CathInfo.com

Matthew:


Apparently then, you still count SSPX as traditional. But you don’t count FSSP as traditional. Hmm! At this point in time, 3/5/19, what makes FSSP any less traditional than SSPX? It would seem to me that SSPX has established parity with FSSP. Both these organizations have united with Rome, one materially (virtually), based upon any reasonable examination of the evidence at hand, the other, formally,’. I see very little difference at all.
The ‘Trojan Horse,’ which +Fellay planned to wheel through the Vatican gates, has now been turned around, and is now passing through the gates of Menzingen. Bp. Huonder, an active agent of Rome’s New Order, acting with the permission and blessing of anti-pope Francis, is about to make a new SSPX bishop or two under the New Rite of Consecration. And horror of horrors, Fr. Bouchacourt, Jew-loving denier of Deicide that he is, is, apparently, going to be one of those new SSPX bishops.
Perhaps, I do not see things clearly enough. Perhaps, I need to make some necessary distinctions between FSSP and SSPX, which, owing to my intellectual shortcomings, I am incapable of doing. If you would care to put a finer point on it, Matthew, I am certainly open to listen. What, actually, in simple terms, are the major differences (now) between FSSP and SSPX?

The SSPX is in transition. That's the only difference. They have a lot more "residual Trad" in their numbers, both among the priests and the laity.

1. I wasn't mentioning the SSPX one way or the other in my description. I was just correcting a common mistake (that the FSSP is another "Trad" group)
2. Later on, I did say that the SSPX has virtually become the FSSP already.
3. It is open for debate how far along the SSPX has come; I'll let people debate that. But eventually they WILL become virtually the same, and/or officially the same.
4. One difference: The SSPX used to be Trad. The FSSP never was, from day one in 1988.
5. Due to the fact that the *leadership* has changed their thinking vis-a-vis Vatican II and the Conciliar Church, the eventual collapse into the FSSP position is inevitable.
6. Personally, for my purposes, I've already moved on. I don't attend SSPX Mass anymore, and I have one 45 minutes away. And I don't get weekly Resistance-affiliated Mass (anymore) either. My family (wife and 7, soon to be 8, children) get to attend Mass about once a month now.

Obviously Fellay and his group have no fear of the prophecies of Fatima and La Salette and are tired of waiting.

FSSP and FSSPX will rue the day. They are signing on with Amoris Laetitia, removal of the death penalty, change in the Our Father, women deacons, etc. Big events are on the horizon.

What, actually, in simple terms, are the major differences (now) between FSSP and SSPX?

A significant difference is that 100% of sspx priests are 100% certainly valid, while the FSSP has (almost) none (of 100% certainty).  Also, the sspx priests had trad seminary training while the FSSP had a vatican-run, pro-V2 indoctrination.  These 2 differences are major, even if the organizations, as a whole, are becoming the same in mindset.

If I was on my deathbed and needed sacraments, i would never ask the indult-FSSP because I don't trust their validity (either their priests or their new rites or their training in the old rites).  I would trust an indult-sspx priest because I would know, at least, he were valid and even a quasi-heretic/indult priest can provide sacraments in danger of death.

Other than this, outside of emergency situations, assuming the new-sspx continues towards the indult status, they would be the same, from a keeping-the-faith standpoint.  Avoid both at all costs.