SSPX Comments on the Open Letter

+

JMJ

Rorate Caeli has published the SSPX perspective on the Open Letter with a focus on the statement that it is a "A Radical Approach Doomed to Failure".

As noted in my earlier article here, unless all the bishops come together and agree, a very unlikely event, anyone who attempts to convict Pope Francis of the canonical crime of heresy will probably have the blood of a schism on his hands.

Two key paragraphs:

And if they remain silent? What will happen then? What must be done? If this is not to note the failure of such an initiative that might ridicule the authors and their cause. This Open Letter is a waste of time—an action producing little effect, the fruit of a legitimate indignation but which falls into excess, at the risk of lessening its good influence.

Having appealed to the bishops of the Catholic Church, what is the next step that the authors can take?

Moreover, the danger of this approach may be in inducing its authors to deviate from the ongoing fight. We risk being captivated by the present evil, forgetting that it has roots, that it is a logical result of a tainted process at its origin. Like a pendulum, some believe they can magnify the recent past to better denounce the present, including counting on the magisterium of the popes of the Council—from Paul VI to Benedict XVI—to oppose Francis. This is the position of many conservatives, who forget that Pope Francis is only drawing out the consequences of the teachings of the Council and his predecessors. We cannot uproot an evil tree by only cutting off the last branch …

Here we have it, you have to look past Pope Francis (who is also a victim as well as perpetrator of this crisis) to the roots.

Ite ad concilio - Go to the Council.

Mundabor has issued a criticism of the perspective of the SSPX here, which a summary of the SSPX observation being:

But then they condemn the letter based on the argument that the chances of success are non-existent, and the recipient Bishops not instructed enough and not willing to act anyway.

I think Mundabor (who I believe is a signatory) has missed this point here:

which falls into excess, at the risk of lessening its good influence.

How does the letter fall into excess?  Perhaps be resting upon an untested theological conclusion that a council can depose a sitting pontiff.


We Catholics deserve the Popes we have received.  We need to work to ensure that we deserve a better Pope than even Pope St. Pius X!

Then this crisis will be ended in the same way the great schism was: by a council after the death of Pope Francis - not before. Putting the cart before the horse may just make matters worse.

P^3