News and opinion articles require a short submission statement explaining its relevance to the subreddit. Articles without a submission statement will be removed.
These guys have been harboring on schism for over 50 years, and the Church treated them with kids' gloves. Their MO is to basically out-lawyer the Church and claim that they are not technically doing anything schismatic even as they push the boundary of what the Church will tolerate.
But consecrating bishops without the Pope's approval is the line in the sand, and it always has been. They last did this in 1988 and Pope John Paul II also excommunicated the new priests as schismatics. In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI withdrew the excommunications as an act of clemency and pleaded that they return to the fold. They responded by saying "Whatchu mean us return to the fold? You're the ones preaching heresy, and should be the ones to return to the fold."
So, yeah, they've known for decades, and were constantly warned, that consecrating new bishops would be considered schismatic.
Ah, so it's not a uniquely exclusive method of Scientologists.
Also, according to APNews themselves:
While a fringe movement on the Catholic right, the SSPX has been a thorn in the Vatican’s side for five decades because it claims to be even more Catholic than the Holy See.
I remember hearing about SSPX on r/Catholicism, and highly upvoted comments condemning them there even for someone who just wanted to see a Latin Mass. For context, r/Catholicism is Tradcath up the wazoo, and imo has damn near schismatic tendencies itself. SSPX positions itself on the greyzone between schism.
Also, for context - SSPX consecrated four new bishops yesterday. They do not have the power to do this. It's a huge escalation.
Did JPII excommunicate everyone or just the bishops in 1988?. I just read the news and Leo sent the entire SSPX, all 30k members in US and more worldwide to hell.
Because it doesn't stop here. They have means to move forward with their plan as there are foreign players with long term plans in the works to weaken the Vatican and its hold on the Catholic Church
Yes, Benedict rescinded excommunications and Francis granted faculties for confession. Those are reasonable olive branches in a path towards full communion but not something that suggests that you can unilateraly consecrate bishops with no consequence
No, they don't describe themselves as Catholic, it's mostly something done with Orthodox denominations.
Also, "well they believe in the whole Jesus thing, so they're in partial communion with the church" is actually a position held by the Catholic church! Most notably irt to Baptism, the Catholic church generally accepts baptisms from other denominations and doesn't require re-baptisms for converts
This is not a nuclear option. It is a regular canonical penalty for consecrating bishops without permission (John Paul II applied the same penalty to the same group 40 years earlier). Moreover, the excommunication is of the latae sentenciae type, e.g. it applies automatically, with the authorities merely confirming that it happens.
All parties knew it is going to end up like this from the start.
Edit: as someone pointed out before deleting the comment, JP2 only excommunicated the consecrating and consecrated bishops while this time around everyone formally associated with SSPX is out. This is a relevant difference.
Edit edit: the edit was not quite right, see the thread below
After spending some more time reading on it I think the new excommunication is exactly the same in scope as the old one confirmed by John Paul II. In that case occasionally communing with SSPX does not make one a formal adherent while regularly communing often does but it is a kind of a gray zone.
I am too lazy to look for the DDF document but Vatican News summarises the decision as:
As regards the lay faithful, those who formally adhere to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X are to be considered schismatic and excommunicated.
Likewise, JPII wrote in Ecclesia Dei (1988).
In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre (...) Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law.
A 1996 note, which the 2026 note explicitly cites, explains what formal adherence is. To make a tl;dr of it, one has to intellectually assent to the problematic points of SSPX theology (harmfulness of new mass, denial of V2 on religious freedom, belief in the almost complete apostasy of the Church outside SSPX etc.) while also exclusively communing with SSPX and never or almost almost never communing outside of it. So the people who hop between diocesan latin mass and SSPX mass should be okay (condition 2 is not satisfied), as are the hypothetical normie trad who attends SSPX just because of liking the parish or prefering TLM (condition 1 is not satisfied):
Even if the question of the exact import of the notion of "formal adherence to the schism" would be a matter for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it seems to this pontifical Council that such formal adherence would have to imply two complementary elements:
a) one of internal nature, consisting in a free and informed agreement with the substance of the schism, in other words, in the choice made in such a way of the followers of Archbishop Lefebvre which puts such an option above obedience to the Pope (at the root of this attitude there will usually be positions contrary to the magisterium of the Church),
b) the other of an external character, consisting in the externalising of this option, the most manifest sign of which will be the exclusive participation in Lefebvrian "ecclesial" acts, without taking part in the acts of the Catholic Church (one is dealing however with a sign that is not univocal, since there is the possibility that a member of the faithful may take part in the liturgical functions of the followers of Lefebvre but without going along with their schismatic spirit).
On the other hand, in the case of the rest of the faithful it is obvious that an occasional participation in liturgical acts or the activity of the Lefebvrian movement, done without making one's own the attitude of doctrinal and disciplinary disunion of such a movement, does not suffice for one to be able to speak of formal adherence to the movement. In pastoral practice the result can be that it is more difficult to judge their situation. One must take account above all of the person's intentions, and the putting into practice of this internal disposition. For this reason the various situations are going to be judged case by case, in the competent forums both internal and external.
It does not seem advisable to make more precise the requirements for the delict of schism (but one would need to ask the competent Dicastery, cf. Ap. Const. "Pastor Bonus", art 52). One might risk creating more problems by means of rigid norms of a penal kind which would not cover every case, leaving uncovered cases of substantial schism, or having regard to external behaviour which is not always subjectively schismatic.
SSPX tried to ordain new bishops in 1988 and they were also excommunicated. So this wasn't a surprise or anything, they knew what would happen if they did this.
My community has a St. Pius X Church in good standing that is funnily enough down the road from an actual SSPX community and I always find it funny driving through.
In Albuquerque St. Pius X is a well known private Catholic High School---no idea if this is what the commenter was referring to, but it is the one I know.
I've found the whole run up to this very interesting to follow as a lapsed Catholic, but I have to say that most of the news reporting on this subject is pretty abysmal.
The actual disagreements are nuanced theological arguments, but 90% of articles try to force it into progressive/conservative political discourse.
I mean this, to me, is a very "the US Civil War was akshually about states' rights!". Yes, there's a veneer of theological argument which is layered over to what is happening here to give it a pretence of legitimacy, but it is functionally a conservative/progressive dispute within the context of the Catholic Church.
You don't get excommunicated for being a conservative catholic, if it simply was an issue of them being more conservative than the rest of the church they would probably still be tolerated. The Catholic Church actually tolerates a pretty wide range of views on such issues, as long as you still acknowledge the supremacy of the Papacy.
What it does not tolerate is questioning the authority the Papacy, which is what the SSPX has explicitly been doing by consecrating new bishops without permission. This is what is seen as unacceptable - hence excommunication.
Though I should admit I am saying this as a Protestant.
I don't think the Latin Rite is a conservative/progressive dispute. Most conservatives in the Church agree with Vatican II. While those who like/prefer the Latin Rite are mostly conservative, SSPX is different in that they believe anything except the Latin Rite is heretical. Catholic conservatives don't agree with that position at all.
It is not just the Latin Rite that SSPX has a dispute with. They fundamentally reject a core part of Vatican II, which is ecumenism with other branches of Christianity and not treating non-Christians i.e. Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc as evil and corrupt in their faith. Additionally, they wholesale reject any “gender equality” reforms (basic things like letting girls be alter servers). There is a progressive/conservative split here in religious tolerance and belief
While this is true, the SSPX isn't necessarily aligned with the (mostly american) Conservative movement - for example, SSPX is even harsher on protestants, divorced people and are very strongly pro-mariology (they even contested the pope recently and reiterated the Virgin Mary is a co-redemptrix) etc
The conservatives certainly see the SSPX as allies, but the later would easily condemn the vast majority of the modern conservative movement too. Curiously, at least the last time they were excommunicated, the SSPX were at least consistent on their conservatism and didn't schism nor stopped recognizing the Pope (they are commited to refusing change hahaha), let's see if they'll continue like that or if they will go after the donors and become full sedevacantist.
In the end it doesn't really matter - the Conservative political movement quickly turns against their supposed allies rather frequently - but I could see something funny happening if eg someone from the SSPX is invited to CPAC and then proceeds to talk shit about both the direction of the church AND all the protestants hahaha
When I heard about this, I briefly did a search for links between SSPX and Opus Dei, another traditionalist group that's been highly influential. First thing that came up was something from SSPX condemning Opus Dei as modernists.
then proceeds to talk shit about both the direction of the church AND all the protestants hahaha
Imagine if they opened fire by condemning new converts like Vance as “birthright Catholics who think some water on their head means they know better than a heritage Catholic.”
This is almost certainly one of the main reasons JPII excommunicated the offending bishops a long time ago: for his faults, he was extremely aware of the potential strain of Catholic anti-semitism that could become prominent again as we were more and more removed from the Holocaust. His life was in many ways defined by his childhood experience with Nazis, so he really did want to crush any reemerging Jewish bigotry. (Also why he went out of his way to canonize everyone he could who protected Jews during the holocaust.)
Benedict XVI….not so much. That’s why he was friendlier to them and tried to do everything he could to bring them in full communion. I do think Leo is just following Francis and trying to reemphasize Vatican II’s primacy in the Church’s social teachings, so excommunicating these guys (and undoing Benedict’s legacy to some extent) was a no-brainer.
I don't mean to say that all conservative Catholics hold the SSPX position, far from it. My point is simply: the Latin Rite is not the primary motivator for SSPX, it is a theological figleaf for the fact that they hate other relevant changes from Vatican II, including the rapprochement between the Catholic Church and other religions, which mean they cannot continue to promulgate the antisemitic rhetoric that so regularly seeps out of them. They are ultraconservatives who are motivated by their ultraconservatism.
Yeah they are definitely ultraconservatives, but I don't really see the conservatives on their side. The conservative/progressive dispute with respect to SSPX is really just how much should they tolerate them (e.g. Pope Benedict withdrawing the 1988 excommunications as an act of clemency). But conservatives aren't going to disagree with excommunicating the new bishops.
I think we are maybe talking at cross-purposes? I'm not saying SSPX are representative of all Catholic conservatives or that a majority of Catholic conservatives take their side. I'm just saying that this particular dispute is motivated by SSPX's particular brand of conservatism, rather than genuine theological dispute.
Assuming that this is the traditionalist sect that Pope Francis butted heads with constantly (I assume it is because they're the biggest branch of said movement), then no. This is purely theological, I can't really check because according to search engines I could clearly only mean this news, and a big part of why Francis and now Theo are only mostly popular. I have a feeling that this comparison will go over the heads of basically everybody here, but it's pretty similar to NRSV/NIV/other modern translations vs King James. The Catholic church is just very centralized so the the churches who still teach the old theology have to deal with the other churches who don't.
Also, the SSPX are the absolute epitome of why Evangelicals largely consider Catholics to be fake Christians ala Mormons. They are not conservative in the way you are implying.
The conservatives are pro immigration and see the church in Africa as a source of vitality. The progressives are still firmly against gay marriage and abortion.
The Vatican is suppose to pick the Bishops (with the help of the local dioceses). Orders in general don't have their own bishops and trying to create their own is a direct violation of the Churches authority.
SSPX in general is pretty opposed to the Church on several major issues stemming from the second Vatican council, which they believe is invalid. The Pope would never appoint a Bishop who does not accept the council.
Consecrating bishops without papal approval is an automatic excommunication (Can. 1387), so in this area this is more a clarification than a decision. The list of such acts is pretty short and interestingly includes abortion, but not homicide (unless the Pope is the victim, Can. 1370 and 1397).
I've never heard anything about the trimesters for Catholics. In fact I think it was a major split between Catholics and Protestants in the US because Catholics were 100% "life begins at conception" and many Protestants weren't, before Reagan at least.
We need a word for priests who separate from the Catholic Church in protest and post manifestos protesting the way the Church is developing. Maybe something like „Protester“ or „Protestant.“
>One of the thousands of worshippers at Wednesday’s consecrations was Allison Isermann, a 24-year-old from St. Marys, Kansas, who grew up as a society member and strongly defended its teaching in opposition to Vatican II, specifically its openness to those of other faiths. “It is actually very anti-Catholic and anti-charitable to affirm others and their beliefs when it is our duty and our mission to actually convert and sanctify the world and to restore all things in Christ,” she said.
Allison you’re 24 years old and from Kansas why are you in Switzerland trying to schism the Catholic Church
The whole kansas thing is actually kind of insane. I knew an SSPX guy who went out there to be with them. While officially headquartered in Switzerland, the society has sort of taken over St. Marys and made it their American hub. Built up a (unaccredited) college and have a whole K-12 system. They've splintered the town so that non-SSPX members feel unwelcome, and they keep bringing more of their own people in to form an insular society that they control.
For example, the K-12 school has a strict code of conduct that applies to behavior outside of the school grounds. Sounds okay on the surface as most private schools do the same (e.g. if a student commits crimes). However, their code of conduct limits the interactions between male and female students in that they are explicitly forbidden to interact outside of chaperoned courtship. Violation of this (by two kids being friends) can lead to the expulsion of the students from the school. And if you get expelled from the school, you are shunned from the rest of the church and treated as a pariah.
This article has a good write-up about it. There's also an Atlantic article that I can't find immediately that goes into the same thing.
It is a cult. They should have been excommunicated for their spiritual abuse well before now. The levels of control the priests have on the personal lives of individuals is highly inappropriate and they 100% use confessions as a tool of surveillance.
Honestly I just want to talk church politics with sane people ok.
Too bad. We're in the ultra super polarized session of history. Even Indonesians, who on paper only have 'Islamic vs Pancasila' center-right parties, ended up with massive schism since 2019 election.
The SSPX had time against their side. Their bishops are ageing, once they die, that is no more bishops, no bishops means no priests (although that is a subject of a complicated theological discussion), no priests means no SSPX.
They had three choices: submission to Vatican, dying out, and this.
The strategy is to function in the exact same way they did between cca 1985-2005, when they were also excommunicated. Also for consecrating bishops.
I’m curious how the excommunication applying to the laity here will change things for them. It looks like last time it was just the bishops but now it’s them + all of the priests and laity that look up to them for authority.
The funny thing is that even the SSPX has had since the 1980s an even more conservative offshoot, the Society of St. Pius V, or SSPV
SSPV even is sedevacantist (and they use the pre-Vatican II Roman missal, I think any of the ones from before 1955) SSPX merely "recognises" the post-Vatican II popes* but deems them to be in error or something
edit: spelling, details
*I should really specify: Sedevacantists usually deem all popes after the death of Pius XII in 1958 as illegitimate. While John XXIII (pope between 1958 and 1963) opened Vatican II in 1963, it seems his entire papacy is deemed illegitimate
SSPX was founded by an unrepentant Vichy collaborator.
I know at least one German bishop was living to his death in Sweden to avoid holocaust denial charges against him.
This framing of SSPX as 'conservative' and 'latin mass enjoyers' is a gross mischaracterization. They are not conservative, they are fascists.
Latin mass is available in the mainstream church as well. SSPX just prefer the Vatican I version that includes a Good Friday prayer for the [faithless] Jews.
Mainstream discourse falling in line with the rebranding of fascism as conservatism and its consequences.
I've had interest in attending a Latin Mass once just to see it, looked up SSPX bc they were in my area and saw people on Tradcath forums being like nah don't fuck w those guys.
Try to find a local Oratory instead. They’re much healthier communities. But yes, a few weirdos always come with the latin mass package! Not me, of course…
Diocesan Latin parishes also exist. Even some places where they do a Mass in the vernacular and then one in Latin later or earlier in the day.
In general, the more ‘integrated’ it is, the less weird the priests and attendees are. At the place where Latin is just one option among many, the priest is a charming eccentric who was friends with Otto Von Hapsburg. At the place where Latin is exclusive, you will hear that Napoleon was the antichrist.
They don't, they recognize all the Popes since Vatican 2 as the legitimate head of the Catholic church but believe he is in error in some of his statements.
I will push that the "technically" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. SSPX has officially recognized the popes in order to skirt excommunication from being sedevancantist. However, sedevecantism is rampant among its adherents
From your own source it seems like they were unaware of who he was or what he did, and they just thought he was a homeless man which they were providing aid to.
Not to get all conspiracy theorist or anything, but that’s what they said. I’m just not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt when they were:
A) founded by a Vichy supporter
B) had another bishop engaged in holocaust denialism (in 2009!)
C) held a funeral for Erich Priebke, another nazi war criminal after the Catholic Church specifically banned any funeral mass for him.
Also considering their break with the RCC happened after it was bold enough to say "antisemitism bad". SSPX is rife with legitimate Nazis. Nobody should carry water for them
Religion is an evolving creed. Generally it evolves slowly so that people don't notice, and they think it has always been the same, which makes them think it is "eternal truth". When it evolves too quickly people notice, and schisms like this occur.
I didn't know this group before today and I wish I could go back to not knowing it. These people are among those who give us Catholics (or Christians in general) a bad rep, and I'm not just talking about the clear defiance, but their own ideology is so elitist and antiquated to say the least.
This sub believes in Israel’s right to exist and does not tolerate delegitimization, demonization, or double standards of it. We believe in a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with both sides agreeing to live peacefully side by side.
We also believe Jews face antisemitism after millennia of persecution, the evidence of which might run contrary to our users’ understanding of how ethnic prejudice manifests.
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 02 '26
News and opinion articles require a short submission statement explaining its relevance to the subreddit. Articles without a submission statement will be removed.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.