SSPX & FSSP relationship now?

[Prodigal1984]

The SSPV celebrates the TLM using the pre-1962 rite.

Jeez. Don’t they know they could just join the FSSP or ICKSP and use the older one?

 

[Bataar]

Fauken:

The SSPV celebrates the TLM using the pre-1962 rite.

Jeez. Don’t they know they could just join the FSSP or ICKSP and use the older one?

The Fssp has to recognize Vatican II as a legitimate council. They also recognize all the post conciliar popes as legitimate. The SSPV is a sedevacantist group who believes that Vatican II is in error and heretical as it contradicts church doctrine and thus they believe all popes who promote Vatican II are heretics and thus antipope.

In all honesty, I’m borderline sedevacantist myself. I’m not quite there, but I could end up accepting their beliefs the more I read about Vatican II.

 

[Prodigal1984]

The Second Vatican Council has some documents that are , confusing to say the least. See, I accept it, I like the EF and am a traditionalist but I’m not about to go down that road. Honestly the entire notion of questioning what the Church says is in itself modernism.
I will grant this though. And I’m going to try to word it carefully. I do believe some of the documents of the Council are confusing. And I think even the Church has somewhat acknowledged this, seeing the fact on numerous occasions they have had to release dubias or CDF documents clarifying something it said that could have easily been taken the wrong way. And it is true, I remember reading it the first time and thinking it was so far from what the Church taught before that there is no way it could be a continuity. But the further you read into it from more of a theological basis it does make sense. The problem, I think, with this Council is, it was really the only Council in Church history that wasn’t for some apologetics reason. It was called as a pastoral Council. I believe there was a couple dogmatic constitutions, but the majority was pastoral in nature, and when laity can’t even read these documents without getting confused, I’m not sure how pastoral it really was.
We won’t know what this Council is in the long run for a while, probably not in our lifetimes.
In the scheme of things, even Vatican l is still a recent Council. I think the most recent Council we can dissect and see it’s lasting impact currently is Trent. We don’t know what the Vatican 1 and 2 Councils will be thought of in two centuries.

 

[Fauken]

Jeez. Don’t they know they could just join the FSSP or ICKSP and use the older one?

I don’t think the ICKSP has been given permission to use the pre-1962 rite. And only recently were certain FSSP parishes were given permission.

 

[Dovekin]

To set your mind at ease, the first councils were not all that clear by most standards. Four councils within 130 years does not describe tranquilly accepted, well understood teaching! (5 councils if you count Ephesus II) It took some towering figures to make those Councils work, like Ss. John Chrysostom, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory, Ambrose and Augustine, to name a few.

Nicea I. 325 ad
Constantinople I. 381 ad
Ephesus. 431 ad
Chalcedon. 451 ad

 

[commenter]

when laity can’t even read these documents without getting confused, I’m not sure how pastoral it really was

I don’t find the documents themselves confusing. Other than the document on the Liturgy, most of the documents simply describe the situation as it already had become. Laity had, in the first half of the 20th century, taken on a much broader role than envisioned at Trent or V1. Religious orders of sisters had, since the 1950s, been in a process of “renewal”. Catholics, especially laity, had already been using the media in ways never envisioned at V1; so also Catholic education.

There already was a kind of informal ecumenical movement since WW2. Also since WW2, and the Holocaust, there was already underway a movement to reconsider the Church’s position regarding the Jews.

There is an internet lobby committed to persuading laity that the documents are confusing. They demand “clarification” in order to justify their position in 2019.

 

[commenter]

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.

The PNCC broke off from RCC for reasons of their own, specific to the USA immigrant situation and property management, not infallibility. After the break, they sought out the OCs for consecration of bishops, and for awhile were associated with them.

But the OCs have since divided into various factions, mostly more liberal than the moderate PNCC.

The PNCC seems frustratingly close to the RCC, they likely wouldn’t disagree with much if anything in V2.
But there’s whole century of momentum as an independent organization.

 

[ShrodingersCat]

This!

Daughter needs to tell her boyfriend to tell his parents to butt out of their lives. If he won’t it’s a massive red flag.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

That is ultimately the reason there is so much division today about liturgy. Disobedience always leads to disunity.

While I agree with you about disobedience leading to disunity, I also believe that most traditional Catholics would be able to accept Liturgy as Pope Paul VI gave to the Church- Ad Orientem, Latin, Novus Ordo with Incense. That is actually normative Liturgy of the Latin Church, and while Ad Populum is allowed, it is not original form of Novus Ordo- same way Extraordinary Form is allowed but is, well, extraordinary. Problem is that right now, many people see Liturgical abuses in Ordinary Form- something that was before done in Tridentine Mass too, but nowadays if someone wants to celebrate EF they are mostly very careful about doing so according to rubrics.

Not only were some disobedient in celebrating Tridentine Mass before it was allowed, some were also disobedient to make liturgical abuses in Novus Ordo- further fueling traditional Catholics with wanting their Tridentine Mass, and that in turn fueling liturgical abuses… etc etc. Basically if real normative liturgy of the Church became common, many traditional Catholics would probably return to it. However, in my country alone I can not seem to find one priest that would celebrate Ad Orientem Novus Ordo other than during Advent.

edit: nevermind, Tridentine Mass was never suppressed according to Canon Law, hence no one had to stop celebrating it. Seems like nobody was really disobeying anyone by celebrating Tridentine Mass.

 

[dochawk]

The PNCC broke off from RCC for reasons of their own, specific to the USA immigrant situation and property management, not infallibility.

In short, because the ethnic Irish and German bishops were abusing the Polish portion their flock.

The OCC still had orders at the time they ordained the PNC bishops, who now perpetuate their own bishops.

The PNCC seems frustratingly close to the RCC, they likely wouldn’t disagree with much if anything in V2.

They tend to use and adapt RCC liturgical materials.

They have group reconciliation rather than aural confession to a priest, and married clergy–even after ordination.

The RCC finally sent an observer to the installation of their most recent presiding bishop–it was the first time in recent history that he wasn’t a RC priest who left to marry and then became PNC . . .

They broke communion with the OCC when that groups got the notion it could ordain women, and then attempted to do so.

 

[PrayForMe]

Take it from someone who used to dabble in sedevacantism and all that nonsense when I was brainwashed in my youth (and yes, I repented of it a good while ago): don’t go down that road.

Sedevacantism is dangerous, primarily for two reasons:

1. It gives laypeople the notion that they can be Catholic without any unity what-so-ever with the Roman Pontiff, despite that being a key criteria for being a Catholic. Beyond that, it gives the laity a “power” that they do not truly have, which is to declare that a man accepted as Pope by the entire visible Church and hierarchy is not actually the Pope. This, of course, is a schismatic mentality.
2. I’ve encountered various sedevacantists, and while some of them seem well-intentioned (albeit incredibly misled and on a dangerous path), the majority of them are fixated on the “vacant seat” issue to the point of obsession. The center of their lives becomes not Christ, but their extremist views. They often become engrossed solely in the need to convince others of their position. They, like many other Traditionalists who associate with groups not in union with the Church, are often lacking in charity and place their own beliefs above that of the Church and anyone who tries to tell them they are wrong. This can lead to not only schism, but a severely deficient interior life and lack of basic Christian humility.

Whatever issues you have with Vatican II aside, I would strongly recommend you don’t consider sedevacantism further. Also, stay away from the SSPV, they are a cult. I would find a good priest to discuss your concerns and thoughts with.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

What if the Ordinary Form masses in your area have several illicit actions taking place. So many so that in effect they are further from truth than that of an SSPX mass?
This is a legitimate question. For I see this in my area frequently.

 

[commenter]

Liturgy always was, and is an issue. Doctrine was and is, an issue. But after several decades of separation, time apart is now an issue in itself. For better or worse, there’s now a certain momentum, permanence of institution built up for SSPX that wasn’t there in the 1970s.

You may argue in 2019 it’s a good structure, an experienced system where some younger priests grew up in SSPX chapels. An efficiency of permanence and stability, much more than in the 1980s. Could be.

I’m merely pointing out this is now another issue.

 

[prayinglatin]

If possible I would like to hear from both sides here. My goal is to understand how the two “sides” view each other now — so I can reason with the young man (and, eventually, his parents) on this. To me it’s ludicrous that two good Catholic kids with good intentions could be split up because they go to different “branches” of the Latin Mass church. It just seems insane.

From what I’ve heard from SSPX folks, they generally do not post on here because they are run out of town by those who guard the commends, so you’re likely to only get one side rather than both on this issue. I have friends and contacts in the SSPX, and I can tell you that this particular family’s strong disdain for the FSSP is not the norm. There are some bitter feelings that Some still retain from the initial split where the leaders of the FSSP left after the ordinations and some view them as “traitors” because of that; however, from what I have seen and heard and overall feelings, most on both sides do not have hard feelings. There is a strong movement to reunite the clans, and there are conferences where members of all parties are uniting in the fight against modernism and overlooking the differences.

In a time of crisis, which the Church unquestionably is in today, it is not always clear in the moment the right path to take, and both parties are becoming more and more understanding of the difficult situation everyone was put in while trying–against clear modernist persecution–to preserve the unbroken faith, tradition, and sacraments of the Church as they have been held down and received by their fathers and their fathers fathers back throughout the centuries.

My suggestion, read and bring up Romans 14, bring up the difficulties of the situation we are in as faithful and traditional Catholics, and above all pray and promote the unity of the Spirit and bond of peace (Ephesians). A famous saying, warring brothers become united when a lunatic is at the door. We have many knocking at the door and must overlook these minor differences in approach to unite against the real enemies of the Church and her received traditions.

 

[prayinglatin]

On point. Tradition became the new enemy and illicit innovation was praised and encouraged by silent endorsement, which in some cases led to later official endorsements.

Why persecute those who merely want to continue teaching, believing, and practicing the faith as it had always been practiced prior to V2, especially if as some tried to claim “nothing in the faith changed.” If nothing doctrinal changed, then why would adhering to the teachings of the Church prior to Vatican II now be a “doctrinal issue”?

 

[PrayForMe]

I think I’ve found what I wanted to know, that this is more of a local thing than the norm in the SSPX.

That’s not entirely true. The SSPX has an entire article published on their website addressing the FSSP. I’m not sure if one is permitted to link to the SSPX website here, so I won’t, but I will post a brief excerpt from their site below in which they are referring to the FSSP (I apologize in advance if someone has already referenced this):

In practice, the priests of the Fraternity must have recourse to a Novus Ordo bishop willing to permit the traditional rites and willing to ordain their candidates. They reject the Novus Ordo Missae only because it is not their “ spirituality ” and claim the traditional Roman Mass only in virtue of their “ charism ” acknowledged to them by the pope. Note, for example, the Fraternity’s whole-hearted acceptance of the (New) Catechism of the Catholic Church, acceptance of Novus Ordo professors in their seminaries, and blanket acceptance of Vatican II’s orthodoxy (question 6).

The article goes on to write that attending their Masses demonstrates acceptance of their supposed “compromise”. This is not to say that every SSPX parishioner or priest necessarily feels this way. I do know for a fact that there are some SSPX priests who would not tell someone to stay away from an FSSP parish. However, the SSPX as a whole does generally discourage attendance at FSSP Masses, or any Mass in union with what they would term the “conciliar church”.

Such a mentality is dangerous, and it shouldn’t be difficult to determine why. Not every Catholic has an SSPX Mass in their vicinity. Yet the SSPX has been known to tell Catholics with no Latin Mass in their area, or even those who have a diocesan Latin Mass, to stay home and forego receiving the Sacraments, a practice I would label “spiritual suicide”. There is simply no good reason to stay home when one has access to perfectly valid Sacraments without grave reason.

Anyway, I’m going on a bit of a tangent here, I just hate to see someone with valid Masses in their area told they’re accepting “compromise” by attending them. But to conclude my reply to you, OP, what you encountered isn’t that much out of the norm. Not every SSPX parish or parishioner may be like that, but I wouldn’t exactly say that the SSPX and FSSP are on amicable terms with one another. I mean, it’s likely not a coincidence that there’s an FSSP parish in relatively close proximity to every SSPX parish.

 

[PrayForMe]

What if the Ordinary Form masses in your area have several illicit actions taking place. So many so that in effect they are further from truth than that of an SSPX mass?
This is a legitimate question. For I see this in my area frequently.

I suppose if would depend on what you mean by “illicit actions”. I do not believe I have ever witnessed such a Mass myself (that I can remember, anyway), but I would advise you to perhaps first express your disapproval of said actions with the pastor, and if that does not work, then do as Christ says and “shake off the dust from your feet” (Matthew 10:14) and find another parish. If the solution is for you to attend a Latin Mass, then go for it. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, if you have one available to you and it’s offered by your diocese or a priestly fraternity in communion with the Church.

 

[commenter]

Likewise, SSPX almost always established chapels in areas with a lot of traditional, currently church going type Catholics. They rarely established them near liberal college campuses, or other places where they might have evangelized liberal Catholics, former Catholics, or non Catholics.

In my area, there are many areas or populations with little Catholic activity, or parishes - unchurched, or former Catholics, etc. The PNCC locally is fairly strong, but their only apparent outreach is to currently practicing, but grumbling, Catholics.
They don’t try to bring people into Catholicism, but redirect some of the devout into their denomination.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Right… my bad. I completely forgot about that. I’ll correct my post above.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

What if the Ordinary Form masses in your area have several illicit actions taking place. So many so that in effect they are further from truth than that of an SSPX mass?

illicit does not mean invalid. Seek out better Masses then, but even if you are forced to attend those Masses time to time, it does not really invalidate your intention of visiting Masses for Christ.