Anyone know anything about the FSSP?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MattBalkus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
To be fair, I will say I have had only one encounter with the local SSPX priest. It was extremely negative. One encounter does not disprove an Order. I am more troubled at the absence of anyone from SSPX chapel in our local movement for prolife, traditional marriage, evangelism, and doctrinal orthodoxy. The priest and laity are very, very separate; not just from “novelties”.

I would love to have FSSP, or similar Order, come into the area to build a parish. We have a diocesan TLM community, with various priests, which I visit sometimes. These laity are active in the
Programs I mentioned.
 
Last edited:
cathapolo said:
They do differ as to solution, and the SSPX try to make clear it clear that their position/view on the crisis is not that of the FSSP.
Click to expand...
The crisis in the Church has to do much, MUCH more with the problems of todays world and many other factors besides differences in the two usages of the same Roman Rite.

Also, it is my belief that had the Church stopped reforming the Liturgy in the 1962-1967 period, the crisis in the Church would be exponentially worse.

In fact, I doubt whether I nor my wife would be Catholic today if the TLM was still the ordinary form of the Roman Rite.

I believe the Church would be in much worse shape if the TLM totally in Latin was still the norm.

If the Church had simply taken the TLM amd translated it into English and allowed for vernacular, that would have been just as good or maybe even better than the current OF Roman Rite.

But, IMO, as the EF and OF currently stand, the OF is a superior usage of the Roman Rite for this day and age.
 
ChristMyLife said:
If the Church had simply taken the TLM amd translated it into English and allowed for vernacular, that would have been just as good or maybe even better than the current OF Roman Rite.
Click to expand...
Have you checked out the Anglican Ordinariate?
 
ChristMyLife said:
Also, it is my belief that had the Church stopped reforming the Liturgy in the 1962-1967 period, the crisis in the Church would be exponentially worse.
Click to expand...
On what basis did you make this assessment? Are there religious groups who haven’t changed their rites and rituals for a long period of time- what kind of crises have they endured that the Catholic Church avoided?
 
commenter,

In most areas, the contrary is actually true, often most of the local organizations look to the leadership given by lay people from the SSPX or FSSP in the field of Pro life etc.



Lay people often find great support from traditional minded clergy in this regard.

In fact often if one does some investigation you will often find Traditional minded Catholics leading such things.
 
ProVobis said:
Have you checked out the Anglican Ordinariate
Click to expand...
I’m absolutely familiar with it.

The closest AO Church to me is 75 miles and I don’t own a car.

If there was an Anglican Ordinariate Catholic Church near me I would attend that and use the Anglo-Catholic Office as well.

But for now I’m an OF Roman Rite man… Although there are two Byzantine Rite Catholic Church’s in my city, one Ukrainian Catholic and the other Melkite Greek Catholic - I love the Ukrainian Church.
 
ChristMyLife,

As regards your wife, that is your personal opinion, but I would rather give her more credited by rightly assuming that all people of good will, rather prefer to conform themselves to the Church than expect the Church to conform to them and their personal preferences. 😉

Keep in mind that it was this ancient liturgy and the faith it upheld in its clear expression that was the corner stone for billions of Catholics before the Post Conciliar reforms. What is more, is that merely from a question of basic facts and statistics, the Mass attendance, conversions, religious vocations was up and doing well prior to the conciliar reforms, after that they have taken a disastrous down fall. Surely any one of basic honesty can see a cause and effect relation in this regard. It isn’t accidental.

http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20031208.html

www.lifesitenews.com

2,600 religious leave orders annually: homosexuality, ‘women’s ordination’ among top reasons - LifeSite

Their “lack of true communion,” an Archbishop said, “is manifested, among other things, in not sharing the Church’s teaching on specific issues such as the ordination of women and sexual morality.”
www.lifesitenews.com www.lifesitenews.com
 
cathapolo said:
Lay people often find great support from traditional minded clergy in this regard.

In fact often if one does some investigation you will often find Traditional minded Catholics leading such things.
Click to expand...
“Traditional minded” clergy and laity, in general, yes active in the united regional (diocesan) and national struggle. But SSPX?
 
Yes, I am here of course not limiting myself to the USA. While SSPX clergy and laity are active in this regard in the USA, they are often more so, in other countries. Particularly in Europe, where Tradition has a greater strong hold.
 
Typically, a bishop must invite them in to a particular diocese - - I do not think it is a matter of them sticking to large cities because they can reach more people. If they are invited, and there is a church for them to use, they will go.
 
Indeed it is true that they tend to stick to large cities. I have spoken to several FSSP superiors over many years about this, and they are quite open that while, yes, they need an invitation and church, that typically population is the determining factor in deciding which invitations to accept. The seemingly only exception to this in recent history is when there is a flourishing SSPX parish in a rural area.
 
Last edited:
The Church actually did do that (effectively) at one point. It was called the “transition mass.”
 
cathapolo said:
regards your wife, that is your personal opinion, but I would rather give her more credited by rightly assuming that all people of good will, rather prefer to conform themselves to the Church than expect the Church to conform to them and their personal preferences. 😉
Click to expand...
My wife has various disabilities and when people speak a foreign language around her she gets upset. If she walked into a Church with the priest speaking entirely in Latin, she probably would have started sobbing and asking to leave.

If the Mass was totally in Latin she wouldn’t have become Catholic.

She is now a devout Catholic who came from a Protestant background (her dad was a pentecostal minister).

I am forever in debt to the Church for her wisdom to allow vernacular in the Liturgy.
 
Last edited:
Pope St John Paul II created the society in response to the illicit consecrations done by the SSPX in 1988. It was initially made up of former SSPX priests who sought to reconcile with Rome, but it has seen new vocations in recent years. They are a traditionalist society in full communion with the Holy See, so supporting them would not be a problem at all.
 
There is a reason why the Ordinary form is called Ordinary. It is the Normative rite, whereas the Tridentine is extraordinary. To regard ANY rite approved by the Church–particularly that celebrated by the vast majority of Catholics, including the Holy Father–as “novel” is denigrating, in my opinion. You have a right to prefer the Extraordinary Form, but it is not “better” or “higher” in the mind of the Church.
 
nunsuch said:
but it is not “better” or “higher” in the mind of the Church.
Click to expand...
It is interesting that to mention the hierarchy of Masses is now considered heresy in light of the fact that this was once considered the norm, taught, and encouraged.

Before the Novus Ordo, the Church freely taught there was a hierarchy: the Solemn High Mass, High Mass or Missa Cantata, and Low Mass. In addition, not only was it taught, but people were encouraged to choose the highest Mass that was available to them. Why?

The higher the Mass, the more efficacious and a source of more potential graces. Does six candles or two candles give more glory to God? Six, of course, even though the two gives glory. Does the Gregorian chant propers or spoken propers give more glory to God? The chanted, of course, even though the spoken gives glory. And so on and so forth…

Saint Piux X was deeply concerned about the “Low Mass culture” and was instrumental in making sure the seminaries had choirs and spent sufficient time in teaching chant. It gave a little bump to the attendance at High Masses for a while, then it slumped. So, in the 50’s, it was permitted that the Ordinary could be chanted at Low Masses. But here’s the kicker. It was done in hopes that it would encouraged people to come back to the High Mass. Boy, that really backfired.

So, my point here, is that while the Church teaches that all Masses are equal in validity and licity, and even intrinsic efficacy, it has never taught an equality in potential external efficacy. The silence on this point over the last 60 years has given the wrong impression.
 
Last edited:
To JHFamily and MattBalkus: You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. The same is true of the claim by ONE priest in the FSSP, who is hardly an infallible authority on anything. Frankly, I would prefer to listen to the Holy Father. I am not going to discuss this further, except to say that I have not criticized your (or anyone’s) right to prefer one form of the Mass to another, and I simply ask that–like the Magisterium–you accord the same respect to others, and to differentiate between fact and opinion.
 
I respect the Holy Father as the Holy Father. However, I’d also like to remind you that he has fled from traditional Catholic teaching of the catechism on several occasions during his pontificate thus far. You can call this priest’s extensive study on the new Mass vs. the old Mass an opinion, but it’s an opinion backed by many more facts than you could ever come up with in regard to the New Mass being more efficacious. I’m saying that this is a trustworthy source, and you may agree with the Holy Father, however one could say he is the epitome of modernism, the poison that has entered the Church. However, he is still the Pope, and deserves the respect I give him. Also, the Extraordinary Form has produced almost all of our greatest saints, has nourished their lives, and had the Church pews filled to the brim. Ever since the institution of the modern Mass, Mass attendance, seminary applicants, vocations in general, have all decreased, and Catholic institutions and schools have closed. These facts are undeniable.
 
Somehow, I feel both more confident and safer regarding the Holy Father as a definitive authority on Catholicism than some person I’ve never met who pontificates (pun intended) on the internet. I do call that priest’s “extensive study” an opinion. He has a right to it, and you have a right to agree with it. But, as a scholar, I also know that the preponderance of Catholic theologians today would disagree, not to mention the authorities of the Magisterium. If you want to disagree, that is your right, but to establish an alternative standard for what constitutes authoritative teaching is generally known as Protestantism. I know many holy Protestants. But they are not Catholic.

That you respect a singular FSSP priest more than the Holy Father is, in my view, highly telling. And what you assert as a factual claim that Pope Francis has “fled from Catholic teaching” is both dubious and hardly something that the vast majority of Catholics would agree with. To put this another way, you may regard yourself confidently as “more Catholic than the Pope,” but I do not have that overweening confidence. And now I will withdraw from a discourse that clearly is going nowhere.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top