Talk:Society of Saint Pius X/Archive 4

POV

I've restored the POV template removed today by Shoneen without any debate here in talk page. The Article doesn't explain enough the very position of the Catholic Church: it looks like that the SSPX is almost accepted, while it is not. A ntv (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be good if some concrete cases of misrepresentation were presented, so that they can be attended to. In over a year, nobody has yet tried to justify the tag that has now been renewed. Lima (talk) 09:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

IMHO the issue is the relation between the SSPX and the Catholic Church: two examples: FIRST, in the first line we have "The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) is an international Traditionalist Catholic organization..." and in "Traditionalist Catholics" the reader finds: "Traditionalist Catholics are Roman Catholics, or people who identify as Roman Catholics..". This sentence leads confusion: the reader can think that the SSPX is an expression of the Catholic Church, while the Catholic Church expressly considers the SSPX as schismatic. I suggest something like: "The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) is an international Traditionalist Catholic, but not Roman Catholic, organization..." SECOND, In the subsection "The Holy See's view" the final position of the Catholic Church is hidden in a lot of history, and so the reader doesn't understand the actual Holy See's view, that is officially expressed in the 24 August 1996 letter of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. This statement (i.e. that the SSPX is schismatic and their bishops, priests and lays who adhere are excommunicated) that is not an opinion but an official statement from the proposed Holy See office. Wiki should be very clear also for a non-Christian reader: the important facts should be finding at the first glance. So I suggest moving the 08.24.06 letter's paragraph at the beginning of the subsection (removing the term "opinion"), before the other paragraphs that are simply the history to arrive to such hard declaration. A ntv (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

On the first objection, it must be said that the second paragraph of the article makes clear that "since 1988, it (the Society) has been in a state of dispute with the Holy See". It is difficult to see how that could be moved into the first very short paragraph. Would it be enough - and would it be practicable? To combine both paragraphs into one? On the second, no general (universal) declaration of the Holy See has been issued. I have retouched what the article says, in order to make this clear, while also changing "opinion" to "judgment". It is unlikely that, as long as there is hope of reconciliation, the Holy See will issue such a declaration, and Cardinal Castrillón, who also is an official of the Holy See, has made statements that seem to be at variance with the Pontifical Council's judgment on the matter; but if the talks break down definitively, then I think a general declaration may well be issued on the lines of the judgment of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. Lima (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That's better. But not enough for a Wiki reader that is not catholic, or even if catholic but not aware of the issue. In the first line he understands that the SSPX is very probably a part of the CC. Only in the last paragraph of the a long and boring subsection, a paragraph that furthermore requires to know what is an excommunication, he could understand that the SSPX is not at all an expression of the Catholic Church. To "be in dispute" is something vague: there are many organizations "in dispute" with the Holy See that are anyway part of the Catholic Church. Because in the first sentence there is a clear ref to the Catholic Church (though "Catholic Traditionalist"), in the same sentence there shall be a statement like: "The Catholic Church, by a statement on the 08.24.06, considers the SSPX schismatic (separated by the Catholic Church), and its members excommunicated". Or simply: "the SSPX is not in communion with the Catholic Church." You know of course that between a written statement of the proper Holy See office requested to issue a judgment on its matter, and an interview of a single cardinal, the Magisterium is expressed by the first: a general declaration is not required for this issue, already fully covered by the Canon Law (interpreted by the proper council as it was). I've nothing against the SSPX, but a Wiki article should be extremely clear, particularly in the introduction. A ntv (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone agrees with your interpretation of the situation. So we must do no more than report what has been officially declared and, outside these reports of such declarations, use neutral phrases like "in dispute" that cover different interpretations. I must add that it isn't just Cardinal Castrillón's personal statements that allow some people to disagree with your interpretation, but the written responses of the department of the Holy See that he at present heads. These responses are later than that of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, a response that, canonically speaking, was also only a private response to a single bishop, not a general decree for the whole Church, and so, like the responses of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, it does not have the force of a general decree. But perhaps you will be satisfied with the two changes I have now made in the article. And I hope other editors will accept them too. Lima (talk) 05:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes of course this is a POV issue. On a side the SSPX has in their homepage a photo of the pope like to say that is possible be part of both the SSPX and of the CC. On the other side there is the Vatican statement of the 08.24.06 excluding that. Present text is of course better, but the issue is not the excommunication of Mons Lefebvre for consecrating bishops, but the excommunication of the present members of the SSPX for schism. To remove the POV tag we should use the standard policy of WP: not a medium statement "that cover different interpretations", but the listing of the two POVs: "in the 08.24.06 letter the Vatican said that present members of SSPX are excommunicated, while the SSPX disputes the legitimacy of the Holy See decision". You cannot say that "The leadership (?) of the Roman Catholic Church ... ordinarily (?) forbids Catholics from receiving the sacraments from them." without mentioning the excommunication for schism. PS: You know that a general decree is not to be expected because the excommunication is from the Canon Law and occurs automatically. A ntv (talk) 08:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, A ntv, the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts did not say that the SSPX members are excommunicated. It gave its judgment on the existence of the sin of schism, but stated that it was not speaking of the canonical crime of schism, for which the conditions laid down in canon law must be met, and for which alone the canonical penalty of excommunication is imposed. No doubt, in the case of many SSPX members the conditions for excommunication are met; but there has been no declaration by the Holy See that mere membership of the Society means excommunication. Lima (talk) 08:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I presumed you were talking about the judgement of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, which we have already discussed; but I now see that you refer to a "Vatican statement of the 08.24.06". I must have found "08.24.06" too hard to understand. Is it a date in the United States order of month-day-year, i.e. 24 August 2006? If it is, I presume there is a mistyping and that you meant 24 August 1996 (1996-08-24), the date of the statement by the Pontifical Council that we have been discussing. Lima (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right. We could copy a sentence or two from the paragraph about the Holy See's View, thus using the very words of the 24 August 2006 judgment, and paste them in the introduction in place of the ref to Mons Lefebvre excommunication. A ntv (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

To me that seems too complicated. We'd have to include the distinction between the sin and the canonical "crime" of schism, and the Pontifical Council's judgment that, in regard to the Society's members, it was best not to specify further the conditions for the crime of schism (No. 9 in its note of 24 August 1996, given in the Italian text, though not in the partial English translation to which a link is provided). I think that the now modified lead, with its clear indication of the Society's present non-canonical status, should be enough to remove your doubts about the neutrality of the article. What do you think now? Lima (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You made a good work. I've no objection to remove the POV tag. A ntv (talk) 13:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Lima (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Paul Touvier

Ok, I have to ask why the section about Paul Touvier is even in the article? To me this is just a case of throwing mud. Paul Touvier was not a member of the SSPX and the church (as a larger organization) didn't get involved in this. This is merely a case wherein a fugitive, sentenced to death, fled to a Catholic Church seeking asylum. Depending on the courage of the minister, many churches that oppose the death penalty would potentially offer asylum to somebody convicted to death---regardless of the crimes committed by the person! In other words, when offering asylum the church was not judging the individuals guilt or innocence, but rather responding to the death penalty. In this case, the church happened to be an SSPX church. Would we have included such a section in the Roman Catholic Church article if Manuel Noriega, wanted for crimes against humanity, sought asylum in a Catholic Church? Would we include it in an article about Methodism? Baptism? etc? I think the only reason why it is in here, is because people are trying to make an issue of it. ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 14:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if I may not fully agree with Balloonman's reasoning, I think the article would be better without this matter. Lima (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I tend now to disagree with Balloonman's suggestion: the Touvier matter is mentioned in recent press reports such as New York Times: Group Says It Doesn’t Share Views of Holocaust Denier Lima (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Splitting the controversies

I wonder if it would be appropriate to create a special article on SSPX-related controversies, since there are many. I had in mind the article Pat Robertson controversies, which essentially says the same kind of things. ADM (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Motivation - specific details

I have gathered that what's-his-name established this society because he was unhappy with Vatican II. I have a vague notion that Vatican II is when the mass stopped being celebrated in Latin, and since Mel Gibson was in the news a few years ago, I have an equally vague notion that all those old Catholics who hate Vatican II are a bunch of racists anti-Semites. Apart from that, do we have any notion of why what's-his-name hated Vatican II. The article only refers to modernism, which I think can refer to a whole slew of different things. I mean no disrespect, I'm sure this is a complicated issue, and perhaps Im asking for it to be over simplified, but if someone can add some more specific details on the motivation behind the establishment of the order, I think it would greatly improve the quality of the article. -ErinHowarth (talk) 10:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, you're right, the article touches almost no theological point. modernism is and was a theological or technical term for a school of thought which could loosely defined as relativism in matters of Faith. If you can get a copy of the Pascendi Dominici Gregis encyclica or of the Antimodernist Oath you could get an idea. Current American Anglicanism could easily be described as a full developed Modernism. Most Catholic traditionalist (not only the SSPX) think that at least some parts of the teaching of Vatican II -or, more agreed- development after it, at least borders modernist errors. The abolition in 1967 of the Oath, didn't exactly helped to calm the suspicions. The main critiques an Vatican II by [[Marcel Lefebvre|++Lefebvre] -himself a conciliar father- were the liturgical revolution after the Council, and serious reservations about Dignitatis Humanae and Lumen Gentium, which could be read as a rejection of the traditional and dogmatically defined Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (no Salvation outside the Church). As a matter of fact, Latin is still normative for the new Mass, but due to a loophole in the regulations nowadays is very rarely celebrated in this language. The rest of your vague knowledge (not uncommon, sadly) is more or less as (in) accurate, but I don't think this is the place for discussing it. Sadly, the unfortunate comments of +Williamson from the SSPX last week, and the slant of mainstream media, do not help to dispel them.--Wllacer (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Just today, you can find at an interview with +Fellay (the current head of the FSSPX) which explains very plainly some of their concerns to Vatican II. -Wllacer (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be at the root of it:

Q: Ecumenism and religious liberty are at the center of the criticisms you make of Vatican II. A: The quest for unity of all in the Mystical Body of the Church is our dearest desire. Nonetheless, the method that is used is not appropriate. Today, there is such a focus on the points which unite us to other Christian confessions that those which separate us are forgotten. We believe that those who have left the Catholic Church, that is, the Orthodox and the Protestants, should come back to it. We conceive ecumenism as a return to the unity of Truth.

I don’t really understand that, but you put up a lot of links, thanks. I’ll keep reading. -ErinHowarth (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that Gibson is a racist anti-Semite. He said lots of those things when drunk, and he has nothing to do with this story. 74.90.110.7 (talk) 12:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Bishop Williamson

Should the article mention Bishop Williamson's controversial views on the Holocaust? BBC World Service News (26/01/2009) mentioned that his reinstatement has caused a storm of adverse comment. Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 14:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No. That's tangential to the scope of this article.Geremia (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Controversies

From the article: "In the United States, the Society has been accused of spreading allegedly fascist, un-American political ideas." Un-American? What does that mean? It sounds like name-calling. I'm thinking of deleting the sentence or making it more specific. Your thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tech408 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC

I did a quick review of the cited sources. While the information contained herein might be very interesting, and would be a pity to lose,(btw, definitively leaves the impression that +Williamson is, to be mercifull, verbally incontinent) certainly are written by somebody with an axe to grin,d and not even looks to represent a widely held view about the Fraternity . Besides both terms (fascist and un-american) are nowadays such weasel words that don't merit inclusion (but is original to see them together). The paragraph adds nothing --Wllacer (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)--Wllacer (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Incomplete sentence

"The SSPX has links also with various other "unattached" priests and religious." -- Dougher (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Major rewrite anybody?

This article needs a major rewrite now that the Excommunication has been lifted. The positions of both Rome and the SSPX have changed. We still need to record the historical positions, but most of this article needs an overhaul... it's very choppy and convoluted in ordering. anybody up to it?---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 18:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the lift of the excommunication has not changed at all the positions of both Rome and the SSPX. The lift is only about a personal act of the past, not the situation of the SSPX. Please check this official declaration of the Vatican Secretariat of State dated 05 Febr 09: "The remission of the excommunication has freed the four bishops from a serious canonical penalty, but IT HAS NOT ALTERED the juridical position of the Society of St. Pius X which, at the present time, enjoys no canonical recognition within the Catholic Church." [1] A ntv (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

A similar situation exists as regards the Roman Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Partriarchate. The Vatican has lifted the excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople, but that is a gesture of good will; it does not alter the canonical relationship of the Catholic and Orthodox communions.--Gazzster (talk) 06:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Which would be beside the point, entirely, would it not if the SSPX were sedevacantist? They would be claiming that Rome had become Modernist, that Rome had become Arian, in effect, or something at least other than Roman Catholic. The actual schismatics would be the Pope and those that follow him. But the SSPX has NEVER taken that line. They have always said that the Pope is a real Pope, is really head of the real Church, and that they themselves are the ones who split away (when the SSPV in turn split from them, they took they opposite point of view). So much of the tone of the article is fair from the SSPX own viewpoint. The bias of the article is that the Pope teaches true Catholicism, and thus can speak for the same Church as Pius X, and Aquinas and Augustine, etc. And this is also the confession of the SSPX. And I wouldn't make too much of 'canonical relationships' in an era of a burgeoning one-world religion. All are seen as 'different paths' to the same goal of 'human enlightenment'. What the article might confront is the disintegration of the SSPX as it is incorporated into this fuzzy 'new church', the sudden lack of vocations, donations, the flight from the pews by Roman Catholics who have seen enough of the same in the diocesan parishes which they originally fled for the SSPX. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.159.76 (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Short remark I heard when those excommmunications were lifted: Despite that, the Society of St. Pius X is not in good standing with Rome, and its priests (including those 4 bishops) are regarded as suspended from priestly functions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

What about the fact that Lefebvre had canon scholars and lawyers check and make sure that he was not at risk for excommunication? There was no excommunication in the first place. Benedict knew that, that is why he lifted it. Also, Francis is seeking to normalize relations, so... 74.90.110.7 (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Anti-Masonry

It seems that many of these controversies are related or caused by the SSPX's anti-Masonry. For instance, Lefebvre claimed that the French Revolution was nothing but Masonic, and so he opposed it. Pétain was anti-Masonic, this is why Lefebvre liked him, and not so much because of anti-Semitism. The Front National is anti-Masonic because of Masonry's alleged political influence in France. The Third French Republic in the 19th century was also reputed to be very Masonic, see the article Anticlericalism for instance. Pope Pius X (Giuseppe Sarto) was a noted opponent of modernism, which he blamed on Masonry. This is why I believe that all these 50 different controversies could all be reduced to just one, which is the SSPX's opposition to Freemasonry (see Catholicism and Freemasonry). ADM (talk) 10:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Sources please. Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

'Reliable Sources' would be the very publications of the group, interviews, etc. While perhaps no longer the case (and time will tell), when the SSPX was associated with Roman Catholicism, or traditional Catholicism for the ears of wikipedians, the complaint against international masonry of a particular sort, and particular lodges, was widespread and well-known. While not part of the same movement, the late Malachi Martin, one of the very 'reformers' of Vatican II at one point, wrote about the same behind what he imagined was a 'protective' wall of fiction. Italian papers and magazines have made much of masonry in the Vatican for years, and not just with regard to financial scandals. One has to understand what masonry - means. It's not guys in red caps driving golf carts on the fourth of July, and it's not donations to the latest hospital wing or 'up by the bootstraps' charity, etc. The fraternal charitable organization is like any other. The self-insurance side, the same. Instead, there are levels, stages, particularly in the Scottish Rite, which concern particularly the arcana of ancient Egypt, and occult generally. The 'flavor', but only that, is seen is the Stargate series of all things. So it's harmless enough until one reaches an agenda. And it does follow from the tidbits and curiosities and arcana. That is masonry, that condemned by The Church, by many Popes, over centuries, from certain well-known lodges, had an agenda of a new world order that could never confess Jesus Christ as God, as Hebrew Messiah. But the masons couldn't leave it alone. They couldn't just leave things be. and tolerate differences. Instead, that agenda called for a one-sided application of separation of church/state, and otherwise opposition to the Catholic Church, specifically, and really opposition to none other. And that is the masonry that has concerned the Church, and which still concerns Roman Catholics. See articles on the notion of religious 'liberty', meant by Catholics as the right to be free to be Roman Catholic, anywhere, at any time, and by those opposed to Christ and Catholicism as the suppression of Roman Catholicism, however inconsistently and hypocritically, as Islam is permitted to one classroom, but a manger scene is deemed 'diabolical'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.159.76 (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source issue. It's that this isn't directly pertinent to this article.Geremia (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Stripping articles to form new ones

I have no clearly decided position on this matter, but I think editors should be asked for their views on one editor's practice of removing material from articles such as this, with which to form many new articles. I fear his practice is impoverishing articles overmuch. While my concern is about other articles too, I feel that the latest changes here may be the most evident case. The lead of this article still provides the information that some would see as the most interesting, both because of its importance for the Society's future and because it is a subject of on-going comment even in contexts that on the surface might seem unrelated, such as Pope Benedict's visit to Israel: "On 21 January 2009 the Holy See remitted the excommunication that it had declared in respect of the four SSPX bishops whom Archbishop Lefebvre had illicitly consecrated in 1988, and expressed the hope that all members of the Society would follow this up by speedily returning to full communion with the Church." I wonder if it is good that the body of the article is now quite silent about this. My wondering concerns not just this matter, which I suppose could be patched up with relative ease, but other less obvious cases too. Lima (talk) 11:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

SSPX Anti-semetic

Just letting those who are interested know, there is currently a debate over this subject at Talk:Pope Benedict XVI.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That discussion appears to have been archived. Whether or not the SSPX is anti-semitic is not something that needs to be addressed here. However, the fact that Pope Benedict's attempts to reconcile the SSPX to the Holy See were perceived by some as either ignoring or endorsing anti-semitic statements or stances and that this became a controversy that had to be addressed should be mentioned here. Ileanadu (talk) 05:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Roman Catholic organization?

Recently, the article was added to Category:Roman Catholic organizations established in the 20th century. Is it accurate to say that it is a "Roman Catholic organization" if it is not in full communion with the Pope and, according to the RCC, separated itself from the church (although apparently not schismatic). I think this warrants some discussion. The two parties have been quite artful in their language regarding relations between the two, and neither appears to consider the Society to be schismatic. The Society claims to be faithful to the RCC, and the Pope. The RCC's view is different. As far as whether the Society is a RCC organization, I think that the RCC's view should carry more weight as to who is/is not a RCC member/organization. Thoughts? --anietor (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say that it is an organization, and that it has not broken away from the Church. In that sense it is a Roman Catholic organization. But it is not an official Roman Catholic organization. It is on the same level as the organizations of Roman Catholics on the opposite side of the theological spectrum, such as Catholics for Choice and those that campaign for women priests etc. The category "Roman Catholic organizations established in the 20th century" is so broad as to tend to meaninglessness. It contains at present one Bishops Conference (in fact all the Bishops Conferences were established in the 20th century, unless there is some new 21st-century Bishops Conference), a couple of seminaries, a shrine, a province of a religious order (many such provinces have arisen, and many have been suppressed or joined to another, in the twentieth century), a papal commission ... Lima (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Barring any other Wikipedia policy, the purpose of the category tree is to help people find things. If it people might look in under Category:Roman Catholic Church organizations to find the Society of St. Pius X, then it should be there. From what I gather, the Society itself certainly considers itself to be Roman Catholic and it is clearly a Roman Catholic topic. --^{Carlaude:Talk} 21:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Then it is enough to have it in the subcategory "Roman Catholic organizations established in the 20th century", without having it in the still broader category "20th-century Roman Catholicism". It does not fit into the category "Roman Catholic religious orders established in the 20th century", since it was never canonically established as a religious order: it was set up canonically at the beginning as what at that time was classified as a "pia unio" (under the 1983 Code of Canon Law the term is "association of the faithful"), an experimental preliminary form antecedent to becoming a religious institute, and even that status was withdrawn by the authority who set it up as such (the diocesan bishop, concretely the successor of the bishop who had set it up). Lima (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I support the category as well. First, while Rome did excommunicate the bishops (now rescinded) the church has always recognized the priests as valid (but illicit) and the churchgoers as members of the Catholic Church. Second, a RCC organization does not have to be in full communion with Rome. Unless Rome explicitily states otherwise, an RCC organization would be any group started by a group of catholics that identifies itself as RCC... this would include organizaitons that advocate positions in stark contrast to the official position of the church.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The SSPX was approved once. That should be enough to fit the category.--77.4.70.195 (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

A distinction can be made between a Roman Catholic organization and an organization of Roman Catholics. Roman Catholics can form many kinds of organizations: a sports club; an association such as Catholics for Choice that opposes the Catholic Church's teaching ... But these are not what is usually understood by a Roman Catholic organization and should not be specified as Roman Catholic organizations. An organization that was once Roman Catholic can cease to be such. Then it ceases to belong to the category of Roman Catholic organizations. That seems to be the case with the Society of St Pius X. Its members are Roman Catholics (although some would say that they are only tenuously so), but their organization is not a specifically Roman Catholic organization. One could even argue that organizations such as the Church of England were once Roman Catholic organizations. (I do not undertake to do the arguing myself.) Now they are certainly not Roman Catholic organizations. Esoglou (talk) 06:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Whatever they are now, I had been thinking the point of categories was "what abstractly fits the descpription". Pope Benedict will be listed as "Roman Catholic bishop (20th century)" because he was that. Even though what he is now is "Roman Catholic bishop (21th century)". That the SSPX was established in the 20th century, that it was a Roman Catholic organization in the year 1973, these are undeniable facts. Is it so important to inquire whether it is a Roman Catholic organization now, to list it as "Roman Catholic organization established in the 20th century"?--93.135.35.41 (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Society of Pope Leo XIII

I found the website of a group that calls itself the Society of Pope Leo XIII. It looks a lot like the SSPX except it is named after Pope Leo XIII. [2]] ADM (talk) 22:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Women in the Society of St. Pius X

I think it might of some documentary value if we had an article entitled women in the Society of St. Pius X, because this would add to the existing series of articles about women in Christianity. There is a good deal of information that could be included, such as single-sex education, the use of the mantilla, the effective prohibition of birth control, the rarity of divorce, the opposition to trousers, etc. ADM (talk) 07:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• • The women in the SSPX are just Catholic women. They don't really have any differences. Perhaps if there are specific women organisation in the SSPX, they would fit, but as a whole, the women and men who support the SSPX are just Catholics. Head coverings are not specific to the SSPX (in fact, it is in the Bible, 1 Corinthians 11:5), the opposition to birth control is a Church teaching (the SSPX has no different stance than the Church as a whole), divorce is forbidden in the Bible and in the Church (sacramental marriages cannot be undone except by death), and the cultural opposition to trousers is not steady; there are many in the SSPX around the world who do not have such stances. It is specific to the cultures of the people in the SSPX. Differences which make the SSPX stand out would be worth noting, but as far as I can tell, there are none. LaRoza (talk) 05:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The term "women [i]in[/i] the Society of St Pius X" could [i]only[/i] specifically refer to the Second Order, or Religious Sisters of the SSPX (or perhaps by inlcusive extension, female members of the Third Order of the SSPX). Laymen and laywomen do not belong to the SSPX, although many could be described as being "attached to" the SSPX. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.124.156 (talk) 12:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

SSPX does not have a second or third Order, nice try.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes they do (setting all canonical validity issues aside). They also have actual female members. Their female members are called "Oblates". Their second order members are called "Sisters".

Interestingly, I'd have said that the skirts are practically universal (though I wouldn't suppose they'd call trousers sinful), whereas headcoverings are not. Indeed, mantillas is one thing and headcovering for women another, the SSPX are certainly fine with hats, or girlscout caps. (The trouser thing is, arguable, in the Bible too btw. Or no?)--93.135.35.41 (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Abbreviation

Should it be SSPX or FSSPX? Adelbrecht (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The 'F' stands for 'Fraternitas', the Latin for Brotherhood or Society. Sp FSSPX is the acronym for the Latin title. Gazzster (talk) 07:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Doctrinal reasons

I changed some text that said that the SSPX had no canonical status in the church for doctrinal reasons. The quoted text seems to support this:

<quote>The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church.</quote>

However this didn't seem right to me, as the second sentence seems far less categorical than the first ("as long as" is looking at an eventual return) and this more charitable tone seems to be in line with just about every Vatican pronouncement since the excommunication. So looking at the letter then it's quite clear that the sentence is about the fact that the SSPX still have doctrinal reservations about post Vatican II developments, rather than a Vatican dislike of their doctrine. The full paragraph is here:

<quote>Another mistake, which I deeply regret, is the fact that the extent and limits of the provision of 21 January 2009 were not clearly and adequately explained at the moment of its publication. The excommunication affects individuals, not institutions. An episcopal ordination lacking a pontifical mandate raises the danger of a schism, since it jeopardizes the unity of the College of Bishops with the Pope. Consequently the Church must react by employing her most severe punishment -- excommunication -- with the aim of calling those thus punished to repent and to return to unity. Twenty years after the ordinations, this goal has sadly not yet been attained. The remission of the excommunication has the same aim as that of the punishment: namely, to invite the four Bishops once more to return. This gesture was possible once the interested parties had expressed their recognition in principle of the Pope and his authority as Pastor, albeit with some reservations in the area of obedience to his doctrinal authority and to the authority of the Council. Here I return to the distinction between individuals and institutions. The remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the field of ecclesiastical discipline: the individuals were freed from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties. This disciplinary level needs to be distinguished from the doctrinal level. The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers -- even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty -- do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.</quote>

JASpencer (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

A canonical status in the Church can be granted only by the Church. So why is the Church refusing to grant it to the Society? Surely for the Church's reasons, not the Society's. Surely you don't mean to say that the Church is withholding the grant only because it thinks the Society would refuse it? Both sides, not just the Society, see doctrinal problems as existing between them.

Right from the start, the Church, the Holy See, has been "looking at an eventual return". The Pope's letter was written to get rid of the idea that, now that the excommunication of the four bishops, which was imposed for disciplinary reasons, has been removed, there is no longer any obstacle to admittance of the Society to canonical status. No, he says; "The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons". Surely quite clear. He adds that the Society's ministers exercise no legitimate ministries in the Church as long as the Society has no canonical status in the Church (a lack of canonical status that can be remedied only when and if the doctrinal reasons for it are removed). He then goes on to say that, within the Holy See, he is linking competence for dealing with the Society to the Holy See's Doctrinal Congregation. Why? "This will make it clear", he says, "that the problems now to be addressed are essentially doctrinal in nature and concern primarily the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes." I don't see how you can possibly maintain that the lack of canonical status is not due to what you call "a Vatican dislike of their doctrine", the Holy See's judgement that there are doctrinal differences between them, differences that are the reason why the Church cannot grant canonical status (and with it a legitimate ministry in the Church) to the Society.

Instead of the ZENIT site, a more appropriate source for the text of the Pope's letter is the Vatican website. Esoglou (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Disobedient yes. Schismatic no.

In regards to the incorrect notion about the SSPX being schismatic, I refer the reader to the following statements by Cardinal Hoyos who was entrusted with the Pontifical Commission having jurisdiction over relations with the Society of St. Pius X: In an interview in Mexico with Notimex, on March 17, 2007, Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, then President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, affirmed that “They are not schismatics, the priests are under a suspension for illicit exercise.” In an interview with Italian journalist, Simone Ortolani, published on the same date the Cardinal repeated the statement that although a danger of schism arising may exist, no formal schism of the Society of St. Pius X exists. On February 8, 2007, in the German Die Tagespost, the same Cardinal stated “Please accept that I reject the term “ecumenism ad intra.” The bishops, priests and faithful of the Society of St Pius X are not schismatics.” On Italian television channel 5, on November 13, 2005, the same Cardinal publicly stated: “We are not confronted with a heresy. It cannot be said in correct, exact, and precise terms that there is a schism.”

All of these statements were made prior to the nullification in January 2009 by the Vatican of the decree of the Congregation for Bishops claiming Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop de Castro Mayer and the four bishops consecrated by them had excommunicated themselves. The nullification of which clarifies this position even more. If a Catholic is not excommunicated (something never in fact alleged with respect to any cleric of the Society other than the bishops), he is Catholic. The Holy Father has stated that the Society as an institution lacks a legal standing and has an irregular canonical status. These are legal issues of canon law which should be left to the legal authorities to rectify some day. In the interim, the Vatican through the official Pontifical Commission has confirmed on numerous occasions that Catholics may attend Masses offered by the priests of the Society and may not be disciplined (excommunicated) for doing so or even for assisting with arrangements to make the Mass possible. In a letter dated January 18, 2003, the Commission stated (as already mentioned in the entry) that faithful could participate in such a Mass and “this would not be a sin.” The same letter further states: “It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass could be justified.” The same Commission confirmed this conclusion to the Archdiocese of Salzburg in 2006 and clarified that attending Masses offered by the SSPX is not “to be considered a delict punishable under canon law.” In 2008, in a letter to journalist Brian Mershon, the same Commission confirmed its prior advice and stated the faithful could rely upon its advice with docility and moral certitude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThreeDogg (talk • contribs) 19:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

For doctrinal rather than disciplinary reasons - and so not just for "legal issues of canon law" - the SSPX has no canonical status in the Catholic Church. As the Holy Father said concerning his remission of the excommunication of the four bishops of the Society of St. Pius X, "Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers -- even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty -- do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church" (emphases added).

The Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei" has stated, even when it was still headed by Cardinal Castrillón: "The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but suspended, that is prohibited from exercising their priestly functions because they are not properly incardinated in a diocese or religious institute in full communion with the Holy See (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 265) and also because those ordained after the schismatic Episcopal ordinations were ordained by an excommunicated bishop.

"Concretely, this means that the Masses offered by the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are valid, but illicit, i.e., contrary to Canon Law. The Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony, however, require that the priest enjoys the faculties of the diocese or has proper delegation. Since that is not the case with these priests, these sacraments are invalid. It remains true, however, that, if the faithful are genuinely ignorant that the priests of the Society of St. Pius X do not have proper faculty to absolve, the Church supplies these faculties so that the sacrament is valid (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 144).

"While it is true that participation in the Mass at chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute 'formal adherence to the schism' (cf. Ecclesia Dei 5, c), such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a schismatic mentality which separates itself from the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the entire Catholic Church. While we hope and pray for a reconciliation with the Society of St. Pius X, the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei" cannot recommend that members of the faithful frequent their chapels for the reasons which we have outlined above. We deeply regret this situation and pray that soon a reconciliation of the Society of St. Pius X with the Church may come about, but until such time the explanations which we have given remain in force."

See Mass with the Society of St. Pius X. Esoglou (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Esoglou's last quote is the most relevant on this question. According to the RC Church, schism is a severing from the whole body of the Church. Disobedience in itself does not necessarily constitute schism, though it is a symptom of it.The Ecclesia Dei statement recognises that laity may demonstrate varying degrees of adherence to the leadership of the SSPX. For the clergy it is largely a different matter. As a former cleric of the SSPX myself I had to apply for the penalty for formal schism, ie excommunication, to be lifted. Yet even so understood that this was a precaution, in case I had incurred that penalty.Gazzster (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Title

The French article calls this the Fraternité sacerdotale Saint-Pie-X or Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X. Also the official Latin title is Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Pii X which is much the same thing.

Should we change the title for this article? I've always heard it called "Society" and "SSPX" so I'm not too fussed to be honest.

JASpencer (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The French Wikipedia uses the most common name in French, the English Wikipedia uses the most common name in English. Esoglou (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, but isn't the Priestly Fraternity the proper name? I'm fine with it remaining as it is. JASpencer (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAME. Esoglou (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The Lead

The lead is too long, too involved and too specialist. Most of this should be put into the body of the article. As every change seems to get auto reverted could we please have some suggestions as to how this could be done.

JASpencer (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we should hold off for some weeks. Discussions with the Holy See have reached a critical stage. The Society has been asked to give a clear reply by 15 April to certain proposals. There is no certainty that there will be immediate clarity on that date or soon after, but it is more than probable that the content of the present lead, wherever it is put, will soon have to be radically rewritten. Esoglou (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not the point. The lead is too convoluted and most of the text needs to be moved further down the article. JASpencer (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Our attitudes and tastes are different. I prefer to wait the short time until the information there will have to be fundamentally rewritten. You prefer not to wait. Esoglou (talk) 06:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, that's not the point. The fact is that the text within the lead is far too involved for an introduction to the subject. JASpencer (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Not Catholic

This organization is not Catholic, but made up of former Catholics. One only need to follow the precedent set by Jews for Jesus to understand this. Jews for Jesus considers itself as a Jewish organization, but mainstream Judaism doesn't and it is the mainstream opinion that is given in the opening sentence of the article. For example, see [3] 71.206.193.135 (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This isn't analagous to Jews for Jesus as there has not been the rejection from the Catholic community that there has been with Jew For Jesus and the Jewish community. Reversing this. JASpencer (talk) 06:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Why Pius X?

I do not follow why it is named after Pope Pius X? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.123.96.22 (talk) 09:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

just a quick note here, not a sspx member but probably has to do with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_X#Anti-modernism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.93.36.88 (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep. I was a member. They emulate Pius X as a staunch opponent of Modernism, a 19th/early 20th century 'heresy' within the Catholic Church. Even though Pius in his Syllabus attempted to identify it, it is extremely difficult to identify. Indeed, if it really existed as a school of thought at all. 'Modernism' is often used by conservative Catholics as a catch-all term for any idea or practice deemed unorthodox or tending toward unorthodoxy. Thus, St Pius was believed by Lefevre to be the perfect patron for his community.Which is odd, since Pius X was a reforming pope.Gazzster (talk) 04:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite?

Can I suggest a better synthesis of the subtleties of the situation at the moment. I am concerned that at the moment, the article seems a little unbalanced in suggesting that the Society is a left wing organisation which is outside the Catholic Church, and its members are not Catholic. This is not true, simply because of the actions of the Pope in responding to the Society. Yes, the Society has no de jure legitimacy within the Church, but there are a number of de facto things which suggest a more complex situation between the Church and the Society exists. VCW (LordSarnoc) (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Priebke

The society tried to hold a funeral for this Nazi and had to cancel it. http://www.newstimes.com/news/world/article/Priebke-lawyer-calls-off-funeral-amid-protests-4896907.php 96.255.124.231 (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC) I do not think they canceled it. The man was said to have repented of his sins, so no funeral was denied him. 74.90.110.7 (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Broken External Links?

Which external links are broken? I just tested them quickly after noting the hidden categories, etc. All seems to be working just fine. GeorgeDouglass (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Faculties granted by the Holy See

THIS JUST IN: Pope Francis has granted faculties to validly absolve sins to all priests of the SSPX. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/year-of-mercy-jubilee-pope-gives-priests-authority-to-absolve-sin-of-aborti Elizium23 (talk) 17:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130925232346/http://sspx.org/superior_generals_news/2012_general_chapter_statement_7-19-2012.htm to http://www.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/2012_general_chapter_statement_7-19-2012.htm

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

POV issues

The lead in particular is a travesty. I'll give example text with the spin emphasized. (which is a WP:TONE issue, not just an accuracy issue)

"The Society is known as a strong defender and proponent of the Tridentine Mass, along with pious practices, beliefs, customs and religious discipline often associated with the period before the Second Vatican Council."

Defender implies that Catholicism is under attack. Only proponent is neutral. And "pious practices" is blatantly POV with the implication of "we are holier than thou" (literally). "Religious discipline" is also problematic. "Discipline" is used to mean obeying rules, which is obvious POV- contributing to a general message of "modern catholicism is not authentically catholic"- which incidentally they believe.

"Accordingly, the society holds that their effort to preserve the Tridentine Mass as a matter of doctrine, along with its traditionalist pious practices rescued the value of tradition against modernism and the ongoing laxity of Catholic doctrine detrimentally caused by the Second Vatican Council."

That's so biased I emphasized practically all of it. Again the theme is that Catholicism is under attack and they are its protectors. Hell, it even uses "rescue"! And most egregiously, "[rescue] the value of tradition against modernism and the ongoing laxity of Catholic doctrine detrimentally caused by the Second Vatican Council". I don't even know where to start. "the value of tradition against modernism" assumes that the practices they promote are important if not essential to catholicism. "Modernism" itself is biased - quoting the wikipedia page Modernism in the Catholic Church - "Modernists, and what are now termed "neo-modernists", generally do not openly use this label in describing themselves, although traditionalist Catholics continue to use the term." That's not surprising since much of this article was seemingly written by a traditionalist catholic. And finally "ongoing laxity of Catholic doctrine detrimentally caused by the Second Vatican Council". - an explicit "we are the true catholics" followed by "detrimentally", which assumes that the Second Vatican Council was bad for Catholicism. Yes, this odious paragraph is preceded by "the society holds that", but that's hardly a disclaimer since the rest of it directly parrots their rhetoric. Rhetoric should either be balanced by neutral views or put in quotations. A neutral description would be "the society regards modern reforms in the Roman Catholic Church, particularly those made by the Second Vatican Council, as heretical." Or something like that. The lead in general is crap without a single source. It summarizes the history of the society's status with the Catholic Church (in too much detail for a lead) without once mentioning their status with the SPL as a hate group. That is important information. So is the fact that while the society officially recognizes the authority of the Pope it is generally considered a schismatic group. The body of the article is better but still has issues.--Monochrome_Monitor 14:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Glad you picked that up. Agree that the label 'modernist' is one of the traditionalists own making and doesn't really mean anything. Devotions practiced before the Second Vatican Council are still so practiced after the Council. It is better to describe the position of the Society of St Pius X like this: it denies the legitimacy and authority of the Second Vatican Council and of all the liturgical reforms that followed it, especially the reform of the Roman Missal, and refuses in practice to submit to the authority of the pope and the bishops in union with him.Gazzster (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Society of Saint 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0900355.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150129194411/http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080220062727/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071224152526/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ENG1104/__P4W.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4W.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716180753/http://www.adapostolica.org/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=301 to http://www.adapostolica.org/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=301
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1204487.htm

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) 21:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Removing "Citations" warning

I propose to remove the warning regarding citations for verification. Objections? Mazurkazm (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)mazurkazm

Current Canonical Status

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

In the canonical recognition sub-heading, we find this quotation from Benedict XVI: "Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church." That was true when he said it, but it is no longer indicative of the situation. I will lay out my reasoning here, but believe that it is too limited-interest for publication on the page itself.

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

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

For a priest who is not the pastor or bishop of the parties to be designated "competent to assist," it is, therefore, necessary that that priest receive the faculty from the bishop or pastor. That amounts to juridical (canonical) recognition. The letter from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith specifically grants permission to designate SSPX priests competent to assist: "there are no priests in the Diocese able to receive the consent of the parties, the Ordinary may grant the necessary faculties to the priest of the Society who is also to celebrate the Holy Mass" Radio Vaticana; it is further confirmed by the report from Crux which is already linked in the article.

From this I conclude that "the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church" is no longer applicable to the situation, because to assist at marriages is to "exercise [a] ministry in the Church," fully legal according to canon law. This means that they do, in fact, have some (i.e. not full) canonical status in the Church, and therefore that I am correct to edit the section to read that Benedict's statement "has been superseded somewhat by recent recognitions by the Holy See." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazurkazm (talk • contribs) 17:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Let us distinguish between two parts of the statement of Benedict XIV. He says: "Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church." This surely still holds absolutely. He also says: ""Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, ... its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church." This is still true as a general rule, to which could be added: "without prejudice to the authority of a local ordinary to grant a particular priest of the Society the faculty to assist at a particular marriage for which there are no priests in the diocese able to receive the consent of the parties". Rather like the wording of canon 1108 §1: "Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in canons ...."

The general rule enunciated by Benedict XIV admitted exceptions even before the latest decrees. For instance priests of the Society, any and all, had the faculty to grant sacramental absolution to someone in danger of death. That was no reason to consider inapplicable Benedict XIV's statement.

To say: "Owing to the faculties which have been granted for confessions and marriages, therefore, Benedict XVI's 2009 declaration ".." is no longer applicable, because to assist at marriages and hear confessions is to "exercise [a] ministry in the Church" which has been recognized as legal under canon law." is surely excessive. To say so in Wikipedia is altogether excluded, because it is, so far, only original research. Athbheo (talk) 09:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Glad we can talk about this.

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

Owing to the above, it certainly is not excessive (par your third argument) to say that Benedict's statement has been superseded by his successor. The SSPX is aware of it as well, which is why they recently published an article explaining that, because of these concessions, they no longer have to "invoke an extraordinary jurisdiction" for the validity of their marriages and confessions; and that would be precisely because they have been granted ordinary jurisdiction (SSPX). The granting of jurisdiction, though, is synonymous with possessing a ministry in the Church (since a ministry is the exercise of the Munus). I am only reporting a fact when I say that the granting of faculties is a change in the canonical situation.

This means that your first argument, "'Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church.' This surely still holds absolutely," is simply untrue. The doctrinal questions have not yet been clarified, but the Society uncontestably possesses some jurisdiction right now. If they didn't, they could not be delegated "competent to assist" at Catholic marriages anymore than an Orthodox priest can be delegated competent to assist, and their confessions and marriages would, by definition, be considered invalid.Mazurkazm (talk) 02:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC) mazurkazm

Good. And I hope others will also have their say.

I disagree that, if members of an (as yet) unrecognized association have certain limited jurisdiction (power of governance), the association possesses jurisdiction (power of governance). Am I splitting hairs?

For someone in danger of death jurisdiction (power of governance) for absolving is supplied to any priest (SThSupplQ8a6). (Munus is a different concept: to quote Benedict XVI, bishops receive "with episcopal consecration three special offices: the munus docendi, the munus sanctificandi and the munus regendi, which all together constitute the munus pascendi".) The priest, whoever he is, then has jurisdiction (power of governance). The associations, whatever they are, to which he may belong do not.

As you know, canon 144 (on common error) could be seen as giving jurisdiction (power of governance) to SSPX priests hearing confessions even before the grant by Francis (cf. New Commentary).

SSPX priests do not have faculties to assist validly at marriages. In special circumstances (absence of any priest at all in full communion who can assist) a bishop can give faculties for that particular marriage to a particular SSPX priest. So neither individually nor collectively do SSPX priests possess the faculties: they need to obtain it. A particular SSPX priest needs to have them granted him by the bishop, who can grant them but doesn't have to. The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches says that, if an Orthodox priest blesses a mixed (Catholic-Orthodox) marriage involving a party belonging to his Church, the marriage is valid (even if, in the view of the Catholic Church, illicit): the Orthodox priest has no need to request the local Catholic bishop to grant him faculties. (Somewhat similar is the power of a bishop to dispense from the canonical form of marriage and have the marriage celebrated before a Protestant minister who isn't even a priest, and the marriage is then both valid and "legal under canon law".)

Perhaps I should give more time to considering the question, but I trust others will.

In any case, even if your arguments are correct, they are your arguments, not a reporting of what reliable sources say: as original research, they may not be used in Wikipedia. Athbheo (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

I too I'm glad this discussion is going on in such a measured and respectful manner. If I could have my twopence worth here, I would observe the manner in which the faculties to absolve were granted. It was firstly granted in the context of the Year of Mercy and thereafter extended. So it was given by way of an indulgence, not as a right. Also the faculty was not granted to the bishops of the Society as if they were ordinaries. It was given to each and every cleric directly and is dependent entirely on the pope without intermediary. For diocesan priests it is different. They receive their jurisdiction from an ordinary. If a clerical society cannot claim to have an ordinary, nor possess faculties in their right, they cannot claim to exercise a lawful ministry. Pastorally it is a wonderful thing. The faithful can receive absolution in good conscience. It is well to observe though, that doctrinal and pastoral problems and a culture of antisemitism still afflict the society. But progress is being made.Gazzster (talk) 05:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

It would be well, I think, to discuss separately the validity of the arguments used and their alleged character of original research. The question of this alleged character has now been raised at Talk:Canonical situation of the Society of St. Pius X#Original research, and I suggest that discussion on that matter be conducted only there. Naturally, if the arguments are found to be original research, the question of their validity is of no concern to Wikipedia and discussion of it should be ended here and left to forums and the like. Athbheo (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not think that the latest edit, with its IP author's comment, "I made it accurate", improved the text, but even undoing that alone would not be enough. I leave it untouched for the present. Athbheo (talk) 08:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it isn't accurate. As I noted above, the Society of St Pius X does not enjoy ordinary jurisdiction at all. Ordinary jurisdiction is that which is attached by right to an office (canon 131 http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_PF.HTM). In the case of the Sacrament of Reconciliation, jurisdiction is delegated by the Pope.In the case of marriage jurisdiction is again delegated, this time by the diocesan bishop, for the permission to give sspx priests faculties to witness marriages is given to the diocesan bishop, not directly to the Society bishops or priests.Gazzster (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, let's have some fun.

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

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

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

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

Funny enough, Bishop Fellay has been recognized as possessing jurisdiction sui juris over his society (which is all he can have, being the head of a SoAL). That is seen in the CDF naming him as canonical judge in a trial against one of his priests; the case is mentioned in the article, but I think that's enough for now.Mazurkazm (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)mazurkazm

If this gets too deep, I won't participate, unless the question of the admissibility of the results of this original research in Wikipedia is first resolved. Fellay does not have jurisdiction: if for a particular case, which presumably has been completed, he was once granted it, he no longer has it. I'm glad that here you say the opposite of what you seem to say in an original-research edit of the article: that what Benedict said of the Society having "no canonical status in the Church" is no longer exact. There can only be a question of "its ministers" legitimately exercising a ministry in the Church. You seem to confuse the ordinary/delegated distinction of canon 131 with the ordinary/extraordinary distinction employed in SSPX statements, since you say that delegated jurisdiction is ordinary jurisdiction. The jurisdiction that any priest has to absolve someone in danger of death is extraordinary in the latter sense, but ordinary in the first sense: it is not delegated (by an office-holder) but held directly by law. Is an SSPX priest delegated by a bishop to assist in exceptional circumstances at a marriage, or indeed any "normal" priest or deacon delegated to assist at any marriage, granted jurisdiction (potestas regiminis) over the couple getting married? I doubt it.

Decades ago, well before 1973, a priest told me that his canon law professor jokingly said that the four main principles of canon law are: "Lex dubia non obligat", "Favorabilia sunt amplianda, odiosa restringenda", "Ecclesia supplet", and − what was the fourth? I no longer remember. Can anyone help me? Athbheo (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Lex asinus est? (jocular emoticon) Gazzster (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I have not said the opposite of my previous statement. Pope Benedict's 2009 statement said that the Society has no canonical standing, and also that "its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church." I said that this statement has been superseded somewhat, because its ministers do, now, exercise some ministry in the Church, since their marriages and confessions are recognized as valid - which is only possible if they have been given jurisdiction.

I'm sorry, but I must insist that delegated jurisdiction is ordinary jurisdiction. Yes, as a matter of fact, a priest who is not the pastor of either or both of the couple being married does need to go through the paperwork of being delegated jurisdiction. It's quite a headache for a priest who does the weddings of his cousins...

You see, the ones who hold jurisdiction by virtue of their office are precious few. Even a priest does not have any jurisdiction by virtue of his office (though a pastor does). If an SSPX priest were assigned as pastor of a parish, then yes, he would possess ordinary jurisdiction by virtue of his office over his subjects (canon law's term, not mine) in the parish boundaries. Short of that, all jurisdiction is delegated to the priest.

The original research claim is, I think, based on a fundamental problem with this page, but I'll address that in the talk page of that problem. Mazurkazm (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC) mazurkazm

I guess it suffices to say the sspx is a queer beast - an irregular organization whose clerical members do however exercise canonical jurisdiction in certain situations and under certain conditions. I'm not sure we need to get much beyond that in a Wikipedia. article. The Vatican has not declared the surpression of the Society (which remains a surpressed pia unio) invalid or unlawful. Gazzster (talk) 01:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for your help. I'm still learning how to navigate here. Mazurkazm (talk) 02:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC) mazurkazm

I was referring to your true remark, "A society of apostolic life does not receive delegated jurisdiction regarding faculties for the sacraments; only individual men". The SSPX (which is not recognized as a society of apostolic life and never was) has not been given faculties to do anything, and its "canonical irregularity" still persists, as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said a few weeks ago.

In canon law "ordinary jurisdiction" has a specifically defined sense: "The ordinary power of governance is that which is joined to a certain office by the law itself; delegated, that which is granted to a person but not by means of an office" (canon 131 §1). I think that, if in a canon-law context "ordinary jurisdiction" is used in a different sense, the distinction should be made clear. In canon-law terminology, "delegated jurisdiction" is the opposite of "ordinary jurisdiction". The terminology in which "ordinary" means "common", "usual", "normal" is not canonical terminology, and makes nonsense of the canonical term "local ordinary", turning it into "the local ornery dude"!

Not all jurisdiction is "delegated to the priest": many many priests (the majority, I suppose) have jurisdiction that goes with their pastoral office (ordinary jurisdiction in the canonical sense) and is not delegated to them by someone else (delegated jurisdiction in the canonical sense), Even chaplains have jurisdiction by virtue of their office, not because someone has delegated it to them. Athbheo (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

yes, Athbheo, pastors have ordinary jurisdiction by virtue of their office; that is why I said three posts above you that "a priest does not have any jurisdiction by virtue of his office (though a pastor does). If an SSPX priest were assigned as pastor of a parish, then yes, he would possess ordinary jurisdiction by virtue of his office over his subjects (canon law's term, not mine) in the parish boundaries."

But you are incorrect to say that ordinary jurisdiction is only jurisdiction which is such by virtue of the office, even though the wording of canon 131.1 may throw you off. Read a tad further, and you come to canon 131.2, which says that "The ordinary power of governance can be either proper or vicarious." You see, "ordinary" in canon 131 is referring to "ordinary" in the sense of "belonging to the ordinary [e.g. the bishop]." It's this concept which undergirds the resignation of the entire Roman Curia at the election of a new Pope: he is the ordinary, and the Curia is connected to his office; when the office is vacated, so does the power of the vicarious office-holders (though, to avoid inconvenience, the Curia-heads still perform their duties until a new Pope is elected). When we're dealing with ordinary jurisdiction is the sense of a priest hearing confessions, though, we're considering a different concept(if it weren't, then all absolutions and witnessing of marriages by non-bishops would be in the category of extraordinary jurisdiction - yes, even including pastors; plus, at the diocesan-level, every priest would have to be "re-instated" as confessors and marry-ers at the appointment of a new bishop, just like the vicar general of the diocese does by the incoming ordinary).

This is why, commenting on canon 131, Ghirlanda (the general-editor of the Code) mentions only "The Roman Pontiff, College of Bishops, diocesan bishops" in reference to ordinary power held by virtue of their office, and "vicar - general or episcopal - official, vicar of a general-moderator of an institute of consecrated life" in reference to delegated power (Il Diritto nella Chiesa Mistero di Comunione, 557 - my translation). In the section of his commentary dealing with the Sacrament of Penance, however, he places under the heading ordinary form: "They enjoy the ordinary faculty to assist [be present] at matrimony: the ordinary of the place... the pastor of the place... the parochial administrator, or another who assumes in his person governance of the parish. The ordinary of the place and the pastor, when they validly exercise their office, may, within the confines of their territory, delegate the faculty, even general, to assist at marriages, to [other] priests and deacons" (Ibid, 464-465). He cites canon 1111. That is delegated, ordinary jurisdiction/faculty (not extraordinary jurisdiction, as you currently have erroneously edited). The extraordinary faculty is supplied by the Church (one of Gazzster's favorite phrases), in spite of some deficit (Ghirlanda cites 144). Examples of this would be: there is no priest with the ordinary faculty in the area, there is danger of death, something required by law was omitted out of ignorance, etc.

I'm sorry to say this, Athbheo, but I must discourage you from continuing to edit on points that touch on canon law, because I am concerned that you do not have an adequate grasp of the concepts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazurkazm (talk • contribs) 04:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't in fact see what you say I see: 'You see, "ordinary" in canon 131 is referring to "ordinary" in the sense of "belonging to the ordinary [e.g. the bishop]."' In fact, I disagree. Canon 131 says that ordinary power of governance (I am here using "ordinary" only in the canonical sense) can be either proper (as the power of a diocesan bishop over his diocese) or vicarious (as, I suppose, the power of an apostolic administrator over the diocese entrusted to him or that of a vicar apostolic over his vicariate; a clear express instance is the power of the ordinary of a personal ordinariate, which is specified as "ordinary, vicarious and personal"). Each has power, proper or vicarious, in virtue of his office, and which is thus ordinary power, not delegated power. There are lots and lots of priests who have canon-131 ordinary (proper or vicarious) non-delegated power of governance (for instance, as you say, the pastor of a parish, to whom someone may perhaps also give some delegated power as well), but the canon-134 ordinaries (local or non-local) are much fewer.

A vicar general clearly has ordinary power; just as clearly that same power is vicarious power. In particular cases someone may in addition give him delegated power, which he may perhaps subdelegate. Athbheo (talk) 08:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

It is confusing, I know, but you're being thrown off by the fact that canon 131 is speaking of governance in the executive sense, not the sanctifying sense. This is why it is important to be familiar with a couple of commentaries. I have to point out again to you that there is a difference between jurisdiction which is granted to a vicar general and that which a pastor possesses. Canon 131 is speaking of the former; that is why canon 134 defines the people which canon 131 intends: In addition to the Roman Pontiff, by the title of ordinary are understood in the law diocesan bishops and others who, even if only temporarily, are placed offer [sic] some particular church or a community equivalent to it according to the norm of ⇒ can. 368 as well as those who possess general ordinary executive power in them, namely, vicars general and episcopal vicars; likewise, for their own members, major superiors of clerical religious institutes of pontifical right and of clerical societies of apostolic life of pontifical right who at least possess ordinary executive power" (C. 134). Do you see pastors anywhere on that list, Athbheo? Before you get hopeful about those words "others who... are placed over some particular church," use that link to can. 368; a particular church means a diocese or the equivalent. That is because canon 131 is speaking of "general ordinary executive power," (C. 314) not, as you say "ordinary (proper or vicarious non-delegated power of governance." The powers of the pastor are rather confusingly also described in places as ordinary, but not in the executive sense as it is in canon 131. For the ordinary faculties of the pastor, you'd have to go much further into the canons that talk about the ministers of the sacraments (for example, c. 1111.1).

The moral of the story is that delegated power in the sanctifying sense is ordinary power (e.g. canon 1111; a priest who is not the couple's pastor who receives the ordinary faculty to witness a marriage). It is only in the executive sense that delegated power is non-ordinary (e.g. canon 131, a vicar general).

I am disappointed that you are continuing to post on this topic, even though you have demonstrated a severe lack of knowledge on the subject. This is Wikipedia's great weakness, I suppose; the assumption of epistemic peerage.Mazurkazm (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)mazurkazm

Let's see what the commentaries do say, in particular what Ghirlanda says.

You say: "Canon 131 is speaking of governance in the executive sense". Ghirlanda (Il Diritto nella Chiesa Mistero di Comunione 581, p. 559) says canon 131 speaks not only of executive power, but also of legislative and judicial power: "La potestà legislativa di cui gode il legislatore al di sotto dell'autorità suprema può essere validamente delegata solo se ciò è disposto esplicitamente dal diritto (c. 135, §2); in linea di principio, allora, anche questa può essere delegata […] Quella giudiziale può essere delegata solo per eseguire gli atti preparatori di un qualsiasi decreto o sentenza (§3). Quella esecutiva può essere delegata a norma del c. 137 (§4)." He is only saying what the Code itself says in canon 135.

You ask: "Do you see pastors anywhere on that list [the list of ordinaries as defined by canon 134]?" and you interpret that canon as saying that pastors do not have ordinary power. You should instead read Ghirlanda 578: "[Gli «ordinari» i]n genere sono tutti i titolari di un ufficio che comporta una potestà ordinaria in qualche modo assimilabile a quella episcopale, quindi non tutti coloro che hanno potestà ordinaria sono detti ordinari." In virtue of his office, not because someone has delegated power to him (can. 131), a pastor (cf. Ghirlanda 112, p. 154) or a non-major religious superior (cf. Ghirlanda 186, p. 247) has ordinary executive power over his parish or religious house, but he is not an ordinary (can. 134), because his ordinary power is not general but is limited to his parish or religious house.

On your own authority you say: "Canon 131 is speaking of governance ... not in the sanctifying sense". Ghirlanda nowhere speaks of "governance in the sanctifying sense" (governo nel senso di santificazione?). He does, of course, speak of the power of sanctifying ("potestà di santificazione"): "Il Codice dà una disciplina che indica l'opzione dottrinale che la potestà di governo non ha origine, come quella di santificazione, nel sacramento dell'ordine, in quanto essa può essere esercitata anche da laici (cc. 129, §1; 1421, §2). Questo viene confermato, come dicevo sopra, dal fatto che della potestà di governo non si tratta nel libro II sotto il titolo dei ministri sacri o chierici, come nel CIC 1917, ma nel libro I, che vale per tutti i fedeli senza distinzione" (Introduzione al diritto ecclesiale, p. 144). He distinguishes between potestà di santificazione sacramentale and simple potestà di santificazione and between potestà di santificazione d'ordine and not d'ordine. All forms of potestà di santificazione, unless d'ordine, can be exercised by laity (Il Diritto nella Chiesa Mistero di Comunione 285, pp. 341–342)

In line with what Ghirlanda says, assistance at a marriage (where the ministers of the sacrament are the couple themselves, not the assistant) does not require holy orders: under certain circumstances a bishop can "delegate" lay persons (male or female) to assist canonically at marriages (canon 1112). Just as under certain circumstances a bishop can delegate ("grant the faculty to") an SSPX priest to do so. What is the nature of the power that the bishop thus delegates? Not "governance in the sanctifying sense" (whatever that is supposed to mean). Is it sanctifying power? The lay person or the SSPX priest is the one who "is present, asks for the manifestation of the consent of the contracting parties, and receives it in the name of the Church" (canon 1108 §2). The sanctifying is done by the couple, the function of the qualified witness is executive (cf. Ghirlanda 285, p. 342). Obviously, the power that the delegated person has is not canonical-ordinary power: the delegated person possesses the power not in virtue of being a lay person or of being an SSPX priest, but in virtue of being "delegated" by the bishop.

You say: "The powers of the pastor are rather confusingly also described in places as ordinary, but not in the executive sense as it is in canon 131. For the ordinary faculties of the pastor, you'd have to go much further into the canons that talk about the ministers of the sacraments (for example, c. 1111.1)." Yes, much further. By definition, a pastor has power of governance over his parish. He can make binding decisions. He has "subjects" (canon 1109), He can dispense from certain laws or commute the obligation (canon 1245). There is nothing "confusing" about the description of the essential executive and sanctifying powers of the pastor as ordinary, not delegated. He has these powers because he is the pastor, not because someone delegates them to him. He can also have delegated powers: for instance, if another pastor delegates him to assist at a marriage in that other pastor's territory. The other pastor's act of delegation is what gives him power, delegated power, to assist at that marriage. In spite of what you say, the delegated pastor does not possess ordinary power to assist canonically in another's territory: only the local pastor possesses ordinary power to do that, i.e., power granted him, by virtue of his office as the local pastor, by law (by canon 1108), and which he may delegate (the word used in the canon 1111 §1 that you cite) to another.

You yourself wrote on 22 April: "Pastors have ordinary jurisdiction by virtue of their office; that is why I said three posts above you that 'a priest does not have any jurisdiction by virtue of his office (though a pastor does). If an SSPX priest were assigned as pastor of a parish, then yes, he would possess ordinary jurisdiction by virtue of his office over his subjects (canon law's term, not mine) in the parish boundaries.'" You rightly said then, in line with canon 131 §1, that pastors have ordinary power (by virtue of their office, not delegated). As things stand at present, the power that SSPX priests have is delegated. It is hard to see why you changed your mind.

Of course, I by no means deny that "ordinary" is sometimes used in canon law to mean "non-extraordinary": take the distinction between ordinary and extraordinary administration, between ordinary and extraordinary ministers, between ordinary and extraordinary forms. But in relation to possession of canonical powers, the only meaning the Code attaches to "ordinary" is "non-delegated", a meaning that it defines quite clearly. Athmharbh (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Society of Saint 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130116185834/http://www.adl.org/main_Interfaith/Society_Saint_Pius_X.htm to http://www.adl.org/main_Interfaith/Society_Saint_Pius_X.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928040757/http://www.angelusonline.org/print.php?sid=831 to http://www.angelusonline.org/print.php?sid=831

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) 03:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)