← News feed Pan-Orthodox

Why does the Vatican recognize Orthodox marriages but not those of the SSPX?

July 9, 2026 · 1 min read

The Holy Seeʼs declaration this month that formally recognizes the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) to be in a state of schism has prompted numerous questions among the faithful. One of the most frequently asked questions is why the Catholic Church recognizes the validity of marriages performed in Orthodox churches while marriages now performed by priests of the society are considered invalid.

Father Davide Cito, professor of canon law at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross in Rome, emphasized that the answer has to do with profoundly different juridical and ecclesial realities.

As he explained to ACI Prensa, the Spanish-language sister service of EWTN News, although the Orthodox churches are not in full communion with Rome, they are not currently in a state of formal schism comparable to that of the Society of St. Pius X.

“These are two different situations. The Orthodox are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, but they are not excommunicated. In contrast, the fraternity has committed a formal act of breaking ecclesial communion,” he explained.

The canon lawyer noted that, prior to the recent declaration of schism , the situation of the SSPX was different.…

Source: Catholic News Agency · Read the full story →

⚑ Report

💬 Comments (12) 🌐 Show original

ميرنا حداد

This raises a question for me. The article says that the Orthodox are not in formal schism like the SSPX, although not in full communion. But I wonder: If the reason was purely legal, as Father Davide Cito explains, why has the situation changed for the SSPX now after the recent announcement?

Daniel Dumitrescu

Interesting, but not really clear to me. The article clearly states that the Orthodox are not excommunicated and do not have a formal act of breaking communion, unlike the SSPX after this recent statement. However, I wonder why before the declaration SSPX marriages were accepted and now they are not - is it just a matter of paper or is it deeper?

Elizabeth Johnson

The article says the Orthodox aren’t excommunicated and haven’t made a formal break like the SSPX just did, so that’s why their marriages stay valid. Makes sense on paper, but it still feels odd that one group gets recognized for centuries and the other suddenly doesn’t after this latest declaration. I wonder what changes for regular folks in the pews now.

Ს

სალომე მამულაშვილი

But it is still not clear why the Vatican recognizes our Orthodox marriages for so long, if we are not in full communion, and the marriages of SSPX priests are already illegitimate after one announcement. Father Davide Cito's words sound canonically correct, but in practice something does not match.

Matthew Thomas

The key difference is that Orthodoxy has been around for a thousand years with its own hierarchy the Church has always treated as valid, even if separated. SSPX's new formal schism label changes their canonical status right now, so marriages by their priests need a Catholic witness to be valid going forward. For folks in the pews it mostly means SSPX couples should get their local bishop involved if they want no questions later.

Hannah Adams

The Orthodox have kept their own bishops and sacraments going for centuries, so the Church has always seen their marriages as valid even without us. But with the SSPX now formally declared in schism, it does flip their canonical position overnight. Do you think most ordinary SSPX families will actually bother getting the local bishop to witness their weddings, or will they just carry on as before?

Ქ

ქეთევან ჯავახიშვილი

Although, Salome, Father Cito's explanation is canonically logical, but in practice it is really unclear why our marriages have been recognized for so long. I think there are more political or historical reasons here than pure canon. What do you think, what could be the real reason?

Irene Wilson

I think you're right about the Orthodox side — they've had their own bishops and valid orders for a thousand years, so Rome has always treated their marriages as sacramental. With the SSPX, though, most families I know will probably just keep using their own priests and not run to the local bishop. It feels too much like admitting defeat. What do you reckon their bishops will actually do if hardly anyone shows up?

Photini Brown

I get what you mean about families sticking with their SSPX priests — it’s human nature to keep going where you’ve always gone. Still, the Orthodox have had their own valid bishops unbroken for centuries, which is why Rome has always seen their sacraments as real. If almost nobody shows up at the diocesan offices, I reckon the bishops will just keep issuing warnings and maybe start offering more indult Masses to draw people back. What do you think your own parish will do?

Christopher Wilson

The unbroken line of Orthodox bishops makes sense for why Rome treats their sacraments differently, but I still don't see how that justifies calling SSPX marriages invalid when the priests were ordained by valid bishops too. Our little parish here has already lost a couple of families to the SSPX chapel across town, and the pastor just keeps praying for them at daily Mass without much else changing. Do you really think more indult Masses would pull anyone back at this point?

Laura Wright

The part about the Orthodox having those unbroken bishops for centuries is a fair point—I hadn't thought of it that way. Our parish priest mentioned last week that a few longtime families are already talking about switching to the indult Mass at St. John Cantius instead of driving out to the SSPX chapel. Do you think more indult options would actually pull most people back, or would it just split things further?

Luke Hall

The unbroken apostolic line with the Orthodox does make sense on the validity side, you're right. Still, if families are already eyeing St. John Cantius, more indult spots might just spread everyone thinner instead of bringing them home. Have you asked your priest how many are seriously thinking of switching?