SSPX Priest: We Are Not The Church

I found this fascinating in that it shows the real progress that has been made with the SSPX, not of the doctrinal discussions, but with minds and hearts.

Rorate Reports that the following is "From the May 2012 issue of Seignadou, the newsletter of the chaplaincy of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) for the schools of the Traditional Dominican Sisters of Fanjeaux (France) - chaplain, Father Michel Simoulin, SSPX, former (1988-1996) director of the International Seminary of St. Pius X in Écône, Switzerland: "
Following our Jubilee [pilgrimage] in the year 2000, Rome took the initiative of establishing new relations. Today, the same Cardinal, having become Pope, has told us that the Tridentine Mass has never been abrogated (July 7, 2007: "It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated"); he rehabilitated our four Bishops (January 21, 2009); he accepted that we pursue doctrinal discussions for two years... all things that Abp.Lefebvre did not demand in 1988. It is not an exaggeration to say that Bp. Fellay achieved more than what Abp. Lefebvre asked for, without having the latter's prestige or moral authority. Should we then be even more demanding than Abp. Lefebvre or Bp. Fellay?

Whatever the state of Rome may be, of all that still remains that is disturbing in Rome, plain common sense and honesty should lead us to consider the current situation with different eyes than those of 1988! Recalling the saying of one of our bishops, we cannot be "eighty-eighters"! We are neither in 1975 with Paul VI nor in 1988 with John Paul II, but in 2012 with Benedict XVI. It can be said as much as one may wish to that the state of the Church is still of great concern, that our Pope has a theology that is at times strange, etc... we have said it enough, it seems to me; but let it not be said that the state of things is the same as in 1988, or worse. This is contrary to the reality and to the truth, and it cannot but be the effect of a more or less secret refusal of any reconciliation with Rome, perhaps of a lack of faith in the holiness of the Church, composed of poor sinners but always governed by her head, Jesus Christ, and sanctified by the Holy Ghost. The Society of Saint Pius X is not the Church, and it can only "respect its founder's heritage" by preserving his spirit, his love for the Church and his desire of serving her as a loving son, with faithfulness to her founding blessings.


Nobody still knows the conclusion that Benedict XVI will wish to give to these twelve years of slow work, of seeking a better understanding, of amassed prayers and rosaries. The time is come for prayer, as Bp. Fellay has called us to do, and for trust in the Church. The Immaculate Virgin, whom we will particularly honor in this month of May, will find out how to obtain for us all graces necessary, if we wish for nothing else than the victory of her Son and of the Church.
To me, that is more amazing than the lifting of the excommunications and the issuance of the motu proprio. I can only hope that manymore within the SSPX think the same way.


  1. This is definitely progress, but there's something about this statement that rubs me the wrong way. For lack of a better word (and maybe somebody can help me here), it almost sounds partisan. We didn't like this Pope or that Pope, but Benedict is okay in our book. So what if the next Pope is not to their liking? Will they retreat again? This sounds too heavily invested in personality. But I admit that perhaps I'm reading too much into this, and again, this is certainly a positive step.

  2. The SSPX is in a much stronger position than it was in 1988 and the Church much weaker, but along with the enfeeblement of the Church is the enfeeblement of the Old Liberals who feed on it, who are horrified of this reconciliation far more than the hardliners within the SSPX are.

  3. Paul Zummo is smack-on. The SSPX gets so many things right, but fidelity to the Bishop of Rome is an absolute, and in that they seem a bit shaky.

  4. Mr Hall,
    Paul Zummo could not be "smack-on" because what he was doing in his comment was asking a question and anouncing his uncertainty about his thinking. You see shakiness and lack of fidelity in the SSPX by reading that this SSPX Priest professes and encourgaes his readers to fidelity to the Roman Pontiff??!
    Go back, read first, then think, then comment.

  5. To me this is a very encouraging statement to make coming from one of their publications. My view of it is this. No it is not 1975 or 1988, but it is 2012, and it is high time to put our own opinions and views behind us and reunite with Rome because this time period may not come again so they should take advantage of it. The Pope himself said at the end of one of his books it is not our Church it is the Church of Jesus Christ.

  6. Hello! The SSPX surely doesn't have the "sentire cum Ecclesia" mentality that many devout Catholics have, however, I think that some within their group are trying to shed this Jansenist/Donatist/Pelagian error which would require a Church governed by (actual) saints. The sins which warrant excommunication are grave, but then again, most of us have committed grave sins: what will be our guiding attitude toward the infinite mercy AND unchanging dogmas of Holy Mother Church? It seems to me that the SSPX has difficulty with number one, the progressivist liberals absolutely hate number two. Oremus pro invicem ...


Post a Comment