What issues keep the SSPX irregular?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Onthisrock84
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My friend, I think we’re saying pretty much the same thing, though your expression of it is far superior to my own.

Thanks for amplifying and adding clarity to my POST,

Patrick
 
Onthisrock84 said:
I was just curious. While they are not in complete schism from the Church and are allowed to validly hear confessions and witness marriages in the Church, it seems they are closer than ever to being in full communion with the Church again. They are of irregular status, which I don’t know exactly what that means but basically from what I’ve been told it means their sacraments are valid and are Catholic. They however are not in full communion like the FSSP or the ICKSP, however are not sedevacantalist like the SSPV and the CMRI.
What is it the SSPX refuses to concede, or even the Vatican possibly that causes them to remain irregular? It is saddening. The SSPX is by far the largest of all of the societies who offer the Extraordinary Form. It would be so nice if they were in full communion again.
Click to expand...
Very simple. They refuse to obey the Pope.
 
Well I mean I think it should be celebrated everywhere at least in one or two churches in a diocese. An unfortunate thing, and I have heard priests at SSPX masses is they tell faithful, not to go to Extraordinary Form masses done by diocese priests or even societies in good standing with the Holy See, claiming that “modernism” may well be incorporated into it, and also say the vast majority of diocese priests aren’t actually prepared to say the Extraordinary Form validly and thus may have error. I was somewhat shocked at that.
 
Well it kind of wasn’t an organic development. The Masses are two distinct Masses. It isn’t like the 1970 Missal was just a new typical edition of the Missal. It was a promulgation of a totally new one. Thus why the 1962 version is the last typical edition of the Mass of Pius V. Personally I would love to see a new typical edition of the Extraordinary Form come out, as Pope Benedict XVI said can and should happen with new saint feasts etc. I think however this would once again be an issue with the SSPX.
 
I would have thought the saying the Mass as usually celebrated is ‘evil’ would count as an issue.
 
So what your saying basically is it was Cardinal Muellers fault by adding this part all sneaky like that?
I believe they should only have to accept the validity of the novus ordo, not the laicity of it. That’s somewhat a ridiculous thing to force them to acknowledge they obviously have a very strong preference for the Extraordinary Form. I mean even I personally, I go to both forms but deep down I feel the EF is somewhat holier than the OF.

Interestingly my mom who grew up when the changes were happening, the slow introductions of the vernacular and finally the novus ordo, doesn’t seem to understand why on earth I prefer mass said in Latin. I assume many people wouldn’t. The vernacular makes it easier for parents with small children I will say that. I see small children at EF and God bless those parents. Some of the kids even have a “children’s missal”. It always makes me happy to see kids engaged like that.
 
To be fair, that is a reasonable requirement from Rome, since it goes to the very authority of the papacy:
  1. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.[50]
50 Cf. [1917] Code of Canon Law, can. 1257.
Mediator Dei (November 20, 1947) | PIUS XII
Click to expand...
Validity alone doesn’t mean much, since even Black Masses are valid…
 
Last edited:
Last year, Rome and the SSPX were inches away from an agreement that would have regularized the SSPX and granted them a prelature. Everything was agreed upon; Bp. Fellay was ready to sign the doctrinal declaration presented to him. At the last minute, however, Cdl. Müller rewrote the declaration and added another clause—the SSPX would have to acknowledge not only the validity, but also the liceity of the Novus Ordo. In other words, would have to recognize that the TLM and the Novus Ordo are on an equal footing. This was a dealbreaker, because for the SSPX, the Novus Ordo is not a product of organic development, and consequently is not equal to the TLM. This demand caused negotiations to break down, and since then there haven’t been any significant developments, aside from the election of a new Superior General.
[/quote]
I realize and respect the insight you have from Europe, which I lack. My own comments:
  • SSPX has reportedly been inches away from a prelature, an ordinariate, a Something, for years. I suggest this perhaps this was their strategy for keeping in those who were leaning towards Rome, “Just wait a LITTLE longer”.
  • A one-size-fits-all agreement would be a disaster. The acceptance of the TLM in some places is far greater than other places. Where I live, the SSPX chapel is like a fort, “protecting” people by isolation from a compatible diocese, and vibrant diocesan TLM community. Other places are different.
  • Some former(?) or CURRENT, SSPX clergy are more or less in the Resistance, or leaning that way. Would they all be auto-incardinated en mass if there was a one-size-fits-all? SSPX does not operate consistently under canon law, so it is unlikely any of their excommunications would be enforceable under canon or civil law. The SSPX itself would be divided over who they would “count” as a member. #litigation #Bishop Williamson can claim membership #some SSPV can claim current SSPX membership too; #lawyers, lawyers, lawyers
  • Compare this nightmare with the current, successful, “come-in-when-you-are-ready” unification program. Better for the Church, respectful of different individuals and families. Why is this success rarely mentioned?
  • There may be a few places, like France, where perhaps a more drastic solution is needed. Give FSSP their own non territorial diocese there, with a 10 year limit.
 
Last edited:
Yes it’s true. I have met SSPX priests who act just like a diocese priest. Speak about the current state of the Church like any regular priest.
I also have met some who even though I don’t think is the official society stance have openly criticized the Church and the Pope and even questioned the validity of the new Mass.
 
I think when it comes down to it, they refuse to accept some wording of the second Vatican Council and also refuse to accept the Mass of Pius V is equal to the Mass of Paul Vl. I think they don’t believe in calling Protestants or Orthodox as " separated brethren " but the old " heretics" term and also say one can only be saved through the Church, no questions asked.
 
Last edited:
Onthisrock84 said:
and also say one can only be saved through the Church, no questions asked.
Click to expand...
That’s not an SSPX exclusive mentality, that’s a teaching of the Church. Outside of the Church there is no salvation, and they do not believe in Feeney’s heresies regarding that teaching either.
 
Last edited:
The Second Vatican Council didn’t change the wording at all? I thought they did. I could be wrong though. Thanks for the correction.
 
Onthisrock84 said:
The Second Vatican Council didn’t change the wording at all? I thought they did. I could be wrong though. Thanks for the correction.
Click to expand...
The understanding did, not the wording itself. After all, where did the Protestants get the truth of a Triune God? The Catholic Church. What they have that is true is from us.

Also, the beliefs Protestants have that contradict Church teaching are still called heresies. Heresy and heretic are not outdated terms.
 
Fauken said:
Also, the beliefs Protestants have that contradict Church teaching are still called heresies. Heresy and heretic are not outdated terms.
Click to expand...
Except that Protestants are not heretics. The founders of Protestantism were heretics as they were actually Catholics who walked away from the Church and rejected the Pope and many doctrines.
Anyone born and brought as a Protestant is not a heretic, even though certain beliefs are heresies.
 
I would say traditional Protestants aren’t heretics but certain sects that arise to this day the people are.
But no, Anglicans and Lutherans etc aren’t heretics but their founders were.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top