@DeClue's Views Cardinal Silvio Oddi President for the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy March 17, 1984 This reply was made to an inquiry made by a family about whether attending Mass at an SSPX chapel would serve to fulfill their Sunday Obligation: “According to the New Code of Canon Law, “The obligation of assisting at Mass is satisfied wherever Mass is celebrated in a Catholic rite....” I hope that settles your doubts.” Msgr. Camille Perl Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei In a May 28, 1996 letter and repeated in Protocol No. 236/98 of March 6, 1998: “In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of Saint Pius X. ...If your intention is simply to participate in Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin. It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass could be justified.” In a document from the Holy See dated September 1, 2015, Pope Francis wrote that "those who during the Holy Year of Mercy approach these priests of the Fraternity of St Pius X to celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation shall validly and Licitly receive the absolution of their sins." And on November 20, 2016, the Pope extended this decree by stating: "[During] the Jubilee Year I had... granted that those faithful who, for various reasons, attend churches officiated by the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, can validly and licitly receive the sacramental absolution of their sins... I have personally decided to extend this faculty beyond the Jubilee Year, until further provisions are made...” Summary: These statements are very refreshing but we don’t need them to give us permission to attend a Tridentine Mass. Our permission to attend the Tridentine Mass is given to us by Quo Primum and the Council of Trent. The Society of Saint Pius X is perfectly valid and licit for Sunday obligation. No authority can restrict a Catholic from attending the Tridentine Mass at an SSPX chapel. This is supported by Saint Pius V’ forever binding document Quo Primum. “No one can receive a penalty (for attending) and this missae[tridentine mass] must always be lawful and in full force.” -Quo Primum
@DeClue's Views the SSPX does have jurisdiction. It’s called supplied jurisdiction. I suppose you would call St. Athenasius a schismatic because he defied Arian-Rome and said Mass outside of the diocese. God bless those how hold the true Catholic faith. God bless Archbishop Lefebvre
I don't think we need more "professional" Catholics no offense. We have less and less Catholics asked to give more and more. I think you all should get a job and still do this stuff. The Mendicants have taken over the Church. We need more a Benedictine spirit -- prayer and WORK. Most EO priests have a job, while I am not asking for that I am asking to slow down on laymen looking for donations .
Bishop Athanatius Schneider gave an interesting resent interview on Dr. Taylor Marshall 's Show, in which he was asked the question of the status of the SSPX. He said, clearly that they were not in schism and they are Catholic and in communion but in an irregular canonical status.
@@neroresurrected Yes, even more recent he (Bishop Athanatius) describes the SSPX as fully Catholic and not schismatic in his new book "Christus Vincit: Christ's Triumph over the Darkness of the Age." Published 2019. See page 147 -an entire chapter devoted to this subject. He was the Vatican appointed Bishop to visit the SSPX St.Thomas Aquinas seminary and make a report back to Rome.
@@bernadette1928, actually it's impossible for them to have ever been in schism. The Canon Law does not allow for such penalty in this case. This whole thing about schism depends on John Paul II having beem a law unto himself. If that's possible, then everything is. But if not, then there never was a schism.
@@seriouscat2231 as stated in the video, 23 min in, schism means to refuse to obey the Roman pontiff and/or to be in communion with the bishops around him. They are clearly in schism since 1988.
I believe there was conditions placed on the offer to the SSPX that could not be reconciled. How much of their defense of tradition should they concede to accept full canonical status? That seems to be a slippery slope, in my mind. I’m not for division, but you gloss over some significant issues that the Society has documented. What about the salvation of souls within the current state of the Catholic Church, where 3/4th don’t believe in the precepts of the Church??
@John Citizen you are totally naive of the current crisis. You don't have an idea being a Catholic under so many freemason bishops with so many modern priests. There was once a diocesan priest that offered a Latin Mass in our island and he was being prisoned with a bogus crime of being the mastermind of illegal ivory trade. No other priest brave enough in our place but the SSPX priests. Under the current crisis there is no question on the validity of the TLM offered by SSPX Canon law is there for the salvation of soul even for the remote parts of the world. Canon law was not put to condemn brave priest of the SSPX. Please use humility and charity on your judgement with the SSPX.
"Cardinals opposing Cardinals, and Bishops against other Bishops". Watching Our Lady's prophesies playing out in real time. Exciting and terrifying all at once.
Yes and the All new, but prophacized long ago told in the Bible of the end times everyone claiming their religion is the true religion hes iver here no hes over here no hes over here. Everybody saying everybody else is wrong the fssp which h came out of the sppx claiming they are the only ones going to heaven. Wow wee I'm done here
@@bernadette1928, there are only two ways: Either one asks "what is true?" Or one asks "which talking head should I follow?" This video is entirely made of the talking heads stuff. The big key being that since Vatican II, even the Church and the popes have been reduced to talking heads one is expected to follow no matter where they go.
@@seriouscat2231 the Council of Trent defines there would always be a visible head of the Church. Be careful not to go sedevaticanist with your thinking.
I'm not a member of the SSPX nor I intend to be. But let me address "creating division" you are mentioning. Veneration of Pachamama idol, obsession with ordination of deaconess, stating the Via crucis is the story of God's failure (among many other nefarious comments), degradation of the Blessed Virgin Mary to a mere "Mother and disciple" by Pope Francis... That's really causing division, and reeks to sulfur. I think it is amazingly hypocritical from you end addressing the SSPX, which at least holds on to the faith it has been professed for centuries by Catholics saints and not addressing the Vatican malevolent departure from the Faith thought by the Apostles and stewarded by 265 popes over 2,000 years. Believe what you want, but the Word of God has not changed nor it will ever change no matter how much modernist liberals want to twisted.
If you watched the video, I addressed the very kind of argument you are making, agreeing that those need to be dealt with as well. But it is a false dichotomy or red herring to say "therefore, we ought not address these issues." I am no modernist.
Boy, are you off base. Don't try to justify the SSPX based on Pope Francis. Everyone knows he is goofy. But that does not make the SSPX's rebellion against the church right. The SSPX tries to connect the two all the time. That is why I don't trust them. Either they are right and there is no need to talk about Francis at all, or they are wrong. So when they bring Francis into it, you know they are trying to justify themselves with false pretences.
I'm perfectly on point. I did not justify SSPX, I far as I'm concerned, they are outside of the Catholic church, unfortunately. Why Pope Francis? Because is the summary of everything is WRONG in the Catholic Church, which is the libertine, modernistic Marxism that bears far off from Apostolic teaching and even rejects or twist the Sacred Scripture. This is the real malignant cancerous tumor in the Church which will eventually destroy it, just as Satan ever wanted. SPPX is just a curable cyst in comparison. This is why I said it is highly hypocritical addressing the SPPX when there far much greater evil that has taken over the Church of Jesus Christ. Why Pope Francis? He came on record, look it up (he is video by the way) saying that all people of the world are children of God. You call this “goofy”?…No, no, sir. This amounts to heresy, as it contradicts a most basic Apostolic teaching. We are all creatures of God; only the those who are Baptized “in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirt” are children of God by “adoption”, please see Galatian 4:47 and the Catholic Church Catechism 1265. This is something every Catholic ought to know, not just the Pope. A Pope telling in TV errors on basic Faith teaching or preach new innovative ideas astray from Apostolic teaching is HUGE. The SPPX is just a little lizard that broke into the house, a Pope spreading heresies and confounding the flock is much like a venomous viper under your bed. My point is not about justifying the SPPX, but rather about talking of the real dangerous predicament we in today. For this I stick to my previous comment that it is hypocritical to even talk about SPPX when there is a grave evil manifesting itself right from the vertex of the Church; no offense meant by the way.
So what is the real problem with the SSPX ? They are sticking to the faith as it was pre- Vatican 2 from what I understand... fill me in as to their errors please
You are incorrect in saying that we MUST obey the Pope. When it comes to matters that break from Tradition, one must obey the Church of all time. It is very clear that we can see how the Pope is doing things against God's teaching. So, do we fall with him? Also, Archbishop Lefebvre was never disobedient. When it came to consecreate Bishops, he asked the Vatican to do this. They were playing around with him and he could see that they were not really wanting him to continue the Faith as was always done. So, he knew this was urgent, because he knew he would not live much longer and the Faith has to continue Traditionally. BTW: Bishops in the old canon law did not require the approval of the Pope to consecrate them. Many saintly Bishops were consecrated this way. If you did really watch the interview with Taylor Marshall and Fr Robinson, you would have learnt this. You mislead with your comments.
JPII telling Archbishop Lefebvre not to consecrate bishops would be tantamount to telling a layperson not to go to mass. As bishop, it is his solemn DUTY to consecrate successors. Just as we have a solemn duty to attend mass. We serve God, not man.
@@tollelege5635 Hi, a priest is consecrated a bishop by either a Cardinal, Pope or Archbishop by the "laying on of hands". This is similar to how a priest is ordained. The authority of a bishop is not merely hierarchical in nature, the office of bishop imparts supernatural authority and power that a priest does not have. This is the manner in which bishops have been consecrated since Apostolic times.
Drawing an inference from to little information, you're in the Traditional movement because of the SSPX, without which there would not be a Traditional Latin Mass.
That's what the SSPX always claims, but its not really true. I have no respect for schismatic organizations that try to tell us how they saved this or that.
The TLM was the extraordinary form after V2 and never done away with...this is a claim I see a lot, but it just isn't true. If you look into the history of the liturgy, you will find TLM was never completely thrown out, though the new liturgy became the most prominent version...
@Philippe L I really don't know how widely practiced the liturgy is throughout the world today. I can't disagree that an order entirely devoted to it, such as the FSSP will likely increase the catholic faithful's exposure to it (and that's not a bad thing at all 🙂). Hopefully, SSPX will accept the church's warm invitation to enter into full communion with the church, and no scandal of illicit ministry will cloud their efforts to share the extraordinary form with catholics...
@@johntolkien3991 Nothing was changed in the old liturgy, it was just given a new label and the reformed liturgy became the commonly practiced Mass (ordinary form) 🙂
As a convert from the Baptist church, I realize more than many the mess Protestantism has become. The people who are the body of the Catholic Church aren’t perfect. This leads them to make doctrinal mistakes on occasion and step on each other’s toes. Sometimes the mistakes are big ones. People get upset over the errors and lash out. Sometimes they get so upset they leave. I get all that because my husband and I had been among those who left for awhile when child sexual abuse by clergy struck our family. We recently returned, however, because life without God’s sanctifying grace was tearing us apart. We needed the Catholic Church despite all her problems. Even though there have been issues we’ve struggled to reconcile, we understand the need for unity with Rome. It doesn’t take much study to see the confusing mess Protestantism has become. Allowing the same thing to happen to the Catholic Church wouldn’t help anyone. I don’t have all the answers, but there are a few things that I think it helps to realize. God never lets the church stray too far before doing something to bring it back. God can and will chastise his priests (and Popes) as he sees fit. Lay people have an important role in supporting the church and keeping it holy, but who among us has done enough? We need to do much more to support the education of our priests and safeguard their holiness. We should consider how difficult it is to be holy in today’s world and not make it harder for them. After all, priests (and Popes) are as subject to human failings as the rest of us. I have to add that I love Taylor Marshall and get his point of view regarding traditionalism. At the same time, I see good in some of the Vatican II changes and wonder what would happen if they were suddenly thrown out. None of us have all the answers, but God does...as well as a church hierarchy to communicate them through. There is a way forward that doesn’t include schism and God knows how it can be accomplished. It’s not an easy path, but we can walk it together successfully with God’s help. I can’t claim to know God’s will in all of this, but my husband and I are trying to do our part praying, becoming more educated about our faith and supporting our local priests. As for the rest, it’s in God’s capable hands.
Mass in the vernacular, more scripture reading. Renewed call to lay people in the universal call to holiness. Change in relationship between Jews and Christians working to end anti-semitism. Set standard for biblical study in Dei Verbum. Doing away with maniapules. Encouraging greater inculturation in mission territory to spur evangelization.
@@gtaylor178 I actually can’t. I’ve grown a great deal since writing that post. We now attend a TLM two hours away, and I’ve learned a great deal more about what Vatican II threw away and changed. Though it’s interesting looking back at where I was not so long ago, I write and think very differently today. For everyone who criticized my post…or wanted to but held back, I’m not too proud to admit being wrong. I do still, however, believe it’s all in God’s capable hands.
@@michaelspeyrer1264 My opinions in some areas have shifted a bit since I wrote that post a year ago. Though I don’t disagree with all of my previous comments, I now see little if any redeeming qualities in the Novus Ordo mass. A year of traditional Latin mass attendance has fully convinced me of its vast superiority. Where besides a TLM can one experience the blessed silence, quiet holiness and peaceful yet powerful calm of low mass? It stands in stark opposition to the cacophony and confusion of modern life. As to Taylor, I get that some people don’t like him or agree with his views. That’s their right. It’s a documented fact, however, that he speaks and writes from the highly educated perspective of a Ph.D. I haven’t read everything he’s written, but I have found nothing of real significance I personally disagree with. Related to your reply, it’s only fair to cite at least one specific example of where you believe he’s wrong. Even a broken clock (old school type) is right twice a day. So is Francis on increasingly rare occasions. If you can’t and are just trolling, there are many other channels that would welcome biased input.
Hello from the Rep of Ireland, I never knew anything about the SSPX until I came across a video by one of their Priests and I was mesmerized by his talk, it was truly amazing and what all of us Catholics need to hear not the nicey,nicey rubbish at the Novus Ordo Mass today. God bless the SSPX for teaching the true catechism of our Holy Mother Church.
No you are wrong.We do not have to obey the Pope except if he was speaking ex cathedraGet your facts right.People have moved on.People already know the ins and outs of the SSPS ànd SSPX.Where have you been all this time?Just educate yourself.All the men you have talked about e.g.T.Marshall,Tim Gordon etc are more knowledgable than you.They have done a lot for the Church and brought many souls back to the Church.You are full of Sour Grapes.You look miserable.Anyone commiting adultery is NOT allowed Communion.Simple.The pope has NO right and NO authority to allow adulterers to receive Communion.Who are you trying to fool.God bless Tailor, Tim,1PeterFife and the many other faithful men defending the Church.
thank you maureen/i just noticed your words were nicey nicey and not wishy washy/do you remember name of SSPX priest/ they have just put 50 videos in 2021 called SSPX CRISIS SERIES
Bohemond I He had no obedience. You think his faith was strong because he wore nice vestments and celebrated beautiful liturgy. That means absolutely nothing without obedience to Christ.
@@kimberlyriddell8574 Being obedient to the Pope requires obedience even when he is being unjust unless what he is asking you to do is a sin. Many saints have suffered bad superiors but submitted to their judgments out of obedience. Disobeying the Pope when he specifically asks you not to do something, which is within Pope's power to ask by the way, is an act of schism.
Colin Sheehan That's Protestant doctrine you're spewing. You don't get to decide what to obey, you have to submit unless your superior is telling you to do something sinful. Obedience to your superior is obedience to Christ. The SSPX do not believe in the authority of the Church and still wanna come off as Catholic. You can't have it both ways. I think Father Ripperger said it perfectly: "Some of the these "traditionalists" are the worst modernists.
Father ripperger speaks about this. Traditionalists have too much pride. Rather than aiming everything toward God and becoming a Saint, they're more worried about minutiae. It's a way for Satan to take people who start out with good intentions, but let pride and arrogance lead them astray. Pray for them, and pray for the church. She is under massive assault.
Well, technically you would have to obey a "bad pope" if he ordered you to do something good and in continuity with Catholic doctrine. It's not about his personal moral character, but the content of what he is telling people to do. I am assuming this is probably what you meant, I'm just being picky.
@@aretrograde7745 Yes, that's what I meant. But don't sweat it, in 7 years nothing good to obey. Obey UN? NO, Follow Laudato Si? No. Confess sins against "mother earth"?, NO. Kiss the feet of a sultan? NO. All religions are equal? NO. ETC., ETC.....
@@Joe-uw5rv We have been blessed to be able to have the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass all these days, while the Novus Ordo Protestant Church has been cowardly closed. F.Y.I. th-cam.com/video/SgHqkQUZvb0/w-d-xo.html
Totally correct Tony. All we are asked to do is recognise the Pope as the successor of St Peter. That's IT! If he feeds us rubbish, we have the eternal Catechism of the Church to inform us so we can reject it. Pachamama, Mother Earth, the UN and condemnation of the Mass of all time that Saints attended for 1500 years? Reject, Reject, Reject and REJECT!!!!!
Not true at all. SSPX always tries to take credit for everything. This is really annoying. They insist on fighting with the church no matter what. They are a bit goofy that way.
@@tomthx5804 I think The Church and Pope Francis are goofy in many ways.... I joined via RCIA. I have studied over 50 years... I am starting to wonder what the BLEEP I may have gotten myself into...
Everyone of of has to thanks the SSPX and his founder Monseñor Lefevre. Thanks to him we have Latin Mass. he was braved to preserve the Holy Latin Mass despite having the whole word calling him schismatic. Repent all the people who criticize them. We are blessed to have SSPX.
Appreciate your sincerity and good-will, but you seem confused. And that’s OK. The current crisis of Faith in the Church and the status of the Society is complicated. It takes much research and prayer. It is certain that under these current circumstances in the Church, when no Sacraments are being offered to the Faithful, the SSPX has supplied jurisdiction. Fight your fear and go to Confession with one of their priests who now have ordinary delegated jurisdiction by the pope for Confession. Canon Law 1323, subpoints 4, 7 clearly demonstrate that Lefebvre was not lawfully excommunicated. I could go on and on. You’re missing tons of necessary information before making a judgment on the matter. Keep researching. Btw, It’s very strange to see this emotional knee jerk animosity and compulsive insults coming from “Catholics” when you say “SSPX”. Call us whatever you want. Call us excommunicated, call us Protestants, call us schismatic, call us heretics. It is a lie. It is you who are confused, along with most of the Church. We’ll never apologize for being Catholic. Well never apologize for believing what Catholics always believed and worshipping as Catholics always worshipped.
Well written. I am not a member of an SSPX congregation but I fully believe that the SSPX is FULLY Catholic and that if not for them, the Traditional Latin mass would have been lost forever, and with it much of the Catholic Faith. We should be thanking these priests for their love of the Church, not demonizing them.
Exactly right. They (the show and his friends, the two brothers) and many like them, are these who behave un-Catholic and are full of hatred towards the SSPX and have really little knowledge of the true history of SSPX, but can't stop maligning the Society. I wonder whether they don't fear God?
Your conclusion that the SSPX has supplied jurisdiction is laughable. It is one of those nutty legal sounding things the SSPX always pulls. if this were true, the real Catholic church would declare it to be so. Junior G men like you do not get to go around declaring what is true about the sacraments and what is not. Shame on you. And don't give me this "Oh, its all terribly complicated, but just trust me, SSPX is totally fine". That is not the church's judgment, that is standard SSPX BS. Boy, you sound just like Martin Luther. Rebellious and proud of it
come on....they are in schism....Tell your SSPX priest to come to a Novus ordo mass and receive communion there....If he says "NO I WON'T".. then you got your answer....They are in schism... (1 John 2:19) "These people left our churches, but they never really belonged with us; otherwise they would have stayed with us. When they left, it proved that they did not belong with us."
@@pinoysarisari7374 There you go again spreading falsehood. Why are you attempting to usurp the authority of Rome? Look in the mirror and you got your answer as to why you feel the need to speak on behalf of those in authority. The same authority that has not said what you have. You're seeking yourself. Not the truth. Not obedience to Rome. Revisit scripture. Our Lord checked the Sons of Thunder who wanted to call down lightening bolts. You do not know of what spirit you are.
I'm quite shocked by the virulence of the comments below. Why do people always resort to insults, accusing others of 'telling lies', when all they are doing is giving an informed opinion. If the opinion differs from ones own, have the grace to oppose it with charity. It's very upsetting to see these nasty comments, this sense of emnity towards fellow members of Christ's Church. The Churchman I most admire is Cardinal Sarah. He has true humility and charity. He is an obedient son of the Church, shows deference towards the pope, but defends orthodoxy with quiet courage. I say this although I was disappointed initially when Cardinal Sarah did not follow Bishop Athanasius Schneider's more strident opposition. I love the pope only in the sense that I recognise the Chair of Peter and I pray for him, but I dislike his manner and am concerned about many things he has said and done. It's a horribly confusing time in the Church, but God knows what He is doing in allowing it.
It is the show that insults the SSPX, and the author said himself that he doesn't know the details about SSPX, so then why he did a show on it. He should have researched the topic, and read sources (but true and honest sources and not lies and hateful source), and only then present a show. There are good and verifiable sources. So do not be shocked. This man is quite arrogant and mean and not charitable.
The fact of the matter is, the SSPX lies their rear end off all the time. I have never come across an organization that claims to be Catholic, but lies and lies and lies and lies. It's not a matter of opinion. They lie.
Thanks for your thoughts. Tim doesn’t care about “followers,” “likes,” or cash. He cares about souls and he will always tell it like he sees it. I am so proud of him. This has been a difficult week for our family with our daughter’s surgery. To have the Marshall thing blow up at this time was not something we wanted. Tim felt it was necessary that he speak up about the SSPX issue since his former co-host went in a direction he could not follow. We are all about dialogue. We hope Taylor reconsiders blocking us. Wish him well. Tim is always available to speak to Taylor, any time any place.
That's what I like and admire about Tim. I was sad to see things blow up between him and Taylor, but I also perceived an underlying tension. Before all this "blew up," I became increasingly concerned about Taylor's more frequent and blatant support for the SSPX. I posted comments on his videos to no avail. For his sake and others, we need to address this. Also, I very much appreciate and admire Tim's sincerity and his openness to being led by the evidence. Most of all, his concern for the salvation of souls, which is why we all do this. I was so sad hear of your daughter's surgery as well. You are all in my prayers! I hope she is recovering well. Your children are blessed to have you two as parents. I am sorry you have to go through all of these traumas at once. It must be difficult. Y'all have my support. God bless!
Not true. The excommunications between Rome and Constantinople were also lifted without any recantint, but they remain in schism and neither side claims that we are now in the same Church. Or, if you see it as a lifting of the excommunications of the 11th Century people involved, it still didn't due away with the factual schism. It's the removal of a legal barrier and punishment for a crime, not an acknowledgement that the crime wasn't committed, and it's a gesture of good will to make reunion possible.
@@decluesviews2740 Two different scenarios. The SSPX bishops were directly responsible for the SSPX situation and necessarily needed to recant, if they were indeed guilty of schism, or they could not be received back into the Church. The children of people of the Great Schism, centuries later, were not responsible for what happened and BXVI was generous to the ones who wanted to be received in. Besides, BXVI lifted the SSPX "excommunications" (which never applied to those who attend SSPX masses) because he knew the Society wasn't doing anything wrong in trying to maintain Tradition. BXVI was also very wise, knowing the SSPX circulated the notion that VII was heretical, something they've mostly moved away from. That VII is 'heretical' is highly unlikely, dare I say impossible, and outright dangerous to suggest. It can never be proven because the Holy Spirit doesn't make mistakes. In his wisdom, Pope BXVI left a caveat for ppl who wanted to attend SSPX TLM: "Don't adhere to schism", addressing the SSPX, showing that VII and the NO properly done, are Catholic, period. The only way BXVI could give such permission is if the SSPX is in the Church. So, laity can attend the TLM at SSPX chapels in good conscience in order to maintain the Faith; where they can avoid the frequent sacrileges found at NO masses and the many outrageous shenanigans. No good Catholic wants to be outside the Church and BXVI did what he could to heal the divisions encouraging Catholics worldwide to unite. We must all humble ourselves as the Body of Christ is stretched and dislocated. Thankfully, not a bone of It was broken. May Mary be your Queen.
I've attended SSPX chapels and FSSP chapels. I live close to an FSSP chapel so I go there. I believe as demonized as they've been, they are just trying to keep the faith. We should unite the clans. People need to know the whole story and most don't. Apologia Pro Marcel LeFevre by Michael Davies helped greatly.
@@michaelspeyrer1264 To be heretic you need to teach something that is in opposition to the Church. How someone can be a heretic when they teach exactly what Church tought over hundreds of years? If this is in opposition with todays teaching than we have almost 2000 years of Tradition against 60 years. Who is heretic now? And funny thing that most of the people who throw stones at sspx are realy friendly to protestans. I've never heard from progresive bishops and priests that they are schismatics and heretics. No, we actually need to learn from them, pray with them. We need to organise huge meetings. But you should never speake with the traditionalists, especially those form sspx.
@@swojchwat When they deny the dogmatic teaching with anathema attached from the First Vatican Council that would be one. "No one shall sit in judgment over the Roman Pontiff anathema sit." Or when someone teaches an ecclesiology that declares the Holy See can promulgate a liturgy contrary to and harmful to the faith, that's heresy and a violation of Vatican I. When someone practices and ecclesiology which professes that one doesn't need legitimate faculties for 40 years making absolution valid, that's heretical. When someone practices and professes an ecclesiology that one can be in communion with the Pope, while denying ecumenical councils have binding teaching authority, and refusing submission to the Pope on canon law and the decrees of the the Holy See, that's a heretical position. This goes beyond mere mistakes in understanding of authority of the Church and bleeds into dogmatic teaching at odds with one's premises. Dogedly holding to non-binding externalities of the faith while denning dogmatically held teaching and discipline is just as much heresy and schism as Jansienism, Arians, Protestantism, and Orthodoxy. "Who is heretic now?" The SSPX. "And funny thing that most of the people who throw stones at sspx are realy friendly to protestans." Not correct. " Corporate sent down a picture of Protestantism, and the SSPX and told me to find the difference......Its the same picture. " " But you should never speake with the traditionalists, especially those form sspx." -You big dummy. I AM A TRADITIONALIST and have been for 25 years. Not supporting the Protestant heresy of the SSPX, doesn't mean one doesn't support traditionalism. That's a false dichotomy. And an example of the lies the SSPX brainwash and abuse their cult members with.
@@michaelspeyrer1264 Well, Calling me "big dummy" doesn't actually convince me to your arguments. Seems like your tradicionalism didn't do much good to you. Also seems like you don't understand the difference between schizm and heresy. Calling sspx protestants looks like you just try to be mean because obviously the difference is huge and hard to miss. This kind of emotional approach suggests you don't feel comfortable with your arguments and need to constantly confirm your position with strong emphasis :P
@@swojchwat Being that your NOT objective, no about amount of information would convince you of that. Because you bought into the same falsehoods the SSPX has been peddling for 40 years at which at every stage the Holy See has professed the contrary. Which you still won't accept even when formal bulls of excommunication have been issued against it for "schismatic acts according to Canon Law," which is an exact quotation from the bull of excommunication of Marcel Lefebvre and those he ordained. I do, and the SSPX is engaging in both. Because they are Protestants. You mean like protesting the Holy See , and promoting the same puritanical ecclesiology of the Church as the Puritans, and the Lutherans? Luther wanted reform as well, to the point he separated from the Holy See, and then despite refusing to accept the Holy See's corrections of them, just like the Jansenists, refused to accept they were in schism no matter how may times and ways it was explained... Gee, why would anyone think they were the same? This is not an emotional approach this is laying out the data for you, which you are rejecting, because you won't accept it, which is typical of the SSPX brainwashing regiment.
@@johnpolcintertiarypaul6369 what I wanna know is - if you’re truly Catholic and truly down with the real traditional Catholic Church how do you go to a sspx chapel, meet the people, meet the priest, hear a sermon, etc and still reject it and say you’re being forced to attend - you couldn’t “force” me to attend a NO mass
Me too !! I have been very inspired by Dr. Marshall. Unfortunately the dude in this video constantly disrespects Dr. Marshall. He publishes video titled "Errors of Taylor Marshall." He seems to be jealous of Dr. Marshall.
You say that you really don't know the compete history of the SSPX, yet you go on to tell the history of the SSPX?? You've never set foot in the door of a SSPX chapel and yet claim to say they do not recognize the authority of the Pope, yet the SSPX chapel a couple miles from my house has a portrait of Pope Francis hanging up right as you get in to the church. I think you need to open your eyes and maybe actually speak to someone from the society and get their information. We can't continue to "snipe" at one another while trying to rebuild our catholic faith so we can expand the true faith to all of those who've fallen away and to those who need to discover true Catholicism. Too many souls are falling into Hell, let's try to help all of our faithful priests and bishops save more souls for the they all belong to our Lord.
I made a similar comment to him, but it is in vain, these people hate the Society, without having the facts and they will die hating them. They are too arrogant and not charitable. And so fake.
It sounded like he actually lives the people who attend society Masses. His appeal was to work to reunion. Furthermore, mentioning the Holy Father in the Cannon and having his picture on the wall doesn't automatically mean unity, which you must admit. I could give you some hyperbolic examples, if you aren't following me. The fact that the Pope across the validity of V2, whereas the Society Priests demand the right to speak against them would suggest a possible disunity. I know it is a grey area though. Amoris Laetitia highlights this in the footnote addendum that apparently includes the erroneous statement from the Argentine Bishops (I have looked for this but couldn't find it, however the TNT boys were sure that it was, and I will give them the benefit of the doubt for lack of time to cross check again). Anyway, I think DeClues gave a pretty charitable appeal, and seems to have tried to represent a brief history based upon information in the public sphere, which is reasonable in his context.
Dave Irby, you need to understand the SSPX runs many scams. They put up pictures of Pope Francis, and then they pray for him during mass. And then they say "see how loyal we are". Then they turn around and tell you that they don't have to obey the authority of the pope, and that they can disregard anything they want to disregard. So the SSPX is one gigantic scam.
@@judithbereczky4114 no, the problem is that people are starting to understand what a total scam the SSPX is. They lie constantly. In 1975, the bishop who allowed the SSPX to get started suddenly realized they were a bunch of schismatics. So he ordered them shut down. Lefebvre said "you can't suppress my group! Only Rome can do that!" So the bishop asked the CDF to suppress them. The CDF investigated, found the SSPX was awful, and ordered them suppressed. So the SSPX said "No one can suppress us but the Pope!" So the CDF handed the matter to the Pope. The Pope wrote them a letter, and told them they were suppressed. Lefebvre said "You can't suppress me, I have the right to a trial first!" But that was a lie. There is no right to a trial. Once the pope speaks, that's the end of it. But Lefebvre wanted this because he wanted publicity for his cause. The pope wrote him back and told him he had no right to a trial under Canon Law. In Catholicism, the Pope is the "Supreme Legislator" and that is all it takes, a letter from the Pope. So Lefebvre just ignored what the pope told him. In 1988, Lefebvre was excommunicated for ordaining bishops. Only the pope can do that. But Lefebvre lied and said he had to do it because ""he had an emergency". But no bishop can declare an emergency and take over the role of the pope. So after being excommunicated, Lefebvre said "you can't excommunicate me!" The man obviously was a little bit nutty.
DOUBLE SHAME ON YOU...JUST KIDDING....ArchBishop Levebvre did the same type of disobedience, there was a need for priests and Bishops in his order and masonic Rome wanted to stamp out this traditional order.
@@bwhennes Archbishop Lefebvre had to be excommunicated because he violated every vow he ever made. He took a vow of obedience, he disobeyed it because he thought he was the real pope and he did not need to obey anyone but himself. What a loser!
In Canada the bishops would absolutely close down FSSP if there wasn't SSPX as the alternative for Trads who will not attend sacreligous novo ordo masses
Ok, so I'm finding this a bit late, but I have to ask the question I've been asking repeatedly without getting an answer: If the pope tells us we must do or believe something which is contrary to Church teaching, which would lead us into sin, are we to be obedient to the pope? Or do we say no, and turn instead to our consciences and do/believe what has been the traditional teaching of the Church?
Check out CCC 675 as pertains to the "Mystery of Iniquity." Apostasy from the truth is the foretold "religious" solution. I'd love "de Clue" to review that in the context of his false assertions.
The Pope is head of our Catholic church, however, I put my trust in our Lord Jesus Christ & have a deep relationship via scriptures & my faith. The Pope is only driving the vehicle for our church, therefore, if he is driving us off the cliff to diabolical choices, then I am getting out of the vehicle. I am riding with Jesus with no worries of going off the cliff. I will remain Catholic & just not put my faith in this Pope & his pachemama bs!!! Thank God for Dr. Taylor Marshall & all the Bishops, priests & Archbishops preaching on the truth & clarity...
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
This is standard crap from the SSPX. They always get very long and pretend to be legal and the final authority. The fact is, there is no serious canon lawyer who believes their creepy attempt to use canon law to justify their rebellioin. It's a joke argument, from a legal standpoint. The SSPX approach is, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bulshit. After following the SSPX for many years, I can tell you, these guys lie, they tell half truths, they create false implications from nothing. They are the worse. The more you learn about them, the more you realize they are really the antithesis of Catholicism.
@Tom thx you said ‘there’s no serious canon lawyer who supports the SSPX.’ Umm.... have you ever heard of the greatest Canon lawyer of the twentieth century Father Gregory Hesse. SSPX holds the true faith. If you want to remain blind and follow a heretical modernist Vatican II sect then so be it!
Obedience to the Pope is conditional my friend. It depends on who the Pope is and what he is ordering. Just ask St. Bernard of Clairvaux as regards Anacletus II and the first Victor IV, and ask St. Anno as regards the first Honorius II. Just ask The Third Council of Constantinople as regards Honorius I. Just ask Juan Cardinal De Torquemada in his Summa De Ecclesia. Just ask St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae. Just ask: Pope Innocent III (Sermo 4) Pope Pius IX (Letter to Bishop Brizen)
Obedience to the pope depends on whether or not he speaks “Ex Cathedra”. From the chair of St Peter. The Catholic Church has had many Councils. As Catholics we have to except /obey the council. We might not agree or like Vatican 2. But we have to obey. If we are not going to obey the church, why be catholic. Be Protestant. There are sinful and horrible church clergy. Sin is everywhere. There are sinful priests in the Novus Ordo and in the SSPX. For people to say that the priests of the SSPX are holy and sin free compared to priests in the Novus Ordo is ridiculous. This is what I’m objecting to in general.
@Evelyn Jackson The investigations that have been coming to light about the SSPX just shows that they are prone to the same problems as the NO because of fallen human nature. Responses from Trads to the scandal are just worse than the NO. Trads need to get off their high horse and stop acting like they're better than the NO.
Every Catholic MUST obey the pope unless he can PROVE that what the pope is ordering is without a doubt, against Catholic dogma. No one has ever proven that against any Pope. Closest was John 22nd, who seemed to be stating a falsehood about the Beatific Vision. But then he backed down when learned experts pointed it out to him. So no, it has never happened.
And in Pope Francis we have pride in super abundance and arrogance to match. Pray that Our Lord grants the Holy Father a Pauline Conversion before his coming death and judgement.
This dispute has always mystified me - other than as part of the Mystery of Inquity. First and foremost, the ecclesiastical censure and chastisement of the SSPX are the easiest of the controversies to end .. they were responses to perceived offences against papal prerogative - not against signs of schismatic intent or obdurate doctrinal error. A reigning Sovereign Pontiff, good, bad or indifferent can, therefore, clarify this situation (and overturn the rulings, now muddied and muddled) with the drop of a papal mitre: by saying the offence is understood and forgiven, the cause of division at an end .. the Society, clearly, cannot do this - because it does not have the authority to reconcile itself with the Holy See (only to disband, and seek to be reconciled individually, an end, it would seem, that the Vatican apparatus no longer seems to require or even desire). The main error of the Society, then, was that of an offence against the authority of a reigning Supreme Pontiff .. no light matter, btw, for any faithful Catholic, and the main or rather only significant reason to avoid their otherwise-valid if illicit ministry. Now that is no longer a possible rational response, for two reigning pontiffs having amended the Society's status in regard to the Petrine Office - and their own sovereign persons. So it is, at the moment, solely the matter of jurisdiction that should give us pause .. and, believe it or not, it should; if, but only if, the Sovereign Pontiff and/ or one's local ecclesial pontiff (bishop, metropolitan, abbot, etc) gives the members of the Society the right to administer the Sacraments - and take up positions of leadership in ruling, guiding, and sanctifying the faithful - ought we to use their gentle and kind services - ordinarily. In some places, this authorisation has been given locally, as it is possible globally to avail of some of the Sacraments - as set out by Pope Francis. And that silliness is the current status of the Society and our relationship with its members. Now whether the saintly and faithful archbishop was right to cross over a papal prerogative, and whether the ruling pontiff, now canonised, was wise to react as he did - that is a different matter. Note well, a church-approved ability to teach the Catholic Faith is not the same as the church-approved right to teach it, on behalf of the Catholic Church. Your blog and my comments are not - as yet - subject to the very proper rules of Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur censorship; sadly these once useful instruments are all but worthless today, being doled out by feckless senior pastors with little care for (or knowledge of) the Faith. So, you and I, like Brother Joseph-Mary of the Sacred Tradition Family Fraternity and Sister Bobbi of the Perpetual Indulgence Gaia-Bus Fellowship, may well have an approved ability to teach - yet valid ordination alone gives the approved right to teach in the Church and for Her .. though local ordinaries retain the jurisdictional power to permit or prohibit the authority to do so in Christ's Holy Name (thus permitting Fr James Martin SJ, for example, to teach more or less what he pleases where he pleases while prohibiting a simple parish priest's talk on The Four Last Things or The Sins That Cry Out To Heaven et al).
Thank you a ton for your videos on these touchy subjects. I'm still trying to fit all this stuff together (as are we all, I guess), but going through your channel has already done a lot to tame the "radical" in me. Looking forward to the continuation of your Vatican II series when you find the time. God bless you!
Without Judas, the Pharisees, the Saducees, the Priests of the Council, the Crowds, and Pontius Pilot, the Crucifixion wouldn't have happened: doesn't justify their sins.
As a faitfull of the sspx i have never heard any of our priest condeming the other traditional societies affliated with Rome. They are more concerned with the sanctification of their faithfuls. But you people continue to attack with diabolical hatred. If you are so bloody zealous about unity in the church, why dont you publicly address the Holy Father and the scandals that sprung forth from his reign. " Even the stones would cry out".
Because the unity is not about truth anymore. It's about institutional power and feelgood trappings. That's what these "traditionalists in the Church" wish to make the TLM into: just an aesthetic choice without any deeper meaning, except the personal feelings and impressions it generates.
How come every time you tell an SSPX person that their leader had to be excommunicated for grave sin, and how come every time you point out they are schismatic and have NO canonical status in the church, they say "Oh, forget all that. You must talk about what Pope Francis has done wrong"?
@BDL C, you actually disagree with me, while giving an appearance of agreeing, as if trying to reinterpret my message for posterity. What I hold is that all the smells and bells Traditionalists in full communion are not traditional enough. Doctrine is the foundation of the Church, while the Mass is only its public face. All these supposed scandals, both in Novus Ordo and the Society are equally just red herrings and are drummed up to keep everyone's attention away from the things that actually matter. Which is again doctrine and how it was turned upside down in 1965. The Society is yet another red herring. Knowing a few people there, they seem to teach some kind of SSPX identity politics far more than anything about living an actual spiritual life. The recent supposed scandals in the Society are mostly fabrications by people who have been caught lying about these things earlier. I think the Society is currently just a fake opposition and that this so-called scandal was needed to keep it doing its job. Which is to confusingly attack and accept at the same time the current mess in Vatican. If people get bored of the current Society and are no longer divided about it, they will need to find something else to take its place. What better way to help this than drum up an abuse scandal? It's what these particular drummers are best at.
@BDL C, in other words, 1) the scandals in the Society are fake. There have been a few real ones there, nobody is denying that, but this particular one was a cheap attempt. And 2) the Society itself is fake. They do more identity politics than actual spiritual teaching. While 3) the focus on the Mass instead of doctrine is fake, and therefore 4) both the Society and so-called trads in full communion are fake. But 5) also all the scandals in the larger Novus Ordo world are fake, not in the sense of not having happened but in the sense of not meriting the amount of attention given. This is because 6) the entire Novus Ordo edifice is fake, but remains buttressed on both sides by these kinds of endless manufactured battles. There's no other way to make people fight for a church that threw away its doctrine long time ago, ergo the entire Vatican is fake. But 7) most fake of them all is a particular organization from Spain that manufactures and directs most if not all of the other fakery.
I would consider it a compliment to be called in an ‘irregular canonical situation’ with the likes of Francis. By the same token Francis has been consistently generous to the Society, saying at one point ‘Of course they are Catholics.’
@r4zk4l Not sure what the point if the question is. In any event, Francis’ personal commitment to religion is mired in such deep philosophical and theological confusion it would be impossible even to know what he might mean by believing in something. My only point was to observe that he is not as nasty to the Society as he is to traditional Catholics in a regularized canonical position
Thank you for speaking your informed views with charity. Please keep sharing, despite the criticism, as its important to keep a dialogue alive for the sake of unity. I myself am in the process of capturing my own voice as well.
Much to consider, but also much left out. The Society is not in schism, nor has it ever been. Take this however you will, but Catholics need to educate themselves in this time of spiritual combat. www.scribd.com/document/3984779/Meuli-Letter-Re-Sspx
Here is my summary 1. You’re ignorant on canon law 2. Paragraph 7 of code 1323 says if the consecrator THOUGHT there was a state of necessity, no penalty incurrs. 3. The Pope de facto stated that the SSPX operated under supplied jurisdiction, which deems your boomer arguments, utterly null
I attend the SSPX mass because that’s the only TRADITIONAL LATIN mass available in my area. So apart from the SSPX sticking to the unchanging tradition of the Church and refuse to celebrate the Novus Ordo mass what exactly wrong with them ? Who cares about your credentials?
Exactly. What was it that Jesus said the Pharisees? "You strain the gnat but sallow the camel". Matt 23:24 That is exactly what these SSPX haters are doing, straining the gnat.
Watching this 18 months later, in NZ......... I wonder how many contributors here would alter their statements in the light of so much that the present Pope has said on many subjects.. not the least the recent clampdown on the celebration of the Latin Mass... Once a very Catholic Catholic,,, I left practising the Faith by my late 20s, partly because of "doubts" and partly, largely, because of the very poor standard of preaching... the teaching at least was provided after that, most often, in Baptist churches Now--the point... over the past year, due largely to Taylor Marshall and a couple of other sites, I have woken up to the Church and its mission. I am quite concerned at the "woke" /modernist tendencies in "Catholic" schools and parishes.. the "church of nice" approach in the NZ Church so far as I can see. If, as I have written elsewhere, push came to shove in the NZ Church, esp under the present disaster of papal leadership, I would definitely head to the nearest SSPX church,,,which unfortunately is 80 Km south or 100 Km north. We may have a Pope...but what a pope......
Love Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre! After reading his biography & “Priestly Holiness” I realized he did nothing wrong but continued the “Mass of the Ages”. Thank God for the FSSPX. I’m sad there not a SSPX close by. Most grateful for Our Lady of Fatima who led Jeffrey Tillery to the SSPX & shared with me the truth! Please pray for Jeffrey as he will (Deus Vult) attending St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in VA this Fall! JanetMarie
The argument you said from 11:45 to 13:30 that you don't break away from Rome and that popes authority has to be recognized and obeyed is true but SSPX does that already. SSPX never said that the pope isn't the pope and they are obeying pope in his decree if it doesn't counter the teaching of the tradition. Pope St. Pius X on tradition :" Tradition is the non-written word of God, which has been transmitted by word of mouth by Jesus Christ and by the apostles, and which has come down to us through the centuries by the means of the Church, without being altered ". The same thing have done all the bischops during the reign of pope Honorius 1 and the same thing did St. Athanasius.At the argument that the pope can determine what is sacred lithurgy and what isn't is somewhat true. He can in fact determine it if it doesn't go against tradition and documents concerning faith and morals given with papal authority by the popes before him.
You are totally misunderstanding the Pius X quote. It has nothing to do with the liturgy. The Catholic church follows scripture and TRADITION. But that is a discrete point, which you are assuming tradition means everything that has been done for a long time in the church, like the liturgy. But that is not what Pius X means by the word tradition.
Thanks for the video. What have you read in your research in said subject? If you could leave us a list of all books, articles, etc that have led you to this conclusion. Thanks in advance.
Here is a good book. It takes all the ridiculous criticisms against Vatican II, and deals with them , one by one in a rational way. "The Disputed Teachings of Vatican II: Continuity and Reversal in Catholic Doctrine" www.amazon.com/Disputed-Teachings-Vatican-II-Continuity/dp/080287438X/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=The+Disputed+Teachings+of+Vatican+II%3A+Continuity+and+Reversal+in+Catholic+Doctrine&qid=1596924180&s=books&sr=1-1
Interesting but it leaves off the fullness of truth and goes straight into opinion. Confirmation bias. Not an actual examen. Check out the defense of the Society's positon: www.scribd.com/document/3984779/Meuli-Letter-Re-Sspx
Thank you.! My husband and I just recently left the SSPX after 20 years . You are right, this is all really sad and I have so many regrets. Especially for my adult children that were raised in a SSPX chapel. We need a lot of prayers. We have a great Bishop that supports the TLM and diocesan priests that have the ability to offer it. I love the idea of working within the church to help support and spread the truth of the Orthodox Catholic faith. +
And even after 50 years, they only have 600 priests in the entire world. They are a nutcase sect, a cult, really quite protestant in their insistence they can do whatever they want.
As a convert long ago, what drew me to the church was that the Catholic service was different than the protestant churches. The priest faced the alter and led the people toward the worship. Every Catholic Church throughout the world used the same language: our responses and prayers in Latin - everywhere!!! We were one faith !!!! We knelt to receive the Host on our tongues. We didn't take it in hand to feed it to ourselves as if eating a snack. It was taught as the holy way to do it..... When it all changed suddenly, it was a shock. Please try to understand. Just give it a moment of thought of how that hurt people who were convinced that we Catholics had reasons for conducting our worship as we did for centuries. Thank you for your understanding.
Trust me. I do understand. And I appreciate your heartfelt sharing of your experience. I have relatives that had similar experiences. I am all about ad orientem. I am all for receiving on the tongue, kneeling. I attend the TLM regularly. Please understand that I love the tradition as well. It is out of love for it, that I feel the need to implore others who love it not to go too far and err on the side of illicit sacraments and irregular ecclesial structures.
Someone with more knowledge on this please explain to me: First Latin Mass is good. Then it is heresy and schismatic. Now it is good. What did I miss here? Did God change his mind a few times, does God dabble in logical contradiction, was the Church in error, or was SSPX in error, or something else, and why? To me as a layman, the confusion and division seems to originate with the change, not with the people that resisted the change.
The SSPX will never given canonical status by the conciliar church. The main stand of the conciliar church is that the SSPX recognize vatican 2 in its entirety and celebrate the novus ordo missae. While the SSPX wants to remain traditional - that is celebrate the TLM and perform sacraments based on the traditional forms and prayers. The differences can not be reconciled, especially with the recent traditiones custodes.
@@decluesviews2740 Because the FSSP ad ICKSP aren't standing up for clear teaching. They'll do whatever they're asked for the honor of being allowed to exist. The SSPX is standing up for the Church in continually addressing and being a visible sign that calls for clarity in teaching. That's an honorable endeavor. Let your yes be yes, and your no, be no. Anything else is from the devil. Hence VII documents that "can" and "are" open to interpretation beyond what "you" deem proper interpreted are being used to destroy Catholic teaching. That's why I find your placating videos that seek to put sheep to sleep with "everything is all right" when its not obnoxious. Insidious even. What videos are you doing to unite the flock toward authentic interpretation and demanding as much in their dioceses? Are you doing anything? The Oath Against Modernism used to ensure that novel "interpretations" were kept out of the Church. But its abrogation in the aftermath of VII gave prelates a green light to interpret at will and you know it. So with VII giving tacit permission to do what thou wilt in critical areas of the Church, one cannot in good conscience proclaim the soundness of VII documents. You know that, too.
Question: if SSPX came back into full communion with Rome, would they be able to choose their own members and leaders ( bishops etc...). The reason this matters is that, if modernists in Rome start choosing their bishops, then everything the society fought for would collapse. In this case, in my opinion, Rome should grant them independence to be a separate order with full canonical status if they submit to Rome’s authority.
Mika Zoftstrom Rome already offered them exactly that - prelature. They still refused. I still don’t think they should dialogue with them. Imagine the Apostles negotiating with schismatics about coming back to the church? It would never have happened! Even to join the Church in the first place back then you would had to prove yourself. And here we are negotiating with this renegade group. Who do they think they are? There should be no negotiations- they should be approaching the Church, hat in hand, bending the knee and ask to be taken back -after they do penance!
@@Joe-uw5rv With all due respect, that's not all the offered. The society was treated to a last minute addendum wherein they were required to sign that there is nothing novel or dangerous in VII documents. That is untrue. Those documents, though strong in parts, are rife with ambiguity and novelty that has borne the fruit of Amoris Letitia. And generations of falling away from the Catholic faith. (What penance will you do for the sin of calumny?) Try to get the facts straight when speaking of others. Especially before you condemn them. www.scribd.com/document/3984779/Meuli-Letter-Re-Sspx
A genuine question: how can the SSPX be schismatic and also be in partial communion with the Church? Isn't that against the principle of non-contradiction? After all, "outside the Church, there is no salvation," and I think that means you are either in or out.
Schismatic means that you are out of communion with the pope. They believe all the Catholic doctrines and dogmas, except for Vatican II. So they are kinda partially Catholic but a pretty crummy version if you ask me. Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus is a more complicated topic than you may believe, try reading Dominus Iesus for an explanation.
replying to a video you didn't have to watch is a strange definition of "ignore." I said from the beginning I really don't enjoy it. But I do see people being misled, so I speak out. Attack me for it if you want. It won't silence me.
DeClue's Views again you claim people are being mislead but you admit that you are ignorant on the topic so who is doing the misleading who. You are making claims with no knowledge of the topic.
@@decluesviews2740 You presenting a video with such obvious holes in logic and truth is strange. Not so the request for money. What you see may not be what you think. For you are misleading people and speaking out of turn.
I have a question for you. First, attend a mass by the society, they are not schismatic. Slowly , I think the church is realizing that the new mass was a mistake. To attend the Latin mass unbroken over the years by the so called ordinary mass is exceptional, inspiring, and above all, reverent. Now my Question. Would you rather go to mass where the sins of the priest amount to his taking the body and blood down a sewage pipe, or go to the society where hopefully their priests uphold their vows of celibacy? The Popes confusion in his footnotes is much more scandalous than the society, though now even they seem to be taking sexual notes from the modernist priests of the novus ordo. I’m trying to lay off the priests and bishops and Cardinals because they are not my responsibility. Christ will deal with them sufficiently in His time. Jesus, I trust in you!
"You HAVE to obey the Pope" - well, I suppose you think that Benedict's resignation was valid? And that we "have" to obey some guy who isn't even Catholic?
@@songbirds3712 go to Ann Barnhardt's site and watch her videos on the bergoglian antipapacy (btw, here's how you know something's true - when YT blocks links to it, which they did now 4 different ways).
Sheen fell for the bastard modernist religion and he will not be canonized by the modernist hierarchy because he wasn't enough of a modernist sodomite.
I decided a long time ago to stay clear of Sheen. It had nothing to do with SSPX, even though I am mildly in favor of SSPX. It was nice and fun to hear Sheen say that in Vatican II the demonic entered the Church. But then Sheen totally changed his mind. I think he had no principles. He was just a good actor. Which incidentally would have made him a wonderful ordinary 21st century saint.
I would give almost anything to live near an SSPX monastery and be able to participate in whatever way possible, even just to attend Sunday mass. The diocese I live in has to be far more offensive to God than the Society of Saint Pius the Tenth!
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was as obedient as the Maccabees in 1 Maccabees 2:41 when they decided to fight on the Sabbath for their faith. Prove me wrong.
Archbishop Lefebvre was so obedient that they had to excommunicate him. Don't give me any of this Maccabee stuff. The maccabees were Jewish, they were before the Church of Christ and the pope. They did not swear, as Lefebvre did, to obey the pope. come on, get serious.
FSSPX! I love the FSSP but their under the Pope and hope they don’t cave in. A few I have heard not & will be disobedience to man & obey God! Exactly what Archbishop Lefebvre did. Preserve the Authentic Catholicism! JanetMarie
Pride leads to despicable falls. A group so focused on traditionalist views having very Novis Ordo issues of abuse can only have pride in self as its cause.
@@andersonbush1130 How? God is the TRUTH. DeClue and those he hopes to cultivate like willing subjects take truth out of context and thereby promulgate falsehood. (Like the stereotype of a gossiping housewife.) Be honest. Be factual. Be open to gathering all pertinent details. Not only those that support the narrative you'd like to believe. Our Lord tells us to judge with just judgment, not by appearances. And yet DeClue, for all his protestations of being fair and balanced, refuses to canvass those canonical supports for the Society's existence. He puts words/intentions into the mouths/hearts of others while ignoring the presumption and pride in his own living room. He also shies from openly acknowledging that the lawful authority has refrained from the judgment that he would cast. Or encourage others to reach by way of parsed instigation. He's a fear monger. That's perhaps why Kimberely posted the way she did.
A suggestion would be to watch Dr. Marshall's most recent video and then remake this. I love both Marshal and Gordon (never would have known about traditional Catholicism or the Latin Mass without BOTH of them), but people on both sides are talking over each other's heads - at least half of the points you made in this video were addressed/clarified/solved by watching Dr. Marshal's latest video, and all of Marshal's "push back" could be solved by simply admitting the obvious: there's a toxic nature in many "trad" circles that needs to be purged, and many who attend the SSPX maintain positions that are legitimately heretical, which Gordon is rightly concerned about!
You know why you cannot watch Marshall? Because he only is a propaganda man for the SSPX. Does he have on people who will challenge him? NO! He only has people on who agree with the SSPX. You never learn a thing watching a Marshall video, it is all one way propaganda. If he was confident he was right, he would have on people who challenged him and gave the evidence for the opposite side. He is really kind of a weakling, he never has on people who disagree so that things can be talked out. But this one sidedness is standard SSPX technique - standard cult technique - they never allow real debate, you must obey the cult, or they block you. And that is what Marshall does. As soon as there is disagreement, like with Gordon, he blocks you and never talks to you again. This cannot be from God.
@@tomthx5804 Ironically enough, one of my points was that after watching this video, it was apparent that many people in fact ~could~ learn a lot simply by watching the Marshal video. As I said in my comment, it's unproductive to make blanket statements such as yours: "You never learn a thing watching a Marshall video...", and you're really just talking past the other side and creating noise. Certainly this isn't how one can best go about disagreements. I attend a Diocesan TLM regularly, but I have attended the SSPX and sought the sacraments from one of their chapels several times. The two priests I've met there have been very holy and given wonderful spiritual direction (no - hasn't ever had anything to do with "opposing" V2 or the NO...). If I'm being completely honest, after reading your comment it appears you're simply demonizing people for their completely rational views, which happen to contradict yours. Our holy father (Pope Francis) has given us permission to seek that sacraments from the SSPX - what further clarification do you really need?
@@Anthony-vx6cs On the contrary. You are really mixed up. Pope Francis has not "given you permission to seek the sacraments from the SSPX" How could you possibly believe he said that? Because you probably got it from a Taylor Marshal video. He misinformed you. Francis gave the SSPX the right to take confessions and do marriages. He NEVER said that anyone could go to an SSPX church whenever they wanted. In fact, the old ruling that no one should regularly attend an SSPX remains fully in force. The reason no one should regularly attend an SSPX mass is because there, they will lead people into a tendency for schism. I have watched Marshall videos, every one of them. The true is mixed up with the false so tightly that you cannot watch any Marshall video without getting totally misled. He uses fake quotes. He truncates quotes so that they seem to say the opposite of what they really said. He twists facts, he distorts virtually everything. Would you hire a math teacher that sometimes said the right things but often included totally false things? No, you would avoid such a teacher like the plague. As a result, no good can come from watching a Marshall video, and even if you think you have learned something, you might have learned the opposite of what the church actually teaches. It is true that SSPX give off the aura of being holy. But that is often just on the surface. Once you engage them in deeper discussion, they start spouting all sorts of bizarre conspiracy theories, No doubt they have the desire to be holy, but boy are they messed up. But it fools people for a while. The SSPX is schismatic, and their leaders all had to be excommunicated. Draw your own conclusions. If they were so wonderful, would people be constantly fighting over whether they were sound or not? No.
I realize that as a Roman Catholic, I have to obey the Pope. However, Dr. Marshall does seem to be very knowledgeable and makes some good points regarding the Catholic faith and the administration of same.
As a Catholic what do you mean you have to obey the Pope/ That is a very thin ice statement, you need to read the Catechism and be very clear about what obedience means.
You claim certain Catholics are schismatic but you don't know the definition of schismatic. Like someone else said in the comments you need to go to confession.
i am not into polemics and i am not interested in watching this video, i just need to say something: i am portuguese born and raised in catholicism but i derailed… 20 years away from catholicism or more… it was the traditional bishops and cardinals that brought me back. And when i attended the TLM i was in awe… My parents still received Mass in latin, but unfortunately in the 90s in portugal there was no longer TLM… Recently I attended my very first TLM in switzerland, where i live, and i am completely surrendered to that immense beauty; that mass can convert people, it’s that powerful. Serious Tradition as rigorous as possible, is the way to go and it’s the only practice that can actually expand faith, make more conversions and heal the soul of the suffering people. Just know this.
I understand not being into polemics. Honestly, I don't like it either, but sometimes I find it necessary. I should make it clear: I do not approve of the SSPX, but I do love the TLM. In fact, I did another video about it that you may enjoy. I go to the TLM 90% of the time at my local parish. My reasons for not attending SSPX are not because of the TLM; it is for other reasons. But, that's what the video is about which you do not want to watch, and that's okay. But I thought you should know that this isn't an anti-TLM video.
@@decluesviews2740 Clearly, your approval of the SSPX is unnecessary and immaterial. In fact, you produce other videos that are based on half-truths, the negation of certain canons, and your opinion. Hence DeClue's "Views."
I recently (before the outbreak of the pandemic) found a Church run by the Institute Of Christ the King in my diocese only a 15 minute drive! If only the society could come over and be in full communion with us we could be more unified and put end to all this fighting and error
Ah, but that was going to happen in 2012 under Benedict. But the curia rose up and demanded that the Society sign a waiver saying they agreed with everything said in VII documents. Interesting considering VII supposedly changed nothing while its being used left and right to change everything. Amoris Letitia anyone? Here's some insight to the "schism" smear: www.scribd.com/document/3984779/Meuli-Letter-Re-Sspx
Tim Gordon needs to get his ducks in order, talk is cheap. What is his relationship with the idols of the secular world; like "hollywood movies","sports", etc.? Mr de Clue is another "talker". Does he need to be recognized as an "authority"? Doesn't he see the blood in the street? No, Like JPII, Mr de Clue is high up in the "ivory tower"! Double talk, like Barron.
I’d rather be wrong w the Pope than right without him. Thanks, I always come to the conclusion that apart from Rome we will always have issues and the potential of becoming a schismatic and ultimately excommunicating oneself. If God allows the scandals do we just run away from suffering? We can’t create our own Catholic Church because we don’t want to suffer w the Body of Christ or go through the spiritual desert. As a former Protestant I’m relieved I’m part of the Church even with all its problems rather than being outside trying to find the truth. God bless
Pathetic. Your thinking is 100% anti-Christian. You put obedience to the pope above faith in Christ. You say something absurd and act like it's the most Christian thing in the world. Who died on the Cross for You was Christ. If you prefer to go wrong with a heretical pope who supports the enemies of Christ then you will go to hell with him.
yes, I have, and I've also followed what an actual career long and orthodox Canon Lawyer who headed up one of the biggest courts in the Church has to say: Cardinal Burke. I love Pope Benedict! I've written an S.T.L. Thesis and a Doctoral Dissertation on Ratzinger's theology. He isn't a canon lawyer though. And, at best, all he stated was that the SSPX has NO canonical status. Even if that is the 'best case scenario' for their status, that doesn't undermine a single thing I've said.
Additionally, your first obligation is to Jesus Christ not the pope as St. Theresa of Avila warned us "Those who follow the pope are on the road to hell."
When we all feel so strongly about our faith we fall out with people who think differently. We must seek the truth through the one true Church, no matter how flawed it is at the moment. Christ promised to be with His Church always..... even when errors are taught and pronounced. Stay kind to each other even when doing so hurts!
Thank you for commenting on the infallibility of St. JP II also (I mean his canonization). I hate it when RadTrads put him down, and often times don't even want to acknowledge his sainthood. I'm not well educated in these matters, but I don't like the way the supporters of the SSPX are behaving online in social media. It's very unbecoming.
They hate JP II because he quite rightly excommunicated their little tin horn god, Lefebvre. So they are nastier than hell all the time towards him. I used to like SSPX, but as I got to know them, they are some of the nastiest people I have ever met, and many of them appear to be on the fringes of sanity.
Good stuff, DeClue. This is a very complicated and nuanced debate, but I think Catholics are backsliding a bit with regard to the SSPX, at least of late. Interestingly, Ratzinger was often criticized for being _too_ lenient towards the SSPX, and Francis' alternative tack has been to more or less dismiss not only the SSPX but also traditional Catholics. What everyone acknowledges is that, within or without the Church, the SSPX represent a counterweight to Catholic progressivism. Personally I would call the SSPX "liberal" no more than I would call Dollinger or the 11-century Orthodox "liberal." Their objections are based on a conservatism and a resistance to change. When Ratzinger says the SSPX and liberal Catholics both have a similar problem, I do not read him as saying that the SSPX are liberal. I'd say he is making a more nuanced hermeneutics-of-tradition point.
@@npickard4218 Well for starters, I had no positions contrary to the teaching of the Church so to make that claim you would have to show evidence of the fact otherwise that becomes a claim without supporting evidence and thus rash judgment, which the CCC under sins against the 8th commandment condemns. Secondly, I can't be that because I am completely faithful to the Magisterium in all things, and Christ promised the Church that clinging to Peter and his successors would never lead one astray. So, if you have a problem with the management I suggest you take it up with him.
@@michaelspeyrer1264 Michael, I know the scriptures inside and out and there's no way you can convince me that Mr. Bergoglio who bows to the Pacha Mama, enters into ecumenism with Muslims, and has essentially made it near impossible to maintain the TLM is valid representative of the apostolic tradition going back to St. Peter. Pope Francis has defaced and abused all that is beautiful and true about the Roman Catholic Church. I agree with the trads who are suspicious of anything that came out of Vatican II. I am not a theologian of the church so I cannot quote Latin documents but I have spent 3 years listening to them debate advocates for the Novus Ordo and when I listen to both sides debate each other, it looks crystal clear to me that the traditionalists represent the true Church. I have 2 master's degrees and a Ph.D. (though not in Catholic theology) but my formal education has prepared me for critical thinking skills. After studying this topic for 3 years and watching as Pope Francis turns a blind eye to the pedophile rings, the rainbow priests like Father Martin et al, and the homosexual orgies at the Vatican, I don't think this Pope is anything but a fraud. The last time I visited Rome was 2018 and even the secular Italians who are Catholic in name only know about the orgies they have ... the tour guide at the Vatican pointed out the buildings where they take place right there is in the holy Vatican City. It's demoralizing what Pope Francis has done in the name of Jesus Christ. But it didn't begin with him, it's been growing over my lifetime. You may call people who love the Roman Catholic Church and Jesus Christ heretics if you choose but this Pope and the idea pathogens that Vatican II brought into the church have done irreparable damage to Christ's mission. Heretics, heretics, heretics ... let the name-calling continue but any casual observer can watch the Pacha Mama incident and the gay stuff and know that this is not the Catholic Church that that has weathered the centuries. There was a time when there were 3 Popes, one in Rome, one in Avignon, and one in Pisa and each one claimed to be legitimate. I say we need challengers and let the faithful decide because this Pope and his entire hierarchical entourage are unrecognizable as Catholics. Michael, just running around and calling people who disagree with you heretics and schismatics doesn't work. Name-calling is not an argument.
@@npickard4218 His name isn't Bergoglio, he isn't your personal friend, and the dignity of his ordination and office which belong to Christ should be used. And Mr. is not his title. Its Pope Francis. "We salute the rank soldier, not the man." I I continued to address Simon son of Jonah as that name, after Christ changed it to Peter, I would think that was an insult to Christ. At the very least and ignoring of what Christ bestowed on him. "o bows to the Pacha Mama, e" -Well, first of all the Pope never bowed down to anything, even on video that's not accurate. Secondly, the Holy See denied your claim to be accurate, so to argue the contrary after the fact is arguing in bad faith, and willful rejection of the authority of the Holy See as defined by Vatican I. "ecumenism with Muslims," -Even this statement is inaccurate. Ecumenism is among Christians. Dialogue with other religions is inter-religious dialogue. And there is nothing contrary to discussing theology with other religions. "has essentially made it near impossible to maintain the TLM is valid representative of the apostolic tradition going back to St. Peter. " -When rad trads go full insane, they really fall off the pumpkin truck. The Extraordinary form does not go back to St. Peter. Secondly, No one is owed any particular rite of the Church. Thirdly, the Catholic Church has 24 different of the Mass, not one, to reduce Sacred tradition, and liturgies are not part of sacred tradition, to the filter of one single liturgy isn't even theologically correct. Not one single thing you've said so far is accurate. "Pope Francis has defaced and abused all that is beautiful and true about the Roman Catholic Church." -Appeal to motive is always and invalid premise. Watch I'll demonstrate. YOU HAVE A BAD MOTIVE. What isn't an appeal to motive is the statement you made above is heretical and schismatic on multiple levels and a complete repudiation of Vatican I, and I feel sad for you. That you have so completely locked yourself into an alternate reality. " I agree with the trads who are suspicious of anything that came out of Vatican II. " -Because they schismatics and heretics and so are you according to Vatican I. "I am not a theologian of the church" -This is the first true statement you've made so far. "but I have spent 3 years listening to them debate advocates for the Novus Ordo and when I listen to both sides debate each other, it looks crystal clear to me that the traditionalists represent the true Church." -Yeah except that's heresy and condemned by Vatican I, which people who advocate this position must do, to justify their heretical schismatic eccelsiaology. " I have 2 master's degrees and a Ph.D. (though not in Catholic theology) but my formal education has prepared me for critical thinking skills. " -It has not. Do not confuse degrees in other fields for a working understanding of theology. Knowing philosophy and theology does not give me comprehension of Bio-chemistry. OR the ability to fairly judge a debate between two qualified people in the field about who is full of shite. -Unfortunately, although you are very well educated...you are not well educated in this field, which makes this the dunning kruger effect and over estimation of your competency here to shift to deception "After studying this topic for 3 years and watching as Pope Francis turns a blind eye to the pedophile rings, the rainbow priests like Father Martin et al, and the homosexual orgies at the Vatican, " This is another assumption of motive on your part. Your second. And a second rash judgment. I'll be honest that I don't understand why he keeps this individual in the position he does, but that doesn't equal the conclusion you've drawn, not does that make him complicit in clerical sex abuse. This is a post hoc propter hoc on your part. "Pope Francis turns a blind eye to the pedophile rings, the rainbow priests like Father Martin et al, and the homosexual orgies at the Vatican," -No one statement of this can you provide supporting evidence for. Your defamatory assumptions are vile. The worst is the assumption he had any knowledge or responsibility for what that incident with zero proof. "It's demoralizing what Pope Francis has done in the name of Jesus Christ." -You have nothing to support this but ill will. on your own soul. " But it didn't begin with him, it's been growing over my lifetime. You may call people who love the Roman Catholic Church and Jesus Christ heretics " -But they don't love the Catholic Church, that's the thing. They are in love with the false idol of the Church they have created, that's not what Christ founded. The one that's filled with blood and sorrow, and human weakness and Divine redemption. The one that lives in their minds, that isn't reality. What they suffer from ultimately lack of faith that can't live with contradiction and tension. They want a Church that is a reflection of the dark enlightenment model of the universe they inhabit that operates in perfect spheres and right angles and perfect liturgy. But that's not reality and it never has been that's why they are so filled with resentment and anger. They have a false vision of the past, a distorted view of the present, and an illusory view of the future that will never be. " the idea pathogens that Vatican II brought into the church have done irreparable damage to Christ's mission" -Church councils are products of the Holy Spirit and sealed with the Holy Spirit. There were neither pathogens in the council nor has it done damage to Christ's mission. That is the work of men, not the Council and not God. And this again can't be true and at the same time you accept the teaching of Vatican I, which is usually the error that is chosen so the illusion of the reality they buy into can be continued. And when push comes to shove, the devotion to this false god is so attached even Catholic dogmatic teaching must be jettisoned to maintain it. "Heretics, heretics, heretics ...:" This isn't mere name calling, its definitions of ecumenical councils what are being ignored to pursue a fantasy. "watch the Pacha Mama" It wasn't a pacha mama, the only idiots saying that weren't even there or interviewed those interviewed those involved. And the same shady immoral people that were quick to denounce this, were the same people to justify every calumny and rash judgment for years prior to that. WHY ON GOD"S GREEN EARTH would you then listen to that same brood of vipers for objectivity now? "There was a time when there were 3 Popes, one in Rome, one in Avignon, and one in Pisa and each one claimed to be legitimate." -NO, there wasn't. There were three clements to the papacy. Only one of which had a legitimate claim. " I say we need challengers and let the faithful decide because this Pope and his entire hierarchical entourage are unrecognizable as Catholics. " -Not only is this AGAIN, a demonstration of heresy according to Vatican I, but there are no challengers to the Pope. That's not how this works. This is where your lack of education of these matters comes full circle. What your talking about as a "fix" is the text book definition of schism. And schism is always opposed to Christ. " Michael, just running around and calling people who disagree with you heretics and schismatics doesn't work. Name-calling is not an argument." I'm not name calling I'm accurately describing what these people, and you are advocating for. And you to read Vatican I from start to finish. And then, when you finish. Read it again.
"And he will cause the daily sacrifice to be taken away." The Novus Ordo church is the counterfeit church that Bishop Sheen warned us about. The daily sacrifice was taken away in 1969 when the Novus Ordo altered the rite of ordination for priests and bishops thereby invalidating the consecration of the Eucharist and the legitimacy of absolution. The counterfeit church is the subtle deception of Satan: "He [Satan] will set up a counter church which will be the ape of the Church, because he, the Devil, is the ape of God. It will have all the notes and characteristics of the Church, but in reverse and emptied of its divine content. It will be a mystical body of the Antichrist that will in all externals resemble the mystical body of Christ. . . .But the twentieth century will join the counter church because it claims to be infallible when its visible head speaks ex cathedra." (Fulton J. Sheen, Communism and the Conscience of the West, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1948, pp. 24-25) ******************************************************** “The prophecies of the Apocalypse [book of Revelation] show that Satan will imitate the Church of Christ to deceive mankind; he will set up a church of Satan in opposition to the Church of Christ. Antichrist will assume the role of Messiah; his prophet will act the part of Pope; and there will be imitations of the Sacraments of the Church. There will also be lying wonders in imitation of the miracles wrought in the Church.” (Rev. E. Sylvester Berry, The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise [St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1927], p. 119; italics given.) My dear Vatican 2 friends..."having eyes, see ye not? ..and having ears, hear ye not?" When anti-popes Benedict and Francis flash the devil's horns hand sign and wear the red shoes of sacrificed children, it should be evident to all that the smoke of Satan has indeed contaminated the Vatican. Hence the faithful (the Remnant Catholic Church) fly to the wilderness upon an eagles wings which represent the Holy Rosary and the Holy Bible. These spiritual weapons replace the daily sacrifice that has been taken away. The daily sacrifice was taken away in 1969 when the Novus Ordo mass was instituted. The Remnant Church congregated at that time in the wilderness (the marginalized periphery of society). The spiritually resurrected from the Traditional Catholic Church make up this Remnant Church and those who have rejected the counterfeit Post Vatican 2 church. The Remnant Church creed is "The Apostles Creed". We are mystical priests established in the Mystical Body of Christ the Living Waters of Redemption, for no longer are we sheep (spiritually children) but shepherds (apostles spiritually mature) all in the power of the Spirit quickened in this end time - Until the Church is restored and the seat of Peter is blessed with a true Davidic heir.
I don't think you should drag in other vloggers into your vlog as they are not there to defend themselves. But you do need to consider what was happening at the time Archbishop Lefebvre was ASKED by some seminarians please to help in their formation because they were not being formed properly at their seminary. All Abp Lefebvre has ever claimed to do is to pass on what he was taught, and it came at a time when we were PERILOUSLY close to completely losing the Latin Rite, which although it had come down to us over 2,000 years, was being wiped out in less than a decade. Yes, at the time when he was getting old, he felt it necessary to come up JPII and form some bishops, at a time when JPII had already conducted an interfaith ceremony at Assisi, which apparently brought that church down just after. Both Popes Benedict and Francis have no beef with the SSPX, so you are not obeying them if you do. If you go to American Traditional, you are most likely to be attending an FSSP Mass who broke away from the SSPX. You wouldn't have an FSSP church to go to without the prior work of Abp. Lefebvre. With regard to the accusations put out by Church Militant this week, it is going on all around the Church, and probably ever has been, so how can we expect it not to raise its ugly head in the SSPX? Any priest found to be guilty of preying on anyone should be routed out. Each SSPX priory consists of at least 4 priests, which I believe is the rule, to provide company for each other and to protect against loneliness, which dogs the diocesan churches through lack of vocations.
Our pope gas issues,but never changed doctrine. Sspx was excommunicated and not allowed to ordain. Sspx is not the true church even if you practice exactly. Priests don't have blessed hands
Not sure what you mean by "obey" here, and this video literally had nothing to do with "this" pope per se. But, not obeying the juridical authority of a pope is a problem, if you want to claim to be Catholic. You can't only obey a superior when you want to; that wouldn't be "obedience." Refusal to obey is what satan did.
DeClue's Views You obviously know very little about this Pope and his agenda. Search a matter out! From selling out the Catholics in China to joining forces with those that stand for everything that’s NOT catholic like Jeffrey Sachs/Soros population control/reduction. And did you learned nothing from the Amazon/Pachamama debacle? And then there’s lifting restrictions from the biggest sexual abuser Cardinal McCarrick., did you know McCarrick was sent to China early on to broker the China deal? At some point when does Francis actions open your eyes. Do you understand the faith? Or do you instead blindly follow/support things that go against our faith? So don’t tell me who or what to obey. Thank God for the Catholicism
@@kathyskeens1930 I think you need to go somewhere and sit down . And after that show some humility and read Archbishop lefebvre's books . A letter to confused Catholics and his biography
@@decluesviews2740 LoL. So now you're picking out which Pope you have to follow. We are to obey in all matters except sin, DeClue, no matter which Pope speaks. Do you realize you're inciting rebellion by speaking against that Pachamama incident? But instead of manning up and root causing problems, you attempt to shame others while you hide behind videos and the self-assurance of a perceived full communion card. Unauthorized edits are what Satan wants, too, and that would be you. Parsing the truth and being unwilling to consider that you may, despite dogged study in a particular school of thought, be in error.
Would you be able to speak about the changes that you see as good that came with and after Vatican II? Given the recent focus on the bad, I think that it would be helpful for the faithful to rediscover the good things that you mentioned in your closing and others. Perhaps a topic for a future video. Thanks for considering.
In the long run, that is the plan for the channel: a positive exposition of the beauty of Catholic Theology, both before and after Vatican II. I did an overview of Catholic Systematic Theology a couple weeks ago. Check that out for a start. Thanks for tuning in!
DeClue, I notice below that your catching a lot of flack for this video. But it's a topic that needs to be discussed reasonably and charitably without anger. I appreciate your take on the matter. I don't agree with everything you say regarding the current status of the society, but i still appreciate the perspective. I agree that this is a matter of the salvation of souls and cannot be taken lightly. Laying ones salvation on arguments of supplied jurisdiction should give everyone pause. Everyone should know what they are supporting before they support it. I have a lot personally to thank the society for, but in the end the holy pontiff has immediate and supreme jurisdiction on the matter.
It is one thing that honestly saddens me as a somewhat recent convert that there are such divisions within the Church. SSPX is one (but niot sure they are technically in) but the whole traditionalist movement itself does worry me a little as well. I don't think the traditionalist per se have ill will and they have some good points but the troubling thing is most always seem to hold themselves out a superior somehow from the rest of the Church basically setting up an us against them (you even lament it would be so much better....). If you take the traditionalist argument to it's logical conclusion that the Church has drifted and we should get back to our roots and the traditions of the Early Church you will eventually end up only one place....Orthodox. I don't have the degrees yet (hoping to start my Masters in Theology in a few months) so just my layman's take.
All of these attacks on the SSPX by “traditional” Catholics(if your not traditional, your not catholic) is an attempt to assuage guilt felt by people who are understandably uncomfortable with the conflict they feel towards the modernist hierarchy of Rome. I understand the discomfort, but making other faithful Catholics your fall guy is disgusting. There would be no TLM without Archbishop Lefebvre
Excellent Video Richard. I never considered the pastoral negligence of the fact that sacraments that require jurisdiction have been simulated, or the reality that current granted jurisdiction is not retroactive. Where does that place SSPX members who have attempted marriage? Do they have the means of appealing to the local bishop for a radical sanation? What about annulments? Who does an SSPX parishioner go to for these things? That conundrum evidences schism for those who would argue that they are not.
Alfonso Gamez the SSPX received delegation from the Church for jurisdiction for all sacraments. Marriage before that were under the emergency Code of canon law
To support my efforts, please consider donation via donor box:
donorbox.org/sapientia-nulliformis-blog-support
@DeClue's Views Cardinal Silvio Oddi
President for the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy March 17, 1984
This reply was made to an inquiry made by a family about whether attending Mass at an SSPX chapel would serve to fulfill their Sunday Obligation:
“According to the New Code of Canon Law, “The obligation of assisting at Mass is satisfied wherever Mass is celebrated in a Catholic rite....” I hope that settles your doubts.”
Msgr. Camille Perl
Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei
In a May 28, 1996 letter and repeated in Protocol No. 236/98 of March 6, 1998:
“In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of Saint Pius X. ...If your intention is simply to participate in Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin. It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass could be justified.”
In a document from the Holy See dated September 1, 2015, Pope Francis wrote that "those who during the Holy Year of Mercy approach these priests of the Fraternity of St Pius X to celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation shall validly and Licitly receive the absolution of their sins."
And on November 20, 2016, the Pope extended this decree by stating:
"[During] the Jubilee Year I had... granted that those faithful who, for various reasons, attend churches officiated by the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, can validly and licitly receive the sacramental absolution of their sins... I have personally decided to extend this faculty beyond the Jubilee Year, until further provisions are made...”
Summary:
These statements are very refreshing but we don’t need them to give us permission to attend a Tridentine Mass. Our permission to attend the Tridentine Mass is given to us by Quo Primum and the Council of Trent. The Society of Saint Pius X is perfectly valid and licit for Sunday obligation. No authority can restrict a Catholic from attending the Tridentine Mass at an SSPX chapel. This is supported by Saint Pius V’ forever binding document Quo Primum.
“No one can receive a penalty (for attending) and this missae[tridentine mass] must always be lawful and in full force.” -Quo Primum
No thank you. Keep being modernist
@DeClue's Views the SSPX does have jurisdiction. It’s called supplied jurisdiction. I suppose you would call St. Athenasius a schismatic because he defied Arian-Rome and said Mass outside of the diocese.
God bless those how hold the true Catholic faith. God bless Archbishop Lefebvre
I don't think we need more "professional" Catholics no offense.
We have less and less Catholics asked to give more and more. I think you all should get a job and still do this stuff. The Mendicants have taken over the Church. We need more a Benedictine spirit -- prayer and WORK.
Most EO priests have a job, while I am not asking for that I am asking to slow down on laymen looking for donations
.
@@tridentinecrusader9477 yes.....
You are totally right.....💖
Bishop Athanatius Schneider gave an interesting resent interview on Dr. Taylor Marshall 's Show, in which he was asked the question of the status of the SSPX. He said, clearly that they were not in schism and they are Catholic and in communion but in an irregular canonical status.
Recent*
@@neroresurrected Yes, even more recent he (Bishop Athanatius) describes the SSPX as fully Catholic and not schismatic in his new book "Christus Vincit: Christ's Triumph over the Darkness of the Age." Published 2019. See page 147 -an entire chapter devoted to this subject. He was the Vatican appointed Bishop to visit the SSPX St.Thomas Aquinas seminary and make a report back to Rome.
@@bernadette1928, actually it's impossible for them to have ever been in schism. The Canon Law does not allow for such penalty in this case. This whole thing about schism depends on John Paul II having beem a law unto himself. If that's possible, then everything is. But if not, then there never was a schism.
@@seriouscat2231 as stated in the video, 23 min in, schism means to refuse to obey the Roman pontiff and/or to be in communion with the bishops around him. They are clearly in schism since 1988.
A variant of the norm
I started attending SSPX when all the other churches were closed, and ive decided to keep attending.
Praise be God in his angels and his Saints
Same
Same here.
Welcome! Happy to have you join us!!
I'm a simple woman. My soul was lost in the Novus Ordo mass, and it's been revived in the traditional latin mass.
Why do you dislike the SSPX so much? After all, if it wasn't for Archbishop Lefebvfre, you wouldn't even have a Trad Mass to go to!
They really know how to hate!
Cecilia Christo nobody “dislikes” anyone...apparently you weren’t listening-play it again 🤷🏼♀️
I believe there was conditions placed on the offer to the SSPX that could not be reconciled. How much of their defense of tradition should they concede to accept full canonical status? That seems to be a slippery slope, in my mind. I’m not for division, but you gloss over some significant issues that the Society has documented. What about the salvation of souls within the current state of the Catholic Church, where 3/4th don’t believe in the precepts of the Church??
@John Citizen you are totally naive of the current crisis. You don't have an idea being a Catholic under so many freemason bishops with so many modern priests. There was once a diocesan priest that offered a Latin Mass in our island and he was being prisoned with a bogus crime of being the mastermind of illegal ivory trade. No other priest brave enough in our place but the SSPX priests. Under the current crisis there is no question on the validity of the TLM offered by SSPX Canon law is there for the salvation of soul even for the remote parts of the world. Canon law was not put to condemn brave priest of the SSPX. Please use humility and charity on your judgement with the SSPX.
@John Citizen
Just because you say so it does mean they aren't.
"Cardinals opposing Cardinals, and Bishops against other Bishops". Watching Our Lady's prophesies playing out in real time. Exciting and terrifying all at once.
Yes and the All new, but prophacized long ago told in the Bible of the end times everyone claiming their religion is the true religion hes iver here no hes over here no hes over here. Everybody saying everybody else is wrong the fssp which h came out of the sppx claiming they are the only ones going to heaven. Wow wee I'm done here
@@bernadette1928, there are only two ways: Either one asks "what is true?" Or one asks "which talking head should I follow?" This video is entirely made of the talking heads stuff. The big key being that since Vatican II, even the Church and the popes have been reduced to talking heads one is expected to follow no matter where they go.
Paul Jasmine Yes terrifying . The battle is intensifying and we have to be very careful.
Paul Jasmine Our Lady Of Good Success, Pray For Us!!!
@@seriouscat2231 the Council of Trent defines there would always be a visible head of the Church. Be careful not to go sedevaticanist with your thinking.
I'm not a member of the SSPX nor I intend to be. But let me address "creating division" you are mentioning. Veneration of Pachamama idol, obsession with ordination of deaconess, stating the Via crucis is the story of God's failure (among many other nefarious comments), degradation of the Blessed Virgin Mary to a mere "Mother and disciple" by Pope Francis... That's really causing division, and reeks to sulfur. I think it is amazingly hypocritical from you end addressing the SSPX, which at least holds on to the faith it has been professed for centuries by Catholics saints and not addressing the Vatican malevolent departure from the Faith thought by the Apostles and stewarded by 265 popes over 2,000 years. Believe what you want, but the Word of God has not changed nor it will ever change no matter how much modernist liberals want to twisted.
If you watched the video, I addressed the very kind of argument you are making, agreeing that those need to be dealt with as well. But it is a false dichotomy or red herring to say "therefore, we ought not address these issues." I am no modernist.
Boy, are you off base. Don't try to justify the SSPX based on Pope Francis. Everyone knows he is goofy. But that does not make the SSPX's rebellion against the church right. The SSPX tries to connect the two all the time. That is why I don't trust them. Either they are right and there is no need to talk about Francis at all, or they are wrong. So when they bring Francis into it, you know they are trying to justify themselves with false pretences.
Tom thx you are entitled to your opinion. SSPX moves on
I'm perfectly on point. I did not justify SSPX, I far as I'm concerned, they are outside of the Catholic church, unfortunately. Why Pope Francis? Because is the summary of everything is WRONG in the Catholic Church, which is the libertine, modernistic Marxism that bears far off from Apostolic teaching and even rejects or twist the Sacred Scripture. This is the real malignant cancerous tumor in the Church which will eventually destroy it, just as Satan ever wanted. SPPX is just a curable cyst in comparison. This is why I said it is highly hypocritical addressing the SPPX when there far much greater evil that has taken over the Church of Jesus Christ. Why Pope Francis? He came on record, look it up (he is video by the way) saying that all people of the world are children of God. You call this “goofy”?…No, no, sir. This amounts to heresy, as it contradicts a most basic Apostolic teaching. We are all creatures of God; only the those who are Baptized “in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirt” are children of God by “adoption”, please see Galatian 4:47 and the Catholic Church Catechism 1265. This is something every Catholic ought to know, not just the Pope. A Pope telling in TV errors on basic Faith teaching or preach new innovative ideas astray from Apostolic teaching is HUGE. The SPPX is just a little lizard that broke into the house, a Pope spreading heresies and confounding the flock is much like a venomous viper under your bed. My point is not about justifying the SPPX, but rather about talking of the real dangerous predicament we in today. For this I stick to my previous comment that it is hypocritical to even talk about SPPX when there is a grave evil manifesting itself right from the vertex of the Church; no offense meant by the way.
So what is the real problem with the SSPX ? They are sticking to the faith as it was pre- Vatican 2 from what I understand... fill me in as to their errors please
You are incorrect in saying that we MUST obey the Pope. When it comes to matters that break from Tradition, one must obey the Church of all time. It is very clear that we can see how the Pope is doing things against God's teaching. So, do we fall with him? Also, Archbishop Lefebvre was never disobedient. When it came to consecreate Bishops, he asked the Vatican to do this. They were playing around with him and he could see that they were not really wanting him to continue the Faith as was always done. So, he knew this was urgent, because he knew he would not live much longer and the Faith has to continue Traditionally. BTW: Bishops in the old canon law did not require the approval of the Pope to consecrate them. Many saintly Bishops were consecrated this way. If you did really watch the interview with Taylor Marshall and Fr Robinson, you would have learnt this. You mislead with your comments.
JPII telling Archbishop Lefebvre not to consecrate bishops would be tantamount to telling a layperson not to go to mass. As bishop, it is his solemn DUTY to consecrate successors. Just as we have a solemn duty to attend mass. We serve God, not man.
Robert Preato I have question, how does one go of consecrating a bishop? This is very new to me
@@tollelege5635 Hi, a priest is consecrated a bishop by either a Cardinal, Pope or Archbishop by the "laying on of hands". This is similar to how a priest is ordained. The authority of a bishop is not merely hierarchical in nature, the office of bishop imparts supernatural authority and power that a priest does not have. This is the manner in which bishops have been consecrated since Apostolic times.
@@bernadette1928 Lefebvre was an Archbishop, not a bishop
Bernadette DuBois Please listen to: th-cam.com/video/YpsOBIDLGAc/w-d-xo.html
Drawing an inference from to little information, you're in the Traditional movement because of the SSPX, without which there would not be a Traditional Latin Mass.
That's what the SSPX always claims, but its not really true. I have no respect for schismatic organizations that try to tell us how they saved this or that.
The TLM was the extraordinary form after V2 and never done away with...this is a claim I see a lot, but it just isn't true. If you look into the history of the liturgy, you will find TLM was never completely thrown out, though the new liturgy became the most prominent version...
@Philippe L I really don't know how widely practiced the liturgy is throughout the world today. I can't disagree that an order entirely devoted to it, such as the FSSP will likely increase the catholic faithful's exposure to it (and that's not a bad thing at all 🙂). Hopefully, SSPX will accept the church's warm invitation to enter into full communion with the church, and no scandal of illicit ministry will cloud their efforts to share the extraordinary form with catholics...
@@SS-wt7kc TLM, isn't TLM ordinary and what came after v2 the new, extraordinary?
@@johntolkien3991 Nothing was changed in the old liturgy, it was just given a new label and the reformed liturgy became the commonly practiced Mass (ordinary form) 🙂
As a convert from the Baptist church, I realize more than many the mess Protestantism has become. The people who are the body of the Catholic Church aren’t perfect. This leads them to make doctrinal mistakes on occasion and step on each other’s toes. Sometimes the mistakes are big ones. People get upset over the errors and lash out. Sometimes they get so upset they leave. I get all that because my husband and I had been among those who left for awhile when child sexual abuse by clergy struck our family.
We recently returned, however, because life without God’s sanctifying grace was tearing us apart. We needed the Catholic Church despite all her problems. Even though there have been issues we’ve struggled to reconcile, we understand the need for unity with Rome. It doesn’t take much study to see the confusing mess Protestantism has become. Allowing the same thing to happen to the Catholic Church wouldn’t help anyone.
I don’t have all the answers, but there are a few things that I think it helps to realize. God never lets the church stray too far before doing something to bring it back. God can and will chastise his priests (and Popes) as he sees fit. Lay people have an important role in supporting the church and keeping it holy, but who among us has done enough? We need to do much more to support the education of our priests and safeguard their holiness. We should consider how difficult it is to be holy in today’s world and not make it harder for them. After all, priests (and Popes) are as subject to human failings as the rest of us.
I have to add that I love Taylor Marshall and get his point of view regarding traditionalism. At the same time, I see good in some of the Vatican II changes and wonder what would happen if they were suddenly thrown out. None of us have all the answers, but God does...as well as a church hierarchy to communicate them through. There is a way forward that doesn’t include schism and God knows how it can be accomplished. It’s not an easy path, but we can walk it together successfully with God’s help.
I can’t claim to know God’s will in all of this, but my husband and I are trying to do our part praying, becoming more educated about our faith and supporting our local priests. As for the rest, it’s in God’s capable hands.
Can you name "a change" that was good that came from VII?
Taylor Marshall is a self grandizing Narcissist. With poor theology, and crappy books, who preys upon those not well formed.
Mass in the vernacular, more scripture reading. Renewed call to lay people in the universal call to holiness. Change in relationship between Jews and Christians working to end anti-semitism.
Set standard for biblical study in Dei Verbum.
Doing away with maniapules. Encouraging greater inculturation in mission territory to spur evangelization.
@@gtaylor178 I actually can’t. I’ve grown a great deal since writing that post. We now attend a TLM two hours away, and I’ve learned a great deal more about what Vatican II threw away and changed. Though it’s interesting looking back at where I was not so long ago, I write and think very differently today. For everyone who criticized my post…or wanted to but held back, I’m not too proud to admit being wrong. I do still, however, believe it’s all in God’s capable hands.
@@michaelspeyrer1264 My opinions in some areas have shifted a bit since I wrote that post a year ago. Though I don’t disagree with all of my previous comments, I now see little if any redeeming qualities in the Novus Ordo mass. A year of traditional Latin mass attendance has fully convinced me of its vast superiority. Where besides a TLM can one experience the blessed silence, quiet holiness and peaceful yet powerful calm of low mass? It stands in stark opposition to the cacophony and confusion of modern life.
As to Taylor, I get that some people don’t like him or agree with his views. That’s their right. It’s a documented fact, however, that he speaks and writes from the highly educated perspective of a Ph.D. I haven’t read everything he’s written, but I have found nothing of real significance I personally disagree with.
Related to your reply, it’s only fair to cite at least one specific example of where you believe he’s wrong. Even a broken clock (old school type) is right twice a day. So is Francis on increasingly rare occasions.
If you can’t and are just trolling, there are many other channels that would welcome biased input.
Hello from the Rep of Ireland, I never knew anything about the SSPX until I came across a video by one of their Priests and I was mesmerized by his talk, it was truly amazing and what all of us Catholics need to hear not the nicey,nicey rubbish at the Novus Ordo Mass today. God bless the SSPX for teaching the true catechism of our Holy Mother Church.
No you are wrong.We do not have to obey the Pope except if he was speaking ex cathedraGet your facts right.People have moved on.People already know the ins and outs of the SSPS ànd SSPX.Where have you been all this time?Just educate yourself.All the men you have talked about e.g.T.Marshall,Tim Gordon etc are more knowledgable than you.They have done a lot for the Church and brought many souls back to the Church.You are full of Sour Grapes.You look miserable.Anyone commiting adultery is NOT allowed Communion.Simple.The pope has NO right and NO authority to allow adulterers to receive Communion.Who are you trying to fool.God bless Tailor, Tim,1PeterFife and the many other faithful men defending the Church.
SSPX equals heresy and schism
Your position is condemned in the syllabus of errors by Pope Pius X. And the teaching of Vatican I
Come back to the Church, you are in schism and heresy.
thank you maureen/i just noticed your words were nicey nicey and not wishy washy/do you remember name of SSPX priest/ they have just put 50 videos in 2021 called SSPX CRISIS SERIES
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre is guilty of one thing only. Putting his loyalty towards Christ the King before his loyalty to men.
Bohemond I
He had no obedience. You think his faith was strong because he wore nice vestments and celebrated beautiful liturgy. That means absolutely nothing without obedience to Christ.
Joe false obedience is also a sin. Remember the Holocaust
@@Joe-uw5rv, how do you know what he thinks?
@@kimberlyriddell8574 Being obedient to the Pope requires obedience even when he is being unjust unless what he is asking you to do is a sin. Many saints have suffered bad superiors but submitted to their judgments out of obedience. Disobeying the Pope when he specifically asks you not to do something, which is within Pope's power to ask by the way, is an act of schism.
Colin Sheehan
That's Protestant doctrine you're spewing.
You don't get to decide what to obey, you have to submit unless your superior is telling you to do something sinful. Obedience to your superior is obedience to Christ. The SSPX do not believe in the authority of the Church and still wanna come off as Catholic. You can't have it both ways. I think Father Ripperger said it perfectly: "Some of the these "traditionalists" are the worst modernists.
Father ripperger speaks about this. Traditionalists have too much pride. Rather than aiming everything toward God and becoming a Saint, they're more worried about minutiae. It's a way for Satan to take people who start out with good intentions, but let pride and arrogance lead them astray.
Pray for them, and pray for the church. She is under massive assault.
@@lisabruce1996 May God give you the grace to not have your wish granted.
No, we don’t have to obey blindly the pope, specially a bad pope.
Well, technically you would have to obey a "bad pope" if he ordered you to do something good and in continuity with Catholic doctrine. It's not about his personal moral character, but the content of what he is telling people to do. I am assuming this is probably what you meant, I'm just being picky.
@@aretrograde7745 Yes, that's what I meant. But don't sweat it, in 7 years nothing good to obey. Obey UN? NO, Follow Laudato Si? No. Confess sins against "mother earth"?, NO. Kiss the feet of a sultan? NO. All religions are equal? NO. ETC., ETC.....
Tony Santiago
It doesn’t follow that you can go to the SSPX
@@Joe-uw5rv We have been blessed to be able to have the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass all these days, while the Novus Ordo Protestant Church has been cowardly closed. F.Y.I. th-cam.com/video/SgHqkQUZvb0/w-d-xo.html
Totally correct Tony. All we are asked to do is recognise the Pope as the successor of St Peter. That's IT! If he feeds us rubbish, we have the eternal Catechism of the Church to inform us so we can reject it. Pachamama, Mother Earth, the UN and condemnation of the Mass of all time that Saints attended for 1500 years? Reject, Reject, Reject and REJECT!!!!!
There would be no Summorum Pontificum without the SSPX.Period.
Amen.
Amen
Not true at all. SSPX always tries to take credit for everything. This is really annoying. They insist on fighting with the church no matter what. They are a bit goofy that way.
Tom thx 🤣
@@tomthx5804 I think The Church and Pope Francis are goofy in many ways.... I joined via RCIA. I have studied over 50 years... I am starting to wonder what the BLEEP I may have gotten myself into...
Everyone of of has to thanks the SSPX and his founder Monseñor Lefevre. Thanks to him we have Latin Mass. he was braved to preserve the Holy Latin Mass despite having the whole word calling him schismatic. Repent all the people who criticize them. We are blessed to have SSPX.
No, no one, and no single thing has been the biggest hinderance to traditionalism than the schism of Marcel Lefebvre and his misanthropic society.
Appreciate your sincerity and good-will, but you seem confused. And that’s OK. The current crisis of Faith in the Church and the status of the Society is complicated. It takes much research and prayer. It is certain that under these current circumstances in the Church, when no Sacraments are being offered to the Faithful, the SSPX has supplied jurisdiction.
Fight your fear and go to Confession with one of their priests who now have ordinary delegated jurisdiction by the pope for Confession.
Canon Law 1323, subpoints 4, 7 clearly demonstrate that Lefebvre was not lawfully excommunicated. I could go on and on. You’re missing tons of necessary information before making a judgment on the matter. Keep researching.
Btw, It’s very strange to see this emotional knee jerk animosity and compulsive insults coming from “Catholics” when you say “SSPX”. Call us whatever you want. Call us excommunicated, call us Protestants, call us schismatic, call us heretics. It is a lie. It is you who are confused, along with most of the Church. We’ll never apologize for being Catholic. Well never apologize for believing what Catholics always believed and worshipping as Catholics always worshipped.
Well written. I am not a member of an SSPX congregation but I fully believe that the SSPX is FULLY Catholic and that if not for them, the Traditional Latin mass would have been lost forever, and with it much of the Catholic Faith. We should be thanking these priests for their love of the Church, not demonizing them.
Exactly right. They (the show and his friends, the two brothers) and many like them, are these who behave un-Catholic and are full of hatred towards the SSPX and have really little knowledge of the true history of SSPX, but can't stop maligning the Society. I wonder whether they don't fear God?
Your conclusion that the SSPX has supplied jurisdiction is laughable. It is one of those nutty legal sounding things the SSPX always pulls. if this were true, the real Catholic church would declare it to be so. Junior G men like you do not get to go around declaring what is true about the sacraments and what is not. Shame on you.
And don't give me this "Oh, its all terribly complicated, but just trust me, SSPX is totally fine". That is not the church's judgment, that is standard SSPX BS.
Boy, you sound just like Martin Luther. Rebellious and proud of it
come on....they are in schism....Tell your SSPX priest to come to a Novus ordo mass and receive communion there....If he says "NO I WON'T".. then you got your answer....They are in schism...
(1 John 2:19)
"These people left our churches, but they never really belonged with us; otherwise they would have stayed with us. When they left, it proved that they did not belong with us."
@@pinoysarisari7374 There you go again spreading falsehood. Why are you attempting to usurp the authority of Rome?
Look in the mirror and you got your answer as to why you feel the need to speak on behalf of those in authority. The same authority that has not said what you have.
You're seeking yourself. Not the truth. Not obedience to Rome.
Revisit scripture. Our Lord checked the Sons of Thunder who wanted to call down lightening bolts.
You do not know of what spirit you are.
The SSPX did not break with the Church. The SSPX is a loyal son of the Church. Sorry, you got it wrong. I wish you the best.
John Tolkien good for you to say that.
I'm quite shocked by the virulence of the comments below. Why do people always resort to insults, accusing others of 'telling lies', when all they are doing is giving an informed opinion. If the opinion differs from ones own, have the grace to oppose it with charity. It's very upsetting to see these nasty comments, this sense of emnity towards fellow members of Christ's Church.
The Churchman I most admire is Cardinal Sarah. He has true humility and charity. He is an obedient son of the Church, shows deference towards the pope, but defends orthodoxy with quiet courage. I say this although I was disappointed initially when Cardinal Sarah did not follow Bishop Athanasius Schneider's more strident opposition. I love the pope only in the sense that I recognise the Chair of Peter and I pray for him, but I dislike his manner and am concerned about many things he has said and done. It's a horribly confusing time in the Church, but God knows what He is doing in allowing it.
Muriel Kinsella well said!
@@songbirds3712 Thank you!
It is the show that insults the SSPX, and the author said himself that he doesn't know the details about SSPX, so then why he did a show on it. He should have researched the topic, and read sources (but true and honest sources and not lies and hateful source), and only then present a show. There are good and verifiable sources. So do not be shocked. This man is quite arrogant and mean and not charitable.
The fact of the matter is, the SSPX lies their rear end off all the time. I have never come across an organization that claims to be Catholic, but lies and lies and lies and lies. It's not a matter of opinion. They lie.
Pray that Our Lord grants His abysmal Vicar a Pauline Conversion before his coming death and judgement.
St Joseph pray for him.
Thx to Archbishop Lefevre we have the Roman Rite ,the TRUE Liturgy of the Saints and Martyrs soo freely given today.
If you are going to try to educate others you might want to learn what you are talking about.
Thanks for your thoughts. Tim doesn’t care about “followers,” “likes,” or cash. He cares about souls and he will always tell it like he sees it. I am so proud of him. This has been a difficult week for our family with our daughter’s surgery. To have the Marshall thing blow up at this time was not something we wanted. Tim felt it was necessary that he speak up about the SSPX issue since his former co-host went in a direction he could not follow. We are all about dialogue. We hope Taylor reconsiders blocking us. Wish him well. Tim is always available to speak to Taylor, any time any place.
That's what I like and admire about Tim. I was sad to see things blow up between him and Taylor, but I also perceived an underlying tension. Before all this "blew up," I became increasingly concerned about Taylor's more frequent and blatant support for the SSPX. I posted comments on his videos to no avail. For his sake and others, we need to address this. Also, I very much appreciate and admire Tim's sincerity and his openness to being led by the evidence. Most of all, his concern for the salvation of souls, which is why we all do this. I was so sad hear of your daughter's surgery as well. You are all in my prayers! I hope she is recovering well. Your children are blessed to have you two as parents. I am sorry you have to go through all of these traumas at once. It must be difficult. Y'all have my support. God bless!
I came back subscribing to Taylor Marshall after he acknowledged the SSPX. So sad Tim was no more with Dr Marshall in his talks.
Praying for you and your family. Hope your daughter is doing better. Big fan of Timothy. Because of Timothy I'm reading Aristotle. Thanks a lot Tim!
Hi Stephanie! Please ask Timothy to check his e-mail account at Garces. I was just trying to reach you guys to see if you need anything. God bless!!!
God bless you and Tim and family. Didn't know about your daughters surgery. Our family will be praying for her.
The fact that BXVI released the "excommunication" without making SSPX recant shows they were never outside the Church in the first place.
Not true. The excommunications between Rome and Constantinople were also lifted without any recantint, but they remain in schism and neither side claims that we are now in the same Church. Or, if you see it as a lifting of the excommunications of the 11th Century people involved, it still didn't due away with the factual schism. It's the removal of a legal barrier and punishment for a crime, not an acknowledgement that the crime wasn't committed, and it's a gesture of good will to make reunion possible.
@@decluesviews2740 Two different scenarios. The SSPX bishops were directly responsible for the SSPX situation and necessarily needed to recant, if they were indeed guilty of schism, or they could not be received back into the Church. The children of people of the Great Schism, centuries later, were not responsible for what happened and BXVI was generous to the ones who wanted to be received in. Besides, BXVI lifted the SSPX "excommunications" (which never applied to those who attend SSPX masses) because he knew the Society wasn't doing anything wrong in trying to maintain Tradition. BXVI was also very wise, knowing the SSPX circulated the notion that VII was heretical, something they've mostly moved away from. That VII is 'heretical' is highly unlikely, dare I say impossible, and outright dangerous to suggest. It can never be proven because the Holy Spirit doesn't make mistakes. In his wisdom, Pope BXVI left a caveat for ppl who wanted to attend SSPX TLM: "Don't adhere to schism", addressing the SSPX, showing that VII and the NO properly done, are Catholic, period. The only way BXVI could give such permission is if the SSPX is in the Church. So, laity can attend the TLM at SSPX chapels in good conscience in order to maintain the Faith; where they can avoid the frequent sacrileges found at NO masses and the many outrageous shenanigans. No good Catholic wants to be outside the Church and BXVI did what he could to heal the divisions encouraging Catholics worldwide to unite. We must all humble ourselves as the Body of Christ is stretched and dislocated. Thankfully, not a bone of It was broken. May Mary be your Queen.
Bingo!
I've attended SSPX chapels and FSSP chapels. I live close to an FSSP chapel so I go there. I believe as demonized as they've been, they are just trying to keep the faith. We should unite the clans. People need to know the whole story and most don't. Apologia Pro Marcel LeFevre by Michael Davies helped greatly.
Both of these men were schismatics and heretics.
@@michaelspeyrer1264 To be heretic you need to teach something that is in opposition to the Church. How someone can be a heretic when they teach exactly what Church tought over hundreds of years? If this is in opposition with todays teaching than we have almost 2000 years of Tradition against 60 years. Who is heretic now?
And funny thing that most of the people who throw stones at sspx are realy friendly to protestans. I've never heard from progresive bishops and priests that they are schismatics and heretics. No, we actually need to learn from them, pray with them. We need to organise huge meetings. But you should never speake with the traditionalists, especially those form sspx.
@@swojchwat When they deny the dogmatic teaching with anathema attached from the First Vatican Council that would be one.
"No one shall sit in judgment over the Roman Pontiff anathema sit."
Or when someone teaches an ecclesiology that declares the Holy See can promulgate a liturgy contrary to and harmful to the faith, that's heresy and a violation of Vatican I.
When someone practices and ecclesiology which professes that one doesn't need legitimate faculties for 40 years making absolution valid, that's heretical.
When someone practices and professes an ecclesiology that one can be in communion with the Pope, while denying ecumenical councils have binding teaching authority, and refusing submission to the Pope on canon law and the decrees of the the Holy See, that's a heretical position. This goes beyond mere mistakes in understanding of authority of the Church and bleeds into dogmatic teaching at odds with one's premises.
Dogedly holding to non-binding externalities of the faith while denning dogmatically held teaching and discipline is just as much heresy and schism as Jansienism, Arians, Protestantism, and Orthodoxy.
"Who is heretic now?" The SSPX.
"And funny thing that most of the people who throw stones at sspx are realy friendly to protestans."
Not correct. " Corporate sent down a picture of Protestantism, and the SSPX and told me to find the difference......Its the same picture. "
" But you should never speake with the traditionalists, especially those form sspx."
-You big dummy. I AM A TRADITIONALIST and have been for 25 years. Not supporting the Protestant heresy of the SSPX, doesn't mean one doesn't support traditionalism. That's a false dichotomy. And an example of the lies the SSPX brainwash and abuse their cult members with.
@@michaelspeyrer1264 Well, Calling me "big dummy" doesn't actually convince me to your arguments. Seems like your tradicionalism didn't do much good to you.
Also seems like you don't understand the difference between schizm and heresy.
Calling sspx protestants looks like you just try to be mean because obviously the difference is huge and hard to miss. This kind of emotional approach suggests you don't feel comfortable with your arguments and need to constantly confirm your position with strong emphasis :P
@@swojchwat Being that your NOT objective, no about amount of information would convince you of that. Because you bought into the same falsehoods the SSPX has been peddling for 40 years at which at every stage the Holy See has professed the contrary. Which you still won't accept even when formal bulls of excommunication have been issued against it for "schismatic acts according to Canon Law," which is an exact quotation from the bull of excommunication of Marcel Lefebvre and those he ordained.
I do, and the SSPX is engaging in both. Because they are Protestants. You mean like protesting the Holy See , and promoting the same puritanical ecclesiology of the Church as the Puritans, and the Lutherans? Luther wanted reform as well, to the point he separated from the Holy See, and then despite refusing to accept the Holy See's corrections of them, just like the Jansenists, refused to accept they were in schism no matter how may times and ways it was explained... Gee, why would anyone think they were the same?
This is not an emotional approach this is laying out the data for you, which you are rejecting, because you won't accept it, which is typical of the SSPX brainwashing regiment.
We don’t have a TLM in our town. So we are forced to go to SSPX. TLM has been suppressed for decades and we’ve been robbed of our inheritance.
Lmaoo fORceD
Forced, more like privileged.
@@johnpolcintertiarypaul6369 what I wanna know is - if you’re truly Catholic and truly down with the real traditional Catholic Church how do you go to a sspx chapel, meet the people, meet the priest, hear a sermon, etc and still reject it and say you’re being forced to attend - you couldn’t “force” me to attend a NO mass
@@1993wethebest
That's a good question, and a good point.
@@1993wethebest God bless and keep you and yours.
I love Dr Marshall he is great 👍
Me too !! I have been very inspired by Dr. Marshall. Unfortunately the dude in this video constantly disrespects Dr. Marshall. He publishes video titled "Errors of Taylor Marshall." He seems to be jealous of Dr. Marshall.
You say that you really don't know the compete history of the SSPX, yet you go on to tell the history of the SSPX?? You've never set foot in the door of a SSPX chapel and yet claim to say they do not recognize the authority of the Pope, yet the SSPX chapel a couple miles from my house has a portrait of Pope Francis hanging up right as you get in to the church. I think you need to open your eyes and maybe actually speak to someone from the society and get their information. We can't continue to "snipe" at one another while trying to rebuild our catholic faith so we can expand the true faith to all of those who've fallen away and to those who need to discover true Catholicism. Too many souls are falling into Hell, let's try to help all of our faithful priests and bishops save more souls for the they all belong to our Lord.
I made a similar comment to him, but it is in vain, these people hate the Society, without having the facts and they will die hating them. They are too arrogant and not charitable. And so fake.
It sounded like he actually lives the people who attend society Masses. His appeal was to work to reunion.
Furthermore, mentioning the Holy Father in the Cannon and having his picture on the wall doesn't automatically mean unity, which you must admit. I could give you some hyperbolic examples, if you aren't following me. The fact that the Pope across the validity of V2, whereas the Society Priests demand the right to speak against them would suggest a possible disunity. I know it is a grey area though. Amoris Laetitia highlights this in the footnote addendum that apparently includes the erroneous statement from the Argentine Bishops (I have looked for this but couldn't find it, however the TNT boys were sure that it was, and I will give them the benefit of the doubt for lack of time to cross check again). Anyway, I think DeClues gave a pretty charitable appeal, and seems to have tried to represent a brief history based upon information in the public sphere, which is reasonable in his context.
Dave Irby, you need to understand the SSPX runs many scams. They put up pictures of Pope Francis, and then they pray for him during mass. And then they say "see how loyal we are". Then they turn around and tell you that they don't have to obey the authority of the pope, and that they can disregard anything they want to disregard. So the SSPX is one gigantic scam.
@@judithbereczky4114 no, the problem is that people are starting to understand what a total scam the SSPX is. They lie constantly. In 1975, the bishop who allowed the SSPX to get started suddenly realized they were a bunch of schismatics. So he ordered them shut down. Lefebvre said "you can't suppress my group! Only Rome can do that!" So the bishop asked the CDF to suppress them. The CDF investigated, found the SSPX was awful, and ordered them suppressed. So the SSPX said "No one can suppress us but the Pope!" So the CDF handed the matter to the Pope. The Pope wrote them a letter, and told them they were suppressed. Lefebvre said "You can't suppress me, I have the right to a trial first!" But that was a lie. There is no right to a trial. Once the pope speaks, that's the end of it. But Lefebvre wanted this because he wanted publicity for his cause. The pope wrote him back and told him he had no right to a trial under Canon Law. In Catholicism, the Pope is the "Supreme Legislator" and that is all it takes, a letter from the Pope. So Lefebvre just ignored what the pope told him.
In 1988, Lefebvre was excommunicated for ordaining bishops. Only the pope can do that. But Lefebvre lied and said he had to do it because ""he had an emergency". But no bishop can declare an emergency and take over the role of the pope. So after being excommunicated, Lefebvre said "you can't excommunicate me!" The man obviously was a little bit nutty.
I was disobedient lately. I went to confession during the corona crisis.
LoL!
DOUBLE SHAME ON YOU...JUST KIDDING....ArchBishop Levebvre did the same type of disobedience, there was a need for priests and Bishops in his order and masonic Rome wanted to stamp out this traditional order.
Going to hell! Schismatic!
@@bwhennes Archbishop Lefebvre had to be excommunicated because he violated every vow he ever made. He took a vow of obedience, he disobeyed it because he thought he was the real pope and he did not need to obey anyone but himself. What a loser!
In Canada the bishops would absolutely close down FSSP if there wasn't SSPX as the alternative for Trads who will not attend sacreligous novo ordo masses
Ok, so I'm finding this a bit late, but I have to ask the question I've been asking repeatedly without getting an answer: If the pope tells us we must do or believe something which is contrary to Church teaching, which would lead us into sin, are we to be obedient to the pope? Or do we say no, and turn instead to our consciences and do/believe what has been the traditional teaching of the Church?
Check out CCC 675 as pertains to the "Mystery of Iniquity." Apostasy from the truth is the foretold "religious" solution. I'd love "de Clue" to review that in the context of his false assertions.
The Pope is head of our Catholic church, however, I put my trust in our Lord Jesus Christ & have a deep relationship via scriptures & my faith. The Pope is only driving the vehicle for our church, therefore, if he is driving us off the cliff to diabolical choices, then I am getting out of the vehicle. I am riding with Jesus with no worries of going off the cliff. I will remain Catholic & just not put my faith in this Pope & his pachemama bs!!! Thank God for Dr. Taylor Marshall & all the Bishops, priests & Archbishops preaching on the truth & clarity...
You know the answer. Pray that Our Lord grants, in His Mercy, His abysmal Vicar a Pauline Conversion before his coming death and judgement.
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
This is standard crap from the SSPX. They always get very long and pretend to be legal and the final authority. The fact is, there is no serious canon lawyer who believes their creepy attempt to use canon law to justify their rebellioin. It's a joke argument, from a legal standpoint. The SSPX approach is, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bulshit. After following the SSPX for many years, I can tell you, these guys lie, they tell half truths, they create false implications from nothing. They are the worse. The more you learn about them, the more you realize they are really the antithesis of Catholicism.
@Tom thx you said ‘there’s no serious canon lawyer who supports the SSPX.’ Umm.... have you ever heard of the greatest Canon lawyer of the twentieth century Father Gregory Hesse. SSPX holds the true faith. If you want to remain blind and follow a heretical modernist Vatican II sect then so be it!
Tom thx modernists saying the darnest things
May God bless you. You are obviously a thoughtful man. Thank you for your insight.
I very devoted Argentinian friend, got really sick when learning that Bergoglio will be the next pope. He knew the kind of person Bergoglio is.
First time seeing this channel. Really enjoyed your video.
Obedience to the Pope is conditional my friend. It depends on who the Pope is and what he is ordering. Just ask St. Bernard of Clairvaux as regards Anacletus II and the first Victor IV, and ask St. Anno as regards the first Honorius II. Just ask The Third Council of Constantinople as regards Honorius I. Just ask Juan Cardinal De Torquemada in his Summa De Ecclesia. Just ask St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae. Just ask:
Pope Innocent III (Sermo 4)
Pope Pius IX (Letter to Bishop Brizen)
Obedience to the pope depends on whether or not he speaks “Ex Cathedra”. From the chair of St Peter. The Catholic Church has had many Councils. As Catholics we have to except /obey the council. We might not agree or like Vatican 2. But we have to obey. If we are not going to obey the church, why be catholic. Be Protestant.
There are sinful and horrible church clergy. Sin is everywhere. There are sinful priests in the Novus Ordo and in the SSPX. For people to say that the priests of the SSPX are holy and sin free compared to priests in the Novus Ordo is ridiculous. This is what I’m objecting to in general.
@Evelyn Jackson The investigations that have been coming to light about the SSPX just shows that they are prone to the same problems as the NO because of fallen human nature. Responses from Trads to the scandal are just worse than the NO. Trads need to get off their high horse and stop acting like they're better than the NO.
Every Catholic MUST obey the pope unless he can PROVE that what the pope is ordering is without a doubt, against Catholic dogma. No one has ever proven that against any Pope. Closest was John 22nd, who seemed to be stating a falsehood about the Beatific Vision. But then he backed down when learned experts pointed it out to him. So no, it has never happened.
Yes Biden is very disobedient. But apparently goes to Holy Mass and prays the rosary.
No it isn’t
At last---a reasonable, reasoned and cogent argument. Bottom line: together we'd be SO much stronger. Pride, however, is the mother of all sin.
Thanks Margaret!
And in Pope Francis we have pride in super abundance and arrogance to match. Pray that Our Lord grants the Holy Father a Pauline Conversion before his coming death and judgement.
This dispute has always mystified me - other than as part of the Mystery of Inquity. First and foremost, the ecclesiastical censure and chastisement of the SSPX are the easiest of the controversies to end .. they were responses to perceived offences against papal prerogative - not against signs of schismatic intent or obdurate doctrinal error. A reigning Sovereign Pontiff, good, bad or indifferent can, therefore, clarify this situation (and overturn the rulings, now muddied and muddled) with the drop of a papal mitre: by saying the offence is understood and forgiven, the cause of division at an end .. the Society, clearly, cannot do this - because it does not have the authority to reconcile itself with the Holy See (only to disband, and seek to be reconciled individually, an end, it would seem, that the Vatican apparatus no longer seems to require or even desire).
The main error of the Society, then, was that of an offence against the authority of a reigning Supreme Pontiff .. no light matter, btw, for any faithful Catholic, and the main or rather only significant reason to avoid their otherwise-valid if illicit ministry. Now that is no longer a possible rational response, for two reigning pontiffs having amended the Society's status in regard to the Petrine Office - and their own sovereign persons. So it is, at the moment, solely the matter of jurisdiction that should give us pause .. and, believe it or not, it should; if, but only if, the Sovereign Pontiff and/ or one's local ecclesial pontiff (bishop, metropolitan, abbot, etc) gives the members of the Society the right to administer the Sacraments - and take up positions of leadership in ruling, guiding, and sanctifying the faithful - ought we to use their gentle and kind services - ordinarily.
In some places, this authorisation has been given locally, as it is possible globally to avail of some of the Sacraments - as set out by Pope Francis. And that silliness is the current status of the Society and our relationship with its members. Now whether the saintly and faithful archbishop was right to cross over a papal prerogative, and whether the ruling pontiff, now canonised, was wise to react as he did - that is a different matter.
Note well, a church-approved ability to teach the Catholic Faith is not the same as the church-approved right to teach it, on behalf of the Catholic Church. Your blog and my comments are not - as yet - subject to the very proper rules of Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur censorship; sadly these once useful instruments are all but worthless today, being doled out by feckless senior pastors with little care for (or knowledge of) the Faith. So, you and I, like Brother Joseph-Mary of the Sacred Tradition Family Fraternity and Sister Bobbi of the Perpetual Indulgence Gaia-Bus Fellowship, may well have an approved ability to teach - yet valid ordination alone gives the approved right to teach in the Church and for Her .. though local ordinaries retain the jurisdictional power to permit or prohibit the authority to do so in Christ's Holy Name (thus permitting Fr James Martin SJ, for example, to teach more or less what he pleases where he pleases while prohibiting a simple parish priest's talk on The Four Last Things or The Sins That Cry Out To Heaven et al).
Thank you a ton for your videos on these touchy subjects. I'm still trying to fit all this stuff together (as are we all, I guess), but going through your channel has already done a lot to tame the "radical" in me. Looking forward to the continuation of your Vatican II series when you find the time. God bless you!
It's time to wake up and smelled the coffee. Without the SSPX there would not be a single Tridentine Mass said in the world today.
Without Judas, the Pharisees, the Saducees, the Priests of the Council, the Crowds, and Pontius Pilot, the Crucifixion wouldn't have happened: doesn't justify their sins.
You should do proper research before you talk about Archbishop Lefebvre. Read Michael Davies' Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre
As a faitfull of the sspx i have never heard any of our priest condeming the other traditional societies affliated with Rome. They are more concerned with the sanctification of their faithfuls. But you people continue to attack with diabolical hatred. If you are so bloody zealous about unity in the church, why dont you publicly address the Holy Father and the scandals that sprung forth from his reign. " Even the stones would cry out".
Because the unity is not about truth anymore. It's about institutional power and feelgood trappings. That's what these "traditionalists in the Church" wish to make the TLM into: just an aesthetic choice without any deeper meaning, except the personal feelings and impressions it generates.
spot on
How come every time you tell an SSPX person that their leader had to be excommunicated for grave sin, and how come every time you point out they are schismatic and have NO canonical status in the church, they say "Oh, forget all that. You must talk about what Pope Francis has done wrong"?
@BDL C, you actually disagree with me, while giving an appearance of agreeing, as if trying to reinterpret my message for posterity. What I hold is that all the smells and bells Traditionalists in full communion are not traditional enough. Doctrine is the foundation of the Church, while the Mass is only its public face. All these supposed scandals, both in Novus Ordo and the Society are equally just red herrings and are drummed up to keep everyone's attention away from the things that actually matter. Which is again doctrine and how it was turned upside down in 1965.
The Society is yet another red herring. Knowing a few people there, they seem to teach some kind of SSPX identity politics far more than anything about living an actual spiritual life. The recent supposed scandals in the Society are mostly fabrications by people who have been caught lying about these things earlier. I think the Society is currently just a fake opposition and that this so-called scandal was needed to keep it doing its job. Which is to confusingly attack and accept at the same time the current mess in Vatican. If people get bored of the current Society and are no longer divided about it, they will need to find something else to take its place. What better way to help this than drum up an abuse scandal? It's what these particular drummers are best at.
@BDL C, in other words, 1) the scandals in the Society are fake. There have been a few real ones there, nobody is denying that, but this particular one was a cheap attempt. And 2) the Society itself is fake. They do more identity politics than actual spiritual teaching. While 3) the focus on the Mass instead of doctrine is fake, and therefore 4) both the Society and so-called trads in full communion are fake. But 5) also all the scandals in the larger Novus Ordo world are fake, not in the sense of not having happened but in the sense of not meriting the amount of attention given. This is because 6) the entire Novus Ordo edifice is fake, but remains buttressed on both sides by these kinds of endless manufactured battles. There's no other way to make people fight for a church that threw away its doctrine long time ago, ergo the entire Vatican is fake. But 7) most fake of them all is a particular organization from Spain that manufactures and directs most if not all of the other fakery.
I would consider it a compliment to be called in an ‘irregular canonical situation’ with the likes of Francis. By the same token Francis has been consistently generous to the Society, saying at one point ‘Of course they are Catholics.’
@r4zk4l Not sure what the point if the question is. In any event, Francis’ personal commitment to religion is mired in such deep philosophical and theological confusion it would be impossible even to know what he might mean by believing in something. My only point was to observe that he is not as nasty to the Society as he is to traditional Catholics in a regularized canonical position
Thank you for speaking your informed views with charity. Please keep sharing, despite the criticism, as its important to keep a dialogue alive for the sake of unity. I myself am in the process of capturing my own voice as well.
Thank you for sharing, so much to think about.
Much to consider, but also much left out. The Society is not in schism, nor has it ever been. Take this however you will, but Catholics need to educate themselves in this time of spiritual combat.
www.scribd.com/document/3984779/Meuli-Letter-Re-Sspx
I just wanted to thank you for making this video it is the first time I have come across your work.
I found this really helpful
Here is my summary 1. You’re ignorant on canon law 2. Paragraph 7 of code 1323 says if the consecrator THOUGHT there was a state of necessity, no penalty incurrs. 3. The Pope de facto stated that the SSPX operated under supplied jurisdiction, which deems your boomer arguments, utterly null
awesome argument.
Chill out man.
I actually took canon law courses in grad school and studied it along with my work in ecclesiology. Your erroneous presentation doesn't pass muster.
@@decluesviews2740 Really? How infantile. Taking canon law classes does not make you an expert. Your reply is what does not pass muster
@@robertpreato3891 3 ecclesiastical degrees does
I attend the SSPX mass because that’s the only TRADITIONAL LATIN mass available in my area. So apart from the SSPX sticking to the unchanging tradition of the Church and refuse to celebrate the Novus Ordo mass what exactly wrong with them ? Who cares about your credentials?
Exactly. What was it that Jesus said the Pharisees? "You strain the gnat but sallow the camel". Matt 23:24 That is exactly what these SSPX haters are doing, straining the gnat.
Watching this 18 months later, in NZ......... I wonder how many contributors here would alter their statements in the light of so much that the present Pope has said on many subjects.. not the least the recent clampdown on the celebration of the Latin Mass...
Once a very Catholic Catholic,,, I left practising the Faith by my late 20s, partly because of "doubts" and partly, largely, because of the very poor standard of preaching... the teaching at least was provided after that, most often, in Baptist churches
Now--the point... over the past year, due largely to Taylor Marshall and a couple of other sites, I have woken up to the Church and its mission. I am quite concerned at the "woke" /modernist tendencies in "Catholic" schools and parishes.. the "church of nice" approach in the NZ Church so far as I can see.
If, as I have written elsewhere, push came to shove in the NZ Church, esp under the present disaster of papal leadership, I would definitely head to the nearest SSPX church,,,which unfortunately is 80 Km south or 100 Km north.
We may have a Pope...but what a pope......
Love Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre! After reading his biography & “Priestly Holiness” I realized he did nothing wrong but continued the “Mass of the Ages”. Thank God for the FSSPX. I’m sad there not a SSPX close by. Most grateful for Our Lady of Fatima who led Jeffrey Tillery to the SSPX & shared with me the truth! Please pray for Jeffrey as he will (Deus Vult) attending St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in VA this Fall! JanetMarie
Doesn’t seem you are interested in being objective if all you did was read Lefebvre’s biography
The argument you said from 11:45 to 13:30 that you don't break away from Rome and that popes authority has to be recognized and obeyed is true but SSPX does that already. SSPX never said that the pope isn't the pope and they are obeying pope in his decree if it doesn't counter the teaching of the tradition. Pope St. Pius X on tradition :"
Tradition is the non-written word of God, which has been transmitted by word of mouth by Jesus Christ and by the apostles, and which has come down to us through the centuries by the means of the Church, without being altered ". The same thing have done all the bischops during the reign of pope Honorius 1 and the same thing did St. Athanasius.At the argument that the pope can determine what is sacred lithurgy and what isn't is somewhat true. He can in fact determine it if it doesn't go against tradition and documents concerning faith and morals given with papal authority by the popes before him.
You are totally misunderstanding the Pius X quote. It has nothing to do with the liturgy. The Catholic church follows scripture and TRADITION. But that is a discrete point, which you are assuming tradition means everything that has been done for a long time in the church, like the liturgy. But that is not what Pius X means by the word tradition.
Thanks for the video. What have you read in your research in said subject? If you could leave us a list of all books, articles, etc that have led you to this conclusion. Thanks in advance.
Here is a good book. It takes all the ridiculous criticisms against Vatican II, and deals with them , one by one in a rational way.
"The Disputed Teachings of Vatican II: Continuity and Reversal in Catholic Doctrine"
www.amazon.com/Disputed-Teachings-Vatican-II-Continuity/dp/080287438X/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=The+Disputed+Teachings+of+Vatican+II%3A+Continuity+and+Reversal+in+Catholic+Doctrine&qid=1596924180&s=books&sr=1-1
This was very interesting. Thank you. I like your charitable style.
I'd rather call it calculated.
Interesting but it leaves off the fullness of truth and goes straight into opinion. Confirmation bias. Not an actual examen.
Check out the defense of the Society's positon:
www.scribd.com/document/3984779/Meuli-Letter-Re-Sspx
This was nice. Too much emotion around this topic right now.
Thank you.! My husband and I just recently left the SSPX after 20 years . You are right, this is all really sad and I have so many regrets. Especially for my adult children that were raised in a SSPX chapel. We need a lot of prayers. We have a great Bishop that supports the TLM and diocesan priests that have the ability to offer it. I love the idea of working within the church to help support and spread the truth of the Orthodox Catholic faith. +
So what was the reason for leaving SSPX?
Thnak God for the SSPX. 50 years and still going strong. Bye NO
And even after 50 years, they only have 600 priests in the entire world. They are a nutcase sect, a cult, really quite protestant in their insistence they can do whatever they want.
👏👏👏🤣🤣🤣
As a convert long ago, what drew me to the church was that the Catholic service was different than the protestant churches. The priest faced the alter and led the people toward the worship. Every Catholic Church throughout the world used the same language: our responses and prayers in Latin - everywhere!!! We were one faith !!!! We knelt to receive the Host on our tongues. We didn't take it in hand to feed it to ourselves as if eating a snack. It was taught as the holy way to do it..... When it all changed suddenly, it was a shock. Please try to understand. Just give it a moment of thought of how that hurt people who were convinced that we Catholics had reasons for conducting our worship as we did for centuries. Thank you for your understanding.
Trust me. I do understand. And I appreciate your heartfelt sharing of your experience. I have relatives that had similar experiences. I am all about ad orientem. I am all for receiving on the tongue, kneeling. I attend the TLM regularly. Please understand that I love the tradition as well. It is out of love for it, that I feel the need to implore others who love it not to go too far and err on the side of illicit sacraments and irregular ecclesial structures.
Someone with more knowledge on this please explain to me: First Latin Mass is good. Then it is heresy and schismatic. Now it is good. What did I miss here? Did God change his mind a few times, does God dabble in logical contradiction, was the Church in error, or was SSPX in error, or something else, and why? To me as a layman, the confusion and division seems to originate with the change, not with the people that resisted the change.
The SSPX will never given canonical status by the conciliar church. The main stand of the conciliar church
is that the SSPX recognize vatican 2 in its entirety and celebrate the novus ordo missae. While the SSPX
wants to remain traditional - that is celebrate the TLM and perform sacraments based on the traditional
forms and prayers. The differences can not be reconciled, especially with the recent traditiones custodes.
The FSSP, ICKSP, etc. are allowed to continue to exist.
@@decluesviews2740 Because the FSSP ad ICKSP aren't standing up for clear teaching. They'll do whatever they're asked for the honor of being allowed to exist. The SSPX is standing up for the Church in continually addressing and being a visible sign that calls for clarity in teaching. That's an honorable endeavor.
Let your yes be yes, and your no, be no. Anything else is from the devil.
Hence VII documents that "can" and "are" open to interpretation beyond what "you" deem proper interpreted are being used to destroy Catholic teaching. That's why I find your placating videos that seek to put sheep to sleep with "everything is all right" when its not obnoxious. Insidious even.
What videos are you doing to unite the flock toward authentic interpretation and demanding as much in their dioceses? Are you doing anything? The Oath Against Modernism used to ensure that novel "interpretations" were kept out of the Church. But its abrogation in the aftermath of VII gave prelates a green light to interpret at will and you know it.
So with VII giving tacit permission to do what thou wilt in critical areas of the Church, one cannot in good conscience proclaim the soundness of VII documents. You know that, too.
Question: if SSPX came back into full communion with Rome, would they be able to choose their own members and leaders ( bishops etc...). The reason this matters is that, if modernists in Rome start choosing their bishops, then everything the society fought for would collapse. In this case, in my opinion, Rome should grant them independence to be a separate order with full canonical status if they submit to Rome’s authority.
Mika Zoftstrom
Rome already offered them exactly that - prelature. They still refused. I still don’t think they should dialogue with them. Imagine the Apostles negotiating with schismatics about coming back to the church? It would never have happened! Even to join the Church in the first place back then you would had to prove yourself. And here we are negotiating with this renegade group. Who do they think they are? There should be no negotiations- they should be approaching the Church, hat in hand, bending the knee and ask to be taken back -after they do penance!
@@Joe-uw5rv With all due respect, that's not all the offered. The society was treated to a last minute addendum wherein they were required to sign that there is nothing novel or dangerous in VII documents. That is untrue. Those documents, though strong in parts, are rife with ambiguity and novelty that has borne the fruit of Amoris Letitia. And generations of falling away from the Catholic faith. (What penance will you do for the sin of calumny?)
Try to get the facts straight when speaking of others. Especially before you condemn them.
www.scribd.com/document/3984779/Meuli-Letter-Re-Sspx
No.
Many many thanks for this. You have much wisdom and patience. A real example to me.
A genuine question: how can the SSPX be schismatic and also be in partial communion with the Church? Isn't that against the principle of non-contradiction? After all, "outside the Church, there is no salvation," and I think that means you are either in or out.
They can't be is the simple answer. www.scribd.com/document/3984779/Meuli-Letter-Re-Sspx
Schismatic means that you are out of communion with the pope. They believe all the Catholic doctrines and dogmas, except for Vatican II. So they are kinda partially Catholic but a pretty crummy version if you ask me. Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus is a more complicated topic than you may believe, try reading Dominus Iesus for an explanation.
Thank you for this balanced opinion. Your thoughts on this matter helped me a lot. God bless.
Error doesn't help that balance. www.scribd.com/document/3984779/Meuli-Letter-Re-Sspx
Dude, are you sure you want to scrutinize other Catholics??
If you don’t like my SSPX Faith just ignore me. I ignore you and yours.
Robert Sparkes you made me laugh. So true.
Kimberly Riddell ...I’m glad someone appreciates my wit. 😇.
replying to a video you didn't have to watch is a strange definition of "ignore." I said from the beginning I really don't enjoy it. But I do see people being misled, so I speak out. Attack me for it if you want. It won't silence me.
DeClue's Views again you claim people are being mislead but you admit that you are ignorant on the topic so who is doing the misleading who. You are making claims with no knowledge of the topic.
@@decluesviews2740 You presenting a video with such obvious holes in logic and truth is strange. Not so the request for money.
What you see may not be what you think. For you are misleading people and speaking out of turn.
I have a question for you. First, attend a mass by the society, they are not schismatic. Slowly , I think the church is realizing that the new mass was a mistake. To attend the Latin mass unbroken over the years by the so called ordinary mass is exceptional, inspiring, and above all, reverent. Now my Question.
Would you rather go to mass where the sins of the priest amount to his taking the body and blood down a sewage pipe, or go to the society where hopefully their priests uphold their vows of celibacy? The Popes confusion in his footnotes is much more scandalous than the society, though now even they seem to be taking sexual notes from the modernist priests of the novus ordo.
I’m trying to lay off the priests and bishops and Cardinals because they are not my responsibility. Christ will deal with them sufficiently in His time. Jesus, I trust in you!
"You HAVE to obey the Pope" - well, I suppose you think that Benedict's resignation was valid? And that we "have" to obey some guy who isn't even Catholic?
Toast molote bro. I love these one
Yes, it was valid. And yes, Pope Francis is a Catholic.
@@songbirds3712 go to Ann Barnhardt's site and watch her videos on the bergoglian antipapacy (btw, here's how you know something's true - when YT blocks links to it, which they did now 4 different ways).
Sadly too many people like DeClue are very ignorant regarding the SSPX and regarding Church teachings.
Also, all theological arguments aside, Archbishop Fulton Sheen urged Catholics to stay clear of the SSPX, what more needs to be said?
Sheen fell for the bastard modernist religion and he will not be canonized by the modernist hierarchy because he wasn't enough of a modernist sodomite.
I decided a long time ago to stay clear of Sheen. It had nothing to do with SSPX, even though I am mildly in favor of SSPX. It was nice and fun to hear Sheen say that in Vatican II the demonic entered the Church. But then Sheen totally changed his mind. I think he had no principles. He was just a good actor. Which incidentally would have made him a wonderful ordinary 21st century saint.
I would give almost anything to live near an SSPX monastery and be able to participate in whatever way possible, even just to attend Sunday mass. The diocese I live in has to be far more offensive to God than the Society of Saint Pius the Tenth!
Obedience to God is disobedience to men that causes scandal and performs unjust actions. No sin whatsover. Long live the sspx!!!!
I absolutely agree. Loved this talk. And your mindfulness.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was as obedient as the Maccabees in 1 Maccabees 2:41 when they decided to fight on the Sabbath for their faith. Prove me wrong.
Archbishop Lefebvre was so obedient that they had to excommunicate him. Don't give me any of this Maccabee stuff. The maccabees were Jewish, they were before the Church of Christ and the pope. They did not swear, as Lefebvre did, to obey the pope. come on, get serious.
I agree! I pray and hope they do come back into the fold of the Catholic Church.
Razorhunter9 and I Hope rome soon returns to the Catholic faith. In fact I pray everyday for that. Especially when attending Mass at the local SSPX
FSSPX! I love the FSSP but their under the Pope and hope they don’t cave in. A few I have heard not & will be disobedience to man & obey God! Exactly what Archbishop Lefebvre did. Preserve the Authentic Catholicism! JanetMarie
SSPX also divided among themselves. Some SSPX acknowledged our Pope. Some SSPX are not.
The devil has recently been on a full on Assault of SSPX. Wonder why?
Pride leads to despicable falls. A group so focused on traditionalist views having very Novis Ordo issues of abuse can only have pride in self as its cause.
perhaps because they lie a lot and were recently found to be child abusers?
How do you know it’s not God punishing them? I’m not saying it is, but to say that it’s the devil is a bit presumptuous.
@@andersonbush1130 How? God is the TRUTH. DeClue and those he hopes to cultivate like willing subjects take truth out of context and thereby promulgate falsehood. (Like the stereotype of a gossiping housewife.)
Be honest. Be factual. Be open to gathering all pertinent details. Not only those that support the narrative you'd like to believe.
Our Lord tells us to judge with just judgment, not by appearances. And yet DeClue, for all his protestations of being fair and balanced, refuses to canvass those canonical supports for the Society's existence. He puts words/intentions into the mouths/hearts of others while ignoring the presumption and pride in his own living room.
He also shies from openly acknowledging that the lawful authority has refrained from the judgment that he would cast. Or encourage others to reach by way of parsed instigation.
He's a fear monger. That's perhaps why Kimberely posted the way she did.
@@pl6168 My brain: your ad hominems have no power here
A suggestion would be to watch Dr. Marshall's most recent video and then remake this. I love both Marshal and Gordon (never would have known about traditional Catholicism or the Latin Mass without BOTH of them), but people on both sides are talking over each other's heads - at least half of the points you made in this video were addressed/clarified/solved by watching Dr. Marshal's latest video, and all of Marshal's "push back" could be solved by simply admitting the obvious: there's a toxic nature in many "trad" circles that needs to be purged, and many who attend the SSPX maintain positions that are legitimately heretical, which Gordon is rightly concerned about!
You know why you cannot watch Marshall? Because he only is a propaganda man for the SSPX. Does he have on people who will challenge him? NO! He only has people on who agree with the SSPX. You never learn a thing watching a Marshall video, it is all one way propaganda. If he was confident he was right, he would have on people who challenged him and gave the evidence for the opposite side. He is really kind of a weakling, he never has on people who disagree so that things can be talked out. But this one sidedness is standard SSPX technique - standard cult technique - they never allow real debate, you must obey the cult, or they block you. And that is what Marshall does. As soon as there is disagreement, like with Gordon, he blocks you and never talks to you again. This cannot be from God.
@@tomthx5804 Ironically enough, one of my points was that after watching this video, it was apparent that many people in fact ~could~ learn a lot simply by watching the Marshal video. As I said in my comment, it's unproductive to make blanket statements such as yours: "You never learn a thing watching a Marshall video...", and you're really just talking past the other side and creating noise. Certainly this isn't how one can best go about disagreements.
I attend a Diocesan TLM regularly, but I have attended the SSPX and sought the sacraments from one of their chapels several times. The two priests I've met there have been very holy and given wonderful spiritual direction (no - hasn't ever had anything to do with "opposing" V2 or the NO...).
If I'm being completely honest, after reading your comment it appears you're simply demonizing people for their completely rational views, which happen to contradict yours. Our holy father (Pope Francis) has given us permission to seek that sacraments from the SSPX - what further clarification do you really need?
@@Anthony-vx6cs On the contrary. You are really mixed up. Pope Francis has not "given you permission to seek the sacraments from the SSPX" How could you possibly believe he said that? Because you probably got it from a Taylor Marshal video. He misinformed you. Francis gave the SSPX the right to take confessions and do marriages. He NEVER said that anyone could go to an SSPX church whenever they wanted. In fact, the old ruling that no one should regularly attend an SSPX remains fully in force. The reason no one should regularly attend an SSPX mass is because there, they will lead people into a tendency for schism.
I have watched Marshall videos, every one of them. The true is mixed up with the false so tightly that you cannot watch any Marshall video without getting totally misled. He uses fake quotes. He truncates quotes so that they seem to say the opposite of what they really said. He twists facts, he distorts virtually everything. Would you hire a math teacher that sometimes said the right things but often included totally false things? No, you would avoid such a teacher like the plague. As a result, no good can come from watching a Marshall video, and even if you think you have learned something, you might have learned the opposite of what the church actually teaches.
It is true that SSPX give off the aura of being holy. But that is often just on the surface. Once you engage them in deeper discussion, they start spouting all sorts of bizarre conspiracy theories, No doubt they have the desire to be holy, but boy are they messed up. But it fools people for a while.
The SSPX is schismatic, and their leaders all had to be excommunicated. Draw your own conclusions. If they were so wonderful, would people be constantly fighting over whether they were sound or not? No.
Neither of these people are Catholic.
I realize that as a Roman Catholic, I have to obey the Pope. However, Dr. Marshall does seem to be very knowledgeable and makes some good points regarding the Catholic faith and the administration of same.
As a Catholic what do you mean you have to obey the Pope/ That is a very thin ice statement, you need to read the Catechism and be very clear about what obedience means.
I found this at the right time. Thank You!
That means a lot to me! I am glad I posted it, then.
Maybe he can do a video on this: www.scribd.com/document/3984779/Meuli-Letter-Re-Sspx
You claim certain Catholics are schismatic but you don't know the definition of schismatic. Like someone else said in the comments you need to go to confession.
Thank you for this!
i am not into polemics and i am not interested in watching this video, i just need to say something: i am portuguese born and raised in catholicism but i derailed… 20 years away from catholicism or more… it was the traditional bishops and cardinals that brought me back. And when i attended the TLM i was in awe… My parents still received Mass in latin, but unfortunately in the 90s in portugal there was no longer TLM… Recently I attended my very first TLM in switzerland, where i live, and i am completely surrendered to that immense beauty; that mass can convert people, it’s that powerful. Serious Tradition as rigorous as possible, is the way to go and it’s the only practice that can actually expand faith, make more conversions and heal the soul of the suffering people. Just know this.
I understand not being into polemics. Honestly, I don't like it either, but sometimes I find it necessary. I should make it clear: I do not approve of the SSPX, but I do love the TLM. In fact, I did another video about it that you may enjoy. I go to the TLM 90% of the time at my local parish. My reasons for not attending SSPX are not because of the TLM; it is for other reasons. But, that's what the video is about which you do not want to watch, and that's okay. But I thought you should know that this isn't an anti-TLM video.
The Catholic Church is not a liturgy.
@@decluesviews2740 Clearly, your approval of the SSPX is unnecessary and immaterial. In fact, you produce other videos that are based on half-truths, the negation of certain canons, and your opinion. Hence DeClue's "Views."
And on an off topic, What do you believe Jesus is thinking about all this?
I recently (before the outbreak of the pandemic) found a Church run by the Institute Of Christ the King in my diocese only a 15 minute drive! If only the society could come over and be in full communion with us we could be more unified and put end to all this fighting and error
Ah, but that was going to happen in 2012 under Benedict. But the curia rose up and demanded that the Society sign a waiver saying they agreed with everything said in VII documents.
Interesting considering VII supposedly changed nothing while its being used left and right to change everything. Amoris Letitia anyone?
Here's some insight to the "schism" smear:
www.scribd.com/document/3984779/Meuli-Letter-Re-Sspx
Maybe you and Tim Gordon could have that Balthasar discussion now.
Tim Gordon needs to get his ducks in order, talk is cheap. What is his relationship with the idols of the secular world; like "hollywood movies","sports", etc.? Mr de Clue is another "talker". Does he need to be recognized as an "authority"? Doesn't he see the blood in the street? No, Like JPII, Mr de Clue is high up in the "ivory tower"! Double talk, like Barron.
@@jamesnielsen3095 You sound like an old SDA - movies are not always inherently "bad" nor are sports.
@@cyndephillipshohbein8232 That's true. But the Gordon's pretending to have an authority they do not is a problem.
@@pl6168 They (the brothers) are despicable.
Pope Alexander VI is looking better and better, day by day. This is scary!
I’d rather be wrong w the Pope than right without him. Thanks, I always come to the conclusion that apart from Rome we will always have issues and the potential of becoming a schismatic and ultimately excommunicating oneself. If God allows the scandals do we just run away from suffering? We can’t create our own Catholic Church because we don’t want to suffer w the Body of Christ or go through the spiritual desert. As a former Protestant I’m relieved I’m part of the Church even with all its problems rather than being outside trying to find the truth. God bless
Pathetic. Your thinking is 100% anti-Christian. You put obedience to the pope above faith in Christ. You say something absurd and act like it's the most Christian thing in the world. Who died on the Cross for You was Christ. If you prefer to go wrong with a heretical pope who supports the enemies of Christ then you will go to hell with him.
Excuse me, but SSPX are not outside the church. Have you not followed what BXVI said?
yes, I have, and I've also followed what an actual career long and orthodox Canon Lawyer who headed up one of the biggest courts in the Church has to say: Cardinal Burke. I love Pope Benedict! I've written an S.T.L. Thesis and a Doctoral Dissertation on Ratzinger's theology. He isn't a canon lawyer though. And, at best, all he stated was that the SSPX has NO canonical status. Even if that is the 'best case scenario' for their status, that doesn't undermine a single thing I've said.
@@decluesviews2740 so you are picking and choosing what Pope’s to follow according to which ones you agree with ?
@@roseann21 That makes no sense on the face of it. Please elaborate.
Additionally, your first obligation is to Jesus Christ not the pope as St. Theresa of Avila warned us "Those who follow the pope are on the road to hell."
That's abusing St. Theresa's word and a rapture of its meaning. Christ is the one who created the office of the Papacy.
That's exactly what protestants say. And exactly what SSPX says.
When we all feel so strongly about our faith we fall out with people who think differently. We must seek the truth through the one true Church, no matter how flawed it is at the moment. Christ promised to be with His Church always..... even when errors are taught and pronounced. Stay kind to each other even when doing so hurts!
Thank you for commenting on the infallibility of St. JP II also (I mean his canonization). I hate it when RadTrads put him down, and often times don't even want to acknowledge his sainthood. I'm not well educated in these matters, but I don't like the way the supporters of the SSPX are behaving online in social media. It's very unbecoming.
Jenna Ruth JPII is no saint. Period
@@BujangMelaka90 you know that through what authority? 😂 Yourself, like most Prots?
They hate JP II because he quite rightly excommunicated their little tin horn god, Lefebvre. So they are nastier than hell all the time towards him. I used to like SSPX, but as I got to know them, they are some of the nastiest people I have ever met, and many of them appear to be on the fringes of sanity.
JPII kissed the Quran, blessed by pagans. Assisi meeting with other religions, including Protestant
@@BujangMelaka90 Yes, so yours. Thanks, Protestant friend. You should really join the Catholic Church.
Good stuff, DeClue. This is a very complicated and nuanced debate, but I think Catholics are backsliding a bit with regard to the SSPX, at least of late. Interestingly, Ratzinger was often criticized for being _too_ lenient towards the SSPX, and Francis' alternative tack has been to more or less dismiss not only the SSPX but also traditional Catholics. What everyone acknowledges is that, within or without the Church, the SSPX represent a counterweight to Catholic progressivism. Personally I would call the SSPX "liberal" no more than I would call Dollinger or the 11-century Orthodox "liberal." Their objections are based on a conservatism and a resistance to change. When Ratzinger says the SSPX and liberal Catholics both have a similar problem, I do not read him as saying that the SSPX are liberal. I'd say he is making a more nuanced hermeneutics-of-tradition point.
Taylor Marshall is amazing. I recommend all his videos and his books !! His books are erudite yet enlightening.
He is a heretic and schismatic
@@michaelspeyrer1264 Perhaps you are a heretic and a schismatic.
@@npickard4218 Well for starters, I had no positions contrary to the teaching of the Church so to make that claim you would have to show evidence of the fact otherwise that becomes a claim without supporting evidence and thus rash judgment, which the CCC under sins against the 8th commandment condemns.
Secondly, I can't be that because I am completely faithful to the Magisterium in all things, and Christ promised the Church that clinging to Peter and his successors would never lead one astray.
So, if you have a problem with the management I suggest you take it up with him.
@@michaelspeyrer1264 Michael, I know the scriptures inside and out and there's no way you can convince me that Mr. Bergoglio who bows to the Pacha Mama, enters into ecumenism with Muslims, and has essentially made it near impossible to maintain the TLM is valid representative of the apostolic tradition going back to St. Peter. Pope Francis has defaced and abused all that is beautiful and true about the Roman Catholic Church. I agree with the trads who are suspicious of anything that came out of Vatican II. I am not a theologian of the church so I cannot quote Latin documents but I have spent 3 years listening to them debate advocates for the Novus Ordo and when I listen to both sides debate each other, it looks crystal clear to me that the traditionalists represent the true Church. I have 2 master's degrees and a Ph.D. (though not in Catholic theology) but my formal education has prepared me for critical thinking skills. After studying this topic for 3 years and watching as Pope Francis turns a blind eye to the pedophile rings, the rainbow priests like Father Martin et al, and the homosexual orgies at the Vatican, I don't think this Pope is anything but a fraud. The last time I visited Rome was 2018 and even the secular Italians who are Catholic in name only know about the orgies they have ... the tour guide at the Vatican pointed out the buildings where they take place right there is in the holy Vatican City. It's demoralizing what Pope Francis has done in the name of Jesus Christ. But it didn't begin with him, it's been growing over my lifetime. You may call people who love the Roman Catholic Church and Jesus Christ heretics if you choose but this Pope and the idea pathogens that Vatican II brought into the church have done irreparable damage to Christ's mission. Heretics, heretics, heretics ... let the name-calling continue but any casual observer can watch the Pacha Mama incident and the gay stuff and know that this is not the Catholic Church that that has weathered the centuries. There was a time when there were 3 Popes, one in Rome, one in Avignon, and one in Pisa and each one claimed to be legitimate. I say we need challengers and let the faithful decide because this Pope and his entire hierarchical entourage are unrecognizable as Catholics. Michael, just running around and calling people who disagree with you heretics and schismatics doesn't work. Name-calling is not an argument.
@@npickard4218 His name isn't Bergoglio, he isn't your personal friend, and the dignity of his ordination and office which belong to Christ should be used. And Mr. is not his title. Its Pope Francis.
"We salute the rank soldier, not the man."
I I continued to address Simon son of Jonah as that name, after Christ changed it to Peter, I would think that was an insult to Christ. At the very least and ignoring of what Christ bestowed on him.
"o bows to the Pacha Mama, e"
-Well, first of all the Pope never bowed down to anything, even on video that's not accurate. Secondly, the Holy See denied your claim to be accurate, so to argue the contrary after the fact is arguing in bad faith, and willful rejection of the authority of the Holy See as defined by Vatican I.
"ecumenism with Muslims,"
-Even this statement is inaccurate. Ecumenism is among Christians. Dialogue with other religions is inter-religious dialogue. And there is nothing contrary to discussing theology with other religions.
"has essentially made it near impossible to maintain the TLM is valid representative of the apostolic tradition going back to St. Peter. "
-When rad trads go full insane, they really fall off the pumpkin truck. The Extraordinary form does not go back to St. Peter. Secondly, No one is owed any particular rite of the Church. Thirdly, the Catholic Church has 24 different of the Mass, not one, to reduce Sacred tradition, and liturgies are not part of sacred tradition, to the filter of one single liturgy isn't even theologically correct.
Not one single thing you've said so far is accurate.
"Pope Francis has defaced and abused all that is beautiful and true about the Roman Catholic Church."
-Appeal to motive is always and invalid premise. Watch I'll demonstrate. YOU HAVE A BAD MOTIVE. What isn't an appeal to motive is the statement you made above is heretical and schismatic on multiple levels and a complete repudiation of Vatican I, and I feel sad for you. That you have so completely locked yourself into an alternate reality.
" I agree with the trads who are suspicious of anything that came out of Vatican II. "
-Because they schismatics and heretics and so are you according to Vatican I.
"I am not a theologian of the church"
-This is the first true statement you've made so far.
"but I have spent 3 years listening to them debate advocates for the Novus Ordo and when I listen to both sides debate each other, it looks crystal clear to me that the traditionalists represent the true Church."
-Yeah except that's heresy and condemned by Vatican I, which people who advocate this position must do, to justify their heretical schismatic eccelsiaology.
" I have 2 master's degrees and a Ph.D. (though not in Catholic theology) but my formal education has prepared me for critical thinking skills. "
-It has not. Do not confuse degrees in other fields for a working understanding of theology. Knowing philosophy and theology does not give me comprehension of Bio-chemistry. OR the ability to fairly judge a debate between two qualified people in the field about who is full of shite.
-Unfortunately, although you are very well educated...you are not well educated in this field, which makes this the dunning kruger effect and over estimation of your competency here to shift to deception
"After studying this topic for 3 years and watching as Pope Francis turns a blind eye to the pedophile rings, the rainbow priests like Father Martin et al, and the homosexual orgies at the Vatican, "
This is another assumption of motive on your part. Your second. And a second rash judgment. I'll be honest that I don't understand why he keeps this individual in the position he does, but that doesn't equal the conclusion you've drawn, not does that make him complicit in clerical sex abuse. This is a post hoc propter hoc on your part.
"Pope Francis turns a blind eye to the pedophile rings, the rainbow priests like Father Martin et al, and the homosexual orgies at the Vatican,"
-No one statement of this can you provide supporting evidence for. Your defamatory assumptions are vile. The worst is the assumption he had any knowledge or responsibility for what that incident with zero proof.
"It's demoralizing what Pope Francis has done in the name of Jesus Christ."
-You have nothing to support this but ill will. on your own soul.
" But it didn't begin with him, it's been growing over my lifetime. You may call people who love the Roman Catholic Church and Jesus Christ heretics "
-But they don't love the Catholic Church, that's the thing. They are in love with the false idol of the Church they have created, that's not what Christ founded. The one that's filled with blood and sorrow, and human weakness and Divine redemption. The one that lives in their minds, that isn't reality. What they suffer from ultimately lack of faith that can't live with contradiction and tension. They want a Church that is a reflection of the dark enlightenment model of the universe they inhabit that operates in perfect spheres and right angles and perfect liturgy. But that's not reality and it never has been that's why they are so filled with resentment and anger. They have a false vision of the past, a distorted view of the present, and an illusory view of the future that will never be.
" the idea pathogens that Vatican II brought into the church have done irreparable damage to Christ's mission"
-Church councils are products of the Holy Spirit and sealed with the Holy Spirit. There were neither pathogens in the council nor has it done damage to Christ's mission. That is the work of men, not the Council and not God. And this again can't be true and at the same time you accept the teaching of Vatican I, which is usually the error that is chosen so the illusion of the reality they buy into can be continued. And when push comes to shove, the devotion to this false god is so attached even Catholic dogmatic teaching must be jettisoned to maintain it.
"Heretics, heretics, heretics ...:" This isn't mere name calling, its definitions of ecumenical councils what are being ignored to pursue a fantasy.
"watch the Pacha Mama" It wasn't a pacha mama, the only idiots saying that weren't even there or interviewed those interviewed those involved. And the same shady immoral people that were quick to denounce this, were the same people to justify every calumny and rash judgment for years prior to that. WHY ON GOD"S GREEN EARTH would you then listen to that same brood of vipers for objectivity now?
"There was a time when there were 3 Popes, one in Rome, one in Avignon, and one in Pisa and each one claimed to be legitimate."
-NO, there wasn't. There were three clements to the papacy. Only one of which had a legitimate claim.
" I say we need challengers and let the faithful decide because this Pope and his entire hierarchical entourage are unrecognizable as Catholics. "
-Not only is this AGAIN, a demonstration of heresy according to Vatican I, but there are no challengers to the Pope. That's not how this works. This is where your lack of education of these matters comes full circle. What your talking about as a "fix" is the text book definition of schism. And schism is always opposed to Christ.
" Michael, just running around and calling people who disagree with you heretics and schismatics doesn't work. Name-calling is not an argument."
I'm not name calling I'm accurately describing what these people, and you are advocating for. And you to read Vatican I from start to finish. And then, when you finish. Read it again.
I agree with you completely. Thank you for this viewpoint.
"And
he will cause the daily sacrifice to be taken away." The Novus Ordo church
is the counterfeit church that Bishop Sheen warned us about. The daily
sacrifice was taken away in 1969 when the Novus Ordo altered the rite of
ordination for priests and bishops thereby invalidating the consecration of the
Eucharist and the legitimacy of absolution. The counterfeit church is the
subtle deception of Satan: "He [Satan] will set up a counter church which
will be the ape of the Church, because he, the Devil, is the ape of God. It
will have all the notes and characteristics of the Church, but in reverse and
emptied of its divine content. It will be a mystical body of the Antichrist
that will in all externals resemble the mystical body of Christ. . . .But the
twentieth century will join the counter church because it claims to be
infallible when its visible head speaks ex cathedra." (Fulton J. Sheen,
Communism and the Conscience of the West, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1948,
pp. 24-25) ******************************************************** “The
prophecies of the Apocalypse [book of Revelation] show that Satan will imitate
the Church of Christ to deceive mankind; he will set up a church of Satan in
opposition to the Church of Christ. Antichrist will assume the role of Messiah;
his prophet will act the part of Pope; and there will be imitations of the
Sacraments of the Church. There will also be lying wonders in imitation of the
miracles wrought in the Church.” (Rev. E. Sylvester Berry, The Church of
Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise [St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co.,
1927], p. 119; italics given.) My dear Vatican 2 friends..."having eyes,
see ye not? ..and having ears, hear ye not?" When anti-popes Benedict and
Francis flash the devil's horns hand sign and wear the red shoes of sacrificed
children, it should be evident to all that the smoke of Satan has indeed
contaminated the Vatican. Hence the faithful (the Remnant Catholic Church) fly
to the wilderness upon an eagles wings which represent the Holy Rosary and the
Holy Bible. These spiritual weapons replace the daily sacrifice that has been
taken away.
The daily
sacrifice was taken away in 1969 when the Novus Ordo mass was instituted. The
Remnant Church congregated at that time in the wilderness (the marginalized
periphery of society). The spiritually resurrected from the Traditional
Catholic Church make up this Remnant Church and those who have rejected the
counterfeit Post Vatican 2 church. The Remnant Church creed is "The
Apostles Creed". We are mystical
priests established in the Mystical Body of Christ the Living Waters of
Redemption, for no longer are we sheep (spiritually children) but shepherds
(apostles spiritually mature) all in the power of the Spirit quickened in this
end time - Until the Church is restored and the seat of Peter is blessed with a
true Davidic heir.
I don't think you should drag in other vloggers into your vlog as they are not there to defend themselves. But you do need to consider what was happening at the time Archbishop Lefebvre was ASKED by some seminarians please to help in their formation because they were not being formed properly at their seminary. All Abp Lefebvre has ever claimed to do is to pass on what he was taught, and it came at a time when we were PERILOUSLY close to completely losing the Latin Rite, which although it had come down to us over 2,000 years, was being wiped out in less than a decade.
Yes, at the time when he was getting old, he felt it necessary to come up JPII and form some bishops, at a time when JPII had already conducted an interfaith ceremony at Assisi, which apparently brought that church down just after. Both Popes Benedict and Francis have no beef with the SSPX, so you are not obeying them if you do.
If you go to American Traditional, you are most likely to be attending an FSSP Mass who broke away from the SSPX. You wouldn't have an FSSP church to go to without the prior work of Abp. Lefebvre.
With regard to the accusations put out by Church Militant this week, it is going on all around the Church, and probably ever has been, so how can we expect it not to raise its ugly head in the SSPX? Any priest found to be guilty of preying on anyone should be routed out. Each SSPX priory consists of at least 4 priests, which I believe is the rule, to provide company for each other and to protect against loneliness, which dogs the diocesan churches through lack of vocations.
Good grief! I will not “obey” this Pope!
Our pope gas issues,but never changed doctrine. Sspx was excommunicated and not allowed to ordain. Sspx is not the true church even if you practice exactly. Priests don't have blessed hands
Not sure what you mean by "obey" here, and this video literally had nothing to do with "this" pope per se. But, not obeying the juridical authority of a pope is a problem, if you want to claim to be Catholic. You can't only obey a superior when you want to; that wouldn't be "obedience." Refusal to obey is what satan did.
DeClue's Views You obviously know very little about this Pope and his agenda. Search a matter out!
From selling out the Catholics in China to joining forces with those that stand for everything that’s NOT catholic like Jeffrey Sachs/Soros population control/reduction. And did you learned nothing from the Amazon/Pachamama debacle?
And then there’s lifting restrictions from the biggest sexual abuser Cardinal McCarrick., did you know McCarrick was sent to China early on to broker the China deal? At some point when does Francis actions open your eyes. Do you understand the faith? Or do you instead blindly follow/support things that go against our faith?
So don’t tell me who or what to obey.
Thank God for the Catholicism
@@kathyskeens1930 I think you need to go somewhere and sit down . And after that show some humility and read Archbishop lefebvre's books . A letter to confused Catholics and his biography
@@decluesviews2740 LoL. So now you're picking out which Pope you have to follow. We are to obey in all matters except sin, DeClue, no matter which Pope speaks.
Do you realize you're inciting rebellion by speaking against that Pachamama incident?
But instead of manning up and root causing problems, you attempt to shame others while you hide behind videos and the self-assurance of a perceived full communion card.
Unauthorized edits are what Satan wants, too, and that would be you. Parsing the truth and being unwilling to consider that you may, despite dogged study in a particular school of thought, be in error.
Obedience is not Obeisance!
Would you be able to speak about the changes that you see as good that came with and after Vatican II? Given the recent focus on the bad, I think that it would be helpful for the faithful to rediscover the good things that you mentioned in your closing and others. Perhaps a topic for a future video. Thanks for considering.
In the long run, that is the plan for the channel: a positive exposition of the beauty of Catholic Theology, both before and after Vatican II. I did an overview of Catholic Systematic Theology a couple weeks ago. Check that out for a start. Thanks for tuning in!
It would be a very short topic.
@@decluesviews2740 Too bad there wasn't a positive and impartial exposition of the Society. The herd instinct is too great, I suppose.
DeClue, I notice below that your catching a lot of flack for this video. But it's a topic that needs to be discussed reasonably and charitably without anger. I appreciate your take on the matter. I don't agree with everything you say regarding the current status of the society, but i still appreciate the perspective. I agree that this is a matter of the salvation of souls and cannot be taken lightly. Laying ones salvation on arguments of supplied jurisdiction should give everyone pause. Everyone should know what they are supporting before they support it. I have a lot personally to thank the society for, but in the end the holy pontiff has immediate and supreme jurisdiction on the matter.
It is one thing that honestly saddens me as a somewhat recent convert that there are such divisions within the Church. SSPX is one (but niot sure they are technically in) but the whole traditionalist movement itself does worry me a little as well. I don't think the traditionalist per se have ill will and they have some good points but the troubling thing is most always seem to hold themselves out a superior somehow from the rest of the Church basically setting up an us against them (you even lament it would be so much better....). If you take the traditionalist argument to it's logical conclusion that the Church has drifted and we should get back to our roots and the traditions of the Early Church you will eventually end up only one place....Orthodox. I don't have the degrees yet (hoping to start my Masters in Theology in a few months) so just my layman's take.
You have a lot to learn.
Wow. I’m so glad I found this!!
www.scribd.com/document/3984779/Meuli-Letter-Re-Sspx
You demonstrate that you have no real understanding of cannon law
All of these attacks on the SSPX by “traditional” Catholics(if your not traditional, your not catholic) is an attempt to assuage guilt felt by people who are understandably uncomfortable with the conflict they feel towards the modernist hierarchy of Rome. I understand the discomfort, but making other faithful Catholics your fall guy is disgusting. There would be no TLM without Archbishop Lefebvre
Excellent Video Richard. I never considered the pastoral negligence of the fact that sacraments that require jurisdiction have been simulated, or the reality that current granted jurisdiction is not retroactive. Where does that place SSPX members who have attempted marriage? Do they have the means of appealing to the local bishop for a radical sanation? What about annulments? Who does an SSPX parishioner go to for these things? That conundrum evidences schism for those who would argue that they are not.
Alfonso Gamez the SSPX received delegation from the Church for jurisdiction for all sacraments. Marriage before that were under the emergency Code of canon law