The big news whirled through Catholic social media like a tornado:
The General Council of the Society of Saint Pius X published its response to the Vatican’s resident mouth healer, Tucho Fernandez, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Destruction of the Faith. As everyone now knows, the big news is that the SSPX has declined Tucho’s gracious offer to dialogue and will instead proceed with the consecration of bishops on 1 July 2026.
In my opinion, this is the right decision, a no-brainer, actually. Even so, let’s be clear:
The Society of St. Pius X and its leaders are not the brave and benevolent defenders of Catholic tradition that some are making them out to be. Far from it. They are perhaps even more dangerous than the in-your-face Bergoglians ever were insofar as their traditional costumery has evidently secured the trust of many naïve souls who simply want to be Catholic.
For those willing to look more closely at the SSPSX, a mere glimpse just beneath their traditional veneer reveals a pack of well-fed wolves who have been feasting on a weak and weary flock for far too long.
The Letter to Tucho provides just such a glimpse.
Consider, for example, how the Society describes the men in Rome with whom they are engaging. The Letter states:
We both know in advance that we cannot agree doctrinally, particularly regarding the fundamental orientations adopted since the Second Vatican Council.
Indeed, it is true, a Catholic simply cannot agree with the doctrines espoused by Vatican Council II. They are fundamentally unacceptable. The Letter continues:
This disagreement, for the Society’s part, does not stem from a mere difference of opinion, but from a genuine case of conscience, arising from what has proven to be a rupture with the Tradition of the Church.
This statement is unnecessarily weaker than the one that preceded it. Why? Because the appeal to conscience, whether inadvertently or not, suggests that there may be an element of subjectivity involved in this matter. The reality, however, is that the disagreement under discussion stems from an objective fact, namely, the doctrines taught by the Second Vatican Council have proven to be a rupture with the Tradition of the Church.
The Letter goes on to make a critically important point: There is no need for a “dialogue that is supposed to clarify the interpretation of the Second Vatican Council.”
The reason for this is simple, as the Letter correctly states:
This interpretation is already clearly given in the post-Conciliar period and in the successive documents of the Holy See over the course of some sixty years.
This “interpretation,” the Letter goes on, is the official reading of the Council as firmly established and expressed by the Holy See [sic]. The Letter then touches on yet another crucial point:
The doctrinal rupture that exists between Catholic Tradition and the propositions set forth at Vatican II – the same made plain in numerous official papal [sic] texts – has for years been met with firm, and often public, fraternal correction offered by competent churchmen, theologians, and others.
The SSPX itself, as the Letter states, engaged in dialogue to this end with conciliar Rome between 2009 and 2017, all to no avail.
In other words, what the Letter is accurately detailing is the fact that occupied Rome’s attachment to doctrines that are properly and objectively understood as a rupture with the Tradition of the Church is obstinate, public, and most certainly notorious.
Now, imagine if the SSPX had the opportunity to present these findings to any of the pre-conciliar popes, venerable theologians, or eminent canonists that they claim to revere. There can be no doubt whatsoever that they would conclude, based upon the verifiable details that are set forth in the Letter, that the men in Rome today, despite whatever claims they might make to the contrary, are not members of the Catholic Church of any rank.
In fact, it’s not so much a matter of usurpers who appear to occupy ecclesial offices, as was the case during the Arain crisis, rather, the “churchmen” in question today occupy positions of authority in a religious society that simply is not Catholic. Rather, that society blatantly opposes the Catholic Church.
To be clear, however, it doesn’t take a pope, a theologian, or a canonist to determine as much. As it concerns membership in the Church, which by its nature is visible, the requirements are very well known, not only to experts, but to nearly all moderately well-formed Catholics.
The Society’s Letter confirms as much:
Throughout the centuries, the criteria for belonging to the Church have been established and defined by the Magisterium. What must be believed in order to be Catholic has always been taught with authority, in constant fidelity to Tradition.
Based on all that the Letter has to say about conciliar Rome and its obstinate attachment to false doctrines, the implication is that its leaders have willingly departed from what must be believed in order to be Catholic. As such, one is left with no choice but to conclude that neither the conciliar institution, nor its leaders themselves, belong to the Church.
Unfortunately, this glaringly obvious reality is merely implied in the Letter rather than stated plainly. Even so, for those with Catholic eyes to see, the dots connect themselves.
Even more unfortunate still, the Letter actually goes on – even after all that has been said – to praise the conciliar authorities for “their genuine love for the Truth, for souls, and for the Church.”
What kind of psyop is this!
Since when does the obstinate promotion of doctrinal errors that are “proven to be a rupture with the Tradition of the Church” indicate a “genuine love for the Truth, for souls, and for the Church”?
Don’t kid yourself: Whispering sweet lies in Rome’s ear – when clearly they lack a love for Truth, souls, and the Church – is not merely a matter of politeness, much less prudence.
NOTE VERY WELL: The Letter under discussion isn’t private correspondence. It most certainly could have been treated as such, with the SSPX simply following up with a public Communique apprising all concerned of its decision.
What is perfectly clear, and important to understand, is that the Letter to Tucho and its contents are intended not only for their faithful, but also for the broader “Trad” consumer base as much as for anyone else. In other words, in addition to providing an answer to Rome, it’s a marketing piece.
The Letter, protesting just a little too much, once again makes the dubious claim that the Society has no “intention other than to make true children of the Roman Church.”
True children of the Church, however, look to the ecclesiastical magisterium – that is, the teaching of the pope and the bishops in union with him – as “the proximate rule of faith from which the faithful, one and all, are bound to accept their faith and in accordance with which they are to regulate it.” (See Msgr. G. Van Noort, Christ’s Church: Dogmatic Theology II)
The Society, by contrast, rather than instilling this truly Catholic attitude in their faithful, encourages them to embrace an adversarial posture against the very men that they schizophrenically identify as the ecclesial authorities, including the man they call Holy Father!
There is scarcely any behavior more directly opposed to that of a true child of the Church.
We are now more than 50 years removed from Archbishop Lefebvre’s declaration that “this conciliar church is a schismatic church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church of all time.” At this point, it seems patently obvious that the Society’s primary concern is not forming faithful children of the Church but rather solidifying its place in the “Trad, Inc.” marketplace.
Their stock-in-trade is offering poor naïve souls the opportunity to worship – and to donate – in a community that provides the traditional liturgy and sacraments, while claiming to defend the true faith against the alleged sacred hierarchy, all without having to suffer the stigma that is attached to those who have the stones to speak the God’s honest truth out loud:
The conciliar church is a cheap counterfeit, and its various heads – from Paul VI to Leo XIV – are anti-popes each.
It’s simply not possible to overestimate the harm that is being done to those who, in good faith, place their trust in the SSPX.
Consider that the Nicene Creed begins by expressing belief in God the Father, His only begotten Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. It culminates in a sense, however, with belief in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
This is fitting insofar as our belief in Almighty God rests upon the Church to which He has entrusted Divine Revelation, that it may ever be safeguarded and faithfully explained. To corrupt a sincere man’s trust in the Church – the ecclesiastical magisterium, the person of the pope, and the bishops who teach in union with him – is to undermine his faith in God. For this, there is no excuse.
This Lent, may Our Lord pour out His grace on the Society faithful, and most especially its clergy, giving them eyes to see the truth and the integrity to speak it, and to live it, plainly.
