How Political Liberalism Drives SSPX Criticism

To understand the critics of the SSPX, one must understand how political liberalism operates and views the exercise of power.

There is an uncanny aversion among some who call themselves traditional to the consecration of auxiliary bishops by the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) this coming July. Some simply cannot understand how consecrating these bishops without Leo’s permission is not a schismatic act that places the Society outside the Church. How could any bishop or group claim such authority for themselves?!

On the other hand, it is quite obvious for others like me who recognize there is a crisis in the Church because there are members of the Church’s hierarchy that claim apostolic authority who teach and impose concepts directly contrary to the established doctrines and dogmas of the faith. And because of this lack of faith among most members of the living hierarchy, it is necessary for the SSPX to consecrate bishops who will ordain priests that can pass on the Tradition of the Church.

The purpose of this essay is to help explain the mental roadblock that exists with SSPX critics when they opine on this topic and perhaps will also explain their attitude not only towards the SSPX but Vatican II and the post-Conciliar Church in general.

Truth Contra Liberalism

I guarantee that every single one of you reading this now, including myself, swim in the liberal swamp daily. This is because those who revolted against Christendom managed to seize the governments, corporations, schools, politics, economics and culture. Unless you cut all ties to the grid and live in a hole, which a few actually try to do, there is no escaping it.

But I am not speaking of the progressivist politics of Nancy Pelosi or Barack Obama and the like. I am speaking of the classic liberalism that emerged out of the so-called Enlightenment period. It even affects the thinking of those who most certainly reject the politics of Pelosi and Obama.

This liberalism poisons everything in the world around us. Sadly, it even poisons the faith and morals of professed Catholics. Let us never forget, liberalism is a sin.

There is only one antidote to the devilish lies our modern society feed us: Truth. As our Lord said, “The Truth will set you free!” But what kind of truth?

The Truth, which is Jesus Christ, of course. But Christ ascended to Heaven 2000 years ago. So, where do we go to find Truth? It is reflected in the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic faith that God revealed to the Apostles and contained in Holy Scripture. This is the Truth that God gave to us for the salvation of our souls.

If we live our lives in accordance with the Truth, this will necessarily impact our society and culture here on earth. This application of the divinely revealed Truth to our material lives, both public and private, is the doctrine of the Social Kingship of Christ.

What does any of this have to do with the SSPX and their effort to consecrate auxiliary bishops in July 2026?

The denial of the Truth and Social Kingship of Christ remains at the heart of the controversy over whether the SSPX should consecrate these bishops because, whether they know it or not, the critics of the Society not only imbibe the liberal poison delivered to us courtesy of the so-called Enlightenment, but they apply those principles to their understanding of the Catholic Church today. They impose a liberal ideology on their ecclesiology.

This is why so many of those who criticize the Society for consecrating bishops also defend, and even promote, Vatican II. Like the Enlightenment, which was at its heart a revolt against Christendom, Vatican II was also a revolt against Christendom.

The same underlying thread that fuels a modern humanist worldview, drives the worldview of those who insist on defending Vatican II as something Catholic. In reality, Vatican II assaults Catholicism just as much as modern secular society.

Mark Lambert: a Liberal at Heart?

Case in point, I recently engaged Mark Lambert on X, a host at the Catholic Unscripted podcast. He has been quite critical of the SSPX. Naturally, he also defends Vatican II.

Lambert insists that the only ones capable of determining whether the modern hierarchy deviated from teaching Catholic Truth is the modern hierarchy. He alleges the SSPX claims submission is not owed to the Pope but to some type of “theological grid.”

In his article on the subject, Lambert further alleges that according to the Society, submission to Catholic authority is only owed “if Rome teaches in a way the SSPX judges to be continuous with Tradition according to its own criteria.”

Lambert insists that the only ones who can judge what Tradition requires is the living magisterium of the modern hierarchy, and at the end of the day, “Rome says that unity with Peter is constitutive and that Vatican II, properly interpreted, stands within Tradition.”

Put another way: the current living hierarchy says Vatican II is in line with Tradition, therefore, Vatican II is in line with Tradition. Brilliant.

If we accept Lambert’s understanding of Tradition, then the entire notion of Tradition collapses in on itself and means absolutely nothing. But this escapes Lambert.

What he fails to realize when he makes this exhausting circular argument, is that he is using liberal, Enlightenment-based principles of raw power to draw this conclusion and not applying the principles the Church gives us to discern the Truth.

He is treating the Church’s magisterial authority as if it was a modern secular sovereignty that exercises its jurisdiction over the modern Church to the extent that individual members of the hierarchy can subvert the Truth and logic through an exercise of sheer power.

Lambert, whether he knows it or not, is applying the same principles used to justify transgender surgeries, abortion, and assisted suicide to denigrate the Society’s desire to defend Catholic Tradition. It’s a complete breakdown not just of Catholic ecclesiology but of basic philosophical principles. Let’s see how.

Liberal Power vs. Catholic Authority

Liberalism is rooted in a particular notion of “liberty.” According to the Enlightenment, liberty is based not simply the freedom to worship God as He commands to be worshipped, but the freedom to reject God and decide for oneself what guiding principle will form one’s own conscience.

[Side Note: Lambert here will jump up and down accuse the SSPX of doing just that. But as we will see, that is not the case.]

Justice Anthony Kennedy summed up the modern notion of liberty with his famous quote in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey Supreme Court case:

“At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

What do you notice about this concept of liberty? Yes, it completely ignores the idea that God revealed any binding Truth to humanity. But it also does something else.

The modern notion of liberty rejects the importance and role of prior custom and wisdom. It rejects whatever came before. It condemns truth to the prison of the modern moment. Not only is the modern man free from a God, who exists outside time and space, but modern man is free from the authority and wisdom of other men who came before him in times past.

The modern liberal man rejects what came before him because if one accepts the ideas or principles of his ancestors, he is allowing those long dead to enslave him. The modern man conceives of himself as his own sovereign, his own authority, and his own interpreter of truth.

When it comes to political societies, including that of the United States of America, the current governing authority always maintains complete power to determine the laws for those living today.

If Congress passes a new law, a statute, this statute overrides any statute that same before it to the contrary. If a law passed in 1950 says the tax rate is 5%, and a new law passed in 2025 says the tax rate is 10%, the new tax rate will effectively be the new rule. One cannot argue under a liberal legal system that paying the 5% rate was fair and equitable in 2026 because the tax rate used to be 5% for 75 years. Any reliance on past authority is rejected and effectively deemed irrelevant.

The modern liberal state maintains complete and total power over those under its jurisdiction. Any prior act from a prior governing authority in the same jurisdiction may be overridden at the whim of those presently holding power.

Even the American Founding Fathers sensed something not quite right about this, despite being liberals themselves. They invented a written constitution to place a restraint on the whim of the governing power at any given time. Modern constitutions, were in effect, intended to replace the role the Church used to play in Christian societies.

But even the modern constitutions are nothing more than man-made laws subject to change. We know this quite well as one Supreme Court interpretation, like one from Justice Kennedy referred to above, can simply override what the constitution means through “interpretation.”

Under a liberal regime, those in power exercise complete control over their jurisdiction, including the authority to reinterpret all past events and judgments. The irony is that any notion of Truth, justice, and obedience to the Kingship of Christ is rejected in favor of the whims of those who claim governing authority.

Vatican II certainly accepts this notion of modern liberalism. It embedded the concept in Dignitatis Humanae, the Declaration on Religious Freedom. This Vatican II document demands that modern societies protect religious liberty, which includes the freedom to publicly worship, promote, and practice false religions and heresies.

In doing so, Dignitatis Humanae claims the authority to teach this notion of religious liberty is grounded in the “dignity of the human person” and the “the consciousness of contemporary man.” It certainly does not claim to be grounded on anything prior Church authorities have taught—probably because such authority does not exist.

But alas, we get to the heart of the problem.

The Catholic Way

This, of course, is not how Catholicism works at all. And it certainly is not how Sacred Tradition works. While the root word in liberalism is liber, which means freedom, the root word of Tradition is tradere, which means to transmit or pass on.

Within the concept of tradition is the notion that some value or truth existed in the past that needs to be preserved. Such value or truth must not be overridden by the arbitrary and capricious will (raw power) of modern sensibilities.

In the case of the Catholic faith, these values and truths are found in Apostolic teachings. This deposit of faith is manifested in the dogmas and doctrines of the Church. The core of the Truth is always preserved but handed on to others as prior stewards of the Truth die off.

Throughout time it may be necessary to apply these truths under new circumstances. The application of these dogmas and doctrines to new circumstances may require the current living magisterium to explain the Truth in more detail. But the only thing that really changes are the circumstances that we need to apply the unchanging principles to, not the principles themselves.

[Side Note: This issue was at the heart of the confusion that Vatican II caused. Even Pope John XXIII suggested the Council was supposed to be pastoral, meaning it did not change any doctrines, just applied them to modern circumstances. Of course, the Modernists who infiltrated the hierarchy understood that this pastoral application opened a door for them to change the doctrine itself.]

This authentic Catholic framework for preserving, transmitting, and applying God’s Truth is a completely foreign concept to the modern liberal man.

The idea that men long dead could play a role in what we believe and how we act today is simply not even considered under modern liberal regimes and ideologies. At best, past traditions play a nostalgic role, but do not really serve as any type of binding authority.

Prior to the Enlightenment, when novel concepts of liberty gained prominence, traditions and customs not only directed the actions of individuals but also served as binding forces within society. Even beyond ecclesiastical contexts, such as found in the English common law, tradition and custom played a significant role in shaping societal governance and culture.

Application to the SSPX Controversy

With this background in mind, hopefully it is easier to see how critics of the SSPX are getting this all wrong.

When the SSPX, or any Catholic for that matter, seeks to defend and preserve Sacred Tradition, they are defending the Church’s authority and obedience to Church doctrines. They are not seeking to establish an alternative authority; rather, they are defending and preserving the authority that always existed since the time of the Apostles.

Under the post-Vatican II Modernist worldview, the modern hierarchy, who claims apostolic authority, never seem bound or subject to what came before them when it comes to doctrinal matters. They are free to interpret or reinterpret what Tradition reveals about the deposit of faith. They do not call it change. Like Lambert, they just call it “interpreting” or “developing” Tradition. In effect, they are reinterpreting the prior magisterial interpretations.

The deception is easy and works quite well. Just use the word “development” or “interpretation” instead of “change” and then demand all Catholics submit as matter of obedience to the new change in doctrine.

When one accepts this liberal process of interpretation that divorced itself from obedience to the past teachings of the Church Fathers, popes, and councils, the only logical conclusion that can be drawn is that the modern living hierarchy are the only body of individuals capable of deciphering what the Church’s Tradition “really means” for today’s world.

The Catholic liberal (and Modernist) contends his ideas conform to Tradition, but they rarely explain what they mean by Tradition. Under a liberal notion of power, where the present reigning sovereign decides what is truth and the binding law, what is there to stop them from redefining what Tradition itself means? Well, nothing according to Mark Lambert and other Modernist liberals.

An entire article needs to be devoted to this Modernist sleight of hand. But for purposes of this article, just know, that Catholic Tradition certainly is applied by a living magisterium for the benefit of those living at any point in time. But the application of those principles contained in the dogmas and doctrines are not subject to change and cannot contradict prior manifestations of the Truth.

In other words, the Catholic magisterium is not arbitrary and capricious. By definition, the teaching authority of the Church is bound to preserve and follow the deposit of faith as handed to us from prior popes, councils, doctors of the Church, etc.

Nor are everyday lay Catholic required to suspend their reason and reject what we all know is the Church’s Tradition because those who claim apostolic authority tell us it means something else now. To accept such an idea would be a true act of disobedience and potentially place oneself outside the Church.

[Side Note: Vatican II defenders like to imply that the doctrinal questions the modern hierarchy deals with are somehow unclear, uncertain and in need of clarification. In fact, the heresies and errors of Vatican II concern matters of doctrine that have been well established as part of Catholic Tradition.]

Does this mean a lay person who perceives discontinuity with Tradition in modern “interpretations” are crowning themselves pope through private judgement, like the Protestants? Not at all. Unlike Protestants who make their own individual subjective determinations without the aid of Tradition, which they reject, a Traditional Catholic utilizes an objective standard to maintain and apply the Church’s Tradition.

Again, if a lay Catholic cannot rely on the Tradition of the Church to know the difference between truth and falsehood, what is the point of Tradition beyond a plaything to be manipulated by any particular member of the hierarchy when he sees fit?

This is why we have catechisms and pastors, trained in the Church’s Tradition, to teach us. We do not need never-ending magisterial interpretations on top of other prior magisterial interpretations, to know the doctrines of the faith. That would defeat the entire point of Tradition, which is designed to preserve and pass on the Truth already known and previously taught.

As Don Felix Sarda Y Salvany explains in Liberalism Is a Sin, of course the Church alone “possesses supreme doctrinal magistery in fact and in right” and to the Pope alone belongs the right of final doctrinal determinations. However,

“the faithful are permitted and even commanded to give a reason for their faith, to draw out its consequences, to make applications of it, to deduce parallels and analogies from it. It is thus by use of their reason that the faithful are enabled to suspect and measure the orthodoxy of any new doctrine, presented to them, by comparing it with a doctrine already defined.”

Sadly, especially since Vatican II, most members of the hierarchy who claim apostolic authority in the Catholic Church teach doctrines contrary to what the Church has always taught. We know this not because we make up what we want to believe, like Lambert accuses the SSPX of doing. These contradictions are obvious when one applies our God-given reason and logic.

Lambert admits there is a crisis in the Church. Well, this is the crisis in the Church! This is why the SPPX is doing what they are doing—to ensure there are priests who are able to preserve and pass on the Tradition as it has always been known. And this is why those who insist the Society is not obedient should themselves be questioned because, in fact, it is they who are not obedient to the authority of Jesus Christ and His Church.