I feel sorry for some of the questioners. They demonstrated a lack of understanding by wrongly using words like heresy, licit, valid, schism etc... and conflating issues of coherence, ecumenism, and vaccines... If they can't get basic concepts down, no wonder they are misled. God help us all.
@@FrJohnBrownSJ I've watched 5 minutes of the video and Mr. Salza is playing fast and loose with the facts if not relying on Straw Man fallacies. An earlier point of small note I pointed out in one of my posts was that the SSPX does not claim the midnight fast on Sunday is still binding on Catholics. I was literally told by an SSPX "Rome has taken away the obligation for the midnight fast." He added that while no sin can be committed by holding to the current law, there is an opportunity for more merit by doing something harder voluntarily like retaining the old rules." Now, if the claim of Mr. Salza were true, the SSPX priests would not be acknowledging the power of the papacy to bind and loose. And they would be claiming like the Sedevacantists that the fasting rules prior to Paul VI changes were still in force. What do you think is the most damning item that Mr Salza brings out? I haven't watched the whole video as of yet. For the record I attended SSPX masses most Sunday's back in the early 2000s. Since Summorum Pontificum, I've taken advantage of the closer locations where the TLM is being offered. Interestingly enough, things are often different on the ground level, some of the local "Novus Ordo" priests were periodically coming in clandestinely to utilize the library and receive training in the TLM. Others were more overt and would come in, volunteer to hear confessions and occasionally say the TLM for the people if they were trained properly. I will be surprised if Mr. Salza addresses any of those events in his biased effort to take down an organization he willingly attended during a crisis he admits for 15 years.
Wow this was a banger talk. Even I was surprised by how strong this stance is when looked at honestly and holistically. Great work on Salza’s part. I can’t believe the F-tier arguments and rebuttals the audience was offering at the end.
I empathize with those people. They are obviously not intelligent enough to understand a lot of what Mr. Salza stated (except the last questioner, to a degree), but are zealous for the faith and have a heightened sense of liberalism and materialism--such as Assisi or the closing of churches/jab, etc--seeping into the Church, and it is shaking their hope and charity. Their healthy zeal for the faith is turning to the vice of "bitter zeal." We are in the middle of a great psychological, asymmetrical war, and it's disappointing that the church hierarchy is not doing more to lead people down the narrow path of salvation.
@kyrieeleson agreed. I do see salza getting a bit to salty with people not understanding. He could be more charitable and out of love and mercy lead them to the truth. Educating them in the truth is better for winning souls to the truth, winning arguments because of a big ego is not.
@@bobtosi9346 I don't see anything wrong with his tone, to be fair. I think it was a way to push through their biases, since they weren't capable of understanding most of his talk and were asking questions about things he had already explained. And some of them were obviously very bitter, those people need a good kick in the pants a lot of the time, speaking as a former bitter person myself. lol
God also doesn't like false accusations of schism. And it's funny how in Rome the hierarchy can't seem to decide if a "schismatic act" is the same as an "act of schism."
@@john-el9636 Ahh....not so fast. People love to blanket the truth of what's going on by stating "the Church" instead of "Churchmen." When Pope Stephen VI declared Pope Formosus an Anti-Pope is someone saying, "No. You're wrong." against the Church? And are they with the Church when Stephen's rulings got overturned? And against it when Stephen's rulling was ratified again and with it when he was overturned and ratified and overturned again and again?
@@gerry30 Separating the hierarchical authority of the Church from the Church proper is a denial of Catholic dogma. You couldn't possibly accept Pius XII's Mystici Corporis and hold that view. The cadaver synod has no relevance here. Imprudent political moves don't fall under definitive magisterial authority. I'll also point out that this same argumentation is regularly used by non-Catholics as evidence that Catholicism is false. Kinda strange seeing an alleged Catholic using the same talking points.
@@john-el9636 Imprudent political moves? That's what you call one Pope declaring with his full hierarchical authority that a predecessor was an invalid priest and an Anti-Pope? But LeFebvre being told he could have a bishop consecrated in the Old rite for his Old Rite priests and then Rome screwing around while JPII who had put a Buddha on a Catholic Altar in Assisi dickered about. That's "the Church" speaking??? Stop the gaslighting. I never have any problems confronting non-Catholics. If you have trouble I'll help you out. But I'm sure that non-Catholics don't understand Catholicism and Neo-Catholics like yourself can be intimidated by them when they point out your Neo-Ultramontanism. But the problem isn't the Catholic Church isn't the true Church. It's just you believe things about the Catholic Church that aren't true because of exaggerations and errors not yet clarified magisterially.
Nonsense. I was attending the SSPX long before Salza (He was an active Freemason when I was attending the SSPX) and I was away from it over ten years ago but I've kept my eyes open. Salza is full of crap. Same Straw Man arguments as years ago. "They claim some kind of jurisdiction with marriage tribunals" Seriously? Is that the scope of his research? He's purposely avoiding nuance so he doesn't get caught up in admitting the truth. The late Micheal Davies did his homework and Salza wouldn't be able to debunk Davies arguments from the 1990s today.
@@gerry30 he's already debunked every one of Davies arguments. But you would know that if you actually read what Salza has written. Davies even changed his mind regarding the SSPX after Lefebvre consecrated the 4 Bishops. Weird that you don't know that since you act like you know everything about Davies.
@@AnaMT1985 I guess nobody told Davies that he changed his mind about the SSPX. Here he is, long after the consecrations debating and taking the position that the SSPX is not in schism. And he totally dominates the debate. ua-cam.com/video/pgnEDecW1EE/v-deo.html I've read plenty of Salza's stuff and he is out of his element here. I haven't watched the whole presentation but unless he ups his game, I'm holding onto my position that he's actually incapable of debunking Davies arguments. What particular argument of Davies do you think he most effectively debunked? I'll look at it.
@@gerry30 well it sounds like Davies was seriously inconsistent and confused then. He also lied about St. Athanasius story and the similarities to Lefebvre. Read his book "I am with you Always" he undermines his own previous positions on the sspx in that book. So what Michael Davies should we listen to? I would say instead of listening to man we should listen to what the Magisterium teaches which is all Salza is doing. He is not stating his own opinion, buy backing everything he has to say up with the Magisterium, Church teaching and Canon Law. The same can't be said for all the other pro-sspx armchair theologians. Including yourself.
@@AnaMT1985 No. It's common for people that adhere to the common error of Neo Ultramontanism to come to that conclusion. They are usually the people that claim the sedevacantists are actually in principle more consistent than the SSPX. This is due to an overblown concept of papal infallibility in which it moves into personal impeccability in governance. If you think the 5 errors rebutted in "I am with you always" are errors indulged in by the SSPX. You don't have solid info on the SSPX. Actually Salza is first, not accurately presenting the SSPX position and secondly he's not actually presenting either a canonical and factual or theologically accurate account of what the Church teaches. For example: He espouses without reference to the extraordinary circumstances of the Church that the consecration of bishops is reserved to the Pope alone. This is not a real argument. Because Eastern Catholic bishops are always consecrated without a papal mandate. Salza also claims in the Q &A that the Orthodox are schismatic. I agree with him on that. But he fails to point out that the Catechism of the Catholic Church claims the opposite, that the charge of schism cannot be applied to them. So, he's actually every bit as selective about what he believes as he accuses the SSPX of being. But he doesn't make the coherent argument for explaining why he agrees with Rome (as he sees it) that the SSPX is in schism (and argument can be made that they don't hold that belief) but he disagrees with Rome when they say the Orthodox are not schismatic.
This is the first time I've heard of this chap. His mind is really sharp. I am very traditional in my faith, but I attend the Novus Ordo. I have a good priest and the liturgy is reverent. I realize that is not the situation everywhere. I love the line, "Apostasy is not justification for leaving the Church". Amen and amen. btw, I if I were in court, I would sure hope that this attorney was representing my side!
John...that was you using your remarkable, most masterful gift for the glory of God and the saving of souls. May your mission continue to bear good fruit and may God richly bless you and your family with the needed graces to carry on in the same!
I would recommend that you not be hoodwinked by this guy's presentation. He's taking the Neo-ultramontanist error to juxtify his false conclusions. Watch the old Michael Davies debates. Davies points to the realities of the modernist infiltration of the Church of which the SSPX is a justified Catholic reaction.
@@katholischetheologiegeschi1319 No. You're confusing the Neo-Ultramontanists with Ultramontanists. The Neo-Ultramontanists believed virtually every word out of the Pope's mouth is infallible not limited to faith or morals. They were not heroes and they ignored Vatican I's decree. This is how the manualists wound up "extending infallibility."
If all people are obedient to authority rather than to God then what happens if the authority people are bad ,evil people bent on taking advantage of us like Pope Francis is, Better to be obedient to God because he has our best interests at heart. Because he loves us and always wishes the best for his created children
Sister Lucia, who talked with the Mother of God herself, attended the Mass of Paul VI. Eucharistic miracles have occurred through the Mass of Paul VI. Martyrs and saints have been sustained by the Mass of Paul VI. (I dare any trad to tell the African martyrs of today that they are not truly martyrs.) If a rite of mass was truly evil, and was celebrated in 99.9% of all churches in the Western world for the last 50+ years, the world should have crumbled into decay long before now. The Church is not being sustained by a tiny minority of people who celebrate in a specific manner and who condemn anyone who doesn't. If you believe that Christ would preserve the only authentic expression of faith through a man who disobeyed his superiors for years, gave very insulting rhetoric toward the Church and its shepherds, and essentially set up a parallel ecclesiastical structure to the Church, you are sorely mistaken.
In the words of John Salza "oh now we're back to private revelation." Actually, any people who are saints who attend the Novus Ordo are made saints despite the impoverished nature of the Novus Ordo. And becoming a martyr does not depend on the quality of the liturgy available, it depends actually on the power of your Baptism. The fact is 80% of Catholics reject the Novus Ordo. A very small number of them want a liturgy that does more than the Novus Ordo can do. Read the prayers, look at the omissions and see how the designers of that liturgy did not have the glory of God and rendering Him His due at the top of their list of goals. One of the most interesting phenomena is when people want reverent liturgy, the Novus Ordo can't help but gain stability from its similarities to the Traditional Latin Mass. And when people are getting reverent Novus Ordo, they inevitably want to experience the TLM.
@@gerry30 "80% of Catholics reject the Novus Ordo"? What? Also, the NO inevitably draws comparisons to the TLM. It's a revised version of it. Of course it's going to get compared to it. It's not as if the "reverent" elements are exclusive to the TLM. As John said, it was supposed to be celebrated in Latin, ad orientem, with Gregorian chant. When a Novus Ordo is done "reverently," it's just being done the way it was always intended to be done.
Sr. Lucia did not attend mass of Paul VI. Visit Sister Lucy Truth. For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Matthew 24:24 The world is crumbling into decay.
As an ex-SSPX attender the questions I hear from the people in the attendance make me so sad. You can really tell they all formed their opinions from the same radtrad pundits, using the same arguments ad nauseam, the same rebuttals, without actually having any knowledge of the terms they are employing. I am so glad I am out of those circles.
I couldn't agree more Nelly, I too was raised in the SSPX and as of 3 years ago educated my way into the Church. The questions or statements at the Q&A at the end were so cringe. I heard my Dad in all of those ignorant, emotional statements. It makes me so sad.
John has a lot of patience re-explaining over and over again to these numb rods and complete ignorant people that seem to be trying to split hairs instead of listening to the facts. If the last 3 Popes said the SSPX is in schism-they are!
I have no idea how this made it into my UA-cam feed. I am a very lapsed Catholic, so most of this intra- (or perhaps inter-?) religious warfare is beyond me, but I ended up listening to it in its entirety anyway. I just have to say that from one lawyer to another this guy put on a f’ing master class in how to prepare and present an argument. Not only the larger arguments, but the precise citations to various authorities and the demeanor he had while doing it 🤌 I’d hire him to argue my appellate case any day of the week, and twice on Sundays…😉 Also, again, while not what anyone would call a particularly “devout” Catholic, some of these SSPX apologists seem little better than Protestants. Seems fairly clear to me that if you’re going to call yourself a Catholic you have to realize that “getting in line” in terms of recognizing hierarchy and the authority that flows within that hierarchy is part of the deal. If not, there are other churches you can join. Seems like one of those things where in 100 years we’ll look back and see it was really a permanent schism/split but it took a while to recognize it (apologies if I am using the incorrect terminology).
They undeniably follow the patterns of every schismatic group in the church’s history. Quite a few papal statements condemning other schismatic groups of the past can be applied just as well to them (Quartus Supra, for example) There is a joke: How do you spell Protestant in Latin? SSPX.
1:48:00 Most council were not implementatedat the spot. The reformation happened because one of the Lateran councils were not implemented properly in Germany. And this happened even with Trent, it was the effort of Bellarmine and Borremeo that de facto made the council be implemented everywhere.
Councils didn't usually result in the collapse of the liturgy and an increase in confusion and crises. Councils were usually called to deal with problems, not create more out of thin air.
@@gerry30 If you think the crisis we're currently facing is the result of Vatican II, you're not paying attention. You're also accusing God of either abandoning His Church or failing to guide His Church
@@john-el9636 Actually I think Vatican II is the punishment from God for ignoring Vatican I Obviously the problems were already cooking to the point of Pope St. Pius X having to issue "Pascendi" and the "Oath against Modernism" (which Paul VI ended). and "Our Apostolic Mandate" and you had each Pope up to Pius XII with "Humani Generis" which was subtitled "On Concerning Some False Opinions which threaten to Undermine the Foundations of Catholic Doctrine." Of course encyclicals like that ended with the election of John XXIII. And Vatican II was simply the vehicle for Modernism to resurface. Pope Francis' buddy Cardinal Maradiago stated, "The Second Vatican Council was the main event in the Church in the 20th Century. In principle, it meant an end to the hostilities between the Church and modernism, which was condemned in the First Vatican Council."
@Gerry Ah yes. Now we're rejecting more dogma regarding how ecumenical councils function. As in, an ecumenical council led by the pope is the Church exhibiting her authority at its greatest extent. As well as having divine protection by the Holy Spirit. Meaning your theory about it is complete bunk. I'm not going to waste more time going in circles with another schismatic on basics of Catholicism. Reject your pride and come back to Christ's Church. "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 manner 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 is not the Pope who is commanding, but some one 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
@@john-el9636 Make whatever false assertions you want. I'm telling the truth. You are running from it. That's pretty clear. You have a distorted and limited knowledge of the history of Councils in the Church as well as official papal acts. But I'll let another "schismatic" according to your standards explain: “Not every valid council in the history of the Church has been a fruitful one; in the last analysis, many of them have been a waste of time.” Josef Ratzinger Principles of Catholic Theology. (the footnotes indicate he was speculating on Vatican II being more like Lateran V which was completely ineffective in remedying the various issues it was called for.).
Thank you so much for clarifying. I have been wondering about this very much. I know people who are on that far right and they don’t have much charity about it because they think they are doing what’s right.
@@eoinmcg88 If the Church allows it then it is acceptable for then magisteriu as the power of the keys to set new culture and rules, what they bind on earth is bind in heaven (Matthew 16 and 18).
@@ericgatera7149 The same Chinese communist men that forcibly abort millions of chinese babys with firstly the one child policy and now 2 child policy, decide what men will become Catholic Bishops in China, thats Satanic
I thank God For John Salza. Through his work he helped me return to full Communion with the One True Church and leave the schism of Sedevacantism! God bless him!
Re: Salsa, I saw a video awhile ago and he was saying bad things about the traditional Latin mass organization???? I don't understand it but I saw and heard what I saw and heard. This comment of mine herein is just a caution.. I know him a little ,he infiltrated the freemasons and came to tradition meeting and spoke about them a little, a lawyer, yes, he says he is. But I saw and heard him say bad things. I, myself am a practicing Old rite Latin mass man of 74 years of age living in British Columbia Canada. I have no valid Latin mass Church in Canada, I have traveled extensively from the west coast over to Toronto and could not locate one. I have found sspx, I have found fraternity of st Peter and of course all stinky novus ordo heretics but no old rite Latin mass . God keeps me in graces and I just keep living my life. I have located Bishop Williamson In England. He is the closest to me. Bishop Williamson is a valid Catholic Bishop, there are only 4 valid Bishop in the whole world. His title, Sspx Resistance, that is what I am. Good day
@@barrysaunders1463 The Latin Mass is not the most important thing. Christ and His Church are much more important. Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.
The same Chinese communist men that forcibly abort millions of chinese babys with firstly the one child policy and now 2 child policy, decide what men will become Catholic Bishops in China, thats Satanic
Well he's a lawyer. Lawyers get a lot of crap thrown their way...but when righerously applied, a good lawyer truly can be an instrument of God, "Right Reason" at its most visible.
I don't get one thing: so a man is ordained a "priest" by a "Bishop" who was "consecrated" against Pope Saint John Paul II's will. At least by the time when the liturgical "consecration" took place, if not (as I suspect) right from the moment when Lefebvre and his accolyte Bishop started the liturgical "consecration", the four men/priests were excommunicated. So... my question being: can an excommunicated man validly become a Bishop? I'm very confused.
After listening to the Bartel v Cassman debate, you would have to answer Jeff's questions, convincingly and make a better case then he did. That debate can be heard hear.
In order for it to be a Schism doesn’t it have to be proven he INTENDED to intentionally deny the Pope’s authority over his office as Bishop? Even a Cannon lawyer cannot prove his intentions. After all as you say there is no declaration. How can you say the declaration “hasn’t” been lifted if there is no declaration. I see humility in those who also have studied his cause. I do not see humility in this speaker nor Michael Voris who’s video I watched recently. I would tend to lean toward the humble. Authority means to govern and protect, not control and dictate. Most would agree his intentions were to govern and protect his people. Which is more than I can say for most priests and Bishops today.
1:34:05 LOL Most traditionalist people are, sadly, historically illiterate in church history and liturgical history. People (east and west) receive the eucharist in the hand, they raise their hands up during the Lord's prayer and pray together with the priest. Most Trads would be shocked if they saw an early mass.
I've found it quite the opposite. Those who attack the SSPX in defense of "obedience to the Pope" don't seem to have any answers to the moral implications of Pope Stephen digging up the corpse of Pope Formosus and putting it on trial with a deacon providing answers for the corpse. He declared Formosus as not only an anti-Pope but as having been invalid and all his ordinations were invalid. This lead to persecutions of priests and bishops ordained by Formosus. Stephen was later overruled, then later validated and later overruled and later validated. And Eastern Catholics and Orthodox do not receive Communion in the hand. They receive by intincture with a little spoon. This came as a development to increase reverence. And we can see that Communion in the Hand (forbidden by John Paul II in the early 1980s and ignored) has not lead to increased reverence.
@@bman5257 But the Latin Mass was simply codified by Trent. In its essentials ce it goes back to Gregory the Great as recognizable in form. Too many Novus Ordo advocates think that either the TLM is exactly the Novus Ordo but in Latin or they think a committee at Trent put the Latin Mass together in the same manner that the Concilium put together what Ratzinger called, "a banal on the spot product"
No. The TLM was not the "unhealthy acheologism" referred to Pius XII in Mediator Dei. He was referring to the idea of removing the High Altar and making the Altar a table form. Go read it for yourself. All liturgies can be efficacious but not equally. The Novus Ordo is far more prone to instability compared to every other liturgy, since it is an ecumenical concoction rather than a real organic development of a root liturgy. The TLM is like Iron Man's armor. The Novus Ordo is like having a rolled up magazine. You can defend yourself with both but the Iron Man armor is better and you have to be Jason Bourne to make the magazine work for you.
1:17:25 to about 1:18:00 Do I understand Mr. Salza correctly - no marriage consecrated outside of the Roman Catholic Church is valid ? Does it follow that my parents, wrongly believing themselves to have been united as husband and wife by the United Methodist Church, now both in their 90s, have lived in sin and fornication for sixty years and all of their children are illegitimate ?
1:08:30 If SSPX could justify illegal consecrating of bishops because of state of emergency - why other groups (sede, old catholics, jansenists, donatists, etc.) couldn't? Or all schismatics are justified - or none of them.
You can not excommunicate someone who is holding to the original canon of the Church for holding to the original Canon of the Church. Come on, get real or pay the price when you are held accountable for the misleading of souls!
@@nadreb13 I’m not going to argue with you because as I said, you can not excommunicate anyone for following the original canon and anyone who leads people to believe that you can, will be held accountable. Case closed. Period.
For those viewing this for the first time, this is a really simple thing to understand. Jurisdiction comes from the Pope to the Bishops, the SSPX bishops were illicitly consecrated and therefor have no jurisdiction and are not local ordinaries. The priests have to be incardinated by a local bishop that actually has jurisdiction...which SSPX Priests in most cases had no approval from a local bishop to even become ordained priests in the first place. The SSPX priests are not (and never have been) incardinated and thus do not have priestly faculties by operation of law, including the faculties to preach, baptize or say Mass. Thus, SSPX priests do not have a canonical mission from the Church. Simple conclusion: The SSPX has no canonical status nor a mission from the Catholic church and is not formally part of the Catholic church. All their priests are allowed to do is hear confessions and witness marriages with a diocesan priest. (Done by Francis for the faithful's sake). He never gave them permission to say public masses.
The SSPX bishops have never claimed ordinary jurisdiction, nor have the bishops ever claimed any authority. Archbishop LeFebvre described them as "sacrament machines" when he consecrated them. The priests have never claimed to have faculties except in the rare cases where bishops have actually given SSPX priests in their diocese faculties. You have to be in La La Land and so confused by the crisis in the Church that you can't see it for what it is to deny the justification and the necessity of the SSPX and their effect on the rest of the Church. Had any of the Popes actually cared about protecting the faith of Catholics, they would have never de facto suppressed both the TLM and the fullness of the Catholic doctrine instead of substituting much of the clarity of the faith for humanist goals.
Malarkey. Most Catholics love Pope Francis. It's only extremists who have any problem with his magisterium. They are the same idiots who voted for Trump - probably twice. That just goes to show how the road to Hell gets paved.
Glad to hear someone admit the errors on the right are worse than those on the left. The dissent on the left is mostly over moral theology, which is doctrine based on philosophy & natural law. The dissent on the right is over sacramental theology, which is doctrine based on scripture & divine revelation. HUGE DIFFERENCE. Comparing the two as if they were somehow equivalent is FALSE.
There is a country wide schism brewing in Germany right now over liberal errors and a good chunk of Catholics everywhere adhere to that type of mindset so I don’t see how the errors of the right could possibly be a greater threat
@@p.doetsch6209 They are not equivalent. Sacramental theology is at the top of the "hierarchy of truths", while moral theology is at the bottom. Changes to doctrines at the bottom don't impact those higher up.
Salza: 1) The SSPX has invalid confessions and invalid marriages. This is Salza's opinion, he's not repeating an official statement from the Holy Office or the Pope. 2) Salza: The SSPX has tribunals and claims "some kind" of authority to declare marriages invalid!" Me: Salza claims "some kind" of authority to declare the SSPX confessions and marriages invalid.
Actually he is simply quoting the teaching of the Church that requires ordinary jurisdiction for valid confessions. He further quotes the teaching of the Church on the circumstances required for supplied justification . It is the sspx that Issues an opinion on the matter.
@@TheCleanTech He's trying to make a canon law argument that is ultimately a lay man's opinion since he's not a canon lawyer as far as I know, and he has no official ruling to cite from the Holy See concerning validity of the marriages and confessions. And offices of the Holy See are inconsistent in their rulings to the point where he can't use them unless he simply cherry picks the ones he wants. And that's a hornet's nest he doesn't want to get into. And if there is still any argument about the application of the various canons by which the faithful can legitimately request sacraments from the SSPX or any other priests, Francis extended the faculties he granted to a group that Salza contends is outside of the Church. (Funny how to be schismatic is to be outside of the Church since being schismatic denies Popes have the powers to give faculties and yet the Pope grants faculties. That could mean that Francis sees the SSPX as exercising a ministry within the Church and to the faithful of the Church) The Holy Father Francis, Patriarch the West, The Vicar of Christ, Servant of the Servants of God stated: "For the Jubilee Year I had also granted that those faithful who, for various reasons, attend churches officiated by the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, can validly and licitly receive the sacramental absolution of their sins. For the pastoral benefit of these faithful, 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 ever be deprived of the sacramental sign of reconciliation through the Church’s pardon." Interesting that he didn't declare any sacraments invalid including marriages. And that he granted faculties for pastoral reasons of licity, not sacramental validity. He also states that he trusts in the good will of the priests. He also doesn't state or render judgement on the "various reasons" that people attend the SSPX. So, it seems Salza denies the power of the papacy. He must be schismatic if he insists that the SSPX don't have the faculties granted by Francis and he denies the canon law of the Latin Church.
@@gerry30 based on your post , I don’t think you listened to anything he said . He never disputed that they were granted facilities to hear confession, or to do marriages under a diocese bishops permission. He was addressing what he believes is an error that the sspx hold , that error is they proclaim that they don’t need facilities. That is the point of dispute.
@@TheCleanTech Well, he's a layman with no authority and what does he cite as proof that the SSPX claims they don't need faculties? He makes a claim about what the Church teaches in some cases, like sacramental intention and I look it up. If it's correct with what he states (and he's not always correct) , I check out the SSPX and see if he was correct about what the SSPX claim. Strangely, I find that the SSPX actually claims what the Church claims and Salza ignores that. And where they make a nuanced argument, Salza has deliberately removed the nuance about translations and claimed they are denying something they are not denying. In fact the SSPX claims that the rite of ordination in Latin as promulgated by Paul VI is beyond the doubt valid. Is this by accident? I don't think so. He'd have to have been one of the dumbest supporters of the SSPX out there to be so inept at presenting their side of things correctly. Just like the angle he usese of making a subtle conflation of "the Church" and "the Churchmen" if the SSPX says something like "there are many men in the hierarchy of the Church who embrace heresy" Salza cons people with the claim, "They accuse the Church of heresy." As if Cardinal Kaspar or Cardinal Maradiaga are "the Church." or that when you have numerous translations of sacraments, that the validity can be doubted since it departs so much from the Latin promulgated by Pope Paul VI. As a side note, wouldn't it be interesting to someday find out that the original ICEL English translation of the consecration of the Eucharist actually rendered that formula invalid? We would have 40 plus years of invalid Holy Eucharist except in places where the Novus Ordo was in Latin, translated better in a foreign language or in the few places where the TLM was being offered. Do you think Pope Benedict XVI would have publicly stated that if he believed it was the case? But hey, it's the SSPX that is part of the problem, right? John Paul II had the problem well in hand when he was kissing the Koran and elevating Jorge Bergoglio to a bishop and then a Cardinal and virtually a thousand other scandals, mishaps and degradations of the Church organization. And he really didn't have a problem with bishops being consecrated without a papal mandate since he made bishop Husar a Cardinal as well. Right? I guess because LeFebvre didn't want to engage in the destruction of the Church. Paul VI at least admitted with his ideas about Kenosis in the Church, but the "renewal" of JPII was simply gaslighting. Salza can't ignore it completely but by soft pedaling the crisis which is catastrophic and making it appear as if it's just a ripple in the water, he can move onto his ridiculous attempts at gaslighting people about the SSPX and traditionalists in general who have been cancelled by the liberals inside the power structures of the Church.
@@gerry30 let me make sure I understand you correctly. Are you saying that Salza is misrepresenting the sspx when he says they believe they don’t need faculties for valid confessions? If that is your objection? If so,,,, Then I ask you if the sspx agrees that before they were granted faculties they were giving invalid confessions? As far as all the mud you threw at JP2 and the rest . None of that refutes what his point is regarding faculties, and other errors he points out . And just because one disputes some of the positions the sspx holds doesn’t mean one condones the scandals going on in the Church . Inspite of the scandals, the faith remains intact . Now if JP2 commanded the universal church to kiss the Koran , then you would have an issiue. Otherwise it maybe a personal sin on his part , (depending on his intention, and whether it was actually the Koran that he kissed(. that sin (real or imagined). doesn’t fall on me when I obey his legitimate commands and it wouldn’t give me license to separate myself from the structure of the Church . Now on a personal note, I understand the issues better then you think. I was a sedevacantist for over 40 years . The bottom line for me was the realization that inspite of all the scandals and crazy things that took place after v2 , the faith remained in tact . Also the realization that worshipping with in the structure of the Church doesn’t mean that I approve or that I participate in the sins and scandals of the hierarchy. ( real or imagined). With that said I understand that you are serious about your faith and trying to do your best in a tough situation. As far as that goes, I’m right there with you . I think are best course is to remain at the foot of the cross with our Lady and never allow anything or anybody to cause us to abandon the Church .
Good video. SSPX position is unteneble and, if consistent, leads to sedevacantism. Frankly, sedevacantism has more sense than SSPX.- but has other problems of course.
Sedevacantism only makes sense if one imbibes in the error of Neo-Ultramontanism. On the one hand, the EWTN types simply believe because the Pope is the Pope whatever he says must be correct and when he says something obviously wrong, or contradicts himself, they just go with the error and ignore the contradiction. The Sedevacantist position is that because the Pope is the Pope and whatever he says must be correct, when he says something wrong, he's obviously not the Pope. The SSPX position is the most reasonable in that the Pope is the Pope but not everything he says is correct and in some cases he must be resisted when he's obviously wrong. There's nothing in the Catholic Church that teaches the Pope is to be obeyed absolutely or that he's irresistible in all matters. Conversely the dogmatic formulations of the Church make qualified pronouncements and the teaching of the Doctors like Aquinas and Bellarmine admit the need to resist a Pope is the occasion arises. Not to mention St. Paul with St. Peter, the error of Pope John 22nd and the ridiculous decrees of Pope Stephen after he put the corpse of Pope Formosus on trial.
“How then should he authorise two sorts of pastors, the one extraordinary, the other ordinary? As to the ordinary - it certainly is authorised, and as to the extraordinary we are supposing it to be; there would then be two different churches, which is contrary to the most pure word of Our Lord, who has but one sole spouse, one sole dove, one sole perfect one (Cant. vi.). And how could that be a united flock which should be led by two shepherds, unknown to each other, into different pastures, with different calls and folds, and each of them expecting to have the whole. Thus would it be with the Church under a variety of pastors ordinary and extraordinary, dragged hither and thither into various sects. Or is Our Lord divided (1 Cor. 1: 13), either in himself or in his body, which is the Church? - no, in good truth. On the contrary, there is but one Lord, who has composed his mystic body with a goodly variety of members, a body compacted and fitly joined together by what every joint supplieth, according to the operation in the measure of every part (Eph. iv. 16). Therefore to try to make in the Church this division of ordinary and extraordinary members is to ruin and destroy it. We must then return to what we said, that an extraordinary vocation is never legitimate where it is disapproved of by the ordinary.” - St Francis de Sales, The Catholic Controversy, Chapter 3
st. Francis de Sales is obviously referring to normal circumstances. If your neighbour house is on fire while he’s away, would you trespass & break in & put the fire out? Problem with quote texting out of context is that it doesn’t actually solve anything.
“Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.” - Luke xviii. 17. How much of this lofty theological discourse would a little child comprehend ? Probably none of it.... how much of a scholar do i have to be to have any hope of abiding in the presence of the Lord Jesus forever?
You don't have to be a "scholar", but you do need to accept ( with childlike confidence) that the Church that Christ Himself established whilst He walked on the earth and exists to this very day has His authority. John Salza brilliantly articulates the theological arguments that support these biblical truths.
I was baptized in the Luthern Church at age 9 months. At around 47 years of age. I took the Catholic rcia course in Vancouver bc and was co firmed by arch Bishop Adam Exner . I received the Holy Spirit through this procedure and still have it today 2023. How can Salsa say that my credentials are not valid, hevis incorrect in this matter He just does not know all things
@ FrJohnBrownSJ … and I feel sorry for you sir. The people at the end were confused and upset by a man who professed a man named “Peter” as being the “Prince” of the Disciples, yet it was Saint Paul who REBUKED Pope Peter, a Pope who later hung himself upside down on the cross because he felt he was NOT worthy to die the same way as Christ. Calling yourself “Catholic” is meaningless because it is a Greek word that means “universal”. And? I’m a “universal” lol? Oh please. The schism in 1054 happened in the same manner when the Germans entered the church and usurped the papacy, a la Vatican II 900 years later…
There is a schism alright…. But as the Saintly Archbishop himself said: the breach is not found on the side of the SSPX. We just practice the faith as it has always been.
@@TheNostalgicKitchen lest I checked the creeds don't say "and I believe in the Society of St. Pius X" but in the "one, holy Catholic Church"; and the dogma is of papal primacy not Lefebvre primacy
Same schism as Luther. Divorcing the church and setting yourself up as the authority does not give you that authority. Same story, different men. So sad.
There is no case in Church history where a bishop has consecrated a bishop against the pope’s mandate and not been considered a schismatic: Demonstrably fasle, even the Communisy Church in China has not been declared schismatic and the pope only calls the situation “complicated” and they just consecrated bishops.
Don't forget Cardinal Husar consecrated a bishop without a papal mandate in the late 1970s in the Pope's Summer residence of Castel Gandolfo. From what I know, the old canon law then in place was more severe than the new canon law that was in place by the time the SSPX consecrated the bishops. And John Paul II made the illicitly consecrated bishop Husar into a Cardinal. How's that for a unequal Justice system of the Pope? This, along with the ambiguity of JPII's claims and the misapplication of the laws as well as the manifest crisis in the Church makes any excommunication implied or declared null and void.
Please listen to what Salza says before making a comment like this. Papal approval can be explicit or implicit. The Pope, as of right now, at least implicitly approves the situation in China. Meaning that it can't be used as an example against Salza's argument.
@Gerry The case of Cardinal Husar seems to be in the same vein as the example that Salza mentioned regarding John Paul II. He was consecrated secretly in a country under Soviet control. At the time, the Ukrainian Catholic Church couldn't even officially exist. Attempting to put this example on the same level as Lefebvre consecrating men he didn't need explicitly against the lawful commands of the Supreme Pontiff is nonsense. What ambiguity are you referring to on Pope St John Paul II's part? He was very specific about Lefebvre's errors in Ecclesia Dei after all. And the warnings issued to Lefebvre before he broke off from the Church were equally clear. To say otherwise leads me to believe that you have yet to read the documents for yourself. Even if we imagine that this is "unequal Justice", that still doesn't mean that we're free to do whatever we want and that all excommunications and suspensions are null and void. That's just something you seem to have made up as an excuse for publicly slandering Holy Mother Church. A grave sin at that
@@john-el9636 You seem to act like that helps the case. Francis and virtually every Pope of Post Conciliar era is a disaster and a scandal. The Pope is approving Communist approved bishops and Salza in his Pharisaical way thinks that makes things just dandy. This is the new version of the "the Church isn't in a Crisis unless the Pope says it is" nonsense that was thrown around during the JPII days.
@Gerry What are you referring to in particular here? I couldn't care less what your personal opinions on Popes and Saints are. Would you rather Pope Francis just halt everything and abandon the Church in China? What exactly would you, a layman with no episcopal experience, do instead? Salza absolutely doesn't just think that things are "dandy." He literally affirms that we are in a great crisis and that he doesn't like Pope Francis really. Bearing false witness against your neighbor is a mortal sin. You should know better than to act like this.
Does Archbishop LeFebvre actually claim that jurisdiction comes from the people? As I've heard it, jurisidiction comes from the Church to whatever valid priest is available when approached by a Catholic who has any just cause to seek out the abilities of the priest or bishop. Eg, you are in an airport and want to have your confession heard before you depart. The only English speaking priest you can find is also at the airport. He doesn't have jurisdiction within the diocese of the airport. But he can hear the confession and validly absolve.
No,not just any priest! A priest that can speak Latin well,and is against Vatican ii decrees, is bona-fide "valid" priest and can absorb Otherwise it's a fake one! Lordy lordy, God have mercy 🙏😒
Yes 👍 The pope 's authority : Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock [see John 1:42] I will build my church, and the powers of death [i.e., gates of hell] shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” [See Isaiah 22:20 and Revelation 3:7 for a better understanding of the significance of the keys]. The Power to Bind and to Loose (Matthew 18:18) "Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven." [Note: "Binding and loosing" are rabbinical terms which mean to teach with authority from God and require other believers to comply. This authority was given to Peter in his role as Christ's vicar first and then to the Apostles in communion with him].
What a bad stretch. at 6:20 or so. The claims of the SSPX on the validity of the sacraments is not based on intention solely. Though the idea that Salza states that the priest doesn't have to have the intention that sins are forgiven but only he has to intend what the Church intends. That may hold for a sincere understanding that is wrong. But a priest that definitively denies sin is going to put the sacrament in doubt. But the point is also that the SSPX and the Church organizational members are both painfully aware that "creativity" being expressed in the liturgies can and does lead to invalid masses. When parishes decide to use their own recipe for "Communion bread" and they all stand around the altar and no matter what their intention, their sticky buns do not become the Body of Christ. Salza doesn't want his hearers to know both the extent of the crisis in places and the specificity by which the SSPX explains their Catholic positions. Salza has to lie to get his point across. The truth won't make his case.
Your distorting his point . Nobody is saying the SSPX is wrong for doubting validity of a pizza and beer mass. He is disputing their “doubt” regarding a mass said properly according to the text with proper matter . No need to twist and conflate issiues .
@@TheCleanTech The SSPX don't express doubt about the validity of a well intentioned priest offering a Novus Ordo. What the SSPX object to is the "fittingness" of the Novus Ordo itself. A mass that "does the trick" isn't sufficient as an offering to God for proper worship. And the malice of the Novus Ordo isn't with the priests trained to say it or obligated to say it, it's in the impoverishment of the liturgy itself.
@@gerry30 no one claimed the Sspx has doubt regarding a proper novus ordo with a well intentioned priest . Not sure why that was raised ? With regards to an “impoverished “ liturgy , One can use the same claim and say a low mass is impoverished compared to a high mass. But the grace of the sacrament is equal in both. Another example, have you ever witnessed the liturgy of a traditional baptism ceremony? It’s amazingly beautiful, However a valid baptism done in an emergency, with a quick simple form is equally a baptism. Yet one could call a simple baptism impoverished compared to the full traditional ceremony. Point is be careful not to elivate liturgy above the substance of a sacrament. Liturgy serves the sacrament not the other way around.
From John Salza to me in response to your point here: "He claims I said precisely the opposite of what I actually said regarding doing what the Church intends. Tell him he needs to understand my arguments first before shooting off his big mouth."
@@TheCleanTech No. Salza is distorting the positions of the SSPX. Salza at the early point of his talk doesn't mention what instances the SSPX have doubts or what sacrament specifically he is talking about. He just engages in his smear. But his appeal to the Holy Office is slap dash and incomplete. Going by what Salza states, any non-Christian in a play that performs the role of a person who is Baptized gets actually and validtly Baptized the first time the actor playing the priest pours the water over him and pronounces the proper formula.
"The "revealed truth" that the right to select bishops is the right of the Pope alone." Well, the acions of the early Church and the Apostles would cast doubt on that as a "Revealed Truth" since Peter didn't "okay" every bishop selected and bishops of the East especially as well as the West for centuries didn't require a papal mandate and even when they did, there were numerous times the see was filled without great complaint from the Pope who could have renamed another bishop. What was that guy's name? OH right!....Becket But more recently, let's look at what happened when Lubomyr Husar was consecrated a bishop in Rome without a papal mandate, from the Wikipedia article: " He was consecrated a bishop in 1977 in the Castel Gandolfo chapel by Major Archbishop Josyf Slipyj with help of titular bishop of Zigris Ivan Prasko and bishop of Toronto Isidore Borecky without papal approval (apostolic mandate) in an act which caused many irritations in the Roman Curia,[5][6] as canon law required papal permission for the consecration of a bishop.[7] He was named Archimandrite (Archabbot) of the Studite Monks in Europe and America in 1978. He organized a new Studite monastery in Ternopil, Ukraine, in 1994, and was elected by the Synod of Bishops of the Ukrainian Church as exarch of the archiepiscopal exarchy of Kyiv and Vyshhorod in 1995, confirmed by the Pope the following year (February 1996) by nominating to the titular see of Nisa di Licia.[6] On 14 October 1996 the UGCC Synod of Bishops named Husar auxiliary of the Archbishop Major of Lviv as coadjutor with special delegations. In October 1999 he attended the 2nd Special Assembly for Europe.[6] Although once a citizen of the United States, Husar gave up his U.S. citizenship after transferring to Ukraine, and adopted the citizenship of Ukraine. " This guy, a decade before LeFebvre consecrated the bishops after back and forth discussions, negotiations and machinations, separated himself from the Church, defied the Pope in Rome, the result? Irritation from Rome. But he was given a See anyway and Pope John Paul II even made him a Cardinal. So, the whole hysteria about consecrations and papal mandates is only a big deal when Rome wants it to be a big deal. It's not objective, it's about selective outrage, political brinksmanship and unequal justice. The funny thing is, the 1917 code of Canon Law was more clear than the 1983 code. Husar was way off the reservation juridically, but he was aligned properly politically and wasn't going to oppose the agenda. You know, the agenda that wound up with Buddha statues on Catholic altars, the Pope kissing the Koran, Pachamama in St. Peter's and only about a thousand other scandals, other than that, a great thing.
Bro did you watch this video at all? John Salza stated multiple times that the right to select bishops isn't always explicit. Don't go off on a rant without watching the video
@@john-el9636 Bro, whether papal mandates are explicit or not isn't what I was arguing. Salza falsely claims that it is a "Divinely Revealed Truth" that the selection of bishops is the right of the Pope alone." It's not Divinely Revealed and it's not even an Apostolic Tradition. Bishops were both selected by other bishops and sometimes clergy and lay faithful elected their bishops. Papal mandates weren't a thing till 6 centuries into the life of the Church. I pointed to the Catholic Encyclopedia both to show the selective outrage comparing what Bishop Slipyj did compared to Archbishop LeFebvre and that LeFebvre did it under a more lenient code of Canon Law. Pay attention.
@Gerry I'll say this one more time since you clearly didn't read my comment or watch the video. Papal mandate can be explicit or implicit. We're not talking about specific decrees but instead just approval. As in, bishops who were in opposition to the Bishop of Rome weren't considered legitimate in the early Church. Salza makes this clear multiple times in the video. If you're going to argue that this isn't part of divinely revealed truths, then you have to explain how multiple popes apparently got that completely backwards and taught absolute error. Which complicates our Catholic faith. If you're not going to pay attention, don't bother trying to engage in this discussion.
@@john-el9636 I read your comment and Salza's false claim. Your mistake is not knowing what Divine Revelation means. Papal mandates are an issue of Canon Law not Revelation. It was a claiim that the Popes reserved to themselves in the 7th century. Paul doesn't even mention Peter in his warning to Timothy about being careful about whom he ordains and consecrates. Bishops who were in opposition to the Pope weren't considered legitimate? Are you including St. Paul in that? You aren't precise in your language. That's why you fall for Salza's deceptions. He just changes a word here and there, omits a sentence here and there and creates his illusion of lies. Salza wants you to think whatever his personal Pharisaical attitude decides Catholic doctrine is. But ultimately he's a layman with no authority and he's a heretic. He imbibes in Neo-Donatism and denies that babies validly baptized in Non-Catholic settings are not baptized Catholics. So, he either denies one Baptism and admits multiple Baptisms and if He thinks a child or person given "Anglican" Baptism is saved, he denies the dogma of No Salvation Outside the Church. I have already stated in my comments that I haven't heard the whole of his lectures. But I've commented on things I have specifically seen and heard him blather on about, polluting the internet with his stupidity.
@@gerry30 excellent rebuttals. Many are taken in by Salza’s false claims because of their bias against the SSPX. They fail to see these are old arguments rehashed from back in the 1990’s. One traditional priest who’s not SSPX summarized Salza perfectly when he wrote, “Salza is a man who doesn’t come across as likable or virtuous but vitriolic. Does one see a reflection of St. Joseph in him? Even if he left Freemasonry, he clearly didn’t pick up much virtue or good logic in the process”. I think you also mentioned in another comment/post that his arguments whether one can attend a SSPX chapel to fulfill Sunday obligation & jurisdiction re SSPX were brilliantly debunked by Christpilled. I know the person behind that account & he told me it didn’t take him long to figure out Salza was manipulating the truth but it took him a while to present his argument so clearly. Hard work pays. In Christo.
Someone doesn't understand how excommunication works. Most likely you haven't been to a valid confession in forever. Dr. Salza clearly has and publicly acknowledges his sin.
Only GOD knows the things of the church founded by HIS SON...only GOD sees who's doing the truth of the church... pray for wisdom and guidance of where to go for the church founded by CHRIST... look at the fruits from the head down below... Viva Kristo Rey! Ave Maria!!!
Is a mass that is a "danger to the faith" that Salza says he will not attend considered invalid? If not, then he would be willfully not fulfilling his Sunday obligation by not attending, which is a mortal sin. If it is invalid, what makes it so and who gets to make that determination?
@zzzz This question isn't for me, it is for Salza. So you are saying one has to figure out each mass, if it's ok? And how do you know beforehand, as it hasn't happened yet and you don't know what abuses the upcoming mass will bring? And lay people have to decide if a mass is valid. Amazing that this is how things work in the novus ordo. We spent 2 1/2 hours getting to Mass this morning an 1 hour and 40 minutes getting home.
@zzzz "if something's valid, it either objectively is or isn't". So one has to determine at the mass if something is invalid, but then it's too late. You are there. And so much for focusing on prayer and on Our Lord if one has to make sure the mass is valid! I'll pass on that. Salza talked about a mass that is a "danger to the faith" which sounds like more and worse than some incorrect rubrics. "There's a collapse in discipline in general" That's putting it mildly!
@zzzz "where is the determination?" You have to determine if the words of consecration are right, if all the rubrics are right, etc. I would never go where I would have to do this. ""Mass" continued as it had you leave" Indeed! "On hand you care about validity and on the other hand you aren't on guard?" I don't go where I have to be on guard. "Do you think that the Novus Ordo imparts the same amount of grace as the 62?" No. Also, the 62 had the Canon altered, the people's Confeitor removed, commemorations removed, calendar altered. This was not a finished product; the changes ceased in 1962 because of the council but continued after and resulted in the mass of Paul VI.
@zzzz Where we go to Mass, we know how the clergy were trained, how long theye been offering the Mass, who ordained them. I have no concerns and don't need to think about it. I recommend the book "Work of Human Hands: A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI."
You know, the guy who was a nominal Catholic, became an enthusiastic Freemason, became an enthusiastic EWTN type of Catholic, became an enthusiastic Traditional Catholic and now is a full throated enthusiastic supporter of the Vatican II revolution. He writes and sells books all along the way, trashing on Thursday who he supported on Tuesday while trashing who he supported on the previous Saturday. It's the modern day medicine show.
RE: marriage tribunals. The SSPX makes no authoritative claims. First, anyone who doesn't think the marriage tribunals in the regular Church structure aren't messed up is delusional. But the SSPX tribunals give the benefit of the doubt to the diocesan tribunals and only give an opinion if they think the tribunal is wrong and the solicitors make a personal promise to adhere to the conclusion. So, if a person claims their marriage was valid and the SSPX agrees with the tribunal that there was an invalidating error, the people involved agree to accept that. And if the SSPX says, "No. The Tribunal ignored the fact that you both signed pre-nups and that's invalidating." Or if the SSPX concludes that the people are still married and were sloppily granted an anullment declaration. The people have promised to abide by that decision and not marry again unless to each other or the passing of the other party.
No citation for LeFebvre claiming that the people give him jurisdiction. I've read quite the opposite. LeFebvre claimed no authority and everyone involved was there of their own volition and the Church supplies jurisdiction when the people request it. How did LeFebvre manage to rewrite Canon law? Amazing.
I was with Salza until he claimed that people married by the SSPX would be sinning by fornication. At the very least would this not be a natural marriage, and if they believe they are validly married how could they be sinning?
In the case where there marriages are invalid but they believe it to be valid then they would be materially committing fornication, it would be an evil act, but they wouldn’t be culpable, due to their ignorance. So therefore it wouldn’t be a mortal sin, as that requires knowledge.
That would be true of any valid marriage granted an annulment declaration within the regular Church organization. They've been giving them out like candy for decades. So Salza's argument isn't any better for the diocesan tribunals.
@P. Doetsch well apparently you disagree with the Pope. How could the pope give faculties of marriage and reconciliation to non- catholics? Does he give faculties to other so called non-catholics? No because the sspx are fully catholic. Stop beating up on other catholics who just want a reverent worship. How about you concentrate your energy on stopping clown & guitar masses. Let's thank God for the sspx and that we still have some places to worship with reverence and respect. And let's thank God for the brave men who stand up to heresy and respectfully say no to Peter, because if it wasn't for these men we wouldn't even know what the TLM was. And if they get their way they will stomp it out completely. We have to resist them for our children's sake, stop causing division. Pope St. Pius V, pray for us
@@uncomfortabletruth-nr3gv The SSPX reap what they sow, schism. When they want to come back to the Church, they can come back the same way the Orthodox will have to be re-admitted, through a good confession for the sin of Schism.
@P. Doetsch Refusing to accept heresy is NOT schismatic Pope Pius V guarantees ALL priests to the right to say the TLM. Stop with your false accusations the orthodox are ACTUALLY In schism the sspx are completely different. They believe the papacy even more than certain Cardinal in the church and because they refuse to give full faculties that is where the abuse is. I'm sure you don't attend the N.O. aren't you schizzie yourself?
@@uncomfortabletruth-nr3gv I attend the NO at a TLM parish. They do the NO without any abuses. If the Bishop shut down the TLM it wouldn't undermine my Faith. God will judge him, not me.
You mean to say the old old church are schismatic? Who really went out of the catholic church? Though the early church fathers not enlightened by the HOLY SPIRIT? Now why is the change of the rites of mass? Why is the change of church?? Though we have to follow the pope if his mind is not of the church founded by CHRIST? So which are we going to follow authorize by human or by GOD?
I heard the word mason about church within the church and I believe.. /the midern church now i cannot understand their behavior.. their respect and faith of the true presence of JESUS in the Eucharist.... my son a lay minister give communion to the laitys while the priest was sitting down... how us that??? Go to church the apostolic church.... church of GOD not of man
We are in a state of emergency as fr Hesse has said in his numerous videos. Pray the rosary daily to eliminate sins and get enrolled in the brown scapula says fr Gruner and pray for your enemies and ask the Lord to keep your faith strong and also to increase your faith and pray for graces. Good luck Catholics, some day all this trouble will be over, hang in there. Thevonlyvwayvto getvto heaven is through the Catholic Church
"Schism" as a term literally means "rupture." Pope Benedict XVI basically declared that anyone who follows the policies of Vatican II according to the "Hermeneutic of Rupture" is essentially schismatic. To follow a legalistic and narrow application of the term and believe your soul is secured while you attend a Novus Ordo with morally bankrupt sermons And heterodox actions is folly.
Yeah.....He's talking about the SSPX rejecting the infalible authority of the Apostolic College. Here's the thing, there is no "college" of bishops. The relationship of bishops to Pope is one to one. There is no denial of the infalibility of the Apostles. The claim that the Apostles who were individually granted Public Revelation and infallibility is not disputed. But there was no separate "college of bishops" and the "Pope" as two wonder twins who connect their rings to activate their special powers. I'm 5 minutes in and this guy is an utter fraud.
the root of the problem is on one side allowing the free market place of ideas...and the other is using force to stop the free market of ideas. I think the opponents of the SSPX want them to be eliminated by force.
Clear...the schism is the one who separate from the church from CHRIST teachings' handed to the apostles....the changing of the rites of mass... clear schism... thank for your talk my simple mind understand who really is the true Christ Church... The fruits will testify
If we are going to "resist novelty" as Mr. Salza suggests, then we have to resist Vatican II, the new mass, and so much that comes from the conciliar structure. I recommend the book "Iota Unum" by Romano Amerio.
Someone's not paying attention. Dr. Salza himself says he attends a TLM diocesan mass. There are multiple TLM masses currently going on in Milwaukee under the diocese, ICK, and FSSP.
"the SSPX has embraced doctrinal errors and even heresies" Oh No! While I doubt that is true, he is actually critiqueing the average pew sitter and attendee of Fr. James Martin's lectures.
How can an apostate excommunicate anyone? If I promote heresy don't I automatically lose the faith? V2 documents contain heresy. Therefore the novus ordo church is different an not the one holy catholic apostolic. N. O contradicts previous popes & councils.
If current pope and all cardinals, and all Roman Curia, and all ordinary bishops are apostatates, heretics and they lost all jurisdiction - then Roman Catholic Church has defected OR jurisidiction and papacy are not essential to the Church but accidental. What option do you choose?
"Don't be tricked by appearances...there's a presumption that the SSPX is orthodox"......there is also a presumption that the local Novus Ordo is orthodox. But very unlikely. Far more likely with the SSPX.
Many scholars, popes, theologians, heads of prefects and canon lawyers disagree with Salza. Having a layman accuse people of the crime of schism is absurd and irresponsible, and in this case slanderous.
@@bman5257 Benedict and Francis, as well as many canon lawyers. It's very irresponsible for a layman to accuse someone or a group of schism, especially when the current pope and the vatican state that you can fulfill your Sunday obligation going to a SSPX chapel, a Bishop in the SSPX was assigned by the Pope to have a position on tribunal court, excommunications were removed, faculties were given, they are dealt with (and have always been dealt with) the dicastery of internal (Catholic) congregations, and SOOO many more reasons. You can't merely dismiss all off this and claim someone or a group to be facing eternal damnation.
@@adamflaherty9710 What do you think of these quotes from Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis? "In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.(3) In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law...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." (Pope St. John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei, 2 July 1988) "An episcopal ordination lacking a pontifical mandate raises the danger of a schism, since it jeopardizes the unity of the College of Bishops with the Pope...In light of this situation, it is my intention henceforth to join the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei" - the body which has been competent since 1988 for those communities and persons who, coming from the Society of Saint Pius X or from similar groups, wish to return to full communion with the Pope - to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith." (Pope Benedict XVI, LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CONCERNING THE REMISSION OF THE EXCOMMUNICATION OF THE FOUR BISHOPS CONSECRATED BY ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE, 10 March 2009) "The faculty - granted by the indult of the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1984 [2] and confirmed by St. John Paul II in the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei in 1988 [3] - was above all motivated by the desire to foster the healing of the schism with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre." (Pope Francis, LETTER OF THE HOLY FATHER FRANCIS TO THE BISHOPS OF THE WHOLE WORLD, THAT ACCOMPANIES THE APOSTOLIC LETTER MOTU PROPRIO DATA “TRADITIONIS CUSTODES”, 16 July 2021)
Pope Marcellinus cannot be compared to what JPII did. Ditto for what Francis has done. Pope Marcellinus ruled the Church of Rome for nine years and four months. By order of Emperors Diocletian and Maximian he was taken prisoner and brought forward to offer sacrifice to the idols. At first he refused and was threatened with various kinds of torture, and for fear of the threatened suffering he put down two grains of incense in sacrifice to the gods. This gave great joy to the infidels but caused the faithful immense sadness. However, under a weak head, members rise up and make little of the threats of the princes, so the faithful came to the Pope and reproached him severely. He realized the gravity of his error and offered himself to be judged by a council of Bishops. The Bishops responded: “It is not possible for the Supreme Pontiff to be judged by anyone, but you yourself weigh your case in your own mind and pronounce your own judgment.” The Pope, repentant, lamented his fault and deposed himself, but the whole gathering immediately re-elected him. When the Emperors heard of this, they had him arrested again. He absolutely refused to offer sacrifice to the idols, so they sentenced him to be beheaded. Then the persecution was renewed with such a fury that in one month 17,000 Christians were put to death. When Marcellinus was about to be beheaded, he declared himself unworthy of Christian burial and excommunicated all who might presume to bury him. Thus his body lay above ground for 35 days. At the end of that time the Apostle Peter appeared to Marcellus, who had succeeded as Pope and said: “Brother Marcellus, why do you not bury me?” Marcellus replied: “Have you not yet been buried, my Lord?” Peter: “ I consider myself unburied as long as Marcellinus is unburied!” “But don’t you know, my Lord,” Marcellus asked, “that he laid a curse on anyone who buried him?” Peter: “Is it not written that he who humbles himself shall be exalted? You should have kept this in mind! Now go and bury him at my feet.” Marcellus went straightaway and carried out the orders laudably. (From the Golden Legend by Blessed Jacobus of Voragine)
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia online it is not proven that Pope St. Marcellinus offered incense to the gods: There were even later reports in circulation that accused him [Pope St. Marcellinus] of having...offered incense to the gods, to protect himself from the persecution. But the sources in which this reproach is clearly stated are very questionable....The Donatist Bishop Petilianus...asserted..But he could not adduce any proof..One can only conclude...that such rumours against Marcellinus...could not be proved, otherwise St. Augustine would not have been able to assert the innocence of the accused so decidedly. But even in Rome similar stories were told of Marcellinus in certain circles, so that in two later legendary reports a formal apostasy was attributed to this pope, of course followed by repentance and penance. The biography of Marcellinus...relates that he was led to the sacrifice that he might scatter incense, which he did. But after a few days he was seized with remorse, and was condemned to death by Diocletian with three other Christians, and beheaded. It is clear that this report attempts to combine a rumour that the pope had offered incense to the gods, with the fact that, in other circles he was regarded as a martyr and his tomb venerated.
"Cassocks and say the traditional mass" Notice how that is what his claims of the SSPX's orthodoxy comes from? Never heard in all my time around trads of various stripes that the hallmark of orthodoxy was the extternals. Usually people are given excellent pastoral advice and there is "reverence" demonstrated for our Lord in the Eucharist. Wear a cassock at the Novus Ordo all you want and see how our Lord is treated with Communion in the hand and the trampling of the Sacred Species under foot. But we know there's a crisis....that's right.
Le febvre is a hero, he saved the Latin mass from being canceled by Vatican ll . The Latin mass has never been abrogated. It is still valid.Salsa is mouthing off with things that he has no knowlege of
The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass offered by Archbishop Lefebrve is the Mass Padre Pio offered, the Mass beloved by St. Therese of Lisieux, the Mass offered in Lepanto while the battle raged and the Mass which countless Saints before Vatican II held as their Sacrament. The magesterium and tradition can be traced back to the apostles. It is not an innovation. It is a living continuation of the true deposit of faith. When Archbishop Lefebrve sought permission for ordination of bishops from the Holy See that was not an act of schism. He was promised that a date would be chosen in the future for those ordinations. Freemasons and modernists in the Vatican blocked that step. Thank God that Lefebrve acted to preserve the Mass of the ages! He deserves sainthood for his courage in the face of evil. The diluted, Protestantized Novus Order mass which disrespects the Body and Blood of our Lord has shown us its worth by its fruits. The pews emptied and the belief in the True Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist withered since Vatican II. Now pachamama idols adorn the altars. It is the smoke of satan and not the incense of prayers which fills the Novus Order churches. If canon law is accurately and fully applied this presentation would fall apart on legal grounds alone. The fact that the presenter selectively chose and twisted canon laws to make a slick and compelling argument shows his true colors and affiliations. Those who follow the father of lies often take this spproach. Saul Alinsky too would be proud. You can keep the idols and the heresy normalizing sins! Look at who is promoted in the Vatican. Look at the latest Synod. I am blessed to have access to an SSPX church near me. The graces I receive are palpable. Prayer begets what it signifies. The TLM is simply stronger and more complete in content. Commmunion on the tongue is reverent. Even the sacramental blessing is more robust; the graces which flow from those sacramentals bear witness to the efficacy of the blessings. I pray for the Pope and the entire Roman Catholic Church. I pray for those who don't have an SSPX in their vicinity. The gates of hell cannot prevail against the Church. When the smoke clears the SSPX will be there to carry on as the rest of the church returns to true faith. As for the video consider the source and the method of his argument.
The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass offered by schismatic Eastern Orthodox priests is the same mass offered by non-schismatic Byzantine Catholics. How are you not understanding it's not the missal that you say but whether or not you're in communion with the True Church and submit to the chair of Peter?
What a world we live in…. I just cannot believe it. A pope that worships pachamama is regarded with the highest honors but people that practice the Roman Catholic faith as it always has been are labeled schismatics. It’s unbelievable!
@@TheNostalgicKitchen regarding the pope with the highest honors is not optional, and the Catholic faith as it has always been has always been subjected to the bishop (SSPX priests are not incardinated and therefore aren't subjected to the bishop). That's very disingenuous
@@DaveS859 I can only wonder if you'd have asked this derisive question to St Ignatius of Antioch since it was he who said the following: "See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop."
LEFEBVRE is a ST ! All else are LIES and DISRESPECTFUL and DISOBEDIENT APOSTATES AND HERITICS to their OWN CONDEMNATION for they have OPENLY REJECTED. The TRUTHS OF The WORDS OF CHRIST and His APOSTLES. DEO. TUUM VERBUM ET VERO IN APOSTOLORUM. VERO DEO GRATIAS 🙏 ST PIUS X. ORO PRO NOBIS . AMEN 🙏
@@kamilmurawski1136 AS. FAR As I am concerned and my observation of what I have found , there is no justification in the NOVUS. ORDO Missae, the COUNCIL of POPE John XXIII was a PASTORAL COUNCIL ONLY it was Not a DOGMATIC COUNCIL! I GREW up during the CHANGES. , When statues of Saints were being removed altar rails removed CHATHOLIC churches desecrated and other sacrilege’s were committed ! To assist with any questions you have, read the OTTAVIANI intervention by ANGELUS PRESS, IT clearly shows what took Place from 1960 to 1969 when Pope PAUL VI introduced the New Mass !
@@terratremuit4757 Or you can reread what he says ... relics removed from churches and altars, altars replaced, churches often became places for people to hold concerts and exhibitions (and sometimes downright hideous) or just became places of silent worship for everyone (even non-Christians), many churches closed during the week, priests are no longer given scheduled time for confession (God forgives no matter, on purpose), the evil one does not exist, only as a symbol, or as "evil" a concept within ethics, philosophy, morality, sermons focus more on social politics, how to become a better person on earth, instead of focusing on the salvation of your soul, and your spirituality, churches follow political correctness, Bibles have changed words, or interpretations of certain passages, people are canonized on the fast track (which would otherwise take much longer) so many many many many many things have changed, which cannot be put away since Modernism . .. ... understood within the context ... the amount of senior clergy who do not believe in the supernatual, the Eucharist, in hell, who cannot in fact be called Catholic or Christian, I have heard, is staggering ...
I feel sorry for some of the questioners. They demonstrated a lack of understanding by wrongly using words like heresy, licit, valid, schism etc... and conflating issues of coherence, ecumenism, and vaccines... If they can't get basic concepts down, no wonder they are misled. God help us all.
In my experience, this is common within the SSPX and radical traditionalist circles.
Amen Father John.
Well, right off the bat, the guy is lying to them. How do you feel about that?
@@gerry30 Tell me more, please.
@@FrJohnBrownSJ I've watched 5 minutes of the video and Mr. Salza is playing fast and loose with the facts if not relying on Straw Man fallacies. An earlier point of small note I pointed out in one of my posts was that the SSPX does not claim the midnight fast on Sunday is still binding on Catholics. I was literally told by an SSPX "Rome has taken away the obligation for the midnight fast." He added that while no sin can be committed by holding to the current law, there is an opportunity for more merit by doing something harder voluntarily like retaining the old rules." Now, if the claim of Mr. Salza were true, the SSPX priests would not be acknowledging the power of the papacy to bind and loose. And they would be claiming like the Sedevacantists that the fasting rules prior to Paul VI changes were still in force. What do you think is the most damning item that Mr Salza brings out? I haven't watched the whole video as of yet. For the record I attended SSPX masses most Sunday's back in the early 2000s. Since Summorum Pontificum, I've taken advantage of the closer locations where the TLM is being offered. Interestingly enough, things are often different on the ground level, some of the local "Novus Ordo" priests were periodically coming in clandestinely to utilize the library and receive training in the TLM. Others were more overt and would come in, volunteer to hear confessions and occasionally say the TLM for the people if they were trained properly. I will be surprised if Mr. Salza addresses any of those events in his biased effort to take down an organization he willingly attended during a crisis he admits for 15 years.
Wow this was a banger talk. Even I was surprised by how strong this stance is when looked at honestly and holistically. Great work on Salza’s part. I can’t believe the F-tier arguments and rebuttals the audience was offering at the end.
I empathize with those people. They are obviously not intelligent enough to understand a lot of what Mr. Salza stated (except the last questioner, to a degree), but are zealous for the faith and have a heightened sense of liberalism and materialism--such as Assisi or the closing of churches/jab, etc--seeping into the Church, and it is shaking their hope and charity. Their healthy zeal for the faith is turning to the vice of "bitter zeal." We are in the middle of a great psychological, asymmetrical war, and it's disappointing that the church hierarchy is not doing more to lead people down the narrow path of salvation.
@kyrieeleson agreed. I do see salza getting a bit to salty with people not understanding. He could be more charitable and out of love and mercy lead them to the truth. Educating them in the truth is better for winning souls to the truth, winning arguments because of a big ego is not.
@@bobtosi9346 I don't see anything wrong with his tone, to be fair. I think it was a way to push through their biases, since they weren't capable of understanding most of his talk and were asking questions about things he had already explained. And some of them were obviously very bitter, those people need a good kick in the pants a lot of the time, speaking as a former bitter person myself. lol
@@bobtosi9346 The chinese Bishops are chosen by the ccp ( chinese communist party) this is allowed by Pope Francis and the Vatican
GOD DOES NOT PRESERVE TRADITON THROUGH SCHISMATIC ACTS ...
Amen !
God also doesn't like false accusations of schism. And it's funny how in Rome the hierarchy can't seem to decide if a "schismatic act" is the same as an "act of schism."
@@gerry30 Good because there are no false accusations here. Can't refuse to submit to the Church and not be in schism. Simple as that
@@john-el9636 Ahh....not so fast. People love to blanket the truth of what's going on by stating "the Church" instead of "Churchmen." When Pope Stephen VI declared Pope Formosus an Anti-Pope is someone saying, "No. You're wrong." against the Church? And are they with the Church when Stephen's rulings got overturned? And against it when Stephen's rulling was ratified again and with it when he was overturned and ratified and overturned again and again?
@@gerry30 Separating the hierarchical authority of the Church from the Church proper is a denial of Catholic dogma. You couldn't possibly accept Pius XII's Mystici Corporis and hold that view.
The cadaver synod has no relevance here. Imprudent political moves don't fall under definitive magisterial authority. I'll also point out that this same argumentation is regularly used by non-Catholics as evidence that Catholicism is false. Kinda strange seeing an alleged Catholic using the same talking points.
@@john-el9636 Imprudent political moves? That's what you call one Pope declaring with his full hierarchical authority that a predecessor was an invalid priest and an Anti-Pope?
But LeFebvre being told he could have a bishop consecrated in the Old rite for his Old Rite priests and then Rome screwing around while JPII who had put a Buddha on a Catholic Altar in Assisi dickered about. That's "the Church" speaking??? Stop the gaslighting.
I never have any problems confronting non-Catholics. If you have trouble I'll help you out.
But I'm sure that non-Catholics don't understand Catholicism and Neo-Catholics like yourself can be intimidated by them when they point out your Neo-Ultramontanism. But the problem isn't the
Catholic Church isn't the true Church. It's just you believe things about the Catholic Church that aren't true because of exaggerations and errors not yet clarified magisterially.
May God bless you and your family
No fooling around with Mr. Salza. Sorry guys, but this is the truth.
Nonsense. I was attending the SSPX long before Salza (He was an active Freemason when I was attending the SSPX) and I was away from it over ten years ago but I've kept my eyes open. Salza is full of crap. Same Straw Man arguments as years ago. "They claim some kind of jurisdiction with marriage tribunals" Seriously? Is that the scope of his research? He's purposely avoiding nuance so he doesn't get caught up in admitting the truth. The late Micheal Davies did his homework and Salza wouldn't be able to debunk Davies arguments from the 1990s today.
@@gerry30 he's already debunked every one of Davies arguments. But you would know that if you actually read what Salza has written. Davies even changed his mind regarding the SSPX after Lefebvre consecrated the 4 Bishops. Weird that you don't know that since you act like you know everything about Davies.
@@AnaMT1985 I guess nobody told Davies that he changed his mind about the SSPX. Here he is, long after the consecrations debating and taking the position that the SSPX is not in schism. And he totally dominates the debate. ua-cam.com/video/pgnEDecW1EE/v-deo.html
I've read plenty of Salza's stuff and he is out of his element here. I haven't watched the whole presentation but unless he ups his game, I'm holding onto my position that he's actually incapable of debunking Davies arguments. What particular argument of Davies do you think he most effectively debunked? I'll look at it.
@@gerry30 well it sounds like Davies was seriously inconsistent and confused then. He also lied about St. Athanasius story and the similarities to Lefebvre. Read his book "I am with you Always" he undermines his own previous positions on the sspx in that book. So what Michael Davies should we listen to? I would say instead of listening to man we should listen to what the Magisterium teaches which is all Salza is doing. He is not stating his own opinion, buy backing everything he has to say up with the Magisterium, Church teaching and Canon Law. The same can't be said for all the other pro-sspx armchair theologians. Including yourself.
@@AnaMT1985 No. It's common for people that adhere to the common error of Neo Ultramontanism to come to that conclusion. They are usually the people that claim the sedevacantists are actually in principle more consistent than the SSPX. This is due to an overblown concept of papal infallibility in which it moves into personal impeccability in governance. If you think the 5 errors rebutted in "I am with you always" are errors indulged in by the SSPX. You don't have solid info on the SSPX.
Actually Salza is first, not accurately presenting the SSPX position and secondly he's not actually presenting either a canonical and factual or theologically accurate account of what the Church teaches. For example: He espouses without reference to the extraordinary circumstances of the Church that the consecration of bishops is reserved to the Pope alone. This is not a real argument. Because Eastern Catholic bishops are always consecrated without a papal mandate. Salza also claims in the Q &A that the Orthodox are schismatic. I agree with him on that. But he fails to point out that the Catechism of the Catholic Church claims the opposite, that the charge of schism cannot be applied to them. So, he's actually every bit as selective about what he believes as he accuses the SSPX of being. But he doesn't make the coherent argument for explaining why he agrees with Rome (as he sees it) that the SSPX is in schism (and argument can be made that they don't hold that belief) but he disagrees with Rome when they say the Orthodox are not schismatic.
1:47:00 What this people dont understand is that most heretics were pious, even Arius. Not every heretic was dirty like Luther.
The chinese Bishops are chosen by the ccp ( chinese communist party) this is allowed by Pope Francis and the Vatican
Arius wasn't a Trinitarian. He was worse than Luther. And the Novus Ordo Church says Luther was right.
@@nathaniellathy6559You sound like Luther to me
This is the first time I've heard of this chap. His mind is really sharp. I am very traditional in my faith, but I attend the Novus Ordo. I have a good priest and the liturgy is reverent. I realize that is not the situation everywhere. I love the line, "Apostasy is not justification for leaving the Church". Amen and amen. btw, I if I were in court, I would sure hope that this attorney was representing my side!
Thank you for giving this talk. Extremely informative. I admire you’re clarity and charity.
The chinese Bishops are chosen by the ccp ( chinese communist party) this is allowed by Pope Francis and the Vatican
God bless this man!
The chinese Bishops are chosen by the ccp ( chinese communist party) this is allowed by Pope Francis and the Vatican
John...that was you using your remarkable, most masterful gift for the glory of God and the saving of souls. May your mission continue to bear good fruit and may God richly bless you and your family with the needed graces to carry on in the same!
Fr. John, another great lecturer! I wish I could have attended these while going to college there!
This was a great talk! Thank you Mr Salza. God bless you and your work in calling others to fullness of truth.
Dang it Halley, how are you everywhere 😂
Just emailed ya
John Salza is a man of God.
sent ya another reply via email
@@dank3435 😂
This talk helped me solidify my views. Thank you.
I would recommend that you not be hoodwinked by this guy's presentation. He's taking the Neo-ultramontanist error to juxtify his false conclusions. Watch the old Michael Davies debates. Davies points to the realities of the modernist infiltration of the Church of which the SSPX is a justified Catholic reaction.
@@gerry30 bad argument
The ultramontanists were the heros of vatican 1
@@katholischetheologiegeschi1319 No. You're confusing the Neo-Ultramontanists with Ultramontanists. The Neo-Ultramontanists believed virtually every word out of the Pope's mouth is infallible not limited to faith or morals. They were not heroes and they ignored Vatican I's decree. This is how the manualists wound up "extending infallibility."
Dear Keith, good to see you here! And thank you, too, for your work for the Church!
What are those views @keithnester
Thank you, Mr. Salza!!You are in my prayers. Your fortitude is contagious please keep fighting for God's holy mother Church.
The chinese Bishops are chosen by the ccp ( chinese communist party) this is allowed by Pope Francis and the Vatican
Being Catholic and being Christian is being obedient to authority.
Being Catholic is being obedient to God, not man
To G T Snipe, you do your obedience as you wish, who ever you are
If all people are obedient to authority rather than to God then what happens if the authority people are bad ,evil people bent on taking advantage of us like Pope Francis is, Better to be obedient to God because he has our best interests at heart. Because he loves us and always wishes the best for his created children
Great talk John Salza. Some great insights and we'll articulated.
Sister Lucia, who talked with the Mother of God herself, attended the Mass of Paul VI.
Eucharistic miracles have occurred through the Mass of Paul VI.
Martyrs and saints have been sustained by the Mass of Paul VI. (I dare any trad to tell the African martyrs of today that they are not truly martyrs.)
If a rite of mass was truly evil, and was celebrated in 99.9% of all churches in the Western world for the last 50+ years, the world should have crumbled into decay long before now. The Church is not being sustained by a tiny minority of people who celebrate in a specific manner and who condemn anyone who doesn't. If you believe that Christ would preserve the only authentic expression of faith through a man who disobeyed his superiors for years, gave very insulting rhetoric toward the Church and its shepherds, and essentially set up a parallel ecclesiastical structure to the Church, you are sorely mistaken.
AMEN !
All so true! 🔥
In the words of John Salza "oh now we're back to private revelation." Actually, any people who are saints who attend the Novus Ordo are made saints despite the impoverished nature of the Novus Ordo. And becoming a martyr does not depend on the quality of the liturgy available, it depends actually on the power of your Baptism.
The fact is 80% of Catholics reject the Novus Ordo. A very small number of them want a liturgy that does more than the Novus Ordo can do. Read the prayers, look at the omissions and see how the designers of that liturgy did not have the glory of God and rendering Him His due at the top of their list of goals. One of the most interesting phenomena is when people want reverent liturgy, the Novus Ordo can't help but gain stability from its similarities to the Traditional Latin Mass. And when people are getting reverent Novus Ordo, they inevitably want to experience the TLM.
@@gerry30 "80% of Catholics reject the Novus Ordo"? What?
Also, the NO inevitably draws comparisons to the TLM. It's a revised version of it. Of course it's going to get compared to it. It's not as if the "reverent" elements are exclusive to the TLM. As John said, it was supposed to be celebrated in Latin, ad orientem, with Gregorian chant. When a Novus Ordo is done "reverently," it's just being done the way it was always intended to be done.
Sr. Lucia did not attend mass of Paul VI. Visit Sister Lucy Truth.
For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Matthew 24:24
The world is crumbling into decay.
As an ex-SSPX attender the questions I hear from the people in the attendance make me so sad.
You can really tell they all formed their opinions from the same radtrad pundits, using the same arguments ad nauseam, the same rebuttals, without actually having any knowledge of the terms they are employing.
I am so glad I am out of those circles.
It’s disturbing how people who attend non-SSPX TLMs will still use these arguments as if they’re the truth.
I couldn't agree more Nelly, I too was raised in the SSPX and as of 3 years ago educated my way into the Church. The questions or statements at the Q&A at the end were so cringe. I heard my Dad in all of those ignorant, emotional statements. It makes me so sad.
@@calebadcock363 it's an ideology.
I'm glad too. :-]
John has a lot of patience re-explaining over and over again to these numb rods and complete ignorant people that seem to be trying to split hairs instead of listening to the facts. If the last 3 Popes said the SSPX is in schism-they are!
I have no idea how this made it into my UA-cam feed. I am a very lapsed Catholic, so most of this intra- (or perhaps inter-?) religious warfare is beyond me, but I ended up listening to it in its entirety anyway. I just have to say that from one lawyer to another this guy put on a f’ing master class in how to prepare and present an argument. Not only the larger arguments, but the precise citations to various authorities and the demeanor he had while doing it 🤌 I’d hire him to argue my appellate case any day of the week, and twice on Sundays…😉
Also, again, while not what anyone would call a particularly “devout” Catholic, some of these SSPX apologists seem little better than Protestants. Seems fairly clear to me that if you’re going to call yourself a Catholic you have to realize that “getting in line” in terms of recognizing hierarchy and the authority that flows within that hierarchy is part of the deal. If not, there are other churches you can join. Seems like one of those things where in 100 years we’ll look back and see it was really a permanent schism/split but it took a while to recognize it (apologies if I am using the incorrect terminology).
They undeniably follow the patterns of every schismatic group in the church’s history. Quite a few papal statements condemning other schismatic groups of the past can be applied just as well to them (Quartus Supra, for example)
There is a joke: How do you spell Protestant in Latin? SSPX.
1:48:00 Most council were not implementatedat the spot. The reformation happened because one of the Lateran councils were not implemented properly in Germany. And this happened even with Trent, it was the effort of Bellarmine and Borremeo that de facto made the council be implemented everywhere.
Councils didn't usually result in the collapse of the liturgy and an increase in confusion and crises. Councils were usually called to deal with problems, not create more out of thin air.
@@gerry30 If you think the crisis we're currently facing is the result of Vatican II, you're not paying attention. You're also accusing God of either abandoning His Church or failing to guide His Church
@@john-el9636 Actually I think Vatican II is the punishment from God for ignoring Vatican I
Obviously the problems were already cooking to the point of Pope St. Pius X having to issue "Pascendi" and the "Oath against Modernism" (which Paul VI ended). and "Our Apostolic Mandate" and you had each Pope up to Pius XII with "Humani Generis" which was subtitled "On Concerning Some False Opinions which threaten to Undermine the Foundations of Catholic Doctrine." Of course encyclicals like that ended with the election of John XXIII. And Vatican II was simply the vehicle for Modernism to resurface. Pope Francis' buddy Cardinal Maradiago stated, "The Second Vatican Council was the main event in the Church in the 20th Century. In principle, it meant an end to the hostilities between the Church and modernism, which was condemned in the First Vatican Council."
@Gerry Ah yes. Now we're rejecting more dogma regarding how ecumenical councils function. As in, an ecumenical council led by the pope is the Church exhibiting her authority at its greatest extent. As well as having divine protection by the Holy Spirit. Meaning your theory about it is complete bunk.
I'm not going to waste more time going in circles with another schismatic on basics of Catholicism. Reject your pride and come back to Christ's Church.
"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 manner 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 is not the Pope who is commanding, but some one 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
@@john-el9636 Make whatever false assertions you want. I'm telling the truth. You are running from it. That's pretty clear.
You have a distorted and limited knowledge of the history of Councils in the Church as well as official papal acts.
But I'll let another "schismatic" according to your standards explain:
“Not every valid council in the history of the Church has been a fruitful one; in the last analysis, many of them have been a waste of time.” Josef Ratzinger Principles of Catholic Theology.
(the footnotes indicate he was speculating on Vatican II being more like Lateran V which was completely ineffective in remedying the various issues it was called for.).
Excellent talk! Thank you.
Thank you so much for clarifying. I have been wondering about this very much. I know people who are on that far right and they don’t have much charity about it because they think they are doing what’s right.
Fantastic presentation and even more, an insightful Q&A session.
The chinese Bishops are chosen by the ccp ( chinese communist party) this is allowed by Pope Francis and the Vatican
@@eoinmcg88 If the Church allows it then it is acceptable for then magisteriu as the power of the keys to set new culture and rules, what they bind on earth is bind in heaven (Matthew 16 and 18).
@@ericgatera7149 The same Chinese communist men that forcibly abort millions of chinese babys with firstly the one child policy and now 2 child policy, decide what men will become Catholic Bishops in China, thats Satanic
Coming back to this after Vigano's excommunication trial, lol. Wonder what that question asker thinks now
Only 10 minutes and this is fire
I thank God For John Salza. Through his work he helped me return to full Communion with the One True Church and leave the schism of Sedevacantism! God bless him!
Welcome back.
Re: Salsa, I saw a video awhile ago and he was saying bad things about the traditional Latin mass organization???? I don't understand it but I saw and heard what I saw and heard. This comment of mine herein is just a caution.. I know him a little ,he infiltrated the freemasons and came to tradition meeting and spoke about them a little, a lawyer, yes, he says he is. But I saw and heard him say bad things. I, myself am a practicing Old rite Latin mass man of 74 years of age living in British Columbia Canada. I have no valid Latin mass Church in Canada, I have traveled extensively from the west coast over to Toronto and could not locate one. I have found sspx, I have found fraternity of st Peter and of course all stinky novus ordo heretics but no old rite Latin mass . God keeps me in graces and I just keep living my life. I have located Bishop Williamson In England. He is the closest to me. Bishop Williamson is a valid Catholic Bishop, there are only 4 valid Bishop in the whole world. His title, Sspx Resistance, that is what I am. Good day
@@barrysaunders1463 The Latin Mass is not the most important thing. Christ and His Church are much more important. Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.
Sedevacantism is the absence of a Pope, no Pope? Catholic always has a Pope so perhaps they are not even Catholic so better stay away
@P. Doetsch I don't understand what you are talking about, who are you and what Church do you worship in, please identify yourself
1:10:00 Start of Q&A
An absolute heater! God bless, John!
But I am glad he visited on our side as we need much support from who ever wishes to fight for Catholic truth and continued existance
Great talk, even when put on the spot with questions he answered them well. 1:53:09 I loved this moment
The same Chinese communist men that forcibly abort millions of chinese babys with firstly the one child policy and now 2 child policy, decide what men will become Catholic Bishops in China, thats Satanic
Well he's a lawyer. Lawyers get a lot of crap thrown their way...but when righerously applied, a good lawyer truly can be an instrument of God, "Right Reason" at its most visible.
CLOSE CAPTION, PLEASE! -- I need it.
God bless you, Mr. Salza, for bringing much-needed clarity to this issue.
1:47:45 Salza trying not to laugh on how authistic that guy sounds.
I don't get one thing: so a man is ordained a "priest" by a "Bishop" who was "consecrated" against Pope Saint John Paul II's will. At least by the time when the liturgical "consecration" took place, if not (as I suspect) right from the moment when Lefebvre and his accolyte Bishop started the liturgical "consecration", the four men/priests were excommunicated. So... my question being: can an excommunicated man validly become a Bishop? I'm very confused.
After listening to the Bartel v Cassman debate, you would have to answer Jeff's questions, convincingly and make a better case then he did. That debate can be heard hear.
Your Jeff lost badly against the sedes because you cant hold to a stupid position like the sspx does and the debate is the proof
Gotta encounter the push back, that's where the change will be affected.🙏
Amen
In order for it to be a Schism doesn’t it have to be proven he INTENDED to intentionally deny the Pope’s authority over his office as Bishop? Even a Cannon lawyer cannot prove his intentions. After all as you say there is no declaration. How can you say the declaration “hasn’t” been lifted if there is no declaration. I see humility in those who also have studied his cause. I do not see humility in this speaker nor Michael Voris who’s video I watched recently. I would tend to lean toward the humble. Authority means to govern and protect, not control and dictate. Most would agree his intentions were to govern and protect his people. Which is more than I can say for most priests and Bishops today.
1:34:05 LOL
Most traditionalist people are, sadly, historically illiterate in church history and liturgical history. People (east and west) receive the eucharist in the hand, they raise their hands up during the Lord's prayer and pray together with the priest. Most Trads would be shocked if they saw an early mass.
Before Jesus ascended he called the Council of Trent so that he could give all Christians the Traditional Latin Mass.😂
I've found it quite the opposite. Those who attack the SSPX in defense of "obedience to the Pope" don't seem to have any answers to the moral implications of Pope Stephen digging up the corpse of Pope Formosus and putting it on trial with a deacon providing answers for the corpse. He declared Formosus as not only an anti-Pope but as having been invalid and all his ordinations were invalid. This lead to persecutions of priests and bishops ordained by Formosus. Stephen was later overruled, then later validated and later overruled and later validated. And Eastern Catholics and Orthodox do not receive Communion in the hand. They receive by intincture with a little spoon. This came as a development to increase reverence. And we can see that Communion in the Hand (forbidden by John Paul II in the early 1980s and ignored) has not lead to increased reverence.
@zzzz Nah. It shows proper discernment by not falling into an "unhealthy archeologism" warned by Pius XII.
@@bman5257 But the Latin Mass was simply codified by Trent. In its essentials ce it goes back to Gregory the Great as recognizable in form. Too many Novus Ordo advocates think that either the TLM is exactly the Novus Ordo but in Latin or they think a committee at Trent put the Latin Mass together in the same manner that the Concilium put together what Ratzinger called, "a banal on the spot product"
No. The TLM was not the "unhealthy acheologism" referred to Pius XII in Mediator Dei. He was referring to the idea of removing the High Altar and making the Altar a table form. Go read it for yourself.
All liturgies can be efficacious but not equally. The Novus Ordo is far more prone to instability compared to every other liturgy, since it is an ecumenical concoction rather than a real organic development of a root liturgy.
The TLM is like Iron Man's armor. The Novus Ordo is like having a rolled up magazine. You can defend yourself with both but the Iron Man armor is better and you have to be Jason Bourne to make the magazine work for you.
1:17:25 to about 1:18:00 Do I understand Mr. Salza correctly - no marriage consecrated outside of the Roman Catholic Church is valid ? Does it follow that my parents, wrongly believing themselves to have been united as husband and wife by the United Methodist Church, now both in their 90s, have lived in sin and fornication for sixty years and all of their children are illegitimate ?
No this only applies to baptized Catholics. Your parents marriage is valid unless one of them was baptized in the Catholic church
1:08:30 If SSPX could justify illegal consecrating of bishops because of state of emergency - why other groups (sede, old catholics, jansenists, donatists, etc.) couldn't? Or all schismatics are justified - or none of them.
Not to mention, if SSPX masses fulfill the Sunday obligation, wouldn’t any valid mass do the same? So I could go to a sede mass on Sunday? No.
@@nadreb13 And they later reversed their original ruling! Look it up.
@@nadreb13 Prove me wrong then! Easy enough to say, but PROVE me wrong, otherwise you WILL have to answer for the souls who you are misleading.
You can not excommunicate someone who is holding to the original canon of the Church for holding to the original Canon of the Church. Come on, get real or pay the price when you are held accountable for the misleading of souls!
@@nadreb13 I’m not going to argue with you because as I said, you can not excommunicate anyone for following the original canon and anyone who leads people to believe that you can, will be held accountable. Case closed. Period.
For those viewing this for the first time, this is a really simple thing to understand. Jurisdiction comes from the Pope to the Bishops, the SSPX bishops were illicitly consecrated and therefor have no jurisdiction and are not local ordinaries. The priests have to be incardinated by a local bishop that actually has jurisdiction...which SSPX Priests in most cases had no approval from a local bishop to even become ordained priests in the first place. The SSPX priests are not (and never have been) incardinated and thus do not have priestly faculties by operation of law, including the faculties to preach, baptize or say Mass. Thus, SSPX priests do not have a canonical mission from the Church. Simple conclusion: The SSPX has no canonical status nor a mission from the Catholic church and is not formally part of the Catholic church. All their priests are allowed to do is hear confessions and witness marriages with a diocesan priest. (Done by Francis for the faithful's sake). He never gave them permission to say public masses.
The SSPX bishops have never claimed ordinary jurisdiction, nor have the bishops ever claimed any authority. Archbishop LeFebvre described them as "sacrament machines" when he consecrated them. The priests have never claimed to have faculties except in the rare cases where bishops have actually given SSPX priests in their diocese faculties. You have to be in La La Land and so confused by the crisis in the Church that you can't see it for what it is to deny the justification and the necessity of the SSPX and their effect on the rest of the Church. Had any of the Popes actually cared about protecting the faith of Catholics, they would have never de facto suppressed both the TLM and the fullness of the Catholic doctrine instead of substituting much of the clarity of the faith for humanist goals.
9:00 - thanks for that
Malarkey. Most Catholics love Pope Francis. It's only extremists who have any problem with his magisterium. They are the same idiots who voted for Trump - probably twice. That just goes to show how the road to Hell gets paved.
Paul VI referred to "the church of the council" at its end and Benelli coined the term "conciliar church," which Lefebvre copied.
Glad to hear someone admit the errors on the right are worse than those on the left. The dissent on the left is mostly over moral theology, which is doctrine based on philosophy & natural law. The dissent on the right is over sacramental theology, which is doctrine based on scripture & divine revelation. HUGE DIFFERENCE. Comparing the two as if they were somehow equivalent is FALSE.
There is a country wide schism brewing in Germany right now over liberal errors and a good chunk of Catholics everywhere adhere to that type of mindset so I don’t see how the errors of the right could possibly be a greater threat
False comparison. They both have their own problems.
@@p.doetsch6209 They are not equivalent. Sacramental theology is at the top of the "hierarchy of truths", while moral theology is at the bottom. Changes to doctrines at the bottom don't impact those higher up.
Salza: 1) The SSPX has invalid confessions and invalid marriages. This is Salza's opinion, he's not repeating an official statement from the Holy Office or the Pope. 2) Salza: The SSPX has tribunals and claims "some kind" of authority to declare marriages invalid!" Me: Salza claims "some kind" of authority to declare the SSPX confessions and marriages invalid.
Actually he is simply quoting the teaching of the Church that requires ordinary jurisdiction for valid confessions. He further quotes the teaching of the Church on the circumstances required for supplied justification . It is the sspx that Issues an opinion on the matter.
@@TheCleanTech He's trying to make a canon law argument that is ultimately a lay man's opinion since he's not a canon lawyer as far as I know, and he has no official ruling to cite from the Holy See concerning validity of the marriages and confessions. And offices of the Holy See are inconsistent in their rulings to the point where he can't use them unless he simply cherry picks the ones he wants. And that's a hornet's nest he doesn't want to get into.
And if there is still any argument about the application of the various canons by which the faithful can legitimately request sacraments from the SSPX or any other priests, Francis extended the faculties he granted to a group that Salza contends is outside of the Church. (Funny how to be schismatic is to be outside of the Church since being schismatic denies Popes have the powers to give faculties and yet the Pope grants faculties. That could mean that Francis sees the SSPX as exercising a ministry within the Church and to the faithful of the Church)
The Holy Father Francis, Patriarch the West, The Vicar of Christ, Servant of the Servants of God stated: "For the Jubilee Year I had also granted that those faithful who, for various reasons, attend churches officiated by the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, can validly and licitly receive the sacramental absolution of their sins. For the pastoral benefit of these faithful, 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 ever be deprived of the sacramental sign of reconciliation through the Church’s pardon."
Interesting that he didn't declare any sacraments invalid including marriages. And that he granted faculties for pastoral reasons of licity, not sacramental validity. He also states that he trusts in the good will of the priests. He also doesn't state or render judgement on the "various reasons" that people attend the SSPX.
So, it seems Salza denies the power of the papacy. He must be schismatic if he insists that the SSPX don't have the faculties granted by Francis and he denies the canon law of the Latin Church.
@@gerry30 based on your post , I don’t think you listened to anything he said . He never disputed that they were granted facilities to hear confession, or to do marriages under a diocese bishops permission. He was addressing what he believes is an error that the sspx hold , that error is they proclaim that they don’t need facilities. That is the point of dispute.
@@TheCleanTech Well, he's a layman with no authority and what does he cite as proof that the SSPX claims they don't need faculties? He makes a claim about what the Church teaches in some cases, like sacramental intention and I look it up. If it's correct with what he states (and he's not always correct) , I check out the SSPX and see if he was correct about what the SSPX claim. Strangely, I find that the SSPX actually claims what the Church claims and Salza ignores that. And where they make a nuanced argument, Salza has deliberately removed the nuance about translations and claimed they are denying something they are not denying. In fact the SSPX claims that the rite of ordination in Latin as promulgated by Paul VI is beyond the doubt valid.
Is this by accident? I don't think so. He'd have to have been one of the dumbest supporters of the SSPX out there to be so inept at presenting their side of things correctly.
Just like the angle he usese of making a subtle conflation of "the Church" and "the Churchmen" if the SSPX says something like "there are many men in the hierarchy of the Church who embrace heresy" Salza cons people with the claim, "They accuse the Church of heresy." As if Cardinal Kaspar or Cardinal Maradiaga are "the Church." or that when you have numerous translations of sacraments, that the validity can be doubted since it departs so much from the Latin promulgated by Pope Paul VI.
As a side note, wouldn't it be interesting to someday find out that the original ICEL English translation of the consecration of the Eucharist actually rendered that formula invalid? We would have 40 plus years of invalid Holy Eucharist except in places where the Novus Ordo was in Latin, translated better in a foreign language or in the few places where the TLM was being offered. Do you think Pope Benedict XVI would have publicly stated that if he believed it was the case?
But hey, it's the SSPX that is part of the problem, right? John Paul II had the problem well in hand when he was kissing the Koran and elevating Jorge Bergoglio to a bishop and then a Cardinal and virtually a thousand other scandals, mishaps and degradations of the Church organization. And he really didn't have a problem with bishops being consecrated without a papal mandate since he made bishop Husar a Cardinal as well. Right? I guess because LeFebvre didn't want to engage in the destruction of the Church. Paul VI at least admitted with his ideas about Kenosis in the Church, but the "renewal" of JPII was simply gaslighting. Salza can't ignore it completely but by soft pedaling the crisis which is catastrophic and making it appear as if it's just a ripple in the water, he can move onto his ridiculous attempts at gaslighting people about the SSPX and traditionalists in general who have been cancelled by the liberals inside the power structures of the Church.
@@gerry30 let me make sure I understand you correctly. Are you saying that Salza is misrepresenting the sspx when he says they believe they don’t need faculties for valid confessions? If that is your objection?
If so,,,, Then I ask you if the sspx agrees that before they were granted faculties they were giving invalid confessions? As far as all the mud you threw at JP2 and the rest . None of that refutes what his point is regarding faculties, and other errors he points out . And just because one disputes some of the positions the sspx holds doesn’t mean one condones the scandals going on in the Church . Inspite of the scandals, the faith remains intact . Now if JP2 commanded the universal church to kiss the Koran , then you would have an issiue. Otherwise it maybe a personal sin on his part , (depending on his intention, and whether it was actually the Koran that he kissed(. that sin (real or imagined). doesn’t fall on me when I obey his legitimate commands and it wouldn’t give me license to separate myself from the structure of the Church .
Now on a personal note, I understand the issues better then you think. I was a sedevacantist for over 40 years . The bottom line for me was the realization that inspite of all the scandals and crazy things that took place after v2 , the faith remained in tact . Also the realization that worshipping with in the structure of the Church doesn’t mean that I approve or that I participate in the sins and scandals of the hierarchy. ( real or imagined).
With that said I understand that you are serious about your faith and trying to do your best in a tough situation. As far as that goes, I’m right there with you . I think are best course is to remain at the foot of the cross with our Lady and never allow anything or anybody to cause us to abandon the Church .
Good video. SSPX position is unteneble and, if consistent, leads to sedevacantism. Frankly, sedevacantism has more sense than SSPX.- but has other problems of course.
Sedevacantism only makes sense if one imbibes in the error of Neo-Ultramontanism. On the one hand, the EWTN types simply believe because the Pope is the Pope whatever he says must be correct and when he says something obviously wrong, or contradicts himself, they just go with the error and ignore the contradiction. The Sedevacantist position is that because the Pope is the Pope and whatever he says must be correct, when he says something wrong, he's obviously not the Pope. The SSPX position is the most reasonable in that the Pope is the Pope but not everything he says is correct and in some cases he must be resisted when he's obviously wrong. There's nothing in the Catholic Church that teaches the Pope is to be obeyed absolutely or that he's irresistible in all matters. Conversely the dogmatic formulations of the Church make qualified pronouncements and the teaching of the Doctors like Aquinas and Bellarmine admit the need to resist a Pope is the occasion arises. Not to mention St. Paul with St. Peter, the error of Pope John 22nd and the ridiculous decrees of Pope Stephen after he put the corpse of Pope Formosus on trial.
Tim Robbins.
😂😂😂
😂
The Fruit... the fruits...wisdom wisdom, wisdom forefathers ...saints' church
Please someone ordain John priest and bishop lol
“How then should he authorise two sorts of pastors, the one extraordinary, the other ordinary? As to the ordinary - it certainly is authorised, and as to the extraordinary we are supposing it to be; there would then be two different churches, which is contrary to the most pure word of Our Lord, who has but one sole spouse, one sole dove, one sole perfect one (Cant. vi.). And how could that be a united flock which should be led by two shepherds, unknown to each other, into different pastures, with different calls and folds, and each of them expecting to have the whole. Thus would it be with the Church under a variety of pastors ordinary and extraordinary, dragged hither and thither into various sects. Or is Our Lord divided (1 Cor. 1: 13), either in himself or in his body, which is the Church? - no, in good truth. On the contrary, there is but one Lord, who has composed his mystic body with a goodly variety of members, a body compacted and fitly joined together by what every joint supplieth, according to the operation in the measure of every part (Eph. iv. 16). Therefore to try to make in the Church this division of ordinary and extraordinary members is to ruin and destroy it. We must then return to what we said, that an extraordinary vocation is never legitimate where it is disapproved of by the ordinary.” - St Francis de Sales, The Catholic Controversy, Chapter 3
st. Francis de Sales is obviously referring to normal circumstances. If your neighbour house is on fire while he’s away, would you trespass & break in & put the fire out? Problem with quote texting out of context is that it doesn’t actually solve anything.
@@pascendi88 uh, no, he’s not. Hence the word “extraordinary.”
@@andym5995 this is non sequitor. SSPX has never claimed extraordinary mission.
@@pascendi88 they most certainly have. That’s their modus operandi. It’s literally the reason they exist.
John Salza's talk with make you chipper. I recommend enjoying it with salsa and chips, even if you have to go to the 'John' afterwards.
Eh eh eeeehhh….. 😒
@@tonywallens217 "Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes." (Job 42:6, KJV)
@@annakimborahpa 😂😂😂
Where there is shouting there is no true knowledge. Can't remember who said that but the first QA exchange brought it to mind.
“Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.” - Luke xviii. 17. How much of this lofty theological discourse would a little child comprehend ? Probably none of it.... how much of a scholar do i have to be to have any hope of abiding in the presence of the Lord Jesus forever?
You don't have to be a "scholar", but you do need to accept ( with childlike confidence) that the Church that Christ Himself established whilst He walked on the earth and exists to this very day has His authority.
John Salza brilliantly articulates the theological arguments that support these biblical truths.
I was baptized in the Luthern Church at age 9 months. At around 47 years of age. I took the Catholic rcia course in Vancouver bc and was co firmed by arch Bishop Adam Exner . I received the Holy Spirit through this procedure and still have it today 2023. How can Salsa say that my credentials are not valid, hevis incorrect in this matter
He just does not know all things
@ FrJohnBrownSJ … and I feel sorry for you sir. The people at the end were confused and upset by a man who professed a man named “Peter” as being the “Prince” of the Disciples, yet it was Saint Paul who REBUKED Pope Peter, a Pope who later hung himself upside down on the cross because he felt he was NOT worthy to die the same way as Christ. Calling yourself “Catholic” is meaningless because it is a Greek word that means “universal”. And? I’m a “universal” lol? Oh please. The schism in 1054 happened in the same manner when the Germans entered the church and usurped the papacy, a la Vatican II 900 years later…
Schism from what?
Pachamama
There is a schism alright…. But as the Saintly Archbishop himself said: the breach is not found on the side of the SSPX. We just practice the faith as it has always been.
@@hrhbucket4268 EXACTLY!
@@TheNostalgicKitchen lest I checked the creeds don't say "and I believe in the Society of St. Pius X" but in the "one, holy Catholic Church"; and the dogma is of papal primacy not Lefebvre primacy
Same schism as Luther. Divorcing the church and setting yourself up as the authority does not give you that authority. Same story, different men. So sad.
There is no case in Church history where a bishop has consecrated a bishop against the pope’s mandate and not been considered a schismatic:
Demonstrably fasle, even the Communisy Church in China has not been declared schismatic and the pope only calls the situation “complicated” and they just consecrated bishops.
Don't forget Cardinal Husar consecrated a bishop without a papal mandate in the late 1970s in the Pope's Summer residence of Castel Gandolfo. From what I know, the old canon law then in place was more severe than the new canon law that was in place by the time the SSPX consecrated the bishops. And John Paul II made the illicitly consecrated bishop Husar into a Cardinal. How's that for a unequal Justice system of the Pope? This, along with the ambiguity of JPII's claims and the misapplication of the laws as well as the manifest crisis in the Church makes any excommunication implied or declared null and void.
Please listen to what Salza says before making a comment like this. Papal approval can be explicit or implicit. The Pope, as of right now, at least implicitly approves the situation in China. Meaning that it can't be used as an example against Salza's argument.
@Gerry The case of Cardinal Husar seems to be in the same vein as the example that Salza mentioned regarding John Paul II. He was consecrated secretly in a country under Soviet control. At the time, the Ukrainian Catholic Church couldn't even officially exist. Attempting to put this example on the same level as Lefebvre consecrating men he didn't need explicitly against the lawful commands of the Supreme Pontiff is nonsense.
What ambiguity are you referring to on Pope St John Paul II's part? He was very specific about Lefebvre's errors in Ecclesia Dei after all. And the warnings issued to Lefebvre before he broke off from the Church were equally clear. To say otherwise leads me to believe that you have yet to read the documents for yourself. Even if we imagine that this is "unequal Justice", that still doesn't mean that we're free to do whatever we want and that all excommunications and suspensions are null and void. That's just something you seem to have made up as an excuse for publicly slandering Holy Mother Church. A grave sin at that
@@john-el9636 You seem to act like that helps the case. Francis and virtually every Pope of Post Conciliar era is a disaster and a scandal. The Pope is approving Communist approved bishops and Salza in his Pharisaical way thinks that makes things just dandy. This is the new version of the "the Church isn't in a Crisis unless the Pope says it is" nonsense that was thrown around during the JPII days.
@Gerry What are you referring to in particular here?
I couldn't care less what your personal opinions on Popes and Saints are. Would you rather Pope Francis just halt everything and abandon the Church in China? What exactly would you, a layman with no episcopal experience, do instead? Salza absolutely doesn't just think that things are "dandy." He literally affirms that we are in a great crisis and that he doesn't like Pope Francis really. Bearing false witness against your neighbor is a mortal sin. You should know better than to act like this.
Does Archbishop LeFebvre actually claim that jurisdiction comes from the people? As I've heard it, jurisidiction comes from the Church to whatever valid priest is available when approached by a Catholic who has any just cause to seek out the abilities of the priest or bishop. Eg, you are in an airport and want to have your confession heard before you depart. The only English speaking priest you can find is also at the airport. He doesn't have jurisdiction within the diocese of the airport. But he can hear the confession and validly absolve.
No,not just any priest!
A priest that can speak Latin well,and is against Vatican ii decrees, is bona-fide "valid" priest and can absorb
Otherwise it's a fake one!
Lordy lordy, God have mercy 🙏😒
Yes 👍
The pope 's authority :
Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock [see John 1:42] I will build my church, and the powers of death [i.e., gates of hell] shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” [See Isaiah 22:20 and Revelation 3:7 for a better understanding of the significance of the keys].
The Power to Bind and to Loose (Matthew 18:18)
"Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven." [Note: "Binding and loosing" are rabbinical terms which mean to teach with authority from God and require other believers to comply. This authority was given to Peter in his role as Christ's vicar first and then to the Apostles in communion with him].
What a bad stretch. at 6:20 or so. The claims of the SSPX on the validity of the sacraments is not based on intention solely. Though the idea that Salza states that the priest doesn't have to have the intention that sins are forgiven but only he has to intend what the Church intends. That may hold for a sincere understanding that is wrong. But a priest that definitively denies sin is going to put the sacrament in doubt. But the point is also that the SSPX and the Church organizational members are both painfully aware that "creativity" being expressed in the liturgies can and does lead to invalid masses. When parishes decide to use their own recipe for "Communion bread" and they all stand around the altar and no matter what their intention, their sticky buns do not become the Body of Christ. Salza doesn't want his hearers to know both the extent of the crisis in places and the specificity by which the SSPX explains their Catholic positions. Salza has to lie to get his point across. The truth won't make his case.
Your distorting his point . Nobody is saying the SSPX is wrong for doubting validity of a pizza and beer mass. He is disputing their “doubt” regarding a mass said properly according to the text with proper matter . No need to twist and conflate issiues .
@@TheCleanTech The SSPX don't express doubt about the validity of a well intentioned priest offering a Novus Ordo. What the SSPX object to is the "fittingness" of the Novus Ordo itself. A mass that "does the trick" isn't sufficient as an offering to God for proper worship. And the malice of the Novus Ordo isn't with the priests trained to say it or obligated to say it, it's in the impoverishment of the liturgy itself.
@@gerry30 no one claimed the Sspx has doubt regarding a proper novus ordo with a well intentioned priest . Not sure why that was raised ?
With regards to an “impoverished “ liturgy , One can use the same claim and say a low mass is impoverished compared to a high mass. But the grace of the sacrament is equal in both.
Another example, have you ever witnessed the liturgy of a traditional baptism ceremony? It’s amazingly beautiful,
However a valid baptism done in an emergency, with a quick simple form is equally a baptism. Yet one could call a simple baptism impoverished compared to the full traditional ceremony. Point is be careful not to elivate liturgy above the substance of a sacrament. Liturgy serves the sacrament not the other way around.
From John Salza to me in response to your point here: "He claims I said precisely the opposite of what I actually said regarding doing what the Church intends. Tell him he needs to understand my arguments first before shooting off his big mouth."
@@TheCleanTech No. Salza is distorting the positions of the SSPX. Salza at the early point of his talk doesn't mention what instances the SSPX have doubts or what sacrament specifically he is talking about. He just engages in his smear. But his appeal to the Holy Office is slap dash and incomplete. Going by what Salza states, any non-Christian in a play that performs the role of a person who is Baptized gets actually and validtly Baptized the first time the actor playing the priest pours the water over him and pronounces the proper formula.
"The "revealed truth" that the right to select bishops is the right of the Pope alone." Well, the acions of the early Church and the Apostles would cast doubt on that as a "Revealed Truth" since Peter didn't "okay" every bishop selected and bishops of the East especially as well as the West for centuries didn't require a papal mandate and even when they did, there were numerous times the see was filled without great complaint from the Pope who could have renamed another bishop. What was that guy's name? OH right!....Becket
But more recently, let's look at what happened when Lubomyr Husar was consecrated a bishop in Rome without a papal mandate, from the Wikipedia article:
" He was consecrated a bishop in 1977 in the Castel Gandolfo chapel by Major Archbishop Josyf Slipyj with help of titular bishop of Zigris Ivan Prasko and bishop of Toronto Isidore Borecky without papal approval (apostolic mandate) in an act which caused many irritations in the Roman Curia,[5][6] as canon law required papal permission for the consecration of a bishop.[7] He was named Archimandrite (Archabbot) of the Studite Monks in Europe and America in 1978. He organized a new Studite monastery in Ternopil, Ukraine, in 1994, and was elected by the Synod of Bishops of the Ukrainian Church as exarch of the archiepiscopal exarchy of Kyiv and Vyshhorod in 1995, confirmed by the Pope the following year (February 1996) by nominating to the titular see of Nisa di Licia.[6] On 14 October 1996 the UGCC Synod of Bishops named Husar auxiliary of the Archbishop Major of Lviv as coadjutor with special delegations. In October 1999 he attended the 2nd Special Assembly for Europe.[6] Although once a citizen of the United States, Husar gave up his U.S. citizenship after transferring to Ukraine, and adopted the citizenship of Ukraine. "
This guy, a decade before LeFebvre consecrated the bishops after back and forth discussions, negotiations and machinations, separated himself from the Church, defied the Pope in Rome, the result? Irritation from Rome. But he was given a See anyway and Pope John Paul II even made him a Cardinal.
So, the whole hysteria about consecrations and papal mandates is only a big deal when Rome wants it to be a big deal. It's not objective, it's about selective outrage, political brinksmanship and unequal justice.
The funny thing is, the 1917 code of Canon Law was more clear than the 1983 code. Husar was way off the reservation juridically, but he was aligned properly politically and wasn't going to oppose the agenda. You know, the agenda that wound up with Buddha statues on Catholic altars, the Pope kissing the Koran, Pachamama in St. Peter's and only about a thousand other scandals, other than that, a great thing.
Bro did you watch this video at all? John Salza stated multiple times that the right to select bishops isn't always explicit. Don't go off on a rant without watching the video
@@john-el9636 Bro, whether papal mandates are explicit or not isn't what I was arguing. Salza falsely claims that it is a "Divinely Revealed Truth" that the selection of bishops is the right of the Pope alone." It's not Divinely Revealed and it's not even an Apostolic Tradition. Bishops were both selected by other bishops and sometimes clergy and lay faithful elected their bishops. Papal mandates weren't a thing till 6 centuries into the life of the Church.
I pointed to the Catholic Encyclopedia both to show the selective outrage comparing what Bishop Slipyj did compared to Archbishop LeFebvre and that LeFebvre did it under a more lenient code of Canon Law.
Pay attention.
@Gerry I'll say this one more time since you clearly didn't read my comment or watch the video. Papal mandate can be explicit or implicit. We're not talking about specific decrees but instead just approval. As in, bishops who were in opposition to the Bishop of Rome weren't considered legitimate in the early Church. Salza makes this clear multiple times in the video. If you're going to argue that this isn't part of divinely revealed truths, then you have to explain how multiple popes apparently got that completely backwards and taught absolute error. Which complicates our Catholic faith.
If you're not going to pay attention, don't bother trying to engage in this discussion.
@@john-el9636 I read your comment and Salza's false claim. Your mistake is not knowing what Divine Revelation means. Papal mandates are an issue of Canon Law not Revelation. It was a claiim that the Popes reserved to themselves in the 7th century. Paul doesn't even mention Peter in his warning to Timothy about being careful about whom he ordains and consecrates.
Bishops who were in opposition to the Pope weren't considered legitimate? Are you including St. Paul in that? You aren't precise in your language. That's why you fall for Salza's deceptions. He just changes a word here and there, omits a sentence here and there and creates his illusion of lies.
Salza wants you to think whatever his personal Pharisaical attitude decides Catholic doctrine is.
But ultimately he's a layman with no authority and he's a heretic. He imbibes in Neo-Donatism and denies that babies validly baptized in Non-Catholic settings are not baptized Catholics. So, he either denies one Baptism and admits multiple Baptisms and if He thinks a child or person given "Anglican" Baptism is saved, he denies the dogma of No Salvation Outside the Church.
I have already stated in my comments that I haven't heard the whole of his lectures. But I've commented on things I have specifically seen and heard him blather on about, polluting the internet with his stupidity.
@@gerry30 excellent rebuttals. Many are taken in by Salza’s false claims because of their bias against the SSPX. They fail to see these are old arguments rehashed from back in the 1990’s. One traditional priest who’s not SSPX summarized Salza perfectly when he wrote, “Salza is a man who doesn’t come across as likable or virtuous but vitriolic. Does one see a reflection of St. Joseph in him? Even if he left Freemasonry, he clearly didn’t pick up much virtue or good logic in the process”.
I think you also mentioned in another comment/post that his arguments whether one can attend a SSPX chapel to fulfill Sunday obligation & jurisdiction re SSPX were brilliantly debunked by Christpilled. I know the person behind that account & he told me it didn’t take him long to figure out Salza was manipulating the truth but it took him a while to present his argument so clearly. Hard work pays. In Christo.
Let’s have another debate on if Salza is excommunicated please.
The papal bull "In Eminenti Apostolatus Specula"
Among others.
Someone doesn't understand how excommunication works. Most likely you haven't been to a valid confession in forever. Dr. Salza clearly has and publicly acknowledges his sin.
Well maybe you could first read The papal bull "In Eminenti Apostolatus Specula"
And then explain according to that bull what it means.
Thanks
Only GOD knows the things of the church founded by HIS SON...only GOD sees who's doing the truth of the church... pray for wisdom and guidance of where to go for the church founded by CHRIST... look at the fruits from the head down below...
Viva Kristo Rey!
Ave Maria!!!
Is a mass that is a "danger to the faith" that Salza says he will not attend considered invalid? If not, then he would be willfully not fulfilling his Sunday obligation by not attending, which is a mortal sin. If it is invalid, what makes it so and who gets to make that determination?
@zzzz This question isn't for me, it is for Salza.
So you are saying one has to figure out each mass, if it's ok? And how do you know beforehand, as it hasn't happened yet and you don't know what abuses the upcoming mass will bring? And lay people have to decide if a mass is valid. Amazing that this is how things work in the novus ordo.
We spent 2 1/2 hours getting to Mass this morning an 1 hour and 40 minutes getting home.
@zzzz "if something's valid, it either objectively is or isn't". So one has to determine at the mass if something is invalid, but then it's too late. You are there. And so much for focusing on prayer and on Our Lord if one has to make sure the mass is valid! I'll pass on that.
Salza talked about a mass that is a "danger to the faith" which sounds like more and worse than some incorrect rubrics.
"There's a collapse in discipline in general" That's putting it mildly!
@zzzz "where is the determination?" You have to determine if the words of consecration are right, if all the rubrics are right, etc. I would never go where I would have to do this.
""Mass" continued as it had you leave" Indeed!
"On hand you care about validity and on the other hand you aren't on guard?" I don't go where I have to be on guard.
"Do you think that the Novus Ordo imparts the same amount of grace as the 62?" No. Also, the 62 had the Canon altered, the people's Confeitor removed, commemorations removed, calendar altered. This was not a finished product; the changes ceased in 1962 because of the council but continued after and resulted in the mass of Paul VI.
@zzzz Where we go to Mass, we know how the clergy were trained, how long theye been offering the Mass, who ordained them. I have no concerns and don't need to think about it.
I recommend the book "Work of Human Hands: A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI."
John Salza who?
You know, the guy who was a nominal Catholic, became an enthusiastic Freemason, became an enthusiastic EWTN type of Catholic, became an enthusiastic Traditional Catholic and now is a full throated enthusiastic supporter of the Vatican II revolution. He writes and sells books all along the way, trashing on Thursday who he supported on Tuesday while trashing who he supported on the previous Saturday. It's the modern day medicine show.
RE: marriage tribunals. The SSPX makes no authoritative claims. First, anyone who doesn't think the marriage tribunals in the regular Church structure aren't messed up is delusional. But the SSPX tribunals give the benefit of the doubt to the diocesan tribunals and only give an opinion if they think the tribunal is wrong and the solicitors make a personal promise to adhere to the conclusion. So, if a person claims their marriage was valid and the SSPX agrees with the tribunal that there was an invalidating error, the people involved agree to accept that. And if the SSPX says, "No. The Tribunal ignored the fact that you both signed pre-nups and that's invalidating." Or if the SSPX concludes that the people are still married and were sloppily granted an anullment declaration. The people have promised to abide by that decision and not marry again unless to each other or the passing of the other party.
No citation for LeFebvre claiming that the people give him jurisdiction. I've read quite the opposite. LeFebvre claimed no authority and everyone involved was there of their own volition and the Church supplies jurisdiction when the people request it. How did LeFebvre manage to rewrite Canon law? Amazing.
I was with Salza until he claimed that people married by the SSPX would be sinning by fornication. At the very least would this not be a natural marriage, and if they believe they are validly married how could they be sinning?
In the case where there marriages are invalid but they believe it to be valid then they would be materially committing fornication, it would be an evil act, but they wouldn’t be culpable, due to their ignorance. So therefore it wouldn’t be a mortal sin, as that requires knowledge.
That is a good point, in that I dont understand why it wouldn’t at least be a natural marriage.
A boatload of people are committing adultery due to the annulment scandal in the post VCII structure.
That would be true of any valid marriage granted an annulment declaration within the regular Church organization. They've been giving them out like candy for decades. So Salza's argument isn't any better for the diocesan tribunals.
You consider marriages by Protestants and Justice of the Peace valid but not sspx? Oh that makes sense
It does but only if you are Catholic it makes sense. To non-Catholics like SSPX it doesn't make sense.
@P. Doetsch well apparently you disagree with the Pope. How could the pope give faculties of marriage and reconciliation to non- catholics? Does he give faculties to other so called non-catholics? No because the sspx are fully catholic. Stop beating up on other catholics who just want a reverent worship. How about you concentrate your energy on stopping clown & guitar masses. Let's thank God for the sspx and that we still have some places to worship with reverence and respect. And let's thank God for the brave men who stand up to heresy and respectfully say no to Peter, because if it wasn't for these men we wouldn't even know what the TLM was. And if they get their way they will stomp it out completely. We have to resist them for our children's sake, stop causing division. Pope St. Pius V, pray for us
@@uncomfortabletruth-nr3gv The SSPX reap what they sow, schism. When they want to come back to the Church, they can come back the same way the Orthodox will have to be re-admitted, through a good confession for the sin of Schism.
@P. Doetsch Refusing to accept heresy is NOT schismatic Pope Pius V guarantees ALL priests to the right to say the TLM. Stop with your false accusations the orthodox are ACTUALLY In schism the sspx are completely different. They believe the papacy even more than certain Cardinal in the church and because they refuse to give full faculties that is where the abuse is. I'm sure you don't attend the N.O. aren't you schizzie yourself?
@@uncomfortabletruth-nr3gv I attend the NO at a TLM parish. They do the NO without any abuses. If the Bishop shut down the TLM it wouldn't undermine my Faith. God will judge him, not me.
You mean to say the old old church are schismatic? Who really went out of the catholic church? Though the early church fathers not enlightened by the HOLY SPIRIT? Now why is the change of the rites of mass? Why is the change of church?? Though we have to follow the pope if his mind is not of the church founded by CHRIST? So which are we going to follow authorize by human or by GOD?
I heard the word mason about church within the church and I believe.. /the midern church now i cannot understand their behavior.. their respect and faith of the true presence of JESUS in the Eucharist.... my son a lay minister give communion to the laitys while the priest was sitting down... how us that???
Go to church the apostolic church.... church of GOD not of man
We are in a state of emergency as fr
Hesse has said in his numerous videos. Pray the rosary daily to eliminate sins and get enrolled in the brown scapula says fr Gruner and pray for your enemies and ask the Lord to keep your faith strong and also to increase your faith and pray for graces. Good luck Catholics, some day all this trouble will be over, hang in there. Thevonlyvwayvto getvto heaven is through the Catholic Church
1:40 Novus Ordo Mass is similar to Tridentina? NOM is identical to Lutheran and Anglican "mass" - but why is made in that way?
"Schism" as a term literally means "rupture." Pope Benedict XVI basically declared that anyone who follows the policies of Vatican II according to the "Hermeneutic of Rupture" is essentially schismatic. To follow a legalistic and narrow application of the term and believe your soul is secured while you attend a Novus Ordo with morally bankrupt sermons And heterodox actions is folly.
Yeah.....He's talking about the SSPX rejecting the infalible authority of the Apostolic College. Here's the thing, there is no "college" of bishops. The relationship of bishops to Pope is one to one. There is no denial of the infalibility of the Apostles. The claim that the Apostles who were individually granted Public Revelation and infallibility is not disputed. But there was no separate "college of bishops" and the "Pope" as two wonder twins who connect their rings to activate their special powers. I'm 5 minutes in and this guy is an utter fraud.
I think John Salsa has put on a few pounds.
Big deal
the root of the problem is on one side allowing the free market place of ideas...and the other is using force
to stop the free market of ideas. I think the opponents of the SSPX want them to be eliminated by force.
The Church is not a democracy or a "marketplace".
@@flabigeryet Vatican 2 caters to the whims of corrupt Democracy
Good to know you know better than the magisterium. What's it like being a Protestant?@@nathaniellathy6559
Clear...the schism is the one who separate from the church from CHRIST teachings' handed to the apostles....the changing of the rites of mass... clear schism... thank for your talk my simple mind understand who really is the true Christ Church...
The fruits will testify
If we are going to "resist novelty" as Mr. Salza suggests, then we have to resist Vatican II, the new mass, and so much that comes from the conciliar structure. I recommend the book "Iota Unum" by Romano Amerio.
Why is Vatican 2 Church trying to get rid of TLM. That's departure from the Faith. SSPX is needed more than ever.
Someone's not paying attention. Dr. Salza himself says he attends a TLM diocesan mass. There are multiple TLM masses currently going on in Milwaukee under the diocese, ICK, and FSSP.
Thank God who is and isn’t in schism isn’t determined by random laymen.
"the SSPX has embraced doctrinal errors and even heresies" Oh No! While I doubt that is true, he is actually critiqueing the average pew sitter and attendee of Fr. James Martin's lectures.
How can an apostate excommunicate anyone? If I promote heresy don't I automatically lose the faith? V2 documents contain heresy. Therefore the novus ordo church is different an not the one holy catholic apostolic. N. O contradicts previous popes & councils.
If current pope and all cardinals, and all Roman Curia, and all ordinary bishops are apostatates, heretics and they lost all jurisdiction - then Roman Catholic Church has defected OR jurisidiction and papacy are not essential to the Church but accidental. What option do you choose?
"Don't be tricked by appearances...there's a presumption that the SSPX is orthodox"......there is also a presumption that the local Novus Ordo is orthodox. But very unlikely. Far more likely with the SSPX.
Many scholars, popes, theologians, heads of prefects and canon lawyers disagree with Salza. Having a layman accuse people of the crime of schism is absurd and irresponsible, and in this case slanderous.
Which popes disagree with Salza?
@@bman5257 Benedict and Francis, as well as many canon lawyers. It's very irresponsible for a layman to accuse someone or a group of schism, especially when the current pope and the vatican state that you can fulfill your Sunday obligation going to a SSPX chapel, a Bishop in the SSPX was assigned by the Pope to have a position on tribunal court, excommunications were removed, faculties were given, they are dealt with (and have always been dealt with) the dicastery of internal (Catholic) congregations, and SOOO many more reasons. You can't merely dismiss all off this and claim someone or a group to be facing eternal damnation.
@@adamflaherty9710 What do you think of these quotes from Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis?
"In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.(3) In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law...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." (Pope St. John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei, 2 July 1988)
"An episcopal ordination lacking a pontifical mandate raises the danger of a schism, since it jeopardizes the unity of the College of Bishops with the Pope...In light of this situation, it is my intention henceforth to join the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei" - the body which has been competent since 1988 for those communities and persons who, coming from the Society of Saint Pius X or from similar groups, wish to return to full communion with the Pope - to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith." (Pope Benedict XVI, LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI
TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
CONCERNING THE REMISSION OF THE EXCOMMUNICATION
OF THE FOUR BISHOPS CONSECRATED BY ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE, 10 March 2009)
"The faculty - granted by the indult of the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1984 [2] and confirmed by St. John Paul II in the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei in 1988 [3] - was above all motivated by the desire to foster the healing of the schism with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre." (Pope Francis, LETTER OF THE HOLY FATHER FRANCIS
TO THE BISHOPS OF THE WHOLE WORLD,
THAT ACCOMPANIES THE APOSTOLIC LETTER MOTU PROPRIO DATA
“TRADITIONIS CUSTODES”, 16 July 2021)
Pope Marcellinus cannot be compared to what JPII did. Ditto for what Francis has done.
Pope Marcellinus ruled the Church of Rome for nine years and four months. By order of Emperors Diocletian and Maximian he was taken prisoner and brought forward to offer sacrifice to the idols. At first he refused and was threatened with various kinds of torture, and for fear of the threatened suffering he put down two grains of incense in sacrifice to the gods. This gave great joy to the infidels but caused the faithful immense sadness.
However, under a weak head, members rise up and make little of the threats of the princes, so the faithful came to the Pope and reproached him severely. He realized the gravity of his error and offered himself to be judged by a council of Bishops. The Bishops responded: “It is not possible for the Supreme Pontiff to be judged by anyone, but you yourself weigh your case in your own mind and pronounce your own judgment.”
The Pope, repentant, lamented his fault and deposed himself, but the whole gathering immediately re-elected him. When the Emperors heard of this, they had him arrested again. He absolutely refused to offer sacrifice to the idols, so they sentenced him to be beheaded. Then the persecution was renewed with such a fury that in one month 17,000 Christians were put to death.
When Marcellinus was about to be beheaded, he declared himself unworthy of Christian burial and excommunicated all who might presume to bury him. Thus his body lay above ground for 35 days. At the end of that time the Apostle Peter appeared to Marcellus, who had succeeded as Pope and said: “Brother Marcellus, why do you not bury me?” Marcellus replied: “Have you not yet been buried, my Lord?” Peter: “ I consider myself unburied as long as Marcellinus is unburied!” “But don’t you know, my Lord,” Marcellus asked, “that he laid a curse on anyone who buried him?” Peter: “Is it not written that he who humbles himself shall be exalted? You should have kept this in mind! Now go and bury him at my feet.” Marcellus went straightaway and carried out the orders laudably.
(From the Golden Legend by Blessed Jacobus of Voragine)
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia online it is not proven that Pope St. Marcellinus offered incense to the gods:
There were even later reports in circulation that accused him [Pope St. Marcellinus] of having...offered incense to the gods, to protect himself from the persecution. But the sources in which this reproach is clearly stated are very questionable....The Donatist Bishop Petilianus...asserted..But he could not adduce any proof..One can only conclude...that such rumours against Marcellinus...could not be proved, otherwise St. Augustine would not have been able to assert the innocence of the accused so decidedly.
But even in Rome similar stories were told of Marcellinus in certain circles, so that in two later legendary reports a formal apostasy was attributed to this pope, of course followed by repentance and penance. The biography of Marcellinus...relates that he was led to the sacrifice that he might scatter incense, which he did. But after a few days he was seized with remorse, and was condemned to death by Diocletian with three other Christians, and beheaded. It is clear that this report attempts to combine a rumour that the pope had offered incense to the gods, with the fact that, in other circles he was regarded as a martyr and his tomb venerated.
"Cassocks and say the traditional mass" Notice how that is what his claims of the SSPX's orthodoxy comes from? Never heard in all my time around trads of various stripes that the hallmark of orthodoxy was the extternals. Usually people are given excellent pastoral advice and there is "reverence" demonstrated for our Lord in the Eucharist. Wear a cassock at the Novus Ordo all you want and see how our Lord is treated with Communion in the hand and the trampling of the Sacred Species under foot. But we know there's a crisis....that's right.
Le febvre is a hero, he saved the Latin mass from being canceled by Vatican ll . The Latin mass has never been abrogated. It is still valid.Salsa is mouthing off with things that he has no knowlege of
The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass offered by Archbishop Lefebrve is the Mass Padre Pio offered, the Mass beloved by St. Therese of Lisieux, the Mass offered in Lepanto while the battle raged and the Mass which countless Saints before Vatican II held as their Sacrament. The magesterium and tradition can be traced back to the apostles. It is not an innovation. It is a living continuation of the true deposit of faith. When Archbishop Lefebrve sought permission for ordination of bishops from the Holy See that was not an act of schism. He was promised that a date would be chosen in the future for those ordinations. Freemasons and modernists in the Vatican blocked that step. Thank God that Lefebrve acted to preserve the Mass of the ages! He deserves sainthood for his courage in the face of evil. The diluted, Protestantized Novus Order mass which disrespects the Body and Blood of our Lord has shown us its worth by its fruits. The pews emptied and the belief in the True Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist withered since Vatican II. Now pachamama idols adorn the altars. It is the smoke of satan and not the incense of prayers which fills the Novus Order churches. If canon law is accurately and fully applied this presentation would fall apart on legal grounds alone. The fact that the presenter selectively chose and twisted canon laws to make a slick and compelling argument shows his true colors and affiliations. Those who follow the father of lies often take this spproach. Saul Alinsky too would be proud. You can keep the idols and the heresy normalizing sins! Look at who is promoted in the Vatican. Look at the latest Synod. I am blessed to have access to an SSPX church near me. The graces I receive are palpable. Prayer begets what it signifies. The TLM is simply stronger and more complete in content. Commmunion on the tongue is reverent. Even the sacramental blessing is more robust; the graces which flow from those sacramentals bear witness to the efficacy of the blessings. I pray for the Pope and the entire Roman Catholic Church. I pray for those who don't have an SSPX in their vicinity. The gates of hell cannot prevail against the Church. When the smoke clears the SSPX will be there to carry on as the rest of the church returns to true faith. As for the video consider the source and the method of his argument.
The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass offered by schismatic Eastern Orthodox priests is the same mass offered by non-schismatic Byzantine Catholics. How are you not understanding it's not the missal that you say but whether or not you're in communion with the True Church and submit to the chair of Peter?
Masons gonna Mason - ain't fooling anyone John
Mr. Salza was attending Mass with SSPX for 15 years
What a world we live in…. I just cannot believe it. A pope that worships pachamama is regarded with the highest honors but people that practice the Roman Catholic faith as it always has been are labeled schismatics. It’s unbelievable!
@@TheNostalgicKitchen regarding the pope with the highest honors is not optional, and the Catholic faith as it has always been has always been subjected to the bishop (SSPX priests are not incardinated and therefore aren't subjected to the bishop). That's very disingenuous
@@MutohMech So you would have been a willing subject of Arian bishops and dutifully denounced St. Athanasius then ?
@@DaveS859 I can only wonder if you'd have asked this derisive question to St Ignatius of Antioch since it was he who said the following: "See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop."
Ahort answer.
No.
The popes, the church, and more have all said so.
Why you slander good people is beyond me.
LeFebvre never claimed jurisdiction nor did any SSPX priest or bishop. Quite the opposite.
Salsa has sold out the traditional latin mass, hevis a lier
His cheeks look a bit pudgy.
LEFEBVRE is a ST ! All else are LIES and DISRESPECTFUL and DISOBEDIENT APOSTATES AND HERITICS to their OWN CONDEMNATION for they have OPENLY REJECTED. The TRUTHS OF The WORDS OF CHRIST and His APOSTLES. DEO. TUUM VERBUM ET VERO IN APOSTOLORUM. VERO DEO GRATIAS 🙏 ST PIUS X. ORO PRO NOBIS . AMEN 🙏
Ok, so do you think, that jurisdiction, canonical mission and papacy are essential or aacidental to the Church?
@@kamilmurawski1136 AS. FAR As I am concerned and my observation of what I have found , there is no justification in the NOVUS. ORDO Missae, the COUNCIL of POPE John XXIII was a PASTORAL COUNCIL ONLY it was Not a DOGMATIC COUNCIL! I GREW up during the CHANGES. , When statues of Saints were being removed altar rails removed CHATHOLIC churches desecrated and other sacrilege’s were committed ! To assist with any questions you have, read the OTTAVIANI intervention by ANGELUS PRESS, IT clearly shows what took Place from 1960 to 1969 when Pope PAUL VI introduced the New Mass !
@Kamil Murawski Don't bother with this guy. I don't think his position was adopted by reason, he seems too emotionally attached to SSPX
@@terratremuit4757 Or you can reread what he says ... relics removed from churches and altars, altars replaced, churches often became places for people to hold concerts and exhibitions (and sometimes downright hideous) or just became places of silent worship for everyone (even non-Christians), many churches closed during the week, priests are no longer given scheduled time for confession (God forgives no matter, on purpose), the evil one does not exist, only as a symbol, or as "evil" a concept within ethics, philosophy, morality, sermons focus more on social politics, how to become a better person on earth, instead of focusing on the salvation of your soul, and your spirituality, churches follow political correctness, Bibles have changed words, or interpretations of certain passages, people are canonized on the fast track (which would otherwise take much longer) so many many many many many things have changed, which cannot be put away since Modernism . .. ... understood within the context ... the amount of senior clergy who do not believe in the supernatual, the Eucharist, in hell, who cannot in fact be called Catholic or Christian, I have heard, is staggering ...