SSPX & FSSP relationship now?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ronb
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If she’s a “bad woman” then why are they even letting their son date her? And why are they apparently friendly acquaintances with her family?

Give me a break. If she were worshipping at the Church of Satan, then maybe your statement would have some merit. But unless you are somehow calling women who attend FSSP churches “Bad Women”, which would probably have most of this forum up in arms, your comment is way off base.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
If she’s a “bad woman” then why are they even letting their son date her? And why are they apparently friendly acquaintances with her family?

Give me a break. If she were worshipping at the Church of Satan, then maybe your statement would have some merit. But unless you are somehow calling women who attend FSSP churches “Bad Women”, which would probably have most of this forum up in arms, your comment is way off base.
Click to expand...
At least they didn’t say “scarlet woman”.
 
This is a valid way of looking at it.
Another way of looking at the difference is to say FSSP is working in union with the local bishop, diocese, and religious orders; and SSPX is working, but not in union with them.
 
Last edited:
Well, that’s why I think something has changed a bit, because when I was in the SSPX, we were told that the Novus Ordo Missae could be valid if done properly. I realize “could” doesn’t really say much, but it seems more “cut and dry” now. Maybe I’m the one who was (is) confused. Thanks for the response.
 
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.
 
Bataar said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sedevacantism isn’t an all or nothing, it’s a matter of degree. One might believe the popes since 1958, or 1978, were, technically, elected, but lack fullness of authority.

Thus, someone might choose to agree with Pope Francis or their local Ordinary whenever they appear to be in agreement with Tradition. But how do you measure that? The websites tell you. (Could be National Catholic Reporter, or OnePeter5, etc).

This is not exactly the sedevacantism position, but also not exactly the Catholic position either. I’m just pointing out other intermediate options exist.
 
Last edited:
Bataar said:
the SSPX position is still wrong because they are trying to unite with that error and claim to follow an invalid pope.
Click to expand...
Not so. 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.
Also, the SSPX does not believe the Pope is invalid.
 
Last edited:
TheMortenBay said:
The SSPX want certain documents from Vatican II clarified and ratified to conform with Tradition. They want the rest of the Church to convert.
Click to expand...
Consider the individual priests in two orders, SSPX and FSSP. From which group do individual clergy likely have the greater current influence on the most Dioceses in moving towards those goals you cited:
conforming with Tradition, and converting the Church?
 
Last edited:
commenter said:
From which group do individual clergy likely have the greater current influence on the most Dioceses
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with what you’re implying. In the dioceses, physically within the Church the FSSP have solidified their position. But I think the SSPX would also argue that the FSSP “sold out” on the important doctrinal issues for an indult to celebrate the TLM. The FSSP have in effect rubber stamped Vatican II and the Mass of Paul VI, something the SSPX won’t.
There was also the promise of an FSSP Bishop. I don’t know how that turned out, the FSSP seem to be doing fine, but the SSPX is still using it against the Church authorities.
 
Fauken said:
As far as I know, there is no FSSP bishop.
Click to expand...
I know. I meant I don’t know why there isn’t. It could be simply because both parties went like “we don’t need that, what a fuss Abp. Lefebvre made over that issue.”
But the SSPX sure say it was a breach of contract and use it to support that the FSSP have no real power in the Church at all.
 
TheMortenBay said:
In the dioceses, physically within the Church the FSSP have solidified their position.
Click to expand...
Another way of looking at it is that the individuals in FSSP have a lot of personal contact with bishops, clergy, and laity, as well as institutions in the Church. Communicating good ideas, including the importance of Tradition, usually comes more from personal contact than from press releases.
 
Last edited:
Not even close to the truth actually. You and I may not agree with everything the SSPX have done, however, they have largely (nearly single handedly) maintained many traditions of the church that have been held for centuries.
 
Prodigal1984 said:
But then I started going to FSSP and slowly realized they use pre 1962 missals a lot which is also an act of disobedience thus I think they are aloud to do whatever they want as long as they sign off on the documents the SSPX won’t.
Click to expand...
I don’t have a lot of expertise in this subject, but I do know that the 1962 Missal is standard in the FSSP. I also know that there is permission granted in some cases to use an older Missal translation. The first thing that comes to mind is Holy Week. I believe that the older versions can be used by the permission of the local ordinary.

So perhaps they’re not being disobedient.
 
Last edited:
TheMortenBay said:
I know. I meant I don’t know why there isn’t.
Click to expand...
Probably because FSSP priests are under the authority of the particular diocesan bishop whose territory they’re serving in. There’s no need for an “FSSP Bishop.” In contrast, the Anglican Ordinariate is a completely separate entity with its own structure. Therefore, they have their own bishop. But the bishop’s authority in this case is personal, not territorial.
 
Last edited:
I was commenting on the flock at the chapel the OP descibed, not the Society.
 
I didn’t comment on other chapels. My comment was directed at the specific chapel described in the OP.
 
You are not mistaken. The former Ecclesia Dei granted permission to FSSP and some others, IIRC, to use the earlier versions for Holy Week. It is on a temporary and limited basis.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top