The Voice of the POG: what SSPX supporters think - Updated

As we count down towards 28 June to see what Bishop Fellay will do about the ultimatum from Rome, I thought I would take a sample of views from the www.angelqueen.com forum and give you a picture of what SSPX supporters are saying at the moment. Obviously, these are not official statements but rather reflect the concerns and thinking of the supporters of Bishop Fellay

Clearly this is anecdotal evidence. We are merely listening in to conversations between those largely favourable to the SSPX position. I hope I have been fair in selecting what seem representative views but you can always go and read the threads for yourselves.

This website is a well-known forum for SSPX anglophone supporters (mostly in the US). It has in the recent past featured interviews with, for example, Bishop Williamson who has even 'taken questions' from the readers. Several priests post messages also, though I have kept all views anonymous (they can easily be located by copying and pasting in Google).

I have divided the sample into Moderate/Reunionist and Anti-reunionist. I do not imply the anti-reunionists will never want reunion, but they do not want, or are sceptical about, reunion under the current conditions. I finish with what I hope is a more optimistic view from one forum reader. There are many good and sincere people associated with the SSPX, as the Holy Father and Cardinal Hoyos know only too well.




Moderate/Open to Reunion views

"The bishops do not believe they are excommunicated but they will become if they not accept the agreement offered by Rome. The illicit of 1988 (usurpation of ecclesiastical charges) was need in order to pursue Tradition, but Mons. Lefebvre wanted the Bishops had ordinary jurisdiction. Now, the ordinary jurisdicition is offered not in an informal discussion but through a document emanate from Rome. The state of necessity, as I understand him (lack of a traditional Bishop), ceases by law once Rome grant the continuity of Tradition. As for the conditions, if they are the same accepted by Good Shepherd Institute, they would not constitute an obstacle.
At present it would not be possible to allege an state of necessity and if they do that it would be with guilt. The consequence is the revival of the excommunication."




"It's interesting to compare these insights with Fr. Domenicos. Fr. Domenico seemed to make the Pope out to be an ideological dictator. Bishop Fellay calls him a perfect liberal. I don't think he's either. Despite that fact that "liberal" is an insult in the United States, it's true that the Pope does emphasize freedom and plurality much more than his predessecors. Furthermore, he takes more freedom in his theology than many people feel comfortable with. However, the SSPX has repeatedly said that all that they want is for the Church to permit the "experiment of Catholicism." I think that the Pope's liberality is quite conducive to that experiment."



"On it's face the "conditions" don't seem unreasonable. However, most of them are unnecessary as the SSPX isn't currently doing any of those things. #3 is up for interpretation. If the Pope or Cardinals are teaching heresy's it's our duty to speak out and expose them."




"I respect your opinion, of course. I think and hope you're wrong. The only thing that gives me pause for thought is the time table. I should think that the Pope doesn't want to divide the SSPX because he, and Cardinal Castrillon, can see that it's producing good fruit. Instead, I should think, that he wants to heal the rift. It seems like the Pope is quite intent on trying bring the SSPX back into a regular, jurisdictional, and canonical possition with the Church. I see no interest on the part of Rome in splitting up the SSPX, which hardly seems to be a threat to the Church , but lots of interest to restore the SSPX and bring peace back between Rome and Econe."




."The only problem I can see is most of these conditions are irrelevant because the SSPX already respects the Pope. The biggest problem I can see is condition #3. If the Pope is in error, it's our duty to speak up about it. I can't see the SSPX accepting any conditions where they would be forced to remain silent on any abuses committed by Rome. Maybe there will be further negotiations with Rome and I would hope both sides would sit down and talk about this but the other problem I have with this is Rome's call for a rush deal. What is the hurry? Why not take time and each side sit down and take the time to discuss things in good faith?"




"Interesting, indeed. Certainly the SSPX will not accept a Campos-like situation, however. The bishops do not believe they are excommunicated (and rightly so). If Rome is counting on the SSPX's yearning to be 'regularised' being heavier than their devotion to the Faith, the Romans are in for a surprise. But, of course, Benedict XVI and Cardinal Castrillón are much smarter than that. Maybe some member of the Curia who is out of touch with reality, for whom all meetings and ecumenism are happy, lovely get-togethers of hugs and phenomenological friendship (such as Cardinal Kasper), would so ineptly handle the SSPX. But, as we know, the Holy Father and Cardinal Castrillón are quite aware of the more delicate aspects of the situation, hence why I certainly have no idea what to expect from all of this. Though I am under no illusions of what the results could be, I have to admit that this is all very exciting."


"What makes you say [the real Catholic Church will no longer be in Rome]? There will be no schism just as there was no schism in the time of Athanasius -- and the Holy Father cannot lose his office for a false excommunication. Let us end this gossiping speculation on what the Pope will do."



Anti-reunionist views

"The idea that a condition based ultimatum was being imposed gave me hope but now that I've actually seen them I'm convinced that Monday will see the Romans trotting out the bell, book and candle... if they can find them. The neo-Catholics can already smell the blood in the water and their characteristic un-Christian glee is, if possible, even more pronounced than usual. The conditions will be used as a whip. They're so open-ended and vague... they're practically Vatican II documents. "Negative for ecclesial charity"... what does that even mean?! If nothing else this will divide the sheep from the goats, and the wolves, I doubt anyone will be able to make the case that the situation is unclear. Barring Divine intervention things will probably get very ugly in July and those of us who have been trying to sit on the fence will finally have to man up."




[Parody] “And you have until the end of the month to submit and come into full communion; we of course will never give the orthodox any such deadlines, or the protestants, because they like us, believe that truth changes, and like us, are in error; and therefore they will always be on the road to salvation. You on the other hand keep saying that truth cannot change, and so you must change or take the consequences if you do not submit by our date.”


"The end result for those who leave the SSPX and seek "full communion" with Rome? They'll be free to enjoy their smells and bells, but they'd better keep you mouths shut about clown masses and other such abuses. I'm sure I'll be called paranoid, schismatic, etc. for espousing these views. So be it. I've been involved in the Traditional Catholic movement for over 25 years now, and I've seen more of this political funny business than I care to recall. I have absolutely no doubt that Archbishop Lefebrve, if he were here today, would refuse this latest "ultimatum" by Rome. It was about the true Faith in 1988, and it still is today. I stand with the faith."




"I find it interesting, that in all of this time (20years) an "agreement" has been proposed, and now the SSPX has only days to "agree" to Rome's demands. How very convenient for Modernist Rome. I really, really hope I am wrong on this, but if the SSPX hastily accepts this as it is, I predict a split within the SSPX. There is a lot of ambiguity there that can be twisted to hurt the SSPX later on, and all it has done in the last 20+ years."




"Please note that ploy which is behind this offer: The condition that the excommunications be declared null, void and abolished has not been fulfilled. It's the Vatican politics with 'excommunications'. The schismatic Patriarch of Constantinople is 'absolved', but the SSPX is constantly being demonized still by the modernistic Vatican. They keep the excommunications unlifted, so they have a stick to beat up the 'SSPX dogs' with, in case they refuse to sign this agreement. "Schism" "excommunications". A revocation of the phony excoms (Ecclesia Dei decree) beforehand would be not useful in the modernists' strategy to lure them into accepting the Conciliar church, the teachings of Vatican II, the errors and neo-modernism of John Paul II, John XXIII, Paul VI and Benedict XVI.... The modernistic Vatican strategy will not work out."




"If Pope Benedict XVI excommunicates the SSPX there will be a great schism in the Catholic Church and the real Catholic Church will no longer be in Rome."




"Those of us that are loyal to the traditional Catholic Church (the only real Catholic Church) are going to have to make a decision. Do we succumb to Rome and accept the clown Masses and numerous other abuses that are said to be the "Great fruits of VII" or do we face excommunication and ridicule from friends, family, and fellow Catholics. Indeed, even a lot of traditional Catholics will bail and break ties with the SSPX rather than risk excommunication. But remember what Jesus told us. It will be brother against brother and father against son and mother against daughter. We have to be willing to fight for the true Catholic Church."


********************************************************



There is undoubtedly a wide spread of opinion on these issues, but my feeling is that the sample above reveals the major faultline within the SSPX between those who are 'popular' traditionalists, wanting to avoid the problems of their local parishes, scandalised by the toleration of abuses and the aggression against more conservative projects, and the 'ideological' traditionalists whose thinking is very much based on the assumptions I have examined in my posts over the last few days. I would like to post finally, however, a most judicious and balanced response from one SSPX supporter. I think it sets a very interesting tone which is not dissimilar to, albeit more optimistic than, Bishop Fellay's:


His Holiness has demonstrated an extraordinary movement towards and in accord with Tradition. He acknowledges that the Mass was never suspended nor suppressed, that "Pro Multis" actually means what it has always meant and that Truth never changes.

Bp. Fellay is a decent and wise man and I think he will recognize what Bp. Williamson told me (and a few thousand of my best friends) during Ordinations at Winona a few years ago -- Rome is eternal, all Roman clerics are worthy of respect and that the Society of St. Pius the Tenth is but a splinter on the Barque of Saint Peter.

Those of us not in the Clerical State are not the ones making this call. Our Lord and the Paraclete are through their Priesthood. We need to watch and to listen and to pray


UPDATE

Servitium who runs Angelqueen has just made his own thoughts on this issue clear. here is what he says:


"From a sermon Bishop Fellay gave last week:

Bishop Fellay:
In '75, '76, it was already the same problem. Before the suspension of '76, Rome sent an ambassador to the Archbishop who told him, 'Say with me one New Mass, concelebrate with me one Mass, and everything is fine'. And now, well, they don't say 'Say one Mass', they just say 'Shut up'.

It is so far that Rome has given me an ultimatum. Seems that the last Letter to the Benefactors has been not so well received in Rome. They consider it as a proof of pride, of arrogance, and that's what they don't want. And we are not going to shut down our mouths, or to shut up.

In other words, when the Holy Father, incredibly, admiringly lauds America's chaotic pluralism, close your eyes, ears and mouth. When he changes sacred prayers at the behest of Jewish lobby groups that hate Christ, keep your mouth shut.

Or no soup for you.

This ultimatum is outrageous. Cardinal Hoyos ought to be told to stuff it, and stuff it with great force."

**************************************

Servitium is not of course a member of the SSPX nor does he have any say in the SSPX's response. But he is a leading SSPX supporter with a prominent platform. Let's hope he is not representative of the majority opinion within SSPX circles.

Still, as I said yesterday, I think Bishop Fellay will not accept the conditions as laid out by Cardinal Hoyos

What happens next? That's anyone's guess.