I would love to see a debate between Dr. John Salza and Kennedy Hall.

A very gossipy and feminine attitude permeates this entire podcast. Salza is not genuine. He has received an award from freemasons in 2018. He claims to have attended an SSPX chapel for 15 years without looking into the status/legitimacy. Not sure who is pulling the strings here. Regardless, this is uncharitable and shameful.

I’m not SSPX, but Jimmy Akin was on Catholic Answers explaining that Popes Francis and Benedict XVI affirmed SSPX priests do have faculties to celebrate the mass, and it does fulfill your Sunday obligation.

Look what Rome is doing now!! I converted 13 years ago to get away from the nonsense going on now. I’m thinking Leveve was right.

I’m a convert from being an atheist. I was baptized 3 years ago at 30 years old. The only advice I can give after struggling with this for so long comes from a priest I confessed to. Mass should not disturb your soul. You should not have to wonder whether or not the Mass your attending is licit or not. Keep the waters of your soul calm and still so that you can grow in faith, hope, charity, and love - do not let it become choppy lest a storm brews and drowns you. I haven’t had these experiences described at SSPX Masses - and for the most part, I’ve experienced some pretty reverent NO Masses. The NO masses had their issues in my opinion, but at the end of the day, what I had issues with in the NO mass came from a place of love for Christ in my heart. Slowly, over time, it became a bit prideful. Because I could see the pride growing, I know travel 2 hours (not boasting or anything) to attend an FSSP Mass. This is a small sacrifice to pay for the assurance of being in communion with our Bishop and celebrating what I believe to be a Mass that helps nurture your soul. The TLM

You have a newer video titled, "Bishop Schneider's AMAZING Defense Against Sedes!" You should listen to B. Schneider and pull this horrible interview you did with Salza. B. Schneider investigated the SSPX and found them to not be sedes. But you took the word of Salza. You should vet your guests. Salza has a history of grifting and exaggerating to sell books. He did it with the masons and now he did it with the SSPX. I love your show Matt but you have had a couple guests that are really questionable.

Iam trying to understand...isnt it The Hierarchy who rejected the Sspx and not the other way around?

I think you should have a knowledgable pro-Society (one of their best, in their opinion) influencer or actual cleric debate Salza on this. Now that would be a very interesting and highly watched event.

I grew up with the Latin Mass in the 1950s and 1960s in a very small village in the Moluccas. The village was 100% Catholic, it still is now. When we were introduced to the New Mass after Vatican Council 2 where our national language started to be used and the priest began to face the people with simpler Mass attires, my aunt stopped going to Mass. She said it was a made-up religion. We had to persuade her for a very long time before she could attend Mass again. I very often attend the Latin Mass virtually. When I do, it brings back sweet memories of holiness back then. I think the Latin Mass should still be practiced because in reality we have more then 20 rites. So why not the Latin Mass?

43:01 Matt Fradd misunderstood John Salza when he said Abp Lefebvre signed off on the V2 documents. By signing those documents, Abp Lefebvre DID NOT sign off on the Novus Ordo Mass - those are two separate things. Mr. Salza knows that, and yet and he didn’t correct Mr. Fradd’s misunderstanding. Why not? Mr. Salza lost all credibility by not doing so.

I don't know about all the legalistic stuff, but I got married by the SSPX. I'm Byzantine rite Catholic and my wife was baptized and entered the church in a parish church in Hawaii in 2020 during the COVID outbreak.(causing some strange things that needed a lot of paper work) Now we live in AZ so we had to get 4 bishops to sign off on our marriage. The Byzantine Arizonan, Latin Hawaiian, Latin Arizonian, and the SSPX Bishops all said we we're good. If my weeding caused a mini ecumenical council and none of these bishops objected... I think we're all good. I just go with the modo "be chill, worship God, let the politicians do the politics."

I too see myself as a "glad trad", but whilst much of this discussion was informative, some of it was completely wrong. I am not an SSPX apologist (and agree they can go to far), and I attend the TLM from a number of different priestly societies, SSPX included, but I still found the tone of this discussion unhelpful. It needed another voice to provide a sense of balance. Moreover, instead of alluding to what certain documents said, the documents should have been quoted, as Salza was simply incorrect in some instances. - the worst error is that of not fulfilling your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by an SSPX priest. This is clearly wrong. Just read the response by the Ecclesia Dei Commission on January 18, 2003 (which was requested to be published, hence is not particular to an individual's circumstances). It follows up on a letter sent to an individual, as noted in the discussion, but this is for public consumption. It points out: Points 1 and 3 in our letter of 27 September 2002 to this correspondent are accurately reported. His first question was "Can I fulfill my Sunday obligation by attending a Pius X Mass" and our response was: "1. In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X." - Abp Lefebvre never said the New Mass, he never "signed off on the New Mass". He adopted some of the earlier changes in the mid 1960s, but stopped around time time of the 1967 missal when he felt his faith being challenged. - the declaration of 1974 was not a general response to the changes, but a response to the scandalous behaviour of the Vatican visitors 10 days before. - the SSPX does not refuse communion with Novus Ordo Catholics. They even have a retired Bishop (Bishop Huonder) residing in one of their Switzerland houses. I have seen diocesan priests at SSPX events. The SSPX school in the UK had the diocesan Bishop visit them. - Abp Lefebvre may have signed the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, not the liturgical changes themselves. Many have argued that the latter is not a faithful representation of the former. To conflate the two is an unfortunate confusion of the issue. - Pope Francis' motu proprio cannot be said to be a direct result of the SSPX - it doesn't even affect them. Apparently, Cardinal Bergolio got on very well with the SSPX in Argentina. His letter talks of healing the schism in terms of the action of JPII (the actual wording is this: "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"), not his own opinion here and now. - Pope John Paul II did not give him a Bishop - they went through a number of names, and they repeatedly rejected by the Vatican, and in the end, Abp Lefebvre concluded they couldn't be trusted. This is a predental decision of the Abp. - please don't compare Old Catholics to the SSPX, they deny a dogma of the faith and reject Vatican I. - charges of schism. Listen to what Cardinal Hoyos, who dealt with their case in the Vatican said: "They had moments when they were away, but technically they never made any complete schism or heresy. For example, they did not create a separate jurisdiction, because to create a jurisdiction outside the jurisdiction of the Church, that means you want to separate." "We are not dealing with a case of heresy. One cannot say in correct and exact terms that there is a schism. There is, in the act of ordaining bishops without papal approval, a schismatic attitude. They are within the confines of the Church. The problem is just that there is a lack of a full, a more perfect-and as it was said during the meeting with Bishop Fellay-a more full communion, because communion exists.". Schismatics are outside the Church, Cardinal Hoyos (who was the authority on the matter) said they were within the confines the of the Church. Hence no schism. - if you want hard criticism of the Novus Ordo, apart from Abp Lefebvre, then just read the Cardinal Ottaviani & Bacci Intervention, for example: "It is evident that the Novus Ordo has no intention of presenting the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent, to which, nonetheless, the Catholic conscience is bound forever." This would seem to match up with the SSPX's claims regarding the Novus Ordo. Finally, the SSPX should be considered a life boat, it's not meant to be permanent. It's a temporary measure to bridge the crisis inside the Church. Obviously, the danger is there that it becomes so, but that certainly wasn't Abp Lefebvre's intention.

Disobedience to evil men is not a sin. Public veneration of pagan idols is sinful and scandalous.

Salza seems full of ressentiments. Most things he said are objectivley wrong. Very bad interview.

A few questions: Bishop Athanasius Schneider was the Vatican delegate that was sent to assess the Catholicity and orthodoxy of the SSPX. He lived in their seminary for a month. His conclusion was that yhey were thoroughly Catholic and recommended their regularization. The bishop unequivocally denies they are in formal schism. He brought up the fa t the Pope CANNOT confer faculties to a group in formal schism without implicitly endorsing sed schism. And now that SSPX chapels can witness marriages on behalf of the Church. Our diocese doesn't even send a diocesan representative but just has them send a record of the marriage. So they have valid Mass, valid Confession, valid marriages...but they are in schism? I am not a regular attendee of the Society (90% Novus Ordo) but I find their presence in our diocese a great benefit and feel that when Satan is in full control of the hierarchy (which is soon coming to pass) the Society will be a refuge (along with other TLM communities) for the faithful when denied the fullness of the Faith.

But should we adhere to the Pope if/when he says it’s okay to bless gay marriages etc? Something clearly against the teaching of Jesus.

Fantastic episode, thank you. I'm intrigued into looking into these topics more. Yes, get a canon lawyer on.

Please speak to a Priest from the SSPX. at least extend an offer.

None of us would have to worry about this if the Tridentine Mass was readily available in every diocese. We are a religion that holds our history and traditions as sacred. Our souls are always going to be moved by beauty, grace and reverence. We will never stop seeking it out and it's time that the church hierarchy accepts it. The restrictions on TLM are what is pushing people toward the "irregular", together with a lack of discipline of heterodox priests and bishops. This Pontificate worsened a situation that was previously on the mend. I normally love all PWA episodes but this was a chore to sit through. I do wish Matt vetted his guest and realized that Salza has a real credibility problem. A person needs credibility, otherwise, the audience becomes even more polarized on an issue. Reading through the comments here, I'm afraid that is exactly what's happened.

I greatly appreciate your interviews and demeanor in these discussions. There's a lot to take away and reflect upon! Thank you!!

Good Job & God bless you guys

Matt, recently I’ve had a hard time getting through the hour and a half to two hour episodes. Usually bail out after hear a good nugget. This was a fascinating new story hadn’t heard and the 3 hours + flew by. As of now, for me, this is your Titanic episode.

In light of Mr. Salza's point that the Liturgy is tied to a parish Church - what does that say about the Immemorial Mass not being permitted in parish Churches anymore but only shrines and oratories and such? I am an indefatigable proponent that the Immemorial Latin Mass cannot be denied to the faithful (as Quo Primum and B16 state). I would say that if you have access to a licit TLM (FSSP, ICSKP, etc.) you should go there. In absence of a licit TLM and your only access is SSPX you can go there. If a bishop will not provide for his faithful then he is derelict. I think common sense, good will, and a reasonable sense of fidelity is the guide here. I have friends that go to SSPX and have flourished spiritually. They don't "harbor a sense of schism". They found their home there and have flourished.. So it cannot be said the Holy Spirit does not work there. But for decorum and sake of scandal you should go to diocesan approved TLM. But again, in absence of diocesan approved one may go to SSPX for a blanket ban or denial is illegitimate (Quo Primum and B16).

First time I’ve seen this guy, but 3 Hours and 15 min of John Salza not stuttering once. Just fantastic stuff Matt. Thank you.

This is so helpful and well done, thanks for explaining this all!

Interesting discussion to consider for someone sympathetic to the SSPX. I just find it interesting that Matt devotes three hours to hammer the SSPX but he doesn't seem to have a problem with the orthodox and seems more than eager to attempt to find common ground with Muslims. I would direct folks to the Kennedy report for a decent rebuttal of this episode. He doesn't name Fradd, but it is clear this is what he is talking about.

Great discussion with lots of clarity on the issue. Thanks for hosting the interview! Praying for peace and unity

I’m only 30 minutes in but this is by far the most in depth discussion of SSPX I’ve seen on KZfaq. Extremely helpful. Thank you so much Matt for hosting this-it will be so beneficial to so many!!

Woe unto ye lawyers! For ye have taken away the keys of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered. = Luke 11:52

So glad you are having this conversation! Thank you. It's so critical for our Holy Mother Church!

It would be so illuminating to have an SSPX theologian/ well versed priest on to respond to the statements made in the podcast! 😊 It would give light to the argument so people can see both sides and not be left in confusion! 😇

Such an excellent and much needed conversation! Thank you for caring for the salvation of souls!

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 KZfaq. 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.

Salza’a teaching against the SSPX is unorthodox because he erroneously thinks the juridical structure of the Church is limited to receiving ordinary jurisdiction from the pope or local bishop. Whereas the Catholic Church teaches that situations can arise in which the Church indirectly gives jurisdiction outside of the local bishop. Salsa’s entire argument is based on the false premise that jurisdiction absolutely never extends beyond exactly explicit approval. Case in point, St Athanasius ordained bishops and priests in dioceses not only of formally Arian bishops, but also informally semi Arian bishops. In an extreme Crisis like that then and now, we Church law does give jurisdiction. And the Society recognizes that as part of Church teaching whereas John Salza does not. Not to mention Salza has a bad attitude in his anti SSPX diatribe. This is a very old and tiresome approach that divides traditional Catholics.

This was an excellent interview and my first PWA live since discovering Matt's channel a few months ago. I'm glad to say that I'm in R.C.I.A currently and eagerly await my baptism and confirmation this upcoming Easter. Thank you so much Matt Fradd for aiding in the Grace of The Holy Spirit. Gloria Patri!

Man, I need a book with all this information in more detail & citings!!

Wow this is the best SSPX talk/explication on KZfaq and i can say ive listen to very many .. great job

Great interview, Matt. Great questions. And you had the good sense to get out of Mr Salza's way and let him answer in full.

I really appreciate the "Middle Road" approach John is talking about here. I've felt this is the best answer to the problems Traditional Catholics are trying to point out. Thank you Matt Fradd for your work in this approach as well. And to Scott Hahn who also promotes this. When I had my conversion to the Faith, it was within the Novus Ordo Mass and my heart was on fire with the Holy Spirit. Then I got caught up in this drama of Trad vs. Novus Ordo, and found myself very unhappy and angry with the Church. I lost sight of what truly matters- Jesus Christ and His Kingdom. We can help our Lord build His Kingdom at the Novus Ordo AND the TLM. We don't need to pick sides or tear down the other side. The "Middle Road" is important for both sides to learn from and can bring peace of mind/heart/soul.

Sadly, this guest seems to stereotype those that attend the TLM. That is rash judging. I attend the TLM at a hermitage. Believe me, it was not because of the "bells and whistles ". I am still learning. All I know is that, after that first Mass, I was in love with Jesus - even after I struggled during that Mass - as I didn't know what was going on.

This is one of the most important conversations that we currently deal with. It forces people to identify and adhere to the one true body of the Catholic Church. The rejection of leftist errors does not mean we should jump on the bandwagon of schismatic groups. God bless to John, Matt, dude who is on the mic, Lofton, Dom, Andrew, and all others who are on the forefront of defending Catholic Orthodoxy.

How is it that bishop Huondor of Switzerland was granted permission to retire in the SSPX (2019), if they are, in fact, in schism? This would be an absurdity.

John mentioned 'the appearance of the Church' vs what she really is at about 20min. God just taught me a similar lesson this Christmas. The whole family was sick with different viruses (including an awful influenza) all of advent and Christmas. We had a tree and some presents, but could not really eat much or really enjoy the tree and such. We were just too exhausted. What remains of Christmas if we take away the food and the cookies I was not able to bake. What remains if we can't enjoy the tree that much or be excited with th children about their new toys? Christ in the manger remains. It still felt like Christmas to me. I felt overflowing love for all of my family. And the holy family and little baby Jesus. But all the nice Christmas things got a little bit called out for being accessories. All good things, but not the main thing. And perhaps God is doing a similar thing in the Church atm. I like incense and all the traditional things. But what happens if it all falls away? What remains to cling to? Christ in the Eucharist. I'm not into modern barren churches with ugly modern art on the walls and awful acustic. But perhaps God wants me to look more to Christ directly? Perhaps he wants all of us to do that?

I am a Catholic who grew up attending SSPX Masses, and attended a girl school run by SSPX Dominican sisters; I am also a big fan of this channel. I just wanted to address some things in this video that I felt were contrary to my understanding of the SSPX (this is my understanding. I am not claiming to represent exactly what the SSPX stands for because I could easily be wrong or have misunderstood). 1. We do not claim to be separate from the Church, nore that the Catholics who attend the Novosordo (I apologize if I spelled that wrong) Mass are separate from the Church, though we do discourage attending it because we feel that the purpose and mindset that it was made with, make it a danger to the faith, and that it does not give God proper worship. In the parish I am a part of, we have gotten a few sermons addressing the issue of treating Catholics who attend the Novosordo Mass as lesser or not part of the Church. 2. The story behind what led up to Arch Bishop Lefebvre making Bishops is told rather differently from the SSPX perspective, at least in the Crisis series podcast. For example in that description of the story, Archbishop Lefebvre asked for 4 bishops initially and was offered one, but they would not give him a date when he would receive the bishop. They kept moving the date, until he eventually told them that if they didn't agree to that date, he would move forward with making Bishops without Rome's approval. I don't know if this inconsistency is a matter of one side being wrong, or different sources, but as far as I know, the SSPX is trying to get Rome to approve our next set of bishops. One of the crisis in the Church videos includes Bishop Fellay, who is one of the four bishops who Archbishop Lefebvre ordained, and I am inclined to trust his explanation of the situation, as he was there for it. 3. I don't think I'm very good at explaining things, and I apologize if I misrepresented something. I highly recommend the Crisis in the church series. I think that Pints with Aquinas is really great and I would love to see an SSPX priest come on and be interviewed on this topic or even debate. I would be willing to try to reach out to one about the idea if you would be open to that. Thank you and God bless!

Thank you both so much! This helps me to understand so much!

How could Archbishop have over reacted when we have a worship of Pachamama at the Vatican? Seems Archbishop Lefebvre was ahead of his time.

I think we need a rountable discussion on Catholic Ecclesiology. This guy, Jimmy Akin, Lofton, Marshall, etc...

Amazing video, so helpful!!!!

John doesn't tell me about his gigs like this anymore... but I'm glad one of my friends alerted me to this interview. I don't watch 3 hour shows unless it is true crime, but this was absolutely worth it to watch. I have to say, even though I worked with John for about 8 years on his website, I realize I did not get to fully appreciate John's capacity to teach with such clarity, calmness, precision, and humility. He should honestly be regarded as one of the top apologists for the Catholic Church and I am so glad that Matt gave him this opportunity to share John's expertise.

Lol, freemason Salza talking about catholizism. What joke. This man is a liar.

I'm gonna be honest, I tuned out when he made the point about countries being put under interdict. These countries were put under interdict because the leaders gave a public refusal of a lawful order of the Vatican. Which is a crime. What crime did we commit to be effectively put under the same punishment? How did we "get off light" for a sentence we're not guilty of?.

I put off watching this because I thought it might be a hit piece on tradition, but it was not at all. Good conversation which actually answered some questions for me.

Would we still have the Latin mass if Lafevre didn't keep saying it during the time after Vatican ll?

As I understand it, the sspx does not reject the profession of faith, but have issues with 3rd category *items*. ... not the 3rd category carte blanche. That would be a misrepresentation of the SSPX in my opinion.

Thankx to the missions of sspx some of my friends came back to the one true catholic faith.

Fr Cekada sure put him in his place. Notice how Salza ignores the elephant in the room I.e. the Vatican II revolution ; the papal imposters, Assisi and Pachamama etc. This guy is really clever.

My wife is from Milwaukee and we go back every other year and have agreed that we will not attend another Novus Ordo there again. We either attend St. Stanislaus or the Melkite parish. I have only walked out of a handful of Masses in my life because I could not stand the sacrilege- all of them were Novus Ordo events (they could not qualify as legit Masses) in Milwaukee. I think there are people who are will8ng to allow a banal, saying ethos of Vatican IIism to run roughshod over them and their families rather than do what us necessary to save their souls. No one - NO ONE - is bound to submit themselves or their families to spiritual abuse and danger. Thank God for the Institute in Milwaukee.

It took John Salza 15 YEARS to figure out the "obvious"? Obviously not that obvious then, apparently.

The way the faithful received Holy Communion in the first few centuries was different than how many receive it now in that they did not touch the Host, but had a cloth placed over their hand and put their head down to touch their tongue to it and place it in their mouths. The faithful developed the long standing practice of having the priest place the Host on their tongue very early on, but the recent receiving in the hand the way people do now was originally an abuse that was excused in 1977 because so many wayward bishops and priests initially out of Holland and Belgium were already allowing, advocating, and even mandating it in their dioceses to the detriment of faith in the Real Presence of the Eucharist. What you do with your body matters. Receiving communion in the hand was one of the first changes made during the Protestant Reformation in order to communicate this was NOT Christ's actual body, blood, soul, and divinity.

Great interview. Learned a lot.

I have the humility to say that if something isn't in good standing with the church, don't go to it. Even if it seems better and the sacraments are valid, if they don't accept the pope, they're off the ark. Just go to an fssp or move to a place that has one. We live in rough times we must offer up our sufferings and trust in the Lord for better times.

I never heard of any Salsa nominated as a speaker for the Church. If this interview without contradictory has any reliability at all, why when bishop Vitus Hounder asked to Pope Francis he said that SSPX are not in schism or schismatic?

2:10:00 I read that Bishop Lefevre was promised to be able to concentrate another bishop and that the consecration date was summarily canceled by Rome on several occasions and that is why he did what he did, because ot became clear Rome was acting in bad faith, that is the claim whether true or not I am no authority. Painfully aware of the game's chanceries/curias play, it is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility.

Would be great to see John have a debate with Tailor Marshall. In reading over the pro SSPX comments here they seem very similar to those made by non denominational and prodistants.

Thank you, very clear explanations.

This was an excellent interview. I just want to thank Dr. Salza and Mr. Fradd for making it happen. May God bless you both and may God protect Holy Mother Church 🙏🏻

This was fantastic!

I yearn for the mystery, awe and reverence of feeling that I’m in the presence of and worshiping God, who is above all; that makes me conscious that He is God and I am NOT.

Grabbing my popcorn for the comments section 🍿

La Salette is approved On 19 September 1851, the local bishop formally approved the public devotion and prayers to Our Lady of La Salette. On 21 August 1879, Pope Leo XIII granted a canonical coronation to the image now located within the Basilica of Our Lady of La Salette

Thank God that where I live in Mexico, Novus Ordo Masses are generally well done. I've never encountered any of what's mentioned in the discussions of NO vs TLM. I'm praying for the unity of the Church in the world. It seems our brothers in the US need it desperately.

I have recently moved in the last year to a new state… unfortunately the nearest FSSP church is three hours away… so we have been going to the Novus ordo mass. I can tell you the things I see there take all the joy out of Sunday mass. when I converted to Catholicism I was very joyful… unfortunately I find it very hard to be joyful now… especially at mass.

There would be no FSSP without the SSPX. The original FSSP priests came out of ArchBp Lefebrvre's seminary at Econe Switzerland.

thank you for doing this interview! My husband and I nearly fell for the lies of the society shortly after becoming Catholic sadly because of certain commentators we were listening to. John Salza did an amazing job, he is so clear, knowledgable & articulate!

This conversation is SO needed. Thank you for educating us in a charitable way. God bless you both.

I'm in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee as well. Love our Bishop and we have many very good Priests here especially in the Kenosha area

I am still discerning the matter, especially in light of recent rumors that Rome will be banning TLM entirely.

Amazing show. Thanks Matt and team!

Excellent vid, Matt. Many thanks to brother Salza for such a clearly articulated explanation.

That was awesome. Thank you.

Fradd, this is hand over fist one of the best episodes to date on Pints. Great discussion.

They are doing something right. They are building a huge Cathedral in Kansas. Meanwhile, the regular Catholic church is closing many churches and losing parishioners.

Salza claims that Benedict said he was no longer pope, yet he called HIMSELF “pope “.

47:46 To be fair to Archbishop Lefebvre- he did indeedy sign a document indicating his willingness to have a bishop named for him on August 15th, and the next day he reneged on this agreement, as he himself declared. So yes, you can say the Archbishop was "wishy washy". BUT it also remains true that, prior to his signing, Cardinal Ratzinger strongly hinted that Rome would accept his nomination to be consecrated, and then Rome changed ITS TUNE immediately upon getting his signature. That does not seem like "bending over backwards" to me, on the part of Rome.

"In my opinion"...I will take Michael Davies over John Salza. Fortunately, the SSPX didn't come to an agreement with the Pachamama ecumenism! Good for them!

Couple of things to add: First: in 2016 Pope Francis himself granted direct jurisdiction in perpetuity to all SSPX priests to hear confessions and for the sacrament of marriage. In this decree it also states that the SSPX priest is to say Mass during the marriage. How can a priest from the SSPX celebrate Mass licitly on this day, but lose all faculties the next? Secondly, Archbishop Lefebvre never celebrated the Novus Ordo, but only the new rites of 1965 and 1967, which were much closer to the 1962 TLM than to the 1970 Novus Ordo. He was never a great liturgist, but he rejected the new theology of the Novus Ordo.

Benedict XVI lifted the excommunication on SPX and they have a church and office in Rome. How are they outside the Church then?

Brilliant and insightful conversation. 👏

This makes me sad. Why can’t we have nice things? Does everything have to be modernized homogenous slop? Too many boomers. The boomers really dropped the ball on all of this. 20 years and we’ll get something better. Keep praying for that.

I'm from SE Europe, from Catholic area. I live in a reverent NO parish, with altar boys, only priests and deacons giving Holy Communion. I appreciate this video because I really like TLM and I want to learn more about it and also expand my knowledge about other important matters connected to our faith. Thank you and God bless you. 🙏✝️🕊️

Excellent show. Thank you.

Ask John about freemasonry

I'm a former sedevecantist (SGG, so strict they would deny you sacraments for attending the SSPX lol), my now wife went to the NO and I was the one who introduced her to the TLM. Trying to figure this kind of stuff out almost stopped us from getting married. We now attend an ICKSP (we are blessed to be quite near one) and wouldn't have it any other way. part of my family still goes to the sede church, most go to the SSPX, and one of my siblings goes to the Institute with his family as well. I've completely left sedevecantism, praise to the Lord, and while the institute is my home parish, I go to and receive at both the SSPX and the NO, not sure how many others are in similar situations. It's difficult because most in my family would deny the validity of the NO, and some of my in-laws aren't so sure of the validity of the TLM even at the Institute Really appreciate the information in this interview, God bless and keep up the good work everyone at PWA

Anyone else tired of all these acronyms?

It blows my mind how many Schismatic groups there are SSPX, SSPV, Old Catholic Church I’m just finding out about these groups are there any others??

what we want is to attend the TLM like it use to be when I was a kid ( I am 67 today) I attend the TLM in St John's NL Canada by Father Brown. Father Brown is not with SSXP-FSSP-ABCD he is with the bishop of the diocese of St John's. That is what we want. That is what my daughter friend Jocelyn want, but her bishop refuse the SSPX to say the TLM in his diocese so Jocelyn left and follow SSPX. I don't blame her. I follow my bishop and local priest, like Our Lady at Bayside, who said that the schism will come from the traditional. That apparition was condemned by the bishop of Brooklyn of New York.

Best PWA in a hot minute. Devil’s advocate Matt at his best

Such an interesting interview. As a fan of the TLM, it gave me a new speen on the motus proprio. Thanks you for posting this. I must say though, now I would love to hear someone from within the SSPX answer to this interview and to those arguments.

It's not just because of the mass.but the tradition.

Interesting because now our TLM isn’t even allowed in a diocesan church 😒 sooo