This video really helped me confirm the situation of the priests of the sspx.

I switched from a NO mass to an SSPX chapel. Once I started to learn more, because of COVID and "comrade pachamama Francisco" I had enough.

@nickcardone8787

3 жыл бұрын

Hey chief, going to an SSPX chapel doesn’t remove you from the authority of the Pontiff, ok ok.

Thank you. I fell in love with the traditional latin mass but this worried me for my family and I. I will be making the move to a SSPX parish!

@danacaro-herman3530

3 жыл бұрын

@Ruben Martinez. Is it an SSPX priory or a just a mission chapel? I have a priory with 6 or 7 priests with brothers an Academy etc here in the North East and it's fabulous, there's a big difference, you need that community that a priory has, not just a chapel that offers mass on Sundays

@rubenmartinez4346

3 жыл бұрын

@Dana Caro-herman there are about 5-6 priests and it does have an academy.

@inesdeerausquin5658

3 жыл бұрын

Welcome aboard! :) You will not regret it - the priests are wonderful.

@marcelhuntyupwalukow5005

Жыл бұрын

@@danacaro-herman3530 as far as I know, SSPX doesn't use the phrase of parish. Instead they oftenly address the place with Priory or Chapel or Mission

@danacaro-herman3530

Жыл бұрын

@@marcelhuntyupwalukow5005 Yes that's correct.

So why aren’t the SSPX being given ordinary jurisdiction? Let me guess...Because the SSPX maintains the Catholic Faith!!! This situation makes me so angry.

@gregchrysostom2193

3 жыл бұрын

The SSPX believes it's more Catholic than the magisterium which is a glaring contradiction in terms. (Not so obvious to the Society, unfortunately.) They HAD ordinary jurisdiction and then lost it when LeFebvre schismatically ordained four men bishops without permission from Rome back in 1976. Rome has done everything it can since then to get the Society to end the schism, but to no avail thus far. The excommunication was formally lifted in 2009, but that's only half the battle, just like cancelling or revoking a divorce only goes half way toward reconciling a couple fully. To get the rest of the way there, they obviously have to start interacting with each other harmoniously. In brief, the Society is no longer "excommunicated", but it also has no canonical standing in the Church either at this point.

@deanphilipsaunders775

2 жыл бұрын

@@gregchrysostom2193 Well said and all too true.

@Puglia506

2 жыл бұрын

If the SSPX had full canonical jurisdiction, the Novus Ordo would probably fold due to mass desertion of the Faithful to the SSPX!

What a succinct and clear definition of terms and application of the concept of supplied jurisdiction. What is strange is that those who harp on this issue and disavow the SSPX's ordinary jurisdiction never acknowledge this point about supplied jurisdiction. Further, they are always complaining about all the novelties of Vatican II that clearly endanger their faith.

THANKS, I feel much better now.

It is shocking how many people on this thread do not know the history of the vatican 2 council. The vatican 2 council changed the mass almost completely from its traditional form. It literally makes no sense for people to say that the SSPX goes against tradition. It is the Novus Ordo that goes against Catholic tradition. The SSPX upholds and fights for true catholicism, the same catholicism and mass of the apostles. before 1969, every catholic was just like the catholics of the SSPX. now yall say "sspx is non-tradition". Bullcrap. The SSPX is true catholicism. read up on the heresies of vatican 2 and hopefully you will see. And read up on archbishop leverbve (started the SSPX in 1970) and see just how traditional he was. Ridiculous. God Bless you all, I hope this helps you.

@joesteel

3 жыл бұрын

You want unchanged tradition, go to the orthodox church. It has never changed and is as when Constantinople made rome christian. Only after he lost and his kingdom split did the Catholic Church and Rome come about. Oldest christion church is in Egypt. Orthodox, Latin mass is not the oldest as it's not in arameic. Study the history of christinan church. Don't fall for what separates but for what unites.

@ACF1901

2 жыл бұрын

Novus ordo created disunity... look at the the unlimited possibilities how a priest can choose to perform the "mass"... There is not unity with novus ordo, past or present.

The modernist conundrum is this. If the Sacraments were invalid because of jurisdiction. They would logically have to say protestant 'sacraments' were just as invalid. A statement they would never make

Thank you so much, Father! 🙏🏻🕯🔥🛐🕊💐

Regardless if the Sacrament of Penance is valid or invalid to you guys, Pope Francis I heard has now allowed them to be valid and licit.

are you citing CIC 1983?

Is SSPX present in Asian countries?

How come none of the canons you show at the 1:46 mark have anything to do with a state of necessity?

Fr Can I enter the seminary of sspx society? Now I'm grade 12 student

@SSPX

2 жыл бұрын

contact vocations@sspx.org

Do SSPX priests mention bergoglio in the Canon and do SSPX chapels have pictures of him in them.

@neil2831

2 жыл бұрын

Yes

@garyolsen3409

2 жыл бұрын

@@neil2831 thanks

Good bless FSSPX priest and faithful.

I'm in Yorkshire, England. Nobody here where we live is aware of anything going on other than what's on mainstream news. No one learns about whether or not the priest should have his back to God in Mass. No one would ever think about that, except me! The Church is in a mess because someone let the wrong people in who had the wrong ideas. Someone wants to please the people rather than God.

@ecopley9013

4 жыл бұрын

Take a look at some of Bishop Donald Sanborn's videos.

@inesdeerausquin5658

3 жыл бұрын

@@ecopley9013 Sanborn is a sedevacantist -- he is far more in schism than the SSPX ever was.

@josephhood11

Жыл бұрын

Amen. Well said! 🙏🏼

This is not how supplied jurisdiction works. The jurisdiction is supplied by the church, not the circumstance itself.

Sadly, the problem with this fine explanation is in the first few sentences: 'The Crisis'. What is not mentioned is that it is for the duly authorised official Magisterium, not piously concerned individuals, to make the decision that there is an urgent situation requiring emergency responses (and what these may, of necessity, involve). Paul VI and John Paul II, properly elected and affirmed by the conclave cardinals - and accepted as such by bishops and faithful of the Church, made no such decision .. though, eventually, after a lot of effort, they were persuaded that very real problems had emerged in how many pastors of the Church viewed, administered, and directed the life of the Church (which required clear and prompt action, that did not, in fact, follow). Certainly Archbishop Lefebvre - and the priests who sought formation under him - perceived a crisis in how the Church was being governed, and that this would, if unchecked, lead to a crisis of faith in the Church, and that this would, in turn, cause an all too real crisis in the structural integrity of the Church and Her witness to the Faith .. coalescing in an obvious Crisis of incomparable proportions, demanding urgent solutions with emergency procedures. A reality that the senior pastors of the Church have (it seems) reluctantly accepted, not least Papa Bergoglio, if not yet acknowledged publicly, and now - through a responsibility diverting synodal path movement - they have (more or less) scrambled around for popular bright ideas, liked by them, to address the issue (perhaps if only by not actually addressing it; maybe their own mismanagement in office, or something .. I can only guess). Nonetheless, it remains for the actual instituted and governing Magisterium to act as its officers propose and to direct our best course of action, not for some of us (for the best of reasons) to replace it all with our own little magisterium - responding more promptly and in ways that some souls may like. Keep the Faith; tell the truth, shame the devil, and let the demons shriek. God bless. ;o)

How can any of this be true if Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, the supreme Magisterium, states that priests of the SSPX have no canonical status. "the Society (of Saint Pius X) has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers - even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty - do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church." If they don't legitimately exercise any ministry, how could they officiate weddings? Edit: Fixed spelling

@dalmatinka9084

6 жыл бұрын

Exactly, you got the point, the hidden lies of Satan to get RCC to leave and go to SSPX.

@rob7800

6 жыл бұрын

William Rosson the laity have the right to request sacraments from a validly ordained priest. This is in Canon Law. Also, if you read Catholic doctrine objectively, you will find that the so called mainstream Church, are the ones who are heretics. If you need examples, I'd be happy to give them.

@patrickfoley4990

6 жыл бұрын

William Rosson Nobody gets married anymore.They just live together.Where did this come from? Is it the fault of the traditionalists? Perhaps the responsibility for this unfortunate situation of marriage lies with the magisterium.

@blankblank8292

4 жыл бұрын

@@rob7800 Hi Rob. I'm learning more about SSPX. Could you give examples of the Church being heretics. Thank you very much.

Vitality not jurisdiction is the issue. The sspx has valid sacraments. The Novus ordo Vatican II Church invalid sacraments but claims.

_Can. 1116 §1. If a person competent to assist according to the norm of law cannot be present or approached without grave inconvenience, those who intend to enter into a true marriage can contract it validly and licitly before witnesses only:_ _1/ in danger of death;_ _2/ outside the danger of death provided that it is prudently foreseen that the situation will continue for a month._ _§2. In either case, if some other priest or deacon who can be present is available, he must be called and be present at the celebration of the marriage together with the witnesses, without prejudice to the validity of the marriage before witnesses only._ So let us examine this Canon dealing with the solemnization of marriages. This Canon is in effect when _ norm of law cannot be present or approached without grave inconvenience_. The questions does this extraordinary situation meet the criteria set forth in 1/ and 2/. This has to be shown to be the case. There is almost no case at present in North America or Europe where a priest granted faculties by the diocesan ordinary is not present who can validate a marriage. When the Lefebvrist Church performs such marriages, these are valid but no licit as those contracting the marriage more often than not have options. In most cases the extraordinary circumstance outlined in 1/ and 2/ do not apply. ) ) _Can. 968 §1. In virtue of office, a local ordinary, canon penitentiary, a pastor, and those who take the place of a pastor possess the faculty of hearing confessions, each within his jurisdiction._ _§2. In virtue of their office, superiors of religious institutes or societies of apostolic life that are clerical and of pontifical right, who have executive power of governance according to the norm of their constitutions, possess the faculty of hearing the confessions of their subjects and of others living day and night in the house, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 630, §4._ This Canon deals with the hearing of confessions. So right off the bat Section §1 deals with an ordinary circumstance where the _ordinary_ of the diocese grants the faculty to the priests to hear confession _within the jurisdiction_. Section §2 allows those who live within religious orders or societies to hear confessions of others living within the orders or societies. There is nothing here about hearing confessions of the laity in Section §2. ) ) _Can. 1026 A person must possess due freedom in order to be ordained. It is absolutely forbidden to force anyone in any way or for any reason to receive orders or to deter one who is canonically suitable from receiving them._ I am unsure why this person listed this as it is germane its pertinence in the matter at hand is lost to me. ) ) _Can. 967 §1. In addition to the Roman Pontiff, cardinals have the faculty of hearing the confessions of the Christian faithful everywhere in the world by the law itself. Bishops likewise have this faculty and use it licitly everywhere unless the diocesan bishop has denied it in a particular case._ _§2. Those who possess the faculty of hearing confessions habitually whether by virtue of office or by virtue of the grant of an ordinary of the place of incardination or of the place in which they have a domicile can exercise that faculty everywhere unless the local ordinary has denied it in a particular case, without prejudice to the prescripts of ⇒ can. 974, §§2 and 3._ _§3. Those who are provided with the faculty of hearing confessions by reason of office or grant of a competent superior according to the norm of cann. ⇒ 968, §2 and ⇒ 969, §2 possess the same faculty everywhere by the law itself as regards members and others living day and night in the house of the institute or society; they also use the faculty licitly unless some major superior has denied it in a particular case as regards his own subjects._ It appears the Canon 967 §2 ambiguous application here but this requires an adjudication before a tribunal. The priest has the ability to hear confessions by virtue of the office. However, if an ordinary of a particular jurisdiction denies the order or society the faculty to hear confessions these confessions are invalid. Many local ordinaries have done so. However, prudential judgement requires the use of judgement in _good faith_ when dealing with laity who may have made their confessions to priests of such societies or orders which have had faculties to operate denied by local ordinaries within their jurisdictions. Pope Francis has allowed SSPX to hear confessions during the year of Divine Mercy so these faculties are granted by his universal jurisdiction, however, once the stipulated time is passed, confessions heard by SSPX in dioceses which do not grant faculties to the society will continue to be in effect.

Almost no criminal thinks he is guilty. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. Theological gymnastics to not confer licit sacraments.

Some errors in this video that I want to highlight. Supplied jurisdiction is delegated, not extraordinary. Canon 209 says that the Church only supplies jurisdiction when there is common error or positive and probable doubt regarding whether someone has ordinary jurisdiction. Yet the SSPX explicitly and publicly denies that they have ordinary jurisdiction. Without common error (i.e., the presumption that someone has ordinary jurisdiction), then the Church CANNOT supply jurisdiction. Of course, Pope Francis gave the SSPX faculties in 2015. But that doesn't absolve their repeated transgressions of offering invalid confessions.

@dalton7145

2 жыл бұрын

I say that going to confession at an SSPX Parish and it's Priest is more valid to Our Lord Jesus Christ since it is the True Catholic Faith, instead of the Novus Ordo Parish of Vatican II. Which was/is the work of the Devil.

@contrasedevacantism6811

2 жыл бұрын

@@dalton7145 you didn't engage the substance of my argument. the rest was calumny.

@dalton7145

2 жыл бұрын

@@contrasedevacantism6811 think what you want.

@contrasedevacantism6811

2 жыл бұрын

@@dalton7145 It's not an opinion; it's fact. the sspx has no legitimate authority.

@dalton7145

2 жыл бұрын

@@contrasedevacantism6811 if you truly believe that I feel sorry for you and will pray that your eyes be opened.

I guess the question would then be if the priests of the society are validly ordained. The other thing is that the priests of the society have ordinary jurisdiction for confession. Also, there is a question if the faithful are in a state of Necessity. Sure, some priests and bishops do not hand the true faith, but most of them are very good bishops and priests, who hand on the faith without compromise.

but only if the priests are in full communion with the Catholic Church which the SSPX is not as declared by St. John Paul II

@michaelrex6948

7 жыл бұрын

Even assuming the initial excommunications were valid, they were lifted in 2009 by His Holiness, Benedict Pope XVI.

@dalmatinka9084

6 жыл бұрын

Declared July 2nd, 1988

@rob7800

6 жыл бұрын

Actually according to the 1983 Code of Canon Law, the laity are allowed to approach ANY validly ordained priest, which the SSPX priests are.

He has convinced me that the SSPX is wrong. This does not accord at all with tradition on this, going all the way back to the Apostles.

Eh, the SSPX THINK they have it, but they don't. They only have it now because Pope Francis gave them the faculties out of mercy for the people who go to SSPX. I hope the SSPX move to reconciliation with the Church I believe the faculties are conditional on that taking place. "Indefinitely" doesn't mean they can't be removed.

@bruno-bnvm

2 ай бұрын

How can Francis give Jurisdiction to non Catholic priest (by your judgment) can Francis give you Jurisdiction to hear sins and forgive them? Or are they actually Catholic and inside the Church?

@markrome9702

2 ай бұрын

@@bruno-bnvm They are suspended priests. Suspension can be full or partial.

We are in a state of emergency

Brothers there is not emergency any more you can join forces with the FSSPX we must keep the fight always into our church not split it

@teresabenedict2920

6 жыл бұрын

Join them until your bishop decides he'd rather they not be in his diocese- then what do you do?

I pray the SSPX will come back to full communion with the one true Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The legal and historical evidence does not support the SSPX in any way. I do indeed hope that our brothers and sisters in Christ will come back to the fullness of faith in the Catholic Church under God. Tradition is a beautiful thing and I support the FSSP. God bless to all those of deep faith, and your journey home. Amen

Becareful when they start to confuse the laity, with jurisdictions, the priesthood, the Mass, or Novus Ordo and Canon Law etc.... This is CONFUSION, who gives us confusion...Satan does, Satan divides and then conquers. I dont understand all Canon Laws, some l do, if the Holy Father says that the SSPX are in schism then, in my obedience to the Vicar of Christ on earth....l MUST obey. l take that as a truth. In my obedience to RCC, l will save my soul, l will not be led away from the True RCC and loose my soul. If the Holy Father does and say something that will make me commit a "SIN", then l WILL NOT listen to him. l then have the right not to listen and not commit that sin....now, what does this mean to me, that l leave the RCC on account of him saying this....if l do leave due to my shock of this insult, then l am in my own private schism. l stay and my OBEDIENCE to Christ will save me, even if all the churches in the world get knocked down....l stay! Example.....The Holy Father, may not be a good Pope or he may have made a mistake.... maybe he is getting dementia.. maybe he is an evil Pope....under NO circumstances do l leave the RCC. These are Satan's subtle tricks.

This video among other errors misquotes Canon 1116. Neither use of the Novus Ordo Missae nor the apprehension of the Priest's instruction in premarital counseling are grounds for GRAVE inconvenience as set down by canon law. Not a mere serious inconvenience. Grave is consistently interpreted to mean mortal. Canon 1116 "If a person competent to assist according to the norm of law cannot be present or approached without grave inconvenience, those who intend to enter into a true marriage can contract it validly and licitly before witnesses only: 1/ in danger of death; 2/ outside the danger of death provided that it is prudently foreseen that the situation will continue for a month. In either case, if some other priest or deacon who can be present is available, he must be called and be present at the celebration of the marriage together with the witnesses, without prejudice to the validity of the marriage before witnesses only." SSPX needs to stop misleading the faithful and submit to the suspension a divinis imposed by the Holy Office and the Supreme Pontiff.

This is disobedience to Peter. Martin Luther started off this way and look what that led to!

@patrickharvey8949

3 жыл бұрын

The disobedience is the new mass. Novus Ordo catholicism is the real schism.

@rorymac7714

3 жыл бұрын

@@patrickharvey8949 Thats nonsense. The problem Patrick, I hope you don't mind me calling you by your Christian name, is like so many tradionalists, you find it difficult to believe that the Novus Ordo mass can replace the Tridentine mass, well it was not meant too. I was brought up on the Tridentine mass and loved it dearly but that did not say that I could not accept a mass in the vernacular. I sometimes think there is can be a degree of intellectual snobbery re the Tridentine rite. How many parishioners could translate the Latin, very few I believe. The Novus Ordo mass has opened up to every day mass to the majority of attenders. We should not want rigidity. I believe the Novus Ordo mass has encouraged people from all the world not just the West to accept and understand the mass better.

@harryfaber

3 жыл бұрын

I wonder how many people have looked at St Peter Faber, who saw for himself some (some, not 'total') truth in the problems Luther was trying to warn about in the direction that parts of the church were following.

If this priest is accurate in what he is saying, I am not a true Catholic. My RCIA was invalid, my Baptism and Confirmation was invalid, my particapation in the Sacriment of Reconciliation was invalid, in fact, every Mass I've taken part in was invalid. If this is true, as it sounds to be, somebody will burn in hell for it.

@mariemiller8740

5 жыл бұрын

Robert I have learned so much from Fr Jenkins of SPV I left NO about 7 years ago,and I watch wcbohio priests every week God bless

@mariemiller8740

5 жыл бұрын

@Robert Rough Robert the priest who confirmed you must have been ordained in the old rites I was given first Holy Communion confirmation in 68 but they Bishop and priests were all 50s or older

@32843s

4 жыл бұрын

Anyone can Baptise

@Desert-Father

4 жыл бұрын

Don't worry the priest in this video is wrong and his society are not in full communion with the Church. He is even misquoting Canon law. Disregard his "advice".

LOL LOL LO NOOOOOOOOOOO lol lol lol

@KyleOfCanada

6 жыл бұрын

Hi again deusimperator, Having just come across this video series by the SSPX, I noticed that you were commenting here as well, albeit some time ago. I couldn't help but distinguish between your replies on Lutheran Satire and here, the former was extremely informative and explicit in expounding upon Catholic and Protestant viewpoints in a calm and fair manner, while the latter was typically curt and dismissive. If you don't mind my asking (more out of personal curiosity and in the interest of generating a discussion): [i] What is your position within the Church (layman, priest, catechist, etc.)?^1 [ii] Why do you take such a harsh/dismissive stance against the SSPX and their supporters? [iii] Do you believe that the Church is in a state of crisis today? What is your opinion regarding accusations of modernism and elements of Lutheranism infiltrating the Church? [iv] What is your take on Amoris Laetitia, the dubia, and filial correction? [v] Would you concede that, assuming there was a crisis as bad as what the SSPX claim, that they would be justified in their position? [vi] (a) Would your other comment in this section regarding canon law not also apply to Catholics who are visiting another diocese and go to confession there? Technically, since this person would not be a subject of this priest (since they are not a member of this diocese), would their confession be invalid or would they become his subject upon entering the diocese? (b) Would this not also apply then to a priest who is traveling (such as for a pilgrimage) and did not receive the express permission of the bishop through whose diocese he was traveling? Would any confessions he hears also be illicit and therefore invalid following this logic? ^1---I am currently a layman discerning a vocation to the priesthood, a Catholic teacher, and catechist. So my opinion and a $1.75 will get you a coffee, but, that being said, I am also a devout Catholic, passionate about the Faith, and I'm also pretty good at critically analyzing these sorts topics. I found myself coming to conclusions in line with the traditional Catholic stance before knowing that there was even such a thing as a "traditionalist" Catholic movement within the Church. This became apparent as glaring contradictions became more and more frequent/obvious between what I was being taught by Catholic priests, scholars, and teachers, and what I knew to be sound Catholic doctrine through private study, without which I would never have known the Faith. (Please don't mistake this as me thinking that my personal opinions are somehow more enlightened then that of the Church or that I am even attempting to defend my personal opinions as if they are opposed to that of the Church.) As a passionate interest, on my free time I enjoyed reading documents from the Church or trustworthy analyses of these. Generally, those who rejected these clear teachings were seldom shy about stating that they had left the Church and the Church wasn't shy about kicking them out if they persisted in error (as a somewhat off-topic aside, to my knowledge at least, the SSPX has never claimed to reject the reality or authority of the papacy, or any Catholic dogmas). In the past, the Church's stance on any relevant topic was consistently clear and almost universally defended by those who considered themselves Catholics until recently (where many dogmas/practices are still on the books technically but not being taught or put into practice more often than not). Take, for instance, my priest stating that Adam and Eve were not historical characters who actually existed (at our local catechesis/RCIA class that I am helping to run). When I politely asked him where Original Sin came from then, he talked around the question and avoided answering it directly while reasserting that Original Sin was real and important. This clearly denies Catholic dogma, but out of respect for him and his office, I did not challenge him further in front of the entire group. This is just one common example and certainly not the first. After honestly considering, for many years now, whether I was in the wrong regarding this and a variety of other issues presented as being Catholic from within the Church today (and sincerely praying about whether I needed to change to be in line with these new understandings of the Church's teaching), I happened across those identifying themselves as traditionalists--people I had previously ignored because I was told they were radical schismatics who rejected the pope, Catholic doctrine, excommunicated, et cetera. Granted, there is some truth in this assessment, such as with the sede vacantists or certain individuals, but the information presented by most traditionalist sources is sound, logical, and unabashedly Catholic and consistent with what the Church has always taught so clearly in the past. I find it wearisome to see that Catholics who recognize that there are serious problems within the Church today are so vehemently attacked here by their fellow Catholics who disagree in such an uncharitable manner (though I have noticed that is the default response of many people on both sides). Based on our prior interactions, I would safely presume that, like me, you are one who deeply loves our Church and would be interested in an authentic dialogue with another person genuinely seeking Christ, who is the fullness of Truth. If/when you have the time, I would be interested in your thoughts. Your brother in Christ, Kyle of Canada [EDIT] PS - Added another two questions and fixed some typos.

ALL ROMAN CATHOLICS who accept the Magesterium of the One True Roman Catholic Church, cannot attend any Holy Mass, or go to their confession, let alone participate in a Pope Pius 10th Church in any thing. SSPX IS IN SCHISM. They have broken away from the RCC and have changed Christs teaching to their own man-made teaching. The SSPX have become corrupt in their teaching of Christs teaching. The RCC has always taught the same teaching for 2,000 years. It never became corrupted in its teachings, those teaching came straight from the Apostles, the personal friends of Jesus Christ and His followers. The Church, the Catholic Church was there from the beginning. All you have to do, if you are a Catholic, is establish that the teachings of the RCC today are the same teachings that were going on in the early part of the Church, once you establish that Truth, then all of these objections of schisms have to melt away.,,

@rob7800

6 жыл бұрын

Dalmatinka 10 yeah that all sounds great and would be true, until you actually read the documents of Vatican II on religious liberty, ecumenism, and collegiality which contradict prior Church teaching. Then read the Council of Trent Canons which the second Vatican Council, in the previous documents stated, and the new mass, which contradicts divine law. Have you ever read the documents of the second Vatican Council? Have you ever wondered why churchmen have penalized holy priests and bishops for upholding the teachings of the faith, all the while letting heretics who promote gay marriage or don't believe in the real presence go about their ministry misleading the flock? Don't you kind of find that fishy? During the Arian crisis, would you have followed St Athanasius or Pope Liberius and most of the Bishops in the world at that time, who denied and taught a different doctrine on Christ's nature? Do you follow God or the Pope? If the Pope asked you to be a heretic or go against divine law, what would you do?

@Lonskipod

6 жыл бұрын

Dalmatinka 10 . It's quite accurate what you have written here but with one unfortunate error. You have it all backwards. Is it not the current pope who has indeed advocated remarried Catholics if their conscience dictates, can now receive the holy Eucharist? Talk about going against church 2000 year teaching, doctrine and tradition, not to mention Christ own words on divorce. Unfortunately people who still accept the New mass which is anthropocentric are stuck thinking that a pope cannot error. After seeing a mime artist dancing around in front of the altar in my church and a projector screen gospel read by a woman, I had a clear realisation the church had gone too far down the rabbit hole of modernism. Please everyone wake up before the church totally sells out to secularism. Regards to all.

@nicholasverellen8279

5 жыл бұрын

I find what you say interesting. Compare the Novus Ordo mass with the Tridentine mass of the SSPX and then compare those two with the pre Vatican II mass. Which one has changed? Also compare the rites, ceremonies, practices and catechism of post Vatican with the pre Vatican. There are definitely changes which I fear were wrong.

@patrickharvey8949

3 жыл бұрын

The SSPX does not rebuke the teachings of post vatican 2 (novus ordo) catholicisms. it is not the teachings of the church the SSPX claims has changed. It is the mass itself that was changed (almost completely in every way) in the vatican 2 council. The mass of vatican 2 is NOTHING like the traditional mass of the apostles. what you've said here is a flat out lie. and I suggest you read up on the evils of vatican 2.

I’ll save you all 7 minutes of your time; No they don’t

False

LOL none of these heretics have Jurisdiction as there are Catholic bishops and priests where these rebellious rabble set up shop.

@deusimperator

7 жыл бұрын

Joni you are an uneducated trollop, make yourself useful, go pole dance elsewhere ..

@rob7800

6 жыл бұрын

deusimperator how are they heretics? Please explain....

@jamie7880

6 жыл бұрын

Rob they fell away from the Church

@rob7800

6 жыл бұрын

Mater misericordiae how so?

@jamie7880

6 жыл бұрын

Rob if you are a heretic you fall away from the Church. They do not obey the Holy Father.