I am not a member of SSPX but as I listen to the theological explanations of the society, I find the position of the society to be very compelling - and very Catholic!
Yes, although technically only priests and religious of the SSPX are it's members. The laity which only attends their masses do not count as members of the SSPX.
Even though I left Catholisism I'm 75 years old and my family for hundreds of years then I was educated in Tridentine. We were taught the Tridentine Latin Mass was Perpetual and couldn't be changed. The Jewish Passover Prayers said in the Temple in Jerusalem are in the Tridentine Mass.
I really appreciate this Crisis in the Church series podcast; it's a great source for my Catholic formation; please, continue it. God bless you Sancte Pie Decime, ora pro nobis ¡Viva Cristo Rey y María Reina!
I HAVE NO FAITH in anything related to Vatican II. I'm not a sedavacantist or hard nose traditionalist. I've been scandalized by Vatican II. I was involved and present in the Norvus Ordo mass for over 50 years. I was present at Masses where the Holy Tabernacle was cast to the side; I was present at Masses where the consecrated host is received in the hand; I was present where our priest would carry his dog as he processed to the altar; I was present at Masses where native American dancing rituals occurred around the altar. I'm the wounded soldier who fell in love with the nurse (SSPX) who bandaged the wounds. Although the issue is the validity of ordinations....It's the Spirit of Vatican II. I believe the ordinations are doubtful as was the position of Archbishop Lefebvre. I pray the SSPX would revisit this. St. Thomas Aquinas- "It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter's subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Galatians 2:11, "Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects." (Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 33, a. 4,ad.2.) In Christ & IHM, Joanne B.
@@hexahexametermeter Correct, the Rite of Consecration for Bishop is the same. So the Bishops are valid, therefore the priests they ordain are valid. And as Father said, the Eastern Orthodox Rites for consecration of Bishops and priests is not the same Rite. Pope Pius XII said that in His 1947 Apostolic Letter Sacramentum Ordinis On the Sacrament of Order issued 30 November 1947. And what Father said about the Gospels on the head of the deacon being ordained as priest is done in the Orthodox Church, and those RItes were deemed valid at the Council of Florence (See Pope Pius XII Sacramentum Ordinis paragraph 3).
@@PalermoTrapani Why are you saying this? The new rite of consecration is not the same. Antipope Paul VI changed the form and made many deletions to other important prayers. If you actually put the new rite of ordination next to the invalid Anglican rite, you will see that the Vatican 2 rite actually has MORE deletions than the Anglicans. So if Pope Leo XIII said the Anglican rite is invalid because of the deletions, if the Novus Ordo deleted the same prayers and then more there is no way to prove the Vatican 2 sect has valid ordinations. It is really that simple. Just because the matter (laying on of hands) is the same doesn't make the new rites valid. There is also the form (the prayers being said) and the intention (determined by the rest of the ceremony). The Vatican 2 sect does not have valid form and intention because of the deletions and after all these years they don't have many bishops left to the minister is lacking too.
Fr. McFarland's explanation of the the theological and spiritual matters involved is so clear and accessible that I as a non Catholic layman can easily understand the meaning and importance of the Catholic sacraments in form and meaning. Fr McFarland's discussions here are drawing me closer to the Catholic faith. And more than that to the true traditional Catholic faith.
Yes! I was skeptical, by seeing how young he's, but he did a better job than most older priests. Actually I started to noticed that the priestess that was ordained after the 2000s are doing a better job, teaching the true Gaspel, than ones prior, but after the 60s. That goes also to the bishops, the ones ordained during and after the feel good era( ✌️ &❤). They did a great damage to the Roman Catholic Church.
I am a lawyer and, listening to Father’s explanations of ‘intention’ and ‘action’ , it makes me realise how much of the thinking of the Church is repeated in legal principles. The principle of ‘if the priest says the words and does the act being sufficient for the validity on the part of the congregant ‘ is, besides being a protection against scrupulousity, the position of third parties in the law, who cannot be penalised by a fault resulting from a negligent or deliberate act that is not apparent to a stranger to the internal machinations - it is simply fairness. The courts and our legal principles derived from both the king’s court (common law) and the (Catholic) Church (Equity) and these concepts travelled from the influence of the Church into the common law.
Thank you very much to the SSPX who are carrying the legacy of your great founder Cardinal Le Fevbre who holds on to the true teachings of the Catholic Church Founded by Jesus Christ.God Bless.Amen.
When I was a sedevacantist , I decided to really examine the validity issiue , once I began to really learn what the arguments were (pro and con). I was astonished at how ridiculous the arguments were for invalidity, This made me realize I was putting my trust in people who had very little understanding of sacramental theology, I decided to put my trust in the Church instead.
@@norwegiancatholicism9106 just explain to them about Matters, form, intention, and who capables doing it. Watch this video and you'll get everything what you need for explanations. LEX OPERE OPERATO
Thank you Fr. McFarland! My friend Jeffrey Tillery sent me this and many other podcasts, TH-cam etc. regarding on the misconception of the FSSPX. What a gift to learn the truth!
Archbishop Lefebvre, letter of 28 Oct. 1988: "All sacraments from the modernists bishops or priests are doubtful now." Bp Tissier de Mallerais, sermon from June 29, 2016 at Econe: “Clearly, we cannot accept this faked new rite of ordination that leaves doubts concerning the validity of numerous ordinations done according to the new rite. Thus this new rite of ordination is not Catholic." Fr Alvaro Calderon, SSPX, in the Spanish language review Si Si No No (November 2014), he speaks of a “slight doubt,” a “shadow” concerning the validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration in itself (see Le Sel de la terre 92, p. 172).
I will never leave you nor forsake you!! The only place I heard a person suggest that NO consecrations were invalid was at an SSPX Church, this is comforting, than you Father.
this is on the SSPX's website right now.. "... if the new rite is still valid per se, it is quite possible that, owing to bad translations or an adaptation of the rite that strayed too far from the original, or because of a consecrator’s defect of intention, in certain particular cases we could have an invalid ceremony."
Here in Spain, te masses and ordinations have a very concrete catholic intention. For example, in the mass it is clear they are talking about the sacrifice of Christ. Not a conmemorative protestant supper.
It's not officially their positions. It's some opinion of the priest. Mgr. Fellay said the new rites sacraments are undoubtedly valid. But some offending God
Well that was well-timed. I had just watched Father Cekada's (May he rest in peace) interview regarding the "invalidity" of episcopal ordinations since V2. While his information was fascinating, the approach of the SSPX makes much more sense to me.
'All authority in Heaven and on Earth has been given to Me. Therefore go and make disciples of ALL Nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit - and teaching them to obey ALL that I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always - even to the end of the age'. The words of Our Lord Jesus Christ leave room for no grey areas.
@@SSPX - Thank you for your response. With great respect it certainly follows that there is no salvation outside the one Holy and Apostolic Chuch. Our sacred mission is to convert. All attempts to invert and/or to adulterate the teachings of our beautiful Church - or make accomodations with the 'spirit of the age' - must surely be seen for what they are. Long term enemy subversion.
I doubt there is one SSPX priest that believes with certainty of faith that a Novus Ordo priest is validly ordained, if they did, they would have gone to a Novus Ordo seminary or the Fraternity of St. Peter, ICK and done the indult mass at a diocese. It is easy to tell others what to believe when it does not apply to you (= the Novus Ordo ordinations are valid, but I did not choose to be Novus Ordo ordained).
@@lucafarina8601think about what you just said. The church produced an official rite that is not good? Goodness is truth. Can the church produce and promulgate anything in her official capacity as the “bulwark of truth” that lacks goodness/truth?
Did I miss Father addressing the missing powers being conferred on the priests in the new rite? I attended my first ordinations in Winona and that same year went to Novus Ordo ordinations in St. Louis. I was scandalized that the new rite didn't include all the powers of the priest and the program booklet was less than half the thickness of the original ordinations
Paul VI woke up one day and said - I’m changing the rite of the priesthood. Was it for good reason? Why was it changed? Intent matters. Intent validates or invalidates a sacrament. What was Paul VI’s intent? Do we even know?im still afraid to go to confession to a new rite/ ordo priest bc I fear he is not a real priest. But I want to believe this young priest very much in saying the new rite is not preferred but still valid. Been praying for St. Pius V intervention. God help us all and let His ears be attentive to our supplication!
Why was it necessary to change the rite of Episcopal concentration? The fruit of the change is doubt, confusion and division. Same with all the Vatican II changes. Didnt our Lord say we would know them by their fruits?
I heard of a priest who saw his infant baptism video and discovered the correct form or words were not used. I also heard of using cooking oil for Confirmation etc. If many of the guys at the top do not believe in the resurrection who’s to say they care about doing sacraments right? I am thinking that Conciliar converts to orthodoxy should be treated like Protestant converts and give them conditional sacraments.
Such an important video in this series. Thank you. Many have been misled by various groups out there with erroneous teachings to leave the Church. Such groups monopolize on the laity's lack of education in or access to Canon Law and other principles which govern Church structure.
What of the case, as Cardinal Sarah brought up, of “we” Baptisms? I can understand the allowance for honest mistakes in form and even intentions. Yet, what if these priests repeatedly and willingly performed sacramental acts contrary to the doctrinal form and intention of the Church? For instance, providing for a broom with which the bride and groom (or husband and wife of a renewal of vows) can hop over, in front of the altar, at a pagan-styled marriage ceremony? Or anointing the whole church body with Christ oil the week following a bishops’s confirmation of the candidates? Or the priest uses known and public believers in “sins which cry out to heaven” for Eucharistic ministry? In all such cases, the congregations held grossly incorrect understandings of the faith, and the priest seemed to placate them. When you or your children received baptism or confirmation from one or more of them (concelebrated) and seeing blatant errors and not simple mistakes at other times, would one not be right to be concerned?
I want to follow the Church through the sspx so bad because I feel attracted because you all seem to truly have the Truth of Christ. I’m just fearful I could go the wrong direction because of everyone shouting schism! schism! schism! I just want the Truth… sspx seems to have it. I just don’t want to displease our God. I just don’t know quite what to do, especially as I’ve discerned religious life
All the Popes from Paul VI to Francis (except JPI who died early in his pontificate) tell people not to attend SSPX because it's schismatic. Pope Francis himself says SSPX is in schism in his letter accompanying "Traditionis Custodes." (Read fully the quotes below). 1. Pope Paul VI on the (schism) withdrawal of canonical recognition from the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) June 29, 1975: " … Our grief is even greater to note that the decision of the competent authority - although formulated very clearly, and fully justified, it may be said, by your refusal to modify your public and persistent opposition to the Second Vatican Council, to the post-conciliar reforms, and to the orientations to which the Pope himself is committed. " Finally, the conclusions which [the Commission of Cardinals] proposed to Us, We made all and each of them Ours, and We personally ordered that they be immediately put into force." Source: PAUL VI, "Lettre de S. S. Le Pape Paul VI a Mgr. Lefebvre," 29 June 1975, La Documentation Catholique, n. 1689, trans. in M. DAVIES, Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, p. 113. 2. Here is what Pope St. John Paul II says about SSPX schism in his Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, February 7, 1988: " In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of CEASING THEIR SUPPORT IN ANY WAY FOR THAT MOVEMENT. Everyone should be aware that formal ADHERENCE TO THE SCHISM IS A GRAVE OFFENCE AGAINST GOD and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law." www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei.html 3. Here's what the Pope Benedict XVI says in his Letter to the Bishops dated March 10, 2009:: "The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. "In order to make this clear once again: UNTIL THE DOCTRINAL QUESTIONS ARE CLARIFIED, THE SOCIETY HAS NO CANONICAL STATUS IN THE CHURCH, and its ministers - even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty - do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church… "This will make it clear that the problems now to be addressed are essentially DOCTRINAL in nature and concern primarily THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL AND THE POST-CONCILIAR MAGISTERIUM OF THE POPES. "The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 - this must be quite clear to the Society. www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica.html 4. Pope Francis did give SSPX the faculty to hear confessions legally and validly, because it does not contradict Canon Law. There have always been exceptional circumstances or instances of necessity in which the Church recognizes as valid and licit the reception of sacraments from priests who may be immoral, schismatic, irreligious, laicized, or even non-Catholic, provided their denominations have sacramental confessions.
Canon 844 §2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid. Canon 976 Even though a priest lacks the faculty to hear confessions, he absolves validly and licitly any penitents whatsoever in danger of death from any censures and sins, even if an approved priest is present. While Pope Francis' gesture of mercy shows an important precedent -- for the good of souls, the Church has the power to grant faculties even to priests who are not in good standing -- it is nevertheless NOT AN APPROVAL OF THEM - not an approval of SSPX, or their situation. 5. Pope Francis in his letter Misericordia et Misera, November 20, 2916: “For the pastoral benefit of these faithful (who attend churches officiated by the SSPX ) and trusting in the good will of their priests to strive with God’s HELP FOR THE RECOVERY OF FULL COMMUNION IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, I have personally decided to extend this faculty beyond the Jubilee Year, until further provisions are made, lest anyone be deprived of the sacramental sign of reconciliation through the Church’s pardon.” www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_letters/documents/papa-francesco-lettera-ap_20161120_misericordia-et-misera.html Very clearly, Pope Francis' motu proprio shows there is still the need for SSPX “to recover full communion in the Catholic Church.” Therefore, Pope Benedict's statement on SSPX's non-canonical status in the Church still stands. 6. Pope Francis' letter, dated July 16, 2021, that accompanies Traditionis Custodes, he specifically mentioned SSPX to be in "schism." Here's the 2nd paragraph, fully quoted: "Most people understand the motives that prompted St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI to allow the use of the Roman Missal, promulgated by St. Pius V and edited by St. John XXIII in 1962, for the Eucharistic Sacrifice. The faculty - granted by the indult of the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1984 and confirmed by St. John Paul II in the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei in 1988 - was above all MOTIVATED BY THE DESIRE TO FOSTER THE HEALING OF THE SCHISM WITH THE MOVEMENT OF MONS. LEFEBVRE. With the ecclesial intention of restoring the unity of the Church, the Bishops were thus asked to accept with generosity the “just aspirations” of the faithful who requested the use of that Missal." www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/motu_proprio/documents/20210716-motu-proprio-traditionis-custodes.html 7. About the SSPX faculty to officiate in Catholic weddings (Letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith dated March 27, 2017). It states that with the diocese's permission, an SSPX priest may officiate in a Catholic wedding but only if there is no diocesan or religious priest available, and the documents must be forwarded to the diocesan curia. It should be remembered, too, that in the sacrament of matrimony, the ministers are the couple themselves. A priest is only there to witness for the Church and receive the couple's consent.
Other than those limited faculties, the sacraments of the SSPX. Although valid, are not recognized by the Church because, as Pope Benedict XVI writes, the Society has no canonical status and no legitimate ministry in the Church. 8. Many people, including bishops, who say SSPX is not in schism or has reconciled with the Church, should be able to produce a document similar to Pope John Paul II's letter welcoming the SSPX in Campos, Brazil (now the Union of St. John Mary Vianney) into the fold, otherwise they should not be believed. Here's the link to Pope JPII letter: www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4141 Thanks. God bless you.
@@marietta1335you are a classic legalistic Pope splainer . You missunstand the fact of all those popes you quotes are all modernist bent on changing Catholic doctrine and dogma. You're great at your legalistic gibberish but have no real understanding of true charity and Catholic teachings. you are creating disunity
Very interesting. The last point is curious but if you think it's very correct: imagine a bishop that uses formulas created by him, like "We, the community of the Church, call you priest...now you are!!". It's obvious that you need a real ordination. But these are the exceptions that confirm the rule.
That's an apples / oranges argument - one also has to look at the minister, not just the form. As well as the intent - are they really intending to do what the Catholic Church does? The answer is obviously problematic for both the minister and the intent, so that would invalidate the Anglican ordination, even if the form is the same as what the Catholic Church currently uses.
the modern Episcopal Church USA one is copied from the Vatican 2 version, not sure about Church of England's. The Vatican 2 one is based on a reconstruction of "Apostolic Tradtion", which is likely not from St Hippolytus of Rome but rather much more likely to be out of Egypt . While it seems vague this cant be really held agains it, the Byzantine rite bishop ordination rite, while totally different than the Novus Ordo, is also rather vague and unclear with a bishop's functions beyond saying they are making a bishop - and it is needless to say the Byzantine is of course 100% valid. The Coptic bishop ordination prayer is similar to the Novus Ordo, and as the Novus Ordo th Coptic one is certainly inspiried by what is certainly a common origin or relative with the ancient document "Apostolic Tradition", but certainly not identical with the Novus Ordo version (and indeed compared to the Novus Ordo the Coptic is more specific and I would say orthodox), espiecailly considering the beauty of the Coptic one compared to the Novus Ordo one. the idea of modern holy orders vexes my mind, but I fear God if I am wrong so I will not attack the new bishop rite (nor defend it, the old Roman rite didn't need to be changed and should of stayed - before there was no doubt, why is there now? because they changed things for no reason expect wanting to leave their mark. if i was alive in those days i would have a panic attack out of fear and guilt changing a divine service to suit my ideas).
As I recall, the original Anglican form was just "receive the Holy Ghost", an invalid form. They changed it later, to a form that would be valid (no idea if it's the same as now or not) but by the time they did that it was too late; they had no valid bishops anymore.
My name is David,and I'm going to be a semanarian in Scotland there's a sspx priory in Glasgow wher I live looking after my mum who lives with me,as you see I'm using her gigabites,so it's true the sspx as malichi Martin said are valid priest's who give valid masses,and he said I believe Marcel Lefebvre was a boon from God,the older he got he took shine to sspx, saying he believed Marcel to be a saint,used by God to counter act the corruption in a sharp jolting way,so pray for me that I may go through seminari,and eventually become a priest,this is been helpful thanks
And does not the term "governing spirit" ("spiritus principalis") in the new ep. consecr. rite (now called episcopal "ordination"-rite) only be sufficient for validity if you presuppose the theory of Lumen Gentium, that the episcopal jurisdiction is given together with the episcopal consecration/ordination? And is not this very concept of the Lumen-Gentium-episcopal-theory rejected in some other Crisis-Series here, at least by Fr. Tranquillo?
It seems to me that this is the perfect storm Satan has planned - to make the validity under divine law vs canon law so convoluted that most laity and even most priests would have no idea if the relevant sacrament is valid. The same is true of the papacy, papal encyclicals and teaching, and fraternal orders, not to mention the Orthodox, etc. The lines are being blurred intentionally. It may be time to draw some hard lines rather than attempting to sort through canonical definitions of validity. I really think that is exactly what God is doing in the world today - drawing clear lines of distinction such that those who are faithful can remain in the true Church while the Ape of the Church draws most away to the broad road of destruction.
Now I see why the SSPX Marian corps exists. I sense some major compromise here. The sarcastic/sort of mocking tone against sedevacantists also reminds me of when conspiracy theorists are supposedly “debunked” by the very conspirators that they are trying to expose.
Thanks be To God that He said the Gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church. With that said, if all the Vatican II Bishops and Cardinals were Free Masons, then the Popes that preceded Vatican II failed as they all were appointed by Popes prior to Vatican II.
But my question is that V2 stopped the 4 minor holy orders which are (Porter,Exorcist,Acolyte,Lector)and the major order subdiaconate.in 1972 new church like the Protestants do not officially use the traditional terms “ORDINATION” and ‘CONSECRATION’ but installation same as the protestants .in 1968 a year before the invalid fake new mess was was published.new church already dumped the sacrament of holy orders and replaced it with new ordinal.Consequently new church has not ordained priests since 1968 but what it officially calls presbyters who are like Protestant ministers with no power to offer mass or confect the most Blessed Sacrament
Finding into the SSPX I have run into and befriended some sedes. Thought some of their beliefs on invalid consecrations sounded fishy and this certainly clears things up. Thank you!
As I have mentioned before in comments to previous episodes, I am from India and have been faithfully following all of your episodes. I am very grateful for the clarity with which your priests explain the topics. However I have a question that concerns this as well as the previous episodes (23,24 &25) on the validity of the New Mass. As explained by Father McFarland, the validity of a Sacrament depends on 3 criteria 1) Matter 2) Form and 3) Intention. Father has tried to explain that the validity of the Sacrament of Holy Orders as applicable to the Episcopal consecration is valid more because of the intention rather than the form which has actually been changed. However I re-viewed episodes 23 ,24 and 25 , where the priests go to great lengths to demonstrate that in the post Vatican2 church, the intention of the Mass has been substantially changed from that of a Sacrifice of propitiation to that of a communal meal My question is whether the intention required of the priest should match that of the visible church ( church militant) or the church of all time ( which includes the church triumphant and suffering). What happens when the intention of the entire present church changes from the intention of the traditional mass?. How is the mass valid in that case?.
Briefly: “The Council of Trent does not mention the purpose of the sacrament or say that the minister must intend to do what the Church intends, but what the Church does." (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Sacramentis in genere, lb. IV cap. 27 n. 13, quoted in the reply of the Holy Office to the Apostolic Vicar of Central Oceana, given 18 Dec. 1872; cf. Denzinger-Schonmetzer (DS) 3102, p. 602; cf. archive.org/details/denzinger-schonmetzer-enchiridion-symbolorum-1957/page/294/mode/2up p. 294). In other words, an error about the effect of a given sacrament (e.g., whether baptism removes sin and infuses grace) does not of itself remove that minimum intention that is necessary and sufficient for validity - namely, to perform the sacred ceremony that was instituted by Christ and is now in use in the Church. The response of the Holy Office refers to the following case: “Question: 1. Whether baptism administered by those heretics is doubtful on account of defect of intention to do what Christ willed, if an express declaration was made by the minister before he baptized that baptism had no effect on the soul? “Question 2. Whether baptism so conferred is doubtful if the aforesaid declaration was not expressly made immediately before the conferring of baptism, but had often been asserted by the minister, and the same doctrine was openly preached in that sect?" After some preliminary words of explanation (including the quote from St. Robert Bellarmine above), the Holy Office concludes: “Reply to the first question: In the negative; because despite the error about the effects of baptism, the intention of doing what the Church is not excluded. “Reply to the second question: Provided for in the answer to the first." (English translation found here: www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/inte.html )
It may be helpful to quote St. Thomas: "If [the minister's] faith be defective in regard to the very sacrament that he confers, although he believe that no inward effect is caused by the thing done outwardly, yet he does know that the Catholic Church intends to confer a sacrament by that which is outwardly done. Wherefore, his unbelief notwithstanding, he can intend to do what the Church does, albeit he esteem it to be nothing. And such an intention suffices for a sacrament: because as stated above, the minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the Church by whose faith any defect in the minister’s faith is made good." (Summa Theologica, III, 64, 9 ad 1). Also, there are many statements in the question/objection that we cannot agree with. 1. The visible Church is not a reality adequately distinct from the Church of all time. If that were true, the Church of all time would be a simple abstract concept in the mind without any concrete existence here on earth. 2. It is wrong to say that the Church's understanding of Holy Orders has changed. Unfortunately some men of the Church have a corrupt understanding of Holy Orders and have tried to impose that understanding on the Church by introducing ambiguous or misleading formulas into the liturgy. But that does not alter the faith of the Church as such. 3. Fr. McFarland did not say that the new rite of Episcopal Consecration is valid "more because of the intention rather than the form." There must always be a valid sacramental form. The point is that very different wordings can result in the same basic signification, and this allows for change/variety. There is more than one way to verbally designate the grace and office of the episcopacy, or priesthood, or whatever. Fr. William MacGillivray
A thing, an intention, an act and an idea that is "like" another one is obviously not the same one. Matt. 5:48 calls us to work toward a perfect standard in all things as far as what can be discovered within human limits because this is what is due and reciprocates Perfect Justice from God. Satan works by the smallest deviation to increase his followers so as not to raise suspicions up to a point that the modified thing becomes undeniable "bad fruit". Everything about Vatican II and all its supporters must be swept away from Church honor based on the dishonest stated intentions at the time.
Sacramentum Ordinis, 1949 gave the exact matter and form for the three stages of Holy Orders, and said that if any change to the form is made, and the words do not have the meaning given here, the sacrament is invalid. Compare the old rite vs the new rite in consecrating a bishop. They have absolutely nothing in common.
@@Mike-pf1ru No what Sacramentum Ordinis says, which was in fact issued 30 November 1947, not 1949 (Did you actually read it) clearly says what is "essential Matter and Form." For a Bishop it is the laying on of hands (Matter) and form is 25 words. Furthermore, in that same document, Pope Pius XII in paragraph 3 clearly says that the Rite of Consecration for Bishops in the Orthodox Church, which is not the exact same as the Latin, was viewed as valid with respect to essential Matter and Form (and it does not follow the Roman Rite of Consecration).
My worry has never been over the form and matter, but the intention of Modernist bishops, and Archbishop Lefebvre shared the same concern. Hence he explicitly worries in Opened Letter to Confused Catholics that New Masses could in cases be invalid because priests may not intend to offer the true sacrifice of the Mass to God, even if the proper form and matter are used. Michael Davies writes the following: "Every prayer in the traditional rite which stated specifically the essential role of a priest as a man ordained to offer propitiatory sacrifice for the living and dead has been removed. In most cases these were the precise prayers removed by the Protestant Reformers, [e.g., “Receive the power to offer sacrifice to God and to celebrate Mass, both for the living and the dead, in the name of the Lord”] or if not precisely the same there are clear parallels.... Their omission by the Protestant Reformers was taken by Pope Leo XIII as an indication of an intention not to consecrate sacrificing priests."
The SSPX website even has an article explaining this ("Must priests who come to Tradition be re-ordained") and it basically says the same: the rite is valid per se (as Fr. McFarland says), *but* we unfortunately have to deal with Modernist bishops who may have Anglican-like intents. It seems clear the Archbishop worried about this as well.
The very doubt which the change in the new rite of ordination creates, serves the malevolent purposes of the conspirators as well as does the certitude of invalidity, because from the doubt flows controversy, disagreements, factions, confusion, and disquietude among the clergy and the faithful. The revisers had a reason for making changes, and particular reasons for each change they made. They cannot argue that their new formulas are identical to the old; that would be to admit that the changes mean nothing, and that, therefore, there was no reason to make them. To admit that they made changes for no reason whatsoever would be a sign of a most irreverent capriciousness and cynicism. Besides, such an explanation could only be regarded as a concealment. The new forms (Latin and English) must be seen to say something different from the old. Furthermore, in view of what the other changes in the liturgical rites have connoted, we are compelled to be suspicious. We should rather say, we have every reason to look for an effort at neuterizing this sacramental rite, because those in charge of the new rites have shown themselves untrustworthy, or, more accurately, determinedly subversive. The new form could not be an improvement on the old. How can one method or set of words ordain someone better than another? The alteration of the form can only have had the intention of either negating this purpose, or, at the very least, of creating a doubt as to its efficacy. (As if it needs to be said: They could not have added something to the form by taking words away. And what could they have wanted to add to the power of Orders? Why did they touch the form at all?) - Excerpt from the book, "Who Shall Ascend?
You make a strong point here, "Why change something, if you have no intention of actually changing it?" If I remember correctly, Paul VI decreed at the end of the council that all liturgical books should be reviewed and brought up to date with the council, i.e. changed when necessary. So I suppose the argument runs then that when the rite of priestly ordination was reviewed "in light of the council" it was decided that fewer changes were necessary, but then when it came to the episcopal rite then more were deemed necessary. As you point out, "Why?" Something was missing before, so we call into question the validity of the previous rite. It seems more clearly the case, they wanted add something. I believe that a strong argument can certainly be made that most Bishops understand their duties and functions differently from the new rite formulation.
Very well done. I thought the recent episode about Benedict-is-still-Pope, although good, left a few loose ends. Here, Fr McFarland is dealing with some arguments that are just not particularly strong, and handles them with appropriate decisiveness.
Well, when I first heard of a non Catholic baptizing, I asked to myself, doesn't he has to believe, in irder to say: I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit... how could a pagan baptize without knowing and w/o intention...? The intention is required for the sacrament to happen...?? Can they really baptize w/o knowing and w/o intention..?? What happens uf a bishop doesn't really have the 'intention' of ordaining a seminarian...? Does the ordination take place just by saying the words...??? We'r really living in very confusing times.. Lord have mercy!!
Father did not address the validity of the Novus Ordo. If the Novus Ordo is valid and good to go, what is the point for the existence of the SSPX??? Why not just get ordained in the Novus Ordo?
If they were ordained in Antipope Paul VI’s new rite of ordination, then no, they were not validly ordained priests and must not be approached for communion or confession.
How does Fr. McFarland know the mind of God the Father and how He is displeased with the Sacraments of the Orthodox? How could God the Father view His Son in the Blessed Sacrament as not good?
You have to go back and listen to what Fr was explaining.Remember these priests are well educated this is their life and sometimes when I am in conversation with one of the priests from sspv or sspx I have to ask the Fathers to elaborate on what they were saying .Because not all of us are well educated in doctrines .So at times you need to listen at least 3 or 4 times to understand
Hopefully that might help because like Ive stated I too get perplexed on what the priests are talking to me about and I have to ask them if they can dumb it down for me and they will these priests are more than willing to share their knowledge God Bless
Some point out that the new rite does not clearly refer to the “sacrificing priesthood”- which was not addressed- or iow that the priest is here to offer the sacrifice of the Mass and to forgive sins. This is a very concerning and frightening matter to many Catholics and it should be addressed with utter seriousness. Not mockingly or laughingly.: That priest is young and immature, no doubt. I ask how Christ can endure clown masses?! Clown “ masses”, which sprung from the new “ valid” rite?! Well. He doesn’t.! See all the rotten fruit of the “valid” new rites that God is blessing us with? Ridiculous, of course! The new mass is the abomination of desolation prophesied in the Bible, Is SSPX supplemented by Rome?
I sincerely appreciate your discussion and your clear, thoughtful and the approachable style. Please keep these videos going! Paul Bradshaw and colleagues at Notre Dame have shown conclusively that the so-called Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus is, as Marcel Metzger said, a “phantom document.” It was not written by the attributed author or indeed any one author. It isn’t Roman or even Western. It probably doesn’t even record any liturgical tradition that ever actually existed. It is not anything it claims to be. The tragedy of this discovery is that this “phantom document” was used as the primary basis for the new liturgies made after Vatican 2. It was used as the basis for the most used Eucharistic Prayer (number 2), the Rite of Holy Orders and solely depended upon for the creation of RCIA. Thank you for helping to clarify how important it is to return to our tradition.
Not true, the issue is whether it was written in Rome in the 3rd century or perhaps the Church in Alexandria from the 3rd to 4th century. There are 5th century copies of it. So it is either from Rome or Alexandria.
Father seems to be very learned, but he has not answered my question, which is, "why do the bishops, using the new rite, lay their hands on the head of a candidate for priest/bishop without saying anything?" Do they think words or prayers in their head? If a priest is baptizing someone he has to say the words, "I baptize you in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" WHILE he is pouring the water on the head of the one being baptized. No one would accept baptism without words and water at the same time. So why is the bishop not saying any word as he lays his hands on the man's head. BUT, in the old rite, words were said as the bishop laid his hands on the man's head. Watch videos of ordinations or attend an ordination in the Roman Catholic Church and you will see what I'm talking about. Of course, Jesus said, that there would by only a remnant left when He returned. Maybe this is what He was talking about. Oh well, 'nuff said. It's too late to change it now.
@@SSPX Ok, I heard the answer. But I understand as well AB Lefebv required conditional ordination. I dont think this is disputed. Was Lefebv truely uniformed as implied in the answer? Are you saying he not done proper research, ect? Was mistaken? That he should have believed 100% NO ordinations were valid? You are really not clear on this.
@@joehathorn2985 I think the point is that, like everything else, in the beginning of the discovery of the crisis, it was safe to assume that we should resort to what we know worked for hundreds or thousands of years, instead of things associated with the Revolution. A conditional sacrament is not offensive to God, since it is conditional, and since it is done precisely to avoid offending God, otherwise it wouldn't be conditional, but absolute.
We have also to consider that in these years ('70, '80) there were crazy bishops who don't use the neither the new rite because they thought that it was still too conservative. So, it's obvious that if a deacon is ordained with strange formulas, created by the community, you can have doubts about the validity of his ordination. But these are significant exceptions that confirm the rule
So if a liberal Lutheran minister baptized me and, say, had an erroneous view of what such a Sacrament constituted, would that still qualify as "intending to do what the Church does". Thanks.
An SSPX priest would do a full investigation of the baptism, and establish if there was doubt. But, for reference, this was the Holy See’s response to the following questions concerning the Methodist baptisms in Oceania (1872): 1. Whether baptism administered by those heretics [Methodists] is doubtful on account of defect of intention to do what Christ willed, if an express declaration was made by the minister before he baptised that baptism had no effect on the soul? 2. Whether baptism so conferred is doubtful if the aforesaid declaration was not expressly made immediately before the conferring of baptism, but had often been asserted by the minister, and the same doctrine was openly preached in that sect? Reply to the first question: in the negative, because despite the error about the effects of baptism, the intention of doing what the Church does is not excluded. The second question: provided for in the answer to the first. (Acta Sanctae Sedis, Vol. XXV, p. 246.)
I was under the impression that VII eliminated 6 of the 8 orders to become a Catholic priest in the seminaries. Doesn't the SSPX required that Novus Order priests have to get those 6 orders before being accepted into the Society?
It's on a case-by-case basis. Those minor orders are not required, strictly, for a valid ordination to the priesthood. Is it better? Of course. But that's a different question than valid.
i am confused. the Rev. Father says the Eastern Orthodox have a valid Sacrament. But they are in schism and therefore are not pleasing to God. I thought the SSPX is also in a state of schism. is he not condemning the SSPX Mass as well as not pleasing to God? with all that is going on in the catholic church, the sspx is a safe place for spirituality. but the state of schism scares me.
Sspx is not in schism. They're in a state of "irregular canonical", which basically means that the Vatican has no way to prove they're in schism and can't deny much less argue their central issues with Vatican 2 and the New mass. SSPX is in a very odd position within the church. Both being on the inside compared to schismatics and independent Catholic organizations, but also on the outside when compared to a local diocesan parish. Now to be in schism does not take away from someone's valid sacraments. Just like being in sin doesn't mean you can't attend mass or do good works. Although you should obviously go to confession and do penance to return to grace and communion with God and the Church. So the Eastern Orthodox have valid sacraments in the sense that they're liturgy and some sacraments practiced are valid. But they're actions are schismatic because they refuse to acknowledge the Roman bishop as first among equals. In addition there is issues dealing with the understanding of the Trinity and other minor, but noticable differences that stem from disobedience to the Papacy.
As a lead in he blames sedevacantists, staunch traditionalists and some priests etc. , so let’s guess: Yes the new rite is valid? Does he need to say more?
Re: SSPX I always sort of shrink when I hear that society speaking like there are two levels in Catholicism... Their level as being superior and holy (better dressed) and (better postures), and the Holy Catholic Church as being sort of irreverent... At 78, I lived through the Latin Mass, and came out of the Mass not having understood much in that language. I still love to reminisce about those good old days, but since Mother Church is a good mother; she decided that each faithful would be better served hearing the Mass in their own language...I immediately cheered that decision indeed. Please don*t tell me that back in those days that I was receiving Holy Communion in a more reverent way, as one grows in the love of receiving the Body, Blood Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. Ps One should not even notice if others are receiving on the tongue or in the hand if one is concentrated on who one receives.
It seems to me that you have not coped with the question of the intention. What if the man denies resurrection? Or is it enough to have same minimal intention as in the case of baptism from pagan hands?
I'm intrigued by the remark at 17:25... Does this mean that in atypical and rare circumstances, couples can be considered "married" by God without a priest performing the rite of marriage? Like Adam and Eve, etc...?
In certain circumstances, yes. Priests in missionary lands who could only make it to a place 2 or 3 times a year would come to bless the marriages - which had already been validly done by the couple. This is of course very rare but it's valid / licit / etc.
Hello! I have a question. I hope if SSPX doesn't respond, someone else can answer for me. I badly want to attend an SSPX chapel. My beliefs are aligned with the SSPX. However, the only local SSPX chapel is nearly an hour away from me and I currently cannot be attending. I am a baptized, but non-confirmed catholic missing first communion. As a result, I have to seek confirmation at a dioscean parish (which thankfully offers the TLM, but that may not be the case soon as Pope Francis seeks to destroy the TLM) Will my confirmation still be valid, even though it is not in an SSPX chapel?
Did this priest mean there should not be consecration of the Eucharist outside of a church when he spoke of it at his desk? Or did he mean without the rest of the mass?
There isn’t a SSPX near me... we’d love to join a community!!!! We have a diocesan Latin mass and I question our priests validity because he is a Vatican ll priests😱
This still doesn’t necessarily mean that everything that happens at a diocesan Mass is good. I would refer to Fr Robinson’s episode about “should I go to the Novus Ordo?”
In times of Lefebvre SSPX-priests told us to stay away from the novus ordo, n.o. 'priests' were re-ordained by a SSPX Bishop sub conditione. Now it seems not necessary anymore...
@@calebadcock363 Sorry I know that the question was not intended for me, but yes, even a non-baptized person can baptize validly as long as he/she uses the proper matter and form with the intention to do as the church does.
In case your question is actually serious, and not trolling... It means he's validly ordained. Who you choose as your spiritual director is a matter of your prudence. And since you're on this channel, we would presume your prudence would not lead you to actually conclude this.
No, because the Anglicans made changes to the ordination without the authority of the magisterium while the Church changed the ordination through the magisterium. Its not valid to compare anglicans to catholics.
Do you mean like via "interdict" over a particular area? Or do you mean, e.g., "Confirmation is no longer a thing."? If the former, yes, if the latter, no. The sacraments were instituted by Christ, therefore they cannot be done away with by man, even by a validly elected pope.
So glad I am a protestant and believe in the PRIESTHOOD OF ALL BELIEVERS where this is not even remotely an issue. God isn't limited to the ridiculous words you have invented.
What Sacraments did Jesus give us ? If they have changed the Sacraments instituted by Jesus Christ then the Sacraments are not of Jesus Christ. My advice want true worship go join the Orthodox.
I am not a member of SSPX but as I listen to the theological explanations of the society, I find the position of the society to be very compelling - and very Catholic!
Yes, although technically only priests and religious of the SSPX are it's members. The laity which only attends their masses do not count as members of the SSPX.
Even though I left Catholisism I'm 75 years old and my family for hundreds of years then I was educated in Tridentine.
We were taught the Tridentine Latin Mass was Perpetual and couldn't be changed.
The Jewish Passover Prayers said in the Temple in Jerusalem are in the Tridentine Mass.
I really appreciate this Crisis in the Church series podcast; it's a great source for my Catholic formation; please, continue it.
God bless you
Sancte Pie Decime, ora pro nobis
¡Viva Cristo Rey y María Reina!
I HAVE NO FAITH in anything related to Vatican II. I'm not a sedavacantist or hard nose traditionalist. I've been scandalized by Vatican II. I was involved and present in the Norvus Ordo mass for over 50 years. I was present at Masses where the Holy Tabernacle was cast to the side; I was present at Masses where the consecrated host is received in the hand; I was present where our priest would carry his dog as he processed to the altar; I was present at Masses where native American dancing rituals occurred around the altar. I'm the wounded soldier who fell in love with the nurse (SSPX) who bandaged the wounds. Although the issue is the validity of ordinations....It's the Spirit of Vatican II. I believe the ordinations are doubtful as was the position of Archbishop Lefebvre. I pray the SSPX would revisit this.
St. Thomas Aquinas- "It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter's subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Galatians 2:11, "Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects." (Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 33, a. 4,ad.2.)
In Christ & IHM, Joanne B.
Sounds like a personal opinion to me. You sound like Martin Luther.
@@hexahexametermeter Correct, the Rite of Consecration for Bishop is the same. So the Bishops are valid, therefore the priests they ordain are valid. And as Father said, the Eastern Orthodox Rites for consecration of Bishops and priests is not the same Rite. Pope Pius XII said that in His 1947 Apostolic Letter Sacramentum Ordinis
On the Sacrament of Order issued 30 November 1947. And what Father said about the Gospels on the head of the deacon being ordained as priest is done in the Orthodox Church, and those RItes were deemed valid at the Council of Florence (See Pope Pius XII Sacramentum Ordinis paragraph 3).
@@hexahexametermetersounds similar to my NO experience. Anglican aped service is not Catholic no matter how hard we do violence to Truth
@@PalermoTrapani Why are you saying this? The new rite of consecration is not the same. Antipope Paul VI changed the form and made many deletions to other important prayers. If you actually put the new rite of ordination next to the invalid Anglican rite, you will see that the Vatican 2 rite actually has MORE deletions than the Anglicans. So if Pope Leo XIII said the Anglican rite is invalid because of the deletions, if the Novus Ordo deleted the same prayers and then more there is no way to prove the Vatican 2 sect has valid ordinations. It is really that simple.
Just because the matter (laying on of hands) is the same doesn't make the new rites valid. There is also the form (the prayers being said) and the intention (determined by the rest of the ceremony). The Vatican 2 sect does not have valid form and intention because of the deletions and after all these years they don't have many bishops left to the minister is lacking too.
Fr. McFarland's explanation of the the theological and spiritual matters involved is so clear and accessible that I as a non Catholic layman can easily understand the meaning and importance of the Catholic sacraments in form and meaning. Fr McFarland's discussions here are drawing me closer to the Catholic faith. And more than that to the true traditional Catholic faith.
Yes! I was skeptical, by seeing how young he's, but he did a better job than most older priests. Actually I started to noticed that the priestess that was ordained after the 2000s are doing a better job, teaching the true Gaspel, than ones prior, but after the 60s. That goes also to the bishops, the ones ordained during and after the feel good era( ✌️ &❤). They did a great damage to the Roman Catholic Church.
“Once there are no more valid priests they’ll
permit the Latin Mass.”
- Rev. Carl Pulvermacher OFMCap
Former Editor, The Angelus
I am a lawyer and, listening to Father’s explanations of ‘intention’ and ‘action’ , it makes me realise how much of the thinking of the Church is repeated in legal principles. The principle of ‘if the priest says the words and does the act being sufficient for the validity on the part of the congregant ‘ is, besides being a protection against scrupulousity, the position of third parties in the law, who cannot be penalised by a fault resulting from a negligent or deliberate act that is not apparent to a stranger to the internal machinations - it is simply fairness. The courts and our legal principles derived from both the king’s court (common law) and the (Catholic) Church (Equity) and these concepts travelled from the influence of the Church into the common law.
God can still act outside of the sacraments
Thank you very much to the SSPX who are carrying the legacy of your great founder Cardinal Le Fevbre who holds on to the true teachings of the Catholic Church Founded by Jesus Christ.God Bless.Amen.
When I was a sedevacantist , I decided to really examine the validity issiue , once I began to really learn what the arguments were (pro and con). I was astonished at how ridiculous the arguments were for invalidity, This made me realize I was putting my trust in people who had very little understanding of sacramental theology, I decided to put my trust in the Church instead.
Interesting story
Boom, good job God bless.
Which church do you refer to? Pre or post Vatican II?
I need some help from you then. How did you argue that it was in fact valid, to sedevacantists?
@@norwegiancatholicism9106 just explain to them about Matters, form, intention, and who capables doing it. Watch this video and you'll get everything what you need for explanations.
LEX OPERE OPERATO
Thank you Fr. McFarland! My friend Jeffrey Tillery sent me this and many other podcasts, TH-cam etc. regarding on the misconception of the FSSPX. What a gift to learn the truth!
So appreciative of this series. I am learning all the time.
Archbishop Lefebvre, letter of 28 Oct. 1988: "All sacraments from the modernists bishops or priests are doubtful now."
Bp Tissier de Mallerais, sermon from June 29, 2016 at Econe: “Clearly, we cannot accept this faked new rite of ordination that leaves doubts concerning the validity of numerous ordinations done according to the new rite. Thus this new rite of ordination is not Catholic."
Fr Alvaro Calderon, SSPX, in the Spanish language review Si Si No No (November 2014), he speaks of a “slight doubt,” a “shadow” concerning the validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration in itself (see Le Sel de la terre 92, p. 172).
I will never leave you nor forsake you!! The only place I heard a person suggest that NO consecrations were invalid was at an SSPX Church, this is comforting, than you Father.
this is on the SSPX's website right now..
"... if the new rite is still valid per se, it is quite possible that, owing to bad translations or an adaptation of the rite that strayed too far from the original, or because of a consecrator’s defect of intention, in certain particular cases we could have an invalid ceremony."
Here in Spain, te masses and ordinations have a very concrete catholic intention. For example, in the mass it is clear they are talking about the sacrifice of Christ. Not a conmemorative protestant supper.
Can I have the link?
It's not officially their positions. It's some opinion of the priest. Mgr. Fellay said the new rites sacraments are undoubtedly valid. But some offending God
Well that was well-timed. I had just watched Father Cekada's (May he rest in peace) interview regarding the "invalidity" of episcopal ordinations since V2. While his information was fascinating, the approach of the SSPX makes much more sense to me.
For the sake of souls, a bishop(s) of the SSPX and sede bishop(s) should have an open debates on this and other issues.
Another highly informative episode. Thank you for this series.
The SSPX priests are so literate in catholic dogma
Yes. The series really drives that home.
I think it speaks to the strength of their seminary formation.
Even some protestants' friend of mine says theyre good in literation and explaining
'All authority in Heaven and on Earth has been given to Me.
Therefore go and make disciples of ALL Nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit - and teaching them to obey ALL that I have commanded you.
And surely I am with you always - even to the end of the age'.
The words of Our Lord Jesus Christ leave room for no grey areas.
In the form of Baptism, that is correct.
@@SSPX -
Thank you for your response.
With great respect it certainly follows that there is no salvation outside the one Holy and Apostolic Chuch.
Our sacred mission is to convert.
All attempts to invert and/or to adulterate the teachings of our beautiful Church - or make accomodations with the 'spirit of the age' - must surely be seen for what they are. Long term enemy subversion.
Archbishop Lefebvre pray for us!
I anxiously want to be convinced that the new rite of ordination is valid, but I am not... I just don't think that the devil changed it for no reason.
I doubt there is one SSPX priest that believes with certainty of faith that a Novus Ordo priest is validly ordained, if they did, they would have gone to a Novus Ordo seminary or the Fraternity of St. Peter, ICK and done the indult mass at a diocese. It is easy to tell others what to believe when it does not apply to you (= the Novus Ordo ordinations are valid, but I did not choose to be Novus Ordo ordained).
No, because a valid rite is not always a good rite. That's the difference
@@lucafarina8601think about what you just said. The church produced an official rite that is not good? Goodness is truth. Can the church produce and promulgate anything in her official capacity as the “bulwark of truth” that lacks goodness/truth?
Did I miss Father addressing the missing powers being conferred on the priests in the new rite? I attended my first ordinations in Winona and that same year went to Novus Ordo ordinations in St. Louis. I was scandalized that the new rite didn't include all the powers of the priest and the program booklet was less than half the thickness of the original ordinations
Paul VI woke up one day and said - I’m changing the rite of the priesthood. Was it for good reason? Why was it changed? Intent matters. Intent validates or invalidates a sacrament. What was Paul VI’s intent? Do we even know?im still afraid to go to confession to a new rite/ ordo priest bc I fear he is not a real priest. But I want to believe this young priest very much in saying the new rite is not preferred but still valid. Been praying for St. Pius V intervention. God help us all and let His ears be attentive to our supplication!
Very thankful for this and all the podcasts you have done
Why was it necessary to change the rite of Episcopal concentration? The fruit of the change is doubt, confusion and division. Same with all the Vatican II changes. Didnt our Lord say we would know them by their fruits?
I thank God for you Father, I will re-visit this video, it helped me so much to clear so many doubts.
I heard of a priest who saw his infant baptism video and discovered the correct form or words were not used. I also heard of using cooking oil for Confirmation etc. If many of the guys at the top do not believe in the resurrection who’s to say they care about doing sacraments right? I am thinking that Conciliar converts to orthodoxy should be treated like Protestant converts and give them conditional sacraments.
Yes, and they do that. I get sub conditione baptism from a SSPX priest
Wait so does that mean he received all those sacraments invalidly? I am so sorry for that guy.
The LOGOS asks: If a successive pope has equal power to a previous pope, how can a succeeding pope contradict a previous pope? Modern convenience?
Such an important video in this series. Thank you.
Many have been misled by various groups out there with erroneous teachings to leave the Church. Such groups monopolize on the laity's lack of education in or access to Canon Law and other principles which govern Church structure.
What of the case, as Cardinal Sarah brought up, of “we” Baptisms? I can understand the allowance for honest mistakes in form and even intentions. Yet, what if these priests repeatedly and willingly performed sacramental acts contrary to the doctrinal form and intention of the Church? For instance, providing for a broom with which the bride and groom (or husband and wife of a renewal of vows) can hop over, in front of the altar, at a pagan-styled marriage ceremony? Or anointing the whole church body with Christ oil the week following a bishops’s confirmation of the candidates? Or the priest uses known and public believers in “sins which cry out to heaven” for Eucharistic ministry? In all such cases, the congregations held grossly incorrect understandings of the faith, and the priest seemed to placate them. When you or your children received baptism or confirmation from one or more of them (concelebrated) and seeing blatant errors and not simple mistakes at other times, would one not be right to be concerned?
The "we" baptisms are always invalid
I want to follow the Church through the sspx so bad because I feel attracted because you all seem to truly have the Truth of Christ. I’m just fearful I could go the wrong direction because of everyone shouting schism! schism! schism! I just want the Truth… sspx seems to have it. I just don’t want to displease our God. I just don’t know quite what to do, especially as I’ve discerned religious life
Feel free to contact vocations@sspx.org
All the Popes from Paul VI to Francis (except JPI who died early in his pontificate) tell people not to attend SSPX because it's schismatic. Pope Francis himself says SSPX is in schism in his letter accompanying "Traditionis Custodes." (Read fully the quotes below).
1. Pope Paul VI on the (schism) withdrawal of canonical recognition from the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) June 29, 1975:
" … Our grief is even greater to note that the decision of the competent authority - although formulated very clearly, and fully justified, it may be said, by your refusal to modify your public and persistent opposition to the Second Vatican Council, to the post-conciliar reforms, and to the orientations to which the Pope himself is committed.
" Finally, the conclusions which [the Commission of Cardinals] proposed to Us, We made all and each of them Ours, and We personally ordered that they be immediately put into force."
Source: PAUL VI, "Lettre de S. S. Le Pape Paul VI a Mgr. Lefebvre," 29 June 1975, La Documentation Catholique, n. 1689, trans. in M. DAVIES, Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, p. 113.
2. Here is what Pope St. John Paul II says about SSPX schism in his Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, February 7, 1988:
" In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of CEASING THEIR SUPPORT IN ANY WAY FOR THAT MOVEMENT. Everyone should be aware that formal ADHERENCE TO THE SCHISM IS A GRAVE OFFENCE AGAINST GOD and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law."
www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei.html
3. Here's what the Pope Benedict XVI says in his Letter to the Bishops dated March 10, 2009::
"The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church.
"In order to make this clear once again: UNTIL THE DOCTRINAL QUESTIONS ARE CLARIFIED, THE SOCIETY HAS NO CANONICAL STATUS IN THE CHURCH, and its ministers - even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty - do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church…
"This will make it clear that the problems now to be addressed are essentially DOCTRINAL in nature and concern primarily THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL AND THE POST-CONCILIAR MAGISTERIUM OF THE POPES.
"The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 - this must be quite clear to the Society.
www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica.html
4. Pope Francis did give SSPX the faculty to hear confessions legally and validly, because it does not contradict Canon Law. There have always been exceptional circumstances or instances of necessity in which the Church recognizes as valid and licit the reception of sacraments from priests who may be immoral, schismatic, irreligious, laicized, or even non-Catholic, provided their denominations have sacramental confessions.
Canon 844 §2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.
Canon 976 Even though a priest lacks the faculty to hear confessions, he absolves validly and licitly any penitents whatsoever in danger of death from any censures and sins, even if an approved priest is present.
While Pope Francis' gesture of mercy shows an important precedent -- for the good of souls, the Church has the power to grant faculties even to priests who are not in good standing -- it is nevertheless NOT AN APPROVAL OF THEM - not an approval of SSPX, or their situation.
5. Pope Francis in his letter Misericordia et Misera, November 20, 2916: “For the pastoral benefit of these faithful (who attend churches officiated by the SSPX ) and trusting in the good will of their priests to strive with God’s HELP FOR THE RECOVERY OF FULL COMMUNION IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, I have personally decided to extend this faculty beyond the Jubilee Year, until further provisions are made, lest anyone be deprived of the sacramental sign of reconciliation through the Church’s pardon.”
www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_letters/documents/papa-francesco-lettera-ap_20161120_misericordia-et-misera.html
Very clearly, Pope Francis' motu proprio shows there is still the need for SSPX “to recover full communion in the Catholic Church.” Therefore, Pope Benedict's statement on SSPX's non-canonical status in the Church still stands.
6. Pope Francis' letter, dated July 16, 2021, that accompanies Traditionis Custodes, he specifically mentioned SSPX to be in "schism." Here's the 2nd paragraph, fully quoted:
"Most people understand the motives that prompted St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI to allow the use of the Roman Missal, promulgated by St. Pius V and edited by St. John XXIII in 1962, for the Eucharistic Sacrifice. The faculty - granted by the indult of the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1984 and confirmed by St. John Paul II in the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei in 1988 - was above all MOTIVATED BY THE DESIRE TO FOSTER THE HEALING OF THE SCHISM WITH THE MOVEMENT OF MONS. LEFEBVRE. With the ecclesial intention of restoring the unity of the Church, the Bishops were thus asked to accept with generosity the “just aspirations” of the faithful who requested the use of that Missal."
www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/motu_proprio/documents/20210716-motu-proprio-traditionis-custodes.html
7. About the SSPX faculty to officiate in Catholic weddings (Letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith dated March 27, 2017). It states that with the diocese's permission, an SSPX priest may officiate in a Catholic wedding but only if there is no diocesan or religious priest available, and the documents must be forwarded to the diocesan curia. It should be remembered, too, that in the sacrament of matrimony, the ministers are the couple themselves. A priest is only there to witness for the Church and receive the couple's consent.
Other than those limited faculties, the sacraments of the SSPX. Although valid, are not recognized by the Church because, as Pope Benedict XVI writes, the Society has no canonical status and no legitimate ministry in the Church.
8. Many people, including bishops, who say SSPX is not in schism or has reconciled with the Church, should be able to produce a document similar to Pope John Paul II's letter welcoming the SSPX in Campos, Brazil (now the Union of St. John Mary Vianney) into the fold, otherwise they should not be believed. Here's the link to Pope JPII letter:
www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4141
Thanks. God bless you.
@@marietta1335You just put more legalistic fear on him! You forgot any charity. Be gone in Christ Name!
@@marietta1335you are a classic legalistic Pope splainer . You missunstand the fact of all those popes you quotes are all modernist bent on changing Catholic doctrine and dogma. You're great at your legalistic gibberish but have no real understanding of true charity and Catholic teachings. you are creating disunity
Very interesting. The last point is curious but if you think it's very correct: imagine a bishop that uses formulas created by him, like "We, the community of the Church, call you priest...now you are!!". It's obvious that you need a real ordination. But these are the exceptions that confirm the rule.
The new form for episcopal consecration is pretty much the same form the Anglicans use which Pope Lio XIII declared to be absolutely null and void.
That's an apples / oranges argument - one also has to look at the minister, not just the form. As well as the intent - are they really intending to do what the Catholic Church does? The answer is obviously problematic for both the minister and the intent, so that would invalidate the Anglican ordination, even if the form is the same as what the Catholic Church currently uses.
the modern Episcopal Church USA one is copied from the Vatican 2 version, not sure about Church of England's. The Vatican 2 one is based on a reconstruction of "Apostolic Tradtion", which is likely not from St Hippolytus of Rome but rather much more likely to be out of Egypt . While it seems vague this cant be really held agains it, the Byzantine rite bishop ordination rite, while totally different than the Novus Ordo, is also rather vague and unclear with a bishop's functions beyond saying they are making a bishop - and it is needless to say the Byzantine is of course 100% valid.
The Coptic bishop ordination prayer is similar to the Novus Ordo, and as the Novus Ordo th Coptic one is certainly inspiried by what is certainly a common origin or relative with the ancient document "Apostolic Tradition", but certainly not identical with the Novus Ordo version (and indeed compared to the Novus Ordo the Coptic is more specific and I would say orthodox), espiecailly considering the beauty of the Coptic one compared to the Novus Ordo one.
the idea of modern holy orders vexes my mind, but I fear God if I am wrong so I will not attack the new bishop rite (nor defend it, the old Roman rite didn't need to be changed and should of stayed - before there was no doubt, why is there now? because they changed things for no reason expect wanting to leave their mark. if i was alive in those days i would have a panic attack out of fear and guilt changing a divine service to suit my ideas).
As I recall, the original Anglican form was just "receive the Holy Ghost", an invalid form. They changed it later, to a form that would be valid (no idea if it's the same as now or not) but by the time they did that it was too late; they had no valid bishops anymore.
@@SSPXthe form has changed which makes it invalid.
Thx Father
My name is David,and I'm going to be a semanarian in Scotland there's a sspx priory in Glasgow wher I live looking after my mum who lives with me,as you see I'm using her gigabites,so it's true the sspx as malichi Martin said are valid priest's who give valid masses,and he said I believe Marcel Lefebvre was a boon from God,the older he got he took shine to sspx, saying he believed Marcel to be a saint,used by God to counter act the corruption in a sharp jolting way,so pray for me that I may go through seminari,and eventually become a priest,this is been helpful thanks
And does not the term "governing spirit" ("spiritus principalis") in the new ep. consecr. rite (now called episcopal "ordination"-rite) only be sufficient for validity if you presuppose the theory of Lumen Gentium, that the episcopal jurisdiction is given together with the episcopal consecration/ordination? And is not this very concept of the Lumen-Gentium-episcopal-theory rejected in some other Crisis-Series here, at least by Fr. Tranquillo?
one reason i attend the latin mass- is because i found the new mass along with v2 a very very doubtful and invalid
It seems to me that this is the perfect storm Satan has planned - to make the validity under divine law vs canon law so convoluted that most laity and even most priests would have no idea if the relevant sacrament is valid. The same is true of the papacy, papal encyclicals and teaching, and fraternal orders, not to mention the Orthodox, etc. The lines are being blurred intentionally. It may be time to draw some hard lines rather than attempting to sort through canonical definitions of validity. I really think that is exactly what God is doing in the world today - drawing clear lines of distinction such that those who are faithful can remain in the true Church while the Ape of the Church draws most away to the broad road of destruction.
Good video, helpful for keeping people from going sedevacantist which happens too often these days
What if Bugnini and the Vatican II fathers were free@sons bent on destroying the Church
Now I see why the SSPX Marian corps exists. I sense some major compromise here. The sarcastic/sort of mocking tone against sedevacantists also reminds me of when conspiracy theorists are supposedly “debunked” by the very conspirators that they are trying to expose.
Thanks be To God that He said the Gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church. With that said, if all the Vatican II Bishops and Cardinals were Free Masons, then the Popes that preceded Vatican II failed as they all were appointed by Popes prior to Vatican II.
But my question is that V2 stopped the 4 minor holy orders which are (Porter,Exorcist,Acolyte,Lector)and the major order subdiaconate.in 1972 new church like the Protestants do not officially use the traditional terms “ORDINATION” and ‘CONSECRATION’ but installation same as the protestants .in 1968 a year before the invalid fake new mess was was published.new church already dumped the sacrament of holy orders and replaced it with new ordinal.Consequently new church has not ordained priests since 1968 but what it officially calls presbyters who are like Protestant ministers with no power to offer mass or confect the most Blessed Sacrament
Finding into the SSPX I have run into and befriended some sedes. Thought some of their beliefs on invalid consecrations sounded fishy and this certainly clears things up. Thank you!
i pray the rosary that SSPX FOR VOCATION AVE AVE AVE MARIA
As I have mentioned before in comments to previous episodes, I am from India and have been faithfully following all of your episodes. I am very grateful for the clarity with which your priests explain the topics.
However I have a question that concerns this as well as the previous episodes (23,24 &25) on the validity of the New Mass.
As explained by Father McFarland, the validity of a Sacrament depends on 3 criteria 1) Matter 2) Form and 3) Intention.
Father has tried to explain that the validity of the Sacrament of Holy Orders as applicable to the Episcopal consecration is valid more because of the intention rather than the form which has actually been changed.
However I re-viewed episodes 23 ,24 and 25 , where the priests go to great lengths to demonstrate that in the post Vatican2 church, the intention of the Mass has been substantially changed from that of a Sacrifice of propitiation to that of a communal meal
My question is whether the intention required of the priest should match that of the visible church ( church militant) or the church of all time ( which includes the church triumphant and suffering).
What happens when the intention of the entire present church changes from the intention of the traditional mass?. How is the mass valid in that case?.
Briefly:
“The Council of Trent does not mention the purpose of the sacrament or say that the minister must intend to do what the Church intends, but what the Church does."
(St. Robert Bellarmine, De Sacramentis in genere, lb. IV cap. 27 n. 13, quoted in the reply of the Holy Office to the Apostolic Vicar of Central Oceana, given 18 Dec. 1872; cf. Denzinger-Schonmetzer (DS) 3102, p. 602; cf. archive.org/details/denzinger-schonmetzer-enchiridion-symbolorum-1957/page/294/mode/2up p. 294).
In other words, an error about the effect of a given sacrament (e.g., whether baptism removes sin and infuses grace) does not of itself remove that minimum intention that is necessary and sufficient for validity - namely, to perform the sacred ceremony that was instituted by Christ and is now in use in the Church.
The response of the Holy Office refers to the following case:
“Question: 1. Whether baptism administered by those heretics is doubtful on account of defect of intention to do what Christ willed, if an express declaration was made by the minister before he baptized that baptism had no effect on the soul?
“Question 2. Whether baptism so conferred is doubtful if the aforesaid declaration was not expressly made immediately before the conferring of baptism, but had often been asserted by the minister, and the same doctrine was openly preached in that sect?"
After some preliminary words of explanation (including the quote from St. Robert Bellarmine above), the Holy Office concludes:
“Reply to the first question: In the negative; because despite the error about the effects of baptism, the intention of doing what the Church is not excluded.
“Reply to the second question: Provided for in the answer to the first."
(English translation found here: www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/inte.html )
It may be helpful to quote St. Thomas: "If [the minister's] faith be defective in regard to the very sacrament that he confers, although he believe that no inward effect is caused by the thing done outwardly, yet he does know that the Catholic Church intends to confer a sacrament by that which is outwardly done. Wherefore, his unbelief notwithstanding, he can intend to do what the Church does, albeit he esteem it to be nothing. And such an intention suffices for a sacrament: because as stated above, the minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the Church by whose faith any defect in the minister’s faith is made good." (Summa Theologica, III, 64, 9 ad 1).
Also, there are many statements in the question/objection that we cannot agree with.
1. The visible Church is not a reality adequately distinct from the Church of all time. If that were true, the Church of all time would be a simple abstract concept in the mind without any concrete existence here on earth.
2. It is wrong to say that the Church's understanding of Holy Orders has changed. Unfortunately some men of the Church have a corrupt understanding of Holy Orders and have tried to impose that understanding on the Church by introducing ambiguous or misleading formulas into the liturgy. But that does not alter the faith of the Church as such.
3. Fr. McFarland did not say that the new rite of Episcopal Consecration is valid "more because of the intention rather than the form." There must always be a valid sacramental form. The point is that very different wordings can result in the same basic signification, and this allows for change/variety. There is more than one way to verbally designate the grace and office of the episcopacy, or priesthood, or whatever.
Fr. William MacGillivray
Thank you father 🙏
A thing, an intention, an act and an idea that is "like" another one is obviously not the same one. Matt. 5:48 calls us to work toward a perfect standard in all things as far as what can be discovered within human limits because this is what is due and reciprocates Perfect Justice from God. Satan works by the smallest deviation to increase his followers so as not to raise suspicions up to a point that the modified thing becomes undeniable "bad fruit". Everything about Vatican II and all its supporters must be swept away from Church honor based on the dishonest stated intentions at the time.
I believe there was discussion as late as Pius XII about the essential element in the ceremony that confers episcopal orders.
Sacramentum Ordinis, 1949 gave the exact matter and form for the three stages of Holy Orders, and said that if any change to the form is made, and the words do not have the meaning given here, the sacrament is invalid.
Compare the old rite vs the new rite in consecrating a bishop.
They have absolutely nothing in common.
@@Mike-pf1ru No what Sacramentum Ordinis says, which was in fact issued 30 November 1947, not 1949 (Did you actually read it) clearly says what is "essential Matter and Form." For a Bishop it is the laying on of hands (Matter) and form is 25 words. Furthermore, in that same document, Pope Pius XII in paragraph 3 clearly says that the Rite of Consecration for Bishops in the Orthodox Church, which is not the exact same as the Latin, was viewed as valid with respect to essential Matter and Form (and it does not follow the Roman Rite of Consecration).
My worry has never been over the form and matter, but the intention of Modernist bishops, and Archbishop Lefebvre shared the same concern. Hence he explicitly worries in Opened Letter to Confused Catholics that New Masses could in cases be invalid because priests may not intend to offer the true sacrifice of the Mass to God, even if the proper form and matter are used. Michael Davies writes the following:
"Every prayer in the traditional rite which stated specifically the essential role of a priest as a man ordained to offer propitiatory sacrifice for the living and dead has been removed. In most cases these were the precise prayers removed by the Protestant Reformers, [e.g., “Receive the power to offer sacrifice to God and to celebrate Mass, both for the living and the dead, in the name of the Lord”] or if not precisely the same there are clear parallels.... Their omission by the Protestant Reformers was taken by Pope Leo XIII as an indication of an intention not to consecrate sacrificing priests."
The SSPX website even has an article explaining this ("Must priests who come to Tradition be re-ordained") and it basically says the same: the rite is valid per se (as Fr. McFarland says), *but* we unfortunately have to deal with Modernist bishops who may have Anglican-like intents. It seems clear the Archbishop worried about this as well.
@@johndeighan2495 Yes, my point is it seems the Archbishop seemed concerned that possibly more was required in intent.
The validity of the Sacrament is determined by the act which is done ie ex opéré opérato. , not the disposition of the minister (ex opéré opérantis)
The very doubt which the change in the new rite of ordination creates, serves the malevolent purposes of the conspirators as well as does the certitude of invalidity, because from the doubt flows controversy, disagreements, factions, confusion, and disquietude among the clergy and the faithful.
The revisers had a reason for making changes, and particular reasons for each change they made. They cannot argue that their new formulas are identical to the old; that would be to admit that the changes mean nothing, and that, therefore, there was no reason to make them. To admit that they made changes for no reason whatsoever would be a sign of a most irreverent capriciousness and cynicism. Besides, such an explanation could only be regarded as a concealment.
The new forms (Latin and English) must be seen to say something different from the old. Furthermore, in
view of what the other changes in the liturgical rites have connoted, we are compelled to be suspicious. We should rather say, we have every reason to look for an effort at neuterizing this sacramental rite, because those in charge of the new rites have shown themselves untrustworthy, or, more accurately, determinedly subversive. The new form could not be an improvement on the old. How can one method or
set of words ordain someone better than another? The alteration of the form can only have had the intention of either negating this purpose, or, at the very least, of creating a doubt as to its efficacy. (As if it needs to be said: They could not have added something to the form by taking words away. And what could they have wanted to add to the power of Orders? Why did they touch the form at all?) - Excerpt from the book, "Who Shall Ascend?
You make a strong point here, "Why change something, if you have no intention of actually changing it?" If I remember correctly, Paul VI decreed at the end of the council that all liturgical books should be reviewed and brought up to date with the council, i.e. changed when necessary. So I suppose the argument runs then that when the rite of priestly ordination was reviewed "in light of the council" it was decided that fewer changes were necessary, but then when it came to the episcopal rite then more were deemed necessary. As you point out, "Why?" Something was missing before, so we call into question the validity of the previous rite. It seems more clearly the case, they wanted add something. I believe that a strong argument can certainly be made that most Bishops understand their duties and functions differently from the new rite formulation.
Very well done. I thought the recent episode about Benedict-is-still-Pope, although good, left a few loose ends.
Here, Fr McFarland is dealing with some arguments that are just not particularly strong, and handles them with appropriate decisiveness.
Why did past saints indicate that there would be a faulty church
Also explicitly stated in Scripture and in Marian Prophesy ...... .
Well, when I first heard of a non Catholic baptizing, I asked to myself, doesn't he has to believe, in irder to say: I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit... how could a pagan baptize without knowing and w/o intention...? The intention is required for the sacrament to happen...?? Can they really baptize w/o knowing and w/o intention..?? What happens uf a bishop doesn't really have the 'intention' of ordaining a seminarian...? Does the ordination take place just by saying the words...??? We'r really living in very confusing times.. Lord have mercy!!
This are the big questions
Father did not address the validity of the Novus Ordo. If the Novus Ordo is valid and good to go, what is the point for the existence of the SSPX??? Why not just get ordained in the Novus Ordo?
the novus ordo is, in theory, valid, but it does not mean it is good.
If they were ordained in Antipope Paul VI’s new rite of ordination, then no, they were not validly ordained priests and must not be approached for communion or confession.
How does Fr. McFarland know the mind of God the Father and how He is displeased with the Sacraments of the Orthodox? How could God the Father view His Son in the Blessed Sacrament as not good?
You have to go back and listen to what Fr was explaining.Remember these priests are well educated this is their life and sometimes when I am in conversation with one of the priests from sspv or sspx I have to ask the Fathers to elaborate on what they were saying .Because not all of us are well educated in doctrines .So at times you need to listen at least 3 or 4 times to understand
Hopefully that might help because like Ive stated I too get perplexed on what the priests are talking to me about and I have to ask them if they can dumb it down for me and they will these priests are more than willing to share their knowledge God Bless
Lex credendi legem statuat supplicandi - Mediator Dei
Some point out that the new rite does not clearly refer to the “sacrificing priesthood”- which was not addressed- or iow that the priest is here to offer the sacrifice of the Mass and to forgive sins. This is a very concerning and frightening matter to many Catholics and it should be addressed with utter seriousness. Not mockingly or laughingly.: That priest is young and immature, no doubt. I ask how Christ can endure clown masses?! Clown “ masses”, which sprung from the new “ valid” rite?! Well. He doesn’t.! See all the rotten fruit of the “valid” new rites that God is blessing us with?
Ridiculous, of course! The new mass is the abomination of desolation prophesied in the Bible,
Is SSPX supplemented by Rome?
The Pope can change the words on the rites as long as those remain Catholic but he can't make them Anglican, that's what paul the vl did.
I sincerely appreciate your discussion and your clear, thoughtful and the approachable style. Please keep these videos going!
Paul Bradshaw and colleagues at Notre Dame have shown conclusively that the so-called Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus is, as Marcel Metzger said, a “phantom document.”
It was not written by the attributed author or indeed any one author. It isn’t Roman or even Western. It probably doesn’t even record any liturgical tradition that ever actually existed. It is not anything it claims to be.
The tragedy of this discovery is that this “phantom document” was used as the primary basis for the new liturgies made after Vatican 2. It was used as the basis for the most used Eucharistic Prayer (number 2), the Rite of Holy Orders and solely depended upon for the creation of RCIA.
Thank you for helping to clarify how important it is to return to our tradition.
Not true, the issue is whether it was written in Rome in the 3rd century or perhaps the Church in Alexandria from the 3rd to 4th century. There are 5th century copies of it. So it is either from Rome or Alexandria.
Father seems to be very learned, but he has not answered my question, which is, "why do the bishops, using the new rite, lay their hands on the head of a candidate for priest/bishop without saying anything?" Do they think words or prayers in their head? If a priest is baptizing someone he has to say the words, "I baptize you in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" WHILE he is pouring the water on the head of the one being baptized. No one would accept baptism without words and water at the same time. So why is the bishop not saying any word as he lays his hands on the man's head. BUT, in the old rite, words were said as the bishop laid his hands on the man's head. Watch videos of ordinations or attend an ordination in the Roman Catholic Church and you will see what I'm talking about. Of course, Jesus said, that there would by only a remnant left when He returned. Maybe this is what He was talking about. Oh well, 'nuff said. It's too late to change it now.
This is something I'd like addressed too.
In the early years didn’t the SSPX conditionally ordain priest coming from the Novus Ordo?
Yes, this was discussed at the end of this episode.
@@SSPX thanks, I had only made it about 15 min in and had to go. I will listen to the rest later
@@SSPX Ok, I heard the answer. But I understand as well AB Lefebv required conditional ordination. I dont think this is disputed. Was Lefebv truely uniformed as implied in the answer? Are you saying he not done proper research, ect? Was mistaken? That he should have believed 100% NO ordinations were valid? You are really not clear on this.
@@joehathorn2985 I think the point is that, like everything else, in the beginning of the discovery of the crisis, it was safe to assume that we should resort to what we know worked for hundreds or thousands of years, instead of things associated with the Revolution. A conditional sacrament is not offensive to God, since it is conditional, and since it is done precisely to avoid offending God, otherwise it wouldn't be conditional, but absolute.
We have also to consider that in these years ('70, '80) there were crazy bishops who don't use the neither the new rite because they thought that it was still too conservative. So, it's obvious that if a deacon is ordained with strange formulas, created by the community, you can have doubts about the validity of his ordination. But these are significant exceptions that confirm the rule
This episode is contradictory, Archbishop says exactly the opposite, he calls the NO a poison to the soul.
So if a liberal Lutheran minister baptized me and, say, had an erroneous view of what such a Sacrament constituted, would that still qualify as "intending to do what the Church does". Thanks.
An SSPX priest would do a full investigation of the baptism, and establish if there was doubt.
But, for reference, this was the Holy See’s response to the following questions concerning the Methodist baptisms in Oceania (1872):
1. Whether baptism administered by those heretics [Methodists] is doubtful on account of defect of intention to do what Christ willed, if an express declaration was made by the minister before he baptised that baptism had no effect on the soul?
2. Whether baptism so conferred is doubtful if the aforesaid declaration was not expressly made immediately before the conferring of baptism, but had often been asserted by the minister, and the same doctrine was openly preached in that sect?
Reply to the first question: in the negative, because despite the error about the effects of baptism, the intention of doing what the Church does is not excluded.
The second question: provided for in the answer to the first.
(Acta Sanctae Sedis, Vol. XXV, p. 246.)
So why’s the SSPX holding on to the pre-Vat II rites, including TLM? Beauty, reverence? Are the new rites valid but impoverished?
All of the above
Could you enlighten me on the Episcopal ordinations before the Council of Carthage? And were those ordinations valid?
“…Raaaa we hate Vatican II and we hate everything that comes along with it and so… invalid…”
-Father McFarland, SSPX
#OutOfContextPodcastQuotes
@@SSPX Hah I’m angling for a job either at CNN or America Magazine…
(Kidding, thanks for the wonderful show!)
@@robertcarlin4876 I laughed so much at that part lol
Excellent discussion! What are the tones that intro every discussion?
It's just stock music. No specific tune. :)
Please provide references to all the statements/ answers .
I was under the impression that VII eliminated 6 of the 8 orders to become a Catholic priest in the seminaries. Doesn't the SSPX required that Novus Order priests have to get those 6 orders before being accepted into the Society?
It's on a case-by-case basis. Those minor orders are not required, strictly, for a valid ordination to the priesthood. Is it better? Of course. But that's a different question than valid.
I guarantee that Fr. wont forget to take the lid off the ciborium again after you called him out lol
i am confused. the Rev. Father says the Eastern Orthodox have a valid Sacrament. But they are in schism and therefore are not pleasing to God. I thought the SSPX is also in a state of schism. is he not condemning the SSPX Mass as well as not pleasing to God? with all that is going on in the catholic church, the sspx is a safe place for spirituality. but the state of schism scares me.
Sspx is not in schism. They're in a state of "irregular canonical", which basically means that the Vatican has no way to prove they're in schism and can't deny much less argue their central issues with Vatican 2 and the New mass.
SSPX is in a very odd position within the church. Both being on the inside compared to schismatics and independent Catholic organizations, but also on the outside when compared to a local diocesan parish.
Now to be in schism does not take away from someone's valid sacraments. Just like being in sin doesn't mean you can't attend mass or do good works. Although you should obviously go to confession and do penance to return to grace and communion with God and the Church.
So the Eastern Orthodox have valid sacraments in the sense that they're liturgy and some sacraments practiced are valid.
But they're actions are schismatic because they refuse to acknowledge the Roman bishop as first among equals. In addition there is issues dealing with the understanding of the Trinity and other minor, but noticable differences that stem from disobedience to the Papacy.
As a lead in he blames sedevacantists, staunch traditionalists and some priests etc. , so let’s guess: Yes the new rite is valid? Does he need to say more?
Re: SSPX
I always sort of shrink when I hear that society speaking like there are two levels in Catholicism... Their level as being superior and holy (better dressed) and (better postures), and the Holy Catholic Church as being sort of irreverent...
At 78, I lived through the Latin Mass, and came out of the Mass not having understood much in that language.
I still love to reminisce about those good old days, but since Mother Church is a good mother; she decided that each faithful would be better served hearing the Mass in their own language...I immediately cheered that decision indeed.
Please don*t tell me that back in those days that I was receiving Holy Communion in a more reverent way, as one grows in the love of receiving the Body, Blood Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Ps
One should not even notice if others are receiving on the tongue or in the hand if one is concentrated on who one receives.
It seems to me that you have not coped with the question of the intention. What if the man denies resurrection? Or is it enough to have same minimal intention as in the case of baptism from pagan hands?
I'm intrigued by the remark at 17:25... Does this mean that in atypical and rare circumstances, couples can be considered "married" by God without a priest performing the rite of marriage? Like Adam and Eve, etc...?
In certain circumstances, yes. Priests in missionary lands who could only make it to a place 2 or 3 times a year would come to bless the marriages - which had already been validly done by the couple. This is of course very rare but it's valid / licit / etc.
@@SSPX - Yes, rare and unusual. It makes sense - very interesting. Thanks!
Is the new mass good?
What is the fruit of the mass. Is this good or bad. I see a lot of bad fruit.
That is a priest with a face made for television!He could be another Fr Peyton or Bishop Sheen!
True. I think that he's very handsome. 😅
And he seems to be very nice and intelligent person. God bless you Father McFarland. 🙏😊
@@ginterka381996 Yes he is very handsome lol God bless him
He's more than handsome. He's unfairly beautiful.
Ave crux spes unica
Hello! I have a question. I hope if SSPX doesn't respond, someone else can answer for me.
I badly want to attend an SSPX chapel. My beliefs are aligned with the SSPX. However, the only local SSPX chapel is nearly an hour away from me and I currently cannot be attending.
I am a baptized, but non-confirmed catholic missing first communion. As a result, I have to seek confirmation at a dioscean parish (which thankfully offers the TLM, but that may not be the case soon as Pope Francis seeks to destroy the TLM)
Will my confirmation still be valid, even though it is not in an SSPX chapel?
Contact vocations@sspx.org
Heavily wrong!!! Therefore Excellency Levebvre reordained those who where ordained in the new rite.
Did this priest mean there should not be consecration of the Eucharist outside of a church when he spoke of it at his desk? Or did he mean without the rest of the mass?
11 people have disliked it. i think that they could be sedevacantists xD..
Greetings from Italy.. :D
There isn’t a SSPX near me... we’d love to join a community!!!! We have a diocesan Latin mass and I question our priests validity because he is a Vatican ll priests😱
You can safely assume that he is validly ordained - as Father said.
This still doesn’t necessarily mean that everything that happens at a diocesan Mass is good. I would refer to Fr Robinson’s episode about “should I go to the Novus Ordo?”
In times of Lefebvre SSPX-priests told us to stay away from the novus ordo, n.o. 'priests' were re-ordained by a SSPX Bishop sub conditione. Now it seems not necessary anymore...
WHY did they change the rite of the priesthood? Why not address that question? For this poor confused and abused flock?
Does an ordained minister fallen into heresy lose the ability to validly confect a sacrament?
No, not merely by the fact of heresy. But if he committed a sin of heresy he would sin by confecting the sacrament in Mortal Sin.
Can a Catholic in a state of mortal sin or non-practice still perform a baptism? 😅
Yes, as long as he intends to do what the Church does.
@@SSPX Can a non-baptized person perform a baptism?
@@calebadcock363 Sorry I know that the question was not intended for me, but yes, even a non-baptized person can baptize validly as long as he/she uses the proper matter and form with the intention to do as the church does.
Does this mean I could have Father James Martin as the spiritual director for my family (if I had a family)?
In case your question is actually serious, and not trolling...
It means he's validly ordained. Who you choose as your spiritual director is a matter of your prudence. And since you're on this channel, we would presume your prudence would not lead you to actually conclude this.
So what is the position of SSPX IN COMPARISON TO ARCHBISPHOPS LEFEBRE!
You seem to be a very PROUD YOUNG PRIEST!! I don’t see any humility in you!!
Do you know it is a sin to speak like that about/to the clergy? Take the beam from our eye.
Well if the Novus Ordo has valid rites, then so do the Anglicans…
Yikes...!
It would be interesting to compare Anglican rites of ordination & consecration to the N.O. versions.
they are illicit.
No, because the Anglicans made changes to the ordination without the authority of the magisterium while the Church changed the ordination through the magisterium. Its not valid to compare anglicans to catholics.
At least the old Anglican Office of Holy Communion is God-centered.
The N.O. is a cheap, bastardized version of that...
Can a Pope cancel the Sacraments?
Do you mean like via "interdict" over a particular area? Or do you mean, e.g., "Confirmation is no longer a thing."? If the former, yes, if the latter, no. The sacraments were instituted by Christ, therefore they cannot be done away with by man, even by a validly elected pope.
Qué pena que no tenga subtítulos 😭😭😭
You can get spanish subtitles if you click the "settings" then the "subtitles" and then the "autotranslate" button.
No more than any other protestant minister.
So glad I am a protestant and believe in the PRIESTHOOD OF ALL BELIEVERS where this is not even remotely an issue. God isn't limited to the ridiculous words you have invented.
What Sacraments did Jesus give us ? If they have changed the Sacraments instituted by Jesus Christ then the Sacraments are not of Jesus Christ.
My advice want true worship go join the Orthodox.