SSPX & FSSP relationship now?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ronb
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
From what I understand, it differs from chapel to chapel, but it SEEMS like it’s the laity who attend who have the most issues.

Some lay people who attend SSPX (not all) really have a SSPV view of Vatican II.

As far as the relationship between FSSP & SSPX - the only thing I know is that the FSSP believes the SSPX was totally in the wrong by defying JP2.
 
I would offer that this is more about a certain set of parents, and not about what the ‘SSPX collective’ thinks about the ‘FSSP collective’. To be frank, there is more to the SSPX than the Tridentine Mass.

Practices that are allowed relating to the OF such as the handling of the Blessed Sacrament by the laity are compromises that are frankly not acceptable to those who identify with the SSPX. The fact that they are condoned by the Bishops does not change anyone’s opinion.

The OF itself is viewed, regardless of how reverently it might be celebrated in any one particular church, as a departure from the Mass as a sacrifice, towards a Mass that is a commemoration of the Last Supper. In other words, Calvary has been replaced by the Cenacle. Forgive me for being overly simplistic.

So, back to the question of the OP, the acceptance of these changes as good and an improvement over the EF, which they must be - or why change - is not acceptable. And that is what one is required to accept in order to get the privilege of celebrating the EF, either by the FSSP or as a diocesan indult Mass.

My intent is not to disparage, but to explain what the parents may be feeling.
 
I don’t think the SSPX irregular status has anything to do with the mass honestly.
Most Society priests view the OF as valid , but inferior. But I don’t think an agreement on the Mass is even part of the dialogue. Most priests in orders who do the EF will say the OF is valid but they think the EF is superior to it. One time I told a diocese priest I was struggling with thinking the EF is more holy than the OF and he basically told me it is. I was shocked this was coming from a priest who doesn’t even say the EF, though he has told me he wants to learn. So there is no real sin with preferring the EF at all, or even promoting it. The issue comes when you say the OF is not even valid.
The issue keeping the SSPX from full communion are certain things in the documents of the Second Vatican Council themself, which predate the OF by five years at least. ( a lot of people make the common misconception that the Council gave us the OF. It didn’t. It allowed a renewal in liturgy , but the Council (1962-65) in itself wasn’t the architect of the Mass. It did make changes to the EF and allowed the vernacular much more, such as in Inter Oecumenici which omitted the “Judica Me” Psalm 42 and the Last Gospel, and suppressed the Leonine Prayers etc.
However the constitution on the Mass of Paul Vl didn’t come out until 1969, and it wasn’t actually propagated until 1970. Also, many bishops in the Council were surprised at the mass, many openly saying it wasn’t exactly what they had in mind.
The OF was created by liturgists and theologians, who can error, many in fact have. ( read documents released by the CDF sometime, it is amazing how many theologians have been corrected or released from teaching in the Church anymore). They are outside of the Church in some ways and who knows if they were led by the Holy Spirit. That is a common objection some traditionalists say.
However what keeps the SSPX from communion are mainly some articles from Lumen Gentium and a couple others on religious liberty and the articles on Protestant groups they don’t like.
I believe Fellay said the SSPX only objects to about 5% of the things in the documents. 95% they have no issue with. However even though 5% seems like a small percentage , it is enough to keep someone from being in full communion. In fact I am surprised they have any recognition because 5% of an ecumenical Council is quite a few things to not agree with.
 
Last edited:
Prodigal1984 said:
However what keeps the SSPX from communion are mainly some articles from Lumen Gentium and a couple others on religious liberty and the articles on Protestant groups they don’t like.
Click to expand...
Relevant, but personal background and experience play a bigger role. Compared with a few decades ago, SSPX clergy have far less experience than their predecessors working in a diocese, or alongside religious orders. This likely includes seminary instructors. The SSPX of 2019 is drastically different from 1979. In the future there will be fewer left who were even trained by people who had much experience outside SSPX.

Ongoing conversation with Rome does not reverse this slowly widening separation.
 
Last edited:
SSPX is a schismatic sect and is best to be avoided. The Vatican has made many overtures to SSPX in the past, but each time SSPX has turned down the Vatican - choosing to keep the dog and pony show going, stringing Rome along in my opinion.

Your family’s present situation clearly illustrates why SSPX should be avoided. The communities that attend SSPX parishes tend to be very radical traditionalists, some border-line sedevacantist in my opinion.

I attend an ICKSP parish in my city and we are glad to be in full communion with Rome. But there is still a divide, many traditional Catholics (myself included) feel a certain apprehension with the direction Rome is going, especially with this papacy, and I will leave it at that. But in the end, despite our concerns we are glad to be a community in full communion with Rome as we can not ever imagine being separated from Rome, as there is no salvation outside the Holy Mother Church. And SSPX is disobedient.

If this situation is tearing at your two families, your daughter may be faced with a hard choice. But I hope she would choose not to risk the salvation of her immortal soul. It’s not right though that she is being put in this situation in the first place! Clearly, we are not all Catholic sadly.
 
Last edited:
commenter said:
ach year there are fewer priests who have ever worked in a diocese, and more priests who have no clerical or lay experience or training outside SSPX.
Click to expand...
If I may ask you, with all due respect and charity, why do you keep insisting on this point?
In almost every topic involving the SSPX you make a similar comment, so I would like to know why. And please, I’m asking this in good faith, don’t get me wrong.
 
Petrus1 said:
If I may ask you, with all due respect and charity, why do you keep insisting on this point?
In almost every topic involving the SSPX you make a similar comment, so I would like to know why.
Click to expand...
Actually, that is a very good point. Those priests have never been a part of the RCC, and their formation took place entirely outside the RCC, so being admitted to the RCC is not like returning home in their mind.

Their loyalties are primarily to the SSPX, and they would not support any reunification scheme that does not allow for the continued existence and a high degree of independence for the order.

Another issue is that they have accumulated a substantial population of the faithful that associate with the SSPX and who have essentially cut off all ties with the RCC. The OP’s daughter’s perspective in-laws seem to be among them.

In other words, the SSPX has taken on a life of its own outside the RCC. As time goes on, they will become even less interested in “reuniting” with Rome, as more and more clergy and faithful no longer see it as a matter of “reuniting”.
 
Petrus1 said:
40.png
commenter:
ach year there are fewer priests who have ever worked in a diocese, and more priests who have no clerical or lay experience or training outside SSPX.
Click to expand...
If I may ask you, with all due respect and charity, why do you keep insisting on this point?
In almost every topic involving the SSPX you make a similar comment,
Click to expand...
There are too many people, including me, who are too quick to offer opinion on matters like Theology that they don’t really know.
My 2 masters degrees and over 45 years work are in the social area, including organization Dynamics and momentum. So I write about this social area, partly because I have some knowledge; but also because nobody else is doing it. Countless SSPX threads are written as if it were still1974, and thinking people are infuenced more by this paragraph or that press release than by the last 40 years of their life. The other topic are useful too, but there are lots
of posts there.
 
Last edited:
GordonP said:
Those priests have never been a part of the RCC, and their formation took place entirely outside the RCC, so being admitted to the RCC is not like returning home in their mind.
Click to expand...
That’s not right, they are part of the Catholic Church.
They rule their seminaries yes, but this is common practice in almost every single religious order.
GordonP said:
Their loyalties are primarily to the SSPX, and they would not support any reunification scheme that does not allow for the continued existence and a high degree of independence for the order.
Click to expand...
Again, not true.
Their loyalty is to the Church and to the deposit of the Faith, not to themselves.
And about a “treaty” to bring the order into full communion, we should check their own sources and avoid speculation, for they and the Roman authorities know more than we do.
GordonP said:
Another issue is that they have accumulated a substantial population of the faithful that associate with the SSPX and who have essentially cut off all ties with the RCC. The OP’s daughter’s perspective in-laws seem to be among them.
Click to expand...
And you have Franciscan, Benedictine, Dominican…faithful that won’t go to other parishes nor seek other priests outside their favorite order. The OP’s daughter is a case involving two people out of thousands around the world, so it should not be used as reference.
I’ve seen SSPX faithful being quite ok and welcoming, not chastising those that attend NO masses or those that go to other Tridentine masses.
Besides this, the priests do interact with other diocesan priests and/or members of religious orders, two good examples are the “borrowing” of parishes during pilgrimages and the announcement that the Capucin friars from San Giovanni Rotondo have given one of Padre Pio’s gloves to the SSPX South American District. I doubt that Church authorities would do the same to some schismatic, crazy group.
GordonP said:
In other words, the SSPX has taken on a life of its own outside the RCC. As time goes on, they will become even less interested in “reuniting” with Rome, as more and more clergy and faithful no longer see it as a matter of “reuniting”.
Click to expand...
Again, the SSPX is not outside the Catholic Church, otherwise the Popes wouldn’t bother to talk to them, nor would Church authorities care about them, nor would a Swiss bishop choose their house for his retirement.
 
Sorry, but since English is not my first language I feel I’m being… rude when saying somethings.
 
Petrus1 said:
Sorry, but since English is not my first language I feel I’m being… rude when saying somethings.
Click to expand...
Not that I have seen. I know what you mean, though. I have lived and studied in four foreign countries and have learned three foreign languages, and am learning a fourth. Yes, you often can feel like you are not being elegant or polite enough, but don’t let that hold you back.
 
I’d be less concerned about the relationship between SSPX and FSSP, and more concerned that the parents of your daughter’s possible future spouse - not the future spouse himself, but his PARENTS - want to dictate her worship choices. And apparently their son is going along with it instead of being a man and telling Mom and Dad politely but firmly to butt out and let him and his wife-to-be work out their own affairs.

Who knows what these people might demand of your daughter next?
 
MagdalenaRita said:
This is a priestly order instituted by Saint Pope Paul VI in 1988 in response to the SSPX. I do believe, yes, that many who were originally in the SSPX did join the FSSP after it was initiated.
Click to expand...
Just to keep the record clear, the FSSP was founded by St. John Paul II In 1988.
 
Oh yeah, Bishop Williamson’s SSPX Resistance/Marian Corps
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top