SSPX bad liturgy?

[californiacatholic]

I am not knowledgeable about the SSPX in any deep or familiar sense even less the inerworkings of traditional circles but I've heard many jokes or references on how the SSPX has sloppy liturgy or liturgical understanding or poor seminary formations.

I have no idea how true these claims are and am not anti SSPX in the least but was curious where these ideas came from and how much weight they hold.

[Michael Wilson]

I have been attending the SSPX chapels for over 40 years; their priests are very well trained theologically and liturgically; they offer the Mass with great reverence, and their ceremonies are well done.
Most of these types of comments either are borne out of envy or by "super-trad" so-called experts, who only raise such objections to attract attention to their own seemingly superior liturgical expertise.

[Melkor]

I am not knowledgeable about the SSPX in any deep or familiar sense even less the inerworkings of traditional circles but I've heard many jokes or references on how the SSPX has sloppy liturgy or liturgical understanding or poor seminary formations.

I have no idea how true these claims are and am not anti SSPX in the least but was curious where these ideas came from and how much weight they hold.

Those claims are quite wrong. The SSPX has well-trained priests who perform the ceremonies with reverence. (to echo Michael Wilson)

The altar servers aren't bad either, I heard.

[Traditionallyruralmom]

Some trads "in full communion" like to commit detraction and talk smack about the SSPX when they often have no idea about anything.  I've heard it 

Or they love Church Militant😆

[Bonaventure]

I've not experienced this.

[dymphna17]

Archbishop Lefebvre was all about priestly formation. Everything done precisely to the 9's. Everything has a reason and the proper way. Holiness above all. Even as a member of the third order the rigorousness and demand for excellence shows. I've never heard the things you speak of. The Pope wishes what you speak of would be true.

[trentcath]

If anything the quality of Diocesan priests is much more variable, particularly as some don't actually 'know' latin so to speak, and of course they are sometimes informed by the NO. But overall I don't have many memories of anything outrageous at a TLM, and I'd never heard gossip re the SSPX being bad at liturgy which, to be honest, seems a little absurd considering hwhat the SSPX are about.

[Miriam_M]

Some trads "in full communion" like to commit detraction and talk smack about the SSPX when they often have no idea about anything.

And some "pure" ("resistance"  *cough*) trads like to commit detraction slander  24/7/365 and whine endlessly about how no one on Planet Earth is holy enough and perfect enough to say a proper Mass.  I'm not sure where that puts the slanderers except to make them 21st century Gnostics.

(Obviously not you, TRM.)  My only point is that the detraction I myself hear and read comes overwhelmingly from the opposite side of the spectrum. And we probably travel in different circles.
 

[Kaesekopf]

I mean, strictly speaking, the 1962 missal is but a pit stop en route to the liturgical revolution of 1970 - that the SSPX hasn't "gotten on-board" with the rest of traditionalism in restoring the traditional, authentic Roman liturgy (that prior to 1955) is pretty laughable.

As to "SSPX having bad liturgy" - I assume this is a result of the low Mass culture at the Mass centers.  It's hard to coherently offer a rigorous, solid liturgy when every sees each other once a week after driving two hours. 

I know I personally attended a pretty sloppy liturgy with the SSPX for confirmations.  They seemingly did one practice run for the liturgy immediately before the confirmations and then went right into it.  You could tell it wasn't as good as it should've been, especially given that there was a bishop (+TdM) and it's, y'know, kinda a big deal. 

[Maximilian]

I mean, strictly speaking, the 1962 missal is but a pit stop en route to the liturgical revolution of 1970 - that the SSPX hasn't "gotten on-board" with the rest of traditionalism in restoring the traditional, authentic Roman liturgy (that prior to 1955) is pretty laughable.

Right, but they are stuck in a pit they dug for themselves. The kicked out "the Nine" for using the pre-1955 Missal. Now they feel they can't go back and admit they were wrong. Other groups have been able to adopt the pre-1955 Missal because they don't have the same stumbling block.

It's kind of the pre-Vatican II spirit of ultramontanism being carried on within the SSPX, "If we ever admit we were wrong about anything at any time, the sky will fall, the world will end."

[Kaesekopf]

Right, but they are stuck in a pit they dug for themselves. The kicked out "the Nine" for using the pre-1955 Missal. Now they feel they can't go back and admit they were wrong. Other groups have been able to adopt the pre-1955 Missal because they don't have the same stumbling block.

It's kind of the pre-Vatican II spirit of ultramontanism being carried on within the SSPX, "If we ever admit we were wrong about anything at any time, the sky will fall, the world will end."

Full agreement with this post. 

[andy]

There is a specific reason FSSPX had no choice other than following 1962. You do not know it?

[Melkor]

I mean, strictly speaking, the 1962 missal is but a pit stop en route to the liturgical revolution of 1970 - that the SSPX hasn't "gotten on-board" with the rest of traditionalism in restoring the traditional, authentic Roman liturgy (that prior to 1955) is pretty laughable.

As to "SSPX having bad liturgy" - I assume this is a result of the low Mass culture at the Mass centers.  It's hard to coherently offer a rigorous, solid liturgy when every sees each other once a week after driving two hours. 

I know I personally attended a pretty sloppy liturgy with the SSPX for confirmations.  They seemingly did one practice run for the liturgy immediately before the confirmations and then went right into it.  You could tell it wasn't as good as it should've been, especially given that there was a bishop (+TdM) and it's, y'know, kinda a big deal. 

You ever try serving for Confirmations + a bishop's Mass after working 8 hrs and driving in another hour to a rushed practice? Confirmations isn't easy to serve, cut them some slack man. 

[trentcath]

I mean, strictly speaking, the 1962 missal is but a pit stop en route to the liturgical revolution of 1970 - that the SSPX hasn't "gotten on-board" with the rest of traditionalism in restoring the traditional, authentic Roman liturgy (that prior to 1955) is pretty laughable.

Right, but they are stuck in a pit they dug for themselves. The kicked out "the Nine" for using the pre-1955 Missal. Now they feel they can't go back and admit they were wrong. Other groups have been able to adopt the pre-1955 Missal because they don't have the same stumbling block.

It's kind of the pre-Vatican II spirit of ultramontanism being carried on within the SSPX, "If we ever admit we were wrong about anything at any time, the sky will fall, the world will end."

Or because they went and got permission... I see the risk of going from resisting a genuinley problematic mass to liturgical protestantism 'Oh I like this better than that' and the issue of where to draw the line. In any event I'll trust the judgment of ABL/ the SSPX on this matter rather than other trad groups.

[Kaesekopf]

You ever try serving for Confirmations + a bishop's Mass after working 8 hrs and driving in another hour to a rushed practice? Confirmations isn't easy to serve, cut them some slack man. 

It was a Saturday morning at like 10am.