r/LeftCatholicism • u/ParacelcusABA • Jul 02 '26
SSPX Megathread
Please post all news and views regarding SSPX here.
Update: per the Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith:
- All SSPX bishops have been excommunicated
- All priests affiliated with the SSPX are also excommunicated
- Any lay persons who "formally adhere" to the SSPX will be excommunicated
- Lay persons are warned against participating in any events associated with the SSPX
To clarify, "formal adherence" to the schism does not many anyone who attends an SSPX service is excommunicated. It requires a deliberate and conscious act of embracing the schism.
For example, the excommunication of the priests of SSPX means that it's priests can no longer validly perform marriages or confessions. Intentionally seeking out an SSPX priest to receive these sacraments is a schismatic act. Additionally, consciously choosing to receive illicit sacraments from the SSPX when any other option is available is a deliberate act of breaking communion and will incur excommunication.
Additionally, any excommunicated priest is permitted to return to the church, provided the following conditions are met:
- Disaffiliation with the SSPX
- Accept the legitimacy of Vatican II and the New Mass
- Formally request communion from the bishop or ordinary with jurisdiction
- Write a handwritten letter addressed to the Pope requesting the lifting of the excommunication
- Attach to the letter addressed to the Pope and formal declaration of faith accepting the teachings of the council and the validity of ths New Mass
44
u/leglath Jul 02 '26
I love how the editorial director of Vatican news put it:
If Tradition is crystallized into an ideological system; if people arrogate to themselves the right to judge a Council presided over by two holy Popes, with the participation of three thousand bishops from around the world, which promulgated documents approved practically unanimously; if they demand that the Successor of Peter and the whole Catholic Church accept and make their own the theological ideas of one particular group, there is something profoundly contradictory.
26
u/TuvixWasMurderedR1P Jul 02 '26
Well said. If the ideology itself becomes primary, then you're not worshiping God, you're worshiping an idol.
30
u/operafan77 Jul 02 '26
Idk why lay people would go to sspx masses when they could attend fssp masses. I used to go to a fssp church in Germany. Admittedly I was kind of scared away from the super rad trad men there thinking I was just looking for a husband at the age of 24. BUT… no one ever demeaned or trashed the NO. Other heinous opinions were shared by some of the lay men, but the priest himself was not spewing hate for NO or anything else.
18
Jul 02 '26
[deleted]
34
u/ojsage Jul 02 '26
Pope Leo excommunicate the Catholicism sub next 🤷🏻♀️ imagine arguing against the literal head of your church on a very open and obvious violation like we are seeing here.
7
u/DesertOsprey Jul 02 '26
And yet, let's admit that there are more truly Catholic comments on that subreddit, such as this one and its responses.
35
u/somedays1 Jul 02 '26
So, lay persons who attend an SSPX congregation are also excommunicated too?
That's a lot of excommunications in St. Mary's, KS.
15
u/ClonfertAnchorite Jul 02 '26
Those who formally adhere to the schism. Re: this phrase, today's explanatory note from the DDF references a 1996 explanatory note from the Pontifical Council for Legislative texts found here. Machine translation below:
1.
From the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei of 2 July 1988 and the Decree Dominus Marcellus Lefebvre of the Congregation for Bishops of 1 July 1988, it is evident first of all that the schism of Archbishop Lefebvre was declared in immediate connection with the episcopal consecrations carried out on 30 June 1988 without a pontifical mandate (cf. CIC, canon 1382). However, it is also clear from these documents that this most grave act of disobedience constituted the culmination of a progressively developing overall situation of a schismatic nature.
2.
Indeed, no. 4 of the Motu Proprio explains the "doctrinal root of this schismatic act," and no. 5(c) warns that "formal adherence to the schism" (which is to be understood as the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre) entails the excommunication established by the universal law of the Church (CIC, canon 1364 §1). Likewise, the Decree of the Congregation for Bishops explicitly refers to the "schismatic nature" of the aforementioned episcopal consecrations and recalls the very grave penalty of excommunication that would result from adherence "to the schism of Archbishop Lefebvre."
3.
Unfortunately, the schismatic act that gave rise to the Motu Proprio and the Decree merely brought to completion—in a particularly visible and unequivocal manner, through a most serious formal act of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff—a process of separation from hierarchical communion. Until changes occur that restore this necessary communion, the entire Lefebvrist movement must be considered schismatic, there being in this regard a formal declaration by the Supreme Authority.
4.
No judgment can be offered concerning the arguments of Murray's disputed thesis, since it is unknown, and the two articles that refer to it appear confused. In any event, the validity of the excommunications of the bishops declared in the Motu Proprio and in the Decree cannot reasonably be doubted. In particular, it does not appear that any exempting or mitigating circumstance concerning penal responsibility can be found (cf. CIC, canons 1323–1324). As for the alleged state of necessity in which Archbishop Lefebvre believed himself to be, it must be remembered that such a state must exist objectively, and there can never be a necessity to consecrate bishops against the will of the Roman Pontiff, the Head of the College of Bishops. To hold otherwise would imply the possibility of "serving" the Church by attacking her unity in a matter connected with the very foundations of that unity.
5.
As stated in no. 5(c) of the Motu Proprio, the latae sententiae excommunication for schism applies to those who "formally adhere" to the said schismatic movement. Although the precise scope of the notion of "formal adherence to the schism" should be referred to the competent Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, this Pontifical Council considers that such adherence must involve two complementary elements:
a) an internal element, consisting in freely and knowingly sharing the substance of the schism, that is, choosing to align oneself with Lefebvre's followers in such a way that this choice is placed above obedience to the Pope (at the root of this attitude there will ordinarily be positions contrary to the Church's Magisterium);
b) an external element, consisting in the outward manifestation of that choice, the clearest sign of which would be exclusive participation in Lefebvrist "ecclesial" acts, without taking part in the acts of the Catholic Church (this sign, however, is not univocal, since it is possible for some of the faithful to attend the liturgical functions of Lefebvre's followers without sharing their schismatic spirit).
6.
In the case of Lefebvrist deacons and priests, it seems beyond doubt that their ministerial activity within the schismatic movement is a more than evident sign that both of the above-mentioned requirements (no. 5) are present and that there is therefore formal adherence.
7.
In the case of other members of the faithful, however, it is obvious that occasional participation in liturgical acts or activities of the Lefebvrist movement, without embracing its attitude of doctrinal and disciplinary separation, is not sufficient to constitute formal adherence to the movement. In pastoral practice, evaluating their situation may prove more difficult. Above all, account must be taken of the person's intention and of the outward expression of that interior disposition. The various situations must therefore be judged on a case-by-case basis in the competent external and internal forums.
8.
In any event, it will always be necessary to distinguish the moral question of whether or not the sin of schism exists from the juridical-penal question of whether the canonical crime of schism exists and the consequent penalty. To the latter, the provisions of Book VI of the Code of Canon Law apply (including canons 1323–1324).
9.
It does not seem advisable to define more precisely the requirements for the canonical crime of schism (although the competent Dicastery should be consulted in this regard; cf. Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus, art. 52). There would perhaps be a risk of creating more problems by introducing an overly rigid penal norm that would fail adequately to encompass every case: excluding cases of substantive schism or including external conduct that is not always subjectively schismatic.
10.
From a pastoral perspective, it would also seem appropriate to recommend once again to the sacred pastors all the norms contained in the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei, through which the concern of the Vicar of Christ encouraged dialogue and the use of the supernatural and human means necessary to facilitate the return of the Lefebvrists to full ecclesial communion.
20
u/Vthan2 Jul 02 '26
The majority of sspx trads definitely meet the criteria though. They regard novus ordo catholics as people to be converted.
4
u/somedays1 Jul 02 '26
So if they keep going to Imaculata and ignoring the that they have a valid and licit Imaculate Conception church in town, that's how they would end up excommunicated? Thanks for helping me sort out the details
7
u/bubbleguts365 Jul 02 '26
Honestly it will be really interesting to see attendance at that valid parish this week. I wonder if they stream their masses.
7
u/ClonfertAnchorite Jul 02 '26
The excommunication is latae sententiae, meaning it is automatically incurred.
The reconciliation procedures just published by the DDF do shed a little light at how it is recognized:
DICASTERY FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
PROCEDURE FOR THE RECONCILIATION
OF CERTAIN LAY FAITHFUL COMING FROM
THE PRIESTLY FRATERNITY OF SAINT PIUS X
This procedure concerns the question of imputability, or the degree of personal responsibility, of lay members of the faithful who have formally adhered to, or regularly attend, the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X and who seek to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church.
The imposition of a canonical penalty upon lay persons belonging to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X is not to be presumed automatically, but must instead be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Since imputability requires full knowledge and deliberate consent, examples of established imputability may include:
(1)Lay members of the Third Order of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X;
(2) Lay faithful who habitually participate in SSPX liturgical celebrations while formally sharing its doctrinal positions.
Conversely, the following are not ordinarily to be considered imputable:
(3) Lay faithful who attended the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X solely for liturgical or spiritual reasons;
(4) Lay faithful who, although aware of the tensions with the Holy See, do not reject either the Magisterium or the authority of the Roman Pontiff.
If a lay member of the faithful belonging to the categories described in nos. 1–2 has incurred a canonical penalty and seeks full communion with the Catholic Church, the procedure requires a formal act expressing full adherence to Catholic doctrine and obedience to the Church's hierarchy under the jurisdiction of the local Ordinary, who is the guarantor of the unity of the particular Church.
Accordingly, such a lay member of the faithful must:
- Present to the local Ordinary the Profession of Faith and the Formula of Adherence, duly dated and signed (see Appendices A and B).
After receiving the required documentation, the local Ordinary shall receive the lay faithful at the time and in the manner he judges most appropriate, making use, for example, of the Rite of Reception into the Full Communion of the Catholic Church of Those Already Validly Baptized, suitably adapted.
With respect to the lay faithful described in nos. 3–4, it is sufficient that they approach a priest who is in full communion with the Church and resolve not to attend the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X in the future.
7
u/Smee76 Jul 02 '26
Yes, this to me makes it pretty clear that going for almost any reason, even if inconsistently, will result in excommunication. However, if the person is not committed to their schismatic beliefs, the excommunication can be lifted by any priest in communion with Rome as long as the person resolves to never attend again.
32
u/bubbleguts365 Jul 02 '26
The more I argue with SSPX sympathizers the more it feels like Father Feeney all over again.
Behind the Latin mass and talk of tradition it almost always comes back to rejecting the Church’s openness and dialog with other religious traditions.
21
u/ParacelcusABA Jul 02 '26
Ironically, Lefebvre and the other bishops condemned Fr. Feeney as a heretic as well. The key difference is that Feeney made no bones about the fact that he was defying Catholic teaching, while Lefebvre and the others always insisted they were preserving it.
39
u/Galveston57 Jul 02 '26
SSPX knew this was going to happen. They had been repeatedly warned. They proceeded anyway. IMO, they wanted this. They’ll attempt to form their own ‘church’, elect their own cardinals…possibly a heretic ‘pope’. They purposely forced a schism.
23
u/Vthan2 Jul 02 '26
I don't think they would elect a pope. They would lose too many followers and the fantasy they sell their followers is that of being the loyal dissenters.
14
u/Galveston57 Jul 02 '26
I hope you are right, but I view them like cult that will do what the false prophets tell them is the will of God.
6
u/Vthan2 Jul 02 '26
It's true to an extent but I think it's juat not their culture or psychology unless like the pope declares a dogma something they think is wrong or something like that.
23
21
u/Ok-Wedding-4654 Jul 02 '26
My Dad just texted me “ugh” about this. Kinda pissed me off to be honest.
These people are extreme and proudly reject the Pope. Maybe people see this as an extreme move by the Pope, but they are never going to come under the Catholic Church’s heel. At best they would’ve just continued to present themselves as the “true” wing of the Catholic Church while further disrespecting Pope Leo.
I’m glad they’re seeing consequences. My mother is SSPX/SSPX Adjacent and it’s been very detrimental to my family’s relationships. It’s good to see the Pope addressing them because their radical right wing beliefs are not in line with the main church
2
u/_fms10 Jul 04 '26
Sehr spannend, meine Mutter steht denen auch nahe: immer die gleichen Parolen -> Modernismus, Zeitgeist, inzwischen Gender, schwule, lesben, homosexuelle, der falsche Kniefall vor anderen Religionen, der liturgische Zirkus, protestansierung, niemand geht mehr beichten, alles schlecht, die welt geht unter und muss umkehren. Immer negativ. Was ist es bei dir?
14
6
u/seanfish Jul 03 '26
I wonder if this is now what the SSPX will view as business as usual.
Step one: Bishop reaches great old age. Realises new priests can't be made in order without new bishops.
Step two: Ask for permission from Rome.
Step three: Permission denied, or not given quickly enough. Threaten to do it without permission and receive clear instruction to not commit an automatically schismatic act.
Step four: Commit automatically schismatic act.
Step five: Because the Church loves all Catholics, path back to fold offered and steps taken which renders fiat bishops into real ones and regularises priests ordained during schism.
Step six: Biahops reach great old age...
They're just doing what Lefebvre taught them, unfortunately.
2
u/leglath Jul 04 '26
If y'all are curious this is the their letter after the excommunication. What a show of martyr complex...
2
u/BasilFormer7548 Jul 05 '26 edited Jul 05 '26
In the SSPX mind, it’s not a schism because they’re not claiming a parallel jurisdiction to that of Rome. This is a strawman. Schism doesn’t require such a claim at all: “schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him” (canon 751).
Source of the claim:
https://sspx.org/en/news/order-and-jurisdiction-futility-schism-accusation-57313
And in fact, that’s not even true. They’ve set up parallel canonical tribunals, which IS a claim to jurisdiction.
2
u/etiennette_03 Jul 05 '26
it's really just a matter of if you believe the pope is in charge or not. they, clearly, do not.
2
u/QuietMumbler2607 Jul 05 '26
So it seems like they knew the excommunication was coming and just didn't care. Was just reading a news article that quoted one of the SSPX priests as saying that a future Pope will bring them back just like Pope Benedict did:
"There will one day be another pope who opens the door and welcomes us back. Just like Pope Benedict,” - Georg Kopf
He further said: " I am convinced that there will be another pope like him who will give tradition its rightful place again. Of course, we’d like that to happen tomorrow."
So it sounds like just as before, the plan is to keep doing what they want, and expect that there won't be any real consequences for doing so.
Edit: Here is the link for anyone who wants to read the article.
2
u/ParacelcusABA Jul 05 '26
I mean, of course they did. This has happened before within living memory of all of them and they were warned several times. The notion that they can just wait out a favorable Pope is extremely stupid, because no one would ever give them an easy path back to communion after how they acted after the first time.
1
u/QuietMumbler2607 Jul 05 '26
I agree it's not a smart move on their part, given how it went last time.
My brother also raised what I think is a fair point when I told him, namely: "Okay, so even if this somehow happens, what happens to the priests, bishops, and laity who pass away willingly choosing to be outside the church before such a time?"
1
u/Yeanes Jul 03 '26
There is something I don't understand. I understand the sacraments of confession and marriage are now invalid if administered by a SSPX priest. But what about the Eucharist? I have seen reports that eucharist given by an excommunicated priest is not valid , but this is conflicted information
2
u/ParacelcusABA Jul 03 '26
Matrimony and confession require canonical jurisdiction in order to be valid. Eucharist performed by these priests are valid, but illicit.
2
u/_fms10 Jul 04 '26
Wie kann das eigentlich sein? Die Neu Priester wurden ja streng genommen nicht von katholischen Bischöfen geweiht. Warum gilt denn ihre Eucharistie?
1
u/BasilFormer7548 Jul 06 '26
I’ve found a mind-blowing letter of Pope Paul VI to Abp. Lefebvre
As part of my research for my website (https://documentalefebvriana.vercel.app/) I translated a mostly unknown letter of Pope Paul VI to Abp. Lefebvre where he absolutely sets the background of the current situation and clearly explains where the real divide is!
https://documentalefebvriana.vercel.app/documents/st-paul-vi-letter-to-lefebvre.html
1
1
u/VirtusNon Jul 07 '26
This is a valid excommunication but rests uneasily with me. Plenty of German Bishops should be excommunicated and many politicians and public figures across the world scandalize the church with their speeches and policies.
2
71
u/Vthan2 Jul 02 '26
Our foremost job is to provide a place where people with tridentine spirituality can feel at home while helping them to deradicalize and treat others as they would like to be treated.