People who have gone to SSPX and FSSP churches

  • Thread starter Thread starter tstadheim
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
commenter said:
This momentum is the real problem.
Click to expand...
You make it sound as if something good for the SSPX would equal something bad for the diocese. The SSPX is NOT an enemy of the Church, they’re part of it.
If the SSPX were fully regularised, the Diocese would share in the fruits of the SSPX.
 
TheMortenBay said:
40.png
commenter:
This momentum is the real problem.
Click to expand...
You make it sound as if something good for the SSPX would equal something bad for the diocese. The SSPX is NOT an enemy of the Church, they’re part of it.
If the SSPX were fully regularised, the Diocese would share in the fruits of the SSPX.
Click to expand...
The FSSP would be an example of full regularization, a marriage without a prenup. Their only “momentum” is the Latin Mass.

At one time, SSPX only momentum was the Latin Mass. Since then they have developed permanent structures as well, that also have taken on momentum of their own, they also want preserved.

They want a prenup to preserve that momentum.

But if you need an ironclad prenup because you don’t trust this person, why marry this person? Do you agree the (FSSP) marriage without a prenup might be more fruitful in the long run?
 
Last edited:
The FSSP never owned anything. The same thing with individual priests joining them over the years. But plenty of Catholic organisations have their own buildings and infrastructure. And the SSPX have a functioning infrastructure. So I don’t see the issue in the SSPX keeping theirs. My point is: it all belongs to the Church and to God in the first place…
 
Essentially, to make your analogy work, we would have to remember what went before.
SSPX: We do this for the survival of the faith (melodramatic, but they believed it)
Church: If you do this, we’ll divorce you.
SSPX: We don’t believe in divorce, and it’s for your own good!
Church: DIVORCED!

Years later.
Church: We’re a diplomatic degree of sorry. Marry us?
SSPX: We’re also a diplomatic degree of sorry, but we want a prenup just so we can trust you.

Your analogy picks up from here. Whether you want to swap around the roles or do a “who said what” the fact is that the reason the SSPX want a “prenup” is that they felt betrayed before.
 
TheMortenBay said:
the reason the SSPX want a “prenup” is that they felt betrayed before.
Click to expand...
  • Lots of people who feel betrayed by the Church for other reasons do not demand a prenup.
  • It’s wrong to ignore history, but wrong to obsess over certain parts of it. SSPX threads give shockingly little attention to the last 30 years, or to realities of the current year. This is similar to certain Eastern Orthodox Christians who will not consider reunion with the Holy See now because of a massacre that happened during the crusades. They remind themselves often, lest they forget.
  • I believe most priests who say the Latin Mass are in the Church, without a prenup. Is the spiritual renewal of these individuals less genuine because of lack of a prenup?
  • If you feel the need for a prenup, you aren’t ready to get married.
 
Last edited:
commenter said:
If you feel the need for a prenup, you aren’t ready to get married.
Click to expand...
There was no regularisation from the latest talks, so maybe the parties weren’t ready to be married…
commenter said:
I believe most priests who say the Latin Mass are in the Church, without a prenup. Is the spiritual renewal of these individuals less genuine because of lack of a prenup?
Click to expand...
Again, there’s a huge difference because none of those have any structure to protect.

I also STILL don’t follow your narrative how this “prenup” could in ANY way negatively impact the Church…
To me that’s just stubbornness. In both sides of the issue.
 
Last edited:
  • With passing years, I find more and more to like in the Latin Mass. If I had a time machine, I would tell Pope Paul to ensure its continuance in every diocese, and put restraints against abuses in the N. O.
  • ++ Lefebvre had done enormous work in the Church itself, as did others in the 1970s, including the attached Laity. In the 1970s, maybe 1980s, that SSPX could have been reconciled.
  • In each decade, many leaders, clergy, and Laity who had diocesan and parish experiences, die. They are mostly replaced by people with little or no work or formation outside SSPX. This includes most current leaders, clergy, seminary teachers.
  • As a result of time and turnover, the prospects of meaningful organization regularization, in any way that affects people, shrink each year. This is no longer like reconciling two brothers who had a bitter argument, it’s now like cousins, by 2030, second cousins.
 
Last edited:
Again, I don’t believe that this isolation from the greater Catholic community is as widespread as you think it is, at least not in my experience. But I do need to ask, why do you think that experience in a diocesan parish is so important? There are easily many attendees of FSSP and ICKSP chapels that never set foot in a diocesan parish, yet they function without issue in the Church. I would also argue that many diocesan parishes are islands unto themselves, where the isolation that you attribute to the SSPX is even more prevalent, yet they are nonetheless canonically regular. Why would there be a difference with the SSPX?
 
Fuerza said:
why do you think that experience in a diocesan parish is so important? There are easily many attendees of FSSP and ICKSP chapels that never set foot in a diocesan parish
Click to expand...
FSSP and ICKSP, and other orders, parishes and chapels are Diocesan, in the larger sense. The clergy are under their provincial or district superior, but also are confirmed by the bishop. The Laity are under their bishop Ordinary, not the religious superior.

The religious order priests in my diocese are often involved in various programs of this or that diocesan program or ministry at least part time, during their career, alongside other religious orders.

This broader Catholic background may, or may not, be true of SSPX priests outside my diocese, where SSPX is isolated. If so, I would be interested.
 
I don’t see why that would have any impact on regularization. They would be brought in as an ordinariate or prelature, and would essentially function exactly the same as they do now. Being confirmed by the local ordinary, if necessary, would be a one time rubber stamp with no effect on how they go about their business. I’m not sure why this would be an issue.
 
Fuerza said:
They would be brought in as an ordinariate or prelature
Click to expand...
Persons in the Anglican Ordinariate didn’t bring in any of their structure, hierarchy, important positions, protections, or assurances. They swam the Tiber as individuals.

Opus Dei existed as a Catholic entity fully in obedience to local bishops, integrated in local Church life, for many years, with no assurance they would ever be a Prelature.

Some members of that Prelature and that Ordinariate are also active in general diocesan activity in my diocese and the neighboring one, doubtful about SSPX.
 
Fuerza said:
would essentially function exactly the same as they do now. Being confirmed by the local ordinary, if necessary, would be a one time rubber stamp with no effect on how they go about their business
Click to expand...
I think you made my point here. The only benefit is psychological. Neither the diocese, the clergy, or laity gain.

With FSSP, the priests gain an actual bishop Ordinary. The laity benefit from the larger resources of the diocese. The diocese gains from having orthodox priests in actual unity, not theoretically, who also minister in other ways around the diocese. They interact with other clergy and Laity, beyond their parish.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think how Anglicans entered the Church is very relevant. The SSPX were already offered a prelature before discussions broke down, so that would be the likely format for regularization this time.
 
The laity certainly gain by having additional Latin Mass options available (for those who are scared away by irregular status anyway). The clergy of the society gain by not constantly having to defend their legitimacy, which I imagine can be exhausting, and the bishops gain a legitimate administrative function in the Church. The church as a whole gains by having access to the wisdom and scholarship of an additional traditional organization.
 
Actually I think it would be good if the SSPX were to make an arrangement with the rest of the Catholic Church.
 
HvonB said:
A schism only happens when a bishop excommunicates another. That’s what the term means
Click to expand...
That’s not quite right, I don’t think. Schism is what happens when a Church body or leader performs a schismatic act, or in other words sin by schism.
A formal act of schism brings with it the ecclesiastical penalty of excommunication, but the excommunication has nothing to do with determining whether or not it’s schism or not.
 
Just quoting the Wikipedia article on Schism:
In Roman Catholic Church canon law, an act of schism, like an act of apostasy or heresy, automatically brings the penalty of excommunication on the individual who commits it. As stated in canon 1312 §1 1° of the Code of Canon Law, this penalty is intended to be medicinal, so as to lead to restoration of unity.
Click to expand...
 
Yes? That’s what I would call a formal schismatic act, wouldn’t you?
 
That is not true. In New Orleans there was a dispute over who was going to say mass at St Louis Cathedral. Even though there was no consecrations of bishops this irregularity was described as a schism in the historical documents.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top