On the incoherence of the SSPX paradigm

Much of the recent commentary on the SSPX has stayed on the theological, moral, canonical, and historical planes, with a notable exception: Dr. Caterina Lorenzo-Molo’s philosophical analysis in an article at OnePeterFive, entitled “The Conciliar Legacy: the Displacement of Judgment from Truth to the Primacy of Intention”. I found her thesis to be remarkably insightful and relevant, although probably not in the way she hoped. In fact, I think that she unwittingly exposed the Achilles heel of the SSPX paradigm for all to see, a hidden and vulnerable flaw that its leadership and best apologists work tirelessly to conceal from public view.

As a telling aside, I was surprised by how unambiguously the author’s bio revealed her bias, stating that she has only been acquainted with the SSPX since 2020 (situating her relationship with this organization firmly in its honeymoon phase) and that “she prays that one day Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre will be elevated to the altars as a great saint and Doctor of the Church.” But setting aside this starry-eyed hero worship, Dr. Lorenzo-Molo’s primary intention seems to be to bring the full weight of her impressive education and linguistic sophistication to the defense of the SSPX, although it is unclear who her target audience might be.

To show you what I mean, this sample sentence should suffice:

When the metaphysical order of judgment is bypassed, reasoning collapses onto a Cartesian-style plane where questions are treated methodologically rather than ontologically. Reality is then filtered through Kantian mediation instead of participation in being, and the resulting Hegelian dialectic produces endless thesis-antithesis cycles—noise that traps the debate in an entropic loop (devolving situation) without resolution.

Don’t misunderstand me: as a philosophy student, this sentence absolutely delights me, and I’m sure readers who were astute and determined enough to make it this far into her article were also impressed. On the other hand, this style of writing seems more appropriate for an academic journal than for a popular media outlet oriented toward a broader audience.

Regardless, this kind of discernment does not appear to be Dr. Lorenzo-Molo’s strong suit, considering that in her opening paragraph, she provides a link to Kennedy Hall’s book on the SSPX, which is by far the worst thing I have ever read on the subject. I will charitably presume that she has not actually read Hall’s scrapbook of tweets and blog posts masquerading as a respectable publication, otherwise her educated sensibility would have been offended by the fact that he only cites one source critical of the SSPX in the entire book.

This preliminary context helps to set the stage for understanding why someone as intelligent as Dr. Lorenzo-Molo could neglect to apply her reasoning to the SSPX’s own epistemic paradigm. She asks what she considers the central, simple question: “Are we judging the truth of things, or the intentions of people?”

Allow me to rephrase and redirect this question: Are we also judging the truth of the SSPX’s situation, or are we judging the intentions of the SSPX?

Marcel Lefebvre, the SSPX, and the Society’s defenders have consistently used an argument in various forms that they are not schismatic because they do not intend to be schismatic. They do not allow the application of the “duck test” to themselves (if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck). No matter how much cumulative evidence, historical precedents, or pontifical declarations and censures are presented as proofs, including those coming in July, they do not identify as schismatics and never will.

This is nothing more than ecclesiastical identity politics, pure and simple. The SSPX is therefore guilty of engaging in the same Cartesian reasoning decried by Dr. Lorenzo-Molo, resulting in its absurd self-assertion as a “trans” ecclesial entity.

This is not where SSPX incoherence ends, however. Ironically, the SSPX also claims religious liberty for itself, declaring that it is immune from papal interference and coercion in its beliefs, worship, and governance, preferring to follow its own conscience rather than conform to the established laws and structures of Christ’s Church. The SSPX also exercises a kind of collegiality and synodality, setting up its own “college” or “synod” of bishops and leaders that exercises its own deliberation and administration independent of the Roman Pontiff and the Catholic college of bishops.

The SSPX even engages in a strange kind of ecumenism, considering itself to be in dialogue and communion with a pope, bishops, priests, and laity, that it also claims to be creating and sustaining a crisis in the Church so bad that the ordinary means of salvation aren’t even available to Catholics.

Finally, let us put another ridiculous canard to rest. According to Dr. Lorenzo-Molo, the thrust of her argument is that the claimant is being evaluated rather than the claim, and that the real elephant in the room that nobody wants to address is that “the liturgical reform and the broader doctrinal framework from which it emerged remains unadjudicated, as it has been for six decades.” I will allow the SSPX Superior General, Fr. David Pagliarani, to refute this for me:

But this interpretation [of the Second Vatican Council] is already clearly given in the post-Conciliar period and in the successive documents of the Holy See. The Second Vatican Council is not a set of texts open to free interpretation: It has been received, developed, and applied for sixty years by successive popes, according to precise doctrinal and pastoral orientations. This official reading is expressed, for example, in major texts such as Redemptor hominis, Ut unum sint, Evangelii gaudium, or Amoris lætitia. It is also evident in the liturgical reform, understood in the light of the principles reaffirmed in Traditionis custodes. All these documents show that the doctrinal and pastoral framework within which the Holy See intends to situate any discussion has already been firmly established (“Letter from Father Pagliarani to Cardinal Fernández”, February 19, 2026).

I honestly could not have said it better myself. The matter of the council and its reforms has been thoroughly adjudicated, but the SSPX has rejected the results and is, therefore, permanently at a doctrinal impasse with the rest of the Church. Dr. Lorenzo-Molo seems to be using a “sleight of mind” trick to distract her readers from the real epistemic issue: Who determines whether there is a crisis in the Church, and who determines when it ends?

Now we have arrived at the bizarre crux of the matter: How much of the crisis is real and how much is a narrative creation of the SSPX? Few will deny that there has been some sort of crisis in the Church since the council, but the way you understand that crisis, its actors, events, and timeline of resolution will be dramatically affected by the worldview and presuppositions you use to interpret the past and present data.

This is a real problem that cannot be dismissed as a mere “Cartesian shift”. Your perspective changes what you perceive as a crisis. Somebody is walking toward you holding a knife: normal or crisis? A family member is breathing heavily: normal or crisis? You see lights on in your house as you are coming home at night: normal or crisis? Interreligious World Day of Prayer at Assisi: normal or crisis?

Is “the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ, the sole possessor of supreme authority over the whole Church” only supreme when the SSPX decides he is supreme? Is it a traditional Catholic practice to live in a state of indefinite juridical separation from Rome? Is the SSPX really in communion with Roman Catholics when it refuses to drink from the same chalice with them? Who interprets and applies Scripture and Tradition to the new challenges of the modern world, the Magisterium or the SSPX? Who determines if a marriage is valid or null, Catholic tribunals or SSPX tribunals? Do children raised in the SSPX believe they share the same faith as “Novus Ordo” Catholics? Why is it okay for the SSPX to theoretically reject religious liberty, collegiality, synodality, and ecumenism, and yet live out these supposedly false doctrines in practice?

If Dr. Lorenzo-Molo is willing to take an honest look at the SSPX and the situation it has created for itself within its historical context, she may see that its members and adherents are in the stupor of a Cartesian dream from which they may never wake up.

Read original article