Talk:Society of Saint Pius X/Archive 2

Ecclesia Dei as source

Wikipedia considers a widely publicized, official encyclical to be a verified and reliable source. Since when does every reliable source need "interpretation"? That is foreign to WP rules. A private letter designed for a man's conscience is not only not official, it is not considered a reliable source. It is merely placed in a massive electronic library on EWTN for people's interest among so many other documents on various subjects. Nobody sees a signature, and nobody even knows how to contact the person it was written to. Should we also write to an editor 10 years after an article is published for an interpretation on a Newsweek article? Nonsense. Somehow we are supposed to doubt what John Paul II wrote but believe the private interpretation in a private letter of a secretary of a committee? Wikipedians don't do that. Besides that, my edit doesn't interpret, it states factually what Ecclesia Dei itself says, with quotes. The simple fact is that everyone is excommunicated who formally adheres to "the schism". No interpretation, and even the EWTN document doesn't deny that, it merely says, according to Msgr. Perl, that nobody knows exactly what that entails. Even if that were true, it does not change the fact of the statement in Ecclesia Dei a bit, nor the fear everyone should have of the excommunication who recognizes the authority in Rome as legitimate. --Diligens 11:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Quoting from Ecclesia Dei isn't the problem. Phrases like "those attached to the Society are in denial" are the problem. It's clearly inflammatory and not in the Ecclesia Dei text. I'm not up on the details of the SSPX but it doesn't seem like Ecclesia Dei treats the organization as an Orthodox church, either, and this statement is likewise inflammatory. It's not at all clear how your edits improve the text, and your edits also seem inconsistent with the approach taken in other articles on rogue bishops. Gimmetrow 14:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

SSPX as a body

Ecclesia Dei does not say that SSPX, which it does not mention, is a schismatic body. Nor does it say that attendance at Mass offered by the six bishops involved in the schismatic act or by priests ordained by them is in itself formal adherence to their personal schism. It does not even say that accepting ordination by them is necessarily formal, not just material, adherence to their schism, though doing so is clearly illicit and, in the case of some, is probably indeed an expression of formal adherence, marking those people too as personally, individually, schismatic. In his interpretation of Ecclesia Dei, an interpretation not everyone shares, Diligens attributes to Ecclesia Dei more than Ecclesia Dei actually says. Lima 12:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You may have a point about "in denial", but that needs to be determined after the other things are determined. Simply "deny" sounds good enough to me. The original paragraph said, "Though many depict the Society as presently in schism from the Roman Catholic Church, the Church itself, in its public declarations, does not class the Society, as such, as a schismatic body, while it does consider that many of its leaders are, as individuals, schismatic. After Marcel Lefebvre's controversial consecration of four bishops in 1988, the Holy See's Congregation for Bishops declared him automatically excommunicated, a declaration confirmed by Pope John Paul II, who had tried in vain to achieve a reconciliation with then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's help.[1]"

Lima's approved phrase "does not class the Society, as such, as a schismatic body" is manifestly wrong. When the Vatican speaks of the SSPX, it speaks of them as a group, and uses terminology that it is not in full communion, and this following the 1988 words "schismatic act" and "the schism". You are going to have to blatantly deny your senses or admit you have terrible reading comprehension to say otherwise. Being not in communion is definitively being in schism, and the Vatican often refers to them as a group as being not in communion, just as it refers to the schism of the Eastern Orthodox. It would be modernism and equivocation to start giving your own meaning to these words and phrases other than what they have always meant. By doing so you are taking a verified and reliable source and creating orginal research from it. That is against the rules.

• Who is going to deny that the Vatican speaks of them as a group when saying they are not in communion??
• Who is going to deny that schisms are created by an initial schismatic act?
• Who is going to deny that the phrase "the schism", by definition, is an abstract and standing entity?

I would like an explicit denial if you deny these.

Furthermore, I had to add mention of the 4 bishops that was not mentioned. Also what was wrong was the wording about the Congregation because JP2 was the one who directly wrote the excommunication. Also, no mention was made of the Catholics (clergy or otherwise) who merely support the priestly fraternity, and I mentioned it exactly as JP2 did, "everyone" who "formally adheres to the schism". JP2 and his advisors didn't worry about defining it nor should a Wikipedia article. It is simply a plain fact of that reliable document. To even say it needs defining is considered "original research" and forbidden by the rules.

People get annnoyed at rewrites, but it is an established fact that merely excising parts results in stilted wording, so rewrites are old hat for excising portions of text. People also don't seem to realize that WP rules to not forbid facts that may be inflammatory. If a reliable source says it, then it says it. If a public judge officially rules on a case, it certainly may inflame some people, but that is not against the rules. Encylopedias aren't meant to please everyone, they are supposed to represent reality and truth.

Lastly, it may be well to mention that the Society (and followers) believe that the excommunication was invalid because the Church admits that possibility can occur. Though if that is added, I am going to add the fact that Catholic teaching says in such a case, the excommunication must be complied with anyway, if the authority is recognized as true by the subjects. And I can give reference to reliable sources for this. Not complying still makes them retain that status as a group. --Diligens 16:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is you introduced obviously inflammatory statements without source, namely the "state of denial" and "Orthodox Church" statements. I fail to see the relevance of the rest of what you wrote above. If you want to debate about the SSPX, wait until an SSPX supporter comes by. Gimmetrow 23:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

All that has to be done for "in denial" is to say they "deny it". No problem. I have said that is fair enough. Please don't belabor what I have immediately conceded to. That they deny it is common knowledge and can be found at the drop of a hat on the Internet, their sites, or any SSPX discussion forum. As for Orthodox? It is a fact the Vatican uses the same terminology for the Eastern Orthodox as for the SSPX in regard to both being not in full communion. That is definitively what defines "the schism", as John Paul II terms it in his encyclical. It is not a matter of debating. I have restructured the truth according to a verified reliable source. I am merely explaining what that source says. Everything I wrote is relevant to expressing what is in the reliable source. --Diligens 13:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Gimmetrow is quite right about the irrelevance of D's rambling discourse, with its many non sequiturs. For one, in what "verifiable source" does D think he found the Holy See declaring that each and every SSPX member "has formally adhered to the schism"? Lima 14:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is quite right to say that you have miscomprehended what I said. I said no such thing as everyone was excommunicated. I said that everyone WHO formally adheres to the schism. I didn't say every DID formally adhere to the schism. Do you see the difference? It is substantial. I only said what Ecclesia Dei says. Those who have problems comprehending will often percieve a lengthy explanation to be rambling because the rambling is in the comprehension not the explanation. --Diligens 16:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Diligens here seems to deny having said that all SSPX members are in schism and excommunicated: "I said no such thing as everyone was excommunicated ... I didn't say every (SSPX member?) DID formally adhere to the schism." Good. I thought he did say that SSPX, the whole of it, was in schism. Indeed, I wonder if he is perhaps still saying it below, where he writes of the SSPX "as a group" (all of them?) being in schism. But only D really comprehends D: the rest of us are told we are going to have to blatantly deny our senses or admit we have terrible reading comprehension. Lima 19:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Bishops who operate with faulty installation can't incardinate Priests. A Bishop who is elevated without leave of the Vatican is excommunicated by the act. It really doesn't matter, in the twisted logic of a particular PoV warrior. Union is a two way street, one party says they are not in union then they are not in union regardless if they are a cohesive body or not. Frankly schism breeds schism and we already see SSPX members going off to little mini-schism of thier own. Any Priest of the SSPX without exception is suspended, they can't be incardinated by an excommunicated Bishop. Laymen who attedn Masses of the SSPX are putting themselves in peril, and can't be actually absolved or married under Canon law by the vagus Priests. Dominick ^(TALK) 19:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Individuals and excommunication

I don't see in Ecclesia Dei where it says the SSPX as a body is equivalent to an Orthodox Church. Are you referring to some other document? The verifiable fact is that bishops involved were excommunicated (a curious omission that I added before you mentioned it, BTW). The principle I picked up from reading the articles on other rogue bishops is to avoid saying more than the Church actually says. Even bishop Rangel, who was consecrated by the SSPX bishops, was (AFAIK) never actually declared excommunicated, even though it should be obvious that automatic excommunication applied for consecration without papal mandate. Do we or do we not say he was excommunicated? If yes, does that apply to all other rogue bishops? If not, then why would we say that of laypersons who are less formally involved? Also keep in mind this is a text in the header section. (A section which looks to have been stable for months on an active article - that ought to say something.) The header is not the place for detailed point and counter-point, but for a general overview. Some of this point and counter-point would be appropriate in the body of the article. Gimmetrow 14:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You are right, Ecclesia Dei does not say anything about the Orthodox, obviously. I am referring to what is commonly in the news about Rome and the SSPX and how Rome commonly refers to them with the same term used for the schismatic Orthodox, not being in communion. That is definitively what a schism means, and Rome refers to the SSPX as a group when doing so. You both ignore the plain fact that ED says "the schism". All schismatical acts don't produce a schism, but ED says there is a schism. Please don't ignore this. That someone such as Rangel is not excommunicated by name means nothing because ED states those who formally adhere to the schism are excommunicated by the law that is in place already. Less formally or more formally is still "formally" so let's not stray into original research. When the Church started to talk about "the schism" in regard to the Eastern Orthodox, no Catholic considered any lay person in that schism to be Catholic. God only knows hearts, but we react to canonical facts. This is a matter of status not internal forum of souls.

We need some progress, and bullets. Change "in denial" to "deny" and everything else I said is exactly true. If you disagree, take a portion of my original edit for a bullet, state that you have never personally seen it represented in a public source, and ask for me to find it. --Diligens 16:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I just don't get it. On other articles involving rogue bishops you insisted that nothing be asserted or implied in this regard that the Church had not clearly stated. What is different here? Where has the Church explicitly said that the SSPX as a body is in schism? Gimmetrow 17:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Because this mentions "the schism" and involves statements by Rome that a group is "not in full communion" with Rome. Entirely another story. The so-called rogue bishops, for example, Bishop Clarence Kelly, involves neither involvement in an officially declared "schism", nor any mention of a group or person being not in communion with Rome. --Diligens 17:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"The Schism"

I've reread the ED text again. I still don't see where you're coming from. Where it warns about "the schism" this seems to me to refer to "the schism" of the 6(?) bishops involved. I'm aware of a legal distinction between a declared excommunication and one that isn't declared. The SSPX bishops are under a declared excommunication, a "canonical fact" in your words, right? Rogue bishops and persons associated with them or with the SSPX bishops lack that "canonical fact." I have been working under the principle not to assert penalties the Church hasn't declared - which I think is consistent with WP:V. I still don't see why that doesn't apply here. Gimmetrow 20:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You keep going away from the fact that "the schism" is, by definition, a state, which is also verified reliably and definitively by the Vatican's use of "not in full communion" in regard to them as a group. Don't create another meaning for well-known terms. Again, a schism is created by an act. Yes, of course, in this instance we know what that act was. Do you not know what not being in communion means? According to A Catholic Dictionary (Atwater, published in 1931 to c. 1961) schism is "the refusal to submit to the authority of the pope or to hold communion with members of the church subject to him". This is definitive, verifiable and reliable. The SSPX do those very things and everyone knows it, having been often in the news. --Diligens 16:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

And yet we haven't found a document where the Church says the SSPX as a whole is in schism. Unofficial statements by various church officials, verifiable as quotes in newspaper artices, do not seem to use "schism" either, but "situation of separation." That may sound like a weasel phrase, but if "everyone" knew the SSPX as a whole were in schism, I would expect the Church would say so. That some dictionary defines something somehow is verifiable, that some particular instance matches that definition may not be. Gimmetrow 17:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that the letter of Msgr. Perl suggests that "many in authority" in the SSPX fit the definition of schism, but that the "matter of the SSPX as a whole" is "difficult to characterize." Later, the letter says there are only two official declarations of the Holy See on these matters, and for details Msgr. Perl is the secretary of the competent commission. I don't think this can be dismissed as merely a private letter. Gimmetrow 00:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It was a private letter, intended to be private, advice to an individual soul. And it is also unverifiable. The rules say that if a magazine publishes that a man believes such and such, but years later that man personally tells you he not longer does, you can't say in the article on that man that he no longer believes it unless you have it in a published and reliable source. My edit, anyway, exactly corresponds to the plain meaning of ED. --Diligens 16:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly on what basis you are objecting to the letter here. It seems on its face to be verifiable - it's available on the web, and seems to be quoted in magazines. Gimmetrow 17:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

One more comment, the current "neutral" text has been pretty stable for months. I'm a little reluctant to try to hammer out a different "neutral" text without input from someone who knows the SSPX well, ideally an SSPX supporter. Gimmetrow 00:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

That really means nothing. All it means is that not enough people worked on it for a given time. You can have 20 reliable sources that say a man was born on a Wednesday and this can stand as a fact in an article for a year. But if one reliable source surfaces on a sudden showing a photocopy of the birth certificate, the fact in the article must change accordingly according to new evidence. WP is all about constantly perfecting based on the rules. You don't need to know someone from the SSPX well. Reliable sources are reliable sources and that is what is behind articles. Neutral in NPOV merely means that one must concede to the facts as summarized by all reliable sources on hand. NPOV often results in positive or negative statements based on the reliable sources. --Diligens 16:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It may not mean a lot that the text has been stable, but it doesn't mean "nothing." As for NPoV, I'm not sure where you're going with that. At this point it looks to me that you are trying to introduce the statement that the SSPX as a whole is in schism, a statement which I don't find supported by ED, and which seems contrary to other (non-official but verifiable) sources I have found. Why don't you try writing another version of the paragraph, and let's see where we are? Gimmetrow 17:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Status of SSPX

This seems to be a complex topic once point and counter-point are considered. Would it make sense to have a separate article about this, or to have the discussion in one article and refer related articles there? As it is, this is getting varied levels of coverage in at least 6 different articles. Gimmetrow 13:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Pope approves wider use of Latin Mass Last Updated: Saturday, July 7, 2007 | 12:31 PM ET CBC News Roman Catholic priests will now be able to celebrate the Latin Mass without the approval of a local bishop, so long as a "stable group of faithful" requests it.

Pope Benedict XVI approved the change in a document issued Saturday.

The Latin, or Tridentine rite contains a prayer that is read on Good Friday calling for the conversion of Jews. The U.S.-based Anti-Defamation League has criticized Benedict's decision, calling it a "theological setback" and a "body blow to Catholic-Jewish relations."

The 16th-century mass is traditionally delivered by a priest in Latin with his back to the congregation throughout the service.

Under reforms approved by the 1962-1965 Second Vatican Council, the Latin Mass was widely sidelined. Although Latin was not scrapped outright, the reforms called for a new mass to be said in local languages, for the priest to face the congregation and for the use of lay readers.

Benedict's move is widely seen as an attempt to reach out to an ultra-traditionalist and schismatic group, the Society of St. Pius X, and bring it back into the Vatican's fold.

Problems

Some anti-SSPX Catholics seem very militant over here and not open to discussion. Quite weird. If they continue to attack the neutrality of the article, they should be banned.

I suggest this article will be locked within a certain time span. I do think the SSPX should be depicted in a more favourable way than it is now in this article. The over all negative evaluation should be removed, not to be replaced by naive positive words, but by neutrality! Smith2006 20:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Provide some specific examples that you think have a negative bias. Gimmetrow 20:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

SSPX received support (paragraph)

The long sentence is now difficult to parse. It's not clear if the "until his death" phrase limits "SSPX received support" or "(was) bishop of Campos." Probably both here. The next "until this association" seems to refer to "SSPX received support", while the following two "until his resignation"s probably refer to "(was) bishop." The latter is especially confusing, because they probably supported the SSPX after they resigned. (Or is this is St. Jerome's "until".) Gimmetrow 20:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of 10 days of edits?

Smith2006 reverted back 10 days of edits.[1] There were multiple editors involved during this time. While there were some problems (I noticed JASpencer converted both the EWTN links to only one reference, effectively losing a source), reverting this much deserves a little more explanation than "unobjective" and "see Hoyos". Gimmetrow 22:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Disputes

Where's the explanation for the factual accuracy or NPOV disputes. If there's no answer by tomorrow I'll remove them.

JASpencer 16:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Now removed. JASpencer 10:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Separate article for consecrations

Is it a wise idea to start a separate article for the Econne consecrations?

JASpencer 17:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Would it not be better to treat of this major episode in the life of Marcel Lefebvre - or should I say "this the major episode"? - within the article about him (and only there)? You wouldn't take a particular episode out of the life of Martin Luther and turn it into a separate article, thus leaving a hole in the main article. Of course, I recognize that others may disagree with me. Lima 18:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The ordination doesn't simply affect Lefebvre but the SSPX, the FSSP, Ecclesia Dei and the four bishops.

I also think that although it is understandable that the consecrations may be the only thing of interest to most American readers (at least those who are not Trads) but he was also Archbishop of Dakar, Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers, prime mover within the International Study group in Vatican II and the most prominent post Vatican II traditionalist before the split over the ordinations. I think that concentrating on the ordinations unbalances the Lefebvre article. JASpencer 19:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree fully that the Ecône consecration also involved other people and concerned various organizations; but I think almost anyone would classify those others as only supporting cast for the one who got star billing. People - not just Americans - who have at all heard of Marcel Lefebvre, even those quite unaware of his work as a Holy Ghost Father or as Archbishop of Dakar or as Apostolic Delegate for French-held Africa (or was it only some of it? Was French North Africa included?), know him precisely as "the most prominent post Vatican II traditionalist" - he had a gift for publicity - a role that they see as culminating in the event in question.

That, at any rate, is how I see it. Lima 19:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just looked at the Martin Luther article and episodes such as the 95 Theses, the Diet of Worms and the Luther Bible are all entered as seperate articles. It doesn't seem to have harmed the main article. JASpencer 20:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I've made a start on Ecône Consecrations. JASpencer 09:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Nicolas du Chardonnet citations

I'm removing three of the four citations for Nicolas du Chardonnet.

• "En juillet 1977, voilà près de trente ans, c'est déjà lui qui prenait la défense des catholiques qui avaient retrouvé la messe de toujours dans cette église Saint-Nicolas du Chardonnet et contre lesquels une ordonnance d'explusion avait été prononcée"La Revue Le Chardonnet.

This no longer appears on the linked website. It may appear in one of the back numbers listed here, but I've had no luck.

• Also: "le 24 février 1977, un groupuscule d’intégristes catholiques s’était introduit dans l’édifice pour en expulser manu militari l’occupant d’alors, l’abbé Pierre Bellego. A l’époque, l’instance judiciaire saisie avait constaté que 'la situation de fait qui lui était soumise révélait l’existence d’un trouble manifestement illicite et constitutive d’une voie de fait à laquelle il était urgent de mettre fin' (CA, Paris, 13 juillet 1977). Or, fait remarquer le sénateur Dreyfus-Schmidt, 'à ce jour, la décision reste lettre morte'. Le 8 juillet 1978, un parlementaire s’était déjà interrogé sur la non-exécution du jugement. Le ministre de l’intérieur d’alors, monsieur Christian Bonnet avait fait cette réponse : 'L’évacuation de l’Eglise (...) a été différée en raison des troubles à l’ordre public que risquerait d’entraîner cette opération'. Une évaluation de la situation avait en effet été confiée à un médiateur désigné par le Tribunal de grande instance le 1er avril 1977. Or devinez qui a été chargé d’élaborer les modalités d’évacuation des lieux ? Jean Guitton en personne. Membre de l’Académie française mais aussi admirateur du Maréchal Pétain et proche des catholiques lefévristes ! Surprise, dans son rapport, Jean Guitton avait mis en avant que 'la mesure d’expulsion présenterait des difficultés particulières tenant au fait que l’Eglise est un lieu public qui doit rester accessible à tous, prêtres ou laïcs, paroissiens ou non, pour la pratique de leur religion, aux heures normales d’ouverture'. Comme si les troupes de l’ordre s’étaient embarrassées de pareilles considérations lorsqu’ils ont attaqué à la hache la porte de l’Eglise Saint-Bernard pour embarquer des sans-papiers ! Refusant obstinément d’évacuer Saint-Nicolas du Chardonnet, l’Etat s’est vu condamné le 12 octobre 1982 à verser une indemnité de 15 000 F à l’abbé illégalement dépossédé de son Eglise. Autrement dit, l’Etat a fait supporter aux contribuables les conséquences de sa volonté de désobéir à la loi en protégeant les intégristes catholiques d’une quelconque expulsion";[2]

This has been removed under WP:RS. Not only is this a blog, but it is rather hostile to SSPX and so cannot be relied upon.

• "L'occupation par la force de cette église a été reconue par la justice française mais le maire de Paris sursoit à l'éxécution de la décision d'expulsion de la communauté lefebvriste. Sous la mandature Delanoe, le groupe des verts a effectué de nouvelles tentatives pour obtenir que la FSSPX soit expulsée mais sans succès."[3]

Wikipedia does not reference to itself, that includes foreign language wikipedia entries.

JASpencer 10:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Books, pamphlets and websites

I deleted the phrase, and many books, pamphlets and websites exist arguing that their canonical status is entirely legitimate. This is a point of view perspective that both sides of the argument can make. There are books, pamphlets and websites arguing that their canonical status is legitimate, but who produces these books, pamphlets and websites? Most of the books and pamphlets are published by SSPX affiliated organization. Most of the websites are going to be SSPX official sites. Members and Priests do make this argument, but the mentioning of books/pamphlets/websites is POV and doesn't add to the quality of the article. Unless you want to add the balancing statement, "There are many websites, articles in numerous Catholic magazines, and official statements of the Church that condemns the SSPX." Now, I don't propose putting that in there because it is POV. But that is what is what this statement amounts to. It is a controversial perspective where you can find sources on both sides.Balloonman 17:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I can live with the new wording.Balloonman 17:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Allege

I'm going to change two sentences in this document, but seeing how controversial this article is, I'm going to explain why first. The first one read, "An alleged example of [Bishop Williamson's] anti-Semitism is:" I'm going to change that to "An example of his alleged anti-semitism is:" The reason is quite simple. The document does not appear to be contested, it is published on SSPX cites, thus no one is challenging the validity of the letter, but rather the claim of Williamson's anti-semitism. This is a fairly simple straight forward change.

The second one read, "the (alleged) excommunications of 1988." The fact that the excommunications occured is not debatable. There is a historical record of that historical fact. Now the validity of the excommunications may be debated, but the historical fact cannot be. If some day at the future the Church lifts the excommunication, it will not be saying that the act never occurred, but rather that the act was not spiritually binding/valid. Books/articles/biographies on the subjects would still report the historical event. Think of it this way, St Tertulian was excommunicated, but he was later cannonized as a Saint. The event of excommunication is a historical fact. When one gets an annulment to a marraige, it doesn't mean the marraige never happened, it simply means that the spiritual aspect was not valid. People who get annulments will answer the question, "Were you married?" With the statement, "Yes, but it was annulled." Furthermore, the rest of that paragraph/section leaves it clear that the SSPX questions the validity of this action, but the historical event is not "alleged."Balloonman 20:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Umm one problem Tertullian is not a saint in any Christian denomination I can find. Unless you mean "Saint Tertullian of Bologna." Although some Muslims seem to indicate Tertullian was a saint that's not real relevant to Christianity.--T. Anthony 07:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll admit that most of the sources that I looked at (online) don't list him as a saint... but Catholic Online.Org does and in one of the books I studied at Seminary said that he was... but I'm willing to concede that those two sources may have been wrong in light of the vast majority of references not mentioning it.Balloonman 14:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Tertullian was a Father , but not a Saint because of his involvement with the Montanist sect --Isolani 14:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent Disciplinary measures

I think this section needs to be removed. It is not neutral point of view. I don't have a problem with the other controversies, but this is something that you would find on SSPX-Cult.com or SSPX-schism.com... not an encyclopedic source.Balloonman 20:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Please be so good as to explain the essential difference you see between this section (which recounts important events in the history of the Society, events that have been reported on widely read sources such as Le Monde and Figaro, even if in less detail than in the sources quoted here) and that on "The Nine". I'll be interested in reading your kind explanation tomorrow. Lima 20:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The difference between them and the "Nine" is that "The Nine" is now the basis of a TV series... oh wait, wrong "The Nine" ;-) But there is a real difference. The Nine left and founded the SSPV, which is in and of itself notable. Merely listing people who have been expelled is not NPOV.Balloonman 22:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the SSPV is a splinter group of the SSPX is not what makes this notable... thus your premise in adding the lists back because they are splintering the SSPX is not valid. "The Nine" for the SSPX is more comperable to the Protestant Reformation, while these last few people are comperable to some minister deciding he doesn't want to be a Methodist anymore and breaks away from the mainstream methodist church---and takes the church with him. This does happen and it does result in court cases---who owns the physical building, the Methodist Church or the people who paid for it? BTW, I should mention that I studied for Ministry at a methodist seminary, so I do know this happens. But it's not encyclopedic.Balloonman 09:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I just read the section, and I don't see any problem with it. If there is a problem that I am missing, I think the appropriate action would be to reword the section, not to delete it entirely. -- Cat Whisperer 21:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I just don't see the section adding any value to the article or discussion. The fact that people will be disciplined and expelled from various organizations goes without note. Name a group and there are people who leave in a huff or are kicked out of the group for whatever reason, documenting them is not meaningful. The documenting of people who have been disciplined/left, is IMHO POV. Think of it this way, suppose we were looking at the Boy Scouts article, and it included a list of people who were disciplined, would that be appropriate? And yes, there are people who are kicked out of the Boy Scouts.Balloonman 21:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I see what Balloonman is saying. Why single out these few priests and at that particular time? The SSPX has expelled dozens of priests and others have left of their own accord. But they don't warrant a mention, nor should they necessarily. I'd suggest that it does tend to compromise NPOV, though I also think the author is trying to be as neutral as possible.So while this section ought perhaps to be removed or at least heavily edited, let's not read too much into intentions.--Gazzster 21:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see the POV issue. The descriptions of the disciplinary actions seem quite factual. If perhaps there are other facts, omitted from the article, that would cast a different light on the actions, then the solution is to include those other facts. As for the notability issue, it is true that all large organizations take disciplinary actions against misbehaving members. Some of those actions are notable, others are not. The ones mentioned here seem to have gotten a fair amount of press, which I think indicates that they are notable. Perhaps the article needs to include more justification as to why the ones mentioned are particularly notable. (IMO, the French court decision alone provides enough reason for notability.) -- Cat Whisperer 21:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've no problem with a note explaining why those events are noteworthy. But I can't see how they are in the present context of the section.--Gazzster 22:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

So do we include a section on the Roman Catholic Church page listing the people who have been disciplined for child molestation? Waht about the Boy Scout leader who was convicted a few years ago on the BSA page? Simply because there is media coverage and even a court case doesn't mean that it should be included in an encyclopedic article.. For the record, I'm personaly highly critical of the SSPX, but listing people who have left in controversy is not NPOV. Every group has its dessenters---many of whom will sue the organization they belonged to. I see NO valid reason for wikipedia to include this list except to be critical of the SSPX.Balloonman 22:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm personally critical of the SSPX too, and, as I've said, I don't see how the section can stand in the present context. I agree that as it stands it could be interpreted as compromising NPOV. However, we have to be careful of editing something out because it has media coverage. Otherwise we would have to edit dozens of articles which make reference to contemporary events. I suggest that this section is either ommitted or a new section is written titled 'Membership' or something like that. It could list notable priest exits and the reasons why they left. Personally I would favour ommitting the section altogether or making a general reference to priests who leave the society.As for Wikipedia publishing material which appears to be critical of the SSPX; sometimes we have to distinguish between the intention of the author and the factuality and relevance of the information published. This can be tricky and quite subtle. We must not be too quick to read intentions into facts related. For example, the article Roman Catholic Church does make mention of the priest scandals you talk about, because it is relevant. No-one would suggest that because of that the author is prejudiced against the Catholic Church --Gazzster 22:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

And I have no problem with the RCC article mentioning the priest scandals because it is notable, but it would be POV to list the priests involved---even though the media covers them. Having media coverage is not, in and of itself, enough to gain notability in an encycopedia. The question I have in reading the article is, "What value does the section add? Is it Neutral in presentation?" This section doesn't add anything to the SSPX article except to mention the obvious, people will leave large groups in controversial ways. It is not, NPOV. To me it feels like something I'd read on an anti-SSPX cite.Balloonman 23:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Right. I've made comments on its neutrality. I believe we agree in essence. I am only making the point that media coverage, or the naming of individuals, is not, in itself, indicative of POV.The text has to be taken in context. And indeed, I have suggested that the context of the section needs attention.--Gazzster 23:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the section as per the above reasons. This is not a notable event in the Society's history, and i suspect someone added it either because it was breaking news or because they wanted to advertise the Society of the Good Shepherd. 2nd Piston Honda 01:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I do believe that Honda jumped the gun in deleting the section, but the criticism, Lima, is not based around the heading of the section. It's the list itself. I do not see how the inclusion of these people objectively contributes to the article. Wikipedia is not a place to air the internal politics of a group or it's dirty laundry. The sole purpose in having this list is because it shows discord in the SSPX---but there is discord in every group. Just a few months ago another Archbishop was excommunicated for ordaining bishops against the will of Rome. This list is not POV.Balloonman 09:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for my obtuseness. I still fail to see any essential difference between the split of the Nine and that of the GSI. If the Nine split can be compared to a Protestant break-away, the GSI split can be compared to a Uniate break-away. In Protestant style, the Nine soon split among themselves. The GSI seem destined to follow the Uniate style. Was the Nine split more significant for SSPX than the GSI split? I'm sorry, I still don't see on what grounds this claim is made (or is it made?). Nor do I see the GSI split as a matter of dirty laundry - what was dirty about it? It was all above-board and in the open. Fellay just made an administrative error, not following procedures laid down in the SSPX statutes themselves. The split arose from nothing else but an internal divergence of opinion about how to react to the approaches of the Holy See; and the disciplinary action was taken precisely because of the ideological attitude of the dissidents. Just as happened with the Nine, I would have thought. Again, apologies for being unable to see what others find so obvious. Lima 09:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I notice that a difficulty for Balloonman seems to be the presentation of a list: "It's the list itself," he says. If no names were mentioned, would he find the section significant enough to remain? Say, by replacing the names with a phrase such as "certain French SSPX priests who proposed accepting the conditions offered by the Holy See, as exemplified in its agreement with the priests of the Personal Apostolic Administration of ..."? This question may be quite beside what Balloonman has in mind, and if so I apologize again for my lack of understanding. Lima 10:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

As I've said, I too had a problem with the section, Lima. But my concern was for the context and scope of the section. Why did it mention only those few priests in a fairly narrow context? Scores of priests have left the SSPX or have been expelled over many issues, including the relationship with the Holy See, ever since it was founded. One could mention names like Rizzo, Vanderputten and Neville from the USA, or Campbell from Australia; Fulham from England who now claims episcopal orders, von Pentz, who calls himself Pope Linus II, etc,etc. That is why I suggested that instead of that section there could be a general discussion of the causes of dissent within the ranks of the society after the split of the Nine and after the consecrations of 1988. I don't think there would be anything untoward in that, Balloonman. After all, these dissensions do influence the internal policy of the Society and its external relationship with the wider Catholic community. There would be no need to publish a 'list', although naming a few prominent individuals might be useful.--Gazzster 11:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Do the individuals whom Gazzster mentions merit to be compared with an organization like GSI, whose foundation the SSPX found important enough to issue at least one communiqué about it? The institute that these few priests have founded and that has been the object of comment on general newspapers in several countries is thus part of a much wider context than that of those whom Gazzster mentions. I still fail to see why the GSI break is to be considered less significant than the SSPV break by a few priests who, as far as I know, were never joined by any SSPX priest from another country, and probably were never brought to the knowledge of the general public outside the United States. Lima 11:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If anything, you're making a case for the removal of the SSPV mentioning, not for the inclusion of all recent news items the SSPX has issued a communiqué about. But i see the SSPV section as noteworthy because 1) it represents a significant division in schools of thought within the traditionalist community, that over the issue of sedevacantism, and 2) because the SSPV is big enough and enough trads joined their cause to warrant mentioning. 2nd Piston Honda 12:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

To add to that, the SSPV has been around for 23 years, thus has established firm roots. The GSI is recent endeavor whose sustainability is not known. As for the comment about "at least one communique," the SSPX has issued communiques about some of the people you mentioned. I know, off the top of my head, Father Vanderputten had several communique's issued about his departure.[4] As they did for Father Campbell.[5] I still don't think this article deserves to be in here... If I were to rank the primacy of the splits, I would put them in the following order: 1) Fraternity of St Peter, 2) SSPV, 3) Campos 4) IGS 5) a number of smaller break aways. Here is my proposal, get rid of the section (you've essentially created the identical section in an article on the Institute of the Good Shepherd.) Create a new section at the end of article wherein we put links to these other articles. The stuff on Institute of the Good Shepherd doesn't fit here---although the wording is getting closer to being something worth keeping. I just think that going into this much detail on a splinter group(s) is not appropriate for the main article.Balloonman 17:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Now that I know my view has been understood, even if not accepted, I am fully satisfied. I am not sufficiently interested in this matter to do any more about it than I have done, either here or on the other article. In fact, most of my earlier work was due to JASpencer's continual requests for citations, which I then tired of supplying for him. Lima 17:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Lima, what do you think of my proposed moficiation? I think it addresses the issue in a neutral position and then directs readers to the IGS article where the individuals and their complaints are definately appropriate. I just didn't want to see an article become a list of individuals who had criticism (EG let's list each of the 9 and their reasons for leaving and each of the 12 Fraternity priests and their reasons...)Balloonman 21:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

When I looked at it last night, it seemed okay to me, while being a little amused at seeing how SSPV was surviving as a separate section. Now that you have involved me again, I will retouch one or two minor points of your Notable Groups section. Lima 05:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks good.Balloonman 06:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Universal Indults

I have to side with Lima here. It's a fine line of distinction. An indult is a dispensation permitting deviation from church law/norms. The SSPX is not asking for a dispensation from church law/norms, they are looking for the Church to say an indult is not and never has been necessary. Which has been their position all along. If the Church says "indult" then the priest who continued to say the mass were in error. If the Church says, it isn't required, then the Church was in error and the judgments/criticism of the priests was wrong. Thus, to say the SSPX "means" to say "a Universal Indult" would be inaccurate. It may be what they "settle" for, but that is not what they want.Balloonman 22:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

PS the effect going forward will be the same, but the theological ramifications for actions in the past is completely different.Balloonman 22:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

But the SSPX want a general permission. It's one of their two preconditions, preliminaries, whatever. Fellay said in an interview:

We thus did require these two signs, first the withdrawal of the decree of excommunication and, secondly, the permission for all the priests of the Latin rite, without distinction, to celebrate the traditional Mass. I believe these two steps would have been able to create a truly new climate in the universal Church.

http://www.sspx.ca/Communicantes/Aug2001/Our_Hope_After_the_Battle.htm

A universal indult is a name, an accident. The substance is "for all the priests of the Latin rite, without distinction, to celebrate the traditional Mass". That is both the demand of the SSPX, and the supposed Motu Propio talked of by newspapers and cardinals.

JASpencer 08:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

"A 'universal indult' is a name." Is it perhaps one that - leaving the substance aside - SSPX would reject?

(By the way, is it really so certain that the proposed motu proprio is meant to grant universal permission, without any distinction, limitation or condition? Don't bother answering this question.) Lima 16:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't know about whether the SSPX will "accept" it, but they are far more realistic about the Vatican than Catholic conservatives are about them. JASpencer 18:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The SSPX explains why they can't attend indult masses here and here. Lefebre's autobiographer had this to say, White says the universal indult is a step in a direction that will be helpful to the future of the Catholic Church, though he says it is not the complete remedy for a near forty-year crisis that has affected the Church globally. White also pointed out that the traditional Roman Mass was never suppressed by Rome. [6] The US District Superior, "Remember that if you cannot get to a true (sic) Catholic Mass celebrated by a good (sic) traditional priest, you should not attend the New Mass or the Indult Mass, and this even if it is the only traditional Mass available.[7] Or how about this, "Therefore the anti-indult position is not just a polemic, and it is not simply a pro-SSPX position. It is a reaction to the very word indult. An indult canonically, is permission to deviate from the normative custom, law or rubric of the Church."[8] And that's with only spending five minutes looking for sources. It is clear that the SPPX does not want a universal indult and that is NOT what they mean. Will they accept a universal indult to return to normalicy with Rome? Maybe, but it is wrong to write that they want a universal indult when it is clear they don't.Balloonman 23:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Two other things to think about, when the Fraternity and Campos priests were reconciled with Rome, the SSPX was highly critical of it. They believed that Rome simply wanted to lure them back and then take away their rights/freedoms. If it is labeled an indult, then I suspect that the SSPX will still hold those fears. Accepting an indult would be acknowledgment that the Church had the authority to limit the Latin Mass AND it would be something the church could lift. I'm not sure if the SSPX could go along with it for the later reason.Balloonman 23:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

"Clearly". Please show a single case where the SSPX say that a universal indult would be unwelcome or unacceptable? And not particular indults. JASpencer 00:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry not going to bite. The SSPX will welcome a universal indult, but it is not what they want or what they mean. Accepting an indult would be a compromise, but it might be one they are willing to make. Bishop Williamson, The downside [of accepting a universal indult] is, of course, that a number of lines will be blurred which are presently clear, separating true Tradition from any kind of compromise. Also, the very idea of the intrinsically legitimate Tridentine Mass needing an “indult” is false. But I think, over all, much more good than harm would come from the True Mass being "liberated". Interview with Williamson Or Bishop Fellay, We do not ask nor do we seek a special status as a mark of singularity, but we want a "normal" place in the Church. So long as the Tridentine Mass is considered a particular concession, we remain marginalized, in a precarious and suspect position. It is in this perspective that we claim a right that has never been lost: that of the Mass for everyone. To reduce this right to an indult (which certain Roman voices hold to be provisory) is already to diminish it.[9] Or Fellay again, This is a different idea than that of the Indult Mass; it is really the idea of reintroducing the Latin Mass. [10] The SSPX does not as you put in, 'mean' a universal indult, they don't believe an indult is necessary they don't believe that the Church had the authority to forbid it in the first place. The SSPX does not see need for an indult and fears that an indult could be taken away.Balloonman 08:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the SSPX objections to the 1984 indult quite obviously hold for the supposed future indult, if, as the Italian newspapers (which gave more detailed and, because of their geographical closeness to and more numerous contacts with the Vatican, presumably better informed reports than the London Times) say, it will require acceptance of the totality of the Second Vatican Council and of the validity of the Mass of Paul VI as a condition for availing of its provisions.

I think far too much time and effort is being spent on abstract "what if?" speculation, as here. It was against my objection about the speculative character of this current-affairs matter that mention of the expected motu proprio of the Pope was first included in the "Tridentine Mass" article and is since spreading to other articles. Lima 08:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

"A lead" vs "the lead"

Personally, I prefer "The lead" but not enough to revert it back. The reason is that the SSPX, which he founded is the largest traditional catholic organization. His followers, even early on, were more numerous than any other group, and since he was an archbishop his actions attracted more attention than others. What Lefebre did was news. I wasn't a Catholic then, but I remember hearing about him in the 80's... particularly in 88. Other priests deferred to him, he had the ear of the Rome, thus I would say "the lead." Balloonman 16:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

My difficulty was that "the lead" suggests that, for instance, Cardinal Ottaviani was only a follower. And SSPX is the largest, but not the only association that opposes or, more importantly in the context of the article, opposed the changes associated with the Second Vatican Council. Lima 17:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

To answer your question in the History... yes, I think the new wording is much better... I didn't like "a" but I too wasn't completely sold on "the"---despite his being the most vocal/visible opponent. Which is why I brought it here for discussion. Balloonman 18:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

"Site in support of SSPX"

Does the site [11], which is presented as "a secular site offering information on catholicism", offer enough information on the subject of this article to deserve to be included here? I think it does not. Lima 15:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No... it may be a fine page, but it DOES NOT talk about this article. This website deals pretty much with Catholicism with token acknowledgment of the SSPX.Balloonman 05:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger

browsing through articles, I came across SSPX-affiliated religious orders. The page has very little content and does not seem to warrant an independent article. I propose that it be merged with Society of St. Pius X. Warfieldian 12:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I encouraged Warfieldian to propose this merger formally. I thought he would follow the procedure for a possibly controversial merger, which would result in a space being put here for people to vote under Support or Oppose. I intended to support it. But I now have doubts. Not about the proposed merger as such, but about the material in the other article. The statements there have no citations to support them. Unless a source is given for those statements, I now think that the other article should simply be deleted, not merged. Lima 17:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that the two not be merged, for several reasons: Firstly, affiliation of a religious community does not identify it with the Society of Saint Pius X. The religious communities concerned retain their own distinct identities and purpose.Secondly, we would have to define affiliation. What constitute affiliation? It could mean anything from sympathy to collaboration. Thirdly, we would be defining a religious community by its association with the SSPX. Instead of, for example, listing a Benedictine community under Benedictine,and noting that it has associations with the SSPX, we would list it under Society of St Pius X. This would be analagous to listing France under Britain because they were allies during the War. Fourthly, we will inevitably find ourselves moving into contentious waters. Do those religious orders share in the disputed schism of the SSPX? Best keep two separate articles.--Gazzster 12:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. Do not merge the articles. In fact, I might go so far as to supporting deleting the other all together. "affiliations" with religious groups can be a dicy thing. An independent observer may look at a group and say, "Yes, they look alike, they must be affiliated." A member of EITHER group may not see it the same way, so unless there is some documented affiliation (such as with Campos before they normalized with Rome) I see a lot of risk in an article with this label.Balloonman 07:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Anti-semitism section

I thought the anti-semitism section sounded defensive, reeked of POV, and could use some extensive reworking. I don't know anything about SSPX and whether or not it is, indeed, anti-Semitic so I tried not to change the sense of anything, only to clarify the language. However, there was one rather jarring snippet:

The Society's opposition is not racial or ethnic, but an opposition to Judaism as a religion and the varying ideologies that have come from it.

As an unqualified statement, this is rather significant! If indeed this is true and well agreed upon, it ought to be featured prominently in the section, not tucked away at the end. –Joke 23:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Stating the SSPX is anti-semitical is problematic, not because it is not necessarily true, but for want of citing a SSPX source that makes a public statement to that effect. Certainly they corporately disavow the Jewish religion, as many other Christian bodies do.There are certainly a number of SSPX individuals who express bizarre beliefs about Jews, eg, they are out for world domination, they wish the destruction of Christianity, they are propping up the masons, they wish to subvert morality and public order, they will usher in the Antichrist, they are controlling world affairs. Bishop Williamson is prominent among these, but he is not the only one. It would be safer in my opinion to substitute something like this:

Antisemitism appears to be widespread, but not universal, amongst members of the Society. Publicly, the oppsition to the Jews is based on religious motives. A conspiracy theory culture involving Jewry appears to be prevalent.--Gazzster 01:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The section on anti-semitism has always bothered me some... it is obvious that Williamson is antisemetic and undoubtably others in the organization as well. I agree it does appear to be widespread, but not universal. But this would need citations. Without something to support, this would be OR. Also, "members of the Soceity" would only be the Priest---remember there are technically no lay members. The last sentence you propose, about "prevalent" "conspiracy theory culture" would need some serious citations/explanation. When I see those terms "Prevalent" and "conspiracy theory" thrown about, I need citations---regardless of the subject.Balloonman 15:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The difficulty is, of course, in finding sources. We could quote Williamson, Fellay, Tissier de Mallerais (though these last 2 tend to be more guarded in their statements than Williamson) and ex-priests of the SSPX. But still, a lot of information on this topic would be anecdotal. I dont think Lefebvre was very open about these ideas either. As an ex-priest myself I have heard bizarre and hateful comments time and time again. Yet I have also heard balanced opinions as well. I, however, cannot be used as a source.--Gazzster 23:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

ex SSPX priest? AS for bizarre and hateful comments... I've heard non-SSPX priest/non-catholic ministers make hate speach as well... hate speach amongst individuals does not necessarily represent the group.Balloonman 01:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I cannot expect you to believe who I say I am, but you could respect what I say as possible, and what I say I have heard as possible. For obvious reasons I am not prepared to reveal my identity on Wikipedia.Yes, other clerics may make hateful statements. However, in the case of SSPX priests they are made in the context of a culture of hate.--Gazzster 23:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Gazzster, I think you are being a little overly sensitive... You indicated that you were a former priest. I simply asked if that was former SSPX or not. I am not challenging who you are, it was a simple inquiry. As for the SSPX having a culture, I have little doubt about it. While I wasn't SSPX, I was married in an SSPX church and my brother-in-law's wife has 3 brothers at the SSPX seminary! But anecdotal evidence/statements by individuals doesn't make it a culture... again, it's not what we believe, but what can be documented from verifiable/non-OR sources.Balloonman 01:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC) (EDIT: It was actually 2 years ago that the third one started--so one or two of them might be priests by now.)Balloonman 15:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I do apologize for misunderstanding you. Yes, I was ordained by Williamson for the SSPX. I have since been laicised.Yes, as I have said we need sources that are verifiable. Of course you will be aware of the personal and family pain the SSPX can be the occasion of. As a former SSPX priest you have my heartfelt apologies.--Gazzster 12:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: I don't like the recent edits to this section...Balloonman 05:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)