How to respond to SSPX followers

[Ridgerunner]

FSSPX might vary from place to place, and I suspect it does.

Around here there are some, and some of them are among the nicest, kindliest people I know. They’re reverent, identify themselves only as “Catholic” and don’t criticize people who go to the Novus Ordo.

One of the good things about their congregation is also one of the irritating things. They really do study a lot. They’re very familiar with Church writings, far more so than most Catholics. They’re very familiar with Church doctrine, again, more so than most Catholics.

Their “bookishness” can, however, become irritating. It’s not so much that they know so much, it’s that some of it is awfully hard to follow if you ever get into a discussion with them or read their literature. But they are sincere about it, so who am I to criticize?

Another thing is their concern with Modernism. They are totally correct in being concerned about it. (relativism, when it comes to religion) It’s fundamentally protestant, but truly has infected a lot of churchmen in the west, Catholic universities, all sorts of things. We even see it from time to time on CAF.

But here’s where it goes a little over the edge. They are convinced that some of the documents of Vatican II relating to ecumenism are infected with religious relativism; essentially the belief that all religions are equal in truth and efficacy. And they have all kinds of quotes and prior statements of popes and saints saying some of those quotes are theologically incorrect.

It can make your head swim if you get into it.

But you really can’t disagree with them that Modernism has affected a lot of churchmen and Catholic institutions.

The other basic FSSPX problem is being under the authority of local bishops. It’s not so much any idea that being under the authority of any bishop is unacceptable, it’s that they don’t trust a lot of bishops now in office. I think they take it too far, but nobody can seriously argue that there haven’t been some pretty questionable bishops in the U.S. and that they imposed some doubtful things on their priests and laity.

To me FSSPX is an unfortunate outgrowth of an unfortunate outgrowth in the Church itself. I don’t really think FSSPX was necessary for preservation of the Church, particularly since most young priests and seminarians now are very faithful to the teachings of the Church; even “traditional” in their ways. Probably if you took a random sampling of new seminarians and mixed them with FSSPX seminarians and prohibited them from talking about Modernism and wayward bishops, it would be hard to tell which was which, if the FSSPX seminarians would refrain from speaking conversational Latin (which all Catholic priest were once able to do).

But if you went to a newly ordained priest of either one and talked to them about the faith or morals, I don’t think you would know which was which.

 

[commenter]

Interesting, so there are SSPX congregations out there where the priest is fully licit due to diocesean bishop approval?

There are no “SSPX congregations” as such, since no laity can belong to the SSPX. The SSPX does not have any parishes or dioceses - no SSPX ordinary. Any SSPX priest is, potentially, already under the local ordinary. A particular priest might choose to meet with his local bishop; the local bishop may approve this priest, or officially sanction the ministry of this priest in this diocese. (It is not unknown for suspended priests who have never been in SSPX to reunite with their local diocese).

His ministry now might include continuing to offer Mass for the same people who were at his Masses before. Keep in mind the bishop always had responsibility for those people anyway. The goal of the Church is generally for all laity to belong to a parish. This does not prevent people from attending Mass at a “chapel”, oratory, etc, in addition. If the bishop does not create a new parish based around this worship community, it is likely people would be encouraged to affiliate with some parish; which does not stop them from
worshiping here, also, as long as this approved priest is offering the Mass.

 

[Padres1969]

There are no “SSPX congregations” as such, since no laity can belong to the SSPX. The SSPX does not have any parishes or dioceses - no SSPX ordinary. Any SSPX priest is, potentially, already under the local ordinary. A particular priest might choose to meet with his local bishop; the local bishop may approve this priest, or officially sanction the ministry of this priest in this diocese. (It is not unknown for suspended priests who have never been in SSPX to reunite with their local diocese).

**His ministry now might include continuing to offer Mass for the same people who were at his Masses before. **Keep in mind the bishop always had responsibility for those people anyway. The goal of the Church is generally for all laity to belong to a parish. This does not prevent people from attending Mass at a “chapel”, oratory, etc, in addition. If the bishop does not create a new parish based around this worship community, it is likely people would be encouraged to affiliate with some parish; which does not stop them from
worshiping here, also, as long as this approved priest is offering the Mass.

You are of course correct that they’re not parishes and technically the laity are simply involved with being at a mass being offered by an SSPX priest at a chapel. However it is still a de-facto congregation if the same people are showing up every week to the same church for the service. They’re a de-facto community even if not in any way an official parish. I’m quite familiar with one such congregation, group, whatever you want to call them, who attend an SSPX offered mass held at an old military chapel that my cousin was married in.

 

[otjm]

1. Don’t take the bait. It will lead to no good and perhaps loss of friendship. If you must, listen, say “that’s interesting”, and move on.
2. Continue to practice your faith quietly but obviously.
3. Pray.

1-2-3.

My mother was even more succinct: she would simply say “Oh”, with little or not inflection.

There is an old phrase, and some may take offense to it, but:“Never argue with a fool; an observer may not be able to tell which is which.”

That is not say that your friend is a fool; but having dealt with several people, including one who was somewhere between an friend and an acquaintance, I have found that they are not listening; they are not going to pay the least bit of attention to what you have to say. I understand the desire to provide accurate information, but they are not seeking it. If you want to know more about the faith, there are far more successful and less dangerous ways of learning more than by engaging these folks, and trying to go and find answers.

 

[otjm]

Yes. The Archdiocese of Buenos Aires regularized the activities of the Society of Saint Pius X. I believe there is another one in Italy that has done something similar, but those are all I can think of off the top of my head.

I have heard the same comment.

However, given that Rome took jurisdiction of the whole matter, unless it can be shown that Rome has ceded jurisdiction to the archdiocese, it would appear that nothing has been changed, in spite of what allegedly occurred there.

 

[ProVobis]

There are no “SSPX congregations” as such, since no laity can belong to the SSPX. The SSPX does not have any parishes or dioceses - no SSPX ordinary. Any SSPX priest is, potentially, already under the local ordinary. A particular priest might choose to meet with his local bishop; the local bishop may approve this priest, or officially sanction the ministry of this priest in this diocese. (It is not unknown for suspended priests who have never been in SSPX to reunite with their local diocese).

I don’t know to what extent but I believe FSSPX priests may be reassigned from one chapel to another or might be serving more than one chapel at a time, meaning that they would be “under” more than just one “local” bishop. Your point still valid, though.

 

[DresdenGrin]

My mother was even more succinct: she would simply say “Oh”, with little or not inflection.

There is an old phrase, and some may take offense to it, but:“Never argue with a fool; an observer may not be able to tell which is which.”

That is not say that your friend is a fool; but having dealt with several people, including one who was somewhere between an friend and an acquaintance, I have found that they are not listening; they are not going to pay the least bit of attention to what you have to say. I understand the desire to provide accurate information, but they are not seeking it. If you want to know more about the faith, there are far more successful and less dangerous ways of learning more than by engaging these folks, and trying to go and find answers.

The alternative is that you are wrong, and not listening.

 

[otjm]

The alternative is that you are wrong, and not listening.

Oh, I listened.

But I follow the Magisterium. Their comments didn’t.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Not the personal prelature idea, but this idea, like all ideas, needs time to assimilate into the mindset to work. But again I’m no sociologist to predict its final destiny. Who envisioned the Anglican Ordinariate 15 years ago with their own bishop, for example?

Please do not compare the wonderful priests and laity of the pastoral provision of the Anglican Use to the SSPX priests. The SSPX refuse to unconditionally submit themselves to the Vicar of Christ and his authority.

I have worked with those of the pastoral provision since the 1980s and well remember when the first bishops from the Anglican communion sought full communion with Rome in the 1990s. They are in utter contrast to the SSPX.

I have not one positive thing to write about the SSPX…from their failure to accept the command given them by Blessed Pope Paul VI in 1976 to cease and desist to their failure to accept the disposition of Blessed Paul who stripped the Archbishop of his priestly faculties and deprived the priests of their ministry…to the present day. Conversely, I have the utmost regard for those of the pastoral provision and rejoice with them in the creation of the ordinariates, which were actually envisioned for years before they were created.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I have heard the same comment.

However, given that Rome took jurisdiction of the whole matter, unless it can be shown that Rome has ceded jurisdiction to the archdiocese, it would appear that nothing has been changed, in spite of what allegedly occurred there.

It was an action of the Pope that deprived both the Archbishop and those he ordained to the priesthood of their priestly ministry. The matter of any reconciliation by any of these priests, who are not in communion with Rome (nor are they actually incardinated anywhere) remains reserved to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei and to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

A magnanimous representation was made on behalf of the SSPX to the civil government of Argentina so they could have a status granted by the civil government to religious entities, as the secretary of Ecclesia Dei explained.

 

[otjm]

It was an action of the Pope that deprived both the Archbishop and those he ordained to the priesthood of their priestly ministry. The matter of any reconciliation by any of these priests, who are not in communion with Rome (nor are they actually incardinated anywhere) remains reserved to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei and to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

A magnanimous representation was made on behalf of the SSPX to the civil government of Argentina so they could have a status granted by the civil government to religious entities, as the secretary of Ecclesia Dei explained.

Thank you for responding. Sadly, that action continues to be misrepresented by those who seem to sympathize with their positions and shows up on the internet as a regularization.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Thank you for responding. Sadly, that action continues to be misrepresented by those who seem to sympathize with their positions and shows up on the internet as a regularization.

This is from La Stampa, which explains the peculiarities of Argentinean law and the kindness of the two cardinals of Buenos Aires. It was, as I said, yet one more gracious act by the Church toward the SSPX.

lastampa.it/2015/04/13/vaticaninsider/eng/world-news/buenos-aires-poli-secures-state-recognition-for-society-of-st-pius-x-vnI2z45MJyNj8EZEP9gt7H/pagina.html

 

[AdamP88]

The SSPX are not heretics. The SSPX are Catholics. Their society is without canonical status within the Church, but they are most certainly not heretical. Indeed in his letter annoucing the Year of Mercy, Pope Francis talks about the “Good faith and good sacramental practice” of the SSPX** and has given SSPX priests the faculties to validly and licitly administer the sacrament of Confession during the Year of Mercy.**

The comments on this thread denouncing the SSPX as pharisees and sadducees are not charitable at all. Yes, there may still be some issues with certain individual clergy within the SSPX, but on the other hand, in the mainstream Church there may also be some issues with certain individual clergy taking very liberal positions that contradict Church teaching. Does that mean that the mainstream Church ought to be branded as heretical? Of course not.

Should Catholics attend SSPX Masses? That is a difficult question, and there are conflicting opinions on that, but I have decided not to do so (and have been advised accordingly by a good priest whose advice I trust). But calling them pharisees, sadducees, and heretics is way over the top and very unfair.

They aren’t far off being heretics though.

Yes, they have the faculties for the year of mercy, but what happens after that?

 

[Oktava]

There is not much you can reply to SSPX, Vatican II denies Vatican I and basic dogmas such as that sacraments and salvation are only valid in the Roman-Catholic Church. When we add to that Liturgical Abuse which is fruit of Vatican II, we get schism.

 

[Brendan_64]

They aren’t far off being heretics though.

You are either a heretic or you are not.

CCC 2089: Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same.

There isn’t a sliding scale between heresy and orthodoxy. Either you are denying a truth of the Catholic faith or you are not. You can’t be ‘almost a heretic, but not quite’.

The SSPX can be accused of certain things (notably disobedience) but heresy is something that the SSPX in general cannot be broadly accused of.

As to mainstream Church, is it free from clergy and laity who reject Church Teachings, particularly on moral issues?

 

[Oktava]

You are either a heretic or you are not.

CCC 2089: Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same.

There isn’t a sliding scale between heresy and orthodoxy. Either you are denying a truth of the Catholic faith or you are not. You can’t be ‘almost a heretic, but not quite’.

The SSPX can be accused of certain things (notably disobedience) but heresy is something that the SSPX in general cannot be broadly accused of.

As to mainstream Church, is it free from clergy and laity who reject Church Teachings, particularly on moral issues?

But at the same time you can be Eastern Orthodox and Sister Church. hahaha

 

[Brendan_64]

But at the same time you can be Eastern Orthodox and Sister Church. hahaha

What specific point are you trying to make?

 

[Oktava]

What specific point are you trying to make?

You are heretic if you deny any dogma of Rome, but Eastern Orthodox deny many dogmas of Rome, and yet Rome refers to them as sister Church, not as heretics.

 

[Brendan_64]

You are heretic if you deny any dogma of Rome, but Eastern Orthodox deny many dogmas of Rome, and yet Rome refers to them as sister Church, not as heretics.

And what has this got to do with the SSPX?

 

[Oktava]

What are these ‘many dogmas’ denied by the Eastern Orthodox then? The filoque, the supremacy (though not the primacy) of the Pope, then what?

Filioque, papal infallibility, papal universal jurisdiction, immaculate conception, purgatory, etc… and many more practices Latin Church uses, but Eastern Orthodox believe is error or heresy.