What Is Papal Infallibility? Disputation For Utrecht Sect and Anti-Ultramontanism

 

Illustration of Papal Infallibility

 " And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. " (Matthew 16:18-19) 

Lord Jesus gave the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, which includes Magisterium and Tradition for His Church, which Lord Jesus acts as The Head of Church and St. Peter as His Vicar on the Earth. So, His Church, Catholic Church is Indefectible and His Vicar is Infallible. 

As from what Vatican Council taught on 1870 :

" 6. Everybody knows that those heresies, condemned by the fathers of Trent, which rejected the divine magisterium of the church and allowed religious questions to be a matter for the judgment of each individual, have gradually collapsed into a multiplicity of sects, either at variance or in agreement with one another; and by this means a good many people ...... 

But now it is our purpose to

profess and declare from this chair of Peter before all eyes the saving teaching of Christ, and, by the power given us by God, to

reject and condemn the contrary errors.

This we shall do with the bishops of the whole world as our co-assessors and fellow-judges, gathered here as they are in the holy Spirit by our authority in this ecumenical council, and relying on the word of God in scripture and tradition as we have received it, religiously preserved and authentically expounded by the catholic church. 

" (SESSION 3 : 24 April 1870

Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, First Vatican Council, by Pope Pius IX) 

Chapter 4. On the Infallible Teaching Authority of the Roman Pontiff :

" That apostolic primacy which the Roman pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching.

This holy see has always maintained this,

the constant custom of the church demonstrates it, and

the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.

[councils]

So the fathers of the fourth council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith:

The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the apostolic see the catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honour. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the apostolic see preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the christian religion [56] .

What is more, with the approval of the second council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession: 

1. “The holy Roman church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole catholic church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled.” [57]

2. Then there is the definition of the council of Florence:

• “The Roman pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church.” [58]

[Holy See]

3. To satisfy this pastoral office, our predecessors strove unwearyingly that the saving teaching of Christ should be spread among all the peoples of the world; and with equal care they made sure that it should be kept pure and uncontaminated wherever it was received.[Custom]

4. It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the churches and the pattern of ancient usage referred to this apostolic see those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place (note: Rome) above all where the faith can know no failing [59] .[Holy See]

5. The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion of the churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God’s help, they knew to be in keeping with sacred scripture and the apostolic traditions.

• • 
    
  • 6. For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine (it means that Pope cannot makes a new doctrine which contradicted with Holy Christ Church) , but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
  • 
    
  • 7. Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and
• reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60] .

8. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.

9. But since in this very age when the salutary effectiveness of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith :

• to the glory of God our saviour,
• for the exaltation of the catholic religion and
• for the salvation of the christian people,
• with the approval of the sacred council

• 10. we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
  • when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
    • that is, when,
    • in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
    • in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
    • he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
  • he possesses,
    • by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
  • that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
  • Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

  ---

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.  (Chapter 4. On Faith and Reason For Papal Infallibility on Vatican Council 1870 AD) 

( Footnotes :

56 From Pope Hormisdas’s formula of the year 517 (D no. 171), see above p. 157 n. 1.

57 From Michael Palaeologus’s profession of faith which was read out at the second council of Lyons (D no. 466).

58 Council of Florence, session 6 (see above p. 528). S Bernard, Ep. (Letters) 190 (PL 182, 1053).

59 Bernard, Ep. (Letters) 190 (PL 182, 1053).

60 Lk 22, 32.Return to Table of Contents) 

So, from explanation above, First Vatican Council or Real Vatican Council defines that Pope cannot be err for His doctrine, his teachings including Theology and Moral, during He follows from what Church taught under guidance from The Holy Spirit. 

So, This Magisterium contradicted with what the False Church sect taught for against Papal Infallibility, which was born after Vatican Council on 1869-1870. This False Church is Utrecht Sect, a Sect who called themselves as "Old Catholics", a Shadow Sect which became the forerunner from R&R (Recognize and Resist) Groups. 

Utrecht Movement designate "any of the groups of Western Christians who believe themselves to maintain in complete loyalty the doctrine and traditions of the undivided church but who separated from the See of Rome after the First Vatican Council of 1869–70. 

St. Gertrude's Cathedral, Utrecht Sect Church

St. Gertrude's Cathedral from slant position

The expression of Utrecht Sect (who claim themselves as "Old Catholics") has been used from the 1850s - 1870s by communions separated from the Roman Catholic Church over certain doctrines, primarily concerned with papal authority and infallibility. Some of these groups, especially in the Netherlands, had already existed long before the term. The Old Catholic Church is separate and distinct from Traditionalist Catholicism.

The Utrecht sect was also influenced by the Churches in France, which sought to separate themselves from the authority of the Pope in Rome due to the interference of secular French leaders since the French Revolution on 1789-1799.

We can refer to the Gallican Church, which pressured Catholic priests in France to swear allegiance only to the French Emperor or French leaders like Napoleon Bonaparte and other French Consulates.

The Civil Constitution of the Clergy was passed and some of the support for this came from figures that were within the Church, such as the priest and parliamentarian Pierre Claude François Daunou, and, above all, the revolutionary priest Henri Grégoire, who was the first French Catholic priest to take the Obligatory Oath. 

And also from Netherland Background on 1580s, The northern provinces that revolted against the Spanish Netherlands and signed the 1579 Union of Utrecht, persecuted the Roman Catholic Church, confiscated church property, expelled monks and nuns from convents and monasteries, and made it illegal to receive the Catholic sacraments.  However, Catholicism did not die, rather priests and communities went underground. Groups would meet for the sacraments in the attics of private homes at the risk of arrest. Priests identified themselves by wearing all black clothing with very simple collars.

All the episcopal sees of the area, including that of Utrecht, had fallen vacant by 1580, because the Spanish crown, which since 1559 had patronal rights over all bishoprics in the Netherlands, refused to make appointments for what it saw as heretical territories, and the nomination of an apostolic vicar was seen as a way of avoiding direct violation of the privilege granted to the crown. The appointment of an apostolic vicar, the first after many centuries, for what came to be called the Holland Mission was followed by similar appointments for other Protestant-ruled countries, such as England, which likewise became mission territories. The disarray of the Roman Catholic Church in the Netherlands between 1572 and about 1610 was followed by a period of expansion of Roman Catholicism under the apostolic vicars, leading to Protestant protests.

The initial shortage of Roman Catholic priests in the Netherlands resulted in increased pastoral activity of religious clergy, among whom Jesuits formed a considerable minority, coming to represent between 10 and 15 percent of all the Dutch clergy in the 1600–1650 period. Conflicts arose between these, and the apostolic vicars and secular clergy. In 1629, there were 321 Roman Catholic priests in the United Provinces, 250 secular and 71 religious, with Jesuits at 34 forming almost half of the religious. By the middle of the 17th century, the secular priests were 442, the religious 142, of whom 62 were Jesuits.

The sixth apostolic vicar of the Dutch/Holland Mission, Petrus Codde, was appointed in 1688. In 1691, the Jesuits accused him of favouring the Jansenist heresy. Pope Innocent XII appointed a commission of cardinals to investigate the accusations against Codde. The commission concluded that the accusations were groundless. In 1702, Pope Clement XI deposed Codde, to which Codde obeyed.

While the religious clergy remained loyal to the Holy See, three-quarters of the secular clergy at first followed Codde, but by 1706 over two-thirds of these returned to Roman Catholic allegiance. Of the laity, the overwhelming majority sided with the Holy See. Thus, most Dutch Catholics remained in full communion with the pope and with the apostolic vicars appointed by him.

After Codde's resignation, the Diocese of Utrecht elected Cornelius Steenoven as bishop. The See of Utrecht declared the right to elect its own archbishop in 1724, after being accused of Jansenism. Following consultation with both canon lawyers and theologians in France and Germany, Dominique Marie Varlet, a Catholic bishop of the French Oratorian Society of Foreign Missions, consecrated Steenoven as a bishop without a papal mandate which considered as Illicit. What had been de jure autonomous became de facto an independent Catholic church. Although the pope was notified of all proceedings, the Holy See still regarded the diocese as vacant due to papal permission not being sought although their Bishops were Valid. The pope, therefore, continued to appoint apostolic vicars for the Netherlands. Steenoven and the other bishops were excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church, and thus began the "Old Catholic Church" in the Netherlands. Subsequent bishops were then appointed and ordained to the sees of Deventer, Haarlem and Groningen under the See of Utrecht in later years. (Source: Pruter, Karl (October 2006). The Old Catholic Church (3rd ed.). Wildside Press LLC. ISBN 9780912134413. Retrieved 25 April 2010.)

Due to prevailing anti-papal feeling among the powerful Dutch Calvinists, the Church of Utrecht was tolerated and even praised by the government of the Dutch Republic.

In 1853 Pope Pius IX received guarantees of religious freedom from King William II of the Netherlands and re-established the Roman Catholic hierarchy in the Netherlands. The Holy See considers the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Utrecht as the continuation of the episcopal see founded in the 7th century and raised to metropolitan status on 12 May 1559, thus not recognizing any legitimacy of Utrecht Sect "Old Catholics".

Utrecht Sect Priesthood Ordination which was Valid but Illicit

From what we see on their background (Utrecht Sect who rejected Papal Infallibility), we can conclude that their way is the First Step of Martin Luther before He founded the Protestantism. Luther recognized Roman Pontiff as Head of Church but can be fallible and then He must correct with his views to repair what's wrong with the Pope (For more know about Protestantism, see it : https://romancatholictraditional.blogspot.com/2025/04/catholic-church-with-council-of-trent.html?m=1 ) . Yes, that's same way between Utrecht Sect and Luther, ok although Utrecht Sect Priesthood Ordinations are still valid while Lutheranism is not because Utrecht Sect doesn't change form and matter for Priesthood Ordination Formula, but their way is same, Contra-Ultramontanism. (For more know about Invalidity of Protestant Ordinations, in discussing about Anglicanism, on Last Paragraphs, read it : https://romancatholictraditional.blogspot.com/2025/05/history-of-anglican-heretic-sect.html?m=1 ) 

"World Council of Churches" Masonry Heretic Organization

And this is not amazed that Utrecht Sect on Porvoo Communion and WCC, is Communion with Anglicans and Lutherans who were laymen at all. 

Utrecht Sect involvement in the multilateral ecumenical movement formally began with the participation of two bishops, from the Netherlands and Switzerland, at the Lausanne Faith and Order (F&O) conference (1927). 

           Lord Jesus gave a mandate to St. Peter for feed his sheeps

Lord Jesus asked to St. Peter, 

" He asked a third time, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was sad that Jesus asked him a third time, “Do you love me?” He replied, “Lord, you know everything; you know I love you.”

Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep. I assure you that when you were younger you tied your own belt and walked around wherever you wanted. When you grow old, you will stretch out your hands and another will tie your belt and lead you where you don’t want to go.” He said this to show the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. After saying this, Jesus said to Peter, “Follow me.” (John 21:17-19) 

When Jesus commanded it to Peter, of course The Lord gave an Protection including Supremacy and Infallibility to St. Peter to feed His Sheeps (True Followers of Jesus) so that they are freed from Error doctrines. 

Proof of papal infallibility from Tradition

One need not expect to find in the early centuries a formal and explicit recognition throughout the Church either of the primacy or of the infallibility of the pope in the terms in which these doctrines are defined by the Vatican Council. But the fact cannot be denied that from the beginning there was a widespread acknowledgment by other churches of some kind of supreme authority in the Roman pontiff in regard not only to disciplinary but also to doctrinal affairs. This is clear for example, from:

• Clement's Letter to the Corinthians at the end of the first century,
• the way in which, shortly afterwards, Ignatius of Antioch addresses the Roman Church;
• the conduct of Pope Victor in the latter half of the second century, in connection with the paschal controversy;
• the teaching of St. Irenaeus, who lays it down as a practical rule that conformity with Rome is a sufficient proof of Apostolicity of doctrine against the heretics (Adv. Haer., III, iii);
• the correspondence between Pope Dionysius and his namesake at Alexandria in the second half of the third century;
• and from many other facts that might be mentioned.

Even heretics recognized something special in the doctrinal authority of the pope, and some of them, like Marcion in the second century and Pelagius and Caelestius in the first quarter of the fifth, appealed to Rome in the hope of obtaining a reversal of their condemnation by provincial bishops or synods. And in the age of the councils, from Nicaea onwards, there is a sufficiently explicit and formal acknowledgment of the doctrinal supremacy of the Bishop of Rome.

St. Augustine, for example, voices the prevailing Catholic sentiment when in reference to the Pelagian affair he declares, in a sermon delivered at Carthage after the receipt of Pope Innocent's letter, confirming the decrees of the Council of Carthage: "Rome's reply has come: the case is closed" (Inde etiam rescripta venerunt: causa finita est. Serm. 131, c.x);

and again when in reference to the same subject he insists that "all doubt bas been removed by the letter of Pope Innocent of blessed memory" (C. Duas Epp. Pelag., II, iii, 5).

And what is still more important, is the explicit recognition in formal terms, by councils which are admitted to be ecumenical, of the finality, and by implication the infallibility of papal teaching.

Thus the Fathers of Ephesus (431) declare that they "are compelled" to condemn the heresy of Nestorius "by the sacred canons and by the letter of our holy father and co-minister, Celestine the Bishop of Rome."

Twenty years later (451) the Fathers of Chalcedon, after hearing Leo's letter read, make themselves responsible for the statement: "so do we all believe . . . Peter has spoken through Leo."

More than two centuries later, at the Third Council of Constantinople (680-681), the same formula is repeated: "Peter has spoken through Agatho."

After the lapse of still two other centuries, and shortly before the Photian schism, the profession of faith drawn up by Pope Hormisdas was accepted by the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870), and in this profession, it is stated that, by virtue of Christ's promise: "Thou art Peter, etc."; "the Catholic religion is preserved inviolable in the Apostolic See." (For know more, you can read about Pope St. Hormisdas against Theopaschism and made the Formula which was embraced by Holy Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Byzantine Schismatics, and Anglican Heretics as Foundation for Hypostatic Union : https://romancatholictraditional.blogspot.com/2024/11/pope-st-hormisdas-condemns-theopaschism.html ) 

Finally the reunion Council of Florence (1438-1445), repeating what had been substantially contained in the profession of faith of Michael Palaeologus approved by the Second Council of Lyons (1274), defined "that the holy Apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world; and that the Roman pontiff himself is the successor of the blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles and the true Vicar of Christ, and the head of the whole Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians, and that to him in blessed Peter the full power of feeding, ruling and governing the universal Church was given by our Lord Jesus Christ, and this is also recognized in the acts of the ecumenical council and in the sacred canons (quemadmodum etiam . . . continetur.

But, whether Pope can be Heretic? 

So, If we learned some cases like Antipope Laurentius, Antipope Ursicinus, Antipope Natalius, Antipope Novatian, case between John XII who was Bad Pope became Antipope and Antipope Leo VIII who became True Pope with Pope Benedict V, Cases Before Great Western Schism, Heretics are automatically Invalid to be Popes, this is viewed as null and void. They are viewed as Antipope or False popes. (For more information, you can read this cases : https://romancatholictraditional.blogspot.com/2025/08/case-of-antipope-laurentius-false-pope.html  and  https://romancatholictraditional.blogspot.com/2025/05/case-of-antipope-ursicinus-and-his.html ) 

And there are many cases about it. 

But, we can learn from many Church Doctors with Church's Magisterium Teaching :

Cardinal Thomas Cajetan

Thomas Cajetan said that for whom (de auctor. papae et con., cap. 20 et 21) the manifestly heretical Pope is “ipso facto” deposed, and must be deposed by the Church. For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is “ipso facto” deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus, c. 3), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate — which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ. 

This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope.

Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are “ipso facto” deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity. St. Cyprian (lib. 2, epist. 6) says: “We affirm that absolutely no heretic or schismatic has any power or right”; and he also teaches (lib. 2, epist. 1) that the heretics who return to the Church must be received as laymen, even though they have been formerly priests or bishops in the Church. St. Optatus (lib. 1 cont. Parmen.) teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, nor bind nor loose. St. Ambrose (lib. 1 de poenit., ca. 2), St. Augustine (in Enchir., cap 65), St. Jerome (lib. cont. Lucifer.) teach the same.

Pope St. Callixtus I

Pope St. Celestine I (epist. ad Jo. Antioch., which appears in Conc. Ephes., tom. I, cap. 19) wrote: “It is evident that he [who has been excommunicated by Nestorius] has remained and remains in communion with us, and that we do not consider destituted [i.e. deprived of office, by judgment of Nestorius], anyone who has been excommunicated or deprived of his charge, either episcopal or clerical, by Bishop Nestorius or by the others who followed him, after they commenced preaching heresy. For he who had already shown himself as deserving to be excommunicated, could not excommunicate anyone by his sentence.”

St. Thomas Aquinas

St. Nicholas I (epist. ad Michael) repeats and confirms the same. Finally, St. Thomas also teaches (S. Theol., II-II, q. 39, a. 3) that schismatics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and that anything they try to do on the basis of any jurisdiction will be null, includes to election of Patriarch amongst them. 

And then, at explanation above, Why Utrecht Sect is viewed as The Forerunner of R&R Groups? 

So, as true Catholics, we can understand the current situation, especially during the Great Apostasy, namely during the reigns of John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Francis, and Leo XIV. All of them were apostate antipopes who contradicted the Church itself doctrinally, in terms of Infallibility, Supremacy, Magisterium, and Tradition—all of which contradicted Roman Catholicism. (For know more, you can read Heresies of Vatican II sect : https://romancatholictraditional.blogspot.com/2025/05/is-second-vatican-council-catholic.html?m=1 ) 

Therefore, the correct position at this time is to believe that the See of Rome is currently vacant, given that the teachings of Vatican II are not Catholic. The Diocese of Utrecht is considered vacant not because of their ordination (since the form of ordination is correct, it remains valid), but because they do not recognize Papal Infallibility at the First Vatican Council or the True Vatican Council.

SSPX, Society of Saint Pius X, One of Biggest R&R Group in Traditionalist Core

"We face a great dilemma which, I believe, has never before occurred in the Church: he who sits on the Chair of Peter takes part in the worship of false gods. What conclusions we will have to draw, perhaps within a few months, in the face of these repeated acts of taking part in the worship of heretical religions, I do not know. But I do wonder. We may be forced to believe that  Pope is not The Pope." (Archbishop Lefebvre, Sermon, Easter 1986)

Archbishop Lefebvre is the only Bishop who is known to oppose Antipope John Paul II and Antipope Paul VI, and he is the one who is vocal in opposing them besides Cardinal Francis Spellman who is known to be Anti-LGBT in the United States because he condemned the Lesbian Bisexual Garbo Magazine, then there is Archbishop Ngo Ding Thuc and Bishop Acreibo named Bishop Alfredo Mendez Gonzalez, both Bishops who are the Heirs of the Apostolic Succession of the True Traditional Roman Catholic Group who adhere to the Church Position that is appropriate to the current conditions.

However, the main topic of discussion is the R&R group, which claims to be "Traditionalist," but in practice, they tend to follow the same principles as the Utrecht Sect, which asserts that the Pope is fallible and defective, and opposes and rejects the Council it initiated.

Archbishop Lefebvre and Pope Pius XII

Indeed, the difference between the SSPX and the Utrecht Sect and the Gallicans is that both the Gallicans and the Utrecht Sect lean pro-secularism, openly reject papal infallibility, even unite with Masons, promote the emancipation of women, and intervene in church politics. They advocate obedience to secular leaders, insisting that the Pope has no right to exercise Church power within a separate sovereign government. Even the First Vatican Council, which opposed Modernism, was opposed by the Gallicans, followers of Bonapartism and Utrecht.

However, the SSPX, which claims to accept the First Vatican Council as the true Vatican Council, is in practice contradictory and confused. It is not surprising that there are cases like Nine vs Lefebvre, where these 9 SSPX Priests preferred to continue the True Roman Catholic Church's Missions by following in the footsteps of two other Traditionalist Bishops such as Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc and Bishop Alfredo Mendez Gonzalez who were consecrated by Cardinal Spellman who already suspected John XXIII and Paul VI as infiltrators in the Church Hierarchy. (For more information about Paul VI as Antipope, please read it : https://romancatholictraditional.blogspot.com/2025/06/antipope-paul-vi-his-counter-church.html?m=1 and more Invalid Sacraments which He affected, you can read it : https://romancatholictraditional.blogspot.com/2025/06/problem-with-new-rites-of-vatican-ii.html?m=1 ) 

The SSPX's general view is that the Second Vatican Council was heretical, but  False pope who initiated it was still "the true Pope". This view is similar to the Utrecht Sect, which rejects the First Vatican Council but still considers the Pope in Rome to be valid, but can be resisted with the Utrecht Sect's arguments. This view is highly contradictory and non-Traditionalist if we examine the Church's dogma and doctrine regarding Papal Infallibility.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

Furthermore, the current high-ranking bishop in the SSPX, Bishop Fellay, in this case, differs even from the SSPX's initial vehement rejection of the Second Vatican Council. Fellay, the semi-modernist, ultimately accepted Vatican II, affirming 95% of its contents. Fellay also heretically taught a doctrine that was exactly the same as the Novus Ordo that Pagan Hindus could be saved and strangely, Fellay taught that a one-year catechumenate for baptismal candidates was a common and normal thing, which is a form of postponing baptism that is contrary to the Magisterium and Tradition of the Church. (For more know about why Delay of Baptism is not same with Baptism of Desire, you can read it : https://romancatholictraditional.blogspot.com/2025/07/baptism-of-desire-is-suitable-with.html?m=1 ) 

But, there are some complications from Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre himself, in fact, Lefebvre is closer to Sedevacantism on his views although He is not Sedevacantist truly. Fr. Anthony Cekada (former SSPX who embraced the True Position of Catholic Church) explained it on this video on Youtube:

https://youtu.be/DqgcCujfQF0?si=5vyUu9wa158YPa8z 

So, from last conclusion, SSPX now is fallen to Some Heresies and Schismatic position which is similar with Utrecht Sect and other Independent groups who claims themselves as "Catholics" but resist to The True Vatican Council (1869-1870).