FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Why dosent the FSSP have its own bishop?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Makes you wonder, no?
The FSSP is a priestly society. As an analogy, the Jesuits are also a priestly society, and I don't think they've ever had a bishop for a superior general. I could be wrong, but I know the norm is for their superior general to be only a priest.
Doesn't make me wonder....I know why.
This should have been a poll:

The FSSP doesn't have its own bishop. Does this make you wonder?
- Yes
- No
For the record, it does not make me wonder.
Do they have any trouble finding bishops to ordain and confirm whereas one roving bishop would be more effective/efficient?

Just to add what HK said, the Jesuits originally were to have no bishops at all--it's one of the reasons St. Robert Bellarmine joined them (he wanted to avoid receiving any ecclesiastical dignities). Of course, he was made one of the first Jesuit bishops and Cardinals.
IMHO, it would make more sense if they went back into the fold under the SSPX, so then they can preach whatever they want from the pulpit and not worry whenever some modernist bishop tries to condemn it... This way they will be under one of the 3 or 4 SSPX bishops and be done with the  whole conciliar church..
(01-20-2011, 05:38 PM)crusaderfortruth3372 Wrote: [ -> ]IMHO, it would make more sense if they went back into the fold under the SSPX, so then they can preach whatever they want from the pulpit and not worry whenever some modernist bishop tries to condemn it... This way they will be under one of the 3 or 4 SSPX bishops and be done with the  whole conciliar church..

Not gonna happen. I met my parish priest last night, we discussed the FSSP/SSPX. My parish priest (aged 75) refused from the get-go to say the Novus Ordo... he's never said one his entire life, just the TLM... he'll retire soon and probably be replaced by an FSSP priest. The parish priest said that the huge majority of FSSP priests were ordained after the FSSP split from the SSPX in 1988... so I can't imagine they would "return" to an SSPX they were never a part of to begin with.

The parish priest always remained within the diocese and at least in personal conversation he doesn't tend to mince his words. He stumps for tradition from the pulpit, so I don't really see the advantage of getting in under the SSPX
(01-20-2011, 05:38 PM)crusaderfortruth3372 Wrote: [ -> ]IMHO, it would make more sense if they went back into the fold under the SSPX, so then they can preach whatever they want from the pulpit and not worry whenever some modernist bishop tries to condemn it... This way they will be under one of the 3 or 4 SSPX bishops and be done with the  whole conciliar church..

So the FSSP is not in the fold?  Which fold is that?  I hope I'm misunderstanding your meaning.

The SSPX is not done with the whole conciliar church.  Why do they keep going to Rome for the doctrinal discussions?
(01-20-2011, 06:06 PM)Christus Imperat Wrote: [ -> ]So the FSSP is not in the fold?  Which fold is that?  I hope I'm misunderstanding your meaning.

The FSSP broke away from the SSPX 18 days after the Econe consecrations so "the fold" must mean "the SSPX fold"
Pages: 1 2 3 4