Yes, although technically only priests and religious of the SSPX are it's members. The laity which only attends their masses do not count as members of the SSPX.

Even though I left Catholisism I'm 75 years old and my family for hundreds of years then I was educated in Tridentine. We were taught the Tridentine Latin Mass was Perpetual and couldn't be changed. The Jewish Passover Prayers said in the Temple in Jerusalem are in the Tridentine Mass.

Yes! I was skeptical, by seeing how young he's, but he did a better job than most older priests. Actually I started to noticed that the priestess that was ordained after the 2000s are doing a better job, teaching the true Gaspel, than ones prior, but after the 60s. That goes also to the bishops, the ones ordained during and after the feel good era( ✌️ &❤). They did a great damage to the Roman Catholic Church.

God can still act outside of the sacraments

Sounds like a personal opinion to me. You sound like Martin Luther.

@@hexahexametermeter Correct, the Rite of Consecration for Bishop is the same. So the Bishops are valid, therefore the priests they ordain are valid. And as Father said, the Eastern Orthodox Rites for consecration of Bishops and priests is not the same Rite. Pope Pius XII said that in His 1947 Apostolic Letter Sacramentum Ordinis On the Sacrament of Order issued 30 November 1947. And what Father said about the Gospels on the head of the deacon being ordained as priest is done in the Orthodox Church, and those RItes were deemed valid at the Council of Florence (See Pope Pius XII Sacramentum Ordinis paragraph 3).

Here in Spain, te masses and ordinations have a very concrete catholic intention. For example, in the mass it is clear they are talking about the sacrifice of Christ. Not a conmemorative protestant supper.

Can I have the link?

It's not officially their positions. It's some opinion of the priest. Mgr. Fellay said the new rites sacraments are undoubtedly valid. But some offending God

Interesting story

Boom, good job God bless.

Which church do you refer to? Pre or post Vatican II?

I need some help from you then. How did you argue that it was in fact valid, to sedevacantists?

@@norwegiancatholicism9106 just explain to them about Matters, form, intention, and who capables doing it. Watch this video and you'll get everything what you need for explanations. LEX OPERE OPERATO

Yes. The series really drives that home. I think it speaks to the strength of their seminary formation.

Even some protestants' friend of mine says theyre good in literation and explaining

In the form of Baptism, that is correct.

@@SSPX - Thank you for your response. With great respect it certainly follows that there is no salvation outside the one Holy and Apostolic Chuch. Our sacred mission is to convert. All attempts to invert and/or to adulterate the teachings of our beautiful Church - or make accomodations with the 'spirit of the age' - must surely be seen for what they are. Long term enemy subversion.

No, because a valid rite is not always a good rite. That's the difference

@@lucafarina8601think about what you just said. The church produced an official rite that is not good? Goodness is truth. Can the church produce and promulgate anything in her official capacity as the “bulwark of truth” that lacks goodness/truth?

Yes, and they do that. I get sub conditione baptism from a SSPX priest

Wait so does that mean he received all those sacraments invalidly? I am so sorry for that guy.

The "we" baptisms are always invalid

Feel free to contact vocations@sspx.org

All the Popes from Paul VI to Francis (except JPI who died early in his pontificate) tell people not to attend SSPX because it's schismatic. Pope Francis himself says SSPX is in schism in his letter accompanying "Traditionis Custodes." (Read fully the quotes below). 1. Pope Paul VI on the (schism) withdrawal of canonical recognition from the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) June 29, 1975: " … Our grief is even greater to note that the decision of the competent authority - although formulated very clearly, and fully justified, it may be said, by your refusal to modify your public and persistent opposition to the Second Vatican Council, to the post-conciliar reforms, and to the orientations to which the Pope himself is committed. " Finally, the conclusions which [the Commission of Cardinals] proposed to Us, We made all and each of them Ours, and We personally ordered that they be immediately put into force." Source: PAUL VI, "Lettre de S. S. Le Pape Paul VI a Mgr. Lefebvre," 29 June 1975, La Documentation Catholique, n. 1689, trans. in M. DAVIES, Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, p. 113. 2. Here is what Pope St. John Paul II says about SSPX schism in his Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, February 7, 1988: " In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of CEASING THEIR SUPPORT IN ANY WAY FOR THAT MOVEMENT. Everyone should be aware that formal ADHERENCE TO THE SCHISM IS A GRAVE OFFENCE AGAINST GOD and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law." www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei.html 3. Here's what the Pope Benedict XVI says in his Letter to the Bishops dated March 10, 2009:: "The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. "In order to make this clear once again: UNTIL THE DOCTRINAL QUESTIONS ARE CLARIFIED, THE SOCIETY 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… "This will make it clear that the problems now to be addressed are essentially DOCTRINAL in nature and concern primarily THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL AND THE POST-CONCILIAR MAGISTERIUM OF THE POPES. "The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 - this must be quite clear to the Society. www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica.html 4. Pope Francis did give SSPX the faculty to hear confessions legally and validly, because it does not contradict Canon Law. There have always been exceptional circumstances or instances of necessity in which the Church recognizes as valid and licit the reception of sacraments from priests who may be immoral, schismatic, irreligious, laicized, or even non-Catholic, provided their denominations have sacramental confessions. Canon 844 §2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid. Canon 976 Even though a priest lacks the faculty to hear confessions, he absolves validly and licitly any penitents whatsoever in danger of death from any censures and sins, even if an approved priest is present. While Pope Francis' gesture of mercy shows an important precedent -- for the good of souls, the Church has the power to grant faculties even to priests who are not in good standing -- it is nevertheless NOT AN APPROVAL OF THEM - not an approval of SSPX, or their situation. 5. Pope Francis in his letter Misericordia et Misera, November 20, 2916: “For the pastoral benefit of these faithful (who attend churches officiated by the SSPX ) and trusting in the good will of their priests to strive with God’s HELP FOR THE RECOVERY OF FULL COMMUNION IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, I have personally decided to extend this faculty beyond the Jubilee Year, until further provisions are made, lest anyone be deprived of the sacramental sign of reconciliation through the Church’s pardon.” www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_letters/documents/papa-francesco-lettera-ap_20161120_misericordia-et-misera.html Very clearly, Pope Francis' motu proprio shows there is still the need for SSPX “to recover full communion in the Catholic Church.” Therefore, Pope Benedict's statement on SSPX's non-canonical status in the Church still stands. 6. Pope Francis' letter, dated July 16, 2021, that accompanies Traditionis Custodes, he specifically mentioned SSPX to be in "schism." Here's the 2nd paragraph, fully quoted: "Most people understand the motives that prompted St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI to allow the use of the Roman Missal, promulgated by St. Pius V and edited by St. John XXIII in 1962, for the Eucharistic Sacrifice. The faculty - granted by the indult of the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1984 and confirmed by St. John Paul II in the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei in 1988 - was above all MOTIVATED BY THE DESIRE TO FOSTER THE HEALING OF THE SCHISM WITH THE MOVEMENT OF MONS. LEFEBVRE. With the ecclesial intention of restoring the unity of the Church, the Bishops were thus asked to accept with generosity the “just aspirations” of the faithful who requested the use of that Missal." www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/motu_proprio/documents/20210716-motu-proprio-traditionis-custodes.html 7. About the SSPX faculty to officiate in Catholic weddings (Letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith dated March 27, 2017). It states that with the diocese's permission, an SSPX priest may officiate in a Catholic wedding but only if there is no diocesan or religious priest available, and the documents must be forwarded to the diocesan curia. It should be remembered, too, that in the sacrament of matrimony, the ministers are the couple themselves. A priest is only there to witness for the Church and receive the couple's consent. Other than those limited faculties, the sacraments of the SSPX. Although valid, are not recognized by the Church because, as Pope Benedict XVI writes, the Society has no canonical status and no legitimate ministry in the Church. 8. Many people, including bishops, who say SSPX is not in schism or has reconciled with the Church, should be able to produce a document similar to Pope John Paul II's letter welcoming the SSPX in Campos, Brazil (now the Union of St. John Mary Vianney) into the fold, otherwise they should not be believed. Here's the link to Pope JPII letter: www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4141 Thanks. God bless you.

​@@marietta1335You just put more legalistic fear on him! You forgot any charity. Be gone in Christ Name!

​@@marietta1335you are a classic legalistic Pope splainer . You missunstand the fact of all those popes you quotes are all modernist bent on changing Catholic doctrine and dogma. You're great at your legalistic gibberish but have no real understanding of true charity and Catholic teachings. you are creating disunity

That's an apples / oranges argument - one also has to look at the minister, not just the form. As well as the intent - are they really intending to do what the Catholic Church does? The answer is obviously problematic for both the minister and the intent, so that would invalidate the Anglican ordination, even if the form is the same as what the Catholic Church currently uses.

the modern Episcopal Church USA one is copied from the Vatican 2 version, not sure about Church of England's. The Vatican 2 one is based on a reconstruction of "Apostolic Tradtion", which is likely not from St Hippolytus of Rome but rather much more likely to be out of Egypt . While it seems vague this cant be really held agains it, the Byzantine rite bishop ordination rite, while totally different than the Novus Ordo, is also rather vague and unclear with a bishop's functions beyond saying they are making a bishop - and it is needless to say the Byzantine is of course 100% valid. The Coptic bishop ordination prayer is similar to the Novus Ordo, and as the Novus Ordo th Coptic one is certainly inspiried by what is certainly a common origin or relative with the ancient document "Apostolic Tradition", but certainly not identical with the Novus Ordo version (and indeed compared to the Novus Ordo the Coptic is more specific and I would say orthodox), espiecailly considering the beauty of the Coptic one compared to the Novus Ordo one. the idea of modern holy orders vexes my mind, but I fear God if I am wrong so I will not attack the new bishop rite (nor defend it, the old Roman rite didn't need to be changed and should of stayed - before there was no doubt, why is there now? because they changed things for no reason expect wanting to leave their mark. if i was alive in those days i would have a panic attack out of fear and guilt changing a divine service to suit my ideas).

As I recall, the original Anglican form was just "receive the Holy Ghost", an invalid form. They changed it later, to a form that would be valid (no idea if it's the same as now or not) but by the time they did that it was too late; they had no valid bishops anymore.

​@@SSPXthe form has changed which makes it invalid.

You make a strong point here, "Why change something, if you have no intention of actually changing it?" If I remember correctly, Paul VI decreed at the end of the council that all liturgical books should be reviewed and brought up to date with the council, i.e. changed when necessary. So I suppose the argument runs then that when the rite of priestly ordination was reviewed "in light of the council" it was decided that fewer changes were necessary, but then when it came to the episcopal rite then more were deemed necessary. As you point out, "Why?" Something was missing before, so we call into question the validity of the previous rite. It seems more clearly the case, they wanted add something. I believe that a strong argument can certainly be made that most Bishops understand their duties and functions differently from the new rite formulation.

Also explicitly stated in Scripture and in Marian Prophesy ...... .

Now I see why the SSPX Marian corps exists. I sense some major compromise here. The sarcastic/sort of mocking tone against sedevacantists also reminds me of when conspiracy theorists are supposedly “debunked” by the very conspirators that they are trying to expose.

Thanks be To God that He said the Gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church. With that said, if all the Vatican II Bishops and Cardinals were Free Masons, then the Popes that preceded Vatican II failed as they all were appointed by Popes prior to Vatican II.

Sacramentum Ordinis, 1949 gave the exact matter and form for the three stages of Holy Orders, and said that if any change to the form is made, and the words do not have the meaning given here, the sacrament is invalid. Compare the old rite vs the new rite in consecrating a bishop. They have absolutely nothing in common.

@@Mike-pf1ru No what Sacramentum Ordinis says, which was in fact issued 30 November 1947, not 1949 (Did you actually read it) clearly says what is "essential Matter and Form." For a Bishop it is the laying on of hands (Matter) and form is 25 words. Furthermore, in that same document, Pope Pius XII in paragraph 3 clearly says that the Rite of Consecration for Bishops in the Orthodox Church, which is not the exact same as the Latin, was viewed as valid with respect to essential Matter and Form (and it does not follow the Roman Rite of Consecration).

Briefly: “The Council of Trent does not mention the purpose of the sacrament or say that the minister must intend to do what the Church intends, but what the Church does." (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Sacramentis in genere, lb. IV cap. 27 n. 13, quoted in the reply of the Holy Office to the Apostolic Vicar of Central Oceana, given 18 Dec. 1872; cf. Denzinger-Schonmetzer (DS) 3102, p. 602; cf. archive.org/details/denzinger-schonmetzer-enchiridion-symbolorum-1957/page/294/mode/2up p. 294). In other words, an error about the effect of a given sacrament (e.g., whether baptism removes sin and infuses grace) does not of itself remove that minimum intention that is necessary and sufficient for validity - namely, to perform the sacred ceremony that was instituted by Christ and is now in use in the Church. The response of the Holy Office refers to the following case: “Question: 1. Whether baptism administered by those heretics is doubtful on account of defect of intention to do what Christ willed, if an express declaration was made by the minister before he baptized that baptism had no effect on the soul? “Question 2. Whether baptism so conferred is doubtful if the aforesaid declaration was not expressly made immediately before the conferring of baptism, but had often been asserted by the minister, and the same doctrine was openly preached in that sect?" After some preliminary words of explanation (including the quote from St. Robert Bellarmine above), the Holy Office concludes: “Reply to the first question: In the negative; because despite the error about the effects of baptism, the intention of doing what the Church is not excluded. “Reply to the second question: Provided for in the answer to the first." (English translation found here: www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/inte.html )

It may be helpful to quote St. Thomas: "If [the minister's] faith be defective in regard to the very sacrament that he confers, although he believe that no inward effect is caused by the thing done outwardly, yet he does know that the Catholic Church intends to confer a sacrament by that which is outwardly done. Wherefore, his unbelief notwithstanding, he can intend to do what the Church does, albeit he esteem it to be nothing. And such an intention suffices for a sacrament: because as stated above, the minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the Church by whose faith any defect in the minister’s faith is made good." (Summa Theologica, III, 64, 9 ad 1). Also, there are many statements in the question/objection that we cannot agree with. 1. The visible Church is not a reality adequately distinct from the Church of all time. If that were true, the Church of all time would be a simple abstract concept in the mind without any concrete existence here on earth. 2. It is wrong to say that the Church's understanding of Holy Orders has changed. Unfortunately some men of the Church have a corrupt understanding of Holy Orders and have tried to impose that understanding on the Church by introducing ambiguous or misleading formulas into the liturgy. But that does not alter the faith of the Church as such. 3. Fr. McFarland did not say that the new rite of Episcopal Consecration is valid "more because of the intention rather than the form." There must always be a valid sacramental form. The point is that very different wordings can result in the same basic signification, and this allows for change/variety. There is more than one way to verbally designate the grace and office of the episcopacy, or priesthood, or whatever. Fr. William MacGillivray

This are the big questions

Not true, the issue is whether it was written in Rome in the 3rd century or perhaps the Church in Alexandria from the 3rd to 4th century. There are 5th century copies of it. So it is either from Rome or Alexandria.

You have to go back and listen to what Fr was explaining.Remember these priests are well educated this is their life and sometimes when I am in conversation with one of the priests from sspv or sspx I have to ask the Fathers to elaborate on what they were saying .Because not all of us are well educated in doctrines .So at times you need to listen at least 3 or 4 times to understand

Hopefully that might help because like Ive stated I too get perplexed on what the priests are talking to me about and I have to ask them if they can dumb it down for me and they will these priests are more than willing to share their knowledge God Bless

Yes, this was discussed at the end of this episode.

@@SSPX thanks, I had only made it about 15 min in and had to go. I will listen to the rest later

@@SSPX Ok, I heard the answer. But I understand as well AB Lefebv required conditional ordination. I dont think this is disputed. Was Lefebv truely uniformed as implied in the answer? Are you saying he not done proper research, ect? Was mistaken? That he should have believed 100% NO ordinations were valid? You are really not clear on this.

@@joehathorn2985 I think the point is that, like everything else, in the beginning of the discovery of the crisis, it was safe to assume that we should resort to what we know worked for hundreds or thousands of years, instead of things associated with the Revolution. A conditional sacrament is not offensive to God, since it is conditional, and since it is done precisely to avoid offending God, otherwise it wouldn't be conditional, but absolute.

We have also to consider that in these years ('70, '80) there were crazy bishops who don't use the neither the new rite because they thought that it was still too conservative. So, it's obvious that if a deacon is ordained with strange formulas, created by the community, you can have doubts about the validity of his ordination. But these are significant exceptions that confirm the rule

It's just stock music. No specific tune. :)

It's on a case-by-case basis. Those minor orders are not required, strictly, for a valid ordination to the priesthood. Is it better? Of course. But that's a different question than valid.

the novus ordo is, in theory, valid, but it does not mean it is good.

An SSPX priest would do a full investigation of the baptism, and establish if there was doubt. But, for reference, this was the Holy See’s response to the following questions concerning the Methodist baptisms in Oceania (1872): 1. Whether baptism administered by those heretics [Methodists] is doubtful on account of defect of intention to do what Christ willed, if an express declaration was made by the minister before he baptised that baptism had no effect on the soul? 2. Whether baptism so conferred is doubtful if the aforesaid declaration was not expressly made immediately before the conferring of baptism, but had often been asserted by the minister, and the same doctrine was openly preached in that sect? Reply to the first question: in the negative, because despite the error about the effects of baptism, the intention of doing what the Church does is not excluded. The second question: provided for in the answer to the first. (Acta Sanctae Sedis, Vol. XXV, p. 246.)

This is something I'd like addressed too.

The SSPX website even has an article explaining this ("Must priests who come to Tradition be re-ordained") and it basically says the same: the rite is valid per se (as Fr. McFarland says), *but* we unfortunately have to deal with Modernist bishops who may have Anglican-like intents. It seems clear the Archbishop worried about this as well.

@@johndeighan2495 Yes, my point is it seems the Archbishop seemed concerned that possibly more was required in intent.

The validity of the Sacrament is determined by the act which is done ie ex opéré opérato. , not the disposition of the minister (ex opéré opérantis)

In certain circumstances, yes. Priests in missionary lands who could only make it to a place 2 or 3 times a year would come to bless the marriages - which had already been validly done by the couple. This is of course very rare but it's valid / licit / etc.

@@SSPX - Yes, rare and unusual. It makes sense - very interesting. Thanks!

All of the above

In case your question is actually serious, and not trolling... It means he's validly ordained. Who you choose as your spiritual director is a matter of your prudence. And since you're on this channel, we would presume your prudence would not lead you to actually conclude this.

Sspx is not in schism. They're in a state of "irregular canonical", which basically means that the Vatican has no way to prove they're in schism and can't deny much less argue their central issues with Vatican 2 and the New mass. SSPX is in a very odd position within the church. Both being on the inside compared to schismatics and independent Catholic organizations, but also on the outside when compared to a local diocesan parish. Now to be in schism does not take away from someone's valid sacraments. Just like being in sin doesn't mean you can't attend mass or do good works. Although you should obviously go to confession and do penance to return to grace and communion with God and the Church. So the Eastern Orthodox have valid sacraments in the sense that they're liturgy and some sacraments practiced are valid. But they're actions are schismatic because they refuse to acknowledge the Roman bishop as first among equals. In addition there is issues dealing with the understanding of the Trinity and other minor, but noticable differences that stem from disobedience to the Papacy.

No, not merely by the fact of heresy. But if he committed a sin of heresy he would sin by confecting the sacrament in Mortal Sin.

You can safely assume that he is validly ordained - as Father said.

This still doesn’t necessarily mean that everything that happens at a diocesan Mass is good. I would refer to Fr Robinson’s episode about “should I go to the Novus Ordo?”

In times of Lefebvre SSPX-priests told us to stay away from the novus ordo, n.o. 'priests' were re-ordained by a SSPX Bishop sub conditione. Now it seems not necessary anymore...

Contact vocations@sspx.org

Yes, as long as he intends to do what the Church does.

@@SSPX Can a non-baptized person perform a baptism?

@@calebadcock363 Sorry I know that the question was not intended for me, but yes, even a non-baptized person can baptize validly as long as he/she uses the proper matter and form with the intention to do as the church does.

You can get spanish subtitles if you click the "settings" then the "subtitles" and then the "autotranslate" button.

Do you mean like via "interdict" over a particular area? Or do you mean, e.g., "Confirmation is no longer a thing."? If the former, yes, if the latter, no. The sacraments were instituted by Christ, therefore they cannot be done away with by man, even by a validly elected pope.

True. I think that he's very handsome. 😅

And he seems to be very nice and intelligent person. God bless you Father McFarland. 🙏😊

@@ginterka381996 Yes he is very handsome lol God bless him

He's more than handsome. He's unfairly beautiful.

Do you know it is a sin to speak like that about/to the clergy? Take the beam from our eye.

#OutOfContextPodcastQuotes

@@SSPX Hah I’m angling for a job either at CNN or America Magazine… (Kidding, thanks for the wonderful show!)

@@robertcarlin4876 I laughed so much at that part lol

Yikes...!

It would be interesting to compare Anglican rites of ordination & consecration to the N.O. versions.

they are illicit.

No, because the Anglicans made changes to the ordination without the authority of the magisterium while the Church changed the ordination through the magisterium. Its not valid to compare anglicans to catholics.

At least the old Anglican Office of Holy Communion is God-centered. The N.O. is a cheap, bastardized version of that...