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.
I find it a complex and difficult situation. Simple in some ways, but not really. When attempting to sort out the motives and understandings that the SSPX has, we must be charitable but truthful. We have to see the good in them and also the errors.
Archbishop Lefevbre didn’t intend to start a new religion or to break from the Church, but his decisions had big consequences.
Much of the confusion about the SSPX comes from the mixture of a modern, ecumenical perspective and the traditional Catholic one.
In traditional Catholic terms, the SSPX is condemned. Schism or not, the traditional Catholic policy has always required obedience to the Pope. There was no semi-Catholic stance. You were either in or out, and the Pope determined it, as did actions such as obedience to local jurisdiction. There was no way to claim that an individual group had greater understanding of the Church than the Holy See does, so that (as the SSPX claims) they are privileged to act against the Pope because they see an “emergency” situation that the Pope does not see. None of the Saints acted that way. When St. Athanasius was exiled, he accepted it. When St. Padre Pio was silenced, he obeyed. This is even though those punishments were unjust.

The term “schism” is debated. SSPX defenders will say “they’re not in schism” and if that can be proven somehow, supposedly, the debate about their status is over.
But as above, the SSPX is in direct conflict and disobedience with the laws of the Church. They have been found to be as such by the Holy See and have been commanded to return to the jurisdiction of the Church. Schism or not, that is a big problem. Certainly, it may be possible to stand against the legal authority of the Church and insist that you are correct, and eventually be proven right. It has happened in rare cases. But it’s a huge risk.
But regarding the question in this thread, what has to happen in that case, is the SSPX is saying that they cannot, in good conscience, tolerate obedience to the authority of the Pope.
But what does that say about the FSSP and the rest of us? Clearly, we must be wrong about something, otherwise the SSPX would join us.
But what the SSPX is forced to say is they cannot accept the rules that the rest of us live under because it would threaten the Faith to do so … ?
That is strange. It would be necessary to say that the FSSP, for example (and every Catholic obedient to the Pope) either has some kind of compromised religion, is in error or doesn’t have the Catholic Faith.
I find that arrogant and totally misguided.
 
Admittedly, the situation was much different in 1976. Nobody knew how bad it was going to get. The archbishop made a decision in a crisis-mode. He saw the persecution and hatred against traditional teaching in the Church and he took a calculated risk. The belief was, “if we don’t act for ourselves, against the Pope, then (not just traditional) but True Catholicism will no longer exist”. I have sympathy there. The situation was horrible in the 1970s. But even still, there were many good priests who just stayed the course. Obedience is a form of humility. It’s not a popular virtue. We don’t admire the obedient ones, but instead we applaud the rebels and the rule-breakers. I’m reminded of Jesse James, and how he was a folk hero, although a murderer and thief. We like the rebel and the individualist.
But it’s not the 1970s any more. The Church has matured, come to grips with the problems of Vatican II (at least somewhat moreso) and there are many traditional Catholics in the Church, in perfect obedience to the Pope and the bishops.
To me, claiming by necessity to be the only defenders of Catholicism is crazy and dangerous - and totally wrong. The SSPX has set itself up as the custodians of the true Catholic Faith, the saviors of the Church. Many of their supporters believe the same. By necessity, therefore, the rest of us are holding a false religion. We are not upholding the Catholic Faith if we are obedient to our bishops and to the Holy See.
Strangely, in spite of that fact, I find many people who do accept the authority of the Church to, at the same time, defend and support the SSPX as if there is no problem with that at all.
But I think, actually, those people would not choose to leave their parish and diocese to actually join an SSPX parish, at the risk that means to their own salvation. How would God judge such an act?
So, there’s that confusion. The SSPX benefits from post-Vatican II legislation where they can “get away with” some rank disobedience of the Pope. They can cite ecumenical norms.
That is where it is contradictory:
“We want to be treated with the same tolerance and ecumenical gesturing that you treat Protestants, homosexuals and non-Catholics and at the same time, uphold teachings that oppose ecumenism and all the tolerance that the modern Church has adopted”.
I find that dishonest.
We should not site modern-day errors in judgement by Church leaders as an excuse for your own disobedience, expecting that that same errors should equally apply to you.
God does not want to know if you were treated fairly as compared with everyone else, but if you were faithful under whatever conditions you faced.
I was very sorry to learn from Michael Voris’ investigation of sexual abuse among SSPX clergy (which the SSPX admitted to) which is now undergoing legal investigation in Kansas. Can the group claim some sort of divine mandate as new prophets, the last true Catholics holding the Faith, in the face of those terrible sins?
 
Even people who are not christian or don’t have a permanent residency?
 
Last edited:
Even people who are not christian
Yes. A pastor (of a territorial parish) is responsible to praying for every single person (Christian or not) who lives in the territorial boundaries of his parish.
or don’t have a permanent residency?
Well, everyone has a “permanent residency,” (in terms of canon law) even if that’s not where they currently live. Which parish they belong too could be up to debate, but they do belong somewhere.
 
Last edited:
How can nomadic tribes have permanent residency?
I think we’re moving off topic. And asking the wrong questions. Nomads obviously (or maybe not so much) must belong to the parish in which they are currently located. Just like they probably don’t have a permanent doctor or library but can utilise the local facilities anyway.
 
But what’s the point of even having a parish in that case? People who are not christian, who do not come in contact with the church in any way and maybe doesn’t even know that it exists?
 
But what’s the point of even having a parish in that case? People who are not christian, who do not come in contact with the church in any way and maybe doesn’t even know that it exists?
The prayers of the priest and the parish are certainly worth something to the lost souls
I
 
Prayer is always helpful of course, but does it need to be the priest of the local parish?
 
Well, every baptized Catholic belongs to a parish… I would think non-Catholics within parish boundaries fall under a pastor’s general obligation to evangelize / receive them into the Church, but they aren’t members of the parish per se.
 
Prayer is always helpful of course, but does it need to be the priest of the local parish?
The pastor is in charged with all the souls living within his territorial parish, the same say the bishop is in charged with all the souls living within his diocese.

A real life example of how this comes into play…

Let’s say a person who has never been to mass is on his/her deathbed. The family decides to call a Catholic priest to give last rites. It would be the RESPONSIBILITY of the pastor for that terriorital parish to visit that person.

Most Protestant communities on the other hand are not terriorital, therefore, it would not be the “responsibility” of any individual minister to visit the person unless the family or person on the deathbed was a member of his congregation.

In other words, protestant ministers visit strangers only out of their love of Christ, which Catholic pastors visit strangers out of BOTH love of Christ and canonical obligation.

I hope this makes a little more sense.
 
Last edited:
Well, every baptized Catholic belongs to a parish… I would think non-Catholics within parish boundaries fall under a pastor’s general obligation to evangelize / receive them into the Church, but they aren’t members of the parish per se.
They are members, the same way people who live in the territorial boundaries of a diocese are members of that diocese.

“Registering” at a parish has nothing to do with membership (unless it’s for a Personal Parish). The registration thing is mostly an American innovation in the Church, which SOME other places have adopted, but it’s not a canon law thing.

NOTE: baptized and confirmed Catholics in good standing, do have more “rights” within a parish, but technically speaking, every human living inside the boundaries are “members” of the parish.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I know that registration has nothing to do with canonical parish membership. What I meant is that all baptized Catholics belong to a geographical (or in some cases, personal) parish - but non-Catholics would not be members per se until baptized.
 
Yes, I know that registration has nothing to do with canonical parish membership. What I meant is that all baptized Catholics belong to a geographical (or in some cases, personal) parish - but non-Catholics would not be members per se until baptized.
No, they are “members.” However, they are not fully initiated until they complete all 3 Sacraments of Initiation.

What you are thinking of is technically a “member in good standing” and/or a “fully initiated member.”
 
After a brief perusal of the state of the Catholic Church in Antarctica, I would venture to guess that there is no territorial parish on that continent, and the faithful may come under the jurisdiction of some diocese of Argentina, because I cannot find solid evidence of a separate Apostolic Vicariate.
 
You are right. At least the Argentinian part of the Antarctica is part of the Rio Gallegos Diocese. Also, most of the people in Antarctica are under military service, so I guess they are also under the Military Bishopric of Argentina

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Here is a Chapel in Antarctica!
 
Last edited:
After a brief perusal of the state of the Catholic Church in Antarctica, I would venture to guess that there is no territorial parish on that continent, and the faithful may come under the jurisdiction of some diocese of Argentina, because I cannot find solid evidence of a separate Apostolic Vicariate.
The Churches in Antarctica are most likely Personal Parishes or some kind of mission Chapel.

Today, I think the only regular service Masses are by the Argentinians. Until 2015, the Diocese of Christchurch in New Zealand sent a priest to offer mass at the Chapel of the Snows. But Catholics attending the Chapel of the Snows has decreased, so the Diocese pulled out.

Today, the Chapel of the Snows sometimes has mass when a priest in the US Military visits to offer mass.
 
Talk about being deprived of the Sacraments for frequent and extended periods of time! I can’t imagine being a Catholic researcher with no expectation for the Eucharist or Confession or anything else, for months on end.
 
I could say that ego drove them to division.
😱

WOW. 🤦‍♀️

I have the official biography of Archbishop Lefebvre by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais. To paraphrase from the biography:

At the start of VII, Archbishop Lefebvre was the head of the Holy Ghost Fathers - then the largest missionary order in the world. Under Pope Pius XII he was an Apostolic Delegate. His name is engraved in St. Peter’s Basilica because he was one of the bishops who subscribed to the dogmatic definition of the Assumption in 1950.

After VII, he was forced out as Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers (because his reforms didn’t go far enough for many members).

He was approached by 12 seminarians (one of whom became Bishop Tissier de Mallerais) who asked him to help them become good priests. How could he refuse such a heartfelt plea from these seminarians? That’s how the SSPX started - out of a plea from seminarians.

I also have The Little Story of My Long Life which is a transcription of the talks that the Archbishop gave to the SSPX Sisters (who are religious and founded by his real-life sister, Mother Gabriel). His words are full of joie de vivre and wisdom. When I read his words I feel joyful.

To paraphrase from The Little Story of My Long Life, he wanted to go the nearby diocesan seminary. His father told him No, you’re going with your brother to Rome. He didn’t want to go. His father told him you’re going to Rome and that’s final. If he had not obeyed his father and gone to Rome, he never would have met Fr. LeFloch who had a profound influence on him, never become a Holy Ghost Father, nor a bishop, nor an Archbishop, nor Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers, nor founded the SSPX. All of that started because he obeyed his father.

That little book is a joy to read too.

The first care of Archbishop Lefebvre was the salvation of souls. That animated everything he did. Next year will be 30 years since he passed away on the Feast of the Annunciation. Whether or not one agrees with him, he should at least have prayers for his soul.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top