Author Topic: Who is the FSSP? (Read 11308 times)

Stella · « **Reply #60 on:** March 05, 2013, 05:21:40 PM »

I belonged to an FSSP parish for several years, while periodically also attending the SSPX. Both are quite far from where I live, and logistics and transportation concerns had a lot to do with it.

After returning full-time to the SSPX several months ago, because their position is the one I with which I most concur, imagine my surprise to find how much the Society had changed and how similar it was to the FSSP that I had left. That is why I now attend the Resistance Masses wherever possible.

As with the SSPX chapels, there is quite a bit of variety depending on the location in the FSSP. So I wouldn't make any sweeping generalizations. However, a good reference point for both groups is their website.

Lately there have been some really awful sermons at the nearest SSPX chapel, and I can honestly say that I have heard many that are more hard-hitting and inspirational at the FSSP, though I have no intention of returning.

Yes, there are some excellent priests in the FSSP, and I was blessed to have one of them as a confessor, but even he was operating within the framework of an organization that was under the local bishop. That has some far-reaching implications that I suspect many SSPX priests and faithful have not considered.

Quo Vadis Petre · « **Reply #61 on:** March 05, 2013, 05:26:44 PM »

This is the buildup to the deal that +Williamson was talking about: "What's so different from the Indult Mass to the SSPX one?" Once one falls into that mindset, then naturally you go to make a deal.

Spork · « **Reply #62 on:** March 05, 2013, 05:43:25 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

I submit the real reason some trads dislike the FSSP is because they absolutely hate the thought that the mainstream Church could ever get better. They would like nothing better than to see it implode from within, and the possibility of a wider or even truly universal restoration of the traditional Mass to every parish and diocese in the Catholic Church is in my experience disliked by them as much it is by the modernists.

Great take. To most trads a restoration to all things traditional would be a catastrophe.

Matto · « **Reply #63 on:** March 05, 2013, 05:49:49 PM »

Quote from: Spork

Great take. To most trads a restoration to all things traditional would be a catastrophe.

I would like noting better than for the conciliar church to become Catholic again. Then I could happily go to the Church two blocks away from my house every day instead of going an hour away only on Sundays. I bet most traditional Cathlolics feel like I do. It would make life much easier and safer as far as salvation is concerned.

Sigismund · « **Reply #64 on:** March 05, 2013, 09:28:48 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Sigismund
Quote from: Capt McQuigg
Quote from: Sigismund
Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti
Quote from: AnneCatherine
If the Eastern Orthodox have "valid" Eucharist, with all their differences, why not N.O.?

Because as Archbishop Lefebvre said, validity should not be one's only prerequisite. A valid Mass may still be sacrilegious!

Indeed. As many here know, I am not a particular fan of Archbishop Lefebvre nor an enemy of the NO, but he was absolutely right. This basic insight is often overlooked and very important.

Sigismund,

Where do you disagree with the archbishop? Any particular reference point?

Captain,

I disagree that he made the right choice in consecrating bishops, not only without a papal mandate, but against the expressed wishes of the Vicar of Christ. I don't doubt his convictions, or his sincerity, and I am sure he believed he was fully justified in doing so. Canonically, however, this was a schismatic act.

If +ABL didn't do it, God would have had to choose another +ABL to get the job done.
Consider that if all there were back then were compromisers like yourself and like the FSSP, and like all those who wave both flags, not only the TLM, but every other aspect of true faith would have been all but completely nonexistent, probably before 1972. Think about this.

Judging by their fruits, he made the right choice.

The society he founded is rushing headlong into the compromise with Rome you despise. By their fruits you will know them indeed.

Sigismund · « **Reply #65 on:** March 05, 2013, 09:30:41 PM »

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

Quote from: Sigismund
Quote from: Capt McQuigg
Quote from: Sigismund
Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti
Quote from: AnneCatherine
If the Eastern Orthodox have "valid" Eucharist, with all their differences, why not N.O.?

Because as Archbishop Lefebvre said, validity should not be one's only prerequisite. A valid Mass may still be sacrilegious!

Indeed. As many here know, I am not a particular fan of Archbishop Lefebvre nor an enemy of the NO, but he was absolutely right. This basic insight is often overlooked and very important.

Sigismund,

Where do you disagree with the archbishop? Any particular reference point?

Captain,

I disagree that he made the right choice in consecrating bishops, not only without a papal mandate, but against the expressed wishes of the Vicar of Christ. I don't doubt his convictions, or his sincerity, and I am sure he believed he was fully justified in doing so. Canonically, however, this was a schismatic act.

Why do you think Pope John Paul II was unwilling to let the archbishop consecrate just one (1) bishop to continue the work of the society?

I expect because he believed the Society was working at cross purposes with his intentions for the Church. he was the pope. It was his prerogative to do that. It is debatable whether or not it was the right decision, but it is not debatable that it was the pope's decision to make.

Sigismund · « **Reply #66 on:** March 05, 2013, 09:33:58 PM »

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre

Quote from: Sigismund
Captain,

I disagree that he made the right choice in consecrating bishops, not only without a papal mandate, but against the expressed wishes of the Vicar of Christ. I don't doubt his convictions, or his sincerity, and I am sure he believed he was fully justified in doing so. Canonically, however, this was a schismatic act.

Disobedience even in the matter of consecrating bishops doesn't constitute schism according to Canon Law, contrary to your assertion and even frankly speaking the Pope's. Learned canon lawyers like Canon Neri Capponi (?) have stated such. Schism is a pertinacious refusal to recognize the Pope's authority. Archbishop Lefebvre did not such thing; he would have if he gave his bishops an Apostolic authority.

Also, it would be well not state such accusations in the future. The position of the forum is that SSPX is Catholic and not in schism.

It most certainly does, according to the 1983 code, the only code in force in the Latin Church. Not disobedience in itself, but the act of consecrating bishops without a papal mandate.

I am not saying that the SSPX is in schism. The Vatican says they are not. I am saying that Archbishop Lefebvre committed a schismatic act when he consecrated bishops against the express will of the Vicar of Christ. As I said, I don't doubt the archbishop's sincerity or good intentions, or that he was a good man.

And anytime Matthew wants to ban me, he is of course free to do so. It's his forum.

s2srea · « **Reply #67 on:** March 05, 2013, 09:40:45 PM »

Thank you Sigismund for being mature enough to share with us your convictions in such a charitable manner. God bless you.

s2srea · « **Reply #68 on:** March 05, 2013, 09:43:13 PM »

... but of course I disagree with you :cheers:. How's that for pragmatism...

s2srea · « **Reply #69 on:** March 05, 2013, 09:45:25 PM »

Quote from: Sigismund

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre
Quote from: Sigismund
Captain,

I disagree that he made the right choice in consecrating bishops, not only without a papal mandate, but against the expressed wishes of the Vicar of Christ. I don't doubt his convictions, or his sincerity, and I am sure he believed he was fully justified in doing so. Canonically, however, this was a schismatic act.

Disobedience even in the matter of consecrating bishops doesn't constitute schism according to Canon Law, contrary to your assertion and even frankly speaking the Pope's. Learned canon lawyers like Canon Neri Capponi (?) have stated such. Schism is a pertinacious refusal to recognize the Pope's authority. Archbishop Lefebvre did not such thing; he would have if he gave his bishops an Apostolic authority.

Also, it would be well not state such accusations in the future. The position of the forum is that SSPX is Catholic and not in schism.

It most certainly does, according to the 1983 code, the only code in force in the Latin Church. Not disobedience in itself, but the act of consecrating bishops without a papal mandate.

I am not saying that the SSPX is in schism. The Vatican says they are not. I am saying that Archbishop Lefebvre committed a schismatic act when he consecrated bishops against the express will of the Vicar of Christ. As I said, I don't doubt the archbishop's sincerity or good intentions, or that he was a good man.

And anytime Matthew wants to ban me, he is of course free to do so. It's his forum.

SSPX.org

Quote

Now, the excommunication warned of on June 17, for abuse of episcopal powers (canon 1382), was not incurred because:

A person who violates a law out of necessity* is not subject to a penalty (1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 1323, §4), even if there is no state of necessity:[1]
if one inculpably thought there was, he would not incur the penalty (canon 1323, 70),
and if one culpably thought there was, he would still incur no automatic penalties[2] (canon 1324, §3; §1, 80).

...Keeping in mind that it was the allegedly schismatic act which caused the 6 bishops to incur cited excommunication.

Also:

Quote

No penalty is ever incurred without committing a subjective mortal sin (canons 1321 §1, 1323 70). Now, Archbishop Lefebvre made it amply clear that he was bound in conscience to do what he could do to continue the Catholic priesthood and that he was obeying God in going ahead with the consecrations (Cf. the Sermon of June 30, 1988, and Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, p. 136). Hence, even if he had been wrong, there would be no subjective sin.
Most importantly, positive law is at the service of the natural and eternal law and ecclesiastical law is at that of the divine law (principle 8). No “authority,” [principle 9] can force a bishop to compromise in his teaching of Catholic faith or administering of Catholic sacraments. No “law,” can force him to cooperate in the destruction of the Church. With Rome giving no guarantee of preserving Catholic Tradition, Archbishop Lefebvre had to do what he could with his God-given episcopal powers to guarantee its preservation. This was his duty as a bishop.
The Church’s approving the SSPX (question 2) allow it what it needs for its own preservation. This includes the service of bishops who will guarantee to maintain Catholic Tradition.

s2srea · « **Reply #70 on:** March 05, 2013, 09:53:25 PM »

One last thing before I exit this... I don't pretend to understand this crisis in the same manner a theologian might. At a certain point one must believe that the Archbishop was either 'right' or 'wrong'. There are arguments to be made on both sides which I find sustainable. I can only follow my conscience, like everyone else.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #71 on:** March 06, 2013, 04:27:52 PM »

Quote from: Sigismund

Quote from: Capt McQuigg
Quote from: Sigismund
Quote from: Capt McQuigg
Quote from: Sigismund
Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti
Quote from: AnneCatherine
If the Eastern Orthodox have "valid" Eucharist, with all their differences, why not N.O.?

Because as Archbishop Lefebvre said, validity should not be one's only prerequisite. A valid Mass may still be sacrilegious!

Indeed. As many here know, I am not a particular fan of Archbishop Lefebvre nor an enemy of the NO, but he was absolutely right. This basic insight is often overlooked and very important.

Sigismund,

Where do you disagree with the archbishop? Any particular reference point?

Captain,

I disagree that he made the right choice in consecrating bishops, not only without a papal mandate, but against the expressed wishes of the Vicar of Christ. I don't doubt his convictions, or his sincerity, and I am sure he believed he was fully justified in doing so. Canonically, however, this was a schismatic act.

Why do you think Pope John Paul II was unwilling to let the archbishop consecrate just one (1) bishop to continue the work of the society?

I expect because he believed the Society was working at cross purposes with his intentions for the Church. he was the pope. It was his prerogative to do that. It is debatable whether or not it was the right decision, but it is not debatable that it was the pope's decision to make.

Does John Paul II's intentions for the Church align with Catholic Tradition or seem to contradict it?

You did mention the 1983 Code of Canon Law and that was one of the primary motivations for Archbishop Lefebrvre's decision to do the consecration five years later. The new code was "making permanent" the desolation that Vatican II brought. This portion is my comment and not a question directed to you.

Quo Vadis Petre · « **Reply #72 on:** March 06, 2013, 04:33:03 PM »

How funny to say the SSPX is in schism, and yet to see the then Cardinal Ratzinger strike down a local bishop's excommunication of laity who had attended +Williamson's Confirmation Mass, as being not a schismatic act, in 1991! :rolleyes:

Archbishop Lefebvre truly believed it was for the necessity of the Church. The 1983 Code states one must not press the maximum penalty for someone erroneously believing said act was for the good of the Church.

If you continue to maintain the SSPX is in schism, at least keep such thoughts to yourself. It is the position of CathInfo that SSPX is part of the Catholic Church!

s2srea · « **Reply #73 on:** March 06, 2013, 05:34:16 PM »

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre

If you continue to maintain the SSPX is in schism, at least keep such thoughts to yourself. It is the position of CathInfo that SSPX is part of the Catholic Church!

Quote from: Sigismund

I am not saying that the SSPX is in schism....

Quo Vadis Petre · « **Reply #74 on:** March 06, 2013, 05:36:27 PM »

It still follows from the principle that Archbishop Lefebvre committed a schismatic act that adhering to the schism extends to those who agree with him. And the whole SSPX (barring those who disagreed and left the Society) adhered to him. And that was what Pope John Paul II warned against doing. Saying the SSPX is not in schism and yet adheres to Archbishop Lefebvre's consecration of the 4 bishops (deemed schismatic by Pope John Paul II) is quite contradictory.