The chief impediment for SSPX seems to be that over the "doctrine" of the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II). However, let us ask, are they not making mountains of molehills? One of the chief arguments made by "Traditionalists" has been that Vatican II was not a dogmatic/doctrinal council, but a pastoral one. Nothing was dogmatically (or doctrinally) defined by Vatican II, so why now would some in SSPX be throwing up allegedly doctrinal roadblocks based upon Vatican II? If the Traditionalists were right previously, does that make them wrong now?
I, for one, pray for acceptance of the personal prelature - and let them iron out anything else later. Bp. Tissier de Mallerais argues:
We refuse a purely practical agreement because the doctrinal question is fundamental. Faith comes before legality. We cannot accept a legalization without the problem of the faith being solved. To submit ourselves now unconditionally to the higher authority imbibed with Modernism would be to expose ourselves to have to disobey.So it would appear he assumes he will have to disobey something which does not exist at this time. How can he be held hostage to something he has not disobeyed yet because that which he MIGHT disobey has not been made real. What kind of "obedience" is it to willfully reject the jesture of Pope Benedict XVI?
Catholic Culture (Bp. Tissier de Mallerais critcizes "Modernist Rome" - not a hopeful sign)
Rorate Caeli (transcript of Bp. Tissier de Mallerais comments)