Skip to main content

Mr. Salza has asked Fr. Zuhlsdorft to explain how he defines a “legitimate Catholic minister.”


Fr. Z: The priests of the SSPX are Catholic priests and not some other kind of priests. Regardless of their unique and somewhat thorny canonical status, they are priests of the Catholic Church and not some other Church. They are even able to receive faculties from competent authority. They validly absolve sins even when there is no danger of death. They witness marriages and say the nuptial Masses.

John Salza: Even though the SSPX clergy are not juridically part of the Roman Catholic Church, nor have they been canonically sent by the Roman Catholic Church, Fr. Zuhlsdorf calls them “Catholic priests of the Catholic Church.” Thus, either Fr. Zuhlsdorf does not understand the SSPX’s canonical status in the Catholic Church, or believes that clergy do not have to be part of, or sent by, the Catholic Church to be lawful Catholic ministers. This is why Mr. Salza has asked Fr. Zuhlsdorft to explain how he defines a “legitimate Catholic minister.” Fr. Zuhlsdorf has a grave obligation to publicly clarify his position, which we hope he does post haste.

Popular posts from this blog

"At this time, they (SSPX) are not part of the one Roman Catholic Church throughout the world" - Cardinal Raymond Burke

Bookmarked here at timestamp 9:21:  https://youtu.be/0TyjRoKUi2w?t=561

Lefebvrist: "The SSPX is not in schism!"

Lefebvrist: "The SSPX is not in schism!" CIC: "....schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." (Canon 751) - - - - - -   Marcel Lefebvre: “We refuse on the other hand, and have always refused, to follow the Rome of Neo-Modernist and Neo-Protestant tendencies which became clearly manifest during the Second Vatican Council, and after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.” (Declaration, November 21, 1974) “We believe that we can affirm, taking into consideration the internal and external critique on Vatican II, that is, in analysing the texts and in studying its circumstances and its consequences, that the Council, turning its back on Tradition and breaking with the Church of the past, is a schismatic council. The tree is known by its fruits. Since the Council, all the larger newspapers throughout the world, American and European, recognise that it is destroying t

John Salza Responds to Peter Kwasniewski on the SSPX

John Salza Responds to Peter Kwasniewski on the SSPX January A.D. 2023 Following is my response to Peter Kwasniewski’s hit-and-run post about my January 9, 2023 interview with Matt Fradd on the SSPX. Before addressing his points, notice that Peter admits he only “listened to about an hour” of my three hour and fifteen-minute interview, but then provides a laundry list of points he claims I did not cover or failed to distinguish, again, even though he did not listen to over 2/3rds of the interview, and which actually did include discussion on many of the points he claims I missed (i.e, the Magisterium’s levels of authority, obedience, the problems with Pope Francis, etc). Evidently Peter thinks so highly of himself that he believes he can publicly refute his opponents’ arguments without listening to their entire arguments. This says a lot about his approach to the issue. Now, to Peter’s points. 1 – Peter claims I don’t distinguish between Sacrosanctum Concilium and the Novus O