It would never happen. One of the most important unwritten rules of being a trad like Taylor Marshall or Kennedy Hall is to never publically engage or have real debates with anyone who disagrees with you. It's a loud echo chamber.
No need for a debate with Kennedy Hall. The Popes have settled matter for a long time. Until the SSPX fully receives the reforms of the Second Vatican Council and live in full communion with Holy Mother Church, no theological or canon law gymnastics and media P.R. campaign by SSPX members, sympathetic bishops and media celebrities can rescind the consistent papal judgment that the SSPX is "not in full communion with the Church" (JPII, Ecclesia Dei; BXVI, Ecclesiae Unitatem; and Francis, Traditiones Custodes). In the July 16, 2021 letter accompanying Traditiones Custodes Pope Francis mentions the status of the SSPX going back to JPII: "The faculty - granted by the indult of the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1984 and confirmed by St. John Paul II in the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei in 1988 - was above all motivated by the desire to foster the healing of the SCHISM with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre."
Debates are not the acid test of truth. A person eloquently peddling an errant falsehood could out-talk someone on the side of the truth. Truth is the truth, even if no one in the world believes it; and falsehood is worthless although everyone on the planet accepts it and actively propagates same. Alĺ that's needed is that there be good, reasonable reasons for the claims one puts on the table in the course of discussion. I think Matt's guest has done an excellent job in discussing this particular issue.
I think you should have a knowledgable pro-Society (one of their best, in their opinion) influencer or actual cleric debate Salza on this. Now that would be a very interesting and highly watched event.
Yep I do too! I think there are many inaccuracies in this podcast. I'm not pro SSPX but LeFevbre wasn't given everything he wanted, not even close. Rome did NOT accomadate him and anyone who has studied this issue at all knows this. I read or heard Salza say the exact opposite of what he is saying here merely 3 years ago. It's not a good thing to NOT be in communion with Rome. The SSPX needs to figure this out but the last three popes have not said they were is schism. That is untrue. If they were in schism why did Francis give them faculties to hear confessions?? I think the most honest experts in this topic simply say it's confusing and they are not sure because it's very confusing and no one is certain, they might think they are, and then a couple years later flip flop, just like Salza has done.
The SSPX and their defenders have been completely silent towards the arguments put forth by Salza, the only responses that have been put out are weak defenses by laymen which have already been rebuked or attacks on Salza's character/motives.
I grew up with the Latin Mass in the 1950s and 1960s in a very small village in the Moluccas. The village was 100% Catholic, it still is now. When we were introduced to the New Mass after Vatican Council 2 where our national language started to be used and the priest began to face the people with simpler Mass attires, my aunt stopped going to Mass. She said it was a made-up religion. We had to persuade her for a very long time before she could attend Mass again. I very often attend the Latin Mass virtually. When I do, it brings back sweet memories of holiness back then. I think the Latin Mass should still be practiced because in reality we have more then 20 rites. So why not the Latin Mass?
Which is wrong. Salza just wants to grift to sell books and have paid speaking engagements such as this. The Vatican sent both Bishop Schneider and Bishop Huondor to investigate the SSPX. They both reported the order to be a fully faithful part of our Church. I will listen to our Church hierarchy before I listen to this dramatizing man.
I too see myself as a "glad trad", but whilst much of this discussion was informative, some of it was completely wrong. I am not an SSPX apologist (and agree they can go to far), and I attend the TLM from a number of different priestly societies, SSPX included, but I still found the tone of this discussion unhelpful. It needed another voice to provide a sense of balance. Moreover, instead of alluding to what certain documents said, the documents should have been quoted, as Salza was simply incorrect in some instances. - the worst error is that of not fulfilling your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by an SSPX priest. This is clearly wrong. Just read the response by the Ecclesia Dei Commission on January 18, 2003 (which was requested to be published, hence is not particular to an individual's circumstances). It follows up on a letter sent to an individual, as noted in the discussion, but this is for public consumption. It points out: Points 1 and 3 in our letter of 27 September 2002 to this correspondent are accurately reported. His first question was "Can I fulfill my Sunday obligation by attending a Pius X Mass" and our response was: "1. In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X." - Abp Lefebvre never said the New Mass, he never "signed off on the New Mass". He adopted some of the earlier changes in the mid 1960s, but stopped around time time of the 1967 missal when he felt his faith being challenged. - the declaration of 1974 was not a general response to the changes, but a response to the scandalous behaviour of the Vatican visitors 10 days before. - the SSPX does not refuse communion with Novus Ordo Catholics. They even have a retired Bishop (Bishop Huonder) residing in one of their Switzerland houses. I have seen diocesan priests at SSPX events. The SSPX school in the UK had the diocesan Bishop visit them. - Abp Lefebvre may have signed the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, not the liturgical changes themselves. Many have argued that the latter is not a faithful representation of the former. To conflate the two is an unfortunate confusion of the issue. - Pope Francis' motu proprio cannot be said to be a direct result of the SSPX - it doesn't even affect them. Apparently, Cardinal Bergolio got on very well with the SSPX in Argentina. His letter talks of healing the schism in terms of the action of JPII (the actual wording is this: "The faculty - granted by the indult of the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1984 and confirmed by St. John Paul II in the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei in 1988 - was above all motivated by the desire to foster the healing of the schism with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre"), not his own opinion here and now. - Pope John Paul II did not give him a Bishop - they went through a number of names, and they repeatedly rejected by the Vatican, and in the end, Abp Lefebvre concluded they couldn't be trusted. This is a predental decision of the Abp. - please don't compare Old Catholics to the SSPX, they deny a dogma of the faith and reject Vatican I. - charges of schism. Listen to what Cardinal Hoyos, who dealt with their case in the Vatican said: "They had moments when they were away, but technically they never made any complete schism or heresy. For example, they did not create a separate jurisdiction, because to create a jurisdiction outside the jurisdiction of the Church, that means you want to separate." "We are not dealing with a case of heresy. One cannot say in correct and exact terms that there is a schism. There is, in the act of ordaining bishops without papal approval, a schismatic attitude. They are within the confines of the Church. The problem is just that there is a lack of a full, a more perfect-and as it was said during the meeting with Bishop Fellay-a more full communion, because communion exists.". Schismatics are outside the Church, Cardinal Hoyos (who was the authority on the matter) said they were within the confines the of the Church. Hence no schism. - if you want hard criticism of the Novus Ordo, apart from Abp Lefebvre, then just read the Cardinal Ottaviani & Bacci Intervention, for example: "It is evident that the Novus Ordo has no intention of presenting the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent, to which, nonetheless, the Catholic conscience is bound forever." This would seem to match up with the SSPX's claims regarding the Novus Ordo. Finally, the SSPX should be considered a life boat, it's not meant to be permanent. It's a temporary measure to bridge the crisis inside the Church. Obviously, the danger is there that it becomes so, but that certainly wasn't Abp Lefebvre's intention.
You are much more tempered and stable with your responses than I 🤣 thank you.... it truly is a shelter, and it's not hard to see how the holy spirit has put it as such for the time being outside of a diocese, and protecred from manipulation in the dead Latin language.
A few questions: Bishop Athanasius Schneider was the Vatican delegate that was sent to assess the Catholicity and orthodoxy of the SSPX. He lived in their seminary for a month. His conclusion was that yhey were thoroughly Catholic and recommended their regularization. The bishop unequivocally denies they are in formal schism. He brought up the fa t the Pope CANNOT confer faculties to a group in formal schism without implicitly endorsing sed schism. And now that SSPX chapels can witness marriages on behalf of the Church. Our diocese doesn't even send a diocesan representative but just has them send a record of the marriage. So they have valid Mass, valid Confession, valid marriages...but they are in schism? I am not a regular attendee of the Society (90% Novus Ordo) but I find their presence in our diocese a great benefit and feel that when Satan is in full control of the hierarchy (which is soon coming to pass) the Society will be a refuge (along with other TLM communities) for the faithful when denied the fullness of the Faith.
Oh so everything is hunky dory and the sspx is no longer separate from the “conciliar modernist church” as lefev called it?? Did sspx become conciliar and modernist or renounce these words from lefev or has this so called “conciliar church” come around and said lefev was right and Rome was wrong and now they are in communion with the great self anointed defenders of “tradition” the sspx??? Lol what a joke.. larp harder
@@johnjaun9231 "Concilliar church" isn't something Lefevbre coined. It's something post VII bishops coined to justify novelty. He didn't just make it up, he's quoting their own theology.
The simple fact that you believe Satan can possibly be in full control of the Church hierarchy means the poison has already seeped into you. That's not catholic belief. Just as a reminder, the creed does not say we believe in the One Holy and Apostolic SSPX.
@@tanksgtThe Latin Rite offered the language in the languages of the people. There is nothing wrong with that. The mass was originally in Aramaic and eventually offered in Coptic, Syriac, and Greek. It was offered in Latin because it was the language that the people in the Roman Empire spoke. Eventually, Catholicism came to more countries so it is great that the Church offered the mass in the language that they can understand.
You have a newer video titled, "Bishop Schneider's AMAZING Defense Against Sedes!" You should listen to B. Schneider and pull this horrible interview you did with Salza. B. Schneider investigated the SSPX and found them to not be sedes. But you took the word of Salza. You should vet your guests. Salza has a history of grifting and exaggerating to sell books. He did it with the masons and now he did it with the SSPX. I love your show Matt but you have had a couple guests that are really questionable.
Bishop Huondor made the same report to the Vatican. The SSPX are not schismatic. I don't know why we would listen to Salza over two good Bishops of the Church. Not every lawyer is oily but this one does seem to be an ambulance chaser, profiting from church division. It's shameful.
"As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church…In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers - even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty - do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church." - Pope Benedict XVI
Salza’a teaching against the SSPX is unorthodox because he erroneously thinks the juridical structure of the Church is limited to receiving ordinary jurisdiction from the pope or local bishop. Whereas the Catholic Church teaches that situations can arise in which the Church indirectly gives jurisdiction outside of the local bishop. Salsa’s entire argument is based on the false premise that jurisdiction absolutely never extends beyond exactly explicit approval. Case in point, St Athanasius ordained bishops and priests in dioceses not only of formally Arian bishops, but also informally semi Arian bishops. In an extreme Crisis like that then and now, we Church law does give jurisdiction. And the Society recognizes that as part of Church teaching whereas John Salza does not. Not to mention Salza has a bad attitude in his anti SSPX diatribe. This is a very old and tiresome approach that divides traditional Catholics.
Trying to do my "research" on the SSPX, as I have some friends who are trying to get me to come to it, so I will try to act in good faith. Would this be similar to the situation with the Eastern orthodox? If there is a similarity in the jurisdiction as far as juridical people are concerned, then shouldn't his argument follow? My understanding is that the Sunday obligation is not satisfied when attending an Eastern Orthodox mass for the same reasons Salza gives for the SSPX about priests having proper faculties. This is a new difficulty that I think this argument brings up since it seems consistent on its face.
Interesting discussion to consider for someone sympathetic to the SSPX. I just find it interesting that Matt devotes three hours to hammer the SSPX but he doesn't seem to have a problem with the orthodox and seems more than eager to attempt to find common ground with Muslims. I would direct folks to the Kennedy report for a decent rebuttal of this episode. He doesn't name Fradd, but it is clear this is what he is talking about.
Bravo. Mons. Lefevre's enemies are good calling Catholic Church's straight foes; separated brothers, brothers in the faith, christians, etc. "Love is love" when it comes about modernist. Hate is hate (with all of your guts) the SSPX.
Pagan worship, sacrilege are mortal sins. Pope Francis gave honor & thumbs up to artist who did Blasphemy against Crucifix, by putting Crucifix in urine. Jesus Sacrifice on Cross, suffering so greatly, dying for love of us, to save us. Francis brought pagan idols into Vatican, when faithful Catholic threw in river, Francis got angry, had idols retrieved.
@@eoinmcg88 he is a freemason, all the original documents on the subject say, he can only get confession on his death bed by the Pope himself. i wouldnt trust a word he says.
Correct. "As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church…In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers - even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty - do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church." - Pope Benedict XVI
@@emiliepoirier6093 I think he, in that case, referred when Lefebvre didn’t accept the orders from the Pope not to ordain more than one bishop. As Lefebvre didn’t accept one bishop, instead four, he automatically rejected the hierarchy of the Pope telling him not to ordain them, but he in fact did. There is that disobedience the man from the video speaks about, because Lefebvre ordained those bishops without the permission of the Pope (he was even warned many times not to disobey, but he did)
None of us would have to worry about this if the Tridentine Mass was readily available in every diocese. We are a religion that holds our history and traditions as sacred. Our souls are always going to be moved by beauty, grace and reverence. We will never stop seeking it out and it's time that the church hierarchy accepts it. The restrictions on TLM are what is pushing people toward the "irregular", together with a lack of discipline of heterodox priests and bishops. This Pontificate worsened a situation that was previously on the mend. I normally love all PWA episodes but this was a chore to sit through. I do wish Matt vetted his guest and realized that Salza has a real credibility problem. A person needs credibility, otherwise, the audience becomes even more polarized on an issue. Reading through the comments here, I'm afraid that is exactly what's happened.
Great insight! I sense there is way more to the deliberate tension on removing TLM other than schism from the attitude of TLM participants. It appears to be 1. Deliberately Increase division within the Church and 2. Derail the benefits of the individual within TLM. This service provides a heightened focus and contemplation by participants by very nature (focus on a uncommon language) and a focus on the presence of God - when this happens, great things happen. Agents within and without the Church do not desire this for a plethora of reasons. Schism could be a result, but I sense not at the attitude or behest of the fold but from high ranking internal authority and external influence.
How is it that bishop Huondor of Switzerland was granted permission to retire in the SSPX (2019), if they are, in fact, in schism? This would be an absurdity.
Should have brought this up before the debate, would have been great to hear it discussed. My take is that merely residing with them and even celebrating liturgies with them doesn't mean they're not in schism. For example, the orthodox are in schism but the Pope occasionally attends Divine Liturgies with them (and vice versa). I know of some priests who live in obscure locations who reside with Protestant clergy. Very long winded, but the point I'm trying to get across is "living with" is not equal to "in communion with".
@@matthewmorris9532 The problem is that Bishop Huonder has explicitly stated he lives with them because of what they preach and because he does not believe them to be in schism. This is quite different than a lone priest with nowhere to go being taken in out of charity by a non-Catholic. The Pope also does not assist at Orthodox Masses. There have been joint vespers, etc. but the Pope does not assist at schismatic celebrations of the Eucharist. Assisting at a schismatic Mass and adhering to the teachings of the schismatic minister would, in fact, make you schismatic. Since Bishop Huonder is apparently not in schism (nor are the lay faithful who assist at SSPX Masses) then we are quite clearly not dealing with the same situation as the orthodox
@@matthewmorris9532 "the orthodox are in schism but the Pope occasionally attends Divine Liturgies with them (and vice versa)." If the pope hasn't done this, bishops have. This was not done nor permitted prior to Vatican II. ""living with" is not equal to "in communion with"." That is a nuance that most everyone is not going to know or appreciate. By allowing a bishop to retire with schismatics and offer mass for them and with them and live with them day in and day out gives a sign of approval. Once could say it is scandalous.
To Reject the Bishops and the Pope Authority is to be an Anathema to Christ. Council of Trent Session 23, 24, and 14. You cant fight scandal by committing scandal. The SSPX founders did just that and still do
My wife is from Milwaukee and we go back every other year and have agreed that we will not attend another Novus Ordo there again. We either attend St. Stanislaus or the Melkite parish. I have only walked out of a handful of Masses in my life because I could not stand the sacrilege- all of them were Novus Ordo events (they could not qualify as legit Masses) in Milwaukee. I think there are people who are will8ng to allow a banal, saying ethos of Vatican IIism to run roughshod over them and their families rather than do what us necessary to save their souls. No one - NO ONE - is bound to submit themselves or their families to spiritual abuse and danger. Thank God for the Institute in Milwaukee.
This is the situation we’re in full time and it’s why we attend the Society Masses and Catechesis. The things we’ve heard (and seen) are our local parish, with our five impressionable little boys, is not to be believed.
It is theoretically possible to find ourselves in a sorry situation where our Bishop is running such a poor diocese that we cannot in good conscience assist at any masses under him. But that doesn't mean we then go outside the legitimate structure of the Church to have people mediate our relationship with Christ. To act in the person of Christ as a minister in the Church, you need God to give you that mission, otherwise you are appointing yourself to a position beyond your stature. It's intrinsically evil to present yourself as someone's representative without their permission, and this is what any ordained man does unless he has received a mission to act as a minister in the Church. Christ did not promise you access to daily mass and weekly confession. If your local situation is so dire, then simply stay home. Make the three-hour drive to the next diocese once a month, and do what you can to fix the situation in your local Church.
@@tomthx5804 breakaway sect that still recognizes Rome as the head of the church? That’s a stretch. The bishop in my diocese cancelled all TLM as of 1 January. Me and mine will attend the SSPX chapel and still pray for Pope Francis, Rome, and the union of the Society and Rome for mutual spiritual enhancement.
Actually, it’s not. We truly do not have any of that available to us. When I mention problems in our local diocese I’m talking about gravely serious issues, not “Oh, we just don’t like the guitars.” We have actually had the Holy Spirit referred to as a woman during Mass. The vax compared to Mary’s fiat to God. One hour of confession available once a week. Baptisms done in large groups several times a year when the priest feels like it. “Jesus is not really a man or a woman.” A pro-life group would be too political. It just goes on and on. In one of the two churches there are no kneelers and no kneeling allowed. Our bishop also happens to have been Theodore McCarrick’s personal secretary so there’s not much hope in going to him. We have no options like ICKSP or FSSP. Not everyone lives in a heavily Catholic area. I’m a convert of five years and attending Mass with the Society is the first time I’ve met priests that really, truly care and have time to listen to you. I’ve seen nothing devisive, no “attitude of schism.” You better believe we have prayed and prayed on this one and done all our research. There is nothing but confusion and conflicting opinions about the Society online but ultimately I see no evidence of any true authority that says they are schismatic. In fact, I see quite the opposite, I see Bishop Schneider saying they are in no way schismatic. I also see the fruits, I see the true joy there and love of Jesus Christ and his bride the Church. I see Pope Francis’ picture in the entryway and prayed for during the Mass. We are not schismatics, we love Holy Mother Church and we have had to make the difficult decision for our family to drive an hour both ways every Sunday to leave our local parish and go where we find true Catholic orthodoxy. Please pray for us, for the Pope and for the Church that this whole situation may become unnecessary. God bless you.
I will never argue with a person about attending the SSPX. In these demonic and terrible times in the Church we can only do what we can to defend our families and hold to the true Faith passed on for 2000 years. Under normal circumstances one should not attend the SSPX. Again, not going to ever condemn anyone for doing so. If you are a Novus Ordo only person - so be it. Enjoy. But...I do think where a bishop unjustly forbids the TLM and there are no other genuine alternative to the happy-slappy Susan-from-the- parish Novus Ordo with guitars and hand-holding, no Eastern Catholic, Anglican Ordinariate...I'm going to SSPX. But in our diocese we have a reputation for numerous Novus Ordo unicorn Masses - ad orientem, Latin, chant, incense, male only severs, Holy Communion kneeling and on tongue from priests, etc. Still I would prefer a low TLM over High NO. My preference of course.
Thank God that where I live in Mexico, Novus Ordo Masses are generally well done. I've never encountered any of what's mentioned in the discussions of NO vs TLM. I'm praying for the unity of the Church in the world. It seems our brothers in the US need it desperately.
I'm in switzerland. Very much a western land. But our NO masses are reverent. Even in modern ugly churches. I have the impression it's more some type of revolutionary spirit that gripped the US in the chaos after the council. The US was founded with a revolution after all. And so the liturgy was bent to their own image and... dare I say it... 'boomerized'. I know Germany has a similar problem, and they have a history of overly 'reforming' as well. And now there's a revolution going on against the new liturgy, and round and round it goes... I'll pray for my US and German brothers and sisters
@@chiyo256 I have never seen this in Mexico. Only a few parishes I have been to in thee US have that but thankfully things are getting better. A seemingly modern parish I have been going to for years got a young Filipino priest who is reverent and does not look for applauses. Our new older priest is reverent too.
@@chiyo256 That doesn't generally happen in my parish and some others I attend. I even see women with veils. Also, communion in hand is the way Apostles did it. I don't think it's the best for our times, for sure, but let's relax a little. Saludos desde Jalisco.
2:10:00 I read that Bishop Lefevre was promised to be able to concentrate another bishop and that the consecration date was summarily canceled by Rome on several occasions and that is why he did what he did, because ot became clear Rome was acting in bad faith, that is the claim whether true or not I am no authority. Painfully aware of the game's chanceries/curias play, it is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility.
@@AnaMT1985 Do you have evidence to that effect or just how you feel about them? They do constantly accuse the Roman Curia of acting in bad faith. I realize it could be merely a projection but don't have great confidence either in the power brokers in Vatican City.
@@majorpuggington Does the actual correspondence between Rome and Lefebvre count as evidence? That is the evidence that Salza references, which I believe is also on his website.
It's a bit rich when someone says the SSPX have a false sense of tradition. So Rome has a better sense of tradition? Surely, the only body in schism is modernist Rome. How can tradition be wrong? Or is revolution, permanent revolution, now enthroned as tradition, the only tradition, in Rome today.
This is one of the most important conversations that we currently deal with. It forces people to identify and adhere to the one true body of the Catholic Church. The rejection of leftist errors does not mean we should jump on the bandwagon of schismatic groups. God bless to John, Matt, dude who is on the mic, Lofton, Dom, Andrew, and all others who are on the forefront of defending Catholic Orthodoxy.
@@deus_vult8111 Papal Addresses can absolutely be considered magisterial in nature if there is a definitive statement on matters regarding faith/morals/disciplines. The fact that the pope, in Singulari Quadam, explicitly says “for it must be held by Faith” directly followed by a statement of doctrine, makes clear that this fits the criteria for being within the bounds of the Magisterium.
This was an excellent interview and my first PWA live since discovering Matt's channel a few months ago. I'm glad to say that I'm in R.C.I.A currently and eagerly await my baptism and confirmation this upcoming Easter. Thank you so much Matt Fradd for aiding in the Grace of The Holy Spirit. Gloria Patri!
I’m only 30 minutes in but this is by far the most in depth discussion of SSPX I’ve seen on TH-cam. Extremely helpful. Thank you so much Matt for hosting this-it will be so beneficial to so many!!
The former high ranking freemason John Salza who made an oath to Lucifer and renounced Jesus Christ before his "conversion" to the Vatican II church and who now eagerly tries to bring all who want to be traditional catholics into that institution in which someone who builds temples for pagan god worship and who prays on the wailing wall "in which HaShem dwells" for the coming of "their" Moshiach must be venerated as a saint is proven to be a complete spiritual fraud in an audio file named "John Salza's Lies, Errors and Dishonesty" here on TH-cam. I suggest you also study the article entitled "John Salza Has No Idea What He’s Talking About" (you can google it).
In light of Mr. Salza's point that the Liturgy is tied to a parish Church - what does that say about the Immemorial Mass not being permitted in parish Churches anymore but only shrines and oratories and such? I am an indefatigable proponent that the Immemorial Latin Mass cannot be denied to the faithful (as Quo Primum and B16 state). I would say that if you have access to a licit TLM (FSSP, ICSKP, etc.) you should go there. In absence of a licit TLM and your only access is SSPX you can go there. If a bishop will not provide for his faithful then he is derelict. I think common sense, good will, and a reasonable sense of fidelity is the guide here. I have friends that go to SSPX and have flourished spiritually. They don't "harbor a sense of schism". They found their home there and have flourished.. So it cannot be said the Holy Spirit does not work there. But for decorum and sake of scandal you should go to diocesan approved TLM. But again, in absence of diocesan approved one may go to SSPX for a blanket ban or denial is illegitimate (Quo Primum and B16).
Woe unto ye lawyers! For ye have taken away the keys of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered. = Luke 11:52
To Reject the Bishops and the Pope Authority is to be an Anathema to Christ. Council of Trent Session 23, 24, and 14. You cant fight scandal by committing scandal.
@@auniversalwoman you can listen to it also and it is eye opening to say the least. Fr. Murr's interview with patrick coffin is fascinating also, ive listened to that 3 times i think. Of course there is also Dr. Marshalls book 'Infiltration".... so much out there, no reason to not understand that V2 was a liberal revolution. John XXIII and Paul VI were NOT good for the Church at all!
@@oldtimmy9481check the historical record, the Church itself goes against Bishops and Popes. That's a lame excuses for obedience, and it wouldn't mean anything anyway, even if True.
Some of the points Salza makes are good and need to be discussed more. Other points he makes are not very accurate. I sympathize with Salza's analysis, but his tools of analysis are somewhat inadequate. One general impression I had here is that Salza lets his lawyer mentality show on numerous occasions. That’s not necessarily a good thing, because the mindset of Canon Law is not the same as the mindset of American / English civil law. Part of the reason for this is the difference between English Law systems and Roman Law systems. They are two different ways of thinking about law. An American lawyer studies American Law, which is based on the English Law system. I find myself agreeing with a number of Salza’s observations, because I've lived through these situations and I’ve been forced to confront the questions he raises. But at the same time, I disagree with the angle of John Salza's approach, because he focuses too much on what he calls the "legal reality" of the Church. There is a "legal reality" in the Church, of course, but that "legal reality" is not the "core reality" of the Catholic Church and never has been. The core reality of the Catholic Church is a theological reality that exists at the level of grace and charity. The legal reality is a human creation that exists to serve that core divine reality. I agree with Salza in what he mentions about certain arguments in the "crisis series" that the SSPX has on TH-cam. They correctly enunciate a doctrine and then they don't seem to understand that they're contradicting it in their actions. "It's a mystery," they have to say. LOL When discussing necessity, Salza made an interesting point about how claiming “necessity” cannot become a reason to circumvent divine law. That should be discussed more! Unfortunately, Salza doesn't have a good grasp of where to draw the line between what is divine and what is ecclesiastical / human in the Church. He messed up on that a couple of times. So, there is certainly a lesson the SSPX needs to take on this point, but the point needs to be made with a better grasp of what that looks like in ecclesiology. Overall, Salza errs on the side of assuming that things are of divine institution when, in fact, many are of human / ecclesiastical institution. I was particularly irritated by how frequently he said "X is infallible". He got several of those assertions partially wrong, because in most cases there’s part that’s divine and part that’s human, and knowing where to draw the line is the key. Some of the things that Salza wants to be rock-solid "infallible" truths are, in fact, human constructs. Two tricky things for the civil lawyer mentality to grasp: (1) how law and doctrine evolve over time in the Church, and (2) evaluating how much we are uncertain about at any given point in that evolution. One problem that really jumped out at me was Salza's lack of nuance about the position, prerogatives, and selection process of Bishops in the Church. This has evolved significantly over time, and yet Salza just throws out "it's infallible" like candy. Salza's analysis of supplied jurisdiction for confessions was way off. Salza got hung up on the idea of "judgment of the community" like it's a specific and well-defined legal concept (it isn't, but I'm sure his lawyer mind wishes it were lol). He also failed to mention that there is more than one way to have supplied jurisdiction. Looking through my files I found an interview by Salza from 2007 wherein he refutes the argument he just gave in 2023. (You can look this up: Robert Sungenis interviewed John Salza in 2007 about his ongoing dispute with James Akin. The argument presented by Salza in 2007 is a good refutation of Salza’s own 2023 misunderstanding of the “judgment of the community” question.) Salza's take on where you can fulfill your Sunday obligation was bizarre. In canon law, the bar is low (like, really low) for what counts as fulfilling your Sunday obligation. So I was rolling my eyes when Salza put on his lawyer mode and started saying "let me tell you about some legalese nobody has ever heard of". And, no, your local bishop doesn’t get to decide what fulfills your Sunday obligation. Your local bishop might be a canon lawyer (or have one on staff, hopefully) and they can help interpret the law for you, but they don’t determine the law in this case. These oddities aside, I still think Salza is raising some worthwhile points, even when the way he got to the conclusion isn't quite right. In other words, I’d like to see some of these arguments reformulated with correct theology / ecclesiology, thereby rendering this critique of the SSPX more correct and potent.
The Sunday obligation and supplied jurisdiction moments were big eye rollers for me as well. The jurisdiction issue was given like none of the nuance it requires (how far the concept of common error should go was a debated point in the time of the study he cited and the new code actually appears to fall on the opposite side from Salza). And his explanation of the Sunday obligation was one of the most esoteric interpretations of canon law Ive ever heard lol. I even broke out my own commentary to double check that I wasn’t losing it. I wasn’t…
@berryjones1327 it’s the Canon Law Society of America study edition from Paulist Press. It’s not the absolute best (I’ve seen things that seem on the liberal side but I expect that from Paulist Press lol) I should pick one up at some point that I like better but it’s good for demonstrating what the prevailing mainstream interpretations are. Perhaps needless to say, designated locations for fulfilling a Sunday obligation is not in there lol. Salza kept mentioning “sui iuris” over and over again as if that isn’t a term that refers exclusively in canon law to a self governing Eastern hierarchy… 😂
I'm glad somebody wrote this. I am a lawyer, and I found myself cringing at Salza's commentary over and over. I actually found this to be a brutal interview, probably because I do this for a living and understand his argument structures and their limitations. His commentary and arguments will sound impressive to the untrained ear, but I just found myself raising numerous questions and realizing that many of his points were cherry-picked.
It would be so illuminating to have an SSPX theologian/ well versed priest on to respond to the statements made in the podcast! 😊 It would give light to the argument so people can see both sides and not be left in confusion! 😇
This was an excellent interview. I just want to thank Dr. Salza and Mr. Fradd for making it happen. May God bless you both and may God protect Holy Mother Church 🙏🏻
I'm 30 minute into this, and I am not liking the vibes so far, (as he's making all one-sided arguments and cherry picking what suits his position, like a Protestant.). Also from what I have seen in past. . Plus he needs to be scrutinized closely as he reportedly was a 32 nd Degree Freemason, now with an agenda to shape Catholics, as he has been active for years at this. So any wonder his position?? . This is a long vid , so I will have to give him his Time to lay it all out, this is still early. . (Been attending Trad Mass for past years with occasional N.O.) I'd like to see him and Brother Peter Dimond debate for extended, thorough debate. That would be very helpful for Catholics.
@@24erstad - well, firstly, I have to finish the vid. Hearing anyone's one-line advice or opinion, no disrespect no intended., doesn't say anything. , you provide nothing to back it up.,and I don't know what you know or don't know. Have you seen the vids about the heresies of the past 4 or 5 popes? (Vatican catholic channel) Have you seen "Apocalypse Now ..." vid by Bros. Dimond? Have you seen Bro. Dimond debate. other guy on Pints w Aquinas? Bro Dimond clearly prevailed, not debate points, but substance. . It's not enough to say Sed is not the answer. (I never attended SSPX, btw). It seems the main question is whether V2 Church from Vatican is the anti-church. (If so, WHY,?) I want to practice Catholicism, but I don't want to be under a false Church. It is obviously pagan and not Catholic / Christian at the top. The actual Sr. Lucy said we are in final Times. If you can see all that is documented in those vids and explain to me that what is in Vatican is true Catholicism and not th count-church, that Our Lady of La Saltte, and reportedly Put Lady of Fatima spoke of , then I'm listening.. As I said, I will see what all JS includes and what he avoids. And I will certainly give him his chance and take in what all he says. I will check back in later, and pls do sam if u watch those vids! My only agenda is truth.
@@eoinmcg88 - If so, add THAT to the abominations of what looks like the Whore of Babylon and not the true RCC. (Bro, Ptr Dimond makes a great case for the former ,, which is why I'd like to see those 2 in an extended debate. Time for the feet of opposing sides to be held to the fire. Put it out there for everyone to see. - BUT with enough Time to get it all out there so that audience is adequately informed of content . rather than judge by debate skills, and may truth prevail. ..l
You go to the SSPX Mas for 15 years and then decide to look into whether they are valid… see right through this interview in 15 min, not 15 years. 9:15 You are an attorney and you’re very articulate and smart. Reading between the line, it’s a classic example of a compromiser. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. You had things right in the first three minutes of the interview… And then after 15 years something changed? Come clean… What’s your real beef with the SSPX? Because what you said in the interview is not the real reason! Anyone with a good eye sees right through this.
Well said. Perhaps he should've started his story when he was a Freemason. I'd be interested to hear about how he formally broke with Freemasonry and became Catholic. His lines are clearly rehearsed and he speaks like a politician constantly using the person he is speaking to's name in answers. Let us see Salza in live debate in PWA.
thank you for doing this interview! My husband and I nearly fell for the lies of the society shortly after becoming Catholic sadly because of certain commentators we were listening to. John Salza did an amazing job, he is so clear, knowledgable & articulate!
"I think most people who dont like their local Novus Ordo aren't involved, you can make a lot of changes very quickly by getting involved, usually there's not many people really volunteering" I took this from the chat and it's absolutely true.
It's absolutely true. We have Gregorian chant sung at every Mass as well as a new High Altar and Communion rails. The priest also says the Mass ad Orientem. All because parishioners were asking for it and they stepped in to help run the choir and teach altar boys
My brother was very involved in his local parish and was constantly met with resistance as priest after priest participated in liturgical abuses - and when he would point it out he was castigated and ridiculed - and even when he brought official publications from the church that would go over liturgical rubrics, the priest still wouldn’t listen. And when writing to his bishop - deaf ears. He now attends a local TLM - has to drive an hour to get there It really shouldn’t have to be this way.
@@mikeoconnor4590 it really should not have to be, but you're brother will be rewarded not only for his courage in asking for proper changes, but also for his bearing the abuses to adore His Lord and Savior. You're brother won't have to answer for these priests and Bishops sins. Bad clergy doesn't make the Church not the Church. Christ promised us He would never abandon us, he didn't promise us good and holy clergy.
This conversation was great and helped a lot. I have never nor did I ever want to attend a SSPX Mass. I still do not. However I do have to say the live chat during this show was frankly appalling. 1/ Sedes in the comments acting out. As they do. 2/ Mods and others being absolutely *callous* and uncharitable to those struggling with bad masses and difficult feelings about liturgy and other issues. MANY people do not have access to another other than a "typical" Novus Ordo. Some only have access to spiritually troubling ones. To be told to "get over it" and be repeatedly shouted down from questions was more than a little ridiculous. Those asking questions were repeatedly told to basically hush and listen, even when we clarified we were listening and simply were not understanding or needed clarification. Also, incorrect information was given about TC by mods. TC did not just "give power back to bishops". Two diocese in my state were told directly, after asking for clarification from Rome, to remove all TLMs from any parish setting. It was not left up to the bishops. It was stated they HAD to move, including one that had been at a cathedral since before Summorum. TLMs that our bishops *support* and have no issues with. And Rome told them they could no longer be in any parish. These well established communities were pushed out of long standing parish relationships. Apparently though, my direct experience isn't in line with what several mods insist is the truth about TC. I'm not one to use the term "gaslighting" lightly, but mods were absolutely skirting close to treating the audience that way during the live chat. I love Pints, appreciate this conversation and interview, but felt the above needed to be said.
Agreed. My diocese was known for it's abundant TLMs but our Bishop was *told* to remove permissions to preform them anymore. Not asked or given any other options. This is true across the board I believe.
In America, it is socially and psychologically very very important to be able to look at some group and say, “I’m not as religious as *THAT* I’m better than them cuz I’m less religious.” The only ones Catholics really have to crap on this way are other more conservative Catholics.
You should attend an SSPX Mass, which is valid and fulfils the Sunday obligation according to Rome, in order to solve the conflict between Rome and Econe.
My entire family started attending the SSPX during Covid because it was the only church that was open. But slowly things started to get tremendously more radical and my heart is completely broken. Everything in this video answered the questions I've had for years now but whenever I wanted to ask the SSPX priest there wasn't any room to other than in confession which was for "confession" and a massive line was waiting after you. Everything Salza said in this video is exactly true to what happened to my family. My questions started when my parents said I couldn't go to the diocesan Latin Mass because they were giving communion on the hand under the Cardinal's orders. They started saying things like "as soon as it is given in the hand, it's no longer Jesus, it's just a wafer". But then they would say "we don't want to go to Novus Ordo Masses because there's Jesus all over the ground from them giving communion on the hand" it was so contradictory and warped but questioning wasn't allowed. Slowly one by one, it's gotten worse and now they refer to anything I say as "having the Novus Ordo demon" which I think was said about me by an SSPX priest to my parents. Their attacks on me and anyone inside the Church including our pope and clergy is purely attacks on their person and never the argument. Please pray for my parents and family and me. They really need it right now 🙏🏽💕
Who is "they"? A priest would never say Holy Communion suddenly ceases to be consecrated because it was handed to a lay person. The real horror of Communion in the hand is that it is the consecrated species, assuming the Mass was offered with the correct intentions etc Please don't confuse some of the ignorant weirdos who attend mass at the chapel with The Society proper.
Sounds like a weird experience, but these are not the positions of the Society as I've head them. The Novus Ordo is certainly illicit per Canon 13, Session 7 of the Council of Trent. The TLM is the Catholic Mass.
@@Felatay by "they" I mean my own parents. I'm speaking from my heart and what I have seen happen. I fully agree that communion on the tongue is much more respectful but that doesn't mean attending a LATIN MASS within the diocese which is closer to my house and ONLY gives communion on tongue should be something to fear.
@@backwaterfarmer it may sound "weird" to you but the sad truth is it is a reality for me. My parents who have started attending the society are completely confused. They refuse to attend any Latin mass except for that of the society even if it's the Latin Mass within the diocese that is given by the Oratorian fathers who who provide Latin mass. I'm so tired of all this confusion, fighting and division. I wish none of this on any Catholic family.
@@backwaterfarmer don't be a Protestant and quote one line out of context. But regardless, since you have quoted just one line let me explain what that line means. It states: "If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema." Believe it or not, but the "New Mass" was, however unfortunate, an "APPROVED" rite of the church. How was it approved? It was approved by the council convened by the Vicar of Christ. Just as there has been a Dominican rite, or Ukrainian rite, there have been many "approved" rites post Trent.
@@24erstad Trust me, they couldn't keep from name calling all while preaching to refrain from name calling. I believe their favorite one was "dingus". Maybe they were very efficient at hiding inappropriate comments, but if that's the case there was still no need for their rude responses to a bunch of invisible people.
As an ordinary layman with no training in Canon law anI absolutely no ability to weigh in on the SSPX, I have only one question. What's wrong with the Vatican that they let this issue go on and on in massive confusion without a definitive resolution?
I was thinking about it, and I think it's because the pope's know that if they're too forceful and too conclusive, that will most likely cause the SSPX clergy to reactively counter whatever they say and lead all of their flock to full, irreversible schism. The route they're taking now, the magisterium doesn't want the people who attend SSPX masses to wholesale say the Catholic Church is evil. I think their strategy is to make it so the SSPX hangs themselves with their own rope by being so irrational that it's obvious to the layman. Unfortunately, most of these radtrads are very poorly catechized and most likely catechized by the SSPX, so they're drinking the Kool-Aid. I recommend watching the video "John Salza - 'Is the Society of St. Pius X in Schism?'" by pioneercatholic and watch the Q&A section to see how unhinged the SSPX are. They literally sound like Baptist fundamentalist conspiracy theorists who say that that the Jesuits are controlling the world and want to assassinate Protestants.
Sadly, this guest seems to stereotype those that attend the TLM. That is rash judging. I attend the TLM at a hermitage. Believe me, it was not because of the "bells and whistles ". I am still learning. All I know is that, after that first Mass, I was in love with Jesus - even after I struggled during that Mass - as I didn't know what was going on.
@@charlieanderson5952 The Dimonds are very good at showing the errors of protestantism, they explain the errors of the eastern orthodox and they defend the sede position very well. Salza said he could debunk any sede argument. Salza should show the Dimonds wrong and put them in their place.
I never heard of any Salsa nominated as a speaker for the Church. If this interview without contradictory has any reliability at all, why when bishop Vitus Hounder asked to Pope Francis he said that SSPX are not in schism or schismatic?
I'm gonna be honest, I tuned out when he made the point about countries being put under interdict. These countries were put under interdict because the leaders gave a public refusal of a lawful order of the Vatican. Which is a crime. What crime did we commit to be effectively put under the same punishment? How did we "get off light" for a sentence we're not guilty of?.
I attend mass at an SSPX chapel. By no means would I refer to myself as an “SSPXer” since I don’t really feel comfortable throwing my support behind any of the prevalent camps in a sort of “party affiliation” style manner. All of them have things I agree and disagree with and I don’t fit neatly into a box that way. There’s certainly things you can criticize the Society about. Some of them fairly enough were brought up in this discussion. However, unfortunately I felt that the vast majority of Mr. Salza’s arguments relied on massive mischaracterizations of the positions held by actual Society members and parishioners, fallacious inclusion or at least implication of conclusions in his premises, consistent strawmanning of Society arguments, as well as what to me sounded like blatant falsehoods. I’m disappointed that the case for the Societies position has been presented so poorly and I hope Matt will consider having someone else on who shares more sympathy with the SSPX, maybe someone who attends a chapel, or even one of their priests, to represent a steel man case.
How is this a "misrepresentation" of the SSPX's position? Sounds like you're just hurt that someone called you out on hard truths. The reactionary attitude of the SSPX has not helped the Church's position in the world. What's saddening is that the beauty of the Mass in which the SSPX values is pridefully overcome by the arrogance to not find reconciliation with Rome. Pope Benedict XVI opened the door for healing, and yet the leadership stayed as stubborn as their founder did. Pride cometh before the fall, both progressively and reactionary. So please - explain the mischaracterizations (massive mischaracterizations, in your terms.)
While I enjoy John Salza pointing out canonical law, one thing I wish @PintsWithAquinas did was have someone like Bp. Bernard Fellay debate Mr. Salzas. Why Bp. Fellay? He was with the SSPX from the 1970s and was one of the bishops consecrated at Ecône and later became their Superior General from 1994 through 2018. In a video I saw of him (th-cam.com/video/bmcIGIPrFd4/w-d-xo.html), he mentioned Abp. Lefebvre corresponded with the Vatican but that they kept pushing back the date as to when he could consecrate bishops. According to Bp. Fellay, he said once Abp. Lefebvre informed the Vatican he was going to consecrate bishops (plural) as he got tired of waiting for a response from them, he stated the Vatican acquiesced and agreed to allow them to consecrate one bishop on August 15th but he had to provide them names of three new candidates from scratch. Why was Abp. Lefebvre in a hurry? He was diagnosed with cancer in 1983 and by the mid 1980s grew increasingly ill. At the time the SSPX was corresponding with then Cardinal Ratzinger and Abp. Lefebvre sensed the Vatican was playing a waiting game. According to Bp. Fellay in the video the eventually pushed the date back again to November and then Ratzinger responded with he didn't know when they would allow him to consecrate a bishop - at this point, according to Bp. Fellay, Abp. Lefebvre decided to go ahead with the consecrations thinking they're waiting for him to run out his personal time. I am in no way justifying what the SSPX did. I'm more interested in two knowledgeable experts, one on Canon Law, and another a witness and participant to the events that unfolded meting out the truth. The truth for everyone's benefit. Everyone who is faitfhful. I imagine there will be new information both sides had not heard before or ever considered. And again, I think everyone wants to discover the truth in fuller detail.
@@gruntpadre5337 There can be no "reconciliation," for Rome has fulfilled the prophecy of LaSallette. Rome has lost the Faith. When Rome chooses to be Catholic and not an agent and power pushing the agenda of the NWO, unity will be acheived. Salza's arguments convinces no one, for the Church has never FORMALLY condenmed the FSSPX in schism. In the 50 years of their existence, I have seen no evidence of this position. If Salza wanted to argue his point, he should be speaking to a reliable authority on the Society, and not to some pod caster who's had questionable moments on his show in the past. He is merely feeding more rubbish to those who agree with him. I will remain with Bishop Anthanasius Scheider, (who was assigned in the past to monitor them, and spent two weeks in an SSPX seminary), Archbishop Vigano, and Father Gerald Murray, a canon lawyer, who have repeatedely stated their non schismatic status. Salza is a mere layman, and has no power, nor authority to declare what is schismatic. This former Freemason's position and stance is well known, so he can continue to pontificate until the cows come home. In the light of what has happened to the Church in our times, he's just water under the bridge. We give thanks for the courage and determination of Archbishop Marcel Lefevebre, in his struggle to save the holy patrimony of Mother Church, and may God bless the work of the priests of the SSPX!
@@TonyG8297 You are correct about the situation that existed with the Archbishop prior to the Consecrations. Rome was giving the Archbishop the run around. They were waiting for him to die, hoping that his death would precipitate the demise of his movement. Anyone familiar with the life of the Archbishop, is fully aware of Rome's shabby treatment of him during his latter years. Horrendous when one considers how the man spent most of his life on this planet by bringing untold numbers to Christ, and a faithful son of the Church. The media and his Modernist, Novus Ordite, enemies made a rebel out of the him, but he was never such a thing. He remained true and loyal to the Catholic Church, and not the "ape of the church."
@@LUIS-ox1bv My concern is, and no disrespect to Bp. Fellay as I believe he means well, is he said Abp. Lefebvre told him he was getting the run around. So it’s hearsay … in other words I don’t know if there’s any document to back up what Abp. Lefebvre told Bp. Fellay. But even then my question is assuming documents proving this exist, or both are telling the truth, why was the Vatican delaying the consecration of a bishop? Was their concern the Traditional Latin Mass? Or was it because of the actions of Abp. Lefebvre? Remember, the church suppressed the SSPX in 1975, suspended Abp. Lefebvre who continued to ordain priests irregardless and was suspended a divinis. Again, was the concern with the TLM or Abp. Lefebvre? Without access to documentation It is a mystery to me. I wonder if there is more to the story which is why I think Bp. Fellay and Mr. Salza should discuss / debate this on air with a moderator like @PintsWithAquinas.
I think John Salza said yes and looking at the willingness of Paul VI to allow the celebration of the old form. And that Lafevre and his disobedience has made things harder for the Latin Mass. even through all Lafevre’s disobedience the Holy See still was willing to work with him for the Latin Mass.
Wow, what a five-star guest! 25 minutes in and I’ve learned loads from this guy. Dr. Salza’s got a razor sharp legal mind. God bless you for bringing us these interviews, Matt 🙏. Greetings from Madrid 🇪🇸
@@helmanticus8624 Yes. Check into his background and you will find a lot to discredit him. Both Bishop Schneider and Bishop Huonder were sent by Rome to investigate the SSPX and both of them found that the SSPX are not schizmatics. I would believe them over this mason who just wants to drive up his book sales. Salza has written books, supposedly tell-alls of Freemasonry and the SSPX which are sensationalized fictional accounts, not accurate at all.
Fr Cekada sure put him in his place. Notice how Salza ignores the elephant in the room I.e. the Vatican II revolution ; the papal imposters, Assisi and Pachamama etc. This guy is really clever.
Vatican II was a valid council called by the Pope. It is a part of the magisterium now, and numerous succeeding Popes have made it clear we have to give our ascent to its teachings. We are laity. It is not our role to question. We are not princes of the Church. The Pope is a supreme monarch! Jesus gave Peter the keys, no one else!
La Salette is approved On 19 September 1851, the local bishop formally approved the public devotion and prayers to Our Lady of La Salette. On 21 August 1879, Pope Leo XIII granted a canonical coronation to the image now located within the Basilica of Our Lady of La Salette
@@eoinmcg88 he left freemasonry years and years and years ago. He’s given a bunch of talks that explain what happened to him in that organization and how freemasonry is a demonic entity. He recognized his error and left.
@@reinelantz3304 I know that, the point is his local priest told him he could join the freemasons, salza is saying go to Mass with your local priest instead of the sspx lol
Wow! John should stop with the legalism and his perspective is absurd. That said, John's rationalization downplaying how bishops caved in response to the COVID response is by far more telling. You don't need hindsight to know they were wrong there and you don't have to be a covid skeptic to recognize not having access to the faith was extremely problematic. What happened to John...
You may have heard the words he used, but you didn't hear what the man was saying. He clearly opposes the COVID lock-down, but it's a prudential judgment of our superiors which is within their competency. Sometimes we have to submit to orders we don't like-that comes with obedience, which is an essential virtue.
@@Dack105 Within whose competency? It is immoral to assent to the actions and dictates of midwits and cowards. Bishops have proven time and time again how often they erred prudentially when dealing with faggotry and abuse. Your definition of obedience lacks seriousness and has more in common with the vice of cowardice.
This is super helpful but also painful. My in-laws are not in communion with Rome, wouldn't go to Mass with us during their visit and we couldn't talk about our marriage...still can't! It's just sad and frustrating. My sister in law wants to be a Godmother for one of our children and I don't think it'll be possible because of all of this. Gah it's upsetting!
I hear ya, this whole thing has ripped our family apart as well. Schism begets sin and destruction. It's rough. If you need someone to reach out to and talk to about it, feel free to reach out to me. 🙂
Matt seems to have a very limited understanding of the traditionalist movement - which is fine. A good start would be Michael Davies -3 book series on the crisis Book 1 Crammer s Godly order Book 2 Pope John’s Council Book3 Pope Paul s New Mass Davies accepts the legitimacy of the conciliar popes (as do I) but gives a sober overview of the problems since the council which were prefigured in the reformation Reading this three book series gives one a foundation in understanding the problems There are many other books on these issues but these three books are a very good start
@@ScreamingReel500 I have that catechism but admittedly have not read it entirely - my understanding is that this catechism has had to be revised due to errors but not entirely sure of the history there. Ultimately I accept the authority of the church and the pope so by extension accept what is authoritatively taught by the church
@@tomthx5804 Michael Davies provides many footnotes to show what he is saying is true I have found that the “company men” who are apologists for any and everything the church does today are the real biased folks
I’m moving the follow up to the top to be seen: I’m not going to SSPX anymore and I’m furious that they lied to me. Sorry to everyone I argued with on this topic. I reverted to the faith and landed in an SSPX mass on Christmas Eve. Afterwards I had the most powerful interaction with a priest I’ve ever had. I didn’t know anything about any of this at that moment, I just needed help. I don’t want to be at the front lines of interfaith civil war. Can we get some charity and compassion for the lost souls that just need help and don’t care for this. Unless the Pope clearly commands that I cannot attend, I’m going to keep going. Not a single thing uttered by the priest or a churchgoer (who have all been incredibly nice and welcoming) has smelled remotely of schism. Does that count for nothing? Follow up: I sent my bishop an email and we will see what he says. Second follow up: I’m not going to SSPX anymore.
@@thelogosproject7 are you going to come to the SSPX chapel and hear the other side? I’m still finishing the prior video about the shroud of Turin. I’m going to watch every second of that video as it absolutely nurtured my soul. I sent it to many friends (few of whom cared). Watching a minute or so of this video did not nurture my soul and I’m going to put a pin in discussions about schisms until I’m more solid in my new faith and prayer life. Call me a schist, I’ll be ok.
Such an interesting interview. As a fan of the TLM, it gave me a new speen on the motus proprio. Thanks you for posting this. I must say though, now I would love to hear someone from within the SSPX answer to this interview and to those arguments.
I think a moderated debate with @PintsWithAquinas with John Salza and former Superior General of the SSPX, Bishop Bernard Fellay, who was one of the bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, would be very interesting and eye opening.
I would love to hear Matt interview a competent person to speak to the positions and assertions of Mr. Salza.. Like a Bishop Athanasius Schneider (official Holy See delegate yo the SSPX) or a Mr. Jeff Cassman. I appreciate Mr. Salza and his testimony but I never rely on one man's opinion but try to objectively weigh all sides by equally competent persons. The SSPX certainly has its trouble spots - no doubt! Do they have some with schismatic tendencies- no doubt. Do FSSP communities have people with schismatic tendencies - no doubt. Do Novus Ordo parishes have openly homosexual priests (Milwaukee) and people that openly deny central tenets of Catholic dogma - in myriads! It boggles my mind that such small communities and "less than 1% of the Church" is such a threat and danger to the Church but Legion of heretical Catholics are not. You shall know them by their fruits. Last time I checked Madison WI is set to close 70% of their Novus Ordo parishes in the next few years! 70%!!! By their fruits you shall know them
Agree, except NOT Mr. Cassman - he's already been heard and he has a past that becomes prohibitive for serious discussion unfortunately (he's repented publicly, and made amends, etc. but still...) I would far prefer to hear a Society priest or one of their lay oblates.
Good point, its amazing how many modern Catholics flout Christian living, act like complete worldlings and remain safely in the bosom of the Church, it's laughable.
What's your argument? It seems most SSPX just get emotional more than not whenever the movement is criticized especially for doctrinal error, schism, or illicit sacraments.
That was some of the heartiest salza I've ever tasted that I forgot all about my corn chips and was satisfied washing it all down with pints of aqua-nice.
To Reject the Bishops and the Pope Authority is to be an Anathema to Christ. Council of Trent Session 23, 24, and 14. You cant fight scandal by committing scandal.
Thanks for this discussion. It would be really good to have an SSPX priest on to explain their side of the story. John Salza obviously does not come from the same view point at all. He does not talk as if there has been and is a major crisis in the Church since Vatican II. He quotes laws of the Church, which are given for normal times. These are not normal times. He doesn't seem to acknowledge the dangers of Vatican II and seems to suggest that if Archbishop Lefebvre had continued under his local bishop, all would have been fine - the Archbishop could have continued forming traditional priests for the Church. No, the modernists wanted tradition banished. Thank God for Archbishop Lefebvre. John Salza insinuates that Archbishop Lefebvre lost it a bit. Ridiculous and false. He was the most well grounded, faithful, clear-sighted and charitable of men. Everyone knows this. As for bishops advising that we may go to SSPX masses, Bishop Schneider and Archbishop Vigano tell us that we can and should (two of the most Catholic bishops we have). They have nothing but praise for the saintly Archbishop. Please do have an SSPX priest on to explain in detail the real crisis and their position. In Jesus, Mary and Joseph,
Sadly I have to contradict. The canon law is not only valid in normal times, but always. Mostly Divine law is not changeable. And if it were true that because of the church’s current situation it weren’t normal times, who could decide that? It’s of course not up to individuals lay or ordained, but for the whole church. And if we look into church history I guess every time wasn’t normal and there has always been a sort of crisis…so it remains the same that canon law is valid.
This podcast is very deceptive. The host is not challenging the guest on many points regarding the subject. If the Holy See recognizes the masses said by the SSPX as valid, the confessions heard by the SSPX as valid, the marriages witnessed as valid, and the money donated as legitimate, what is this guy’s issue? A definite axe to grind and a hang up on his part. The SSPX is completely legitimate and this podcast is leading people astray with incorrect information and misleading statements. The host should be more careful to ask pressing and relevant questions.
By the way, their marriages are only valid if they have the authorization of the local ordinary. Because they have no jurisdiction. Don't leave this out when accusing the podcast of deception...
John Salsa, you're wrong on so many points. You need to do your homework and learn the issues correctly. I'm surprised you were chosen to be on this podcast. I only hope those who listen to this interview are not misled by your psychological huxturism!😢
No, he isn't. He is right on the money. Lefebvre was a schismatic, as is the SSPX as a whole. The amount of evidence against them is staggering, there is no way that anybody can look at the history of Lefebvre and the SSPX and judge them as being in full submission to the Church.
@@thelogosproject7 well, considering he backed out of a debate with Kennedy Hall on that very topic but Fradd still had him on tells me that an actual invitation needs to be made.
Well done, John Salza👏👏 I have been waiting for you to do an interview like this. I myself got caught in Sedevacantism, and your Book and material helped get me out of it. I then went with the SSPX way for years and departed approximately 5 years ago, now attending TLM and NO adhering to Diocesan Bishop, etc. and never felt better! Keep up the solid work... you follow through with great, clear, concise style, clearing things up for the Church. Live Jesus our love and Mary our hope!
Hi Joshua! Over on my channel I host interviews with former Trads. It's helped a lot of people looking for answers and someone they can relate to. I would love to hear your story of what got you in and out of Sedevacantism, if you ever feel inclined to share! God bless you!
@@bobsmith425 No lie. This was originally supposed to be a debate with Kennedy Hall, until Kennedy backed out. Per Kennedy's email, "I will decline debating him, and he can say ‘Kennedy declined to debate me.” They reached out to the Society, and heard crickets. You're ignorant of the situation.
@@24erstad Since when is some layman the standard for the SSPX refusing to debate. Let them get an SSPX priest to demolish their false claims. John Salza himself was a long time defender of the SSPX. Don't forget that ! He could himself demolish his own false claims if he had any real integrity !
@@bobsmith425 Kennedy was the only one to respond to a debate request. The SSPX priests simply refused to the debate. When is the last time you've seen an SSPX priest do a public debate?
I yearn for the mystery, awe and reverence of feeling that I’m in the presence of and worshiping God, who is above all; that makes me conscious that He is God and I am NOT.
OK so the SSPX are in schism but what do you think is going to happen when it happens again? When the gates of the coral are closed before the sheep are able to get inside and inevitably will look for other corals outside their own jurisdiction?. Because to me it's going to happen all over again and it's not the making of the SSPX.
Completely forgotten here it seems is the acknowledgement of a crisis without precedent which is undeniable and the highest law which is the salvation of souls. The Society's superiors are in constant contact with Rome and always have been, just like Archbishop Lefebvre wished. They visit in person to this day.
Thank you for this video. Dr Salza is very clear and articulate in explaining the situation with the SSPX, Pope Francis, Sedevecantism, and other issues. I wish I heard this talk earlier. I was so confused.
He has made serious errors. He stated that the priest don't have the faculties to say the mass. They do as the SSPX mass is valid and the SSPX are not considered "schismatic", according to Pope Francis. However, it is illicit. We are not supposed to receive communion at an SSPX mass. He claimed that the SSPX regards Archbishop Lefebvre over the magisterium. That's false. They cling to the concerns that Lefebvre had about the second Vatican and modernism as well as heresy in the clergy. They even point out heretical statements from not only JP2, but Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis who we all know is the most "soft on crime" Pope we've had in the last 100 years or so. He's used terms like "I think that..", "they say..", "I haven't seen any evidence in contrary to.." There are a lot of opinions in his argument. I'll give you a small example - The SSPX had a problem with priests in NO mass placing the bread in the hands of the laity instead of the tongue because the early protestants did this as they didn't believe in the real present of Christ's body, blood, soul, and divinity in the Eucharist. I'm not a SSPX apologist, but I believe in a fair fight.
The former high ranking freemason John Salza who made an oath to Lucifer and renounced Jesus Christ before his "conversion" to the Vatican II church and who now eagerly tries to bring all who want to be traditional catholics into that institution in which someone who builds temples for pagan god worship and who prays on the wailing wall "in which HaShem dwells" for the coming of "their" Moshiach must be venerated as a saint is proven to be a complete spiritual fraud in an audio file named "John Salza's Lies, Errors and Dishonesty" here on TH-cam. I suggest you also study the article entitled "John Salza Has No Idea What He’s Talking About" (you can google it).
I have recently moved in the last year to a new state… unfortunately the nearest FSSP church is three hours away… so we have been going to the Novus ordo mass. I can tell you the things I see there take all the joy out of Sunday mass. when I converted to Catholicism I was very joyful… unfortunately I find it very hard to be joyful now… especially at mass.
Matt Thank you again for doing this interview! I want to plead with you to please continue to interview folks explaining the schism of the society. I know its not fun to talk about but these talks truly are bringing people back from schism, heresy, or at least being on the brink. Without videos like this my husband and I may have completely fallen for the societies schism. Please don’t stop, souls need this! God bless & so thankful for John Salza he explained everything so well God bless him
This is going to be great to watch! I recently did an “SSPX Roundtable” with John, Andrew Bartel, and Dom of the Logos Project. You guys may enjoy that as well! God bless! Dustin
I really appreciated John’s approach to this. He’s so knowledgeable of the historical facts behind all of this and is able to communicate them calmly and clearly. This was so informative!
The former high ranking freemason John Salza who made an oath to Lucifer and renounced Jesus Christ before his "conversion" to the Vatican II church and who now eagerly tries to bring all who want to be traditional catholics into that institution in which someone who builds temples for pagan god worship and who prays on the wailing wall "in which HaShem dwells" for the coming of "their" Moshiach must be venerated as a saint is proven to be a complete spiritual fraud in an audio file named "John Salza's Lies, Errors and Dishonesty" here on TH-cam. I suggest you also study the article entitled "John Salza Has No Idea What He’s Talking About" (you can google it).
Man, I've always heard good things about Salza, but this is my first time listening to him and I'm blown away. Can't wait to dive into the full video. Thanks for the great discussion guys!
The former high ranking freemason John Salza who made an oath to Lucifer and renounced Jesus Christ before his "conversion" to the Vatican II church and who now eagerly tries to bring all who want to be traditional catholics into that institution in which someone who builds temples for pagan god worship and who prays on the wailing wall "in which HaShem dwells" for the coming of "their" Moshiach must be venerated as a saint is proven to be a complete spiritual fraud in an audio file named "John Salza's Lies, Errors and Dishonesty" here on TH-cam. I suggest you also study the article entitled "John Salza Has No Idea What He’s Talking About" (you can google it).
Thank you for this discussion. It gives so much clarity about an issue I’ve been turning over in my mind a lot recently. The Latin Mass was crucial in my reversion to the faith. It should be a point of unity, not division.
@@tradtruth If everyone agreed that Matthew 16:13-18 means what the Church always says then we already know the answer. Since people rejected the Council Teachings, even the Council of Trent who taught the same things as the Second Vatican Council about Matthew 16:13-18, we don't have the same agreement and submission to the Holy See. Since both Councils say the same thing about the Magisterium has the authority. You rejected that and most of the TLM laity which contradict to what you said. Please read the Catechism of the Council of Trent "Need of an Authoritative Catholic Catechism" (page 9).
@@eoinmcg88 and some people might say, they rather stay away from a society started by schismatic freemasons that hijacked a mass rite and holding it hostage.
I suppose it’s always easier to criticize the SSPX, the Ortho’s, Byzantine’s, etc, than to be forced to face the real schisms and heresies in our own diocese (that we can do nothing about). Now we can all feel better about ourselves and go back to sleep reassured. Remember you’re watching layman on TH-cam.
Disappointed that Salza wasn’t asked about why Pope Francis told Bishop Huonder the the SSPX wasn’t schismatic and gave him permission to retire to an SSPX house
The Holy Father said they are schismatic. Pope Francis even uses the word 'schism' when referring to them in the letter to the Bishops accompanying Traditionis Custodes. They are schismatic
If Bishop Huonder was permitted to retire to an SSPX house by the Pope (I haven't seen a document as evidence of that), the Bishop is able to say his own mass, and therefore needn't assist at SSPX masses even though he lives with them.
Thank you both John and Matt for having this discussion. I extremely appreciate the information and clarity in these hard times and found it very informative. THANK YOU🙏
I would love to see a debate between Dr. John Salza and Kennedy Hall.
It would never happen. One of the most important unwritten rules of being a trad like Taylor Marshall or Kennedy Hall is to never publically engage or have real debates with anyone who disagrees with you. It's a loud echo chamber.
@@lardiop It would never happen because engaging with unaccomplished internet ankle biters serves no purpose
@@DaveS859 DR Salza is a canon lawyer and a published theologian. He's hardly an internet anklebiter.
No need for a debate with Kennedy Hall. The Popes have settled matter for a long time. Until the SSPX fully receives the reforms of the Second Vatican Council and live in full communion with Holy Mother Church, no theological or canon law gymnastics and media P.R. campaign by SSPX members, sympathetic bishops and media celebrities can rescind the consistent papal judgment that the SSPX is "not in full communion with the Church" (JPII, Ecclesia Dei; BXVI, Ecclesiae Unitatem; and Francis, Traditiones Custodes). In the July 16, 2021 letter accompanying Traditiones Custodes Pope Francis mentions the status of the SSPX going back to JPII: "The faculty - granted by the indult of the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1984 and confirmed by St. John Paul II in the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei in 1988 - was above all motivated by the desire to foster the healing of the SCHISM with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre."
Debates are not the acid test of truth. A person eloquently peddling an errant falsehood could out-talk someone on the side of the truth. Truth is the truth, even if no one in the world believes it; and falsehood is worthless although everyone on the planet accepts it and actively propagates same. Alĺ that's needed is that there be good, reasonable reasons for the claims one puts on the table in the course of discussion. I think Matt's guest has done an excellent job in discussing this particular issue.
I think you should have a knowledgable pro-Society (one of their best, in their opinion) influencer or actual cleric debate Salza on this. Now that would be a very interesting and highly watched event.
Yep I do too! I think there are many inaccuracies in this podcast. I'm not pro SSPX but LeFevbre wasn't given everything he wanted, not even close. Rome did NOT accomadate him and anyone who has studied this issue at all knows this. I read or heard Salza say the exact opposite of what he is saying here merely 3 years ago. It's not a good thing to NOT be in communion with Rome. The SSPX needs to figure this out but the last three popes have not said they were is schism. That is untrue. If they were in schism why did Francis give them faculties to hear confessions?? I think the most honest experts in this topic simply say it's confusing and they are not sure because it's very confusing and no one is certain, they might think they are, and then a couple years later flip flop, just like Salza has done.
The SSPX and their defenders have been completely silent towards the arguments put forth by Salza, the only responses that have been put out are weak defenses by laymen which have already been rebuked or attacks on Salza's character/motives.
Strangely, the best man to debate Salza is Salza. Check out the article on 1 Peter 5 wherein "Salza answers Salza".
@@backwaterfarmer: Old John Salza evidently lost that debate. lol
@@tonyalongi4409 in his mind, apparently. Although, I find Old Salza a bit more articulate and a bit less anecdotal and self-contradictory.
I grew up with the Latin Mass in the 1950s and 1960s in a very small village in the Moluccas. The village was 100% Catholic, it still is now. When we were introduced to the New Mass after Vatican Council 2 where our national language started to be used and the priest began to face the people with simpler Mass attires, my aunt stopped going to Mass. She said it was a made-up religion. We had to persuade her for a very long time before she could attend Mass again.
I very often attend the Latin Mass virtually. When I do, it brings back sweet memories of holiness back then. I think the Latin Mass should still be practiced because in reality we have more then 20 rites. So why not the Latin Mass?
He mentions he encourages people to go to the Latin Mass. Just not the SSPX
Which is wrong. Salza just wants to grift to sell books and have paid speaking engagements such as this. The Vatican sent both Bishop Schneider and Bishop Huondor to investigate the SSPX. They both reported the order to be a fully faithful part of our Church. I will listen to our Church hierarchy before I listen to this dramatizing man.
@@sethv2312And when it is banned everywhere else, what then?
Your aunt was spot on. Like the Monsignor Lefebvre ❤️❤️❤️
@@sethv2312but SSPX are about the only Latin & respectful priests around!!!
I too see myself as a "glad trad", but whilst much of this discussion was informative, some of it was completely wrong. I am not an SSPX apologist (and agree they can go to far), and I attend the TLM from a number of different priestly societies, SSPX included, but I still found the tone of this discussion unhelpful. It needed another voice to provide a sense of balance. Moreover, instead of alluding to what certain documents said, the documents should have been quoted, as Salza was simply incorrect in some instances.
- the worst error is that of not fulfilling your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by an SSPX priest. This is clearly wrong. Just read the response by the Ecclesia Dei Commission on January 18, 2003 (which was requested to be published, hence is not particular to an individual's circumstances). It follows up on a letter sent to an individual, as noted in the discussion, but this is for public consumption. It points out: Points 1 and 3 in our letter of 27 September 2002 to this correspondent are accurately reported. His first question was "Can I fulfill my Sunday obligation by attending a Pius X Mass" and our response was: "1. In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X."
- Abp Lefebvre never said the New Mass, he never "signed off on the New Mass". He adopted some of the earlier changes in the mid 1960s, but stopped around time time of the 1967 missal when he felt his faith being challenged.
- the declaration of 1974 was not a general response to the changes, but a response to the scandalous behaviour of the Vatican visitors 10 days before.
- the SSPX does not refuse communion with Novus Ordo Catholics. They even have a retired Bishop (Bishop Huonder) residing in one of their Switzerland houses. I have seen diocesan priests at SSPX events. The SSPX school in the UK had the diocesan Bishop visit them.
- Abp Lefebvre may have signed the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, not the liturgical changes themselves. Many have argued that the latter is not a faithful representation of the former. To conflate the two is an unfortunate confusion of the issue.
- Pope Francis' motu proprio cannot be said to be a direct result of the SSPX - it doesn't even affect them. Apparently, Cardinal Bergolio got on very well with the SSPX in Argentina. His letter talks of healing the schism in terms of the action of JPII (the actual wording is this: "The faculty - granted by the indult of the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1984 and confirmed by St. John Paul II in the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei in 1988 - was above all motivated by the desire to foster the healing of the schism with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre"), not his own opinion here and now.
- Pope John Paul II did not give him a Bishop - they went through a number of names, and they repeatedly rejected by the Vatican, and in the end, Abp Lefebvre concluded they couldn't be trusted. This is a predental decision of the Abp.
- please don't compare Old Catholics to the SSPX, they deny a dogma of the faith and reject Vatican I.
- charges of schism. Listen to what Cardinal Hoyos, who dealt with their case in the Vatican said: "They had moments when they were away, but technically they never made any complete schism or heresy. For example, they did not create a separate jurisdiction, because to create a jurisdiction outside the jurisdiction of the Church, that means you want to separate." "We are not dealing with a case of heresy. One cannot say in correct and exact terms that there is a schism. There is, in the act of ordaining bishops without papal approval, a schismatic attitude. They are within the confines of the Church. The problem is just that there is a lack of a full, a more perfect-and as it was said during the meeting with Bishop Fellay-a more full communion, because communion exists.". Schismatics are outside the Church, Cardinal Hoyos (who was the authority on the matter) said they were within the confines the of the Church. Hence no schism.
- if you want hard criticism of the Novus Ordo, apart from Abp Lefebvre, then just read the Cardinal Ottaviani & Bacci Intervention, for example: "It is evident that the Novus Ordo has no intention of presenting the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent, to which, nonetheless, the Catholic conscience is bound forever." This would seem to match up with the SSPX's claims regarding the Novus Ordo.
Finally, the SSPX should be considered a life boat, it's not meant to be permanent. It's a temporary measure to bridge the crisis inside the Church. Obviously, the danger is there that it becomes so, but that certainly wasn't Abp Lefebvre's intention.
Very strong comment, thank you!
Well said....
You are much more tempered and stable with your responses than I 🤣 thank you.... it truly is a shelter, and it's not hard to see how the holy spirit has put it as such for the time being outside of a diocese, and protecred from manipulation in the dead Latin language.
Very very good points! He very much misrepresented the SSPX’s position
Thank you. Mr. Salza is on the wrong side here.
A few questions: Bishop Athanasius Schneider was the Vatican delegate that was sent to assess the Catholicity and orthodoxy of the SSPX. He lived in their seminary for a month. His conclusion was that yhey were thoroughly Catholic and recommended their regularization. The bishop unequivocally denies they are in formal schism. He brought up the fa t the Pope CANNOT confer faculties to a group in formal schism without implicitly endorsing sed schism. And now that SSPX chapels can witness marriages on behalf of the Church. Our diocese doesn't even send a diocesan representative but just has them send a record of the marriage. So they have valid Mass, valid Confession, valid marriages...but they are in schism? I am not a regular attendee of the Society (90% Novus Ordo) but I find their presence in our diocese a great benefit and feel that when Satan is in full control of the hierarchy (which is soon coming to pass) the Society will be a refuge (along with other TLM communities) for the faithful when denied the fullness of the Faith.
He addresses all these points in the video
Oh so everything is hunky dory and the sspx is no longer separate from the “conciliar modernist church” as lefev called it?? Did sspx become conciliar and modernist or renounce these words from lefev or has this so called “conciliar church” come around and said lefev was right and Rome was wrong and now they are in communion with the great self anointed defenders of “tradition” the sspx??? Lol what a joke.. larp harder
@@johnjaun9231 "Concilliar church" isn't something Lefevbre coined. It's something post VII bishops coined to justify novelty. He didn't just make it up, he's quoting their own theology.
The simple fact that you believe Satan can possibly be in full control of the Church hierarchy means the poison has already seeped into you. That's not catholic belief. Just as a reminder, the creed does not say we believe in the One Holy and Apostolic SSPX.
@@tanksgtThe Latin Rite offered the language in the languages of the people. There is nothing wrong with that. The mass was originally in Aramaic and eventually offered in Coptic, Syriac, and Greek. It was offered in Latin because it was the language that the people in the Roman Empire spoke. Eventually, Catholicism came to more countries so it is great that the Church offered the mass in the language that they can understand.
You have a newer video titled, "Bishop Schneider's AMAZING Defense Against Sedes!" You should listen to B. Schneider and pull this horrible interview you did with Salza. B. Schneider investigated the SSPX and found them to not be sedes. But you took the word of Salza. You should vet your guests. Salza has a history of grifting and exaggerating to sell books. He did it with the masons and now he did it with the SSPX. I love your show Matt but you have had a couple guests that are really questionable.
100%
Bishop Huondor made the same report to the Vatican. The SSPX are not schismatic. I don't know why we would listen to Salza over two good Bishops of the Church. Not every lawyer is oily but this one does seem to be an ambulance chaser, profiting from church division. It's shameful.
This.
"As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church…In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers - even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty - do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church." - Pope Benedict XVI
Salza’a teaching against the SSPX is unorthodox because he erroneously thinks the juridical structure of the Church is limited to receiving ordinary jurisdiction from the pope or local bishop. Whereas the Catholic Church teaches that situations can arise in which the Church indirectly gives jurisdiction outside of the local bishop. Salsa’s entire argument is based on the false premise that jurisdiction absolutely never extends beyond exactly explicit approval. Case in point, St Athanasius ordained bishops and priests in dioceses not only of formally Arian bishops, but also informally semi Arian bishops. In an extreme Crisis like that then and now, we Church law does give jurisdiction. And the Society recognizes that as part of Church teaching whereas John Salza does not. Not to mention Salza has a bad attitude in his anti SSPX diatribe. This is a very old and tiresome approach that divides traditional Catholics.
Trying to do my "research" on the SSPX, as I have some friends who are trying to get me to come to it, so I will try to act in good faith. Would this be similar to the situation with the Eastern orthodox? If there is a similarity in the jurisdiction as far as juridical people are concerned, then shouldn't his argument follow? My understanding is that the Sunday obligation is not satisfied when attending an Eastern Orthodox mass for the same reasons Salza gives for the SSPX about priests having proper faculties. This is a new difficulty that I think this argument brings up since it seems consistent on its face.
Interesting discussion to consider for someone sympathetic to the SSPX. I just find it interesting that Matt devotes three hours to hammer the SSPX but he doesn't seem to have a problem with the orthodox and seems more than eager to attempt to find common ground with Muslims. I would direct folks to the Kennedy report for a decent rebuttal of this episode. He doesn't name Fradd, but it is clear this is what he is talking about.
a link if you could, I should much like to hear it
@@christiaanmeadows9081 th-cam.com/video/Zm5vQMvqBLA/w-d-xo.html
Well said
Bravo.
Mons. Lefevre's enemies are good calling Catholic Church's straight foes; separated brothers, brothers in the faith, christians, etc.
"Love is love" when it comes about modernist.
Hate is hate (with all of your guts) the SSPX.
Disobedience to evil men is not a sin.
Public veneration of pagan idols is sinful and scandalous.
Slander and schism are mortally sinful
Pagan worship, sacrilege are mortal sins. Pope Francis gave honor & thumbs up to artist who did Blasphemy against Crucifix, by putting Crucifix in urine.
Jesus Sacrifice on Cross, suffering so greatly, dying for love of us, to save us.
Francis brought pagan idols into Vatican, when faithful Catholic threw in river, Francis got angry, had idols retrieved.
Jesus didn't give the Keys Schismatic Lefebrvre, He gave it to Peter and the successors. THAT IS DOGMATIC
First time I’ve seen this guy, but 3 Hours and 15 min of John Salza not stuttering once. Just fantastic stuff Matt. Thank you.
@@eoinmcg88 he is a freemason, all the original documents on the subject say, he can only get confession on his death bed by the Pope himself. i wouldnt trust a word he says.
I found one 'umm' at 2:59:13 but this only proves your point of how good of a speaker he truly is.
Is mr salza still a freemasonic luciferian .....oh ...he appears to be an authority on the Catholic faith now ...I see....
Not stuttering like a good lawyer.
He is a good man who speaks truth.
Iam trying to understand...isnt it The Hierarchy who rejected the Sspx and not the other way around?
That's correct.
But it looks better if the enemy plays the victims role.
That's how modernism works.
Correct. "As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church…In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers - even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty - do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church." - Pope Benedict XVI
@@emiliepoirier6093 I think he, in that case, referred when Lefebvre didn’t accept the orders from the Pope not to ordain more than one bishop. As Lefebvre didn’t accept one bishop, instead four, he automatically rejected the hierarchy of the Pope telling him not to ordain them, but he in fact did. There is that disobedience the man from the video speaks about, because Lefebvre ordained those bishops without the permission of the Pope (he was even warned many times not to disobey, but he did)
None of us would have to worry about this if the Tridentine Mass was readily available in every diocese.
We are a religion that holds our history and traditions as sacred. Our souls are always going to be moved by beauty, grace and reverence. We will never stop seeking it out and it's time that the church hierarchy accepts it.
The restrictions on TLM are what is pushing people toward the "irregular", together with a lack of discipline of heterodox priests and bishops. This Pontificate worsened a situation that was previously on the mend.
I normally love all PWA episodes but this was a chore to sit through. I do wish Matt vetted his guest and realized that Salza has a real credibility problem. A person needs credibility, otherwise, the audience becomes even more polarized on an issue. Reading through the comments here, I'm afraid that is exactly what's happened.
Great insight! I sense there is way more to the deliberate tension on removing TLM other than schism from the attitude of TLM participants. It appears to be 1. Deliberately Increase division within the Church and 2. Derail the benefits of the individual within TLM. This service provides a heightened focus and contemplation by participants by very nature (focus on a uncommon language) and a focus on the presence of God - when this happens, great things happen. Agents within and without the Church do not desire this for a plethora of reasons.
Schism could be a result, but I sense not at the attitude or behest of the fold but from high ranking internal authority and external influence.
@@bryanliggitt3732that's how it looks to me, on the outside looking in. I clearly see the WAY being replaced by a way.
How is it that bishop Huondor of Switzerland was granted permission to retire in the SSPX (2019), if they are, in fact, in schism?
This would be an absurdity.
@@bbseal6174 It is indeed a very interesting question. How could Francis permit a bishop to retire with schismatics?
Should have brought this up before the debate, would have been great to hear it discussed. My take is that merely residing with them and even celebrating liturgies with them doesn't mean they're not in schism. For example, the orthodox are in schism but the Pope occasionally attends Divine Liturgies with them (and vice versa). I know of some priests who live in obscure locations who reside with Protestant clergy.
Very long winded, but the point I'm trying to get across is "living with" is not equal to "in communion with".
@@matthewmorris9532 The problem is that Bishop Huonder has explicitly stated he lives with them because of what they preach and because he does not believe them to be in schism. This is quite different than a lone priest with nowhere to go being taken in out of charity by a non-Catholic. The Pope also does not assist at Orthodox Masses. There have been joint vespers, etc. but the Pope does not assist at schismatic celebrations of the Eucharist.
Assisting at a schismatic Mass and adhering to the teachings of the schismatic minister would, in fact, make you schismatic. Since Bishop Huonder is apparently not in schism (nor are the lay faithful who assist at SSPX Masses) then we are quite clearly not dealing with the same situation as the orthodox
@@matthewmorris9532 "the orthodox are in schism but the Pope occasionally attends Divine Liturgies with them (and vice versa)." If the pope hasn't done this, bishops have. This was not done nor permitted prior to Vatican II.
""living with" is not equal to "in communion with"." That is a nuance that most everyone is not going to know or appreciate. By allowing a bishop to retire with schismatics and offer mass for them and with them and live with them day in and day out gives a sign of approval. Once could say it is scandalous.
@@toddbyrd9071 Precisely
But should we adhere to the Pope if/when he says it’s okay to bless gay marriages etc? Something clearly against the teaching of Jesus.
To Reject the Bishops and the Pope Authority is to be an Anathema to Christ. Council of Trent Session 23, 24, and 14. You cant fight scandal by committing scandal. The SSPX founders did just that and still do
My wife is from Milwaukee and we go back every other year and have agreed that we will not attend another Novus Ordo there again. We either attend St. Stanislaus or the Melkite parish. I have only walked out of a handful of Masses in my life because I could not stand the sacrilege- all of them were Novus Ordo events (they could not qualify as legit Masses) in Milwaukee. I think there are people who are will8ng to allow a banal, saying ethos of Vatican IIism to run roughshod over them and their families rather than do what us necessary to save their souls. No one - NO ONE - is bound to submit themselves or their families to spiritual abuse and danger. Thank God for the Institute in Milwaukee.
This is the situation we’re in full time and it’s why we attend the Society Masses and Catechesis. The things we’ve heard (and seen) are our local parish, with our five impressionable little boys, is not to be believed.
It is theoretically possible to find ourselves in a sorry situation where our Bishop is running such a poor diocese that we cannot in good conscience assist at any masses under him. But that doesn't mean we then go outside the legitimate structure of the Church to have people mediate our relationship with Christ.
To act in the person of Christ as a minister in the Church, you need God to give you that mission, otherwise you are appointing yourself to a position beyond your stature. It's intrinsically evil to present yourself as someone's representative without their permission, and this is what any ordained man does unless he has received a mission to act as a minister in the Church.
Christ did not promise you access to daily mass and weekly confession. If your local situation is so dire, then simply stay home. Make the three-hour drive to the next diocese once a month, and do what you can to fix the situation in your local Church.
@@tomthx5804 breakaway sect that still recognizes Rome as the head of the church? That’s a stretch. The bishop in my diocese cancelled all TLM as of 1 January. Me and mine will attend the SSPX chapel and still pray for Pope Francis, Rome, and the union of the Society and Rome for mutual spiritual enhancement.
Actually, it’s not. We truly do not have any of that available to us. When I mention problems in our local diocese I’m talking about gravely serious issues, not “Oh, we just don’t like the guitars.” We have actually had the Holy Spirit referred to as a woman during Mass. The vax compared to Mary’s fiat to God. One hour of confession available once a week. Baptisms done in large groups several times a year when the priest feels like it. “Jesus is not really a man or a woman.” A pro-life group would be too political. It just goes on and on. In one of the two churches there are no kneelers and no kneeling allowed. Our bishop also happens to have been Theodore McCarrick’s personal secretary so there’s not much hope in going to him. We have no options like ICKSP or FSSP. Not everyone lives in a heavily Catholic area. I’m a convert of five years and attending Mass with the Society is the first time I’ve met priests that really, truly care and have time to listen to you. I’ve seen nothing devisive, no “attitude of schism.” You better believe we have prayed and prayed on this one and done all our research. There is nothing but confusion and conflicting opinions about the Society online but ultimately I see no evidence of any true authority that says they are schismatic. In fact, I see quite the opposite, I see Bishop Schneider saying they are in no way schismatic. I also see the fruits, I see the true joy there and love of Jesus Christ and his bride the Church. I see Pope Francis’ picture in the entryway and prayed for during the Mass. We are not schismatics, we love Holy Mother Church and we have had to make the difficult decision for our family to drive an hour both ways every Sunday to leave our local parish and go where we find true Catholic orthodoxy. Please pray for us, for the Pope and for the Church that this whole situation may become unnecessary. God bless you.
I will never argue with a person about attending the SSPX. In these demonic and terrible times in the Church we can only do what we can to defend our families and hold to the true Faith passed on for 2000 years. Under normal circumstances one should not attend the SSPX. Again, not going to ever condemn anyone for doing so. If you are a Novus Ordo only person - so be it. Enjoy. But...I do think where a bishop unjustly forbids the TLM and there are no other genuine alternative to the happy-slappy Susan-from-the- parish Novus Ordo with guitars and hand-holding, no Eastern Catholic, Anglican Ordinariate...I'm going to SSPX. But in our diocese we have a reputation for numerous Novus Ordo unicorn Masses - ad orientem, Latin, chant, incense, male only severs, Holy Communion kneeling and on tongue from priests, etc. Still I would prefer a low TLM over High NO. My preference of course.
Thank God that where I live in Mexico, Novus Ordo Masses are generally well done. I've never encountered any of what's mentioned in the discussions of NO vs TLM. I'm praying for the unity of the Church in the world. It seems our brothers in the US need it desperately.
Very, true. They are very reverent. The people dress up too. When people visit the Cathedrals you can hear a pin drop.
I'm in switzerland. Very much a western land.
But our NO masses are reverent. Even in modern ugly churches.
I have the impression it's more some type of revolutionary spirit that gripped the US in the chaos after the council. The US was founded with a revolution after all. And so the liturgy was bent to their own image and... dare I say it... 'boomerized'.
I know Germany has a similar problem, and they have a history of overly 'reforming' as well.
And now there's a revolution going on against the new liturgy, and round and round it goes... I'll pray for my US and German brothers and sisters
¿¿¿¿¿¿?????? ¿ What about the comunion in hand? ¿Women in leggins, men in shorts, applauses?
@@chiyo256 I have never seen this in Mexico. Only a few parishes I have been to in thee US have that but thankfully things are getting better. A seemingly modern parish I have been going to for years got a young Filipino priest who is reverent and does not look for applauses. Our new older priest is reverent too.
@@chiyo256 That doesn't generally happen in my parish and some others I attend. I even see women with veils.
Also, communion in hand is the way Apostles did it. I don't think it's the best for our times, for sure, but let's relax a little.
Saludos desde Jalisco.
2:10:00 I read that Bishop Lefevre was promised to be able to concentrate another bishop and that the consecration date was summarily canceled by Rome on several occasions and that is why he did what he did, because ot became clear Rome was acting in bad faith, that is the claim whether true or not I am no authority. Painfully aware of the game's chanceries/curias play, it is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility.
That is the lie the SSPX has spread to justify Lefebvres disobedience.
@@AnaMT1985 Do you have evidence to that effect or just how you feel about them? They do constantly accuse the Roman Curia of acting in bad faith. I realize it could be merely a projection but don't have great confidence either in the power brokers in Vatican City.
@@majorpuggington Does the actual correspondence between Rome and Lefebvre count as evidence? That is the evidence that Salza references, which I believe is also on his website.
@@AnaMT1985 that would certainly count. I will take a look, thank you.
@Berry Jones hmmm, if that is the case in fact, it was misrepresented by the sspx in the account I read.
It's a bit rich when someone says the SSPX have a false sense of tradition. So Rome has a better sense of tradition? Surely, the only body in schism is modernist Rome. How can tradition be wrong? Or is revolution, permanent revolution, now enthroned as tradition, the only tradition, in Rome today.
You have to listen to the whole conversation
I disagree with the analysis given by this guest!
To Reject the Bishops and the Pope authority is to be an anathema to Christ. Council of Trent Session 23, 24, and 14
@@oldtimmy9481 But when that 'authority' is turned against the authority, dogma, and doctrine of the Church of all time, what then?
@@keithrobert5117 ask your bishop. We love the Pope not for what he says or does but for what he represents ❤️🔥🇻🇦
This is one of the most important conversations that we currently deal with. It forces people to identify and adhere to the one true body of the Catholic Church. The rejection of leftist errors does not mean we should jump on the bandwagon of schismatic groups. God bless to John, Matt, dude who is on the mic, Lofton, Dom, Andrew, and all others who are on the forefront of defending Catholic Orthodoxy.
@@deus_vult8111 larp harder
Now SSPX acts like Protestants 🤣
@@deus_vult8111 Papal Addresses can absolutely be considered magisterial in nature if there is a definitive statement on matters regarding faith/morals/disciplines. The fact that the pope, in Singulari Quadam, explicitly says “for it must be held by Faith” directly followed by a statement of doctrine, makes clear that this fits the criteria for being within the bounds of the Magisterium.
Ecclesiastical truth is, only the pope can lead the Church astray.
This was an excellent interview and my first PWA live since discovering Matt's channel a few months ago. I'm glad to say that I'm in R.C.I.A currently and eagerly await my baptism and confirmation this upcoming Easter. Thank you so much Matt Fradd for aiding in the Grace of The Holy Spirit. Gloria Patri!
Welcome home
Glory to Jesus Christ!
Is that GLR in your profile pic?
I’m only 30 minutes in but this is by far the most in depth discussion of SSPX I’ve seen on TH-cam. Extremely helpful. Thank you so much Matt for hosting this-it will be so beneficial to so many!!
Check out our videos with John! Thanks for watching!
The former high ranking freemason John Salza who made an oath to Lucifer and renounced Jesus Christ before his "conversion" to the Vatican II church and who now eagerly tries to bring all who want to be traditional catholics into that institution in which someone who builds temples for pagan god worship and who prays on the wailing wall "in which HaShem dwells" for the coming of "their" Moshiach must be venerated as a saint is proven to be a complete spiritual fraud in an audio file named "John Salza's Lies, Errors and Dishonesty" here on TH-cam. I suggest you also study the article entitled "John Salza Has No Idea What He’s Talking About" (you can google it).
In light of Mr. Salza's point that the Liturgy is tied to a parish Church - what does that say about the Immemorial Mass not being permitted in parish Churches anymore but only shrines and oratories and such? I am an indefatigable proponent that the Immemorial Latin Mass cannot be denied to the faithful (as Quo Primum and B16 state). I would say that if you have access to a licit TLM (FSSP, ICSKP, etc.) you should go there. In absence of a licit TLM and your only access is SSPX you can go there. If a bishop will not provide for his faithful then he is derelict. I think common sense, good will, and a reasonable sense of fidelity is the guide here. I have friends that go to SSPX and have flourished spiritually. They don't "harbor a sense of schism". They found their home there and have flourished.. So it cannot be said the Holy Spirit does not work there. But for decorum and sake of scandal you should go to diocesan approved TLM. But again, in absence of diocesan approved one may go to SSPX for a blanket ban or denial is illegitimate (Quo Primum and B16).
Woe unto ye lawyers! For ye have taken away the keys of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered. = Luke 11:52
Look what Rome is doing now!! I converted 13 years ago to get away from the nonsense going on now. I’m thinking Leveve was right.
yes he was ❤😊 i also converted last year from 🇩🇪Lutheranism
To Reject the Bishops and the Pope Authority is to be an Anathema to Christ. Council of Trent Session 23, 24, and 14. You cant fight scandal by committing scandal.
Yup. Everyone should read, free online, 'An Open Letter to Confused Catholics'
@@auniversalwoman you can listen to it also and it is eye opening to say the least. Fr. Murr's interview with patrick coffin is fascinating also, ive listened to that 3 times i think. Of course there is also Dr. Marshalls book 'Infiltration".... so much out there, no reason to not understand that V2 was a liberal revolution. John XXIII and Paul VI were NOT good for the Church at all!
@@oldtimmy9481check the historical record, the Church itself goes against Bishops and Popes. That's a lame excuses for obedience, and it wouldn't mean anything anyway, even if True.
Some of the points Salza makes are good and need to be discussed more. Other points he makes are not very accurate. I sympathize with Salza's analysis, but his tools of analysis are somewhat inadequate. One general impression I had here is that Salza lets his lawyer mentality show on numerous occasions. That’s not necessarily a good thing, because the mindset of Canon Law is not the same as the mindset of American / English civil law. Part of the reason for this is the difference between English Law systems and Roman Law systems. They are two different ways of thinking about law. An American lawyer studies American Law, which is based on the English Law system.
I find myself agreeing with a number of Salza’s observations, because I've lived through these situations and I’ve been forced to confront the questions he raises. But at the same time, I disagree with the angle of John Salza's approach, because he focuses too much on what he calls the "legal reality" of the Church. There is a "legal reality" in the Church, of course, but that "legal reality" is not the "core reality" of the Catholic Church and never has been. The core reality of the Catholic Church is a theological reality that exists at the level of grace and charity. The legal reality is a human creation that exists to serve that core divine reality.
I agree with Salza in what he mentions about certain arguments in the "crisis series" that the SSPX has on TH-cam. They correctly enunciate a doctrine and then they don't seem to understand that they're contradicting it in their actions. "It's a mystery," they have to say. LOL
When discussing necessity, Salza made an interesting point about how claiming “necessity” cannot become a reason to circumvent divine law. That should be discussed more! Unfortunately, Salza doesn't have a good grasp of where to draw the line between what is divine and what is ecclesiastical / human in the Church. He messed up on that a couple of times. So, there is certainly a lesson the SSPX needs to take on this point, but the point needs to be made with a better grasp of what that looks like in ecclesiology. Overall, Salza errs on the side of assuming that things are of divine institution when, in fact, many are of human / ecclesiastical institution. I was particularly irritated by how frequently he said "X is infallible". He got several of those assertions partially wrong, because in most cases there’s part that’s divine and part that’s human, and knowing where to draw the line is the key. Some of the things that Salza wants to be rock-solid "infallible" truths are, in fact, human constructs. Two tricky things for the civil lawyer mentality to grasp: (1) how law and doctrine evolve over time in the Church, and (2) evaluating how much we are uncertain about at any given point in that evolution.
One problem that really jumped out at me was Salza's lack of nuance about the position, prerogatives, and selection process of Bishops in the Church. This has evolved significantly over time, and yet Salza just throws out "it's infallible" like candy.
Salza's analysis of supplied jurisdiction for confessions was way off. Salza got hung up on the idea of "judgment of the community" like it's a specific and well-defined legal concept (it isn't, but I'm sure his lawyer mind wishes it were lol). He also failed to mention that there is more than one way to have supplied jurisdiction. Looking through my files I found an interview by Salza from 2007 wherein he refutes the argument he just gave in 2023. (You can look this up: Robert Sungenis interviewed John Salza in 2007 about his ongoing dispute with James Akin. The argument presented by Salza in 2007 is a good refutation of Salza’s own 2023 misunderstanding of the “judgment of the community” question.)
Salza's take on where you can fulfill your Sunday obligation was bizarre. In canon law, the bar is low (like, really low) for what counts as fulfilling your Sunday obligation. So I was rolling my eyes when Salza put on his lawyer mode and started saying "let me tell you about some legalese nobody has ever heard of". And, no, your local bishop doesn’t get to decide what fulfills your Sunday obligation. Your local bishop might be a canon lawyer (or have one on staff, hopefully) and they can help interpret the law for you, but they don’t determine the law in this case.
These oddities aside, I still think Salza is raising some worthwhile points, even when the way he got to the conclusion isn't quite right. In other words, I’d like to see some of these arguments reformulated with correct theology / ecclesiology, thereby rendering this critique of the SSPX more correct and potent.
Very strong comment, thank you!
The Sunday obligation and supplied jurisdiction moments were big eye rollers for me as well.
The jurisdiction issue was given like none of the nuance it requires (how far the concept of common error should go was a debated point in the time of the study he cited and the new code actually appears to fall on the opposite side from Salza).
And his explanation of the Sunday obligation was one of the most esoteric interpretations of canon law Ive ever heard lol. I even broke out my own commentary to double check that I wasn’t losing it. I wasn’t…
@berryjones1327 it’s the Canon Law Society of America study edition from Paulist Press. It’s not the absolute best (I’ve seen things that seem on the liberal side but I expect that from Paulist Press lol)
I should pick one up at some point that I like better but it’s good for demonstrating what the prevailing mainstream interpretations are.
Perhaps needless to say, designated locations for fulfilling a Sunday obligation is not in there lol. Salza kept mentioning “sui iuris” over and over again as if that isn’t a term that refers exclusively in canon law to a self governing Eastern hierarchy… 😂
I'm glad somebody wrote this. I am a lawyer, and I found myself cringing at Salza's commentary over and over. I actually found this to be a brutal interview, probably because I do this for a living and understand his argument structures and their limitations. His commentary and arguments will sound impressive to the untrained ear, but I just found myself raising numerous questions and realizing that many of his points were cherry-picked.
I greatly appreciate your interviews and demeanor in these discussions. There's a lot to take away and reflect upon! Thank you!!
It would be so illuminating to have an SSPX theologian/ well versed priest on to respond to the statements made in the podcast! 😊 It would give light to the argument so people can see both sides and not be left in confusion! 😇
So glad you are having this conversation! Thank you. It's so critical for our Holy Mother Church!
Is mr salza now an authority on Catholicism....😮.....it seems not long ago he was a freemasonic luciferian...it is amazing how the devil operates
This was an excellent interview. I just want to thank Dr. Salza and Mr. Fradd for making it happen. May God bless you both and may God protect Holy Mother Church 🙏🏻
I'm 30 minute into this, and I am not liking the vibes so far, (as he's making all one-sided arguments and cherry picking what suits his position, like a Protestant.). Also from what I have seen in past. . Plus he needs to be scrutinized closely as he reportedly was a 32 nd Degree Freemason, now with an agenda to shape Catholics, as he has been active for years at this. So any wonder his position?? . This is a long vid , so I will have to give him his Time to lay it all out, this is still early. . (Been attending Trad Mass for past years with occasional N.O.) I'd like to see him and Brother Peter Dimond debate for extended, thorough debate. That would be very helpful for Catholics.
@@finallythere100 sedevacantism is not the answer
@@24erstad - well, firstly, I have to finish the vid. Hearing anyone's one-line advice or opinion, no disrespect no intended., doesn't say anything. , you provide nothing to back it up.,and I don't know what you know or don't know. Have you seen the vids about the heresies of the past 4 or 5 popes? (Vatican catholic channel) Have you seen "Apocalypse Now ..." vid by Bros. Dimond? Have you seen Bro. Dimond debate. other guy on Pints w Aquinas? Bro Dimond clearly prevailed, not debate points, but substance. . It's not enough to say Sed is not the answer. (I never attended SSPX, btw). It seems the main question is whether V2 Church from Vatican is the anti-church. (If so, WHY,?) I want to practice Catholicism, but I don't want to be under a false Church. It is obviously pagan and not Catholic / Christian at the top. The actual Sr. Lucy said we are in final Times. If you can see all that is documented in those vids and explain to me that what is in Vatican is true Catholicism and not th count-church, that Our Lady of La Saltte, and reportedly Put Lady of Fatima spoke of , then I'm listening.. As I said, I will see what all JS includes and what he avoids. And I will certainly give him his chance and take in what all he says. I will check back in later, and pls do sam if u watch those vids! My only agenda is truth.
@@eoinmcg88 - If so, add THAT to the abominations of what looks like the Whore of Babylon and not the true RCC. (Bro, Ptr Dimond makes a great case for the former ,, which is why I'd like to see those 2 in an extended debate. Time for the feet of opposing sides to be held to the fire. Put it out there for everyone to see. - BUT with enough Time to get it all out there so that audience is adequately informed of content . rather than judge by debate skills, and may truth prevail. ..l
@@24erstad - Curious, do you believe"Francis" is a true pope? A Catholic? Christian?
You go to the SSPX Mas for 15 years and then decide to look into whether they are valid… see right through this interview in 15 min, not 15 years. 9:15 You are an attorney and you’re very articulate and smart. Reading between the line, it’s a classic example of a compromiser. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. You had things right in the first three minutes of the interview… And then after 15 years something changed? Come clean… What’s your real beef with the SSPX? Because what you said in the interview is not the real reason! Anyone with a good eye sees right through this.
Well said. Perhaps he should've started his story when he was a Freemason. I'd be interested to hear about how he formally broke with Freemasonry and became Catholic.
His lines are clearly rehearsed and he speaks like a politician constantly using the person he is speaking to's name in answers.
Let us see Salza in live debate in PWA.
Please speak to a Priest from the SSPX. at least extend an offer.
Lol, freemason Salza talking about catholizism. What joke. This man is a liar.
Most acclaimed Freemasons are clueless. Dr. John Salza is an ex-Freemason. Don't gossip
Please state the lie
Such an excellent and much needed conversation! Thank you for caring for the salvation of souls!
thank you for doing this interview! My husband and I nearly fell for the lies of the society shortly after becoming Catholic sadly because of certain commentators we were listening to. John Salza did an amazing job, he is so clear, knowledgable & articulate!
Is mr salza still a freemasonic luciferian I wonder or does that matter , I wonder who was lying 🤔
"I think most people who dont like their local Novus Ordo aren't involved, you can make a lot of changes very quickly by getting involved, usually there's not many people really volunteering"
I took this from the chat and it's absolutely true.
I saw that too. It shot out at me and called me out.
It's super true, especially if you can sing. Very easy to get Gregorian chant going in your mass if you just talk to your priest, from my experience.
It's absolutely true. We have Gregorian chant sung at every Mass as well as a new High Altar and Communion rails. The priest also says the Mass ad Orientem. All because parishioners were asking for it and they stepped in to help run the choir and teach altar boys
My brother was very involved in his local parish and was constantly met with resistance as priest after priest participated in liturgical abuses - and when he would point it out he was castigated and ridiculed - and even when he brought official publications from the church that would go over liturgical rubrics, the priest still wouldn’t listen. And when writing to his bishop - deaf ears.
He now attends a local TLM - has to drive an hour to get there
It really shouldn’t have to be this way.
@@mikeoconnor4590 it really should not have to be, but you're brother will be rewarded not only for his courage in asking for proper changes, but also for his bearing the abuses to adore His Lord and Savior. You're brother won't have to answer for these priests and Bishops sins. Bad clergy doesn't make the Church not the Church. Christ promised us He would never abandon us, he didn't promise us good and holy clergy.
This conversation was great and helped a lot. I have never nor did I ever want to attend a SSPX Mass. I still do not. However I do have to say the live chat during this show was frankly appalling.
1/ Sedes in the comments acting out. As they do.
2/ Mods and others being absolutely *callous* and uncharitable to those struggling with bad masses and difficult feelings about liturgy and other issues. MANY people do not have access to another other than a "typical" Novus Ordo. Some only have access to spiritually troubling ones. To be told to "get over it" and be repeatedly shouted down from questions was more than a little ridiculous. Those asking questions were repeatedly told to basically hush and listen, even when we clarified we were listening and simply were not understanding or needed clarification.
Also, incorrect information was given about TC by mods. TC did not just "give power back to bishops". Two diocese in my state were told directly, after asking for clarification from Rome, to remove all TLMs from any parish setting. It was not left up to the bishops. It was stated they HAD to move, including one that had been at a cathedral since before Summorum. TLMs that our bishops *support* and have no issues with. And Rome told them they could no longer be in any parish. These well established communities were pushed out of long standing parish relationships. Apparently though, my direct experience isn't in line with what several mods insist is the truth about TC.
I'm not one to use the term "gaslighting" lightly, but mods were absolutely skirting close to treating the audience that way during the live chat.
I love Pints, appreciate this conversation and interview, but felt the above needed to be said.
Agreed. My diocese was known for it's abundant TLMs but our Bishop was *told* to remove permissions to preform them anymore. Not asked or given any other options. This is true across the board I believe.
"the live chat during this show was frankly appalling. 1/ Sedes in the comments acting out." Who is this and what did they say?
In America, it is socially and psychologically very very important to be able to look at some group and say, “I’m not as religious as *THAT* I’m better than them cuz I’m less religious.” The only ones Catholics really have to crap on this way are other more conservative Catholics.
You should attend an SSPX Mass, which is valid and fulfils the Sunday obligation according to Rome, in order to solve the conflict between Rome and Econe.
You didn’t listen to the video
My entire family started attending the SSPX during Covid because it was the only church that was open. But slowly things started to get tremendously more radical and my heart is completely broken. Everything in this video answered the questions I've had for years now but whenever I wanted to ask the SSPX priest there wasn't any room to other than in confession which was for "confession" and a massive line was waiting after you.
Everything Salza said in this video is exactly true to what happened to my family. My questions started when my parents said I couldn't go to the diocesan Latin Mass because they were giving communion on the hand under the Cardinal's orders. They started saying things like "as soon as it is given in the hand, it's no longer Jesus, it's just a wafer". But then they would say "we don't want to go to Novus Ordo Masses because there's Jesus all over the ground from them giving communion on the hand" it was so contradictory and warped but questioning wasn't allowed. Slowly one by one, it's gotten worse and now they refer to anything I say as "having the Novus Ordo demon" which I think was said about me by an SSPX priest to my parents. Their attacks on me and anyone inside the Church including our pope and clergy is purely attacks on their person and never the argument.
Please pray for my parents and family and me. They really need it right now 🙏🏽💕
Who is "they"? A priest would never say Holy Communion suddenly ceases to be consecrated because it was handed to a lay person. The real horror of Communion in the hand is that it is the consecrated species, assuming the Mass was offered with the correct intentions etc
Please don't confuse some of the ignorant weirdos who attend mass at the chapel with The Society proper.
Sounds like a weird experience, but these are not the positions of the Society as I've head them. The Novus Ordo is certainly illicit per Canon 13, Session 7 of the Council of Trent. The TLM is the Catholic Mass.
@@Felatay by "they" I mean my own parents. I'm speaking from my heart and what I have seen happen. I fully agree that communion on the tongue is much more respectful but that doesn't mean attending a LATIN MASS within the diocese which is closer to my house and ONLY gives communion on tongue should be something to fear.
@@backwaterfarmer it may sound "weird" to you but the sad truth is it is a reality for me. My parents who have started attending the society are completely confused. They refuse to attend any Latin mass except for that of the society even if it's the Latin Mass within the diocese that is given by the Oratorian fathers who who provide Latin mass. I'm so tired of all this confusion, fighting and division. I wish none of this on any Catholic family.
@@backwaterfarmer don't be a Protestant and quote one line out of context. But regardless, since you have quoted just one line let me explain what that line means.
It states: "If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema."
Believe it or not, but the "New Mass" was, however unfortunate, an "APPROVED" rite of the church. How was it approved? It was approved by the council convened by the Vicar of Christ. Just as there has been a Dominican rite, or Ukrainian rite, there have been many "approved" rites post Trent.
Grabbing my popcorn for the comments section 🍿
Be gentle :) ...kidding...
The live chat was pretty rocky at times, thankfully Matt's got a lot of good Mods and Thursday the producer.
@@danguard8543 Seriously? I only started watching in the last hour, but the moderators were the only rockiness I saw in the chat.
@@willing_spirit6830 Doubt it
@@24erstad Trust me, they couldn't keep from name calling all while preaching to refrain from name calling. I believe their favorite one was "dingus". Maybe they were very efficient at hiding inappropriate comments, but if that's the case there was still no need for their rude responses to a bunch of invisible people.
As an ordinary layman with no training in Canon law anI absolutely no ability to weigh in on the SSPX, I have only one question.
What's wrong with the Vatican that they let this issue go on and on in massive confusion without a definitive resolution?
I was thinking about it, and I think it's because the pope's know that if they're too forceful and too conclusive, that will most likely cause the SSPX clergy to reactively counter whatever they say and lead all of their flock to full, irreversible schism. The route they're taking now, the magisterium doesn't want the people who attend SSPX masses to wholesale say the Catholic Church is evil. I think their strategy is to make it so the SSPX hangs themselves with their own rope by being so irrational that it's obvious to the layman. Unfortunately, most of these radtrads are very poorly catechized and most likely catechized by the SSPX, so they're drinking the Kool-Aid. I recommend watching the video "John Salza - 'Is the Society of St. Pius X in Schism?'" by pioneercatholic and watch the Q&A section to see how unhinged the SSPX are. They literally sound like Baptist fundamentalist conspiracy theorists who say that that the Jesuits are controlling the world and want to assassinate Protestants.
Sadly, this guest seems to stereotype those that attend the TLM. That is rash judging. I attend the TLM at a hermitage. Believe me, it was not because of the "bells and whistles ". I am still learning. All I know is that, after that first Mass, I was in love with Jesus - even after I struggled during that Mass - as I didn't know what was going on.
He says multiple times that he attends TLM himself.
@@marthamcneely6877
Correct. However, I don't know/don't think that most TLM attendees think the NO not valid or just go because of their "feelings ".
If the Cassman/Dimond debacle resulted in this convo then *maybe* it was worth it.
How about Salza debate Dimond? Salza said he could refute any sede argument.
@@littlerock5256 Dimond shouldn’t be allowed any type of platform. Doing so legitimizes him and he doesn’t deserve it.
@@charlieanderson5952 Someone opposed to Salza could say the same about him. Or anyone could say it about anyone, for that matter.
@@littlerock5256 Yawn. You could say it about David Koresh, too. Let's pretend everyone is a valid subject matter expert.
@@charlieanderson5952 The Dimonds are very good at showing the errors of protestantism, they explain the errors of the eastern orthodox and they defend the sede position very well. Salza said he could debunk any sede argument. Salza should show the Dimonds wrong and put them in their place.
Man, I need a book with all this information in more detail & citings!!
Another vote for a book, please!!
Read Michael Davies book Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, it’s extremely well documented and it fills in the gaps that Salza is leaving out
I never heard of any Salsa nominated as a speaker for the Church. If this interview without contradictory has any reliability at all, why when bishop Vitus Hounder asked to Pope Francis he said that SSPX are not in schism or schismatic?
Please restate in a way that we can understand so we can respond to what you are saying.
This conversation is SO needed. Thank you for educating us in a charitable way. God bless you both.
So you were being educated by mr salza on Catholicism ....who was a freemasonic luciferian and now an authority on Catholicism....yeah right 😂
Google article "John Salza Has No Idea What He’s Talking About"
Fantastic episode, thank you. I'm intrigued into looking into these topics more. Yes, get a canon lawyer on.
I'm gonna be honest, I tuned out when he made the point about countries being put under interdict. These countries were put under interdict because the leaders gave a public refusal of a lawful order of the Vatican. Which is a crime.
What crime did we commit to be effectively put under the same punishment? How did we "get off light" for a sentence we're not guilty of?.
I attend mass at an SSPX chapel. By no means would I refer to myself as an “SSPXer” since I don’t really feel comfortable throwing my support behind any of the prevalent camps in a sort of “party affiliation” style manner. All of them have things I agree and disagree with and I don’t fit neatly into a box that way. There’s certainly things you can criticize the Society about. Some of them fairly enough were brought up in this discussion.
However, unfortunately I felt that the vast majority of Mr. Salza’s arguments relied on massive mischaracterizations of the positions held by actual Society members and parishioners, fallacious inclusion or at least implication of conclusions in his premises, consistent strawmanning of Society arguments, as well as what to me sounded like blatant falsehoods.
I’m disappointed that the case for the Societies position has been presented so poorly and I hope Matt will consider having someone else on who shares more sympathy with the SSPX, maybe someone who attends a chapel, or even one of their priests, to represent a steel man case.
How is this a "misrepresentation" of the SSPX's position? Sounds like you're just hurt that someone called you out on hard truths. The reactionary attitude of the SSPX has not helped the Church's position in the world. What's saddening is that the beauty of the Mass in which the SSPX values is pridefully overcome by the arrogance to not find reconciliation with Rome. Pope Benedict XVI opened the door for healing, and yet the leadership stayed as stubborn as their founder did. Pride cometh before the fall, both progressively and reactionary. So please - explain the mischaracterizations (massive mischaracterizations, in your terms.)
While I enjoy John Salza pointing out canonical law, one thing I wish @PintsWithAquinas did was have someone like Bp. Bernard Fellay debate Mr. Salzas. Why Bp. Fellay? He was with the SSPX from the 1970s and was one of the bishops consecrated at Ecône and later became their Superior General from 1994 through 2018. In a video I saw of him (th-cam.com/video/bmcIGIPrFd4/w-d-xo.html), he mentioned Abp. Lefebvre corresponded with the Vatican but that they kept pushing back the date as to when he could consecrate bishops. According to Bp. Fellay, he said once Abp. Lefebvre informed the Vatican he was going to consecrate bishops (plural) as he got tired of waiting for a response from them, he stated the Vatican acquiesced and agreed to allow them to consecrate one bishop on August 15th but he had to provide them names of three new candidates from scratch. Why was Abp. Lefebvre in a hurry? He was diagnosed with cancer in 1983 and by the mid 1980s grew increasingly ill. At the time the SSPX was corresponding with then Cardinal Ratzinger and Abp. Lefebvre sensed the Vatican was playing a waiting game. According to Bp. Fellay in the video the eventually pushed the date back again to November and then Ratzinger responded with he didn't know when they would allow him to consecrate a bishop - at this point, according to Bp. Fellay, Abp. Lefebvre decided to go ahead with the consecrations thinking they're waiting for him to run out his personal time. I am in no way justifying what the SSPX did. I'm more interested in two knowledgeable experts, one on Canon Law, and another a witness and participant to the events that unfolded meting out the truth. The truth for everyone's benefit. Everyone who is faitfhful. I imagine there will be new information both sides had not heard before or ever considered. And again, I think everyone wants to discover the truth in fuller detail.
@@gruntpadre5337 There can be no "reconciliation," for Rome has fulfilled the prophecy of LaSallette. Rome has lost the Faith. When Rome chooses to be Catholic and not an agent and power pushing the agenda of the NWO, unity will be acheived. Salza's arguments convinces no one, for the Church has never FORMALLY condenmed the FSSPX in schism. In the 50 years of their existence, I have seen no evidence of this position. If Salza wanted to argue his point, he should be speaking to a reliable authority on the Society, and not to some pod caster who's had questionable moments on his show in the past. He is merely feeding more rubbish to those who agree with him. I will remain with Bishop Anthanasius Scheider, (who was assigned in the past to monitor them, and spent two weeks in an SSPX seminary), Archbishop Vigano, and Father Gerald Murray, a canon lawyer, who have repeatedely stated their non schismatic status. Salza is a mere layman, and has no power, nor authority to declare what is schismatic. This former Freemason's position and stance is well known, so he can continue to pontificate until the cows come home. In the light of what has happened to the Church in our times, he's just water under the bridge. We give thanks for the courage and determination of Archbishop Marcel Lefevebre, in his struggle to save the holy patrimony of Mother Church, and may God bless the work of the priests of the SSPX!
@@TonyG8297 You are correct about the situation that existed with the Archbishop prior to the Consecrations. Rome was giving the Archbishop the run around. They were waiting for him to die, hoping that his death would precipitate the demise of his movement. Anyone familiar with the life of the Archbishop, is fully aware of Rome's shabby treatment of him during his latter years. Horrendous when one considers how the man spent most of his life on this planet by bringing untold numbers to Christ, and a faithful son of the Church. The media and his Modernist, Novus Ordite, enemies made a rebel out of the him, but he was never such a thing. He remained true and loyal to the Catholic Church, and not the "ape of the church."
@@LUIS-ox1bv My concern is, and no disrespect to Bp. Fellay as I believe he means well, is he said Abp. Lefebvre told him he was getting the run around. So it’s hearsay … in other words I don’t know if there’s any document to back up what Abp. Lefebvre told Bp. Fellay. But even then my question is assuming documents proving this exist, or both are telling the truth, why was the Vatican delaying the consecration of a bishop? Was their concern the Traditional Latin Mass? Or was it because of the actions of Abp. Lefebvre? Remember, the church suppressed the SSPX in 1975, suspended Abp. Lefebvre who continued to ordain priests irregardless and was suspended a divinis. Again, was the concern with the TLM or Abp. Lefebvre? Without access to documentation It is a mystery to me. I wonder if there is more to the story which is why I think Bp. Fellay and Mr. Salza should discuss / debate this on air with a moderator like @PintsWithAquinas.
Would we still have the Latin mass if Lafevre didn't keep saying it during the time after Vatican ll?
I think John Salza said yes and looking at the willingness of Paul VI to allow the celebration of the old form. And that Lafevre and his disobedience has made things harder for the Latin Mass. even through all Lafevre’s disobedience the Holy See still was willing to work with him for the Latin Mass.
Wow, what a five-star guest! 25 minutes in and I’ve learned loads from this guy. Dr. Salza’s got a razor sharp legal mind. God bless you for bringing us these interviews, Matt 🙏. Greetings from Madrid 🇪🇸
John Salza is a mason. Disappointed that Matt does not vett his guests. Salza is well known to be a grifter.
@@scaryspyce1713 Really? Is that so?
@@helmanticus8624 Yes. Check into his background and you will find a lot to discredit him.
Both Bishop Schneider and Bishop Huonder were sent by Rome to investigate the SSPX and both of them found that the SSPX are not schizmatics. I would believe them over this mason who just wants to drive up his book sales.
Salza has written books, supposedly tell-alls of Freemasonry and the SSPX which are sensationalized fictional accounts, not accurate at all.
WAS a Mason. When he learned that Catholics cannot be masons, he left them.
He also wrote a book explaining why Catholics can't be freemasons.
@@d.v.stuyvesant6944 That’s a relief. Thank you.
Fr Cekada sure put him in his place. Notice how Salza ignores the elephant in the room I.e. the Vatican II revolution ; the papal imposters, Assisi and Pachamama etc. This guy is really clever.
What papal imposters?
Vatican II was a valid council called by the Pope. It is a part of the magisterium now, and numerous succeeding Popes have made it clear we have to give our ascent to its teachings. We are laity. It is not our role to question. We are not princes of the Church. The Pope is a supreme monarch! Jesus gave Peter the keys, no one else!
La Salette is approved
On 19 September 1851, the local bishop formally approved the public devotion and prayers to Our Lady of La Salette. On 21 August 1879, Pope Leo XIII granted a canonical coronation to the image now located within the Basilica of Our Lady of La Salette
Salza seems full of ressentiments. Most things he said are objectivley wrong. Very bad interview.
He's Masonic
This guy sounds like he has a chip on his shoulder. What's the real reason he left the SSPX?
He's a freemason. Really available info online.
Mr.Salza is very charitable with his time and personally called me to discuss this topic a year ago. Pittsburgh has a growing sedevacantist community.
"Pittsburgh has a growing sedevacantist community." What group is that? Has CMRI expanded their twice monthly Masses?
Didn't john salza say before in a Fatima center talk that his local diocesan Bishop / priest said he could become a freemason?
@@eoinmcg88 he left freemasonry years and years and years ago. He’s given a bunch of talks that explain what happened to him in that organization and how freemasonry is a demonic entity. He recognized his error and left.
@@reinelantz3304 I know that, the point is his local priest told him he could join the freemasons, salza is saying go to Mass with your local priest instead of the sspx lol
That's great to hear about Pittsburgh.
Don't hear much about PA Sede's.
John Salza's lay apologetics is akin to a Protestant preacher. No thanks.
Wow! John should stop with the legalism and his perspective is absurd. That said, John's rationalization downplaying how bishops caved in response to the COVID response is by far more telling. You don't need hindsight to know they were wrong there and you don't have to be a covid skeptic to recognize not having access to the faith was extremely problematic. What happened to John...
You may have heard the words he used, but you didn't hear what the man was saying. He clearly opposes the COVID lock-down, but it's a prudential judgment of our superiors which is within their competency. Sometimes we have to submit to orders we don't like-that comes with obedience, which is an essential virtue.
@@Dack105 Within whose competency? It is immoral to assent to the actions and dictates of midwits and cowards. Bishops have proven time and time again how often they erred prudentially when dealing with faggotry and abuse. Your definition of obedience lacks seriousness and has more in common with the vice of cowardice.
This is super helpful but also painful. My in-laws are not in communion with Rome, wouldn't go to Mass with us during their visit and we couldn't talk about our marriage...still can't! It's just sad and frustrating. My sister in law wants to be a Godmother for one of our children and I don't think it'll be possible because of all of this. Gah it's upsetting!
Praying… that is very sad.
I hear ya, this whole thing has ripped our family apart as well. Schism begets sin and destruction. It's rough. If you need someone to reach out to and talk to about it, feel free to reach out to me. 🙂
Ave Maria for you !
Our family is suffering through this right now, my grandmother joined the sedes last year and it’s caused a huge rift in our family.
@@AnaMT1985 Didn't john salza say before in a Fatima center talk that his local diocesan Bishop / priest said he could become a freemason?
At least Salza is more humble and less obnoxious than Lofton. And he's been Catholic more than 3 years.
I wish people would stop promoting Lofton and promote Salza instead.
Matt seems to have a very limited understanding of the traditionalist movement - which is fine. A good start would be Michael Davies -3 book series on the crisis
Book 1 Crammer s Godly order
Book 2 Pope John’s Council
Book3 Pope Paul s New Mass
Davies accepts the legitimacy of the conciliar popes (as do I) but gives a sober overview of the problems since the council which were prefigured in the reformation
Reading this three book series gives one a foundation in understanding the problems
There are many other books on these issues but these three books are a very good start
Are you accepting the legitimacy of Second Vatican Council, and the validity of the N.O. mass?
@@ScreamingReel500 yes
@@mikeoconnor4590 And do you accept her teaching in the Catechism promulgated by Pope JP II?
@@ScreamingReel500 I have that catechism but admittedly have not read it entirely - my understanding is that this catechism has had to be revised due to errors but not entirely sure of the history there.
Ultimately I accept the authority of the church and the pope so by extension accept what is authoritatively taught by the church
@@tomthx5804 Michael Davies provides many footnotes to show what he is saying is true
I have found that the “company men” who are apologists for any and everything the church does today are the real biased folks
I’m moving the follow up to the top to be seen: I’m not going to SSPX anymore and I’m furious that they lied to me. Sorry to everyone I argued with on this topic.
I reverted to the faith and landed in an SSPX mass on Christmas Eve. Afterwards I had the most powerful interaction with a priest I’ve ever had. I didn’t know anything about any of this at that moment, I just needed help. I don’t want to be at the front lines of interfaith civil war. Can we get some charity and compassion for the lost souls that just need help and don’t care for this. Unless the Pope clearly commands that I cannot attend, I’m going to keep going. Not a single thing uttered by the priest or a churchgoer (who have all been incredibly nice and welcoming) has smelled remotely of schism. Does that count for nothing?
Follow up: I sent my bishop an email and we will see what he says.
Second follow up: I’m not going to SSPX anymore.
Please watch the whole video
You cannot attend because they lack any jurisdiction...ordinary or supplied.
@@thelogosproject7 are you going to come to the SSPX chapel and hear the other side? I’m still finishing the prior video about the shroud of Turin. I’m going to watch every second of that video as it absolutely nurtured my soul. I sent it to many friends (few of whom cared). Watching a minute or so of this video did not nurture my soul and I’m going to put a pin in discussions about schisms until I’m more solid in my new faith and prayer life. Call me a schist, I’ll be ok.
@@danloveswatches I’ve heard different and I’m no expert so I’m not going to make that decision hastily.
@@TexasGabe11 I grew up in the SSPX
Such an interesting interview. As a fan of the TLM, it gave me a new speen on the motus proprio. Thanks you for posting this.
I must say though, now I would love to hear someone from within the SSPX answer to this interview and to those arguments.
I think a moderated debate with @PintsWithAquinas with John Salza and former Superior General of the SSPX, Bishop Bernard Fellay, who was one of the bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, would be very interesting and eye opening.
Benedict XVI lifted the excommunication on SPX and they have a church and office in Rome. How are they outside the Church then?
Im new, but if I understand this correctly' the sspx seems like the sovereign citizen of Catholicism.
When is this channel going to give an SSPX priest the opportunity to have some airtime to responds to the claims made against them? . . .
I would love to hear Matt interview a competent person to speak to the positions and assertions of Mr. Salza.. Like a Bishop Athanasius Schneider (official Holy See delegate yo the SSPX) or a Mr. Jeff Cassman. I appreciate Mr. Salza and his testimony but I never rely on one man's opinion but try to objectively weigh all sides by equally competent persons. The SSPX certainly has its trouble spots - no doubt! Do they have some with schismatic tendencies- no doubt. Do FSSP communities have people with schismatic tendencies - no doubt. Do Novus Ordo parishes have openly homosexual priests (Milwaukee) and people that openly deny central tenets of Catholic dogma - in myriads! It boggles my mind that such small communities and "less than 1% of the Church" is such a threat and danger to the Church but Legion of heretical Catholics are not. You shall know them by their fruits. Last time I checked Madison WI is set to close 70% of their Novus Ordo parishes in the next few years! 70%!!! By their fruits you shall know them
Agree, except NOT Mr. Cassman - he's already been heard and he has a past that becomes prohibitive for serious discussion unfortunately (he's repented publicly, and made amends, etc. but still...) I would far prefer to hear a Society priest or one of their lay oblates.
The whataboutism does not change the fact the SSPX is in schism.
Good point, its amazing how many modern Catholics flout Christian living, act like complete worldlings and remain safely in the bosom of the Church, it's laughable.
It wouldn't change anything that was said in the interview. The less we hear from schismatics, the better.
So he got there (SSPX) by mistake, stayed there lost for 15 years, and now he is an expert and oracle. Tell me more.
What's your argument? It seems most SSPX just get emotional more than not whenever the movement is criticized especially for doctrinal error, schism, or illicit sacraments.
That was some of the heartiest salza I've ever tasted that I forgot all about my corn chips and was satisfied washing it all down with pints of aqua-nice.
YEEESSSSS
Well said. Great review!
@@paulblum4369 That's about the extent of my profundity and eloquence.
How could Archbishop have over reacted when we have a worship of Pachamama at the Vatican? Seems Archbishop Lefebvre was ahead of his time.
That's to much for modernist, they prefer to fight with dead bishop than with an alive Pope that's teaching errors.
To Reject the Bishops and the Pope Authority is to be an Anathema to Christ. Council of Trent Session 23, 24, and 14. You cant fight scandal by committing scandal.
Thanks for this discussion. It would be really good to have an SSPX priest on to explain their side of the story. John Salza obviously does not come from the same view point at all. He does not talk as if there has been and is a major crisis in the Church since Vatican II. He quotes laws of the Church, which are given for normal times. These are not normal times. He doesn't seem to acknowledge the dangers of Vatican II and seems to suggest that if Archbishop Lefebvre had continued under his local bishop, all would have been fine - the Archbishop could have continued forming traditional priests for the Church. No, the modernists wanted tradition banished. Thank God for Archbishop Lefebvre. John Salza insinuates that Archbishop Lefebvre lost it a bit. Ridiculous and false. He was the most well grounded, faithful, clear-sighted and charitable of men. Everyone knows this.
As for bishops advising that we may go to SSPX masses, Bishop Schneider and Archbishop Vigano tell us that we can and should (two of the most Catholic bishops we have). They have nothing but praise for the saintly Archbishop.
Please do have an SSPX priest on to explain in detail the real crisis and their position.
In Jesus, Mary and Joseph,
Sadly I have to contradict. The canon law is not only valid in normal times, but always. Mostly Divine law is not changeable. And if it were true that because of the church’s current situation it weren’t normal times, who could decide that? It’s of course not up to individuals lay or ordained, but for the whole church. And if we look into church history I guess every time wasn’t normal and there has always been a sort of crisis…so it remains the same that canon law is valid.
This is so helpful and well done, thanks for explaining this all!
This podcast is very deceptive. The host is not challenging the guest on many points regarding the subject. If the Holy See recognizes the masses said by the SSPX as valid, the confessions heard by the SSPX as valid, the marriages witnessed as valid, and the money donated as legitimate, what is this guy’s issue? A definite axe to grind and a hang up on his part. The SSPX is completely legitimate and this podcast is leading people astray with incorrect information and misleading statements. The host should be more careful to ask pressing and relevant questions.
Is validity the same as licitude?
By the way, their marriages are only valid if they have the authorization of the local ordinary. Because they have no jurisdiction. Don't leave this out when accusing the podcast of deception...
John Salsa, you're wrong on so many points. You need to do your homework and learn the issues correctly. I'm surprised you were chosen to be on this podcast. I only hope those who listen to this interview are not misled by your psychological huxturism!😢
No, he isn't. He is right on the money. Lefebvre was a schismatic, as is the SSPX as a whole. The amount of evidence against them is staggering, there is no way that anybody can look at the history of Lefebvre and the SSPX and judge them as being in full submission to the Church.
I'm curious which points he was wrong on
Very bad. Unfortunatley mostly lies. These kinds of persons should not have a platform on a true catholic channel.
So when will we get to hear the sspx side?
When they answer our invitations
@@thelogosproject7 well, considering he backed out of a debate with Kennedy Hall on that very topic but Fradd still had him on tells me that an actual invitation needs to be made.
@@someguy7576 Hall was being a big baby
@Some Guy I would rather hear the sspx defended by an sspx priest than a youtube commentator tbh
@@thelogosproject7 so who do you think Matt invited?
Well done, John Salza👏👏 I have been waiting for you to do an interview like this. I myself got caught in Sedevacantism, and your Book and material helped get me out of it. I then went with the SSPX way for years and departed approximately 5 years ago, now attending TLM and NO adhering to Diocesan Bishop, etc. and never felt better! Keep up the solid work... you follow through with great, clear, concise style, clearing things up for the Church. Live Jesus our love and Mary our hope!
Hi Joshua! Over on my channel I host interviews with former Trads. It's helped a lot of people looking for answers and someone they can relate to. I would love to hear your story of what got you in and out of Sedevacantism, if you ever feel inclined to share! God bless you!
Is mr salza no longer a freemasonic luciferian ....just wondering....as he now appears to be an authority on Catholicism....🤔🧐
Notice how they don't get an SSPX priest to respond to the false claims. Any SSPX priest would demolish these false claims.
SSPX priests and adherents have declined all of their requests for debates.
@@24erstad What lie that is. The SSPX and its clergy are more than willing to be given a voice to respond to the lies !
@@bobsmith425 No lie. This was originally supposed to be a debate with Kennedy Hall, until Kennedy backed out. Per Kennedy's email, "I will decline debating him, and he can say ‘Kennedy declined to debate me.”
They reached out to the Society, and heard crickets. You're ignorant of the situation.
@@24erstad Since when is some layman the standard for the SSPX refusing to debate. Let them get an SSPX priest to demolish their false claims. John Salza himself was a long time defender of the SSPX. Don't forget that ! He could himself demolish his own false claims if he had any real integrity !
@@bobsmith425 Kennedy was the only one to respond to a debate request. The SSPX priests simply refused to the debate. When is the last time you've seen an SSPX priest do a public debate?
I yearn for the mystery, awe and reverence of feeling that I’m in the presence of and worshiping God, who is above all; that makes me conscious that He is God and I am NOT.
Anyone else tired of all these acronyms?
I am still discerning the matter, especially in light of recent rumors that Rome will be banning TLM entirely.
Why Salza does not discuss what happens in times of a Pope who preaches heresy and Bishops who do the same... Salz has not given a balanced commentary
I did your work for you, go to 2hours:49seconds
Pope can't preach heresy (Luke 22:32).
OK so the SSPX are in schism but what do you think is going to happen when it happens again? When the gates of the coral are closed before the sheep are able to get inside and inevitably will look for other corals outside their own jurisdiction?. Because to me it's going to happen all over again and it's not the making of the SSPX.
I think we need a rountable discussion on Catholic Ecclesiology. This guy, Jimmy Akin, Lofton, Marshall, etc...
Completely forgotten here it seems is the acknowledgement of a crisis without precedent which is undeniable and the highest law which is the salvation of souls. The Society's superiors are in constant contact with Rome and always have been, just like Archbishop Lefebvre wished. They visit in person to this day.
Thank you for this video. Dr Salza is very clear and articulate in explaining the situation with the SSPX, Pope Francis, Sedevecantism, and other issues. I wish I heard this talk earlier. I was so confused.
Dude, same.
He has made serious errors. He stated that the priest don't have the faculties to say the mass. They do as the SSPX mass is valid and the SSPX are not considered "schismatic", according to Pope Francis. However, it is illicit. We are not supposed to receive communion at an SSPX mass. He claimed that the SSPX regards Archbishop Lefebvre over the magisterium. That's false. They cling to the concerns that Lefebvre had about the second Vatican and modernism as well as heresy in the clergy. They even point out heretical statements from not only JP2, but Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis who we all know is the most "soft on crime" Pope we've had in the last 100 years or so. He's used terms like "I think that..", "they say..", "I haven't seen any evidence in contrary to.." There are a lot of opinions in his argument. I'll give you a small example - The SSPX had a problem with priests in NO mass placing the bread in the hands of the laity instead of the tongue because the early protestants did this as they didn't believe in the real present of Christ's body, blood, soul, and divinity in the Eucharist. I'm not a SSPX apologist, but I believe in a fair fight.
The former high ranking freemason John Salza who made an oath to Lucifer and renounced Jesus Christ before his "conversion" to the Vatican II church and who now eagerly tries to bring all who want to be traditional catholics into that institution in which someone who builds temples for pagan god worship and who prays on the wailing wall "in which HaShem dwells" for the coming of "their" Moshiach must be venerated as a saint is proven to be a complete spiritual fraud in an audio file named "John Salza's Lies, Errors and Dishonesty" here on TH-cam. I suggest you also study the article entitled "John Salza Has No Idea What He’s Talking About" (you can google it).
I have recently moved in the last year to a new state… unfortunately the nearest FSSP church is three hours away… so we have been going to the Novus ordo mass. I can tell you the things I see there take all the joy out of Sunday mass. when I converted to Catholicism I was very joyful… unfortunately I find it very hard to be joyful now… especially at mass.
For your Faith's sake you need to leave and find a TLM ASAP.
It blows my mind how many Schismatic groups there are SSPX, SSPV, Old Catholic Church I’m just finding out about these groups are there any others??
Do you accept the Deposit of faith? Or have you twist that also?
Your going to ask a person from the other team what is right ?
Matt Thank you again for doing this interview! I want to plead with you to please continue to interview folks explaining the schism of the society. I know its not fun to talk about but these talks truly are bringing people back from schism, heresy, or at least being on the brink. Without videos like this my husband and I may have completely fallen for the societies schism. Please don’t stop, souls need this!
God bless & so thankful for John Salza he explained everything so well God bless him
This is going to be great to watch! I recently did an “SSPX Roundtable” with John, Andrew Bartel, and Dom of the Logos Project. You guys may enjoy that as well! God bless!
Dustin
Strongly recommend that round table!!!
Pass
@@thelogosproject7 you misunderstand my statement Brother. Your channel and content is subpar- that is why I pass.
That was an excellent round table!!
@@AnaMT1985 thanks!
I really appreciated John’s approach to this. He’s so knowledgeable of the historical facts behind all of this and is able to communicate them calmly and clearly. This was so informative!
Rather I found his neglect of context appalling.
@@philcortens5214 yes. Lefebvre was lied to by Rome. Multiple times. He had not a schismatic spirit (and I don't even go to a SSPX parish)
@@philcortens5214 Bingo!
Yeah right ....is salza still a freemasonic luciferian or an authority on the Catholic church now....just wondering ....
The former high ranking freemason John Salza who made an oath to Lucifer and renounced Jesus Christ before his "conversion" to the Vatican II church and who now eagerly tries to bring all who want to be traditional catholics into that institution in which someone who builds temples for pagan god worship and who prays on the wailing wall "in which HaShem dwells" for the coming of "their" Moshiach must be venerated as a saint is proven to be a complete spiritual fraud in an audio file named "John Salza's Lies, Errors and Dishonesty" here on TH-cam. I suggest you also study the article entitled "John Salza Has No Idea What He’s Talking About" (you can google it).
Man, I've always heard good things about Salza, but this is my first time listening to him and I'm blown away. Can't wait to dive into the full video. Thanks for the great discussion guys!
The former high ranking freemason John Salza who made an oath to Lucifer and renounced Jesus Christ before his "conversion" to the Vatican II church and who now eagerly tries to bring all who want to be traditional catholics into that institution in which someone who builds temples for pagan god worship and who prays on the wailing wall "in which HaShem dwells" for the coming of "their" Moshiach must be venerated as a saint is proven to be a complete spiritual fraud in an audio file named "John Salza's Lies, Errors and Dishonesty" here on TH-cam. I suggest you also study the article entitled "John Salza Has No Idea What He’s Talking About" (you can google it).
Thank you for this discussion. It gives so much clarity about an issue I’ve been turning over in my mind a lot recently. The Latin Mass was crucial in my reversion to the faith. It should be a point of unity, not division.
Sadly, Satan has used the zealots to pit the bishops, priests and laity against each other's.
Tell that to those who wish to abolish it
If everyone who attends the Novus Ordo would simply abandon it and begin to attend the Traditional Mass, the unity you long for would be achieved.
@@tradtruth If everyone agreed that Matthew 16:13-18 means what the Church always says then we already know the answer. Since people rejected the Council Teachings, even the Council of Trent who taught the same things as the Second Vatican Council about Matthew 16:13-18, we don't have the same agreement and submission to the Holy See. Since both Councils say the same thing about the Magisterium has the authority. You rejected that and most of the TLM laity which contradict to what you said. Please read the Catechism of the Council of Trent "Need of an Authoritative Catholic Catechism" (page 9).
@@ScreamingReel500 Who are you to say what I have rejected or not rejected? Who are you to judge?
Interesting because now our TLM isn’t even allowed in a diocesan church 😒 sooo
GREAT CONVO! much needed info for a lot of people in these times.
Viva Cristo Rey!
@@eoinmcg88 and the cardinal who ordained marcel lefebvre was a free mason....
@@TheEdzy25 Archbishop Bugnini who created the novus ordo Mass was a freemason
@@eoinmcg88 the sspx also created by freemasons.
@@TheEdzy25 I prefer to stay away from a Mass created by a freemason with the help of 6 protestant ministers
@@eoinmcg88 and some people might say, they rather stay away from a society started by schismatic freemasons that hijacked a mass rite and holding it hostage.
I suppose it’s always easier to criticize the SSPX, the Ortho’s, Byzantine’s, etc, than to be forced to face the real schisms and heresies in our own diocese (that we can do nothing about). Now we can all feel better about ourselves and go back to sleep reassured.
Remember you’re watching layman on TH-cam.
you nailed it
Ask John about freemasonry
Disappointed that Salza wasn’t asked about why Pope Francis told Bishop Huonder the the SSPX wasn’t schismatic and gave him permission to retire to an SSPX house
Any quotes of a pope saying its ok to go to sspx?
@@johnjaun9231 no but I can give you quotes of him speaking of the schism of Lefebvre
The Holy Father said they are schismatic. Pope Francis even uses the word 'schism' when referring to them in the letter to the Bishops accompanying Traditionis Custodes. They are schismatic
If Bishop Huonder was permitted to retire to an SSPX house by the Pope (I haven't seen a document as evidence of that), the Bishop is able to say his own mass, and therefore needn't assist at SSPX masses even though he lives with them.
@@Dack105.... lol
It's not just because of the mass.but the tradition.
Great interview, Matt. Great questions. And you had the good sense to get out of Mr Salza's way and let him answer in full.
Thank you both John and Matt for having this discussion. I extremely appreciate the information and clarity in these hard times and found it very informative. THANK YOU🙏