With the June 28th deadline given to the SSPX to agree to the Vatican terms fast-approaching, there is a good deal of buzz over whether "this is it".

Sadly, reading Bishop Fellay's homily from last Friday's SSPX ordinations in the U.S., it does not sound likely:

It is so far that Rome has given me an ultimatum. Seems that the last Letter to the Benefactors has been not so well received in Rome. They consider it as a proof of pride, of arrogance, and that's what they don't want. And we are not going to shut down our mouths, or to shut up.

[...]

[45:08] And now, we are, should we say, something like at a crossroads. And in a certain way, Rome is telling us, 'OK, we are ready to lift up the excommunication, but you cannot continue this way"

So, we have no choice, we are not going this way, we are continuing what we have done, we have fought now for forty years to keep this faith alive. To keep this Tradition not only for ourselves, but for the Church. And we are just going to continue, happens what happens. Everything is in God's hands. If God wants this proof, this trial to continue, it may continue. He will give us the grace we need for it. No fear, we'll wait for better times. That's what the Archbishop said twenty years ago. That's what we continue to say today.

And yet, reading the five conditions published today by Andrea Tornielli of il Giornale (translated by Fr. Z here ), I don't see why this is so difficult:

Conditions resulting from the 4 june 2008 meeting between Dario Card. Castrillon Hoyos and Bishop Bernard Fellay:

1. A commitment to a proportioned response to the generosity of the Pope.
2. A commitment to avoid any public speech which does not respect the person of the Holy Father and which can be negative for ecclesial charity.
3. A commitment to avoid the pretense of a Magisterium superior to the Holy Father and to not put forward the Fraternity [SSPX] in opposition to the Church.
4. A commitment to demonstrate the will to behave honestly in full ecclesial charity and in respect to the authority of the Vicar of Christ.
5. A commitment to respect the date – fixed at the end of the month of June – to respond positively.  This will be a required and necessary condition for the immediate preparation for adhesion to have full communion.

This isn't hard. This is an opportunity to set things straight, to demonstrate a spirit of cooperation and continue the fight for continuity with tradition from within a position of full, visible communion with Rome. The fact that religious liberty isn't even mentioned in these points (if they are, in fact, the real contents of the letter) seems to me to demonstrate a wiggle room for theological discussion on that point. After all, Fr. Feeney had his excommunication lifted and was restored to good standing without having to issue a retraction on his hardline stance regarding the dogma of "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" for the express reason that his position was not, unpopular as it was, contrary to the doctrinal teaching of the Church.

Couldn't the SSPX construe this silence on such a hot-button issue to be of a similar nature? Or is religious liberty not the sticking point here? I hope this is not a case of insurmountable pride - the inability to suffer wrongs joyfully for Christ and His Church. There is no question that the SSPX has been wronged, being singled out for discipline while heterodox bishops run amok. There is also no question that God rewards obedience, and Bishop Lefebvre failed to demonstrate that perfect obedience in consecrating his four bishops against the will of the Holy Father, arguments about conscience notwithstanding.

I believe much prayer is needed so that this rift can be healed. The SSPX is filled with good Catholics who should be our allies, not our adversaries. The delicacy of this situation cannot be overstated, and it seems a critical opportunity is in danger of being passed over.