FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: FSSP or SSPX -- which is the way to go?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Now, it's not really applicable me at the moment, as in my province we only have a diocesan Latin Mass, and two other independent priests who come here periodically.  But if we had both an SSPX and FSSP Mass here, I feel I'd probably go SSPX.  When the day finally comes that the SSPX is in full communion, I think true restoration will begin.
(02-11-2018, 03:07 PM)FultonFan Wrote: [ -> ]Now, it's not really applicable me at the moment, as in my province we only have a diocesan Latin Mass, and two other independent priests who come here periodically.  But if we had both an SSPX and FSSP Mass here, I feel I'd probably go SSPX.  When the day finally comes that the SSPX is in full communion, I think true restoration will begin.

The SSPX is in communion. They are Catholics.

They do not have a canonical structure which is fully recognized by the Holy See, so operate under the one they claim they still have from the 1970s. That's different than "communion".

There is no such thing as "partial" or "full" communion. One is either a member of the Church or not, just as one has the Faith or one does not. 

The whole "partial communion" idea is a fabrication of the Nouvelle Théologie to make the Protestant heretics and Orthodox schismatics part of the Church.

The SSPX are not heretics, nor schismtics, but Catholics, thus it is incorrect to speak of "partial communion" with regard to the SSPX even by the flawed paradigm of the Noevelle Théologie, a fortiori by traditional theological standards.

Whatever you views about the FSSP or SSPX, the issue is not one of "communion".
(02-11-2018, 03:26 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-11-2018, 03:07 PM)FultonFan Wrote: [ -> ]Now, it's not really applicable me at the moment, as in my province we only have a diocesan Latin Mass, and two other independent priests who come here periodically.  But if we had both an SSPX and FSSP Mass here, I feel I'd probably go SSPX.  When the day finally comes that the SSPX is in full communion, I think true restoration will begin.

The SSPX is in communion. They are Catholics.

They do not have a canonical structure which is fully recognized by the Holy See, so operate under the one they claim they still have from the 1970s. That's different than "communion".

There is no such thing as "partial" or "full" communion. One is either a member of the Church or not, just as one has the Faith or one does not. 

The whole "partial communion" idea is a fabrication of the Nouvelle Théologie to make the Protestant heretics and Orthodox schismatics part of the Church.

The SSPX are not heretics, nor schismtics, but Catholics, thus it is incorrect to speak of "partial communion" with regard to the SSPX even by the flawed paradigm of the Noevelle Théologie, a fortiori by traditional theological standards.

Whatever you views about the FSSP or SSPX, the issue is not one of "communion".

I just find the whole thing confusing.

How about SSPV?  Are they Catholics?  Or does their attitude toward the papacy change their status?
(02-11-2018, 03:40 PM)FultonFan Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-11-2018, 03:26 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-11-2018, 03:07 PM)FultonFan Wrote: [ -> ]Now, it's not really applicable me at the moment, as in my province we only have a diocesan Latin Mass, and two other independent priests who come here periodically.  But if we had both an SSPX and FSSP Mass here, I feel I'd probably go SSPX.  When the day finally comes that the SSPX is in full communion, I think true restoration will begin.

The SSPX is in communion. They are Catholics.

They do not have a canonical structure which is fully recognized by the Holy See, so operate under the one they claim they still have from the 1970s. That's different than "communion".

There is no such thing as "partial" or "full" communion. One is either a member of the Church or not, just as one has the Faith or one does not. 

The whole "partial communion" idea is a fabrication of the Nouvelle Théologie to make the Protestant heretics and Orthodox schismatics part of the Church.

The SSPX are not heretics, nor schismtics, but Catholics, thus it is incorrect to speak of "partial communion" with regard to the SSPX even by the flawed paradigm of the Noevelle Théologie, a fortiori by traditional theological standards.

Whatever you views about the FSSP or SSPX, the issue is not one of "communion".

I just find the whole thing confusing.

How about SSPV?  Are they Catholics?  Or does their attitude toward the papacy change their status?

It is meant to be confusing. Those who want to undermine the faithful try to create confusion, doubt and disquiet. They hate simple, black and white answers (although not everything is black and white), and prefer to live in the grey when there is black and white.

In my opinion, yes, the SSPV faithful and priests are Catholics.

Their situation is a bit different from the FSSP and SSPX because the SSPV never had an Church-approved structure. They're essentially priests who left their canonically-approved order to do their own thing.

They erroneously reject the Pope, but not his office and authority per se. Thus they are not, properly speaking, schismatic. They are just wrong.

However, once led into that field it is very easy to start denying Ecclesiological truths, like the visibility of the Church. Often the harder-line traddies end up making the "Conciliar Church" out to be a different entity from the "Catholic Church" which undermines its visibility and societal nature.
(02-11-2018, 03:55 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-11-2018, 03:40 PM)FultonFan Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-11-2018, 03:26 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-11-2018, 03:07 PM)FultonFan Wrote: [ -> ]Now, it's not really applicable me at the moment, as in my province we only have a diocesan Latin Mass, and two other independent priests who come here periodically.  But if we had both an SSPX and FSSP Mass here, I feel I'd probably go SSPX.  When the day finally comes that the SSPX is in full communion, I think true restoration will begin.

The SSPX is in communion. They are Catholics.

They do not have a canonical structure which is fully recognized by the Holy See, so operate under the one they claim they still have from the 1970s. That's different than "communion".

There is no such thing as "partial" or "full" communion. One is either a member of the Church or not, just as one has the Faith or one does not. 

The whole "partial communion" idea is a fabrication of the Nouvelle Théologie to make the Protestant heretics and Orthodox schismatics part of the Church.

The SSPX are not heretics, nor schismtics, but Catholics, thus it is incorrect to speak of "partial communion" with regard to the SSPX even by the flawed paradigm of the Noevelle Théologie, a fortiori by traditional theological standards.

Whatever you views about the FSSP or SSPX, the issue is not one of "communion".

I just find the whole thing confusing.

How about SSPV?  Are they Catholics?  Or does their attitude toward the papacy change their status?

It is meant to be confusing. Those who want to undermine the faithful try to create confusion, doubt and disquiet. They hate simple, black and white answers (although not everything is black and white), and prefer to live in the grey when there is black and white.

In my opinion, yes, the SSPV faithful and priests are Catholics.

Their situation is a bit different from the FSSP and SSPX because the SSPV never had an Church-approved structure. They're essentially priests who left their canonically-approved order to do their own thing.

They erroneously reject the Pope, but not his office and authority per se. Thus they are not, properly speaking, schismatic. They are just wrong.

However, once led into that field it is very easy to start denying Ecclesiological truths, like the visibility of the Church. Often the harder-line traddies end up making the "Conciliar Church" out to be a different entity from the "Catholic Church" which undermines its visibility and societal nature.
What about the SSPX resistance?
(02-11-2018, 03:55 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-11-2018, 03:40 PM)FultonFan Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-11-2018, 03:26 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-11-2018, 03:07 PM)FultonFan Wrote: [ -> ]Now, it's not really applicable me at the moment, as in my province we only have a diocesan Latin Mass, and two other independent priests who come here periodically.  But if we had both an SSPX and FSSP Mass here, I feel I'd probably go SSPX.  When the day finally comes that the SSPX is in full communion, I think true restoration will begin.

The SSPX is in communion. They are Catholics.

They do not have a canonical structure which is fully recognized by the Holy See, so operate under the one they claim they still have from the 1970s. That's different than "communion".

There is no such thing as "partial" or "full" communion. One is either a member of the Church or not, just as one has the Faith or one does not. 

The whole "partial communion" idea is a fabrication of the Nouvelle Théologie to make the Protestant heretics and Orthodox schismatics part of the Church.

The SSPX are not heretics, nor schismtics, but Catholics, thus it is incorrect to speak of "partial communion" with regard to the SSPX even by the flawed paradigm of the Noevelle Théologie, a fortiori by traditional theological standards.

Whatever you views about the FSSP or SSPX, the issue is not one of "communion".

I just find the whole thing confusing.

How about SSPV?  Are they Catholics?  Or does their attitude toward the papacy change their status?

It is meant to be confusing. Those who want to undermine the faithful try to create confusion, doubt and disquiet. They hate simple, black and white answers (although not everything is black and white), and prefer to live in the grey when there is black and white.

In my opinion, yes, the SSPV faithful and priests are Catholics.

Their situation is a bit different from the FSSP and SSPX because the SSPV never had an Church-approved structure. They're essentially priests who left their canonically-approved order to do their own thing.

They erroneously reject the Pope, but not his office and authority per se. Thus they are not, properly speaking, schismatic. They are just wrong.

However, once led into that field it is very easy to start denying Ecclesiological truths, like the visibility of the Church. Often the harder-line traddies end up making the "Conciliar Church" out to be a different entity from the "Catholic Church" which undermines its visibility and societal nature.

I don't know about the SSPV. SSPV rejects all NO as Catholics...that reeks of the errors of Donatism.
(02-11-2018, 04:58 PM)For Petes Sake Wrote: [ -> ]What about the SSPX resistance?

I'd say the same as with the SSPV and the like, except theirs is more of a de facto (i.e. practical) rather than ex professo (i.e. doctrinal) Sedevacantism.
(02-11-2018, 05:15 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know about the SSPV.  SSPV rejects all NO as Catholics...that reeks of the errors of Donatism.

No doubt that they have such an odor, but this is (generally) an effect of their earlier error, not the core of their doctrine.

I'm not saying they're good, but I think if you pinned them down on what they professed, it would be a slightly tainted, but still substantially orthodox Catholic Faith.
Any port in a storm, I say. Anything but the NO.

A question: if the SSPV were the only thing going in one's area, could a Catholic attend (assist at) Mass there while still acknowledging the pope as real pope? Would that be allowed?
(02-11-2018, 07:24 PM)Jacafamala Wrote: [ -> ]Any port in a storm, I say. Anything but the NO.

A question: if the SSPV were the only thing going in one's area, could a Catholic attend (assist at) Mass there while still acknowledging the pope as real pope? Would that be allowed?

i don't believe you have to be sedevacantist to be in the SSPV.  That said, I would say most are.

I think they commonly say things like Francis is the "Pope of the Novus Ordo", or "Pope of the Modernists".  But again, I don't think members have to all be on the same page on that.
Pages: 1 2