Principal Differences Between the SSPX and SSPV?

[Tartini]

I am currently engaged in a intensive study of contrast concerning two societies and their positions and present status in the Church. I have a great deal of information on the SSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre. I have done some on the SSPV, but would be interested in hearing from those who really know the situations, historically and theologically, as well as any legal aspect, as it concerns the Church, and can give me reliable advice and information to further my research efforts. Thanks for any help.

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

I am currently engaged in a intensive study of contrast concerning two societies and their positions and present status in the Church. I have a great deal of information on the SSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre. I have done some on the SSPV, but would be interested in hearing from those who really know the situations, historically and theologically, as well as any legal aspect, as it concerns the Church, and can give me reliable advice and information to further my research efforts. Thanks for any help.

Wiki is probably a good starting point.

 

[dixibehr]

SSPV are sedevacantists, founded by priests who left SSPX when Abp. Lefebvre directed that the Missal and other liturgical books of 1962 be used.

They felt this was too liberal and modernist, and left, and use the 1955 books (or even earlier rubrics, I don’t know which).

 

[Tartini]

SSPV are sedevacantists, founded by priests who left SSPX when Abp. Lefebvre directed that the Missal and other liturgical books of 1962 be used.

They felt this was too liberal and modernist, and left, and use the 1955 books (or even earlier rubrics, I don’t know which).

I understand what a sedavacanist is. Is the FSSP, who also left the SSPX, sedavacanists, as well?

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

I understand what a sedavacanist is. Is the FSSP, who also left the SSPX, sedavacanists, as well?

No. FSSP is fully within the Catholic Church. There is no impediment (or appearance of impediment) for the FSSP.

They split from SSPX to be in full absolute positive communion with Rome.

 

[SenorSalsa]

To put it simply

SSPV:very bad
SSPXerfectly ok
FSSP: very good

One should never attend an SSPV mass, as they are outside the communion of the Church, do not recognize Benedict XVI as valid pope, or many past popes

One may freely attend an SSPX mass, and despite not being on perfect terms with the Church yet, they are on the way to being there, with minor details needing to be worked out. I believe you may not go to them for Confession or Marriage however

One may also freely attend FSSP masses, and they are in full communion. All sacraments may be received from an FSSP priest

 

[Extempore]

The way I always understood it (which could very well be wrong) is that the primary split between the SSPX and SSPV occured because of a disagreement over which missal to use, as the SSPV disagree with the changes made in the '62 missal.

As for sedevacantism, I don’t think (correct me if I’m wrong) that the SSPV has an official position statement on sedevacantism (whether the chair of Peter is currently vacant). The way I understood it is that they don’t condemn the belief (as the SSPX do) but they don’t approve it either, which leads to a lot of people attending the SSPV who hold sede views.

However, due to the fact that many people who attend their chapels hold these views and they haven’t outright prohibited them, they get the reputation as being sedes, even if they haven’t “technically” haven’t approved of it.

 

[ProVobis]

To put it simply

SSPV:very bad
SSPXerfectly ok
FSSP: very good

One should never attend an SSPV mass, as they are outside the communion of the Church, do not recognize Benedict XVI as valid pope, or many past popes

One may freely attend an SSPX mass, and despite not being on perfect terms with the Church yet, they are on the way to being there, with minor details needing to be worked out. I believe you may not go to them for Confession or Marriage however

One may also freely attend FSSP masses, and they are in full communion. All sacraments may be received from an FSSP priest

I would also add that since the SSPV Masses may not include mention of the current Pope in the Canon, their Masses could very well be invalid and not Catholic enough to satisfy the Sunday obligation.

 

[malphono]

I would also add that since the SSPV Masses may not include mention of the current Pope in the Canon, their Masses could very well be invalid and not Catholic enough to satisfy the Sunday obligation.

That’s really a question of liceity rather than validity. Such a Mass would be valid but not licit. And being illicit, it would not satisfy the obligation.

 

[Lujack]

The SSPX is not perfectly okay. There are still a lot of issues left to be worked out before they are regularized again, and the Church is pretty clear that a valid and licit Mass, conducted reverently according to the rubrics, be it the OF or the EF, is preferable to a Mass said by the SSPX.

 

[I_Believe]

The SSPX is not perfectly okay. There are still a lot of issues left to be worked out before they are regularized again, and the Church is pretty clear that a valid and licit Mass, conducted reverently according to the rubrics, be it the OF or the EF, is preferable to a Mass said by the SSPX.

SSPX clergy don’t “say” Mass, nor do any other clergy.

 

[Extempore]

That’s really a question of liceity rather than validity. Such a Mass would be valid but not licit. And being illicit, it would not satisfy the obligation.

One can attend an illicit Mass (a great number of diocesan Masses through error or omission are illicit in some way), the question is one of validity since I don’t know if they use the Pope’s name in the Canon of the Mass. This could be easily cleared up by calling an SSPV chapel and asking them this.

Attending an invalid Mass would be both pointless and kind of dumb.

 

[Lujack]

SSPX clergy don’t “say” Mass, nor do any other clergy.

I’m sorry for the bad wording. Celebrate.

 

[malphono]

One can attend an illicit Mass (a great number of diocesan Masses through error or omission are illicit in some way), the question is one of validity since I don’t know if they use the Pope’s name in the Canon of the Mass. This could be easily cleared up by calling an SSPV chapel and asking them this.

Attending an invalid Mass would be both pointless and kind of dumb.

No. The question is one of liceity. Commemoration of the Pope is not among the criteria for validity. If it were, there would never be a valid Mass between the time of death of one Pope and the election of his successor. Further, consider the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, and the ACoE. Their Sacraments are fully valid and considered so by Rome. The same is (or at least was until some questionable episcopal consecrations) true of the Old Catholic Church and the PNC.

 

[ProVobis]

That’s really a question of liceity rather than validity. Such a Mass would be valid but not licit. And being illicit, it would not satisfy the obligation.

Who told you that? I don’t see the word “licit” here.

Can. 1248 §1 The obligation of assisting at Mass is satisfied wherever Mass is celebrated in a catholic rite either on a holyday itself or on the evening of the previous day.

Also from Rev. Msgr. Camille Perl, Secretary

September 27, 2002

    1. In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by 
    attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of Saint Pius 
    X.

 

[Aramis]

The SSPV reject vatican II (stpiusvchapel.org/newcomers.html) in entirety. By their actions, they also reject Vatican I.

the consistently and strongly imply that they believe HH John XXIII was not valid matter due to his being a “modernist,” citing that he admits he was suspected of modernism prior to his election.
(stpiusvchapel.org/flash_paper/articles/002_mass_changes.swf)

They imply that conciliarity is heresy. (www.sspv.net, and above articles).

The SSPV.net website is lacking in any depth; the real meat is at stpiusvchapel.org/articles.html

 

[ProVobis]

the Church is pretty clear that a valid and licit Mass, conducted reverently according to the rubrics, be it the OF or the EF, is preferable to a Mass said by the SSPX.

Just nitpicking a little here, but it’s not necessary to say “valid and licit.” Not unless you’ve actually attended a licit Mass that wasn’t valid.

 

[malphono]

Who told you that? I don’t see the word “licit” here.

Are you trying to say that the SSPV is covered by those statements? Unless they’ve changed in the past few hours, they’re sedes …

 

[Extempore]

No. The question is one of liceity. Commemoration of the Pope is not among the criteria for validity. If it were, there would never be a valid Mass between the time of death of one Pope and the election of his successor. Further, consider the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, and the ACoE. Their Sacraments are fully valid and considered so by Rome. The same is (or at least was until some questionable episcopal consecrations) true of the Old Catholic Church and the PNC.

But liceity alone is not enough of an impediment to avoid attending an SSPV Mass. My point is that the SSPV potentially have issues that go beyond liceity, whether those issues are espoused by the Society as a whole or simply by a number of the laity.

The bottom line is that if liceity is the ONLY criteria to look at, then we would have a lot of Masses to worry about other than those of the SSPV.

 

[ProVobis]

Are you trying to say that the SSPV is covered by those statements? Unless they’ve changed in the past few hours, they’re sedes …

I’m confused too since I pointed out that since the Pope is not mentioned in the SSPV canon, I would question whether it’s a catholic rite. Did the Vatican ever approve such a version of the TLM, before or after Vatican II? I doubt it.