The SSPX (without a flamewar)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maximilian75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I did not think you were in SSPX or Protestant, of course, but I had to dance a little with your “devil’s advocate” challenge. Those are not easy.

I wish we had a FSSP parish in our diocese. I occasionally attend the diocesan TLM.
 
kill051 said:
The big similarity I see between SSPX and Protestants is: disobedience.
Click to expand...
You can include those who introduced Communion in the hand.

Truth About Communion in the Hand While Standing

Sacred liturgy and liturgical arts. Liturgical history and theology. The movements for the Usus Antiquior and Reform of the Reform.
www.newliturgicalmovement.org www.newliturgicalmovement.org

Allow me to add that many years have passed since the indult allowing CITH was finally granted. Those who receive CITH today are not in disobedience. But any discussion of CITH vs COTT should clarify that before the indult, CITH was indeed an act of disobedience and liturgical abuse. And in this case, Disobedience of Pope Paul VI himself.

If we are going to wave the banner of disobedience, wave the entire banner, without trimming of the fat 😉
 
Last edited:
The Old Catholics of the Utrecht union, too.
They walked out after Vatican I, when the new Marian dogma became compulsory on top of the Pope making himself infallible.
 
SnowRose said:
The Old Catholics of the Utrecht union, too.
Click to expand...
Until a few years ago, when they demonstrated that they don’t understand the nature of orders.

Today, they are no different than any randomly chosen Protestant group (although they still have some priests left with orders).
SnowRose said:
They walked out after Vatican I, when the new Marian dogma became compulsory on top of the Pope making himself infallible.
Click to expand...
The pope didn’t “make himself infallible”; the council declared that under a very narrow set of circumstances he could ratify with infallibility.

Those who think that they won’t have a bunch of fingers left after counting all of the infallible papal statements don’t understand the doctrine . . .

hawk
 
Well, since this thread specifically asked not to start a flamewar I won’t. Lets say we don’t agree and leave it at that.

I just mentioned them as another group that had their start in a council’s pronouncements. By now they may be more in line with the other high church protestants of the west, given various agreements, but only the future will tell if the SSPX will go the same route.
 
SnowRose said:
now they may be more in line with the other high church protestants of the west
Click to expand...
This is how I’ve regarded them- liturgically high-church, but rather liberal socially.

I don’t know their theology too well…
 
Real presence, avoid the filioque, reject purgatory, immaculate conception, papal infallability and they ordain women etc.
They’re holding talks to sign communion agreements w the Anglicans and the Church of Sweden, which sort of confirms your summary.
(Quick google and their own sites on ecumenism)
 
Last edited:
Maximilian75 said:
How are they with the EO then?

(probably not too well because of the whole socially liberal thing)
Click to expand...
It says they are holding theological talks, and it’s pretty vaguely phrased. The other site said the filioque was optional, which the Orthodox probably don’t approve of, but which works better for the rest of the high church protestants.
 
Last edited:
Maximilian75 said:
How are they with the EO then?
Click to expand...
The notion that they can ordain women separates them as far from the EO as it does the RCC. (This is where they lost orders and apostolic succession, as the lack the understanding of the sacrament to be able to ordain)

hawk
 
I wish people would stop referring to SSPX as a single, unchanging entity. It’s a group of Individuals who due to changeover are drastically different from most of the individuals who were there 40 years ago. Unlike those persons, the majority of 2018 individuals have never worked one day in a diocese, never worked in conjunction with other religious orders, nefer functioned as a priest in relation to a bishop ordinary. They have never had any training approved by a ordinary. They likely had few, if any teachers, who ever worked in a diocese.

Yes they do work hard! But the great majority of 2018 persons are in a different situation from 1978 men
They (1978 men) were men of the Church by background and experience much more than most 2018 men.

The SSPX may not yet be fully developed as a separate denomination. But it is much closer to that than 40 years ago based on individuals. In another generation it will be closer still, based on retirements.
 
Last edited:
Lormar said:
How is it that this thread is still going and my thread, in which I asked a simple question - is it a sin to attend weekly Sunday Mass at an SSPX chapel - was unceremoniously locked and deleted?
Click to expand...
Threads can get locked/deleted for all kinds of reasons, often having nothing to do with the OP. Perhaps your thread spawned a bunch of flagged replies and this one hasn’t yet - it all depends how the thread develops (and, often, who hijacks it and how far).

Regardless, this inquiry is against forum rules (“Judgments by the Moderators can be discussed with the Moderators via private messaging but not on the board itself.”). By posting it, you’re now risking this thread. If you must know the answer, PM the mods; they may or may not tell you.

But the best practice is just to move on and understand that they don’t delete threads for no reason - something must have really gone wrong and it may have had nothing to do with you at all. Since most SSPX threads go off the rails once people start replying, it is entirely plausible (and normal) to me to suspect that yours did, too.

Edit: sometimes you can view your deleted threads (for awhile) in the Google cache and see the problem posts and therefore know where things went wrong. I’ve had good results with that in the past, however, I’m not seeing your thread there.
 
Last edited:
The excommunications were lifted and Catholics can officially satisfy their Sunday and Holy Day obligations of attending Mass by attending SSPX Masses. They refuse to accept a number of Vatican II decrees and tinkering with the form of the sacraments. They don’t join the FSSP because it is under the direct authority of the Pope and any merger would result in the SSPX having to conform its views of Vatican II to the new thinking of the modern church.
 
barbarossa1 said:
They don’t join the FSSP because it is under the direct authority of the Pope and any merger would result in the SSPX having to conform its views of Vatican II to the new thinking of the modern church.
Click to expand...
Most years, some SSPX priests DO join the modern? church. Among many other things, their ministry greatly expands the number of parishes offering the TLM.

They are involved in Catholic Action, in unity with their bishop ordinary, as called for by Pope St. Pius X. Each year, some attached laity rejoin their parish and diocese. They get active on diocesan prolife efforts, for instance. Reunion is about individuals, not corporate agreements.

Of course, there are other SSPX priests and attached laity joining the Resistance. They attack the SSPX “Vatican” as much as the SSPX hits the one in Rome. They say the SSPX has drifted away from the Tradition of Archbishop L.
 
Last edited:
That is such a shame I think, I wish they would come back into the fold fully, if that is the right expression, the FSSP do so well for those who wish for the ‘62 missal under their local Bishops’ authority.
 
I don’t agree that the SSPX is really a “disturbing factor”. The great majority of laity would have no idea what SSPX is. Pastors are losing some sheep to non denominational churches, and more sheep to secularism, but not to the local chapel. It may as well be in the next diocese, for all the impact it has. It “disturbs” nothing.

I see it as a lost opportunity. There are enough people locally supporting a diocesan TLM, with rotating priests. The community is something like a parish, but there is no full time dedicated priest.

This diocesan TLM community supports solid doctrine and family strengths, and opposes liberal trends, as the SSPX presumably does. But unlike the SSPX, the community also (selectively) supports and directly participates in solid things going on locally, prolife and other things.
The diocesan community affects the region; the SSPX chapel seems to be almost hermetically sealed off.
 
Last edited:
From the interview,
"RE: Do you trust the Holy Father Pope Francis personally?

Bishop Fellay: We have a very good relationship. When we let him know that we are in Rome, his door is always open. He constantly helps us on a less important level. For example he told us: “I have problems when I do something good for you. I help Protestants and Anglicans—why can’t I help Catholics?” Many want to prevent unification. We are a disturbing factor in the Church. The Pope stands in the middle"

It’s a disturbing factor in Rome. There are churchmen in Rome that don’t want the SSPX back and never will. No matter what the Pope says. It was evident when BXVI lifted the excommunications and it is evident now.

The past two popes efforts to bring the SSPX back into the fold, imo, show clearly that collegiality has progressed so far as to undermine the primacy of the papal office.

There is an awful lot of hypocrisy in the sentiments of some churchmen in Rome.

jmo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top