Our Statement on the Society of St. Pius X


Many have asked why we have changed our position on the SSPX, since we frequented their chapels for many years, and particularly since the Society publicly endorsed our book True or False Pope?.  To be clear, we have no personal hostility toward the SSPX and the many good men in their ranks. We also continue to attend the Traditional Mass exclusively and hold the Recognize & Resist position, properly understood.

However, our extensive study of ecclesiology and Sedevacantism led us to the inescapable conclusion that the SSPX is in the same canonical and ecclesiastical position as the Sedevacantist and other independent clergy (outside of its delegated faculties), who are not part of the Roman Catholic Church, have no juridical mission from the Church, and hence cannot lawfully exercise their priestly powers.  In fact, we were forced to recognize that the Society advances the same erroneous arguments as the Sedevacantists do, to justify their operation without mission, which is contrary to the divine law.

In the course of our study, we also realized that the SSPX embraces other critical theological errors (on the Profession of Faith, juridical mission, supplied jurisdiction, Collegiality, sacramental intention, the nature of the Church, etc.) which we are addressing in our series of articles. Because many of these errors are rooted in an erroneous understanding of the Church itself (errors in ecclesiology), they are actually graver than the Liberal errors on the Left, and that is because they lead Catholics out of the Church, outside of which there is no salvation.

It is our firm hope and prayer that the Society renounce its doctrinal errors and accepts the Church’s Profession of Faith, so that it can be reconciled with the Roman Catholic Church, and given a canonical mission to carry out its ministry lawfully. It is for this purpose that we make our position public, so that the Society’s leadership (and those who support the SSPX) will see the truth, and take the necessary steps toward achieving the long-awaited reconciliation.


                   John Salza & Robert Siscoe

* Does the Society of St. Pius X Have an Extraordinary Mission?

* The SSPX Rejects All Church-Approved Traditional Groups

* Collegiality In Light of Tradition: Who is right, the SSPX or the Roman Catholic Church?

Lefebvre's Correspondence With Rome  (APRIL TO JUNE 1988)

Exposing the SSPX’s Errors on Collegiality

The Case of St. Eusebius: Did the SSPX Intentionally Deceive?

* Lefebvre Letters


Saddlery Tack said...

Do agree with and accept the Vatican 2 teaching on religious liberty?

TrueorFalsePope said...

Robert Siscoe will be releasing an article in Dignitatis Humanae's teaching on religious liberty in the coming weeks.

Anonymous said...

After reading other pre-conciliar writings on the subject of liberty the situation of Dignitatis Humanae becomes more nuanced. Aside from Popes Leo XIII and Pius X writing that States who have split from the Church must at least grant the Church the "common liberty and rights which belong to every citizen and every respectable community of peoples", the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia writes that it's a necessary evil that in mixed religion States to have a "governmental abstention from any specific denominational worship or profession of belief, and a general protection and encouragement of the individual in the practice of religion according to his own religious principles within the limits of the Natural Law, or of a general acceptance of Christianity". James Cardinal Gibbons, whom Leo XIII personally praised in two letters for the growth of the Church in the US, wrote in his book Faith of our Fathers that "the Church has not only respected the conscience of the people in embracing the religion of their choice, but she has also defended their civil rights and liberties against the encroachments of temporal sovereigns" in regards to a State that has already entered "into a compact in order to secure to his subjects this freedom in religious matters". We have to ask what these pre-conciliar sources mean when they talk about "common liberty and rights" and situations that call for general protection/encouragement of religion.