Our Catholic Faith does not permit us to compromise revealed truth—no matter who commands us to do so.
Unsurprisingly, even the secular press has reported on the punishments issued by Cardinal Víctor Manuel “Tucho” Fernández against the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) following its consecrations of bishops without papal permission. Crucially, though, while the consecrations occasioned those punishments, the punishments themselves make it clear that the primary offense of the SSPX is its understanding of the Catholic Faith. Accordingly, the following analysis seeks to demonstrate that it is absolutely essential to first understand the religion that the Vatican wants us to hold today.
Like the new penalties against the SSPX, the penalties associated with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s 1988 consecrations of bishops for the SSPX without papal approval warned the faithful “not to support the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre, otherwise they shall incur ipso facto the very grave penalty of excommunication.” However, the new penalties also include an Explanatory Note that goes beyond the actual decree of excommunication. Although the SSPX and canon law experts have argued that the new punishments against the faithful are invalid, the Explanatory Note is useful because its attempted punishment of the “faithful who formally adhere to” the SSPX reveals much about the Vatican and the crisis in the Church today:
“2. As regards the lay faithful, those who formally adhere to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X under the conditions established in the Explanatory Note of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts of 1996 (cf. ibid., 7), still in force, which this Dicastery adopts, are to be considered schismatic and excommunicated.”
Before judging the SSPX’s actions, Catholics must first determine whether the doctrines Rome condemns are, in fact, the perennial teaching of the Church.
To interpret this, we must go to note 7 of the Explanatory Note of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts of 1996:
“7. In the case of other faithful, however, it is obvious that occasional participation in liturgical acts or activities of the Lefebvrian movement, without adopting the movement’s attitude of doctrinal and disciplinary disunity, is not sufficient to constitute formal membership in the movement. In pastoral practice, it may be more difficult to assess their situation. It is necessary to take into account, above all, the individual’s intention and the translation of this interior disposition into action. The various situations must therefore be assessed on a case-by-case basis, in the competent bodies of the external and internal forums.”
So this says that it is permissible for laity to attend Mass with the SSPX, at least occasionally, so long as they do not adopt the SSPX’s “doctrinal or disciplinary disunity.” While it is not altogether clear what the SSPX “doctrinal or disciplinary disunity” is, the SSPX Profession of Catholic Faith published on June 24, 2026, is the most reliable document for us to consult to determine what the SSPX positions actually are.
The SSPX Profession of Catholic Faith consists of 154 points setting forth the Catholic Faith and rejecting those errors against the Catholic Faith that are most prominent today. It is surely the case that the Vatican accepts many of the 154 points, and it seems reasonable to assume that laity who attend SSPX Masses are permitted to accept all points that the Vatican would accept. At issue, then, are those points that are most likely to be controversial with the Vatican. The excerpts below from the SSPX Profession of Faith represent most of those points with which the Vatican would presumably disagree, and for ease of reference, I have identified the general topic of each point (or set of points). In addition to those points that are likely most controversial, I have included the point related to the Baptism of Desire because certain opponents of the SSPX have misrepresented the SSPX position, making it worthwhile to note the actual SSPX position here.
Although these points are worded carefully enough that serious readers should not be confused, it is worth noting in advance that those points related to the Novus Ordo Mass and Vatican II simply state that the SSPX rejects the evils associated with the “reforms” in question. So whatever we may think the SSPX believes on these points — even if we derive our understanding from SSPX publications — it seems that “formal adherence to the SSPX” should be based on these official representations of the SSPX positions set forth below.
Which of these points, if any, are Catholics actually required to reject? If none, how can the faithful be punished for holding them?
The Need to Hold the Unadulterated Catholic Faith. “5. I add that, in the present confusion, it is no longer sufficient to recall a few isolated truths. It has become indispensable to set in full light the entire order of Catholic doctrine, in its supernatural coherence and luminous harmony, omitting no dogma, diminishing no truth, and substituting for the received Faith no equivocal or truncated language which, under the pretext of ecumenism or adaptation to the world, disfigures this doctrine with ever greater audacity.”
Regarding the Immutable Nature of the Faith. “17. I finally profess that Tradition is not a dead memory, but the living transmission of the doctrine received from the Apostles. It remains living, in distinction to Revelation, which is closed. It is so both in the activity of the Magisterium of the Teaching Church and in the profession of Faith of the Church Taught, of which the sentire cum Ecclesia is the result of the teaching of the Magisterium. Tradition may be called ‘living’, not in the sense that it changes its meaning, but in the sense that the living Magisterium proposes throughout the centuries, in an ever clearer and more explicit manner, the same truth according to the same meaning. What has been believed by all, everywhere, and always, as belonging to the Faith, cannot be denied or called into doubt by any theological fashion, pastoral pressure, diplomatic necessity, or alleged exigencies of the modern world.”
Regarding False Ecumenism. “59. I profess that God willed to make the Church the necessary means of salvation; just as there is under Heaven no other name given to men than that of Jesus Christ by which we must be saved, so there is no supernatural salvation independent of the Catholic Church. For all salvation comes from Jesus Christ; and every saving grace is either given in and through the one Church He has founded, or orders the one who receives it to that same Church. 60. This truth means that no one can be saved without Christ and His Church, through a false religion as such, nor be assured of His salvation outside the visible structure of the Church. If men are saved without belonging to the visible society which is the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, it is by a supernatural ordination to the one Church of salvation, and in spite of the errors of the false religions in which they find themselves, from which they free themselves by not refusing the grace offered to them and by corresponding to it. 61. I therefore reject false ecumenism, which rests upon the idea that the Holy Ghost would not refuse to use separated communities as means of salvation, as though the Church of Christ were present and active in them, or as though these communities possessed in themselves a salvific value whose efficacy would derive from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church. If any man comes to the revealed truth or receives a grace of sanctification outside the visible limits of the Catholic Church, that truth and that grace belong by right to that same Church and unequivocally call to Catholic unity, and the Holy Ghost does not give these as means of salvation by using separated communities as such, of which souls can never be warned too much.”
Regarding the Old and New Covenants. “64. I finally profess that the Old Covenant has been fulfilled, surpassed, and rendered obsolete by the New Covenant, which is the fulfilment of the promise made to Abraham, in Christ and in His Church. The figures of the old Law have found their realization and their cessation in the Sacrifice of the true Lamb, Mediator of the New Covenant and Priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech. By the eternal Will of God, the true descendant of Abraham is Christ, together with those who belong to Him in His Mystical Body, which is the Church. 65. I therefore reject the new ecclesiology, which destroys the missionary impulse by relativizing the uniqueness of the Church, the sole ark of salvation.”
Regarding the Synod on Synodality. “79. I likewise reject the synodalist conceptions which tend to transform the hierarchical Church into a consultative, parliamentary, or democratic structure, subject to the fluctuating opinions of the Christian people or to the pressures of the world. The collective conscience of the faithful, pastoral surveys, cultural sensibilities, and the expectations of the world are not sources of Revelation. The legitimate hearing of souls can never become a continual adaptation of the life of the Church, her doctrine, and her divine constitution to the spirit of the world, under pretext of interpreting the ‘sensus fidei’ of the people of God.”
Regarding the Papacy and Doctrinal Evolution. “80. I believe that the Roman Pontiff enjoys infallibility when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, fulfilling his office as pastor and doctor of all Christians, he defines, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, that a doctrine concerning faith or morals is to be held by the universal Church. 81. I further profess that the power of the Magisterium in the Church is essentially ordered to the safeguarding of the revealed Deposit and, through this means, to the salvation of souls. The Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter so that they might manifest new doctrine, but so that they might guard holily and expound faithfully the Deposit transmitted by the Apostles. 82. This is why the present Magisterium cannot substantially contradict the prior Magisterium. The living Magisterium is not current preaching set in opposition to past preaching; it is the continual and uninterrupted preaching of the same truth of Faith with the same meaning throughout the centuries. The Pope and the bishops are not the masters of Revelation; they are its guardians and are subject to it as a disciple is subject to his master. They can neither change the Faith, nor modify the divine constitution of the Church, nor declare good what is contrary to the law of God. 83. I therefore reject every evolutionist conception of dogma, according to which revealed truths would change their meaning over the course of history. There can be within the Church a homogeneous progress in understanding, which perceives better, in a more distinct and explicit manner, the meaning of revealed truth, but never a mutation in the meaning of that truth. What has already been taught by the living Magisterium of the Teaching Church, and believed in the profession of Faith of the Church Taught, cannot become false; what has been condemned as contrary to the Faith cannot become legitimate; what belongs to the divine constitution of the Church cannot be remodelled according to the categories of the modern world or the historico-cultural context.”
The Vatican has a responsibility to identify precisely which Catholic doctrines the faithful must abandon—and explain why.
Regarding Francis’s Amoris Laetitia. “92. I profess that adulterous unions, unions contrary to nature, and all public situations contrary to the divine law cannot be presented as imperfect goods, gifts of God, positive steps, or realities which may be blessed as such. Such a misleading presentation gravely distorts the principles of Christian morality, and harms the sacred institution of marriage and the good of families. 93. I therefore reject as contrary to the Faith and to the constant discipline of the Church the claim to admit to the sacraments, and most especially to the reception of the Most Holy Eucharist, those who publicly persist in such states without renouncing their disorder. True mercy calls the sinner to conversion; it does not ratify sin under the pretext of pastoral accompaniment or discernment of particular situations.”
Regarding Baptism of Desire. “112. I believe that Baptism is the door of the Church and that it is necessary for salvation. Ordinarily, no one can be saved without receiving it; through this sacrament, man is washed from original sin, incorporated into Christ, marked with the Christian character, and made a member of the Church. I therefore reject the practice of deferring without grave cause the Baptism of children who have not the use of reason. However, one who, after the age of reason and without fault on his part, is prevented from accessing this sacrament, can be saved in an extraordinary manner by Baptism of Desire, that is, by a supernatural act of faith and perfect charity which orders him to the Church.”
Regarding Abuses in the Mass. “122. I believe that the Most Holy Eucharist occupies the centre of the life of the Church, and that it truly, really, and substantially contains the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. I adore the Most Blessed Sacrament of the altar and reject every doctrine or practice which weakens faith in the Real Presence, diminishes the respect due to the Eucharist, trivializes Holy Communion, or alters the sacred character of the sanctuary.”
Regarding the Novus Ordo Mass. “124. I profess that the traditional Roman Mass, celebrated according to the rite in use before the reform of the Novus Ordo Missae, expresses with incomparable clarity the Catholic doctrine of Sacrifice, the priesthood, and the Real Presence. But I observe with sorrow that the contemporary liturgical reforms have departed considerably from the traditional liturgy, on the whole as in its details: in so doing, they have obscured the sacrificial and propitiatory character of the Mass, fostered a democratic conception of worship, brought Catholic liturgical expression closer to Protestant conceptions, and thereby contributed preponderantly to the loss of the sense of the sacred, the corruption of the Christian spirit, the decline of vocations, and the general weakening of the Faith. 125. I therefore reject every liturgical reform or usage which, through omission, doctrinal ambiguity, or practical orientation, favours heresy, weakens faith, departs from the Catholic doctrine of the Mass as formulated at the Council of Trent, or turns the faithful away from the adoration due to God. The public worship of the Church must express the Catholic Faith without equivocation.”
Regarding the Crisis in the Church and Vatican II. “143. I believe that the Church, assisted by divine Providence, remains indefectible until the end of time. The promise of Christ cannot fail: the gates of hell shall never prevail against her. 144. I believe, however, that the history of the Church knows periods of trial, in which the profession of the true Faith is gravely diminished, in which errors spread, in which discipline weakens, and in which many souls are led astray. 145. I acknowledge in particular that modern errors represent a dreadful threat to the whole of the Catholic order, and that their penetration into the life of the Church, under the influence of the Second Vatican Council and the post conciliar reforms, has provoked a crisis of exceptional gravity: agnosticism attacks the knowledge of God; naturalism attacks the necessity of grace; subjectivism attacks the supernatural motive of faith; relativism attacks the immutability of dogma; situation ethics attacks the divine law; liberalism attacks the Social Kingship of Christ; false ecumenism attacks the uniqueness of the Church; collegiality and synodality attack the divine constitution of the Church in her hierarchy; liturgical anthropocentrism attacks the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. 146. The current crisis therefore cannot be reduced to a mere conflict of sensibilities, liturgical preferences, or pastoral options. It touches upon the very foundations of faith and morals, of the priesthood and worship, of the Church and the Kingship of Christ. 147. These errors do not remain abstract; they have produced visible fruits: the weakening of doctrinal preaching, the extinction of the missionary spirit, the trivialization of sin, the crisis of the family, the ruin of the liturgy, the loss of the sense of God, the scarcity of vocations, the silent apostasy of Christian nations, and the profound confusion of the faithful. 148. This is why it is no longer sufficient today to affirm Catholic truths in general terms, without simultaneously denouncing the errors which seek to corrupt them. Charity towards souls demands the clarity of the whole truth, without any ambiguity. 149. This crisis can only be overcome by the restoration of all things in Jesus Christ, through the return to the Faith, to the life of grace, to divine worship, and to the pursuit of holiness.”
The question before Catholics today is not simply who has authority—but whether authority may command what Tradition has always forbidden.
Most of the fundamental disagreement between the SSPX and the Vatican today relates to these points. That is why the Vatican wants to punish those faithful who “formally adhere to the SSPX” by sharing its doctrinal positions. As a result, it seems that serious Catholics who engage with this discussion about the SSPX ought to reflect on the following questions, which ultimately impact the entire Catholic Church:
- Which of these points, if any, are Catholics actually required to reject? If none, how can the faithful of the SSPX be punished for holding them?
- Do any of these points identify truths that all Catholics must hold, which the Vatican nonetheless opposes? If so, how can we legitimately avoid the conclusion that the Vatican “no longer endures sound doctrine” (2 Timothy 4:3)?
For those Traditional Catholics who have witnessed what has taken place in Rome, especially since Benedict XVI stepped aside, it is clear that the Vatican would disagree with many of the points from the SSPX above. So who is right? This question must absolutely come before any question of whether the SSPX was right to disobey Rome by consecrating the bishops it needs to continue upholding and transmitting the Traditional Catholic Faith that Rome opposes. This is the case because our Catholic Faith does not actually permit us to compromise our religion, no matter who commands us to do so. St. Paul made this clear in his Epistle to the Galatians:
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.” (Galatians 1:8-10)
Thus, if we have the putative authority of the Church preaching a gospel contrary to what the Church has always taught, then we are in a crisis that is even worse than that of the Arian heresy, when St. Athanasius was excommunicated for upholding the true Faith. In such times, we should not be surprised when the corrupt authority similarly seeks to excommunicate those with the true Faith.
The SSPX argues that the crisis cannot be solved by ignoring error, but only by restoring ‘all things in Christ’ through a return to the fullness of the Catholic Faith.
Stepping back, though, it is a staggering abuse of the Vatican’s authority to use its power to condemn souls for holding unnamed doctrinal positions. God cannot possibly expect the faithful of the SSPX to guess what Tucho dislikes and reform our beliefs accordingly. This is preposterous and unjust. The Vatican now has a responsibility to specify which doctrinal positions we must abandon and clearly explain why they are impermissible. Until that happens, we are left to follow the holy wisdom with which the SSPX Profession of Catholic Faith concludes:
“151. Faithful to eternal Rome which guards the Deposit transmitted by the Apostles, I wish to preserve this heritage integrally, without diminution, without alteration, and without fear, not as a particular opinion within the Church of today, but as the Faith received from the Church that is One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman. 152. For this Faith does not belong to me: I have received it in order to remain faithful to it, to live by it, to transmit it, and, if God so asks, to suffer for it, in the confident expectation of the triumph of truth and of grace, for the salvation of souls and the glory of the Most Holy Trinity. 153. I ask God to keep me firm in this profession of Faith until the last instant of my life. I entrust this profession of Faith to the intercession of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, the holy Apostles, the martyrs, the confessors, and all the saints who have preceded us in fidelity to Christ.”
Our Lady Mediatrix of All Graces, pray for us!
