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

[MiserereNobis]

LDS friends,

We've had a couple of these threads over the years, where Rory, me, Damien the Leper, and other Catholics discuss Catholic issues on your board.

I just want to say thank you for letting us have a thread or two here and there when there are things that we wish to discuss in our religion, even though it is barely tangential to Mormonism (I use that term to encompass LDS teaching, practice, doctrine, and culture).

Though I did enjoy Rory's half-joking idea that the SSPX are the Catholic version of restorationists  

Thanks!

Edited Saturday at 04:02 AM by MiserereNobis

[ZealouslyStriving]

36 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

LDS friends,

We've had a couple of these threads over the years, where Rory, me, Damien the Leper, and other Catholics discuss Catholic issues on your board.

I just want to say thank you for letting us have a thread or two here and there when there are things that we wish to discuss in our religion, even though it is barely tangential to Mormonism (I use that term to encompass LDS teaching, practice, doctrine, and culture).

Though I did enjoy Rory's half-joking idea that the SSPX are the Catholic version of restorationists  

Thanks!

We like Catholics- you're cool with us.

Now Calvinists.... 😬

[3DOP]

56 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I totally agree that the new mass isn't intrinsically irreverent. When priests follow the Vatican II documents, we're all good  Do you remember when Pope Benedict XVI celebrated the Novus Ordo in Latin, ad orientam, chant, "smells and bells" and all?

Sounds like you have a wonderful parish. Slow moves, as is the Catholic way.

(But I'll still stick with FSSP  )

If the FSSP was a mile away, that is where I would be.

I don't recall Pope Benedict doing the Novus Ordo in Latin. When one of my sons was married, it was an all Latin Novus Ordo, with a presiding Norbertine priest. His wife was Novus Ordo with three sisters in a Norbertine convent. That seems like good fruit rather than "fatal poison". But my son's wife, along with my son, has subsequently converted to the Society with my seven grandchildren. Most of my children grew up with a frequent Latin Novus Ordo. 

I am more than okay with the Fraternity and their official positions. But I know the father of a Fraternity priest, who if I recall correctly, indicated he would go to the Society before he would go to a diocesan New Mass. Maybe some in the Fraternity believe in this deadly poison rhetoric? 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Now Calvinists.... 😬

You can’t blame them. Irresistible grace is irresistible.

[longview]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You can’t blame them. Irresistible grace is irresistible.

NO. Rigid grace is inflexible and unjust. No room for the process of repentance.

[Damien the Leper]

On 7/3/2026 at 9:01 PM, MiserereNobis said:

LDS friends,

We've had a couple of these threads over the years, where Rory, me, Damien the Leper, and other Catholics discuss Catholic issues on your board.

I just want to say thank you for letting us have a thread or two here and there when there are things that we wish to discuss in our religion, even though it is barely tangential to Mormonism (I use that term to encompass LDS teaching, practice, doctrine, and culture).

Though I did enjoy Rory's half-joking idea that the SSPX are the Catholic version of restorationists  

Thanks!

I'd like to also extend my thanks. I haven't been Catholic as long as Rory and Jesse but my gratitude is the same. I don't frequent the board as much anymore because I find I have very little, if anything, to contribute to LDS topics. I'm an outsider looking in. On a positive note: I just had my 6 year anniversary of conversion last moth! Woot woot!

[3DOP]

40 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

I'd like to also extend my thanks. I haven't been Catholic as long as Rory and Jesse but my gratitude is the same. I don't frequent the board as much anymore because I find I have very little, if anything, to contribute to LDS topics. I'm an outsider looking in. On a positive note: I just had my 6 year anniversary of conversion last moth! Woot woot!

Thanks for starting the thread Damien. Unless they have further questions, I am satisfied. I would have felt a little bit disapointed if this event went completely unnoticed. I was looking at "In the News" all last week to see if anybody LDS had been watching mainstream news. Our LDS hosts are very good to us, as has been expressed by my fellow Catholics.

Rory

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

e: I just had my 6 year anniversary of conversion last moth! Woot woot!

Congratulations.  It is good to find a home where one feels one belongs.  

[ZealouslyStriving]

8 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Thanks for starting the thread Damien. Unless they have further questions, I am satisfied. I would have felt a little bit disapointed if this event went completely unnoticed. I was looking at "In the News" all last week to see if anybody LDS had been watching mainstream news. Our LDS hosts are very good to us, as has been expressed by my fellow Catholics.

Rory

(YouTube probably thinks I am trad Catholic now! 😄)

I have another one (or more)...

RTT and Preconciliar Radio have made the point several times that not even the Orthodox received as harsh a punishment when y'all split back in the day (1052?)

1) How would you justify to those observing the harshness of punishment of the SSPX (who acknowledge Rome and pray for the current Pope in their liturgy) compared to the Orthodox (who are pretty much the OG sedevacanists)?

2) How would you answer their argument that Cardinal Tucho Fernandez is unqualified, as a heretic, to issue this excommunication due to his previous statement that all men are saved (a view we LDS can appreciate)?

3) Is this excommunication further evidence that liberals (who say they preach love and tolerance) are just as, or more, dogmatic and unyielding in forcing their worldview on others as they accuse conservatives of being?

[3DOP]

6 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

(YouTube probably thinks I am trad Catholic now! 😄)

I have another one (or more

RTT and Preconciliar Radio have made the point several times that not even the Orthodox received as harsh a punishment when y'all split back in the day (1052?)

1) How would you justify to those observing the harshness of punishment of the SSPX (who acknowledge Rome and pray for the current Pope in their liturgy) compared to the Orthodox (who are pretty much the OG sedevacanists)?

2) How would you answer their argument that Cardinal Tucho Fernandez is unqualified, as a heretic, to issue this excommunication due to his previous statement that all men are saved (a view we LDS can appreciate)?

3) Is this excommunication further evidence that liberals (who say they preach love and tolerance) are just as, or more, dogmatic and unyielding in forcing their worldview on others as they accuse conservatives of being?

Hi Zealously Striving. 

On July 16, 1054, papal legates laid down the excommunication of the Patriarch Michael Cerularius and his supporters on the altar of the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople. After a Synod in the East, Constantinople announced the excommunication of the Roman Pontiff.

On July 1, 2026, episcopal consecrations lacking the papal mandate were performed by two SSPX bishops, who consecrated four SSPX priests as bishops. According to modern canon law, the pope reserves the right to review and approve episcopal consecrations performed under his authority. But the pope does nothing to punish. He might make an announcement of the results of a certain public event according to the current law of the church. 

The only difference I see in the two excommunications is that in the former case with the Orthodox, a positive act was made by representatives of the pope, in a somewhat aggressive fashion. 

If the SSPX had made new bishops privately, without the knowledge of the Church, they would just as excommunicated with out any papal action. It would be no different than when a Catholic privately procures or aids in someone else getting an abortion. There isn't any declaration required. They are excommunicated latae sententiae, which means it is automatic, with or without the knowledge of the pope. There seemed to me to be more hostility to me on both the Catholic and Orthodox sides of those excommunications. There is none from Pope Leo XIV. He has expressed his sorrow and his willingness to receive them back into the fold whenever they might wish to adhere to the teaching and governing authority of the Roman Pontiff. 

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

50 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Hi Zealously Striving. 

On July 16, 1054, papal legates laid down the excommunication of the Patriarch Michael Cerularius and his supporters on the altar of the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople. After a Synod in the East, Constantinople announced the excommunication of the Roman Pontiff.

On July 1, 2026, episcopal consecrations lacking the papal mandate were performed by two SSPX bishops, who consecrated four SSPX priests as bishops. According to modern canon law, the pope reserves the right to review and approve episcopal consecrations performed under his authority. But the pope does nothing to punish. He might make an announcement of the results of a certain public event according to the current law of the church. 

The only difference I see in the two excommunications is that in the former case with the Orthodox, a positive act was made by representatives of the pope, in a somewhat aggressive fashion. 

If the SSPX had made new bishops privately, without the knowledge of the Church, they would just as excommunicated with out any papal action. It would be no different than when a Catholic privately procures or aids in someone else getting an abortion. There isn't any declaration required. They are excommunicated latae sententiae, which means it is automatic, with or without the knowledge of the pope. There seemed to me to be more hostility to me on both the Catholic and Orthodox sides of those excommunications. There is none from Pope Leo XIV. He has expressed his sorrow and his willingness to receive them back into the fold whenever they might wish to adhere to the teaching and governing authority of the Roman Pontiff. 

 

So Stine is wrong that the punishment against the SSPX is harsher then the punishment against the Orthodox?

[3DOP]

3 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

So Stine is wrong that the punishment against the SSPX is harsher then the punishment against the Orthodox?

You are really interested.  I will get to the other two questions as well. 

Maybe I am wrong. What is Stine's argument for why excommunication for the SSPX is different than for the Orthodox? I am genuinely curious.

So I am not saying Return to Tradition/Anthony Stine is wrong about which party was punished the most harshly. Maybe he knows something I don't. I just don't see how the Church should fail to make this pronouncement under the circumstances when this one group, the SSPX, says they have the right, without proper jurisdiction, to be independent of the bishop of Rome and operate without jurisdiction in the diocese of every other bishop in the world.

It is one thing to minister sacraments at a particular situation where someone is dying on the roadside. It is another to argue that this emergency has lasted for fifty years under six popes requiring disobedience to ordinary law. There is no precedent for believing that could happen. That is why I  joked above about how the SSPX are in competition with the LDS to prove the Church is apostate.

Put another way, if Stine is right, maybe he should see that the LDS would be a better alternative than the SSPX.

 

Edited yesterday at 02:34 AM by 3DOP

[ZealouslyStriving]

15 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

You are really interested.  I will get to the other two questions as well. 

Maybe I am wrong. What is Stine's argument for why excommunication for the SSPX is different than for the Orthodox? I am genuinely curious.

So I am not saying Return to Tradition/Anthony Stine is wrong about which party was punished the most harshly. Maybe he knows something I don't. I just don't see how the Church should fail to make this pronouncement under the circumstances when this one group, the SSPX, says they have the right, without proper jurisdiction, to be independent of the bishop of Rome and operate without jurisdiction in the diocese of every other bishop in the world.

It is one thing to minister sacraments at a particular situation where someone is dying on the roadside. It is another to argue that this emergency has lasted for fifty years under six popes requiring disobedience to ordinary law. There is no precedent for believing that could happen. That is why I  joked above about how the SSPX are in competition with the LDS to prove the Church is apostate.

Put another way, if Stine is right, maybe he should see that the LDS would be a better alternative than the SSPX.

 

I would need to relisten, but I think it has to do with the blanket excommunication of everyone associated with the SSPX. 

Stine defends SSPX but does not regularly attend there. He might be a more FSSP (?) guy.

[3DOP]

17 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I would need to relisten, but I think it has to do with the blanket excommunication of everyone associated with the SSPX. 

Stine defends SSPX but does not regularly attend there. He might be a more FSSP (?) guy.

So by the end of the month I will have sixteen grandchildren that are excommunicated? (One of those is unborn but will be presumably baptized in the next week or two.) I thought only those who formally adhered to the schism with full knowledge of the facts incurred the penalty. I thought very few adults would qualify to incur the penalty.

I was hoping that even some priests and bishops might be off the hook on that basis!

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

So by the end of the month I will have sixteen grandchildren that are excommunicated? (One of those is unborn but will be presumably baptized in the next week or two.) I thought only those who formally adhered to the schism with full knowledge of the facts incurred the penalty. I thought very few adults would qualify to incur the penalty.

I was hoping that even some priests and bishops might be off the hook on that basis!

Stine estimated the attached laity at between 700k - Million

[webbles]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

So by the end of the month I will have sixteen grandchildren that are excommunicated? (One of those is unborn but will be presumably baptized in the next week or two.) I thought only those who formally adhered to the schism with full knowledge of the facts incurred the penalty. I thought very few adults would qualify to incur the penalty.

I was hoping that even some priests and bishops might be off the hook on that basis!

How would a person know that they are excommunicated or not?  What does it mean to "formally adhere" to SSPX and how does one know if they are formally adhering or not?

I'm asking because I have a hard time understanding how a bishop or priest is supposed to know that someone is excommunicated through this process and help them back into communion.  For example, say I attended SSPX and formally adhered to it.  Thus I'm excommunicated.  I then visit my parents who don't adhere to SSPX and do attend a non-excommunicated parish.  If I went to mass with them, how would any one know that I'm excommunicated?

[3DOP]

2 hours ago, webbles said:

How would a person know that they are excommunicated or not?  What does it mean to "formally adhere" to SSPX and how does one know if they are formally adhering or not?

I'm asking because I have a hard time understanding how a bishop or priest is supposed to know that someone is excommunicated through this process and help them back into communion.  For example, say I attended SSPX and formally adhered to it.  Thus I'm excommunicated.  I then visit my parents who don't adhere to SSPX and do attend a non-excommunicated parish.  If I went to mass with them, how would any one know that I'm excommunicated?

Good question webbles.

The reason that it is difficult to know who is a "formal adherent to the schism" is a question that is not determined merely by attendance at a Society chapel. It is possible that my "hopes"  that I speak about above are biased toward leniency because I have so many loved ones and friends who attend the SSPX. I know that my own complicity was based on misinformation. I was a visible lay person in a position of responsibility in a mission chapel of the Society. Even so, I am not sure that I would have qualified as a "formal adherent to the schism".

I tend to think I was a formal adherent. But it is possible that my ignorance was not culpable.The less souls associated to the Society care about the authority of the Church to excommunicate, the more likely they are in formal adherence, and thus excommunicated. I never faced that question. I know my grandchildren are incapable of being responsible for going to SSPX Masses and I have varying degrees of hope for any adult, as I said above. I would especially have hope for an adult who ignored the SSPX teachings against the dangers of going to non-SSPX churches. I left three years ago when I became convinced that SSPX rhetoric is only effective because they misunderstand and therefore misrepresent the teachings of Vatican II, and the supposed problems with the New Mass.

It would be very doubtful if anyone who formally adhered to the schism would go to a non-excommunicated parish. Even less likely would be that they would want to receive communion. Part of doctrinaire SSPX rhetoric is that the New Mass is deadly poison to the soul. And in any case, it is not prudent for anyone to make that judgment about somebody else. It isn't like the parish priest would be accountable for giving communion to someone who is excommunicated. If the person is a public figure who supports euthanasia and abortion, it might be the priest's duty to pass the person by in the communion line. But no one needs to guess at who is excommunicated and who isn't. As you can see, how can we know?

It is because of the mercy of God that we are not always accountable for our actions if we are in ignorance for which we are not responsible. This is called "inculpable ignorance". That is the concept by which we have hope for the salvation of all souls who might die while being visibly separated from the one true church. We cannot know their interior disposition. But it is possible that  they might have wanted to join if they had known the truth. Maybe not. "Baptism of desire" is the concept by which we believe that those who are inculpably ignorant of the necessary truths of the faith, may nevertheless experience the grace of water baptism through desire. This desire certainly takes effect upon catechumens who are preparing for water baptism if they should die before having the opportunity to be baptized in water.   

Oh, and how does a lay person associated with the Society know for themselves they are not in formal adherence? If one fears the authority of the Church to excommunicate one for being affiliated with the Society, it is a good sign. Most SSPX adherents will not care about this news, hopefully because of inculpable ignorance. The only certain way to know you are not excommunicated is to go to a priest with jurisdictional authority from your bishop to administer the sacraments, confess your sins, and all your worries will be over. That godly fear is part of the reason why the Church exercised this sanction. She wants her children to understand the gravity of their situation and cause them to reflect on it accordingly. 

Those are only my opinions, and how I perceive this new situation for now. I don't presume to be speaking for the Church. As always, I am open to correction. 

Thanks for your consideration, and your interest(!). Have a great day webbles.

[3DOP]

6 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I would need to relisten, but I think it has to do with the blanket excommunication of everyone associated with the SSPX. 

Stine defends SSPX but does not regularly attend there. He might be a more FSSP (?) guy.

Okay, so the Church excluded Orthodox laypeople for excommunication? I didn't know. Maybe tolerance was called for? 

I tried to say something above in answering webbles why I see this more extensive blanket, for the Society faithful, as a gesture of intense concern. lt could be a bad decision for Rome to make to clarify that the excommunication can reach beyond the bishops and priests? Who knows? But I am confident that the decision wasn't made out of any spirit of hostility or malice towards the SSPX.  

 

Edited 17 hours ago by 3DOP

[3DOP]

18 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

(YouTube probably thinks I am trad Catholic now! 😄)

I have another one (or more)...

RTT and Preconciliar Radio have made the point several times that not even the Orthodox received as harsh a punishment when y'all split back in the day (1052?)

1) How would you justify to those observing the harshness of punishment of the SSPX (who acknowledge Rome and pray for the current Pope in their liturgy) compared to the Orthodox (who are pretty much the OG sedevacanists)?

2) How would you answer their argument that Cardinal Tucho Fernandez is unqualified, as a heretic, to issue this excommunication due to his previous statement that all men are saved (a view we LDS can appreciate)?

3) Is this excommunication further evidence that liberals (who say they preach love and tolerance) are just as, or more, dogmatic and unyielding in forcing their worldview on others as they accuse conservatives of being?

Regarding Cardinal Fernandez, I am not familiar with these charges against him. I know that the Society is mistaken saying that Pope John Paul II taught universal salvation. I would have to look into the question to judge.

But let us assume that Fernandez is formally teaching a false doctrine about the salvation of all men. What is the context of this "previous statement"? It doesn't sound like it would have much in the way of magesterial authority. Is he obstinate about this? There is a long process before one gets sanctioned,  for false teaching. The Church is very patient in this process in trying to correct errors. This is something that irritates the SSPX. When the German bishops move on from merely saying they would like to have lady priests and bishops to making a declaration of their intention to consecrate bishops and ordain lady priests, in opposition to the pope, Church law will kick in for them too.

Even Martin Luther was allowed to present the case for his teachings before church authorities who tried to persuade him otherwise. The Church makes a distinction between a false "previous statement" and a dangerous teaching that is gaining traction. I think I would know if Fernandez was propagating any false ideas in a manner that requires immediate action. In the meantime, he occupies an important position in the Church, and he apparently signed a document which affirmed that the Society was ex'ed? Any errors that Fernandez might hold do not disqualify him from signing a proclamation about what happened, latae sententiae excommunication.  

Nobody's signature of approval made these excommunications happen. It would have happened if the action was done in secret and nobody knew about it except the participants.   

[3DOP]

19 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

(YouTube probably thinks I am trad Catholic now! 😄)

I have another one (or more)...

RTT and Preconciliar Radio have made the point several times that not even the Orthodox received as harsh a punishment when y'all split back in the day (1052?)

1) How would you justify to those observing the harshness of punishment of the SSPX (who acknowledge Rome and pray for the current Pope in their liturgy) compared to the Orthodox (who are pretty much the OG sedevacanists)?

2) How would you answer their argument that Cardinal Tucho Fernandez is unqualified, as a heretic, to issue this excommunication due to his previous statement that all men are saved (a view we LDS can appreciate)?

3) Is this excommunication further evidence that liberals (who say they preach love and tolerance) are just as, or more, dogmatic and unyielding in forcing their worldview on others as they accuse conservatives of being?

Number Three:

I think it is a matter of opinion. I tend to think it is true sometimes. But not in this instance. The Society has now consecrated bishops against the will of the pope twice. The Church can do nothing to make the excommunications not happen automatically. Granted the popes can dispense church law after the excommunication has occurred. Pope Benedict lifted the first excommunications of the living bishops in hopes of furthering dialogue toward reunion. Pope Francis even granted the Society faculties to hear confessions and witness marriages.

It seems reasonable to me to doubt that being tolerant has had a desirable effect. Tolerance has given the Society an appearance of communion with Rome and with the bishops that was unintended. This appearance of unity was regularly exploited by the Society to assure inquirers that they were in the good graces of the Church, and it HAD to be okay to attend their Masses. I admit that there is a certain logic to that argument. That is why I am of the opinion that the current sanctions are appropriate. In any family, discipline sometimes needs to be exercised when parental authority is challenged, and more so if it is repeatedly challenged.

 

Edited 16 hours ago by 3DOP

[3DOP]

7 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Stine estimated the attached laity at between 700k - Million

Sure. That would include children below the age of reason as well as older children and adults who have been indoctrinated against the church. Who knows how many will incur the penalties? I don't see how all of that number could exhibit formal adherence to the schism. The SSPX are not stupid. They have clever arguments along with abuses in the Church that have scandalized many people in to looking at the SSPX. 

I wonder if Stine misunderstands how one should understand "formal adherence". The Church uses that kind of language to illustrate that few, some, or many might not incur any penalties.  

[ZealouslyStriving]

9 hours ago, webbles said:

How would a person know that they are excommunicated or not?  What does it mean to "formally adhere" to SSPX and how does one know if they are formally adhering or not?

I'm asking because I have a hard time understanding how a bishop or priest is supposed to know that someone is excommunicated through this process and help them back into communion.  For example, say I attended SSPX and formally adhered to it.  Thus I'm excommunicated.  I then visit my parents who don't adhere to SSPX and do attend a non-excommunicated parish.  If I went to mass with them, how would any one know that I'm excommunicated?

I had the exact same questions! 

Whereas we have membership records that travel with us, and we are assigned to the congregation for our geographical area- Catholics seem a bit more "open borders" (so to speak) about where to go to church.

How would they track who's been going where?

[ZealouslyStriving]

5 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I know my grandchildren are incapable of being responsible for going to SSPX Masses and I have varying degrees of hope for any adult, as I said above.

If I am remembering correctly and understanding Stine correctly- anyone under 16 is not culpable and wouldn't fall under the excommunication.