Dom, the host of the Logos Project charitably asked to engage and debate, which is indeed respectable. So here is my *attempt* to offer a *genuine and researched critique* of a specific segment/argument brought forward by *Mr. Salza.* There are a few *problems* with *Mr. Salzas* *argumentation:* As it is shown here, he is repeatedly *misquoting Archbishop Lefebvre* or taking his quotes so out of context that they mean different things, which then fit Mr. Salzas accusation of heresy. It is really quite astonishing, and I hope it is not deliberate on his part. *Ill give two examples:* -at around 56:00 he quotes the Archbishop thus: *"But, we truly represent the Catholic Church such as it was before, because we are continuing what it always did. It is we who have the notes of the visible Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. That is what makes the visible Church"* Leaving out a in my opinion the very significant first part of the quote (which was an answer to a question). Here is the full quote, make of it what you will, but I think it weakens the case of Mr. Salza substantially, because one can see that Lefebvre is addressing a specific point about the reproach that the SSPX has left the visible church. (Also important to note: the term "conciliar church" was not invented by Lefebvre, but by people from Rome. So when he adresses the "conciliar church" he means the (strong) segment within the Catholic Church that have lieberal/modern tendencies.) Full quote with question: *Question:* "Are you not afraid that in the end, when the good Lord will have called you to Him, little by little the split will grow wider and we will find ourselves being confronted with a parallel Church alongside what some call the "visible Church"?" *Archbishop Lefebvre:* "This talk about the "visible Church" on the part of Dom Gerard and Mr. Madiran is childish. It is incredible that anyone can talk of the "visible Church", meaning the Conciliar Church as opposed to the Catholic Church which we are trying to represent and continue. I am not saying that we are the Catholic Church. I have never said so. No one can reproach me with ever having wished to set myself up as pope. But, we truly represent the Catholic Church such as it was before, because we are continuing what it always did. It is we who have the notes of the visible Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. That is what makes the visible Church." That is one example. The other example (which is in my opinion borderline disingenuous - but please correct me if you think I am wrong) is when he "quotes" the Archbishop (at around 58:45) from his letter sent in 1991. (Context: Lefebvre is addressing a specific issue namely the succession of Castro Mayer - he is not making the general statements like Salza wants to claim.) He is specifically talking about a case where there is no ordinary jurisdiction, but he is (in my opinion) arguing for supplied jurisdiction (now you can of course disagree with his reasoning, but he is no way saying something in general about ordinary jurisdiction - so no heresy whatsoever). Here are the quotes from Mr. Salza + the full quotes: 59:00 1.) *" **-there-** is no other basis for jurisdiction than that which comes from the requests of the priests and the faithful to take care of their souls"* real/full quote: *"This is not the case with the new bishop, who has no other basis for jurisdiction than that which comes from the requests of the priests and the faithful to take care of their souls and those of their children, and who have asked him to accept the episcopacy so as to give them true Catholic priests and the grace of the Sacrament of Confirmation."* Salza conveniently slips in the word "there" in his quoting at the beginning and additionally he leaves out the first part, which shows that Lefebvre is actually talking specifically and is not making a general claim about the nature of ordinary jurisdiction itself (When you listen to Salza it surely seems as if L. was saying this - but the full quote shows that he is not saying this at all). For the average listener one is made to believe that L. talk about jurisdiction as such, which is not case. He is clearly talking about the jurisdiction in this particular case and how it might work. 1:00:17 2.) *"Since the jurisdiction of the bishop is not territorial but personal and has as its source in the duty of the faithful to save their souls, if a group of faithful in the diocese calls upon the bishop to have a priest, this group gives by this very fact, authority to the bishop to watch over the transmission of the faith"* real/full quote: *"Since the jurisdiction of the bishop is not territorial but personal and has as its source the duty of the faithful to save their souls, if a group of faithful in the diocese calls upon the bishop to have a priest, this group gives by this very fact, authority to the bishop to watch over the transmission of the Faith and of grace in this group, by the intermediary of the priest that he sent."* Again listening to Salza gives you the impression that the Archbishop is making a general claim. But he is not. He is saying, since the jurisdiction for this particular bishop is not territorial but personal etc. this is clear from the context of the letter, I advise you to look up the entire letter. Also the full quote makes more clear that L. is making an argument about supplied jurisdiction which has at its basis the salvation of souls. 1:01:04 3.) *"the jurisdictional authority of the bishop does not come from a Roman nomination, but from the necessity of the salvation of souls," "and they must consequently facilitate the exercise of his authority by a generous obedience."* *end quote* (this is the most obvious misquote, cause it leaves out and mashes two different quotes together that actually belong to 2 different sentences.) real/full quote: (first part which actually continues differently - but Salza is mixing two statements together and makes one sentence out of them): *"Since the jurisdictional authority of the bishop does not come from a Roman nomination, but from the necessity of the salvation of souls,* he will have to exercise it with a special delicacy and taking special account of his presbyteral council." Again he is addressing the case of this specific Bishop and Salza makes it out to be a general statement about the nature of jurisdiction. Salza conveniently leaves out the caveat from the Archbishop which would have obviously weakened his accusation of L. being a heretic and slides in the end of another sentence, mixing two different sentences together. the second part of Salzas quote is actually from another sentence which goes this way: "Moreover, the faithful and priests must acknowledge the grace of having a pastor, successor of the Apostles, and guardian of Tradition of the deposit of the Faith, of the eucharistic Sacrifice, of the Catholic priesthood and of the grace of the Sacraments, *and they must consequently facilitate the exercise of his authority by a generous obedience."* Why is Mr. Salzas mixing these quotes together? Is he misinformed or does he have an agenda? I think I can ask this question charitably after having showed this pattern of misquoting. I think this pattern clearly shows that there is something wrong with his argumentation. Please correct me if one thinks that my reasoning here is flawed. Is it just me who thinks that the full quotes give a whole other meaning to these quotes?
Thanks for the comment Christpilled. We want debate indeed, but the comment section is not what we had in mind. Would you be interested in discussing this live? Meanwhile, a short response (as I must return to my homework assignment): supplied jurisdiction is not “some other kind of jurisdiction.” It also comes from the Church in her authoritative legislation: not from the people. I’ve often been accused of “council-splaining” or “pope-splaining.” Your comment is also an attempt at “Lefebvre-splaining.” We can “splain” anything really, but for Catholics, we have a court of appeal: the authoritative teaching office of the Church Christ established. And Abp Lefebvre’s actions (and the actions of the society subsequently) confirm the content of his words. Your explanations make novel distinctions just as the Abp’s words did. God bless!
Pope Saint Pius X writes in his letter “Con Vera Soddizfazione”: “Do not let yourselves be deceived by the subtle declarations of others Who do not cease to pretend that they wish to be with the Church… If they maltreat and despise the ministers of the Church and even the Pope; if they try by every means to minimize their authority, to evade their direction, and to disregard their counsels; if they do not fear to raise the standard of rebellion, what Church are these men speaking about?”
@@thelogosproject7 Thank you for answering. I get that the comment section is not the best place to completely hash these issues out, but I still wanted to give my initial thoughts on a few issues in a written form. (also for the reason so people who watch this video can see that Mr. Salzas quotes from L. were faulty) Hm a problem would be that English is not my mother tongue, so it could be rather difficult for me to have a live debate in English that would then be on a level plain field. But I will nevertheless think about it, thank you for the offer! What I will most likely do however is a (written) video response, addressing multiple things, which I don't agree with, raised by some of your shows. *To your response:* you are actually missing the point of my criticism/comment. What I wanted to show and what I managed to do in my opinion is, how Mr. Salza is misquoting Archbishop Lefebvre (at least you didn't refute it, so I can still stand by it, until maybe one has an intelligible refutation/correction). With these quotes (that were not only taken out of context, but actually partly misquoted (changing words, adding whole sentences from other sentences etc)) Mr. Salza wanted to "prove" that L. thought that there is no other basis for jurisdiction than from the people - But there were clearly misquotations + quotes taken out of context (as I showed). Again here is Salza "quoting" Lefebvre: *" there is no other basis for jurisdiction than that which comes from the requests of the priests and the faithful to take care of their souls"* and the real quote: *"This is not the case with the new bishop, who has no other basis for jurisdiction than that which comes from the requests of the priests and the faithful to take care of their souls and those of their children, and who have asked him to accept the episcopacy so as to give them true Catholic priests and the grace of the Sacrament of Confirmation."* Wouldn't you say that there is a substantial difference here? *Because if you hear Salzas "quote" like above, you think that the Lefebvre thought that in general and 100%, basically every jurisdiction comes "from the people" (which he actually never said), but that is clearly not the case if you read the full quote/the full letter.* *My point is* not so much the issue at hand (i.e. jurisdiction), but that *Mr. Salza is very clearly misquoting Lefebvre* - something that is never okay, regardless of whom you want to "debunk". Don't you agree? I mean we wouldn't even misquote someone like Luther, right? My point would then also be that the fact that Salza is doing this, is undermining his claim that he is looking at this thing as honestly and objectively as possible - That is why it would be fitting if either you/one can refute my argument (which is showing that Salza is engaging in an illegitimate form of argumentation i.e. misquoting), or if that is not possible, Mr. Salza corrects this error. I think this is a reasonable "demand" on my part. Now to the point of jurisdiction: Not every explanation equals „splaining“ - so that’s not really an argument. *There is no quote of Lefebvre saying that "jurisdiction comes from the people“.* Show me a quote where he actually says that. The *question* is if it is possible to obtain jurisdiction in an extraordinary way? obviously there is: supplied jurisdiction --> ecclesia supplet. Where does supplied jurisdiction come from? it comes from the church. And why does the church give/have supplied jurisdiction or rather what is the "basis" of it? obviously (for) the salvation of souls. So there is really no problem (fundamentally) with the statements of Lefebvre, because as it clear from the context, he is obviously arguing for jurisdiction where there cannot be one in an ordinary form. So again, no heresy. You would actually have to argue against his case for supplied jurisdiction in this particular case - I am sure that one can do that, so I don't see why Mr. Salza is misquoting Lefebvre in order to make him a heretic through these statements (which are again, misquoted) which is clearly not the case. Again, to really hammer this point home the problem is, if you hear Mr. Salzas "quote", one naturally thinks that *Lefebvre* is *making* a *general claim about the nature of every normal jurisdiction.* That is the impression one gets. But when reading the full quote or the full letter, one can see that he is talking about a specific case, and it becomes clear that *he (obviously) knows that jurisdiction comes from the "Roman nomination" otherwise he wouldn't even address this whole issue as problem at all.* It is like if I took a quote from a Catholic priest in a letter saying that "there is no other basis for to go to heaven, other than God's mercy". Which might lead one to think that this priest doesn't believe in the necessity of baptism for one's salvation. But then if you look at the full quote it would go something like this "Since this is not the case for the good thief, there is no other basis for him to go to heaven than God`s mercy“ and then you see that he is actually talking about the good thief next to Jesus Christ on the cross - who got to heaven without baptism. Obviously this priest was talking about a specific case, which doesn't refute the dogma of the necessity of baptism. Would you say that it would be misquoting if I did that? (what I am not saying with this comparison is that the fact of the good thief getting to heaven (which is obviously and irrefutably true) is on them same level with Lefebvres claim/arguing for supplied jurisdiction regarding this south American bishop - again I just wanted to show one more time that *misquoting, even in a little way can change the meaning very much* )) Thanks again for your reply, and I would understand if you don't have the time to answer again. God bless!
@@thelogosproject7 Thank you for this letter, it actually brings up another issue I have with the nature of argumentation you and Bartel+Salza are using to refute the SSPX and/or the „trad“ position as a whole in general, but also „resistance“ of certain priests and laymen in particular. While this letter of course is stating correct things, you just cannot apply it everywhere and all the time - except if you want to take the position that one has to obey his authority all the time and everywhere? Clearly this would be an untenable position. So what is often times lacking in yalls arguments, is context - the context of disregarding a priests council or the context of not following a bishops direction. What we have to ask is, can there be a context where such an action is justified? I think you would agree that there can be? Of course one cannot hold this position willy nilly and our default position has to be an obedient one. But the authority of Priests and Bishops (and even the Pope) is not limitless and has a sphere and first and foremost a purpose - if this purpose is missed or even acted against they are obviously acting outside their sphere(scope) of authority and are not obeyed. (Eric Sammons has good videos on the nature of the authority of the Pope) So what we actually have to discuss, instead of throwing quotes at each other which have actually not really much meaning in this context, is to discuss the situation we are currently in. I have many Friends who got very bad advice from priests who seemed to have forgotten about the churches doctrines (a classic example would be the „allowance“ use of contraception). So what should there reaction be? According to this letter they are not allowed to disregard this council? Of course not, because St. Pius X would surely be opposed to this council and would say that in this case, you can/have to disregard it. Evidently we are in complicated and strange times, also when it comes to the state of the church in general. We should discuss the issues that arise because of these extraordinary times - and the answers we might have. And I think for example trads like Eric Sammons or Timothy Flanders give compelling answers.
St. Francis de Sales has a book called "Finding God's Will for You" and he writes this: "A man who says that he is inspired and then refuses to obey his superiors and follow their advice is an impostor....extraordinary missions are diabolical illusions and not heavenly inspirations if they are not recognized and approved by pastors on the ordinary mission. In this, Moses and the prophets are in accord. St. Francis, St. Dominic, and the other fathers of religious orders turned to the service of souls by an extraordinary inspiration, but they submitted all the more humbly and heartily to the sacred hierarchy of the Church."
@@quiricomazarin476 I hope to see St. Athanasius discussed on this podcast in the future. I'm not sure what exactly we know about him. He always obeyed his censures from what I can tell but the SSPX claims that Lefebvre is a second Athanasius
@@audreykunkel well God knows...unfortunately we the laity are stuck between are the good guys good & are the bad boys really that bad. Even the Archangel of the judgement who was Holy & was so close to God.....picked an anti-pope so go figure.
@@martincorneille7998 so they can observe the sacrament of confession & marriage ( I believe ) & yet can't the other sacraments? What sense does that make?
@@quiricomazarin476 What sense? Not getting valid confession or marriage has even far more dramatic consequences than for all the other sacraments (baptism aside, but the standard for its validity is not bound by having faculties from the hierarchy).
@TheLogosProject…this series is a breath of fresh air! I have family who have fallen to the sspx due to the issues in the church and we’ve tried to talk to them but didn’t work. Had me second guessing (very briefly lol) until i seen your videos and others similar. Had to leave behind other Catholic TH-cam people like Hall unfortunately. It’s sad but we certainly can pray and do penance for them. God bless!
Not even going to bother watching this. The man was a saint. If you can't see Divine Providence in what our dear holy Monsignor Lefebvre did, and saving the Papacy and the priesthood and the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church which otherwise would have been utterly destroyed thanks to Vatican II. He founded the SSPX through the correct channels, except at the consecrations he had to use Canon law. Deo Gratias. And we need more bishops btw. God's Church will continue to the end, no matter what tools the devil uses to destroy it. I stopped this video before it even started, you are not even worth listening too. You are not from God. May God have mercy on your souls. Sean from New Zealand
SEAN Hart You are right. Abp. LEFEBVRE was a true Roman Catholic. He followed all the rules, and was shocked what Vatican 1 wanted. And we are still in that mess. Look at what Francis Bergolio Panchapapa is doing. LGBT? Come to my palace in the Vatican. Cardinal Sen? OMG, I'm so busy. Abp. Marcel Lefebvre was excommunicated, but later the Vatican lifted the ban. They know he was RIGHT. And these guys who are talking about true obedience didn't read Thomas Aquinas? About what to do when the higher authority is evidently wrong? Sainthood for Abp. Marcel Lefebvre. I stop listening to these guys. Pseudo knowledge....
God Bless, I am 24 and converted last year from Lutheranism in Germany and I quickly began loving the Latin Mass and reading about Lefebrve due to friends and now I also go to SSPX.
So Christ abandoned his Church? Your argument doesn’t make sense. Either Christ told the truth about the papacy or he didn’t. Your argument has the problem of the papacy. Also what mother who is Holy would abuse her children? None, so you need to figure out how to answer why disobeying the Pope is okay, and why would a Holy Mother abuse her children. If you can prove those two things then you have an argument.
I saw Andrew on reason and theology. I was evangelical for 27 years, and have recently found the true faith in the Catholic Church. Channels like these are a life saver for me. Because RCIA would be largely a recap of what I already believe, but a deep dive into Catholic theology is exactly what I'm looking for. Not simply, this is what we believe, but why and historically based and profound. It's the bullet and the gun for protestant family and friends.
I have a growing sense of dread that the SSPX has a bad case of the sunk cost bias; they have invested way too much into their founder's perceived flawlessness and saintliness to admit that Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong about anything.
Biblical studies (if you’re tracking with that niche), ecclesiology (which is the heart of the council), joint declarations, Saint Paul center, Ascension Press, Catholic Answers, Scott Hahn’s dissertation/conversion and the American catholic conversion movement, Alasdair MacIntyre and his students, communio international catholic review, Word on Fire, Franciscans of the renewal, Ralph Martin, renewal ministries, the Ratzinger prize, the JPII institutes in the US, Rome, Australia… I can keep going
Joint declaration on justification. Several declarations with the Lutherans, some with the Anglicans, the lifting of the excommunications with the East, better relationships with the East, lay theologians, women theologians, RCIA programs, theology of the body, increase in parish Bible studies…
Me and my family. My grandparents left pre 1969, but me, my mom, and brothers all joined the Church post 2012. If it weren’t for JPII I can honestly say I would not be Catholic. Just wanted to make a personal point on how VII has helped.
This question is methodically wrong. Even if we do not see good fruits, the presumption of the goodness of the Church's acts requires that we recognize them as good. and that's it. the fruits may come after we are gone.
54:36 - He didnt say that Roman Catholic Church is no longer a Catholic Church!! He said that a postconciliar church which has different faith it's not a church. He didnt precise who exactly is a part of this postconciliar Church. Not so easy! :)
The obsession you all have in finding error in a most Holy Archbishop should make the church, as our Lord ordained it, question you!! You create heresy towards Our Lord, by ripping apart, a man, a justly ordained Archbishop who was not going to to settle for the abominations that slithered out in V2. His famously named quote is... I am merely passing on what I have been given. You can't expect an Archbishop in Tradition to tow the line of errors of Paul VI introduced and then were exacerbated by JPII. You are not comparing apples with apples and therein lies the rub... Know truly what he stood for and then take YOUR heretical stance to the confessional. Seek the real truth... JMJ+
So you dont believe in the indefectibility of the Church? This comment is evidence that the SSPX is a cult with Archbishop Lefebvre as it's rule of Faith... you very obviously didn't listen to this video and if you did, you didn't hear it. One is to point out error wherever it is found. God bless these men for doing that.
These guys have already attended the SSPX for years and know everything about Lefebvre and what the SSPX teaches. They know both sides and the full story, but you only know the side the SSPX is telling you.
@@margaretmaryyoung6991 these guys attended the SSPX for years. So did I. They know what they are talking about. Everything they state in their videos is true. They are precisely representing the arguments of the SSPX
As a former Protestant, your rant sounds just like the rants we would go on against the Catholic Church. Just replace your “Holy Archbishop” references with “Dr. Luther” and there you have it.
From Ireland Have to say I am a bit puzzled by Bishop Schneider's take on SSPX. I have listened to him on Taylor Marshall and 2 days ago He answered question on SSPX on Fatima ? Channel. Any prudent help from Andrew to help me. Love these discussions, so helpful. 🙏☘️
Hi Imelda! I don't understand why Bishop Schneider has taken the position he has on the SSPX. The most charitable explanation I could give is that the poor bishop is ignorant, or perhaps trying to assume the best. Apologists of the SSPX love to use his testimony, especial since he was an official visitor to the SSPX. But to say that you know the SSPX after spending a few weeks with them is ridiculous; it's like saying you know a girl after the first date. I know what the priests really say and do when they are not on their "best behavior" and are "among their own"...I lived it. I would truly like to know what Bishop Schneider would say if he was confronted with the heresies and untenable positions of the SSPX and their founder. Maybe Dom could invite him on the show!
Thank you Andrew. You wonderful young men are a blessing to us all. I will keep you and your family's in my prayers, especially at Holy Mass tomorrow. Will place you all deep into The Sacred Heart of Jesus and The Immaculate Heart of Mary, and The Just Heart of St. Joseph. Heaven is very close to us always. It's beautiful, we are loved so much. Jesus loves when we Trust Him, nothing is impossible with God.🙏☘️
Please pray for Ireland, we need protection from SSPX. They are about to get stronger here ,due to a very popular TH-camr who has a large following here . SSPX are having a Conference here 9th- 11th. I don't want to give out any more details at the moment. Thank you Fr's for your insightful comments & Andrew once again.🙏☘️
Wasn't Schneider sent to investigate the SSPX? I do wonder that instead of remaining impartial, Schneider became a victim of the SSPX intense one-sided propaganda during that visit. Not only was the SSPX on its best behavior, treating him well, indulging him, but the SSPX worked hard to indoctrinate him. Of course the only why to counter this kind of indoctrination is the same method as for all - intense debriefing and exposure to the whole truth. Clergy and social media celebrities who get soft on the SSPX earn much less respect and trust. if they are inaccurate enough on the SSPX, what else are they wrong about?
@@andrewbartel12 You are probably right about Bishop Schneider. It appears to me, he hasn't read the papal documents concerning SSPX. All the popes, from Paul VI to Francis (except JPI) have documents showing that SSPX is schismatic. Apparently, Bishop Schneider never read those.
Oh yes he was very wrong! Don't we all love a good old Novus ordo mass. No confession before the mass, no Latin, Communion in the hand, let people in mortal sin receive communion, openly gay priests, bishops okay with sodomy even promoting it, Yoga during the mass, holding hands during the our father, Guitar masses, grooming in seminaries and The holy father that teaches heresy.
But he repeatedly misquoted Leferbvre there. Read the actually letter, and you will see, for example, that he is saying literally there opposite of what John wants you to think he was saying when he (mis)quotes at 59:00 It's as embarrassing as when Sam Harris quoted Jesus as having said that he would dash out the brains of babies.
WOW!!! You guys are smokin' today!!! God bless you for this work, blowing up these errors and breaking the chains of those imprisoned by them!! Thank you.
@@TP-om8of Haha! Whoops. I wondered if that would sound wrong coming out! Smokin' like "cruising", "sharp as a tack", "smoking the fox out of his den", etc. ;) If they WERE really smoking it would be pipe tobacco only, I bet. :)
I attended the SSPX for about 2 years, though on and off, and continued to attend my local parish which only offers the novus ordo when I couldn't drive the hour away. I literally read every book by Lefebvre. Though my experience was generally positive I did find myself going down the rabbit hole and finally pulled myself out. To think the Church can give us a Mass which leads our souls astray is like accusing a mother of poisoning her child. I didn't know about the 'indefectability of the Church'. I find my spiritual life more balanced now. Too much suspicion, too much "everything past 1965 is 'tainted' with heresy or modernism", complete disregard for any new devotions (Divine Mercy), new theological developments, new Saints (they call into question many of the new canonizations and feast days). Its just exhausting.....
Well said, especially of new developments and saints. I once heard of a woman refusing holy cards with any "Vatican 2" saints on them because "they're not really saints." I'll never understand how holding a position like that will lead you upwards and onwards.
Hearing all these details makes me so dang mad over the way the SSPX has misled so many. I do believe that Archbp Sheen's prediction of the "Ape of the Church" is realized by the SSPX. It looks good and feels comfortable but is completely unhitched from the Authority and Discipline of the Church. What a masterful subterfuge!
@24:40 “Where does it end?” It ends when we Catholics admit that we’ve made mistakes and that Tradition isn’t something we make up in 1870 or 1962 or whenever the pope of the day feels like it. It ends when we stop blaming the mistakes of fallible men (and that includes the pope) on God. It ends when we admit that the Orthodox and the Protestant Reformers had valid points. It ends when we face up to empirical facts and admit the results of bad decisions. It ends when we realise that shepherds are servants not masters, and that God never calls us to submit our intellect to anything but Himself.
No one denies that the Orthodox and Protestant Reformers had valid points. What “empirical facts“ are you speaking of? This comment it’s very ambiguous…
@@thelogosproject7 The biggest empirical fact is that the Novus Ordo drove millions of people from the church and from faith itself. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality…it’s like Joe Biden trying to blame inflation on Putin rather than his own money-printing. You guys are very legalistic and hung up on the traditions of men-and recent traditions at that (like the novelties of Vatican 1). I don’t think God really cares about your hierarchical structures…but He does care about the gospel.
Wow. Salza and Bartell go to great lengths to highlight the sins of Abp Lefebvre. Yet , I wonder, if both Abp Lefebvre and Abp Bergoglio were brought before Our Lord (like Mary Magdalene), who would lift the first stone and towards whom would it be directed?.
I would hope they would both stand still in just fear of the Lord in such a circumstance. Not act hateful to each other. How could anyone standing before our Lord think of hating each other, throwing stones? Why would you even think of such a thing? Don't you think the one acting this way, not accapting the ruling of our Lord but wanting to do justice himself would be a candidate for hell?
@horrorhawk3701 You are late to the game my friend. The ex communication was lifted by Pope Benedict after determining it was unjust. Pope Francis offered faculties to the SSPX. YOU ARE IN SCHISM WITH OUR POPE. Seek Pope Francis as the authority in these matters lest you are outside Communion with the ONE TRUE FAITH. Repent for bearing false witness and SUBMIT to our Holy Father's authority.
In the immortal words Michael Jordan, “stop it. Get some help.” All joking aside the SSPX is undoubtedly in schism, and if you had watched the video you would have seen that it’s actually the SSPX who are the “boogie man” modernists. Stop trying to lead people away from Christ.
Previously I thought that we should engage more with liberals instead of the sspx and rad trads. Now I think it is a necessity to deal with the sspx. I can't tolerate anymore their attitude on post vatican 2 saints or slander and calumny against the pope. So please keep doing your work.
I have recently stopped attending SSPX Masses and I feel very deceived by the SSPX clergy. I only went to the SSPX to be at a reverent Mass and one of their chapels was located kind of my end of the city. Unfortunately I took them at face value on certain points but now after watching your videos I feel very tricked by the clergy. I never agreed with them on many other points such as the New Mass. I had no problem attending any Catholic church Novus Ordo Mass where celebrated reverently. My question to you is after leaving the SSPX how did you deal with the way the Novus Ordo Mass is celebrated in the majority of Catholic churches? (clown Mass, Kumbaya Mass, Polka Masses, gay Masses, etc). The parishes that celebrate the Novus Ordo Mass are few and far between. I'd really like your advice. Thank you, John, Andrew and Dom, you guys are doing very good work.
Where do you live that the majority of masses in your area are clown/kumbaya/polka/gay masses? Not trying to challenge you, I'm just curious. I've been to quite a few random NO masses and they've all been exactly the same, strictly by the book. In my experience, you may see badly celebrated masses online often because they make headlines due to their shock value but in practice, they're not as common as you might think.
Same/ i grew up in Seattle under Abp Hunthousen, and live there again and we have no problem finding a good NO mass. There are plenty I don’t like, but mostly it’s a preference of music and preaching.
They are never going to debate you guys. They have always met opposition with silence… then they just wait for the problem to go away. It’s all about distraction and gaudy flashing.
Love the content! I'm not a rad trad, so don't take my question as if I'm trying to poke holes in your view points. I'm just a glad trad who loves the reverence and beauty of the Catholic faith. Do any of you attend the NO on a regular basis?
Hi Josh! Yes, I attend the Novus Ordo every Sunday, and whenever I can throughout the week. I have been studying the reformed rites in-depth for over ten years now, as well as implementing them faithfully with my pastor for six years as a master of ceremonies. My love, appreciation and gratitude for this great gift from the Church only continues to grow and deepen!
@@andrewbartel12 I truly appreciate you reaching out. How do I approach my pastor to help in that same way? I have a great priest and a great relationship with him.
@@joshanderson8566 Sounds like you're off to a great start! Good relationship is how it begins. Then you can offer whatever talents you have to make things more beautiful and reverent. Three points of advice from my experience: 1) Your example at worship, especially as a lay minister, is more powerful and edifying that anything else you can do; 2) be patient with your pastor and fellow parishioners, real change doesn't happen overnight; 3) there is no perfect liturgy this side of heaven, so always focus on what is good, true and beautiful, rather than laziness, sloppiness or imperfection, because in this world, they are always with us! God be with you.
These quotes you present from the archbishop are, frankly, astonishing. How could someone ever recommend following a man who holds these beliefs and displays this kind of behavior? I think this presents another problem; how can you establish a good community and good families when the founder of the group you cling to has built his entire organization on disobedience? How can you maintain adherence to the hierarchy of the family unit and hold respect for authority if your entire worldview is "the pope is wrong and the bishops are corrupt and the Church is failing and we are the only ones who have it right"? If you get to make the decisions on who is corrupt and who is not, what's to stop a son from trying to subvert his father's authority if he thinks his father is "corrupt"? It's a slow burn but I think this attitude will ultimately be their downfall.
Read his biography. If he didn't do what he had done, ie. pass on that which he received, the Catholic faith. If you want you can follow the pope, into heresy. Pro abortion, pro homosexuality, and pro globalism. He's a wolf in sheep's clothing. Our Lady has predicted all this. She even predicted a prelate of the church to save the church. If that isn't Archbishop Lefebvre then who is it?
@@seanhart8034 I have read his biography, and I don't deny that he was a great man who did great things for the Church, but disobeying the pope was not one of them. I'm no fan of Pope Francis either, but the fact of the matter is, he is the Pope, and we're obligated to stay loyal to him. I don't know if you attend SSPX chapels (sounds like you do), but enough time there should indicate to you that their system is erroneous and unstable, not to mention plagued with troubling history, as indicated in this video and as a cursory amount of research will tell you. The sentiments and attitudes behind their founding are just not reconcilable with historical precedent. If you have eyes to see, take a step back from their narrow tunnel vision they impose, and look clearly at them. As Dom and Andrew have pointed out many times, their claim of "the Church has erred and we are the only ones with the fullness of truth" sounds just like what Protestants said. I hope you're willing to look at the situation objectively.
@@andym5995 have you read the alta vendita? Mate, they crucified the One who founded the Holy Roman Catholic Church, Our Lord Jesus Christ. They martyred the Apostles, and how many centuries of popes. How many early martyrs? The Church has been attacked all through history. Untouchable. They infiltrated the Church, these are the facts. Pope Leo XIII and St Pope Pius X spoke, fought and wrote about it. St Pius X said he pushed the modernists underground, and that they would reappear. Our Lady warns us at Akita and Fatima. The Church is under attack. Archbishop Lefebvre may have disobeyed the popes since Vatican II, how? By doing exactly what the previous 19 centuries of popes did do, he followed them. Look what we have today. A pope who is promoting homosexuality, abortion and globalism. Go figure. If you want to follow this pope to perdition, then go for it. But I know that for the last 30 years of going to the traditional Mass, mostly from SSPX, but not exclusively, that I am doing what God wants, and what is good for my soul. Archbishop Lefebvre's name has popped up alot lately I see, as traditional Catholic realize that if it wasn't for him, probably no one would even have this Mass anymore. Now he is under attack. It all fits. "Our battle is not between flesh and blood, but principalities and powers in higher places." And that's why I said that these men who did this pod are not from God. And that's why I won't even waste my time watching it. God Bless you
@@seanhart8034 "The Church has been attacked all through history. Untouchable." You couldn't have said it better. "Gates of hell shall not prevail." I trust in the Lord's words here. We're on a ship and there's there's terrible storm and many of the officers are drunk, but we know the ship won't go down.
@@andym5995 That's right. Some Body had to save it, God uses man as His instruments. And I believe it was Archbishop Lefebvre. He was there, present at that "evil council" (to quote Our Lady) and changed nothing when everyone jumped aboard that sinking ship. As he said "I have passed on what I received". And I meant to say 'Quito' not 'Akita'. God bless Andy
@18:20 Here Paul VI is essentially echoing what Pius IX reportedly said: “La tradizione, son’ io!”. Paul really thought he could make “tradition” up as he went along. This is why he was a worse pope even than Francis.
Paul VI never "made up" any tradition as he went along. The Pope, however, does have and has always had the authority to change disciplinary practices and rituals. V2 doesn't do anything that hasn't been done before at some time in the past. Was adding the fillioque to the Nicean Creed "making tradition up as they went along"? You can disagree with something, I personally disagree with changing a sacred creed even if they thing added is Scripturally verifiable as correct, but as Catholics we have to submit to the Church's authority to change things. If you can't, then you aren't Catholic. You're some new Protestant sect. You're just freezing a single era in Church history and saying that's the way it has to be forever. That's just not true. "Whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven, whatever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven." By literal decree from Jesus Christ, what the Church says always has divine authority behind it, and to deny the Church is to deny Christ
@@williamavitt8264 Thanks for the popeslanation, but that ain’t Catholic. Basically you’re saying that you have to go along with whatever the pope says or you magically become a Protestant. No…popes can be wrong and they’ve never had the authority to abolish the Mass and replace it with a new ritual ( a Protestantised one, in this case as it happens). The pope is the bishop of Rome; he’s not your boss or mine. The same feckless and erroneous ecclesiology you espouse is what kept the cowardly bishops from standing up to Paul Vi, who was arguably the worst pope in history (and that’s saying something). And when you quote Matthew 16 at someone, don’t forget to look at 18 as well. That binding and loosing applied to all the apostles.
@@TP-om8of lol that actually IS Catholic teaching, and has been for centuries. You don't have to AGREE with everything, as long as it hasn't been definitively declared as dogma, but you do have to submit to everything the Pope and the Church as a whole teaches. At the very least, you can't publicly denounce official Church teachings, definitive or not. And it's funny that you think you can use a term like "popesplaining" and still think you're a Catholic. Canon 751 (Code of Canon Law) Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him. If you reject the authority of the Pope you are in schism, which means you are no longer Catholic until you go to confession and repent of the schism. Then, once absolved, you will be once again in full communion with the Church. That rejecting the official teachings of the Church or the Pope makes you a defacto Protestant is literally a matter of Canon law. Once again, you don't have to agree with everything, but you do have to submit with your will and your intellect. That's literally how being a Catholic works
@@williamavitt8264 You’re confusing Ultramontanism with Catholicism, and authority with communion. Canon law is neither scripture nor tradition; it is merely an instrument by which the Vatican carries out its business. The point is pope Paul had no authority to abolish the Mass and replace it with a protestantised ritual, and neither does Francis have authority to ban the Mass, as he is currently trying to do. But the real culprits are the cowardly bishops who don’t stand up for the faith.
@@TP-om8of no, I'm talking about Catholicism, the way it's existed for centuries. Monatism is close to Pentacostalism, and nothing like Catholicism. Canon Law doesn't pretend to be Scripture or Tradition, it is Church law, though, and Catholics are bound by it. If you don't think we are, that's further evidence that not only are you not Catholic, but you don't even know what it means to be Catholic. Paul VI had every authority to change the mass. Every successor to the Apostles have agreed to this. Not one single Bishop disapproved of Vatican II when it happened. Lefebvre tried to reneg on his approval of it after the fact, but he had no authority to call it invalid. The true cognitive dissonance here is you idiots not seeing the parallels between SSPX and sedevacantism and the Protestant Reformation. You're a clown, and you're placing your soul in jeopardy. And this will be my last response because I've given you all of the information to get yourself back in communion with the Church Christ established, and still you refuse to listen. That's on you, and I'm not going to go back and forth with someone who doesn't even know what it means to be Catholic
Andrew Bartel is a funny comedian 😂 I wish he’d quote The Council of Trent catechism and not that awful new catechism 😤 He completely ignores what Vat 2 did to the Liturgy 😡
We going through the same thing as Israel done in the past. When God came to us we decided to reject him because of endangered tradition. Jesus were killed in the name of preservation tradition and faith of the fathers. I am so thankful for Vatican Council II. When I read those documents I felt enormous amount of love of God. Same thing happened when I read catechism of the Church. Beautiful documents. Thank God for Vatican Council II.
Another one of your best .. You lads are on a roll! The saintly Archbishop Lefebvre did indeed make all too human mistakes, indulged in errors, and embraced error that promoted heresies, based on flawed or incomplete understanding - then pushed it beyond a logical conclusion into illogicality, here the defectibility of the indefectible Church; the real problem is that he understood this, but stuck to it. As I have always understood it, Lefebvre .. like those students he undertook to form for the priesthood .. had lost all trust in the human element of the Church, the civil service and the Holy See's management capabilities, if not quite the guiding power of the Holy Ghost - in such a time of great confusion and trial (the guidance of the Spirit was, it seems, limited to those agreeing with or sympathetic to Lefebvre); looking, dispassionately, at some of the 'horror' stories of increasingly deformed priestly formation in the 1960s - 1970s (already somewhat deformed in the 1940s - 50s), and stuff like the Dutch Catechism (to make the message of Jesus Christ as new as it is), one can see the reasons for 'concern'. Keep the Faith; tell the truth, shame the devil, and let the demons shriek. God bless. ;o)
@@AnaMT1985 His life was made holy to God: he was a good priest, a fine missionary, a loving bishop, a witnessing and co-signing council Father (yet he made mistakes). For instance, Origen was a saintly soul, he was much loved for his witness to God - by those who understood him, in mortal life; but his works were held in suspicion, and his texts were later condemned - at least in part, post-mortem; he is not a canonised saint, yet he was saintly - though some of what he said and did is still not reconcilable with .. the Faith. Or Theodore of Mosuestia (e.g. the finite purging torments of 'hell' aka Purgatory given a spin as Christian Universalism); he too was a saintly soul, with flaws. Or ... (fill in as you please) ... Saintliness of life does not preclude human mistakes, nor does it confer any kind of worldly indefectibility, cf Sts John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II, and now Bl John Paul I (they all made ordinary errors of judgement, and permitted confusions - e.g. allowed instability to replace order, in the earthly concerns under their rule), they are now canonised Saints*. God bless. ;o) * I am not yet aware of any great prevailing spiritual devotion for or even material attachment to these popes; except perhaps for John XXIII's very simple parish priest type of spirituality, which it seems the Modernists of his time derided (as childish); such ordinary piety, however, did and still does exist quite widely among the Faithful for Bl Pio Nono and St Pius X, also for Ven Pius XII, though they are no longer .. liked or considered .. by the In Crowd element.
John is absolutely correct. The society cares about nothing except their power and money. And this is all at the expense of parishioners and their souls. Lefebvre is their idol.
In a sense. Supplied jurisdiction is supplied by the Church. The occasion (be it near death experience or what have you) does not in itself provide jurisdiction: the church provides it for such instances by accounting for those instances in her law.
Hey, this is incredible, authority can only come from God, so, without apostolic succesion, there's nothing. Lefebvre was, trully, a proud man. But, can you share the show nores, I mean, write references to the documents you quote? It would be very important, especially that 1991 letter in which he gous full Marsilio de Padua or Wycliff...
Only to hear confessions. Weddings are only allowed if the local Bishop gives approval to the priest. I would suggest you read what our Holy Father writes.
Humm, never heard or saw anything like the behavior you've describing. I suppose that some people simply appreciate a courageous Prince of the Church doing what he felt was necessary to preserve the Sacred Tradition within Depositum Fidei. Rome had promised him bishops many times throughout the years & AB ML waited patiently, but they never made good on their promise. AB ML then fell gravely ill with cancer, he sent word to Rome regarding his diagnosis & prognosis; time was rapidly running out for him. After being promised bishops for so long, waiting & waiting while the years passed by, being ignored, then coming down with terminal cancer, he knew his days were numbered; the situation now became dire. In light of this, while growing old waiting patiently in obedience yet still being ignored; he courageously did that which he was taught was his duty as an AB & his responsibility to take action in a time of necessity or emergency. Out of love, respect, obedience & duty, he did what he had to do protect & preserve DF & ST. Without his courage, ST, that which was handed down to us, stood strong throughout centuries+++, that which many great saints & holy martyrs attended & celebrated, which Mexico's Christeros & the martyred clergy & parishioners of Ireland & other countries gave their lives to protect; the consecrated Host & the ST which was handed down to them; there is a high chance that this could've been lost. And that would've been a horrific tragedy. There have been other such events in church history where one or a few had to stand alone in the face of sweeping trend. St. Athanasius during the Nestorian heresy comes to mind, as well as those who stood against Airias when most of the church was subsumed in that heresy. They were hated during their time, but are now venerated as great Saints. It's wise to at least attempt to see things from his side. +JMJ+
@@margaretmaryyoung6991 unfortunately with comments like this you are just proving what these gentlemen are saying... that Lefebvre is your rule of faith. He's your idol and can't be questioned or critiqued. The other alternative if he wasn't sick in the head is that he was evil. Thus why it would be more charitable to assume he had a mental deficiency.
Dom, the host of the Logos Project charitably asked to engage and debate, which is indeed respectable. So here is my *attempt* to offer a *genuine and researched critique* of a specific segment/argument brought forward by *Mr. Salza.*
There are a few *problems* with *Mr. Salzas* *argumentation:* As it is shown here, he is repeatedly *misquoting Archbishop Lefebvre* or taking his quotes so out of context that they mean different things, which then fit Mr. Salzas accusation of heresy. It is really quite astonishing, and I hope it is not deliberate on his part.
*Ill give two examples:*
-at around 56:00 he quotes the Archbishop thus:
*"But, we truly represent the Catholic Church such as it was before, because we are continuing what it always did. It is we who have the notes of the visible Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. That is what makes the visible Church"*
Leaving out a in my opinion the very significant first part of the quote (which was an answer to a question). Here is the full quote, make of it what you will, but I think it weakens the case of Mr. Salza substantially, because one can see that Lefebvre is addressing a specific point about the reproach that the SSPX has left the visible church.
(Also important to note: the term "conciliar church" was not invented by Lefebvre, but by people from Rome. So when he adresses the "conciliar church" he means the (strong) segment within the Catholic Church that have lieberal/modern tendencies.)
Full quote with question:
*Question:* "Are you not afraid that in the end, when the good Lord will have called you to Him, little by little the split will grow wider and we will find ourselves being confronted with a parallel Church alongside what some call the "visible Church"?"
*Archbishop Lefebvre:* "This talk about the "visible Church" on the part of Dom Gerard and Mr. Madiran is childish. It is incredible that anyone can talk of the "visible Church", meaning the Conciliar Church as opposed to the Catholic Church which we are trying to represent and continue. I am not saying that we are the Catholic Church. I have never said so. No one can reproach me with ever having wished to set myself up as pope. But, we truly represent the Catholic Church such as it was before, because we are continuing what it always did. It is we who have the notes of the visible Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. That is what makes the visible Church."
That is one example.
The other example (which is in my opinion borderline disingenuous - but please correct me if you think I am wrong) is when he "quotes" the Archbishop (at around 58:45) from his letter sent in 1991.
(Context: Lefebvre is addressing a specific issue namely the succession of Castro Mayer - he is not making the general statements like Salza wants to claim.)
He is specifically talking about a case where there is no ordinary jurisdiction, but he is (in my opinion) arguing for supplied jurisdiction (now you can of course disagree with his reasoning, but he is no way saying something in general about ordinary jurisdiction - so no heresy whatsoever).
Here are the quotes from Mr. Salza + the full quotes:
59:00
1.) *" **-there-** is no other basis for jurisdiction than that which comes from the requests of the priests and the faithful to take care of their souls"*
real/full quote: *"This is not the case with the new bishop, who has no other basis for jurisdiction than that which comes from the requests of the priests and the faithful to take care of their souls and those of their children, and who have asked him to accept the episcopacy so as to give them true Catholic priests and the grace of the Sacrament of Confirmation."*
Salza conveniently slips in the word "there" in his quoting at the beginning and additionally he leaves out the first part, which shows that Lefebvre is actually talking specifically and is not making a general claim about the nature of ordinary jurisdiction itself (When you listen to Salza it surely seems as if L. was saying this - but the full quote shows that he is not saying this at all). For the average listener one is made to believe that L. talk about jurisdiction as such, which is not case. He is clearly talking about the jurisdiction in this particular case and how it might work.
1:00:17
2.) *"Since the jurisdiction of the bishop is not territorial but personal and has as its source in the duty of the faithful to save their souls, if a group of faithful in the diocese calls upon the bishop to have a priest, this group gives by this very fact, authority to the bishop to watch over the transmission of the faith"*
real/full quote: *"Since the jurisdiction of the bishop is not territorial but personal and has as its source the duty of the faithful to save their souls, if a group of faithful in the diocese calls upon the bishop to have a priest, this group gives by this very fact, authority to the bishop to watch over the transmission of the Faith and of grace in this group, by the intermediary of the priest that he sent."*
Again listening to Salza gives you the impression that the Archbishop is making a general claim. But he is not. He is saying, since the jurisdiction for this particular bishop is not territorial but personal etc. this is clear from the context of the letter, I advise you to look up the entire letter.
Also the full quote makes more clear that L. is making an argument about supplied jurisdiction which has at its basis the salvation of souls.
1:01:04
3.) *"the jurisdictional authority of the bishop does not come from a Roman nomination, but from the necessity of the salvation of souls," "and they must consequently facilitate the exercise of his authority by a generous obedience."* *end quote*
(this is the most obvious misquote, cause it leaves out and mashes two different quotes together that actually belong to 2 different sentences.)
real/full quote: (first part which actually continues differently - but Salza is mixing two statements together and makes one sentence out of them): *"Since the jurisdictional authority of the bishop does not come from a Roman nomination, but from the necessity of the salvation of souls,* he will have to exercise it with a special delicacy and taking special account of his presbyteral council."
Again he is addressing the case of this specific Bishop and Salza makes it out to be a general statement about the nature of jurisdiction. Salza conveniently leaves out the caveat from the Archbishop which would have obviously weakened his accusation of L. being a heretic and slides in the end of another sentence, mixing two different sentences together.
the second part of Salzas quote is actually from another sentence which goes this way:
"Moreover, the faithful and priests must acknowledge the grace of having a pastor, successor of the Apostles, and guardian of Tradition of the deposit of the Faith, of the eucharistic Sacrifice, of the Catholic priesthood and of the grace of the Sacraments, *and they must consequently facilitate the exercise of his authority by a generous obedience."*
Why is Mr. Salzas mixing these quotes together? Is he misinformed or does he have an agenda? I think I can ask this question charitably after having showed this pattern of misquoting. I think this pattern clearly shows that there is something wrong with his argumentation.
Please correct me if one thinks that my reasoning here is flawed. Is it just me who thinks that the full quotes give a whole other meaning to these quotes?
God bless you for putting in the work and writing all of this (and with timestamps)!
Thanks for the comment Christpilled. We want debate indeed, but the comment section is not what we had in mind. Would you be interested in discussing this live?
Meanwhile, a short response (as I must return to my homework assignment): supplied jurisdiction is not “some other kind of jurisdiction.” It also comes from the Church in her authoritative legislation: not from the people. I’ve often been accused of “council-splaining” or “pope-splaining.” Your comment is also an attempt at “Lefebvre-splaining.” We can “splain” anything really, but for Catholics, we have a court of appeal: the authoritative teaching office of the Church Christ established. And Abp Lefebvre’s actions (and the actions of the society subsequently) confirm the content of his words. Your explanations make novel distinctions just as the Abp’s words did.
God bless!
Pope Saint Pius X writes in his letter “Con Vera Soddizfazione”:
“Do not let yourselves be deceived by the subtle declarations of others Who do not cease to pretend that they wish to be with the Church… If they maltreat and despise the ministers of the Church and even the Pope; if they try by every means to minimize their authority, to evade their direction, and to disregard their counsels; if they do not fear to raise the standard of rebellion, what Church are these men speaking about?”
@@thelogosproject7
Thank you for answering. I get that the comment section is not the best place to completely hash these issues out, but I still wanted to give my initial thoughts on a few issues in a written form. (also for the reason so people who watch this video can see that Mr. Salzas quotes from L. were faulty)
Hm a problem would be that English is not my mother tongue, so it could be rather difficult for me to have a live debate in English that would then be on a level plain field. But I will nevertheless think about it, thank you for the offer! What I will most likely do however is a (written) video response, addressing multiple things, which I don't agree with, raised by some of your shows.
*To your response:* you are actually missing the point of my criticism/comment. What I wanted to show and what I managed to do in my opinion is, how Mr. Salza is misquoting Archbishop Lefebvre (at least you didn't refute it, so I can still stand by it, until maybe one has an intelligible refutation/correction).
With these quotes (that were not only taken out of context, but actually partly misquoted (changing words, adding whole sentences from other sentences etc)) Mr. Salza wanted to "prove" that L. thought that there is no other basis for jurisdiction than from the people - But there were clearly misquotations + quotes taken out of context (as I showed).
Again here is Salza "quoting" Lefebvre: *" there is no other basis for jurisdiction than that which comes from the requests of the priests and the faithful to take care of their souls"*
and the real quote: *"This is not the case with the new bishop, who has no other basis for jurisdiction than that which comes from the requests of the priests and the faithful to take care of their souls and those of their children, and who have asked him to accept the episcopacy so as to give them true Catholic priests and the grace of the Sacrament of Confirmation."*
Wouldn't you say that there is a substantial difference here?
*Because if you hear Salzas "quote" like above, you think that the Lefebvre thought that in general and 100%, basically every jurisdiction comes "from the people" (which he actually never said), but that is clearly not the case if you read the full quote/the full letter.*
*My point is* not so much the issue at hand (i.e. jurisdiction), but that *Mr. Salza is very clearly misquoting Lefebvre* - something that is never okay, regardless of whom you want to "debunk". Don't you agree? I mean we wouldn't even misquote someone like Luther, right?
My point would then also be that the fact that Salza is doing this, is undermining his claim that he is looking at this thing as honestly and objectively as possible - That is why it would be fitting if either you/one can refute my argument (which is showing that Salza is engaging in an illegitimate form of argumentation i.e. misquoting), or if that is not possible, Mr. Salza corrects this error. I think this is a reasonable "demand" on my part.
Now to the point of jurisdiction: Not every explanation equals „splaining“ - so that’s not really an argument. *There is no quote of Lefebvre saying that "jurisdiction comes from the people“.* Show me a quote where he actually says that. The *question* is if it is possible to obtain jurisdiction in an extraordinary way? obviously there is: supplied jurisdiction --> ecclesia supplet. Where does supplied jurisdiction come from? it comes from the church. And why does the church give/have supplied jurisdiction or rather what is the "basis" of it? obviously (for) the salvation of souls. So there is really no problem (fundamentally) with the statements of Lefebvre, because as it clear from the context, he is obviously arguing for jurisdiction where there cannot be one in an ordinary form. So again, no heresy.
You would actually have to argue against his case for supplied jurisdiction in this particular case - I am sure that one can do that, so I don't see why Mr. Salza is misquoting Lefebvre in order to make him a heretic through these statements (which are again, misquoted) which is clearly not the case.
Again, to really hammer this point home the problem is, if you hear Mr. Salzas "quote", one naturally thinks that *Lefebvre* is *making* a *general claim about the nature of every normal jurisdiction.* That is the impression one gets. But when reading the full quote or the full letter, one can see that he is talking about a specific case, and it becomes clear that *he (obviously) knows that jurisdiction comes from the "Roman nomination" otherwise he wouldn't even address this whole issue as problem at all.*
It is like if I took a quote from a Catholic priest in a letter saying that "there is no other basis for to go to heaven, other than God's mercy". Which might lead one to think that this priest doesn't believe in the necessity of baptism for one's salvation. But then if you look at the full quote it would go something like this "Since this is not the case for the good thief, there is no other basis for him to go to heaven than God`s mercy“ and then you see that he is actually talking about the good thief next to Jesus Christ on the cross - who got to heaven without baptism. Obviously this priest was talking about a specific case, which doesn't refute the dogma of the necessity of baptism. Would you say that it would be misquoting if I did that?
(what I am not saying with this comparison is that the fact of the good thief getting to heaven (which is obviously and irrefutably true) is on them same level with Lefebvres claim/arguing for supplied jurisdiction regarding this south American bishop - again I just wanted to show one more time that *misquoting, even in a little way can change the meaning very much* ))
Thanks again for your reply, and I would understand if you don't have the time to answer again.
God bless!
@@thelogosproject7
Thank you for this letter, it actually brings up another issue I have with the nature of argumentation you and Bartel+Salza are using to refute the SSPX and/or the „trad“ position as a whole in general, but also „resistance“ of certain priests and laymen in particular. While this letter of course is stating correct things, you just cannot apply it everywhere and all the time - except if you want to take the position that one has to obey his authority all the time and everywhere? Clearly this would be an untenable position.
So what is often times lacking in yalls arguments, is context - the context of disregarding a priests council or the context of not following a bishops direction. What we have to ask is, can there be a context where such an action is justified? I think you would agree that there can be? Of course one cannot hold this position willy nilly and our default position has to be an obedient one.
But the authority of Priests and Bishops (and even the Pope) is not limitless and has a sphere and first and foremost a purpose - if this purpose is missed or even acted against they are obviously acting outside their sphere(scope) of authority and are not obeyed. (Eric Sammons has good videos on the nature of the authority of the Pope)
So what we actually have to discuss, instead of throwing quotes at each other which have actually not really much meaning in this context, is to discuss the situation we are currently in. I have many Friends who got very bad advice from priests who seemed to have forgotten about the churches doctrines (a classic example would be the „allowance“ use of contraception).
So what should there reaction be? According to this letter they are not allowed to disregard this council?
Of course not, because St. Pius X would surely be opposed to this council and would say that in this case, you can/have to disregard it.
Evidently we are in complicated and strange times, also when it comes to the state of the church in general.
We should discuss the issues that arise because of these extraordinary times - and the answers we might have. And I think for example trads like Eric Sammons or Timothy Flanders give compelling answers.
"Schism breeds schism"
It seems to me like we've seen this happen once before
St. Francis de Sales has a book called "Finding God's Will for You" and he writes this:
"A man who says that he is inspired and then refuses to obey his superiors and follow their advice is an impostor....extraordinary missions are diabolical illusions and not heavenly inspirations if they are not recognized and approved by pastors on the ordinary mission. In this, Moses and the prophets are in accord. St. Francis, St. Dominic, and the other fathers of religious orders turned to the service of souls by an extraordinary inspiration, but they submitted all the more humbly and heartily to the sacred hierarchy of the Church."
Does this stand not also for St.Athanasious & if not ; why so as he was excommunicated?
Does this stand not also for St.Athanasious & if not ; why so as he was excommunicated?
@@quiricomazarin476 I hope to see St. Athanasius discussed on this podcast in the future. I'm not sure what exactly we know about him. He always obeyed his censures from what I can tell but the SSPX claims that Lefebvre is a second Athanasius
@@audreykunkel well God knows...unfortunately we the laity are stuck between are the good guys good & are the bad boys really that bad.
Even the Archangel of the judgement who was Holy & was so close to God.....picked an anti-pope so go figure.
The pope said it was ok to go to an sspx chapel for Mass and Confession.
What’s the problem?
Not true. Pope Francis merely granted the faculty to SSPX priests to hear confessions, i.e., he made them valid, not permissible.
@@martincorneille7998 so they can observe the sacrament of confession & marriage ( I believe ) & yet can't the other sacraments?
What sense does that make?
@@quiricomazarin476 It doesn’t. These people know better than the pope. It is a Protestant position to say you can’t go to the sspx.
@@quiricomazarin476 What sense? Not getting valid confession or marriage has even far more dramatic consequences than for all the other sacraments (baptism aside, but the standard for its validity is not bound by having faculties from the hierarchy).
@@martincorneille7998 extreme unction.
@TheLogosProject…this series is a breath of fresh air! I have family who have fallen to the sspx due to the issues in the church and we’ve tried to talk to them but didn’t work. Had me second guessing (very briefly lol) until i seen your videos and others similar. Had to leave behind other Catholic TH-cam people like Hall unfortunately. It’s sad but we certainly can pray and do penance for them. God bless!
Not even going to bother watching this.
The man was a saint.
If you can't see Divine Providence in what our dear holy Monsignor Lefebvre did, and saving the Papacy and the priesthood and the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church which otherwise would have been utterly destroyed thanks to Vatican II. He founded the SSPX through the correct channels, except at the consecrations he had to use Canon law. Deo Gratias.
And we need more bishops btw.
God's Church will continue to the end, no matter what tools the devil uses to destroy it. I stopped this video before it even started, you are not even worth listening too.
You are not from God.
May God have mercy on your souls.
Sean from New Zealand
SEAN Hart You are right. Abp. LEFEBVRE was a true Roman Catholic. He followed all the rules, and was shocked what Vatican 1 wanted. And we are still in that mess. Look at what Francis Bergolio Panchapapa is doing. LGBT? Come to my palace in the Vatican. Cardinal Sen? OMG, I'm so busy. Abp. Marcel Lefebvre was excommunicated, but later the Vatican lifted the ban. They know he was RIGHT. And these guys who are talking about true obedience didn't read Thomas Aquinas? About what to do when the higher authority is evidently wrong?
Sainthood for Abp. Marcel Lefebvre.
I stop listening to these guys. Pseudo knowledge....
You should watch the video. The SSPX is a cult, and I know you probably don’t want to hear that, but it’s the truth. You should look into it.
God Bless, I am 24 and converted last year from Lutheranism in Germany and I quickly began loving the Latin Mass and reading about Lefebrve due to friends and now I also go to SSPX.
The Novous ordor is wrong and is contrary to the will of Christ and his church. Thank God for Archbishop Lefebvre.
So Christ abandoned his Church? Your argument doesn’t make sense. Either Christ told the truth about the papacy or he didn’t. Your argument has the problem of the papacy. Also what mother who is Holy would abuse her children? None, so you need to figure out how to answer why disobeying the Pope is okay, and why would a Holy Mother abuse her children. If you can prove those two things then you have an argument.
I saw Andrew on reason and theology. I was evangelical for 27 years, and have recently found the true faith in the Catholic Church. Channels like these are a life saver for me. Because RCIA would be largely a recap of what I already believe, but a deep dive into Catholic theology is exactly what I'm looking for. Not simply, this is what we believe, but why and historically based and profound. It's the bullet and the gun for protestant family and friends.
What difference does it make anymore. Pope Francis says even atheists can go to heaven so there should be no problems with SSPX
Hahaha :) No place for this bad schismatics there :)
Can doesn't mean will. That's the difference. And that isn't new to Pope Francis
I have a growing sense of dread that the SSPX has a bad case of the sunk cost bias; they have invested way too much into their founder's perceived flawlessness and saintliness to admit that Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong about anything.
Honest question: Are there any good fruits of Vatican II? For the life of me I can’t think of any.
Biblical studies (if you’re tracking with that niche), ecclesiology (which is the heart of the council), joint declarations, Saint Paul center, Ascension Press, Catholic Answers, Scott Hahn’s dissertation/conversion and the American catholic conversion movement, Alasdair MacIntyre and his students, communio international catholic review, Word on Fire, Franciscans of the renewal, Ralph Martin, renewal ministries, the Ratzinger prize, the JPII institutes in the US, Rome, Australia… I can keep going
Joint declaration on justification. Several declarations with the Lutherans, some with the Anglicans, the lifting of the excommunications with the East, better relationships with the East, lay theologians, women theologians, RCIA programs, theology of the body, increase in parish Bible studies…
Si. Ad esempio Santa Dulce,Madre Teresa di Calcutta,San Giovanni Paolo II e molti altri.
Me and my family. My grandparents left pre 1969, but me, my mom, and brothers all joined the Church post 2012. If it weren’t for JPII I can honestly say I would not be Catholic. Just wanted to make a personal point on how VII has helped.
This question is methodically wrong.
Even if we do not see good fruits, the presumption of the goodness of the Church's acts requires that we recognize them as good. and that's it.
the fruits may come after we are gone.
What's the time stamp of where Salza is quoting Marcel saying that jurisdiction comes from the people not The Church?
59:00
It is a misquotation.
@@EnglishDreadnought citation?
25:27 You are making a classic strawman here.
54:36 - He didnt say that Roman Catholic Church is no longer a Catholic Church!! He said that a postconciliar church which has different faith it's not a church. He didnt precise who exactly is a part of this postconciliar Church. Not so easy! :)
True
Read what you wrote. I’d you give it two seconds of thought you will see you made his point. In fact you made it even stronger than he did.
The obsession you all have in finding error in a most Holy Archbishop should make the church, as our Lord ordained it, question you!!
You create heresy towards Our Lord, by ripping apart, a man, a justly ordained Archbishop who was not going to to settle for the abominations that slithered out in V2.
His famously named quote is... I am merely passing on what I have been given.
You can't expect an Archbishop in Tradition to tow the line of errors of Paul VI introduced and then were exacerbated
by JPII.
You are not comparing apples with apples and therein lies the rub...
Know truly what he stood for and then take YOUR heretical stance to the confessional.
Seek the real truth... JMJ+
So you dont believe in the indefectibility of the Church? This comment is evidence that the SSPX is a cult with Archbishop Lefebvre as it's rule of Faith... you very obviously didn't listen to this video and if you did, you didn't hear it. One is to point out error wherever it is found. God bless these men for doing that.
I back you up! I go to an SSPX PARISH HERE ON LONG ISLAND!
These guys have already attended the SSPX for years and know everything about Lefebvre and what the SSPX teaches. They know both sides and the full story, but you only know the side the SSPX is telling you.
@@margaretmaryyoung6991 these guys attended the SSPX for years. So did I. They know what they are talking about. Everything they state in their videos is true. They are precisely representing the arguments of the SSPX
As a former Protestant, your rant sounds just like the rants we would go on against the Catholic Church. Just replace your “Holy Archbishop” references with “Dr. Luther” and there you have it.
From Ireland Have to say I am a bit puzzled by Bishop Schneider's take on SSPX. I have listened to him on Taylor Marshall and 2 days ago He answered question on SSPX on Fatima ? Channel. Any prudent help from Andrew to help me. Love these discussions, so helpful. 🙏☘️
Hi Imelda! I don't understand why Bishop Schneider has taken the position he has on the SSPX. The most charitable explanation I could give is that the poor bishop is ignorant, or perhaps trying to assume the best. Apologists of the SSPX love to use his testimony, especial since he was an official visitor to the SSPX. But to say that you know the SSPX after spending a few weeks with them is ridiculous; it's like saying you know a girl after the first date. I know what the priests really say and do when they are not on their "best behavior" and are "among their own"...I lived it. I would truly like to know what Bishop Schneider would say if he was confronted with the heresies and untenable positions of the SSPX and their founder. Maybe Dom could invite him on the show!
Thank you Andrew. You wonderful young men are a blessing to us all. I will keep you and your family's in my prayers, especially at Holy Mass tomorrow. Will place you all deep into The Sacred Heart of Jesus and The Immaculate Heart of Mary, and The Just Heart of St. Joseph. Heaven is very close to us always. It's beautiful, we are loved so much. Jesus loves when we Trust Him, nothing is impossible with God.🙏☘️
Please pray for Ireland, we need protection from SSPX. They are about to get stronger here ,due to a very popular TH-camr who has a large following here . SSPX are having a Conference here 9th- 11th. I don't want to give out any more details at the moment.
Thank you Fr's for your insightful comments & Andrew once again.🙏☘️
Wasn't Schneider sent to investigate the SSPX? I do wonder that instead of remaining impartial, Schneider became a victim of the SSPX intense one-sided propaganda during that visit. Not only was the SSPX on its best behavior, treating him well, indulging him, but the SSPX worked hard to indoctrinate him.
Of course the only why to counter this kind of indoctrination is the same method as for all - intense debriefing and exposure to the whole truth.
Clergy and social media celebrities who get soft on the SSPX earn much less respect and trust. if they are inaccurate enough on the SSPX, what else are they wrong about?
@@andrewbartel12 You are probably right about Bishop Schneider. It appears to me, he hasn't read the papal documents concerning SSPX. All the popes, from Paul VI to Francis (except JPI) have documents showing that SSPX is schismatic. Apparently, Bishop Schneider never read those.
Thanks for sharing this. It was very good :)
Excellent video. I really need to know where that quote Andrew gave from Gueranger is from.
Oh yes he was very wrong! Don't we all love a good old Novus ordo mass. No confession before the mass, no Latin, Communion in the hand, let people in mortal sin receive communion, openly gay priests, bishops okay with sodomy even promoting it, Yoga during the mass, holding hands during the our father, Guitar masses, grooming in seminaries and The holy father that teaches heresy.
Great summary. Made me laugh because many of these things I either heard about by friends (the grooming part) or even experienced myself
best part is john salza talking about ecclesiology beginning around 43:00
But he repeatedly misquoted Leferbvre there. Read the actually letter, and you will see, for example, that he is saying literally there opposite of what John wants you to think he was saying when he (mis)quotes at 59:00
It's as embarrassing as when Sam Harris quoted Jesus as having said that he would dash out the brains of babies.
WOW!!! You guys are smokin' today!!! God bless you for this work, blowing up these errors and breaking the chains of those imprisoned by them!! Thank you.
Agree 100%! But WHAT are they smoking? That’s the question.
@@TP-om8of Haha! Whoops. I wondered if that would sound wrong coming out! Smokin' like "cruising", "sharp as a tack", "smoking the fox out of his den", etc. ;) If they WERE really smoking it would be pipe tobacco only, I bet. :)
I attended the SSPX for about 2 years, though on and off, and continued to attend my local parish which only offers the novus ordo when I couldn't drive the hour away. I literally read every book by Lefebvre. Though my experience was generally positive I did find myself going down the rabbit hole and finally pulled myself out. To think the Church can give us a Mass which leads our souls astray is like accusing a mother of poisoning her child. I didn't know about the 'indefectability of the Church'. I find my spiritual life more balanced now. Too much suspicion, too much "everything past 1965 is 'tainted' with heresy or modernism", complete disregard for any new devotions (Divine Mercy), new theological developments, new Saints (they call into question many of the new canonizations and feast days). Its just exhausting.....
Well said, especially of new developments and saints. I once heard of a woman refusing holy cards with any "Vatican 2" saints on them because "they're not really saints." I'll never understand how holding a position like that will lead you upwards and onwards.
Hearing all these details makes me so dang mad over the way the SSPX has misled so many.
I do believe that Archbp Sheen's prediction of the "Ape of the Church" is realized by the SSPX. It looks good and feels comfortable but is completely unhitched from the Authority and Discipline of the Church. What a masterful subterfuge!
Guys, all of you are ex SSPX. You will dive deep into the postconciliar church, you will see the problems, and you will come back. ;)
there isn't a 'postconciliar church'-theres only the Catholic Church.
lmao no they won't lmao dont think the sspx are flaweless and do no wrong lmao
@24:40 “Where does it end?” It ends when we Catholics admit that we’ve made mistakes and that Tradition isn’t something we make up in 1870 or 1962 or whenever the pope of the day feels like it. It ends when we stop blaming the mistakes of fallible men (and that includes the pope) on God. It ends when we admit that the Orthodox and the Protestant Reformers had valid points. It ends when we face up to empirical facts and admit the results of bad decisions. It ends when we realise that shepherds are servants not masters, and that God never calls us to submit our intellect to anything but Himself.
No one denies that the Orthodox and Protestant Reformers had valid points. What “empirical facts“ are you speaking of? This comment it’s very ambiguous…
@@thelogosproject7 The biggest empirical fact is that the Novus Ordo drove millions of people from the church and from faith itself. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality…it’s like Joe Biden trying to blame inflation on Putin rather than his own money-printing.
You guys are very legalistic and hung up on the traditions of men-and recent traditions at that (like the novelties of Vatican 1). I don’t think God really cares about your hierarchical structures…but He does care about the gospel.
Wow. Salza and Bartell go to great lengths to highlight the sins of Abp Lefebvre. Yet , I wonder, if both Abp Lefebvre and Abp Bergoglio were brought before Our Lord (like Mary Magdalene), who would lift the first stone and towards whom would it be directed?.
I would hope they would both stand still in just fear of the Lord in such a circumstance.
Not act hateful to each other.
How could anyone standing before our Lord think of hating each other, throwing stones?
Why would you even think of such a thing? Don't you think the one acting this way, not accapting the ruling of our Lord but wanting to do justice himself would be a candidate for hell?
Bergoglio worse.
Modernists being modernists..LOL....MAY GOD BLESS ST. LEFEBVRE AND THE SSPX
@horrorhawk3701 You are late to the game my friend. The ex communication was lifted by Pope Benedict after determining it was unjust. Pope Francis offered faculties to the SSPX. YOU ARE IN SCHISM WITH OUR POPE. Seek Pope Francis as the authority in these matters lest you are outside Communion with the ONE TRUE FAITH. Repent for bearing false witness and SUBMIT to our Holy Father's authority.
In the immortal words Michael Jordan, “stop it. Get some help.”
All joking aside the SSPX is undoubtedly in schism, and if you had watched the video you would have seen that it’s actually the SSPX who are the “boogie man” modernists. Stop trying to lead people away from Christ.
Much like the SSPX, you believe you are the true Church with the authority to proclaim a man a saint. Silly
Previously I thought that we should engage more with liberals instead of the sspx and rad trads. Now I think it is a necessity to deal with the sspx. I can't tolerate anymore their attitude on post vatican 2 saints or slander and calumny against the pope. So please keep doing your work.
I have recently stopped attending SSPX Masses and I feel very deceived by the SSPX clergy. I only went to the SSPX to be at a reverent Mass and one of their chapels was located kind of my end of the city. Unfortunately I took them at face value on certain points but now after watching your videos I feel very tricked by the clergy. I never agreed with them on many other points such as the New Mass. I had no problem attending any Catholic church Novus Ordo Mass where celebrated reverently. My question to you is after leaving the SSPX how did you deal with the way the Novus Ordo Mass is celebrated in the majority of Catholic churches? (clown Mass, Kumbaya Mass, Polka Masses, gay Masses, etc). The parishes that celebrate the Novus Ordo Mass are few and far between. I'd really like your advice. Thank you, John, Andrew and Dom, you guys are doing very good work.
Where do you live that the majority of masses in your area are clown/kumbaya/polka/gay masses? Not trying to challenge you, I'm just curious. I've been to quite a few random NO masses and they've all been exactly the same, strictly by the book. In my experience, you may see badly celebrated masses online often because they make headlines due to their shock value but in practice, they're not as common as you might think.
Same/ i grew up in Seattle under Abp Hunthousen, and live there again and we have no problem finding a good NO mass. There are plenty I don’t like, but mostly it’s a preference of music and preaching.
Could you guys rebut Michael Davies in his debate with EMJ?
They are never going to debate you guys. They have always met opposition with silence… then they just wait for the problem to go away.
It’s all about distraction and gaudy flashing.
Love the content! I'm not a rad trad, so don't take my question as if I'm trying to poke holes in your view points. I'm just a glad trad who loves the reverence and beauty of the Catholic faith. Do any of you attend the NO on a regular basis?
Hi Josh! Yes, I attend the Novus Ordo every Sunday, and whenever I can throughout the week. I have been studying the reformed rites in-depth for over ten years now, as well as implementing them faithfully with my pastor for six years as a master of ceremonies. My love, appreciation and gratitude for this great gift from the Church only continues to grow and deepen!
@@andrewbartel12 I truly appreciate you reaching out. How do I approach my pastor to help in that same way? I have a great priest and a great relationship with him.
@@joshanderson8566 Sounds like you're off to a great start! Good relationship is how it begins. Then you can offer whatever talents you have to make things more beautiful and reverent. Three points of advice from my experience: 1) Your example at worship, especially as a lay minister, is more powerful and edifying that anything else you can do; 2) be patient with your pastor and fellow parishioners, real change doesn't happen overnight; 3) there is no perfect liturgy this side of heaven, so always focus on what is good, true and beautiful, rather than laziness, sloppiness or imperfection, because in this world, they are always with us! God be with you.
@@andrewbartel12 awesome! Thank you for your advice and time. God bless
These quotes you present from the archbishop are, frankly, astonishing. How could someone ever recommend following a man who holds these beliefs and displays this kind of behavior? I think this presents another problem; how can you establish a good community and good families when the founder of the group you cling to has built his entire organization on disobedience? How can you maintain adherence to the hierarchy of the family unit and hold respect for authority if your entire worldview is "the pope is wrong and the bishops are corrupt and the Church is failing and we are the only ones who have it right"? If you get to make the decisions on who is corrupt and who is not, what's to stop a son from trying to subvert his father's authority if he thinks his father is "corrupt"? It's a slow burn but I think this attitude will ultimately be their downfall.
Read his biography. If he didn't do what he had done, ie. pass on that which he received, the Catholic faith.
If you want you can follow the pope, into heresy. Pro abortion, pro homosexuality, and pro globalism. He's a wolf in sheep's clothing. Our Lady has predicted all this. She even predicted a prelate of the church to save the church. If that isn't Archbishop Lefebvre then who is it?
@@seanhart8034 I have read his biography, and I don't deny that he was a great man who did great things for the Church, but disobeying the pope was not one of them. I'm no fan of Pope Francis either, but the fact of the matter is, he is the Pope, and we're obligated to stay loyal to him. I don't know if you attend SSPX chapels (sounds like you do), but enough time there should indicate to you that their system is erroneous and unstable, not to mention plagued with troubling history, as indicated in this video and as a cursory amount of research will tell you. The sentiments and attitudes behind their founding are just not reconcilable with historical precedent. If you have eyes to see, take a step back from their narrow tunnel vision they impose, and look clearly at them. As Dom and Andrew have pointed out many times, their claim of "the Church has erred and we are the only ones with the fullness of truth" sounds just like what Protestants said. I hope you're willing to look at the situation objectively.
@@andym5995 have you read the alta vendita? Mate, they crucified the One who founded the Holy Roman Catholic Church, Our Lord Jesus Christ. They martyred the Apostles, and how many centuries of popes. How many early martyrs? The Church has been attacked all through history. Untouchable. They infiltrated the Church, these are the facts. Pope Leo XIII and St Pope Pius X spoke, fought and wrote about it. St Pius X said he pushed the modernists underground, and that they would reappear. Our Lady warns us at Akita and Fatima. The Church is under attack. Archbishop Lefebvre may have disobeyed the popes since Vatican II, how? By doing exactly what the previous 19 centuries of popes did do, he followed them. Look what we have today. A pope who is promoting homosexuality, abortion and globalism. Go figure. If you want to follow this pope to perdition, then go for it. But I know that for the last 30 years of going to the traditional Mass, mostly from SSPX, but not exclusively, that I am doing what God wants, and what is good for my soul. Archbishop Lefebvre's name has popped up alot lately I see, as traditional Catholic realize that if it wasn't for him, probably no one would even have this Mass anymore. Now he is under attack. It all fits. "Our battle is not between flesh and blood, but principalities and powers in higher places." And that's why I said that these men who did this pod are not from God. And that's why I won't even waste my time watching it.
God Bless you
@@seanhart8034 "The Church has been attacked all through history. Untouchable." You couldn't have said it better. "Gates of hell shall not prevail." I trust in the Lord's words here. We're on a ship and there's there's terrible storm and many of the officers are drunk, but we know the ship won't go down.
@@andym5995 That's right. Some Body had to save it, God uses man as His instruments. And I believe it was Archbishop Lefebvre. He was there, present at that "evil council" (to quote Our Lady) and changed nothing when everyone jumped aboard that sinking ship. As he said "I have passed on what I received".
And I meant to say 'Quito' not 'Akita'.
God bless Andy
This was amazingly informative! Thank you so much! And God bless!
@18:20 Here Paul VI is essentially echoing what Pius IX reportedly said: “La tradizione, son’ io!”. Paul really thought he could make “tradition” up as he went along. This is why he was a worse pope even than Francis.
Paul VI never "made up" any tradition as he went along. The Pope, however, does have and has always had the authority to change disciplinary practices and rituals. V2 doesn't do anything that hasn't been done before at some time in the past. Was adding the fillioque to the Nicean Creed "making tradition up as they went along"? You can disagree with something, I personally disagree with changing a sacred creed even if they thing added is Scripturally verifiable as correct, but as Catholics we have to submit to the Church's authority to change things. If you can't, then you aren't Catholic. You're some new Protestant sect. You're just freezing a single era in Church history and saying that's the way it has to be forever. That's just not true. "Whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven, whatever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven." By literal decree from Jesus Christ, what the Church says always has divine authority behind it, and to deny the Church is to deny Christ
@@williamavitt8264 Thanks for the popeslanation, but that ain’t Catholic. Basically you’re saying that you have to go along with whatever the pope says or you magically become a Protestant. No…popes can be wrong and they’ve never had the authority to abolish the Mass and replace it with a new ritual ( a Protestantised one, in this case as it happens). The pope is the bishop of Rome; he’s not your boss or mine. The same feckless and erroneous ecclesiology you espouse is what kept the cowardly bishops from standing up to Paul Vi, who was arguably the worst pope in history (and that’s saying something).
And when you quote Matthew 16 at someone, don’t forget to look at 18 as well. That binding and loosing applied to all the apostles.
@@TP-om8of lol that actually IS Catholic teaching, and has been for centuries. You don't have to AGREE with everything, as long as it hasn't been definitively declared as dogma, but you do have to submit to everything the Pope and the Church as a whole teaches. At the very least, you can't publicly denounce official Church teachings, definitive or not. And it's funny that you think you can use a term like "popesplaining" and still think you're a Catholic.
Canon 751 (Code of Canon Law)
Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
If you reject the authority of the Pope you are in schism, which means you are no longer Catholic until you go to confession and repent of the schism. Then, once absolved, you will be once again in full communion with the Church. That rejecting the official teachings of the Church or the Pope makes you a defacto Protestant is literally a matter of Canon law. Once again, you don't have to agree with everything, but you do have to submit with your will and your intellect. That's literally how being a Catholic works
@@williamavitt8264 You’re confusing Ultramontanism with Catholicism, and authority with communion. Canon law is neither scripture nor tradition; it is merely an instrument by which the Vatican carries out its business.
The point is pope Paul had no authority to abolish the Mass and replace it with a protestantised ritual, and neither does Francis have authority to ban the Mass, as he is currently trying to do. But the real culprits are the cowardly bishops who don’t stand up for the faith.
@@TP-om8of no, I'm talking about Catholicism, the way it's existed for centuries. Monatism is close to Pentacostalism, and nothing like Catholicism. Canon Law doesn't pretend to be Scripture or Tradition, it is Church law, though, and Catholics are bound by it. If you don't think we are, that's further evidence that not only are you not Catholic, but you don't even know what it means to be Catholic. Paul VI had every authority to change the mass. Every successor to the Apostles have agreed to this. Not one single Bishop disapproved of Vatican II when it happened. Lefebvre tried to reneg on his approval of it after the fact, but he had no authority to call it invalid. The true cognitive dissonance here is you idiots not seeing the parallels between SSPX and sedevacantism and the Protestant Reformation. You're a clown, and you're placing your soul in jeopardy. And this will be my last response because I've given you all of the information to get yourself back in communion with the Church Christ established, and still you refuse to listen. That's on you, and I'm not going to go back and forth with someone who doesn't even know what it means to be Catholic
Andrew Bartel is a funny comedian 😂 I wish he’d quote The Council of Trent catechism and not that awful new catechism 😤
He completely ignores what Vat 2 did to the Liturgy 😡
Thank you for sharing. I now better understand why traditionis custodes was issued.
We going through the same thing as Israel done in the past. When God came to us we decided to reject him because of endangered tradition. Jesus were killed in the name of preservation tradition and faith of the fathers.
I am so thankful for Vatican Council II. When I read those documents I felt enormous amount of love of God. Same thing happened when I read catechism of the Church. Beautiful documents. Thank God for Vatican Council II.
Pope Benedict said Tradition did not end at 1962, It goes on in the Church.
Awesome video! Very objective and interesting to follow along. Looking forward to more. God bless!
Thank you!
Another one of your best .. You lads are on a roll! The saintly Archbishop Lefebvre did indeed make all too human mistakes, indulged in errors, and embraced error that promoted heresies, based on flawed or incomplete understanding - then pushed it beyond a logical conclusion into illogicality, here the defectibility of the indefectible Church; the real problem is that he understood this, but stuck to it. As I have always understood it, Lefebvre .. like those students he undertook to form for the priesthood .. had lost all trust in the human element of the Church, the civil service and the Holy See's management capabilities, if not quite the guiding power of the Holy Ghost - in such a time of great confusion and trial (the guidance of the Spirit was, it seems, limited to those agreeing with or sympathetic to Lefebvre); looking, dispassionately, at some of the 'horror' stories of increasingly deformed priestly formation in the 1960s - 1970s (already somewhat deformed in the 1940s - 50s), and stuff like the Dutch Catechism (to make the message of Jesus Christ as new as it is), one can see the reasons for 'concern'.
Keep the Faith; tell the truth, shame the devil, and let the demons shriek.
God bless. ;o)
Why do you say AML was saintly?
@@AnaMT1985 His life was made holy to God: he was a good priest, a fine missionary, a loving bishop, a witnessing and co-signing council Father (yet he made mistakes).
For instance, Origen was a saintly soul, he was much loved for his witness to God - by those who understood him, in mortal life; but his works were held in suspicion, and his texts were later condemned - at least in part, post-mortem; he is not a canonised saint, yet he was saintly - though some of what he said and did is still not reconcilable with .. the Faith. Or Theodore of Mosuestia (e.g. the finite purging torments of 'hell' aka Purgatory given a spin as Christian Universalism); he too was a saintly soul, with flaws. Or ... (fill in as you please) ...
Saintliness of life does not preclude human mistakes, nor does it confer any kind of worldly indefectibility, cf Sts John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II, and now Bl John Paul I (they all made ordinary errors of judgement, and permitted confusions - e.g. allowed instability to replace order, in the earthly concerns under their rule), they are now canonised Saints*.
God bless. ;o)
* I am not yet aware of any great prevailing spiritual devotion for or even material attachment to these popes; except perhaps for John XXIII's very simple parish priest type of spirituality, which it seems the Modernists of his time derided (as childish); such ordinary piety, however, did and still does exist quite widely among the Faithful for Bl Pio Nono and St Pius X, also for Ven Pius XII, though they are no longer .. liked or considered .. by the In Crowd element.
John is absolutely correct. The society cares about nothing except their power and money. And this is all at the expense of parishioners and their souls.
Lefebvre is their idol.
How do you know that?
Remarkable how similar Lefevre sounds to Orthodox schismatics
I was told by a priest that one of the conditions for supplied jurisdiction is that it must have the implicit approval of the Pope. Is this accurate?
In a sense. Supplied jurisdiction is supplied by the Church. The occasion (be it near death experience or what have you) does not in itself provide jurisdiction: the church provides it for such instances by accounting for those instances in her law.
Excellent!!!
100% on the mark!
EXCELLENT!!!!
Hey, this is incredible, authority can only come from God, so, without apostolic succesion, there's nothing. Lefebvre was, trully, a proud man. But, can you share the show nores, I mean, write references to the documents you quote? It would be very important, especially that 1991 letter in which he gous full Marsilio de Padua or Wycliff...
Its the same pope francis give indefinite faculty to sspx
Only to hear confessions. Weddings are only allowed if the local Bishop gives approval to the priest. I would suggest you read what our Holy Father writes.
Ratio
They make an Idol out of Lefevbre ,they do not want to see his faults.They act as if he is their God.
Humm, never heard or saw anything like the behavior you've describing.
I suppose that some people simply appreciate a courageous Prince of the Church doing what he felt was necessary to preserve the Sacred Tradition within Depositum Fidei.
Rome had promised him bishops many times throughout the years & AB ML waited patiently, but they never made good on their promise.
AB ML then fell gravely ill with cancer, he sent word to Rome regarding his diagnosis & prognosis; time was rapidly running out for him.
After being promised bishops for so long, waiting & waiting while the years passed by, being ignored, then coming down with terminal cancer, he knew his days were numbered; the situation now became dire.
In light of this, while growing old waiting patiently in obedience yet still being ignored; he courageously did that which he was taught was his duty as an AB & his responsibility to take action in a time of necessity or emergency.
Out of love, respect, obedience & duty, he did what he had to do protect & preserve DF & ST. Without his courage, ST, that which was handed down to us, stood strong throughout centuries+++, that which many great saints & holy martyrs attended & celebrated, which Mexico's Christeros & the martyred clergy & parishioners of Ireland & other countries gave their lives to protect; the consecrated Host & the ST which was handed down to them; there is a high chance that this could've been lost. And that would've been a horrific tragedy.
There have been other such events in church history where one or a few had to stand alone in the face of sweeping trend. St. Athanasius during the Nestorian heresy comes to mind, as well as those who stood against Airias when most of the church was subsumed in that heresy. They were hated during their time, but are now venerated as great Saints.
It's wise to at least attempt to see things from his side. +JMJ+
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre sounds like he was bi-polar... that would probably be the most charitable thing to assume anyway.
HOW DARE YOU!
@@margaretmaryyoung6991 unfortunately with comments like this you are just proving what these gentlemen are saying... that Lefebvre is your rule of faith. He's your idol and can't be questioned or critiqued. The other alternative if he wasn't sick in the head is that he was evil. Thus why it would be more charitable to assume he had a mental deficiency.
What is wrong with you?