What is the status of the SSPX?

[laudamus_te]

So, the excommunications remain valid binding judgements by a bishop…ironically one of the most traditional bishops in the US. Hmmm.

Yes, until they are “unbound”. Frankly, I don’t see how anyone can really believe such an excommunication is just. Traditional bishop or not (and I admire the stance the Bishop has taken on a number of important issues), what his motives were for putting the Society in the same category as Planned Parenthood, etc. and describing them as “totally incompatible with the Catholic Faith” is a mystery to me and not something I wish to debate. But I have eyes to see, and I see that the SSPX is not “totally incompatible with the Catholic Faith.” Their fruits alone prove this.

 

[Sure]

Yes, until they are “unbound”. Frankly, I don’t see how anyone can really believe such an excommunication is just. Traditional bishop or not (and I admire the stance the Bishop has taken on a number of important issues), what his motives were for putting the Society in the same category as Planned Parenthood, etc. and describing them as “totally incompatible with the Catholic Faith” is a mystery to me and not something I wish to debate. But I have eyes to see, and I see that the SSPX is not “totally incompatible with the Catholic Faith.” Their fruits alone prove this.

Well, you’re certainly entitled to your opinion. I wish that more bishops would show the spine like Bp. Bruskewitz and Arch. Burke.

And yes, they must be judged by their fruits…how many poor souls are in hell due to invalid confessions administered at the hands of schismatic priests? The SSPX should follow the lead of their brethren in the Society of St. John Vianney and some home without delay before more harm is done.

 

[bear06]

Unless the Pope himself decides to clarify this issue and condemn attendance at the SSPX chapels, we really have nothing to worry about unless we have the spirit/intention of rebellion.

well, that would be contrary to what the Vatican has said. It said it’s dangerous so, of course, we should worry. Remember the “slowly imbibing” part?

 

[rpp]

There was much more to the excommunication of the SSPX in the Diocese of Lincoln that was appears at face value. I vaguely recall a interview with the good Bishop where he explained that the SSPX congregation was being rather “disruptive” in a manner that was different than the typical low-key manner they generally have in other diocese.

It was very clear in the interview that Bishop Bruskewitz was not lumping the SSPX people into the same groups as the Call To Action, Catholics for Free Choice and so on.

Also, like those groups, he did give them a warning and many of the SSPX parishioners heeded the warning.

Please note this was discussed on this thread. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=167730

Also, here is an article from Bishop Bruskewitz explaining his actions. ewtn.com/library/CANONLAW/BOTHWAYS.HTM

 

[bear06]

Beware of spreading false or misleading information.

Bishop Bruskewitz’ excommunication of the group “Call to Action” (which supports women’s ordination) was upheld by the Vatican. The Bishop also tried to lump in several other groups (the SSPX among them) and these were NOT addressed by the Vatican. The fact that he lumped a truly Catholic society with such ilk as the Hemlock Society, Call to Action and Planned Parenthood is contemptible, IMO.

And it was a Ukrainian priest of the Rutherian Rite (which has ties to the SSPX) who was excommunicated. Actually, it was his second excommunication, the first having been declared null and void.

The Vatican doesn’t have to address a bishop’s excommunication unless it is contested. They all stand unless the Vatican says otherwise. In the case of Lincoln, not all of the groups contested it. In the case of the one that did, the Vatican upheld it. I find it funny that the SSPX didn’t contest it with Rome (although they did with Bishop Bruskewitz )

BTW, you are wrong about who was excommunicated.

ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/BRUSKWTZ.HTM

Any Catholics in and of the Diocese of Lincoln who attain or retain membership in any of the above listed organizations or groups after April 15, 1996, are by that very fact (ipso facto latae sententiae) under interdict and are absolutely forbidden to receive Holy Communion.

The differece between Bruskewitz and the Hawaii six is that Bruskewitz followed proper canonical procedure which was severely lacking in the Hawaii case. He met with those groups he excommunicated, published a canonical warning, etc. which is probably why the SSPX hasn’t bothered to challenge it.

The other funny thing I’ve never heard mentioned is that the SSPX doesn’t seem to be contesting the excommunication of the other groups which shows that it’s well within the bishop’s authority to do so. They just don’t like the fact that they were lumped in.

 

[Formosus]

Beware of spreading false or misleading information.

Bishop Bruskewitz’ excommunication of the group “Call to Action” (which supports women’s ordination) was upheld by the Vatican. The Bishop also tried to lump in several other groups (the SSPX among them) and these were NOT addressed by the Vatican. The fact that he lumped a truly Catholic society with such ilk as the Hemlock Society, Call to Action and Planned Parenthood is contemptible, IMO.

And it was a Ukrainian priest of the Rutherian Rite (which has ties to the SSPX) who was excommunicated. Actually, it was his second excommunication, the first having been declared null and void.

I spread no false information. And as for this being his second excommunication, this particular time it was upheld by the Vatican.

 

[NewsTheMan]

Bump, I would like to know the answer to the thread title.

 

[FrRJBoyd]

As the one who made the OP, I can say that more information has come to light over the last three years. While attending an SSPX Mass will satisfy your Sunday obligation, Ecclesia Dei still does not recommend going to Communion at an SSPX Mass, though it does not forbid the possibility or condemn it as sinful; the choice is left up to the conscience of the individual.

Caution should always be maintained so that one does not begin to assent to the separation of the SSPX from Rome. The bishops may have had their formal excommunication lifted by the Pope, and indeed talks are on-going, but the SSPX is still irregular and separated from the Church which our Lord established.

God bless,
Fr. Boyd

 

[maurin]

Father, with all due respect sincerely, status within and separation from the Curch are entirely 2 different matters. What separates someone from the Church is a rejection of some tenet, Dogma or Doctrine which the Church holds. The Society does none of these things.

I’m wondering what you think of the communion with the Church of your brother Priest in the Diocese of Orange on the west coast who this past Sunday “concelebrated” Mass with a protstant, and allowed her to receive Communion?

 

[santodomingo]

Why not make an appointment and visit them to check on what they really believe. It is a good thing to reach out in understanding and to help foster good relationships throughout the community.

They might have some good insight into this and are probably open to talking about it more, not only that, they probably know what Rome says about them.

They believe a lot more Catholicism than non-catholics and in the spirit of ecuminism it would probably would be fruitful to visit.

God Bless
Scylla

This is a scandalous thing to suggest!

Nowadays, following the Holy Father´s ecumenical example, we should all participate in services with heretics, visit mosques, pray with the jews, convene “Peace Meetings” with all sorts of pagans (witch doctors included), but there is one thing we must NEVER, NEVER, NEVER do. That is to have direct contact with priests from the SSPX.

They are the modern-day untouchables, and must be avoided at all costs.

 

[FrRJBoyd]

Father, with all due respect sincerely, status within and separation from the Curch are entirely 2 different matters. What separates someone from the Church is a rejection of some tenet, Dogma or Doctrine which the Church holds. The Society does none of these things.

I’m wondering what you think of the communion with the Church of your brother Priest in the Diocese of Orange on the west coast who this past Sunday “concelebrated” Mass with a protstant, and allowed her to receive Communion?

Two wrongs simply do not make a right. Documents from Ecclesia Dei clearly refer to the SSPX as being in a “situation of separation”; their priests are irregular, and they have no jurisdiction to hear Confessions or witness marriages. These are simply the facts.

I do not blame anyone who attends the SSPX in order to escape heresy and other madness at nearby parishes, but there are dangers inherent because of the separation, and the faithful need to be made aware of such dangers. And those who live near a Fraternity or Institute parish but still choose to attend the Society chapels ordinarily have little excuse…

 

[OurLadyPerpHelp]

Over the Christmas holidays, I had the opportunity to meet someone who belongs to the SSPX and I believe we are becoming friends. I have learned so much about our Church from him it’s actually embarrassing. He’s the only person, Catholic or otherwise, who I’ve seen say grace before and after meals. He has a shrine in his living room where most of us place the big screen tv. He has a Mary Garden in front of his house. Their community has a daily group rosary in people’s homes. They make regular out of town visits to shrines. He prays the Divine Office. His children do not participate in Halloween (and he has many of them). In our discussions he have never said one bad word about the Church, any pope, priest, or fellow Catholic. I plan on attending Mass with him this Sunday. It will be my first Latin Mass. However, I’ll also get to my own church that day too just to be safe. If he is a typical SSPXer then we should all pray for a full reconciliation with Rome and welcome these devout and loving Catholics into our hearts.

 

[laszlo]

I don’t mean to be rude, but isn’t this a matter to discuss with your Bishop?

There are varying opinions on this forum. I would think you would get a definitive answer from the Bishop, not a bunch of strangers.

Before one turns to the bishop it is necessary to research the issue. One cannot make final decision purely by ‘asking a bunch of starangers’ but usually one can get a lot of information asking question in newsgroups like this.

As for the topic

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.”

latinmas.s701.sureserver.com/perl-011803.htm

My opinion is that those who attend weekday Mass at the SSPX chapel because that is not available elsewhere, do not commit sin. There is a danger, but those who truly accept the opinion of the Church that the Ordinary Form is the preferred form for the majority, and attend Masses at the church in full communion with the diocese (listed by the diocese as so) when it is available for their minority choice - those are in their right to attend SSPX mass if only that is available.

 

[maurin]

Two wrongs simply do not make a right. Documents from Ecclesia Dei clearly refer to the SSPX as being in a “situation of separation”; their priests are irregular, and they have no jurisdiction to hear Confessions or witness marriages. These are simply the facts.

I do not blame anyone who attends the SSPX in order to escape heresy and other madness at nearby parishes, but there are dangers inherent because of the separation, and the faithful need to be made aware of such dangers. And those who live near a Fraternity or Institute parish but still choose to attend the Society chapels ordinarily have little excuse…

Dear Father,

Thank you for your reasonable reply.

However, a distinction which you fail to make is that separation from the Church, which is always interpreted by many hear to mean out of communion, schismatic and other untruths, is an absolutely different matter.

Priests who have been Ordained by the 4 Bishops of the Society are allowed to function as Priests in the Church, ie those of the FSSP. If schism or separation actually existed, those same Priests, although validly ordained, would not by Canon Law be allowed to function as Priests in the institutional Church. Because they woukd have been deemed to have “stolen” their Orders from without the Church.

No Father, I’m sorry, and with sincere respect, I believe you are failing to make the proper distinction between status within and communion with the Church.

 

[santodomingo]

And yes, they must be judged by their fruits…how many poor souls are in hell due to invalid confessions administered at the hands of schismatic priests? The SSPX should follow the lead of their brethren in the Society of St. John Vianney and some home without delay before more harm is done.

Firstly, that´s obviously something that you cannot judge, because nobody can know for sure who is in Hell. If we are told to judge people/groups/ecumenical councils, etc. by their fruits, that is necessarily referring to fruits clearly visible on Earth.

Secondly, you are quite wrong in assuming that the sacraments of the SSPX are not valid. Cardenal Castrillón de Hoyos, head of Ecclesia Dei, definitely does not agree with you. When priests, who have been ordained by supposedly excommunicated bishops, defect to Ecclesia Dei, such as the group you mentioned, they are not asked to be ordained again. What is more, **in practice ** all the sacraments of the SSPX are fully recognized by Rome. Mons. Fellay recounts how when he consulted about absolutions for grave sins that require the authority of a bishop, Rome replied that there was no need to bother, that “all is in order”. I can´t remember the source, perhaps I´ll find it later. This is a de facto admitance of validity, even though the Pope will not announce it officially.

Mons. Fellay also says this about SSPX marriages:

“On this point, let me tell you about the bishops from Gabon (Africa) going to Rome to ask about the validity and lawfulness of the sacraments administered by our mission priests there and whether they should record them in the sacramental registers of that country’s local churches. Rome answered that the sacraments of the Society must be recorded in the local registers. “Also the marriages?” the bishops asked. “Yes,” said Rome. That was the statement from Rome. With these words —despite all the things you may have heard! —Rome says our sacraments are to be considered valid. This is the policy in official Rome about sacraments administered by priests of the Society of St. Pius X.”

 

[Indyann]

Before one turns to the bishop it is necessary to research the issue. One cannot make final decision purely by ‘asking a bunch of starangers’ but usually one can get a lot of information asking question in newsgroups like this.

As for the topic

My opinion is that those who attend weekday Mass at the SSPX chapel because that is not available elsewhere, do not commit sin. There is a danger, but those who truly accept the opinion of the Church that the Ordinary Form is the preferred form for the majority, and attend Masses at the church in full communion with the diocese (listed by the diocese as so) when it is available for their minority choice - those are in their right to attend SSPX mass if only that is available.

This thread is more than 3 years old. It just seemed a little odd that a Catholic priest would ask about status of the SSPX on an internet forum, rather than to clarify with fellow priests or his bishop, There are as many opinions on this forum, as there are people.

 

[Indyann]

Firstly, that´s obviously something that you cannot judge, because nobody can know for sure who is in Hell. If we are told to judge people/groups/ecumenical councils, etc. by their fruits, that is necessarily referring to fruits clearly visible on Earth.

Secondly, you are quite wrong in assuming that the sacraments of the SSPX are not valid. Cardenal Castrillón de Hoyos, head of Ecclesia Dei, definitely does not agree with you. When priests, who have been ordained by supposedly excommunicated bishops, defect to Ecclesia Dei, such as the group you mentioned, they are not asked to be ordained again. What is more, **in practice ** all the sacraments of the SSPX are fully recognized by Rome. Mons. Fellay recounts how when he consulted about absolutions for grave sins that require the authority of a bishop, Rome replied that there was no need to bother, that “all is in order”. I can´t remember the source, perhaps I´ll find it later. This is a de facto admitance of validity, even though the Pope will not announce it officially.

Mons. Fellay also says this about SSPX marriages:

“On this point, let me tell you about the bishops from Gabon (Africa) going to Rome to ask about the validity and lawfulness of the sacraments administered by our mission priests there and whether they should record them in the sacramental registers of that country’s local churches. Rome answered that the sacraments of the Society must be recorded in the local registers. “Also the marriages?” the bishops asked. “Yes,” said Rome. That was the statement from Rome. With these words —despite all the things you may have heard! —Rome says our sacraments are to be considered valid. This is the policy in official Rome about sacraments administered by priests of the Society of St. Pius X.”

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html

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.

From the Vatican, 10 March 2009

© Copyright 2009 - Libreria Editrice Vaticana

 

[Denise1957]

Perhaps it would be a good idea to show how the Holy Father would answer the OP question. Here’s an excerpt from his Holiness’ letter, written March 10, 2009, to the bishops of the Catholic Church regarding the remission of the excommunications of the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre. I’ve included a link to the letter which is posted on the Vatican’s website:

“The remission of the excommunication has the same aim as that of punishment: namely, to invite the four bishops once more to return. This gesture was possible once the interested parties has expressed their recognition in principle of the Pope and his authority as pastor, albeit with some reservations in the area of obedience to his doctrinal authority and to the authority of the Council. Here I return to the distinction between individuals and institutions. The remission of the excommunications was a measure taken in the field of ecclesiastical discipline: the individuals were freed from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties. This disciplinary level needs to be distinguished from the doctrinal level. The fact that the Society of St. Pius X does not posess 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 members 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 dictrinal 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

 

[Denise1957]

Oh my, Indyann, we posted the same thing at about the same time!

 

[santodomingo]

OK, so how do you explain what I mentioned earlier, the de facto recognition from Rome of the ministry of the SSPX?

It seems to me (God only knows why) that Rome says one thing and does another.