SSPX & FSSP relationship now?

[commenter]

Bataar:

the SSPX position is still wrong because they are trying to unite with that error

The SSPX want certain documents from Vatican II clarified and ratified to conform with Tradition. They want the rest of the Church to convert. That is not trying to unite with error.

Actually, it’s a lot more than that. Since SSPX became independent, there have been several decades of separate development, 2 different histories.

Suppose the Vatican “clarified” all the V2 documents to the point they had no authority or significance whatever. So what? There are numerous papal documents, interpretations by Vatican officials and bishops, and other actions by Church officials that SSPX has expressed vehement opposition to, possibly including the Catechism and Code of Canon Law, in part.

Does anyone think the Vatican will go over, one by one, each papal and Episcopal position that the SSPX disagrees with and clarify “this was just a suggestion, that was just a suggestion, etc?” With each decade there is more of what they regard as error.

When I look at the SSPX website, it’s mostly not about V2, but about disagreement on subsequent years.

 

[commenter]

Keep in mind there are “calls” coming from many other groups, mostly liberals, that demand the Church declare as non binding, not only different sections of V 2 documents, but multiple other documents after and before V2.

They all will find some ancient citation to “prove” their POVs are consistent with Tradition - and that certain passages from St. JP2, or Pius XII, are merely pastoral, transitory, suggestions, not binding. So if the Vatican now opens the door for waivers to SSPX on certain items, the Left is ready to demand waivers on other items, including those SSPX considers crucial and binding on all. It’s easier to start granting waivers than to stop granting them.

 

[commenter]

I think your posts are more realistic than those of others. When Bishop Fellay was leader, some CAF posters would cite his press releases that implied SSPX and Rome are very, very close to an agreement, just a few texts clarification.

The reality is that it’s not 4 years of texts, it’s several decades of texts. Rome and SSPX have traveled down different paths for decades, each year farther apart from each other than previous years, with turnover of personnel.

 

[Dovekin]

Actually, Benedict XVI in his 2005 talk to the cardinal, talked about a hermeneutic of rupture and a hermeneutic of reform, which included ruptures within a framework of continuity.

He only mention a hermeneutic of continuity in one of his encyclicals or apostolic exhortations. There is seems to refer to the continuity of the OF with the earlier versions of the mass, though it has been interpreted differently by many people.

 

[catholic03]

It is not a good idea to attend the SSPX. Only canonically regular groups in communion with Rome may be attended by the faithful.

Perhaps you could attend in good conscience, but if you have Ordinary Form parishes in communion with Rome then I do not see why you would wish to forfeit this for an irregular group.

 

[commenter]

Consider 2 brothers who grew up together, had a bitter argument, but are still very much family.

But that was SSPX/RCC in the 1970s. The brothers are gone. A generation later we had the sons of the brothers, first cousins, who are still family to each other but less so. They never lived together but had a fair amount of contacts.

But soon we will be almost up to yet another generation since SSPX became independent. If you’re talking about the Church and SSPX related to each other soon as second cousins, this puts SSPX in a similar position to the Old Catholics, or PNCC at an earlier period. Aren’t they, or weren’t they, cousins to RCC at one time?

The problem is most SSPX posts do not take into account time.

 

[Prodigal1984]

I attend an ICKSP parish in my city and we are glad to be in full communion with Rome.

Yah but the ICKSP and FSSP both disobediently use pre 1962 Missals which the SSPX has never done. That goes against Summorum Pontificum and I’m waiting for someone to blow the whistle on this.

 

[Fauken]

Yah but the ICKSP and FSSP both disobediently use pre 1962 Missals which the SSPX has never done. That goes against Summorum Pontificum and I’m waiting for someone to blow the whistle on this.

I think you’ve already been told that they don’t use them disobediently and only certain parishes received permission to use them. There are some who would like to see the EF wiped completely away, why on earth would they provide their opponents with such ammunition and do something so stupid after all they’ve done to get where they’re at?

 

[Prodigal1984]

here are some who would like to see the EF wiped completely away

That would be quite a day for the SSPX if the Church did that.

Plus there’s those who want the OF wiped away.

I personally don’t go to the SSPX. I could. I go to a diocese EF mass. But if the Church ever wiped it away, I would go to the SSPX in a heartbeat, it wouldn’t phase me in the least.

 

[Fauken]

That would be quite a day for the SSPX if the Church did that.

Plus there’s those who want the OF wiped away.

Sure, there are, but that’s not the point. The opposition to the EF is very real and has teeth, unlike the movement against the OF. The FSSP and/or ICKSP condoning and doing what you suggest would be basically suicidal for both societies, and is nonsensical.

 

[Prodigal1984]

This is true.
You know what is interesting though. Theres like 15 seminarians in my diocese and 9 of them are learning to do the EF. It’s kind of interesting.

 

[Fauken]

That seems to be on the rise. There are seminaries allowing their seminarians to take classes on how to celebrate the EF. It’s wonderful in my opinion.

By the way, if you’re still convinced that the 1955 Masses were flagrant acts of disobedience that bishops are woefully unaware about, it’s posted all over the internet. And they’re all about Holy Week and only Holy Week, with all of them claiming the permission to do so came from Ecclesia Dei. If they were lying, I’d expect the backlash to have happened by now given they’re on the internet. It’s no secret.

 

[Prodigal1984]

No I went to a high mass on a Saturday in February that was not a solemnity and they did the credo which is just a pre 62 thing rubric.

 

[Fauken]

No I went to a high mass on a Saturday in February that was not a solemnity and they did the credo which is just a pre 62 thing rubric.

What Mass was it? According to my missal, which is the SSPX one, it states, “The Creed is said only on Sundays, feasts of the first class, feasts of the second class of our Lord, our Lady and the Apostles, and at votive Masses of the first class”.

So no, it’s not just said at solemnities. Tomorrow is coincidentally the feast day of St. James the Apostle. A second class feast day. Here, this website used by the FSSP shows the Creed since it is a second class Mass of an Apostle:

http://www.divinumofficium.com/cgi-bin/missa/missa.pl

You said it was a Saturday in February. I’m going to guess then it was the Purification of Our Lady. A second class Mass for Our Lady, which, as my missal says, the Creed would be recited at. It would also explain why it was a High Mass. Feburary 2nd this year was on a Saturday.

 

[commenter]

I honestly don’t get the SSPX position. If a person believes the Vatican II council and documents are orthodox, valid and do not change Catholic teaching, than there is no excuse to remain outside of the Vatican. Other than just preferring the Latin Mass due to personal sensibilities, there’s no reason for them to exist and people should attend FSSP masses if available. However, if a person believes the Vatican II council documents are not orthodox and contain error, then the SSPX position is still wrong because they are trying to unite with that error and claim to follow an invalid pope. After all, if the council and documents are not orthodox, than the sedevacantist position would be the correct choice over SSPX.

Over time, there’s a natural desire for an organization to try to perpetuate itself. (That doesn’t preclude spiritual goals as well).

I think many of the older supporters who grew up in a diocese have felt ambiguous about their status. Thus there were numerous press releases by Bishop Fellay, to the effect that SSPX is very, very close to an agreement with Rome (so now is NOT the time to swim over on your own). Wait just a little longer.
The announcements and tentative hopes went on for many years.

But now as there is turnover in supporters, and now we have people who grew up in SSPX, the policy may shift somewhat. They don’t want to lose other types to a Resistance group. That may be why the SSPX public position seems to lean now this way, then that way. They need to retain people.

Again, this does not eliminate spiritual goals, too. Their apparent policy doesn’t refute their mission.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Comm - I am not sure that the answer you imply is the reality of the situation. Consider that the FSSP priests work for the Bishop of a Diocese and are only there because they have been invited by a sympathetic Bishop. Those same priests have little influence in Diocese where they are not resident. The dynamic between the priests of SSPX and the Bishops of the Diocese they exist in is very different, and also very complex. With the changes over the last few years with regard to Confessions and Marriage, there is a kind of novelty to have a relaionship and a new spirit of cooperation between these factions which I have seen first hand. Additionally, the SSPX has Bishops which makes it easier to approach the Diocesan Bishop in most cases.

 

[Prodigal1984]

I don’t understand how a group can have valid confessions and not be considered real priests honestly.
The whole irregular thing makes no sense. It is either you are part of the Church or you aren’t.

 

[Fauken]

I don’t understand how a group can have valid confessions and not be considered real priests honestly.

Again, the question isn’t about the validity of their Sacraments or priests. They’re valid. Licety is a matter of legality.

Honestly, there is nothing wrong going on. They are both catholic and that’s all that matters. Just because they are members of two different masses doesn’t mean it’s a scandal.

Ignoring the Pope directly telling you not to consecrate bishops is scandalous. Implying that the OF isn’t simply lesser, but evil, is scandalous. Telling the laity to seek churches that do not submit themselves to the local Ordinary is scandalous. Hearing the confessions of the laity without faculties (and thus making the confessions not just illicit, but invalid) is scandalous. The SSPV celebrates the TLM using the pre-1962 rite. They broke off of the SSPX to do so. They also say there hasn’t been a valid Pope in decades. Is that okay?

 

[Prodigal1984]

SSPV does not say that. They just prefer to say they don’t know and it is possible there has not been.
The CMRI is probably the most vocal about that papal question you spoke of.

 

[Prodigal1984]

There’s always groups who don’t recognize Councils it seems. I wonder if the Church knows by having a Council groups will break off?
Even Vatican l, the Old Catholics and I believe the Polish National Church broke away because of that Council, I believe it was papal infallibility they couldn’t agree to accept.