1) I don't have strong opinions about them. I have some sympathies for what appears to have motivated them. I would not/did not act on those sympathies in the same manner.

2) Counterfactual too far from reality to contemplate (for me).

3) I would be willing to bet that fewer than 1% of Catholics in my diocese have any idea what the SSPX is. I think that they are a long way from worrying about 'winning'.

1. Everyone in this "focus group" will share some liturgical leanings with members of SSPX but our views are welcomed in traditionalist corners in full communion. SSPX goes beyond what we're willing to accept. They're the Donald Trump of traditionalists.
2. None.
3. Announce that you're disbanding.

1) Good guys, we need them, a little cranky

2) Probably none.

3) Join the FSSP

There is a local SSPX chapel. I long for their full, conscious, active reconciliation. In the meantime, I speak with and of them charitably.

When the Bishop of Rome can behave as this one does, he gives credence to the claim that he is a modernist. When insanity gets a brass fanfare, other sections of the orchestra look more sensible. I thank God that I have an Institute parish here, too.

I'm not a local ordinary.

1. I have no animosity toward SSPX and they have no presence in this diocese. There were some SSPV folks and a priest around at one time. They were a different animal, to be sure.

2. I am not nor will I ever be a Catholic bishop. Among all the things I have been accused of, that one has never come up.

3. Hard to say. SSPX is a group of monarchist sympathizers in France. That wouldn't mean much of anything in America. I did read something by one of them on the martyr, St. Louis the XVI, who was anointed and consecrated by God, etc. Poor old Louis was something of a dim bulb with no management skills, as best I can tell.

Thanks for the excellent and very thoughtful replies! I'm just very curious to see if the perceptions of mainstream Catholics about the SSPX have changed over the years, and I think there has indeed been a small but positive shift. I know my understanding of them has changed a great deal since the 80's, and I think there have been some significant changes in the American leadership since the days when Bishop Williamson penned his letters from Winona.

If I were a bishop (ha!ha!), I would definitely want to regularize them and give them a parish if there was one that was on the skids and needed TLC. I would want to work closely with them and use that parish as a model for implementing the original goals of the Liturgical Movement, for which I think the SSPX in Europe has a great deal of sympathy. In fact, I'd say: Let me know what you need to make this parish just like St. Nicolas du Chardonnet.

If I could proffer any advice to the SSPX leadership in America, I'd encourage them to reconcile with Rome as soon as possible. I used to get very frustrated by what I thought was their nitpickiness, esp. during the former pontificate, but, clearly, there are many things I do not know about their situation and what goes on behind closed doors. If a disagreement about the fine details of Dignitatis Humanae or Unitatis Redintegratio is what is holding the works up, I'd be very inclined to say that if the FSSP and other traditional orders could find a way to live with them, it seems to me the SSPX could, too.

However, I do admit there ought to be some basic guarantees about their doctrinal autonomy if they ever reconcile with the Church. We don't hear very much about the doctrine of the Kingship of Christ taught by Pius XI in Quas Primas, i.e., the idea that Christ should reign in the public square in addition to being King of our hearts, but isn't it reasonable to assume that our SSPX friends could use a little reassurance that when they come back and start preaching this doctrine, they will be left alone?

With the doctrine "Outside the Church there is no salvation" (understood, of course, according to the mind of the Church) so little taught today, is it not also reasonable to assume that the SSPX would also need some reassurance that when they come back and teach this doctrine, they are not going to have to worry about blowback?

Although the then-Cardinal Ratzinger could get away with saying in his autobiography that the crisis of faith we are witnessing is due to the collapse of the liturgy, can we not understand that the SSPX would need some guarantees when they come back that if they speak in such a frank fashion, they will enjoy a similar immunity from harm?

It seems to me that if we're talking about tearing down walls for homosexuals, the divorced and remarried, those living together, and for Lutherans and the Jewish people and the Orthodox, can't we give the SSPX a little reassurance that if they come back under the Big Tent, preaching what the Church has always taught, their right to religious liberty will also be respected?

Oops. You're right, Liam; that certainly is a poor choice of words on my part. It's just that there are so many different expressions of the Faith subsisting in the Church now. What I meant to say is that if Cardinal Kasper and Cardinal Burke can both remain in good standing in the Church, then it's certainly possible for the SSPX to exist in the same Church as Cardinals Maradiaga, Baldisseri and Marx.

P.S. Re: the SSPX being like the Donald Trump of traditionalists. I agree. Like Donald Trump, their bark may be worse than their bite. I'd be very wary of stereotypes and thinking that just because someone spouts militant and militaristic rhetoric and seems like a tough, demanding, uncompromising son-of-a-biscuit-eater, it doesn't necessarily follow that he/she is as irrational and autocratic as he/she appears to be, and perhaps the public persona is being projected to throw people off the track?

By the same token, those who appear to be fluffy, squishy, loosey-goosey and eminently reasonable might in reality be fascist hard-liners and devoted war-mongerers. It's the fine print you have to be looking at, not the political theater. I'm not inclined to vote for someone who's been married three times either, just as I'm not inclined to support a religious order that has an irregular status, but that doesn't mean I don't agree with a great deal of what someone says and does and that I applaud their honesty and courage.

"it's certainly for the SSPX to exist in the same Church as Cardinals Maradiaga, Baldisseri and Marx."

It's just that none of them have any assurance of autonomy. Coexistence is not neat, not tidy, and not at all comfortable.

1. Heretics
2. It's a free country, they can put up anything they want as long as they don't call themselves Catholic
3. Go back to France. We don't need any of your **** here

Mercy!

1. They are no more (and no less) a part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church than are many Catholic-without-the-Pope Anglicans. One can learn much from them and their experience, but one also needs to understand what the problems are.

2. I can't imagine any formal relationship. I think if I was a Bishop in an area where they were active, I would work harder to make sure that we had ample opportunity for that sort of liturgical piety --- either by homegrowing priests trained in the EF or by trying to bring in FSSP (or similar) priests. (I like to think I would do this anyway, but having "competition" would probably ensure it.)

3. Repent. The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.

What chonak said.

Also, while I agree with Adam's second point, it is often done spitefully and very obviously so. For example, the Mass time of the new TLM is exactly the same time as the SSPX Mass... It also seems problematic that it isn’t as organic as envisioned by Summorum and for a negative reason at that. It is one thing for a bishop to invite the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest to take over a church. It is another to ask the FSSP to keep people from the SSPX. Admittedly, that is a part of their charism, but the two groups shouldn't be made to fight from the get-go.

Before I speak, my biases....

I have many dear and good friends in the SSPX and I am married to a French girl. So bhcordova's commentary is especially problematic for me.

That being said, there are many strands of thought running in the minds of those of the society. Many of the older clergy and families just simply do not feel welcome in the NO or the EF practiced in the those churches "in communion" with Rome. I say "in communion" because some in the society feel that they are connected to Rome and some don't. Some in the society feel that they "are" the Catholic Church and those of us outside of them are not. However, many of the younger members, clergy and families alike, feel very strongly that they have a mission to present the "fullness" of the faith, including the authority of the Pope, to the larger church. I would tell you that it was an absolute thunderstorm that Francis allowed them to hear confessions. That literally came out of nowhere.

I appreciate Julie's commentary that caritas and misericordias are necessary on both sides of the table. I have encountered animosity of the highest degree from both parties and I have been to St. Nicolas du Chardonnet where invective is thrown out regularly against the diocesan church, which historically treated those folks like sh-t. So it is no surprise that we have a ways to go.

Also, there are a great many in the SSPX who do wish that much of the animosity would go away. I know of men who are earnestly trying to reach out to FSSPs and diocesan clergy who are open to them. It will take time as enmity does not go away in a day or even a year.

I have the blessing of teaching a young organist who plays for the society. I am always touched by her profound respect for presence of Christ in the tabernacle when she comes for her lesson. She treats the space no differently than her own church and covers her head and wears appropriate clothing. Her faith is no different than mine, except that she knows a lot more than many of her contemporaries. One could say she is a true believer, but I do not experience her in any way except someone who beautifully practices her Catholic faith.

As Julie and I have said, the future of the church in France is in the hands of the traditionalists. It is they who will restore the beauty of Catholicism to its eldest daughter. The numbers support this notion and I even believe the dioceses are aware of it.

In the meantime, pray for ourselves and our relationship to the society. Pray that stupid biases and misunderstandings will fall away. But they will only fall away when we open ourselves to them and they to us. Because in the end, we and they are really us together.

No, we need to pray for the society's relation to us. They are the ones who refuse to accept the Church's teachings.

Just to be clear, other than their disagreements with Rome which cause them to act without faculties (which is a problem, don't misunderstand me), what church teachings do they disagree with?

even the Church doesn't follow the documents of Vatican II

*beats head slowly on organ console*

Refusing to submit is objectively schismatic. Pope John Paul II, Eccelsia Dei, and the CDF have called members of SSPX schismatic. But they aren't necessarily in formal schism. I.e., they refuse submission (material schism) but that is not their subjective intent. They just mistakenly believe that the circumstances don't require submission.

Just to be clear, other than their disagreements with Rome which cause them to act without faculties (which is a problem, don't misunderstand me), what church teachings do they disagree with?

Have you heard of a little council called Vatican II?

I don't know if it makes you a bad Catholic, but at least you didn't leave the Church over it.

The only conciliar document with which they have significant doctrinal problems is Dignitatis Humanae

And the only doctrinal problem Henry VIII had with the Church was the teaching on divorce.

And the only doctrinal problem Henry VIII had with the Church was the teaching on divorce.

The fact is, they're not in at all the same situation as Henry VIII. If they are completely outside the church, how can you reconcile with these points (as pointed out by another poster)?

1. We can attend their Masses and contribute to their collection.
2. They are regularly given permission to celebrate Mass in Catholic shrines and basilicas.
3. A bishop in Europe asked them to say Mass for a TLM community.
4. Some bishops that need to remain nameless have given them faculties within the bishops own diocese.
5. They have been given faculties for confessions this year.

and some more of my own:

6. Ecclesia Dei specifically avoided using the term "schism"
7. Benedict XVI lifting the excommunications of the previously excommunicated bishops.

And lastly, it's my understanding that the teachings of Vatican II are less of a concern: it's always been considered a pastoral not dogmatic council, meaning it's more about practice (which can be discussed, like liturgy), not dogma (which must be accepted).

BhCordova,

On the very point you raise,

Have you heard of a little council called Vatican II?

, what actual teaching of the council do they reject?

I don't know if it makes you a bad Catholic, but at least you didn't leave the Church over it.

Oh, the irony. Certainly the ecclesiology of Vatican II makes clear that the SSPX haven't left the Church.

Yes, precisely, Michael Dickson. I don't believe they would like to be relegated to a spot on the pantheon, either, and that's the irony and weirdness of it all. I don't think they would like at all to have to appeal to the principles of Dignitatis Humanae to assure that they have a place in the Church, as if the Church were a pluralistic secular society.

At the same time, though, if they are assured a place in the Church and are guaranteed total freedom to teach the Faith as it has always been taught and dispense the sacraments according to the traditional rite, will they take it? I would say to them, a la Donald Trump, find some "killer" SSPX priests, negotiate a sweetheart deal with the Vatican and hop on board the Good Ship Lollipop.

P.S. Another possibility: what if Pope Francis just declares someday that the SSPX are fully regularized (without even consulting them first!)? What will the SSPX do then?

1. We can attend Muslim services and contribute to their collection.

2-4. I haven't seen proof that members of SSPX are given permission by competent bishops to celebrate Mass at shrines and basilicas with the knowledge that they are members of SSPX and that similar permission is denied to all non-Catholics.

6. Ecclesia Dei has used the term "schism." Ecclesia Dei N. 539-99 (http://unavoce.org/resources/protocol-53999/): "With regard to the schismatic Society of St. Pius X."

7. Paul VI lifted the excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Is the argument that SSPX is as Catholic as the Eastern Orthodox?

The Argentine situation was partly politically-ruddered by the situation of the SSPX under civil law there.