John Salza joins Matt to discuss Schism, the “irregular state” of the SSPX, and the growing contingent of Sedevacantists in Trad movements.
Channel Recommendations:
@thelogosproject7
@ReasonandTheology
Documents:
Ecclesia Dei Afflicta: https://tinyurl.com/59szybxx
Traditiones Custodies: https://tinyurl.com/yw266jup
Trad Cust Bp’s Letter: https://tinyurl.com/33m82sre
1989 Profession: https://tinyurl.com/mva7u8k8
John’s Book: https://www.amazon.com/True-False-Pope-Refuting-Sedevacantism-ebook/dp/B0B7BT6NK1
Sponsor–
Pray on Hallow (FREE TRIAL): https://hallow.com/matt
TimeStamps:
0:00 Intro
3:18 The Beauty of TLM Parishes
5:20 SSPX discouraging Diocesan TLM
7:30 Initial research on the SSPX
9:18 Does the SSPX Mass satisfy the Sunday Obligation
17:25 What is sacrelige?
19:00 Ecclesiology
22:57 What does the SSPX Teach?
26:05 Origins of the SSPX
29:33 Evidence for Schism
44:33 JP2, Ratzinger, and the Bishops Consecrations
48:38 Rejection of the Roman Primacy
56:44 The Excommunications
1:03:54 The Old Catholics
1:05:30 Consecration vs. Mission
1:09:35 Jurisdiction
1:11:31 Declaration vs. Latea Excomm.
1:13:07 Bp. Williamson
1:18:06 Is the SSPX in Schism?
1:22:54 Sunday Obligation/ Ecclesia Dei
1:27:00 What does “irregular State mean?”
1:27:45 Canon Legal Errors of SSPX
1:37:30 Doctrinal Errors
1:45:00 Why hasn’t the Vatican be more clear?
1:47:00 why is this so important?
1:50:40 Break
1:55:53 Does Faculties lift Schism?
1:58:03 Local Bishop and Francis in Liturgy
1:58:49 What is the Profession of Faith?
2:01:57 Do they have permission through Neccesity
2:02:11 Canon 1323.4
2:03:04 Lifting of Excommunication
2:04:28 Bp. Sheen 1978 Letter
2:06:06 Rejecting those who are in Communion
2:07:26 Is the Novus offensive to God?
2:09:44 Was Rome toying with Lefebrve?
2:10:45 SSPX Marriages and the SSPX Tribunal
2:20:30 Sedevacantism
2:27:54 Occult Heresy
2:28:29 Was Aquinas a Heretic
2:31:50 Responding to Benevacantism
2:38:09 Universal acceptance curing canonical irregularities
2:41:38 Can Francis be a bad Pope and still be Pope?
2:43:30 The Shift in the Trad movement
2:49:00 Does beng a heretic cause loss of office?
2:54:16 Kissing the Koran at Assisi
2:55:16 Pachamama
2:58:45 JP2 Assisi idolatry?
3:00:05 Was John23 a Mason?
3:01:48 Heretic Popes?
3:02:33 Biblical Aposstacy?
3:03:53 La Salette?
3:05:08 Can people attend what they prefer?
3:05:30 SSPX and Profession
3:06:10 Changing the Liturgy outside Popes authority
3:08:17 How to find a good TLM?
3:09:45 Wrap Up
source
For those who have been frequent attendees at Society masses but had not made a "formal adherence," would they need to make a general confession for failing to attend mass? How would someone who had still been attending diocesan TLMs, divine liturgies, and typical Roman Rite masses reconcile with the Church?
Minute 22 is so so important.
See that you are not deceived, Matt.
Man, I need a book with all this information in more detail & citings!!
1:48:53 I don’t understand what is meant here. He said he has been fighting against “Fatima.” Was that a slip of the tongue? Or can somebody please explain what he means? Thank you.
Sorry to say, but this interview is hot garbage. Masses are not invalid because they aren't held in a "Catholic Church" (defined however you want). Only consecration is required, per Canon 1248 paragraph 1. I hope this interview does not lead people into heresy.
Father Ripperger and Cardinal Burke say not to go there still, but Fr Ripperger says they're not excommunicated (and therefore within the Church) and Bishop Schneider has spoken very favorably of them. Fr Z also approves of going to their churches for Mass from what I heard. I understand John Salza's experience and hesitations but I hope you have someone else on for an interview who supports the other side…preferably Fr Ripperger!!! How on earth have you not had him on yet?!
https://youtu.be/YpsOBIDLGAc
I don’t consider this ex Mason an authority on Canon law.
I can't help but feel this is all so silly. It sounds like people just making things up as they go. Canon law really isn't as defined as national laws. It's just such a waste of time to indulge these things.
Before Vatican II we were all just Catholics! 😔
Traditional mass is forbidden in my country, so sad.
John you are wrong. SSPX mass satisfies Sunday obligation. The Church is a Mother and she provides.
It was no accident that the SSPX remained open and offered the sacraments during the Covidiocy, Matt and John. It had nothing to do with "hindsight being 20/20." The scam was glaringly obvious to those with eyes to see. By their fruits you shall know them.
As always, Novus Ordo Catholics are more willing to demonstrate charity to Prots and Jews – who hate the Church – than to their own traditionalists standing up for the Church as it was for some one thousand, nine hundred and thirty years. Hilarious but sad.
13:20 Objectively false Can. 1248 §1. A person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass.
Council of Trent, Sess. 23, Can. 7. If anyone says that bishops are not superior to priests, or that they have not the power to confirm and ordain, or that the power which they have is common to them and to priests, or that orders conferred by them without the consent or call of the people or of the secular power are invalid, or that those who have been neither rightly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical and canonical authority, but come from elsewhere, are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments, let him be anathema.
Thank you for this. My nearest TLM is 1.5 hrs away and an SSPX just started operating from a former catholic church like 15 mins away. I was excited to have a TLM so close, but now not a chance. I'm going to try and make sure they change their sign so it's not misleading people around them. It's NOT a Catholic Church.
Francis kept a pot of Pacamama Dirt on the Alter of St Peter’s Basilica.🤔
CCC 2285
I do not go to an SSPX Chapel. I found John Salza's to be positivistic, legalistic and at odds with the realities of the situation in which the Society is in. My Bishop has personally told me that I can go to a society chapel freely and grants them faculties for marriage. It seems to be odd that a schismatic group would even ask for faculties, have permission to ordain priests in every diocese of the world, be appointed as judges in canonical trials, and the list goes on; even if these were granted as a carrot to lead to "reconciliation".
If the SSPX is in schism, the Pope should say definitively that they're in scism. it should be made crystal clear, with no wiggle room whatsoever
This was wonderful and very well explained discussion, Thank you. However, that itching, bothering question in my mind is that given with synod on synodality at our heals, where we can no longer deny that Pope Francis is allowing drastic changes in accepting mortal sin (homosexuality, etc.), how can we then attend the general diocesan Mass if these things should happen. How can we then align with Pope Francis and the local parish.
Really, you go back to the nervous order.???will pray for you.
Anyone?! What was the 'break' music?
So glad the SSPX are being called to account. How dare they try to claim the flag of “True Catholicism”? Those of us in regular union and good standing with the pope object to their divisive attitude and self-serving justifications for schism.
Does SSPX have valid Eucharist?
7:15
“Some people at SSPX think crazy thing SSPX doesn’t teach.” 95% of NO attendees are pro-contraception. So, like, pick battles.
The argument "they are treating the Eucharist with tremendous reverence" applies also to the Orthodox priests.
Sad that for justify the ecumenical heretical spirit of Assisi this man is recurred to the history of the Lapsi and to Pope Marcellinus, more even sad that the maker of the chat made judgments without knowing the faith of other people's, even a child could recognize certain thinghs, recurring to the magisterioum its just an excape mode . In the end I'm not a closed reformed man how he have sayed, and if one talks, he talks only for the benefit of other people's souls, not for making stupid debates or stuff like that. But if this is cause of hate, scandal or judgments, well, good luck. I say I'm sorry if I've hurt anyone feelings, and I will be silent from now, with this last comment out there. Pax bonum, Semper Laudetur.
How else can the devil get faithful Catholics to his side better than schism with the one Holy Catholic Church? Also it’s not about what WE want and are comfortable with. It’s what God wants and we are called to be obedient, right? Confusing times.
John Salza is as focused on canon law as the Pharisees were about Mosaic Law. But how about we instead focus on being good Catholics? Canon law can change, Catholic teaching cannot.
Some of the points Salza makes are good and need to be discussed more. Other points he makes are not very accurate. I sympathize with Salza's analysis, but his tools of analysis are somewhat inadequate. One general impression I had here is that Salza lets his lawyer mentality show on numerous occasions. That’s not necessarily a good thing, because the mindset of Canon Law is not the same as the mindset of American / English civil law. Part of the reason for this is the difference between English Law systems and Roman Law systems. They are two different ways of thinking about law. An American lawyer studies American Law, which is based on the English Law system.
I find myself agreeing with a number of Salza’s observations, because I've lived through these situations and I’ve been forced to confront the questions he raises. But at the same time, I disagree with the angle of John Salza's approach, because he focuses too much on what he calls the "legal reality" of the Church. There is a "legal reality" in the Church, of course, but that "legal reality" is not the "core reality" of the Catholic Church and never has been. The core reality of the Catholic Church is a theological reality that exists at the level of grace and charity. The legal reality is a human creation that exists to serve that core divine reality.
I agree with Salza in what he mentions about certain arguments in the "crisis series" that the SSPX has on YouTube. They correctly enunciate a doctrine and then they don't seem to understand that they're contradicting it in their actions. "It's a mystery," they have to say. LOL
When discussing necessity, Salza made an interesting point about how claiming “necessity” cannot become a reason to circumvent divine law. That should be discussed more! Unfortunately, Salza doesn't have a good grasp of where to draw the line between what is divine and what is ecclesiastical / human in the Church. He messed up on that a couple of times. So, there is certainly a lesson the SSPX needs to take on this point, but the point needs to be made with a better grasp of what that looks like in ecclesiology. Overall, Salza errs on the side of assuming that things are of divine institution when, in fact, many are of human / ecclesiastical institution. I was particularly irritated by how frequently he said "X is infallible". He got several of those assertions partially wrong, because in most cases there’s part that’s divine and part that’s human, and knowing where to draw the line is the key. Some of the things that Salza wants to be rock-solid "infallible" truths are, in fact, human constructs. Two tricky things for the civil lawyer mentality to grasp: (1) how law and doctrine evolve over time in the Church, and (2) evaluating how much we are uncertain about at any given point in that evolution.
One problem that really jumped out at me was Salza's lack of nuance about the position, prerogatives, and selection process of Bishops in the Church. This has evolved significantly over time, and yet Salza just throws out "it's infallible" like candy.
Salza's analysis of supplied jurisdiction for confessions was way off. Salza got hung up on the idea of "judgment of the community" like it's a specific and well-defined legal concept (it isn't, but I'm sure his lawyer mind wishes it were lol). He also failed to mention that there is more than one way to have supplied jurisdiction. Looking through my files I found an interview by Salza from 2007 wherein he refutes the argument he just gave in 2023. (You can look this up: Robert Sungenis interviewed John Salza in 2007 about his ongoing dispute with James Akin. The argument presented by Salza in 2007 is a good refutation of Salza’s own 2023 misunderstanding of the “judgment of the community” question.)
Salza's take on where you can fulfill your Sunday obligation was bizarre. In canon law, the bar is low (like, really low) for what counts as fulfilling your Sunday obligation. So I was rolling my eyes when Salza put on his lawyer mode and started saying "let me tell you about some legalese nobody has ever heard of". And, no, your local bishop doesn’t get to decide what fulfills your Sunday obligation. Your local bishop might be a canon lawyer (or have one on staff, hopefully) and they can help interpret the law for you, but they don’t determine the law in this case.
These oddities aside, I still think Salza is raising some worthwhile points, even when the way he got to the conclusion isn't quite right. In other words, I’d like to see some of these arguments reformulated with correct theology / ecclesiology, thereby rendering this critique of the SSPX more correct and potent.
SSPX are scum.