What is current SSPX status.

[dling]

What is the status of the Society of Saint Pius X currently at the Vatican? Is it considered legitimate, schismatic or what exactly? Can one go to church there and receive sacraments legitimately?

Thanks.

 

[Jon_S_1]

What is the status of the Society of Saint Pius X currently at the Vatican? Is it considered legitimate, schismatic or what exactly? Can one go to church there and receive sacraments legitimately?

Thanks.

My understanding is they are schismatic, but discussions have been had and the ball is in their court to rejoin the church.

You cannot licitly receive the sacraments there.

 

[Andre1000]

Well, my diocese allowed me personally to attend the SSPX. I asked this when I discerned to become a diocesan priest. I could even go to the SSPX while in seminary. So no problem for me

 

[lanark]

I don’t think it is considered schismatic (you don’t lift excommunications from schismatics), but whilst their sacraments are valid they are also illicit. They are in a weird limbo.

 

[Cat]

Pope Benedict XVI tried so hard to work things out with this group and sadly, had no success. Have there been discussions between Pope Francis and SSPX, or has this issue been out-of-sight for the last few years?

 

[dling]

Well, they seem to have put themselves in a strange place. Am I correct in saying they say they are not Sedevacanist, yet they will not submit to Francis? Is that not effectually Sedevacanist? Seems like a twisting… of things the likes of protestants. They don’t want to SAY they are Sedevacanist, because that is obviously unCatholic, yet they will not submit to Francis. I watched a video last night of one of their priests, trying to say that the Vatican II was not a real council… yeah, in like way “Jesus was not referring to Peter as the Rock”… LOL Again… reaching… twisting things to try to justify themselves. Am I accessing this situation properly?

 

[POJIUJH]

Well, they seem to have put themselves in a strange place. Am I correct in saying they say they are not Sedevacanist, yet they will not submit to Francis? Is that not effectually Sedevacanist? Seems like a twisting… of things the likes of protestants. They don’t want to SAY they are Sedevacanist, because that is obviously unCatholic, yet they will not submit to Francis. I watched a video last night of one of their priests, trying to say that the Vatican II was not a real council… yeah, in like way “Jesus was not referring to Peter as the Rock”… LOL Again… reaching… twisting things to try to justify themselves. Am I accessing this situation properly?

Some of them are sedevacantist, but not all. Some of them will submit to Pope Francis in some way, but not all. Some of them will say that VII was a real council, but not all.

They are basically in a state of schism-lite.

Ever notice how odd groups and sects tend to have one particular piece of rhetoric as a basis for their community? Ever notice how every single one of them will at some time (if not most times) recite this almost word for word:

“The Church of VII has fallen away from the Church of the past and is now a different Church. The SSPX is the only way to go.”

The rhetorical genius of this statement is that most people (even SSPX’ers included) intend “the Church of VII is a different Church” to be taken figuratively. And in that regard, that isn’t necessarily a wrong thing to say - providing it is figurative. But their problem is that they continually allow the abuses in the Church to anger them into thinking that, literally, the Church founded by Jesus Christ is now gone. They wont say that, because they disagree with that statement. But they do think that. In short, it’s a kind of brain washing. It’s unfortunate, because the devil has been able to sift them into this state, and they are about the greatest barrier in the world to people appreciating Latin Mass at the minute.

But just FYI, although most of their sacraments are valid but illicit, they don’t have the power to give valid confessions or marriages - because this power is only given by the local ordinary, which isn’t given to them, accept in cases of a danger of death (it is really impressive how much power a Bishop has, as no matter what, unless a person is dying nobody who has gone to confession to them has been forgiven of their sins. Scary.).

 

[porthos11]

I don’t think it is considered schismatic (you don’t lift excommunications from schismatics), but whilst their sacraments are valid they are also illicit. They are in a weird limbo.

Their status is what Pope Benedict said: they hold no ministry in the Church. So as far as their status is concerned, they’re pretty much an unapproved association.

SSPX priests are under the penalty of suspension. This means they can licitly exercise sacraments in danger of death, but under normal circumstances, their sacraments are illicit. And in the case of two sacraments that also require faculties, namely Confession and Marriage, they are also invalid.

 

[dling]

Thank you folks,

Can you elaborate on “valid” vs “illicit”

Dave

 

[porthos11]

Thank you folks,

Can you elaborate on “valid” vs “illicit”

Dave

Simply put, “illicit” means illegal.

“Invalid” means “it didn’t happen”.

All invalid sacraments are by definition illicit.

Not all illicit sacraments are invalid.

 

[dling]

So if one was born into a SSPX family, was baptized, first communion and confirmed in SSPX, if they left and joined a conventional Catholic church, would they have to re-do all sacraments?

 

[commenter]

Well, they seem to have put themselves in a strange place. Am I correct in saying they say they are not Sedevacanist, yet they will not submit to Francis? Is that not effectually Sedevacanist? Seems like a twisting… of things the likes of protestants. They don’t want to SAY they are Sedevacanist, because that is obviously unCatholic, yet they will not submit to Francis. I watched a video last night of one of their priests, trying to say that the Vatican II was not a real council… yeah, in like way “Jesus was not referring to Peter as the Rock”… LOL Again… reaching… twisting things to try to justify themselves. Am I accessing this situation properly?

It’s hard to make a general statement about the SSPX, because not everyone is the same.
Laypersons do not “belong” to the SSPX, even if they go there all the time. They satisfy their own spiritual need. But they aren’t in union with their local bishop or diocesan ministries; SSPX chapels vary in terms of ministries. At a minimum they are imprudent to go there. We can’t judge them, they often are responding to *very real *abuses in liturgy and other things in their diocese. Sadly, they also removed themselves from good things in their diocese, like prolife and religious liberty.

I’m not sure what the status is of “religious” in the SSPX. I would welcome information.
The bishops and priests would simply have the status no (Catholic) assignment, and no obedience to their local bishop.

The SSPX recognizes Francis as “the” pope. Even non-Catholic religious groups recognize Francis as the leader of the Catholic Church. Like them, the SSPX does not recognize Francis as their Pope. They agree with him only when he happens to agree with them; this means they choose not to benefit from the ministry of the pope, or his bishops. This is essentially a Protestant position. It means the individual can interpret the Bible and Tradition alone, not being guided by the current Magisterium.

 

[dling]

They agree with him only when he happens to agree with them; this means they choose not to benefit from the ministry of the pope, or his bishops. This is essentially a Protestant position. It means the individual can interpret the Bible and Tradition alone, not being guided by the current Magisterium.

That was my impression as well.

 

[FrDavid96]

Their priests exercise no ministry in the Church. The Holy See has re-affirmed that many times in recent years.

They do not fit the technical definition of schismatic because only priests can be members of the society. Since they do not count any laypersons as official members, they avoid the technical definition of “schismatic.” They also do this by saying that they have “chapels” rather than “parishes.” They manipulate vocabulary so that they can then say “we do not have…therefore we are not schismatic.”

Some of their priests are suspended, some were ordained outside of the visible Communion of the Church, and therefore the later are not technically “suspended” because they never had the status of Catholic clergy in the first place. A status can only be suspended if it first exists. Conversely, if it never existed, there’s nothing to suspend. Whether an individual priest fits the definition of “suspended” or not, that priest still has no ministry in the Church.

What is their status?

1. The Society has no status in the Catholic Church.
2. Individual members of the Society (ie, their priests) exercise no ministry in the Church.

HH Benedict wrote this in his open letter to all the bishops in 2009 (emphasis added)
The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html

 

[Jon_S_1]

So if one was born into a SSPX family, was baptized, first communion and confirmed in SSPX, if they left and joined a conventional Catholic church, would they have to re-do all sacraments?

Well Baptisms are valid even in most protestant churches so the baptism would not be redone.

I am not sure about the other two.

I know that their marriages and confessions are invalid so those would for sure need to be redone.

 

[POJIUJH]

So if one was born into a SSPX family, was baptized, first communion and confirmed in SSPX, if they left and joined a conventional Catholic church, would they have to re-do all sacraments?

No. They truly received those sacraments, even though the priest is at fault for giving them illicitly/illegally.

As for their first communion or their marriages, as has been said, they would need to re-do them if they were administered by an SSPX priest.

 

[ProVobis]

Well, my diocese allowed me personally to attend the SSPX. I asked this when I discerned to become a diocesan priest. I could even go to the SSPX while in seminary. So no problem for me

Which is interesting, considering that none of their chapels are owned by the diocese. I understand turning over these chapels either to the diocese or directly to the Vatican was the sticky point of possible reconciliation with the Church. And their benefactors probably aren’t likely to let that happen soon. Sad reality.

 

[Lormar]

Some of them are sedevacantist, but not all. Some of them will submit to Pope Francis in some way, but not all. Some of them will say that VII was a real council, but not all.

…

Do you have any facts to back these statements up? You know this how? Have you personally spoken to every SSPX priest to ascertain these statements?

 

[Lormar]

No. They truly received those sacraments, even though the priest is at fault for giving them illicitly/illegally.

As for their first communion or their marriages, as has been said, they would need to re-do them if they were administered by an SSPX priest.

The only sacraments that would need to be administered, should anyone in the SSPX return to the Church, are Matrimony and Confession. First Holy Communion - no, and I don’t know where you got that from. Unless I am misunderstanding you?

 

[Path_Finder]

September, 2014:

“SSPX Already is in ‘Full Communion’, but in a State of 'Imperfect Reconciliation’.”

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/09/understanding-vatican-statement-sspx.html