Why don’t members of the SSPX simply switch to the FSSP?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Batman2.0
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As an attendee of the local SSPX run church and community…the whole cqnon law thing about what constitutes schism etc makes my head hurt. Of course, the SSPX denies any schism, rather that the Vatican 2 thing was a deviation from the teachings of the Church. So in other words the shoe is on the other foot.
 
Margaret_Ann said:
who was not a schismatic
Click to expand...
“Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning of 17 June last and the repeated appeals to desist from his intention, has performed a schismatical act by the episcopal consecration of four priests, without pontifical mandate and contrary to the will of the Supreme Pontiff, and has therefore incurred the penalty envisaged by Canon 1364, paragraph 1, and canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law.” Decree of excommunication.

I know the excommunication was lifted, but he was a schismatic, clearly.
 
St. Athanasius was excommunicated by Pope Liberius, so hopefully +Lefebvre is in good company.

If Archbishop Lefebvre had not done what he did, the TLM would not be as available today nor the traditional Latin form of the Sacraments.

I think one day he will be canonized.
 
Last edited:
stpurl said:
Hmm where is the ‘primacy of conscience’ that is so often extolled regarding ‘other’ people? You know, the people whom we are supposed to ‘tenderly accompany’ when they have ‘difficulties’ with Catholicism. Seems like we are only tender with certain groups. Others are more likely to get ‘tenderized’ (i.e., pounded on).
Click to expand...
Some people/groups need “tough love,” not tender.

Jesus was not always sweet with people. He gives each of us whatever we need to become saints.
 
So ‘tough love’ means that a group of people who routinely deny and mock Christianity are ‘tenderly accompanied’, allowed to remain doing and saying things which obfuscate teachings, and even confirmed in their wrongdoing lest we Christians be seen as ‘not nice’. . . But another group who confirms Christianity, is trying to live Christian teachings, is trying to make teachings CLEAR, is maintaining Christian practices. . . That SECOND group is told how horrible it is for asking that Christians be allowed to continue Christian practices which had never been abrogated.

The double standard here I’m sorry is just mind-boggling. The demonization of a group of people who have been painted as ‘the enemy’ simply for ‘holding fast to the truths given, by word or letter’, as St. Paul tells us, to the point where today one can be “Catholic’ by virtue of baptism and promote gay marriage, abortion ‘rights’, etc and be ‘tenderly treated’, but let a Catholic speak of Latin or ask for a firm attention to the Four Last Things etc., suddenly “O no you hateful nasty rigid medieval bigot, YOU aren’t Catholic, you’re schismatic, you’re disobedient.

If people were consistent it would be one thing.

And you know, I hardly see Jesus as saying, “oh yes of course, be tender to the people who flout My commandments, they’re my real friends. The ones who are trying to make sure My commandments are understood are just being ‘rigid’. Shun them instead.”
 
stpurl said:
The demonization of a group of people who have been painted as ‘the enemy’ simply for ‘holding fast to the truths given, by word or letter’, as St. Paul tells us, to the point where today one can be “Catholic’ by virtue of baptism and promote gay marriage, abortion ‘rights’, etc and be ‘tenderly treated’, but let a Catholic speak of Latin or ask for a firm attention to the Four Last Things etc., suddenly “ O no you hateful nasty rigid medieval bigot, YOU aren’t Catholic, you’re schismatic, you’re disobedient.
Click to expand...
The hostility you describe was more common in the 1970s than today. In my diocese the extremely liberal priests and nuns, who had a lot of clout, have died or retired, and the young priests and rare young sisters are mostly very different. My former pastor, president of the priests Senate, told my wife I was a reactionary. He’s dead. Replacement different.

Liturgical abuses once common are seldom seen but still exist. A few Diocesan priests take turns celebrating the EF which would have been unthinkable in the 1970s.

The people who support the Diocesan EF are also active in regional diocesan initiatives, such as prolife. The local church is shrinking, and far from perfect. But we need more helpers within the diocese dealing with the internal and external enemies.
 
Last edited:
Batman2.0 said:
If the FSSP is in union with Rome and all, then why don’t all the members of the SSPX join them? After all, both of these groups offer the traditional Latin mass. What’s the difference? Thank you all!
Click to expand...
I think in some cases it might simply be a matter of practicality. Perhaps there isn’t an FSSP Church nearby and all they have is an SSPX chapel or vice verse.

In my case the FSSP Church was further away and over the three years I was attending, attendance skyrocketed, to the point it was standing room only.

The SSPX chapel I begin attending was closer and nearly three times the size. It was simply a better fit for my family.
 
PaulinVA said:
Aren’t both priestly societies? Are you asking about the priests, or lay people who attend their Masses?
Click to expand...
Yes quite right. Why do people insist on calling laymen who go to SSPX Masses “members of SSPX? “ You don’t call laymen who go to Jesuit Masses “Members of the Society of Jesus” do you?
 
Last edited:
Aside from the numerous theological and organizational reasons, there is the practical.

Moving your family, finding a new job in a new city or state is a practical reason.
 
Maximian said:
40.png
PaulinVA:
Aren’t both priestly societies? Are you asking about the priests, or lay people who attend their Masses?
Click to expand...
Yes quite right. Why do people insist on calling laymen who go to SSPX Masses “members of SSPX? “ You don’t call laymen who go to Jesuit Masses “Members of the Society of Jesus” do you?
Click to expand...
“Jesuit” or 'FSSP" parishes are really diocesan parishes.

Those parishes are very much under the bishop, though the religious have a superior somewhere else who has little to do with the Laity. Public ministry is supervised by the bishop.

This may partly explain why some people describe them differently.
 
Last edited:
There is also the factor of Ministry. Just like in a Congregation’s School, laymen in an Order’s Parish help priests with their ministries and are practically formed in the spirituality of the Order, even if they are not consecrated in the secular branch of it.
 
Regardless, you cannot be a member of SSPX without becoming a priest or nun
 
Last edited:
twf said:
40.png
HomeschoolDad:
I don’t know if Bishop Fellay has any sort of succession plan to consecrate “replacement” bishops, or if that is even seen as an issue “on the table”.
Click to expand...
If he does, he will “re” excommunicate himself…unless somehow the Pope agrees to the proposal. If he doesn’t, I don’t see how the SSPX could survive. Once all current living bishops die, that’s the last generation of SSPX priests, no? Unless I’m missing something, SSPX has a ticking clock…they either reconcile fully with Rome prior to that happening, or they go full blown schism and start consecrating new bishops.
Click to expand...
No. They will be able to find a bishop to ordain their priests. They will either find a bishop in full communion with the Church (which would be their first choice) or find a out a bishop not in communion to do the ordination (which would be their desperate action).
 
Last edited:
sealabeag said:
40.png
Margaret_Ann:
who was not a schismatic
Click to expand...
“Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning of 17 June last and the repeated appeals to desist from his intention, has performed a schismatical act by the episcopal consecration of four priests, without pontifical mandate and contrary to the will of the Supreme Pontiff, and has therefore incurred the penalty envisaged by Canon 1364, paragraph 1, and canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law.” Decree of excommunication.

I know the excommunication was lifted, but he was a schismatic, clearly.
Click to expand...
I’m not a defender of the SSPX nor of the archbishop, but this is not a fair representation.

The statement does not mean that he was a schismatic. It was considered a schismatic act, but it does not mean that the person is schismatic.

There is a difference.

One can believe a heresy and still not be a formal heretic. Schism is similar.

The archbishop did not intend on becoming a schismatic. That was not his intent nor goal when he defied the Holy Father. His act was disobedient for sure. And the act itself was “OBJECTIVELY” schismatic. But subjectively, we know that wasn’t the intention.

If it was the intention, the archbishop would have dropped the Pope from the Canon during mass, which he & the SSPX do not do.

So while the act was objectively schismatic, it doesn’t mean that the archbishop was subjectively a formal schismatic.

God Bless
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top