I use to belong to them. What is the whole thing going on with them now?
I am not an expert on this issue, but I will share my understanding of the current situation.
The SSPX Bishops are not excommunicated and the Society is not in schism. They are recognised as fully Catholic and part of the Catholic Church; although their status is canonically irregular. As far as I understand, SSPX masses are valid but illicit. However, SSPX priests lack the jurisdiction to hear confessions or officiate at weddings.
I would say the SSPX is individuals, that formerly had recognition by the Church as an association, but not at present. In other words, there are individual bishops and priests with valid ordination, but who are currently (from the Church’s point of view) unassigned. Religious can be formal members, laity cannot be formal members but some are very much attached. There is no one status that covers all these individuals; one priest may be leaning towards sedevacantism, another may be trying to respond to Pope Francis as best he can. Some laity go to their Masses out of love for the Latin Liturgy, others may go for that, and other reasons. We are not in a position to judge what lights this individual may be responding to, or what other motivations that other person has. One chapel is different from another chapel, in terms of how much they adhere to the Catechism, or to the Pope and bishop bashing that goes on in a few circles.
There is no one “status”. I doubt if there ever will be.
They’re trying as best they can to be Catholic.
Are you a priest? The SSPX is a clerical society, and as such is only comprised of priests and bishops. There are religious houses aligned with them, and there are lay people who frequent their chapels, but the SSPX, strictly speaking, is only made up of priests.
If the SSPX are not in schism, who could possibly be in schism?
The Christians not following Catholic teaching.
This, sadly, includes a lot of Catholics assisting at diocesan parishes
One thing that troubles me about SSPX is the anti-semitism. I’m sure there are plenty of SSPX followers who are not anti-semitic, but I don’t see how anyone can deny that anti-semitism is part of their movement. Bishop Williamson for example denied the Holocaust, but there are many more examples. Just recently a group of SSPX followers interrupted a prayer service commemorating kristallnacht, shouting anti-semitic statements. Any such representations of anti-semitism are totally contrary to Christian values or civilized and democratic values and are reminiscent of Nazism or Fascism in the 20th century.
Bishop Williamson is not a member of the SSPX. And the prayerful presence of the SSPX in South America that you reference was not anti-Semitic, it was anti-modernist; the issue was not the commemoration of the horrible events of the night of broken glass (I don’t know how to spell the German word! lol) but the use of a holy Temple consecrated for Catholic worship used for other purposes. I don’t think that any faithful Catholic would say that hatred of any race, including the Jewish race, is acceptable, and this is certainly not a problem with the leaders of the Society. Anti-Semitism is NOT NOT NOT taught or promulgated by the Society.
I sincerely hope you are right but based on my personal observations and experiences I do think that anti-semitism is somewhat prevalent in SSPX. I have attended SSPX masses before and spoken with followers online. I have noticed anti-semitic and pro-fascist comments from SSPX supporters I have talked to. I also once noticed an article on the SSPX website that talked about the history of the Jews and mentioned the blood libel as being true. Also, as for the incident in Argentina, the article I read said that SSPX members stating that the Jews are christ killers and that was part of the reason they were protesting. So, I definitely don’t think that all or even most SSPX followers are anti-semitic, but I think it is a problem in the movement. I think many people attend SSPX because they love the Latin Mass. that is totally understandable, I share that sentiment.
I would hope that this SSPX thread will not degenerate into another “bashing session”.
Sure, and this is, I think, one reason why it’s so important to understand, as other posters have pointed out, that the Society is a clerical one, and lay people may support the priests and brothers, and be thankful for their work, but they are not, really, members of the Society. This leads to a pretty big range of positions among the lay supporters, and everyone has to find his or her place in the continuum. Regarding this issue, however, I hope that everyone* who supports the Society understands, or if not, comes to understand, that racism of any kind is unacceptable.*
No matter who comprises the SSPX, it is motivated by a worldly spirit of disobedience. At some level, human pride and ego facilitate the defiance.
I don’t think that the Society is motivated by a worldly spirit of disobedience. It most certainly wasn’t in its’ early days.
Of course, that describes the SSPX exactly.
Perhaps. These days, the way they conduct themselves, I think Lefebvre would blush in shame if he were still alive.
In the beginning they may have been following Catholic teaching up to that point. I’m not an SSPX supporter but to say they’re in schism would I believe be saying something different than what Rome has said.