SSPX: What Is Going Horribly Wrong

Please follow this link and, among the documents therein contained, isolate and read (at least) these:

1. The one dated 7 April 2012 (Three Bishops to General Council).

2. The one dated 14 April 2012( General Council to Three Bishops) .

I have – not for the first time – read both documents and found myself – not for the first time – in full agreement with Fellay & Co.

However, I point out to the following. I will present this as a series of short points in an effort to make my thought linear and easy to digest in short pills. What I lose in prose I hope to gain in clarity and brevity.

1. You could have said that Ratzinger was sincerely interested in healing the riff with the SSPX. You cannot say that Bergoglio is sincerely interested in anything Catholic, at all.

2. This being the situation, mistrust toward any ouverture from the Vatican is more justified, and must be taken more seriously, than this was the case in 2012.

3. There can be no doubt that every agreement, every agreement at all which leads to a big fracture within the SSPX is not worth pursuing, as it is far more important that the SSPX remains a visible instrument of help to faithful Catholics in a time of crisis; a crisis which we see becoming deeper and deeper.

4. From what I can see up to now, the Vatican has laid no obvious traps. The independence of the Order is not threatened. The Order will maintain its own autonomy. The agreement seems to be no – legal – Trojan Horse.

5. However, Bishop Fellay's interview (about which I have written yesterday) indicates that a different price is being requested: the softening of tones against the Conciliar Church. This is extremely grave in light of the fact that this is most certainly not the time to soften any tone.

6. In turn, this softer attitude – now officially proclaimed by Bishop Fellay – reinforces the suspicion, certainly present inside the Society, that this embrace will prove deadly, albeit in several instalments. The recent removal of the eight French SSPX priests, though obviously connected to other controversies, does nothing to assuage the fear that some bullying not from Francis, but from the inside of the Society, in order to make it more agreeable to Francis and thus “deserving” of reconciliation, is in fact happening.

7. This is a destructive way to go at things. Archbishop Fellay should never put the reconciliation with the Vatican in front of the danger of a division within the SSPX. If he did so he would allow the enemies of Tradition to celebrate the tearing in two of the Society. Any reconciliation that causes such a bad outcome can most certainly wait for better times, when more orthodox Popes will allow a rapprochement in a different spirit and with far less divisions. No serious Catholic considers the SSPX one iota less Catholic without reconciliation. The reconciliation in itself is a lesser good than the continuation of the work of the SSPX in favour of tradition, her prestige and powerful voice speaking for orthodox Catholic in a time of heretical Popes.

8. Alternatively – and as others and myself have suggested in the past – a much better way is open to Bishop Fellay: a brutal defence of Catholic Truth, against the Pope and his minions, day in and day out. This would assuage fears that the SSPX is “going native”, which is the most important result. From this position of strength, every proposal of reconciliation – without any do ut des – could be discussed within the Society in a completely different atmosphere. And if, in consequence of this vigorous defence of Truth, no offer of reconciliation comes, so be it. This would be the obvious evidence that the reconciliation had only one aim: emasculate the SSPX and make of it a shark without teeth.


Bishop Fellay undermines the very mission of the SSPX when he states that, in consideration of the process of reconciliation, the SSPX will get softer. He is doing the work of Francis. This attitude can only have as a result a self-imposed obligation to be either silent or very hushed in the denunciation of the thousand evils of the Church. Even if the authority and autonomy of the SSPX should remain complete and unchallenged, this attitude would still be tantamount to a half self-castration for the sake of… what exactly? The approval of the biggest rascal ever elected Pope?

Fellay 2017 seems much different to me from Fellay 2012. I do not trust the motives of anyone who, in the face of unprecedented attack on Christ, invites to be less incisive in its condemnation. The SSPX must go to war full scale against Francis and his heresies, and leave Francis with the choices of whether to play the “inclusive card” for his own motives (which he has, as he could claim a non-judgmental attitude towards both extremes of the spectrum) or go wherever he pleases, sharpish.

What is happening is, if you ask me, very wrong. I hope that this line does not prevail. It would cause immense damage to the cause of Traditionalism exactly in a time of emergency. I would prefer for Bishop Fellay to be made to go first.



Posted on May 22, 2017, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, FSSPX, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. 22 Comments.

  1. The SSPX have a general chapter next year and a new Superior General will be elected. Somehow, I do not think that Bp. Fellay will be re-elected. The episode in France is just the tip. Other districts are also up in arms. And just like in the Universal Church, it is the German District of the SSPX who is behind this folly.

    It’s sad that the only thing Francis isn’t a complete failure in, is in creating dissent within the SSPX. And folks like Archbishop Schneider are not helping.

    The SSPX needs our prayers!

  2. johnfkennedy63

    Seems to me that the three SSPX Bishops were correct in 2012. Who would have thought at the time that B16 would be gone (sort-of) and His Humbleness would be swinging is wrecking ball at the faithful? I say it again. It is a trap.

    • The bishops made a more fundamental claim: that there should be no reconciliation until the errors of V II are renounced. This I think wrong.

    • Mundabor wouldn’t a condemnation of the errors of V2 be the ideal? Which of the errors should be kept? I am vastly ignorant I admit, but the documents and the effects of V2 seem to be doublespeak designed to allow disorientation and loopholes for the modernists.

    • You are smarter than most V II people who think themselves very smart.

  3. Mundabor says:

    “I do not trust the motives of anyone who, in the face of unprecedented attack on Christ, invites to be less incisive in its condemnation. The SSPX must go to war full scale against Francis …”

    Bishop Fellay and the laity of the SSPX have been in the “midst of wolves” since Archbishop Lefebvre established his priestly society against ALL odds and now you Catholics who haven’t helped us all these years build Chapels, Convents, Seminaries, Monasteries, Retreat Houses & Schools are warning us?! Thinking Bishop Fellay is naïve?!
    We all know what and who we’re dealing with and even if the modernists try to destroy the Society the laity, baptized faithful, know what to do. We will once again pick up our Crosses and build along with the faithful Society’s Catholic Bishops and Priests while the rest look on and act too afraid to help…again!

    Mundabor says:

    “5. However, Bishop Fellay’s interview (about which I have written yesterday) indicates that a different price is being requested: the softening of tones against the Conciliar Church. This is extremely grave in light of the fact that this is most certainly not the time to soften any tone.”

    Bishop Fellay explains how now is the time to let others, and NOT just the SSPX for once, be the only ones complaining so as not to disqualify them. Did you listen to the video? He is prudent.

    SSPX. org says:

    “Bishop Fellay comments on the growth of the Society worldwide, the preparation of the coming General Chapter of the SSPX, and he answers the accusations of those who claim the Society to have been too soft in its criticism of Amoris Laetitia.

    ‘I think it is important that people notice that we are no longer the only ones who complain, who denounce, who attack poor situations which are harming souls. It could be one of the reasons why, here and there, I would not talk immediately, letting their voice appear and not mixing mine with theirs. Because usually when we do that, they are disqualified because this tendency of disqualifying us in the modern Church is still very present. And so, letting their voice be heard, for the whole Church, is probably better. And everybody anyway knows what we think and what our positions are. It has not changed and everybody knows that.’ ”


    Who’ll say Mass
    Assumption Feast?
    No longer done
    Said parish priest.

    Who will baptize
    Little one?
    More important

    The Catholic Faith
    Please teach my child?
    Not I, said nun born-

    Who will help
    Teach catechism?
    Don’t call it that
    It sounds like schism.

    Who will hear
    My child confess?
    We’re all forgiven

    Who will give
    The angels’ Bread?
    Sue and Fred.

    Confirm my teens
    Their souls they’re losing?
    That must be done
    Of their own choosing.

    So little mother
    Walked away
    Hating to
    Look bold.

    Never orphaned
    Clung to Cross
    Deposit – Faith
    Her gold.

    Then up above
    On mountain top
    A man in white
    He stood.

    Just one more Bishop
    Who’ll try to stop…
    What’s good.

    But Bishop lifted
    Up her Cross
    His sons helped
    Bear the weight.

    And Pilgrims in
    Progressive lands
    Continued in

    They handed down
    What they were taught
    Vocations now
    They flourish

    And others old
    Who loved new-thought
    Had only crust
    To nourish.

    But little mother
    Saw their tears
    Starving for
    What’s true…

    Come in, come in,
    We’ve waited years…
    His Bread, for many,
    For you!!!

    Our Lady of Fatima, ora pro nobis!

    • Your accusation to other people of not helping when you don’t know them is unwarranted. Nor is the softening position of Fellay justified in any circumstance.
      It us also wrong of him to say that the SSPX should not be alone. The laity has been far more assertive in the criticism of Francis then the SSPX.

      The SSPX making her tone dependent of other people’s decision is as inconsequential as Burke not issuing the condemnation because he feels alone.

      I assure you myself and other bloggers who speak the truth feel in very little company (at least among the living). But this does not stop us from saying it like it is.

  4. Pope Francis is not forever the Pope. And Pope Francis may be on the borderline in some of his statements, but as of this moment he strides in apparent closure of ambiguity. Most important it is to renew the ties of full communion, legalistically. God will provide the rest, for His Church needs the help of the SSPX to restore commitment to orthodoxy, and the Church exists in God’s time and timing.

    • Francis is not on the borderline anymore. Amoris Laetitia openly promotes heresy and sacrilege.

      Your assertion may be right in abstract, but you deprive it from its proper context: the question is whether it is right to pursue a reconciliation that: a) leads to compromises in the moral stance of the Society and b) splits it.

  5. Mundabor, there is some good material on the Ecclesia Militans website that you linked to. However, it is a Resistance site (a position I personally support, as it fights to maintain the founding principles of Archbishop Lefebvre, unlike the softening stance against Modernist Rome that is happening under Bp. Fellay’s leadership) that heavily promotes two Resistance priests in the U.S. — Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko. Ecclesia Militans website supports these two troublesome priests, who are against the four Resistance Bishops (+Williamson, +Faure, +Aquinas and +Zendejas). Just making you aware of an unfortunate division that occurred.

    Other sites providing pertinent information on the crisis in the SSPX, and who support the four Resistance Bishops, can also be found on (“SSPX Resistance News” section of the forum), and Also, (+Williamson’s weekly column).

    • Thanks Charmaine. I have provided the link, but did not intend to promote the site.

      I do not like a “resistance” that states that the Vatican is the devil and no agreement should be accepted until they go back to complete orthodoxy. However, I am also worried about the softening of the stance of Bishop Fellay.

    • We see where this is going: splinter groups dividing into more splinter groups. Bishop Fellay must be aware that either he provides a strong leadership or there is the risk of no end of micro groups all at odds with each other.

      I also note that whilst Archbishop Lefebvre at times spoke harshly about not reconciling with Rome, he signed an agreement which he immediately after reneged upon. Whilst the reasons for doing so were perfectly valid, this shows that the Archbishop would not demand from the Vatican that they abandon all of V II before a reconciliation.

      At the same time, I cannot imagine the Archbishop doing what Fellay is doing now: saying “let us be softer now because there is the carrot of the reconciliation being dangled in front of us”.

  6. Mondabor, have you met Bishop Fellay? If not then do not be so radical in your statement of him and allude to his dismissal. I have and the encounter was most heartening. One of the best! Trust in God and the Holy Spirit more rather than speak against a prelate who is the real deal and is obviously working according to the Holy Spirit Guidance.

    • Oh for heaven sake, cut this rubbish if you want to be able to post comment on this blog.

      If I had to refrain from criticism every time an old woman has had a burst of emotion, all 6000 Catholic bishops would be living saints.

  7. Just wait, do nothing, sign nothing until October. I have a feeling our Lady will make things clear in October

  8. Thankfully today the layity have the opportunity to keep up with what is happening. The Catholics of the concilliar era were in the dark and simply trusted Rome to lead the Church without diviation from the past. That blind trust has allowed destruction on every front.

  9. Any major U.S. archdiocese could use Bishop Fellay as their ordinary right now. He would be an upgrade over Sean, Dolan, Wuerl, etc. because he would require the TLM I would assume. Archbishop Lefebvre did not recommend a bishop be the superior general because the bishops he consecrated were only because other bishops would ordain priests for the SSPX when he died. A 12-year term is awfully long for a major religious superior, 2 12-year terms is more than enough. If Bishop Fellay gets a diocese somewhere he clearly deserves it since he’s never said the New Mass.

  10. The nature of leadership, Mudabor, isn’t to assure that everyone follows you. Our Lord spoke the truth and those who had followed Him left Him. Is Jesus lacking in leadership because human beings, being bent on following their own limited understanding, tend to splinter into smaller and smaller groups?

    Whiles the reasons +Bishop Fellay is leading the way he is may not meet your criteria of prudence, you are not the one in the driver’s seat, Friend. And back seat driving is always the easy road. Just sayin’.

%d bloggers like this: