Interesting back-n-forth in the comments section of the OP:
That recognition can only have the purpose of bring about a division between the traditional Catholics and the NOM Catholics. There will be great, indeed tremendous, opposition from most Bishops, especially those who are extremely liberal AND absolutely opposed to the Old Mass, who will themselves attempt to suppress the SSPX. Just remember that Francis wishes to place more power in the hands of local Bishops. And you can bet that Francis will not overrule the efforts of his liberal friends to "get rid" of tradition! One could even expect serious clashes, to say the least. In fact, Bishop Fellay had better be careful he doesn't end up another Cardinal Pell
Dear Fr. Belland-
What you say was true 20 years ago, when the SSPX was still traditional, but no longer. The best thing Rome can do to crush what tradition remains in it is to regularize the Society ("Regularization carries within itself its own internal dynamism..what is important is that there no longer be resistance." -Fr. Cottier upon the conquest of Campos). The greatest enemies of Tradition therefore support the regularization, regardless of there lip service to the contrary. This is all smoke and mirrors to pretend that the SSPX is still traditional, so the liberals must resist them. When one looks at the level of collaboration between the SSPX and the various dioceses (delegation for marriage, for example), there is no conciliar resistance to a neutered SSPX. You might want to have a look at this:www.cathinfo.com/…/catalog-of-comp…
+Lefebvre is rolling over in his grave at +Fellay's treachery.
It is true that now it cannot be argued that SSPX administers invalid absolutions and marriages. In fact, an SSPX friend tells me that SSPX priests now hear Confessions in diocesan churches in Germany.
On the other hand, the SSPX does not yet have canonical standing
Your comment is silly and stupid.
I have been going to the SSPX for 20 years.
How long have you been going?
What position are you in then to comment on whether or not there have been any compromises?
Why don't you take some time to run through the list of 106 compromises I provided to you, and attempt to deny them (I say deny, since you can't refute them, any more than you can refute the weather report).
10 hours ago
Since you asked:
1. I first met Msgr Lefebvre in 1972-3 when I, along with 3 friends from the Univ of Kansas, was staying at Fontgombault. We were told about the abbey by Fr Urban Snyder OSCO, then head of the spiritual year of formation at Econe. A civil lawyer, he began as a monk of Gethsemane. Later, he changed to Genesee but was ex claustrated. In the late 80s I visited him in the hills of Kentucky, where he had a chapel. He died A few years ago.
2. For the most part, it wasn't necessary to attend an SSPX chapel because the daily mass of a priest in my hometown was always done using the Pius V Missal.
3. In 1975 I was admitted to study for the priesthood with the SSPX but for various reasons decided not to go.
4. The SSPX N American headquarters are in Farley, Mo, a few miles from my apartment in KC. I was just there a few weeks ago. A few days after that I was at the SSPX parish in KC. Spent some time with the priests and gave them about 5 boxes of Theology books.
5. A good friend from my Roman years publishes the mag Kirchliche Umschau and lives in an SSPX community in Ruppichteroth, Germany. During the negotiations he kept me informed of what was happening.
Btw, my doctorate from my Roman years is in Thhomistic Studies.
6. I used to teach at the FSSP seminary in Nebraska. Fr Bisig, ex SSPX, was on the faculty and is now the rector.
7. FSSP has a parish in KC. It's too much much of a drive to go there do for daily mass, even though I know the pastor and the asst pastor was one of my students.
8. A few years ago I was at St Mary's for the first time. One of my students was in a chapel in nearby Maple Hill. I also had the chance to visit the grave of John Senior, KU prof and my godfather. He and his wife are buried in the St Mary's cemetery.
Hope this helps.
Also: I see you are in Minnesota. At the moment I am in Cloquet and will be leaving soon for Park Rapids.
Heh heh. Somebody just got spanked.
Response to Dr. Bobus:
1) The same Fontgambault which was a spin-off of the betrayer of Archbishop Lefebvre, Dom Gerard of La Barroux? If you met Archbishop Lefebvre, but still ended up at Fontgambault, it is pretty obvious the Archbishop (who said Dom Gerard and the indult communities were "doing the devil's work") didn't rub off on you;
2) This response erroneously pretends the Mass is the only issue. But as Archbishop Lefebvre said, one does not merely frequent a Mass, but an entire millieu: There is the sermon; the confessional advice; the conversations before and after Mass (all among those who have accepted the errors of V2 in trade for the Mass);
3) I think your previous responses explain the reason;
4) Yes, there is now open tradcumenism between the SSPX and the former PCED communities whom the Archbishop said were doing the devil's work. Disgraceful conferences like the Catholic Identity Conference and this year's Angelus Press Conference could never have occurred in Archbishop Lefebvre's time, but today they are commonplace. So much for the SSPX remaining "as we are." Lefebvre used to write and preach often about why there could be no collaboration with the betrayers of Tradition in the Ecclesia Dei communities, whereas today it is commonplace;
5) Most of the modernists at Vatican II had doctorates in Thomistic studies. It is very obviously (in both their cases, and your own) no guarantee of doctrinal orthodoxy;
6) So you taught at a seminary for a community which officially espouses the hermeneutic of continuity which archbishop Lefebvre rejected (which would corroborate by response above): Religious liberty, ecumenism, and collegiality are all compatible with the pre-Vatican II magisterium, allegedly. Yet Archbishop Lefebvre spent the greater part of his post-conciliar life opposing these and other errors (which the Ecclesia Dei communities have accepted);
7) That you speak as though you would consider attending an FSSP Mass venue, if only it were closer, speaks against your orthodoxy, not in favor of it;
8) So you made a sentimental visit to the formerly traditional St. Mary's. This gets you nowhere;
Response to Phroggal-
Yes indeed, but it wasn't me (see my previous comment).