Fr. Revolution.
Can you explain your meaning that people are different in dignity? (the interviewer's point)
There is a difference between License and Freedom.
License is a destructive freedom. Even the Founding Fathers recognized this. There should be laws to curb bad human behavior.
True Freedom should make someone free, not enslave them to vice. Freedom that leads to slavery is degrading (e.g. addictions) and makes man less free.
The Christian and Catholic understanding of Freedom recognizes this perfectly.
The quest for True Freedom requires a deeper understanding. False freedom is fool's gold and an idol.
Likewise with equality. We seek true equality and the breaking down of unfair barriers (all racial barriers, for instance, should be removed). However, we cannot seek to be equal with people such as unrepentant criminals. Therefore, we make a wise distinction in seeking true equality with people of equal morals and ethics, while removing unfair barriers.
The Bible recognizes this spiritually in Galatians 3:28: For you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Thank you, Andrew and Father McFarland, for this discussion.
I wonder how the Liberals would communicate with the NAZI regime or Mao's regime or Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Napoleon. Would they, the Liberals, say that if a being a ruthless, mass murdering dictator makes someone happy, then they have the right to be so.
Can a pope lead souls to Hell with his teachings? Can a Vicar of Christ be a Modernist?
Pope Honorious was excommunicated at the third council of constantinople for doing nothing to combat heresy, but in a private letter from the Pope responsible to his excommunication he said he was also a heretic himself and that was the biggest reason for his excommunication. Pope John XXII also held heresies on the Beatific Vision, but he recanted before the passed away.
Yes, a Pope can be a heretic. Yes, there have been heretic Popes. Yes, we can handle them and their heresy after they expire. The only threat is the presence of their Cardinals they elect putting in a new Pope, which is what is happening now, since Pius XII they keep putting real scum of the earth in the college like Mccarick.
Yes. The Pope isn't Jesus. He is a man tasked with the supreme authority of leading his flock, Christ's bride the Holy Mother Church on Earth and given special graces to handle that responsibility.
But it is still the choice of the Pope to follow his role. The past Popes since Vatican 2, otherwise known as the Conciliar Popes, started to stray from that role.
They saught to slowly but surely reduce the Catholic Church to a state where it is today as nothing more then a liberal lawless relativistic hellscape.
John Paul II being the most naturalistic and progressive besides Francis. JPII was the first Pope to really attempt to use the media as a means to elevate himself as an Icon and lull the NO Catholics to sleep.
He was branded as a Holy man, that fought back Nazis. The real story is a lot more complicated then that.
I'm not suggesting he was the worst Pope we ever had. He isn't, but he paved the way for Vatican 2 to be spell casted into most Catholics minds as above the Bible, Tradition, and Doctrine of the Church.
Francis is just the next logical step in JPII's ideology.
This why SSPX have to choose between Sedevacantism or actually submit to the person it sees to be the Pope. This third position the in between Sedevacantism and Actually submit to the person it sees to be the Pope that SSPX finds it's self in is inherently inconsistent.
Sedevacantism or submitting to "Pope Francis" is the two logical position you have to choose the only there'd position inbetween these two position is inconsistent.
Are you sure you are following Jesus? Or, are you following Paul of Tarsus, the persecutor?
Fr. McFarland made a mistake, I think. On the one hand, he says the modernists deny that the supernatural exists. On the other hand, he tells us they're agnostic about that. There's a difference between denying that it exists and doubting that it does. An agnostic doesn't know whether there's a God. An atheist believes there's no God.
Pope Francis is the Pope of a new era. Otherwise, catholicism will fade away while holding the flame of Pius.
How so? Why would it fade away when it already faded away in Western Europe and America.
Equality is illogical for man and women have been made different , God wills men to be rich and poor, able bodied and disabled. The sinner has to be punished and the righteous rewarded The only equality that’s legitimate is providing all with truth regardless of gender and race , to welcome all to church and love all
People have natural personal liberty given by God. It means person can make decisions about own life and or his children etc and it consist also the responsibility about results of his decisions. For example I decide if i confess or no and I will responce on God judgement why i did so. The guarantee of our natural liberty and our autonomy on this materialistic world is our private property (not material equality). So it means if I am reach, still only I can decide if I am good for God - if I help poor people, if I donate for example monastery and pro life hospitals... - they are my autonomic decisions about my life and my money. St. John Paul II also described economical freedom as a Catholic "rights". But Pope Francis looks "prefer" equality = more state control over private ownership, more state distribution and government "help" to poor. It means socialism/marxism. Governmental money distribution means taking ownership from one and giving to other. It takes the natural liberty and personal responsibility from the people. State can not do good for God, free people can. I just love teachings of father Jacek Gniadek SVD about Gods and peoples economy, it is very Catholic.
Fraternity...oooohh: respect for man and the big tent inclusiveness. Forced communion between Christians and satanists.
Wow. That's evil.
Is it a sin to even watch this as a mainstream catholic?
It's a sin to be a "mainstream Catholic"
Does everybody know what ESS-ESS-Pee- EXX means?
SSPX: Society of Saint Pius X.
It is actually the FSSPX. It is from the French, Fraternite Sacerdotale Saint Pie X. This translates to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X. The FSSPX or SSPX is a society of Catholic priests that was formed to pray the Traditional Latin Mass. Seminarians had been harassed for saying the Holy Rosary in post Vatican II seminaries. So, some seminarians went to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to see if he could start a seminary that would encourage the Rosary and prepare seminarians to say the traditional Latin mass. The Catholic Church gave Archbishop Lefebrve permission to start his seminary in Switzerland. Archbishop Lefebvre's society is known as the FSSPX. I have attended their churches in Switzerland and France and they are growing and growing.
Priestly Society of St. Pius X
It's SSPX, Society Of Saint Pius X
Hello I'm not Catholic but I think it's meaning is Society of Saint Pious X. I'm just guessing hehe.
I heard they're doing traditional Latin Mass.
SSPX in the USA = Medieval Philosophy blended with Republican nastiness