Fssp/icksp/sspx

[Restless_Heart_1]

Is there anybody out there who can fill me in on the differences/similarities of the FSSP/ICKSP/SSPX? I know that the FSSP broke off from the SSPX, and that the ICKSP also has a Latin Mass charism. Can anyone give me more info? Thanks!

 

[commenter]

Is there anybody out there who can fill me in on the differences/similarities of the FSSP/ICKSP/SSPX? I know that the FSSP broke off from the SSPX, and that the ICKSP also has a Latin Mass charism. Can anyone give me more info? Thanks!

The FSSP as an organization did not exist as part of the SSPX. Some individuals who were in the SSPX left it, and the Catholic Church established the FSSP with them as the core. Since then, many new members of the FSSP have never belonged to the SSPX. When members of the SSPX are accepted into full communion with the Catholic Church, they may or may not choose to belong to the FSSP, or ICKSP. The FSSP and ICKSP are fully part of the Catholic Church, directly in relationship to the hierarchy - and for that matter, their local diocese and other Catholic religious communities. The SSPX is not part of the Catholic Church at all. It is not in relationship to Catholic parishes, dioceses, or the hierarchy.

Lay people who frequent ministries of the SSPX are not exactly members of the SSPX. They technically are under the jurisdiction of their local Catholic bishop, who they may or may not recognize. The clergy and religious who make up the SSPX are also technically
under the jurisdiction of their local Catholic bishop, though they may not recognize him. The “church” situation for individual SSPX clergy would likely vary from one person to another.

The SSPX don’t operate dioceses, or parishes but chapels, schools and retreat centers. Their ministries are not accountable to the Church. “Their” Laity may seek pastoral care from their their SSPX chapel or SSPX district; or, from their local Catholic parish, as well. Technically a Catholic parish must offer support to anyone in its boundaries. The FSSP and ICKSP do operate parishes, chapels, and other ministries. Their ministries are directly linked to and accountable to the Church.

 

[dmar198]

I think the main difference is that the SSPX is schismatic and anti-Catholic, while the FSSP and ICKSP are both in full communion with the pope and pro-Catholic.

I think the main similarity is that all three groups use the Old Mass instead of the New Mass. All three seem to attract people by emphasizing some traditional elements of Catholic spirituality. I think that’s basically a good thing, except when the SSPX uses those practices to make people sin and make them doubt the indefectability of the Church.

The FSSP and ICKSP sound very similar to me. I’d love someone to come along and let us know what is different about their charisms.

 

[TheDoctor]

ICKSP (Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest) is a Society of Apostolic Life of Pontifical Right. Their priests are validly and licitly ordained and they perform all functions within the Church that any priest performs. You can find more about them here:
institute-christ-king.org/home/

The FSSP (Priestly Fraternity Of Saint Peter) is a Clerical Society of Apostolic Life of Pontifical Right. Their priests are validly and licitly ordained and they perform all functions within the Church that any priest performs. You can find more about them here:
fssp.org/en/index.htm

The SSPX (actually, they are officially called the FSSPX - hence the confusion sometimes with the FSSP) is a group of priests that are validly but illicitly ordained. Their priests perform no functions within the Church (valid but illicit Eucharist). Since they are outside the Church I will not link to their website. We must pray that they chose to reconcile themselves with Rome.

 

[Leonhard]

I think the main difference is that the SSPX is schismatic and anti-Catholic, while the FSSP and ICKSP are both in full communion with the pope and pro-Catholic.

I definitely don’t support the SSPX, but calling them anti-Catholic is going a bit too far. They’re not formally in schism any longer, but they’re still somewhat schismatic, they have no faculties to say mass (a huge problem!), and they’re in an uneasy relationship with the Vatican.

 

[aTraditionalist]

Leonhard:

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmar198

I think the main difference is that the SSPX is schismatic and anti-Catholic, while the FSSP and ICKSP are both in full communion with the pope and pro-Catholic.

I definitely don’t support the SSPX, but calling them anti-Catholic is going a bit too far. They’re not formally in schism any longer, but they’re still somewhat schismatic, they have no faculties to say mass (a huge problem!), and they’re in an uneasy relationship with the Vatican.

The Vatican does not refer to them as schematic. They may have an irregular status but they are still in full communion with the Church. I agree they are not anti-Catholic at all and to say so is bearing false witness unless the accuser can provide proof.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[ChadS]

I definitely don’t support the SSPX, but calling them anti-Catholic is going a bit too far. They’re not formally in schism any longer, but they’re still somewhat schismatic, they have no faculties to say mass (a huge problem!), and they’re in an uneasy relationship with the Vatican.

I don’t believe the SSPX was ever officially in schism with the Holy See, however at the consecration of their bishops their founder and the four bishops were excommunicated. Their founder died before being officially reconciled and in a state of excommunication. Pope Benedict XVI removed the excommunications of their four bishops hoping that would help ease tensions and make talks easier. However, that did not really seem to be the case. I don’t believe the SSPX has had any recent talks while Francis has been pope.

The society’s priests are all validly, but illicitly ordained. The SSPX has continued to ordain men and men have accepted these ordinations knowing full well the Vatican’s position on these matters. Also, SSPX priests lack faculties to hear confessions and perform weddings.

ChadS

 

[commenter]

I definitely don’t support the SSPX, but calling them anti-Catholic is going a bit too far. They’re not formally in schism any longer, but they’re still somewhat schismatic, they have no faculties to say mass (a huge problem!), and they’re in an uneasy relationship with the Vatican.

Calling them anti-Catholic is, I agree, going a bit too far. When we throw that term around too loosely, it loses its meaning. It’s hard to make a fair general statement about “them” because there is a range of individuals. At one extreme some are genuinely are anti-Catholic. Others sincerely hold the Catholic Faith and love the Church, but feel that a few leaders made some tragic mistakes in the 1960s and 1970s. And many fall in between. There is a diversity of people identifying as SSPX even on CAF. I think as time goes on, those who are most adversarial to the Pope are dominating more and more, judging by the leaders’ statements and pro SSPX websites.

Many pro SSPX people are saying the SSPX needs to “regularize” its relationship with the Church. It would be more accurate to say that the SSPX seeks to initiate a relationship. It’s not like a student who has been suspended or is on probation from school; its like a student who is applying for admission.

On the one hand Catholics need to relate to SSPX members in charity. When SSPX supporters read people denouncing them or stereotyping (all) of them as fanatics, that tends to harden them in their dependence on the SSPX. Treat them as individuals, they are not identical, some have good ideas. Listen.

On the other hand, if people are promoting an SSPX event with anti-Magisterium speakers, we need to communicate “This (Catholic Identity Conference, retreat, shrine, or whatever else) is not sponsored by the Catholic Church, despite the advertising. It is sponsored directly or indirectly by the SSPX”. Don’t denounce, but sometimes you need to clarify.

 

[dmar198]

The Vatican does not refer to them as schematic.

What do you think of the following argument:

Premise 1. A person or a group becomes a schismatic by committing either (A) or (B) below, or both.
(A) Refusal to submit to the commands of the Supreme Pontiff.
(B) Refusal to associate with those who are subject to the Supreme Pontiff.

Premise 2. The SSPX commits at least one of the above. (Actually, I think they commit both, but this argument only requires one.)

Conclusion. Therefore, the SSPX is schismatic.

Do you think that is a valid argument?

Here is why I think Premise 2 is true:

I think the SSPX rejects some of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, and I think the popes have commanded us to accept those teachings. Also, I think the SSPX rejects the New Mass as a bad thing, and I think the popes have commanded us to accept it as a positive good. Also, because I think they reject the New Mass, I think they refuse to associate with New Mass attendees, except if the New Mass attendees go to an SSPX Mass. Since I think all these things are true, I think the SSPX fulfills conditions A and B together, and I think fulfilling even one of those conditions would make a person schismatic.

I hope that clarifies my meaning.

I agree they are not anti-Catholic at all and to say so is bearing false witness unless the accuser can provide proof.

What do you think of this argument?

Premise 1. Whoever tries to get Catholics to reject the New Mass or any teaching of the Second Vatican Council is anti-Catholic.
Premise 2. The SSPX does at least one of those things. (Again, I think they do both, but this argument only requires one.)
Conclusion. Therefore, the SSPX is anti-Catholic.

Do you think that is a valid argument?

 

[ProVobis]

On the other hand, if people are promoting an SSPX event with anti-Magisterium speakers, we need to communicate “This (Catholic Identity Conference, retreat, shrine, or whatever else) is not sponsored by the Catholic Church, despite the advertising. It is sponsored directly or indirectly by the SSPX”. Don’t denounce, but sometimes you need to clarify.

Sometimes this isn’t so black and white, though. For example, the last pilgrimage to Rome by some nuns and others was designed to advance the communion possibilities. Some of them could have been anti-Magisterium but could have had a change of heart as well.

I understand they also run schools, nursing homes, pro-life campaigns and other such ventures. I don’t think one can dismiss their humanitarian efforts (because some may call them hostile to Catholicism) any more than the Shriners, for example, who do excellent work with sick children.

 

[commenter]

The Vatican does not refer to them as schematic. They may have an irregular status but they are still in full communion with the Church. I agree they are not anti-Catholic at all and to say so is bearing false witness unless the accuser can provide proof.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

They are not in irregular status, they have no status within the Catholic Church. The organization is not in full communion, or any communion, with the Catholic Church. The situation of individuals is different, and varies from person to person. The Church does have discussions with the SSPX periodically, as it does with many other organizations that have no status in the Church. This is because the Church is concerned for the spiritual welfare of individuals.

We can’t judge individuals in the SSPX, who vary a lot, and only God knows their hearts. We can judge that the SSPX is continuing to take actions that the Catholic Church has condemned as very harmful.

 

[commenter]

Sometimes this isn’t so black and white, though. For example, the last pilgrimage to Rome by some nuns and others was designed to advance the communion possibilities. Some of them could have been anti-Magisterium but could have had a change of heart as well.

I understand they also run schools, nursing homes, pro-life campaigns and other such ventures. I don’t think one can dismiss their humanitarian efforts (because some may call them hostile to Catholicism) any more than the Shriners, for example, who do excellent work with sick children.

I know they run schools. I know they favor prolife, but I’m not aware of any action in unity with local or Catholic prolife efforts. They favor religious liberty too, but are not acting in union with the religious liberty campaign.

Each year persons who support SSPX sponsor a conference. The advertising implies that it is connected to the Catholic Church, not SSPX. The advertising says that it is about defending the Church against secularism. But articles after the conference, applauding it, described the speakers spending almost all their time attacking the Magisterium. In other words, the promotion of this conference, including posts on CAF, was designed to attract traditional Catholics currently trusting the Church, who love the TLM. But the conference itself would encourage them to be somewhat suspicious of the Church, which they would not have guessed from the advertising.

So yes, some things should be shown as black or white, not misleadingly murky.

 

[Brendan_64]

I think the main difference is that the SSPX is schismatic and anti-Catholic

The SSPX are most definitely NOT anti-Catholic. The SSPX ARE Catholic. Nor are they schismatic. The SSPX accept the pope as the head of the Catholic Church, as the head of their Church.

The SSPX are in dispute with the Church (their Church) regarding some matters of doctrine, and as a result their order has no canonical status within the Church and their priests do not have faculties granted by their diocesan bishop.

But the SSPX are most certainly part of the Catholic Church, their priests are Catholic priests, the accept the pope as head of their Church, and they most definitely are NOT anti-Catholic.

I think that’s basically a good thing, except when the SSPX uses those practices to make people sin and make them doubt the indefectability of the Church.

The SSPX does not use the Traditional Mass to cause people to sin.

And as for the indefectability of the Church, even the Church doesn’t claim that she is free from flaws.

The SSPX are not an ‘anti-Catholic organisation’ trying to turn people away from the Church and leading them into sin, and the Church does not hold the SSPX to be in schism.

 

[Brendan_64]

I think the SSPX rejects some of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, and I think the popes have commanded us to accept those teachings. Also, I think the SSPX rejects the New Mass as a bad thing, and I think the popes have commanded us to accept it as a positive good.

The pope does not ‘command’ us. The pope is a flawed human being like the rest of us. All Catholics, the pope included are bound by the deposit of faith, and that cannot be changed by a pope.Yes, the pope is the leader of the church on Earth, but he cannot ‘command’ us as such. It is only when the pope speaks ex-cathedra that he speaks infallibly, and when he does so these pronouncements add to the deposit of faith.

And as for the teachings of Vatican II, a lot of what is written in the documents of Vatican II is quite ambiguous and not clear cut. I agree with Bishop Schneider when he says that we need a ‘syllabus of errors’ regarding what has been written in the documents of Vatican II, as confusion and apparent mis-interpretation of these teachings has been rampant over the last 50 years.

 

[LoyalViews]

The SSPX are most definitely NOT anti-Catholic. The SSPX ARE Catholic. Nor are they schismatic. The SSPX accept the pope as the head of the Catholic Church, as the head of their Church.

The SSPX are in dispute with the Church (their Church) regarding some matters of doctrine, and as a result their order has no canonical status within the Church and their priests do not have faculties granted by their diocesan bishop.

But the SSPX are most certainly part of the Catholic Church, their priests are Catholic priests, the accept the pope as head of their Church, and they most definitely are NOT anti-Catholic.

The SSPX does not use the Traditional Mass to cause people to sin.

And as for the indefectability of the Church, even the Church doesn’t claim that she is free from flaws.

The SSPX are not an ‘anti-Catholic organisation’ trying to turn people away from the Church and leading them into sin, and the Church does not hold the SSPX to be in schism.

Well said Brendan, and spot on at that.

There are ongoing talks between the Holy See and if I’m not mistaken, Cardinal Brandmuller has past visited an SSPX seminary, likewise Bishop Schneider will be or already HAS visited their American seminary, St Thomas Aquinas. While their priests do not possess faculties, it’s important not to view them as “that group”, because they’re more than that. They are Catholics. They are one of us. I find it ridiculous how we tend to defend well-known progressives and say “oh thats not REALLY what they mean”, however so many people who try to remain in what they see as the tradition of the Church are immediately taken out of context and told they’re schismatics, which even the Holy Father hasn’t done.

The SSPX does have many issues and is in a completely imperfect situation within the Church, but I wouldn’t place them outside the mystical body of Christ.

I am not a member of the SSPX laity, and I pray that the SSPX will resolve whatever “imperfect” or “irregular” situation they may be in, which is mainly politics over Vatican II. They can be a GREAT force for good!

 

[Brendan_64]

. They are one of us. I find it ridiculous how we tend to defend well-known progressives and say “Oh thats not REALLY what they mean”, but so many people who try to remain in what they say as the tradition of the Church are criticised and told they’re schismatics, which even the Holy Father hasn’t done.

Indeed. The Church is full of individuals and groups who blatantly reject Church teaching on issues such as contraception, divorce and re-marriage, cohabitation, the ordination of women etc. and much more. Yet call such people ‘schismatic’ or anti-Catholic, and you’ll be branded as uncharitable, judgemental and worse. But a group of Catholics who unswervingly support Catholic moral teaching are seen as fair game because they are in disagreement about the interpretation of some of the content of some of the documents from Vatican II, and they are branded as schismatic and anti-Catholic.

When the black mass was being held in Oklahoma, who organised a Mass and a Rosary procession, to where this abomination was taking place, and who celebrated Mass outside? The SSPX.

The SSPX with canonical status would be a real force for good within our Church. And my oh my, we really do need as much forces for good as we can get right now, within our Church.

 

[commenter]

…
But the SSPX are most certainly part of the Catholic Church, their priests are Catholic priests, the accept the pope as head of their Church…

1. SSPX clergy hang the pope’s picture in their chapels. In a symbolic way, they regard Francis as “pope”; as Canada regards Elizabeth II as in a way, a “queen”.
2. The clergy obey the pope, and his appointed bishops, on nothing; they defy him on many important matters.
3. The clergy** do** obey the head of the SSPX, and his appointees, on everything. They defy him on nothing, if they want to keep their job. You may say the clergy don’t follow the **pope’s **commands, but they do follow commands of other persons - their real superiors; their real pope, their real living Magisterium, not based in Rome.
4. The SSPX leadership is truly a living Magisterium, not just an archive for past documents. It interprets Scripture and Tradition. It determines - by its own authority, not by “tradition” - which aspects of recent papal teachings and Vatican II are valid, which are not. Its clergy must follow this magisterium on a weekly basis, not Rome. SSPX clergy who disagree with the SSPX magisterium tend to move on - to SSPV, or some other movement. The SSPV and similar traditionalist type movements also interpret Scripture and Tradition, but differently from SSPX.
5. Let’s stop calling the SSPX anti-Catholic. There may have been a time when it was simply a traditional movement within the Church, but today, it’s a separate church.

 

[Brendan_64]

You may say the clergy don’t follow the **pope’s **commands, but they do follow commands of other persons - their real superiors; their real pope, their real living Magisterium, not based in Rome.

The SSPX do accept the Pope as their pope. The fact that they may disagree with him does not take away from the fcat that they accept him as their pope.

Let’s stop calling the SSPX anti-Catholic. There may have been a time when it was simply a traditional movement within the Church, but today, it’s a different church.

And who has defined the SSPX as a different Church? The Vatican certainly hasn’t. The SSPX are not a separate Church. The SSPX has not declared this, the Vatican has not declared this? So on whose authority do you make this assertion?

And what of clergy who reject Church teaching on issues such as women priests, contraception, Communion for politicians who support abortion legislation etc. Does that mean that they do not accept the Pope as their pope?

 

[commenter]

The SSPX do accept the Pope as their pope. The fact that they may disagree with him does not take away from the fcat that they accept him as their pope.

If the SSPX priest can disregard what Francis says, but has to obey another man on spiritual matters, even if it goes against his own interpretation of scripture and tradition, wouldn’t you say that the other man is his real pope?

 

[Brendan_64]

If the SSPX priest can disregard what Francis says, but has to obey another man on spiritual matters, even if it goes against his own interpretation of scripture and tradition, wouldn’t you say that the other man is his real pope?

No.

We are not bound to agree with everything Pope Francis says. Pope Francis is a fallible human being, just like the rest of us.

A pope is not defined by whether or not we agree with what he says. That the SSPX clergy agree with their Bishop Fellay on issues where they disagree with Pope Francis would not mean that that makes Bishop Fellay their pope rather than Pope Francis.

Catholics are entitled to disagree with what a pope says. Popes do not speak infallibly in all that they say and Catholics are entitled to disagree with the pope. Indeed Cardinal Burke has stated that it would be a duty of Catholics to speak up in such circumstances.

Popes, like the rest of us, can be wrong. We are entitled to disagree with the pope and to say so. But that doesn’t mean they are no longer our pope.

What we cannot disagree with is the deposit of faith, but disagreeing with a pope (or popes) or taking a different interpretation of documents from Vatican II (which are in many cases ambiguous) does not necessarily constitute disagreeing with the deposit of faith.