On June 24, 2026, the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) published a profession of faith for the stated purpose of enlightening souls in the face of modern errors but also (as seems evident) to provide a rationale for their intended acts of episcopal consecration, which took place without papal mandate on July 1, 2026.
As a consequence of these consecrations, the bishops involved were declared excommunicated by Decree of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (Prot. N. 99/2009), which also warned clerics and lay faithful not to adhere to the schism of the SSPX lest they too incur excommunication.
The same Dicastery, in its Guidelines for the Reconciliation of Adherents of the SSPX (2 July 2026), suggests that lay faithful “who habitually participate in celebrations of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X and formally share its doctrinal positions” may be subject to excommunication, whereas “lay people who attend the SSPX only for liturgical or spiritual reasons” but “do not reject the Magisterium or the authority of the Roman Pontiff” are presumed not to be in schism.
For the lay faithful who regularly attend Mass at SSPX chapels, therefore, it seems that whether or not one holds the doctrinal positions of the SSPX is a key factor in determining who is or is not excommunicated or in schism. Unfortunately, however, the Vatican has not specified precisely which doctrinal positions of the SSPX are objectionable.
It may be helpful, therefore, to make a close examination of the SSPX Profession in order to see which individual propositions may need to be clarified or perhaps even rejected by those who desire to remain in full communion with the Catholic Church. It will be just as useful for those who have little or no sympathy for the SSPX to see how much of their Profession is fully Catholic and how many truths of Catholic doctrine they profess that many others seem to have forgotten.
To be fully transparent, I have a great deal of sympathy for the SSPX on account of their love of traditional Catholic liturgy and traditional Catholic theology, which I share. At the same time, I lament their decision to consecrate bishops without papal mandate because I do not accept their argument that the state of the Church justifies such an act of disobedience to the supreme authority in the Church, nor do I attend SSPX chapels unauthorized by the local bishop because I follow the apostolic tradition of St. Ignatius of Antioch, who instructed the Smyrnaeans (c. 107 A.D.):
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8).
In this first article of what will be a series on the SSPX Profession of Faith, I will evaluate the Preamble and Part One of the Profession by utilizing the neglected but invaluable tradition of theological notation.
For the most part, I will not distinguish between the three grades of Catholic Doctrine, which correspond to the three concluding paragraphs of the Profession of Faith published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1998. These are (1) Catholic Dogma, which is divinely revealed and infallibly proposed as such by the Church; (2) definitive Catholic Doctrine, which is at least connected to divine revelation and infallibly proposed as such by the Church; (3) authentic Catholic Doctrine, which is proposed in a non-definitive way by the pope or bishops in matters of faith and morals.
Instead, I will focus on distinguishing between what in the SSPX Profession is sound Catholic Doctrine from what is a theological conclusion (derived from divine revelation by a necessary deduction involving truths known with certainty by human reason), a common opinion (the general teaching of theologians), or a probable opinion (a position with reasons in its favor, but lacking certitude), while also pointing out anything that is ambiguous (can be understood in multiple senses), subversive (undermines the authority of the hierarchy), or otherwise problematic. Some of the theological censures, however, can only be understood in reference to the three grades of Catholic Doctrine. A proposition is heretical if it is opposed to Catholic Dogma; it is called erroneous if it is opposed to definitive Catholic Doctrine; and it is called rash or temerarious if it is opposed to authentic Catholic Doctrine. A proposition is said to savor of heresy or error, if it could be interpreted in an orthodox way, but in context seems likely to be intended in a heretical or erroneous way.
Preamble to the SSPX Profession of Faith
1. I profess and embrace the entire truth of the Catholic Faith, as it was “received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating,”[1] then faithfully preserved and transmitted to us in unbroken succession within the Catholic Church, through the preaching of Popes and bishops, the writings of the Fathers of the Church and of theologians, and the definitions of holy councils.[2] – Catholic Doctrine
2. I firmly receive each and every truth which the infallible Church has proposed as divinely revealed and necessary for salvation, whether through the definitions of her solemn Magisterium or through the unanimity of her Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.[3] I likewise receive all that belongs to Catholic doctrine by reason of its necessary connection with the revealed Deposit,[4] and I hold as certain the truths which the Church has taught with constancy in order to safeguard that Deposit against errors.[5] – Ambiguous
Paragraph 2 of the Profession inexplicably limits itself to receiving truths which are both divinely revealed and necessary for salvation. The latter can be understood in two ways: If referring to truths that must be believed explicitly in order to be saved (the primary articles of the Creed), this would be only a subset of all that must be believed by Catholic faith. If referring also to truths that must be believed implicitly in order to be saved, then the category is coterminous with divine revelation. In the former case, the proposition would be gravely deficient in limiting the object of faith; in the latter case, it would have been clearer to leave out the reference to necessity for salvation altogether or to put it in a subordinate clause (e.g. “I firmly receive each and every truth which the infallible Church has proposed as divinely revealed, as all must do in order to be saved”).
3. I consequently reject all errors contrary to this Faith, and in particular those of liberalism, indifferentism, modernism, ecumenism, and laicism, condemned by Popes Pius IX,[6] Leo XIII,[7] Saint Pius X,[8] Pius XI,[9] and Pius XII.[10] These errors obscure revealed doctrine, falsify Tradition, disfigure the sacred liturgy, corrupt morals, weaken the missionary spirit, and disintegrate the Christian social order, gravely harming the salvation of souls. – Ambiguous
The inclusion of “ecumenism” as one of the things condemned in this paragraph is ambiguous and potentially misleading insofar as it may easily be taken to imply that the “ecumenism” endorsed by the Second Vatican Council is identical to something condemned by previous popes, whereas in fact, none of the popes prior to Vatican II condemned “ecumenism” by that name nor did they condemn the substance of what Vatican II teaches about ecumenism in its Decree on Ecumenism. In later paragraphs, the Profession is more careful to reject only “false ecumenism” rather than ecumenism as such.
4. I profess this Faith and reject all errors contrary to it, because I wish to remain faithfully subject to the Holy Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman Church, Mistress of truth, and to the Pope, Vicar of Christ, in attachment to eternal Rome, which has received the mission of guarding holily and expounding faithfully the revealed Deposit until the end of time. – Savors of Heresy
The reference to “eternal Rome” savors of heresy inasmuch as it can be interpreted in a perfectly orthodox sense, but in context it seems intended to imply a substantial distinction between the eternal Church of Rome and the contemporary Church of Rome. If one were to believe in a substantial distinction of this kind, that would be clear evidence of a schismatic spirit, which Catholics must absolutely reject and avoid in order to remain in union with the Church of Christ.
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. – Probable Opinion
There can be no doubt that it is always good set forth the truth of the Catholic faith in its fullness and harmony, but that the present circumstances of confusion in the Church make this specially necessary can only be a probable opinion, since it is based on a prudential judgment about contingent realities.
6. Charity itself demands that this doctrine be professed with clarity, patience, and strength, for the glory of God, the honour of the Church, and the salvation of souls. – Theological Conclusion
This is a necessary conclusion that can be deduced from the nature of charity in relation to the human virtues of clarity, patience, and strength.
I. Divine Revelation, the Faith, and Tradition
7. I believe that God, in His goodness, has called man, through the gift of grace, to obtain the Beatific Vision. I hold firmly and profess that this exaltation of man surpasses the powers and exigencies of human nature, and that it is a gratuitous gift of God, that is to say, a supernatural gift.[11] – Catholic Doctrine
8. I believe that God has not left man to his natural powers alone, but has revealed to him the mysteries of His divine life and the supernatural destiny to which He calls him. Thus, having spoken of old through the Prophets in the Old Covenant, He has spoken definitively through His only-begotten Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, in the New Covenant, with which Divine Revelation received its perfect fulfilment.[12] – Catholic Doctrine
9. This Revelation is the true Word of God, entrusted to the Church as a Deposit, and proposed to men as the Rule of Faith in the form of a body of doctrine, in which the mysteries are formulated in a manner that renders them intelligible and expressible in words.[13] Revelation is not the progressive expression of a religious consciousness, nor the fruit of a collective experience of the believing community; it is the very truth of God supernaturally communicated to the minds of men for their salvation.[14] – Catholic Doctrine
10. I believe that the Deposit of the Faith was completed with the death of the last Apostle. After the Apostles, the Church receives no new Revelation: she guards, explains, defends, and transmits the Deposit received.[15] – Catholic Doctrine
11. I recognize the external proofs of Revelation, in particular miracles and prophecies, as most certain signs by which the divine origin of the Christian religion is demonstrated in a manner suited to the human intellect, in every time and place. I likewise recognize the Church herself, through her unity, holiness, catholicity, fruitfulness, and invincible stability, as a permanent motive of credibility and an irrefutable witness to her divine mission. – Catholic Doctrine
12. I profess that faith is the supernatural submission of the intellect, under the motion of grace, to the truth revealed externally by God. It rests neither upon the evidence of things seen, nor upon private judgement, nor upon experience of what is lived, but upon the very authority of God Who speaks and Who, being the first Truth, can neither deceive nor be deceived. Faith is therefore neither a blind religious sentiment, nor an emotion of the soul, nor an intimate conviction produced by personal or collective consciousness. It is the supernatural virtue which elevates the human intellect and enables it to know God as He is, thanks to the testimony that God gives of Himself, while awaiting the Vision.[16] – Catholic Doctrine
13. I consequently reject the error of modernism, as it still rages today, which reduces faith to an interior experience, to a sensible aspiration, or to a progressive realization in the believing community. Such a conception destroys the very notion of dogma and renders the obligation to believe impossible, replacing divine truth with subjective sincerity and handing doctrine over to the fluctuations of history.[17] – Probable opinion
The description and rejection of Modernism belong to Catholic doctrine, but the assertion that it still rages today can only be a probable opinion since it is a judgment founded on contingent realities.
14a. I further profess that the Deposit of doctrine revealed by God is contained in its two sources, namely Sacred Scripture and Tradition.[18] – Subversive
This profession is perfectly Catholic in itself, but its insistence on identifying Scripture and Tradition as “two sources” seems intended in this context to undermine the authority of the Second Vatican Council, which chose to emphasize the unity of Scripture and Tradition in the one ultimate source of divine revelation, which is God himself: “There exists a close connection and communication between Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end” (Dei Verbum, 9). The two perspectives are complementary rather than mutually exclusive.
14b. I profess that Tradition contains many truths revealed by God which are not found in Scripture, and that consequently Scripture must be read and understood in dependence upon Tradition.[19] – Common Opinion
Catholic doctrine is clear that Scripture is formally insufficient and so “must be read and understood in dependence upon Tradition” and that it is materially insufficient in at least one point, for Tradition contains at least one divinely revealed truth that is not found in Scripture, and that is the canon of Scripture itself: “Through the same tradition the Church’s full canon of the sacred books is known” (Dei Verbum, 8). The fact that Scripture does not tell us which books are divinely inspired is one of the great stumbling blocks for the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura.
Catholic theologians generally agree that there are many additional truths contained in Tradition that are not found in Scripture, but it is permitted for Catholics to hold that all other dogmas contained in Tradition are at least implicitly contained in Scripture as well.
15. I profess that Sacred Scripture, whose books were written integrally, in all their parts, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, is truly the Word of God, free from all error, and entrusted to the authentic interpretation of the Magisterium of the Church, according to the norm of Tradition and according to the Analogy of Faith.[20] – Catholic Doctrine
The plenary inerrancy of Scripture (i.e. its inerrancy in all matters on which it touches: faith, morals, history, science, etc.) is an important doctrine to reaffirm in light of the ambiguous formulation of this doctrine in the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on Divine Revelation Dei Verbum, which many theologians have misinterpreted and presented to the faithful as if it taught a false doctrine of limited inerrancy (i.e. as if the Bible were only inerrant in matters of faith and morals).
The key line in Dei Verbum 11 is this: “Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.” The phrasing of the last line, which refers to “that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation” is objectively open to multiple interpretations. According to the more common view amongst theologians after the Second Vatican Council, it was interpreted as a restrictive clause, such that the Scriptures were only to be considered inerrant when speaking about the limited subset of things in Scripture that had to do directly with our salvation (matters of faith and morals). Whereas according to the alternative view, which is the only view consistent with traditional Catholic doctrine, this must be interpreted as an explanatory clause, meaning that the Scriptures are completely inerrant in all that they teach, and that the reason for this is that all of Scripture (not only some parts of it) is intended for our salvation.
Fr. Brian Harrison has written an excellent article proving that the latter is necessarily the correct reading of Dei Verbum. He makes his case by drawing on historical records of the development of this text at Vatican II with official clarifications about its intended sense as well as by pointing out that the first part of the key sentence explicitly says that “everything [not only some things] asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit” (Dei Verbum, 11)—and who would accuse the Holy Spirit of asserting something false even in matters of history or science? Fr. Harrison also draws the reader’s attention to the footnotes attached to the Council’s teaching on this point, which refer (among other traditional sources) to Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical Providentissimus Deus, which addresses this issue with admirable clarity. According to the solemn teaching of Pope Leo XIII:
It is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred…. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican. (Providentissimus Deus, 20)
It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings, either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration, or make God the author of such error. (Providentissimus Deus, 21)
16. I therefore reject rationalist exegesis, which treats the sacred books as documents having only man for their author, which excludes a priori the possibility of the supernatural, artificially separates the historical Christ from the Faith of the Church, dissolves miracles into symbols, or subjects Scripture to the shifting hypotheses and manipulations of naturalistic critical methods. True biblical scholarship must be placed at the service of the understanding of the Faith; it is not to be made the rule, the interpreter, or the judge of the Word of God.[21] – Catholic Doctrine
It is important to note that the rejection of rationalist exegesis does not exclude a right and proper use of the tools of historical criticism when they are used in service of a deeper understanding of the text itself according to the intention of its author, both human and divine, and subject to the authority of the Church.
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.[22] 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.[23] 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.[24] 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.[25] – Catholic Doctrine
To be continued.
[1] Council of Trent, Session IV (8 April 1546), Decree on the Reception of the Sacred Books and Traditions, DS 1501.
[2] Council of Trent, ibidem; Council of Florence, Bull Exsultate Deo (22 November 1439), Decree for the Armenians, DS 1328; Reply of the Biblical Commission (24 June 1914), DS 3591.
[3] Pius IX, Apostolic Letter Tuas libenter (21 December 1863), DS 2879; First Vatican Council (1870), Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Chapter III, DS 3011.
[4] Reply of the Biblical Commission (29 May 1907), DS 3398.
[5] Decree of the Holy Office (5 June 1918), DS 3645–3647; Reply of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Cambrai (19 August 1889), DS 3258; Reply of the Holy Office to a bishop of Brazil (5 August 1896), DS 3312; Decree Provida sapientique cura (18 January 1906), DS 3388; Reply of the Sacred Penitentiary (3 June 1916), DS 3640.
[6] Encyclicals Qui pluribus (9 November 1846) and Quanta cura (8 December 1864) with the Syllabus.
[7] Encyclicals Immortale Dei (1 November 1885), Libertas (20 June 1888), Sapientiae christianae (10 January 1890), and Au milieu des sollicitudes (16 February 1892).
[8] Encyclical Pascendi (8 September 1907) and Decree Lamentabili (3 July 1907); Encyclical Vehementer nos (11 February 1906) and Apostolic Letter to the Bishops of France Notre charge apostolique (25 August 1910).
[9] Encyclicals Quas primas (11 December 1925) and Mortalium animos (6 January 1928).
[10] Encyclicals Orientales omnes ecclesias (23 December 1945) and Humani generis (12 August 1950); Allocution to Catholic Jurists (6 December 1953).
[11] Second Council of Orange (529), Canon 7, DS 377; Canon 17, DS 387; and Canon 25, DS 395; Saint Pius V, Bull Ex omnibus afflictionibus (1 October 1567), DS 1921, 1934, and 1961; Clement XI, Bull Unigenitus (8 September 1713), DS 2444; Pius IX, Brief Gravissimas inter (11 December 1862), DS 2854; Pius XII, Encyclical Humani generis (12 August 1950).
[12] Hebrews 1; First Vatican Council (1870), Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Chapter II, DS 3005, and Canon 3, DS 3028.
[13] First Vatican Council (1870), Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Chapter II, DS 3005, and Canon 3, DS 3028; Chapter IV, DS 3020, and Canon 3, DS 3043; Saint Pius X, Decree Lamentabili (3 July 1907), condemned proposition no. 59, DS 3459.
[14] First Vatican Council (1870), Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Chapter IV, DS 3020, and Canon 3, DS 3043; Saint Pius X, Decree Lamentabili (3 July 1907), condemned propositions nos. 20 and 22, DS 3420 and 3422.
[15] First Vatican Council (1870), Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Chapter IV, DS 3020, and Canon 3, DS 3043; Saint Pius X, Decree Lamentabili (3 July 1907), condemned proposition no. 21, DS 3421.
[16] Saint Pius X, Encyclical Pascendi (8 September 1907) and Decree Lamentabili (3 July 1907), with condemned propositions nos. 22, 25, and 26, DS 3422, 3425, and 3426; Saint Pius X, Motu Proprio Sacrorum antistitum (1 September 1910).
[17] See the references given in the preceding note.
[18] Council of Trent, Session IV (8 April 1546), Decree on the Reception of the Sacred Books and Traditions, DS 1501.
[19] Saint Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter XXVI [43], §1, in Migne, Patrologia Graeca, vol. VII, col. 1052; Tertullian, On the Prescription of Heretics, Chapters XIX–XXI, in Migne, Patrologia Latina, vol. II, col. 31–33; Saint Robert Bellarmine, On the Word of God, Book IV, Chapter V.
[20] Council of Florence, Bull Cantate Domino (4 February 1442), DS 1334–1335; Council of Trent, Session IV (8 April 1546), Decree on the Reception of the Sacred Books and Traditions, DS 1501–1504; First Vatican Council (1870), Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Chapter II, DS 3006, and Canon 4, DS 3029.
[21] Leo XIII, Encyclical Providentissimus Deus (18 November 1893); Benedict XV, Encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus (15 September 1920); Pius XII, Encyclicals Divino afflante Spiritu (30 September 1943) and Humani generis (12 August 1950).
[22] Council of Trent, Session IV (8 April 1546), Decree on the Reception of the Sacred Books and Traditions, DS 1501.
[23] Pius XII, Encyclical Humani generis (12 August 1950).
[24] First Vatican Council (1870), Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Chapter IV, DS 3020, and Canon 3, DS 3043; Pius IX, in the Bull Ineffabilis Deus (8 December 1854), which proclaims the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, expresses this very well: “For the Church of Christ, watchful guardian that she is, and defender of the dogmas deposited with her, never changes anything, never diminishes anything, never adds anything to them; but with all diligence she treats the ancient documents faithfully and wisely; if they really are of ancient origin and if the Faith of the Fathers has transmitted them, she strives to investigate and explain them in such a way that the ancient dogmas of heavenly doctrine will be made evident and clear, but will retain their full, integral, and proper nature, and will grow only within their own genus — that is, within the same dogma, in the same sense and the same meaning.”
[25] Saint Vincent of Lérins, Commonitorium, cited by the First Vatican Council (1870), Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Chapter IV, DS 3020.