SSPX’s Roads Leading To Rome



Read on the Eponymous Flower about the new real estate purchases of the SSPX in the Esquilino hill (this is one of the seven hills, a very central and prestigious location, though yours truly prefers the Aventino by far). As always, I read these news for signs of “ceased alarm” (it’s not that I am really worried; it’s that we live in times when even organisation endowed with Sovereignty poop their pants at the first sign of FrancisAnger). The translated article has two messages for me, one good and one bad. 

The good one is that the SSPX is buying the real estate. This is clear sign of, cough, independence from a rich and self-assured order. Instead of asking the Vatican “could you allow me to rent, for a very low price, some nice structure?” the approach seem to be “hhmmm, the agreement is approaching. We’ll need a pad in Rome with all the accoutrements. Let’s go shopping!”

The less good one is that Matzuzzi seems to consider it a given that there will be a cost in the form of “painful losses” among his “faithful and priests”, and I wonder what this means. 

Firstly, is this a generic expression of things that might happen, or direct knowledge of things that will happen? Of course some isolated Williamson-style hardliner will walk, but does this qualify as “painful”? 

Secondly, last time I looked the situation was that any agreement would have to be approved by the General Chapter of the SSPX. Not only this is an extremely strong guarantee that the order will not be sold, as you can’t this is also a strong indication that the agreement will be approved by a vast majority of the priests, it being inconceivable that a cabal of, say, 21 or 22 people decides to split the SSPX into two on this. Rather, the 40 voters will only support the agreement if they are aware of vast support among the ranks and files. I even seem to remember Bishop Fellay promised a direct vote on this, but I might be wrong.

A last point that I think should mention: whether the SSPX is incardinated in the Vatican hierarchy as a Personal Prelature or Apostolic Administration is not as important as the actual legal situation the SSPX will find itself in. It would appear a Personal Prelature would give the SSPX complete freedom from the authority of the bishops, but this is a moot point as every Personal Prelature could be shaped as the Vatican sees fit.

The important thing is to keep the control of a) the hierarchy and b) the assets. This way, in case of bullying the SSPX could walk away from the paws of the Pope en bloc, intact, and with the coffers full.







Posted on February 25, 2017, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, FSSPX, Traditional Catholicism and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. 10 Comments.

  1. “The fact that things had not already come to an agreement with Rome in 2012 led Matzuzzi to the resistance of the French part in the Society. Had it been up to the German District, the Society would already have “returned to communion with Rome”.

    “Fellay now seems ready to go to end the standoff, even at the cost of painful losses among his faithful and priests,” says Matzuzzi.”

    Well, then, God bless the French part in the Society and may He steel their spines. The SSPX is already in communion with the only Rome that counts, the Eternal Rome. Francis is not. Again, there is nothing to gain from an agreement except the accolades of secularist clerics and Pope Lucifer. And possibly a red hat for Fellay.

    Buying property is neither a good nor a bad sign; it merely indicates that some agreement could be imminent. The really important information is that apparently Bishop Fellay sees the possible agreement as a “return to communion” and “ending the standoff” and that he seems willing to accept “painful losses”.

    Very, very problematic, if true.

    1) The SSPX is already in communion with Rome. It is physically impossible for them to return to communion because they never left. The modernists did and they do not seem to be willing to return to the Faith and renounce their heresies.

    2) There is no standoff to end – there is a state of necessity which continues to exist and has obviously worsened since 1988. There is the necessary resistance to modernism and modernist infiltration which absolutely has to be kept up until Modernist Rome is cleansed of heretic filth. Frankly, both Orthodox and Evangelical Christians are more Catholic than Francis and his cronies in Rome. I know Atheists who are more Catholic.

    3) Willingness to accept “painful losses” can only mean that Fellay wants to try to force an agreement on priests and faithful who are at best reluctant and divided. (If there is any serious resistance within the SSPX, we may be certain that the agreement is a blatant trap.) In that case, Williamson and his accusations of closet modernism within the leadership of the Society would have been fully vindicated.

    • catocon, you may have missed this in the last years, but it has become apparent in the past that there is a fraction within the SSPX that does not want any agreement, at all, no matter how unconditionally good for them. These people are, in their majority, not homegrown SSPX priests but people the SSPX has “affiliated” to them from the headless “resistance” parish they were before.

      It is highly likely that these here would be the “painful” losses, and I would say they will be numerically small. At least this is what I seem to understand from the context.


  2. I know for a fact ( having spoken with a senior society priest who has read the details of what the SSPX has been offered) that the proposed structure is the best they could have hoped for. The question I have as a layman who attends a Society Chapel is will the SSPX forget how to say ‘no’ once they have said yes? I have no doubt that the present pontiff is no friend of the positions the SSPX holds and therefore if the General Chapter agrees to regularisation it is vital that the organisation acts as one with regard to policy. I was thinking today that the first thing any local bishop of any diocese where the Society is located will do is try it on in some way and the SSPX have to be ready for this. The bishops of my country have uniformly deserted their flock in favour of pushing a social justice agenda and are guilty of depriving the children in their care of the Catholic Faith and I sincerely pray that the priests and bishops of the SSPX don’t forget that any regularisation is just the start of a larger battle.

    • The article seem to indicate (and your senior friend seems to confirm) that the bishops will have absolutely no say in the matters pertaining to the SSPX. I wouldn;t even say this is “great”, this is actually a conditio sine qua non of any agreement.

      However, once the vatican says “all is forgotten, we are not at odds in any way anymore” it is very difficult to reply “oh no, I insist on being the only part that has remained in this quarrel”.

      Let the SSPX be brutally opposed to the V II church from whatever space the Vatican (basically) unilaterally gives them. If the SSPX wants to sell out there is no degree of “separation” that can prevent this anyway.



  3. Seems like the Knights of Malta should have been safe too, but….. nope. Francis, with an iron fist in a gauntlet, took it over, ALMOST without any opposition. I VERY much expect the SSPX to be given same treatment as the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate.

    • That the Girls of Malta have folded is nothing to do with Francis. It is 100% to do with their own cowardice. And the Girls were far more independent than the SSPX.

      The SSPX could have their own sovereignty and issue their own passports. If they are girls, none of this will help. They could hand over all their assets to Francis tomorrow.

      What has happened with the Girls of Malta is not an argument against the agreement, is an argument in favour of it. It shows that if there is no spine no kind of autonomy or separation will ever be enough.


  4. Oh, one more thing: Remember a few years ago, during the BXVI reconciliation attempt, the SSPX always said they could not accept an agreement without prior doctrinal rectification of the errors of VII. Doctrine had to come first. Suddenly doctrine seems to have become irrelevant, even though we now have a Pope who is so heretical that he makes Luther look like St. Pius X himself.

    It is as though the leadership of the SSPX had stopped caring about doctrine, about the Faith. Now it is just about a canonical structure, a nice house in Rome and possibly a red hat (though even that will probably turn out to be an illusion once they have let the Trojan Horse inside the city walls…)

    In 2012 the agreement did not happen, because the SSPX was unwilling to compromise on doctrine and the Vatican was unwilling to correct the errors of VII. Now, nobody is interested in doctrine anymore. Now they have mercy and liturgical dancers instead.

    • In 2012 the agreement did not happen because the Vatican asked the SSPX to accept the goodness of V II as part of the doctrinal corpus of the church. This was a last-moment change from the first, preliminary statement, which stated that SSPX and Vatican acknowledged differences concerning the validity and opportunity of V II.

      I have seen no signs that the SSPX would accept today anything that it did not accept in 2012.

  5. Your Feb 27 point was the one I wanted to make: now that the Vatican has decided no conditions re: doctrine are necessary, the situation is totally changed. The SSPX still controls the purse strings of their Society. Since Rome has retracted the VII doctrine insistence, it is very hard to refuse the offer. The Society is not the Church. Worst case, if they were to ‘give in’, God’s Church will survive. And this is coming from a very staunch SSPX person, for greater than 30 years, as a very young woman. There will be a new resurgence of Tradition from somewhere. God may take his time but he is still God.

  1. Pingback: We Catholics Are Not Alone… | The Deus Ex Machina Blog

%d bloggers like this: