We have compiled a handful of resources that may be helpful to parishioners with questions regarding the SSPX. They include: Open Letter to Confused SSPX’ers; On the SSPX Excommunications; and On Assisting at the Mass of Priests of the Society of Saint Pius X. Links below:
- Open Letter to Confused SSPX’ers – Assembled by former members of the SSPX, this document refutes ten common claims advanced by the SSPX in their favor, and points out that the SSPX are not always immune to their own criticisms. [86 pages; published in 2024.]
- On the SSPX Excommunications – A pastoral letter by Fr. Seth Phipps, FSSP, to his parish in England. He addresses the canonical questions and implications of the July 1, 2026 Episcopal Consecrations. Reproduced here with permission. [9 pages; published in 2026.]
- On Assisting at the Mass of Priests of the Society of Saint Pius X – Written by traditional clergy, this document addresses the various moral and canonical claims of the SSPX. It is presented in a Thomistic style (i.e. objections, sed contra, and replies). It is very thorough and includes many citations, with an appendix of primary sources. [Approximately 70 pages; published in 2026.]
- The SSPX’s Ecclesiology of Substitution: Part of the Whole, or a new Whole? — And the Problem with a Crisis that Never Ends – Written by Fr. Clément Barré, of the Archdiocese of Bordeaux. It examines the theological and disciplinary ambiguity that the SSPX requires to advance its position. [10 pages; published on May 28, 2026, shortly before the episcopal consecrations.]
All of these are useful documents. I will highlight one particular point from the third linked article (from Art. 7, reply to objection 7), regarding the claim that without the SSPX, we would not have the Latin Mass:
Archbishop Lefebvre’s movement was a real factor in the survival of the Traditional Latin Mass. But the objection rests on a counterfactual asserted as fact, and counterfactuals cut both ways: we cannot know what would have happened without the Society — nor how the ancient rite would have flourished under bishops with full pontifical mandate, had the Protocol of 1988 been upheld. What we do know is what did happen. The rite was never abolished, and permission for it, restricted but real, has never lapsed: the English indult of 1971, the indult of 1984, the Ecclesia Dei adflicta communities of 1988, the declaration of 2007 that the old Missal was never abrogated, and even the restrictions of 2021, which curtailed but did not suppress — while in 2022 the Holy See expressly confirmed the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter in its proper liturgical books. Extinction has been prophesied at every turn; at every turn it has remained a prophecy.
Indeed the objection nearly inverts the causality. When Rome did restrict the ancient rite, the stated reason was not the rite itself but its use as a banner of division and of rejection of the Council. That association — the Traditional Mass with disobedience — is the Society’s most enduring contribution to the question, and the communities in full communion have carried it as a burden ever since, obliged to persuade their bishops that love of the ancient liturgy is not a badge of schism. If the Traditional Mass has enemies, nothing has armed them so well as its defense by illicit means. Obedience within the hierarchy is harder than independence. Operating in the Church requires patience, negotiation, and submission that autonomy avoids entirely. The easier path does not make it the correct one any more than the difficulty of the straight and narrow prevents it from being the way to Heaven.
And even if the Society’s disobedience did win concessions, it is never lawful to do evil that good may come (Romans 3:8); that God draws good from evil is the Creator’s prerogative, not the creature’s license. The deeper reason lies in the thing defended. The Eucharist is, in Augustine’s words, the sign of unity and the bond of charity; a sacrament of unity is not preserved by rupturing unity — that is to save the sign by destroying what it signifies. Israel received the Temple and the Land and lost both, not because God’s gifts fail, but through infidelity to the Giver; the prophet’s warning fell precisely on those who cried “the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord” while refusing obedience (Jeremiah 7:4). If the ancient liturgy is pleasing to God — and the Church herself calls it venerable — it will not be lost except as the Temple was lost. It is kept as every gift of God is kept: by fidelity and obedience within the household of the faith.
Finally, I would echo the sentiments of my fellow pastor, Fr. Seth Phipps: “It is with great reluctance that I comment again on the SSPX situation, but so many people have contacted me or expressed confusion on the issue, that I feel obliged as your pastor to try to clarify things as best I can. I can of course be mistaken, and I welcome charitable correction, but I would ask that you avoid polemics – and this goes for interactions in the parish as a whole. No one has a right to pass judgement on others, especially what concerns the state of their soul, let alone to attach labels such as ‘not Catholic’ or similar. I will not tolerate such things.” Like him, I would encourage any parishioner struggling with this issue to reach out to one of the priests at our parish to discuss it.
