The FSSP and the SSPX

[Amator Veritatis]

Because the previous thread seems to have altered its nature as far as the discussion is concerned and because I fear that my response might be lost in the clamour, I have decided to post it here to continue the pertinent discussion with those interested:

N.B., the original question inquired as to the reason that the supporters of the SSPX often do not support the FSSP.


Perhaps I could bring some clarity to this matter, for I assist at Mass at a parish of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, [i]Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Petri[/i], FSSP, and know those who assist at Masses at chapels of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, [i]Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Pii Decimi[/i], FSSPX (often termed the Society of Saint Pius X in English and hereinafter, SSPX). The oversimplification of the disapproval of the FSSP by supporters of the SSPX as an historical matter is naïve and simply inaccurate. If anything, the clerical members of the SSPX, the seminarians, priests and bishops, might be inclined to disapprove of the FSSP for the historical reason that they separated themselves from the SSPX at the founding of the FSSP by Pope John Paul II. Even this assessment, however, is incomplete at best, illustrating merely a rudimentary understanding of the actual sentiments of the members and supporters of the SSPX. The truth of the matter is that most of the supporters of the SSPX oppose the FSSP for the fact that, at least in their opinions, the FSSP and the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, [i]Institutum Christi Regis Summi Sacerdotis[/i], (hereinafter ICR) as well as the now-suppressed Society of Saint John simply have not maintained unadulterated traditionalism. By this phrase is meant that the other groups officially recognised and formally sanctioned by Rome have failed to maintain traditional principles regarding the status of Vatican II, the [i]Novus Ordo Missae,[/i] the 1983 Code of Canon Law, the new Catechism of the Catholic Church [i]et al[/i]. Without discussing the specific positions of the SSPX on any of those matters, suffice it to say that the supporters of the SSPX feel that the FSSP, ICR, [i]et al[/i]., have simply failed to recognise the heresy of Modernism which permeates--at least in their opinions and those of many others--so much of the activity in the Church today. The historical issue is not only often regarded as unimportant, but there are many who assist at Masses at SSPX chapels who do not know much information about the historical roots of the SSPX, much less that the FSSP in some manner replaced the SSPX after its institution. It should also be noted, as a general rule, the supporters of the SSPX are essentially always as rigid or extreme in their views regarding a given matter as the official position of the SSPX, if there be any, but they are often or at least sometimes more strict, e.g., the SSPX promotes that the vernacular [i]Novus Ordo Missae [/i]is at least questionably valid as a result of the defective consecration of the chalice which states "for all" rather than "for many", pro multis, as its Latin form states; many supporters of the SSPX maintain that the vernacular [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i] is certainly invalid or that every [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i] is invalid. This principle, that the majority of the faithful who assist at Mass are often more strict or rigid in their views that the official positions held by the clergy offering the Mass, seems to prevail whether the clergy be SSPX, FSSP, ICR or even the educated faithful who assist at the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i].


It should also be noted that an FSSP priest is not obliged to say the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i]. While he is permitted this option and, as Rome has stated that it is the right of any priest in the Latin rite to offer the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i], he is by no means required to offer it. Interestingly enough, after the debacle in 1999 in which 16 priests, mostly French, of the FSSP sought permission to concelebrate the Chrism Mass, there was something of a debate within the FSSP as to the exact status of priests who wished to offer the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i], though the votes at their chapter meeting confirmed the sentiments of the priests in the FSSP, with the most traditional priest being elected to places of authority, all of whom were known to be opponents of concelebration or the celebration of the Novus Ordo Missae[/I ]or both. As a result of this desire on the part of the 16 priests, a [i]dubium[/i] was presented to the Congregation of Divine Worship by those wishing to concelebrate the Chrism Mass and others, including a number of laymen, most of whom were also from France. Having consulted with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei and the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, the Congregation of Divine Worship issued the infamous Protocol 1411/99 (usually simply deemed Protocol 1411 or the Protocol). Protocol 1411/99 offered the following answer to a question regarding the celebration of the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i] by traditional priests:

Can a priest who is a member of an institute which enjoys the faculty of celebrating the rite in force before the liturgical restoration of Vatican II freely use the Roman Missal promulgated by the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI when he celebrates the Eucharistic Sacrifice for the good of a community in which the Mass is celebrated according to this missal, even if occasionally?

Affirmative and ad mentem . Mens: Since the use of the preconciliar missal is conceded by indult, it does not remove the common liturgical right to the Roman Rite, according to which the missal in force is that promulgated after the Second Vatican Council. [i]Moreover, the above-mentioned priest must celebrate with the post-conciliar missal if, by chance, a celebration takes place in a community which uses the modern Roman Rite[/i]. This is so in order that there be no wonderment (confusion) or inconvenience for the faithful and also in order that he might be a help to his brother priests who ask this service of pastoral charity. (emphasis added)

Now, this statement only requires the priest to offer the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i] in a community which uses the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i]. The priests of the FSSP and ICR at least cannot be forced to offer the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i], for the requirement stated in Protocol 1411/99 would not apply to a priest who chooses to offer the Mass strictly in a traditional setting, so while it can be said that a priest of the FSSP or ICR could, perhaps, be required under certain circumstances to offer the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i], it cannot be said that such priests can be forced to do so. This is an important distinction, especially in the minds of the clergy of the FSSP and ICR, which has been manifested both publicly and privately.


I should add that I have been unable to find a document suppressing the traditional Mass. Because of this fact, the Mass can be offered by any priest. Cam seems to be unaware of this fact or seems to deny it outright. If there is any disagreement on this point, I would be interested in reading an authoritative document suppressing the traditional Mass. It is noteworthy at least that a small convocation of Cardinals was called by John Paul II in 1986 to answer questions regarding the use of the traditional Mass. The commission, comprised of Cardinals Ratzinger, Mayer, Oddi, Stickler, Casaroli, Gantin, Innocenti, Palaz-zini, and Tomko, determined that the traditional Mass had never been forbidden, that priests are not obliged to offer the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i] and that bishops cannot forbid or place restrictions on the celebration of the traditional rite of Mass whether in public or in private. Though their findings be not authoritative in themselves, they are certainly an illustration of the mens ecclesiae in this matter. In addition, eight of the nine Cardinals favoured an official document making their findings clear and public. These facts have been affirmed by Cardinal Stickler, one of the Cardinals called for the commission.

Edited March 7, 2006 by Amator Veritatis

[Dave]

The real reason why the SSPX and other rad-trads hate the FSSP and other members of the indult crowd is because they consider those who attend indult Tridentine Masses to be sell-outs for accepting Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Mass.

Edited March 8, 2006 by Dave

[Amator Veritatis]

That may very well be the case, but, just as a point of clarification, we ought recognise that a person who assists at Mass at a parish or chapel of the FSSP or ICR or a person who assists at Mass even at an indult, diocesan parish does not necessarily accept Vatican II, nor does he necessarily accept the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i], though he would, under most circumstances, necessarily accept its validity, for many Hosts distributed at the traditional Mass in indult parishes are consecrated at the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i].

Edited March 8, 2006 by Amator Veritatis

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Amator Veritatis' date='Mar 8 2006, 02:08 PM']That may very well be the case, but, just as a point of clarification, we ought recognise that a person who assists at Mass at a parish or chapel of the FSSP or ICR or a person who assists at Mass even at an indult, diocesan parish does not necessarily accept Vatican II, nor does he necessarily accept the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i], though he would, under most circumstances, necessarily accept its validity, for many Hosts distributed at the traditional Mass in indult parishes are consecrated at the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i].
[right][snapback]906712[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Very true...

[Era Might]

One of the stipulations for the indult extended by John Paul was that those who sought the indult did not question the Mass of Paul VI:

[quote]That those requesting permission do not "call into question the legitimacy and doctrinal exactitude of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970".

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/CEDMeyer.htm"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/CEDMeyer.htm[/url][/quote]

This is pretty much blasphemy for the SSPX.

Edited March 8, 2006 by Era Might

[Dave]

[quote name='Amator Veritatis' date='Mar 8 2006, 03:08 PM']That may very well be the case, but, just as a point of clarification, we ought recognise that a person who assists at Mass at a parish or chapel of the FSSP or ICR or a person who assists at Mass even at an indult, diocesan parish does not necessarily accept Vatican II, nor does he necessarily accept the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i], though he would, under most circumstances, necessarily accept its validity, for many Hosts distributed at the traditional Mass in indult parishes are consecrated at the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i].
[right][snapback]906712[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

True, but all those who assist at FSSP, ICR, and indult Masses SHOULD accept Vatican II and the Novus Ordo -- no exceptions -- or else they shouldn't call themselves Catholic.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Amator Veritatis' date='Mar 8 2006, 03:08 PM']That may very well be the case, but, just as a point of clarification, we ought recognise that a person who assists at Mass at a parish or chapel of the FSSP or ICR or a person who assists at Mass even at an indult, diocesan parish does not necessarily accept Vatican II, nor does he necessarily accept the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i], though he would, under most circumstances, necessarily accept its validity, for many Hosts distributed at the traditional Mass in indult parishes are consecrated at the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i].
[right][snapback]906712[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

thats a really interesting point at the end there! I never thought of that....

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 8 2006, 03:13 PM']One of the stipulations for the indult extended by John Paul was that those who sought the indult did not question the Mass of Paul VI:
This is pretty much blasphemy for the SSPX.
[right][snapback]906763[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yeah it is a requirement, but I do know that there are at least a few people at the FSSP Mass that I go to who do not accept the NO

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

accept the NO?

does that mean accept its validity?

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Mar 8 2006, 03:39 PM']accept the NO?

does that mean accept its validity?
[right][snapback]906785[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yup that's what I meant.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

most sspxers accept the validity of the NO mass anyway

[Era Might]

The Holy See stipulates that they must accept not only the validity, but the "doctrinal exactitude" of the Missal of Paul VI.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh well than some of FSSP priests don't accept that.

[Era Might]

Well they better amend themselves promptly. We have enough dissenters in the Priesthood.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

they will not.