Inquiring Mind: SSPX & FSSP

[Melchior_1]

I sort of went in this direction in another thread, but I didn’t want to derail it anymore than what it already is. So I pose the following question;

I’ve done some research on this online and discussed it with peers, but I wanted to pick the brains of some of you here (as many of you seem to have an intimate knowledge on the issue at hand). My primary question is what are the differences between the FSSP and the SSPX? I know both are advocates of the TLM, and in the case of the FSSP it is their primary charism. Is there any other notable differences between them (other than the obvious one)?

NOTE: Please be civil!

 

[michaeldaniels]

To the best of my knowledge, the FSSP was founded by SSPX priest who did not stay loyal to the SSPX after the '88 consecrations and were approved by JPII

I sort of went in this direction in another thread, but I didn’t want to derail it anymore than what it already is. So I pose the following question;

I’ve done some research on this online and discussed it with peers, but I wanted to pick the brains of some of you here (as many of you seem to have an intimate knowledge on the issue at hand). My primary question is what are the differences between the FSSP and the SSPX? I know both are advocates of the TLM, and in the case of the FSSP it is their primary charism. Is there any other notable differences between them (other than the obvious one)?

NOTE: Please be civil!

 

[Timothysis]

To the best of my knowledge, the FSSP was founded by SSPX priest who did not stay loyal to the SSPX after the '88 consecrations and were approved by JPII

To the best of MY knowledge, the FSSP was founded by SSPX priests who stayed loyal to Pope John Paul II and the Holy See after the '88 consecrations. They were approved by Pope John Paul II.

 

[Melchior_1]

To the best of MY knowledge, the FSSP was founded by SSPX priests who stayed loyal to Pope John Paul II and the Holy See after the '88 consecrations. They were approved by Pope John Paul II.

This seems to be public knowledge at this point, and the whole “being in full standing” is that “obvious difference” I spoke of in the OP

 

[michaeldaniels]

My friend…I was answering the question from the point of view it was asked

To the best of MY knowledge, the FSSP was founded by SSPX priests who stayed loyal to Pope John Paul II and the Holy See after the '88 consecrations. They were approved by Pope John Paul II.

 

[Timothysis]

This seems to be public knowledge at this point, and the whole “being in full standing” is that “obvious difference” I spoke of in the OP

Melchior, I do apologize. My post was directed at the preceding post and not at yours, which is a nasty habit of mine. Its just that the other post was slanted just a wee little bit. I apologize if this thread goes downhill from here.

 

[Melchior_1]

Melchior, I do apologize. My post was directed at the preceding post and not at yours, which is a nasty habit of mine. Its just that the other post was slanted just a wee little bit. I apologize if this thread goes downhill from here.

It’s all good Tim! Just hoping there can be some solid intellectual conversation happening.

 

[Timothysis]

It’s all good Tim! Just hoping there can be some solid intellectual conversation happening.

 

[stevusmagnus]

The Fraternity was founded by Society priests who went to Rome hoping to be “regularized” after the '88 consecrations of Abp. Lefebvre because they disagreed with this step though they supported Society positions on the Faith and the Mass.

The Fraternity was given a structure and put under Ecclesia Dei. They rely on them and other friendly conservative NO Bishops for their ordinations. Rome has yet to give them their own Bishop after 22 years and counting.

One Fraternity Superior General who spoke “too strongly” from the Traditional perspective was sacked by Rome and replaced with one who would not make waves and tow the party line (everything is fine, no problems in the NO, everybody smile).

Fraternity priests are generally sincere priests and good guys who believe exactly what Archbishop Lefebvre believed but they have decided to fight the battle from the inside instead of the “outside” like the Society. For the price of their faculties they need to watch their P’s and Q’s and hold their tongue when Cardinals like Levada come to consecrate their new seminary and turn the occasion into a PR stunt to denigrate Tradition.

They constantly have to walk a fine line of appeasing the local Bishops and Rome to keep in good standing when they really don’t share the NO view on Tradition, liturgy, religious liberty, and cause of the crisis etc.

The Society did not go the route of the Fraternity because they knew that a deal in '88 meant their death and the death of Tradition. They knew they would be at the mercy of modernist Cardinals and Bishops and have to keep silent in the face of the Faith’s destruction. The Novus Ordo bishops would use “faculties” and “regularization” as blackmail to force them to do as they wish as has occurred with the Fraternity.

The primary reason Rome gave the Fraternity a structure was to lure priests away from the Society and end “the problem” by “killing” the Society off. There was absolutely no great desire on the part of a vast majority of Cardinals and Bishops to have any Traditional order. That can be seen by the fact that the '84 and '88 indults were ignored and most of the Bishops then (and now) don’t want the Fraternity in their dioceses (especially in Europe).

The Fraternity is in an awkward situation of trying to perpetuate the Traditional Faith within a structure that is diametrically opposed to them in philosophy/ worldview, etc. thus they can only make modest progress. The change must come at the top (the Pope) which is why the Society are having the discussions.

The Society’s course has borne the fruit of both indults, the FSSP, ICK, SP, remitting the “excommunications” and now discussions. The Fraternity’s course has been one of modest gains as they are intentionally and subtly impeded and sabotaged by the present churchmen.

 

[SunnaB16]

The Fraternity was founded by Society priests who went to Rome hoping to be “regularized” after the '88 consecrations of Abp. Lefebvre because they disagreed with this step though they supported Society positions on the Faith and the Mass.

The Fraternity was given a structure and put under Ecclesia Dei. They rely on them and other friendly conservative NO Bishops for their ordinations. Rome has yet to give them their own Bishop after 22 years and counting.

…tow the party line (everything is fine, no problems in the NO, everybody smile).

They constantly have to walk a fine line of appeasing the local Bishops and Rome to keep in good standing when they really don’t share the NO view on Tradition, liturgy, religious liberty, and cause of the crisis etc.

The Society did not go the route of the Fraternity because they knew that a deal in '88 meant their death and the death of Tradition. They knew they would be at the mercy of modernist Cardinals and Bishops and have to keep silent in the face of the Faith’s destruction. The Novus Ordo bishops would use “faculties” and “regularization” as blackmail to force them to do as they wish as has occurred with the Fraternity.

The primary reason Rome gave the Fraternity a structure was to lure priests away from the Society and end “the problem” by “killing” the Society off.

The Fraternity is in an awkward situation of trying to perpetuate the Traditional Faith within a structure that is diametrically opposed to them in philosophy/ worldview, etc. thus they can only make modest progress. The change must come at the top (the Pope) which is why the Society are having the discussions.

The Society’s course has borne the fruit of both indults, the FSSP, ICK, SP, remitting the “excommunications” and now discussions. The Fraternity’s course has been one of modest gains as they are intentionally and subtly impeded and sabotaged by the present churchmen.

i reckon you`re a bit cynical…

For the past 18 months, ive had the good fortune of attending each Sunday a TLM Solemn High Mass celebrated by the FSSP. Everything is reverent and dignified and beautiful. At the third or fourth Mass there, it suddenly felt that i could feel the Churchs heartbeat. The priests are knowledgeable and wise and approachable. ***Theyre post-Vatican II in the proper way***: eg next Sunday is Divine Mercy Sunday, and theyll be having the Devotions. Theres a "Jesus I trust in You" picture permanently hanging in the church. They quote Vatican II documents, and recent popes. Sure, they celebrate only the TLM, but they dont expect everybody to attend ONLY the TLM. One Sunday, the priest giving the sermon told us that everyone had been invited to a Maronite Rite Mass the following Saturday (in a Maronite church). etc, etc, etc. The nearby Novus Ordo seminary has been spoken about, as well as happenings in various NO parishes. ALL traditionalists should be like that! If they were just de facto SSPX “lying low”, i wouldn`t still be going there.

The truth is: the Novus Ordo Form is THE MASS. Its valid. i prefer the TLM, but others dont.

There are bishops hostile to the TLM, all right; but they`re the Old Guard, and they too will pass.

The Traditional Faith is now post-Vatican II. The pre-VII Church wasn`t as healthy as a lot of Traditionalists like to think. The faith of a lot of Catholics was cold and bloodless, and the Church had to have a bomb put under it. The fact that so many older people embraced abuses shows that their faith was already skewed.

Schism is schism.

The SSPX seems a bit Pharisaic, and like little Jack Horner.

 

[JReducation]

The FSSP are a wonderful community. I don’t see them as a pawn at all. They are happy men who are very faithful to the Church, the Holy Father and the people whom they serve. They have a wonderful relationship with other secular priests and with religious around them. When they run into bumps on the road they find a way around them.

As to not having a bishop, I fail to see how that’s important. Societies of Apostolic Life, religious congregations and religious orders don’t have bishops of their own. They all have a major superior who governs them. It is true that often one of them is selected to be ordained a bishop; but they don’t become bishops for their community. They are assigned to a diocese like any other bishop. Only prelatures have bishops of their own. The FSSP is not a prelature. They do have a major superior who has Ordinary authority, just as if they were religious, which they are not. Normally, only religious superiors have Ordinary authority.

Ordinary authority means that a non-bishop has the same authority over his community that a bishop has over his diocese, with the only exception being that he cannot ordain. But he decides who can be ordained from his community and he presents the candidate for ordination and no bishop can decline to ordain the candidate once he is approved by the major religious superior. The FSSP have a superior with the same authority that religiuos superiors have. He alone decides who can be ordained and no bishop can deny him.

Ordinary superiors grant faculties, independent of the bishop. For example, the superior of the Jesuits grants faculties to his priests and to any priest who is visiting one of thier houses, colleges or institutions, because he is an Ordinary superior, even though he is not a bishop. You need faculties from a bishop to function in a parish or institution that belongs to the local diocese. Once your house or oratory is canonically erected, your superior grants the faculties for that locale.

The diffference between the SSPX and the FSSP is that the SSPX chapels and oratories lost their canonical status. Once you lose canonical status, the superior is no longer an Ordinary and cannot grant faculties.

The FSSP has canonical status. Once they erect a chapel or oratory and it is canonically instituted, they depend on their superior for faculties to function there. If they go into a parish or other institution that is not their own, but is under the jurisdiction of a bishop, they must get faculties from the bishop.

If they go to a chapel or oratory that belongs to a religious order, they get faculties from the superior of that order. For example, when the FSSP went to do a mass for the Poor Clare Nuns at EWTN they had to get faculties from the Franciscan superior, not from the bishop. That’s a Franciscan house, not a diocesan house. When they came to our diocese, they came into a diocesan owned parish. They had to get faculties from the bishop. If the chapel had been their property, their superior could have given them faculties.

Faculties are given by the highest authority in the jurisdiction. Bishops are not always the authority. There are many houses, chapels, oratories and institutions that do not belong to the Church. They belong to religious orders or societies of apostolilc life. What you need from the bishop is the permission to enter his diocese and open a house, oratory or institution. If it’s yours, once the canonical permits are granted, your superior is the Ordinary in THAT house, not the bishop.

There is one more thing. A bishop can require that you not open a house in his diocese, but that you take up one of his ministries. For example, if he has a parish that needs staffing and the FSSP wants to open their own chapel, the bishop may decline the permission to open their own chapel, but my grant them permission to enter his dioceses on the condition that they take up that parish for him. This happens to religious too. In that case, since they are on the bishop’s turf, they have to play by his rules, we all do, not just the Traditionalist societies. Religious orders do it all the time.

My community does not fall under the bishop’s jurisdiction, because it’s canonically erected. But I work in a diocesan ministry. While there and when representing the ministry, I have to follow the bishop’s policies.

What is being asked of the FSSP is no different from what is expected of other Apostolic Societies such as the Society of St. Sulpice, the Maryknoll, the Vincentians, the ICK or other secular societies of priests.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[stevusmagnus]

Sunna,

Some of the FSSP priests simply “prefer” the TLM and are basically conservatives, not Traditionalists.

Other FSSP priests (such as Fr. Ripperger) are aligned with the SSPX in their viewpoint and philosophy regarding Tradition and novelty. They promote attending the TLM exclusively.

With Rome canning the more Traditionalist leaning Superior General (probably at the behest of liberal prelates) it seems the FSSP is being watered down with more priests willing to swallow the post-conciliar poison that has infected the Church while trying to cling to whatever Tradition their situation allows. Though not that noticeable now, that trend only goes in one direction: downwards.

This is precisely why the Society rejected a deal in '88 and is now working with Rome to try to hash out the key problems before prematurely dissolving in the Novus Ordo Matrix and risk imbibing the “diabolical disorientation” spoken of by Sr. Lucia.

The Society continues to keep the Catholic Faith and priesthood as it was kept for 1960 years. If Roman prelates had no problem with the Church’s own Tradition they would call to regularize the Society immediately. In fact, if it weren’t for those Cardinals and Bishops who hate the Society, the Pope may have already done it. But because some in the hierarchy have a problem with the Church’s own past, they try to smear the Society at every turn. Tradition is their worst nightmare (See Kaspar/ Mahoney/ etc.)

By living among the Post-Conciliar modernism at the diocesan level and being under quasi-orthodox Bishops, the Fraternity plays a dangerous and risky game. They risk playing “go along to get along” to the point where they compromise on the Faith. They put themselves in a tough situation in the Lion’s Den. They should have held out for more protections from the wolves. We already see Fraternity priests forced or coerced to concelebrate Novus Ordo Masses with the local Bishop on Holy Thursday, etc.

Having a Bishop of their own is enormously important. They know that and Rome knows that, despite all of the verbiage to the contrary. Having a Bishop means they are not at the mercy of other Bishops to perpetuate their priesthood and they have a high ranking leader to go to bat for them in Rome and defend them against other Bishops. Out of fear of the liberal prelates, Rome keeps them tightly controlled and under the thumb of others so they don’t get too unruly or cause too much trouble.

The bottom line is that we are truly dealing with two religions. The religion of God, the Catholic religion; and the religion of man, modernism, dressed up in Catholic trappings. The two are incompatible and one has to go. The US Church is in de facto schism as is Europe and the Pope knows it. He doesn’t call them on it because to do so would risk a huge de jure schism. But in not calling them on it, the errors are allowed to propagate with the apparent approval of Rome Herself.

The only answer to this crisis is a return to Tradition, but recent Popes and conservative Bishops have been too personally attached and invested in “the Council” to admit that is where our recent problems began and that is where the solutions lie. Hence the “discussions”. Until this heart of the crisis is rectified, legalities, and technicalities are trivial. The Church is near cardiac arrest and here we have some speaking as if we were in a perfectly normal period where we need to get some new clothes or concern ourselves with finances. We are DYING. Those who have eyes to see, see, Those who are still living in the eternal “springtime” remain oblivious and continue to speak of “faculties”, “ordinaries”, etc. It’s like discussing the licensing issues regarding your boat when it is in the process of sinking.

 

[corsair]

Stevusmagnus,

Your description of the relationship between SSPX and FSSP is correct. I’ve sort of “switch-hit” from one to the other for years. The FSSP has just become available to us here in the NW in the past 18 months. And there is some promise of expansion southward from Seattle. Our Abp has submitted his resignation and we are awaiting the Holy Father’s appointment of a replacement. Granted Seattle is probably pretty far down the list, but we have hopes of a new Abp who perhaps is more favorable to tradition. We do a little Dominican Rite thing periodically and once in a while up near Seattle.

The SSPX can be a bit “cantankerous” on ocassion. The priest in Portland, that is associated with Veneta, Oregon is really quite nice. I haven’t met the priest in Edmonds, Washington yet. But I think he is associated with Post Falls, Idaho. And that is where I became aquainted with SSPX back in 1975. Got to meet the Abp of Econe in 1980.

Since then I understand that Some of the SSPX priests have become a little “hostile” toward Rome. But I can find that most anywhere. Overall SSPX is near the top with me.

 

[JReducation]

Sunna,

Some of the FSSP priests simply “prefer” the TLM and are basically conservatives, not Traditionalists.

Other FSSP priests (such as Fr. Ripperger) are aligned with the SSPX in their viewpoint and philosophy regarding Tradition and novelty. They promote attending the TLM exclusively.

With Rome canning the more Traditionalist leaning Superior General (probably at the behest of liberal prelates) it seems the FSSP is being watered down with more priests willing to swallow the post-conciliar poison that has infected the Church while trying to cling to whatever Tradition their situation allows. Though not that noticeable now, that trend only goes in one direction: downwards.

This is precisely why the Society rejected a deal in '88 and is now working with Rome to try to hash out the key problems before prematurely dissolving in the Novus Ordo Matrix and risk imbibing the “diabolical disorientation” spoken of by Sr. Lucia.

The Society continues to keep the Catholic Faith and priesthood as it was kept for 1960 years. If Roman prelates had no problem with the Church’s own Tradition they would call to regularize the Society immediately. In fact, if it weren’t for those Cardinals and Bishops who hate the Society, the Pope may have already done it. But because some in the hierarchy have a problem with the Church’s own past, they try to smear the Society at every turn. Tradition is their worst nightmare (See Kaspar/ Mahoney/ etc.)

By living among the Post-Conciliar modernism at the diocesan level and being under quasi-orthodox Bishops, the Fraternity plays a dangerous and risky game. They risk playing “go along to get along” to the point where they compromise on the Faith. They put themselves in a tough situation in the Lion’s Den. They should have held out for more protections from the wolves. We already see Fraternity priests forced or coerced to concelebrate Novus Ordo Masses with the local Bishop on Holy Thursday, etc.

Having a Bishop of their own is enormously important. They know that and Rome knows that, despite all of the verbiage to the contrary. Having a Bishop means they are not at the mercy of other Bishops to perpetuate their priesthood and they have a high ranking leader to go to bat for them in Rome and defend them against other Bishops. Out of fear of the liberal prelates, Rome keeps them tightly controlled and under the thumb of others so they don’t get too unruly or cause too much trouble.

The bottom line is that we are truly dealing with two religions. The religion of God, the Catholic religion; and the religion of man, modernism, dressed up in Catholic trappings. The two are incompatible and one has to go. The US Church is in de facto schism as is Europe and the Pope knows it. He doesn’t call them on it because to do so would risk a huge de jure schism. But in not calling them on it, the errors are allowed to propagate with the apparent approval of Rome Herself.

The only answer to this crisis is a return to Tradition, but recent Popes and conservative Bishops have been too personally attached and invested in “the Council” to admit that is where our recent problems began and that is where the solutions lie. Hence the “discussions”. Until this heart of the crisis is rectified, legalities, and technicalities are trivial. The Church is near cardiac arrest and here we have some speaking as if we were in a perfectly normal period where we need to get some new clothes or concern ourselves with finances. We are DYING. Those who have eyes to see, see, Those who are still living in the eternal “springtime” remain oblivious and continue to speak of “faculties”, “ordinaries”, etc. It’s like discussing the licensing issues regarding your boat when it is in the process of sinking.

Let’s slow down here. Canonically the FSSP is a secular Society of Apostolic Life. Why do they need their own bishop? No Secular Society of Apostolid Life has their own bishop, neither to Institutes of Consecrated Life. They all have a major superior who has certain authority granted to him by canon law.

As I said above, neither Societies of Apostolic Life nor Religious Orders need the bishop’s permission to be ordained. Their superior is the one who has the canonical authority to present them for ordination. The bishop cannot deny the ordination unless he knows of a dire impediment. It is the job of the superior to vouch for his candidates before the ordaining bishop. As long as he can do that under oath, there is not reason why a bishop would not ordain the candidate. The bishop may not know the candidate from Adam. He depends on the major superior, which the FSSP has.

As to faculties, canon law makes those rules very clear. Even with a bishop of their own, they still need faculties from the local bishop to celebrate sacraments in his jurisdiction. The superior has jurisdiction over his house, oratory or chapel, not outside of it. No bishop can authorize a priest to celebrate sacraments in the territory of another bishop. That has to come from the Ordinary of the diocese. Even the Opus Dei, who have their own bishop, still have to get faculties from the local bishop to serve the laity outside of Opus Dei houses.

Finally, canonically, the bishop is the ultimate liturgical authority for all liturgies in his diocese, even those celebrated in religious houses, society houses and diocesan ministries. He decides what can or cannot be done according to the rules given to him by canon law. Even with a bishop of their own, that bishop does not have authority over the diocesan bishop. He only has authority over the members of Opus Dei, not the people whom they serve.

I don’t get what you think that having their own bishop will add to the FSSP.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[stevusmagnus]

Br. JR,

It’s the whole structure. They were given a weak and dependent structure considering the hostile circumstances on the ground and it is inadequate for their mission to truly thrive. They are dependent on other Bishops for their ordinations and dependent on Bishops to “allow” them into their dioceses and to give permission and faculties etc. etc. In addition the episcopacy = power. If you are a priest negotiating with a Bishop you are at a natural disadvantage. It may be hard for you to see because your order is probably friendly with the local ordinaries. We are talking about a lot of Bishops who are outright hostile to the Fraternity’s mission and so the situation is different. the Fraternity needs to be protected and self-sustaining to be effective and not fearful.

Rome has reportedly already offered the Society a Rolls Royce structure which completely insulates them from the local Bishops where they are directly under the Pope a year or two ago. They slowed Rome down, making them realize there were still huge doctrinal issues that needed to be discussed before any “structural” discussions.

So Rome can play ball with the Bishops & the structure if they are motivated enough. The Fraternity caved too soon and are paying the price.

 

[JReducation]

Br. JR,

It’s the whole structure. They were given a weak and dependent structure considering the hostile circumstances on the ground and it is inadequate for their mission to truly thrive. They are dependent on other Bishops for their ordinations and dependent on Bishops to “allow” them into their dioceses and to give permission and faculties etc. etc. In addition the episcopacy = power. If you are a priest negotiating with a Bishop you are at a natural disadvantage. It may be hard for you to see because your order is probably friendly with the local ordinaries. We are talking about a lot of Bishops who are outright hostile to the Fraternity’s mission and so the situation is different. the Fraternity needs to be protected and self-sustaining to be effective and not fearful.

Rome has reportedly already offered the Society a Rolls Royce structure which completely insulates them from the local Bishops where they are directly under the Pope a year or two ago. They slowed Rome down, making them realize there were still huge doctrinal issues that needed to be discussed before any “structural” discussions.

So Rome can play ball with the Bishops & the structure if they are motivated enough. The Fraternity caved too soon and are paying the price.

Let’s look at Opus Dei. They have their own bishop. Yet, they cannot enter a diocese without the bishop of that diocese giving them permission. Once in the diocese, they may open their own houses, which fall under their jurisdiction. But if they step outside of their houses, they still have to play by the rules of the local bishop. Their bishop cannot overrule the local bishop. He can only govern them, not the local bishop.

Now let’s look at ordination. Canon law says that the major superior is the person who calls you to Holy Orders. The local bishop calls diocesan priests to Holy Orders. The FSSP are not diocesan. They are secular, but not diocesan. They are members of a Pontifical Institute. Therefore, their major superior calls them to Holy Orders. He gets a bishop to ordain them. The bishop cannot deny the ordination unless he sees a canonical impediment. How are their ordinations subject to the local bishops?

Actually, Religious Orders have much more autonomy than Societies of Apostolic Life. Religious Orders are exempt, a canonical privilege that Religoius Congregations and Societies of Apostolic Life do not have. Even a Papal Prelature is not exempt. Even with their own bishop, they are not exempt religious. You see what I’m saying? There is no real advantage to having their own bishop. Maybe as you say, for negotiating purposes, but not for sacramental purposes. They still need faculties from the local bishop to step outside their door. Exempt Orders, on the other hand, don’t need that. As soon as one of our friars is assigned to another diocese they have faculties. It’s part of the Exemption. The Major Superior of an exempt order can transfer anyone into a diocese where they are canonically erected and simply sends in the name to the Chancery to get the faculties. A religious congregaton, a society of apostolic life and a papal prelature have to ask the local bishop for permission to assign someone to their diocese. They can assign someone to live in a house in that diocese, but not to work in that diocese. That permission has to be received a priori by from the local bishop. An exempt order does not need to ask for that permission. You just assign and notify the bishop. There are only a few exempt orders: Franciscans, Carmelites, Jesuits, Dominicans, Augustinians, Benedictines, Carthusians and Trinitarians.

My point is that even with a bishop, they are certain things that they can’t get around without violating canon law. Bishops do not have jurisdiciton outside of their area.

The other question is one of justice. Canonists can make a great argument why does one Society of Apostolic Life have to have its own bishop and no other society or religious institute is allowed to have one? That would open up a can of worms that you don’t want to imagine. That’s why the Pope offered the SSPX an Personal Papal Prelature like the Opus Dei has. This way, they depend directly on the pope, with a bishop as his vicar.

Right now, the FSSP are very well accepted by other clergy and religious. They work well with others. You mentioned that they had to concelebrate at the Holy Thursday mass with the bishop. I assume that you’re talking about the chrism mass. Canon law says that all priests who do parish work in a diocese must concelebrate at that mass. Otherwise they don’t get their holy oils. The only way out would be to attend the mass or to be involved in some other ministry where you don’t need the holy oils. There are not too many of those. Even enclosed monasteries have to send an ordained monk to that mass to get the holy oils for their abbey. That’s one of the few times when they have to leave their enclosure. There is no legal way out of that one.

I don’t see how having a bishop will make a big difference other than for diplomacy, if you’re bishop is well accepted by other bishops. Otherwise, he’s not much help.
Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[SunnaB16]

Some of the FSSP priests simply “prefer” the TLM and are basically conservatives, not Traditionalists.

Are you knocking some of them because they don`t deny the validity of the EF?

Other FSSP priests (such as Fr. Ripperger) are aligned with the SSPX in their viewpoint and philosophy regarding Tradition and novelty. They promote attending the TLM exclusively.

If thats the case, then theyve broken away from the Church.

This is precisely why the Society rejected a deal in '88 and is now working with Rome to try to hash out the key problems before prematurely dissolving in the Novus Ordo Matrix and risk imbibing the “diabolical disorientation” spoken of by Sr. Lucia.

Are you denying the validity of the Novus Ordo?

The Society continues to keep the Catholic Faith and priesthood as it was kept for 1960 years. If Roman prelates had no problem with the Church’s own Tradition they would call to regularize the Society immediately.

You better subtract a few centuries.
The SSPX can`t reject Vatican II, and expect to get away with it.

…because some in the hierarchy have a problem with the Church’s own past, they try to smear the Society at every turn. Tradition is their worst nightmare (See Kaspar/ Mahoney/ etc.)

Sure, the Church`s past/roots must not be forgotten; but to remain frozen at a particular point in time is a bit short-sighted.

By living among the Post-Conciliar modernism at the diocesan level and being under quasi-orthodox Bishops, the Fraternity plays a dangerous and risky game. They risk playing “go along to get along” to the point where they compromise on the Faith. They put themselves in a tough situation in the Lion’s Den. They should have held out for more protections from the wolves. We already see Fraternity priests forced or coerced to concelebrate Novus Ordo Masses with the local Bishop on Holy Thursday, etc.

If thats true, then its wrong. But at least they admit that the NO is valid.

The only answer to this crisis is a return to Tradition, but recent Popes and conservative Bishops have been too personally attached and invested in “the Council” to admit that is where our recent problems began and that is where the solutions lie.

You blame modernism. i`m with you all the way; but that well and truly predates the Council (as you know).

im old enough to remember the pre-Vatican II Church; and things werent as good as you`re inferring. The VII bomb was needed. The fact that so many adults instigated and embraced those stinking abuses shows what their “faith” was like. It was already critically ill.

The Church is near cardiac arrest and here we have some speaking as if we were in a perfectly normal period where we need to get some new clothes or concern ourselves with finances. We are DYING. Those who have eyes to see, see, Those who are still living in the eternal “springtime” remain oblivious and continue to speak of “faculties”, “ordinaries”, etc. It’s like discussing the licensing issues regarding your boat when it is in the process of sinking.

The Church may be near cardiac arrest, but dont you have enough **faith** to believe our Lords words? With the Holy Spirit as the Soul of the Church, She has to prevail. And She will be stronger for having gone through the ordeal.
The Holy Spirit is not the soul of the SSPX.

Back in 1973, Archbishop Sheen said that were being tested. Maybe this is Gods way of separating the geep from the shoats. The lukewarm (Laodicean) Catholics who contracept, reject the Real Presence etc, etc, etc, might have to discover the Truth the hard way.
The vine`s being pruned.

 

[JReducation]

I recently saw an interview of an FSSP priest on EWTN. He impressed me very much, not that I needed to be impressed. I’m not his superior. But he was telling the story of how they came to be.

Right after the excommunication of the SSPX bishops and Archbishop Lefebvre, several SSPX priests were distraut at the idea of being outside the Church. They left the SSPX campus without permission. Not knowing where to turn, they headed for Rome.

When they arrived in Rome, they didn’t know where to turn. The were outcasts, suspended priests. They were frightened and confused. They sought out the office for the Congregation of the Faith.

When they entered the building they ran into Cardinal Ratzinger in the hall. They greeted him and told him who they were. They told him that they did not know what to do and they had no place to go. They didn’t even have money. He asked them, “What can I do for you?”

They said that they did not know. But that they wanted to be part of the Church. They report that the Cardinal invited them to come upstairs to his office. After a brief meeting, he told them to come back the next day. They had not place to go and no money. They had used their money to get to Rome. The Cardinal sent them to a local hospice for priests where they were welcomed and treated well. The hospice was run by Capuchins Franciscans.

The next day they came at the appointed time. The Cardinal has setup an appointment with John Paul II. They were to meet with the Holy Father, who was the only person who could lift the suspension and regularized them.

They attended the meeting with the Holy Father. They report that he did not place any conditions on them, except that they renew their promise of obedience. When they were asked what name they wanted, they thought of St. Peter. But they report that they were treated kindly and they were not required to give up their belief in Traditional Catholicism. They were only required to profess obedience.

From that interview I got the impression that these men suffered a great deal during those days following the excommunications. This was a very hard step for them. They had friends in the SSPX. They loved the Archbishop and they believed in the cause. But they also felt that they could not choose the Archbishop over the Chair of Peter.

Having heard their story one gets another perspective that fills one with compassion and great gentleness toward them. At least I do. I guess that’s why I always feel very close to them when I meet them. In many ways they remind me of our own beginnings when Francis went to Rome to ask for help from Pope Innocent III. There were no guarrantees. There was only faith in God and faith in the successor of Peter, despite his shortcomings.

I don’t see them as weak men who caved in. I see them as men of great faith consistent with that of the great saints who dealt with popes and bishops who were not always the most holy people in history, but whom they obeyed and loved because they were the successors of Peter. At least these men dealt with a holy man will one day be a canonized saint, John Paul II. Francis of Assis and Dominic had to deal with Innocent III who was a lion and an intimidating man, also a very young pope who was very inexperienced in matters of the soul.

I believe that it was no accident that these men met up with Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II, two very holy men. And from what I gather, these early founders of the FSSP were also very holy men of great faith.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Ockham]

If thats the case, then theyve broken away from the Church.

Wrong. Are you questioning the validity of the EF? The SSPX doesn’t denounce V2 from anything I’ve read. What they oppose is the misinterpreted ‘spirit of V2’ as does the Pope. No where in the V2 documents does it call for a new liturgy.

Steve, in warfare it’s good to have forces inside enemy lines - Christian Warfare that is. Let’s pray for strong leadership and continued dedication to the Church’s teachings for the FSSP. Without the FSSP I’d still be attending a Novus Ordo, receiving Holy Communion in hand while standing from a member of the congregation.

Can you imagine the outrage if a Vatican official gave the homily at the LA Religious Education Conference and basically told them to make nice with the TLM? What Cardinal Levada did in Nebraska last month was offensive.

 

[SunnaB16]

Wrong. Are you questioning the validity of the EF? The SSPX doesn’t denounce V2 from anything I’ve read. What they oppose is the misinterpreted ‘spirit of V2’ as does the Pope. No where in the V2 documents does it call for a new liturgy.

SORRY!!! That question was supposed to say: “…the validity of the OF?” (cringe)!
Read the first part of post #10 to see my own view of the EF. Seventy nine consecutive Sundays at a TLM Solemn High Mass (FSSP) must mean something.

Steve, in warfare it’s good to have forces inside enemy lines - Christian Warfare that is. Let’s pray for strong leadership and continued dedication to the Church’s teachings for the FSSP. Without the FSSP I’d still be attending a Novus Ordo, receiving Holy Communion in hand while standing from a member of the congregation.

You forgot to mention the altar girls. And that wretched sign of peace!