Within the prevailing Subjective vs. Objective mindset, I hate the word "tolerance". I guess that makes me intolerant. Words have meanings, so whenever someone begins to spout the word "tolerance" at me, I look back to the common meaning, not withstanding what St. Thomas might say or others more skilled in thought than myself.
A typical definition of "tolerance"
tol·er·ance
ˈtäl(ə)rəns/
noun
noun: tolerance
1.
the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.
"the tolerance of corruption"
synonyms: acceptance, toleration;
Therefore, putting the word into its common definition and meaning, "tolerance" asks people to accept the opinions or behavior of others but not necessarily agree with those opinions.
My problem with modern discussion of tolerance is this. It presumes subjective truth, not objective. It presumes your "opinion" has the same equal footing as truth as held by the Tradition of the Church, the Doctors of the Church, the teaching of the Saints. Moreover, it presumes there is no real baseline for truth, but one's own conscience and sense of what truth is.
Tolerance is fine when it comes to discussing one's favorite color or make of automobile. ice cream, and especially in areas of racial acceptance. In matters of faith, any discussion of "tolerance" comes from the pit of hell. Religious liberty is all about this. Tolerance means I agree that YOUR religion is valid for YOU if that best fits your belief system. I will tolerate your version of faith, therefore, because out of charity, I must do so.
In the event the SSPX agrees to any "tolerance" type of agreement, the Society will be subjectively accepting evil versus objective truth. Personally, myself and my family will not follow that bus that heads towards the cliff to literal hell. We individually are responsible for the future of our own souls. There can be no tolerance of evil, period.