Others in the thread were saying that it hasn't grown all that much.
Number of priests went from ~200 in 1988 to ~700 in 2026 (3.5x increase). I guarantee that's a much larger increase than Catholicism generally. The Society serves about 600,000 faithful weekly (
source). I have heard more conservative sources say 500,000.
Forgive my ignorance on what fully constitutes a full-fledged schismatic Catholic group, but would these groups not qualify?
As was pointed out by
@Stopped_lurking, these groups are not in communion and they probably never expect to be in communion. The SSPX status has vacillated quite a bit over the years, and they are unique in that way. You could think of them as the tip of the spear for traditionalist Catholic reform, and their challenge to the post-Vatican II order has always placed them in a strange state of limbo. Old Catholics like the Polish National Catholic Church are not in communion with the Catholic Church, and I don't think they want to be. More simply, the SSPX constitute a
bona fide and ongoing attempt to reform the real Catholic Church, and therefore being excommunicated actually bothers them in a way that it doesn't bother the Old Catholics.
I'm learning as I go here, but from what it sounds like, the Sedevacantists are even further outside the lines as they don't even recognize the legitimacy of any post-Vatican II pope?
Right, but small 's' as it is just a general categorization that collects together a number of different groups.
So from the pushback I've been getting, it sounds like nobody seems keen on entertaining the idea that this is a convenient way to distance the organization from some people/groups who are rather controversial?
I'm not convinced there is that much overlap. You speak of Nick Fuentes, but he denounces the SSPX and does not even attend a Latin Mass. There is a sense in which people want to keep religious reform and political reform separate. This is because it is much easier to reform one thing at a time, so to speak. You don't want multiple different majorities painting a target on your back at the same time. But even apart from this tactical point, I'm not convinced the ideologies align as closely as you believe.
An entire continent's Bishops conference collectively said "no, the people around here don't like that kind of stuff, so we're not doing it" and it was allowed to slide... A relatively tiny group (that just so happens to have sympathizers that are controversial, well-known and oppose the current Pope's stances on immigration) break a rule, and there's a mass excommunication and retroactive invalidation of marriages and sacraments performed by the clergymen.
Reader's Digest version: The fact that alt-right types are claiming the Catholic label creates a real inconvenience for the new Pope, so rather than address the grievances in any substantive manner, it's easier to just pretend those people "aren't actually Catholics".
You have a point about the
size and
influence of the two groups, but I think you're running that into a different issue, namely political ideology. As I alluded to in my last post, Leo has been much softer on these political issues than Francis. For example, under pressure from theologians, Pope Leo admitted that countries have a right to control their borders and to control immigration. Leo has basically softened everything from Francis' papacy and is more interested in unification. He is likely annoyed that the SSPX forced his hand with episcopal consecrations. He basically has no choice in this matter. Catholic law itself states that anyone who performs such consecrations is automatically excommunicated, and the rationale behind that law is pretty hard to avoid. The SSPX was even warned multiple times before the consecrations occurred.
Ultimately, if views are that different... perhaps it's better they start their own denomination and distinct brand of Christianity (like Martin Luther back in the day), but that kind of lets the "mainstream" organization off of the hook with regards to the fact that their earlier teachings were what created this group that they find so offensive today.
It's like when Gavin McInnis was trying to distance himself from the Proud Boys.
Francis was very kind to the SSPX. He literally made their sacraments of marriage and confession valid. I have no reason to believe that Leo is much harsher than Francis when it comes to this singular issue. Remember that the same basic thing happened in 1988 when the SSPX first consecrated new bishops.
The theological issue is basically the reproductive rights of a quasi-schismatic group (lol). Without bishops the SSPX cannot ordain priests, and without priests they cannot fulfill their entire purpose. Thus the consecration of new bishops has always been the most crucial act with respect to SSPX and other similar groups. Theologians have predicted the inevitability of these SSPX consecrations and excommunications decades before they occurred.
