T
Tomdstone
Guest
Well, which is it, are they in schism or not. Other people here say they are schismatic:
- Status
B
Brendan_64
Guest
No it is not in schism. The SSPX are most certainly Roman Catholics, but their society does not have canonical status within the Church as a result of certain disagreements. The Church does not consider them to be in schism.
Hopefully the will is there on both sides so that differences can be bridged and the SSPX can return back to having full canonical status.
The SSPX with canonical status would be a real force for good within the Church, and boy do we need that in these very ‘smokey’ times.
It matters not what people on here say, what matters is what our Church declares. Whether or not a group is in schism is not a matter of opinion, the SSPX have not been declared as being in schism by the Church, therefore they are not in schism.
That is correct.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Again, they are a priestly fraternity, just like the FSSP. Society implies everyone who attends their Mass as well. BrJR gave us lessons on this.
S
sw85
Guest
The SSPX are not members of a sui iuris Church, as the Eastern Orthodox are; they claim to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, who has denied them such faculties.
J
John_Lazarus
Guest
S
sw85
Guest
No, FSSPX is their name in Latin (Fraternitas Socerdotalis Sancti Pii X), SSPX is a loose English translation of the same.
It is not inappropriate to call them a “society” since they are, after all, a Society of Apostolic Life.
T
TMC
Guest
Cardinal Mueller says they are in schism, and that their bishops are not Catholic Bishops. I am not an expert on these things, but it seems to me that (as head of CDF and point man on dealing with SSPX) his thoughts on the topic are relevant.
Here is a news report about Mueller saying they are in schism:
ncregister.com/daily-news/cdf-head-discusses-the-sspx-liberation-theology-and-divorced-remarried-cath
Here is an interview where he explains that the SSPX is now at “30 or more years of separation from the Church” and that an SSPX bishop “is not a Catholic bishop, as a bishop is only Catholic when he is in full communion with the Pope”:
ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-mueller-on-the-sspx-and-his-controversial-writings
L
Louis_Tofari
Guest
I wanted to offer a clarification about the SSPX’s canonical status: the priestly society has always claimed that it never lost its regularity, but this is being denied (implicitly) by the Vatican.
This all began in 1974 when the liberal French Episcopacy started to actively persecute the SSPX due to the traditionally-formed priests that would be returning to their dioceses - who they would be forced to accept.
Through maneuvering with the French Secretary of State, Cardinal Villot, Bishop Maime of Lausanne, Geneva and Fribourg diocese sent a letter to Archbishop Lefebvre declaring that he was suppressing the SSPX. However, per Canon Law, such an act was now reserved to the Holy See, since the SSPX had been officially approved by the Congregation of the Clergy - furthermore, the Vatican had granted the Society to incardinate clergy and religious from other dioceses and congregations (the Gethsemane, KY Trappist, Fr. Urban Synder, was one of the first to take advantage of this permission). Thus the local bishop no longer had the authority to suppress the SSPX.
Meanwhile, a declaration that Archbishop Lefebvre was suspended a divinis was issued - again under illegitimate grounds.
Archbishop Lefebvre attempted to have his case heard by the Apostolica Signatura (the highest ecclesiastical tribunal), but Cardinal Villot told its prefect, Cardinal Stafka, that if he accepted the case, he would be sacked. The appeal (which Archbishop Lefebvre would have clearly won) was subsequently denied - a great injustice.
Since then, the Vatican has not spoken clearly about the SSPX’s canonical situation, though this is clear de jure. Hence why the SSPX speaks of a political regularization, that is, a return (or recognition) of what is owed in justice: that the SSPX is a religious congregation of the Roman Catholic Church in good standing.
The article, “The Hot Summer of 1976” has some fascinating historical details related to these events.
This all began in 1974 when the liberal French Episcopacy started to actively persecute the SSPX due to the traditionally-formed priests that would be returning to their dioceses - who they would be forced to accept.
Through maneuvering with the French Secretary of State, Cardinal Villot, Bishop Maime of Lausanne, Geneva and Fribourg diocese sent a letter to Archbishop Lefebvre declaring that he was suppressing the SSPX. However, per Canon Law, such an act was now reserved to the Holy See, since the SSPX had been officially approved by the Congregation of the Clergy - furthermore, the Vatican had granted the Society to incardinate clergy and religious from other dioceses and congregations (the Gethsemane, KY Trappist, Fr. Urban Synder, was one of the first to take advantage of this permission). Thus the local bishop no longer had the authority to suppress the SSPX.
Meanwhile, a declaration that Archbishop Lefebvre was suspended a divinis was issued - again under illegitimate grounds.
Archbishop Lefebvre attempted to have his case heard by the Apostolica Signatura (the highest ecclesiastical tribunal), but Cardinal Villot told its prefect, Cardinal Stafka, that if he accepted the case, he would be sacked. The appeal (which Archbishop Lefebvre would have clearly won) was subsequently denied - a great injustice.
Since then, the Vatican has not spoken clearly about the SSPX’s canonical situation, though this is clear de jure. Hence why the SSPX speaks of a political regularization, that is, a return (or recognition) of what is owed in justice: that the SSPX is a religious congregation of the Roman Catholic Church in good standing.
The article, “The Hot Summer of 1976” has some fascinating historical details related to these events.
D
dans0622
Guest
Hello,
They have never been a society of apostolic life. But, yes, it is a loose translation of something…making that “S” mean “society” even when it refers to “priestly.”
Dan
R
ringil
Guest
They are not in schism.
If they were to consecrate Bishops they would effectively be creating their own Church and would separate themselves from Rome. At that point they would be in Schism.
Check out posts by JREducation. He really fleshes out these questions- I mean REALLY goes into it.
M
Megan7
Guest
Thanks for the link & post.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
P
ProVobis
Guest
Well they are close and both were set up as legitimate fraternities.
Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Pii X = FSSPX
Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Petri = FSSP
Each is a priestly fraternity. (Sacerdotalis is Latin for priestly, in Spanish it’s sacerdotal)
T
TMC
Guest
You may want to ask that of the Church. I am merely reporting what Cardinal Muller has said.
C
commenter
Guest
- They are Catholic priests and bishops, validly but illicitly ordained. They don’t have permission to offer public ministry, but defy the Catholic Church to do it anyway. There is no general permission to attend their Masses, if you deny your motivation is “rebellion” (how would you know?) If there was a controversy or problem between the Vatican and a group like the FSSP, or Jesuits, which are recognized by the Church, one could talk of “regularizing” their status. But the SSPX is different, it is not recognized; it seeks to initiate a status, seeking recognition. If an officially recognized group broke off that would be a schism. I don’t see how the SSPX meets that criterion.
- Some posters have referred to the publication CRUX. Keep in mind this is not Catholic sponsored, or even neutral or objective. It is a branch of the Boston Globe, which is extremely anti-Catholic. It is more accurate to quote “The Boston Globe said such and such” rather than using a fake Catholic-sounding name like “Crux”.
P
ProVobis
Guest
For the record, the FSSPX was legitimately set up in 1970, but since 1975, its priests have been suspended, however. There are all sorts of articles describing why, on Catholic and anti-Catholic sites alike.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
That is correct. They are indeed Catholic priests and bishops. What they do is validly Catholic, but illicit. There is a question regarding Confession, because it can be argued that (except in the case of emergencies) without legal authority from the Church, Confession is not valid, although there is not clear agreement on this within the Church.
There is. The Holy See have stated (during Pope Benedict’s pontificate, I believe) that one may attend SSPX Masses if one attends out of love for the Tridentine Mass, but if one is attending out of rebellion against the Pope. As the SSPX accept the Pope, I’m not sure that general attendance at SSPX Masses would be seen as rebellion against the Pope. I guess if one attended the SSPX with a sedevacantist mentality, then that would not be permitted, and that would be reasonably obvious for the individual to discern. But the SSPX is not a sedevacantist group.
C
commenter
Guest
The consecration is valid. The whole process of defying the Church, sometimes drawing laity away from the ministry of their local diocese and bishop, sometimes encouraging suspicion towards the Pope, is extremely imprudent, at a minimum, not validly Catholic.
I would like to see that reference, in context. Not everything that is excusable is permissible, and not everything that is permissible is recommended.
Sedevacantism is not “all or nothing”. Some SSPX persons respect him as a religious leader, or source of unity - as many Protestants do. They often agree with, but they aren’t really influenced much by the Pope or their bishop. Others would say Pope Francis is technically pope in the sense of administering the Church, but not authoritative, like this or that document from prior popes, or as a hoped-for future pope they plan to wait for.
The consideration is prudence. If I go to their Mass (“love the TLM”) with good intentions, ok. But someone else who respects me may see me there. That person **is ** tempted to defy the Church. My going there confirms the weak brother in that temptation. Filling the pews here also confirms the priest to stay here, too, rather than considering the FSSP for instance. The attendees at our diocesan TLM Mass are actively cooperating in the larger effort for prolife and religious liberty. The attendees at the SSPX chapel are not.
L
Louis_Tofari
Guest
It should be re-emphasized that the SSPX completely rejects the error of sedevacantism and has some excellent articles on its website on this topic. To accurately know what they say on this matter, see this FAQ for starters, or do a keyword search: sedevacantism.
Resistance to the misuse of authority in order to obey the Faith (God) first is not a rejection of authority: it is in fact obedience to a higher authority. As the proverb goes, “Obedience is the servant of Faith, not Faith of obedience”. You can read in this article some important citations from Sts. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas concerning the moral virtue of obedience.
Commentus: are you aware that the SSPX is not the only one that disagrees about Vatican II, etc.?
Have you read anything from the respected Roman theologian and Vaticanist, Msgr. Brunero Gherardini who has written several books, such as: “Vatican II must be debated” while commenting that “Vatican II is not a super-dogma” or that “Vatican II is a stupefying superficiality”?
There are others too, such as the 50 Italian academics, Roberto de Mattei, Amerio Romano, Dr. John Lamont, and others. So the SSPX is not alone in its doubts.
Resistance to the misuse of authority in order to obey the Faith (God) first is not a rejection of authority: it is in fact obedience to a higher authority. As the proverb goes, “Obedience is the servant of Faith, not Faith of obedience”. You can read in this article some important citations from Sts. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas concerning the moral virtue of obedience.
Commentus: are you aware that the SSPX is not the only one that disagrees about Vatican II, etc.?
Have you read anything from the respected Roman theologian and Vaticanist, Msgr. Brunero Gherardini who has written several books, such as: “Vatican II must be debated” while commenting that “Vatican II is not a super-dogma” or that “Vatican II is a stupefying superficiality”?
There are others too, such as the 50 Italian academics, Roberto de Mattei, Amerio Romano, Dr. John Lamont, and others. So the SSPX is not alone in its doubts.
- Status