Completely by accident today, I came across a website (http://sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id84.html
) saying that some SSPX priests were not very holy, that they couldn't wait to get confession over with, that people who went on a retreat didn't get to go to confession until the fourth day (out of 5) or something, and various other things, which I didn't read. At the end, it said something like 'Do you really want to associate with a group that does/promotes these sorts of things?'
Don't read such sites. They are filled with lies, half-truths, stories by frustrated ex-SSPX-clergymen and ex-faithful. It is nonsense to believe the SSPX itself is responsible for some misconduct by some of its priests. And I never experienced the negative things mentioned, nor do I know of such incidents. They are probably very local and very particular cases. Nothing serious. The SSPX does not promote postponing Confession and other things. It is preposterous to say such a thing.
Now the one SSPX priest that I have met seems very nice and not at all like the ones described in the document. A traditional Catholic family I know has been to the SSPX church in Wanganui, the only city in New Zealand with a proper SSPX Church and school, and they say the other priests there are very nice as well. They have even met Bishop Fellay.
That's my impression of the SSPX too. His Excellency Bp. Bernard Fellay is a véry charitable man, and all SSPX priests I have so far met, are. They are zealous, they really want to discuss, but they are respectful too and knowledgeable. Truly the old-style Roman Catholic diocesan priests in not-fully-Catholic countries like Germany, Netherlands and England. They are a good breed.
However, I am basing my opinion of the SSPX on one priest and one traditional family. Is what is mentioned on this site actually true of all or most SSPX priests, or are there just a few bad apples in the Society? I know there would be priests like this in the Conciliar Church, Protestant Churches etc, and that it is easy to dig up dirt on anyone. Plus not everything on the internet is true, but I am worried. Has anyone else ever had bad experiences with them, or have most people found them to be really good and nice? Please help me.
It's the same story of the few rotten apples. If they lie atop, they might give the impression, that the rest is rotting too, while they are not. It is very easy to be negative about someone. The European Germanics say: It's always easy to find a stick if you want to beat up a dog.
If the SSPX turned out to be really bad, I don't know what I would do. I adore the traditional Mass and Sacraments, and follow the traditional faith, but the main Masses I attend are indult (offered by a traditional priest ordained in 1955) and SSPX. I only attend the NO Mass because I have to, and I have the consoling thought of SSPX and indult Masses twice a month. I wouldn't want to go to FSSP Masses, as they don't teach the traditional faith (and there is no FSSP Church in New Zealand anyway), neither do I want to join a sedevacantist group, as that is the easy way out, and it schismatic and heretical anyway (also to mention there are no sedevacantist churches in my city, or even in NZ, to my knowledge).
The SSPX is the best alternative there is, these days. The Indult might be good too. I would not be tóó hard on the Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP). Some of their priests are anti-SSPX, but most still sympathize and are even "suspect of Lefebvrism".
There are, besides the few SSPX and independent tradtionalist Roman Catholic chapels and churches in NZ, also sedevacantists in New Zealand. The group of the Rev. Fr. Thomas Fouhy was more or less associated with sedevacantists, and the CMRI of Mt. St. Michael's in Spokane, WA, have a priest, a school and a church in New Zealand.
Mind: I live in Western Europe, and I know these things. Search and Thou shalt find.
I would stick first with the SSPX though. Always. Semper fidelis, semper idem, semper catholicus, semper in Roma aeterna.