Anyone know anything about the FSSP?


Most of the side chapels have pews from what I have seen. Chairs are usually brought out into the nave on Sundays and major celebrations. In some, there are pews in the front half of the nave and chairs are used in the back. Some of the side chapels are as big as my parish church building!

In my diocese, we have added kneelers to pews or had new pews made with kneelers when we have bought former protestant church buildings. In some parishes, there are chairs with or without kneelers.


Even Cardinal Arinze, former Prefect of the Curial Congregation of the Discipline of the Sacraments, acknowledged in one of his Q&A sessions that many parishes were extracting their kneelers from the nave, only leaving the options to stand or sit during the consecration. He proceeded to say that those who extracted the kneelers are doing damage to the Catholic community. If you didn’t see a Church without them, you must’ve been looking in the right (traditional) places.


Cardinal Arinze has his opinions. (It is good form to link to the text of these statements when presenting them)


No, the FSSP came about due to disagreements with Abp. Marcel Lefebvre’s decision to consecrate four SSPX priests as bishops in 1988. It had nothing to do with any sort of (non-existent) “de facto schism” finding its origins prior to the Écône consecrations.

Substantiate your claims, my friend! The SSPX is not a denomination, and nor are there 30,000 different splintering groups.


By this strange terminology, I suppose you mean to say that the SSPX is not technically in schism, but that they operate so separately from the rest of the Church that it seems to be a schism. In that case, this is still incorrect. The SSPX does not ignore all of Rome’s activities and go about their own business. Sacramental records of those who attend SSPX Masses are most certainly recorded in the person’s canonical parish, and SSPX priests do see to it that this happens. SSPX priests also do request permission from the ordinary to assist at marriages when the need arises.

There is interaction between the local SSPX chapel and the parishes/diocese, contrary to what many Catholics erroneously believe. In addition, there most certainly is interaction between Rome and SSPX leadership as well. Perhaps I shall also mention that Bishop Fellay is a canonically appointed judge by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to judge SSPX priests in certain cases. (This clearly proves also the the SSPX as an organisation does possess juridic personality as well.)

Anyway, could any of these things exist if there were a “de facto schism”, with the SSPX operating independently of the rest of the Church?


Thank you, I will look into this. Didn’t see it until now


The SSPX website goes to extremes to criticize FSSP, more than they criticize any other religious or secular group. SSPX accurately recognizes FSSP has significant differences from SSPX.


To be fair, it was the FSSP that split from the FSSP. I’m sure they’re basically viewed as sell-outs.



Again, those are two different issues. Yet, in practice, my point holds true. The FSSP priest often have little to do with many of the conciliar realities in the Diocese they are in.

While the FSSPX and FSSP on a formal level may have differing views regarding the view on the Novus Ordo and the Conciliar reforms, (often in practice many of the FSSP priests would agree wholeheartedly with the SSPX position) what they both agree upon is the reality that ‘something is rotten in Denmark’. - They both agree that the Novus Ordo is not the preferred rite of liturgy and that the conciliar reforms as a whole have not been good for the Church and that there is a crisis at present in the Church. They do differ as to solution, and the SSPX try to make clear it clear that their position/view on the crisis is not that of the FSSP.

I for one am thankful for that honesty and clarity on this point. Regardless of how anyone may view that.The honesty and integrity is greatly appreciated. Yet for all that, they certainly have both got an essential grasp of the basic problems facing the Church today and work for the restoration of the ancient faith.

Point in fact: - - sermons by a priests of the FSSP, you could not really tell from the sermons alone that he was not an SSPX priest.

The same could be said of the great sermons of Fr. Chad Rippenger - (a former FSSP priest)`

In general, when you attend, Masses at a SSPX Chapel or that of a FSSP chapel, the sermons are often clear cut Catholic doctrine without compromise, solidly grounded in the teachings of St. Thomas, who forms the greater part of their theological and philosophical formation. Which is something anyone who is looking from some sanity in our times is more than grateful to have.


To be fair, I will say I have had only one encounter with the local SSPX priest. It was extremely negative. One encounter does not disprove an Order. I am more troubled at the absence of anyone from SSPX chapel in our local movement for prolife, traditional marriage, evangelism, and doctrinal orthodoxy. The priest and laity are very, very separate; not just from “novelties”.

I would love to have FSSP, or similar Order, come into the area to build a parish. We have a diocesan TLM community, with various priests, which I visit sometimes. These laity are active in the
Programs I mentioned.


The crisis in the Church has to do much, MUCH more with the problems of todays world and many other factors besides differences in the two usages of the same Roman Rite.

Also, it is my belief that had the Church stopped reforming the Liturgy in the 1962-1967 period, the crisis in the Church would be exponentially worse.

In fact, I doubt whether I nor my wife would be Catholic today if the TLM was still the ordinary form of the Roman Rite.

I believe the Church would be in much worse shape if the TLM totally in Latin was still the norm.

If the Church had simply taken the TLM amd translated it into English and allowed for vernacular, that would have been just as good or maybe even better than the current OF Roman Rite.

But, IMO, as the EF and OF currently stand, the OF is a superior usage of the Roman Rite for this day and age.


Have you checked out the Anglican Ordinariate?


On what basis did you make this assessment? Are there religious groups who haven’t changed their rites and rituals for a long period of time- what kind of crises have they endured that the Catholic Church avoided?



In most areas, the contrary is actually true, often most of the local organizations look to the leadership given by lay people from the SSPX or FSSP in the field of Pro life etc.

Lay people often find great support from traditional minded clergy in this regard.

In fact often if one does some investigation you will often find Traditional minded Catholics leading such things.


I’m absolutely familiar with it.

The closest AO Church to me is 75 miles and I don’t own a car.

If there was an Anglican Ordinariate Catholic Church near me I would attend that and use the Anglo-Catholic Office as well.

But for now I’m an OF Roman Rite man… Although there are two Byzantine Rite Catholic Church’s in my city, one Ukrainian Catholic and the other Melkite Greek Catholic - I love the Ukrainian Church.



As regards your wife, that is your personal opinion, but I would rather give her more credited by rightly assuming that all people of good will, rather prefer to conform themselves to the Church than expect the Church to conform to them and their personal preferences. :wink:

Keep in mind that it was this ancient liturgy and the faith it upheld in its clear expression that was the corner stone for billions of Catholics before the Post Conciliar reforms. What is more, is that merely from a question of basic facts and statistics, the Mass attendance, conversions, religious vocations was up and doing well prior to the conciliar reforms, after that they have taken a disastrous down fall. Surely any one of basic honesty can see a cause and effect relation in this regard. It isn’t accidental.


“Traditional minded” clergy and laity, in general, yes active in the united regional (diocesan) and national struggle. But SSPX?


Yes, I am here of course not limiting myself to the USA. While SSPX clergy and laity are active in this regard in the USA, they are often more so, in other countries. Particularly in Europe, where Tradition has a greater strong hold.


Typically, a bishop must invite them in to a particular diocese - - I do not think it is a matter of them sticking to large cities because they can reach more people. If they are invited, and there is a church for them to use, they will go.


Indeed it is true that they tend to stick to large cities. I have spoken to several FSSP superiors over many years about this, and they are quite open that while, yes, they need an invitation and church, that typically population is the determining factor in deciding which invitations to accept. The seemingly only exception to this in recent history is when there is a flourishing SSPX parish in a rural area.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit