How to Tell if a Parish is SSPX

  • Thread starter Thread starter Melodeonist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
StephieNorthCo said:
Here in beautiful Sandy Eggo, the San Diego Reader publishes daily events. Among the entries for Every Sunday is the ad “Traditional Catholic Latin Mass, St. John Bosco Mission. SSPX”

Note the Mission, as others have noted, and the explicit SSPX. What makes it ambiguous around here is the abundance of “missions”, due to the influence of St. Fr. Serra.

Blessings,
Stephie
Click to expand...
Yes and no. I mean the California Missions established by Juniperio Serra are pretty well marked and known. And there are only 21 of them. If you’re visiting an SSPX “mission” it’s not going to be in one of these 21 historic Missions so there shouldn’t be any confusion. That and as I understand it none of the 21 Missions (of those still being used as active parishes), hold mass in the EF, which should be a dead giveaway that you’re ok since the SSPX isn’t going to be performing any OF masses.

Particularly in if you’re not at Mission Basilica San Diego de Alcala (or San Luis Rey if you’re in North County)… it’s not a Roman Catholic Mission. Plus as I understand it the SSPX only have one chapel in San Diego, and it’s not labeled a mission. And it’s held over at Liberty Station in the old non-denominational Navy Chapel. If you’re not at the Liberty Station Navy Chapel on Sunday Afternoons, not at a EF mass,… you’re not at an SSPX service.
 
commenter said:
My local chapel has a sign, “Traditional Roman Catholic Church”, which is kind of vague. It could mean almost anything. I wish its identity (non-connection to the Catholic Church structure) were more explicit. The Polish National Catholic Church has parishes, which they now identify in small letters as “National Catholic Church” as they want to broaden their ethnic base (but still reaching out only to Catholics). Then there are liberal offshoots, like the American Catholic Church (pro abortion, pro SSM), which seem to advertise in an ambiguous way. They even have a Franciscan movement, not connected to the Catholic Church obviously. They don’t exactly say they are sponsored by the RCC, but don’t correct that assumption either.

These groups take advantage of a common assumption that anything with the word Catholic is more or less under the supervision of the Catholic Church. I wish all these entities would have signs, and much more activity, that might recruit non Catholics, or non Christians, inviting them into Christianity, rather than trying only to attract Catholics.
Click to expand...
My grandmother’s old parish now has a very similar sign on it. It says
*
Sacred Heart
Traditional Roman Catholic Church *

It’s so ambiguous and the church itself is so deceptive with how they present themselves that a few years after they opened the diocese had to put out a letter warning off parishioners that it wasn’t a diocesan parish and that they aren’t really Roman Catholic. They are in fact an apparently sedevacantist splinter group. What makes it even more deceptive than it already is, is the fact the church for nearly a century was a Roman Catholic diocesan parish before the diocese was forced to consolidate in the wake of the sex abuse scandal and sold off the parish. It just happened to end up in the hands of a sedevacantist group.
 
Melodeonist said:
Thanks for the replies! I did not know that SSPX did not name their churches the same way as Catholic churches.
Click to expand...
Both diocesan parishes and SSPX chapels might be named after saints or not. For example the two oldest parishes in Ky are not named after saints.

Also, the F.S.S.P.X. are Roman Catholic.

Their clergy are not currently reconciled with Rome but their Bishops have had their excommunications lifted. During the year of Mercy, Pope Francis has given their clergy the go-ahead to administer the sacrament of reconciliation.

Best to stay in communion with Rome imo, but perhaps it’s also best to acknowledge the F.S.S.P.X. are Catholics.

As does our pope.
 
ProVobis said:
There’s a small chapel near me with the title “Liberal Catholic Church” with Sunday Eucharist at 10:00 am. Claims to be Catholic and has valid Apostolic Succession. Also claims to have some traditional form of worship. How’s that for confusing?
Click to expand...
There’s a whole group of “Catholic” churches, some have the word “American” in their name. They are staffed mostly by men who left the RC priesthood, they would probably say the Church left them. Their bishops mostly have apostolic succession. Their bishops are now ordaining new men (and women) to the priesthood. Their ordination of men might be valid, though illicit. These (denominations, scisms ,whatever) claim to be fully Catholic, in the Catholic Church. Most support legal abortion, SSM, etc.

They would like the Church to formally accept them not as individuals but as organizations, with their structures, policies, independence intact, and their ordinations at least of men fully recognized. Some would argue that just because the Church might, hypothetically, recognize the SSPX organizational structure (not just individuals) as directly part of the Church, that would not in any way logically open the door to these other groups, which are obviously different.

Ask yourself if things are done logically, in 2016; if maybe there might be people who would use one action as a precedent for another group.
 
Padres1969 said:
Yes and no. I mean the California Missions established by Juniperio Serra are pretty well marked and known. And there are only 21 of them. If you’re visiting an SSPX “mission” it’s not going to be in one of these 21 historic Missions so there shouldn’t be any confusion. That and as I understand it none of the 21 Missions (of those still being used as active parishes), hold mass in the EF, which should be a dead giveaway that you’re ok since the SSPX isn’t going to be performing any OF masses.

Particularly in if you’re not at Mission Basilica San Diego de Alcala (or San Luis Rey if you’re in North County)… it’s not a Roman Catholic Mission. Plus as I understand it the SSPX only have one chapel in San Diego, and it’s not labeled a mission. And it’s held over at Liberty Station in the old non-denominational Navy Chapel. If you’re not at the Liberty Station Navy Chapel on Sunday Afternoons, not at a EF mass,… you’re not at an SSPX service.
Click to expand...
Whenever I visit my old hometown (San Diego), I am always amazed at the number of Traditional Masses offered, not only by the SSPX, FSSP, and diocese (is that cemetery Mass still being said?), but of several sedevacantist Masses irregularly offered, mostly in North County (Carlsbad, Penasquitos).

As for “mission” in SSPX jargon, you have Priories where a group of priests live and then the (nearby) Mass centers they service on Sundays and Holy Days. They are typically referred to as “missions” of a Priory because they do not have a resident priest. In the case of San Diego, I believe that St. John Bosco is a “mission” of Phoenix, AZ., which may be as close as El Segundo in drive time, if you know what I mean.

The SSPX usually refers to their churches as “chapels” in deference their canonical inability to erect a proper parish without the ordinary jurisdiction of the diocese. I would guess that if the canonical situation were remedied with a personal prelature, that convention might continue.
 
AdamPeter said:
Mass in the old rite only.
Excessive use of the word “modernism”.
Hostility toward anything after Vatican II

All three of those together is usually a good indicator.
Click to expand...
This describes a church near me to a tee. It is not SSPX though. It describes it self as a Traditional Roman Catholic Church which as far as I can tell is associated with the Old Roman Catholic Church in America
 
The FSSP were always legit and in communion. It was born out of requests of priests in the SSPX who desired to remain loyal to the See. Their request to practice the ancient rite was granted for the purpose of offering it to those of the community who were raised in that rite. So we can see that the basis of the animosity of the earlier years was not because of the traditional ways, it was because some decided they can one-up Canon Law. I uphold SSPX’s De Fide based principles, but I think the wrong road was taken in the reconciliation talks. The lack of patience and disloyalty by some was their downfall.

The SSPX is needed. The Church needs them, and until that wonderful day when the church bells chime, WE need to remain patient and loyal, but never submit ourselves to total rejection. If we are peace keepers to outside society, how much less should we be for members of our own Church?.

The FSSP priests are of the highest quality in virtue, and are sensitive and devoted to the needs of their congregation and their Diocese. Their parishes are prime contributors to the diocese community, and spearhead many projects on their own initiatives. The attendance to these parishes is on a continuous upward climb.
 
giuseppeTO said:
Whenever I visit my old hometown (San Diego), I am always amazed at the number of Traditional Masses offered, not only by the SSPX, FSSP, and diocese (is that cemetery Mass still being said?), but of several sedevacantist Masses irregularly offered, mostly in North County (Carlsbad, Penasquitos).

As for “mission” in SSPX jargon, you have Priories where a group of priests live and then the (nearby) Mass centers they service on Sundays and Holy Days. They are typically referred to as “missions” of a Priory because they do not have a resident priest. In the case of San Diego, I believe that St. John Bosco is a “mission” of Phoenix, AZ., which may be as close as El Segundo in drive time, if you know what I mean.

The SSPX usually refers to their churches as “chapels” in deference their canonical inability to erect a proper parish without the ordinary jurisdiction of the diocese. I would guess that if the canonical situation were remedied with a personal prelature, that convention might continue.
Click to expand...
I often wonder if some of it doesn’t have something to do with then Auxiliary Bishop Cordileone’s presence through much of the early 2000’s. He’s been a big supporter of the EF mass from what I’ve gathered.
 
The sign will clearly state SSPX.

There is nothing wrong with the Society. They simply continue doing what was done before Vatican II. If they are wrong then so was the Church before the Council.
There are rumours that Francis will unilaterally recognise them. This will probably be the case. He did it in Argentina.

When the SSPX are regularised - and vindicated - a lot of people will have to apologise for the way they’ve treated the Society for decades. We can all attend Protestant services but the SSPX are the black sheep. Where is the love? We should all pray that this unfortunate situation is resolved quickly! The Church needs the priests!
 
Dempsey1919 said:
The sign will clearly state SSPX.

There is nothing wrong with the Society. They simply continue doing what was done before Vatican II. If they are wrong then so was the Church before the Council.
There are rumours that Francis will unilaterally recognise them. This will probably be the case. He did it in Argentina.

When the SSPX are regularised - and vindicated - a lot of people will have to apologise for the way they’ve treated the Society for decades. We can all attend Protestant services but the SSPX are the black sheep. Where is the love? We should all pray that this unfortunate situation is resolved quickly! The Church needs the priests!
Click to expand...
SSPX individuals - They are not outside the Catholic Church. They should be treated with respect, and love, and recognized for their spirituality. The abuses they complained about in the 1970s made me angry too. They should not all be lumped together, they have different views, different experiences and personal situations. Thus, a one-size-fits-all solution is not respectful.

SSPX organization - It is outside the Catholic Church. Originally it was just a means to a more important end. Later, it became an end in itself. Organizations tend to be started for one purpose, (for instance the right to the TLM). Later they build up their own momentum, their own “tradition”, and become preoccupied with their organizational rights and privileges. They don’t bring anyone into the Christian Faith, but spend almost all their energy for the organization, keeping their supporters detached from the main Church.

Regularization: As individuals and families feel ready to come in, they are coming in. For those who don’t feel ready to come in, they should not be made to feel like black sheep, but treated with respect. They may feel ready tomorrow.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top