Fsspx

[JReducation]

Are you saying that FSSP accepts Vatican II whole and entire without any reservations whatsoever?

Yes. The Ecclesia Dei institutes are required to accept Vatican II as is. They must accept that the Ordinary Form of the Mass is valid and licit when celebrated according to the GIRM. They must accept the CCC as is. They must accept that the pope has the final word on the interpretation of tradition. They must accept that it is the role of the curia, not them, to correct the errors and abuses for which others are responsible. Their role is to take proper care of those entrusted to them and to follow the charism of their respective institutes, not to do the job of the curia and the bishops, which includes interpreting and applying Vatican II.

It’s really no different from any other male community with the exception that it’s an Ecclesia Dei institute.

 

[commenter]

Thanks for the explanation. I agree with most of what you’ve written. It can be really annoying when the Pope’s words are picked apart, and some of it used to justify certain views. But then, I’m guilty of picking apart the CDF prefects’ views!

I can understand why the SSPX is thought of as being the opposite of groups like the LWCR. There is one distinction, though. While groups on the more progressive spectrum hold views which the Church has never held (and are therefore a novelty or worse), the SSPX holds views that were, in the past, held by the Church, which are now considered outdated or unnecessary. Whether they are right or wrong doesn’t really concern me anymore. It seems that groups on both sides believe that they are right. The CDF prefect has stated in the past that he has to spend much of his time and energy on extremes on both sides, which is unfortunate.

Here’s an example of nuancing, from another thread; it’s a response to the question is the SSPX in schism:" … a Vatican official made comments of the sort. While he acknowledges potential for that, he did not say it with certainty."
In other words, he did not refer to the Pope’s highest ranking official as speaking “for the Church”; rather, this is just “a Vatican official.” Furthermore, the poster claims the Archbishop “did not say it with certainty”. In other words the Church can be ignored. I don’t know what “certainty” would look like to them. If you go to the pro-SSPX websites, they don’t refer to the statements of THE pope but rather “THIS pope”. So they justify remain outside the Church for now, pending “final word”.

The Church will never stop reaching out, to unmarried couples living together, or to the SSPX, or to other groups of people. It will never issue a “final word”, but the door is open. It would be wrong to assume, because the Church never issues a “final word”, that there is uncertainty. There is nothing uncertain about whether it is harmful to remain outside the Church. There’s nothing harmless about those websites that tempt people to remain outside.

 

[larsont7]

I believe that is the case.

I just went through several of the FSSP documents and constitutions, and I don’t see any proof of this. They are bound to obedience to the Holy Father, but I see no declarations of complete assent to the Vatican II documents. I will concede if someone can show me otherwise, but to my knowledge, many of the priests do have reservations regarding the verbiage in the documents.

 

[Tomdstone]

… to my knowledge, many of the priests do have reservations regarding the verbiage in the documents.

This is also what I understood. In fact, I thought that at the FSSP bookstores, they have traditional Catholic materials which are normally found at SSPX bookstores.

 

[JReducation]

I just went through several of the FSSP documents and constitutions, and I don’t see any proof of this. They are bound to obedience to the Holy Father, but I see no declarations of complete assent to the Vatican II documents. I will concede if someone can show me otherwise, but to my knowledge, many of the priests do have reservations regarding the verbiage in the documents.

This is also what I understood. In fact, I thought that at the FSSP bookstores, they have traditional Catholic materials which are normally found at SSPX bookstores.

Don’t confuse traditional Catholic material found among the SSPX or the FSSP with dissenting material. There is plenty of good material to be found.

Also, don’t confuse the statements, beliefs or position of individual members of the FSSP and the Society itself.

You will not find those statement in any constitution. Why would you even go to a constitution looking for that. Everyone knows that you are not allowed to put that kind of statement into a constitution. The Holy See would throw the constitution back at you to edit. You cannot put into a constitution what is already expected of you. The constitution is for that which is only specifically for you.

Assent to Vatican II and Vatican II documents is expected and demanded of every institute of consecrated life and society of apostolic life. There is no way that the Holy See would allow you to put that into your documentation as it was unique to you.

Having said this, one of the conditions for reunification is that those return or coming back or whatever other term one wants to use is that they put aside or put distance between them and these ideologies. This has always been a demand of Ecclesia Dei.

Having been in existence for more than a quarter century, the Church takes it as a given that those who enter the FSSP are like the rest of us in other institutes regarding these points.

 

[otjm]

I am not sure that the RCC still condemns artificial birth control with the same vigor that it did before Vatican II. For example, the sociology department of a local Roman Catholic college conducts various surveys of the students, both entering and graduating. According to one survey, 35% of entering students believe that it is all right for married couples to use ABC. However, after four years of Roman Catholic indoctrination and education at the RC college, which has the approval of the local bishop, the survey finds that more than 90% of graduating seniors believe that it is all right for a married couple to use artificial birth control.

Why would you presume that the issue of birth control would even come up in a college class? And why would you presume that there may not be other influences on the students that come from somewhere other than the college?

 

[Denise1957]

The other distinction is that the SSPX people are probably better dressed.

 

[Tomdstone]

Why would you presume that the issue of birth control would even come up in a college class? And why would you presume that there may not be other influences on the students that come from somewhere other than the college?

I suppose that you may be right, that in Catholic colleges, at the daily Masses and in the Catholic religion classes, the question of the morality of artificial birth control is ignored and never mentioned. Could this be for fear of offending those Catholic women who are taking the birth control pill while attending Catholic colleges?

 

[otjm]

I suppose that you may be right, that in Catholic colleges, at the daily Masses and in the Catholic religion classes, the question of the morality of artificial birth control is ignored and never mentioned. Could this be for fear of offending those Catholic women who are taking the birth control pill while attending Catholic colleges?

I would presume that if there were a theology class of Marriage and the Family (as opposed to a sociology class), that the issue of birth control, and the study of Theology of the Body would be a significant part of that.

I would not expect that in daily Mass, that birth control would be mentioned more than perhaps once and again as it is not something that comes out of the Gospel and Epistle readings. That would be a sermon instead of a homily. As to Catholic religion classes, or theology classes since most religion classes are taught in high school, not college, where theology is taught, that there are so many areas of theology that I would not presume to see it except in a theology of marriage and family class. And unless the college is making that class mandatory, many if not most students may not take it.

So no, it is not a matter of ABC being ignored; it has no place in most classes. It has a place, but that place is fairly specific.

And no, I sincerely doubt it is a matter of fear of offending women.

Hell fire and brimstone as an approach is popular with some people as a method of obtaining conversion. And for those who propose that method, it often appears that they have the position that it is either hell fire and brimstone, or avoiding the truth. The truth can be spoken of in term other than hell fire and brimstone, without “watering it down”. We sometimes get the impression that Christ primarily spoke in terms of hell fire and brimstone; and that may be partially true when he was confronted by Pharisees and Sadducees; but when he spoke with sinners (other than that crowd), his approach was far, far different. A point that those who want hell fire and brimstone from the pulpit seem to overlook.

IMHO, the most awesome instructions that JP2 ever gave us is Theology of the Body; it is not something that can be unpacked in a sermon or two, or a homily or two. And it for sure is not hell fire and brimstone. As best I can see, it appears to be the biggest factor in young people either considering marriage or entering into it to choose NFP.
As we see more and more of what has been called the “JP2” priests ordained, and more and more of the generations of priests impacted by Charles Currin, we are going to see more people entering into marriage with a far better understanding of covenant, of total giving, and how NFP integrates with that.

Having said that, we are in a world (nation, if you will), which is becoming more and more radicalized by secularism, hedonism, relativism, individualism, rejection of authority, and a few other odds and ends which are antithetical to the Gospel commands and the Magisterium of the Church. I can’t speak to the sociological study, whether it was done well or poorly, and exactly what it showed. However, if 35% of the incoming students were pro NFP (or at least anti ABC), one relevant question would be, how many of them were living on campus; and out of the 35%, how many were engaged in sexual activity outside of marriage by the time they were graduating?

Being engaged in sexual activity outside of marriage is a far greater driving force to use ABC than just about anything one can propose. Another question would be, how many of the 65% incoming freshmen who accepted ABC had been engaged in sexual activity before entering college, as this will be a significant impact on their thinking.

Complex questions do not have simplistic answers. The issue you propose is anything but a simple question. That most certainly does not make it in any way an invalid question, but asking how often at daily Mass the issue of ABC comes up misses most of it.

Another question would be how many of the students attend daily Mass, and how does that correlate to beliefs. We could go on and on, but I think you get the drift.

And don’t misunderstand me; I wish all those kids could take a thorough class on Theology of the Body. Until someone decides that will be mandatory, there won’t be much improvement; and then the question is, should it be a freshman class, when most have not been affected with their peers’ attitudes? Will freshmen have enough maturity to internalize it/ Make it a sophomore course, hoping to catch those who still are not affected? And the questions go on and on…

 

[Tomdstone]

I would presume that if there were a theology class of Marriage and the Family (as opposed to a sociology class), that the issue of birth control, and the study of Theology of the Body would be a significant part of that.

I would not expect that in daily Mass, that birth control would be mentioned more than perhaps once and again as it is not something that comes out of the Gospel and Epistle readings. That would be a sermon instead of a homily. As to Catholic religion classes, or theology classes since most religion classes are taught in high school, not college, where theology is taught, that there are so many areas of theology that I would not presume to see it except in a theology of marriage and family class. And unless the college is making that class mandatory, many if not most students may not take it.

So no, it is not a matter of ABC being ignored; it has no place in most classes. It has a place, but that place is fairly specific.

And no, I sincerely doubt it is a matter of fear of offending women.

Hell fire and brimstone as an approach is popular with some people as a method of obtaining conversion. And for those who propose that method, it often appears that they have the position that it is either hell fire and brimstone, or avoiding the truth. The truth can be spoken of in term other than hell fire and brimstone, without “watering it down”. We sometimes get the impression that Christ primarily spoke in terms of hell fire and brimstone; and that may be partially true when he was confronted by Pharisees and Sadducees; but when he spoke with sinners (other than that crowd), his approach was far, far different. A point that those who want hell fire and brimstone from the pulpit seem to overlook.

IMHO, the most awesome instructions that JP2 ever gave us is Theology of the Body; it is not something that can be unpacked in a sermon or two, or a homily or two. And it for sure is not hell fire and brimstone. As best I can see, it appears to be the biggest factor in young people either considering marriage or entering into it to choose NFP.
As we see more and more of what has been called the “JP2” priests ordained, and more and more of the generations of priests impacted by Charles Currin, we are going to see more people entering into marriage with a far better understanding of covenant, of total giving, and how NFP integrates with that.

Having said that, we are in a world (nation, if you will), which is becoming more and more radicalized by secularism, hedonism, relativism, individualism, rejection of authority, and a few other odds and ends which are antithetical to the Gospel commands and the Magisterium of the Church. I can’t speak to the sociological study, whether it was done well or poorly, and exactly what it showed. However, if 35% of the incoming students were pro NFP (or at least anti ABC), one relevant question would be, how many of them were living on campus; and out of the 35%, how many were engaged in sexual activity outside of marriage by the time they were graduating?

Being engaged in sexual activity outside of marriage is a far greater driving force to use ABC than just about anything one can propose. Another question would be, how many of the 65% incoming freshmen who accepted ABC had been engaged in sexual activity before entering college, as this will be a significant impact on their thinking.

Complex questions do not have simplistic answers. The issue you propose is anything but a simple question. That most certainly does not make it in any way an invalid question, but asking how often at daily Mass the issue of ABC comes up misses most of it.

Another question would be how many of the students attend daily Mass, and how does that correlate to beliefs. We could go on and on, but I think you get the drift.

And don’t misunderstand me; I wish all those kids could take a thorough class on Theology of the Body. Until someone decides that will be mandatory, there won’t be much improvement; and then the question is, should it be a freshman class, when most have not been affected with their peers’ attitudes? Will freshmen have enough maturity to internalize it/ Make it a sophomore course, hoping to catch those who still are not affected? And the questions go on and on…

The whole point of my question was my thought that it doesn’t seem right to condemn the SSPX because they say that the Church today is not doing a good job instructing people that ABC is a mortal sin which merits eternal damnation in hell.

 

[otjm]

The whole point of my question was my thought that it doesn’t seem right to condemn the SSPX because they say that the Church today is not doing a good job instructing people that ABC is a mortal sin which merits eternal damnation in hell.

The SSPX have far greater problems and issues with the Church than the matter of whether or not the Church is doing a good job on the matter of ABC vs. NFP.

My response was directed to the matters you brought up about a Catholic College. I do not mean to indicate you are simplistic; I think you are struggling with an issue that many Catholics struggle with. But I think that my critique can answer, at least in part, that this is not a simple issue and it most certainly does not have a simple solution.

As to the SSPX, I sincerely doubt they are adopting Theology of the Body as an instructional tool. And given the apparent general mindset of those laity who join SSPX parishes and assume their theological stances, the question of how many of the laity who do so use NFP and for what reasons begs the question. The fact that many if not most of the laity who do follow the SSPX do use NFP (presuming such a fact to be true) is in no way a justification for the role and stances of the bishops or the priests of the SSPX vis-à-vis the Church. The analogy that even a blind pig can find an acorn applies.

 

[commenter]

The whole point of my question was my thought that it doesn’t seem right to condemn the SSPX because they say that the Church today is not doing a good job instructing people that ABC is a mortal sin which merits eternal damnation in hell.

The Church proclaims the truth; individual Catholics and non Catholics have free will. At any given time many Catholics are responding, and others not responding, to the truth. This has been true since the Acts of the Apostles. That doesn’t change the value of the truth, nor the value of the Church that consistently proclaims it, even if individual Catholics are influenced by the World, the Flesh and the Devil, most of all today it’s the World.

The secular media constantly look for any problem with Catholics abusing their free will. For instance, if a Catholic is tempted by constant exposure to TV shows toward a certain sin, they conclude this disproves the Gospel of Luke, Thomas Aquinas, and Pope Francis. The question is why is the SSPX joining forces with the secular media, and certain anti-Catholic fundamentalists? Why is the SSPX comfortable in THAT alliance? Why are the pro-SSPX websites and conferences so similar to Call to Action, the LCWR, the National Catholic Reporter, and other groups opposed to the Magisterium? All these groups, including the SSPX, say they are only trying to reform the Church. The problem with the SSPX is not that it is too outdated, too 1950s. The problem is that they have conformed too much with the current trends, just like the other groups that critique the Church, rather than helping the Church proclaim the truth. Instead of attacking the real villains, they attack the Magisterium.

 

[Tomdstone]

The Church proclaims the truth; individual Catholics and non Catholics have free will. At any given time many Catholics are responding, and others not responding, to the truth. This has been true since the Acts of the Apostles. That doesn’t change the value of the truth, nor the value of the Church that consistently proclaims it, even if individual Catholics are influenced by the World, the Flesh and the Devil, most of all today it’s the World.

The secular media constantly look for any problem with Catholics abusing their free will. For instance, if a Catholic is tempted by constant exposure to TV shows toward a certain sin, they conclude this disproves the Gospel of Luke, Thomas Aquinas, and Pope Francis. The question is why is the SSPX joining forces with the secular media, and certain anti-Catholic fundamentalists? Why is the SSPX comfortable in THAT alliance? Why are the pro-SSPX websites and conferences so similar to Call to Action, the LCWR, the National Catholic Reporter, and other groups opposed to the Magisterium? All these groups, including the SSPX, say they are only trying to reform the Church. The problem with the SSPX is not that it is too outdated, too 1950s. The problem is that they have conformed too much with the current trends, just like the other groups that critique the Church, rather than helping the Church proclaim the truth. Instead of attacking the real villains, they attack the Magisterium.

If the Church is proclaiming the truth, and the truth is inflexible, then how can there possibly be reunion with the Eastern Orthodox Church which has priests who allow ABC under certain conditions, and which allows divorce and remarriage in the Church?

 

[commenter]

If the Church is proclaiming the truth, and the truth is inflexible, then how can there possibly be reunion with the Eastern Orthodox Church which has priests who allow ABC under certain conditions, and which allows divorce and remarriage in the Church?

Eastern Orthodox Christians are a Church. What Church officials or laity do, or don’t do, is important, but not the subject of this thread.
The SSPX is not a Church. Those individuals have to make their own decisions about how to live out the Catholic Faith. For any Catholic, part of living out the Faith includes evangelism, the spiritual and corporal works of mercy, bringing the gospel into the Public Square on matters as Prolife, Religious Freedom, the Sacredness of Marriage, and other concerns. Some individuals in the SSPX apparently feel they can help Prolife and lead people to the Catholic Faith by attacking the Magisterium. Based on what that group is doing,other SSPX people may decide to leave, to join a parish, join a diocese, and participate in Catholic Action.

When I read pro SSPX websites, I am amazed at so little criticism of the secular media, so limited analysis of the errors of the secular political system, almost non existent refutation of fundamentalism. Where I live the SSPX makes no known effort to draw people out of secularism, or Protestantism, or even liberal or fallen away Catholics. The only group they seem to successfully pull people away from is church going Catholics who had been attending the diocesan TLM.

 

[Tomdstone]

Eastern Orthodox Christians are a Church. What Church officials or laity do, or don’t do, is important, but not the subject of this thread.
The SSPX is not a Church. Those individuals have to make their own decisions about how to live out the Catholic Faith. For any Catholic, part of living out the Faith includes evangelism, the spiritual and corporal works of mercy, bringing the gospel into the Public Square on matters as Prolife, Religious Freedom, the Sacredness of Marriage, and other concerns. Some individuals in the SSPX apparently feel they can help Prolife and lead people to the Catholic Faith by attacking the Magisterium. Based on what that group is doing,other SSPX people may decide to leave, to join a parish, join a diocese, and participate in Catholic Action.

When I read pro SSPX websites, I am amazed at so little criticism of the secular media, so limited analysis of the errors of the secular political system, almost non existent refutation of fundamentalism. Where I live the SSPX makes no known effort to draw people out of secularism, or Protestantism, or even liberal or fallen away Catholics. The only group they seem to successfully pull people away from is church going Catholics who had been attending the diocesan TLM.

Well, I see families with 12 children, some with 14 children and other larger families at the SSPX. At the local Roman Catholic Church, I see families with 2 children. I know several people at the local RCC, and they have no qualms talking about the contraceptive methods they employ.

 

[poche]

So then what’s the difference between the FSSP and FSSPX and SSPX

FSSPX and the SSPX are one and the same. They are not in communion with the Catholic Church. The FSSP is a different community and it is in full communion with the Catholic Church.

 

[otjm]

If the Church is proclaiming the truth, and the truth is inflexible, then how can there possibly be reunion with the Eastern Orthodox Church which has priests who allow ABC under certain conditions, and which allows divorce and remarriage in the Church?

And you think perhaps that there are not some Latin rite priests who do not teach that too? reconciliation with the Orthodox, if it occurs, will occur on a far higher level than the individual parish priest. Or perhaps even an individual bishop or more.

 

[JReducation]

If the Church is proclaiming the truth, and the truth is inflexible, then how can there possibly be reunion with the Eastern Orthodox Church which has priests who allow ABC under certain conditions, and which allows divorce and remarriage in the Church?

The Catholic Church has no jurisdiction over any of the Orthodox Churches. They are true Churches with true apostolic succession. They have their own code of law and their own theology. We have no authority over that as they have no authority over our code of law nor do they dictate theology to us. These are not issues that enter into the discussion between the Holy See and the SSPX.

The SSPX is subordinate to the Latin Church, which is the mother of all the Catholic Churches. The Orthodox are not. Therefore, the SSPX has to come in line with the Latin Church. The Orthodox have room to dialogue.

The SSPX can loose its apostolic succession if its bishops die without a successor. The Orthodox will not lose their apostolic succession if they don’t enter full communion with the Eastern Catholic Churches.

If the SSPX goes into schism, the present generation of clergy and followers will by schismatic and morally culpable. The Orthodox are in schism, but the present generation of Orthodox Christians are not schismatics and are not morally culpable. They were born into those Churches and have been born into them for about 1,000 years. If they choose to remain in schism, they are morally culpable. You are only culpable if you break with the Primacy. You cannot break with the Primacy of Peter if you were never Peter’s subject.

These differences are far more important to the Holy See than the Orthodox position on ABC or divorce. The Orthodox position is one that is commonly found among unorthodox Catholics as well. The Catholic Church chooses to deal with it at the local level. The same would be true if there were a reunification in the East between Orthodox and Eastern Catholics. These things would be dealt with at the local level.

 

[Butaperson]

I’m so confused.
Is SSPX in communion with the Holy See or not?
Is it a valid church to attend?
I have never before heard of these factions like SSPX and SSPV actually not being in communion with Rome - I always just figured they were hardcore traditionalists that were like “Novus ordo is lame” and then Novus Ordo was like “Whatever dude I’m cool”, not churches that were like “Die Novus Ordo die” and then Novus Ordo was like “Murder is a sin get out” WHAT IS HAPPENING.

I cry what do I do

Also, what the heck is going on with China’s Catholic churches.
Such confused.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

This ought to be good considering we are kicking off “Unity Week”

You can do a search for SSPX threads.