The SSPX Is Not In Schism
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 жов 2024
- I really didn't want this to be my next video, because I don't want my channel to become all about the sspx.
I have a lot of other topics I want to get to, and I know there are a lot of people on my channel who don't necessarily care about the sspx.
However, with my last video showing how Archbishop Lefebvre was, in my opinion, not excommunicated, predictably, it got several comments claiming that the sspx is in schism.
This is not true.
The fact that they keep on attacking the SSPX & not the Eastern Orthodox is just sad & shows bias.
Excellent point. Even Lofton spends fffaarrr much more time smearing the SSPX than the EO, which he was like 5 mins ago
The pope hasn't attacked them but has treated them in a friendly manner like he does with with protestants, Orthodox, Jews, Muslims and atheists. That shows that they aren't in the Church. The pope doesn't have jurisdiction over them.
@@anthonypuccetti8779 That's fair however, I'm referring to other Catholic content creators.
@@perfectlambministry777. That's because the SSPX claims to be Catholic and it lures Catholics out of the Church and to denial that the new mass and the 2nd Vatican council are legitimate. That is offensive to people who are faithful to the Church. The SSPX has a parasitical relationship with the Church.
@@anthonypuccetti8779 That's incorrect. They don't lead people outside the church that's a stupid statement. Vatican II was a pastoral council Paul the VI stated so, so it isn't dogma & the church cannot change 2000 years of church teaching overnight.
Thank you. My family is joining the SSPX parish because of the sinful behavior of local parishes. So we drive an hour away for the SSPX Latin mass. At least there I won't have to worry about weird sexual sins happening during mass. I'm so thankful you posted this video because I was worried.
What weird sexual sins happen during Mass?
I wouldn't do that. Find an FSSP parish. They're in full communion with the Church.
I second the question, what are the "weird sexual sins happening during mass"?
@@matthewwisniewski2962 If Francis follows through on his intentions as stated in Traditiones custodes and its accompanying letter, this is option will eventually come to an end.
This is why I didn't become Catholic. Protestants are like this too, so I left that, but the Catholics seemed like they were even worse. They laity is so dirty. Hilariously, they get all frenzied about divorce and even church sanctioned annulments, and yet they permit this kind of thing.
As much as the clergy gets a bad rap, it's really the strong the true and the good among them keeping the church alive. The Catholic laity blames everyone but themselves: the Pope, divorce culture, clergy, homosexuality, etc. If they had been behaved, none of that other stuff would have happened. But honestly, I don't think they actually care about sin.
Just participate and support FSSP and stop worrying about SSPX tryhards. Problem solved.
Thanks for posting. While some are coming around to the SSPX not being in schism, they refer to it as being "Irregular". Having grown up in the preconciliar Church, I find the Novus Ordo, as currently being practiced, "Irregular".
So, which is regular and which is "irregular" and which one has the pope?
@@littlerock5256 You mean the heretic pope? The one more concerned about climate change than exodus from the Church?
@@michaelmasztal7871 "Heretic pope"
By whose authority do you judge he is a heretic?
@@vaderkurt7848 My opinion... maybe anti-pope might be a better term.
@michaelmasztal7871 Ya a opinion that isn't authoritative.
"Anti pope"
OK by whose authority?
If the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, that is the fruit of the tree of the Second Vatican Council, has produced two of the worst catechized generations in the history of the Catholic Faith, then what really has the Novus Ordo Church to offer those who are looking to Christ for their salvation? If people simply root about and among the ruins of the Catholic Faith which are the ruins which have been caused by Vatican II, what good will that do?
Every day we can read some new atrocity that Rome is engendering. Wouldn't they be doing what 2 Peter 2 verse 22 states very plainly?:
"For, that of the true proverb has happened to them: The dog is returned to his vomit: and, The sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire."
What you are saying is a consequence, not only of the existence of Vatican II, but of what all those Bishops at Vatican II did to the Council of Trent Church... abandoned and threw out the Council of Trent Church, which abandons and throws out the Truth of Jesus Christ! What had taken the world out of religious chaos, that is the grip of the Protestant Revolt, and returned it to the teachings of Christ, and the Sacraments and the Mass, and the Doctrines and Dogmas, the Council of Trent had used to solidify what it meant to be Catholic; and "the dog has returned to his vomit: and, The sow that was washed, to her wallowing in the mire."
(The new "Revolt" of Vatican II... history has repeated itself not from outside of the Church but from inside of the Church.)
Under the Council of Trent the True Catholic Faith flourished not only in numbers, but also in sanctity and sainthood. The statistics show beyond a shadow of a doubt that that trend toward the True God, the True Faith, and the True Worship has been reversed by Vatican II. Doesn't this prove to us who want the True Faith, and the True Worship, and the True Sacraments instituted by Christ to give Grace, that what Archbishop Lefebvre told us is the one and only True Remedy. It is OUR PAST THAT IS OUR FUTURE!
If we want our future to be in Heaven with God and His Saints, we must rejoin with Pope St. Pius V, and Pope St. Pius X, and the True Catholics... well catechized Catholics... and go back to the Council of Trent Church and stop trying to reform the reform! Isn't that what the Council Fathers of Vatican II did to the Council of Trent? They took what wasn't broke, and pretended to fix it!
Archbishop Lefebvre had the vision from the Holy Spirit and has preserved the Council of Trent Church and Faith and Worship for us... UNBROKEN! "
The laity, on the whole, is lazy, and therefore easily led.
Diabolically disoriented*
I'm not a convert to Catholicism but I have given up much to stay in the Church bc I have come to realize it is the truth. Its sad that some Preists and Bishops have an uncaring attitude about converts from other religions. My social life would be greatly improved if I went to the Presbyterian Church down the street (where most of my friends are).
Hang in there brother. The road to Calvary is very inconvenient
I'm still uncertain on the issue but this is the most clear and concise defense of the SSPX I've seen, well done! 👍
The catechism says "Schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." That fits the SSPX.
The facts are against your anti-catholic agenda.
@@anthonypuccetti8779
Thank you! This is the best video I have ever heard clarifying it. I will be moving to an SSPX parish soon and could not be more excited to get there
You're Catholic? Wow.
@@Evan_Vancomycindog yep, are you a fan of the channel?
@@ScottFisherCFBNot really but you're doing great!
The fact they hate the SSPX is just because their own churches are empty and void of young people
Thanks for such a well researched and professionally presented case. Anyone who continues to see the SSPX as schismatic after hearing your presentation is a person who is not interested in the truth and upon who sound logic and reasoning has no effect. That's not to say a person may not reasonably question the SSPX, as you pointed out, but to hold that they are ipso facto in schism is simply not logical.
I know a very holy priest who, one year ago, was installed as pastor at a parish that seemed tailor made for him. In May, a friend asked, "did you hear that Fr- preached against homosexuality?" In July, he was removed. He is currently on leave for an indefinite period of time.
Thank you. The "they" are mostly modernists.
The *Catechism of the Catholic Church* states, _"schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."_
How does this apply to the SSPX?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: _"schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."_
How does this apply to the SSPX?
You did a nice job laying most of it out given permitted time. You convince me on it being an matter of opinion even w/ some difficult statements or positions, such as the partial agreement on the profession of faith, partially rejecting V2 & or the Paschal Mystery being a modern theological addition, or at least the term. Either way it remains an important & interesting discussion, & I would, if possible, have to attend TLM & learn more on either side of this debate, & as you mentioned in problematic Fr Martin or some of the ridiculous blasphemous "Masses", German Bishops etc, should be a bigger problem & given more attention, grace & peace
As a man who was 21 when Vatican 2 was convened, my attitude was one of complete acceptance (except Communion in the hand; having only done it once). I was a lector, Eucharistic "minister" and luke warm Catholic (cf. Apocalypse 3:16). It was only after returning to the TLM on the first Sunday of June 1993 at the diocesan-approved Mass in Syracuse that my study of Tradition began in earnest, leading to many questions concerning Vatican 2 and what was experienced in the aftermath. I began to consider joining the SSPX chapel in Syracuse in 2001; finally did on the first Sunday of May 2011; a decision which has caused me no regret. Incidentally, during the Canon of the Mass we pray for Francis our Pope and Douglas (J. Lucia) our bishop; Ordinary of the Diocis of Syracuse. Our pastor meets on a regular basis with Bp. Lucia. During this academic break, while our makeshift church (the gymnasium in our Catholic school, Mater Dei Academy) is under repair, Bp. Lucia has granted us permission to celebrate Sunday and Holy Day Masses at a diocesan church where the TLM is also celebrated. He has also granted permission for one of our engaged couples to be married in a diocesan church in the northern part of the diocis. He has also granted permission for another couple to married in the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception. How is it, our bishop, who holds a doctorate in Canon Law, doesn't know we're in schism? A question of greater concern for me is, when will Pope Francis cancel him?
Bill Crofut
Thank you again for a enlightening video. Keep up and the good work and may God bless you with many subscribers.
Is the SSPX the same as the TLM? I'm confused. I have learned of the SSPX priest fraternity. But, I've also heard there is a SSPX Mass. I'm not that knowledgeable.
TLM usually refers to the Latin mass put on by the Diocese
@imisschristendom5293 OK, I understand that, and how the TLM is the mass the church has done for Millenia. But, what is the SSPX mass? Like how is it different from TLM. I agree with you especially in the end of the video how it is insane how the traditional masses and the SSPX society is being seen as deviant because they wish to uphold our Catholic tradition, but the Novus Ordo masses, and new churches aren't called out for not enforcing things like proper genuflecting, proper clothing, or receiving the Eucharist kneeling on the tongue. It's very interesting how out tradition is being attacked not by Protestants but fellow Catholics.
Sspx mass is the same as tlm but done by an sspx priest as opposed to a Diocesan priest. They both use the 1962 Missal.
@imisschristendom5293 I don't understand what's an SSPX priest. I thought it was just a regular priest but just in that religious fraternity order? From my understanding the bishop sends some priests to a permanent home parish which is the Diocesan priest. And the ones he sends to go travel and go on missions is a Friar. But what is the difference between an sspx priest and these other ones? I still don't understand the controversy they're Catholic priests and us Catholics have one sect but 24 rites and I believe the SSPX is the Roman right in traditional Latin which is the exact same as let's say a Diocesan priest who's parish still does and enforces the traditional Latin mass instead of novus ordo. Like you have said both TLM and SSPX use the pre vat 2 1962 Missal. I just had no knowledge of SSPX or this controversy or people accusing them of schism. Which is ironic because liberal clergy like father James Martin seem to be the ones who could possibly leave the church over the church condemning sin and not changing with the times.
@@imisschristendom5293is there a way I can email you to ask a few questions? I’m going to inter a debate with an anti SSPX. I was wondering to help on footnotes and sources I can send
Excellent video
Well-presented and interesting information. Thanks!
Excommunication and schism are two different things. An excommunication is an additional penalty added to a crime of schism.
Perhaps.
Of course, there are many things one can do to get excommunicated that are not schismatic.
Abortion, being a freemason.
But when an excommunication is lifted, it brings the person back into communion with the Church.
It brings them back into good standing with the church. Otherwise, its meaningless.
This partial communion, full communion, not in full communion, doesn't actually exist. It's a bad nonsensical philosophy.
You are either in communion or not.
The lifting of the excommunications brought them back into communion.
@@imisschristendom5293 A schism exists until the conditions that caused the schism no longer exists. That is until one submits to the pope.
But you are in luck Francis is no a valid pope.
@@catholiccrusaderfilms3974 You're playing semantics and trying to be a smart boy. You're not fooling anyone. Furthermore, Francis' election may not be valid, but you're in no position to make that determination.
Great work. Say.... Why don't you do a Video on ACEDIA? I don't think anyone will even know what it means and it is a Major sin that everyone seems to have.
There was just a video on another channel on "diffidence" which most have to look up and is similar to acedia, or the noon day devil, spiritual sloth.
It's another word for apathy. Yes, most people know that laziness and indifference is a sin. The problem is that they don't care enough to change.
Archbishop Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, page 216:
“Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion.”
It's SSP-ten. The 'X' is not a letter.
Referring to it by initials is already a colloquialism. It's fine.
it is a roman numeral thus it is a number
Pedantic af
If God wills the plurality of religions, wouldn't that include the SSPX?
Turning away protestant seeking entry to the Catholic Church is horrible.
I will never go to a novus ordo mass again.
What if the pope issued a statement ex cathedra which is clearly contrary to scripture and tradition such as that women can be ordained or that the sacrament of holy matrimony can be extended to those in unusual situations?
Excommunicated has not been lifted on the bishop that founded their schism
See my vidro before this one to see that Lefebvre was probably not excommunicated. Even if he was so what? That doesnt mean the whole society is excommunicated.
If the superior of the jesuits were to be excommunicated tgat doesnt mean the whole order is.
In my experience with talking to SSPX attendies, you are wrong on many accounts such as: Validity of the NO, the pope, Vatican II, etc.
I think the SSPX in my area (again, in my experience) come off as schismatic and better than.
Jesus I love you. All I have is yours. Yours I am yours I want to be. Do with me whatever you will.
That's right, but don't downplay disobedience. I would love to see that you could fulfill the Sunday obligation in a sspx parish, but what I don't like, is that they valued tradition more than the communion with the pope.
But I guess their parishes flourish and I think that everyone should finally come together.
Do not downplay the traditions handed down by the apostles and early church fathers.
Excellent research on this thanks for sharing
10:36 🫳🎤👇🏼
Yep. Thank you!
Thank you 🙏
Great video
You are correct. Pope Francis wouldn't give faculties to a dissident group
He actually cannot lawfully give permanent faculties in the Church to a person outside the Church. By definition if this alone they are not schismatic...
It's like giving a social security card to a non-citizen.
Pope would not excommunicate and lift their excommunication unless they are in the church. He granted them certain faculties too which suggests that they are in partial communion with Rome.
No such thing as partial communion. They ARE in communion, but considered to have "irregular" status.
Papal Protestants
It goes right up the ranks, Cupich being a good example.
"Papal protestants"
What is a papal protestant?
Pretty sure going against the pope makes you closer to the protestants.
Lefebvre validity is the issue here, not schism. The same freemason ordained him both as a priest and as a bishop. Freemasons have no power to do squat. Not valid.
The Power and Authority of a Bishop, Priest remains unless officially laicized. Even down to Hell. The good Archbishop's ordination remains Valid as long as all matter, form and precepts are correctly followed
@@kings-Rex bs. bp. Buttler offered to Lefebvre to redo-validate the freemason ordinations. He refused to correct his invalid state. A freemason has no office and no power to pass on the power of the keys. Learn the true faith and her laws. Sheeeze.
sorry- ipso facto. official not required. public heresy, if you can even see it, is your duty as a Catholic.
You don't understand traditional Catholic teaching. Traditionally, what Archbishop Lefebvre did was schismatic (if John Paul II was a valid pope). JPII said they were in schism, B16 said that he hopes they return to FULL COMMUNION. Francis did those things simply to confuse you guys, but you are right about the faculties thing. The thing is, Francis doesn't have any power to determine that.
You guys really need to look at the material from MHFM. It covers these issues IN DEPTH. There is no valid pope rn. I was SSPX for a grand total of 3 weeks until I realized that their position is completely untenable. I am now happy in the true Catholic Church.
Haha, the sede position is the least tenable ever. Wont be long until you start complaining about papal forgeries and become orthodox
"ou guys really need to look at the material from MHFM. It covers these issues IN DEPTH. There is no valid pope rn. I was SSPX for a grand total of 3 weeks until I realized that their position is completely untenable. I am now happy in the true Catholic Church."
Sedevacantism is an error and the creator of this channel disagrees with it.
"True Catholic Church"
Cool where's the authority?
or perhaps in a cult that would make Fr Feeney blush.
Hyperpapalism much?
@@edukaeshn hyperpapalism??? You mean accepting the teachings of the popes????
The ordained four bishops when they were allowed one.
So? The problem wasn't the number of bishops. I think Mons. Lefebvre reasoned that if he was going to defy Rome and go ahead with the consecrations, he might as well do a full Monty and get 4 bishops. The blowback would be the same.
All of the well-known and documented schismatic acts of the SSPX over the last half a century that match these definitions and criteria, which include, but are not limited to: refusal of submission to the pope in faith, worship and governance, viz., repeated acts of disobedience such as continuing ministry of the sacraments in a state of suspension, illicit ordinations and episcopal consecrations, rejection of an ecumenical council, a universally promulgated missal, sacramental and liturgical rites, parts of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, canonizations, and most of the magisterial teaching and pastoral decisions of the last five popes. If this was not enough, they are also guilty of schism on the horizontal level, by refusal of communion with those under the pope, warning its adherents under pain of sin to avoid worshiping with other Catholics according to the reformed missal and receiving the reformed sacraments, and viewing their validity as suspect, even if theoretically valid. The SSPX even goes so far as to warn its adherents away from traditional communities offering the 1962 missal and sacraments, such as the FSSP and ICKSP, because of their acceptance of Vatican II, Novus Ordo Missae, etc. (Bear in mind that these actions are nearly identical to those historically condemned by the Church as schismatic, and that they have even been identified as such in multiple recent papal documents, such as the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei, and in the letters accompanying Summorum Pontificum and Traditiones Custodes.)
@@christopherfleming7505 All of the well-known and documented schismatic acts of the SSPX over the last half a century that match these definitions and criteria, which include, but are not limited to: refusal of submission to the pope in faith, worship and governance, viz., repeated acts of disobedience such as continuing ministry of the sacraments in a state of suspension, illicit ordinations and episcopal consecrations, rejection of an ecumenical council, a universally promulgated missal, sacramental and liturgical rites, parts of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, canonizations, and most of the magisterial teaching and pastoral decisions of the last five popes. If this was not enough, they are also guilty of schism on the horizontal level, by refusal of communion with those under the pope, warning its adherents under pain of sin to avoid worshiping with other Catholics according to the reformed missal and receiving the reformed sacraments, and viewing their validity as suspect, even if theoretically valid. The SSPX even goes so far as to warn its adherents away from traditional communities offering the 1962 missal and sacraments, such as the FSSP and ICKSP, because of their acceptance of Vatican II, Novus Ordo Missae, etc. (Bear in mind that these actions are nearly identical to those historically condemned by the Church as schismatic, and that they have even been identified as such in multiple recent papal documents, such as the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei, and in the letters accompanying Summorum Pontificum and Traditiones Custodes.)
@@christopherfleming7505 I think what you just said is exactly the problem. "He was going to defy Rome" - Defiance against the Church goes directly against the virtue of obedience, therefore it's a schism. Don't get me wrong, I strictly only go to TLM and I really like some of the things that they teach. That being said, you really need to know your stuff regarding the faith. And, I suppose that's true with TLM and it's homilies, it's just easier to let your guard down a bit knowing that they have true authority.
@@m16mojoall that defiance comes to nought because The SSPX has been time and time again declared to not be in schism, even lately by Pope Francis. Besides the Diocesan Latin Mass, Whatever Latin Mass you have access to wouldn't have been possible without the SSPX.
What you think about sspx resistance?
So nice to see blatant lies spewed out on an anti-Catholic propaganda channel.
Calumny is a sin.
Yes, but Truth is good, not that the MAGA cult accepts that. The door is open for you to leave. I'm sure Messrs. Leo and Busch will take you and all your whining non-Catholic chums anywhere the Devil wants.@@edukaeshn
Please convert to Catholicism. 11:45, this is infallible under Vatican 1's dogmatic constitution of PA.
It's very simple. Either JP2 was a real pope or he wasn't. If he was SSPX is in schism. If he isn't SSPX is fine.
Either B XVI was a real pope or he wasn't. If he was, then he contradicts JP2, a canonized saint, which is problematic. If he isn't then SSPX is fine.
Either the Iceberg is a real pope or he isn't. If he is, then he double contradicts a canonized saint, which is problematic. If he isn't the pope, then the SSPX is fine.
#Sedevacante
If a General gives an illegal order or an immoral order on the battle field that doesn't make him cease being a general. The order does not have to be followed. If you listen to Canon Lawyer Father Hesse on the SSPX you will learn that the excommunications were illegally implemented against cannon law. What Benedict did was Annul them, not lift them. Much as a marriage is annulled (never had standing from the beginning) so were the alleged excommunications. If you attend TLM you owe ALL appreciation to Lefebvre. ALL
@@scottritz7520nailed it!
Yes they are
I do agree witj sspx on stuff but the original mass was aramaic and holiness at mass has nothing tp do with language
My ruling follow pope vatican 2 and move forward
If u like latin go to a mass
Jesus clearly said in vatican 2
U do not need latin in the mass
Its clear
It's really not about the language. The problem with the Novus Ordo goes much deeper. It's about the theology of the Mass. Read what Mons. Lefebvre has to say about the changes, you'll understand it's not really a language issue.
If you think it's about latin, you are diabolically disoriented.
An Open Letter to Confused Catholics by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
What do you suppose Francis means in his accompanying letter to Traditiones custodes when he says, "...the schism with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre"?
"healing of the schism with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre."
This was a letter to bishops accompanying traditionis custodis and is in no way
An official declaration of the church
he was addressing the Bishops explaining his motives, and not addressing the faithful
The problem with today's Catholics is they believe everything the Pope says is official and that's not true.
This carries as much magisterial weight as an interview on a plane.
He is expressing his personal attitudes, not making an official pronouncement.
Notice " sspx is in schism" is not what this says.
The sspx is not the only group to come out of " the movement of mons. Lefebvre"
Individuals from those movement's, including the sspx could be in schism, just as some people who go to the novus could be in schism.
Lifesite news recently reported:
In a new video, Bishop Vitus Huonder calls the 1988 excommunication of SSPX bishops 'unjust,' while also saying Pope Francis personally told him the priests of the Society are 'not schismatics.
If we take this statement into consideration
"healing of the schism with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre."
Can not mean " sspx is in schism"
It is widely accepted, even by those who claim schism, that there is not official statement from Rome that the sspx is in schism.
@@imisschristendom5293 "This carries as much magisterial weight as an interview on a plane." The letter of a pope to his clergy throughout the world, not delivered extemporaneously but penned with aforethought, that accompanies an apostolic letter certainly carries more weight than verbal off the cuff comments made to the press on an airplane.
The comments of a bishop in a video would not hold any more weight than any of the utterances of a pope, and likely hold less. Huonder is "expressing his personal attitudes, not making an official pronouncement."
"the movement of Mons.Lefebvre" without a doubt refers to the SSPX, but could certainly also encompass the SSPX spin offs who hold Francis to be the pope.
It is more official than an interview on a plane, but it holds the sane magisterial weight. None.
Are you saying this is an official pronouncement from Pope Francis?
Because it isn't.
He is addressing the bishops, not the whole church, so he is therefore not binding us to anything because he is not addressing us. Are you sure he is addressing the SSPX? Because, again, he doesn't say the SSPX.
My point is that unless the Pope addresses the church and says
" The sspx is in schism"
There is no official pronouncement from the church that they are.
Heres a secret, you could be right. And Francis could be of the opinion that they are in schism. But this document does not bind the faithful. And he's allowed to have and express his opinions that are not required for us to hold. We can disagree with the Pope unless he expressly says otherwise. Which he did not.
Until he does, sorry. Nothing to see here.
He also could be using the term " schism" loosely. More in gest since this is not an official declaration but more of a private discussion with the bishops.
My point is you can't say pope francis said sspx is in schism unless he says sspx is in schism
@@imisschristendom5293 Schism is a strong word for Francis to use, and the SSPX is certainly "the movement of Mons. Lefebvre." If Francis is just blowing a lot of hot air and the SSPX is not in schism, then congratulations on being on the same team as him.
Regarding Huonder, what are your thoughts on his offering the Holy Thursday Chrism mass for the SSPX and consecrating the oils they will use for confirmation, extreme unction and maybe even ordination?
Maybe they're not in schism, but they're kind of jerks. They're nice at first, but they're judgey converts at the end of the day. The old prayers are great, though, if you don't get shunned first.
I've never been shunned, and I've been going there for a little over a year, semi regularly.
But I also, just go to mass, I dont stick around and chat, thats how I"ve always been. Even at Novus Ordo. Im not looking for community. Which I know is important to a lot of people.
But pretty much unless they say:
" dont come back"
Theres really no way for me to feel shunned
Seems like you are casting aspersions from a place of wrongful judgment yourself. Cast the beam out of your own eye.
@@edukaeshn I'm under no obligation to do that for you and using that phrase is lost on me. But if you'd like to follow your own advice and stop saying stuff like that to people, up to you!
@@imisschristendom5293 I'm glad to hear that you're not at a sensitive point in your life. Look out for the little guy!
@@Poodle_Gun pride is your problem.
Pope Francis, 21 of July, 2021
"Most people understand the motives that prompted St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI to allow the use of the Roman Missal, promulgated by St. Pius V and edited by St. John XXIII in 1962, for the Eucharistic Sacrifice. The faculty - granted by the indult of the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1984 and confirmed by St. John Paul II in the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei in 1988 - was above all motivated by the desire to foster THE HEALING OF THE SCHISM with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre."
As of July of 2021, The Pope was still calling it a schism, and this is the latest official declaration from The Church.
So it is not a matter of your thoughts/opinions, it is a fact that the SSPX is in schism.
"healing of the schism with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre."
This was a letter to bishops accompanying traditionis custodis and is in no way
"An official declaration of the church"
The fact that he was addressing the Bishops explaining his motives, and not addressing the faithful Should tell you that.
The problem with today's Catholics is they believe everything the Pope says is official and that's not true.
This carries as much magisterial weight as an interview on a plane.
He is expressing his personal attitudes, not making an official pronouncement. You need to learn the difference. Its important.
Notice " sspx is in schism" is not what this says.
The sspx is not the only group to come out of " the movement of mons. Lefebvre"
Individuals from those movement's, including the sspx could be in schism, just as some people who go to the novus could be in schism.
Lifesite news recently reported:
In a new video, Bishop Vitus Huonder calls the 1988 excommunication of SSPX bishops 'unjust,' while also saying Pope Francis personally told him the priests of the Society are 'not schismatics.
If we take this statement into consideration
"healing of the schism with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre."
Can not mean " sspx is in schism"
It is widely accepted, even by those who claim schism, that there is not official statement from Rome that the sspx is in schism.
@@imisschristendom5293 Alright, let's say it's not official.
Then it's your opinion vs The Pope's opinion, and The Pope before that, and The Pope before that, and The Pope before that.
I will go with the 4 pope's opinions.
It certainly was jp2's opinion, but Benedict 16th lifted the excommunications and made that null and void, as I pointed out in the video. To my knowledge, Benedict never used the word schism with regard to the sspx after lifting the excommunications.
Quite frankly, Francis is all over the place,
He says Lefebvre schism in his letter to the bishops, which is not binding, but tells another they are not schismatic, and extends faculties to them which can not be done with suspended, let alone schismatic priests.
So in the end, if it is Francis's opinion that they are in schism, it is only him I disagree with, he hasn't made that official so I am allowed to. And there must be a reason he wasn't.
But yes, if that is his opinion, I disagree with it. As I do on other things as well concerning Francis.
Blind obedience is not Catholic
Who is blind here?
The Pope called it a schism, only two years ago. Wouldn't I be blinding myself by trying to find some way around what that clearly means?
And for what? There are a dozen options within The Church if you want to attend the 1962 missal. I attend Institute of Christ the King.
Also, to the faculties argument - the Eastern Orthodox have faculties for sacraments too, that doesn't mean anything re: schism.
Exactly when did the Orthodox receive faculties from Rome to make their sacrements licit as the sspx has?
There's a difference between valid, it happens, and licit. it's done so with Romes' permission.
Go read the council of trent, go read the syllabus of errors, and get back to me about blind disobedience.
As usual, we are going in circles. The Pope did not say " sspx is in schism," which he has to.
Otherwise, why do Canon lawyers and other bishops say they're not?
Not everyone has fssp, ick, and others available. Some only have sspx for latin mass. Or, for some, it is the most reasonable. Time and distance wise.
I would encourage you to watch The Logos Project. Especially the videos with John Salza. I'd like to see how you refute his arguments on how the SSPX is in schism
Salza is merely a lawyer. Burke is a wonderful cardinal, but on the SSPX situation he too is merely a canon lawyer.
Can you cite someone whose opinion carries weight?
@@redneckpride4ever Cardinal Burke's opinion carries no weight?
I have already done a video refuting Salza about fulfilling your Sunday obligation at the sspx.
ua-cam.com/video/fVudrTLnJIA/v-deo.html
Salzas does a lot of slight of hand. His arguments are weak
There's something not right right with him on this.
He went to the sspx for 15 years, was in sspx apologetics the whole time, then one day asked his bishop if it was ok, and his bishop said no. And says he didn't realize that the whole time. He's either a moron or a liar, i dont think he's a moron.
Please, please dont come at me with Salza. That's just pathetic.
@imisschristendom5293 That's not actually Salza's story. If I recall correctly, in writing his book refuting Sedevacantism, he says that he found that some of the arguments against the Sedes would also apply to the Society. After which, he began to look further into the Society's status and then eventually asked his bishop.
Again, we are to believe that he went to the sspx for 15 years, was heavily involved with the sspx media, fatima center, etc.. defended the sspx against those accusations, then one day decided to ask his bishop if the sspx was in good standing. Im sorry, but thats still the story.
the article " salza vs. Salza" i believe its on 1 peter 5, blows the whole
" i didnt know" defense out of the water.
I dont agree with Andrew Bartel, but I think his story is genuine and credible.
Salza is not, in my opinion. I watched Salza for to long defending the sspx to buy
" oh, I didnt know"
Please reconsider the evidence before you, around you and the (current) 'climate' and attitude of the SSPX TOWARDS Rome!...
Your quotation from the Decree omits the previous paragraph;
"..It is hoped that this step will be followed by the prompt attainment of full communion with the Church on the part of the whole Society of St Pius X, which will thus bear witness to its genuine fidelity and genuine recognition of the Magisterium and authority of the Pope by the proof of visible unity."
There are 'çonditions' that the SSPX continue to harbour and expouse that belie their "...genuine fidelity and recognition of the Magisterium and AUTHORITY of the Pope by(as) the proof of VISIBLE unity"
FAILS - recognise Vatican 2 as a council of the Church
- decrying the N.O as though it were not proper or Holy Mass of the Church
- Papal Authority and Obedience
- etc.
WHY do you think the SSPX need 'permission' or acknowledgement of the local Diocesan BISHOP for anything??!!
DO YOU think the Pope 'lifted' the excommunication because the SSPX are correct and holier??...or is it for the sake of (ignorant) souls who have been / or are being misguided by áppearances' and become adherents so enamoured that they want weddings there and Confessions..??
You're right! Don't waste your channel on it and there's soooo much more you're doing for the Church!!
The channel is AWESOME and long may you ride the cyber surf proclaiming the Faith.
Much Love and Respect
Gloria Patri, Il Fili, et Spiritu Sancte...
@clelia8885