P
paul11b
Guest
I’ve been seeing a lot of posts lately about the SSPX. What is the SSPX, are they Catholic? If not what religion are they? I’m just wondering what it is because of simple human curiosity.
- Status
A
At_Trent
Guest
They are the remnant of the Catholic Church.
(just kidding )
Here is a fairly accurate description
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_St._Pius_X
(just kidding )
Here is a fairly accurate description
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_St._Pius_X
S
Stylites
Guest
A breakaway sect whose priests offer an illicit Mass, and whose Sacraments of Reconciliation and Holy Matrimony are invalid. Many of their followers are sedevacantists who deny the authority of the Pope and the teachings and counsel of the Church. They were excommunicated until recently, and there’s currently discussions to bring them back into the real Catholic faith, but the SSPX seems to want to haggle with the Pope over how much contrition they need to have first.
They are ‘modern traditionalists’ who trust themselves to guide the Church more than the Holy Spirit, as opposed to ‘traditional traditionalists’ who always trust the Holy Spirit to guide and refresh and renew the Church.
They are ‘modern traditionalists’ who trust themselves to guide the Church more than the Holy Spirit, as opposed to ‘traditional traditionalists’ who always trust the Holy Spirit to guide and refresh and renew the Church.
A
At_Trent
Guest
The SSPX does not embrace the “vacant chair” theory, nor do they promote it.
The bolded part is a false statement/opinion. The hold up to regularization is doctrinal in nature. All those following the talks since the lifting of the excommunications know that.
I think these attacks and false generalizations about he SSPX are in fact an insult to H.H. BXVI’s intelligence, and an undermining of his efforts to negotiate reconciliation.
V
VivaCristoRey27
Guest
The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) – or in Latin, Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Pii X (FSSPX) – is a priestly fraternity, a society of apostolic life. So they are not a religious order, but an association of priests. They were established in 1970 by Abp. Marcel Lefebvre but suspended in 1976 following the ordination of a class of seminarians to the priesthood against the orders of Pope Paul VI. They continued to operate while suspended and in 1988, Lefebvre considered his ill-health (he was 81 and the last working bishop consecrated according to the traditional form) and the controversial meeting of religions at Assisi and decided to consecrate four priests as bishops against the directive of Pope John Paul II. The pope declared Lefebvre, the co-consecrator Bp. de Castro Mayer, and the four bishops they ordained – Bps. Fellay, Tissier de Mallerais, Williamson, and de Galarreta – have incurred automatic excommunication as a result of this act (the SSPX have always maintained that there was no automatic excommunication because the act was gravely necessary).
The document declaring the excommunications was titled “Ecclesia Dei”. It also established the Pontifical Council Ecclesia Dei (PCED), to watch over the SSPX and other traditionalist organization. One of these organizations was made up of priests who had decided that the SSPX had gone too far with the consecrations and, led by Fr. Josef Bisig, formed the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP). The FSSP is the largest of the traditionalist organizations who are recognized by Rome but the SSPX is still larger, presently at around 500 priests (plus religious).
In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications on the four SSPX bishops and, later that year, folded the PCED into Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, recognizing that the biggest issue between Rome and the SSPX was not with regards to the Traditional Mass (which is more available now, thanks to the efforts of the Holy Father) but certain doctrinal issues and other concerns regarding the Second Vatican Council. Talks between Rome and the SSPX continue but the subject remains highly controversial.
The document declaring the excommunications was titled “Ecclesia Dei”. It also established the Pontifical Council Ecclesia Dei (PCED), to watch over the SSPX and other traditionalist organization. One of these organizations was made up of priests who had decided that the SSPX had gone too far with the consecrations and, led by Fr. Josef Bisig, formed the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP). The FSSP is the largest of the traditionalist organizations who are recognized by Rome but the SSPX is still larger, presently at around 500 priests (plus religious).
In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications on the four SSPX bishops and, later that year, folded the PCED into Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, recognizing that the biggest issue between Rome and the SSPX was not with regards to the Traditional Mass (which is more available now, thanks to the efforts of the Holy Father) but certain doctrinal issues and other concerns regarding the Second Vatican Council. Talks between Rome and the SSPX continue but the subject remains highly controversial.
L
Little_One0307
Guest
To the OP, thanks for posting this. I had often wanted to ask what this was too, because I have seen it all over the place.
I will be reading this thread with great interest.
God bless.
I will be reading this thread with great interest.
God bless.
T
Te_Deum
Guest
Very few of their followers are sedevacantists because the SSPX is very harsh on sedevacantism. However they do border-line deny the authority of the Pope and in all reality completely deny the authority of the bishops of the Church (besides their own that is… and they have no jurisdiction or ministry in the Church!).
As regards the teachings and the counsel of the Church… there are some fair criticisms that can be levelled against the Vatican II Council documents (that do genuinely need to be looked at). But it’s an understandable reaction to the “Spirit of Vatican II” which is none other than the spirit of the serpent.
No. The SSPX bishops were excommunicated. Nothing has changed with their regular priests… they’re still suspended and have no ministry in the Church. It’s a big difference from excommunication.
Agreed.
The greatest problem of our age is that people have lost the virtue of obedience. A lack of obedience is the cause of all our ills.
W
Will_S
Guest
Wow. That’s a lot of mean-spirited misinformation for one short paragraph. Let me set a few things straight:
- The only SSPX members ever excommunicated were their bishops. None of the other 500 priests of the society were ever excommunicated. So to say that the SSPX was “excommunicated until recently” is simply false.
- Being a sedevacantist is grounds for expulsion from the SSPX.
- To call the SSPX a breakaway sect is crazy hyperbole. The SSPX are a fraternity of Catholic priests who were once officially established in the Church. In the 1970s the SSPX was suppressed. The SSPX claimed that the suppression was illegal and ignored it. The SSPX has no desire and has done nothing to “break away” from the Catholic Church.
This also is not true. Everyone knows that there are a lot of things going on in the Church right now. There are many different movements that pull in various directions. Not all of them are guided by the Holy Spirit. The SSPX says that in confusing times such as these, the only way to be safe is to cling firmly to the traditional doctrine and to the traditional practice of religion in the Church. This position is basically identical to the position of regularized groups such as the FSSP.
The single big difference between the SSPX and the FSSP, for example, is obedience. The FSSP submits to the authority of the hierarchy in all cases. The SSPX does not. They have their own well thought-out and self-consistent reasons for this. (Note: I am not saying that their reasons are correct – just that their actions are not arbitrary and without justification)
L
laszlo
Guest
Only in the view of the SSPX. Rome, like a good mother expects the SSPX back, but cannot accept the principle, that an insignificant minority without any jurisdiction controls the Church instead of the hierarchy.
I interpret the sermon of Bishop Fellay on that way, that Rome repeated the previous offer for regularization but the SSPX keeps his stand that they should control the doctrine, consequently in their point of view that offer is not substantial.
In long term probably the way for regularization will be made easier for individual priest and groups, and hopefully many will use this path. Let us pray.
A
At_Trent
Guest
L
laszlo
Guest
Msgr Pozzi only said that if you want dialogue, you had to put yourself to the shows of your dialogue partner.
The tragedy of the SSPX is, that they expect everybody to be squee in their limited reality, they reject everything outside themselves.
S
santodomingo
Guest
That´s a bit unfair, Laszlo. I´ve heard many SSPX sermons quoting scources outside the Society, praising the Pope´s position on certain issues, bishops´ attitudes when they see them to be correct. IMO they give praise where it is due.
What clearly distinguishes them from ANY OTHER group in the Catholic Church, and this is why they are so hated, is that they never shy away from criticising what they believe to be wrong or harmful to the faith. And if that criticism includes the Pope, that makes no difference. As a matter of fact, all catholics, under Canon 212, are allowed and OBLIGED to publicly voice their concerns when the faith is in danger.
We should all pray for a regularization of the SSPX.
A
Aramis
Guest
What most clearly distinguishes them is the persistent disobedience of their founder and their leadership. They have also, without mandate, established a convent and an order of lay brothers as if of diocesan stature. They have created parishes and quasi-parishes, and installed pastors in the, without permission of the local ordinary. They have set up a tribunal to hear marriage annulment cases, which is a function of a diocese, not of a society of Apostolic Life.
The SSPX is right on the fine line between disobedience and schism. They have, in the words of two popes, committed schismatic acts. But, per HH, they are not in schism.
And, per HH B XVI, the have “no valid ministry within the church”… Further, while the 5 bishops were excommunicated, the order was as a whole suspended ad divinis… barred from public administration of the sacraments (tho permitted to attend in choir).
They are at the precipice on the edge of schism. Pray they do not fall into it. They will either humble themselves and return, or they will fall away like the Old Catholics of Utrecht.
And while the SSPX are not be sedevaticanists, most of the sedevaticanists I’ve met attend an SSPX chapel… for there is no SSPV chapel nearby.
As for canon 212… while clerics can and should make their needs known, they have a duty under pain of grave sin to obey their proper ordinary and the pope. EVEN if they disagree, they are called to obey.
S
santodomingo
Guest
Aramis, I think it all boils down to whether or not one sees the “state of necessity” invoked by Mons. Marcel Lefebvre to justify the famous episcopal consecrations of ´88. If one agrees that there was a state of necessity THEN (not now), his acts were licit. If not, the conclusion must be that they were illicit. Personally I see that there WAS a state of necessity.
This is not correct when the faith is at stake. Nobody should obey their superior when he orders him to do anything that may endanger his faith or harm the Church.
S
Stylites
Guest
That’s a neat trick. I’ll have to try that the next time I need reconciliation with the Roman Catholic Church - I’ll enter into . . . negotiations! I’m not certain if it will be perfect or imperfect contrition, or blackmail-contrition, or contrition arbitrated by the NLRB.
“Bless me Father, for my lawyer who is present with me in this Sacrament wishes to make an opening statement regarding just who is really at fault here, me or you.”
W
Will_S
Guest
And yet if a particular cleric’s ordinary orders him to read a letter aloud at Mass that denies the resurrection of Christ, then the cleric has a grave obligation to disobey.
V
VivaCristoRey27
Guest
A superior – familial, military, civil, religious or ecclesiastical – has no authority to order someone to sin. They still retain their position but that command is null and void because the authority of God overrides it.
If you believe something to be a bad decision, you must still obey.
If you believe something to be a sin, you must not obey and actively disobey.
A
At_Trent
Guest
Well, write the pope and set him straight on this horrid group of clergy. I’m sure he’ll heed your warning if you make sure and mention your infallible wisdom on such matters.That’s a neat trick. I’ll have to try that the next time I need reconciliation with the Roman Catholic Church - I’ll enter into . . . negotiations! I’m not certain if it will be perfect or imperfect contrition, or blackmail-contrition, or contrition arbitrated by the NLRB.
“Bless me Father, for my lawyer who is present with me in this Sacrament wishes to make an opening statement regarding just who is really at fault here, me or you.”
S
Stylites
Guest
Sheesh, there’s no need to personalize a response or use ad hominem attacks. I was merely pointing out the ludicrousness of the SSPX demanding that the Pope “negotiate” reconciliation, when the unity which Christ enjoins really only requires contrition on their part.Well, write the pope and set him straight on this horrid group of clergy. I’m sure he’ll heed your warning if you make sure and mention your infallible wisdom on such matters.
A
At_Trent
Guest
- Status