Questions the SSPX Can't Answer! The State of "Necessity"
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 сер 2024
- Have you ever considered the subjective nature of the "state of necessity" that the SSPX and Sedevacantists call upon to justify their irregular method of ministry? Conducting a logic experiment using the argument made by the Society of St. Pius X, among others, Andy M examines questions such as:
What is the identifiable, objective factor that is generating the “state of necessity” that permits the SSPX (and all independent traditionalist groups) to operate as they do?
How can this state be verified objectively, and who determines the criteria that dictate that?
How can we know when the "crisis" is over?
What happens if there is a dispute amongst the leadership as to when the crisis is over?
If a priest or bishop could decide for themselves where and when to minister, based on their own private judgment, what weight does the episcopal character and the power of the hierarchy hold?
Why even have bishops at all?
The article by Andy M that we're discussing can be read here:
www.tradrecove...
Andy M's faith story / interview with Laura:
www.youtube.co...
Eric Hoyle's articles: www.hoyletutor...
Pope Pius XII - Mediator Dei: www.vatican.va...
Pope Pius XII - Mystici Corporis: www.vatican.va...
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I'd love to hear about your story or faith journey, and offer encouragement in any way I can! Please reach out to lauravandervos@outlook.com
For ex-Traditionalists who find themselves needing support or resources, see our website: www.tradrecove...
If you have enjoyed or benefitted from the content on my channel, please consider lending your support to help me continue this work!
May God reward you!
ko-fi.com/laur...
![[UA] Team Vitality проти NAVI | IEM Cologne 2024](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wttO1zVRTC0/mqdefault.jpg)
![Дон ДОН, Алаудинов и СБЕЖАВШИЕ из под Курска ахматовцы 😁 [Пародия]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dEfCf5IK26Q/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you, God bless you both!
I think a problem with this line of argument, at least practically, is that most SSPXers are probably going to think that they're only getting more necessary by the day at the moment, in light of everything going on with Francis' pontificate and the like. So even if someone doesn't have a clear answer for when they'd know the necessity has ended, they'll probably feel confident that at least the answer is "not yet".
None of this means that Andy's argument doesn't have objective merit, but it will probably be an issue whenever you try to reach SSPXers with it.
Oh for sure, I agree. But what I’m hoping is that them admitting that there’s no answer will encourage some self-reflection on the issue.
Andy, very good points, and very well presented. Thank you.
Right now, many bishops are taking Francis to task.
Love seeing you with your baby Lauren! So sweet ❤
Who submits to evil for the sake of obedience, is closer to evil than to obedience
Saint Gregorio Magno
Ok, but when is the crisis over?
@@andym5995 Why do you keep asking this question that requires knowledge of the future that no one has?
@@littlerock5256 To show how the premise behind it is faulty. As I said, at one point the church was not in a state of crisis and then apparently at some point it was. How did this happen? If we know when and how it happened, we know when and how it will end.
@@andym5995 People cannot tell the future, yet you keep asking. Better to ask something that can actually be answered.
The crisis began with Vatican II, followed by the implementation of the novus ordo mass.
When this crisis will end, no one knows.
@@littlerock5256 Now we’re getting somewhere. You’ve answered the question of where the crisis originated. Now. Who determines that? You? How? And I already responded to the position of the mass being the source of the crisis in the video.
You see where I’m going with this?
👏👏👏👏👏
Hello! I am a multi generational traditional Catholic living in St Marys Kansas. If any one would like to discuss these topics further I would gladly give you the opportunity to discuss the virtue of the SSPX the value of the parishioners or the Statistics relating to the town folk on my channel.
Hello also from a 25 yo from Germany. What is your experience with other people who are not in SSPX? Do SSPX people interact with non-sspx or is this regarded as bad?
Watch Father Hesse....try to dispute him...wish you luck.
I’m afraid I don’t know what you are referring to. Do you have a link or a description?
9:23 But “lex orandi, lex credendi” is in the CCC! See below:
1124 The Church's faith precedes the faith of the believer who is invited to adhere to it. When the Church celebrates the sacraments, she confesses the faith received from the apostles - whence the ancient saying: lex orandi, lex credendi (or: legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi, according to Prosper of Aquitaine [5th cent.]).45 The law of prayer is the law of faith: the Church believes as she prays. Liturgy is a constitutive element of the holy and living Tradition.46
1125 For this reason no sacramental rite may be modified or manipulated at the will of the minister or the community. Even the supreme authority in the Church may not change the liturgy arbitrarily, but only in the obedience of faith and with religious respect for the mystery of the liturgy.
1126 Likewise, since the sacraments express and develop the communion of faith in the Church, the lex orandi is one of the essential criteria of the dialogue that seeks to restore the unity of Christians.47
Thanks for pointing that out! I’d like to compare the two texts to see under what context Pius XII was speaking because he’s pretty explicit but it sounds like they’re talking about two different things.
Andy M does make some sense & someone in the comments said it would helpful to have an SSPX priest answer this question regarding the state of necessity.
This is a question I'm trying to answer at the moment. Was expecting so much more from this video but it sounds like a superficial analysis at best. It aims to strike weak straw men arguments one by one - "is it this?", "no" "is it this?" "no". Where is the assumption that they're right, that you were talking about. Why not ask the question, "why do they think it could be 'this'?", "what affects and consequences are they concerned about regarding 'that'?", "has this had any ramifications for the faithful since the second vatican council?".
Maybe it's worth getting a proponent of the "state of necessity" to join the conversation so that you can get closer to the core and make this content richer. I'm not sure these points will truly standup until you ask the right questions.
I’m assuming that they do have jurisdiction and examining the logical results of it. If they do have supplied jurisdiction, can only they claim it, or can any priest?
Can you answer any of the questions I posed here? I understand you may not like the approach but these questions have no answers.
Hey @@andym5995 ,
I've been attending both the NO and TLM. So I'm not taking any hard positions here.
Moving past this "Let's assume they're right" and take one early example: "Is it the Mass, is it the Novus Ordo, it seems pretty clear that, that's not accurate because... they forbid the attending of other latin Masses... you can't go anywhere else". In the early question you don't really dig into examining any claims the SSPX make about the novus ordo, you discount this out of hand - and then start trying to disprove the next claim of the Ottaviani Intervention. The Ottaviani Intervention examination seemed to be as superficial as the first examination. You didn't even ask why the SSPX might forbid the attendenace of other Traditional Latin Masses.
I suppose I would ask a series of questions here, "Why do the SSPX think that the Novus Ordo contirbutes to the State of Necessity?", "Have the SSPX specifically raised issues regarding the Novus Ordo which might highlight these contributing factors?", "Why do the SSPX think there's a state of necessity and does the Novus Ordo fit the criteria for this claim?", "Why are the SSPX against the faithful attending other TLMs and is this related to the state of necessity?" - I'm sure there are a good few more that could be asked.
I couldn't help but give a second example. You spoke about confession "even in confession - he doesn't necessarily have to give you sprititual advice you just walk in say your sins he absovles you... what danger are you putting yourself in that would necessitate you going to a priest..." - Well I'm a father of 9 beautiful children, and as you know I'm not in the confessional with my children - what happens if they receive bad spiritual advice? Have you heard of priests who deviate from the very specific formula required for absolution? That also happens. For some / most Catholics they won't even know it's happened.
These questions which appear to skip over obvious real life challenges that Catholics face (maybe you haven't but I and others have experience the above).
I admit I haven't reviewed the whole video - but the more I watch the more it seems like "more of the same". The intitial questions pave the way for the rest of the points, which just seem to sit on a superficial foundation.
Thank you for reaching out. God bless
I haven't listen to the whole thing yet, only read what's under the video. I believe such discussions can be fruitfully done during the interview with an SSPX priest. Presenting your arguments against the state of necessity is always just a half-story. SSPX, for example, presented their position in their Crisis in the Church podcast. The state of necessity is discussed there to. So, what we need is a direct contact between the antagonistic positions.
The second thing I wanted to mention is that we live through this situation. Everyone should analyze the state of things to make his mind about it. Is there a crisis? What is the right response to it? There's always subjectivity and probability here until the crisis is resolved. You ask: how do we know exactly? The answer is: we can't know. We just trying to answer as much as we can.
@@mfomichif “we can’t know,” then there’s no justification for their ministry. This is the problem. As the PCILT said, it must be verified objectively.
Maybe listen to / read the whole thing and then see where you stand 🙂
@@andym5995 sure, I will. I mean it's the same situation when an armed man comes to your house, points his gun to you and you preventively kill him with your own gun trying to protect yourself. Then the question arises: did you objectively know he wanted to kill you? The answers will differ. Some will say there was no need to know or even prove that objectively. Probably you wouldn't even go to jail for defending yourself. So, does SSPX overreact? Probably, yes. But also, probably, not. Should we know objectively beforehand? I'm not sure.
@@mfomichI disagree, because that’s one very specific, tangible, isolated incident. The SSPX’s position is that the Church is just suspended in this indefinite state of emergency that nobody can define and will continue for the foreseeable future until someone, somehow, determines it’s over. Big difference. And Catholic ecclesiology does not allow for a position like this to be held. Because if their position is true, then as I say in the video, no bishop anywhere in the world has any authority, and the Church is no longer apostolic.
I believe if your in the confessional & if it is a SSPX, NO etc & you sincerely confess your sins & some protests are in some kind of error the Lord will forgive the sins
Archbishop Lefebvre was sure that there WAS a state of necessity prior to the 1988 consecrations. He stated to many that he doubted the validity of the Novus Ordo rites of ordination and consecration. That is a SERIOUS problem. Consider if, say , Jorge Bergoglio was never validly ordained in 1969. That means that he's not a bishop. Neither are any of the ordinaries through the Novus Ordo sect, if that is true. That means that none of them have jurisdiction, so the only clerics with the ability to perform ANY of the sacraments would be SSPX and sedevacantist bishops, and any priest ordained by them. THAT is a state of necessity.
Is that really the case? Well, it's highly likely, and, to me, it is problematic that the Conciliar church has done very little to argue and ensure that they are valid. For instance, on the USCCB's website, it states that the Anglican orders shouldn't be considered invalid because Vatican II changed 1) the "Catholic" concept of Holy orders and 2) the Rite of ordination/consecration to align more closely to the already condemned as "utterly bull and totally void" Anglican orders. That is a serious issue that the hierarchs will not address, because it would ruin "ecumenism" between the Novus Ordo sect and the other heretical sects.
Ok so, when is it over? Who determines that? And how? Remember that I’m starting from the premise that there is a necessity. It’s up to you to explain the logical conclusion and to show me how it is not purely subjective.
If Lefebvre wants to doubt the validity, that’s fine. But that’s an opinion, and one that the Church disagrees with. Is his opinion more authoritative than church teaching?
@@andym5995 How does anyone know the future?
That is a contradiction with what Pope Leo XIII taught. That is a big problem.
@@littlerock5256We don’t. That’s exactly the point. Nobody, not even them, knows when and how it will end.
Look, this isn’t hard. Their ministry relies on the “state of necessity,” and once it’s over, so is their justification for their ministry. So when is it? Because the church can’t exist in a perpetual, unending state of crisis.
@@andym5995 Not knowing when something will end does not mean the situation does not exist.
Yes, that should be the case.
I don't know anyone who can predict the future to answer this.
Important to pray for all of them even the pope who is off track
How many diocesan priests discovered they were not validly baptized back in 2020?
What does this have to do with anything in this video?
You could use this same “logic” train to argue that Arianism was the correct doctrine (because the majority of the Church approved it) for many years. I’m not an SSPX Catholic either, just pointing out the fallacy.
Could you explain? I’m afraid I’m not following but would like to engage this conversation.
I agree the priests needs to be obedient to the bishop but what is a priests to do if the bishop asked to do something that is absolutely against the law of God? Many Bishops use their power to abuse & for their own benefits. There should be limit to obedience
This makes no sense for the priest not to do or say anything that we do our own marriage??? Very confusing. If that the case then you don’t need a priest?
Very good commentary; i'm kind of personally evolving to this position.
Several slight corrections: SSPX confessions are 100% valid & 100% licit, because Pope Francis allowed this indefinitely, via the granting of the necessary faculties. Pope Francis could, of course, revoke this one day, but he hasn't done so. Additionally, marriages may be valid & licit, only with permission from the local N.O. Bishop, and a few attendant conditions. These facts do differentiate the SSPX significantly from other Trads.
The other five Sacraments are 100% valid, but 100% illicit.
The SSPX knew for decades that their marriages were 100% invalid, yet never informed their faithful. No bueno.
I'm coming to see that the further one gets from Rome, the weirder it gets. Smells & bells aren't enough.
You are correct; thank you for making the clarification. My intention was to show how their overall rationale doesn’t make sense, but I should have added this caveat.
Also it’s important for people to remember, the SSPX is the only traditionalist group that enjoys these anomalous faculties. No other groups do.
I am surprised that the SSPX has admitted this. Where can I find verification of that?
The SSPX has admitted, via Bishop Tissier, that their marriage annulments "will one day have to be confirmed by the Holy See." Which means they could be rejected. No bueno.
@@littlerock5256 Hey can you answer the question I pose for sedes? When and how do we get a legitimate pope, and who decides that?
Hi, James Dooley!! Thanks for your comment! The SSPX always claimed they could hear confessions validly, through the argument that fr. Angles used, even though they actually didn't have faculties until 2016 to do so. I think the article he wrote was prior to 2016, so when he made that argument they didn't have the faculties for Confession, besides which his explanation/justification was incorrect. Sorry if we confused anyone, though! Thanks for clarifying!
@@andym5995
I have lost track of how many times I have said that I cannot predict the future, nor do I know anyone who can. If you know such a person, please pose this question to them. I would be as interested in their answer as you.
A problem can exist without knowing how to rectify it; that can be the very reason it is a problem.
That being said, some possibilities have been presented, but they are just that, possibilities, not predictions.
I tend to think that when it happens it won't be missed; it will not only get the whole Church's attention but the whole world's. One possible scenario is that the cardinals and/or the pope elect reject Modernism, announce that Vatican II is being rescinded, invalid orders rectified, which includes a proper papal installment of the pope elect if there is one, or the now Modernist free Cardinals convene a conclave and elect one.
Sedevacantism is also opposed to recognize and resist. On November 9, 2021, a well known sedevacantist site posted, "Thirteen Inconvenient Questions for the Society of St. Pius X." The site takes the SSPX to task quite strenuously.
I take it you’re a sedevacantist?
Good stuff man. I mulled over a lot of these same scenarios back when I was in the SSPX cult. Good job laying out the points. So glad I got out of all that bananas way of thinking that I was the last remnant lol
Thanks! Glad you liked it 😁
I'm always struck by the righteous-remnant mentality displayed by groups like SSPX. In a fantasy scenario where the Pope abrogated the NO, reinstated the TLM and canonized Abp. Lefebvre tomorrow, and somehow even the entire German bishops conference followed suit. I suspect even if that's the case they will continue to rebel just to avoid being in the mainstream!
@@Carlos-MBut even if they abrogate the NO, reinstate the TLM, and canonize Lefebvre, the council still happened, so there’s still a “state of emergency” to preserve people from its errors 🙃 I don’t think they’ll settle for anything less than completely erasing the last 50 years of history. A tall order if there ever was one.
Circa 27 minutes, you speak of how when we're Catholic "we're all supposed to be united and all on the same page", however the principle of Unity, the Pope, is missing and has been since 1958. With Vatican II the modernists withdrew obedience to Holy Mother Church and directly contradicted her in regards to Ecumenism and the Liberal idea of religious liberty. A true Pope could never have approved the council. Lefebvre lacked the courage to declare this and Vigano hasn't yet recognised this fact. Each subsequent false successor has implemented more Vatican II with disastrous consequences to the faith of the people, particularly within the structures of the Roman Rite. This is the origin of the crisis in which we're living.
Ok so, when is it over?
@@andym5995 No one knows the future.
@@littlerock5256 Let’s change tack, since your response does not answer the question. Is there any place or any time an independent/sede priest does NOT have jurisdiction? Is there anywhere he cannot minister? And when would he lose his jurisdiction? When and how did he gain it?
@@andym5995 Who is able to determine the future?
If you are truly interested in the answer, i recommend the very short article, "Is the Sedevacantist Apostolate Legitimate?" by Rev. Nicolás E. Despósito. It is available free on line. I got this from it:
"This apostolate is justified under the principle of epicheia, and the Church supplies sacramental jurisdiction for the sacrament of Penance..."
There is historical precedent for this in what occurred during the vacancy following the death of Pope Clement IV.
@@littlerock5256Listen, if a “Rev” thinks his ministry is justified but *the Church* disagrees, who is right?
This does not provide an answer to my questions. Let’s not pretend it does. Maybe read my short section in the article on sedevacantism and see if you can provide the answer there. If there’s no pope now, there’s no legitimate way to get one, because it’s up to each individual whether they accept him as pope or not. Your ideology is a dead end.
They seem to answer these rather easily.
Where? Show me an SSPX source that clearly states when the crisis is over, who determined that, and how they did.
@@andym5995 It took me 1 minutes to search it on their website and find a very lenghty piece with a lot of information.
None of this will matter within a decade as they will probably be back in full communion by then given their ongoing exponential growth that only has increased recently.
Their masses are already confirmed as valid for sunday obligations as well as the sacraments of confession, eucharist and marriage. The road to communion is going well even per Francis. But the SSPX has the leverage given their growth and funding so a lot of that depends on them.
@@gainsofglory6414You didn’t answer the question. Surely if it was so easy for you to find, it will be easy to share. When is the crisis over, who determines that, and how? Because their ministry is contingent on the “state of necessity” and once it is gone, so is their justification. Do they spell out their own terms of surrender?
@@andym5995 I did answer you. You asked for a source. I provided one. The most obvious of sources possible, their website....massive article titled "the state of necessity".
If you can't find the SSPX website then uh....idk what to tell you.
You can read their words on the matter there. I'm not answering for them. If you actually cared about the answers you would have just gone to their site instead of pretending I didn't tell you the source.
Your last bit but though shows you really don't even seem to know what we are talking about so you probably want to check the article for the background. Obviously nothing about their work ends if the necessity ends, and nothing about their work is dependent on it. If they enter into full communion on terms they feel achieves their mission, they just then go about on their way carrying out their duties as every other priesty fraternity does. They would train priests and carry out the traditional rite and mass. Why would they stop doing that?
@@gainsofglory6414That article doesn’t say when or how it ends and who determines that. Let’s not play games here.
The reason they’ve been given faculties for the two sacraments that require jurisdiction is because the church has ruled they do not have faculties, and it was for the sake of the people receiving them (as Pope Francis said). And note, not every bishop has given them the faculty for marriage. Their ministry and other sacraments are illicit, and as it has been made very clear to them, full communion with the church means accepting Vatican II in its entirety. And they will not do this. Listen to that part of the video again where I quote one of their priests who says that if they have no faculties, their work is “evil,” and the only reason they can provide for faculties is the state of necessity because they haven’t been authorized by the local bishop. It’s quite simple.
Thanks for attempting to answer, but the question remains unanswered.
Haven't made all the way through yet, but. Why does this guy keep talking about supplied jurisdication for confession with regard to the sspx? They dont rely on supplied jurisdiction for confession. They have direct jurisdiction from Pope Francis and have since 2016. Does he not know this? If not he needs to do a little research before he speaks.
They NOW have jurisdiction from the Pope, which could be revoked at any time, and which they did not have for the first 40 years they were operating, although they did not inform the faithful of that fact but kept pretending to absolve them in Confession and let them go their way duped. Andy M is perfectly aware of this and of the fact that they currently have faculties to hear confessions, but that was not the main subject of our conversation, so we didn't go over all of the particulars in this video.
Laura is correct. We are talking about the faulty logic behind supplied jurisdiction here, not whether or not they have faculties. I am quite aware (and very thankful!) that they do. I acknowledged this in the article on which this podcast is based.
While I vehemently oppose the teachings of the SSPX and the sedevacantists, I’m not quite sure at 8:35 that Mediator Dei is saying what you think it is. The next couple of paragraphs I think are enlightening in this regard. Par. 48 discusses how Bl. Pius IX appealed to the liturgical celebration of the Immaculate Conception in his declaration of the dogma. It also discussed the “well known and venerable maxim of legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi.” As well as the converse later on. And this is what I think people mean nowadays when they use lex orandi, lex credendi. I think then Cardinal Ratzinger even used it in Spirit of the Liturgy. Ven. Pius XII, it seems to me, was arguing against a specific sense of that term. Also at 9:38, by “guarantee,” I think they argue that the content of the pre-conciliar liturgy is securely Catholic, not that no one will fail if worshipping at it. Not defending their conclusions, of course, as the Church is the guarantor of the liturgy she promulgates, whichever it deems fit to promulgate, but I also think it’s important to argue against what they are truly arguing.
34:20 This is actually true generally speaking. However, this would be in a situation where the people have a just reason to think the priest could hear Confessions, like his sitting in a Confessional in a Catholic Church (and not a Society chapel, pre-2016 that is, and not for any sedevacantist group at all). If they have no reason to suspect the particular priest does not have faculties, then jurisdiction would be supplied there for the spiritual good of the people. I’m not sure how suspension would affect that, though. Like I’m not sure if I saw an SSPX priest in an airport (so having no idea he was SSPX) and asked for Confession if it would be valid. Also Andy did mention it would have to be a priest, so Laura that would be a strawman to say any man could play priest and be supplied jurisdiction
37:11 sorry, you address my main point immediately after. Let me listen all the way through 🤦♂️
I didn't mean any man could actually be supplied jurisdiction for pretending to be a priest. I mean this argument of Fr. Angles is so ridiculous - he's just making this up that a priest with suspended faculties could be granted them just for deceiving people. I mean, why stop there? If we're making up rules, why not say that ANYBODY could be supplied jurisdiction to hear confessions just for pretending to have the faculty to do so, whether ordained or not? This is an absurd line of reasoning, obviously. It makes me think of stories where an "independent priest" shows up and administers sacraments to a family or a community sometimes for years and then they find out he wasn't ordained by anybody ever and was just pretending the whole time! Yikes! There's a reason you don't want to just assume somebody in clericals is actually a priest without attachment to a bishop in communion with the Church and someone who can vouch for his legitimacy. People are so desperate for their preferred style of liturgy they're willing to forego the sensible safeguards of the established Church which are meant to protect the faithful from deceivers. The whole thing gets so convoluted otherwise, and spiritually dangerous. Faulty arguments like Fr. Angles' only put people in spiritual danger, in a variety of ways.
A priest with suspended faculties may hear the confession of a person who is dying, in danger of death or in grave necessity (e.g. low likelihood of seeing a priest in the known future) and the Church will supply jurisdiction, just as she would for a priest with faculties in another diocese who happened to be travelling outside of that area and encountered such a person. The laity may approach even undeclared schismatics and heretics who have not joined a condemned schismatic or heretical group to receive the sacraments according to Martin V's Ad Evitanda Scandala. The salvation of souls comes first in the Catholic Church@@mrshappycatholic
@@christopherradford1320So you agree with Fr Angles? When and where could a priest NOT hear confessions then?
When I was married in the SSPX the argument went like this "we have to do our own annulments, per state of necessity, because you cannot trust the ordinary tribunals" and "We have to do our own marriages without permission, because the marrying couple MUST have a Latin Mass at the wedding and CANNOT be registered at novus ordo parishes in a way so as to get proper permission to marry. The danger to faith of having to do your wedding in the normal Catholic way was seen as state of necessity. It is ironic that the marriage prep they gave was absolute garbage, but they were so insistent that they were "protecting" us from the terrible Novus Ordo wedding prep.
Agreed. “Novus Ordo” marriage prep is very comprehensive, as Laura can attest to. SSPX marriage prep is a couple of 1-hour lectures.
@@andym5995 Can anyone make a comparison on the divorce rate in the novus ordo versus in the SSPX?
@@littlerock5256 Why does it matter? What does that have to do with their erroneous idea of the state of necessity? That’s what is in question here. They can’t tell you not to have your marriage witnessed by the priest down the street; he’s perfectly capable of doing it and is not “endangering your faith.”
@@andym5995 The point of the preparation is for a successful marriage that doesn't break up. How is each faring on that score?
Marriage preparation seems independent of the "state of necessity" argument of the SSPX; why don't you ask this of the person who raised the subject?
@@littlerock5256not even 10min away from me is a sspx parish (around 300 folks there) and just recently a mom of 6 or 8 children divorced her husband ans acused him for rape. He was the head of the regional police and lost his job even tho she wasn't aböe to prove anything.
Based on the numbers of sspx-believers i think you guys are not better.
Sad, you & your friends stay bashing SSPX. Y’all sound so embittered.
Sorry y’all had a bad childhood. And you wanna blame someone. Perhaps toss at your mom/dad instead of Catholic Tradition.
Ok, but can you answer my questions?
And how exactly do you define “Catholic Tradition”? Tradition is part of the deposit of faith that can only be found in the Catholic Church, safeguarded and interpreted by the Pope and the bishops in communion with him. Tradition is *not* an authority principle made manifest by the SSPX only because they think they are.
In other words, the SSPX is not Catholic Tradition, and the fact that they claim to be “Tradition” smacks strongly of megalomania. It is the SSPX we reject, not sacred tradition. Make no mistake about that.
And incidentally, my childhood was just fine. I won’t speak for others, but my rejection of the SSPX is solely based on the traditional teachings of the Church. Nothing more. Nothing less. Nothing else.
@@tonyalongi4409I must say I agree- my parents formed me much better than the SSPX ever did or could. Namely, they taught me to respect the church and accept her teachings even if I didn’t like it.
You make more sense than John Salza in your explanation.
I’ll take that compliment because he’s much smarter than me 😄
How I wish that we had a Catholic Pope 🤷🏻♂️
Do you have anything constructive or positive to add to this discussion, or do you just insist on slandering the Holy Father?
@@andym5995 if your father teaches you to jump out of the window, it's your obligation to disobey him.
@@tommasosantojanniI ask you again, what has the Holy Father asked or commanded you to do that you must disobey?
Holy Eucharist to adulterers
God willed plurality of religions
Pachamama
Blessing homosexuals
Embracing same sex couples in public
Civil unions are to be respected
Judas is not in hell
Appointing pro abortion to executive positions
Etc
Etc
Etc
@@tommasosantojanni The FACT that the Pope teaches the opposite of what you accuse, is your problem.
The Pope doesn’t teach idol worship
The Pope teaches adulterers need to go to confession before communion
The Pope upholds the teaching of the Church on homosexuality
The Pope teaches the Church can’t bless sin in reference to gay unions
The pope teaches that homosexual persons could receive a blessing if they want Gods grace to help them live a better life , this is only to be done with prudence so as not to give the impression of blessing sin or case of scandal.
Your list of accusations is nothing more then a list of bull crap. Not your fault, but you have been misled by the scandal mongering industry. Check out Reason and theology on these topics and set the record straight. May God bless you my friend .
_"Catholic Doctrine teaches that the first duty of Charity does not consist at all in the tolerance of error, due to a mistaken sense of natural piety, but, if we truly believe in supernatural life, after death, the first duty is the conversion of brothers in error for the salvation of their souls"_
* Saint Pius X*
Let's pray for Mr Bergoglio to convert to the Catholic faith!
I can quote St. Pius X just as ably:
“When we love the Pope, we do not dispute whether he commands or requires a thing, or seek to know where the strict obligation of obedience lies, or in what matter we must obey; when we love the Pope we do not say that he has not yet spoken clearly - as if he were required to speak his will in every man’s ear, and to utter it not only by word of mouth but in letters and other public documents as well. Nor do we cast doubt on his orders, alleging the pretext which comes easily to the man who does not want to obey, that it is not the Pope who is commanding, but someone in his entourage. We do not limit the field, in which he can and ought to exercise his authority; we do not oppose to the Pope’s authority that of other persons - no matter how learned - who differ from the Pope. For whatever may be their learning, they are not holy, for where there is holiness there cannot be disagreement with the pope.”
- Pope St. Pius X, Love for the Pope, Allocution to the members of the Apostolic Union, 18 November, 1912.
And incidentally, by claiming that Pope Francis has erred in faith and morals, you've also run afoul of Syllabus of Errors #23.
Cardinal Ratzinger called Vatican II an anti-syllabus (of errors)@@tonyalongi4409. Francis is implementing Vatican II.
You need to “sent” make’s sense Jesus was sent by His Father
Today, to remain faithful to the Church, one must disobey Mr Bergoglio 🤷🏻♂️
We had heretic Popes before, and we'll have heretic Popes again after this one
You should really refrain from saying these kinds of things, especially publicly.
Romans 13:1-2, as I shared in the video: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.”
As per Vatican I's Pastor Aeturnus, we have NEVER had a "heretic pope". Vatican I clearly teaches us that the Holy Roman See HAS NEVER been stained by teaching error. This is why the popes from the last 200 years (until 1958) tell us that we can have absolute confidence that when a pope teaches (in his official capacity), we know we can place religious consent to said teaching and NOT worry about following error. Since 1958 (really 1959) every claimant to the Chair (save JPI) taught error and gave manifest scandal to the Faith through their actions.
@@andym5995 Galatians 1:8: But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.
Learn your Church history ... we had our share of anti-popes.
Google is your friend 👍🏻🙂
@@littlerock5256 The church has not contradicted herself in her teaching, and you STILL haven’t answered my questions.
What a load of patently absurd nonsense.
Ok, but can you answer my questions?
Surely some of it made sense to you, maybe you just disagree strongly with the arguments presented? Was there anything specific you would like to engage with Andy?
Martin, a declaration from a private individual is only as legitimate as the arguments used to support it . Your declaration of “nonsense “ is not a rebuttal, it’s just an empty statement that one can just as easily declare against your position. It doesn’t provide any room for charitable , honest discussion.
The sspx is friends with the novus ordo now. They had a novus ordo bishop conságrate the holy oils in Germany also they did the confirmation in a novus ordo church in Florida last month.
I'll gladly take it if it's a step toward reconciliation. But in my experience, it's just as likely to be yet another in a string of isolated events that the SSPX's media supporters will spin out of proportion to claim that they're not really under any censure.
Until the SSPX as a whole officially and explicitly embrace Vatican II, the Mass of Paul VI, and every magisterial teaching of every Pope since down to the punctuation; and until they have a legitimate ministry spelled out in a Vatican-issued document that doesn't require digging down a rabbit hole to find, I won't be too impressed.
@@tonyalongi4409 if I’m not mistaken bishop fella already said that the new mass from Satan is valid among other things. That’s the reason why I left the society.
A friend contacted the SSPX for extreme unction for their father who was in danger of death and the SSPX priest referred them to a novus ordo priest for novus ordo anointing of the sick.
@@littlerock5256 they are betraying Bishop lefebvre. Thanks God for the Sspx resistance
@@haydendude Who comprise the SSPX resistance?
If you cannot recognise that there is a state of necessity in the whole Church, today, you might want to read a little more... perhaps you might want to start with the acts of the Council of Trent?
Can you answer my questions? What objective criteria is defining the state of necessity? When is it over? And according to whom? I would urge you to watch/read the part where I talk about how the crisis has generated from cultural upheaval; we’d still have a crisis of faith today if Vatican II never happened. As I state in the article, “There will come a time when the SSPX will need to admit the state of necessity is gone. Even they must acknowledge that the church does not and cannot exist in a perpetual and indefinite state of emergency. It must end at some point. So when does it?”
Also the Council of Trent says the following:
“No bishop is permitted under any pretext or privilege whatsoever to exercise episcopal functions in the diocese of another bishop, without the permission of the Ordinary of the place and with regard to persons subordinate to the same Ordinary.” Yet the SSPX does this regularly.
It also says, “If any one saith, ... that those who have neither been rightly ordained, nor sent, by ecclesiastical and canonical power, but come from elsewhere, are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments; let him be anathema.” The SSPX has not been “rightly sent,” so they are not “lawful ministers.”
@@andym5995 2,000 words and, yet, you have not addressed the elephant in the room 🤷🏻♂️
@@tommasosantojanniDeflection and pivoting, as per usual. Quite the contrary, I had acknowledged that there is a crisis. It’s on you to explain how one can claim universal supplied jurisdiction from it. (Hint- they can’t)
Any response to the passages from Trent above? Or can you answer my questions? When is it over?
A state of necessity is one thing . The right response to it is quite another.
@@nadreb13 this only shows that St. Ignatius was living in a blessed period of time when the hierarchical Church could in no way be expected to teach and define wrong and harmful things. His confidence is to be commended but only in the context of time when no serious harm could be done in fact.