Skip to main content

A case against association with the SSPX and attending their Masses


I think traditionalist-minded folks can get bogged down with the technicalities of the Msgr Perl letters, and there are several of them, because of nuances related to fulfilling the Sunday obligation and other particular issues.

My approach to this issue is simply this:

1. Canon law defines what "schism" is: "Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." (CIC, 751).

2. Schism is incurred "latae sententiae", that is to say, automatically by the very act of schism, without a need for declaration from the ecclesiastical authority: "An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication" (CIC, 1364).

3. The SSPX, in various ways, in currently available printed books, pamphlets, tracts, articles, blogs, websites, maintains or promotes the historical teaching and statements of Msgr. Marcel Lefevbre, indicating that the SSPX cannot be in communion with "modernist Rome".

It is clear that with all those who leave us or who have left us for Sedevacantism or with those who want to be subject to the current hierarchy of the Church while hoping to keep the Tradition, we can no longer have relations with them. It is not possible. We say that one cannot be subject to ecclesiastical authority and keep Tradition. They claim the opposite. This is to deceive the faithful. (…) we want to be absolutely free from compromise both with regard to Sedevacantists and with regard to those who want to be subject to ecclesiastical authority. -Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Conference in Flavigny, December 1988, Fideliter n° 68, p. 16.

For more evidence of the teaching of Lefevbre: Look here, here, here, here, and here

4. Therefore, the SSPX, at least in particular cases, that can be easily verifiable by asking their priestly membership, or followers, 1) if they submit to the Supreme Pontiff or 2) accept communion with the members in union with the Supreme Pontiff, or 3) affirm or reject the various schismatical teachings of Msgr. Lefebvre on the SSPX relationship with the Roman authorities can be shown to meet the definition of "schism" (CIC 751) and incur such a penalty automatically without ecclesiastical declaration (CIC 1364).

5. Msgr. Perl writes that the Pont. Commission Ecclesia Dei discourages attendance at the SSPX, and that while attendance itself is not a "formal schism", one might adopt the "schismatic mentality", which would then incur the penalty of schism. 

While it is true that participation in the Mass at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute "formal adherence to the schism", such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a schismatic mentality which separates itself from the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the entire Catholic Church classically exemplified in A Rome and Econe Handbook which states in response to question 14 that the SSPX defends the traditional catechisms and therefore the Old Mass, and so attacks the Novus Ordo, the Second Vatican Council and the New Catechism, all of which more or less undermine our unchangeable Catholic faith. It is precisely because of this schismatic mentality that this Pontifical Commission has consistently discouraged the faithful from attending Masses celebrated under the aegis of the Society of St. Pius X.

In summary:

  • Canon law defines schism (Can. 751). 
  • The SSPX priests and their followers can be shown to hold a "schismatic mentality", 
  • This meets the criteria for schism.
  • It is incurred automatically (Can. 1364). 
  • Therefore, it is not advisable to attend the SSPX chapels or socialize among their communities.
For more information:

Popular posts from this blog

As a dog that returneth to his vomit, so is the fool that repeateth his folly: The folly of the Transalpine Redemptorists

As a dog that returneth to his vomit, so is the fool that repeateth his folly. -Proverbs 26:11, DRB Let's start off with what was publicly stated by the Transalpine Redemptorists in 2008. Read how important undisputed communion with Rome is for them... back in 2008. Tuesday, July 01, 2008 Canonical Good Standing 1 July, 2008 Feast of the Precious Blood My dear friends, I am happy to inform you that last June 18th, before Cardinal Castrillon and the members of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei in Rome, I humbly petitioned the Holy See on my own behalf and on behalf of the monastery council for our priestly suspensions to be lifted. On June 26th I received word that the Holy See had granted our petition. All canonical censures have been lifted. Our community now truly rejoices in undisputed and peaceful posession of Communion with the Holy See because our priests are now in canonical good standing. We are very grateful to our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI for issuing, last July,...
Read more

John Salza Responds to Peter Kwasniewski on the SSPX

John Salza Responds to Peter Kwasniewski on the SSPX January A.D. 2023 Following is my response to Peter Kwasniewski’s hit-and-run post about my January 9, 2023 interview with Matt Fradd on the SSPX. Before addressing his points, notice that Peter admits he only “listened to about an hour” of my three hour and fifteen-minute interview, but then provides a laundry list of points he claims I did not cover or failed to distinguish, again, even though he did not listen to over 2/3rds of the interview, and which actually did include discussion on many of the points he claims I missed (i.e, the Magisterium’s levels of authority, obedience, the problems with Pope Francis, etc). Evidently Peter thinks so highly of himself that he believes he can publicly refute his opponents’ arguments without listening to their entire arguments. This says a lot about his approach to the issue. Now, to Peter’s points. 1 – Peter claims I don’t distinguish between Sacrosanctum Concilium and the Novus O...
Read more

SSPX Masses and the Sunday Obligation by John Salza

In the span of just a few days, two well-known Catholics publicly gave what I maintain are erroneous conclusions regarding whether or not SSPX Masses fulfill the Sunday obligation. On September 18, 2024, in an interview with Gene Zannetti, Fr. Chad Ripperger stated that SSPX Masses fulfill the obligation. And on September 21, 2024, in an article by Daniel Payne for Catholic News Agency (about the Carmelite nuns who defected to the SSPX), Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers is also quoted as suggesting that SSPX Masses fulfill the obligation (because he says Catholics can attend their Masses and receive Holy Communion). As I will demonstrate in this article, both statements fall short of a proper understanding of canon law, which lead to the erroneous conclusion. Note that I already addressed this issue at length in my November 2021 article “Do SSPX Masses Fulfill the Sunday Obligation?” (this previous article also analyzes all the negative judgments by the Holy See regarding SS...
Read more