The attitudes of the people at your regular parish is beside the point. The issue with the SSPX is their refusal to accept the Second Vatican Council. I’ll grant that Vatican II is a pastoral council and isn’t as important as the others. However, Catholics must accept it because it’s an Ecumenical Council that was confirmed by the Pope. And several Popes have based their magisterial teachings on the documents. If you reject Vatican II, you must also reject the papal teachings of St Paul VI, St John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis. By rejecting these legitimate teachings, you are just like the liberals who dissent from the Church teachings.
I would guess that some of the attractions of the sspx chapel include:
- Small size. People get to know each other. Priest knows regular attenders.
- Like minded fellow attenders. People have similar values and interests, for instance home schooling or prolife.
- People like the devout setting, alongside others who appreciate it.
- People like the sermons or confessions of this specific priest.
Saying their mass is illict means it is illegal. They violate church law. Why would you go there?
The SSPX definitely has many good points. But I feel that union with the local Bishop outweighs everything else. And the SSPX opens chapels without the permission of the local ordinary.
Also false. They merely disagree on the interpretation of Second Vatican council.
I have only two things to contribute, small though they may be:
First, when one considers the arrant nonsense to outright heresy and sacrilege that is tolerated, sometimes even applauded, in some quarters of the Church, it’s pretty outrageous to come down so hard on the SSPX, whose orders are valid and who strive to live according to the teachings that have nourished saints in every age.
Second, I’ve had two mainstream priests - prayerful men in good standing with the local bishop - tell me, quietly, that in their opinion Archbishop Lefebvre was probably a saint, though it might take the Church a century or so to realise the fact.
Like I say, just my two cents. (And if it matters, I do not attend an SSPX chapel myself.)
I’m afraid you’re misinformed. The SSPX reject Vatican II’s teaching on ecclesiology, collegiality, and - most vociferously - the teaching on religious liberty.
Probably one of the better posts I’ve ever read on this subject on CAF! Great post!!!
You’re confusing (A) teaching with (B) whether the teaching is doctrinal or pastoral.
Well said. The SSPX resolutely upholds the God-given teachings of the Church on faith and morals. The same can’t be said of some of the so-called “progressives”:who seek to align Church teachings with secular “morality.”
Is there an FSSP parish that celebrates the OF Mass?
Not in my area, anyway. It’s Traditional Latin Mass, twice every day of the week and four times on Sunday.
So I guess FSSP “rejects” the Ordinary Form too.
I’ve never heard of one.
Sounds like de facto “rejection,” then.
So does St John XXIII apparently , who opened Second Vatican since he said “For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time … of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular.”
Before someone observes that 17 or 18 hundred years ago Latin was “vernacular” and is now a “dead language” I’ll say, good. Only a “dead language” can be truly universal.
The form of Mass is neither doctrine nor dogma. The Dominicans did not reject the Tridentine Mass when they continued to celebrate their own older Mass after it came out, and no one ever accused them of rejecting Trent partially nor de-facto. Neither do priests who celebrate the Ambrosian rite, Carthusians who celebrate the Carthusian rite, and so on.
Sorry, I was being mildly sarcastic. Of course the FSSP priests could celebrate the OF form Mass, or learn to, if they so choose. They don’t reject the OF form for others.
They don’t reject an ecumenical council outright.
There’s one big difference between the FSSP and the SSPX regarding the OF Mass. The SSPX teaches that the OF Mass is harmful to the Faith and ought to be avoided. The FSSP does not. And they don’t tell people to avoid it.
Here’s another thing about the SSPX: I’ve seen their Bishops confirm people who had already been confirmed in the past. Why? Because they doubted the validity of the OF Sacrament of Confirmation.
We know he opposed three Saintly Popes and ended up being excommunicated by one of them. And he died excommunicated from the Church.