Talk:Society of Saint Pius X

• added another example of a personal prelature - Opus Dei founded by Blessed Monsignor Jose Maria Escriva de Balaguer

--- 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.

In Communion?

Is SSPX in communion with Rome?

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.

According to the Holy See:

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)

In para 5:

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)

References are:

(3) Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 751.

(4) Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1382.

(8) Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1364.

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.

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.

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. JASpencer 15:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've procrastinated. I've given the Society its own category and put it under the main Catholic category, for now. It was about time SSPX got its own category. JASpencer 12:54, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please can all further discussion on the question of whether it should be in the main Catholic category or the our of communion category be directed to the talk page for the SSPX category? JASpencer 12:19, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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. 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. JASpencer 12:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Point (2) I'm not sure about the later part, is it to do with including Fraternity of St. Peter in the Category for SSPX? I think that's valid as it's certainly a part of the SSPX "story". 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 ( [1] ) seems to suggest that they have. JASpencer 13:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC).

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?

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.

--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.

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.

--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. 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.--Beerengr 14:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)