Pints With Aquinas - Schismatics, SSPX, and Sedes w/ John Salza

Episode Date: January 10, 2023

John Salza joins Matt to discuss Schism, the "irregular state" of the SSPX, and the growing contingent of Sedevacantists in Trad movements. Channel Recommendations: https://youtube.com/@thelogosproject7 https://youtube.com/@ReasonandTheology Documents: Ecclesia Dei Afflicta: https://tinyurl.com/59szybxx Traditiones Custodies: https://tinyurl.com/yw266jup Trad Cust Bp's Letter: https://tinyurl.com/33m82sre Sponsor-- Pray on Hallow (FREE TRIAL): https://hallow.com/matt

And we're live. Dr. John Solza, thank you so much for coming out and being on the show. It's my pleasure, man. Thank you. I got in touch with you a couple of months ago because I was really struggling to understand what I would say is something of a schismatic spirit in the church, whether that's leading people to Senevacantism or Benevacantism at the time. I had a lot of questions about the SSPX and you really helped me out

a great deal. And I watched a video you gave recently in which you talked about the state of the SSPX and these sorts of things. I thought you did a marvelous job and so really honored to have you on the show. Thank you very much. It's great to be here. So you used to be with SSPX. Tell us about that. I did. I was attending the Society Chapel for about fifteen years, actually. And how that came about was simply I moved from the city to a place that was closer to a Society Chapel, and Matt, honestly, my 100% motivation for doing so was I wanted to raise

my young kids in the traditional mass. This was before they even received the sacraments, right? So I had already been attending the traditional mass. This was before they even received the sacraments, right? So I had already been attending the Latin Mass. I had already discovered that this was close to 20 years ago. And so I was attending the diocesan Latin Mass, especially during the week. And then when we moved to the rural area, well, our trek to the diocesan Latin Mass

turned into be an hour, and the Society Chapel was less than 15 minutes away, so it's much easier to get a family to the chapel when it's that close. So frankly, that was the reason I didn't jump on the bandwagon because of any doctrinal principle or issue I had with the church or to defend Archbishop Lefebvre, per se. It was the fact that the Society Priests were saying a beautiful Mass. And as I got to know the priests, they were genuinely good, good men and good, you know, attempting to be as faithful as they, as they could to what they

believed. So that's how it, that's how it started for me, frankly, a geographical decision. I think a lot of people during the COVID lockdowns found that SSPX chapels were open while many Catholic churches shut the doors and yeah God bless them for their courage and their willingness to dispense the sacraments when others were too easily I think maybe making excuses. Yeah I agree I mean I want to reserve judgment on the question of whether the bishop should have done it or I mean hindsight is 20-20 right I mean that that's a

prudential judgment they're not infallible in their prud judgments, and I think a lot of people will conclude they probably went overboard on what they did. But Matt, you know, if Catholics study history, there have been popes who have interdicted entire countries for years, barring Catholics from receiving the sacraments for years. I mean, if you go to the Catholic Encyclopedia, look up the word interdict. It's been a while since I've done this. But you will see examples of, I think, England and Scotland being under interdict for eight and ten years, respectively, because of the sins of the civil leaders. This is what the popes have done. So, you know what? We didn't have it so bad when you look at history. We didn't realize that.

And, you know, maybe that was an abuse of discretion, who knows, but these are actions that prior popes have taken. And so we lived through some suffering during that time, but it's certainly not, you know, to say, hey, I'm jumping ship, right? I mean, we have to, you know, we suffered, but it wasn't as bad as some other Catholics have. What did you love about being at an SSBX Chapel? And what did you love about the people who attended there? Faithful, devoted, at Sunday Mass every day. I mean, the devotions, stations of the cross during Lent, constant access to the sacraments, to confession,

beautiful high mass, the scola, you know, the chant, all of that, you know, is Catholic on a superficial sense. And I can get into what that means. I mean, the appearances were beautiful, and of course that's what attracted me and that's what attracted all of us to the traditional Latin Mass. Now, the legal reality is a different question, right? But just in terms of the appearances, and I'm as guilty as anybody that, you know, now they say they're my opponents, I get it where they're coming from I get the fact that they're supporting the society because of the Latin Mass

I mean that's something that I can understand because I myself was in that position as well It was always because of the mass Mmm. I know for us when we were living in Atlanta We would drive over an hour to get to an FSSP church because for the same reason we wanted our children to over an hour to get to an FSSP church, because for the same reason, we wanted our children to encounter the beauty of the Latin Mass to solid, orthodox teaching. And so often I think traditional people are painted

in a negative light, that they're somehow narrow-minded and angry, aggressive, and maybe some of them are. But my experience was just really good people with gigantic families, kids in oversized suits who could all sit still when my kids couldn't. Right? Yeah, so yeah, good. Completely agree. You know, again, it was all about the Mass. I mean, my children were attending

Catholic school, diocesan Catholic school, but I did not allow them to go to the Novus Ordo because I looked at it and I didn't like what was going on there. In fact, we homeschooled the Catechism and the Mass in the sacraments outside of the Catholic school. But, you know, as I said, you know, I had one foot in the Society, but I was still attending the diocesan Latin Mass. And I can tell you when I began attending the Society chapel, you know, the pastor said, Hey, John, where'd you come from? I said, well, I'm going to, you know, Mary Help of Christians downtown. Isn't that diocesan? Yes, and then it became Institute of Christ the King.

It struck me that each pastor that came through there, Matt, discouraged me from doing that. They took issue with the fact that I was worshiping in union with the local bishop, even though it was the Tridentine Mass, you know, the 62 missile, they all took issue with that. They at least warned me about what they perceived would be the danger of modernism. And you know, to prove that I wasn't, you know, lockstep with their doctrine, I objected

right away, not even, you know, being involved to a great degree in my initial context with the society. I put the brakes on there, I said, wait a minute, Father, that to me seems like excessive, it seems like almost a schismatic metallic, they don't like hearing it, and then the conversation stopped. But I can tell you, my initial contact, that concerned me a little bit. I didn't go beyond that because I continued to go to the traditional Latin Mass, but I sensed right away there was a resistance or a refusal, you know, to share communion with what they call Novus Ordo Catholics. So that was problematic. And I discovered that pretty much everybody in the chapel held that same view as I got

to know them. And I think that's why the Church has always warned that we can debate whether they're in schism and what that means and how the church views it, but there is that mentality. And the church has always warned that if you put yourself in that milieu, you may begin to imbibe that mentality. I can tell you, some of the people that come into this society, they're a different person a year later, where they completely reject the Novus Ordo. They won't even go to a mass where they think the hosts that were consecrated in the Novus Ordo, they won't even go to a mass where they think the hosts that were consecrated in the Novus Ordo are co-mingled with the communion

that the Institute of Christ the King is distributing, for example. So there's a danger there, and once you go off that track, it gets worse. So as they were saying things like, don't go to the Novus Ordo mass, or at least discouraging you, perhaps. This was the Latin mass I was going to.

They were discouraging you from that. They were discouraging me from going to the dio Sauron Mass, or at least discouraging you, perhaps? This was the Latin Mass I was going to. Oh, and they were discouraging you from that? They were discouraging me from going to the diocesan Latin Mass. Yes. Did you start to do more research into SSPX at that point? I did. You know, I had looked into whether I could attend the Mass. I was aware that there were some canonical issues. I was aware of the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre. I

read some of their arguments about necessity and how necessity could have mitigated, you know, whether the censure was incurred. I looked into a little bit of their arguments on a state of necessity. I found this letter from Monsignor Pearl, which, you know, everybody refers to. And I found that letter too, which appeared to say that one can attend a society mass. Now what I wasn't aware of Matt at the time was that number one we're not allowed to rely on a crazy day replies they're only intended for the person for whom they're intended you know that's the first thing. The second thing I was getting my information from society websites they were only posting

this one reply where under unique facts and circumstances this person was allowed to attend the Society Mass, but I wasn't aware that there were ten other replies from Ecclesia Day which forbade Catholics from attending the Society Mass, which declared that they don't satisfy the Sunday obligation, which said that you cannot receive Holy Communion. I was not aware of any of this. And so, you know, I finally did the right thing, embarrassingly, fifteen years later by actually taking the question of my bishop, which is what I should have done at the very beginning. So I kind of took matter into my own hands, unfortunately. I did some superficial research. I figured, hey, I'm

a lawyer. I can find a legal loophole here, and if Monsignor Perl is saying this, I'm going to take advantage of that because I only live 12 minutes away, you know, and I kind of left it at that. So my research was fairly superficial at that point. So what happened when you submitted something to your bishop? Well, first of all, it was a long process. And what did you submit? I submitted dubia related to the Society of St. Pius X and their status. And one of the questions specifically asked my bishop, Archbishop Jerome Listecki of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee,

who is a canon lawyer as well, whether the Society Mass satisfies the Sunday obligation under Canon 1248. And he replied with a definitive judgment that it does not. And so as a Catholic, I'm bound to submit to that judgment. Now, I've always said this, Matt, as I went public with this, I am not your authority, people. I'm not telling you to listen to me. Go to your bishop. Go to your bishop. If your bishop allows you to attend the Mass, then I think you can go. But there are bishops throughout the country who have forbade Catholics from attending society masses because they're not considered Catholic churches, because the priests don't

have the faculties to say mass for a number of reasons. And that's really what I should have done, you know, from the very beginning. But I got a definitive judgment from my bishop, and I'm bound to follow that I submit to his authority and his jurisdiction. But his judgment is consistent with all of the Ecclesia Dei replies, other than this one reply that had a unique fact pattern, as well as other things that the Pontifical Council, Ecclesia Dei, and other Pontifical commissions have said. It's been completely consistent.

But if you've got some bishop saying yes and some bishop saying no, couldn't we just conclude there's too much confusion surrounding the SSPX and therefore there doesn't seem to be anything definitive from the top down and therefore I can make a prudential decision on my own? Namely going to a beautiful Latin Mass with orthodox teaching when maybe my only other option is some piano Mass where my children don't experience reverence. Right. Well, I'm not aware of any bishops who have declared that the society mass satisfies

the ecclesiastical precept of the Sunday obligation or Canon 1248. That's really the question. If you look at the commentaries to the Code of Canon Law in light of the canonical tradition, what they effectively say is that to satisfy the Sunday obligation the missal, a valid missal, an approved missal, has to be celebrated in a Catholic Church, a Catholic Church suiurus, which means a particular church which is a diocese or a diocesan church. And so the obligation is tied not just to the validity of the missal,

but actually to the church itself, Matt. And the reason why that is, is because Catholics don't have the obligation to understand what the state of the priest is. Is he under censure? Does he have the faculty to say, Matt, we don't have an obligation to do that type of investigation.

But we do have the basic requirement or diligence to know whether that church is in union with the local bishop, you see? So the obligation of the Mass in terms of satisfying that precept has always been tied to whether the church is in communion with the local bishop, okay? Of course you need a validly ordained priest and you need to celebrate an approved liturgical missile But it's the church and that's consistent if you go back even to the 1917 code The canon was 1249 under that code and that canon actually pointed out specific Locations where the mass could be celebrated and not all

where the Mass could be celebrated, and not all locations that were approved by the diocesan bishop were eligible to meet the precept of the Sunday obligation. So if you look at the 83 Code and attempt to harmonize it with the 17 Code and prior canonical tradition, it tells you that the precept is always tied to whether the Mass is truly a Catholic Church. And the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts and Ecclesiade have both said the Society of St. Pius X is not a Catholic Church. It's not considered a Church suiuris, a diocesan Church, as part of the diocesan structure. You see, in fact, the Society of St. Pius X isn't really even a juridic person under canon law.

It was suppressed in 1975, and at that point it was wiped off the face of the canonical map of the Church, even if it was on it to begin with. That's another question. But it's really a conglomeration of acephalous priests, which means without a head, which means without bishops with ordinary jurisdiction. They're celebrating legitimate 1962 missile, but these masses are not being celebrated in Catholic churches. And by the way, the priests also don't even have the faculty to say mass. The faculty to say mass comes when a priest is what's called incarnated. It's in Canon 265. The ordination of a priest gives him the ontological powers or abilities to celebrate the sacraments, to confect the Eucharist, but it gives him

no right to do so. He needs to be under a bishop or hinged to a bishop. He needs to be incarnated in order for him to, you know, to deploy his mission to the public. And so this is another problem. The fact that the society priests are not incardinated under a bishop means they don't even have the faculty to say Mass. Now, I'm only saying what the Church has said. I'm not judging anybody's internal form, and I want to be clear about that.

But what the Church has always said is if a priest does not have the faculty to say Mass, that Mass is illicit. And in fact, it's sacrilegious because he's misappropriating spiritual goods that belong to Christ, okay? And Christ hasn't given him a mission to do so. Pius XII calls these acts criminal and sacrilegious. I mean, so again, I'm repeating what the Church has said in this regard. It is a fact, it is a fact without debate that society priests are not incarnated. They do not have a bishop with ordinary jurisdiction, and hence they don't have the right to say Mass. Can you explain what a juridic person is?

A juridic person is a person that is recognized in the code of canon law. For example, canon law will say there's such a thing as a priestly society. Okay, that's a juridic person. A lay association would not be a juridic person, for example, and that was the case under the 17 code and I think it's still the case under the 83 code. So a juridic person is what the canon say the person is. If it's not in canon law then it wouldn code. So a juridic person is what the canon say the person is. If it's not in canon law, then it wouldn't be considered a juridic or legal person,

that word juridic means legal. Isn't it the case, though, wherever SSPX sets up their chapel, they seek permission from the local ordinary? To my knowledge, not at all. They wouldn't have any such approval because they're not in communion with the local bishop. Now, again,

go to your bishop and find out. Don't listen to me. I mean, my bishop has given me a judgment. If you want to know whether you can attend a society mass to fulfill your obligation, please go to your bishop, submit him that question, and let him make a definitive judgment, and then abide by it. That's my advice to all Catholics. I mean, it just feels a bit relativistic, though. I mean, are you saying I can ask my bishop if he says no, I can move my family to a place where a bishop says yes and then be right as right? Obedience is the surest path to sanctity and salvation so long as the bishop is operating within the scope and spheres of his authority and is not commanding you to sin. I'm not aware of any bishops who have said that the society masses fulfill the obligation.

Like I said, it's just the opposite. I have almost a dozen Ecclesia Day replies. I mean, I've seen what the Church has said. I've seen the Archdiocese of Salzburg issue a decree saying, you know, these masses don't qualify and whoever formally adheres is excommunicated. I mean, so there's a lot out there. And I'm not saying it's all crystal clear, but what I'm saying is I'm not aware of any bishop taking the position that the society masses satisfy the ecclesiastical precept

which we're bound to do to fulfill the divine law of keeping holy the Lord's Day. I can imagine people rolling their eyes when you said that these are sacrilegious masses because you think... Pius XII says it. I'm just saying what he said. Okay, well, this is how I think someone might respond. They'd say, look, they are treating the Eucharist with tremendous seriousness and reverence. No question.

Up the road they may not be. Maybe they are, but they might not be I mean I've had priests Walk in down the altar they had a hockey jersey on because they were celebrating the the hockey team that day When I was a kid in high school they allowed people to play Metallica from a CD player as a him Yeah, I mean you don't think that's sacrilegious wouldn't it be much better to attend an SSPX chapel than that kind of stuff Well, that's a false dichotomy because both masses are illicit for different reasons That would be my answer. Okay, the society mass is illicit because the priests don't have the faculties to say the mass And those other masses are illicit because they're also engendering sacrilege and deviating from the rubrics

I say right so that's a false dichotomy. It's not one or the other so do you think it's that people have seen the gross abuses taking place and have seen, let's say, the heresy or the not-so-subtle promotion of intrinsically evil acts perhaps among German bishops, among some American clergy, and have thought, well, look, to hell with this. I'm going there where there's at least incense and Latin and cassocks and people who are teaching the faith. I mean, I can understand why people would want to do that. I can too, Matt, and like I said, the reason why I was driven to the Society Chapel is because I couldn't find a Nova Sordo worthy that I wanted to raise my family in. Okay, so I get that, but I

think it fundamentally comes down to what is the Catholic Church. See, this is where I think there is an error in what I've called ecclesiology. You know, when we wrote the book True or False Pope, that's seven years ago now, you know, our the foundation of our refutation for sadisticantism and what we call other modern errors was that the extreme traditionalists, I think, have lost sight of what the Catholic Church really is. Just put one second. You wrote this book as a member of the SSPX while you were there, attending? I know you said you went one foot in the door.

Yeah, I mean, I wasn't a member because I'm not a priest, but yes, I was with the Society. And in fact, the Society endorsed the book. I see. Continue. Yeah, they endorsed the book. What you're describing, Matt, I think we can all relate to because we're attracted by the appearances. But what I said is there's a distinction between what appears to be Catholic

and what is Catholic in legal reality, okay? The Catholic Church, as Christ instituted it, is a juridical, hierarchical institution. It's to the institution that the promises of Christ apply, not to the individual members per se. It's the institution of the church itself. And I think, as I to be Catholic and how it makes me feel. The nice cassocks, the incense, the traditional Latin mass, those are all good things.

But what is the juridical reality? They're saying this is Catholic without regard to whether it's celebrated in a Catholic church by a priest with canonical mission, from a bishop, with ordinary jurisdiction, without regard to whether the priest is incardinated, without regard to whether the priest has the faculties to say the Mass. This is a problem. The problem, in my opinion, with the traditionalist movement is that they have redefined the Catholic Church today as a reaction to all these abuses. Okay, understand the source. As a reaction to all these abuses, because they see these abuses within the hierarchical

structure of the church, they step back and they say, you know what, the Catholic Church is truly only those who profess the true faith. And by professing the true faith, what do they mean by that, Matt? They mean those who go to the traditional Mass and reject Vatican II and the new Mass, you see? So they've almost redefined the Church to be this spiritual body of true believers who profess the true faith, again, without regard to whether the

minister is part of the juridical structure of the church and has been lawfully sent by the authority of the church. This is a problem. This is kind of where the rubber meets the road here. And really, this is an error of modernism, in a sense, of imminence, right, where I'm basing my decision on what is true on how I feel and what I appear to be the case, but not on the legal reality of the situation.

This is what is so dangerous, because this is exactly what the Protestants said. I have a number of books on the Protestants, and they said the same thing, that the Romans lost the faith, all the clergy are corrupt. We hold hold the true faith and the promises of Christ only apply to true believers I say who possess the true faith that is not Catholic ecclesiology you know the Catholic Church is the Church of Rome and

All of the particular churches and dioceses that are illegally united to her that is the Roman Catholic Church and this is I think where the air comes into play because they're they're making a judgment on truth based upon appearances only and not the legal reality. Is there like an SSPX catechism is there a place you can go to get the official answer of an SSPX teaching because I know when you go online, you listen to certain SSPX people, they say many of these things. And I often wonder, do they represent the SSPX?

Is there a way to find out exactly what they teach? Because I have gone to their YouTube channel and I have seen them saying, don't be going to a novice auto mass if memory serves. And I was quite shocked by that. But could someone who goes to an SSPX Chapel point to that and say, okay, that's not all of us. That's just this person or that person.

Well, if you go to a Society Chapel, they will promote the writings of Archbishop Lefebvre. I mean, I have all his books, right? So I've read through all those and I've gotten an understanding of what he taught and what the seminary teaches. And so if you want to know what the Society teaches, they just did a crisis series podcast. I've listened to all of those. They're very clear about what they teach in terms of doctrine. And you know, what I've discovered, Matt,

is oftentimes the society priest will articulate a doctrine beautifully, I mean, correctly, but then fail to understand how their position is inconsistent with that profession. For example, I'll give you an example. In the Crisis Series of podcasts, I won't name the particular priest because most of them said this, they will profess that the Roman Catholic Church is a juridical, hierarchical structure, and that one must be united to the structure of the church both in faith, worship, and governance to be a member of the Roman Catholic Church.

That's absolutely correct. But they're not part of that structure. They're not part of it. So how do they reconcile their accurate annunciation of the doctrine with the fact that they're not part of it You know there there's a a disconnect between what I've called the specula the speculative Intellect right which is the profession of the true doctrine which they articulate and the practical aspect that they're not part of it And what they end up doing is basically chalking it up to mystery They just say well

This is a mystery how this is all working out and at the end of day they say, but we stand with Archbishop Lefebvre. Watch all those crisis series of podcasts. This is very unique in the way they approach this. The Protestants reject our doctrines, okay, but the society will properly articulate these doctrines but then fail to reconcile how their so-called ministry is not consonant with the teaching of the Church. And so they then retreat back to mystery and hide behind Archbishop Lefebvre. And what you find with these society priests is it's almost as if Archbishop Lefebvre becomes their rule of faith, where they defer ultimately to Lefebvre as opposed to the Magisterium.

This is what I have found. Yeah, I know the SSPX that I know will say to me, we are not in Sism. And I go, oh, okay. And then I'll listen to the things they put out and they very clearly seem to be indicating that I am. They may not come out and say that exactly, but in saying like you really shouldn't be attending an oversawed church, it's like, okay, so I guess I'm... It's the opposite. Yeah... It's the opposite.

Yeah. It's the opposite. Well, look, people are new to this discussion, at least some people, even though you've been studying this for years. Could you help us understand the origins of the SSPX, how it was formed? Certainly. Archbishop Lefebvre had very good intentions. This was during the late sixties and, you know, bringing us to 1970 where he was approached by a number of seminarians in Switzerland who wanted to be formed in the old rites. And this was a very laudable thing. Archbishop Lefebvre

properly saw abuses that were taking place both in doctrine and liturgy. And, you know, he was a retired archbishop and I give him his due. He was, you know, a that were taking place, both in doctrine and liturgy. He was a retired archbishop, and I give him his due. He was a great missionary to Africa. He was a superior of the Holy Ghost Fathers. We can give him his due. He had a good place in the Church up to a point. Again, this started out good.

The society was actually lawfully erected by the local bishop. The bishop's name was Bishop Cherrier. I believe it was November of 1970. It's interesting, Matt, to note that the Society was erected under the 1917 code of canon law as what's called a pious union. And a pious union, the canonists all say, is a lay association. It wasn't a priestly society per se, it was founded as a lay association. Why? Because Archbishop Lefebvre was forming laymen into priests.

And if you read the decree from Bishop Chérié, it says this was being erected as a pious union. If you read the Society statutes, it says it was erected as a pious union, a lay association, and was completely dependent upon the local bishop. That Archbishop Lefebvre was going to form these seminarians into priests. They were going to be ordained then for the diocese and other dioceses who were willing to take these newly ordained priests who would preserve the traditional rights. I mean that was a beautiful thing. The society was was founded as what's called an odd experimentum society, which means it had a temporary basis. It had a canonical shelf life of six years. And so when the society argues that it had a

right to exist beyond that and that they were unjustly persecuted, the reality is Archbishop Lefebvre agreed with the bishop to try this out for an experimental period, a provisional period of six years, after which time, if the bishop wanted to renew it, could do so. And then there'd be another six years and then they could get potentially a pontifical right where they would be possibly a personal prelature or a church per se where incarnations could occur. That never happened. But it's important to note that this was a lay association of laymen being run by a retired

archbishop who had no ordinary jurisdiction. He didn't run a diocese. He had no right to ordain these seminarians. They were not Lefebvre's subjects, they were the subjects of the local bishop, and this was a provisional, temporary, experimental basis, which had no right to exist beyond the six years. Now look at it, okay? Now it's a worldwide organization.

I mean, all of this is completely contrary to its original statutes and and founding but I mean That's how it was originally founded. It was it was lawfully erected under the 17 code as as a pious union Talk more about Lafebvre because I hear different things about him Some people say that he signed off on the documents of the second Vatican Council. That's correct, isn't it? Yes, it is and he said the New Mass for a few years. So he signed all 16 documents of Vatican II and said the New Mass. Like I said, I think this all started out good. He had good intentions, and we wanted to form these priests. And the church was allowing him to form these seminarians in the old rites, if you think about it, even though with all the experimentation going on and the fact that the 69 missile now came

out, Paul VI was still allowing him to form priests. The problem was, and again I think this is where Lefebvre's imprudence came into play, he put a target on his back because there were some apostolic visitors who made some comments that he didn't like and you know, he started seeing the abuses that were going around and certainly he had legitimate claims, there were abuses and so forth, but he overreacted in my view because he issued a declaration at the end of 1974 which really troubled the Roman authorities, whereby he said, look, you know, I'm not going to submit to neo-Protestant, neo-modernist Rome. I'm only going to adhere

to the eternal Rome, the magisterium of all time and not the current magisterium. And he went on to say even worse things, you know, calling the popes anti-Christ, you know, who lost the faith in Rome. Absolutely. The Society has all Lefebvre's quotes on his website. So you have a situation where it started off good, but I do believe Lefebvre went off the tracks. I think he overreacted. He thought he could take this burden upon himself.

He didn't need the institutional church to do it. He was going to do it on his own. And it's unfortunate because after he issued this declaration, which again was a complete overreaction to the crisis after all, the Vatican was allowing him to form these men into the old rights. Why rattle the cage? Why put a target on your back? They asked him to retract his statement, or at least to modify it, and you know, he wouldn't do it. And which statement was this?

This was called his 1974 declaration. I think it's November 21st, 1974. It's a popular declaration, which kind of started the schism, if you will. It was at that point where Lefebvre really said, I'm not going to submit to all of these reforms because he says there's a new priesthood, there's a new catechism, there's a new mass, there's new doctrine. Well, okay, where's the docility to the magisterium though here, right? I mean, even in the correspondence that Paul VI had with Lefebvre, Paul VI points out what he calls Lefebvre's, quote, warped ecclesiology. Paul VI knew the basis for Lefebvre's errors. He had a misunderstanding of what the church was.

Here Lefebvre makes a declaration saying that there is a conciliar church, a new church, a neo-Protestant church, and the Catholic church. Well, that's impossible. There's only one church, okay? And he, you know, he refused to modify or retract that statement, and it got to a point where the local bishop, who then was the successor to Sharia, was Bishop Mammy, sought to suppress the Society. Okay, it says, you know, you guys have been around for five years, I think this is going off the rails, I don't think this is working. Bishop Mammy appealed to the Holy See to suppress the Society, and the Holy See actually said, you can do it yourself because this is only a pious unit, it's not a priest's society. This is another reason why the Society claims

that they were unjustly suppressed, because they said they were actually a priestly society under the Old Code, which required suppression by the Holy See and not the local bishop. That doesn't matter because the Holy See actually did suppress Cardinal Tabara, followed up with an act of suppression that was ultimately met, approved in forma specifica by Paul VI himself. When Paul VI writes, he says, I've adopted the suppression of my commission as my own. We, the popes, adopted. So there's no question that the society was lawfully suppressed,

but that's where things went off the rails. He refused to recant his declaration that was in opposition to the magisterium, even though he signed all of the documents of Vatican II, even though he had said the new mass We can only speculate what happened there and why he put that target on his back but you know hindsight tells us that was the most imprudent thing to do because he had what he wanted and then he went overboard and he was lawfully suppressed and

Unfortunately You know after he was suppressed he disregarded the suppression. And then it only got worse, okay? Then Rome said, you know, you have to regard the suppression. It came from the Holy Father himself, and you cannot ordain these seminarians. These seminarians now, you know, the class of 76, there's six years, they're getting ready to be ordained. And he was, Lefebvre was issued a canonical warning not to ordain them.

They're not even your subjects. Remember, they're the subjects of the local bishops. Well, unfortunately, Archbishop Lefebvre disregarded that canonical warning too. And so he incurred what's called a suspension, ab ordinum collazione, which means it prevents him from ordaining anybody for a year. That's an automatic suspension that he incurred. And then finally, because he refused, and again, these are requests that are coming from the supreme authority, Paul VI himself, because Lefebvre finally refused to repair the damage of these illicit ordinations, Paul VI finally suspended him ad divinis, which means, you know, this was a horrendous,

intense judgment of the pope himself, saying you are no longer allowed to exercise any of your priestly functions. And so, you know, you think about how this started, and just over a period of a few years, it turned for the worst, and now Lefebvre is stripped of his priestly ability to exercise the priesthood, and we know what happened from there.

He just then went forward and continued to ordain, contrary to the will of the Holy Father. He continued to set up shops, set up chapels, and schools, and seminaries, and so forth. And so, when you talk about schism, you know, we can say that, and we should maybe define what that is, right? It's a good idea. Schism is defined in the code of canon law, 751, as the withdrawal of submission or the

refusal of submission to the Roman pontiff or to commune with those subject to him, okay? So either or would constitute the canonical crime of schism. And you can see that that's exactly what happened with Archbishop Lefebvre. Say that again, that last bit, refusal to... Refusing communion with those subject to the Holy Father. So let me just throw this out there real quick. Sure. Suppose I live in an area and the only mass available is sacrilegious. It's...

You don't go. Okay, but in doing that, am I not doing what Lefebvre did? Refusing communion with those in union with the Pope? The problem is you are talking on a particular circumstance of a particular chapel where that's the only place you can go and you know it's replete with sacrilege and it's going to be a danger to the faith of your children. Lefebvre rejected the Novus Ordo in total, and the society to this day refuses communion with 99.9% of the Roman Rite because they refuse to worship with Novus Ordo Catholics. That's different, right? They refuse to

they refuse communion with novus or no Catholics as a matter of principle, not based upon particular facts and circumstances. That's different. That's different. They truly, I mean everybody talks about you know the first prong, right? The canonical element of withdrawing submission from the Holy Father, but there's another canonical element that suffices on its own, and that's refusing communion with those who are subject to the Holy Father. Well... But you're saying in particular instances that might be okay.

You're not obliged to go to something that is sacrilegious. But now it depends on what you mean by sacrilegious. Is communion in the hand sacrilegious. It's not it's not intrinsically evil I mean was the practice of the first millennium the church, right? So we have to talk about particulars You're absolutely not easy to set up a false dichotomy where you've got a beautiful pristine holy mass here and then quote unquote clown masses I know anything. I've never seen a clown in a mass I'm sure that happens and God have mercy on the priest that allows that to happen and sure there are abuses in varying degrees

But when Lefebvre was doing all this were things even worse than than they are now Like how quickly did things go off the rails after the new mass was implemented? I was a little kid then so I didn't experience it myself One can only speculate how you reject though a liturgical reform in Toto, especially after you've signed it. I mean the problem Matt is that there's a distinction between the Novus Ordo right of mass and the way it's celebrated or the way it's been implemented. And that's what you mean by in Toto. Yes, yeah.

I mean, rejecting the mass in principle because the rubrics are contrary to the faith, that's absolutely baloney. The rubrics are not contrary to the faith at all. Look at the new mass and look at the 62 missile compared to the 69 missile. I mean, the priest can say the long canon. I don't like the other options. I don't think there's anything

wrong with them per se. I prefer, in fact, there's an ova sort of mass by me where the priest does say the long canon, thank God. But, you know, others have said this too, you know, there's a difference between, you know, the, well, you could see great differences between the early liturgies, right, of the Church in the first five centuries and compare that to the Trinitid Missal. The differences between those masses would be much more stark and wide compared to the 62 with the 69 Missal. But I think the problem is Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society, they take the position that the right itself, they even say in some of their writings that the right itself is intrinsically evil

Which I don't understand how do they defend Lafeb having signed off on the new mass at one point then? Is it just that he was wrong and then change his mind and grew in understanding and wisdom some say he didn't I think we have documentation that all his signatures are on the documents. That's one argument documentation that all his signatures are on the documents. That's one argument. The other argument is at the time he thought the documents could be interpreted in light of tradition, which they can be, and then he got wise and realized that they couldn't be. I mean, what else can they say? I haven't seen any compelling case, and I've studied the documents, Matt, for 20 years, and frankly I have some difficulties with religious liberty. I've studied the documents, Matt, for 20 years, and frankly I have some difficulties with religious liberty.

I've been public about that. I want to be docile to the magisterium because they know better than me, but I think that the documents can be interpreted in light of tradition. Bishop Fillet has said that himself. He has said that publicly, you know, he doesn't have a problem with 95% of the documents, just that 5%. And when the society's given a condition from Rome, as they were in 2012, to simply accept the documents in light of tradition and accept the fact

that Paul VI promulgated the new mass, what's wrong with that? What is wrong with that? Those are conditions that I believe they should have accepted And then they could do so much better. So much is really helpful because I think a lot of people think that if it wasn't for Lefebvre's Disobedience that we wouldn't have the Latin Mass, but to your point he was given permission to train these men Absolutely, Paul the sixth was allowing it and even in spite of his disobedience, Paul VI was still going to allow him to form these seminarians. In fact, John Paul II, think about

everything that led to the 88 Consecrations. You have what, 13, almost 14 years of a practical repudiation of papal authority, okay, for more than a decade. And yet, John Paul II is still willing to give Lefeb than a decade. And yet John Paul II is still willing to give Lefebvre a bishop. Was this, okay, right. I mean, he was. The protocol that Lefebvre signed with John Paul II through Cardinal Ratzinger was that the society

was getting a bishop on August 15th of 1988. That was done. Lefebvre agreed to that in writing. He agreed to it orally and in writing, and the next day he backed out. He reneged, he dishonored his signature. And one wonders why that is, but the notion that Lefebvre saved the mass, the truth is just the opposite. The hammer's coming down on the traditional Latin mass because of the Society of St. Pius X. That sounds ironic,

but it's the truth. If you read what Pope Francis has said in Tradiciones Custodis, and you may disagree with him, but he points out twice in the document and to the letter to the bishops that this Mass has been weaponized by those who claim to be part of the true Church. There's the ecclesiology. Francis recognizes that there is a there's the ecclesiology. Francis recognizes that there is a schismatic movement within the church that's being fostered by those who attend the TLM and claim that it's by virtue of their going to the TLM that they're in the true church. Now, to my dear Catholic friends, because I attend the traditional Latin Mass, That is unfair to the traditional Latin Mass

and it's unfair to all of those priests who are authorized to celebrate it. But what the Pope is referring to is those who have weaponized the traditional Mass to foment their rebellion against Vatican II and the new Mass. This is really the motivation for why Francis wants to bring the hammer down in the traditional Mass. And it's the motivation for why Francis wants to bring the hammer down in the traditional Mass. And it's not fair, I believe, you know, with all humility that the Holy Father should condemn the society and condemn those who oppose the magisterium of the Church. Don't punish those who are attending the traditional Latin Mass through the former Ecclesia Dei communities, right? The Institute and the fraternity and others, those diocesan priests, don't punish us because

of those who have weaponized the old Mass to further rebellion. But that's where Francis is coming from. I disagree with the remedy, okay, but I understand the rationale. And thank God the FSSP approached Pope Francis who said that these restrictions wouldn't harm them in any way. Yeah. And then they asked him, let's get that in writing. Yes. He said, no problem.

Yes. Well, this kind of leads us to the illicit consecrations of the bishops. Can you just maybe slow down and just break this open for us so we can understand what happened? Right. We define what schism is, right? It's the withdrawal of submission to, you know, the Holy Father, to His jurisdiction, His authority. And, you know, we can say that, you know, certainly a case can be made that Archbishop Lefebvre withdrew submission from

Paul VI and John Paul II by disregarding all canonical warnings, by disregarding all canonical censures. But it finally, Matt, led to the definitive rupture because the canonical crime of schism results in automatic excommunication, okay? Schism is defined in Canon 751 under Canon 1364. Those who commit the canonical crime of schism are automatically excommunicated from the church. It's called latte sentenciae. By the act itself, the sentence is already passed if the act is committed.

The issue with that though is you really don't have what's called juridical certainty of who incurred the censure without the church declaring it. And that's why I don't name people, I warn people. There's a difference. What I'm saying is what the popes have said, those who adhere to this schism formally will incur automatic excommunication. Again, Matt, I don't name who they are because we're not the authority to determine whether the canonical elements were met, the Church is, but that doesn't mean nobody's excommunicated.

The fact is, unlike civil law or criminal law where a defendant actually has to be tried and convicted before he is sentenced, there are acts under canonical or ecclesiastical law where the sentence is passed by virtue of the fact that you committed the act. Heresy, apostasy, and schism results in automatic excommunication. I bring that up because while an argument can be made that Archbishop Lefebvre was already excommunicated for schism based upon this 13-14 year repudiation of papal authority still wasn't declared yet, right? There's still that element of juridical uncertainty as to whether he did. Well, that

changed when he went forward and illicitly consecrated the four bishops on June 30, 1988. He was warned not to do this. Remember now, he was given a bishop by John Paul II, and he reneged. What Lefebvre came out and said is, you know what, I rethought my position. I don't want one bishop on August 15th. I want four bishops on June 30th. So I want three more six weeks early. Why? He said this to the Holy Father? Well, this is practically what he presented, because that's what he went on doing. He told Ratzinger, if you read the correspondence, which was another thing that really disturbed

me when I started reading the correspondence with Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Lefebvre, Rome was bending over backwards for him. And I even wondered why, you know, why would they, why were they so docile to this man who has rejected everything that they've commanded him to do for a dozen years? But it got to a point where Lefebvre has decided that he's going to go forward with these illicit consecrations. He was canonically warned that if he did so he would be excommunicated. He went forward with the consecrations and then Cardinal Ganton of the Congregation for Bishops decorations, and then Cardinal Ganton of the Congregation for Bishops declared that he had incurred this automatic censure of excommunication under 1364. His declaration is not imposing,

he's declared that it's already happened, okay? And then John Paul II then, Matt, came out with Ecclesia Dei Afflicta on July 2nd, the very next day, 1988, and solemnly confirmed that Lefebvre had excommunicated himself. Now we can explain why that is, and very briefly I will just say it's because, and John Paul II even says this in Eccasy Day Afflictates, because what Lefebvre did is a rejection of the Roman primacy, a usurpation of the Roman primacy. This is a very important point that I want, you know, all our society friends to understand. You know, as I did my research on this and reading the encyclicals, particularly a number of encyclicals from Pius IX, who during his pontificate addressed

many illicit consecrations during his pontificate. What he and others have taught—I can go to Pius VI, Pius IX, Pius XII, Council of Trent, on and on and on—the Magisterium has taught that just as Christ alone chose his apostles, so the vicar of Christ alone chooses the successors to the apostles. You see? Just as Christ alone sends the apostles, so the vicar of Christ alone sends the apostles. It is a right of the Roman primacy, of the Roman pontiff who holds the office of the primacy. It is his sole and exclusive right to select, consecrate, and send bishops. That is a matter of divine law. When one consecrates a bishop contrary to the will

of the Holy Father, they are usurping a right of the Roman primacy, you see? Pius the 6th, Pius the 9th says Christ himself gave this right to Peter, to the office of Peter. This is a right that Christ Himself is conferring upon the office of the primacy. That's how serious this is, you see? This was a weakness in Michael Davey's argument, may he rest in peace, right? He was an apologist for the society. And, you know, he always referred to the fact that Archbishop Lefebvre didn't have an apostolic mandate to consecrate these bishops, and you don't need an apostolic mandate. You didn't in the early church, and not having an apostolic mandate isn't necessarily schismatic. That's true. In the early church, we didn't

have this notion of apostolic mandate. A lot of times, especially in the East, bishops were just consecrated, always with the tacit approval of the pope. Never contrary to the will of the pope, there's a difference. But there's also a difference, you know, met between consecrating a bishop without an apostolic mandate, which now under the code of canon law

is an offense that's subject to excommunication. That's not necessarily a schismatic act though, okay? We can bring up cases where Cardinal Whiteo, when he was Cardinal behind the Iron Curtain, he had consecrated, evidently some bishops, a bishop slippage. Is it in Ukraine? Yeah, it was in that area in the east somewhere

behind the Iron Curtain. And he didn't have an apostolic mandate. Now, why wasn't that schismatic? Good question. Well, the answer is because the Holy See said it wasn't, because the Holy See accepted the Consecrations because they recognized that there were unique facts and circumstances there. It's ironic because Carol Waitiwa became Pope John Paul II, so he, of course, above

anybody would have known what necessity is all about, wouldn't he have? He in fact engaged in this very practice himself. But what he said, and this was not the situation behind the Aaron curtain, there was not a canonical warning not to do what he did. In Lefebvre's case, he was warned that we offered you one, you're now taking three more. No, this is contrary to the will of the Holy Father. If you do this, this is why Ecclesia Dei Afflicta in one of the paragraphs says, this is contrary to the will of the Holy Father. If you do this, this is why Ecclesia Dei Afflicta in one of the paragraphs says this constitutes a rejection of the Roman primacy, okay? Now, we're not talking about ecclesiastical or human law here. This is

what's so important, Matt. As I said, this is a matter of divine law. You can't get around this. The pope alone has the right to select and consecrate and send bishops Of course, he delegates the act of the Episcopal consecration to bishops That's a something that he can delegate and often does delegate to other bishops But they don't have a right to do it against his will Okay It's the Pope who decides who is going to enter into the College of Bishops because he's the head who decides who is going to enter into the College of Bishops because he's the head. You see, a bishop cannot enter into the College of Bishops against the will of the head of the college. It's absurd. It's absurd. This is the church.

This is the church that Christ founded. And when we talk about the church, we primarily mean those two divine institutions that Christ gave us, the primacy of Peter and the Episcopate, the College of Bishops, those are the divine organs of the church that are directly created and instituted by Christ himself. And so this is why any usurpation or misappropriation of a right that only belongs to the Pope is necessarily schismatic. And I can think of nothing more serious other than a man claiming he's the pope when he's an anti-pope, because when you're talking about usurping a right of the primacy, which regards the perpetuation of apostolic succession,

okay, and the church's mission until the Second Coming, you don't get any more serious than that. We're talking about the divine constitution of the Church here. This is why what Lefebvre did wasn't necessarily schismatic, because it was an attack on that divine constitution. How does the SSPX make an argument for these consecrations? I think a sign of a good intellect, I think it was Aristotle, he said you can entertain an idea without having to accept it. Can you try to steel man as opposed to straw man? Can you try to steel man the society's arguments for why Lefebvre was correct in ordaining these bishops? Even though you don't agree with it?

Well, the entire tradition of the church doesn't agree with it. As I've said, you know, I have an article where I cite all the popes who have condemned this practice. They'll say two things. Yeah, well, the society will say two things. One, they'll say a necessity allows us to do so. Now the problem with that, Matt, is that necessity never justifies the circumvention of divine law. It only could justify

the circumvention of ecclesiastical or human law. Epicaia might be an example where the law would be suspended because we want to fulfill a higher law. So, the will of the legislature based upon these ecclesiastical laws, if the circumstances frustrate the higher law, Epicaia would say those laws are suspended, we can appeal to the higher law. The problem with the society's position is that the right to consecrate a select and consecrate a bishop is part of the divine law, it is part of the higher law, just as is canonical mission. The fact that the mission of the salvation of souls takes place through the right of

the pope to perpetuate the episcopate, through the selection and consecration and mission of his bishops. In fact, what I'm saying is exactly what the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts declared in 1996. That's the organ of the Church that's responsible for giving definitive judgments on canon law, the meaning of canon law. And the PCILT said specifically that necessity never justifies consecrating a bishop contrary to the will of the Holy Father.

Contrary to the will of the Holy Father, it's impossible. So do you think Lefebvre was hoping that John Paul II would have recognized these after the fact as legitimate consecrations? There's no way he could have because he was warned in advance that if he did so, he'd be excommunicated. Okay, so then what happens next? What happens to Lefebvre and these other bishops? Well, they were then declared to have incurred the automatic latte sentenciae censure of excommunication by committing a schismatic act the schismatic act as I said was this

Rejection of the primacy this usurpation of a right that only Peter and his successors holds and then John Paul II said that Not only was this a schismatic act, but the society is in schism and anyone who formally adheres to the schism is excommunicated. Now there's a distinction I think we need to make between the SSPX and the people, right? Because the society as a tax-exempt organization, whatever you want to call it, right? I mean that it can't be excommunicated, but the people can be. People are subject to the censure of excommunication, not the

society per se. However, the popes have used the word schism to apply to the society because it is a movement. Remember I said it's not technically a juridic person under canon law because it was suppressed, it doesn't exist, it's just a conglomeration of a cephalous priests. It is a movement that is schismatic because everything, because the the act that gave birth to this so-called mission now was a schismatic act and everything that flows from it, all the ordinations and everything they do from that would be considered part of the schism. I see.

Okay? So, you know, Cardinal Burke, well, first of all, John Paul II has referred to the society as in schism. Benedict XVI did. Even Pope Francis did. People aren't aware of that. When he issued Tradizionis Custodis, he referred to, I think in his letter to the bishop's accompanying TC, he referred to quote, the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre. Could he not have been referring to the schism that happened in the past that's since been

cleared up? Well, the schism hasn't been cleared up. Only the censures that were declared were removed. But the acts, we'll get to that. Is there a quick list of documents you can give me that I can throw in the description for people to follow along with? Because I've noticed you've cited a couple documents. Is there a quick list you could give me?

Not off the top of our head, maybe, but maybe after the fact. Ecclesia Dei Afflicta. Oh, you're gonna put links to them, thank you. Yeah, that's what I'm asking. What a man. Yeah, July 2nd, 1988, Ecclesia Dei Afflicta. Oh, you're going to put links to them, thank you. Yeah, that's what I'm asking. What a man. Yeah, July 2, 1988, Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, which was the motu proprio of John Paul II, whereby he declared that Lefebvre and the four bishops that received Episcopal consecration against the will of the Holy Father had incurred the automatic censure of excommunication.

And then, as we were getting into, Matt, there's a distinction right between the movement, which is clearly schismatic, as all the popes have said, as Cardinal Burke has said, as Cardinal Mueller has said, Cardinal Ratzinger, and so forth, and the people who adhere to the movement. So, you know, that distinction is so forth, and the people who adhere to the movement. So, you know, that distinction is persons are subject to the censure. So, you know, in my opinion, we know that Benedict has lifted the censure of excommunication on the four bishops, okay?

What does that mean? How could he do that? They were deceased at the time, correct? No, they're all still alive. What about Lefebvre? Oh, well, he didn't lift it on Lefebvre. He mentioned the four bishops. I see. Right. Lefebvre was deceased, but he mentioned the four bishops.

Well, if you read the decree that lifts the center of excommunication, it's clear that Pope Benedict did it because it says he wanted to quote, have prompt attainment of full communion with the church. Because the four bishops were under a declared censure, okay, we know what happened automatically, but when the church comes in and actually declares it, that's considered a juridical obstacle Okay, we know what happened automatically, but when the church comes in and actually declares it, that's considered a juridical obstacle toward communion.

If the censure wasn't declared, let's say you or I, God forbid, incurred the censure of excommunication, but the church didn't declare it, all we would need to do is go to a confessor who had the faculty to absolve and lift the censure and we'd be back in. You see? When the censure is declared, that is an additional juridical impediment toward full communion. So Benedict says, I'm going to remove the impediment, okay, that's preventing full

communion so that you promptly attain full communion. And then what happened after he lifted the censure? Remember that's when the society theologians, you know, went in and had these debates with the Roman theologians about the various doctrinal issues that they needed to resolve. And guess what happened? Nothing got resolved. The society came out on the back end of that in exactly the same position that they were in 1988 and that they were in 2009 and that they were in

2012 and that they are in 2023, other than delegated faculties for confessions which we can talk about. But the society, you know, given all these overtures they haven't changed their position at all. They actually, at the back end of this, Matt, in 2012, I think it was April 15th of 2012, they were given a protocol, Phile, Bishop Phile was given a protocol. We mentioned it, right, except, you know, that the new Mass was at least legitimately promulgated by the Holy Father and that the Council documents are from a true ecumenical Council and can be interpreted with tradition. The Society rejected those conditions, those reasonable conditions which would have, I believe, brought them into communion with the church.

I think they could have been given a personal pleasure. This is where the resistance broke off. Even people attending SSPX Shackles may not know this. It's shocking. You can go look at the protocol. I read it recently and I'm thinking, man, they had everything they wanted. What happened? What happened there? So when somebody says, you've just explained this, but one more time, when somebody says Pope Benedict lifted the excommunications, ergo the SSPX are no longer in schism.

That's not true, because I'll give you an example. Pope Paul VI lifted the excommunications on the Orthodox. Are they still in schism? The Society of St. Pius X would be the first to say that the Orthodox are still in schism even though the excommunications are lifted. You see? But the SSPX mentioned Pope Francis at the liturgy. They claim to be under him. The Orthodox don't. They're clearly, if you want to say they're not in communion They're clearly more in communion than if you can be more in communion than than the Orthodox Well, we're closer to communion pious the ninth and Leo the 13th both have said that a mere profession of unity is insufficient for the legal reality and again

This is what I've been talking about when we talk about errors of ecclesiology And again, this is what I've been talking about when we talk about heirs of ecclesiology. Just because they mentioned Pope Francis in the canon doesn't mean that they are in communion with the Roman Catholic Church and juridically united to her in faith, worship, and governance. And I can prove that by pointing out, Matt, to the old Catholics, the old Catholic Confederation. Look it up online. For those at home, who are they? When did they...? They broke off from the church after Vatican I, because they didn't like the definition

of papal infallibility. So they have their own schism and their own illicit ordinations, and they still exist today. And I just was very curious to watch an old Catholic mass because I wanted to know, will they mention Francis in the canon? They do.

And the SSPX would agree that they're in schism. Absolutely 100%. So mentioning Pope Francis at Holy Mass isn't enough. Pius IX communicated the old Catholics, they're clearly in schism. Another reason why, Matt, you can clearly show the societies in schism is because they're willfully separated from the church's governance. This is also something that I don't hear my friendly opponents talk about. This is very important. We talk about divine law, the fact that it is a matter of divine law that the pope alone chooses his bishops, that the pope

alone gives canonical mission to the bishops who then send the priests. Well, it's also a matter of divine law that one must be united to the government of the Catholicishops who then send the priests. Well, it's also a matter of divine law that one must be united to the government of the Catholic Church. Pope Leo XIII teaches this very clearly in Satis Cognitum. He says being part of the Church's governance is Deiure Divino, it's divine law, and yet the society leadership will admit, and they must admit, that they have decided to remain separated, legally separated from the church's governance. They're not subject to the church's governance. That's another clear sign of schism.

Do we want to say more about the difference between Episcopal consecration and mission? Sure, we can. Yes. Episcopal consecration deals with the matter of apostolicity. You know, when we say the Church is one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic, she's apostolic because she has a lineage from the apostles, right, to the current successors to the apostles. That's why it's apostolic. So the matter of apostolic succession is Episcopal consecration or the laying on of hands, because we can tie that chain all the way back to the apostles, okay? And it's at Episcopal consecration where the bishop does receive what the church calls

– this is actually a beautiful teaching of Vatican II, Lumen Gentium. This is the true teaching of collegiality, by the way, where the bishop receives an ontological participation in the sacred functions of teaching, sanctifying, and governing. So he receives these functions, or they're called offices, actually. They're interior, they're ontological offices or functions, but they're not ready to act yet. They're not ready to act until the bishop is in hierarchical communion with the Roman pontiff through mission. And that generally, Matt, happens when the pope

assigns him to a diocese, generally. Not always, not always the case. He may only be a member of the College of Bishops, maybe he's going to be an auxiliary bishop or have some other type of mission, but the functions that he receives only become powers ready to act when he is given canonical mission by the Roman Pontiff, you see? So he has the ontological powers, okay, imprinted on his soul, but he has no right to exercise them. They're not activated activated as it were right there in potency Okay, they're not rendered active until he's given canonical mission. And again, this is part of of the divine law This is the way Christ set up the church the fact that the father

Sends the son the son sends, you know, he sends Peter Peter than you know in the successor So it's it's a beautiful reflection. OK, what about a priest who's laicized? He's been consecrated. He no longer has a episcopal mission. Correct. But in a case of an emergency, am I right in thinking he can still hear confession? He can he can still absolve in danger of death. He could celebrate Holy Mass illicitly, but validly.

He could. Yeah, he could. Yeah, because he has the ontological. he has the ontological powers to do so. I mean, even if the SSPX accept everything you've set up till now, why couldn't they argue, well, this is a state of emergency. Look at the state of the church today. Yeah. So sure, maybe it's illicit, but it's valid and it's celebrated beautifully. And as I said, necessity never justifies getting around the divine law and the divine constitution of the church. You know, that's where you have to draw the line.

Necessity, you know, there's the divine law, and then we have ecclesiastical law which helps apply the divine law. It helps apply the mission of the church. So for example, under the code of canon law, there is a canon which says, as you just pointed out, if a priest has been excommunicated, he can still validly absolve in danger of death. That's something that the ecclesiastical law has carved out that exception to apply the church's mission in that case, okay?

But there's nothing in canon law which says that priests can decide based upon their subjective Assessment of a crisis that they can do everything they want and be accountable to no one I mean that's not Catholic at all again It starts with the Pope and the bishops and then the priests being incardinated under the bishops It starts with mission okay Being a part of the church, being sent by the church, being authorized by the church. And having these priests say, we are being authorized and we are in submission to our bishops who are no longer under the center of excommunication isn't sufficient?

No, it's not because the society bishops do not have ordinary jurisdiction. They do not have canonical mission. They have valid Episcopal consecrations. And even though the censure of excommunication was lifted for the purpose of integration, which unfortunately hasn't happened, they were not given a canonical mission. The purpose of lifting the censure was hopefully for them to agree to the conditions whereby they would have been given a canonical mission. That's what we were all praying for and hoping for. And, you know, I won't name the name, but, you know, I have some inside information on how those debates were going with the Society

Theologians and the Society Priest said, John, I got to tell you, I mean, they're not going to admit this, but our theologians got their butts kicked by these guys in Rome. They really did on matters of ecclesiology, on matters of the divine constitution of the church, on mission, on jurisdiction, fundamental things that relate to how Christ established His church. So we are talking about God's will, Christ's will, and how he wills the salvation of souls. He wills it through the church as he found it. You know, when we think about that dogma, there's no salvation outside the church.

We're referring to that juridical, hierarchical structure, okay? One must be united to the church, either in a ray, actually or at least in voto in will to be saved. What church are we talking about here? We're talking about the church of Rome and all of the dioceses that are illegally united to her. That's the Roman Catholic church. The Roman Catholic church is not those who profess the true faith. That's what the Protestant says. It sounds dangerously close to Protestantism at that point.

It's exactly what the Protestants have said. This invisible body of believers. That's exactly right. Okay, these bishops, there's four. You said a moment ago that if you commit an act of schism, you're automatically excommunicated, though that might be fuzzy unless there's a declaration from the church. So these four bishops that have had the censure of excommunication lifted, officially from the church, having not, in your view, reconciled with the church, are they in schism?

Well, I would only give you my opinion, and my opinion would be yes, because nothing has changed since the censure has been lifted You know, it's funny was talking to a candidates who has practiced a long time Not just in Rome, but in four other continents and he actually gave me examples of cases where an ex communication was lifted one day because the person had to do something to reconcile and He incurred it the very next day automatically because he failed to meet the conditions. Now the society has rejected the conditions for integration into the church, and the rumor

was Pope Benedict was actually going to issue another excommunication. Remember he lifted it in 2009. They had these discussions, doctrinal discussions in 2010. Well, what happened? We all know that he didn't get it done and he resigned, unfortunately. The church hasn't reissued the declaration, so I want to be careful about that. Again, in my view... I appreciate your modesty here. This is very helpful. It's very easy to be hyperbolic about these things.

No, no, no. In my view, and it's only my opinion as a layman, because these four men, now one of them, Bishop Williamson, isn't even part of the society anymore, he broke off and now is heading what's called the resistance, and now there's resistance to the resistance. What is this? This is how schism works. See, this is what's funny. When I started studying, someone challenged me, right? Because I hosted that debate regrettably between the set of a contest and the SSPX. And someone challenged me, they said,

you've gotta stop saying the SSPX are in union with Rome. And I thought, well, I'm just saying that because people smarter than me are saying it. And that's when I went into this deep dive. Okay. So it was weird though, because like walking into this conversation, is like walking into an angry argument

that's been happening for decades. So it's hard to know where to begin. I'm a glad trad. I'm not a mad trad, okay? I think some others have used that terminology. Yes, that's been happening for decades. So it's hard to know where to begin. I'm a glad trad. I'm not a mad trad, okay? I think some others have used that terminology. Yes, that's right. Scott Hahn. Has he, okay, so.

Trent O'Costell, I think too, yeah. That's how I like to see it, okay? So my point though is, help me understand real quickly, one of those bishops did what? Left the society? Bishop Richard Williamson was ejected a minimum of the circumstances, but publicly he's out of the society now, leading the resistance, and unfortunately he's consecrated.

What does that mean, leading the resistance? Resistance to the Society of St. Pius X. Why is he resisting? Williamson and a number of priests felt that Bishop Fillet was getting too cozy with Rome by even talking to Rome about considering conditions for integration. Now talk about a schismatic mentality. Oh my goodness. Bishop Fillet, who is a kind man, I mean, I've met him, you know, and I want to believe his heart's in the right place. I don't know all the pressure he was under and how he was being pulled. I don't

understand why he didn't accept the conditions. It would have served the church tremendously if the society could actually carry out a lawful mission within the church. They're already worldwide, right? And again, I've always said this, Matt, that's my hope. I'm not here to destroy them. I'm here to warn Catholics about the consequences, and I hope these warnings actually reach the priests above all. Because, you know, we talk about a way out. There's a way out, okay? Go to the Institute, go to the Fraternity, go to the diocesan bishop, at least one that you can trust. I'm sure there's a few. They're not all bad. I know a lot of them are, but you know what I'm saying?

So... So how do the SSPX view this bishop who left and is now heading up, quote unquote, the resistance? That's a good question, you know? Is he in schism? Of course. Is he in an irregular state with the SSPX? Think about this. I had a debate in writing with one of my former colleagues and I pointed all these things out and he said the society bishops don't come from themselves, they come from tradition, which is what he

said. And I said, okay, does that mean Bishop Williamson comes from tradition? Because he's no longer with the Society. And by the way, when Bishop Williamson left the Society, he consecrated a couple other bishops and he used the same apostolic mandate, pseudo-apostolic mandate, that Lefebvre used when he was consecrated. He used the exact same word. I've got this in a letter. So, is Williamson from tradition? Are the bishops that Williamson consecrated from tradition? Are the bishops that Lefebvre came from tradition? Are they all from tradition and where does

tradition come from? You see, I have, you know, I have called this, and it's serious, but I call this the false counter-church of tradition. Those who have fallen into the error that as long as we have the TLM at any cost and it doesn't matter if this priest is incardinated or sent or even part of the Catholic Church, as long as we have the TLM, you know, this is becoming a movement on its own, what I call the false counterfeit church tradition. You know, just like the Protestants exited the church because of Scripture, there are Catholics now exiting the church because of a false understanding.

You can say they left because of Scripture and scandal. Right? The Protestants would use that part of their the state of the church at the time, right? To try to reform the church. And so doing left the church. Right. Okay. Forgive me if this is a side note, but okay, this Williams guy.

So his last name? Williamson. Williamson. So he's ordained other bishops. He has, yeah. Okay. And then you said there's a movement against. Yeah, they're all infighting.

I mean, you know, he, he. You can't move it. You can't get away from the infight. You can't. We would all like to have them. Yeah, they're all infighting. I mean, you know, he... You can't move away from the infight. We would all like to have them. We're a full step in line. Right. He was expelled by Bishop Fillet, from what I understand. It's in public records. You can read exactly how the society communicated this, but he was expelled and... See, shouldn't that be the Pope's job if they were in union with Rome? Of course. I mean, you know, they're operating under their own governance, but it's not the governance of the Roman Catholic Church. I'm gonna, towards the end of this episode, I'm gonna throw a bunch of objections your way. So if people are thinking right now, the SSPX can't be in Sism because of XYZ, I've got a ton that I want to throw at you eventually. We'll see how you respond to them. But let me just ask you point-blank, is the SSPX in schism? The popes have said so.

I'm not saying it from my own opinion. John Paul II has said so. Benedict XVI, even Francis, Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Munoz. Yes, the question is whether the individuals are in schism. Now let's address that, Matt, because I think it's very important. After John Paul II in Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, again July 2nd, 1988, declared that Archbishop Lefebvre committed a schismatic act in the Society's in schism, he then went on to say Catholics should have nothing to do with that movement, and he went on to say those who formally adhere to the schism, you just asked me are they in schism? Well I'm reading from John Paul II, right? Those who formally adhere to the schism incur the automatic

censure of excommunication. Now what does formal adherence mean? I mean the congregation of the Doctrine of Faith hasn't told us. The Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts has addressed this issue in 1996. There's a letter online that you can read. And what it has said, and now we're dealing with individuals now, we're not dealing with the society as a movement, which is schismatic, but we're dealing with whether the individuals who adhere to that movement, whether they are excommunicated. And the P. Silt said that, and I'm quoting them from memory, they actually said, quote,

it seems no doubt that the priests and deacons are formally adhering because they understand what the movement is all about, you see. Again, this still requires an element of subjectivity when you're talking about whether they're culpable for it, but at least in terms of the canonical crime, it appears that they are, but like I said, Matt, in the absence of a declaration, it's prudent never to name somebody, because that's the church's job. Canon law gives us the elements that are necessary to have a canonical crime, but the church

has to judge whether there is a canonical crime, to be fair, right? But one wonders. All I'm saying is what the church has said. I'm not saying you're a schismatic, but I'm saying if you formally adhere to the schism, then you are. And then what you're also saying is, Benedict's remission of the essentials of excommunication does nothing to change that. Because I think that's what I had in my mind, that something that Benedict did somehow made what Pope Paul VI, John Paul II, say is irrelevant at this point. Well, those are two different things, right? The schismatic act occurred. I mean, that act can't be undone.

You can't say, actually, the church was wrong. You usurping a right of the primacy is not schismatic. OK, that's the problem. What you can do, though, is remove the censure that was declared so as to not have that juridical impediment prevent them from being fully regularized into the church. You see this?

So there's a difference there. And we have a precedent for this. It's the Orthodox, Matt. Like I said, the Orthodox censure of excommunication was lifted by Paul VI in 1965, and yet they're still schismatic. They're still schismatic. They're just not under the declared censure. Okay But I wanted to get into the other other thing about please whether the priests are again I'm not making a judgment. I again, I don't name names. I am only warning what the church has said

I think it's even a more gray area for the lady and I put myself in this camp If you're just going to a society mass to get the TLM, you're not a schismatic, okay? The Pontifical Council, again, for interpretation of legislative texts have said with respect to the laity, they, you know, were delicate and nuanced this a little bit, and they said, you know, we think that if the laity were to only, what they said, attend exclusively, lefebriian, ecclesial acts is what they said. In other words, if you're only going to the Society of St. Pius X at the exclusion of everything else, and if you believe that Lefeb was correct and you're putting the authority

of Archbishop Lefeb above the pope, then it would appear that you are formally adhering to the schism. But if you're just going to the mass as I was and that many other people are, that is not sufficient to qualify as a canonical crime of schism. That's not to say you should be doing that, but I want people to be clear. I'm not saying, and the church has not said, everybody attends the Society of Masses and Schism, that's not what we're saying. But again, I will say, if you're formally adhering to the Schism, your subject-text communication. Does going to an SSPX chapel on Sunday fulfill my Sunday

obligation? No, but I would say, don't take my word for it, go to your bishop and get his authority, because that's what I did. I've explained the rationale behind that already, that the obligation is tied to a church sui urus that's in full communion with the pope and with the local bishop, which only makes sense, right? The church has a right to regulate the liturgy and to ensure that people are worshiping in communion with the pope and the bishops.

But go to your bishop and get a judgment on the question. Ecclesia Dei has said over and over again in its replies, which again, we can't rely upon because they're intended only for those for whom they were intended, but that it doesn't fill the Sunday obligation other than one instance. And I should mention, you know, I looked into that and talked to some canonists about it. It was a situation, Matt, where a person did not have recourse to any Catholic church. Now, this is interesting.

The rationale for the piece, Ecclesia Dei, saying that because you have no recourse to a real Catholic Church You can go to the Society Mass to fulfill your Sunday obligation. It said in the strict sense You know what was actually saying it was saying Because you don't have recourse to a Catholic Church. You technically cannot fulfill the ecclesiastical precept, but you still are obligated to honor the Lord on His day. And so by going to a society mass, you would fill the divine law, because it's an act that you're doing

because you can't get to a Catholic church. Now, if this guy said, Ecclesia day, if I pray the rosary, because I don't have a Catholic church, they would have probably said, in the strict sense, praying the rosary satisfies the obligation, not the ecclesiastical precept, because you can't get to a Catholic church, but you still are obligated under divine law, and going to a society chapel or praying the rosary or praying a missal, whatever the case may be, that in the strict sense would then fulfill the obligation. You see how

nuanced these things are? Yeah, I do see that and what I see funny is the mirroring of this because you have SSPX apologists online saying you need not attend a novice ordo. You can still honor the Sabbath, but maybe do that by praying the Holy Rosary. So it's like the inverse of it, except without the authority to make that. What I'm saying in this particular case is that this is one of many examples where the society will commandeer and take completely out of context and distort something to give a conclusion that really is not reality. That letter that Monsignor Pearl wrote does not mean one can satisfy the obligation by attending a society mass.

And in fact, Monsignor Pearl, after he issued that, it was actually published in some Catholic newspapers, and Pearl, it's amazing that he reacted by coming out four months later, I think it was in January of 2003, and saying, time out. I gave a reply to a specific individual for his circumstances. This was not intended for the universal church, and he said the masses are illicit, you know, and people are forbidden from attending them.

So here we have the Society advancing an Ecclesia Day reply, which they take completely out of context and then fail to mention the fact that Monsignor Pearl followed up four months later with a clarification of what he really meant. You see? So that's why you've got to be careful. You've got to do your diligence. Unfortunately, what I have discovered in reading the Society material, and I'm not accusing them of any type of intentionality, but I have found that things

are often presented in ways that really don't comport with the truth or with reality. This is one of those cases. Has there been any statement by a pope that has said that the SSPX are in full communion with the Church, or in communion with the Church? No, because they're not. I keep hearing irregular state. Where does that come from? What does that mean? You know, irregular means not regular.

And as I've said, not regular means not according to the regula, which is the rule of the Church. And so if you want to say they're irregular, I agree. They're not according to the rule that Christ established that one is required to have a threefold juridical bond with the Catholic Church of faith, worship, and governance, which they lack and, you know, as clergy, they're not part of or sent by the church. And so they would be irregular because they're not according to the rule of the church. What are some other of the society's errors in canon law, or have we covered most of them? Well, there's quite a few.

I can tell you, Matt, when I was looking into this and studying canon law for a long, long time, 20 years, I came to some conclusions that I was quite surprised. I couldn't believe some of the things that I discovered in their analysis, and I'll explain what those are. But to be clear, I actually fortunately have some contacts in Rome that I submitted these conclusions to. Some of them wear red hats, and they affirmed my conclusions. I was actually, a lot of the articles I've written had that approval. So,

one of the things I discovered is that the society is completely distorted and abused the notion of supplied jurisdiction. Under Canon 144, it says that the church can supply jurisdiction where jurisdiction is necessary in cases of either common error or positive and probable doubt of fact or law. And I can explain a little bit of what that means. What the Society has been saying for nearly 50 years is that due to the crisis, they admit they don't have, or at least before Francis gave them the faculties, they did not have the faculties to validly absolve in the confessional. They conceded that.

I mean, that was objectively true. But they claimed that the church supplied the faculty, it's called ecclesiast su plai, the church supplied jurisdiction in cases of necessity. Well having studied this quite extensively and again submitting at least my conclusions to people who know a lot more about this than me, that is a totally distorted understanding of supply jurisdiction. me, that is a totally distorted understanding of Supply Jurisdiction. The society views Supply Jurisdiction in what I would call a vacuum. Their position is effectively, so long as a person sees a priest with a stolon going

into confessional, that person is going to naturally think that that priest has faculties to absolve their sins in the confessional. That's the society's position. This is not at all how supplied jurisdiction works, and frankly I cannot believe that the Society of St. Pius X has gotten away with this for so many years. If you read the treatises on this, for example, there's one by Miaskiewicz who was a priest and he wrote a treatise on Canon 209 under the Old Code in around 1940, which the Society even refers to.

He and others explain that. Supply jurisdiction, the Church supplies jurisdiction in the case of common error on the following points. Number one, the Catholic community has to make a judgment that the priest has the habitual faculty to absolve. Now listen to what I said there. The Catholic community has to make a judgment that the priest that is in their parish has the faculty to absolve that he's been sent by the bishop. The only way a priest would have the habitual faculty to absolve sins is if he were incardinated and sent by his bishop, okay? The society doesn't meet

any of those criteria. Number one, the society applies supplied jurisdiction to their chapels. Their chapels are not considered the Catholic community. The Catholic community for supplied jurisdiction applies to the territorial parish or diocese in which the society illicitly operates because supplied jurisdiction is intended to protect the Catholic community, not those who are going to confession outside of the Catholic community. You see? So they attempt to apply supply jurisdiction to their own SSPX chapels. It doesn't apply to SSPX chapels. It applies to what the Catholic community. The second point is the Catholic community would have to make a judgment. That's different than

being ignorant. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge, whereas judgment is based upon some knowledge, and if it's an erroneous theory, there's an element of ignorance. But it's a judgment, and the canonists generally say it's a moral unanimity of the Catholic community that would have to conclude that this priest has, again, habitual jurisdiction to hear confessions. Well, of course, no one in the Catholic community would believe that a society priest has habitual jurisdiction to hear confessions, because even the society priests say they didn't before Francis had the habitual faculty. You see,

they're also, because they're under censure, that would be another reason why the Catholic community could not conclude that they had the faculty. There are other reasons. But the point I'm trying to make is the society has preached this notion of them having supplied jurisdiction for 40-some-50 years before they actually had the faculty. All these confessions were invalid. They did not have the faculty, because the church doesn't supply in cases where have the faculty because the church doesn't supply in cases where a non-Catholic community knows the priest doesn't have the faculty. It wouldn't apply in that case, you see? Supply jurisdiction always concerns whether the priest has an habitual faculty from the bishop, and that's why when you read the treatises it's always in the context of the diocesan parish, okay? Let's say, for example, you know, people regularly go to confession on Saturday afternoon and Father Joe is

usually there. Well, all of a sudden, it's Father John this week, okay? They don't know who Father John is. Would that Catholic community conclude that Father John had the faculty to hear confessions? Of course they would. Why would they? Because they're in a diocesan church, advertising confessions. This is where they do a confession every week. And they would have assumed that Father John was sent by the bishop or had a delegated faculty from the bishop through Father Joe. You see, that's how supplied jurisdiction works. That's why it never applied to the

Society of St. Pius X clergy, because the Catholic community not only would not err, but they know, practically all of them know, that their bishops or that their priests were not sent by the bishop with the faculty to hear confession. This is how egregious, Matt, this was in the fact that they've frankly deceived souls for so many years. I think this is a black and white issue. I mean, that's certainly the impression I get from the canonists that I've talked to about this matter, and it's the same for marriage as we could talk about that. Thank God Francis has now given them the faculties for confession. So let's be clear about that. The society priests do now have the faculty to hear confession and it's wonderful because they can do

this throughout the world. It's an anomaly, as Cardinal Burke said, it is an anomaly that they could have the faculty to hear confessions but not the faculty to say Mass. I get that, it appears to be inconsistent, but it's still the way it is. And I would also point to, Matt, this might be one of your objection questions, so maybe I can preempt it. The Orthodox are in a similar situation.

There is a precedent in the church where a cleric is considered in schism and yet has the faculty to hear confessions. And you know what it is, it's the Orthodox. If you look at Canon 844-2, that's the canon that permits sacramental sharing under certain very limited circumstances, right? If there's moral or physical impossibility, there's no danger of indifferentism, etc., A Catholic could approach a non-Catholic minister for the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick, where the sacraments are valid in their churches. Well, what the Church has said, Ecclesia Dei, Cardinal Cassie, and a number of others have said, what that canon's referring to is the Orthodox.

Because there are certain seas in the east that were legitimately established, okay, and now usurped by schismatics, in heretics unfortunately, but because they were legitimately established, those offices had jurisdiction attached to them, okay, through the delegation of the Holy Father, and the popes haven't withdrawn it. Now, they could withdraw that and the popes haven't withdrawn it. Now they could withdraw that jurisdiction, but they haven't, they've given tacit approval, and that's where the canon, this is in my opinion,

our canon law says these sacraments of penance, which requires jurisdiction, are valid in some of these separated churches, you see? So the orthodox would be another example where a cleric would be considered a schismatic but has the faculty to absolve. So when somebody says, well, look, the Society is in full communion because they have the faculty absolve, I just point to the Orthodox. Again, they are schismatics, but they do have the faculty absolve, and it's only because the pope has allowed them to continue appointing patriarchs to these offices and have priests, so there's

jurisdiction in these usurped seas that operate to give jurisdiction to the prelates to hear confessions. So it's another precedent. I mean, Cardinal Burke called it an anomaly, and in a way it is, because the society situation is a little different, but still there's precedent for schismatics to have the faculty to absolve in confession. The society priests are not the first ones. Okay, thank you.

That clears up a lot for me. So someone might say, maybe they're not in communion with the church, but at least they are doctrinally sound. But you've made the claim that they're not. So what are the SSPX's theological errors? Well, you know, we've pointed out in practice that they reject dogmas of the faith in practice. I'm not saying that they're going to come out and articulate their rejections. Well, let's talk about the profession of faith itself. The profession of faith that John Paul II enacted for the Universal Church both East

and West in 1989, the Nicene-Constantopolitan Creed, followed by propositions that we must accept as Catholics, and especially those who hold office in the church, the Society rejects the profession of faith of the Roman Catholic Church explicitly. Archbishop Lefebvre did. The reason why is they reject the third proposition. There are three propositions. The first is, whatever the church teaches as revealed truth must be believed with divine and Catholic faith. They don't have a problem with that. The second category is whatever the church teaches definitively, you know, and it must be definitively held. Both category one and two are considered infallible judgments by the Magisterium. The first we hold with divine and Catholic faith. The second we also hold with supernatural faith,

although it's a little bit different category. But they reject the third category, Matt, which says that when the magisterium teaches in a non-definitive manner, we're still obligated to give a religious assent of intellect and will. And of course we are. That's revealed. Christ said, hear the church. Christ said, take it to the church. He who hears you hears me. So, who would Christ said, hear the church. Christ said, take it to the church. He who hears you hears me. Who would disagree with the fact that we have to give religious deference to non-definitive teachings of the magisterium? This is different than saying we have to give an assent of faith. The third proposition does not say we give an assent of faith, but we give a religious obeisance or submission of intellect and will, a religious deference which many theologians will say still opens the possibility of suspending judgment if you think there might be something that conflicts with a higher truth that the church has taught, you see?

And they reject the profession because they reject the third category, and they reject the third category because they don't want to even give a religious ascent to the teachings of Vatican II, which in all respects are non-definitive. At least they're not presented in a dogmatic definition with accompanying anathemas, right? But they don't want to give any deference to the documents, and hence they've gone out and rejected the professional faith as a whole. Cardinal Mueller has been very clear, and Archbishop Pozo, who was one of the point persons for trying to get the Society into the Church, they made it clear that one of the conditions for the Society to actually come into the Church is going to be for them to accept the 1989 professional faith, which is a profession that's binding on all Catholics. I mean, if you look at the professions of faith throughout the ages,

the Church has always treated these professions like dogmas. You know, the four corners of the profession is what we ascend to in faith. Not that the third category requires the ascent of faith, but the proposition that we must ascend with intellect and will is a matter of faith, because Christ has revealed we must hear the Church, you see? So that's very problematic that the society rejects the profession of the Roman Catholic faith. That's one example. You know, there are many others, and not to belabor it, but just the notion that they can usurp a right of the primacy and select bishops contrary to the will of the pope. That's against divine law. The fact that they think they have a juridical mission,

as Pius XII called it, when they don't, they haven't been given a mission by the pope. You know, I have written about this, it's going probably a year now, but one of the reasons why the church has required clerics who claim to have a mission, and this happened during the Protestant Reformation where the Pope says, you have a mission from us, prove it with miracles. If you haven't been lawfully sent as a matter of divine law, then show us the divine testimony from miracles. Okay, St. Francis de Sales gets into this and a number of popes, as I've written about, talk about this. Well, the Society of St. Pius X is actually claiming that they have an extraordinary mission, okay? They admit that they do not have an

ordinary mission, they do not have a canonical or juridical mission, that is, the bishops have not been sent by the pope and the priests are not incarnated under bishops with ordinary jurisdiction. So practically what they're claiming is an extraordinary mission, but in order for one to have an extraordinary mission you have to show it by canonically approved miracles. See, the church authority, you can't escape the church's authority, right? It's got to be canonically approved miracles. But the other point is that extraordinary mission always acts in concert with the ordinary mission, never in opposition to the ordinary mission. And that's why I was startled when

one of the Society priests, I won't mention his name, but said in the video in the crisis series, he admitted publicly, he says, we operate contrary to the will of the princes of the church, the successors of the apostles. I'll say his name is Father Jonathan Loop. It's public. You can read all about this. And so, they're admitting they're operating. So even if they had an extraordinary mission, they wouldn't have it because they're operating

contrary to the mission of the church. Supposed you were with him and he said that, and then you said to him, tell me how that's not a schismatic statement, what would his response be? Let's ask him. I'm not going to speak for him. But what I will say is again what the church says. If you do not have a canonical mission, which is an ordinary mission, then you are always required to prove that you were sent directly by Christ. You see, if you're not sent by the vicar of Christ through canonical mission, then you

have to prove you were sent by Christ directly, like St. Vincent Fair. And they stopped counting his miracles, I think, at 800, right? He had an extraordinary mission. It's rarely happened in the history of the church, but it's always been testified to, either in Scripture, either John the Baptist, for example, he's an example of one who didn't perform miracles to our knowledge, but he was prophesied in Scripture. He had an extraordinary mission, and St. Vincent's Fear would be another example. I mean, I asked a society priest this one time, and I'm not trying to make light of it but he said well we have a miracle and I said what is that and he recognized that

they probably need a miracle. He said Archbishop Lefebvre was born on or died on March 25th I think. I think that's what he actually said. That was the miracle and I said you're kidding me right? And you know so that's kind of where where that discussion ended. But canonical mission, again, we're talking about the society's errors while they clearly believe that they can operate without either an ordinary or an extraordinary mission. You know, I was about to ask you something, and as I was about to ask it, I feel like I know the answer already. I was about to say to you, why doesn't the

Church declare this loudly, firmly, unequivocally? And then I thought, when's the Church done that recently about the Orthodox? Yeah. I can't think of a time. Well, it depends what you mean by this, because John Paul II did declare it in a motu proprio. He said... I suppose, I mean, today, given that there seems to be so much confusion around... Every gesture, Matt, that you see in Archbishop Pozo talks about this, from giving the faculties,

right, to now giving diocesan bishops the authority to send diocesan priests to witness a society marriage, or if that's impossible even to delegate that faculty directly to the society. All of these things that have been done have been overtures on the part of the Holy See to try to facilitate integration. They all say that. Archbishop Pozo says that all the time. All these acts that have been done really were done with a view toward bringing them into the church. I mean, these are men of good faith, and it's amazing that they still would want to after, you know, we have decades and decades of total repudiation and rogue ministry, but God only knows if it's going to happen. I tend to think that it probably won't happen at the movements level, but that priests,

individual priests will break off and maybe a substantial number of them will break off, only God knows. I hope that's the case because we sure could use them in the church. We want them in the church. Yeah. Let me ask you one final question, then we'll take a break. When we come back, I want to throw a bunch of objections to you about the SSPX and then I'd like to move into the topic of set of account ism this spirit that seems to me needs to be exercise from the church. What was benefit count ism will talk about that as well but like here's the question because I think a lot of people might be thinking this like alright in a day and age like this.

Here's the question, because I think a lot of people might be thinking this like, all right, in a day and age like this, where there is so much liturgical abuse, where you've got people, certain prelates like Father James Martin and others seeming to try. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like they're trying to normalise intrinsically evil acts. OK. You're worried about this. this? Like, why is this your thing? Why not make the liturgical abuses, I mean, how many Catholics don't believe in the true presence of Christ? You've got this group of faithful Catholics over here who love Jesus Christ, love what the Church teaches, and you're deciding to make this your whipping boy. I'm not saying that, but I can see someone... No, I understand that. And I do understand that, but the answer to that is there's no salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church.

Once you understand what the Roman Catholic Church is and recognize that movements like the Society and the St. of Acontism and independent chapels are not part of the Catholic Church, either the dogma means what it says or it doesn't, okay? I'm betting that it means what it says and what the popes have always taught. And so, you're right, we need to oppose these liberal errors on the left. And I've spent most of my apologetics career fighting these liberal errors on the left, Matt. I get it. I mean, the liturgical and doctrinal abuses are all over the place. But there are also errors on the right, these extreme errors on the right, which are overreactions to the errors on the right, these extreme errors on the right, which are over reactions to the errors on the left. And in some ways the errors on the right are more dangerous

and more pernicious because they lead souls out of the the bark of Peter. That's what I'm trying to prevent and what those who have joined me in this fight for tradition are trying to prevent this is not to downplay the crisis This is not to bury my head in the in the sand I know what's going out there because I've been fighting against it I've been fighting against Fatima and Freemasonry and liturgical abuses and doctrinal aberrations for 25 years I get it But I also have come to realize that there has been an overreaction,

and that is exiting the Catholic Church for a false understanding of what I call this counterfeit church of tradition, where now we're only gonna define the church, because all the prelates are evil, we're only gonna define the church as those who profess the true faith. Well, that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

It's an overreaction. I know the truth in the middle sounds cliche, but it actually is the case. In the middle is where the bark of Peter is. We've got to do the best we can. We oppose these aberrations and these doctrinal errors and heresies, of course we do, but we do it by remaining within the Church, by being united to our bishop. We may not agree with everything that our bishop says and does, and we certainly do not follow any commands of our bishop that are outside the scope of his authority or that would command us to sin or commit sacrilege. If the only mass

I can attend is one that's replete of sacrilege, I don't have an obligation to go and I will not go. I want to make that clear. Like I said, with this false dichotomy, you've got to look at all the facts. I'm not going to go to a mass that is offered outside the Catholic Church. I'm not going to do it, but I'm also not going to go to a mass that may be offered by a priest with the faculty, but he's dressing up like a clown. I'm not going to go to that either. Those are extremes though, right? Aren't they extremes? I mean, you live here in Steubenville and where I am in Milwaukee there actually are other options let's face the facts I know there are extreme situations but that seems to be an exception not the rule. All right thanks let's take a break

Thursday and then when we come back I've got some objections and we'll get in a set of accountism. Any sinner is capable of being a great saint, and any saint is also capable of being a great sinner. The secret therefore of character development is the realization of this power that there is in each and every one of us. For good and for evil. The good Lord would have us lay hold of what is worst in ourselves. Do not think that people who have virtue and kindness and other great talents just came by these things naturally. They had to work out their very hard. Any sinner is capable of being a great saint. And any saint is the realization of this power that there is in each and every one of us. For good and for evil.

The good Lord would have us lay hold of what is worst in ourselves. Do not think that people who have virtue and kindness and other great talents just came by these things naturally. They had to work out them very hard. I'm going to be a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a

little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a Any sinner is capable of being a great sinner. The secret therefore of character development is the realization of this power that there is in each and every one of us. For good and for evil. Good and for evil. Good and for evil. Good and for evil.

The good Lord would have us lay hold of what is worst in ourselves. Do not think that people who have virtue and kindness and other great talents just came by these things naturally. They had to work at them very hard. They had to work at them very hard. They had to work at them very hard. They had to work at them very hard. They had to work at them very hard.

They had to work at them very hard. They had to work at them very hard. They had to work at them very hard. They had to work at them very hard. They had to work at them very hard. They had to work at them very hard. They had to work at them very hard. They had to work at them very hard. I'm already out of the dark. Any sinner is capable of being a great saint. And any saint is also capable of being a great sinner. A great sinner. A great sinner. A great sinner.

All right, we're back. All right, welcome back to Pines with Aquinas. If you like what you're watching, do us a favor. Click like, subscribe if you want. Glad you're here. So what we're going to do now is I've come up with just sort of some objections that I think someone in an SSPX community might make because I've been in the SSPX community for a long time.

And I've been in the SSPX community for a long time. And I've been in the SSPX community for a long time. And I've been in the SSPX community for a long time. And I've been in the SSPX community for a long time. And I've been in the SSPX community for a long time. And I've been in the SSPX community for a long time. And I've been in the SSPX community for a long time. And I've been in the SSPX community for a long time. And I've been in the SSPX community for a gonna do now is I've come up with just sort of some Objections that I think someone in an SSPX community might make because we're really not here to straw man Anyone's arguments and if I'm doing that, I'm sorry

And I'm also not here to like I really I don't know about you But I feel like I don't have a dog in the fight I think everything you're saying today makes a lot of sense to me if the the church comes out and authoritatively makes a decision tomorrow, okay, terrific. But let me throw these objections at you and let's see how we go. I've got like 11 here. And some of them you've answered, but I'm going to throw them out again. Just maybe you want to answer them quickly. Doesn't the fact that Pope Francis gave faculties to the SSP act show that they're no longer in schism? Well, and again, we mentioned the fact that the Orthodox are still schismatics and, you know, can validly absolve, so there's a precedent there.

Cardinal Burke said it's an anomaly, but granting the faculty for a specific sacrament does not legitimize the entire ministry. After all, there are seven sacraments. Pope Francis gave the faculties for one, and then conditionally for a second. There are five other sacraments, by the way, for which they don't have faculties, and that's because they either weren't given them by a bishop with authority or not incarnated. So no, there's a distinction between whether they have a legitimate mission and whether they have faculties to do certain things, whether they're sacramental or acts of governance.

I'm just thinking this now, but if someone was to say, which you've responded to, maybe we'll get to again, that Benedict's removal of excommunication legitimizes the SSPX, they're no longer in a state of schism. Okay, but then why would Pope Francis need to give them faculties? Isn't that an admission that they actually didn't have the faculties to hear confession even since the time of Benedict's? Of course it is. And in fact, Francis even says he wanted to do that to alleviate the uncertainty of the validity of their absolutions. So he was, you know, this was a care for souls is how he how he put it.

Second objection society priests mention the name of Francis and the local bishop in their liturgy. Doesn't that show that they're not in schism? Again so do the old Catholics and their schismatics as well. As I've said, the popes have said a mere profession of unity doesn't mean there is actually the juridical reality of unity. And again, this gets back to what I said in terms of ecclesiology. Is it just appearances?

You know, we didn't talk about this, Matt, but this is important. There is what's called a threefold juridical bond which makes us members of the church, and I think this is something that we wanna spend just a little bit of time on. The first is called faith or the profession of faith. This came to mind when you said they professed Francis

in the canon because it calls to mind the error of this false church or tradition whereby it's what is only professed or what is only appears to be the case but what is not actually the reality. The profession of faith, when I say there's a threefold juridical bond that makes us members in the church, the church says it's faith, worship, and governance. The profession of faith is not a Catholic in the church coupled with a profession of faith which either the godparents make on the infant's behalf or the adult makes.

In other words, baptism and lawful reception into the Catholic Church. That is the profession of faith. Let me say that again. The profession of faith, when we say we're true Catholics because we profess the true faith, the profession of faith again does not concern your ability to orally articulate doctrines of the faith. It means that you have been lawfully received into the Roman Catholic Church. That's why you have a baptismal certificate. Okay, the baptismal certificate says that you've been received by lawful authority.

That's why there's the register for baptism. And so I bring that up because, and this is even the case for the Sate of Acontist, they misrepresent what the profession of faith means. They mean if somebody is not professing the faith, if somebody is professing heresy, they can't be a true Catholic. That's not true. If they've been lawfully received into the Catholic Church, that's the profession of faith. That is called a juridical bond, one of the three juridical bonds that unites them to the Roman Catholic Church. And that profession of faith, Matt,

is formed upon baptism coupled by the profession, and that bond is never broken unless the person publicly defects from the church or is declared excommunicated by the church, you see? So the profession of faith is something that is formed at baptism, right? Water baptism in profession, and exists in reality unless it's cut off either by publicly defecting or the church cutting off itself. It has nothing to do with the profession. So I brought that up because when you said, well, we profess

Francis in the canon, it just called the mind to the fact that you may be professing something, but it doesn't reflect the juridical reality. You're not actually legally united to him. You're not subject to his jurisdiction. How do you know you're legally united to the pope through his jurisdiction? Because you're in union with your bishop. If your bishop's in union with the pope and you're in union with your bishop, you're united to the pope through his jurisdiction because you're in union with your bishop. If your bishops in union with the pope and you're in union with your bishop, you're united to the pope, you see? So are you in union with your bishop? Well, clearly the society clergy are not in union with the Holy Father because they're not under any bishop with ordinary jurisdiction, you see? And formal

adherence to what they're doing also results in you being separate from the church through formal adherence. So, it's a little bit about the profession. Thank you very much. Again, you've answered many of these, it turns out, but let's feel free to take another swing at them, even if they're quick. Doesn't the SSPX have the authority to operate as it does because of a state of necessity? Yeah, and we mentioned that the church has always said that necessity, no necessity ever

justifies circumventing the divine law on mission, on jurisdiction, on the rights of the primacy. It can't happen. Okay, fourth objection. Doesn't Canon 1323-4 show that Lefebvre was not guilty of schism when he consecrated the four bishops? Well, no, because that canon actually says that the center still applies if the act is harmful to souls, number one, and consecrating a bishop, multiple bishops, to perpetuate apostolic succession independent of the Roman pontiff is clearly harmful to souls. That's the first point.

Secondly, no canon could ever mitigate a penalty that is incurred by the usurpation of a right of the primacy because we're dealing with ecclesiastical law, but the actual offense is against divine law, you see? So that would in no way excuse Archbishop Lefebvre because he didn't just break a human law, he broke divine law. I'm surprised at how many of these you've answered, but feel free to take another swing at this. Doesn't the fact that the excommunications of the four bishop, the lifting of them, show

that the SSPX are no longer in schism? And again, Cardinal Burke is one of the clerics who has said the society remains in schism because he says the contumacy remains, the obstinance of remaining separate from the Church in her faith, worship, and governance. This is most easily recognized by the fact that the Society is separated from the Church's governance, you see? And this is why, you know, my society opponents, they almost never talk about governance. They don't talk about the fact that the church teaches that

it's a matter of divine law that to be united to the Holy Father and a member of the Roman Catholic Church, united in her governance. The church is one in her government. This is actually a dogma of the faith. It's called apostolicity. It relates to the succession of the Apostles, but the apostolicity is also one in her governance, okay? The fact that the society is not part of the governance and now there's an offshoot with the resistance and the fact that the Sate of Acontists are not, they're all separated in governance, which by itself proves that they're not in the Catholic Church. See, the fact that they're all separated from the governance of the Church, which starts with the pope and goes down to the local Bishop because they're not part of that governance

They're separate from the Catholic Church. I read an excerpt from Fulton Sheen speaking against the SSPX But I'm not sure if it was authentic or not. Have you looked into that? Yes, I have he wrote a letter I think in 1978 to a Barbara. Is that what it was? Yeah. Yeah To my knowledge it was authenticated. I can't speak specifically on it, but I am aware of the letter right before the bishop passed away. He advised somebody who was inquiring about it to stay away from what he called that schismatical sect.

Now, think about this. He wrote that, and I believe it was in 1978, the Consecrations didn't happen until ten years later. So, Archbishop... Wow. And we have good reason to think that's authentic? I don't want to press you on that because I know you're not an expert on every point here. I, I... But tentatively. I don't know. I don't know. I'm open to anybody to prove otherwise, okay? It hasn't been proven

as not authentic, so it doesn't matter to me whether it is or isn't. What I find curious, though, is as if it is authentic, then Bishop Sheen recognized the schism long before the actual formal rupture with the Consecrations took place. Because the church knew, and the bishops knew, that Archbishop Lefebvre effectively went off the tracks at the end of 74, and then 75 when he ignored the suppression in 76 when he did the illicit ordinations and in 76 when he was suspended out of Venus and continued I mean he was on a trajectory of schism at that point so if it's authentic we can see why Bishop Sheen would have called it a schismatical sect okay I have a question

from the chat on communion real quick since we're on the topic. So somebody asked that you said so if somebody rejects another person who is in communion, they themselves are rejecting communion. So they asked, they said that their local novice ordo priest heavily discourages anyone from going to FSSP Latin masses. So are they in schism for refusing to be in union with a legitimate Latin mass community? That's a really good point, it works both ways, right? So I mean if a novus ordo priest is fostering hostility

against these former clasidae communities, that's a schismatic attitude as well. So it does work both ways. Now remember, there has to be, as the canon of say, almost a perpetual state or a perpetual condition whereby they are specifically refusing communion with other Catholics. Would that rise to the level of schism? Maybe not, because this particular priest may have an erroneous idea of what the SSP stands for. You see, so we want to jump to the conclusion, yeah, that's automatically schismatic. I won't say that, but what I will say is it works

both ways. The nobis ordo, if they're saying don't go to traditional TLMs because they're all crazy, you want to communicate with them, that's a problem. That would be a schismatic attitude as well. Here's my sixth objection. Isn't the Novus Ordo a grave offense to God because it has been infected with the errors of Protestantism? It's amazing how people can hold that view. I mean, this was a right that was promulgated by the Supreme Authority, Paul VI himself. No, again, there's a distinction between the right as it's enacted and the way it's been implemented. There is a clear distinction, Matt, there. I think you would agree with that, Matt. I mean, we have a video on our website of a Nova Sorda that's being celebrated at Orientum in Latin in Gregorian

chant. A lot of people wouldn't be able to tell the difference. You won't be able to tell the difference. I'm not saying there isn't one, but a lot of people wouldn't be able to tell the difference. No. You know, if you know both, you'd say, wait a minute, there wasn't prayers at the foot of the altar. There may have not been a last gospel.

But even the prayers of the faithful, the priest is saying them in Latin facing the tabernacle and the altar boys are answering. So I could barely tell the difference. So clearly a distinction between the rite itself and the way it's celebrated. 7th objection. We wouldn't have the traditional Latin mass without Lefebvre and the society, right? Well, that's absolutely false. As I said, Paul VI was willing to have Lefebvre continue to form priests in the old rites.

This is another interesting point I didn't mention. John Paul II in 1984 in Cuartor-Abing-Anos gave an indult for the 62 missile. This was four years before the consecration, so even John Paul II was promoting the 62 missile and giving the indult for priests to celebrate. I can tell you in Milwaukee, I knew a half a dozen priests, a few of them have now deceased, that continued to celebrate

the Tridentine missile even in my diocese, which got really bad under Bishop, may he rest in peace, remember, at Weakland. But these priests were still celebrating with the approval of the bishop, the TLM, and here are six guys in Milwaukee doing it. So no, again, I think the truth is just the opposite. I think that these restrictions that God forbid are coming down are because of the Society of St. Pius X and the way that they have, you know, used the mass to unfortunately foster the separation that exists between them and everybody else in the church, frankly. BD 8th objection, wasn't Rome toying with Lefebvre on the topic of allowing him to ordain

a bishop, so it was necessary for him to take action the way that he did in order to preserve the faith and tradition? RL Well, that can be shown to be completely fallacious because they signed a protocol together whereby Lefebvre was going to get a bishop to be consecrated on August 15, 1988. Where was the toying? That was a protocol that was signed by Lefebvre and John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger. So I don't see how that argument has any merit whatsoever.

It also calls for speculation or prognostication About what the future was and about the state of mind of Archbishop Lefebvre But what we do know is that Rome was going to give him a bishop and even schedule the date for the consecration Ninth objection are you really saying that going to a society mass is not allowed but we can go to a novice order Quote-unquote clown mass when did I say that? Well, I guess you didn't. Right. Number 10, did Pope Francis grant the SSPX faculties for valid marriages or was the delegation to the local ordinaries who have the option of delegating jurisdiction to SSPX priests? Yeah, we should talk a little bit about the marriage situation, Matt, if

you don't mind. Again, Benedict did another great thing here because he said he was concerned with the validity of these marriages, which was a kind way of saying they're all invalid. Beginning with the Council of Trent, now I'm going to explain that nuance then a little bit, right, because I'm going to be careful about what I mean by that. But around the time of the Council of Trent, I think it was a decree called Tometzi, the Pope declared that Catholics had to be married validly according to canonical form. That's when this notion of canonical form came into place where the marriage had to take place either before the bishop or a priest who had the faculty to witness the marriage

and then two witnesses, and that, you know, give or take has, you know, been the case since the Council of Trent. It is clear that the Society clergy never had the faculty to validly witness marriages and yet have been doing so for decades. Not to deviate too much, but this is also an important point that we haven't raised yet. We talked about the evidence for schism. We talked about usurping a right of the primacy.

We talked about their willful separation from governance. What we didn't mention is the fact that the Society of St. Pius X has also erected its own marriage tribunal effectively. They call it the St. Charles-Berromeo Canonical Commission. I know for a fact it existed because I represented a client before it and was frankly disgusted with the whole thing. I'm not going to get into the details there, but the point is this, and I've talked to people who are favorable to the society, they all admit, Matt, that this is the one instance where schism is most evident. The fact that the society has erected a tribunal which clearly usurps the authority of

local bishops and even the Holy See because this tribunal was set up, Archbishop Lefebvre wanted it set up and then it was implemented after he passed away, whereby the society without any ecclesiastical authority or jurisdiction actually rules on whether there are marriage impediments, they issue declarations of annulment, they lift canonical censures, they dispense with religious vows. These are things that they have published, and this is clearly contrary to the authorities of the church. They have no authority to do these things.

And when we're talking about marriage and a sacrament here and whether a couple is truly wedded in holy matrimony, this is about as grave as things get. And yet the society claims without any authority to do so that they have, and I've written about this, and you can go read about this, I mean, Bishop Fillet had once said that they have not just a supplied jurisdiction

for this canonical commission, which supplied jurisdiction wouldn't even apply in this case, but they have what they call a quote, ordinary Episcopal jurisdiction, which is also not true because an ordinary Episcopal jurisdiction comes when you hold office in the church, and the society bishops do not hold any office in the church. They have no title in the church. So I bring this up because we talked a little bit about schism but didn't address the fact that they have erected their own schismatic tribunal, and that's, I can't think of any

other word to call it, but that. They're usurping the authority of the bishops and the Holy See and rendering these judgments, which they claim are true verdicts and have binding and loosing effect upon Catholics. It's even been reported that they require Catholics to swear in the Gospels that they will not go to, quote, novice ordo tribunals and will abide by their judgments. This is a fact? This is something you've heard? This is a fact that's been published in a number of articles, including articles I've read, but by others.

I came upon this long after other people had published it. One was in the Sodala, I think, a French magazine and statements by Bishop Folley and Bishop Tissier. Now, if they can prove these are wrong, please do so I'm just reporting what is out there But I know from personal experience Matt that the Commission exists because I as a lawyer Represented a client in a marriage case before the Commission so I know it exists and I know it was a mess I mean they were quoting Canon law from the 1917 code which doesn't even apply today and I asked them what what Canon law are you relying upon in these?

Administrative and legal proceedings. They couldn't even tell me it's it's a mess I wanted to bring that up because it is a clear case of schism when you erect your own tribunal But to get back to the marriage question Pope Francis in 2017, I believe, gave the bishops the authority to appoint diocesan priests to witness society marriages in society chapels to ensure their validity, to make them valid, because the society priests obviously don't have the faculty to witness marriage. And what the guidance says is if that's impossible, then the bishop could actually delegate it directly to a society

priest if it's impossible to find a diocesan priest. So it's primarily meant for the diocesan priest. Another thing that's, and I think this is wonderful only because it's going to validate the marriages that would otherwise be invalid, and that raises all kinds of issues, right? Being in an invalid marriage, and we know what they are, but the issue there is, I have asked society priests, point blank, face to face when I've met with them, I said, what do you do if, you know,

the bishop doesn't send a delegate with the faculty to your chapel or give you the faculty? And they've told me, we do the marriage anyway. And I said, but how can you do the marriage anyway? It's not valid. Well, supply, jurisdiction, state of necessity, the same old arguments that we've proven are completely wrong and don't apply. And so, I'm not saying all the society priests would take that position, but there are some that have just

thrown caution to the wind with the souls of these people by saying we don't care if we have the delegation or not, we're doing marriages anyway. And you know the basis for their position, Matt, is it's just absurd. I mean what they have said in their writings, you can read it, is they claim that because the code of canon law, according to their subjective opinion, has errors in it concerning marriage impediments. The new code has a number of marriage impediments that didn't exist in the 17 code, you know, like, you know, insufficient use of reason, real quick for people who aren't familiar with like what can and law is or how the codes, um, overriding each other works.

Can you give like a, like a two minute or like a 32nd overview of that? Yeah. People can be caught up. Canon law is just the, the human law or the church. I was in the church law that the church in acts to hopefully conform and carry out the mission of the church and fulfill Christ's law, the divine law. The current code of canon law was enacted under John Paul II in 1983. Before that it was under the 1917 code.

That's why I go back and forth depending upon what point in history we're talking about, right? But you know the the code requires, you know a person to have a Bishop or priest with the faculty to witness the marriage and I was the point I was making is the society has taken the position which is hard to believe they can say this with a straight face But because they believe that the new code of canon law suffers from errors, you know, we don't agree with all the marriage impediments that exist, we think we have the authority to witness marriages, you know. They'll also point to, there's a canon 1116, this is the extraordinary form of marriage,

where if it's prudently foreseeable that you will not have access to a priest without grave inconvenience and that lasts for thirty days, then Catholics can actually get married without a cleric with the faculty as long as it's still married before two witnesses. Well, the society uses that canon as justification for why they can witness marriages without the faculty. And that would be called a false analogy of law. The fact that you can't find a priest for thirty days certainly does not authorize you, who has no mission from the church, the ability to witness a marriage. So again, it would be a false analogy of law. But the good news is, if the bishop wishes, and I hope does, for the sake of these souls, he can delegate a diocesan priest to witness, or

even directly to the society priest itself, to witness a marriage so that it is valid. Okay. I want to move on now to set of accountism. We'll take some questions from those on Locals and Superchats later on, but I just want to move over here for a bit. I mentioned the other day on YouTube that, you know, in the wake of Pope Benedict dying, God rest his soul and may he pray for us in the church, that there were certain Catholics who beginning from false premises but being logically consistent are now set of accountants and they're outright set of accountants.

And I said and I maintain and I'm happy to double, triple, quadruple down on this, shame on anybody who would seek to justify that opinion as being within the realm of orthodoxy. I'm not saying I don't have compassion for confused Catholics right now. In the same way that I have compassion for people in like fornicating relationships or sodomitic relationships, they've been raised in a society where they may not have heard the truth, where they're very confused, where Disney's preaching all this stuff at them. So I can be sympathetic with someone, but I also want to call them to repent. And likewise, if somebody is saying, well, we don't have a pope, I can be sympathetic given all the

chaos that's within the church. But this is completely unacceptable. So let's talk about that. Is Francis really the true pope? Absolutely. It's infallibly certain he's the true pope because the moment he was elected, all of the dioceses throughout the world accept him as pope. That's considered an infallible judgment actually of the magisterium. There is a doctrine called universal and peaceful acceptance and it's not just a theological opinion, although we have about 60 theology manuals which teach this, but it's actually met a definition of the faith that the man whom the Church presents and accepts as the true

pope is in fact the true pope. This is a definition from Pope Martin V, right at the end of the Council of Constance, I think it was in 1418, where he was condemning the errors of John Wycliffe. And the Church generally teaches definitions in the form of propositions, proposing truths as such, but this was a definition in the form of a question, whereby he required anybody who was

suspect of heresy to say that the man who is currently in the chair of Peter and then mentioned his name is the true pope. Not just that the successor of Peter is the true pope, but the man that the Church says is the true pope is the true pope. This is very important. So it is a definition of the faith. When the conclave elects the Holy Father and the Holy Father accepts the election, people have to understand the Cardinals aren't conferring jurisdiction on the Pope. Christ is the one that then confers jurisdiction on the Pope. Christ is the one who joins the man to the papacy. It's an act of Christ.

The cardinals elect, the pope accepts, and then the cardinals present the pope to the church, and the rest of the magisterium, the bishops, then accept. This is why the church calls this an infallible judgment of the magisterium because when the man accepts and is presented to the church in the magisterium which is the bishops throughout the world adhere to that that's a judgment of the magisterium it's infallible that's why the very man who some of these people say continue to be Pope Cardinal Ratzinger put the dogmatic fact of the one who is accepted by the church as the pope in the category two

of the profession of faith, which is an infallible judgment of the church. It's considered to be something that must be definitively held by Catholics. And if one were to deny that the man that the church has presented and accepted as pope is not the pope, that would be an act of schism because you are, as you said Matt, which I commend you for, because you are refusing submission to the Holy Father, and it would also be a mortal sin against the faith itself. The first two categories in the profession of faith require the ascent of supernatural faith, of divine faith.

And so this is clearly a matter of faith and a mortal sin. Now, I'm not judging the internal forum, but I'm saying if one, yeah, it's grave matter, and if one is culpable, it would be mortal sin, and it would be formal schism. Now, I will also say, as St. Thomas teaches, we have his relic here, Catholics are bound to know certain truths. We're bound to know the Church is the rule of faith, there's a trinity, Christ is divine. Well, one of the truths Catholics are bound to know is the man who the church says is Pope is the Pope, okay? That's why my concern here is with formal schism, with culpability. It's different for a Protestant who may be

invincibly ignorant that he must submit to the authority of the Pope. But in my opinion, a Catholic cannot be invincibly ignorant of the fact that he must submit to the man the Church says is Pope, the Magisterium says is Pope, that the Cardinals and entire Episcopate has adhered to as the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. He has to know that, and he's culpable for rejecting it. That's why I'm concerned with the state of these people's souls. I can't judge them. None of us can. But objectively speaking, it would seem to me that those who

would reject Francis as pope would be formal schismatics. They would be formal occult schismatics. We didn't get into some of these distinctions, which I think we should. Well, formal is where there's culpability, where the person has sufficient knowledge to know that something is a rule of faith and they reject it, so they're culpable. That is what formal means, the form of the act is in the intention, you see. So you can have formal schism, formal heresy. Material schism, if we call somebody a material heretic or material schismatic, that refers to a public non-catholic. I know some of my colleagues and maybe some theologians will call Catholics material heretics or material schismatics, but that's technically not traditionally the way the term is used. When you say somebody is a

material heretic, what you mean is that person holds a material heresy and is invincibly ignorant for doing so. So they are a material heretic, but they're not culpable, but they're still a public non-Catholic. Okay? Okay? Whereas a formal heretic could be a public non-Catholic, such as a Protestant who has enough learning to know the Church is the rule of faith but rejects it, but it also could be a formal heretic, it could also be a Catholic who is a visible member of the

Church but who has committed the sin of heresy internally. This is another important distinction, too, because a lot of trads throw these words around, material, formal, occult. Some of them don't make these distinctions at all, which is a mistake. Occult heresy is heresy that is either entirely hidden or is externalized publicly but not yet recognized by the church. You see? So someone could be a formal occult heretic, okay, which means he has committed the mortal sin of heresy or schism, but because the church has not legally recognized it yet, we talked

about whether the church declares the censure. Well, if the church hasn't declared them to be formal heretics or schismatics, then there would be formal occult heretics or schismatics. What would Aquinas have been for denying the Immaculate Conception before that was pronounced? Well, first of all, it wasn't a dogma at the time, okay? So it wouldn't have been heresy. And I would never refer to him as a material heretic because, as I said, in the traditional sense of the term, a material heretic is a public non-Catholic who is invincibly ignorant of the rule of faith. You could say he was in material error there.

However, I wrote about this a long time ago, being the Dominican that I am, people get it wrong about St. Thomas and the Immaculate Conception. I'm wondering if you're going to challenge me on that. They're wrong. The theology of St. Thomas Aquinas was actually used by Blessed Pius IX in dogmatizing the Immaculate Conception. And what I mean by that is it was Thomas's position that as soon as our lady was animated with a human soul, she was freed of original sin.

Well, that's the teaching. I mean, if Pius IX, by conception, means animation, we're not exactly sure what he meant, but that's what people think he meant. At the moment of conception, when the body and the human soul are together, that the soul is infused in the body, that's when Our Lady was freed of original sin. And Thomas, you know, he held the position, and the church hasn't said whether this is actually right or wrong. He held the position that there were certain states, you know, where you'd have a vegetative

soul. Okay, fair enough, fair enough. And so, Thomas was saying before our lady was a human being with a human soul, there may have been the stain of original sin, but at the moment of her animation, or in the words of Blessed Pius IX, at the moment of her conception, she was spared of original sin, which is beautiful. So technically, what Thomas is saying and what Blessed Pius IX are saying in my view is the same thing. If by conception, Pius IX meant animation.

That's why I cringe when people say that, you know, my spiritual father was a material heretic. Oh no, no, this wasn't a dogma at the time. And if you dig into the theology, it's quite beautiful. Thomas had it right. That you are spared from original sin when you become a person redeemed by Christ. But I mean, a more broader point that I'm trying to make is there were saints who probably, without knowing it, believed false things.

Oh yeah, absolutely. Yeah. Sure. But there's a big difference between that and then knowing what the church has taught and then disregarding it. Yes, yes. So if a Catholic holds to an error, we say that the person is in material error. We might even say if it's heretical, the person is in material heresy, okay?

We wouldn't call, in my view, at least the way that I have learned the terminology and what most of the traditional theologians say, we wouldn't call them a material heretic. We would say they're a material error or they're a material heresy. The question is whether they're culpable, right? Whether they're culpable. And oftentimes, unfortunately, Catholics are if they know what the rule of faith is and reject it, just like as we're saying if Catholics should know that the man the church says is the Pope is the Pope. I don't see how you could be invincible

ignorant of that in my opinion. Okay. Have you looked into the arguments that the Beneficentists who are now presumably unless they've repented set of accountants. Have you looked into the arguments they've offered in that distinction that they've tried to make? Maybe Benedict gave up one part of his office, but not the other part. And I did. So could you help us like understand where they're coming from to the best of your ability and then reshared to it? I'd be I'd be happy to. I think there's something that they've all overlooked. And I think this this actually destroys their argument. First of all, the pope does not need to resign in any

specific way. The only thing he needs to do is he needs to do it freely and it has to be manifest. That's what the law provides. He doesn't even have to write a resignation letter. Well, when Pope Benedict said that on February 28th at such-and-such a time, I am going to resign in such a way that the seat of Peter will be vacant and a new conclave will be, you know, convoked to elect my successor, that's manifest. He then went on to say prior to that date that I will no longer be pope when we reach that date and then after the date passed he says I am no longer Pope so it was manifest but I can I can get to your your question specifically Matt and I'll try to put this to bed for people because I haven't

I haven't heard many people if any address this issue a lot of theories came out initially you know whether the Latin was defective, whether there was substantial error, but the ultimate theory that stuck was that, you know, you know, there's this gnostic understanding what Benedict really meant. He really didn't give up the munis or the office. He only gave up the ministerium, which is the active ministry, okay? Here's the problem with that argument. Those who hold that he didn't give up the office but only the ministerium. First of all, munis and ministerium are interchangeable.

I mean, the office has all of the rights and privileges, okay, and the munis is the active exercise of those rights and privileges. So it's a distinction, frankly, without a difference. But let's just assume there's a distinction. Let's play along with with these beneficentists for a while. What they say is he gave up the active ministry of teaching and governing, but he didn't give up the active ministry of praying and suffering. This is what they say.

Here's the problem. What makes a man the Pope? And the answer is jurisdiction. What makes a man a Pope? It is the universal, supreme, plenary, immediate jurisdiction that he exercises singly by virtue of the office of the Roman primacy. This is what makes a man a pope. When the Cardinals elect the pope and he accepts it, Christ joins him to the papacy at that point. He gives him the office of the Roman primacy and gives him this plenary supreme jurisdiction over the over the church. Here's the problem with their argument. They claim and have conceded that he's given up the active ministry of teaching and governing.

Well, guess what? Jurisdiction is required for teaching and governing. If he has given up the active ministry of teaching and governing, he's given up jurisdiction. You see? Because jurisdiction isn't required for praying and suffering. All bishops say I have a spiritual connection to my former diocese and I will continue to pray and suffer for my diocese, but that doesn't require jurisdiction. So this is a huge lacuna and a huge error in the Beneplenist position because they've conceded, they've argued

that he's given up the active ministry of teaching and governing, but that would require a relinquishment of jurisdiction, which is what makes him the pope. The fact that Pope Benedict renounced the ministerium, which is the act of exercise, is almost a more forceful way of resigning, because he's saying, I'm relinquishing the active ministry. I'm relinquishing jurisdiction. And then he goes on to say that in such a way that the sea is going to be vacant, well, this Roman primacy, the chair of Peter, to which jurisdiction is attached, that's how

he assumes jurisdiction by Christ joining him to the primacy, right? He's telling the public that that chair is now going to be vacant, and another person is going to assume the jurisdiction. This is why, you know, I immediately saw errors in the Beneplenist position, because if you want to divide the Munis with the Ministerium, you have a big problem. Because according to your own argument, he's relinquished the active exercise of teaching and governing. Well, thank you. That means he's relinquished jurisdiction, and if he doesn't have jurisdiction, he's no longer the pope. It's really that clear.

Okay. Some people point to the Great Western Cism, where there were multiple claimants to the papacy, and say these things aren't always clear-cut. You know, there were saints who held that one man was the Pope when he wasn't, and today there's also a great deal of confusion. And so that's why it's within the realm of orthodoxy. We should allow people to be confused in good faith and... There's no confusion today. I mean, these people have created their own confusion because they're attempting to make a judgment that's contrary to the judgment of the magisterium. That's unlike the Great Western Schism,

where you had, what was it, Pope Gregory? And I forgot the other pope, or I think Gregory was the true pope. Then there was a third pope. There truly was material error there, okay? There was no universal and peaceful acceptance. I should mention that the universal and peaceful acceptance of a pope,

it's not required in every papal election, but when it happens, Matt, it's Christ's way of revealing to us that we have a true pope. And this is also very important. These Beneficentists allege that there were all kinds of canonical irregularities in the election. Well, you know what? The doctrine, according to Martin the Fifth and all the dozens and dozens of theologians who've explicated the doctrine teach, they teach that to the extent there were defects or irregularities or even illegalities in the election, all those defects are healed in the root, they say, by the fact that he's joined the papacy and the act of the people accepting the election is actually an infallible effect of the

cause of him being the true pope. Okay, so that's very important. So the fact that, you know, it cures all defects in the root, but here's another important point it also proves It not only cures irregularities and defects it also proves that all of the conditions that were required for a valid election were met In other words it proves that Pope Benedict truly resigned in the sea was vacant the fact that there is universal acceptance of Francis proves that the conditions required for Francis to assume the see of Peter was that the resignation of Benedict was valid. You see, that's a necessary theological conclusion from the premise that we have UPA because the entire universal church has adhered to the election of Francis. And you know, the

theologians talk about if there's doubts that come down the road and disputes, that doesn't negate the fact that at the time he was presented, right? The church accepted it. How many cardinals have spoken out against Pope Francis being the true pope? None. I'm not aware of any. I'm not aware of any meaningful member of the magisterium who says otherwise. Like I said at the beginning of the show, all of the dioceses and apricies in the East all adhere to this election. It was unusual. We haven't seen a resignation in 600 years. I get that, you know. I've read a lot about Celestine's resignation. I guess, you know, Boniface, there was rumors that Boniface forced

Celestine out and he resigned and Boniface was a bad guy. Well, he's the, he's the pope that gave us this great dogmatic definition of no salvation outside the church. But, you know, at that time, I think it was the Fratricelli who rebelled against the election of Boniface and claimed that Celestine was the pope, just like today. And the Fratricelli ended up being schismatics and never came back to the church. That's how serious this is. Right. So when you go down this road, stick with Holy Mother Church on this. You may not understand everything, but I've hopefully given you some things to think about

here because there are definitely huge errors in these arguments. But you don't even have to get into the detail that I unfortunately did from my own understanding. Holy Mother Church has told us who the Pope is, you know, like it or not, that's the case. I want to give people an off ramp, because I see there's like this pendulum swing, right? So you may have people who go way too far on one side and they're very critical of Pope Francis they're very unsympathetic in their interpretation of what he says they then read everything he does through this cynical skeptical lens okay and then you get people who are tired of those people and make it seem like Pope Francis is an excellent Pope so I want to ask you this

yeah I'm not making this claim but couldn't it be the case the Pope Francis is an awful Pope that I wouldn't even want him as a catechist for my five-year-old Child let alone Pope and yet he be the Pope. Oh, absolutely It's not only that He has done scandalous things and and has even taught what appear to be some grave errors Although I can say this Matt. I don't trust everything I hear through third party. I'm a lawyer, I'm cognizant of what hearsay is and everything else. I mean, there's a lot of diligence that we have to do. There's so much information that's constantly thrown at us. You know, there's 24 hours in a day, Matt. So how much

is this pope doing that's really evil throughout the day? I mean, I don't, I don't, again, I'm not downplaying the crisis at all. Good. But... Because I think the crisis is even worse than Taylor Marshall could think. Maybe I'm just cynical. I just think things are that, they're worse than we think they are. And yet Pope Francis the true Pope and the Church is Christ and he's in charge. And I think the crisis is very bad in part because not only the extreme left but the

extreme right. This is what I fear. I fear that there is truly a schism that's about to rupture between the Roman Catholic Church and the false church of tradition. That's what I see going on here. I mean, when I left my society chapel, Matt, the last mass I went to was Christmas Midnight Mass 2019. I had already done a substantial amount of research in leading me to these conclusions.

But you know, I didn't know what I was gonna do with that, and I should mention, you know, when we wrote Robert Sisco and I, my co-author, when we wrote the book True or False Pope, the foundation for that book was Ecclesiology, the first hundred pages. We've actually written about 400 additional pages of just the first four chapters. So I'm resting upon, and Robert is as well, a mountain of information that, you know, we've looked at. And I really didn't know what I was going to do with that, Matt. I didn't know what I was gonna do with that Matt I didn't know if I was gonna go public with it. I think I was gonna publish it through the book

I wasn't sure how public I was gonna be about the society, but what I saw in 2020 and 2021 caused me concern and I guess maybe this is going full circle and why I'm here today You know when you had the plandemic, you know, this phony pandemic of COVID, and, you know, church is being shut down, and I know these are prudential decisions in hindsight's 2020, but people were flocking to the society, and this was a situation that was occurring in 2020, and then you had Traditionis Christotis

come out in July of 21, then you had canceled priests. I began seeing a dramatic shift in this traditional movement which I have been involved in for 20, 25 years and I was concerned because even though all these things were happening, I saw the situation where people were actually willing to exit the juridical structure of the church to go wherever I can

get the TLM. And what really concerned me was, and we didn't see this 10 years ago, but what concerned me was the radtrads now were looking at independence and the resistance and even sate of accountus as part of this traditional movement. Now a Sate of Acontis, in my view, is a public non-Catholic. They belong to a non-Catholic sect. They are public heretics and schismatics. And even ten years ago when we were forming and writing this book, Sate of Acontis were

not lumped in with the traditional movement. I mean, even the society who endorsed our book recognized that the traditional movement was separate and distinct from the society. Then you go through COVID and TC and canceled priests and all of a sudden my colleagues or former colleagues are looking at state of accountants quite differently. And I think benefit accountants had something to do with that as well. That's why I said, you know, these are fundamental errors in ecclesiology. They don't know what the Catholic Church actually is.

They're having a distorted view of what the Church is, and it's an overreaction on the right to all these errors on the left. So that's when I said, you know, I think as an apologist, I don't particularly like talking about these things, but I've spent enough time where hopefully I'm being helpful to people, I think things needed to be said here. When you put say days and society and everybody into one happy, love you traditional pool of Catholics, that's not the case. There are extreme errors in each of those camps, but some to a greater extent and some to a lesser extent. Yeah, I hope it's been clear throughout this discussion today that we're not attacking anybody.

I understand when people feel like they're on the defensive, any critique of their position feels like an attack. This isn't an attack. It seems to be a tactic of the left to identify one's beliefs with their identity. They say, well, if you attack what I think, you're attacking me. Yes. So, okay, if you can understand that on the right, then understand we're making that distinction here. I'm not calling anybody a formal heretic or a schismatic,

but I am saying that schism means something, and people are certainly falling into at least material schism. I have, again, only tried to say what the popes have said, not any more and not any less, and if you think I'm saying more, then tried to say what the popes have said, not any more and not any less. And if you think I'm saying more, then call me out on it, and if I'm wrong, I'll correct it, but I don't think I am.

I mean, I think I'm staying within the lane that the popes and the pontifical councils have given us in canon law. You mentioned about attacking people. Here is another thing that concerned me as I saw the traditional movement become really extreme over the past 18 months. The Sainte Vicenteists have always, we even have a chapter called the Bitter Fruits of Sainte Vicenteism. We know how bitter and angry they can be and how they do engage in a lot of personal attacks.

Unfortunately, we're now seeing this with, you know, what people might call, you know, mainstream traditionalists. I mean now you have traditionalists who put out videos calling people enemies of the church. I mean, how can you call somebody an enemy of the church who's in communion with his local bishop and the pope? And the reason they're calling him an enemy of the church, because I think you're referring to Michael Lofton, is that he was defending Pope Francis. Right. And it's not like he's not also critiquing him. He's just saying, Critique the theology, but don't call him an enemy of the church.

I certainly, I'm not even calling the Society bishops or priests enemies of the church. They are legally separate from the Roman Catholic Church They've been declared as such the reality is they are legally separated by an act of their own will I mean, they've been given conditions. I pray that at some point. They're gonna finally accept these conditions They got to accept a profession of faith. They have to accept Vatican II's teaching on collegiality, which we haven't talked about, which is a beautiful teaching. There are a number of things that have to happen, and I pray it does happen. I don't consider them enemies of the Church. I really consider a lot of the younger men, and I can say I probably had something to do with some of them going into the seminary, of being somewhat misguided. But they're zealous. They're zealous souls who've been misguided

and hopefully we can use that zeal and direct it in a proper way, but that has to be done in the church. I had some kind of pushback on the set of accountants point. Would you mind if we went through them? Sure. I know I've kept you a long time. That's okay.

How's the coffee doing? You all right? Good, I'm good. All right, so let me just kind of offer some pushback. Again, these aren't my opinions, of course But let's see haven't several of the post concilia popes taught heresy and does not a pope automatically lose office for heresy Okay, so they would first have to Prove that what these popes taught was heretical. Okay in a debate

I would have them do that and they wouldn't be able to do it Okay in a debate I would have them do that and they wouldn't be able to do it But even if they would be able to do it I would point out the fact that st Robert Bellarmine who is one of their chief authorities actually taught in his book on the marks of the church Chapter 8 that a Catholic bishop who teaches heresy is not considered a heretic until he is formally a judge the heretic By the church that by the church. That's the teaching of Saint Robert Bellarmine. That's the teaching of the Catholic Church. I haven't ever heard a Saint of Acontis quote chapter 8 of the Marks of the Church by Robert

Bellarmine. Okay, are they aware of it? I don't know. They always refer to Bellarmine's teaching that, would you just mention it, Matt, that a heretic ipso facto loses his office. What Bellarmine meant by that is after his pertinacity is established by the church, this is part of Revelation in St. Paul's letter to Titus where you warn the heretic twice and then avoid him. So Bellarmine is clear, you can even read his book on the Councils, De Concili, where he says, a pope is deposed for heresy when he is formally judged and convicted of heresy by the church.

So all these say to the contests point to the one statement of Robert Bellarmine in De Romano Pontifici, where he talks about the fifth opinion and says that an ipso facto heretic loses his office automatically, but he's referring to the loss of office after the church judges in the heretic. Now, there's a distinction there because he might go on, well, he did go on to say, and Suarez clarified this, without a further declaration.

What Bellarmine was referring to there, Matt, is he was maintaining that his and the Jesuit opinion, which we called in our book Bellarmine and Jesuit, Suarez held a Jesuit opinion where as soon as the church would establish the Pope's pertinacity and judge a meheretic, he would lose his office without any further declaration. That's what without any further declaration means because the Dominicans actually go a step further. They say that once the church judges that he's a heretic, there's an extra step. And that extra step is, because this all happens behind closed doors and an imperfect council, the church asked to actually command the faithful to avoid the Pope. That's the extra step

that the Dominicans held, Cajetan held it, John of St. Thomas held it. So when St. Robert Bellarmine says that a manifest heretic automatically loses his office without a further declaration, he means that when the man is judged a heretic by the church without a further, what is called a vitandus declaration, which the Dominicans held. You see the nuances there. This is what the society, the Satevacontists have have completely missed. And there's a distinction

there between the Jesuit opinion and the Dominican opinion. But both opinions hold that it is the Church that actually judges, first through canonical warnings. First of all, the question is whether the pope even holds to a material heresy. Now, can you point to anything that these popes have said that is materially heretical? Usually it takes extra steps of reasoning to get to a heresy, which means it's not heresy because it's not a direct denial of a dogma of the faith. But even if it would be, you would

have to establish heresy through a judgment, okay, through warnings, canonical warnings. And this isn't just Bellarmine. We go through this in detail in our book, Matt. For example, the Fourth Council of Constantinople in the mid-800s declared at that council that Catholics cannot separate from their bishops, their heretical bishops, without a judgment of the Church. This has always been the teaching of the Church. It's a teaching to this day. Under Canon 194 sub 2, it says that one who holds office in the church does not lose his office until it's declared

that he's lost his office. That's important, Matt, because it's by virtue of the office that you hold jurisdiction in the church, generally. If you have title and office, you would hold jurisdiction in the church, and you only lose office and jurisdiction upon a declaration. This is exactly what Bellarmine taught, what Suarez taught, what Kajetan taught, what John of St. Thomas taught, what the Fourth Council of Constantinople taught. This is the perennial magisterial teaching of the church.

It's never an act of private judgment. I mean, legal office is a legal matter, right? So isn't it understandable that you need a legal process to remove somebody legally from a legal office? It's common sense, right? And the church is teaching us common sense here. All right, I got about six more Sede objections. Number four, doesn't Pope John Paul II kissing a Koran show that he was an apostate?

Well, apostasy is the complete repudiation of the Christian faith. Did John Paul II repudiate the Christian faith? No, he persevered to the end in his belief in Christ. Do I condone kissing the Koran? I absolutely don't. I thought it was completely scandalous. Me too. It was very, very scandalous. You know, Bellarmine, again, referring to their favorite theologian, he makes a distinction between heresy and actually external acts that appear to be sins against the faith, like this would be. Well, in either case, they don't lose their jurisdiction. That's the point. He's the Roman pontiff. He holds the office of the Roman primacy. He doesn't lose his jurisdiction even for committing a sin against the faith. A sin is not something that causes the loss of a legal office, you say.

And we don't even judge whether that was sin or not. We don't know where his mind was at. It was scandalous. But in short, he doesn't lose his jurisdiction even for a scandalous act like that. Fifth City objection. Doesn't the Pachamama event show that Pope Francis is an idolater and thus can't be the Pope? Well, the first question is, was it an act of idolatry? You know, I watched the

video and what I heard in Spanish was that when the image was presented to Francis, it was introduced as Our Lady of the Amazon. I mean, I heard that very clear in Huestar Senora de Amazonia, whatever, however she said it. Francis seemed to be pretty uncomfortable with that. I heard that he actually was given a text to read and he didn't even read it. He just said in our father, he appeared to be bothered by it. I didn't like the thing at all.

I can't conclude that that was an act of idolatry only because he was introduced as Our Lady of the Amazon. Did I like the image? I was extremely disturbed by it. Come on, look at it. I mean, with the skin showing and everything else, I was... And it was after the fact, described by Francis as Pachamama.

Well, I will bring up an historical case, which you might bring up a Cece, you might bring up Pachamama, you might bring up Kissing the Koran. There was a Pope who died in 304 AD named Pope Marcellinus. You know, you might bring up a Cece, you might bring up Pacamama, you might bring up kissing the Koran. There was a pope who died in 304 AD named Pope Marcellinus. Marcellinus actually offered incense to the false god, to the false god Jupiter. Now some say he was bribed to do it, others say he was coerced to do it, but the fact

is he did it. The fact is it was a public act of apostasy. So we have a case, an historical case in Pope Marcelinus who offered false public worship, and the Catholic bishops still considered him pope. Why? Because they knew based upon St. Paul's instruction, and I'm sure this comes from Christ, that if your brother deviates, even if it's a grave offense against the faith, you've got to warn him. The warnings to the pope, remember the pope can't be judged by anyone, and so these warnings are not coercive judgments, they're done in fraternal charity, that's important.

A lot of the state of the councils will say, well, that's ridiculous, you're talking about judging the pope, the pope can't be judged, well why are you judging him then? Right? But the canonical warnings are acts of fraternal charity, which then establish that the pope himself is pertinacious in his heresy. He's actually condemning himself, you see? So, you know, there's another distinction there, but Marcellinus is a unique case where the Catholic bishop still considered him pope. He actually ended up deposing himself. He was so ashamed and he repented. And you know what? They actually reelected him and he died a martyr. Wow. He died a martyr in 304. It's an amazing story. So let's not rush

to judgment here. What's that? Oh, sorry. I like instinctually responded. I just like enter the board. I hear a lot of noises coming from here. I haven't commented on that yet. Oh yeah, I think they're working on the, on the roof above us. Yeah, student, all our buildings are falling apart. So you just gotta be used to that. I noticed that. We should be fine.

A lot of dilapidated noise. I can't hear it in the headphones, so the audience will hear. So I don't, I don't want to condone any of this, man. What I'm trying to say is I'm trying to, I'm trying to provide people distinctions on how theologically we should look at these things, because these things have happened in the past. I mean, the crisis is really bad, but things like it have happened in the past, and there are ways that the Church has dealt with it.

So this pope, what was his name again? Marcellinus. Marcellinus? Marcellinus. Marcellinus. You said through this act it may have been considered an act of apostasy, because it was false worship. Okay Well, here's my next objection. Doesn't the event at Assisi in 1986 show that John Paul II was an apostate?

Well, Marcelinus's act was much worse because it to my knowledge John Paul II didn't worship false gods But it certainly appeared to me that he condoned the worship of false gods, which is a violation of the First Commandment. I mean, to my knowledge, he said at the end of it, we all prayed to the Lord of history, which doesn't sound right to me, at least with respect to pagan religions, and he didn't tell these people that they had to convert to Jesus Christ. But you know, so that's problematic. But again, he doesn't lose his jurisdiction for that act, as bad and as scandalous as it is because he holds the office of the Roman primacy.

And as I said, as Constantinopolitan foretaught and all of the theologians, Bellarmine in particular, if you have problems with what John Paul II did, then the bishops and the cardinals, who would usually be the cardinals, they should have confronted him and say, do you still believe in Jesus Christ? Okay? Issue him canonical dubia, issue him warnings, and establish his pertinacity, at which time he can be judged a heretic. But until then, he's still considered the Pope.

I mean, Bellarmini and other theologians have all said that so long as the Pope retains his chair and he's peacefully accepted as the Pope, he remains Pope. He retains his jurisdiction. So that's very important. Okay, next objection, Saturday objection. Wasn't John the 23rd a Freemason before he was made a cardinal? Doesn't this show that he was not eligible to become the Pope? Well, remember when I talked about universal and peaceful acceptance and the fact that once the teaching church, which is the magisterium, accepts the election, and then the rest of us adhere to the magisterium, it proves that all conditions required for a valid election were met.

Which means John XXIII was a male, he was baptized, he was a member of the Catholic Church, and he wasn't a Freemason. There were rumors, by the way, about Blessed Pius the 9th being a Freemason, too. So now do we want to call into question the malehood conception? There's a lot of rumors about a lot of things, even books have been written on the basis of rumors and hearsay, but UPA is a consoling doctrine for us because it's Christ's way of telling us that he was a true pope because he was accepted by the church as such.

Okay, another objection. Those who are outside the church cannot govern those in the church, but a heretic pope is outside the church and several of the popes have been heretics. How do you reconcile these things? Okay, so this is a false premise there. A her pope who says you or the church again the pope remains the pope until he is judged A heretic by the church just as st Robert bellarmine said on the marks of the church in chapter 8 any Catholic bishop who teaches heresy is still a bishop until he is Judged a heretic by the church. I mean this is the teaching mad I mean pious the 12th in the great encyclical Mistei Corporis Christi, he says that those are members of the body unless they are either openly leave,

which is public defection, or they are cut off by the church's judgment. That's what we're talking about here. So they're still members of the body, no matter how scandalous their behavior is. And the state of accountist error is they think that if somebody appears to commit a sin against the faith, that he doesn't hold the Catholic faith, the interior virtue of faith, and therefore he can't be the pope. Well, if we based membership in the church on the interior virtues, we'd be talking about an invisible church, because we can't see the virtues, you see? That's why the errors of sadistic accountism are also errors in ecclesiology.

Two more. Doesn't the Bible say that there would be a great apostasy? Doesn't that show that there will be a small remnant of true believers during the apostasy? It does predict an apostasy, but we also know that one of the marks of the Roman Catholic Church is catholicity. And catholicity means that there will always be a great number of members of the Catholic Church. This is very important. That doesn't mean that they will all have the interior virtue of faith.

Remember when Christ says in the Gospel of Luke, when I return will I find faith? Our Lord is not talking about church membership. He's actually talking about the theological virtue of faith, hope and charity, which is necessary for salvation. But there will always be large members of the Catholic Church that are those who are living in the body. And by the way, this comes to mind when Pius XII wrote the Encyclical, you know what he said? He said those who are separated from the church's governance are not living in the body

or the spirit. That's powerful. Pius XII is saying those who are not united to the church in governance are not part of the body. That is, they're not part of the Roman Catholic Church. They're not part of the mystical body of Christ if they're not united to the church's governance. That just came to mind, but again, I thought that was a very important point to make. Final objection. Didn't La Salette show that Rome will lose the faith and become the seat

of the Antichrist? Well, to my knowledge, La Salette hasn't been approved by the church. In fact, it was on the index, okay? It also says that Rome will lose the faith. It doesn approved by the church, in fact, it was on the index, okay? It also says that Rome will lose the faith. It doesn't say the Church of Rome will lose the faith. Now, I have relatives in Rome and I visit Rome frequently and I can tell you, Rome has already lost the faith when you walk around the streets on Sundays because nobody's en masse, they're out in the marketplaces. But again, you know, private revelation, etc. It's possible that the Pope could be driven out of Rome by the Antichrist, right? I mean,

that's possible. Who knows? But don't despair, especially over private revelations. Remain in the church. Do we have any super chats that we want to read? I don't want to take every question that we got, but would you be okay sticking around to take some questions from people who paid to ask them? One of them is for you. It was asking if you would have an institute canon priest on. Certainly be open to it. Yeah, that's what I figured. Trent donated ten dollars.

Not Trent Horn, I assume. No. OK. Are you kidding? I mean, Trent donated ten10. Not Trent Horn, I assume. No. OK. Are you kidding? I mean, Trent donated $10. He said, in Chicago, Teal and priests have to celebrate the Novus once a month. With so many different liturgical rites in the church, why can't they exist separately and people to attend what they prefer?

Well, people can attend what they prefer. Well people can attend what they prefer. The Love of Wisdom donated $20 and asked... Bless them. Kind people, thank you. As I understand it, the SSPX does not reject the profession but have issues with the third category items. Explain that. Not the third category carte blanche. That's an unfair misrepresent. No, it's no It's not archbishop Lefebvre says it specifically and I and you know who backs me up Cardinal Mueller and Archbishop Pozo They both said that a condition for the society's integration into the church is that they must accept the profession of faith of 1989

Okay, Kyle donated $20 twice. So he donated $40 just to say, thanks for having the discussion. Bless him. Prasaka also donated $20 to say thanks. All right. And Matt Soldanano donated $20 to say thanks. We're gonna have to buy you a bunch of cigars

before you leave. And then somebody just donated $50 Canadian stop our Canadian. So it's so I'm just three dollars. Very kind of them. Okay. This person said true Pope in is this the person you're referring to put in a third states it necessary to obey a pope in all things as long as he doesn't go against universal customs of the church. Should he go against universal customs liturgy,

he need not be followed. Council father one day, talk him out of apparently said that. Yeah. I mean, all that has to be contextualized, um, and read in context. What I will say is that while the pope has an obligation to preserve the traditions of the church, he also has

great discretion over how he does so. That's based upon a definition of the faith of Vatican I. Remember Vatican I and Pastor Terence taught that the Holy Father has supreme authority not just on matters of faith and morals but on discipline and governance as well. He has supreme plenary authority on matters on discipline and governance as well. He has supreme plenary authority on matters of discipline and governance, and the Council went on to say that this is a truth of the Catholic faith, and people can only reject it at their own, you know, imperiling their salvation. So, the Pope has wide latitude. I mean, he can't change the words that Christ

gave for certain sacraments, but frankly, He has discretion in the realm of discipline. That has to be particularized. I'm just making a general statement. So we defer to His authority, and again, He's accountable to God. He's not really accountable to us, per se. If He abuses His authority, well, then God will be his judge. I want to suggest two YouTube channels

that people can check out if they want to kind of... Can I ask this one question that we got earlier? It's not a super chat, but I think it's important, especially because all three of us really appreciate the Latin Mass and don't want to discourage it in general. So somebody who's converting like a new convert, but is legitimately worried about not getting involved with any set of Viconters or schismatic adjacent groups was asking how they ought to go about looking into or

Starting to go to the TLM. I just wanted to like give the opportunity so that we could talk about That in a legitimate manner because we don't want to discourage no no in general. I want to promote the landmass I mean, yeah, I attended it exclusively for for 15 years I I love it and as I said, that's how I got affiliated with the society. Absolutely Well look and see what your diocese offers. You might be surprised I mean fortunately we have the Institute of Christ the King, you know where where I where I live and there are wonderful priests Yeah, they have an incredible ministry. We don't have the fraternity,

but other places have the fraternity. We also have a number of priests who have been given the faculty to celebrate the 62th Missal as diocesan priests. We have that as well. St. Mary's in Elm Grove, where I live. The Institute of Christ the King celebrates at St. Stanislaus, which is a great historical church, you know, downtown Milwaukee. And I'm a member of that parish.

So God willing, you'll have some options. I will, though, say in my view, we might have to buckle up here for a while. We might have a rough ride here for a little while. We'll see what happens. Yeah. All right. Two YouTube channels I want to point people to if they're looking to understand more about Sysm and the state of the SSPX, instead of accountism. One would be Michael Lofton's channel, Reason and Theology. I'm going to say one of the,

one of my great joys of doing this podcast is meeting people like yourself and then chatting with them off air and realizing that there's so many good people in the world. I had Lofton on the show and I'll just say this behind his back. Him and I were chatting and even when he wanted to critique a particular individual who's like say a prominent YouTuber, he would do it with the greatest of charity. He wouldn't slander them. He would always be very careful, like a really good guy. You're not at all behind his back.

He's watching. Yeah, okay. Well, there you go. I would never say that behind his back. He's watching. It's a yeah. Okay. Well, I would never say that to his face, but go follow reason and theology. Now you might not even agree with everything he says. I'm sure he's fine with that, but it might balance out some of the more hostile channels. The other one I would recommend is the logos project.

Would you mind linking to both? They're also. Yeah. So logos. Wow. Would you mind linking both to the Logos project and Reason of Theology so people might want to subscribe to this channel because this isn't something I want to keep talking about. That's great, man. You kind of stole my thunder there because those are the gentlemen I

was actually going to point out. You know, when I said that, you know, seven years ago we released True or False Pulp and it was primarily based upon the ecclesiology and the errors of ecclesiology. I now hear, you know, my fellow colleagues talking about this. I mean, they're right, and Michael Lofton is a great example of it. He's doing a great job, like you said. Dom Delmaso of the Logos Project, Dom runs that. Andrew Bartel, all addressing these issues of ecclesiology. A gentleman named David Gordon, who I've recently become familiar with, he's again addressing errors of ecclesiology. So these guys really get it. They're onto something here.

That is truly where these errors originate. Yeah. And I've forgotten to promote Hallow until this point, but I want to give a shout out to Hallow. If you go to hallow.com slash Matt Fradd, you can sign up to the number one Christian app. Like, I think in the world, I think Hall long might be a bit of how I checked on the Google Play store. They're like number two in all of religion, all of religion and spirituality.

These guys are amazing. They're a Catholic app that'll help you pray and meditate. They've got people like Mark Wahlberg leading you in the rosary and Father Mike Schmitz going through Bible in a year if you don't want to listen to it on a podcast app. They've got sleep stories. It's really quite cool. So if one of your New Year's resolutions was to pray more regularly, go to hallo, H-A-L-L-O-W.com slash Matt Fred. Sign up there.

And the reason you should sign up there and not just download it from the iTunes store is one, you'll get three months for free. So after three months, if you don't want it, you don't have to pay a cent. Secondly, the money goes all to them and not to Apple. So click that link below, hello.com slash Matt Fradd. They also have sleep stories for kids, which I really like. And if you sign up with our link, they know we sent you.

So that supports Pints. So if you wanna support Pints and get some free stuff, that's the link. That's's awesome any final words before we go I want to thank you again for taking time. I know you're a busy man. You're a lawyer You got stuff going on. It's very kind of you to come down there. We'll sneak it in I'm really happy to be here and get to know you better Matt I commend you for taking on this difficult and controversial topic and again, I want to Reiterate this is not to downplay the crisis. I've been fighting the liberal errors on the left

For so long that I had to come come to grips with the fact that there's been an overreaction to the right and somehow these These liberal errors, you know meet in the middle, you know, we talk about liberalism. That's really One of the errors of liberalism is picking and choosing what you want from the pulp Whether it's in the area of faith or morals or discipline or governance. Well, that's exactly what the right is doing, just like the left has done for so many. That is a liberal error, you know, picking and choosing what you want to believe and what you want to submit to with the Holy Father. So, you know, let's recognize that the traditional movement has its own issues to deal with and we hopefully that we know we can we can right the ship and bring it back to

where it needs to be but you know the message is we need to stay within the bosom of the church. Christ is ultimately in charge of his church okay and if he wills to permit us to suffer what is to come it's going to be for our own sanctification right. We need to persevere to the end, secure our election through that suffering. So let's leave it to the providence of our Lord. Beautiful. Let's finish, if you don't mind, with just giving honor to the Trinity, worship to the Trinity, glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit as it was in the beginning. It is now and ever shall be. Well without end. Amen. Thank you very

much. Thanks everybody who's watching. Thursday, thanks. Thanks for crushing it over there.