Question for SSPX supporters

  • Thread starter Thread starter CroatCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CroatCatholic

Guest
What are your thoughts on traditional societies like FSSP, ICKSP, IBP, Canons Regular of St. John Cantius?
The Church has many traditional societies, and many Extraordinary Form masses across the world. From diocesan ones to FSSP,ICKSP,… masses. And not only masses, but all traditional prayers, devotions and practices can be held and done freely. And also, there are traditional and orthodox priests, bishops and cardinals in the Church. Why SSPX over FSSP,ICKSP,IBP etc…?
 
Last edited:
Most likely has to do with availability and region. In my town there is no SSPX but there is a ICKSP. In others, the opposite. I hear the SSPX/FSSP is more numerous in the US than elsewhere. ICKSP more numerous in Europe than elsewhere. Etc etc
 
Elias said:
Most likely has to do with availability and region.
Click to expand...
I agree it possibly is. Here in the UK the SSPX has far more locations than FSSP and ICKSP combined. We are fortunate in the region where I live to have a choice because all three are present. I go to none of them but would not go SSPX because we have the FSSP and ICKSP plus secular priests who offer the Extraordinary Form.
 
This can be an interesting thread, if people (like me) who have no connection to SSPX refrain from commenting on SSPX, on the posts herein, or tell SSPX supporters what they should do. There are other threads where two sides hash it out, but there’s a value in letting people have their say.
 
And, btw. I am a non-traditional Catholic. I live in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and as far as I am aware, the nearest Latin Mass is a 5-6 hout drive in a neighbouring country.
I just wish the SSPX fully came into communion, and carried out the Mass, devotions, practices etc…
I really get the love for the traditions by the SSPX, but, in my opinion, I think that their disobedience is not necessary. Keep in mind, I have never read the VII documents, and I do not have even basic knowledge of the SSPX. All I want is unity in our Church.
 
Last edited:
I don’t approve of the SSPX. They are disobedient to Rome. They are canonically irregular.

The FSSP and ICKSP are in full communion and canonically regular. They are wonderful and refrain from, for instance, signing documents calling Pope Francis a heretic, as Bishop Fellay did.

I hope they’ll be regularised.
 
According to Rome, they are canonically irregular.

Now, I believe that the SSPX has more adherents perhaps than the FSSP and other traditionalist societies combined. It has also undoubtedly held onto beautiful Church traditions. As such, I will rejoice if/when our Holy Father or any future pope gives them regular status or creates a Personal Prelature (or any other structure) for them. I also see that the Holy Father has given special faculties to them, allowing them to do things that they have not been able to do in the past.

However, until that happens (and I HOPE it does), then I will not associate with them. They are so close, they just need to be regularised.

Do you also wish for them to be regularised?
 
I do not know enough about this, I admit. And I was wrong to make claims without properly knowing.

According to the article published by Catholic Answers, SSPX clergy and laity are individually in full communion with Rome. But remember the words of Pope Benedict XVI: “The Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers—even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty [of excommunication]—do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.”
 
@(name removed by moderator)

I think that arguing about this is not a good idea. I do not believe it will end well.

I hope we may end this discussion on good terms, and may God bless you.
 
Last edited:
Hello Ivan, I saw you are Croatian like me so I wanted to answer you. I’m someone who makes an effort to follow SSPX, even though I don’t live in Zagreb so it can be difficult. You can message me or something if you are interested in knowing more.
Most people don’t really have much knowledge (if any) about traditionalism so it is assumed that it is just logical to support diocesan approved groups - since they seem the same except legitimate.
However that is not really the case, there are significant theological and worldview issues that SSPX presents. To make you understand the neccessity of SSPX and its mission I would have to explain history of the Church, theology, Vatican II and how it all ties together with the current crisis in the Church.
Putting obscurantism - which Vatican generally uses to shelve this issue - and verbose argumentation on theological intricacies aside, simplest way to view it is that approved groups are more or less limited to being liturgical groups dedicated to spreading old devotions and spirituality, while SSPX is more of a missionary group on a grand mission to fix the Church (as silly as that sounds) - and it is generally more hardline traddie.
 
Hey, I am glad for your response.
So, you’re a Croat too? Odakle si? Ja sam iz Bosne i Hercegovine. 😂

Now, I have to admit, I don’t have much knowledge on VII, Church history, theology and that. I am only 17, and researching theology and Church history is more like some hobby.
While I am not like overly against SSPX, I do not agree with them fully. I get what bothers them, and the crisis in the Church, I just think that if they fully entered the Church, and through their deeds and prayers, and through the deeds and prayers of us all, we would be able to minimize the crisis.

I have some short questions
  1. Do you know about the page Konzervativac?
  2. Do you attend the NO mass, and do you think attending the NO mass is an offense to God, and maybe even worse?
  3. What do you think of post-VII saints and blesseds?
  4. What do you think St. Padre Pio would think of SSPX? And, if he would support it or even be a part of it, have you read Padre Pio’s letter to Pope Paul VI (you can find it on Youtube or the internet)
 
Last edited:
I started attending Mass at an SSPX chapel a few months ago. My original understanding was that the SSPX were off limits and as a society they stood apart from Rome. Basically I was led to believe that they were disobedient and rejected the authority of the papacy.

Thankfully, I’ve come to the proper understanding that the SSPX are not what many people claim them to be. Honestly I think that this “irregular“ status and any other restrictions that may have been imposed over the last few decades seems rather arbitrary when compared with their overall status today.

By comparison, I’m not a fan of the USCCB as a whole. They sometimes operate in a way that suggests they are independent from Rome and I don’t believe the structure and leadership has benefited the laity and with regards to the corruption which came to light, I have no trust in the USCCB to right this ship.

Yet the SSPX are sometimes treated like lepers when in reality they have stayed faithful to the Church’s teachings and traditions. And yet I’ve been to OF parishes where the priest has directly told the congregation, from the pulpit, that non Catholics were welcome to receive communion.

I don’t attend the SSPX because I’m disobedient to Rome or the Papacy, but because I believe they are the ones that have stayed faithful to it.
 
Last edited:
I am some 5 years older than you i moj kraj je između Zagreba i Siska. 😃
What convinced me to respect SSPX is knowing the kind of politics was led back then by the liberals and how much damage the whole reform movement caused to the Church. Lefebvre was the person who stood up to all of it even if it costed him everything. Rituals, practices and beliefs that were imposed on us back then were results of the 60s “hippy” revolution and if there’s a group which will stand up to it, fight and revive the old way of life, belief and practice I have to stand with them. Especially since I was dreadfully, completely uncathecized and SSPX taught me everything I’ve ever known about faith besides the bare basics. It seems as if the mainstream Church wants me to not understand the faith and have a simplistic understanding of them just being “good guy conservatives” so I would keep my head down and not inquire what’s under the rug.
  1. Not really, I could have heard of it in passing, but I’m not that much into local political scene - it seems to me that local politics is very limited in its understanding of ideological issues and global happenings. For example when you hear about traditionalism vs modernism, they really mean regular boomer conservatism vs liberalism and practically nobody would dare or consider to open up some real traditionalist opinions and trends in Croatia. But I try to keep an open mind and sometimes check out more popular right wing sites like Narod.hr or Direktno.hr to see what’s the latest fad.
  2. This will sound ugly, but I don’t go to novus ordo even from before i met SSPX because there were always things that bothered me about it theologically - the way it tries to make it about the people instead of God, the way it marginalizes the altar, the callous and irreverent, often sacrilegious treatment of the Body of Christ, complete disregard for some Church traditions because they are deemed too patriarchal, awful modern architecture, the whole ritual as if designed to mislead people theologically, lack of a sense of supernatural etc. - with the major point being that it is in spirit protestant-inclined and reinforces that kind of vision of the faith - comparing it to the Luther or Cranmer’s mass is eye opening. I could go on forever if you ask specifically about theological points, then I would have to say that it is valid, but there are things and elements about it that aren’t acceptable and so on and so on, but I don’t think that’s the relevant angle here. All in all unsurprising seeing that it was created and pushed by clear freemason bishops - Lienart, modernists - Bugnini and even protestant pastors. They also tried to surpress the tridentine mass for decades - they don’t admit that now and pretend like they didn’t try to erase it from the face of the earth, but only reason why tridentine survived Paul the VI and John Paul II’s attempt at erasure is because Lefebvre fought for it.
 
If you have ever been to a tridentine mass you would see that it is a whole different world - can’t even compare - it’s like a different religion. I knew it would be different, but couldn’t have ever imagined it how EXTREMELY different it would be before I’ve seen it.
  1. I think that if the process with which they proclaim saints makes into saints people like John Paul II (who tried to erase and surpress the tridentine mass, kissed the koran, participated in pagan rituals, muddled the theology with questionable teachings, banned converting eastern orthodox, appointed all the worst pedophile and modernist bishops we have today, it goes on), mother Theresa (who said that hindus and muslims should remain of their religion and not convert to go into heaven and had such unacceptable theological views), Paul VI (please don’t make me start about Him) and many others similar then we should be skeptical about that whole process.
    And did you know that it was reformed by none other than John Paul II with unprecedented changes unseen in Church tradition and later proceeded to mass beatify every modernist in the book.
    Does it mean all saints and everything after Vat II are invalid - obviously not, but that’s not the point.
  2. From what I know Padre Pio and Marcel Lefebre were friends, Padre Pio himself only conducted tridentine liturgy, always spoke rather highly of Lefebvre. Wikipedia claims the letter is a hoax, I don’t know who here can be trusted, but I personally find it hard to believe Padre Pio would say negative things about Lefebvre knowing the context of the events back then and their relationship.
Anyways, I hope this clarifies things.
Sorry for the wall of text, I continued it here because too many words.
 
Sorry if these are too many posts, but I’m new here and getting acquainted with the forum.

From my experience Croatia isn’t very seriously catholic. There are about 10-20% more serious believers who attend mass and even they generally don’t really follow all the rules. Rest are cultural catholics who attend at major events - weddings or holidays and secular people who were born into the faith and still identify. Reason for the fact they all call themselves catholic is that it is a very strong cultural force here, but less and less so as new generations are raised.
Also overwhelming amount of catholics are immigrants from BiH and southern parts of the country. Kajkavian regions where I live are uber secular, not unlike any western region
Traditionalism is practically an unknown thing and tridentine mass is extremely exotic so if you are a conservative novus ordo believer (term not meant disrespectfully) the country would be a perfect place for you due to a large religious community still very loyal to conservative positions of Vatican II.
Overall a very boomer and provincial place.
 
Those were examples to make a point and it’s not about them particularly or any of their specific actions, but their attitudes and persons in general. When I take all they did and believed in account and see how it affected the Church I cannot accept that people like them (and many others) were proclaimed saint.
Especially so since the process was simplified into reducing scrutiny by the same pope who was immediately after proclaimed saint.

Perhaps i dived too deep into a territory that’s emotional to a lot of people, but due to my conscience and understanding of the faith, dogma, morals, Church traditions and history it is impossible for me to separate the persons in questions from their numerous, harmful and wicked actions and from their horrendous consequences we today feel. Taking that into account their proclamation of sainthood is like a slap in the face and if my rejection earns me condemnation, I am willing to own up to it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top