What exactly is the SSPX?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catydidd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Catydidd

Guest
**
Forgive me if this question seems really basic, but I have been reading a lot on the forums that reference the SSPX and I still don’t really have a handle on what exactly they are and why they started. I also don’t really understand why they are in schism. Can anyone explain this for me or point me to an article on Catholic.com that could help me understand more? I really appreciate your help. Thanks in advance!

Caty**
 
They are a group of clergy.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_St._Pius_X

Currently, they are NOT in schism and are in talks with Rome to sort out differences on matters of Doctrine. The excommunications have been lifted. Popes do not lift excommunications on clergy in schism.

The clergy are currently suspended, but one can go to their Masses and fulfill their Sunday obligation as long as it is not with intent or rejection of the VII Church.

Please read this letter to get a feel of how the pope views them.
blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/03/12/official-text-of-popes-letter-to-bishops-on-williamson-affair/
 
In fact, the Eucharist, when administered by F.S.S.P.X., is no longer invalid? Does one receive the true Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the Blessed Lord in one of their celebrations of Mass? I must be absolutely clear on this, because there is a small F.S.S.P.X. following in this city. If there is even a slight chance that I can join the Holy Mass of ages in one valid celebration, for only one hour of my entire life, I must take it!

Is “their” consecration and handing-out of the Eucharist invalid, illicit, or impure in any manner or fashion? I only ask because there are obviously F.S.S.P.X. priests who were ordained while the Society was in schism and ex-communicated, so it is not clear to me. Are they not real priests, or are they instated properly since 2009?
 
Code:
Unfortunately, as you will understand, we have no way of controlling what is done with our letters by their recipients. Our letter of 27 September 2002, which was evidently cited in The Remnant and on various websites, was intended as a private communication dealing with the specific circumstances of the person who wrote to us. What was presented in the public forum is an abbreviated version of that letter which omits much of our pastoral counsel. Since a truncated form of this letter has now become public, we judge it appropriate to present the larger context of our response.
In a previous letter to the same correspondent we had already indicated the canonical status of the Society of St. Pius X which we will summarize briefly here.
1.) The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but they are suspended from exercising their priestly functions. To the extent that they adhere to the schism of the late Archbishop Lefebvre, they are also excommunicated.
2.) Concretely this means that the Masses offered by these priests are valid, but illicit i.e., contrary to the law of the Church.
Points 1 and 3 in our letter of 27 September 2002 to this correspondent are accurately reported. His first question was “Can I fulfill my Sunday obligation by attending a Pius X Mass” and our response was:
“1. In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X.”
His second question was “Is it a sin for me to attend a Pius X Mass” and we responded stating:
“2. We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin.”
His third question was: “Is it a sin for me to contribute to the Sunday collection at a Pius X Mass” to which we responded:
“3. It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass could be justified.”
Further, the correspondent took the Commission to task for not doing its job properly and we responded thus:
"This Pontifical Commission does not have the authority to coerce Bishops to provide for the celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal. Nonetheless, we are frequently in contact with Bishops and do all that we can to see that this provision is made. However, this provision also depends on the number of people who desire the ‘traditional’ Mass, their motives and the availability of priests who can celebrate it.
“You also state in your letter that the Holy Father has given you a ‘right’ to the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal. This is not correct. It is true that he has asked his brother Bishops to be generous in providing for the celebration of this Mass, but he has not stated that it is a ‘right’. Presently it constitutes an exception to the Church’s law and may be granted when the local Bishop judges it to be a valid pastoral service and when he has the priests who are available to celebrate it. Every Catholic has a right to the sacraments (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 843), but he does not have a right to them according to the rite of his choice.”
We hope that this puts in a clearer light the letter about which you asked us.
With prayerful best wishes for this New Year of Our Lord 2003, I remain
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Rev. Msgr. Camille Perl, Secretary
 
If there is even a slight chance that I can join the Holy Mass of ages in one valid celebration, for only one hour of my entire life, I must take it!
Just a hunch, but something about your post tells me that if you’re headed to a SSPX chapel, you’re going to meet alot of people just like you! Knock yourself out; I think you’ve found your home.
 
If one attends an SSPX Chapel with a schismatic attitude, then imo, they are in fact schismatic.

If one attends purely out of a spiritual thirst for the TLM, then, imo, there’s is no problem with that. In fact, if the TLM is denied them in defiance of the Summorum Pontificum of H.H. BXVI, then one is justified in seeking out the TLM anywhere. The exception being the “Vacant Chair” Chapels.
 
Just a hunch, but something about your post tells me that if you’re headed to a SSPX chapel, you’re going to meet alot of people just like you! Knock yourself out; I think you’ve found your home.
Thank you for the confidence, friend! It is always inspiring of hope to see someone who merely wants others to glorify God in the way most suited to their temperament. We must fit and follow the hand that our Lord leads us with. Reverence and joy!
If one attends an SSPX Chapel with a schismatic attitude, then imo, they are in fact schismatic.

If one attends purely out of a spiritual thirst for the TLM, then, imo, there’s is no problem with that. In fact, if the TLM is denied them in defiance of the Summorum Pontificum of H.H. BXVI, then one is justified in seeking out the TLM anywhere. The exception being the “Vacant Chair” Chapels.
This seems to be the general opinion since 2009. If one goes to a traditional Latin Mass hosted by F.S.S.P.X. with the intention of glorifying God through His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church (as stewarded by the legitimate and valid Pope Benedict XVI), all is well. The Latin Rite of the Catholic Church is solidified by loyal F.S.S.P.X. goers… I’ll just have to investigate the local gathering to be sure they aren’t sedevacantists or heretics.

Deo gratias! Thank you, At Trent.
 
They are a group of clergy.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_St._Pius_X

Currently, they are NOT in schism and are in talks with Rome to sort out differences on matters of Doctrine. The excommunications have been lifted. Popes do not lift excommunications on clergy in schism.

The clergy are currently suspended, but one can go to their Masses and fulfill their Sunday obligation as long as it is not with intent or rejection of the VII Church.

Please read this letter to get a feel of how the pope views them.
blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/03/12/official-text-of-popes-letter-to-bishops-on-williamson-affair/
Thank you for the information! ****
 
**
Forgive me if this question seems really basic, but I have been reading a lot on the forums that reference the SSPX and I still don’t really have a handle on what exactly they are and why they started. I also don’t really understand why they are in schism. Can anyone explain this for me or point me to an article on Catholic.com that could help me understand more? I really appreciate your help. Thanks in advance!

Caty**
The Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) started in response to the Vatican II changes in the late 60s, early seventies. The society wanted to continue worshiping according to the old Roman Rite and for a long time did without much opposition. Problems began when Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (founder of SSPX) consecrated four bishops against the orders of Pope John Paul II which resulted in their excommunication. Since then Pope Benedict XVI has lifted those excommunications but the priests are still suspended so without faculties. You can attend their Mass and fulfill your Sunday Obligation but the Mass is illicit. They are currently in talks with Rome and hopefully will be in full communion soon. Most of the talks are dealing with accepting Vatican II and post teaching of which they do not currently agree with.
 
Currently, they are NOT in schism and are in talks with Rome to sort out differences on matters of Doctrine. The excommunications have been lifted. Popes do not lift excommunications on clergy in schism.
That’s quite false, of course.
Is “their” consecration and handing-out of the Eucharist invalid, illicit, or impure in any manner or fashion? I only ask because there are obviously F.S.S.P.X. priests who were ordained while the Society was in schism and ex-communicated, so it is not clear to me. Are they not real priests, or are they instated properly since 2009?
Their celebration of the Eucharist is valid but illicit. Whether it’s “impure” is, I guess, a judgment call, but it is a mortal sin to consecrate the Eucharist without the canonical approval of the Church. E.g., a “defrocked” priest can validly consecrate the Eucharist, but it is forbidden and gravely sinful. SSPX priests, likewise, have no canonical standing whatsoever in the Church. If it’s reverence you’re after, I’d keep well clear of “celebrations” of this sort.
 
The Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) started in response to the Vatican II changes in the late 60s, early seventies. The society wanted to continue worshiping according to the old Roman Rite and for a long time did without much opposition. Problems began when Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (founder of SSPX) consecrated four bishops against the orders of Pope John Paul II which resulted in their excommunication. Since then Pope Benedict XVI has lifted those excommunications but the priests are still suspended so without faculties. You can attend their Mass and fulfill your Sunday Obligation but the Mass is illicit. They are currently in talks with Rome and hopefully will be in full communion soon. Most of the talks are dealing with accepting Vatican II and post teaching of which they do not currently agree with.
Thanks. That’s pretty much the info I was looking for. I appreciate it 🙂
 
Thank you for the confidence, friend! It is always inspiring of hope to see someone who merely wants others to glorify God in the way most suited to their temperament. We must fit and follow the hand that our Lord leads us with. Reverence and joy!

This seems to be the general opinion since 2009. If one goes to a traditional Latin Mass hosted by F.S.S.P.X. with the intention of glorifying God through His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church (as stewarded by the legitimate and valid Pope Benedict XVI), all is well. The Latin Rite of the Catholic Church is solidified by loyal F.S.S.P.X. goers… I’ll just have to investigate the local gathering to be sure they aren’t sedevacantists or heretics.

Deo gratias! Thank you, At Trent.
Np, just know that any parish will have some folks with less than orthodox views. Just as a OF parish will have some that think women priests should be considered, there will be the occasional “vacant chair” proponent at a SSPX Chapel.

You’ll be ok 😉
 
Thanks for the responses.

Like the OP, I have been wondering what the SSPX was.

There is just a certain sanctity, holiness to the TLM that the NO has never done for me. (Though there are aspects of the NO I do like)

But the TLM “lifts” me…I always get lost with it, but the worship of Almighty God IS there–it’s a wonderful indescribable feeling. What a treasure it is.
 
That’s quite false, of course.

.
Not related in the least. It’s goofy to suggest. H.E. Marcel Lefebvre was in quite good standing at the time that was written 🙂
On July 26, 1962 the Chapter General of the Holy Ghost Fathers elected the former Archbishop of Dakar, Marcel Lefebvre as Superior General. Lefebvre was widely respected for his experience in the mission field[1] and his ability to deal with the Roman Curia. On August 7, 1962 Lefebvre was given the titular archiepiscopal see of Synnada in Phrygia.
Lefebvre first instituted a major reform of the seminaries run by the Holy Ghost Fathers. He transferred several professors whom he considered too Modernist (relativistic, liberal) to non-educational posts. He ordered books by certain modern theologians, including Yves Congar and Marie-Dominique Chenu to be removed from the seminary library, finding them too Neo-Modernistic. (One book of Chenu was inserted into the Index Librorum Prohibitorum in the 1940s.)
Lefebvre was increasingly criticized by influential pro-reform members of his large religious congregation who considered him out-of-step with modern Church leaders and the demand of bishops’ conferences, particularly in France, for drastical revision and reform.[2] A general chapter of the Holy Ghost Fathers was convened in Rome in September 1968. The first action of the chapter was to name several moderators to lead the chapter’s sessions instead of Lefebvre.[3] Lefebvre then handed in his resignation as Superior General to His Holiness Pope Paul VI.[4] He would later say that it had become impossible for him to remain Superior of an Order which no longer wanted him nor listened to him. On October 28 a new superior general was elected to replace him; the new superior general proved willing to allow the demands for reforms.
Lefebvre left the Holy Ghost Fathers and went on to found the Society of Saint Pius X in Ecône (Diocese of Fribourg), Switzerland.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Ghost_Fathers
 
Not related in the least. It’s goofy to suggest. H.E. Marcel Lefebvre was in quite good standing at the time that was written 🙂
My point wasn’t what Marcel Lefebvre was an Eastern Orthodox; it was that Popes do lift excommunications on people and sects in schism. So “The Pope lifted the excommunications, therefore the SSPX cannot be in schism” is not a valid argument. 🙂
 
No matter how hard one tries, the SSPX can not be claimed to be in schism.
Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos has repeatedly affirmed that the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) is not a case of formal schism on at least five separate occasions in public interviews, as recently as March 17 and over the past 2-1/2 years. Msgr. Camille Perl, long-time secretary for the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED), has repeatedly affirmed in personal letters that such Catholics incur no penalty and no sin for merely fulfilling one’s Sunday obligation at a church or chapel served by the SSPX.
renewamerica.com/columns/mershon/070410
(Latin calvor, to use artifice, to deceive)
Etymologically any form of ruse or fraud employed to deceive another, particularly in judicial proceedings. In its more commonly accepted signification it means the unjust damaging of the good name of another by imputing to him a crime or fault of which he is not guilty. The sin thus committed is in a general sense mortal, just as is detraction. It is hardly necessary, however, to observe that as in other breaches of the law the sin may be venial, either because of the trivial character of the subject-matter involved or because of insufficient deliberation in the making of the accusation. Objectively, a calumny is a mortal sin when it is calculated to do serious harm to the person so traduced. Just as in the instance of wrongful damage to person or estate, so the calumniator is bound to adequate reparation for the injury perpetrated by the blackening of another’s good name. He is obliged (1) to retract his false statements, and that even though his own reputation may necessarily as a consequence suffer. (2) He must also make good whatever other losses have been sustained by the innocent party as a result of his libellous utterances, provided these same have been in some measure (in confuso) foreseen by him. In canon law the phrase juramentum calumniae is employed to indicate the oath taken by the parties to a litigation, by which they averred that the action was brought and the defence offered in good faith.
newadvent.org/cathen/03190c.htm
 
My point wasn’t what Marcel Lefebvre was an Eastern Orthodox; it was that Popes do lift excommunications on people and sects in schism. So “The Pope lifted the excommunications, therefore the SSPX cannot be in schism” is not a valid argument. 🙂
You are wrong about the SSPX. Plain as day. Popes don’t lift excommunications on Roman Catholics in schism. The Orthodox issue is totally unrelated to the topic at hand.
 
It’s fear.
Prof. Georg was the Professor of Canon Law, Law of Church-State Relations and Canonical HIstory from 1960 to 1994 at Mainz University. He has been a well-respected priest for more than 40 years in the Archdiocese of Mainz. The Professor’s conclusions appear to be consistent with those of the Holy See as expressed in numerous public interviews and written correspondence emanating from the PCED, specifically Cardinal Castrillón and Msgr. Camille Perl, president and secretary of the commission.
  1. The SSPX is not schismatic, because she neither rejects the subordination to the Roman Pope nor rejects the communion with the bishops (can. 751). Rather the latter reject communion with the Society.
  1. Because the Society is not schismatic, its members are not excommunicated. Both are untrue allegations, made by those, whom the reflective mirror presented to them by the Society irritates.
  1. Absolutely nobody incurs any punishment by attending the masses of the Society. Of course one can fulfill one’s Sunday obligation by attending a Sunday mass in a chapel or church of the Society.** Whoever alleges otherwise, reveals that he merely fears concurrence. **
    renewamerica.com/columns/mershon/070410
 
You are wrong about the SSPX. Plain as day. Popes don’t lift excommunications on Roman Catholics in schism. The Orthodox issue is totally unrelated to the topic at hand.
I never said the SSPX was in schism. I fact, in other threads I’ve affirmed that they are not – at least not formally; I think the question whether they are in an undeclared informal schism is an open one, and they are definitely steeped in a schismatic mentality, as the Church has repeatedly warned. I certainly pray for their repentance and return to full communion with the Holy See. At any rate, the argument “The excommunications were lifted, therefore it is impossible that they are in schism” is a spurious one which is contradicted by the case of the Orthodox. That was my point; it’s unfortunate that you leapt from that to the conclusion that I was saying the SSPX is in a present state of schism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top