“We are suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church and for the Conciliar Church, to which we have no wish to belong. That Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a document, official and definitive…. " - ABL - 1976
“It shall not be lawful for any bishop, under the plea of any privilege [what]soever, to exercise pontifical functions in the diocese of another, save by the express permission of the Ordinary of the place, and in regard to those persons only who are subject to that same Ordinary: if the contrary shall have been done, the bishop shall be ipso facto suspended from the exercise of episcopal functions, and those so ordained (be similarly suspended) from the exercise of their orders.” - Council of Trent. For as much as the SSPX reveres Trent, it explicitly condemns what Fr Robinson describes here.
@@lukes2254 Arianism was recognized and condemned as a heresy by the Church. Vatican II was solemnly promulgated by the pope and by every one of his predecessors. Not even remotely the same thing. The crisis we are in today is caused by materialism, secularism, and atheism, and as shocking as it may sound, Vatican II was actually called to address that. And yes, what the SSPX bishops do is illicit. You won’t find any justification for it in church history or in canon law. It’s been explicitly condemned at several other councils as well.
Easy to speak about Catholic tradition, and condemn those who follow it, in a time where even the Pope does not regard Trent as much as you seem to. Ask yourself that, brother in Christ.
Does Francis profess the Catholic Faith or not? Is the Novus Ordo Catholic or not? If it isn’t (and if he isn’t) why seek his approval to consecrate more valid bishops? If he and the Novus Ordo is Catholic, then why not submit to him and his Novus Ordo? And why go through the charade of asking him if the SSPX is going to do it regardless? It is dishonest. Let your yes be yes and your no be no
Do you know Obedience? Charity? They must offer Rome the opportunity to do the right thing. They must still submit to Rome. We are Roman Catholic. It's the difference between rebellion out of pride and resistance out of conscience.
th-cam.com/video/v0N6Y6ayyRo/w-d-xo.html Bergoglio preaches a poisonous doctrine that leads to eternal damnation. You (SSPX) condemn this doctrine, and thereby gain the sympathy of the true believers. But in retrospect, you are urging them to submit to a manifest heretic and to obey this usurper of the papacy. This is unacceptable, because many regard you as a true voice and do not suppose that you are leading them down the road to perdition. Dear SSPX stop & think and realize your irrational/illogical position.
Obedience to heresy idolatry and Apostasy? The SSPX is lost and looks like doubtful Novus Ordo so called "Bishops" will take over after the remaining 2 die off.
"From what We have said, it follows that no authority whatsoever, save that which is proper to the Supreme Pastor, can render void the canonical appointment granted to any bishop; that no person or group, whether of priests or of laymen, can claim the right of nominating bishops; that no one can lawfully confer episcopal consecration unless he has received the mandate of the Apostolic See.[18] 48. Consequently, if consecration of this kind is being done contrary to all right and law, and by this crime the unity of the Church is being seriously attacked, an excommunication reserved specialissimo modo to the Apostolic See has been established which is automatically incurred by the consecrator and by anyone who has received consecration irresponsibly conferred" - Ad Apostolorum Principis, Pope Pius XII
Fr. Paul Robinson, please answer, does all of this sound like the words of someone who negated sedevacantism and "fought against it?" Sounds like rather the words of someone who was rather open to the possibility as such and rightfully so as any thinking Catholic should be.
Consecrated by a Novus Ordo bishop. Rifan was not Traditional. And look how quickly he caved. The priestly administration of St. John Vianney is done. What a joke. Look at him now.
@nidusaquilae76 well one of the bishops that consecrated Rifan was consecrated by fellay and Tissier, so just because a cardinal was thr principal consecrator it shouldn't matter, lefebvre said their orders are valid
@@CaptBritNZ You should know what you talk about. Firstly you speak of Licinio Rangel who was not consecrated by Fellay but by Bp. Tissier de Mallerais. And being a co-consecrator, they do not "consecrate" or say the words of the form of the ordination. They are there to ensure the rite is carried out and followed and to assist the principal consecrator. Ap. Lefebvre had nothing to say about Bp. Rifan or the validity of his consecration, who was "consecrated" in 2002, 11 years after Lefebvre's death.
@@nidusaquilae76 In the traditional rite, co consecrators do say the words, and do the rite with the principle, I am a Dominican Clerical Brother, I study liturgy. I agree with SSPX but just think father misspoke and to be fair without 1988 Econe, Campos wouldn’t exist since like you said tissier had to continue Mayers legacy with Rangal
@@ransomcoates546 Calumny can be a mortal sin. The burden is on you to prove insanity. You have no positive proof that the bishop was “bonkers,” for example, at the 1981 consecration of Fr. Carmona. Dismissing His Excellency’s heroic efforts as a “joke” shows what side you are on.
Bearing false witness about someone who you have no clue about, let alone a consecrated Bishop with a papal mandate is no laughing matter. It’s a mortal sin. @@ransomcoates546
"But who is making the schism? Not me! To make a schism, you have to leave the Church. And leaving the Church means leaving the faith first. Who is leaving the faith of the Church? Authority is at the service of faith. If it abandons the faith, it is the one making the schism. So, it is not us who are making the schism." - ABL- 1986
Saint Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Catholic Church: "Second. I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators." (Letter to Foscarini)
"Then this problem arises. First problem: communicatio in sacris. Second problem: the question of heresy. Third problem: is the pope still pope when he is heretical? I do not know, I am not making a decision! But you can ask yourselves the question. I think that any sensible man must ask himself the question. I do not know." - ABL, 1986
The Law of NonContradiction must always prevail, the Church does not contradict itself, or it does not exist. The mission of the Church is for the salvation of souls. Archbishop LeFevbre did what he did because his primary interest was the salvation of souls.
On the other hand, we have never wished to belong to this system which calls itself the Conciliar Church, and defines itself with the Novus Ordo Missæ, an ecumenism which leads to indifferentism and the laicization of all society. Yes, we have no part, nullam partem habemus, with the pantheon of the religions of Assisi; our own excommunication by a decree of Your Eminence or of another Roman Congregation would only be the irrefutable proof of this. We ask for nothing better than to be declared out of communion with this adulterous spirit which has been blowing in the Church for the last 25 years; we ask for nothing better than to be declared outside of this impious communion of the ungodly. We believe in the One God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, and we will always remain faithful to His unique Spouse, the One Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church.
“The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.”[ - ABL
If your definition of Traditional priests and bishops are those ordained or consecrated according to the pre v2 rubrics, then those same priests and bishops approved of V2 and accepted the church as is with no conditions like the SSPX does. Admit your wrong and get right with the church.
Thank you, Fr. Robinson! God bless you and the necessary work of the SSPX!
Thank you, Fr. Robinson, for the reassurance.
Thank you, Father Robinson. God Bless you.
God protects the Catholic Church. The Traditional Catholic movement will not die. God bless the SSPX for their fidelity.
I'm positive that Christ will protect the society, I attend all forms at the moment and will continue to pray that a positive outcome will happen.
Thank you for posting this.🥳
Archbishop Lefebvre pray for us!
“We are suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church and for the Conciliar Church, to which we have no wish to belong. That Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a document, official and definitive…. " - ABL - 1976
It is such a great shame that bishop Williamson is thrown under the bus by his own. So sad
I agree!
+Williamson is the only 1 of the 4 who uphold and pass on tradition. Deo Gratias he is still validily Consecrating Bishops!.
Williamson is 🤪
God will show SSPX the way to move forward.
Pray.
“It shall not be lawful for any bishop, under the plea of any privilege [what]soever, to exercise pontifical functions in the diocese of another, save by the express permission of the Ordinary of the place, and in regard to those persons only who are subject to that same Ordinary: if the contrary shall have been done, the bishop shall be ipso facto suspended from the exercise of episcopal functions, and those so ordained (be similarly suspended) from the exercise of their orders.” - Council of Trent.
For as much as the SSPX reveres Trent, it explicitly condemns what Fr Robinson describes here.
we're looking at the literal arian crisis 2.0 with the conciliar church, and you think what SSPX bishops do is illicit?
@@lukes2254 Arianism was recognized and condemned as a heresy by the Church. Vatican II was solemnly promulgated by the pope and by every one of his predecessors. Not even remotely the same thing. The crisis we are in today is caused by materialism, secularism, and atheism, and as shocking as it may sound, Vatican II was actually called to address that.
And yes, what the SSPX bishops do is illicit. You won’t find any justification for it in church history or in canon law. It’s been explicitly condemned at several other councils as well.
Easy to speak about Catholic tradition, and condemn those who follow it, in a time where even the Pope does not regard Trent as much as you seem to. Ask yourself that, brother in Christ.
@@theromanbaron Pivoting, as per usual
"But it is possible that we will be obliged to believe that this pope is not pope." - ABL, 1986
Protéctor sanctæ Ecclésiæ, ora pro nobis.
Does Francis profess the Catholic Faith or not? Is the Novus Ordo Catholic or not? If it isn’t (and if he isn’t) why seek his approval to consecrate more valid bishops? If he and the Novus Ordo is Catholic, then why not submit to him and his Novus Ordo?
And why go through the charade of asking him if the SSPX is going to do it regardless? It is dishonest. Let your yes be yes and your no be no
Do you know Obedience? Charity?
They must offer Rome the opportunity to do the right thing. They must still submit to Rome. We are Roman Catholic. It's the difference between rebellion out of pride and resistance out of conscience.
@@jwm6314 is it Catholic to follow and obey modernists (heretics)?
th-cam.com/video/v0N6Y6ayyRo/w-d-xo.html
Bergoglio preaches a poisonous doctrine that leads to eternal damnation. You (SSPX) condemn this doctrine, and thereby gain the sympathy of the true believers. But in retrospect, you are urging them to submit to a manifest heretic and to obey this usurper of the papacy. This is unacceptable, because many regard you as a true voice and do not suppose that you are leading them down the road to perdition.
Dear SSPX stop & think and realize your irrational/illogical position.
Obedience to heresy idolatry and Apostasy? The SSPX is lost and looks like doubtful Novus Ordo so called "Bishops" will take over after the remaining 2 die off.
"From what We have said, it follows that no authority whatsoever, save that which is proper to the Supreme Pastor, can render void the canonical appointment granted to any bishop; that no person or group, whether of priests or of laymen, can claim the right of nominating bishops; that no one can lawfully confer episcopal consecration unless he has received the mandate of the Apostolic See.[18]
48. Consequently, if consecration of this kind is being done contrary to all right and law, and by this crime the unity of the Church is being seriously attacked, an excommunication reserved specialissimo modo to the Apostolic See has been established which is automatically incurred by the consecrator and by anyone who has received consecration irresponsibly conferred"
- Ad Apostolorum Principis, Pope Pius XII
Fr. Paul Robinson, please answer, does all of this sound like the words of someone who negated sedevacantism and "fought against it?" Sounds like rather the words of someone who was rather open to the possibility as such and rightfully so as any thinking Catholic should be.
Campos was given a traditional bishop, consecrated in the traditional rite, Bishop Rifan
Consecrated by a Novus Ordo bishop. Rifan was not Traditional. And look how quickly he caved. The priestly administration of St. John Vianney is done. What a joke. Look at him now.
@nidusaquilae76 well one of the bishops that consecrated Rifan was consecrated by fellay and Tissier, so just because a cardinal was thr principal consecrator it shouldn't matter, lefebvre said their orders are valid
@@CaptBritNZ You should know what you talk about. Firstly you speak of Licinio Rangel who was not consecrated by Fellay but by Bp. Tissier de Mallerais. And being a co-consecrator, they do not "consecrate" or say the words of the form of the ordination. They are there to ensure the rite is carried out and followed and to assist the principal consecrator. Ap. Lefebvre had nothing to say about Bp. Rifan or the validity of his consecration, who was "consecrated" in 2002, 11 years after Lefebvre's death.
@@nidusaquilae76 In the traditional rite, co consecrators do say the words, and do the rite with the principle, I am a Dominican Clerical Brother, I study liturgy. I agree with SSPX but just think father misspoke and to be fair without 1988 Econe, Campos wouldn’t exist since like you said tissier had to continue Mayers legacy with Rangal
He is not Traditional, he says the NO and is a complete sell out
1:53 Bishop Thuc: "Am I a joke to you?"
Emphatically yes. He was bonkers.
@@ransomcoates546Did you know it is a sin to speak of clergy, consecrated men, in such a derogatory fashion?
@@ransomcoates546 Calumny can be a mortal sin. The burden is on you to prove insanity. You have no positive proof that the bishop was “bonkers,” for example, at the 1981 consecration of Fr. Carmona. Dismissing His Excellency’s heroic efforts as a “joke” shows what side you are on.
@@ransomcoates546 Prove it. Have you ever seen evidence of it? Many who knew him and were with him say the opposite. Are you guilty of calumny?
Bearing false witness about someone who you have no clue about, let alone a consecrated Bishop with a papal mandate is no laughing matter. It’s a mortal sin. @@ransomcoates546
The Resistance doesn't seem have any problems consecrating bishops.
"But who is making the schism? Not me! To make a schism, you have to leave the Church. And leaving the Church means leaving the faith first. Who is leaving the faith of the Church? Authority is at the service of faith. If it abandons the faith, it is the one making the schism. So, it is not us who are making the schism." - ABL- 1986
Stand fast with Jesus Christ and the Church of our four fathers before 1950.
Vigano was consecrated a true bishop
Saint Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Catholic Church:
"Second. I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators." (Letter to Foscarini)
"Then this problem arises.
First problem: communicatio in sacris.
Second problem: the question of heresy.
Third problem: is the pope still pope when he is heretical?
I do not know, I am not making a decision! But you can ask yourselves the question. I think that any sensible man must ask himself the question. I do not know." - ABL, 1986
The Law of NonContradiction must always prevail, the Church does not contradict itself, or it does not exist.
The mission of the Church is for the salvation of souls. Archbishop LeFevbre did what he did because his primary interest was the salvation of souls.
@@kstewskis Ask yourself: if the church is not providing for the salvation of souls, such that the SSPX must do it, hasn’t the church defected?
On the other hand, we have never wished to belong to this system which calls itself the Conciliar Church, and defines itself with the Novus Ordo Missæ, an ecumenism which leads to indifferentism and the laicization of all society. Yes, we have no part, nullam partem habemus, with the pantheon of the religions of Assisi; our own excommunication by a decree of Your Eminence or of another Roman Congregation would only be the irrefutable proof of this. We ask for nothing better than to be declared out of communion with this adulterous spirit which has been blowing in the Church for the last 25 years; we ask for nothing better than to be declared outside of this impious communion of the ungodly. We believe in the One God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, and we will always remain faithful to His unique Spouse, the One Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church.
“The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.”[ - ABL
Even more disobedience from the society. Shame on all of you.
If your definition of Traditional priests and bishops are those ordained or consecrated according to the pre v2 rubrics, then those same priests and bishops approved of V2 and accepted the church as is with no conditions like the SSPX does. Admit your wrong and get right with the church.