Would the SSPX and the FSSP reunite after the reconciliation?

T More · #1 Jun 8, '12, 10:11 am

When/if Rome reaches an agreement with the SSPX, would there be a need for both orders to exist? Would the FSSP then "re-join" the SSPX? How could the landscape potentially look afterwards between the SSPX and the other traditional orders?

Tabby · #2 Jun 8, '12, 10:43 am

Looking at just the SSPX and the FSSP as a representative example, my guess is no. There's been a history of animosity and tension there because of the FSSP's origins as a group of SSPX priests unwilling to follow the SSPX bishops after the excommunication of those bishops and who then approached John Paul II for independent recognition as a Traditionalist priestly society. The very name of the FSSP (Fraternal Society of St. Peter) is probably a pointed commentary on the situation in 1988 out of which they were born.

Then, too, if the SSPX is established as an independent personal prelature, there very likely will be tensions in the local dioceses with bishops wary of the SSPX in their dioceses. I wouldn't be surprised if the FSSP saw more invitations from bishops to establish chapels in local dioceses as a means of short-circuiting the SSPX from setting up in a diocese. The FSSP is unlikely to want to risk their hard-earned reputation as loyal to the Pope *and the bishops in union with him* in order to throw in their lot with a group that has a longstanding history of scorning them.

This is just speculation, of course, but these are some of the reasons I very much doubt that a recognition of the SSPX by the Church will mean the subsuming of all other Traditionalist societies into the SSPX.

**ProVobis** · #3 Jun 8, '12, 11:19 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tabby

Looking at just the SSPX and the FSSP as a representative example, my guess is no. There's been a history of animosity and tension there because of the FSSP's origins as a group of SSPX priests unwilling to follow the SSPX bishops after the excommunication of those bishops and who then approached John Paul II for independent recognition as a Traditionalist priestly society. The very name of the FSSP (Fraternal Society of St. Peter) is probably a pointed commentary on the situation in 1988 out of which they were born.

I don't disagree with your train of thought but I just wanted to point out that FSSP stands for Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Petri (Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter).

Lormar · #4 Jun 8, '12, 11:21 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by T More

When/if Rome reaches an agreement with the SSPX, would there be a need for both orders to exist? Would the FSSP then "re-join" the SSPX? How could the landscape potentially look afterwards between the SSPX and the other traditional orders?

My guess is definitely not! Too much water under the bridge. The SSPX has been quite harsh in their assessment of the FSSP over the past almost 25 years. If such a reconciliation did occur, I do not think I will see it in my lifetime.

I think that all of the existing traditional religious orders will remain as they are. The more we have, the better it will be.

Aelred Minor · #5 Jun 8, '12, 11:32 am

If it happens at all, I don't think it will be in the lifetime of most of the current priests of both fraternities.

TrueLight · #6 Jun 8, '12, 11:42 am

I know some will disagree with me, but my personal opinion has always been "Why give a prelature to one and not the other"?

I think in the early days, there was talk of a "Traditional Catholic" prelature type of thing. Don't quote me on this. Why should some be restricted, while some are not?

Even now, the FSSP is not allowed to set up shop in NYC. So why not give them a prelature too? Or why not have one big prelature for Ecclesia Dei groups?

It almost seems like reward for disobedience. I guess the prodigal son parable applies here.

My guess is that if there is any tension, it will remain.

Boulder257 · #7 Jun 8, '12, 11:45 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrueLight

I know some will disagree with me, but my personal opinion has always been "Why give a prelature to one and not the other"?

I think in the early days, there was talk of a "Traditional Catholic" prelature type of thing. Don't quote me on this. Why should some be restricted, while some are not?

It almost seems like reward for disobedience. I guess the prodigal son parable applies here.

My guess is that the tension will remain.

Agree wholeheartedly. I think you set precedent and encourage others to think of excommunication and schism (not saying they ARE in schism) as a means to achieve their goals. Certainly not a healthy message to send.

TrueLight · #8 Jun 8, '12, 11:46 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boulder257

Agree wholeheartedly. I think you set precedent and encourage others to think of excommunication and schism (not saying they ARE in schism) as a means to achieve their goals. Certainly not a healthy message to send.

Yet, at the same time, I want nothing more but for the Society to be reconciled.

Rich C · #9 Jun 8, '12, 11:58 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by T More

When/if Rome reaches an agreement with the SSPX, would there be a need for both orders to exist? Would the FSSP then "re-join" the SSPX? How could the landscape potentially look afterwards between the SSPX and the other traditional orders?

Given that they Holy Father already approves of multiple organizations (forgive me ecclesiastic terminology isn't my strong suit) I wouldn't expect him to desire to merge these two. The precedent is to allow several. I think this is good for everyone, myself.

runningdude · #10 Jun 8, '12, 12:03 pm

If the SSPX is regularized, I don't think that they will recombine, but not out of animosity. They would simply remain separate groups because both would have a unique charism that would be lost in a merger.

Bob Aliano · #11 Jun 8, '12, 12:07 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrueLight

I know some will disagree with me, but my personal opinion has always been "Why give a prelature to one and not the other"?

I think in the early days, there was talk of a "Traditional Catholic" prelature type of thing. Don't quote me on this. Why should some be restricted, while some are not?

Even now, the FSSP is not allowed to set up shop in NYC. So why not give them a prelature too? Or why not have one big prelature for Ecclesia Dei groups?

It almost seems like reward for disobedience. I guess the prodigal son parable applies here.

My guess is that if there is any tension, it will remain.

Are you saying that Cardinal Dolon refuses to allow an FSSP chaplaincy in NYC? Is there some written proof of that?

Lormar · #12 Jun 8, '12, 12:21 pm

There's so much already in Manhattan, why would you be disappointed that the FSSP isn't there? It's not like you have nothing - you have Holy Innocents and St. Agnes and Our Lady of Mt. Carmel - you have many beautiful churches - you have all night vigils at St. John the Baptist. You ought to live in the spiritual wasteland that I live in.

TrueLight · #13 Jun 8, '12, 12:22 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lormar

There's so much already in Manhattan, why would you be disappointed that the FSSP isn't there? It's not like you have nothing - you have Holy Innocents and St. Agnes and Our Lady of Mt. Carmel - you have many beautiful churches - you have all night vigils at St. John the Baptist. You ought to live in the spiritual wasteland that I live in.

We're getting sidetracked here. I am thankful for the opportunities I have to attend the EF, trust me. I'm not discussing what I am lacking or not lacking, nor am I discussing in detail the policies of any bishops/cardinals (Bob).

We are speculating about whether the two groups will unite and we are speculating about possible tension.

My point is that one group gets a personal prelature with a bit more freedom, while the other does not get that.

But if a Prelature is what it will take to reconcile these holy priests to Rome, then go Prelature!

bkovacs · #14 Jun 8, '12, 12:24 pm

I think they would remain seperate. Like the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, is etcc.

YoungTradCath · #15 Jun 8, '12, 12:50 pm

I am certain they will not combine. There are many traditional groups across the world and the Holy See sees no reason why they should be combined. The traditional apostolate is highly varied in terms of charism and mission.

The FSSP, SSPX and ICRSS are all different to varying degrees. I would say the FSSP and SSPX are rather similar in terms of culture--or so it seems--with the ICRSS being the most unique of the three groups. I mention only these three because they are the most recognizable generally.