20/08/2026
Refuting Dro Tecson On The SSPX: Unashamed Support For Protestant/Sedevacantist Arguments
I know that the title of this post might seem inflammatory, but I can at least defend the parallel I draw. He on the other hand slanders me with a historic enemy of Christianity, all because I’m more familiar with Canon law than he is. Or at least, my sources are more familiar with Canon law than he is. Anyway…
‘When Canon Law-Pharisees Know the Letter, But Missed the Point’
See what I mean? He thinks that labelling me as a ‘Pharisee’ will somehow undermine what I said. It really doesn’t, especially since Pharisaism wasn’t a monolithic body of scholars. There were Pharisees like St Paul who supported Christ, after all. St Paul did a brilliant job of bridging the Old and New Covenants together with his training. The problem wasn’t with the Pharisees themselves, but that many of them had the wrong expectation of the Messiah. That’s why they were curious when Christ came along, and when He contradicted their expectations, they rejected Him.
‘These two photos are all about navigating the canonical and theological controversy surrounding the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). The "Problem" photo is taken from a page called Gigantian Apologetics, which tends to reduce the whole thing to pure legalism.’
This reminds me of several encounters I’ve had with Protestants, who accuse Catholics of ‘legalism’ in the sense that we have so many laws and procedures rather than the ‘simplified Christianity’ of the early centuries AD. I focus so much on the legal side of the SSPX because I keep coming across legal arguments by Cardinals, Popes, theologians, Saints, and Church Fathers, which all affirm that the SSPX has no legal standing. Of course I focus on other areas too, but given that jurisdiction is a legal issue, and I made a post about the SSPX Jurisdiction Dilemma, of course I’ll be talking about the (il)legal side of the SSPX. It’s the equivalent of going to an art gallery and complaining there are too many paintings with the same style of art, despite that being the whole point of that specific gallery.
By the way, I’ve addressed most of these claims in one way or another in my main series ‘How We Know The SSPX Are In Schism’ on my YouTube Channel. Including plenty of non-legal arguments. If Dro is going to continue trying to refute/debunk me, he should probably take a look at them first. I’m not trying to use elephant hurling/overwhelming with the sheer number of sources, of course, I just want to be thorough and show there are multiple avenues as to how we know the SSPX are in schism. It’s just really annoying when an SSPX defender tries to present some ‘new’ argument against me, but it’s something I’ve already seen before in my research.
‘The "Solved" meme I made to debunk it.’
He didn’t debunk it, of course. I’ve made a response to that one, which reveals his lack of familiarity with concepts like the Tria Munera and Divine Law, as well as endorsement in the reasoning of Protestants and Sedevacantists to disobey the Magisterium whenever they deem it ‘necessary’. In fact, I could probably make another ‘dilemma’ post about how the SSPX claims it isn’t its own Magisterium, but they can interpret Canon law and traditional teachings of the Church better than the Pope.
‘Here's the thing: Critics, including Gigantian,’
Perhaps the fault is my own for not making this clear in my posts, but I am ‘Gigantals’, making my page ‘Gigantian Apologetics’. Maybe I should sign my posts with ‘Gigantals’ at the end?
‘often present Archbishop Lefebvre’s 1988 episcopal consecrations as a neat canonical catch-22 that automatically settles the question of schism.’
Because it is. In fact, there was a time where someone could trust what the Pope said about this. We ask: “Is the SSPX in schism?”; and they answer: “Yes.” But the SSPX instead tries to weasel its way out of the schism accusation, trying to claim ambiguous quotes in support of itself. If the SSPX really wasn’t in schism, then why has every Pope since Pope St Paul VI said they were schismatic, damaging the unity of the Church, or not in full Communion?
‘The problem is that this approach can become so fixated on the letter of the law that it loses sight of the law’s purpose.’
This is where he makes the whole ‘legalism’ accusation. Not because I focus too much on the law, but because from his relative perspective of knowing less about it, I know more than he does. But it should be noted that everything I say about canon law or the legal situation of the SSPX doesn’t come from my own conclusions. It comes from my compiled research on the SSPX, with authors like Cardinal Burke, John Salza, Robert Siscoe, Andrew Mioni, Andrew Likoudis…If that means I become very familiar with Canon law regarding schism and related topics, then so what?
‘Canon law is not a Pharisaical checklist in which quoting the right canon magically ends the discussion. It exists for the good of the Church and, ultimately, the salvation of souls.’
True. It’s kind of like when Protestants think they can quote Bible passages and automatically end debates. However, he’s neglecting another type of law here, which is Divine Law. Divine Law is similar to Dogma, in that it requires the utmost of clarification from the Magisterium to understand. Not disgruntled rebellious bishops trying to justify themselves.
‘That principle is explicitly articulated in Canon 1752: Salus animarum suprema lex, the salvation of souls is the supreme law of the Church.’
Ironically enough, Dro here is acting as though referencing (not even quoting, mind you) Canon 1752 settles this matter. However, this ‘supreme law’ requires Divine Law in order for it to exist. The two cannot work against one another. Which means that if you can find evidence of the SSPX rejecting Divine Law in order to ‘save souls’, then they are not abiding by the ‘supreme law’ at all. We know they do reject Divine Law, since Episcopal Consecration is a matter of Divine Law and can never be performed in opposition to the will of the Pope. This is something Ven. Pope Pius XII made clear when the Chinese laity started choosing their own bishops, which they saw as necessary for preserving their access to the sacraments.
‘This is precisely where the SSPX debate becomes more complicated than its critics often admit.’
It really isn’t that complicated. The SSPX and their defenders will do some incredibly painful mental gymnastics to try and justify themselves. Whereas we can rely on the Pope to make a clear statement on the matter. If we want to talk about specifics, then we have theologians and canon lawyers from Rome to rely on. Bishop Schneider can say what he wants, he doesn’t have anywhere near the experience of Cardinal Burke.
‘Traditional Catholic ecclesiology appeals to the principle of state of necessity,’
The ‘state of necessity’ argument is the equivalent of an Adventist ‘prophet’ claiming that God visited them and everyone must leave the sect they are currently a part of. An example of a ‘state of necessity’ is when a laicised priest sees a man dying in the middle of the street and offers him Communion. It does not apply to a bishop performing illicit episcopal consecrations in direct defiance of the Pope that expressly prohibiting him from doing just that. That’s what makes this no longer ‘I’m doing this for the good of the Church’, and more ‘I’m doing this despite the Pope himself telling me not to’. Remember, Lefebvre had already said in 1976 that he considered Rome to be full of antichrists, and that one didn’t need a reason right now to conclude Pope St Paul VI wasn’t really the Pope.
‘arguing that extraordinary circumstances can affect how canonical norms are applied, particularly when the ordinary means of safeguarding the Faith are perceived to be gravely compromised.’
And how are ‘extraordinary circumstances’ demonstrated? In order for us to distinguish between people with a genuine extraordinary mission from God, and the fakes? Well, whenever God used people to present something radically different that He knew would be hard to swallow, He used miracles to affirm they had His support. Think about all the Prophets of the Old Testament that performed miracles, Jesus performing Miracles whilst He preached, the Apostles performing miracles as they preached, and even to this day we have miracles being performed in the Church. The SSPX on the other hand haven’t had a single miracle occur that they could use as evidence that God is supporting them and that they aren’t actually in schism. On the contrary, we in the Catholic Church only continue to record miracles. We even have Eucharistic Miracles occurring during the Novus Ordo, despite the SSPX’s rejection of it. Does that not say plenty about who is with God?
‘Critics may reject that argument. They are certainly entitled to challenge its canonical and theological premises.’
Except they’ll be called ‘Pharisees’ if they try, right? Not that Dro here has actually refuted the substance of my argument. He says we can’t just quote a Canon law and think that’s the end of the conversation, which he then does himself. Whenever I quote a canon law, whether in a post or in a video of mine, I usually give a lengthy explanation that explains how it relates to the topic. Dro is missing that explanation.
‘But simply repeating, “The canon says this,” does not by itself answer the deeper question: What does the law require when rigid application of its letter appears to conflict with the very good the law exists to protect?’
Oh, if only we had a Magisterium of the Church to speak on this matter…Wait, we do. The same Magisterium that said the SSPX have doctrinal issues and are in schism. So if the Magisterium speaks on this matter, and concludes the SSPX are in error and in schism, then that solves everything, right? Not to an SSPX defender. They’ll still find a way to claim that that isn’t really what the Pope meant, or that it’s possible to ignore such a decision because it’s not dogmatic. All this really does is show the flawed ecclesiology that the SSPX has created and is spreading among its followers.
‘And that is the irony.’
There is far more irony in this ‘rebuke’, enough to build a decent set of shackles for it.
‘The critics who accuse the SSPX of being overly concerned with tradition can sometimes become extraordinarily traditional about the letter of canon law, while remarkably uninterested in its spirit.’
This sounds like special pleading, from someone who knows they aren’t too familiar with Canon law and so they try to poison the well by saying we shouldn’t rely on it so much. If that isn’t his intention, then he seriously needs to reconsider how he phrases his statements. If I quote Cardinal Burke, who is seen as the person with the most experience with Canon law on Earth, will Dro reject what he says because he’s too focused on it? On the other hand, Lefebvre did indeed obsess over his perverted form of tradition far too much. Lefebvre said that it was ‘tradition alone’ that we receive grace, and Pope St Paul VI said his understanding of ‘tradition’ was flawed as it involved splitting a single snapshot of ‘tradition’ from the ‘living tradition’ of the Church.
‘Canon law is not a collection of ammunition to be fired at inconvenient Catholics. It is a juridical instrument ordered toward the Church’s mission and the salvation of souls.’
Which includes telling Catholics that there is a schismatic body pretending to be Catholic, despite refusing to submit to the authority of Rome and promoting erroneous ecclesiology. Like we’ve seen Dro do here regarding the latter.
‘So before declaring the SSPX guilty by quotation, perhaps the more Catholic question is this: Have you merely read the law, or have you understood why the Church has the law in the first place?’
And I would answer that with: “The theologians and clerics of the Church who explained the law to me, display far greater understanding of Canon law than all the armchair theologians that the SSPX can muster. And if that inconveniences the SSPX, then they should either finally admit they are in schism, or return to Full Communion with the Church.’
One of the reasons why I even started all my research on the SSPX was to settle the dispute over whether they were in schism or not, back in 2022-3. Aside from Rome clarifying the matter once more with the illicit consecrations of 2026, nothing in my research has made me question my original concerns about them. If anything, my concerns have only grown a thousandfold. I’ve seen the systemic corruption of the SSPX, the erroneous theology that contradicts what even the Church Fathers said, and the toxic fruits it has produced in both the ‘traditional’ Catholic community and in the abnormally-high rate of defections to Sedevacantism.
The only adequate way to describe the SSPX is as a cancer. One that has already metastasized with visible groups like the SSPX-Resistance and Sedevacantist sects scattered around the world, as well as less-visible sects appearing within ‘traditional’ Catholic communities. That was the whole point for restricting the Latin Mass in certain Dioceses after all. I know personally of one woman who loves the Latin Mass, but she begrudgingly accepted it being restricted because of divisive voices who advocated for rebellion against the Church. Yes, some of the very people she went to Mass with. With the Latin Mass restricted, the situation in her parish has become significantly less hostile.
I’m told to do more research on this, that if I truly understood the SSPX, I would support them. Yet my three years of research says otherwise. I can only point to my series on YouTube to demonstrate this. I’ve read books by Lefebvre; books by SSPX writers; almost every available copy of the Angelus magazine by the SSPX; sermons and essays by SSPX priests and their defenders; letters of correspondence between Lefebvre and the Vatican prior to the illicit consecrations in 1988; the writings of the Church Fathers; the writings of more recent theologians and Saints; the canons of Ecumenical Councils; the 1917 and 1983 Codes of Canon Law; testimonies of former SSPX priests and members; Papal Encyclicals by Popes who are praised by the SSPX…And that’s all the ones I can remember from the top of my head. It was never about ‘you haven’t read enough evidence’, but that ‘you haven’t interpreted the evidence the way we want you to’, and that’s something completely different.
So I shall continue to reveal the flaws of the SSPX. Both in standalone posts and in detailed compilations of their errors, on Facebook and on YouTube. And if that means I’m accused of ‘legalism’ and ‘Pharisaism’ by those who are only familiar with cherry-picked material, then so be it. If they wish to argue with the words of previous Popes and Saints, while claiming to support ‘tradition’, then let them be exposed for their false antiquarianism.
