Category talk:Society of Saint Pius X

In Communion?
Note: This has been taken from the discussion page for the main article. JASpencer 12:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is SSPX in communion with Rome?

I am greatly in sympathy with a lot of their criticisms of the post Vatican II order, so for me this is a grave matter.

According to the Holy See:

3. In itself, this act (the 1988 consecration)'' was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.(3) In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.(4)''

In para 5:

c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, (Society of St. Pius X) that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law.(8)

References are:

''(3) Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 751.''

''(4) Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1382.''

''(8) Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1364.''

I propose that we recategorise this page from Category:Roman Catholic Church to Category:Catholics not in Communion with Rome as a purely factual matter. This is not intended to be a comment on the theological issues at stake. Does Rome (that is the Pope and the institutions of the Catholic church) regard SSPX to be in communion? The quotes above are, in my mind, conclusive.

Unless someone objects I will recategorise early next week (18 April 2005 on). If someone does object I would have no problem going to arbitration.

JASpencer 17:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I think we must distinguish between the Society/Fraternity and the members. Archbishop Lefebvre and the bishops he consecrated were/are certainly out of communion with Rome. Some/many/most of the members are also out of communion.  Others are merely disobedient.  The schismatic ideas of others may not reach of point of outright schism.  So I do not think the Society as such can be declared to be out of communion.
 * Lima 17:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Fair enough about the members, but the article is about the Society of St Pius X and so presumably about the institution, and not the members. JASpencer 15:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I've procrastinated. I've given the Society its own category and put it under the main Catholic category, for now.  It was about time SSPX got its own category.  JASpencer 12:54, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Moved Again
I've moved this page from its old berth in Category:Roman Catholic Church, which could imply that it is in full communion with the RCC to the more neutral one of Category:Catholic Traditionalism where SSPX appears with both Indult Catholics and Sedevacantists - appearing comparitively mainstream.

Please move
I would suggest that this category be merged into Category:Lefebvrism, as Lefebvrism is, as a movement, much larger than merely the SSPX, and includes, besides the autonomous SSPX sisters, also the Transalpine Redemptorists, the Dominicans of Avrille, etc.


 * It sounds like you may have something there. But there seems to be a hurdle you are going to have to clear first. There is already an entry for "Lefebvrist" and it redirects to the article on the Society of St. Pius X. That means it is basically considered synonymous, and you are suggesting it is not. It seems to me that you are going to have to get consensus first to getting a separate article on Lefebvrist/ism, and define it well. This would seem to be the reasonable, chronological step to renaming this category. Good luck! --Glossando 15:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)