Crisis Series #35 w/ Fr. Loop: Must All Catholics Accept Vatican II? Is it Infallible?

In the past years - especially very recently, it has become a mandate for all Catholics to unequivocally accept all the teachings of Vatican II - as a sort of litmus test as to whether or not you’re a good Catholic. The SSPX does not accept all the teachings of Vatican II. Fr. Loop will join us to explain why - but first we’ll start with the infallibility of the Council - are all councils infallible? Can any council be infallible? Does Vatican II meet the test of being infallible? If it does, we must accept it. We’ll discuss all this next.
See the previous 34 episodes, subscribe, and please consider supporting the work of this series at sspxpodcast.com/crisis
Subscribe to the SSPX KZbin channel here:
kzbin.info...
Stay Connected on Social Media:
Twitter: / sspxen
Facebook: / sspxen
Instagram: / sspx_en
SSPX News Website:fsspx.news/en
Visit our website: sspx.org/en

[@nweb1416]

We attended our first SSPX Mass today! In the words of Fr. Altman, `It’s all I ever wanted`!

[@lauram1145]

Exactly how I felt years ago when I first attended. 😇🙌🏼🙏🏼

[@AntonEz1223]

I have the same feeling.

[@selinam8805]

Deo gratias!! The lady I work for finally came with me for the first time today also! She is actually Lutheran.

[@nomanstretton9384]

Ave Maria Gracia Plena

[@St.Augustine4006]

What is the context of Father saying those words?

[@patconnell7055]

It would be excellent if the Pope became a Catholic.

[@mab1564]

Yes, the phrase, "Is the pope Catholic?" Lost it's irony long time ago. 😭

[@russelbangot8245]

Well thats the problem because the SSPXer's Pope is not Catholic worse they mention it in the canon of thier mass.

[@Linkgt]

@@russelbangot8245 not meant to be taken literally…

[@sylvia54lobo76]

Wake up zombie. Creature in white is a gallen mafia Mason.

[@tonysaid6184]

If the "Pope" is not a Catholic then he is not a pope. Of if he is a "pope", he is a pope of a false church.

[@mariahendrickson1443]

It hurts to hear 'Catholics' criticize the SSPX. Let's pray 4 each other instead of being critical of each other. May the Lord help us all in these confusing times.. blessings

[@dobermanpac1064]

After 7 decades of Faith, I believe this in my heart, 1st, I was lied to in the sixties (setting me up for a falling away from the hierarchy of the Church, but not my Faith) Secondly, because of this I searched for years to find a place who would not betrayed me and teaches the Faith that I was formed in. So, today I’m quite comfortable participating at the Holy Mass in my SSPX Chapel. There seems to me no contradictions in what I hear today, from what I heard decades ago before VCII and the “service” of Pope Paul IV. I can only speak for myself, and believe I’m on the “narrow path”. God only knows, but today I have the Peace of Christ with me daily. God bless the Society, and it’s Priests.

[@bwhennes]

Your comment could have been written by me. I drifted out of the Church in the sixties but never stop believing in the Faith of Our Fathers. When I returned to attending Mass to be close to Our Lord in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, I drifted from one Novus Odo to another and got very little out of the service. It was when I found the Latin Mass at a SSPX Chapel did I know I was home.

[@dobermanpac1064]

@@bwhennes welcome home ✝️

[@nomanstretton9384]

Ave Maria

[@tradne85]

I wish I had a Society priest where I live. I make due with a Fraternity of Saint Peter parish, mainly as the realistic option. The only other place in town offering the Old Rite is a Sedevacantist chapel. That’s a particularly problematic option as I learned from personal experience.

[@chrisekstrom4614]

Viva CRISTO Rey!

[@steveschmidt5156]

Gentlemen: your podcasts are marvelous. You present your theses clearly, and you defend them clearly, logically and succinctly. It is no wonder the modernists detest you. They say you can judge a man by his enemies, so, Gentlemen, I applaud you. Keep up the good work.

[@thecouple4180]

To have a Pope say that V2 is a second Penticost and more important than Nicea, but then to say it was not meant to be dogmatic ... that is a tough sell. It looks to me like they were out to change to dogma and it worked

[@ilonkastille2993]

What I know is that Vatican ll was a Pastoral Council not a Dogmatic one. Only Dogmas are infallible .

[@nwg02]

Important is a broad word and “a second Pentecost” just seems like a happy feel good 60s phrase

[@louellacentina89]

Thank God we have this SSPX. Your incredible podcast makes the faithful aware and not lost Thier hope but understand what is going on 🙏💞 I was scandalized,shocked, and trembled about the inappropriate celebrations and statements regarding with what was happening inside our faith as Catholics that cannot be coverup anymore.The only consolation that is left to the faithful is that the SSPX. Is telling us what the true Teaching of God is all about.

[@aaronsomerville2124]

Calling ANYTHING a "New Pentecost" savors of blasphemy. There was one Pentecost and it was good enough for all time.

[@selinam8805]

Deo gratias!! I am so happy already knowing I have another episode to encourage and inspire me to be a true daughter of the Church!

[@swhite3883]

It’s like falling in love all over again. SSPX is the fresh air of catholic teaching that’s been missing in my life. God bless you for being there for those who have been hungry for truth and didn’t even realize it.

[@Occupied_South]

What a mess. All the council did was confuse

[@MrJking1962]

Did a lot of damage. Many souls in Hell.

[@navy4735]

a sham....total sham....malice.

[@teresaniumata2742]

Thank you Fr. I'm learning a lot by watching this SSPX Site.

[@donaldmorgan9149]

Thank you Father Loop.

[@Floridiansince94]

I am converting to Catholicism and have been looking for information to make an educated decision and today I met with the RCIA of my local church and she had no idea idea about the Catechism of Saint Pius X- her face was priceless. Then she gave me a “handbook for today’s Catholic” and in the back, of course, was printed “discusses practical ways to live the faith in the spirit of the Vatican Counsel II”. Of course I will continue studying with the Catechism book I purchased and I am going to remain in the RCIA for that local church but once I’m confirmed, I will move to a further church with traditional Latin mass. I’ve read enough to understand that Vatican II is not the way to go!

[@leshademag]

I pray you seek a sspx chapel to get the Sacraments in the traditional rite. I am catholic and wouldve prayed to have those graces and teaching from the beginning. Ill pray for you.

[@Floridiansince94]

@@leshademag thank you!!!

[@marccrotty8447]

@@Floridiansince94 Welcome home. Protestants argue over Bible interpretation. Catholics fight over the Mass and worship. LoL. Continue to read orthodox Catholic material to learn your adopted faith. Wishing you well.

[@anng.4542]

SSPX priests seem far more knowledgeable compared to many other clergy about Catholic theology and Church history, and very willing to share what they know.

[@dianneraimondi8382]

novus order priests have shockingly bad theological and philosophical knowledge. Their seminary training is atrocious!

[@TheNarrowGate101]

I’ve been recently trying to better understand the Ordinary Universal Magisterium vs. the Extraordinary Magisterium. This episode cleared it all up for me! Thank you. Love this whole series. I hope there’s notes for this episode like there has been for most of the others. I’ve been printing them off your website; they’ve been extremely helpful. Thank you to all these priests for their excellent work.

[@wondererofnature]

Thank you so much for this!

[@dlw3425]

These interviews are so well done. The teaching is comprehensive, clear, and timely. Thank you and may God reward you!

[@MrDa47ve]

Great video! God bless these millennials questioning the faith and coming up with challenges to what we all believe are errors to our precious faith!

[@ToTheeOBlessedJoseph]

I've recently had Protestants come to me and say "What is your Pope doing!!?? He's bringing down your Church!" They are also questioning whether he is Catholic and I can't defend him to them. All I can say is "I recognize the Office of the Pope and I pray for his conversion (reversion?) to the Faith."

[@tradcatveils2442]

This is an excellent video. Thank you so much!

[@laurent-8235]

thank God we have OM. thank you Fr.

[@rosannerossi6376]

All the other comments seem to repeat my thoughts. I’m so grateful to have had an open heart to bring me to the SSPX. I’m so at peace. Life is beautiful. ♥️🙏🏼☦️

[@horizon-one]

Excellent series. Educational. Thank you for producing this. It clears up so many questions. Helps one avoid the groups that have broken away from the Papacy and the Church.

[@slickmechanical]

In answer to the question "why did John XXIII and Paul VI try so hard not to define doctrine", it is mostly about approaching the problem of protestants. Imbued with thr horizontal and naturalistic mindset of the immanentist Nouvelle Theologie they saw the definitions of Trent and its condemnations as the reason that men who call themselves Christians are divided. It was precisely the action of being One Holy Catholic and Apostolic that was the offense to the protestants. So, if we simply hide or obscure that which they find offensive, they will consider reunification. Therefore there were no acts of Extrardinary Magisterium and thus they stripped out the Catholicity of thr Mass in an effort to convince protestants to reunite. It was an entirely human solution to a spiritual problem, but having the immanent mindset, the distinction between the natural and supernatural collapses and they couldn't think supernaturally. Obviously the consecration of Russia as Our Lady asked for and a condemnation of thr errors of Russia was the solution they were looking for but were offended by.

[@michaelgibbons7281]

Excellent comment.

[@arianegravenor7453]

26:55 - So shenanigans in a council is nothing new...

[@s.f.9021]

How does the SSPX decide where they set up Parishes in Canada? We will need one in the Hamilton, Ontario area if they ban the Latin mass from the diocesan parish.

[@ReadyForWhatever85]

Very vibrant mass and SSPX community in New Hamburg, ON, about 45 minutes away.

[@Sunshine-em9nr]

I wish I had known about it when I lived in Hamilton and I would not have gone astray.

[@salvageproject3778]

When one takes V2 in its entirety, it may be 90% good but 10% poison. So would you then be suggesting we try to "drink the good", and forego the bad? Only a drop of contamination makes the whole thing bad. V2 should, in my opinion be condemned.

[@SSPX]

“Bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumque defectu”. The errors in the Council vitiate the whole, as you say. How future theologians will distinguish the relative theological notes on different statements in the Council is one thing. But for us, we cannot cite as authoritative documents which are marred by a consistent subjectivism, humanism, and which contain errors touching the Faith - an SSPX priest.

[@teresamariner4238]

@@SSPX thank you!

[@teresamariner4238]

@@SSPX any chance, there might be a new SSPX Mass available in the high desert? Victorville, Hesperia, Oak Hills, Apple Valley, Adelanto? Im older, don't drive really far, and am tired of attending Novus Ordo, then coming home to watch a Tridentine Mass on my phone or tablet to truly commune with Jesus.

[@kevinphillips150]

There was no need for V2; other than for reducing the Church to the level of the average man. The teachings of the Church have been good enough for over 2k years. No need to change them. How about man educating their self to learn, know, and understand such teachings.

[@fload46d]

Hi Father Loop. Nice to see you again. Optime.

[@maryheater7620]

Just exactly WHY was the V-II council called in the first place and WHY was there such a grest need to change the Liturgy of the Mass, the Missal, and to even change the Catechism??

[@carolynkimberly4021]

There are new doctrines like all religions are on the same level as the Apostolic Catholic Church.

[@tradcatwoman476]

I am still trying to understand the arguments of some, that the new mass is valid. I’ve heard many arguments regarding this, but when we look at the council from which it was born, it’s errors and it’s humanistic, modernistic elements… we come to the mass it produces which is replete with error, deficiencies and blasphemies. How can something deficient or a clear departure from what always was, be valid. Essentially the only explanation I’ve been given is that “because the Church continues to say it is valid- so, we say it’s valid”. I find this to be fallacious and it would be a juxtaposition, to admit the errors and the deficiencies within this so called mass, the sacrilegious and blasphemous display giving rise to such scandal, and in the same breath say it’s valid. 2+2 can never be 5, no matter who says it is. Nothing that produces such a widespread loss of faith, profanation of our Blessed Lord and such irreverence can be valid. But perhaps I’ve not understood the theological argument or evidence of validity v invalidity. I’d love to hear this though. Love these videos. They are so refreshing in such times where Holy Mother Church is led by men who contradict themselves, speak ambiguously and whom create chaos and confusion. Let it be obvious to the faithful, that nothing divine or holy would be riddled with such chaos and confusion. I give thanks for the SSPX and it’s apostolate for helping so many people like me have a place where clarity and true teachings can be given. What dark times! Let us pray and do penance for these lost shepherds in these diocesan parishes who’ve been blinded in their naivety. Our Lady of Sorrows, pray for us!

[@toddfrizzell1104]

even if the new mass is valid, it's displeasing to God. Just because something is valid doesn't mean it's pleasing to God. Think of the orthodox church. their priests and masses are valid, but displeasing to God because they're separated from the Catholic church. Imagine if a priest offered the mass in a certainly valid rite (the traditional latin mass). Imagine if he did everything by the book, but he was dressed as a woman. This mass could be valid, but it would obviously be offensive to God. It would be illicit. When/ IF the new mass is valid, it's illicit. Illicit means forbidden by law, rules, or custom. So even if the new mass does have a real consecration, it would be valid but illicit. Therefore, it would be a sin to celebrate or attend the new mass just like it would be a sin to celebrate or attend an orthodox church's mass because they're both performed illicitly. The new mass is illicit because it's not Catholic and Pope Pius V infallibly declared that the Mass in the roman/latin rite could never be changed.

[@1951kvk]

Dec.1,2021. It appears that Francis will attempt to force all priests into saying the NO mass exclusively. That is his goal. This breaks my heart.

[@Liz-qf2fy]

The novel teachings of the protestants?? Now that's a kick in The Head!

[@pdstor]

An example of something NOT part of the Ordinary Magisterium given to us by the Savior but that was believed and assumed by almost all: one could point to the ancient/medieval belief that the father passed along all information about birthed persons, while the mother simply held the place where personhood began to exist (conception) and carried through to birth, but contributed nothing to children otherwise. While almost universally accepted prior to the discovery that this is indeed false, no theology depended on it whatsoever.

[@soniafell8267]

Our lord said to st Peter feed my sheep 🐑 and feed my lambs 🐑 he never said poison them. I am broken hearted with our pope and the bishops in Rome

[@happypickle4264]

So much confusion about recieving the Eucharist on the tounge even before COVID 19 and the latin mass. I know the Latin mass and recieving the Eucharist on the tounge was never banned but whats going one in churches on top the things there eyes see is just a Lord have mercy. I sure hope the things are straightened out soon to where cardinals, bishops and priests bring clarity and nourishment to the flocks. Be mindful that the tinyest piece of the Eucharist is the body off Christ and how much are we losing by recieving Eucharist in the hand without no plate in between. Oh so much more reverence, respect, inspiration, praise, thankfulness to receive the Eucharist on the tounge. Also added protecting for the Eucharist. Why bishops, priest do other wise is beyond me. The tabernacle is in different places in different churches instead of front and center everywhere. Inproper clothing or lack there of,disruptions instead of silence at mass , restlessness, rushed masses specially during consecration/ holy sacrifice of the mass. Many things in the latin mass are of great importance are being lost in the norvis ordo mass. The solution to a lot of problems could be solved by returning them to them to mass.

[@teresamariner4238]

AMEN!! I went into a Church I knew was Roman Catholic. I'd always wanted to make a Eucharistic visit there and that day was the day. There was a practice for a Hispanic sweet 15 Service. I stopped, blessed myself with holy water, hard to find, and looked toward the altar. Nothing. I spent 5 minutes going room from room, looking for the Tabernacle. I felt panic. When I finally found it, it was set up nicely and the lamp was lit so I knew Jesus was present. I dropped to my knees in front of the small altar, at the foot of the steps, bent over and cried. I felt like I had found a lost family member! I stayed that way, eyes closed, praying and talking with Jesus for about 45 minutes to an hour. I was vaguely aware of someone in vestments passing me and opening the Tabernacle, either for communion or to fill a pix, and leaving. I left joyful for for finding Him, but crushed that in this beautiful, relatively older Church, Jesus' body, blood, soul and divinity was relegated to a tiny side room. How many had stopped in and not found Him? In another Church I rarely attend, the Tabernacle is in a back, east corner of the main part of the Church. That's where I sit, next to Jesus. That's who we come to celebrate and memorialize! The Mass is the unbloody, recreation of His sufferings, passion and Death on the Cross! We should be enthralled, in a reverent manner, following the service and deep in prayer. How do you do that with Jesus stuck in the back corner?!?!? Our two older priests moved the Tabernacle out of the alcove it was in and out it back front and center behind the altar that could be moved in for Latin Tridentine Mass and pulled out for the Novus Ordo. Although we never had a Latin Mass said there it was possible. We had these wonderful priests for 10 years, after they were already semi-retired. Ad they reached their 80's one had a stroke with complications and was retired, the other worked hard with the deacons and visiting/helping priests until his health and Skin cancers began getting the better if him. He was tall, not an ounce a fat, not much meat on his bones. He was retired near the beginning of covid. Dye to covid and health issues, I have not yet net our new priests but people I know from Church are not impressed. My former daughter in law is Missouri Synod Lutheran. They believe in transubstantiation. I have attended their services because my grandson was baptized and confirmed in that Church. He says he's half Lutheran half Catholic. Unfortunately my son had issues with the church, possibly because he attended Catholic school 1st through 12th when they were teaching the "new" Catholic religion. He attended Mass with me until he moved out on his own. He'll be 48 this year and I pray daily for him to return to his faith. My grandson spoke with me the other day and he said, science was on Darwinism this month. I got a good grade because I parroted back what they said, but we really know where we and the world come from. My heart was happy. He believes the Blessed Sacrament is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus, the Messiah, the Lord. I pray he never loses it. I pray his father comes home.

[@applegd05]

The question was never answered: CAN ONE BE CATHOLIC WHILE REJECTING VATICAN II (Vatican II taken as a whole and not as separate parts)?

[@a.m.6028]

Besides Vatican II and the anti-councils, are there any other examples in Church history of failed councils? As in councils that had a disastrous effect or that just failed to accomplish their objectives? How do they help us to understand Vatican II?

[@intersabellos2482]

False councils and failed councils are two different things. You can have a valid council with bad fruits. Chalcedon caused two schisms in the Church and the 3 Chapters Controversy, an issue which was not resolved until Constantinople II. The Council of Florence failed insofar as there are still schismatic Eastern Orthodox Churches to this day, even though that council was initially thought to be successful. There is some question as to whether or not the Protestant Revolt would have been as devastating as it was had Lateran V’s reforms been properly heeded, although to me it seems unlikely there was much Lateran V’s decrees could do with the Protestant Revolt beginning the same year the council was ending. It is worth noting that even the Council of Trent was very close to being trashed before Session 17 was convened, but by the grace of God the Council Fathers decided to keep all the work accomplished in the first 16 sessions. At any rate we still have Protestantism alive and well in the 21st century, so in that respect the Council of Trent has “failed.” It is impossible to say what will happen to Vatican II because it’s a different time with unique problems. Yes, there have been Pastoral Ecumenical Councils; yes, there has been controversy and confusion following councils, but those problems existed and were solved in the past. I believe the present crises will be solved only by a future Ecumenical Council after all the hippies Modernists in the hierarchy go to their reward. That’s what has happened numerous times in Church history and it looks like it will have to happen again.

[@eb4203]

I think the Council Of Pistoria was condemned

[@vymell2379]

I would recommend Dr Alan Fimister's series (via the Sensus Fidelium channel) on the history around all the Ecumenical Councils of the Church... From Nicea to Vatican II. It's a long series but a useful listen.

[@piper_sss]

Question ; when did Saturday vigil mass begin to suffice for the Sunday obligation? In the sspx or other traditional Catholic rites, is there a Saturday vigil mass you can go to in place of Sunday morning? Thank you 🙏🏼

[@sunnyday7843]

The sspx near me has saturday evening at 5 pm and Sunday morn at 9

[@johnfisher4262]

I don’t want to speak out of turn. But I don’t believe so. My SSPX chapel has the first Saturday devotion and possibly normal daily mass on Saturday. But I don’t believe that is to fulfill your Sunday obligation.

[@teresamariner4238]

My understanding is that ONLY the pope in making a specific, new idea/teaching, or clarification in proclamation only on Faith and Morals, for example the Immaculate Conception of Mary, can speak with infallibility. Changing EVERYTHING to suit a few progressive, leftist cardinals wouldn't be, example gutting the entire Mass and other spiritual prayers and activities. If they wanted to be Lutheran then they just should have changed churches! I am Roman Catholic and that's the Church I have always attended and want to attend!

[@GeorgeMayol-vu7kh]

Second Vatican Council is not infallible. It has no dogmatic pronouncements. It is a pastoral Council. When it ended it was pronounced dogmatic.

[@troubledguest7401]

Weren't the doctrines of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception new revelations? These are not explicitly found in the Bible, are they? And if they weren't new, but were already believed by the Church, why did they need to be defined?

[@christopherus]

How do we who are not bishops know what has been passed down from the Apostles to the bishops until the bishops tell us so? Presumably, early in Church history, there were teachings that only the bishops knew of that they then taught to their flocks: at what point, then, can we be sure that we know enough to judge that the bishops are teaching something novel and not giving us doctrines that are new to us but not knew to them (OUM)?

[@nicolasjuandecardenas7921]

For what reason, or why has V2 become a litmus test for the modern clergy?

[@themoderncatholicwarrior7216]

If you go to 39:20 in the video, he gives a quote from Pope Paul VI General Audience 12th January 1966 which says, “There are those who wonder what the authority, the theological qualification, that the Council wanted to attribute to its teachings, knowing that it avoided giving solemn dogmatic definitions, engaging the infallibility of the ecclesiastical magisterium. And the answer is known to those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated November 16, 1964: given the pastoral character of the Council, it avoided uttering dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility” But he left out this part, “but it nevertheless provided its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium which ordinary and so obviously authentic magisterium must be accepted docilely and sincerely by all the faithful, according to the mind of the Council about the nature and aims of the individual documents.” So the very quote he used to claim that Paul VI says you don't have to follow Vatican 2 actually says all Catholics have to follow. it.

[@SSPX]

Yes, that’s the rest of that quote. But directly after in the video, Father explains how it’s impossible for all of Vatican II to be part of the Ordinary Magisterium.

[@66605]

@@SSPX Who judges what belongs to the Ordinary Magisterium? God left he pope and bishops in union with him to decide this. M. Lefebvre signed all the documents so he didn't believe anything was contrary to the faith at the council.

[@jokerlaughirl7484]

@@66605 he didn’t sign all of the documents. Don’t spread this misinformation.

[@bemasamoje]

Could you help me with the translation you offered for Gal 1:9? I don't see the word Tradition appearing there?

[@nicolasjuandecardenas7921]

How do we deal with ALL previous councils?

[@Master-Jollibeero]

Hi SSPX News, can I still have the sacrament of reconciliation and confirmation in the novus ordo church? Are they still valid?

[@slickmechanical]

The position of the SSPX is that they're possibly valid. If the priest intends to forgive your sins and says the words of absolution, you are absolved. Confirmation is a trickier thing and the SSPX regularly do conditional confirmations for those who received them in the NO. I myself was conditionally confirmed by them.

[@therealtoni]

If this was outside the magisterium why did it spread everywhere so fast and so thoroughly????

[@juliesmith2001]

I have tried multiple times to post this episode to Face Book and am not able to...censorship?

[@SSPX]

Not censorship. Maybe try sharing this? Probably easier... facebook.com/SSPXEN/posts/4264990020244623

[@lilleong5741]

@@SSPX Thanks. l shared that with some friends for their own discernment. Hallelujah! Praise the Lord! Hail Mary! Hail St Joseph! Amen 🙏🏻 🌈

[@tertia0011]

' §3. to establish at the designated locations the days on which eucharistic celebrations are permitted using the Roman Missal promulgated by Saint John XXIII in 1962. [7] In these celebrations the readings are proclaimed in the vernacular language, using translations of the Sacred Scripture approved for liturgical use by the respective Episcopal Conferences' Traditionis Custodes This article abrogates Latin language as a vehicle for the proclamation of the Word of God - including the Gospel reading - during the Liturgy of the Mass. That is indeed very sad.

[@randomguy2584]

Council of Trent Session 22, Chapter 9, Cannon 9 Canon 9: If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; OR THAT MASS OUGHT TO BE CELEBRATED IN THE VERNACULAR TOUNGE ONLY;[28] or that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice because it is contrary to the institution of Christ,[29] let him be anathema. This is clearly Ex Cathedra...

[@ryanEstandarte]

So can I safely say that we can reject those "items" in Vatican 2 which are contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church without any concern or worry that we have sinned?

[@SSPX]

Yes

[@ryanEstandarte]

@@SSPX Thank you!!!

[@critter9857]

Stay to the true Magestirium, read the Bible daily. God's words are truth and never change

[@guadalupefestival]

So y'all have any in Spanish? I know I can auto translate but just wondering.... thank you!

[@Niklaus777]

"Normal Catholics"? What that makes traditional Catholics? I understand Andrew's hesitation that got him into that... And it should be clarify by the FSSPX. What means to be Catholic? It is Vatican II and Novus Ordo Catholic? It is the same religion? I think the Archbishop was much clearer about it: It is a different religion.

[@SSPX]

It was tongue in cheek. Not meant literally or seriously. Hence the air quotes. 😉 -A

[@Master-Jollibeero]

@@SSPX , hi can I still take the sacrament of reconciliation and the sacrament of confirmation in the Novus Ordo Church, are this still valid sacraments in the novus ordo church? Since it's the only one near by us where my family lived. And the sspx are 2 to 3 hours drive from us.

[@elizabethdarley8646]

@@SSPX I have to admit that my mental health affects how fast I take things in and ruminate but I find it easier to understand when a speaker says "Quote" and makes it clear or says " This is what .....said on this..". I find it difficult when a speaker seems to be a devil's advocate. I then have to twist it back to realise that this is the 'enemy' talking, not the priest!

[@patconnell7055]

I didn,t think the Pope was infalable in everything he did?

[@joeleroy5355]

He is not.

[@tonysaid6184]

Does the SSPX believe that the Council of Trent was infallible? Here is what the Council of Trent says about the absolute necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation. Pope Paul III: “If anyone shall say that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, Canon 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism) Does the SSPX believe and teach this? No: they teach that the Sacrament of Baptism is not necessary for salvation. That salvation is possible for any person practicing a non-Catholic religion who lives and dies in it. This is what Archbishop Lefebvre believed and taught in two of his books. Archbishop Lefebvre believed and taught, as his Society still does, that a person living and remaining till death in a false religion can be saved by the so-called "baptisms of desire and blood". again without the Sacrament of Baptism, and of course without professing the Catholic Faith. The Athanasian Creed: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless EACH ONE preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.” The Profession of Faith of the Council of Trent: “This faith of the Catholic Church, without which NO ONE can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold.” Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, UNLESS THEY ARE JOINED TO THE CHURCH BEFORE THE END OF THEIR LIVES; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that ONLY those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation nor are fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that NOBODY can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms AND EVEN IF HE HAS SHED HIS BLOOD FOR THE NAME OF CHRIST, unless he has preserved in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” The SSPX, following their founder, does NOT accept the above infallibly defined doctrines. So are they Catholic? They also teach that a manifest and public heretic (notorious in fact) who does not repent can/does retain the papal office and the universal jurisdiction attached to it. Is this what the Church teaches? St. Robert Bellarmine, "De Romano Pontifice", Book 2, Chap. 30: “... a manifestly heretical Pope AUTOMATICALLY ceases to be the Pope and the head just as he automatically ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church, and that for this reason he may be judged and punished by the Church. This is the judgment of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics IMMEDIATELY lose all jurisdiction...” Pope Leo XII, Satis Cognitum "Finally, some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only IN the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life." Archbishop Lefebvre believed and taught that "men can be saved IN non-Catholic religions, but not by them."

[@0r14n583lt]

I’m a bit confused about all of this. If Vatican 2 was pastoral and not doctrinal, why is it being used as a loyalty test? Nothing out of it was supposed to be doctrinally binding. Am I wrong about this?

[@johnfisher4262]

Nope you got it right. They’re trying to make binding a council full of errors which cannot be binding by definition. Only truth is binding and truth cannot contain error.

[@KristiLEvans1]

Paul VI said that about VII, as re: Nicea??? 😳🤯😵‍💫

[@marykenner5199]

Did the pope speak “ex-cathedral” during Vatican II?

[@bruhidk3069]

no

[@blueskygal255]

I think this latest wound is opening the door to the end times and the return of Christ Our King. BTW, today is the feast of Christ the King. There is reason for joy and celebration. At least I think. We are being freed from the Church of the antiChrist.

[@thomascaminito3252]

Some of your statements about Ephesus II (449) are factually inaccurate: 1. St. Dioscorus was the archbishop of Alexandria, not Constantinople. 2. Ephesus II was not "called" by St. Disocorus - it was convened by order of the emperor Theodosius; the archbishops of Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Caesarea were all requested by the emperor to preside jointly over the council. 3. Lastly, non-Chalcedonians do, indeed, believe in the full humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ, not that He is "simply divine," as you put it.

[@billveek9518]

There's been no "Litmus test"? Now I love the sspx but don't start making up stuff out of whole cloth to bolster your position. There may be some fools stating that position but in 67 years as a Catholic I've never heard that being pushed at my parish.

[@sondre9056]

First. I like you videos, your society and I believe in history SSPX will get honor in pointing out some errors and keeping traditions and especially TLM alive. That said! At min 49 until 51 or something, you are taking a quote from Pope Paul II. And claiming he admits there is new doctrine. But I think you are reading it wrong. When he says ",perhaps because they are new", he is referring to the "depths of the teachings of second Vatican council". Its a though sentence. But "in point of" could also mean "with regards to". So what Pope Paul II really is talking to are the liberals. He says that a lot of people do not understand the depths of teachings of the 2. VC, regardingg doctrine, maybe because they are new(the teachings). And by doing so, PP II is claiming that IF you are true to the Faith one could take the new pastoral teachings, and continue in line with the Church doctrine, do good works. But alot of people, pastors, priests, with good and bad intentions, took the new teachings and did not use them in line with set Doctrines. I might be wrong. Been known to be it. But this was something I had to comment. Because, you are doing a great job. Would be a misfortune if started seeng ghosts in daylight, and read into things.

[@SSPX]

While amplitudo and altitudo are both feminine and singular, and in principle "quae, cum… novae sint" could mean in principle that the breadth and depth were new, that’s not the context here. It’s very clear in the Latin: "for the breadth and the depth of the precepts of the second Vatican council demand renewed zeal of investigation, by which (zeal) the perpetuity of the Council - one with Tradition - may be entirely illuminated, particularly ("potissimum") in those parts of doctrine ("in iis doctrinae partibus") which - perhaps since they are new ("quae, cum fortasse novae sint") have not yet been well understood by certain portions of the church ("nondum bene a quibusdam Ecclesiae portionibus intellectae sunt.") "Novae sint" - they are new- goes with "parts of doctrine". But for parts of doctrine as whole to be new, means there are new doctrines, parts of the whole.

[@ryanautrey2269]

20:00 we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that • when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, • in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, • in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, • he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable. Which of those conditions are not met by Vatican II? All of them were met, if Paul VI were a true Pope. So, if he was a true Pope, Vatican I would be proven wrong. Let's keep Vatican I, and admit that no TRUE Pope could've implemented a false religion (i.e. modernism).

[@ryanautrey2269]

I know, Paul VI *says* one thing about ~solemn~ dogmatic pronouncements, but he *did* another. Doctrine was defined. The authority was given. It's an attempt to undermine the truth of Vatican I, and it's still working. If we believe Paul VI was Pope, we can longer take Vatican I to mean what it really used to mean.

[@jackiywalsh1246]

God had a great revival in.Catholic Church in 1970s Charasmatic revival started in Duquesne university and spread around world All gifts from early church was present We spoke on tongues gave prophesy laid hands on and healed I still have these gifts church was not accept Priests would hide in back of church during our meetings I pray to God. That he allows this generation is given another vhsnce Listen to what your saying. You are not rbrb aware of this movement

[@jackiywalsh1246]

No

[@jackiywalsh1246]

Ml I’m

[@Dave-wu5ic]

New Pentecost = New New Covenant(Law) = the church joining the Revolution of the beast(2Th2:3-4) = "changing the times & the laws(Dan7:25) Kingdom of Christ vs. Kingdom of the Beast(Rev11&17) Law of Christ vs. Law of antichrist Jesus Christ rule vs. beast rule by Satan St Augustine, City of God

[@selinam8805]

1st view? 1st comment? 1st like?

[@mab1564]

Father Loop sounds exactly like Alec Baldwin 😅

[@0604asima]

Fr. Loop, who is the head of the Catholic Church, is it the media, or you or the Pope, are you all dividing the church according to your likes and dislikes, i think Islam is the best religion to practice, at least, Islam has not been reformed nor modernized, but, Catholisim has had so many changes, that, it's become a religion more for the priest and bishops of the USA, nothing left for the faithful.

[@Desert-Father]

There is a false dichotomy being taught by this video, namely that ‘if a teaching of the Church is possibly fallible, I do not have to follow it.’ Just because an official teaching of the Church does not carry with it the mark of infallibility, we as Catholics are not at liberty to publicly reject the teachings of an Ecumenical Council. Which is what the video says here 53:45 and here 55:12. Ordinary Magisterium on faith and morals, which has not been solemnly judged or proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, and therefore does not carry the mark of infallibility, nonetheless still requires the religious assent of Catholics. Religious Assent requires religious submission of the will and intellect at least in one's public statements. This is not limited to just solemn dogmatic statements as the video seems to imply, but to Ordinary Magisterium teachings on faith, morals, discipline and governance of the Church, promulgated by the Pope and the Bishops united with him. It would be an imprudent mistake to imply (as the video seems to) that because something has not been taught infallibly, it is optional for Catholics to follow. This is not the case. The degree of authority with which the Magisterium has been taught must be recognized. The degree of the authority "becomes clear from the nature of the documents, the insistence with which the teaching is repeated, and the very way in which it is expressed" (Donum Veritatis, 1990, CDF Prefect Card. Joseph Ratzinger (P. Ben. XVI). The video quotes Vatican I’s Pastor Aeternus, the First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ. But it seems to have overlooked the following part from Chapter 3, Section 2: “Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and moral, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.” Further on it states, “And therefore we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that this communication of the supreme head with pastors and flocks may be lawfully obstructed”. Concluding with this anathematized statement, “So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the DISCIPLINE AND GOVERNMENT of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ORDINARY AND IMMEDIATE both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the PASTORS AND FAITHFUL: let him be ANATHEMA.” (emphasis added) Thus, changing the accidents of the liturgy are not “ultra vires” of the supreme pontiff for his jurisdiction is universal and his power immediate. The video also quotes Pope St. John Paul II in Ecclesia Dei, but it fails to quote the part which pertains to the duty of the faithful, laity and clergy, regarding the SSPX’s canonical status. “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.” (emphasis added) This “grave duty” has never been abrogated by the Church. Both Pastor Aeternus and Eccelsia Dei should be kept in mind.

[@saintchadofmercia680]

They deal with this objections in following videos. Long story short when something clearly violates previous church teachings it does not require religious assent.

[@stlouisix3]

If you believe the Vatican II anti-popes are popes, then you've got to believe in the new Vatican II religion for consistency's sake.

[@stlouisix3]

If you don't agree, let's debate

[@raychandler2757]

Obeying the Pontiff when you want to and disobeying when you want to seems like an absurd position by the SSPX.

[@SSPX]

As it's made clear in this video and preceding ones, it's not about "wanting to."

[@raychandler2757]

@@SSPX proceed with your reasoning....

[@SSPX]

Absolutely! We'll have more episodes coming!

[@aloyalcatholic5785]

@@SSPX I like a lot of what the SSPX says. But a stumbling block is saying the Novus Ordo is bad or evil and must avoided no matter what. Perhaps that a wrong characterization on my part but I’ve come away with that idea. Also the idea that since Vatican 2 allows for rights of people and therefore says heresy like Islam has rights - I don’t believe this is correct to say. A big issue that I might be breaking the union with Christ’s vicar and that myself and my family would imbibe a Sedevacantist tendency and set into a schismatic tendency over time. I see a lot of the problems that are laid out in the series but I’m having difficulty to reconcile breaking union potentially when there seems to be such a lack of consensus of understanding in regard to canon law. It weighed on my conscience while attempting an SSPX chapel. It’s distressing situation because I thought I had clarity but I feel confused by what is happening. Please point me to some resources and I ask for your prayers. I do like the SSPX but I still have unresolved questions

[@anthonytan7134]

I also holding the same opinion as you about SSPX, like their following statement ( min 54:54) 1. Vatican II NOT AT all part of UOM, by DEFINITION ! but.... 2. Some of it YES, but................... But let them have the benefit of doubts to explain their position. Their previous episode # 34 re sedevacantism also has "weak" arguments, but I would say that this is a very difficult subject to tackle. Gbu

[@sophietyrrell3131]

DO NOT FOLLOW MEN. SAY GOOD BUY TO CATHOLICISM AS I DID 48 YEARS AGO. U ARE ACCOUNTABLE TO GOD, NOT MEN. HOLY SPIRIT IS OUR GUIDE

[@mmccrownus2406]

The Pope et al are as infallible as Peter.

[@anng.4542]

Only in very special circumstances. And not when they teach ideas that are contrary to what Jesus taught, and the Magisterium.

[@carolynkimberly4021]

Question concerning the SSPX. You were not given a mission by the Church. So in setting yourselves up as a good but separate ecclesiastical entity, you are on the outside of the Church?

[@ryanautrey2269]

The SSPX were established canonically, approved by François Charrière the Bishop of Lausanne, Geneva and Fribourg in Switzerland. They were never canonically suppressed.

[@MattWrotny]

Everything the SSPX does is justified on the principle of legitimate self-defense. No ecclesiastical authority can compell a Catholic to compromise or reject the faith. All the SSPX does is hold fast to orthodoxy, pass on tradition, and resist modernism. There is no crime in that. This series explains the crisis in the Church, and the position of the SSPX logically follows.

[@KB-jd8tl]

SSPX was given a probationary period that was never renewed.

[@PraytheRosaryEveryDay]

The founding of the SSPX was canonical. That gave the SSPX the mission that all of the orders have, to teach, to convert and to spread the Faith, but ONLY the true Faith. If not for Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX, we would not now have the Mass of All Time or the Sacraments undefiled. The FSSP was begun by former SSPX priests who betrayed the Archbishop, broke their vows to the SSPX and agreed, OFFICIALLY to say the Novus Ordo Mass on occasion, that the Novus Ordo Mass was en par with the Mass of All Time and that they accepted ALL of Vatican II. And no matter what those priests say from the pulpit (and that may change post haste) that is the official postion of the FSSP and always has been. They are compromisers of the Faith, objectively speaking.

[@MattWrotny]

@@PraytheRosaryEveryDay actually they were never required to say the novus ordo. They were only required to recognize it as valid and licit. They were founded on the basis of the May 5 protocol, which Archbishop Lefebvre signed but later rejected. The basic position of the FSSP is that the new rite is a failed liturgical experiment, and they offer the traditional roman rite exclusively. They are allies, not enemies. Unite the clans.

[@nz3901]

This illustrates why the SSPX is at best schismatic, at worst heretical, full of smug arrogance and literally thinking it is “more catholic than the pope”.

[@anng.4542]

Father's review of Catholic theology and Church history may seem unfamiliar if your only exposure to the Catholic church is the watered-down approach popularized since Vatican II. But that does not make what he's saying "heretical".