Crisis Series #36: How Can an Infallible Church Teach Error?

Today we’re joined by Fr. MacGillivray to ask one question: How is it that the Church, which is supposed to be indefectible, can give us a rite of worship, the Novus Ordo Mass, which is, at the least, problematic, if not defective? We won’t be able to answer this specifically today, since this question opens up many other questions we need to answer first, namely, how can the Church, through an ecumenical council, promulgate errors? We saw this a bit last week, but we’ll go into more detail. Then we’ll begin to look at whether or not the Church can be infallible in its discipline - which is where the Liturgy falls. So we’ll finish today’s episode by looking at what theologians say about the infallibility of liturgical discipline.
Next week, we’ll wrap up the conversation by looking at the magisterium of the Church, and then briefly touch on the infallibility of canonizations.
See the previous 35 episodes, subscribe, and please consider supporting the work of this series at sspxpodcast.com...
Subscribe to the SSPX KZbin channel here:
www.youtube.co...
Stay Connected on Social Media:
Twitter: / sspxen
Facebook: / sspxen
Instagram: / sspx_en
SSPX News Website:fsspx.news/en
Visit our website: sspx.org/en

[@haroldkurowski7882]

I'm amazed that we have these wonderful Bishops and Priests of the SSPX to watch our backs. Without them we would be lost. Please keep up the good work and we will be praying for all of you.

[@chatosoriano8644]

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre is the best candidate to sainthood. God bless his soul. Thanks to SSPX for preserving the TLM. 🙏🙏🙏

[@Liz-qf2fy]

There's no such thing as being a candidate for sainthood, all believers in Christ are saints.

[@klaunwelt4404]

God bless the Society. I am so grateful that I found them.

[@dianewoodson9025]

Everything LeFebre did during his life as a Priest and etc must continue to be carried out today as so many are valiantly doing today Keep it coming

[@20kcurtis]

Thank you again for this whole series. It’s amazing how much time and effort you all have put into these episodes. I’m learning so much.

[@horizon-one]

God bless the SSPX. So grateful for them. I believe SSPX is the work of Christ for the devoted, practicing Catholic who knows the Faith well.

[@MyRobertallen]

'By ye fruits .... The empty pews of the post-conciliar Church- not to mention the hideous clerical abuse scandal- speak volumes about the NO's spiritual bankruptcy. 'Geez, dad, they really dumbed it down.' My 16 year old son as we were driving away from our 1st TLM. Thank you SO much, sweet Jesus, for leading us to Tradition. And God bless the SSPX for keeping It alive. Amen.

[@kimberlyriddell8574]

Thank you Father MacGillivray

[@jogobonito1234]

God bless Archbishop Lefèbvre and true believers.

[@joebombero1]

It is like a new Dean of the Math department suddenly declaring all answers to math problems are equally correct, depending on the conscience of the student. It doesn't change the truth Math represents. It doesn't mean that Math as a system of truth will not still exist separate from this crazy Dean and his bizarre Math department. The truth is still the truth, no matter what percentage of people may disagree with it.

[@paisley293]

Beginning @24:15 and following, Fr. MacGillivray lays out the parameters about infallibility and the SSPX's positon. Excellent video! Thank-you!

[@myrnacastro9381]

At 17:10 - I believe that what AB Lefebvre did was God's way of intervening to save the Church.

[@TheGringoSalado]

This one is of central importance

[@donaldmorgan9149]

Thank you for another great episode.

[@dobermanpac1064]

Fabulous podcast. Opening many doors and shining light on the workings of the Church. God bless the Society. ✝️

[@Dwijhaixuj]

Thanks for the videos!!!

[@MrJking1962]

The Magisterium or the Church is like a choir of Popes. Clearly the last few are singing out of tune.

[@feaokautai7354]

Praise God SSPX for defending TRUTH-JESUS CHRIST against compromises of the doctrinal essence of our Catholicism by Shepherds. Praise God for Leberve's faithful, Spiritual & Intellectual sound reasoning, Physical, Emotional and psychological standing against yoyo, hesitancy of our current leaders in different parts of the world.

[@AlanSextonVT]

Thank you, Fr. MacGillivray, and may God bless you and the SSPX. You have absolutely nailed these issues and provided clarity we faithful hunger for. Sadly, there is no SSPX readily accessible for me yet I would do whatever I humanly could to change this.

[@arthurdevain754]

I once overheard a very learned layman speaking on the phone with someone who must have been a SeVac who was reciting an entire litany of errors and other non-popelike things that Paul VI and John Paul II had done. He responded to the SeVac, "I agree with everything you have said, but I cannot agree with your conclusion. No human currently breathing has the power or authority to declare that the Pope is not the Pope. Not you, and certainly not the Priest you are listening to!"

[@apisDei]

Another fantastic episode.

[@doodlebug1685]

Thank you! Just in time for Sunday 🍿🥳

[@530jazzercise]

22:26 “…agreeing when he’s regained the papacy”…whoever announces from the loggia that ++Lefebre will be “subito santo”

[@laurent-8235]

thank you Fr.

[@prayrosary5472]

If I may say: it gives one great Consolation to hear/know that Sound, orthodox, Traditionally Educated Priests are "On Duty" and we have NOT been left to the Wolves!!! Praise and Thanks be to God Most High, Most High!!! 🙏Amen!!!

[@carolynkimberly4021]

Excellent

[@debbiedouglas5516]

The argument at around the 20 minute mark is another good argument for Benedict being the true Pope. Oh how I wish the SSPX would declare they BELIEVE Benedict is and has been since 2005 the true Pope. This fixes most everything as we can confidently ignore everything that Bergoglio says and does.

[@KMF3]

But it doesn't fix everything from John 23

[@thecouple4180]

It looks to me that we are dealing with catastrophic failures. I appreciate your loyalty to our Lord, but I do not see how your position is compatible with Vatican I. But I will listen to you all some more. Thank you for sharing this interesting discussion 👍

[@christopherus]

Question: If disciplinary infallibility at the level of the O&U Magisterium requires that the practice be performed always, everywhere, by all; and We acknowledge that even every dogma has not necessarily been accepted literally by ALL (hence, the need for some extraordinary magisterial acts and the need for the word “heretic”) so that the concept of acceptance “always, everywhere, by all” does not literally mean at all times and in all places and by every individual; And We acknowledge that the Novus Ordo Missae has been accepted by nearly the entire Church, Then Are we required to accept the Novus Ordo Missae as falling under the ordinary and universal magisterium? What distinction would prevent that conclusion? Or, which premise is incorrect? Or, how is this logic invalid?

[@terrylm235]

The Siri Thesis best explains what has happened since Pius X's death.

[@TheManGadoosh]

Question: if the highest law and mission of the Church is the salvation of souls, how can the Church give us a Mass which is harmful to souls and still claim the Church hasn't defected? thanks in advance.

[@chadhorton5879]

The Mass can't be evil or even deficient The new "Mass" was concocted by at least one Freemason and protestants. That fact alone should be enough to convince us it is not a valid Catholic Mass.The New "Mass" is promulgated in every diocese of the Catholic world by the "pope" & every "bishop" under the "pope" in unanimous agreement. If it truly came from the Catholic Church and is promulgated by true Popes, then it is not possible that it could be evil or even deficient or harmful/dangerous for my soul. The Mass falls under the discipline of the Church, and it is absolutely, positively, 100% INFALLIBLE. The Nouvs Ordo Missae is evil. But the Catholic Mass **can't** be evil. See below: “If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, Session 22, Canon 7; Denz. 954) The Council of Trent here anathematizes all who say the Novus Ordo Missae is evil or deficient AND is at the same time promulgated by true popes of the Catholic Church. ".. this is a matter of recognizing the power (of this See), (...) not only in what pertains to faith, but also in what concerns discipline. He who denies this is a heretic; he who recognizes this and obstinately refuses to obey is worthy of anathema." P. Pius IX “If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, Session 22, Canon 7; Denz. 954) “Certainly the loving Mother [the Church] is SPOTLESS in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors.” (Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis, n. 66) “…as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even DANGEROUS and HARMFUL and leading to superstition and materialism.” (Pope Pius VI, Bull Auctorem Fidei, n. 78; Denz. 1578) “[T]he discipline sanctioned by the Church must NEVER BE REJECTED or be branded as contrary to certain principles of natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the rights of the Church and her ministers are embraced.” (Pope Gregory XVI, Encyclical Mirari Vos, n. 9; underlining added.) “The Church’s infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church… By the term ‘general discipline of the Church’ are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living… The imposing of commands belongs not directly to the teaching office but to the ruling office; disciplinary laws are only indirectly an object of infallibility, i.e., only by reason of the doctrinal decision implicit in them. When the Church’s rulers sanction a law, they implicitly make a twofold judgment: 1. ‘This law squares with the Church’s doctrine of faith and morals’; that is, it imposes nothing that is at odds with sound belief and good morals. This amounts to a doctrinal decree. 2. ‘This law, considering all the circumstances, is most opportune.’ This is a decree of practical judgment.” (Mgr. Gerard van Noort, Dogmatic Theology, vol. 2, Christ’s Church; underlining added.) “The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as LITURGY and RUBRICS, or the administration of the sacraments…. If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible.” (Jean Herrmann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 1, p. 258; The catechism called the Exposition of Christian Doctrine from the Brothers of the Christian Schools teaches that the Church's infallibility extends to E) Upon the statutes of a religious order, upon general discipline, and upon the LITURGY, F) And upon points of human science which are related to dogma." Sacrae Theologiae Summa: The secondary objects of infallibility include but are not limited to: 704. 1.) Disciplinary decrees are in general: ... b) liturgical, which are prescribed to order divine worship and the administration of holy things." G. Van Noort in his Tractatus De Ecclesia Christi (1932) says the secondary object of infallibility "pertains specifically to...the general discipline of the church..." The catechism called the Exposition of Christian Doctrine from the Brothers of the Christian Schools teaches that the Church's infallibility extends to E)... upon general discipline, and upon the liturgy..." When we think about the Novus Ordo, the SSPX, and perhaps even some affiliated with the FSSP believe it is illicit to attend the N.O. They are correct in this, but they are incorrect in believing this while simultaneously believing the Pope who promulgates it can also be a valid Pope. otherwise by what logic can they tell Novus adherents they can't attend a "Mass" promulgated by who they both believe is a true Pope? That would make them the Pope's superior. In addition to the aforemnetioned contradiction of Church teaching.

[@dibaiavina1206]

I want to worship in Truth and in Spirit...

[@Liz-qf2fy]

It is a commemorative meal

[@carolvsfelixchevalley9138]

But Paul VI (legitimately elected pope who committed his authority to the Second Vatican Council) said that the Council, while not having committed the extraordinary charism of infallibility, had nevertheless taught a "clearly true" magisterium. Pastorality does not mean Fallibility. At least this is not said by Catholic doctrine. A few years ago Msgr. Fellay said that the SSPX does not say that the Council professed error directly, but removed the barrier and allowed the error to manifest itself without sanctions and even encouraging it with ambiguity. Wouldn't it be more prudent to take this position, my brothers?

[@SSPX]

1. “Pastorality does not mean fallibility.” The word “pastoral” can have various senses. In Vatican II, it is used to mean prudential, disciplinary, non-dogmatic, and non-infallible. All of those descriptives are taken as basically synonymous. An example is found in Roberto de Mattei’s history of Vatican II: “The second notification concerned the ‘theological note,’ or degree of authority, that must be assigned to the schema on the Church, as it was submitted for the final vote. On this point, Bishop Felici confirmed that the council did not have a doctrinal, but rather a pastoral character, and its teaching should not be considered as a dogma or an infallible definition, but should be accepted as issuing from the supreme magisterium of the Church. (The Second Vatican Council: an Unwritten Story, ch. 5, n. 14). Between infallible and fallible, there is no middle ground. It does not matter that Paul VI refers to the teaching of Vatican II as “clearly true.” Would you expect him to say otherwise? This does not make the council infallible. 2. “A few years ago Msgr. Fellay said that the SSPX does not say that the Council professed error directly, etc.” I don’t know if this is a direct quotation or a paraphrase. In any case, the SSPX has always held that some documents of Vatican II contain statements that are not just ambiguous, but truly erroneous, and in direct contradiction with previous statements of the magisterium. - There is the assertion in Lumen Gentium that bishops receive jurisdiction immediately from God at their episcopal consecration, which is directly contrary to what Pius XII had taught, namely, that they receive it through the Pope when he gives them a canonical mission. - There is also the assertion of Dignitatis Humanae that man has the natural right to follow even an objectively erroneous conscience in religious matters, not only privately, but publicly, so that any form of religious coercion on the part of the state (such as preventing a false religion from engaging in public proselytism) is a violation of this natural right. Pius IX says exactly the opposite in Quanta Cura and by the condemnation of certain propositions in his Syllabus of Errors. We don’t claim that Vatican II contains errors out of some vague antipathy for the participants, but out of an objective reading of the content of these documents. No one has been able to directly refute our claims in this matter. 3. “Wouldn't it be more prudent to take this position, my brothers?” Prudence would indicate guides us in doubtful matters. This is not a doubtful matter. In Christ, Fr. William MacGillivray | FSSPX

[@carolvsfelixchevalley9138]

@@SSPX Thanks for the reply. Well, I too have reservations about the texts of Vatican II ("Lumen Gentium", "Dignitatis Humanae", "Nostra Aetate"). But beyond the letter (which may eventually be revised), I believe it is impractical to accuse a Catholic council, pastoral or otherwise, of heresy. The thesis according to which the pastorality of Vatican II excludes doctrinal inerrancy belongs to theologians and historians, albeit eminent, such as Msgr. Gherardini and Roberto de Mattei, but it is a theological hypothesis, not a certainty, because the popes who summoned Vatican II did not understand the Council in this sense. Paul VI called it "clearly true". I'm sorry, I understand and share your reservations about religious freedom, ecumenism, etc. But I cannot believe that a council proclaimed inerrant by the authority of the Church can be heretical. Furthermore, all post-conciliar popes have been made saints. I know that changes to the canonization processes must be taken into account. But the miracles are there. I have some criticisms to make of the pontificate of John XXIII. But the testimony of the nun healed by him is moving and I could never, ever declare it false. If they have worked miracles, how can they be declared heretics?

[@SSPX]

“I believe it is impractical to accuse a Catholic council, pastoral or otherwise, of heresy…I cannot believe that a council proclaimed inerrant by the authority of the Church can be heretical.” Our claim is that some texts of Vatican II contain error, because some statements of Vatican II are logically in opposition to previous magisterial teaching. Not every error is a heresy. Only the direct denial of a divinely revealed truth is heresy. Some errors are not directly opposed to a revealed truth, but to a “theological conclusion” that is based on revealed truth. Such errors are not heresies in the strict sense, but errors in theology. Whether Vatican II contains real heresies, or only errors, is debatable. For example, Garrigou-Lagrange in his preconciliar work De Revelatione (on Revelation) qualifies the error of religious liberty in this manner: “if it is not a heresy, it is a theological error…for it goes against a necessary and certain application of the principals of faith-indeed, even of reason” (De Revelatione, 2° editio [1921], vol. 2 p. 425). More importantly, to judge a text is not the same as to judge a person, or a collectivity of persons. We don’t attempt to denounce John XXIII, Paul VI or anyone else as heretics. We simply judge the texts themselves of the Council in the light of Tradition. This judgment of the texts is independent of subjective considerations, such as what was the personal understanding or intent of this or that council Father, or even of the Popes in promulgating them. What matters most is, what is the obvious and natural meaning of the words? If their natural meaning is not in conformity with Tradition, the texts must be revised. Vatican II has not been proclaimed inerrant by the authority of the Church-at least, not in such a way as to preclude any possibility of error. Paul VI’s statement that Vatican II is “clearly true” does not preclude all possibility of error. In fact, none of the ecumenical councils of the Church was infallible down to every last detail. Theologians distinguish between those statements in an ecumenical council which are given in the manner of a solemn definition, and those which are simply asserted without any special solemnity, anathemas, or other indication of the intention to define. Only solemn definitions are in themselves infallible; other statements may contain errors. Toward non-infallible declarations of the Church’s magisterium, we owe a religious assent of the mind; but that assent is not unconditional. When there are grave reasons to suspect error, that assent may be withdrawn interiorly, and even exteriorly if the error is detrimental to faith or morals. See the case, for example, of Auxilius of Naples, which may be found in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

[@SSPX]

“The thesis according to which the pastorality of Vatican II excludes doctrinal inerrancy…is a theological hypothesis, not a certainty.” On the contrary, it is the common teaching of theologians that only those statements in an ecumenical council that are the object of a solemn definition are, in themselves, infallible (see, for example, the quotation of St. Robert Bellarmine given in the course of the podcast). The “pastorality” of Vatican II simply means that there was no intention to issue extraordinary or solemn definitions, as pope John XXIII stated at the beginning of the council, and Paul VI at the end. When the theologians and historians that you have referenced (Gherardini, de Mattei) speak of Vatican II’s fallibility, they do not speak hypothetically as of something doubtful or tenuous, but they speak absolutely as of something that is clear and morally certain. “…the popes who summoned Vatican II did not understand the Council in this sense [as non-infallible].” On the contrary, see the opening and closing speeches of the Council, in which Popes John XXIII and Paul VI plainly declared the absence of any intention to solemnly define doctrine. Only after the Council did Vatican II begin to be regarded as a “super-dogma,” or, in the words of Paul VI writing to Archbishop Lefebvre, “even greater than Nicea.” This is at best an exaggeration. “All post-conciliar popes have been saints.” “Saints” indeed!-but of a very different mold than we are used to. What preconciliar saint would have kissed the Koran, or allowed a statue of Buddha to be placed on top of the tabernacle and given idolatrous worship, as John-Paul II allowed at Assisi in 1986? What saintly popes have encouraged the Church to go down a path of “auto-destruction”?

[@SSPX]

“But the miracles are there…If they have worked miracles, how can they be declared heretics?” Our intention is not to declare them heretics, but to say that they are not models of heroic virtue. It is highly doubtful that they have worked any genuine miracles, whether in life or after death. To verify a miracle, it is necessary to ascertain its historical truth, known through the testimony of reliable eye-witnesses; and also its philosophical truth, meaning that the effect is in no way attributable to human cleverness, to chance, to the ordinary workings of nature, or even to preternatural, demonic influences. Modernists tend to downplay the philosophical truth of miracles. Many hold that a direct intervention of God, bypassing the laws of nature, is unthinkable or at least undetectable (see Pascendi), and they systematically try to explain away any recorded instances of miracles as strictly natural occurrences that were given special significance by the witnesses due to their heightened religious sense. It would be easy for members of the commission for canonization, if they are influenced by modernism, to regard as “miracles” anything to which the religious sense of the faithful has attributed an extraordinary, supernatural value, regardless of whether nature could have produced the effect or not. In the traditional process of verifying miracles, it was required that there be nothing unseemly about the circumstances in which these miracles took place. At the very start, all the written works of the candidate for canonization were examined to see if they contained any doctrinal errors; and if any error was detected, the canonization process was aborted. Miracles worked for frivolous reasons, in an irreverent manner, or which did not serve to confirm souls in the faith were considered highly suspect. To take a contemporary example, we can think of Medjugorje. How many “miracles” are worked there-conversions, rosaries changing to gold, visions of the sun dancing, and occasional “healings.” But it is clear that, whatever power may be at work there (over and above people’s natural suggestibility), that power is not of God. The lives of the seers are far from edifying; their messages are filled with inconsistencies and even errors against the faith, such as that God is pleased with all religions. And in the meantime, souls forget about those apparitions of the Blessed Virgin that are fully approved by the Church, and fully orthodox in their content-apparitions such as Fatima, Lourdes, etc. Thus, a priori and before examining in detail any of these miracles attributed to the postconciliar Popes, it is sufficient to consider their failure to confirm souls in the faith, their negligence and misguidance of the Church, their many scandalous actions, etc. Then it would be desirable, one day, to review in detail all of these “miracles” attributed to the postconciliar popes from the standpoint both of their historical truth and of their philosophical truth. Constat de supernaturalitate? Is it certain that they could only have been produced by God? Without having yet undertaken that investigation, we can already sustain a legitimate skepticism. In Christ, Fr. William MacGillivray | FSSPX

[@TheLincolnrailsplitt]

Catholics must still follow him because of Vatican I's transparent teachings about the supreme moral authority of the Pontiff as Vicar of Christ who is both infallible and indefectable.

[@mp5639]

Under the precise conditions layer out by the CVI

[@Makeitliquidfast]

Who decides whose in conformity? Where do they get their athority? If the current hierarchical church is fully modernist then how can even the SSPX come back in full canonical status? These Cardinals and Bishops will never elect a traditional Vicar of Christ will they? God may have to intervene in some miraculous way, I will have to pray for this solution for now.

[@marccrotty8447]

NINB. Regarding "conformity". It seems apparent to see who is, and who is not, following tradition. Providing Holy Eucharist to notorious abortion supporters and promoting homosexual Priests and Bishops is not Catholic. Other matters may not be as self evident. It seems unlikely that the Church hierarchy will be "righted" in our lifetimes. Live in a state of Sanctifying Grace. Save your own soul.

[@livingpurgatory2485]

Tried to see latest vid & was private. Hear from other yt'ers that yt? Is doing to that to them. Was making vid private intentional

[@SSPX]

Intentional. There was an error in the final video - it's now uploaded.

[@Susan-o2f2f]

Where does the Great Apostasy and the End of the World - Our Lord's Return come into this? Traditional Catholics believe Our Lord is Returning.

[@aaronsomerville2124]

I get some of the rejoinders to sedevacantism offered by the good father, but does that then imply a criticism of St Athanasius against the Arians? "They have the buildings, but you have the Apostolic Faith." Maybe the understanding of "visibility" needs to be unpacked a bit more.

[@TheLincolnrailsplitt]

Sedes are an extremely small schismatic sect. They mainly exist on the internet.

[@susanraciti2726]

It does not manner how many as St. Athanasius pointed out. We are in the Last Days. Francis is not a pope. It is Catholic teaching.

[@bemasamoje]

where can we get the show notes for each episode?

[@SSPX]

Not every priest has provided notes. sspxpodcast.com/crisis/ has the notes that are available.

[@JohnH204]

This is a question that really bothers me...

[@imperator_lubelski]

I cant wait to hear Don Tranquillo again

[@anthonyrebock5351]

The third secret of Fatima nullifies Rome and V2. Our Lady at Garabandal says many errors have crept in ... the dire consequences of which make it difficult to receive the Holy Sacrament, because of Communism.

[@zon3665]

🕯🕯🕯

[@pinoysarisari7374]

VATICAN 1 ECUMENICAL COUNCIL , SESSION 4 : 18 July 1870 "...and that to THIS DAY and FOREVER Peter lives and PRESIDES and exercises JUDGEMENT in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood . Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema." ------(VATICAN 1 ECUMENICAL COUNCIL , SESSION 4 : 18 July 1870 )😉

[@hunter1029016]

*Mic drop*

[@HoradrimBR]

What's the point of this comment? The matter discussed here is not if the sede is vacant or not, but to understand the limits of infalibility.

[@saintchadofmercia680]

As far as I know, no one in the SSPX says the Roman Pontiff is not Francis or Benedict and his antecedents.

[@Iesu-Christi-Servus]

​@@HoradrimBR Yes, and the infallibility of the pope is only when he teaches about a doctrine concerning faith or morals as supreme teacher. Nonetheless, all faithfuls have a " _duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this _*_not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government_*_ of the Church throughout the world._ "

[@johncharleson8733]

22>00 on--how can a heretic Magisterium reclaim spiritual authority? Simple; a public declaration. Who is to judge? More complicated but really, in view of Church history and assuming Divine providence, again simple--a core of obviously Pius and orthodox Bishops, Priests, Cannonists, etc. Will there be schism from the above process?--of course, there are always problem makers and the Church can't be expected to reign in every fool.

[@arthurdevain754]

The Church is, in fact, infallible, butChurchmen are not. A Churchman who does not speak with the voice of the Bride of Christ does not speak infallibly, regardless of the color of his cassock!

[@williammcenaney1331]

Fr. Gregory Hesse seems right to me when he argues that Vatican II wasn't a council. He says: To be an ecumenical council, a bishops' synod needs to use extraordinary Majesterium to define dogma, condemn falsehoods, or do both. Vatican II did neither. So Vatican II wasn't a council. Since it wasn't a council, it didn't teach either.

[@KoalaBear499]

Use the right word. Not “infallible” but “indefectible”. Otherwise we’re talking straw men.

[@gloriacheon5952]

Forgive my Ignorance about this Society but can you explain to me how does it stand regarding your Relationship with The Vatican, The Pope, etc. I thought it was Not part of The Church like a Schism. Thank you for your answer 🙏💒

[@saintchadofmercia680]

What makes you think it’s schismatic? We affirm every dogma and anathema from the Council of Jerusalem to Vatican 2. What we do deny is certain passages in certain documents of Vatican 2 for breaking with previous church teaching.

[@stevenfarley5161]

The Society is not in schism. No pope has declared it to be in schism. Pope Benedict XVI said we could attend Mass there, and Francis extended faculties to the Society to hear confession and preside over weddings. Schismatics don't pray for the Pope at every Mass as the Society does.

[@arieldreesen3052]

They're not in schism, they pray for the Pope on Holy Mass. I think the last episode with Don Tranquillo might be very helpful to you. Bless you!

[@Motherbeans]

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but the ‘middle ground’ Father explained early in the video is where they stand. Recognizing the problems, while still recognizing the pope.

[@1TheLove1ofWisdom1]

This is quite a complicated issue if you begin to dive in into it. The short answer is that no, there is no schism here. The most people can say is that they are in a canonically irregular situation. But they are Catholic through and through.

[@tresiwalker]

If your a false pope you do what you want..... this too has been prophesied.