What is the SSPX

[ProVobis]

The tragedy of the SSPX is not their insistence that they represent truth, but their believe that they represent THE TRUTH.

Couldn’t this be said of many outside the FSSPX as well?

 

[ProVobis]

I did say that in theory the SSPX still go on about being a part of the Church in theory but the reality of the matter, how things actually stand in their communities, is that they consider themselves the Church and Rome has to come to them.

From reading such comments here, it seems to me that many people on the outside won’t be happy unless the FSSPX bishop(s) start ordaining priests to say the OF on a regular basis, regardless of any canonical status assigned by the Pope. Bishop Meyer of Campos was in full communion with the Pope; yet he was attacked fiercely because he forbade the New Mass in his diocese. IMO, there’s no way the other bishops would put up with this if Bishop Fellay went the same route.

 

[Te_Deum]

From reading such comments here, it seems to me that many people on the outside won’t be happy unless the FSSPX bishop(s) start ordaining priests to say the OF on a regular basis, regardless of any canonical status assigned by the Pope. Bishop Mayer of Campos was in full communion with the Pope; yet he was attacked fiercely because he forbade the New Mass in his diocese. IMO, there’s no way the other bishops would put up with this if Bishop Fellay went the same route.

The Ordinary Form should be suppressed and the Extraordinary Form once again returned to its glorious place as the true liturgical expression of the Latin Church. These are my views on the liturgy.

But you are making the same mistake at At Trent. You are proposing a false dichotomy. We do not have to choose between obedience to the Church and clebrating the EF. When was the last time you were at an FSSP Mass in the Ordinary Form? You’ve never been to one have you? That would be because they do not celebrate the Ordinary Form of the Mass. Yet they retain full communion with Rome and the other bishops of the Latin Church. They have valid faculties from the bishops of the diocese they operate in.

It is not a choice between being disobedient and having the EF and being obedient and being forced to use the OF.

 

[ProVobis]

When was the last time you were at an FSSP Mass in the Ordinary Form? You’ve never been to one have you? That would be because they do not celebrate the Ordinary Form of the Mass.

Not true. Some were in fact forced to celebrate Holy Thursday in the New Rite, at least at one point. Remember Protocol 1411? Bottom line is this, if Rome commands them to say the OF exclusively, they have to obey.

I misspelled Bishop Meyer’s name, by the way, and corrected it.

 

[laszlo]

The Ordinary Form should be suppressed and the Extraordinary Form once again returned to its glorious place as the true liturgical expression of the Latin Church. These are my views on the liturgy.

Do you want to loose 60% of the regular churchgoers? In England there was a survey with this result.

What should be done to make the masses to the places of worship for Jesus Christ, instead of theaters for performance

 

[Will_S]

Do you want to loose 60% of the regular churchgoers? In England there was a survey with this result.

We’ve lost 70% since the changes began in the 1960s.

I’ve got lots of ideas about how the Mass can be improved in comparison to its current low standard. But fiddling with the Mass is what caused all the trouble in the first place. It would be better to just suppress the new Mass and restore the old Mass to make a clean break without fiddling and tweaking.

But the restored old Mass could be in the vernacular most of the time.

 

[Denise1957]

Not true. Some were in fact forced to celebrate Holy Thursday in the New Rite, at least at one point. Remember Protocol 1411? Bottom line is this, if Rome commands them to say the OF exclusively, they have to obey.

I misspelled Bishop Meyer’s name, by the way, and corrected it.

I personally don’t think that Rome will ever command them to say the OF. The reason is that Rome, especially our current Pope, wants those who are attached to the EF to be in communion with Rome. Ultimately it’s about unity.

Not to change the subject here, but I hope that the SSPX will reconcile with Rome, and soon. But Bp. Fellay is in a difficult position. There are both clergy in and faithful attached to the SSPX who likely will not go along with a reconciliation. Bp. Fellay knows this. There will be a breakaway group, even if Rome gives the SSPX something like a personal prelature. I think that Bp. Fellay doesn’t want this to happen. There are probably benefactors who do not want a reconciliation, either.

Also, if we look at what happened to the Transalpine Redemptorists when they reconciled, we get an inkling of what will happen to Bp. Fellay if the SSPX reconciles. The Redemptorists were treated very badly by some traditionalists who thought they were traitors to the cause because they reconciled. The Transalpine Redemptorists were just a small group. The SSPX is much larger. The animosity towards Bp. Fellay, and anyone, really, who are attached to the SSPX (who would go along with the reconciliation) would be quite extreme from those more hard core traditionalists of the SSPX who don’t really want to have anything to do with Rome. But we need those good priests of the SSPX to work fully within the Church!

 

[ProVobis]

Do you want to loose 60% of the regular churchgoers? In England there was a survey with this result.

Since the 60’s that’s probably what has already been lost in England. If a serious move were made to ban the English Mass, it would be in hopes that many of these would come back to church. But we’re only talking hypotheticals here.

What should be done to make the masses to the places of worship for Jesus Christ, instead of theaters for performance

This is easier said than done. Look at what happened to those SJC priests in Volo who tried this.

 

[santodomingo]

The Ordinary Form should be suppressed and the Extraordinary Form once again returned to its glorious place as the true liturgical expression of the Latin Church. These are my views on the liturgy.

But you are making the same mistake at At Trent. You are proposing a false dichotomy. We do not have to choose between obedience to the Church and clebrating the EF. When was the last time you were at an FSSP Mass in the Ordinary Form? You’ve never been to one have you? That would be because they do not celebrate the Ordinary Form of the Mass. Yet they retain full communion with Rome and the other bishops of the Latin Church. They have valid faculties from the bishops of the diocese they operate in.

It is not a choice between being disobedient and having the EF and being obedient and being forced to use the OF.

The exact opposite was true in 1988. Thanks to God and Pope Benedict XVI things have changed for the better, but you must remember that the present problem of the SSPX stems from the situation that existed during Paul VI´s and John Paul II´s pontificates, when the EF was practically outlawed.

You write: “It is not a choice between being disobedient and having the EF and being obedient and being forced to use the OF.”

Msgr. Lefebvre was offered a modern missal, told that if he concelebrated a new Mass he would have permission to consecrate the bishops he wished, and all his problems would be over. He refused. The rest of the story is well known.

 

[ProVobis]

There will be a breakaway group, even if Rome gives the SSPX something like a personal prelature. I think that Bp. Fellay doesn’t want this to happen. There are probably benefactors who do not want a reconciliation, either.

Exactly. And unlike the FSSP, the FSSPX have their own bishops, who have valid Apostolic Succession, which means they can consecrate other bishops who would have Apostolic Succession. We can’t afford another schism at this point; otherwise things would really get messy.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Determining whether their sacraments are valid, invalid, licit or illicit is the sole prerogative of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, not individual members.

Oooookaaaay. “I have not read any credible source saying their sacraments are invalid.” How’s that?

 

[Ridgerunner]

I did say that in theory the SSPX still go on about being a part of the Church in theory but the reality of the matter, how things actually stand in their communities, is that they consider themselves the Church and Rome has to come to them.

I’m not persuaded of this. Perhaps you could quote Fellay or someone who speaks for the SSPX, saying this.

My impression is that the ongoing discusssions really have more to do with bishops than anything else. In other words, if Rome offered the SSPX a personal prelature like Opus Dei has, or the kind of independence the Eastern Catholic Churches have, the whole thing would be resolved.

One can argue that this is an excessive position, and there would be some merit to the argument. On the other hand, the expressed concern of the SSPX is that they could (at one time “would” would have been accurate) be ordered by some bishops somewhere to conform themselves entirely to whatever idiosyncratic views those particular bishops had, which would probably result in the whole thing starting up again.

 

[Denise1957]

Exactly. And unlike the FSSP, the FSSPX have their own bishops, who have valid Apostolic Succession, which means they can consecrate other bishops who would have Apostolic Succession. We can’t afford another schism at this point; otherwise things would really get messy.

True, things would get messy, but it’s already messy with other groups who broke away from the SSPX some time ago. It’s inevitable that there will be a breakaway group if the SSPX reconciles. I don’t think that this should stop the SSPX from reconciling; otherwise, they will never reconcile. Bp. Fellay would be subject to extreme criticism, too. Very extreme. That’s another big factor. But he should be willing to take it.

The question is how to go about doing the best to control the damage, and to keep those who are faithful to the SSPX to go along with reconciliation, which wouldn’t be easy. But I think that our Holy Father knows the situation better than I do, since he has been wanting the SSPX to reconcile for a long time now.

I could be wrong, but I think that eventually, some in the breakaway group would eventually return to Rome. I think that in their heart of hearts, all Catholics know that where they belong is with Rome.

 

[Ridgerunner]

True, things would get messy, but it’s already messy with other groups who broke away from the SSPX some time ago. It’s inevitable that there will be a breakaway group if the SSPX reconciles. I don’t think that this should stop the SSPX from reconciling; otherwise, they will never reconcile. Bp. Fellay would be subject to extreme criticism, too. Very extreme. That’s another big factor. But he should be willing to take it.

The question is how to go about doing the best to control the damage, and to keep those who are faithful to the SSPX to go along with reconciliation, which wouldn’t be easy. But I think that our Holy Father knows the situation better than I do, since he has been wanting the SSPX to reconcile for a long time now.

I could be wrong, but I think that eventually, some in the breakaway group would eventually return to Rome. I think that in their heart of hearts, all Catholics know that where they belong is with Rome.

I think the SSPX knows it too, which is why they are in dialogue with the Vatican about their status.

The breakaway groups, like SSPV, are so far out that I can’t see them ever reconciling with Rome. Some of them even have their own “pope” now. I suspect most of that sort have already left the SSPX.

 

[ProVobis]

I could be wrong, but I think that eventually, some in the breakaway group would eventually return to Rome.

Perhaps but the real (and immediate) issue is with canonical status of/for the four bishops.

 

[laszlo]

Perhaps but the real (and immediate) issue is with canonical status of/for the four bishops.

To return as whole group: may be

To return are partial group: no;

 

[Denise1957]

To return as whole group: may be

To return are partial group: no;

Not necessarily. Pope Benedict has already said, in his most recent book, that if he had known the views of Bp. Williamson, he would have considered him separately from the others regarding the lifting of the excomms.

 

[Transformer]

The debate in this thread is very educational. I don’t know a whole great deal about the SSPX, so I can’t contribute much. My general feeling on the subject has always been simply this: I’m a bit appalled by the fervor with which some traditionalists work to defend and paint in a good light a blatantly disobedient group, just because they have similar liturgical views.

 

[Will_S]

The debate in this thread is very educational. I don’t know a whole great deal about the SSPX, so I can’t contribute much. My general feeling on the subject has always been simply this: I’m a bit appalled by the fervor with which some traditionalists work to defend and paint in a good light a blatantly disobedient group, just because they have similar liturgical views.

It’s not about liturgy. It’s about doctrine. Liturgy comes into play because the traditional liturgy better expresses the doctrine of the Mass as defined at the Council of Trent.

 

[Transformer]

It’s not about liturgy. It’s about doctrine. Liturgy comes into play because the traditional liturgy better expresses the doctrine of the Mass as defined at the Council of Trent.

Even if your personal judgment (that the Tridentine Mass reflects the doctrine of the Mass better than the Mass of Paul VI does) is correct, that does not justify large-scale disobedience, or making excuses for large-scale disobedience, or the attacking of documents of the most recent Ecumenical Council, a thing which the SSPX frequently engages in.