Correcting Caricatures of the SSPX

JMJ

Introduction

First, a little background on the FSSP St. John Vianney Chapel in Mission Hill Kansas. After the 1988 consecrations and the foundation of the FSSP there was a consistent trend of Dioceses allowing the SSPX to run chapels and churches near SSPX locations.

As with any 'organizational change' there were those who didn't agree with the change and no longer sought the sacraments from the SSPX. I heard from friends that in that era there was a lot of anger and tension (on both sides) between the St. Mary's SSPX and Mission Hill FSSP.

Second, there have been caricatures of the SSPX position (some are evident below) in which personal opinions of SSPX priests and laity are taken as the official position or conflated with those of sedevacantists or 'resistance'.

Recent Perspectives of the SSPX Position

In the shadow of the consecrations a fever pitch accusations and opinions how surfaced - many of which include caricatures of the SSPX positions, of which I reproduce some below.

FSSP Bulletin July 19, 2206

Practical Considerations regarding the current situation of the SSPX. The same also applies to the CMRI in Silver Lake and the SSPX – Resistance in Emmett:
The Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas does not want children enrolled in the Academy
Members of the SSPX can not be a sponsor at Baptism or Confirmation at SJV
Members of SJV can not be a sponsor at the Immaculata for baptism or confirmation
We can no longer attend marriages at the SSPX
The Sacrament of Confession can not be received at the Immaculata
Funerals may be attended for a sufficient reason (e.g. a relative) at the Immaculata, provided one attends passively and not receive Holy Communion
A Welcome Handout for previous members of the SSPX who desire to become members of St. John Vianney Chapel is available on the flyer rack in the entrance of the church. If someone you know from the SSPX is considering coming to SJV, it may be easier to give a copy of the handout.
To become a Member of St. John Vianney Chapel, there is a blue registration form in the entrance of the church. It may be put in the black tray in the entrance, mailed, or put into the collection basket.

Welcome Handout

Welcome to St. John Vianney Chapel
(intended for those who previously attended the SSPX)
The FSSP and Members of St. John Vianney Chapel welcome you to our wonderful and vibrant community in Maple Hill. As some may have initial questions about our chapel or the process to become a member, this short explanation may help.
Given the document of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of Faith of July 2, 2026, the below should help you discern the steps to be taken for your individual situation. Since much rests on your internal dispositions, which only you can discern, while attending the sacraments at the SSPX - a canonical penalty will be part of your own evaluatoni.
To help you make a discernment, there is a distinction between two groups:
A. 1. Lay members of the 3rd Order of the SSPX and 2. Lay faithful who habitually participate in SSPX liturgical celebrations while formally sharing its doctrinal positions.
and
B. 2. (Tradicat: formatting error in original) Lay faithful who attended the SSPX solely for liturgical or spiritual reasons and 2. lay faithful who, although aware of the tensions between the Holy See (Rome), do not reject either the Magisterium or the authority of the Pope.
For Group A, if you desire to remove a canonical penalty and seek full communion with the Church, both a Profession of Faith and The Act of Full Adherence need to be made and sent to the Archbishop of Kansis City in Kansas. Please contact one of our priests to schedule a meeting to begin this process, after which, a formal Profession of Faith will also be made with the priests.
For Goup B, if there was no knowledge or consent to a canonical penalty, it is sufficient to tell a priest at SJV that you resolve not to attend the SSPX in the future and give him a SJV registration form (blue form in the entrance of the church). If you did have knowledge and consent to a canonical penalty, the above procedure for Group A will be done.
To futher assist Group B to discern whether one "rejected either the Magisterium or the authority of the Pope", one could ask self the following questions:
Did I believe the church had fallen away from being the authentic church of Christ?
Did I hold a Pope was not a valid pope?
Did I always consider the legitimate line of Succeessors of St. Peter since 1955 as: Popes Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Francis, Leo XIV?
Did I ever hold the Novus Ordo (English Mass) as invalid?

A Sample of X Exchanges

Requirements for 'Return to Catholic Communion'

The profession of faith in Appendix A is comprised of a recitation of the Nicene Creed followed by:

With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church proposes as divinely revealed, whether by solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal Magisterium.
I likewise firmly accept and hold each and every teaching definitively proposed by the Church regarding faith and morals.
Moreover, with religious submission of will and intellect, I adhere to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops proclaim when exercising their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim them by a definitive act.

Then in Appendix B we find:

I, _______________________________________________ promise fidelity to the Catholic Church and to the Roman Pontiff, the Supreme Pastor of the Church, the Vicar of Christ, the Successor of Blessed Peter in his primacy, and the Head of the College of Bishops, refraining from every public statement that would oppose either his person or his Magisterium (cf. canons 1373 and 1365 of the Code of Canon Law).
I accept the doctrine taught in No. 25 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council concerning the Magisterium of the Church and the adherence owed to it.
With regard to certain doctrines taught by the Second Vatican Council, or subsequent reforms in either the Sacred Liturgy or Canon Law, which may appear to some to be difficult to reconcile with previous declarations of the Magisterium, I undertake to follow a positive approach to their interpretation under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium, so that none of these teachings may be separated from the remainder of the Church's sacred doctrinal patrimony.
I further declare that I accept the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does, and according to the rites contained in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the ritual books promulgated by the Supreme Pontiffs Paul VI and John Paul II.
Finally, I promise to adhere to the common discipline of the Church and to her laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II.

Some thoughts

Looking at the self-examination questions provided by the FSSP (red highlight), I conclude that who ever wrote this has confused the SSPX with the Sedevacantists (CMRI and on branch of the 'resistance'). None of these four points represent the position of the SSPX.

Further, they completely miss the point of rejecting the 'magisterium' - it would have been better to be a little (or a lot) more specific about what requires "religious submission of will and intellect".

Metaphorically, if the Pope says that the colour white is black or vice-versa contradicting past Pontiffs - who are we to believe? The one aligned with 2000 years of magisterium or the recent vacillation and contradictions? The most recent of which is the contradiction between Summorum Pontificum (link 1), Summorum Pontificum Letter (link 2) and Traditiones Custodes (link 3).

Art 1. ... These two expressions of the Church’s lex orandi (Tradicat: Novus Ordo and Tridentine) will in no way lead to a division in the Church’s lex credendi (rule of faith); or they are two usages of the one Roman rite. It is therefore permitted to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal, which was promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Church’s Liturgy. (Link 1)
As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. ...What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. (link 2)
Art. 1. The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite. ... to determine that these groups do not deny the validity and the legitimacy of the liturgical reform, dictated by Vatican Council II and the Magisterium of the Supreme Pontiffs ... Priests ordained after the publication of the present Motu Proprio, who wish to celebrate using the Missale Romanum of 1962, should submit a formal request to the diocesan Bishop who shall consult the Apostolic See before granting this authorization. ... (link 3).

In a similar vein, the core of Tina's X rant is that the SSPX does not submit to the magisterium and always resorts to propaganda.

The fact is that the SSPX has been clear - especially since 2012 and the doctrinal discussions - about the core issues. I find it hard to believe that someone would try to reconcile the magisterium contained within Fiducia Supplicans and Amoris Laetitia.

Fiducia Supplicans:

So, in reading Fiducia Supplicans and the attendant Vatican clarifications (bad sign when an official Papal Document needs a doctrinal clarification), I think of Shakespeare:

The Lady doth protest too much! (Hamlet): The expression is used in everyday speech to indicate doubt of someone's sincerity, in particular the suspicion that someone who denies something very strongly is hiding the truth. The line is often misquoted as "Methinks the lady doth protest too much." (wiki)

What is written in the document ...

... It is precisely in this context that one can understand the possibility of blessing couples in irregular situations and same-sex couples without officially validating their status or changing in any way the Church’s perennial teaching on marriage. ...
... 2. Encouraged by such a great and consoling truth, this Dicastery has considered several questions of both a formal and an informal nature about the possibility of blessing same-sex couples and—in light of Pope Francis’ fatherly and pastoral approach—of offering new clarifications on the Responsum ad dubium[2] that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published on 22 February 2021. ...
... 39. In any case, precisely to avoid any form of confusion or scandal, when the prayer of blessing is requested by a couple in an irregular situation, even though it is expressed outside the rites prescribed by the liturgical books, this blessing should never be imparted in concurrence with the ceremonies of a civil union, and not even in connection with them. Nor can it be performed with any clothing, gestures, or words that are proper to a wedding.The same applies when the blessing is requested by a same-sex couple. ...
... 41. What has been said in this Declaration regarding the blessings of same-sex couples is sufficient to guide the prudent and fatherly discernment of ordained ministers in this regard. Thus, beyond the guidance provided above, no further responses should be expected about possible ways to regulate details or practicalities regarding blessings of this type.[26]

So couples not living according to the Ten Commandments and explicit verses in the Bible are approaching the Church for a blessing and receiving one. There is nothing about the fact of their relationship with God vis-a-vis state of grace etc.

At best this is a case of the Church Magisterium saying one thing on paper and misleading those in these 'irregular situations and same-sex couples'.

https://fsspx.news/en/news/movement-fiducia-supplicans-front-53262

https://fsspx.org/en/publications/fiducia-supplicans-synodal-church-listening-world-42158

https://fsspx.uk/en/communique-superior-general-43778

https://firstthings.com/fiducia-supplicans-and-doctrinal-clarity/

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20231218_fiducia-supplicans_en.html

https://press.vatican.va/con tent/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2023/12/18/0901/01963.html#en

https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2023-12/fiducia-supplicans-doctrine-faith-blessing-irregular-couples.html

https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2024-01/dicastery-for-the-doctrine-of-the-faith-on-fiducia-supplicans.html

https://outreach.faith/2023/12/as-a-married-gay-catholic-just-blessed-by-a-catholic-priest-i-welcome-the-churchs-openness/

Amoris Laetitia (2016):

This document makes possible for someone living objectively in a state of either public fornication or adultery to commit the sacrilege of receiving Holy Communion in that it fails to bring into play the necessity of approaching this Sacrament with the right dispositions, and in a State of Grace. Otherwise, they eat their own damnation. In the name of the pastoral,

305. For this reason, a pastor cannot feel that it is enough simply to apply moral laws to those living in “irregular” situations, as if they were stones to throw at people’s lives. This would bespeak the closed heart of one used to hiding behind the Church’s teachings, “sitting on the chair of Moses and judging at times with superiority and superficiality difficult cases and wounded families”. ... Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.(footnote 351) Discernment must help to find possible ways of responding to God and growing in the midst of limits. By thinking that everything is black and white, we sometimes close off the way of grace and of growth, and discourage paths of sanctification which give glory to God. Let us remember that “a small step, in the midst of great human limitations, can be more pleasing to God than a life which appears outwardly in order, but moves through the day without confronting great difficulties”. The practical pastoral care of ministers and of communities must not fail to embrace this reality.

(351) In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, “I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy” (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium [24 November 2013], 44: AAS 105 [2013], 1038). I would also point out that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak” (ibid., 47: 1039).

https://sspx.org/en/amoris-laetitia-32517

https://sspx.org/en/amoris-laetitia-critical-analysis-32210

Those two documents in themselves made clear that which was cloaked in the same ambiguous language of Vatican II. It seems to me that the couples in question are not been led into Grace but led astray.

Conclusion

To accept the post-Vatican II Magisterium is to accept, without reservations or distinctions, elements that implicitly or explicitly contradict previous magisterium.

In essence, the Pope et al are saying to the SSPX:

Who are you going to believe hundreds of years of clear and precise pre-V2 authoritative Papal Magisterium or the ambiguous and imprecise post-V2 Magisterium????

Said another way:

White is Black and Black is White, who are you going to believe me or your own eyes?

P^3

Sources:

Thoughts on: Finding Common Ground Between Rome and the SSPX

+ JMJ In the ramp up to the consecrations the noise floor in the intergnat grew to a constant din. This was one of the few the peeped its signal over the noise. https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/finding-common-ground-between-rome-and-the-sspx The key issue is contained in this paragraph: In the lead-up to the planned July 1, 2026, episcopal consecrations, the SSPX rejected Rome’s offer of doctrinal dialogue on the grounds that “we both know in advance that we cannot agree doctrinally, particularly regarding the fundamental orientations adopted since the Second Vatican Council.” Fr. Pagliarani also said that his previous attempt at dialogue in 2019 was shut down by Rome because of an assumed irreconcilability. It seems that, from the Society’s perspective, and perhaps from Rome’s too, their positions are incompatible. If memory serves, Rome killed any opportunity for an open discussion by stating that Vatican II was not up for debate. So it was a still-birth and ...

Tradicat

Search This Blog