Why does the SSPX think they need bishops?

[Doom]

Earlier today, I asked myself, "Do the Jesuits have one or more bishops who are Jesuits and who ordain all the other Jesuits? Do you have to be ordained by a Jesuit bishop to be a Jesuit?"

I looked it up, and the answer is a clear "No": a Jesuit priest is ordained by the diocesan bishop in the city where he will be working; he doesn't have to be ordained by a bishop who belongs to the Jesuit order to be able to take his vows as a Jesuit.

Ditto the FSSP, and as far as I can tell, ditto for all similar orders of priests.

The SSPX argues that they need to ordain bishops so that they can have someone to ordain SSPX priests. But this makes no sense.

I am aware of an SSPX chapel in Omaha, Nebraska, "Our Lady of Sorrows," which is a little more than 2 hours from me. Why can't the archbishop of Omaha, Archbishop McGovern, ordain all the priests who will serve in that chapel? Why do they HAVE TO BE ordained by an SSPX bishop?

I suspect that if I pressed really aggressively on this question, the answer I would get is that SSPX priests cannot be ordained by the diocesan bishop, because they would do so according to the Missal of 1969, which is not valid; only ordinations under the Missal of 1962 or earlier are valid.

I have never actually heard anyone make that assertion, but that does seem to be the only reason why they insist the ordination has to be by an SSPX bishop; nothing else makes sense.

Am I wrong?

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

I would have suggested that the reason is they don't think non-SSPX bishops will do ordinations for them.

[Doom]

I would have suggested that the reason is they don't think non-SSPX bishops will do ordinations for them.

If that is so, it is their own fault. The SSPX has always been controversial because they have always been a breeding ground for heretics (who deny the Novus Ordo is valid) and schismatics. I have spoken to people who walked into a Latin Mass, unaware that it was an SSPX parish, and everything seemed fine until the homily, when the priest went off on a rant about "the heresies of Vatican II."

The SSPX was founded in 1970, and by 1975, Archbishop Lefebvre was already involved in a public feud with his bishop, and the next year, he was told his organization was being suppressed, and Paul VI ordered him not to ordain any new priests, an order he of course defied. Paul VI responded by suspending Lefebvre's priestly faculties, which Lefebvre ignored. It seems clear the next step was probably going to be excommunication, if Paul had not fallen deathly ill.

To go from "founding to suppression and getting your priestly faculties suspended by the Pope and be on the brink of excommunication in only 6 years is a world record pace!

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

They could also get a vagans bishop from another "Traditionalist" community, which is what they did the first time, but it's better to keep these things in-house.

[Doom]

The best thing would be if they stopped with the shenanigans.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

Well, yes, but I was speaking from their point of view.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

Wikipedia has this:

"By 1987, Archbishop Lefebvre was 81. If he had died at that point, the SSPX could have their members ordained to the priesthood only at the hands of non-SSPX bishops, regarded by Lefebvre as unreliable and unorthodox."

[Doom]

According to Yves Chiron, a historian of the Traditionalist movement, Lefebvre was almost certainly a Sedevacantist, which is why he had no difficulty defying Paul VI and John Paul II.

I am inclined to think he was mentally unbalanced; perhaps metnally ill, he signed all the documents of Vatican II, including the decrees on religious freedom and the liturgy, but within 5 years of the council, he denied having done so. He was associated with the Holy Ghost Fathers and assigned as a missionary, but when his superiors became concerned about his views after the Council, they made their concerns clear. Lefebvre listened, but would not discuss anything, saying only his mind was made up; he was incantpable of discussion or debate. He tried to run for leadership, but when he lost, he stopped attending meetings. He was definitely a "I'm taking my ball and going home if I don't get my way" kind of guy.

[Highlander]

Today, I read that the Pope has excommunicated all of the SSPX bishops. Since the article was in the secular media, which enjoys a Catholic scandal, did this happen? If yes, what does it mean?

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

This is correct. What it means is that they committed a canonical crime whose penalty is excommunication.

More significant, perhaps, is that the Holy See explicitly said that they are now in schism. That issue has been tip-toed around for decades. Now it's made clear.

[Doom]

He also excommunicated all the priests of the society, this move is unprecedented I previous Papal dealings with the society

[aussie_aussie_oi_oi]

Clerics and the laity are also excommunicated:

. As regards the lay faithful, those who formally adhere to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X are to be considered schismatics and excommunicated under the conditions established in the 1996 Explanatory Note of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts (cf. ibidem, 7), which remains in force and which this Dicastery adopts as its own.

[Highlander]

Reading several posts on the matter, I am informed that the excommunication was the act of progressives casting out traditional "true" Catholics. Not surprising as it seems it was "true" Catholics making the posts. Have not yet seen any indicating is was the Church reluctantly ridding itself of counter-revolutionary fascists.

Is this really a big deal? Why haven't I seen good riddance posts backing the Pope? Should I be concerned? I'm not, but should I be?

[Highlander]

I note that the New York Times, reporting on the event, described the SSPX being opposed to "reforms" such as the ordination of women. The implication, if taken, is that the Pope isn't .... or might not be. Interesting how fast a secularist line is drawn.

[zeno]

Clerics and the laity are also excommunicated:

. As regards the lay faithful, those who formally adhere to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X are to be considered schismatics and excommunicated under the conditions established in the 1996 Explanatory Note of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts (cf. ibidem, 7), which remains in force and which this Dicastery adopts as its own.

I think you are jumping the gun a bit here. What does "formally adhere" mean? It's been clear as mud for 30 years now.

[Highlander]

C is for Clarity. Not to be confused with Catholic.

[aussie_aussie_oi_oi]

The explanatory note DDF states that the lay faithful who “formally adhere” to the SSPX “are to be considered excommunicated,” as well, though it places a significant qualification on the statement.

The explanation included beneath the Thursday decree cites conditions established in a 1996 explanatory note of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, which defined formal adherence by two criteria.

The first of those criteria is “freely and consciously sharing,” that is, agreeing with “the substance of the schism,” and the second is “outward manifestation of that choice.”

The 1996 note, which DDF adopts for purposes of understanding the Thursday decree, says “exclusive participation in [SSPX] ‘ecclesial’ acts” would be “the most evident sign” of adherence to the schism in the formal sense.

“[T]hat is,” the 1996 note states, “opting for the followers of [the SSPX] in such a way as to place that choice above obedience to the pope.

“At the root of this attitude,” the 1996 note adds parenthetically, “there will typically be positions contrary to the Magisterium of the Church.”

In fact, both the clerics of the SSPX and the laity who support the group have adopted a posture of ambivalence – at best – toward the 1962-1965 Vatican Council II.

The Church requires acceptance of the Council’s validity in fact and law. The Church also requires all the faithful likewise to recognize the validity of the conciliar teachings as expressed in the documents of the Council, a requirement that has proved a sticking point in the more than four decades of dialogue between the SSPX and Rome.

The 1996 note also recognizes, however, that determining a lay person’s “formal adherence” is easier said than done.

“In pastoral practice,” the 1996 note states, “it may prove more difficult to judge their [the laity’s] situation.”

“Account must be taken, above all, of the person’s intention and of how that interior disposition is translated into action,” the 1996 note says.

“Consequently,” the note continues, “the various situations must be judged on a case-by-case basis within the appropriate forums – both the external and the internal,” that is, respectively in the public pastoral and juridical action and in sacramental confession.

“In the case of [SSPX] deacons and priests,” the 1996 note says, “it seems beyond doubt that their ministerial activity within the schismatic movement is a more than evident sign that the two aforementioned requirements are met.”

“There is, therefore, formal adherence,” to the schism on the part of clerics participating in the SSPX.
https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2026/07/ssp ... mmunicated

[Doom]

Reading several posts on the matter, I am informed that the excommunication was the act of progressives casting out traditional "true" Catholics. Not surprising, as it seems it was "true" Catholics making the posts. Have not yet seen any indicating it was the Church reluctantly ridding itself of counter-revolutionary fascists.

Is this really a big deal? Why haven't I seen good riddance posts backing the Pope? Should I be concerned? I'm not, but should I be?

The spin of The Financial Times of London is "Vatican Schism Puts MAGA Catholics Under Pressure: Pope Leo excommunicates ultra-conservative bishops whose views resonate with parts of the American right"

So.....as I understand it, the Financial Times thinks "SSPX is theologically conservative (whatever that means), and that means that they are politically conservative and Trump supporters, and they were excommunicated for supporting Trump (apparently, I don't know what other point they are trying to make)."

Except that....the SSPX is not political and has nothing to do with Trump; and most Trump supporters are evangelicals who have no interest in Catholic Traditionalism. The SSPX represents approximately 600,000 people worldwide (out of about 1 billion Catholics), and is not just a US thing; in fact, the strongest presence of the Society is still in its home country of France. And, to the extent that the SSPX has a political program, they would call for a Catholic Monarchy and Integrism, neither of which is particularly popular with the American right.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

I'm not sure there are "good riddance" posts. I have seen quite a few, "I'm sorry it came to this, but it needed to happen" posts.

[Highlander]

So, what might we expect? As I gather, SSPX clergy and laity who want to remain in the Church must do some sort of mea culpa. If marriages and confessions were not valid, how would that be addressed? Can the laity, for example, come and go between SSPX and the Church, depending upon some criteria I don't understand? Does the Church sorta ignore the SSPX at this point?

I get that they are excommunicated. I don't get what that means in a practical sense.