SSPX, Bastion of Orthodoxy or of Freemasonry?
Seeing the SSPX in a Different Light
According to the FSSPX.org,
“On 2 February 2026, the feast of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin, the Reverend Father Davide Pagliarani, Superior General of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, during the ceremony of the taking of the cassock which he presided over at the International Seminary of Saint-Curé-d’Ars in Flavigny-sur-Ozerain, France, publicly announced his decision to entrust the bishops of the Society with the task of proceeding with new episcopal consecrations, on 1 July next.
After having long matured his reflection in prayer, and having received from the Holy See, in recent days, a letter which does not in any way respond to our requests, Father Pagliarani, in harmony with the unanimous advice of his Council, judges that the objective state of grave necessity in which souls find themselves requires such a decision.” (Source)
These consecrations are a second round after those that were made in 1988 by Archibishop Lefebvre and are intended to replace Bishops Williamson and Tissier de Mallerais, two of the four original Bishops who have since died. The SSPX anounced that four priests will be consecrated on July 1, 2026, bringing the total number of SSPX Bishops to six. They argue that a state of “grave necessity” exists that justifies disobeying the Pope’s command to refrain from consecrating Bishops.
Negotiating their Future with an Antipope
But for a group so intent on maintaining Catholic Tradition, one would have thought that they would have been interested to know whether the one with whom they were negotiating their future with was a legitimately elected. Because if there had been violations of the law in the 2025 conclave that would invalidate his claim, and the demands made by him would also be illegitimate.
As has been mentioned on this substack many times, the election of Leo XIV was riddled with numerous violations of the law that made the result null and void. It is not just that the Cardinals exceeded the limit of 120 Electors, or that they elected a candidate who prior to the election had utterred heresy numerous times by opposing capital punishment thus making him a heretic, but also because Cardinal Re’s appointment, the Dean of the College of Cardinals and the man responible for convoking the conclave, and upto 108 Cardinal Electors were invalid for having been appointed during Pope Francis’ antipapacy or after he excommunicated himself by signing Fiducia Supplicans. For a complete reading of why the conclave of 2025 was invalid (see HERE).
Immediately after the invalid 2025 conclave, the main arguments were first published at FromRome.info, a website I am reliably informed that SSPX clergy, religious and laity regularly read. They were also widely shared on substack, X and other social media with many comments being left on Chris Jackson’s posts, a reference for Traditional Catholics. But instead, they recognised Antipope Leo XIV and began to negotiate their future with him through his heretical Prefect for the Dicastry of the Faith.
When the Faithful of Rome, exercised their right according to Pope Nicholas II’s Bull In Nomine Domine, and Pope Hildebrand was elected on November 23, 2025, FromRome, anounced it, and on December 10, Pope Hildebrand’s website Sedesapostolica.info went live. This was commented on cathinfo.com forums, a site that is read by the SSPX and SSPX resistance, and a long conversation ensued by various participants, mainly ridiculing the election. But in January the thread was taken down (see HERE).
Then on May 8, 2026, Ordo Militaris responded to an SSPX tweet linking the FAQ page at www.sedesapostolica.info, which includes the arguments that invalidate Leo XIV’s claim, and which is often linked to at FromRome. The SSPX questioned Leo’s Catholicity1 on May 15, after the Vatican had threatened to excommunicate them, but they did not refer to any violations of the law.
They could have chosen to study Hildebrand’s claim and seeing him to be Catholic, and theologically alligned with them, negotiated and secured their future with him. In fact, on January 3, 2026, Hildebrand had published the requirements by which individuals and communities could petition him to be accepted into ecclesiastic communion with him (see HERE). But the SSPX had long before chosen what it was going to do.
SSPX in Schism with Archbishop Lefebvre
But what most people are unaware, is that by moving ahead with the episcopal consecrations on July 1, 2026, the SSPX will be in schism, not with Leo, but with their Founder. In 1988 Archbishop Lefebvre wrote a letter to the future Bishops, that was published June 13 in the French magazine La lettre aux amis and was later translated for the July edition of The Angelus of that same year. He wrote:
“That is why, convinced that I am only carrying out the holy will of Our Lord, I am writing this letter to ask you to agree to receive the grace of the Catholic episcopacy, just as I have already conferred it on other priests in other circumstances. I will bestow this grace upon you, confident that without too long a delay the See of Peter will be occupied by a successor of Peter who is perfectly Catholic, and into whose hands you will be able to put back the grace of your episcopacy so that he may confirm it.” (Source)
He said that the “Priestly Society of St. Pius X [exists] for the maintenance and perpetuity of [God’s] glorious and expiatory Sacrifice within the Church.” And since the SSPX bishops’ only mission is to deliver the sacraments to the people, and in the absence of a pope whom at the time they considered Catholic, they would need to enter back into communion with a true Catholic Pope, and stop exercising any ministry other than that which he would give them.
Why would the Traditional Catholic Fraternity of Priests par Excellence not discuss the arguments of the invalid election of Leo XIV, nor recognise the legitimate election of a Catholic Pope even if it were to benefit them, and instead go ahead with episcopal consecrations, contrary to the will of their founder? Why did they take such an incoherent position?
SSPX Contradictions
In fact, the SSPX has had many contradictory positions, especially in recent years. For example, the SSPX publically supported the Covid vaccine, stating that “the vaccine developed from aborted foetal cells might be received without sin (a) by a member of the vulnerable group when no alternative vaccine is available and after protest; or (b) if the penalty for refusing the vaccine is so onerous as to threaten personal or family livelihood and after protest.” But we know the Covid vaccines were fast tracked and bypassed normal safety testing and resulted in a high rate of mortality and adverse effects showing they were not safe as originally claimed (see HERE). Alternatively, there were nonvaccine remedies widely available . So, why did the SSPX promote the Covid vaccines?
Another jarring fact of the SSPX was their unusually good relationship with Francis, which existed when he was still in Argentina, and continued afterwards when he moved to Rome. Francis critised, attacked, and ridiculed Traditional Catholics. He restricted the TLM among parish priests and other Latin mass groups (ICK, IBP), but surprisingly, granted the SSPX limited faculties (confessions, marriages). Why did the SSPX benefit from such a priviledged relationship from the most anti Tradition “Pontiff” ever?
It is not just that they had a good relationship, in fact the SSPX went out of their way to defend the legitimacy of Antipope Francis’ election, by making some grievous mistakes in interpreting Pope Benedict XVI’s Declaratio (HERE). They also hardly ever corrected his numerous heresies, but were quick to correct Pope Benedict in his book written with Cardinal Sarah on priestly celebacy (HERE). Why this double standard?
Also, another head scratching feature of the SSPX is their lack of collaboration with other Eclesia Dei groups. The fact that they insist on exclusive dedication has prevented the spread of TLM parishes. So in this way they have promoted a balkanisation of Traditional Catholics, and thus a weakening of the very group that could best assist in the restoration of the Church. Why does the SSPX segregate themselves from other like minded Latin mass catholics?
It has often been repeated that without Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX we would have no Traditional Latin mass. But resistance to the new mass existed since the 1970’s, whether through elderly priests, Father Gommar de Pauw, the Agathy Christie Indult or in Bishop Castro de Meyer’ diocese Campos, Brazil. Why does the SSPX get so much credit for something they did not do alone?
Another mantra repeated in support of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX was that a state of emergency existed that justified disobedience to the pope. It was an argument used in the 1970’s when setting up the Écône Seminary, in 1988 at the illicit episcopal consecrations and it has been used to justify those of 2026. But Archbishop Lefèbvre could have done things legally if only he had asked Bishop Castro de Meyer of Campos, Brazil with whom he was well aquainted having collaborated with him in the Coetus Internationalis Patrum, open the seminary there rather than at Écone. Lefèbvre did not have jurisdiction anywhere since he had resigned his bishopric at Tulle before the Council, so he was not like the great Saint Athanasius who fought against Arianism, never having resigned his bishopric.
So, Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX have often argued that their disobedience to the Pope is justified. But disobedience breaks our union with the will of God and so is the worst sin, although according to nature, hatred is the worse sin since it is against the greatest virtue which is charity. If they did what they did for the love of Jesus, they would have quickly investigated Hildebrand’s claim and finding it legitimate, immediately knelt before his chair, because obeying Jesus would have been their first principle of action.
So what can explain all these contradictory positions of the SSPX?
Heraldry Analysis
A clue can be found in looking at the coat of arms of each of the SSPX Bishops consecrated in 1988. I consulted someone knowledgeable in heraldry.
#/media/File%3ACoat_of_arms_of_Richard_Williamson_-_mitre_and_crozier.svg)
If we look at Bishop Williamsons’ coat of arms we see 6 tassles on either side and 6 shield symbols: mitre, cross and staff + lion, cross and flower flashing 6 6 6 - the number of the AntiChrist.
Then there is the corner of the shield entering the Bishop’s mitre, as if to signify that the shield symbolizes the man in the mitre, but the shield seems to easily represent 33. There are 4 paws with 3 claws each plus 4 branches of the cross each with 3 fleurs. That so far is 24 total. The 5 petals with a central bud, for another 6. then 3 things, the lion, the cross and the flower for a total of 33 - as in the 33rd degree of Freemasonry. Also that the flower whose tips form a pentagram, are ontop of the cross suggests his first allegiance is diabolic.
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais’ heraldic shield is similar. There are 6 tassles on each side of the shield, and 6 elements inside : 4 fleurs de lis + white cross + red heart flashing 6 6 6. But on another level, we count 33 in his sheild too : 4 fluer de lis, with 3 points at top and bottom for a total of 24 points, 4 blue zones and 1 white zone for another 5, 1 heart and 3 branches on the cross, for another 4.
Bishop Gallareta’s coat of arms is more simple suggesting he is of a lower rank. There are 6 tassles on each side and 2 double hearts + 2 colours + 2 castles inside flashing 6 6 6. The stonemasonry castles are a symbol of freemasonry and the two hearts a symbol of the hearts of Jesus and Mary. This is also the SSPX symbol.
Bishop Fellay’s heraldic shield is wild. There are 22 stones in the tower and 22 in the wall, the Star is a star for calvary, also used by the Templars, which name is also used as a grade of membership in the masonic lodges. And then there are 11 major things in this shield, 3 points on the cross, two colors, 1 castle and 5 points on the star.
11 +22 = 33 the masonic number
and two 22 implies that he is backed by two different masonic lodge federations, the Rothschilds illuminati and Skull and Bones, who are the two most powerful in the world, the tower symbolizing the first and the wall the second.
The SSPX symbol originates with the symbol of the Vendee resistance at the time of the revolution when it was composed of cross atop a heart symbolising the Sacred Heart of Jesus. This was outlawed in the Vendee war so during the German occupation of France during World War II, as a means of imposing French identity, it was modified to a red double heart topped with a crown and cross on a silver shield, with alternating castles and fleurs de lis on the outside edge.
The Vendeans were monarchists, and prior versions included a crown top, but the 1980 version does not look like the crown of a French King. And the Vendee was not a county or duchy which would have the armorial bearing of a crown above its heraldic device. So it seems that since the crown also appears like the masonic tower it could symbolise the conquest of the Church by freemasonry, since towers are used as crowns in French departements heraldry (Source).
Unusually the SSPX version uses black lines, and includes the two hearts topped by the crown/tower and cross. It has 11 elements, that is 11 lines are necessary to be drawn to make it. But 11 is the Masonic Number indicating a member of a Lodge, since they need 12 members and one is the master and 11 are the members.
But it is surprising that the SSPX should use the symbol of the Vendee, as neither their founder nor institute is from that region. In fact, they have no right to use it. The misuse and misappropriation is a grave fault and is akin to a Russian using the coat of arms of the city of Rochester for his own law office in Liverpool. This makes the use of it all the more suspicious.
But another reason could be that since the Vendeans were the last supporters of Church and Crown to surrender to the Masonic Republic, that the SSPX use this symbol could be a way to say THEY are conquering the last island of Catholicity opposed to the masonic takeover of the Church by globalist forces.
Conclusion
Seeing the clear masonic heraldry of both the SSPX Bishops and the SSPX logo it seems the contradictions aforementioned can be interpreted in a new light.
The US Doctrinal Warfare Program launched in 1953 on June 29, the feast of Saint Peter and Saint Paul, detailed that its objectives were to “breakdown worldwide doctrinal thought patterns…hostile to… American objectives” and to “pave the way for deviations from, and schisms in totalitarian thought patterns” (see HERE). So when the SSPX refuse to recognise the invalidity of the 2025 conclave, accept an Antipope as their Pontiff, and negotiate their future with him to the point where he threatens excommunication, but when told that a true Catholic pope exists, they barrell ahead with consecrations that put them in schism with their founder, it seems highly likely they are carrying out the US Doctrinal Warfare program objectives of causing more division in the Catholic Church and making more difficult its restoration.
The TLM is key to the restoration of the Church, so there is likely a great interest to centralize the Tridentine mass in “controllable groups”. So if the SSPX is implementing the US Doctrinal Warfare program, then it would be expected that they would also support other US objectives, such as providing Traditional Catholics the justification to take the Covid vaccine. It would also explain why they got along so well with Pope Francis, who was very likely a freemason (See HERE). And it would also explain why their intention is not the “Unity of the Clans”, as that would strengthen the restoration of the TLM in the Church, instead of the balkanisation of Traditional Catholics.
It also puts into a new light Bishop Williamson’s interview on Swedish television on January 21, 2009, the same day Pope Benedict XVI revoked the excommunications of SSPX Bishops, and suggests it was a spiteful attack on the German Pope, so as to make him look incompetent, instead of merciful. It suggests that Bishop Williamson’s videos about Freemasonry in the Church were a limited hangout.
And it also puts in a new light the interminable negotiations between the SSPX and the Vatican, whose intention were likely never the regularisation of the Society with the Vatican.
But since they have presented themselves as a bastion of orthodoxy, it could very well be, that they would move step by step into practical sedevacantism never recognising and obeying the true Pope, but recognising and resisting an Antipope, a truly inverted and diabolical position.
This Hegelian theatrical production, brought to you by the US Doctrinal Warfare program, would be made believable, and would be impossible without an American Antipope, whose grandfather was an adulterer, (HERE), is related to Hilary Clinton (HERE), was trained in seminaries where extreme marxism is taught (HERE), attended a CIA training school (HERE), participated in a pachamama idolatry (HERE) just like his mentor Pope Francis, had his career fast tracked, so that within two years of being elevated to cardinal, and despite having it be publically known that he protected two pedophile priests in two countries (HERE), would be elected in an invalid conclave, his claim be supported by the US Doctrinal Warfare program supported media, discretely announce the continuation of Francis’ magisterium (HERE), and slowly cement it, and be merciful to all except the SSPX - that bastion of Catholic Orthodoxy - whom he would banish to Mordor.
Many, if not most Traditional Catholics have accepted the carefully crafted propaganda produced by the SSPX, and the US Doctrinal Warfare supported media to make the Society appear the victim. So there are many who may reject or have doubts about the arguments I have proposed. To these I suggest you ask the SSPX directly: why do they not discuss the juridical arguments of the invalid election of Leo XIV, nor recognise the legitimate election of Pope Hildebrand even if it could benefit them, and instead go ahead with episcopal consecrations, contrary to the will of their Founder?
To those who are convinced, I ask you to act to spread the word as substack is beginning to censor (HERE). The hour is late, and time is of the essence. Only three years remain before the one hundredth year deadline set by Our Lord for the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. And Pope Hildebrand-elect, the anticipated restorer Pope prophecied at La Salette (HERE) - still needs Holy and Courageous Bishops to consecrate him. Pray for his episcopal consecration, that he may in turn fulfill Our Lady´s wish that Russia be consecrated according to her wishes.
The way they questioned Leo´s catholicity was similar to the way Archbishop Lefebvre questioned the catholicity of Pope John Paul II Before The Consecrations, see Archbishop Lefebvre´s Press Conference