Talk:Society of St. Pius V/Archive 1

Relations to the Holy See

This page doesn't say if they're in full communion with the Holy See or not. It should say whether they are or aren't.24.125.102.206 (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Excellent point. But, why would the matter of full communion with the Holy See need to be addressed in this particular article? In other words, what's the object on it? Moreover, what source could one cite? That is, it's not sufficient simply to speculate using the Code (a POV issue). The only documentation on this question (relating to SSPV) that is available is provided by SSPV. And, that has been cited in the article itself, yes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.30.114.47 (talk) 03:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The main point is that groups that claim to be Catholic but are not in communion with Rome are inherently not Roman Catholic, whatever they say they are. This group is actualy defined by rejecting that their is a current Pope. They inherently have no communion with the Holy See.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

John - The main point is not that this 'group' claims to be Catholic, but are Catholic, and Roman by Rite, as defined insomuch as that the Holy See is defined; NOTE: This 'group' is NOT actually defined by rejecting that there is a current Pope. They have never been rejected as not having full communion with the Holy See. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.210.117.83 (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

IP, that is not a true statement, as this group denies Papal authority and has been declared sedevacantist.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Mike, Hi. No, this group does not deny Papal authority and never has; that much is fairly clear from available evidence. You state that this group has been declared sedevacantist. Ok. By whom?--Abenjo (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Themselves, listen to their homilies for Christ's sake. Kelly has denied that there has been a valid Roman pope since 1958. Their 2 so-called bishops have no jurisdiction. Their Masses are valid, but illicit. They don't even mention Rome or the pope on their websites. Show the so-called "available evidence" that they are in Communion with Rome.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Episcopal Consecrations

Remember that we are Catholics. Why can't we behave that way. Fighting amongst ourselves and what is, possibly calumny sends a poor message to non-Catholic and anti tradition minded Catholics.

Let's knock it off.

NPOV

editing to achieve NPOV, as some of this clearly is not. 137.22.123.110 (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Alot of this info is INcorrect on the SSPV, and whoever has been creating/editing this article clearly indicates a serious dislike for Bishop Santay, in particular. Please consider removing all incorrect and malevolent sentences pertaining to him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.2.35.53 (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The information about seminarians leaving Immaculate Heart seminary is a complete lie; also the editor of this article is abusing a live person. Editing this incorrect information is not vandalism, as recorded by user in history. If these edits keep being undone, please be warned it will be reported. 71.2.35.53 (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The use of the term "illicit ordination" is inherently a violation of NPOV. In the view of this group, ordinations done by Benedict XVI and those who think he is the legitimate Pope are the ones that are illicit. NPOV means that the fact that a groups 100 members are about the only ones who hold their views should not be used as gronds to treat them as an illegitimate group. This is especially true since the meaning of illicit is close to illegal, and no one has even accused this group of breaking any secular laws.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

POV

avoid words like "proud, greedy, and impetuous, tyrant, unworthy"--Work permit (talk) 05:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do not make statements like "some in the hierarchy feel..." without referencing who or cite a reference to official documentation. The hierarchy has no connection or relation to the SSPV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.33.224.83 (talk) 05:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced bias

Please read wp:blp before adding terms like very young and inexperienced. Also, please read wp:rs before adding information in general--Work permit (talk) 05:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Rather then reintroducing edits, can we bring this issue to the discussion page please--Work permit (talk) 02:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

== )

To Talk: You do not know why these men left the seminary period. Men have left the Seminary before Bp Santay was even a Bishop! You spread calumy by blaming Bishop Santay for their leaving, in these pages. Remember that next time you delete the edits others have made and go to confession. As for Fr. Baumberger, he is busy building a new school on Long Island. It has consumed much of his time and even the Oyster Bay Chapel does not see him very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.217.17.119 (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

To talk: This discussion shouldn't even be on this page...but while we are on the subject, I know for a fact that one seminarian left after 3 or 4 years because he found that he did not have a vocation. He is now about to be married. So, people: not sure, be quiet!

71.2.34.46 (talk) 21:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC) Why Fr. Thomas Zapp left the SSPV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Semperaggressus (talk • contribs) 20:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Who owns what?

I know next to nothing about Catholicism, so please pardon my ignorant, Philistine attitude - but from my infidel point of view, this article is sorely lacking in explanation of who actually owns all these assets, the priories, seminary and so on. My understanding is that an archdiocese is an independent non-profit corporation, so I assume that Marcel Lefebvre as an archbishop was in full control of a large set of assets, some of which he could have given to the Society of St. Pius X? But where did these independent priests of the SSPV who split from SSPX get their buildings and working capital? Wnt (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong about your attitude, these are legitimate questions. I don't have any specific information on who actually owns the particular properties. Probably they are mostly in the name of a single priest, or of some or all of the priests of a particular group. They were paid for and maintained by the voluntary contributions of the people served by the priests. Archbishop Lefebvre, at the time he became involved in Traditionalist activities (after the Vatican Council in the 1960s) was retired from his archdiocese, so he had no control over diocesan funds. In any case, canon law limits what a bishop can do with church property. Over a certain amount, it has to be approved by the Holy See (Rome). The background of this situation maybe isn't familiar to you. After the Vatican Council ended in 1965, the Church was split into 2 factions, the liberals and the traditionalists. The liberals had carried out a coup d'etat in the council and proceeded to make revolutionary changes (paralleling what happened in the Protestant Reformation) in the whole life of the Church. Traditional Catholics were forced to start their own groups and chapels, and find bishops and priests that would carry on the Traditions in regard to the Mass, the sacraments, and Church teaching (dogma). The traditional side has gradually grown over the past 40 years, entirely at their own expense. Financially, I think it's safe to say that they've received almost no help from the "New Church" side of things. The liberals in control tend to accuse the Traditionalists of schism, but schisms in the Church are created by innovators or heretics, not those who wish to keep to the Faith as it has been handed down by 260 popes and 20 ecumenical councils (meetings of all bishops under the Pope). Porteternales (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Society of Pope Leo XIII

I found the website of a group that calls itself the Society of Pope Leo XIII. It looks a lot like the SSPV except it is named after Pope Leo XIII. [1] ADM (talk) 22:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

This Society is nothing like SSPV. SSPV does not "co-celebrate" Masses.69.127.143.208 (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

New name

The SSPV has apparently adopted a new and slightly different name, as the Congregation of St. Pius V. This should be added to the article, and it may be necessary to rename the article. --Chonak (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there no Society of St. Pius V, then? The evidence would seem to indicate otherwise. Perhaps, if we csould come up with a founding date for the Congregation and rationale (a function of civil law), that could be added or a separate Wiki entry created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Massaroth (talk • contribs) 05:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The Society of St.Pius V is separate and distinct from the Congregation. The Congregation members are vowed to the Congregation. The Society members are not and are loosely affiliated under no canonical obligations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.89.79.204 (talk • contribs)