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 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’m a convert from being an atheist. I was baptized 3 years ago at 30 years old. The only advice I can give after struggling with this for so long comes from a priest I confessed to. Mass should not disturb your soul. You should not have to wonder whether or not the Mass your attending is licit or not. Keep the waters of your soul calm and still so that you can grow in faith, hope, charity, and love - do not let it become choppy lest a storm brews and drowns you. I haven’t had these experiences described at SSPX Masses - and for the most part, I’ve experienced some pretty reverent NO Masses. The NO masses had their issues in my opinion, but at the end of the day, what I had issues with in the NO mass came from a place of love for Christ in my heart. Slowly, over time, it became a bit prideful. Because I could see the pride growing, I know travel 2 hours (not boasting or anything) to attend an FSSP Mass. This is a small sacrifice to pay for the assurance of being in communion with our Bishop and celebrating what I believe to be a Mass that helps nurture your soul. The TLM
It’s all emotion. Emotions can lead you astray and that is what the novus ordo means new world order. My goodness you folks need to wake up , ask the Holy Spirit to help you
@@christophergros9884 I've been on both sides of this issue. The TLM has been the perfect expression consistent with centuries of refining. The NO mass has problems from the outset and many Bishops and Cardinals were outright lied to and misled by some of the members of the Vatican II council. The problem now is the Church is in crisis and will remain so until yet a new council can take up the issue, hopefully in a decade or so.
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 don't know about all the legalistic stuff, but I got married by the SSPX. I'm Byzantine rite Catholic and my wife was baptized and entered the church in a parish church in Hawaii in 2020 during the COVID outbreak.(causing some strange things that needed a lot of paper work) Now we live in AZ so we had to get 4 bishops to sign off on our marriage. The Byzantine Arizonan, Latin Hawaiian, Latin Arizonian, and the SSPX Bishops all said we we're good. If my weeding caused a mini ecumenical council and none of these bishops objected... I think we're all good. I just go with the modo "be chill, worship God, let the politicians do the politics."
@@veronicasingermaciasI think it’s bc Pope Francis gave them those 2 faculties as an act of charity for the people. I’m not sure if that permission was just for that specific year or for all time going forward.
@veronicasingermacias It's important to remember that the marriages were conditional to permission from their local bishops. That permission is rarely sought, so those people that were married under the SSPX without the society obtaining episcopal permission are in objective mortal sin. This particular person obviously got permission for the SSPX to do the wedding, so that marriage is valid.
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.
I’m not SSPX, but Jimmy Akin was on Catholic Answers explaining that Popes Francis and Benedict XVI affirmed SSPX priests do have faculties to celebrate the mass, and it does fulfill your Sunday obligation.
"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
Jimmy is a bit off on this. John goes into detail in the video. Furthermore the Church (through Mons Perl in his letter to F. John Loughnan) clarified that it does not fulfil the Sunday Obligation and exposes the faithful to the danger of becoming schismatic
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.
43:01 Matt Fradd misunderstood John Salza when he said Abp Lefebvre signed off on the V2 documents. By signing those documents, Abp Lefebvre DID NOT sign off on the Novus Ordo Mass - those are two separate things. Mr. Salza knows that, and yet and he didn’t correct Mr. Fradd’s misunderstanding. Why not? Mr. Salza lost all credibility by not doing so.
I am a Catholic who grew up attending SSPX Masses, and attended a girl school run by SSPX Dominican sisters; I am also a big fan of this channel. I just wanted to address some things in this video that I felt were contrary to my understanding of the SSPX (this is my understanding. I am not claiming to represent exactly what the SSPX stands for because I could easily be wrong or have misunderstood). 1. We do not claim to be separate from the Church, nore that the Catholics who attend the Novosordo (I apologize if I spelled that wrong) Mass are separate from the Church, though we do discourage attending it because we feel that the purpose and mindset that it was made with, make it a danger to the faith, and that it does not give God proper worship. In the parish I am a part of, we have gotten a few sermons addressing the issue of treating Catholics who attend the Novosordo Mass as lesser or not part of the Church. 2. The story behind what led up to Arch Bishop Lefebvre making Bishops is told rather differently from the SSPX perspective, at least in the Crisis series podcast. For example in that description of the story, Archbishop Lefebvre asked for 4 bishops initially and was offered one, but they would not give him a date when he would receive the bishop. They kept moving the date, until he eventually told them that if they didn't agree to that date, he would move forward with making Bishops without Rome's approval. I don't know if this inconsistency is a matter of one side being wrong, or different sources, but as far as I know, the SSPX is trying to get Rome to approve our next set of bishops. One of the crisis in the Church videos includes Bishop Fellay, who is one of the four bishops who Archbishop Lefebvre ordained, and I am inclined to trust his explanation of the situation, as he was there for it. 3. I don't think I'm very good at explaining things, and I apologize if I misrepresented something. I highly recommend the Crisis in the church series. I think that Pints with Aquinas is really great and I would love to see an SSPX priest come on and be interviewed on this topic or even debate. I would be willing to try to reach out to one about the idea if you would be open to that. Thank you and God bless!
Glad to see that you're open to this discussion. While it's great that you and many more followers of the SSPX don't think that Catholics who attend regular diocesan liturgies aren't in schism, the official position of the SSPX, which has never changed, is that those liturgies are an offense to God and harmful to souls. Also just saying that you're not outside of the Church doesn't really mean anything. Protestants will swear on their life that they are part of Christ's Church. The SSPX can say whatever they want but it wouldn't change that they are in schism. Now individuals who attend their liturgy may still not be in schism for lack of culpability, but if you're informed about them, then there's a problem. From what I've seen, the perspective of Lefebrve being pushed by the Vatican and refusing to give him a date is false. Lefebrve signed the agreement to consecrate one bishop and then rejected that proposition literally the next day on his own. Doesn't sound at all like the narrative that the SSPX pushes.
@@john-el9636 it is definitely a complicated situation, and I don't think that I am informed well enough to make a firm judgement yet. I think it would be really beneficial to see an SSPX priest come onto the show to defend that position. I'm definitely planning on doing more digging into Vatican 2. I wish that things had never gotten so complicated and divided with the Church, and I can only hope that things will get better with the will of God.
I appreciate the back and forth because it is so nuanced, but the archbishop did write two very beautiful books on his own experience: “open letter to confused catholic,” and “they have uncrowned him.” Those books are clearly not written by a “rigid” man. They are very geared toward “the people”, and it is clear, by his own words, the archbishop’s concern is for Jesus and his flock. He points out many contradictions and so far as i know, alot of his critics do not adress his books. Why? I think itvwould go a long way to see if the archbishops reasoning could be picked apart by adressing thecwords in his book. Also, what facts or points of history, does the archbishop cite in his books, that are incorrect or mistaken? So far those two books carrry alot of weight still. The reader who cares about the catholic church, will be enriched by the archbishops obvious love for the church, for Christ, for the faith… where are his own, actual words, in those two books, taking acwrong turn. I see a bust of Luther in the vatican office, but alot of contempt for lefevre-- whats up with that?
@Inarticulus I would dispute the claim that Lefebvre wasn't rigid, but in any case Dr. Salza does refer to his open letter in this very video. I know he quotes from it extensively on his website as well. Lefebvre's heresies and errors are on full display in his own writings. Whether or not he had good intentions is pretty much meaningless.
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)
@@mariamikaelakrizbajda4294 1) Disobedience is not schism. 2) canon law states that one can be disobedient to a law in a state of emergency even if the person only thinks there is an emergency. Archbishop Lefebvre knew the Vatican was waiting for him to die. If he died without consecrating bishops, then there would be no bishops to ordain traditional priests. Remember that there was no FSSP at the time. For example, as an analogy, a person cannot destroy another person's property, but if there is a fire in a home and that person is trying to rescue the person inside, then if they break a window to do so, they will have broken the law by damaging property but it's excused because the situation was an emergency.
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.
Love this reply. The history of the SSPX was completely misrepresented in this show. Mr. Salza gave a lot of opinion that forces people to believe what he’s saying. He also states we are not in communion with the local bishop which is also false because in our mass the priest prays for the local bishop.
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.
Couple of things to add: First: in 2016 Pope Francis himself granted direct jurisdiction in perpetuity to all SSPX priests to hear confessions and for the sacrament of marriage. In this decree it also states that the SSPX priest is to say Mass during the marriage. How can a priest from the SSPX celebrate Mass licitly on this day, but lose all faculties the next? Secondly, Archbishop Lefebvre never celebrated the Novus Ordo, but only the new rites of 1965 and 1967, which were much closer to the 1962 TLM than to the 1970 Novus Ordo. He was never a great liturgist, but he rejected the new theology of the Novus Ordo.
Oh so the sspx is no longer separate from what lefev called “the conciliar modernist freemason church”?? Wonderful so the sspx leadership have rejected these words from lefev or the “modernist conciliar church” is no longer modernist?? Great so we can just go to a NO or does the sspx say not to??
@@xanderjansen4539 where is your evidence to back up Fellay was given permission to ordain? Fellay has said that, but he has never produced a document to verify that. Anybody can say anything.
@@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.
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.
As I understand it, the sspx does not reject the profession of faith, but have issues with 3rd category *items*. ... not the 3rd category carte blanche. That would be a misrepresentation of the SSPX in my opinion.
@@thelogosproject7 Is that supposed to be a response? Here is where they explicitly state that the SSPX accepts the authentic magisterium, but has issues with some of the things stated by it. th-cam.com/video/dUt1q0D9qM0/w-d-xo.html Salza misrepresents many other things from the SSPX. But let this be known in order to show that this presentation is riddled with inaccuracy... how deliberate? only God knows.
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).
I would have to disagree. I don't even go to SSPX but there is evidence Lefebvre had not a schismatic spirit. Promises were made but not fullfilled (One bishop was promised to the SSPX for ex).
I have the humility to say that if something isn't in good standing with the church, don't go to it. Even if it seems better and the sacraments are valid, if they don't accept the pope, they're off the ark. Just go to an fssp or move to a place that has one. We live in rough times we must offer up our sufferings and trust in the Lord for better times.
John mentioned 'the appearance of the Church' vs what she really is at about 20min. God just taught me a similar lesson this Christmas. The whole family was sick with different viruses (including an awful influenza) all of advent and Christmas. We had a tree and some presents, but could not really eat much or really enjoy the tree and such. We were just too exhausted. What remains of Christmas if we take away the food and the cookies I was not able to bake. What remains if we can't enjoy the tree that much or be excited with th children about their new toys? Christ in the manger remains. It still felt like Christmas to me. I felt overflowing love for all of my family. And the holy family and little baby Jesus. But all the nice Christmas things got a little bit called out for being accessories. All good things, but not the main thing. And perhaps God is doing a similar thing in the Church atm. I like incense and all the traditional things. But what happens if it all falls away? What remains to cling to? Christ in the Eucharist. I'm not into modern barren churches with ugly modern art on the walls and awful acustic. But perhaps God wants me to look more to Christ directly? Perhaps he wants all of us to do that?
Beautifully said. The unfortunate irony here is that belief in the presence of Christ (body, soul, divinity) in the Eucharist is fading fast amongst NO parishes. This is the opposite for TLM parishes including in the SSPX where the number of faithful is growing.
It is reasonable to be attracted to the full-on display of reverence and tradition of the mass especially in these times. I've never been to a TLM but i want to join in one, and i suspect quite a lot of catholics are the same. But stip away all the vestments, the tradition, the reverence, and what we have are the absolute basics: apostolic succession and the magesterium, scripture and the cathecism, and the sacraments. If all else fails then these are the ones to hold on to. All tradition and reverence flows from these, but are they absolutely essential? Imo, in these times, its back to basics.
@@eddiedelatorre5925 it almost sounds like Church Universal would benefit from unity among her children! Wouldn't it be wonderful to reunite those who believe in the Real Presence with their NO brothers and sisters. The NO crowd can model obedience and submission to the authority of Christ's Church, while the TLM crowd can model proper Eucharistic faith. The point is we need to supplement each other's weaknesses through the strengths God has given us.
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).
Another question...maybe ethereal: Do you think alleged schism and sedevecantism would be on the rise if the Church hierarchy, it modes operandi, its heresies and perversions were not so prevalent the past 60 years? The Society was created in response to semi Arians and faithful pleading for a safe haven in the post-conciliar deterioration. I have family and friends that grew up in the wake of the Vatican II Council and said it was utter chaos. The most scandalous and sacrilegious acts sanctioned by the bishop and priests. In light of that were people who attended the Society bad? To say yes lacks any serious charity.
Nobody is (hopefully) trying to judge the hearts of those who adhere to these movements. The question is simply if they are materially in communion with the Catholic Church, and if their unique teachings are correct or incorrect. I think any sensible commentator will recognise these movements as reactionary in essence (I believe John said this), and therefore obviously the result of the scandals they are reacting to. But based on canon law and magisterial teaching I have never heard a serious argument that there is communion between the priests of the SSPX and the Catholic hierarchy. "I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the *grave* duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support *in any way* for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the *schism* is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law.' -Pope John Paul II
Martin Luther used similar reasoning to justify his break with the Church. Our faith in the Church doesn’t depend on the quality of the men in the hierarchy.
@@TheCleanTech Martin Luther broke from the Catholic Faith. The SSPX formed to preserve it. You are comparing two polar opposites with no comprehensive depth in the same way that the narrative "orange man bad" was pushed.
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! 😇
Matt, recently I’ve had a hard time getting through the hour and a half to two hour episodes. Usually bail out after hear a good nugget. This was a fascinating new story hadn’t heard and the 3 hours + flew by. As of now, for me, this is your Titanic episode.
Would be great to see John have a debate with Tailor Marshall. In reading over the pro SSPX comments here they seem very similar to those made by non denominational and prodistants.
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
Many questions for Mr Salza, not about the goodness of attending SSPX Masses but merely whether it is schismatic and sinful to do so: 1) how can a Pope give faculties to schismatics? 2) why would schismatics ask the Pope for faculties? Or anything for that matter. 3) how is a retired diocesan bishop living with the SSPX and not been declared in schism? Can Bishop Huonder hear Mass from a SSPX priest in the morning, then celebrate Mass at a local parish in the afternoon and be OK canonically? 4) has there ever been a time in Church history when schismatics have said the name of the Pope and the local bishop in Mass, dialogued with the hierarchy on an intra-Church basis, requested and received faculties from the Pope, the laity been allowed to be married and absolved by said schismatics? If not, what makes now different? 5) were the Jesuits who continued their mission after they were suppressed in schism? Why did no one at the time or afterward makes this assertion if that was the case?
@@24erstad well if the answer to the first two questions is anything like his claim about schismatic orthodox having carte blanche “faculties” to absolve then I will need further enticement
@@toddbyrd9071 It seems clear that any answer given will not be sufficient for you. Your questions are worded as "gotcha" questions. If you are serious though, his articles on his site are most compelling.
@@24erstad I have read his articles and, as stated elsewhere, he has changed my opinion to some degree on the SSPX. To claim that I am intractable based on one response is rash on your part IMO. Could it be that these questions are rhetorical and meant to highlight the arguments of his that I find the weakest? Perhaps someone who agree with Mr Salza could answer them and I would change my mind even more. I am open to that.
The way the faithful received Holy Communion in the first few centuries was different than how many receive it now in that they did not touch the Host, but had a cloth placed over their hand and put their head down to touch their tongue to it and place it in their mouths. The faithful developed the long standing practice of having the priest place the Host on their tongue very early on, but the recent receiving in the hand the way people do now was originally an abuse that was excused in 1977 because so many wayward bishops and priests initially out of Holland and Belgium were already allowing, advocating, and even mandating it in their dioceses to the detriment of faith in the Real Presence of the Eucharist. What you do with your body matters. Receiving communion in the hand was one of the first changes made during the Protestant Reformation in order to communicate this was NOT Christ's actual body, blood, soul, and divinity.
There is the issue of having hands consecrated to touch the Host, exception being in an emergency to protect the Host from danger. The early Church understood what something meant to be consecrated...think of their understanding of the Ark of the Covenant. While they did not understand molecules or atoms, they did understand dust. They would have understood that even the tiniest piece of the Host was just as much Christ as the entire whole Host. They would not have risked even the dust of the Host to be discarded. This developed even more fully as a practice within a few hundred years universally within the Church.
There are some Catholics who can receive on the hand and maybe don't lose faith in the Real Presence, but knowing about the possibility of discarding even the tiniest bit of the Host and knowing that the laity have not had their hands consecrated as a priest (diluting the sanctity of the priesthood itself and causing confusion as to why priests have been set apart by privilege of their office), why on earth would you continue to receive on the hand??? If it is just because it is awkward and uncomfortable having not done it that way before, humble yourself before the King of Kings who laid down his life for you. By and large, it has caused immense damage to the belief in the Real Presence.
47:46 To be fair to Archbishop Lefebvre- he did indeedy sign a document indicating his willingness to have a bishop named for him on August 15th, and the next day he reneged on this agreement, as he himself declared. So yes, you can say the Archbishop was "wishy washy". BUT it also remains true that, prior to his signing, Cardinal Ratzinger strongly hinted that Rome would accept his nomination to be consecrated, and then Rome changed ITS TUNE immediately upon getting his signature. That does not seem like "bending over backwards" to me, on the part of Rome.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
“This prerogative [inerrant teaching authority] granted to St. Peter by the Lord Jesus Christ was supposed to pass to all Peter’s successors because the chair of Peter is the center of unity in the Church. But if the Pontiff should fall into an error of faith, the Church would dissolve, deprived of the bond of unity. The bishop of Meaux speaks very well on this point, saying: ‘If this Roman See could fall and be no longer the See of truth, but of error and pestilence, then the Catholic Church herself would not have the bond of a society and would be schismatic and scattered-which in fact is impossible.” - Presentation given by Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser (1809-1879) to the general congregation of Bishops at the 1st Vatican Council.
The Pope is not evil simply because you say he is. For the Pope to truely and legitimately labeled evil or a heretic he must be officially rebuked but other authorities in the church such as the college of cardinals or an ecumenical council. To deny the legitimacy of the pope and magisterium is schismatic. You do not know better. You are a slave to your own pride.
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.
13:20 Objectively false Can. 1248 §1. A person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass.
@berryjones1327 SSPX Priests offer the Roman Rite. That would be true if the Old Catholics where validly ordained (most aren't). JPII explicitly wanted this put into canon law for situations like Eastern Bloc countries where laity could approach Valid but Illicit liturgies and fulfill their Sunday obligation
I really appreciate the "Middle Road" approach John is talking about here. I've felt this is the best answer to the problems Traditional Catholics are trying to point out. Thank you Matt Fradd for your work in this approach as well. And to Scott Hahn who also promotes this. When I had my conversion to the Faith, it was within the Novus Ordo Mass and my heart was on fire with the Holy Spirit. Then I got caught up in this drama of Trad vs. Novus Ordo, and found myself very unhappy and angry with the Church. I lost sight of what truly matters- Jesus Christ and His Kingdom. We can help our Lord build His Kingdom at the Novus Ordo AND the TLM. We don't need to pick sides or tear down the other side. The "Middle Road" is important for both sides to learn from and can bring peace of mind/heart/soul.
@@johnraymond-pz9bo I think we should pray for his conversion and still respect the office of the papacy. even if he's likely a freemason infiltrator. We've endured bad popes before. I don't think sedevacantism is the best response
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.
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!
"In my opinion"...I will take Michael Davies over John Salza. Fortunately, the SSPX didn't come to an agreement with the Pachamama ecumenism! Good for them!
"Well, that's a false dichotomy because both masses are illicit for different reasons. That would be my answer. The society masses are illicit because the priests don't have the faculties to say the mass. And those other masses are illicit because they are also engendering sacrilege and deviating from the rubrics. So that's a false dichotomy. It's NOT one or the other." Boom
He doesn't address the fact that Pope Pius V said in the Papal Bull Quo Primum that "no priest shall ever be penalized for saying this Mass" (i.e. the Traditional Latin Mass)
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.
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.
Excellent comment. Before reading this I wasn’t learned enough to know there are in fact differences between say English law and church law as you say Father… helpful for discernment. Thank you!
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.
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.
John doesn't tell me about his gigs like this anymore... but I'm glad one of my friends alerted me to this interview. I don't watch 3 hour shows unless it is true crime, but this was absolutely worth it to watch. I have to say, even though I worked with John for about 8 years on his website, I realize I did not get to fully appreciate John's capacity to teach with such clarity, calmness, precision, and humility. He should honestly be regarded as one of the top apologists for the Catholic Church and I am so glad that Matt gave him this opportunity to share John's expertise.
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.
Sad. You, like many others, have been duped. To see why, check the articles at lesfemmes-thetruth.blogspot.com/p/sspx-is-not-in-schism.html These include statement by canon lawyers, theologians, priests, and Bishop Schneider who is much more trustworthy than the "former" homosexual freemason Salza.
What about if we who care about reverence ask our priests for a high Novus Ordo Mass? If we encourage hiring great music directors who can lead chant that is part of Norvus Ordo? Seems like this would help.
Yes it is interesting the small changes that are made to enhance the reverence around the Holy Mass. I’m in Phx AZ area and there is one decently sized SSPX priory and one very small FSSP group that sadly has been pushed away into a not so safe part of PHX and very far from me. (I dont think this was done by accident either) So even though I would love to start attending TLM, i have virtually no choice, it is not something that is very accepted in the PHX diocese. I now attend a very High form of a Novus Ordo at a very large parish school in Phx. One mass on Sunday is done Ad orientum, all sung and the Priest uses the longer Eucharistic prayer as well, with kneelers to receive on the tongue. This Mass is always PACKED and there are many young families and young women veiled, long lines for confession. similar to what you would see at a TLM parish. So, that being said, vernacular and order of the Mass could still be up for debate, but this extremely reverent Norvus Ordo I attend now, has absolutely deepened my faith in Jesus Christ and my love for the Eucharist. Not sure if because the Church is also a school, or if the Pastor just leans more on the Traditional side. Seems like hes going as far as he can to bring back that reverence without rustling the feathers of the fairly liberal PHX diocese.
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
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.
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?
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
@@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.
@@sirharken821 John and I invited the SSPX several times. I have the emails. We also responded to an article written by an SSPX priest who teaches at their seminary. The article was a attempted response to our content.
I'm a former sedevecantist (SGG, so strict they would deny you sacraments for attending the SSPX lol), my now wife went to the NO and I was the one who introduced her to the TLM. Trying to figure this kind of stuff out almost stopped us from getting married. We now attend an ICKSP (we are blessed to be quite near one) and wouldn't have it any other way. part of my family still goes to the sede church, most go to the SSPX, and one of my siblings goes to the Institute with his family as well. I've completely left sedevecantism, praise to the Lord, and while the institute is my home parish, I go to and receive at both the SSPX and the NO, not sure how many others are in similar situations. It's difficult because most in my family would deny the validity of the NO, and some of my in-laws aren't so sure of the validity of the TLM even at the Institute Really appreciate the information in this interview, God bless and keep up the good work everyone at PWA
You would probably benefit from listening to all of Michael Loftons videos over at Reason and Theology. I was initially raised in the SSPV and then when there was a big fight there my parents went over and raised us in the SSPX. I jabe learned so much about what the Church actually teaches from @Reason and Theology and @TheLogosproject.
@@AnaMT1985 Michael Lofton is a great resource for well thought out theology. I use to listen to Taylor Marshall until he started going down this rabbit hole. I unsubscribed from him, Kennedy, and recently, Tim Gordon. I prefer to spend my time with theologically strong Catholics...Pints with Aquinas, Trent Horn, Michael Lofton, Keith Nestor, Brian Holdsworth, BP. Barron, Catholic Answers, etc.. Leave SSPX....they have issues to workout with the Pope!
@@rosiegirl2485 yes, agree. I also immediately recognized the peace I felt after leaving all of the anger, bitterness and constant negativity of the celebrity ytubers you mentioned behind. It was refreshing coming over to those that don't treat everyone with the judgement of suspicion. It's nice to trust that the Church is indefectible and all of the problems I was taught about all my life in the SSPX are not mine to carry.
I don't think he misspoke. Fatima condemned the errors of Communism. Freemasonry is essentially part of and helper for Communism. Salza is a Freemason. Once a Freemason always a Freemason, especially at the level he achieved. To mention "fighting Fatima and Freemasonry" in the same breath is stunning. Words have meaning and a person of his "stature" (lawyer) would be very precise in his use of language. The statement was a 'slip' of masonic proportions. He is doing his job well.
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.
The Holy Spirit coerced Salza to speak the truth at 1:11. “United to the church in re ‘actually’ or at least in voto‘ in will’ to be saved. What church are we talking about here? We are talking about the church of Rome, and all of the diocese that are illegally (sic)united to her. That’s the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church is not those who profess the true faith.” He said “illegally”. The Protestants don’t profess the true faith. They express the faith partially. Roman Catholics express the true faith. But yet that’s not enough for Salza? He’s just stated the most ridiculous statements and was truthful-illegally-in his using lawcraft to box true believers from having input in the sketchy deeds and words of prelates.
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.
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.
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 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.
I've been attending a SSPX mass as they are the only ones who offer a Tridentine Mass in my area. I don't see the problem to be honest, they are genuine, serious catholics.
@@JohnFromAccounting the SSPX is acting without a canonical mission, which was anathematized by the Council of Trent. So when you go to Mass at the SSPX you're literally watching a priest commit mortal sin. There is nothing bad faith about wanting souls to go to Heaven and people to be in communion with the Holy See of Rome like that Church has always taught as necessary.
"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.
Judge a tree by its fruits, says the Lord. The homilies by SSPX priests are always centred on God, encouraging and guiding their parishioners towards holiness without any need for flambouyance, jokes, personal opinions, comparison with others. Their dedication to works of mercy and apostolate, the peaceful religious life they have to offer to aspirants and retreatants is in itself a mark above the rest. Just my own experience and I thank God for being able to feel assured that I would never one day have to receive my God and Lord at Holy Communion in any way less deserving manner as He has instituted it to be done. Deo gratias, Pax Christi.
"The homilies by SSPX priests are always centred on God, encouraging and guiding their parishioners towards holiness without any need for flambouyance, jokes, personal opinions, comparison with others" I'm sure Luther had some good sermons too. SSPX is modern day Lutheran church.
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!
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.
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?.
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.
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.
1:47:45 contains a grievous misstatement that requires clarification. To state there is no salvation outside the *Roman* Catholic Church is to add a word (Roman) not contained in the text of the dogmatic declaration itself. Such common speak denies the salvific nature of the Eastern Catholic Churches and is actually a corruption of the dogma and denial of infallible Catholic teaching. This was probably an honest mistake on the guest's part but certainly needs correction.
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).
Non english speaker here, from Asia. Thank you for this discussion, the valuable informations. Still curious though about the debate between those Roman theologian with the societies' 1:10:25. If anyone have links about that, really appreciated.
The last question re: Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) should have been answered in depth by John Salza when John stated to the aidience: "We may have to buckle-up here for a while, we might have a rough ride for a while," What exactly was John implying @ 3:07:27? Enjoyed the interview very much and do believe John would have answered this question as all others with great detail! 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 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’m a convert from being an atheist. I was baptized 3 years ago at 30 years old. The only advice I can give after struggling with this for so long comes from a priest I confessed to. Mass should not disturb your soul. You should not have to wonder whether or not the Mass your attending is licit or not. Keep the waters of your soul calm and still so that you can grow in faith, hope, charity, and love - do not let it become choppy lest a storm brews and drowns you.
I haven’t had these experiences described at SSPX Masses - and for the most part, I’ve experienced some pretty reverent NO Masses. The NO masses had their issues in my opinion, but at the end of the day, what I had issues with in the NO mass came from a place of love for Christ in my heart. Slowly, over time, it became a bit prideful.
Because I could see the pride growing, I know travel 2 hours (not boasting or anything) to attend an FSSP Mass. This is a small sacrifice to pay for the assurance of being in communion with our Bishop and celebrating what I believe to be a Mass that helps nurture your soul. The TLM
It’s all emotion. Emotions can lead you astray and that is what the novus ordo means new world order. My goodness you folks need to wake up , ask the Holy Spirit to help you
@@christophergros9884 I've been on both sides of this issue. The TLM has been the perfect expression consistent with centuries of refining. The NO mass has problems from the outset and many Bishops and Cardinals were outright lied to and misled by some of the members of the Vatican II council. The problem now is the Church is in crisis and will remain so until yet a new council can take up the issue, hopefully in a decade or so.
It’s the abomination of desolation in the holy places ……….. The NO committed deocide.
I love how you explained your thoughts on the mass. I am so happy you are in the Kingdom of God. Be blessed.
@@christophergros9884novus ordo does not mean new world order lmao where did you come up with that ?
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 don't know about all the legalistic stuff, but I got married by the SSPX. I'm Byzantine rite Catholic and my wife was baptized and entered the church in a parish church in Hawaii in 2020 during the COVID outbreak.(causing some strange things that needed a lot of paper work) Now we live in AZ so we had to get 4 bishops to sign off on our marriage. The Byzantine Arizonan, Latin Hawaiian, Latin Arizonian, and the SSPX Bishops all said we we're good. If my weeding caused a mini ecumenical council and none of these bishops objected... I think we're all good. I just go with the modo "be chill, worship God, let the politicians do the politics."
From my studies it seems so far that Marriage and reconciliation is licit, its Masses they may not be.
@@veronicasingermaciasI think it’s bc Pope Francis gave them those 2 faculties as an act of charity for the people. I’m not sure if that permission was just for that specific year or for all time going forward.
God and The Word and The Holy Spirit acknowledge and validate you. Love.
It was Benedict who allowed for the marriages to be validated. The SSPX has been doing this for a long time.
@veronicasingermacias It's important to remember that the marriages were conditional to permission from their local bishops.
That permission is rarely sought, so those people that were married under the SSPX without the society obtaining episcopal permission are in objective mortal sin.
This particular person obviously got permission for the SSPX to do the wedding, so that marriage is valid.
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.
I’m not SSPX, but Jimmy Akin was on Catholic Answers explaining that Popes Francis and Benedict XVI affirmed SSPX priests do have faculties to celebrate the mass, and it does fulfill your Sunday obligation.
"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
Yes, I came across that podcast recently. May I invite John and Matt to watch it? Thanks.
Jimmy is a bit off on this. John goes into detail in the video. Furthermore the Church (through Mons Perl in his letter to F. John Loughnan) clarified that it does not fulfil the Sunday Obligation and exposes the faithful to the danger of becoming schismatic
Thanks for everyone jumping in to clarify.
@@24erstad Thank you for putting this out there. Even though it's been said, again and again- ppl still don't believe it.
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.
43:01 Matt Fradd misunderstood John Salza when he said Abp Lefebvre signed off on the V2 documents. By signing those documents, Abp Lefebvre DID NOT sign off on the Novus Ordo Mass - those are two separate things. Mr. Salza knows that, and yet and he didn’t correct Mr. Fradd’s misunderstanding. Why not? Mr. Salza lost all credibility by not doing so.
I am a Catholic who grew up attending SSPX Masses, and attended a girl school run by SSPX Dominican sisters; I am also a big fan of this channel. I just wanted to address some things in this video that I felt were contrary to my understanding of the SSPX (this is my understanding. I am not claiming to represent exactly what the SSPX stands for because I could easily be wrong or have misunderstood).
1. We do not claim to be separate from the Church, nore that the Catholics who attend the Novosordo (I apologize if I spelled that wrong) Mass are separate from the Church, though we do discourage attending it because we feel that the purpose and mindset that it was made with, make it a danger to the faith, and that it does not give God proper worship. In the parish I am a part of, we have gotten a few sermons addressing the issue of treating Catholics who attend the Novosordo Mass as lesser or not part of the Church.
2. The story behind what led up to Arch Bishop Lefebvre making Bishops is told rather differently from the SSPX perspective, at least in the Crisis series podcast. For example in that description of the story, Archbishop Lefebvre asked for 4 bishops initially and was offered one, but they would not give him a date when he would receive the bishop. They kept moving the date, until he eventually told them that if they didn't agree to that date, he would move forward with making Bishops without Rome's approval. I don't know if this inconsistency is a matter of one side being wrong, or different sources, but as far as I know, the SSPX is trying to get Rome to approve our next set of bishops. One of the crisis in the Church videos includes Bishop Fellay, who is one of the four bishops who Archbishop Lefebvre ordained, and I am inclined to trust his explanation of the situation, as he was there for it.
3. I don't think I'm very good at explaining things, and I apologize if I misrepresented something. I highly recommend the Crisis in the church series. I think that Pints with Aquinas is really great and I would love to see an SSPX priest come on and be interviewed on this topic or even debate. I would be willing to try to reach out to one about the idea if you would be open to that.
Thank you and God bless!
Glad to see that you're open to this discussion. While it's great that you and many more followers of the SSPX don't think that Catholics who attend regular diocesan liturgies aren't in schism, the official position of the SSPX, which has never changed, is that those liturgies are an offense to God and harmful to souls.
Also just saying that you're not outside of the Church doesn't really mean anything. Protestants will swear on their life that they are part of Christ's Church. The SSPX can say whatever they want but it wouldn't change that they are in schism. Now individuals who attend their liturgy may still not be in schism for lack of culpability, but if you're informed about them, then there's a problem.
From what I've seen, the perspective of Lefebrve being pushed by the Vatican and refusing to give him a date is false. Lefebrve signed the agreement to consecrate one bishop and then rejected that proposition literally the next day on his own. Doesn't sound at all like the narrative that the SSPX pushes.
@@john-el9636 it is definitely a complicated situation, and I don't think that I am informed well enough to make a firm judgement yet. I think it would be really beneficial to see an SSPX priest come onto the show to defend that position. I'm definitely planning on doing more digging into Vatican 2. I wish that things had never gotten so complicated and divided with the Church, and I can only hope that things will get better with the will of God.
I appreciate the back and forth because it is so nuanced, but the archbishop did write two very beautiful books on his own experience: “open letter to confused catholic,” and “they have uncrowned him.” Those books are clearly not written by a “rigid” man. They are very geared toward “the people”, and it is clear, by his own words, the archbishop’s concern is for Jesus and his flock. He points out many contradictions and so far as i know, alot of his critics do not adress his books. Why? I think itvwould go a long way to see if the archbishops reasoning could be picked apart by adressing thecwords in his book. Also, what facts or points of history, does the archbishop cite in his books, that are incorrect or mistaken? So far those two books carrry alot of weight still. The reader who cares about the catholic church, will be enriched by the archbishops obvious love for the church, for Christ, for the faith… where are his own, actual words, in those two books, taking acwrong turn. I see a bust of Luther in the vatican office, but alot of contempt for lefevre-- whats up with that?
@Inarticulus I would dispute the claim that Lefebvre wasn't rigid, but in any case Dr. Salza does refer to his open letter in this very video. I know he quotes from it extensively on his website as well. Lefebvre's heresies and errors are on full display in his own writings. Whether or not he had good intentions is pretty much meaningless.
th-cam.com/video/DqgcCujfQF0/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=Rev.AnthonyCekada
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)
@@mariamikaelakrizbajda4294 1) Disobedience is not schism. 2) canon law states that one can be disobedient to a law in a state of emergency even if the person only thinks there is an emergency. Archbishop Lefebvre knew the Vatican was waiting for him to die. If he died without consecrating bishops, then there would be no bishops to ordain traditional priests. Remember that there was no FSSP at the time. For example, as an analogy, a person cannot destroy another person's property, but if there is a fire in a home and that person is trying to rescue the person inside, then if they break a window to do so, they will have broken the law by damaging property but it's excused because the situation was an emergency.
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....
Very very good points! He very much misrepresented the SSPX’s position
Thank you. Mr. Salza is on the wrong side here.
Love this reply. The history of the SSPX was completely misrepresented in this show. Mr. Salza gave a lot of opinion that forces people to believe what he’s saying. He also states we are not in communion with the local bishop which is also false because in our mass the priest prays for the local bishop.
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.
Couple of things to add:
First: in 2016 Pope Francis himself granted direct jurisdiction in perpetuity to all SSPX priests to hear confessions and for the sacrament of marriage. In this decree it also states that the SSPX priest is to say Mass during the marriage. How can a priest from the SSPX celebrate Mass licitly on this day, but lose all faculties the next?
Secondly, Archbishop Lefebvre never celebrated the Novus Ordo, but only the new rites of 1965 and 1967, which were much closer to the 1962 TLM than to the 1970 Novus Ordo. He was never a great liturgist, but he rejected the new theology of the Novus Ordo.
Also; in 2018 pope Francis gave permission to Bp. Fellay to ordain priests from that year forward.
(I’m going to be adding more as I’m watching)
Because that was the permission that was given.
Oh so the sspx is no longer separate from what lefev called “the conciliar modernist freemason church”?? Wonderful so the sspx leadership have rejected these words from lefev or the “modernist conciliar church” is no longer modernist?? Great so we can just go to a NO or does the sspx say not to??
@@xanderjansen4539 where is your evidence to back up Fellay was given permission to ordain? Fellay has said that, but he has never produced a document to verify that. Anybody can say anything.
@@AnaMT1985 I’m sure the Vatican just never got around to correcting him.
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.
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
As I understand it, the sspx does not reject the profession of faith, but have issues with 3rd category *items*. ... not the 3rd category carte blanche. That would be a misrepresentation of the SSPX in my opinion.
🤦♂️
@@thelogosproject7
Is that supposed to be a response?
Here is where they explicitly state that the SSPX accepts the authentic magisterium, but has issues with some of the things stated by it.
th-cam.com/video/dUt1q0D9qM0/w-d-xo.html
Salza misrepresents many other things from the SSPX. But let this be known in order to show that this presentation is riddled with inaccuracy... how deliberate? only God knows.
@@1TheLove1ofWisdom1 he literally responds to your comment in the video you commented on.
@@thelogosproject7 can you give me a time stamp?
So they are rejecting some magesterial teachings covered by the third category? How it that better?
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).
1:48:53
Fighting against Fatima? Like Our Lady of Fatima? Or am I completely misunderstanding what he said?
Fradd, this is hand over fist one of the best episodes to date on Pints. Great discussion.
I would have to disagree. I don't even go to SSPX but there is evidence Lefebvre had not a schismatic spirit. Promises were made but not fullfilled (One bishop was promised to the SSPX for ex).
I have the humility to say that if something isn't in good standing with the church, don't go to it. Even if it seems better and the sacraments are valid, if they don't accept the pope, they're off the ark. Just go to an fssp or move to a place that has one. We live in rough times we must offer up our sufferings and trust in the Lord for better times.
Would you stand with Arrio, knowing that he is teaching an error?
If you don't, with your logic, you would be rejecting the pope.
The SSPX does accept the pope and pray for him at their masses
John mentioned 'the appearance of the Church' vs what she really is at about 20min.
God just taught me a similar lesson this Christmas. The whole family was sick with different viruses (including an awful influenza) all of advent and Christmas.
We had a tree and some presents, but could not really eat much or really enjoy the tree and such.
We were just too exhausted.
What remains of Christmas if we take away the food and the cookies I was not able to bake. What remains if we can't enjoy the tree that much or be excited with th children about their new toys?
Christ in the manger remains. It still felt like Christmas to me. I felt overflowing love for all of my family. And the holy family and little baby Jesus.
But all the nice Christmas things got a little bit called out for being accessories. All good things, but not the main thing.
And perhaps God is doing a similar thing in the Church atm. I like incense and all the traditional things. But what happens if it all falls away? What remains to cling to? Christ in the Eucharist. I'm not into modern barren churches with ugly modern art on the walls and awful acustic. But perhaps God wants me to look more to Christ directly? Perhaps he wants all of us to do that?
These is quite similar to my Christmas these year...,
Beautifully said. The unfortunate irony here is that belief in the presence of Christ (body, soul, divinity) in the Eucharist is fading fast amongst NO parishes. This is the opposite for TLM parishes including in the SSPX where the number of faithful is growing.
It is reasonable to be attracted to the full-on display of reverence and tradition of the mass especially in these times. I've never been to a TLM but i want to join in one, and i suspect quite a lot of catholics are the same. But stip away all the vestments, the tradition, the reverence, and what we have are the absolute basics: apostolic succession and the magesterium, scripture and the cathecism, and the sacraments. If all else fails then these are the ones to hold on to. All tradition and reverence flows from these, but are they absolutely essential? Imo, in these times, its back to basics.
Christo nihil praeponere
@@eddiedelatorre5925 it almost sounds like Church Universal would benefit from unity among her children! Wouldn't it be wonderful to reunite those who believe in the Real Presence with their NO brothers and sisters. The NO crowd can model obedience and submission to the authority of Christ's Church, while the TLM crowd can model proper Eucharistic faith. The point is we need to supplement each other's weaknesses through the strengths God has given us.
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).
Another question...maybe ethereal: Do you think alleged schism and sedevecantism would be on the rise if the Church hierarchy, it modes operandi, its heresies and perversions were not so prevalent the past 60 years? The Society was created in response to semi Arians and faithful pleading for a safe haven in the post-conciliar deterioration. I have family and friends that grew up in the wake of the Vatican II Council and said it was utter chaos. The most scandalous and sacrilegious acts sanctioned by the bishop and priests. In light of that were people who attended the Society bad? To say yes lacks any serious charity.
Nobody is (hopefully) trying to judge the hearts of those who adhere to these movements. The question is simply if they are materially in communion with the Catholic Church, and if their unique teachings are correct or incorrect.
I think any sensible commentator will recognise these movements as reactionary in essence (I believe John said this), and therefore obviously the result of the scandals they are reacting to.
But based on canon law and magisterial teaching I have never heard a serious argument that there is communion between the priests of the SSPX and the Catholic hierarchy.
"I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the *grave* duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support *in any way* for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the *schism* is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law.' -Pope John Paul II
The end justifies the means does it?
Martin Luther used similar reasoning to justify his break with the Church. Our faith in the Church doesn’t depend on the quality of the men in the hierarchy.
I think he fully covers all of this in this exceptionally thorough and thoughtful interview. I suggest rewatching for your answer.
@@TheCleanTech Martin Luther broke from the Catholic Faith. The SSPX formed to preserve it. You are comparing two polar opposites with no comprehensive depth in the same way that the narrative "orange man bad" was pushed.
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! 😇
Matt, recently I’ve had a hard time getting through the hour and a half to two hour episodes. Usually bail out after hear a good nugget. This was a fascinating new story hadn’t heard and the 3 hours + flew by. As of now, for me, this is your Titanic episode.
Agreed. This episode is huge.
Until that shroud episode hit
I totally agree! Goes my super fast. Especially when I watch it at 1.25x. And even if it wasn't at that speed, it would still be okay.
Would be great to see John have a debate with Tailor Marshall.
In reading over the pro SSPX comments here they seem very similar to those made by non denominational and prodistants.
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
What does he mean when he says he's been fighting against Fatima @1:48:50 ?
I greatly appreciate your interviews and demeanor in these discussions. There's a lot to take away and reflect upon! Thank you!!
Many questions for Mr Salza, not about the goodness of attending SSPX Masses but merely whether it is schismatic and sinful to do so:
1) how can a Pope give faculties to schismatics?
2) why would schismatics ask the Pope for faculties? Or anything for that matter.
3) how is a retired diocesan bishop living with the SSPX and not been declared in schism? Can Bishop Huonder hear Mass from a SSPX priest in the morning, then celebrate Mass at a local parish in the afternoon and be OK canonically?
4) has there ever been a time in Church history when schismatics have said the name of the Pope and the local bishop in Mass, dialogued with the hierarchy on an intra-Church basis, requested and received faculties from the Pope, the laity been allowed to be married and absolved by said schismatics? If not, what makes now different?
5) were the Jesuits who continued their mission after they were suppressed in schism? Why did no one at the time or afterward makes this assertion if that was the case?
You would do well to listen to his whole series on The Logos Project. It would clear up a lot of confusion.
@@24erstad well if the answer to the first two questions is anything like his claim about schismatic orthodox having carte blanche “faculties” to absolve then I will need further enticement
@@toddbyrd9071 It seems clear that any answer given will not be sufficient for you. Your questions are worded as "gotcha" questions. If you are serious though, his articles on his site are most compelling.
@@24erstad I have read his articles and, as stated elsewhere, he has changed my opinion to some degree on the SSPX. To claim that I am intractable based on one response is rash on your part IMO.
Could it be that these questions are rhetorical and meant to highlight the arguments of his that I find the weakest? Perhaps someone who agree with Mr Salza could answer them and I would change my mind even more. I am open to that.
Yes how is that?? I would like an answer?
Good Job & God bless you guys
The way the faithful received Holy Communion in the first few centuries was different than how many receive it now in that they did not touch the Host, but had a cloth placed over their hand and put their head down to touch their tongue to it and place it in their mouths. The faithful developed the long standing practice of having the priest place the Host on their tongue very early on, but the recent receiving in the hand the way people do now was originally an abuse that was excused in 1977 because so many wayward bishops and priests initially out of Holland and Belgium were already allowing, advocating, and even mandating it in their dioceses to the detriment of faith in the Real Presence of the Eucharist. What you do with your body matters. Receiving communion in the hand was one of the first changes made during the Protestant Reformation in order to communicate this was NOT Christ's actual body, blood, soul, and divinity.
Do you have a source or citation for this
@@thomasgerard5401 th-cam.com/video/q7XKr4R4x5s/w-d-xo.html
I'm very happy to happy to believe but I would love a source for the communion in the hand. I hear and read so many contradictions on the Internet.
There is the issue of having hands consecrated to touch the Host, exception being in an emergency to protect the Host from danger. The early Church understood what something meant to be consecrated...think of their understanding of the Ark of the Covenant.
While they did not understand molecules or atoms, they did understand dust. They would have understood that even the tiniest piece of the Host was just as much Christ as the entire whole Host. They would not have risked even the dust of the Host to be discarded. This developed even more fully as a practice within a few hundred years universally within the Church.
There are some Catholics who can receive on the hand and maybe don't lose faith in the Real Presence, but knowing about the possibility of discarding even the tiniest bit of the Host and knowing that the laity have not had their hands consecrated as a priest (diluting the sanctity of the priesthood itself and causing confusion as to why priests have been set apart by privilege of their office), why on earth would you continue to receive on the hand??? If it is just because it is awkward and uncomfortable having not done it that way before, humble yourself before the King of Kings who laid down his life for you. By and large, it has caused immense damage to the belief in the Real Presence.
47:46
To be fair to Archbishop Lefebvre- he did indeedy sign a document indicating his willingness to have a bishop named for him on August 15th, and the next day he reneged on this agreement, as he himself declared. So yes, you can say the Archbishop was "wishy washy".
BUT it also remains true that, prior to his signing, Cardinal Ratzinger strongly hinted that Rome would accept his nomination to be consecrated, and then Rome changed ITS TUNE immediately upon getting his signature.
That does not seem like "bending over backwards" to me, on the part of Rome.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
“This prerogative [inerrant teaching authority] granted to St. Peter by the Lord Jesus Christ was supposed to pass to all Peter’s successors because the chair of Peter is the center of unity in the Church. But if the Pontiff should fall into an error of faith, the Church would dissolve, deprived of the bond of unity. The bishop of Meaux speaks very well on this point, saying: ‘If this Roman See could fall and be no longer the See of truth, but of error and pestilence, then the Catholic Church herself would not have the bond of a society and would be schismatic and scattered-which in fact is impossible.”
- Presentation given by Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser (1809-1879) to the general congregation of Bishops at the 1st Vatican Council.
The Pope is not evil simply because you say he is. For the Pope to truely and legitimately labeled evil or a heretic he must be officially rebuked but other authorities in the church such as the college of cardinals or an ecumenical council.
To deny the legitimacy of the pope and magisterium is schismatic. You do not know better. You are a slave to your own pride.
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.
Such an excellent and much needed conversation! Thank you for caring for the salvation of souls!
13:20 Objectively false Can. 1248 §1. A person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass.
@berryjones1327 SSPX Priests offer the Roman Rite. That would be true if the Old Catholics where validly ordained (most aren't). JPII explicitly wanted this put into canon law for situations like Eastern Bloc countries where laity could approach Valid but Illicit liturgies and fulfill their Sunday obligation
Exactly right. This guest is spreading heresy. These masses satisfy your Sunday Obligation, period.
This is so helpful and well done, thanks for explaining this all!
I really appreciate the "Middle Road" approach John is talking about here. I've felt this is the best answer to the problems Traditional Catholics are trying to point out. Thank you Matt Fradd for your work in this approach as well. And to Scott Hahn who also promotes this.
When I had my conversion to the Faith, it was within the Novus Ordo Mass and my heart was on fire with the Holy Spirit. Then I got caught up in this drama of Trad vs. Novus Ordo, and found myself very unhappy and angry with the Church. I lost sight of what truly matters- Jesus Christ and His Kingdom. We can help our Lord build His Kingdom at the Novus Ordo AND the TLM. We don't need to pick sides or tear down the other side. The "Middle Road" is important for both sides to learn from and can bring peace of mind/heart/soul.
The novus ordo is false it was written in preparation for the new world order ? Do you know what novus ordo means ? Now look at your 1 dollar bill
“But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, nor hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth." -Apoc. 3:16
False equivalence.
Is it Catholic to accept an apostate as Vicar of Christ?
@@johnraymond-pz9bo I think we should pray for his conversion and still respect the office of the papacy. even if he's likely a freemason infiltrator. We've endured bad popes before. I don't think sedevacantism is the best response
Fantastic episode, thank you. I'm intrigued into looking into these topics more. Yes, get a canon lawyer on.
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.
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?
"In my opinion"...I will take Michael Davies over John Salza. Fortunately, the SSPX didn't come to an agreement with the Pachamama ecumenism! Good for them!
"Well, that's a false dichotomy because both masses are illicit for different reasons. That would be my answer. The society masses are illicit because the priests don't have the faculties to say the mass. And those other masses are illicit because they are also engendering sacrilege and deviating from the rubrics. So that's a false dichotomy. It's NOT one or the other."
Boom
He doesn't address the fact that Pope Pius V said in the Papal Bull Quo Primum that "no priest shall ever be penalized for saying this Mass" (i.e. the Traditional Latin Mass)
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 ".
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.
Excellent comment. Before reading this I wasn’t learned enough to know there are in fact differences between say English law and church law as you say Father… helpful for discernment. Thank you!
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
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.
Agreed.
Thankx to the missions of sspx some of my friends came back to the one true catholic faith.
John doesn't tell me about his gigs like this anymore... but I'm glad one of my friends alerted me to this interview. I don't watch 3 hour shows unless it is true crime, but this was absolutely worth it to watch. I have to say, even though I worked with John for about 8 years on his website, I realize I did not get to fully appreciate John's capacity to teach with such clarity, calmness, precision, and humility. He should honestly be regarded as one of the top apologists for the Catholic Church and I am so glad that Matt gave him this opportunity to share John's expertise.
I agree. What a brilliant mind .
That website is great. Scripturecatholic, right?
This is top noych video.
Scripture Catholic was the site. Then we lost the domain in 2017 I think it was.
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 this is the best SSPX talk/explication on TH-cam and i can say ive listen to very many .. great job
If inclined, our channel has more great videos with John. Thanks for watching!
Sad. You, like many others, have been duped. To see why, check the articles at lesfemmes-thetruth.blogspot.com/p/sspx-is-not-in-schism.html These include statement by canon lawyers, theologians, priests, and Bishop Schneider who is much more trustworthy than the "former" homosexual freemason Salza.
Best PWA in a hot minute. Devil’s advocate Matt at his best
He is really great at asking those questions.
What about if we who care about reverence ask our priests for a high Novus Ordo Mass? If we encourage hiring great music directors who can lead chant that is part of Norvus Ordo? Seems like this would help.
Yes it is interesting the small changes that are made to enhance the reverence around the Holy Mass. I’m in Phx AZ area and there is one decently sized SSPX priory and one very small FSSP group that sadly has been pushed away into a not so safe part of PHX and very far from me. (I dont think this was done by accident either) So even though I would love to start attending TLM, i have virtually no choice, it is not something that is very accepted in the PHX diocese. I now attend a very High form of a Novus Ordo at a very large parish school in Phx. One mass on Sunday is done Ad orientum, all sung and the Priest uses the longer Eucharistic prayer as well, with kneelers to receive on the tongue. This Mass is always PACKED and there are many young families and young women veiled, long lines for confession. similar to what you would see at a TLM parish. So, that being said, vernacular and order of the Mass could still be up for debate, but this extremely reverent Norvus Ordo I attend now, has absolutely deepened my faith in Jesus Christ and my love for the Eucharist. Not sure if because the Church is also a school, or if the Pastor just leans more on the Traditional side. Seems like hes going as far as he can to bring back that reverence without rustling the feathers of the fairly liberal PHX diocese.
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?
Great discussion with lots of clarity on the issue. Thanks for hosting the interview! Praying for peace and unity
Thomas this guy is a complete fraud. He was a member of the Free Masons. That says it all.
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.
Excellent vid, Matt. Many thanks to brother Salza for such a clearly articulated explanation.
Go SSPX, the new mass is a Lutheran service/schismatic.
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.
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
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
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.
@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?
@@sirharken821 John and I invited the SSPX several times. I have the emails. We also responded to an article written by an SSPX priest who teaches at their seminary. The article was a attempted response to our content.
I'm a former sedevecantist (SGG, so strict they would deny you sacraments for attending the SSPX lol), my now wife went to the NO and I was the one who introduced her to the TLM. Trying to figure this kind of stuff out almost stopped us from getting married. We now attend an ICKSP (we are blessed to be quite near one) and wouldn't have it any other way. part of my family still goes to the sede church, most go to the SSPX, and one of my siblings goes to the Institute with his family as well. I've completely left sedevecantism, praise to the Lord, and while the institute is my home parish, I go to and receive at both the SSPX and the NO, not sure how many others are in similar situations. It's difficult because most in my family would deny the validity of the NO, and some of my in-laws aren't so sure of the validity of the TLM even at the Institute
Really appreciate the information in this interview, God bless and keep up the good work everyone at PWA
I'm very familiar with Bishop Dolan's sermons.
Also no one considers eastern rites for a good option, you have ICK.
You would probably benefit from listening to all of Michael Loftons videos over at Reason and Theology. I was initially raised in the SSPV and then when there was a big fight there my parents went over and raised us in the SSPX. I jabe learned so much about what the Church actually teaches from @Reason and Theology and @TheLogosproject.
@@AnaMT1985
Michael Lofton is a great resource for well thought out theology.
I use to listen to Taylor Marshall until he started going down this rabbit hole. I unsubscribed from him, Kennedy, and recently, Tim Gordon.
I prefer to spend my time with theologically strong Catholics...Pints with Aquinas, Trent Horn, Michael Lofton, Keith Nestor, Brian Holdsworth, BP. Barron, Catholic Answers, etc..
Leave SSPX....they have issues to workout with the Pope!
@@rosiegirl2485 yes, agree. I also immediately recognized the peace I felt after leaving all of the anger, bitterness and constant negativity of the celebrity ytubers you mentioned behind. It was refreshing coming over to those that don't treat everyone with the judgement of suspicion. It's nice to trust that the Church is indefectible and all of the problems I was taught about all my life in the SSPX are not mine to carry.
What does he mean "I've been fighting against Fatima....?" He says this at 1:48:54
I think he just misspoke, he meant he was fighting for Fatima.
I don't think he misspoke. Fatima condemned the errors of Communism. Freemasonry is essentially part of and helper for Communism. Salza is a Freemason. Once a Freemason always a Freemason, especially at the level he achieved. To mention "fighting Fatima and Freemasonry" in the same breath is stunning. Words have meaning and a person of his "stature" (lawyer) would be very precise in his use of language. The statement was a 'slip' of masonic proportions. He is doing his job well.
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"
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.
Benedict XVI lifted the excommunication on SPX and they have a church and office in Rome. How are they outside the Church then?
The Holy Spirit coerced Salza to speak the truth at 1:11. “United to the church in re ‘actually’ or at least in voto‘ in will’ to be saved. What church are we talking about here? We are talking about the church of Rome, and all of the diocese that are illegally (sic)united to her. That’s the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church is not those who profess the true faith.”
He said “illegally”. The Protestants don’t profess the true faith. They express the faith partially. Roman Catholics express the true faith. But yet that’s not enough for Salza? He’s just stated the most ridiculous statements and was truthful-illegally-in his using lawcraft to box true believers from having input in the sketchy deeds and words of prelates.
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.
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.
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.
50:26, what specifically is that Document from Pope Pius IX?
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.
I've been attending a SSPX mass as they are the only ones who offer a Tridentine Mass in my area. I don't see the problem to be honest, they are genuine, serious catholics.
There is no problem. Keep doing your best to be a good Catholic and don't let the bad faith bullies get to you.
@@JohnFromAccounting the SSPX is acting without a canonical mission, which was anathematized by the Council of Trent. So when you go to Mass at the SSPX you're literally watching a priest commit mortal sin. There is nothing bad faith about wanting souls to go to Heaven and people to be in communion with the Holy See of Rome like that Church has always taught as necessary.
@@hamie7624 But that Priest committing mortal sin is allowed to hear confessions ? I'm bewildered.....
@@DJPTEXAS yes. It was declared they can hear confession as an act of mercy so their penetants sins can actually be forgiven.
@@hamie7624 so their sinners would confess and go sin again in their mass 30min later? Make it make sense.
"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.
Judge a tree by its fruits, says the Lord. The homilies by SSPX priests are always centred on God, encouraging and guiding their parishioners towards holiness without any need for flambouyance, jokes, personal opinions, comparison with others. Their dedication to works of mercy and apostolate, the peaceful religious life they have to offer to aspirants and retreatants is in itself a mark above the rest.
Just my own experience and I thank God for being able to feel assured that I would never one day have to receive my God and Lord at Holy Communion in any way less deserving manner as He has instituted it to be done.
Deo gratias, Pax Christi.
"The homilies by SSPX priests are always centred on God, encouraging and guiding their parishioners towards holiness without any need for flambouyance, jokes, personal opinions, comparison with others"
I'm sure Luther had some good sermons too. SSPX is modern day Lutheran church.
Do you accept the Deposit of faith? Or have you twist that also?
1:48:55 Did Salza misspeak? Fighting against Fatima, Freemasonry etc?! Is he against Fatima?
He's a mason
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 🤔
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.
Great interview. Learned a lot.
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?.
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.
There would be no FSSP without the SSPX. The original FSSP priests came out of ArchBp Lefebrvre's seminary at Econe Switzerland.
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.
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.
This was fantastic!
1:47:45 contains a grievous misstatement that requires clarification. To state there is no salvation outside the *Roman* Catholic Church is to add a word (Roman) not contained in the text of the dogmatic declaration itself. Such common speak denies the salvific nature of the Eastern Catholic Churches and is actually a corruption of the dogma and denial of infallible Catholic teaching. This was probably an honest mistake on the guest's part but certainly needs correction.
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).
Please speak to a Priest from the SSPX. at least extend an offer.
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.
Non english speaker here, from Asia. Thank you for this discussion, the valuable informations. Still curious though about the debate between those Roman theologian with the societies' 1:10:25. If anyone have links about that, really appreciated.
The last question re: Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) should have been answered in depth by John Salza when John stated to the aidience: "We may have to buckle-up here for a while, we might have a rough ride for a while," What exactly was John implying @ 3:07:27? Enjoyed the interview very much and do believe John would have answered this question as all others with great detail! Thank you!