The SSPX (without a flamewar)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maximilian75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, I do see their point.

It would be like the UK reneging on article 50 and wanting all their earlier opt-outs back.
Not going to happen.
 
Prior poster:

"It’s a disturbing factor in Rome.

There is an awful lot of hypocrisy in the sentiments of some churchmen…"
[/quote]

I don’t know if this a relief or a disappointment, but I’m sure in most places the Church thinks about the SSPX less than you think they do, and less than they used to. 40 years ago the priest at that chapel used to be a diocesan priest. There was the Jones family, from this parish, the Montel family that pulled out of that parish, and we remember that guy who used to teach CCD for us before he got angry and joined SSPX.

In 2018, the priest and attached laity likely grew up in SSPX. Each decade the chapel is a little more distant. It’s less relevant.
 
Last edited:
We are talking about two different things. I’m talking about talks with Rome and you are talking about mainstream Catholics in general being aware that the SSPX even exists.

Except for mainstream Catholics who frequent Catholic forums or follow Catholic news sites, I would wager that those who don’t can’t name five living Cardinals.

I doubt they know the SSPX exists either.
 
It wouldn’t surprise me that if and when unification happens, a large number of Catholics begin attending the SSPX chapels.
 
MagdalenaRita said:
It wouldn’t surprise me that if and when unification happens, a large number of Catholics begin attending the SSPX chapels.
Click to expand...
There’s one much closer to me than the nearest FSSP. If there were unification, I’d certainly be interested in attending sometimes.
 
CradleRC58 said:
Except for mainstream Catholics who frequent Catholic forums or follow Catholic news sites, I would wager that those who don’t can’t name five living Cardinals.
Click to expand...
Even among mainstream Catholics who are well informed about Catholic matters, many have never heard about the SSPX, and of those that have, few give them much thought.

I was oblivious to their existence until I started hearing about them in connection with antisemitism and Nazi sympathies. I hadn’t heard much about them until the Williamson fiasco, and didn’t really research them until the notorious Priebke funeral, which got a lot of news coverage, Catholic and secular, at least in Europe where I was living at the time.
 
IMO, most of their congregation would be more than willing to come back to Catholicism if the FSSP and diocesan TLM had the ability to replace the Society…
 
Maximilian75 said:
IMO, most of their congregation would be more than willing to come back to Catholicism if the FSSP and diocesan TLM had the ability to replace the Society…
Click to expand...
Perhaps the FSSP and diocesan TLM did replace the Society as it was a few decades ago. But since then the Society has taken on its own traditions, its own momentum. Structures intended to be a means to an end, are now an end.

In a decade or two it will have moved farther down its own path.
 
Last edited:
Max, that’s an odd comment.

They would be returning to full communion with Rome, not returning to Catholicism.

The SSPX has an office in the Vatican. BXVI lifted the excommunications and addressed them as Bishop.

How could he lift excommunication on non Catholics ?

Cardinals have visited Econe Since BXVI’s SP. SSPX priests have trained Diocesan priests to pray the TLM.

During the year of Mercy Pope Francis allowed them to hear confessions and if I’m not mistaken he granted an extension of permission to do so.

Discussing schismatic attitudes is one thing, but claiming the society and their laity are not practicing Catholicism isn’t true.

That said if one has a diocese TLM, I would recommend to go there rather than an SSPX chapel.
 
BridgetN said:
SSPX officially states that, but I do know some Catholics believe
Click to expand...
They’re right that evolution is false. A younger earth than that of what secular scientist is true but 3,000 years is far too recent.
 
There are lots of threads on evolution. Let’s not derail this one.
There is a diocesan Latin Mass near e so that is where I would go.
 
thistle said:
40.png
semper_catholicus:
It wasn’t a dogmatic Council.
Click to expand...
There have not been such things called dogmatic councils. They were Ecumenical Councils.

Vatican II was an Ecumenical Council.
Click to expand...
With each year, Vatican 2 becomes less relevant to the SSPX situation. It really is the last 50 years of Church history, and specifically the current dioceses and/or traditional orders that are important, for priests and families.

There have been, at least, 99 clarifications of Vatican 2. Even if the 100th is pleasing to SSPX, who is to say that is more authoritative than #104 coming out later.

Clarification of V2 solves nothing. Reunion will come about only as individual priests and attached families, on their own, find the advantages of their 2018 diocese or FSSP to be better than remaining in sspx. It’s a personal or family decision, based not on Rome negotiations but on their home city in 2018.

For those remaining in sspx, there will be gradual public recognition this is a different denomination.
 
Last edited:
What will the SSPX do once their bishops pass away? If they consecrate a new generation of bishops, they will basically declare themselves in schism. Isn’t there thus an expiry date to this whole affair? The next generation of SSPX will either have to be fully reconciled with Rome or go into full out schism. Am I missing something?
 
OK, so this is not an uncontroversial claim, but I don’t care because it is not meant to be rude.

I have done an in depth study of the heresy of Jansenism. The primary heretical element in Jansenism was not the rigidity, not the opposition to the sacred heart and the tender devotion to the blessed virgin, but this- The denial that the Pope can make determinations in relation to dogmatic facts. What does that mean? Well, the Jansenists were reading a book by Cornelius Jansen called “Augustinus.” This book contained five propositions the Holy See claimed were heretical. The Jansenists said “Fine, we agree, they are heretical. BUT these propositions are not actually IN THIS BOOK, so we can go ahead and continue to read it as long as we agree with the condemnation of the DOCTRINE.” And for THIS they were condemned by the Holy See.

Now, to establish not only what is doctrinally false or true, but WHERE those doctrinal truths or falsehoods are located pertains to dogmatic FACTS. The Church is INFALLIBLE when it comes to establishing dogmatic facts. Some of these dogmatic facts are- the canonization of saints, the identification of her head (the Pope) and establishing what actions are or are not schismatic.

Now, what do the Feeneyites, Sedevacantists and SSPX all have in common? The denial of dogmatic facts. SSPX denies that when the Pope says, “Your act of consecration I take as an act of schism” that they need to abide by that judgment. To say nothing of the fact that they are now taking the position that canonizations are not infallible. The sedevacantist says “The Church can not identify her head,” even though the 19th century Theologians teach that to know whether a pope is a true pope or not is a matter of dogmatic fact. And the feeneyites refuse to accept the judgments of the Holy Office in regard to the necessity of water baptism.

The denial of these dogmatic facts seems to be a hallmark of all false traditionalist movements, as exemplified by the Jansenist and seen in these three groups in the present day.
 
My SSPX and sedevacantist friends- often when we consider the crises in the Church, what we want first and foremost is to be faithful.

Unfortunately, our notion of faithfulness (speaking for myself especially) is guided by our ego and knee-jerk reactions. Faithfulness that is pleasing to God is not any kind of “faithfulness” to our own eyes, to our own sensibilities and to our own judgments, but to Christ alone in the person of his vicar.

Not primarily to a particular form of the mass, not primarily to our private reactions to controversy, but to objectively BE what we are meant to be- docile to the legitimate authority- not usurped authority.

If you really and truly have faith that Christ is the one who builds his Church upon Peter, then you will obtain peace by resting in Christ alongside Peter. You will have peace in calmly researching and listening to answers that give Vatican II and the Holy Father the benefit of the doubt. Consider your own hearts- to insist on our own private understanding and “The evidence of my own eyes!!!” What kind of faith is that? What requires greater humility? What requires greater suffering?

And darn it, why are my Novus Ordo friends so much more patient and charitable than I am!!!

Faith.
 
StAugustine said:
And darn it, why are my Novus Ordo friends so much more patient and charitable than I am!!!
Click to expand...
I read that often, but I have not found that to be so. They are no more charitable and patient than those I have encountered in traditional chapels.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top