Is the SSPX in schism? Here’s what the Magisterium says.

Quotes and opinions abound on the question of whether the SSPX is in schism, and for every sympathetic prelate who claims they are not, another statement from another less sympathetic prelate can be found that says the opposite (Schneider vs Burke, etc). But the Magisterium has been very clear on the question, and its declarations hold the authoritative weight to which Catholics are subject, not individual priests or bishops. Here is what the Holy See has officially declared.

In 1988, Pope John Paul II said the following in Ecclesia Dei, referring to Marcel Lefebvre’s illicit consecrations of the four bishops:

3. In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.

Supporters of the SSPX will typically object that any declaration of schism was specifically in reference to the consecrations, not to the organization. But paragraph 5c of Ecclesia Dei says otherwise:

c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law.

John Paul II was clearly addressing the movement as a whole, not the isolated act of episcopal consecrations. This was subsequently confirmed by the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts in 1996, when it said the following:

…it also appears clear from the aforementioned documents that such a most grave act of disobedience formed the consummation of a progressive global situation of a schismatic character.

2. In effect no. 4. of the Motu Proprio explains the nature of the "doctrinal root of this schismatic act," and no. 5. c) warns that a "formal adherence to the schism" (by which one must understand "the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre") would bring with it the excommunication established by the universal law of the Church (CIC, can. 1364 para.1). Also the decree of the Congregation for Bishops makes explicit reference to the "schismatic nature" of the aforesaid episcopal ordinations and mentions the most grave penalty of excommunication which adherence "to the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre" would bring with it.

3. Unfortunately, the schismatic act which gave rise to the Motu Proprio and the Decree did no more than draw to a conclusion, in a particularly visible and unequivocal manner — with a most grave formal act of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff — a process of distancing from hierarchical communion. As long as there are no changes which may lead to the re-establishment of this necessary communion, the whole Lefebvrian movement is to be held schismatic, in view of the existence of a formal declaration by the Supreme Authority on this matter.

(It should be noted, the PCILT clarified that one is not a schismatic simply because they attend an SSPX chapel, and that the criteria for “formal adherence” would need to be determined on a case by case basis, but that holding “positions contrary to the magisterium of the Church” and “exclusive participation in Lefebvrian ‘ecclesial’ acts, without taking part in the acts of the Catholic Church” would likely constitute “formal adherence.”)

Now again, supporters of the SSPX will say that the declaration of schism is only in reference to the consecrations, and that since Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications in 2009, they are no longer in schism. This would seem to align with the PCILT’s statement above, which states that the schism continues as long as no changes are made which will re-establish communion between the SSPX and the Church. But Pope Benedict XVI himself has stated that this is not the case. In his letter explaining his decision to lift the excommunications of the four bishops, he wrote that this censure was initially declared “with the aim of calling those thus punished to repent and to return to unity. Twenty years after the ordinations, this goal has sadly not yet been attained. The remission of the excommunication has the same aim as that of the punishment: namely, to invite the four Bishops once more to return. [...] The remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the field of ecclesiastical discipline: the individuals were freed from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties. This disciplinary level needs to be distinguished from the doctrinal level. The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church.”

It is true that Pope Francis extended faculties to SSPX priests to absolve sins and encouraged diocesan bishops to grant them the permission to witness marriages, but after both of these actions, he still wrote the following in his letter accompanying Traditionis Custodes in 2021:

Most people understand the motives that prompted St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI to allow the use of the Roman Missal, promulgated by St. Pius V and edited by St. John XXIII in 1962, for the Eucharistic Sacrifice. The faculty — granted by the indult of the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1984 and confirmed by St. John Paul II in the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei in 1988— was above all motivated by the desire to foster the healing of the schism with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre. 

Notice that, once again, the Pope referred to the schism of the movement of Lefebvre, not the individual consecrations. This is the most recent official declaration from the Holy See, and remains consistent with Francis’ predecessors.

Rome has made its understanding of the matter quite clear since the very beginning. The movement of Archbishop Lefebvre is a schismatic one. Roma locuta est, causa finita est.