There are over a million members of the Society of St. Pius X (“SSPX”) in the world today, and all of them, whether they are aware of it or not, are in rebellion against the Supreme Pontiff. While many traditionally minded Catholics claim that the Society of St. Pius X maintains the only fully authentic Mass of the Catholic Church, the truth is that the SSPX rejects the legitimate authority of the Bishop of Rome and exists outside the Fold in a state of material schism.
I realize that this claim is controversial and can be divisive even among committed Catholics. I do not intend to ignite flames of hatred toward my brothers and sisters in the SSPX or to cast aspersion on their character. My motivation is to invite the reader to a careful consideration of the facts and to invite the members of the SSPX to reconciliation.
FACT: The SSPX was founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1970 to perpetuate the Tridentine Liturgy. He did not reject in principle the Liturgical reform of Vatican II, but he rejected the Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1969. To quote from Bishop Frederick Henry of Calgary:
He [Lefebvre] started a seminary in Ecône, Switzerland, to train priests, which he then ordained. As a bishop who was not an Ordinary (bishop of a diocese) at the time, he was not permitted to ordain priests. Pope Paul VI suspended his priestly faculties, and those he ordained, for defiance of Church law. Time going on, the Lefebvre movement rejected ecumenism and the statements of the Council on religious liberty, as contrary to Tradition…
…In 1989, Archbishop Lefebvre, fearing that he would soon die and leave no one to ordain priests for the SSPX, sought an agreement with the Holy See for the lawful continuation of the Society. After first reaching one, with Cardinal Ratzinger acting for the Pope, Lefebvre reversed himself, and in an act which was ipso facto schismatic consecrated four bishops without a papal mandate and incurred an automatic excommunication, confirmed a few days later by Decree of the Holy See. (see more here)
Pope St. John Paul II was compelled to issue a decree of excommunication in the face of this disobedient act. From that decree:
In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience – which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy – constitutes a schismatic act. In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law. (Motu Proprio, Ecclesia Dei n. 3)
Regrettably, Marcel Lefebvre died while under the penalty of excommunication.
QUESTION: Did Archbishop Lefebvre commit schism, and if he did not, then for what reason was he excommunicated? Moreover, would the crime of schism apply to the entire SSPX?
FACT: In 2009 Pope Emeritus Benedict lifted the penalty of excommunication from the four bishops of the SSPX. In March of the same year Benedict wrote a letter to the Episcopate concerning the remission of excommunication. In that letter, he stated:
In light of this situation, it is my intention henceforth to join the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” – the body which has been competent since 1988 for those communities and persons who, coming from the Society of Saint Pius X or from similar groups, wish to return to full communion with the Pope – to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This will make it clear that the problems now to be addressed are essentially doctrinal in nature and concern primarily the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes. (read more here.)
There are two important points that this letter highlights:
- The SSPX is not in communion with Rome, but is being invited back to full communion
- The SSPX does not currently render submission to the Magisterium or the Second Vatican Council, and in order to return to full communion the SSPX must accept both
Bishop Frederick of Calgary articulates it this way:
A full recognition of the Second Vatican Council and the Magisterium of Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI himself [and now including Pope Francis as well] is an indispensable condition for any future recognition of the Society of Saint Pius X.
QUESTION: The SSPX claims they never severed themselves from full communion with the Catholic Church; however, if this claim is true, why would Pope Benedict have referred to the doctrinal problems still dogging the SSPX?
FACT: The SSPX (beginning with Lefebvre) rejects the Missal of Paul VI (also known as the Novus Ordo Missae, or Ordinary Form), and firmly avows this position on their official website, sspx.org:
“The SSPX’s position on the protestantized New Mass is explained, thus demonstrating that according to the Church’s teaching, Catholics are not obliged to attend the Novus Ordo as it puts the faith in danger.” (read more here and watch their video here)
In other words, according to the SSPX, if there is no Tridentine Rite Mass available to the Catholic, then he is not obliged to attend Mass on Sundays or Holy Days of Obligation. This position is in direct contradiction to both the Third Commandment and the Magisterium. Obedience to the Third Commandment demands that “on Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass.” (CCC, 2180 and CIC, can. 1247) Contrary to the SSPX position, the Novus Ordo Missae is a valid, licit form of the Roman Rite promulgated by every Pope since Paul VI and ipso facto does not pose a threat to the Faith. Since the SSPX denies that Catholics are bound to attend Mass on Sunday if the only option is the valid, licit Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, they fulfill the requirement of material schism as found in Canon law: “…schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” (CIC, can. 751)
The Vatican does not have to proclaim formal schism for material schism to exist. Bradley Eli of Church Militant explains, “In theology, ‘material’ simply means you did it. ‘Formal’ means you deliberately willed it and therefore are culpable for doing it.” Of course, as we have seen, Pope St. John Paul II did formally condemn Marcel Lefebvre for schismatic actions, and the SSPX has been faithful to the path laid forth by its founder.
QUESTION: According to the law of the Church, is the SSPX in material schism? In what other possible manner could their words and actions be interpreted?
As stated in the beginning, I desire the reconciliation of the SSPX with the Body of Christ. I believe this goal is in sight and will, by the Grace of God, be achieved. My brothers and sisters of the SSPX, I implore you to reconsider, not your ideals, but your methods, and compare them to authentic Catholic teaching. True, the modern Church has its instances of recalcitrant bishops and liturgical abuse, for anywhere people are imperfections will be found; but discarding the authority of Rome is not an option for faithful Catholics. Come home and be reconciled with Holy Mother Church and the Supreme Pontiff! If you will not hear me, then heed the words of that stalwart beacon of the Faith, Ven. Fulton J. Sheen, “leave the so-called Society of Saint Pius X. This group has no ecclesiastical approval, and indeed, it can lead [you and your family] into schism and even heresy.” (letter to Barbara)
17 thoughts on “The SSPX and the Catholic Church: A House Divided”
Paula, The subject of this article is the SSPX, not the homosexual bishops. That’s why homosexual bishops are not mentioned here.
I find it hilarious that there is anyone alive who is worried about the souls of those in the SSPX. Homosexual cardinals, God only knows how many of them possessed by demons, are running amok inside and outside of the Church. Tradition is rejected and mocked. The teaching of Jesus Christ himself are questioned and sidelined. We have a pope who speaks confusion and division. The true faith is taught almost nowhere in the West, as families fall apart and away from any hint of the Faith. But it’s the poor SSPX souls we are worried about. Puh-leese.
I believe St Paul saying something about Jesus not being divided in parts. Seems to be as applicable today as then. Fact of the matter is that the PX people are just as much in schism as the Old Catholics after Vatican I. Of course the example set today by some of the European bishops today does not exactly inspire the faithful but that is the price of having a church comprised of men rather than angels. Pope Francis seems amenable to resolving the issue and the society of SSPX would be wise to pursue the matter.
At what cost to the SSPX?
If the SSPX returns to the fold the Tridentine Mass will be lost forever and our Catholic Church will be truly and irrevocably protestanised.
There is a great, but simple paradox which must be known but is never mentioned by those who desire the subjugation of the SSPX; if it came to light I believe the matter would be resolved very quickly.
I am not a member of the SSPX.
This article would be very good if it weren’t full of errors and confusion. One error is that Abp Lefebvre founded the SSPX because of the new Mass. The truth is he was asked by some seminarians to form them because they could not find a seminary that was not modernist. After a while he founded the SSPX canonically by going through the correct procedure and being recognized by Rome. As for schism, disobedience does not constitute schism and even the authority of the Holy Father is limited as per Vatican I. No one can be bound to attend a protestantized version of the Mass nor to go against the established teachings of the Magisterium on religious liberty, ecumenism, or collegiality. Hopefully the writer does a more thorough job of his research and considers studying more reliable sources.
There are few factual mistakes in this article:
1: “The SSPX was founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1970 to perpetuate the Tridentine Liturgy.”
The SSPX was founded to form priests. While the issue of the Mass was a consequence of the priesthood, it was not the reason for the SSPX’s foundation — see the SSPX’s founding documents and comments about its Statutes (which earned international praise including from the Holy See): http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/joyful-consequence-november-1-1970-2730.
2: “He [Lefebvre] started a seminary in Ecône, Switzerland, to train priests, which he then ordained. As a bishop who was not an Ordinary (bishop of a diocese) at the time, he was not permitted to ordain priests.”
Archbishop Lefebvre certainly had permission as the SSPX’s superior general to ordained its clergy (minor and major orders) as was recognized up until the illegitimate suspension of the priestly society.
In fact, this prior permission was implied by the injunctions made seeking to prevent him from carrying out further ordinations.
Lastly, Bishop Adam- – the local bishop of Sion, Switzerland (in which Econe is located) — gave Archbishop Lefebvre permission to use the episcopal throne in the seminary’s chapel for pontifical ceremonies.
If one artificially distinguishes the Catholic Church from the SSPX, and studies both groups as if they were seperate entities — which they obviously are not — then it is abundantly clear that the SSPX has a strong internal unity in discipline and doctrine, while the remainder of the Catholic Church is a house divided and completely in disarray. The “normal” Church is under siege of modernists, its sacramental discipline is in shatters and its doctrine doesn’t seem to matter much anymore for a considerable majority of laity, priests and bishops. The Synod on the Family has made this crisis even more visible. Many prelates either don’t care about doctrine or don’t even accurately know the doctrine of the Church. In the “normal” Catholic Church almost any subversive opinion finds some semi-ligitimate corner where it can be practiced and propagated without any penal or disciplinary consequences. The unity of this Church exists only in name and is as shallow as the predicate “Catholic” when used e.g. by members of Congress like Nancy Pelosi. It either has no meaning at all, or, if it has, a wrong meaning.
As a body within the Church, only the SSPX are fully Catholic. They know what Catholicism is and they practice it. Their house is not divided. And everyone knows about them, simply because they don’t muddle with their identity.
I’m no fan of SSPX, but my understanding is that they are technically not in schism, but some sort of “impaired communion”. Since similar language is used of today’s Protestants, rather than the harsher term “heretic”, I’m not really sure what the distinction is, but we should stick by the language used by the Church. Also, only priests are truly “members” of SSPX, so your first sentence is blatantly wrong.
If is walks like schism and talks likes schism, then…
https://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=20046
Peter: there are many factual-historical mistakes in this piece; you should consult with sspx.org.
There is nowhere near over a million members of the SSPX. Laypeople are not members.
,,,and the Southern Poverty Law Center stated that the SSPX was the largest hard-core Anti-Semetic hate group in America;
The SPLC is Anti-Negro and anti-Catholic — period. Poverty? Are you kidding. Morris Dees make six figures by spewing fear through mass mailings. No Blacks serve on his Board. Those that one time did quit on account of White Favoritism. And what is his “Southern” thing? Obviously stealing from MLK’s “Southern Christian LC”.
Ok, kelso, here’s another source…the catholic herald
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2013/01/04/sspx-leader-calls-jewish-people-enemies-of-the-church/
and you ran a blog where you compared your suffering to holocaust atrocity porn… what’s your point? this cult of perpetual victimhood is poison.
BWAAAAA HAAAAA HAAAAA HAAAAA HAAAAA
The most important question to consider is how this looks to the rest of the world – never mind a multi layered strata of : lapsed, dissenting, ex, cafeteria, orthodox, traditional and C&E type Catholics. On a
grand scale it’s an open joke that only makes the Church look archaic and not a serious contender for
the hearts and minds of God’s children. If the magisterial powers that be IGNORED the issue it would
wither of its own accord. As to the other ‘types’ of Catholics the same approach would reveal the extent ( actual numbers) of just how popular and centered Rome is in a world of changing theology.