What Impact Has The SSPX Had On The Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dempsey1919
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dempsey1919

Guest
What impact has the SSPX had on the Church? Would the Church be different today if the SSPX did not exist? Has the SSPX made no difference whatsoever? Would we have the EF Mass? Would the other traditionalist orders exist?

Many people believe that the SSPX saved the EF Mass from extinction. Some believe that Traditional Catholicism survived only because of Marcel Lefebvre. Others believe that the SSPX damaged the traditionalist movement. What do you think?

Please Note: Please remember to be charitable when you reply. Do not slander any Form of the Mass, do not slander any priests or bishops. Please remember that the SSPX are Catholic and should be treated with respect. You may not agree with their views or their actions, but please do not bicker. It would be a shame if this thread was locked because of arguments.
 
Here’s what I think:

There would be no Summorum Pontificum without the SSPX and the FSSP would not exist. However, I think that the SSPX would have been able to have greater impact if they had been obedient to the Holy Father. I pray that they have their canonical status resolved so that they can continue ordaining priests, and so that they can positively impact the Church in the future.

The SSPX is currently the black sheep of the Catholic world. Nobody likes talking about them because it makes people feel uncomfortable. I think this is a shame. Afterall, they are Catholic, they are valid priests, and they preach the faith in it’s entirety. They disagree with Vatican II, but we must remember that Vatican II was not a doctrinal council. They preach the faith, but they disagree with the pastoral guidelines of Vatican II.
 
Dempsey1919, I just happen to agree with you. SSPX has led the way in adhereing to the 1962 Rite. So its taken most of the abuse in the press and within the Concilliar church.

You are also right that FSSP would not exist and probably the others Institute of Christ the King, the Wyoming Carmelites, the Clear Creek Benedictines, not to mention the European traditional Orders.

SSPX opened the door for the rest. (just my humble opinion, so don’t ask for any “documentation”)
 
corsair said:
Dempsey1919, I just happen to agree with you. SSPX has led the way in adhereing to the 1962 Rite. So its taken most of the abuse in the press and within the Concilliar church.

You are also right that FSSP would not exist and probably the others Institute of Christ the King, the Wyoming Carmelites, the Clear Creek Benedictines, not to mention the European traditional Orders.

SSPX opened the door for the rest. (just my humble opinion, so don’t ask for any “documentation”)
Click to expand...
I agree with you and Dempsey almost entirely. One of Dempsey’s points that I disagree with, however, is that I don’t think the SSPX would have had the same type of influence they have if they had “been obedient”.

Lefebvre knew the needs of his society better than anybody else, and he required four bishops to continue his work. Rome had permitted the possibility of only one (and somewhat vaguely, at that). I don’t think Rome would have come through for them and would rather have waited the three years to Lefebvre’s death, and then sort of let the SSPX disappear, or at least see what would happen. I mean, the FSSP doesn’t have a bishop yet, do they? How many years have they been waiting for one? 20?

Although I’m sure we’ve all thought “what if” in regard to the SSPX, but I just don’t think many of the improvements we’ve seen lately would have taken place ever without Lefebvre and his work. I think the FSSP was a reaction to the SSPX, and without them, I doubt the FSSP would have been started. Also, I don’t think we would have had SP if not for the SSPX as well.
 
Dempsey1919 said:
They disagree with Vatican II, but we must remember that Vatican II was not a doctrinal council. They preach the faith, but they disagree with the pastoral guidelines of Vatican II.
Click to expand...
I know I’m hijacking the thread here, but this needs to be said. No Catholic may disagree with Vatican II – certain interpretations of it, yes, but never outright disagreement. The fact that it’s pastoral makes no difference. Pope Paul VI said the following to Archbishop Lefebvre:

“You cannot invoke the distinction between dogmatic and pastoral in order to accept certain texts of the Council and to refute others. Certainly, all that was said in the Council does not demand an assent of the same nature; only that which is affirmed as an object of faith or truth attached to the faith, by definitive acts, require an assent of faith. But the rest is also a part of the solemn magisterium of the Church to which all faithful must make a confident reception and a sincere application” (Letter to Archbishop Lefebvre, Nov. 10, 1976).
 
Abenadar said:
Lefebvre knew the needs of his society better than anybody else, and he required four bishops to continue his work. Rome had permitted the possibility of only one (and somewhat vaguely, at that). I don’t think Rome would have come through for them and would rather have waited the three years to Lefebvre’s death, and then sort of let the SSPX disappear, or at least see what would happen. I mean, the FSSP doesn’t have a bishop yet, do they? How many years have they been waiting for one? 20?
Click to expand...
How do you know this? Are you clairvoyant?

How can you substantiate the statement “I don’t think Rome would have come through for them and would rather have waited the three years to Lefebvre’s death?”

Are you privy to something that the rest of us aren’t???
 
Timothysis said:
How do you know this? Are you clairvoyant?

How can you substantiate the statement “I don’t think Rome would have come through for them and would rather have waited the three years to Lefebvre’s death?”

Are you privy to something that the rest of us aren’t???
Click to expand...
Well, he did put forward the FSSP. They don’t have a bishop yet and it has been 20 years since their founding.
 
Timothysis said:
How do you know this? Are you clairvoyant?

How can you substantiate the statement “I don’t think Rome would have come through for them and would rather have waited the three years to Lefebvre’s death?”

Are you privy to something that the rest of us aren’t???
Click to expand...
My post started by saying I agreed with the opinions of Dempsey and corsair. Anyway, in my post I thought I made it clear that I was expressing opinions…If not, sorry. When I said “I don’t think Rome would have come through for them”, what I meant was…

…I don’t think Rome would have come through for them…
 
DavidJoseph said:
I know I’m hijacking the thread here, but this needs to be said. No Catholic may disagree with Vatican II – certain interpretations of it, yes, but never outright disagreement.
Click to expand...
It’s not Vatican II istelf that the SSPX has a problem with. Rather, it is the “certain interpretations” of it. That’s why the SSPX and Rome are currently holding doctrinal talks…In order to clarify the meanings of some things from the council, since there are so many interpretations.
“You cannot invoke the distinction between dogmatic and pastoral in order to accept certain texts of the Council and to refute others. Certainly, all that was said in the Council does not demand an assent of the same nature; only that which is affirmed as an object of faith or truth attached to the faith, by definitive acts, require an assent of faith. But the rest is also a part of the solemn magisterium of the Church to which all faithful must make a confident reception and a sincere application” (Letter to Archbishop Lefebvre, Nov. 10, 1976).
Click to expand...
Ok, but once again, the problem isn’t with the council or the documents so much as it is with certain interpretations. “Sincere application” can mean one thing to one person, and another thing to somebody else if there’s as much confusion sewn into a document. The Church used to be very precise in its language and that changed at VII. The proof for this statement is in the fact that our beloved pope is currently having these talks with the SSPX. At least he agrees that there can be, and has been, much confusion.
 
I think The Latin Mass Society and Una Voce have as much to do with preserving the codified Gregorian Rite as the SSPX. The SSPX are not the only traditional clergy in the Church.

I don’t think they have harmed the Church, but I don’t feel they have had as much of an impact on the Church overall that may be hinted toward on web forums. Most catholics don’t even know they exist.
 
At_Trent said:
I think The Latin Mass Society and Una Voce have as much to do with preserving the codified Gregorian Rite as the SSPX. The SSPX are not the only traditional clergy in the Church.
Click to expand...
Latin Mass Society and Una Voce are not clergy per se. The SSPX were probably the only traditional clergy prior to 1988 still in existence today.
 
ProVobis said:
Latin Mass Society and Una Voce are not clergy per se. The SSPX were probably the only traditional clergy prior to 1988 still in existence today.
Click to expand...
I understand that, perhaps it’s the way I included the statement about traditional clergy in the same paragraph.

The “Agatha Christie indult” was granted in '71 and the SSPX was formed in '70 I think. But what I meant was, that not all clergy who wanted to continue praying the old Mass were in the SSPX.

As far as an order formed for the preservation of the old Mass, the SSPX may be the oldest. I like the SSPX and admire them, but don’t recognize them as “the remnant” of the Church. After all, there are many clergy speaking out on things, such as COTT for example, that are no different in essence than what an SSPX priest might say.

The SSPX certainly has been most vocal, and with the internet now a public medium, they have raised awareness of some of the problems with the “spirit of VII”.
 
Abenadar said:
It’s not Vatican II istelf that the SSPX has a problem with. Rather, it is the “certain interpretations” of it. That’s why the SSPX and Rome are currently holding doctrinal talks…In order to clarify the meanings of some things from the council, since there are so many interpretations.

Ok, but once again, the problem isn’t with the council or the documents so much as it is with certain interpretations. “Sincere application” can mean one thing to one person, and another thing to somebody else if there’s as much confusion sewn into a document. The Church used to be very precise in its language and that changed at VII. The proof for this statement is in the fact that our beloved pope is currently having these talks with the SSPX. At least he agrees that there can be, and has been, much confusion.
Click to expand...
Well, Dempsey said the SSPX disagrees with Vatican II, not with faulty interpretations of it.
 
DavidJoseph said:
Well, Dempsey said the SSPX disagrees with Vatican II, not with faulty interpretations of it.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but criticizing the spirit of Vatican II or how it was enforced or pointing out its ambiguities isn’t necessarily “disagreeing” with Vatican II.
 
ProVobis said:
Maybe, but criticizing the spirit of Vatican II or how it was enforced or pointing out its ambiguities isn’t necessarily “disagreeing” with Vatican II.
Click to expand...
I never said it was. Again, I was merely repeating what Dempsey said:
They disagree with Vatican II, but we must remember that Vatican II was not a doctrinal council. They preach the faith, but they disagree with the pastoral guidelines of Vatican II.
Click to expand...
Nothing about the “spirit of Vatican II” or the council’s ambiguities there.
 
DavidJoseph said:
I never said it was. Again, I was merely repeating what Dempsey said:

Nothing about the “spirit of Vatican II” or the council’s ambiguities there.
Click to expand...
The SSPX believe that there are problems with the Vatican II documents themselves. If it was just the “spirit” of Vatican II that they took issue with, then they would probably be where the FSSP are right now. But because they believe that the documents themselves contradict existing Catholic doctrine, they are at an impasse and cannot accept Vatican II.

Hope this helps. 🙂
 
My experience has been that most Catholics are unaware of the existence of the SSPX. No priest I have ever talked to gives them any thought. Maybe that is different elsewhere, but I would say I know of little to no impact that have had on the Church as a whole. That is not to say that they have not been a significant force in the spiritual growth for many individuals, or even a stumbling block for some.
 
pnewton said:
My experience has been that most Catholics are unaware of the existence of the SSPX. No priest I have ever talked to gives them any thought. Maybe that is different elsewhere, but I would say I know of little to no impact that have had on the Church as a whole. That is not to say that they have not been a significant force in the spiritual growth for many individuals, or even a stumbling block for some.
Click to expand...
I agree. I seldom hear the SSPX mentioned by anyone except on this site. I think their impact is minimal.
 
Tsuwano said:
I agree. I seldom hear the SSPX mentioned by anyone except on this site. I think their impact is minimal.
Click to expand...
Maybe not directly on your or many Catholics. But, I think they have a large and definite impact indirectly.

For example, who bombarded Heaven with rosaries for the liberation of the TLM? The SSPX

The SSPX’s role is to ensure their are traditional priests to celebrate the TLM. They are a missionary order, and a very successful one at that. “Out of Africa.”

Without the SSPX, the TLM would have died out long ago. It is because of them that JPII granted the indult and formed Ecclesia Dei.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top