Talk:Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter

There needs to be more history in regards to their split from the SSPX and the controversies. Many Catholics do not consider the priests ordained since 1988 to be valid. Many FSSP priests accept RCIA and the Novus Ordo mass. They pick-and-choose what pre-Conciliar rules to follow. For example, they accept without question Vatican II, annulments, the John Paul II catechism, and they share churches. It's not clear which priests are validly vs invalidly ordained. It seems they share the Eucharist with Novus Ordo priests without reservation. They are directly obedient to the local Novus Ordo bishops and give money to the local bishops, unlike SSPX or other Catholic groups who operate totally outside of the Conciliar Church. It would be good to make it clear that FSSP has the appearance of traditions in some ways, but that they fully accept and are in communion with the Conciliar Church. This is a major issue because they broke away from SSPX, and the whole purpose of the SSPX was to have valid bishops and sacraments, and FSSP has totally abandoned the principle instead to have the facade of traditionalism, while totally accepting the new faith of Vatican II. Many laymen are fooled into thinking the FSSP is somehow fully traditional, while ignoring all these issues where they pick-and-choose what to accept as valid or not valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.144.200.122 (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

This is not a fundamentalist group, certainly not in the Christian sense of the word "Fundamentalism", which typically acknowledges a literal, plain reading of the Bible as the only authority in Christianity. The FSSP has the typical Catholic view of juggling a wide range of authoritative documents, including Church Doctors and Fathers, Holy Tradition, Papal promulgations, and ecumenical councils, as well as the incorporation of various philosophical systems into Christianity. The FSSP accepts the decrees of the Second Vatican Council and they are in full communion with the Popes since that council. They are distinctive becasue they use the old Rites and artistic traditions of of the Catholic Church. If the implication of the term 'Fundamentalist' is 'reactionary', then the categorization of "Christian fundamentalism" is NPOV. --02:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Can someone give the current member numbers, please? --Benedikt 07:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

According to their website [1], they have 300 members consisting of 180 priests, 13 deacons and 107 seminarians. NuncAutNunquam ^Talk 01:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

This group is accused of including antisemitic prayers in their masses, at least in some instances (e.g. reported by Der Spiegel 8/2009). Could somebody more knowledgeable please provide more detail? 71.142.254.57 (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think this only refers to their use of the liturgical prayer regarding the conversion of Jews on Good Friday, as per the wording of the Divine Office that was in use until the Council of Vatican II. The FSSP being a traditionalist community, it uses these formulas of prayer. However, this particular prayer was modified by Pope Benedict XVI to appear less offensive, a few years ago. On this occasion, the Society of Saint Pius X, which does not accept Roman decisions (not deemed enough "traditional") issued a statement to say that it would continue to use the old wording. However, the FSSP accepted the new one; they even provided the Gregorian notation to fit the prayer singing ( http://www.fsspolgs.org/audio/sheets/ProConversioneIudaeorum.pdf ). In other words, there might have been confusion in the media, due to the fact that the FSSP originated from an internal "schism" within the traditionalist movement in 1988, when a few priests and seminarians quit the SSPX to create the new priestly fraternity in allegiance to Rome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.55.85.97 (talk) 01:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

Image:Bisig beim Papst.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

there is not any thing about camp St Peter in the black hills. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.250.84.10 (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

This section seems to have taken over the entire article. Perhaps listing every parish that the F.S.S.P. is unneccessary. (Imagine if the article for Order of Friars Minor did the same!) Wikipedia is not a directory or a phone book. I think it would suffice to condense the section into maybe a few very important parishes (but how to decide that), or just a digestion like: "The F.S.S.P. runs parishes and mass centres in the following countries, provinces, and states..." Opinions? — AlekJDS ^talk 03:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Just noticed it, Wikipedia is NOT a directory. If the church is notable, then a link might be acceptable, but we do not list every Church that is FFPS.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 23:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Notice how any edits regarding the true history of the FSSP and criticisms from the much larger SSPX are removed from the page. There is no mention of the FSSP saying the New Mass, no mention of the questionable ordinations, no mention of Rome appointing a modernist to lead the FSSP in 2000. All of these edits have been deleted as "unreliable", but unreliable according to the editor seems to mean "pages we do not like." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.144.200.122 (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

As you can see from my edit summary, the sources are not reliable secondary sources and so the edits are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Find valid sources and I have no problem. Elizium23 (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Elizium23 has declared that sources are valid so long as he personally thinks they're valid (i.e. Fallacy of Authority). He's decided that any links originating from SSPX, the parent organization of FSSP, are not reliable by definition. He will only accept articles that are in support of the position of the FSSP (i.e. articles originating from within the Conciliar Church) and that any positions contrary to the beliefs the FSSP are invalid. Considering that the leadership of the FSSP got its priesthood from the SSPX, that SSPX is a larger and global organization (SSPX has far more Masses and priests), and that the SSPX was founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre who was a well-known archbishop and the biggest name in all of traditional Catholicism, it's bizarre (to say the least) that the SSPX is not considered a reliable source. This is pure bias and whitewashing of the wikipedia page by this person styled as Elizium23. I would assume they are connected to the FSSP, whereas I do not attend SSPX chapels. He would likely readily dismiss any source that is outside of the Conciliar Church, no matter the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.144.200.122 (talk) 19:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

This IP has been blocked for personal attacks. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• FSSP emblem.svg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• FSSP emblem.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Here is a summary from CNA. Veverve (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply