SSPX & FSSP relationship now?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ronb
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
They are licit, but we need to be cautious about falling into some of their line of thinking. Rejection of obedience to Church authority is not a good thing, and hence while you can validly and licitly take part in their Masses, try to find someone in complete unity with Rome like FSSP to prevent danger of getting wrong ideas about Church.
 
Well that’s my big question. Let’s say that within .5 hours drive, I have access to 1 Ordinary Form Mass and 1 SSPX mass. If they are both valid, and I have noticed illicit things in the ordinary form mass on several occasions, wouldn’t the SSPX be a good alternative? (So long as it is not illicit or invalid)
 
If you do keep yourself from danger of indifferentism, danger of semi-schismatic ideas against Catholic Church and Vatican II, then sure. Difficulty of that depends on you, people and priest in SSPX community. May God help you do what’s right.
 
Thanks I appreciate that. For the time being we have been able to go further to find different parishes to attend, but with little ones that becomes pretty difficult.
 
I understand, may God guide you where He wants you to be. I hope you will have spiritually nourishing life wherever you go, and that in time liturgical abuses will stop in OF parish (even if you do not attend it, it would be great if they did stop for good of other people).
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
Rejection of obedience to Church authority is not a good thing, and hence while you can validly and licitly take part in their Masses
Click to expand...
True, but we should also balance to at least say that obedience is not absolute, even to a pope, when it comes to any compromise on the faith. St Paul did oppose St Peter “to his face because he was to be blamed.” And there are also the cases of Honrious and John XXII that are taken into account. It ends up being a matter of personal discernment whether one feels the SSPX’s claims of a crisis due to their issues with Assisi prayer meeting, Koran kissing, and all other orders being forced to cease and desist all practices traditional meet that criteria of necessity or not. The “state of necessity” is essentially the hinge point between the Fraternity and Society, so the members essentially are left answering is it that bad to render absolute obedience in these specifics cases or not.
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
If you do keep yourself from danger of indifferentism
Click to expand...
From my own experience, perhaps yours is different, but there would seem to be a much greater extent of problems with religious indifferentism and many myriad of contradictions to perennial Catholic teachings at a place where illicit sacrileges are being performed than one would ever have to worry about at a traditional liturgy well performed where from my experience the teaching would always be lock step in sync with traditional Catholic teaching and practice. From what they say, that was the very reason the SSPX continued doing what the Church has always done in order to preserve the faith and traditional practices from the onslaught of errors and abuses that took hold in the 1970s and sadly continue to this present day. Basically, I’m saying that it would seem the extent of danger in open errors to the faith being taught would be present where sacraments are being profaned than where they are being diligently safeguarded. I’m thinking you would probably agree with me here?
 
Last edited:
Rose, I think you’re on point in your overall assessment, but the question that he is raising is that if a religious superior commands one to stop performing the traditional Catholic sacraments and instead do the things that Pope Pius XII sternly warned about in his encyclical Mediator Dei: insert table, face people, speak to them in vernacular only liturgy, no black or traditional vestments, cease the amount of reverence, say things like “good morning everyone,” etc, and then they refused and instead continued to perform the traditional sacraments in order to safeguard the faith, reverence, and tradition, then would this disobedience be justified?

Again that’s the hinge question that someone has to prayerfully discern in the SSPX question. Can such disobedience be justified? If someone’s worried about the care for souls, harm to the faith and unbroken tradition and disobeys in order to do what he prayerfully discerns is obedience to God, do we judge him for that or do we perhaps see at least where he was coming from when he sees the liturgical and theological chaos all around him?
 
Facing the people, using a “table”, lack of reverence, and saying “good morning” are not intrinsic to the Ordinary Form. The OF Mass can be celebrated Ad Orientem, chanted in Latin, etc… and is…
 
prayinglatin said:
the SSPX continued doing what the Church has always done
Click to expand...
This is the argument also given by the Old Catholics, to continue what the Church has always done, subtracting the recent innovations.

The SSPX Resistance of course claims to restore the original continuity of Archbishop L, not recent innovations of Bishop Fellay.

Protestants, many of whom now call themselves Catholics, often draw a line after this or that year, or maybe seventh ecumenical council, and say they are in continuity with that Catholics Church, but not subsequent novelties, like Trent.
 
Last edited:
commenter said:
This is the argument also given by the Old Catholics, to continue what the Church has always done, subtracting the recent innovations.
Click to expand...
Actually it’s not. The Old Catholics actually reject a dogmatic definition of the faith regarding papal infallibility and since then they have innovated a TON. In fact, I heard they are allowing women priests now, if I’m not mistaken… SSPX has changed 0. Old Catholics were not asked to change anything. They were asked to assent to a dogmatic definition.
commenter said:
The SSPX Resistance of course claims to restore the original continuity of Archbishop L, not recent innovations of Bishop Fellay.
Click to expand...
Actually the Resistance was formed by Williamson after he was kicked out of the SSPX for literally being a lune. A better name for their group should be Williamsonites.
commenter said:
Protestants, many of whom now call themselves Catholics, often draw a line after this or that year, or maybe seventh ecumenical council, and say they are in continuity with that Catholics Church, but not subsequent novelties, like Trent.
Click to expand...
Protestants actually follow very much the model of antiquarianism, which is that they try to reinterpret what the early church was based soley on Scripture and then implement it. What Protestant group(s) specifically are you referring to that say they are in union with an ecumenical council? As a former Protestant with experience in many denominations, I can tell you that is not the case. They are virtually all trying to recreate what they read in the Bible. They possess no continuity whatsoever. They are each their own imaginative recreation of a never existent past with countless innovations of doctrines.

So here then a the question: what dogmatic definition did Vatican II implement that Catholics now have to believe with divine faith that they did not before? Paul VI said there were none and that the Council was not at all dogmatic but pastoral. While there is a “dogmatic constitution” in V2, it was merely a restatement of previously defined teachings. Nothing new.

Interestingly, if you look at the history, the SSPX did not reject V2 in se–in fact, Lefevbre signed all its documents! They resisted the spirit of the council and its “pastoral” implementation along with the way as the liberals called it the “compromise formulas” that were later interpreted as they wished. They resisted the exact things that Pope Pius XII warned about in Mediator Dei and Pius X in Proventissimus Deus, Pius IX in his syllabus of errors, and Pius XI in Mortalium Animos.

Were any of the other examples of groups faithful to prior Catholic teachings that were later changed by a council? Of course not. Why? Because no prior Council or its implementation ever went contrary to what the prior magisterium had taught. If this is not correct, then let’s look at where the Catholic Church has ever in her history said that what she was doing previously was no longer valid and that everything had to change. I’m a student of Church history, and I have yet to find the instance.
 
Last edited:
twf said:
Facing the people, using a “table”, lack of reverence, and saying “good morning” are not intrinsic to the Ordinary Form. The OF Mass can be celebrated Ad Orientem, chanted in Latin, etc… and is…
Click to expand...
Absolutely true. I just have yet to find that example in real life other than one private mass I attended once by a priest who was showing me how the OF “could” be offered. He just was not allowed to ever offer it that way publicly.
 
twf said:
Facing the people, using a “table”, lack of reverence, and saying “good morning” are not intrinsic to the Ordinary Form. The OF Mass can be celebrated Ad Orientem, chanted in Latin, etc… and is…
Click to expand...
I’ve heard this described as the unicorn Mass. There may be one out there, but good luck finding it!

The priests were all forced to be obedient to those new mandatory implementations.
 
Last edited:
Finding an OF Mass that meets every item on that list may be rare, but not unheard of. In my archdiocese, one local parish used to have a regular Sunday “Novus Ordo” Mass that was sung in Latin Ad Orientem…not sure if they still do or not, but as the priest has since moved to another parish, I’m sure that other parish now must. At my local geographical parish, the Sunday Masses are in English, but Father chants much of it… but the Saturday morning Mass is a “Latin” Novus Ordo.
At our cathedral, the Sunday 11 AM Mass is primarily in English, but there’s lots of chant, incense, and a Latin polyphonic choir that sings the Gloria, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei in Latin.
 
While opposing Pope is possible, we must be careful as to not slip into disobedience and doing things that contradict the Law. Consecration of Bishops contrary to will of Pope (not just without it, contrary to) is hardly a good thing. SSPX is fervent in defending tradition, which is commendale. I just don’t necesaarily agree with some of their less obedient decisions…

Old Catholics did use those things as their arguments- they held Papal Infallibility to be innnovation and themselves to be continuing faith… though they were wrong.

I get that SSPX battles indifferentism and I praise them for that, but I have heard of people slipping into sedevacantism from there, or stopping to care whether those offering the Mass are sedevacantists. That solely was the reason I mentioned indifferentism. I agree OF sermons tend to lead to indifferentism more than EF though.
 
What are you referring to when you say a “table”?

Also, what is the problem with saying good morning and chanting in other language?
 
I don’t have an issue with any of it. I was replying to a poster who used these examples (table, saying good morning) as reasons why the SSPX protest the OF…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top