Dear Friends,
Since I'm on this email feed, I feel compelled to keep responding whenever the SSPX is labeled schismatic. I try to do so in a friendly way, not wanting to hurt anyone's feelings. I don't claim to have papal authority, so consider my remarks to be, at best, a private theological opinion.
First, I note that to judge any moral action (or state), we need to consider the object of that action and the circumstances as well. Prudence always requires the consideration of circumstances.
It's not enough to simply consider a definition or a commandment and apply it to a case without checking all the circumstances. For example, a boy might be accused of the sin of disobeying his father, citing the 4th Commandment as proof. Looking deeper into things we might learn that the boy's father was drunk and issuing immoral commands. One might compare the spirit of Vatican II or that of the conciliar church with its novelties breaking with tradition, to a drunkenness affecting today the minds of churchmen.
Second, I'll admit that the SSPX doesn't endorse active participation in the Novus Ordo Missae (because of its resemblance to heretical rites). However, the SSPX does keep communion with those who attend the Novus Ordo by accepting them into SSPX churches, praying with them, and admitting them to Holy Communion. The SSPX does not shun them or refuse the the sacraments as would schismatics. Cardinals and bishops have also assisted at SSPX Masses without complaint. They've affirmed that the SSPX isn't schismatic.
Third, unlike schismatics, the SSPX prays for the Pope at Holy Mass and at Benediction for the Blessed Sacrament. We're ready to obey all of his commands not issued under the drunkenness of the conciliar church.
Fourth, I do admit that mainstream thought in the Church today claims the SSPX is schismatic, just as mainstream thought in science claims the Big Bang really happened. This mainstream current is seen well by considering the recent SSPX pilgrimage to Rome. At first, the SSPX was put among the list of official pilgrimages to the Roman Basilicas, then an objection was made, and the SSPX was removed from the list. This contrasts with a pilgrimage which I'll call the ABCD pilgrimage organized by those who apparently reject the Scriptural Teaching of St. Paul in Romans 1:24-28 by the lifestyle that they live. It's fair to say there appears to be a schism between the SSPX and those who profess such things, but not with those of the conciliar church and those who profess the same. That's just one example of circumstances surrounding the claim that the SSPX is in schism.
Fifth, on monetary matters, I think that SSPX faithful would happily give to St. Peter's Pence if they were certain that the money would be used for good purposes. With the appointment of persons such as Cristiana Perrella (cf. https://fsspx.news/en/news/vatican-new-controversial-appointment-54352), SSPX faithful hesitate to send funds for projects of the conciliar church, whether synods or new constructions.
Sixth, it should be noted that from the beginning, the difficulties between Rome and the SSPX were based on doctrinal and liturgical principles, not on money. When the Society in 1976 had only one small seminary, Archbishop Lefebvre was told that he needed only to celebrate one Novus Ordo Mass and all would be well. The same difficulty remains today. All we need to do is smile along and join in the drunken party of conciliar churchmen.
I should note that any agreement between Rome and the SSPX wouldn't incur any transfer of properties to dioceses or to Peter's pence, as religious orders always keep control of their properties, and they aren't owned or seized by the diocese or the Roman See. So in the end, were there an agreement, it would be the SSPX that would profit, since the SSPX would be allowed to celebrate Masses in every church and Cathedral in the world instead of needing to use public venues, like funeral chapels or hotels, or painstakingly building our own churches with the generous donations of our faithful over many years.
-Anonymous SSPX Priest
September 15, 2025
I will offer the following brief replies to Father "SSPX's" comments:
1 - Appeals to prudence and other virtues is not a defense to schism, because the Pope's exclusive right to select, consecrate and send bishops is a matter of divine law, which foresees all things. This is why consecrating bishops contrary to the will (and canonical warning) of the Holy Father is necessarily a schismatic act, as the Church has always taught, notwithstanding appeals to prudence, necessity, etc.
2 - Father concedes the SSPX's refusal of communion with practically the entire Roman Church in her liturgical worship. That is schism.
3 - Mentioning the Pope in the canon of the Mass is no defense to schism. Lip service does not create the juridical reality of submission to the Church's divine government. The Old Catholics also mention the Pope in the canon, and the SSPX would be the first to call the Old Catholics schismatics. Note also Father's reference to "conciliar church," which can only mean the Roman Catholic Church (because there is only one Church), from which the SSPX has intentionally separated.
4 - None of these peripheral arguments are defenses to the canonical crime of schism. Pope John Paul II declared that the SSPX is in schism, and this was affirmed by Popes Benedict XVI and Francis.
5 - The question is not paying Peter's pence, but rather submitting to the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff in all things, including financial.
6 - At www.trueorfalsepope.com, I have written 20 or so articles addressing the SSPX's theological arguments (which I know well, from having been within the SSPX for 15 years). They remain unanswered.
But since the Society claims Lumen Gentium's teaching on Collegiality is the basis for the rest of the "heresies" of Vatican II, I challenge Fr. SSPX to respond to the following two questions:
Do you recognize that, in attacking Lumen Gentium, the Society has falsely equated the Primacy with Supreme Authority?
Do you recognize that, in attacking Lumen Gentium, the Society has falsely accused the council of teaching that bishops receive actual jurisdiction upon their consecrations?
I look forward to your replies.
John Salza