Jump to content

Talk:Society of Saint Pius X: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
m Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. Remove 6 deprecated parameters: b1, b2, b3, b4, b5, b6.
 
(439 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|
* added another example of a personal prelature - Opus Dei founded by Blessed Monsignor Jose Maria Escriva de Balaguer
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Organizations|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Catholicism|importance=Mid}}
}}
{{archive box|auto=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 5
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Society of Saint Pius X/Archive %(counter)d
}}


==Membership==
---
Is there any reliable citations or sources to back up the SSPX membership figuers? In [https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/priestly-ordinations-pics-now-2205 this] source the SSPX claims that 11 new priest were ordained and thousnads attended the ceremony, and in [https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/sspx-west-coast-conference-report-catholic-life-modern-world-53686 this] it claims that over 170 people attended the most recent SSPX event. Of course both of these come from the SSPX's website and as thus is [[WP:PRIMARY]] and as a result should be taken with a grain of salt. Are there any third-party sources on the SSPX's membership? [[User:Inter&anthro|Inter&anthro]] ([[User talk:Inter&anthro|talk]]) 18:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
On October 6, 2004, Trc accuses JASpencer of lacking the theological knowledge to determine when someone is in communion with Rome. Trc himself does of course have that knowledge. He has it superabundantly. He even knows better than Rome itself who is in communion with Rome, including whether in 1988 Lefebvre was excommunicated or in communion with Rome.
: What I usually do in such cases is use the ''News'' tab on Google in hope of finding some articles on the ordinations, professions or whatnot. This is how I found sources to [[Sisters Adorers of the Royal Heart of Jesus]], which I have expanded a bit. You will probably have to look through different languages and use a lot of filters. If you can’t find anything from the big ones there’s always local or regional news, Catholic news, trad news such as ''The Remnant'' (although I don’t know if they report about SSPX specifically, I don’t really read stuff from them) asf. I don’t think I personally have time to do the searching, sorry. But perhaps you could do it if you want. Cheers. [[User:MichaelTheSlav|MichaelTheSlav]] ([[User talk:MichaelTheSlav|talk]]) 21:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
::The [[Saint Mary's Academy and College]] claims to have over 700 students enrolled as of 2008. Given that the SSPX is attributed to have about 1,000 members in this article, I find that rather doubtful as the actual number is much higher. Both the SSPX and the [[Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter|PFSP]] usually claim to ordain around 10 men every year. That being said, not everyone who attends a school run by the SSPX or attends mass at an SSPX-run parish considers themself a member of the SSPX, and might just identify as a traditional Catholic or just Catholic. Thus it will probably be hard to come up with any reliable concrete numbers besides the sats that the SSPX itself publishes. [[User:Inter&anthro|Inter&anthro]] ([[User talk:Inter&anthro|talk]]) 05:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
:::SSPX and the others are priestly societies, and do not have lay members such as the people who attend their Masses and events. The only people counted in SSPX memberships are the ones who have been ordained and incardinated with them. [[User:Elizium23|Elizium23]] ([[User talk:Elizium23|talk]]) 05:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
::::Sorry I overlooked that, thanks. [[User:Inter&anthro|Inter&anthro]] ([[User talk:Inter&anthro|talk]]) 18:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


== Allies and supporters ==
==In Communion?==


It would be good to add information about Bishop Vigàno and Athanasius here. [[User:Eaden|Eaden]] ([[User talk:Eaden|talk]]) 17:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Is SSPX '''in communion''' with Rome?


== Section Needs Work: Lifestyle and clothing amongst SSPX adherents ==
I am greatly in sympathy with a lot of their criticisms of the post Vatican II order, so for me this is a grave matter.


I'm not sure what the purpose of this section is. There's a quote by a former SSPX member complaining about female attire, and then an anecdote about a mothers in skirts.
According to [http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html the Holy See]:
Can we either get a fuller section that gives a more holistic view of the topic or consider scrapping this section? I am not convinced from reading this section how or if people whom attend the SSPX can be said to be distinct in any particular way. --[[User:Valepio|Valepio]] ([[User talk:Valepio|talk]]) 20:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
:The section is worth keeping because there ''is'' a difference, which the citations show. You probably have never visited an SSPX Mass Center then nor attended any conferences of the SSPX. The difference between how those who are members of SSPX parishes versus those who attend the Novus Ordo is very noticeable.[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dq0-0XMZvvc] There is a reason that the SSPX tells its members to avoid attending Novus Ordo churches.[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiuXKo0CwoM] If this group wasn't very different from the mainstream, SSPX clerics wouldn't be giving these admonitions. [[User:Desmay|desmay]] ([[User talk:Desmay|talk]]) 21:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


== Rank in size "if it were canonical" ==
''3. In itself, this act ''(the 1988 consecration)'' was one of '''disobedience''' to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a '''schismatic''' act.(3) In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal '''canonical warning''' sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.(4)''


Per [[WP:ABOUTSELF]] this claim is sourced to the [[WP:PRIMARY]] SSPX mouthpiece. It is a pointless claim; since SSPX is not canonically regular, they do not hold this distinction of size. Therefore it is inappropriate to place such a claim in the article. Apples should be measured against apples, not oranges. [[User:Elizium23|Elizium23]] ([[User talk:Elizium23|talk]]) 20:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
In para 5:


:Disagree. A counterfactual can be a striking way of making a point. Example: "If ex-Catholics constituted a denomination, it would be the second largest denomination in the US." [[User:MDJH|MDJH]] ([[User talk:MDJH|talk]]) 03:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
''c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, ''(Society of St. Pius X)'' that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law.(8)''


== Relative size of SSPX ==
References are:


This article has 2 different claims about the relative size of the SSPX. The last sentence of the first paragraph of the lede says: “In July 2022, the Society reached over 700 priestly members; following the Jesuits, Franciscans, Benedictines, and Augustinians, the SSPX would be the fifth largest religious congregation of ordained priests among its professed members.” The last sentence of the section entitled “SSPX today” says: “If the society's canonical situation were to be regularized, it would be the Church's 4th largest society of apostolic life (similar to a religious order, but without vows), according to the three criteria published annually in ''Annuario Pontificio''.”
''(3) Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 751.


There are a number of problems with these claims:
(4) Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1382.


1. The lede speaks of “the fifth largest religious congregation of ordained priests”, and “SSPX today” of the “4<sup>th</sup> largest society of apostolic life”. While the average person doesn't distinguish between kinds of “religious orders”, canon law distinguishes between ''institutes of consecrated life'' (where priests take vows) and ''societies of apostolic life'' (where priests live communally without vows). The lede seems to be talking about both kinds with its generic reference to “religious congregations”. If so, the claim is clearly false, since there are many institutes of consecrated life with more than 700 priests other than the 4 mentioned in the lede. Think Salesians of St John Bosco, Dominicans, Redemptorists, Oblates of Mary Immaculate, Holy Ghost Fathers, Society of the Divine Word. The claim in “SSPX today” is more plausible since it is limited to societies of apostolic life.


2. Even if the claim in the lede was amended to limit it to societies of apostolic life, there would still be the discrepancy between “fourth largest” and “fifth largest”.
(8) Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1364.''


3. Both claims seem to be supported by a footnote, but when examined closely, neither footnote turns out to be about the size of the SSPX compared to other orders of priests. In other words, no evidence is offered in support of either claim. [[User:MDJH|MDJH]] ([[User talk:MDJH|talk]]) 03:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
I propose that we recategorise this page from [[:Category:Roman Catholic Church]] to [[:Category:Catholics not in Communion with Rome]] as a purely factual matter. This is not intended to be a comment on the theological issues at stake. Does Rome (that is the Pope and the institutions of the Catholic church) regard SSPX to be in communion? The quotes above are, in my mind, conclusive.


:Correct; there is no support at all for these claims; I've removed them. [[User:Elizium23|Elizium23]] ([[User talk:Elizium23|talk]]) 03:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Unless someone objects I will recategorise early next week (18 April 2005 on). If someone does object I would have no problem going to arbitration.

[[User:JASpencer|JASpencer]] 17:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:I think we must distinguish between the Society/Fraternity and the members. Archbishop Lefebvre and the bishops he consecrated were/are certainly out of communion with Rome. Some/many/most of the members are also out of communion. Others are merely disobedient. The schismatic ideas of others may not reach of point of outright schism. So I do not think the Society as such can be declared to be out of communion.
:[[User:Lima|Lima]] 17:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

::Fair enough about the members, but the article is about the Society of St Pius X and so presumably about the institution, and not the members. [[User:JASpencer|JASpencer]] 15:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:::I've procrastinated. I've given the Society its [[:Category:Society of St. Pius X|own category]] and put it under [[:Category:Roman Catholic Church|the main Catholic category]], ''for now''. It was about time SSPX got its own category. [[User:JASpencer|JASpencer]] 12:54, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

::::Please can all further discussion on the question of whether it should be in [[:Category:Roman Catholic Church|the main Catholic category]] or the [[:Category:Catholics not in Communion with Rome|our of communion category]] be directed to the [[Category talk:Society of St. Pius X|talk page for the SSPX category]]? [[User:JASpencer|JASpencer]] 12:19, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== I am Traditional Catholic ==

== March 19, 2005 edits ==

With regard to:

"The SSPX considers itself faithful to the Catholic Church and all its infallible teachings, while rejecting some teachings of the Second Vatican Council; and it acknowledges Pope John Paul II as Pope. The four SSPX bishops do not claim ordinary jurisdiction over those who receive Sacraments from SSPX priests and bishops. An appeal is made to extraordinary circumstances in regard to the Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony, for whose validity jurisdiction is normally required. Thus, a form of jurisdiction is in practice exercised, on grounds of necessity, not only for these sacraments but also for marriage annulments and dispensations. [8]"

I changed the hyperlink from a sspx-schism.com to an sspx.org site because the above paragraph deals with how the SSPX reasons and therefore it is appropriate for an SSPX site to be cited.

The article makes it clear that "Though it [the Roman Catholic Church] considers the 1988 consecrations to have been a schismatic act, the Roman Catholic Church does not view SSPX as constituting a schismatic Church." Possibly this is taken from Cardinal Cassidy's earlier statements. Therefore if the SSPX is not a schismatic Church then it should not be classified as "not in communion with Rome".

== disamb Dominican ==

Could someone please disambiguate which ''Dominican'' Fr. Philippe is?

== Sedevecantism ==

Hi,

Even if the Society of St. Pius X doesn't admit it, it seems obvious that it is almost Sedevacantist. Shall we say something about it ?
Moreover, after Ecclesia Dei, part of the Traditionalist (in France mainly, I think), came back to the Church of Rome, with the creation of the Society of St Peter (in French, ''Fraternité Saint Pierre''), that is traditionalist but linked to Rome and not shismatic. [[User:Revas|Revas]] 21:47 18/04/05

::Point (1) - SSPX may or may not be in schism, but they are '''not''' sedevacantist. Surely a crucial part of being sedevacantist is to '''openly''' say (or admit) that you believe that the throne of Peter is vacant. SSPX definately do not say that. You can be out of communion without admitting it as communion involves both sides but I find it hard to see how you can be a sedevacantist without saying so openly. [[User:JASpencer|JASpencer]] 12:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

::Point (2) I'm not sure about the later part, is it to do with including [[Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter|Fraternity of St. Peter]] in the [[:Category:Society of St. Pius X|Category for SSPX]]? I think that's valid as it's certainly a part of the SSPX "story". [[User:JASpencer|JASpencer]] 12:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 11:23, 5 March 2024

Membership

[edit]

Is there any reliable citations or sources to back up the SSPX membership figuers? In this source the SSPX claims that 11 new priest were ordained and thousnads attended the ceremony, and in this it claims that over 170 people attended the most recent SSPX event. Of course both of these come from the SSPX's website and as thus is WP:PRIMARY and as a result should be taken with a grain of salt. Are there any third-party sources on the SSPX's membership? Inter&anthro (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What I usually do in such cases is use the News tab on Google in hope of finding some articles on the ordinations, professions or whatnot. This is how I found sources to Sisters Adorers of the Royal Heart of Jesus, which I have expanded a bit. You will probably have to look through different languages and use a lot of filters. If you can’t find anything from the big ones there’s always local or regional news, Catholic news, trad news such as The Remnant (although I don’t know if they report about SSPX specifically, I don’t really read stuff from them) asf. I don’t think I personally have time to do the searching, sorry. But perhaps you could do it if you want. Cheers. MichaelTheSlav (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Saint Mary's Academy and College claims to have over 700 students enrolled as of 2008. Given that the SSPX is attributed to have about 1,000 members in this article, I find that rather doubtful as the actual number is much higher. Both the SSPX and the PFSP usually claim to ordain around 10 men every year. That being said, not everyone who attends a school run by the SSPX or attends mass at an SSPX-run parish considers themself a member of the SSPX, and might just identify as a traditional Catholic or just Catholic. Thus it will probably be hard to come up with any reliable concrete numbers besides the sats that the SSPX itself publishes. Inter&anthro (talk) 05:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SSPX and the others are priestly societies, and do not have lay members such as the people who attend their Masses and events. The only people counted in SSPX memberships are the ones who have been ordained and incardinated with them. Elizium23 (talk) 05:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I overlooked that, thanks. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allies and supporters

[edit]

It would be good to add information about Bishop Vigàno and Athanasius here. Eaden (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Section Needs Work: Lifestyle and clothing amongst SSPX adherents

[edit]

I'm not sure what the purpose of this section is. There's a quote by a former SSPX member complaining about female attire, and then an anecdote about a mothers in skirts. Can we either get a fuller section that gives a more holistic view of the topic or consider scrapping this section? I am not convinced from reading this section how or if people whom attend the SSPX can be said to be distinct in any particular way. --Valepio (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The section is worth keeping because there is a difference, which the citations show. You probably have never visited an SSPX Mass Center then nor attended any conferences of the SSPX. The difference between how those who are members of SSPX parishes versus those who attend the Novus Ordo is very noticeable.[1] There is a reason that the SSPX tells its members to avoid attending Novus Ordo churches.[2] If this group wasn't very different from the mainstream, SSPX clerics wouldn't be giving these admonitions. desmay (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rank in size "if it were canonical"

[edit]

Per WP:ABOUTSELF this claim is sourced to the WP:PRIMARY SSPX mouthpiece. It is a pointless claim; since SSPX is not canonically regular, they do not hold this distinction of size. Therefore it is inappropriate to place such a claim in the article. Apples should be measured against apples, not oranges. Elizium23 (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. A counterfactual can be a striking way of making a point. Example: "If ex-Catholics constituted a denomination, it would be the second largest denomination in the US." MDJH (talk) 03:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relative size of SSPX

[edit]

This article has 2 different claims about the relative size of the SSPX. The last sentence of the first paragraph of the lede says: “In July 2022, the Society reached over 700 priestly members; following the Jesuits, Franciscans, Benedictines, and Augustinians, the SSPX would be the fifth largest religious congregation of ordained priests among its professed members.” The last sentence of the section entitled “SSPX today” says: “If the society's canonical situation were to be regularized, it would be the Church's 4th largest society of apostolic life (similar to a religious order, but without vows), according to the three criteria published annually in Annuario Pontificio.”

There are a number of problems with these claims:

1. The lede speaks of “the fifth largest religious congregation of ordained priests”, and “SSPX today” of the “4th largest society of apostolic life”. While the average person doesn't distinguish between kinds of “religious orders”, canon law distinguishes between institutes of consecrated life (where priests take vows) and societies of apostolic life (where priests live communally without vows). The lede seems to be talking about both kinds with its generic reference to “religious congregations”. If so, the claim is clearly false, since there are many institutes of consecrated life with more than 700 priests other than the 4 mentioned in the lede. Think Salesians of St John Bosco, Dominicans, Redemptorists, Oblates of Mary Immaculate, Holy Ghost Fathers, Society of the Divine Word. The claim in “SSPX today” is more plausible since it is limited to societies of apostolic life.

2. Even if the claim in the lede was amended to limit it to societies of apostolic life, there would still be the discrepancy between “fourth largest” and “fifth largest”.

3. Both claims seem to be supported by a footnote, but when examined closely, neither footnote turns out to be about the size of the SSPX compared to other orders of priests. In other words, no evidence is offered in support of either claim. MDJH (talk) 03:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correct; there is no support at all for these claims; I've removed them. Elizium23 (talk) 03:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]