SPLIT: SSPX different from RCC?

I don’t understand. How is SSPX any different from the RCC?

Their founder disobeyed a directive of the Pope and wrongfully ordained these four bishops without Papal permission. Of course the bishops were also disobedient for taking part against the Holy Father’s orders. As clergy they were vowed to obedience to the Holy Father among other things, so for their disobedience they were excommunicated.

In addition, some (though not all) SSPX-ers consider the form of the Mass introduced by Pope Paul VI in 1969/70 as invalid, not a true or real Mass, which is a heretical idea.

I don’t quite understand how SSPX is any different than the RCC.

They’re in communion again now, so they’re pretty much not different any more.

The RCC comprises those churches that are in communion with the Pope. It’s an essential part of the Catholicity of these churches. The SSPX clergy (or some of them at least) put themselves OUT of communion with the Pope (which is what excommunication means) by their disobedience … but even so the organisation as a whole never formally rejected the Pope’s authority, so it wasn’t a complete rupture.

So the end result is that they were somewhat estranged from the RCC, in an ‘irregular status’ and ‘imperfect communion’ as the Vatican said. It was a bit complicated to say the least … :shrug:

Let’s get this straightened out. SSPX is not regularized within the Church. They have no canonical status currently. Their priests are suspended. The bishops exercise no ecclesiastical authority. The sacraments they provide are not licit (yes, I know some will argue about jurisdiction, but a suspended priest is still suspended). Until they are brought back into the fold, they are still irregular.

The priests of SSPX were never excommunicated. They were suspended. The four bishops consecrated by Lefebrve were excommunicated, as was Lefebrve himself. That is the punishment for an illicit episcopal consecration.

I don’t want to hijack the thread here. There is probably more about SSPX than anyone ever wanted to know on the Traditional Catholic forum.

Chris

They’re in communion again now, so they’re pretty much not different any more.


**SSPX is NOT in communion with the Church.

Pope Benedict on TWO occasions this year has said that their clergy exercise no legitimate ministry in the Church.

The only thing the lifting of the excommunication did was to remove an obstacle to their full restoration and regularization.**

Let’s try to get this figured out. First off, SSPX is a group of diocesan priests. They are technically subject to the bishop of their local diocese. However, they generally take the stance that there is a defect in the Ordinary Form and the rubrics of some of the sacraments in the Ordinary Form or that they are in some way inferior to the Extraordinary Form. Thus, they stick to the Extraordinary Form for both.

SSPX is not the faithful who attend masses at SSPX chapels. SSPX is properly only applicable to the priests. However, many refer to the faithful who attend their masses as SSPX.

How are they the same? They still acknowledge to Pope as the leader of the Church, they still follow the rubrics for the Extraordinary Form from Rome (not sure as to which year they use).

How are they different? You will never see them attend an Ordinary Form mass. Many are virulently opposed to the Ordinary Form. Their bishops do not have any canonical authority in the Church. Their priests are suspended from performing any sacraments (except in danger of death). In short, they are Catholic, but by and large not obedient to the Pope.

I hope this clears it up for you, Wesley.

Chris

PS- Moderator please feel free to split if you want to!

aaa

The question was ‘how are they different from the RCC’. Not ‘how are they different from RCC PRIESTS’. The answer is they are NOT different from RCC laity since the lifting of the excommunications.

True, their priests and bishops are still suspended from priestly and other offices - as are some other Catholic priests. Being suspended doesn’t make you somehow not RCC, it instead makes you not a priest, or a disobedient priest. Last year Fr Anthony Mary left both EWTN and the priesthood after being involved with a woman. Is he still Catholic? Absolutely, as far as I know. He just doesn’t exercise the priestly office.

True, they don’t like the Novus Ordo Mass - not that they think it’s invalid, just that they won’t attend it. At least that’s the official position, some are more extreme than that but do not represent the officialdom of the SSPX in those opinions. Fact is some non-SSPX but completely faithful Catholics think and act likewise - they too don’t like the Novus Ordo and will go out of their way to attend a TLM instead. So the objections of the SSPX to the NO don’t make them ‘different’ either.

As long as the SSPX clergy are in communion with Rome - which to a man they all are now that the excommunications have been lifted - the suspensions don’t mean they somehow ‘aren’t RCC’. It means they don’t have priestly authority - and in some situations even that isn’t true!

Lilly, your understanding of presbyteral ordination is severely flawed.

Once ordained a priest, that person is a priest forever; nothing can withdraw that.

A suspended priest sins by performing the sacraments. (The sin is disobedience.)

A suspended bishop sins by acting as a bishop, but is still a bishop. (again, disobedience)

The SSPX are ALL clerics (subdeacons, deacons, priests, and the 4 bishops), and there are no laymen in the SSPX.

Lay Adherents to the SSPX cult* are not members of the SSPX. Nor, per the rules of the SSPX, can they be, except by ordination.

The lay adherents sometimes hold extremely schismatic views, and many hold mildly schismatic views; most of the SSPX themselves can be seen as schismatic, even tho, formally, they are not in a state of schism. (In short, they are approaching the line of schism, but are not quite over it.)

The big difference between “Traditionalist Catholic” and “SSPX Adherent” is a fine one; many SSPX adherents have no problem attending FSSP or ICRSS liturgies, or even Eastern Catholic Church parishes. Many Traditionalist Catholics feel the same, but will not go to SSPX liturgies due to the suspensions and irregular status. Mainstream Roman Catholics accept the Ordinary Form, as do a significant fraction of Traditionalists, but very few SSPX Adherents do.

*cult, in the technical sense, is a distinguishable body of followers with a common practice. Some Catholic groups are termed cults as well, without prejudice to their licity nor validity, including those who practice certain devotions to specific saints.

No! Fr. Francis Mary (Dave Stone) bailed, NOT Fr. Anthony Mary.

That’s exactly what I thought, but I couldn’t be sure that there weren’t ANY exceptions. So my understanding may not be perfect but no need to jump down my throat.

A suspended priest sins by performing the sacraments. (The sin is disobedience.)

A suspended bishop sins by acting as a bishop, but is still a bishop. (again, disobedience)

I agree with all of the above, but a sinful priest or bishop is still a Catholic, just as a sinful Catholic layperson is still a Catholic, no? They still in the bedrock sense are no different from other RCC members and even the sinful ones are STILL RCC!

The SSPX are ALL clerics (subdeacons, deacons, priests, and the 4 bishops), and there are no laymen in the SSPX.

Lay Adherents to the SSPX cult* are not members of the SSPX. Nor, per the rules of the SSPX, can they be, except by ordination.

Thanks for the clarification - but I don’t recall suggesting that the SSPX were anything other than clergy. I merely pointed out that in comparing SSPX AS priests to RCC priests we aren’t actually answering the question. The question wasn’t ‘How are SSPX priests different to other priests’ but ‘how are they different TO THE RCC’.

The lay adherents sometimes hold extremely schismatic views, and many hold mildly schismatic views; most of the SSPX themselves can be seen as schismatic, even tho, formally, they are not in a state of schism. (In short, they are approaching the line of schism, but are not quite over it.)

So have some SSPX priests - I have heard that some have denounced the NO as being invalid in their homilies.

The big difference between “Traditionalist Catholic” and “SSPX Adherent” is a fine one; many SSPX adherents have no problem attending FSSP or ICRSS liturgies, or even Eastern Catholic Church parishes. Many Traditionalist Catholics feel the same, but will not go to SSPX liturgies due to the suspensions and irregular status. Mainstream Roman Catholics accept the Ordinary Form, as do a significant fraction of Traditionalists, but very few SSPX Adherents do.

Which is exactly my point- it IS a fine line, even for the suspended clergy, since clergy can, on my understanding, be suspended (not excommunicated) without it affecting their status as Catholics!!!

I am wondering about the Status of the 2 swedish lutheran priests who choosed to convert at SSPX.

One of them was ordained priest recently at the ordination services in Zaitzkopfen Germany.

What is their status? is their conversion accepted? are they to be counted as catholics or not?

Our bishop has made it clear that they can not serve in any swedish diocese because of their illicit ordination and non communion with Rome.

But is it possible to convert by the hands of someone who has no authority or is suspended?

This may be of some help.

ewtn.com/library/curia/cedsspx2.htm

Excommunication merely prevents one from licitly receiving or conferring the sacraments. It doesn’t make one “no longer catholic.”

The church never punitively declares one non-catholic; only a formal act of schism or declaration of defection from the faith, does so, and in both cases, the church documentation is an acknowledgement of the defection, not the actual expulsion in itself.

Arcbishop Lefebvre was Catholic until the day of his death… forbidden to receive or impart the sacraments, and sinning every day by so doing, but still a Catholic Bishop with some MAJOR errors in his approach.

As for the two new SSPX priests… they’re Catholic, and in the SSPX, so they are automatically suspended. Pray for them.

This is a bit off topic but apparently at one time there were certain strictures that could be attached to the penalty of excommunication. One example of this was a Jesuit priest, George Tyrrell in the early twentieth century. He was excommunicated for his teaching on Hell (among some other Modernist errors) but he always remained very devoted to the doctrine of the Eucharist. His excommunication carried with it the stricture that no Catholic could even be in the same room with him. Because of his devotion to the Eucharist, he attended a church in London,Eng. in 1908 where a Eucharistic Congress was to be held. During the procession, the cardinal who was carrying the Eucharist learned that Tyrrell was in the building and stopped the procession. The cardinal announced that either Tyrrell would leave the building or the procession would find somewhere else to go. So, for that priest, not only could he not receive or impart the sacraments licitly but he was to be shunned by all other Catholics.
As I said, somewhat off topic but interesting that the Church did, in a very real way, isolate from her people who were excommunicated.

Those strictures were a separate punishment on top of excommunication.

For someone who is Orthodox, you really expressed the NOT portion of your statement. Keep in mind that the Orthodox are also NOT in communion with Rome either. As for tradition I think the SSPX and the Orthodox have allot in common in regards to maintaining tradition. And I am all for both!. :thumbsup:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.