Wikipedia

Talk:Canonical situation of the Society of Saint Pius X

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Veverve in topic Does ‘ sspx-schism.com ‘ have credibility
Learn more about this page

advancedchristianity.com edit

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Looking at home page of advancedchristianity.com, with no named publisher or location, and cited webpage, with no definitive author or way of identifying if this was published anywhere else, I think it should be removed for WP:BLP of Paul Augustin Mayer. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Canonical situation of the Society of St. Pius X. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Canonical situation of the Society of St. Pius X. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Original research edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

The arguments introduced in this edit seem to be original research and as such are not admissible in Wikipedia.

I would suggest that discussion on the validity of the arguments, as distinct from their character as original research, be confined to Talk:Society of Saint Pius X#Canonical situation of the Society of St. Pius X. Athbheo (talk) 07:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I admit there is need of a certain amount of interpretation of the matter on my part, but would like to point out that your suggested alternative which, to paraphrase, was to say that Benedict's statement that the society exercises no ministry in the Church is a claim which remains in spite of recent concessions made to the Society, is no less an interpretation of events which must rely on your own assessment of the relevant facts. There has been, for nearly a year now, a warning at the head of this page which claims that too few opinions are represented, and I am particularly concerned that the page seems to have been stuck for several years (when I began editing a month ago, events in 2015 were still being referred to in the future tense, and statistical data was being used from 2014 even though the Society publishes those statistics annually). The changing canonical situation is, I believe, one other element in updating the page; that is to say, a lot has happened since Benedict's 2009 statement which is relevant, and while I believe that we are all of good will here, I do believe my opinion to be better-founded. I will address your counter-claims within a few days. Happy Easter! Mazurkazm (talk) 03:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)mazurkazmReply

I am not proposing to put my "suggested alternative" in Wikipedia. That too would be original research. On the contrary, I say that any original research that has been inserted must be removed (unless some reliable source can be presented to show it is not really original research). Read WP:NOR. There is nothing at the head of the article (nor of the Talk page, if by chance that is what you mean by "this page") asking that more (unsourced) opinions be represented. Read WP:Not a forum. Wikipedia must present sourced facts. It cannot say: "These facts mean such-and-such." It can only say: "Father X or Professor Y says that these facts mean such-and-such." No matter how good your opinion is, you cannot insert it merely on the basis of unsourced arguments. Unsourced evaluations have to be removed. Athbheo (talk) 08:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

It is no matter, I suppose, since I will add Cardinal Burke's recent interview with InfoVaticana, explaining that the Society has been granted jurisdiction; but I would point out that I had wanted to keep the description of reasons to the talk page, but one of the editors apparently though that it was sufficient for citation of sources, and hence walked the page back to your alternative so I would move it to the article.

In any case, if there is a fundamental problem with this page, it's this: it doesn't know the terms it's using. When I began editing this page, for example, the Society's "type" was described as "a canonically irregular catholic priestly society" or some such thing. That's descriptive, I suppose, but it's not real; that term does not exist in canon law. Ergo, I changed it to what the Society is: a Society of Apostolic Life. Likewise with jurisdiction. I think that some editors here think that jurisdiction means something other than what it means in canon law (which is the only definition that matters when dealing with a discussion of jurisdiction). Jurisdiction does not mean that the priest/society/bishop/etc is in union with the Pope, or that it is approved by the local bishop, or even that the priests of a particular society have canonically-legal authority over the people who go to their chapels/churches/oratories. It means, simply and only, "the power of governance" (C. 129). This power of governance comes in many forms and ways, but it is a thing that is identified by legal and juridical acts of governance. When I point out, then, that marriage and confessions, being the two sacraments of the Catholic Church that require this act of governance, are now exercised freely by the Society in ways identical to other societies of apostolic life, I am doing nothing but stating a fact when I say that the priests of the Society are exercising delegated jurisdiction. That is absolutely "sourced" to use a favorite word; I more than adequately provided the citations that report the granting of recognition to SSPX priests; there is simply no ground to denying that this is evidence of jurisdiction, except by denying what jurisdiction is under canon law. Mazurkazm (talk) 15:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)mazurkazmReply

Thank you for resolving to provide with sources your additions to the article. Anything unsourced may be removed, such as "The SSPX has some canonical status in the Catholic Church, owing to juridical recognitions granted by the Holy See regarding marriages and confessions" (It was its priests, not the Society itself, who were given faculties for confessions and who may in defined circumstances receive from a diocesan bishop faculties for marriages) ; "The status of the SSPX was not changed by Benedict XVI in 2009. This has been superseded somewhat by subsequent recognition of faculties by the Holy See" (The Holy See's 27 March 2017 document still insists on "the objective persistence of the canonical irregularity in which for the time being the Society of St. Pius X finds itself"); "The SSPX was granted faculties to celebrate marriages" (It was the local ordinaries, not the SSPX, who were granted the power to delegate SSPX priests to assist at some (not all) marriages of SSPX followers.) It was a like inaccuracy that drew from Cardinal Burke the remark that he would not have made if he knew what really is in the document. Athbheo (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Your citation of canon 131 is erroneous and, ironically, based on your own original research which clearly has not included academic classes in the subject. Local ordinaries always grant the faculty to members of a society of apostolic life regarding marriages, and so the SSPX is being treated in no different a manner than any other society of apostolic life when the bishop or pastor gives them the ordinary jurisdiction to witness. I'm afraid that you have little grasp of how canon law works, and it is beginning to lead this page into inaccuracies which are rather a bore to have to correct.
I should also point out that Cardinal Burke clearly believed he was informed enough about the situation to say what he did about the significance of the CDF document, even though he had not yet read it personally. You have absolutely no ground to say that he would not have made the remarks he did, had he read it. Cardinal Burke is an accomplished canonist, and never retracted his words and so, I regret to inform you, his words carry far greater weight than what you believe he ought to have said. Mazurkazm (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)mazurkazmReply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Canonical situation of the Society of St. Pius X. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Does ‘ sspx-schism.com ‘ have credibility edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It isn’t an organization from my knowledge, it seems to be some website possibly one or two people made talk about sspx, I feel like religious orders, letters from cardinal or Pope, etc, are a better source than a suspicious ‘.com’ Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

It does not look reliable at all to me. Veverve (talk) 05:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canonical_situation_of_the_Society_of_Saint_Pius_X&oldid=1200603930"