Society of Saint Pius X

Are the SSPX considered heretics since they deny some vatican II teachings?


They don’t deny any of the Church’s doctrines, hence they cannot be heretics. They have a problem with authority, but thats it. The SSPX teaches no heresy.

Some are, but not all. I heard an SSPX priest denounce the Novus Ordo Mass twice in his homily as an abomination. I believe that qualifies as a heresy, as the Church cannot propose an abomination, something that will lead the faithful into impiety, to her people, per the anathemas of Trent. So at least one is or was.

Can’t say it any better than this. I could add though that the Society of Saint Pius X is in schism whereas the people who attend the Masses are not.

Brenda V.

Can’t say it any better than this. I could add though that the Society of Saint Pius X is in schism whereas the people who attend the Masses are not.

I’ll say it again. There’s no way to know who at an SSPX Mass is or is not in schism. Like the Vatican has said, there’s a good chance that, after so many years, that the priests are in schism. It would be silly to think that the same would not apply to some of the laity although it would be darn hard to point out exactly who. We are warned not to adhere to the schism of Marcel Lefebvre. Obviously, there is a possibility of doing so.:shrug:

Or we wouldn’t have been warned! Amen.

I could add though that the Society of Saint Pius X is in schism

Hmm. Don’t know where you got that idea.

Under signature of Edward I. Cardinal Cassidy, President (May 3,1994)

    "The situation of the members of this Society [SSPX] is
    an internal matter of the Catholic Church.  The Society
    is not another Church or Ecclesial Community in the
    meaning used in the Directory.  Of course, the Mass
    and Sacraments administered by the priests of the
    Society are valid.  The bishops are validly ... consecrated."

Under Signature of Rev. Msgr. Camille Perl, Secretary
May 28, 1996; repeated in Protocol N. 236/98 of March 6, 1998

    "It is true that participation in the Mass and sacraments at the 
    chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does **not of itself constitute 
    'formal adherence to the schism**.'"

September 27, 2002

    1. In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by 
    attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of Saint Pius 
    2. ...If your intention is simply to participate in Mass according to 
    the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin.
    3. It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass 
    could be justified.

Interview with Gianni Cardinale, of 30 Giorni

November 2005

    "Unfortunately Monsignor Lefebvre went ahead with the consecration and 
    hence the situation of separation came about, EVEN IF IT **WAS NOT A 


President of the Pontifical Commission
for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law
President of the Disciplinary Commission of the Roman Curia

    "The act of consecrating a bishop [without explicit papal
    permission] is **not in itself a schismatic **act."

Professor Emeritus of Canon Law at the University of Florence
Accredited as an Advocate of the Holy Roman Rota
(the Holy See’s highest marriage tribunal)
Accredited as an Advocate of the Apostolic Signatura
(the Holy See’s highest appeals tribunal)

    "The fact is that Msgr. Lefebvre simply said:  'I am creating
    bishops in order that my priestly order can continue.  They do
    not take the place of other bishops.  I am not creating a
    parallel church.'  **Therefore, this act was not, per se,

Canon Lawyer at the University of Munich

    "With the episcopal consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre was
    by **no means creating a schism**."

Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law at the Catholic Institute of Paris

    "It is not the consecration of a bishop that creates the schism.
    What makes the schism is to give the bishop an apostolic mission
    [which Abp. Lefebvre **never


Title of Doctoral Thesis Accepted: “The Canonical Status of the Lay Faithful
Associated with the Late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the Society of
Saint Pius X: Are they Excommunicated as Schismatics?”

    "**They're not excommunicated as schismatics**, because the Vatican
    has never said they are....  You can ... show that Lefebvre
    himself was not excommunicated and therefore no one else was....
    I come to the conclusion that, canonically speaking, he's not
    guilty of a schismatic act punishable by canon law.  In the
    case of the Society of Saint Pius X, the Vatican never 
    declared any priest or lay person to have become a schismatic."

From the Servant of God, Pope John Paul II, in Ecclesia Dei. The pope is the Supreme Legislator and interpreter of Canon Law (as stated by Canon Law itself) and he made clear that the Archbishop and bishops were excommunicate, the priests were suspended ad divinis and the laity were warned against the sin of schism. I’m sure he trotted the whole thing by a canon lawyer or two before he issued it.

Your assertion is rather like Cardinal Kasper’s assertion that the Jews don’t have to convert. Interesting, but not in line with reality.

Msgr. Perle’s letter dealt with ONE, SPECIFIC situation. You left out the bit where he states that they cannot reccommend attendance at an SSPX Mass.

Bob! I still can’t believe you’re still posting the trucated version of that letter. For goodness sake, please post the Una Voce printed clarification of the Msgr. Perl letter!

Also, here are some reasons why I believe that the SSPX are in schism:

“The Latin Mass” magazine for Winter 1998, p. 8, in it’s “The Fact IS…” page, carried the above rebuttal of one of the SSPX deliberate and unrepentent lies contained in one of its’ glossy propaganda brochures, “IS THE SOCIETY OF ST PIUS X SCHISMATIC? EXCOMMUNICATED? ROME SAYS NO. CAN ANYONE GO TO THEIR LATIN MASSES? YES.”

"In May 1997, Norbert Brunner, Bishop of Sion in Switzerland - the diocese where the seminary founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre for his Society of St. Pius X is located - issued a request for Vatican clarification of the canonical status of the SSPX. He received responses, published in the French periodical La Documentation Catholique, from the Congregation for Bishops and from the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts.

“In a short statement, the Congregation for Bishops concluded that “participation at their [SSPX] celebrations is objectively illicit because they are not in full communion with the Church, and they are a source of grave scandal and of division of the ecclesial community.” It went on to say that the assistance of the faithful [at Society Masses] is not authorized except in cases of true necessity.”

"However, “those who participate occasionally AND without the intention of adhering formally to the positions of the Lefebvre community towards the Holy Father do not incur the penalty of excommunication.”

"The Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts went into somewhat more detail. It explicitly mentioned the thesis written by Fr. Gerald Murray for his license in canon law from Rome’s Gregorian University (and whose conclusions were discussed in an interview in the Fall 1995 issue of The Latin Mass magazine), but forswore direct discussion of Fr. Murray’s work because it remained unpublished and because press accounts about the thesis have been “confused.”

"Still, the pontifical council addressed itself to many of the central points of the thesis. It stated that “one cannot reasonably place in doubt the validity of the excommunication” of Lefebvre and his bishops, and rejected Fr. Murray’s original appeal to canons 1323-1324 (which may) exempt one from latae sententiae excommunication if his actions were taken “by reason of necessity”) in Archbishop Lefebvre’s defense. It also accepted some points of the Murray thesis.

"First, in examining the language the Pope employed in his motu proprio, Ecclesia Dei, the council considered what it means to “adhere formally” to a schismatic movement. According to the council, any judgment regarding adhesion to such a movement must take into account, first of all, that schism is largely of an interior nature. Has the individual freely and consciously adopted an essentially schismatic position? **Usually,the council explained, one manifests such an attitude by holding positions contrary to the Magisterium of the Church. **
"The council went on to concede that “it is possible for a member of the faithful to take part in the liturgical celebrations of the disciples of Lefebvre without thereby taking part in their schismatical spirit.”

"**As for SSPX clergy, the council concluded that their ministerial activity within a schismatic movement constitutes more than ample indication of both an interior and an exterior adhesion to schism. **
“At the pastoral level, the council emphasized the importance of taking into account the “interior disposition” of each member of the faithful who assists at SSPX Masses.”

And this:

The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but suspended, that is prohibited from exercising their priestly functions because they are not properly incardinated in a diocese or religious institute in full communion with the Holy See and also because those ordained after the episcopal ordinations were ordained by an excommunicated bishop. They are also excommunicated if they adhere to the schism. While up to now the Holy See has not defined what this adherence consists in, one could point to a wholesale condemnation of the Church since the Second Vatican Council and a refusal to be in communion with it. Further, it is likely that these priests, after eleven years in a society whose head is now an excommunicated bishop, effectively adhere to the schism.

:yawn: :sleep: :yawn: :sleep: :yawn: :sleep:

Truth is never boring, PM.


And this:

:banghead: :whacky: :crying: :yawn: :sleep: :hypno: :newidea:

Now can you find someone who actually speaks for Rome today?

Rome? In the absence of a revocation by the competent authority, the old Holy Father’s writ still runs.

And after all, if the Pope, of all people, cannot say accurately as well as authoritatively, that a particular person is excommunicated and an act is schismatic - who can ?

It may not be easy to overcome a bias in favour of Mgr. Lefebvre, especially if one is impressed by the contrast between how the Mass is offered by SSPX priests, & what so many Catholic Masses are like - but any such difficulty is not enough to alter the basic fact: what he did was a schismatic act (& had been so since 1952), which used the sacraments against the Church, instead of in and for the Church.

Or are we to heed the Church only when it suits us do so ? If the Pope states that someone is excommunicated, & his acts schismatic - that is all we need to know. Canon Law should be left to those who are qualified in it. To debate Papal decisions because we don’t like them, is a horrible habit completely ruinous to any growth in obedience & faith. :frowning: :frowning: :frowning:

Pope Benedict XVI :slight_smile: ?

Hopefully after the moto proprio is issued the irregular status of PX will end !!!

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Why wait? I’m sure they could end that status today if their bishops and priests would confess their schism and submit themselves to the authority of Rome.

That will be tough. Still lots of animosity against the SSPX, no matter how many concessions they would make. Lots of animosity against all trads, though.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit