SSPX-SO - new group status?

[Mrs_Sally]

Mrs. Sally, I am surprised to read this from you.

Wouldn’t this be a good time, having them so close to you, to do special penances and add a few extra prayers for the scales to fall from their eyes?

What a golden opportunity for you during this Year of Faith - an evangelizer’s dream come true!

You are so right! Thank you for that very timely reminder!!

 

[Lormar]

You are so right! Thank you for that very timely reminder!!

I’ll help you out from a distance, Mrs. Sally, with my own prayers and sacrifices. If I lived nearby you, we could plot and scheme how to win these souls back to Holy Mother Church.

And that gives me an idea for you. Do you know anyone in your parish who would join forces with you for these souls?

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Actually, I do know quite a few folks who would. I appreciate your prayers and I will let you know how many others we can get to join us!

 

[Lormar]

Actually, I do know quite a few folks who would. I appreciate your prayers and I will let you know how many others we can get to join us!

:clapping:

This is exciting. Keep me posted please.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Rofl if this turns out to be real. And sad.

 

[JReducation]

I have heard that there is a new splinter group from the SSPX formed in the Virginia, USA area calling themselves the “SSPX-SO” (Society of St. Pius X – Strict Observance) because they disagree with certain aspects of what Bp. Fellay is doing in his discussions with Rome. Has anyone here been following this, and what, if any does this mean with regards to this “new” group of Catholics? Are they regarded as the same as the SSPX when the Church thinks of them (valid but illicit priests/sacraments), and are this new group truly schismatic, unlike the ordinary SSPX?

Thank you!

There is not much to say about it. It’s a renegade group from the SSPX. Its priests continue to have no canonical place in the Church. Worse yet, they’re not even a recognized group as far as the Church is concerned.

They are not in schism, but they are schismatic. Their attitude toward the Holy Father and the Roman Curia is defiant, disrespectful, and at times competitive. Yes, competitive. They want to speak as a second Magisterium.

If they ordain a bishop, they will certainly excommunicate themselves. The Holy Father will not need to say a word. The excommunication was built into the law by Pope Paul VI to save the pope and bishops the trouble of having to make embarrassing public statements that make the Catholic Church look idiotic.

Strict Observance was the name of a Masonic order of the 18th century that claimed to be descended from the Knights Templar. They weren’t on good terms with the Pope, either.

The term “strict observance” is a very common one in any type of order. The Masons are an order, as are the Knights of Columbus, the Cistercians and Franciscans. We tend to think of an order as a religious order. Such is not the case. There are many secular orders inside and outside the Church.

The term strict observance was coined by St. Bernard and companions when they founded the Trappists. It was later used by Franciscans when a group broke away from the main body and called itself by that name. Today, that group is simply called that Franciscan Friars, as opposed to the Capuchin Franciscan or Franciscans of Life, etc.

Carthusians, if memory serves, are officially Cistercians of the Strict Observance. They are on excellent terms with the Pope

No no no. Carthusians are not even an order. They don’t have a rule. St. Bruno did not give them a rule. Every charterhouse is autonomous. St. Bruno gave they first houses statutes by which they govern themselves. These have become part of Catholic tradition. However, the hermit (they’re not monks) add and delete to those statutes according to the needs of the time.

Back to this business of the SSPX - SO, I don’t think this will prosper, especially if they are trying to take off in Northern VA. There are two dominant groups in Northern VA, Jews and Irish Catholics. The Arlington Diocese is one of the best run and most orthodox diocese in the country. The only reason that they don’t have more priests is because they don’t have more Catholics. It’s not a lack of vocations. It’s a small pool. But Catholics in Northern VA are very active in their parishes. I was stationed there for three years. It’s an awesome place to work. Unfortunately, we had to leave, because everyone there has an income. We don’t serve people who have a income. We only serve the poor and voiceless.

Another thing about that area is that they have many Hispanic Catholics who are very involved in the Church. I can’t see these folks joining a renegade group that has no moorings.

 

[AspiringServant]

Mrs. Sally, I am surprised to read this from you.

Wouldn’t this be a good time, having them so close to you, to do special penances and add a few extra prayers for the scales to fall from their eyes?

What a golden opportunity for you during this Year of Faith - an evangelizer’s dream come true!

I am not a member of SSPX or SSPX SO and never have been. I am old enough to have learned my altar boy prayers and served my first mass in Latin. I was baptized Roman Catholic (due to no eastern rite church in my town) but am Eastern Rite by birthright.

The scales are not on their eyes. They are on yours. The scales are on the eyes of a duplicitous church wherein its members are diametrically opposed on critical catholic issues, sit next to one another in the same pew.

I would be happy to debate you or anyone else on this forum about the validity of SSPX and SSPX OC’s issues with Vatican II, but I doubt anyone would accept the debate.

The last time I pointed out errors on this site, not a single soul could defeat my arguments and therefore, the administrators erased them.

So I highly recommend you do not wallow so much in your self righteous pride about the current condition of the Holy Catholic Church because she is definitely wounded.

It is a sickening sad day, when those who practice the same Catholicism of some 1600 years are spoken of with less respect given to an atheist or non christian.

 

[Dom_Desiderius]

On a positive note for you all, at least there is no chance at all that they will ever be sedevacantists.

I have met one of the priests at St. Athanasius who is originally from vietnam, I enjoyed his thoughts. He was very firm that they most definitely believe that the current Pope is the genuine pope and that will never ever change.

Now what’s interesting is that the Chapel of St Athanasius was originally cut off from the SSPX around 1982 for the priest who was there at that time becoming a sedevacantist. Apparently most of the people there disagreed with him, but this still led to some mistrust from the the rest of the SSPX.

The chapel has a long and storied history. Pat Buchanan, Michael Davies and a few other prominent catholics have worshiped there from time to time, in it’s nearly 40 year old history. I believe it’s been open since at least 1967.

I don’t have the best feelings about the SSPX of the strict observance, but I dont have especially bad feelings either.

If you think about it, it’s better that they have some form of unity with other clergy than continue to be “independent”, and that is the advantage of the current situation.

However on the other hand, the negative side to the current situation is that despite their technical status as independent, they were still listed on the SSPX chapel locations website until this summer. And until this summer had been receving confirmation of young adults from an SSPX bishop. In this sense, they were in practical terms not independent from the SSPX, even if officially yes.

It is indeed a convoluted story but I asure you many of the people there have very good intentions. The chapel certainly can’t be written off as completely evil.

And besides some of the rather liberal practices that have gone on in nearby churches are rather embarrassing. I recall the roman catholic church in reston, va still reflects many of the worst elements and abuses of associated with the post-vatican II era. I also know St. Mark’s in Vienna, VA has had plenty of conflicts between traditional leaning and “modern” leaning parishners, the details of the opposing views between parishoners was documented in the 2006 book “American Sanctuary: Understanding Sacred Spaces” Pages 135-140, it is very illustrative of the average parish situation of northern virginia.

The Diocese of Arlington seems to me to have a very unique mixture of very traditional masses and very un-traditional masses. It seems as if each parish caters to a different crowd, and sometimes even at different masses in the same parish. I have never seen that much variety and opposites before. For the most part it is one of the better dioceses in the USA for traditional masses - but it depends which parish you visit, otherwise you might be in for quite a surprise “contemporary” kumbayah mumbo jumbo. In actuality the Diocese of arlington was cut off from from Diocese of Richmond, VA because Richmond was considered too liberal !
This is documented by Rev. Franklyn M. McAfee here: http://tallguyav.com/stjhomilies/101017.homily.mp3

These are complicated situations and need to be understood as such. Whatever their official status as schismatic or not schismatic.

Are the fruits of churches that are not in good standing always worse than the ones that are in good standing? I’m not trying to break any rules here, I hope I am making some sense. There is black and white ways of looking at things, but also the grey areas.

 

[Digitonomy]

Back to this business of the SSPX - SO, I don’t think this will prosper, especially if they are trying to take off in Northern VA. There are two dominant groups in Northern VA, Jews and Irish Catholics. The Arlington Diocese is one of the best run and most orthodox diocese in the country. The only reason that they don’t have more priests is because they don’t have more Catholics. It’s not a lack of vocations. It’s a small pool. But Catholics in Northern VA are very active in their parishes.

Br. JR, please correct me if I’m mistaken, as I’m basically pulling this all out of my hat. However, it seems to me that even with the points that you made, Northern Virginia could still be a good location for them.

1. *]The area has a lot of transplants from other parts of the country who may not have had at home the positive experience you report for Northern VA. *]Many of them are younger, and thus more willing to try something new, and possibly more idealistic as well. ]There may also be transplants who attended SSPX chapels previously, who discover that the nearest SSPX chapel is in Richmond.]It doesn’t take a huge number of members for a chapel to do well, especially if they are involved and have money to spare.
   Of course if my logic is correct, one may well question why the SSPX isn’t present in the area.

 

[Dom_Desiderius]

Quotes regarding St. Mark’s which offer some history as to the motives behind those who offer their support the schismatic "St Athanaius parish:

“The current structure of St. Mark’s is designed and furnished in accord with Vatican II, which favored nearly circular seating and minimal ornamentation (semi-iconoclasm) of the interior in order to direct attention to the worshipping community By situatiing the pews around three sides of the thrust altar, the community is meant to witness itself as “the people of God.” In this understanding of sacred space undertaken by Vatican II, the space itself is relatively devoid of inherent meaning: it is the ritual action performed there that makes it sacred. Vestments, banners, and tapestries made by the congregation are interchanged according to the liturgical season.”

"The installation of the crucifix and statues at St. Mark’s parish revived the debates that accompanied the paradigm shift in Roman Catholicism after Vatican II, reopening battle lines that have split the parish between liberal and conservative factions in the past forty years: the age-old conflict between priest and people over parish control; aesthetic debates between priest, architect and parishioners; and conflicts between progressives and conservatives in the congregation. At St. Mark’s the pastor allegedly commissioned each artwork based upon recommendations of the Art Committee, but in fact he either overrode or altered the committee’s wishes. As with other parish debates on ritual furnishings, the source of this tension has increased because of a recent influx of members into the parish who have revived such mainstays of Tridentine Catholicism as the Marian sodalities and the altar guild. The Liturgy and Art Committees believe that their progressive vision and its related ecclesiology have been underminded. For progressives, the new crucifix is a reminder that Vatican II’s pronouncements about simplification of liturgy and church interiors have not been interpreted in the same way by everyone and may, in fact be losing ground despite the American bishop’s attempt to clarify standards in “Build of Living Stones: Art, Architecture, and Worship,” a document published in 2000. But because the Catholic Church has done little to educate adults about the meaning of liturgical forms promoted by Vatican II or even about the items used in “modern” worship, the potential for a backlash whose goal is to restore what was once familiar to the previous generation remains strong.

As a consequence, four decades after the Second Vatican Council, the Church is still struggling for acceptance of it’s pared-down and communal liturgical ideals against the nineteenth century’s highly figurative decor and Baroque concept of “a highly dramatic altar, visible to all but defended from the congregations approach by a moat of excessive height and communion rails.” Perhaps Catholics’ disdain for modern worship spaces stems as much from “an appetite for material clutter aquired from the dominant market culture” as it does from religious sentiments. In fact, in bypassing Modernism and a most hospitable postmodernmish, Catholics have missed the revival of historicism and "are now twice-removed from the artistic currents of the day, having never come to terms with the modernist spirit… and having more recently missed the emergence of a newer and decidedly non-modern means of expression.

The case of St. Mark’s presents a post-Vatican II parish being altered in pieace-meal fashion into a preconciliar church, but it is not unique among wars being waged in many Catholic churches. As it acquires the trappings of an earlier era of devotional Catholicism, St. Mark’s has become a hybrid church where saints’ statues and side altars compete with Vatican II’s insistence upon the Eucharist as the center of liturgical experience.

Modernist architecture and design has seemingly threatened American Catholics in three areas – their notions of tradition, community, and the sensual object. Predictably traditionalist critics make these aspects of modernist ethos the starting points of their polemics. As it’s title suggests, Ugly As Sin: Why They Changed Our Churches from Sacred Places to Meeting Spaces-- and How We Can Change Them Back Again encourages laypeople to “take back” their buildings and restore their traditional trappings. The author, Michael Rose (a frequent contributor to “Latin Mass Magazine”), believes that there are “natural laws of Catholic Church architecture” from which modern designers have strayed. (In fact, Rose judges the new L.A. cathedral discussed below to be one such violation.) Much of his text is an attact on the design principles urged upon Catholics in works such as those by Edward Sovik, “a Protestant architect with a decidedly Protestant viewpoint advocating the reform of Catholic Church architecture to conform with his Protestant theology and ecclesiology.” Catholic liturgist James F. White agrees that much of the ecclesiology and liturgical reform recommended by Vatican II was inspired by Protestantism but notes that its benign intention was to strengthen unity between Roman Catholic and the Other Christian churches.

St. Mark’s design conflcits are part of multilayered contests about faith and its symbols which represent a polarization among Catholics, a parish’s struggle to preserve the spirit of its founding against newcomers determined to revive a nostalgically remembered Catholicism and against an increasingly conservative diocesan clergy that takes its from the Vatican administration of Pope John Paul II.

Given the attacks from traditionalists, who defends the goals of Vatican II?

American Sanctuary: Understanding Sacred Spaces by Louis P. Nelson , 2006, pages 138-139.

The author of that book certainly has an agenda.

 

[Dom_Desiderius]

Quote continued

It is no accident that supporters of the Latin Mass, Gregorian chant, subordination of women, and papal infallibility also are leading the movement to get ride of what they call “The Most Boring Common Denominator” modern sacred architecture and reinstate the days of ornate church interiors which served as a stage set for the Tridentine Mass, a mysterious spectable to be admired but not joined. Perhaps what conservative Catholics miss is the sense of awe and grandeur that they associate architecturally with verticality and permanence. Indeed, Catholic churches of a century ago dominated their surroundings and announced themselves as sacred spaces by their solid exteriors, steeples, and bell towers. On the suburban front, as at St. Mark’s, Catholic churches build since the 1960s often display the functional anonymity of public buildings of the postwar decades and use similar construction materials: concrete, steel, aluminum, or brick exteriors; unremarkable window treatments; blond wooden pews; streamlined font and altar designs; and glass and carpeting of an indifferent quality.

Despite those essentialists who cling to the notion of an unbroken and static Catholic tradition, Vatican II refreshingly acknowledged that sacred spaces change and can continue to change by permitting Catholic parishes to modify their spaces to suit their local needs. Further, in authorizing the removal of physical barriers such as the altar rail which had divided the clergy from the laity, separated the the laity from the tabernacle, and designated the altar as a space off-limits to women, Vatican II deemphasized hierarchalism, clericalism, and sexism.

These are the outrageous views that Fr. Ronald Ringrose of St Athanasius Church decries. They are views that are used to defend the current novel status quo in many dioceses.

 

[JaMc]

Never hear of them, but I’m not surprised. Nor would I be surprised if Bp. Williamson joined up, or maybe even took the lead on this thing.

 

[Catholic4Jesus]

I have heard that there is a new splinter group from the SSPX formed in the Virginia, USA area calling themselves the “SSPX-SO” (Society of St. Pius X – Strict Observance) because they disagree with certain aspects of what Bp. Fellay is doing in his discussions with Rome. Has anyone here been following this, and what, if any does this mean with regards to this “new” group of Catholics? Are they regarded as the same as the SSPX when the Church thinks of them (valid but illicit priests/sacraments), and are this new group truly schismatic, unlike the ordinary SSPX?

Thank you!

Aw yes we see the bad fruit from the bad tree. Our Lord said that every house divided against itself shall fall. We see that since they’d rather listen to their cult leaders instead of Jesus Christ, they’re now beginning to split. Just like the Protestant Reformation began with about 5 reformers but 500 years later, is split up into 25,000+ denominations. SSPX’ers and Sedevacantists are really nothing more than a specail breed of Protestantism. My predictions are (from what I’ve seen) is that Bp. Fellay and his followers will open up to Rome and will be accepted back in and the SSPX-SO followers will follow the other two bishops and continue to rebel against the Church, or they’ll do the same by follwoing Bp. Williamson who I hear has just been expelled from the SSPX for disobeying Bp. Fellay and many of the SSPX’ers have left to go follow him.

 

[Dee_S]

I pray that this group, if it forms (heaven forbid that!), doesn’t actually make VA it’s main headquarters. I can just imagine the drama if they do. Hopefully, they will be like the Amish and go find a nice quiet place without a lot of people.

‘Pray’ is the operative word and I join you Lormar and all who do so for this ‘group’.

 

[Tomdstone]

SSPX’ers and Sedevacantists are really nothing more than a specail breed of Protestantism.

I thought that SSPX was part of the Catholic Church since their excommunications have been lifted. Protestants are outside of the Catholic Church, which is not the case with SSPX.

 

[Dee_S]

I have been learning quite a bit about this group recently. I was very chagrined to find an ‘independent’ Catholic church operating down the road from me that I never realized was there!

The ‘priest’ at this church was not even part of the SSPX, but had separated himself awhile ago. Then over the summer (or maybe earlier) when the discussions were going on between the Vatican and the SSPX, a few SSPX priests in South America were disciplined and joined up with the VA priest to form this new group.

Now with Bishop Williamson gone from SSPX, he will be meeting with the VA group to potentially ordain another bishop for their splinter-splinter group.

It makes my head spin! And yes, it sounds exactly like the various protestant groups splitting over how much water you needed to baptism someone (sprinkling vs emmersion) so something of the kind.

I pray that this group, if it forms (heaven forbid that!), doesn’t actually make VA it’s main headquarters. I can just imagine the drama if they do. Hopefully, they will be like the Amish and go find a nice quiet place without a lot of people.

I couldn’t agree more! Their ‘website’ has been up and running since mid 2012 and a more vile, nasty and obnoxious place you would be hard put to find.

Their so-called title of “Strict Observance” is so misleading, that it’s something of a sick joke in itself. They grant themselves licence to say the most appalling things about Bishop Fellay and the Holy Father - downright sinful.

Somehow I don’t think the moderators or CAF would want this group in open discussion here…let’s hope no one else comments here. We can pray for them, that’s no problem, but…

 

[pnewton]

I thought that SSPX was part of the Catholic Church since their excommunications have been lifted. Protestants are outside of the Catholic Church, which is not the case with SSPX.

Calling them Protestants is both inaccurate and contrary to the request by the moderator here. It is unfair rhetoric. It should suffice that they have no ministry in the Church. However, as Catholics (which they still are, in communion with the Church) they are subject to canon law. Protestants are not subject to canon law.