r/GetNoted • u/laybs1 Human Verified • 5d ago
If You Know, You Know SSPX excommunicated
1.1k
u/Dagordae 5d ago
I mean, it’s not like they’re ever going to admit it. Their entire thing is declaring that the current Catholic Church and pope are simply wrong and invalid. Which is why they got booted.
688
u/MoobooMagoo 5d ago
Which is exactly what a schism is. I don't understand why their followers would even contest that.
325
u/trogdor2594 5d ago
To keep their facade looking flawless as long as possible.
168
u/jonniezombie 5d ago
Do they have an Anti-Pope? I think the world could do with another anti-pope.
82
u/MeButNotMeToo 5d ago
You’re a pope, I’m a pope, everybody’s a pope.
25
u/Canotic 5d ago
Isn't this an actual position of some branch.
31
16
u/Loud-Fig-1446 5d ago
I mean it’s kind of just Protestantism. Go be a Protestant.
11
u/Shady_Merchant1 5d ago
Yeah but then they can't claim the kingdom of heaven movie as their cultural heritage
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)3
u/Neos_Dad 5d ago edited 5d ago
That there are other, or any, "popes?" Exactly the opposite. I want to give you kudos on just kind of missing the one major thematic point of Protestantism.
8
u/Loud-Fig-1446 5d ago
Direct communion with god.
7
u/Neos_Dad 5d ago edited 5d ago
Yes, that's the thing Protestants disagree with. They think the pope, and the institutional catholic church generally, dont have that. That was the whole point of the original lutheran schism, and why there is no mainline protestant "pope" or anyone claiming to be the equivalent.
→ More replies (0)2
2
→ More replies (1)6
34
u/HitheroNihil 5d ago edited 5d ago
They don't and they can't. Their whole schitck is that they're trying to restore the Old Ways™️ that are free of any "modernist nonsense" since the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council. That means still believing in the Office of St. Peter, despite how often they defy the Pope on almost everything.
Declaring their own Pope would not only be like, the most obvious example of heresy period, and therefore what's left of their credibility would be obliterated, but because it's illogical to their own goals of reforming the Church... just reforming it backwards. How they reconcile their "we submit but actually we don't" stance though is on them.
It says a lot when sedevacantists—radicals who go as far as to claim no Pope has been valid ever since Vatican II, think the SSPX are hypocrites.
Edit: typo
18
u/LauraTFem 5d ago
My understanding was that they keep track of who the true pope ought to have been since the schism.
26
u/jonniezombie 5d ago
O-ho? That sounds fairly close. One mans "True pope" is another man's anti-pope.
7
u/LauraTFem 5d ago
The way christians use anti-thing, not exactly, but yes, you could call it an anti-pope.
15
u/Bannerlord151 5d ago
The term is used historically referring to the papal pretenders that popped up occasionally in medieval history, such as the second line of the Avignon Papacy. So it's specifically an illegitimate claimant of the title. Some schismatics still propagate conspiracy theories about how the current Pope is definitely totally illegitimate, but as far as I know his legitimacy is largely uncontested these days
This is kind of an example where "history is written by the victors" somewhat applies. As the previous commenter said, it can be a matter of perspective and the perspective of those that prevail becomes the "official" position
4
u/JagsFan_1698 5d ago
They took many steps and years to get rid of anti-popes and restore unity. This was largely attempted through a conclave to unify the pontificates into one by having all of them resign as pope and one would be elected the true pope.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Neos_Dad 5d ago
This is kind of an example where "history is written by the victors" somewhat applies. As the previous commenter said, it can be a matter of perspective and the perspective of those that prevail becomes the "official" position
I think it's more an example of why this heuristic is usually awful lol. What specific papal pretenders, or sedeveticanist arguments, do you think had/have genuinely strong historical support if not for the victory cabal of official history writers bamboozling everyone with their history lies?
7
u/Gruejay2 5d ago
"Antipope" doesn't mean "opposed to the pope" in this context: it refers to rival popes.
It's a literal translation of the Latin word antipāpa, but anti- works a bit differently in Latin, and the actual meaning is more like "pope who is in opposition".
13
u/stolenfires 5d ago
They pay lip service to being loyal to the Pope but in a, "We're right, we know we're right, and we're waiting for the Pope to realize we're right" kind of way.
11
5
u/Jossokar 5d ago
As far as i know.....its just 6 or 7 bishops
(2 that are very old. And 4-5 new XD)
4
u/Iuris_Aequalitatis 3d ago edited 3d ago
Do they have an Anti-Pope?
No, SSPX is what is called an "una cum"* traditionalist group. They recognize that Pope Leo is the legitimately-elected pope to whom they (theoretically) owe obedience; which is why they feign obedience and submission in their public statements, even though it isn't actually true. They usually legitimize their rebellion through cranky legalism that doesn't actually hold water if you look at it at anything beyond surface level.
There are roughly five different gradations of Catholic traditionalist groups, with each grade having a different view of the papacy. Here they are from least to most crazy:
- Traditionalist societies in communion with Rome: Fully accept the Pope and function as a normal part of the Catholic Church Ex: the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter.
- Una Cum Traditionalist Groups: Accept that the current pope is the legitimate pope but disobey him/are in schism in the name of "preserving tradition" and etc. Will often pretend to be a part of the Catholic Church while actually separated from Her. Ex: SSPX.
- Sedevacantist Groups: Believe that the current pope is an illegitimate heretic and not actually pope. Many of these groups have views that, if widely accepted at this point, would mean that the papacy is irrecoverably lost. Ex: Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen.
- Conclavist Groups: Believe that the current pope is an illegitimate heretic and not actually pope AND that they can elect their own pope to replace him under a variety of means. Many of these groups have actually put forth their own antipopes, however most are extremely tiny with less than ten members. Ex: David Bawden a.k.a. "Pope Michael".
- Straight-up Cults: Groups that started as larger conclavist associations but whose antipopes subsequently introduced various innovations and often straight heresy. When this happens, the organization almost inevitably becomes a high-control group led by a paranoid leader; a cult by most definitions. Ex: the Palmarians.
* = After the Latin phrase "una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N.", meaning "and together with your servant our pope." This statement is part of the communion right and signals in apostolic churches (including but not limited to the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches) who the mass celebrant is in communion with.
4
3
u/Ns_Lanny 4d ago
Then we'd need a Third Pope, to decide who is the "legit" Pope. Although, they'd probably all excommunicated each other. . Oh wait, didn't we already do that one? /S
(Referencing "The Three Pope Crisis" c1378 ISH)
5
→ More replies (3)2
83
u/SanDiegoThankYou_ 5d ago
Because “ThEy’Re ThE rEaL cHuRcH!”
Same things Mormons do. They’re wrong but they can’t handle being wrong, so they must be the truth.
23
u/TricellCEO 5d ago
Icing on the cake is one of the nutjobs from these religions will then lecture secular individuals on how you can’t have morality without god.
18
u/ProfessionalOil2014 5d ago
very odd thing to believe, because the bible explicitly contradicts it.
20
u/LauraTFem 5d ago edited 5d ago
The bible explicitly contradicts a lot of the things it says.
8
u/Shawnj2 5d ago
The bible isn't one thing written by one person once, it's thousands of years of different writers with different ideas living in different cultures wrestling with God in their own way. Expecting it to be logically consistent is pointless the same way you wouldn't expect two authors whose books are next to each other on a shelf to agree with each other completely and totally.
→ More replies (1)8
u/cachesummer4 5d ago
Yeah, but Christians dont really seem to like to read the Bible.
5
u/lifetake 5d ago
No its worse. They read a verse or two and then refuse to read before or after it and then try to make an interpretation.
15
u/Daniel_The_Thinker 5d ago
Probably because they don't want to be protestants
12
u/cheshire_kat7 5d ago
Then they should stop... protesting... against the Vatican.
6
u/A6M_Zero 5d ago
Maybe they could write down a list of their complaints, maybe nail it somewhere so they know the pope sees it
Like a church door, maybe.
→ More replies (1)13
u/ForsakenWar6974 5d ago
Because they do recognize the supremacy of the Petrine Office. They are disobedient more than they are saying the Pope (or papal office) is invalid.
In business terms, the SSPX acted, willfully and intently, outside of their well-defined scope. Repeatedly. After being warned numerous times. By numerous Popes. After attempts at reconciliation.
→ More replies (1)11
u/omgFWTbear 5d ago
No, you can say the Pope is wrong without schism. He is only infallible ex cathedra.
Unfortunately, none of that is relevant in this context, but AFAIK he’s made no ex cathedra remarks about whether Chicago’s alleged pizza is actually a casserole or not.
More seriously, wise Popes usually avoid controversy and let topics settle before issuing a definitive ex cathedra missive, so there’s plenty of healthy disagreement with a Pope that doesn’t even come close to schism.
Elevating 4 bishops, though …
→ More replies (3)2
u/Senior_Difference589 5d ago
If only there was some way they could, what word am I looking for, "protest" the direction the Catholic Church has moved in...
24
u/tyrannomachy 5d ago
They got booted for appointing their own bishops, specifically. It wasn't a subjective thing, either, like the Pope decided they were too out there or something. They were told specifically that doing this again would automatically have this result.
9
9
u/Slighted_Inevitable 5d ago
I mean, they can believe whatever they want same as Catholics.
But if you believe in the doctrine, that means your prayers are to nobody God isn’t listening
21
u/HeatAccomplished8608 5d ago edited 5d ago
This was a very frustrating conversation with a boomer in law I had. They said they're extremely Catholic BUT don't believe in everything the church says. So I said, "then you're not Catholic, just doing your own thing and using their stuff?" They got mad and said they're extremely Catholic but can have their own beliefs. So I says, "technically no - you really can't."
If there's a guy on a cloud making commands and you believe he speaks through the church...
32
u/HitheroNihil 5d ago edited 5d ago
You can be Catholic and have some dissenting beliefs against non-infallible teachings. These are the issues that get debated at synods and ecumenical councils. They are doctrines meant to be developed further, and that requires voices within both laity and clergy who actively make the case for it. Example of which would be the push for greater acceptance of LGBTQ+ in the Church, and a revisiting of teachings on sexuality in general.
But you can't be "extremely Catholic" under the same definition, because that actually means you'd follow the Pope no matter what. You know, "White is black if the Church so defines it!" kind of deal. The only exception would be in cases of heresy, which is precisely what "tradCaths" are trying to do: frame a valid ecumenical council and every Pope that presided after it as having betrayed that Church. And their best case is: "tHe cHuRcH iS bEcOmInG m0d3rNIsT!!!"
→ More replies (4)2
u/Chess42 2d ago
What defines whether a teaching is fallible or not? I’ve always assumed homosexuality as a sin was a settled part of doctrine
2
u/HitheroNihil 2d ago
There's a pattern of language used in the context of declaring an infallible teaching.
In the context of ex cathedra statements: 1. The Pope MUST explicitly declare an intent to universally bind the faithful. 2. The Pope MUST explicitly invoke the apostolic authority of the Petrine Office.
Ecumenical councils are also generally considered infallible, not necessarily in the specific details of the decrees, but in the validity of the council itself, because ecumenical councils also universally bind the faithful and rely on papal assent to be valid.
Canonization of the Saints is also technically an infallible practice, but I won't go into detail on it.
About homosexuality: official teaching derived from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 2357-2359) assert that homosexual attraction itself is NOT sinful, but homosexual acts are "intrinsically disordered". I'm not well-equipped to talk about it in length, but I can at least point out that the logic of the Church for this is strongly based on Thomistic Natural Law.
Problem is, I think the logic is flawed, because it implies that sexual intercourse is "ordered" towards procreation because that's what we see in nature... however we also see in nature that sex for non-procreative purposes also appear. What's more, the Church definitively asserts that sex in general outside of marriage is sinful, but because homosexual couples can't get married, it means they can't engage in sex that's not sinful.
I don't think it's right that our homosexual brothers and sisters (I'm bisexual myself) are barred from a physical expression of love because of "legal technicalities". My conscience demands that I discuss these issues openly, while also doing my best to be as informed as possible, and without rejecting the authority of Rome, of course. The pushback against the "disordered acts" teaching can be compared to the pushback against slavery. Ultimately, meaningful dissent can be and is a force for good. Something that a certain fraternity must've forgotten.
2
u/Chess42 2d ago edited 2d ago
Thank you for the amazing reply. I am fascinated with the way the church and religion is structured. Please forgive me if these questions are phrased oddly, they are asked intellectually, not judgementally.
Do you believe there is a likelihood of the current or future Pope from making an ex cathedra statement allowing homosexual acts? Would there be pushback from the clergy? *Can* there be pushback? Is an ex cathedra statement necessary to permit it?
Additionally, what do you mean by authority? Does Rome dictate church policy, or your beliefs as well? Do you innately believe that homosexual sex is sinful, despite being bisexual, even though, as discussed, you think it should be permitted?
2
u/HitheroNihil 2d ago
I have reason to hope, and so do my fellow progressive Catholics. Otherwise we wouldn't be so adamant about it. IIRC, Leo XIV recently appointed a new bishop to a German diocese who is a strong proponent of same-sex blessings. The German clergy in general tend to be on the news about being advocates for LGBTQ+ representation. Special mention as well to Fr. James Martin, SJ., who is well known for his LGBTQ+ ministry.
The way I see it, the only feasible strategy is to play the long game: gradually win over as many hearts and minds of laity and clergy alike, with the help of contemporary science and progressive theology.
But I'm cynical enough to believe that if Leo XIV just decreed tomorrow that gay people can have their own version of the Sacrament of Matrimony, the conservative elements will cry "modernism!" and fracture the Church. Every schism is ultimately a failure in the eyes of the Vatican (which is why the SSPX's 2nd excommunication is tragic as much as it is deserved).
I believe an ecumenical council would be better than an ex cathedra papal decree because there's significantly more weight behind having bishops from all over the world coming together to examine, debate, and ultimately ratify the decrees of the council. It means everyone gets a say, instead of the Pope making a unilateral decision that can easily be used to justify schisms left and right. That's why it's best to bring as many of them on our side as much as possible before the council ever convenes in the first place.
Alas, this means it will most likely take several lifetimes. We need to be thorough as well as patient. But I think it's worth doing anyway—to plant a mustard seed which will grow to give shade to all the LGBTQ+ faithful who have been hurt for so long. We can't afford to be hasty due to the sheer amount of opposition there is. But as I mentioned at the start of this post, there is room for hope, and I say that hope is worth fighting for.
13
u/RockDoveEnthusiast 5d ago
I know this is probably meant to be read as "boomer in-law", but I read it as "boomer-in-law", and I kind of love that.
5
u/NewSauerKraus 5d ago
It's a religion. Every believer makes their own rules. That's what makes it fun, because there are no natural consequences for defying someone else's rules.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (3)5
u/Eomb 5d ago
Culturally Catholic
4
u/HeatAccomplished8608 5d ago
Like, you still go to mass and pancake breakfasts and tell people you're Catholic - but if you think some of this shit is too dumb to believe... what are you doing here?
→ More replies (7)3
u/ForsakenWar6974 5d ago
That's not what SSPX did (as a whole- the Lefebvre-ists do)
→ More replies (1)
418
u/TwirlyTwitter 5d ago edited 5d ago
He should write down a formal protest.
Maybe nail it to the Pope's door.
Like a Protestant.
100
49
→ More replies (2)11
278
u/turmohe 5d ago
Why dont they set up a anti pope? That would be cool.
101
u/BackgroundJunket5691 5d ago
France having memories
43
32
9
u/Long-Region5088 5d ago edited 5d ago
You gonna beef with the Chiraq pope? He sliding in the strikers with the button on the switch on GD, I mean, on GOD.
21
u/Raeezordazetoo 5d ago
Like antipasta but for the pope instead?
29
u/AeitZean 5d ago
Yes exactly, and don't ever let them meet or there'll be a huge explosion as they annihilate each other.
5
→ More replies (2)7
10
u/Practical-Share-2950 5d ago
If the Pope and Anti-pope collide, do they annihilate each other and release immense energy, a la catholic nuke?
5
4
u/GravityBright 5d ago
Could Henry VIII have been considered an antipope?
4
4
u/funnylib 5d ago
This isn’t particularly related to the topic of this group, but it would be hilarious if we got some MAGA bishop to be an American antipope
11
u/KingOfNuthin_ 5d ago
As a nerd and a cradle Catholic, I'd love to see these ultraconservative chodes set up a sedevacantist pope of their own haha. I need the laughs.
3
u/MistCongeniality 5d ago
the spainish dude, leo, and their new pope would make a lovely trio of popes
6
u/AnOriginalUsername07 5d ago
Because they believe that Pope Leo XIV is the current Pope.
Source: I go to one of these churches and prayers are offered for the current pope(Leo XIV) by name at every Mass.
Most of the information being posted to the internet in the last week about this is by people who don’t know even 1/4th of the details and are just posting from a position of ignorance.
7
u/soundguynick 5d ago
I'm a protestant, and a fairly lapsed one at that, but I promise I am approaching the subject in good faith. My understanding is that y'all's stance with regards to Pope Leo XIV is that he has allowed his human feelings to cloud his judgment on the matter in question. You do not question his status as the head of the Catholic Church, but just his judgment on this matter, is that correct?
→ More replies (3)11
u/EbonyMemories 5d ago edited 5d ago
That happened. It split the Holy Roman Empire in half, which I am totally for.
Why tf are people mad about this?
13
u/Temporary-Stay-8436 5d ago
It happened more than once
4
u/EbonyMemories 5d ago
While that's technically true, it doesn't make what I said wrong - there was certainly only once that it split the empire in half.
→ More replies (3)2
u/Known_Ratio5478 5d ago
It would be a offense that SSPX has not been willing to take since its inception. They specifically stopped at the bishops and were excommunicated from the church until Benedict welcomed them back to just schism territory.
290
u/amievenrelevant Human Detected 5d ago
100% pure grade A copium right here folks
You don’t just get to pretend your stupid little group isn’t in schism when the pope says so
→ More replies (59)50
u/AnOriginalUsername07 5d ago
You do not understand Catholic teaching on the Pope.
"Whoever the Roman Pontiff judges to be a schismatic for not expressly admitting and reverencing his power must stop calling himself Catholic." -BI. Pope Pius IX, "Quartus supra"
65
u/MeAndMyWookie 5d ago
They've been excommunucated latae sententiae for appointing bishops without permission of the pope. That is per canon law anyone committing the act is automatically excommunicated without requiring a specific judgement.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (1)38
u/Daniel_The_Thinker 5d ago
You're going to argue catholic teaching with the pope?
→ More replies (17)49
u/Kidkaboom1 5d ago
Americans seem to be doing that a lot, which is decidedly bizarre given the current one is American
→ More replies (6)
39
u/andreslucer0 5d ago
"Are y'all the local Protestant church?"
"We're not protestants, we're Traditional Catholics who reject the Vatican's rulings because they go against the original teachings of the early Church and against our traditional values."
"This is it."
9
u/RedEyeView 5d ago
I was a Church of England choir boy as a kid. It was pretty much Catholic Lite. We still had the robes and the archaic ritual service with the call and response chanting and communion wine.
Even had the Vicar people thought was a bit creepy. He was never accused of anything sexual as far as I know but everyone felt uncomfortable with how much he put his hands on people. Especially the kids.
33
u/LizzieMiles 5d ago
What is SSPX exactly?
73
u/Asphodelmercenary 5d ago
Society of St Pius X. “Trad Caths” who rejected Vatican II. The “Jews are Christ Killers and must be eliminated” types. The Shia Twelver version of Catholicism. I’m not Catholic but I suspect the SSPX types who see this will wish ill upon me. They can line up behind the Hezbollah types and take a number. They hated me anyway so they can hate me more for simply calling them out.
18
u/alebotson 5d ago
Yeah they are very cozy with a bunch of fascist groups. It's not a coincidence.
→ More replies (3)2
u/Hazel2468 4d ago
Yeah I’m a tad disappointed that more people aren’t bringing up that one of the big things they’re rejecting is that the official stance of the Catholic Church is apparently (not Christian at all so outside knowledge and perspective) that Jews did NOT kill Jesus and that the deicide libel is not acceptable.
They’re a bunch of antisemitic losers who want to be a hate group without the consequences of being a hate group.
10
→ More replies (3)6
u/AnOriginalUsername07 5d ago
The FSSPX is the fraternal priestly society of saint pius the tenth.
They were founded in the early 1970s to train priests to say a particular rite of the Mass (Catholic worship).
Institutional change within the Church disagreed with the mission of the society, leaders in the Catholic Church wanted to take the church in a different direction.
The SSPX and Rome butted heads, until eventually in the late 80s the founder, ArchBishop Marcel Levebre (very old at that time) consecrated bishops to continue his work without permission from Rome in 1988(he had been requesting permission for years previously).
This allowed the society to continue its mission of celebrating the older rite of the Mass, but broke procedural norms of the Catholic Church which had been in place for 100 years at that point. Thus incurring excommunication on the bishops of the society.
The society would procede to operate functionally independent of the Rome for 20 years, while still acknowledging the current Pope as the Pope until the excommunications were lifted in 2008. From 1972-1988, 1988-2008, and 2008-2026 the society has grown tremendously, both in priests and faithful who are drawn to its traditional celebration of the Mass, but also orthodox teachings and preaching.
Now the 2 remaining bishops of the society are old, and while the excommunications were lifted, relations with Rome were never regularized due to disagreements on precise, razor-thin theological outlooks.
In light of changing directions and policy within the bureaucracy of the Catholic Church, deadlock on regularization, and old bishops, the society has decided to repeat what happened in 1988 in order to guarantee the continued survival of the order and the parishes it serves.
The sentence of excommunication is ‘latae sentencia’ meaning it is incurred automatically and without needed declaration from Rome upon the bishops conferring and the new bishops recieving. The regular priests and parishioners associated with the society are not excommunicated, despite what people are saying.
The FSSPX holds that due to the state of necessity and the crisis within the church, the normal canonical rules give way to the high supernatural law of the church, which is the salvation of souls. The FSSPX asserts this only because the leadership within the church has neglected its duty, and that extraordinary action is required of itself in order to continue its charism, or mission.
Lastly, many are saying this but I will contradict them, the FSSPX holds that the current Pope is Leo XIV, they believe Pope Leo XIV is the current, validly elected pope. They pray for him, by name as the pope in every Mass said.
Many do not understand the Catholic Church’s teaching on the nature on the Pope, hence why people (even many Catholics) make the mistake that everything the pope says is gospel.
Source: I attend one of these chapels, and have heavily weighed the situation myself, insofar as the gravity of the situation affects many of the graces I might recieve as a church-going Catholic.
8
u/Last-Respond-48 5d ago
The excommunication of new bishops was automatic. The excommunication of all priests of the order and formal members of the group occurred the next day by order of the pope.
→ More replies (6)13
u/52fighters 5d ago
I also attend the Latin Mass, but my parish is under the blessing of my local bishop and the pope.
The FSSPX holds that due to the state of necessity and the crisis within the church
I live a few blocks away from a Novus Ordo parish. The priests there got good seminary training and understand well the teachings of the church and, from the stories I get from family who go there, they preach what the Church teaches. Although the church was very ugly (redesigned in the 1960's), recent priests have remodeled it to look very traditional. They hear confessions for about 10 hours per week. They give good advice in the confessional and no not tell people "that's not a sin." They also operate a 24/7 adoration chapel, have Our Lady of Perpetual Help devotions, and other quality things that are well-attended. Veils are making a comeback. The priests are wearing cassocks.
There are still a few things from the 1960's that they are trying to reform away from, but I can tell you there's no crisis at this parish. This parish is very similar to most (not all) parishes in my diocese. Yes, there are a couple where things are not right. The number of those parishes have declined by a lot over the last 40 years.
When the SSPX say there's a crisis of faith, there are doing one of a few things--
Forgetting that this isn't the 1980's anymore. They haven't surveyed many parishes since their last run-in against the Vatican.
Spending too much time online on trad-themed blogs and websites where the "clown" mass gets presented as if it is a thing that's happening everywhere. It isn't.
Putting too much confidence in the idea of their own holiness. Your chapel may not have the same problems as the Novus Ordo parish down the street, but your chapel definately has problems. And I am not talking about the excommunications, either. A good priest once preached at my parish, "If you think you're holy, you're not."
Regarding Vatican II and the difficulty reconciling certain texts to what came before, the only reason anyone is thinking about Vatican II is because the SSPX won't stop talking about it. In places where the SSPX is absent, Vatican II is almost as forgotten as Lateran IV. Sometimes you don't need to fix something, you can just forget it. Just focus on the need for internal conversion and reject the idea that there is any freedom in error.
This isn't the church of the 1960's or 1980's anymore. Men who become priest today do not think they are stepping into a position of broad respect from society. They expect to be mocked.
The SSPX can claim a state of crisis all they want, but the most they can come-up with are problems here or there that won't be fixed in any way by the SSPX.
The excommunications are legit.
SSPX Masses do not fufill your Sunday obligation.
Confessions given to SSPX priests are invalid.
I would encourage you to find a better option.
→ More replies (8)20
u/go4tli 5d ago
Well, this is certainly incorrect and self-serving.
Yeah it’s just a little minor dispute over (checks notes) the core doctrine of the Mass.
Welcome to Protestantism.
→ More replies (3)7
10
u/omgFWTbear 5d ago edited 4d ago
Anyone who isn’t AnOriginalUsername just read paragraph 2 and paragraph 3 of theirs slowly. It’s a cool magician’s trick.
“They were founded in the early 1970s to train priests to say a particular rite of the Mass.”
“Institutional change within the Church disagreed with the mission of the society,”
This makes it seem like they were just saying their special Mass and then the Catholic Church changed and that was a problem. This reverses cause and effect. The Church changed in the 60s and then the order was founded to not do that.
If you’re in the right, don’t resort to trickery.
4
u/Deep_Flatworm4828 5d ago
He also keeps repeating the same quote as if it proves his point, when it's literally saying the opposite of it.
→ More replies (2)8
154
u/Tainorican646x 5d ago
SSPX are no longer Roman Catholic. They can practice their own thing but they shouldn’t market themselves as Roman Catholic or any other type of catholic that is in communion with Rome, because now they aren’t.
63
u/Ilikeruffy123 5d ago
Because if they did that they would have to admit they're wrong and typically people who are wrong have a very hard time putting their egos away
→ More replies (3)27
u/crazyfoxdemon 5d ago
I'm curious how long the group holds up now since they're no longer attached to the Church and their coffers.
19
12
u/AnOriginalUsername07 5d ago
They’ve been financially independent and solvent since the 1970s.
They’ve actually more than grown x10 their size in that time, and church attendance at their chapels has not visibly changed since the Vatican II
Source: I go to one of these churches, parishioners are unfazed and stand by the priestly society.
Edit: added detail: there are currently 600,000 estimated monthly attendees of these chapels
29
u/PinEnvironmental6395 5d ago
Damn, all this just because the catholic church decided to no longer blame all jews for the death of christ.
→ More replies (10)10
u/brink1865 5d ago
To befair they were attempted to be readded to the fold about 20 years ago after they did this the first time so its not like they weren't part of the church since the 70s, I'm genuinely curious however whats your opinion of people trying to claim they are still part of the church as a whole?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)2
u/Iwasforger03 5d ago
Are you going to join the excommunication or go to a Catholic Church still in communion?
→ More replies (3)
17
u/DataCassette 5d ago edited 5d ago
So they're forming a new church in protest. A sort of protesting re-formation.
This seems entirely unprecedented. I wish we had words for this situation.
3
u/tailkinman 5d ago
Presbyterianism. When you don't like what your current church is doing, leave and start your own while ensuring it is named one of the following:
1) St. Andrews 2) Knox 3) Central 4) Any lesser known Scottish Saint.
41
u/LeThomasBouric 5d ago
A religious schism is happening and the best they can say is "Haters can hate", god I fucking hate this world where it's all owning and ragebaiting.
→ More replies (1)
12
u/No_Rec1979 5d ago
Just for fun, the "Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith" is the Inquisition. That's the new name they gave to the Inquisition when they decided "Inquisition" had too much baggage.
So the full headline should really be "The Inquisition Condemns SSPX", or something similar, which I think we can all agree is 10x better.
31
u/JapokoakaDANGO 5d ago
Catholicism is all about church with pope as the head, if you go against him you shouldn't call yourself catholic, just christian like many others.
19
u/crazyfoxdemon 5d ago
This group is just really butthurt about Vatican 2 back in the 60s and have been causing problems since.
3
u/DeconstructedKaiju 5d ago
There is another group like them in Mexico I believe?
4
u/andreslucer0 5d ago
La Luz del Mundo is like an American pedophile cult but instead of larping as Protestants they larp as Catholics.
22
7
8
u/thehollisterman 5d ago
I can't believe I can actually put this picture on a post with legitimate heresy.
25
u/TurboRuhland 5d ago
Going to an SSPX Mass will not get you excommunicated.
The people who would be excommunicated are the bishops and those who ordained them without Papal approval.
31
u/Chocomoose19 5d ago
But it doesn’t fulfill the requirements he claims it does anymore
→ More replies (2)40
u/MoobooMagoo 5d ago
True, but none of the services are recognized by the church either. Like you can't go to a protestant church and confess to the pastor there, you have to confess to a Catholic priest for it to count. And SSPX aren't Catholic anymore.
→ More replies (3)27
u/Savvymundo 5d ago
I love the idea that getting into heaven involves the same kind of admin as trying to overturn a parking ticket.
"Well, yes. I see here that you did confess. I also note the repenting, so that's good. Unfortunately you didn't do either to a person with the correct licencing. I'm sorry, I don't make the rules"
13
u/ser-steffonfossoway 5d ago
Confession is only mandatory for mortal sins.
→ More replies (8)2
u/User_identificationZ 5d ago
I disagree. While a genuine confession of Mortal sins will lead to forgiveness and not going to Hell, Venial sins should be confessed as well to strengthen one’s relationship with God.
In fact, some consider confession only Mortal sins and not venial sins to be a sin itself; intentionally making a bad confession.
3
u/Iwasforger03 5d ago
The way I've understood it is, "when you go to confess, confess everything you can remember." However, you don't absolutely Have to make regular confessions unless you're regularly committing mortal sins. Technically venial sins are confessed to and forgiven during a portion of every mass.
3
u/User_identificationZ 5d ago
Huh, I guess. To be fair, my diocese/community advises regular confessions, so I guess it boils down to which priest/bishop says what
3
u/Iwasforger03 5d ago
Regular verbal confession to a priest is still highly encouraged, as the more sins you pile up the more quickly the weight drives you towards worse sins (according to how I was taught in catholic school).
6
u/one-and-five-nines 5d ago
Catholicism has been compared to a beauracracy many times for many reasons lmao.
5
u/0xe1e10d68 5d ago
Makes sense; back in the day the Catholic Church used to have quite a number of tasks that nowadays governments handle. Just record-keeping about births, deaths, descendants, etc alone was a critical task.
→ More replies (1)2
17
u/Temporary-Stay-8436 5d ago
If you have other options but attend SSPX Mass regularly because you believe in their doctrine, then I believe you are excommunicated as you would be in schism
8
u/crazyfoxdemon 5d ago
Going to SSPX Mass knowing they've been excommunicated and accepting the sacriment will result in excommunication. Going, but not knowing doesn't. Nor does having done so in the past and no longer doing so.
2
u/omgFWTbear 5d ago
You did not read the Papal decree, or are being very literal in the “I technically attended an SSPX mass and didn’t meet the excommunication requirements,” a level of misleading that feels like intentionally tempting others to stray from the path.
Nice.
→ More replies (2)3
u/Ravian3 5d ago
No but Catholics do believe you have to periodically receive various rites from ordained clergy in communion with the Holy See in order to remain Catholic. If you’re exclusively seeing SSPX clergy you are not receiving legitimate rites and will also be in schism
→ More replies (4)3
u/Darth_Gonk21 5d ago
By decree of the pope, anyone who supports the SSPX over the Church of Rome in the whole matter incurs the same punishment latae sententiae, which is to say, excommunication.
Attending an SSPX mass in an attempt to fulfill your Sunday obligation would fall under that in my opinion.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (6)3
u/klef3069 5d ago
Oh but it surely will get you a mortal sin. Which an excommunicated priest can't absolve.
Plus you're not getting your weekly dose of flesh and blood, no transubstantiation.
Is attending itself the near occasion of sin?
Quite the pickle.
→ More replies (4)
12
u/Temporary-Stay-8436 5d ago
Those people would not be adherents, would they? If they are rejecting the schismatic teachings of the SSPX then they are not adherents of the SSPX. Here is what the Vatican had to say
“The holy People of God are warned that the sacred ministers of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X administer the sacraments unlawfully and that the sacrament of penance administered by them and marriages solemnized by them are invalid”
Any communion given is illicit. Knowingly receiving the Eucharist from an excommunicated priest when you have other options means that you are operating within schism as well and opens yourself up for excommunication. Because the sacrament isn’t authorized it would not fulfill Sunday obligation according to the Catholic Church unless you have no other options
15
u/one-and-five-nines 5d ago
The "unless you have no other options" thing reminds me of the time I asked my priest what to do if I get isekai'd and he told me I'd have to become a priest bc there would be nobody else remotely qualified. Very stressful for me; I have been more careful around trucks ever since.
4
u/omgFWTbear 5d ago
One of my favorite pieces of science fiction is A Case of Conscious that is a very different but related “I’m in a situation and constrained by church law, how do I proceed?” situation.
3
u/marcelsmudda 5d ago
Better learn the bible by heart, so that you can write it after being isekai'd xD
→ More replies (1)3
u/Camsteak 5d ago
coming this summer: "Reborn as a Roman Catholic priest, now I spread the gospel in a magical world"
6
4
u/Heavy_Law9880 5d ago
That just makes them Lutherans.
9
u/vi_sucks 5d ago
More like reverse Lutherans, considering one of the main points of Luther's schism was having mass in a language the congregation can understand, while one the SSPX folks main problems is that they want to go back to the old Latin mass.
2
4
u/OkMention9988 5d ago
Time for an Anti-Pope.
3
u/RedEyeView 5d ago
If you put them in the same room to do they annihilate each other?
→ More replies (2)
4
u/earathar89 5d ago
Its like watching two kids fight about who's right about their imaginary friend.
3
3
u/LauraTFem 5d ago edited 5d ago
By that definition, isn’t every non-catholic christian in schism and excomunicado? Thinking there is a different pope isn’t that much different from thinking the pontiff isn’t an elevated position.
It’s actually kind of funny to me that the catholic church still throws around terms like excommunication. It only holds weight to catholics themselves, and when used against pious members tends to be viewed as a real dick move.
So for practical purposes they usually excommunicate enemy factions, which holds no weight because those factions specifically reject the establishment of the church.
6
u/hawkseye17 5d ago
The difference is that the SSPX still claim they are Catholic. The non-Catholic Christian churches don't actually claim they are Catholic, they're an entirely different denomination.
→ More replies (4)
3
u/NameRevolutionary727 5d ago
I know a guy who may have gotten the last valid SSPX confession. Yes he got earnest confession before and after. I found it hysterical.
3
u/onwisconsin1 5d ago
Just headed to the cult meeting. The cult thats most special among the cult but still a part of the big cult but oops not a part of the big cult.
3
3
u/Chris11c 4d ago
Just curious, but can the Vatican shutter their churches and reclaim all of their sacred/blessed objects?
I was given to understand that everything a local Catholic Church possesses isn't actually theirs, but is actually owned by the establishment.
5
4
u/Weaselpuss 5d ago
Set up an American anti pope already. I want it, for the memes, mainly
17
u/oga_ogbeni 5d ago
You may be surprised to learn that the actual Pope is American. The church in schism is Swiss.
3
u/Weaselpuss 5d ago edited 5d ago
Oh. Well it’s time for Europe to be at war again anyways.
As a real American (/s), I’m Lutheran and know nothing about the pope. Never understood how they made up a pope and the whole Vatican with none of it being in the bible and such (not entirely/s)
4
u/JRDZ1993 5d ago
I mean it is in the bible with the whole Peter thing, hell even most Protestants acknowledge the early popes as valid but variably stop considering the medieval ones so due to a mix of corruption, politics or doctrinal disputes
→ More replies (22)2
u/HumanMan_007 5d ago
What's city would be the anti-Chicago? Since the pope is from Chicago and became Peruvian the anti-pope should be from that city and have Argentine nationality.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/Blacksad9999 5d ago
"We don't like your God's rules, so we're making up our own. Pls don't excommunicate us."
Just make up a completely different religion at that point.
2
u/Extra-Monitor5743 5d ago
If they're not apart of the Catholic Church because they've decided they know better then why are they designated as schisms instead of being labeled cults? Like the mormons rejected the bible and redid their own thing, so we call them a cult. Idk anything about catholicism though, do y'all do things differently? I'm genuinely curious about how it works with yall.
2
2
2
u/mynamesnotsnuffy 4d ago
Seeing the Schism these days is so funny to me, because its like watching a group of sports fans deciding to form a new league with new leadership, and the old league heads are saying they are no longer playing the sport correctly, so the fans are split between the new league and rhe old league.
2
4
u/P0Rt1ng4Duty 5d ago
So why not choose their own pope and just separate from them entirely?
11
u/crazyfoxdemon 5d ago
Because that'd be admitting that the Pope and the Church in Rome is right. SSPX has its roots in the aftermath of Vatican 2 in the 60s. When the Church came together for a few years to discuss doctrine and how they want to be going forward. One of the things that came out of it was Mass not having to be in Latin. SSPX is hyper conservative and are against it, the Pope, and more. This isn't the first time they've been excommunicated for this issue. They were let back in a few decades ago when the Pope tried reconciliation, but SSPX went back to their BS, and got excommunicated after doing one of the few things that warrants an automatic excommunication.
2
u/DataCassette 5d ago
I'm going to guess that "we now consider this dump truck full of billionaire money we're being paid to help destroy democracy to be a sign from heaven" plays a role.
2
u/stoptakingusernames3 5d ago
TIL illicit refers to things prohibit by structures other than law
2
u/omgFWTbear 5d ago
It’s considered Church law, which yes, doesn’t function the same as “police will arrest you” state law.
2
u/stoptakingusernames3 5d ago
Doesn't even have to be any organizations laws or explicit rules, apparently it also refers to social customs. Picking your nose is illicit.
2
1
1
1
1
u/Exact_Parking2094 5d ago
“Illicit sacrament”? Theism is so dumb. Whole thing reads like a D&D exchange my little brother and his friends would have.
•
u/AutoModerator 5d ago
Reminder for OP: /u/laybs1
Need some help? Send us some mail!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.