Talk:Society of Saint Pius X/Archive 1

message: Hi,
Even if the Society of St. Pius X doesn't admit it, it seems obvious that it is almost Sedevacantist. Shall we say something about it ?
Moreover, after Ecclesia Dei, part of the Traditionalist (in France mainly, I think), came back to the Church of Rome, with the creation of the Society of St Peter (in French, Fraternité Saint Pierre), that is traditionalist but linked to Rome and not shismatic. Revas 21:47 18/04/05
::Point (1) - SSPX may or may not be in schism, but they are not sedevacantist.  Surely a crucial part of being sedevacantist is to openly say (or admit) that you believe that the throne of Peter is vacant.  SSPX definately do not say that.  You can be out of communion without admitting it as communion involves both sides but I find it hard to see how you can be a sedevacantist without saying so openly.  JASpencer 12:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Point (2) I'm not sure about the later part, is it to do with including Fraternity of St. Peter in the Category for SSPX?  I think that's valid as it's certainly a part of the SSPX "story".  JASpencer 12:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I absolutely agree that the Society is in no way, shape, or form sedevecantist; it condemns sedevecantists and Archbishop Lefebvre at one point expelled several sedevecantist priests from the Society.
This section is rather old, but much more can be said in it. I know for a fact that the SSPX allows its priests and seminarians to believe in the sedevacantist position as long as they don't vocalize that belief. Though their publications demonize the idea of it and many of their laity too, that very awful position could very well be the internal position of their own parish priest! Archbishop Lefebvre himself, printed in the Angelus of 1986, admitted he was close to the sedevacantist position and hinted he may one day be one...though he died 5 years later. Since his death, there was an about face making anyone even considering the position out to look mentally defective - so much for their own founder! --Diligens 17:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sedevacantism 

message: Does anyone who follows the ins and outs of SSPX closer than I do know whether they have rejected the validity of the New Order Mass since Lefeberve died?  This link (  ) seems to suggest that they have. JASpencer 13:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Validity of the Novus Ordo Missae

message: As in Traditional Catholic article, traditionalist talks about traditional. So, they actually manage to write a whole article on traditional catholicism without naming Marcel Lefebvre (maybe they don't like his article), founder of the Society of St. Pius X. And in this latter article, they of course forget to speak about his excommunication in 1988 by John Paul II. Is it that important for them? Oh! what a surprise! googling in "traditional catholicism" or something close always end up with the Wikipedia article. They don't want the basic John Doe to know about such obvious facts as an excommunication, which they seem to fear a lot... I call it: historical revisionism. OK, just ignore me, i won't bother you anymore... someone else will. (unsigned User:Kaliz)
:Don't get confused. I am a traditionalist, but I will have nothing to so with the SSPX, as many of my friends would. Many rightly understand that all Bishops in the SSPX are excommunicated, all Priests attempting incardination from a excommunicated Bishop are suspended, and and the laity attending those Masses are risking schism, even though attendence is not equated with schism. Kaliz, you are mixing the flavors of traditionalism. Many of us have an indult to allow the Mass from 1962, but share little with those who are extreme traditionalists. I think the mention of excommunication is essential. Like you I am frustrated with the revert wars. Dominick (TALK) 19:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like you haven't read the rebuttals to your argument. No person can be excommunicated for doing something they feel is for the good of the Church, in what they feel is a state of emergency. Therefore no excommunication COULD take place. -- 2nd Piston Honda 06:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So Martin Luther couldn't be excommunicated?  Looks like 2nd Piston Honda hasn't read the rebuttals of his notion.  Lima 10:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Martin Luther rejected teachings of the Church and the authority of the Pope. Lefebvre was merely trying to do what he had to do AS a good Catholic. He never contradicted a teaching of the Church, nor would he ever have thought of doing so. Even when he consecrated the bishops he knew and agreed with the law prohibiting it, but felt he had to do it because it was a state of emergency and his faith gave him the duty of doing such things to save the true faith. There's a huge difference between the two. -- 2nd Piston Honda 19:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV check =

message: Having read the article, I think it accurately summarizes both the canonical situation of the Society as well as the releavant Canon law.  I don't see a need for modification unless/until some canonical situation changes.  Bellay and Pope Benedict XVI have met.  Perhaps the resolution will be fruitful for all.Davescj 09:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  seems fair to me 

message: I found that the mention of the decree from the Congregation of Bishops after the consecrations was pretty much missing.  It was probably in at one time and got removed during an edit.  I added a sentence back in about that so people can see how we'd go from point A to B to C more clearly, I didn't feel it was as clear before.
JesseG 06:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decrees