Our SSPX chapel was founded in response to the shutting down of churches during the covid pan[ic]demic. The congregation continues to grow. We have two services every Sunday. At this point in time, a significant portion of the down payment money required to purchase a property and build or renovate a chapel has been raised, but we have a ways to go. In spite of that we are actively looking for a permanent home.
Lucky are those of us who love the TM and live near an SSPX chapel. (They are neither in schism nor out of communion with the Vatican, as their detractors like to claim in error.)
Thanks Peter for another much anticipated weekly round up. Where you get the time and energy to source, digest, expound and package all of this material on a weekly basis, is a marvel to me.
On the Caminante article: yes, a worthwhile read indeed. It got me reflecting on my own decade long reversion to the Church, beginning with the fleeting yet eye-stinging exposure to the novus ordo, the stumbling into the Latin mass and then tradition, and the sometimes naive sometimes militant view that it will all come good soon, very soon. Indeed early in that decade, there was hope that Bishop Fellay had negotiated a way forward with Rome, but that did not come to be. That would have been a meaningful moment for the crises. But the years have rolled on and as the article predicts, the successors of Francis are root and branch modernists, so my outlook has changed to that not of despair but to resignation of 'not in my lifetime' lest some miraculous intervention occurs. Anyway, thanks for the interesting and thought provoking topics.
You're very welcome. It helps that I can keep at all of this as a full-time job (though I miss being in the classroom with college students, I can honestly say I've never once regretted making the switch to being a full-time writer).
Your view is pretty close to mine. I do think there could be some surprises, and some more rapid changes, but this can't be assumed or expected.
One of my all-time favorite articles about the dawn that is breaking is this one:
Our SSPX priests travel 3 hours each way to conduct the TLM on Sundays and major feast days. We have a chapel that is in a rented space in an industrial complex. Did you know the SSPX clergy are missionaries on assignment here in North America? We savages certainly need their ministrations!
They are heroic in their efforts. The one thing that bothers me is that so many of the chapels are not proper chapels but spaces like the one you describe. Surely, the local faithful can pool their resources, fundraise, and try to buy or build a proper chapel? Sometimes abandoned Protestant churches can be nicely converted.
Buying a chapel has proven easier said than done. Our ICKSP oratory in San Jose was hosted (for a hefty monthly fee) in a beautiful diocesan Five Wounds Portuguese National Church, but we only were allowed one TLM in the main church on Sundays. We also had two earlier low Masses in an adjacent tiny chapel. We are fundraising, but the Bay area real estate market is prohibitively expensive. Also diocesan limitations on the amount that can be financed are a limitation. Lots of problems. No easy solution.
I had the chance to chat with our priest the other day. He's been very helpful to me personally, and he even had the guts to give a Sunday homily on hell(!). When we mentioned we might visit the small SSPX church in a tiny town some distance away, he explained that their masses were "valid" but not "licit," and that meant that the priests were committing a sin each time they celebrated; that Jesus is there, but He's "ticked." The more I hear about the SSPX the more confused I get. Can you clarify this for me? I know we are "allowed" to go to an SSPX mass, but would like to be able to do it without feeling like we're transgressing in some way.
On another topic, this same priest is into the charismatic renewal and has been for some time. He's now enrolled in the Encounter Ministries school which recently started up in the diocese (at the bishop's invitation), where they've been told that "we can do what Jesus did." He doesn't talk about it in his homilies or lay it on anyone who doesn't approach him directly, but his involvement has somewhat colored my feelings toward him (and I don't have much affinity for the other priest in our parish). Do you have any advice you can offer on this situation?
Thanks, as always, for your response and links--I will follow up on all I haven't already read. With regard to licitness, what I gather from your article on the four qualities at NLM is that licitness means "allowed." The position of the Church seems to be that SSPX masses are technically allowed but should be avoided whenever possible. So the consequence of going to SSPX masses is that you'll be considered somehow unclean for having gone, but not sinful enough to have to take it to Confession. Is that accurate?
The trouble is, what is "licit" in the Church has become a political football. You're heard the expression "lawfare." Well, that has its ecclesiastical equivalent too. At this point, with what I have studied over the years, I believe the Novus Ordo itself was illicitly imposed on the Church and does not carry a legal requirement behind it, either for clergy or for laity. Similarly, I believe that the Roman Rite (i.e., the traditional rite) has immemorial legal standing and that any Latin-rite priest or lay person has a legal claim to it. So, from this point of view, there is nothing "unclean" at all about assisting at the old Mass at an SSPX chapel. One last thought: there is no "position of the Church" on the SSPX, in the sense of a single, consistent, published state of affairs. The attitudes and policies vary from country to country, diocese to diocese. The official line has generally been "valid but illicit," and yet, that can be said of innumerable Novus Ordo Masses too.
I believe that the faithful are told not to attend a SSPX Mass, and the unavailability of a TLM or reverent NO Mass is not an excuse. So I do believe it is a sin.
Roseanne, we would disagree on this point, for reasons I've explained elsewhere. Even John Salza, the embodiment of the anti-SSPX line, has said that if a bishop were to give someone permission to attend, it would be okay to do so. Well, there are in fact bishops out there who have told their faithful they may attend the SSPX chapels, and in fact I know of a regular diocesan bishop who has visited and offered Mass AT an SSPX chapel. To say the picture is complex would be an understatement.
I'm cautious in calling this advice, but in my own situation I've wrestled with the SSPX question and I've settled on the fact that what they do is what mass always was like - identically - before the hamfisted aggiornamento of the council architects. Therefore as Pope Benedict said, what was good before cannot now be bad.
In my own experience too, when I come across a priest/community that is showing signs of being bonkers, I'm out of there. If you haven't researched the dangers of the charismatic movement and the infectiousness of it, either read Msgr Knox's excellent Enthusiasm, or head over to Kennedy Hall's substack/youtube. All the best.
I’m assuming my FSSP parish will have Mass on December 9, but curiously, a friend’s SSPX parish does not (even though the diocese has made 12/9 a holy day). Is there any particular reason for this, or is it simply due to the way in which the SSPX is set up, where most of the time, the priory isn’t located at the individual parish?
Normally this is because the SSPX send priests out from their priories (sort of regional HQs) to their chapels, where there are no resident clergy. Hence, it may be that they simply don't have the manpower to make Mass available on the 9th in that place.
Lucky are those of us who love the TLM and who live near an SSPX chapel. (They are neither out of communion with the Vatican, nor are they in schism, as their detractors claim in error.)
Thank you for the double mention--it is quite a compliment, Dr. K. Thankfully, Heaven will allow neither Modernism nor (I surmise) Japanese Knotweed. Re. the Immaculate Conception: I too attend an SSPX chapel. The Romanitas Press Ordo has the Immaculate Conception on that Sunday with a commemoration of the Sunday; likewise the SSPX calendar, as well as the calendar of the Fairfield Carmelites, and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, but not the Benedictines of Mary. Here is the link to the US District of the SSPX's 1962 Ordo for that day: https://1962ordo.today/day/feast-immaculate-conception-3-2-2-2-2/
Our SSPX chapel was founded in response to the shutting down of churches during the covid pan[ic]demic. The congregation continues to grow. We have two services every Sunday. At this point in time, a significant portion of the down payment money required to purchase a property and build or renovate a chapel has been raised, but we have a ways to go. In spite of that we are actively looking for a permanent home.
Ah, very good to hear! May God bless this endeavor with success.
Lucky are those of us who love the TM and live near an SSPX chapel. (They are neither in schism nor out of communion with the Vatican, as their detractors like to claim in error.)
Thanks Peter for another much anticipated weekly round up. Where you get the time and energy to source, digest, expound and package all of this material on a weekly basis, is a marvel to me.
On the Caminante article: yes, a worthwhile read indeed. It got me reflecting on my own decade long reversion to the Church, beginning with the fleeting yet eye-stinging exposure to the novus ordo, the stumbling into the Latin mass and then tradition, and the sometimes naive sometimes militant view that it will all come good soon, very soon. Indeed early in that decade, there was hope that Bishop Fellay had negotiated a way forward with Rome, but that did not come to be. That would have been a meaningful moment for the crises. But the years have rolled on and as the article predicts, the successors of Francis are root and branch modernists, so my outlook has changed to that not of despair but to resignation of 'not in my lifetime' lest some miraculous intervention occurs. Anyway, thanks for the interesting and thought provoking topics.
You're very welcome. It helps that I can keep at all of this as a full-time job (though I miss being in the classroom with college students, I can honestly say I've never once regretted making the switch to being a full-time writer).
Your view is pretty close to mine. I do think there could be some surprises, and some more rapid changes, but this can't be assumed or expected.
One of my all-time favorite articles about the dawn that is breaking is this one:
https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2021/08/the-revolution-is-over.html
Our SSPX priests travel 3 hours each way to conduct the TLM on Sundays and major feast days. We have a chapel that is in a rented space in an industrial complex. Did you know the SSPX clergy are missionaries on assignment here in North America? We savages certainly need their ministrations!
They are heroic in their efforts. The one thing that bothers me is that so many of the chapels are not proper chapels but spaces like the one you describe. Surely, the local faithful can pool their resources, fundraise, and try to buy or build a proper chapel? Sometimes abandoned Protestant churches can be nicely converted.
Buying a chapel has proven easier said than done. Our ICKSP oratory in San Jose was hosted (for a hefty monthly fee) in a beautiful diocesan Five Wounds Portuguese National Church, but we only were allowed one TLM in the main church on Sundays. We also had two earlier low Masses in an adjacent tiny chapel. We are fundraising, but the Bay area real estate market is prohibitively expensive. Also diocesan limitations on the amount that can be financed are a limitation. Lots of problems. No easy solution.
It can indeed be very difficulty - especially in a real estate market like California's!
I had the chance to chat with our priest the other day. He's been very helpful to me personally, and he even had the guts to give a Sunday homily on hell(!). When we mentioned we might visit the small SSPX church in a tiny town some distance away, he explained that their masses were "valid" but not "licit," and that meant that the priests were committing a sin each time they celebrated; that Jesus is there, but He's "ticked." The more I hear about the SSPX the more confused I get. Can you clarify this for me? I know we are "allowed" to go to an SSPX mass, but would like to be able to do it without feeling like we're transgressing in some way.
On another topic, this same priest is into the charismatic renewal and has been for some time. He's now enrolled in the Encounter Ministries school which recently started up in the diocese (at the bishop's invitation), where they've been told that "we can do what Jesus did." He doesn't talk about it in his homilies or lay it on anyone who doesn't approach him directly, but his involvement has somewhat colored my feelings toward him (and I don't have much affinity for the other priest in our parish). Do you have any advice you can offer on this situation?
There is a lot of confusion about the SSPX. For important "big picture" considerations, you'll find an earlier post here at T&S helpful:
https://www.traditionsanity.com/p/on-the-sspx-and-the-situation-of
For a more nitty-gritty analysis:
https://www.amazon.com/SSPX-Defence-Kennedy-Hall/dp/B0C2S4MWDG
As much as one can find good people involved in the charismatic renewal, there are also enough red flags to make one skeptical:
https://onepeterfive.com/confusion-about-graces-a-catholic-critique-of-the-charismatic-movement/
Thanks, as always, for your response and links--I will follow up on all I haven't already read. With regard to licitness, what I gather from your article on the four qualities at NLM is that licitness means "allowed." The position of the Church seems to be that SSPX masses are technically allowed but should be avoided whenever possible. So the consequence of going to SSPX masses is that you'll be considered somehow unclean for having gone, but not sinful enough to have to take it to Confession. Is that accurate?
The trouble is, what is "licit" in the Church has become a political football. You're heard the expression "lawfare." Well, that has its ecclesiastical equivalent too. At this point, with what I have studied over the years, I believe the Novus Ordo itself was illicitly imposed on the Church and does not carry a legal requirement behind it, either for clergy or for laity. Similarly, I believe that the Roman Rite (i.e., the traditional rite) has immemorial legal standing and that any Latin-rite priest or lay person has a legal claim to it. So, from this point of view, there is nothing "unclean" at all about assisting at the old Mass at an SSPX chapel. One last thought: there is no "position of the Church" on the SSPX, in the sense of a single, consistent, published state of affairs. The attitudes and policies vary from country to country, diocese to diocese. The official line has generally been "valid but illicit," and yet, that can be said of innumerable Novus Ordo Masses too.
I believe that the faithful are told not to attend a SSPX Mass, and the unavailability of a TLM or reverent NO Mass is not an excuse. So I do believe it is a sin.
Roseanne, we would disagree on this point, for reasons I've explained elsewhere. Even John Salza, the embodiment of the anti-SSPX line, has said that if a bishop were to give someone permission to attend, it would be okay to do so. Well, there are in fact bishops out there who have told their faithful they may attend the SSPX chapels, and in fact I know of a regular diocesan bishop who has visited and offered Mass AT an SSPX chapel. To say the picture is complex would be an understatement.
I'm cautious in calling this advice, but in my own situation I've wrestled with the SSPX question and I've settled on the fact that what they do is what mass always was like - identically - before the hamfisted aggiornamento of the council architects. Therefore as Pope Benedict said, what was good before cannot now be bad.
In my own experience too, when I come across a priest/community that is showing signs of being bonkers, I'm out of there. If you haven't researched the dangers of the charismatic movement and the infectiousness of it, either read Msgr Knox's excellent Enthusiasm, or head over to Kennedy Hall's substack/youtube. All the best.
I’m assuming my FSSP parish will have Mass on December 9, but curiously, a friend’s SSPX parish does not (even though the diocese has made 12/9 a holy day). Is there any particular reason for this, or is it simply due to the way in which the SSPX is set up, where most of the time, the priory isn’t located at the individual parish?
Normally this is because the SSPX send priests out from their priories (sort of regional HQs) to their chapels, where there are no resident clergy. Hence, it may be that they simply don't have the manpower to make Mass available on the 9th in that place.
"...We will invent a new flavor among the 1,001 flavors already on offer in the Baskin-Robbins Novus Ordo."
Hahaha!
Lucky are those of us who love the TLM and who live near an SSPX chapel. (They are neither out of communion with the Vatican, nor are they in schism, as their detractors claim in error.)
Thank you for the double mention--it is quite a compliment, Dr. K. Thankfully, Heaven will allow neither Modernism nor (I surmise) Japanese Knotweed. Re. the Immaculate Conception: I too attend an SSPX chapel. The Romanitas Press Ordo has the Immaculate Conception on that Sunday with a commemoration of the Sunday; likewise the SSPX calendar, as well as the calendar of the Fairfield Carmelites, and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, but not the Benedictines of Mary. Here is the link to the US District of the SSPX's 1962 Ordo for that day: https://1962ordo.today/day/feast-immaculate-conception-3-2-2-2-2/