Talk:Society of Saint Pius X: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Ongoing Process |
m Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. Remove 6 deprecated parameters: b1, b2, b3, b4, b5, b6. Tag: |
||
| (419 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) |
|||
I would answer that they are not in communion with Rome. Canon law and tradition name full communion as including 3 things: faith, sacraments, and governing. While clearly St Piux X shares the first two, they don't share the last. This is manifest by creating their own bishops outside a mandate from the Holy See. The result was automatic excommunication, or a state of being outside of communion. |
|||
[[User:Davescj|Davescj]] 09:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)dave |
|||
== Section Needs Work: Lifestyle and clothing amongst SSPX adherents == |
|||
Is SSPX '''in communion''' with Rome? |
|||
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. |
|||
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. |
|||
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" == |
|||
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]: |
|||
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) |
|||
''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)'' |
|||
: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) |
|||
In para 5: |
|||
== Relative size of SSPX == |
|||
''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)'' |
|||
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''.” |
|||
References are: |
|||
There are a number of problems with these claims: |
|||
''(3) Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 751. |
|||
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. |
|||
(4) Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1382. |
|||
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. [[User:MDJH|MDJH]] ([[User talk:MDJH|talk]]) 03:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
(8) Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1364.'' |
|||
: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) |
|||
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. |
|||
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) |
|||
: I absolutely agree that the Society is in no way, shape, or form sedevecantist; it condemns sedevecantists and Archbishop Lefebvre at one point expelled several sedevecantist priests from the Society. |
|||
==Validity of Novus Ordae== |
|||
Does anyone who follows the ins and outs of SSPX closer than I do know whether they have rejected the validity of the New Order Mass since Lefeberve died? This link ( [http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q5_novusordo.htm] ) seems to suggest that they have. [[User:JASpencer|JASpencer]] 13:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC). |
|||
According to Fellay, they don't deny the Novus ORDO (not Ordae). Rather, it has to do with a preference of liturgical discipline. For example, St Pius V Society does not accept the 1969 (novus ordo)missal. What St Pius X wants is the right to use the Tridentine missal if they wish. The issue in the demand of the Holy See however, was that they wanted to have the right to the older missal WITHOUT first having to have the permission of the local bishop. This contradicts the authority of the local bishop who is the chief regulator of liturgical discipline in his diocese. Dave Dec 8, 2005 |
|||
==Daily Telegraph reference== |
|||
There is a short paragraph in the [[Daily Telegraph]] about negotiations between [[Bernard Fellay]] and [[Pope Benedict XVI]] on a reconciliation. |
|||
Anone care to investigate further? |
|||
[[User:Jackiespeel|Jackiespeel]] 16:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== Justice and Fairness in the Article == |
|||
I'm a bit concerned with a few things in the article here. |
|||
===Fairness=== |
|||
Looking at the article it seems like it embodies a fight between those that support the SSPX and those that are very much opposed to the SSPX. There are certainly many issues as regards the SSPX, from the episcopal consecrations to current events which people have views on, but these seem to pervade the article in one form or another. |
|||
In my estimation, there are many references, which are good, but too much discussion in the article about all of the intricate aspects of, for instance, the consecrations. The article seems to want to cover way too much, and in many cases will try to force the reader to make a judgement here and now about the SSPX. |
|||
As regards the question of the consecrations, it would seem most fair to link to both critiques of the SSPX, what Rome has said, as well as the defenses of the SSPX. I looked at one recent edit where some person without a user name edited the text about Pete Vere's study, and put up a link to the counter study by the SSPX, that link was quickly deleted. That does not seem quite fair here. This is certainly not a one sided issue. Some think it is closed, others do not, but at least, it would seem fair to put all of the information out there and let people follow those links if they want to, and investigate, instead of have us tell people who may not know anything about the SSPX that it is clear they are canonically wrong, point them to the relevant documentation and not argue about it here. That seems what the purpose of an encyclopaedia is: Present the relevant information in as neutral a way as possible. |
|||
===The Length=== |
|||
The length of the post here seems overly long and is becoming ineffective in communicating the basics information about the SSPX. Part of this is because of the need people feel here to make their own arguments in the text, instead of simply present the facts, and perhaps a reference to a relevant article. Here's an example: |
|||
"Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX claim a 'state of necessity' allowed the consecrations without Papal Mandate. (link to pro-SSPX Study). The Vatican has not addressed the claims for a 'state of necessity' directly, but some cannonists have addressed these claims and reject them (link to anti-SSPX Study)." |
|||
That would seem both fair, that it does not presume motivations, and present the facts and links to the relevant documents, and no opinion to sway the reader either way. |
|||
Another good example would be to shorten the section about the "negotiations" and attribute where these facts come from. In one version I saw something akin to the SSPX account of the "negotiations" then the commentary, "The above paragraph is hard to believe considering it does not appears in the Vatican's annual journal ..." Not only does that seem unfair and argumentative here, but also wastes alot of space that could be better used saying, "Such an account is not reported by the Vatican." as well as not detailing all of the events surrounding recent events. |
|||
===Disclaimer=== |
|||
In all fairness, I am a supporter of the SSPX position. I do realize the odd situation and I think it is fair to report on the different opinions. I have been a journalist for a while and part of job has been to understand that while I may have a personal bias, it should not keep me from just presenting the facts. I am not going to support a glowing article about the SSPX that accuses Rome of wrongdoing, but equally I think it important to not paint the SSPX in a bad light because you feel that way. I think there is a fair middle ground to use this space to present the basic information about the SSPX, present the information an links to their critics, and also to their supporters and leave it at that. I don't think this article does that any longer. |
|||
I'd appreciate comments about how to go about fixing this and cleaning up this oversized article. |
|||
--[[User:Beerengr|Beerengr]] 17:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC) |
|||
The article grew because of the need to counter often gratuitous pro-SSPX allegations by presenting source-backed facts. If the SSPX arguments were omitted or just referenced, as here suggested, the same could easily be done with the counter-arguments. However, supporters of the Society are almost certain to put them back in. |
|||
"The Vatican has not addressed the claims for a 'state of necessity' directly" suggests, I think, that the Holy See was under some legal or moral obligation to argue the case and failed to meet that obligation. This remark is unnecessary, as well as being non-neutral. |
|||
I think discussion about matters like the consecrations should be confined to the [[Marcel Lefebvre]] article. This article would then be considerably shortened and better focussed. There is much duplication between the two articles. |
|||
[[User:Lima|Lima]] 19:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC) |
|||
I agree, I think it might again expand, but there's a reasonable point where things should be cut off. Perhaps an article about the conecrations proper instead of relating them in an artilce about Lefebvre or the SSPX would better suffice. If they already exist or if they are later created, articles about each of the SSPX Bishops could refer to the same article. If presented reasonably, I think most SSPX supporters would refrain from turning the article into their propaganda, at the same time, I think the opposite is quite possible too: that those strongly opposed to the SSPX would edit the article to remove references to the Society's defense. |
|||
Unless someone objects I'll draft an article on the Consecrations themselves and the surrounding debate. If I do, I certaily welcome reasonable edits. |
|||
As regards the 'state of necessity' the reason I suggest this is that the Vatican has never directly addressed this, or been asked to do so. Various canonists do say that their 'state of necessity' is bogus (I disagree), but none speak for the Vatican. Opposite, most of the SSPX defense comes from the SSPX itself, which at least implies an "official position". It is equally non-neutral to tacitly place on the Vatican's lips the words of canonists not speaking for the Vatican (such as Pete Vere's article). I don't object to reasonable criticism, in fact I welcome it, but there has to be a difference between the official positions and the independent defenses. If I draft that article, I'll try to make the references fair. |
|||
I agree there is much duplication, and that is why I suggest the new article on the Conscrations themselves. |
|||
--[[User:Beerengr|Beerengr]] 16:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::IMHO, there is no need for an official statement addressing of the State of Necessity. Generally, in Church history, when a 'state of necessity' came about, the ratification of the extraordinary actions came after Rome was notified, and if that decision was not ratified, things were made right. |
|||
::In this case, the ratification did not come, but a pronouncement that this acts were schismatic and the automatic penalty applied. A denial of this state is implicit in ROmes subsequent action. |
|||
::No rebuttal of the 'state of necessity' defense as it were, is needed. The answer from Rome was negative. No person can independently provide a defense, they should be echoing the Church's well documented position; the status of all SSPX Priests is a matter of record. All are suspended, all are not incardinated, so they are not able to licitly offer any Sacrements, although they can confect the Body of our Lord. In the case of absolution and marriage, those sacraments, as they stand, are invalid without further action. In the case of returning suspended Priests, the incardination is made retroactivly, as I am told. As for those excommunicated by the act, no further discussion is needed. I am often stumped that a Priest would not make it clear to the Faithful that officially, he is under sanction. |
|||
::To this matter at hand, I agree, this should be about the SSPX and should refer to the official position of the society in the Church. The Consecrations can be detailed better in a separate article. I think the clear steps to counter the SSPX in the Church by creation of an Indult and the FSSP should be mentioned and linked off. I am a firm believer in short and to the point articles, and the principle of NPoV, they should serve no side. |
|||
::As to my PoV, since we are being honest, I am a traditionalist, there is one Indult in one Church in the next county. If a Pian rite or a prefecture was formed, by Pope Benedict, and is open to all, I would be happy to participate. Unfortunatly, many of the SSPX people in our local area would not participate, many are outright hostile to Pope Benedict, despite the claims of the society, and not all are congenial with those who attend both Tridentine and Novus Ordo rite Mass. As it sits, there are few FSSP Priests in my part of the world. [[User:Dominick|Dominick]] 17:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::Appreciate your thoughts. I disagree on those points, but am working on an article which treats the Consecrations separately as you indicate, I as well think that would deflate this article a bit. |
|||
:::My only comment is that the Vatican did agree in principle to allow the consecrations, but did not approve the details of such. We could debate this back and forth though and such is not a good forum for this, so I'll just leave it at that. Cheers.--[[User:Beerengr|Beerengr]] 14:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::::Your point is correct. The Vatican wanted more talks before those consecrations. I think we both agree this whole incident was regrettable. Hey, I like having the Indult. If you go over to the Traditionalist Catholic page, you can see what happens when people want to bicker, me included. I look forward to the consecration page, don't stop it to argue on the other page.[[User:Dominick|Dominick]] 17:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== NPOV check === |
|||
As in [[Traditional Catholic]] article, traditionalist talks about traditional. So, they actually manage to write a whole article on traditional catholicism without naming [[Marcel Lefebvre]] (maybe they don't like his article), founder of the Society of St. Pius X. And in this latter article, they of course forget to speak about his excommunication in 1988 by [[John Paul II]]. Is it that important for them? Oh! what a surprise! googling in "traditional catholicism" or something close always end up with the Wikipedia article. They don't want the basic John Doe to know about such obvious facts as an excommunication, which they seem to fear a lot... I call it: [[historical revisionism]]. OK, just ignore me, i won't bother you anymore... someone else will. (unsigned [[User:Kaliz]]) |
|||
:Don't get confused. I am a traditionalist, but I will have nothing to so with the SSPX, as many of my friends would. Many rightly understand that all Bishops in the SSPX are excommunicated, all Priests attempting incardination from a excommunicated Bishop are suspended, and and the laity attending those Masses are risking schism, even though attendence is not equated with schism. Kaliz, you are mixing the flavors of traditionalism. Many of us have an indult to allow the Mass from 1962, but share little with those who are extreme traditionalists. I think the mention of excommunication is essential. Like you I am frustrated with the revert wars. [[User:Dominick|Dominick]] [[User_talk:dominick|<sup>(TALK)</sup>]] 19:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== seems fair to me == |
|||
Having read the article, I think it accurately summarizes both the canonical situation of the Society as well as the releavant Canon law. I don't see a need for modification unless/until some canonical situation changes. Bellay and Pope Benedict XVI have met. Perhaps the resolution will be fruitful for all.[[User:Davescj|Davescj]] 09:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)dave |
|||
== Ongoing Process == |
|||
The information provided is critical to explaining the status of the SSPX. |
|||
As an acting Traditional Catholic who attends an SSPX chapel it is easy for members to claim they are in communion and that a schism never took place.<br> |
|||
This is of course a ignorant because saying so and believing so does not make it truth. |
|||
I believe a thorough explanation of the consecrations is essential as Marcel Lefebvre was excommunicated. |
|||
However, the Vatican runs into a odd situation as the Society continues to draw memembers to its chapels. |
|||
A [http://www.30giorni.it/us/articolo_stampa.asp?id=9360 recent article] shows Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, President of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” stating of the recent meeting that |
|||
"Unfortunately Monsignor Lefebvre went ahead with the consecration and hence the situation of separation came about, even if it was not a formal schism. "<br> |
|||
I however do believe that the article is thorough and presents good points from both sides. |
|||
Some information could be moved or trimmed.<br> |
|||
For example. Past meetings should be only cited and briefly explained as the Society's status and communion is continually changing. |
|||
That's my read on it. |
|||
Latest revision as of 11:23, 5 March 2024
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Sorry I overlooked that, thanks. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:17, 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. Elizium23 (talk) 05:41, 29 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 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)
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)
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
- Correct; there is no support at all for these claims; I've removed them. Elizium23 (talk) 03:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)