With great surprise I read around that some bloggers are afraid that the SSPX may deliver themselves to their executioner in order to… Well I don't even know: to be allowed by Francis to listen to confessions, which they do anyway and ever did anyway?
Do not be afraid and sleep soundly. I know we live in times of widespread betrayal and mass flight of supposed faithful pastors, but it is utterly unrealistic to think that this would apply to the SSPX, too.
Let us see why.
1. These are people ready to be excommunicated the day of their consecration. Everyone of them. They don't look to me like the ones eager to get the approval of a lewd heretic. They look to me, actually, like pretty tough guys.
2. Fellay told some years ago (when there was the provisional agreement with Ecclesia Dei, reneged by Benedict at the eleventh hour) that any deal with the Vatican would have to be approved by the majority of the SSPX priests. Therefore, even if you do not trust Fellay (very wrongly, I add) you can sleep soundly.
3. The SSPX has enough financial support to finance a massive growth, and their seminaries attract enough candidates to fuel this growth. The Society goes on like clockwork. If they were in dire financial straits one might understand a degree of fear; but they are in rude health both spiritually and financially.
4. Every SSPX priest has certainly been told, and has present at all times, the duplicitous attempts to neutralised them perpetrated by JP II and Benedict. That they would trust, of all people, Francis is simply beyond belief. Within the SSPX there is a culture of deep mistrust in the Vatican hierarchy. You can't undo such a situation so easily if you are a saintly Pope who is a friend of truth and tradition, much less if you are a dirty old man with a satanical attraction for Judas' character.
5. The treatment or the FFI must have opened the eyes even of those, say, three Pollyannas within the SSPX ready to trust Francis. But three seems a big number to me.
6. Two words: Amoris Laetitia.
No. The SSPX simply delivering themselves to a V II pope's mercy is just not going to happen.
What can happen, however, is that the Vatican surrenders unconditionally to their requests, creating a situation of de facto “pacific convivence”. We are pretty much there, in fact, when you think that Francis has just decided – as largely expected – to extend sine die the faculties of the SSPX to listen to confessions. This certainly authorises to think that the SSPX will keep doing their thing and the Vatican will simply look the other way, with nothing more than a mild meow of disagreement for their refusal of V II.
Stay calm and trust the Society.
They aren't the guys to be conned by a simpleton like Francis, or by any V II pope come to that.
Bishop Fellay has met the Evil Clown himself. This is if not historic, certainly important. Methinks, one of the two might be happening.
1) Francis, who is afraid of the damage serious Catholics like the SSPX can do to him, is preparing a reconciliation, which might well look like a simple unconditional surrender: “keep doing your own thing in your own way. You're in full communion. Nothing else changes”. Not very likely, but possible. Upside for Francis: he keeps his most dangerous opponents if not quiet, at least on better terms. Upside for the Society: no compromises and, obviously, no delivering themselves to their executioner. Francis isn't a theoretical man, and he doesn't care for principles of any sort. If there's a pope who can say “who cares, it's expedient, let's do it” it's him.
2) A huge bomb is about to explode on the 8 Aprl. Francis is preparing the defence with 360 degrees “mercy” credentials. “Why do you complain for adulterers receiving communion? I also allow the SSPX priests to validly hear confessions! You see? The “peripheries” are sooo important to me!”.
We will have to wait some more days.
As it is, I smell a big rat. But then again to me hearing from Francis and smelling a rat go together like the well-known horse and carriage.
It is difficult not to be impress by the numbers, or pleased at what they mean.
It is not only that the Traditionalist plant is strong. It is, more tellingly, that these young seminarians know that they are choosing to be priests in a much different environment that it was thinkable only one decade ago. To them, persecution is more than a vague possibility. It is, if things continue to go on this way, a factual certainty.
And yet, God inspires them to give their lives to Him, uncaring of consequences, and very probably the more motivated because of them.
The good tree gives good fruits. What is Francis' tree producing besides a fluffy new world religion, environ-mentalism, socialist kindergarten talk and illegal Muslim immigration?
As the corrupted mainstream V II withers and dies, the remnant grows strong and ready to give battle.
In your charity, consider saying your rosary of today for these brave souls.
You really should (I mean, I cannot force you to; but I encourage you to see this as a must) head to father Z and read the beautiful exchange he had with a SSPX priest about not only the Mass, but the V II Sacraments in general.
(Now I will patiently wait a couple of minutes until you have read all of it…)
I allow myself to notice the following:
- The SSPX speaks, very boldly, for the entire Society. And says, very boldly, that strange “attending the new Mass is a sin” talk is not the SSPX line, and would have caused a frightful shampoo even in the “old bad days”, when certain elements were still around.
Yours truly remarks that this has always been his position, too, and the way he has always understood the SSPX’s position; and that the occasional unfortunate, or very unfortunate, remarks coming from some corners of the SSPX must be read cum grano salis, and put in the context of an organisation that feels, not without reason, under siege by those who should defend the common faith. Besides, there is no denying until some years ago there were elements within the SSPX that were pushing a Rome=evil agenda, which is also not the SSPX position and sounds very Protestant to me. Whilst there is a lot of evil in Rome, it’s not Satan’s HQ, nor will it ever be.
2. The Novus Ordo mass is certainly valid, and it is certainly not a sin to attend it; but the entire “Spirit of V II” that goes with it – and which influences both the way the Mass is celebrated, and the way the priest steers his congregation – is such that it puts souls in danger, as (this is mine), they get exposed to a Kindergarten Mass together with Worse Than Kindergarten Theology, and the results are in front of all of us. Yours truly feels, in a word, vindicated from the accusation of “not caring enough for truth” raining on him every time he says to his readers that whilst it is much preferable to attend a TLM if they can, the NO Mass is certainly valid and they are not exempted from mass obligation merely because the priest is an idiot of dubious virility.
3. The SSPX recognises all of the other Sacraments, too. This means – shocking! – that they even recognise absolutions given by Jesuits!
All of the above must, as always, be read with a brain. It does not mean that the SSPX recognises the validity of a NO mass in which such abuses take place, that it is legitimate to doubt that the mass is valid. But your garden variety NO Mass is valid.
You will, however, notice this: that a conservative V II priest and a SSPX priest are, undoubtedly, both united on the same side; and whilst they might differ on a couple of issues, they recognise this reality in the same way as they recognise the distance separating both of them from heterodox or utterly heretical priests, bishops and cardinals.
The NO is not invalid, nor is it evil. But when the Church goes back to sanity, the NO will most certainly go.
Most of my readers are certainly familiar with the concept of supplied jurisdiction, so I will waste time on this. I would like, however, to make some considerations for the “legalist” crowd.
So, you think the SSPX has no supplied jurisdiction, and any confession or marriage celebrated by them is not valid. Why would you, then, go to confession by them after the 8 December and for around one year afterwards? Why would you go to confession to people you consider abusing their priestly role by doing things they are explicitly not allowed to do, and even deceiving the sheep about the validity of their confession or their marriage?
Apart from very rare, rather extreme examples, in which I believe the SSPX priest has jurisdiction even for the Vatican (say: man about to die, no Novus Ordo priest around for the Last Rites) the answer can only be one: because they are so beautifully, authentically Catholic.
Which, truly, answers the question about the supplied jurisdiction once and for all. These are perfectly Catholic priests doing nothing else than perfect (ahem, almost perfect if you ask me) Catholic work. There can be no doubt on their being 100% orthodox. There can be no doubt on their obedience to ecclesiastical authority whenever this does not contravene to a higher loyalty, the one to God. There can be no doubt the metre with which the SSPX measures this higher loyalty is nothing else that Catholic tradition in its purest form, as opposed to the orgy of Neomodernism (or worse) en vogue in Rome.
How can you, therefore, say that these disobedient people are your example of Catholicism, which is, in the end, obedience to the Lord? Are they being obedient to the Lord? Then they most certainly have supplied jurisdiction. Are they not obedient to the Lord? Then you should not approach them during the Year of False Mercy.
Ecclesia Supplet. When a Catholic is not allowed by his bishop or his Pope to do the Catholic thing, he does it nevertheless, with many greetings to the Pope or bishop. Athanasius did it, Eusebius did it, and Marcel also did it. I am pretty sure many others simple priests found themselves in similar situations and did the right thing, particularly during the Arian troubles, because I can't imagine that there weren't many priests ready to say exactly this: Ecclesia supplet. If you are a truly Catholic priests, and your bishop tells you that you must recite a different Creed at Mass – because some of the pewsitters might be offended by the old one – you know exactly what directions you will give to him, and that's that.
The SSPX have supplied jurisdiction, or they haven't. If they have, you certainly don't need Francis to tell you what they can or cannot do. If they cannot they are at least disobedient and probably gravely sinful people, and then you should avoid them anyway.
Athanasius was excommunicated. He continued his job, uncaring. More than that – and something I seldom read about – he and St. Eusebius started appointing bishops of their own, again ignoring the Pope. The bishops they appointed – and I read about that seldom, too – were not bishop without territorial jurisdiction, like the SSPX one. They were bishops in charge of a diocese all right. Nor can it be said that in that world of difficult communications the Pope might not have had control of certain territories. Firstly, it is poppycock (communications in the Roman Empire were, like all the rest, stunningly efficient), secondly it is neither here nor there, because the fact remains that Athanasius and Eusebius clearly appointed those bishops without caring a bit of what the Pope thought about it. He could approve them if he wanted to. If he did not like them, though luck.
To make a modern comparison, it is as if the SSPX appointed the new archbishop of Chicago without either asking or caring for what Francis says, and the Catholic faithful of Chicago accepted this appointment as a matter of course, fully uncaring of Francis' more or less sensible thought on the matter.
Let us, then, now pose the “Athanasius question”: did those Bishops have jurisdiction? Could they hear confession, administer the Last Rites, marry their sheep? And could the priests appointed by them do the same?
If yes, why? If not, why not?
It is very tricky, the Athanasius question. There is no doubt whatever Athanasius was a Lefebvre on steroids. There is also no doubt there was no precedent for the situation in which Athanasius found himself, whilst the SSPX has the shining example and illuminating precedent of… Athanasius. We know as a fact that Athanasius refused to obey to the point of incurring excommunication, did not recant after receiving it, appointed bishops of his own, and really did not care what Patheos would have said.
Therefore, if you follow modern mainstream V II conservatism Athanasius and his brave men had no jurisdiction, those sacraments were not valid, etc. If, however, we accept the principle that when those at the top behave like heretics the tough Catholics begin to play then we must apply the same reasoning to the 100%, 2k years-certified SSPX.
There is no doubt in my mind that the second applies. Every now and then, the Church loses her mind from the very top. It is then the task of a handful of very tough Catholics to simply keep doing what they have always done, safe in the certainty of their orthodoxy because… they do what Catholics have always done. There is no better guarantee of orthodoxy, and no better litmus test of Catholicism.
Athanasius did not know when sanity would come back. Nor did he ever care. He kept doing the Catholic thing and if the entire world derides him, so be it. Athanasius knew he might have to die in the middle of rampant, apparently triumphant heresy. He did not care for that, either.
Truth is truth. How many people refuse to follow the truth is ultimately irrelevant. If the Pope sabotages the truth, then he will be punished more harshly unless he repents, but sabotage it still is.
Truth is truth. It does not depend of from the rank of those who spread lies.
So: Athanasius disobeyed to the Pope. What say you? Athanasius appointed bishops, and bishops with territorial competence, fully ignoring the Pope. Schism? Athanasius decided to disobey and to die, if needs be, excommunicated for being (far) more Catholic than the Pope. What is the difference with Archbishop Lefebvre?
Why, why all those semi-conservative legalists apply all their clerical rigidity to Archbishop Lefebvre, and forget all of it when they speak of Athanasius? Was Athanasius schismatic in the moment, and Catholic only after victory? Or was he, as logic commands, 100% Catholic all the time?
The Athanasius question cannot be easily avoided. It stares at us straight in the face every time we compare Athanasius' “disobedience” to Lefebvre's. It has no other answer than this: no heresy can be acceptable because it's promoted or protected or encouraged from the very Pope, and those who defend orthodoxy are right even when the pope excommunicates them.
In times of great turmoil, God sends us great men.
Thank God for Athanasius, and for Archbishop Lefebvre.
So, should we attend a SSPX Mass? Most people (even conservative ones) say “no”. Other people say “of course”. I personally say “by all means, but paying attention it does not lead you culpably go down the wrong path”.
The short, but already meaningful history of this little effort shows than not a few are the cases of people who start attending a TLM – which can easily be in a SSPX chapel – and after a while throw away the child with the bath water and become either Sedevacantists or so venomous against the Church that one does not understand what their understanding of Catholicism is.
I cannot – in the same way as Bishop Schneider – detect any area in which the SSPX are not Catholic. It is, therefore, a mystery to me how this previously unknown concept of “imperfect communion” may work. The SSPX are as Catholic as they come, and infinitely more Catholic than the Pope – as every good Catholic is, by the way – and they merely refuse obedience to the pope on matters in which a sound Catholic has always been entitled to refuse obedience. You can't be half pregnant, and you can't be in imperfect communion. Most of all, you can't be something that never existed before, and the fruit of a verbal gymnastics invented after V II to describe someone who does not want to give in to Neo-Modernism (or outright Modernism) when the hierarchy in Rome does just that.
By all means, go to a SSPX mass if you can. Only pay attention, if you want my advice, that this does not create in you a siege mentality, according to which only a little moat separates the SSPX from the Whore of Babylon.
I find it a useful experience to also attend at NO Mass. It teaches me obedience. It tells me that the Church is my mother even when she nourishes me badly, and at times seems to hate me. It helps me to avoid the moat thinking, and the siege obsession. It reminds me that horrible as her state may be, this organisation that celebrates these NO Masses all over the world is, in fact, the Only Church; and I prefer to bring this kind of sacrifice as a penance rather than run the risk of slowly persuading myself I am too good for the Mass the Church gives me.
By all means, attend Mass at an SSPX Chapel. But do not think that there are too churches, of which the Vatican is the wrong one. There is only one Church, and he who does not see that the SSPX is 100% part of it probably cannot be helped anymore.
And it came to pass Bishop Schneider gave a wonderful interview to the Spanish version of Rorate Caeli, stating that the SSPX are not in any schism whatsoever, praising their orthodoxy and wishing that they were brought again (I use Vatican terminology here) in “full communion”. Your humble correspondent reported.
After which, Michael Voris embarrassed himself once again with a series of “improvements” of the Bishop's thoughts. The manipulations and misrepresentations were painful to behold. Your humble correspondent ignored them, and so should you. Spend your time on Rorate, not on Voris' outlet.
Now Bishop Schneider has addressed Michael Voris with a very dry clarification on Voris' misrepresentation of his interview. There are no open criticisms and no emotional tones in the Bishop's answers, but as they say, intelligenti pauca.
Now, if Voris were one of the many wannabe “c”atholic incompetent hacks who go around writing rubbish about Catholicism (or about me) I would, life being too short for hacks, simply ignore the whole thing. But the problem here is that Voris is – and there is no doubt about this in my mind – a good and sincere Catholic soul who has been led on the wrong path, if you ask me, on three issues: the matter of criticism of the Pope, the position of the SSPX, and the shameful attacks to great Catholic writers – and true Catholic men – like Vennari, Ferrara, Matt, and Verrecchio. A great shame, because the man has heart and talent, and he is wasting his credibility away.
I understand Voris has his set opinions on a couple of matters, as I have mine. Reasonable people will also be able to disagree in matters that have no sure answer in the history of the Church. The situation of the SSPX (sidelined for being pure Catholics as the Vatican smears itself with Protestant thinking) and of the actual papacy (too atrocious for words, and absolutely unprecedented in 2,000 years of Church history) are two rather obvious points in case. But when Voris looks at the matter coolly, he will see that he has misrepresented a bishop in a way that moved this bishop to correct him in a very decided way. All this, because his emotional investment in the jihad against the SSPX has now gone out of control, and the man just can't think straight whenever the issue is touched.
I wish Voris would stop embarrassing himself, and free himself from the influence of horrible priests and misleading, if very probably good intentioned, donors. If an interview of a bishop goes against his grain he can, in my eyes, do one of the two: openly criticise the bishop, or simply ignore the matter. He does the first all the time with the other bishops, and he does the second all the time with the pope. Therefore, it should not have been too difficult.
A great pity. We have a very sincere Catholic soul here, misled by people he should do without.
It astonishes me how, time and again, people read imminent good news in “business as usual” announcements.
Bishop Fellay (may the Lord protect him always) has given an interview, and he has stated within it a lot of things we knew already:
-The SSPX is healthy and strong. She is, I add myself, very rich. Long may it last.
– Many within the Vatican truly like the Society (hint: that's because they are honest-to-God Catholics), and Bishop Schneider and Cardinal Brandmueller are only the most recent examples. Many others do not, because they are of the devil or very, very stupid.
– The followers of Williamson have proved a limited group of nutcases; it is good to have lost them.
-We are “on the eve of important events that we cannot yet define”. What this means is everyone's guess. I think it means “we might have to call for the deposition of this pope in October, and we have many bishops and cardinals on our side already”. But the truth is: I do not know. To interpret this statement as the announcement of a reconciliation would be, in my eyes, reckless, because that event we could define extremely well.
Summa summarum: there's nothing explosive, or even new, in the Bishop's interview. Whilst repetita iuvant, we knew all already. The sibylline statement at the end could be a veiled threat to Francis to very much pay attention to what he does or not, as the case may be. We don't know.
What I personally know is that I am so glad that the Society exists.
There is a lot of talk about the “recognition” of the SSPX as a Catholic organisation from the Argentinian Government, and with the obvious help of the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires. Personally, everything seems very straightforward to me, and nothing to get anyone excited.
Bring a Catholic, non-profit organisation obviously gives a legal status in Argentina. Whether it is about tax treatment, or the issuing of visas, or who knows how many other things, being recognised as Catholic has a bearing on your legal status as seen by the Argentinian Government.
The SSPX would obviously never say “we aren't Catholic”. Just as obviously, no archdiocese which does not want to cause a huge uproar – and big trouble with the Vatican, very possibly – would say to the Argentinian Government “they aren't Catholic”. Besides, I imagine that rules of Catholic decency and common courtesy do not allow for this kind of under-the-beltline bickering.
Result? The Archdiocese says to the Argentinian Government “why, we have internal disagreements; but of course, of course they're Catholics”.
Again, I would not want to be the Archbishop who has to explain to the Catholic Press why the SSPX are allegedly “not Catholic”. He would lose face before he loses the argument.
Therefore, the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires has done the only thing it could reasonably expected to do: confirm the reality on the ground.
Of course this is no canonical recognition, something that is nothing to do with how a Government sees you. Of course the SSPX is not now the obedient subject of the Archbishop of Buenos Aires. What has simply happened is that the Archdiocese has had the common sense of recognising the reality on the ground: the SSPX is a Catholic organisation, and not less so because of unresolved issues.
There's nothing more than this, I think. It all seems very straightforward. Nothing very exciting has happened.
Unless it be this: that those outlets – not the Vatican – who described the SSPX as schismatic might have some explaining to do. But the latter weren't much fazed by facts beforehand, and will not be swayed by this further occasion for a reality check now.
The SSPX is Catholic. Dogs bark. The sun goes up on the East.
Every time a bishop or Cardinal meets some representative of the SSPX or visits one of their seminaries hopes are rekindled that a reconciliation might be in the cards. I consider these hopes unrealistic.
The differences between the SSPX and the Vatican are fundamental ones. Let us see the issues in detail:
1) The SSPX will never (niemals; jamais; mai e poi mai) accept to dilute a proper understanding of Catholicism by accepting the polluting elements of V II as a legitimate part of Church teaching.
2) The Vatican side has no interest in opening to them the doors of what they call “full communion”, and leave the SSPX free to criticise them from a position of full legitimacy.
3) The SSPX will never accept loss of autonomy, and the risk of ending up like the FFI. Not with this Pope, not with the next Pope, not with any of their successors even remotely stinking of V II.
Therefore, what is the only thinkable scenario of an agreement? It is Francis deciding that the best way to show “openness” and “mercy” is to open the doors wide to the SSPX without any request whatsoever, in the hope that the SSPX will moderate its criticism after so unexpected a gift and that his Traditionalist critics will suddenly hail him as the new Pius XII.
Not going to happen, say I.
Favours to the SSPX are not of the kind that can be done without consequences. Encourage Trannyism, and your fan base will applaud you until there’s no skin left on their hands. But just tell the world the SSPX is a 100% orthodox, fully Catholic, A-OK organisation and the very people whose approval you have tried to win so hard will be seeking your blood. For Francis there is no realistic upside in a reconciliation.
The “talks” between the SSPX and the Vatican continue in an “informal” setting, because years of formal, very accurate theological discussions have shown that the differences are irreconcilable. It is what it is, and wishing that these differences may magically disappear is not going to have any effect.
Bar Francis’ stupidest self-goal ever, there will be no reconciliation. But not even Francis is so thick that he thinks a reconciliation with the SSPX would consolidate his image as the “Mercy Pope”. Even if he – absurdly – really were so thick, countless people around him would dissuade him from such a harakiri.
It’s not going to happen.
Frankly, I am not sad at all. The SSPX is perfectly fine where they are now. They do not need any validation from Francis. It is the job of every Catholic to educate themselves and recognise why the present situation has come into existence, who is at fault for it, and how it will be made to end. It is not the job of the SSPX to compromise with the Depositum Fidei and the liturgical richness of the Church so that a couple of vaguely conservative Catholics may feel better with themselves.
The real goal is not the reconciliation of the SSPX with the Vatican. It’s the end of the V II drunkenness.
“Schismgate”: John Vennari Replies To Michael Voris On “Schism”, “Reactionaries” And “Francisvacantism”
Today I am very pleased to inform you of another brilliant reply from John Vennari, of CFN. This reply comes in two videos. The first video deals with the accusation of “Schism” levelled at the SSPX by Voris, and the second deals with the methods employed by Voris and the mixing of the argument of “Pope is not validly a Pope” with the legitimate grievances of sound Traditionalism.
The videos are fairly short, totaling less than 20 minutes together. They are a beautiful integration to what has been already said on the matter. The first one gives more and very convincing arguments against the abstruse claim of Schism, and the second shreds some light on the media methods of Mr Voris besides bringing clarity in the matter of “Francisvacantism”.
Enjoy the show.
Just as a way of I do not want to say “preparation for the worse”, but rather “exploration of our past”, I would be very grateful for credible sources and links concerning what exactly happened during (not after) the Pontificates of Popes like Liberius, Honorius, Formosus, or John XXII.
Let me explain: though we all know that Liberius lost face and Honorius was declared heretic in the end, and after their death, that Formosus was also rather spectacularly condemned after death, and that John XXII renounced to his error the day before he died, I am rather curious to know more about the day-to-day dealing of the clergy and the the faithful when these Popes were still alive and in power.
Take John XXII.
Chappy goes around saying that there is no beatific Vision before the Universal Judgment. He says he is minded to proclaim this as dogma. His attempt is thwarted (methinks, some Dominican managed to let the stake appear to him a very real possibility; but that’s just me…) and he renounces to the proclamation of the dogma; but at this point, the world still has a Pope who is as officially heretical as can be; a formal heretic so attached to his error as to continue to defend it for almost the rest of his life in front of the brutal opposition of his own Church; one whose theology denies all the edifice of the Communion of saints, make a good part of the Mass senseless, et cetera, and still keeps saying he is right and Church Tradition and Mass are wrong.
How did the bishops deal with him? Did they deny him obedience in everything? Or only in that which pertained directly to his heretical thinking? If he issued encyclical letters, what value did they have? I know that the Sea was not declared vacant in the proper sense (say: with the large majority of Cardinals and Bishops declaring the Sea empty for manifest and persistent heresy; this is, in my understanding, the concept that St. Robert Bellarmine developed later), but do we know of bishops and cardinals who simply declared that they would deny obedience to such a Pope, without denying that he is Pope? What happens of the cardinals and bishops appointed by a Pope in manifest heresy? What of his letters, bulls, etc? What of his administrative orders, disciplinary measures,and such? They may be changed, of course. But were they valid?
It’s even more complicated for Formosus; because whilst we – AFAIK – know that many of his administrative acts were declared at least formally invalid after his death – I have little doubt many will have been validated by his successor anyway – there is a thick fog as to what happened whilst Formosus was alive and in charge. Formosus remained Pope for around five years. This is a long, long time for the wrong kind of Pope. But then again it would appear the Sea was not declared vacant: not during his Pontificate, and not even retroactively after his condemnation in the famous “Cadaver Synod”. May his acts have been annulled, this does not make a Pontificate null. Nor does it answer the question whether his acts were obeyed at the time they were issued.
If Francis throws himself and the Church (or better: those member of her who will be reckless enough to follow him) in the abyss of blasphemy and heresy, it will be very important to have clear historical coordinates about what exactly happened in the past in at least comparable circumstances.
Ideally, from places like the SSPX a clear guidance should come before hand: how to behave in scenarios a, b, or c; what conditions must exactly be fulfilled for the Sea to be declared vacant; in which ways the SSPX would examine the matter and make it public, etc.
Mind, not only I do not think in the least that the Sedevacantist position is justified as I write this. I do not even think that Francis will ever be so stupid as to push things in that direction, because as I have already written it seems to me that when he had to show if he has the balls to plunge the Church into chaos he showed no balls whatsoever, but abundant Jesuitism instead.
But it is true that we are at the brink of a precipice, irrespective of how optimistic we may be concerning vast sectors of the Church ever falling into it.
I am grateful for usable historical material.
What times are we living in.
Ah? Uh? No?
Concerning the matter in the title, I beg not to be counted among the optimists. I do not believe in the least that any sincere reconciliation effort will come from the Vatican. If any rapprochement were to be seen, it would probably only be aimed at dividing the SSPX, as already seen in 2011.
Still: it shall be allowed, I hope, to play a bit. Let us imagine, them, what would be reasonable and acceptable to the right side.
The principle that what the Church has always held stays, and that the SSPX has the right to refuse strange novelties, is too banal to merit discussion. The principle that in whatever V II documents have declared that is in harmony with Truth cannot be logically denied is also too banal to waste time on it. The fact that V II was a merely pastoral Council is also an undisputable fact for every sound Catholic.
The problem is, if you ask me, another: control. The Vatican might want to attract the SSPX in a mortal embrace, and they might even be ready to make concessions for this. But the SSPX will – I am sure of this – not accept any agreement that puts them at the mercy of the V II Church. Not with Benedict as Pope, much less with Francis.
Therefore, the issue, and the litmus test of the Vatican's honesty in any agreement, will be that of independence.
Own seminaries, own finances, complete freedom from episcopal interference, and – as unavoidable consequence – complete freedom to criticise Pope Francis and V II left, right and centre. Nothing else would be acceptable, nothing less should be accepted, and nothing else will.
Unacceptable for the Vatican? So be it. Profitable in the longer term, or just the Catholic thing to do? Welcome.
In theory, there would be an upside for Francis: the “mercy” rhetoric and the “inclusiveness” propaganda, and the personal satisfaction of having “succeeded” where Benedict failed. In practice, it will never happen: those who hate Catholicism, that is, Francis' audience and applauding public, would turn against him faster than you can say “Ricca”, and the myth of the revolutionary Pope would die a fast but horribly painful death, without making him more popular among true blue Catholics in the least. A heretic remains a heretic even if he embraces a saint.
Back to the issue of acceptable compromise, it is clear there can be no compromises on what is not negotiable (the issues of the Liturgy, of religious freedom, etc). It is also clear it would be suicide – an act Fellay or his would never commit – to deliver themselves to the mercy of V II Popes, who would – this, or the next, or the following one – subject the SSPX to the FFI treatment.
This, I think, is the inescapable frame of any serious discussion, or lack thereof.
Of course, the SSPX would not maintain that all of VII was evil. V II was a modernist mixture of truth and lie, and one can't deny the truth just because the Devil says it. Rather, the SSPX will maintain that everything that is not truth must be expunged from the teaching and the praxis of the Church; and that V II was, as a whole, the work of the devil in its mentality and inspiration, which both must be expunged from the Church, too.
Will, or should, the SSPX demand that the Vatican goes back to sanity before accepting reconciliation? Of course not. If the work of the SSPX can go on in exactly the same way, to refuse a freely offered reconciliation would be tantamount to elevating the SSPX to a parallel church, of which the Vatican is not worthy. It would be like refusing the blessing of a priest because one does not like the priest. One may despise the man, but one will still recognise the office.
This is, I think, the only possible frame of a reconciliation. At the same time, this is why the reconciliation will not work as long as The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHICH) is in power.
Even a “gratuitous” exercise of “mercy” would be too expensive for the Vatican.
They know perfectly well how mercilessly the same people would attack them, who are now the beneficiaries of the fake “mercy” they peddle around.
And it came to pass the SSPX announced – after leaks in a French blog – that there will be an informal meeting between Bishop Fellay and Cardinal Müller in the Vatican.
I am, personally, unable to see that anything at all may come out of it. In my eyes, this is nothing more than an informal meeting asked by Müller because of the job he occupies; nothing more, nothing less.
It is not realistic to think a man who does not even get what “ever Virgin” means will seek a rapprochement to the Society; particularly after the harsh words he spoke in the past.
It is also not realistic to think that Müller may try to intimidate the SSPX into submission with the threat of declaring them “schismatics”, or “Martians”, or “Blue Elephants”, or the like. Fellay would eat him for breakfast, and no sound Catholics will believe the SSPX are Blue Elephants, Martians, or Schismatics, whatever rubbish Müller may, in hypothesis, declare.
The positions are, as we all know, even more distant now that a clown is running the show in the Vatican. Mistrust runs deep on both side. The SSPX has no interest whatever in showing itself an accomplice of the clown, and they have already branded him in strong enough terms.
Nor have we had signs of a devilish offensive of the Unholy Father against them. Francis is weak with the strong, and does not look for conflicts. He never picked a fight with the SSPX in Buenos Aires, it's not clear to me why he would want to pick it now. He would be ridiculed and exposed as utterly and completely incompetent. He would have nothing to gain as the leftist, socialist, dissenting side is already supporting him. There is no upside.
Therefore, I think that nothing will happen.
Tea and scones, rather; “touching base”; a friendly meeting between opposing sides like countless of them happen in diplomatic circles.
In order for anything in this matter to change we need for the Pope, the CDF and the entire Vatican attitude to change.
The SSPX will, for sure, not change in the least.