Disclaimer: I’m not a theologian and certainly am no expert in the subject which follows. All I can say is it seems to me that there is a split in the Church with respect to religious fraternities founded by or growing out of the one founded by Archbishop Lefebvre. I simply do not understand why there is such a situation today with the news we receive from Rome these days. Is not a united front necessary in the current “state of necessity.”

We are told that the Fraternity of St. Peter began with priests formerly with the FSSPX. Those priests, I believe it was 12 in number, were unwilling to continue with the FSSPX, we are told, because of the illicit Consecration of Bishops by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988. The FSSPX is firmly against celebrating the new mass; the FSSP must say the new mass, if so directed by the local bishop in whose dioceses they are authorized to minister. Both organizations claim to be firmly committed to following Tradition in liturgy, practice and belief. However, the FSSP claims to have authority and jurisdiction whereas the FSSPX has to operate under the concept of “ecclesia supplet.”

Definition of Dichotomy from the Cambridge English Dictionary: A division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different. Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci,along with a group of over 40 theologians in their study of the new mass of Paul VI disputed any contention that the new mass was organically derived from the Mass codified in perpetuity by St. Pius V in 1570 (Papal Bull Quo Primum).

In closing, isn’t it long-past time for this rupture to be healed and a united front presented to the perpetrators of Evil in the Church we love? How can it be that the two religious orders say the same Mass and use the same Books – one use approved by Rome, the other not? The abominations we see happening in the Church of today rival those, and I think surpass those, in the past. St. Athanasius, pray for us.

Get AQ Email Updates


  1. If I understand correctly, the “12” men originally involved included one or more BLEEPS! whose internal relations with the Society were already troubled.
    And whether the “one or more” even grabbed Wojtyla’s “deal” way back then, I simply do not know. I doubt Fr. Cekada did.
    20 years on it would not be rash to think that a “united front” would more likely be “occasional but accidental” and less likely to be a meeting of minds. SSPX, ICK and FSSP each have strong financial support and, no doubt, plenty of axes to grind against each other for sundry reasons. (The latter two continue to define the Society as “schismatic” from accounts I’ve read from FSSP regulars and comments by Fr. Ripperger, once -but no longer – with the FSSP.)
    While I actually like what you’re getting at, Colonel, and admit the possibility not a few SSPX and FSSP priests fraternize occasionally, a formal alliance between the organizations’ power brokers might be problematic. Each has its particular “culture” and history. Neither seems to be focused on any sort of merger, though, despite the horror stories out of Rome in recent years.
    Totalling current priestly populations, we’d have 1,100 – 1,200 were they to merge – 1/4 of 1% of the global number of active priests today. I don’t know the census figures for ICK or any other more lately formed “traddish” groups.

  2. Here’s perhaps a totally different way of looking at the problem…
    That it’s not a problem.
    In other words, we could recall that human beings, besides being tainted with original sin, also have different talents, habits, and propensities. That’s why we have different institutes of consecrated life in the Church. The fact that the Benedictines have always been divided from the Dominicans, Franciscans, Jesuits, etc., has never been considered a problem, even when doctrinal disputes arose, as in the Molinist (Jesuit) vs. Dominican theories on predestination, actual grace and free will. This is an elaboration of the culture and history that gpm mentioned.
    Granted, the FSSP was a “schism” from the FSSPX, not an institute of a separate origin, and such splits generally leave acrimony behind, but probably one could say most of that has faded away.
    I’m not even sure they, or any other Traddish groups, need to get together and work together. Don’t they already present a united front in the most important way?
    If these groups hold to Catholic dogma, and at least have a strong preference for the True Mass, what else is really needed?

  3. Can’t top that perspective, NIN. Well said.

  4. I don’t think it’s a matter of disagreement between priests of the two orders regarding doctrine or dogma but a conscious attempt by bishops to fragment the Traditional movement by saying: Well, this group (FSSP) is in union with us but that one (FSSPX) isn’t. You know the story about the “circular firing squad”.well, here it is in plain view. In the meantime traditional Catholics are left to wonder who’s right.

    • Well, that may well be true. I just wonder if maybe Tradition wins in the end anyway. One thing I see is that various people come to Tradition with various levels of Tradition already in them. One thing the fragmentation does is make just about every level of Tradition available!

Leave a Reply