FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Considering a Vocation, SSPX, ICKTSP, or FSSP?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Hi
I'm discerning a Vocation to the Priesthood, as  a Traditional Catholic I'm bassically limited to either the Society of St Pius X, The Institute of Christ The King The Sovereign Priest or The Fraternity of St Peter.

At the moment I attend an SSPX chapel and I agree with most of what the group teaches if not all of it, I find the priest reverential, the masses excellent and the same goes for confessions. My only concern is that they don't appear to have any particular spirituality as for example the ICKTSP has and whilst I understand this was the late Archbishops wishes I'm not sure its entirely for me. Aside from that I'm also a little concerned that they're a little too hardline e.g no tv, no internet etc.., now whilst that doesn't bother me hugely it's still a concern of some sort. I won't deny that the fact that whilst I agree with the SSPX's position on its relations between it and Rome I'm still a little uneasy about the whole thing. Also as much as I admire Bishop Williamson and admit he's a BRILLANT preacher (I've had the luck to attend 3 masses celebrated by him) he is well a little extreme... I've already written to a priest to set up a face to face meeting to discuss a vocation and God Willing it will go well.

As for the Institute of Christ The King, their spirituality attracts me not in the least because I deeply respect all of their Patron Saints most especially St Thomas Aquinas, though frankly I have as much an admiration for their other Patron saints as well and of course Our Lady. Their motto 'Living the truth in charity' as well as the saying 'Cook the truth in Charity until it tastes sweet' also speaks to me. However all that said I have three concerns:

1) They don't operate in the UK at all at the moment and so getting spiritual direction and so on with my Vocation could be a bit of a problem
2) Their eclessia Dei status
3) Their pre-seminary program is in the USA, not exactly easy to get to from where I am

1 and 3 are self-explanatory but as for my second point lest people think I'm a SSPX die-hard I'll point out that I'm concerned lest a repeat of what happened to the FSSP in 2000 with the infamous protocol 14 and their superior being replaced with another appointed with the Vatican happens to them. I'm also concerned vis-a-vis Vatican II, would I be forced to accept it? Would I be forced to study it along with the new catechism and the new code of canon law etc...? I'd be particularly interested to hear from anyone whos attended parishes served by them or their seminary

As for the FSSP, they are the most widespread traditionalist society after the SSPX and they clearly have an understanding of the proper sacraments. However my concerns pretty much mirror those I have for the Institute of Christ The King but are even strongly seeing as they were treated so badly by The Vatican back in 2000. I'm also concerned because of the things I've heard concerning the fact they completely accept Vatican II, believe its anathema to criticise the pope and so on, comments that were made in public and/or in interviews. Luckly for me they do have parishes in the UK albeit none near me but I would be able to get at least some help with my vocation. Again I'd be particularly interested to hear anyone who's been to their parishes and/or seminary.

Thanks in advance for any help, God Bless You  Pray
I know two priests who trained at the FSSP seminary in America and one who trained at the SSPX seminary in Germany. All three of them are traditional through and through and don't pull any punches when speaking about Vatican II and the New Mass. I don't know much about the events of 2000 and protocol 14, but a poster here (Joshua) was an FSSP seminarian and has mentioned that they make it very clear to the students that if they want to celebrate the New Mass then the Fraternity is not the place for them.

Good luck searching!
(08-21-2011, 12:22 PM)Aragon Wrote: [ -> ]I know two priests who trained at the FSSP seminary in America and one who trained at the SSPX seminary in Germany. All three of them are traditional through and through and don't pull any punches when speaking about Vatican II and the New Mass. I don't know much about the events of 2000 and protocol 14, but a poster here (Joshua) was an FSSP seminarian and has mentioned that they make it very clear to the students that if they want to celebrate the New Mass then the Fraternity is not the place for them.

Good luck searching!

Thanks  Smile Protocol 14 meant that a Vatican Congregation decided that all Roman priests had a right to celebrate the NO and forbid the FSSP from preventing their members celebrating the NO, the debacle ended up with their superior being replaced and a new one imposed on them by the Vatican. Hence why I'm cautious about them
(08-21-2011, 11:29 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]1 and 3 are self-explanatory but as for my second point lest people think I'm a SSPX die-hard I'll point out that I'm concerned lest a repeat of what happened to the FSSP in 2000 with the infamous protocol 14 and their superior being replaced with another appointed with the Vatican happens to them. I'm also concerned vis-a-vis Vatican II, would I be forced to accept it? Would I be forced to study it along with the new catechism and the new code of canon law etc...? I'd be particularly interested to hear from anyone whos attended parishes served by them or their seminary
Of course you whould be taught the new code of canon law. It is the law that is in force, the law that applies to all faithful. The old one is of historic interest, but not what applies today. You may like it or not, but that's simply the way it is, unless you are a sedevacantist or deny the dogma that the pope is the supreme legislator of the Church.
BTW, the SSPX's position on the new Code of Canon law is quite schizophrenic. The reject it, but their entire argument for the invalidity of the excommunications was based on the new Code, and would not have worked with the old.
As to going to the Fraternity of St Peter,  I know a seminarian from some years back, and one of the things that bothered him and the others seminarians, or most of them, was that they were taught a class concerning "Natural Family Planning" by a woman.  That is not what should be done.  Delicate subjects in the seminary are for priests to instruct.  Actually, all the subjects are meant to be taught with male teachers. 
  What Freudentaumel said is also worthy of pondering.  The 83 Canon Law is to be used(canon 844-communion to non-Catholics, etc);  it is the law as given by the Vatican today, while the 1917 is nothing more than a historical backdrop.  It can't be clung to and one cannot run their apostolate/parish with it in these operations. 
  The SSPX is inconsistent, to put it lightly.  I believe people are flocking to where they can be feed.  I don't judge any priest or layman who doesn't see some of these pitfalls.  I do think, though, that one needs to ponder the logical conclusions and consequences when joining any of these groups.  Just my thoughts.

  Joe
I would go with either ICKSP or FSSP.
If a seminarian cannot handle a conversation about NFP with a female, then there is something seriously wrong.  We expect these men to go out into the world, educating people and hearing confessions.  This includes females.
PMed you.
(08-21-2011, 02:02 PM)City Smurf Wrote: [ -> ]If a seminarian cannot handle a conversation about NFP with a female, then there is something seriously wrong.  We expect these men to go out into the world, educating people and hearing confessions.  This includes females.

Not learning NFP from females though...

1 Timothy 2:11-15 Wrote:[11] Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. [12] But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence. [13] For Adam was first formed; then Eve. [14] And Adam was not seduced; but the woman being seduced, was in the transgression. [15] Yet she shall be saved through childbearing; if she continue in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.

St. John Chrysostom Wrote:Let them not teach, but occupy the station of learners. For thus they will show submission by their silence. For the sex is naturally somewhat talkative: and for this reason he restrains them on all sides.
City Smurf,  

    It is not that the subject cannont be spoken of with a female.  Subjects of this nature are for the confessional, or when necessary in counseling.  The priest, when he is taught in a seminary setting, is learning more details than what he would generally need to discuss with the laity.  He will be more general with the laymen, hopefully in a controlled setting.  He must do his best to maintain modesty at all times.  It is not his place to be talking about every biological function.  What he needs to know about it should be coming from the priest instructor, not laywoman instructor.   We all have proper roles.  That women instructing seminarian is a modern, post VII idea.  
   By the way, NFP is often taught as mandatory in a marriage, as if it is okay to just limit children w/o any serious reason as has perenially been taught.  I would tell people to read what Pope Pius XII said to the Italian midwives in 1951, amongst other trustworthy sources.  The term NFP came out in the early/mid 70's and the Vatican adopted its name.  Go by how the Church has taught before VII on this subject, and you will not be mislead.

  Joe
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5