Same, well similar at least. And it so happens that on May 25, (St Gregory VII) an English SSPX guy I know married an Canadian SSPX lass in Canada. Congratulations for TT. I met the Bp in England (2023) and introduced myself thinking he was a priest. We both laughed together, at my clumsiness, when I realised he was the visiting Confirmation Bp after mutual introductions. We found each other difficult to understand. Me an Ulsterman and him French. I performed the customary formalities and then floated to my car to depart home (150 mile round trip). Sorry to say that the TLM, outside of the SSPX that I've attended, are not near as reverent, imo. God bless you young fella.
@@djq9332There is no such thing as an “SSPX guy” or “SSPX lass”. The Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X is a Roman Catholic religious order that consists of priests and brothers. Please be respectful and use the proper terminology. Did you mean Catholics who attend the SSPX?
The SSPX is leading the way for the Western Latin Church to regain Orthodoxy and tradition. Please God: hasten the day when they consecrate more auxiliary bishops!!! Keep up the awesome work!!!!🙏🙏🙏🙏
I was conditionally Confirmed at SSPX, 2005, +Bp. Williamson. It’s always encouraging to see a young person, a man especially, dedicate himself to the Faith and have zeal for the conversion of souls.
After 30 plus years in the NO I discovered the SSPX. It was the first time I was ever counseled to the degree I was. It was the first time I ever understood the gravity of my sins and was given a week long penance. I was embarrassed because I hadn’t memorized the act of contrition. I went home and said it multiple times a day for that week. After meeting my wife online, her having no religious background and unbaptized, within 3 years WE were catechized, she baptized, confirmed, we got married and now having our first child! Words can’t express (I’m sure I could try) how the ENTIRETY of the SSPX transformed our lives. Praise the Hearts of Jesus and Mary! Freed from addiction and PTSD!
@@apostolicapologetics4829 It is such a tragic situation that those little ones go through. My position is that they go to Limbo. I can explain if you would like?
@@thetraditionalthomist Yes absolutely. I can email you. I live closer than I realize to St Mary's. I am currently a Latin rite catholic. I found the Immaculata website and might visit for daily liturgy. The church looks beautiful. Fides quaerens intellectum
Oh thank you ! Relatively new convert who has been struggling mightily. Your comments and assistance in sorting through this issue have encouraged me ❤ I initially sought out Catholic teaching and encouragement on UTube .. it became more difficult over time to weed out the helpful vs not helpful . This s Godly redirect .
Nick, I just love listening to you. I wondered what was going to happen to our young people. You are a great inspiration to all of us. Thank you for speaking the TRUTH! I am sure you will help to bring our young people to this TRUTH that the Catholic church teaches.
Congratulations on your conversion Nick. Seek and ye shall find. Your integrity and pursuit of truth led you to the Truth. God bless you always in abundance.
One of the happiest times as a Catholic when I was conditionally reconfirmed in June 2010. I was confirmed by Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta in Syracuse, NY. Thank God for the SSPX!!!🙏🙏🙏
Praise be Jesus Christ to hear the news of your confirmation. Seems like the fire of those gifts really shining through. What a grace for Bishop Mallerais to confirm you. It brings a great dilemma to mind as well though, to think many do not have these graces and zeal because they might have not had valid sacraments and graces to do so. It can explain much, but also could explain as you said the step of God helping one because he seeks to be helped. It is a humbling process but shows that desire of seeking one's help shows this act of faith and He always rewards us abunduntly. Your witness definitely proves that, to be confirmed on the new Immaculata is another great grace and memory I am sure God has given you for the treasure chest. There is much to fight for, but that Sacrament definitely opens the gifts to help for the salvation of sousl and especially ones own. Pax+
God Bless you Nicholas, such a devout young man…you are beyond your years, I will be exceptionally graced if my son possesses such a love of the Lord when he is a grown man and blessed if my daughter marries a man like yourself. I will keep you in my prayers ✝️🙏🏼🕊️
I had a similar situation when I was becoming Catholic way back in 1995. There was some question as to whether or not my Protestant baptism was valid. After some discussions between my then-Pastor and the Archbishop at that time, I was granted a Conditional Baptism at the Easter Vigil that year.
It so happens that on May 25, (St Gregory VII) an English SSPX guy I know married an Canadian SSPX lass in Canada. Congratulations for TT. I met the Bp in England (2023) and introduced myself thinking he was a priest. We both laughed together, at my clumsiness, when I realised he was the visiting Confirmation Bp after mutual introductions. We found each other difficult to understand. Me an Ulsterman and him French. I performed the customary formalities and then floated to my car to depart home (150 mile round trip). Sorry to say that the TLM, outside of the SSPX that I've attended, are not near as reverent, imo. God bless you young fella.
Thank you for your sincerity, I attend SSPX, I returned to the authentic Catholic church, after many years in the Protestant church. The scripture I love which describes the heart you speak of is found in St. Matthew 13: verses 10 to verse 15 where Jesus explains the prophetic words of ISAIS about eyes to see, and ears to hear, and the way He will heal, when we receive, understanding of the heart. 🙏🙏
You, young man, are a hope for the future. Get married, have lots of babies. They will raise up the good Bishops, through our present rosaries and reparation. ⚜️
Such worthwhile meditations. I too am questioning my Confirmation, even though it is considered valid by the NO priest when I entered the Church 13 years ago. I left evangelicalism and spent 5 years in the ACCC (Anglican Catholic Church of Canada) and was Confirmed by one of the bishops, who a year later entered the Ordinariate as a priest. I submitted my confirmation certificate when they asked me for any documentation while I was in convert classes. I'm assuming they investigated. In the end the priest said I did not require Confirmation, I was received in to the Church in Advent 2011 and my official Confirmation date was written down as the date on my ACCC certificate. ???
Thomist: This is the first video of yours I have watched in full. Very good. You preach like a priest, and your theology is sound. Take it from an OLD Trad in the parish of St. Mary's Immaculata--you should look into whether or not you have a vocation to the priesthood. But perhaps you've already done so. I'll pray for you. Btw, Our Lady at Fatima requested that we pray the Rosary every day, but she did not specify 15 decades. Certainly that is praiseworthy if you can manage it. But normally for the laity, 5 decades are sufficient if we pray them faithfully with devotion. Take care & God bless.
Glad you went to St M. Here in SA the chapel was too small to contain just the people getting confirmed. The numbers have grown by 400% since I switched to the SSPX in 2019 for my daughters confirmation because of a televised demon worship event in the Vatican Garden and was told at Atonement that it was not a big deal. She is at Baylor now going to their TLM or driving to SSPX at Ft Worth. Still coming to terms with the place she was born ( Ft. Hood) not existing but now that I know Cavazos is a based SSPX name it makes the transition far more meaningful ❤
@@thetraditionalthomist Agreed. But the video title worried me because I chose a way to kill myself in 1991. So, please find a psychiatrist if you ever want to end your life. My Extreme Depressive Disorder may be God's most effective tool to sanctify me. That's partly why I agree with you. If Adam and Eve had always obeyed God, that would have prevented each mental illness. As I said in another post, I want to be your friend. But I don't expect that privilege. Either way, please stay us and the SSPX.
Thank you for this wonderful video! I myself came to Tradition through the SSPX 7 years ago and have not regretted it ever! I’d like to ask, given John Salza’s changed stance on the SSPX, do you have any rebuttals or answers to them that I could use to show/explain to friends who are wary to come to the SSPX thanks to these newly surfaced videos of him and Matt Fradd / Michael Lofton?
Hey Nick would you be willing to do a review of Andrew Mioni’s book Altar Against Altar? Gotta admit he makes a pretty solid case against the SSPX position, especially supplied jurisdiction. Someone mentioned in the comments sections of one of his interviews that you two should chat.
@@okj9060 it’s kinda long but basically the argument he makes is this. Either only SSPX priests can claim supplied jurisdiction or any priest in the world can, and neither of those arguments works. If only the SSPX can, a diocesan priest (who doesn’t have it) would immediately get it when he joined them. How? Because his interior disposition or opinion changed, like because now he agrees with them and all of a sudden he has supplied jurisdiction that he didn’t have 5 minutes ago? That’s not how jurisdiction works. But if any priest can technically claim it (as the SSPX seems to imply on their website, because it basically says any priest who puts on a stole and sits in a confessional has jurisdiction), that essentially equates Holy Orders with jurisdiction because it means any priest could licitly administer sacraments anywhere and to anyone, which is false (and condemned at Trent). It’s kind of an all-or-nothing argument and I have to admit it’s pretty airtight. The book is pretty good, I’d recommend reading it. It looks at this stuff in a way that the trad crowd really doesn’t. Like everyone talks about schism as it relates to obedience to the pope but this book ignores that and talks about the other part of the definition (refusal of communion with those subject to the pope), and presents a lot of material that nobody really talks about. I wonder if Nick would read it. He and Andrew are about the same age I think.
@@jared_1867 thank you. my question would be, Does the Church condemn the idea that, in a crisis, all priests have a claim to supplied jurisdiction? Because if all Trent condemned was the idea that all priests have ORDINARY jurisdiction, then that wouldn’t be a problem to the sspxs case since they admit they don’t have ordinary jurisdiction. The sspx don’t say that,normally, any priest can licitly administer. They only believe they can in this crisis. Whether or not they believe all priests can licitly administer in the crisis is a different thing, since I’m not sure how that would apply to schismatics…. Anyway, this argument seems like somewhat of a false dichotomy. Not saying it is, but it could be if there is a few more options. I’m still new to this whole debate and I am wary of the SSPX…. Regarding his second point, I think it’s impossible for them to be in schism since they have faculties and only those in the Church can have faculties (New Advent says so). This means that they have to be in the Church even though they’re disobedient… I know John salza said the Eastern Orthodox have faculties but I cannot find anything to back his claim up, so this point stands.
@@okj9060 Right, so, as you say, if the SSPX says that only they can, then a priest who joins them suddenly has supplied jurisdiction for laity and geographic areas that he didn’t beforehand because…why? He agrees with their position? Jurisdiction doesn’t turn on and off like a light switch. It is delegated by lawful authority or is supplied by the church as circumstances demand, but if all he has to do is acknowledge those circumstances are there and now he’s got supplied jurisdiction…yeah as I said, that’s not how jurisdiction works. He could instantly lose it if one day he decides the SSPX is actually wrong. It becomes completely subjective. Trent condemns the idea that priests can minister without being lawfully delegated by a bishop. It would be weird if it condemned that but said lawful delegation is not necessary if a priest thought the situation demanded it. That makes each priest his own authority. Mioni doesn’t get into canonical stuff about faculties but he points out that if schism is a refusal of communion and the SSPX as an organization refuses to worship with any other Catholic congregation or act as part of a whole (because they exist in opposition to the local bishop and any local churches, by their own admission), that is by definition a refusal of communion. Communion finds its fullest expression in the Eucharist and if you won’t partake of the Eucharist anywhere except your own church, that’s refusing communion, no way around it. I can’t rehash the whole book in a comments section but he explains it in greater detail than I can do here. Worth checking out if just to get a different perspective than what is usually discussed.
@@jared_1867i would say: 1. Can priests administer without being sent by a bishop if they have supplied jurisdiction? I think yes since supplied jurisdiction is for priests not authorized, which includes those non-sent. If the answer is Yes then I don’t think the Trent argument works very well since it wouldn’t be applying to supplied jurisdiction. 2. The reason why SSPX doesn’t commonly commune with other Catholics isn’t because of the Catholics themselves, but rather it’s because that communing has to do with taking part in the new mass. The SSPX WOULD commune though with eastern Catholics and ordinariates at their churches because those churches don’t celebrate the new mass. This is a good point to make because it shows that the SSPX is fine to commune with other Catholics, as long as the mass isn’t tainted by Protestantism (whether it is or not is another point, I’m just trying to assess this from the SSPX pint of view). Anyways, the SSPX refusing to take communion at Novus Ordo parishes doesn’t have to do with the Catholics there, but the liturgy itself. To thin about it this way: would you commune at clown masses even if they were the majority of masses that Catholics go to? Your answer would be no. If I asked you if that’s schism because you would be refusing to take communion with the majority of Catholics, you would say no also. Not saying the NO is a clown mass, just trying to help you understand, When it comes to ecclesia dei communities, I think a lot of them would take communion but they’re not supposed to frequent those chapels only because they’re scared of modernist priests running them. 3. The reason why the faculties things matter is that “there’s no way around it.” If faculties means your in the Church, then you’re not in schism. PERIOD. There’s no way around it.Sure the SSPX does other seemingly schismatic stuff, but they have faculties, ergo, there in the church, ergo, they’re NOT IN SCHISM. If I’m wrong about faculties meaning that they’re in the church, of course this would change things.
I am a new catholic, infact like a new christian in general but I am usually abit careful when it comes to the SPPX, I haven't studied their case in depth but I have some suspicition from their schismatic tendencies and their anti pope fracis stuff they are likely to say so personally I am not sure how to feel about them, but I am glad they helped you in your journey, God bless brother.
@shalaby8968 Wow. You haven't studied the SSPX *at all* judging by the extreme ignorance you display in your answer. Yet, you allow yourself to HAVE an opinion? Do not permit yourself to express (or have) an opinion on *anything* about which you are not fully informed, on the chances you are unknowingly leading someone astray! As Pope Benedict XVI told the world, in his two Motu Propios (re: the SSPX), the SSPX Sacraments ARE VALID (all of them) & always were, the SSPX has *never been in schism,* NOR were their Bishops and priests "excommunicated"! Okay? When studying *anything,* always go to the source if at all possible, treating both detractors and supporters with caution. Allow yourself to NOT form an opinion until you are reasonably certain you have studied enough Source material. That's the Catholic Way: Pray, Study, Act.
At an NO Mass I attended this week, the priest directed the 12-year-old altar girl to mingle the water & wine, so I guess that Mass was totally invalid?
Wow! Sounds like a wild experience. It would not necessarily in the strict sense invalidate it (which is scary because Christ is being abused), however If to much water was being poured into the chalice to the point that the wine was no longer wine, then it could invalidate it. I would recommend never going to the NO Mass. Check out my series on the show: "The Problem with the New Mass".
I have a question. So I have great respect for the SSPX, I have been to a SSPX chapel before. I just want to ask, why didn't you mention that you and the SSPX are in Full Communion with the Holy See?
I just have question about the oil used in your confirmation. Don't they use Chrism oil from the Holy Thursday chrism Mass? Wouldn't that automatically be olive oil?
Normally the oil used in Chrism Mass is Olive Oil. However Pope Paul VI (with no good reason), said that non-olive oil could be used. All sacramental theologians say that this is doubtful matter. My diocese for a long time used non-olive oil.
Do you have a video on the SSPX where you mention an article that goes over the history of communication between Rome and the SSPX? I’ve read it in the past and would love to look at it again and share it with others. I believe you’ve mentioned it somewhere before and now I can’t seem to find it.. any help would be greatly appreciated! Thank you.
Hi there! Hmmm, I not entirely sure which article you are referring to. There is one about everything Rome has ever said about the SSPX. Does that sound familiar?
Fr. Hesse. Listen to Fr. Hesse. He said that, objectively speaking, most Novus Ordo confirmations are invalid because of the use of vegetable oil instead of olive oil....
Hold up the oil issue, was this an Austin Diocese issue or just an issue at that parish that in the diocese? I was confirmed right around the same time (Easter 2019 at St Thomas More up North).
Mostly the Parish in which I was 'confirmed'. There is a long back story to me having non-olive oil at the parish I went to. It ended up being a mini-controversy in the Austin Diocese in 2021.
Plot Twist: I watch TH-cam videos long into the night, but they are usually deep theological discussions on the traditional faith. But yes, you are correct... I should be doing more penance...particularly for each AB episode I watch 😅
How can we be absolutely sure we were baptized validly (if we were baptized as infants)? Im my case, my dad is lukewarm, and my godparents are now divorced and not practicing their faith.
Good question. So in order to answer your question, you would need to first do a little investigation. In this investigation, you would need to look for "positive-doubt" for invalidity, meaning, you would need to see if something essential to the validity of the sacrament was lacking. The essentials are: "Water poured over the head (immersion is ok to), with the form ' I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Spirit) amen." They must have the intention of doing what the Church does, meaning they intend to preform a sacrament according to the Catholic Church. They need not be believers for this to be valid. If one thing is lacking here, then I would seek a conditional baptism. I would consult your local SSPX priest on the subject. You mention your family being lukewarm. This does not invalidate it. Hope this helps.
@@thetraditionalthomist Thanks! It happened in 1981. My father in law (very Catholic father in law) said he knew of the priest on my certificate and that he was orthodox. That is about all I will ever know. I have one of the most Traditional diocesan priests in Detroit looking into it for me. I want to just be at peace and put the matter to rest. Its been awhile.
@@mathieuconklin3146 Hello there! No the SSPX does not deny Papal Supremacy. In fact one of the sticking point between them and the Neo-Modernists is that the SSPX upholds Papal Supremacy, whereas the Neo-Modernists hold to collegiality. The SSPX only resists that which is against the Catholic faith, not as they define it, but as all the Popes have defined it.
I attended one SSPX Mass and regretted it, something seemed off the entire time and my conscience said to not receive communion but I did anyway. Much later I realised I should confess to going there for Mass, I feel much better now. So glad I didn't go on a Sunday as Church Law says in order to fulfill your Sunday obligation, you have to go to a parish church or place of worship designated by the local bishop. Obedience is the greatest virtue outside of Faith, Hope, and Charity.
Pope Benedict xvi lifted the excommunications and allowed the faithful to partake of the sacraments of confession and holy communion ... 2009.. Pope Francis allowed fuller participation for the faithful in 2016 ..and permitted attendance in the case of not being able to attend elsewhere.. This of course was most helpful in lockdown ... These priests were the only ones to reach out to my parents who were away from the sacraments .. and when priests and bishops kowtowed and closed their churches down ... These continued behind locked doors despite police raids ... ! ( Scotland ) Because of them , at least some sick and dying received the sacraments at that time ! .. I would argue this is a good fruit which supercedes vague feelings, wouldn't you ?
@@jojackson1573 it’s interesting that people argue you can go to the sspx if you have nothing else and then they drive my a diocesan latin mass to go to a business park that the bishop doesn’t want, I witnessed this in Front Royal Virginia
Where would you go ? the other so called traditional orders have compromised the faith with modernist Roman! They are no more then high church NO . ( SSPX is the light of true Roman Catholic Church, in a church and world filled in complete darkness)
Hi there! Definitely Kantianism could not have come about without Nominalism, and Martin Luther apply nominalist principles to religion, in particular in areas of divine revelation of ecclesiology. Unfortunately Kantianism was picked up by Modernism, and later down the stream, the neo-modernism of today. Vast amounts of the 'faithful' no longer adhere to or look to the sources of revelation for truth, or the traditional magisterium, but rather are encouraged by leaders to listen to their hearts. Doctrine therefore as a result flows from mans 'modern needs'.
@@thetraditionalthomist _"Martin Luther apply nominalist principles to religion,"_ Both the Lutheran Pastor Jordan Cooper and Gilbert Keith Chesterton disagreed, and thought Luther was more of an Augustinian Platonist.
Found & like your channel and looking forward to seeing it grow (two very gentle suggestions, offered respectfully: the camera needs to be moved further back & the inclination for rocking motion ought to be suppressed).
Since the beginning of our Christian faith tradition it was about the holy mass the Eucharist were our lord Jesus he is truly there in body and blood and this was their faith until they had put to death for what they believed, but now unfortunately the spirit of Lucifer he is manipulating many hearts and minds to not believe in his real presence in his church etc. and unfortunately most so called Christian’s are falling into his trap, but we do have someone who knows where our true God is because she is a mother the mother of our lord Jesus, she is the Eucharistic mother of her son Jesus who keeps coming down to this evil world to protect her children and to instruct us and preparing for the coming of her son Jesus, now I ask this question!!! If she is with God who can be against her? Oh.. yeahhh.. Satan the old serpent with his children the father of all lies.
@thetraditionalthomist that all baptisms are accepted. My dad was baptized Mormon and coming into the catholic church the local parish made him get a real baptism because a Mormon baptism is invalid. And I'm talking about a liberal parish.
@@St.Augustine4006 I think you are judging me rather harshly. My point is that most NO parishes do not look seriously into Protestant baptisms. Mormons are not even considered by the Church to be Protestants.
@thetraditionalthomist I think you were judging Novus Ordo rather harshly when you said, "accepts all baptisms even if they're heretical," but if baptism can be done by an athiest, they can also be done across many heretical forms of Christianity. I guess you wouldn't truly know about that since you're a cradle Catholic who hasn't had the experience of discussing a baptism from another protestant form of Christianity. But from my experience in the most liberal parish ever with female altar servers and communion in the hand had to speak with my former protestant pastor who baptized me in the baptist church before they would even consider a date for my confirmation.
I sense a tendency towards Donatism here, despite what you say about intentionality. I also think you might have been a little more diplomatic or charitable in describing your father's actions (lax). I very much value the TLM but I'm also somewhat irritated by the expression, "Novus Ordo parish". There are no NO parishes, simply Catholic parishes, however irreverent the celebration of Mass. Clearly deviating from the formularies may invalidate the Sacrament but, nevertheless, I detect a tendency towards Donatism. Forgive me if I've misjudged you.
With respect, I do not see how the principles which I have outlined, which come straight from Catholic Sacramental theology are Donatist. The Holy Office declared September 14,1842, that "it is rash and close to error, to assert that this sacrament could be valid with another oil than olive oil." I did not trash the priest, far from it. Charity, and being charitable, its wiling the objective good for another for that persons sake. Willing that priest to use the correct matter for the sacrament is very charitable. As for diplomatic, I did not mention his name, where he lives, the parish he leads etc. I merely told me experience. Very diplomatic. As for the expression, "Novus Ordo parish", I suggest you watch my ongoing series: "The Problem with the New Mass" for more details.
What is wrong with diocesan latin Mass? Sure, it is good that proper catechesis is given at SSPX but it is not SSPX that gives graces but communion with the church! Ecclesiology is important. One cannot be catholic if one does not submit in principle to the hierarchy. Otherwise the teachings of the Popes about the mythical body of christ are peverted to a position were one questions every sacrament because of relatively minor changes that are not substantive or because one priest may have wrong theological views. We must not forget that the Church of Christ is not merely a power structure following certain logical canonic rules but is in its essence supernatural and thus led by Christ himself. We can most certainly disagree with the Magisterium in certain instances but our motivation should never be one of dissent or distancing ourselves from Rome. Ambiguity about this can lead to sedisvacantism in practice and the rejection of the judicial primacy of the successor of Peter, also generally to disobedience and a lack of brotherly charity. I used to symphatize with SSPX but I see more and more that this position presented in this video is a very dark one and leads in fact to 'antimodernist' modernism where we traditionalists reject everything from Rome even if it just seeks to integrate the churchs teaching into contemporary thinking (like the Personalism of JP II) which is what the church can do in order to pass through time and reach new people and keep them without changing the dogma or fundamentals of the faith.
“We can most certainly disagree with the Magisterium in certain instances but our motivation should never be one of dissent or distancing ourselves from Rome.“ What does it mean to disagree but not to dissent? Sounds like a contradiction
Hello there! I never said anything was wrong with the diocesan Latin Mass. I agree with you about the importance of ecclesiology. Ecclesiology is perhaps the most important branch of Fundamental-dogmatic theology today, given that because of Vatican II, the Neo Modernists have a completely distorted view of Catholic teaching on the Church, the Papacy, and the Magisterium. Unfortunately this three-fold distinction between the Extraordinary Magisterium, the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium, and the authentic non-infallible Magisterium, has fallen into oblivion. This has resulted in two opposite errors in the crisis situation of the Church at the present time: the error by excess of those who extend papal infallibility to all acts of the pope, without distinction; and the error by defect of those who restrict infallibility to definitions that have been uttered ex cathedra. The error by excess actually eliminates the Ordinary Non-Infallible or "Authentic" Magisterium and inevitably leads either to Sedevacantism or to servile obedience. The attitude of the people of this second category is, "The pope is always infallible and so we always owe him blind obedience." The error by defect eliminates the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium. This is precisely the error of the neo-Modernists, who devalue the ordinary papal Magisterium and the "Roman tradition" which they find so inconvenient. They say, "The pope is infallible only in his Extraordinary Magisterium, so we can sweep away 2000 years of ordinary papal Magisterium." Both of these errors obscure the precise notion of the Ordinary Magisterium, which includes the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the ordinary, "authentic," non-infallible Magisterium. These two opposing errors are not new. They were denounced even before Vatican II. In 1954, Fr. Labourdette, O.P., wrote: Many persons have retained very naive ideas about what they learned concerning the personal infallibility of the sovereign pontiff in the solemn and abnormal exercise of his power of teaching. For some, every word of the supreme pontiff will in some way partake of the value of an infallible teaching, requiring the absolute assent of theological faith; for others, acts which are not presented with the manifest conditions of a definition ex cathedra will seem to have no greater authority than that of any private teacher." (Revue Thomiste LIV, 1954, p.196)! Dom Paul Nau has also written about the confusion that has arisen between the pope’s authority and his infallibility: By a strange reversal, while the personal infallibility of the pope in a solemn judgment, so long disputed, was definitely placed beyond all controversy, it is the Ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Church, which seems to have been lost sight of. It all happened-as is not unheard of elsewhere in the history of doctrine-as if the very brilliance of the Vatican I definition had cast into shadow the truth hitherto universally recognized; we might almost say, as if the definition of the infallibility of the solemn judgments made these henceforth the unique method by which the sovereign pontiff would put forward the rule of faith." [Pope or Church?, Angelus Press, 1998, p.13] On the temporary fading of a doctrine from Catholic consciousness, see the entry "dogme" in DTC (vol. IV). Dom Nau also mentioned the disastrous consequences which flow from this identification of the pope’s authority and his infallibility: No place would be left, intermediate between such private acts and the solemn papal judgments, for a teaching which, while authentic, is not equally guaranteed throughout all its various expressions. If things are looked at from this angle, the very notion of the Ordinary Magisterium becomes, properly speaking, unthinkable." [Pope or Church?, p.4] Dom Nau considered from where this phenomenon had developed: Since 1870 [the year of Vatican I-Ed.], manuals of theology have taken the formulae in which their statements of doctrine have been framed from the actual wording of the Council text. None of these treated in its own right of the ordinary teaching of the pope, which has accordingly, little by little, slipped out of sight and all pontifical teaching has seemed to be reduced solely to solemn definitions ex cathedra. Once attention was entirely directed to these, it became customary to consider the doctrinal interventions of the Holy See solely from the standpoint of the solemn judgment, that of a judgment which ought in itself to bring to the doctrine all the necessary guarantees of certainty." (ibid., p.13) This is partly true, but we should not forget that liberal theology had already been advertising its reductive agenda. That is why Pius IX, even before Vatican I (1870) felt obliged to warn German theologians that divine faith’s submission "must not be restricted only to those points which have been defined" (Letter to Archbishop of Munich, Dec. 21, 1863). The naive ideas entertained by many on the question of papal infallibility after Vatican I played into the hands of the liberal theology. In fact, while the two errors are diametrically opposed, they are at one in equating papal authority and papal infallibility. What is the difference between them? The error by excess, regarding as infallible everything that comes from papal authority, stretches the pope’s infallibility to the extent of his authority. The error by defect, considering only those things authorized that emanate from the ex cathedra infallibility, restricts papal authority to the scope of the infallibility of the pope’s Extraordinary Magisterium. Thus both errors have the same effect, namely, to obscure the very notion of the Ordinary Magisterium and, consequently, the particular nature of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium. It is essential for us to rediscover this notion and its nature because they are of the greatest importance in helping us to get our bearings in the time of crisis. As to you last point, the Church does NOT need to integrate the Church's thinking into contemporary thinking: The Syllabus of errors: 80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.- -Allocution “Jamdudum cernimus,” March 18, 1861. Pope John Paul II personalism is not a dogma, nor even a discipline, but merely his philosophical opinion.
How is the SSPX not in Communion with the Roman Pontiff? To be a Catholic, one has to hold the threefold conditions of membership. Doctrine-Morals, Sacraments, Governance. They clearly hold to the unity of faith, they don't deny any teaching on faith and morals. As for the Sacraments, Rome says you can go to their Masses without sin or canonical penalty. When it comes to governance, they recognize the Pope and the Local bishop. If holding communion with the Roman pontiff includes the idea that everyman should be free in civil law to hold whatever religion that he wants (religious liberty), or that the Holy Spirit uses fall religions as means of salvation ( UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO #4), then this is an absurd communion. For it contradicts the Pope's of the past. Question for you, does Pope Francis hold communion with Pope Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, and Pius XI on religious liberty and praying with non-catholic religions?
@@thetraditionalthomist if you are talking about Dignitatis Humane, it doesn't teach what you wrote about religious liberty. It's clear (e.g. from #7) that the religious liberty has limits.
@@kamil-michalak First Reply: Vatican II does mention “due limits” circumscribing religious liberty, but the nature of the limits is not clearly stated in the document. In paragraph 2, it seems to involve safeguarding public order; further on, paragraph 7 speaks of “the objective moral order,” which is better, but illusory and ultimately insufficient order,” which is better, but illusory and ultimately insufficient. Taken literally, the implication of limiting religious liberty to “the objective moral order” is that only the Catholic Church could enjoy unrestricted freedom of religion because she alone conserves the natural law in its entirety (Islam authorizes polygamy; the Protestants-and even the Eastern schismatics in some cases-allow divorce; etc.). But this conclusion obviously contradicts the rest of the text. For Vatican II, having set aside the obligations of strict natural law, the only restraining limit on religious freedom is public order. As long as the cult is not a cover for terrorist attacks, criminal networks, pedophilia, or some other infringement of “the rights of man,” everything must be authorized. We will now look at three propositions that were condemned by Pope Pius IX in his authoritative Syllabus of Errors. Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, Dec. 8, 1864, # 77: “In this age of ours it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be the only religion of the state, to the exclusion of all other cults whatsoever.” - Condemned. Notice, the idea that the Catholic religion should not be the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of other religions, is condemned. That means that the Catholic religion should be the only religion of the State and that the others should be excluded from public worship, profession, practice, and propagation. The Catholic Church doesn’t force nonbelievers to believe in the Catholic Faith, since belief (by definition) is a free act of the will. Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei (#36), Nov. 1, 1885: “And, in fact, the Church is wont to take earnest heed that no one shall be forced to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, for, as St. Augustine wisely reminds us, ‘Man cannot believe otherwise than of his own will.’” However, it teaches that States should forbid the propagation and public profession of false religions which lead souls to Hell. Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, # 78: “Hence in certain regions of Catholic name, it has been laudably sanctioned by law that men immigrating there be allowed to have public exercises of any form of worship of their own.” - Condemned. Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, Dec. 8, 1864, # 55: “The Church is to be separated from the state, and the state from the Church.” - Condemned. In Quanta Cura, Pope Pius IX also condemned the idea that every man should be granted the civil right to religious liberty. Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura (# 3), Dec. 8, 1864: “From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our predecessor, Gregory XVI, an insanity, namely, that ‘liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society…” But Vatican II teaches just the opposite: Vatican II document, Dignitatis humanae # 2: “This Vatican synod declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. Such freedom consists in this, that all should have such immunity from coercion by individuals, or by groups, or by any human power, that no one should be forced to act against his conscience in religious matters, nor prevented from acting according to his conscience, whether in private or in public, within due limits… This right of the human person to religious freedom should have such recognition in the regulation of society as to become a civil right.” Vatican II document, Dignitatis humanae # 2: “Therefore this right to non-interference persists even in those who do not carry out their obligations of seeking the truth and standing by it; and the exercise of this right should not be curtailed, as long as due public order is preserved.” Vatican II teaches that religious liberty should be a civil right, which is directly condemned by Pope Pius IX. Vatican II also says that this right to religious liberty applies to public, as well as private, expression; and that no one should be prevented from the public expression or practice of his religion. The teaching of Vatican II is directly against the infallible teaching of Pope Pius IX and a host of other popes. Benedict XVI admits that Vatican II’s teaching on Religious Liberty contradicts the teaching of the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX! Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 381: "If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text [of the Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes] as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter syllabus… As a result, the one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church under Pius IX and Pius X in response to the situation created by the new phase of history inaugurated by the French Revolution, was, to a large extent, corrected..."
@@kamil-michalak Reply #2: Pope Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 385: "By a kind of inner necessity, therefore, the optimism of the countersyllabus gave way to a new cry that was far more intense and more dramatic than the former one." Pope Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 391: "The task is not, therefore, to suppress the Council but to discover the real Council and to deepen its true intention in the light of present experience. That means that there can be no return to the Syllabus, which may have marked the first stage in the confrontation with liberalism and a newly conceived Marxism but cannot be the last stage." It gets really bad now. Vatican II document, Dignitatis humanae # 3: “So the state, whose proper purpose it is to provide for the temporal common good, should certainly recognize and promote the religious life of its citizens. With equal certainty, it exceeds the limits of its authority, if it takes upon itself to direct or to prevent religious activity.” Vatican II says that the State exceeds its authority if it dares to prevent religious activity. This is totally an error. Pope Leo XIII, Libertas (# 21-23), June 20, 1888: “Justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness - namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in the Catholic States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engraven upon it… Men have a right freely and prudently to propagate throughout the State what things soever are true and honorable, so that as many as possible may possess them; but lying opinions, than which no mental plague is greater, and vices which corrupt the heart and moral life should be diligently repressed by public authority, lest they insidiously work the ruin of the State.” Here we see Pope Leo XIII (simply reiterating the consistent teaching of pope after pope) teaching that the State not only can, but should curtail and forbid the rights and privileges of other religions to perform religious acts - exactly the opposite of what Vatican II declared. Such public acts, false opinions, and false teachings should be repressed by public authority (the State), according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, so that souls are not scandalized or enticed by them. Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, # 78: “Hence in certain regions of Catholic name, it has been laudably sanctioned by law that men immigrating there be allowed to have public exercises of any form of worship of their own.” - Condemned. Vatican II Document, Dignitatis humanae # 3: “So the state, whose proper purpose it is to provide for the temporal common good, should certainly recognize and promote the religious life of its citizens. With equal certainty it exceeds the limits of its authority, if it takes upon itself to direct or to prevent religious activity.” Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura (#’s 3-6), Dec. 8, 1864, ex cathedra: “From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our predecessor, Gregory XVI, an insanity, namely, that ‘liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.’ But while they rashly affirm this, they do not understand and note that they are preaching liberty of perdition… Therefore, by our apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines specially mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all the sons of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed, and condemned.” Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311-1312: “It is an insult to the holy name and a disgrace to the Christian faith that in certain parts of the world subject to Christian princes where Saracens [i.e., the followers of Islam, also called Muslims] live, sometimes apart, sometimes intermingled with Christians, the Saracen priests, commonly called Zabazala, in their temples or mosques, in which the Saracens meet to adore the infidel Mahomet, loudly invoke and extol his name each day at certain hours from a high place… This brings disrepute on our faith and gives great scandal to the faithful. These practices cannot be tolerated without displeasing the divine majesty. We therefore, with the sacred council’s approval, strictly forbid such practices henceforth in Christian lands. We enjoin on Catholic princes, one and all… They are to forbid expressly the public invocation of the sacrilegious name of Mahomet… Those who presume to act otherwise are to be so chastised by the princes for their irreverence, that others may be deterred from such boldness.”
@@kamil-michalak Reply #3: We see how Vatican II was interpreted according to national states, such as Spain. The “Fuero de los Españoles,” the fundamental law of the Spanish State adopted on July 17, 1945, only authorized the exercise of non-Catholic cults [religions] privately and forbade all propaganda activities on the part of false religions. Article 6, 1: “The profession and practice of the Catholic Religion, which is that of the Spanish State, will enjoy official protection.” Article 6, 2: “… the only ceremonies and other open manifestations of religion allowed will be Catholic.” We can see that, in conformity with traditional Catholic teaching, the Spanish law decreed that the only ceremonies and public manifestations of religion would be Catholic. After Vatican II, however, the “Ley Organica del Estado” (Jan. 10, 1967) replaced this second paragraph of article 6 with the following: “The State will assume the protection of religious liberty which will be under the protection of the Judiciary responsible for safeguarding morals and public order.” Moreover, the preamble to the Constitution of Spain, modified by this same “Ley Organica del Estado” after Vatican II, explicitly declared: “… Given the modification introduced in Article 6 by the ‘Ley Organica del Estado,’ ratified by referendum of the nation, in order to adapt its text to the conciliar Declaration on religious liberty promulgated Dec. 7, 1965 [by Vatican II], which demands the explicit recognition of this right [religious liberty], and conforms moreover to the second fundamental Principle of the Movement according to which the teaching of the Church ought to inspire our laws …” Pope St. Pius X, Vehementer Nos, Feb. 11, 1906: “We, in accord with the supreme authority which We hold from God, disapprove and condemn the established law which separates the French state from the Church, for those reasons which We have set forth: because it inflicts the greatest injury upon God whom it solemnly rejects, declaring in the beginning that the state is devoid of any religious worship…” Pope Gregory XVI, Inter Praecipuas (# 14), May 8, 1844: “Experience shows that there is no more direct way of alienating the populace from fidelity and obedience to their leaders than through that indifference to religion propagated by the sect members under the name of religious liberty.” In line with its teaching on religious liberty, Vatican II teaches the error that all religions have liberty of speech and liberty of the press. Vatican II document, Dignitatis Humanae # 4: “In addition, religious communities are entitled to teach and give witness to their faith publicly in speech and writing without hindrance.” The idea that everyone has the right to liberty of speech and the press has been condemned by many popes. We will only quote Pope Gregory XVI and Pope Leo XIII. Notice that Pope Gregory XVI called this idea (the very thing taught by Vatican II) harmful and “never sufficiently denounced.” Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 15), Aug. 15, 1832: “Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice.” Pope Leo XIII, Libertas (# 42), June 20, 1888: “From what has been said it follows that it is quite unlawful to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, of speech, or writing, or of worship, as if these were so many rights given by nature to man.” Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei (# 34), Nov. 1, 1885: “Thus, Gregory XVI in his encyclical letter Mirari Vos, dated August 15, 1832, inveighed with weighty words against the sophisms which even at his time were being publicly inculcated - namely, that no preference should be shown for any particular form of worship; that it is right for individuals to form their own personal judgments about religion; that each man’s conscience is his sole and all-sufficing guide; and that it is lawful for every man to publish his own views, whatever they may be, and even to conspire against the state.”
A Friend of Mine returned to Catholic Church because of The SSPX. Thanks to SSPX for Keeping Traditional Catholic Faith
Same, well similar at least. And it so happens that on May 25, (St Gregory VII) an English SSPX guy I know married an Canadian SSPX lass in Canada. Congratulations for TT. I met the Bp in England (2023) and introduced myself thinking he was a priest. We both laughed together, at my clumsiness, when I realised he was the visiting Confirmation Bp after mutual introductions. We found each other difficult to understand. Me an Ulsterman and him French. I performed the customary formalities and then floated to my car to depart home (150 mile round trip). Sorry to say that the TLM, outside of the SSPX that I've attended, are not near as reverent, imo. God bless you young fella.
@@djq9332There is no such thing as an “SSPX guy” or “SSPX lass”. The Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X is a Roman Catholic religious order that consists of priests and brothers. Please be respectful and use the proper terminology.
Did you mean Catholics who attend the SSPX?
I attended my first SSPX TLM in a makeshift garage chapel back in March 1993 in the Philippines. I never looked back. SSPXer in saecula seculorum!
I just had my SSPX confirmation done last week at St Vincent de Paul in Kansas City,MO by Bishop Tessier. ❤
I'm happy I'm part of the SSPX. I go to Traditional Mass and I love it. I changed my life at 20 years and thanks to God and my sister and brother
The SSPX is leading the way for the Western Latin Church to regain Orthodoxy and tradition. Please God: hasten the day when they consecrate more auxiliary bishops!!! Keep up the awesome work!!!!🙏🙏🙏🙏
I was conditionally Confirmed at SSPX, 2005, +Bp. Williamson. It’s always encouraging to see a young person, a man especially, dedicate himself to the Faith and have zeal for the conversion of souls.
I remember Bishop Williamson. Very intelligent man. Wish he did not get involved in the holocaust discussion. I still think very highly of him.
He is a lunatic!
Greatest decision I’ve ever made concerning religion, to become an SSPX participant and member.
I agree!
I'm 76 and the Bishop did not slap us when Confirmed in High School age. 1963. Was that already dropped by then or not?
@@cindyc13579 Maybe, I started grade school in 1968. Born in 1962.
@@cindyc13579 No it had not been dropped by 1963 although some clergy had begun to disregard the dictates of the Church.
After 30 plus years in the NO I discovered the SSPX. It was the first time I was ever counseled to the degree I was. It was the first time I ever understood the gravity of my sins and was given a week long penance. I was embarrassed because I hadn’t memorized the act of contrition. I went home and said it multiple times a day for that week. After meeting my wife online, her having no religious background and unbaptized, within 3 years WE were catechized, she baptized, confirmed, we got married and now having our first child! Words can’t express (I’m sure I could try) how the ENTIRETY of the SSPX transformed our lives. Praise the Hearts of Jesus and Mary! Freed from addiction and PTSD!
Amen! Praise Christ Jesus! That's an epic story, thanks for sharing!
@@thetraditionalthomist What do you think happens to aborted babies since they have not been baptized?
@@apostolicapologetics4829 It is such a tragic situation that those little ones go through. My position is that they go to Limbo. I can explain if you would like?
@@thetraditionalthomist Yes absolutely. I can email you. I live closer than I realize to St Mary's. I am currently a Latin rite catholic. I found the Immaculata website and might visit for daily liturgy. The church looks beautiful. Fides quaerens intellectum
@@thetraditionalthomist Also, sadly if dying in the state of original sin only is possible then I think Limbo is the most reasonable theologically.
Thank you for your sageness Nick. It good to see a young man with piety and virtue may god bless you and your family from a 17 year old Québécois.
Oh thank you ! Relatively new convert who has been struggling mightily. Your comments and assistance in sorting through this issue have encouraged me ❤ I initially sought out Catholic teaching and encouragement on UTube .. it became more difficult over time to weed out the helpful vs not helpful . This s Godly redirect .
Thank you so much for this beautiful talk. My life too was saved by SSPX. May our Good Lord bless you abundantly and our Lady keep you. 🙏🙏🙏
Since attending Mass at an SSPX chapel, God has done a great work in my life. I am so thankful. God's Grace abounds.
Nick, I just love listening to you. I wondered what was going to happen to our young people. You are a great inspiration to all of us. Thank you for speaking the TRUTH! I am sure you will help to bring our young people to this TRUTH that the Catholic church teaches.
Congratulations on your conversion Nick. Seek and ye shall find. Your integrity and pursuit of truth led you to the Truth. God bless you always in abundance.
One of the happiest times as a Catholic when I was conditionally reconfirmed in June 2010. I was confirmed by Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta in Syracuse, NY. Thank God for the SSPX!!!🙏🙏🙏
Amen brother 👏👏👏 we joined the sspx last year and our 4 oldest kids were able to do their confirmation in the same year❤
I’m so grateful that I found your channel! Thank you for putting out such solid TRUTH!!
Nicholas, I wish for you good things, ONLY GOOD THINGS !!!
BE AT PEACE !!!
Praise be Jesus Christ to hear the news of your confirmation. Seems like the fire of those gifts really shining through. What a grace for Bishop Mallerais to confirm you.
It brings a great dilemma to mind as well though, to think many do not have these graces and zeal because they might have not had valid sacraments and graces to do so. It can explain much, but also could explain as you said the step of God helping one because he seeks to be helped. It is a humbling process but shows that desire of seeking one's help shows this act of faith and He always rewards us abunduntly. Your witness definitely proves that, to be confirmed on the new Immaculata is another great grace and memory I am sure God has given you for the treasure chest.
There is much to fight for, but that Sacrament definitely opens the gifts to help for the salvation of sousl and especially ones own. Pax+
If you're moving to St. Marys, Kansas, we'll see you there.
Definitely come say hello if you ever see me walking around!
@@thetraditionalthomistThere are Dominicans here.
@@sebathadah1559 Yes! It's an added bonus!
Karl, I visited The Immaculata and attended weekday Low Mass in mid May 2024. Such a blessing.
@@marccrotty8447 It's a glorious place!
God Bless you Nicholas, such a devout young man…you are beyond your years, I will be exceptionally graced if my son possesses such a love of the Lord when he is a grown man and blessed if my daughter marries a man like yourself. I will keep you in my prayers ✝️🙏🏼🕊️
Thank you! Pax!
I had a similar situation when I was becoming Catholic way back in 1995. There was some question as to whether or not my Protestant baptism was valid. After some discussions between my then-Pastor and the Archbishop at that time, I was granted a Conditional Baptism at the Easter Vigil that year.
I attend the FSSP Mass every Sunday. I am appreciative of Archbishop Lefebvre and his efforts. Thank you for this wonderful channel!
Just doing my duty to thumbup and comment.
Agree. Nothing else to add!
God bless all!
Wonderful video, I really felt your zeal and passion for what is true, good, and beautiful!
It so happens that on May 25, (St Gregory VII) an English SSPX guy I know married an Canadian SSPX lass in Canada. Congratulations for TT. I met the Bp in England (2023) and introduced myself thinking he was a priest. We both laughed together, at my clumsiness, when I realised he was the visiting Confirmation Bp after mutual introductions. We found each other difficult to understand. Me an Ulsterman and him French. I performed the customary formalities and then floated to my car to depart home (150 mile round trip). Sorry to say that the TLM, outside of the SSPX that I've attended, are not near as reverent, imo. God bless you young fella.
Nick your doing the right thing dont worry dont look left dont look right hold on to whats in the baltimore catechism
And of course the bible
My new favorite catholic channel.
Thank you for your sincerity, I attend SSPX, I returned to the authentic Catholic church, after many years in the Protestant church. The scripture I love which describes the heart you speak of is found in St. Matthew 13: verses 10 to verse 15 where Jesus explains the prophetic words of ISAIS about eyes to see, and ears to hear, and the way He will heal, when we receive, understanding of the heart. 🙏🙏
Amen, Thank you! Viva Cristo Rey Salve Regina! Good work young man! Yeah I'm an old man😊 Pius the 12th was Pope when I was baptized.
Incredible video. Thank you Nick.
Your God-focused content is amazing. God bless us ❤
God bless you Nick. I love your content, stay strong brother. From Tacoma Washington
You, young man, are a hope for the future. Get married, have lots of babies. They will raise up the good Bishops, through our present rosaries and reparation. ⚜️
I love your story! God bless you and our Blessed Mother keep you! 🙏✝️✝️✝️
Fr. Hesse said:
Only olive oil;
And it's not enough to call down the Holy Spirit, but it's necessary to call down the Holy Spirit FOR A PURPOSE.
God bless you!!
Such worthwhile meditations. I too am questioning my Confirmation, even though it is considered valid by the NO priest when I entered the Church 13 years ago. I left evangelicalism and spent 5 years in the ACCC (Anglican Catholic Church of Canada) and was Confirmed by one of the bishops, who a year later entered the Ordinariate as a priest. I submitted my confirmation certificate when they asked me for any documentation while I was in convert classes. I'm assuming they investigated. In the end the priest said I did not require Confirmation, I was received in to the Church in Advent 2011 and my official Confirmation date was written down as the date on my ACCC certificate. ???
Thomist: This is the first video of yours I have watched in full. Very good. You preach like a priest, and your theology is sound. Take it from an OLD Trad in the parish of St. Mary's Immaculata--you should look into whether or not you have a vocation to the priesthood. But perhaps you've already done so. I'll pray for you. Btw, Our Lady at Fatima requested that we pray the Rosary every day, but she did not specify 15 decades. Certainly that is praiseworthy if you can manage it. But normally for the laity, 5 decades are sufficient if we pray them faithfully with devotion. Take care & God bless.
Glad you went to St M. Here in SA the chapel was too small to contain just the people getting confirmed. The numbers have grown by 400% since I switched to the SSPX in 2019 for my daughters confirmation because of a televised demon worship event in the Vatican Garden and was told at Atonement that it was not a big deal. She is at Baylor now going to their TLM or driving to SSPX at Ft Worth. Still coming to terms with the place she was born ( Ft. Hood) not existing but now that I know Cavazos is a based SSPX name it makes the transition far more meaningful ❤
Good advice and true
So great!🙏✝️✝️✝️
Nice message. God Bless
Well said
I was told by a SSPX priest that the NO Sacraments are valid, if irreverent.
That is correct!
BRAVO! Well said..
If only Austin would expand the SSPX to weekly in a Church rather than in a hotel still.
Well said!
I'm confused because the video title suggested something endangered your life. It's wonderful to know you're still living.
I thank you for your concern for me. Truly though, all our lives are in danger due to Sin, however Christ has the grace for the victory.
@@thetraditionalthomist Agreed. But the video title worried me because I chose a way to kill myself in 1991. So, please find a psychiatrist if you ever want to end your life. My Extreme Depressive Disorder may be God's most effective tool to sanctify me. That's partly why I agree with you. If Adam and Eve had always obeyed God, that would have prevented each mental illness.
As I said in another post, I want to be your friend. But I don't expect that privilege. Either way, please stay us and the SSPX.
Thank you for this wonderful video! I myself came to Tradition through the SSPX 7 years ago and have not regretted it ever!
I’d like to ask, given John Salza’s changed stance on the SSPX, do you have any rebuttals or answers to them that I could use to show/explain to friends who are wary to come to the SSPX thanks to these newly surfaced videos of him and Matt Fradd / Michael Lofton?
I second this comment!!!!
Minor comment but the shaking of the chair could be a bit distracting in the video for future videos. Thanks for the upload, good video! God bless
Thank you for you input! Good point!
Hey Nick would you be willing to do a review of Andrew Mioni’s book Altar Against Altar? Gotta admit he makes a pretty solid case against the SSPX position, especially supplied jurisdiction. Someone mentioned in the comments sections of one of his interviews that you two should chat.
@@jared_1867 what’s the main argument? I would also like to see some sort of debate or discussion!
@@okj9060 it’s kinda long but basically the argument he makes is this. Either only SSPX priests can claim supplied jurisdiction or any priest in the world can, and neither of those arguments works. If only the SSPX can, a diocesan priest (who doesn’t have it) would immediately get it when he joined them. How? Because his interior disposition or opinion changed, like because now he agrees with them and all of a sudden he has supplied jurisdiction that he didn’t have 5 minutes ago? That’s not how jurisdiction works. But if any priest can technically claim it (as the SSPX seems to imply on their website, because it basically says any priest who puts on a stole and sits in a confessional has jurisdiction), that essentially equates Holy Orders with jurisdiction because it means any priest could licitly administer sacraments anywhere and to anyone, which is false (and condemned at Trent). It’s kind of an all-or-nothing argument and I have to admit it’s pretty airtight.
The book is pretty good, I’d recommend reading it. It looks at this stuff in a way that the trad crowd really doesn’t. Like everyone talks about schism as it relates to obedience to the pope but this book ignores that and talks about the other part of the definition (refusal of communion with those subject to the pope), and presents a lot of material that nobody really talks about. I wonder if Nick would read it. He and Andrew are about the same age I think.
@@jared_1867 thank you. my question would be, Does the Church condemn the idea that, in a crisis, all priests have a claim to supplied jurisdiction? Because if all Trent condemned was the idea that all priests have ORDINARY jurisdiction, then that wouldn’t be a problem to the sspxs case since they admit they don’t have ordinary jurisdiction. The sspx don’t say that,normally, any priest can licitly administer. They only believe they can in this crisis. Whether or not they believe all priests can licitly administer in the crisis is a different thing, since I’m not sure how that would apply to schismatics….
Anyway, this argument seems like somewhat of a false dichotomy. Not saying it is, but it could be if there is a few more options.
I’m still new to this whole debate and I am wary of the SSPX….
Regarding his second point, I think it’s impossible for them to be in schism since they have faculties and only those in the Church can have faculties (New Advent says so). This means that they have to be in the Church even though they’re disobedient…
I know John salza said the Eastern Orthodox have faculties but I cannot find anything to back his claim up, so this point stands.
@@okj9060 Right, so, as you say, if the SSPX says that only they can, then a priest who joins them suddenly has supplied jurisdiction for laity and geographic areas that he didn’t beforehand because…why? He agrees with their position? Jurisdiction doesn’t turn on and off like a light switch. It is delegated by lawful authority or is supplied by the church as circumstances demand, but if all he has to do is acknowledge those circumstances are there and now he’s got supplied jurisdiction…yeah as I said, that’s not how jurisdiction works. He could instantly lose it if one day he decides the SSPX is actually wrong. It becomes completely subjective. Trent condemns the idea that priests can minister without being lawfully delegated by a bishop. It would be weird if it condemned that but said lawful delegation is not necessary if a priest thought the situation demanded it. That makes each priest his own authority.
Mioni doesn’t get into canonical stuff about faculties but he points out that if schism is a refusal of communion and the SSPX as an organization refuses to worship with any other Catholic congregation or act as part of a whole (because they exist in opposition to the local bishop and any local churches, by their own admission), that is by definition a refusal of communion. Communion finds its fullest expression in the Eucharist and if you won’t partake of the Eucharist anywhere except your own church, that’s refusing communion, no way around it.
I can’t rehash the whole book in a comments section but he explains it in greater detail than I can do here. Worth checking out if just to get a different perspective than what is usually discussed.
@@jared_1867i would say:
1. Can priests administer without being sent by a bishop if they have supplied jurisdiction? I think yes since supplied jurisdiction is for priests not authorized, which includes those non-sent.
If the answer is Yes then I don’t think the Trent argument works very well since it wouldn’t be applying to supplied jurisdiction.
2. The reason why SSPX doesn’t commonly commune with other Catholics isn’t because of the Catholics themselves, but rather it’s because that communing has to do with taking part in the new mass. The SSPX WOULD commune though with eastern Catholics and ordinariates at their churches because those churches don’t celebrate the new mass. This is a good point to make because it shows that the SSPX is fine to commune with other Catholics, as long as the mass isn’t tainted by Protestantism (whether it is or not is another point, I’m just trying to assess this from the SSPX pint of view).
Anyways, the SSPX refusing to take communion at Novus Ordo parishes doesn’t have to do with the Catholics there, but the liturgy itself. To thin about it this way: would you commune at clown masses even if they were the majority of masses that Catholics go to? Your answer would be no. If I asked you if that’s schism because you would be refusing to take communion with the majority of Catholics, you would say no also. Not saying the NO is a clown mass, just trying to help you understand,
When it comes to ecclesia dei communities, I think a lot of them would take communion but they’re not supposed to frequent those chapels only because they’re scared of modernist priests running them.
3. The reason why the faculties things matter is that “there’s no way around it.” If faculties means your in the Church, then you’re not in schism. PERIOD. There’s no way around it.Sure the SSPX does other seemingly schismatic stuff, but they have faculties, ergo, there in the church, ergo, they’re NOT IN SCHISM. If I’m wrong about faculties meaning that they’re in the church, of course this would change things.
I am a new catholic, infact like a new christian in general but I am usually abit careful when it comes to the SPPX, I haven't studied their case in depth but I have some suspicition from their schismatic tendencies and their anti pope fracis stuff they are likely to say so personally I am not sure how to feel about them, but I am glad they helped you in your journey, God bless brother.
@shalaby8968
Wow. You haven't studied the SSPX *at all* judging by the extreme ignorance you display in your answer. Yet, you allow yourself to HAVE an opinion?
Do not permit yourself to express (or have) an opinion on *anything* about which you are not fully informed, on the chances you are unknowingly leading someone astray!
As Pope Benedict XVI told the world, in his two Motu Propios (re: the SSPX), the SSPX Sacraments ARE VALID (all of them) & always were, the SSPX has *never been in schism,* NOR were their Bishops and priests "excommunicated"!
Okay? When studying *anything,* always go to the source if at all possible, treating both detractors and supporters with caution. Allow yourself to NOT form an opinion until you are reasonably certain you have studied enough Source material. That's the Catholic Way: Pray, Study, Act.
Saved mine too
At an NO Mass I attended this week, the priest directed the 12-year-old altar girl to mingle the water & wine, so I guess that Mass was totally invalid?
Not enough information to say, but I would certainly avoid that place like the plague.
Wow! Sounds like a wild experience. It would not necessarily in the strict sense invalidate it (which is scary because Christ is being abused), however If to much water was being poured into the chalice to the point that the wine was no longer wine, then it could invalidate it. I would recommend never going to the NO Mass. Check out my series on the show: "The Problem with the New Mass".
Oh my goodness, I may have to do this too! I’m looking into receiving a supplemental baptism at our chapel. Have you heard of??
I have!
Not necessary!
@elizabethbrink476
It's called a "Conditional" Baptism.
I have a question. So I have great respect for the SSPX, I have been to a SSPX chapel before. I just want to ask, why didn't you mention that you and the SSPX are in Full Communion with the Holy See?
Good point! I did not because the video was mainly a story.
Is the holy sea in commounion with GOD
🔥🔥🔥
Archbishop Lefebvre ora pro Nobis
Yes the SSPX save my life 2
I just have question about the oil used in your confirmation. Don't they use Chrism oil from the Holy Thursday chrism Mass? Wouldn't that automatically be olive oil?
Normally the oil used in Chrism Mass is Olive Oil. However Pope Paul VI (with no good reason), said that non-olive oil could be used. All sacramental theologians say that this is doubtful matter. My diocese for a long time used non-olive oil.
@@thetraditionalthomist wow, I never knew that! I was confirmed in 1972 in San Antonio, I hope he used olive oil. 😳
Do you have a video on the SSPX where you mention an article that goes over the history of communication between Rome and the SSPX? I’ve read it in the past and would love to look at it again and share it with others. I believe you’ve mentioned it somewhere before and now I can’t seem to find it.. any help would be greatly appreciated! Thank you.
Hi there! Hmmm, I not entirely sure which article you are referring to. There is one about everything Rome has ever said about the SSPX. Does that sound familiar?
@@thetraditionalthomist
That does! Do you happen to have the link to it?
@@Feldpausch123 This should be it! catholicfamilynews.com/blog/2023/04/28/sspx-masses-and-fulfilling-the-sunday-obligation/
@@thetraditionalthomistthank you so much! That’s the one!
@@Feldpausch123 Awesome!
I hope the SSPX founds chapels in the Nordic countries at some point... Not much tradition here.
I agree!
Fr. Hesse.
Listen to Fr. Hesse.
He said that, objectively speaking, most Novus Ordo confirmations are invalid because of the use of vegetable oil instead of olive oil....
Hold up the oil issue, was this an Austin Diocese issue or just an issue at that parish that in the diocese? I was confirmed right around the same time (Easter 2019 at St Thomas More up North).
Mostly the Parish in which I was 'confirmed'. There is a long back story to me having non-olive oil at the parish I went to. It ended up being a mini-controversy in the Austin Diocese in 2021.
Plot Twist: I watch TH-cam videos long into the night, but they are usually deep theological discussions on the traditional faith.
But yes, you are correct... I should be doing more penance...particularly for each AB episode I watch 😅
LOL! Appreciate the support!
How can we be absolutely sure we were baptized validly (if we were baptized as infants)? Im my case, my dad is lukewarm, and my godparents are now divorced and not practicing their faith.
Good question. So in order to answer your question, you would need to first do a little investigation. In this investigation, you would need to look for "positive-doubt" for invalidity, meaning, you would need to see if something essential to the validity of the sacrament was lacking. The essentials are: "Water poured over the head (immersion is ok to), with the form ' I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Spirit) amen." They must have the intention of doing what the Church does, meaning they intend to preform a sacrament according to the Catholic Church. They need not be believers for this to be valid. If one thing is lacking here, then I would seek a conditional baptism. I would consult your local SSPX priest on the subject. You mention your family being lukewarm. This does not invalidate it. Hope this helps.
@@thetraditionalthomist Thanks! It happened in 1981. My father in law (very Catholic father in law) said he knew of the priest on my certificate and that he was orthodox. That is about all I will ever know. I have one of the most Traditional diocesan priests in Detroit looking into it for me. I want to just be at peace and put the matter to rest. Its been awhile.
@@brandonkropp7769 You are welcome! If it was done by a very good priest, then I would not worry about it at all. My prayers are for you.
Did Nick leave the Avoiding Babylon channel?
Nope! Anthony, Rob and I are all good! I just had a few weeks off. Should be on soon.
@@thetraditionalthomist Great!!
How do i know a Novus ordo priest is a priest i dont thats why i cant go to a vatica church i see it as a new religeon
Deus Vult
Does SSPX recognize the Greek Orthodox Eucharist as valid?
Yes, as valid but not licit, since it is said in a manner which denies Papal supremacy.
@@thetraditionalthomist Don't SSPX deny papal supremacy? Saying he is the pope but doesn't have authority of the pope?
@@mathieuconklin3146 Hello there! No the SSPX does not deny Papal Supremacy. In fact one of the sticking point between them and the Neo-Modernists is that the SSPX upholds Papal Supremacy, whereas the Neo-Modernists hold to collegiality. The SSPX only resists that which is against the Catholic faith, not as they define it, but as all the Popes have defined it.
I attended one SSPX Mass and regretted it, something seemed off the entire time and my conscience said to not receive communion but I did anyway. Much later I realised I should confess to going there for Mass, I feel much better now. So glad I didn't go on a Sunday as Church Law says in order to fulfill your Sunday obligation, you have to go to a parish church or place of worship designated by the local bishop. Obedience is the greatest virtue outside of Faith, Hope, and Charity.
Pope Benedict xvi lifted the excommunications and allowed the faithful to partake of the sacraments of confession and holy communion ... 2009.. Pope Francis allowed fuller participation for the faithful in 2016 ..and permitted attendance in the case of not being able to attend elsewhere.. This of course was most helpful in lockdown ... These priests were the only ones to reach out to my parents who were away from the sacraments .. and when priests and bishops kowtowed and closed their churches down ... These continued behind locked doors despite police raids ... ! ( Scotland ) Because of them , at least some sick and dying received the sacraments at that time ! .. I would argue this is a good fruit which supercedes vague feelings, wouldn't you ?
@@jojackson1573 it’s interesting that people argue you can go to the sspx if you have nothing else and then they drive my a diocesan latin mass to go to a business park that the bishop doesn’t want, I witnessed this in Front Royal Virginia
Where would you go ? the other so called traditional orders have compromised the faith with modernist Roman! They are no more then high church NO . ( SSPX is the light of true Roman Catholic Church, in a church and world filled in complete darkness)
@@CatholicNicklasTry editing your post for clarity.
@@CatholicNicklasI’ve been to the Church in Front Royal. They have a really nice Novus Ordo mass too.
3:23 "Nominalism, Kantianism"
I think Nominalism has much more to do with the fullblown apostasy of Kantianism, than with the Deformation.
Hi there! Definitely Kantianism could not have come about without Nominalism, and Martin Luther apply nominalist principles to religion, in particular in areas of divine revelation of ecclesiology. Unfortunately Kantianism was picked up by Modernism, and later down the stream, the neo-modernism of today. Vast amounts of the 'faithful' no longer adhere to or look to the sources of revelation for truth, or the traditional magisterium, but rather are encouraged by leaders to listen to their hearts. Doctrine therefore as a result flows from mans 'modern needs'.
@@thetraditionalthomist _"Martin Luther apply nominalist principles to religion,"_
Both the Lutheran Pastor Jordan Cooper and Gilbert Keith Chesterton disagreed, and thought Luther was more of an Augustinian Platonist.
@@thetraditionalthomist Nice to meet you too!
Found & like your channel and looking forward to seeing it grow (two very gentle suggestions, offered respectfully: the camera needs to be moved further back & the inclination for rocking motion ought to be suppressed).
Hoping to be conditionally baptized and confirmed, I was baptized non denom, confirmed NO
love your podcasts brother but can you please stop saying 'if you will' every few minutes 🤣🤣
Never lol!
Laxity… not laxism.
I appreciate the correction, but I actually meant Laxism, the moral theology system.
Since the beginning of our Christian faith tradition it was about the holy mass the Eucharist were our lord Jesus he is truly there in body and blood and this was their faith until they had put to death for what they believed, but now unfortunately the spirit of Lucifer he is manipulating many hearts and minds to not believe in his real presence in his church etc. and unfortunately most so called Christian’s are falling into his trap, but we do have someone who knows where our true God is because she is a mother the mother of our lord Jesus, she is the Eucharistic mother of her son Jesus who keeps coming down to this evil world to protect her children and to instruct us and preparing for the coming of her son Jesus, now I ask this question!!! If she is with God who can be against her? Oh.. yeahhh.. Satan the old serpent with his children the father of all lies.
False what you said about baptism in the novus ordo. Its a shame when false information is said. Great video overall though.
What is false?
@thetraditionalthomist that all baptisms are accepted. My dad was baptized Mormon and coming into the catholic church the local parish made him get a real baptism because a Mormon baptism is invalid. And I'm talking about a liberal parish.
@@St.Augustine4006 I think you are judging me rather harshly. My point is that most NO parishes do not look seriously into Protestant baptisms. Mormons are not even considered by the Church to be Protestants.
@thetraditionalthomist I think you were judging Novus Ordo rather harshly when you said, "accepts all baptisms even if they're heretical," but if baptism can be done by an athiest, they can also be done across many heretical forms of Christianity. I guess you wouldn't truly know about that since you're a cradle Catholic who hasn't had the experience of discussing a baptism from another protestant form of Christianity. But from my experience in the most liberal parish ever with female altar servers and communion in the hand had to speak with my former protestant pastor who baptized me in the baptist church before they would even consider a date for my confirmation.
Cismatics
So true lol!
I sense a tendency towards Donatism here, despite what you say about intentionality. I also think you might have been a little more diplomatic or charitable in describing your father's actions (lax).
I very much value the TLM but I'm also somewhat irritated by the expression, "Novus Ordo parish". There are no NO parishes, simply Catholic parishes, however irreverent the celebration of Mass.
Clearly deviating from the formularies may invalidate the Sacrament but, nevertheless, I detect a tendency towards Donatism. Forgive me if I've misjudged you.
With respect, I do not see how the principles which I have outlined, which come straight from Catholic Sacramental theology are Donatist. The Holy Office declared September 14,1842, that "it is rash and close to error, to assert that this sacrament could be valid with another oil than olive oil." I did not trash the priest, far from it. Charity, and being charitable, its wiling the objective good for another for that persons sake. Willing that priest to use the correct matter for the sacrament is very charitable. As for diplomatic, I did not mention his name, where he lives, the parish he leads etc. I merely told me experience. Very diplomatic. As for the expression, "Novus Ordo parish", I suggest you watch my ongoing series: "The Problem with the New Mass" for more details.
Edward. The "NO" distinction is made to avoid irreverent conduct.
What is wrong with diocesan latin Mass? Sure, it is good that proper catechesis is given at SSPX but it is not SSPX that gives graces but communion with the church! Ecclesiology is important. One cannot be catholic if one does not submit in principle to the hierarchy.
Otherwise the teachings of the Popes about the mythical body of christ are peverted to a position were one questions every sacrament because of relatively minor changes that are not substantive or because one priest may have wrong theological views.
We must not forget that the Church of Christ is not merely a power structure following certain logical canonic rules but is in its essence supernatural and thus led by Christ himself.
We can most certainly disagree with the Magisterium in certain instances but our motivation should never be one of dissent or distancing ourselves from Rome.
Ambiguity about this can lead to sedisvacantism in practice and the rejection of the judicial primacy of the successor of Peter, also generally to disobedience and a lack of brotherly charity.
I used to symphatize with SSPX but I see more and more that this position presented in this video is a very dark one and leads in fact to 'antimodernist' modernism where we traditionalists reject everything from Rome even if it just seeks to integrate the churchs teaching into contemporary thinking (like the Personalism of JP II) which is what the church can do in order to pass through time and reach new people and keep them without changing the dogma or fundamentals of the faith.
Perhaps for your clarification, I suggest the excellent videos by Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, who by the way is not a SSPX adherent.
“We can most certainly disagree with the Magisterium in certain instances but our motivation should never be one of dissent or distancing ourselves from Rome.“
What does it mean to disagree but not to dissent? Sounds like a contradiction
Hello there! I never said anything was wrong with the diocesan Latin Mass. I agree with you about the importance of ecclesiology.
Ecclesiology is perhaps the most important branch of Fundamental-dogmatic theology today, given that because of Vatican II, the Neo Modernists have a completely distorted view of Catholic teaching on the Church, the Papacy, and the Magisterium.
Unfortunately this three-fold distinction between the Extraordinary Magisterium, the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium, and the authentic non-infallible Magisterium, has fallen into oblivion. This has resulted in two opposite errors in the crisis situation of the Church at the present time: the error by excess of those who extend papal infallibility to all acts of the pope, without distinction; and the error by defect of those who restrict infallibility to definitions that have been uttered ex cathedra.
The error by excess actually eliminates the Ordinary Non-Infallible or "Authentic" Magisterium and inevitably leads either to Sedevacantism or to servile obedience. The attitude of the people of this second category is, "The pope is always infallible and so we always owe him blind obedience."
The error by defect eliminates the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium. This is precisely the error of the neo-Modernists, who devalue the ordinary papal Magisterium and the "Roman tradition" which they find so inconvenient. They say, "The pope is infallible only in his Extraordinary Magisterium, so we can sweep away 2000 years of ordinary papal Magisterium."
Both of these errors obscure the precise notion of the Ordinary Magisterium, which includes the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the ordinary, "authentic," non-infallible Magisterium.
These two opposing errors are not new. They were denounced even before Vatican II. In 1954, Fr. Labourdette, O.P., wrote:
Many persons have retained very naive ideas about what they learned concerning the personal infallibility of the sovereign pontiff in the solemn and abnormal exercise of his power of teaching. For some, every word of the supreme pontiff will in some way partake of the value of an infallible teaching, requiring the absolute assent of theological faith; for others, acts which are not presented with the manifest conditions of a definition ex cathedra will seem to have no greater authority than that of any private teacher." (Revue Thomiste LIV, 1954, p.196)!
Dom Paul Nau has also written about the confusion that has arisen between the pope’s authority and his infallibility:
By a strange reversal, while the personal infallibility of the pope in a solemn judgment, so long disputed, was definitely placed beyond all controversy, it is the Ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Church, which seems to have been lost sight of.
It all happened-as is not unheard of elsewhere in the history of doctrine-as if the very brilliance of the Vatican I definition had cast into shadow the truth hitherto universally recognized; we might almost say, as if the definition of the infallibility of the solemn judgments made these henceforth the unique method by which the sovereign pontiff would put forward the rule of faith." [Pope or Church?, Angelus Press, 1998, p.13]
On the temporary fading of a doctrine from Catholic consciousness, see the entry "dogme" in DTC (vol. IV).
Dom Nau also mentioned the disastrous consequences which flow from this identification of the pope’s authority and his infallibility:
No place would be left, intermediate between such private acts and the solemn papal judgments, for a teaching which, while authentic, is not equally guaranteed throughout all its various expressions. If things are looked at from this angle, the very notion of the Ordinary Magisterium becomes, properly speaking, unthinkable." [Pope or Church?, p.4]
Dom Nau considered from where this phenomenon had developed:
Since 1870 [the year of Vatican I-Ed.], manuals of theology have taken the formulae in which their statements of doctrine have been framed from the actual wording of the Council text. None of these treated in its own right of the ordinary teaching of the pope, which has accordingly, little by little, slipped out of sight and all pontifical teaching has seemed to be reduced solely to solemn definitions ex cathedra. Once attention was entirely directed to these, it became customary to consider the doctrinal interventions of the Holy See solely from the standpoint of the solemn judgment, that of a judgment which ought in itself to bring to the doctrine all the necessary guarantees of certainty." (ibid., p.13)
This is partly true, but we should not forget that liberal theology had already been advertising its reductive agenda. That is why Pius IX, even before Vatican I (1870) felt obliged to warn German theologians that divine faith’s submission "must not be restricted only to those points which have been defined" (Letter to Archbishop of Munich, Dec. 21, 1863).
The naive ideas entertained by many on the question of papal infallibility after Vatican I played into the hands of the liberal theology. In fact, while the two errors are diametrically opposed, they are at one in equating papal authority and papal infallibility. What is the difference between them? The error by excess, regarding as infallible everything that comes from papal authority, stretches the pope’s infallibility to the extent of his authority. The error by defect, considering only those things authorized that emanate from the ex cathedra infallibility, restricts papal authority to the scope of the infallibility of the pope’s Extraordinary Magisterium. Thus both errors have the same effect, namely, to obscure the very notion of the Ordinary Magisterium and, consequently, the particular nature of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium. It is essential for us to rediscover this notion and its nature because they are of the greatest importance in helping us to get our bearings in the time of crisis.
As to you last point, the Church does NOT need to integrate the Church's thinking into contemporary thinking:
The Syllabus of errors: 80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.- -Allocution “Jamdudum cernimus,” March 18, 1861.
Pope John Paul II personalism is not a dogma, nor even a discipline, but merely his philosophical opinion.
@@paisley293Doctor K is wonderful! Extraordinary mind. And he certainly supports SSPX
It may have saved your life but be weary, it might doom your soul. Return to communion with the Roman pontiff.
How is the SSPX not in Communion with the Roman Pontiff? To be a Catholic, one has to hold the threefold conditions of membership. Doctrine-Morals, Sacraments, Governance. They clearly hold to the unity of faith, they don't deny any teaching on faith and morals. As for the Sacraments, Rome says you can go to their Masses without sin or canonical penalty. When it comes to governance, they recognize the Pope and the Local bishop. If holding communion with the Roman pontiff includes the idea that everyman should be free in civil law to hold whatever religion that he wants (religious liberty), or that the Holy Spirit uses fall religions as means of salvation ( UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO #4), then this is an absurd communion. For it contradicts the Pope's of the past. Question for you, does Pope Francis hold communion with Pope Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, and Pius XI on religious liberty and praying with non-catholic religions?
@@thetraditionalthomist if you are talking about Dignitatis Humane, it doesn't teach what you wrote about religious liberty. It's clear (e.g. from #7) that the religious liberty has limits.
@@kamil-michalak First Reply: Vatican II does mention “due limits” circumscribing religious liberty, but the nature of the limits is not clearly stated in the document. In paragraph 2, it seems to involve safeguarding public order; further on, paragraph 7 speaks of “the objective moral order,” which is better, but illusory and ultimately insufficient order,” which is better, but illusory and ultimately insufficient.
Taken literally, the implication of limiting religious liberty to “the objective moral order” is that only the Catholic Church could enjoy unrestricted freedom of religion because she alone conserves the natural law in its entirety (Islam authorizes polygamy; the Protestants-and even the Eastern schismatics in some cases-allow divorce; etc.). But this conclusion obviously contradicts the rest of the text. For Vatican II, having set aside the obligations of strict natural law, the only restraining limit on religious freedom is public order. As long as the cult is not a cover for terrorist attacks, criminal networks, pedophilia, or some other infringement of “the rights of man,” everything must be authorized.
We will now look at three propositions that were condemned by Pope Pius IX in his authoritative Syllabus of Errors.
Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, Dec. 8, 1864, # 77: “In this age of ours it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be the only religion of the state, to the exclusion of all other cults whatsoever.” - Condemned.
Notice, the idea that the Catholic religion should not be the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of other religions, is condemned. That means that the Catholic religion should be the only religion of the State and that the others should be excluded from public worship, profession, practice, and propagation. The Catholic Church doesn’t force nonbelievers to believe in the Catholic Faith, since belief (by definition) is a free act of the will.
Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei (#36), Nov. 1, 1885: “And, in fact, the Church is wont to take earnest heed that no one shall be forced to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, for, as St. Augustine wisely reminds us, ‘Man cannot believe otherwise than of his own will.’”
However, it teaches that States should forbid the propagation and public profession of false religions which lead souls to Hell.
Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, # 78: “Hence in certain regions of Catholic name, it has been laudably sanctioned by law that men immigrating there be allowed to have public exercises of any form of worship of their own.” - Condemned.
Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, Dec. 8, 1864, # 55: “The Church is to be separated from the state, and the state from the Church.” - Condemned.
In Quanta Cura, Pope Pius IX also condemned the idea that every man should be granted the civil right to religious liberty.
Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura (# 3), Dec. 8, 1864: “From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our predecessor, Gregory XVI, an insanity, namely, that ‘liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society…”
But Vatican II teaches just the opposite:
Vatican II document, Dignitatis humanae # 2: “This Vatican synod declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. Such freedom consists in this, that all should have such immunity from coercion by individuals, or by groups, or by any human power, that no one should be forced to act against his conscience in religious matters, nor prevented from acting according to his conscience, whether in private or in public, within due limits… This right of the human person to religious freedom should have such recognition in the regulation of society as to become a civil right.”
Vatican II document, Dignitatis humanae # 2: “Therefore this right to non-interference persists even in those who do not carry out their obligations of seeking the truth and standing by it; and the exercise of this right should not be curtailed, as long as due public order is preserved.”
Vatican II teaches that religious liberty should be a civil right, which is directly condemned by Pope Pius IX. Vatican II also says that this right to religious liberty applies to public, as well as private, expression; and that no one should be prevented from the public expression or practice of his religion. The teaching of Vatican II is directly against the infallible teaching of Pope Pius IX and a host of other popes.
Benedict XVI admits that Vatican II’s teaching on Religious Liberty contradicts the teaching of the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX!
Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 381: "If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text [of the Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes] as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter syllabus… As a result, the one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church under Pius IX and Pius X in response to the situation created by the new phase of history inaugurated by the French Revolution, was, to a large extent, corrected..."
@@kamil-michalak Reply #2: Pope Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 385: "By a kind of inner necessity, therefore, the optimism of the countersyllabus gave way to a new cry that was far more intense and more dramatic than the former one."
Pope Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 391: "The task is not, therefore, to suppress the Council but to discover the real Council and to deepen its true intention in the light of present experience. That means that there can be no return to the Syllabus, which may have marked the first stage in the confrontation with liberalism and a newly conceived Marxism but cannot be the last stage."
It gets really bad now.
Vatican II document, Dignitatis humanae # 3: “So the state, whose proper purpose it is to provide for the temporal common good, should certainly recognize and promote the religious life of its citizens. With equal certainty, it exceeds the limits of its authority, if it takes upon itself to direct or to prevent religious activity.”
Vatican II says that the State exceeds its authority if it dares to prevent religious activity. This is totally an error.
Pope Leo XIII, Libertas (# 21-23), June 20, 1888: “Justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness - namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in the Catholic States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engraven upon it… Men have a right freely and prudently to propagate throughout the State what things soever are true and honorable, so that as many as possible may possess them; but lying opinions, than which no mental plague is greater, and vices which corrupt the heart and moral life should be diligently repressed by public authority, lest they insidiously work the ruin of the State.”
Here we see Pope Leo XIII (simply reiterating the consistent teaching of pope after pope) teaching that the State not only can, but should curtail and forbid the rights and privileges of other religions to perform religious acts - exactly the opposite of what Vatican II declared. Such public acts, false opinions, and false teachings should be repressed by public authority (the State), according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, so that souls are not scandalized or enticed by them.
Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, # 78: “Hence in certain regions of Catholic name, it has been laudably sanctioned by law that men immigrating there be allowed to have public exercises of any form of worship of their own.” - Condemned.
Vatican II Document, Dignitatis humanae # 3: “So the state, whose proper purpose it is to provide for the temporal common good, should certainly recognize and promote the religious life of its citizens. With equal certainty it exceeds the limits of its authority, if it takes upon itself to direct or to prevent religious activity.”
Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura (#’s 3-6), Dec. 8, 1864, ex cathedra: “From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our predecessor, Gregory XVI, an insanity, namely, that ‘liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.’ But while they rashly affirm this, they do not understand and note that they are preaching liberty of perdition… Therefore, by our apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines specially mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all the sons of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed, and condemned.”
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311-1312: “It is an insult to the holy name and a disgrace to the Christian faith that in certain parts of the world subject to Christian princes where Saracens [i.e., the followers of Islam, also called Muslims] live, sometimes apart, sometimes intermingled with Christians, the Saracen priests, commonly called Zabazala, in their temples or mosques, in which the Saracens meet to adore the infidel Mahomet, loudly invoke and extol his name each day at certain hours from a high place… This brings disrepute on our faith and gives great scandal to the faithful. These practices cannot be tolerated without displeasing the divine majesty. We therefore, with the sacred council’s approval, strictly forbid such practices henceforth in Christian lands. We enjoin on Catholic princes, one and all… They are to forbid expressly the public invocation of the sacrilegious name of Mahomet… Those who presume to act otherwise are to be so chastised by the princes for their irreverence, that others may be deterred from such boldness.”
@@kamil-michalak Reply #3: We see how Vatican II was interpreted according to national states, such as Spain.
The “Fuero de los Españoles,” the fundamental law of the Spanish State adopted on July 17, 1945, only authorized the exercise of non-Catholic cults [religions] privately and forbade all propaganda activities on the part of false religions.
Article 6, 1: “The profession and practice of the Catholic Religion, which is that of the Spanish State, will enjoy official protection.”
Article 6, 2: “… the only ceremonies and other open manifestations of religion allowed will be Catholic.”
We can see that, in conformity with traditional Catholic teaching, the Spanish law decreed that the only ceremonies and public manifestations of religion would be Catholic. After Vatican II, however, the “Ley Organica del Estado” (Jan. 10, 1967) replaced this second paragraph of article 6 with the following:
“The State will assume the protection of religious liberty which will be under the protection of the Judiciary responsible for safeguarding morals and public order.”
Moreover, the preamble to the Constitution of Spain, modified by this same “Ley Organica del Estado” after Vatican II, explicitly declared:
“… Given the modification introduced in Article 6 by the ‘Ley Organica del Estado,’ ratified by referendum of the nation, in order to adapt its text to the conciliar Declaration on religious liberty promulgated Dec. 7, 1965 [by Vatican II], which demands the explicit recognition of this right [religious liberty], and conforms moreover to the second fundamental Principle of the Movement according to which the teaching of the Church ought to inspire our laws …”
Pope St. Pius X, Vehementer Nos, Feb. 11, 1906: “We, in accord with the supreme authority which We hold from God, disapprove and condemn the established law which separates the French state from the Church, for those reasons which We have set forth: because it inflicts the greatest injury upon God whom it solemnly rejects, declaring in the beginning that the state is devoid of any religious worship…”
Pope Gregory XVI, Inter Praecipuas (# 14), May 8, 1844: “Experience shows that there is no more direct way of alienating the populace from fidelity and obedience to their leaders than through that indifference to religion propagated by the sect members under the name of religious liberty.”
In line with its teaching on religious liberty, Vatican II teaches the error that all religions have liberty of speech and liberty of the press.
Vatican II document, Dignitatis Humanae # 4: “In addition, religious communities are entitled to teach and give witness to their faith publicly in speech and writing without hindrance.”
The idea that everyone has the right to liberty of speech and the press has been condemned by many popes. We will only quote Pope Gregory XVI and Pope Leo XIII. Notice that Pope Gregory XVI called this idea (the very thing taught by Vatican II) harmful and “never sufficiently denounced.”
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 15), Aug. 15, 1832: “Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice.”
Pope Leo XIII, Libertas (# 42), June 20, 1888: “From what has been said it follows that it is quite unlawful to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, of speech, or writing, or of worship, as if these were so many rights given by nature to man.”
Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei (# 34), Nov. 1, 1885: “Thus, Gregory XVI in his encyclical letter Mirari Vos, dated August 15, 1832, inveighed with weighty words against the sophisms which even at his time were being publicly inculcated - namely, that no preference should be shown for any particular form of worship; that it is right for individuals to form their own personal judgments about religion; that each man’s conscience is his sole and all-sufficing guide; and that it is lawful for every man to publish his own views, whatever they may be, and even to conspire against the state.”