Talk:Society of Saint Pius X/Archive 1

1

• 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?

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. Davescj 09:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)dave

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".

Sedevacantism

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.

This section is rather old, but much more can be said in it. I know for a fact that the SSPX allows its priests and seminarians to believe in the sedevacantist position as long as they don't vocalize that belief. Though their publications demonize the idea of it and many of their laity too, that very awful position could very well be the internal position of their own parish priest! Archbishop Lefebvre himself, printed in the Angelus of 1986, admitted he was close to the sedevacantist position and hinted he may one day be one...though he died 5 years later. Since his death, there was an about face making anyone even considering the position out to look mentally defective - so much for their own founder! --Diligens 17:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Validity of the Novus Ordo Missae

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).

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

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)

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.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. Dominick ^(TALK) 19:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like you haven't read the rebuttals to your argument. No person can be excommunicated for doing something they feel is for the good of the Church, in what they feel is a state of emergency. Therefore no excommunication COULD take place. -- 2nd Piston Honda 06:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

So Martin Luther couldn't be excommunicated? Looks like 2nd Piston Honda hasn't read the rebuttals of his notion. Lima 10:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

No, Martin Luther rejected teachings of the Church and the authority of the Pope. Lefebvre was merely trying to do what he had to do AS a good Catholic. He never contradicted a teaching of the Church, nor would he ever have thought of doing so. Even when he consecrated the bishops he knew and agreed with the law prohibiting it, but felt he had to do it because it was a state of emergency and his faith gave him the duty of doing such things to save the true faith. There's a huge difference between the two. -- 2nd Piston Honda 19:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Original complaints have been addressed. Removed NPoV tag per Wiki guidelines. Thanks for helping keep Wiki neutral!
C3H5N3O92010 12:48, 18 March 2006 (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.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.
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 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. "
I however do believe that the article is thorough and presents good points from both sides. Some information could be moved or trimmed.
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.

Decrees

I found that the mention of the decree from the Congregation of Bishops after the consecrations was pretty much missing. It was probably in at one time and got removed during an edit. I added a sentence back in about that so people can see how we'd go from point A to B to C more clearly, I didn't feel it was as clear before.
JesseG 06:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Accusation of Anti-Semitism

It seems to me that the section on controversies and politics is incomplete about any mention of the controversial positions taken by some prominent adherents of the Society about Jews, Judaism, and the holocaust. I today added some very brief material about this. I quoted Bishop Williamson from a secondary source. It would be better, of course, if someone could document these matters more fully from a primary source, clarify whether Williamson actually speaks for the Society when he makes these comments, and discuss any arguments the Society's defenders may make that these attitudes are somehow not anti-Semitic. --Richquaker 17:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

As an ex-priest of the Society of St Pius X (which I'm afraid you will have to accept on faith or not) I can shed some light on the question of the Society's Anti-semitism. Bishops and priests in the Society do not, in general, make their anti-semitism public. This is for obvious reasons: the opprobrium it would be bring and the shock it would cause to many of its lay associates. There is no official teaching on the subject coming from the clerical leadership, save that contained in the New Testament. There does exist a strange political climate however, evidenced by most libraries in the Society's religious houses. These contain works by obscure authors on conspiracy theories invariably involving Jews and Freemasons. There is almost always a copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Sion on the shelf. There is widespread support for revisionist authors claiming that the Holocaust is either a Jewish fiction or an exaggeration.There is also a belief among some clergy that the Nazis were in some way doing God's work in attempting to destroy the Jews and their culture and many believe that Hitler's barbarities have been grossly exaggerated by Jews and the Allies for propaganda purposes. Some even believe that Jews propagate the notion of the Holocaust so that no one will in future dare to criticise them, thus leaving them free to plot against the 'goyim' without scrutiny.In all this there is in an appalling lack of literary criticism and discernment in men supposedly trained to be wise and learned men.It must be emphasized that many priests in the Society find these ideas abhorent, and preach love, compassion and tolerance toward all human beings. I left the Society on account of, amongst other things, its anti-semitism and intellectual poverty.

Gary

Christendom and Jewry are destined inevitably to meet everywhere without reconciliation or mixing. It represents in history the eternal struggle of Lucifer against God, of darkness against the Light, of the flesh against the spirit. It represents in time the spiritual accomplishing and the fleshly accomplishing of the Scriptures. The Letter must be everywhere to be the servant of the Spirit. It is with this understanding St. Thomas Aquinas teaches us that the Jewish people is the servant of the Church.

Under pain of sin, Catholics cannot hate the Jewish people, cannot persecute them or prevent them to live, nor disturb them in their private practice of their laws and customs. But, they must nevertheless preserve themselves from the danger they represent. Catholics are not to enter into commercial, social, nor political relations which are bound hypocritically to seek the ruin of Christendom. Jews must not live together with Christians because this is what their own Jewish laws ordain and also because their errors and material superiority have virulent consequences among other peoples. If the other peoples reject these precautions, they will invite upon themselves these consequences, namely, to serve the Jewish people to whom belongs superiority in the kingdom of the material.

4. Jews are known to kill Christians: Already St. Justin (3rd century) said so. The Talmud allows it. History confirms it. It is certain that lives of Christians have been taken: St. William of York, 12 years old (1144); St. Richard of Paris (1179); St. Dominic de Val, crucified at Saragossa, Spain (1250); Bl. Henry of Munich (1345); Bl. Simeon (1475); the controversial martyrdoms of Fr. Thomas of Cangiano and his aide (1840) in Damascus. As grisly as they are, these four accusations can be documented in every period and country where Jews live with Christians. In earlier times the Jews could only act directly against Christians who were well-cautioned about them. But now that Christians are de-Christianized, the Jews pursue their aggression with the help of the Christians themselves. Father Denis Fahey, article at the SSPX main site

Granted he is clear that this only means Judaism is evil and that Jews are only placed in segregation or involuntary servitude when they don't convert. Still for a non-SSPXer Catholic like me this seems pretty intense. The story of William of Norwich, who he mixes up with a bishop of York, was called "one of the most notable and disastrous lies of history" in Pius X's reign by the Catholic Encyclopedia.(I know I said I was gone, but I'm weak)--T. Anthony 05:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution, Anthony. Don't go away, mate. Yes, Fr Denis Fahey is considered a great authority within the Society of St Pius X. Jews murdering Christian children? Why not mention how they poisoned wells and desecrated Communion wafers? This is the stuff of medieval ignorance. If one wants to point a finger for the ills of Western civilisation, why not point it at ourselves? Scapegoating is the classic response of a civilisation that will not analyse itself.

Gary

Gary

I quit Wikipedia because I realized I don't have much trust in the basic concept of Wikipedia, its founder, the way it's run, or the articles it produces. I drive myself away no one does it to me.

Anyway I came from a fairly conservative Catholic background and the Catholic writers from before Vatican II had some appeal to me. However going to Traditionalist Catholic sites did make me realize these aren't like the critics of Vatican II that I know. The people I know who criticize Vatican II criticized it for the liturgical changes, laxity in fasting, laxity in dress for members of religious orders, Protestant music being sung in Church, and it confusing people about what the Church believes. A few were firm that non-Christians can't go to Heaven, but instead go to Limbo, and that Catholics shouldn't marry outside the faith. All that stuff I had some understanding or even sympathy(in some cases) towards. I didn't know anyone who disliked Vatican II because it improved relations with Jews and allowed Catholics to support the First Amendment. I didn't even know of the Syllabus of Errors until college and from what I can tell SSPX takes a very hardline interpretation of it many nineteenth century Catholic Cardinals did not take. Enough bashing though.--T. Anthony 12:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

T. Anthony

Yes, I know how you feel. I dont go to Mass anymore, mainly because I believe the Liturgy is now so banal and commonplace. We deal with the world six days a week. On one day, we want to be spirited beyond the here and now, and towards the eternal. The modern Liturgy does not to do that, in my opinion. We want to know who we are in the spiritual sphere of things. I joined the Society because I thought it could liberate me in that respect. Instead, it enslaved me. I have discovered that I must follow my own lights, the truth as I perceive it. If you are true to yourself , you can never be deceived. God bless you,

Gary