What's the SSPX all about? The long and short of it

[constantconvert]

Can anyone refer me to an objective, or at least thorough primer on Pius X? Or perhaps someone could give me a summary of it’s history, and how it conflicted with the Vatican. Are they sedevacantists? I have a friend who attends church where the priest was a disciple of the founder. They’ve been in a dust up with the bishop, and I would like to educate myself about Pius X and figure out what’s going on.

 

[constantconvert]

Sorry, “its history” not “it’s history” can’t remember how to edit a post!

 

[corsair]

The way your question is worded, I’m assuming you are asking about the Society of St. Pius X.

This is a very "touchy subject on this site. So I would refer you to their web site. Just type SSPX into your search engine.

God Bless.

 

[awsiukiewicz]

Although I am not officially associated with SPX I have attended Mass at an SPX Parish…so, if someone is more ‘in the know’ please correct me…but as I have read, after V-2 concerned parents of young seminarians contacted the then retired Bishop LeFevre to address concerns they had regarding the formation of their sons for the Priesthood. He esablished a Seminary and voila…here we are…as I understand they (SSPX) oppose V-2 on several grounds…the council was pastoral and ecuminical…not intended to put forth any dogmatic statement. their concerns were and as I understand are the Protestantizing of the Mass. they are not Sedavacantists as such…but remain very Traditional…I am old enough to have served, albeit briefly, as an altar boy at the Traditional Latin Mass and remember the changes that occured. In my humble opinion…and I am a devout Catholic who holds to the Magesterium, regardless of the intent of V-2…the loss of the altar rail, almost nonexistant catechesis, an obvious flagrant disregard for and lack of respect, secondary to poor cathechesis, for the Eucharist. Little if any reverence shown by Parishoners when entering Church, Confession being offered for 15-30 minutes prior to Mass on Sat. No one can deny the abuses that occured and are still occuring in the celebration of the sacrafice of the Mass since V-2…these are things they, the SSPX are concerned with. they are, in my opinion often times misjudged as being radical…I along with other individuals how miss the church of their childhood just miss much of what we were taught being Catholic was about…if you haven’t had an opportunity to visit a Traditional Catholic Parish I would suggest that you do it and attend Mass…even the FSSP Mass…I can guarantee you won’t see young women wearing hot pants, or young men wearing t-shirts and shorts, and I can assure you that you won’t hear people talking in church before of after Mass…I repeat,I am a devout Catholic who attends the Novus Ordo Mass…and follows the teaching of the Church…I respect the Bishop of Rome, regardless of any comments made by him requring subsequent clarification. So, Peace be with you…

 

[George_Stegmeir]

want to see true reverence for the contemporary post V II Mass, go to any ethnically Polish Parish in the US where the mass is not only said in English, but in Polish. You will see the same reverence that was common in the days of the Latin Mass…in fact, more.
In the old days, it was very common to see people praying the rosary during Sunday Mass, largely because they did not understand what was going on-apart from the sermon.
Today, one sees almost everyone participating in the prayers of the Mass.

 

[Petaro]

Although I am not officially associated with SPX I have attended Mass at an SPX Parish…so, if someone is more ‘in the know’ please correct me…but as I have read, after V-2 concerned parents of young seminarians contacted the then retired Bishop LeFevre to address concerns they had regarding the formation of their sons for the Priesthood. He esablished a Seminary and voila…here we are…as I understand they (SSPX) oppose V-2 on several grounds…the council was pastoral and ecuminical…not intended to put forth any dogmatic statement. their concerns were and as I understand are the Protestantizing of the Mass. they are not Sedavacantists as such…but remain very Traditional…I am old enough to have served, albeit briefly, as an altar boy at the Traditional Latin Mass and remember the changes that occured. In my humble opinion…and I am a devout Catholic who holds to the Magesterium, regardless of the intent of V-2…the loss of the altar rail, almost nonexistant catechesis, an obvious flagrant disregard for and lack of respect, secondary to poor cathechesis, for the Eucharist. Little if any reverence shown by Parishoners when entering Church, Confession being offered for 15-30 minutes prior to Mass on Sat. No one can deny the abuses that occured and are still occuring in the celebration of the sacrafice of the Mass since V-2…these are things they, the SSPX are concerned with. they are, in my opinion often times misjudged as being radical…I along with other individuals how miss the church of their childhood just miss much of what we were taught being Catholic was about…if you haven’t had an opportunity to visit a Traditional Catholic Parish I would suggest that you do it and attend Mass…even the FSSP Mass…I can guarantee you won’t see young women wearing hot pants, or young men wearing t-shirts and shorts, and I can assure you that you won’t hear people talking in church before of after Mass…I repeat,I am a devout Catholic who attends the Novus Ordo Mass…and follows the teaching of the Church…I respect the Bishop of Rome, regardless of any comments made by him requring subsequent clarification. So, Peace be with you…

I can only sympathize with your concerns. I too, am a Catholic loyal to the Pope and the teachings of the Church, and God willing my faithfulness will run the race. However, we have lost valuable liturgical traditions which assisted our devotion to the mysteries of the Eucharist and the sacraments, leading to a sloppy sense of the mystical in many attending Mass. However these losses are no excuse for disloyalty to our Faith and rebellion from our Pontiff. We must keep these good people in our prayers, as I believe they are still close to the love of the Lord.

 

[Abu]

constantconvert #1
Can anyone refer me to an objective, or at least thorough primer on Pius X?

This is helpful:
CDF prefect says SSPX in schism, suspended from sacraments
CWN - December 23, 2013
'The leaders of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) are in schism, and remain suspended from the sacraments, says the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

'In an interview with the Italian daily Corriere della Sera, Archbishop Gerhard Müller said that although Pope Benedict XVI lifted the canonical excommunication of SSPX prelates, they remain suspended from the sacraments because “by their schism they have broken away from communion with the Church.”

‘Archbishop Müller said that while talks with the SSPX have reach an impasse, the Vatican will not close the door to reconciliation. However, he said, a restoration of full communion would require the SSPX to accept the authority of the Church and of the Pope.’
catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=20046

“…the SSPX uses the 1962 Missal, which includes changes made by John XXIII. Some in the movement reject any changes, and thus will use only the Missal from Pius XII’s time. Others argue that the See of Peter is vacant since Pius XII (sedevacantists). Others have elected their own popes (there were, at last count, at least 3 antipopes). And so the fracturing natural to schismatics has its way.” [Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL].
ewtn.com/expert/answers/sspx_fssp.htm

**The SSPX’s Valentine to Pope John Paul II
By Michael Potemra February 14, 2014 **
“The Society of St. Pius X, a Traditionalist Catholic organization skeptical of the Vatican II council and the reforms that ensued from it, has an article on its website today saying that Pope John Paul II should not be canonized (which is to say, formally recognized as a saint). The argument is that if John Paul II is a saint, Catholics will have to accept some unacceptable doctrines.”
nationalreview.com/corner/371203/sspxs-valentine-pope-john-paul-ii-michael-potemra#!

Those who revolt against any teaching in Vatican II and the teaching of the Popes at and since Vatican II, set themselves up to be superior to the teaching of Christ through His Church and are dissenters. They arrogantly promote that Vatican II and the Popes have changed Catholic teaching on salvation for non-Catholics and they continue to savage the Mystical Body of Christ because they do not understand the meaning of the teaching.

 

[constantconvert]

Thanks for your answers. I will read the links.

 

[recentrevert]

The SSPX are schismatics and I believe that makes it a mortal sin to go to their Masses except perhaps in extraordinary circumstances. Don’t be taken in by outward piety; They are refusing submission to the Pope, which is neccessary for salvation.

 

[NiceMarmot]

Can anyone refer me to an objective, or at least thorough primer on Pius X? Or perhaps someone could give me a summary of it’s history, and how it conflicted with the Vatican. Are they sedevacantists? I have a friend who attends church where the priest was a disciple of the founder. They’ve been in a dust up with the bishop, and I would like to educate myself about Pius X and figure out what’s going on.

The first answer you recieved was correct, in that the SSPX is a very touchy subject at CAF. So hopefully I will tread lightly enough to avoid complications.

Their objective is simple. To preserve the traditional catholic customs and theology passed on for so many years in un-adulterated form.

They began with the full approval of the Holy See in 1970.

No, they are NOT SEDES. Pope Francis is the Pope.

Back in (…can’t recall what year exactly) The founder Abp. LeFebvre was getting on in years and took it upon himself to consecrate 4 new bishops to insure succession. Probably not the best move on his part, but there you go. That resulted in his excommunication. That excommunication was eventually lifted.

Their current status is ‘irregular’…the details of which are debated and most likely the reason you already have gotten bum information from this thread. I am not going to debate the nuances of the definition.

Catholics are permitted to assit at SSPX masses with the condition that we do so not in a spirit of rebellion or a scismatic mind-set.

 

[guanophore]

Those who revolt against any teaching in Vatican II and the teaching of the Popes at and since Vatican II, set themselves up to be superior to the teaching of Christ through His Church and are dissenters. They arrogantly promote that Vatican II and the Popes have changed Catholic teaching on salvation for non-Catholics and they continue to savage the Mystical Body of Christ because they do not understand the meaning of the teaching.

I am not defending schismatics, but one has to admit that the “spirit of Vatican 2” did result in Vatican “too much”. The liturgical abuses were enough to drive out any faithful Catholic, not just the ultra traditionals. It is appropriate to be scandalized by some of the crazy things blamed on Vatican II.

 

[xzereus]

I am not defending schismatics, but one has to admit that the “spirit of Vatican 2” did result in Vatican “too much”. The liturgical abuses were enough to drive out any faithful Catholic, not just the ultra traditionals. It is appropriate to be scandalized by some of the crazy things blamed on Vatican II.

To be scandalized is never appropriate. It is always inappropriate and sinful. Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 43, Article 2:

Scandal is of two kinds, passive scandal in the person scandalized, and active scandal in the person who gives scandal, and so occasions a spiritual downfall. Accordingly passive scandal is always a sin in the person scandalized; for he is not scandalized except in so far as he succumbs to a spiritual downfall, and that is a sin.

 

[NiceMarmot]

To be scandalized is never appropriate. It is always inappropriate and sinful. Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 43, Article 2:

Fascinating.
So, scandal is no longer a sin? Not church teaching…

 

[bobballen_18]

This takes a while to read, but if you have some time, I recommend reading the following link (click on Part II at the end after you have read Part I): jloughnan.tripod.com/experim1.htm

It is basically a history of the first few years of the SSPX, and documents all of the relations between the Pope, Archbishop Lefebvre, and other parties. Essentially, it shows that regardless of whether Lefebvre was right in starting the SSPX (which I certainly think he was), the SSPX definitely was canonically suppressed in 1975, and so because of that, all actions Lefebvre and the Society took after that, beginning with the ordination of the first “batch” of seminarians in 1976, were illicit. The article only goes from 1969/70 to 1976, but it shows that Lefebvre and the SSPX had “irregular” status or had strained relations with Rome much earlier than the ordinations of the 4 bishops in 1988. From the beginning it always had to do with submission (or lack thereof) to the Magisterium and the SSPX’s view of the validity of Vatican II.

 

[Lormar]

Post deleted

I can see where this thread is heading.

 

[Brendan_64]

want to see true reverence for the contemporary post V II Mass, go to any ethnically Polish Parish in the US where the mass is not only said in English, but in Polish. You will see the same reverence that was common in the days of the Latin Mass…in fact, more.
In the old days, it was very common to see people praying the rosary during Sunday Mass, largely because they did not understand what was going on-apart from the sermon.
Today, one sees almost everyone participating in the prayers of the Mass.

You do not need to understand the exact wording of what is being said or to be praying along to understand what is going on in the Mass. In fact an argument could be made that an over emphasis on responses and participating in prayers at set times could be a distraction from the real focus of the Mass.

I would agree with you about the general point on Masses in Polish parishes. I’ve attended there and the reverence shown is akin to that seen at a TLM. However I don’t speak one word of Polish, but it was still clear to me what was happening. You do not need to understand the words of what is being said to understand what is going on.

The Liturgy itself is a language, it communicates. I don’t speak Latin either, but I fail to see how any Catholic, even one who has never attended a Latin Mass before, could fail to see what is happening in a Latin Mass. I attend an Ordinary Form parish myself, but do occasionally attend Latin Mass elsewhere on occasion, and I believe that thinking that because the spoken language is understood means that the Liturgy is understood is incorrect, just as not understanding the spoken language does not mean that the Liturgy isn’t understood.

I once had the pleasure of having lunch at a table with Bishop Schneider who, when asked about the correct responses, postures etc. from the congregation during a Latin Mass, said that as a member of the congregation you do not have to do or say anything during Latin Mass, the mystery is there unfolding before your eyes, you do not have to do or say anything. His comments changed my own outlook on the Mass (OF and EF) and now I feel that too much congregation ‘involvement’ (as regards responses, postures, singing etc) is actually a distraction from the true purpose of the Mass. The focus is to be there in the presence of the mystery unfolding, to witness it, and try to appreciate its enormity. Understanding exactly what words are being spoken is not necessary for that.