How Catholic is the SSPX?

[00:00:01] As The Society of St. Pius X Episcopal consecrations approach, both the Vatican and the Society are issuing battling statements. [00:00:11] Is there any hope for a reconciliation? [00:00:14] Hello, I'm Eric Sammons and welcome to Crisis. [00:00:30] Foreign. [00:00:34] So July 1st is approaching, and what that means is that the consec episcopal consecrations to be performed by The Society of St. Pius X is approaching. [00:00:45] They have stated that they are going to consecrate new bishops, which they have not done since 1988. In 1998, 1988, when they did that, Pope John Paul II issued excommunications of both the consecrating bishops and the consecrated bishops, the new consecrated bishops, excommunications which were lifted for those who were still alive in 2008. I think it was might have been 2007 by Pope Benedict XVI. [00:01:16] But the Society has not tried to consecrate new bishops since 1988. However, of the four bishops who were consecrated in 1988, plus the fifth, which would be the founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, three of them have died. So there's only two bishops left in the Society. And they're getting quite old, which means they see the hindering on the wall, which is they may not have bishops soon. [00:01:43] And this is very important to them, obviously, because they really can't continue without bishops, because how could they ordain new priests? [00:01:51] How could they do confirmations? You know, a lot of things related to the life of the society throughout the world that could not continue if they did not have bishops. And so they said they're going to do it, do it. Now, the Vatican has made it very clear that if they consecrate new bishops on July 1, as they have said they would, that it would. It would be an act of formal schism and that they would be excommunicated. Now, it's a little bit unclear as exactly who will be excommunicated if they do this. Back in 1988 when it happened, like I said, it was only the bishops involved, the new bishops being consecrated, and the bishops who performed the consecrations that were excommunicated. [00:02:37] However, there are rumors that this time perhaps the Vatican would issue excommunications not just to the bishops who are involved, but also others, perhaps the priests of the society, St. Pius X. I don't think it's. It'd be ludicrous for them to expuncate like anybody who attends this SSPX chapel. But the Vatican has done ludicrous things in recent years. I mean, the current head of the diaspora of the doctrine of faith. Cardinal Fernandez, who's the point man on this, I mean, heck, he issued a document just a couple years ago saying you can bless same sex couples. So who knows? [00:03:18] But in Fernandez's statement that he made recently about this, he said that formal adherence to the schism constitute a, constitutes a grave offense against God and entails the excommunication established under church law. [00:03:34] And so the question came up, what does it mean to have formal adherence to the schism? [00:03:40] That sounds broader than just simply the bishops involved because obviously any priest of the Society of St. Pius X, he has a certain adherent. He, he maintains an adherence to the Society, which in the eyes of the Vatican sounds like that would be adherence to the schism. [00:04:00] And so according to what Fernandez says, perhaps that means they would be excommunicated as well. We just don't know. They have not made it clear yet whether or not that that would be the case. And heck, if you attend a Society chapel regularly, you're a member of it, or you attend every once in a while, or you just show up one day Sunday for mask, you don't even realize this Society, what level is formal adherence to the schism? What are we talking about here? That's what's not known. [00:04:30] Now, right after Fernandez issued his statement, then the Society issued a statement which was a declaration of faith. And I'm going to go through that here in a moment, but for right now, I'll skip that for right now. We'll talk about that more in a second. But just recently, just a few minutes before I recorded this, the Society came out with a more formal statement about the. [00:04:55] In response to what Fernandez said. And I'm going to pull it up here. I did not have this ready ahead of time, so let me make sure I just isn't too much of a pain. [00:05:05] Okay, there it is right there. [00:05:09] So let's see. Is this coming up on the screen? No, Let me. There we go. Okay. So regarding the recent statement by Cardinal Fernandez from May 13 and in it, and this was written by Father Jean Michael Michel Glaze. And I apologize, I'm sure I mispronounced that. [00:05:28] It starts off with physician, heal yourself. And essentially, if you just accept these cookies, if you just go through it, it just is a pretty standard statement of at first that just simply says, here's what Fernandez says, here's our response. And it's basically what they've said. They said 1988. And what they say now, which is we believe that it's, we're in a state of emergency in the Church. And so we, we can. [00:05:56] So canon law would not automatically excommunicate the Society because it would be out of necessity, which is Canon 1323. It says a person who, having violated a precept, acted out of necessity or to avoid serious harm is not punishable by any penalty, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or causes harm to soul. So this is the crux of the Society argument. Just to be clear. It is the idea that the automatic excommunications that apply if you consecrate bishop without papal mandate, which is in the Code of canon law 819from 1983, do not apply here because canon 1323 preempts it. [00:06:41] Because they would argue that, yes, perhaps we are violating that law. [00:06:47] That is, that says you can't consecrate bishop without papal mandate. However, we are acting out of a state of necessity that we have to do this. [00:06:56] And so, so that's their basic. So that's all they're saying here. They're saying it again here. However, I did notice something from this statement. Now, I want to be clear about the Society. If you look, if you've kind of followed this whole thing and you look at what, what they've talked about over the years, they're pretty diplomatic. I mean, I know the Society has a reputation for being radical and they are in many ways, obviously, but they're actually pre. They're not, they're not flamethrowers. They don't engage in like online discussions. You won't see a society priest like on X, like dunking on people and things like that. [00:07:38] They are very reserved. They only make statements. [00:07:42] They don't give statements out easily. [00:07:45] They don't have people just shooting from the hip. [00:07:47] However, I want to pull up this statement again and what they ended it with. [00:07:53] And this is point eight, excommunicated question mark. By whom? But by whom? [00:07:58] By those who receive the blessing of a schismatic woman. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Sarah Mulli. [00:08:04] By those who authorize the blessing of fiducious supplicants. That's the same sex blessings and who kneel before Pachamama in the Church, punishments are medicinal. But then shouldn't the words of our Lord in the Gospel rise to the lips of Catholics of goodwill? Medesi curi tepsum. Apologize for my mispronouncing the Latin, but that basically means physician, cure thyself. [00:08:28] That is frankly. That is frankly pretty strong language and pretty provocative language coming from the Society. [00:08:37] They're basically dunking On Fernandez in particular, because he's the one who wrote Fiduci supplicants. [00:08:43] But they're just, I mean, frankly, they're dunking on the Vatican. They talk about Pachamama, which was under Pope Francis, of course. I mean, it just is. [00:08:52] It seems to me, and I think this is sad, by the way. It seems to me that the lines are hardening and the opposition is hardening. Obviously, it's not like the Vatican and Society have ever been chummy for the past 50 years. [00:09:07] At the same time, the relationship got better at near the end of the pontificate of Benedict xvi. And it actually was pretty good under Francis in the sense that Francis had this weird appreciation for them or something. I don't know. [00:09:24] It was kind of odd because he did all these things that were against traditional Catholicism, yet he also was friendly in certain ways with the Society. [00:09:34] And yet it seems like now the Society's had enough. [00:09:37] And I, like I said, I don't think this is a good thing. [00:09:41] I'll be honest. My initial reaction when I read that point eight from their statement, I was disappointed. [00:09:46] I was disappointed because I felt like they had kind of sunk to the level of what many of us are at on X. I'm not claiming the high road here and that I haven't done. I haven't, like posted things dunking people, but I'm not a spokesman for the Society or any organization. [00:10:01] I guess I am for Crisis magazine, but that's a little different. [00:10:05] And so I was a little bit saddened and disappointed that they kind of sunk down to the level that they did in that statement. [00:10:12] And so I say this as. And I just want to make this clear. [00:10:18] I am not either pro SSPX or anti sspx. People want to put everybody in a box. It's just the kind of the way we work in our society today. You say something nice about somebody, that means you 100% support them no matter what. You say something critical of somebody and you, that means you reject every single thing about them. [00:10:39] And this is the thing I see over and over and over again at Crisis because we are often both critical and complementary, compliment complementary to the same person at times. President Trump being one example, Pope Leo being another example. [00:10:56] And people want to put us in a box. Put me in a box. [00:10:59] That. Okay, that means you're a never Trumper because you criticize Trump. That means you hate him. Or that means you love Pope Leo because he has something nice about him. That's not the way it works. [00:11:10] We have written Read our. We have published articles at Crisis that have been sympathetic and even laudatory of the Society. Kennedy hall is one of our regular writers who attends a Society chapel regularly. [00:11:23] But, I mean, we have an article coming out next week that's going to be critical of the Society's arguments. It's going to have another viewpoint. We ran an article by Derek Taylor recently that was talking about the argument about the state of emergency and the Society's statement about that. And we're going to run an article that is taking another side of it, because I think they both have strengths and weaknesses, both arguments. [00:11:47] So I am not, and I, I have criticisms of the Society. Like, I didn't like that they just published that, that, that snarky remark there. But also, I'm not convinced that they should do the, they should move forward with the consecrations. And I'm not convinced that doing so isn't a formal act of schism. It may be. I'm not canon lawyer. I don't claim to be one. [00:12:10] And I think there's, there's a, I think an argument can be made, I'll put it that way. An argument can be made that going ahead with the consecrations is an act of schism. [00:12:20] Now, that being said, what I care most about, what I care most about is I believe everybody should have a fair process under canon law. They should get due process. They should be able to make arguments. They should be able to defend themselves. They should be able to clear up anything that that occurs. If you're, if you are given a punishment, a penalty under canon law, you should be given the opportunity to defend yourself. And I don't think this is going to happen with the Society. It hasn't happened so far, and I don't think it will happen. [00:12:58] And I think, like, for example, I also think that there are many, many people, many bishops, many priests, whom should, who, who should receive punishments under canon law. But I think they too, deserve a fair process. So, for example, if I was in charge of the Vatican, which I'm not, thank God, I would initiate formal proceedings against Father James Martin for heresy. [00:13:25] However, I would not just excommunicate him. And I say, okay, hey, I became pope today. Let's go communicate. Father James Martin. No, I would bring him in and I would have a trial, canonical trial, where I asked him to defend things he has said and done in the past. [00:13:39] And then after a fair trial, then, and only then would a potential punishment, a judgment will be rendered. And if it was guilty, then a punishment would, would follow. [00:13:50] It wouldn't just be like, hey, just excommunicate the guy. Because I didn't like a few. I didn't like one of his tweets or something like that. And I think the same thing applies to the Society, that they should be brought in to have a true conversation. [00:14:05] Not. Not just a because, if you remember, the only reason, the Vatican. The Vatican has not wanted to have any conversation with them for years. [00:14:14] And then Fernandez all of a sudden decided to pick up the phone and call them only when they said they're going to consecrate bishops, which tells you something right there. [00:14:23] But they should have. If they're going to say that this is an act of schism, a formal schism, and they're going to be excommunicated, then they should bring them in. They should bring in the leaders of the sspx, have a full canonical trial and determine why is it that it is a formal schism or why it isn't. I mean, let them, at least on the record, let them explain their interpretation of canon law, why they believe out of necessity, they had to do this, and then the Vatican can judge. No, we don't think it is. Or we do think it is. I get that they, they're basically the Vatican saying this, that we don't think it's necessity, but again, this is a trial by statements by, by public proclamations. That's not how things should be done. [00:15:10] I don't think it should be done to Father James Martin. I don't think it should be done to the German bishops, and I don't think it should be done to the Society of St. Pius X. That's where, really, where I fall, another kind of assumption I have going into this. Before you say, hey, he's so pro sspx, and I'm not like, saying I'm anti sspx. Be clear. I'm not that either. [00:15:33] And I would say that I have a tendency when these type of things happen. [00:15:40] I am more critical. I'm more apt to see, you know, the issues of my side, so to speak. And let's be honest, I'm not a member of the Society of St. Pius X. I've never attended a Mass at one of their chapels. And so that's not my side. My side is the Vatican in the sense that it's, it's. I'm. I'm just a member of a diocesan parish, and so that technically makes it my side. [00:16:07] And I have a tendency to be far more critical and bring up criticisms against my side than I am the other side. And, and this people never like this. They always don't like this when I do this. Like, for example, when Russia invaded Ukraine, my focus, my laser focus of that was I don't want the US support to support, to get involved in this. I don't think the US should support Ukraine or Russia or whatever with guns, with money or anything like that, because that's, my side's the United States of America. It's not Ukraine, it's not Russia. Now people said I was pro Russia because of that. No, I'm not pro Russia. I just simply am pro. I am an American. So I'm going to be critical of America's involvement in it. That's what I was critical of more than anything else. [00:16:53] And of course I was called pro Russian for that. Likewise with this war in Iran. Even before that, my biggest thing has been I don't think the US should support like when, when, when Israel was committing genocide in Gaza and doing what's awful, all awful things in Israel, in Gaza, my major criticism was America should not be supporting this. [00:17:14] America should not be the one, you know, funding this or anything like that. [00:17:19] And likewise with the Iran war. [00:17:22] I don't think America should have gone to war with Iran. Now people say, oh yeah, it means you're pro Iranian, you're pro mullahs, you're pro Islam or whatever. No, I am critical of my own side when I think it makes a mistake. It doesn't mean I support Iran killing its own citizens or Iran, you know, Iran's Islamic government, anything like that. And this is what's the case here with the society situation. [00:17:46] I am, I am looking at the Vatican, how it's, how it has dealt with the society, how it has interacted with society, and I'm very critical of it. [00:17:58] I don't think that the Vatican has been consistent. [00:18:02] And so what I, and I don't like the fact that I see so many conservative Catholics who are so quick to condemn the sspx and they basically act like the Vatican's done nothing wrong in its relationship. They've done everything they can, they've been merciful, they've been trying. That's just not simply not true. [00:18:21] That is inaccurate. [00:18:24] But more importantly, I'm not going to focus as much on the things that the society I think has done wrong, which I do think they've done things wrong in the past. My focus is much more on what the Vatican's done wrong. And honestly, I do also have a tendency to focus on the problems of the In a relationship, the one in power over the one that has less power. And when it comes to America, we always have more power than any other country. And so therefore, I'm going to be more apt to be critical of us because we're the ones who. With the power. Well, when it comes to the Catholic Church, who has more power, the Vatican or the Society of St. Pius X? Obviously it's the Vatican. [00:19:07] And so I'm going to be much more likely to be critical of them because I feel like they have a greater obligation, a greater obligation to bend over backwards and do everything they can to try to reconcile this situation. [00:19:22] And I don't believe they've done that. [00:19:25] I just simply don't believe they've done it. I don't think they've done everything they can to reconcile the situation. [00:19:30] Could the Society do more? Probably. [00:19:34] But could the Vatican do more? Absolutely. And they are in the power position, and so they're the ones obligated to do something about it. They're the ones who are obligated to reach out and do everything they can to avoid this. The Vatican has always been, if you look at the Catholic Church's history, one of the things it always has done is it has always tried to avoid schism by any means necessary. In fact, to the detriment of sometimes allowing heresy to grow within the Catholic Church because it wants to avoid schism so much. That's why the Vatican has done so little about the, the heresies that have run rampant in the Church over the past 60 years is because they want to avoid a schism. This is embedded in the DNA of a Western Christian. In the east, it's different. They do everything they can to avoid heresy, but they allow schisms to happen at times. I've talked about this before and. But they're not doing it in this case. [00:20:31] They're not doing it in this case. They're not doing everything they can to avoid a schism. And I think that is, that's what my laser focus is on, is why has the Vatican not done everything they can to avoid schisms? Another thing I would say is I've, I've been seeing some of the reactions online to what's happening, and it seems to be pre. [00:20:53] It's amazing. I've been amazed by how harsh and how judgmental and how rigid many conservative Catholics are when it comes to the sspx, against the sspx. [00:21:05] They just are very quick to judge, very quick to say they're. They're wrong. [00:21:09] And I just, I Don't see that. I. I just don't see how to do it. In fact, I saw one. One popular Catholic commentator was saying how the SSPX has misjudged the moment. [00:21:20] If they think, like, somehow this is going to work, what they're doing here, and I think what's really happened is that person is terminally online and they've misjudged. Like, they, they've lost their perspective. [00:21:32] The Society is not doing this to win points, to try to convince Catholics to come over to their side. They're doing this simply because they see the reality is their bishops are about to die. They're not going to have any bishops, and they need bishops. And so. And they. And they've. And they cannot get the Vatican to approve episcopal consecrations. And so that's really. That's. That's what's driving this. If there's one thing that's true about the Society of St. Pius X, they are notorious for not caring about public approval. I mean, if there's one thing they have made clear is they do not care if they have the approval of the majority of Catholics. [00:22:13] I mean, that's pretty obvious. [00:22:15] So they haven't misjudged the moment. They just simply think we need bishops and we can't get the Vatican to approve it, and so we're just going to go ahead and do it anyway. This is not a political action of theirs. It's just simply a action they feel is necessary, you know, for what they're doing. [00:22:34] Now I want to comment about. [00:22:36] Like I said, they issued a declaration of Catholic faith, and I thought this was very interesting. Let me pull it up here on the screen. I'm not sure how well people can see this. When I pull it up here, I'm trying to make it. If you can't read it, I apologize. But I will say one thing. I will use the cookies, share the cookies, whatever it is. [00:22:57] Yeah. Hopefully you can see this, but if not, I will read parts of it. So basically, this was a declaration of Catholic faith addressed to His Holiness Pope Leo XIV by Father David Paglia Roni, Superior General of the priestly Society of St. Pius X. [00:23:11] And it has some introductory remarks. But what's interesting is, is that if you look at this declaration of Catholic faith that they make, and I'll link to it in the show notes so you can read it on your own leisure. [00:23:24] It's clear they make this declaration. [00:23:27] A lot of it is just kind of standard boilerplate creedal language, but it's clearly made as a reaction to what has happened in the Church since Vatican ii. And you can see it right at the beginning, it says, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, divine wisdom, the Word incarnate, who willed one sole religion, who rendered the Old Covenant definitively null and void, who founded one sole Church, who triumphed over Satan, who conquered the world, who remains with us until the end of time, who shall come again to judge the living and dead. [00:24:01] I mean, right from the start, we see they are declaring, they are making very clear what the Catholic Church, by the way, has always taught. There's nothing in that statement that would not have been acceptable to every Catholic on Earth 100 years ago or 200 years ago or 500 years ago or a thousand years ago or whatever. [00:24:21] But it's almost scandalous to read today in comparison to what you normally hear from church officials, particularly that line, who rendered the Old Covenant definitively null and void. It has been commonly taught and believed by Catholics that the Old Covenant, I. E. The Jewish covenant, is still somehow. Still is somehow still in effect. But it's not. It's definitively null and void. This is clearly Catholic teaching, always has been. [00:24:50] The idea also where it says, who willed one soul religion. This is obviously in reaction to the interreligious dialogue that has cropped up and become almost a religion. The ecumenism has become almost a religion of the Catholic Church since Vatican ii. But there's nothing about that statement, that first line, that first paragraph, that should be scandalous doing Catholic. And then it continues on in like manner. And again, if you just read, he, the perfect image of the Father, the Son of God made man, was appointed the sole Redeemer and Savior of the world through the incarnation and the voluntary offering of sacrifice, the cross. Again, just standard boilerplate Catholic credo information. [00:25:34] Then the next paragraph, we can see where. Where this is going, says by divine decree, the most Holy Virgin Mary has been directly and intimately associated with the entire work of redemption. [00:25:45] To deny this association in the terms received from tradition is therefore to alter the very notion of redemption as well by divine providence. Note that little comment, that parenthetical comment in the in between the em dashes in the terms received tradition. This is a direct response to the idea that the rejection of certain titles given to Mary recently under the pontificate of Leo, particularly the Mediatrix and things of that nature, co Redemptrix. And this is them saying, no, but of course, again, 100 years ago, 500 years ago, a thousand years ago, 1500 years ago. There's nothing about this statement that would be controversial to a Catholic. And it says, there is only one faith and one church by which we may be saved outside the Roman Catholic Church and without the profession of faith, that she has always thought there's neither salvation nor remission of sins. [00:26:40] Again, this is what the Church has always taught. My book, Deadly Indifference, I detail this greatly. [00:26:47] So consequently, every man must be a member of the Catholic Church in order to save his soul. And there's but one baptism as the means of being incorporated into her. This necessity concerns the whole of humanity without exception and embraces without distinction Christians, Jews, Muslims, pagans and atheists. In other words, contrary to what many Catholics actually believe. I've, I've. If you look at the studies, if you look at Pew surveys and other surveys, over 70% of Catholics, when they are asked, can other religions, you know, lead somebody to heaven? They say yes. Depends on how the questions were, on what exactly how they respond. But the majority of Catholics in America at least believe you can be saved by other religions, not just you will be saved in spite of a religion. Like for example, the idea that perhaps a Muslim could be saved by Christ in spite of being a Muslim. No, they, most Catholics believe in America at least, and probably throughout the Western world, that the practice of another religion can save you. And this is obviously a false belief. It's a false doctrine that you cannot believe. [00:27:48] And again, my book Deadly Indifference goes through this in detail. [00:27:53] And so what this declaration of faith by society is simply saying is, yeah, you cannot be saved by anything other than through baptism, being a member of the Catholic Church. [00:28:04] And it goes on to, to continue with, in the same, in the same idea. And I'm not going to go through every single thing it says. [00:28:12] It says the only possible path to restoring unity among Christians of different confessions consists in the urgent and charitable appeal addressed to non Catholics to profess the one true faith within the one true church. This is obviously against ecumenism, against so much of the ecumenical work being done in the church that, no, the way that you bring about unity is not through dialogue but through proclamation urging people to become Catholic. The statement goes on, the Catholic Church can in no way be regarded or treat on equal footing with a false form of worship or a false church. This is against the ecumenical dialogue, you see that, you know, really found its, its modern form at Assisi 1986, when the Pope invited, Pope John Paul II invited members of different religions to pray. [00:29:04] And he, he, he tried to make it very clear that they're not praying together, but they're together to pray. I mean, yeah, you can laugh at that all you want, but it has become the point where now we pray together with people of another faith. And it. What that does is, in the eyes of the world, at least in the eyes of many Catholics, it makes the Catholic Church on equal footing with false religions. [00:29:29] It goes on to say the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ, is the sole possessor of supreme authority over the whole Church. And continues on in that, in that vein. It says the Holy Mass is the perpetuation in time of the sacrifice of the cross offered for many and renewed upon the altar. And it goes on to say, consequently the holy sacrifice of the Mass can in no way be reduced to a mere commemoration, to a spiritual meal, to a sacred assembly celebrated by the people in celebration of the Paschal mystery without sacrifice. And goes on like that. [00:29:58] And then it talks about the moral law. [00:30:01] The moral law contained in the Decalogue and perfected in the Sermon on the Mount is the only one practicable for obtaining the salvation of souls. Every other moral code, founded, for example, in respect for creation or on the rights of the human person, is radically insufficient to sanctify and save souls. In no way can it replace the one true moral law. This is obviously Catholic teaching, but this is like in, in response to. We hear a lot of Church leaders, they basically try to act like our morality, our shared morality with other religions. And we do have certain things, like certain moral code that, that we share with them or. But the idea that those moral codes which are founded upon other false premises is in some way salvific. That's the problem. It's not, it's not possible. [00:30:49] It talks about sins of impurity that are against nature, are of such gravity that they always in every circumstance cry to God for vengeance, and are radically incompatible with every form of authentic Christian love. [00:31:01] Such a quote, unquote lifestyle can therefore in no way be recognized as a gift from God. A couple practicing this vice must be helped to free themselves from it and can in no way be blessed formally or informally by ministers of the Church, is obviously against fiduciary supplicants, the blessing of same sex couples. [00:31:20] I'm trying to see if there's anything else. [00:31:23] Yeah, so it just continues on in of that nature. [00:31:27] And really though I read this, I read this a couple times, and there is nothing in this declaration of faith that is heretical. There's nothing in it that is contrary to the Catholic faith as it has been handed on to us for generations, in fact, is Refreshing to read because it is a very clear statement of the faith in our confusing times. I just called for clarity in my last podcast. I think it was that the Pope was really trying for unity. And that seems to be the emphasis of many prelates in the church, but really the emphasis should be on clarity. Well, this declaration of faith was very clear and it was, and it's true. There's nothing about it. So what the society is kind of saying is tell us where we're wrong here, tell us where we're heretics, where we don't. That we should be treated as kind of sub Catholics is not truly the faith. If you treat with respect Muslims and Jews and atheists and pro aborts and homosexuals, all that, what in this statement that we believe makes it that you don't treat us with the same respect? [00:32:34] It's a good question. [00:32:36] Now I will say, though it's not for heresy that their schism, that a schism would occur, it's because they are going against a papal man. You know, they're going against the Pope by consecrating bishops without papal mandate. Now, to be clear, this is something else I saw come up. People act like consecrating a bishop without papal mandate is some eternal divine law. It's not. It's a human law. [00:33:05] Now, it doesn't mean you don't follow it, but there are different levels of laws. Like for example, the prohibition against same sex relationships, that is a divine law. That is always true. It's intrinsically evil to do that. And so it's always true. [00:33:23] The law to not consecrate bishops without papal mandate, that is a human law. [00:33:28] That because for 1900 years it wasn't part of canon law that you couldn't consecrate bishops without papal mandate. Now consecrating bishops without papal approval has had a long history. It's somewhat convoluted. There are times where people have been punished for it, times they haven't. But like for the first thousand years, for example, wasn't even a question. They would send the name to the Pope of who they consecrated, but they're not getting papal, papal mandate or approval from the Pope before they consecrate. So clearly it's not a divine intrinsic law that we must follow. [00:34:02] So if you're comparing, you know, this law to other laws, like against blessings to same sex couples, there is no comparison, apples to oranges. One is a divine law that can never be broken. The other is, like I said, a human law. It doesn't mean you don't follow it though. And that's the thing. It still is a breaking of canon law. Now the question is, is it does out of necessity the other canon. Does it basically mean that they get no penalty for this? They should get no penalty for this. I, I think that's the debatable point that I'm not willing to adjudicate. [00:34:38] And I wish the Vatican would actually have a trial where they do adjudicate it and we could see, everybody could lay their cards on the table. You could have the superior general of the SSPX or whoever, a canon lawyer for the SSPX lay out the case. You could then have Fernandez have one of his canon lawyers lay out the case and determine whether or not it is, whether or not it's okay what they're doing. [00:35:02] But that's not going to happen, sadly. [00:35:04] So anyway, so I think it's clear. [00:35:09] Okay. Actually, one last statement. I almost forgot before I was going to finish here. [00:35:13] One of the things you often hear is that the society basically, they don't accept Vatican ii. And that is why they're problematic. That's why they're trouble. Whatever that is not a canonical category, it's not a moral category. Whether or not you accept Vatican ii. They, they do accept Vatican II as a valid counsel. They've never claimed that Vatican II wasn't a valid council. [00:35:34] So what do you have to go beyond that? That's something else that should be stated in a trial, in some type of formal setting. What exactly do we have to accept? If you read that declaration of faith they made, it clearly goes against the spirit of Vatican ii. It clearly goes against the way the Church has been run, the kind of presuppositions since Vatican 2. But does it go against Vatican II? Is anything in that statement contrary to the documents of Vatican ii? [00:36:03] Have a trial on that and then you can determine is the SSPX truly Catholic or not by your definition of it? [00:36:10] I've read all the documents of Vatican ii. I've studied them in depth. I read that declaration. I don't think there's anything that, that really contradicts. [00:36:22] But I'm not a Canadian lawyer. It's not my decision. I don't have the authority to do that. But I think that's something we should have happen as well. [00:36:30] But unfortunately that's not going to happen. So I think what we need to do is. I'm going to wrap it up there. I think what we need to do is obviously we need to pray, we need to fast, we need to do penance for reconciliation. [00:36:40] Obviously we want the Catholic Church. We don't want anybody in a state of schism. We don't want anybody preaching heresy. We want these things to be resolved. [00:36:49] And so I think we need to pray that hearts will be touched first and foremost at the Vatican. [00:36:55] I'm not saying again that the society is innocent of any wrongdoing of of having the perfect attitude. I'm not saying they're having perfect anything like that. I'm just simply saying that we I'm convinced that the Vatican particularly Cardinal Fernandez is not acting in the way he should the way they should when it comes to society. And I think they need to be more fair to them. I think they need to extend an olive branch. I think they need to be do everything they can on their end to avoid schism. I don't think they've done that. So pray and fast that that would happen. Okay everybody until next time. God love you and remember the POD.