A) In paragragh IV, Fr. Schmidberger says that Abp Lefebvre was seeking recognition even after the 1988 consecrations. He fails to mention that the Archbishop laid down conditions: a total return by Rome to the anti-liberal and anti-modernist documents of Traditional Popes. The same paragraph states that the SSPX did not seek a rapprochement with Rome. That Rome started it in 2000. Fr. S. fails to mention that the GREC meetings, seeking to “normalize” the Society, started in 1997, with the blessing of Bishop Fellay.
B) In paragraph V, the letter states that Rome has greatly lowered her conditions for a normalization, and that it is therefore the right time for us to accept. Fr. S. fails to understand that the lowering of the demands by Rome is because: 1-The SSPX has already been re-branded and is therefore more agreable to Rome; 2-Rome knows that more liberalization of the SSPX will happen naturally after the normalization.
C) In paragraph VI (Answers to objections) # 3, Fr. S. says the SSPX will not keep silent after the normalization. But in fact, they already are doing so! And they have been for years! The SSPX reactions to Assisi 3, to the World Youth Days, to the “canonizations/beatifications” of Popes J.XXIII, JPII, and Paul VI, to the Synods on the Family and the latest encyclical of Pope Francis (Amoris Laetitiae), and other scandals, have been nothing more than subdued and soft “slaps on the wrist.” So it will be worse after the normalization, as the SSPX will fear to lose what it will have taken such pains to acquire.
D) In Par. VI, #4, Fr. S. says we have to make ourselves as useful as possible to the Church, which means the SSPX n eeds to be normalised, to make the Church better by the SSPX being inside. My answer to this is the same as above in B and C: Once absorbed into the official modernist structure, the SSPX, which has already lost its “saltiness,” will be overwhelmed by bad influences, and its message and actions will have steadily less effect.
E) In Par. VI, # 5, Fr. S. says that the whole point of the situation is: “Who will convert whom?” And that we need to be strong, and we will be the ones converting the modernists once we are inside. This is the same kind of reasoning as somebody who would rent a room in a brothel in order to convert the prostitutes and their clients! It is a sin of presumption.
F) In Par. VI, #6, Fr. S. says that we are not facing the same problems and temptations as the other Traditional communities who have rallied to Rome and then betrayed the fight, because often with guilt these communities started the process, whereas in the case of SSPX, it is Rome that started it in 2000. My answer to this is like in A: GREC started the process in 1997, with the blessing of Bishop Fellay.
G) In Par. VII (Conclusion), Fr. S says that we must not fear, because the Society has been consecrated to the BVM, and She will protect us. He fails to mention so many Congregations and persons consecrated to Her who have perished since Vatican II! Just think of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate, the Servites of Mary, and so forth and so on! The BVM is never going to help those who put themselves voluntarily into an occasion of sin and destruction! To believe the contrary is to mock Her and to mock God! Once again, a sin of presumption! This is not the best way, to say the least, to work at the conversion of Rome and the re-building of the Church!
All that will be left to say, once the Society is “normalised,” is: RIP SSPX, and God have mercy on us!