Which documents/decrees of the Second Vatican Council do the SSPX oppose?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Prodigal1984
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Prodigal1984

Guest
I was wondering, I read that the Society accepts 95% of the documents and decrees of the Council. Fellay himself said this some years back.
Which documents or decrees makes it a stumbling block for them being in full communion in that case?
 
I believe that they are strongly against the Mass in English.
 
They appear to disagree with most of the Document on the Liturgy, and select portions of documents on Religious Liberty, the Laity, and Ecumenism.

That may have been the stumbling block when the SSPX began. But now there’s the momentum of almost 50 years of separation, in addition to differences over the Council.

It has started to develop its own identity, permanent structures. Our local group, which once rented temporary quarters, has its own building, which they put lots of work into. Children have grown up in SSPX. That’s all they know. This now includes priests.

So even if a pope and leader of SSPX came to total agreement on all Vatican 2 documents, the momentum of the last 50 years would still be there.
 
Last edited:
commenter said:
It has started to develop its own identity, permanent structures. Our local group, which once rented temporary quarters, has its own building, which they put lots of work into. Children have grown up in SSPX. That’s all they know. This now includes priests
Click to expand...
I get that more issues have been raised since the 1970s, but I don’t see how having their own buildings would be a stumbling block for full communion. Lots of orders have their own Churches or seminaries or what have you. It’s not like the Vatican or the Pope is the property owner of most Catholic churches. 🤔
 
TheMortenBay said:
40.png
commenter:
It has started to develop its own identity, permanent structures. Our local group, which once rented temporary quarters, has its own building, which they put lots of work into. Children have grown up in SSPX. That’s all they know. This now includes priests
Click to expand...
I get that more issues have been raised since the 1970s, but I don’t see how having their own buildings would be a stumbling block for full communion. Lots of orders have their own Churches or seminaries or what have you. It’s not like the Vatican or the Pope is the property owner of most Catholic churches. 🤔
Click to expand...
I know, it’s a practical thing. I’m just making a point that social structures, ways of doing things, bureaucracies, that may have begun with a temporary purpose, at least in serving laity, gradually take on a permanent identity for the Laity.

Suppose your grandfather belonged to St. John parish, and the diocese of X, but in 1975 chose to attend TLM offered by a religious order, pending Church reform. The SSPX chaplain then likely had many years work in a diocese.

This is a different POV from his grandson who never belonged to any parish or diocese, growing up in SSPX, with a priest who has worked only in SSPX.
 
Last edited:
commenter said:
I’m just making a point that social structures,
[…] that may have begun with a temporary purpose, at least in serving laity, gradually take on a permanent identity for the Laity.
Click to expand...
Yes, social structures. That’s also what I thought you meant, but then you specifically stressed physical buildings, which was all I was trying to point out 😉
 
Last edited:
Correct me if I’m wrong but it’s been 50 years? I had always thought they were canonically regular until the excommunication of Lefebvre in 1988 however being on shaky ground before that as well. Or am I wrong and they were separated even before then?
Their current situation is weird. Canonically Irregular. I never really understood that as a possibility in the Church, I thought it was either you’re in communion with Rome or you are not.
I heard their confessions are valid now too.
 
Last edited:
They were not Canonically Irregular until after the excommunication.

I think the reason they are Canonically Irregular is because (unlike other orders) their leader was a bishop. The bishops were then excommunicated, but the priests were not.

So you had priests who were technically in communion with the Church recognizing a bishop as their superior, but he was excommunicated.

This was a very irregular situation as religious order superiors usually are not bishops. Hence when they are excommunicated, the order can elect a new priest. But in this case, priests of the fraternity could not really elect someone to replace their bishop, who many of them were ordained by.

Very “irregular situation,” hence the term
 
Last edited:
While I agree with some of the issues raised by SSPX, I disagree with their methods. There’s something very suspicious and fishy about SSPX in my opinion. Any good faithful Catholic should steer away from them.

They have a history of disobedience to the Holy See, going back to their beginnings.

The Vatican has been quite accommodating towards them in recent years, yet, SSPX continues to remain outside the fold and won’t come back into communion with Rome, always finding another excuse not to come back, despite repeated overtures made by the Vatican.

There are a couple of traditionalist orders already in existence that are in full communion with the Holy See, such as FSSP and ICKSP.

If you’re a traditionalist Catholic (and I consider myself one, I go to an ICKSP parish), attend Mass at an FSSP or ICKSP run parish instead.
 
To answer the OP, I think one of the main decrees of the council they oppose is freedom of religion (versus religious tolerance).
 
Yah I go to their masses.
I realized they aren’t always obedient to the Pope either though, for example I notice they use pre 62 Missals at their masses sometimes which is not an authorized missal to use for the EF. Noticed because a few times they said the Credo when it was just a weekday mass. I asked someone what was up with that and they were using like a 1950s missal. Unless they got some sort of permission idk but if not it is disobedient.
 
Last edited:
Prodigal1984 said:
Yah I go to their masses.
I realized they aren’t always obedient to the Pope either though, for example I notice they use pre 62 Missals at their masses sometimes which is not an authorized missal to use for the EF. Noticed because a few times they said the Credo when it was just a weekday mass. I asked someone what was up with that and they were using like a 1950s missal. Unless they got some sort of permission idk but if not it is disobedient.
Click to expand...
I believe they have permission. I might be wrong, but I believe they do
 
Last edited:
In my earlier post, I wasn’t making a statement about SSPX being good or bad, irregular or disobedient, or not. I didn’t deny they had some understandable reasons for starting.

I was responding to the question of why they are separate now. In the 1970s it may have been this or that document from V2. Now, there’s the whole issue of organizational momentum, and the great majority of clergy have a very different personal history of ministry and church involvement now than most clergy had in the early 1970s.

The organizational rationale - momentum - for continuing might be different from the V2 rationale for starting.
 
Last edited:
According to Wikipedia, SSPX’s “irregularity” came before the excommunications. Basically, they were set up with probationary status in 1970 in Fribourg, at the seminary in Lausanne. Lots of stuff happened. The bishop in 1975 revoked that status, ie they did not pass their probation, so their situation has been irregular since 1975. (I edited lightly to keep the account focussed on SSPX’s status, rather than oher events involved.) The excommunications came later, 1988.

If anyone has any corrections or evidence otherwise, I would be interested in hearing it.
[The retired bishop of Fribourg] granted Lefebvre’s request and, with a document predated by six days to 1 November 1970, he established the Society of St. Pius X as a pia unio (Latin, for “pious, or holy, union”) on a provisional ( ad experimentum ) basis for six years. Pia unio status was the first stage through which a Catholic organisation passed prior to gaining official recognition as a religious institute or society of apostolic life…The Society of Saint Pius X was formally founded, adhering to all canonical norms, and receiving the episcopal blessing and encouragement of the local ordinary.
On 6 May 1975, with the approval of the cardinals, Bishop [of Fribourg] withdrew the SSPX’s pia unio status. Lefebvre instructed his lawyer to lodge appeals and he ultimately petitioned the Apostolic Signatura, the highest court of the Catholic Church, which turned down the complaint. From this point onwards, the SSPX was no longer recognised as a canonical organization.
Wikipedia sv Society of Saint Pius X
Click to expand...
 
History is important. It’s a mistake to ignore it. But so many threads on SSPX focus on Vatican 2, 1975, and 1988, and not at all on the current year, or current reasons for separation.

Posters are invited to comment on that.
 
Last edited:
There was an historical question asked, which I sought to answer.

The current situation, as I understand it, is that canonical irregularities and organizations can be resolved if the priests of SSPX agree to accept all the teachings of Vatican 2. They have chosen not to do that, which may be what you are addressing. But it is still their objections to the teaching on religious liberty and ecumenism. (ironically, it is the teaching on ecumenism that keeps the Vatican interested in resolving the situation.)
 
Bonaventurian said:
Wow, I see there’s quite the agenda being propagated on this website. My reply was removed without a word as to why.

You know that’s a form of deceit, right mods?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately many here seem to be against the SSPX whatever the reason and whatever the topic, which is quite saddening to see/read. As far as I understand some debate about the SSPX and their doings without having full knowledge of them and/or their work and interactions with other priests and orders.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top