I agree with you, but what about supplied juristiction? Vatican II was, in my opinion, reformation part 2. Bugnini was a freemason, and now we have Francis who was elected via the colaboration of the St. Gallen Mafia who were also Freemasons. And, Francis has a history of promoting sexual devients and extortionists.
The SSPX has never been or are they now in schism? I didn’t remember the person who commented that all the popes post council the SSPX in schism that is just plainly incorrect, but Francis hasn’t said it Benedict XVI never said it. In fact Pope Benedict, lifted the excommunication penalties on the bishops. If it was not forArchbishop Lefebvre the Latin mass would no longer be in the world, there would not be a traditional movement
• SSPX was established with a canonical mission. • The mission was not stripped away from them canonically. • Supplied jurisdiction is both a practical reality and enshrined in canon law; thus the Apostolic mission is not compromised. • If Vatican II is incorrect, the SSPX are justified. If Vatican II was correct, the SSPX are still justified because the Council claims that by being a Bishop, one receives the office of governance, and the Council teaches religious liberty- why would religious liberty not apply to the SSPX?
1) The SSPX received their canonical mission from the bishop of Fribourg on an "ad experiementum" basis for six years. So even if you want to argue the shaky position that this same bishop did not have the right to suppress the SSPX in his own diocese (a right which was upheld by Rome), the canonical mission was not renewed and has long since expired. 2) Supplied jurisdiction is only applicable to cases of common error within the Church, not to priests operating outside her juridical boundaries against the express will of the Pope and hierarchy (see The History, Nature, and Use of Epikeia in Moral Theology by Rev. Lawrence Joseph Riley). Apostolic mission and the right to govern is not communicated through supplied jurisdiction, a fact acknowledged by both Lefebvre and SSPX. 3) A bishop does not receive canonical mission or the power to govern merely by the fact of his ordination. He must be accepted into the college of bishops and remain in communion with them and the Pope. Here's what Vatican II actually teaches: "The canonical mission of bishops can come about by legitimate customs that have not been revoked by the supreme and universal authority of the Church, or by laws made or recognized be that the authority, or directly through the successor of Peter himself; and if the latter refuses or denies apostolic communion, such bishops cannot assume any office." (Lumen Gentium 24). 4) You are right, the Church teaches that the members of the SSPX are not to be coerced into returning to unity. But she also teaches that they have a moral duty "toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ." (Dignitatis Humanae 1).
@@andrewbartel12 Thank you, Andrew. I was attracted to RadTrad for a short time until I started examining the basic package of talking points that I later learned all came from Archbishop Lefebvre and which today make a common culture in RadTrad. Each and every one of them crumble under scrutiny. I learned that before the reformation there were literally hundreds of liturgies, not one. I learned that the majority practice of the first millennium was receiving the host on the hand. I learned that many Catholic communions never did the Latin Rite and still do not. I realized that the Protestant is not the opposite of Catholic so that seeing the church adopt something we see in protestant churches may just be the kind of bridgebuilding the Church has always done in non-Catholic cultures. I learned that Pope Francis is lied about shamelessly and incessantly in RadTrad. I realized that I was being rebellious and doing designer-lifestyle, unwilling to risk with Jesus as authentic disciples are always asked to. Thank you for your work, Andrew. You and people like you are doing God's work in going after the one sheep that wandered from the flock.
@@slick222 You’re welcome, thank you for your kind words. As St. John Henry Newman said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” The same can be said of dissenting Traditionalism: the more you immerse yourself in Tradition and Church history, the more you will realize this movement is neither traditional nor Catholic. An excellent book on this subject is Evangelical Catholicism by historian George Weigel.
@@andrewbartel12 Andre i know this interview was 8 month ago but i will try to reach you here with a humble request . You mentioned a interview that Bishop Felay did at 13:58 . Can you provide me the date and info or even the link for it? Are those changing letters between Bishop Felay and the other Bishops in public domain. Thanks I salute you for your amazing work. Deo Gratias
Thank you for your kindness. Type “Bishop Fellay CNS Interview The Recusant” into your search bar and the transcript of the interview should be in the first five results. As for the leaked letter of the three SSPX bishops to Bishop Fellay, I think you can still find it in several places on the internet, such as the forum CathInfo.
Every SSPX priest I know says that it is objectively a mortal sin to attend the New Mass. They say the NO is evil in its essence not just in accidental properties or implementation. Also, they strongly discourage attending any other Latin Mass. Andrew is right about the suspension issue. A friend of mine spoke with Bishop Fellay and he admitted that the Vatican never gave them permission to ordain priests. What the bishop said was he received a letter from Rome that could be interpreted as a permission to ordain but if you were to ask Rome they would say it was not a permission to ordain priests. That is why the "permission" was never made public!
I still trust in Jesus and keep faith even as I’m constantly faced with financial hardships and can barely support my children or myself. Please pray for me. I’m a single mom my husband passed years ago. I’m all alone. Both of my sons are autistic. They require a lot from me. I recently started homeschooling them due to bullying and other issues because they are special needs it’s easier not to expose them to certain situations because their behavior is so unpredictable, That’s why homeschooling is working out great. I’m just so overwhelmed. I lost my job at Forsyth hospital for declining the vaccine. I declined because of my health conditions lupus, and heart disease. Since losing my job I’ve been struggling to support my children and myself. I’m now waitressing and I’m grateful but I’m not making nearly enough. I feel like a failure. And now that I’m homeschooling my boys my hours to work are limited. Jesus help me. I’m tired of struggling. I get harassed over my situation by other people it hurts my heart. Because this is my life my truth. I’m already so ashamed. Having a child with autism is extremely expensive imagine having two. Struggling to buy school supplies. Struggling to buy groceries. Struggling to pay rent. It hasn’t been easy. But God doesn’t give you more than you can handle. The devil wants me to quit and to give up my faith but I know all things are possible through Jesus. I will not fear, fear is from the devil. I WILL KEEP FAITH. Thank you God I praise you and Your son Jesus!
May God bless you and keep you. You shouldn't be ashamed, and I hope you're able to find some assistance from your local parish, and perhaps start a givesendgo or something for others to help you. It's certainly nothing to be ashamed of especially given the circumstances. You are carrying your cross well but you don't have to do it alone.
I did find Andrew's response to my question at the end inadequate. I find it to be at best a sort of veiled impingement on the integrity of Bp. Fellay, essentially saying that he has repeatedly lied. I think these, along with other instances indicate that the SSPX are within the visible confines of the Church, at least the Vatican treats them as they are, even when the Bishops don't, regardless of mention of being "schismatic" in various documents. It becomes more and more muddied the more you look at it.
Bishop Fellay confirmed me, and as far as I know he is a good man. However, it is a matter of justice for him to publicly present the faithful with proof that the SSPX has been given permission to ordain and incardinate priests in the name of the Church. In the ceremony for the consecration of a bishop, the new bishop is required to show the mandatum (proof of being sent by the pope) to the assembled congregation. This beautiful testimony of the sacred liturgy teaches us an important lesson about the laity's right and duty to inquire into this critical matter affecting our salvation.
@@tanksgt Your objection is a red herring; we’re not talking about whether Fellay is a liar or not. If a good man wants to marry my daughter, he doesn’t get to skip the witnesses or or the license, and if I let him, I am not a responsible father. This is my point, please refrain from putting words in my mouth.
REALLY ? WHAT WOULD BE THE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, THE LAST THREE POPES SAYING THEY ARE IN SCHISM AND THIER MINISTRY ISN'T RECONGNIZED BY THE CATHOLI CHURCH.
Tim, I appreciate your willingness to have this discussion and I encourage you to continue to seek dialogue. The beginning of healing for division is when we come together and discuss.
We can split the logos until Christ comes again. If we fundamentally disagree on modernist perceptions of tradition vs authority. We will never find common ground. We’re not even speaking the same language.
@@halleylujah247 I know I can be wrong. I’m ready to answer for it too. It’s the “pray and obey” Catholics who are so sure of themselves, their belief in “dialogue”, and their understanding of authority. The state of the Church today is so reminiscent of abuse in a family, where the family protects the abuser, its uncanny.
@murphysmuskets I was in the SSPX camp for seven years. I've had great interactions with many of their priests, who helped me sort out a lot of struggles in my life. I have nothing against them personally, and I hope and pray that they will fully reconcile with the Church and fight alongside us. But I can't sit here and judge the Church and accuse her of being an abusive mother to me. Are there bad bishops and priests? Yes, of course. There have been and always will be till Christ comes again. But the Church is holy in her doctrine and in her sacraments, and I know that my salvation is safest with her and I must be obedient to her. I am saddened that the Christian spirit of docility to the Church and her authority is a stumbling block for many, but Christ is the one who has established her for our salvation. Our faith is in him and not in men.
It's a hypothetical. There might have been indults given, maybe not. But that doesn't make any of his acts of schism good. And if the new books were actually celebrated like the Church intended them to be, I suspect there wouldn't be much interest in the 1962 books.
I don't think you're right. Possibly there would have been a lot more TLM, not less, we don't know that. However a particular form of the roman rite is not an essential part of the church and the church has authority over it.
@magikarp2063 The assumptions that people make are telling. Is the Roman Rite of 1970 a danger to the faithful? Does it encourage heresy? Can all of the elements of the Roman tradition present in the Roman Rite of 1962 be present in the Rite of 1970? Does the existence of the faith depend on the particular expression of the faith in a particular missal?
@@StoaoftheSouth You yourself made a rather huge assumption with the second part of what you said. "Luther's actions were hypothetical. He could have been correct. Perhaps Christ was tired of the way things were going for 1500 years."
For me is too difficult to take someone seriously when they argue that after Trent, it was almost like the post-Vatican II (and the spirit of the Council). Trent is an example of a successful Council at different levels. Pretty tough to argue that with Vatican II.
Overall, very interesting and in-depth discussion. Just one broad comment: I wonder to what extent in this discussion the lack of canonical mission was equated automatically with schism. That would not be quite right. A vagus priest, for example, has no canonical mission, yet is not schismatic. He simply isn't allowed to perform public acts. Likewise, when Archbishop Lefebvre was suspended 1976-1988, he wasn't in schism. Andrew mentioned how an excommunication would automatically re-apply even after it's lifted if the delict is committed again, but, there hasn't been a renewed episcopal consecration, so the reason for the declaration of 1988 hasn't been repeated. It would be much easier to argue that some penalty such as suspension applies to the lesser continued acts after the lifting of the excommunication. I was surprised Andrew didn't get more nuanced along these lines.
Timothy, I am very much on Andrew's side of this discussion but I commend your fairness in bringing him on and letting him talk. It indicates good faith on your part.
1) Apostolic means >Apostolic Succession.< Mr. Bartel does Not grasp this. 2) FSSPX >has faculties from the Pope to administer the Sacraments. Mr. Bartel, hello... No One That's NOT >In Communion with Rome- worse still, if in Schism-Can Have Faculties. Even suspended priests do not have faculties; and imagine the Pope giving faculties to the Russian Orthodox-they'd probably laugh! No Can Do. All that's Catholicism 101. Both Mr. Bartel and Mr. Flanders need a reality check For certain, there are issues with individual priests and bishops of FSSPX. But the society-from the horse's mouth, are Not in Schism.
The Bishop Williamson affair was a black eye on the society’s history hence why he got the boot. However, this was all about Williamson and not about the society. Don’t throw out the baby with the Bishop. The society hasn’t changed its mission since ABL. If you don’t have strong objective convictions of the mission of ABL then you are leaning on subjective confirmations and relationships. When an internal crisis happens like Williamson then you are blown like the wind. It’s easy to see that Williamson fell off the cliff of the mission of ABL. Good luck keeping keeping the faith in the synodal diocesan parishes and get used to referring to dyed in the wool modernists as saints. “Look to Rome” really? Here in DFW Bishop Olson is in the news for persecuting local nuns. What do you think will happen to the SSPX if they allowed these modernist prelates in the door? Not unity with the Church but compromise with heretics.
Bartel makes a caricature out of the SSPX and attacks that. All of his points are countered by Dr. K and in "SSPX: The Defense". It would be nice if he was sincere and not the agent provocateur that he is. Bartel brushes over the blatant truths that they are not schismatic but would rather ignore and stir the pot. As much has he tries to be, thank goodness this guy isn't Rome.
He lashes against Kennedy Hall, and provides no details as to why Bishop Fellay is evidently lying that Rome gave the Society permission to ordain priests, shown in many articles circulating in 2017. He will not listen to Peter Kwasniewski, Christopher Ferrara, et al, but chooses to side with Salza, Fradd et al, and appeal to emotion. The entire ordeal is satanic.
@@pascendi88 Read the tenth chapter of John's Gospel. All members of the faithful, no matter how humble or lowly, have the ability, right, and duty to discern true shepherds from thieves and robbers. I am not engaging in liturgical preaching (the right of the bishop and his delegates alone), setting up rival altars in independent chapels, and establishing seminaries, schools, and marriage tribunals against the will of the hierarchy. Your question is nonsense.
@@andrewbartel12 You talk about mission & jurisdiction in the talk. Your host Tim Flanders clearly doesn’t agree with your assessment. Up to 1917, Church Law was not contained in one place, but in various decrees. All was codified into a single Code (in the Western Church) in 1917, and all previous law abrogated to simplify things. So if you're speaking about a mission or jurisdiction please reference Canon Law. Other references are useful for history, but only present law is binding.
Everything Mr. Bartel says is good and apt with regard to his principles and conclusions. But he clearly has not studied the liturgical movement, based on his comments about the new liturgy. Thus he repeats horribly out of date propaganda from the late stages of the liturgical movement (40s 50s and early 60s) about the Roman rite being lacking regarding the full “Paschal mystery” and being too focused on the Passion. The Mass has always been a celebration of the Passion, primarily. See the Scriptures and the earliest Fathers. It is primarily a sacrifice, hence the Passion. The rest of the Paschal Mystery is concomitant with the Passion, but the traditional Roman rite rightly emphasizes the Passion. In this way it is more primitive than the eastern liturgies, which developed a more holistic paschal character. Neither tradition is superior, but we must that the traditional Roman rite is in fact the more antique on this point. He also appeals to Lefevbre as though he would agree, the argument being that both the mainstream and the right wing agreed that some changes in the Novus Ordo were good, therefore there should be no objections. But Lefevbre was not on the right wing regarding liturgy, especially not in the beginning. And to this day the SSPX does untraditional things, like allowing Fellay to sing mass as a simple priest, without Pontifical ceremonies. Lefevbre was not a liturgical scholar, thus he cannot be taken as corroborating the opinions of the early mid 20th century scholars said. In addition, Mr. Bartel is failing to acknowledge that, besides the actual liturgical movement scholars, the main force for liturgical changes were not with a mind to “correct” excesses in the Tridentine rite-rather the buzzword was liturgical-pastoral. The liturgy was seen as a vehicle for pastoral action, which meant it could and should be updated in order to have a greater spiritual impact on modern man. So, although the official rubrics of the Novus Ordo resemble somewhat the old rubrics, we have to stop thinking the liturgy is the rubrics! Pope Francis and Dr. Grillo have the correct interpretation of the Novus Ordo. It is supposed to be, and always was supposed to be, and was done exactly as intended in the 70s and 80s and in “liberal” parishes to this day: it is supposed to be an expression of the community not tied down to doctrine or rubrics. It should not be in Latin, and should be reflective of modern man. To do the New Mass in a traditional way is to do it incorrectly. To do the TLM is to go against the express wishes of consilium which created the new rites. You can do the NO in a traditional way, but this is LARPing and actually an abuse of the intentions of its creators. Let’s please drop this absurd view that the reverent Novus Ordo is a feasible option for the future.
Andrew's crusade against the SSPX is unfortunately motivated by a personal trauma he has suffered. Just because his family has split apart during the SSPX-Resistance split, doesn't make the SSPX bad.
@@magikarp2063 I don't think stating the truth about his viewpoint and it's origin disregards his arguments. Bartel is simply attacking a viewpoint that doesn't exist outside his non-normative experiences and it's perfectly fair to point that out.
This is a common trend in traditional circles, unfortunately. Oftentimes families in less than desirable situations are the poster board voices for drama regarding the SSPX. It is definitely the case in Post Falls, in my experience - every single former SSPX guy who is now at the FSSP has some dramatic story as to why the SSPX is wrong and that is catapulted and weaponized from non-SSPX pulpits. If people are seriously wanting the truth they’ll approach the topic from all angles and tune out the voices like Bartel, Salza and Fradd. What needs to happen is a strenuous bombardment to Rome to encourage them to clarify this situation. Also, it should be said that any priest who puts John Salza in his bulletin and encourages all of his flock to read that guys work, in an effort to staunch out the Society, should loose credibility - a priest should have been formed much better than Salza, clearly.
53:11 So even though Eric Admits that the last three popes have said the SSPX is in schism, here Eric goes to work by appealing to what lower individuals in the Church's opinons are, as if they overruled the Pope merely by having these opinions appealing to some authority they posesses which is superior to the POPE.
Man you’re really worked up. Take a deep breath. If you’re going to argue do it with Charity. Eric is giving you the space to vent but let’s do it with Love for our Brothers. We all hope for each others salvation here.
No. He extended a charitable hand to try to further bring the SSPX out of Schism and also to be merciful to the people going to confession at SSPX chapels . Its an act of mercy not a regularization of the SSPX as the SSPX adherents claim.
Thanks Timothy for inviting Andrew on for a very interesting discussion. For me, the SSPX issue is a real conundrum because there are good arguments for both sides. We need lots of conversations like this one to get closer to the truth.
@@charliecaruana4424 Have watched that John Salza interview. I got confused when he said that it's fine to attend an SSPX Mass if a local bishop permits it, but then said that SSPX Masses are illicit because their priests haven't been incardinated. If you could offer an explanation, I'd be grateful.
@@LeicesterTradCatholic What is at stake is the bishop’s authority. It’s not relativism for the person asking because we’re talking of the truth of legal permission. In other words, if a bishop says you can’t attend, then doing so is wrong because you don’t have the permission. If he says you can, then doing so is not wrong because you have the permission. This is a different case from their canonical status.
@@thelogosproject7 Thanks, Dom, for your reply. So, if a bishop grants permission to attend a Mass at an SSPX chapel, does that mean the priest saying the Mass is incardinated? Pardon my ignorance on these matters!
1:00:07 Eric contiues to play word hockey and use any other combinations of words to describe the status of the SSPX other than formal schism, even though Andrew just laid out the definition from Pope Pius defining that no man can enter the college of bishops even should he be ordained, without permission from the Pope. Proving to Eric, to the contrary of the premise he just laid down that it was possible. (makinig Eric's previous statement heretical.)
Thank you Andrew, you have made the position on the SSPX as far as the teaching magisterium is concerned, clear. Please let's trust Holy Mother Church!
We should pray for unity and for the reform of the Church. A lot of traditionalists are scandalized by the dismal conditions they find in their parishes and need our prayers.
@@halleylujah247 No that is not exactly what it means. Everything that the current hierarchy pushes is not the Magisterium. We follow the entire Magisterium, past and present.
35:00 Here Eric begins to square a circle and although he agrees in principle, begins to make up why, it doesn't apply to him or his cult because if it did, he and they would be wrong. And neither Eric nor the SSPX can have that, because they can't be wrong.
54:04 So, Eric's conclusion is that there must be some undefined form of schism in which one is not in formal communion with the Church, but still arent' in "schism" and even though its undefined it simply must be the case, beause it it weren't, the SSPX would be wrong and Eric would be wrong, as as we've already stated, that can't be the case.
At the 58 minute mark so one can be validly ordained as a Bishop and theyre part of the college of Bishops in union with the head even against the express will of the Pope. If thats the case then the EO has validly ordained bishops and I am assuming against the express will of the Pope wouldn't they be apart of the college of Bishops also if we're being consistent? Yet Flanders you'd obviously deny the EO are apart of the college of Bishops and are in schism. Help me understand the line of thinking here.
This is a part of sacramental theology. Basically, a sacrament is valid if the matter, form and intent of the minister are all there. For example, in baptism the matter is the water and the individual being baptized, the form is the formula "N, I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," or "The servant of God is baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," and the minister is anyone who intends to confer Christian baptism. This is why the Catholic Church generally recognizes the validity of baptisms of Protestant and Eastern Orthodox Christians, since all three of these conditions will be met. This is why we refer to Christians outside of visible communion with the Catholic Church as "separated brethren," since they have the sacrament of regeneration (baptism) and are truly born again in Christ. You can see St. Optatus of Milevis and St. Augustine of Hippo discussing this in their works against the Donatist schismatics of North Africa. The same applies for other sacraments, but since those (with the exception of Holy Matrimony) require a validly ordained minister, the Catholic Church generally rejects the validity of the sacraments of various Protestant communities (since they don't have a validly ordained episcopate, though there are some exceptions, such as a few Anglicans.) Orthodox bishops, since they have validly received the episcopate, can validly give the sacrament of confirmation, confect the Eucharist, can validly give absolution, and can validly ordain to the priesthood and episcopate. Society bishops, and validly ordained Sedevacantist bishops, can do the same since they have the plenitude of the sacrament of holy orders which gives them the power to confer these sacraments. Because of this, Christians who join the Catholic Church will not need to have the sacraments given to them if they have already received them (unless there is some reason to doubt its validity), since they had validly but illicitly received them in these communions.
@Jaytee I understand all of that. I guess my question is is there a distinction between a validly ordained bishop outside of communion with the Pope and then a bishop that belongs to the college of bishops (assuming that means theyre in communion with the Pope)? Assuming I am correct about the definition of college of bishops just because a Sede, SSPX, or EO has validly ordained bishops, that obviously doesn't follow they're included in the college of bishops. So, if I am right about the above (let me know if I am or I'm wrong) then SSPX bishops wouldn't be apart of the college of bishops even if they have validly ordained bishops.
@jacobwoods6153 Yes, I think that that is correct. (Of course, I am not an expert by any means, so take what I say with a grain of salt.) Since they have the episcopate but do so outside of the juridical structure of the Church, they don't form part of the College of Bishops with the Holy Father, and aren't part of the Church's magesterium.
I am glad to see charitable debate on this taking place. My one comment: there are points at which Tim seems to say that as long as someone holds to the doctrine and tradition of the faith, it is somewhat excusable or at least a lesser matter if, for the sake of those things, he effects some degree of split in the visible unity/authority of the Church - because after all, the very purpose of Church authority is to preserve doctrine and the sacraments. However, I think there is a danger in treating the authority structure of the Church as just a means to an end, such that in some cases the means are dispensable so long as the end is attained. The Church itself, in its visible and hierarchical unity, is the mystical body of Christ - not merely a delivery system for doctrine and sacraments. So I go back to the ancient principle taught from the time of St. Ignatius of Antioch: unity with and obedience to the hierarchy of the Church is a constitutive element of liturgical reverence. Therefore it is a paradox (not of the good kind) when the Lefebvrists eschew one aspect of liturgical reverence for the sake of another. Even if it were possible to weigh these things in the balance and come out on the Lefebvrist side, what bothers me is that so far as I can see, trads do not even acknowledge that they are making a tradeoff *precisely with regards to liturgical reverence*. It doesn't even seem to occur to them. And, if we attempt to discern this tradeoff, when it comes to liturgies with varying degrees of formal reverence (not talking about active irreverence or sacrilege here), we must remember: "The sacrifices God desires are a humble spirit--O God, a humble and repentant heart you will not reject." Remember all the saints who taught us by what they learned: when they wanted to make some great sacrifice to God and their superior told them to make a lesser sacrifice, they learned that the sacrifice that was lesser in itself was more pleasing to God in respect of obedience. --Thomas Mirus
54:24 Eric futher concludes that there must be some unique only applies to SSPX exception to this where as they don't have to be in communion with the Pope and the local ordinary, which is required to not be in schism or even to identify oneself as Catholic, but you still hold the Catholic faith, and are still Catholic. Because if it weren't the case Eric and the SSPX would be wrong, and as already stated, that can't be the case. Friends this is called magical thinking.
54:53 Eric's answer is that there must be some state where there is a schism, but its not a schism. And in some universe where only Eric knows the rules of its internal logic, this isn't magical thinking and self contradictory.
Very late to the discussion. Being sent isnt that simple. It is possible to have defects because there is the person sending and person executing. 1. I can give you a mission that is unacheivable. 2. I didnt train you well enough to achieve the mission. 3. I can give orders that are confusing either by intent or neglect. 4. I may have deficincies in recruitment and there is no one to send or too little to be effective. 5. The mission has the opposite effect. Drives people away. Unlawful mission. 6. You can disobey my orders, do something I never told you to do.
I read this kids letter. He lacks faith. If he can't see everything empirically he becomes afraid he will be lost. Everything for him must be either or. I see this often. People like him will praise to the heavens a Matt Frads for engaging with Anglican "Rev" Robinson, a "deacon" of a "church" in true schizm, invalidly ordained by "bishops" with no apostolic succession, but SEETHE the minute anyone mentions the Society who are within the Catholic Church. Society priests are suspended ipso facto upon their VALID ordinarion. The suspension is a discipline...the Church does not discipline schizmatics as they are outside of it. The Society is not in schizm, period. This kid should have faith in his superiors in the Church who have said many times that: The Society is not in schizm. The Society has valid ordinations. The Society can hear confessions. The Society can witness weddings and that the faithful (according to the competent authority, the Pontifical Commission Ecclasia Dei) fulfill their Sunday obligation assisting at a Society Mass. It is because of a lack of faith that people like this rail against the Society. It scares them because it doesnt fit easily into what they believe. The fear appears so real they become irrational even discussing it. I fear he will wind up losing what little faith he has . I will pray for him.
Thank you for addressing that point. Calvin Robinson is a heretic. Period. His public position allows for such criticisms. Great speaker and witness for Christianity towards non-Christians? Sure, as that argument can be made. God bless him. But why would Jeff Cassman, a Roman Catholic, be shunned, used and tossed out via Pints With Aquinas and Rev. Calvin be praised, lifted up and lauded as inspirational? Asinine. Biased anti-SSPX Catholic influencers are to blame for this division - they're doing the work of the devil while claiming to be doing the work of the Gospel.
@@clintufford5181 Difference between Robinson in SSPX. Robinson doesn't claim to be Catholic and we all know he isn't. SSPX claim to be Catholic and yet they do not have canonical status and mission from the Pope.
Yes particularly the Prots aware of the deep state and Russian-aligned Orthodox but not Greek-aligned Orthodox. I meant SSPX alone open among the Roman Catholic camp.
@@murphysmuskets No, not at all. There were other communities not in full communion with the Roman Church open during the pandemic. That is connection I am making.
Andrew's comments were illogical and condracting to the facts and to each other. So unfortunate that a young man, seemingly smart, is constantly trying to find a compromise with his own conscience.
SSPX uses every instance of grace or mercy from the Vatican as evidence of their own legitimacy. It's like a guy who wants to believe a girl likes him and uses every instance of her being nice, usually mere kindness, as evidence she likes him in that way.
I appreciate this discussion. I hold to tradition and need help to defend the Truth to a “sola scriptura” Protestant. Can you present scripture basis that one must have “Unity” and “Authority” with other Christians to follow Christ? He insist on loving Christ and personnel interpretation of scripture as sufficient for salvation. Basically he is sort of a spiritual recluse to outside world, but still spreads his errors. I’ve done everything to show him the Beauty of the Faith and present all the history of the miracles, apparitions, saints lives, etc. But he only looks at it as window dressing and not private/public Divine revelations. I try to avoid him but he always pops up and brings me down a rabbit hole.
53:45 So, Eric, this person who said "after 1988" they were not considered to be in schism, even though Ecclesia Dei said they were." Who or what authority is this individual appealing to to arrive at this conclusion when its contrary to what Pope St. John Paul II just degreed?
Even if Fellay has been given permission to ordain priests, he has no authority to send them to minister in another bishop’s diocese without that bishop’s permission. This seems to me to be a very weak argument. All it does is make their ordination licit. It doesn’t give them the power to minister anywhere.
Where in canon law does the minister have to have a canonical mission from the Church who has been validly ordained( hint: nowhere )? A man ordained a priest who is not suspended "a divinis" may say Mass. No further requirements needed.
@@pascendi88 SSPX priests ARE suspended a divinis, as they are not ordained with the dimissorial letters required by canon law. Can. 265 Every cleric must be incardinated either in a particular church or personal prelature, or in an institute of consecrated life or society endowed with this faculty, *in such a way that unattached or transient clerics are not allowed at all.* I’m not sure you understand how the church works. Any validly ordained priest can say mass wherever he likes without a canonical mission or incardination, as long as he’s not suspended? No.
@@pascendi88 I’ve found that offering statements on this subject often leads nowhere because people either brush it off or find some seemingly competing statement. So I’ll give you this instead. Can. 1015 §1. Each person is to be ordained to the presbyterate or the diaconate *by his proper bishop* or with legitimate dimissorial letters from him. (Hint: the SSPX meets neither of these criteria- they do not have any ‘proper bishop’ and any dimissorial letters, if they are offered, are not legitimate because that bishop has no authority.) Can. 1383 A bishop who, contrary to the prescript of can. 1015, ordains without legitimate dimissorial letters someone who is not his subject is prohibited for a year from conferring the order. *The person who has received the ordination, however, is ipso facto suspended from the order received.*
@@andym5995 simple Q: are you a canonist? It seems you do with canon law what Protestants do with the Bible: pick & chose a canon subjectively which doesn’t apply to the SSPX situation. I asked for a document from the Holy See that confirms the SSPX priests are suspended a divinis. You haven’t done that(hint: there isn’t one). [I'm not sure you understand how the church works. Any validly ordained priest can say mass wherever he likes without a canonical mission or incardination, as long as he's not suspended? No] Where in Canon Law does it require this? (Hint, nowhere). The 1917 and 1983 Canon Law only require jurisdiction for validity and liceity in Penance, and a delegated witness for the validity of Marriage (except in an extraordinary case). Mass, Blessings, Extreme Unction, etc. require only Orders and not being suspended. Stop parroting Bartel/Salza's made-up standards, or manufacturing your own.
1:09:01 Eric says "we all just need to hash it out the best we can." Except when it means submission to the Pope and the local ordinaries, Eric doesn't mean that, and as long as the SSPX wont' do that, they wont' be in communion with Christ's body the Church. Because that is required by defintion to define one's self as catholic.
1:08:51 No matter what Eric will still appeal to the SSPX being in communion with Christ because they worship him at the Altar...so I guess in Eric's mind that means he and the SSPX can't therefore be seperated from Christ's body the Church even under direct, continual, disobedience to its head.
35:15 wow he is so wrong. Many of The bishops and some popes in the church have abandoned the faith and attempted to teach something new. This doesn’t change the fact that the church’s doctrine does not change. Men abandon the faith. The church doesn’t abandon us. These discussions do not help anyone. Now some new group of “recovering trads” who are making conferences using this guys testimony of abuse while growing up to make it seem like if traditional Catholicism causes such abuse.
59:29 NO MATTER WHAT DOCUMENTS ARE CITED TO HIM, SHOWING HIM AND THE SSPX TO BE WRONG, NO MATTER THE LEGAL ON PAPER DEFINITON OF SCHISM, IT DOESN' MATTER TO ERIC, BECAUSE HE'S ALREADY DECIDED NEITHER HE NOR THEY CAN BE WRONG.
One of the best conversations I have heard about SSPX. I would have asked Andrew to clarify the canonical status of SSPX in 1970: pious union of diocesan right, with the right to ordain priests to be incardinated... yes or no?
Glad you enjoyed it! The answer is yes. As you may already know, however, this was established on an "ad experimentum" basis by the bishop of Fribourg for a period of six years and it was not renewed. In addition to this, he suppressed the Society and this was upheld by Rome.
Just to clarify, no, the Pia Unio in 1970-74 didn't have the right to incardinate its members. Archbishop Lefebvre found bishop friends around the world to incardinate his seminarians and priests. Father Aulagnier, for example, mentions this in his book, saying he was incardinated in some overseas diocese.
Back in the 1970s the Congregation for Religious conceded priests could be ascribed (the term for incardination into a order or similar group) into the SSPX directly. Fr Urban Snyder, OCSO was one of those. Following that, Lefebvre did this for all SSPX clergy.
29:49 Here's Eric trying to turn whether or not someone or something is in material schism from the Church's defintion and teaching on these, matters to a matter of personal descision and judgment. Absolutely pathetic Eric, if somone in support of abortion or homosexual acts, or contraception used this exact same arument you would call foul immediately, but won't do so when its your own argument.
This is a good example why, intellectually, I have no respect for Eric Sammens, beause he uses such blantantly faulty reasoning, poor arguments, he'll say he agrees in principle, but then lacks the courage of following the point he just agreed to, to its logical conclusion, will let quotes from documents of the Church wash off his back like a duck if they contradict his fundamental premise that the SSPX no matter what, can't be wrong, and the appeal to personal opinions of people that have no authority to judicate on the matter to dismiss them, and then use that as the principle as to why formal statements by the Pope in the name of the Church don't appyl, and because Eric uses the same faulty arguments he wouldn't tolerate from others, with zero integrity as to the double standards he is employing.
Maybe unwillingly mr Bartel brought up a fundamental aspect of the present crisis which has its roots in the Council of Trent - in the midlle ages, the golden age of christendom, there was a great deal of freedom in liturgical worship, based on ancient local customs and holy traditions, which enabled the christian people of God to have a diversion of beautiful liturgies, always based on the unity of Faith and Creed which was never questioned. The Council of Trent with the so called st Pius V Roman Missal imposed a uniformity which was perceived as unnatural by many faithfuls and clergy - here the obsession of unity at all cost started to creep in in the catholic Church - an obsession that got worse with the infallibility of the Pope as interpreted by many as a form of inhuman dictatorship which has nothing to do with the religion of Love which is Christianity. And we see the fruits today with an official Church that at every step and at every level of its hierarchy, from top down, denies any basic principle of Christianity, even more then the pagan Renaissance popes and bishops which Luther with some reasons fought against, and imposes the Novus Ordo as an hammer to propagate the new sincretistic "humanistic" (but anti human) globalistic ecological communistic gay friendly bergoglian church which I dare to say is not even a christian church but an atheistic organization with some christian elements still left by default. So we have to submit to this monster? To this "mission" of perversion of the True Faith? Is up to us to decide
Multiple problems with this, first the spreading of the Roman Rite was a continuous effort since the middle ages, in fact it's a part of the reason the Roman Rite ever got one unified Missal. Secondly there's this largely overblown concept of how the liturgical landscape was in the past. Just as an example England for the most part followed the Roman Rite, the "Sarum rite" as people talk about wasn't a rite properly speaking and was just a particular usage of the Roman. Third even in the cases where there were different rites some of them were very similar to the Roman. Finally even after Trent there was a large usage of local ancients rites that many people willingly gave up overtime. Also you don't seem to understand what the aim of Trent was, there's a reason why Trent only suppressed some rites and not all, that is because Trent was aiming to eliminate novel ideas, liturgical nonsense and protestantism from local rites. Back then especially when it wasn't as easy to sift through things this was the best way to go about doing so.
Your grasp of the history of the Council of Trent and the Tridentine Missal is severely lacking. @Beck correctly states the history behind the Council of Trent and the Tridentine Missal.
"Is up to us to decide" ... Classic Protestant ecclesiology. The Magisterium in union with the Holy See are the authentic interpreters of Sacred Scripture and Tradition, not the individual layman's interpretation.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 87 วันนี้!! คู่เอก "ก้องชัย vs โชคปรีชา"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YN6e7HVnekw/mqdefault.jpg)
Great conversation. I have to limit how much I watch/investigate this V2, SSPX, current crisis stuff. Makes my heart ache. Pray for the Church.
I agree with you, but what about supplied juristiction? Vatican II was, in my opinion, reformation part 2. Bugnini was a freemason, and now we have Francis who was elected via the colaboration of the St. Gallen Mafia who were also Freemasons. And, Francis has a history of promoting sexual devients and extortionists.
Beautiful sentiment
@@halleylujah247 agreed! -TSF
Beautiful discussion. I pray for healing and continuous dialogue. Thank you for having Andrew on your channel.
The SSPX has never been or are they now in schism? I didn’t remember the person who commented that all the popes post council the SSPX in schism that is just plainly incorrect, but Francis hasn’t said it Benedict XVI never said it. In fact Pope Benedict, lifted the excommunication penalties on the bishops.
If it was not forArchbishop Lefebvre the Latin mass would no longer be in the world, there would not be a traditional movement
• SSPX was established with a canonical mission.
• The mission was not stripped away from them canonically.
• Supplied jurisdiction is both a practical reality and enshrined in canon law; thus the Apostolic mission is not compromised.
• If Vatican II is incorrect, the SSPX are justified. If Vatican II was correct, the SSPX are still justified because the Council claims that by being a Bishop, one receives the office of governance, and the Council teaches religious liberty- why would religious liberty not apply to the SSPX?
1) The SSPX received their canonical mission from the bishop of Fribourg on an "ad experiementum" basis for six years. So even if you want to argue the shaky position that this same bishop did not have the right to suppress the SSPX in his own diocese (a right which was upheld by Rome), the canonical mission was not renewed and has long since expired.
2) Supplied jurisdiction is only applicable to cases of common error within the Church, not to priests operating outside her juridical boundaries against the express will of the Pope and hierarchy (see The History, Nature, and Use of Epikeia in Moral Theology by Rev. Lawrence Joseph Riley). Apostolic mission and the right to govern is not communicated through supplied jurisdiction, a fact acknowledged by both Lefebvre and SSPX.
3) A bishop does not receive canonical mission or the power to govern merely by the fact of his ordination. He must be accepted into the college of bishops and remain in communion with them and the Pope. Here's what Vatican II actually teaches: "The canonical mission of bishops can come about by legitimate customs that have not been revoked by the supreme and universal authority of the Church, or by laws made or recognized be that the authority, or directly through the successor of Peter himself; and if the latter refuses or denies apostolic communion, such bishops cannot assume any office." (Lumen Gentium 24).
4) You are right, the Church teaches that the members of the SSPX are not to be coerced into returning to unity. But she also teaches that they have a moral duty "toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ." (Dignitatis Humanae 1).
@@andrewbartel12 Thank you, Andrew. I was attracted to RadTrad for a short time until I started examining the basic package of talking points that I later learned all came from Archbishop Lefebvre and which today make a common culture in RadTrad. Each and every one of them crumble under scrutiny. I learned that before the reformation there were literally hundreds of liturgies, not one. I learned that the majority practice of the first millennium was receiving the host on the hand. I learned that many Catholic communions never did the Latin Rite and still do not. I realized that the Protestant is not the opposite of Catholic so that seeing the church adopt something we see in protestant churches may just be the kind of bridgebuilding the Church has always done in non-Catholic cultures. I learned that Pope Francis is lied about shamelessly and incessantly in RadTrad. I realized that I was being rebellious and doing designer-lifestyle, unwilling to risk with Jesus as authentic disciples are always asked to. Thank you for your work, Andrew. You and people like you are doing God's work in going after the one sheep that wandered from the flock.
@@slick222 You’re welcome, thank you for your kind words. As St. John Henry Newman said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” The same can be said of dissenting Traditionalism: the more you immerse yourself in Tradition and Church history, the more you will realize this movement is neither traditional nor Catholic. An excellent book on this subject is Evangelical Catholicism by historian George Weigel.
@@andrewbartel12 Andre i know this interview was 8 month ago but i will try to reach you here with a humble request .
You mentioned a interview that Bishop Felay did at 13:58 .
Can you provide me the date and info or even the link for it?
Are those changing letters between Bishop Felay and the other Bishops in public domain.
Thanks
I salute you for your amazing work.
Deo Gratias
Thank you for your kindness. Type “Bishop Fellay CNS Interview The Recusant” into your search bar and the transcript of the interview should be in the first five results. As for the leaked letter of the three SSPX bishops to Bishop Fellay, I think you can still find it in several places on the internet, such as the forum CathInfo.
Every SSPX priest I know says that it is objectively a mortal sin to attend the New Mass. They say the NO is evil in its essence not just in accidental properties or implementation. Also, they strongly discourage attending any other Latin Mass.
Andrew is right about the suspension issue. A friend of mine spoke with Bishop Fellay and he admitted that the Vatican never gave them permission to ordain priests. What the bishop said was he received a letter from Rome that could be interpreted as a permission to ordain but if you were to ask Rome they would say it was not a permission to ordain priests. That is why the "permission" was never made public!
I still trust in Jesus and keep faith even as I’m constantly faced with financial hardships and can barely support my children or myself. Please pray for me. I’m a single mom my husband passed years ago. I’m all alone. Both of my sons are autistic. They require a lot from me. I recently started homeschooling them due to bullying and other issues because they are special needs it’s easier not to expose them to certain situations because their behavior is so unpredictable, That’s why homeschooling is working out great. I’m just so overwhelmed. I lost my job at Forsyth hospital for declining the vaccine. I declined because of my health conditions lupus, and heart disease. Since losing my job I’ve been struggling to support my children and myself. I’m now waitressing and I’m grateful but I’m not making nearly enough. I feel like a failure. And now that I’m homeschooling my boys my hours to work are limited. Jesus help me. I’m tired of struggling. I get harassed over my situation by other people it hurts my heart. Because this is my life my truth. I’m already so ashamed. Having a child with autism is extremely expensive imagine having two. Struggling to buy school supplies. Struggling to buy groceries. Struggling to pay rent. It hasn’t been easy. But God doesn’t give you more than you can handle. The devil wants me to quit and to give up my faith but I know all things are possible through Jesus. I will not fear, fear is from the devil. I WILL KEEP FAITH. Thank you God I praise you and Your son Jesus!
I'll be praying for you! God bless you
As a special education teacher, it hurts my heart to hear them getting bullied. May God bless you and your family!
May God bless you and keep you.
You shouldn't be ashamed, and I hope you're able to find some assistance from your local parish, and perhaps start a givesendgo or something for others to help you. It's certainly nothing to be ashamed of especially given the circumstances.
You are carrying your cross well but you don't have to do it alone.
I did find Andrew's response to my question at the end inadequate. I find it to be at best a sort of veiled impingement on the integrity of Bp. Fellay, essentially saying that he has repeatedly lied. I think these, along with other instances indicate that the SSPX are within the visible confines of the Church, at least the Vatican treats them as they are, even when the Bishops don't, regardless of mention of being "schismatic" in various documents. It becomes more and more muddied the more you look at it.
Bishop Fellay confirmed me, and as far as I know he is a good man. However, it is a matter of justice for him to publicly present the faithful with proof that the SSPX has been given permission to ordain and incardinate priests in the name of the Church. In the ceremony for the consecration of a bishop, the new bishop is required to show the mandatum (proof of being sent by the pope) to the assembled congregation. This beautiful testimony of the sacred liturgy teaches us an important lesson about the laity's right and duty to inquire into this critical matter affecting our salvation.
That all may well be true but it obfuscates my objection. I don't think you can believe someone to be a good man and a liar.
@@tanksgt Your objection is a red herring; we’re not talking about whether Fellay is a liar or not. If a good man wants to marry my daughter, he doesn’t get to skip the witnesses or or the license, and if I let him, I am not a responsible father. This is my point, please refrain from putting words in my mouth.
That’s because Bartel’s entire position is as solid as air.
REALLY ? WHAT WOULD BE THE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, THE LAST THREE POPES SAYING THEY ARE IN SCHISM AND THIER MINISTRY ISN'T RECONGNIZED BY THE CATHOLI CHURCH.
Tim, I appreciate your willingness to have this discussion and I encourage you to continue to seek dialogue.
The beginning of healing for division is when we come together and discuss.
We can split the logos until Christ comes again. If we fundamentally disagree on modernist perceptions of tradition vs authority. We will never find common ground. We’re not even speaking the same language.
@@murphysmuskets true . Until both parties are willing to understand their faults and blind spots nothing will improve.
@@halleylujah247 I know I can be wrong. I’m ready to answer for it too. It’s the “pray and obey” Catholics who are so sure of themselves, their belief in “dialogue”, and their understanding of authority. The state of the Church today is so reminiscent of abuse in a family, where the family protects the abuser, its uncanny.
@murphysmuskets I was in the SSPX camp for seven years. I've had great interactions with many of their priests, who helped me sort out a lot of struggles in my life. I have nothing against them personally, and I hope and pray that they will fully reconcile with the Church and fight alongside us.
But I can't sit here and judge the Church and accuse her of being an abusive mother to me. Are there bad bishops and priests? Yes, of course. There have been and always will be till Christ comes again. But the Church is holy in her doctrine and in her sacraments, and I know that my salvation is safest with her and I must be obedient to her. I am saddened that the Christian spirit of docility to the Church and her authority is a stumbling block for many, but Christ is the one who has established her for our salvation. Our faith is in him and not in men.
From Ireland, well said Jaytee.
If not for AB Lefebvre and the SSPX, there would be no TLM today. Thank God for AB Lefebvre and the SSPX!!
It's a hypothetical. There might have been indults given, maybe not. But that doesn't make any of his acts of schism good.
And if the new books were actually celebrated like the Church intended them to be, I suspect there wouldn't be much interest in the 1962 books.
I don't think you're right. Possibly there would have been a lot more TLM, not less, we don't know that.
However a particular form of the roman rite is not an essential part of the church and the church has authority over it.
@magikarp2063 The assumptions that people make are telling. Is the Roman Rite of 1970 a danger to the faithful? Does it encourage heresy? Can all of the elements of the Roman tradition present in the Roman Rite of 1962 be present in the Rite of 1970? Does the existence of the faith depend on the particular expression of the faith in a particular missal?
@@StoaoftheSouth You yourself made a rather huge assumption with the second part of what you said. "Luther's actions were hypothetical. He could have been correct. Perhaps Christ was tired of the way things were going for 1500 years."
@@clintufford5181 I'm sorry, what are you trying to say?
For me is too difficult to take someone seriously when they argue that after Trent, it was almost like the post-Vatican II (and the spirit of the Council).
Trent is an example of a successful Council at different levels. Pretty tough to argue that with Vatican II.
Not tough. It depends on a persons preconceived ideas and willingness to accept Christ Church
You guys get bored and bring up the SSPX like there is a debate, that debate is so over. Move on gentlemen.
Excellent rebuttal to SSPX defenders like Taylor Marshall!
He is a RadTrad entrepreneur first and foremost, in my judgement
Great conversation gentlemen. Thanks for being willing to have these discussions.
@@StoaoftheSouth Have you watched The Logos Project channel?
@@halleylujah247 I'm pretty familiar with them, yes.
He called Lefebvre a spiritual rapist, Bartel is not a fellow Catholic by any meaningful metric
@@JJJ_18 No, he is a Catholic.
@@StoaoftheSouth no he isnt
Overall, very interesting and in-depth discussion. Just one broad comment: I wonder to what extent in this discussion the lack of canonical mission was equated automatically with schism. That would not be quite right. A vagus priest, for example, has no canonical mission, yet is not schismatic. He simply isn't allowed to perform public acts. Likewise, when Archbishop Lefebvre was suspended 1976-1988, he wasn't in schism.
Andrew mentioned how an excommunication would automatically re-apply even after it's lifted if the delict is committed again, but, there hasn't been a renewed episcopal consecration, so the reason for the declaration of 1988 hasn't been repeated. It would be much easier to argue that some penalty such as suspension applies to the lesser continued acts after the lifting of the excommunication. I was surprised Andrew didn't get more nuanced along these lines.
Thank God for Archbishop Lefevre and the SSPX.
Timothy, I am very much on Andrew's side of this discussion but I commend your fairness in bringing him on and letting him talk. It indicates good faith on your part.
Great talk, thank you.
1) Apostolic means >Apostolic Succession.< Mr. Bartel does Not grasp this. 2) FSSPX >has faculties from the Pope to administer the Sacraments. Mr. Bartel, hello... No One That's NOT >In Communion with Rome- worse still, if in Schism-Can Have Faculties. Even suspended priests do not have faculties; and imagine the Pope giving faculties to the Russian Orthodox-they'd probably laugh! No Can Do.
All that's Catholicism 101.
Both Mr. Bartel and Mr. Flanders need a reality check
For certain, there are issues with individual priests and bishops of FSSPX. But the society-from the horse's mouth, are Not in Schism.
I think this guy is clearly in the midst of figuring himself out and therefore should not be teaching yet.
Was that stated? Why assume that?
Actually, he seemed extremely confident and competent. What universe are you from?
The Bishop Williamson affair was a black eye on the society’s history hence why he got the boot. However, this was all about Williamson and not about the society. Don’t throw out the baby with the Bishop. The society hasn’t changed its mission since ABL. If you don’t have strong objective convictions of the mission of ABL then you are leaning on subjective confirmations and relationships. When an internal crisis happens like Williamson then you are blown like the wind. It’s easy to see that Williamson fell off the cliff of the mission of ABL. Good luck keeping keeping the faith in the synodal diocesan parishes and get used to referring to dyed in the wool modernists as saints. “Look to Rome” really? Here in DFW Bishop Olson is in the news for persecuting local nuns. What do you think will happen to the SSPX if they allowed these modernist prelates in the door? Not unity with the Church but compromise with heretics.
Bartel makes a caricature out of the SSPX and attacks that. All of his points are countered by Dr. K and in "SSPX: The Defense". It would be nice if he was sincere and not the agent provocateur that he is. Bartel brushes over the blatant truths that they are not schismatic but would rather ignore and stir the pot. As much has he tries to be, thank goodness this guy isn't Rome.
He lashes against Kennedy Hall, and provides no details as to why Bishop Fellay is evidently lying that Rome gave the Society permission to ordain priests, shown in many articles circulating in 2017. He will not listen to Peter Kwasniewski, Christopher Ferrara, et al, but chooses to side with Salza, Fradd et al, and appeal to emotion. The entire ordeal is satanic.
@@clintufford5181 Aren't you two a couple of charmers? 😉
@@andrewbartel12 aren’t you a glazer with no theological training or Church authority? Who sent you?
@@pascendi88 Read the tenth chapter of John's Gospel. All members of the faithful, no matter how humble or lowly, have the ability, right, and duty to discern true shepherds from thieves and robbers. I am not engaging in liturgical preaching (the right of the bishop and his delegates alone), setting up rival altars in independent chapels, and establishing seminaries, schools, and marriage tribunals against the will of the hierarchy. Your question is nonsense.
@@andrewbartel12 You talk about mission & jurisdiction in the talk. Your host Tim Flanders clearly doesn’t agree with your assessment. Up to 1917, Church Law was not contained in one place, but in various decrees. All was codified into a single Code (in the Western Church) in 1917, and all previous law abrogated to simplify things.
So if you're speaking about a mission or jurisdiction please reference Canon Law. Other references are useful for history, but only present law is binding.
So good to see Andrew on here! 🙂👍
In the Church, Andrew, what isn't expressly forbidden in permitted.
SSPX controversy is all politics. Let’s see how you all obey the pope and local ordinaries after the current synod.
With all due respect it is all about the Faith. We have a right, nay a duty, to disobey a pope where he departs from Sacred Tradition.
Everything Mr. Bartel says is good and apt with regard to his principles and conclusions. But he clearly has not studied the liturgical movement, based on his comments about the new liturgy. Thus he repeats horribly out of date propaganda from the late stages of the liturgical movement (40s 50s and early 60s) about the Roman rite being lacking regarding the full “Paschal mystery” and being too focused on the Passion. The Mass has always been a celebration of the Passion, primarily. See the Scriptures and the earliest Fathers. It is primarily a sacrifice, hence the Passion. The rest of the Paschal Mystery is concomitant with the Passion, but the traditional Roman rite rightly emphasizes the Passion. In this way it is more primitive than the eastern liturgies, which developed a more holistic paschal character. Neither tradition is superior, but we must that the traditional Roman rite is in fact the more antique on this point.
He also appeals to Lefevbre as though he would agree, the argument being that both the mainstream and the right wing agreed that some changes in the Novus Ordo were good, therefore there should be no objections. But Lefevbre was not on the right wing regarding liturgy, especially not in the beginning. And to this day the SSPX does untraditional things, like allowing Fellay to sing mass as a simple priest, without Pontifical ceremonies. Lefevbre was not a liturgical scholar, thus he cannot be taken as corroborating the opinions of the early mid 20th century scholars said. In addition, Mr. Bartel is failing to acknowledge that, besides the actual liturgical movement scholars, the main force for liturgical changes were not with a mind to “correct” excesses in the Tridentine rite-rather the buzzword was liturgical-pastoral. The liturgy was seen as a vehicle for pastoral action, which meant it could and should be updated in order to have a greater spiritual impact on modern man. So, although the official rubrics of the Novus Ordo resemble somewhat the old rubrics, we have to stop thinking the liturgy is the rubrics! Pope Francis and Dr. Grillo have the correct interpretation of the Novus Ordo. It is supposed to be, and always was supposed to be, and was done exactly as intended in the 70s and 80s and in “liberal” parishes to this day: it is supposed to be an expression of the community not tied down to doctrine or rubrics. It should not be in Latin, and should be reflective of modern man. To do the New Mass in a traditional way is to do it incorrectly. To do the TLM is to go against the express wishes of consilium which created the new rites.
You can do the NO in a traditional way, but this is LARPing and actually an abuse of the intentions of its creators. Let’s please drop this absurd view that the reverent Novus Ordo is a feasible option for the future.
Andrew's crusade against the SSPX is unfortunately motivated by a personal trauma he has suffered. Just because his family has split apart during the SSPX-Resistance split, doesn't make the SSPX bad.
That's a really nice way to disregard any arguments he has without engaging any of them at all. Good job.
Accurate, apis Dei.
@@magikarp2063 I don't think stating the truth about his viewpoint and it's origin disregards his arguments. Bartel is simply attacking a viewpoint that doesn't exist outside his non-normative experiences and it's perfectly fair to point that out.
This is a common trend in traditional circles, unfortunately. Oftentimes families in less than desirable situations are the poster board voices for drama regarding the SSPX. It is definitely the case in Post Falls, in my experience - every single former SSPX guy who is now at the FSSP has some dramatic story as to why the SSPX is wrong and that is catapulted and weaponized from non-SSPX pulpits.
If people are seriously wanting the truth they’ll approach the topic from all angles and tune out the voices like Bartel, Salza and Fradd. What needs to happen is a strenuous bombardment to Rome to encourage them to clarify this situation. Also, it should be said that any priest who puts John Salza in his bulletin and encourages all of his flock to read that guys work, in an effort to staunch out the Society, should loose credibility - a priest should have been formed much better than Salza, clearly.
Ah yes, my personal trauma, poor poor me...
But what if the FSSP are forced to celebrate the Novus Ordo against what they were guaranteed at their founding?
Thank you for giving Andrew a voice and having a calm, peaceful dialogue. Very helpful.
53:11 So even though Eric Admits that the last three popes have said the SSPX is in schism, here Eric goes to work by appealing to what lower individuals in the Church's opinons are, as if they overruled the Pope merely by having these opinions appealing to some authority they posesses which is superior to the POPE.
Man you’re really worked up. Take a deep breath. If you’re going to argue do it with Charity. Eric is giving you the space to vent but let’s do it with Love for our Brothers. We all hope for each others salvation here.
So pope Francis did not give SSPX mission when in the Jubilee year he said they have authority to here confessions and has still not withdrawn
No. He extended a charitable hand to try to further bring the SSPX out of Schism and also to be merciful to the people going to confession at SSPX chapels . Its an act of mercy not a regularization of the SSPX as the SSPX adherents claim.
@@paddyleather5676 Pope Francis has already stated the SSPX is NOT in schism. Look it up
@@paddyleather5676 People have blinkers on when they deny this reality of the charity of Pope Francis in trying to reconcile.
@@metrosea He actually hasn't.
@@StoaoftheSouth google
Why are glasers publicly discussing theological matters that even trained theologians and prelates seem unable to solve?
Thanks Timothy for inviting Andrew on for a very interesting discussion. For me, the SSPX issue is a real conundrum because there are good arguments for both sides. We need lots of conversations like this one to get closer to the truth.
Have you seen the video with Matt Fradd and Dr. John Salza? For me this completely solidified the issue.
NO THERE AREN'T. SCHISM IS SCHISM THE SAME AS IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN.
@@charliecaruana4424 Have watched that John Salza interview. I got confused when he said that it's fine to attend an SSPX Mass if a local bishop permits it, but then said that SSPX Masses are illicit because their priests haven't been incardinated. If you could offer an explanation, I'd be grateful.
@@LeicesterTradCatholic What is at stake is the bishop’s authority. It’s not relativism for the person asking because we’re talking of the truth of legal permission. In other words, if a bishop says you can’t attend, then doing so is wrong because you don’t have the permission. If he says you can, then doing so is not wrong because you have the permission. This is a different case from their canonical status.
@@thelogosproject7 Thanks, Dom, for your reply. So, if a bishop grants permission to attend a Mass at an SSPX chapel, does that mean the priest saying the Mass is incardinated? Pardon my ignorance on these matters!
Andrew, how is the SSPX in schism?
1:00:07 Eric contiues to play word hockey and use any other combinations of words to describe the status of the SSPX other than formal schism, even though Andrew just laid out the definition from Pope Pius defining that no man can enter the college of bishops even should he be ordained, without permission from the Pope. Proving to Eric, to the contrary of the premise he just laid down that it was possible. (makinig Eric's previous statement heretical.)
Thank you Andrew, you have made the position on the SSPX as far as the teaching magisterium is concerned, clear. Please let's trust Holy Mother Church!
We should pray for unity and for the reform of the Church. A lot of traditionalists are scandalized by the dismal conditions they find in their parishes and need our prayers.
We should trust Holy Mother Church. That does not mean we have to trust the current hierarchy.
@@gch8810 that's actually exactly what it means.
@@gch8810 ?????teaching Magisterium, we can't trust???Well, neither do the Orthodox or Protestants--oh and SSPX and their off shoots
@@halleylujah247 No that is not exactly what it means. Everything that the current hierarchy pushes is not the Magisterium. We follow the entire Magisterium, past and present.
Does anyone has the link that andrew referenced of Bishop Fellay on Religious Liberty? Thanks
Type “Bishop Fellay CNS Interview The Recusant” into your search bar and the transcript of the interview should be in the first five results.
@@andrewbartel12 Hey thank you Andrew, I found the transcript.
35:00 Here Eric begins to square a circle and although he agrees in principle, begins to make up why, it doesn't apply to him or his cult because if it did, he and they would be wrong.
And neither Eric nor the SSPX can have that, because they can't be wrong.
Who is Eric?
54:04 So, Eric's conclusion is that there must be some undefined form of schism in which one is not in formal communion with the Church, but still arent' in "schism" and even though its undefined it simply must be the case, beause it it weren't, the SSPX would be wrong and Eric would be wrong, as as we've already stated, that can't be the case.
At the 58 minute mark so one can be validly ordained as a Bishop and theyre part of the college of Bishops in union with the head even against the express will of the Pope. If thats the case then the EO has validly ordained bishops and I am assuming against the express will of the Pope wouldn't they be apart of the college of Bishops also if we're being consistent? Yet Flanders you'd obviously deny the EO are apart of the college of Bishops and are in schism. Help me understand the line of thinking here.
This is a part of sacramental theology. Basically, a sacrament is valid if the matter, form and intent of the minister are all there.
For example, in baptism the matter is the water and the individual being baptized, the form is the formula "N, I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," or "The servant of God is baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," and the minister is anyone who intends to confer Christian baptism. This is why the Catholic Church generally recognizes the validity of baptisms of Protestant and Eastern Orthodox Christians, since all three of these conditions will be met. This is why we refer to Christians outside of visible communion with the Catholic Church as "separated brethren," since they have the sacrament of regeneration (baptism) and are truly born again in Christ. You can see St. Optatus of Milevis and St. Augustine of Hippo discussing this in their works against the Donatist schismatics of North Africa.
The same applies for other sacraments, but since those (with the exception of Holy Matrimony) require a validly ordained minister, the Catholic Church generally rejects the validity of the sacraments of various Protestant communities (since they don't have a validly ordained episcopate, though there are some exceptions, such as a few Anglicans.)
Orthodox bishops, since they have validly received the episcopate, can validly give the sacrament of confirmation, confect the Eucharist, can validly give absolution, and can validly ordain to the priesthood and episcopate. Society bishops, and validly ordained Sedevacantist bishops, can do the same since they have the plenitude of the sacrament of holy orders which gives them the power to confer these sacraments. Because of this, Christians who join the Catholic Church will not need to have the sacraments given to them if they have already received them (unless there is some reason to doubt its validity), since they had validly but illicitly received them in these communions.
@Jaytee I understand all of that. I guess my question is is there a distinction between a validly ordained bishop outside of communion with the Pope and then a bishop that belongs to the college of bishops (assuming that means theyre in communion with the Pope)? Assuming I am correct about the definition of college of bishops just because a Sede, SSPX, or EO has validly ordained bishops, that obviously doesn't follow they're included in the college of bishops. So, if I am right about the above (let me know if I am or I'm wrong) then SSPX bishops wouldn't be apart of the college of bishops even if they have validly ordained bishops.
@jacobwoods6153 Yes, I think that that is correct. (Of course, I am not an expert by any means, so take what I say with a grain of salt.)
Since they have the episcopate but do so outside of the juridical structure of the Church, they don't form part of the College of Bishops with the Holy Father, and aren't part of the Church's magesterium.
That was my point Jacob Woods, agreed.
I am glad to see charitable debate on this taking place. My one comment: there are points at which Tim seems to say that as long as someone holds to the doctrine and tradition of the faith, it is somewhat excusable or at least a lesser matter if, for the sake of those things, he effects some degree of split in the visible unity/authority of the Church - because after all, the very purpose of Church authority is to preserve doctrine and the sacraments. However, I think there is a danger in treating the authority structure of the Church as just a means to an end, such that in some cases the means are dispensable so long as the end is attained. The Church itself, in its visible and hierarchical unity, is the mystical body of Christ - not merely a delivery system for doctrine and sacraments.
So I go back to the ancient principle taught from the time of St. Ignatius of Antioch: unity with and obedience to the hierarchy of the Church is a constitutive element of liturgical reverence. Therefore it is a paradox (not of the good kind) when the Lefebvrists eschew one aspect of liturgical reverence for the sake of another. Even if it were possible to weigh these things in the balance and come out on the Lefebvrist side, what bothers me is that so far as I can see, trads do not even acknowledge that they are making a tradeoff *precisely with regards to liturgical reverence*. It doesn't even seem to occur to them.
And, if we attempt to discern this tradeoff, when it comes to liturgies with varying degrees of formal reverence (not talking about active irreverence or sacrilege here), we must remember: "The sacrifices God desires are a humble spirit--O God, a humble and repentant heart you will not reject." Remember all the saints who taught us by what they learned: when they wanted to make some great sacrifice to God and their superior told them to make a lesser sacrifice, they learned that the sacrifice that was lesser in itself was more pleasing to God in respect of obedience.
--Thomas Mirus
Video (Andrew's monologue) starts at 5:00
Lol try to refute the arguments
54:24 Eric futher concludes that there must be some unique only applies to SSPX exception to this where as they don't have to be in communion with the Pope and the local ordinary, which is required to not be in schism or even to identify oneself as Catholic, but you still hold the Catholic faith, and are still Catholic. Because if it weren't the case Eric and the SSPX would be wrong, and as already stated, that can't be the case. Friends this is called magical thinking.
54:53 Eric's answer is that there must be some state where there is a schism, but its not a schism. And in some universe where only Eric knows the rules of its internal logic, this isn't magical thinking and self contradictory.
Very late to the discussion. Being sent isnt that simple. It is possible to have defects because there is the person sending and person executing.
1. I can give you a mission that is unacheivable.
2. I didnt train you well enough to achieve the mission.
3. I can give orders that are confusing either by intent or neglect.
4. I may have deficincies in recruitment and there is no one to send or too little to be effective.
5. The mission has the opposite effect. Drives people away. Unlawful mission.
6. You can disobey my orders, do something I never told you to do.
I read this kids letter. He lacks faith. If he can't see everything empirically he becomes afraid he will be lost. Everything for him must be either or. I see this often. People like him will praise to the heavens a Matt Frads for engaging with Anglican "Rev" Robinson, a "deacon" of a "church" in true schizm, invalidly ordained by "bishops" with no apostolic succession, but SEETHE the minute anyone mentions the Society who are within the Catholic Church. Society priests are suspended ipso facto upon their VALID ordinarion. The suspension is a discipline...the Church does not discipline schizmatics as they are outside of it. The Society is not in schizm, period. This kid should have faith in his superiors in the Church who have said many times that: The Society is not in schizm. The Society has valid ordinations. The Society can hear confessions. The Society can witness weddings and that the faithful (according to the competent authority, the Pontifical Commission Ecclasia Dei) fulfill their Sunday obligation assisting at a Society Mass. It is because of a lack of faith that people like this rail against the Society. It scares them because it doesnt fit easily into what they believe. The fear appears so real they become irrational even discussing it. I fear he will wind up losing what little faith he has . I will pray for him.
What you just said also applies well to Michael Lofton over at Reason and Theology.
Thanks for praying for him . Pray for Tim to please.
Thank you for addressing that point. Calvin Robinson is a heretic. Period. His public position allows for such criticisms. Great speaker and witness for Christianity towards non-Christians? Sure, as that argument can be made. God bless him. But why would Jeff Cassman, a Roman Catholic, be shunned, used and tossed out via Pints With Aquinas and Rev. Calvin be praised, lifted up and lauded as inspirational? Asinine. Biased anti-SSPX Catholic influencers are to blame for this division - they're doing the work of the devil while claiming to be doing the work of the Gospel.
@@clintufford5181 Difference between Robinson in SSPX. Robinson doesn't claim to be Catholic and we all know he isn't. SSPX claim to be Catholic and yet they do not have canonical status and mission from the Pope.
@@clintufford5181 Dude, Cassman got to do two debates on PWA. What are you talking about
SSPX alone was open during the plan de mic.
There were also many Protestant communities and Orthodox Churches open.
Yes particularly the Prots aware of the deep state and Russian-aligned Orthodox but not Greek-aligned Orthodox. I meant SSPX alone open among the Roman Catholic camp.
@@StoaoftheSouthThe very fact that you think that helps your argument is sad.
Big C is over.
@@murphysmuskets No, not at all. There were other communities not in full communion with the Roman Church open during the pandemic. That is connection I am making.
Andrew's comments were illogical and condracting to the facts and to each other. So unfortunate that a young man, seemingly smart, is constantly trying to find a compromise with his own conscience.
SSPX uses every instance of grace or mercy from the Vatican as evidence of their own legitimacy. It's like a guy who wants to believe a girl likes him and uses every instance of her being nice, usually mere kindness, as evidence she likes him in that way.
I appreciate this discussion. I hold to tradition and need help to defend the Truth to a “sola scriptura” Protestant. Can you present scripture basis that one must have “Unity” and “Authority” with other Christians to follow Christ? He insist on loving Christ and personnel interpretation of scripture as sufficient for salvation. Basically he is sort of a spiritual recluse to outside world, but still spreads his errors.
I’ve done everything to show him the Beauty of the Faith and present all the history of the miracles, apparitions, saints lives, etc.
But he only looks at it as window dressing and not private/public Divine revelations. I try to avoid him but he always pops up and brings me down a rabbit hole.
Who's the big priest mentioned at 52:10? 😂
53:45 So, Eric, this person who said "after 1988" they were not considered to be in schism, even though Ecclesia Dei said they were." Who or what authority is this individual appealing to to arrive at this conclusion when its contrary to what Pope St. John Paul II just degreed?
"Full communion" is not a juridical term. It's made up. It's novel.
If you don’t have unity of faith you are not Catholic.
So, are you one in faith with Francis?
Even if Fellay has been given permission to ordain priests, he has no authority to send them to minister in another bishop’s diocese without that bishop’s permission. This seems to me to be a very weak argument. All it does is make their ordination licit. It doesn’t give them the power to minister anywhere.
Where in canon law does the minister have to have a canonical mission from the Church who has been validly ordained( hint: nowhere )?
A man ordained a priest who is not suspended "a divinis" may say Mass. No further requirements needed.
@@pascendi88 SSPX priests ARE suspended a divinis, as they are not ordained with the dimissorial letters required by canon law.
Can. 265 Every cleric must be incardinated either in a particular church or personal prelature, or in an institute of consecrated life or society endowed with this faculty, *in such a way that unattached or transient clerics are not allowed at all.*
I’m not sure you understand how the church works. Any validly ordained priest can say mass wherever he likes without a canonical mission or incardination, as long as he’s not suspended? No.
@@andym5995 please then show a document from Holy See not true or false pope :) that confirms SSPX priests are suspended a divinis ?
@@pascendi88 I’ve found that offering statements on this subject often leads nowhere because people either brush it off or find some seemingly competing statement. So I’ll give you this instead.
Can. 1015 §1. Each person is to be ordained to the presbyterate or the diaconate *by his proper bishop* or with legitimate dimissorial letters from him. (Hint: the SSPX meets neither of these criteria- they do not have any ‘proper bishop’ and any dimissorial letters, if they are offered, are not legitimate because that bishop has no authority.)
Can. 1383 A bishop who, contrary to the prescript of can. 1015, ordains without legitimate dimissorial letters someone who is not his subject is prohibited for a year from conferring the order. *The person who has received the ordination, however, is ipso facto suspended from the order received.*
@@andym5995 simple Q: are you a canonist? It seems you do with canon law what Protestants do with the Bible: pick & chose a canon subjectively which doesn’t apply to the SSPX situation.
I asked for a document from the Holy See that confirms the SSPX priests are suspended a divinis. You haven’t done that(hint: there isn’t one).
[I'm not sure you understand how the church works. Any validly ordained priest can say mass wherever he likes without a canonical mission or incardination, as long as he's not suspended? No]
Where in Canon Law does it require this? (Hint, nowhere).
The 1917 and 1983 Canon Law only require jurisdiction for validity and liceity in Penance, and a delegated witness for the validity of Marriage (except in an extraordinary case).
Mass, Blessings, Extreme Unction, etc. require only Orders and not being suspended.
Stop parroting Bartel/Salza's made-up standards, or manufacturing your own.
What’s next? Defending bugnini? 50:50 his anecdotal stories are pointless. I wonder if he is enjoying the novus ordo mass?
1:09:01 Eric says "we all just need to hash it out the best we can." Except when it means submission to the Pope and the local ordinaries, Eric doesn't mean that, and as long as the SSPX wont' do that, they wont' be in communion with Christ's body the Church. Because that is required by defintion to define one's self as catholic.
1:08:51 No matter what Eric will still appeal to the SSPX being in communion with Christ because they worship him at the Altar...so I guess in Eric's mind that means he and the SSPX can't therefore be seperated from Christ's body the Church even under direct, continual, disobedience to its head.
35:15 wow he is so wrong. Many of The bishops and some popes in the church have abandoned the faith and attempted to teach something new. This doesn’t change the fact that the church’s doctrine does not change. Men abandon the faith. The church doesn’t abandon us. These discussions do not help anyone. Now some new group of “recovering trads” who are making conferences using this guys testimony of abuse while growing up to make it seem like if traditional Catholicism causes such abuse.
59:29 NO MATTER WHAT DOCUMENTS ARE CITED TO HIM, SHOWING HIM AND THE SSPX TO BE WRONG, NO MATTER THE LEGAL ON PAPER DEFINITON OF SCHISM, IT DOESN' MATTER TO ERIC, BECAUSE HE'S ALREADY DECIDED NEITHER HE NOR THEY CAN BE WRONG.
One of the best conversations I have heard about SSPX. I would have asked Andrew to clarify the canonical status of SSPX in 1970: pious union of diocesan right, with the right to ordain priests to be incardinated... yes or no?
Glad you enjoyed it! The answer is yes. As you may already know, however, this was established on an "ad experimentum" basis by the bishop of Fribourg for a period of six years and it was not renewed. In addition to this, he suppressed the Society and this was upheld by Rome.
Just to clarify, no, the Pia Unio in 1970-74 didn't have the right to incardinate its members. Archbishop Lefebvre found bishop friends around the world to incardinate his seminarians and priests. Father Aulagnier, for example, mentions this in his book, saying he was incardinated in some overseas diocese.
Back in the 1970s the Congregation for Religious conceded priests could be ascribed (the term for incardination into a order or similar group) into the SSPX directly.
Fr Urban Snyder, OCSO was one of those.
Following that, Lefebvre did this for all SSPX clergy.
29:49 Here's Eric trying to turn whether or not someone or something is in material schism from the Church's defintion and teaching on these, matters to a matter of personal descision and judgment. Absolutely pathetic Eric, if somone in support of abortion or homosexual acts, or contraception used this exact same arument you would call foul immediately, but won't do so when its your own argument.
There is no one named Eric in this video
The voices in his head 😂
Nice job, Andrew!!
So much for Rome, Sweet Home for your parents - instead of alleged unity, all they got were divisions. LOL.
They ran away from Rome. That’s the whole point: they exchanged old Protestantism for a new Protestantism.
50:56 Verger
This is a good example why, intellectually, I have no respect for Eric Sammens, beause he uses such blantantly faulty reasoning, poor arguments, he'll say he agrees in principle, but then lacks the courage of following the point he just agreed to, to its logical conclusion, will let quotes from documents of the Church wash off his back like a duck if they contradict his fundamental premise that the SSPX no matter what, can't be wrong, and the appeal to personal opinions of people that have no authority to judicate on the matter to dismiss them, and then use that as the principle as to why formal statements by the Pope in the name of the Church don't appyl, and because Eric uses the same faulty arguments he wouldn't tolerate from others, with zero integrity as to the double standards he is employing.
This isn't Eric Sammons. it's Andrew Bartel
Maybe unwillingly mr Bartel brought up a fundamental aspect of the present crisis which has its roots in the Council of Trent - in the midlle ages, the golden age of christendom, there was a great deal of freedom in liturgical worship, based on ancient local customs and holy traditions, which enabled the christian people of God to have a diversion of beautiful liturgies, always based on the unity of Faith and Creed which was never questioned. The Council of Trent with the so called st Pius V Roman Missal imposed a uniformity which was perceived as unnatural by many faithfuls and clergy - here the obsession of unity at all cost started to creep in in the catholic Church - an obsession that got worse with the infallibility of the Pope as interpreted by many as a form of inhuman dictatorship which has nothing to do with the religion of Love which is Christianity. And we see the fruits today with an official Church that at every step and at every level of its hierarchy, from top down, denies any basic principle of Christianity, even more then the pagan Renaissance popes and bishops which Luther with some reasons fought against, and imposes the Novus Ordo as an hammer to propagate the new sincretistic "humanistic" (but anti human) globalistic ecological communistic gay friendly bergoglian church which I dare to say is not even a christian church but an atheistic organization with some christian elements still left by default. So we have to submit to this monster? To this "mission" of perversion of the True Faith? Is up to us to decide
Multiple problems with this, first the spreading of the Roman Rite was a continuous effort since the middle ages, in fact it's a part of the reason the Roman Rite ever got one unified Missal. Secondly there's this largely overblown concept of how the liturgical landscape was in the past. Just as an example England for the most part followed the Roman Rite, the "Sarum rite" as people talk about wasn't a rite properly speaking and was just a particular usage of the Roman. Third even in the cases where there were different rites some of them were very similar to the Roman. Finally even after Trent there was a large usage of local ancients rites that many people willingly gave up overtime. Also you don't seem to understand what the aim of Trent was, there's a reason why Trent only suppressed some rites and not all, that is because Trent was aiming to eliminate novel ideas, liturgical nonsense and protestantism from local rites. Back then especially when it wasn't as easy to sift through things this was the best way to go about doing so.
Your grasp of the history of the Council of Trent and the Tridentine Missal is severely lacking. @Beck correctly states the history behind the Council of Trent and the Tridentine Missal.
"Is up to us to decide" ... Classic Protestant ecclesiology. The Magisterium in union with the Holy See are the authentic interpreters of Sacred Scripture and Tradition, not the individual layman's interpretation.