It is easy enough to see why “work, family, fatherland” would appeal more to a certain type of Catholic that “liberty, equality, fraternity.”

They were well described by Blondel, when Catholics were flocking to the banner of Charles Maurras’s l’action française. He accused them of desiring, “a Catholicism without Christianity, submissiveness without thought, an authority without love, a Church that would rejoice at the insulting tributes paid to the virtuosity of her interpretative and repressive system… To accept all from God except God, all from Christ except His Spirit, to preserve in Catholicism only a residue that is aristocratic and soothing for the privileged and beguiling or threatening for the lower classes”

One can see why even an atheist of fascist tendencies like Charles Maurras would relish that sort of religion, with its stress on hierarchy and corporatism, not only in the Church, but in society.

http://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section7.html

I would particularly call attention to his words, “the Syllabus then has no dogmatic force; it addresses us, not in its separate portions, but as a whole, and is to be received from the Pope by an act of obedience, not of faith, that obedience being shown by having recourse to the original and authoritative documents, (Allocutions and the like,) to which it pointedly refers.”

I have never seen a more succinct and precise statement of exactly what is wrong with the SSPX. Excellent!

“Newly appointed Ecclesia DeiPrelate, US Archbishop J. Augustine DiNoia, is charged with trying to achieve an accord between the SSPX and Rome. Yet again, there is the insistence that nothing in Vatican II is contrary to Tradition.

In a July 1 interview with the National Catholic Register, DiNola said of the SSPX, “What I’ve tried to argue is that all they have to do is to say there’s nothing in the Council that is contrary to Tradition and that every text, or every part of it that is controversial, should be read in context of the Council, and read it in light of the Tradition. It seems to me, despite their difficulties, they should be able to do that.”

Yet As Archbishop Lefebvre pointed out at the time of the Council, the Document on Religious Liberty does contain text that is contrary to Tradition.

Archbishop Lefebvre furthernoted that the progressive Fr. Yves Congar openly admitted Vatican II’s new doctrine of religious liberty is a rupture with the past. Congar said: “What is new in this teaching in relation to the doctrine of Leo XIII and even of Pius XII…is the determination of the basis peculiar to this liberty, which is sought not in the objective truth of moral or religious good, but in the ontological quality of the human person.”

Congar further stated, “”It cannot be denied that a text like this [the conciliar declaration on Religious Liberty] says materially something different from the Syllabus of 1864, and even almost the opposite of propositions 15, and 77 to 79 of that document.”

The SSPX thus cannot agree with Archbishop DiNoia’s that “there’s nothing in the Council that is contrary to Tradition”.”

So…who is telling the truth?

Considering the present leadership of both the Catholic Church and the SSPX, this may be the “last best chance” for rapprochement. My personal fear is that the SSPX turns, over time, into a sedevacantist version of the Old Catholics permanently (in human terms; Mark 10:27) beyond reconciliation.