Why I left the SSPX

[Tiny]

 Doesn't the FSSP accomplish what SSPX set out to do, but while remaining obedient to Rome?

Here's a question I'll ask and I hope someone will answer.  Is the Bishop of an Apostolic Administration or a Personal Prelature permitted to perform confirmations in a particular diocese without the local ordinary's permission.

There are slight gaps between the FSSP and the SSPX, and I think confirmation and religious instruction could be one of them.

[gjwalberg]

 Doesn't the FSSP accomplish what SSPX set out to do, but while remaining obedient to Rome?

Here's a question I'll ask and I hope someone will answer.  Is the Bishop of an Apostolic Administration or a Personal Prelature permitted to perform confirmations in a particular diocese without the local ordinary's permission.

There are slight gaps between the FSSP and the SSPX, and I think confirmation and religious instruction could be one of them.

Like can a Titular bishop just swoop into a diocese and start confirming with out approval of the Ordinary?

[Tiny]

Like can a Titular bishop just swoop into a diocese and start confirming with out approval of the Ordinary?

Well, I'm specifically wondering if the SSPX were to accept an apostolic adminstration or personal prelature, or the FSSP were to be raised to such, whether the Bishops would need permission to do confirmations.

[gjwalberg]

Like can a Titular bishop just swoop into a diocese and start confirming with out approval of the Ordinary?

Well, I'm specifically wondering if the SSPX were to accept an apostolic adminstration or personal prelature, or the FSSP were to be raised to such, whether the Bishops would need permission to do confirmations.

Since (status quo) the FSSP can only operate with the permission of the local Ordinary, it would stand to reason that if the local Ordinary gives approval to the priests, he'd accept their bishop.

But if the FSSP had their own Bishop(s), could they set up shop without permission of the local Ordinary?  If so, that would change the answer.  But if they need the diocesean approval, then it would stand to reason that the local would approve the FSSP's bishop as a result.

[jovan66102]

 Doesn't the FSSP accomplish what SSPX set out to do, but while remaining obedient to Rome?

Here's a question I'll ask and I hope someone will answer.  Is the Bishop of an Apostolic Administration or a Personal Prelature permitted to perform confirmations in a particular diocese without the local ordinary's permission.

There are slight gaps between the FSSP and the SSPX, and I think confirmation and religious instruction could be one of them.

 

I don't know about an Apostolic Administration, but I believe that the Head of a Personal Prelature could do so upon his own subjects without further permissions.

[Robb]

I am against the concept of a personal apostolic administration for trads.  We need to become more integrated into the Novus Ordo structure to effect permanent change on them.  If we ghettoize ourselves into a PAA then the chances of having an effect on mainstream Catholics will be slim to none.  The Moto Pro gives us this opportunity.  Even if there are problems at present, we must work them out and continue to advance in to the ever darkening heart of the NO establishment for the greater good of souls.

Bob

[Marybonita]

On June 30, 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre performed the unlawful consecrations, against the expressed will of the pope and after a canonical warning that he would be excommunicated if he did so.
 
Just a note: the excommunication was the result of the action of disobedience against Church law. It was not imposed by the Pope. I could warn you that you would be excommunicated if you attend a Buddhist ceremony. The action of doing so causes it - neither I nor the Pope has to
tell you so.

However, this action may by mitigated by an involuntary will, invincible ignorance, insufficient knowledge of your action or some other lack in judgement or freedom to act. In the case of the good Archbishop he appealed to a Canon which allows certain actions under extraordinary circumstances. This is overlooked in the general debates about his consecrations. And I think that it is deliberate.

On July 18, 1988 the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter was founded by a dozen former priests and several seminarians from the SSPX.

I doubt if this was spontaneous. It was the result of consultation which really came about as a strategic counterpoint to the SSPX. In truth the Vatican set it up. After all, the Vatican could simply have stated that the ancient Mass was never abrogated and any priest can say it. That makes
the ploy by the Vatican suspect. Why do you even need a congregation dedicated to what is every priest's right?

I'm just a little ol' housewife and I can work out the play here.

honesty must compel one to recognize that it was Archbishop Lefebvre's actions which caused its formation.
I agree. See the above. Why does the Society of St. Peter even exist - especially with the Motu Proprio?

~In JMJ

[StevusMagnus]

It is an eye-opener to read orthodox journals like Christian Order, Latin Mass, even The Remnant (as trad as they come), which, if the SSPX had its way, we'd never read,

The SSPX forbids its faithful to read The Remnant? Bishop Fellay recently gave an interview to them!

How does one know one is not being misled by them?

Check if what they are doing accords with Tradition. Then do the same for the NO Church. Many are being mislead by the NO Church as we speak.

 Is it IMPOSSIBLE that a true, formal schism will develop, and the "SSPX right or wrong" menality will bring one to follow ones "trustworthy" shepherds into schism?

A schism would develop only if the Bishops of the SSPX formally declared that they reject the Pope's authority to govern.

Have  we learnt NOTHING from the last 40 years - that blind loyalty is dangerous?

Of course it is. If your SSPX priest tells you to go to Life-Teen Mass, you should, of course, politely tell him to stuff it and not obey.

I have seen faithful SSPXers REFUSE based on the advice of SSPX priests to fulfill their Sunday obligation when they could easily have attended the Mass of a Tridentine-only, non-sedevacantist, non-Feeneyite, priest, because that priest - technically still incardinated in our local diocese, but estranged from it due to his Traditional stand - had had an unhappy relationship with the former SSPX superior and was thus not in the good books of the local SSPX.

And I have heard NO priests tell kids that women can be Pope, preach the "Cosmic Christ", say Christ founded an institutional Church "in our hearts", joke that if we weren't standing on holy ground before, we are now, after he dropped a host on the floor, etc. So what.

I am sorry - but the sectarian spirit is NOT from the "good old 1950's"; it is disturbing and dangerous.

The SSPX spirit is Catholic. If that seems "sectarian" to the NO Church so be it.

As for the legalism of irregularity - the fact remains that the 4 bishops are regarded as excommunicated and the priests suspended and the Society irregular. Canonical standing and obedience to the Pope are not petty legalisms but importance aspects of the Church and not everyone is comfortable brushing these issues aside.

Rome also says the Society and its faithful are not in schism and that attendance at their Masses for love of the TLM is not a sin and fulfills their Sunday obligation. Rome also allows modest contributions to their coffers.

The "excommunication" was an opinion given in a letter and not any official act of JPII. It was not binding, and proven non-binding when the CDF refused to uphold a Bishop's excommunication of SSPX faithful confirmed by Bishop Williamson. Canon Law tells us that there is no automatic excommunication in circumstances like Abp. Lefebvre found himself in.

[Joshua]

In truth the Vatican set it up.

...

After all, the Vatican could simply have stated that the ancient Mass was never abrogated and any priest can say it. That makes
the ploy by the Vatican suspect. Why do you even need a congregation dedicated to what is every priest's right?

Does the Society adhere to the claim that it was the TLM that lead to their expulsion?

God bless,
JRS

[StevusMagnus]

Does the Society adhere to the claim that it was the TLM that lead to their expulsion?

God bless,
JRS

In essence this is what it was along with the rejection of Religious Liberty and Ecumenism. If the SSPX had been liberal, Rome consecrating Bishops would not have been a problem.

In addition SSPX priests were suspended to begin with for refusing to say the NO. Rome told the Abp. that if he said one NO Mass his problems would go away. He refused.