Jump to content

Talk:Society of Saint Pius X: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Mazurkazm (talk | contribs)
65 edits
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
Bots
7,233,983 edits
m Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. Remove 6 deprecated parameters: b1, b2, b3, b4, b5, b6.
 
(40 intermediate revisions by 24 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Christianity|class=B|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Organizations|class=B|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Organizations|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Latin|class=B|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Catholicism|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Catholicism|class=B|importance=Mid
| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = <yes/no>
| b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = <yes/no>
| b3 <!--Structure --> = <yes/no>
| b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = <yes/no>
| b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no>
| b6 <!--Accessibility --> = <yes/no>
}}
}}
{{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
}}
}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|archiveprefix=Talk:Society of Saint Pius X/Archive
|format= %%i
|age=1440
|maxarchsize=150000
|numberstart=1
|archivebox=yes
|box-advert=yes
}}
{{auto archiving notice
|bot = ClueBot III
|age = 60
|units = Days
|small =
}}

== Current Canonical Status ==

Since we are having some difficulty in this matter, I thought a discussion-section might be useful on the current canonical situation of the Society.

In the canonical recognition sub-heading, we find this quotation from Benedict XVI: "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." That was true when he said it, but it is no longer indicative of the situation. I will lay out my reasoning here, but believe that it is too limited-interest for publication on the page itself.

Marriage and confession are the two sacraments of the Catholic Church which require juridical (i.e. canonical) jurisdiction, otherwise a purported matrimonial union can be annulled on the grounds of lack-of-form, and a confession would be thought to be without effect. For brevity, I will only look at marriage for now:

For validity, marital-consent must be celebrated "before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them"[http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P40.HTM Canon 1108]. This priest, deacon or lay-person (see can. 1112)is called the one who "assists" (is present). The one who assists is necessary in all cases except when one who is described as "competent to assist" cannot be found and either of these situations apply: "danger of death; [or] outside the danger of death provided that it is prudently foreseen that the situation will continue for a month." In that case, the parties may exchange consent before witnesses alone (Can. 1116.1).


==Membership==
For a priest who is not the pastor or bishop of the parties to be designated "competent to assist," it is, therefore, necessary that that priest receive the faculty from the bishop or pastor. That amounts to juridical (canonical) recognition. The letter from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith specifically grants permission to designate SSPX priests competent to assist: "there are no priests in the Diocese able to receive the consent of the parties, the Ordinary may grant the necessary faculties to the priest of the Society who is also to celebrate the Holy Mass" [http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2017/04/04/new_pastoral_provisions_for_sacrament_of_marriage_for_sspx/1303274 Radio Vaticana]; it is further confirmed by the report from Crux which is already linked in the article.
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&#38;anthro|Inter&#38;anthro]] ([[User talk:Inter&#38;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. [[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&#38;anthro|Inter&#38;anthro]] ([[User talk:Inter&#38;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&#38;anthro|Inter&#38;anthro]] ([[User talk:Inter&#38;anthro|talk]]) 18:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


== Allies and supporters ==
From this I conclude that "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" is no longer applicable to the situation, because to assist at marriages is to "exercise [a] ministry in the Church," fully legal according to canon law. This means that they do, in fact, have ''some'' (i.e. not full) canonical status in the Church, and therefore that I am correct to edit the section to read that Benedict's statement "has been superseded somewhat by recent recognitions by the Holy See." <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mazurkazm|Mazurkazm]] ([[User talk:Mazurkazm#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mazurkazm|contribs]]) 17:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Let us distinguish between two parts of the statement of Benedict XIV. He says: "Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church." This surely still holds absolutely. He also says: ""Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, ... its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church." This is still true as a general rule, to which could be added: "without prejudice to the authority of a local ordinary to grant a particular priest of the Society the faculty to assist at a particular marriage for which there are no priests in the diocese able to receive the consent of the parties". Rather like the wording of canon 1108 §1: "Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the rules expressed in the following canons ''and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in canons ...''."
:The general rule enunciated by Benedict XIV admitted exceptions even before the latest decrees. For instance priests of the Society, any and all, had the faculty to grant sacramental absolution to someone in danger of death. That was no reason to consider inapplicable Benedict XIV's statement.
:To say: "Owing to the faculties which have been granted for confessions and marriages, therefore, Benedict XVI's 2009 declaration ".." is no longer applicable, because to assist at marriages and hear confessions is to "exercise [a] ministry in the Church" which has been recognized as legal under canon law." is surely excessive. To say so in Wikipedia is altogether excluded, because it is, so far, only original research. [[User:Athbheo|Athbheo]] ([[User talk:Athbheo|talk]]) 09:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


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)
Glad we can talk about this.


== Section Needs Work: Lifestyle and clothing amongst SSPX adherents ==
Of the three arguments you present, the second is irrelevant, because Pope Benedict was not speaking of situations in which there is danger of death. The fact that any validly ordained priest has the sacramental power to give absolution ''in periculum vitae'' says nothing about the priest's juridical situation (and, therefore, the validity of his absolutions outside ''in periculum vitae''). At play here are the two concepts of Sacred Powers (sacra potestas) and the juridical authorization to carry it out(munus). Pope Benedict was saying that the SSPX, while possessing the Sacred Powers in virtue of valid ordination, did not possess the Munus. This is why the Holy See did not recognize the validity of SSPX marriages and confessions (outside of extreme situations); marriage and confession are the two sacraments which require the Munus, in addition to the Sacra Potestas.


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.
Owing to the above, it certainly is ''not'' excessive (par your third argument) to say that Benedict's statement has been superseded by his successor. The SSPX is aware of it as well, which is why they recently published an article explaining that, because of these concessions, they no longer have to "invoke an extraordinary jurisdiction" for the validity of their marriages and confessions; and that would be precisely because they have been granted ordinary jurisdiction ([http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/sspx-marriages-are-incontestable-29003 SSPX]). The granting of jurisdiction, though, is synonymous with possessing a ministry in the Church (since a ministry is the exercise of the Munus). I am only reporting a fact when I say that the granting of faculties is a change in the canonical situation.
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" ==
This means that your first argument, "'Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church.' This surely still holds absolutely," is simply untrue. The doctrinal questions have not yet been clarified, but the Society uncontestably possesses some jurisdiction right now. If they didn't, they could not be delegated "competent to assist" at Catholic marriages anymore than an Orthodox priest can be delegated competent to assist, and their confessions and marriages would, by definition, be considered invalid.[[User:Mazurkazm|Mazurkazm]] ([[User talk:Mazurkazm|talk]]) 02:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC) mazurkazm
:Good. And I hope others will also have their say.
:I disagree that, if members of an (as yet) unrecognized association have certain limited jurisdiction (power of governance), the ''association'' possesses jurisdiction (power of governance). Am I splitting hairs?
:For someone in danger of death jurisdiction (power of governance) for absolving is supplied to any priest ([http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5008.htm#article6 SThSupplQ8a6]). (''Munus'' is a different concept: to quote [https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060921_convegno-vescovi.html Benedict XVI], bishops receive "with episcopal consecration three special offices:  the ''munus docendi'', the ''munus sanctificandi'' and the ''munus regendi'', which all together constitute the ''munus pascendi''".) The priest, whoever he is, then has jurisdiction (power of governance). The associations, whatever they are, to which he may belong do not.
:As you know, canon 144 (on common error) could be seen as giving jurisdiction (power of governance) to SSPX priests hearing confessions even before the grant by Francis (cf. [https://books.google.com/books?id=JKgZEjvB5cEC&pg=PA193&lpg=PA193&dq=supplies+jurisdiction&source=bl&ots=GKaIIKFw5j&sig=Io-6hYt6qYm7Hifuu8VD1ALCTeQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjDuM7b5KHTAhVBJ8AKHTQLBdkQ6AEINDAD#v=onepage&q=supplies%20jurisdiction&f=false New Commentary]).
:SSPX priests do not have faculties to assist validly at marriages. In special circumstances (absence of any priest at all in full communion who can assist) a bishop can ''give'' faculties for that particular marriage to a particular SSPX priest. So neither individually nor collectively do SSPX priests possess the faculties: they need to obtain it. A particular SSPX priest needs to have them granted him by the bishop, who ''can'' grant them but doesn't have to. The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches says that, if an Orthodox priest blesses a mixed (Catholic-Orthodox) marriage involving a party belonging to his Church, the marriage is valid (even if, in the view of the Catholic Church, illicit): the Orthodox priest has no need to request the local Catholic bishop to grant him faculties. (Somewhat similar is the power of a bishop to dispense from the canonical form of marriage and have the marriage celebrated before a Protestant minister who isn't even a priest, and the marriage is then both valid and "legal under canon law".)
:Perhaps I should give more time to considering the question, but I trust others will.
:In any case, even if your arguments are correct, they are ''your'' arguments, not a reporting of what reliable sources say: as [[WP:NOR|original research]], they may not be used in Wikipedia. [[User:Athbheo|Athbheo]] ([[User talk:Athbheo|talk]]) 17:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


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)
:::First point: societies of apostolic life are not religious orders. This means they have ordinary jurisdiction ''sui juris'' (see my reply to Gazzler below) only over the persons who live "day and night" in one of their houses as a member; no SoAL has ordinary jurisdiction ''sui juris'' over anybody else; all other jurisdiction that they have, including marriage and confessions, is granted to the individual priests, not to the society as a whole. This means that you are correct that the Society does not itself receive the ''munus''; but that is just like the Oratorians, the Padri Bianchi, the Sulpicians, the FSSP, and all the other 27 SoAL recognized by the Holy See (see ''Annuario Pontificio,'' published annually by the Holy See).


: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)
:::Second point: There are different schools of thought about the interplay between the munus and the sacra potestas. P. Gianfranco Ghirlanda (the general editor of the current code) places the difference between the theologians who identify the origin of the powers of jurisdiction as things which stem from the consecration of bishops (W. Bertrams; K. Rahner; Y. Congar) and ones who claim that those powers of jurisdiction are transmitted from the Pope to the bishops (D. Staffa; J. Beyer; A.M. Stickler). I happen to align myself with the latter. The debate is not worth going in to; suffice it to say that to be delegated jurisdiction is to given a particular mandate which cannot but be an exercising of a sacred ministry.


== Relative size of SSPX ==
:::Third point: Don't try to mix the Eastern code into this. The two codes don't play very well together; their parents had very different ideas of raising children. Further, the case of a protestant minister is not similar, because in that case you are dealing with a bishop actively dispensing with ecclesial law (as he has a right to do); but that is entirely dissimilar from the idea of supplied jurisdiction.[[User:Mazurkazm|Mazurkazm]] ([[User talk:Mazurkazm|talk]]) 03:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)mazurkazm


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''.”
:: I too I'm glad this discussion is going on in such a measured and respectful manner. If I could have my twopence worth here, I would observe the manner in which the faculties to absolve were granted. It was firstly granted in the context of the Year of Mercy and thereafter extended. So it was given by way of an indulgence, not as a right. Also the faculty was not granted to the bishops of the Society as if they were ordinaries. It was given to each and every cleric directly and is dependent entirely on the pope without intermediary. For diocesan priests it is different. They receive their jurisdiction from an ordinary. If a clerical society cannot claim to have an ordinary, nor possess faculties in their right, they cannot claim to exercise a lawful ministry. Pastorally it is a wonderful thing. The faithful can receive absolution in good conscience. It is well to observe though, that doctrinal and pastoral problems and a culture of antisemitism still afflict the society. But progress is being made.[[User:Gazzster|Gazzster]] ([[User talk:Gazzster|talk]]) 05:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
:::It would be well, I think, to discuss separately the validity of the arguments used and their alleged character of original research. The question of this alleged character has now been raised at [[Talk:Canonical situation of the Society of St. Pius X#Original research]], and I suggest that discussion on that matter be conducted only there. Naturally, if the arguments are found to be original research, the question of their validity is of no concern to Wikipedia and discussion of it should be ended here and left to forums and the like. [[User:Athbheo|Athbheo]] ([[User talk:Athbheo|talk]]) 07:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
::::I do not think that [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Society_of_Saint_Pius_X&curid=232299&diff=775747772&oldid=775339417 the latest edit], with its IP author's comment, "I made it accurate", improved the text, but even undoing that alone would not be enough. I leave it untouched for the present. [[User:Athbheo|Athbheo]] ([[User talk:Athbheo|talk]]) 08:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
:::::No, it isn't accurate. As I noted above, the Society of St Pius X does not enjoy ordinary jurisdiction at all. Ordinary jurisdiction is that which is attached by right to an office (canon 131 http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_PF.HTM). In the case of the Sacrament of Reconciliation, jurisdiction is delegated by the Pope.In the case of marriage jurisdiction is again delegated, this time by the diocesan bishop, for the permission to give sspx priests faculties to witness marriages is given to the diocesan bishop, not directly to the Society bishops or priests.[[User:Gazzster|Gazzster]] ([[User talk:Gazzster|talk]]) 21:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


There are a number of problems with these claims:
::::::Okay, let's have some fun.
::::::A big problem for the amateur canonist (of which I also claim that illustrious title) is that canon law is simultaneously tediously precise, and rather loose on explanation (which is appropriate, because the current code was put together by an Italian: my dear teacher Padre Gianfranco Ghirlanda). The fact of the case before us is that, yes, the Legislator (the Pope) does, in fact, intend to grant the SSPX ''ordinary'' jurisdiction.


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.
::::::You, Gazzster, are correct that ordinary jurisdiction is attached ''by right'' to an office, but hark ye read the whole of canon 131: The ordinary power of governance is that which is joined to a certain office by the law itself; '''delegated, that which is granted to a person but not by means of an office''' (See also 966.2). You are correct that ''sui juris'', ordinary jurisdiction belongs to only a handful of clerics: the Pope, bishops, pastors (and their dogs), superiors of societies of apostolic life to those "who live day and night" in their houses etc. (Ghirlanda cites canons 966.2, 967.1, 3; 968; 566.1 in his book ''Il Diritto Nella Chiesa Mistero di Comunione'' - I can give the whole citation upon request), but you've missed the much, much larger category regarding ordinary jurisdiction which is delegated (i.e., not ''sui juris'').


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”.
::::::Now, believe it or not, but organizations (even sacred organizations) are not people; a society of apostolic life (which is what the SSPX is) does not receive delegated jurisdiction regarding faculties for the sacraments; only individual men who have received the Sacra Potestas (i.e. priests) may receive delegated jurisdiction (this works a little differently for a religious order or a Clerical Institute, but, I prithee, make not this any longer than it need be). That is why the CDF, in its April 4th letter, says that the Pope has decided "to grant ''all priests of said Society'' the faculty to validly administer the Sacrament of Penance to the faithful... such as to ensure the validity and liceity of the Sacrament." You see, it is the priests who receive the ordinary jurisdiction. Extraordinary jurisdiction is another thing entirely, and if you wish to find a really good example of it, I recommend Graham Greene's ''The Power and the Glory''. Extraordinary jurisdiction regards only extraordinary situations such as danger of death, state-of-necessity and the like; it is what the Society used to rely on, but they've decided that they don't need to anymore, because its priests have been granted ordinary jurisdiction. The elegant way that they put it: "the persecution that unjustly deprived the priests and faithful of ordinary jurisdiction has come to an end, now that this jurisdiction has been granted by the Sovereign Pontiff." ([http://www.dici.org/en/news/marriages-not-only-valid-but-incontestable/ DICI])


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)
::::::The argument is the same for marriages: "From now on, just as we no longer have to invoke an extraordinary jurisdiction to hear confessions validly, we no longer have to invoke the state of necessity to validly marry couples, unless the bishop opposes the new provisions and refuses the delegation requested by the pope" (Ibid). Yes, the decree of the CDF says that individual priests of the society may be granted the faculties by the bishop; that's the way it always is with a society of apostolic life (on the other hand a religious order can tell the bishop to take a hike; but not a society of apostolic life - remember what I said in the beginning about tediously precise and loose on explanation).


: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)
::::::Funny enough, Bishop Fellay has been recognized as possessing jurisdiction sui juris over his society (which is all he can have, being the head of a SoAL). That is seen in the CDF naming him as canonical judge in a trial against one of his priests; the case is mentioned in the article, but I think that's enough for now.[[User:Mazurkazm|Mazurkazm]] ([[User talk:Mazurkazm|talk]]) 02:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)mazurkazm
:::::::If this gets too deep, I won't participate, unless the question of the admissibility of the results of this original research in Wikipedia is first resolved. Fellay does ''not'' have jurisdiction: if for a particular case, which presumably has been completed, he was once granted it, he no longer has it. I'm glad that here you say the opposite of what you seem to say in an original-research edit of the article: that what Benedict said of ''the Society'' having "no canonical status in the Church" is no longer exact. There can only be a question of "its ministers" legitimately exercising a ministry in the Church. You seem to confuse the ordinary/delegated distinction of canon 131 with the ordinary/extraordinary distinction employed in SSPX statements, since you say that delegated jurisdiction is ordinary jurisdiction. The jurisdiction that any priest has to absolve someone in danger of death is extraordinary in the latter sense, but ordinary in the first sense: it is not delegated (by an office-holder) but held directly by law. Is an SSPX priest delegated by a bishop to assist in exceptional circumstances at a marriage, or indeed any "normal" priest or deacon delegated to assist at any marriage, granted ''jurisdiction'' (''potestas regiminis'') over the couple getting married? I doubt it.
:::::::Decades ago, well before 1973, a priest told me that his canon law professor jokingly said that the four main principles of canon law are: "Lex dubia non obligat", "Favorabilia sunt amplianda, odiosa restringenda", "Ecclesia supplet", and − what was the fourth? I no longer remember. Can anyone help me? [[User:Athbheo|Athbheo]] ([[User talk:Athbheo|talk]]) 11:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
:::::::Lex asinus est? (jocular emoticon) [[User:Gazzster|Gazzster]] ([[User talk:Gazzster|talk]]) 23:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
:::::: I have not said the opposite of my previous statement. Pope Benedict's 2009 statement said that the Society has no canonical standing, and also that "its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church." I said that this statement has been superseded somewhat, because its ministers do, now, exercise some ministry in the Church, since their marriages and confessions are recognized as valid - which is only possible if they have been given jurisdiction.
:::::: I'm sorry, but I must insist that delegated jurisdiction is ordinary jurisdiction. Yes, as a matter of fact, a priest who is not the ''pastor'' of either or both of the couple being married does need to go through the paperwork of being delegated jurisdiction. It's quite a headache for a priest who does the weddings of his cousins...
:::::: You see, the ones who hold jurisdiction by virtue of their office are precious few. Even a priest does not have any jurisdiction by virtue of his office (though a pastor does). If an SSPX priest were assigned as pastor of a parish, then yes, he would possess ordinary jurisdiction by virtue of his office over his subjects (canon law's term, not mine) in the parish boundaries. Short of that, all jurisdiction is delegated to the priest.
:::::: The original research claim is, I think, based on a fundamental problem with this page, but I'll address that in the talk page of that problem. [[User:Mazurkazm|Mazurkazm]] ([[User talk:Mazurkazm|talk]]) 15:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC) mazurkazm
:::::::I guess it suffices to say the sspx is a queer beast - an irregular organization whose clerical members do however exercise canonical jurisdiction in certain situations and under certain conditions. I'm not sure we need to get much beyond that in a Wikipedia. article. The Vatican has not declared the surpression of the Society (which remains a surpressed pia unio) invalid or unlawful. [[User:Gazzster|Gazzster]] ([[User talk:Gazzster|talk]]) 01:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
:::::: Agreed. Thanks for your help. I'm still learning how to navigate here. [[User:Mazurkazm|Mazurkazm]] ([[User talk:Mazurkazm|talk]]) 02:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC) mazurkazm

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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Society_of_Saint_Pius_X&oldid=1211947093"