Amen 🙏

But what about their adherence to the schism of Lefevre? You found the true church, don’t get caught up at the last minute.

God blessed you!

@@annaru3814 Indeed. And through Our Lady's hand, so that I would know, and accept subordination. It was no small thing for me to kneel.

When I was 16 and came to Catholicism (I had been baptized as a baby but never practiced) looking to do my First Communion and Confirmation, I got turned away since the Confirmation education takes two years in the archdiocese but that I couldn't do it since I'd be 18 by the time I completed it, therefore making me an adult and would 'age me out' I guess. A year later I went to the SSPX and did my First Communion a few months later, then got Confirmed the following year.

I didn't attend an sspx chapel. Yet my old parish prior to moving was ad orientum latin and we had low and high masses. Now at a very very liberal NO parish quite the change... my wife and I decided we are going to bring tradition with us rather than drive over an hour trying to help ourselves. The parishioners love us and now we are slowly bringing the traditions back also my wife is now the head religious education. I think the TLM is great to grow and learn your faith but how do we get more to learn about it. It's stressful but can be very very fruitful we are finding after 2 years of pushback.

@@lboh5260 Wonderful! You and your wife are needed there! When I was a catechist at my NO parish, I went off the deficient, watered-down program many times. The main thing to constantly drill into these kids is that Jesus is TRULY present in the Eucharist . I asked all my 7 th grade students , one by one if Jesus is really present in the Eucharist. They were all guessing, but almost all said “no”. I went from there, teaching the passover in the old testament that they HAD to eat of the lamb. They couldn’t eat a “symbol” of the lamb, like a lamb-shaped cookie. And then explaing the Lamb, etc. You have an important mission. God bless you!

​@@lboh5260 7

Was there not the FSSP available?

That is not true ,there were many priests who celebrated the old mass since 1970 ,God s will would have protected the traditional mass ,also without Lefebvre ,he is not the most important man in church ,like the FSSPX thinks.

​@@fragilechrissyno one else was actually training priests in the Mass of All Time. How do you know that the Holy Spirit didn't inspire the Archbishop to take the actions he did?

@@fragilechrissy It is true!

lol We had the Carmelites giving us the Latin Mass here, never losing it. All the SSPX does is hide Pedophiles

@@kathleenkindt3688 Because throughout the history of the Church, God has always rewarded those saints who were obedient, not the persons who were disobedient. This holds true even in cases when the Church later determined that the Church authorities had been in error.

I don't attend SSPX because I have a different traditional community. But the SSPX are heroes to me, and I acknowledge the fact that Lefebvre is the only reason we still have the Latin Mass.

Brian was great - Kennedy was embarrassing, twisting himself into theological pretzels trying to justify disobedience.

Are you Chaldean Catholic?

@Shimoun I've been attending a byzantine catholic church for the past 3 years but I'm chaldean

@@thisandthat2004 Well, I'm guessing you would have no problems comdemning St. Athanasius then, or the lay people who rejected Nestorius before he was condemned by Rome. Also, aren't you embarrased to treat this as a debate, even though it wasn't?

​@@thereasonableman2424 If you read the actual history of St. Athanasius, you'd know that what the SSPX proposes about him is a fiction. And I'm not treating this as a debate. Hall was here to defend the SSPX. He used easily debunked theological blunders to do so. If he's the best you've got, well ...

Lefebvre was in his right to ordain bishops. The FSSP compromised with VII to not defy VII in any way. Not allowing them to have their own Bishops is the ensure the true faith doesn’t continue. We got their game.

Speaking as a tradition loving, Latin Mass attending layman, I think there is a distinction in the situations e lo outlines above. While it may be true that LeFevbre got a raw deal, if the FSSP and the SSPX acknowledge that the new Mass is valid, it's not an imposition on the same level for ratzinger to tell the head of the FSSP that they should not ban their priests from celebrating the new mass... If you are the society of oranges and I as your superior tell you you can't tell your members to exclusively eat oranges I am not there for telling you you are banned from eating oranges. This may seem silly but it's an important distinction, and oftentimes statements like these are blown out of proportion in an all-or-nothing approach which actually harms the movement. You can make a slippery slope argument if you like, but it's not logically congruent to equate the Lefebvre situation to the ratzinger situation. Ironically, it WOULD be a more similar situation if the FSSP/SSPX saw the NO as invalid.

@@patrickvalentino600 Mr Valentino, I think you are on the "slippery slope" of deceiving yourself about the people running the Church.

@@patrickvalentino600 the SSPX would never say the NO is invalid. I don't believe that has ever been their stance. The issue even the arch bishop had is the fact that the door was open to abuses where it could be invalid. And I think you can easily toss a stone and hit an invalid one at this point with some of the crazy things that go on in "Catholic" churches. It's also important to note that the Council of Trent basically says not to change the Mass or be anathema. There are a lot of important things that matter that are in church law that are never discussed. Fr. Hesse is a very good place to start and understand the code of canon law. The number 1 canon law being the salvation of souls and nothing is allowed to hider that in any way shape or form. So banning the traditional latin mass goes against everything that is catholic.

FR David Sherry has a much better YT re.SSPX..

@@colajax no disrespect to Fr. Sherry, but it was interesting to see how a layman who attends the SSPX mass would express his position in his own words.

Agreed. For the forty two years I was a fundamentalist and Calvinist, no Catholics were fussed. I came into the Church through the FSSPX and and the pearl clutching and attacks have been astonishing. Ineffective. But astonishing. And I agree with you that few platforms would be this calm and generous with Mr. Hall.

Why not attend FSSP?

@@saintlybeginnings It's not a Catholic principle to leave a good congregation behind. The same reason we attended NO will be our reason to attend SSPX.

@@saintlybeginnings Because they aren't anywhere near, and after I ordered one book from them all I get is spam for donations. I went in the one open door. All others were closed, or very remote.

The sspx is not a Catholic Church. I would not pick on anyone that goes because the times are confusing and most people that go to sspx have good intentions. However they are still in schism. It’s a confusing matter and idk if I can say it all in the comment because of how lengthy the whole problem is but I’ll try to get to the heart of the matter. Sspx was founded in opposition to the pope. A huge misconception is that PJPII was trying to censor the Latin mass but that simply is not the case. He in several occasions gave priests the ok to say the mass in Latin including Lefebvre. He gave Lefebvre his own bishop and approved the appointment of four new bishops for a certain date. Lefebvre and JPII both signed the documents. However Lefebvre backed out and demanded PJPII give him the bishops earlier. No agreement was reached and Lefebvre ordained the 4 bishops in an act of opposition to the holy father which is an official act of schism. In other words Rome bent over backwards for him and still went into schism. Shortly there after SSPX was formally declared a schismatic entity by Rome. Now fast forward to the 2000’s. Pope Benedict was concerned for people in the sspx receiving invalid sacraments so he made it possible for a marriage to happen in the sspx if a catholic priest is present. Note they are still not in communion with the church because the Sspx priests would not be able to say the wedding mass independently. Now the next major point is sspx is no longer seen as a formal schismatic group. That means it is easier for them to come into the church because you do not have to go to Rome to be declared out of schism you can practically just go to confession. Again this is a complicated matter because there is so much misinformation going around. I don’t hate the sspx and I hope they can join the church again but they have to officially accept Vatican II and the Novus Ordo to be in union with Rome. Cardinal Burke has a great video on the Sspx that’s like 3 minutes long I’d recommend you look into it and what actually happened. I’m just some random guy in the comments that looked into what actually happened. I used to believe that Sspx masses were valid until I actually dug deeper into what actually happened and I’m trying to encourage others to look into what actually conspired. I wrote for longer than I intended but I hope my input helps you in some way. God Bless!

I suppose. It strikes me oddly that neither group is taking some key pieces of the faith particularly seriously.

@@atrifle8364 What exactly is the FSSP not quite taking seriously?

@@atrifle8364 the FSSP is in perfect communion with Rome, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Both are in communion with Rome.

This is awesome considering the flack some sectors of both groups give each other. Among the clergy, anyway.

No they are just schismatic if you are into that. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gZiSoMyIsNmlaYE.html

Look up: Matt fradd Doctor John Salza. Matt fradd interviews dr. John salza. Dr. John salza was former sspx. The video is 3 hours long. God bless you.

While the society certainly has good priests and lay people, the society’s literature and institutional teachings are riddled with problems that go back to the erroneous views of its founder. If your FSSP priests have EVER celebrated a Novus Ordo, then they have committed offenses to God, at least according to the society

​@@matthewvelazquez2013 he was not former sspx from what I know, I believe he was a former freemason.

​@@adriandeluna3896 he attended the SSPX and converted from masonry.

Kennedy Hall is embarrassing. He doesn't have the theological chops to discuss this, and makes basic blunders. Brian was very patient.

@Pat Last what’s funny is Mr. Hall did backflips to say the SSPX was never really excommunicated or is schism but they are on the frontlines asking if PF is the real Pope or if he is a heretic Just know ma’am that comments like yours are why the TLM is under attack. The movement breeds these types of uncharitable rhetoric. And i say this as someone that prefers the TLM to the NO

@@thisandthat2004 very easy to sit on the ditch and comment, I think Kennedy did a good job. We need this conversation.

@@thisandthat2004 Can you give an example of a basic blunder he made? Brian is always very patient and his calm demeanor is one of the thing that makes listening to him so pleasant, Kennedy is much more energetic and excitable in style, but that doesn't mean he is wrong and he was not uncharitable to Brian.

Abp Lefebvre should be canonised (he is obviously in heaven) and made a doctor of the Church. He should be styled “Doctor of Tradition”.

@friend of blessed Leonie Martin Most of us are not like that. 😊 But, even if we ALL were, the fact remains, you would be safer there (spiritually, catechetically) than anywhere else. Certainly, I have met a few who are the way you describe, and they are rebuked kindly-but-firmly by our SSPX priest for behaving in such a non Christ-like manner (3, so far). They either cool their jets and learn how to be truly Catholic...or they just quit coming to Mass. But, a seed has been planted, naetheless.

I've found SSPV to be that way, but not SSPX.

Don't confuse apostasy with schism. If the Catholic Church shuts down all Latin Masses and one leaves the Church for the SSPX, they are in Schism; which is a mortal sin against charity per St. Augustine.

@tubaceous I am interested in these other Priests and Bishops who took steps to combat modernism. Sounds like there are interesting stories here. Could you please mention a few names I might be able to look up? Thanks!

@@sarahdiana8934 I appreciate your interest. True Catholics now live in catacombs, but you can check some talks by bp Mark Pivarunas or bp Donald Sanborn. That may be a good start…

Does Peter matter?

@@atrifle8364 does the salvation of souls matter when a loved one is dying and the only priests willing to hear their confession and give them their last sacraments is a priest of the SSPX. I’m sorry but actions speak louder than words, they are the true soldiers of Christ

@@Cristero4718 this is a very poor argument. We are not Protestants. We have to obey the pope where he has authority. And he does and that ought to be respected. Just because there are misgiving that the church is teaching and that they are not fulfilling their roles as leaders does not mean we have a right to dissent or be schismatic. Think about saint Athanias he got exiled multiple times and always followed the orders for him to do so. We ought to look at the examples of the Saints and follow them. And being schismatic is not what they did. God bless!

I personally know of a case of an elderly woman dying in the hospital during the COVID lockdowns. The SSPX priest refused to visit her. The diocesan priest brought her the sacraments.

@@atrifle8364 yes Peter matters. The SSPX believes in Apostolic Succession. But what happens when a Pope teaches things that contradict Peter? What happens when a Pope isn’t even Catholic himself? At point would you choose the Catholic Faith over a current Pope that has left the Faith himself? Francis has an idol on an altar, yet St. Peter condemned idol worship? St. Peter taught that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church and died as a martyr for being a missionary. But yet Francis promotes other religions and apologizes for Catholic missionaries. Who’s right and who’s wrong?

If Brian was obedient he would attend novus ordo

@@lawmaker22 not necessarily true. I attend a Traditional Latin Mass Parish instituted by our diocesan Bishop.

@lawmaker22 You may be happy to know that Pope Benedict XVI himself wrote (*de fide*) that ALL SSPX sacraments are _valid and licit,_ and their Masses could be attended, period. That the SSPX was NOT and _never had been in schism!_ It's been YEARS since he wrote the documents, and really angered the Modernists and "Conservatives," alike! It was quite a huge (& very loud) flap in the N.O. world. BTW: The N.O. was promulgated, but NEVER did V2 (nor any later writings) teach that the TLM was somehow "disallowed". NO POPE can do that, anyway. ALSO: "disobedience" has NEVER, EVER been a VALID excuse (under Canon Law) for excommunication! So, there you have it: you may go. 😊

​@@lawmaker22Study the Mass and you will be drawn to the Traditional Latin Mass. The Novus Ordo rite was formed by a committee in four years. The TLM traces its rites to "the beginning."

@@marccrotty8447 I do attend tlm

Look up: Matt fradd Doctor John Salza. Matt fradd interviews dr. John salza. Dr. John salza was former sspx. The video is 3 hours long. God bless you.

@@matthewvelazquez2013 I'll be sure to give it a watch!

You man like the one Rome has been having with them for 5 decades?

Salza is a freemason. How disappointing it was that Fradd did not vet his guest and presented him as an expert. Salza is a lawyer and author. He writes sensationalized accounts because it sells. He didn't achieve a very high degree in freemasonry so he filled his book on them with a lot of dramatic fiction that was meant to shock. Things like nudity and bondage. Garbage for readers of junk food. He has done the same with the SSPX. I am not SSPX but it has been demonstrated many times that Salza is a con. Let the church hierarchy speak on the SSPX. We don't need Salza.

Do you consider what Pope Benedict stated to be hearsay?

My FSSP priest said that under extreme circumstances I could go to the SSPX man.

@Carolyn Kimberly Carolyn, you may be happy to know that Pope Benedict XVI himself stated that ALL SSPX sacraments are valid *and* licit, and their Masses could be attended, period. That the SSPX was *not* and _never had been_ in schism! BTW: "disobedience" has NEVER, EVER been a _VALID_ excuse (under Canon Law) for excommunication! So, there you have it: you may go under *any* circs, whether "extreme", or no. 😊

@@fairyspunfibers9098 I would be uncomfortable there. They have put themselves outside the jurisdiction of the Pope which is schism.

@@carolynkimberly4021 No, not SSPX. SSPV certainly has. They're 2 different factions.

Your friend was wrong to tell you that.

Ruben. My kids all went to an SSPX school. They sometimes did not like the discipline yet they always complied. They received an excellent education.

Amazing dedication and example of sacrificing to attend Holy Mass. Thank you.

@T P I've been wondering that, myself!?! What will they do when they realize the separation of the wheat from the chaff is continuing apace, and that this is part of it?

Isn't Francis persecuting them?

@@patrickmelling8404 It’s not just Francis. It was every Pope since Vatican II up until Pope Benedict who reversed the restrictions and gave the Traditional orders a new lease of life. Francis is going back to the restrictions because he sees the modernist revolution is under major threat from the traditional movement.

@Patrick Smelling Ha! BerGOGlio persecutes anyone who dares to disagree with his foul, demonic Pachamama & Modernist agenda! But, all Popes after V2 have done the same to one degree or another, so there is that... For those who may be unaware, "Pachamama" _is the _*_actual_*_ name of a demon._

I am VERY interested. There's no SSPX near me.. How would I become a 3rd order Carmelite? I registered in a Latin Mass parish in the neighboring diocese because my bishop isn't generous with TLM.

@@TheAmosTree There was nothing to reverse. Benedict simply affirmed that. Pope John Paul II encouraged bishops to be generous in offering TLM to the faithful, and many ignored him. Selective obedience.

Lefebvre was a schismatic that had to be excommunicated because he started acting like he was his own pope. No bishop can appoint other bishops. He was treated with great mercy for a long time. But he died outside the Catholic church, and he is now in hell. SSPX is schismatic. They are tricksters. They lure people in with a truly reverent liturgy, which everyone is hungry for. Then, gradually, they try to get you to break away from the Catholic church by telling a huge number of lies. They sound important because they can quote canon law, etc, but they are basically all liars. That is the sad conclusion I came to after studying them for about 10 years. No one should attend their masses.

Agreed, except I’d have no qualms about attending their masses.

Does Peter make meaningful decisions in running the church? Does he ever get a defense? Is Peter ever treated unfairly?

1. Yes 2. He’s not the defendant here, he’s the prosecutor 3. Within the Church? No, I’d argue he’s treated like a God who is de facto infallible. If anything, Peter (Pope) is treated heretically by most Catholics.

5 decades of disobedience.

I don’t think I can name a single saint who defected from Rome unto his death.

@@tatort00t97 You couldn't have looked very hard. Just type in on a Google search how many Saints have been excommunicated. Pax

​@@tatort00t97 Jeanne d'Arc?

@@Christofascist_Hup She was excommunicated wrongfully, but she wasn’t defiant to the pope like Lefebvre was

@@tatort00t97 Lefebvre was so obedient to the Pope that he prayed for him at every Mass and used the liturgical texts that the Pope issued, even though he thought they were not as good as what came before. Lefebvre was heroic and prophetic.

You are the spiritual pillar for your children. We had a pretty reverent Novus Ordo parish, but 8 of my 12 no longer attend Mass. I wish I had adhered to TLM. I will spend the rest of my days praying & fasting them back.

@@annaru3814 Last year I visited an SSPX chapel where I spoke to a man who is one of the pillars there. Many of his children and their families attend there as well. He and his wife were so disheartened with the NO in 1982 that, against much resistance from friends and family, they switched to the SSPX. All of their children (including one who is an SSPX priest) and 59 (I'm pretty sure that's the number he said) grandchildren are practicing Catholics.

If you live near the SSPX, give them a visit.

The SSPX love a liturgy more than they trust Jesus and His Church. It is a dishonest form of Protestantism. Luther had valid criticisms too. It didn't make the actions correct.

​​@@atrifle8364 That's not true at all. The young men who asked Marcel Lefebvre to start the society were so disgusted with the vile unchristuan behaviour they were subjected to in the post v2 seminaries did so precisely because they love Jesus and the church and thry could see modern sensibilities were going to destroy her (you cant tell me they were wrong). On the flip side you could argue that V2 and its proponents love the world and modernity and the opinions of man more than they love Christ and His Church. You could say they have commited the sin of papolotry which is not the same as loving and respecting the papacy. A non sspx priest once likened the SSPX to St John who remained at the foot of the cross while Our Lord suffered and he asked who in their right mind would say John should have abandoned our Lord in order to follow Peter who fled. And ask yourself this of the Latin liturgy. Why is it the only liturgy that gets trampled on? Why are all the others respected and left alone while our liturgy gets dumped on and taken from us? I'm sure you'd call it bigoted and small minded if other people of other liturgies and religions had their customs stripped from them.

Pretty sure that Lefebvre was excommunicated dude...

Amen!

Traditionalism in Catholicism is more about holding to the orthodoxy of faith. This can include a liturgical form or not. There is a direct correlation between the Tridentine Mass and the orthodoxy of faith. If they veer off, it is with matters of obedience. There are very many conservative NO Catholics who hold to the orthodoxy of faith even though they do not attend a unicorn Mass. But we also know a lot of liberal or modernist Catholics attending the NO parishes. There can be issues on both sides. I wish people would address this instead of pointing fingers. Which I know Tage, you did not. I attend the NO. I don't condemn the SSPX either. I know it varies from chapel to chapel but as long as they are recognizing the Pope and praying for him (because let's face it, he needs a lot of prayers) I stand with Bishop Schneider's position also. Both Popes Benedict and Francis have made movements towards recognizing the SSPX. Why are people crying disobedience and yet discounting the assessments of our hierarchy?

This cannot be emphasized enough.

My grandparents educated before and spent half their lives going to Mass before VII never once mentioned the changes. My grandfather sang in the choir. Okay, my grandmother showed me how she would put a Kleenex on head if she had forgotten her chapel veil. That people were frustrated and disturbed I believe. It also was maybe not as traumatic to the average pewsitter as we are being told. In any event we're talking about something fading out of living memory

I’m 59 , from what I experienced , once the changes took place , such as the change from , no meat on Fridays , to “it doesn’t matter anymore “ This really effected people’s Faith , because a few years before they were told that not abstaining on Friday was a sin , now it’s not …… so then people stated questioning other things , like divorce or contraception, I mean if one thing can change, why not another ? This rapidly lead to indifference…. That’s pretty much where we are today.

@@camovets5719 Lots of people commenting on this clearly never lived through the chaos, or they would have at least a modicum of empathy for why Lefebvre acted the way he did.

The ones that truly kept the faith whole and entire, especially on the Church's teachings on the papacy, were the sedevacantists. They KNEW popes could not and cannot be heretics.

I hope you find one. I attend TLM in a private home, offered by a diocesan. I thank the Lord! When I must attend the N.O., it is very saddening to see the many distractions. I just keep my head down as much as possible.

@@annaru3814 I’m glad you were able to find an option. As far as I can tell, there isn’t much if anything in the maritime provinces. The regular parish I was attending was shut down in January.

@@manonhoule625 I’m in New Brunswick but I haven’t seen anywhere near by that had a traditional mass

I heard the one with E Michael Jones and Michael Davies was great too

The SSPX tend to view the least amount of plain speaking as an "attack".

@@atrifle8364 Calumny, such as calling the SSPX Schismatic is not plain speaking.

Attacks? That's been little more than damage-control for Cassman thumping Bartel.

The group is clearly schismatic. They refuse to obey the pontiff. That is the definition, so it can’t be calumny.

@@atrifle8364 I’m mostly on their (Fradd and Lofton) side but you can’t tell me that their content couldn’t be called an attack, especially Lofton‘s.

If anything Lefebvre would have been more aware that the Latin Rite is not the only rite in the Catholic Church. He would have been more aware of the very real problems the NO was attempting to correct in the Latin Rite. There was no excuse for disobedience. Was one liturgy really worth it? As a bishop did he not have enough authority to put right the NO in his own diocese and incorporate pieces of traditional formation? Of course he did At heart, the rejection of Vatican II by blaming modernism on it, rather than seeing it as the Church's answer is about ironically a modern rebellion. Everyone seems to know better than a council of bishops and several popes since then. If I believed the SSPX, Jesus abandoned His Church mid 20th century and the gates of Hell did prevail. /shrug

@@atrifle8364Tell me you’ve done zero research into the Econe consecrations without telling me that. Because if you believe the SSPX situation is solely about liturgy, I am afraid you are sorely misinformed.

@@devinbramel9546 - I don't need to do endless research. There is always a rationalization for disobedience. As bishop he could have excelled at the implementation of VII. That's not what he chose.

@@atrifle8364 Please describe precisely what "implementing Vatican 2" would have meant, because I would hazard you would have a difficult time describing what that would be, since "Vatican 2" is far more than just the one document Sacrosanctum (which, apparently, no one, not even the popes, knows how to "properly implement").

Martin Luther also addressed real problems in the Church that it seemed were going unchecked. Your argument is pure emotion and deflection

It will make great kindling

@Michael Speyrer Okay, Luther.

@@redneckpride4ever you must be a Williamson fanboy

@NymGrace That's the best you can do? Ad hominem - and invalid - attacks?!? You really think your comment is going to change anyone's mind with *that* bit of idiocy???

Pope will shut down icksp

May the Holy Spirit guide you to the Truth!

So do I.