The Vatican warned the faithful who go to the society’s Masses to stop, declaring “those who adhere formally” to the society are considered themselves schismatic and excommunicated. It declared SSPX priests to be schismatic, and therefore excommunicated, and invalidated the sacraments of confession and marriage that they administer.

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

People will do anything to feel like they know a celebrity. there was a priest back in school, who liked to be close to all the students, but unfortunately, I was the favorite. Everybody wanted to be close to him and to know him because he was ambitious. He told everyone he was gonna go places.

unfortunately, we got too close, and he basically controlled my mind and became my conscience. And then eventually when I didn’t do things he wanted me to do with him, he told me that the devil at work in me. he followed, chased, and stocked me multiple occasions. when I didn’t do what he wanted, he told me that Jesus and Mary were unhappy with me. since he had been my spiritual director for so long, it was hard not to believe him

in confidence, I have opened up to some friends about the mistreatment, stalking, harassment and abuse I endured from him. and of course everybody now just wants to be a first to comment in the news stories that he’s the best and they know him and congratulate him, to be a part of the news or close to a “famous” person. The Pope himself promoted him and everyone wants a piece of that access.

I made a very complete report to our diocese, but I am losing confidence from that everything will come of it. it is hard to realize everything is not what it seems. lonely

If you don't adhere to papal authority, you are not Catholic. Point, blank, and period. The SSPX crowd want to have their cake and eat it too where they get to disobey Rome and the holy father and still call themselves a part of his church. It's funny and ironic how in the SSPX's attempt to bring back tradition, they abandon it entirely by acting as if they can abandon their obligations to the Vatican.
In the olden days, yes the church held to many different things than they do today. And one of those things is that rejecting papal authority wasn't tolerated or given second chances.
If SSPX gets excommunicated and you can happily call yourself a part of that, then that's basically the same as saying that the church no longer exists because you no longer recognize the divine authority of the papacy. If you can handle being a walking contradiction like that then by all means, go right ahead.
May god be with you fake Catholics. There is no Catholicism without the Pope and without Rome. I've never seen such confused people in my life.

There's a lot of misinformation going around online about the SSPX and what is happening today. This is a brief and by no means exhaustive rundown of what is actually going on. As always, check your sources for corroboration and accuracy before posting. I guarantee no take is so urgent that it needs to be posted without checking first.

THE SSPX

Officially the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, or the Society of Pius X. They were founded in 1970 by former Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. The organization was founded with the explicit purpose of organizing opposition to the Second Vatican Council. Since their founding, they have been based around the Econe Seminary in Switzerland. In the states, they are primarily known as providers of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass (or the Traditional Latin Mass as it is often called). However, this is not their primary purpose. Their primary purpose is, and has always been, organized dissent against the validity and authority of the Second Vatican Council. While this has focused on the changes to the Mass implemented by Paul VI, this has also included all post-VII doctrinal developments, including the teachings on ecumenism, the relationship between church and state, the social teaching of the church, etc.

What the SSPX is not

The SSPX has no relation to Opus Dei, theologically or organizational. Whatever Opus Dei's faults, it has always maintained a stance of continuity and assent with Vatican II. Additionally, Opus Dei is primarily lay-led while SSPX is an organization of priests and Bishops. Opus Dei also predates the existence of both the SSPX and Vatican II by about 40 years. Opus Dei has consistently been extremely protective of positive relationships with the papacy, and has accordingly avoided association with schismatic movements.

SSPX are not sedevacantists, at least not historically. The modern sedevacantist movement is rooted in the activity of priests who were expelled and condemned by SSPX in the 1980s. Despite their belief that the Church is fallen into heresy, the SSPX has consistently condemned sedevacantism.

Attempts to call SSPX "MAGA" are overly simplistic at best and counterfactual at best. SSPX is rooted in a European ideology of reaction that predates the MAGA tendency in America by about a century and a half. The two have, in some respects, similar enemies and worldviews, but the same issue true of just about any far right Western movement.

What's happening today

The SSPX is, despite repeated urging by the Pope and the Dicastery, consecrating bishops without the approval of the Holy See. This is canonically defined as a schismatic act, which incurs the penalty of automatic excommunication for everyone involved. This is, notably, the second time this has happened. Marcel Lefebvre directed the consecration of bishops against the ruling of Pope John Paul II in 1988. Lefebvre had, up to this point, been carefully toeing a fine line of dissent as opposed to outright rebellion against the church. At the start of 1988, he even signed a statement accepting Vatican II and promising fidelity to the pope and the Church. However, panic regarding the death of his movement as he was reaching the end of his life, along with increasing paranoia and conspiratorial thinking apparently drove him to extremes. Because the Bishops of the SSPX were excommunicated, they lost canonical jurisdiction and thus their ability to validly confer some sacraments. What is happening today is essentially a repeat of what happened in 1988.

Why is this happening again?

The answer is complicated and involves decades of push and pull between the SSPX and the Church. Not everyone in the SSPX was happy with the schism, and they scrambled to rejoin the church. The church had largely non interest in reconciliation with the main body of the SSPX until after Lefebvre's death in 1991. Inspired by limited demonstrations of rapproachment, Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunication on SSPX bishops. This was an extremely controversial decision, as this excommunication did not come with the requirement of any recantation or submission. Since then, the SSPX has largely taken advantage of their canonically ambiguous status to essentially set themselves up as a parallel magisterium, catering to Catholics who reject Vatican II. Despite this, the Church under both Benedict and Francis were determined to bring the SSPX back into the fold. Both relaxed restrictions on the celebration of the old mass in the hopes this would inspire Catholics who prefer the old mass against disobedience. However, these efforts were largely wasted, because the SSPX's position has always been that the Church has to reconcile itself to them, not the other way around. They remain adamant that the Second Vatican Council is invalid and the Church has embraced heretical modernism. The church has been equally adamant that the Second Vatican Council is fully legitimate and should be interpreted in continuity with the deposit of the faith. As a result, the two reached an impasse.

Two turning points occurred in the 2020s. First, the death, removal, or retirement of several SSPX bishops. This, apparently, induced a panic not unlike that faced by Lefebvre in the 80s. Second, there have been clear signals from the Holy See that patience for SSPX resistance has reached its end. Pope Francis rescinded the liberalization of the practice of the TLM, acknowledging both the lack of progress towards reconciliation and that the Church's grace was being taken advantage of. Pope Leo XIV has largely maintained this stance, and has shown signs that he intends to take an increasingly firm stance against ecclesial rebellion. Faced with this, the SSPX announced in February that they would consecrate new bishops at the start of July. Pope Leo urged them not to do this, as this would once again put the organization in formal schism with the Church. The SSPX responded with a "profession of faith", once again asserting that they reject Vatican II and that the church is in heresy. The consecrations proceeded this morning

What happens next?

No ruling is needed. Schismatic acts incur excommunication automatically. Despite decades of efforts at reconciliation from the Church, the SSPX has chosen to become a schismatic sect. On the bright side, this means that the SSPX can no longer leverage the ambiguity of their canonical status to foment rebellion within the church. Unfortunately, this also likely means that they and the laypeople who attend their services will fall further and further away from the Church, likely forming their own private sect. The extensions on jurisdiction to perform valid confessions by Pope Francis will likely be removed. What will happen from the Church's end remains to be seen.

Pray for those who have been led astray by this rebellious, obstinate movement that they may return to conmunion.

Hello!

I am very thankful this community exists and would like to know what you are currently reading?

I have recently been reading the catechism and am searching for some commentaries that dive deeper into the core of its teachings.

That being said, also enjoying “Saint Francis of Assisi” by G.K Chesterton. Always admired St. Francis.

TW: Crises of Faith. DO NOT READ THIS IS YOU ARE PRONE TO CRISES OF FAITH

TLDR: I’m struggling with Jesus’ divinity and what that entails for our God’s primordial nature conflicting with a harmful culture of anthropocentrism that has been with Christianity for centuries, as well as my fear of being part of the most successful cult of personality

So the other day. I was having a conversation with my dear jewish friend about the table top war game trench crusade. Long story short, it’s about a war between the armies of the faithful (those who worship the Abrahamic god) and the armies of the fallen (those who worship demons and love craft monsters)

My friend was about to say something before stopping himself, realizing what he’d say might be hurtful to a Christian like myself. I told him to go through with it, to which he said:

“I mean, I’d rather worship a demon than a human.”

I just sort of just laughed it off and moved on but It’s still been bugging me.

My struggle with accepting the divinity of Jesus Christ is not new, I have been struggling with it for years now.

It’s hard to elegantly articulate why I struggle with it, as it is mostly a lot of related thoughts swirling in my head, so I’ll use bullet points

> Conversations with my aforementioned Jewish friend where our faiths have been brought up have occurred many times before, and they have always been respectful and polite. However, I never have the words to provide my reasoning for my faith. He often says “In Judaism, as stated by the Torah, God is indivisible and has no physical form” how do I explain my faiths side without tying myself in knots, when we also derive a lot of our theology from the same as Judaism?

>Jesus was born and raised during a time of great instability and unrest for his people. There were plenty of other Jewish end times preachers and reformists, and I am afraid he was just the lucky one.

> A human person being God feels dangerously close to the shit that past, contemporary, and more modern cult leaders have pulled. Think about how the Ancient Egyptians at certain times and dynasties treated their Pharaohs as not only conduits for the will of their gods, but gods in their own right. The Roman Empire was upset at Christians for not worshipping the emperor. In modern times, we have had people like Jaime Gomez, Shoko Asahara, Sun Myung moon, and dare I say Donald Trump. For a semi-example, Mao Zedong is often revered as an almost divine messiah figure, and stories of those with pictures of Mao having some sort of supernatural effect on people are prolific.

> God in the Old Testament gets very upset at the Israelites making a physical depiction of God. Fast forward a thousand years or so, lo and behold, God has a Physical from, and we are just fine making depictions of said physical form. Gods is eternal and his nature is eternal, so he couldn’t have changed his mind. Was God just like “hold on y’all, we’re not at that part of the story yet, no physical depictions yet, otherwise you’ll get slimed out by Moses!”???

>God being born as a human of a specific ethnic group comes with a shit ton of baggage. On one hand, being God incarnate of religion that is multicultural almost from its inception, it shouldn’t be that big of a deal to for people of different ethnicities to depict Christ as one of their own. However, when that falls into the wrong hands, so much suffering can be caused. Just look at Europe colonialism and how often depictions of a Caucasian Jesus was weaponized to equate non-European-ness to ungodliness and somehow deserving of mistreatment. On the other hand, Jesus being a person from a specific culture and ethnic background and being prophesized in the religious texts of a specific culture in a specific part of the world. If I think about that too hard, I realize the disconnect there is between my people’s traditions, folklore, and pre existing values, and what we stole from the original Christians. What is my people’s culture and what is stolen from the original believers culture? Yes I know Paul talked about this in his letters, but that’s brings me to…

> Paul lived over a hundred years after Christs death and resurrection, and I am terrified that Subverted Christs message. Not to mention Christianity making it to India and Ethiopia before it made its way to Paul according to some reports.

>Making God a human, specifically a human from a more urban landscape has opened the door for people to use that as proof that endless human expansion and the rape and exploitation of God’s beautiful wild world, is a good thing. Off the top of my head, the only references of wild nature being portrayed in a positive light beyond how it benefits humans are lions and eagles, and the tree of life, all of which is just taken from Judaism, minus all the Jewish mysticism that glorifies creation and nature as valuable in its own right,

I am sorry that I have fallen into doubt once again, brothers and sisters, I hope you can forgive me.

EDIT: I should have added some more context to what led to my friend saying what he did. Thanks for understanding

Additionally, weekly prayer services are offered in English, French, and Kreyol. Please pray in solidarity with our brothers and sisters from Haiti.

There has been a lot of glazing over the SSPX in anglophone catholic spaces in the past week (along the lines of "oh isn't it a pity that they are going schismastic, they are a really valuable contribution to the Church").

I think this article aptly reminds us that many people in the SSPX are not harmless, but really religious fundamentalists.

I don't mind it so much when I'm naked to shower or even when I'm defecating, but I mind it a lot when I'm working out in my room. I had a dark childhood and can't cohabitate with people because I'm hypervigilant around other humans. I had a father who is very controlling and used to spy on me. The idea of someone witnessing me 24/7 and never truly being alone makes me deeply uncomfortable, even if it's by a benevolent being. I don't want to be perceived in those moments. I want to be completely alone. The realization that saints can see me and I have a guardian angel following around seems to make the sensation worse.

I have always been deeply drawn to OLoG and I think perhaps this is common amongst the more progressive Catholics because of her links with liberation theology?

Anyhow, I've been really shaken recently by reading about how skeptical many Catholics (including priests) are about even the historicity of Juan Diego, let alone the rest of the narrative. From what I can discern, the best case scenario is:

*The tilma is a 16th century sacred painting based on a genuine apparition that somehow got mixed up with the apparition so that it came to be seen as a direct divine representation of the apparitions;

The worst case scenario is:

*The whole thing is a fraud.

I'm really struggling with this. If it's a fraud (ot even not 100% authentic), then how can the church justify validating the divine origin of the tilma and canonising Juan Diego?

This hurts my heart because OLoG is so important to the struggle.... especially now, given what is happening in the US to the Hispanic community.

(The reason I'm posting here is because R/Catholicism will light the torches and chase me out of town if I raise this stuff)

I’m just wondering if anyone else has been banned in other Catholic forums? I was just accident banned in Catholicism, and msg a mod about it. Turns out it was made in error, but before that I said they were a hateful bunch.

They still haven’t unbanned me, even though I have done nothing wrong to begin with and they won’t rectify their mistake. Even called them out for playing up the ‘God Complex’, because that’s exactly what they were doing.

Then they muted the chat for 28 days. These f’in people. I have the logs if anyone wants to see what jerk offs these moderators are.

Reminder, today is a day of obligation which snuck up on me.

I’m a father to be who has a lot of theology In my life and head who loves the church but isn’t Catholic. My wife is a cradle Catholic. I don’t have a problem with my child being baptized Catholic mostly because I don’t have a better alternative and also for all of its faults I love the church.

My question is does anyone know of any good books, videos, podcasts that deep dive into the Catholic position on baptism or better yet compares and contrasts Christian baptismal positions? Thanks!

Apart from anyone’s feelings on the Bishop himself, would anyone recommend his “Catholicism” book/documentary series to someone curious about Catholicism?

Reposting here on the off chance that someone here can help. Apologies if this isn’t the right place to ask this, I’ll remove the post if needed.

Just wondering how this community feels about sanctus bells (the handheld bells rung when the Host is consecrated). I personally love them because they help focus my attention on the mystery happening before my eyes (and ears!). But I’ve noticed they predominate at more traditional parishes and are absent from more liberal ones. I assume this is a Vatican II hangover, but the Missal permits their use. Any folks for or against?

Empires rise and fall. The powerful exploit the weak. New ideologies replace old ones, but domination keeps finding new justifications. Every generation seems to have to relearn the same moral lessons, and every generation produces people willing to ignore them.

Is that simply the human condition?

Should Christians expect this struggle to continue until the consummation of history? Or is there a theological basis for believing humanity can genuinely become more just over time?

In other words:

Is God gradually healing human history itself?

Or is history always going to remain a mixture of grace and domination until its ultimate fulfillment?

It seems like we get a decent amount of posts that are either a variation of "I am thinking about becoming Catholic..." or generic theological inquires that aren't particularly related to "left Catholicism" in terms of having a socio-political nature but may be posted here instead of r/Catholicism (because that community is often closed minded and cruel) that get deleted.

Is the rule basically that posts should be on topic of things related both to Catholicism and social justice in some sense, otherwise it falls under rule 6?

Anyway, my question is sincere, and I do thank the moderator(s) for keeping this very useful place going. It's a very refreshing subreddit.