I'm not a spokesman for the SSPX, but I think I can answer this question by stating that all the Society is really trying to do it to preserve Catholic tradition by maintaining the same doctrines of of the Faith, the same Sacraments, and the same traditional Catholic Mass that were in existence prior to the Second Vatican Council which, even if it wasnt meant to do so, changed virtually everything in mainstream Catholic society.

This is admittedly very hard to do, especially since most if not all of the ordinary hierarchy are disdainful of (at best) and hostile to (at worst) the Society.

The Society does this in the hopes that, one day, a truly Catholic pope who respects and enforces Catholic tradition will ascend to the See of St. Peter.  In the meantime, the bishops, priests, and laymen who align themselves with the Society recognise the current Pope (Benedict XVI) as such, and pray him.

"Yes, I know you recognize Benedict XVI. So what you are saying is that SSPX is trying to get Rome to go back to the valid ordinations, consecrations and Masses which got bumped in favor of invalid ones. Is that correct?"

Unfortunately, it's not that cut and dried.

The way it looks to me, the members (by which I mean the priests and bishops) look at Catholic Tradition as it existed for, say, 1,960 years.  Then they look at what happened to the Church after, say, 1965.  After comparing the two, they go, "Wait a minute: something is wrong!  Holy Father, please take a look at the mess that has been made!"

So, they try to get Rome to at least talk about the problems that have occurred in the wake of Vatican 2, but Rome wont do that.  When it comes right down to it, the Society cannot say with absolute, 100%, magesterial authority that everything that changed (such as the ordinations, consecrations, and Masses) is wrong.  What they can say is that the state of the Church has deteriorated, and that it happened after -- and most likely, as a result of -- Vatican 2.  In other words, they can just point out the facts and let Catholics of good will draw their conclusions.

Again, unfortunately, Rome will not even consider the possibility that Vatican 2 was (putting it mildly) not a good idea.  The Society's position is "But, look what happened after Vatican 2!  Cant we at least re-address the issue?"  Rome says "No."

So, that being the case, the members of the Society shake their heads, shrug their shoulders, and try to go back to the way it was before the Council because that was the last point at which the Catholic Church clearly taught and defended the Catholic Faith.

This irks the Vatican to no end, I suspect, probably because they know that the Society is not, was not, and (I pray to God) will never be in Schism.  Despite all the propaganda about the Society being schismatic, clerics in the highest circles of the Church have admitted at one time or another that the reality of the situation is precisely the opposite.  I'm sure that has to make them angry.

The Society does not reject a single point of traditional Catholic doctrine and maintains Catholic Tradition almost fanatically.  The rest of the Church is in a shambles, yet the Society is flourishing.  They see that, too.

The Society is like the 900 lb. gorilla in the room: you just cant ignore it.  On the other hand, Rome pretty much ignores the sedevacantists because they will simply die out over time.  They have nothing to unite them: they bicker with each other and -- most importantly -- they deny the Pope, which is totally un-Catholic.  They are, in effect, protestants with a small "p".  I'm sorry if that offends you, but if you think about it logically, you'll see what I mean.

Rome also has nothing to fear from those working "within the system".  They "drank the Kool-Aid", so to speak.  In exchange for the *privilege* of saying the traditional Latin Mass, members of the FSSP or the ICKSP had to accept the validity and veracity of Vatican 2.  So, like the crazy uncle you invite to dinner every once in a while, the ordinary hierarchy tolerates the traditional (now the "extraordinary" form of the) Mass to be said, and then goes back to being Novus Ordo the rest of the time.


"What about the mission of the Church? Are they trying to do anything about that? What is the history of the active response to false ecuмenism?"

Well, the SSPX websites say it better than I ever could, but I would say that the SSPX has tried in fact to take up the mission of the Church, in that it is going forth to all peoples and trying to bring them the traditional Catholic Faith.  The Society is on every continent, albeit in small numbers and far-flung locations; but they are there.

As far as the active response to false ecuмenism, I go back to my earlier statement that the Society does not reject a single point of traditional Catholic doctrine; which, by extension, means that it absolutely rejects false ecuмenism and holds only the Catholic Faith to be the True Faith.


I hope this helps.

Of course, the Society isn't exactly spending all of its resources trying to solve the problems in Rome. In fact, from what I can tell, they actually devote very little time and energy to "fixing" the hierarchy. This might be obvious to some, but it seems that the little they do to keep an open line of communication with Rome marks the Society as nothing but "Rome friendly" and detracts from all of the other things they're doing to support priests and the faithful.

If the SSPX were tomorrow to decide that they don't believe Benedict to be a valid pope, what would change? For the Society, they'd simply drop the prayers for the Pope from their Masses and Bp. Fellay would stop sending the occassional letter to Rome asking for an opportunity for discussion. For Rome, it would mean they could write off the Society as yet another schismatic group and then go about their business without that 600 lb. gorilla watching closely every decision they make. How would that benefit anyone?

And it seems to me that the greatest madness is the Shepherd in bed with the wolves who are decimating his flock.  And worse, turning the hearts of the sheep from the true shepherd and toward their enemies.  Also the sheep who are aware that he is doing that suffer the agony of mistrust in the shepherd and have to scrutinize everything he does for possible danger to themselves.  So on the one hand we have the wolves who make no secret that they want us for lunch and on the other we have the shepherd telling us to "pet the wolves".  

At best he is a near occasion of sin.  And death.

If I hated SSPX I wouldn't be on this forum.

What part of the SSPX broght me here is not clear. And, I think the world of Lefebvre, Mallerais and Williamson. Nonsense that I do not like them. THe SSPX sticker on the rear window of our family van has put me under surveillance at my independent chapel that is not-pro SSPX. So that theory does not prove true for me either.

I know that from experience, Chant.  That's why I said the NO should be declared a missionary field.  There are a lot of NO's who are there for all the wrong reasons; primarily social reasons.  The overall sense that you get inside the NO is that it is not about God or His Church, but about who's wearing, doing, saying what, who is a member because their great, great grandfather helped build he church and who isn't because they moved to the parish within recent memory.  There are scandals and gossip galore and I could go on.

But there are some who ARE concerned about what is going on in Rome and in their diocese and parish; who don't think it is right and proper, but don't know what to do about it.  It was a shock to some of us when word came down from the bishops that we were no longer allowed to even genuflect before receiving communion.  Nor to bow our heads and cross ourselves after.  We had to march up, receive and march back, chop chop.  

When I was young I was warned that I would have the same reputation of the kids I associated with, so I was always careful not to get in with the "wild ones".  SSPX association with Benedict XVI puts them in association with their brothers' murderers and the sworn enemies of Christ.  I see no doctrinal purity there.