Is the SSPX REALLY Doctrinally Sound? w/ John Salza

Dr. John Salza talks about ordinary and extraordinary mission

---

🔴 LINKS




🔴 SOCIAL

We get a small kick back from affiliate links.

[movfana]

Matt Fradd you should invite Bishop Athanasius Schneider and interview him on the SSPX.

[Deperuse]

Does Salza have the teaching authority to tell faithful to not go to the SSPX, or some layman podcast on the internet? I would rather listen to Bishop Athanasius Schneider about this non-issue.

[janhugo]

I’m very disappointed that Matt Fradd has jumped on the SSPX bashing bandwagon. How about inviting a society priest or Mgr Schneider who was actually officially sent to investigate the SSPX seminaries?
The SSPX bears wonderful fruit in the world, and there are many conversions. They welcome people with open arms and give very solid catholic catechism. All their content comes from the catechism of the council of trent and from the Tradition of the church. How on earth can being faithful to that be called schismatic? It just shows how far the Church has drifted away from Her mission and how people think in rigid legalistic terms and don’t consider the substance of the matter at hand

[joan]

I am 88 and the Mass offered by the SSPX is the Mass I grew up with.

[williambarker]

I am not particularly a supporter of the SSPX, and I have found that on several matters John Salza speaks the truth. But I'm afraid that this argument is simply quite ridiculous. Basically he's saying that because members of the SSPX have reservations on one particular paragraph of the 1989 Profession of Faith, they therefore reject the whole thing and are therefore rejecting "dogmas of the faith". That's about as ridiculous as claiming that the Orthodox reject the whole content of the Nicene Creed just because they don't affirm the filioque. Contrary to what Mr Salza seems to believe, the fact that Catholics owe religious submission of intellect and will to non-definitive teachings is NOT a dogma of the faith. For that matter, neither is it a dogma (strictly speaking) that infallibility extends to teachings of the "secondary object" of the infallible magisterium (i.e. "2nd paragraph" teachings). Rather, that is "only" Catholic Doctrine. So let alone teachings of the "3rd paragraph".

[JohnFromAccounting]

Yes. They are doctrinally sound because they teach what the Catholic Church taught for thousands of years, and what all good priests and bishops still teach today. They teach the Gospel of Christ, as is their duty.

[barbara]

The SSPX couldn't be more faithful to the Church, it literally couldn't, as all it does is continue to practice what all Catholics always have practiced. If the society rejects anything it is because it goes against faith or tradition.

[TheLoveofWisdom]

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

Here is where they explicitly state that the SSPX accepts the authentic magisterium, but has issues with some of the things stated by it.


Salza misrepresents many other things about the SSPX. But let this be known in order to show that this presentation is riddled with inaccuracy... how deliberate? only God knows.

[tateharrigan]

First time i went to an sspx mass they invited me because there was a men's night. It was in Orlando, so you had lots of people who were come and go parishoners. Lots of them were very normal and not pretentious. The novice their was very kind and had this personality like i was the only one in the room. He even told me that the society and the bishop have good relations. At least they are trying to reach out to their bishop.

[barbara]

This is your friendly reminder that Vatican II was a pastoral and NOT a doctrinal council. Also, "by their fruits you shall know them"; look at the fruits of Vatican II as a help to discern how healthy it really was for the Church.

[OrdinemIntegro]

To say that the SSPX rejects —Dogmas of the Faith— is such a weird claim and completely false. There is no De Fide proposition that states that every Catholic has to submit his intellect and will to non-definitive teachings.
„Christ has revealed we must hear the Church“ is a very sloppy way of trying to prove that such a De Fide proposition exists. As if the church would not have explicated these words exactly in order to make clear for the faithful what they mean. The dogma which is related to this is the reality of the infallibility of the church which states that The Church is infallible in the final decision on doctrines of faith and morals. Final means —definitive—. There might be a proposition on a lower level which states that you have to submit your intellect and will also to non-definitive teachings, but the thing is that such a proposition is not De Fide, otherwise all these levels wouldn’t make sense at all. If everything is De Fide, nothing is.
Mr. Salza needs to be much more precise in his arguments.

[tradcatholic]

The SSPX submit to the Council of Trent, which outweighs non-dogmatic councils. Why aren't priests giving full religious assent to the Council of Trent is the real question?

[roshinobi]

SSPX wouldnt even be a temptation for me if Traditionis Custodes didn’t wipe out almost all of the TLMs in my diocese.

[hlurpseed]

These are 1980’s arguments, and Mr. Salza arguments are plainly erroneous.

[charlesquinn]

I have watched a lot of Salza’s commentary on the SSPX issue. He is a smart man, but I’m afraid I don’t trust his judgment. He ignores that the hierarchy are teaching and promoting error. He is very good at lining up hard hitting quotes that make people surmise the issue. The one that caught my attention before was when he said in one of his clips Rome bent over backwards to try to accommodate Archbishop Lefebvre. But this isn’t true. As Archbishop Lefebvre said on June 29, 1976.

“This I have heard twice from the envoys of the Holy See, who told me that the social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ was no longer possible in our time; that we must accept definitely the pluralism of religions. That is what they told me. That the Encyclical Quas Primas, which is so beautiful, on the social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which was written by Pope Pius XI, would never be written today by the Pope. This is what they said to me-the official envoys of the Holy See.
Well, we are not of this religion. We do not accept this new religion. We are of the religion of all time; we are of the Catholic religion. “

That’s spiritual blackmail. And it changes the context of the relations between Rome and SSPX.

Now if John Salza is going to judge that as bending over backwards, then his judgment is negligent, and shouldn’t be trusted.

Also, evidenced from the quote above that is ignored, he generally gives the hierarchy a free pass. He doesn’t really state the teaching on resisting superiors and popes that the church teaches and saints practiced. This Includes direct commands of popes. He doesn’t say here are the principles for obeying and disobeying superiors and popes and this is why they don’t apply here. It is just a constant strengthening of the authority, without explaining when the authorities are misusing it and can and should be resisted.

Another comment is that there is no sense of a crisis or necessity. If there was no crisis Archbishop Lefebvre wouldn’t have done what he deemed necessary. It’s as if everything is more or less ok. When in fact the situation is extremely grave. For example there is error in canon law, the new catechism, papal encyclicals and Vatican two. This is extremely relevant, as if it is left out of the discussion it gives the false picture that people are not resisting error which is within their rights and duties, but are simply disobeying legit authorities and are hence schismatic.

Finally I would saying regarding the hierarchy getting a free pass, they condemn people going to schismatic liturgies and churches but leave out the fact that popes they defend who attacked the SSPX do these very things. Pope Benedict went to orthodox liturgy in Constantinople. Now, what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If it’s a mortal sin for the laity to go schismatic masses then it is for the popes. Not only that but these popes have gone to non Christian religious services. Pope Benedict prayed in a mosque facing Mecca with his shoes off with immas.

[andrewlane]

I disagree with Mr Salsa’s perspective here. Firstly, he begins saying that they are not doctrinally sound, and makes a case based on their hesitation to offer a specific type of assent to Non-infallible judgements of the Holy See (judgements which the Church herself understands are NOT settled doctrine). Furthermore, the fact that this is in a papal profession of faith does not de facto elevate to a matter of dogma that we should give religious assent of intellect and will to non-infallible judgements. This is not a sound argument. I think their hesitation is all the more clearly understood when you see a large number of recent papal statements of that category that are clearly wrong- are we bound to offer this respect and obedience to what is against the faith? Or perhaps are we held to believe that the faith is changing not in development but in contradiction to what came before? This does not seem to be sufficient grounds to declare them doctrinally unsound, perhaps you might criticize their prudence in how they go about “rejecting statements” but ultimately they’re not rejecting any doctrine or dogma itself.

[larstiranos]

Meanwhile, N.O. parishes continue to shrivel and Traditional parishes continue to expand. It's all about the fruit, y'all.

[MrKev]

Christ be with you.
Charity would suggest that an explanation should be given for why the SSPX do not accept this version of the profession rather than simply stating they don't.

These points are important and perhaps should be discussed with some like his Excellency Bishop Athanasius Schneider who has in the past come out in support of the SSPX while not being a member himself.

God bless you

[emmadumais]

Yes, Christ said 'He who hears you, hears me, ' but recall that no one listened or took Lefebvre seriously when he wrote to the Pope and Rome about his concerns with certain texts in Vatican II, or liturgical and Eucharistic abuse resulting from the new Mass etc.; No one can say Lefebvre did not love the Church, the Magisterium, or tradition. He did what he did because he loved. Because he was only passing on what he first received. I have no extensive knowledge in moral theology or Church Doctrine, but when I think of what Catholics during those times were dealing with (fear of modernism, relativism and liturgical abuse, to name just a FEW) can we blame them for what they did?

[BPGM]

Im a photographer of profession, im used to read the image not the words, i converted due to the fsspx.
- Priest facing the altar not the people,
- Altar boys working on a ritual,
- Secondary priest all the time in the confessionary to give confessions and great advise.
- Homillies not about how God loves me but about scripture and salvation or damnation of our souls.
- Heads covered, singles are white, married have black, this is huge because this makes the church a place where you are reminded that you are expected to marry and have children, this is so huge thesesdays.
- More men, also a huge point.
- No lay men giving catequisis or reading scripture in mass, (none of that worldly "liberte, egalite, fraternite" nonsense) this is also huge.
-fruits layed barren for anyone to see, young families having kids and keeping together.
The whole picture reads GOD IS HERE
I dont see any of this when i would go to a novis ordus mass, quite the oposite, the whole church just felt part of the world, part of the status quo, filled with ideas of equality, giving lay men participation and voice. Not a single word of condemnation on the erasure of European lands, as if God created the white man for it now to disappear into race mixing, not a single world of condemnation of jewish power and degeneration over the west, i trully believe tuat Marcel Lefebre read well what was happening in the church, its a complete takeover of freemasons
and modernists who have already destroyed the western world on the political level, of course they would never been able to do it if they didnt found a way to neutralize the Church first...