WDTPRS POLL: Will the SSPX leadership sign/accept the CDF’s “Preamble”?

Please choose your answer and give your reasons in the combox below.

Will the SSPX leadership sign/accept the CDF's "Preamble"?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in POLLS and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Andy Milam says:


    Seriously…the SSPX is getting everything they want, from the way it sounds AND it really sounds like +Fellay wants to sign this.

    If I were to lay odds, I would say this… 80-20 to the Yea.

    It’s about to be all over, on one front…I can’t wait, personally.

  2. Rich says:

    I voted “Yes” in hope.

  3. tecumseh says:

    I voted yes . . .I’ve said for ages that the deal was done ages ago . . .but everybody has to be seen taking a part . . so the rosary crusades, talks etc . . . the biggest problem now will be getting the priests out of the ghetto . . .some are way too comfortable preaching to the converted every week . . .there is a world wide church to un-wreck . . .they cant do that and stay in the nice warm ghetto . . .!!!

  4. CaliCatholicGuy says:

    Yes, I believe so. I don’t think the time will be any better in the future- the Holy Father (long may he reign) will not be reigning forever, there is no guarantee the next pontiff will be as receptive and merciful to the SSPX position. Assuming the preamble allows the SSPX to discuss / argue points of contention about the understanding of Vatican II and it’s subsequent ‘spirit of’ and setting up a ordinariate or personal prelature

  5. CaliCatholicGuy says:

    Continued… : I doubt the SSPX will ever get a better deal. Sorry for the misfire- large fingers on a iPhone tend to hit the wrong button!

  6. avyanez says:

    I hope so. There is a SSPX Chapel nearby I would like to attend. It is much closer than the FSSP parish that is 60 miles away.

  7. Glen M says:

    Yes, because they both need each other (one more so).

  8. Jason says:

    I hope so as well. I’m in the same boat as you are, avyanez. Having to travel far to attend Mass, it’s very difficult to establish any sort of a parish life. There is a nice SSPX Chapel just a few miles away from my house. I’ve been there twice but I think I’d like to go regularly.

  9. I’m saying yes because, although I’m not insider and don’t have any special insight, I do know that there’s been an enormous amount of prayer towards an imminent resolution. I agree with all comments I’ve seen so far.
    Should the reconciliation happen, I will go visit the SSPX chapel in my city to celebrate. I’ll continue to attend FSSP Masses most often though. :P

  10. Brian2 says:

    I voted “No” but I hope I am wrong. I can’t say exactly why I don’t think they will take it. I think it is something in the tone of SSPX. Comparing the words of the SSPX leadership with that of Anglicans looking into the Ordinariate… the Anglicans seem to like Rome a lot more than SSPX

  11. anj says:

    Yes, the leadership will sign…

    …but the society will split. The only question will be the percentages of the split.

  12. Centristian says:

    Without knowing what is actually in this preamble it’s really difficult to say, of course, but I voted “no”. Just a guess. I suppose since I don’t know what’s in the preamble, my “no” is a “no” to the notion that this one document will positively resolve the whole thing once and for all. That would seem impossible given the staggering complexity of the situation. It might shake things up and cause individuals within the “SSPX” to take sides. Possibly. Will it end the whole mess? No, I don’t believe it will.

  13. Jason Keener says:

    I have a feeling that the Preamble is somewhat basic in its doctrinal statements, so the SSPX will probably sign it, thanks be to God.

  14. Josephus Muris Saliensis says:

    We must accept the power of prayer, of all the rosaries, said by people on both ‘sides’, of the prayers of the Holy Father, these have moved mountains before, and if we offer them wholeheartedly, they will now, for the good and unity of the Church.

  15. Jason Keener says:

    I also forgot to mention that we should be very thankful for Pope Benedict XVI. While he shares his views clearly, he usually seems to make room also for those who want to offer their legitimate criticisms of a particular theological issue. I think this approach of Pope Benedict comes out in his Jesus of Nazareth books and his other theological writings as well. It is important, I think, to realize that this Pope is very fair-minded and is open to a diversity of opinion on matters that are not strictly defined matters of the Catholic Faith.

  16. tonyballioni says:

    I voted yes, because I think the developments suggest this, and because I want more traditional priests other than the FSSP. At least the SSPX gives a damn about something other than the TLM. They might be in schism/not full union with Rome/whatever you want to call it, but they at least don’t make the Extaordinary form into something like an idol, which is something that I often times see with FSSP priests

  17. flyfree432 says:

    Like a few others here I don’t have a good sense that they will sign it. I hope they do, and I hope it doesn’t cause another Protestant-like split in their organization when it happens, but the Holy See seems to be giving them everything and asking little. If it is signed and they are eventually reconciled I wonder how obedient they will be from within.

  18. teomatteo says:

    Yes. I believe they will sign. When these seperations go on to another generation and then another before you know it, its a Millenium! So for the sake of the many generations to come signing is where the Holy Spirit is directing. Just my simple(ico) thought.

  19. Mrs McG says:

    I heard Bsp. Fellay speak at ordinations this June. I say “no.”

  20. Gregg the Obscure says:

    I agree with other commenters that some (most?) SSPX officials and adherents will agree to the preamble while others won’t so in turn some (most?) SSPX will reconcile and, sadly, some (I hope and pray it’s very very few indeed) will remain in irregular status.

    The establishment of a clear minimal precondition seems to be a very reasonable approach. If some SSPX can’t accept the barest minimum, then further discussion would be futile. I understand the need for the document to be confidential at present, but I would love to see what’s in it.

  21. bminer says:

    There is a reason why SSPX was founded in the first place, and their schism (which word I use without prejudice) is at the heart of their Society. I’ve yet to hear Fellay et al. explain what has changed in the Church since the 70s — when the Society began— or since 1988 — when JP2 offered them a way back — that would make reconciliation palatable to them. SSPX is now almost 40 years old, and I suspect their endurance has a momentum that is almost by definition set against reconciliation. For all I know, we might as well be speculating about the conversion of Islam to Roman Catholicism.

  22. Marc says:

    Better yet, what do you think FR. Z? Yes or no….please tell!

  23. Mundabor says:

    Honestly, I can’t imagine the preamble not being agreed with, and/or previously approved from, at least the top echelons of the SSPX.


  24. RickMK says:

    I hope they will and I think it is a real possibility. The only thing I can see standing in the way now is that I suspect that there are some people in the SSPX who are either not rational men or are really evil men, who may succeed in blocking it. I’m hoping the agreement is reached both because it would be a great thing to have the SSPX in the Church to increase the numbers of those legitimately working toward the restoration of tradition, and also because it could help toward clarifying the real status of Vatican II.

  25. Geoffrey says:

    It’s hard to say one way or the other without reading the document myself. However, I voted no. The SSPX has always believed that they don’t need Rome, but that Rome needs them. Rome would say otherwise. I hope the SSPX says yes, but I can’t see how given all their disobedient actions and nonsensical anti-Vatican II, anti-new Mass , anti-Blessed John Paul the Great literature, etc.

  26. mrsmontoya says:

    I am not voting, it is such an important thing, yet out of our hands, that I am instead praying fervently.

  27. GregH says:

    I want to hear the wisdom of Henry Edwards.

  28. Legisperitus says:

    +Fellay has been saying, since several years ago, that the SSPX asked for three things before discussing regularization: First, the freedom of the traditional Mass; second, the lifting of the excommunications; and third, the doctrinal discussions. Everything has been done by Rome exactly in accordance with that road map. Why would the Pope go so far down that road, and court such controversy in certain circles, only to present the SSPX with a document he knew they would not sign? If it isn’t acceptable to them in its present form, I suspect it would only need some minor clarifications. I continue to hope and pray.

  29. Kevin B. says:

    When white smoke emerges from the Sistine Chapel’s ceiling, we know that we have a pope. When white smoke emerges from the ears of the National Catholic Reporter’s staff, we’ll know the SSPX has signed.

  30. Young Canadian RC Male says:

    No. For one, why would he, superior Fellay, head of an organization who’s sole purpose was to resist the “post-concilar” and post-Vatican II Church, want to essentially give it all away? Signing over will make its purpose null and void and furthermore, give a message saying “we give in”. 2nd based on the previous articles and speeches on the SSPX’s websites and of Fellay, they sound like they basically want what the want and nothing less to accept canonization in the “post-concillar” church. Accepting would be a “compromize” not a solution to them.

  31. I voted a resounding YES!

    But, I have the feeling that first, the Society will ask for – and receive – some revision toclarify the “dogmatic” versus “pastoral” sphere. In addition to the obvious practical aspects of this, it will allow him to appear to some of the more resistant elements in the Society to have “shown Rome that we are not to be trifled with”. In fact, it would not surprise me at all if one of the reasons for that ambiguity in the first place was to allow this very thing.

  32. tecumseh says:

    Well said Legisperitus . . .never thought of that sending it back for a bit of tweaking . . .that or sign . . .I cant see them rejecting.

  33. I voted Yes but I must say that the protestant mindset is difficult to shake, so I would not be surprised if they don’t do it. Maybe Bishop Fellay likes being top dog. Maybe a lot of the rest of the organization likes being outside. At some point, there has to be a “we were wrong” realization somewhere, a longing for union with Rome and not for changing things, and if that is missing, then even if they sign it, they won’t come back all the way when the reset of the charter (or whatever the Preamble is the preamble to) is formulated.

  34. Alan Aversa says:

    … I must acknowledge that in the doctrinal preamble there is no clear-cut distinction between the inviolable dogmatic sphere and the pastoral sphere that is subject to discussion.

    That could mean two things:

    (1) Either the Vatican does not or cannot reconcile Vatican II with tradition (hermeneutic of rupture?)


    (2) it is trying to conflate the pastoral and dogmatic spheres (hermeneutic of continuity?).

    Nevertheless, it would be good to have the SSPX “biga” back in the dough. Since there are 1,444 EF mass locations in communion with Rome and 690 SSPX ones, bringing the SSPX ones on board would increase Extraordinary Form parishes in communion with Rome by 48%!

  35. Bender says:

    The SSPX has always believed that they don’t need Rome, but that Rome needs them.

    This captures it exactly. Even now, they think that they are in a position to impose conditions and make demands. They believe that “discussions” about doctrine means “negotiation” over what the doctrine should be. The hold themselves out to be the judge of the Church, rather than vice-versa.

    Personally, I do not believe that for the Vatican to engage in a long, drawn-out “process” and “dialogue” is doing the SSPX any favors. It merely fosters a battle of wills. You cannot dialogue with the obstinate, who cares not for reconciliation. Were it me, I would insist on unconditional acceptence (surrender) by the SSPX. But then I’m not as charitable or as good-hearted as Pope Benedict. Still, there are times when being nice is ultimately harmful to the person you are being nice too.

  36. AnnAsher says:

    If the preamble doesnt declare V2 dogmatic in entirety and doesnt ask them to accept the new mass. .. I think they will sign. However I think we are misinderstanding the SSPX if we look at this as them being offered a deal.

  37. MikeM says:

    I voted no, but I’m not confident in my answer and I certainly hope I am wrong. I voted that way because, I’ve gotten the sense from Fellay’s comments throughout the “dialogues” that he feels like he needs to be seen to be taking a hard line with the Vatican to maintain support from some hardliners at high levels within the group. I fear that some of them might not be willing to go along with anything and that, given the complexity of SSPXs structure, they may be able to hold up the process.

    I have, however, sensed some softening in Fellay’s tone that, to me, seems to indicate that he wants union. I’m sure he knows that this is the best offer they’re likely to get, to I imagine he’ll be maneuvering to make it work.

    At times I’ve taken a harsh stance towards Fellay, wondering if he’d moved from integrity to stubbornness. I’m starting to wonder if I didn’t judge too quickly, though… His at-times almost arrogant rhetoric before might make it easier for him to present this to the rest of the Society as a hard won battle, increasing the odds that it all goes through. Maybe that was the plan from the beginning.

  38. Bender says:

    Re: “in the doctrinal preamble there is no clear-cut distinction between the inviolable dogmatic sphere and the pastoral sphere that is subject to discussion”

    And that is as it should be. It is not up to the CDF or the Pope or the bishops to have to go through the entirety of Vatican II and specifiy which is strictly doctrinal and which is pastoral and which is merely pragmatic opinion applicable to those times. If the SSPX — or anyone else — has any complaints or objections, the burden is on them to specify what they are.

  39. Penguins Hockey Fan says:

    Just a hunch, but Bishop Fellay will support it…and Bishop Williamson will not.

  40. kpoterack says:

    I voted ‘no.’ I would love it if I was wrong. I just have a bad feeling about this. If, however, the leadership does accept the deal, there would definitely be a schism within the SSPX.

  41. acroat says:

    My question is: have any SSPX bishop or priest read Vatican II. When I ask their parishioners, what part (s) do you have a problem with? The answer is “all of it”.

  42. Geoffrey says:

    ‘My question is: have any SSPX bishop or priest read Vatican II. When I ask their parishioners, what part (s) do you have a problem with? The answer is “all of it”.’

    Indeed! I think everyone needs to sit down and actually read the documents of the Second Vatican Council. Everyone: the traditionalists who hate it and the progressives who abuse it. Everyone would be very surprised at what Vatican II really says!

  43. Johnny Domer says:

    I think people are right to say that there might well be a split if the SSPX signs onto this. However, there’s also the possibility of a split if the SSPX does NOT sign on. I’m sure there are priests within the SSPX who would want to take the deal; if the leadership decides not to do it, then it’s going to be a pretty awkward situation for those priests who endorsed the deal. I don’t know if they’d go sign up with the Good Shepherd Institute or what, but I hope the Holy See is proactive in making some provision for them.

    The key thing, if the SSPX signs on and there is a split, will be to get all four of the bishops on board. A schism composed of priests will die out, of necessity; if Williamson or Tissier de Mallerais refuses to accept, he/they are going to consecrate 4 more bishops, and this thing will continue for a long, long time.

  44. trad catholic mom says:

    I have no idea, because I don’t know what the preamble contains exactly.

  45. MJ says:

    I didn’t vote…I don’t have a strong sense either way of what they’ll do…but I hope they accept! I pray for the reconciliation.

    I hope I’m wrong, but I believe if they sign the SSPX will split – one group will rejoin Rome, the other will remain where they are now…hope I’m wrong, but that’s my guess.

  46. Michael J. says:

    It would be easier to vote one way or the other if we knew what the Document contains. If Bishop Fellay signs it, which I hope he does, this will probably spark a break within the S.S.P.X. itself. I really hope they do sign and a reconcillation does occur. One point of contention. If they are awarded a Personal Ordiniriate or are given special treatment, one would hope that the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, and the I.C.K.S.P. would be given similar treatment and status, especially in light that they have been in Full-Communion with the Sovereign Pontiff and fully loyal all along. I hope they are not relegated to the fringes and the S.S.P.X. is the only source of Traditional Mass and teachings in the Church. I am a member of the Confraternitas Sancti Petri (C.S.P.), and believe they too should be made a personal prelature and something needs to be done so they can enter a Diocese that needs them even without the express written consent of the Bishop. The S.S.P.X. will probably end up in more Dioceses that the F.S.S.P., and I feel this is unfair to those who were completely loyal all along.

  47. Bender says:

    It would be easier to vote one way or the other if we knew what the Document contains.

    Ultimately it is irrelevant what the Preamble says. Either the SSPX submits to the full authority of the See of Peter or they do not.

  48. Hidden One says:

    Yes, at least some will.

    There has to be at least one SSPX leader for whom this, if nothing else, is ‘enough’ for him to do what’s needful. I don’t know enough to predict who will sign. If the society as a whole ‘opposes the Pope to his face’, it will almost certainly at least lose members. It might even lose some dedicated SSPX faithful. I suspect that it would lose a lot of traditionalist good will that it presently possesses.

    Will there be a clarification of the Preamble, or a further clarificatory document? I don’t know.

  49. Papabile says:

    I stated YES, they would accept.

    But that answer is condition. They may ask for a clarification first.

    It’s important to remember, however, that accepting it does not mean there is a canonical solution that is immediate.

    It also does not mean that all of the Bishops of the SSPX accept it.

    Gallereta and Williamson are most likely to have problems. It may mean a split in the SSPX.

    Remember that their Bishops were not even part of their leadership until recently, and only then did Bishop Fellay become part of it.

  50. kgurries says:

    I voted “no” but hope I am wrong. The SSPX is looking for clear-cut and decisive answers to specific questions — not general principles that will help them to think with the Church. They don’t want permission to debate — they want confirmation from the Holy See that their own theological positions are the true ones that uphold the Faith and Tradition. Unless the SSPX decides to become subject to a higher teaching authority and play within certain rules the document will probably go unsigned. Again, I hope I am wrong — and the Rosary crusade could change things.

  51. Thank you, Kevin B. You split my sides!! Best laugh of the day. Thank you. But folks should remember who these people are. They are followers of the guys who lost at Vatican II. Guys who struck out on their own, and became calcified in their solipcism (hope I spelled that right). They are a clique, a cult, and a source of Kool-aid for the ignorant and liturgically desperate. There would not have been a schism if Archb. Lefevbre (hope I spelled that right) had not disobeyed a clear instruction from the Pope. What he did was no different than what Luther did. Anyone up for lifting Luther’s excommunication and offering his descendants a personal prelature? Yeah. The SSPX will sign. They get more power. .especially over their own. They also gain access to a Church and its cachet that has lived quite well without the extremism and anti-semitism that characterizes the leadership of the SSPX. We embarrass ourselves if we do not hold the SSPX to the same standard of obedience and compliance with the documents and decrees of the Vatican II Council to which the Church has held Opus Dei. At some point we must heed Our Lord’s words: “Don’t cast your pearls before swine”.

  52. I probably shouldn’t but I will give my opinion. Please keep in mind that this is only my opinion. I have had some contact with the SSPX, a lot good and then some very bad.

    My hope is that this gets worked out because I believe that the SSPX has a lot to offer the Church at large. Like the FSSP, the SSPX would be very good examples for other priests. If there is a part of a diocese where everyone prefers to go to the SSPX church than the local diocesan church with Fr. Meikitupasaigoalong because SSPX parishioners actually go to Mass on Sunday then there might start to be some positive change.

    I hope that whoever put the document together did so with care knowing how important this issue is for the Holy Father. I hope it is much better than the recent document about the Extraordinary form of the Mass that the Bishop probably didn’t fully read before he signed it.

    That said, I don’t actually think they will sign it. They will put it off. I think they have to. I would take a huge amount of courage to actually sign the document which is something we rarely see from a group once it starts to do its own thing. I pray the Liturgy of the Hours everyday and offer it up for communion with the “Orthodox” but even as I do so I know that unless something really big happens communion will never take place, at least not in my lifetime. The Orthodox lack the religious courage to do what they already know to be right and come into full communion with the Pope. Remember, all that it would really take for the Orthodox to come into communion with Rome is to be at peace with us. They however do not want peace, they want to keep the status quo.

    Now don’t get me wrong, there have been “orthodox” groups that have come back, but when they do there is a backlash that always happens. Dissatisfied members in their ranks, and it is usually most of them, choose not to go and would rather stay. In such a case we get the leadership of the group but a minority of the priests and lay faithful. The majority that remain outside then find a new leader who will promise to keep them away from Rome. Keep in mind that when the Melkite Catholic Church came back into communion with Rome that is exactly what happened. The leadership came and so the official continuation of the original “orthodox” church of the area all came into communion, it really effected nothing since the Greeks just went down and set up some more churches and started to say that the Melkites were no longer Orthodox. Almost every Eastern Catholic Church has a similar story to tell. In fact, the only Easter Catholic Churches where the majority came into communion with Rome are the Maronites and the Malabar, and they both claim to never have been willingly out of communion, just out of communication.

    So here is what I think will happen, the SSPX will find a way to stall and not sign. That will continue the status quo. They can keep talking with Rome with no end in sight and all the while the feelings of the priests and lay people who support them grow more and more distant until they don’t even want communion with Rome anymore. If communion ever happens, it won’t be in my lifetime. They will eventually have to consecrate more bishops without papal mandate and the split will be more realized.

    On the other hand the SSPX could sign the document and come back into full communion with Rome. If they did so I expect that a lot of the priests and lay faithful will not follow the leadership into communion. The leaders of the SSPX must know that. Because they know that, if they sign the document then it shows a great deal of courage on their part that they really do want to do the right thing even if it means loosing their control over their organization and see a rift within the SSPX itself. The current leaders of the “orthodox” don’t have that kind of courage but maybe the bishops in the SSPX do. My respect for them would grow a thousand times if they actually did sign the document. It would signal that they weren’t just angry and didn’t care about just serving a niche market.

    If the document is signed then look for a group of priests to leave the SSPX and join the SSPV or some other new organization just so they can remain outside communion with Rome, or even claim to be the “true” SSPX continuation standing up to the betrayal of the bishops who went back to Rome. I suspect that the Bishop from England might do that as it would be a way for him to gain some sort of power and speak his mind.

    Again, all this is just my opinion, I mostly just come her to read Latin and don’t actually know that much about the politics of this.

    On a side note, how come we can’t get either the SSPX or the FSSP to come to Kyushu Island in Japan?

  53. Elizabeth D says:

    I said yes because I greatly want it to be yes and because this is their last best chance. I really don’t know what they will do. We don’t know what the thing says. The part that was released is very kind to SSPX, and inoffensive to anyone.

    I know I will continue to pray fervently.

  54. Mary G says:

    I voted “yes” because I think both parties are anxious to resolve the situation.

  55. Imrahil says:

    I voted “yes” because I think that it is possible for both sides to settle their issue without compromising their real position. This, however, would require both sides to be friendly and willing. I hope and pray that the Vatican has done this in the Doctrinal Preambula; I hope and pray that the Pius brothers will do this in accepting it.

    That being said, once the Pius brothers are back in in the form of, say, a personal prelature, I fear we might face the next problem with diocesan bishops who forbid their activities. I have my doubts that they would obey, but I prefer the situation with a Pope and an Apostolic Signature on the top to deal with it.

    If they come, some regrettably will break away from them. The question is how many, and will they contain bishops? I know to little of the position of their bishops to answer.
    On a side note, the things being as they are, Bp Williamson would do the SSPX in Germany a favor if he breaks away, as far as short-time practical things are concerned. However, we must wish that he does not. I suggest – if you allow the irony – that he might temporarily retire to private study, studying the theological correctness of the Doctrinal Preambula.

  56. Supertradmum says:

    From Bishop Fellay as reported on Zenit today: Asked if he will sign the preamble, he answered: “As soon as I have taken the time necessary to study this document, and to consult with those who are chiefly responsible for the Society of St. Pius X, because in such an important matter I have promised my confreres not to make a decision without consulting them first. But I can assure you that our decision will be made for the good of the Church and of souls.”

    I think this will happen and voted “yes”.

  57. Legisperitus says:

    I suspect that those who consider Bishop Fellay prideful, arrogant, disloyal, or Protestant are going to be surprised. Pleasantly or otherwise is up to them.

  58. irishgirl says:

    I voted ‘yes’. It’s my fervent prayer that they do.
    There is an SSPX church about an hour’s drive west of where I live. I’ve been to their Sunday Masses a few times. I was also at their Pilgrimage to Auriesville Shrine this past June, even though they weren’t allowed to use the large church on the grounds for their Mass-they had to have it in the field outside the grounds.
    The Church needs the SSPX, just it needs the FSSP and ICKSP! Just think what a force for good all three could be!

  59. Margaret says:

    I’m saying yes except for Williamson and whoever among the laity decides to break ranks and stick with him. He is really a bit of a loose canon.

  60. BobP says:

    I voted yes on the Preamble. The specifics will probably take years to resolve.

  61. Bryan Boyle says:

    I voted ‘No’, but am praying for “Yes” resoundingly.

    Right or wrong (and they are wrong in their stubborn rejection of the primacy of Peter’s authority and right about their questions regarding the ambiguities in V-][ that have been used as a bludgeon against continuity with Tradition in many ways), they are wayward sons and daughters as worthy of redemption as a manifest sinner such as myself.

    We (Rome) needs them. They need us (Rome). It’s not, to my mind, and ‘either/or’ or ‘black/white’…it’s what’s best, in the end, for the entire Body of Christ.

    But, then, I’ve always been a bit dreamy…

  62. kgurries says:

    I think there is good reason to be optimistic that Fellay will sign. My fear is that too many in the SSPX will see this as the “same old tactics” from those NewChurch Romans, etc. I think Fellay may want to do it in his heart….but will he have the support needed? It’s maybe a 50/50.

  63. Can we please stop saying, in so many ways, that “the Church needs the SSPX”? Yeah, we need the SSPX like a hole in the head! The one and only thing the Church needs is Our Lord Jesus Christ. HE is the head of the Church, and HE will get us through this time of controversy. People like the SSPX because they believe, wrongly, that the SSPX is the only force pushing for a return to reverence in the Holy Mass. As if their mere existence ‘scares’ the wicked post-VII Church into making more room for tradition. This undercuts and ignores the thousands, nay millions, of Catholics all over the Church who have pushed for, prayed for, and actually achieved a return to reverence with both the OF and the EF. Parishes in the US which have collected the signatures, the people, and the–dare I say it–money necessary to provide the EF have worked with, not against, the hierarchy of the Church. And they have been successful in providing ever increasing opportunities for ordinary Catholics to participate in and come to know the glorious EF. None of this had to be done by trashing Vatican II, Pope John II, or the Jews. The Catholic way to turn the Church around begins in the Eucharist–source and summit of our Faith–and ends in peace, respect, and joy. All the SSPX is good at is division and complaint. The Church does not “need” the SSPX. It needs Christ and Christians to follow Him.

  64. muckemdanno says:

    Michael J wishes the FSSP would be offered a deal as good as what the SSPX has apparently been offered – on the grounds that they have been “loyal all along.”

    The truth is that the priests who started the FSSP gave up the fight before the battle was over, in 1988. The original FSSP priests were SSPX priests who left the SSPX when JP2 presented them with “Ecclesia Dei” which gave (only) them the right to the use of the old missal. (Up until then, these priests had no problem being “disobedient” to the Roman authorities and acting as priests in the SSPX chapels.)

    Abp Lefebvre and the remaining SSPX priests rejected Ecclesia Dei on the grounds that it did not admit that ALL priests have the right to the old missal. The SSPX continued to fight not only for their own right to the old missal, but for the right of ALL priests, especially parish priests, to the old missal. I think this point is missed (maybe intentionally?) among those who oppose the SSPX.

    If the FSSP did not get as good a deal as SSPX winds up with, it is because they did not fight for it. If they continued the fight, the whole lot of all of them would have won full rights for all good priests many years earlier.

  65. MJ says:


    The priests of the FSSP accepted the same agreement that Archbishop Lefebvre first signed and later rejected. Research, which some of the FSSP priests conducted while they were still members of the SSPX, indicated the upcoming consecrations were not legitimate. They followed their consciences and left, not knowing what was to become of them.

    This is moral courage, not cowardice. It is nothing more than a hypothesis that the FSSP could have “gotten a better deal”…and at what cost?…going against the voice of conscience?

  66. Bender says:

    The “better deal” is communion with the Church. Those who choose to “fight” with and “battle” against the Church choose the worse deal. The spoils of such a fight and battle is to be left in the cold and dark, outside the Church, where there is no salvation.

  67. Lamentably Sane says:

    Crikey. There are some excellent comments here, for example by Legisperitus, but there is a lot of uncharitable invective, too, such as the SSPX being no better than Luther, etc.
    I say this will go ahead. Archbishop Lefebvre told the leadership of the Society that there would come a time when they should get regularised. I think he said it could take a generation or so. I would guess it’s clear to Bishop Fellay that the time has come. If you knew anything about the excellent Fr Nély (the number 3 in the Society) you would know that no one could be more loyal to the Pope and to the Church. It has been slowly moving towards this for 11 years or so, and obviously gathering pace since 2005. Can we really believe that all this energy expended since 2005 on both sides (and so much suffering on the part of the Holy Father) will be allowed to go to waste? No, if they have all done their jobs properly, it will have already been thrashed out and roughly agreed on. The Pope has already failed once in a bid to reach an agreement (1988); I don’t think he’s going to let it slip through his fingers again. Let’s not underestimate how important this all is for him. It’s very close to his heart. The liberation of the traditional Roman missal and the regularisation of the SSPX could even turn out to be the defining acts of his pontificate.
    To say that Bishop Fellay enjoys his power is simply silly. That could be alleged aginst anyone with power, but is there any evidence? In any case, he will continue to exercise that power after regularisation.
    People talk as if submission to Rome will suddenly mean floods of orders being faxed into Menzingen and ‘power’ being sucked away from the Society leadership. It doesn’t work that way. Life will go on. It will be much more of a headache for Rome, again taking all the flak from the unholy alliance of anti-Christian secular liberals and their pals within the Church structures…

  68. Giambattista says:

    I voted yes and I truly would love to see it. But I agree with Bishop Fellay, who mentioned some time ago, that safeguards are necessary for the survival of the Society. Many comments, here and other places, point to how point to how the SSPX will respond. In my mind I keep coming back to placing the focus on the CDF and what it is proposing to the the SSPX. I keep thinking to myself that after all these years and various attempts to fix this mess surely Rome would realize by now that they are not going to be able to throw these guys crumbs or attempt to destroy them after an agreement. If there are sufficient safeguards for the Society, and we have no way to know this, I believe they will sign. Otherwise, it’s not going to happen. I think this whole thing is in the hands of Rome. I sure hope they did the right thing.

  69. I voted no since I hope they don’t sign it. The Faith can not compromise with modernism. We have to make a stand here.

  70. LaudemGloriae says:

    I don’t believe they will sign it or accept a prelature. I am not of the opinion that they will ever agree to parity (even if only implied) between the NO and the EF. Prelature gives them permission to do their own thing, but requires a tolerance of the NO. I don’t see that happening.

  71. Denita says:

    I said yes, by that I mean I Hope they will..

Comments are closed.