SSPX Bp. Fellay about Summorum Pontificum

VOTE FOR WDTPRSBenedict XVI is the Pope of Christian Unity.

SSPX Bp. Bernard Fellay has issued some interesting observations in the form of Q&A.

Here are his observations about Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.  They are on the site of the SSPX in the USA.

My emphases (except for the questions) and comments.

The Motu Proprio Effect: Part 2

14. Your Excellency, do you think that the Motu Proprio, despite its deficiencies, is a step toward restoring Tradition?

It is a step of capital importance. You could even call it an essential step, even though so far it has had practically no effect, or very little, because there is massive opposition by the bishops. At the juridical level, the Motu Proprio has recognized that the old law, the one pertaining to the traditional Mass, had never been abrogated: this is a step of capital importance in restoring Tradition to its place. [So, if it should be weakened in some way, that weakening would have serious repercussions for the SSPX.  That would send bad a signal.  It is hard to imagine that, of all things, Benedict would allow that to happen.]

15. Practically speaking, have you seen across the world any important changes on the part of the bishops concerning the traditional Mass since the Motu Proprio?

No. A few here and there who obey the Pope, but they are rare.

16. How about the priests?

Yes, I see a lot of interest on their part, but many of them are persecuted. It takes extraordinary courage simply to dare to apply the Motu Proprio as it was worded; and of course, yes, there are more and more priests, [every day more] especially in the younger generations, who are interested in the traditional Mass. It is very encouraging!

17. Are there communities that have decided to adopt the old liturgy?

There may be several, but there is one that we know about, in Italy, the community of the Franciscans of the Immaculate, which has decided to return to the old liturgy; in the women’s branch it has already been done. For the priests who are involved in ministry in the dioceses, it is not so easy. [It is quite hard.  Greater numbers of priests would help in this regard.  Pray for vocations.]

18. What advice do you give to Catholics who, since and thanks to the Motu Proprio, now have a traditional Mass closer to them than a chapel of the Society of St. Pius X?

My advice to them is to ask the priests of the Society for advice first, not to go with their eyes closed to just any traditional Mass that is celebrated nearby. The Mass is a treasure; but there is also a way of saying it, and everything that goes with it: the sermon, the catechesis, the way of administering the sacraments… Not every traditional Mass is necessarily accompanied by the conditions required for it to bear all its fruits and to protect the soul from the dangers of the current crisis. Therefore ask the priests of the Society for advice first.  [Of course there are great benefits of actually being in unity with Peter, manifestly, and with the bishop.  There are benefits to going to priests who have faculties.  I think he says this partly because he knows that more people want to be in unity with the Pope and with the local bishop.]

19. The liturgy is not the basis of the crisis in the Church. Do you think that the return of the (traditional) Liturgy is always the start of a return to the integrity of the Faith?

The traditional Mass has an absolutely extraordinary power of grace. You see it in the apostolic work, you see it especially in the priests who come back to it: it is truly the antidote to the crisis. It is really very powerful, at all levels. At the level of grace, at the level of faith…. I think that if the old Mass were allowed to be truly free, the Church could emerge rather quickly from this crisis, but it would still take several years! [This is overly sanguine, but it is pretty much on target.  A revitalization of the Church's worship is indispensable.  It is the tip of the speak.  It is the vital component to any rebuilding.  It is the sine qua non.  The older form of Mass must help us to continuity with our Catholic way of worship and therefore our Catholic identity.]

20. For a long time the Pope has been speaking about “the reform of the reform”. Do you think that he hopes to try to reconcile the old liturgy with the teaching of Vatican II in a reform that would be a middle term? [I think the questioner is driving at a kind of "tertium quid".]

Listen, at the moment we know nothing about it! We know that he wants this reform, but where that reform is headed? Will everything eventually be blended together, “the ordinary form” and “the extraordinary form”?  That is not what we find in the Motu Proprio, [Notice that he avoids anything negative about Summorum Pontificum.] which requires us to distinguish the two “forms” and not to mix them: this is very wise. We have to wait and see; for the moment let us stick to what the Roman authorities say.

Yes.  Let is wait and see what the Roman authorities say.

I found Bp. Fellay’s tone and observations to be balanced.  I also believe he is on target with most of what he says here.

This Q&A was done in this month of February.

Can Fellay’s comments here be anything other than a carefully measured comment to the “Roman authorities”, especially in regard to an upcoming “Instruction” about Summorum Pontificum?

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity, Pope of Christian Unity, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, The future and our choices and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to SSPX Bp. Fellay about Summorum Pontificum

  1. palecap says:

    I am no partisan of the SSPX but I must agree with Bp Fellay. I know a few diocesan priests who either say the EF or want to, and I’d be afraid! Altar girls, feel-good sermons, sloppy rubrics and so forth. These priests are usually young and lack proper training in the Tradition. But better not done at all than done very badly, especially when it comes to the divine worship.

  2. Geoffrey says:

    Two things:

    (1) Fellay speaks of “restoring Tradition” with a capital “T”. Isn’t there a difference between “Sacred Tradition” and “tradition”?

    (2) “…for the moment let us stick to what the Roman authorities say.”

    I am absolutely stunned to see the head of the SSPX say something like this! Perhaps unity CAN be achieved!

  3. Tominellay says:

    …encouraging words…

  4. paulbailes says:

    Dear Geoffrey,

    I’m glad you’re happy at this news, but I must say that for anyone familiar with the SSPX and Bp. Fellay, his words are what you’d expect i.e. reasonable. May I respectfully enquire as to the basis for your adverse opinion of them? Do you have any personal experience, or just what some elements of the “Catholic” media tell you?

    Rgds
    Paul

  5. steve jones says:

    Fr. Z is surely exaggerating the ‘success’ of the SP. [You exaggerate my exaggeration. I have always said that progress is being made and that the progress is slow. So, you either don't know what I have been saying because you are new here or you ignored what I say for your own purposes.] The accompanying letter to Bishops which the Pope was forced to write [?] has more or less wrecked the initiative from the start. It was straight post-conciliar: 2 + 2 may equal 4 in one document and than, in exceptional cases, the same sum may equal 5 in another …

    Momentum has now gone from this project. [You are wrong about that, at least in the USA.] Without a radical shift in the secular World and some return to ‘tradition’ within the secular context (whatever that means for secularists?), both the SP and the Church itself will continue to decline. [Jesus said that hell would not prevail in the end. He didn't say it wouldn't prevail where we live.] By that is meant Church leaders will continue to see their role as ‘managers’ and in so doing mirror the same decline managment techniques of Western secular leaders. Bishops conferences even have cabinets with individual ordinaries in possession of a ‘portfolio’ in defiance of the Pope’s wishes, [How does a bishop's conference having a committee to study, for example, immigration, constitute defiance of the Pope's wishes?] contrary itself to tradition and mimicking the structure of secular government.

  6. Joseph-Mary says:

    Yes, the Franciscans of the Immaculate are incorporating the EF at all their friaries. At least in one case, it is the only form now celebrated but here in the US, most friaries offer the Holy Sacrifice with both forms.

    Here is GOOD news: my own pastor is calling together a meeting of all those interested in the EF next week! He may agree to learn how to offer this form! Deo Gratias!

  7. Haec Dies says:

    I attend the SSPX masses in the northeast US but also occasionally attend the local “indult mass” . The priest who offers the Mass is very old and frail. This is what I witnessed the last time that I attended the indult Mass. Fr. X proceeded to offer Mass up to the epistle. Then a second priest dressed in modern stole and alb came to read the epistle and gradual while Fr. X sat at the sedilia. Fr. X sat while the other priest read the gospel. Then Fr. X gave a short sermon. Following this Fr.X and the other priest went back to the altar and continued to offer Mass. When it came time for the priests communion Fr. X consummed the precious body but the other priest consummed the precious blood.
    For some time before Fr. X was sick he would flip flopped on the readings sometimes reading the epistle and gospel in english at the altar and ommiting the gradual altogether.
    I see what Bishop Fellay is speaking about when he cautions about being very sensitive to just any Latin Mass.
    One could argue that there were extnuating circumstances for Fr. X to act and do things the way he does but you get my drift.

  8. Glen M says:

    We need to pray every day for the Pope and the Usus Antiquior as souls are at stake. There are wolves in sheep’s clothing in the Vatican and our individual dioceses. These people fear the UA as it represents obedience to a higher office. Many OF parishes have customized the Mass to their liking along with Church teachings. Let’s pray for Christian unity and the souls of our fallen away Catholics, those in the pews on Sunday and those who stay home.

  9. Andy Milam says:

    I think that Bishop Fellay is right on the mark. His view is balanced and it is fair. I gained a lot of respect for him, not that I didn’t have a lot before…

    I have a ferverent prayer for reconciliation…..

  10. Maltese says:

    Excellent! Without repeating what Bishop Fellay has already said, I’m almost disinclined to comment–though not entirely :)

    First, without FSSPX, there wouldn’t have been an indult, there wouldn’t have been Ecclessia Dei, there wouldn’t be FSSP, there wouldn’t be Summorum Pontificum, and many, many other benefits–shall I say ‘graces’–in the Church. I know, I know, the refrain “disobedience,” and the idea that God can bring “good from evil” (as, I think, Erasamus put it best.) But, I’ll tell you (and despite their faults) at the few FSSPX masses I’ve been to (and I’m not a ‘member’ and usually go to a novus disordo mess) there is extreme beauty, extraordinary devotion, large families, and obedience (yes, obedience) at these chapels.

    Second, we truly are in a crisis of unprecedented proportion. To think otherwise is to indulge in foolishness. If one thinks of the priestly shortage, the near absence of the faithful at mass on any given sunday, the near total disregard of the Body of Christ and His Blood, the fact that ‘catholics’ abort as frequently (sometimes more frequently) than even atheists, the fact that when one thinks of a Catholic, often, they are left with an impression in their brain cells of Pelosi, Kerry or U. Notre Dame…one can go on, and on. So, let’s at least admit we’re in an unprecedented crisis.

    Now this is very true: “The traditional Mass has an absolutely extraordinary power of grace. You see it in the apostolic work, you see it especially in the priests who come back to it…” This Mass, this ancient prayer (indeed, the Mass IS the greatest prayer–the Old Mass, I mean) is a thing of extraordinary grace; St. Basil says the liturgy is a thing of grace on-par (though subservient) to the Gospels themselves. The Old Mass took almost 2,000 years to form (versus the Concilium which slapped-together the novus in a few years). But, it is true that the Mass is just the ‘tip of the spear’ or iceberg, as one would have it. True Doctrine is the real issue. But, as Felley says, the True Mass can lead to True Doctrine…

  11. Giambattista says:

    Like some other posters, I am also a very big fan of Bishop Fellay. He is the right person to be leading the SSPX at this time. I agree with what he is saying, especially in regard to the “massive opposition by the bishops”.

    I believe the next few weeks are going to be critical for the Church (i.e. release of the SP clarification). Like Fr. Z, I can’t imagine that the Holy Father would allow a “clarifying” document to trash the intention of SP. The stakes are just too high. I don’t think the Church is going to have another chance to fix this mess.

  12. RMT says:

    I think that, at least in part, this statement has the potential to be damaging and seeding the disunion between the SSPX and the Magisterium…

    Consider this scenario: A local parish begins the TLM under SP, and he may be very enthusiastic about it, but maybe puts something out of order because it is the first or second time he is saying the Mass. The person who went to the diocesan Mass may be a Catholic under Rome, but have been frequenting the SSPX in the past because there were no other TLMs around to go to. If they notice the mistake–maybe something sounds just a little different than at the SSPX Mass, Fellay’s advice has them going to the SSPX priest to find out if it’s ok to continue going to the diocesan TLM that is being offered.

    Here’s where I can see major harm being done. Maybe 99 out of 100 of the SSPX priests will give good advice in this scenario and explain what might have occured, but there are still some in the SSPX who see themselves as a type of Magisterium who can judge the local Church in union with Rome. This could entrench the people within the SSPX even more against the true Magisterium.

  13. Mike says:

    I like Fellay’s comments too. I think re-sacralization of the liturgy, and hence, the life of Catholics is the way out of this mess. I have only attended, say, a dozen EF Masses, and the hours immediately after those Masses, in general, tend to be interesting. Perhaps this is just me, but everything is more manifestly sacred, more evident of God’s infinite goodness, ordinary life becomes more of what it is, a ray of Divine Splendor. And how is this? The really powerful, solemn, sacred action of the Liturgy lets this reality sink into one’s being. I have nothing against the NO Mass, for as Martin Mosebach has said, it can be offered by a priest with a heart “shaped by Tradition”. But the EF really makes this effect felt more, even as I realize Grace is normally not something we feel.

    By the way, most the EFs I have attended are at St. John the Beloved parish, McLean, VA.

  14. ray from mn says:

    I’m praying that the rumors of the pullback from the Summorum Pontificum will turn out to be just like the rumors in 1967-68 that Pope Paul VI would authorize contraception for married Catholics.

    Many of those who detest the EF Mass are probably also those who supported the “pill” in 1968. And like all rebels, they only talk to each other, so they think they are more powerful than they really are.

  15. Young Canadian RC Male says:

    “18. What advice do you give to Catholics who, since and thanks to the Motu Proprio, now have a traditional Mass closer to them than a chapel of the Society of St. Pius X?”

    “My advice to them is to ask the priests of the Society for advice first, not to go with their eyes closed to just any traditional Mass that is celebrated nearby…”

    It is this reponse in the posting that makes me still critical of “Bishop” Fellay in the SSPX and the whole organization. In a nutshell, to me that’s the open window to them telling their doctrine and beliefs to the innocent TLM seeker. Everytime you read something of his, doesn’t one feel like he is using double speak saying “Yes, Yes, Rome is Good and so is B16″ when in reality the subtext is “They are not the true Church of Christ, but a mere shell with false theology and doctrine thanks to Vatican II. The True Church of Christ is found in SSPX?” Really, his manner of speech sounds like that of a slick politician e.g. a more poised and polished Dalton McGuinty, but for the ultra-trad side. Fellay is also not stupid, he knows that B16 is using the nulled excommunications and SP to lure SSPX and other ultra-trads back in Communion with Rome, but Fellay doesn’t want to give up that easily, hence dragging on useless “negotiations.” Once again, until the Vatican says yea or nea to them, they are not fully canonical with Rome and their Masses and sacraments are questionable to licitness. I personally won’t go till B16 or Hoyos or the CDF says OK.

    And SSPX still bashes Vatican II. This was their Convictions magazine latest article where once again SSPX keeps bashing the council and the summative message the reader gets is “it’s flat out “wrong”: http://www.sspx.ca/Convictions/2010/CV_27_Pivotal_Point.pdf .

    Look we get the message: SSPX believes in the “smoke of Satan” message of Paul VI. That was 40+ years ago. around the time I was born. The new generation is waking up and we aren’t stupid. Yes we realize that Vatican II was great theoretically, but the implementators really failed. They gave into liberalism, modernism, and feminism (the philosophically bankrupt anti-Trinity) and it got down to the masses. It banished or made rare many Church traditions and tore apart much in the Chruch, especially catechesis of the Laity. However, those of us that are in the know do look up things using the technologies we have and we know what the Magisterium says about SSPX from Ecclesia Dei. If SSPX really want to help us bring back the Church to orthodoxy, the barriers must stop being erected and SSPX has to start realizing the power and respect they will have when they become in full communion with Rome, that is to the Catholics who aren’t secular, small “c” catholics and have essentially left the church in spirit and possibly fully. Believe us, we want to participate in their efforts and their TLMs and their communities, but we know who’s in charge and we respect their authority.

    So, everyone, SSPX supporter or not, before you begin to demand 4o lashes from me, the one thing we can to together is pray to Christ for the full restoration of his beautiful TLM, and for SSPX to be in full communion with Rome for the sake of the faithful.

  16. kgurries says:

    The more interesting part seems to be the first dealing with the doctrinal discussions. It sounds like the doctrinal discussions are just about over (near conclusion) — and apparently neither side has changed its position. Rome apparently wanted to discussions in order to resolve the “doctrinal problems” with the SSPX. The SSPX wanted the discussion in order to “witness” the true Faith to Rome — to “make the Catholic Faith understood in Rome.” [strong statement!!!] Question 7 dealt with the so-called “contradiction” [i.e., rupture] represented by the teachings of Vatican II — that “Rome” supposedly can’t or won’t see. Pope Benedict’s hermeneutic of continuity apparently is not convincing enough…

    At least the respective positions should be more clearly understood after this exercise. I wonder what next steps we will see from this…but I don’t think we can expect canonical regularization in the very near future.

    Also, I found Question 12 to be a little problematic in its formulation — since it lumps Bishop Schneider together with Msgr. Gherardini in “producing genuine critiques of the documents of Vatican II.” In fact the former (Bishop Schneider) only critiques the erroneous interpretation and application of the documents of Vatican II. Bishop Schneider calls for a new Syllabus of errors to correct the false interpretations and mis-applications.

    Msgr. Gherardini’s views are summarized here: http://opuscula.blogspot.com/2010/08/msgr-gherardini-on-vatican-ii.html

    Bishop Schneider’s views are summarized here: http://opuscula.blogspot.com/2011/01/new-syllabus-of-errors.html

    and further analyzed here in response to certain objections: http://opuscula.blogspot.com/2011/02/on-misinterpretations-and.html

  17. Supertradmum says:

    Geoffrey,

    You asked a question about Tradition. Yes, there is a difference concerning Sacred Tradition, which includes, among other things, the Teaching Magisterium of the Church, and tradition. Sacred Tradition and Scripture are the two pillars of our Church and what we call the “Deposit of Faith”. The Protestants decided to throw out Sacred Tradition, for the most part. Here is a quotation from Dei Verbum, which has a long discussion on Tradition: “It is clear, therefore, that Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.”

    As to tradition with a small t, that is more custom, as in the discussion last week about women wearing head coverings or in the manner in which we address priests, as Father Z or Father John. Sometimes tradition with a small t becomes law and sometimes not. Many years ago, some liberal theologians, including Father McBrien, wanted to attack the Church’s infallibility regarding contraception by stating that the Church has changed Her Teaching on usury, which is still a sin as defined by the Church. Of course, the argument was faulty on McBrien’s part. This argument brought up discussions on “Tradition” and “tradition” in an attempt to undermine the authority of the Church, stating either that the Church was not infallible concerning contraception, or that the new era needed new traditions, new customs. You can see the faults of this logic. Sacred Tradition is usually in the form of encyclicals, such as Humanae Vitae, or Council declarations, or statements “from the Chair of Peter” even via another author, such as Dominus Jesus, promulgated by Pope John Paul II through then, Cardinal Ratzinger.

    Bishop Fellay’s use of the word seems fine to me. By the way, our Orthodox brothers and sisters use the term Holy Tradition in place of the Roman Catholic Church’s term, Sacred Tradition.

  18. kgurries says:

    Young Canadian, I like your suggestion to pray. The stumbling block is treated in part one (doctrinal discussions). I suspect that the SSPX already considers themselves to be in full communion. Their objective for the discussion is to witness to the true Faith — so that it can be understood in Rome. There still seems to be quite a disconnect.

  19. M.D.R. says:

    Bp. Fellay said…”It takes extraordinary courage to dare to apply Motu Proprio as it was worded….”

    No, not always. Sometimes, maybe. Actually, its not only the more conservative bishops who felt more comfortable accommodating those who in their diocese who wanted a regular TLM offered with the Motu Proprio, but even some liberal bishops have allowed it, too. It’s more a case that Motu Proprio gave them guidelines as to how to go about it, with the approval from Rome. Of course, now some here will now chime in with comments about how their bishop is not allowing a regular TLM. Of course it’s not offered in every diocese as yet. It takes time, prayer, and energy.

    Regarding what Bp. Fellay said regarding asking the Society first for advice, well, this is just my opinion, and others here will likely get upset react strongly, but I think that the SSPX is losing business to the diocesan-approved TLMs.

    Why else would the fraternities and institutes of priests, who offer diocesan-approved TLMs, be referred to by the SSPX as being demonic in a recent SSPX article titled, “1,000 soldiers fall to the left, 10,000 to the right.”

    “They are legion” ……This is how the SSPX describes the brave priests who offer the diocesan-approved TLMs in the article, which is reprehensible.

  20. Jerry says:

    @Maltese:

    First, without FSSPX, there wouldn’t have been an indult, there wouldn’t have been Ecclessia Dei, there wouldn’t be FSSP, there wouldn’t be Summorum Pontificum, and many, many other benefits–shall I say ‘graces’–in the Church.

    Think carefully about what you said: that the Holy Spirit couldn’t, or wouldn’t, have used some other means to achieve the end, if that was God’s will? The former is an outright blasphemy, the latter an unproveable supposition.

    What you say may indeed be true; however, we have no way to know. It’s also possible that some or all of these may have occurred sooner, perhaps even much sooner, had the Holy Father not had to deal with the implications of (appearing to) give in to the dissidents.

  21. St. Louis IX says:

    @ Maltese:
    I think history has proved your statement to be accurate.

    @ Jerry:
    I think your are quite wrong with your statement {The former is outright blasphemy}. Jerry you have no way to know whether or not the Holy Ghost was at work in the outcome that history now bears witness to. Cetainly there may have been other ways to bring us to where we are now, perhaps better? perhaps worse.

    I think the Holy Father has already gone a long way in removing scandal from the past actions of the SSPX and ArchBishop Lefebrve.

    I have never attended an SSPX Chapel or Mass, but I have read a fair amount of history, concering their actions., and in light of the Holy father lifting their excommunications. I feel(in good concience) I owe them a certain amount of gratitude for being able to worship as my Catholic Forefathers did.
    I attend the TLM and thank God for it!

  22. catholicuspater says:

    I agree with your analysis, Fr. Z.

  23. Geoffrey says:

    paulbailes said: “May I respectfully enquire as to the basis for your adverse opinion of them? Do you have any personal experience, or just what some elements of the “Catholic” media tell you?”

    Actually I base my opinion on their actions, i.e. consecrating bishops against the express wish of the Vicar of Christ, as well as on their own publications (their website, for example, and their prayerbook “Christian Warfare”, which lists attending the “Novus Ordo” as a sin that needs to be confessed in Confession.

    Supertradmum: Thank you! I figured that was it but the capitalization of the “T” threw me off… and it was quite late when I was reading it!

  24. Geoffrey says:

    “First, without FSSPX, there wouldn’t have been an indult, there wouldn’t have been Ecclessia Dei, there wouldn’t be FSSP, there wouldn’t be Summorum Pontificum, and many, many other benefits–shall I say ‘graces’–in the Church.”

    That’s like praising Martin Luther for the Council of Trent and all its fruits.

  25. BobP says:

    “It is quite hard. Greater numbers of priests would help in this regard. Pray for vocations.”

    A weakening of the SP would probably hurt the urge to study Latin. And just when it was starting to make a comeback.

  26. chcrix says:

    I like what the Bishop has to say.

    Surprisingly perhaps, Bishop Williamson said something charitable about V2 recently in a comment about “Of Gods and Men”:

    “Much the best of all is heartful Tradition, but this film is there to remind us Traditionalists that heartful Conciliarism may yet please God better than Tradition losing heart.”

  27. steve jones says:

    Father thanks for taking the time to respond my post.

    You first set of ‘red’ takes issue with my interpretation of what constitutes the success of the SP which I respect. You also question my not unreasonable assertion that the Pope felt compelled to write an accompanying letter to bishops. Yet you yourself deconstructed (famously) a response by the Bishop of Leeds to the SP. An episcopal response that took full of advantage of the accompanying letter to mitigate the impact of the SP. That was ALWAYS the intention of the letter. The SP was compromised from the start and I simply expressed the view that the Pope came under pressure from bishops to produce the letter which they could then use à la Roche .

    As for the 2nd and 3rd of your interventions fine. Your last however is surprising. Pope Benedict has written extensively about the failure of episcopal conference model. It has no precedent in Church history and is simply not Catholic. In his document “Fit for Mission”, the emeritus Bishop of Lancaster makes exactly the same point.

  28. Sam Urfer says:

    “But better not done at all than done very badly, especially when it comes to the divine worship.”

    Sed contra, “if a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly,” as Chesterton so aptly put it. If we wait for people being able to do everything perfectly, nothing will ever happen.

  29. Bornacatholic says:

    Dear Maltese. I think that for the most part you are right. Clearly, Pope Paul VI made a prudential error in forcing the new rite upon the vast, vast, vast (over 97% is the number I am making-up on the spot) Christian Catholics who had no desire to see the Mass changed and protestantised.

    I too think that were it not for the SSPX, there would have been no admission from Rome that the Traditional Mass had not been abrogated and were it not for The SSPX and the Internet I do not think there would have been as many young Priests and Seminarians interested in the Traditional Mass as there are now.

    Because the SSPX has produced objective, identifiable, orthodox fruit I do not see how it can be said the Holy Ghost was not somehow a force in its establishment, existence, and movement back towards Rome.

    I do hope, and pray, to God that a reconciliation occurs asap. Our Holy Father and Bishop Fellay can, please God, get this done – and I can then get me to the local SSPX Chapel and ditch the nonsense that masquerades as Catholic Mass in my area.

    Reconcile the SSPX now; like yesterday and LEAVE THEM ALONE. Vatican Two was not a Dogmatic Council and there were significant numbers of Bishops who did not sign one or more of the Documents and they were allowed to depart the Council in unity with the Pope so why are the SSPX still not reconciled?

    Fear of Tradition.

    Reconcile The SSPX and then stand back and let the Holy Ghost grow them into a magnificent Order.