Talk:Society of Saint Pius X/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Jewish converts

I don't know about the rest of you, but the contribution regarding a single Jewish Priest and some Jewish converts to the SSPX is very anecdotal and doesn't belong here. Even if it were cited, it is not proof one way or another. There are Jewish converts to just about every religion (and people from other religions have embraced Judaism.) It's like saying, "Some of my best friends are XXXX". The fact that some exist is not meaningful.Balloonman 05:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, to an extent. The really interesting question is does SSPX attract a higher proportion of converts than either the RC church or Catholic groups such as Opus Dei. I do think that the "some of my best friends" line is unnecesarily provocative. What would be important in this question are the official statements. JASpencer 18:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the reference to the Jewish priest, though not terribly important, was ok. It is certainly not anecdotal. Such a person exists. And surprisingly, Williamson has a conservative Jewish friend, despite his rabid antisemitism. It was probably a useful reference to avoid giving the appearance of bias. I think that was probably the editor's intention.--Gazzster 22:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no doubt that such a person exists---I would be more surprised if such a person didn't exist. It is anecdotal---anecdotal evidence is using specific cases to argue a larger trend that doesn't exist. For example, a lot of companies have histories and trends of sexism/racism. Some of those companies can point to one or more members of their executive leadership teams who are women/African Americans. The existence of one (or a dozen) women/African Americans in leadership positions does not disprove the trend. It is anecdotal evidence. Individual cases do not prove a trend/theme... they are anecdotal. It is kind of like the Society using the fact that Lefebvre's father was killed by the Nazi's to prove that the society isn't anti-Semitic---the two don't necessarily follow.Balloonman 01:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say. I just don't see how a reference to a single Jewish priest indicates a trend to absolve the SSPX of antisemitism- if that it what you are saying.--Gazzster 06:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't. But the existence of a Jewish SSPX Priest and the existence of Jewish converts is being used as a means to defend the SSPX against the allegations of anti-Semitism. The intent of the inclusion of this anecdotal evidence is most clearly illustrated from this edit I've brought this here because I've deleted this 2 or 3 times as immaterial anecdotal WP:OR and wanted to get consensus on this subject as it keeps getting reintroduced.Balloonman 07:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I see. Yes, the reversions are certainly trying to defend the SSPX.--Gazzster 07:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with defending the SSPX---in fact many of my edits to this page have been to defend it against unfair attacks. But I don't see anecdotal evidence as belonging here. The existence of converts/a convert priest is IMHO immaterial... for lack of anything to the contrary I would assume both have occurred at some point. Thus, even though they were added to defend the SSPX, I think including it here actually makes the allegations look more credible!Balloonman 20:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Jean Trouchaud, the kid who at one point intended to suicide-bomb a synagogue, was himself half-Jewish. A fact that illustrates quite clearly that the fact that Jews have converted to SSPX Catholicism doesn't necessarily mean that allegations of anti-Semitism are unfounded. I think the relationship between the SSPX and Jews who have converted to Catholicism is a very interesting one. I think that part of the problem is the assumption that anti-Semitism is viewed as a form of racism. In actual fact, within the SSPX and many other situations, it's primarily a form of religious intolerance. Note that I do not mean this as a form of excuse. I think it's equally unacceptable to say "The Jews deserved the Holocaust because of what they did to Christ and because they tried to rewrite the bible to discredit Catholic doctrine" as to say "The Jews deserved the Holocaust because they're subhuman..." And I've heard both sentiments expressed (the first by an SSPX member). I also know of a lady who was half Arab, and who was sexually abused by her (Arab) father when she was younger. Despite her Moslem background, she was welcomed very genuinely by the SSPX when she decided to join as an adult. Anonymous

It reminds me slightly of the old joke about the conductors of the New York and Moscow symphony orchestras chatting (during the Communist era). "Of course, there is no anti-Semitism in Russia. Why we have 32 Jews in my orchestra alone!" to which the NY conductor responds "We have Jews in my orchestra too. The difference is, I've never had any reason to count them". Nonetheless, the presence of Jewish converts within the SSPX is interesting and relevant. And in fairness to the SSPX there were a few Jews who fought as soldiers for the Nazis, but had the Nazis known their ancestry they would have been murdered very quickly - so there's a clear difference there. In my book, anti-Judaism's a step down from anti-Semitism, though extremely unsavory nonetheless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.240.229.65 (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Catholic Understanding of Judaism

Looking at the first paragraph, has the SSPX ever explicitly denied anti-Judaism, or just anti-Semitism? Many of the views expressed within this paragraph are arguably not anti-Semitic, but are undoubtedly anti-Judaist. My experience of SSPX is that it generally calls a spade a spade i.e. I imagine a lot of the SSPX members I knew would have readily agreed and openly agreed with statements that were clearly anti-Judaist; they would be more coy about agreeing with openly anti-Semitic statements, though in my experience some would open up when they knew you better.128.240.229.66 —Preceding comment was added at 19:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the accuracy of the following sentence: '"It should be added, however, that the traditional doctrine of the Catholic Church identifies Judaism as a "false religion," the practitioners of which are to be evangelized and converted to Catholicism." This claim needs a more accurate reference--explicitly stating which document of the Roman Catholic Church from the past 45 years identifies and singles out Judaism as a false religion--to be seen as valid and true today. Everything I've read on Jewish-Catholic relations contradicts this claim. The Vatican doesn't promote full-scale conversion of Jews to Catholicism! It respects their tradition and faith. If by "traditional" you mean 19th century, this might be accurate but it doesn't reflect the present understanding of Judaism held by the Roman Catholic Church. You know, the current tradition, the one that is being passed down to our children and future generations. --Nwjerseyliz 17:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you've forgotten one important thing: This is a TRADITIONAL Catholic organization---the SSPX explicitly rejects the changes made since Vatican II. So the organizations current tradition is that of the traditional teachings---not the ones of the past 45 years. Also, the above statement is true for the Catholic Church as a whole. The traditional view of Catholicism has not been very aimiable to Judaism. Traditional does not mean current view... so yes, John Paul II made many changes towards the Catholic relationship with Judaism, but those changes don't change the traditional (historic) view. Take a quick look at the criticism section of the Summorum Pontificum‎ article if you don't believe this.Balloonman 18:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It makes me angry that any small group of the enormous Roman Catholic Church can claim the "traditional" or "orthodox" label and discount anything that contradicts their view as "modernist" (that's my word, not yours. but I see it used as a slur on a lot of these pages about schismatic groups). Today's Roman Catholic Church defines what is orthodoxy and that might be different from the disciplines, practices and attitudes it held in other eras of history. Is the "traditional" view from the Council of Trent? Or from the medieval Church? Or the Council of Nicea? Which tradition (or whose tradition) are we talking about here? The Roman Catholic Church is not a monolithic, uniform, unchanging institution. I wish you wouldn't equate SSPX's view as reflecting "traditional doctrine of the Catholic Church" as if everything that has happened in the past 45 years wasn't also a part of the tradition as well. I'd be satisfied if the entry said that this view towards Jews reflects either the pre-Vatican II church's position or that it reflects SSPX's views on Judaism. But teachings of the past 45 years are now part of the "tradition", whether you personally agree with them or reject them. I will look at your reference but I don't think anyone can go out and find a request from Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict that Catholics should go out and convert the Jewish people to Catholicism. That is not in keeping with today's "tradition". --Nwjerseyliz 19:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Tradition does not equal traditional. This goes beyond Catholic Church or conservative groups. Traditional, in every medium/organization that I've ever encountered, has meant the historical views/attitudes the group held for an extended period of time. It is usually used when referring to a practice/tradition that has or is in the process of changing. Traditional is always used to refer to the older practice/belief---not the new ones. For example, the statement, "Traditionally the corporate America has been hostile to women and minorities." This is a true statement, even though there has been affirmative action in place for decades and most companies strive for equality. Traditional values, are NOT embraced by all---and often do not reflect the current attitudes of the group. You may be offended that the Catholic church held hostile views towards the Jews, but that is part of our tradition.Balloonman 20:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly true that since Vatican II relations with the Jews have been friendly. However the position of the Roman Catholic Church has not changed. It still teaches that Jesus abrogated the Jewish Law and that faith in Jesus Christ (which may be implicit) is necessary in order to be saved. So the Jews, like everyone, need to convert. The encyclical of John Paul II, Dominus Jesus (written by Ratzinger) reiterated this teaching.--Gazzster 21:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point Gazz... I think a lot of people are over reacting to the latest news... because the position hasn't changed.Balloonman 22:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you not think too many people are judging about the SSPX and its founder without even knowing the aims he had had before, and how it became a society? For example, nobody is talking about what S.E. Lévèbre said about the Vatican's decision the states of Africa being left alone to rule themselves on their own, although they declared their disability of self-governing. He stated that it would all end in blood and violence. -Now, what have we been watching for over forty years - an everlasting drama with its main settling in the Congo! I'm sure you will say: What has that to do with Catholic Understanding of Judaism? He saw what was going to happen within the Catholic Church, he saw all those cavities which were going to become out of the not perfect enough formulated encyclical. The 2nd Vatican in its idea was not bad at all, but what it really looked like then was not acceptable at all! S.E Lévèbre had to institute a society. -sarahowoddy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.186.183.113 (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Bias

This article needs major revision. It is biased and offensive. Non-SSPX Catholics who adhere to the Second Vatican Council are referred to as "modernists", i.e. as heretics.

That is the correct term for SVC it is not Catholic and with the Pope Benedict's recent Proclamation that most of the content of the SVC was twisted and distorted is an excellent example how the so-called "followers" of the SVC are really protestants bent on the destruction of the church. While that can be considered POV the evidence of what has happened to the church since the SVC proves the point.unsigned comment by User:209.169.121.136

That is considered OR and POV.Balloonman 04:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• "Modernists such as the President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, has..."
• "Modernist canonists counter this argument..."
• "The modernists of Vatican II allege that..."

You are quite correct to see this term as biased. Modernism refers to a particular intellectual divergence (what the Roman Catholic Church calls a heresy) labeled and condemned by Pope Pius X (r. 1901-1914). Adherents of the SSPX habitually refer to the post-Vatican II regime as modernist. This term should be omitted wherever we find it in the article.--Gazzster 11:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Modernism pre-dates V II and Pope Pius X so it is a valid discussion point since it was so clearly identified by Pope Piux X and every other Pope through John XXIII.

Removed some "nutjobbery" from the article. --Isolani 13:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I was curious about SSPX in the recent announcement of the Pope and as I read these comments I see that there is a great deal of hatred for the SSPX that literally seeps from this article. Comments like "Nutjobbery" and such are an example of this. There is an attempt by someone to put point and counter point in the article describing both sides of the argument but some segment goes on a witch-hunt and attempts to wipe out balance. This is typical of the type of Catholic the pope is talking about that misrepresented the Second Vatican Council and distorted so many things to bring the church to the Crisis that it is in today: Catholics leaving in droves, shortages of religious and priests. It seems as though a balanced informative article this is not. ((unsigned|209.169.121.136}}

Most people would consider Cardinal Castrillón to be the opposite of a Modernist: would the anonymous contributor from Conroe, Texas who made the immediately above comment please try to justify his (or her) POV attempt to make Wikipedia declare Castrillón to be in fact a Modernist. The same Texan knows that the present article is about the Society of St Pius X, not directly about Marcel Lefebvre or the Ecône Consecrations, on which there are separate articles from which the Conroe contributor has taken material and keeps pasting it here. I think that this insistent action, not the concentration of the article on its own subject matter, merits the name of vandalism. Do others agree?

I have tried to restore a balanced version of the article and so have provisionally removed Balloonman's POV tag. If I misunderstood his intention, I offer apologies and invite him to restore the tag. Soidi 05:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It interests me how every generation is quick to say things are worse than they ever have been. The editor who refers to people leaving the Church in droves does not have a good understanding of history. The proportion of the population, which has actively participated in the life of the Church, has NEVER been high. In the 1930s and 40s the rate of attendance at Mass in Western countries ranged between 30 and 45 per cent. And it was only that high because being Catholic was a cultural, not a religious thing, in many countries, particularly those where the separation of Church and State has been a relatively recent thing. 'Modernism' is a name used to cover a broad range of 'aberrations'. It is convenient to label any move away from the conservative norm as 'modernism'.--Gazzster 07:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite simply as an outsider to this whole thing the article is reading like a hatchet job on the SSPX in the area of the current status. I've heard priests saying that anyone who attended an SSPX mass would go to hell. In light of the Pope's recent declaration it looks like the SSPX and all traditionalists (with the exception of the Sede Vacantatis (sp)) were right all along. They are very fond of saying, and I agree with their statement: "If our Elders were wrong we are wrong, if our elders were right we are right". My comments were an attempt at reading this article cold. I went Oh my gosh what a lopsided vilification. You would think that the entire order were agents of the devil or something. unsigned comment by 209.169.121.136 NOTE: Please sign posts

Note, I agree that the article has become much worse over the past few weeks since The Summorum Pontificum. We've recently run into a group of POV pushers who for the most part are on an attack mission. Having said that, your statement above isn't 100% accurate either. The SSPX wasn't right all along. The Bishops were excommunicated for a valid reason---they were elevated without permission of the Pope. They have been highly critical of the New Mass---many saying that it isn't Catholic. And a whole slew of other issues. The fact that they have been vindicated on this one issue doesn't mean that they are right or justified in other positions. It is a fine line.Balloonman 16:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't this article breach nearly all of the rules about not being biased? Obviously a sectarian mind, insulting traditional and councilor Catholics alike wrote this. Is Ian Paisley behind this? Perchance? And I don't think there is any "fine line" drawn in this argument. It's a calumny from beginning to end, based on weak and unsupported hearsay and gossip. Not ONE hard fact. As a Catholic I am utterly disgusted at the hatred that is evoked by this article. As if being a Catholic is akin to being in a cult. Whoever wrote this should hang up his jackboots and start digging real dirt for a living. EODON —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eodon (talk • contribs) 00:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Extremism

I am suppressing the following statement:

"Support for the monarchy and opposition to the Revolution would potentially place the SSPX to the political right of the FN, since the FN accepts the legitimacy of the French Republic, at least to some extent."

It is meaningless and reflects complete misunderstanding of French politics. The French monarchic movement is neither from the "Right" nor from the "Left": these concepts have emerged after the French revolution of 1789, and the French monarchists evidently place themselves outside of these post-revolution concepts. In addition, monarchists do not agree on a variety of issues, such as economic options; for instance, some royalists favor free-market capitalism, whereas others despise it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.240.39 (talk) 06:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I made some changes that Balloonman removed, without explaining exactly why. The tag complained that they were "anecdotal, irrelevant, non-balanced or POV statements". They were supported by references so they're not anecdotal. You could argue that they're non-balanced. In that case, rather than deleting them perhaps you could find some references of your own to support contrary views. For example, are their times when the SSPX has taken a strong stand against anti-Semitism, holocaust denial, or extreme nationalism? Or perhaps someone from the SSPX made a strong condemnation of the terrorist attack on St Michel cinema? You could argue that they were irrelevant. The Church is not responsible for Jean Trouchaud's terrorist leanings (and I'm sure it wouldn't condone suicide bombing as suicide is a mortal sin). But the environment in which he found himself molded him: the Church at St Nicolas du Chardonnet, where he found other people with similar leanings to himself. Cottard and Laguerie were representatives of the SSPX at the time that they led their paramilitary scouts or made their controversial statements. In my view, which is based on personal experience, their views and attitudes were widespread within the movement - at least in that part of France. Furthermore, there are paragraphs about Paul Touvier and Williamson that do not seem to me to be any more relevant to extremism within the SSPX than those that I added. Anonymous 22nd July 2007

They remain anecdotal---anecdotal does not mean unreferenced. It simply means isolated incidents used to represent a larger trend. In fact, your own words, "may not have been members of the SSPX, Abbé Laguérie who was then the priest at St Nicolas du Chardonnet, appeared to endorse the action." But the inclusion of an isolated incident where a single priest is not indicative of the group as a whole. If one of the bishops or district leaders says something, then that is news. A single priest (or even a group of priest) is anecdotal. We can find protestant ministers, catholic priests, Jewish rabbi's, etc who have said similar things about similar incidents---it is not an indictment on those religions, just as one priest who supported the actions of a single terrorist is not an indictment on the SSPX. Thus, it is anecdotal and on an encyclopedic scale irrelevant.

I disagree that one should only quote bishops or high-up people within the SSPX in order to paint a picture of the organization as a whole. It's often the case that 'official' points of view are not representative of those at the grass roots. I would never assume, on meeting an SSPX member that I knew nothing about, that they were necessarily anti-Semitic. Yet my experience of SSPX sympathizers from the South of France to Paris to Poland, leads me to believe that anti-Semitism is unequivocally widespread within the movement. As an example, it's true that Rabbis have come out with statements that I deplore and consider to be racist or terrorist (I'm thinking of the Kach party, which was banned in Israel). But it's rare to hear those from within the reform or liberal Jewish denominations. And such attitudes would certainly be controversial within those communities even if they were not outright denounced (as they probably would be) because Jews with those types of attitudes typically choose to join other movements. If a relatively large number of people from a relatively small community have links or sympathies with acts of extremism then I think it's relevant to use this as evidence, even if people high up within the movement put their hands up and say 'not guilty, guv'. Another good example would be racism within the police force. No police chief in the UK would endorse openly racist attitudes, but if you want to find out whether police forces are institutionally racist, a much better means of doing so would be to hang-about in coffee rooms listening to the conversation, or by monitoring reports of gross negligence, indifference or failure to act on the part of police officers on the ground. Some issues you simply can't get to by listening to 'official channels'.

Again, POV pushing. "Although links to the National Front, and other right wing organizations are often denied by members of the SSPX, a number of groups closely related to the movement, such as the "Scouts de France" have themselves been linked with the far right or shown to have extremist leanings." The entire addition is such that it has the objective of pushing a point of view---" and by association against the traditionalist Church."

Hmm, see above. Again, I see this as evidence by association, rather than POV pushing.

More POV---"This was only the worst of a series of incidents." That is a POV statement. It is clearly not NPOV that belongs in an encyclopedic article. Wikipedia is not a place to collect every incident or allegation against a group---if we allow that, then we might as well simply cut and paste www.sspx-cult.com or www.sspx-sect.com. Instead we strive for a higher level of notability and relevance.

OK - I've changed the 'worst of a series of incidents' to 'one of a series of incidents. I accept this is a point-of-view, or perhaps journalistic rather than encyclopaedistic. But I'd still argue that an incident in which 5 people died is undeniably worse than one where several people were put at risk, but did not come to any harm.

Oh yeah, it should also be pointed out that many priests would not have violated the confessional if they learned of a threatened terrorist activity. In the US there has been repeated history of legal cases involving priests who are told something in the confessional not sharing it with the public. It is something that many states have actually supported the priests' rights to... I don't know the laws in France, but I do know priests who would not violate the confessional regardless of what was said in them.Balloonman

I used the example of the confessional not to criticize the priest so much as to point out that Trouchaud was actively involved with the Church community. It doesn't mean anything that a person was once a member of a particular group or occasionally went to Mass on holidays, but that they were an active member when plotting a terrorist attack to me does seem significant. Many of Trouchaud's circles were also members of St Nicolas du Chardonnet. I accept that the confidentiality of the confessional is widespread throughout Catholicism, and I can see the reasoning behind this (although it's not a point of view I endorse - particularly with respect to 'sins' that have not yet occurred).

Notable groups that separated

"In less than five months, by 6 February 2007, membership had grown to ten priests and two deacons". "The ordination on 3 March 2007 added another two priests." "Cardinal Castrillón ... on 22 September 2007 ordained five priests of the Institute" (all this is mentioned in the article Institute of the Good Shepherd), with a crowd watching the 22 September ceremony on outside screens (http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3224,36-958747@51-954064,0.html). To me the Institute seems decidedly notable, certainly more than the Society of Saint Pius V. Did this ever have anything like the 17 priests that the Institute of the Good Shepherd has grown to in just a year? (Perhaps it did. I don't know.) Unlike the latter, hasn't it split up into several factions? Is it turning into or has it already turned into just another (or rather several) of the multitudinous fragmentary "Independent Catholic Churches"? (Perhaps not. Again, I don't know.) You "separate from" a group by breaking off your association with it. Lima 11:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I Think IGS definitely belongs in the article Personal Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney; however, it is debatable in this section as named. I think that the Union is notable and its relationship with SSPX and Rome is notable, but I have to agree, it doesn't really belong in the section of "groups that broke off from the SSPX." They were never part of the SSPX, although they were allied in spirit.Balloonman 14:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

What about the new order of listing the groups that "separated from" (not "broke off from") the SSPX? Lima 15:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think with your new wording/lead in, it is acceptable... I am not fully comfortable with it... but I wouldn't be comfortable removing it either. E.g. I think there is a better way... I just don't know what it might be.Balloonman 16:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Other controversies

The statement about St Mary's Academy and the reasoning behind not wanting a female referee officiating a boy's basketball game is wrong and misleading. If you look at the press release on St Mary's website you will find the explanation http://www.smac.edu/?0208PressRelease I intend on adding this link and a brief explanation.Eva49 (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Canonical situation of the SSPX

I'm not fully in agreement with what is written in the section "the Canonical situation of the SSPX". Actually the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei Letter 539/99 of 28 September 1999 (http://www.unavoce.org/Protocol539-99.htm) is extremely clear: the SPPX priests are excommunicated if they adhere to the schism and likely that these priests, after eleven years in a society whose head is now an excommunicated bishop, effectively adhere to the schism. This should be made very clear, while this is only in a text in a link and the article gives importance to personal POV like the one of Fr. Gerald E. Murray. I suggest to, by first, indicating the official position of the Holy See using as much as possible the words of the above letter (making a clear division among, the bishops, the priest, clergy, lay people who adhere to the occasional faithful). Only after having expressed the official Holy See position, using only Holy See official documents, we can start with the On the contrary, Fr. Gerald E. Murray think that... and The SSPX think that... A ntv (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it better now? I don't think an "on the contrary" is needed for Father Murray. Lima (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is better. Anyway Father Murray is not the Holy See's view, but only a POV. I think that the whole Holy See's view is too long, and an occasional reader can't understand the position of the Holy See, that have been fixed in the 1999 letter. Moreover it should better to follow a chronological order, so the 1999 official positions go over 1995 Murray's POV (that I'ld remove), that I would not mention. A ntv (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoever inserted Father Murray's reported remarks clearly intended them to be understood as contradicting the Holy See's view of the canonical situation of SSPX. The further information that has been added indicates that that understanding is false. It seems therefore that neither those who accept the Holy See's view nor those who prefer the SSPX opinion have reason for wishing to keep in the article the remarks of someone who was only doing a course of canon law studies and had not yet obtained a doctorate, who was not a professor of canon law nor a recognized expert, and who had expressed in his paper on the position of SSPX-connected laypeople a view not shared by his professor and the university at which he was studying. I think the remarks and the relative discussion can therefore be removed. The views of the Holy See can perhaps best continue to be presented in the present four sections. First, the initial declarations by the Congregation for Bishops and Pope John Paul II, which only concerns the four SSPX members who are bishops. Then, the formal declarations of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, which has direct responsibility for trying to bring SSPX members into full communion. Next, the more or less off-the-cuff remarks by Cardinal Castrillón, who is now the Commission's President. Lastly, the opinion of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, the body that can give the most authoritative opinion on the canon-law aspect, but which is not charged with carrying out its practical application. Because some have presented interpretations of one or more of these declarations as favouring the SSPX view, it is best to keep them all for the sake of the references to the actual texts and to show that, in spite of the interpretations that have been put forward, they are in fact in harmony. Lima (talk) 04:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You are right. Well done! Anyway still now the subsection Holy See's view looks like to be too much in favor of the SSPX view. Now we have also the subsection The Society's view so we can separate the different views. Actually the chronological order is important, because year after year the situation is getting worse and the Holy See declarations are more and more clear. I could work on this Article to make it more concise, but now I have other priorities. A ntv (talk) 09:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the chronological order of the Pontifical Commission's declarations would be best. You yourself suggest starting with its 1999 letter, which I think is the clearest one to summarize; but it issued several others before 1999. As for Shoneen's changes today, I think they dumb down the text too much, leading to inaccuracies. For example, a "recognized" religious institute is not the same as an institute "in full communion with the Holy See" - the Catholic Church "recognizes" Eastern Orthodox monasteries and monks that are not in full communion with the Holy See. The phrase "or reject communion with the members of the Church subject to the Pope" is not unimportant: it covers those who, while professing to accept the Pope, reject the local bishop. A claim to ordinary jurisdiction amounts not to competing with the local bishop, but to replacing him. Selecting one particular phrase and putting quotation marks around it suggests that other no less important phrases reported in the article are not found in the cited source. I think changes of these kinds should first be discussed here. Lima (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you about Shonnen's changes today. The whole subsection is in my opinion still too complicated, and a not-catholic reader will confuse excommunication canonical crime with excommunication personal sin, the validity of orders with the lack of jurisdiction, the different positions of SSPX bishops, priests, lay involved and occasional faithful. Actually Wiki is an encyclopedia, not a detailed study. Anyway your today changes have helped a lot in order to get a synthetic Article A ntv (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced and seemingly false addition

An editor has added: "The fact that René Lefebvre senior, father of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (in French Africa at the time, not in an war area), suffered death in 1944 in the Nazi concentration camp of Sonnenburg for helping Jews escape to neutral Spain under Franco and Switzerland, and for espionage for the British, is often omitted in this context." Various sources on the Internet give a quite different explanation of the arrest and subsequent death of René Lefebvre. The most authoritative I have found is a German translation of Marcel's own words about his father, in which he says that his father's activity consisted in helping Allied soldiers and Belgian civilians escape to England or to "Free France" (http://www.kreuzforum.net/showthread.php?tid=371&pid=4732&mode=threaded). Not a word about Jews. Equally unsourced is the claim by the same editor that "a considerable number" of the SSPX supporters and priests have Jewish backgrounds or "are Christian converts from Judaism". Lima (talk) 14:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5