How is their training compared to each other, does one spend more time studying Thomas Aquinas, or someone else?
As I said, the secular seminarians are going to spend a lot more time on Aquinas than the regular seminarians. The regular seminarians are going to focus more on the theologians from their respective schools. If you’re a Canon, the Master Theologian for Canons is Augustine.
How are their sermons different from each other?
I would say that the way they present the content may be different. Augustine and Aquinas can both be talking about Coke and saying the same thing in a very different manner. The content is the same and they are equally orthodox.
The difference is going to be that the FSSP and Christ the King are going to be more “rational”, while the Canons of St. John Cantius are going to be more “affective”. One is going to try to stir your head and the other your heart.
Again, if you have been able to attend one of their Churches, please explain?
I have attended mass celebrated by the Canons of St. John Cantius and by the FSSP. I was trained to celebrate the EF by an FSSP. I didn’t notice much of a difference in how they celebrated mass, other than the fact that the Canons tend to be a little more regal in their dress.
But I’m really a bad person to ask to compare masses. When I’m at mass, whether it’s a clown mass or a mass celebrated by the pope himself, the building can come down in flames and I won’t know it until I feel the heat. I tend to focus on what’s happening in the sanctuary and on the prayers, not on the details.
If you asked me what statues did they have at the FSSP chapel and at the Canons, I have to say, "I don’t know if they had statues, stained glass, candles, altar rails or the color of the walls. I assume they had all of this, because it’s traditional outside of friaries, priories and monasteries.
But I have to add a disclaimer here. In our religious community, we spend 36 months learning to ignore. When we walk into a church or chapel for mass, we have no interest in what’s there, who’s there or what they’re doing. Our focus is on the altar and the crucifix. The blinders come on automatically. That’s the way we go through out day. Our focus is on the present moment and the task that you have to do, on nothing else. We spend the three years of temporary vows practicing this discipline. After a while you can’t even hear what’s happening. You can just turn it all off.
I can see the difference between and EF and OF mass, but not between two EFs or two OFs. The thing that gets my attention is always the prayers. When we do the EF the prayers are different. Franciscans do OF in Latin and modern languages. It’s up to the superior of the house. Whatever he likes, the rest of us have to like. There is no thinking allowed there. I don’t pay attention to any other differences other than what prayers I have to say and when.
And finally, would the SSPX be closer to the FSSP in the same type of training & sermons?
That’s a tricky question. My experience with both is that they have very similar formation, but the attitude is very different. I can tell an SSPX from an FSSP even if they were both in black suits and Roman collar. The FSSP priests are very laid back, very gentle, informal without violating boundaries, maybe the word is enchanting. I have not met many, but the few that I’ve met have a sense of humor.
There is a big difference in the way that the FSSP and the SSPX deal with the rest of us, male religious and clerics in the mainstream. The FSSP are just one of the guys. They love Franciscans, Dominican, Salesians, Diocesan clergy, Christian Brothers, etc. And those of us who have had the great honor of meeting them really like them. They’re a great group of guys. They’re not condescending at all. We tease them a lot, because they’re stuffy when they preach. But it’s great banter.
My experience with the SSPX has been limited to one chapel in our area. There are two guys there. One is a little, how do I say this charitably, . . . aristocratic, maybe. That’s the way he treats those of us from the mainstream. The other is my buddy who loves to come over to our community house and whom I’m trying to convince to join the FFV this summer.
He doesn’t buy into the “we’re more orthodox than the pope” thing. He thinks it’s silly. I don’t think that his confrere is of the same mindset.
I ran into him at the hospital a few times. That’s when I observed that he was a little different. I was taking Communion to one of our brothers. We met in the elevator and we said hello. As we walked to the parking lot, we had the usual chit chat. When I said that I had been there to take Communion to one of our brothers he stiffened up and asked, “I thought you were nor a priest?”
“I’m not” I said. “But we have been taking Holy Communion to our own since the 13th century.” All I got back was silence. Whereas the FSSP response is, “Oh, we didn’t know that.”
I could be wrong. My guess is that the SSPX does not study much about other forms of life outside of their enclave. They’re like every other secular priest. They know everything Roman, that’s it. If it’s not Roman, they’ve never heard of it. Unlike other secular priests, I get the impression that they are not too interested either. I find that baffling. It could just be this one community. I don’t know them from any other place. I can’t compare.
I once heard a comparison between the Institute & the FSSP, something along the lines that the Institute likes to restore old Churches
I have not spend enough time with them to know what they do outside of mass. Maybe they are the St. Francis of the 21st century who go around restoring old churches. That would be cool.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
to be able to live there, but I keep hearing that the Chicago area is dangerous, with incredibly high taxes & expensive to boot