SSPX: A Look at Issues with the Unity in the RCC

[Damien the Leper]

Unauthorized Ordinations

The Society of St. Pius X (referred to as SSPX for abbreviation) is set to ordain 4 bishops that are not authorized by the authorities of the Church. I am interested in hearing from my Catholic, Orthodox and LDS brothers and sisters on how this is a troubling scenario or not at all. 

For me, I seek building bridges and unity despite our grievances. Decades later, Vatican II is still a difficult subject.

Thoughts?

Edited yesterday at 06:46 AM by Damien the Leper

[3DOP]

2 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

Unauthorized Ordinations

The Society of St. Pius X (referred to as SSPX for abbreviation) is set to ordained 4 bishops that are not authorized by the authorities of the Church. I am interested in hearing from my Catholic, Orthodox and LDS brothers and sisters on how this is a troubling scenario or not at all. 

For me, I seek building bridges and unity despite our grievances. Decades later, Vatican II is still a difficult subject.

Thoughts?

Damien! How are you?

I was associated with the Society for 18 years until I became convinced they were mistaken about their interpretation of events in the Church that followed the Second Vatican Council.

So for personal reasons, I greatly regret that it appears there will be an extension of the schism. I have family, friends, and priests here in America who I've known and love that are affected by it. That in turn affects me. 

As time goes on, it will have to be recognized that Archbishop LeFebvre's vision 38 years ago when he consecrated four bishops was short-sighted. He always had faith that Rome would soon come to its senses so to speak, renouncing the Council and abrogating the New Mass. He didn't understand that God was moving the Church forward. The Church is not merely universal geographically, but also chronologically. She will always be growing and developing until her time is up. Her movement is ordinarily so slow that in a lifetime, it is barely observable. Our era is experiencing growing pains. But the phenomenon itself should not be troubling to any faithful Catholic.   

This morning I heard a podcast where a British theologian explained the problem with "archaeologism". This is the idea that the Church can be static, never changing after a certain point. I doubt that LeFebvre would have accepted the label, but it seems apt to me. The aged Archbishop always justified his illicit actions by pointing out that that he was merely doing what he had always done, only before the Church commended him, and in his later years condemned him.   

I hope you are doing well Damien. It is good to hear from you.

God bless you,

Rory

Edited Wednesday at 09:56 AM by 3DOP

[ZealouslyStriving]

8 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Damien! How are you?

I was associated with the Society for 18 years until I became convinced they were mistaken about their interpretation of events in the Church that followed the Second Vatican Council.

So for personal reasons, I greatly regret that it appears there will be an extension of the schism. I have family, friends, and priests here in America who I've known and love that are affected by it. That in turn affects me. 

As time goes on, it will have to be recognized that Archbishop LeFebvre's vision 38 years ago when he consecrated four bishops was short-sighted. He always had faith that Rome would soon come to its senses so to speak, renouncing the Council and abrogating the New Mass. He didn't understand that God was moving the Church forward. The Church is not merely universal geographically, but also chronologically. She will always be growing and developing until her time is up. Her movement is ordinarily so slow that in a lifetime, it is barely observable. Our era is experiencing growing pains. But the phenomenon itself should not be troubling to any faithful Catholic.   

This morning I heard a podcast where a British theologian explained the problem with "archaeologism". This is the idea that the Church can be static, never changing after a certain point. I doubt that LeFebvre would have accepted the label, but it seems apt to me. The aged Archbishop always justified his illicit actions by pointing out that that he was merely doing what he had always done, only before the Church commended him, and in his later years condemned him.   

I hope you are doing well Damien. It is good to hear from you.

God bless you,

Rory

Are you going to tell them that it is the traditionalist dioceses and orders that are experiencing the most growth and ordaining the most new clerics?

How does that fit with you implication that they are just stuck in the past while the modern church looks to a brighter tomorrow?

[3DOP]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Are you going to tell them that it is the traditionalist dioceses and orders that are experiencing the most growth and ordaining the most new clerics?

How does that fit with you implication that they are just stuck in the past while the modern church looks to a brighter tomorrow?

Zealously Striving??? This is great, a Latter-day Saint with an interest AND some knowledge about contemporary Catholic issues. Thank you for your reply to my thoughts about whether or not this event today presents a "troubling scenario", presumably to Catholics. I had a little concern that the subject might fail to meet the bar of qualification for General Discussions, because I expected about zero interest from non-Catholics.

Question 1) I try, without always succeeding, to not to tell people my thoughts until I am asked. If the SSPX asked me, I could truthfully say that in my opinion "the traditionalist dioceses and orders...are experiencing the most growth and ordaining the most new clerics." But I would know ahead of time that this would not be acknowledged by the SSPX. These same dioceses and religious orders that are thriving would not be acceptable as being traditional by the SSPX. The reason is that these traditionalists, as you and I would label them are infected with errors of Vatican II, and teach that one may fulfill their obligations for Sunday worship at a liturgy that is described as "fatal poison."      

Question 2) I did not anticipate anyone here objecting to my comments above as implying that I might disapprove of being "stuck in the past". In the interest of brevity, I focussed only on the Society's resistance to legitimate progress in the Church in the form of an Ecumenical Council. I am happy to say that the Church and her members must always be "stuck in the past". Tradition means to pass on what we have received. It is never permissible to dismiss once defined dogma in the interest of progress alone.

Pope Benedict XVI used the expression, "hermeneutic of continuity", to describe the relationship that exists between the past and the future. The Church may only be said to have taught corruption, if she claims to have discovered new insights, without a demonstration of how this claim of a new insight has a firm footing in the past. We cannot change what has been taught before, but we can and must have proper developmental insight into the mysteries of our faith. This is how Church doctrine has always advanced through the centuries beginning with the Second Ecumenical Council at Nicea in 325 AD.

------

I am delighted to see a Latter-day Saint who has apparent sympathy with the situation of the Society of St. Pius X like I do. No one is perfect, but they are mostly wonderful people who enjoy a beautifully celebrated liturgy by priests who are wise in the ways of Catholic Tradition except for one thing. It is not Catholic Tradition to resist the teaching of an Ecumenical Council that six consecutive popes have approved. They could do so much more good for the Church if they were not so obstinate. They deplore practices that more and more Catholics are starting to deplore. The weapon against ugly churches, removal of beautiful statuary, guitar Masses, and other abuses is ironically, the instructions given in Vatican II on rules about beauty and truth in the Sanctuary. The weapon against "ecumaniacal" craziness, where Catholic representatives behave and act like all religions are equal is found in the teaching of Vatican II on our relations with other churches.

I was glad to see your questions, ZS. I hope I have managed to shared a little more enthusiasm in this post for remaining rooted in the past while also moving forward through time. Time, past and present, provide the tension through which good and positive progress is made in developing the deposit of the faith. Do not hesitate to ask if you have any further questions. It seems important to me that friendly non-Catholics might understand a little of what has been happening in the Catholic Church for the last 60 years.

Regards,

Rory  

Edited Wednesday at 08:27 PM by 3DOP

[Damien the Leper]

10 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Damien! How are you?

I was associated with the Society for 18 years until I became convinced they were mistaken about their interpretation of events in the Church that followed the Second Vatican Council.

So for personal reasons, I greatly regret that it appears there will be an extension of the schism. I have family, friends, and priests here in America who I've known and love that are affected by it. That in turn affects me. 

As time goes on, it will have to be recognized that Archbishop LeFebvre's vision 38 years ago when he consecrated four bishops was short-sighted. He always had faith that Rome would soon come to its senses so to speak, renouncing the Council and abrogating the New Mass. He didn't understand that God was moving the Church forward. The Church is not merely universal geographically, but also chronologically. She will always be growing and developing until her time is up. Her movement is ordinarily so slow that in a lifetime, it is barely observable. Our era is experiencing growing pains. But the phenomenon itself should not be troubling to any faithful Catholic.   

This morning I heard a podcast where a British theologian explained the problem with "archaeologism". This is the idea that the Church can be static, never changing after a certain point. I doubt that LeFebvre would have accepted the label, but it seems apt to me. The aged Archbishop always justified his illicit actions by pointing out that that he was merely doing what he had always done, only before the Church commended him, and in his later years condemned him.   

I hope you are doing well Damien. It is good to hear from you.

God bless you,

Rory

Thank you for your insight, Rory. I hope all is well with you. I agree with you. Archeaologism does seem appropriate. LeFebvre, to me, would push back against the descriptor more out of stubbornness.

[ZealouslyStriving]

38 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Zealously Striving??? This is great, a Latter-day Saint with an interest AND some knowledge about contemporary Catholic issues. Thank you for your reply to my thoughts about whether or not this event today presents a "troubling scenario", presumably to Catholics. I had a little concern that the subject might fail to meet the bar of qualification for General Discussions, because I expected about zero interest from non-Catholics.

Question 1) I try, without always succeeding, to not to tell people my thoughts until I am asked. If the SSPX asked me, I could truthfully say that in my opinion "the traditionalist dioceses and orders...are experiencing the most growth and ordaining the most new clerics." But I would know ahead of time that this would not be acknowledged by the SSPX. These same dioceses and religious orders that are thriving would not be acceptable as being traditional by the SSPX. The reason is that these traditionalists, as you and I would label them are infected with errors of Vatican II, and teach that one may fulfill their obligations for Sunday worship at a liturgy that is described as "fatal poison."      

Question 2) I did not anticipate anyone here objecting to my comments above as implying that I might disapprove of being "stuck in the past". In the interest of brevity, I focussed only on the Society's resistance to legitimate progress in the Church in the form of an Ecumenical Council. I am happy to say that the Church and her members must always be "stuck in the past". Tradition means to pass on what we have received. It is never permissible to dismiss once defined dogma in the interest of progress alone.

Pope Benedict XVI used the expression, "hermeneutic of continuity", to describe the relationship that exists between the past and the future. The Church may only be said to have taught corruption, if she claims to have discovered new insights, without a demonstration of how this claim of a new insight has a firm footing in the past. We cannot change what has been taught before, but we can and must have proper developmental insight into the mysteries of our faith. This is how Church doctrine has always advanced through the centuries beginning with the Second Ecumenical Council at Nicea in 325 AD.

------

I am delighted to see a Latter-day Saint who has apparent sympathy with the situation of the Society of St. Pius X like I do. No one is perfect, but they are mostly wonderful people who enjoy a beautifully celebrated liturgy by priests who are wise in the ways of Catholic Tradition except for one thing. It is not Catholic Tradition to resist the teaching of an Ecumenical Council that six consecutive popes have approved. They could do so much more good for the Church if they were not so obstinate. They deplore practices that more and more Catholics are starting to deplore. The weapon against ugly churches, removal of beautiful statuary, guitar Masses, and other abuses is ironically, the instructions given in Vatican II on rules about beauty and truth in the Sanctuary. The weapon against "ecumaniacal" craziness, where Catholic representatives behave and act like all religions are equal is found in the teaching of Vatican II on our relations with other churches.

I was glad to see your questions, ZS. I hope I have managed to shared a little more enthusiasm in this post for remaining rooted in the past while also moving forward through time. Time, past and present, provide the tension through which good and positive progress is made in developing the deposit of the faith. Do not hesitate to ask if you have any further questions. It seems important to me that friendly non-Catholics might understand a little of what has been happening in the Catholic Church for the last 60 years.

Regards,

Rory  

I watch enough "Return to Tradition" to sound like I kind of know what I am talking about. 🤣

I will need to reread your post to pick up on all you are saying, right now I'm preparing for work.

But briefly..

He mentions Cannon Law 4 (?)(sorry) that states they can ordain if they sincerely feel the Church is in a state of emergency- whether they are correct or not in their sincere feelings.

Could you speak to why/why not he is incorrect in his interpretation?

[3DOP]

5 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I watch enough "Return to Tradition" to sound like I kind of know what I am talking about. 🤣

I will need to reread your post to pick up on all you are saying, right now I'm preparing for work.

But briefly..

He mentions Cannon Law 4 (?)(sorry) that states they can ordain if they sincerely feel the Church is in a state of emergency- whether they are correct or not in their sincere feelings.

Could you speak to why/why not he is incorrect in his 

Amazing. I don't follow Anthony. I get him on my feed now and then. But I agree with what he points out that is wrong.

I will try to answer tomorrow. You have to go to work? Maybe you are a Euro or Australio? I always worked crazy American hours. Retired now. I like sleeping in the dark. I like being awake in the daytime. I might have worked as much in the dark as I did in the light. For years, I used to yearn for the sun to come up. I still get angry when Congress throws night workers like I was an extra unnatural hour of dark every March. The sun was gradually coming back at an increasing pace after winter. How cool. I love the sun. I have missed you. Good to see you. American Congress says: Oh let's just send them back to January...abruptly...never mind how it screws them up and the cows on the dairy...it saves 💰 🤑 💸. 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 03:02 AM by 3DOP

[ZealouslyStriving]

52 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Amazing. I don't follow Anthony. I get him on my feed now and then. But I agree with what he points out that is wrong.

I will try to answer tomorrow. You have to go to work? Maybe you are a Euro or Australio? I always worked crazy American hours. Retired now. I like sleeping in the dark. I like being awake in the daytime. I might have worked as much in the dark as I did in the light. For years, I used to yearn for the sun to come up. I still get angry when Congress throws night workers like I was an extra unnatural hour of dark every March. The sun was gradually coming back at an increasing pace after winter. How cool. I love the sun. I have missed you. Good to see you. American Congress says: Oh let's just send them back to January...abruptly...never mind how it screws them up and the cows on the dairy...it saves 💰 🤑 💸. 

 

 

West Coast time of USA- swing shift 3:30-11:30 finally (I did over a year of graveyard 😴)

[Damien the Leper]

Rory! Sedevacantists are fun and a little nutty. 

[Tony uk]

As part of the Second Vatican council, the members of the 'RCC' are called to be open to other Christian Churches (Ecumenical). Also to people of other faiths. I consider myself to be open to other people, my own opinion, not someone else.

 My own concern regarding the excamunication. How can the Church expect the members to be open and welcoming to others, when it is closing doors on those within the Church. When constructing a building, you start with the foundations and move outward. Perhaps the church could use that thought, before any knee jerk reaction.

[3DOP]

18 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I watch enough "Return to Tradition" to sound like I kind of know what I am talking about. 🤣

I will need to reread your post to pick up on all you are saying, right now I'm preparing for work.

But briefly..

He mentions Cannon Law 4 (?)(sorry) that states they can ordain if they sincerely feel the Church is in a state of emergency- whether they are correct or not in their sincere feelings.

Could you speak to why/why not he is incorrect in his interpretation?

My post was almost finished when I must have been behaving like a robot because I had to prove that I was not. When I came back, my reply was gone. So disheartening.

Short answer. Yes. I believe and hope that is correct.

Maybe later I can try to recover my thoughts. 

Edited yesterday at 03:26 PM by 3DOP

[3DOP]

 

 

 

 

 

 

“The ‘modernist church’ is a desert that kills everything that it touches,” Goldade said at a service after the ordinations. (from CNN)

 

The Society makes sweeping statements like Bp. Goldade above. The New Mass characterized as "fatal poison" is another one of them.  The Society admits that there is nothing heretical in the New Mass. Certain truths that they say are missing are why it is not heretical, and is valid, but still poison. We know that many truths about the Eucharist developed over centuries and were probably missing from the earliest liturgies. I suspect that if the same standards were applied to the First Mass of Christ on Holy Thursday and the first liturgies of the Apostles, that they too, might be poisonous. Are we sure that these early liturgies listed all the articles of sacramental theology needed to avoid turning a valid Eucharist into deadly poison? What about all the other valid liturgies of the East that have never been scrutinized by the Society? Can we be sure that they are not poison?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MiserereNobis]

I attended an SSPX chapel 15 years ago or so for about 2 years. My main reason was the liturgy: the Traditional Latin Mass is beautiful and conveys Catholic truth beautifully. I was part of the Schola (the group that performs the chants for the Mass) for awhile and really enjoyed that. I made some friends, but never fully participated in parish life because I lived an hour away. 
 

I did not get involved in their controversies. I fully believed that Vatican II and its documents were valid. The problem was implementation, and frankly many parts of the documents are ignored and even contradicted by current church practices. For example, the document on liturgy says that vernacular may be used but Latin should be retained and that Gregorian chant holds “pride of place.” About the only place you can find Gregorian chant is at a Traditional Latin Mass, however. 

Quick note to non-Catholics: The Traditional Latin Mass is different in more than language. I took an acquaintance once, a devout Catholic who had never been nor studied it, and he said it felt like a different religious service altogether. 
 

Traditionalists would call me “smells and bells” (incense and the ringing of the bells at the consecration of the Host) because I loved the beauty of the liturgy but did not subscribe to the underlying “dogmas” of the SSPX. 
 

The bishop of the diocese realized he had many many Catholics who wanted the traditional liturgy and that the SSPX was “poaching” them. So he wisely invited the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP) to set up shop in an old beautiful church. This society was formed in 1988 when the SSPX did their first illicit consecration of bishops. A group of SSPX priests disagreed with the break from the pope and so formed it with with papal approval and are in full communion with the pope. When they showed up, I switched to them. 

Edited 19 hours ago by MiserereNobis

[ZealouslyStriving]

To our Catholic friends:

Do you believe that today's excommunication of the entire SSPX, including the attached laity, was  warranted?

Do you believe the attached laity will confirm to Rome to avoid the penalty or stand with SSPX?

Could this become the biggest crisis since the Protestant Reformation?

 

[3DOP]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

To our Catholic friends:

Do you believe that today's excommunication of the entire SSPX, including the attached laity, was  warranted?

Do you believe the attached laity will confirm to Rome to avoid the penalty or stand with SSPX?

Could this become the biggest crisis since the Protestant Reformation?

 

Question one: Yes. But it should be remembered that the schismatic act itself, even if it was done in secret, would bring the same result. Nobody except the willing participants experience the automatic condemnation. 

Question two: No. I don't believe that many of those laypeople affiliated with the Society fully understand what is happening. Or the bishops and priests either. There are good hearts and good will mixed with scandal and misplaced blame. There will be a continued trickle of souls seeing the light. We can hope for the souls of the excommunicated. Not all ignorance of truth is culpable. Our God is just, good, and loving. Let God judge.

Question Three: I would answer in the negative. There is one SSPX chapel between where I live in Kansas and the next priory in Idaho. It seems omnipresent almost here in St Marys, KS. But most Catholics have never even heard of the SSPX. Rightly so.

The Church is moving on. There are not even a million lay people associated with the Society. There are very encouraging signs that true tradition is once more gaining traction in the Church which is obedient to the successor of St. Peter.

My opinions only...

 

 

Edited 12 hours ago by 3DOP

[Damien the Leper]

3 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Question one: Yes. But it should be remembered that the schismatic act itself, even if it was done in secret, would bring the same result. Nobody except the willing participants experience the automatic condemnation. 

Question two: No. I don't believe that many of those laypeople affiliated with the Society fully understand what is happening. Or the bishops and priests either. There are good hearts and good will mixed with scandal and misplaced blame. There will be a continued trickle of souls seeing the light. We can hope for the souls of the excommunicated. Not all ignorance of truth is culpable. Our God is just, good, and loving. Let God judge.

Question Three: I would answer in the negative. There is one SSPX chapel between where I live in Kansas and the next priory in Idaho. It seems omnipresent almost here in St Marys, KS. But most Catholics have never even heard of the SSPX. Rightly so.

The Church is moving on. There are not even a million lay people associated with the Society. There are very encouraging signs that true tradition is once more gaining traction in the Church which is obedient to the successor of St. Peter.

My opinions only...

 

 

I am in 100% agreement with you. You answered better than I could.

[webbles]

In the explanatory letter from the Vatican (https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2026/07/02/0568/01078.html), it says:

Quote

Finally, the holy People of God is warned that the sacred ministers of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X unlawfully administer the sacraments and that the sacrament of penance administered by them and the marriage they assist are invalid.

Does that mean that any laypeople who get married by these excommunicated priests/bishops would have to get remarried by a non-excommunicated priest for the church to accept it?

What does it mean that the sacrament of penance is invalid?  Would a layperson have to redo it?  What if they don't redo it?

And what about other sacrements, like baptism and eucharist?